Michael Nielsen on Collaboration, Quantum Computing, and Civilization's Fragility (Ep. 213)

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

大家好，欢迎回到《与泰勒对话》。

Today I’m here in San Francisco, chatting with Michael Nielsen.

今天我在旧金山与迈克尔·尼尔森聊天。

Michael is hard to introduce and also difficult to prepare for because he knows and has done so many different things.

迈克尔很难介绍，也很难准备，因为他知道并且做过很多不同的事情。

He’s from Australia, has a PhD in physics, has written what is perhaps the best-known text — or co-authored it — on quantum computing.

他来自澳大利亚，拥有物理学博士学位，撰写了有关量子计算的也许是最著名的文本（或与他人合着）。

Thank you so much, Tyler.

非常感谢你，泰勒。

You were saying there should have been a Metaculus on the opening question.

你说在开场问题上应该有一个Metaculus。

Why is the universe beautiful to human eyes?

为什么人类眼中的宇宙是美丽的？

Is it selection?

是选择吗？

I have no idea.

我不知道。

Selection is a very attractive kind of idea.

选择是一个非常有吸引力的想法。

I’m inclined to think not, just instinctively.

我倾向于认为不是，只是本能地认为。

I don’t know.

我不知道。

Why are there simple rules?

为什么有简单的规则？

Why do we have simple rules governing the universe?

为什么我们有简单的规则来管理宇宙？

In fact, why is simplicity an arguable truth, somehow associated to beauty?

事实上，为什么简单是一个有争议的真理，并且在某种程度上与美有关？

Physicists tend to assert that this is the case, but I don’t think anybody really knows the reason why.

物理学家倾向于断言情况确实如此，但我认为没有人真正知道其中的原因。

How beautiful do we, in fact, think the universe is?

事实上，我们认为宇宙有多美丽？

People don’t buy paintings of the universe.

人们不买宇宙画作。

People like you might, right?

像你这样的人可能会这样做，对吗？

Oh, I have a painting.

哦，我有一幅画。

I have the Hubble Deep Field on my wall, of course.

当然，我的墙上挂着哈勃深场。

But the most expensive paintings are not of the universe.

但最昂贵的画作并不是关于宇宙的。

They’re of people, they’re of boating scenes, right?

它们是人，它们是划船的场景，对吗？

I don’t think that’s really true.

我认为这不是真的。

The James Webb Space Telescope was about, I think, $10 billion —

我认为詹姆斯·韦伯太空望远镜的价值约为 100 亿美元 ——

Yes.

是的。

— and is arguably a machine for producing that kind of image.

——并且可以说是一种产生这种图像的机器。

It’s got to be one of the most important image factories and most expensive image factories ever made, so I’m not sure I buy that.

它一定是有史以来最重要的图像工厂和最昂贵的图像工厂之一，所以我不确定我是否购买它。

What’s the most beautiful image of the universe?

宇宙最美丽的形象是什么？

We have a sequence of improved images of the 3-degree microwave background.

我们有一系列改进的 3 度微波背景图像。

I don’t know, is it the most beautiful?

不知道，是不是最美呢？

It’s maybe the most extraordinary.

这也许是最非凡的。

It really is a photograph of the universe as a whole.

它确实是整个宇宙的照片。

You can look at that, and it says something about structure out in creation.

你可以看一下，它讲述了一些关于创造中的结构的事情。

Why do the sounds of the universe not appeal to us so much?

为什么宇宙的声音对我们没有那么大的吸引力？

It’s beautiful visually, but aurally it’s, eh.

视觉上很美，但听觉上也很美，呃。

We create very complicated things, which we call music, which are beautiful.

我们创造了非常复杂的东西，我们称之为音乐，它是美丽的。

That’s a great question.

这是一个很好的问题。

I don’t know why music is beautiful.

我不知道为什么音乐是美丽的。

People have made attempts.

人们已经做出了尝试。

There are things like chirp sounds that might be produced near a black hole and ideas like this.

有些东西可能会在黑洞附近产生，比如叽叽喳喳的声音，以及类似的想法。

And you’re right, they tend not to be all that beautiful.

你是对的，它们往往不是那么漂亮。

The only ones that I can think of offhand — it’s being produced by evolution.

我能立即想到的唯一的——它是由进化产生的。

Birdsong is beautiful, but we are actually quite closely related to birds, so it’s maybe not so surprising.

鸟鸣声很美，但我们实际上与鸟类关系密切，所以这也许并不奇怪。

I wonder if the beauty of light isn’t part of the reason for the beauty of the universe.

我想知道光的美丽是否不是宇宙美丽的原因之一。

As human beings, maybe we’re evolved to be attracted to light.

作为人类，也许我们进化到会被光所吸引。

It gives you an integrated theory of the beauty of the universe and beauty of paintings.

它给你一个关于宇宙之美和绘画之美的综合理论。

Vermeer, a great painter — he’s very attractive to people because of how he uses light.

维米尔，一位伟大的画家——他对人们非常有吸引力，因为他对光线的运用。

When you look at the universe, you’re typically seeing signatures of light in many cases.

当你观察宇宙时，在许多情况下你通常会看到光的特征。

If you look at the Milky Way, right?

如果你看银河系，对吗？

It’s pretty strange.

这很奇怪。

We see in such a tiny band of wavelengths.

我们看到的波长范围是如此之小。

We’re really not seeing almost anything.

我们真的几乎什么也没看到。

We’re not seeing into the infrared and the radio.

我们没有看到红外线和无线电。

We’re not seeing into the ultraviolet and the X-ray.

我们没有看到紫外线和 X 射线。

A lot of what we view as beautiful locally — it’s got this evolutionary explanation again, why the large-scale structure is beautiful.

很多我们在当地认为美丽的东西 ——它又得到了进化论的解释，为什么大规模的结构是美丽的。

I partially believe this explanation, which is that we do seem to be programmed to recognize and find attractive (instinctively) novelty, which is associated to structure somehow.

我部分相信这种解释，即我们似乎确实被编程为识别并发现有吸引力的（本能的）新颖性，这在某种程度上与结构相关。

So, we look and we see spiral galaxies or things like that.

所以，我们观察并看到螺旋星系或类似的东西。

Now, you’ve written that in the first half of your life, you typically were the youngest person in your circle and that in the second half of your life, which is probably now, you’re typically the eldest person in your circle.

现在，你已经写道，在你的前半生，你通常是你圈子里最年轻的人，而在你的后半生，也就是现在，你通常是你圈子里最年长的人。

How would you model that as a claim about you?

你会如何将其建模为关于你的主张？

I hope I’m in the first 5 percent of my life, but it’s sadly unlikely.

我希望我能活在人生的前 5%，但遗憾的是这不太可能。

Let’s say you’re 50 now, and you live to 100, which is plausible —

假设你现在 50 岁，并且能活到 100 岁，这是合理的 —

Which is plausible.

这是合理的。

— and you would now be in the second half of your life.

——现在你已经进入了人生的下半场。

Yes.

是的。

I can give shallow reasons.

我可以给出浅薄的理由。

I can’t give good reasons.

我无法给出充分的理由。

The good reason in the first half was, so much of the work I was doing was kind of new fields of science, and those tend to be dominated essentially, for almost sunk-cost reasons — people who don’t have any sunk costs tend to be younger.

上半年的好理由是，我所做的大部分工作都是新的科学领域，而这些领域基本上是占主导地位的，几乎是沉没成本的原因 —— 没有任何沉没成本的人往往更年轻。

They go into these fields.

他们进入这些领域。

These early days of quantum computing, early days of open science — they were dominated by people in their 20s.

量子计算的早期阶段、开放科学的早期阶段——都是由 20 多岁的人主导的。

Then they’d go off and become faculty members.

然后他们就会离开并成为教员。

They’d be the youngest person on the faculty.

他们将是教员中最年轻的人。

Let’s say you had a theory of your collaborators, and other than, yes, they’re smart; they work hard; but trying to pin down in as few dimensions as possible, who’s likely to become a collaborator of yours after taking into account the obvious?

假设你对你的合作者有一套理论，除了，是的，他们很聪明；他们工作努力；但尝试在尽可能少的维度上确定，在考虑到显而易见的事实后，谁有可能成为你的合作者？

What’s your theory of your own collaborators?

您对自己的合作者有何看法？

They’re all extremely open to experience.

他们都对体验非常开放。

They’re all extremely curious.

他们都非常好奇。

They’re all extremely prosocial.

他们都非常亲社会。

They’re all extremely ambitious.

他们都非常雄心勃勃。

They’re all extremely imaginative.

他们都非常有想象力。

Do you think that ends up pairing you with collaborators who are more different than you?

您认为这最终会让您与比您更不同的合作者配对吗？

A lot of collaborators are very similar, and then other types are very different.

很多合作者都非常相似，而其他类型则非常不同。

Almost always, as well, I will select for somebody who has at least one very strong skill which I do not have.

我几乎总是会选择至少拥有一项我不具备的强大技能的人。

That’s enough diversity from my point of view.

从我的角度来看，多样性已经足够了。

That may account for some of the age differences throughout your life.

这可能是您一生中年龄差异的部分原因。

Yes, sure, but also then, there’s this local selection effect.

是的，当然，但是，还有这种局部选择效应。

When I live in the Bay Area, there’s a lot of really amazing 29-year-olds around, and it’s just incredible.

当我住在湾区时，周围有很多非常出色的 29 岁年轻人，这真是令人难以置信。

I was told to ask, what’s the influence of Simone Weil on you?

有人让我问，Simone Weil 对你的影响是什么？

Oh, what an interesting question.

噢，多么有趣的问题啊。

She’s one of the maybe best examples of sincerity that I know of.

据我所知，她可能是最真诚的例子之一。

The fact that she wrote what she wrote for herself.

事实上，她写的都是她自己写的。

She wasn’t attempting to get published.

她并没有试图出版。

It was just this deep internal colloquial that was going on, and it’s reflected in every aspect of her life.

这就是正在发生的这种深刻的内心口语，它反映在她生活的各个方面。

She went off to fight in Spain at a time when women did not go off to fight in Spain.

她去西班牙打仗的时候，西班牙还没有女性去打仗。

Everything that she did, she did at 500 miles an hour.

她所做的一切，都是以每小时 500 英里的速度完成的。

She’s remarkable.

她很了不起。

She’s a very extreme type of a human being in a way that I find very interesting.

她是一个非常极端的人，在某种程度上我觉得很有趣。

If you and she collaborated, what would it be on?

如果你和她合作，会拍什么？

I’m sure she was a difficult person.

