別讓新技術(shù)淪為“無(wú)罪欺詐”

Globalisation has helped lift millions of people in the developing world out of poverty and showered cheap goods on western consumers. Yet at the ballot box it is also blamed by those very same people for increasing inequality and squeezing living standards.

全球化幫助發(fā)展中國(guó)家數(shù)以百萬(wàn)計(jì)的人脫離貧困，并讓西方消費(fèi)者有大量廉價(jià)商品可以選擇。然而在投票箱前，人們卻指責(zé)全球化加劇不平等，擠壓生活水平。

Pro-globalisation politicians are facing a noisy backlash in Europe and the US as populists demand greater protection for those who feel the system has been rigged. In their view, globalisation is an “innocent fraud”, to use John Kenneth Galbraith’s phrase.

在歐洲和美國(guó)，支持全球化的政治人士正面臨強(qiáng)烈反彈，民粹主義者要求加大保護(hù)那些覺(jué)得體制被操縱的人士。在他們看來(lái)，用約翰•肯尼思•加爾布雷斯(John Kenneth Galbraith)的話(huà)來(lái)說(shuō)，全球化是一種“無(wú)罪欺詐”。

The US economist argued in his 2004 book of that name that societies were often sustained by handy fictions, such as the idea that companies were run for the benefit of shareholders rather than managers. Politics, money and intellectual fashion create their own version of the truth, irrespective of reality. “No one is especially at fault; what is convenient to believe is greatly preferred,” Galbraith wrote.

這位美國(guó)經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家曾在他2004年的同名著作中辯稱(chēng)，社會(huì)經(jīng)常受到一些方便假想的支撐，例如認(rèn)為企業(yè)的經(jīng)營(yíng)是為了股東利益，而非管理者。政治、金融和學(xué)術(shù)潮流創(chuàng)造了各自版本的“真理”，而不管現(xiàn)實(shí)如何。加爾布雷斯寫(xiě)道：“沒(méi)有人特別有錯(cuò);人們就是喜歡那些方便相信的事情。”

There is a risk that technological disruption may come to be seen as the second great “innocent fraud” of our times. It is hard to dispute that promising new technologies — like globalisation — can bring enormous benefits. Energy, transport and healthcare are just three sectors that are likely to be transformed for the better in the next few years.

風(fēng)險(xiǎn)在于，技術(shù)突變可能被視為我們這個(gè)時(shí)代第二個(gè)巨大的“無(wú)罪欺詐”。頗有希望的新技術(shù)(與全球化一樣)能夠帶來(lái)巨大好處，這點(diǎn)很難質(zhì)疑。能源、交通和醫(yī)療是很可能會(huì)在未來(lái)幾年向好的方向轉(zhuǎn)型的其中3個(gè)行業(yè)。

But these new technologies will also threaten many established industries, markets and jobs. As with globalisation, the digital revolution will bring generalised gain but cause localised pain.

但是，此類(lèi)新技術(shù)還會(huì)威脅很多成熟行業(yè)、市場(chǎng)和就業(yè)。與全球化一樣，數(shù)字革命將帶來(lái)普遍好處，但也會(huì)造成局部痛苦。

Many new technologies have unintended, and often adverse, consequences — or “bite back”. For example, the combustion engine revolutionised transport. But it also did terrible damage to the environment. Asbestos was once hailed as a miracle material. But in the past 20 years we have spent billions stripping it from buildings. The potential “bite back” from the latest crop of new technologies, such as gene editing and artificial intelligence, is terrifying. As Stephen Hawking, the British scientist, said last week, the creation of powerful artificial intelligence will be “either the best, or the worst, thing ever to happen to humanity”.

很多新技術(shù)產(chǎn)生了意想不到而且往往不利的后果，即“反咬”。例如，內(nèi)燃機(jī)讓交通實(shí)現(xiàn)了革命。但它也對(duì)環(huán)境造成了嚴(yán)重?fù)p害。石棉一度被吹噓為一種神奇的材料。但過(guò)去20年，我們花費(fèi)了數(shù)十億美元將其從建筑中拆除。最新這批技術(shù)(例如基因編輯和人工智能)的潛在“反咬”令人害怕。正如英國(guó)科學(xué)家斯蒂芬•霍金(Stephen Hawking)最近所說(shuō)的，強(qiáng)大人工智能的出現(xiàn)將“是對(duì)人類(lèi)要么最好要么最壞的事情”。

How can we ensure good outcomes? Here are three ideas. First, the private sector has to embrace the public sector, appreciating that they have common aims. As Galbraith wrote, the interdependence of the two sectors is often so great as to render distinctions between them almost meaningless.

