Alison Gopnik on Childhood Learning, AI as a Cultural Technology, and Rethinking Nature vs. Nurture (Ep. 265)
Hello, everyone, and welcome back to Conversations with Tyler.
大家好，欢迎回到《与泰勒对话》。
Today, I am talking with Alison Gopnik.
今天，我正在与艾莉森·戈普尼克交谈。
She is a professor of psychology and also philosophy at University of California at Berkeley.
她是加州大学伯克利分校的心理学和哲学教授。
She is a very well-known expert in fields of human learning and also child developmental psychology, among other things.
她是人类学习和儿童发展心理学等领域的一位非常知名的专家。
She has written extensively for the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, where she was a columnist for 10 years, Atlantic magazine, and dozens of other places, all of which you will have heard of.
她为《纽约时报》、《华尔街日报》（她在其中担任了 10 年的专栏作家）、《大西洋月刊》和其他几十家杂志撰写了大量文章，所有这些您都会听说过。
Alison, welcome.
艾莉森，欢迎。
Thank you.
谢谢。
Now, one hypothesis you’re known for is this idea that the way children learn has a lot in common with the way that human scientists learn.
现在，你所熟知的一个假设是，儿童的学习方式与人类科学家的学习方式有很多共同点。
What’s your basic model of how human scientists learn?
人类科学家学习的基本模型是什么？
This is interesting.
这很有趣。
When we started this out, one of the big puzzles that we had was, it’s fine to say that children are learning like scientists, but then the question became, how are scientists learning?
当我们开始这个项目时，我们遇到的一个大难题是，可以说孩子们像科学家一样学习，但问题就变成了，科学家是如何学习的？
When I started this project, a lot of the philosophers of science said, “Kuhn showed that there was nothing systematic you could say about that.
当我开始这个项目时，许多科学哲学家说：“库恩表明，对此你无法说任何系统性的东西。
It’s just sociology.” But interestingly, during the time that I’ve been working, there’s been this real change in the way that people think about philosophy of science.
这只是社会学。”但有趣的是，在我工作期间，人们思考科学哲学的方式发生了真正的变化。
We have some good computational models of how scientific theory change works.
我们有一些关于科学理论变革如何运作的良好计算模型。
It turns out that those apply to children as well.
事实证明，这些也适用于儿童。
The specific thing that I’ve looked at is, what is it that scientists do?
我所关注的具体问题是，科学家们在做什么？
Here’s this big, hard problem.
这是一个又大又难的问题。
All we seem to get from the world are a bunch of photons at the back of our retina and disturbances of air in our ears, and yet, children know about people and things, and scientists know about quarks and quantum phenomena.
我们从这个世界得到的似乎只是视网膜后部的一堆光子和耳朵里的空气扰动，然而，孩子们了解人和事物，科学家了解夸克和量子现象。
How do we ever get from the data to the theory?
我们如何从数据转向理论？
One subcategory of that is, how do we ever get causal structure which is so important in science?
其中一个子类别是，我们如何获得科学中如此重要的因果结构？
How do we ever figure out what causes what just from a bunch of data that we have?
我们如何仅从我们拥有的一堆数据中找出原因？
What’s happened is that philosophers of science and computer scientists have found some systematic ways that you could talk about that.
所发生的事情是，科学哲学家和计算机科学家已经找到了一些可以谈论这个问题的系统方法。
Scientists — I think, mostly, not necessarily consciously, but just as part of what they do — and little kids are looking at data and systematically figuring out what kind of structure out there in the world could have caused this pattern of data.
科学家们——我认为，大多数情况下，不一定是有意识的，但只是他们工作的一部分——小孩子们正在研究数据，并系统地弄清楚世界上什么样的结构可能导致了这种数据模式。
That’s not the only thing, of course, that’s going on in science.
当然，这并不是科学界唯一发生的事情。
There’re lots of other things, too, but it’s at least one central thing going on in science that we’ve started to really understand.
还有很多其他的事情，但这至少是科学中正在发生的一件我们已经开始真正理解的核心事情。
Of course, it makes sense that scientists have the same brains that we had in the Pleistocene.
当然，科学家拥有与我们更新世相同的大脑是有道理的。
Something in those brains must be enabling them to do what they do, in addition to all sorts of other institutional and social things.
除了各种其他制度和社会事物之外，这些大脑中一定有某种东西使他们能够做他们所做的事情。
It’s something about this deep capacity to figure out the structure of the world — the world model, as the AI people say — from data.
这是一种从数据中找出世界结构（正如人工智能人士所说的世界模型）的深层能力。
Are human scientists ever Bayesian?
人类科学家曾经是贝叶斯主义者吗？
I think of them as not very Bayesian at all, that they’re mostly pretty stubborn.
我认为他们根本不是贝叶斯主义者，他们大多非常顽固。
It’s interesting.
这很有趣。
One of the things that we’ve looked at is whether little kids are Bayesian, and you might be even more surprised to find that little kids are actually being pretty rational Bayesian, but a lot of it depends on how you ask.
我们研究的一件事是小孩子是否是贝叶斯主义者，你可能会更惊讶地发现小孩子实际上是相当理性的贝叶斯主义者，但这很大程度上取决于你如何提问。
If you asked a three-year-old, “Do you think that this pattern of conditional dependencies is giving you a confounding causal structure?” They would probably not give you a very sensible answer.
如果你问一个三岁的孩子，“你认为这种条件依赖模式是否给你带来了令人困惑的因果结构？”他们可能不会给你一个非常明智的答案。
Even when you ask scientists that, they don’t give you a very sensible answer.
即使你问科学家这个问题，他们也不会给你一个非常明智的答案。
But when you look at their actual practice, what you see is that, in fact, kids, for example, are Bayesian, and so are scientists.
但当你观察他们的实际实践时，你会发现，事实上，例如孩子是贝叶斯主义者，科学家也是如此。
Now, the thing is that, in fact, in many respects, kids are better Bayesians than scientists, but a lot of it depends on your prior.
现在的问题是，事实上，在很多方面，孩子们比科学家更擅长贝叶斯理论，但这很大程度上取决于你的先验知识。
If you have, as they say, a very peaked prior, you have a lot of experience, you have a lot of reason to believe that this prior assumption is right, then it’s rational not to change it when you just have a little bit of evidence.
正如他们所说，如果你有一个非常巅峰的先验，你有很多经验，你有很多理由相信这个先验假设是正确的，那么当你只有一点点证据时，不改变它是合理的。
You should require a lot of evidence to overturn something that you have a lot of confirmation for.
你应该需要大量的证据来推翻你已经有很多证据证实的事情。
It’s interesting that the kids, actually, are better at solving problems that involve unusual outcomes than the scientists are.
有趣的是，实际上，孩子们比科学家更擅长解决涉及不寻常结果的问题。
I think what happens in science — we’ve just been doing some work about this — is that there’s also a social factor, where having a big distribution of people who are more likely to go with the prior versus people who are more likely to go with the evidence, which seems to be true in science, that collectively can get you to the right answer.
我认为科学中发生的事情 ——我们刚刚做了一些这方面的工作——还有一个社会因素，即有大量的人更倾向于相信先验知识，而不是更倾向于相信证据，这在科学上似乎是正确的，共同可以让你得到正确的答案。
There’s no arbitrary principle you can have about when should you abandon the theory and when should you hold onto it.
关于什么时候应该放弃这个理论，什么时候应该坚持它，没有任何武断的原则。
I think of the kids as much more Bayesian than the scientists, and here’s what worries me about the scientists.
我认为孩子们比科学家更倾向于贝叶斯主义，这就是我对科学家的担忧。
When they revise their views, the direction in which they move is almost always predictable.
当他们修正自己的观点时，他们的前进方向几乎总是可以预测的。
If they’re, say, thinking over decades, how much does the money supply matter?
比如说，如果他们思考几十年，货币供应量有多重要？
They’ll move a bit in the direction of thinking it matters.
他们会朝着认为重要的方向前进一点。
Then they’ll move a bit more.
然后他们会多移动一点。
Then finally, they might decide, well, it matters quite a bit.
最后，他们可能会决定，嗯，这很重要。
It shouldn’t be predictable if they’re Bayesian.
如果它们是贝叶斯的话，那应该是不可预测的。
It should be more like a random walk.
它应该更像是随机游走。
Basically, they’re stubborn.
基本上，他们很顽固。
Then what I observe, if they’re proven to be wrong, they don’t usually admit it, whereas a child might.
然后我观察到，如果他们被证明是错的，他们通常不会承认，而孩子可能会。
They just start working on something else.
他们只是开始做其他事情。
That, too, is a funny way of dealing with being wrong, right?
这也是一种处理错误的有趣方式，对吧？
There’s a beautiful idea that I’ve been using thinking about the kids that is in computer science.
我一直在用一个美丽的想法来思考计算机科学领域的孩子们。
It actually comes from physics called simulated annealing.
它实际上来自称为模拟退火的物理学。
The idea behind simulated annealing is that you have some problem to solve.
模拟退火背后的想法是你有一些问题需要解决。
You have some space of solutions that you’re trying to get to.
你有一些你想要找到的解决方案。
One thing you can do, which is like what you’re describing about the money supply, is just make little changes to what you already know.
你可以做的一件事，就像你所描述的货币供应量一样，就是对你已经知道的事情做一些小小的改变。
That’s what you mean about moving in the predictable direction.
这就是你所说的朝着可预测的方向前进的意思。
You’re just changing things a little bit.
你只是稍微改变一些事情。
Then seeing, “Okay, if I change it a little bit, is it doing a better job of accounting for the data?” That’s what people think of as a low-temperature search.
然后看到，“好吧，如果我稍微改变一下，它是否能更好地解释数据？”这就是人们所认为的低温搜索。
The other kind of search you can do, the high-temperature search, is just bounce around the space.
您可以进行的另一种搜索，即高温搜索，只是在空间中弹跳。
Try wild, crazy things.
尝试狂野、疯狂的事情。
Exactly as you were saying, have just a more random walk.
正如您所说，进行更随机的游走。
The strategy that you see in computer science, this annealing, is start out with this wild, crazy, out-of-the-box, high-temperature search through the space, and then cool off and just fill in the details.
你在计算机科学中看到的策略，即退火，是从这种疯狂的、开箱即用的、高温的空间搜索开始，然后冷静下来，填写细节。
If you think about your four-year-old, who do they sound like?
如果你想想你四岁的孩子，他们听起来像谁？
Do they sound like the creature that’s just moving a little bit, or do they sound like they’re noisy and bouncy and random and doing all sorts of weird things?
它们听起来像是只是稍微移动了一下的生物，还是听起来很吵闹、有弹性、随意，做着各种奇怪的事情？
The four-year-old seemed to be a really good idea of this kind of random search.
这个四岁的孩子似乎很擅长这种随机搜索。
But if you’re a scientist, of course, you have to balance those things.
但如果你是一名科学家，当然，你必须平衡这些事情。
You can’t just think of crazy new ideas.
你不能只是想出疯狂的新想法。
You have to figure out how you’re going to test them.
你必须弄清楚如何测试它们。
You have to get grant proposals.
您必须获得拨款提案。
In science, you’re always going back and forth between, “Do I do the high-temperature, wild, crazy, out-of-the-box search?
在科学领域，你总是在“我是否进行高温、狂野、疯狂、开箱即用的搜索？
Do I think of ideas that don’t look like they would be very likely to begin with?
