How we need to remake the internet | Jaron Lanier

譯者: Lilian Chiu 審譯者: 易帆 余

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

我的第一場 TED 演講 是在 1980 年代，

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

那時我把最早最早的一些

of virtual reality ever to the TED stage.

虛擬實境展示帶到 TED 舞台上。

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

當時，大家都知道我們 正在面對一個不確定的未來、

where the technology we needed,

在那個未來世界裡， 有我們需要的科技、

the technology we loved,

喜愛的科技，

could also be our undoing.

但也有可能是毀滅我們的科技。

We knew that if we thought of our technology

我們知道，如果我們把科技視為

as a means to ever more power,

通往更多權力的手段、

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

玩權弄勢的工具，

我們最終就會摧毀我們自己。

That's what happens

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

如果你只想利用科技 來玩權弄勢就會這樣。

So the idealism

在那時候，

of digital culture back then

數位文化的理想主義

was all about starting with that recognition of the possible darkness

談的都是，一開始就要我們認清 科技可能會帶來的黑暗面，

and trying to imagine a way to transcend it

並嘗試用美及創意的方式

with beauty and creativity.

來突破這些黑暗面。

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

早期在 TED 演講時，我的結尾 總是一句蠻嚇人的台詞：

"We have a challenge.

「我們有一個挑戰。

We have to create a culture around technology

我們得為科技創造出一種文化，

that is so beautiful, so meaningful,

一種相當美麗、有意義的文化、

so deep, so endlessly creative,

一種相當深刻、有無盡創意、

so filled with infinite potential

充滿無限潛力的科技文化，

that it draws us away from committing mass suicide."

這樣的科技文化才能讓我們 避免掉集體自殺。」

So we talked about extinction as being one and the same

我們把人類滅絕當作一回事， 就如同我們在談，

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

我們需要創造出一個誘人且 有著無限創意未來一樣的重要。

And I still believe that that alternative of creativity

我仍然相信，創新的另一面

as an alternative to death

有可能就是死亡，

is very real and true,

這個說法是非常真實的，

maybe the most true thing there is.

也許是世上最真實的。

In the case of virtual reality --

就虛擬實境來說，

well, the way I used to talk about it

我以前談論它的方式，

is that it would be something like

會把它說成像是

what happened when people discovered language.

人類剛發明語言時一樣。

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

隨著語言，出現了新的冒險、 新的深度、新的意義、

new ways to connect, new ways to coordinate,

新的連結方式、新的協調方式、

new ways to imagine, new ways to raise children,

新的想像方式、 新的養育孩子方式；

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

我在想，有了虛擬實境， 我們就會創造出一種

that would be like a conversation

新的對話方式，

but also like waking-state intentional dreaming.

但又像是在清醒的狀態下， 刻意作夢一樣。

We called it post-symbolic communication,

我們稱之為「後象徵性溝通」，

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

因為那就像你直接的親身體驗，

instead of indirectly making symbols to refer to things.

而不只是間接地看到事物的表象。

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

那是個很美的遠景， 且是我現在仍然相信的遠景，

and yet, haunting that beautiful vision

但，圍繞在這美好景像的黑暗面

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

也有可能會發生。

And I suppose I could mention

我想，我可以談談，

from one of the very earliest computer scientists,

很早期的一位電腦科學家，

whose name was Norbert Wiener,

他的名字叫諾伯特維納，

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

在五○年代我都還沒 出生時，他寫了一本書，

called "The Human Use of Human Beings."

書名叫《人有人的用處》。

And in the book, he described the potential

在書中，他描述到我們是有可能

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

會創造出一個 收集人類資料的電腦，

and providing feedback to those people in real time

並提供即時回應給人類的電腦，

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

為了統計這些行為， 這有點像是把人類放到施金納箱中

in a behaviorist system,

一種控制動物行為的實驗箱，

and he has this amazing line where he says,

他說了一句很棒的話，

one could imagine, as a thought experiment --

大家可以想像有一種思想的實驗──

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

我現在要講的是改述過的釋義， 不是引述──

one could imagine a global computer system

大家可以想像， 有一個全球的電腦系統，

where everybody has devices on them all the time,

在此系統中，每個人身上 時時刻刻都有一些裝置，

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

這些裝置會根據 他們的行為給出回饋，

and the whole population

而在系統裡的全部人，

is subject to a degree of behavior modification.

