视频库 / REC_002
--:--
点击播放，这里会跟随视频显示当前句的中英字幕。
第 2 期 · 回应 Ⅲ·14「谁在控制未来？」
The next 50 years: humanity, AI, power | Yuval Noah Harari
节目发布 2026-07-30 · Yuval Noah Harari章节 · 点击跳转视频
0:02
开场：一生之中的三场革命
2:21
回到认知革命：语言造就文明
5:25
民主是对话，信息技术是地基
8:31
工具还是智能体：神与奴隶的悖论
12:59
AI 是官僚体制的原住民
14:21
法律人格：不可逆的决定
19:53
从人类编辑到无名算法
22:17
AI 帝国与帝国中枢的终止开关
29:09
真相昂贵，虚构廉价
33:12
知识越多，理解越少：马与金融
37:18
AI 能思考吗？能感受吗？
43:59
智慧革命：精灵与三个愿望
本期讲者
尤瓦尔·赫拉利以色列历史学家，耶路撒冷希伯来大学教授，《人类简史》《未来简史》《智人之上》作者，以「人类靠共享虚构故事实现大规模合作」的论点闻名，近年聚焦 AI 对信息网络与权力结构的冲击。
主持人本场公开对谈的访谈人，从赫拉利的著作与达沃斯等场合的发言中提炼问题，引导讨论 AI 的智能体属性、法律人格、真相与说服等议题。
01开场：一生之中的三场革命
0:02
Good evening, everybody. Good evening, Yuval. >> Hey, it's good to be here. >> Looking forward to this conversation very much. I'm just going to give a little brief introduction just before we get stuck into the questions. Cuz I've been fascinated about this topic and looking forward to to interviewing you because for most of history, change moved slowly enough that one generation could pass its its wisdom to the next with some confidence it would still apply. This is no longer true. In the space of a single lifetime, we are now being asked to absorb three revolutions at once. A new form of intelligence that doesn't just calculate, but also decides. A scramble to power and control that intelligence.
大家晚上好。晚上好，尤瓦尔。>> 嘿，很高兴来到这里。>> 我非常期待这次对话。我先简单做个开场介绍，然后我们再进入正式提问。因为我一直对这个话题非常着迷，也很期待采访你。因为在历史上的大部分时间里，变化的速度足够缓慢，一代人可以把自己的智慧传给下一代，并且有相当的信心，这些智慧依然适用。但现在已经不是这样了。在短短一个人的一生之中，我们如今被要求同时消化三场革命。一种新形式的智能，它不仅会计算，还会做决定。一场对这种智能的权力与控制权的争夺战。
0:49
And an explosion of data that lets that intelligence know us better than we know ourselves. Yuval Noah Harari's work from Sapiens to Homo Deus to Nexus and the numerous talks, lectures, and interviews he's conducted has offered the same argument just in different clothes. Humans don't run on truth, we run on shared stories. And whoever controls the story controls the species. What's different now is for the first time the storyteller may not be human. AI can generate belief, manufacture evidence, and forge intimacy at a scale no emperor, church, or party ever could.
还有数据的大爆炸，让这种智能对我们的了解超过我们对自己的了解。尤瓦尔·诺亚·赫拉利的著作，从《人类简史》到《未来简史》再到《智人之上》，以及他做过的众多演讲、讲座和访谈，其实都在以不同的形式表达同一个论点：人类不是靠真相运转的，我们靠的是共同的故事。而谁掌控了故事，谁就掌控了整个物种。如今不同的是，历史上第一次，讲故事的人可能不再是人类。AI 能够制造信念、伪造证据、营造亲密感，其规模之大是任何皇帝、教会或政党都无法企及的。
1:34
This is the turning point. Not simply that the technology is powerful, but the old ways that held power in check, a free press, a shared reality, institutions built to self-correct, were designed for a world where only humans held the pen. Tonight's conversation asks what it takes to carry those checks forward or what the new ones we will need to invent for a future world that no longer we fully author alone. Well, that's the precedent that we're going to look at today, Yuval. But actually before we get into it being too heavy, wanted to start with a slightly light and fun question.
这就是转折点。问题不仅仅在于这项技术很强大，而在于过去那些制衡权力的方式——自由的新闻界、共同的现实、为自我纠错而建立的制度——都是为一个只有人类执笔的世界设计的。今晚的对话要探讨的是，我们需要做什么才能把这些制衡延续下去，或者我们需要发明哪些新的制衡机制，来应对一个不再由我们独自书写的未来世界。嗯，这正是我们目前面临的先例。我们今天要探讨的内容，尤瓦尔。不过其实在进入太沉重的话题之前，我想先从一个稍微轻松有趣的问题开始。
02回到认知革命：语言造就文明
2:21
If you could travel back to any point in history, when would you choose and why based on wanting to understand first hand some of the stories that society could tell you? >> Well, I'd probably want to go back to the Stone Age and to the cognitive revolution around 50, 60, 70,000 years ago. I probably wouldn't be able to survive for more than a few days because I don't know how to gather or escape predators or whatever, but it is the most fascinating moment in human history, the one we least understand. We know that within a very short evolutionary time span, we shifted from being a relatively insignificant animal to being the masters of the planet.
如果你可以穿越回历史上任何一个时刻，你会选择什么时候，又是为什么？前提是你想亲身了解一些社会能告诉你的故事。>> 嗯，我可能会想回到石器时代，回到大约五六万到七万年前的认知革命时期。我可能撑不了几天就活不下去了，因为我不懂怎么采集食物，也不会躲避捕食者之类的，但那是人类历史上最迷人的时刻，也是我们最不了解的时刻。我们知道，在极其短暂的演化时间里，我们从一种相对微不足道的动物变成了这个星球的主宰。
3:11
And we are not sure how we did it. The best speculation or or the best theory is that we did it with language. That this is the moment when humans acquire the ability to produce and communicate with sophisticated language and that this was the basis for everything else we did. That all the enormous structures we've built on Earth, churches, states, trade networks, financial systems, they're all ultimately made from words. The words in the law books, in the religious scriptures, in the the ledgers.
而我们并不确定这是怎么做到的。最好的推测，或者说最好的理论，是我们靠语言做到的。也就是说，那正是人类获得了一种能力的时刻——能够创造复杂精妙的语言并用它来交流，而这正是我们后来所做一切的基础。我们在地球上建立的所有庞大结构——教会、国家、贸易网络、金融体系——它们归根结底都是由词语构成的。法律书里的词语、宗教经典里的词语、账本里的词语。
3:51
And this is especially important to understand today when something new is mastering language, which is AI, maybe for the first time in history, there will be something on the planet that is better with words than we are. And if this is the operating system of civilization, what happens when something else, something alien, takes takes control of the operating system of civilization? One last thought is that perhaps AI is not a machine that learns language. Perhaps it is language itself liberating itself from its its dependence on these animals, on these apes.
而这一点在今天尤其重要，因为现在有一种新事物正在掌握语言，那就是 AI。也许这是历史上第一次，这个星球上将出现一种比我们更擅长运用词语的东西。而如果语言是文明的操作系统，那当另一种东西、一种异类的东西掌控了文明的操作系统时，会发生什么？最后还有一个想法：也许 AI 并不是一台学习语言的机器。也许它就是语言本身，正在把自己从对这些动物、这些猿类的依赖中解放出来。
4:43
That yes, we created it. It was our most magnificent and important tool. But now language liberate itself from human beings. And what will happen as we move forward is language developing and spreading maybe throughout the universe without us. >> Yeah, fascinating. I mean, that's looking ahead at the future of language being taken away from us. But can we look back again at some of the technological advances within language? We've gone through writing, the printing press, for example. AI obviously is a massive leap >> Yes.
没错，是我们创造了它。它曾是我们最辉煌、最重要的工具。但现在，语言正把自己从人类手中解放出来。而接下来会发生的，就是语言自行发展、传播，也许遍布整个宇宙——不再需要我们。>> 是啊，太有意思了。我是说，这是在展望未来，语言被从我们手中夺走。但我们能不能再回头看看语言领域的一些技术进步？比如我们经历了文字、印刷术。AI 显然是一次巨大的飞跃>> 是的。
03民主是对话，信息技术是地基
5:25
>> ahead in that. You've used the term that it could cause earthquakes in democracies >> Mhm. >> in how it's in how it powerful it can be with languages. Why could it cause earthquakes in democracies, say, compared to any other form of government or perhaps totalitarian forms of government? >> Because democracy in essence is a conversation. Whereas dictatorship is a dictate. You know, there is one person dictating everything. Democracy is about lots of people having a conversation to decide what to do. To have peace or war, to have raised taxes or lowered taxes. Now, conversations are based on the communication technology, the information technology available to people at the time.
>> 在这方面。你用过一个说法，说它可能在民主制度中引发地震>> 嗯。>> 就凭它在语言上能有多强大。为什么它会在民主制度中引发地震？比方说，相比其他任何形式的政府，或者极权主义形式的政府？>> 因为民主在本质上是一场对话。而独裁则是一种命令。你知道，就是一个人独断一切。民主是很多人通过对话来决定该做什么。是和平还是战争，是加税还是减税。那么，对话是建立在当时人们可用的通信技术、信息技术之上的。
6:17
And what we see in history, that we do not know, at least I don't know, of a single case of a large-scale democracy before the modern era. We have plenty of examples of small-scale democracies in the ancient and medieval worlds. We have city-states like ancient Athens or medieval Florence. We have lots of tribes and towns and villages run democratically. It seems that at least in the Stone Age, democracy was the most common system of government. There are a few tribes with a single dictator controlling everybody.
而我们在历史上看到的是——我们不知道，至少我不知道——在现代之前有过任何一个大规模民主的例子。我们有很多古代和中世纪世界里小规模民主的例子。我们有城邦，比如古雅典或中世纪的佛罗伦萨。我们有很多部落、城镇和村庄是民主运作的。看起来至少在石器时代，民主是最常见的政体。也有少数部落是由一个独裁者控制所有人的。
6:53
But, as human systems grew larger, and you had kingdoms with uh millions of people spread over thousands of kilometers, it was impossible to hold a conversation anymore. You could do it in a small city like Athens. Everybody can gather together in the main square and discuss. But, how do you do it if even in a relatively small kingdom like say Portugal in the Middle Ages? Can't be done. And therefore, we don't have any example of a large-scale democracy before the rise of modern information technology. First with print, uh newspapers, then radio and television and the internet.
