Marvin Minsky: Health, population and the human mind

譯者: Chen Sheng-fu 審譯者: Marie Wu

If you ask people about what part of psychology do they think is hard,

如果你問別人，關於心理學，哪一部份是他們覺得最難理解的？

and you say, "Well, what about thinking and emotions?"

如果把思想和情感相比較又怎麼樣呢？

Most people will say, "Emotions are terribly hard.

大部份的人會說：「情感相當難以理解，

They're incredibly complex. They can't -- I have no idea of how they work.

它們非常地複雜，我完全不知道它們的運作方式。

But thinking is really very straightforward:

但是思考卻很簡單、明確，

it's just sort of some kind of logical reasoning, or something.

它僅僅只是某種邏輯解釋或是其他形式而已，

But that's not the hard part."

但那不是最難理解的部份。」

So here's a list of problems that come up.

這些是衍生出來的一些問題，

One nice problem is, what do we do about health?

其中一個很棒的問題是：我們為健康做了甚麼？

The other day, I was reading something, and the person said

有一天我在讀書的時候，有人說

probably the largest single cause of disease is handshaking in the West.

或許在西方引發疾病的單一最大原因是握手。

And there was a little study about people who don't handshake,

有一些研究是將不握手的人

and comparing them with ones who do handshake.

和握手的人做比較，

And I haven't the foggiest idea of where you find the ones that don't handshake,

我其實並不知道要如何找到不握手的人，

because they must be hiding.

我猜他們一定是躲起來了。

And the people who avoid that

而那些避免握手的人，

have 30 percent less infectious disease or something.

感染疾病的機率會降低百分之30，

Or maybe it was 31 and a quarter percent.

或是百分之31.25吧。

So if you really want to solve the problem of epidemics and so forth,

如果你真的想解決流行傳染病之類的問題，

let's start with that. And since I got that idea,

可以先從不握手開始。自從我知道這個觀念後，

I've had to shake hundreds of hands.

我已經握了好幾百人的手了。

And I think the only way to avoid it

我想唯一能避免握手的方法，

is to have some horrible visible disease,

就是染上一種明顯可見的嚴重疾病，

and then you don't have to explain.

那你就用不著解釋了。

Education: how do we improve education?

教育：我們該如何讓教育變得更好？

Well, the single best way is to get them to understand

最好的辦法是讓他們了解，

that what they're being told is a whole lot of nonsense.

他們在學的是一堆沒用的東西。

And then, of course, you have to do something

所以，當然，你得要做些甚麼，

about how to moderate that, so that anybody can -- so they'll listen to you.

你得走溫和路線，讓大部份的人都聽你的。

Pollution, energy shortage, environmental diversity, poverty.

污染、能源短缺、環境多樣性、貧窮--

How do we make stable societies? Longevity.

我們如何讓社會穩定？延長壽命。

Okay, there're lots of problems to worry about.

好的，現在有一堆的問題值得我們憂慮。

Anyway, the question I think people should talk about --

我認為人們現在應該討論的問題，

and it's absolutely taboo -- is, how many people should there be?

絕對是一個禁忌話題---就是，世界上能容納多少人口？

And I think it should be about 100 million or maybe 500 million.

我認為世界上的人口如果只有1億或是5億的話，

And then notice that a great many of these problems disappear.

這些問題大部份都會消失。

If you had 100 million people

假設世界上有一億的人口，

properly spread out, then if there's some garbage,

而且適當地分布在各個地方，即使產生一些垃圾，

you throw it away, preferably where you can't see it, and it will rot.

你也可以把它丟掉，最好是丟在看不到的地方，然後它會自行腐爛掉。

Or you throw it into the ocean and some fish will benefit from it.

即使你把垃圾丟進海洋裡，魚也可以從中獲得一些養份。

The problem is, how many people should there be?

問題是，世界上能容納多少人口？

And it's a sort of choice we have to make.

