How a handful of tech companies control billions of minds every day | Tristan Harris

譯者: 易帆 余 審譯者: Wilde Luo

I want you to imagine

我要各位去想像一個場景，

walking into a room,

你走進了一個房間，

a control room with a bunch of people,

這個控制室裡有一群人，

a hundred people, hunched over a desk with little dials,

一百多人縮在布置着 各種小儀表盤的辦公桌前，

and that that control room

而這間控制室，

will shape the thoughts and feelings

即將影響

十億多人的想法與感受。

of a billion people.

This might sound like science fiction,

這聽起來像是科幻小說，

but this actually exists

但它確實存在，

right now, today.

就在當下，今天。

I know because I used to be in one of those control rooms.

我會知道的原因，是因為 我也曾經是控制室裡的一員。

I was a design ethicist at Google,

我曾經是谷歌的倫理設計學家，

where I studied how do you ethically steer people's thoughts?

我在研究如何在符合道德的前提下， 控制人們的思想。

Because what we don't talk about is how the handful of people

因為我們不會去討論

working at a handful of technology companies

這幾家科技公司裡面的人

through their choices will steer what a billion people are thinking today.

會如何以他們的選擇意志 去控制十幾億人的想法。

Because when you pull out your phone

因為當你拿出手機時，

and they design how this works or what's on the feed,

他們已經設計好如何運作 或者要給你什麼資訊。

it's scheduling little blocks of time in our minds.

它已經在我們的腦中 安排好很多小時段。

If you see a notification, it schedules you to have thoughts

如果你看了通知， 這會促使你產生一個

that maybe you didn't intend to have.

你也許不想要的想法。

If you swipe over that notification,

如果你跳過那個通知，

it schedules you into spending a little bit of time

它就會讓你多花點時間

getting sucked into something

投入到你不想要的東西上，

that maybe you didn't intend to get sucked into.

而你原本也許不想要 花時間在那上面。

When we talk about technology,

當我們在談論科技時，

we tend to talk about it as this blue sky opportunity.

我們傾向於把它當作是 湛藍天空的機會。

It could go any direction.

它可以往任何方向發展。

And I want to get serious for a moment

但我想認真地說，

and tell you why it's going in a very specific direction.

我要告訴各位， 為什麼科技正在往特定的方向發展。

Because it's not evolving randomly.

因為科技的演變不是隨機的。

There's a hidden goal driving the direction

在我們所有創造的科技背後，

of all of the technology we make,

都隱藏著一個特定目標，

and that goal is the race for our attention.

而那個目標就是 競相爭奪我們的注意力。

Because every news site,

因為每一個新網頁──

TED, elections, politicians,

TED 網頁、選舉網頁、政客網頁、

games, even meditation apps

遊戲網頁，甚至是冥想的應用軟體──

have to compete for one thing,

都必須競爭同樣的東西，

which is our attention,

也就是我們的注意力，

and there's only so much of it.

但市場就這麼大。

And the best way to get people's attention

而要獲得人們注意力的最佳方法，

is to know how someone's mind works.

就是去了解使用者的腦袋 是如何運作的。

And there's a whole bunch of persuasive techniques

有很多說服的技巧，

that I learned in college at a lab called the Persuasive Technology Lab

我是從大學的 「說服力技術實驗室」學來的，

to get people's attention.

他們教你如何獲得別人的注意力。

A simple example is YouTube.

一個簡單的例子就是 YouTube。

YouTube wants to maximize how much time you spend.

YouTube 想要最大化 你花費在他們網站的時間。

And so what do they do?

那他們會怎麼做？

They autoplay the next video.

他們會幫你自動撥放下一部片。

And let's say that works really well.

這一招真的很有效，

They're getting a little bit more of people's time.

他們也因此得到 使用者更多的時間。

Well, if you're Netflix, you look at that and say,

但，如果你是 Netflix， 你看到了這樣的狀況，你會說，

well, that's shrinking my market share,

不行，這樣會把我的客戶給搶走，

so I'm going to autoplay the next episode.

