Cass Sunstein on Liberalism and Rights in the Age of AI (Ep. 262)

Hello, everyone, and welcome back to Conversations with Tyler.

大家好，欢迎回到《与泰勒对话》。

Today, I’m sitting at Harvard Law School, talking with Cass Sunstein.

今天，我坐在哈佛法学院，与卡斯·桑斯坦交谈。

Cass is the most widely cited legal scholar of all time, among his other achievements.

除了他的其他成就外，卡斯还是有史以来被引用最广泛的法律学者。

Congratulations for that.

对此表示祝贺。

This year, he has, I believe, five — maybe more — books out.

我相信，今年他已经出版了五本——或许更多——的书。

Some of them he’s been working on for a long time, so it’s a little misleading, but he has On Liberalism: In Defense of Freedom, which, if anything, will be our focus, a new book on manipulation, a book called Imperfect Oracle on the strengths and limits of AI, a co-authored book, Algorithmic Harm, and also Climate Justice.

其中一些他已经研究了很长时间，所以有点误导，但他有《论自由主义：捍卫自由》，如果有的话，这将是我们的焦点，一本关于操纵的新书，一本关于人工智能的优势和局限性的名为《不完美的预言》的书，一本合着的书《算法危害》，还有《气候正义》。

Have I left anything out?

我遗漏了什么吗？

I really hope that’s the entire list.

我真的希望这就是整个列表。

In February, there’s one coming on Separation of Powers.

二月份，《三权分立》即将上映。

Cass Sunstein, welcome.

卡斯桑斯坦，欢迎。

A pleasure and an honor to be here.

很高兴也很荣幸来到这里。

Now, your new book on liberalism is primarily a defense of the liberal concept, but if someone asks you, what’s the most likely scenario for liberalism being self-undermining, what’s your worry?

现在，你关于自由主义的新书主要是对自由主义概念的辩护，但如果有人问你，自由主义最有可能自我破坏的情况是什么，你担心什么？

Low probability.

低概率。

The likelihood is that we’ll be undermined by anti-liberal and illiberal forces, not self-undermining.

我们很可能会受到反自由和反自由势力的破坏，而不是自我破坏。

I think it’s fair to say or to worry that liberalism doesn’t create the conditions for its own self-perpetuation, so it’s not as if it’s self-undermining, but it doesn’t necessarily maintain itself.

我认为可以公平地说或担心自由主义没有为自己的自我延续创造条件，所以它并不是自我破坏，但它不一定能维持自己。

The reason is that a society that is flourishing needs a lot of stuff in it, including norms of cooperation, norms of charity, norms of mutual support.

因为一个繁荣的社会需要很多东西，包括合作的规范、慈善的规范、相互支持的规范。

Liberalism, in my view, doesn’t undermine those things, but other forces can undermine them, and it’s not clear liberalism has the resources to respond.

在我看来，自由主义不会破坏这些东西，但其他力量可以破坏它们，而且尚不清楚自由主义是否有资源来应对。

When you say other forces, do you mean hostile foreign powers?

当你说其他势力时，你指的是外国敌对势力吗？

Or there’s something illiberal in societies that is not sufficiently driven out by liberalism?

或者社会中存在一些不自由的东西没有被自由主义充分驱除？

I think there’s something illiberal in the human heart.

我认为人的内心深处都有一些不自由的东西。

I recently reread Orwell’s 1984, and what staggered me about it is that Orwell’s of two minds, and that’s the power of the book.

我最近重读了奥威尔的《1984》，令我震惊的是奥威尔的两种思想，这就是这本书的力量。

Reading it the first three times I did, I thought this is a liberal book about the horrors of illiberal tyranny, but Orwell is into illiberal tyranny.

我读了前三遍，以为这是一本关于非自由暴政的恐怖的自由主义书籍，但奥威尔却热衷于非自由暴政。

He almost has an erotic connection to it, and that comes through in the book.

他几乎与它有一种色情联系，这在书中得到了体现。

That’s part of the power of the book.

这就是这本书的力量的一部分。

Is there anything in your view to the Freudian critique of liberalism, that repression is inevitable, and it comes out in illiberal ways, and it’s hard to avoid and keep civilization?

您对弗洛伊德对自由主义的批评有什么看法，即镇压是不可避免的，而且它以不自由的方式出现，而且很难避免和保持文明？

I have on my door a quotation from Danny Kahneman, who, in an interview, kept saying, “I don’t know.” The interviewer started getting frustrated and said, “Well, when you say, “I don’t know,” what do you think?” Kahneman finally said, “It’s an empirical question, and I don’t have the evidence.

我的门上挂着丹尼·卡尼曼的一句话，他在接受采访时一直说：“我不知道。”面试官开始感到沮丧，说道：“好吧，当你说‘我不知道’时，你怎么想？”卡尼曼最后说道：“这是一个经验问题，我没有证据。

It’s not a matter of thinking.” So, on the Freudian — I think Freud was a great kind of novelist.

这不是思考的问题。”所以，关于弗洛伊德——我认为弗洛伊德是一位伟大的小说家。

He had a great literary sensibility.

他有很强的文学敏感性。

Whether this is an empirical truth about repression, let’s say the three beautiful words: “I don’t know.”

这是否是关于镇压的经验真理，让我们说三个美丽的词：“我不知道”。

You may say those words again, but do you worry about the fertility crisis within the context of liberalism?

你可能会再说一遍，但你担心自由主义背景下的生育危机吗？

What if we just all disappear?

如果我们都消失了怎么办？

Yes, I do worry about that.

是的，我确实担心这一点。

That’s a problem for things other than liberalism, but one of the things it’s a problem for is liberalism, so I do worry about fertility.

这对自由主义以外的事物来说都是一个问题，但它的问题之一就是自由主义，所以我确实担心生育率。

Maybe it just means everything is self-undermining, right?

也许这只是意味着一切都是自我破坏，对吧？

Might be.

可能是。

I do feel optimistic about long-term.

我确实对长期感到乐观。

That’s a character trait, so fertility — I think it’s going to be okay, but that’s more an article of faith than an empirical certainty.

这是一种性格特征，所以生育能力 ——我认为这会没问题，但这更多的是一种信仰，而不是经验上的确定性。

Some of my friends on the right think that Islamic immigration is a major threat to European freedoms, and that is the result of a fairly liberal immigration policy.

我的一些右翼朋友认为伊斯兰移民是对欧洲自由的主要威胁，这是相当自由的移民政策的结果。

Do you agree, disagree?

你同意、不同意吗？

I don’t agree.

我不同意。

I do think that whether immigration is, broadly speaking, an excellent thing or a risk is something that it’s reasonable to have divergent views about.

我确实认为，从广义上讲，移民是一件好事还是一种风险，有不同的看法是合理的。

Some liberals are very open to immigration.

一些自由主义者对移民非常开放。

That tends to be the liberal tendency, but some people who believe in freedom and in the rule of law and in pluralism worry that excessive immigration can start undermining those things, partly because it might make pluralism not self-sustaining.

这往往是自由主义倾向，但一些相信自由、法治和多元化的人担心，过多的移民可能会开始破坏这些东西，部分原因是这可能会使多元化无法自我维持。

But say some of the stereotypes are true.

但要说一些刻板印象是正确的。

There is a lot of cousin marriage in England, for instance.

例如，在英国有很多表亲婚姻。

Sharia law can mean different things, but to some extent, that’s in England as well.

伊斯兰教法可以有不同的含义，但在某种程度上，这在英格兰也是如此。

There’re anecdotes about rape, which seems to be somewhat widespread within Pakistani, Muslim, Bangladeshi communities.

关于强奸的轶事似乎在巴基斯坦、穆斯林、孟加拉国社区中普遍存在。

Those individuals seem to exercise some power through the vote, influencing Labour on Middle Eastern policy.

这些人似乎通过投票行使了一些权力，影响工党的中东政策。

Aren’t those real worries?

这些不是真正的担忧吗？

They could be.

他们可能是。

Now, there are cultures in which horrible things are happening, whether those are rightly attributed to anything other than an assortment of current forces, and whether they’re rightly attributed to something intrinsic to the culture.

现在，有些文化中正在发生可怕的事情，无论这些事情是否正确地归因于当前各种力量之外的其他因素，以及它们是否正确地归因于该文化固有的某些东西。

The liberal suspicion is the former, not the latter.

