Future of AI with @elonmusk @rokhanna @mikeforWI - Twitter Space 2023-07-13
发布时间 2023-07-13 14:16:05 来源
中英文字稿 
All right. Welcome to the spaces. And welcome to Rokana and Mike Gallagher. So this is a discussion of AI safety among other things, appropriate, I suppose, especially today having announced the XAI. But I think we're going to touch on a lot of topics here that I think people will find very interesting.
好的。欢迎来到这个空间。欢迎Rokana和Mike Gallagher。所以这个讨论主要关于人工智能安全等话题，我想这是合适的，特别是在今天宣布了可解释性人工智能（XAI）。但是我认为我们将触及很多话题，人们会发现非常有趣。
So just welcome Rokana and Mike Gallagher. Well thank you, Elon. Thank you for doing this and your conversation with Mike and me a month or so ago and then we all thought it'd be important to have a thoughtful, engaged conversation in a way that people could participate without the theatrics of congressional hearings where people just are looking to score points. So I hope that all happened today and I know Mike's committed to it. I'll just share a minute of my perspective.
所以欢迎Rokana和Mike Gallagher。嗯，谢谢你，伊隆。谢谢你做这件事，以及你一个月前与迈克和我进行的对话，然后我们都认为有必要以一种人们能够参与且没有国会听证会上争分夺秒的闹剧的方式进行深入的讨论。所以我希望今天一切都顺利，我知道迈克是致力于这一点的。我只想分享一分钟我的观点。
I appreciated what you did to seed open AI. I think there are a lot of benefits to AI from personalized medicine to personalized education to looking at supply chains and how to make those more efficient and increase in productivity in our country and just making products cheaper and more abundant. There are numerous concerns. One of my biggest concerns is the data you put into AI. If you put junk data you're going to get junk outcomes. And right now there is not much regulation or thought about what is the actual data set that we're putting in AI and what is the human judgment and that is something that we're going to have to figure out. But I'm happy now to get Mike's perspective.
我对你为开启AI技术所做的贡献表示赞赏。我认为人工智能可以为个性化医疗、个性化教育、供应链的优化和提高我国生产力、降低产品成本和增加数量等方面带来许多好处。当然，也存在许多问题。其中我最担心的问题之一是输入到人工智能中的数据。如果输入的数据是垃圾数据，你得到的结果也会是垃圾。目前对于我们输入到人工智能中的实际数据集还没有太多的监管或思考，以及人类的判断力实际上扮演了怎样的角色，这是我们需要解决的问题。现在，我很高兴听听迈克的观点。
It was just been terrific as the chair of our China committee. He and I, he leads, he's the chair of the ranking member on ARM services, a Marine from Wisconsin. I disagree on things but always with an view of what a debate on ideas. Well, thanks, Rohan. I appreciate it. Although I'm embarrassed because my staff informs me that I have, or Elon, you have 147 million followers. I have, Rohan, you have 312,000 and I have 8,000. So mine are very dedicated though. So you are welcome that I brought my dedicated 8,000 to this conversation. Well, I think I'll have a few more after this one. Basis, I think. Quality is not quantity. That's what I'm after. But thank you, Elon.
作为我们中国委员会的主席，这段时间真是非常棒。他和我，他带领着，他是军情局服务委员会上资深成员的主席，来自威斯康星州的一位海军。我们在一些问题上存在分歧，但始终本着辩论观点的原则。好的，谢谢你，罗翰。我很感激。虽然我有点不好意思，因为我的团队告诉我，你有1.47亿的粉丝，而我有3.12万，还有我自己的8000名忠实粉丝。所以非常欢迎你们加入这次对话。好吧，我想在这之后还会增加一些粉丝。我追求的是质量而不是数量。但是谢谢你，埃隆。
I think from my perspective, just to briefly add to what Rohan said, we now, though we've, I think on the ARM services committee primarily thought about the applications of AI on the battlefield now because of the quantum leap in the technology over the last few months, this big debate is broken out between sort of the AI optimists and the AI pessimists. I would argue that you're sort of the most prominent member of the ladder camp. I remember reading an interview with a famous technologist who said, you know, with artificial intelligence, we're summoning the demon and all those stories where there's a guy with the pentagram and the holy water. It's like, hey, he sure he controlled the demon. It didn't work out. And that was, of course, you.
从我个人的角度来看，只是简要补充Rohan所说的，我们现在，虽然我们，我认为在军事委员会主要关注人工智能在战场上的应用，因为在过去几个月里，这项技术突飞猛进，AI乐观派和悲观派之间爆发了一场大争论。我认为你是悲观派阵营中最杰出的成员。我记得曾经读过一位著名技术专家的采访，他说，你知道，带着人工智能，我们在召唤恶魔，和那些描述一个人带着五角星和圣水的故事一样。这个人确信他能控制恶魔，但结果并不好。当然，他指的就是你。
So I guess what I'm most interested in is getting your sense of your concerns as someone who's skeptical of pause is practical. But with this new announcement and congratulations on that, are you, what are you doing differently than say deep mind and tropic and open AI and galloping the risk versus the promise of the technology? Sure. So, yes, I mean, I think I've been banging the drum on AI safety for a very long time. And yes, I think if I could put press pause on AI or to really advance to AI sort of just digital super intelligence, I would. It doesn't seem like that is realistic.
我猜我最感兴趣的是听听您作为对暂停AI持怀疑态度者的担忧。但是有了这个新的公告和祝贺，您与 DeepMind、Tropic、OpenAI 和 Galloping 等机构有什么不同之处？您在技术的风险与诺言上有什么不同的做法吗？当然，是的。我认为我已经长时间以来一直在强调AI安全的重要性。如果我能够暂停AI的发展，或者将其推进到数字超级智能的阶段，我会这样做。但看起来这并不现实。
So the, you know, XAI is essentially going to, you know, build an AI, you know, like you kind of grow, grow an AI in a good way, sort of hopefully. The premise of AI is to sort of have the AI be sort of maximally curious, maximally truth seeking.
所以，你知道的，XAI本质上会构建一个人工智能，你知道的，就像你以某种希望的方式培养一个人工智能一样。人工智能的前提是以尽可能好奇、尽可能追求真理为目标。
And this may, like, get a little esoteric here. But I think that from an AI safety standpoint, I think a maximally curious AI, one is that it is trying to sort of understand the universe is I think going to be pro humanity from the standpoint that humanity is just much more interesting than not humanity.
这可能有点深奥，但我认为从AI安全的角度来说，一个最大程度上好奇的AI，它试图理解宇宙，我认为它会站在人类利益的角度上，因为人类相较于非人类而言更加有趣。
So like, obviously, I'm a big fan of Mars and that we should become a space-brank civilization and sort of a multi-planet species. But like Mars is frankly quite boring relative to Earth because it's a bunch of rocks. There's not, there's really, there's no life that we've detected so far, not even microbial life. Earth with it sort of with the vast complexity of life that exists on Earth is just, is vastly more interesting than Mars, you're just learn a lot more with humanity being there with, and actually, I think, fostering humanity. If sort of trying to understand the true nature of the universe, that's like actually the best thing that I can come up with from an AI safety standpoint.
所以，显然，我是火星的一个铁杆粉丝，而且我们应该成为一个能够在太空中居住的文明，成为一个多星球物种。但是，就事实而言，相对于地球，火星其实相当无聊，因为它只是一堆岩石。迄今为止，我们没有发现火星上有生命存在，甚至没有微生物。相比之下，地球上令人着迷的生命复杂性使其变得更加有趣，有了人类的存在和发展，我们可以从中学到更多，而且实际上，我认为，培养人类是为了更好地理解宇宙的真实本质，这从AI安全的角度来看是我能想到的最好的事情。
So that's, yeah, and I think this is actually better than trying to explicitly program or morality into AI because if you program a certain morality, you have to say, well, what morality are you programming in, like, who's making those decisions? And even if you are actually extremely good with how you program morality into AI, there's this little morality inversion problem when it's sometimes called the Waluigi problem that if you program Luigi, you inherently get Waluigi by inverting Luigi to use sort of super Mario metaphors.
