How we need to remake the internet | Jaron Lanier

翻译人员: psjmz mz 校对人员: Frank Wang

Back in the 1980s, actually, I gave my first talk at TED,

回到 1980 年代， 那是我首次在 TED 演讲，

and I brought some of the very, very first public demonstrations

也是我首次在 TED 现场公开演示了

of virtual reality ever to the TED stage.

虚拟现实。

And at that time, we knew that we were facing a knife-edge future

在那时，我们知道 我们正面对着一个险恶的未来，

where the technology we needed,

我们所需的技术，

the technology we loved,

我们热爱的技术

could also be our undoing.

可能会毁灭我们。

We knew that if we thought of our technology

我们知道如果我们把技术

as a means to ever more power,

当作一种获取更多力量的手段，

if it was just a power trip, we'd eventually destroy ourselves.

如果我们只把技术当作追逐力量的武器， 我们将不可避免地毁掉自己。

That's what happens

当我们追逐权力

when you're on a power trip and nothing else.

而不是其他东西时，这无疑将会发生。

So the idealism

所以那个时候

of digital culture back then

的数字文化主义

was all about starting with that recognition of the possible darkness

往往是首先承认潜在的负面影响，

and trying to imagine a way to transcend it

再想办法用美好和创意

with beauty and creativity.

去超越它。

I always used to end my early TED Talks with a rather horrifying line, which is,

我过去总爱用令人毛骨悚然 的语气结束 TED 演讲，

"We have a challenge.

“我们正面临一场挑战。

We have to create a culture around technology

我们得围绕科技去构建一种

that is so beautiful, so meaningful,

美丽，充满意义的文化，

so deep, so endlessly creative,

如此深刻，富有创造力，

so filled with infinite potential

拥有无限潜力的文化，

that it draws us away from committing mass suicide."

去把我们从实施大规模 的自杀中解救出来。”

So we talked about extinction as being one and the same

我们谈的灭绝与创造一种充满诱惑，

as the need to create an alluring, infinitely creative future.

无限创意的未来是同一个事情。

And I still believe that that alternative of creativity

我仍然相信将创造力作为

as an alternative to death

死亡的另一个选项

is very real and true,

是非常真实和确凿的事情，

maybe the most true thing there is.

可能世间存在的最真实的事情。

In the case of virtual reality --

在虚拟现实的例子中，

well, the way I used to talk about it

我过去谈到它的看法是，

is that it would be something like

它就如

what happened when people discovered language.

人类发现语言一样，

With language came new adventures, new depth, new meaning,

语言带来了新的冒险， 新的深度，新的意义，

new ways to connect, new ways to coordinate,

新的连接方式，新的协调方式，

new ways to imagine, new ways to raise children,

新的想象方式，新的抚养孩子的方式，

and I imagined, with virtual reality, we'd have this new thing

我想象中的虚拟现实，这种新的东西

that would be like a conversation

就像一场对话，

but also like waking-state intentional dreaming.

亦如半睡半醒的有意识的梦境。

We called it post-symbolic communication,

我们称之为“后符号交流”，

because it would be like just directly making the thing you experienced

因为这就像可以直接做 你所经历的事情一样，

instead of indirectly making symbols to refer to things.

而无需间接创造符号去指代事物。

It was a beautiful vision, and it's one I still believe in,

它是个美丽的图景，我至今仍然认为

and yet, haunting that beautiful vision

萦绕在美丽图景的背后

was the dark side of how it could also turn out.

是它可能导致的黑暗一面。

And I suppose I could mention

我想我可以提一下

from one of the very earliest computer scientists,

一位非常早期的计算机科学家，

whose name was Norbert Wiener,

诺伯特·维纳。

and he wrote a book back in the '50s, from before I was even born,

他在我出生之前 的 50 年代写过一本书，

called "The Human Use of Human Beings."

