TEDxSiliconValley
Damon Horowitz: We need a "moral operating system"
戴蒙•霍羅威茨要求一個有道德的操作系統
Filmed:
Readability: 3.2
795,617 views
在TEDxSiliconValley，戴蒙•霍羅威茨回顧了技術給我們新的巨大權力：了解更多 -- 更了解對方 -- 更甚於以往任何時候。將觀眾帶到一個哲學的討論中，在一陣改造我們世界發明的背後, 霍羅威茨邀請我們注意基本哲學 -- 倫理原則。在哪裡可以找到道德操作系統，使我們能夠做出清醒的認識？
Damon Horowitz - Philosopher, entrepreneur
Damon Horowitz explores what is possible at the boundaries of technology and the humanities. Full bio
Damon Horowitz explores what is possible at the boundaries of technology and the humanities. Full bio
Double-click the English transcript below to play the video.
00:15
Power.
0
0
2000
權力。
00:17
That is the word that comes to mind.
1
2000
2000
這就是在我腦海呈現的詞語。
00:19
We're the new technologists.
2
4000
2000
我們是新的科技專家。
00:21
We have a lot of data, so we have a lot of power.
3
6000
3000
我們有很多數據資料，所以我們有很多權力。
00:24
How much power do we have?
4
9000
2000
我們究竟有幾大威力？
00:26
Scene from a movie: "Apocalypse Now" -- great movie.
5
11000
3000
這是從電影＜現代啟示錄＞其中一幕--很棒的電影。
00:29
We've got to get our hero, Captain Willard, to the mouth of the Nung River
6
14000
3000
我們必須讓我們的英雄，韋勒上尉，到儂河的河口
00:32
so he can go pursue Colonel Kurtz.
7
17000
2000
去追尋寇茲上校。
00:34
The way we're going to do this is fly him in and drop him off.
8
19000
2000
我們要帶他飛往目的地然後讓他前行。
00:36
So the scene:
9
21000
2000
場景如下：
00:38
the sky is filled with this fleet of helicopters carrying him in.
10
23000
3000
天空佈滿了運載他的直升機艦隊。
00:41
And there's this loud, thrilling music in the background,
11
26000
2000
附帶這個響亮，驚險的背景音樂，
00:43
this wild music.
12
28000
2000
這瘋狂的音樂。
00:45
♫ Dum da ta da dum ♫
13
30000
2000
♫ 音樂聲 ♫
00:47
♫ Dum da ta da dum ♫
14
32000
2000
♫ 音樂聲 ♫
00:49
♫ Da ta da da ♫
15
34000
3000
♫ 音樂聲 ♫
00:52
That's a lot of power.
16
37000
2000
這是強勁的威力。
00:54
That's the kind of power I feel in this room.
17
39000
2000
這就是在我在這個房間感覺到的力量。
00:56
That's the kind of power we have
18
41000
2000
這就我們擁有的一種力量，
00:58
because of all of the data that we have.
19
43000
2000
因為我們有所有的資料數據。
01:00
Let's take an example.
20
45000
2000
讓我們舉一個例子。
01:02
What can we do
21
47000
2000
若我們有著一個人的資料數據,
01:04
with just one person's data?
22
49000
3000
我們可以用它做什麼？
01:07
What can we do
23
52000
2000
我們可以用此人
01:09
with that guy's data?
24
54000
2000
的資料做什麼？
01:11
I can look at your financial records.
25
56000
2000
我可以看看你的財務記錄。
01:13
I can tell if you pay your bills on time.
26
58000
2000
我可知道你是否按時支付帳單。
01:15
I know if you're good to give a loan to.
27
60000
2000
我會知道應否給你予貸款。
01:17
I can look at your medical records; I can see if your pump is still pumping --
28
62000
3000
我可以看看你的醫療記錄，看看你的身體機能是否運行如常--
01:20
see if you're good to offer insurance to.
29
65000
3000
看看應否給你推銷健康保險。
01:23
I can look at your clicking patterns.
30
68000
2000
我可以看看你的點擊模式。
01:25
When you come to my website, I actually know what you're going to do already
31
70000
3000
當你來到我的網站，其實我已經知道你要做的事情，
01:28
because I've seen you visit millions of websites before.
32
73000
2000
因為我已經看過你之前到過的數百萬個網站。
01:30
And I'm sorry to tell you,
33
75000
2000
而且我很抱歉地告訴你，
01:32
you're like a poker player, you have a tell.
34
77000
2000
你像一個撲克玩家，你有一個「偷雞」破綻。
01:34
I can tell with data analysis what you're going to do
35
79000
2000
我可以使用分析你的數據
01:36
before you even do it.
36
81000
2000
來知道你的下一步。
01:38
I know what you like. I know who you are,
37
83000
3000
我知道你的喜嗜。我知道你是誰。
01:41
and that's even before I look at your mail
38
86000
2000
而且我還未看你的電郵
01:43
or your phone.