我确信她是一个很难相处的人。

Although her brother, André Weil, was a very great mathematician.

尽管她的哥哥安德烈·韦尔是一位非常伟大的数学家。

You can see in some of the stories about the two of them, that she must have quite liked the scientist types.

从他们两个人的一些故事中可以看出，她一定很喜欢科学家类型。

Maybe we would have found something to collaborate on.

也许我们会找到一些可以合作的东西。

Why is Charles Sanders Peirce still an important thinker?

为什么查尔斯·桑德斯·皮尔斯仍然是一位重要的思想家？

I don’t know enough about Peirce to be able to answer that question.

我对皮尔斯了解不够，无法回答这个问题。

You and I — we’re both fans of Olaf Stapledon, who wrote the dual classics Last and First Men and Star Maker.

你和我——我们都是奥拉夫·斯塔普尔顿（Olaf Stapledon）的粉丝，他写下了双部经典著作《最后的人和第一个人》和《造星者》。

What’s the biggest analytical mistake he made in those narratives?

他在这些叙述中犯的最大的分析错误是什么？

A lot of implausible things happen, but those are too simple to point to.

发生了很多难以置信的事情，但这些事情都太简单了，无法指出。

Where is his understanding of the social world going wrong?

他对社会的理解哪里出了问题？

He was both, certainly to some degree, a socialist and certainly a pacifist.

在某种程度上，他肯定是一个社会主义者，当然也是一个和平主义者。

Though in World War II he switched out of pacifism.

尽管在第二次世界大战中他放弃了和平主义。

He did, yes.

他做到了，是的。

As did many people, right?

和很多人一样，对吧？

Like I see in many people.

就像我在很多人身上看到的那样。

Yes.

是的。

I find myself, as I read those books, actually becoming a little bit more sympathetic.

当我读这些书时，我发现自己实际上变得更有同情心了。

I’m not, a priori, particularly sympathetic to them.

我并不是先验地特别同情他们。

I start to think, he has this very long view of history, much longer than most people who say they have a long view of history.

我开始想，他有很长远的历史观，比大多数自称有长远历史观的人要长得多。

I think he sees some of his pacifism in that light.

我认为他是从这个角度看待自己的和平主义的。

No, that’s an answer.

不，这就是答案。

I’ve answered the inverse of your question, which is to justify the bits that I, a priori, find most implausible, but, yes, I think those are mistakes.

我已经回答了你问题的反面，即证明我先验地认为最难以置信的部分是合理的，但是，是的，我认为这些都是错误。

I worry that he too quickly assumes collective-action problems are solved, which is close to your answer.

我担心他太快地认为集体行动问题已经解决，这与你的答案很接近。

He thinks the League of Nations can be effective for a long period of time, which I suspect was not really contingently possible.

他认为国际联盟可以长期有效，我怀疑这并不是偶然的。

And he has this Hegelian sense.

他有这种黑格尔意识。

What Hegel would call a national spirit, for him is a civilizational or certain stage of man’s spirit that so shapes how people think.

黑格尔所说的民族精神，对他来说是人类精神的文明或特定阶段，它塑造了人们的思维方式。

The comment about the League of Nations is really interesting.

关于国联的评论真的很有趣。

There’s this spirit at the time — lots of people wanted this idea to work.

当时就有这种精神——很多人都希望这个想法能够实现。

Lots of his friends would have wanted it.

他的很多朋友都会想要它。

I think it’s a shallow kind of a mistake that he made there.

我认为他在那里犯了一个浅薄的错误。

I’m not sure how big a mistake League of Nations was.

我不确定国际联盟犯了多大的错误。

Clearly, it didn’t work, and I just criticized him for it.

显然，这不起作用，我只是批评他。

But if you think about 1815 up through the First World War — almost a century — you have an unprecedented degree of peace in much, not all of Europe, and everyone has just lived through that.

但如果你想想 1815 年到第一次世界大战期间——“几乎一个世纪”——你会发现欧洲大部分地区（而非整个欧洲）都处于前所未有的和平状态，而且每个人都刚刚经历过这一时期。

They maybe thought that was not possible.

他们也许认为这是不可能的。

Maybe that is itself still a bit of a mystery.

也许这本身仍然是一个谜。

I’m just saying there’s a gap between aspiration and what actually happened with the League, and then later, with the United Nations.

我只是说，联盟以及后来的联合国的愿望与实际发生的事情之间存在差距。

I think you had the hopes, and then you had what actually happened, and there’s a very large gap.

我认为你有希望，然后你有实际发生的事情，这是一个非常大的差距。

Although, of course, as prototypes over the next few centuries, maybe these things are terrific.

当然，尽管作为未来几个世纪的原型，也许这些东西都很棒。

Maybe we learn a lot from them.

或许我们能从他们身上学到很多东西。

Things like, I don’t know, would the Montreal Protocol have been possible without the United Nations?

我不知道，如果没有联合国，《蒙特利尔议定书》是否可能实现？

Probably not.

可能不会。

I have a very concrete question for you, and this is to clear up a confusion of mine.

我有一个非常具体的问题要问你，这是为了澄清我的一个困惑。

I’ve asked experts in quantum computing, “What’s the status of quantum computing right now?” Some of them say, “We already have it.” Some of them say, “The others will tell you we already have it, but we don’t.” Others will say, “We’re on the verge of having it.” There are two or three other answers I hear, often people who nominally would seem to know what they’re talking about.

我问过量子计算领域的专家：“现在量子计算的状况如何？”他们中的一些人说：“我们已经有了。”他们中的一些人说：“其他人会告诉你我们已经有了，但我们没有。”其他人会说：“我们即将实现它。”我还听到了两三个其他答案，通常这些人名义上似乎知道自己在说什么。

See, I’m the wrong person.

你看，我是一个错误的人。

I am determinately very agnostic about this.

我对此确实非常不可知。

I stopped.

我停了下来。

I worked on it from 1992 to 2007.

我从 1992 年到 2007 年一直致力于这个工作。

Actually, I do keep up with friends.

事实上，我确实和朋友保持联系。

In fact, I’m going to have a coffee after this with somebody who’s still on the quantum train.

事实上，这之后我要和仍在量子列车上的人喝杯咖啡。

What’s your maximum likelihood estimate for the first year when it will do something useful?

当第一年它能做一些有用的事情时，你的最大可能性估计是多少？

Useful to me or useful to civilization?

对我有用还是对文明有用？

Useful to anyone.

对任何人都有用。

The most interesting thing would be to discover that quantum mechanics was wrong, from my point of view.

从我的角度来看，最有趣的事情是发现量子力学是错误的。

The other most interesting thing is probably discovery of new materials.

另一个最有趣的事情可能是新材料的发现。

How would it discover new materials?

它如何发现新材料？

Just by being able to do simulations very, very rapidly.

只是能够非常非常快速地进行模拟。

It’s very hard to do simulations of stuff down at the quantum scale.

在量子尺度上进行模拟是非常困难的。

The ways that we have are pretty terrible and often produce wrong results.

我们现有的方法非常糟糕，并且经常产生错误的结果。

The fact that we may actually have a very high-throughput way of doing lots and lots of simulations which give correct results — it’s being able to do a thousand times as many experiments as before.

事实上，我们实际上可能有一种非常高吞吐量的方法来进行大量的模拟，从而给出正确的结果 ——它能够进行比以前多一千倍的实验。

That will just speed things up.

这只会加快速度。

Insofar as there’s anything to discover, I can’t tell you what we’ll discover.

至于有什么有待发现，我无法告诉你我们会发现什么。

Will there be quantum money?

会有量子货币吗？

Will all money be quantum money in this world, whenever it comes?

无论何时到来，这个世界上所有的货币都会是量子货币吗？

I actually don’t know.

我其实不知道。

There’s this old idea of Stephen Wiesner, which he called quantum money.

斯蒂芬·威斯纳（Stephen Wiesner）有一个古老的想法，他称之为量子货币。

It’s meant to be uncounterfeitable.

它是不可伪造的。

I don’t know.

我不知道。

Isn’t everything else counterfeitable if quantum computing is up and running, and thus you need a quantum money to protect against just sheer counterfeiting?

如果量子计算启动并运行，其他所有东西不是都可以伪造吗？因此你需要量子货币来防止纯粹的伪造？

Most of the 19th-century monies — they were often counterfeit.

大多数 19 世纪的货币都是假币。

We don’t know the exact percentage, but we believe it was quite high.

我们不知道确切的百分比，但我们相信它相当高。

Yes.

是的。

It’s still true in the world today —

这在今天的世界仍然是正确的 ——

— never mind the 19th century, as we’ve talked about before.

— 别介意 19 世纪，正如我们之前讨论过的。

Yes, I won’t be surprised if we end up with systems like that.

是的，如果我们最终拥有这样的系统，我不会感到惊讶。

It’s hard to make it stable.

很难让它稳定下来。

That’s the issue, but my guess is that, in the long run, we actually will find ways of making quantum systems surprisingly stable.

这就是问题所在，但我的猜测是，从长远来看，我们实际上会找到使量子系统出奇稳定的方法。

That’s speculation on my part, but if I come back in 100 years’ time and that’s true, we may just have quantum coherence everywhere.

这是我的猜测，但如果 100 年后我回来证明这是真的，我们可能到处都有量子相干性。

Do you think that leads to a mass privatization of a lot of social activity?

您认为这会导致许多社会活动大规模私有化吗？

Something like AI.

像人工智能之类的东西。

We’re in San Francisco — the private sector does it.

我们在旧金山 ——私营部门做这件事。

No government is really close to doing it, right?

没有哪个政府真正接近做到这一点，对吗？

You have to pay high salaries, hire the most talented people.

你必须支付高薪，雇用最有才华的人。

So if AI and quantum computing are done by the private sector, what is government in that world?

那么，如果人工智能和量子计算是由私营部门完成的，那么那个世界的政府是什么？

I don’t know.

我不知道。

It’s an interesting fact that work on nuclear weapons was actually nationalized in, I think, 1948, or something like that.

一个有趣的事实是，我认为核武器研究实际上是在 1948 年或类似的时候被国有化的。

Potentially, that’s just one answer, right, contingently?

可能这只是一个答案，对吗？

But that seems more of a brute-force thing than what say OpenAI has done.

但这似乎比 OpenAI 所说的更暴力。

Sure.

当然。

I’m just saying that’s a potential outcome — I think quite a plausible potential outcome.

我只是说这是一个潜在的结果 —— 我认为这是一个相当合理的潜在结果。

I don’t think it’s likely, but it’s not 99 percent unlikely either.

