A bold idea to replace politicians | César Hidalgo

譯者: Lilian Chiu 審譯者: Bruce Sung

Is it just me,

只有我這樣嗎？

or are there other people here

還是這裡的其他人也都一樣，

that are a little bit disappointed with democracy?

對民主感到有一點失望？

(Applause)

（掌聲）

So let's look at a few numbers.

咱們先來看看幾個數字，

If we look across the world,

如果從全球來看，

the median turnout in presidential elections

總統大選的投票率中位數，

over the last 30 years

在過去三十年間，

has been just 67 percent.

只有 67%。

Now, if we go to Europe

如果我們去看歐洲，

and we look at people that participated in EU parliamentary elections,

去看參與歐洲議會大選的人，

the median turnout in those elections

那些選舉的投票率中位數

is just 42 percent.

只有 42%。

Now let's go to New York,

咱們來看看紐約，

and let's see how many people voted in the last election for mayor.

看看上一次的市長選舉 有多少人投票。

We will find that only 24 percent of people showed up to vote.

我們會發現，只有 24% 的人出席投票。

What that means is that, if "Friends" was still running,

這就意味著，如果電視 還在演《六人行》，

Joey and maybe Phoebe would have shown up to vote.

只有喬伊，也許加上菲比， 會現身投票。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

And you cannot blame them because people are tired of politicians.

你無法怪他們，因為大家 都對政治人物厭倦了。

And people are tired of other people using the data that they have generated

大家都厭倦了其他人用 他們產生出來的資料，

to communicate with their friends and family,

來和他們的朋友及家人溝通，

把他們變成政治宣傳活動的目標。

to target political propaganda at them.

But the thing about this is that this is not new.

但，重點是，這現象並不是新的。

Nowadays, people use likes to target propaganda at you

現今，大家選擇宣傳活動的 目標時，先看的是「按讚」，

before they use your zip code or your gender or your age,

而不是你的郵遞區號、 你的性別，或你的年齡，

because the idea of targeting people with propaganda for political purposes

因為，為了政治目的而將人們 變成宣傳活動目標的這個想法，

is as old as politics.

其歷史和政治一樣久遠。

And the reason why that idea is there

會有這種想法的原因

is because democracy has a basic vulnerability.

是因為民主有一項基本的弱點。

This is the idea of a representative.

這個弱點就是「代表」的觀念。

In principle, democracy is the ability of people to exert power.

原則上，民主是人們 行使權力的能力。

But in practice, we have to delegate that power to a representative

但實際上，我們是把權力 委派給一位代表，

that can exert that power for us.

讓代表為我們行使權力。

That representative is a bottleneck,

那代表就是瓶頸，或是弱點所在。

or a weak spot.

It is the place that you want to target if you want to attack democracy

如果你想要攻擊民主， 你就會針對那個地方，

because you can capture democracy by either capturing that representative

因為若你要俘虜民主， 你可以俘虜代表，

or capturing the way that people choose it.

或者俘虜人們選出代表的方式。

So the big question is:

所以，關鍵的問題是： 歷史就到此為止了嗎？

Is this the end of history?

Is this the best that we can do

我們做到最好，就只有這樣嗎？

or, actually, are there alternatives?

或者，其實還有其他替代選擇？

Some people have been thinking about alternatives,

有些人一直在想有什麼替代選擇，

and one of the ideas that is out there is the idea of direct democracy.

他們想出來的其中一個點子 是「直接民主」的概念。

This is the idea of bypassing politicians completely

這個概念就是完全繞過政治人物，

and having people vote directly on issues,

讓人民針對議題直接投票，

having people vote directly on bills.

讓人民直接投票表決法案。

But this idea is naive

但這個概念太天真，

because there's too many things that we would need to choose.

因為我們有太多選擇要做了。

If you look at the 114th US Congress,

以第 114 屆美國國會為例，

you will have seen that the House of Representatives

你會發現，美國眾議院

considered more than 6,000 bills,

要考量超過六千個法案，

the Senate considered more than 3,000 bills

參議院要考量超過三千個法案，

and they approved more than 300 laws.