39
88000
2000
或手機。
01:45
Those are the kinds of things we can do
40
90000
2000
這都我們可以用數據
01:47
with the data that we have.
41
92000
3000
達到的事情。
01:50
But I'm not actually here to talk about what we can do.
42
95000
3000
但其實我不是來談我們能夠做些什麼。
01:56
I'm here to talk about what we should do.
43
101000
3000
我是來談談我們應該做什麼。
02:00
What's the right thing to do?
44
105000
3000
什麼是正確的事情？
02:04
Now I see some puzzled looks
45
109000
2000
我看到你們有些困惑的樣子
02:06
like, "Why are you asking us what's the right thing to do?
46
111000
3000
像在問：「你為何問我們應該做什麼?
02:09
We're just building this stuff. Somebody else is using it."
47
114000
3000
我們只是建造這種東西供給別人所用。」
02:12
Fair enough.
48
117000
3000
合理的。
02:15
But it brings me back.
49
120000
2000
但它使我回到這一點。
02:17
I think about World War II --
50
122000
2000
我想到第二次世界大戰 --
02:19
some of our great technologists then,
51
124000
2000
我們有一些重要的技術人員，
02:21
some of our great physicists,
52
126000
2000
我們的一些偉大的物理學家，
02:23
studying nuclear fission and fusion --
53
128000
2000
研究核裂變和核聚變 --
02:25
just nuclear stuff.
54
130000
2000
只是核子的科學。
02:27
We gather together these physicists in Los Alamos
55
132000
3000
我們聚集這些物理學家在洛斯阿拉莫斯國家實驗室，
02:30
to see what they'll build.
56
135000
3000
看看他們將構建些什麼。
02:33
We want the people building the technology
57
138000
3000
我們要建設技術的人
02:36
thinking about what we should be doing with the technology.
58
141000
3000
想想我們應該用技術建做些什麼。
02:41
So what should we be doing with that guy's data?
59
146000
3000
那麼，我們應該用那傢伙的數據做什麼？
02:44
Should we be collecting it, gathering it,
60
149000
3000
我們是否應該收集它，薈集它，
02:47
so we can make his online experience better?
61
152000
2000
用來使他有更好的上網體驗？
02:49
So we can make money?
62
154000
2000
用來使我們可以賺錢？
02:51
So we can protect ourselves
63
156000
2000
用來保護我們自己，
02:53
if he was up to no good?
64
158000
2000
若假他實行一些壞主意？
02:55
Or should we respect his privacy,
65
160000
3000
或我們應該尊重他的隱私，
02:58
protect his dignity and leave him alone?
66
163000
3000
保護他的尊嚴，讓他獨自自我？
03:02
Which one is it?
67
167000
3000
我們該怎樣?
03:05
How should we figure it out?
68
170000
2000
我們應該如何看著辦？
03:07
I know: crowdsource. Let's crowdsource this.
69
172000
3000
我知道：眾包。讓我們用眾包的方法解決問題。
03:11
So to get people warmed up,
70
176000
3000
好，為了讓你們做好準備就绪，
03:14
let's start with an easy question --
71
179000
2000
讓我們先從一個簡單的問題開始 --
03:16
something I'm sure everybody here has an opinion about:
72
181000
3000
一個我敢肯定在座每個人都有異議的問題：
03:19
iPhone versus Android.
73
184000
2000
iPhone 抑或 Android電話。
03:21
Let's do a show of hands -- iPhone.
74
186000
3000
讓我們舉手 -- iPhone。
03:24
Uh huh.
75
189000
2000
嗯。
03:26
Android.
76
191000
3000
Android。
03:29
You'd think with a bunch of smart people
77
194000
2000
哼,還以為一班聰明人
03:31
we wouldn't be such suckers just for the pretty phones.
78
196000
2000
我們不會出現這種只顧漂亮手機的人。
03:33
(Laughter)
79
198000
2000
<笑聲>
03:35
Next question,
80
200000
2000
接下來的問題，
03:37
a little bit harder.
81
202000
2000
有點更困難。
03:39
Should we be collecting all of that guy's data
82
204000
2000
我們應否該收集那傢伙所有的資料數據
03:41
to make his experiences better
83
206000
2000
使他有更好的上網體驗
03:43
and to protect ourselves in case he's up to no good?
84
208000
3000
並用來保護我們自己若假他實行一些壞主意？
03:46
Or should we leave him alone?
85
211000
2000
或我們應該讓他獨自自我？
03:48
Collect his data.
86
213000
3000
收集他的資料數據。
03:53
Leave him alone.
87
218000
3000
讓他獨自自我。
03:56
You're safe. It's fine.