所以，我也要自動播放下一集。

But then if you're Facebook,

但如果你是 Facebook，

you say, that's shrinking all of my market share,

你會說，那這樣我的市場 都被你們瓜分掉了，

so now I have to autoplay all the videos in the newsfeed

所以我會在你點擊播放按鍵前

before waiting for you to click play.

自動播放所有的影片給你看。

So the internet is not evolving at random.

所以，網際網路的演化不是隨機的。

The reason it feels like it's sucking us in the way it is

它會讓你感覺欲罷不能的原因，

is because of this race for attention.

就是因為這場注意力的爭奪賽。

We know where this is going.

我們知道這會有什麼後果。

Technology is not neutral,

因為科技不是中立的。

and it becomes this race to the bottom of the brain stem

這個競賽已變成

看誰可以更深地滲入 使用者腦袋的比賽。

of who can go lower to get it.

Let me give you an example of Snapchat.

我跟各位舉個例子， Snapchat。

If you didn't know, Snapchat is the number one way

不知道各位是否了解， Snapchat 目前是

美國年輕人之間， 最熱門的社交軟體。

that teenagers in the United States communicate.

So if you're like me, and you use text messages to communicate,

所以，如果你們和我一樣， 有在用簡訊在與人交流，

Snapchat is that for teenagers,

應該知道 Snapchat 就是專門 設計給年輕人使用的，

and there's, like, a hundred million of them that use it.

差不多將近有一億人在使用它。

And they invented a feature called Snapstreaks,

這家公司發明了一個叫做 Snapstreaks 的特色功能，

which shows the number of days in a row

它會告訴你，

你跟你朋友兩個人之間， 連續不間斷地聊了幾天。

that two people have communicated with each other.

In other words, what they just did

換句話說，它們給予的是一種

is they gave two people something they don't want to lose.

兩人都捨不得放棄的東西。

Because if you're a teenager, and you have 150 days in a row,

因為，如果你是年輕人 而有著連續 150 天的聊天紀錄，

you don't want that to go away.

你不會想讓紀錄就此中斷的。

And so think of the little blocks of time that that schedules in kids' minds.

所以想想孩子們 腦袋裡被設定好的時間模式。

This isn't theoretical: when kids go on vacation,

我沒在騙你：已經有人證實， 當孩子在度假時，

it's been shown they give their passwords to up to five other friends

他們會把密碼給另外五位朋友，

to keep their Snapstreaks going,

請他們幫忙維持 Snapstreaks 的聊天記錄，

even when they can't do it.

就算他們不能用手機。

And they have, like, 30 of these things,

他們差不多有 30 種類似 這樣的東西要維護，

and so they have to get through taking photos of just pictures or walls

所以他們每天要東拍拍、西拍拍

or ceilings just to get through their day.

拍牆壁、拍天花板， 不然當天他們會渾身不舒服。

So it's not even like they're having real conversations.

所以這根本不像是 他們在真正的交流。

We have a temptation to think about this

我們可能會這麽想，

as, oh, they're just using Snapchat

他們用 Snapchat 的方式

the way we used to gossip on the telephone.

就像我們曾經用電話聊八卦一樣。

It's probably OK.

應該還好吧！

Well, what this misses is that in the 1970s,

但，不同於 1970 年代的是：

when you were just gossiping on the telephone,

當你們用電話聊八卦時，

there wasn't a hundred engineers on the other side of the screen

旁邊並沒有數百位工程師在監控你，

who knew exactly how your psychology worked

準確地知道你的心理，

and orchestrated you into a double bind with each other.

並操控著你們倆緊緊地綁在一起。

Now, if this is making you feel a little bit of outrage,

如果現在你有點生氣了，

notice that that thought just comes over you.

有沒有注意到，你生氣了？

Outrage is a really good way also of getting your attention,

因為激怒你也是引起你 注意的方式之一，

because we don't choose outrage.

因為就算我們不想生氣，

It happens to us.

