"I support it only if it's open source" should be a more common viewpoint
One concern that we often hear about certain kinds of radical technologies is the possibility that they will exacerbate power inequalities because they will inevitably be available only to the wealthy and powerful.
我们经常听到的关于某些激进技术的一个担忧是，它们可能会加剧权力不平等，因为它们不可避免地只有富人和有权势的人才能使用。
Here is a quote from someone concerned about the consequences of life extension:
以下是一位关心延长寿命后果的人的引述：
"Are some people going to be left behind?
“有些人会被抛在后面吗？
Are we going to make society far more unequal than it is now?" he asked.
我们会让社会变得比现在更加不平等吗？”他问道。
Tuljapurkar predicted that the lifespan boom will be confined to wealthy countries, where citizens can afford anti-aging technology and governments can afford to sponsor scientific research.
图贾普尔卡预测，寿命的繁荣将仅限于富裕国家，这些国家的公民有能力负担抗衰老技术，政府有能力资助科学研究。
This disparity complicates the current debate over access to healthcare, as the rich become increasingly distanced from the poor, not only in quality but length of life.
这种差异使当前有关获得医疗保健的争论变得更加复杂，因为富人与穷人的距离越来越远，不仅在质量上，而且在寿命上。
"Big pharmaceutical companies have a well-established track record of being very difficult when it comes to making things available to those who can't pay for them," he said.
“大型制药公司有着良好的记录，在向那些无力支付费用的人提供药物方面非常困难，”他说。
If anti-aging technologies are distributed in the unchecked free market, "it's entirely likely to me that we'll wind up with permanent global underclasses, countries that will get locked into today's mortality conditions," Tuljapurkar said ...
如果抗衰老技术在不受限制的自由市场中传播，“在我看来，我们完全有可能最终会面临永久的全球下层阶级，这些国家将陷入当今的死亡率状况，”图贾普尔卡说……
"If that happens, you get negative feedback, a vicious circle.
“如果发生这种情况，你会得到负面反馈，形成恶性循环。
Those countries that get locked out stay locked out."
那些被封锁的国家将继续被封锁。”
Here are some equally strong words from an article worrying about the consequences of human genetic enhancement:
以下是一篇担心人类基因增强后果的文章中的一些同样强烈的话语：
Early this month, scientists announced that they had edited genes in a human embryo to remove a disease-causing mutation.
本月初，科学家宣布他们已经编辑了人类胚胎中的基因，以消除致病突变。
The work was astounding and the answer to prayers of many parents.
这项工作令人震惊，也是对许多家长祈祷的回应。
Who wouldn't want a chance to prevent what would now be needless suffering by their children?
谁不想有机会避免自己的孩子现在遭受不必要的痛苦呢？
But that wouldn't be the end of it.
但这还没有结束。
Many parents would want to ensure their children had the best of advantages through genetic improvement.
许多父母希望确保他们的孩子通过基因改良获得最大的优势。
Those with means could obtain them.
有能力的人可以获得它们。
With the ability comes ethical questions beyond the ultimate safety of such techniques.
这种能力带来的伦理问题超出了此类技术的最终安全性。
Expense of procedures will produce scarcity and aggravate income inequality that already continues to grow.
程序费用将产生稀缺性并加剧已经持续扩大的收入不平等。
You can find this theme in many criticisms of new technology.
你可以在许多对新技术的批评中找到这个主题。
A somewhat related, but importantly different, theme is that of technological products being used as a vehicle for data collection, vendor lock-in, deliberately hidden side effects (eg.
一个有些相关但重要不同的主题是技术产品被用作数据收集、供应商锁定、故意隐藏副作用（例如，副作用）的工具。
modern vaccines have been criticized this way), and other forms of abuse.
现代疫苗已受到这种方式的批评）和其他形式的滥用。
Newer technologies tend to create more opportunities to give someone a thing without giving them the rights to a thing or the full information about a thing, and so from this lens too older technologies often seem safer.
较新的技术往往会创造更多机会向某人提供某物，但不赋予他们对某物的权利或有关某物的完整信息，因此从这个角度来看，太旧的技术通常看起来更安全。
This is also a form of technology strengthening the powerful at others' expense, but it's an issue of manufacturer-against-user power projection through the technology rather than the concern in the previous examples, which is inequality of access .