我认为这不太可能，但也不是 99% 不可能。

Is the status of linear algebra rising?

线性代数的地位正在上升吗？

That’s a great question.

这是一个很好的问题。

It probably has, yes.

可能有，是的。

It’s prominent in quantum, right?

它在量子领域很突出，对吧？

It’s prominent in AI.

它在人工智能领域很突出。

Google is built on matrix multiplication.

谷歌是建立在矩阵乘法之上的。

It’s prominent for a lot of reasons.

它的突出有很多原因。

What should we infer from that about the whole nature of the world?

我们应该从中推断出世界的整体本质是什么？

If differential equations were rising in status to a similar degree, we might infer one set of things —

如果微分方程的地位上升到类似的程度，我们可以推断出一组事情 ——

— but linear algebra — you almost feel a bit more grounded, don’t you?

— 但是线性代数 — 你几乎感觉更接地气了，不是吗？

Because when I took that class, I felt I understood it.

因为当我上那堂课时，我觉得我明白了。

I never quite know what your status questions mean, Tyler.

我一直不太明白你的状态问题是什么意思，泰勒。

I don’t know what it means for something to rise in status.

我不知道地位上升意味着什么。

Well, AI now seems more important than it did five years ago, and matrix multiplication is a big part of that.

嗯，人工智能现在似乎比五年前更加重要，而矩阵乘法是其中的重要组成部分。

If quantum computing happens as you’re predicting it will, that, I think, would also make matrix algebra rise in status, like, “Oh, this is a really important tool.

如果量子计算如你所预测的那样发生，我认为，这也会使矩阵代数的地位上升，就像，“哦，这是一个非常重要的工具。

It’s behind all our quantum money.”

它是我们所有量子货币的背后。”

Do you mean it’s going to have more money go to it, more power go to it, more glamor go to it?

你的意思是它会有更多的钱、更多的权力、更多的魅力吗？

Are people going to regard this as sexy or what?

人们会认为这是性感还是什么？

All of those, but you would revise your ideas about the fundamental nature of the universe.

所有这些，但你会修改你关于宇宙基本性质的想法。

Just like our current understanding of quantum mechanics, it might be incorrect, but at least in the short run, it seems like probability theory is somehow more important than Einstein might have thought.

就像我们目前对量子力学的理解一样，这可能是不正确的，但至少从短期来看，概率论似乎比爱因斯坦想象的更重要。

As you know, he famously asserted God is not playing dice with the universe, perhaps incorrectly.

如你所知，他有一句著名的断言：上帝没有在与宇宙玩骰子，这也许是错误的。

The people who remake this understanding are very good at ignoring status.

重塑这种认识的人非常善于忽视地位。

But others aren’t.

但其他人则不然。

But others aren’t.

但其他人则不然。

I think I’m inclined to think maybe I don’t care.

我想我倾向于认为也许我不在乎。

I actually just don’t care that much.

其实我并不太在乎。

If you’re searching for comparative advantage in doing creative work, you want to know where status is, but mostly so you can avoid it.

如果你正在寻找从事创造性工作的比较优势，你想知道地位在哪里，但主要是为了避免它。

Yes, absolutely.

是的，绝对是。

“Be short status,” as Peter Thiel likes to say.

正如彼得·泰尔（Peter Thiel）喜欢说的那样，“保持短暂的地位”。

Yes, exactly.

是的，完全正确。

That’s well put.

说得好。

Is there any chance Roger Penrose is right and the human brain is some kind of quantum computer?

罗杰·彭罗斯是否有可能是对的，人脑是某种量子计算机？

I would love it if he was right.

如果他是对的，我会很高兴。

I think the answer, unfortunately, is not really, no. It’s certainly possible that there’s some very interesting structure in there that is quantum mechanical in some really interesting way.

不幸的是，我认为答案并不是真的，不。那里肯定有可能存在一些非常有趣的结构，以某种非常有趣的方式体现量子力学。

Lots of structure in there is quantum mechanical.

那里的很多结构都是量子力学的。

The reason why atoms are stable has to do with quantum mechanics.

原子之所以稳定，与量子力学有关。

All these sorts of things.

所有这些事情。

How are we going to make progress toward a theory of quantum gravity, a general understanding of everything?

我们如何才能在量子引力理论、对万物的普遍理解方面取得进展？

We seem to be stuck.

我们似乎被困住了。

Many people hate string theory.

许多人讨厌弦理论。

Many people hate Everett’s many worlds.

许多人讨厌埃弗里特的多个世界。

Those seem to be two major contenders.

这似乎是两个主要竞争者。

Where are we at?

我们现在在哪里？

And what’s going to happen next?

接下来会发生什么？

One fun reason for working on quantum computing is you’re trying to build the largest-scale, fully quantum-coherent systems that have ever been built.

研究量子计算的一个有趣的原因是你正在尝试构建有史以来规模最大、完全量子相干的系统。

Whenever you push on into a new regime like that, there’s some chance that things break down.

每当你推行这样的新制度时，事情就有可能崩溃。

If something was to break down there, that would be fantastic.

如果有什么东西在那里坏了，那就太棒了。

Because we’d learn a lot.

因为我们会学到很多东西。

Because we’d learn a lot.

因为我们会学到很多东西。

The problem in some ways in physics has been that the fundamental theories have been just too successful for the last 50 years.

物理学在某些方面的问题在于，过去 50 年的基础理论过于成功。

Yes, you’re right again, it’s very attractive for a few years, but over 50 or 60 years, it’s terrible.

是的，你又说对了，几年内它非常有吸引力，但超过 50 或 60 年，它就很糟糕了。

I think that’s certainly part of the issue with quantum gravity.

我认为这肯定是量子引力问题的一部分。

Does it bother you that so many people hate string theory, think it’s now low status, think it’s not aesthetic, think it’s unintuitive?

这么多人讨厌弦理论，认为它现在地位低下，认为它不美观，认为它不直观，你是否感到困扰？

Does that carry any weight with you?

这对你来说有重量吗？

Or do you want to be short status again on this one?

或者您想再次持有空头状态吗？

There’s the question of inside and outside the profession.

这里有一个职业内部和外部的问题。

There’s also the question of inside and outside the group of people who know something.

还有一个问题是，群体内部和外部的人都知道些什么。

Those two are not exactly the same group, but there’s a lot of overlap.

这两个群体并不完全相同，但有很多重叠之处。

Outside, it affects funding a little bit — well, actually maybe quite a bit, and so, in that sense, it matters.

从外部来看，它对资金产生了一点影响——嗯，实际上可能影响很大，所以，从这个意义上说，它很重要。

Do you feel that, ultimately, the final theory of a universe or a metaverse ought to be simple?

您是否认为最终的宇宙或虚拟宇宙的最终理论应该很简单？

Who’s declaring “ought” here?

谁在这里宣布“应该”？

When someone presents a theory to you, do you ever say, no, that’s too complicated?

当有人向你提出一个理论时，你是否曾经说过，不，这太复杂了？

It might be an intermediate theory at some level, but it’s not going to be the final theory.

在某种程度上，它可能是一个中间理论，但它不会是最终理论。

Because I hear this from many people — a lack of satisfaction.

因为我从很多人那里听到这样的说法——缺乏满足感。

You weren’t surprised.

你并不感到惊讶。

It’s the same, the tiny pieces of economics I’ve learned when I hear about — I don’t know — Ricardian comparative advantage or something like this.

当我听到 — 我不知道 — 李嘉图比较优势或类似的东西时，我学到的经济学的小知识是一样的。

There’s just a nice little element of surprise that you’re getting a free lunch somehow.

你能以某种方式获得免费午餐，这只是一个令人惊喜的小因素。

I’m more interested in that than I am maybe in the question of simplicity.

我对此更感兴趣，也许比对简单性问题更感兴趣。

What makes for physicists who age well?

是什么让物理学家能够长寿？

I spent quite a bit of time thinking about this, actually, in my late 20s and went to look and see what seemed to distinguish older physicists who had aged well and older physicists who had maybe gotten a bit too complacent.

事实上，在我 20 多岁的时候，我花了相当多的时间思考这个问题，并去观察那些年老的物理学家和那些可能有点过于自满的年长物理学家的区别。

As far as I could tell, having younger mentors was really the key thing.

据我所知，拥有年轻的导师确实是关键。

Why is that important?

为什么这很重要？

I don’t know.

我不知道。

I have theories.

我有理论。

This was an empirical observation.

这是一个经验观察。

Yes, but what’s your best theory?

是的，但是你最好的理论是什么？

What I think is probably the case — it’s almost a network effect.

我认为情况可能是这样的——这几乎是一种网络效应。

Basically, if there is some slight downhill slide, and most of your friends are not quite at the edge anymore, that’s going to infect you.

基本上，如果有一些轻微的下坡，而你的大多数朋友不再处于边缘，这就会感染你。

If you still have mentors who are 25, 28, extremely active, and they’re active in the latest ways, you get to partake of the positive network effects.

如果你仍然有 25 岁、28 岁、非常活跃的导师，并且他们以最新的方式活跃，你就可以分享积极的网络效应。

I think that’s why it’s very important not to have people who work for you — lots of 70-year-old physicists have 23-year-old students — but actually to have 23-year-olds, 28-year-olds who you really learn from and you regard as your mentors.

我认为这就是为什么不要让别人为你工作是非常重要的——“很多 70 岁的物理学家有 23 岁的学生”——但实际上有 23 岁、28 岁的人，你可以真正向他们学习，并视他们为你的导师。

Holding constant your degree of power and influence, what’s the best way to attract younger mentors?

在保持权力和影响力不变的情况下，吸引年轻导师的最佳方式是什么？

Find people whose work you admire and befriend them.

找到你欣赏其工作的人并与他们成为朋友。

You think that works pretty well.

你认为这效果很好。

Yes.

是的。

And just being nice?

只是表现得很好吗？

I’m not sure being nice is the right term.

我不确定“友善”这个词是否正确。

There’s degrees.

有学位。

You have a lot of younger mentors.

你们有很多年轻的导师。

Yes.

是的。

You’re known famously for being very nice, right?

你以非常友善而闻名，对吧？

This is partly a question about your own self-awareness, but has you being very nice helped you get more younger mentors?

这在一定程度上是关于你自己的自我意识的问题，但是你的友善是否帮助你获得了更多年轻的导师？

Or are they attracted to other aspects of you?

或者他们被你的其他方面所吸引？

I am extremely disagreeable, but in a polite way, I hope, and a kind way, hopefully.

我非常不同意，但我希望以礼貌的方式，并且希望以友善的方式。

So you are very nice, then.