我是否想到了一些看起来不太可能开始的想法？
Or do I fill in the details?”
还是我填写详细信息？”
I think you see both things happening.
我想你看到了这两件事的发生。
When you get big paradigm shifts, as Kuhn said, when you get big changes in science, a lot of times it’s because someone found an idea that looked like it was improbable.
正如库恩所说，当你发生重大范式转变时，当你在科学领域发生重大变化时，很多时候是因为有人发现了一个看起来不可能的想法。
The nice thing about kids is, because they don’t have to worry about grant proposals, they can be off in the wild space all the time.
孩子们的好处是，因为他们不必担心资助提案，他们可以一直在野外。
Here’s a few things a four-year-old might do.
以下是四岁孩子可能会做的一些事情。
I’m going to ask you which one is the most Bayesian.
我要问你哪一个是最贝叶斯主义的。
A four-year-old pulls his sister’s hair, a four-year-old tries to figure out how to use a fork properly, and a four-year-old tries to put together the pieces of a puzzle.
一个四岁的孩子拉他妹妹的头发，一个四岁的孩子试图弄清楚如何正确使用叉子，一个四岁的孩子试图将拼图的各个部分拼凑在一起。
Or pick your own nomination.
或者选择您自己的提名。
In which do we see the child being the most Bayesian and then the least Bayesian?
我们在哪一个中看到孩子最受贝叶斯主义影响，然后又看到最不受贝叶斯主义影响？
That’s an interesting case.
这是一个有趣的案例。
It’s funny, when you said tries to use the fork properly, that’s a matter of conforming to a norm, but if you just —
有趣的是，当你说尝试正确使用叉子时，这是遵守规范的问题，但如果你只是 -
To get food into his mouth, right?
是为了把食物送进嘴里吧？
At least to do that.
至少要做到这一点。
I don’t mean proper manners in the Ann Landers sense.
我指的不是安·兰德斯意义上的得体礼仪。
Yes.
是的。
I don’t think any of those are really an example of the kind of exploration that I think is trying to get new evidence to change your theory.
我认为这些都不是真正的探索的例子，我认为这种探索试图获得新的证据来改变你的理论。
I think there are lots of things that you’ll see the kids doing.
我认为你会看到孩子们做很多事情。
For instance, the fork is a good example.
例如，叉子就是一个很好的例子。
I have a lovely video of my son that I use to do teaching.
我有一个我儿子的可爱视频，我用它来教学。
He has a spoon, and he’s trying to eat an avocado with a spoon.
他有一把勺子，他正试图用勺子吃鳄梨。
Of course, eating an avocado with a spoon when you’re two years old is extremely challenging.
当然，当你两岁的时候用勺子吃鳄梨是非常具有挑战性的。
It’s a full avocado.
这是一个完整的鳄梨。
Instead of actually trying to get it in his mouth, what he does is try all these different things that you could do with a spoon and an avocado.
他并没有真正尝试把它放进嘴里，而是尝试用勺子和牛油果可以做的所有这些不同的事情。
He bangs it on the side.
他把它敲在一边。
He picks it up and turns it over.
他把它捡起来并翻过来。
A lot of them don’t have the output of actually getting any of the avocado at all.
他们中的许多人根本没有实际获得任何鳄梨的产出。
That’s something that’s completely characteristic of what you see with little kids.
这完全是你在小孩子身上看到的特征。
You see them doing these kinds of experiments all the time.
你会看到他们一直在做这类实验。
With scientists, we underestimate how much that — we sometimes dismissively call it a fishing expedition — how much that very general experimentation is playing a role in scientific progress.
对于科学家来说，我们低估了“——我们有时轻蔑地称之为钓鱼探险”——“非常普遍的实验”在科学进步中发挥的作用。
In the grant, you’re supposed to say, “Here’s my three hypotheses, and here are the four experiments I’m going to do to test them.” But I think in practice, a lot of times, scientists are being like the little boy with the avocado and the spoon.
在拨款中，你应该说：“这是我的三个假设，这是我要做的四个实验来测试它们。”但我认为在实践中，很多时候，科学家就像拿着鳄梨和勺子的小男孩。
They’re saying, “I don’t know, what will happen if I try this?
他们说：“我不知道，如果我尝试这个会发生什么？
What will happen if I try that?” Then they write the grant to get money to do the things that they’ve already done by doing all these experiments.
如果我尝试这样做会发生什么？”然后他们写下拨款来获得资金来完成他们已经通过所有这些实验完成的事情。
There’s an alternative vision of how people learn, if learning’s even the right word, and it comes from Karl Friston.
如果“学习”这个词合适的话，人们如何学习还有另一种观点，它来自卡尔·弗里斯顿。
I think of it as a minimized surprise kind of theory, that you’re confronted with data from the world, and then you interpret the data and coordinate your actions in such a way to minimize surprise.
我认为这是一种最小化意外的理论，即你面对来自世界的数据，然后你解释数据并以最小化意外的方式协调你的行动。
That will imply a lot of cognitive biases, but that’s his basic model of humans.
这将意味着很多认知偏差，但这是他的人类基本模型。
What do you think of that theory?
你觉得这个理论怎么样？
I think it’s very underspecified.
我认为这是非常不明确的。
There’s this category of theories in science of things that have a good combination of intuitively being in the right direction and then have a lot of math, but it’s actually very hard to connect them to experiments and to an empirical research program.
事物科学中有一类理论很好地结合了直觉的正确方向和大量的数学知识，但实际上很难将它们与实验和实证研究项目联系起来。
I think there’s something right about the fact that children and people in general, when they’re learning, are looking for violations of their predictions and something like surprise.
我认为，儿童和一般人在学习时都会寻找与他们的预测相反的情况以及诸如惊喜之类的东西，这一事实是正确的。
But I’m a little skeptical about whether that formalism isn’t going to end up accounting for everything.
但我有点怀疑这种形式主义最终是否会解释一切。
I think it’s one of those kinds of theories.
我认为这是此类理论之一。
It’s certainly very closely related to ideas that come out of the theory theory framework, which include things like, what you should be doing is making predictions, and you should be exploring things that are surprising and don’t fit the predictions that you already have.
它当然与来自理论理论框架的想法非常密切相关，其中包括诸如您应该做的就是做出预测，您应该探索令人惊讶且不符合您已有预测的事物。
It’s interesting because everyone in science knows that experimentation is really crucial for science, and yet, we don’t have very good accounts of how to do experiments.
这很有趣，因为科学界的每个人都知道实验对于科学来说确实至关重要，但是，我们对如何进行实验没有很好的说明。
Why and when would you see something surprising and decide that you should follow it up, or you should go out into the world and .
为什么以及什么时候你会看到一些令人惊讶的事情并决定你应该跟进它，或者你应该走出去进入世界。
.
。
.
。
?
？
This is something that I think is a bit different from what Friston says and what I would say.
我认为这与弗里斯顿所说的和我想说的有点不同。
I think a lot of the time, and I think this increasingly — it’s not just that you’re seeing something surprising and then changing your view.
我很多时候都在想，而且越来越多地认为，这不仅仅是你看到了一些令人惊讶的事情，然后改变了你的观点。
It’s that you’re seeing something surprising.
那是你看到了一些令人惊讶的东西。
You’re doing an intervention, something in the world, to try to explain or reproduce or find out the parameters of that surprising thing.
你正在做一个干预，世界上的某件事，试图解释或重现或找出那个令人惊讶的事情的参数。
Then that’s really the thing that’s driving your theory change.
那么这确实是推动你的理论改变的因素。
Let’s say you have $100 million unconstrained to run experiments on young humans and how they learn.
假设你有 1 亿美元不受限制地对年轻人进行实验以及他们的学习方式。
Now, there’s an ethics constraint.
现在，存在道德约束。
You’re not going to do anything you don’t think is right, but what would you actually study with those resources?
你不会做任何你认为不正确的事情，但你实际上会用这些资源来研究什么？
One of the good things about being a developmental psychologist is that it’s really cheap, like little chairs and a little table.
作为一名发展心理学家的好处之一是它真的很便宜，就像小椅子和小桌子一样。
The thing we use for causal inference is about a $20 toy.
我们用于因果推理的东西大约是一个 20 美元的玩具。
There are some really interesting attempts now to use big data with kids, and I think that might be something that you could use a lot of money for.
现在有一些非常有趣的尝试在孩子身上使用大数据，我认为这可能是你可以花很多钱的事情。
Someone like Mike Frank at Stanford is putting GoPros on babies, little GoPros that the babies don’t mind.
像斯坦福大学的迈克·弗兰克这样的人正在给婴儿戴上 GoPro，婴儿不介意的小型 GoPro。
Then you end up with this giant amount of data about what is it that the babies are actually experiencing.
然后你最终会得到关于婴儿实际经历的大量数据。
Of course, you’d want to do that for a very large group of babies because they’re all different.
当然，你会想对一大群婴儿这样做，因为他们都是不同的。
Then it would take some real computational power to analyze all of that data.
然后需要一些真正的计算能力来分析所有这些数据。
That might be a direction that you could go in that you could use the extra money for.
这可能是你可以使用额外资金的方向。
What do you want to test?
你想测试什么？
Let’s say you have that set up.
假设您已经进行了设置。
You hire the assistants.
你雇佣助理。
You have the quant people.
你有量化的人。
What hypothesis do you want to look at?
你想看看什么假设？
Again, what I’d really like to know is, how is it that the kids experiment?
再说一次，我真正想知道的是，孩子们是如何进行实验的？
If you just took that GoPro data and you looked at what did the child do?
如果您只是获取 GoPro 数据并查看孩子做了什么？
What happened just before the child did that?
孩子这样做之前发生了什么？
What was the consequence of what the child did in terms of their data, their experience?
就他们的数据和经验而言，孩子所做的事情会产生什么后果？
I think that would be really interesting to analyze.
我认为分析起来真的很有趣。
My hypothesis is that you’d find that that was actually much more systematic than it looks on the surface.
我的假设是，你会发现这实际上比表面上看起来更加系统化。
On the surface, it just looks like baby, kid crawling around doing a bunch of things, and a bunch of things are happening, but I think you’d find that there was much more systematic relationships between what happens, what the baby does next, what the outcome is, than you might think on the surface.
从表面上看，它看起来就像婴儿、孩子爬来爬去做一堆事情，很多事情正在发生，但我想你会发现发生的事情、婴儿接下来做什么、结果是什么之间存在着比你表面上想象的更系统的关系。
A lot of those are going to be in the service of how could I figure out what’s going on in the world?
其中很多都将服务于我如何才能弄清楚世界上正在发生什么？
On consciousness, episodic memories, and aphantasia
论意识、情景记忆和失语症
What does it mean to say babies are more conscious than we are?
说婴儿比我们更有意识是什么意思？
I should say, first of all, my view about consciousness is that it’s very unlikely to be a single thing.
我应该说，首先，我对意识的看法是，它不太可能是单一的东西。
There’s a famous analogy that I think is right about consciousness and life.
关于意识和生命，我认为有一个著名的类比是正确的。
Life is an example of something that we thought, back in the 19th century, was going to turn out to be a simple thing, and there were whole research programs about what is it that makes a living thing living?
早在 19 世纪，我们就认为生命是一件简单的事情，并且有完整的研究计划来探讨是什么让生物得以生存？
It turned out that was just the wrong question, that actually there’re many, many different kinds of processes that are all involved in different things that we think of as life.
