拯救世界的是人,不是科技
I have a copy of a long-forgotten 1987 book by Arthur C Clarke: July 20, 2024: Life in the 21st century. I did not plan on mentioning it until the 50th anniversary of the first moon landings, which its title reflects. But I am breaking my own embargo because re-reading it has given me new insight.
我有一本《2024年7月20日：生活在21世紀(jì)》(July 20, 2024: Life in the 21st century)——該書為亞瑟?C?克拉克(Arthur C Clarke)所著，1987年出版，被人遺忘已久。我本打算到登月50周年時(shí)再提起這本書，因?yàn)闀从车恼沁@一紀(jì)念日。但我打破了給自己設(shè)置的禁令，因?yàn)橹刈x這本書給了我新見解。
Clarke, a science-fiction writer, was also no slouch as a futurologist. His fictional HAL 9000 computer in 2001: A Space Odyssey, which he co-wrote, presages many of today’s fears about artificial intelligence. He was also a real scientist who, in a 1945 article, proposed communications satellites.
克拉克是科幻小說作家，也善于預(yù)言未來。他在與他人合著的《2001：太空漫游》(2001: A Space Odyssey)一書中虛構(gòu)的HAL 9000電腦，預(yù)言了如今人們對(duì)人工智能存在的很多擔(dān)憂。他也是一位真正的科學(xué)家，曾在1945一篇文章里提出了通訊衛(wèi)星。
Unless things change in the next 23 months, July 20, 2024 is wrong in almost every detail. Clarke suggests, for example, “amplifiers” to make us more intelligent — but makes no mention of the internet, which was in development at the time and was predicted 15 years earlier by Joseph Licklider of MIT, when he was working at the US defence department.
除非接下來23個(gè)月里情況發(fā)生變化，否則《2024年7月20日》差不多在所有細(xì)節(jié)上都錯(cuò)了。比如，克拉克認(rèn)為“放大器”會(huì)讓我們更聰明，但沒有提到當(dāng)時(shí)在開發(fā)中的互聯(lián)網(wǎng)——而麻省理工學(xué)院(MIT)的約瑟夫?利克萊德(Joseph Licklider)在該書出版的15年前就預(yù)言了互聯(lián)網(wǎng)，當(dāng)時(shí)利克萊德在美國國防部工作。
Being wrong is just one problem I have with Clarke’s book. Like most future-gazing, it sees tomorrow entirely in terms of technology.
預(yù)言錯(cuò)誤只是我對(duì)克拉克這本書的其中一個(gè)意見。和大多數(shù)未來預(yù)言一樣，該書完全從科技的視角來看待未來。
Today’s version of Clarke’s vision is that of tech as humanity’s saviour. It is overblown, and it is gathering momentum. Indeed, this relentless yapping is like some overheated PR campaign for the arrogant, prematurely moneyed young lords of Silicon Valley. There is a messianic tone that our descendants will laugh at. “[By], say, 2045, we will have multiplied?.?.?.?the human biological machine intelligence of our civilisation a billion-fold,” says Google’s Ray Kurzweil.
如果把克拉克的愿景搬到現(xiàn)在，那就相當(dāng)于宣揚(yáng)科技是人類的救世主。這有點(diǎn)過頭，當(dāng)今卻在形成勢頭。的確，這種喋喋不休就像是一些傲慢、過早發(fā)跡的硅谷少爺?shù)倪^火公關(guān)宣傳。他們帶有那種救世主的腔調(diào)，我們的后代肯定會(huì)嘲笑。“比如說，到2045年，我們將把……我們文明的人類生物機(jī)器智能增加10億倍，”谷歌(Google)的雷?庫茲韋爾(Ray Kurzweil)表示。
Technology is marvellous, but it has had little or nothing to do with the best things about the world. And it will play a minor role in casting out humanity’s worst demons: poverty, ignorance and madness. What do I mean by the best things? The outlawing of racism; rights for disabled people; emancipation for women. The primacy of reason; the dwindling of superstition. Democracy, social security, animal rights, greater life expectancy and, yes, capitalism.
科技很了不起。但它與這世界最美好的東西沒什么關(guān)系。它在趕走人類最糟糕的魔鬼（貧窮、無知和瘋狂）上只會(huì)發(fā)揮次要的作用。我所指的最美好的東西是什么？從法律上禁止種族主義；殘疾人權(quán)益；女性解放。理性至上；迷信失勢。民主、社會(huì)保障、動(dòng)物權(quán)益、延長壽命，沒錯(cuò)，還有資本主義。
Sure, hygiene and medicine are technology, but the idea to distribute their benefits to all through innovations such as sewers, socialised medicine and refrigeration could only come from human empathy and creativity.