那你真是太好了。

People often find people who are disagreeable actually quite difficult, but if you look at all of the younger mentors I’ve had in the last, say, seven or eight years, they’re all people who enjoy disagreement.

人们常常发现意见不合的人实际上很难相处，但如果你看看我在过去七、八年里遇到的所有年轻导师，他们都是喜欢提出意见的人。

They say the thing that they think is obvious, and you say, “Here’s another way of looking at it.” And they’re like, “Oh.” They want to engage.

他们说他们认为显而易见的事情，而你说：“这是看待它的另一种方式。”他们就像，“哦。”他们想要参与。

Some people get insulted, or they get threatened, or they get annoyed when you do that, and those people — they’re not going to be good collaborators.

当你这样做时，有些人会受到侮辱，或者他们受到威胁，或者他们会生气，而这些人 - 他们不会成为好的合作者。

They’re not going to be a match.

他们不会是一场比赛。

As the years pass, do you think your probability for God existing is going up or down?

随着时间的流逝，你认为上帝存在的可能性是上升还是下降？

Which type of God are you referring to here?

你在这里指的是哪种类型的神？

Are you referring to the Abrahamic God or what?

你指的是亚伯拉罕之神还是什么？

Not a particular religion, but some explanation that would seem to stand prior to and outside of what we call physics and would be mystical in some way.

不是某种特定的宗教，而是某种似乎先于我们所说的物理学并处于物理学之外的解释，并且在某种程度上是神秘的。

Oh.

哦。

That hasn’t changed since I was seven years old.

从我七岁起，这一点就没有改变。

That’s weird that it hasn’t changed, right?

奇怪的是它没有改变，对吧？

You’ve learned a lot.

你学到了很多东西。

Why shouldn’t it change in whichever direction?

为什么它不应该朝哪个方向改变呢？

I had explained to me three basic theories of cosmology when I was seven, one of which was the Big Bang, and then there were two others, which was steady state theory, and a third whose name I don’t even remember anymore.

我七岁时向我解释了宇宙学的三个基本理论，其中一个是大爆炸，然后还有另外两个，这是稳态理论，第三个我什至不记得它的名字了。

They leave some questions unanswered.

他们留下了一些悬而未决的问题。

Why is there anything?

为什么有什么？

I think my p has gone up a modest amount over time.

我认为我的 p 随着时间的推移略有上升。

When I was, say, in my young 20s, I thought physics was going to make more progress than it has at fundamental theoretical levels.

比如说，当我 20 多岁的时候，我认为物理学将取得比基础理论水平更多的进步。

The fact that it hasn’t — it nudges me a bit to wonder.

事实上，它并没有——这让我有点想知道。

These other types of explanations that I was not so keen on, maybe they’re a bit more important than I had thought.

我不太喜欢的这些其他类型的解释，也许它们比我想象的更重要。

That hasn’t happened with you?

你没有发生过这种事吗？

No. That’s interesting.

不，这很有趣。

It hasn’t really.

事实并非如此。

I just don’t think 40 years is very long.

我只是不认为40年很长。

If it had been 100,000 years —

如果是十万年 ——

But it’s all I’ve got, in a sense.

但从某种意义上说，这就是我所拥有的一切。

I know.

我知道。

I have a bit more, but —

我还有一点，但是 ——

Hopefully, yes.

希望是的。

— my opinion time span is going to be 40 plus something.

— 我认为时间跨度将是 40 多小时。

I think my appreciation for God has gone way up.

我想我对上帝的感激之情已经大大提高了。

I appreciate the construction of the religions far more than I did.

我比我更欣赏宗教的建设。

What notions of God do for people — I’m vastly more appreciative.

上帝的观念给人们带来了什么 —— 我更加感激。

My probability, I don’t think, has really changed.

我认为我的概率并没有真正改变。

What about evolutionary frameworks where there’s some Darwinian process, some kinds of universes within a broader metaverse?

进化框架怎么样，其中有一些达尔文过程，更广泛的元宇宙中的某些类型的宇宙？

They reproduce at greater frequencies.

它们以更高的频率繁殖。

That shapes the properties of what we live in.

这塑造了我们生活的属性。

Isn’t that a substitute for a good explanation, and that rises in probability just a bit?

这难道不是一个好的解释的替代品，而且概率只会增加一点吗？

No.

不。

Why not?

为什么不呢？

You’re relabeling what you mean by universe.

你正在重新定义宇宙的含义。

If you just use a term that means everything that is, then that hasn’t changed.

如果你只是使用一个表示一切的术语，那么这并没有改变。

Our model of what it might be has potentially changed quite a bit over the last few decades.

在过去的几十年里，我们的模型可能发生了很大的变化。

Maybe there’s a simple theory for the metaverse, but we can never, ever see it.

也许虚拟宇宙有一个简单的理论，但我们永远看不到它。

It’s like gnostic religion.

这就像诺斯替宗教。

Then our own universe — there’s not a simple theory, but we do know the parameter values we’ve got are enough to drag it across the finish line, and that takes some of the burden off physics in a way.

然后我们自己的宇宙 —— 没有一个简单的理论，但我们确实知道我们得到的参数值足以将它拖过终点线，这在某种程度上减轻了物理学的负担。

Just like the platypus — it seems an unlikely creature, but it has, in fact, survived.

就像鸭嘴兽一样——它似乎是一种不太可能的生物，但事实上，它存活了下来。

Okay, you’re just saying that some of the things that seem arbitrary —

好吧，你只是说有些事情看起来很武断 ——

The universe is like a platypus.

宇宙就像鸭嘴兽。

Being a good Australian, you appreciate the platypus, right?

作为一个善良的澳大利亚人，你很欣赏鸭嘴兽，对吧？

Yes, indeed, I appreciate the platypus quite a bit.

是的，确实，我非常欣赏鸭嘴兽。

It’s good for fooling visiting Americans about whether or not this animal can exist or not.

这对于愚弄来访的美国人来说这种动物是否存在是有好处的。

That, I’ve long thought, is an impossible question.

我一直认为这是一个不可能的问题。

We might have theories of parameter values, or be able to predict how things interact, or what happened a long time ago.

我们可能有参数值的理论，或者能够预测事物如何相互作用，或者很久以前发生的事情。

The Heideggerian question— I don’t think it’s a meaningful question at all because the word why is already embedded in some context which — it’s then a self-undercutting query.

海德格尔式的问题——我认为这根本不是一个有意义的问题，因为“为什么”这个词已经嵌入到了某种上下文中——这就是一个自我削弱的问题。

Oh, yes.

哦是的。

Now open science — why do some fields have preprint platforms and others not?

现在开放科学 ——为什么有些领域有预印本平台而另一些领域却没有？

Is there an actual regularity, or is that random and path-dependent?

是否存在实际的规律性，或者是随机且依赖于路径的？

I think a lot of that probably comes down to individuals.

我认为这很大程度上取决于个人。

One of my favorite things, years ago, before they’d started to spread in biology, I would often ask physicists and biologists this question: “Why are there preprints in physics but not in biology?” The biologists would say, “Biology is so much more competitive than physics that we can’t possibly bear to share our results too early.” The physicists would say, “Physics is so much more competitive than biology that we have to share them as rapidly as possible to get the word out.”

我最喜欢的事情之一是，几年前，在它们开始在生物学中传播之前，我经常问物理学家和生物学家这个问题：“为什么物理学有预印本，而生物学没有预印本？”生物学家会说：“生物学比物理学更具竞争力，我们不可能过早分享我们的结果。”物理学家会说：“物理学比生物学更具竞争力，我们必须尽快分享它们才能传播出去。”

But with COVID, didn’t biology — at least some parts of biology — go the route of physics?

但对于新冠病毒，生物学——至少是生物学的某些部分——不是走上了物理学的道路吗？

It just seems like it’s just a cultural problem.

看起来这只是一个文化问题。

It turns out it’s a little bit more like fashion, or something like that.

事实证明，它更像是时尚，或者类似的东西。

It does need to be solved.

确实需要解决。

If you look at what was done in the early days of the physics preprint server, some very clever things, actually, things which are reflected in some of my favorite economists .

如果你看看物理预印本服务器早期所做的事情，你会发现一些非常聪明的事情，实际上，这些事情反映在我最喜欢的一些经济学家身上。

.

。

.

。

Why do so many crummy journals survive?

为什么这么多低劣的期刊还能生存下来？

They can be quite expensive.

它们可能非常昂贵。

You might also have to pay to publish in them.

您可能还需要付费才能在其中发布。

They seem so terrible that if a good piece were in them, the journal would not certify the piece.

它们看起来太糟糕了，如果其中有一篇好文章，期刊将不会认证该文章。

If anything, the piece would help certify the journal.

如果有的话，这篇文章将有助于证明该期刊。

Why can’t we get out of that?

为什么我们不能摆脱这种情况呢？

There’s a complicated set of things going on.

有一系列复杂的事情正在发生。

One is that libraries pay, not individuals, usually, for subscriptions.

一是图书馆通常而不是个人支付订阅费。

The person getting the utility is not the same as the person making the buying decision.

获得效用的人与做出购买决定的人不同。

That’s always bad.

这总是不好的。

You think, in part, libraries are inefficient at capturing rents for themselves?

您是否认为图书馆在为自己赚取租金方面效率低下？

They get this budget, they spend it on bad journals.

他们得到了这个预算，却把它花在了糟糕的期刊上。

It might be better for the world if they just took the money home and bought ice cream, right?

如果他们只是把钱带回家买冰淇淋，对世界来说可能会更好，对吗？

Or did whatever, yes.

或者做了什么，是的。

There are many other things that could be done with that money.

这笔钱还可以做很多其他事情。

It’s difficult for them to reason about.

他们很难推理。

Having talked to many librarians, they will do things, like they will use impact factor.

与许多图书馆员交谈后，他们会做一些事情，比如他们会使用影响因子。

That’s the differentiator that they tend to use.

这就是他们倾向于使用的差异化因素。

They’ll try and get all impact factor — whatever it is — and above journals.

他们会尝试获取所有影响因子 — 无论是什么 — 及以上的期刊。

That’s the way they seem to think.

他们似乎就是这么想的。

They’re just using a very imperfect proxy.

他们只是使用了一个非常不完美的代理。

They understand, as well as anybody, that their proxy is imperfect, but they don’t have anything better to do as far as I can tell.

他们和其他人一样明白，他们的代理人是不完美的，但据我所知，他们没有更好的事情可做。

It’s a very unfortunate situation.

这是一个非常不幸的情况。

Right now, how high are the marginal returns to greater openness?

