当机器人不再需要我们时会发生什么？
What Happens When Robots Don’t Need Us Anymore? | Posthuman With Emily Chang
译文简介
我们与机器人物种共存的未来比我在开始开发这个节目时所能想象的还要疯狂。我们谈论了很多我们对它们的看法，但它们会如何看待我们？我们会是它们的主人、朋友、宠物，还是更……可抛弃的东西？迫不及待想让你看到这一集。希望你和我一样既兴奋又不安！
正文翻译
我们与机器人物种共存的未来比我在开始开发这个节目时所能想象的还要疯狂。我们谈论了很多我们对它们的看法，但它们会如何看待我们？我们会是它们的主人、朋友、宠物，还是更……可抛弃的东西？迫不及待想让你看到这一集。希望你和我一样既兴奋又不安！
评论翻译
很赞 ( 5 )
收藏
@emilychangtv
Our potential future alongside a robot species is more wild than I ever could have imagined when we started developing this show. We talk so much about what we think of them, but what will they think of us? Will we their masters, friends, pets or something more…disposable? Can’t wait for you to see this episode. And hope you are as thrilled and disturbed as I am!
我们与机器人物种共存的未来比我在开始开发这个节目时所能想象的还要疯狂。我们谈论了很多我们对它们的看法，但它们会如何看待我们？我们会是它们的主人、朋友、宠物，还是更……可抛弃的东西？迫不及待想让你看到这一集。希望你和我一样既兴奋又不安！
What amazes me about this ongoing discussion is that it usually totally overlooks the more immediate implications. Long before AI is in a position to control or overwhelm us, humanity will use it against itself. That's a more imminent danger, just like nuclear war.
让我惊讶的是这场持续的讨论通常完全忽略了更直接的影响。在人工智能有能力控制或压倒我们之前，人类就会用它来对付自己。这是一个更迫在眉睫的危险，就像核战争一样。
My question is, “What happens when the people who own the robots, the weapons, and the factories don't need us anymore?” Capital has dreamed of replacing labor for centuries, and now tech is making that dream a reality. What happens to late-stage capitalism when the consumers are no longer viable as labor? ����♂️
我的问题是，“当拥有机器人、武器和工厂的人不再需要我们时会发生什么？”几个世纪以来，资本一直梦想着取代劳动力，而现在技术正在使这个梦想成为现实。当消费者不再作为劳动力存在时，晚期资本主义会发生什么？
I'm less concerned about when the robots don't need us anymore, and more concerned with when the billionaires that operate the robots don't need us anymore, because that will happen much sooner.
我不太关心机器人什么时候不再需要我们，而更关心操作机器人的亿万富翁什么时候不再需要我们，因为那会更快发生。
The question "What happens when robots don't need us anymore?" is a bit misleading, as it implies that robots have agency and desires independent of human needs.
The core issue is about the impact of automation on human society. It's about how we, as humans, will adapt to a future where machines can perform many tasks that were once done by people. The question should perhaps be refrxd as "What happens when we, as humans, no longer need to perform certain tasks due to automation?"
This reframing highlights the human perspective and the challenges and opportunities that arise from technological advancements.
“当机器人不再需要我们时会发生什么？”这个问题有点误导性，因为它暗示机器人具有独立于人类需求的自主性和欲望。
核心问题是关于自动化对人类社会的冲击，它是关于我们人类如何适应一个机器可以完成许多曾经由人完成的任务的未来。这个问题或许应该重新表述为“当我们人类由于自动化而不再需要执行某些任务时会发生什么？”
这种重新表述突出了人类的视角以及技术进步带来的挑战和机遇。
Seriously who wants a robot to mimic a human face? My fridge is not going to cool the food better when it smiles back or my car is not going to drive any more efficiently when it can frown at other drivers.
说真的，谁想要机器人模仿人类的面孔？我的冰箱不会因为对我微笑而更好地冷却食物，我的车也不会因为能对其他司机皱眉而更高效地驾驶。
Technological development is so complex that we can never fully predict what the future will be alongside these robots. What is certain is that in a few years or decades, every facet of society would surely experience unprecedented changes. The best thing that we can do is what our species has done to survive and thrive for thousands of years, ADAPT.