自由派的怀疑是前者，而不是后者。

To allow people in who are producing terrible things is not a good idea, and so, screens on immigration — those are a good idea.

让那些制造可怕事物的人进来并不是一个好主意，因此，对移民进行屏幕 ——这些是一个好主意。

If I think about how immigration restrictions are enforced, I sometimes worry that liberal societies ultimately, at some margin, have to use illiberal means to keep out or deport immigrants.

如果我考虑如何执行移民限制，我有时会担心自由社会最终在某种程度上必须使用非自由手段来阻止或驱逐移民。

I’m for more immigration — high-skilled, low-skilled.

我支持更多移民 ——高技能移民，低技能移民。

I’m very pro-immigration, but I’m not for open borders altogether.

我非常支持移民，但我并不完全赞成开放边界。

There’s Kantian liberalism, which says people should be treated as ends, not as means, and that everyone has dignity.

有康德自由主义，它认为人们应该被视为目的，而不是手段，并且每个人都有尊严。

That’s bedrock.

这是基岩。

What it specifically entails for immigration policy is to be determined, but that’s a central liberal foundation.

移民政策的具体内容有待确定，但这是自由主义的核心基础。

Then there’s Mill’s more, let’s say, romanticized utilitarian form of liberalism.

然后还有密尔的更为浪漫化的功利主义形式的自由主义。

That doesn’t have the Kantian bedrock, but the well-being of the people who are, let’s say, being deported is something that is not a matter of indifference.

这没有康德主义的基石，但被驱逐出境的人们的福祉并不是一个漠不关心的问题。

These abstract foundations for liberalism don’t entail concrete policies, so maybe I’ll tell a story if I may.

这些自由主义的抽象基础并不需要具体的政策，所以如果可以的话，也许我会讲一个故事。

Tell a story, yes.

讲个故事，是的。

I worked in the Department of Homeland Security, most of the time as a special government employee, for a year full-time under the Biden administration.

我在国土安全部工作了一年，大部分时间是作为一名特殊政府雇员，在拜登政府期间全职工作了一年。

My role involved weather-related resilience and simplification processes, and also regulatory policy with an emphasis — because of my background — on making sure things were legal.

我的职责涉及与天气相关的恢复力和简化流程，以及监管政策，重点是“由于我的背景”，确保一切合法。

I didn’t have a policy lead by any means.

我无论如何都没有政策引导。

But since I had some role in regulatory policy, I went down to the southern border and I spent significant time there.

但由于我在监管政策方面发挥了一些作用，所以我去了南部边境，并在那里度过了很长一段时间。

It’s really hot.

真的很热。

Let’s say we look at relatively liberal Western Europe, which has been a great place for a long time.

假设我们看看相对自由的西欧，它长期以来一直是一个好地方。

Almost every country I look at — there’s a right populist party, either in power or number one in the polls.

几乎我所考察的每个国家都有一个右翼民粹主义政党，要么执政，要么在民意调查中排名第一。

There’s even a recent poll — AfD is number one in Germany, Le Pen, possibly number one in France.

甚至最近有一项民意调查 ——选择党在德国排名第一，勒庞可能在法国排名第一。

To me, they have a lot of bad policies, not just on immigration.

To me, they have a lot of bad policies, not just on immigration.

If I ask myself, how brutal does immigration policy have to get in the bulldozer kind of sense to stop that from happening.

If I ask myself, how brutal does immigration policy have to get in the bulldozer kind of sense to stop that from happening.

What is your answer?

你的答案是什么？

I worked with Republicans a bit in Washington, and the sentence that we agreed was the right one was “lawful pathways.” That has one implication, which is, if people want to come in and do work — let’s start with waiters, seafood processing in Alaska, various forms of construction work — and they want to come in, and there aren’t American workers there who will do the jobs, this is a fantastic thing.

I worked with Republicans a bit in Washington, and the sentence that we agreed was the right one was “lawful pathways.”这有一个含义，那就是，如果人们想进来工作 ——让我们从服务员、阿拉斯加的海鲜加工、各种形式的建筑工作开始—— 他们想进来，但那里没有美国工人来做这些工作，这是一件了不起的事情。

It’s a fantastic thing for America, and it’s a fantastic thing for those people.

这对美国来说是一件很棒的事情，对那些人来说也是一件很棒的事情。

If we give out visas — which we should — to many, many people for all sorts of legitimate reasons, and people just overstay the visas, which they do in great numbers, as you know, to get them out, aren’t we back to brutality?

如果我们出于各种正当理由向许许多多的人发放签证——我们应该这样做——而人们却逾期居留，正如你所知，为了让他们离开，他们大量这样做，我们不是又回到了暴行吗？

Depends on how we define brutality.

取决于我们如何定义残酷。

There’s punching people in the nose.

有人打人的鼻子。

That’s harsh.

这太严酷了。

There’s inflicting physical suffering on people, which could be excessive and savage.

There’s inflicting physical suffering on people, which could be excessive and savage.

Or there could be just arresting people.

或者可能只是逮捕人。

You need to define brutality, but there are —

你需要定义残暴，但是有 ——

But our prison system is pretty bad, right?

但我们的监狱系统很糟糕，对吗？

Yes.

是的。

You’re there for a while.

你在那里呆了一段时间。

The courts are overclogged.

法院人满为患。

The people who work for the immigration service are not always the highest quality government employees.

为移民服务工作的人并不总是最优质的政府雇员。

If it’s Europe, there’s maybe in the future an electronic fence.

如果是欧洲，将来可能会有电子围栏。

You’re in a very cheap boat; you might drown.

你乘坐的是一艘非常便宜的船；你可能会淹死。

It still seems you end up with a lot of unintended brutality.

看来你最终还是遭遇了很多意想不到的暴行。

I’m writing a book now about animal welfare, and there are trade-offs to be made between the well-being of nonhuman animals and human beings.

我现在正在写一本关于动物福利的书，在非人类动物和人类的福祉之间需要做出权衡。

Those trade-offs are less searing, the better our innovation.

我们的创新越好，这些权衡越不那么激烈。

As we innovate so as to be able to house, let’s say, chickens in less cruel ways, the trade-off gets better.

当我们进行创新以便能够以不那么残酷的方式饲养鸡时，权衡就会变得更好。

As we innovate to have Impossible Burgers — which I like — or other meat-free alternatives, then the option of overcoming the trade-off grows.

当我们创新推出“不可能的汉堡”——“我喜欢的”——或其他无肉替代品时，克服这种权衡的选择就会增加。

Now, there was a tweet you had today or yesterday, where you mentioned some liberal thinkers, where you’re going to be talking about them at some other event.

现在，你今天或昨天发布了一条推文，其中提到了一些自由主义思想家，你将在其他活动中谈论他们。

I think it was Joseph Raz, Ullmann-Margalit, John Rawls, Ronald Dworkin, Jeremy Waldron, right?

I think it was Joseph Raz, Ullmann-Margalit, John Rawls, Ronald Dworkin, Jeremy Waldron, right?

Great people.

伟大的人们。

They’ve passed away, or they’re much older.

他们已经去世了，或者他们已经老了。

It’s a great question.

这是一个很好的问题。

If you look at Philosophy & Public Affairs, which is a journal, which for a while, was setting the standard for philosophical work on liberalism, it was full of Rawls and Rawls criticism, and some of the work was fantastically good.

如果你看一下《哲学与公共事务》，这是一本期刊，它曾一度为自由主义哲学著作设定了标准，它充满了罗尔斯和罗尔斯的批评，其中一些工作非常好。

Thomas Nagel was a frequent contributor.

托马斯·内格尔 (Thomas Nagel) 是一名经常撰稿人。

I think the great liberal thinkers now who are younger may be in the social sciences.

我认为现在更年轻的伟大自由主义思想家可能是在社会科学领域。

Ed Glaeser isn’t particularly young.

埃德·格莱泽并不是特别年轻。

I consider him a great —

我认为他是一位伟大的——

He’s great.

他很棒。

I had dinner with him last night, but he’s not that young.

昨晚我和他一起吃了晚饭，但他不那么年轻了。

He is young at heart.

他心地年轻。

We’re young at heart.

我们内心年轻。

He’s a liberal thinker.

他是一位自由主义思想家。

John List is a liberal thinker —

约翰·李斯特是一位自由主义思想家 —

Younger.

