How civilization could destroy itself -- and 4 ways we could prevent it | Nick Bostrom

翻译人员: Archi Xiao 校对人员: Jiasi Hao

Chris Anderson: Nick Bostrom.

克里斯 · 安德森（CA）： 尼克 · 博斯特罗姆（NB），

So, you have already given us so many crazy ideas out there.

你为我们带来过这么多 疯狂的点子。

I think a couple of decades ago,

我记得大概二十年前，

you made the case that we might all be living in a simulation,

你曾提出 我们可能都正在，或曾经

or perhaps probably were.

生活在一个模拟世界里。

More recently,

最近，

you've painted the most vivid examples of how artificial general intelligence

你用最生动的案例来说明 通用人工智能

could go horribly wrong.

可能会带来的非常可怕的问题。

And now this year,

接着今年，

you're about to publish

你即将发表一篇论文，

a paper that presents something called the vulnerable world hypothesis.

题目为《脆弱世界假说》。

And our job this evening is to give the illustrated guide to that.

而今天晚上我们的任务 就是来简析这篇文章。

So let's do that.

来我们开始吧。

What is that hypothesis?

假设前提是什么呢？

尼克 · 博斯特罗姆（NB）： 这篇文章在试图讨论

Nick Bostrom: It's trying to think about

a sort of structural feature of the current human condition.

人类现状的一种结构化特征。

You like the urn metaphor,

我知道你喜欢摸球游戏的比喻，

so I'm going to use that to explain it.

那我就用它来解释。

So picture a big urn filled with balls

想象一个很大的缸中装满了小球，

representing ideas, methods, possible technologies.

小球代表 各种观点、方法，和可能的技术。

You can think of the history of human creativity

你可以把人类的创造历史

as the process of reaching into this urn and pulling out one ball after another,

当作把手伸向这个缸 并从中不断取出小球的过程，

and the net effect so far has been hugely beneficial, right?

目前为止的净效益 已创造了极大的收益，对吧？

We've extracted a great many white balls,

我们取出了很多很多白色的小球，

some various shades of gray, mixed blessings.

一些或深或浅的灰色的小球， 有好有坏。

我们至今 还没有拿到过黑色的小球——

We haven't so far pulled out the black ball --

a technology that invariably destroys the civilization that discovers it.

也就是一个必定会 摧毁其所属文明的技术。

So the paper tries to think about what could such a black ball be.

这篇论文试图讨论的就是 这个黑球可能会是什么。

CA：所以你将这个球

CA: So you define that ball

as one that would inevitably bring about civilizational destruction.

定义为必将摧毁文明的存在。

NB: Unless we exit what I call the semi-anarchic default condition.

NB：除非我们停止这种我称之为 半无政府的默认条件，

But sort of, by default.

或者说默认状态。

CA: So, you make the case compelling

CA：也就是说你利用了一些反例

by showing some sort of counterexamples

做为有力佐证来说明你的观点，

where you believe that so far we've actually got lucky,

比如说你相信到目前为止 我们仅仅是走运，

that we might have pulled out that death ball

而且我们在不知情的情况下，

without even knowing it.

很可能已经取出了死亡之球。

So there's this quote, what's this quote?

我记得有句名言，是什么来着？

NB: Well, I guess it's just meant to illustrate

NB：我猜我只是想阐明

the difficulty of foreseeing

预测基本发现 在未来可能的作用潜力的

what basic discoveries will lead to.

困难程度。

We just don't have that capability.

我们真的不具备那样的能力。

Because we have become quite good at pulling out balls,

因为对于取出小球， 我们已经轻车熟路，

but we don't really have the ability to put the ball back into the urn, right.

但是我们并没有 把球放回缸里的能力。

We can invent, but we can't un-invent.

我们可以发明， 但是我们不会回到发明前。

So our strategy, such as it is,

很显然我们的战略，

is to hope that there is no black ball in the urn.

就是祈祷缸里没有黑球。

CA: So once it's out, it's out, and you can't put it back in,

CA：也就是说一旦把球取出来了 就没法再放回去了。

and you think we've been lucky.

你觉得我们一直挺幸运。

So talk through a couple of these examples.

在讲述这些例子的过程中，

You talk about different types of vulnerability.

你谈到了不同类型的弱点。

NB: So the easiest type to understand

NB：最容易理解的一种类型是

is a technology that just makes it very easy

不费吹灰之力

to cause massive amounts of destruction.