當(dāng)然，衛(wèi)生和醫(yī)學(xué)屬于科技的范疇，但是要把它們的果實(shí)通過下水管道、社會(huì)化醫(yī)療和冷藏傳播給全人類，就只能依靠人類的同理心和創(chuàng)造力了。
Technology, from electric lighting to washing machines to the internet, has aided progress. But it is only part of the future. Machines help solve the “how”, not the “what” nor the “why”.
從電燈到洗衣機(jī)、再到互聯(lián)網(wǎng)，技術(shù)推動(dòng)了人類進(jìn)步。但科技只是未來的一部分而已。機(jī)器幫助解決“怎么做”，而不是“什么”和“為什么”。
I love what technology is doing for the developing world, where progress is most needed. I have written recently about ideas such as Ugogo Africa, a proposed online service that wants to enable artisans without bank accounts to sell their products globally. Genius. Even better for the developing world will be universal education, the elimination of corruption, the rule of law, perhaps democracy, although that is on my B-list. Technology will play its part, but it will not be essential.
我喜歡科技對(duì)發(fā)展中世界的幫助，那里最需要進(jìn)步。我最近在文章中寫到Ugogo Africa（一項(xiàng)在線服務(wù)提議，旨在讓沒有銀行賬戶的手工藝人可以在全球出售他們的作品）等創(chuàng)意。真是天才點(diǎn)子。但對(duì)發(fā)展中世界來說，更美好的事物將是全民教育、消除腐敗、法治，或許還有民主制度，盡管最后這點(diǎn)在我的B清單上。科技將發(fā)揮自己的作用，但它并非不可或缺。
Last week, I ran this seditious notion past two big brains. First was Marc Demarest, an Oregon-based digital thinker and author. He agrees that Silicon Valley’s incessant riff is self-serving. “Like the president of the US, no statement is too outrageous, too extreme, too under-nuanced,” he says.
不久前，我向兩個(gè)有思想的人提出這種煽動(dòng)性的觀點(diǎn)。第一個(gè)是美國俄勒岡州的馬克?德馬雷斯特(Marc Demarest)，他是一名數(shù)字化思想家和作者。他認(rèn)為，硅谷人士源源不斷的說教都是為了私利。他稱：“就像對(duì)美國總統(tǒng)一樣，對(duì)這些人來說，沒有什么聲明是太過分、太極端、太沒水平的。”
But he believes technology’s torrent of data tells us truths “minus our nasty predisposition to get distracted, to miss the moment, and to bend data to make it mean what we want it to mean”.
但他認(rèn)為科技的數(shù)據(jù)洪流告訴我們真相，“減去我們?nèi)菀追中摹㈠e(cuò)過時(shí)代脈搏、以及以我們希望的方式扭曲數(shù)據(jù)的傾向。”
“It is in most respects a better version of us. And [gathering data] is mostly done, one way or another, to improve the human lot.”
“在大多數(shù)方面，科技是我們自己的更好版本。（收集數(shù)據(jù)）從總體上說是以某種方式完善了人類。”
Making sense of data, however, will remain a human activity, he says. “We are better at judgment than any machine we will be able to make for a very long time to come. Technology is only the agent of our desires. It isn’t the future; we are the future.”
然而，他稱，分析數(shù)據(jù)將仍然是人類活動(dòng)。“在未來很長一段時(shí)期，我們?cè)谂袛嗔ι隙紩?huì)勝過我們有本事造出的任何機(jī)器。科技只是我們渴望的代理。它不是未來；我們才是未來。”
I then had a drink — several, actually — with a friend who works in product development for a tech company.
隨后，我和一位在科技公司研發(fā)產(chǎn)品的朋友喝了幾杯。
“I shouldn’t say this,” she said after cocktail number three, “but we just make cool s*** people love. You’re right. We’re not progressing humanity or changing the world, are we? “That’s what ideas do, and machines don’t have ideas.”
“我不該這么說，”她在喝下第三杯雞尾酒之后說道，“但我們只是做人們喜愛的時(shí)尚垃圾貨。你說得沒錯(cuò)。我們沒有推動(dòng)人類進(jìn)步，也沒有改變世界，難道不是嗎？那是思想的角色，機(jī)器沒有思想。”
Funny. Even Clarke stopped short of predicting machines with imaginations.
