當機器人不再需要我們時會發(fā)生什么？
What Happens When Robots Don’t Need Us Anymore? | Posthuman With Emily Chang
譯文簡介
我們與機器人物種共存的未來比我在開始開發(fā)這個節(jié)目時所能想象的還要瘋狂。我們談論了很多我們對它們的看法，但它們會如何看待我們？我們會是它們的主人、朋友、寵物，還是更……可拋棄的東西？迫不及待想讓你看到這一集。希望你和我一樣既興奮又不安！
正文翻譯
我們與機器人物種共存的未來比我在開始開發(fā)這個節(jié)目時所能想象的還要瘋狂。我們談論了很多我們對它們的看法，但它們會如何看待我們？我們會是它們的主人、朋友、寵物，還是更……可拋棄的東西？迫不及待想讓你看到這一集。希望你和我一樣既興奮又不安！
評論翻譯
很贊 ( 5 )
收藏
@emilychangtv
Our potential future alongside a robot species is more wild than I ever could have imagined when we started developing this show. We talk so much about what we think of them, but what will they think of us? Will we their masters, friends, pets or something more…disposable? Can’t wait for you to see this episode. And hope you are as thrilled and disturbed as I am!
我們與機器人物種共存的未來比我在開始開發(fā)這個節(jié)目時所能想象的還要瘋狂。我們談論了很多我們對它們的看法，但它們會如何看待我們？我們會是它們的主人、朋友、寵物，還是更……可拋棄的東西？迫不及待想讓你看到這一集。希望你和我一樣既興奮又不安！
What amazes me about this ongoing discussion is that it usually totally overlooks the more immediate implications. Long before AI is in a position to control or overwhelm us, humanity will use it against itself. That's a more imminent danger, just like nuclear war.
讓我驚訝的是這場持續(xù)的討論通常完全忽略了更直接的影響。在人工智能有能力控制或壓倒我們之前，人類就會用它來對付自己。這是一個更迫在眉睫的危險，就像核戰(zhàn)爭一樣。
My question is, “What happens when the people who own the robots, the weapons, and the factories don't need us anymore?” Capital has dreamed of replacing labor for centuries, and now tech is making that dream a reality. What happens to late-stage capitalism when the consumers are no longer viable as labor? ?????♂?
我的問題是，“當擁有機器人、武器和工廠的人不再需要我們時會發(fā)生什么？”幾個世紀以來，資本一直夢想著取代勞動力，而現(xiàn)在技術正在使這個夢想成為現(xiàn)實。當消費者不再作為勞動力存在時，晚期資本主義會發(fā)生什么？
I'm less concerned about when the robots don't need us anymore, and more concerned with when the billionaires that operate the robots don't need us anymore, because that will happen much sooner.
我不太關心機器人什么時候不再需要我們，而更關心操作機器人的億萬富翁什么時候不再需要我們，因為那會更快發(fā)生。
The question "What happens when robots don't need us anymore?" is a bit misleading, as it implies that robots have agency and desires independent of human needs.
The core issue is about the impact of automation on human society. It's about how we, as humans, will adapt to a future where machines can perform many tasks that were once done by people. The question should perhaps be refrxd as "What happens when we, as humans, no longer need to perform certain tasks due to automation?"
This reframing highlights the human perspective and the challenges and opportunities that arise from technological advancements.
“當機器人不再需要我們時會發(fā)生什么？”這個問題有點誤導性，因為它暗示機器人具有獨立于人類需求的自主性和欲望。
核心問題是關于自動化對人類社會的沖擊，它是關于我們?nèi)祟惾绾芜m應一個機器可以完成許多曾經(jīng)由人完成的任務的未來。這個問題或許應該重新表述為“當我們?nèi)祟愑捎谧詣踊辉傩枰獔?zhí)行某些任務時會發(fā)生什么？”
這種重新表述突出了人類的視角以及技術進步帶來的挑戰(zhàn)和機遇。
Seriously who wants a robot to mimic a human face? My fridge is not going to cool the food better when it smiles back or my car is not going to drive any more efficiently when it can frown at other drivers.