這是我們必須做出抉擇的事。

Most people are about 60 inches high or more,

大部份的人的身高是60英吋，或更高，

and there's these cube laws. So if you make them this big,

我們佔滿了整個星球。所以如果我們能讓人變成這麼小--

by using nanotechnology, I suppose --

用奈米科技，我認為--

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

-- then you could have a thousand times as many.

這個世界就可以容納1000倍之多的人口。

That would solve the problem, but I don't see anybody

這樣就可以解決問題了，但是我還沒有看過

doing any research on making people smaller.

有人從事可以讓人變小的相關研究。

Now, it's nice to reduce the population, but a lot of people want to have children.

減少人口是很棒的概念，但是很多人會想要生小孩，

And there's one solution that's probably only a few years off.

這大概要在幾年後才會有解決的辦法。

You know you have 46 chromosomes. If you're lucky, you've got 23

大家都知道我們有46條染色體。如果你幸運的話，你會從父母親身上

from each parent. Sometimes you get an extra one or drop one out,

分別得到23條染色體；有時候你會得到額外的一條，或是少了一條，

but -- so you can skip the grandparent and great-grandparent stage

但是--你可以跳過祖父母和曾祖父母的階段，

and go right to the great-great-grandparent. And you have 46 people

直接跳到曾曾祖父母。現在總共有46個人，

and you give them a scanner, or whatever you need,

然後給他們掃描器，或是其他你需要的東西，

and they look at their chromosomes and each of them says

讓他們看他們自己的染色體，然後要每個人決定

which one he likes best, or she -- no reason to have just two sexes

哪一條染色體是他或她最喜歡的--現在不能只說二種性別了吧...

any more, even. So each child has 46 parents,

所以，每個小孩有46個父母親，

and I suppose you could let each group of 46 parents have 15 children.

你可以讓每46個父母親生15個小孩--

Wouldn't that be enough? And then the children

這樣會覺得不夠嗎？然後小孩可以

would get plenty of support, and nurturing, and mentoring,

得到大量的支持、養育及指導，

and the world population would decline very rapidly

世界人口就會快速地減少，

and everybody would be totally happy.

每個人也都會很快樂。

Timesharing is a little further off in the future.

未來，我們或許可以更進一步用時間分享來解決人口問題。

And there's this great novel that Arthur Clarke wrote twice,

有一本很棒的小說，作者Arthur Clarke總共寫了兩次，

called "Against the Fall of Night" and "The City and the Stars."

叫做「對抗夜幕低垂、城市和星辰」(Against the Fall of Night and The City and the Stars)，

They're both wonderful and largely the same,

二本都很棒，而且內容大致相同，

except that computers happened in between.

除了電腦在兩部小說之間發明出來。

And Arthur was looking at this old book, and he said, "Well, that was wrong.

然後Arthur看著這本他寫的書，他說，噢，這樣不對，

The future must have some computers."

未來一定會有電腦啊...

So in the second version of it, there are 100 billion

所以在第二個版本裡，世界上的人口變成了一千億

or 1,000 billion people on Earth, but they're all stored on hard disks or floppies,

或是一兆，但是他們都被存在硬碟或軟碟裡，

or whatever they have in the future.

或是任何其他未來的儲存形式。

And you let a few million of them out at a time.

每次你只讓其中的幾百萬人出來，

A person comes out, they live for a thousand years

每個人出來活個一百年，

doing whatever they do, and then, when it's time to go back

做他們自己該做的事，等時候到了，就再回到裡面，

for a billion years -- or a million, I forget, the numbers don't matter --

放個10億年--還是一百萬年，我忘記確切數字，反正那不重要--

but there really aren't very many people on Earth at a time.

但是在某個時間內，地球上並沒有太多人同時存在。

And you get to think about yourself and your memories,

然後你必須思考你本身和你的記憶，

and before you go back into suspension, you edit your memories

在你回去被暫存之前，你可以編輯你的記憶，

and you change your personality and so forth.