88
221000
2000
你是安全的。沒有問題。
03:58
(Laughter)
89
223000
2000
<笑聲>
04:00
Okay, last question --
90
225000
2000
好吧，最後一個問題--
04:02
harder question --
91
227000
2000
更困難的問題。
04:04
when trying to evaluate
92
229000
3000
當我們在這種情況下
04:07
what we should do in this case,
93
232000
3000
試圖評估我們應該如何，
04:10
should we use a Kantian deontological moral framework,
94
235000
4000
我們應否使用康德的道義論的道德框架，
04:14
or should we use a Millian consequentialist one?
95
239000
3000
或我們應否使用莉恩結果主義的道德框架，
04:19
Kant.
96
244000
3000
康德的。
04:22
Mill.
97
247000
3000
莉恩的。
04:25
Not as many votes.
98
250000
2000
比上一次少表決。
04:27
(Laughter)
99
252000
3000
<笑聲>
04:30
Yeah, that's a terrifying result.
100
255000
3000
是的，這是一個可怕的結果。
04:34
Terrifying, because we have stronger opinions
101
259000
4000
可怕，因為我們對手機的意見
04:38
about our hand-held devices
102
263000
2000
比我們對用來指導
04:40
than about the moral framework
103
265000
2000
我們決定的道德框架
04:42
we should use to guide our decisions.
104
267000
2000
的意見更強。
04:44
How do we know what to do with all the power we have
105
269000
3000
如果我們沒有一個道德框架，
04:47
if we don't have a moral framework?
106
272000
3000
我們怎麼知道用我們所有的力量該怎麼做？
04:50
We know more about mobile operating systems,
107
275000
3000
我們對關於手機的操作系統知道更十分多，
04:53
but what we really need is a moral operating system.
108
278000
3000
但我們真正需要的是一個道德的操作系統。
04:58
What's a moral operating system?
109
283000
2000
什麼是道德的操作系統?
05:00
We all know right and wrong, right?
110
285000
2000
我們都知道是,非。
05:02
You feel good when you do something right,
111
287000
2000
你做一些好的事會有好的感覺，
05:04
you feel bad when you do something wrong.
112
289000
2000
你做一些錯事會有不好的感覺。
05:06
Our parents teach us that: praise with the good, scold with the bad.
113
291000
3000
我們的父母教導我們：讚美好的，罵壞的。
05:09
But how do we figure out what's right and wrong?
114
294000
3000
但是，我們究境如何找出什麼是正確的和錯誤的？
05:12
And from day to day, we have the techniques that we use.
115
297000
3000
而每過一天又一天，我們用我們的方法權衡。
05:15
Maybe we just follow our gut.
116
300000
3000
也許我們只要按照我們的膽量。
05:18
Maybe we take a vote -- we crowdsource.
117
303000
3000
也許我們需要投票 - 我們的人群的來源。
05:21
Or maybe we punt --
118
306000
2000
或者，也許我們用篙撐 --
05:23
ask the legal department, see what they say.
119
308000
3000
問問法律部門，看他們說些什麼。
05:26
In other words, it's kind of random,
120
311000
2000
換句話說，它是一種隨機的，
05:28
kind of ad hoc,
121
313000
2000
即席的,
05:30
how we figure out what we should do.
122
315000
3000
的權衡方法。
05:33
And maybe, if we want to be on surer footing,
123
318000
3000
也或許，若我們想在基礎上更有把握，
05:36
what we really want is a moral framework that will help guide us there,
124
321000
3000
我們真正需要的是一種道德框架，有助於引導我們到那裡，
05:39
that will tell us what kinds of things are right and wrong in the first place,
125
324000
3000
指導我們從一開始什麼樣是正確和錯誤的,
05:42
and how would we know in a given situation what to do.
126
327000
4000
以及指導我們在特定情況下該怎麼辦。
05:46
So let's get a moral framework.
127
331000
2000
因此，讓我們弄一個道德框架。
05:48
We're numbers people, living by numbers.
128
333000
3000
我們數字的人，生活於數字裡。
05:51
How can we use numbers
129
336000
2000
我們如何使用數字
05:53
as the basis for a moral framework?
130
338000
3000
作為道德框架的基礎？
05:56
I know a guy who did exactly that.
131
341000
3000
我知道一個傢伙正恰恰如此辦，
05:59
A brilliant guy --
132
344000
3000
一個傑出的傢伙 --
06:02
he's been dead 2,500 years.
133
347000
3000
他已經死了2500年。
06:05
Plato, that's right.
134
350000
2000
不錯, 是柏拉圖。
06:07
Remember him -- old philosopher?
135
352000
2000
老哲學家--記得他嗎？
06:09
You were sleeping during that class.
136
354000
3000
你在那課時正在睡覺。
06:12
And Plato, he had a lot of the same concerns that we did.