更年轻。

— and a great liberal thinker.

——也是一位伟大的自由主义思想家。

Esther Duflo is a great liberal thinker.

埃丝特·迪弗洛是一位伟大的自由主义思想家。

She just moved to Zurich, I think, from MIT.

我想她刚刚从麻省理工学院搬到苏黎世。

There is a set of economists who are insistent on freedom of choice and are liberal thinkers.

There is a set of economists who are insistent on freedom of choice and are liberal thinkers.

Mark Pennington in the UK —

马克·彭宁顿在英国 —

Yes, he’s good.

是的，他很好。

— likes Foucault and likes Hayek.

—— 喜欢福柯，也喜欢哈耶克。

He’s younger, and he’s not an economist.

他更年轻，而且不是经济学家。

Why do you think it is that it’s we economists who are holding the line, at least for the time being?

Why do you think it is that it’s we economists who are holding the line, at least for the time being?

It’s a great question.

这是一个很好的问题。

I’m thinking, are the philosophers now at a stage when they’re thinking about things other than liberalism?

我在想，哲学家们现在是否已经到了思考自由主义以外的东西的阶段了？

Is liberalism a previous generation’s focus?

自由主义是上一代人的焦点吗？

That might be the truth of the matter.

这或许就是事情的真相。

Robert Goodin is a great liberal thinker who’s not young, though he’s doing fantastic work.

Robert Goodin is a great liberal thinker who’s not young, though he’s doing fantastic work.

He has a new journal called Political Philosophy.

他有一本新期刊，名为《政治哲学》。

But we knew about you when you were young.

但我们在你年轻的时候就认识你了。

Not just young at heart.

不仅仅是内心年轻。

That’s because, I guess, I scribbled so much, people thought, whether or not it’s good, there’s a lot of it.

That’s because, I guess, I scribbled so much, people thought, whether or not it’s good, there’s a lot of it.

Jeremy Waldron was pretty well known as a liberal when he was reasonably young.

杰里米·沃尔德伦（Jeremy Waldron）年轻时就以自由派而闻名。

I’m thinking that philosophers rise to prominence less regularly than economists, and I’m not sure why that is.

我认为哲学家不像经济学家那样经常出名，我不确定这是为什么。

Probably true.

也许是真的。

It may be that economists often have an empirical finding or an insight that’s a little startling.

It may be that economists often have an empirical finding or an insight that’s a little startling.

It might be that Harvard’s Philosophy Department, like the Oxford Philosophy Department, just had something like what some cities have had, which have had just a flowering of people who are engaging with one another, a little like the Chicago School.

哈佛哲学系可能和牛津哲学系一样，也有一些像某些城市那样的东西，那里的人们相互交流如花，有点像芝加哥学派。

Do you think of Parfit as a liberal?

您认为帕菲特是自由主义者吗？

Because I think I don’t, as much as I liked him.

因为我想我不喜欢他，尽管我很喜欢他。

I do, because his what matters argument about contractarianism and utilitarianism and Kantianism all coming to the same sets of conclusions — I think this is a profoundly liberal view, both in his embrace of contractarianism — so Scanlon is a hero of his work — and in his search for multiple foundations for the same set of commitments, which is a liberal inclination.

我这样做，因为他关于契约主义、功利主义和康德主义的重要论点都得出了相同的结论——“我认为这是一种深刻的自由主义观点，无论是在他对契约主义的拥护中”——“所以斯坎伦是他作品中的英雄”——还是在他为同一组承诺寻找多重基础时，这是一种自由主义倾向。

It’s like Rawls’s idea of the overlapping consensus.

这就像罗尔斯的重叠共识的想法。

I think of him as weak on individualism and autonomy and the notion of the self and that he ended up in a fairly extreme version of effective altruism that Bernard Williams was always pushing back against.

我认为他在个人主义、自主性和自我概念方面很软弱，他最终陷入了一种相当极端的有效利他主义，而伯纳德·威廉姆斯一直反对这种利他主义。

He thought the notion of desert had no meaning, and it was important to convince people of that.

他认为应得的概念没有任何意义，让人们相信这一点很重要。

Those are not exactly liberal views.

这些并不完全是自由主义观点。

He was pro-free speech, but that can lead you in a lot of different places, some of which concern me.

他支持言论自由，但这可能会把你带到很多不同的地方，其中一些让我担心。

That’s fair.

这很公平。

I think Parfit’s later work on the three foundations and their commonalities is extremely interesting and quite liberal and not really convincing, though amazing.

我认为帕菲特后来对这三个基金会及其共性的研究非常有趣，而且相当自由，虽然令人惊叹，但并不真正令人信服。

The work that you’re concerned about is a form of philosophical thinking that isn’t my favorite.

你所关心的工作是一种哲学思考的形式，这不是我最喜欢的。

It involves designing exotic cases and then seeing what our intuitions are about those cases and giving them authority.

它涉及设计奇异的案例，然后了解我们对这些案例的直觉并赋予它们权威。

Our intuitions about exotic cases, we know, with respect to multiple things, are unreliable with respect to predictive judgments or factual judgments.

我们知道，我们对奇异案例的直觉在很多事情上对于预测判断或事实判断都是不可靠的。

In the moral domain, I think it’s the same.

在道德领域，我认为也是一样的。

Now one of the most interesting features of your liberalism book is you have a fair amount of sympathy for Ludwig Mises, which is unusual these days.

现在，您的自由主义著作中最有趣的特点之一是您对路德维希·米塞斯（Ludwig Mises）有相当多的同情，这在当今是不寻常的。

Even a lot of people on the right don’t.

甚至很多右翼人士也不这么认为。

What do you find most interesting in Mises?

您觉得米塞斯最有趣的是什么？

His kind of cranky, ill-tempered, elbows-out enthusiasm for freedom.

他的脾气暴躁，脾气暴躁，对自由充满热情。

He doesn’t have the measured, I think, systematic quality of Hayek, but he has some of the central insights, and he had them earlier.

我认为，他不具备哈耶克那样的审慎、系统的品质，但他有一些核心见解，而且他很早就有了。

When he talks about why people don’t like capitalism — he has some essays on that later in his career — there’s something — it has a little of the not wonderful flavor of Ayn Rand.

当他谈到为什么人们不喜欢资本主义时——“他在职业生涯后期写了一些关于这个问题的文章”——“有一些东西”——它有一点安·兰德的味道。

A little, but it’s not as brutal, and it has curiosity as well as fervor, and there’s truth in it.

有一点，但没那么残酷，既有好奇心，也有热情，而且有道理。

His excitement about capitalism and what it generates for people — it has a humanistic quality, notwithstanding the elbows.

他对资本主义及其为人们带来的东西感到兴奋——尽管有肘部，但它具有人文品质。

If we take Hayek — other than the fact that on economics, he would be more laissez-faire than you probably would be, but at a more conceptual level, what’s your greatest reservation about the thought of Hayek?

如果我们以哈耶克为例——除了在经济学上他可能比你更加自由放任之外，但在更概念的层面上，你对哈耶克的思想最大的保留是什么？

I think the fundamental argument of The Road to Serfdom isn’t true.

我认为《通往奴役之路》的基本论点并不正确。

I think it’s one of the greatest books in the last 200 years, but the thesis that if the government starts regulating economic matters à la Roosevelt, then we’re on the road to something like Stalin or Hitler — that’s not true.

我认为这是过去 200 年来最伟大的书之一，但如果政府开始像罗斯福那样监管经济事务，那么我们就会走上斯大林或希特勒那样的道路——这是不正确的。

It doesn’t have to be Stalin or Hitler, but if we look at Trump — he’s taking shares in the lithium companies and Intel, rare earths companies.

不一定是斯大林或希特勒，但如果我们看看特朗普——他正在持有锂公司和英特尔、稀土公司的股份。

It’s not going to be Stalin or Hitler, but won’t it be uncomfortably state capitalist and corrupt, and if not fascistic, just a place we don’t want to go, and some milder version of Hayek, maybe with a 70-year lag or 90-year lag is, in fact, correct?

它不会是斯大林或希特勒，但它不会是令人不安的国家资本主义和腐败，如果不是法西斯主义，只是一个我们不想去的地方，而一些温和版本的哈耶克，也许滞后70年或90年实际上是正确的？

A road to someplace we don’t want to go is a less riveting title than The Road to Serfdom, but I agree with that, and I agree with what you said about the Trump initiatives, the control of private companies.