它還是會發生。

And if you're the Facebook newsfeed,

如果你是 Facebook 的新聞推送者，

whether you'd want to or not,

不管你是刻意或是不經意，

you actually benefit when there's outrage.

人們憤怒的時候，實際上你是受益的。

Because outrage doesn't just schedule a reaction

因為憤怒不僅僅在 情感上讓你有個宣洩的出口，

in emotional time, space, for you.

更提供了你一個發洩的空間。

We want to share that outrage with other people.

我們還會想和其他人 分享我們的憤怒。

So we want to hit share and say,

所以我們會按下分享鍵然後說，

"Can you believe the thing that they said?"

「你敢相信他們說的嗎？」

And so outrage works really well at getting attention,

所以讓人發怒，可以吸引到注意力，

such that if Facebook had a choice between showing you the outrage feed

所以，如果 Facebook 可以在

向你展示令人憤怒或者 令人平靜的消息之間進行選擇，

and a calm newsfeed,

they would want to show you the outrage feed,

他們會選擇向你展示令人憤怒的消息，

not because someone consciously chose that,

不是因為有人刻意如此選，

but because that worked better at getting your attention.

只是因為這樣可以讓你 更注意到他們。

And the newsfeed control room is not accountable to us.

新聞控制室不對我們負責。

It's only accountable to maximizing attention.

它只對最大化注意力負責。

It's also accountable,

它也要向──

because of the business model of advertising,

因為商業模式的關係，

for anybody who can pay the most to actually walk into the control room

它也要向走進控制室 付廣告費的人負責，

and say, "That group over there,

他們會說，「那個團體在那邊，

I want to schedule these thoughts into their minds."

我想要灌輸一些想法到他們腦裡。」

So you can target,

所以你可以定位，

you can precisely target a lie

你可以準確直接定位到

directly to the people who are most susceptible.

那些最容易被受到影響的人。

And because this is profitable, it's only going to get worse.

因為這是有利可圖的， 所以狀況只會越來越糟。

So I'm here today

所以我今天來到這裡的原因，

because the costs are so obvious.

是因為這件事的代價太高了。

I don't know a more urgent problem than this,

我認為沒有其它事 比這問題還要緊急，

because this problem is underneath all other problems.

因為其它所有問題的背後， 都與這個問題有關。

It's not just taking away our agency

它不僅剝奪我們的自主權，

to spend our attention and live the lives that we want,

還浪費我們的注意力， 影響我們的生活方式。

it's changing the way that we have our conversations,

也改變了我們的交流方式，

it's changing our democracy,

改變了我們的民主制度，

and it's changing our ability to have the conversations

而且還改變了我們 想要與他人交流、

and relationships we want with each other.

維持關係的能力。

And it affects everyone,

這會影響到每一個人，

because a billion people have one of these in their pocket.

因為十幾億人口的口袋裡 都有一台這個東西。

So how do we fix this?

所以我們要如何修復這個問題？

We need to make three radical changes

我們需要對科技和我們的社會

to technology and to our society.

做三大激進的改變。

The first is we need to acknowledge that we are persuadable.

首先，我們需要了解 我們是會被說服的。

Once you start understanding

一旦你了解

that your mind can be scheduled into having little thoughts

人腦可以被有計劃性地 注入一些思想

or little blocks of time that you didn't choose,

或被占用掉一些時間時，

wouldn't we want to use that understanding

我們難道不會利用這點

and protect against the way that that happens?

來防止這樣的事發生嗎？

I think we need to see ourselves fundamentally in a new way.

我認為我們需要以全新的方式審視自己。

It's almost like a new period of human history,

就像是人類歷史上新的篇章，

like the Enlightenment,

就像啟蒙運動，

but almost a kind of self-aware Enlightenment,

但是是自覺性的啟蒙運動，

that we can be persuaded,

瞭解到我們是會被說服的，

and there might be something we want to protect.