目前，进一步开放的边际回报有多高？

Put aside terrorists manufacturing new pathogens.

把制造新病原体的恐怖分子放在一边。

Put aside people figuring out how to make their own nuclear weapons, AI problems.

抛开人们如何制造自己的核武器、人工智能问题不谈。

Putting aside the very negative, just if the good stuff were more open, how much more rapidly would science progress?

抛开非常负面的因素，如果好的东西更加开放，科学进步会快多少？

Openness per se — that’s a very weak word.

开放本身——这是一个非常弱的词。

You need to be much more specific.

你需要更加具体。

If you look at, say, the culture around Jupyter Notebooks in machine learning, I think having those very openly available and widely available really has driven a lot of progress.

如果你看看机器学习领域 Jupyter Notebook 的文化，我认为拥有这些非常公开且广泛可用的产品确实推动了很大的进步。

You can just write your Jupiter Notebook with your experiment.

你可以用你的实验来写你的 Jupiter Notebook。

You make it available to other people, and that can really drive a lot of progress.

你将其提供给其他人，这确实可以推动很大的进步。

It’s not going to be 2x or —

它不会是 2x 或 ——

I think that there’s much larger than 2x possible, and this is a piece of that.

我认为有比 2 倍大得多的可能性，这就是其中的一部分。

Yes, but it’s not 2x on its own.

是的，但它本身并不是 2 倍。

No. Actually, it’s too undefined a term.

不，事实上，这个词太不明确了。

Openness is always with respect to what platform, with respect to what set of institutions, with respect to what set of norms.

开放始终是相对于什么平台、相对于什么样的机构、相对于什么样的规范而言。

With the current sets of norms and institutions that we have, it buys you a little bit.

凭借我们目前拥有的一套规范和机构，它会给你带来一些好处。

I don’t think it buys you that much, but the norms and institutions — they’re going to change in response.

我不认为这对你有多大帮助，但规范和制度将会随之改变。

The way in which people work will change in response — the Jupyter Notebook example I gave is, I think, a good example of that.

人们的工作方式将会随之改变——我认为我给出的 Jupyter Notebook 示例就是一个很好的例子。

Why are science textbooks so expensive?

为什么科学教科书这么贵？

Is it marginal cost?

是边际成本吗？

Is it third-party payment problems?

是第三方支付的问题吗？

Is it something else?

难道是别的什么？

I don’t know.

我不知道。

Is it instructor lock-in, because the notes are geared to the text they’ve worked with for 15 years?

是因为笔记是针对他们已经研究了 15 年的课本而锁定的吗？

Very few professors make that much money from the textbooks that they write, but they’re often very protective.

很少有教授能从他们写的教科书中赚那么多钱，但他们往往非常保护自己。

I see people complaining on Twitter that they’re not going to get the $400 check next year for their textbook under a new open-access policy, and they’re really up in arms about this $400.

我看到人们在 Twitter 上抱怨说，根据新的开放获取政策，他们明年将无法获得 400 美元的教科书支票，而他们对这 400 美元真的很不满。

That’s interesting.

那很有意思。

It’s hard for me to empathize with, psychologically.

从心理上来说，我很难同情。

I don’t understand.

我不明白。

A priori, I wrote this neural nets textbook, which I put online for free, and that’s made a really large difference to the impact which it’s had.

首先，我写了这本神经网络教科书，并将其免费放在网上，这对其产生的影响产生了很大的影响。

You mean like giving talks or being invited?

你的意思是发表演讲或被邀请？

Yes, and just in general, people know who you are, what you’ve done, what you’re interested in, and they’re much more likely to provide all sorts of different opportunities, including jobs.

是的，一般来说，人们知道你是谁，你做过什么，你对什么感兴趣，他们更有可能提供各种不同的机会，包括工作。

I think from the point of view of the authors, it really actually doesn’t make that much sense.

我认为从作者的角度来看，这实际上没有多大意义。

From the point of view of the publishers, though, it might make more sense.

不过，从出版商的角度来看，这可能更有意义。

The textbook market is not huge, but it is multi-billions.

教科书市场虽然不大，但也有数十亿。

You have a well-known article with Patrick Collison on progress in science slowing down, and it’s published at a point, say, right before mRNA vaccines, right before GPT-4, other developments.

Patrick Collison 发表了一篇关于科学进展放缓的著名文章，它是在 mRNA 疫苗、GPT-4 和其他进展之前发表的。

How well can we know the progress of science at any point in time?

我们在任何时候对科学进步的了解程度如何？

Isn’t there often an everything-all-at-once effect, and in fact, those years we were building up and investing in things that very suddenly then flourished?

难道不是经常有一种万事俱备的效应吗？事实上，那些年我们正在建设和投资的东西突然就蓬勃发展了？

Yes, it’s amusing to think about different points of time at which you could try and write the same article.

是的，考虑在不同的时间点尝试写同一篇文章是很有趣的。

Probably the years before the Principia you would have been able to do the same thing.

也许在《原理》问世之前的几年，你就能够做同样的事情。

Do you think the private-sector wages of scientists are a good proxy for progress in science?

您认为私营部门科学家的工资可以很好地代表科学进步吗？

If science is declining in value, you would think scientists would be paid less and less, but over the last 40 years, mostly those wages haven’t fallen.

如果科学的价值正在下降，你可能会认为科学家的工资会越来越低，但在过去 40 年里，这些工资大多没有下降。

Isaac Newton wasn’t the richest person to ever live, but he probably did more for human understanding than anyone else.

艾萨克·牛顿并不是有史以来最富有的人，但他为人类理解所做的贡献可能比任何人都多。

But there’s more of a market now.

但现在市场更大了。

The Isaac Newton of today would probably be pretty wealthy.

今天的艾萨克·牛顿可能会非常富有。

Maybe.

或许。

Einstein could have been wealthy had he done more media, right?

如果爱因斯坦做更多的媒体工作，他可能会变得富有，对吗？

He wouldn’t have been wealthy for what he did well.

他不会因为他做得好而变得富有。

He would have been wealthy for very indirect ways.

他本可以通过非常间接的方式变得富有。

But still, his wage would have reflected his fame.

但他的工资仍然反映了他的名气。

He could have endorsed ski boots and other things.

他本可以认可滑雪靴和其他东西。

Famously, what was it, he asked for $3,000 a year when he moved to the IAS, and they gave him $15,000.

众所周知，当他转到 IAS 时，他要求每年 3,000 美元，他们给了他 15,000 美元。

I think he wasn’t very good at negotiating.

我认为他不太擅长谈判。

Just say that the wages for private-sector pharma scientists — they seemed to go up for quite a while when the drug pipeline seemed slow.

只要说私营部门制药科学家的工资 ——当药物研发缓慢时，他们似乎会上涨相当长一段时间。

Should we have inferred from that, “Well, we’re building up to some big things, some blockbusters,” or not?

我们是否应该从中推断出“好吧，我们正在做一些大事，一些大片”，或者不？

I don’t know.

我不知道。

This is a question for you, Tyler.

这是你的问题，泰勒。

It’s not a question for me.

这对我来说不是一个问题。

That’s why I’m asking you.

这就是我问你的原因。

Good reason to do so.

这样做的充分理由。

I think I’m inclined to think, and there’s always this interesting balance.

我想我倾向于思考，而且总是有这种有趣的平衡。

Actually, AI is a really interesting example at this point in time.

事实上，人工智能在此时是一个非常有趣的例子。

There’s this theory which has become widely believed by almost everybody that scaling is very important.

有一个几乎所有人都广泛相信的理论：规模化非常重要。

Right.

正确的。

Scaling is a very capital-friendly story.

扩张是一个非常有利于资本的故事。

It actually moves some of the negotiating power from individual researchers, I think, to the centers of capital, but it is just a story.

我认为，它实际上将一些谈判力量从个别研究人员转移到了资本中心，但这只是一个故事。

I think it’s quite interesting that, in some sense, it gives the individual researchers less negotiating power.

我认为很有趣的是，从某种意义上说，它赋予了个体研究人员较少的谈判能力。

But this is a small city.

但这是一座小城市。

Doesn’t everyone know?

难道大家都不知道吗？

I had dinner with a bunch of AI researchers last night.

昨晚我和一群人工智能研究人员共进晚餐。

They all seem to know each other’s relative importance.

他们似乎都知道彼此的相对重要性。

Yes.

是的。

COWEN: You look at their salaries, so there are rumors —

COWEN：你看看他们的薪水，就会发现有谣言 ——

They’re doing fine.

他们做得很好。

COWEN: — that top researchers can be offered $5 million to $10 million a year.

COWEN： — 顶级研究人员每年可以获得 500 万到 1000 万美元的报酬。

Those must be some of the highest science salaries ever, and you’re saying AI is such a big thing.

这些肯定是科学界有史以来最高的薪水，而且你说人工智能是如此重要。

You seem to be coming down on the side of the wages predicting something.

你似乎在预测某些事情时站在工资一边。

I think so much money is going in, and it’s going in on the basis of brand to some extent.

我认为投入了很多钱，而且在某种程度上是基于品牌的。

“We’ve hired such and such a person who did such and such a thing.” And if that can make your company valuation go up by a few hundred million dollars, then offering them another extra million dollars a year makes sense.

“我们雇佣了某某人，做了某事。”如果这能让你的公司估值上升几亿美元，那么每年再向他们提供额外的一百万美元是有意义的。

But this is all local storytelling.

但这都是当地的故事。

Sure.

当然。

It’s not grand theory of what’s actually going on.

这并不是实际发生的宏大理论。

I haven’t thought it through in enough detail to have any confidence there.

我还没有考虑得足够详细，对此没有信心。

Now, you’re working on what I think you call the vulnerable world hypothesis.

现在，你正在研究我认为你所说的“脆弱世界假说”。

Yes?

是的？

Nick Bostrom — that’s his term.

尼克·博斯特罗姆（Nick Bostrom）——这是他的术语。

Oh.

哦。

What do you think is the cost at which a nuclear weapon could destroy a city?

您认为核武器摧毁一座城市的代价是多少？

If that costs only $50,000, it seems to me the world’s in big, big trouble pretty quickly.

如果这只花费 5 万美元，在我看来，世界很快就会陷入大麻烦。

What’s that cost level where you get very, very nervous?

令您非常非常紧张的成本水平是多少？

If it’s $10 billion, maybe things are fairly safe.

如果是 100 亿美元，也许事情还算安全。

If it’s $50,000, we’re done for.

如果是 50,000 美元，我们就完了。

What’s the threshold?

门槛是多少？

It’s the cost and expertise, but let’s say, the expertise is comparable.