他們核准了超過三百條法律。

Those would be many decisions

每個人一個星期內 就要做這麼多的決策，

that each person would have to make a week

on topics that they know little about.

而且是他們幾乎毫無所知的主題。

So there's a big cognitive bandwidth problem

這是一個很大的認知頻寬問題，

if we're going to try to think about direct democracy as a viable alternative.

若要把直接民主做為可行的替代選擇 就必須要考量這個問題。

So some people think about the idea of liquid democracy, or fluid democracy,

所以，有些人想出一個辦法， 叫做液態民主，或液體民主，

which is the idea that you endorse your political power to someone,

也就是你可以把你的 政治權力授予某個人，

who can endorse it to someone else,

他又可以再授予別人，

and, eventually, you create a large follower network

最終，會創造出一個 大型的追隨著網絡，

in which, at the end, there's a few people that are making decisions

在這個網絡中，最終， 只會有幾個人負責決策，

on behalf of all of their followers and their followers.

他們代表他們的追隨者， 以及那些追隨者的追隨者。

But this idea also doesn't solve the problem of the cognitive bandwidth

但這個想法一樣無法解決 認知頻寬的問題，

and, to be honest, it's also quite similar to the idea of having a representative.

老實說，這和採用代表的 想法沒什麼兩樣。

So what I'm going to do today is I'm going to be a little bit provocative,

所以，我今天打算 要走比較挑撥的路線，

and I'm going to ask you, well:

我要問各位：

What if, instead of trying to bypass politicians,

如果，

不要繞過政治人物，

we tried to automate them?

而是試著將他們自動化，會如何？

The idea of automation is not new.

自動化的想法並不新奇。

It was started more than 300 years ago,

至少三百年前就已經有了，

when French weavers decided to automate the loom.

那時法國的織布工決定 要將織布機給自動化。

The winner of that industrial war was Joseph-Marie Jacquard.

那次工業戰爭的贏家是 約瑟夫 · 馬瑞 · 加卡爾。

He was a French weaver and merchant

他是法國織布工和商人，

that married the loom with the steam engine

將織布機和蒸汽引擎結合，

to create autonomous looms.

創造出了自動織布機。

And in those autonomous looms, he gained control.

他靠著那些自動織布機 取得了控制權。

He could now make fabrics that were more complex and more sophisticated

他能製造出更複雜、 更精密的布料，

than the ones they were able to do by hand.

那是人工無法做出來的。

But also, by winning that industrial war,

此外，打贏了那場工業戰爭，

he laid out what has become the blueprint of automation.

他也因此為自動化繪製出了藍圖。

The way that we automate things for the last 300 years

過去三百年間我們 將事物自動化的方式

has always been the same:

都一直沒變過：

we first identify a need,

首先，我們找出需求，

then we create a tool to satisfy that need,

接著，我們創造出一樣工具 來滿足那個需求，

like the loom, in this case,

在這個例子中，工具就是織布機，

and then we study how people use that tool

接著，我們研究人們 怎麼使用那工具，

to automate that user.

來將使用者自動化。

That's how we came from the mechanical loom

我們就是這樣子從機械織布機

to the autonomous loom,

走到自動織布機，

and that took us a thousand years.

那過程花了我們一千年。

Now, it's taken us only a hundred years

後來，我們只花了一百年，

to use the same script to automate the car.

就照著同樣的腳本將汽車自動化。

But the thing is that, this time around,

但，重點是，這一次，

automation is kind of for real.

自動化是玩真的了。

This is a video that a colleague of mine from Toshiba shared with me

這支影片是我同事分享 給我的，他在東芝工作，

that shows the factory that manufactures solid state drives.

影片展示出的是 製造固態硬碟的工廠。

The entire factory is a robot.

整個工廠都是機器人。

There are no humans in that factory.

工廠中沒有人類。

And the robots are soon to leave the factories

機器人很快就會踏出工廠，

and become part of our world,

成為我們世界的一部分，

become part of our workforce.