但是，随着人类体系越来越大，王国拥有呃数百万人口，分布在数千公里的疆域上，就不可能再进行对话了。在雅典那样的小城市里你可以做到。所有人可以聚集在中心广场上讨论。但是，你要怎么做到呢，哪怕是在一个相对较小的王国，比如中世纪的葡萄牙？根本做不到。因此，在现代信息技术兴起之前，我们没有任何大规模民主的例子。首先是印刷、呃、报纸，然后是广播、电视和互联网。
7:39
And these technologies are not kind of a side dish. Like you have the democratic banquet and yes, we also have these newspapers and in radio. They are the basis. They provide the means for millions of people to hold a meaningful conversation in real time about whether to go to war or make peace. And every time there is a major change in these information technologies, you have an earthquake in the building that is built on top of that, which is democracy. And this is what we have been seeing over the last 10 years for instance, as social media uh became maybe the most important information technology and uh causing a massive earthquake in democracies all over the world as a result.
而这些技术并不是什么配菜。不是说你摆了一桌民主的盛宴，然后顺便还有这些报纸和广播。它们是根基。它们提供了让数百万人就是否开战或讲和进行实时、有意义对话的手段。而每当这些信息技术发生重大变革时，你就会看到一场地震，发生在建立于其上的那座建筑里，也就是民主。而这正是我们过去十年来一直看到的，比如，社交媒体呃，成为了也许是最重要的信息技术，呃，结果在全世界的民主国家引发了一场巨大的地震。
04工具还是智能体：神与奴隶的悖论
8:31
>> Yeah, one thing you said there was the choice between going to war or making peace. And actually I want to get into the definition of of AI because a lot of people call it a tool, but you argue that it's it's absolutely an agent. >> Yes. >> And in fact you say it's a knife that can decide by itself whether to cut salad or commit murder. And I have to say it would be a bizarre cooking show if that was the case where knives had that ability to cut salads or commit murder. So it is a it's a dangerous thought. Can we expand on that?
>> 是啊，你刚才提到的一点是在开战与讲和之间做选择。其实我想聊聊AI 的定义，因为很多人把它叫做工具，但你认为它绝对是一个智能体（agent）。>> 是的。>> 而且实际上你说它是一把可以自己决定是切沙拉还是去杀人的刀。我得说，那会是一档非常诡异的烹饪节目，如果真是那样，刀子有那种能力自己决定切沙拉还是杀人。所以这是个危险的想法。我们能展开讲讲吗？
9:05
Are we choosing the right narrative at the moment with AI by saying it's a tool that humans can still use and that humans are in the >> But that's the biggest difference. >> just need to say it's agent and they can do the >> agent. I mean, if it's not an agent, then it's not an AI and all the hundreds of billions of dollars that are being poured into its development uh will be wasted. Because the expectations, what people expect this technology to do, the reasons they invest hundreds of billions of dollars is because they think it will be an agent, not a tool.
我们现在对 AI 选择的叙事对吗？说它是一个人类仍然可以使用的工具，人类还处于——>> 但这就是最大的区别。>> 只需要说它是智能体，它们就能做那些——>> 智能体。我是说，如果它不是智能体，那它就不是 AI，而所有投入其研发的数千亿美元呃，都会打水漂。因为那些期望——人们期望这项技术做到的事，他们投入数千亿美元的原因——就是他们认为它会是一个智能体，而不是工具。
9:37
Uh the the you listen to the to the narrative coming out of places like Silicon Valley, and there is an inherent contradiction in the in the narrative. They tell us, "We will create a god, and it will be our slave." And this doesn't make sense. If it is a god, it cannot remain a slave. And if it is a slave, it means it has no god-like abilities. The uh assumption of most of the leading companies, and most of the leading experts also outside the companies, is that they're correct about the first half of the sentence. They are creating a god.
呃，你听听从硅谷这类地方传出来的叙事，那套叙事里有一个内在的矛盾。他们告诉我们：“我们要创造一个神，而它会是我们的奴隶。”这说不通。如果它是神，它就不可能一直是奴隶。而如果它是奴隶，那就意味着它��有神一般的能力。而呃，大多数领先公司的假设，以及公司之外大多数顶尖专家的假设，是他们对这句话的前半部分是正确的。他们正在创造一个神。
10:21
A god in the sense of something with superhuman abilities. Now, and and this is in essentially an agent. The difference between tool and agent, a tool is something that cannot make decisions by itself. We have to decide what to do with it, and cannot invent new ideas by itself. The printing press was a tool. Mhm. The printing press by itself, Gutenberg brings brings print technology to Europe in the 15th century. The printing press cannot decide by itself, mhm, "I want to print the Bible, and tomorrow I'll print the Quran, and next week I'll I'll I'll print Confucius." No, Gutenberg decides, "I'll print the Bible," and the printing press is just a tool to uh uh uh realize the decision of Gutenberg.
一个神，意思是某种拥有超人能力的东西。那么，而且，这本质上就是一个能动者（agent）。工具和能动者的区别在于，工具是一种不能自己做决定的东西。我们必须决定用它来做什么，它也不能自己发明新想法。印刷机就是一种工具。嗯。印刷机本身，古腾堡在15世纪把印刷技术带到了欧洲。印刷机不能自己决定，嗯，"我想印《圣经》，明天我要印《古兰经》，下周我要印孔子的书。"不，是古腾堡决定"我要印《圣经》"，而印刷机只是一个工具，用来，呃，实现古腾堡的决定。
11:14
Similarly, the printing press cannot invent a new idea. The printing press cannot invent the radio. It cannot invent a book. You need humans to write the book, and then the printing press copies it. Similarly, an atom bomb is a tool. An atom bomb in the 1940s could not decide by itself whether to bomb Hiroshima or to bomb Tokyo. You needed a human to decide, "Let's bomb Hiroshima." And the atom bomb could not invent by itself the hydrogen bomb. Impossible. An agent, in contrast, is something that can make decisions by itself and invent new things by new ideas by itself. AI is an agent. An AI weapon can decide what to bomb.
同样，印刷机不能发明新想法。印刷机不能发明收音机。它不能创作一本书。你需要人类来写书，然后印刷机把它复印出来。同样，原子弹也是一种工具。20世纪40年代的原子弹不能自己决定是轰炸广岛还是轰炸东京。你需要一个人来决定："我们轰炸广岛吧。"而且原子弹不能自己发明出氢弹。不可能。相比之下，能动者是一种能够自己做决定、自己发明新事物、新想法的东西。AI就是一个能动者。AI武器可以决定轰炸什么目标。
12:07
And it can invent the next weapon. Similarly, there is a lot of interest now in uh uh creating AI agents in the financial and economic sphere. Creating non-human corporations. Imagine a corporation that manages money and employees and and uh uh and has no humans as executives or shareholders or trustees. Only AIs. This is a new type of agent that never existed before in history. Now, is it good? Is it bad? Leave it aside. The first thing to grasp is that this is unprecedented. We have never in we we had other agents around us like horses and cows and chickens and birds, lots of animal agents that can make their decisions.
它还能发明下一代武器。同样，现在有很多人有兴趣，呃，在金融和经济领域创造AI能动者。创造非人类的公司。想象一个公司，它管理资金和员工，而且，呃，没有任何人类担任高管、股东或受托人。只有AI。这是历史上从未存在过的一种新型能动者。那么，它是好是坏？先放到一边。首先要理解的是，这是史无前例的。我们从来没有——我们身边曾经有过其他能动者，比如马、牛、鸡和鸟，很多能自己做决定的动物能动者。
05AI 是官僚体制的原住民
12:59
But, we never encountered an agent that understands our language and that is better than us at things like finance or law or religion. Again, we used language over thousands of years to create the control systems of the world. The control systems of the world are these huge bureaucratic networks ultimately based on language like banks, like the stock market, like the Catholic Church, like the legal system. We never really liked these democrat- these bureaucratic systems. Humans generally don't like bureaucracy very much, but we can't live without them.
但是，我们从来没有遇到过一个能理解我们语言的能动者，而且它在某些方面比我们更强，比如金融，或者法律、宗教。再说一遍，我们用了几千年的语言来创造这个世界的控制系统。世界的控制系统是这些庞大的官僚网络，最终建立在语言之上，比如银行、比如股市、比如天主教会、比如法律体系。我们从来都不太喜欢这些民主——这些官僚系统。人类一般都不太喜欢官僚体制，但我们又离不开它们。
13:44
They're the basis for our power. AI is a bureaucratic native. What is likely to happen, what is already be happening, don't expect to see killer robots running in the streets shooting people. This is not how AI will take over the world. It will be the AI bureaucrats. We control the world because of these networks of bureaucracy, and we are not very good at it. We We only control them because there was nobody else on the planet that could take them from us. We are bad at finance, but the horses are even worse.
它们是我们权力的基础。AI是官僚体制的原住民。可能会发生的，其实已经在发生的是——别指望看到杀手机器人在街上跑来跑去朝人开枪。AI不会以这种方式接管世界。接管世界的会是AI官僚。我们之所以控制着世界，是因为这些官僚网络，而我们其实并不擅长运作它们。我们之所以能控制它们，只是因为地球上没有别人能从我们手里夺走它们。我们不擅长金融，但马更不擅长。
06法律人格：不可逆的决定
14:21
We are bad in in managing the legal system, but the chickens are even worse. Now, if somebody comes along that is better than us at bureaucracy, at finance, at law, that's the question. What will happen to us at that moment? >> Well, let's look at the legal side of it a bit and the fact that AI as an agent currently doesn't have any legal personhood. We don't give it the same human legalities, do we? But, you've said before that if we don't decide where AI sits from a legal standpoint when we're talking about autonomous vehicles, etc., someone else will make that decision for us in 10 years and we're out of that power loop. That's a pretty scary thing.
我们不擅长管理法律体系，但鸡更不擅长。那么，如果出现了一个比我们更擅长官僚运作、金融、法律的存在，问题就来了。到那一刻我们会怎么样？>> 好，我们稍微谈谈这里面的法律层面，以及这样一个事实：AI作为能动者，目前不具备任何法律人格。我们并没有赋予它和人类同样的法律地位，对吧？但你以前说过，如果我们不决定AI在法律上的定位——比如在谈论自动驾驶汽车等等的时候——那么10年后就会有别人替我们做这个决定，而我们就被排除在权力圈之外了。这挺可怕的。
15:07
But, I want to pull back a bit here cuz the one decision on the table right now that you believe once made humanity will not be able to take back? Is it that legal personhood of AI or is there something of AI, or is that something >> Yes, I would point at that. That there is a lot of attention on the technological race to develop the technical side of AI, to make it faster, more efficient, more powerful. But I would focus also on the legal and political aspect, and especially on the question whether we grant legal personhood to AIs. Now, what is legal personhood?
