别让新技术沦为无罪欺诈

Globalisation has helped lift millions of people in the developing world out of poverty and showered cheap goods on western consumers. 全球化协助发展中国家数以百万计的人瓦解贫穷，并让西方消费者有大量廉价商品可以自由选择。Yet at the ballot box it is also blamed by those very same people for increasing inequality and squeezing living standards.然而在投票箱前，人们却谴责全球化激化不公平，断裂生活水平。Pro-globalisation politicians are facing a noisy backlash in Europe and the US as populists demand greater protection for those who feel the system has been rigged. 在欧洲和美国，反对全球化的政治人士于是以面对反感声浪，民粹主义者拒绝增大维护那些实在体制被操控的人士。

In their view, globalisation is an innocent fraud, to use John Kenneth Galbraith’s phrase.在他们显然，用约翰.肯尼思.加尔布雷斯(John Kenneth Galbraith)的话来说，全球化是一种有罪欺诈。The US economist argued in his 2004 book of that name that societies were often sustained by handy fictions, such as the idea that companies were run for the benefit of shareholders rather than managers. 这位美国经济学家曾在他2004年的同名著作中坚称，社会常常受到一些便利假想的承托，例如指出企业的经营是为了股东利益，而非管理者。Politics, money and intellectual fashion create their own version of the truth, irrespective of reality. 政治、金融和学术潮流建构了各自版本的真理，而不管现实如何。

No one is especially at fault; what is convenient to believe is greatly preferred, Galbraith wrote.加尔布雷斯写到：没有人尤其有拢；人们就是讨厌那些便利坚信的事情。There is a risk that technological disruption may come to be seen as the second great innocent fraud of our times. 风险在于，技术变异有可能被视作我们这个时代第二个极大的有罪欺诈。It is hard to dispute that promising new technologies — like globalisation — can bring enormous benefits. 甚有期望的新技术（与全球化一样）需要带给极大益处，这点很难批评。Energy, transport and healthcare are just three sectors that are likely to be transformed for the better in the next few years.能源、交通和医疗是很可能会在未来几年向好的方向转型的其中3个行业。

But these new technologies will also threaten many established industries, markets and jobs. 但是，此类新技术还不会威胁很多成熟期行业、市场和低收入。As with globalisation, the digital revolution will bring generalised gain but cause localised pain.与全球化一样，数字革命将带给广泛益处，但也不会导致局部伤痛。Many new technologies have unintended, and often adverse, consequences — or bite back. 很多新技术产生了意想不到而且往往有利的后果，即反咬。For example, the combustion engine revolutionised transport. 例如，内燃机让交通构建了革命。

But it also did terrible damage to the environment. 但它也对环境造成了相当严重伤害。Asbestos was once hailed as a miracle material. 石棉一度被撒谎为一种神秘的材料。But in the past 20 years we have spent billions stripping it from buildings. 但过去20年，我们花费了数十亿美元将其从建筑中拆毁。

The potential bite back from the latest crop of new technologies, such as gene editing and artificial intelligence, is terrifying. 近期这批技术（例如基因编辑和人工智能）的潜在反咬令人惧怕。As Stephen Hawking, the British scientist, said last week, the creation of powerful artificial intelligence will be either the best, or the worst, thing ever to happen to humanity.正如英国科学家斯蒂芬.霍金(Stephen Hawking)最近所说的，强劲人工智能的经常出现将是对人类要么最差要么最坏的事情。How can we ensure good outcomes? Here are three ideas. 我们怎么能保证较好的结果呢？这里有三个设想。

First, the private sector has to embrace the public sector, appreciating that they have common aims. 首先，私营部门必需亲吻公共部门，认识到大家具有联合的目标。As Galbraith wrote, the interdependence of the two sectors is often so great as to render distinctions between them almost meaningless.正如加尔布雷斯写的，这两个部门的相互依赖往往十分紧密，以至于区分它们完全没意义。Insurgent West Coast tech firms have a near messianic belief that they are bettering the lot of humanity and do not need adult supervision. 敢想敢干的西海岸科技公司具有一种几近救世主的信念：他们在为全人类的福祉作出贡献，不必须成人监护。

Their chief demand to government is: clear out of the way. 它们向政府明确提出的主要拒绝是：别挡道。They are increasingly vocal in pushing such views, having become one of the biggest lobbying forces in Washington.他们在构成华盛顿仅次于的游说势力之一后，于是以日益强势地推展这些观念。In a conversation in Wired magazine, President Barack Obama argued that the adoption of new technologies was too important to be left to private companies. 在与《连线》(Wired)杂志的对话中，美国总统巴拉克.奥巴马(Barack Obama)坚称，新技术的使用十分最重要，无法留下私营企业。But he warned confidence in collective action had been chipped away, partly because of ideology and rhetoric. 但他警告称之为，对集体行动的信心已损毁，部分原因是意识形态和花言巧语。

If we want the values of a diverse community represented in these breakthrough technologies, then government funding has to be a part of it, he said.他回应：如果我们期望多元化社会的价值观在这些突破性技术中获得反映，那么政府资金被迫沦为其中的一部分。Second, the public sector needs to retool itself to understand and meet the challenges posed by new technologies. 其次，公共部门必须调整自己，解读并庆贺新技术所带给的挑战。

Many of the regulatory functions of government, introduced in the US in the early 20th century, were designed to protect the consumer from predatory monopolists and financial cartels.美国在20世纪初引进的很多政府监管职能，是为了维护消费者不不受掠夺性垄断者和金融卡特尔的伤害。But government institutions today need to protect us as citizens as much as consumers. 但现在的政府体制必须维护我们作为公民以及消费者的双重利益。

The frontline of regulation concerns issues of privacy, security, data use, employment rights and freedom of expression. 监管第一线牵涉到隐私、安全性、数据用于、低收入权利和言论自由等问题。We need reinvigorated public institutions to help guarantee that new technologies are used in benign ways. 我们必须公共机构重振雄风，协助确保良性利用新技术。We also need enforced legal protections to ensure that government itself does not abuse these technologies.我们还必须实施法律维护，保证政府自己不欺诈这些技术。Third, we may need to rewrite the implicit social contracts that govern our democracies, redefining what goods and services our governments provide. 第三，我们有可能必须改写管理我们民主社会的隐性社会契约，新的定义政府获取的商品和服务。

Economic historian Joel Mokyr argues that the present wave of technological change could create so much social turmoil that we may need to fundamentally rethink our political systems. 经济历史学家乔尔.莫克伊尔(Joel Mokyr)坚称，当前的技术变革浪潮可能会导致极大社会动荡不安，以至于我们有可能必须彻底反省我们的政治体制。He suggests the necessary transformation could be on a par with the creation of the German welfare state in the 19th century or the New Deal of the 1930s.他指出，适当的转型有可能堪比19世纪德国福利国家的创立或者上世纪30年代的美国新政(New Deal)。Change on that scale could do with input from the brilliant minds of the tech sector. 这种规模的变革必须科技行业优秀人才的集思广益。

As Wired, guest-edited by Mr Obama, put it: Ask not what government can do for Silicon Valley; ask what Silicon Valley can do for the government.正如奥巴马兼任嘉宾主编的那一期《连线》杂志所言：不要问政府能为硅谷做到什么；要回答硅谷能为政府做到什么。

本文来源：皇冠游戏中心官网-www.sriingenieria.com