这是成本和专业知识，但可以说，专业知识是可比的。

So, somebody who has $50,000 is probably able to get the expertise as well.

因此，拥有 50,000 美元的人也可能能够获得专业知识。

Yes, that’s not great.

是的，那不太好。

That’s my fundamental worry with or without AI, just that cost becomes low.

不管有没有人工智能，这都是我最根本的担忧，只是成本会变得很低。

Honestly, there’s some question about what exactly you mean by nuclear weapon.

老实说，关于核武器的确切含义存在一些问题。

Is it portable?

它是便携式的吗？

It would render a mid-sized city uninhabitable for a few decades at the very least.

这将使一座中型城市至少在几十年内无法居住。

A multimegaton but not necessarily the largest things.

数百万吨但不一定是最大的东西。

It would make the headlines.

这会成为头条新闻。

It would make the headline.

这会成为头条新闻。

Sure, but if enough of these go off, life as we know it is over.

当然可以，但如果这些东西消失得足够多，我们所知道的生活就结束了。

They can certainly be destabilizing.

它们肯定会破坏稳定。

It’d be like the fall of the Roman Empire, maybe worse.

这就像罗马帝国的衰落，甚至更糟。

Yes, that’s what it starts to seem like.

是的，看起来就是这样。

In what year do you think that the cost will be low enough that that happens?

您认为哪一年成本会足够低以实现这一目标？

At this point, I don’t have a good sense.

在这一点上，我没有很好的感觉。

I suppose I’m actually more concerned about other threats.

我想我实际上更担心其他威胁。

Biosafety is the obvious thing.

生物安全是显而易见的事情。

Computer security.

计算机安全。

I wouldn’t call it a certain threat, but if you simply think technology will advance —

我不会称其为某种威胁，但如果你只是认为技术会进步 ——

Here’s the thing.

事情是这样的。

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty means that we actually have a lot of controls of the ability to produce fissile material.

《核不扩散条约》意味着我们实际上对生产裂变材料的能力拥有很多控制权。

But that’s like League of Nations, right, ultimately?

但这最终就像国际联盟，对吗？

Yes, it is.

是的。

It’s really coming out of that same .

它确实是出于同样的目的。

.

。

.

。

We have this cartel of — whatever it is — 10 countries or something.

我们有这个由 ——“不管它是什么”—— 10 个国家或其他国家组成的卡特尔。

It’ll fail when the cost is low.

成本低的时候就会失败。

It will eventually fail, but that’s many decades away.

它最终会失败，但那是几十年后的事了。

You have reason to think we’re going to last a thousand years in a civilized state.

你有理由认为我们将在一个文明国家中持续一千年。

Not every person dead —

并不是每个人都死了 —

I think getting off planet Earth and establishing a civilization elsewhere is very, very important.

我认为离开地球并在其他地方建立文明非常非常重要。

Yes.

是的。

Very hard for economic reasons but utterly crucial.

出于经济原因，这非常困难，但至关重要。

Robots, in a sense, make it harder because you could send robots to Mars to do whatever might be economically useful there, means you never work hard on having humans do it.

从某种意义上说，机器人让事情变得更加困难，因为你可以将机器人送到火星去做任何可能在经济上有用的事情，这意味着你永远不会努力让人类去做这件事。

Yes, that’s true.

是的，确实如此。

We’re pretty curious.

我们很好奇。

The robot will take perfect footage.

机器人将拍摄完美的镜头。

Whatever is there, the robot will send back to us.

无论有什么，机器人都会发回给我们。

You’ll have your whatever is the current version of Apple Vision Pro on.

您将拥有当前版本的 Apple Vision Pro。

It will seem very realistic.

这会显得非常现实。

You’re an economist.

你是一位经济学家。

I’m a romantic, I think.

我想，我是一个浪漫的人。

Might be the difference.

可能就是差别吧

We’d have to settle them at scale, so 20 people on Mars limping along.

我们必须大规模安置他们，所以火星上的 20 个人只能一瘸一拐地前行。

Oh, we’re talking about a million people, not 20 people.

哦，我们谈论的是 100 万人，而不是 20 人。

If we can do a million, we can do a billion, I would think.

我想，如果我们能做到一百万，我们就能做到十亿。

Sure.

当然。

I think it’s not going to be self — what’s the right term?

我认为这不会是“自我”——“正确的术语是什么？”

It’s not going to be an autarky, or whatever the right term is.

它不会是自给自足，也不会是任何正确的术语。

It’s not going to be completely self —

不会是完全的自我 ——

Sustaining, yes.

坚持，是的。

— sustaining, but at a million people, it has a lot of the civilizational infrastructure.

— 维持，但有一百万人口，它拥有很多文明基础设施。

I think that’s the right scale.

我认为这是正确的规模。

Casey Handmer has a nice book, which I think is way too optimistic in many of its assumptions, but he’s got the right scale.

凯西·汉默（Casey Handmer）有一本不错的书，我认为这本书的许多假设都过于乐观，但他的规模是正确的。

Economics aside, what’s the main scientific constraint that has to be overcome?

除了经济学之外，必须克服的主要科学限制是什么？

Is it gravity?

是重力吗？

Is it effects of radiation on the human body?

辐射对人体有影响吗？

Is it water?

是水吗？

To some extent, we’re not going to know until we go.

在某种程度上，直到我们离开之后我们才会知道。

There was this great experiment done a few years ago where there was a pair of twins.

几年前进行了一项伟大的实验，其中有一对双胞胎。

One went up into space for a year, and the other one stayed on Earth.

一个进入太空一年，另一个留在地球上。

That was the first time we actually got to do a somewhat controlled study where we see what the impact of being in space for a long period of time does to a human body.

这是我们第一次真正进行某种程度的对照研究，了解长期处于太空中对人体的影响。

They just discovered so many things.

他们刚刚发现了很多事情。

This is still below the Van Allen Belts as well.

这仍然低于范艾伦带。

We just don’t know the answer to those questions.

我们只是不知道这些问题的答案。

You’re making me think civilization as we know it won’t last a thousand years.

你让我认为我们所知的文明不会持续一千年。

No. I also have a lot of, I guess, faith in long-run economic growth.

不。我想，我对长期经济增长也抱有很大的信心。

Basically, at the moment, for us to go to Mars is very, very, very expensive given the return, or to establish a permanent human presence in space.

基本上，目前，考虑到返回或在太空建立人类永久存在，对我们来说前往火星的成本非常非常非常昂贵。

If we continue to have economic growth, the relative cost is just going to keep going down.

如果我们继续保持经济增长，相对成本就会继续下降。

At some point, it’s actually not going to be that difficult.

在某些时候，它实际上不会那么困难。

Does a vulnerable world mean near-universal surveillance?

脆弱的世界是否意味着近乎普遍的监视？

Unfortunately, I think probably yes.

不幸的是，我想可能是的。

Doesn’t that then become the great point of vulnerability?

这难道不会成为最大的弱点吗？

Oh, absolutely.

哦，绝对是。

Yes.

是的。

If you could ban universal surveillance from here on out forever, would you press that button?

如果你可以从现在开始永远禁止普遍监控，你会按下那个按钮吗？

No. The term surveillance — it’s funny.

不。“监视”这个词——“很有趣。”

It has negative connotations.

它有负面含义。

People think of Bentham and the panopticon, and The Gulag Archipelago, and the Stasi and all these things.

人们会想到边沁和圆形监狱、古拉格群岛、斯塔西和所有这些东西。

But in fact, our ability to supply justice is dependent upon having a good understanding of what has occurred in the present and in the past.

但事实上，我们伸张正义的能力取决于对现在和过去发生的事情的充分了解。

So, to the extent —

所以，在某种程度上 ——

Maybe it needs opaqueness as well.

也许它也需要不透明。

It’s this optimal mix of surveillance and opaqueness, that you actually have some latitude to break certain laws, to misbehave, that keeps the system stable, limits the abuses of power, limits how much power the powerful have over us.

正是这种监视和不透明性的最佳组合，让你实际上有一定的自由度来违反某些法律、行为不端，从而保持系统的稳定，限制权力的滥用，限制当权者对我们拥有的权力。

There has to be some Madisonian point of view where you’re bringing the powerful institutions into conflict with each other.

必须有某种麦迪逊主义的观点，让强大的机构相互冲突。

We do that very imperfectly at the moment.

目前我们在这方面做得还很不完善。

Ideas like search warrants and things like this — they’re supposed to be checks and balances, but it seems like the organizations which do the surveillance are too powerful.

像搜查令之类的想法——它们应该是制衡的，但似乎进行监视的组织太强大了。

They don’t have strong enough checks on them.

他们对他们没有足够严格的检查。

I don’t know whether, just as a practical matter, the United States is capable of doing this well.

我不知道美国是否有能力把这件事做好。

I’d be much more comfortable if it was in other countries.

如果是在其他国家我会舒服得多。

In a strong AI future, where do the economies of scale lie?

在强大的人工智能未来，规模经济在哪里？

Say, within your lifetime, not 500 years from now.

比如说，在你有生之年，而不是 500 年后。

There’ll be one company, there’ll be one chip maker.

将会有一家公司，将会有一家芯片制造商。

I’m not sure what you’re pointing to.

我不确定你指的是什么。

Well, we’re all trying to figure out how AI will shape the future, right?

好吧，我们都在努力弄清楚人工智能将如何塑造未来，对吗？

Yes.

是的。

One model is everything is supplied competitively, maybe a bit like fast food today.

一种模式是所有东西都是竞争性供应的，也许有点像今天的快餐。

I suspect that’s not true, but it could be true.

我怀疑这不是真的，但它可能是真的。

There’s the oligopoly model.

这就是寡头垄断模式。

There’s the one company races ahead of the others, and then its own AI does R&D at an accelerated pace, and they stay ahead forever, or there’s one country, one company, one something controls all the chips.

有一家公司领先于其他公司，然后它自己的人工智能加速研发，他们永远保持领先，或者有一个国家，一家公​​司，一个东西控制所有的芯片。

Where do you see the monopoly power evolving?

您认为垄断力量在哪里演变？

Because it’s essential, I think, to predictions of the model.

因为我认为这对于模型的预测至关重要。

When I talk to people who know much more than I do, they all point at ASML as having been surprisingly hard to duplicate.

当我和那些比我懂得更多的人交谈时，他们都指出 ASML 出人意料地难以复制。

It’s not so much do the lithography, but do the lithography at scale, which seems to be very, very hard.

与其说是光刻，不如说是大规模光刻，这似乎非常非常困难。

So we should be long Netherlands?

那么我们应该做多荷兰吗？

Probably, yes.