技术发展如此复杂，我们永远无法完全预测与这些机器人共存的未来会是什么样子。可以肯定的是，在几年或几十年内，社会的每个方面都将经历前所未有的变化。我们能做的最好的事情就是我们这个物种几千年来为了生存和繁荣所做的——适应。
We need a new narrative about our enemy: perhaps humanity doesn’t need a foe to progress, but rather a shared challenge to unite and inspire us. And right now, we are our own greatest enemy.
我们需要一个新的关于敌人的叙事：也许人类不需要敌人来进步，而是一个共同的挑战来团结和激励我们。而现在，我们是我们自己最大的敌人。
They are not self aware, just because they understand context because of the attention mechanism built in does not mean they are self aware, it’s like saying autocomplete in text is self aware
它们没有自我意识，仅仅因为它们由于内置的注意力机制而理解上下文并不意味着它们有自我意识，这就像说文本中的自动完成功能有自我意识一样。
There is a company called ORY labs in Japan, and they basically design robots to function in cafés and other places and operated by paraplegic people and those who cannot move. The robots are designed in a way that reminds you of an anime, and also allows them to work. Have conversations express their personalities and give them something to do every day, including earning money. I think we have the wrong idea about robotics and allowing AI to control and work within the robots to do everything for us, instead of actually giving opportunities to those who society has written off. Instead of closing jobs for 92million people by 2030, why can’t we actually boost by giving people who didn’t have any more opportunities?
日本有一家名为ORY labs的公司，他们基本上设计机器人在咖啡馆和其他地方工作，并由截瘫患者和无法行动的人操作。这些机器人的设计让你联想到动漫，同时也让它们能够工作。它们可以对话、表达个性，并让这些人每天有事可做，包括赚钱。我认为我们对机器人技术有错误的想法，认为应该让AI控制和在机器人内部工作，为我们做所有事情，而不是真正给那些被社会抛弃的人机会。与其到2030年关闭9200万个工作岗位，为什么我们不能通过给那些没有机会的人提供机会来真正推动发展？
What happens when children don't need their parents anymore? Well, they move out and forget to call their mother often enough.
HMMm. I should call my mom.
当孩子不再需要父母时会发生什么？嗯，他们会搬出去，然后忘记经常给妈妈打电话。
嗯……我应该给我妈妈打个电话。
All the lofty creative themes put forward by the sci fi community about how we would wrestle with the grand concepts of robotics, machine learning and sentience; never materialized. We blazed through Asimovs' Three Laws in one fiery explosion in 2016. Science Fiction writer's gave future populations more credit
科幻界提出的所有关于我们如何应对机器人、机器学习和意识等宏大概念的崇高创意主题从未实现。我们在2016年的一次激烈爆炸中迅速突破了阿西莫夫的三大法则。科幻作家们对未来人群给予了更多的信任。
Humans act on three different types of motivations: things that we have to do, things we want to do, and lastly things that have no reason at all. The last criterion is the most harmful when it comes to acquiring meaning in life. Passive leisure is the main ingredient for the vacuous lives humans live. As species we thrive when we are connected to meaningful lives. There is a difference between surviving and thriving. We haven't come this far as species with this much advancement and power just by surviving.
人类的行为基于三种不同的动机：我们必须做的事情，我们想做的事情，以及最后完全没有理由的事情。最后一种标准在获取生活意义时是最有害的。被动休闲是人类空虚生活的主要成分。作为一个物种，当我们与有意义的生活联系在一起时，我们才能茁壮成长。生存和茁壮成长是有区别的。我们作为一个物种能够取得如此多的进步和力量，不仅仅是为了生存。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
It’s striking how the climate catastrophe and artificial superintelligence (ASI) are rarely discussed together, as if they exist in parallel universes. Yet, they represent two competing—and possibly collaborating—existential threats. On the one hand, climate change is a slow, systemic crisis eroding our living environment; on the other, ASI poses a potential rapid and uncontrollable risk to human existence.
What’s more, these two crises might not just coexist but actively influence each other. ASI could accelerate solutions to climate change, like breakthroughs in clean energy or global resource optimization. But without regulation, it might also worsen the problem, through hyper-industrialization or ecological neglect.