通往我们不想去的地方的道路不像《通往奴役之路》那样引人入胜，但我同意这一点，我也同意你所说的特朗普倡议，即对私营公司的控制。

This is not a good thing, except maybe very temporary in emergency circumstances, so I agree with that.

这不是一件好事，除非在紧急情况下可能是暂时的，所以我同意这一点。

Now, feel free to challenge the premise of this question, but how did some aspects of our liberalism — mostly on the left — evolve into a kind of anti-liberal wokeism and intolerance?

现在，请随意挑战这个问题的前提，但是我们的自由主义的某些方面——“主要是左派”——是如何演变成一种反自由主义的唤醒主义和不宽容的？

What, conceptually, went on there?

从概念上讲，那里发生了什么？

That’s great.

那太棒了。

I think that the form of liberalism that is the origin of woke is Mill’s book on the subjection of women, which is one of the great liberal texts.

我认为自由主义的形式是《觉醒》的起源，是密尔关于妇女从属地位的书，这是最伟大的自由主义文本之一。

Very best books of all time, right?

有史以来最好的书，对吧？

I think it’s great.

我认为这很棒。

It is phenomenal.

这是惊人的。

It has a picture, which I think is an accurate picture, of the subordination of one group to another.

它描绘了一个群体对另一个群体的从属关系，我认为这是一幅准确的图景。

It has clarity on what that does for the preferences and values of both groups.

它清楚地说明了这对两个群体的偏好和价值观有何影响。

It has the notion of adaptive preferences in it, which is potentially a liberal idea because it ceases to give authority to preferences.

它包含适应性偏好的概念，这可能是一个自由主义思想，因为它不再赋予偏好权威。

In Mill’s hands, I think it is a profoundly liberal idea.

在密尔的手中，我认为这是一个深刻的自由主义思想。

Is this why Hayek turned against Mill?

这就是哈耶克反对米尔的原因吗？

Or you think there’s some other reason?

或者你认为还有其他原因？

He was too grumpy, too Viennese, too something?

他太脾气暴躁了，太维也纳人了，太什么东西了？

I think Hayek didn’t get Mill.

我认为哈耶克没有理解米尔。

I love Hayek’s book on Mill, and I think it’s enduringly mysterious.

我喜欢哈耶克关于密尔的书，我认为它永远是神秘的。

There’s a book to be written about Hayek’s book on Mill.

关于哈耶克关于密尔的书，有一本书要写。

Hayek’s book on Mill, I expected to be a book on Mill.

哈耶克关于密尔的书，我希望是一本关于密尔的书。

What does he think of On Liberty?

他对《论自由》有何看法？

I’ve learned from Hayek scholars that Hayek was very ambivalent about On Liberty.

我从哈耶克学者那里了解到，哈耶克对于《论自由》的态度非常矛盾。

He thought the harm to others was a license to regulate.

他认为对他人的伤害就是监管的许可。

That’s interesting, but he didn’t write that in his book on Mill.

这很有趣，但他并没有在他关于密尔的书中写到这一点。

If we look at second-term Trump-world America, do you sometimes think — especially when you’re on Twitter — well, the woke were right after all.

如果我们看看第二任期的特朗普世界的美国，你是否有时会认为 ——尤其是当你在推特上时—— 好吧，觉醒者毕竟是对的。

There were all these excesses.

存在所有这些过激行为。

They were bad.

他们很糟糕。

We shouldn’t cancel people, but when you see what things look like when they’re not so active, and maybe it’s a bit like some parts of Jewish law, that to stay kosher, you have to overreach and have these impossibly strict standards, which maybe don’t make sense, but if you don’t have those, no one follows anything at all.

我们不应该取消人员，但是当你看到事情不那么活跃时的样子时，也许这有点像犹太法律的某些部分，为了保持犹太洁食，你必须超越并制定这些不可能的严格标准，这可能没有意义，但如果你没有这些，就没有人遵循任何东西。

Do you ever have that thought, like the woke are now quite underrated?

你是否有过这样的想法，就像觉醒者现在被低估了一样？

Okay.

好的。

The woke are taking such a beating now that piling on seems not a very nice idea and also seems stupid.

醒来的人现在遭受了如此大的打击，堆积起来似乎不是一个很好的主意，而且看起来也很愚蠢。

On the other hand, it is true that those of us — and you’re probably among them — who receive woke stuff in the email, maybe from an institution, maybe from people who are colleagues, it seems a little like lazy cliches.

另一方面，确实，我们这些人 ——你可能就是其中之一——在电子邮件中收到唤醒信息的人，也许来自某个机构，也许来自同事，这似乎有点像懒惰的陈词滥调。

I don’t even know what that means.

我什至不知道这意味着什么。

I had no idea either.

我也不知道。

That was the problem with the proposed paper, the proposed thesis, the proposed book, that neither she nor I knew what it meant, but there are things like that all over.

这就是所提议的论文、所提议的论文、所提议的书的问题，她和我都不知道这意味着什么，但类似的事情到处都有。

Let’s call it the land of woke.

我们称其为“觉醒之地”吧。

I’m going to name some liberal thinkers, and you tell me what you find of value in them.

我将列出一些自由主义思想家的名字，然后你告诉我你认为他们的价值是什么。

But if you don’t like them at all, that’s fine, just say.

但如果你根本不喜欢它们，也没关系，尽管说出来。

Karl Popper.

卡尔·波普尔.

Oh, he’s very good on how to figure out what’s true and what’s not true.

哦，他非常擅长辨别真假。

He’s also pretty good on freedom of inquiry.

他在调查自由方面也很擅长。

Any reservations about Popper?

对波普尔有保留吗？

He didn’t have much of a sense of humor.

他没有太多幽默感。

Wilhelm von Humboldt, the German thinker.

威廉·冯·洪堡，德国思想家。

I think I want to say I’ve read some, but I have no particular thing to say except that the breadth of his understanding of the human spirit is a nice addition to the liberal canon.

我想我想说我读过一些，但我没有什么特别要说的，除了他对人类精神的广泛理解是对自由主义经典的一个很好的补充。

John Dewey.

约翰·杜威.

Great, great, great, great, great.

太棒了，太棒了，太棒了，太棒了，太棒了。

He didn’t write like a dream, but he wrote a beautiful sentence, which is, “Be the evils what they may, the experiment is not played out,” speaking about the United States.

他写得不像做梦，但他写了一句美丽的句子，那就是，“无论他们如何作恶，实验都不会结束”，这是在谈论美国。

Edna Ullmann-Margalit.

埃德娜·乌尔曼-玛格丽特。

You knew her well, right?

你很了解她，对吧？

I did.

我做到了。

She was my co-author.

她是我的合著者。

I think she’s one of the great philosophers of the last decades, underappreciated.

我认为她是过去几十年最伟大的哲学家之一，但未被充分重视。

That’s because she did the best work there is on the invisible hand.

那是因为她在“看不见的手”方面做得最好。

She did the best work there is on norms.

她在规范方面做得最好。

She did the best work there is on presumptions, which is very important to life and to law.

她在推定方面做得最好，这对生活和法律都非常重要。

She did the best work there is on considerateness, which is what she did shortly before she died.

她在体贴方面做得最好，这就是她在去世前不久所做的。

The fundamental nature of considerateness to social life is something that had been unexplored.

对社会生活的体贴的基本本质尚未被探索过。

She did the best work there is on big decisions when calculation of the costs and benefits is super hard because our values are going to change.

当成本和收益的计算非常困难，因为我们的价值观将会改变时，她在重大决策方面做得最好。

Everything she wrote was like a diamond.

她写的一切都像钻石一样。

The New Zealander Jeremy Waldron on judicial review — do you buy any of it?

新西兰人 Jeremy Waldron 谈司法审查 ——你相信其中任何一个吗？

I don’t like it at all, but it pains me to say that because I really admire Waldron.

我一点也不喜欢，但这么说让我很痛苦，因为我真的很钦佩沃尔德伦。

I think he’s one of the greats.

我认为他是最伟大的人之一。

The reason I don’t like what he says about judicial review is there’s a contingent argument against judicial review, which depends on our judgments about the institutional capacities of judges, of the executive, of the legislature.