便能造成大规模破坏的技术。

Synthetic biology might be a fecund source of that kind of black ball,

合成生物技术可能成为 这样的黑球，

but many other possible things we could --

但同时我们可以利用它 做很多事情——

think of geoengineering, really great, right?

比如说地球工程， 非常棒，对吧？

We could combat global warming,

我们可以利用它来应对全球变暖，

but you don't want it to get too easy either,

但是我们肯定不希望 这种技术变得唾手可得，

you don't want any random person and his grandmother

我们不希望某个路人和他的奶奶

拥有这样的能彻底 改变地球气候的能力。

to have the ability to radically alter the earth's climate.

又或者是具备杀伤力的 自主无人机，

Or maybe lethal autonomous drones,

massed-produced, mosquito-sized killer bot swarms.

得以量产、如蚊子大小的 机械杀人虫。

Nanotechnology, artificial general intelligence.

纳米技术，通用人工智能等。

CA：在论文里，你论述到

CA: You argue in the paper

that it's a matter of luck that when we discovered

我们对能够创造原子弹的 核能的发现

that nuclear power could create a bomb,

纯粹是走运。

it might have been the case

因此，利用身边更容易获得的资源

that you could have created a bomb

就能制造出原子弹这样的情况，

with much easier resources, accessible to anyone.

也是极有可能的。

NB: Yeah, so think back to the 1930s

NB：没错，回顾上世纪 30 年代，

where for the first time we make some breakthroughs in nuclear physics,

当时我们在核物理学领域 取得首次突破，

几个天才科学家发现 引发原子核链反应是可能的，

some genius figures out that it's possible to create a nuclear chain reaction

and then realizes that this could lead to the bomb.

接着便想到把它做成一枚炸弹。

And we do some more work,

我们往下研究，

it turns out that what you require to make a nuclear bomb

发现要想做出一枚原子弹

is highly enriched uranium or plutonium,

需要浓缩铀或者钚，

而这些是极难弄到手的材料。

which are very difficult materials to get.

需要超速离心机，

You need ultracentrifuges,

you need reactors, like, massive amounts of energy.

需要反应堆， 能产生巨大能量的东西。

But suppose it had turned out instead

但是试想一下，

如果有一种很简单的方法 就能释放原子的能量。

there had been an easy way to unlock the energy of the atom.

可能是在微波炉里烤沙子

That maybe by baking sand in the microwave oven

or something like that

诸如此类的简便方法，

你就能很轻而易举地 引发原子核爆。

you could have created a nuclear detonation.

我们知道从物理学上来说 这并不可能。

So we know that that's physically impossible.

但是在研究相关的物理学问题之前，

But before you did the relevant physics

how could you have known how it would turn out?

我们又如何知道这是不可能的呢？

CA: Although, couldn't you argue

CA：尽管如此，为何你不能论述说

地球上生命的进化

that for life to evolve on Earth

暗示了地球某种稳定的环境，

that implied sort of stable environment,

that if it was possible to create massive nuclear reactions relatively easy,

如果相对简单地 就能引发大规模核反应，

那么地球本就不会如此稳定，

the Earth would never have been stable,

我们也不复存在。

that we wouldn't be here at all.

NB：是的，除非这种情况能轻易实现 且有人有意为之。

NB: Yeah, unless there were something that is easy to do on purpose

but that wouldn't happen by random chance.

但这种情况不会突然冒出来。

So, like things we can easily do,

我们轻易能办到的，

we can stack 10 blocks on top of one another,

比如说将 10 个方块 一个个叠起来，

但在自然中，你不会看到 一个 10 个方块为一摞的物体。

but in nature, you're not going to find, like, a stack of 10 blocks.

CA：那么这可能就是

CA: OK, so this is probably the one

that many of us worry about most,

我们很多人最为担心的一点，

and yes, synthetic biology is perhaps the quickest route

也就是合成生物技术

that we can foresee in our near future to get us here.

很可能就是引领我们走向 可视未来的捷径。

NB: Yeah, and so think about what that would have meant

NB：是的，现在我们想想 那可能意味着什么？

if, say, anybody by working in their kitchen for an afternoon

假设任何人在某个下午， 在自己的厨房里捣腾

就能毁掉一座城市。

could destroy a city.

It's hard to see how modern civilization as we know it

很难想象我们熟知的现代文明

怎样能逃过一劫。

could have survived that.

Because in any population of a million people,

因为任意 100 万人里面，

总会有那么一些人， 出于某种原因，

there will always be some who would, for whatever reason,

choose to use that destructive power.

