AI將如何改變世界？：英語精讀講義

In the coming years,

在未來的幾年裡，

artificial intelligence is probably going to change your life and likely the entire world. 文法

人工智慧可能會改變你的生活，甚至可能改變整個世界。

But people have a hard time agreeing on exactly how. 文法

但究竟會如何改變，人們很難達成共識。

The following are excerpts from a World Economic Forum interview

以下是世界經濟論壇採訪的摘錄，

where renowned computer science professor and AI expert Stuart Russell helps separate the sense from the nonsense. 慣用語

著名計算機科學教授兼人工智慧專家史都華·羅素在此幫助我們辨別真偽。

There's a big difference between asking a human to do something 文法

要求人類做某事

and giving that as the objective to an AI system.

與將之作為人工智慧系統的目標，兩者之間有很大的不同。

When you ask a human to fetch you a cup of coffee,

當你要求別人去給你買杯咖啡時，

you don't mean this should be their life's mission 表達脈絡

你的意思並不是這就是他們的人生使命，

and nothing else in the universe matters,

宇宙中其他一切都不重要了，

even if they have to kill everybody else in Starbucks to get you the coffee before it closes.

哪怕他們為了在關門前給你買到咖啡，不得不殺光星巴克裡的其他人。

They should do that.

他們就應該那麼做。

No, that's not what you mean, right?

不，你不是這個意思，對吧？

You mean all the other things that we mutually care about,

你的意思是，我們共同關心的所有其他事情，

they should factor into your behavior as well. 片語搭配

他們也應該考慮進自己的行為中。

And the problem with the way we build AI systems now is we give them a fixed objective, right? 用詞

而我們現在建構AI系統的方式存在的問題是，我們給了它們一個固定的目標，對吧？

The algorithms require us to specify everything in the objective.

演算法要求我們在目標中具體說明一切。

And if you say,

如果你說，

you know, can we fix the acidification of the oceans? 用詞

你知道的，我們能解決海洋酸化問題嗎？

Yeah, you could have a catalytic reaction that does that extremely efficiently, but,

是的，你可以進行一種效率極高的催化反應來實現，但是，

you know, it consumes a quarter of the oxygen in the atmosphere,

你知道，這會消耗大氣中四分之一的氧氣，

which would apparently cause us to die fairly slowly and unpleasantly over the course of several hours.

這顯然會導致我們在幾個小時內非常痛苦且緩慢地死去。

Um, so how do we avoid this problem, right?

嗯，那麼我們該如何避免這個問題呢，對吧？

You might say, okay, well,

你可能會說，好吧，

just be more careful about specifying the objective, right?

只要在設定目標時更小心一點就行了，對吧？

Don't forget the, you know, atmospheric oxygen.

別忘了，你知道的，大氣中的氧氣。

And then, of course,

然後，當然，

some side effect of the reaction in the ocean poisons all the fish.

海洋中反應的某些副作用毒死了所有的魚。

Okay, well, I meant don't kill the fish

好吧，嗯，我的意思也是別殺死魚

either. And then, well, what about the seaweed?

。那麼，嗯，海藻怎麼辦？

Okay, well, don't do anything that's going to cause all the seaweed to die.

好吧，嗯，別做任何會導致所有海藻死亡的事情。

And on and on and on, right? 表達脈絡

然後就這樣沒完沒了，對吧？

And the reason that we don't have to do that with humans is that humans often know that they don't know all the things that we care about. 講解

而我們之所以不需要對人類這麼做，是因為人類通常知道，他們並不知道我們關心的所有事情。

If you ask a human to get you a cup of coffee,

如果你叫一個人去給你買杯咖啡，

you know, and you happen to be in the Hotel George Sand in Paris,

你知道的，而你碰巧在巴黎的喬治·桑飯店，

where the coffee is, I think, 13 Euros a cup,

在那兒我覺得一杯咖啡要13歐元，

it's entirely reasonable to come back and say,

那麼跑回來對你說，

well, it's 13 Euros.

嗯，這要13歐，

Are you sure you want it or I could go next door and you know get one? 語氣意圖

你確定要買嗎，或者我可以去隔壁給你買一杯？這是完全合理的。

It's a perfectly normal thing for a person to do, right?

對於一個人來說，這是非常正常的行為，對吧？

To ask,

去問，

you know, I'm going to repaint your house.

你知道的，我要重新粉刷你的房子。

Is it okay if I take off the drainpipes and then put them back? 語氣意圖

我可以把排水管拆下來再裝回去嗎？

We don't think of this as a terribly sophisticated capability, 用詞

我們不認為這是一種極其複雜的能力，

but AI systems don't have it because the way we build them now,

但AI系統不具備這種能力，因為以我們現在的建構方式，

they have to know the full objective.

它們必須知道完整的目標。

If we build systems that know that they don't know what the objective is,

如果我們建構的系統知道自己不知道目標是什麼，

then they start to exhibit these behaviors like asking for permission

那麼它們就會開始表現出這類行為，比如在請求許可

before getting rid of all the oxygen in the atmosphere. 片語動詞

之後再消除大氣中所有的氧氣。

In all these senses,

在所有這些意義上，

control over the AI system comes from the machine's uncertainty about what the true objective is. 表達脈絡

對AI系統的控制來源於機器對真正目標是什麼的不確定性。

It's when you build machines that believe with certainty that they have the objective, 文法

當你建構的機器確信它們擁有目標時，

that's when you get this sort of psychopathic behavior. 用詞

那時你就會看到這種精神病態的行為。

And I think we see the same thing in humans.

而且我認為我們在人類身上也看到了同樣的情況。

What happens when general purpose AI hits the real economy? 用詞

當通用人工智慧衝擊實體經濟時會發生什麼？

How do things change?