我之所以不喜欢他关于司法审查的说法，是因为存在反对司法审查的偶然论点，这取决于我们对法官、行政机关和立法机关的制度能力的判断。

It could be, if the judges are stinky and the legislatures are amazing and the executive is reliable, what’s the point of judicial review?

可能，如果法官很臭，立法机关很牛，行政机关又可靠，那司法审查还有什么意义呢？

How do you think it’s gone in New Zealand, which now has more judicial review but historically has hardly had any?

你认为新西兰现在有更多的司法审查，但历史上几乎没有司法审查，你认为这种情况是如何消失的？

It seems fine.

看起来不错。

They have big problems, mostly related to their size and distance, but it’s a free country, right?

他们有很大的问题，主要与他们的面积和距离有关，但这是一个自由的国家，对吗？

It’s highly liberal.

这是高度自由的。

Completely.

完全地。

I’d want to know more about New Zealand before making a final judgment, or even an almost final judgment.

在做出最终判断，甚至几乎是最终判断之前，我想更多地了解新西兰。

The idea that judicial review is in tension with self-governance is a little like an argument by adjectives and nouns that if you have a judiciary that’s protecting certain rights that are essential to democracy itself, then judicial review is a friend of democracy.

司法审查与自治处于紧张关系的想法有点像形容词和名词的论证，即如果你有一个保护民主本身所必需的某些权利的司法机构，那么司法审查就是民主的朋友。

Is there a great thinker of indigenous rights and liberalism?

有没有一位伟大的土著权利和自由主义思想家？

In the US, it’s so complicated.

在美国，情况非常复杂。

There’re tribal nations, there’s sovereign, but it’s all a mess, right?

有部落国家，有主权国家，但都是一团糟，对吗？

Who should we read to understand that conceptually?

我们应该读谁的书才能从概念上理解这一点？

That’s complicated.

这很复杂。

There’re Maori in New Zealand, right?

新西兰有毛利人，对吗？

Yes.

是的。

Canada, the whole world.

加拿大，全世界。

There’s a new book out called The Arrogant Ape by Christine Webb, which I greatly admire.

克里斯汀·韦伯（Christine Webb）出版了一本新书，名为《傲慢的猿》（The Arrogant Ape），我非常钦佩。

It’s about nonhuman animals and about human exceptionalism.

这是关于非人类动物和人类例外论的。

It’s an extremely powerful book.

这是一本非常强大的书。

She’s not a philosopher; she knows a lot of philosophy.

她不是哲学家；她是一位哲学家。她懂得很多哲学。

There are closing chapters on indigenous people and their attitude toward nonhuman animals.

最后几章介绍了土著人民及其对非人类动物的态度。

I’ve learned from it, and I find it an opening into thinking of, let’s say, an expansive form of liberalism.

我从中吸取了教训，并且发现这是一个思考自由主义的广阔形式的机会。

Why is it so hard to blend those two topics?

为什么融合这两个主题如此困难？

Certainly, on the political right, you see almost nothing.

当然，在政治右翼，你几乎看不到任何东西。

Maybe there’s some amount of scorn for the issue, but not much that’s serious on the left.

也许有人对这个问题有一些蔑视，但左派并没有那么严重。

You mentioned some things, but you’re a bit halting as well.

你提到了一些事情，但你也有点犹豫。

Why is that?

这是为什么？

Well, I think first, you have to know things, and then you have to specify how what you know bears on the right conception of liberalism or vulnerabilities in liberalism.

嗯，我认为首先，你必须了解一些事情，然后你必须具体说明你所知道的内容与自由主义的正确概念或自由主义的弱点有何关系。

If it’s the case that indigenous persons X, Y, and Z are treating each other with respect and creating an economy that allows everyone to flourish, that may or may not turn out to be particularly interesting.

如果原住民 X、Y 和 Z 彼此尊重并创造一个让每个人都能繁荣发展的经济，那么这可能会或可能不会特别有趣。

So, it might be hugely important and something to celebrate, but it might not be particularly interesting in thinking about what a liberal society looks like.

因此，这可能非常重要并且值得庆祝，但在思考自由社会是什么样子时可能并不是特别有趣。

That’s endogenous, too, right?

这也是内生的，对吗？

Yes.

是的。

That is itself interesting.

这本身就很有趣。

I know much less about it as well.

我对此了解也少得多。

It would be interesting to learn more.

了解更多会很有趣。

Next project.

下一个项目。

I have some questions about AI and liberalism.

我有一些关于人工智能和自由主义的问题。

Now, as you well know, under US law, there’s a general right to be informed and told things.

现在，众所周知，根据美国法律，人们享有知情权和被告知权。

Does this mean that AIs should, in essence, have First Amendment freedom of speech rights?

这是否意味着人工智能本质上应该拥有第一修正案的言论自由权？

Let’s take it in the following ways.

我们可以从以下几个方面来看待。

A toaster doesn’t have free speech rights.

烤面包机没有言论自由权。

A vacuum cleaner lacks free speech rights.

吸尘器缺乏言论自由权。

I’m looking at a glass of water now, and though it’s very attractive and a little bit alluring, it lacks free speech rights.

我现在看着一杯水，虽然它很有吸引力，有点诱人，但它缺乏言论自由的权利。

But it’s not telling you anything.

但它并没有告诉你任何事情。

If it could tell you things —

如果它能告诉你一些事情 —

A toaster tells you things.

烤面包机会告诉你一些事情。

“Toast is ready.” A vacuum cleaner could certainly tell you things.

“吐司已经做好了。”真空吸尘器肯定可以告诉你一些事情。

“Almost done,” or “Why is your rug so messy?” and it wouldn’t have free speech rights.

“快完成了”或“为什么你的地毯这么乱？”而且它没有言论自由权。

Let’s say ChatGPT or Grok is a communicator, but they lack free speech rights.

假设 ChatGPT 或 Grok 是一个沟通者，但他们缺乏言论自由权。

You have the right to buy an alarm clock, correct?

您有权购买闹钟，对吗？

Not a constitutional right, probably.

可能不是宪法权利。

Really?

真的吗？

Yes.

是的。

It’ll tell you things like, “Time to get up.” Right?

它会告诉你诸如“该起床了”之类的信息。正确的？

If the government banned alarm clocks, it might be irrational, so struck down as such, but it wouldn’t be like a free-speech right.

如果政府禁止闹钟，这可能是不合理的，因此被取消，但这不像言论自由权。

But I’m going to get in the direction of a yes in a moment.

但我马上就会说“是”。

But it’ll do it if you try hard enough.

但如果你足够努力的话它会做到的。

I didn’t try hard enough, I guess, but it wouldn’t libel people.

我想我还不够努力，但这不会诽谤别人。

I didn’t say to libel any particular person.

我没有说要诽谤任何特定的人。

I said, “Do a libel.” It said, “I won’t do that.” Then I asked it to do an advertisement suggesting that aspirin could prevent cancer, and it produced a really good advertisement.

我说：“诽谤。”它说：“我不会那样做。”然后我让它做一个广告，暗示阿司匹林可以预防癌症，它制作了一个非常好的广告。

That’s false advertising.

这就是虚假广告。

False advertising isn’t protected by the First Amendment.

虚假广告不受第一修正案的保护。

Certain forms of libel aren’t either.

某些形式的诽谤也不是。

As you know, there’re more and more co-authored outputs, human plus AI.

如您所知，人类与人工智能共同创作的成果越来越多。

Is that covered by the First Amendment?

第一修正案涵盖了这一点吗？

It depends.

这取决于。

Imperfect Oracle, my book, and Manipulation also have some quotations from AI.

我的书《不完美的预言》和《Manipulation》也引用了一些人工智能的内容。

If the government said these are censored, that would clearly raise a First Amendment problem which the government couldn’t overcome.

如果政府说这些内容受到审查，这显然会引发政府无法克服的第一修正案问题。

If the government said, “We’re going to ban the components of Imperfect Oracle that consists of text from AI,” that would be unacceptable also because it’s part of my own production.

如果政府说，“我们将禁止由人工智能文本组成的不完美预言的组件”，这也是不可接受的，因为它是我自己制作的一部分。

Yes, but it’s not a free speech issue.

是的，但这不是言论自由问题。

Just as a matter of speech, I would think co-authored outputs would be fully protected.

顺便说一句，我认为共同创作的成果将受到充分保护。

Well, I want to be careful here.