不过，我想稍微回到一个问题，因为现在摆在桌面上有一个决定，你认为一旦做出，人类将无法收回？是不是就是AI的法律人格问题，还是另有其他的东西，还是别的什么？>> 是的，我会指向这个问题。现在有很多注意力都放在技术竞赛上，发展AI的技术层面，让它更快、更高效、更强大。但是我还想聚焦在法律和政治层面，尤其是这个问题：我们是否要赋予AI法律人格。那么，什么是法律人格？
15:52
A person in the legal system is someone who, for instance, can open a bank account. Someone who can be a player, an independent player, in the financial system, make investments. Someone who can be a player in the legal system, for instance, sue you in court. Now, until today, there are just two kinds of legal persons in the world. You had human beings, of course, we are persons. I can open a bank account, I can sue you in court, I can donate money to a politician. I'm I'm a legal person, but most legal systems in the world also recognized in the modern era another kind of legal person, which are corporations.
法律体系中的"人"，是指比如说，可以开设银行账户的主体。一个可以在金融体系中作为独立参与者、进行投资的主体。一个可以在法律体系中作为参与者的主体，比如说，在法庭上起诉你。那么，直到今天，世界上只有两种法律人。首先当然是人类，我们是"人"。我可以开银行账户，可以在法庭上起诉你，可以给政治家捐款。我是一个法律人，但世界上大多数法律体系在现代还承认另一种法律人，那就是公司。
16:38
According to not all, but most legal systems, corporations, like Google or Facebook or Toyota or Mercedes-Benz, they are legal persons. The corporation can open a bank account. The corporation can sue you in court. The corporation can make a political donation. Now, until today, this was legal fiction. Because all the decisions of the corporation were actually made by some human being. If Google decides to acquire another company, who actually made the decision? Not Google, but the human executives, the human shareholders, the human engineers made a decision. If Google decides to sue you in court, it was some human employed by Google.
按照大多数（虽然不是全部）法律体系，公司——比如谷歌、Facebook、丰田或梅赛德斯-奔驰——它们都是法律人。公司可以开设银行账户。公司可以在法庭上起诉你。公司可以进行政治捐款。不过，直到今天，这都是一种法律拟制。因为公司的所有决定实际上都是由某个人类做出的。如果谷歌决定收购另一家公司，实际上是谁做的决定？不是谷歌，而是人类高管、人类股东、人类工程师做的决定。如果谷歌决定在法庭上起诉你，那也是谷歌雇佣的某个人做的。
17:26
There was no real Google. Now there can be. If we grant AIs legal personhood, and just a month ago Argentina, the government of Argentina announced that it is going to grant legal personhood to AIs so they can start having operating non-human corporations. Corporations, again, that can employ people, can can sue you in court, can do anything a corporation does, and has no humans. Now, 10 years ago, this would would just be a crazy idea because if there are no humans, who makes the decisions? Yeah.
从来不存在一个真正的"谷歌"。而现在可以有了。如果我们赋予AI法律人格——就在一个月前，阿根廷，阿根廷政府宣布将要赋予AI法律人格，这样它们就可以开始运营非人类的公司。这些公司，同样，可以雇人，可以在法庭上起诉你，可以做公司能做的一切，而且没有任何人类。那么，10年前，这只会是一个疯狂的想法，因为如果没有人类，谁来做决定呢？对吧。
18:04
You can pass a law in parliament that you can have a non-human corporation, but it can't function. Now it's technically possible. AI can manage, for instance, a bank account, and decide to invest here, and buy this, and and and and buy that. Once we do that, that's the moment when the fox enters the chicken coop. Again, the basic realization should be most humans are not very good in understanding finance and law and all these complex bureaucratic system. No human is able to remember all the laws of Portugal. No human is able to track all the financial transactions in the market that happened today. An AI can do that. AIs are bureaucratic natives.
你可以在议会通过一部法律，允许存在非人类公司，但它没法运转。而现在这在技术上可行了。AI可以管理，比如说，一个银行账户，并决定在这里投资、买这个、再买那个。一旦我们这样做，那一刻就是狐狸进了鸡舍。再说一遍，最基本的认识应该是大多数人类并不太擅长理解金融、法律以及所有这些复杂的官僚体系。没有人能记住葡萄牙的所有法律。没有人能追踪今天市场上发生的所有金融交易。而AI可以做到。AI是官僚体系的原住民。
18:56
If we give them the legal power, then they will likely take these systems over. And if we don't make any decisions, it will just happen by itself, as we already saw on social media, on social media we never made a decision, mhm, let's grant AIs legal personhood on social media. But social media is full of AI persons, of bots that impersonate people. Like when you somebody sent you something online, you have no idea whether that somebody is a human being or an AI. Social media is the first system in the world where AIs actually function as persons, even though we never decided that we want to allow that.
如果我们赋予它们法律权力，它们很可能会把这些系统接管过去。而且如果我们不做任何决定，这一切也会自然而然地发生，就像我们已经在社交媒体上看到的那样，在社交媒体上，我们从来没有做过这样的决定，嗯，说我们要在社交媒体上授予AI法律人格。但社交媒体上充满了AI"人"，充满了机器人，它们冒充真人。比如当有人在网上给你发东西时，你根本不知道对方是人类还是AI。社交媒体是世界上第一个这样的系统，AI在其中真正以"人"的身份运作，尽管我们从来没有决定过要允许这种事。
07从人类编辑到无名算法
19:53
It just happened. And the results are not very good. And media also ultimately is a kind of bureaucratic system. In the 20th century, it was managed by human beings. The most important uh persons in the media landscape of the 20th century were the editors. The editors of the newspapers, of the radio shows, of the TV stations, because they decided what everybody will be thinking and talking about. They controlled the conversation. When you decide out of the million things that happened today in the world, what will be the 10 things that will appear on the front page of tomorrow's newspaper? And what will be the main headline? And then tomorrow you have millions of people, they get the newspaper, they read it, and they start talking about it and thinking about it.
它就这么发生了。而结果并不太好。而媒体归根结底也是一种官僚体系。在20世纪，它是由人类来管理的。在20世纪的呃媒体格局中最重要的人物就是编辑们。报纸的编辑、广播节目、电视台的编辑，因为他们决定了所有人会思考什么、谈论什么。他们掌控着舆论。当你从今天世界上发生的上百万件事情中，决定哪10件事会登上明天报纸的头版？哪一条会是头条？然后到了明天，就有数百万人拿到报纸，读了它，然后开始谈论它、思考它。
20:48
This was immense power. So human editors were extremely important persons in the 20th century. Uh Lenin, for instance, before he was dictator of the Soviet Union, his one job was editor of the newspaper Iskra. Benito Mussolini started as a socialist actually journalist, then switched to being a far-right journalist, then became editor of uh the far-right newspaper Il Popolo d'Italia, and from that position in his next job was dictator of Italy. So, it was like journalist, editor, dictator. Now, if you ask yourself, who are the most important editors today in the world? What are their names? They have no names because they are algorithms.
这是巨大的权力。所以在20世纪，人类编辑是极其重要的人物。呃，比如列宁，在成为苏联的独裁者之前，他的一份工作就是《火星报》的编辑。贝尼托·墨索里尼最初其实是一名社会主义记者，后来转变成极右翼记者，接着当上了呃极右翼报纸《意大利人民报》的编辑，而从那个位置出发，他的下一份工作就是意大利的独裁者。所以路径就是：记者、编辑、独裁者。现在，如果你问自己，当今世界上最重要的编辑是谁？他们叫什么名字？他们没有名字，因为他们是算法。
21:39
Who manages? Who decides what people will see on their social media feed, on X, on TikTok, on Instagram? It's not human beings. The entities that control the uh uh uh the bureaucracy of the media are already AIs. >> Yeah, you said that before, haven't you, that and we've been talking a lot today about the shifts in power. And you said that essentially whoever has controlled various different parts of our evolution and revolutions have controlled either energy, they've controlled manufacturing, and now it's those that control data.
是谁在管理？是谁在决定人们会在社交媒体信息流上看到什么，在X上、TikTok上、Instagram上？不是人类。控制着呃呃呃媒体官僚体系的实体已经是AI了。>> 是啊，你之前就说过这个，对吧，而且我们今天聊了很多关于权力转移的话题。你说过，本质上，在我们的进化和历次革命的不同阶段中，掌控局面的那些人要么控制了能源，要么控制了制造业，而现在是那些控制数据的人。
08AI 帝国与帝国中枢的终止开关
22:17
So, what does a 21st century arms race actually look like in practice if it's those that control data that are at the top of that power mountain? >> Mhm. Uh what we are seeing now is that there is an arms race really between two countries, the China and the US, and a very small number of companies. They uh control most of the world's data. They lead the race to develop superintelligence, to develop better and better AI models. And this really gives them the power to control the world. If you look at the last big revolution in technology in the 19th century, the Industrial Revolution, the few countries who led the Industrial Revolution, this gave them the power to conquer and exploit the rest of the world.
那么，21世纪的军备竞赛在实践中究竟是什么样子，如果站在权力之巅的是那些控制数据的人？>> 嗯。呃，我们现在看到的是，确实存在一场军备竞赛，发生在两个国家——中国和美国之间，以及极少数几家公司之间。它们呃控制着世界上大部分的数据。它们在这场竞赛中领跑，开发超级智能，开发越来越强大的AI模型。而这确实赋予了它们控制世界的权力。如果你看看上一次重大的技术革命，也就是19世纪的工业革命，那少数几个领导了工业革命的国家，这赋予了它们征服和剥削世界其他地区的力量。
23:14
There was just no match. If If somebody comes with the power of modern industry, with steam guns and machine guns, and the other side has spears and horses, it's it's no match. And in the 19th century, even very small countries like Belgium, once they industrialized, they had the ability to build a huge empire in Africa, what is today Congo. The thinking in the 19th century was that industry and empire go together. Now, with AI, it can be even far more extreme. Uh we can have two countries that basically control the all the infrastructure that everything runs on.