有意思。就連克拉克都不敢預(yù)言具備想象力的機(jī)器。
I have a copy of a long-forgotten 1987 book by Arthur C Clarke: July 20, 2024: Life in the 21st century. I did not plan on mentioning it until the 50th anniversary of the first moon landings, which its title reflects. But I am breaking my own embargo because re-reading it has given me new insight.
我有一本《2024年7月20日：生活在21世紀(jì)》(July 20, 2024: Life in the 21st century)——該書為亞瑟?C?克拉克(Arthur C Clarke)所著，1987年出版，被人遺忘已久。我本打算到登月50周年時(shí)再提起這本書，因?yàn)闀从车恼沁@一紀(jì)念日。但我打破了給自己設(shè)置的禁令，因?yàn)橹刈x這本書給了我新見解。
Clarke, a science-fiction writer, was also no slouch as a futurologist. His fictional HAL 9000 computer in 2001: A Space Odyssey, which he co-wrote, presages many of today’s fears about artificial intelligence. He was also a real scientist who, in a 1945 article, proposed communications satellites.
克拉克是科幻小說作家，也善于預(yù)言未來。他在與他人合著的《2001：太空漫游》(2001: A Space Odyssey)一書中虛構(gòu)的HAL 9000電腦，預(yù)言了如今人們對(duì)人工智能存在的很多擔(dān)憂。他也是一位真正的科學(xué)家，曾在1945一篇文章里提出了通訊衛(wèi)星。
Unless things change in the next 23 months, July 20, 2024 is wrong in almost every detail. Clarke suggests, for example, “amplifiers” to make us more intelligent — but makes no mention of the internet, which was in development at the time and was predicted 15 years earlier by Joseph Licklider of MIT, when he was working at the US defence department.
除非接下來23個(gè)月里情況發(fā)生變化，否則《2024年7月20日》差不多在所有細(xì)節(jié)上都錯(cuò)了。比如，克拉克認(rèn)為“放大器”會(huì)讓我們更聰明，但沒有提到當(dāng)時(shí)在開發(fā)中的互聯(lián)網(wǎng)——而麻省理工學(xué)院(MIT)的約瑟夫?利克萊德(Joseph Licklider)在該書出版的15年前就預(yù)言了互聯(lián)網(wǎng)，當(dāng)時(shí)利克萊德在美國國防部工作。
Being wrong is just one problem I have with Clarke’s book. Like most future-gazing, it sees tomorrow entirely in terms of technology.
預(yù)言錯(cuò)誤只是我對(duì)克拉克這本書的其中一個(gè)意見。和大多數(shù)未來預(yù)言一樣，該書完全從科技的視角來看待未來。
Today’s version of Clarke’s vision is that of tech as humanity’s saviour. It is overblown, and it is gathering momentum. Indeed, this relentless yapping is like some overheated PR campaign for the arrogant, prematurely moneyed young lords of Silicon Valley. There is a messianic tone that our descendants will laugh at. “[By], say, 2045, we will have multiplied?.?.?.?the human biological machine intelligence of our civilisation a billion-fold,” says Google’s Ray Kurzweil.
如果把克拉克的愿景搬到現(xiàn)在，那就相當(dāng)于宣揚(yáng)科技是人類的救世主。這有點(diǎn)過頭，當(dāng)今卻在形成勢頭。的確，這種喋喋不休就像是一些傲慢、過早發(fā)跡的硅谷少爺?shù)倪^火公關(guān)宣傳。他們帶有那種救世主的腔調(diào)，我們的后代肯定會(huì)嘲笑。“比如說，到2045年，我們將把……我們文明的人類生物機(jī)器智能增加10億倍，”谷歌(Google)的雷?庫茲韋爾(Ray Kurzweil)表示。
Technology is marvellous, but it has had little or nothing to do with the best things about the world. And it will play a minor role in casting out humanity’s worst demons: poverty, ignorance and madness. What do I mean by the best things? The outlawing of racism; rights for disabled people; emancipation for women. The primacy of reason; the dwindling of superstition. Democracy, social security, animal rights, greater life expectancy and, yes, capitalism.
科技很了不起。但它與這世界最美好的東西沒什么關(guān)系。它在趕走人類最糟糕的魔鬼（貧窮、無知和瘋狂）上只會(huì)發(fā)揮次要的作用。我所指的最美好的東西是什么？從法律上禁止種族主義；殘疾人權(quán)益；女性解放。理性至上；迷信失勢。民主、社會(huì)保障、動(dòng)物權(quán)益、延長壽命，沒錯(cuò)，還有資本主義。
Sure, hygiene and medicine are technology, but the idea to distribute their benefits to all through innovations such as sewers, socialised medicine and refrigeration could only come from human empathy and creativity.
