演講MP3+雙語文稿:我們?nèi)绾卧诠ぷ髦姓业阶饑?yán)？

00:00

00:00

MP3下載

https://online2.tingclass.net/lesson/shi0529/10000/10387/tedyp169.mp3

https://image.tingclass.net/statics/js/2012

聽力課堂TED音頻欄目主要包括TED演講的音頻MP3及中英雙語文稿，供各位英語愛好者學(xué)習(xí)使用。本文主要內(nèi)容為演講MP3+雙語文稿:我們?nèi)绾卧诠ぷ髦姓业阶饑?yán)？，希望你會(huì)喜歡！

【演講者及介紹】Roy Bahat and Bryn Freedman

羅伊·巴特，風(fēng)險(xiǎn)資本家，他投資于未來的工作，專注于自動(dòng)化，數(shù)據(jù)、機(jī)器人、媒體、生產(chǎn)力工具等等。

布瑞恩·弗里德曼，編輯主任兼策展人，在TED研究所幫助那些想要以清晰、熱情和真實(shí)的方式來“談?wù)撍麄兊纳睢钡娜恕?/p>

【演講主題】我們?nèi)绾卧诠ぷ髦姓业阶饑?yán)?

【中英文字幕】

翻譯者 Melody Chen 校對(duì)者Xuying Wu

00:18

Bryn Freedman: You're a guy whose companyfunds these AI programs and invests. So why should we trust you to not have abias and tell us something really useful for the rest of us about the future ofwork?

布萊恩·弗里德曼（BF）：你的公司資助并投資了這些人工智能的項(xiàng)目。那么我們?cè)趺茨軌蛳嘈拍銢]有偏見，會(huì)告訴我們關(guān)于未來工作的一些真正有用的東西？

00:35

Roy Bahat: Yes, I am. And when you wake upin the morning and you read the newspaper and it says, "The robots arecoming, they may take all our jobs," as a start-up investor focused on thefuture of work, our fund was the first one to say artificial intelligenceshould be a focus for us.

羅伊·巴哈特（RB）：對(duì)，我投資人工智能。當(dāng)你在清晨起床，瀏覽報(bào)紙，報(bào)紙上說：“機(jī)器人來了，它們可能會(huì)搶走我們所有的工作。”作為一個(gè)關(guān)注職業(yè)未來的初創(chuàng)公司投資者，我們的基金第一個(gè)宣告人工智能應(yīng)該成為我們的焦點(diǎn)。

00:50

So I woke up one morning and read that andsaid, "Oh, my gosh, they're talking about me. That's me who's doingthat." And then I thought: wait a minute. If things continue, then maybenot only will the start-ups in which we invest struggle because there won't bepeople to have jobs to pay for the things that they make and buy them, but oureconomy and society might struggle, too.

所以某個(gè)清晨我醒來，讀到那則消息后說，“哦，天哪，他們?cè)谡務(wù)摰氖俏?。我正是這么做的人?！比缓笪蚁耄旱鹊?。如果事情繼續(xù)發(fā)展下去，那么不僅僅是那些我們所投資的初創(chuàng)企業(yè)會(huì)陷入泥淖，因?yàn)閷砣祟悤?huì)失業(yè)，無力購買它們制造的產(chǎn)品，而且我們的經(jīng)濟(jì)和社會(huì)也會(huì)陷入泥淖。

01:15

And look, I should be the guy who sits hereand tells you, "Everything is going to be fine. It's all going to work outgreat. Hey, when they introduced the ATM machine, years later, there's moretellers in banks." It's true. And yet, when I looked at it, I thought,"This is going to accelerate. And if it does accelerate, there's a chancethe center doesn't hold." But I figured somebody must know the answer tothis; there are so many ideas out there. And I read all the books, and I wentto the conferences, and at one point, we counted more than 100 efforts to studythe future of work. And it was a frustrating experience, because I'd hear thesame back-and-forth over and over again: "The robots are coming!" Andthen somebody else would say, "Oh, don't worry about that, they've alwayssaid that and it turns out OK." Then somebody else would say, "Well,it's really about the meaning of your job, anyway." And then everybodywould shrug and go off and have a drink. And it felt like there was this Kabukitheater of this discussion, where nobody was talking to each other.