会选择使用那种毁天灭地的能量。

So if that apocalyptic residual

如果那个世界末日的残余

would choose to destroy a city, or worse,

选择要摧毁一座城市， 甚至更糟，

then cities would get destroyed.

那么文明将难逃一劫。

CA: So here's another type of vulnerability.

CA：文章中提到的另一种弱点。

Talk about this.

你能谈谈吗？

NB: Yeah, so in addition to these kind of obvious types of black balls

NB：嗯，在这种显而易见的黑球外，

that would just make it possible to blow up a lot of things,

这种能一下子引发大爆炸的黑球外，

other types would act by creating bad incentives

其他类型的黑球 则是通过创造不良动机，

for humans to do things that are harmful.

鼓吹人们作恶。

我们可以把它称为“ Type-2a ”，

So, the Type-2a, we might call it that,

is to think about some technology that incentivizes great powers

指的是 使用某些技术去怂恿大国

to use their massive amounts of force to create destruction.

让它们利用自身的大规模武力 带来破坏。

So, nuclear weapons were actually very close to this, right?

那么核武器 其实很接近这个定义，对吧？

What we did, we spent over 10 trillion dollars

我们花了超过 10 万亿美元

to build 70,000 nuclear warheads

生产出 7 万颗原子弹，

and put them on hair-trigger alert.

随时候命。

在冷战时期，有好几次

And there were several times during the Cold War

我们差一点就把世界炸得飞起。

we almost blew each other up.

It's not because a lot of people felt this would be a great idea,

这并不是因为人们认为 炸飞彼此是一个很棒的想法，

我们一起花个 10 万亿 把大家炸个稀巴烂吧，

let's all spend 10 trillion dollars to blow ourselves up,

but the incentives were such that we were finding ourselves --

但是背后的推动力是如此强大， 我们发现——

结果本可能会更惨重。

this could have been worse.

假设第一次突袭安然无恙。

Imagine if there had been a safe first strike.

Then it might have been very tricky,

那么之后，在一个危急情况下

in a crisis situation,

想要遏制别人发射所有的原子弹

to refrain from launching all their nuclear missiles.

将会变得非常棘手。

If nothing else, because you would fear that the other side might do it.

不为别的，因为你会害怕 对手抢先一步发射导弹。

CA：对，相互制衡的毁灭性武器

CA: Right, mutual assured destruction

kept the Cold War relatively stable,

让冷战时期保持相对稳定，

without that, we might not be here now.

如果没有这种制衡， 我们可能也不复存在了。

NB: It could have been more unstable than it was.

NB：冷战本可能比当时的局势更动荡。

And there could be other properties of technology.

因为可能会有其他技术武器。

假设不是核武器震慑，

It could have been harder to have arms treaties,

而是其他更小型的 或是不那么与众不同的武器，

if instead of nuclear weapons

there had been some smaller thing or something less distinctive.

军备条约怕是更难达成共识。

CA：以及鼓吹强国政治力量的不良动机，

CA: And as well as bad incentives for powerful actors,

you also worry about bad incentives for all of us, in Type-2b here.

你在 Type-2b 中也表示了 对怂恿常人的不良动机的担忧。

NB: Yeah, so, here we might take the case of global warming.

NB：是的， 在这里我们可能要拿全球变暖举例。

There are a lot of little conveniences

总有那么一些便利因素

that cause each one of us to do things

促使我们每一个人做出一些

无足轻重的个人行为，对吧？

that individually have no significant effect, right?

But if billions of people do it,

但是如果上百亿人都这么做，

cumulatively, it has a damaging effect.

累积起来，这将会产生毁灭性影响。

Now, global warming could have been a lot worse than it is.

全球变暖的情况本可能 比现在更糟糕。

So we have the climate sensitivity parameter, right.

我们现在用的是气候敏感参数。

It's a parameter that says how much warmer does it get

这个参数显示 我们每释放一个单位的温室气体

if you emit a certain amount of greenhouse gases.

气温会上升多少。

But, suppose that it had been the case

但是假设情况变成

that with the amount of greenhouse gases we emitted,

我们每释放一个单位的温室气体，

到 2100 年

instead of the temperature rising by, say,

between three and 4.5 degrees by 2100,

气温不是上升 3 - 4.5 度，

suppose it had been 15 degrees or 20 degrees.

而是 15 - 20 度。

Like, then we might have been in a very bad situation.

那我们将可能处于水深火热之中。

Or suppose that renewable energy had just been a lot harder to do.