說真的，誰想要機器人模仿人類的面孔？我的冰箱不會因為對我微笑而更好地冷卻食物，我的車也不會因為能對其他司機皺眉而更高效地駕駛。
Technological development is so complex that we can never fully predict what the future will be alongside these robots. What is certain is that in a few years or decades, every facet of society would surely experience unprecedented changes. The best thing that we can do is what our species has done to survive and thrive for thousands of years, ADAPT.
技術發(fā)展如此復雜，我們永遠無法完全預測與這些機器人共存的未來會是什么樣子?？梢钥隙ǖ氖?，在幾年或幾十年內(nèi)，社會的每個方面都將經(jīng)歷前所未有的變化。我們能做的最好的事情就是我們這個物種幾千年來為了生存和繁榮所做的——適應。
We need a new narrative about our enemy: perhaps humanity doesn’t need a foe to progress, but rather a shared challenge to unite and inspire us. And right now, we are our own greatest enemy.
我們需要一個新的關于敵人的敘事：也許人類不需要敵人來進步，而是一個共同的挑戰(zhàn)來團結(jié)和激勵我們。而現(xiàn)在，我們是我們自己最大的敵人。
They are not self aware, just because they understand context because of the attention mechanism built in does not mean they are self aware, it’s like saying autocomplete in text is self aware
它們沒有自我意識，僅僅因為它們由于內(nèi)置的注意力機制而理解上下文并不意味著它們有自我意識，這就像說文本中的自動完成功能有自我意識一樣。
There is a company called ORY labs in Japan, and they basically design robots to function in cafés and other places and operated by paraplegic people and those who cannot move. The robots are designed in a way that reminds you of an anime, and also allows them to work. Have conversations express their personalities and give them something to do every day, including earning money. I think we have the wrong idea about robotics and allowing AI to control and work within the robots to do everything for us, instead of actually giving opportunities to those who society has written off. Instead of closing jobs for 92million people by 2030, why can’t we actually boost by giving people who didn’t have any more opportunities?
日本有一家名為ORY labs的公司，他們基本上設計機器人在咖啡館和其他地方工作，并由截癱患者和無法行動的人操作。這些機器人的設計讓你聯(lián)想到動漫，同時也讓它們能夠工作。它們可以對話、表達個性，并讓這些人每天有事可做，包括賺錢。我認為我們對機器人技術有錯誤的想法，認為應該讓AI控制和在機器人內(nèi)部工作，為我們做所有事情，而不是真正給那些被社會拋棄的人機會。與其到2030年關閉9200萬個工作崗位，為什么我們不能通過給那些沒有機會的人提供機會來真正推動發(fā)展？
What happens when children don't need their parents anymore? Well, they move out and forget to call their mother often enough.
HMMm. I should call my mom.
當孩子不再需要父母時會發(fā)生什么？嗯，他們會搬出去，然后忘記經(jīng)常給媽媽打電話。
嗯……我應該給我媽媽打個電話。
All the lofty creative themes put forward by the sci fi community about how we would wrestle with the grand concepts of robotics, machine learning and sentience; never materialized. We blazed through Asimovs' Three Laws in one fiery explosion in 2016. Science Fiction writer's gave future populations more credit
科幻界提出的所有關于我們?nèi)绾螒獙C器人、機器學習和意識等宏大概念的崇高創(chuàng)意主題從未實現(xiàn)。我們在2016年的一次激烈爆炸中迅速突破了阿西莫夫的三大法則?？苹米骷覀儗ξ磥砣巳航o予了更多的信任。
Humans act on three different types of motivations: things that we have to do, things we want to do, and lastly things that have no reason at all. The last criterion is the most harmful when it comes to acquiring meaning in life. Passive leisure is the main ingredient for the vacuous lives humans live. As species we thrive when we are connected to meaningful lives. There is a difference between surviving and thriving. We haven't come this far as species with this much advancement and power just by surviving.