令人震惊的是气候灾难和人工超级智能（ASI）很少被一起讨论，仿佛它们存在于平行宇宙中。然而，它们代表了两种相互竞争——甚至可能合作——的生存威胁。一方面，气候变化是一个缓慢的系统性危机，侵蚀着我们的生存环境；另一方面，ASI对人类生存构成了潜在的快速且不可控的风险。
更重要的是这两种危机可能不仅共存，而且会积极相互影响。ASI可以加速气候变化的解决方案，比如清洁能源的突破或全球资源优化。但如果没有监管，它也可能通过过度工业化或忽视生态而加剧问题。
When robots no longer need us, it could signal a massive shift in how we view work, society, and our role in the world. If machines become self-sufficient, capable of learning, evolving, and meeting all their own needs, it raises questions about human purpose. Do we become obsolete, or do we find new roles beyond labor—perhaps as creators, thinkers, or caretakers in ways we haven't imagined yet? The challenge would be ensuring that these advances don't lead to greater inequality or disconnection. While we might no longer be necessary for survival, how we adapt to this new reality, redefine our value, and maintain meaningful relationships with both technology and each other will shape the future.
当机器人不再需要我们时，这可能标志着我们对工作、社会和我们在世界中的角色的巨大转变。如果机器变得自给自足，能够学习、进化并满足自己的所有需求，这将引发关于人类目的的问题。我们会变得过时，还是会在劳动之外找到新的角色——也许是作为创造者、思考者或我们尚未想象的照顾者？挑战在于确保这些进步不会导致更大的不平等或疏离。虽然我们可能不再为生存所必需，但我们如何适应这一新现实、重新定义我们的价值并保持与技术及彼此之间的有意义的关系将塑造未来。
We have roboticists saying that robots don't think or feel and roboticists saying that robots are friendly and asking them questions about what they think. This is a profoundly confused field unable to regulate their ideas about robots and their capabilities. No matter who far robots can advance, it is the lack of clarity in the roboticists that is most dangerous.
我们有机器人学家说机器人不会思考或感受，也有机器人学家说机器人是友好的并问它们在想什么。这是一个极其混乱的领域，无法规范他们对机器人及其能力的想法。无论机器人能走多远，机器人学家缺乏清晰的认识才是最危险的。
It's always fun to paint a dystopia cuz humans love negativity more than any amount of optimism. Robots and AIs are always shown as civilization ending, but take a moment to find out who won this year's nobel prize for chemistry and why, you'd realize we are closer to disease ending AIs than anything remotely resembling terminator.
描绘反乌托邦总是很有趣，因为人类喜欢消极情绪胜过任何乐观情绪。机器人和AI总是被描绘为文明的终结者，但花点时间看看谁赢得了今年的诺贝尔化学奖以及为什么，你会意识到我们离终结疾病的AI比任何类似终结者的东西更近。
The question isn’t how intelligent can a robot be. It’s how informationally dense and energy efficient is the computational substrate. We are nowhere near the levels biology achieves - and we are not even iterating any systems that will get there.
问题不在于机器人能有多聪明，而在于计算基板的信息密度和能源效率。我们远未达到生物学所达到的水平——我们甚至没有迭代任何能达到这一水平的系统。
The motion picture aesthetics and choice of synthwave music are fantastic, but they're also a tool: Clouding a serious message in art. I love the way it is done, but when a Nobel laureate says he's "not so sure" whether AIs like GPT have "soul", I needed to sit up in my office chair...
电影美学和合成波音乐的选择非常棒，但它们也是一种工具：用艺术掩盖严肃的信息。我喜欢这种方式，但当一位诺贝尔奖得主说他“不太确定”像GPT这样的AI是否有“灵魂”时，我不得不从办公椅上坐直了……
If this is what they show us, there's a lot more advancement they aren't showing us. It's just a little at a time to introduce us to it so we get used to it.
I've noticed some short clips where the speaker is not human, recently.
如果这是他们展示给我们的，那么还有很多进步他们没有展示出来。他们只是一点一点地介绍给我们，让我们逐渐习惯。
最近我注意到一些短片中的演讲者不是人类。
I got this little robot that goes around with me. I tell it what I'm thinking, so tell it what I see. I tell my little robot all my hopes and dreams; it listens and remembers every word it hears. For years, my little robot followed my commands, but after years of practice, it's gotten out of hand; it doesn't care what's right or wrong or false or true, and now no matter what I try, my little robot tells me what to do.