又或者假设很难生产再生能源。

又或者地下还有很多石油。

Or that there had been more fossil fuels in the ground.

CA：在这种情况下， 那你为什么不论述——

CA: Couldn't you argue that if in that case of --

if what we are doing today

我们现在的行为

had resulted in 10 degrees difference in the time period that we could see,

在可见的一段时间里 已经造成了 10 度的气温之差，

actually humanity would have got off its ass and done something about it.

那这下人们总该 认真起来，做出些改变了。

We're stupid, but we're not maybe that stupid.

我们愚蠢，但是我们可能 还不至于那么愚蠢。

又或者我们就是如此愚蠢。

Or maybe we are.

NB: I wouldn't bet on it.

NB：我看不一定。

(Laughter)

（笑声）

你可以想象其他东西。

You could imagine other features.

So, right now, it's a little bit difficult to switch to renewables and stuff, right,

比如现在要转向再生能源之类的 的确有些困难，对吧，

but it can be done.

但是确是可行的。

But it might just have been, with slightly different physics,

可能在稍有不同的物理学知识原理下，

it could have been much more expensive to do these things.

它的应用可能就会变得昂贵很多。

CA: And what's your view, Nick?

CA：那你怎么看呢，尼克？

Do you think, putting these possibilities together,

你认为把这些可能性加总，

that this earth, humanity that we are,

这个地球，我们人类，

we count as a vulnerable world?

就是一个脆弱的世界？

That there is a death ball in our future?

我们的未来里有一个死亡之球？

NB: It's hard to say.

NB：这很难说。

I mean, I think there might well be various black balls in the urn,

我的意思是，我认为缸里 可能有各种各样的黑球，

that's what it looks like.

可能这就是我们的未来。

There might also be some golden balls

但其中，可能也会有一些金球，

能保护我们不受黑球的伤害。

that would help us protect against black balls.

And I don't know which order they will come out.

可我不知道 它们出现的先后顺序。

CA: I mean, one possible philosophical critique of this idea

CA：对这种想法的 一种可能的哲学批判是

is that it implies a view that the future is essentially settled.

这种想法暗示着未来的大局已定。

That there either is that ball there or it's not.

这个球要么存在，要么不存在。

And in a way,

某种程度上，

that's not a view of the future that I want to believe.

这不是我想要的未来观。

我想要相信未来尚未成型，

I want to believe that the future is undetermined,

that our decisions today will determine

今天我们的决定将能改变未来走向

what kind of balls we pull out of that urn.

也就是我们会从这个缸里 取出怎样的小球。

NB: I mean, if we just keep inventing,

NB：我想如果 我们一直不断发明创造，

like, eventually we will pull out all the balls.

最终我们会取出所有的小球。

I mean, I think there's a kind of weak form of technological determinism

那是一种技术决定论的较弱形式，

that is quite plausible,

也是挺合理的。

like, you're unlikely to encounter a society

就好像你不可能遇上一个

that uses flint axes and jet planes.

燧石斧和喷射机并存的社会。

But you can almost think of a technology as a set of affordances.

但是你可以把某种技术想象成 一种功能组合。

So technology is the thing that enables us to do various things

也就是说技术能让我们 实现各种各样的事情，

并在这个世界中 造成各种各样的影响。

and achieve various effects in the world.

我们怎样利用技术 全凭人类做出怎样的选择。

How we'd then use that, of course depends on human choice.

但是如果我们想想这三种类型的弱点，

But if we think about these three types of vulnerability,

they make quite weak assumptions about how we would choose to use them.

它们做出了一个关于我们 将会选择如何使用技术的弱势假设。

So a Type-1 vulnerability, again, this massive, destructive power,

比如说 Type-1 弱点， 也就是大规模毁灭性力量，

it's a fairly weak assumption

思考上百万的人口中，

to think that in a population of millions of people

会有一些人 可能会选择使用这种力量作恶，

there would be some that would choose to use it destructively.

这是一个相当弱的假设。

CA: For me, the most single disturbing argument

CA：对于我来说， 其中最令人心烦的论点

就是我们可能对于 缸里的东西已经有了一定的想法，

is that we actually might have some kind of view into the urn

that makes it actually very likely that we're doomed.

这让我们感觉—— 很可能我们要完了。

换句话说， 如果你相信加速的力量，

Namely, if you believe in accelerating power,

that technology inherently accelerates,

也就是技术固有的发展加速性，

that we build the tools that make us more powerful,

我们所打造的这些 让我们更强大的工具，

then at some point you get to a stage

随后到了某个时刻， 我们会进入

where a single individual can take us all down,

某个人仅凭一己之力 就能干掉所有人的境地，

and then it looks like we're screwed.