事实证明，这是一个错误的问题，实际上有很多很多不同类型的过程都涉及到我们认为是生命的不同事物。
I think that’s likely to be what will happen with consciousness.
我认为意识可能会发生这种情况。
But it is interesting — and maybe not surprising — that the thing that professors first thought of as consciousness is that experience you have when you’re sitting at your desk, and you’re introspecting, and you’re trying to solve a problem, and so on and so forth.
但有趣的是——也许并不奇怪——教授们首先想到的意识是当你坐在办公桌前、你在反思、你在试图解决问题等等时所获得的体验。
But I think that’s really different from awareness, from sentience, from your experience of the world around you.
但我认为这与意识、感知、对周围世界的体验确实不同。
In fact, in some ways — I think professors all recognize this — it’s intention with those things.
事实上，在某些方面 ——我想教授们都认识到这一点——这是这些事情的意图。
While you’re sitting at your desk trying to solve this problem, you are notoriously not paying attention to all the other things going on around you.
当你坐在办公桌前试图解决这个问题时，你显然没有注意到周围发生的所有其他事情。
I think if you look at the science, what you see with babies is that they are conscious of all the things that are going on around them.
我认为如果你看看科学，你会发现婴儿对周围发生的所有事情都有意识。
That the way that even their brains work is to take in lots and lots of information.
他们的大脑的工作方式就是吸收大量的信息。
Their brains are very much what neuroscientists would call plastic.
他们的大脑很像神经科学家所说的可塑性。
They’re surrounded by novelty.
他们被新奇事物所包围。
They’re not just focusing on one thing at a time, the way we do when we’re grown-ups.
他们不只是一次专注于一件事，就像我们成年后所做的那样。
I think if you think about the context as grown-ups that we are in that state, like if we travel to a new place or we’re trying to do something new .
我认为，如果你以成年人的身份思考我们所处的环境，就像我们去一个新的地方旅行或者我们正在尝试做一些新的事情一样。
.
。
.
。
It’s not like we’re unconscious when we go to Paris for the first time.
当我们第一次去巴黎时，我们并没有失去知觉。
On the contrary, it feels like we’re full of experience.
相反，感觉我们经验丰富。
We’re vividly experiencing the world around us.
我们正在生动地体验周围的世界。
I think that’s what it’s like with babies.
我想这就是婴儿的情况。
People who have very weak episodic memories — as you know, that’s a thing — are those people less conscious?
情景记忆非常弱的人 ——正如你所知，这是一件事 ——那些人的意识是否较弱？
No. I think arguably, if you think about the children, for example — they don’t have as much episodic memory, especially the little ones, like the two-, three-year-olds.
不。我认为可以说，如果你想想孩子们，例如，他们没有那么多的情景记忆，尤其是小孩子，比如两、三岁的孩子。
I think that may actually be making you more conscious in the sense that, again, this adult tendency is to try to .
我认为这实际上可能会让你更有意识，因为成年人的倾向就是尝试这样做。
.
。
.
。
You could think of it as trying to reduce, to compress the information around you into a particular narrative, like the kind of narrative you have in an episodic memory.
你可以把它想象成试图减少、压缩你周围的信息到一个特定的叙述中，就像情景记忆中的那种叙述一样。
A lot of times, as adults, what we’re trying to do is take all this information, all this data, and just compress it into a single narrative, which is a very useful thing to do.
很多时候，作为成年人，我们想做的就是获取所有这些信息、所有这些数据，然后将其压缩成一个单一的叙述，这是一件非常有用的事情。
I think babies, before they develop a lot of episodic .
我认为婴儿在出现很多情景之前。
.
。
.
。
They have some episodic memory even from very early on, but it’s around three or four that they develop the kind of autobiographical memory that grown-ups have.
他们甚至从很小的时候就拥有一些情景记忆，但大约在三四岁的时候，他们就发展出了成年人所拥有的那种自传体记忆。
I think that actually makes them more conscious in the sense that they’re more focused on the present, and they’re experiencing the present more.
我认为这实际上让他们更加有意识，因为他们更加关注当下，并且更多地体验当下。
If someone has aphantasia, they don’t retain images very well, are they also more conscious for that reason?
如果一个人患有失语症，他们就不能很好地保留图像，他们是否因此也更有意识？
Aphantasia is a whole complicated story.
失语症是一个复杂的故事。
Aphantasia is a puzzle about why it is that we have the kind of imagery that we have.
失语症是一个关于为什么我们有这样的意象的谜题。
It’s not that people who have aphantasia aren’t vividly experiencing a visual world; it’s that they don’t use that experience when they’re trying to, say, imagine something or when they’re trying to generate an image.
这并不是说患有失语症的人不能生动地体验视觉世界；而是说患有失语症的人不能生动地体验视觉世界。而是当他们试图想象某事或试图生成图像时，他们不会利用这种经验。
I think that what the aphantasia work shows you is that business of generating an image when you’re trying to solve a problem is epiphenomenal, that it’s not that you’re solving the problem by looking in your head and seeing the picture.
我认为失语症工作向你展示的是，当你试图解决问题时，生成图像是一种附带现象，而不是你通过审视自己的头脑并看到图片来解决问题。
People with aphantasia, like my friend Ed Catmull, who’s the co-founder of Pixar with my husband, has aphantasia.
患有失语症的人，比如我的朋友艾德·卡特莫尔（Ed Catmull），他是皮克斯与我丈夫的联合创始人，就患有失语症。
He’s an animator who doesn’t see pictures inside of his head.
他是一位动画师，他的脑海里看不到图像。
I think it just shows that there’s a big gap between what we think of when we think about, say, an animator having a picture inside of his head and what’s actually going on cognitively.
我认为这只是表明，当我们想到一个动画师脑子里有一张图片时，我们的想法与认知上实际发生的情况之间存在很大差距。
I don’t think it would be relevant to the question about consciousness as we usually experience it.
我认为这与我们通常经历的意识问题无关。
If someone has aphantasia, is it somehow that the top-down processing is broken, and thus the image is not retained because some part of the digesting of the image doesn’t happen?
如果某人患有失语症，是否自上而下的处理过程被破坏了，因此图像没有被保留，因为图像的某些部分没有被消化？
No, I don’t think that’s what’s going on.
不，我不认为这是正在发生的事情。
I think what’s going on is that all of us, in our ordinary experience, when we’re doing something like making an image, are doing this cognitive work of generating a visual representation.
我认为正在发生的事情是，我们所有人，在我们的日常经验中，当我们做诸如制作图像之类的事情时，正在做这种生成视觉表示的认知工作。
The interesting, and I think contingent thing, is that some of us also have this feedback to our actual visual system, to our actual visual cortex.
有趣的是，我认为这是偶然的，我们中的一些人也对我们的实际视觉系统、我们的实际视觉皮层有这种反馈。
I think there’s some neuroscience evidence that supports that.
我认为有一些神经科学证据支持这一点。
What happens is, almost as a side effect, when we’re generating these ideas or generating these pictures, we actually activate the parts of our brain that are usually activated when we’re really, genuinely seeing something.
所发生的情况几乎是一个副作用，当我们产生这些想法或产生这些图片时，我们实际上激活了我们大脑中通常在我们真正看到某些东西时被激活的部分。
It’s interesting that it doesn’t seem to have consequences for all these other abilities, like being able to generate a picture or being able to do a lot of cognitive capacities, like being an animator.
有趣的是，它似乎不会对所有其他能力产生影响，例如能够生成图片或能够执行许多认知能力，例如成为动画师。
Aphantasia — it is pretty strongly correlated with autism, right?
失语症 ——它与自闭症有很强的相关性，对吗？
So, it ought to have some micro foundations in common with autism.
因此，它应该与自闭症有一些共同的微观基础。
I don’t think so.
我不这么认为。
I don’t think that’s right.
我认为这是不对的。
It may be that people with autism .
可能是自闭症患者。
.
。
.
。
No, I don’t think that’s right.
不，我认为这是不对的。
You don’t think it’s correlated?
你不认为这有关联吗？
I don’t think it’s correlated.
我不认为这是相关的。
You mentioned Pixar.
你提到了皮克斯。
From graphics and animation, what is it we learn about how babies process the world?
从图形和动画中，我们了解到婴儿如何处理世界？
Babies love animation; young kids love animation.
宝宝们喜欢动画；小孩子喜欢动画。
What do we learn?
我们学到什么？
It’s interesting.
这很有趣。
I think we all thought, to begin with, that when we were talking to, say, the animators at Pixar, there’d be great insights into things like facial expressions.
我想我们一开始都认为，当我们与皮克斯的动画师交谈时，他们会对面部表情等问题有深刻的见解。
One thing we do know with babies is that from the time babies are born, they’re incredibly tuned into facial expressions and the way that facial expressions indicate emotions, for instance.
我们对婴儿确实知道的一件事是，从婴儿出生的那一刻起，他们就难以置信地适应面部表情以及面部表情表达情绪的方式。
Of course, any animator — that’s their stock in trade, being able to take a bunch of polygons, have them have a face, and have it express emotion.
当然，任何动画师——这就是他们的本行，能够采用一堆多边形，让它们有一张脸，并让它表达情感。
An example I like is in Ratatouille.
我喜欢的一个例子是《料理鼠王》。
There’s this wonderful moment where little Remy, the rat, looks very embarrassed and proud at the same time.
在这个美妙的时刻，小老鼠雷米看起来既尴尬又自豪。
You can just tell that from his facial expression.
从他的面部表情就可以看出这一点。
We thought that if we talked to those animators, we could get an idea of how is it that babies and children and grown-ups are so good at doing that.
我们认为，如果我们与那些动画师交谈，我们就可以了解婴儿、儿童和成年人为何如此擅长这样做。
We’re incredibly good at inferring emotion from just tiny little indicators in someone’s face, and we know that babies, in the first few months of life, can do that.
我们非常擅长从某人脸上的微小迹象来推断情绪，而且我们知道婴儿在生命的最初几个月可以做到这一点。
It turns out that the way the animators do it is completely intuitive.
事实证明，动画师的制作方式完全是凭直觉的。
They have no explicit idea of what it is they’re doing.
他们并不清楚自己在做什么。
They’re like actors.
他们就像演员。
In fact, they have a lot of the same characteristics as actors.
事实上，他们有很多与演员相同的特征。
An actor can do the same thing.
演员也可以做同样的事情。
They can give you a piece of information about the way that the world works.
他们可以为您提供有关世界运作方式的信息。
They can make their faces have a particular emotion without really understanding it.
他们可以在没有真正理解的情况下让自己的脸上有一种特定的情绪。
So, that didn’t seem to help very much.
所以，这似乎没有多大帮助。
On the other hand, an idea that a lot of people have had now and are formalizing is the idea of the visual system, vision as what people sometimes call inverse graphics.
另一方面，许多人现在已经有了并且正在形式化的一个想法是视觉系统的想法，即人们有时所说的逆图形视觉。
The idea is that the same way that in computer vision, you can take a bunch of data and get a picture of the world, that maybe something like that is happening for humans.
这个想法是，就像在计算机视觉中一样，你可以获取一堆数据并获得世界的图片，也许类似的事情正在发生在人类身上。
That what we have — some people sometimes describe it as being a game engine in the head.
我们所拥有的——有些人有时将其描述为头脑中的游戏引擎。
The same thing that lets you generate pictures in a video game is the thing that’s actually letting you figure out how the visual world works for your visual system.