所以，嗯，我认为这实际上比试图明确地将道德编程进人工智能更好，因为如果你编程一种特定的道德观，你必须问自己，这是什么样的道德观，谁来决定这些选择？即使你在将道德观编程进人工智能方面非常娴熟，也存在一种小小的道德反转问题，有时也被称为瓦路易问题，即如果你编程了路易，你必然会得到瓦路易，通过反转路易来使用超级马里奥的隐喻方式。
So I mean, this is kind of getting, this is obviously getting quite esoteric, but hopefully this makes some sense. So I would be a little concerned about, you know, maybe the way that that, say, of an AI is programming the AI to say that this is good and that's not good, you know, and if it is, you know, anyway, so that's, like, the XAI is really just kind of starting out here. So it's not, you know, it'll be a while before it's relevant on a scale of the sort of open AI Microsoft, AI or the Google DeepMind AI, those are really the two big gorillas in the AI right now by far.
所以我的意思是，这变得有些深奥，但希望这些话有些道理。我对这种AI所编程的方式表示担忧，他们判断什么好什么不好，你知道的，如果是这样的话，不管怎样，解释清楚AI的决策将需要时间。目前，可解释的人工智能还处于起步阶段，与OpenAI微软AI或Google DeepMind AI相比，这两者可谓AI领域的顶级巨头。
So and I could really talk about this for a long time. It's something that really thought about for a really long time and actually was somewhat reluctant to do anything in the space because I'm concerned about the immense power of digital super intelligence. And it's just something that sort of, I think, maybe hard for us to even comprehend. Yeah.
所以我们可能会长时间地讨论这个问题。这是我思考很长时间的一个问题，实际上我对在这个领域采取任何行动都有些不情愿，因为我对数字超级智能的巨大威力感到担忧。这实际上是一件我们可能很难理解的事情。是的。
So there's also, even if the AI is extremely benign, the question of relevance that comes up, like if it can do anything better than any human, well, what's the point of existing? That there's also an issue. Just do we even have relevance in such a scenario?
所以即使AI非常良善，也会引发一个关于相关性的问题，比如它是否能够比任何人类做得更好，那么存在的意义是什么？这也是一个问题。在这种情况下，我们甚至是否有相关性？
So anyway, that's the bad side. But the good side, obviously, is that in an AI future where you really will have an sort of, in a benign scenario, an age of plenty of where really there will be no shortage of goods and services, any scarcity will be simply a scarcity that we self-defined a scarcity.
总之，那就是不好的一面。而好的一面显然是，在一个AI的未来中，你确实将会有各种各样的好处，在一个良性的情景中，将会有充足的物品和服务，真正不会短缺任何东西，任何短缺都只是我们自我定义的短缺。
So it could be a unique piece of art or a house in a specific location. It's artificially defined scarcity, but goods and services will not be scarce in an sort of AGI future, in a positive AGI future. And I think it's actually important for us to worry about a terminator future in order to avoid a terminator future. Yeah.
所以它可以是一件独特的艺术品或位于特定位置的房屋。这是一种人为定义的稀缺性，但在某种正向的超级智能（AGI）未来中，商品和服务将不会稀缺。我认为为了避免一个《终结者》式的未来，我们担心《终结者》式的未来实际上非常重要。是的。
And I am an advocate of having some sort of regulatory oversight. And I've actually made this point throughout the meeting with world leaders, including in China. And where actually they simply like actually strong agreement that there should be AI oversight, AI regulation.
我是一个支持拥有某种监管监督的倡导者。事实上，我在与包括中国在内的世界领导人的会议中一直强调这一观点。实际上，他们非常赞同应该对人工智能进行监管和规范。
So just as we have regulation for nuclear technology, you can't just go make a nuke in your garage and everyone thinks that's cool. But we don't think that's cool. So there's a lot of regulation about around things that we think are dangerous. And even if things are not dangerous at a civilizational level, there's this still, we have the green drug administration, we've got the federal aviation authority, we've got the Department of Transport, there's all these regulatory authorities that we put in place in order to ensure public safety at an individual level.
就像我们对核技术有调控一样，你不能随随便便在你的车库里制造核弹，而且大家都认为这很酷。但事实上我们并不认为这很酷。所以对于我们认为危险的问题有很多规定。即使某些事物不会对整个文明造成危害，我们仍然设立了绿色药物管理局、联邦航空管理局、交通部等监管机构，以确保公众安全在个体层面上得到保障。
But AGI is just one of those things that is potentially dangerous at a civilizational level, not just at an individual level. And so that's why I think we want to have AI regulation. We want to be careful in how the air regulation is implemented and not be precipitous and heavy handed. But I think it is something that needs, there's got to be some kind of referee on the field here.
但是AGI只是那些在文明层面上潜在危险的事物之一，而不仅仅是在个体层面上。那么这就是为什么我认为我们需要AI监管的原因。我们希望在实施AI监管时小心谨慎，而不是草率和过重地实施。但我认为这是一件需要的事情，在这个领域需要一些裁判的存在。
Because one of the dangers is that companies race ahead to, you know, I think it's actually more dangerous for companies that are behind that might take shortcuts that could be dangerous. You know, the FAA came into being after lots of people died in aircraft crashes. And they were like, well, look, if you're going to make aircraft, you really cannot cut corners because people are going to die. So that's kind of how I see AI regulation. I know a lot of people are sort of against it, but I think it's the kind of thing that we should do, we should do it carefully, we should do it thoughtfully. But I think it's something we should do.
因为其中一个危险是企业会走在前面，你知道的，我认为对于那些落后的企业来说更危险，因为他们可能会走捷径，这可能是危险的。你知道的，联邦航空局（FAA）是在很多人死于飞机事故后才成立的。他们说，好吧，如果你要制造飞机，你真的不能走捷径，因为人们会死。所以我对AI监管的看法就是这样。我知道很多人对此持反对态度，但我认为我们应该这样做，我们应该小心谨慎地做，我们应该深思熟虑地做。但我认为这是我们应该做的事情。
Yeah. All right. I appreciate that, Elon. My takeaway headline is that you affirm the earth and affirm humanity. And that is in a time of pessimism. I'm glad that you still believe in the earth and humanity as possibilities. And mention the positives, the abundance of goods and services, the lower cost. And I couldn't agree with you more about the need for regulation and thoughtful regulation.
是的，好的。我很欣赏你这样说，埃隆。我理解的要点是，你肯定了地球和人类的存在。而这在一片悲观情绪中显得格外重要。我很高兴你仍然相信地球和人类有希望存在下去。而且你提到了一些积极的方面，比如物品和服务的丰富，成本的降低。我完全同意你对于需要有规章制度以及审慎的监管的观点。
One of the points I talked to Mike earlier and I was making about the FDA is some of the smartest people are actually at the FDA. And I know some of the business folks complain about the FDA times, but then they acknowledge that the people at the FDA really know what they're talking about. And I think that has led not just to the safety of drugs. It's also led to high standards that has had the United States make the best drugs the most efficacious drugs because the FDA challenges them to a standard. My own view, I don't know, Mike's view, I see, it kind of negates some others on the call, is that Congress lacks the knowledge to really delve into this. And I don't think we ought to be just deferring to industry. And so creating a new regulatory body like the FDA, FAA that has experts from technology but also from ethics from civil society, people who have really studied this, scientists, in my view, would be a concrete step. And whether it's that or we get a commission composed of people who really understand this, it seems that Congress is going to need help to get this right.