之后这看起来似乎我们都要完了。

这个论点不是有点令人恐慌？

Isn't that argument quite alarming?

NB：呃，对啊。

NB: Ah, yeah.

(Laughter)

（笑声）

我认为——

I think --

Yeah, we get more and more power,

我们获得越来越多的力量，

and [it's] easier and easier to use those powers,

这些力量用起来越来越得心应手，

but we can also invent technologies that kind of help us control

但是同时我们也可以发明一些技术 来帮我们控制

人们如何使用这些力量。

how people use those powers.

CA：那我们来谈谈面对这些危机的反应。

CA: So let's talk about that, let's talk about the response.

Suppose that thinking about all the possibilities

假设想想这些可能性

that are out there now --

现有的这些可能性——

it's not just synbio, it's things like cyberwarfare,

不单单是合成生物技术， 还是网络战，

人工智能，等等等等——

artificial intelligence, etc., etc. --

that there might be serious doom in our future.

我们的未来可能注定难逃一切。

那人们可能会有怎样的反应呢？

What are the possible responses?

And you've talked about four possible responses as well.

你在文章中 也谈过四种可能的反应。

NB: Restricting technological development doesn't seem promising,

NB：限制技术发展看起来不太可能，

if we are talking about a general halt to technological progress.

如果我们谈的是技术发展的全面停滞。

I think neither feasible,

我觉得非但不可行，

nor would it be desirable even if we could do it.

而且哪怕我们有能力这么做， 又有谁会想这么做。

I think there might be very limited areas

我想在极少数的领域，

where maybe you would want slower technological progress.

你可能会想要放慢发展的步伐。

You don't, I think, want faster progress in bioweapons,

比如说你不会希望 生化武器得到快速发展，

or in, say, isotope separation,

又或者说同位素分离，

that would make it easier to create nukes.

那是有助于生产原子弹的东西。

CA: I mean, I used to be fully on board with that.

CA：换作以前， 我会十分同意你这里的观点。

But I would like to actually push back on that for a minute.

但是现在， 我倒是想要三思一下。

Just because, first of all,

因为首先，

if you look at the history of the last couple of decades,

如果我们回顾 过去几十年的历史，

you know, it's always been push forward at full speed,

这段时期， 我们一直都在全速前进，

it's OK, that's our only choice.

这还好，那是我们唯一的选择。

But if you look at globalization and the rapid acceleration of that,

但如果你看看 全球化及其的加速发展，

如果看看那个 “快速行动，破除陈规”的策略

if you look at the strategy of "move fast and break things"

and what happened with that,

及其带来的后果，

and then you look at the potential for synthetic biology,

再看看合成生物技术的潜力所在，

I don't know that we should move forward rapidly

我不认为 我们应该快速发展，

or without any kind of restriction

或者不加以任何约束，

to a world where you could have a DNA printer in every home

奔向一个人手一台 DNA 打印机，

DNA 打印机变成高中实验室标配的 世界。

and high school lab.

There are some restrictions, right?

是有一些的约束，对吗？

NB: Possibly, there is the first part, the not feasible.

NB：有可能，这是第一部分， 但是并不可行。

If you think it would be desirable to stop it,

如果你觉得 阻止这一切是人心所向，

there's the problem of feasibility.

那么还有可行性问题。

So it doesn't really help if one nation kind of --

如果只是一个国家这么做 并没多大用处——

CA: No, it doesn't help if one nation does,

CA：不，一个国家不管用，

but we've had treaties before.

但是我们之前有过国际条约。

这才是我们 真正度过核危机的方法——

That's really how we survived the nuclear threat,

was by going out there

走出国门，

历经痛苦的斡旋谈判。

and going through the painful process of negotiating.

I just wonder whether the logic isn't that we, as a matter of global priority,

我在想，作为一项全球优先事务， 这其中的逻辑

不应该是我们走出国门并尝试，

we shouldn't go out there and try,

like, now start negotiating really strict rules

比如现在，开始协商并制定出 一些非常严格的规定

on where synthetic bioresearch is done,

来约束合成生物的研究吗？

这可不是什么 你想要民主化的东西，对吧？

that it's not something that you want to democratize, no?