书名叫《人有人的用处》。

And in the book, he described the potential

在书中，他描绘了

to create a computer system that would be gathering data from people

创造电脑系统来收集人类数据

and providing feedback to those people in real time

并实时向人提供反馈，

in order to put them kind of partially, statistically, in a Skinner box,

从而可以把他们放在 如同统计学里的斯金纳箱，

in a behaviorist system,

一个行为系统中，

and he has this amazing line where he says,

他写下了这样的神来一笔，

one could imagine, as a thought experiment --

我们可以想象，作为一个思维实验——

and I'm paraphrasing, this isn't a quote --

这不是原话，我只是复述一下——

one could imagine a global computer system

我们可以想象一个全球的电脑系统，

where everybody has devices on them all the time,

人人时刻带着这个设备，

and the devices are giving them feedback based on what they did,

这个设备根据用户 的操作实时给以回馈，

and the whole population

全部人的

is subject to a degree of behavior modification.

行为都会得到一定程度的修正。

And such a society would be insane,

这样社会将是疯狂的，

could not survive, could not face its problems.

无法生存，无法面对它的问题。

And then he says, but this is only a thought experiment,

随后他说，但这只是一个思想实验，

and such a future is technologically infeasible.

这样的未来在技术上是不可行的。

(Laughter)

（笑声）

And yet, of course, it's what we have created,

显然，我们已经构建了一个

and it's what we must undo if we are to survive.

如果我们要生存， 就必须撤销的社会。

So --

那么……

(Applause)

（鼓掌）

I believe that we made a very particular mistake,

我认为我们在很早以前

and it happened early on,

犯下了一个非常特别的错误，

and by understanding the mistake we made,

要弥补这个错误，

we can undo it.

我们就得先理解这个错误。

It happened in the '90s,

这始于 90 年代，

and going into the turn of the century,

然后进入世纪之交，

and here's what happened.

事情是这样发生的。

Early digital culture,

早期的数字文化，

and indeed, digital culture to this day,

事实上，直至今天的数字文化，

had a sense of, I would say, lefty, socialist mission about it,

都有一种，像左派，社会主义的使命。

that unlike other things that have been done,

跟其他事物不同的是，

like the invention of books,

比如书籍的发明，

everything on the internet must be purely public,

互联网的一切都是公开的，

must be available for free,

必须可以免费获取，

because if even one person cannot afford it,

因为一旦有一个人无法获得这种服务，

then that would create this terrible inequity.

就会制造可怕的不平等。

Now of course, there's other ways to deal with that.

当然，也有其他的处理方法。

If books cost money, you can have public libraries.

如果书籍需要花钱， 你可以去公共图书馆。

And so forth.

诸如此类。

But we were thinking, no, no, no, this is an exception.

但我们在想的是，不不不， 这完全是特例。

This must be pure public commons, that's what we want.

这必须是纯粹的公共公有物。

And so that spirit lives on.

所以这种精神永流传，

You can experience it in designs like the Wikipedia, for instance,

你可以在像维基百科这样 的设计中体验到，

many others.

以及许多其他东西。

But at the same time,

但同时，

we also believed, with equal fervor,

我们也怀着同样的热情，

in this other thing that was completely incompatible,

相信另一件完全不相容的事情，

which is we loved our tech entrepreneurs.

那就是追捧我们的科技企业家。

We loved Steve Jobs; we loved this Nietzschean myth

我们喜欢乔布斯，我们喜欢尼采的神话，

of the techie who could dent the universe.

即技术专家可以影响宇宙。

Right?

对吧？

And that mythical power still has a hold on us, as well.

这种神秘的力量仍然对我们有影响。

So you have these two different passions,

所以你有两种不同的激情，

for making everything free

支持一切免费，

and for the almost supernatural power of the tech entrepreneur.

并且崇拜科技企业家 近乎超自然的力量。

How do you celebrate entrepreneurship when everything's free?

当一切都是免费的时候， 你如何庆祝企业家精神？

Well, there was only one solution back then,

那时候只有一个解决方案，

which was the advertising model.