137
357000
2000
柏拉圖，他有很多和我們相同的問題。
06:14
He was worried about right and wrong.
138
359000
2000
他憂慮着對與錯。
06:16
He wanted to know what is just.
139
361000
2000
他想知道什麼是正義的。
06:18
But he was worried that all we seem to be doing
140
363000
2000
但他擔心，似乎我們所做的
06:20
is trading opinions about this.
141
365000
2000
只是交流有關這一點的意見。
06:22
He says something's just. She says something else is just.
142
367000
3000
公說公有理。 婆說婆有理。
06:25
It's kind of convincing when he talks and when she talks too.
143
370000
2000
雙方首都非常有說服力。
06:27
I'm just going back and forth; I'm not getting anywhere.
144
372000
2000
來來回回; 沒有結果。
06:29
I don't want opinions; I want knowledge.
145
374000
3000
我不想要意見，我想要知識。
06:32
I want to know the truth about justice --
146
377000
3000
我想知道公義的真相 --
06:35
like we have truths in math.
147
380000
3000
像我們在數學有的真理。
06:38
In math, we know the objective facts.
148
383000
3000
在數學，我們知道客觀的事實。
06:41
Take a number, any number -- two.
149
386000
2000
例如一個數字，任何數字 -- 「二」。
06:43
Favorite number. I love that number.
150
388000
2000
最喜愛的數字。我愛這個數字。
06:45
There are truths about two.
151
390000
2000
有關於「二」的真理。
06:47
If you've got two of something,
152
392000
2000
如果你有兩個東西，
06:49
you add two more, you get four.
153
394000
2000
你加兩個，你會得到四個。
06:51
That's true no matter what thing you're talking about.
154
396000
2000
這是真的，無論你在說什麼事情。
06:53
It's an objective truth about the form of two,
155
398000
2000
這是一個有關「二」客觀的真理，
06:55
the abstract form.
156
400000
2000
抽象的形式。
06:57
When you have two of anything -- two eyes, two ears, two noses,
157
402000
2000
當你有兩個東西 -- 兩隻眼睛，兩隻耳朵，兩個鼻子，
06:59
just two protrusions --
158
404000
2000
只有兩個突起的物體 --
07:01
those all partake of the form of two.
159
406000
3000
所有參與「二」的形式。
07:04
They all participate in the truths that two has.
160
409000
4000
他們都參與了「二」。
07:08
They all have two-ness in them.
161
413000
2000
「二」是他們所有。
07:10
And therefore, it's not a matter of opinion.
162
415000
3000
因此，它不是一個見仁見智的局勢。
07:13
What if, Plato thought,
163
418000
2000
如果，柏拉圖在想，
07:15
ethics was like math?
164
420000
2000
道德是好比數學？
07:17
What if there were a pure form of justice?
165
422000
3000
假如有一個純粹的正義形式呢？
07:20
What if there are truths about justice,
166
425000
2000
如果公義有真理，
07:22
and you could just look around in this world
167
427000
2000
你可以看看周圍環顧這個世界，
07:24
and see which things participated,
168
429000
2000
看看哪些東西參與，
07:26
partook of that form of justice?
169
431000
3000
參加這種形式的正義？
07:29
Then you would know what was really just and what wasn't.
170
434000
3000
那你便會知道什麼是真正公正，什麼不是。
07:32
It wouldn't be a matter
171
437000
2000
這不會是只有關意見
07:34
of just opinion or just appearances.
172
439000
3000
或表面的問題。
07:37
That's a stunning vision.
173
442000
2000
這是一個驚人的遠見。
07:39
I mean, think about that. How grand. How ambitious.
174
444000
3000
試想想,這一點。這是如何宏偉, 如何雄心勃勃。
07:42
That's as ambitious as we are.
175
447000
2000
這是如我們的雄心勃勃。
07:44
He wants to solve ethics.
176
449000
2000
他要解決道德。
07:46
He wants objective truths.
177
451000
2000
他要客觀真理。
07:48
If you think that way,
178
453000
3000
如果你這樣思想，
07:51
you have a Platonist moral framework.
179
456000
3000
你便擁有一個柏拉圖主義的道德框架。
07:54
If you don't think that way,
180
459000
2000
如果你不認為這樣，
07:56
well, you have a lot of company in the history of Western philosophy,
181
461000
2000
那，你在歷史上西方哲學史便有很多支持者，
07:58
because the tidy idea, you know, people criticized it.
182
463000
3000
因為整齊的想法 --- 眾所週知，人們會批評。
08:01
Aristotle, in particular, he was not amused.
183
466000
3000
尤其是亞里士多德，他便不覺得有趣。
08:04
He thought it was impractical.
184
469000
3000
他認為這是不切實際的。
08:07
Aristotle said, "We should seek only so much precision in each subject
185
472000
4000
亞里士多德說，「我們只應該尋求每個主題允許
08:11
as that subject allows."