並且可以選擇改變自己的個性之類的。

The plot of the book is that there's not enough diversity,

這本書的情節是描述世界上的人缺乏多樣的個性，

so that the people who designed the city

所以設計這個城市的人，

make sure that every now and then an entirely new person is created.

就得確保每隔一陣子要有一個全新的人誕生。

And in the novel, a particular one named Alvin is created. And he says,

在這本小說裡，有一位很特別的人叫做Alvin被創造出來。

maybe this isn't the best way, and wrecks the whole system.

他認為這或許不是最好的方法，所以破壞了整個系統。

I don't think the solutions that I proposed

我不認為我舉出來的方法

are good enough or smart enough.

有多好，多聰明。

I think the big problem is that we're not smart enough

我認為最大的問題是我們沒有足夠的聰明才智，

to understand which of the problems we're facing are good enough.

去了解我們現在所面對的問題，到底哪一個是比較好的。

Therefore, we have to build super intelligent machines like HAL.

因此，我們必須建造超級人工智慧的機器，像HAL。

As you remember, at some point in the book for "2001,"

還記得嗎？書上說在2001年的某個時刻，

HAL realizes that the universe is too big, and grand, and profound

HAL發現對那些愚蠢的太空人來說，

for those really stupid astronauts. If you contrast HAL's behavior

宇宙是如此深遠且無邊無際。如果你將HAL的行為

with the triviality of the people on the spaceship,

和那些只在乎枝微末節的太空人相比，

you can see what's written between the lines.

你就可以瞭解作者想要表達的涵意。

Well, what are we going to do about that? We could get smarter.

那麼我們現在應該要怎麼做？我們應該要變得更聰明。

I think that we're pretty smart, as compared to chimpanzees,

我認為跟黑猩猩比起來，我們的確聰明很多，

but we're not smart enough to deal with the colossal problems that we face,

但是我們還是沒有能力去處理現在所面對的龐大問題，

either in abstract mathematics

不管是去解答數學問題、

or in figuring out economies, or balancing the world around.

或是去了解經濟的本質，又或是讓世界處於均衡狀態。

So one thing we can do is live longer.

所以我們唯一能做得是活得更久一點，

And nobody knows how hard that is,

但沒有人知道那有多困難，

but we'll probably find out in a few years.

但是過幾年後我們可能會找到解答。

You see, there's two forks in the road. We know that people live

有二種可能的解釋方式。我們知道大部份人類的

twice as long as chimpanzees almost,

壽命是黑猩猩的兩倍，

and nobody lives more than 120 years,

而且沒有人活超過120年，

for reasons that aren't very well understood.

我們還不是很瞭解這其中的原因。

But lots of people now live to 90 or 100,

但是現在有很多人活到90或100歲，

unless they shake hands too much or something like that.

除非他們握太多的手之類的。

And so maybe if we lived 200 years, we could accumulate enough skills

假如我們可以活到200歲，我們就能累積足夠的技術

and knowledge to solve some problems.

和知識去解決問題。

So that's one way of going about it.

所以這是其中一種方式。

And as I said, we don't know how hard that is. It might be --

我們不知道要活得更久有多困難，

after all, most other mammals live half as long as the chimpanzee,

畢竟，其他哺乳類動物的壽命也只有黑猩猩的一半，

so we're sort of three and a half or four times, have four times

所以我們的壽命大概是其他哺乳類動物的

the longevity of most mammals. And in the case of the primates,

3.5倍或4倍。而就靈長類動物來說，

we have almost the same genes. We only differ from chimpanzees,

我們幾乎有著相同的基因。我們跟黑猩猩的差別，

in the present state of knowledge, which is absolute hogwash,

以我們現有乏善可陳的智慧來說，

maybe by just a few hundred genes.