我本該坐在這里告訴你“一切都會(huì)順利的。所有問題最后都會(huì)解決?？?，當(dāng)初也引進(jìn)了ATM機(jī)，幾年后，銀行里的出納員反而變多了。”這是事實(shí)。但是，當(dāng)我仔細(xì)審視后，想到，“這個(gè)趨勢(shì)會(huì)加速，而一旦它加速發(fā)展了，控制中心就有把握不住的可能。”但是我想到某些人一定知道這個(gè)問題的解決辦法。因?yàn)楹命c(diǎn)子真是太多了。

02:12

And many of the people that I knew andworked with in the technology world were not speaking to policy makers; thepolicy makers were not speaking to them. And so we partnered with a nonpartisanthink tank NGO called New America to study this issue. And we brought togethera group of people, including an AI czar at a technology company and a videogame designer and a heartland conservative and a Wall Street investor and asocialist magazine editor -- literally, all in the same room; it wasoccasionally awkward -- to try to figure out what is it that will happen here.

我讀了所有的相關(guān)書籍，也參加了不少相關(guān)會(huì)議，我們列舉出了100多種研究職業(yè)未來的方式。那是一次令人沮喪的經(jīng)歷，因?yàn)槲乙呀?jīng)把相同的言論反反復(fù)復(fù)聽了無數(shù)遍了：“機(jī)器人就要來了！”然后某個(gè)人會(huì)說，“哦，別擔(dān)心，他們一直都說這會(huì)有一個(gè)好結(jié)果?！比缓罅硪粋€(gè)人會(huì)說，“無論如何，這事關(guān)工作的意義啊。”然后每個(gè)人都會(huì)聳聳肩，離席去喝一杯。這感覺就像這場(chǎng)討論中的歌舞伎表演中心，在這個(gè)問題上沒有人在與其他人交流。我們提出的問題很簡(jiǎn)單，就是：技術(shù)將為工作帶來怎樣的影響？我們放眼于將來的10到20年，希望那個(gè)時(shí)候會(huì)出現(xiàn)一些真實(shí)的改變，但是很快我們不再討論心靈傳送或諸如此類的事情，我們意識(shí)到，而且我想，我們也一直被這個(gè)世界提醒，預(yù)言未發(fā)生的事是困難的。所以除了預(yù)知未來，我們還有其它的事可做。我們可以嘗試構(gòu)想其它可能的未來，這也正是我們所做的。我們做了一個(gè)情境-計(jì)劃的模擬演練，我們想象每一個(gè)職業(yè)都有危機(jī)的情況。我們也想象每一個(gè)職業(yè)都是安全的情況。我們盡可能想象出每一種獨(dú)特的可能性。

02:43

The question we asked was simple. It was:What is the effect of technology on work going to be? And we looked out 10 to20 years, because we wanted to look out far enough that there could be realchange, but soon enough that we weren't talking about teleportation or anythinglike that. And we recognized -- and I think every year we're reminded of thisin the world -- that predicting what's going to happen is hard. So instead ofpredicting, there are other things you can do. You can try to imagine alternatepossible futures, which is what we did. We did a scenario-planning exercise,and we imagined cases where no job is safe. We imagined cases where every jobis safe. And we imagined every distinct possibility we could.

很多在技術(shù)領(lǐng)域與我共事的人并不與政策決定者交流；政策決定者也不會(huì)與他們對(duì)話。我們與一個(gè)叫“New America"的無黨派非政府智囊團(tuán)結(jié)為伙伴來研究這個(gè)問題。我們召集了一大群人，包括一位來自技術(shù)公司的人工智能主管，一位電子游戲開發(fā)者，一位忠實(shí)的保守主義者，一位華爾街風(fēng)險(xiǎn)投資人，和一位社會(huì)黨的報(bào)刊編輯……事實(shí)上，當(dāng)我們共處一室時(shí)，氣氛有時(shí)確實(shí)尷尬，尤其當(dāng)我們都想弄明白究竟將會(huì)發(fā)生什么時(shí)。

03:24

And the result, which really surprised us,was when you think through those futures and you think what should we do, theanswers about what we should do actually turn out to be the same, no matterwhat happens. And the irony of looking out 10 to 20 years into the future is,you realize that the things we want to act on are actually already happeningright now. The automation is right now, the future is right now.