186
476000
2000
我們能夠尋求的問題。」
08:13
Aristotle thought ethics wasn't a lot like math.
187
478000
3000
亞里士多德不認為道德好比數學。
08:16
He thought ethics was a matter of making decisions in the here-and-now
188
481000
3000
他認為道德是一個在此時此地用我們最好的
08:19
using our best judgment
189
484000
2000
判斷決策的問題,
08:21
to find the right path.
190
486000
2000
來找到正確的道路。
08:23
If you think that, Plato's not your guy.
191
488000
2000
如果你這樣認為，柏拉圖不是你的同道。
08:25
But don't give up.
192
490000
2000
但不要放棄。
08:27
Maybe there's another way
193
492000
2000
也許有另一種方式，
08:29
that we can use numbers as the basis of our moral framework.
194
494000
3000
我們可以使用數字作為我們道德框架的依據。
08:33
How about this:
195
498000
2000
這樣如何：
08:35
What if in any situation you could just calculate,
196
500000
3000
如果在任何情況下你可以計算，
08:38
look at the choices,
197
503000
2000
看看選擇，
08:40
measure out which one's better and know what to do?
198
505000
3000
測算出哪一個更好，知道該怎麼辦？
08:43
That sound familiar?
199
508000
2000
這聽起來很熟悉？
08:45
That's a utilitarian moral framework.
200
510000
3000
這是一個功利主義的道德框架。
08:48
John Stuart Mill was a great advocate of this --
201
513000
2000
穆勒是便主張這一點 --
08:50
nice guy besides --
202
515000
2000
好好的傢伙 --
08:52
and only been dead 200 years.
203
517000
2000
而且只死了200年。
08:54
So basis of utilitarianism --
204
519000
2000
所以功利主義的基礎 --
08:56
I'm sure you're familiar at least.
205
521000
2000
我敢肯定你會熟悉。
08:58
The three people who voted for Mill before are familiar with this.
206
523000
2000
至少剛才那三個舉手贊同穆勒的人對他熟悉。
09:00
But here's the way it works.
207
525000
2000
現在讓我說說該怎麼樣。
09:02
What if morals, what if what makes something moral
208
527000
3000
若果我說道德，或某一件擁有道德的東西,
09:05
is just a matter of if it maximizes pleasure
209
530000
2000
只不過是擴大快樂限度
09:07
and minimizes pain?
210
532000
2000
以及減少痛苦？
09:09
It does something intrinsic to the act.
211
534000
3000
這種思想方式便有一些固定性。
09:12
It's not like its relation to some abstract form.
212
537000
2000
它不好比一些抽象的形式。
09:14
It's just a matter of the consequences.
213
539000
2000
這只是一個後果的問題。
09:16
You just look at the consequences
214
541000
2000
你只要看看後果，
09:18
and see if, overall, it's for the good or for the worse.
215
543000
2000
看看總體而言，它是好還是壞。
09:20
That would be simple. Then we know what to do.
216
545000
2000
這便簡單。我們知道該怎麼做。
09:22
Let's take an example.
217
547000
2000
讓我們舉一個例子。
09:24
Suppose I go up
218
549000
2000
假如我說，
09:26
and I say, "I'm going to take your phone."
219
551000
2000
「我要拿帶走你的手機。」
09:28
Not just because it rang earlier,
220
553000
2000
不是因為它剛才響過，
09:30
but I'm going to take it because I made a little calculation.
221
555000
3000
而是因為我做了一個小小的計算。
09:33
I thought, that guy looks suspicious.
222
558000
3000
我想，那傢伙看起來有可疑。
09:36
And what if he's been sending little messages to Bin Laden's hideout --
223
561000
3000
如果他一直有消息發送到拉登藏身之處 --
09:39
or whoever took over after Bin Laden --
224
564000
2000
或誰接手拉登之位 --
09:41
and he's actually like a terrorist, a sleeper cell.
225
566000
3000
或者他實際上像個恐怖分子，臥底細胞。
09:44
I'm going to find that out, and when I find that out,
226
569000
3000
我會去了解，當我查出了，
09:47
I'm going to prevent a huge amount of damage that he could cause.
227
572000
3000
我將會防止他構成的巨大損害。
09:50
That has a very high utility to prevent that damage.
228
575000
3000
具有很高的實用工具，以防止該傷害。
09:53
And compared to the little pain that it's going to cause --
229
578000
2000
這相比於小小不便的痛苦--
09:55
because it's going to be embarrassing when I'm looking on his phone
230
580000
2000
因為這將會是個令人尷尬的時候,
09:57
and seeing that he has a Farmville problem and that whole bit --
231
582000
3000
當我在他的電話，看到他竟然沉迷於Farmville遊戲 --
10:00
that's overwhelmed
232
585000
3000
這是不堪相比於
10:03
by the value of looking at the phone.