並意識到我們也有想要保護的東西。

The second is we need new models and accountability systems

第二點是我們需要新的 模式和責任系統，

so that as the world gets better and more and more persuasive over time --

如此，當世界變得越來越好、 我們越來越容易被說服時──

because it's only going to get more persuasive --

因為它只會變得更有說服力──

that the people in those control rooms

這樣在控制室裡的那些人

are accountable and transparent to what we want.

才會對我們想要的東西負責 並把它透明化。

The only form of ethical persuasion that exists

道德說服存在的唯一前提就是：

is when the goals of the persuader

只有當說服者的目標

are aligned with the goals of the persuadee.

和被說服者的目標是一致時才存在。

And that involves questioning big things, like the business model of advertising.

而這涉及到對大型事件的質疑， 像是廣告的商業模式。

Lastly,

最後，

we need a design renaissance,

我們需要一個經過設計的 科技文藝復興，

because once you have this view of human nature,

因為一旦你對人性本質 有一定的了解，

that you can steer the timelines of a billion people --

那你就可以控制十億人的時間軸──

just imagine, there's people who have some desire

想像一下，人都會有一些慾望，

about what they want to do and what they want to be thinking

會有想做的事、想思考的事、

and what they want to be feeling and how they want to be informed,

想感受的事物、想了解的事物，

而我們卻只能被引導到其它方向。

and we're all just tugged into these other directions.

十億人只會被引導到這些不同的方向。

And you have a billion people just tugged into all these different directions.

所以，試想一下 一個完整的文藝復興設計，

Well, imagine an entire design renaissance

that tried to orchestrate the exact and most empowering

可以幫助我們引導至 正確的、有自主性的、

time-well-spent way for those timelines to happen.

時間分配良好的路上。

And that would involve two things:

那就得包含兩件事：

one would be protecting against the timelines

一是我們要保護自己的時間軸

that we don't want to be experiencing,

不被支配到不想經歷的事情上、

the thoughts that we wouldn't want to be happening,

不去產生我們不想要的想法，

so that when that ding happens, not having the ding that sends us away;

如此，當簡訊的提醒聲響起時， 我們就不會被牽著鼻子走；

and the second would be empowering us to live out the timeline that we want.

二是要讓我們能活出 自己想要的時光。

So let me give you a concrete example.

我給各位舉個例子。

Today, let's say your friend cancels dinner on you,

比如說，今天你朋友取消了 與你的晚餐約會，

and you are feeling a little bit lonely.

所以你感到有點寂寞。

And so what do you do in that moment?

那當下你會做甚麼？

You open up Facebook.

你會打開 Facebook。

And in that moment,

而就在那一刻，

the designers in the control room want to schedule exactly one thing,

控制室裡的設計者 想要準確地規劃一件事，

which is to maximize how much time you spend on the screen.

那就是最大化你盯著螢幕的時間。

Now, instead, imagine if those designers created a different timeline

現在，反過來，想像一下， 是否這些設計師可以創造出一個

that was the easiest way, using all of their data,

不一樣的時間軸，以最簡單的方法、 利用他們所有的數據，

to actually help you get out with the people that you care about?

幫你準確地約出你關心的人？

Just think, alleviating all loneliness in society,

試想一下，消除社會中所有的寂寞，

if that was the timeline that Facebook wanted to make possible for people.

這樣的時間軸不就是 Facebook 想要為我們實現的嗎？

Or imagine a different conversation.

或試想另一個對話。

Let's say you wanted to post something supercontroversial on Facebook,

比方說你想要在 Facebook 上 發表備受爭議的言論，

which is a really important thing to be able to do,

你覺得這個爭議性話題很重要，

to talk about controversial topics.

需要被拿出來討論。

And right now, when there's that big comment box,

現在，有一個很大的留言區，

it's almost asking you, what key do you want to type?

它就像是在問你， 你想要輸入什麽東西？

In other words, it's scheduling a little timeline of things

換句話說，它正在安排一些時間軸，

you're going to continue to do on the screen.

好讓你可以繼續待在螢幕上。

And imagine instead that there was another button there saying,

試想如果有另一個按鈕跳出來說，

what would be most time well spent for you?