在我之前与迈克谈话的一个观点是，FDA拥有一些最聪明的人才。我知道有些商业人士抱怨FDA的时间，但他们也承认FDA的人确实知道他们在谈论什么。我认为这不仅使药物达到了安全标准，也造就了高标准，使得美国生产最好、最有效的药物，因为FDA要求他们达到这个标准。在我看来，也许不同于迈克的看法，这种观点否定了其他人的意见，即国会缺乏了解这个领域的知识。我认为我们不应该只顺从于产业界。因此，我认为建立一个新的监管机构，类似于FDA、FAA，拥有来自技术、伦理和公民社会的专家，真正研究过这个领域的科学家们，会是一个具体的步骤。无论是这样还是委任一些真正了解这个问题的成员组成一个委员会，国会似乎需要帮助才能做出正确的决策。
Yeah, I would take your point, Ray, about the dearth of expertise in Congress, right? Congress has not covered itself in glory when talking about even the most rudimentary technological issues. I mean, see, sort of Facebook, Zachar, we're carrying 2018. And it's like, it birthed what was called at the time, the meme apocalypse. But I also think there's concerns, you know, I don't speak for the entire conservative world about, I think maybe the pandemic illustrates the dangers of seeing too much authority to unaccountable experts. But do we need a more dynamic regulatory process with the technology like this where the pace of change is so quick? Put differently, you know, it's not like even if we passed a sensible AI law this year that struck that balance, you talked about you on between oversight guardrails but also the need to innovate. It might be outdated very quickly. So figuring out that dynamic regulatory model without stifling innovation, I think, is the core dilemma because for me, and this reflects my bias, I think, the one thing we know for certain is that if we fall behind because the Chinese Communist Party is not going to pause, they are going to use the technology for evil to perfect a techno totalitarian surveillance state. We at least in the free world have the chance of using it for good and striking that balance. But I admit, it's very difficult.
是的，我同意你关于国会在专业知识方面的匮乏的观点，对吧？国会在谈论最基本的技术问题时并没有表现出色。我的意思是，看看Facebook，扎克伯格，我们都在2018年这个时候，它诞生了当时被称为“梗灾”的事件。但我也认为有一些担忧，虽然我不代表整个保守派世界，我认为疫情或许说明了将过多的权力交给无可问责的专家所带来的危险。但在像这样技术变化如此迅速的领域，我们是否需要一个更有活力的监管流程呢？换句话说，即使我们今年通过了一项明智的人工智能法律来平衡你提到的监督限制和创新需求，它可能会很快过时。因此，找到一个动态的监管模式，既不扼杀创新，又能解决这个问题，我认为，这是核心的困境，因为对我来说，这也反映了我的偏见，我们唯一确定的一件事是，如果我们落后了，因为中共不会停下脚步，他们将利用技术来完善一个技术极权监控国家。而我们至少在自由世界中有机会将其用于善良，并找到平衡点。但我承认这是非常困难的。
I mean, I guess, Elon, do you see an obvious path forward in terms of regulation that doesn't completely strangle innovation but also doesn't unleash the Terminator hypothesis? Because that's my constituents understand Terminator, whereas I think the positive externalities of AI still seem distant and in some ways ephemeral, if that makes sense.
我的意思是，埃隆，你能看到一条明显的监管路径吗？既不完全扼杀创新，又不引发终结者假设？因为我的选民们理解终结者，而我认为人工智能的积极外部效应似乎还遥远，并且在某种程度上是无法捉摸的，如果这样说你能明白吗？
Yeah, I agree. There isn't, it's difficult to think of any sort of, I can't think of a good sort of movie example, TV example of AI that's the benign scenario. There are some books, like I think the in-banks culture books are probably the, that's the best imagining of a positive AI future that I've read. And I think arguably you could say like the Isaac Asimov Foundation series, also the books, the TV series diverges quite far from the books, but the books themselves actually have somewhat of a benign AI scenario.
是的，我同意。很难想到任何一种良性的人工智能情景的电影例子或电视节目例子。有一些书籍，比如我认为伊恩·班克斯的文化系列可能是我读过的对积极人工智能未来设想最好的。而且我认为可以争论说艾萨克·阿西莫夫的基地系列也是这样的书籍，尽管与书不同，电视剧本身也相对远离了原作，但书本身确实有一些良性人工智能情景。
But the most sophisticated, perhaps most accurate view of AI future is the in-banks culture books which I'd highly recommend. But it would be helpful for, so Hollywood to articulate that vision in a way that the public can understand. So, but I think the right sequence here is to go with insight followed by oversight.
然而，对于人工智能未来最复杂、也许最准确的观点，我强烈推荐的是银行文化书籍。但对于好莱坞来说，以一种公众可以理解的方式表达这种愿景将非常有帮助。因此，我认为正确的顺序是先洞察再监管。
So at first it's really just, I think the government, I'm trying to understand what's going on and I think there's some merit to an industry group, you know, like the motion picks this picture association that I think actually should be formed. So I mean, I think we'll try to take some steps in that direction because I think there's some amount of self-regulation that that could be good here.
起初，我认为政府需要理解当前的情况，而且我认为成立一个行业组织是有一定价值的，就像电影行业的协会一样。因此，我认为我们应该试着朝这个方向迈进一些步骤，因为我认为适量的自我管理可能是有益的。
I did, when I was on my recent trip to China, I spent a fair bit of time with the senior leadership there talking about AI safety and some of the potential dangers. And pointing out that if a digital super intelligence is created, well, that could very well be in charge of China instead of the Chinese Communist Party. And I think that did resonate because I think no government wants to find itself. Unceded by a digital super intelligence. So I think they actually are taking action on the regulatory front and are concerned about this as a risk.
当我最近去中国旅行时，我花了相当多的时间与中国的高级领导人讨论人工智能安全和一些潜在的危险。我指出，如果创建了一个数字超级智能，那么它很可能会取代中国共产党，成为中国的掌控者。我认为这一观点产生了共鸣，因为我相信任何政府都不希望被一个数字超级智能所取代。所以我认为他们实际上正在采取行动，对此表示担忧，并在监管方面采取行动。
And I've seen some comments internally within China where the companies are but unhappy about the government wanting to have regulatory oversight on AI. So I think this is something that does actually resonate even in China. In fact, when I was in China, I said one of the biggest obstacles to AI regulation outside of China is a concern that China will not regulate AI and will then get ahead. They took that point to heart and it's a logical point, I think. And like I said, the concept highlighted that if you make some super intelligence, well, the super intelligence could be what actually runs China and they also resonated.
我在中国内部看到一些评论，其中一些公司对政府希望对人工智能进行监管持不满态度。所以我认为，即使在中国也存在这样的共鸣。事实上，当我在中国时，我曾说过中国在AI监管方面最大的障碍之一就是担心中国不会对AI进行监管并且将领先其他国家。他们对此深表认同，我认为这是个合乎逻辑的观点。就像我之前说的那样，这个概念强调，如果我们创造出了超级智能，那么这个超级智能可能就是实际上掌控中国的力量，他们也表示认同。
So I think, yeah, I think trying to shed as much light on the subject, some light is the best disinfectant. And being as open about things as possible, going from insight for a few years to then oversight with consultation with industry is I think the sensible approach. And I think the public is starting to understand the potential of AI with chat GPT was something that the public could interact with. And I've understood the power of AI for a while and those deep in industry have it until you have some easy to use interface is difficult for the public to understand. It's also the case with stable diffusion and the journey. You can see the incredible art that AI can create. It's really amazing.