233
588000
2000
看他手機的價值。
10:05
If you feel that way,
234
590000
2000
如果你這樣認為，
10:07
that's a utilitarian choice.
235
592000
3000
這是一個功利思想的選擇。
10:10
But maybe you don't feel that way either.
236
595000
3000
但也許你覺得都不應該是這樣。
10:13
Maybe you think, it's his phone.
237
598000
2000
也許你認為，這是他的電話。
10:15
It's wrong to take his phone
238
600000
2000
拿他的電話看是不對，
10:17
because he's a person
239
602000
2000
因為他是一個人，
10:19
and he has rights and he has dignity,
240
604000
2000
他有他的權利和尊嚴，
10:21
and we can't just interfere with that.
241
606000
2000
我們不能干擾。
10:23
He has autonomy.
242
608000
2000
他有自主權。
10:25
It doesn't matter what the calculations are.
243
610000
2000
什麼計算根本不緊要。
10:27
There are things that are intrinsically wrong --
244
612000
3000
有些事情是一件固的壞事 --
10:30
like lying is wrong,
245
615000
2000
例如說謊是不對的，
10:32
like torturing innocent children is wrong.
246
617000
3000
例如虐待無辜的孩子是錯的。
10:35
Kant was very good on this point,
247
620000
3000
康德於這一點非常滿意，
10:38
and he said it a little better than I'll say it.
248
623000
2000
而且他說這一點比我會說得較好。
10:40
He said we should use our reason
249
625000
2000
他說我們應該用我們的原因找出規律，
10:42
to figure out the rules by which we should guide our conduct,
250
627000
3000
應該以這種方式引導我們的行為。
10:45
and then it is our duty to follow those rules.
251
630000
3000
然後，我們有責任遵循這些規則。
10:48
It's not a matter of calculation.
252
633000
3000
這不是一個計算的問題。
10:51
So let's stop.
253
636000
2000
因此，讓我們停下來。
10:53
We're right in the thick of it, this philosophical thicket.
254
638000
3000
我們就在它的要緊點，在這哲學叢林內。
10:56
And this goes on for thousands of years,
255
641000
3000
而這任其發展了千百年，
10:59
because these are hard questions,
256
644000
2000
因為這些都是難以回答的問題，
11:01
and I've only got 15 minutes.
257
646000
2000
而我只有15分鐘。
11:03
So let's cut to the chase.
258
648000
2000
因此，讓我們切入正題。
11:05
How should we be making our decisions?
259
650000
4000
我們應該如何營造我們的決策？
11:09
Is it Plato, is it Aristotle, is it Kant, is it Mill?
260
654000
3000
是柏拉圖，亞里士多德，是康德，抑或是密爾？
11:12
What should we be doing? What's the answer?
261
657000
2000
我們應該怎麼做？答案該是什麼？
11:14
What's the formula that we can use in any situation
262
659000
3000
什麼是我們可以在任何情況下都使用的公式,
11:17
to determine what we should do,
263
662000
2000
來確定了我們應該做的，
11:19
whether we should use that guy's data or not?
264
664000
2000
我們是否應該使用那傢伙的數據?
11:21
What's the formula?
265
666000
3000
有什麼公式？
11:25
There's not a formula.
266
670000
2000
根本沒有一個公式。
11:29
There's not a simple answer.
267
674000
2000
沒有一個簡單的答案。
11:31
Ethics is hard.
268
676000
3000
道德是艱難的。
11:34
Ethics requires thinking.
269
679000
3000
道德要求思想。
11:38
And that's uncomfortable.
270
683000
2000
這是不舒服的地帶。
11:40
I know; I spent a lot of my career
271
685000
2000
我知道，在我的職業生涯中
11:42
in artificial intelligence,
272
687000
2000
我花了很多時間在人工智能上，
11:44
trying to build machines that could do some of this thinking for us,
273
689000
3000
試圖建立一些可以替我們做這些思想的機器，
11:47
that could give us answers.
274
692000
2000
給我們一些答案。
11:49
But they can't.
275
694000
2000
但它們不能。
11:51
You can't just take human thinking
276
696000
2000
你不能拿人的思想
11:53
and put it into a machine.
277
698000
2000
把它輸入機器。
11:55
We're the ones who have to do it.
278
700000
3000
那些是我們要自己做。
11:58
Happily, we're not machines, and we can do it.
279
703000
3000
令人高興的是，我們不是機器，我們可以做到這一點。
12:01
Not only can we think,
280
706000
2000
我們不僅可以思想，
12:03
we must.
281
708000
2000
我們必須要思想。
12:05
Hannah Arendt said,
282
710000
2000
漢娜阿倫特說:
12:07
"The sad truth
283
712000
2000
「可悲的是，
12:09
is that most evil done in this world
284
714000
2000
這個世界最邪惡的事
12:11
is not done by people
285
716000
2000
不是由選擇作惡
12:13
who choose to be evil.