你想怎麼安排你的時間？

And you click "host a dinner."

然後你點選，「舉辦一個晚餐的聚會」。

And right there underneath the item it said,

然後，底下就會跳出一個，

"Who wants to RSVP for the dinner?"

「有誰想要聚餐，請盡速回覆」？

And so you'd still have a conversation about something controversial,

所以，你的爭議性話題 可以被繼續討論，

but you'd be having it in the most empowering place on your timeline,

而且可以放置在你時間軸上 最顯眼的位置，

which would be at home that night with a bunch of a friends over

那天晚上，你就可以邀請到一堆朋友

to talk about it.

來你家裡晚餐並討論這個話題。

So imagine we're running, like, a find and replace

想像我們正在賽跑， 想盡快找到並替換掉

on all of the timelines that are currently steering us

所有那些正在促使我們

towards more and more screen time persuasively

花越來越多的時間在螢幕上的時間軸，

and replacing all of those timelines

並盡快把這些時間軸

with what do we want in our lives.

用我們在生活中想做的事情替代掉。

It doesn't have to be this way.

真的不須要這樣。

Instead of handicapping our attention,

不需要癱瘓我們的注意力，

imagine if we used all of this data and all of this power

試想如果我們利用所有這些數據和能力，

and this new view of human nature

加上對人性本質的全新認識，

to give us a superhuman ability to focus

來讓我們擁有超人般的注意力、

and a superhuman ability to put our attention to what we cared about

讓我們更關心我們在乎的事情、

and a superhuman ability to have the conversations

讓我們擁有超人般的能力，

that we need to have for democracy.

來進行民主所需要的互動交流。

The most complex challenges in the world

世界上最複雜的挑戰，

require not just us to use our attention individually.

不僅需要我們每個人的注意力。

They require us to use our attention and coordinate it together.

也需要我們的同心協力才能克服。

Climate change is going to require that a lot of people

地球暖化議題需要大家

are being able to coordinate their attention

一起使用最有力的方式

in the most empowering way together.

將所有人的注意力整合起來。

And imagine creating a superhuman ability to do that.

試想如果有了這樣的超人能力會怎樣。

Sometimes the world's most pressing and important problems

有時世界上最要緊、最重要的問題

are not these hypothetical future things that we could create in the future.

不是未來我們可以創造的 假設性事物。

Sometimes the most pressing problems

有時最要緊的問題，

are the ones that are right underneath our noses,

就是我們眼前的問題，

the things that are already directing a billion people's thoughts.

已經在影響著十億人思想的事情。

And maybe instead of getting excited about the new augmented reality

與其花時間對擴增實境感到興奮、

and virtual reality and these cool things that could happen,

對虛擬實境這類酷炫產品感到興奮──

which are going to be susceptible to the same race for attention,

對這些注意力競賽的產品感到興奮──

if we could fix the race for attention

不如把時間放在修正注意力競賽上，

on the thing that's already in a billion people's pockets.

修正十億人口袋裡的那台機器上。

Maybe instead of getting excited

與其花時間對刺激、

about the most exciting new cool fancy education apps,

酷炫的教育軟體感到興奮，

we could fix the way kids' minds are getting manipulated

不如花時間找出方法， 來挽救那些已經被操控、

into sending empty messages back and forth.

腦中只想傳些空洞簡訊的孩子們。

(Applause)

（掌聲）

Maybe instead of worrying

與其擔憂那假想的未來：

about hypothetical future runaway artificial intelligences

只為了吸引我們注意力的 人工智慧未來，

that are maximizing for one goal,

we could solve the runaway artificial intelligence

倒不如開始解決我們現有的、

that already exists right now,

已經失去控制的人工智慧，

which are these newsfeeds maximizing for one thing.

也就是這些為了吸引我們注意力 推送新聞的人工智慧機器。

It's almost like instead of running away to colonize new planets,

就像是，與其逃跑到新的殖民星球，

we could fix the one that we're already on.