所以我认为，是的，我认为试图对这个问题投入更多的关注，一些光芒是最好的消毒剂。尽可能公开事务，从几年的洞察力到与行业的磋商中渐渐转变为监管，我认为这是明智的做法。我认为公众开始理解AI的潜力，通过与聊天GPT进行互动，公众能够与之交流。我很早就意识到AI的力量，而那些在行业深耕的人们也会意识到，除非有一些易于使用的界面，否则公众很难理解。这也是与稳定扩散和旅程的情况一样。你可以看到AI能创造的令人难以置信的艺术。真的很了不起。
So I'm actually somewhat of an optimist in general. So I think the best way to ensure a good future is to worry about a bad one. And that's the sensible thing to do and to have discussions like this and continue to have discussions like this. Yeah. Maybe a couple of follow-ups, I'm sure Mike will have that.
所以总体上说，我其实是个有些乐观的人。所以我认为确保一个美好未来的最佳方式就是担心糟糕的未来。这是明智的做法，而且像这样的讨论及继续进行这样的讨论是很重要的。是的，也许会有一些后续问题，我相信迈克会提出。
My understanding is that there's the machine learning part right now where people basically are making predictions of how to complete a sentence or looking at patterns doing analysis. And then there's the fear of the general intelligence emerging where the concerns that you're voicing about can these robots be smarter than governments. How far away are you? Do you think we are from the general intelligence versus the sophisticated machine learning?
我的理解是，现在有机器学习的部分，人们基本上是在预测如何完成一个句子，或者通过分析模式来进行分析。然后存在普遍智能出现的担忧，即你所提出的关于这些机器人是否能比政府更聪明的问题。你认为我们离普遍智能和复杂机器学习有多远？
And the second point, because I know, I mean, you showed up to China before Blinken did. I mean, how open do you think China would be to work on some kind of international framework on regulation of AI? And is that in your view feasible?
第二个观点是因为我知道，也就是说，您在布林肯之前就来到了中国。我的意思是，您认为中国在制定一种关于人工智能监管的国际框架方面会有多开放？在您看来，这种做法可行吗？
My understanding from the conversations that I had in China is that China is definitely interested in working in a cooperative international framework regarding AI regulation. There's a fair bit of distrust within America and distrust within America and distrust within China. But at least based on the conversations that I had, I think they would be amenable to being part of an international regulatory framework. And yeah, so that was my impression, but the proof's in the pudding, so we can see.
通过我在中国的交谈，我理解中国对于在人工智能监管方面积极参与国际合作框架是有兴趣的。美国内部存在相当多的不信任，中国内部也存在不信任。但根据我进行的谈话，我认为他们可能愿意成为国际监管框架的一部分。所以，这是我的印象，但唯有事实能够证明一切。
It is very interesting to visit China in general and see the perceptions. As much as say people in the US might just trust China, likewise people in China just trust America. And what tends to mitigate that distrust is really conversations, especially in-person conversations. It's very easy to demonize an organization or person if you don't meet with them. And then they're like, when you meet with them, they're like, well, they're not as bad of a demon, they're not that bad actually. So you get to understand where they're coming from. And at the end of the day, we're all part of, I think, team humanity, hopefully. I think we should all aspire to be part of team of humanity. We've got one planet only so far and we don't want to lose it.
在一般情况下，参观中国并了解他们的观点非常有趣。就像美国人可能会相信中国一样，中国人也会相信美国。而缓解这种不信任的方式主要是对话，尤其是面对面的对话。如果你不与组织或个人见面，很容易妖魔化他们。但当你与他们见面时，会发现他们并不是那么坏。你能够理解他们的立场。最终，我们都是人类团队的一部分，希望如此。我认为我们都应该立志成为人类团队的一份子。目前我们只有一个地球，我们不想失去它。
So there's that famous quote. I think it might be Einstein, but it could be one of those internet things where you think it's Einstein, but it's not. But where I think it's something to the fact that it doesn't know how World War III will exactly be fought, except World War IV would be fought with sticks and stones. It's not going to be anything left. So we really want to aspire to avoid global thermonuclear warfare. We really want to avoid that, big time. And hopefully focus on positive things. And like I said, becoming a space-bearing civilization, becoming a multi-planet species, ultimately going out there and visiting other star systems. Where we may discover many long-dead, one-planet civilizations that never got beyond their original planet.
所以有这样一句著名的名言。我想这可能是爱因斯坦说的，但也有可能是那种你以为是爱因斯坦说的，但实际上不是的网络名言。不过我认为它大致意思是，我们不知道第三次世界大战会如何打，除了第四次世界大战将用棍棒和石头打。届时将毫无遗留。因此，我们真的希望努力避免全球热核战。我们真的非常希望避免那种情况出现。而且希望把重心放在积极的事情上。就像我说的，成为一个可持续太空文明，成为一个多星球物种，最终走出去，去探索其他星系。在那里，我们可能会发现许多早已灭绝的只在一个星球上存在的文明。
On the XAI front, if I speak to my personal motivations here, I've always just wondered what is really going on in reality? What's trying to ascend the nature of the universe? And are there aliens? Where are they? The Fermi paradox I find to be intriguing and troubling. If the standard model of physics is correct, the universe has been around for many billions of years. So why haven't we seen aliens? Many members of the public are convinced that the government is hiding evidence of aliens. And I have not seen any evidence of aliens. I get asked this a lot. But I think that's actually maybe a concern. I might feel a little better if I saw evidence of aliens. I have not seen one shred of evidence of aliens. Which is a problem. It means that life and consciousness might be incredibly rare. Like maybe we're at least in this galaxy. And the light of consciousness seems to me like it could be this tiny candle in a vast darkness. And we just do our absolute best to make sure that that candle does not go out.
在可解释AI（XAI）领域，如果我谈论到我的个人动机，我一直在想现实究竟发生了什么？有着什么样的力量试图超越宇宙的本质？还有外星人吗？他们在哪里？我对费米悖论感到很有兴趣，也觉得不安。如果标准物理模型是正确的，宇宙已经存在了很多亿年。那么为什么我们没有看到外星人呢？很多人相信政府在隐藏外星人的证据。但是我没有看到任何外星人的证据。我经常被问到这个问题。但我想这可能是一个问题。如果我看到了外星人的证据，也许会好些。我没有看到任何关于外星人的证据，这是个问题。这意味着生命和意识可能是极其罕见的。也许至少在我们的银河系中是这样。意识之光对我来说就像是黑暗中的微弱蜡烛。我们尽全力确保这蜡烛不会熄灭。
I'd like to plant a flag in the aliens conversation and come back to it. I take your point about the risk of war, as Eisenhower said, the only way to win World War III is to prevent it. I guess at the risk of being the buzzkill on the conversation, I just heard me very skeptical that the CCP could be a constructive actor in any international framework. Or I guess it would pose the question in what other international framework have they been a constructive actor. For a decade, our experts made the case for sharing cutting edge gain a function research with China. And that turned out to be a total pandemic level disaster. The proponents of such engagement also traditionally make the case that our interests are aligned when it comes to stability on the Korean Peninsula, non-proliferation, climate change. But if you just examine across those domains, they suck on all three. They're bad actors. So I think even if the CCP leaders took your warning to heart, and I understand that I think it's logical, it's thoughtful, I just remained skeptical they would slow down. And I'm fairly certain in the near term Xi Jinping will use this as an instrument for total techno totalitarian control.