或許只是幾百個基因的差別而已。

What I think is that the gene counters don't know what they're doing yet.

而我認為，基因計數器實際上不知道它自己計算到哪裡了。

And whatever you do, don't read anything about genetics

不管如何，在你有生之年，千萬不要閱讀

that's published within your lifetime, or something.

任何有關基因學的書籍。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

The stuff has a very short half-life, same with brain science.

目前人類對於基因學的研究才剛起步，就跟我們對大腦的研究一樣，

And so it might be that if we just fix four or five genes,

所以有可能我們只要改善其中四條、五條基因，

we can live 200 years.

我們就可以活到200歲，

Or it might be that it's just 30 or 40,

或是有可能變成只活30或40年，

and I doubt that it's several hundred.

我想也有可能人類可以活好幾百年。

So this is something that people will be discussing

所以這是人們會討論的話題，

and lots of ethicists -- you know, an ethicist is somebody

而且會有很多道德倫理家會講話--你知道，道德倫理家就是那種

who sees something wrong with whatever you have in mind.

會看到你早就已經知道的錯誤的人。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

And it's very hard to find an ethicist who considers any change

要找到一個認同改變的道德倫理家是很困難的，

worth making, because he says, what about the consequences?

因為他們會說，那後果由誰負責？

And, of course, we're not responsible for the consequences

當然，我們並不需要對我們目前

of what we're doing now, are we? Like all this complaint about clones.

所做的事情負責，對吧？就像大家都在抱怨複製動物一樣。

And yet two random people will mate and have this child,

任由兩個隨機選取的人結婚、生小孩，

and both of them have some pretty rotten genes,

若這二人都有相當差的基因，

and the child is likely to come out to be average.

他們生出來的小孩可能會很普通。

Which, by chimpanzee standards, is very good indeed.

如果是根據黑猩猩的標準，那個小孩已經算是很好了。

If we do have longevity, then we'll have to face the population growth

如果人人都很長壽，我們就必須要面對人口

problem anyway. Because if people live 200 or 1,000 years,

增加的問題。因為如果我們活個200年或1000年，

then we can't let them have a child more than about once every 200 or 1,000 years.

每一代小孩出生的間隔就不能短於200年或是1000年。

And so there won't be any workforce.

在那種情況下，也不會有勞動人口。

And one of the things Laurie Garrett pointed out, and others have,

Laurie Garrett點名的其中一件事，其他人也曾指出相同問題，

is that a society that doesn't have people

那就是如果一個社會沒有人

of working age is in real trouble. And things are going to get worse,

屬於勞動人口的話，那就麻煩大了。而且事情還會變得更糟，

because there's nobody to educate the children or to feed the old.

因為沒有人會去教育小孩或是撫養老人。

And when I'm talking about a long lifetime, of course,

所以當我談論到延長壽命時，

I don't want somebody who's 200 years old to be like our image

我當然不希望一個活到200歲的人，

of what a 200-year-old is -- which is dead, actually.

會像我們現在所想的200歲一樣---那其實已經算是死掉了。

You know, there's about 400 different parts of the brain

你知道，人腦大概有400個不同的部位，

which seem to have different functions.

它們彼此有不同的功能。

Nobody knows how most of them work in detail,

沒有人確切知道他們實際上的運作方式，

but we do know that there're lots of different things in there.

我們只知道大腦裡面有很多的東西，

And they don't always work together. I like Freud's theory

而他們不會同時一起運作。我喜歡Freud的理論，

that most of them are cancelling each other out.

他認為大腦裡大部分的工作是去抵消彼此的作用。

And so if you think of yourself as a sort of city

如果你把自己想像成是一座城市，

with a hundred resources, then, when you're afraid, for example,

你很多的資源。比如說，當你害怕的時候，

you may discard your long-range goals, but you may think deeply

你就會拋棄你的大範圍目標，專注深入地

and focus on exactly how to achieve that particular goal.