286
718000
2000
的人所做。
12:15
It arises from not thinking."
287
720000
3000
而它是產生於不思想。」
12:18
That's what she called the "banality of evil."
288
723000
4000
這就是她所謂的「平庸的邪惡」。
12:22
And the response to that
289
727000
2000
而根據這一要求，
12:24
is that we demand the exercise of thinking
290
729000
2000
是我們要要求每一個思維健全的人
12:26
from every sane person.
291
731000
3000
鍛煉思想。
12:29
So let's do that. Let's think.
292
734000
2000
因此，讓我們這樣做。讓我們思考。
12:31
In fact, let's start right now.
293
736000
3000
事實上，我們現在開始。
12:34
Every person in this room do this:
294
739000
3000
每個人在這個房間裡要這樣做：
12:37
think of the last time you had a decision to make
295
742000
3000
想起你上次要做出決定，
12:40
where you were worried to do the right thing,
296
745000
2000
當你擔心是否做正確的決定，
12:42
where you wondered, "What should I be doing?"
297
747000
2000
你在想，「我應該怎樣做？」
12:44
Bring that to mind,
298
749000
2000
想想。
12:46
and now reflect on that
299
751000
2000
反思一下
12:48
and say, "How did I come up that decision?
300
753000
3000
並問，「我是怎麼作出這個決定？
12:51
What did I do? Did I follow my gut?
301
756000
3000
我做了什麼？難道我跟著我的直覺？
12:54
Did I have somebody vote on it? Or did I punt to legal?"
302
759000
2000
是否有人投票呢？還是我舉法律？」
12:56
Or now we have a few more choices.
303
761000
3000
或者，現在我們有更多些選擇。
12:59
"Did I evaluate what would be the highest pleasure
304
764000
2000
「我是否會使用穆勒的最高快樂
13:01
like Mill would?
305
766000
2000
來評價決定？
13:03
Or like Kant, did I use reason to figure out what was intrinsically right?"
306
768000
3000
或像康德，我是否會使用因由弄清楚什麼是本質？」
13:06
Think about it. Really bring it to mind. This is important.
307
771000
3000
真正想想看。這一點很重要。
13:09
It is so important
308
774000
2000
它是如此的重要，
13:11
we are going to spend 30 seconds of valuable TEDTalk time
309
776000
2000
我們將要花30秒寶貴的TEDTalk時間
13:13
doing nothing but thinking about this.
310
778000
2000
什麼也不做，並去思考這一點。
13:15
Are you ready? Go.
311
780000
2000
你準備好嗎？開始。
13:33
Stop. Good work.
312
798000
3000
停止。好。
13:36
What you just did,
313
801000
2000
你剛才做的，
13:38
that's the first step towards taking responsibility
314
803000
2000
這就用是我們所有力量的責任,
13:40
for what we should do with all of our power.
315
805000
3000
承擔對於我們應該做的第一步。
13:45
Now the next step -- try this.
316
810000
3000
現在，試試這下一個步驟。
13:49
Go find a friend and explain to them
317
814000
2000
去找一個朋友，向他們解釋
13:51
how you made that decision.
318
816000
2000
你如何作出這個決定。
13:53
Not right now. Wait till I finish talking.
319
818000
2000
不是現在。等到我談話結束。
13:55
Do it over lunch.
320
820000
2000
可以在午餐談談。
13:57
And don't just find another technologist friend;
321
822000
3000
而且不要只是找另一個技師朋友;
14:00
find somebody different than you.
322
825000
2000
找一個與你不同的人。
14:02
Find an artist or a writer --
323
827000
2000
找一個藝術家或作家 --
14:04
or, heaven forbid, find a philosopher and talk to them.
324
829000
3000
或者，上天保佑，找到一個哲學家交談。
14:07
In fact, find somebody from the humanities.
325
832000
2000
或者，找一個從事文科學的人。
14:09
Why? Because they think about problems
326
834000
2000
為什麼？因為他們思考問題
14:11
differently than we do as technologists.
327
836000
2000
不同於我們做技術的人。
14:13
Just a few days ago, right across the street from here,
328
838000
3000
就在數天前，從這裡在對面街，
14:16
there was hundreds of people gathered together.
329
841000
2000
有數百人聚集在一起。
14:18
It was technologists and humanists
330
843000
2000
這是技術人員和人道主義者
14:20
at that big BiblioTech Conference.
331
845000
2000
在那個BiblioTech大會議。
14:22
And they gathered together
332
847000
2000
他們聚集在一起，
14:24
because the technologists wanted to learn
333
849000
2000
因為技術人員想了解
14:26
what it would be like to think from a humanities perspective.