我想先把“外星人谈话”放在一边，之后再回过头来讨论。我理解你所提到的战争风险，正如艾森豪威尔曾说过的，赢得第三次世界大战的唯一方法就是预防它的发生。我想危言耸听一下，我很怀疑中国共产党能在任何国际框架中扮演建设性的角色。或者，我可以提出一个问题，他们在哪个国际框架中表现出建设性的态度呢？在过去十年里，我们的专家们曾为与中国分享尖端科研成果的观点提出论据。而结果却是一场全球大流行的灾难。持这种接触的支持者还会说我们在朝鲜半岛稳定、防核扩散和气候变化方面的利益是相一致的。但是，如果你仔细观察这些领域，你会发现他们在这三个方面上都表现糟糕，是恶行表演者。因此，即使中共领导人认真对待了你的警告，我理解这是合乎逻辑的、有思想的，但我仍然怀疑他们会减缓行动。我相当确定，在短期内，习近平将把此事作为实现全面科技极权控制的手段。
I actually think this is Mark Adrian's best point in his AI optimism case that the single greatest risk of AI is that China wins the global AI dominance race, and we do not. I guess put different differently and perhaps provocatively. I'm just not sure they aspire to be on team humanity. I see them acting as if they're on team sort of genocidal communism. Most of them. Well, look, it's always challenging because like, you know, at least we're proving that Twitter doesn't censor the conversations. Yes, actually speaking of which, Ro, I'd just like to say thank you and appreciation for your support of freedom of speech in the whole Twitter files situation. When we're coming to the Twitter files, you're one of the few voices that actually spoke up against censorship and in favor of the First Amendment, which is incredibly important. So just thank you for that. Thank you.
我认为这是马克·阿德里安在他的人工智能乐观论中最有说服力的观点：人工智能的最大风险是中国赢得全球人工智能主导地位，而我们没有。我想换个说法，或许有点挑衅。我只是不确定他们是否渴望加入人类团队。我看到他们的行为像是站在种族灭绝式的共产主义团队一样。至少我们正在确保 Twitter 不会审查对话，这样是一个挑战，但也好。说到 Twitter 文件，Ro，我想对你对言论自由的支持表示感谢和赞赏。在整个 Twitter 文件事件中，你是为数不多站出来反对审查、支持一修宪第一修正案的声音之一，这非常重要。所以，谢谢你。谢谢。
Well, I think it's a basic value. And in my view, I mean, it's conversations like these where you have a different perspective. I have a different perspective. Mike has a different perspective. Thousands of people engage. That's the closest shot we have of getting to truth. And I guess they used to be the old fashioned liberal position, John Stuart Mill, who speak to himself. Exactly. Yes. By the way, I thought we were launching. I thought we were launching Ro's presidential campaign. On a different basis. I was missing for it.
嗯，我认为这是一种基本价值观。在我看来，就是像这样的对话，你可以有不同的观点。我有不同的观点，迈克有不同的观点。成千上万的人参与其中。这是我们接近真相的最接近机会。我想他们曾经是老派自由主义者的立场，像约翰·斯图尔特·密尔那样，他对自己说话。没错。顺便说一下，我以为我们要发起罗的总统竞选。以不同的基础。我帮忙找了。
Well, things didn't crack. Things are still running. So, you know, you want to certainly be walking me any such action on this platform. So, but I think we can all agree that having dialogue is productive and it's good to have things like this.
嗯，事情没有破裂。事情还在进行中。所以，你知道，你一定希望在这个平台上引导我采取行动。但是，我认为我们都可以认同，对话是有益且好的，拥有这类事情是很重要的。
So on the China front, I'm kind of pro-China. And I know this makes it sound like, well, do you have all these vested interests in China? I'm like, I have some vested interests in China. But honestly, I think China is underrated. And I think the people of China are really awesome. And there's a lot of positive energy there. And I think they kind of want the same things that people in America do. So that's not to say that there aren't some very significant disagreements. And there's obviously going to be a significant challenge on the Taiwan question, like a very significant challenge. But I think on the sustainable energy front, really China's done actually a lot to further electric vehicles within China. If China makes more electric vehicles, then I think the rest of the world combined. So there's a lot of solar power, a lot of wind. There's also a lot of coal and why not? But China has been pushing quite hard on the sustainable energy front. And I think that's just a fact that they really have been pushing very hard. And I think ultimately, once the very difficult question of Taiwan is resolved, I am certainly hopeful that there will be positive relations between China and the United States and the rest of the world. And we've probably have some bumpy road between now and then. Like I said, I think we're in the state of the long term, we want to all aspire to be team humanity. And yeah, so that's it.
在中国问题上，我算是比较支持中国。我知道这听起来会让人觉得，你在中国有很多利益吗？我可以说，我确实在中国有一些利益。但是老实说，我认为中国被低估了。我认为中国人民非常了不起，那里有很多积极的能量。我认为他们和美国人有着相同的渴望。这并不意味着我们没有重大分歧，很明显，台湾问题将是一个非常严重的挑战。但我认为在可持续能源方面，中国在推动电动汽车方面已经做了很多。如果中国制造出的电动汽车超过了世界其他地方的总和，这是事实。他们也有很多太阳能和风能。当然也有很多煤炭，但中国在可持续能源方面一直在努力。我认为这是一个事实，他们在这方面确实付出了很大努力。我认为，一旦台湾这个非常复杂的问题得到解决，我对中国和美国以及其他国家之间会有积极的关系充满期待。在此之前，我们可能会遇到一些困难，就像我说的，我认为从长远来看，我们都应该成为人类团队的一部分。这就是我的观点。
One of the things I've appreciated, Elon, about Mike's leadership. And in some places, I don't think there is total divergence in that Mike has alerted the Congress and the country about some of the things that the United States needs to do is certainly I've learned from him about ensuring that an invasion of Taiwan doesn't take place. So whether that is making sure that Taiwan has weapons, whether it's making sure that we have the right military posture in the Pacific in effective deterrence. And I think he's built bipartisan consensus for that. And the other thing that's emerged is bipartisan consensus is that we hollowed out our manufacturing base. And we've got a component of making things in this country. And there's a recognition, I think, on a bipartisan basis that we shouldn't, I mean, steel. We've got all of the top 15 steel companies. We don't have a single one in America anymore, nine of them are in China. And then we've got to bring some of that manufacturing back. And it seems to me we could have a view of both the national security challenges and the economic challenges that then allow us also to aspire for the right type of engagement and peace and avoiding war. But I like Mike speak, but it seems to me Mike that the tone of the committee, even when we've had disagreements, has ultimately been an aspiration for peace, not not getting into war.
埃隆，我非常欣赏迈克的领导风格，其中一点就是他提醒国会和全国注意美国需要做的事情，特别是我从他那里学到的确保不发生对台湾的入侵。所以，无论是确保台湾拥有武器，还是确保我们在太平洋地区的军事姿态具有有效的威慑力，都是我从他那里学到的。我认为他在这方面建立了两党的共识。另一个出现的两党共识是，我们已经削弱了制造业基础。我们需要在这个国家内有制造的能力。我认为，有两党基础的认识是，我们不应该，我的意思是，钢铁。我们拥有前15家钢铁公司，但现在美国一个也没有，九个在中国。我们需要重新带回一些制造业。在我看来，我们可以同时关注国家安全挑战和经济挑战，同时也努力追求正确的参与方式，实现和平，并避免战争。但我喜欢迈克说话的方式，而我觉得，即使我们有分歧，委员会的基调始终是对和平的渴求，而不是引发战争。
Yes, I'm generally not trying to make this China rant. I guess, listen, I think even the most hawkish member of our committee, and I'm admittedly on the hawkish side of the spectrum, fully supports the Chinese people. We have no quarrel with the Chinese people. It is the party that is the source of instability in the relationship and the primary enemy of the Chinese people. And that's the core of the dilemma. And I think it's important to make that distinction. And we look forward to a world in which the people aren't subject to the whims of an oppressive regime. Furthermore, on the question of peace, yes, my whole like mission in life is deterrence. That's what I'd spend most of my day focused on a war between the US and China would be absolutely horrific. It would have the potential to make previous world wars look like child's play in comparison. And so, but my theory of deterrence is that we need to deter by denial and put hard power in choosing things path to make the prospect of taking Taiwan so unpalatable that they never tries it. And I know we're straying far afield from the conversation here.