思考如何達到某個特定的目標。

You throw everything else away. You become a monomaniac --

你把所有的東西都丟掉，變成了一個偏執狂--

all you care about is not stepping out on that platform.

你在乎的只是不要離開這個平台。

And when you're hungry, food becomes more attractive, and so forth.

當你很餓的時候，食物變得更加迷人之類的。

So I see emotions as highly evolved subsets of your capability.

我認為情感是高度演化下的附屬功能，

Emotion is not something added to thought. An emotional state

情感不是思想的附屬品。

is what you get when you remove 100 or 200

情感是當你移除100個或200個正常有用的資源後，

of your normally available resources.

你所會得到的東西。

So thinking of emotions as the opposite of -- as something

所以，情感並不亞於思想，

less than thinking is immensely productive. And I hope,

同時我希望，

in the next few years, to show that this will lead to smart machines.

在接下來的幾年內，這些東西能引導智慧機器的誕生。

And I guess I better skip all the rest of this, which are some details

我想我最好跳過這些關於如何

on how we might make those smart machines and --

建造這些智慧機器的細節--

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

-- and the main idea is in fact that the core of a really smart machine

超級智慧機器最重要的核心，

is one that recognizes that a certain kind of problem is facing you.

是去清楚定義自己所面對的是哪種問題。

This is a problem of such and such a type,

這些是這一類的問題，

and therefore there's a certain way or ways of thinking

這些是解決這些問題

that are good for that problem.

可能的思考方向。

So I think the future, main problem of psychology is to classify

所以我認為未來心理學的主要問題，

types of predicaments, types of situations, types of obstacles

是去區分出各種困境型態、各種情境及各種障礙，

and also to classify available and possible ways to think and pair them up.

同時也要去區分出與之相對應的可能思考方向。

So you see, it's almost like a Pavlovian --

所以你看，這幾乎就像是巴夫洛夫的古典制約學習--

we lost the first hundred years of psychology

我們因為一些無用的理論，

by really trivial theories, where you say,

而捨棄了心理學最初一百年的研究，你會問：

how do people learn how to react to a situation? What I'm saying is,

人們如何學習對某種情境做出適當回應？我要說的是，

after we go through a lot of levels, including designing

在我們經歷過各種階段，

a huge, messy system with thousands of ports,

包括用數千個零組件設計出一個的龐大的系統之後，

we'll end up again with the central problem of psychology.

我們還是得面對心理學最核心的問題，

Saying, not what are the situations,

那就是情境不重要，

but what are the kinds of problems

問題才是最重要的、

and what are the kinds of strategies, how do you learn them,

策略及學習的方法才是重要的、

how do you connect them up, how does a really creative person

怎麼把各種事情聯結在一起才是重要的、如何讓一個真正有創意的人

invent a new way of thinking out of the available resources and so forth.

從有限的資源裡，發展出新的思考模式才是重要的。

So, I think in the next 20 years,

所以我想在接下來的20年中，

if we can get rid of all of the traditional approaches to artificial intelligence,

如果我們能擺脫傳統發展人工智慧的方法，

like neural nets and genetic algorithms

像是神經網路、遺傳基因演算法

and rule-based systems, and just turn our sights a little bit higher to say,

和規則式系統等，然後把我們的視野提高一點點說：

can we make a system that can use all those things

我們能否用以上所有的方法，創造出一個

for the right kind of problem? Some problems are good for neural nets;

可以解決某種問題的系統？有些問題可以用神經網路去解決；

we know that others, neural nets are hopeless on them.

但我知道，在某些方面神經網路是沒有用處的。

Genetic algorithms are great for certain things;

遺傳基因演算法，對某些事情來說是很有用的；

I suspect I know what they're bad at, and I won't tell you.

我猜我知道它們有一些不好的地方，但我不會告訴你。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

Thank you.

謝謝

(Applause)

（掌聲）