都會受到某種程度的行為修正。

And such a society would be insane,

這樣子的社會簡直太瘋狂了，

could not survive, could not face its problems.

這樣的社會無法生存， 無法面對它的問題。

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

接著，他說，但這只是個思想實驗，

and such a future is technologically infeasible.

將來要把人類丟到實驗箱， 以科學的角度而言，我們也辦不到。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

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

但，沒錯，我們人類現在 就已經陷入這樣的窘境，

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

而如果人類想要生存， 就要趕緊回頭。

So --

所以，

(Applause)

（掌聲）

I believe that we made a very particular mistake,

我認為，我們犯了一個 非常特殊的錯誤，

and it happened early on,

它在很早就發生了，

and by understanding the mistake we made,

而透過了解我們所犯下的錯誤，

we can undo it.

我們就能將它還原。

It happened in the '90s,

事情發生在九○年代，

and going into the turn of the century,

正要進入世紀的轉折點，

and here's what happened.

發生的經過如下。

Early digital culture,

早期的數位文化，

and indeed, digital culture to this day,

當然，還有至今的數位文化，

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

有一種……我會說是左翼、 社會主義使命的感覺，

that unlike other things that have been done,

這不像其它已經有的東西，

like the invention of books,

比如書籍的發明，

everything on the internet must be purely public,

在網路上的一切都 必須要是完全公開的，

must be available for free,

必須要可以免費使用，

because if even one person cannot afford it,

因為，如果有一個人負擔不起，

then that would create this terrible inequity.

那就會造成很糟的不平等。

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

當然，有其它方法 可以處理這個問題。

If books cost money, you can have public libraries.

如果書籍要錢， 你可以用公共圖書館。

And so forth.

諸如此類。

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

但我們在想，不、不、不， 這是個例外。

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

它必須要是單純地能讓公眾 使用的，我們希望如此。

And so that spirit lives on.

如此，精神才能傳承下去。

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

你可以體驗這些設計， 比如像維基百科

及其它許多這類的設計。

many others.

But at the same time,

但同時，

we also believed, with equal fervor,

我們也能帶著同等的熱情，

in this other thing that was completely incompatible,

相信另外一種完全不一樣的事情，

which is we loved our tech entrepreneurs.

那就是，我們愛我們的科技企業家。

We loved Steve Jobs; we loved this Nietzschean myth

我們愛史帝夫賈伯斯， 我們愛這種尼采般的神話，

of the techie who could dent the universe.

這些能改變世界的科技天才。

Right?

對嗎？

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

而那神話般的力量 仍能持續地獲得我們的支持。

So you have these two different passions,

所以，你會有這兩種不同的熱忱，

for making everything free

一種是讓一切都免費，

and for the almost supernatural power of the tech entrepreneur.

另一種是科技企業家的力量， 近乎超自然的力量。

How do you celebrate entrepreneurship when everything's free?

但當一切都是免費時， 你要如何讚頌企業家精神？

Well, there was only one solution back then,

在當時，只有一個解決方案，

which was the advertising model.

那就是廣告獲利模式。

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

因此，Google 剛開始 是免費的，但附帶廣告。

Facebook was born free, with ads.

臉書剛開始也是 免費的，但附帶廣告。

Now in the beginning, it was cute,

一開始，這還蠻討喜的，

like with the very earliest Google.

就像最早期的 Google。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

The ads really were kind of ads.

廣告真的就只是廣告。

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

廣告可能就是你當地的牙醫之類的。

But there's thing called Moore's law

但有樣東西叫做摩爾定律，

that makes the computers more and more efficient and cheaper.

它讓電腦越來越高效 也越來越便宜。

Their algorithms get better.

演算法也越來越強。

We actually have universities where people study them,

在大學裡真的有人在研究它們，

and they get better and better.

且它們越來越好。

And the customers and other entities who use these systems

客戶和使用這些系統的其它機構

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

變得越來越有經驗， 且越來越聰明。

And what started out as advertising

一開始本來只是廣告，

really can't be called advertising anymore.

現在真的不能再稱為廣告了。

It turned into behavior modification,

它轉變成了「行為修改」。

just as Norbert Wiener had worried it might.

這就是諾伯特維納所擔心的。

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

所以我已經無法再稱 這些東西為社交網路了。

I call them behavior modification empires.