是的，一般来说我并不是在抱怨中国。听着，我认为即使是我们委员会中最鹰派的成员，而且我自己也是一个相对鹰派的人，都完全支持中国人民。我们与中国人民没有争端。问题在于中共是中美关系不稳定的根源，也是中国人民的主要敌人。这正是我们面临的困境的核心所在，我认为弄清这一点非常重要。我们期待一个人民不受专制政权恣意摆布的世界。此外，在和平问题上，是的，我一生的使命就是威慑。大部分时间我都在专注于如何阻止美国和中国之间的战争，那将是绝对可怕的。相比之下，它有可能使先前的世界大战看起来像是儿戏。所以，但是我的威慑理论是，我们需要通过否定行动来威慑，并借助坚定不移的强大实力，使中国攻打台湾的前景如此不可接受，以至于他们永远不会尝试。我知道这已经偏离了我们当前的讨论话题。
On your points about energy, I just, the stats I've seen, you obviously have a lot more experience in this space than I do. I mean, last year they built 6X the amount of coal plant capacity the rest of the world combined. But if you take an easier case, I don't think there can be a dispute about, I mean, when it comes to some like free speech, and I view you as a champion of free speech, I mean, you called yourself a free speech absolutist, there's no question that the CCP is not into free speech. And therefore, my concern that if they dominate this technology, they could use this to suppress speech, suppress freedom of religion, et cetera, et cetera. And it wouldn't sort of further the advancement of humanity. Again, my view, I'm not trying to be the bad guy on this whole thing, but yeah, reasonable people can disagree. That's why I love Rokana. Yeah. Yeah.
在能源方面的观点上，根据我看到的数据，显然你在这个领域比我有更多经验。我的意思是，去年他们建造的煤电厂装机容量是全世界其他国家的六倍。但是如果我们谈一个较容易的案例，我认为不会有争议，我是说，当涉及到类似言论自由的问题时，我视你为言论自由的捍卫者，因为你称自己为绝对主义者，毫无疑问，中共并不重视言论自由。因此，我担心如果他们主导这项技术，他们可能会利用它来压制言论、宗教自由等等。这不利于人类的进步。再说一遍，这只是我的观点，我并不想成为这件事的坏人，但是是的，理性的人可以持不同意见。这就是为什么我喜欢罗卡纳。是的，是的。
But I do have this theory about prediction, which is that the most entertaining outcome as seen by a third party, not the participants, is the most likely. So that's not necessarily the best thing for those involved in it. Like you could be watching a World War One movie while people are getting one piece, while sipping a soda and eating popcorn. Not so great for those in the movie, but it is entertaining, which does suggest there's some things again that's probably going to get hot in the Pacific. So hopefully not too hot, but it's going to get hot. And hopefully we can get past that and get to a positive situation for the world in the spirit of aspirationally, we're all on team humanity. But it's going to get spicy.
我有一个关于预测的理论，即第三方（非参与者）所认为最有趣的结果最有可能发生。所以对于参与者来说，这未必是最好的事情。就像当你在看一部一战电影时，其他人却在享用美食和喝苏打水。这对电影中的人来说并不好，但是它确实很有趣，这也暗示着太平洋地区可能会出现一些事态升温的问题。希望不会太严重，但是事态会升温。希望我们可以克服这一点，并在人类团结合作的精神下达到一个积极的全球局势。但是这会变得激烈起来。
And then basically, as far as the most concerning thing, it's probably the time I question over the next three years. And then probably three years after that is the. I would be surprised if there is not digital superintelligence in roughly the 506 year time frame. So if this was a Netflix series or something, I'd say that the season finale would be a showdown between the Western China and the series finale will be AGI. Well, that's fast. I didn't think five years. I didn't realize that you had a view that it's that quickly.
基本上，就最令人担忧的事情来说，那可能是在接下来的三年里我对时间的质疑。而在之后的三年里，可能会有一种我会觉得惊讶的数字超级智能出现，大约在506年的时间范围内。所以如果这是一部Netflix系列或其他东西，我会说本季的结局将是西中国与最终季的结局将是AGI之间的对决。哇，这真是太快了。我没有想到只需要五年。我没有意识到你有这样迅速的看法。
Bringing it back a little bit to AI, I guess two questions. One, for people, even your harshest critics, Elon, recognize that you've been one of the most successful entrepreneurs, technologists in the world. And if you're a young Elon Musk or an aspiring young person and you're seeing the world of AI or you're someone who's a blue collar family and you've got a kid and you're seeing AI and concerned about automation and what you should do, what would you say to them? I mean, what would you say to someone young 15, 18, 20 in the world that we're entering either if they have a college degree or not having a college degree that they should do and prepare themselves for the future economically?
将其稍微回到人工智能方面，我有两个问题。首先，就算是你最严厉的批评者也会承认，埃隆，你是世界上最成功的企业家和技术专家之一。如果你是年轻的埃隆·马斯克，或者是一个有抱负的年轻人，你正看着人工智能的世界，或者你是一个蓝领出身的家庭，你有个孩子，你看到了自动化和人工智能的发展，并对此感到担忧，你会对他们说些什么呢？我的意思是，你会对一个15、18或20岁的年轻人，不论他们有没有大学学位，都应该准备什么，以应对未来的经济情况？
I can't think of anything like, I suppose that this, if someone is able to contribute to building AI in a positive way, if someone has that technical ability, that is probably the right thing to work on. For your average citizen, I think it's going to be, the future is definitely going to be interesting. Like I said, things get very strange in a future where the AI can basically do everything. And in the benign scenario, I guess we will look for personal fulfillment in some way. I think between now and then, I think it's just trying to be useful.
我想不出类似的事情，我猜想，如果有人能够以积极的方式做出对人工智能的贡献，如果有人具备那样的技术能力，那么这可能是正确的工作方向。对于普通公民来说，我认为未来肯定会很有趣。就像我说的，当人工智能基本上能够做任何事情时，情况会变得非常奇怪。在温和的情景下，我想我们将以某种方式寻找个人成就感。我认为在现在和那个时候之间，我们只需尽量有所用处。
I mean, on the manufacturing front, I do think we should place a much greater weight in the United States on the importance of manufacturing. I think the things that are shifting back in that direction, you know, generally when somebody asks me for advice, my advice is try to be as useful as possible. It's actually quite hard to be useful. And if you can be of use to your fellow humans then and contribute more than you take, then I think that's a great thing. You know, I have a lot of respect for those who work hard and do, you know, make goods, provide services in excess of what they take. That is just a fundamentally good thing. So it's a hard question to answer with certainty because it is so uncertain.
我的意思是，在制造业方面，我认为我们应该更加重视制造业在美国的重要性。我认为现在有些事情正在朝这个方向发展。你知道，一般当有人向我寻求建议时，我会建议他们尽可能地有用。事实上，成为一个有用的人是非常困难的。如果你能对其他人有所贡献，比你得到的更多，那我认为这是一件很棒的事情。你知道，我非常尊重努力工作，做出产品并提供超出自己需求的服务的人。这是一件非常好的事情。所以这个问题很难确定地回答，因为太不确定了。
The advent of AGIs often referred to as the singularity, a singularity is like a black hole. You just don't know what happens after that. You know, after you go in the black hole, like we are on the event horizon of the singularity of digital superintelligence.
AGI的出现通常被称为“奇点”，这个奇点就像黑洞一样。你根本不知道在那之后会发生什么。就像我们处于数字超级智能的奇点的事件视界一样，我们也不知道会发生什么。
It's definitely one of the most interesting parts of all of history. And I've actually thought like, well I wonder if, you know, maybe it would have been better to have been born at a different time and before artificial general intelligence. But then I thought, actually, you know what, even if it is, what is the personal conclusion I came to is that I actually would prefer to be alive to see it just because it's the most interesting thing in history.