那就是广告模式。

And so therefore, Google was born free, with ads,

所以 Google 是免费的，但自带广告。

Facebook was born free, with ads.

Facebook 也是免费的，也自带广告。

Now in the beginning, it was cute,

一开始，它挺可爱的，

like with the very earliest Google.

就像非常早期的 Google。

(Laughter)

（笑声）

The ads really were kind of ads.

广告确实就是广告，

They would be, like, your local dentist or something.

比如当地的牙医之类的。

But there's thing called Moore's law

但还有个叫摩尔定理的东西，

that makes the computers more and more efficient and cheaper.

可以让计算机越来越强大和便宜。

Their algorithms get better.

他们的算法越来越好。

We actually have universities where people study them,

大学里面，很多人在研究算法，

and they get better and better.

它们变得越来越好，

And the customers and other entities who use these systems

使用这些系统的客户和其他公司

just got more and more experienced and got cleverer and cleverer.

也变得越来越有经验，越来越聪明。

And what started out as advertising

这一开始是广告的东西

really can't be called advertising anymore.

真的不能再称之为广告了。

It turned into behavior modification,

它变成了行为修正器，

just as Norbert Wiener had worried it might.

就如诺伯特·维纳所担忧的。

And so I can't call these things social networks anymore.

所以我不能再称这些为社交网络，

I call them behavior modification empires.

我叫它们为行为修正帝国。

(Applause)

（鼓掌）

And I refuse to vilify the individuals.

我不想诋毁那些优秀的个人，

I have dear friends at these companies,

我在这些公司有好朋友，

sold a company to Google, even though I think it's one of these empires.

把公司卖给了谷歌，尽管 我认为它是这些帝国中的一个。

I don't think this is a matter of bad people who've done a bad thing.

我不认为这是坏人做坏事的问题，

I think this is a matter of a globally tragic,

我觉得这只是一个全球性的悲剧，

astoundingly ridiculous mistake,

可笑的错误，

rather than a wave of evil.

而非一波邪恶的浪潮。

Let me give you just another layer of detail

我再给你们讲一讲 关于这个特别的错误

into how this particular mistake functions.

是如何作用的。

So with behaviorism,

用行为主义的理论讲，

you give the creature, whether it's a rat or a dog or a person,

你给生物——不管这个生物 是老鼠，狗还是人——

little treats and sometimes little punishments

一个小的奖赏，或者一个小的惩罚，

as feedback to what they do.

作为他们动作的反馈。

So if you have an animal in a cage, it might be candy and electric shocks.

如果你在笼里养了一只动物， 这个奖惩可能是糖果或电击。

But if you have a smartphone,

但如果你拥有一台智能手机，

it's not those things, it's symbolic punishment and reward.

奖惩就不是这些实物，而是象征性的。

Pavlov, one of the early behaviorists,

巴甫洛夫，一位早期的行为学家，

demonstrated the famous principle.

阐述了这条知名的原则。

You could train a dog to salivate just with the bell, just with the symbol.

用铃声，用一种符号 就足以让一只狗流口水。

So on social networks,

所以在社交网络上面，

social punishment and social reward function as the punishment and reward.

社交奖惩的作用就如同 现实中的奖惩一般。

And we all know the feeling of these things.

我们都知道这些东西 带给我们的感觉，

You get this little thrill --

你会有点小兴奋——

"Somebody liked my stuff and it's being repeated."

“有人喜欢我的东西，它又被重复了。”

Or the punishment: "Oh my God, they don't like me,

或者是惩罚：“天呀！他们不喜欢我，

maybe somebody else is more popular, oh my God."

也许其他人更受欢迎，老天！”

So you have those two very common feelings,

所以你有这两种非常普遍的感受，

and they're doled out in such a way that you get caught in this loop.

它们以这样的方式 让你困在这个循环中。

As has been publicly acknowledged by many of the founders of the system,

类似系统的许多创始人已经公开承认

everybody knew this is what was going on.