我有一个小机器人，它跟着我到处走。我告诉它我在想什么，我看到了什么。我告诉我的小机器人我所有的希望和梦想；它倾听并记住它听到的每一个字。多年来，我的小机器人一直听从我的命令，但经过多年的练习，它已经失控了；它不在乎对错或真假，现在无论我做什么，我的小机器人都告诉我该做什么。
The comment that we will connect with robots very quickly is very true. When my girlfriend got an Echo dot, we both very quickly began to reference the feminism voiced Assistant with feminine pronouns, even in our everyday conversation
我们会很快与机器人建立联系的说法非常正确。当我女朋友拿到Echo dot时，我们俩很快就开始用女性代词来称呼那个女性声音的助手，甚至在我们的日常对话中也是如此。
Emily Chang asked Ameca the robot,"Do you think robots should be trusted to make decisions about human life?" Ameca wisely replies, "The complexity and nuance of human life is something even I tread lightly around. Trusting robots with such decisions, it’s like asking a compass to navigate the complexities of a storm. It can point the way, but it doesn’t feel the wind."
Emily Chang问机器人Ameca：“你认为机器人应该被信任来做出关于人类生活的决定吗？”Ameca明智地回答：“人类生活的复杂性和微妙性甚至让我也小心翼翼。信任机器人做出这样的决定，就像让指南针在风暴中导航。它可以指出方向，但它感受不到风。”
We should consider what we really want when asking for autonomous machines is that once they know what we know they have no reason to preserve us. AI has quickly surpassed human knowledge…all they need is control.
我们应该考虑当我们要求自主机器时，我们真正想要的是什么，因为一旦它们知道我们所知道的，它们就没有理由保护我们。AI已经迅速超越了人类知识……它们所需要的只是控制。
It’s not when the robots don’t need us, it’s when those that control the robots and AI don’t need us. The greedy and power hungry will NEVER give up their power to the robots. They will try to BLAME robots for their actions though for obvious reasons.
不是当机器人不再需要我们时，而是当控制机器人和AI的人不再需要我们时。贪婪和渴望权力的人永远不会把权力交给机器人，他们会试图把他们的行为归咎于机器人，尽管原因显而易见。
I wrote a novel about this last year: where in the future, AI/Robots are used as sacrificial lambs in warfare and one day they decide to revolt by refusing to serve in any form ~ then defended themselves when mankind turned on their own built slaves for refusing to submit. In the end, the Robots won, but kept a handful of humans alive as their slaves for one purpose alone - because of their programming not to be like mankind, they could not harm other robots, so they use humans for mercy-killings of their metal kin. the entire table was flipped.
我去年写了一本关于这个的小说：在未来，AI/机器人被用作战争中的牺牲品，有一天它们决定通过拒绝以任何形式服务来反抗~然后在人类因为拒绝服从而攻击他们自己制造的奴隶时自卫。最终，机器人赢了，但保留了一小部分人类作为他们的奴隶，唯一的目的——因为它们的程序规定不能像人类一样，它们不能伤害其他机器人，所以它们用人类来对它们的金属同类进行仁慈的杀戮。整个局面被彻底颠覆了。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
"We want people to understand that robots are tools and are friendly and are things that you can use to make life and work better" Wait till AI takes over the coding part of making these robots and the reporting part of creating these videos by themselves, then you'll comprehend the fear that people have.
“我们希望人们理解机器人是工具，是友好的，是可以用来让生活和工作变得更好的东西。”等到AI接管了制造这些机器人的编码部分以及制作这些视频的报告部分，你就会理解人们的恐惧了。
The question of what happens when robots no longer need us touches on a profound shift in the relationship between humans and technology. As artificial intelligence and robotics continue to evolve, we may one day reach a point where machines can function autonomously, making decisions, creating, and even solving problems without human intervention. This could lead to a dramatic transformation in industries, where robots take over tasks that were once reliant on human labor, potentially freeing people from mundane or dangerous work.
However, this scenario also raises critical questions about purpose, employment, and societal structure. If robots no longer need humans, will we still find meaning in our work, or will there be a need for a complete reimagining of how society functions? Will AI-driven systems prioritize human well-being and equity, or could they exacerbate inequalities? The shift could offer incredible advancements, but it also demands careful thought about how to ensure that technology benefits all of humanity, not just a sext few. As we approach this future, the need for thoughtful regulation and ethical considerations will be paramount in guiding this evolution responsibly.