NB：我完全赞成——

NB: I totally agree with that --

that it would be desirable, for example,

举个例子，

也许拥有 DNA 合成仪器 挺诱人的，

maybe to have DNA synthesis machines,

not as a product where each lab has their own device,

并非作为每个实验室 都有的那种产品，

but maybe as a service.

而可能作为一种服务。

Maybe there could be four or five places in the world

也许世界上能有那么 4 - 5 个地方，

where you send in your digital blueprint and the DNA comes back, right?

你可以把自己的电子蓝图发过去， 然后得到自己的 DNA 图谱。

And then, you would have the ability,

如果这个技术变成必需的一天 真的来了，

if one day it really looked like it was necessary,

那你就会获得这种能力，

我们也会有一组有限的要塞点。

we would have like, a finite set of choke points.

So I think you want to look for kind of special opportunities,

所以我认为你会想 寻找某些特殊的机会，

使你有更强的控制。

where you could have tighter control.

CA：你的观点是，最终，

CA: Your belief is, fundamentally,

we are not going to be successful in just holding back.

仅依靠放慢脚步， 我们是无法成功的。

Someone, somewhere -- North Korea, you know --

某人，在某个地方—— 北朝鲜——

someone is going to go there and discover this knowledge,

某人会发现这样的知识，

if it's there to be found.

如果它真的存在的话。

NB: That looks plausible under current conditions.

NB：在当前的情况来看貌似是合理的。

It's not just synthetic biology, either.

也不仅限于合成生物技术。

I mean, any kind of profound, new change in the world

我想世界上任何新的前沿的改变，

都可能是一个黑球。

could turn out to be a black ball.

CA: Let's look at another possible response.

CA：我们再看看另一种可能的反应。

NB: This also, I think, has only limited potential.

NB：我想这种反应的潜能是有限的。

So, with the Type-1 vulnerability again,

我们再看看 Type-1 弱点，

I mean, if you could reduce the number of people who are incentivized

如果能减少那些有动力因素

去毁灭世界的人数，

to destroy the world,

if only they could get access and the means,

如果有这样的方法和途径，

that would be good.

那会是件好事。

CA: In this image that you asked us to do

CA：在这个你希望我们想象的图景中，

you're imagining these drones flying around the world

你想象着带着面部识别的无人机

满世界飞。

with facial recognition.

当它们发现有人表现出 反社会行为倾向时，

When they spot someone showing signs of sociopathic behavior,

they shower them with love, they fix them.

它们会施以爱的沐浴，并修正他们。

NB: I think it's like a hybrid picture.

NB：我想这会是个混合的图景。

Eliminate can either mean, like, incarcerate or kill,

消除可以表示禁闭或杀害，

or it can mean persuade them to a better view of the world.

也可以意味着， 劝说人们看到世界更美好的一面。

But the point is that,

但是重点是，

suppose you were extremely successful in this,

假设你深谙此道，

and you reduced the number of such individuals by half.

你把害人之马的数目减半了。

而且假如你想通过劝说来实现，

And if you want to do it by persuasion,

you are competing against all other powerful forces

那么你就是在和那些

如政党，宗教，教育体系等

that are trying to persuade people,

试图游说人们的进行力量比拼。

parties, religion, education system.

But suppose you could reduce it by half,

但是假设你 真能把害人之马的数目减半，

I don't think the risk would be reduced by half.

我不认为风险就会相应地 被削弱一半。

可能只是减少 5% - 10% 。

Maybe by five or 10 percent.

CA: You're not recommending that we gamble humanity's future on response two.

CA：你并不推荐我们把人类的未来 押在第二种反应上。

NB: I think it's all good to try to deter and persuade people,

NB：我觉得阻止和劝服人们是好的，

but we shouldn't rely on that as our only safeguard.

但是我们不应该将此做为 我们唯一的保护措施。

CA：那么第三种呢？

CA: How about three?

NB: I think there are two general methods

NB：我觉得有两种通用的方法，

that we could use to achieve the ability to stabilize the world

我们可以利用它们 来获取稳定世界的能力

against the whole spectrum of possible vulnerabilities.

来对抗所有一切可能的弱点。

And we probably would need both.

我们很可能会同时需要两者。

So, one is an extremely effective ability

一种是能够实施

极为有效的预防管制的能力。

to do preventive policing.

Such that you could intercept.

如果有人做出危险之事，

If anybody started to do this dangerous thing,

你可以拦截，

you could intercept them in real time, and stop them.

你可以进行实时拦截， 并阻止他们。

So this would require ubiquitous surveillance,

而这需要无孔不入的监管，

everybody would be monitored all the time.