这绝对是历史上最有趣的部分之一。实际上，我曾经想过，也许在人工通用智能出现之前，出生在另一个时代可能会更好。但后来我想到，其实无论如何，我个人的结论是，我宁愿活着去见证它，因为它是历史上最有趣的事情。
So even if it was a calamity, I guess I'd prefer to see it rather than not see it. And obviously we want to do everything possible to make sure it is not a calamity. So I guess the positive side of it won't be boring. Definitely won't be boring.
即使这是一场灾难，我想我更愿意去看见它，而不是不看见。显然，我们希望尽一切努力确保它不成为一场灾难。所以我猜其中的积极一面绝不会让人感到无聊。肯定不会无聊。
And I think if I would assign probabilities, I think it is more likely to be a positive scenario than a bad scenario. It's just that the bad scenario is not 0%. And we want to do everything we can to minimize the probability of a bad outcome with AI. But I should terrify that. I think it's, I don't know, maybe it's like 70%, 80% likely to be a good future. And maybe a great future even.
我认为如果我要给出概率，我认为好的情景比坏的情景更有可能发生。只是坏情景的概率不为零。我们希望尽一切可能减小人工智能带来坏结果的可能性。但我不太确定。我觉得好的未来有七成、八成的可能性，甚至可能是一个很好的未来。
So yeah, I think of the future as like probabilities. And I think for sure, the future is a set of branching probability streams.
是的，我将未来看作是概率的形式。我认为未来肯定是一系列分支概率流的集合。
Would there be Elon like a signpost that we're nearing such a singularity? Right? I mean, I think one of the reasons there was so much excitement over chat GPT is that you never going back to Alan Turing's papers on AI, we've had this idea that once the system passes the Turing test or the imitation game that it would be said to be intelligent. And my understanding is we're basically there. Do you believe that test is a good marker for achieving AI or AGI? Do you believe there's some other sort of thing we should be looking for? And I believe you had a debate over consciousness when it comes to AI recently and would be eager to get your thoughts on that.
会不会有一个类似埃隆的路标，告诉我们接近这样的奇点呢？对吧？我的意思是，我认为人们对ChatGPT如此兴奋的原因之一是，你从来没有回顾过艾伦·图灵关于人工智能的论文，我们一直有这样一个想法，即一旦系统通过了图灵测试或仿真游戏，它就会被认为是具备智能的。而我的理解是，我们基本上已经到达了这个阶段。你认为这个测试是衡量是否实现了人工智能或通用人工智能（AGI）的良好标志吗？你认为还有其他什么我们应该寻找的东西吗？我记得你最近就人工智能的意识问题进行了辩论，很想听听你的想法。
Well, I think we're well past the Turing test at this point. But the chat GPT is well, well past the Turing test. So really we're well on our way to digital super intelligence. Like I think it's five or six years away.
我认为我们已经远远超过了图灵测试。但是聊天GPT已经远远超过了图灵测试。所以实际上，我们正朝着数字超级智能的方向迈进。我认为这只需五到六年的时间。
And I would say the definition of digital super intelligence is that it's smarter than any human at anything. So that's not necessarily smarter than the sum of all humans. That's a higher bar to be smarter than the sum of all humans. And especially given that it's the sum of all humans that are machine augmented in that we will have computers and phones and software applications. So we're already artifactosybogs. It's just that the computer's not yet integrated with us.
我认为数字超级智能的定义是在任何事情上都比任何人都聪明。所以这不一定比所有人的智慧之和更聪明。超过所有人的智慧之和是一个更高的标准。尤其是考虑到我们都在机器辅助下使用计算机、手机和软件应用程序，我们已经是人机合体了。只是电脑还没有与我们整合在一起而已。
One phone is already an extension of one's self. If you leave your phone behind it feels like missing them syndrome. Like you're patting your pockets and like where did my phone go? And it's crazy the degree to which our sort of our phone, which is like basically a super computer in your pocket, is an extension of yourself. So there's a higher bar to be smarter than the sum of all humans that are computer augmented.
一个手机已经是一个人自身的延伸。如果你把手机落在后面，感觉就像是患上了失去他们综合症。就像是在拍拍口袋，想着我的手机去哪了？而我们的手机，基本上是口袋里的一个超级计算机，它对自己的延伸程度之高是令人疯狂的。因此，要比所有被计算机增强的人类的智商更高，这是一个更高的标准。
So I mean thinking about this whole thing stresses me out a lot. I've had many sleepless nights thinking about this. So I'm trying to say like, I can figure out how do we navigate to the best possible future for humanity. It's a super hard problem. It might end up being the hottest problem we've ever faced. It definitely demands our attention.
所以我是说，考虑整件事情让我非常压力倍增。我为此失眠了许多个晚上。我试着表达的是，我能够找出如何引领人类走向最佳未来的方法。这是一个极为困难的问题。它可能成为我们面临的最严峻的问题。它无疑需要我们的关注。
And I think ultimately it's these the nation state battles will seem I think parochial ultimately compared to digital super intelligence. You know, if all the various risks that we face there are ones that are dangerous at an individual level, dangerous at a state level within this like things that are dangerous at a civilizational level.
我认为，最终与数字超级智能相比，这些国家之间的斗争似乎是什么都没有的。你知道，如果我们面临的各种风险中，有些是在个体层面上危险，有些是在国家层面上危险，还有一些对整个文明有潜在危险的事情。
Global thermoren nuclear warfare is obviously dangerous at a civilizational level. Super virus that has very high mortality rates would be dangerous.
全球热核战争在文明层面上显然是非常危险的。致命率极高的超级病毒也同样具有危险性。
I think it's crazy to do gain a function research. Like gain function research is a nice way of saying death maximization. Like I don't know if it came out with this gain function model. Yes, but it's what's the function you're talking about? Oh, death. Okay. So I think that would be less likely to get funding. So we need to be very cautious about it. We really should not be doing that stuff. It's crazy.
我认为进行增强功能研究很疯狂。就好像增强功能研究是一个委婉的说法，实际上是在追求死亡最大化。就像我不知道是谁提出了这个增强功能模型。是的，但你谈论的是什么功能呢？哦，是死亡。好吧，所以我认为这种研究获得资金的可能性较低。因此，我们在这方面应该非常谨慎。我们真的不应该做那些疯狂的事情。
But AI is also a civilizational risk. But the thing about AI is I think unlike gain function or global thermoren nuclear warfare, AI is really has the potential to make the future amazing if it's on right.
但是，人工智能也是一种文明风险。不过，与获利或全球热核战争不同的是，我认为人工智能如果应用得当，真的有潜力让未来变得令人惊叹。
I think I know we're approaching the end of the hour. So maybe I could say something like and then you can close. I mean, I guess if we do have the super computing, I think the question is still what values underlie that? How are we going to make sure that the ethical framework or the way that the AI is ultimately making decisions are those grounded in values I think most Americans share. And here I do think that our values of respecting individual freedom, dignity, rights, respecting freedom of speech are important. And we want to make sure ultimately are embedded in the technology that develops.
我觉得我知道我们即将接近这个时间段的结束。所以也许我可以说一些像然后你就可以结束了的话。我是说，我猜如果我们真的拥有超级计算能力，问题仍然是什么价值观支撑着它？我们将如何确保道德框架或者人工智能最终做出的决策，是以大多数美国人共享的价值观为基础的？在这一点上，我确实认为我们尊重个体自由、尊严、权利，尊重言论自由的价值观是重要的。我们希望确保这些价值观最终融入到所发展的技术中。
And that to me seems to be the biggest challenge for the Congress in terms of American leadership is how do we, one, make sure we're part of the debate because I don't think we should just see the debate to technologists and constructing AI without the public deliberation and input in what those values should be and how we do so in an informed way. And I agree with you insight first, but at some point I think we have to make sure that it's our framework of basic values that are given our best shot. That is what's going to be the framework for AI.