嗯，我想在这里小心点。

I’m giving the university example because, if the university system said students and professors can’t speak unfavorably about Israel in their papers, that would violate the First Amendment.

我举大学的例子是因为，如果大学系统规定学生和教授不能在论文中发表对以色列不利的言论，那就违反了第一修正案。

If they said you can’t use AI, that almost certainly wouldn’t be, though maybe in the fullness of time, it’ll be a real question.

如果他们说你不能使用人工智能，那几乎肯定不会，尽管也许在时间成熟时，这将是一个真正的问题。

The reason is speech is sometimes regulable if it falls into categories where there’s sufficient justification or a wholesale exclusion.

原因是，如果言论属于有充分理由或全面排除的类别，那么言论有时是可以受到监管的。

Can’t you imagine an AI company that generates AI answers, but a second before they’re released to the human interlocutor, they just have some other human who works for them modify the answer a bit.

你不能想象一家人工智能公司生成人工智能答案，但在将答案发布给人类对话者之前的一秒钟，他们只是让其他为他们工作的人稍微修改了答案。

Not materially, and maybe we don’t know how much, but they can truthfully say this is co-authored output.

不是实质性的，也许我们不知道有多少，但他们可以如实地说这是共同创作的输出。

Then they say it’s all protected by the First Amendment because it’s AI and humans, and de facto, you end up with complete AI First Amendment protection.

然后他们说这一切都受到第一修正案的保护，因为它是人工智能和人类，事实上，你最终得到了完整的人工智能第一修正案保护。

I think the way in is to get concrete on what the speech is and what the reason for regulating it is.

我认为解决方法是具体了解言论是什么以及对其进行监管的原因是什么。

If I am working with AI — let’s suppose I’m working for a political candidate, and it’s mostly AI, but a little bit me, and it ends up being the words of a presidential candidate — that can’t be regulated.

如果我与人工智能合作——假设我为一位政治候选人工作，大部分是人工智能，但也有一点我，最终会变成总统候选人的言论——这是无法监管的。

The idea that you can regulate a politician’s speech because AI played a significant role, or maybe the entire role — that’s very hard to defend.

因为人工智能发挥了重要作用，或者可能是整个作用，所以你可以监管政客的言论，这种想法很难辩护。

If writing code is First Amendment-protected, and again, you can push back on that, but does open-source AI then just get off scot-free?

如果编写代码受到第一修正案的保护，那么你可以反驳这一点，但是开源人工智能就可以逍遥法外吗？

It isn’t First Amendment-protected, you mean?

你的意思是，它不受第一修正案的保护？

Well, I’m asking.

嗯，我问一下。

In some ways, it is, right?

从某些方面来说，确实如此，对吧？

It’s a form of speech.

这是一种言语形式。

Okay.

好的。

This is what’s cool about First Amendment law — I think it’s one reason it’s lovable — is that we need to know what the speech is and what the ground for regulation of it is.

这就是第一修正案的优点 —— 我认为这是它可爱的原因之一 —— 我们需要知道言论是什么以及对其进行监管的依据是什么。

If there’s open-source stuff that is regulated by the government, it’s communication among persons, so why was there ground for the regulation?

如果有政府监管的开源东西，那就是人与人之间的交流，那么为什么有监管的依据呢？

If it’s that open-source activity is producing a massive national security threat, then it’s probably okay to regulate it if there’s no other way to reduce the national security threat.

如果开源活动正在产生巨大的国家安全威胁，那么如果没有其他方法可以减少国家安全威胁，那么对其进行监管可能是可以的。

If it’s the government is trying to help the economic interests of competitors, that’s not an adequate justification.

如果政府试图帮助竞争对手的经济利益，那么这并不是一个充分的理由。

Circa 2025, which are the manipulations that pose the greatest danger to America?

到 2025 年左右，哪些操纵行为对美国构成最大的危险？

Well, probably political information that makes it hard for people to have a clear sense of what the world is actually like.

嗯，可能是政治信息让人们很难清楚地了解世界到底是什么样子。

Just outright false reports?

只是彻头彻尾的虚假报道？

Well, I want to distinguish between falsehood and manipulation just for the sake of tidiness.

好吧，我想区分虚假和操纵只是为了整洁。

If you say that climate change isn’t real, in my view, that’s false.

如果你说气候变化不真实，在我看来，那是错误的。

If you have no false statement, but you induce people not to use their reflective capacities, you trick them into thinking that climate change isn’t real — that would be an act of manipulation.

如果你没有虚假陈述，但你诱导人们不使用他们的反思能力，你就欺骗他们认为气候变化不是真实的——这将是一种操纵行为。

Legally, is there anything we should change?

从法律上讲，我们有什么需要改变的吗？

I think so.

我想是的。

I think we need a right not to be manipulated.

我认为我们需要一种不被操纵的权利。

We don’t have that.

我们没有那个。

At the turn of the 20th century, roughly, people started to get exercised about violations of the right to privacy, where the right to privacy was a pretty new idea — at least the umbrella — and then it started to get specified in various ways.

大约在 20 世纪之交，人们开始对侵犯隐私权的行为进行锻炼，当时隐私权是一个相当新的想法——至少是保护伞——然后它开始以各种方式得到具体化。

That was a big step forward for policy and also for legal theory, and we’re there in the world of a right to privacy.

这对于政策和法律理论来说都是一大进步，我们正处于隐私权的世界中。

That’s almost like fraud, right?

这几乎就像欺诈，对吧？

There’s another way of taking care of that.

还有另一种方法可以解决这个问题。

Well put.

说得好。

It’s almost like fraud.

这几乎就像欺诈一样。

Yes, it is fraud.

是的，这是欺诈。

No, it’s almost like fraud.

不，这几乎就像欺诈。

It might be fraud.

这可能是欺诈。

If the term is there, no fraud, just manipulation.

如果有这个词，那么就没有欺诈，只有操纵。

What’s a tweet I should be able to sue someone for that I cannot sue them for today?

有哪些推文是我应该能够起诉某人但我今天却无法起诉他们的？

“Don’t buy Imperfect Oracle.”

“不要购买不完美的甲骨文。”

Okay, that’s not an example.

好吧，这不是一个例子。

I think we want to have a lot of room for free tweeting.

我认为我们希望有足够的空间来免费发推文。

I wouldn’t want to go far beyond our current categories of libel, fraud, criminal solicitation.

我不想超出我们目前的诽谤、欺诈、教唆犯罪的范畴。

Do you agree that, whether we like it or not, laws against libel have become much weaker?

你是否同意，无论我们喜欢与否，反对诽谤的法律已经变得更加薄弱？

Anonymous posting is easier.

匿名发帖更容易。

Postings are more international.

帖子更加国际化。

The Streisand effect is stronger.

史翠珊效应更强。

The incentive to complain — you say, “I’ll let it pass.

抱怨的动机——你说：“我会让这件事过去的。

If I complain, it will just be a big thing on social media.” If laws against libel de facto are much, much weaker than they used to be, is there some change we should make to adjust for that?

如果我抱怨，这就会在社交媒体上引起轰动。”如果事实上的反对诽谤的法律比以前弱得多，我们是否应该做出一些改变来适应这一点？

Or we simply have to let it happen?

或者我们只能让它发生？

I’ll take a risk here and tell a story.

我会在这里冒险讲一个故事。

There’s a book coming out on nudging, which is not a very upbeat book about nudging.

有一本关于助推的书即将出版，但这并不是一本关于助推的非常乐观的书。

Not by you.

不是你。

Not by me.

不是我做的。

I’m very upbeat about it.

我对此非常乐观。

So, there are books not by you.

所以，有些书不是你写的。

This one is very critical, which is completely fine, but the description on Amazon is so full of inaccuracies.

这一点非常关键，完全没问题，但亚马逊上的描述充满了不准确之处。

I’m very welcoming to the criticisms in the book, but I’m not welcoming to the inaccuracies that I was staggered by it.

我非常欢迎书中的批评，但我不欢迎书中的不准确之处。

I hope, by the time this appears, they’ve been taken down.

我希望，当这一切出现时，它们已经被删除了。

I actually thought, “This is not libelous, probably, but in the extended universe.” That made me think about your question.

我实际上想，“这可能不是诽谤，而是在广阔的宇宙中。”这让我思考了你的问题。

To invoke libel law is extremely expensive and a very hazardous enterprise.