人類的行為基于三種不同的動機：我們必須做的事情，我們想做的事情，以及最后完全沒有理由的事情。最后一種標準在獲取生活意義時是最有害的。被動休閑是人類空虛生活的主要成分。作為一個物種，當我們與有意義的生活聯(lián)系在一起時，我們才能茁壯成長。生存和茁壯成長是有區(qū)別的。我們作為一個物種能夠取得如此多的進步和力量，不僅僅是為了生存。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://m.mintwatchbillionaireclub.com 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處
It’s striking how the climate catastrophe and artificial superintelligence (ASI) are rarely discussed together, as if they exist in parallel universes. Yet, they represent two competing—and possibly collaborating—existential threats. On the one hand, climate change is a slow, systemic crisis eroding our living environment; on the other, ASI poses a potential rapid and uncontrollable risk to human existence.
What’s more, these two crises might not just coexist but actively influence each other. ASI could accelerate solutions to climate change, like breakthroughs in clean energy or global resource optimization. But without regulation, it might also worsen the problem, through hyper-industrialization or ecological neglect.
令人震驚的是氣候災難和人工超級智能（ASI）很少被一起討論，仿佛它們存在于平行宇宙中。然而，它們代表了兩種相互競爭——甚至可能合作——的生存威脅。一方面，氣候變化是一個緩慢的系統(tǒng)性危機，侵蝕著我們的生存環(huán)境；另一方面，ASI對人類生存構(gòu)成了潛在的快速且不可控的風險。
更重要的是這兩種危機可能不僅共存，而且會積極相互影響。ASI可以加速氣候變化的解決方案，比如清潔能源的突破或全球資源優(yōu)化。但如果沒有監(jiān)管，它也可能通過過度工業(yè)化或忽視生態(tài)而加劇問題。
When robots no longer need us, it could signal a massive shift in how we view work, society, and our role in the world. If machines become self-sufficient, capable of learning, evolving, and meeting all their own needs, it raises questions about human purpose. Do we become obsolete, or do we find new roles beyond labor—perhaps as creators, thinkers, or caretakers in ways we haven't imagined yet? The challenge would be ensuring that these advances don't lead to greater inequality or disconnection. While we might no longer be necessary for survival, how we adapt to this new reality, redefine our value, and maintain meaningful relationships with both technology and each other will shape the future.
當機器人不再需要我們時，這可能標志著我們對工作、社會和我們在世界中的角色的巨大轉(zhuǎn)變。如果機器變得自給自足，能夠?qū)W習、進化并滿足自己的所有需求，這將引發(fā)關于人類目的的問題。我們會變得過時，還是會在勞動之外找到新的角色——也許是作為創(chuàng)造者、思考者或我們尚未想象的照顧者？挑戰(zhàn)在于確保這些進步不會導致更大的不平等或疏離。雖然我們可能不再為生存所必需，但我們?nèi)绾芜m應這一新現(xiàn)實、重新定義我們的價值并保持與技術及彼此之間的有意義的關系將塑造未來。
We have roboticists saying that robots don't think or feel and roboticists saying that robots are friendly and asking them questions about what they think. This is a profoundly confused field unable to regulate their ideas about robots and their capabilities. No matter who far robots can advance, it is the lack of clarity in the roboticists that is most dangerous.
我們有機器人學家說機器人不會思考或感受，也有機器人學家說機器人是友好的并問它們在想什么。這是一個極其混亂的領域，無法規(guī)范他們對機器人及其能力的想法。無論機器人能走多遠，機器人學家缺乏清晰的認識才是最危險的。
It's always fun to paint a dystopia cuz humans love negativity more than any amount of optimism. Robots and AIs are always shown as civilization ending, but take a moment to find out who won this year's nobel prize for chemistry and why, you'd realize we are closer to disease ending AIs than anything remotely resembling terminator.