而結(jié)果讓我們十分驚訝，當(dāng)我們深入思考這些可能的未來并思考我們應(yīng)該做些什么時(shí)，答案事實(shí)上卻是相同的，無論發(fā)生了什么。我們?cè)谡雇磥?0到20年時(shí)，感到諷刺的是我們意識(shí)到我們采取行動(dòng)的事物實(shí)際上已經(jīng)在當(dāng)下發(fā)生著。自動(dòng)化就在當(dāng)下，未來就在今天。

03:48

BF: So what does that mean, and what doesthat tell us? If the future is now, what is it that we should be doing, andwhat should we be thinking about?

BF：那是什么意思，這又給我們什么啟示呢？ 如果未來就是當(dāng)下，我們應(yīng)該做的是什么？ 我們應(yīng)該思考的是什么？

03:55

RB: We have to understand the problemfirst. And so the data are that as the economy becomes more productive andindividual workers become more productive, their wages haven't risen. If youlook at the proportion of prime wong-age men, in the United States at least,who work now versus in 1960, we have three times as many men not wong. Andthen you hear the stories.

RB：我們首先必須要了解這個(gè)問題。數(shù)據(jù)顯示經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展正在變得更高效，每一個(gè)獨(dú)立的勞動(dòng)力也正在變得更加多產(chǎn)，但是他們的工資并沒有增漲。如果你看到青壯年勞力所占比例，至少拿美國來說，將現(xiàn)在的比例與1960年相比，我們現(xiàn)在有相當(dāng)于之前三倍的勞動(dòng)力不在工作。你也一定聽說了那些故事。

04:17

I sat down with a group of Walmart workersand said, "What do you think about this cashier, this futuristicself-checkout thing?" They said, "That's nice, but have you heardabout the cash recycler? That's a machine that's being installed right now, andis eliminating two jobs at every Walmart right now." And so we justthought, "Geez. We don't understand the problem." And so we looked atthe voices that were the ones that were excluded, which is all of the peopleaffected by this change. And we decided to listen to them, sort of"automation and its discontents."

我和一群沃爾瑪?shù)膯T工說：“你們覺得人工智能收銀員怎么樣？就是那個(gè)未來主義的自助購物設(shè)備？”他們說：“那很好，但是你聽說過現(xiàn)金回收機(jī)嗎？那是一個(gè)現(xiàn)在正被安裝的機(jī)器，卻正在將兩份工作從沃爾瑪徹底清除。“所以我們就想：“天哪，我們還不了解這種問題。”所以我們看著那些曾被我們排除在外的聲音，都是由深受這轉(zhuǎn)變影響的人們發(fā)出的。我們決定聽聽他們的心聲，類似于“自動(dòng)化和它帶來的不滿情緒”。

04:44

And I've spent the last couple of yearsdoing that. I've been to Flint, Michigan, and Youngstown, Ohio, talking aboutentrepreneurs, trying to make it work in a very different environment from NewYork or San Francisco or London or Tokyo. I've been to prisons twice to talk toinmates about their jobs after they leave. I've sat down with truck drivers toask them about the self-driving truck, with people who, in addition to theirfull-time job, care for an aging relative. And when you talk to people, therewere two themes that came out loud and clear.

過去的幾年，我們一直在做這件事。我曾去到弗林特，密歇根和俄亥俄州的揚(yáng)斯敦，和企業(yè)家們交談，試圖在截然不同的環(huán)境中推進(jìn)這項(xiàng)研究，從紐約到舊金山，甚至倫敦或東京。我曾去過監(jiān)獄兩次，去與那些犯人談?wù)撍麄兂霆z后的工作。我也曾與卡車司機(jī)們促膝談心，詢問他們對(duì)于無人駕駛卡車的看法，還有那些在全職工作之外，正照料著他們年邁親人的人。當(dāng)你與他們交談的時(shí)候，他們提出的兩個(gè)主旨響亮而明確。

05:14

The first one was that people are lesslooking for more money or get out of the fear of the robot taking their job,and they just want something stable. They want something predictable. So if yousurvey people and ask them what they want out of work, for everybody who makesless than 150,000 dollars a year, they'll take a more stable and secure income,on average, over earning more money. And if you think about the fact that notonly for all of the people across the earth who don't earn a living, but forthose who do, the vast majority earn a different amount from month to month andhave an instability, all of a sudden you realize, "Wait a minute. We havea real problem on our hands."