成為我們勞動力的一部分。

So what I do in my day job

我的正職

is actually create tools that integrate data for entire countries

其實是在創造工具， 來將整個國家的資料整合，

so that we can ultimately have the foundations that we need

這麼一來，最終我們就能夠有 我們所需要的基礎，

for a future in which we need to also manage those machines.

讓我們在未來 也可以管理那些機器。

But today, I'm not here to talk to you about these tools

但，今天，我來這裡要談的不是

這些整合全國資料的工具。

that integrate data for countries.

But I'm here to talk to you about another idea

我來跟各位談的是另一個想法，

that might help us think about how to use artificial intelligence in democracy.

這個想法可能可以協助我們思考 如何將人工智慧用在民主上。

Because the tools that I build are designed for executive decisions.

因為我所建造的工具 是用來做重大決策的。

These are decisions that can be cast in some sort of term of objectivity --

這些決策是可以 客觀做出的決策——

public investment decisions.

公共投資決策。

But there are decisions that are legislative,

但，有些決策和立法相關，

and these decisions that are legislative require communication among people

這些立法相關決策會需要大家

針對不同的觀點進行溝通，

that have different points of view,

require participation, require debate,

需要參與，需要辯論，

require deliberation.

需要商議。

And for a long time, we have thought that, well,

長期以來，我們都以為，

what we need to improve democracy is actually more communication.

若要改善民主， 我們需要的是更多的溝通。

So all of the technologies that we have advanced in the context of democracy,

所以，我們為了民主 所發展出的所有技術，

whether they are newspapers or whether it is social media,

不論是報紙，不論是社交媒體，

都試著提供我們更多的溝通。

have tried to provide us with more communication.

But we've been down that rabbit hole,

但我們已經身陷困惑中了，

and we know that's not what's going to solve the problem.

我們知道這並不能解決問題。

Because it's not a communication problem,

因為這並不是一個溝通的問題， 而是認知頻寬的問題。

it's a cognitive bandwidth problem.

So if the problem is one of cognitive bandwidth,

如果這個問題是認知頻寬的問題，

well, adding more communication to people

讓大家有更多的溝通

is not going to be what's going to solve it.

並不會是解決方案。

What we are going to need instead is to have other technologies

反而，我們需要的是其他的技術，

that help us deal with some of the communication

來協助我們處理一些

讓我們超負荷的溝通。

that we are overloaded with.

Think of, like, a little avatar,

把它想像成是虛擬角色或軟體代理，

a software agent,

a digital Jiminy Cricket --

數位化的吉明尼蟋蟀—— (註：《木偶奇遇記》裡的角色）

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

that basically is able to answer things on your behalf.

基本上，它能夠代表你來做回應。

And if we had that technology,

如果我們有那種技術，

we would be able to offload some of the communication

我們就能夠卸下一些溝通負擔，

and help, maybe, make better decisions or decisions at a larger scale.

也許就能協助我們做更好的決策 或更大規模的決策。

And the thing is that the idea of software agents is also not new.

其實軟體代理的想法也不是新的。

We already use them all the time.

我們已經常常在使用了。

We use software agents

我們用軟體代理

to choose the way that we're going to drive to a certain location,

來選擇開車前往 某個地點時要走的路線，

the music that we're going to listen to

選擇我們要聽的音樂，

or to get suggestions for the next books that we should read.

或取得建議，推薦我們 下一次要閱讀什麼書。

So there is an obvious idea in the 21st century

所以，在二十一世紀， 有一個很明顯的想法，

that was as obvious as the idea

和加卡爾那時候 將蒸汽引擎與織布機

of putting together a steam engine with a loom at the time of Jacquard.

結合在一起的想法同樣明顯。

And that idea is combining direct democracy with software agents.