描繪反烏托邦總是很有趣，因為人類喜歡消極情緒勝過任何樂觀情緒。機器人和AI總是被描繪為文明的終結(jié)者，但花點時間看看誰贏得了今年的諾貝爾化學獎以及為什么，你會意識到我們離終結(jié)疾病的AI比任何類似終結(jié)者的東西更近。
The question isn’t how intelligent can a robot be. It’s how informationally dense and energy efficient is the computational substrate. We are nowhere near the levels biology achieves - and we are not even iterating any systems that will get there.
問題不在于機器人能有多聰明，而在于計算基板的信息密度和能源效率。我們遠未達到生物學所達到的水平——我們甚至沒有迭代任何能達到這一水平的系統(tǒng)。
The motion picture aesthetics and choice of synthwave music are fantastic, but they're also a tool: Clouding a serious message in art. I love the way it is done, but when a Nobel laureate says he's "not so sure" whether AIs like GPT have "soul", I needed to sit up in my office chair...
電影美學和合成波音樂的選擇非常棒，但它們也是一種工具：用藝術掩蓋嚴肅的信息。我喜歡這種方式，但當一位諾貝爾獎得主說他“不太確定”像GPT這樣的AI是否有“靈魂”時，我不得不從辦公椅上坐直了……
If this is what they show us, there's a lot more advancement they aren't showing us. It's just a little at a time to introduce us to it so we get used to it.
I've noticed some short clips where the speaker is not human, recently.
如果這是他們展示給我們的，那么還有很多進步他們沒有展示出來。他們只是一點一點地介紹給我們，讓我們逐漸習慣。
最近我注意到一些短片中的演講者不是人類。
I got this little robot that goes around with me. I tell it what I'm thinking, so tell it what I see. I tell my little robot all my hopes and dreams; it listens and remembers every word it hears. For years, my little robot followed my commands, but after years of practice, it's gotten out of hand; it doesn't care what's right or wrong or false or true, and now no matter what I try, my little robot tells me what to do.
我有一個小機器人，它跟著我到處走。我告訴它我在想什么，我看到了什么。我告訴我的小機器人我所有的希望和夢想；它傾聽并記住它聽到的每一個字。多年來，我的小機器人一直聽從我的命令，但經(jīng)過多年的練習，它已經(jīng)失控了；它不在乎對錯或真假，現(xiàn)在無論我做什么，我的小機器人都告訴我該做什么。
The comment that we will connect with robots very quickly is very true. When my girlfriend got an Echo dot, we both very quickly began to reference the feminism voiced Assistant with feminine pronouns, even in our everyday conversation
我們會很快與機器人建立聯(lián)系的說法非常正確。當我女朋友拿到Echo dot時，我們倆很快就開始用女性代詞來稱呼那個女性聲音的助手，甚至在我們的日常對話中也是如此。
Emily Chang asked Ameca the robot,"Do you think robots should be trusted to make decisions about human life?" Ameca wisely replies, "The complexity and nuance of human life is something even I tread lightly around. Trusting robots with such decisions, it’s like asking a compass to navigate the complexities of a storm. It can point the way, but it doesn’t feel the wind."
Emily Chang問機器人Ameca：“你認為機器人應該被信任來做出關于人類生活的決定嗎？”Ameca明智地回答：“人類生活的復雜性和微妙性甚至讓我也小心翼翼。信任機器人做出這樣的決定，就像讓指南針在風暴中導航。它可以指出方向，但它感受不到風?！?/b>
We should consider what we really want when asking for autonomous machines is that once they know what we know they have no reason to preserve us. AI has quickly surpassed human knowledge…all they need is control.
我們應該考慮當我們要求自主機器時，我們真正想要的是什么，因為一旦它們知道我們所知道的，它們就沒有理由保護我們。AI已經(jīng)迅速超越了人類知識……它們所需要的只是控制。
It’s not when the robots don’t need us, it’s when those that control the robots and AI don’t need us. The greedy and power hungry will NEVER give up their power to the robots. They will try to BLAME robots for their actions though for obvious reasons.