让你在视频游戏中生成图片的东西实际上可以让你弄清楚视觉世界如何为你的视觉系统工作。
That has actually been really productive.
这实际上非常富有成效。
On Freud’s and Piaget’s theories about childhood
论弗洛伊德和皮亚杰的童年理论
Is there anything in Freud’s understanding of childhood that’s really held up?
弗洛伊德对童年的理解中有什么是真正站不住脚的吗？
That’s a good question and a complicated question.
这是一个好问题，也是一个复杂的问题。
When I first started doing the work that we do now, Freud was — and Freud still is — I think rather surprisingly to the intellectual world in general — it just doesn’t show up in modern psychology.
当我第一次开始做我们现在所做的工作时，弗洛伊德是——而且弗洛伊德仍然是——我认为对整个知识界来说相当令人惊讶——它只是没有出现在现代心理学中。
Even having someone teach a class about Freud would be unusual.
即使有人教授有关弗洛伊德的课程也是不寻常的。
I don’t think anyone does in Berkeley’s department, which is the best department in the country.
我认为伯克利系没有人这么做，因为伯克利系是全国最好的系。
On the other hand, some of the ideas .
另一方面，一些想法。
.
。
.
。
some of the Freudians have been very enthusiastic about the work that people like me and my colleagues have done because, I think, the intuition that there was more going on in even little infants, that even small babies and young children could make inferences about the social world around them or the psychological world around them, and that was influencing how they grew up — I think that idea has turned out to be right, and it wasn’t obvious that that was going to turn out to be right.
一些弗洛伊德主义者对像我和我的同事这样的人所做的工作非常热衷，因为我认为，直觉认为即使是小婴儿也有更多的事情发生，即使是小婴儿和幼儿也能对他们周围的社会世界或他们周围的心理世界做出推论，这正在影响他们的成长 - 我认为这个想法已经被证明是正确的，而且目前还不清楚这是否会被证明是正确的。
What in Piaget has held up the best?
伯爵 (Piaget) 的哪些优点最出色？
Piaget, on the other hand, still is, I think, the big theoretical foundation of what everyone has done since in cognitive development, and all of us — our attitude about Freud is, “Yes, well, of course, here’s this little bit of something that turns out to actually be right.” Whereas with Piaget, we’re all trying to claim his legacy, that what we’re doing is what Piaget was trying to do.
另一方面，我认为皮亚杰仍然是自那时以来每个人在认知发展方面所做的工作的重要理论基础，而我们所有人——我们对弗洛伊德的态度是，“是的，嗯，当然，事实证明，这一点实际上是正确的。”而对于伯爵来说，我们都在努力继承他的遗产，我们所做的正是伯爵想要做的。
Here’s what I think has held up.
这就是我认为经得起考验的。
Well, two things that have held up.
嗯，有两件事一直有效。
One thing is, I started out talking about this problem of how is it that we could ever know as much as we do about the world around us, given that we have such a small amount of data.
有一件事是，我一开始讨论的问题是，鉴于我们拥有的数据量如此之少，我们如何才能对周围的世界了解这么多。
Well, going back to Plato and Aristotle, Plato and Aristotle talk about that problem, and the two solutions that they come to are .
好吧，回到柏拉图和亚里士多德，柏拉图和亚里士多德讨论了这个问题，他们得出的两个解决方案是。
.
。
.
。
one is, okay, that structure couldn’t have been learned from the data.
一是，好吧，这种结构无法从数据中获知。
It must have just been there innately in a past world for Plato, through evolution for someone like Chomsky or Steve Pinker or some people like that.
对于柏拉图来说，它一定是在过去的世界中天生存在的，对于乔姆斯基或史蒂夫·平克这样的人来说，它是通过进化而存在的。
One solution has been, okay, it’s all just innate.
一种解决方案是，好吧，这一切都是与生俱来的。
The other solution has been, it looks as if there’s all this abstract structure, but really, it’s just statistical combinations of the data.
另一个解决方案是，看起来好像有所有这些抽象结构，但实际上，这只是数据的统计组合。
If you think about the current AI deep learning approach, that’s like that.
如果你想想当前的人工智能深度学习方法，那就是这样。
It looks as if there’s all this knowledge and intelligence.
看起来好像有所有这些知识和智慧。
Really, if you just put enough data together, you’ll get the same results.
事实上，如果你把足够多的数据放在一起，你就会得到相同的结果。
What Piaget thought, and I think what most developmentalists thought was, neither of those is a good account of what’s happening with kids.
皮亚杰的想法，以及我认为大多数发展主义者的想法，都不能很好地解释孩子们所发生的事情。
If we look at kids from the time they’re very, very little, literally from the time they’re babies, from the time they’re born, we see a lot of abstract structure.
如果我们从孩子很小很小的时候开始观察他们，从他们还是婴儿的时候，从他们出生的时候开始，我们就会看到很多抽象的结构。
We see a lot of coherence, a lot of inference, a lot of generalizations.
我们看到很多连贯性、很多推论、很多概括。
We also see that change as a result of the kid’s experience.
我们也看到了孩子的经历带来的变化。
Neither of those options, either the nativist or empiricist one, is a good account of what’s happening with kids.
这两种选择，无论是本土主义的还是经验主义的，都不能很好地解释孩子们所发生的事情。
Piaget just had this word constructivism about what was going on.
皮亚杰对正在发生的事情只有“建构主义”这个词。
I think what a lot of us since then — like the Bayesian approach.
我认为从那时起我们很多人都喜欢贝叶斯方法。
The Bayesian approach quite explicitly people have called rational constructivism.
人们非常明确地将贝叶斯方法称为理性建构主义。
We want to try and take that idea that you’re really building a world model from data in a rational way that Piaget had, and give it some modern juice.
我们想要尝试接受这样的想法，即你确实以伯爵所拥有的理性方式从数据中构建了一个世界模型，并赋予它一些现代的活力。
The other thing that’s interesting about Piaget — and there’s a bit of a narrative about this — is his observations.
皮亚杰的另一件有趣的事情是他的观察——对此有一些叙述。
It turns out they probably weren’t his observations, mostly.
事实证明，这些可能大部分都不是他的观察结果。
If you look at his books, the observations and the theory have quite a different tone.
如果你看一下他的书，就会发现观察结果和理论的基调截然不同。
His wife, Valentine, actually did a lot of the actual observations of the babies.
他的妻子瓦伦丁实际上对婴儿进行了很多实际观察。
Those observations have held up remarkably well.
这些观察结果非常有效。
You can take your average nine-month-old and do one of Piaget’s experiments with them, and you’ll get the result that Piaget had, even though his interpretation of that has changed a lot over time.
你可以带着普通的九个月大的孩子做一项皮亚杰的实验，你会得到皮亚杰的结果，尽管他对此的解释随着时间的推移已经发生了很大的变化。
He didn’t think that, and I think the way that change has gone is, there’s much more going on in the baby’s minds.
他不这么认为，我认为变化的方式是，婴儿的头脑里发生了更多的事情。
It’s much more abstract.
它更加抽象。
There’s much more of this representation than Piaget thought.
这种表征比皮亚杰想象的要多得多。
It’s much more theory-like.
它更像理论。
On twin studies and nature vs. nurture
关于双胞胎研究以及先天与后天的关系
Some of my colleagues — they’re big fans of using twin studies to try to separate out nature from nurture.
我的一些同事——他们非常热衷于利用双胞胎研究来尝试将先天与后天分开。
Do you find that enterprise convincing?
您认为该企业有说服力吗？
Well, any science that people do is interesting.
嗯，人们所做的任何科学都是有趣的。
I think if you look at someone like Eric Turkheimer’s work, one of the things that comes out of that is that your intuition to begin with, “Okay, well, we’re going to look at the twins, and if there’s a high correlation between what one twin does and the other twin, it’s going to be nature.
我认为，如果你看埃里克·特克海默（Eric Turkheimer）这样的人的作品，其中一件事就是你的直觉，“好吧，好吧，我们要看看双胞胎，如果双胞胎中的一个和另一个双胞胎之间存在高度相关性，那就是自然。
If there isn’t, it’s going to be nurture.” I think increasingly, that kind of model has turned out to just be wrong.
如果没有的话，那就是培养。”我越来越认为，事实证明这种模式是错误的。
That’s the wrong model.
那是错误的模型。
It’s just too simple.
这太简单了。
What’s wrong with it?
有什么问题吗？
Let me give you the example that I give when I’m doing my developmental psychology class.
让我举一个我在上发展心理学课时举的例子。
We know that there’s a particular kind of disorder in a particular gene that means that you can’t metabolize a particular substance in your food, and the result is that you have mental retardation and a lot of difficulties.
我们知道，某个特定的基因存在某种特定的紊乱，这意味着你无法代谢食物中的特定物质，结果就是你会出现智力低下和很多困难。
We actually know pretty much what the gene is.
事实上我们非常了解这个基因是什么。
We test babies.
我们测试婴儿。
They prick their heel when they’re born to see if they have this disorder.
他们出生时就会扎脚跟，看看是否患有这种疾病。
If they do, then we make sure that they don’t eat anything that has that enzyme or that piece in it, and then they’re fine.
如果他们这样做了，那么我们确保他们不吃任何含有这种酶或那部分的东西，然后他们就没事了。
The question is, does this come from nature or does it come from nurture?
问题是，这是天生的还是后天培养的？
How much is it nature?
多少是自然？
How much is it nurture?
培养的程度是多少？
In one sense, it’s 100 percent nature.
从某种意义上说，它是百分百自然的。
It depends on this particular gene.
这取决于这个特定的基因。
In another sense, it’s 100 percent nurture.
从另一种意义上来说，这是100%的后天培养。
If you get rid of the material in the environment, then you won’t get the syndrome.
如果你清除了环境中的物质，那么你就不会患上这种综合症。
That’s a very specific case, but the same thing’s true in Eric’s work with something like SES .
这是一个非常具体的案例，但在 Eric 与 SES 等项目的合作中也是如此。
What Eric found was that you had much more convergence in twin studies in upper-class contexts than in poorer families.
埃里克发现，上流社会环境中的双胞胎研究比贫困家庭中的双胞胎研究更加趋同。
The explanation is that if you’re in a poor family, small differences in your environment can make a big difference in how the rest of your life goes, and that’s less likely to be true in a richer family.
解释是，如果你生活在一个贫穷的家庭，环境中的微小差异就会对你余下的生活产生很大的影响，而在富裕的家庭中则不太可能出现这种情况。
One that I particularly have thought about, and I think is really interesting, is thinking about the effect of nurture on development, so the effect of having caregivers.
我特别考虑过并且我认为非常有趣的一个问题是考虑养育对发展的影响，以及照顾者的影响。
As you probably know, there’s a sort of people who’ve said, “No, we are overestimating how much what parents do influences kids’ development.”
您可能知道，有些人说过：“不，我们高估了父母的行为对孩子发展的影响程度。”
But the argument that I and others have made is that the effect — and we’re doing this more and more in the context of this big caregiving program — is that the effect of having a protective caregiver is that it allows more variability.
但我和其他人提出的论点是，效果 ——我们在这个大型护理计划的背景下越来越多地这样做—— 拥有保护性护理人员的效果是它允许更多的可变性。
When you don’t have to worry at a particular moment about what your particular situation is, you can do many more different things, and you can have more variability.
当你不必在特定时刻担心自己的具体情况时，你可以做更多不同的事情，并且可以有更多的可变性。
That’s true in biology and ecology, for example.