那個想法就是將直接民主 與軟體代理結合起來。

Imagine, for a second, a world

花點時間想像一下這樣的世界：

in which, instead of having a representative that represents you

在這個世界，並不是 由一個代表人來代表你

and millions of other people,

以及其他數百萬人，

you can have a representative that represents only you,

你可以有單獨屬於你自己的代表，

with your nuanced political views --

這個代表保有你細微的政治觀點——

that weird combination of libertarian and liberal

古典自由派和自由派的奇特組合，

and maybe a little bit conservative on some issues

也許在某些議題上有一點點保守， 在其他議題又很激進。

and maybe very progressive on others.

Politicians nowadays are packages, and they're full of compromises.

現今的政治人物都是套裝的， 且他們充滿了妥協。

But you might have someone that can represent only you,

但你可以有一個只代表你的人，

if you are willing to give up the idea

只要你願意接受代表人 不一定要是人類。

that that representative is a human.

If that representative is a software agent,

如果那個代表人 是個軟體代理程式，

we could have a senate that has as many senators as we have citizens.

我們的參議院中的參議員數目 就可以跟公民數目一樣多。

And those senators are going to be able to read every bill

那些參議員還能夠 讀過所有的法案，

and they're going to be able to vote on each one of them.

且他們能夠針對 每一個法案來投票。

So there's an obvious idea that maybe we want to consider.

我們也許可以考慮 這個明顯的想法。

But I understand that in this day and age,

但我了解，在現今這個時代，

this idea might be quite scary.

這個想法可能會很嚇人。

In fact, thinking of a robot coming from the future

事實上，想想看， 一個來自未來的機器人，

to help us run our governments

來協助我們的政府運作，

sounds terrifying.

聽起來很嚇人。

But we've been there before.

但以前就發生過了。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

And actually he was quite a nice guy.

其實他人挺好的。

So what would the Jacquard loom version of this idea look like?

所以，

這想法的加卡爾織布機版本 會是什麼模樣？

It would be a very simple system.

它會是個很簡單的系統。

Imagine a system that you log in and you create your avatar,

想像一個你可以登入 創造你的虛擬角色的系統，

and then you're going to start training your avatar.

接著你就要開始 訓練你的虛擬角色。

你可以將你的閱讀習慣提供給它，

So you can provide your avatar with your reading habits,

or connect it to your social media,

或是將它與你的社交媒體連結，

or you can connect it to other data,

或將它和其他資料連結，

for example by taking psychological tests.

比如，去做心理測驗。

And the nice thing about this is that there's no deception.

這麼做的好處是， 不會有欺騙的狀況發生。

You are not providing data to communicate with your friends and family

你並不是提供資料 來和你的朋友及家人溝通，

that then gets used in a political system.

這些資料接著就會 被一個政治系統拿來使用。

You are providing data to a system that is designed to be used

你是把資料提供給一個設計來

為你做政治決策的系統。

to make political decisions on your behalf.

Then you take that data and you choose a training algorithm,

接著，你提供資料 並選擇一個訓練演算法，

because it's an open marketplace

因為它是一個開放的市場， 不同的人可以上傳不同的演算法，

in which different people can submit different algorithms

to predict how you're going to vote, based on the data you have provided.

根據你提供的資料 來預測你會如何投票。

And the system is open, so nobody controls the algorithms;

這個系統是開放的， 沒有人能控制演算法；

there are algorithms that become more popular

有些演算法會變得比較熱門， 其他的比較冷門。

and others that become less popular.

最終，你能稽核這個系統。

Eventually, you can audit the system.

你可以看到你的 虛擬角色怎麼運作。

You can see how your avatar is working.

如果你喜歡，就讓它自己運作。

If you like it, you can leave it on autopilot.

如果你想要有多一點控制權，

If you want to be a little more controlling,

你也可以選擇讓它 在每次做決策之前先詢問過你，

you can actually choose that they ask you

every time they're going to make a decision,

或是取這兩者之間的 任何部分控制。

or you can be anywhere in between.

我們之所以很少去 使用民主的原因之一，

One of the reasons why we use democracy so little

may be because democracy has a very bad user interface.

可能是因為民主的 使用者介面實在太爛了。

And if we improve the user interface of democracy,

如果我們改善民主的使用者介面，

we might be able to use it more.

也許我們會更常使用它。

Of course, there's a lot of questions that you might have.