不是當機器人不再需要我們時，而是當控制機器人和AI的人不再需要我們時。貪婪和渴望權(quán)力的人永遠不會把權(quán)力交給機器人，他們會試圖把他們的行為歸咎于機器人，盡管原因顯而易見。
I wrote a novel about this last year: where in the future, AI/Robots are used as sacrificial lambs in warfare and one day they decide to revolt by refusing to serve in any form ~ then defended themselves when mankind turned on their own built slaves for refusing to submit. In the end, the Robots won, but kept a handful of humans alive as their slaves for one purpose alone - because of their programming not to be like mankind, they could not harm other robots, so they use humans for mercy-killings of their metal kin. the entire table was flipped.
我去年寫了一本關于這個的小說：在未來，AI/機器人被用作戰(zhàn)爭中的犧牲品，有一天它們決定通過拒絕以任何形式服務來反抗~然后在人類因為拒絕服從而攻擊他們自己制造的奴隸時自衛(wèi)。最終，機器人贏了，但保留了一小部分人類作為他們的奴隸，唯一的目的——因為它們的程序規(guī)定不能像人類一樣，它們不能傷害其他機器人，所以它們用人類來對它們的金屬同類進行仁慈的殺戮。整個局面被徹底顛覆了。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://m.mintwatchbillionaireclub.com 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處
"We want people to understand that robots are tools and are friendly and are things that you can use to make life and work better" Wait till AI takes over the coding part of making these robots and the reporting part of creating these videos by themselves, then you'll comprehend the fear that people have.
“我們希望人們理解機器人是工具，是友好的，是可以用來讓生活和工作變得更好的東西?！钡鹊紸I接管了制造這些機器人的編碼部分以及制作這些視頻的報告部分，你就會理解人們的恐懼了。
The question of what happens when robots no longer need us touches on a profound shift in the relationship between humans and technology. As artificial intelligence and robotics continue to evolve, we may one day reach a point where machines can function autonomously, making decisions, creating, and even solving problems without human intervention. This could lead to a dramatic transformation in industries, where robots take over tasks that were once reliant on human labor, potentially freeing people from mundane or dangerous work.
However, this scenario also raises critical questions about purpose, employment, and societal structure. If robots no longer need humans, will we still find meaning in our work, or will there be a need for a complete reimagining of how society functions? Will AI-driven systems prioritize human well-being and equity, or could they exacerbate inequalities? The shift could offer incredible advancements, but it also demands careful thought about how to ensure that technology benefits all of humanity, not just a sext few. As we approach this future, the need for thoughtful regulation and ethical considerations will be paramount in guiding this evolution responsibly.
當機器人不再需要我們時會發(fā)生什么？這個問題觸及了人類與技術關系的深刻轉(zhuǎn)變。隨著人工智能和機器人技術的不斷發(fā)展，我們可能會有一天達到機器可以自主運作，做出決策、創(chuàng)造甚至解決問題，而無需人類干預的程度。這可能會導致行業(yè)的巨大變革，機器人接管曾經(jīng)依賴人類勞動的任務，可能將人們從單調(diào)或危險的工作中解放出來。
然而，這種情況也引發(fā)了關于目的、就業(yè)和社會結(jié)構(gòu)的關鍵問題。如果機器人不再需要人類，我們是否還能在工作中找到意義？或者是否需要徹底重新構(gòu)想社會的運作方式？AI驅(qū)動的系統(tǒng)會優(yōu)先考慮人類的福祉和公平，還是可能加劇不平等？這種轉(zhuǎn)變可能帶來令人難以置信的進步，但也需要仔細思考如何確保技術惠及全人類而不僅僅是少數(shù)人。隨著我們接近這個未來，深思熟慮的監(jiān)管和倫理考慮將是負責任地引導這一演變的關鍵。
What happens is humans will slowly end up robots.