第一個(gè)是人們很少擔(dān)心薪水太低，因被機(jī)器人奪去工作而感到恐懼，他們想要的只是一些穩(wěn)定的東西。他們想要些可以預(yù)測(cè)的東西。所以如果你在人群中做調(diào)查，問他們想從工作中獲得什么，對(duì)于每一個(gè)年薪少于 15萬美元的人來說，他們一般會(huì)傾向于一份穩(wěn)定有保障的平均薪酬，而不是賺取更多的錢。如果你考慮到一個(gè)事實(shí)，就是不僅對(duì)全世界所有不能維持溫飽的人們而言，就算那些能夠維持溫飽的人，絕大多數(shù)人每月的薪酬都不固定，或者生活中存在一些不穩(wěn)定因素，突然間你意識(shí)到，“等一等?，F(xiàn)在我們手上確實(shí)有了一個(gè)棘手的問題?！?/p>

05:53

And the second thing they say, which tookus a longer time to understand, is they say they want dignity. And that conceptof self-worth through work emerged again and again and again in ourconversations.

而他們會(huì)說的第二件事，我們也花了很久去理解，就是他們說他們想要尊嚴(yán)。而這種通過工作獲取自我價(jià)值的觀念在我們的談話中連續(xù)不斷地浮現(xiàn)

06:07

BF: So, I certainly appreciate this answer.But you can't eat dignity, you can't clothe your children with self-esteem. So,what is that, how do you reconcile -- what does dignity mean, and what is therelationship between dignity and stability?

BF：這么說吧，雖然我真的很欣賞這個(gè)答案。但是尊嚴(yán)不能用來果腹，你也不能讓你的孩子們用自尊蔽體。所以你如何協(xié)調(diào)這兩者間的關(guān)系——尊嚴(yán)究竟指什么，而尊嚴(yán)和穩(wěn)定性之間的關(guān)系又是什么？

06:24

RB: You can't eat dignity. You needstability first. And the good news is, many of the conversations that arehappening right now are about how we solve that. You know, I'm a proponent ofstudying guaranteed income, as one example, conversations about how health caregets provided and other benefits. Those conversations are happening, and we'reat a time where we must figure that out. It is the crisis of our era.

RB：尊嚴(yán)確實(shí)不能用來果腹。首先你需要穩(wěn)定。好的方面是，許多現(xiàn)在正在進(jìn)行的討論 都是關(guān)于如何解決這個(gè)問題的。我是一個(gè)研究有保障收入的堅(jiān)決擁護(hù)者，舉一個(gè)例子，關(guān)于如何提供健康護(hù)理服務(wù)的討論和其它有益的討論。這些討論都在進(jìn)行中，而我們現(xiàn)在正亟需理清這些問題。這是我們時(shí)代的危機(jī)。

06:46

And my point of view after talking topeople is that we may do that, and it still might not be enough. Because whatwe need to do from the beginning is understand what is it about work that givespeople dignity, so they can live the lives that they want to live. And so thatconcept of dignity is ... it's difficult to get your hands around, because whenmany people hear it -- especially, to be honest, rich people -- they hear"meaning." They hear "My work is important to me." Andagain, if you survey people and you ask them, "How important is it to youthat your work be important to you?" only people who make 150,000 dollarsa year or more say that it is important to them that their work be important.

而在跟人們談?wù)撝?，我的觀點(diǎn)是我們或許可以做到這些，當(dāng)然這些可能還不夠。因?yàn)閺囊婚_始我們需要做的就是去理解究竟是工作的哪一方面給予了人們尊嚴(yán)，讓我們能過上想要的生活。所以尊嚴(yán)的概念是——這很難真正弄明白，因?yàn)樵S多人聽到它時(shí)——不瞞你說，尤其是富有的人——他們聽到的是“意義“。他們聽到的是“我的工作對(duì)我很重要“。另外，如果你在民眾中調(diào)查，問他們“你的工作對(duì)你來說有重要意義這點(diǎn)，對(duì)你來說有多重要？”只有那些每年能掙至少15萬美元的人會(huì)說工作重要這件事對(duì)他們來說很重要。

07:30

BF: Meaning, meaningful?