可能是的。

Yes.

是的。

That would be an amazing conclusion, wouldn’t it?

这将是一个令人惊奇的结论，不是吗？

It would be an amazing conclusion.

这将是一个令人惊奇的结论。

A return to the Dutch Renaissance.

回归荷兰文艺复兴时期。

It’s like agriculture and lithography drawing on 17th-century strengths.

这就像农业和平版印刷术借鉴了 17 世纪的优势。

Human services, maybe.

也许是人类服务。

That’s right.

这是正确的。

Yes.

是的。

The return of Vermeer.

维米尔的回归。

Yes.

是的。

What do you think of the Netherlands as a country?

您如何看待荷兰这个国家？

Oh, I love it.

哦，我喜欢它。

Actually, I spent a month there.

事实上，我在那里呆了一个月。

Who am I kidding?

我在跟谁开玩笑呢？

That’s a lot of time.

那是很多时间。

That’s a fair amount of time, in Leiden actually.

实际上，在莱顿，这已经是相当长的时间了。

It’s a lovely place.

这是一个可爱的地方。

It has many problems, of course.

当然，它有很多问题。

Their altitude is not great.

他们的海拔并不高。

In some ways, it’s good.

从某些方面来说，这很好。

Yes, an interesting test case.

是的，一个有趣的测试用例。

They show what a strong, determined civilization can do in response to nature.

它们展示了一个强大而坚定的文明可以如何应对自然。

Yeah.

是的。

I like the flatness of it.

我喜欢它的平坦度。

I like the water being everywhere.

我喜欢到处都是水。

Not everywhere, but most parts, at least, of Western Netherlands.

不是所有地方，但至少是荷兰西部的大部分地区。

I find that very attractive.

我觉得这很有吸引力。

There’s this stereotype I sometimes encounter.

我有时会遇到这种刻板印象。

People view it as being a little orderly.

人们认为它有点有序。

I’ve heard people say it’s dull, but I think some of the most interesting experiences of my life were there.

我听人们说这很无聊，但我认为那里有我一生中最有趣的经历。

I went to a — it was like a jamboree in a field.

我去了一个——那就像在田野里举行的狂欢会。

What was it?

那是什么？

Five days long, called Hacking at Random, in 2011, where some people from Anonymous spoke, a whole bunch of cryptographers spoke.

2011 年，为期五天的随机黑客大会上，来自 Anonymous 的一些人发表了演讲，一大群密码学家也发表了演讲。

It was really hacker culture.

这确实是黑客文化。

It was just intellectually wild in the most interesting way.

这只是以最有趣的方式在智力上疯狂。

It grew out of Dutch hacker culture.

它源于荷兰黑客文化。

That spirit of the Dutch Renaissance is still visible.

荷兰文艺复兴时期的精神仍然可见。

How would you describe the quality of those conversations?

您如何描述这些对话的质量？

What were they like?

他们是什么样的人？

Different than what’s in San Francisco?

和旧金山的不一样吗？

Oh, yes.

哦是的。

How are they different?

它们有何不同？

They’re not captured by capital to the same extent.

他们没有同等程度地被资本俘获。

Conversations in San Francisco, particularly with younger people, tend to be extremely idealistic and often very pro-social.

旧金山的对话，尤其是与年轻人的对话，往往非常理想主义，而且往往非常亲社会。

But then later, there’s this negotiation that goes on, where they need access to capital to make their dreams come true.

但后来，谈判仍在继续，他们需要获得资本来实现他们的梦想。

A certain amount of compromise is made, although they also often keep a lot of their original pro-social and idealistic character.

尽管他们也常常保留很多原来的亲社会和理想主义的性格，但他们还是做出了一定程度的妥协。

In the Netherlands, in those particular events, there have been less of that.

在荷兰，在这些特殊事件中，这种情况较少。

They also have less access to capital.

他们获得资本的机会也较少。

If someone’s going to travel to the Netherlands — they have a tech background — what should they do?

如果有人要去荷兰旅行 ——他们有科技背景 —— 他们应该做什么？

Or what advice do you have for them?

或者您对他们有什么建议？

How should they try to learn more from the Netherlands?

他们应该如何向荷兰学习更多？

It’s been years since I’ve been there.

我去过那里已经很多年了。

I’m not the right person —

我不是合适的人 ——

But since you have good memory through spaced repetition.

但由于你通过间隔重复拥有良好的记忆力。

Maybe.

或许。

Yes, I loved going to the museums in Amsterdam, just partially Rembrandt is maybe my favorite painter.

是的，我喜欢去阿姆斯特丹的博物馆，伦勃朗可能是我最喜欢的画家之一。

It’s hard, actually, to think of anything else when I think of the Netherlands other than Rembrandt’s late self-portraits, which I think are some of the most extraordinary things ever done.

事实上，当我想到荷兰时，除了伦勃朗晚期的自画像之外，很难想到其他任何东西，我认为这是有史以来最非凡的事情之一。

Let’s say we all had better memories.

假设我们都有更好的回忆。

How big is the social gain there?

那里的社会效益有多大？

Is there any social gain at all?

有任何社会收益吗？

You’ve been an advocate of spaced repetition for improving your memory.

您一直倡导间隔重复来提高记忆力。

It works for medical students, it probably works for languages.

它适用于医学生，也可能适用于语言。

But are there social gains, especially with AI coming?

但是否会带来社会效益，尤其是随着人工智能的到来？

I wouldn’t say I was an advocate.

我不会说我是一名倡导者。

But you do it.

但你做到了。

I do it.

我做。

And you teach other people how to do it.

然后你教其他人如何做。

I get benefits from it, and some other people get benefits from it.

我从中得到好处，其他一些人也从中得到好处。

I’m very enthusiastic if they do.

如果他们这样做，我会非常热情。

Lots of people try it and are like, “This isn’t working for me.” I’m like, “Well, stop doing it.” Same as if you listen to Bach and don’t like it.

很多人尝试后都会说：“这对我不起作用。”我想，“好吧，别再这样做了。”就像你听了巴赫但不喜欢它一样。

Stop listening to Bach.

别再听巴赫了。

There’s some evidence that students learn better when they take notes of what’s being said.

有证据表明，当学生记下所说内容时，他们会学得更好。

Do you feel there’s something for some people with memory a bit similar, that until they have memorized it, it’s less real for them?

你是否觉得有些东西对于一些记忆力有点相似的人来说，在他们记住之前，对他们来说不太真实？

I don’t just mean that they remember it more, but the initial impact somehow is created or defined by the later act of memorization.

我的意思不仅仅是他们记得更多，而是最初的影响在某种程度上是由后来的记忆行为创造或定义的。

People who take trips and until they photograph something, they don’t feel they’ve seen it.

人们去旅行时，在拍摄一些东西之前，他们不会觉得自己见过它。

Yes.

是的。

They very likely didn’t see it.

他们很可能没有看到。

Perhaps, yes.

或许，是的。

Certainly, it’s part of the reason why I take photos.

当然，这也是我拍照的部分原因。

I will look more closely.

我会更仔细地观察。

It’s part of the reason I will take notes.

这是我做笔记的部分原因。

It is part of the reason why I do spaced repetition.

这是我进行间隔重复的部分原因。

It provides me with another way of paying attention to the world.

它为我提供了另一种关注世界的方式。

But at some margins —

但在某些方面 ——

Those things are very valuable, right?

那些东西很值钱吧？

Any general-purpose strategy you have which will cause you to pay attention to the world is incredibly valuable, so I collect things like that.

任何能让你关注世界的通用策略都非常有价值，所以我收集了类似的东西。

Why did I say yes to coming on the podcast?

我为什么同意参加播客？

A huge part of it is because I know it’s going to make me pay attention in different ways.

很大一部分原因是因为我知道它会让我以不同的方式关注。

To what we talk about.

就我们所谈论的事情而言。

I know that you’re going to ask me questions that nobody else is going to ask me.

我知道你会问我其他人不会问我的问题。

For me, the reason I do spaced repetition and the reason I will come on a podcast with somebody like you who asks very interesting questions — it’s the same.

对我来说，我进行间隔重复的原因和我会和像你这样的人一起做播客并提出非常有趣的问题的原因  -  是一样的。

In some other ways, you’re a fan of non-legibility, as am I at other margins.

在某些其他方面，你是非易读性的粉丝，就像我在其他方面一样。

There’s some tension because when you take the photo, when you remember something, when you write it down, there’s less legibility.

存在一些紧张感，因为当你拍照时，当你记住某件事时，当你写下它时，可读性就会降低。

There’s no tension at all there.

那里一点也不紧张。

You’re constantly expanding the legible, and when you do that, there’s this penumbra of illegibility that surrounds it.

你不断地扩大可读性，当你这样做时，周围就会出现难以辨认的半影。

That moves, but it gives you access to those other spaces.

它会移动，但它可以让你进入其他空间。

You go to the Netherlands, you travel in general.

你去荷兰，你一般都会旅行。

You make more of the world’s culture, you make people much more legible to yourself.

你创造了更多的世界文化，你让人们对你自己更容易理解。

That expands what you’re able to see, as well, at the edge of that.

这也扩展了你在边缘所能看到的东西。

That’s part of the reason for doing it.

这是这样做的部分原因。

That’s part of the reason for wanting to make things legible.

这是想让事情变得清晰易读的部分原因。

What’s underrated about travel other than that?

除此之外，旅行还有什么被低估的呢？

Oh my God.

我的天啊。

Almost everything.

几乎一切。

You denied saying this, but somebody once said to me that travel is the only education, and it’s really stayed with me as expressing some deep truth.

你否认说过这句话，但有人曾经对我说，旅行是唯一的教育，它确实表达了一些深刻的真理，这让我印象深刻。

I think mostly just the world is so incredibly deep.

我认为主要是这个世界是如此的深奥。

Absolutely.

绝对地。

There’s 8 billion people.

有80亿人。

It’s the only way to see that depth and breadth.

这是了解深度和广度的唯一方法。

Yes.

是的。

It’s just unbelievable.

这真是令人难以置信。

You pick almost a random person anywhere, and you could spend a great year with them just learning things.

你几乎可以在任何地方随机挑选一个人，你可以和他们一起度过美好的一年，只是学习东西。

You can’t, unfortunately, do that 8 billion times.

不幸的是，你不能这样做 80 亿次。

But yes, it’s very, very underrated.

但是，是的，它被非常非常低估了。

It’s been very underrated in my life.

它在我的生活中被严重低估了。

I haven’t traveled nearly as much as I should.

我旅行的次数几乎没有达到应有的程度。

What is it, the Midway Aircraft Carrier?