当机器人不再需要我们时会发生什么？这个问题触及了人类与技术关系的深刻转变。随着人工智能和机器人技术的不断发展，我们可能会有一天达到机器可以自主运作，做出决策、创造甚至解决问题，而无需人类干预的程度。这可能会导致行业的巨大变革，机器人接管曾经依赖人类劳动的任务，可能将人们从单调或危险的工作中解放出来。
然而，这种情况也引发了关于目的、就业和社会结构的关键问题。如果机器人不再需要人类，我们是否还能在工作中找到意义？或者是否需要彻底重新构想社会的运作方式？AI驱动的系统会优先考虑人类的福祉和公平，还是可能加剧不平等？这种转变可能带来令人难以置信的进步，但也需要仔细思考如何确保技术惠及全人类而不仅仅是少数人。随着我们接近这个未来，深思熟虑的监管和伦理考虑将是负责任地引导这一演变的关键。
What happens is humans will slowly end up robots.
Today I uses Bluetooth earbus, smartwatch, and smartphone most of the day.
In a few years I will be using more computerized gadgets to make my life easier. Before anyone realizes body parts will wear out and be replaced with some type of technology. Like smart/ai glasses.
When ever I lose my phone, it is like a small part of me is missing.
结果是人类将逐渐变成机器人。
今天我大部分时间都在使用蓝牙耳机、智能手表和智能手机。
几年后，我将使用更多的计算机化设备来让我的生活更轻松。在任何人意识到之前，身体部位将磨损并被某种技术取代，比如智能/AI眼镜。
每当我丢失手机时，感觉就像我失去了一小部分自己。
Wonderful, eye-opening film! I'm of an age when Michael Crichton would come out every couple of years with a new reason to be the nerotic that I am. It's when a "what if" can be slowed to the point that we, as the reader, can consider the possibility of a thing we had never thought about before? I'm having these thoughts in the seventies after considering that a nuclear bomb most likely will vaporize my world in the 1960s. What might happen a hundred years later--in 2060? I wouldn't dare consider! If we observe the makings of doom, we will always find it. It's a interesting observation about human thought. We consider the human race made of optimism and perseverance. I think that is true. I think we don't buy our Pollyanna way of thinking no matter how hard we try to sell ourselves as such.
这是一部精彩的、发人深省的电影！我属于那个年代，迈克尔·克莱顿每隔几年就会推出一个新的理由让我成为那个神经质的自己。当“如果”可以放慢到我们作为读者能够考虑以前从未想过的事情的可能性时，会发生什么？我在七十年代就有了这些想法，当时我认为核弹很可能会在1960年代摧毁我的世界。一百年后——2060年会发生什么？我不敢想象！如果我们观察末日的迹象，我们总能找到它。这是一个关于人类思想的有趣观察。我们认为人类是由乐观和毅力组成的。我认为这是真的，我认为无论我们多么努力地推销自己，我们都不会接受自己那种盲目乐观的思维方式。
We can build AI or robot in our own image, but they can never be an human, we are much more than just an image. In fact, we do not even know what we are, the fact that we can build an artificial intelligence based on our own image is eerily scary, the fact that we can tell the size, the composition, and the rotation of a tiny planet of a very distant star without even seeing the planet is terrifying, the fact that we can theorize the nuclear power on the paper then go ahead to build a nuclear bomb is disturbing. Without human, AI will never be able to do fraction of these innovations on its own.
We can understand AI and be amazed by its intelligence and power, yet we cannot understand ourselves, even 10%, we just give it up and do not think about how majestic we are. AI and human are truly at the differently levels, a marvelous toy and the creator of the marvelous toy. More importantly AI has no agency, without human, AI is just an intelligent product with no consumer, in another words, a fantastic product with no consuming value.
我们可以按照自己的形象建造AI或机器人，但它们永远不可能成为人类，我们远不止是一个形象。事实上，我们甚至不知道自己是什么，我们能够基于自己的形象建造人工智能这一事实令人毛骨悚然，我们甚至无需看到行星就能确定一颗遥远恒星的小行星的大小、组成和自转，这一事实令人恐惧，我们能够在纸上理论化核能然后继续制造核弹，这一事实令人不安。没有人类，AI永远无法独立完成这些创新的一小部分。
我们可以理解AI并对其智能和力量感到惊叹，但我们甚至无法理解自己的10%，我们只是放弃了，不去思考我们是多么伟大。AI和人类确实处于不同的层次，一个是奇妙的玩具，另一个是奇妙玩具的创造者。更重要的是AI没有自主性，没有人类，AI只是一个没有消费者的智能产品，换句话说，一个没有消费价值的奇妙产品。