我稱它們為「行為修改帝國」。

(Applause)

（掌聲）

And I refuse to vilify the individuals.

我是反對誹謗個人的。

I have dear friends at these companies,

在這些公司中有我親愛的朋友，

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

我們也曾把一間公司賣給 Google， 即使我認為 Google 也是帝國之一。

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

我不認為這是壞人做了壞事的問題。

I think this is a matter of a globally tragic,

我認為這一場全球性的悲劇，

astoundingly ridiculous mistake,

非常荒謬的錯誤，

rather than a wave of evil.

而不是邪惡的浪潮。

Let me give you just another layer of detail

讓我再做深一層的細節說明，

into how this particular mistake functions.

解釋這個錯誤是如何產生的。

So with behaviorism,

行為主義是這樣的，

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

不論是哪種生物， 比如老鼠、狗，或是人，

little treats and sometimes little punishments

它會根據生物的行為

回饋一點點甜頭或懲罰，

as feedback to what they do.

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

如果你把一隻動物放在籠子中， 你給牠的可能就是糖果和電擊。

But if you have a smartphone,

但如果你有一支智慧手機，

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

手機雖然不像那些實驗箱， 但也有象徵性的懲罰和獎賞。

Pavlov, one of the early behaviorists,

巴夫洛夫是最早的行為學家之一，

demonstrated the famous principle.

他提出了著名的原則。

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

你只要用一個鈴噹或手勢， 就可以訓練一隻狗流口水。

So on social networks,

在社交網路上，

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

有人會酸你或給你按讚 就像懲罰及獎賞一樣。

And we all know the feeling of these things.

我們都知道懲罰和獎賞的感受如何。

You get this little thrill --

你會有點興奮，

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

「有人喜歡我的東西， 且重複按讚。」

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

或被懲罰，「喔，天啊，他們不喜歡我，

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

也許別人比較受歡迎，喔，天啊。」

So you have those two very common feelings,

你會有這兩種很常見的感受，

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

就這樣一點一點地 把你困在這迴圈中。

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

這個系統的許多創始者 都已經公開承認這個現象，

everybody knew this is what was going on.

人人都知道發生的狀況就是如此。

But here's the thing:

但，重點是：

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

傳統行為主義方法的學術研究

there have been comparisons of positive and negative stimuli.

比較正面和負面的刺激。

In this setting, a commercial setting,

在這樣的前提下， 有商業行為的前提下，

there's a new kind of difference

會產生一種新的差異，

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

有好一段時間它都沒被學術界發現，

and that difference is that whether positive stimuli

那差異就是，在不同的情況下，

正面刺激是否比 負面刺激更有效之類的....

are more effective than negative ones in different circumstances,

the negative ones are cheaper.

結果，負面刺激比較便宜，

They're the bargain stimuli.

用負面刺激很划算。

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

我這麼說的意思是

失去信任比建立信任容易。

to lose trust than to build trust.

It takes a long time to build love.

我們要花很長的時間才能建立「愛」。

It takes a short time to ruin love.

但只要很短暫的時間就能毀了「愛」。

Now the customers of these behavior modification empires

這些「行為修改帝國」的客戶

深陷在非常快的迴圈中。

are on a very fast loop.

They're almost like high-frequency traders.

他們幾乎就像是股票的高頻交易者。

They're getting feedbacks from their spends

他們從客戶的消費和動作獲得回饋，

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

從而知道哪些效果好，

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

就會更那樣做。

And so they're getting the quick feedback,

因為那樣，他們會快速得到回饋，

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

也就是說他們對 負面情緒比較有反應，

because those are the ones that rise faster, right?

因為這些負面刺激的回饋， 比正向刺激來得快，對吧？

And so therefore, even well-intentioned players

因此，即使是出發點很好的業者，

who think all they're doing is advertising toothpaste

他們認為他們所做的 不過就是為牙膏打廣告，

end up advancing the cause of the negative people,

結果卻是協助造成了這社會上

the negative emotions, the cranks,

充滿了負面情緒的人、怪胎、

the paranoids,

偏執狂、

the cynics, the nihilists.

憤世嫉俗、對人生無望的人。

Those are the ones who get amplified by the system.