中途岛航空母舰是什么？

Why is that so interesting?

为什么这么有趣？

There are many reasons.

原因有很多。

That’s in San Diego, right?

那是在圣地亚哥，对吗？

It is, yes.

是的，是的。

For about 10 years, it was probably the most dangerous object in the world.

大约十年来，它可能是世界上最危险的物体。

It carried nuclear weapons, I believe, having 5,000 people on it.

我相信它携带核武器，上面有 5,000 人。

Basically, people have been making objects like that for many centuries.

基本上，几个世纪以来人们一直在制造这样的物品。

They keep getting better at it.

他们在这方面不断进步。

There’s so much knowledge built into that environment.

那个环境中内置了很多知识。

It expresses so much very deep expertise.

它表达了非常深厚的专业知识。

Here’s something you once wrote, and I quote, “The great talent identifiers I know or know of all seem very idiosyncratic.

这是你曾经写过的一段话，我引用一下：“我所知道的或所知道的伟大人才识别器似乎都非常特殊。

They’re rather like Michelin chefs.” This is getting us back to the tension between the opaque and the legible.

他们很像米其林厨师。”这让我们回到了不透明与清晰之间的紧张关系。

Why do you think that’s true, that they’re idiosyncratic?

为什么你认为这是真的，他们很独特？

Actually, it’s just because the boundaries of knowledge at any given time tend to be idiosyncratic almost by definition.

实际上，这只是因为在任何特定时间，知识的边界几乎从定义上来说往往都是特殊的。

They haven’t been commoditized yet.

它们还没有商品化。

There is a best person at making superconducting circuits in the world.

世界上有一个最擅长制造超导电路的人。

There is a best person .

有一个最好的人。

.

。

.

。

Thomas Schelling, I think, was your PhD supervisor?

我想托马斯·谢林是你的博士生导师吧？

Yes.

是的。

When you read Schelling, you realize that some of the things he did, he did very well.

当你读谢林的作品时，你会意识到他所做的一些事情，他做得非常好。

It must have been remarkable to talk to him, but he’s a little bit illegible —

和他说话一定很了不起，但他有点难以辨认 ——

That’s right.

没错。

— even though he’s a very, very —

— 尽管他是一个非常非常 —

And he was when you would speak to him as well.

当你和他说话的时候，他也是这样。

I’ll bet he was, but that’s part of the value.

我敢打赌他是，但这就是价值的一部分。

You’re like, “Oh, this person is actually out on the edge of civilization.” I think that people who are good at identifying people who are able to expand boundaries like that — they need to have some sense of that edge.

你会说，“哦，这个人实际上处于文明的边缘。”我认为那些善于识别能够扩展边界的人——他们需要对这种边缘有一定的认识。

Here’s a question you wanted me to ask you.

这是你想让我问你的问题。

“You initially were skeptical of Emergent Ventures, but you’ve changed your mind and become enthusiastic about it.

“你最初对 Emergent Ventures 持怀疑态度，但你改变了主意并对它充满热情。

What caused the switch?

是什么导致了切换？

And what would you change about Emergent Ventures?”

您想对 Emergent Ventures 做出哪些改变？”

The biggest single thing, it’s just empirical.

最重要的是，它只是经验性的。

I’ve met a bunch of EV grantees.

我见过很多电动汽车受资助者。

I’ve encouraged a bunch of people to apply.

我鼓励了很多人申请。

Some of them you’ve given grants to.

其中一些你已经给予了资助。

They’re great.

他们很棒。

You haven’t funded in the way I might have expected.

你没有按照我预期的方式提供资金。

I was talking to somebody — I’ve actually forgotten who it is — they clearly had some socialist, quite anti-libertarian ideas, and you’ve given them a grant.

我正在和某人交谈——“我实际上忘记了他是谁”——“他们显然有一些社会主义的、相当反自由主义的想法，而你给了他们一笔资助。

Might have been a mistake, of course.

当然，可能是一个错误。

NIELSEN: I thought, “That’s so typically Tyler.

尼尔森：我想，“这就是典型的泰勒。

He’s trying to figure out, do they actually believe in this idea?

他想弄清楚，他们真的相信这个想法吗？

Do they actually really care?” Then you don’t mind.

他们真的关心吗？”那你就不介意了。

They’re certainly not coming to the Mercatus Center to carry forth the libertarian flag.

他们当然不会来莫卡特斯中心高举自由主义旗帜。

I think seeing so many people who are doing very worthwhile things which have no or very little institutional chance of support, being amplified — that I care about a great deal, and it seems like EV is one of the places that is doing that the best.

我认为看到这么多人正在做非常有价值的事情，但没有或很少有机构支持的机会，被放大——我非常关心，而且电动汽车似乎是做得最好的地方之一。

What do you think we can do to attract more non-legible but excellent people?

您认为我们可以做些什么来吸引更多不知名但优秀的人？

Find other people like yourself.

寻找像你一样的其他人。

They’re going to be like you in this abstract way but actually very unlike you in other ways.

他们在抽象方面会像你一样，但在其他方面实际上与你非常不同。

I think about, I don’t know, people like Stewart Brand and people like that in the past who’ve just been wonderful at talent identification.

我想，我不知道，像斯图尔特·布兰德这样的人，以及过去类似的人，他们在人才识别方面表现出色。

But they’re not identifying the same talent as you.

但他们并没有发现与你相同的人才。

To some extent, they’ve become human marketplaces as well.

在某种程度上，它们也成为了人类市场。

Actually, they’re at a crossroads.

事实上，他们正处于十字路口。

They’re connecting people to opportunity.

他们将人们与机会联系起来。

That’s a very special type of person.

这是一种非常特殊的人。

I’ve maybe met five to ten people in my life who seem like that.

我一生中可能遇到过五到十个类似的人。

Really strong.

真的很强。

Here’s something else you wrote, and I quote.

这是您写的其他内容，我引用一下。

“I internalized a lot of Ivan Illich, John Holt, A.S.

“我内化了很多 Ivan Illich、John Holt、A.S.

Neill, and Paulo Freire as a kid.” What did you mean?

尼尔和保罗·弗莱雷小时候。”你什么意思？

You were talking, I think, in the context of agency, but how did that shape you?

我认为你是在代理的背景下谈论的，但这对你有何影响？

At the time, as a 12- or 13-year-old, it mostly probably made me insufferable to my parents because I hated school already.

当时，作为一个 12 或 13 岁的孩子，这很可能让我的父母无法忍受，因为我已经讨厌学校了。

That’s a good thing, right?

这是一件好事，对吧？

It gave me a real way of expressing that, and they dealt with me very patiently.

这给了我一种真实的表达方式，他们非常耐心地对待我。

Is that why you didn’t join OpenAI in 2015?

这就是你在 2015 年没有加入 OpenAI 的原因吗？

No.

不。

Do you regret that decision?

你后悔这个决定吗？

I suppose I did consider going as they were getting started.

我想当他们开始时我确实考虑过去。

It would have been an interesting life choice.

这将是一个有趣的人生选择。

I had a lot of doubts about the wisdom of pursuing artificial general intelligence, which was not at all resolved then.

我对追求通用人工智能是否明智有很多疑问，当时这个问题根本没有得到解决。

There were just fears.

只有恐惧。

That was part of the reason.

这是部分原因。

Honestly, really, the main reason at that time — it’s this point about comparative advantage.

说实话，当时的主要原因 ——就是比较优势这一点。

It was like, “Oh, AI is happening.

就像，“哦，人工智能正在发生。

It’s become very fashionable.”

它变得非常时尚。”

In the next 20 years, what do you think your comparative advantage will be?

未来20年，您认为您的比较优势是什么？

I’ll tell you after 20 years.

20年后我告诉你。

But you face the year coming up now, right?

但你现在面临着即将到来的一年，对吗？

There’s a step before you.

你面前还有一步。

Yes.

是的。

The problem is, of course, it’s very helpful for motivational reasons to have answers to that, but your answers never turn out to be what the correct answer was.

当然，问题是，出于动机原因，获得答案非常有帮助，但你的答案永远不会是正确的答案。

Probably my ability to write.

大概是我的写作能力吧。

Your Twitter biography says, “Searching for the numinous.” What does that mean with respect to you?

你的推特简介中写道：“寻找超自然力量。”这对你来说意味着什么？

Just trying to find the deepest possible experiences in the world, in people and things and ideas and places.

只是试图在世界上、人、事、想法和地点中找到最深刻的体验。

Final question.

最后一个问题。

What do you think it is that you will learn about next?

您认为接下来您将学到什么？

You love to ask this question.

你喜欢问这个问题。

I’ve heard you ask it before.

我以前听你问过。

I will learn much more deeply about religion than I have in the past.

我将比过去更深入地了解宗教。

That involves travel, going to church, reading books, talking to people — all of those things?

这包括旅行、去教堂、读书、与人交谈 ——所有这些事情？

It involves all of those things, yes.

是的，它涉及所有这些事情。

I’m going to see the Hagia Sophia in Istanbul in the near future.

不久的将来我要去伊斯坦布尔参观圣索菲亚大教堂。

That’s gorgeous.

太漂亮了。

I wanted to see it almost all my adult life, and I have never been.

我几乎成年后都想看到它，但我从未去过。

Have you been to Amritsar?

你去过阿姆利则吗？

No.

不。

That, to me, is the most religious-feeling site I’ve ever visited, so I would recommend going there.

对我来说，这是我访问过的最具宗教感觉的网站，所以我建议去那里。

It’s not a hard trip in any way at all.

无论如何，这都不是一次艰难的旅行。

I’ve never been to India.

我从未去过印度。

You must go to Amritsar.

你一定要去阿姆利则。

The old cliché, something like, “When it comes to religion, every Indian’s a millionaire.” It’s not really true, but I still think India is the best place to go to think about religion.

古老的陈词滥调，比如，“说到宗教，每个印度人都是百万富翁。”这不是真的，但我仍然认为印度是思考宗教的最佳地方。

That makes a lot of sense.

这很有意义。

I’d love to go to Jerusalem as well, I think, for somewhat similar reasons.

我想，出于类似的原因，我也想去耶路撒冷。

But there you think about tension.

但你会想到紧张。

Yes.

是的。

The religious aspects of tension.

宗教方面的紧张。

I think more about tension than about religion per se, and it’s very useful for that.

我更多地考虑的是紧张局势，而不是宗教本身，这对此非常有用。

Michael Nielsen, thank you very much.

迈克尔·尼尔森，非常感谢你。

Thanks so much, Tyler.

非常感谢，泰勒。