例如，在生物学和生态学中就是如此。
The example I give in my book, The Gardener and the Carpenter, is if you have a garden that is protected and has a lot of possibilities, you’re going to get a much wider variety of plants than if you have a much more restricted circumstance in which only a few plants will thrive.
我在《园丁和木匠》一书中给出的例子是，如果你有一个受保护的花园，并且有很多可能性，那么你将获得更多种类的植物，而不是在一个更受限制的环境中，只有少数植物能够茁壮成长。
Okay, what does this have to do with kids?
好吧，这和孩子有什么关系？
Well, when people say that there isn’t an effect of the family environment on development, what they mean is that they don’t see high correlations between kids in the same family and some measure of what an adult is like.
好吧，当人们说家庭环境对发展没有影响时，他们的意思是他们没有看到同一家庭中的孩子与成年人的某些衡量标准之间存在高度相关性。
You get siblings — sometimes it’s called the non-shared environment.
你有兄弟姐妹——有时这被称为非共享环境。
The things that don’t seem to be the same things are playing a larger role than the shared environment.
那些看起来不一样的东西比共享环境发挥着更大的作用。
So, what you might think is, okay, if you have two kids and they have the same parents, those kids are going to be more similar to one another.
所以，你可能会想，好吧，如果你有两个孩子，并且他们有相同的父母，那么这些孩子彼此之间会更加相似。
But if this picture about what caregiving does is allow variability is true, then you might expect the opposite.
但如果关于护理的作用允许可变性的描述是正确的，那么您可能会期望相反的结果。
You might think if you have a really caring family, what that means is that the siblings are going to have more opportunity to develop in really different ways, so you won’t see a correlation.
你可能会认为，如果你有一个真正充满关爱的家庭，这意味着兄弟姐妹将有更多机会以完全不同的方式发展，所以你不会看到相关性。
Again, part of the problem is, if the effect of nurture is not on the mean but on the variation, on the standard deviation, you’re not going to see it in any straightforward way in a twin study.
同样，问题的一部分是，如果教养的影响不是对平均值，而是对变异、标准差的影响，那么你将无法在双胞胎研究中以任何直接的方式看到它。
If the Turkheimer hypothesis is correct and societies are growing wealthier and wealthier, over time, virtually everything will be genetically determined rather than environmentally because we’ll all be higher SES, we’ll all have better environments, less likely to be crippled by polio in our youth or whatever, and it will just be about genes.
如果特克海默的假设是正确的，社会变得越来越富裕，随着时间的推移，几乎一切都将由基因决定，而不是环境决定，因为我们都会有更高的社会经济地位，我们都会有更好的环境，在我们年轻时不太可能因脊髓灰质炎或其他什么而致残，而这只是与基因有关。
Let me give you another example, Tyler, of the Turkheimer phenomenon that I think is interesting.
泰勒，让我给你举另一个我认为很有趣的特克海默现象的例子。
If you look at smoking, for example, it turns out that when smoking was very available, when you did a twin study, there was a relatively small genetic contribution to whether you smoked or not.
例如，如果你观察吸烟情况，就会发现，当吸烟很容易发生时，当你进行双胞胎研究时，你是否吸烟的遗传因素相对较小。
As smoking became less and less likely, and as there were more and more restrictions to keep you from smoking, then you start seeing what looks like more of a genetic effect, and it’s because the only people who are smoking are people who have a very strong tendency to smoke in the first place.
随着吸烟的可能性变得越来越小，随着越来越多的限制阻止你吸烟，你开始看到看起来更像是遗传效应，这是因为唯一吸烟的人首先就是那些有很强吸烟倾向的人。
Exactly what happens, how the caregiving, how the nurture is going to affect and interact with the genetics is going to be really complicated and unpredictable.
到底会发生什么，照顾、养育将如何影响遗传并与遗传相互作用，这将是非常复杂和不可预测的。
So, you could argue just the opposite.
所以，你可以提出相反的观点。
You could say, as we develop a more and more safe environment, that actually what’s going to happen is that the potential for variability is going to get to be greater and greater.
你可以说，随着我们开发一个越来越安全的环境，实际上将会发生的是，可变性的潜力将变得越来越大。
The possibility of doing something new, doing something different from what you did before — those are the kinds of things that are going to become more important.
做一些新的事情、做一些与以前所做的不同的事情的可能性——这些事情将会变得更加重要。
I think the nature-nurture is one of those examples of something that intuitively seems like a good way of characterizing things, but is, again — like the example of life — just isn’t the right framework, that what we have to do is say, “Okay, here’s a particular trait, here’s a particular capacity.
我认为先天-后天是这样的例子之一，直观上似乎是描述事物的好方法，但是，再次——就像生命的例子——只是不是正确的框架，我们要做的是说，“好吧，这是一个特定的特质，这是一个特定的能力。
Let’s track all these complicated ways that the environment and genetics are going to interact to bring a particular kind of outcome.”
让我们追踪环境和遗传学相互作用以带来特定结果的所有这些复杂方式。”
If it’s something like height, where there is clearly an environmental component, especially if the child is not well-fed, but it seems perfectly fine to say above a certain dietary level, it’s mostly genetic, right?
如果像身高这样的问题，显然有环境因素，特别是如果孩子吃得不好，但超过一定的饮食水平似乎完全没问题，这主要是遗传因素，对吧？
No one says that’s ambiguous, and more and more traits will become like that.
没有人说这是模棱两可的，而且越来越多的特征将会变得如此。
Well, first of all, I’m not sure that’s true.
嗯，首先，我不确定这是真的。
To a striking degree, the traits that people have looked at, like educational attainment, for example — we haven’t found consistent relationships to genetics.
令人震惊的是，人们所关注的特征，例如教育程度，我们尚未发现与遗传学的一致关系。
I think the reason for that is exactly because there’s this very complicated developmental process that goes from the genetics to the outcome.
我认为其原因正是因为从遗传学到结果有一个非常复杂的发育过程。
Even if you think about fruit flies, for example.
例如，即使您想到果蝇。
I have some geneticist colleagues who work on this — fruit fly sex determination.
我有一些遗传学家同事致力于果蝇性别决定。
You’d think, “Well, that has to be just the result of genes.” It turns out that there’s this long developmental — long by fruit fly standards — developmental process that goes from the genetics to the proteins to the morphology, and there’s lots of possibility of variation throughout that.
你可能会想，“嗯，这一定是基因的结果。”事实证明，从遗传学到蛋白质再到形态学，存在着漫长的发育过程，并且在整个过程中存在很多变异的可能性。
I think that hasn’t turned out to be a scientifically helpful way of understanding what’s going on in development.
我认为这并不是一种科学上有助于理解发展过程的方法。
The other thing, of course, is, from my perspective, the common features of, say, what kids are doing are much more interesting than the variations.
当然，另一件事是，从我的角度来看，孩子们所做的事情的共同特征比变化更有趣。
What I really want to know is how is it that anyone could have a brain that enables them to accomplish these amazing capacities?
我真正想知道的是，为什么任何人都能拥有能够实现这些惊人能力的大脑？
Thinking about, is this child smarter than the other one, given how unbelievably smart all of them are to begin with, I just think it’s not an interesting question.
想一想，这个孩子是否比另一个孩子更聪明，考虑到他们一开始就聪明得令人难以置信，我只是觉得这不是一个有趣的问题。
But say, what you would call the lay belief that smarter parents give birth to smarter children, at least above subsistence — surely you would accept that, right?
但是，你会说，你所谓的外行信念，即聪明的父母会生出更聪明的孩子，至少高于温饱——你肯定会接受这一点，对吗？
Again, what does smarter mean?
再说一遍，更聪明是什么意思？
How you would do on an IQ test.
你在智商测试中的表现如何。
What does genetics mean?
遗传学是什么意思？
It’s interesting, Tyler, that IQ tests, for example — they have their own scholarly and scientific universe, but they’re not something that we would teach about or think about in a developmental psychology class, and there’s a good principled reason for that.
泰勒，有趣的是，智商测试，例如——它们有自己的学术和科学领域，但它们不是我们在发展心理学课程中教授或思考的东西，这是有一个很好的原则性原因的。
The good principled reason — this has come up a lot in AI recently.
良好的原则性原因 ——这最近在人工智能领域出现了很多。
There’s this idea in AI of artificial general intelligence, and that is assuming that there’s something called general intelligence.
人工智能中有一个通用人工智能的想法，那就是假设存在一种叫做通用智能的东西。
Again, I think, a lot like consciousness or life, it’s one of these lay ideas about how people work.
我再次认为，就像意识或生命一样，它是关于人们如何工作的非专业想法之一。
When you actually look at children, for example, what you see is not just that there isn’t a single thing that’s general intelligence.
例如，当你真正观察儿童时，你看到的不仅仅是不存在一般智力。
You actually see different cognitive capacities that are in tension with one another.
实际上，你会看到不同的认知能力彼此之间存在紧张关系。
You mentioned one about the scientist who’s trying to think of some new idea versus the scientist who’s looking at a more specific idea, right?
你提到了一个关于试图想出一些新想法的科学家与正在寻找更具体想法的科学家的故事，对吗？
A classic example of this tension that I’ve talked about and studied is in computer sciences: exploration versus exploitation.
我讨论和研究过的这种紧张关系的一个典型例子是计算机科学：探索与利用。
What do you count as IQ?
你认为IQ是多少？
In fact, most of what IQ is about is how well do you do in school?
事实上，智商最重要的是你在学校的表现如何？
How well do you do on school tests?
你在学校考试中表现如何？
That’s actually, in many respects, in tension with how good are you at exploring the world around you?
实际上，从很多方面来说，这与你探索周围世界的能力有关？
The kinds of things that you need to do to have particular goals, to accomplish them, the kinds of things that we emphasize a lot, say, in a school context, are actually in tension.
为了实现特定目标而需要做的事情，以及我们在学校环境中经常强调的事情，实际上是处于紧张状态的。
This gets back to the point about babies being more conscious than we are — are actually in tension with the kinds of things that will let you explore.
这又回到了婴儿比我们更有意识的问题——实际上他们对那些让你探索的事物感到紧张。
Think about the Bayesian example.
想想贝叶斯的例子。
If you have a flatter prior, and you pay more attention to evidence, you are probably not going to do as well on an IQ test.
如果你的先验成绩比较平坦，并且你更注重证据，那么你在智商测试中可能不会取得好成绩。
Say, in five-factor theory, openness is positively correlated with IQ, right?
比如说，在五因素理论中，开放性与智商正相关，对吧？
Again, even if you’re thinking about what’s happening in the personality literature, that’s another example of reifying things that are going on.
再说一遍，即使你正在思考人格文献中正在发生的事情，这也是具体化正在发生的事情的另一个例子。
Again, I think an advantage of doing stuff with babies and young children is that we can actually look at what are the cognitive capacities specifically?
再说一次，我认为与婴儿和幼儿一起做事的一个好处是，我们实际上可以看看具体的认知能力是什么？
How are kids learning?
孩子们学习得怎么样？
How are their computations affecting what they do?
他们的计算如何影响他们的工作？
That’s just very orthogonal from the whole discussion about IQ.
这与关于智商的整个讨论非常正交。
On how we teach children in schools
关于我们如何在学校教育孩子
Let’s say you’re called into a typical American K–12 school.
假设您被招入一所典型的美国 K-12 学校。
Not a top one, but say 70th, 75th percentile, a pretty good school.