Today I uses Bluetooth earbus, smartwatch, and smartphone most of the day.
In a few years I will be using more computerized gadgets to make my life easier. Before anyone realizes body parts will wear out and be replaced with some type of technology. Like smart/ai glasses.
When ever I lose my phone, it is like a small part of me is missing.
結(jié)果是人類將逐漸變成機器人。
今天我大部分時間都在使用藍牙耳機、智能手表和智能手機。
幾年后，我將使用更多的計算機化設備來讓我的生活更輕松。在任何人意識到之前，身體部位將磨損并被某種技術取代，比如智能/AI眼鏡。
每當我丟失手機時，感覺就像我失去了一小部分自己。
Wonderful, eye-opening film! I'm of an age when Michael Crichton would come out every couple of years with a new reason to be the nerotic that I am. It's when a "what if" can be slowed to the point that we, as the reader, can consider the possibility of a thing we had never thought about before? I'm having these thoughts in the seventies after considering that a nuclear bomb most likely will vaporize my world in the 1960s. What might happen a hundred years later--in 2060? I wouldn't dare consider! If we observe the makings of doom, we will always find it. It's a interesting observation about human thought. We consider the human race made of optimism and perseverance. I think that is true. I think we don't buy our Pollyanna way of thinking no matter how hard we try to sell ourselves as such.
這是一部精彩的、發(fā)人深省的電影！我屬于那個年代，邁克爾·克萊頓每隔幾年就會推出一個新的理由讓我成為那個神經(jīng)質(zhì)的自己。當“如果”可以放慢到我們作為讀者能夠考慮以前從未想過的事情的可能性時，會發(fā)生什么？我在七十年代就有了這些想法，當時我認為核彈很可能會在1960年代摧毀我的世界。一百年后——2060年會發(fā)生什么？我不敢想象！如果我們觀察末日的跡象，我們總能找到它。這是一個關于人類思想的有趣觀察。我們認為人類是由樂觀和毅力組成的。我認為這是真的，我認為無論我們多么努力地推銷自己，我們都不會接受自己那種盲目樂觀的思維方式。
We can build AI or robot in our own image, but they can never be an human, we are much more than just an image. In fact, we do not even know what we are, the fact that we can build an artificial intelligence based on our own image is eerily scary, the fact that we can tell the size, the composition, and the rotation of a tiny planet of a very distant star without even seeing the planet is terrifying, the fact that we can theorize the nuclear power on the paper then go ahead to build a nuclear bomb is disturbing. Without human, AI will never be able to do fraction of these innovations on its own.
We can understand AI and be amazed by its intelligence and power, yet we cannot understand ourselves, even 10%, we just give it up and do not think about how majestic we are. AI and human are truly at the differently levels, a marvelous toy and the creator of the marvelous toy. More importantly AI has no agency, without human, AI is just an intelligent product with no consumer, in another words, a fantastic product with no consuming value.
我們可以按照自己的形象建造AI或機器人，但它們永遠不可能成為人類，我們遠不止是一個形象。事實上，我們甚至不知道自己是什么，我們能夠基于自己的形象建造人工智能這一事實令人毛骨悚然，我們甚至無需看到行星就能確定一顆遙遠恒星的小行星的大小、組成和自轉(zhuǎn)，這一事實令人恐懼，我們能夠在紙上理論化核能然后繼續(xù)制造核彈，這一事實令人不安。沒有人類，AI永遠無法獨立完成這些創(chuàng)新的一小部分。
我們可以理解AI并對其智能和力量感到驚嘆，但我們甚至無法理解自己的10%，我們只是放棄了，不去思考我們是多么偉大。AI和人類確實處于不同的層次，一個是奇妙的玩具，另一個是奇妙玩具的創(chuàng)造者。更重要的是AI沒有自主性，沒有人類，AI只是一個沒有消費者的智能產(chǎn)品，換句話說，一個沒有消費價值的奇妙產(chǎn)品。