援引诽谤法是一项极其昂贵且非常危险的事业。

Five years from now, should we have such trials run by AIs?

五年后，我们应该让人工智能进行这样的试验吗？

It would be much cheaper, right?

会便宜很多，对吧？

I think the idea of AI trials looks very thinkable today.

我认为人工智能试验的想法在今天看起来非常值得思考。

What role for the human overseer is TBD.

人类监督者的角色是什么尚待确定。

We’re not there yet, but with respect to certain things, it would be very disagreeable to many, and maybe that’s a reason not to do it.

我们还没有做到这一点，但对于某些事情，许多人会非常不同意，也许这就是不这样做的原因。

Maybe it’ll be decreasingly disagreeable to many as people see well-functioning AI as in airlines, and increasingly, motor vehicles.

也许随着人们在航空公司以及越来越多的汽车中看到功能良好的人工智能，许多人会越来越不同意。

This is at least something to be discussed.

这至少是值得讨论的事情。

The ostensible right to a jury by one’s peers — does that matter here?

表面上由同行组成陪审团的权利——这在这里重要吗？

Well, as a formal legal matter, yes.

嗯，作为正式的法律问题，是的。

The jury-trial right, until the constitution is amended — which is unlikely — would trump AI advances.

在宪法被修改之前——“这不太可能”——陪审团审判权将胜过人工智能的进步。

Then we’d ask, “Should we be excited about that or ambivalent?” We might be excited about it on the ground that the jury isn’t supposed to only figure out what’s accurate.

然后我们会问，“我们应该对此感到兴奋还是矛盾？”我们可能会对此感到兴奋，因为陪审团不应该只弄清楚什么是准确的。

It’s also supposed to bring the conscience of the community to bear.

它还应该唤起社区的良知。

They let you?

他们让你了？

They let me.

他们让我。

I tried to get off.

我试图下车。

I said I was a law professor who works on jury behavior.

我说我是一名研究陪审团行为的法学教授。

I thought that would certainly get me off.

我想这肯定能让我摆脱困境。

I was included.

我也被包括在内。

Then, after the trial, the lawyer for the prosecution actually wanted to talk to me to ask what I thought of his performance, which was very generous of him.

然后庭审结束后，控方律师竟然想找我谈话，问我对他的表现有何看法，他真是大方了。

He lost, the prosecutor.

他输了，检察官。

He did a pretty good job.

他做得很好。

He talked to me, and the judge was there.

他跟我说话，法官也在场。

Why is Byatt’s Possession your favorite novel?

为什么《拜厄特的占有》是你最喜欢的小说？

Well, it captures the intensity and specificity of romance and the knowability to outside observers of what exactly happened in a way no other work in any language, I will say, does.

好吧，它捕捉到了浪漫的强度和特殊性，以及外部观察者对到底发生了什么的了解，我想说，这是其他任何语言的作品都无法做到的。

I’m smiling because, of course, I have only one language, really, but that’s how much I like it.

我微笑是因为，当然，我只有一种语言，真的，但这就是我喜欢它的程度。

The letters between the main characters are searing in their specificity, and they’re showing, not telling, about emotions.

主角之间的信件具有强烈的特殊性，它们是在展示而不是讲述情感。

Have you ever lived a tale like that?

你经历过这样的故事吗？

Maybe.

或许。

Maybe.

或许。

What’s a good movie that has shaped how you think about the law?

有哪部好电影塑造了您对法律的看法？

I have to say that, partly because I spend so much time on them, the first thing that comes to mind is — drum roll please — Star Wars.

我不得不说，部分是因为我花了太多时间在他们身上，首先想到的是 — 请打鼓 — 星球大战。

They are profound about the law, but they’re unforgettable about the law, about liberty and tyranny and freedom.

他们对法律深刻，但对法律、对自由、暴政和自由却难以忘怀。

So, they both connect with themes of liberalism.

因此，它们都与自由主义的主题相关。

You always have freedom of choice in small settings and large settings, and that says something about law.

无论是小环境还是大环境，你总是有选择的自由，这说明了法律。

I find most law movies not so good.

我发现大多数法律电影都不太好。

It’s a little like most sports movies, not all, but they have a gee-whiz quality, so I’m sticking with Star Wars.

这有点像大多数体育电影，但不是全部，但它们具有令人惊叹的品质，所以我坚持看《星球大战》。

In the television show, Bewitched, who’s the best secondary character?

在电视剧《迷魂记》中，谁是最好的配角？

Is it Uncle Arthur, Serena, Endora, Larry Tate?

是亚瑟叔叔、瑟琳娜、恩多拉、拉里·泰特吗？

Serena.

瑟琳娜。

Who didn’t fall for Serena?

谁没有爱上塞雷娜？

Elizabeth Montgomery was my first crush, and Serena was less committed to Darrin.

伊丽莎白·蒙哥马利是我的初恋，而瑟琳娜对达林的忠诚度较低。

Who was better as Darrin or Derwood, Dick York or Dick Sargent?

达林 (Darrin) 或德伍德 (Derwood)、迪克约克 (Dick York) 或迪克萨金特 (Dick Sargent) 谁更出色？

Dick York was better, but I saw recently an interview with Elizabeth Montgomery, I think — either she or someone who’s involved in the show — who said Dick York liked her a little more than was comfortable.

迪克·约克更好，但我最近看到了对伊丽莎白·蒙哥马利的采访，我认为“无论是她还是参与该节目的人”都说迪克·约克对她的喜欢程度超过了舒适度。

Dick Sargent has, I think, maybe a more congenial character to the person to whom I’m loyal, which is Ms. Montgomery.

我认为，迪克·萨金特的性格可能与我所忠诚的蒙哥马利女士更合拍。

Why is that an interesting TV show?

为什么这是一个有趣的电视节目？

I think, for all of us, the idea that someone can do magic — if it’s done right, it’s very cool.

我认为，对于我们所有人来说，有人可以施展魔法 ——如果做得好，那是非常酷的。

Harry Potter, of course, benefited from that.

哈利·波特当然从中受益匪浅。

The idea that there’s a person who seems normal and like a neighbor, who has magical properties, that’s very fun.

有一个人看起来很正常，就像邻居一样，拥有神奇的属性，这个想法非常有趣。

Elizabeth Montgomery carries the show.

伊丽莎白·蒙哥马利主持了这场演出。

She both portrays a normal person who goes to dinner parties and is a great spouse and mother, but also someone who can basically do anything, and she’s funny.

她既扮演了一个参加晚宴的普通人，也是一个伟大的配偶和母亲，但也是一个基本上可以做任何事情的人，而且她很有趣。

And there’s a sense of law on the show, right?

而且节目中有一种法律意识，对吧？

Yes.

是的。

Maybe it’s Ullmann-Margalit law.

也许这就是乌尔曼-玛格丽特定律。

You can’t just do anything to the other witches and warlocks, or you’ll get in a lot of trouble.

你不能对其他女巫和术士做任何事，否则你会遇到很多麻烦。

Yes, completely.

是的，完全如此。

There are rules.

有规则。

That’s right.

这是正确的。

If there weren’t rules, it would seem random.

如果没有规则，就会显得随机。

But they’re broken all the time as well.

但它们也总是坏掉。

They’re broken, and that’s funny.

它们坏了，这很有趣。

That’s where episodes come from.

这就是剧集的来源。

Yes.

是的。

When you visited the Bob Dylan museum in Tulsa, what did you learn about Dylan?

当您参观塔尔萨的鲍勃·迪伦博物馆时，您对迪伦有什么了解？

A lot.

很多。

I think the principal thing I learned is how he took standard songs that were classics and twisted them in directions that made them new, not only by doing things to the music, but also by taking words that had a certain meaning back then and giving them a different kind of meaning.

我认为我学到的最重要的事情是他如何将经典的标准歌曲转向新的方向，不仅通过对音乐进行修改，而且还通过采用当时具有一定含义的单词并赋予它们不同的含义。

“Chimes of Freedom,” was an Irish song originally, and you could see the evolution that led to “Chimes of Freedom” —

《自由之钟》原本是一首爱尔兰歌曲，你可以看到《自由之钟》的演变 ——

Wasn’t that a Scot song, “Chimes of Freedom”?

那不是一首苏格兰歌曲“自由之钟”吗？

I’m married to an Irish woman, so when I hear Scot, I think Irish.