不是顶尖的学校，但可以说是第 70、75 个百分点，是一所相当不错的学校。
They just say to you — maybe this has happened — “Well, you’ve studied all this about children.
他们只是对你说 — 也许这已经发生了 — “好吧，你已经研究了有关儿童的所有这些。
How can we improve how we teach our kids?” What is it that you tell them?
我们如何改进教育孩子的方式？”你告诉他们什么？
I’ve written about this in my book.
我在我的书中写到了这一点。
I think there’re two different things to say.
我认为有两件事要说。
If you’re thinking about young kids in particular, like early childhood, before 7, say, I think we have a very good model of inquiry-based, often play-based education, where you have a warm caregiver, and you get lots of opportunities to play and explore.
如果你特别考虑的是年幼的孩子，比如 7 岁之前的幼儿，我认为我们有一个非常好的基于探究、通常基于游戏的教育模式，你有一个热情的看护者，并且你有很多玩耍和探索的机会。
I think we have pretty good reason to think that’s the right thing for these very young children.
我认为我们有充分的理由认为这对这些年幼的孩子来说是正确的。
But for what we think of as the school-age children, it’s a really different kind of model.
但对于我们所认为的学龄儿童来说，这是一种完全不同的模式。
It’s a different kind of thing they’re trying to do.
他们正在尝试做一件不同的事情。
If you think about development — as I’ve argued — as being this shift from mostly about exploration to skills that you’re going to use for exploitation, how do you actually develop those skills?
如果你认为发展 ——正如我所论证的那样—— 是从主要是探索到你将用于开发的技能的转变，那么你实际上如何发展这些技能呢？
I think we have good reason to believe that some kind of intuitive apprenticeship model is how you develop those skills.
我认为我们有充分的理由相信某种直观的学徒模式是您发展这些技能的方式。
You do something that you think is going to be important.
你做一些你认为很重要的事情。
You have a teacher who gives you feedback.
你有一位老师给你反馈。
The teacher also shows you examples of the skill.
老师还向您展示了该技能的示例。
That kind of interaction.
那样的互动。
Sometimes, the teacher could be quite mean about telling you when you’ve done something wrong.
有时，当你做错事时，老师可能会很刻薄地告诉你。
I think that’s a really good way for school-age children to learn.
我认为这对于学龄儿童来说是一个非常好的学习方式。
I think we have good reason to believe that some kind of intuitive apprenticeship model is how you develop those skills.
我认为我们有充分的理由相信某种直观的学徒模式是您发展这些技能的方式。
You do something that you think is going to be important.
你做一些你认为很重要的事情。
You have a teacher who gives you feedback.
你有一位老师给你反馈。
The teacher also shows you examples of the skill.
老师还向您展示了该技能的示例。
Sometimes, the teacher could be quite mean about telling you when you’ve done something wrong.
有时，当你做错事时，老师可能会很刻薄地告诉你。
I think that’s a really good way for school-age children to learn.
我认为这对于学龄儿童来说是一种非常好的学习方式。
I think it’s not a coincidence, for instance, that so many kids really want to do music and sports, even though we all say, “No, learn how to code.
例如，我认为这么多孩子真的想做音乐和运动并不是巧合，尽管我们都说：“不，学习如何编码。
That’s the thing that will actually be helpful to you.” Because music and sports are among the few examples where we actually do this kind of apprenticeship.
这才是真正对你有帮助的事情。”因为音乐和体育是我们实际上进行这种学徒训练的少数例子之一。
You do the thing, you get feedback, you try and do the thing again.
你做了这件事，你得到反馈，你尝试再次做这件事。
One of the things I say is, imagine if we tried to teach baseball the way that we teach science.
我要说的一件事是，想象一下，如果我们尝试像教授科学一样教授棒球。
How do we teach science?
我们如何教授科学？
What we would do is, we would tell everybody about great baseball games when they were little.
我们要做的是，告诉每个人小时候精彩的棒球比赛。
Maybe when they were in high school, they could throw the ball a lot to second base.
也许当他们在高中的时候，他们可以把球扔到二垒。
When they were in college, they could reproduce great baseball plays, but they wouldn’t actually get to play the game until they were in graduate school.
当他们在大学时，他们可以重现精彩的棒球比赛，但直到进入研究生院，他们才能真正参加比赛。
If you taught baseball that way, you wouldn’t think that people would be as good at baseball.
如果你这样教棒球，你就不会认为人们会打得那么好。
It’s funny because, of course, what kids end up — I don’t know if you’ve had this experience, but I think a lot of faculty have had this experience — because kids are so naturally tuned to this model, what do they get to be good at at school?
这很有趣，因为，当然，孩子们最终会怎样 —— 我不知道你是否有过这种经历，但我认为很多教师都有过这种经历 —— 因为孩子们很自然地适应了这种模式，他们在学校能擅长什么？
They get to be incredibly good at going to school.
他们在上学方面表现得非常出色。
They get to be really good at taking tests.
他们非常擅长参加考试。
The ones that we get in our first-year college classes are just these masters of all the things you need to do for school.
我们在大学一年级课程中学到的就是你在学校需要做的所有事情的大师。
Then we faculty are worried because we say to them, “Think up a new experiment.” They say, “Oh, I don’t know how to do that.
然后我们的教师就会担心，因为我们对他们说：“想出一个新的实验。”他们说：“哦，我不知道该怎么做。
Nobody ever taught me to do something on my own or do something creative.” There’s a wonderful idea.
没有人教过我独立做某事或做一些有创意的事情。”有一个绝妙的主意。
Do you know about Goodhart’s law?
你知道古德哈特定律吗？
Sure.
当然。
We use it in economics.
我们在经济学中使用它。
Yes.
是的。
Yes, that’s right.
是的，没错。
It’s funny because I learned about it from my son-in-law, who’s actually the chief quant for the Seattle Mariners.
这很有趣，因为我是从我的女婿那里了解到这件事的，她实际上是西雅图水手队的首席分析师。
He was telling me about his difficulties in that job.
他向我讲述了他在那份工作中遇到的困难。
Of course, Goodhart’s law — what happens in school, in our current school system, is a really good illustration of Goodhart’s law.
当然，古德哈特定律——在我们当前的学校系统中，学校里发生的事情是古德哈特定律的一个很好的例证。
Goodhart’s law is the idea that when you try and optimize something that you think is a signal for something else, very often, what happens is that the people that you’re trying to choose just try and maximize the first signal.
古德哈特定律的想法是，当你尝试优化某些你认为是其他事物信号的东西时，通常会发生的情况是，你试图选择的人只是尝试最大化第一个信号。
It ceases to be correlated with the thing that you’re really trying to measure.
它不再与你真正想要衡量的事物相关。
I think the current way that we do schooling is a good example of Goodhart’s law.
我认为我们目前的学校教育方式是古德哈特定律的一个很好的例子。
We teach kids — because kids are so good at wanting to be skilled — we teach them how to be good at school, which we think is going to be correlated with the ability to do a wide range of things as an adult.
我们教孩子们——“因为孩子们非常渴望成为有技能的人”——我们教他们如何在学校表现出色，我们认为这与成年人做各种事情的能力相关。
Then it ends up being a separate kind of skill.
然后它最终成为一种单独的技能。
Sorry, that’s a long answer.
抱歉，这是一个很长的答案。
On AI's ability to generate novel insights
论人工智能产生新颖见解的能力
Now that we have generative AI, how should that change what the K–12 schools do in terms of which qualities or features they want to bring out in the kids?
既然我们有了生成式人工智能，那么应该如何改变 K-12 学校在培养孩子们的品质或特征方面的做法呢？
My view about generative AI — and I’ve actually written about this in a paper in Science with Henry Farrell, who I think you know is —
我对生成式人工智能的看法 ——事实上我已经在《科学》杂志上与亨利·法雷尔（Henry Farrell）合作的一篇论文中写到了这一点，我想你认识的是他——
Yes, I know Henry.
是的，我认识亨利。
— a political scientist, and James Evans, who’s a sociologist.
——政治学家詹姆斯·埃文斯（James Evans）是社会学家。
Again, our intuitive lay conception of how AI works is really misguided.
再说一次，我们对人工智能如何工作的直观外行概念确实是被误导的。
We very much have this golem view about here’s this non-living thing that we’ve given a mind to, and that always works out badly.
我们非常有这种魔像的观点，认为我们关注的是这种非生命的东西，但结果总是很糟糕。
It’s going to either be for good or for ill.
这要么是好事，要么是坏事。
It will be superintelligence.
这将是超级智能。
That’s the narrative.
这就是叙述。
We think the right narrative is to think of it as what I’ve called a cultural technology.
我们认为正确的叙述是将其视为我所说的文化技术。
It’s a way of getting information from other people.
这是从其他人那里获取信息的一种方式。
The way that generative AI works is that it’s trained on all the stuff that very intelligent humans have done.
生成式人工智能的工作方式是，它接受非常聪明的人类所做过的所有事情的训练。
It’s not surprising that a lot of times it will simulate what intelligent humans would do.
毫不奇怪，很多时候它会模拟智能人类会做什么。
I think it’s analogous to things like print or writing, or internet search itself, libraries, where one of the things that is characteristic of humans and has always been — and as some people have argued, I think rightly, is our superpower — is that we can get information from other people, and we can use that information to make progress ourselves.
我认为这类似于印刷品或写作，或互联网搜索本身，图书馆，其中人类的特征之一是“并且正如一些人所认为的，我认为正确的是我们的超级力量”，就是我们可以从其他人那里获取信息，并且我们可以利用这些信息来使自己取得进步。
Generative AI is the latest technique for doing that.
生成式人工智能是实现这一目标的最新技术。
What generative AI tells you is, here’s a summary of what all the people on the net have said in this context, and learning how to use those cultural technologies.
生成式人工智能告诉你的是，这里总结了网上所有人在这方面所说的话，并学习如何使用这些文化技术。
Again, if you want a new, genuinely intelligent agent in the world — if you have a kitten, that will be a genuinely intelligent agent — probably won’t change the world too much.
再说一次，如果你想要世界上有一个新的、真正智能的代理————如果你有一只小猫，那将是一个真正智能的代理————可能不会给世界带来太多改变。
You change a cultural technology, you introduce print — that really does change the world in radical ways for good or for ill.
你改变了一种文化技术，你引入了印刷术——这确实以根本性的方式改变了世界，无论是好是坏。
That seems wrong to me.
这对我来说似乎是错误的。
In your piece with Henry, you don’t consider reasoning models.
在您与亨利的文章中，您没有考虑推理模型。
Reasoning models, in some way, “think.” They can now prove some mathematical theorems.
推理模型在某种程度上是“思考”。他们现在可以证明一些数学定理。
Almost every day, there’s some new, albeit often minor, scientific discovery that comes from AIs that was not previously on the internet.
几乎每天，人工智能都会带来一些新的、尽管通常很小的科学发现，而这些发现以前从未出现在互联网上。
Isn’t the actual model of AI now — 2025 — quite different?
现在的AI实际模型 — 2025 — 不是很不一样吗？
I don’t think so.
我不这么认为。
If you look at the way that the reasoning models work, they work the same way that all the other models work, which is that they look at patterns of text on the web.
如果您观察推理模型的工作方式，就会发现它们的工作方式与所有其他模型的工作方式相同，即它们查看网络上的文本模式。
One of the things that is a pattern that you have — again, this is positive — one of the things that you have are patterns of reasoning.