系統會放大的就是這些人。

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

你無法支付其中任何一家公司

讓世界突然變好或民主進步，

and improve democracy

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

無法像破壞這些東西那樣容易。

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

所以，是我們自己 造成了這樣的困境。

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

替代方案就是 盡全力地讓時光倒流，

and remake that decision.

然後重新做決定。

Remaking it would mean two things.

重新做決定意味著兩件事。

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

第一，許多負擔得起這些東西的人

would actually pay for these things.

就真的得要為這些東西付錢。

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

搜尋要錢、用社交網路要錢。

How would you pay? Maybe with a subscription fee,

你要如何付錢？也許是付訂閱費，

maybe with micro-payments as you use them.

也許是在使用時支付極低的費用。

There's a lot of options.

有許多選擇。

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

如果有些人打退堂鼓，在想：

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

「天啊，我絕不會為這些東西付錢。

How could you ever get anyone to pay?"

你怎麼能要任何人付錢？」

I want to remind you of something that just happened.

那麼我要提醒你一件剛發生的事。

Around this same time

之前 Google、臉書這些公司

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

在發想他們的免費想法時，

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

有許多網路文化也相信，在未來，

televisions and movies would be created in the same way,

我們也會用同樣的方式 來製作電視和電影，

kind of like the Wikipedia.

有點像維基百科。

But then, companies like Netflix, Amazon, HBO,

但，接著，像網飛、 亞馬遜、HBO 這類公司

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

比如：「你只要訂閱我們， 我們就給你很好的節目。」

And it worked!

結果很有效！

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

我們現在處在所謂的 「電視節目選擇超多」的時期，對吧？

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

所以，有時為東西付錢反而是好事。

We can imagine a hypothetical --

我們可以想像一個假設性的──

(Applause)

（掌聲）

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

我們可以想像一個 社交媒體超多的世界。

What would that be like?

那會是什麼樣子？

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

那意味著，當你上社交媒體， 你能得到非常有用、

authoritative medical advice instead of cranks.

有權威性的醫療建議， 而不是亂七八糟的垃圾。

It could mean when you want to get factual information,

也可能意味著， 當你想要取得真實資訊時，

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

不會得到一堆怪異、 偏執的陰謀論。

We can imagine this wonderful other possibility.

我們可以想像這美好的 「另一種可能性」。

Ah.

啊。

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

我夢想它能成真。 我相信它能成真。

I'm certain it's possible.

我很確定它能成真。

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

我很確定像 Google 及臉書這些公司

would actually do better in this world.

他們會做得更好。

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

我不認為我們需要去懲罰矽谷。

We just need to remake the decision.

我們只需要重新決定。

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

其實只有兩間 仰賴行為修改和暗中監視

as their business plan.

做為它們的事業計畫。

It's Google and Facebook.

就是 Google 和臉書。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

And I love you guys.

我愛你們。

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

真的，我愛你們。那些人都很棒。

I want to point out, if I may,

如果可以的話，我想聲明這點。

if you look at Google,

比如說 Google，

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

他們可以和這些公司 無限地將成本中心分散出去，

but they cannot propagate profit centers.

但他們無法將利益中心散播出去。

They cannot diversify, because they're hooked.

他們無法多樣化， 因為他們被困住了。

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

他們被固定在這個模式上， 就如同他們的使用者一樣。

They're in the same trap as their users,

他們和他們的使用者 掉到了同樣的困境中；

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

但是大型的企業不能那樣經營。

So this is ultimately totally in the benefit of the shareholders

因為，他們最終追求的是股東的利益，

and other stakeholders of these companies.

這些公司的股東權益。

It's a win-win solution.

這樣才是雙贏的解決方案。

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

只是要花些時間就能想通這點。

A lot of details to work out,

有很多細節需要考量，

totally doable.

完全是可行的。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

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

我認為若不解決這個問題， 人類就無法生存。

We cannot have a society

我們不能活在這樣的社會：

in which, if two people wish to communicate,

如果兩個人想要溝通，

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

唯一可能發生的方式是

who wishes to manipulate them.

由想要操縱他們的第三方提供資金。

(Applause)

（掌聲）

(Applause ends)

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

到那時候，如果這些公司仍不改變，

delete your accounts, OK?

刪除你的帳號，好嗎？

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

(Applause)

（掌聲）

That's enough for now.

我就講到這邊。

Thank you so much.

非常謝謝。

(Applause)

（掌聲）