就我来说，这似乎是国会在美国领导力方面面临的最大挑战，即我们如何确保自己成为辩论的一部分。我认为我们不应该只将辩论交给技术专家来构建人工智能，而是要让公众参与并发表意见，确定应该遵循的价值观以及如何以知情的方式进行。我同意你的观点，但我认为我们必须确保我们的基本价值观成为人工智能框架的核心，这是我们最好的尝试。
Yeah, we definitely want to maximize the, I think the, we want to maximize the happiness, the collective happiness of humanity and the freedom of action of humanity. And you want to, you want to, yeah, like you want to look forward to the future and say, yeah, that's the future I want to be part of and I'm excited about that future. I think that's actually incredibly important in general. I'm actually like concerned that there's somewhat of a, you know, in many parts of the world, a pervasive pessimism about the future and that's part of what's leading to a low growth rate in many parts of the world. And I really would advocate for optimism. In fact, I think generally it's better to be optimistic and wrong than pessimistic and right for them, you know.
是的，我们肯定想要最大化，我认为我们想要最大化人类的幸福感，以及人类的行动自由。而你也希望，你希望，对，你希望展望未来，并且说，是的，那是我想要成为一部分并为之兴奋的未来。我认为这一点在总体上非常重要。实际上，我对于世界许多地方普遍存在对未来的悲观情绪有些担忧，这是导致许多地区增长率低的原因之一。我真的要主张乐观主义。实际上，我认为一般来说，比起悲观主义并且是正确的态度，乐观主义而错误的态度更好，对吧。
So I would hope we leave this space as discussion on a positive note that we should be optimistic about the future and we should actually just, you know, fight to ensure that the future is a good future that you're really going to give Gallagher the last word if you want to leave. I'll be nice. I'll be nice. Well, first of all, optimistically, I choose to believe in the version of singularity in which I can download my consciousness into a robot body and explore Mars as well as many other planets. So I'm putting all my eggs in that basket.
所以我希望我们以积极的讨论结束，我们应该对未来保持乐观，并且实际行动，确保未来是美好的。如果你想离开的话，你真的要让Gallagher说最后一句吗？我会友好地接受。好吧，首先乐观地说，我选择相信有一种奇点的版本，我可以将意识下载到一个机器人身体中，并探索火星以及其他很多行星。所以我把所有的希望都寄托在那上面。
I think there's some, even as we sort of debate the higher order issues here, I think there's some obvious steps we can take in this Congress in the short term that I think would be bipartisan. I mean, what Rowan and I do on armed services together is really just to push the Pentagon to do a better job of leveraging technology and buying commercial technology as opposed to defense primes trying to invent everything themselves and that doesn't really work just given the pace of change. I think there's a lot more we can do there. You know, I think we could put some sensible guardrails on American capital flowing to foreign companies that may be building systems designed to beat us or be used for nefarious purposes. You know, I'd love to skip directly to an international regulatory body with a bunch of constructive actors, but if I'm right that that seems unlikely in the short term, constructive thing would do is just start with ourselves and then build out kind of a free world framework that strikes the balance. You talk about Elon starting with our five eyes and lines and then you just sort of build out concentric circles from there once you get the basic foundation of that. That should be achievable, difficult, but should be achievable.
我认为，在我们辩论高层议题的同时，我们可以在本届国会中采取一些明显的步骤，这些步骤应该是有两党支持的。我是指，罗文和我在军事事务上的合作实际上只是督促五角大楼更好地利用技术，并购买商业技术，而不是防务巨头试图自己发明一切，考虑到变化的速度，这种做法并不奏效。在这方面，我们还可以做得更多。我认为，我们可以在流向外国公司的美国资本上设置一些合理的防线，这些公司可能正在建立旨在超过我们或用于不良目的的系统。尽管我很希望能直接建立一个由建设性行动者组成的国际监管机构，但如果我是对的，短期内似乎不太可能实现这一点，那么一个建设性的做法就是从我们自己做起，然后建立一个能够平衡各方利益的自由世界框架。你提到埃隆从我们的五眼联盟开始，然后从这个基础上逐渐扩展出相应的边界。虽然这是困难的，但应该是可以实现的。
And on an optimistic note, I think all of us look at what's happening with SpaceX and it makes us incredible, incredibly optimistic. I mean, it's just, it's really inspiring actually and the way in which Starlink technology is being utilized not only in Northeast Wisconsin, but in Eastern Europe right now. I think that's a remarkable story of American innovation. Well, thank you. I mean, I hope it is, you know, certainly it's firing and that's a yeah. I mean, like I really want the things that we see in the positive sci-fi movies, like the sort of Star Trek has actually arguably quite a positive sci-fi version of the future. I think we want that stuff to come true. We want Starfleet Academy. We want to go where no one's gone before and explore the universe. And that's what I think fires me up and I think fires a lot of people up. You know, they were just being credible to go out there. I mean, you know, you look up at the night sky and see all those stars and I wonder like what's going on up there. You know, are there alien civilizations, is there a life up there? And hopefully one day we find out. Seems like a good note to end on. All right.
并且乐观的是，我认为我们所有人都关注着SpaceX正在发生的事情，这让我们感到非常乐观。我的意思是，这实际上真的非常鼓舞人心，而且目前Starlink技术在美国东北部和东欧的利用方式也非常了不起。我认为这是美国创新的一个了不起的故事。好了，谢谢。我的意思是，我希望这确实是这样的，当然，这是令人振奋的。我真的很希望我们能够看到在积极的科幻电影中所见到的那些事物，就像《星际迷航》可能是一个科幻未来的相对积极版本。我想我们希望那些东西成真。我们希望有星际舰队学院，我们希望去到别人未曾涉足的地方，探索宇宙。这就是我激励自己和许多人的东西。你知道，我们仅仅是难以置信地去那里。我的意思是，你抬头看看夜空中的星星，想象一下在那里正在发生什么。你知道，有没有外星文明，有没有生命存在着呢？希望有一天我们能够找到答案。看来这是一个好的结束。好了。
Yeah. Sure. Do you want to appreciate it, Mike? Appreciate the conversation. Hopefully we should do, you know, my hope is that we could do more of these kind of things.
是的。当然。迈克，你想感谢一下这次对话吗？对这次交流表示感激。希望我们能做更多这样的事情，你知道，我希望能够多做这些。
Yeah. If you're Mike and I have been talking about, I mean, doing it with you, Ilana, just figuring out how we figure out how to have a conversation in this country that is substantive. I mean, I just, I wish we could do more, more things like that.
是的，如果你是迈克，而我一直在谈论的话，我的意思是，和你，伊拉娜一起做一件事，就是搞清楚我们如何在这个国家进行有实质性内容的对话。我是说，我真的希望我们能够做更多、更多这样的事情。
I couldn't agree more. This was great. Yeah. Yeah. I really appreciate it. And once we find the aliens, let's get them on us. I should have helped those aliens back to us. Nothing so concentrates the mind like an alien invasion.
我再同意不过了。这太棒了。是的。是的。真的非常感激。一旦我们找到外星人，让我们让他们来到我们身边。我应该帮助那些外星人回到我们这里。没有什么比外星人入侵更能集中注意力了。
Yeah, exactly. I mean, in a panisté is a pretty, in fact, like the, the in panisté speech is amazing. So. I forced my three-year-old daughter to memorize that for Fourth of July. So. Did you really? It's all about the church.
是的，没错。我的意思是，在一个民主国家里，实际上，像民主国家的演讲是非常棒的。所以，我强迫我的三岁女儿为了七月四日去背诵那个演讲。那你真的这样做了吗？演讲都是关于教堂的。
I mean, I just played it for it. Thank you guys. Appreciate it. Care. All right. Thanks for joining and thanks everyone else for joining.
我的意思是，我只是为了玩它而玩它。谢谢大家。感谢你们。保重。好的。感谢你们的参与，也谢谢其他所有人的参与。
All right. Goodbye. Bye. Bye.
好的，再见。拜拜。再见。再见。