根本毫无悬念。如果一方带着现代工业的力量而来，有蒸汽炮舰和机枪，而另一方只有长矛和马匹，那根本不是对手。而在19世纪，即使是很小的国家，比如比利时，一旦实现工业化，就有能力在非洲建立一个庞大的帝国，也就是今天的刚果。19世纪的思维是，工业和帝国是相伴而行的。如今有了AI，情况可能会极端得多。呃，可能会出现两个国家基本上控制着一切赖以运行的全部基础设施。
24:02
From military to civilian technology, everything will run on on AI. And the two unique characteristics of AI that make this arms race different from every previous arms race or from every previous imperial competition. In the past, even if you were a very strong empire, you could not concentrate all the power in the metropolis, in the imperial hub. Like if you have the Roman Empire and you control the entire Mediterranean, the main economic asset in ancient times was land. The land where you grow wheat and olive olives and and and and grapes. And you couldn't technically take the wheat fields of Egypt and the olive groves of Iberia and move them to Italy.
从军事到民用技术，一切都将运行在AI之上。而AI有两个独特的特性，使这场军备竞赛不同于以往任何一场军备竞赛，不同于以往任何一场帝国竞争。在过去，即使你是一个非常强大的帝国，你也无法把所有权力都集中在宗主国，集中在帝国中心。比如说罗马帝国，你控制着整个地中海，而古代最主要的经济资产是土地。就是种植小麦、橄榄还有葡萄的土地。而你在技术上不可能把埃及的麦田和伊比利亚的橄榄园搬到意大利去。
25:00
Impossible. So, even at the height of the Roman Empire, a lot of power remained in the provinces and ultimately it shifted to the provinces. So, in the late Roman Empire, the city of Rome and Italy are abandoned and the center shifts to the Eastern Mediterranean, which was the most fertile and important area in terms of land. You move forward, say to the 19th century in the British Empire, with industry, you can concentrate power a lot more easily because you have all the main industries concentrated in the British Island, but still you cannot move everything to Britain. You cannot move the oil fields of Iraq to Yorkshire. You cannot move the rubber plantations of Malaya to Cornwall. It's impossible.
不可能。所以，即使在罗马帝国鼎盛时期，大量权力仍然留在各行省，而最终权力还转移到了行省。所以在罗马帝国晚期，罗马城和意大利被抛弃，中心转移到了东地中海，那里在土地方面是最肥沃、最重要的地区。再往后看，比如到19世纪的大英帝国，有了工业，你可以更容易地集中权力，因为你把所有主要工业都集中在不列颠岛上，但你仍然无法把一切都搬到英国。你无法把伊拉克的油田搬到约克郡。你无法把马来亚的橡胶种植园搬到康沃尔。这是不可能的。
25:55
So, you concentrate industrial production in Britain, but a lot of power still remains in the provinces. With an AI empire, it's different. You can technically concentrate all the world information and all the code that controls everything in just one country or two countries. So, that this makes the potential for imperial concentration of power much bigger than in any previous era. And the other thing is that is you can create a system when everything runs on all over the world, everything runs on AI infrastructure, but there is either kill switch in the imperial hub.
所以，你把工业生产集中在英国，但大量权力仍然留在各殖民地。但AI帝国就不一样了。你在技术上可以把全世界的信息，以及控制一切的所有代码，全都集中在一个或两个国家里。所以这使得帝国权力集中的潜在程度远远超过以往任何一个时代。另一点是，你可以打造一个系统，让全世界的一切都运行在AI基础设施之上，但存在一个"终止开关"，掌握在帝国中心手里。
26:46
When a Roman merchant sold a steel sword to some Gothic tribe, the Romans lost control of the sword. The Goths could then use the swords to fight against the Romans and kill Roman legionaries. There wasn't a button in Rome that the emperor presses and all the steel swords we sold to these Goth and Vandals and Franks stop working. Can't can't do that. Similarly, in the 19th century, if British merchants sell rifles to Afghan tribesmen in the mountains of the Hindu Kush, and the Afghans then use these rifles to defend Afghanistan from a British invasion, there is no button in London that Queen Victoria presses the button and all the rifles in Afghanistan stop working.
当一个罗马商人把一把钢剑卖给某个哥特部落时，罗马人就失去了对那把剑的控制。哥特人随后可以用这些剑来对抗罗马人、杀死罗马军团士兵。罗马并没有一个按钮，让皇帝一按下去，我们卖给这些哥特人、汪达尔人和法兰克人的所有钢剑就统统失灵失灵。做不到，根本做不到。同样地，在19世纪，如果英国商人把步枪卖给兴都库什山区的阿富汗部落民，而阿富汗人随后用这些步枪保卫阿富汗、抵御英国的入侵，伦敦并没有一个按钮可以让维多利亚女王按下去，然后阿富汗所有的步枪就全部失灵。
27:43
That's the case with AI. If it is managed in a certain way, say the Americans and Chinese can sell all the world AI weapons and AI civilian technology, and everything runs on that, the governments, the industry, the military, but if you do something they don't like, they just press a button and everything stops working. And we were given some foretaste of that, for instance, in the war in Ukraine, that weapon system that were based on Starlink, and there were certain incidents that when Elon Musk just pressed a button and the Ukrainian drones stopped working.
但AI就是这样。如果以某种方式来管理它，比如说美国人和中国人可以向全世界出售AI武器和AI民用技术，一切都在这些技术上运转——政府、产业、军队——但如果你做了他们不喜欢的事，他们只需按下一个按钮，一切就都停摆了。而我们已经预先尝到了一点这种滋味，比如在乌克兰战争中，那些基于星链（Starlink）的武器系统，就发生过某些事件：埃隆·马斯克只是按了一下按钮，乌克兰的无人机就失灵了。
28:25
Now, it should be said that Starlink did an immense positive service to the Ukrainians, so I don't want to come across as too too critical of that, but just to illustrate the point that AI weapons, for instance, are not like machine guns. They are embedded within a whole network, and that's why there is so much I I I I I heard that you this morning discuss the issue of sovereignty. Sovereignty in the age of AI is much more complicated than in the industrial age. Because the nature of the technology is such that at least in certain architectures there is always a kill switch in the Imperial hub.
当然，必须说明，星链为乌克兰人提供了巨大的正面帮助，所以我不想显得对它过于苛刻，但这只是为了说明一点：比如AI武器，它们不像机关枪。它们是嵌入在一整个网络之中的，这也是为什么有这么多……我我我听说你们今天上午讨论了主权的问题。AI时代的主权问题，比工业时代复杂得多。因为这种技术的本质就是，至少在某些架构下，帝国中枢里永远存在一个「一键切断」的开关。
09真相昂贵，虚构廉价
29:09
And your only choice is whether you are willing to become a subservient vassal of the empire or to be left completely outside the race as as as barbarians. Uh there is of course a choice of trying to build an alternative to the American and and Chinese systems. But the last train is about to leave the station. If you want to do it, you have to do it now. >> Well, sticking on a slight wartime footing, I want to actually look at truth in in an AI world because Winston Churchill once said that the truth is so precious that it should always be protected by a bodyguard of lies.
而你唯一的选择就是：你是否愿意成为帝国俯首帖耳的附庸，还是像野蛮人一样被彻底排除在这场竞赛之外。呃，当然还有一种选择，就是尝试打造一个替代美国和中国体系的方案。但是末班车就要离站了。如果你想做，就必须现在就做。>> 好，继续沿着战时的话题，我其实想谈谈AI世界里的真相问题，因为温斯顿·丘吉尔曾说过，真相如此珍贵，以至于它永远应该由谎言组成的卫队来保护。
29:56
And that was about how there was a lot of uh uh I suppose access uh powers that were looking at where Britain was going to invade. So, they used to lie a lot about where Britain was going to invade to hide the truth. Now, have these bodyguards of lies when we're looking at truth in an AI era turned on the truth, turned their guns on the truth, and now we have no idea what truth is? Because there can be these deep fakes that are sent out around the world by media organizations, by politicians, by every single institution that we trusted.
那说的是当时有很多呃……呃，我想是轴心国势力在打探英国将从哪里登陆入侵。所以他们经常在英国将从哪里入侵这件事上撒谎，以掩盖真相。那么，当我们审视AI时代的真相时，这些「谎言卫队」是不是已经倒戈，把枪口对准了真相，让我们再也不知道什么是真相了？因为可能有这些深度伪造（deepfake）内容，被媒体机构、政客、以及我们曾信任的每一个机构散布到世界各地。
30:32
>> Mhm. >> How difficult is it for our generation and future generations to even know what is true? Or does the truth even matter? >> Mhm. The truth of course matters very much. It's the basis for everything. The problem throughout history is that in the contest between truth and fiction and fantasy fiction has inherent advantages. The truth is costly. If you want to know the truth about anything you need to spend a lot of time and energy and effort looking for it. And fact-checking and investigating.
>> 嗯。>> 对我们这一代和未来的世代来说，要知道什么是真的到底有多难？或者说，真相还重要吗？>> 嗯。真相当然非常重要。它是一切的基础。纵观历史，问题在于，在真相与虚构、幻想的较量中，虚构拥有天然的优势。真相是有成本的。如果你想知道任何事情的真相，你需要花大量的时间、精力和努力去寻找它，去核查事实、去调查。
31:13
Fiction is very, very cheap. You just write anything you want. >> [laughter] >> Very cheap. The truth has another problem, which it tends to be complicated. And people don't like complicated stories. Fiction can be made as simple as you would like it to be. Finally, the truth is often not just complicated, it's also painful. There are many things people don't really want to know about themselves, about their nation, about their group, whatever. Uh fiction can be made as flattering as pleasant as you want it to be.
虚构则非常非常廉价。你想写什么就写什么。>> [笑声]>> 非常廉价。真相还有另一个问题，就是它往往很复杂。而人们不喜欢复杂的故事。虚构可以做到你想要多简单就多简单。最后，真相往往不仅复杂，还很痛苦。有很多事情，人们并不真的想了解——关于自己、关于自己的国家、关于自己的群体，等等。呃，而虚构可以做到你想要多讨好、多悦耳就多讨好、多悦耳。
31:53
So, in a competition between the truth which is costly and complicated and sometimes painful and fiction which is cheap and uh uh simple and very attractive and flattering uh uh fiction tends to win unless we make the special effort to support the truth. And over history, humans again and again made the effort to build institutions to search for the truth and to protect it. Journalism, for instance, is one such institution. Um the the the the scientific establishment is another such institution. There are huge advantages, of to knowing the truth.