334
851000
3000
從文人會有什麼樣的視角遠景。
14:29
You have someone from Google
335
854000
2000
有人從谷歌
14:31
talking to someone who does comparative literature.
336
856000
2000
與做比較文學的人交談。
14:33
You're thinking about the relevance of 17th century French theater --
337
858000
3000
你在考慮17世紀法國戲劇的相關性 --
14:36
how does that bear upon venture capital?
338
861000
2000
如何會對風險投資有影響？
14:38
Well that's interesting. That's a different way of thinking.
339
863000
3000
這是有趣的。這是一個不同的思維方式。
14:41
And when you think in that way,
340
866000
2000
而當你以這種方式思想，
14:43
you become more sensitive to the human considerations,
341
868000
3000
你變得更加對人的考慮敏感，
14:46
which are crucial to making ethical decisions.
342
871000
3000
這是對決策倫理至關重要的。
14:49
So imagine that right now
343
874000
2000
所以現在想想
14:51
you went and you found your musician friend.
344
876000
2000
你去找你的音樂家朋友。
14:53
And you're telling him what we're talking about,
345
878000
3000
告訴他我們在說什麼，
14:56
about our whole data revolution and all this --
346
881000
2000
有關我們整個數據革命的一切 --
14:58
maybe even hum a few bars of our theme music.
347
883000
2000
甚至哼了幾節我們的主題音樂。
15:00
♫ Dum ta da da dum dum ta da da dum ♫
348
885000
3000
♫音樂♫
15:03
Well, your musician friend will stop you and say,
349
888000
2000
那麼，你的音樂家朋友會對你說，
15:05
"You know, the theme music
350
890000
2000
「你要知道，為你數據的革命
15:07
for your data revolution,
351
892000
2000
的主題音樂,
15:09
that's an opera, that's Wagner.
352
894000
2000
是一部歌劇，是瓦格納的。
15:11
It's based on Norse legend.
353
896000
2000
它是基於北歐傳說。
15:13
It's Gods and mythical creatures
354
898000
2000
是神和神話動物
15:15
fighting over magical jewelry."
355
900000
3000
爭奪神奇首飾。」
15:19
That's interesting.
356
904000
3000
那很有意思。
15:22
Now it's also a beautiful opera,
357
907000
3000
當然，它也是一個美麗的歌劇。
15:25
and we're moved by that opera.
358
910000
3000
而我們對歌劇感動。
15:28
We're moved because it's about the battle
359
913000
2000
我們很感動，因為它是
15:30
between good and evil,
360
915000
2000
對善惡之間的戰鬥，
15:32
about right and wrong.
361
917000
2000
對與錯的戰鬥。
15:34
And we care about right and wrong.
362
919000
2000
而我們是關心是與非。
15:36
We care what happens in that opera.
363
921000
3000
我們關心在歌劇會發生什麼。
15:39
We care what happens in "Apocalypse Now."
364
924000
3000
我們關心在<現代啟示錄>會發生什麼。
15:42
And we certainly care
365
927000
2000
我們當然關心
15:44
what happens with our technologies.
366
929000
2000
我們的技術會發生什麼。
15:46
We have so much power today,
367
931000
2000
我們今天有這麼大的權力，
15:48
it is up to us to figure out what to do,
368
933000
3000
它是由我們來搞清楚怎樣做。
15:51
and that's the good news.
369
936000
2000
這就是好消息。
15:53
We're the ones writing this opera.
370
938000
3000
我們是寫這部歌劇的作家。
15:56
This is our movie.
371
941000
2000
這是我們的電影。
15:58
We figure out what will happen with this technology.
372
943000
3000
我們會弄清楚這種技術將會發生什麼。
16:01
We determine how this will all end.
373
946000
3000
我們確定全部如何將結束。
16:04
Thank you.
374
949000
2000
謝謝。
16:06
(Applause)
375
951000
5000
(掌聲)
ABOUT THE SPEAKER
Damon Horowitz - Philosopher, entrepreneurDamon Horowitz explores what is possible at the boundaries of technology and the humanities.
Why you should listen
Damon Horowitz is a philosophy professor and serial entrepreneur. He recently joined Google as In-House Philosopher / Director of Engineering, heading development of several initiatives involving social and search. He came to Google from Aardvark, the social search engine, where he was co-founder and CTO, overseeing product development and research strategy. Prior to Aardvark, Horowitz built several companies around applications of intelligent language processing. He co-founded Perspecta (acquired by Excite), was lead architect for Novation Biosciences (acquired by Agilent), and co-founded NewsDB (now Daylife).
Horowitz teaches courses in philosophy, cognitive science, and computer science at several institutions, including Stanford, NYU, University of Pennsylvania and San Quentin State Prison.
Get more information on the Prison University Project >>
Damon Horowitz | Speaker | TED.com