當然，你們可能有很多疑問。

Well, how do you train these avatars?

你要如何訓練這些虛擬角色？

How do you keep the data secure?

你要如何確保資料安全性？

How do you keep the systems distributed and auditable?

你要如何讓系統一直是 分散式且可稽核的？

How about my grandmother, who's 80 years old

我八十歲的祖母不知道

and doesn't know how to use the internet?

如何用網路，怎麼辦？

Trust me, I've heard them all.

相信我，這些問題我都聽過。

So when you think about an idea like this, you have to beware of pessimists

當你在思考這類的想法時 得要意識到有悲觀主義者，

because they are known to have a problem for every solution.

因為他們著名的特色就是 對每個解決方案都會有疑異。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

So I want to invite you to think about the bigger ideas.

我想要邀請各位 去思考更大的想法。

The questions I just showed you are little ideas

我剛剛向各位展示的 問題都是小想法。

because they are questions about how this would not work.

因為它們是關於這個系統 如何無法成功的問題。

The big ideas are ideas of:

大想法指的是這些想法：

What else can you do with this

如果這個系統碰巧可行， 你還能拿它做什麼？

if this would happen to work?

And one of those ideas is, well, who writes the laws?

其中一個想法是，誰來訂法律？

In the beginning, we could have the avatars that we already have,

一開始，我們會有那些 我們已經擁有的虛擬角色，

voting on laws that are written by the senators or politicians

針對參議員或政治人物 所訂的法律來投票，

that we already have.

都是既有的法律。

But if this were to work,

但如果這個系統成功了，

you could write an algorithm

你可以寫一個演算法

that could try to write a law

來試著制訂出能得到

that would get a certain percentage of approval,

一定百分比的人同意的法律，

and you could reverse the process.

你還可以把這個流程反轉。

Now, you might think that this idea is ludicrous and we should not do it,

你可能覺得這個想法很荒唐， 我們不該採納，

but you cannot deny that it's an idea that is only possible

但無法否認，這個想法只有在

直接民主和軟體代理是種 可參與形式的世界裡

in a world in which direct democracy and software agents

are a viable form of participation.

才有可能實現。

So how do we start the revolution?

所以，我們要如何發動這場革命？

We don't start this revolution with picket fences or protests

我們發動這場革命的方式

不是用示威或抗議，

or by demanding our current politicians to be changed into robots.

也不要求用機器人 取代目前的政治人物。

That's not going to work.

那是行不通的。

This is much more simple,

這更簡單許多，

much slower

更慢許多，更謙卑許多。

and much more humble.

We start this revolution by creating simple systems like this in grad schools,

我們發動這場革命的方式 是創造像這樣的簡單系統，

在研究所、圖書館、非營利機構裡。

in libraries, in nonprofits.

And we try to figure out all of those little questions

我們試著設法解決 所有的小疑問、小問題，

and those little problems

that we're going to have to figure out to make this idea something viable,

我們得要解決它們， 才能讓這個想法變成可行，

to make this idea something that we can trust.

才能讓這個想法變成 我們能信任的想法。

And as we create those systems that have a hundred people, a thousand people,

當我們在創造那些系統， 讓一百人、一千人、

a hundred thousand people voting in ways that are not politically binding,

十萬人以沒有政治 牽連的方式投票時，

we're going to develop trust in this idea,

我們將會發展出 對這個想法的信任，

the world is going to change,

世界將會改變，

and those that are as little as my daughter is right now

現在和我女兒一樣小的那些人，

are going to grow up.

將來會長大。

And by the time my daughter is my age,

當我女兒到我這個年紀時，

maybe this idea, that I know today is very crazy,

也許，這個現今聽起來 很瘋狂的想法，

might not be crazy to her and to her friends.

在她和她朋友看來可能並不瘋狂。

And at that point,

到那個時候，

we will be at the end of our history,

我們的歷史就走到了終點，

but they will be at the beginning of theirs.

但那會是他們的歷史的開端。

Thank you.

謝謝。

(Applause)

（掌聲）