BF: 你的意思是說，有意義嗎？

07:31

RB: Just defined as, "Is your womportant to you?" Whatever somebody took that to mean. And yet, of coursedignity is essential. We talked to truck drivers who said, "I saw mycousin drive, and I got on the open road and it was amazing. And I startedmaking more money than people who went to college." Then they'd get to theend of their thought and say something like, "People need their fruits andvegetables in the morning, and I'm the guy who gets it to them."

RB：就這么下定義吧，“工作對(duì)你來說重要嗎？” 隨便被問者怎么理解這句話的意思吧。話說回來，尊嚴(yán)依然是至關(guān)重要的。曾與我們交談過的卡車司機(jī)說，“我曾看到我的表兄開車，然后當(dāng)我有機(jī)會(huì)開車在路上飛馳的時(shí)候，那感覺太棒了。之后我開始比那些上了大學(xué)的學(xué)生掙更多的錢。" 然后在他們思緒的末尾，他們開始說，諸如：“人們?cè)谇宄啃枰褪卟耍艺悄莻€(gè)把這些東西送給他們的人?！?/p>

07:56

We talked to somebody who, in addition tohis job, was caring for his aunt. He was making plenty of money. At one pointwe just asked, "What is it about caring for your aunt? Can't you just paysomebody to do it?" He said, "My aunt doesn't want somebody we payfor. My aunt wants me." So there was this concept there of being needed.

我們?cè)?jīng)和一個(gè)在工作之外還要照顧自己阿姨的人交談。他當(dāng)時(shí)有著不錯(cuò)的收入。有一次我們就問他，“你為什么要自己照料你的阿姨？你難道不能花錢雇別人來嗎？”他說，“我阿姨不想讓我們花錢雇人照顧她。她想要的是我。”所以這就是“被需要”的概念。

08:14

If you study the word "dignity,"it's fascinating. It's one of the oldest words in the English language, fromantiquity. And it has two meanings: one is self-worth, and the other is thatsomething is suitable, it's fitting, meaning that you're part of somethinggreater than yourself, and it connects to some broader whole. In other words,that you're needed.

如果你仔細(xì)研究這個(gè)詞“尊嚴(yán)”，它其實(shí)很有趣。它是最古老的英文單詞之一，算是老古董了。而它其實(shí)有兩重含義：一個(gè)是自我價(jià)值，而另一個(gè)則是一些合適的，適合你的東西。意味著你是比你更宏大的某個(gè)東西的一部分，而這一部分將你與一個(gè)更廣闊的整體相連。換句話說，那就是你被需要。

08:33

BF: So how do you answer this question,this concept that we don't pay teachers, and we don't pay eldercare workers,and we don't pay people who really care for people and are needed, enough?

BF：那么你如何回答這個(gè)問題： 按這個(gè)概念，如果我們不付工資給教師，不花錢請(qǐng)老年療養(yǎng)師，也不付工資給那些必需的看護(hù)者，這就夠了嗎？

08:44

RB: Well, the good news is, people arefinally asking the question. So as AI investors, we often get phone calls fromfoundations or CEOs and boardrooms saying, "What do we do aboutthis?" And they used to be asking, "What do we do about introducingautomation?" And now they're asking, "What do we do about self-worth?"And they know that the employees who work for them who have a spouse who caresfor somebody, that dignity is essential to their ability to just do their job.

RB：好的方面就是 人們終于在問這個(gè)問題了。作為人工智能投資者，我們經(jīng)常接到 從基金會(huì)，首席執(zhí)行官 和董事會(huì)打來的電話說，“我們?cè)撛趺崔k？” 他們過去常問，“我們?cè)撛趺匆M(jìn)自動(dòng)化？” 而現(xiàn)在他們?cè)趩?，”我們?cè)撛趺大w現(xiàn)自我價(jià)值？“ 而他們知道 為他們工作的雇員中 誰有配偶，誰又有親人需要照顧，對(duì)這些人來說，尊嚴(yán)是 他們能夠完成工作的必要條件。

09:08

I think there's two kinds of answers:there's the money side of just making your life work. That's stability. Youneed to eat. And then you think about our culture more broadly, and you ask:Who do we make into heroes? And, you know, what I want is to see the magazinecover that is the person who is the heroic caregiver. Or the Netflix seriesthat dramatizes the person who makes all of our other lives work so we can dothe things we do. Let's make heroes out of those people. That's the Netflixshow that I would binge.