其中之一是你拥有的模式——再次，这是积极的——你拥有的其中之一是推理模式。
What you have are patterns of, here’s someone who was trying to solve a math problem.
你所拥有的是模式，这是一个试图解决数学问题的人。
Here’s the steps that they took to solve that math problem.
这是他们解决数学问题所采取的步骤。
Can I find a general statistical pattern in those steps and reproduce it in this other context?
我可以在这些步骤中找到一般的统计模式并在其他上下文中重现它吗？
They do much more than that.
他们做的远不止这些。
It’s clear they look at data on the web, but the people I speak to who build them say it’s not transparent, even to them, exactly how the thing works, but as they apply more scaling, it gets better and better at its own reasoning.
很明显，他们会查看网络上的数据，但与我交谈过的构建这些数据的人表示，即使对他们来说，它到底是如何工作的也是不透明的，但随着他们应用更多的扩展，它的推理变得越来越好。
There’s 01, there’s 03, now there’s GPT-5.
有 01，有 03，现在有 GPT-5。
GPT-6 is on the way.
GPT-6 即将推出。
The scaling just seems to give it more ability to do actual reasoning of a unique sort that’s not just copying the reasoning of some human.
这种缩放似乎让它更有能力进行独特的实际推理，而不仅仅是复制某些人类的推理。
Well, that’s the question.
嗯，这就是问题所在。
I think the fact that they’re so good in this mysterious way at picking up patterns and reproducing patterns — that’s clearly a really important thing that these technologies can do, but that’s not what humans are doing, and it’s not even what animal agents are doing.
我认为事实上，它们以这种神秘的方式非常擅长拾取模式并复制模式，这显然是这些技术可以做的一件非常重要的事情，但这不是人类正在做的事情，甚至也不是动物代理人正在做的事情。
So, I would be impressed if they were actually designing experiments that would tell you something about something new that was going on in the world that all the other people around them didn’t know before.
因此，如果他们实际上正在设计实验来告诉你一些关于世界上正在发生的、他们周围的其他人以前不知道的新事物的事情，我会印象深刻。
They do that in biology already, right?
他们已经在生物学领域做到了这一点，对吗？
The way they’re reasoning is like a kid in a multiplication class who learns, here’s what the formula is that you need to do for multiplication.
他们的推理方式就像一个在乘法课上学习的孩子，这就是您需要执行的乘法公式。
It’s interesting that they’re not good at things like basic arithmetic often.
有趣的是，他们经常不擅长基本算术之类的事情。
You get this weird combination of it’s reproducing a reasoning process that you could imagine in math, but it’s not doing basic arithmetic.
你会得到这种奇怪的组合，它再现了你可以在数学中想象的推理过程，但它并不是在做基本的算术。
I think another place where they’re really falling down is the novel relationships that humans are very good at generating.
我认为他们真正失败的另一个地方是人类非常擅长建立的新颖关系。
Those are the kinds of things where the generative AI is not working.
这些都是生成式人工智能无法发挥作用的事情。
In any case, in terms of the issue about K–12, every time we have a new way of accessing information, it’s really important to teach.
无论如何，就K-12的问题而言，每当我们有一种新的获取信息的方式时，教学就非常重要。
That’s why we teach kids how to read.
这就是为什么我们教孩子如何阅读。
We teach kids how to calculate.
我们教孩子们如何计算。
We teach kids how to use the internet.
我们教孩子们如何使用互联网。
A lot of that teaching is going to be, here’s how this cultural technology works positively to give you some information that’s true, and here’s how it works to give you information that’s completely false.
很多教学将是这样的，即这种文化技术如何积极地为你提供一些真实的信息，以及它如何为你提供完全错误的信息。
It’s funny that these reasoning systems are still hallucinating.
有趣的是，这些推理系统仍然处于幻觉之中。
I think the reason why they’re hallucinating is because their objective function isn’t about truth in the way that it is for even a little baby.
我认为他们产生幻觉的原因是因为他们的目标函数并不像对于小婴儿那样是关于真理的。
Their function is to produce something that is going to be the sort of thing that a human will like with something like reinforcement learning from human feedback.
它们的功能是通过从人类反馈中进行强化学习等方式，生产出人类会喜欢的东西。
Hallucination rates are plummeting.
幻觉率正在直线下降。
If I use GPT-5 Pro edition, it will outperform a very good human lawyer for a typical query.
如果我使用 GPT-5 Pro 版本，对于典型的查询，它将胜过非常优秀的人类律师。
It will do better on a medical exam than, say, a prospective doctor would do.
它在体检中的表现会比未来的医生更好。
I’m not saying there’s zero hallucination, but they’re already ahead of humans.
我并不是说幻觉为零，但它们已经领先于人类了。
If I took an economics test, GPT-5 would beat me.
如果我参加经济学测试，GPT-5 会击败我。
Right.
正确的。
That, again, gets you back to this point about what’s going on in schooling.
这又让你回到了学校教育中正在发生的事情。
What we’re doing is we’re working out .
我们正在做的就是锻炼。
.
。
.
。
Here’s an analogy.
这是一个类比。
Who knows more, you or the UC Berkeley library?
您还是加州大学伯克利分校图书馆，谁知道得更多？
Think about that example of the law case.
想想这个法律案例的例子。
All that legal information is there in the legal code.
所有法律信息都包含在法律代码中。
It’s just that you don’t really think about the legal code.
只是你没有真正考虑过法律法规。
You can access it, and you could access it better.
你可以访问它，而且你可以更好地访问它。
You could have more of that legal information than any individual lawyer is going to have.
您可以获得的法律信息比任何个人律师都多。
You don’t really think about that legal code as being a lawyer.
作为一名律师，你并没有真正考虑到法律规范。
The legal code is a place where you can combine and generate lots and lots of information that’s come from all the lawyers who’ve done work before, and a great lawyer.
法律代码是一个可以组合并生成大量信息的地方，这些信息来自所有以前从事过工作的律师和优秀律师。
Again, the fact that you have a legal code that’s written down makes it much easier to do the law.
再次强调，有了书面的法律法规，执法就变得更加容易。
The fact that you can quickly access what previous lawyers have done makes it easier to do the law.
事实上，您可以快速访问以前的律师所做的事情，这使得执行法律变得更加容易。
The fact that you can answer the medical test makes it easier to do medicine.
事实上，您可以回答医学测试，这使得行医变得更容易。
The human capacities are the ones that go beyond just extracting the information from other people.
人类的能力不仅仅是从他人那里提取信息。
Again, having ways of extracting that information more effectively is great.
同样，拥有更有效地提取信息的方法是很棒的。
That’s really going to be transformative.
这确实会带来变革。
If I write out a unique economics problem, it will beat most human economists in trying to solve the problem, a problem that no one’s ever seen before.
如果我写出一个独特的经济学问题，它将击败大多数人类经济学家来解决这个问题，这是一个以前没有人见过的问题。
I create it.
我创造它。
I write it down.
我把它写下来。
I give it to the beast.
我把它交给野兽。
I give it to some humans.
我把它给了一些人。
Mostly, it beats the humans.
大多数情况下，它击败了人类。
Yes.
是的。
Is it going to actually get a novel insight about economics that isn’t there before, as opposed to it’s just using the kind of apparatus that you already have?
它是否真的会获得以前没有的关于经济学的新颖见解，而不是仅仅使用您已经拥有的那种设备？
The demand curve will still slope downwards, but it gets the answer, and maybe the humans don’t.
需求曲线仍然会向下倾斜，但它得到了答案，而人类也许没有。
There’s something unique about that.
这有一些独特之处。
It depends on the humans.
这取决于人类。
The other thing to say is, we don’t know.
另一件要说的是，我们不知道。
We’ll actually see what happens.
我们会看看会发生什么。
We’ll see what the outcomes are going to be.
我们将看看结果会是什么。
I’m pretty skeptical just because we have been trying to figure out how two-year-old babies go out and solve the kinds of problems that they solve in the world, and they’re solving problems.
我非常怀疑，因为我们一直在试图弄清楚两岁的婴儿是如何出去解决他们在世界上解决的各种问题的，而且他们正在解决问题。
Here’s a really good example.
这是一个非常好的例子。
If you go to robotics, for instance, there’s a giant gap between what the LLMs, the large models, are doing, and what robotics is doing.
例如，如果你研究机器人技术，法学硕士、大型模型所做的事情与机器人技术所做的事情之间存在巨大差距。
In robotics, which again is the thing that the two-year-olds are doing, is going out, experimenting with the real world, getting data from the real world, doing something new in the real world.
在机器人领域，这又是两岁孩子正在做的事情，就是走出去，尝试现实世界，从现实世界获取数据，在现实世界中做一些新的事情。
That’s the thing that the LLMs are really not good at doing.
这就是法学硕士真正不擅长做的事情。
Some people have argued — I like this idea — that they’re like Derrida’s revenge, that the postmodernist idea that all you had to do is have text, and as long as you had more and more text, you didn’t have to worry about whether the text actually was making contact with some external reality.
有些人认为“——我喜欢这个想法”——“这就像德里达的复仇，后现代主义的想法是你所要做的就是有文本，只要你有越来越多的文本，你就不必担心文本是否真的与某些外部现实发生了联系。
ChatGPT is like Derrida in practice.
ChatGPT 就像实践中的德里达。
What it’s doing is putting together lots and lots of text and generating more text, without ever quite making that contact with an external reality.
它所做的就是将大量文本放在一起并生成更多文本，而无需与外部现实完全接触。
On what Autism and ADHD diagnoses do and don’t reveal
关于自闭症和多动症诊断能揭示什么和不能揭示什么
There’re some papers in experimental economics.
有一些实验经济学的论文。
They indicate that autistic people — they’re more likely to be Bayesian, and they’re more likely to do better at game theoretic exercises than non-autistic humans.
他们表明，自闭症患者更有可能是贝叶斯主义者，而且他们比非自闭症患者更有可能在博弈论练习中做得更好。
Should we infer from that that autistics have theory of mind?
我们是否应该由此推断自闭症患者有心理理论？
Well, this is another example of something where there’s a simple, intuitive account.
嗯，这是另一个简单直观的例子。
People have autism or people don’t have autism.
人们患有自闭症或没有自闭症。
Again, I think the reality beyond just thinking about the spectrum is that there’s a whole incredibly wide range of ways of interacting with the world, some of which you think of as being in the normal variation, some of which cause trouble for the people who have them, to the point of kids who can’t speak, never learn how to use language, need to be taken care of all the time.
再说一次，我认为，除了思考范围之外，现实是，与世界互动的方式有非常广泛的范围，其中一些你认为是正常的变化，其中一些会给拥有这些方式的人带来麻烦，以至于那些不会说话、永远不会学习如何使用语言的孩子需要一直得到照顾。
It’s not at all clear that there’s any single underlying fact about how that variation works.
目前还不清楚这种变化是如何运作的，是否存在任何单一的潜在事实。
There’s some evidence, even in people who wouldn’t be diagnosed with autism, that there’s this tension between being very socially involved and engaged and being good at this abstract pattern induction, but I think it’s just too simple.
有一些证据表明，即使对于那些不会被诊断为自闭症的人来说，积极参与社会活动和擅长这种抽象模式归纳之间也存在着这种紧张关系，但我认为这太简单了。
Again, to use another analogy, it’s as if, in the 19th century, you said, “Do people with dropsy have some characteristic or not?” It turns out dropsy is not actually a thing.