不如好好地拯救我們的地球。

(Applause)

（掌聲）

Solving this problem

解決這個問題

is critical infrastructure for solving every other problem.

是解決其它問題的關鍵所在。

There's nothing in your life or in our collective problems

在你生命中或是我們彼此的共同問題中，

that does not require our ability to put our attention where we care about.

沒有一件事是不需要我們 花時間關注、花心思在乎的。

At the end of our lives,

畢竟，到了生命的盡頭，

all we have is our attention and our time.

我們最後所擁有的 就是曾經在乎的美好時光。

What will be time well spent for ours?

讓時間為我們所用。

Thank you.

(Applause)

謝謝各位。

（掌聲）

Chris Anderson: Tristan, thank you. Hey, stay up here a sec.

克里斯 · 安德森： 崔斯頓，謝謝你。請留步。

First of all, thank you.

首先，謝謝你。

I know we asked you to do this talk on pretty short notice,

我知道我們很晚才通知你要做這次演講，

and you've had quite a stressful week

你這禮拜壓力很大，

getting this thing together, so thank you.

為了這次的演講，所以謝謝你。

Some people listening might say, what you complain about is addiction,

有些聽眾可能會說， 你抱怨的是沉迷，

and all these people doing this stuff, for them it's actually interesting.

而對於那些已經沉迷的人來說， 他們認為那是興趣。

All these design decisions

所有這些設計過的決策、內容，

have built user content that is fantastically interesting.

對用戶而言是相當有趣的。

The world's more interesting than it ever has been.

這個世界從未如此有趣過。

What's wrong with that?

這有什麽錯嗎？

Tristan Harris: I think it's really interesting.

崔斯頓．哈瑞斯：我認為這確實有趣。

One way to see this is if you're just YouTube, for example,

我們換個角度看這件事， 假設，你在用 Youtube 看影片，

you want to always show the more interesting next video.

你總是希望下一部影片是最有趣的。

You want to get better and better at suggesting that next video,

你希望下一部推薦的影片越來越棒，

但是即使你推薦了一部比一部好看， 所有人都想要看的完美影片，

but even if you could propose the perfect next video

that everyone would want to watch,

這只會讓你一直盯著螢幕看。

it would just be better and better at keeping you hooked on the screen.

而其中遺漏的是要找出 我們的邊界。對吧？

So what's missing in that equation

is figuring out what our boundaries would be.

You would want YouTube to know something about, say, falling asleep.

你會想讓 YouTube 知道， 你甚麼時候會「睡著」嗎？

Netflix 的 CEO 最近說，

The CEO of Netflix recently said,

我們最大的競爭者就是臉書、 YouTube 和「睡著了」，對吧？

"our biggest competitors are Facebook, YouTube and sleep."

And so what we need to recognize is that the human architecture is limited

所以我們需要認識到 人體是有極限的、

and that we have certain boundaries or dimensions of our lives

我們的生活是有某種界線的、

that we want to be honored and respected,

我們都想要被尊重，

and technology could help do that.

而科技可以幫我們做到。

(Applause)

（掌聲）

CA: I mean, could you make the case

克里斯：可否請你說明一下，

that part of the problem here is that we've got a naïve model of human nature?

這裡還有個問題是，會不會 我們把人性想的太天真了？

So much of this is justified in terms of human preference,

如何判別各式各樣 人類偏好的合理性，

where we've got these algorithms that do an amazing job

我們可以用這些演算法 幫我們完成，

of optimizing for human preference,

幫我們優化人類的偏好，

but which preference?

但是，是哪方面的偏好？

There's the preferences of things that we really care about

有我們確實關心的、

when we think about them

在意的事情的偏好，

versus the preferences of what we just instinctively click on.

也有我們只是直覺地點擊的偏好。

If we could implant that more nuanced view of human nature in every design,

如果我們在每個設計中 植入了對人性本質的微妙了解，

would that be a step forward?