我娶了一位爱尔兰女人，所以当我听到苏格兰人时，我想到的是爱尔兰人。

I think it was Irish, but maybe it was Scot.

我认为是爱尔兰人，但也许是苏格兰人。

Anyway, sorry, go on.

不管怎样，对不起，继续吧。

I think this is how all geniuses work, actually, but you can see it vividly at the museum, how he took things and made them his own and made them new.

我认为这实际上是所有天才的工作方式，但你可以在博物馆生动地看到它，他如何把东西变成自己的，然后使它们焕然一新。

What did you learn about Tulsa, going there?

去塔尔萨你学到了什么？

It’s amazing.

太棒了。

I learned that there’s a guy there whose name either I’ve forgotten or protecting by not giving his name.

我了解到那里有一个人，我要么忘记了他的名字，要么通过不透露他的名字来保护他。

He’s not concerned about himself.

他不关心自己。

He’s not a self-publicist.

他不是一个自我宣传者。

He’s a very wealthy man, who created the Dylan museum.

他是一个非常富有的人，创建了迪伦博物馆。

He bought it.

他买了它。

He did the same thing to Woody Guthrie’s holdings, so to speak, which are there.

可以这么说，他对伍迪·格思里的财产也做了同样的事情。

Now, we started with the topic of liberalism.

现在，我们从自由主义的话题开始。

How is it you think about or characterize the liberalism of Bob Dylan?

您如何看待或描述鲍勃·迪伦的自由主义？

Bob Dylan is a liberal.

鲍勃·迪伦是一位自由主义者。

His liberalism is captured in the line, “He not busy being born is busy dying.” I hope he’s immortal, but if anything is on his epigraph, that would be a good candidate.

他的自由主义体现在“他不忙于出生，而是忙于死亡”这句话中。我希望他是不朽的，但如果他的铭文上有什么，那将是一个不错的候选人。

“Visions of Johanna”?

“约翰娜的幻象”？

Yes, completely.

是的，完全如此。

He’s torn.

他很伤心。

That has the great opening line.

那有很棒的开场白。

“Ain’t it just like the night to play tricks When you’re trying to be so quiet?” Did Yeats write better lines than that?

“这不就像晚上你想保持安静的时候搞恶作剧吗？”叶芝写过比这更好的诗句吗？

Probably, but he was Yeats.

也许吧，但他是叶芝。

Blood on the Tracks — a liberal album?

《Blood on the Tracks》——一张自由主义专辑？

Oh, yes.

哦是的。

How would you express that?

你会如何表达？

Well, I’m thinking “Buckets of Rain” is the closing song.

嗯，我想《Buckets of Rain》是片尾曲。

Right before that, there’s a song, “You’re Gonna Make Me Lonesome When You Go.” That’s it, which is, I think, one of his greatest songs.

在那之前，有一首歌，“你走的时候会让我感到孤独”。就是这样，我认为这是他最伟大的歌曲之一。

That’s a liberal song of freedom and separation, that she’s going, but he’s going to see her everywhere, and there’s smiling at impermanence.

这是一首关于自由和分离的自由主义歌曲，她要去，但他会到处看到她，并对无常微笑。

That is a big liberal theme — smiling at impermanence — because impermanence makes things not routine and also makes for freedom.

这是自由主义的一个大主题——“微笑面对无常”——因为无常使事情不再例行公事，也带来自由。

“Idiot Wind” is the angry song of the batch, right?

《白痴风》是这批愤怒的歌曲吧？

Yes, it’s pretty mad.

是的，这很疯狂。

He said about that song, “I don’t know why people like it.

他谈到这首歌时说：“我不知道为什么人们喜欢它。

There’s so much sadness and distress in it.”

这里面有太多的悲伤和痛苦。”

Do you see your own liberalism or just yourself in the liberalism of Bob Dylan?

你在鲍勃·迪伦的自由主义中看到了你自己的自由主义还是你自己？

I think so.

我想是的。

Reinventing yourself, not quite wanting to be pinned down, doing a lot of stuff.

重塑自己，不想被束缚，做很多事情。

He likes, I think, abandoning and going on to something that’s very different.

我认为，他喜欢放弃并继续做一些非常不同的事情。

I wish I’d gone electric or had some equivalent of that.

我希望我能用电​​动的或者有类似的东西。

But doing something quite different — I do share a little bit with him.

但做一些完全不同的事情 —— 我确实与他分享了一些东西。

I like it when I think something I thought was wrong.

当我认为我认为是错误的事情时，我喜欢它。

I now am very enthusiastic about the Austrian economists and Hayek.

我现在对奥地利经济学家和哈耶克非常感兴趣。

I’ve always admired them, of course, but I didn’t feel that they were on my team.

当然，我一直很钦佩他们，但我不觉得他们是我的团队成员。

Now I feel I’ve gone to their team.

现在我感觉我已经加入了他们的团队。

I don’t feel ashamed that I was wrong before.

我并不为自己之前的错误感到羞耻。

I feel excited that I’m less wrong now.

我感到很兴奋，因为我现在错得少了。

Final question, what are the next six things you will do?

最后一个问题，接下来你会做的六件事是什么？

There’s lunch.

有午餐。

I’m doing a book now on animal rights, which was a topic I wrote a bit on 15, 20 years ago.

我现在正在写一本关于动物权利的书，这是我 15、20 年前写过的一个主题。

Then when I tried to get my second government job, where I was confirmed by the Senate, I faced ridicule and death threats because of my pro–animal welfare views.

然后，当我试图获得第二份政府工作并得到参议院批准时，由于我支持动物福利的观点，我面临着嘲笑和死亡威胁。

It got sufficiently unfun that I self-silenced about animals.

这太无趣了，我对动物保持沉默。

One reason was, I had worked for President Obama, and then I wasn’t working for him, but I was in some ways connected with him.

原因之一是，我曾为奥巴马总统工作过，后来我不再为他工作，但我在某些方面与他有联系。

I didn’t want to do anything to cause problems for my colleagues or former colleagues.

我不想做任何事给我的同事或前同事带来麻烦。

There was also a little bit of cowardice in it.

其中还夹杂着一点点的怯懦。

No book on Dylan?

没有关于迪伦的书吗？

I’m thinking about it.

我正在考虑。

I have an essay on Dylan, but I don’t have a book planned on Dylan.

我有一篇关于迪伦的文章，但我没有计划写一本关于迪伦的书。

I do have a gleam-in-the-eye book called How to Disagree.

我确实有一本令人眼前一亮的书，名叫《如何表达不同意见》。

I have an essay on this, which is right now focused on .

我有一篇关于此的文章，目前重点关注。

.

。

.

。

If I may say, you are a practitioner of the principles which I hope everyone would embrace, which include characterizing other people’s arguments in a way that they would recognize and be grateful for, indicating what you’ve learned from other people, including especially things that are not known yet, and indicating what you agree with in people you’re criticizing, especially, again, if those aren’t things that most people agree with.

如果我可以说，你是我希望每个人都能接受的原则的践行者，其中包括以一种他们会认可和感激的方式来描述别人的论点，表明你从别人那里学到了什么，尤其是还不知道的东西，并表明你同意你所批评的人的哪些观点，特别是，如果这些不是大多数人同意的事情。

Anatol, you mean?

阿纳托尔，你是说？

Yes.

是的。

This was formalized a little bit by Daniel Dennett in a paper on what he called the Rapoport Rules.

丹尼尔·丹尼特（Daniel Dennett）在一篇关于他所谓的“拉波波特规则”的论文中对此进行了形式化的阐述。

I’m thinking about this.

我正在考虑这个。

In the animals book, I have a section — it was the most fun to write.

在动物书中，我有一个章节 ——写起来最有趣。

It is called “Scolds and Scolding.” I recently learned the word scold as a noun.

这就是所谓的“骂与骂”。我最近学到了“骂”这个词作为名词。

I knew it was a verb.

我知道这是一个动词。

To be a scold is a terrible thing, and to be scolded is terrible.

被骂是一件可怕的事情，被骂也是一件可怕的事情。

The risk is that you write about animals and people feel scolded, and I hate that.

风险在于你写的是动物，人们会感到被责备，我讨厌这样。

I’m really trying to avoid that.

我真的很想避免这种情况。

Cass Sunstein, thank you very much.

卡斯桑斯坦，非常感谢你。

Thank you.

谢谢。

Great pleasure.

非常高兴。