每个人都知道这是怎么回事。

But here's the thing:

但问题是，

traditionally, in the academic study of the methods of behaviorism,

传统上，在行为主义方法 的学术研究中

there have been comparisons of positive and negative stimuli.

有积极和消极刺激的对比。

In this setting, a commercial setting,

在这个商业设定中，

there's a new kind of difference

则出现了新的差异，

that has kind of evaded the academic world for a while,

这种差异远离学术世界 已经有一阵子了，

and that difference is that whether positive stimuli

这个差异在于，在不同的环境中，

are more effective than negative ones in different circumstances,

无论积极刺激是否 比消极刺激更加有效，

the negative ones are cheaper.

消极刺激往往成本都更加低廉。

They're the bargain stimuli.

这是讨价还价的刺激。

So what I mean by that is it's much easier

所以我的意思是，失去信任

to lose trust than to build trust.

总比构建信任要更加容易。

It takes a long time to build love.

需要很长的时间才能构建爱情，

It takes a short time to ruin love.

但却只需要短短的时间 就足以毁掉爱情。

Now the customers of these behavior modification empires

这些行为修正帝国的客户

are on a very fast loop.

处于非常快速的循环中，

They're almost like high-frequency traders.

他们就像高频交易员

They're getting feedbacks from their spends

不断从用户的消费中获得反馈，

or whatever their activities are if they're not spending,

不是消费就是其他别的活动，

and they see what's working, and then they do more of that.

他们一旦发现凑效的方式， 就去做更多这样的事情。

And so they're getting the quick feedback,

他们可以得到快速反馈，

which means they're responding more to the negative emotions,

这就意味着他们会对 更多的负面情绪做出反应，

because those are the ones that rise faster, right?

因为负面情绪来得更加快速。

And so therefore, even well-intentioned players

因此，即便是善意的商家，

who think all they're doing is advertising toothpaste

认为他们做的只是牙膏广告，

end up advancing the cause of the negative people,

也最终诱发了消极人群的增加，

the negative emotions, the cranks,

那些负面情绪，比如恶作剧，

the paranoids,

偏执，

the cynics, the nihilists.

愤世嫉俗，虚无主义，

Those are the ones who get amplified by the system.

都是容易被系统放大的负面情绪。

And you can't pay one of these companies to make the world suddenly nice

而且你还无法通过给这些公司付钱 让他们突然把世界变好，

and improve democracy

提升民主，

nearly as easily as you can pay to ruin those things.

无法跟你付钱毁掉这些东西那样容易。

And so this is the dilemma we've gotten ourselves into.

所以这就是我们所陷入的困境。

The alternative is to turn back the clock, with great difficulty,

替代方案是拨转时钟， 克服极大的困难，

and remake that decision.

重做决定。

Remaking it would mean two things.

重做决定意味着两件事情。

It would mean first that many people, those who could afford to,

这首先意味着很多人， 那些可以承担得起的，

would actually pay for these things.

可能最终要为这些东西买单。

You'd pay for search, you'd pay for social networking.

你为搜索买单，你为社交网络买单。

How would you pay? Maybe with a subscription fee,

你如何买单？也许是通过 订阅付费的方式，

maybe with micro-payments as you use them.

也许是微支付，

There's a lot of options.

有很多选择。

If some of you are recoiling, and you're thinking,

假如你们有些人心存抗拒，想的是，

"Oh my God, I would never pay for these things.

“老天，我才不会为这些东西买单！

How could you ever get anyone to pay?"

你怎么能做到让别人付钱呢？”

I want to remind you of something that just happened.

我想要提醒大家刚刚发生的事情。

Around this same time

在 Google 和 Facebook

that companies like Google and Facebook were formulating their free idea,

形成免费观念的同时，

a lot of cyber culture also believed that in the future,

很多网络文化也相信在未来，

televisions and movies would be created in the same way,

电视和电影也会以类似维基百科

kind of like the Wikipedia.