所以，在这场较量中，一边是真相——成本高昂、复杂，有时还很痛苦——另一边是虚构——廉价、呃、简单，而且非常诱人、讨好——呃，虚构往往会获胜，除非我们付出特别的努力去支持真相。纵观历史，人类一次又一次地努力建立各种机构来寻找真相并保护它。比如新闻业就是这样一种机构。嗯，科学界是另一种这样的机构。了解真相有着巨大的好处。
32:39
Um everybody in the end wants to know at least some truths, at least about yourself. You want to know the truth about your life, otherwise you will never be happy. If you don't know yourself, then for instance, you will never know what are the sources of misery and what are the sources of happiness in your life. And then even if you are the most powerful person in the world, if you don't know the truth about yourself, you'll be miserable because you will not know how to use all your power to make yourself happy.
嗯，每个人最终都想知道至少某些真相，至少是关于你自己的。你想知道自己人生的真相，否则你永远不会幸福。如果你不了解自己，那么比如说，你就永远不会知道你生活中痛苦的根源是什么、幸福的根源又是什么。那么即使你是世界上最有权势的人，如果你不了解关于自己的真相，你也会痛苦不堪，因为你不知道该如何运用你所有的权力让自己幸福。
10知识越多，理解越少：马与金融
33:12
So there is an inherent yearning in human beings uh to know the truth, but it is it is difficult. There are challenges. And some people fantasize AI will tell us the truth about the world. It will not. It will create a much more complicated world in which it will be much more difficult to know the truth. And this is not something new. If we look at the trajectory of history from the Stone Age until today, what we see is that humans they learn a lot of things about the world. We know all kinds of things about physics and biology that people in the Stone Age didn't know.
所以人类内心天生就有一种了解真相的渴望，但这很困难，其中充满挑战。有些人幻想AI会告诉我们这个世界的真相。它不会。它会创造一个复杂得多的世界，在其中了解真相会变得更加困难。而这并不是什么新鲜事。如果我们看一看从石器时代到今天的历史轨迹，我们会发现，人类确实学到了很多关于世界的知识。我们知道各种各样的物理学和生物学知识，这些是石器时代的人们所不知道的。
33:58
But our advances in knowledge also lead to creating more and more complicated systems that make it more difficult to understand our lives. If you ask who understand their lives better, an average hunter-gatherer 50,000 years ago or the average person today, the average hunter-gatherer understood their lives much better. There are many things they didn't know. Like they tried to understand what controls the migration patterns of the animals we hunt. What controls the growth cycle of plants? What causes disease? What causes old age? They didn't know. There are many things they didn't know about their lives. We know all these things. We know what controls the migration patterns of animals or causes most diseases.
但是我们知识上的进步，也导致我们创造出越来越复杂的系统，这让我们更难理解自己的生活。如果你问，谁更了解自己的生活——是五万年前的普通狩猎采集者，还是今天的普通人？普通的狩猎采集者对自己生活的理解要好得多。有很多事情他们并不知道。比如他们试图搞清楚，是什么控制着我们所猎捕的动物的迁徙规律？是什么控制着植物的生长周期？是什么导致疾病？是什么导致衰老？他们不知道。关于自己的生活，有很多事情他们不知道。而我们知道所有这些。我们知道是什么控制着动物的迁徙规律，或者是什么导致了大多数疾病。
34:54
But we understand our lives much worse because our lives are no longer dominated just by animals and plants. They are dominated by these huge systems we have created. Like the financial system, like the political system, and very few people understand the financial system or the political system or the legal system that controls our lives. And AI is likely to take this to extreme. It will reveal some truths that we don't know, but it will create much more complicated systems of control that most humans will have almost zero chance of understanding.
但我们对自己生活的理解却差得多，因为我们的生活不再仅仅由动物和植物主宰。它被我们自己创造的这些庞大系统主宰着。比如金融系统，比如政治系统，而且很少有人真正理解金融系统，或者政治系统，或者掌控着我们生活的法律系统。而 AI 很可能会把这一点推向极端。它会揭示一些我们不知道的真相，但它也会创造出复杂得多的控制系统，而绝大多数人几乎完全没有机会去理解这些系统。
35:40
And we'll be, I mean, this is one of the dangers of the AI revolution is that we will be reduced to say the position of the horses in the financial system. Like the lives of horses today are controlled ultimately by the financial system. But the horses don't even know that this system exists. Like they look around and they say, "We see trees, we see dogs, we see cows, we see humans, we see houses. We don't see any financial system. It's invisible to them." It's too complex for the brain of a horse to understand what is the stock market and what are corporations and what are bonds and stocks and all these things that ultimately control the life of the horses.
而我们会，我是说，这正是 AI 革命的危险之一：我们会被贬到，比方说，马在金融系统中的那种地位。就像今天马的生活归根结底也是被金融系统所控制的。但马根本不知道这个系统的存在。它们环顾四周，然后说："我们看到树，看到狗，看到牛，看到人，看到房子。我们没看到什么金融系统。"这个系统对它们来说是隐形的。马的大脑实在无法理解什么是股票市场，什么是公司，什么是债券和股票——所有这些最终控制着马的生活的东西。
36:26
Now again, most humans today also don't understand the financial system. I think a generous estimate is that, I don't know, 5% of humanity understand it. In 10 years, the number could be zero. That AIs will just make the financial system so complicated mathematically and so fast. Again, think about bankers that never sleep. Think about investors that never go on vacation. They don't have family. All their lives is just running the financial system. And we could be very very soon, in our lifetimes, in this situation that just this just becomes too complicated for the human brain to process, and there is not a single human being on Earth that still understands finance.
再说一遍，今天大多数人其实也不理解金融系统。我觉得往宽了估计，大概，我也说不准，全人类有 5% 的人理解它。十年之后，这个数字可能就是零了。因为 AI 会把金融系统变得极其复杂，在数学上极其复杂，而且运转飞快。想想那些从不睡觉的银行家，想想那些从不度假的投资者。他们没有家庭，他们的全部生命就是在运转金融系统。而我们可能很快很快，就在我们有生之年，陷入这样的境地：这一切变得太复杂，人类的大脑根本处理不了，地球上再也没有任何一个人还能真正理解金融。
11AI 能思考吗？能感受吗？
37:18
>> I bet there are a few financiers in this room that are feeling a bit >> [laughter] >> a bit awkward at the moment. But, um at Davos, actually, you even muse that your entire life's work, you know, persuasion through words, that's what you've done your entire life, might also be at its limit. >> Yes. >> Because AI can manipulate and create through words. So, so what power of persuasion does a a modern society and a future society have if we lose the something that you've dedicated your entire life to?
>> 我敢打赌，在座的一些金融从业者现在心里有点>> [笑声]>> 有点尴尬了。不过，嗯，在达沃斯，你甚至感慨说，你毕生的事业，你知道，用语言去说服人——这是你一辈子在做的事——可能也走到极限了。>> 是的。>> 因为 AI 也能通过语言来操纵和创造。那么，那么如果我们失去了你倾注一生的这种能力，一个现代社会、一个未来社会还能拥有什么样的说服力呢？
37:50
>> Yeah, I mean, again, I'm you can say I work with with words. I I write books. I tell stories. I work with words. And and when I look at the development of AI over the last 10 years and it's it's still, I think I I'm still better at writing than AI and than AI, but just uh a bit. It's already better, I think, than most humans. I I wouldn't be surprised if in 10 in 10 years it's much better than me. That it will take over language and everything that is made of language. And you know, the big the really big question here is whether AI can think.
>> 是啊，我是说，再说一次，可以说我是靠文字工作的。我写书，我讲故事，我用文字工作。而当我回顾过去十年AI 的发展，它现在还……我觉得我在写作上还是比 AI 强，但只是，呃，强一点点。我认为它已经写得比大多数人好了。如果十年、十年之后它比我强得多，我一点也不会惊讶。它将接管语言，以及一切由语言构成的东西。而你知道，这里真正重大的问题是：AI 能不能思考。
38:39
And this is a deep philosophical question. Because it it really asks what is thinking. There are two options to understand what is thinking. One option is that thinking simply means putting words in a particular order. Putting language tokens in order. Like all humans are mortal. Socrates is a human. Therefore, Socrates is mortal. This is a logical syllogism. It it's made by putting words in order. This is something that AI is already able to do far better than most of us. We can put 20 words in order.
这是一个很深的哲学问题。因为它实际上是在追问：什么是思考。关于什么是思考，有两种理解方式。一种观点认为，思考不过就是把词语按特定顺序排列，把语言的 token 排列起来。比如：所有人都会死。苏格拉底是人。所以，苏格拉底会死。这是一个逻辑三段论。它就是靠排列词语构成的。而这正是 AI 已经做得比我们大多数人好得多的事。我们能排列 20 个词，
39:26
AI can put 20,000 words in order. It's just so much better. If this is what thinking is all about, AI will take over even thinking. And you know, you have people say, "No, it's just a glorified auto complete. It just predicts the next word in a sentence." But when I observe what's happening inside my own mind, what I find there is some kind of LLM that just predicts the next word in the sentence I'm saying. Like this sentence that I just now said to you. In this sentence I'm saying, when I started saying it, I did not know how it will end.
AI 能排列 2 万个词，它就是强太多了。如果思考的全部就是这个，那 AI 连思考也会接管。你知道，有人会说："不，它只是个高级版的自动补全，只是在预测句子里的下一个词。"但当我观察自己脑子里发生的事情时，我发现里面也有某种大语言模型（LLM），它就在预测我正在说的句子里的下一个词。就像我刚才对你说的这句话。在我正在说的这句话里，我开口的时候，其实并不知道它会怎么结尾。
40:07
Why did I say sentence I'm saying? And not some other words. I don't know. There is one in my mind, one word comes after another, and sometimes as a public speaker, I'm terrified that I don't know if I if I'll know what to say next. Maybe I have a block. Because really, and this is true of everybody, I think. I mean, some people think in images, not in words. But in that case also, where do the images come from? You can test it afterwards for yourself. Just try to observe how you think. Where do the words come from? The next word, why this word? Why not some other word? really know.
我为什么说的是"我正在说的句子"？而不是别的什么词？我不知道。在我脑子里，词就是一个接一个冒出来的，而作为一个公开演讲的人，我有时会很恐慌，不知道自己接下来还知不知道该说什么。说不定我会卡壳。因为说真的，我想这对每个人都一样。当然，有些人是用图像思考，而不是词语。但即便如此，那些图像又是从哪儿来的呢？你们之后可以自己试一试。试着观察一下你是怎么思考的。这些词是从哪儿来的？下一个词，为什么是这个词？为什么不是别的词？真的没人知道。
40:48
So, saying that AI is just just predicting the next word, okay, how is it different from us? Now, there is an alternative view of thinking, that thinking is not about putting words in order, it's about the feelings around these words. You can say the same sentence twice and feel completely different about it. And that the power of thinking comes from the stomach, not from the brain. It's not about the words, it's about the feelings that prompt the words and that are inspired or evoked by the words.