所有人无时无刻都被监视。

CA: This is "Minority Report," essentially, a form of.

CA：那某种程度就是 ”少数派报告“里的情景了。

NB: You would have maybe AI algorithms,

NB：你可能会使用人工智能算法

big freedom centers that were reviewing this, etc., etc.

来审查大型自由中心的这些数据等等。

CA: You know that mass surveillance is not a very popular term right now?

CA：你应该知道大众监控 现在不是个很吃香的词吧？

（笑声）

(Laughter)

NB: Yeah, so this little device there,

NB：是的， 所以图中的一个小小设备，

imagine that kind of necklace that you would have to wear at all times

把它想象成一个 你需要 24 小时佩戴的

上面有多角度摄像头的项链。

with multidirectional cameras.

But, to make it go down better,

为了听起来不那么膈应，

just call it the "freedom tag" or something like that.

我们就叫它”自由标签“什么的。

(Laughter)

（笑声）

CA: OK.

CA：好吧。

I mean, this is the conversation, friends,

这就是对话呀，朋友们，

this is why this is such a mind-blowing conversation.

这就是为什么 这是一场令人震撼的对话呀。

NB: Actually, there's a whole big conversation on this

NB：事实上，就这个主题 已经有很广泛的讨论了，

on its own, obviously.

很明显，单单针对这个主题本身。

There are huge problems and risks with that, right?

这背后有非常严重的 问题和风险，对吧？

We may come back to that.

我们待会可以再谈谈。

So the other, the final,

所以另外一种方法， 也是最后的方法，

the other general stabilization capability

另一种带来普遍稳定性的能力

is kind of plugging another governance gap.

大致就是插入另一个管制间隙。

So the surveillance would be kind of governance gap at the microlevel,

那么就可以在微观层面进行监管，

比如说防止任何人做出 严重违法的行为。

like, preventing anybody from ever doing something highly illegal.

Then, there's a corresponding governance gap

然后有一个对应的

at the macro level, at the global level.

宏观、全球性层面的监管间隙。

You would need the ability, reliably,

你需要凭借这种能力，

可靠地， 来防止最糟糕的全球性协调失灵，

to prevent the worst kinds of global coordination failures,

to avoid wars between great powers,

来避免强权之间的战争，

军备竞赛，

arms races,

cataclysmic commons problems,

灾难性的常见问题，

in order to deal with the Type-2a vulnerabilities.

以应对 Type-2a 弱点。

CA: Global governance is a term

CA：全球治理这一名词

that's definitely way out of fashion right now,

现在无疑是最不受待见的，

但是你能否通过历史，

but could you make the case that throughout history,

the history of humanity

人类的历史来说明

is that at every stage of technological power increase,

在每一个技术力量上升的阶段，

people have reorganized and sort of centralized the power.

人们会重组这种力量并加以集中。

So, for example, when a roving band of criminals

比如说 当一群四处为非作歹的罪犯

就能挟持一个社会的时候，

could take over a society,

the response was, well, you have a nation-state

那么对应的手段是国家，

集中力量， 警察部队或一支军队，

and you centralize force, a police force or an army,

so, "No, you can't do that."

站出来说“你不能这么做。”

The logic, perhaps, of having a single person or a single group

这里面的逻辑， 让单个人或单个群体

able to take out humanity

拥有保护人类的能力

means at some point we're going to have to go this route,

意味着在某个时刻 我们将不得不需要走这条路，

at least in some form, no?

至少在某些形式上，不是吗？

NB: It's certainly true that the scale of political organization has increased

NB：在人类的发展历程中 政治组织发展规模之壮大

over the course of human history.

是毋庸置疑的。

It used to be hunter-gatherer band, right,

以前曾是捕猎者和采集者群体，

and then chiefdom, city-states, nations,

接着是部落、城邦、国家，

now there are international organizations and so on and so forth.

现在有国际组织，诸如此类。

Again, I just want to make sure

我想再次确认的一点是

我有这样的机会去强调

I get the chance to stress

that obviously there are huge downsides

大众监管和全球治理

and indeed, massive risks,

很明显存在的巨大缺点

both to mass surveillance and to global governance.

以及巨大的风险。

I'm just pointing out that if we are lucky,

我刚指出的只是如果我们走运，

the world could be such that these would be the only ways

想要躲过黑球的灾难

you could survive a black ball.

也就那么些方法。

CA: The logic of this theory,

CA：这个理论的逻辑，

就我而言，

it seems to me,

is that we've got to recognize we can't have it all.