那样的方式创作。

But then, companies like Netflix, Amazon, HBO,

但同时，诸如 Netflix， Amazon，HBO 那样的公司则说

said, "Actually, you know, subscribe. We'll give you give you great TV."

“订阅吧，我们会给你 精彩的电视节目！”

And it worked!

这还挺有效的！

We now are in this period called "peak TV," right?

我们现在所处的时代叫 “顶峰电视”时代，对吧？

So sometimes when you pay for stuff, things get better.

所以有时候，当你为此付费了， 事情就变得更好了。

We can imagine a hypothetical --

我们可以想象一种假设——

(Applause)

（鼓掌）

We can imagine a hypothetical world of "peak social media."

我们可以想象一个 假设的“顶峰社交媒体”世界。

What would that be like?

它会是什么样子？

It would mean when you get on, you can get really useful,

这意味着当你登陆后， 你可以得到真正有用的

authoritative medical advice instead of cranks.

权威医疗建议，而非社交狂躁

It could mean when you want to get factual information,

这可能意味着，当你想要真实信息时，

there's not a bunch of weird, paranoid conspiracy theories.

就不会有一堆奇怪的， 偏执的阴谋论冒出来。

We can imagine this wonderful other possibility.

我们可以想象其他美妙的可能。

Ah.

啊！

I dream of it. I believe it's possible.

这是我的梦想，我相信这是可能的。

I'm certain it's possible.

我确信这是可能的。

And I'm certain that the companies, the Googles and the Facebooks,

我确定 Google 和 Facebook 这类公司

would actually do better in this world.

在这个世界上可以做得更好。

I don't believe we need to punish Silicon Valley.

我不认为我们需要惩罚硅谷。

We just need to remake the decision.

我们只需要重新做决定。

Of the big tech companies,

在大型科技公司中。

it's really only two that depend on behavior modification and spying

确实只有两家公司 以行为修正和信息监视

as their business plan.

作为商业计划。

It's Google and Facebook.

他们就是 Google 和 Facebook。

(Laughter)

（笑声）

And I love you guys.

我爱各位。

Really, I do. Like, the people are fantastic.

这是实话，他们都很棒。

I want to point out, if I may,

请允许我这么说，

if you look at Google,

如果你观察一下 Google，

they can propagate cost centers endlessly with all of these companies,

他们可以无止境地向 这些公司分摊成本中心，

but they cannot propagate profit centers.

但他们无法分摊利润中心。

They cannot diversify, because they're hooked.

他们无法多元化，因为他们醉心于此。

They're hooked on this model, just like their own users.

他们沉迷于这种模式， 跟他们的用户一样，

They're in the same trap as their users,

他们跟用户处在同样的陷阱。

and you can't run a big corporation that way.

你不能以那种方式运营一家大公司。

So this is ultimately totally in the benefit of the shareholders

所以这最终完全是为了股东

and other stakeholders of these companies.

以及公司其他利益相关者的利益。

It's a win-win solution.

这是双赢的方案，

It'll just take some time to figure it out.

只是需要花点时间想出解决方法。

A lot of details to work out,

很多细节问题需要解决，

totally doable.

这是完全可行的。

(Laughter)

（笑声）

I don't believe our species can survive unless we fix this.

我不相信我们的物种可以生存下去， 除非我们修正这点。

We cannot have a society

我们不应该活在这样一个社会，

in which, if two people wish to communicate,

如果两个人想要沟通，

the only way that can happen is if it's financed by a third person

唯一方式就是需要被想操纵他们

who wishes to manipulate them.

的第三个人赞助。

(Applause)

（鼓掌）

(Applause ends)

（掌声渐消）

In the meantime, if the companies won't change,

与此同时，如果公司不改变，

delete your accounts, OK?

就注销你的账号，好吗？

(Laughter)

（笑声）

(Applause)

（鼓掌）

That's enough for now.

我要说的就这些。

Thank you so much.

谢谢诸位。

(Applause)

（鼓掌）