事情會如何改變？

Can we adapt?

我們能適應嗎？

You know, this is a very old point.

你知道，這是一個非常古老的觀點。

Amazingly,

令人驚奇的是，

Aristotle actually has a passage where he says,

亞里斯多德其實有一段話說，

look,

看吧，

if we had fully automated weaving machines and plectrums that could pluck the lyre and produce music without any humans, 文化背景

如果我們有全自動的織布機，以及無需人類就能撥動里拉琴並演奏音樂的撥子，

then we wouldn't need any workers.

那麼我們就不需要任何工人了。

That idea,

這個想法，

which I think it was Keynes who called it technological unemployment in 1930,

我想是凱因斯在1930年將之稱為「科技性失業」的，

is very obvious to people, right?

對人們來說是非常顯而易見的，對吧？

They think,

他們認為，

yeah, of course,

是的，當然，

if the machine does the work,

如果機器做了工作，

then I'm going to be unemployed.

那麼我就會失業。

If you think about the warehouses that companies like Amazon are operating for e-commerce,

如果你想想亞馬遜等公司為電子商務營運的倉庫，

they are half automated.

它們是半自動化的。

The way it works is that on an old warehouse where you've got tons of stuff piled up all over the place 表達脈絡

它的運作方式是，在一個舊倉庫裡，到處都堆滿了成噸的貨物，

and the humans go and rummage around and then bring it back and send it off, 片語動詞

人類進去到處翻找，然後把它帶回來並發送出去，

there's a robot who goes and gets the shelving unit that contains the thing that you need,

現在則是機器人去把包含你需要物品的貨架拿過來，

but the human has to pick the object out of the bin or the off the shelf because that's still too difficult. 片語動詞

但人類必須從箱子或架子上挑選物品，因為那仍然太難了。

But, you know, at the same time,

但是，你知道，與此同時，

would you make a robot that is accurate enough to be able to pick pretty much any object 文法

你會製造一個精度足夠高的機器人，能夠挑選幾乎任何

within a very wide variety of objects that you can buy?

你能買到的各種各樣的物品嗎？

And that would at a stroke eliminate three or four million jobs. 慣用語

那將一舉消除三四百萬個工作崗位。

There's an interesting story that E.M. Forster wrote where everyone is entirely machine dependent. 文化背景

E·M·佛斯特寫過一個有趣的故事，在那裡每個人都完全依賴機器。

The story is really about the fact that if you hand over the management of your civilization to machines, 片語動詞

這個故事真正講的是，如果你把文明的管理權交給了機器，

you then lose the incentive to understand it yourself or to teach the next generation how to understand it. 片語搭配

你就失去了自己去理解它、或者教導下一代如何理解它的動力。

And you can see WALL-E actually as a modern version where everyone is enfeebled and infantilized by the machine. 用詞

你其實可以把WALL-E看作一個現代版本，裡面每個人都被機器變得衰弱且幼稚化。

And that hasn't been possible up to now,

而到目前為止，這還是不可能的，

right?

對吧？

We put a lot of our civilization into books,

我們把文明的很大一部分放進了書本裡，

but the books can't run it for us. 用詞

但書本不能替我們運轉文明。

And so we always have to teach the next generation.

因此我們總是必須教導下一代。

If you work it out,

如果你計算一下，

it's about a trillion person years of teaching and learning in an unbroken chain 表達脈絡

大約是一兆人年的教與學，在一條不間斷的鏈條中

that goes back tens of thousands of generations.

追溯到成千上萬代人之前。

What happens if that chain breaks?

如果這條鏈斷了會發生什麼？

And I think that's something we have to understand as AI moves forward.

我認為這是我們在AI向前發展時必須理解的事情。

The actual date of arrival of general purpose AI you're not going to be able to pinpoint, right? 用詞

通用人工智慧到來的確切日期你是無法準確預測的，對吧？

It isn't a single day.

它不是特定的某一天。

It's also not the case that it's all or nothing. 慣用語

情況也不是全有或全無。

The impact is going to be increasing.

它的影響將不斷增加。

So with every advance in AI,

因此，隨著AI的每一次進步，

it significantly expands the range of tasks. 片語搭配

它極大地擴展了任務的範圍。

So in that sense,

所以在那種意義上，

I think most experts say by the end of the century,

我想大多數專家都說，到本世紀末，

we're very very likely to have general purpose AI. 文法

我們非常非常有可能擁有通用人工智慧。

The median is something around 2045. 用詞

中位數大概是在2045年左右。

I'm a little more on the conservative side. 用詞

我偏向於更保守一點。

I think the problem is harder than we think.

我認為這個問題比我們想像的要難。

I like what John McCarthy,

我很喜歡約翰·麥卡錫說的話，

who was sort of one of the founders of AI,

他算是人工智慧的創始人之一，

when he was asked this question,

當他被問到這個問題時，

he said,

他說，

well, somewhere between 5 and 500 years. 慣用語

嗯，大概在5年到500年之間吧。

And we're going to need,

而且我們將需要，

I think,

我認為，

several Einsteins to make it happen.

好幾個愛因斯坦才能實現它。

But how will the economy change in the meantime?

但在此期間經濟將如何變化？

Will it be able to keep growing?

它能夠繼續成長嗎？

Watch this video to hear economist Kate Raworth explain why growth is not always a good thing.

觀看本影片，聽經濟學家凱特·拉沃斯解釋為什麼經濟成長並不總是件好事。

Or continue to expand your understanding of economics

或者繼續拓展你對經濟學的理解，

on the World Economic Forum's YouTube channel.

在世界經濟論壇的YouTube頻道上。