再打个比方，就好像在19世纪，你说“患有浮肿的人有没有什么特征？”事实证明，水肿实际上并不是一个东西。
Dropsy is a symptom.
水肿是一种症状。
I think the same thing is going to turn out to be true and has turned out to be true with autism.
我认为同样的事情将会被证明是正确的，并且对于自闭症来说也是如此。
Diagnosis of autism doesn’t pick up or reflect anything?
自闭症的诊断没有发现或反映任何事情？
It’s like dropsy.
就像水肿一样。
Diagnosis of dropsy in the 19th century was picking up something, which is that the person had swelling in their legs.
19世纪的浮肿诊断是发现了一些东西，那就是这个人的腿部肿胀。
I guess that’s what dropsy was about, but it didn’t actually track something that was going on in the external world about what was going on inside of that person.
我想这就是水肿的意义所在，但它实际上并没有追踪外部世界正在发生的事情以及那个人内心正在发生的事情。
I think that’s the situation with autism as well.
我认为自闭症的情况也是如此。
How do you understand ADHD?
你如何理解多动症？
I think that’s another example where you have a lot of variation, and a lot of the variation is just variation in individuals.
我认为这是另一个例子，其中存在很多差异，而很多差异只是个体之间的差异。
Some of it is variation in what it is that the culture thinks is important.
其中一些是文化认为重要的内容存在差异。
Sometimes that variation is just variation.
有时这种变化只是变化。
Sometimes that variation gets to be dysfunctional or cause difficulties.
有时，这种变化会产生功能障碍或造成困难。
I think one thing that’s interesting is, again, to go back to the consciousness point, we know and we just take for granted that little kids like two-year-olds — we say that they don’t pay attention, but what we really mean is that they don’t not pay attention.
我认为有趣的一件事是，再次回到意识点，我们知道并且我们只是理所当然地认为像两岁孩子这样的小孩子 ——我们说他们不注意，但我们真正的意思是他们不注意。
They’re paying attention to everything at once.
他们同时关注一切。
That’s why two-year-olds are really distractible.
这就是为什么两岁的孩子真的很容易分心。
Then, as we get older, we get this more and more focused kind of attention.
然后，随着年龄的增长，我们会得到越来越集中的关注。
People vary in how much they end up within that state of focused attention.
人们最终处于集中注意力状态的程度各不相同。
I think there’re lots of reasons to believe that an industrial schooled society really pushes people in the direction of having very focused attention.
我认为有很多理由相信工业教育社会确实能够推动人们集中注意力。
We really want people to have very focused attention.
我们真的希望人们能够集中注意力。
What that means is that the kind of variation in what people are like becomes dysfunctional in a way that it might not have been in the past.
这意味着人们的性格差异会变得功能失调，而这在过去可能不会出现。
I think that’s true in general, that we have to think about ways that there’re these interactions between the environment that you find yourself in and something like whatever the combination of genetics and development is that lets you have a particular phenotype, and you’re trying to figure out how those two things interact.
我认为一般来说这是正确的，我们必须考虑你所处的环境与让你拥有特定表型的遗传和发育的组合之间的相互作用，并且你试图弄清楚这两件事是如何相互作用的。
On the success of the Gopnik siblings
论戈普尼克兄弟的成功
Andy Warhol — overrated or underrated?
安迪·沃霍尔 — 被高估还是低估？
As you probably know, Tyler, I have a brother who wrote the definitive biography of Andy Warhol.
泰勒，你可能知道，我有一个兄弟写了安迪·沃霍尔的权威传记。
I don’t know if you did know.
我不知道你是否知道。
Of course, that’s why I ask.
当然，这就是我问的原因。
Exactly.
确切地。
I wouldn’t say that he’s underrated, but he’s definitely not overrated.
我不会说他被低估了，但他绝对没有被高估。
He’s someone who made a much wider, broader difference to the way that we think about artistic practice than other artists have.
与其他艺术家相比，他对我们思考艺术实践的方式产生了更广泛的影响。
He kept doing interesting things.
他一直在做有趣的事情。
He kept doing different things.
他一直在做不同的事情。
He kept doing things that ended up having consequences for what was going on with other artists.
他不断做的事情最终对其他艺术家的行为产生了影响。
He was someone who was really shifting the way that people thought about art.
他真正改变了人们对艺术的看法。
I’ve talked enough with Blake and also with various members of my family who are interested in art to think that that’s really part of the thing that you want an artist to do.
我与布莱克以及我的家庭中对艺术感兴趣的各种成员进行了足够多的交谈，他们认为这确实是你希望艺术家做的事情的一部分。
The movie Tár — overrated or underrated?
电影《塔尔》——被高估还是低估？
You know, I haven’t seen —
你知道，我还没见过 ——
Your brother’s in the movie.
你哥哥在电影里。
I know my brother’s in the movie.
我知道电影里有我哥哥。
He’s great in it.
他在这方面很出色。
He’s tremendous in it.
他在这方面非常出色。
That’s what everybody says.
大家都是这么说的。
Interesting question about why I didn’t actually feel moved to see it, but I haven’t, so I don’t have a good opinion about it.
有趣的问题是，为什么我实际上并没有看到它而感到感动，但我没有，所以我对此没有很好的看法。
There’s you — you’re tenured at Berkeley, you’re famous.
这就是你——你在伯克利获得终身教职，你很有名。
There’s Blake, The Definitive Warhol Biography, and Adam, who’s amazing, writes for the New Yorker, and you don’t believe in heritability and IQ being very concrete things?
有布莱克（Blake）的《沃霍尔权威传记》（The Definitive Warhol Biography），还有为《纽约客》（New Yorker）撰稿的亚当（Adam），他很了不起，你不相信遗传性和智商是非常具体的东西吗？
I just don’t get it.
我就是不明白。
I think you’re in denial.
我认为你在否认。
Actually, I think that example is maybe partly why I don’t believe in that.
事实上，我认为这个例子可能是我不相信这一点的部分原因。
In fact, what I do believe is that the effect of caregiving is to increase variability, is to increase variation.
事实上，我确实相信护理的效果是增加变异性，是增加变异性。
Our family, our care — there were six of us in 11 years.
我们的家庭，我们的照顾——11年里我们有六个人。
My parents were graduate students, and even before they were graduate students, they were that great generation of immigrant kids.
我的父母都是研究生，甚至在他们成为研究生之前，他们就是伟大的一代移民孩子。
We had this combination of a great deal of warmth, a great deal of love, an enormous amount of stuff that was around us — books and ideas.
我们周围有大量的温暖、大量的爱和大量的东西——书籍和想法。
We got taken to the Guggenheim, when Adam was three and I was four, for the opening of the Guggenheim.
我们被带到古根海姆博物馆，当时亚当三岁，我四岁，参加古根海姆博物馆的开幕式。
We both remember this vividly.
我们都清楚地记得这一点。
But we were also completely free.
但我们也是完全自由的。
We were just in regular public schools.
我们只是在普通公立学校上学。
As was true in those days, in general, we came home after school, and we basically did whatever it was that we wanted.
那时的情况是这样的，一般来说，放学后我们就回家，基本上想做什么就做什么。
I was involved.
我也参与其中。
The kids were taking care of each other a lot of the time.
孩子们很多时候都互相照顾。
The result is that you get a lot of variation.
结果是你得到了很多变化。
It’s an interesting example in our family where we have six kids who presumably all have somewhat similar genetics, all in that 11 years grow up in the same context, and they come out completely differently.
这是我们家的一个有趣的例子，我们有 6 个孩子，他们的基因大概都有些相似，在这 11 年里，他们都在相同的背景下长大，但他们的表现却完全不同。
They come out with really different strengths, really different weaknesses, things that they’re good at, things that they’re not good at.
他们的优点、缺点、擅长的事情和不擅长的事情都截然不同。
Even if you think about what Blake and Adam and I are like as thinkers, we’re all foxes instead of hedgehogs.
即使你想想布莱克、亚当和我作为思想家的样子，我们都是狐狸而不是刺猬。
We’re all people who have done lots of different things and thought about lots of different things.
我们都是做过很多不同事情、思考过很多不同事情的人。
So, my view is that what nurture will do is let you have variability.
所以，我的观点是，教养会让你拥有可变性。
That’s the thing that, in a sense, is heritable.
从某种意义上说，这就是可遗传的。
That’s contradictory, the idea that what’s heritable is the standard deviation instead of the mean, but that’s my view about that.
这是矛盾的，可遗传的是标准差而不是平均值的想法，但这就是我对此的看法。
I think my childhood did have the effect of making me suspicious of those simple nature-nurture oppositions.
我认为我的童年确实让我对那些简单的先天与后天的对立产生了怀疑。
Very last question: what will you do next?
最后一个问题：接下来你会做什么？
The big thing that we’ve been working on now, as I mentioned a couple of times, is this project about caregiving.
正如我多次提到的，我们现在一直在做的最重要的事情是这个关于护理的项目。
This speaks to the issues that we’ve been talking about with nurture and nature and what the effect of caregiving is.
这涉及到我们一直在讨论的有关教养和先天的问题以及照顾的效果是什么。
Caregiving’s fascinating because if you ask people, “What’s most important in your life?
护理很有趣，因为如果你问人们：“你生命中最重要的是什么？
What are your greatest moral issues?
你最大的道德问题是什么？
What’s most meaningful to you?” They’ll say something about “Taking care of my kids, taking care of my elderly father, taking care of my spouse.”
什么对你来说最有意义？”他们会说“照顾我的孩子，照顾我年迈的父亲，照顾我的配偶”。
Yet, economics is a really good example where that doesn’t even show up in the GDP.
然而，经济学是一个很好的例子，它甚至没有体现在 GDP 中。
All that work that we do, taking care of each other — it’s just completely invisible from an economic perspective.
我们所做的所有工作，互相照顾——从经济角度来看，这些都是完全看不见的。
Even the fundamental structure of caregiving, which is that you’re giving resources to someone else to accomplish their goals exactly because they don’t have resources that are very different from the usual social contract power kinds of relations.
甚至是看护的基本结构，即你向其他人提供资源以实现他们的目标，正是因为他们没有与通常的社会契约权力关系截然不同的资源。
Yet it’s been very, very understudied compared to all the other kinds of social relationships that we’ve studied.
然而，与我们研究过的所有其他类型的社会关系相比，它的研究还非常非常少。
Obviously, since I’m someone who thinks about children and about taking care of children, that’s true, but I think it’s also true about taking care of elders.
显然，因为我是一个关心孩子和照顾孩子的人，这是事实，但我认为照顾老人也是如此。
One of the things in the new book that I’m writing is going to be about thinking about elders and the role of — perhaps a bit autobiographical — but as we have more and more elders around too, what’s the role of elders?
我正在写的新书中的一件事是思考长辈和“可能有点自传性”的角色，但随着我们周围的长辈越来越多，长辈的角色是什么？
How are they working?
他们工作得怎么样？
How do we take care of them?
我们如何照顾他们？
How do they help take care of the rest of us?
他们如何帮助照顾我们其他人？
Alison Gopnik, thank you very much.
艾莉森·戈普尼克，非常感谢你。
Thank you, Tyler.
谢谢你，泰勒。
Photo Credit: Rod Searcey
照片来源：罗德·瑟西
This episode was made possible through the support of the John Templeton Foundation.
这一集是在约翰·邓普顿基金会的支持下得以实现的。