當(dāng)然，衛(wèi)生和醫(yī)學(xué)屬于科技的范疇，但是要把它們的果實(shí)通過下水管道、社會(huì)化醫(yī)療和冷藏傳播給全人類，就只能依靠人類的同理心和創(chuàng)造力了。
Technology, from electric lighting to washing machines to the internet, has aided progress. But it is only part of the future. Machines help solve the “how”, not the “what” nor the “why”.
從電燈到洗衣機(jī)、再到互聯(lián)網(wǎng)，技術(shù)推動(dòng)了人類進(jìn)步。但科技只是未來的一部分而已。機(jī)器幫助解決“怎么做”，而不是“什么”和“為什么”。
I love what technology is doing for the developing world, where progress is most needed. I have written recently about ideas such as Ugogo Africa, a proposed online service that wants to enable artisans without bank accounts to sell their products globally. Genius. Even better for the developing world will be universal education, the elimination of corruption, the rule of law, perhaps democracy, although that is on my B-list. Technology will play its part, but it will not be essential.
我喜歡科技對(duì)發(fā)展中世界的幫助，那里最需要進(jìn)步。我最近在文章中寫到Ugogo Africa（一項(xiàng)在線服務(wù)提議，旨在讓沒有銀行賬戶的手工藝人可以在全球出售他們的作品）等創(chuàng)意。真是天才點(diǎn)子。但對(duì)發(fā)展中世界來說，更美好的事物將是全民教育、消除腐敗、法治，或許還有民主制度，盡管最后這點(diǎn)在我的B清單上。科技將發(fā)揮自己的作用，但它并非不可或缺。
Last week, I ran this seditious notion past two big brains. First was Marc Demarest, an Oregon-based digital thinker and author. He agrees that Silicon Valley’s incessant riff is self-serving. “Like the president of the US, no statement is too outrageous, too extreme, too under-nuanced,” he says.
不久前，我向兩個(gè)有思想的人提出這種煽動(dòng)性的觀點(diǎn)。第一個(gè)是美國俄勒岡州的馬克?德馬雷斯特(Marc Demarest)，他是一名數(shù)字化思想家和作者。他認(rèn)為，硅谷人士源源不斷的說教都是為了私利。他稱：“就像對(duì)美國總統(tǒng)一樣，對(duì)這些人來說，沒有什么聲明是太過分、太極端、太沒水平的。”
But he believes technology’s torrent of data tells us truths “minus our nasty predisposition to get distracted, to miss the moment, and to bend data to make it mean what we want it to mean”.
但他認(rèn)為科技的數(shù)據(jù)洪流告訴我們真相，“減去我們?nèi)菀追中摹㈠e(cuò)過時(shí)代脈搏、以及以我們希望的方式扭曲數(shù)據(jù)的傾向。”
“It is in most respects a better version of us. And [gathering data] is mostly done, one way or another, to improve the human lot.”
“在大多數(shù)方面，科技是我們自己的更好版本。（收集數(shù)據(jù)）從總體上說是以某種方式完善了人類。”
Making sense of data, however, will remain a human activity, he says. “We are better at judgment than any machine we will be able to make for a very long time to come. Technology is only the agent of our desires. It isn’t the future; we are the future.”
然而，他稱，分析數(shù)據(jù)將仍然是人類活動(dòng)。“在未來很長一段時(shí)期，我們?cè)谂袛嗔ι隙紩?huì)勝過我們有本事造出的任何機(jī)器。科技只是我們渴望的代理。它不是未來；我們才是未來。”
I then had a drink — several, actually — with a friend who works in product development for a tech company.
隨后，我和一位在科技公司研發(fā)產(chǎn)品的朋友喝了幾杯。
“I shouldn’t say this,” she said after cocktail number three, “but we just make cool s*** people love. You’re right. We’re not progressing humanity or changing the world, are we? “That’s what ideas do, and machines don’t have ideas.”
“我不該這么說，”她在喝下第三杯雞尾酒之后說道，“但我們只是做人們喜愛的時(shí)尚垃圾貨。你說得沒錯(cuò)。我們沒有推動(dòng)人類進(jìn)步，也沒有改變世界，難道不是嗎？那是思想的角色，機(jī)器沒有思想。”
Funny. Even Clarke stopped short of predicting machines with imaginations.
有意思。就連克拉克都不敢預(yù)言具備想象力的機(jī)器。