我認(rèn)為對(duì)這個(gè)問題有兩個(gè)答案：一個(gè)是從僅僅維持生計(jì)的角度。那是穩(wěn)定性。你需要吃飯。然后你從更廣的視角仔細(xì)考慮我們的社會(huì)文化，你會(huì)問：我們把什么樣的人稱作英雄？我想在雜志封面上看到的是英雄守護(hù)者式的人物?；蛘呤荖etflix連續(xù)劇戲劇化了的人物，讓萬物照它現(xiàn)有的狀態(tài)運(yùn)轉(zhuǎn)，從而讓我們能夠安居樂業(yè)。讓我們按那些人來想象英雄吧。我會(huì)非常喜歡這樣的Netflix節(jié)目。

09:38

And we've had chroniclers of this before --Studs Terkel, the oral history of the wong experience in the United States.And what we need is the experience of needing one another and being connectedto each other. Maybe that's the answer for how we all fit as a society. And thethought exercise, to me, is: if you were to go back 100 years and have people-- my grandparents, great-grandparents, a tailor, worked in a mine -- they lookat what all of us do for a living and say, "That's not work." We sitthere and type and talk, and there's no danger of getting hurt. And my guess isthat if you were to imagine 100 years from now, we'll still be doing things foreach other. We'll still need one another. And we just will think of it as work.

而我們?cè)?jīng)有過這樣的年代史編者—— Studs Terkel, 美國工作經(jīng)歷的口述史。而我們所需要的就是這樣互相依賴的經(jīng)歷，彼此之間互相聯(lián)系?；蛟S這就是我們?cè)撊绾我砸粋€(gè)社會(huì)的形態(tài)相處的答案。對(duì)于我來說，這個(gè)思維訓(xùn)練是：如果我們倒回100年前見到——我的祖父母，曾祖父母，可能是裁縫，或者礦工——他們了解了我們謀生的工作，會(huì)說，“這可不是工作?！蔽覀冏谀莾捍蜃郑奶?，沒有受傷的危險(xiǎn)。而我的猜測(cè)是，如果想象一下一百年以后的未來，我們?nèi)匀粫?huì)為彼此做事。我們依然相互需要。而我們也還會(huì)把這看成是工作。

10:18

The entire thing I'm trying to say is thatdignity should not just be about having a job. Because if you say you need ajob to have dignity, which many people say, the second you say that, you say toall the parents and all the teachers and all the caregivers that all of asudden, because they're not being paid for what they're doing, it somehow lacksthis essential human quality. To me, that's the great puzzle of our time: Canwe figure out how to provide that stability throughout life, and then can wefigure out how to create an inclusive, not just racially, gender, butmultigenerationally inclusive -- I mean, every different human experienceincluded -- in this way of understanding how we can be needed by one another.

總的來說，我認(rèn)為尊嚴(yán)不應(yīng)該僅僅意味著有一份工作。因?yàn)槿绻愫秃芏嗳硕加X得需要一份工作來獲得尊嚴(yán)，那么同時(shí)也相當(dāng)于讓所有的父母，所有的教師和所有的看護(hù)者開始認(rèn)識(shí)到，他們所從事的無償工作使得他們?nèi)鄙倭诉@個(gè)重要的品質(zhì)。對(duì)我來說，這是我們時(shí)代的巨大謎團(tuán)：我們是否能夠找到保障終生穩(wěn)定的方法，是否能學(xué)會(huì)怎么創(chuàng)造一個(gè)包容的，不僅僅是在種族，性別，更是在代際之間的包容的——我是說每一種不同的人生經(jīng)歷都能被包容——能用這種方式去理解我們?nèi)绾文鼙槐舜诵枰?/p>

10:59

BF: Thank you. RB: Thank you.

BF：謝謝。RB：謝謝。

11:00

BF: Thank you very much for yourparticipation.

BF：非常感謝你的分享。

11:02

（Applause）

（掌聲）