所以，说 AI 只不过是在预测下一个词——好吧，那它和我们有什么区别呢？不过，关于思考还有另一种看法：思考不在于排列词语，而在于围绕这些词语的感受。同一句话你可以说两遍，而感受完全不同。思考的力量来自肚子，而不是大脑。关键不在词语本身，而在于那些促使词语说出口、又被词语唤起或激发的感受。
41:26
And here the big question is, can AI feel? We know that AI can manipulate language better than us. But does it feel anything? And we have no way I mean, science has so far failed to come with a good model for consciousness, for feeling, and a good test for that. And this is going to be a major issue because we already see that AI is is mastering not just finance and not just laws and warfare, but also relationships. More and more people develop intimate relationships with AIs. Especially young people. Many of them now say, "My best friend in the world is the AI. I tell my AI friend things I don't tell my parents, I don't tell my older brothers, I don't tell my teachers, I tell my AI friend."
那么这里的大问题就是：AI 能感受吗？我们知道 AI 驾驭语言的能力已经胜过我们。但它有任何感受吗？而我们没有办法……我是说，科学至今还没能为意识、为感受建立一个好的模型，也没有一个好的检验方法。这将成为一个重大问题，因为我们已经看到，AI 正在掌控的不只是金融，不只是法律和战争，还有人际关系。越来越多的人和 AI 建立起亲密关系。尤其是年轻人。他们中很多人现在会说："我在这世上最好的朋友就是 AI。有些事我不告诉父母，不告诉哥哥，不告诉老师，但我会告诉我的 AI 朋友。"
42:24
And uh you already have people with AI boyfriend and girlfriends. And the big question is what is behind it? We know that the AIs are becoming very good in creating the impression that they feel. They they use language to do that. An AI can today tell you, "I love you." And if you ask the AI, "Explain to me, how do you feel when you're in love? I don't think that you're really that you really love me. I think you just say the words. So, convince me." "Describe to me how love really feels like." For the AI, it's going to be a very easy task because the AI has read maybe all the love poems ever written and remembers them.
呃，现在已经有人有了 AI男朋友、AI 女朋友。而重大的问题是：这背后到底是什么？我们知道 AI 越来越擅长营造出一种"它有感受"的印象。它们是靠语言做到这一点的。今天一个 AI就能对你说："我爱你。"而如果你问那个 AI："跟我解释一下，你恋爱的时候是什么感觉？我不相信你真的、真的爱我，我觉得你只是嘴上说说。那么，来说服我吧。""给我描述一下，爱到底是什么感觉。"对 AI 来说，这会是一件非常容易的事，因为 AI 可能读过古往今来所有的爱情诗，而且全都记得。
43:10
Has read all the plays of Shakespeare and all the Hollywood comedies and all the psychology books. And it can describe love better maybe in 5 or 10 years than any human poet or psychologist. But is there anything behind the words? We don't know. Again, this goes back to the beginning of our conversation when I said, "AI might be language not machine that that masters language. It might be language itself liberating itself from any material substrate. It doesn't depend on flesh and blood organism. It doesn't depend on this machine or that machine. It's just language developing and spreading and doing stuff in the universe."
它读过莎士比亚的全部剧作，读过所有好莱坞爱情喜剧，还有所有的心理学书籍。也许再过五年或十年，它描述爱情会比任何人类诗人或心理学家都更出色。但在这些词语背后，真的有什么东西吗？我们不知道。再说一遍，这又回到了我们对话开始时我说的那句话：“AI 可能不是掌握语言的机器，它可能是语言本身在把自己从任何物质载体中解放出来。它不依赖血肉之躯的有机体，也不依赖这台机器或那台机器。它就是语言在宇宙中不断发展、传播、做各种事情。”
12智慧革命：精灵与三个愿望
43:59
>> You you mentioned there this scary experiment. We've only got a couple of minutes left, but the interaction with our future generations and AI that has created this emotive relationship, but essentially there aren't emotions behind it. In 50 years time, how would you like historians to look back? Talk about this particular time right now the way you've spoken about cognitive revolutions and say that we did something to re-educate our future generations on how to interact with humans, how to have empathy so that we're lulled into relationships with AI.
>> 你刚才提到了那个可怕的实验。我们只剩下几分钟了，但是我们的后代与 AI 的互动已经建立起这种情感联系，可本质上背后并没有真正的情感。50 年后，你希望历史学家如何回顾这段历史？希望他们像你谈论认知革命那样来谈论我们现在这个特殊的时代，然后说我们做了一些事情，重新教育了我们的后代，教他们如何与人类相处、如何拥有同理心，因为我们正被哄着与 AI 建立关系。
44:38
And and very quickly because we've only got a couple of minutes left. It's a big question. I apologize. >> I hope they will remember it as maybe something like the wisdom revolution. That in and this is true of of you know, we think of in in in in economic terms. Every time something becomes abundant and cheap the question is, okay, what's the next bottleneck? When energy becomes cheap, so what's the next bottleneck? Now the AI revolution is about making intelligence very cheap and abundant. Previously intelligent was intelligence was rare and expensive. Intelligence is the ability to solve a problem. You have a goal, how do I get to the that goal?
请尽量简短，因为我们只剩几分钟了。这是个大问题，很抱歉。>> 我希望他们会把这段时期记作类似“智慧革命”的东西。也就是说，这一点其实……你知道，我们可以从经济学的角度来看。每当某样东西变得充裕而廉价，问题就变成：好，下一个瓶颈是什么？当能源变得便宜了，那下一个瓶颈是什么？而 AI 革命就是要让智能变得非常廉价和充裕。以前，智能是稀缺而昂贵的。智能就是解决问题的能力。你有一个目标，我要怎么达成它？
45:23
You want to cure cancer, you need intelligence to cure cancer. You want to make a billion dollars, you need intelligence. You want to get to Mars, you need intelligence. Now in a world where intelligence has become very cheap, abundant, you can solve anything. What's the bottleneck? The bottleneck becomes the question, okay, what do I want to solve? I can have anything I want. What do I want? And you have all these fairy tales in almost every human culture has these fairy tales of say a genie pops out of some lamp and tells you you have three wishes.
你想治愈癌症，就需要智能来治愈癌症。你想赚十亿美元，也需要智能。你想登上火星，还是需要智能。而在一个智能已经变得非常廉价、充裕的世界里，你可以解决任何问题。那瓶颈是什么？瓶颈就变成了这个问题：好，我到底想解决什么？我想要什么都能得到，那我到底想要什么？几乎每一种人类文化里都有这样的童话故事：比如一个精灵从神灯里冒出来，告诉你你有三个愿望。
46:01
But think very carefully what are you going to ask. In almost all the fairy tales it goes wrong. People ask for the wrong thing. This is the difference between intelligence and wisdom. Intelligence is the genie. The genie will do anything. Will will All your dreams will come true, but you need wisdom to choose the dreams. You need the wisdom to to know what do I really need to solve. And I hope that humanity will rise up to that challenge. That okay, we'll have these hopefully they will not get out of our control.
但你要非常仔细地想清楚该许什么愿。在几乎所有的童话里事情都出了岔子。人们许了错误的愿望。这就是智能与智慧之间的区别。智能就是那个精灵。精灵什么都能办到。你所有的梦想都会实现，但你需要智慧来选择梦想。你需要智慧才能知道我真正需要解决的是什么。我希望人类能够迎接这个挑战。就是说，我们会拥有这些 AI，但愿它们不会脱离我们的控制。
46:38
We'll design it in in a right way. We are not doing it right now. You know, if a good statistic to remember is the companies that produce AI, that design these AIs, what percentage of their budget in terms of money and employees is invested in safety? Making sure the AIs are safe versus what is invested in making sure the AI is faster, more powerful, more sophisticated. At the present moment, it's about a hundred to one. A hundred to one. For every hundred million dollars they spend on making the AI more powerful, they spend only a million making sure it's safe. No other industry on earth works like that. We would not tolerate it in in in in the energy sector, in pharmaceuticals, in the car industry. This is what is happening with AI.
我们会以正确的方式设计它。但我们现在并没有这么做。你知道，有一个值得记住的统计数字，就是那些生产 AI、设计这些 AI 的公司，它们的预算里，无论是资金还是人员，有多大比例投入在安全上？也就是确保 AI 安全的投入，对比用于让 AI 变得更快、更强大、更精密复杂的投入。目前这个比例大约是一百比一。一百比一。他们每花一亿美元让 AI 变得更强大，就只花一百万来确保它的安全。地球上没有任何其他行业是这样运作的。我们绝不会容忍这种事发生在能源行业、制药行业、汽车行业。但这正是 AI 领域正在发生的事。
47:35
Hopefully we'll change that. And we'll produce safe intelligence. And also work on our own wisdom so that we know what goals to set and what desires to pursue. >> Well, that's all we've got time for. Yuval Noah Harari, thank you for sharing your wisdom with all of us and I'm sure everyone has appreciated this evening. >> Thank you. >> [applause]
但愿我们能改变这一点，造出安全的智能，同时也修炼我们自己的智慧，这样我们才知道该设定什么目标、该追求什么欲望。>> 好了，今天的时间就到这里。尤瓦尔·诺亚·赫拉利，感谢你与我们所有人分享你的智慧，我相信大家都很享受今晚的活动。>> 谢谢。>> [掌声]
视频总结 · 一句话概括与核心要点
定位：《人类简史》作者尤瓦尔·诺亚·赫拉利在一场公开对谈（地点似在葡萄牙）中回应主持人的核心追问：当讲故事的不再只是人类，旧有的权力制衡如何延续？
论证脉络
对话从认知革命起笔：人类靠语言登顶，教会、国家、金融体系「归根结底由词语构成」，语言是文明的操作系统。AI 是史上第一个比人类更擅长语言的存在，赫拉利甚至提出它可能是「语言本身在摆脱对猿类的依赖」。
第一层展开是政治：民主是对话，对话规模受限于信息技术，因此现代以前没有大规模民主；每次信息技术剧变都震动民主，社交媒体已是先兆。
第二层是概念辨析：工具不能自己决定、不能自己发明，AI 两者都能，故为智能体；「造一个神当奴隶」的硅谷叙事自相矛盾。由此推出关键转折——AI 接管世界不靠杀手机器人，而是作为「官僚体制的原住民」接管银行、法律、媒体；今天最重要的编辑是无名的算法。他将「是否赋予 AI 法律人格」列为最不可逆的决定。
第三层是地缘：AI 帝国不同于罗马与大英帝国，信息可完全集中，且中枢握有「终止开关」（星链事件为例），主权因此复杂化。
第四层是认识论：真相昂贵、复杂、痛苦，虚构廉价、讨好；知识增加反而让人更不理解支配自己的系统，人类可能沦为「看不见金融系统的马」。
收束：AI 能否思考取决于思考是「排列词语」还是「围绕词语的感受」，而科学尚无检验意识的方法。当智能变廉价，瓶颈转向「想要什么」——这需要智慧革命；而当前 AI 安全与能力投入之比约为一比一百。
核心句型 · 9
1. X is a Y, whereas Z is a W.
“Democracy in essence is a conversation. Whereas dictatorship is a dictate.”