我們?cè)趺茨艽_保良好的結(jié)果呢?這里有三個(gè)構(gòu)想。首先，私營(yíng)部門(mén)必須擁抱公共部門(mén)，認(rèn)識(shí)到大家有著共同的目標(biāo)。正如加爾布雷斯所寫(xiě)的，這兩個(gè)部門(mén)的相互依賴(lài)往往非常密切，以至于區(qū)分它們幾乎沒(méi)有意義。

Insurgent West Coast tech firms have a near messianic belief that they are bettering the lot of humanity and do not need adult supervision. Their chief demand to government is: clear out of the way. They are increasingly vocal in pushing such views, having become one of the biggest lobbying forces in Washington.

敢想敢干的西海岸科技公司有著一種近乎救世主的信念：他們?cè)跒槿祟?lèi)的福祉作出貢獻(xiàn)，不需要成人監(jiān)護(hù)。它們向政府提出的主要要求是：別擋道。他們?cè)谛纬扇A盛頓最大的游說(shuō)勢(shì)力之一后，正日益強(qiáng)勢(shì)地推動(dòng)這些觀(guān)念。

In a conversation in Wired magazine, President Barack Obama argued that the adoption of new technologies was too important to be left to private companies. But he warned confidence in collective action had been chipped away, partly because of ideology and rhetoric. “If we want the values of a diverse community represented in these breakthrough technologies, then government funding has to be a part of it,” he said.

在與《連線(xiàn)》(Wired)雜志的對(duì)話(huà)中，美國(guó)總統(tǒng)巴拉克•奧巴馬(Barack Obama)辯稱(chēng)，新技術(shù)的采用非常重要，不能留給私營(yíng)企業(yè)。但他警告稱(chēng)，對(duì)集體行動(dòng)的信心已受損，部分原因是意識(shí)形態(tài)和花言巧語(yǔ)。他表示：“如果我們希望多元化社會(huì)的價(jià)值觀(guān)在這些突破性技術(shù)中得到體現(xiàn)，那么政府資金不得不成為其中的一部分。”

Second, the public sector needs to retool itself to understand and meet the challenges posed by new technologies. Many of the regulatory functions of government, introduced in the US in the early 20th century, were designed to protect the consumer from predatory monopolists and financial cartels.

其次，公共部門(mén)需要調(diào)整自己，理解并迎接新技術(shù)所帶來(lái)的挑戰(zhàn)。美國(guó)在20世紀(jì)初引入的很多政府監(jiān)管職能，是為了保護(hù)消費(fèi)者不受掠奪性壟斷者和金融卡特爾的損害。

But government institutions today need to protect us as citizens as much as consumers. The frontline of regulation concerns issues of privacy, security, data use, employment rights and freedom of expression. We need reinvigorated public institutions to help guarantee that new technologies are used in benign ways. We also need enforced legal protections to ensure that government itself does not abuse these technologies.

但現(xiàn)在的政府體制需要保護(hù)我們作為公民以及消費(fèi)者的雙重利益。監(jiān)管第一線(xiàn)涉及隱私、安全、數(shù)據(jù)使用、就業(yè)權(quán)利和言論自由等問(wèn)題。我們需要公共機(jī)構(gòu)重振雄風(fēng)，幫助保證良性利用新技術(shù)。我們還需要施行法律保護(hù)，確保政府自己不濫用這些技術(shù)。

Third, we may need to rewrite the implicit social contracts that govern our democracies, redefining what goods and services our governments provide. Economic historian Joel Mokyr argues that the present wave of technological change could create so much social turmoil that we may need to fundamentally rethink our political systems. He suggests the necessary transformation could be on a par with the creation of the German welfare state in the 19th century or the New Deal of the 1930s.

第三，我們可能需要重寫(xiě)治理我們民主社會(huì)的隱性社會(huì)契約，重新定義政府提供的商品和服務(wù)。經(jīng)濟(jì)歷史學(xué)家喬爾•莫克伊爾(Joel Mokyr)辯稱(chēng)，當(dāng)前的技術(shù)變革浪潮可能會(huì)造成巨大社會(huì)動(dòng)蕩，以至于我們可能需要從根本上反思我們的政治體制。他認(rèn)為，必要的轉(zhuǎn)型可能堪比19世紀(jì)德國(guó)福利國(guó)家的創(chuàng)建或者上世紀(jì)30年代的美國(guó)“新政”(New Deal)。

Change on that scale could do with input from the brilliant minds of the tech sector. As Wired, guest-edited by Mr Obama, put it: “Ask not what government can do for Silicon Valley; ask what Silicon Valley can do for the government.”

這種規(guī)模的變革需要科技行業(yè)優(yōu)秀人才的集思廣益。正如奧巴馬擔(dān)任嘉賓主編的那一期《連線(xiàn)》雜志所言：“不要問(wèn)政府能為硅谷做什么;要問(wèn)硅谷能為政府做什么。”