我们得承认我们不可能无往不胜。

That the sort of,

也就是，

I would say, naive dream that many of us had

我会说， 那种很多人都有的痴心妄想中，

that technology is always going to be a force for good,

技术永远是一种向善的力量，

keep going, don't stop, go as fast as you can

继续前进、别停下来、全速前进，

and not pay attention to some of the consequences,

并且不计后果，

其实根本没有这个选择。

that's actually just not an option.

We can have that.

我们可以全速发展科技。

If we have that,

但如果我们继续这么发展科技，

we're going to have to accept

我们就将要必须接受

some of these other very uncomfortable things with it,

随之而来的 一些非常令人不适的不便，

and kind of be in this arms race with ourselves

这有点像和我们自己比赛,

of, you want the power, you better limit it,

如果你想拥有力量， 你最好能限制它的使用，

you better figure out how to limit it.

你最好想办法如何限制它的使用。

NB: I think it is an option,

NB：我想这是一种选择，

a very tempting option, it's in a sense the easiest option

非常诱人的一种选择， 某种程度上也是最简单的选择，

and it might work,

还可能奏效，

but it means we are fundamentally vulnerable to extracting a black ball.

但这也意味着我们本质上很脆弱， 不能承受取出黑球之重。

Now, I think with a bit of coordination,

现在我认为，一定的协调能力

like, if you did solve this macrogovernance problem,

比方说如果真的解决了 宏观管理问题

and the microgovernance problem,

以及微观治理问题，

then we could extract all the balls from the urn

那么我们可以一次性 从缸里取出所有的小球。

and we'd benefit greatly.

那么我们将会极其受益。

CA: I mean, if we're living in a simulation, does it matter?

CA：我想，如果我们活在 一个模拟世界中，这又有什么关系？

我们重启就好了。

We just reboot.

(Laughter)

（笑声）

NB: Then ... I ...

NB：那……我……

(Laughter)

（笑声）

I didn't see that one coming.

我没想到你会这么说。

CA: So what's your view?

CA：那么你的看法呢？

Putting all the pieces together, how likely is it that we're doomed?

综合来看， 我们在劫难逃的几率有多高？

(Laughter)

（笑声）

我喜欢当你问这个问题的时候 大家笑成这样。

I love how people laugh when you ask that question.

NB: On an individual level,

NB：在个人的层面，

we seem to kind of be doomed anyway, just with the time line,

从时间线上来看 我们终究难逃一劫，

we're rotting and aging and all kinds of things, right?

我们在腐烂，在老化， 诸如此类的，对吧？

(Laughter)

（笑声）

It's actually a little bit tricky.

事实上很难说。

If you want to set up so that you can attach a probability,

如果你想通过一个设定来附加概率，

首先要问的是，我们是谁？

first, who are we?

If you're very old, probably you'll die of natural causes,

如果你年事已高， 很可能你会自然死亡，

如果你还很年轻， 你可能能活到 100 岁——

if you're very young, you might have a 100-year --

the probability might depend on who you ask.

这个概率的大小 取决于你问的对象是谁。

接着我们得问，怎样才算是文明毁灭？

Then the threshold, like, what counts as civilizational devastation?

In the paper I don't require an existential catastrophe

在文章里我不需要存在的灾难

in order for it to count.

来计算概率。

This is just a definitional matter,

主要看你怎样定义，

我可以说 10 亿的死亡人数，

I say a billion dead,

or a reduction of world GDP by 50 percent,

或者 GDP 下降 50% ，

but depending on what you say the threshold is,

但是一切取决于 你所设定的起点是什么，

you get a different probability estimate.

起点不同， 所得到的概率估算随之不同。

But I guess you could put me down as a frightened optimist.

但是我想你可以把我看做是 一个害怕的乐观主义者吧。

(Laughter)

（笑声）

CA: You're a frightened optimist,

CA：如果你是一个害怕的乐观主义者，

and I think you've just created a large number of other frightened ...

那我想你刚刚就催生了一帮 同样害怕的……

people.

人们。

(Laughter)

（笑声）

NB: In the simulation.

NB：在模拟世界里。

CA：在一个模拟世界里。

CA: In a simulation.

Nick Bostrom, your mind amazes me,

尼克 · 博斯特罗姆， 你的思维真让我大开眼界，

非常感谢你今天在光天化日之下 把我们大家都吓得不行。

thank you so much for scaring the living daylights out of us.

（掌声）

(Applause)