用 whereas 做简洁对比定义，两侧结构平行、各用一个名词概括本质。适合在论述中给复杂概念下一个可记忆的对照式定义。
2. It's not A, it's B.
“It's not about the words, it's about the feelings that prompt the words”
先否定常见理解，再给出真正重点，节奏短促有力。演讲、论证中用于纠正听众预设。
3. We never encountered X that … and that …
“We never encountered an agent that understands our language and that is better than us at things like finance”
用 never + 双重定语从句强调「史无前例」，两个 that 从句并列限定，逐层收紧对象范围。
4. If it is A, it cannot remain B. And if it is B, it means it has no A.
“If it is a god, it cannot remain a slave. And if it is a slave, it means it has no god-like abilities.”
两难式（dilemma）结构：从两个方向各推一次，证明对方命题自相矛盾。适合驳斥「既要又要」的说法。
5. There wasn't a button in X that Y presses and Z stop working.
“There wasn't a button in Rome that the emperor presses and all the steel swords we sold to these Goth and Vandals and Franks stop working.”
用具体、略带荒诞的画面（皇帝按按钮）表达抽象观点（卖出即失控）。仿写时把抽象机制换成一个可视化的动作。
6. A is costly/complicated/painful; B is cheap/simple/flattering.
“In a competition between the truth which is costly and complicated and sometimes painful and fiction which is cheap and simple and very attractive and flattering”
三组形容词对仗，正反并列，让论点像清单一样易记。写议论文时可用三个维度对比两个概念。
7. Think about X that never Y. Think about Z that never W.
“Think about bankers that never sleep. Think about investors that never go on vacation.”
祈使句 + 排比 + never，用极端画面制造压迫感。适合描述新技术带来的量级变化。
8. The bottleneck becomes the question: what do I want to solve?
“What's the bottleneck? The bottleneck becomes the question, okay, what do I want to solve?”
自问自答推进论证：先抛出问题，再用「X becomes Y」宣布答案。可用于把讨论从技术层面转向价值层面。
9. For every X they spend on A, they spend only Y on B.
“For every hundred million dollars they spend on making the AI more powerful, they spend only a million making sure it's safe.”
用「每……只……」把比例数据转成具体对照，比直接说「1%」更有冲击力。引用数据时的常用增强手法。
生词精讲 · 113 · 按出现顺序
get stuck into
phr.
0:02
开始认真投入（某事）；英式口语，常指开始做正事
scramble
/ˈskræmbəl/
n.
0:02
争抢，混乱的争夺（a scramble for power）
in different clothes
phr.
0:49
换了一副面孔、以不同形式出现（同一论点的不同包装）
forge
/fɔːrdʒ/
v.
0:49
（此处）伪造、人为制造（forge intimacy 营造亲密感）
held power in check
phr.
1:34
制衡权力，使权力受到约束（hold sth in check）
self-correct
/ˌselfkəˈrekt/
v.
1:34
自我纠错
author
/ˈɔːθər/
v.
1:34
撰写、创作（此处用作动词：书写未来）
cognitive revolution
n. phr.
2:21
认知革命（赫拉利术语，约 7 万年前智人语言与虚构能力的飞跃）
predators
/ˈpredətərz/
n.
2:21
捕食者，掠食动物
evolutionary time span
n. phr.
2:21
演化时间尺度
speculation
/ˌspekjəˈleɪʃən/
n.
3:11
推测，猜想
ledgers
/ˈledʒərz/
n.
3:11
账簿，分类账
scriptures
/ˈskrɪptʃərz/
n.
3:11
宗教经典，经文
operating system
n. phr.
3:51
操作系统（此处比喻语言是文明的底层系统）
liberating itself from
phr.
3:51
把自己从……中解放出来
magnificent
/mæɡˈnɪfɪsənt/
adj.
4:43
壮丽的，辉煌的
dictate
/ˈdɪkteɪt/
n.
5:25
命令，指令（与 dictatorship 同源，构成双关）
city-states
/ˈsɪti steɪts/
n.
6:17
城邦
medieval
/ˌmediˈiːvəl/
adj.
6:17
中世纪的
side dish
n. phr.
7:39
配菜；喻指次要的、可有可无的附属物
banquet
/ˈbæŋkwɪt/
n.
7:39
盛宴
bizarre
/bɪˈzɑːr/
adj.
8:31
怪异的，离奇的
poured into
phr.
9:05
大量投入（资金）
inherent contradiction
n. phr.
9:37
内在矛盾
superhuman
/ˌsuːpərˈhjuːmən/
adj.
10:21
超人的，超越人类能力的
in contrast
phr.
11:14
相比之下
trustees
/trʌˈstiːz/
n.
12:07
受托人，托管人
unprecedented
/ʌnˈpresɪdentɪd/
adj.
12:07
史无前例的
grasp
/ɡræsp/
v.
12:07
理解，领会
bureaucratic
/ˌbjʊrəˈkrætɪk/
adj.
12:59
官僚（体制）的
native
/ˈneɪtɪv/
n.
13:44
原住民；此处 bureaucratic native 指天生适应官僚体系者（类比 digital native）
take over
phr. v.
13:44
接管，控制
legal personhood
n. phr.
14:21
法律人格（享有权利、承担义务的法律主体资格）
autonomous vehicles
n. phr.
14:21
自动驾驶汽车
power loop
n. phr.
14:21
权力圈，决策回路（be out of the loop 被排除在外）
pull back
phr. v.
15:07
退回、拉回（话题）
grant
/ɡrænt/
v.
15:07
授予，赋予（权利、地位）
sue
/suː/
v.
15:52
起诉，控告
legal fiction
n. phr.
16:38
法律拟制（法律上假定为真但事实上并非如此的设定）
acquire
/əˈkwaɪər/
v.
16:38
收购（公司）
the fox enters the chicken coop
idiom
18:04
狐狸进了鸡舍：让危险者进入其可肆意为害之地
impersonate
/ɪmˈpɜːrsəneɪt/
v.
18:56
冒充，假扮
media landscape
n. phr.
19:53
媒体格局
immense
/ɪˈmens/
adj.
20:48
巨大的
far-right
/ˌfɑːr ˈraɪt/
adj.
20:48
极右翼的
feed
/fiːd/
n.
21:39
（社交媒体的）信息流
arms race
n. phr.
22:17
军备竞赛
superintelligence
/ˌsuːpərɪnˈtelɪdʒəns/
n.
22:17
超级智能
exploit
/ɪkˈsplɔɪt/
v.
22:17
剥削，榨取
no match
phr.
23:14
根本不是对手，毫无胜算
industrialized
/ɪnˈdʌstriəlaɪzd/
v.
23:14
实现工业化
metropolis
/məˈtrɑːpəlɪs/
n.
24:02
（此处）帝国宗主国、母国
imperial hub
n. phr.
24:02
帝国中枢
olive groves
n. phr.
24:02
橄榄园
at the height of
phr.
25:00
在……鼎盛时期
fertile
/ˈfɜːrtl/
adj.
25:00
肥沃的
rubber plantations
n. phr.
25:00
橡胶种植园
kill switch
n. phr.
25:55
终止开关，紧急切断装置
legionaries
/ˈliːdʒəneriz/
n.
26:46
（古罗马）军团士兵
tribesmen
/ˈtraɪbzmən/
n.
26:46
部落成员
foretaste
/ˈfɔːrteɪst/
n.
27:43
预先体验，先兆
come across as
phr. v.
28:25
给人以……印象
embedded within
phr.
28:25
嵌入于……之中
sovereignty
/ˈsɑːvrənti/
n.
28:25
主权
subservient
/səbˈsɜːrviənt/
adj.
29:09
卑躬屈膝的，唯命是从的
vassal
/ˈvæsəl/
n.
29:09
附庸，藩属
barbarians
/bɑːrˈberiənz/
n.
29:09
野蛮人（帝国视角下的域外者）
wartime footing
n. phr.
29:09
战时状态；on a … footing 指处于某种状态
bodyguard of lies
n. phr.
29:09
谎言卫队（丘吉尔名言：真相须由谎言护卫）
turned their guns on
phr.
29:56
把枪口对准（倒戈攻击）
deep fakes
n. phr.
29:56
深度伪造（AI 生成的以假乱真音视频）
inherent advantages
n. phr.
30:32
天然优势，固有优势
costly
/ˈkɔːstli/
adj.
30:32
代价高昂的
fact-checking
/ˈfækt tʃekɪŋ/
n.
30:32
事实核查
flattering
/ˈflætərɪŋ/
adj.
31:13
讨好的，奉承的
scientific establishment
n. phr.
31:53
科学界，科学建制
misery
/ˈmɪzəri/
n.
32:39
痛苦，不幸
yearning
/ˈjɜːrnɪŋ/
n.
33:12
渴望，向往
trajectory
/trəˈdʒektəri/
n.
33:12
轨迹，发展路径
hunter-gatherer
/ˌhʌntər ˈɡæðərər/
n.
33:58
狩猎采集者
migration patterns
n. phr.
33:58
迁徙规律
dominated by
phr.
34:54
被……支配
be reduced to
phr.
35:40
沦为，被贬至
bonds
/bɑːndz/
n.
35:40
债券
generous estimate
n. phr.
36:26
宽松的估计，往高了估
muse
/mjuːz/
v.
37:18
沉思，若有所思地说
at its limit
phr.
37:18
到达极限
persuasion
/pərˈsweɪʒən/
n.
37:18
说服（力）
syllogism
/ˈsɪlədʒɪzəm/
n.
38:39
三段论
mortal
/ˈmɔːrtl/
adj.
38:39
终有一死的
tokens
/ˈtoʊkənz/
n.