這會是一種進步嗎？

TH: Absolutely. I mean, I think right now

崔斯頓：那是肯定的。 我的意思是，我認為現在

it's as if all of our technology is basically only asking our lizard brain

好像我們的科技基本上

只詢問我們本能反應的腦的意見，

what's the best way to just impulsively get you to do

它們最好的方式就是強迫你

the next tiniest thing with your time,

在下一秒、下一刻做出一些小事，

instead of asking you in your life

而不是問你人生中的大事、

what we would be most time well spent for you?

問你花時間在哪方面 才是對你有幫助的？

What would be the perfect timeline that might include something later,

也不是問你接下來 完美的時間安排是怎樣的，

最後一天你要不要 聽一下 TED 演講之類的？

would be time well spent for you here at TED in your last day here?

克里斯： 所以，是不是要臉書、 谷歌在一開始就問我們，

CA: So if Facebook and Google and everyone said to us first up,

"Hey, would you like us to optimize for your reflective brain

嘿，你想要我們優化思考的腦 還是優化本能反應的腦？

or your lizard brain? You choose."

由你來選擇。

TH: Right. That would be one way. Yes.

崔斯頓：是的。這也是個方法。是的。

CA: You said persuadability, that's an interesting word to me

克里斯：你剛提到的「說服能力」， 對我來說這個詞很有趣，

because to me there's two different types of persuadability.

因為在我看來， 有兩種不同的說服能力。

There's the persuadability that we're trying right now

有一種說服能力是我們現在在嘗試的，

of reason and thinking and making an argument,

用前因後果、提出看法的方式說服聽眾，

but I think you're almost talking about a different kind,

但是我覺得你是在談論另一種

a more visceral type of persuadability,

更能引起「情緒上本能反應」 的說服能力，

of being persuaded without even knowing that you're thinking.

那種不經思考就被說服的能力。

沒錯。我會十分關心這個問題的原因是

TH: Exactly. The reason I care about this problem so much is

我在史丹佛的說服力技術實驗室待過，

I studied at a lab called the Persuasive Technology Lab at Stanford

那裡就是在教導人們這些技術。

that taught [students how to recognize] exactly these techniques.

那裡有論壇和討論，教導人們 使用這些偷偷摸摸的方式

There's conferences and workshops that teach people all these covert ways

of getting people's attention and orchestrating people's lives.

來獲得人們的注意力， 指揮人們的生活。

And it's because most people don't know that that exists

正因為大部分人不知道 有這項技術的存在，

that this conversation is so important.

所以我們的討論才會如此重要。

CA: Tristan, you and I, we both know so many people from all these companies.

克里斯：崔斯頓，你和我都認識 許多來自這些公司的人。

There are actually many here in the room,

許多人也在這裡，

and I don't know about you, but my experience of them

我不知道你是怎麽樣的， 但就我的經驗而言，

is that there is no shortage of good intent.

他們也都是善意的。

People want a better world.

大家都想要一個更好的世界。

They are actually -- they really want it.

他們確實──他們真的想要。

And I don't think anything you're saying is that these are evil people.

我不認為你所說的， 是在指這些人是壞人。

It's a system where there's these unintended consequences

你指的是有一個系統， 導致了一些意想不到的後果

that have really got out of control --

且超出了控制範圍──

TH: Of this race for attention.

崔斯頓：關於注意力的競爭。

It's the classic race to the bottom when you have to get attention,

當你想要吸引人家的注意 它就是一場無視規則的精典賽，

and it's so tense.

而且競爭很激烈。

The only way to get more is to go lower on the brain stem,

取得更多注意的唯一辦法， 只有更深入腦袋、

to go lower into outrage, to go lower into emotion,

更引起憤怒、更深入情感、

to go lower into the lizard brain.

更深入本能反應的腦。

CA: Well, thank you so much for helping us all get a little bit wiser about this.

克里斯：非常感謝你幫助我們 對這個問題有更進一步的了解。

Tristan Harris, thank you. TH: Thank you very much.

謝謝你。

崔斯頓：非常感謝。

(Applause)

（掌聲）