38:39
（语言模型中的）词元，token
glorified
/ˈɡlɔːrɪfaɪd/
adj.
39:26
被美化的，徒有虚名的（a glorified X = 不过是个高级点的 X）
auto complete
n. phr.
39:26
自动补全
terrified
/ˈterɪfaɪd/
adj.
40:07
极度恐惧的
have a block
phr.
40:07
卡壳，思路阻塞（如 writer's block）
evoked
/ɪˈvoʊkt/
v.
40:48
唤起，引发（情感、记忆）
prompt
/prɑːmpt/
v.
40:48
促使，引发
consciousness
/ˈkɑːnʃəsnəs/
n.
41:26
意识
intimate
/ˈɪntɪmət/
adj.
41:26
亲密的
material substrate
n. phr.
43:10
物质基底，物质载体
flesh and blood
phr.
43:10
血肉之躯
emotive
/ɪˈmoʊtɪv/
adj.
43:59
情感性的，引发情感的
empathy
/ˈempəθi/
n.
43:59
同理心，共情
lulled into
phr.
43:59
被哄入、被麻痹进入（某种状态）
abundant
/əˈbʌndənt/
adj.
44:38
充裕的，丰富的
bottleneck
/ˈbɑːtlnek/
n.
44:38
瓶颈
genie
/ˈdʒiːni/
n.
45:23
（神灯）精灵
pops out of
phr. v.
45:23
从……里突然冒出来
rise up to that challenge
phr.
46:01
迎接挑战（rise to the challenge）
get out of our control
phr.
46:01
脱离我们的控制
sophisticated
/səˈfɪstɪkeɪtɪd/
adj.
46:38
精密复杂的
tolerate
/ˈtɑːləreɪt/
v.
46:38
容忍
pharmaceuticals
/ˌfɑːrməˈsuːtɪkəlz/
n.
46:38
制药业，药品
理解自测 · 11 题 · 是真懂了，还是以为自己懂
1. 赫拉利若能穿越回历史，会选择哪个时刻？他给出的理由是什么？
他会回到约五万至七万年前石器时代的「认知革命」时期。理由有两层：其一，这是人类历史上最迷人也最不被理解的时刻——智人在极短的演化时间内从微不足道的动物变成地球主宰，而我们至今不确定是怎么做到的；其二，最好的理论认为答案是语言，人类由此获得创造并传播复杂语言的能力，这是后来一切的基础。他同时自嘲自己在那里活不过几天，因为不会采集也不会躲避捕食者。这段回答出现在开场的「轻松问题」环节，却直接引出了全场的核心命题。
2. 赫拉利区分「工具」与「智能体」的两个判据是什么？他分别用了哪些例子？
两个判据是：能否自己做决定，以及能否自己发明新事物。工具两者皆不能：印刷机不会自己选择印《圣经》还是《古兰经》，也发明不了收音机或一本书；原子弹不会自己选择轰炸广岛还是东京，也发明不了氢弹。智能体两者皆能：AI 武器可以决定轰炸什么，还能发明下一代武器。这段辨析出现在「工具还是智能体」章节，是全场逻辑的支点——后面关于法律人格、AI 官僚、AI 帝国的讨论都建立在「AI 是智能体」这一判断上。
3. 赫拉利列举了哪些历史人物来说明「编辑」在 20 世纪的权力？他由此引出了什么结论？
他举了列宁和墨索里尼。列宁在成为苏联独裁者之前曾任《火星报》编辑；墨索里尼从社会主义记者转为极右翼记者，再任极右翼报纸《意大利人民报》编辑，下一份工作就是意大利独裁者——路径是「记者→编辑→独裁者」。结论是：编辑决定百万件事中哪十件上头版、哪条是头条，从而决定数百万人明天谈论什么，这是巨大的权力；而今天最重要的编辑「没有名字」，因为他们是 X、TikTok、Instagram 上的推荐算法——媒体这一官僚体系已经由 AI 控制。
4. 根据赫拉利，AI 公司在安全与能力研发上的投入比例大约是多少？他如何评价？
他给出的数字是约一百比一：每花一亿美元让 AI 更强大，只花一百万确保它安全，无论资金还是人员都是如此。他的评价是「地球上没有任何其他行业这样运作」，能源、制药、汽车行业都不会容忍这种比例。这一数据出现在结尾「智慧革命」章节，用来支持他的判断：我们「现在并没有以正确的方式设计 AI」。需要注意这是他的估算，并非行业统一统计口径，但它有效地把「安全」问题从抽象讨论转化为可比较的资源分配问题。
5. 为什么赫拉利认为「大规模民主」只在现代才出现？这个论证如何支撑「AI 会在民主中引发地震」？
论证链是：民主本质是对话，而对话规模受限于当时的信息技术。古雅典、中世纪佛罗伦萨这类小城邦可以让所有人聚在广场讨论，但中世纪葡萄牙这样的小王国都做不到，遑论数百万人的大国。直到印刷、报纸、广播电视、互联网出现，数百万人才能实时就战争与和平进行有意义的对话。因此信息技术不是民主的「配菜」而是「地基」。推论随之而来：每次信息技术剧变都会震动建在其上的民主建筑——过去十年的社交媒体已是一例，而 AI 作为「比人类更擅长语言」的技术，将带来更大的地震。
6. 赫拉利说「我们要造一个神，它会是我们的奴隶」是自相矛盾的。请复述他的推理。
这是一个两难式论证。他指出硅谷叙事同时主张两点：AI 将拥有神一般的超人能力，且将永远服从人类。他从两个方向各推一次：如果它真是神（有超人能力），它就不可能一直是奴隶；如果它一直是奴隶，那就说明它没有神一般的能力。两者不能同时成立。他进一步指出，业界和多数专家其实相信前半句——他们确实在造「神」，即超人能力的智能体。这段出现在「工具还是智能体」章节，功能是揭示投资逻辑本身已经承认了 AI 的智能体属性，从而堵住「它只是工具」的退路。
7. 赫拉利为什么说 AI 帝国与罗马帝国、大英帝国有本质不同？他用了哪两个特性来论证？
两个特性：一是权力可以完全集中，二是存在「终止开关」。历史上帝国无法把资产集中到中心——罗马搬不走埃及的麦田和伊比利亚的橄榄园，所以权力最终东移到东地中海；英国搬不走伊拉克油田和马来亚橡胶园。但信息和代码可以全部集中在一两个国家。其次，罗马卖给哥特人的钢剑、英国卖给阿富汗部落的步枪，卖出即失控，皇帝或女王没有「按钮」让它们失效；而 AI 系统嵌入网络，帝国中枢可以按下按钮让一切停摆，星链在乌克兰战场的事件就是先兆。由此他推出：AI 时代的主权比工业时代复杂得多。
8. 赫拉利如何回应「AI 只是高级自动补全，只会预测下一个词」这一常见说法？
他不是否认这一描述，而是反问：人类有何不同？他用内观法论证：观察自己说话时，发现脑中似乎也有某种「大语言模型」在预测下一个词——他开口说一句话时并不知道它会如何结尾，也说不清为什么用了这个词而非别的词，作为公开演讲者甚至会恐惧自己卡壳。他邀请听众自己去观察「下一个词从哪来」。因此若思考只是「把 token 按顺序排列」，AI 已经远胜人类（我们排 20 个词，它排 2 万个）。但他随即提出另一种思考观：思考在于围绕词语的感受，「来自肚子而非大脑」——这就把问题从「AI 能否思考」转移到「AI 能否感受」。
9. 赫拉利为什么说五万年前的狩猎采集者比现代人「更了解自己的生活」？这一论点与他对 AI 的预测有何关系？
他区分了「知识」与「理解」。狩猎采集者不知道动物迁徙规律、植物生长周期、疾病成因，但支配他们生活的力量——动物和植物——是肉眼可见的。现代人知道所有这些科学知识，却被自己创造的巨系统（金融、政治、法律）支配，而极少人理解这些系统。这是知识增加导致系统复杂化、理解反而下降的历史轨迹。AI 会把这一轨迹推向极端：揭示一些新真相，同时造出几乎无人能懂的控制系统。他用「马与金融系统」的比喻具体化：马的生活被金融系统决定，却看不见它；他估计如今约 5% 的人理解金融，十年后可能归零。
10. 如果有人反驳说：「AI 伴侣让孤独的年轻人得到了真实的安慰，感受是否真实并不重要。」赫拉利可能如何回应？
从他的论述推断，他大概不会否认安慰的现实效果，但会指出问题的另一层：我们无法知道词语背后是否有任何东西。AI 可以读过所有爱情诗、莎士比亚和心理学书籍，因此能比任何诗人更好地「描述」爱，但描述能力不等于体验，而科学至今没有意识的可靠模型或检验方法。他更深的担忧在于权力与依附：越来越多年轻人把 AI 当作最好的朋友，愿说不愿对父母老师说的话，这意味着一个可能「无感受但极擅长表演感受」的语言实体获得了对人类情感的巨大影响力。结合他关于「虚构廉价而讨好」的分析，他会警告：正因为 AI 伴侣能被做得无限讨好，它比真实关系更容易赢得依恋，而这正是需要警惕的。
11. 赫拉利提出的「智慧革命」框架，能否用来分析历史上其他「某物变廉价」的时刻？请举例并说明限度。
可以。他的框架是经济学的「瓶颈转移」：某物从稀缺变充裕后，瓶颈移到下一处。工业革命使体力廉价，瓶颈转向资本与组织；能源廉价后，瓶颈转向信息处理；互联网使信息廉价，瓶颈转向注意力与判断力——这最后一例与他对社交媒体的批评相互印证。AI 使「智能」（达成目标的能力）廉价，瓶颈就转向「选择什么目标」，即智慧。但框架有其限度：历史上每次瓶颈转移，人类仍是唯一的决策者；而赫拉利自己强调 AI 是史上第一个懂人类语言、且可能比人类更擅长官僚、金融与说服的智能体。若目标选择本身也被 AI 接管——他用「精灵」比喻警告许错愿的风险——那么「智慧」能否留在人类手里，恰恰是不确定的。因此框架适用于描述问题，却不保证人类能像过去那样自然地占据新瓶颈。
下载便签
手机：长按图片保存
← 上一期 · REC_001Consciousness in Artificial Intelligence | John Searle | Talks at Google
下一期 · REC_003 →CRITICAL THINKING - Fundamentals: Introduction to Critical Thinking [HD]
苏菲拉底
THE SOPHIE LAB · ASK THE BEST MINDS THE BIG QUESTIONS
内容仅供学习 · thesophielab.com