这也是一种以牺牲他人利益为代价增强强权的技术形式，但这是一个制造商通过技术对用户进行权力投射的问题，而不是前面例子中所担心的访问不平等问题。
I personally am very pro-technology , and if it were a binary option of "go further" vs "stay where we are", I would gladly push forward on everything except for a very small list (eg.
我个人非常支持技术，如果这是“走得更远”与“留在原地”的二元选择，我会很乐意推进除了一个非常小的列表之外的所有事情（例如
gain of function research, weapons and superintelligent AI) despite the risks.
尽管存在风险，但仍能获得功能研究、武器和超级智能人工智能的成果。
This is because on the whole the benefits - much longer and healthier lives, a more prosperous and society, preserving more human relevance in an era of rapidly improving AI, maintaining cultural continuity through older generations surviving as people and not just as memoirs in history books - are much larger than the downsides (which often end up overrated ).
这是因为总体而言，好处——寿命更长、更健康、社会更加繁荣、在人工智能快速发展的时代保留更多的人类相关性、通过老一代人作为人而不只是历史书上的回忆录生存来保持文化连续性——远大于坏处（这些坏处往往被高估了）。
But what if I put myself into the shoes of someone who is either less sunny on the positive implications, or more concerned that powerful people will use new technologies to perpetuate their economic dominance and exert control, or both?
但是，如果我把自己置于一个对积极影响不那么乐观，或者更担心有权势的人会利用新技术来维持其经济主导地位和施加控制，或两者兼而有之的人的立场上，该怎么办？
For example, I already feel that way toward "smart home" stuff - the benefit of being able to talk to the light bulb is outweighed by not wanting my personal life to be streamed to Google or Apple.
例如，我已经对“智能家居”的东西有这样的感觉——能够与灯泡对话的好处比不希望我的个人生活被流式传输到谷歌或苹果更重要。
If I had more pessimistic assumptions, I could also see myself feeling that way toward some media technologies: if they enable powerful people to broadcast messages more effectively than everyone else, then they can be used to exert control and drown out others, and for many such technologies the gains from us having better information or better entertainment are not large enough to compensate for the way they reallocate power.
如果我有更悲观的假设，我也可以看到自己对某些媒体技术有这样的感觉：如果它们使有权势的人比其他人更有效地传播信息，那么它们就可以被用来施加控制并淹没其他人，而对于许多这样的技术来说，我们从拥有更好的信息或更好的娱乐中获得的收益不足以补偿它们重新分配权力的方式。
One viewpoint that I think is heavily under-valued in these situations is: supporting a technology being developed only if it's open source .
我认为在这些情况下被严重低估的一个观点是：仅支持开源技术。
There's a very plausible case that open source accelerates progress: it makes it much easier for people to build on each other's innovations.
有一个非常合理的案例表明开源加速了进步：它使人们更容易在彼此的创新基础上进行开发。
There's also a very plausible case that requiring open source decelerates progress: it prevents people from using a large class of potential strategies to make money.
还有一个非常合理的案例表明，需要开源会减缓进展：它阻止人们使用一大类潜在的策略来赚钱。
But the most interesting consequences of open source as those that pull in directions unrelated to the "faster vs slower progress" axis:
但开源最有趣的后果是那些与“更快与更慢的进展”轴无关的方向：
We can analyze this from the perspective of some of the more radical technologies that I listed near the beginning of the article:
我们可以从我在文章开头列出的一些更激进的技术的角度来分析这一点：
Note that the "build it only if it's open source" bubble is wider, reflecting larger uncertainty in just how much progress open source will lead and just how many power concentration risks it will prevent.
请注意，“只有开源才能构建它”的泡沫更大，反映出开源将带来多少进展以及它将防止多少权力集中风险的不确定性更大。
But even still, on average it's a good deal in a large variety of situations.
但即便如此，平均而言，在很多情况下这都是一笔不错的交易。
One major argument against open sourcing powerful technologies that sometimes gets brought up is the risk of zero-sum behavior and non-hierarchical forms of abuse.
有时会提出的反对开源强大技术的一个主要论点是零和行为和非等级形式滥用的风险。
Giving everyone nukes would certainly end nuke inequality (which is a real problem; we see multiple instances of powerful states using asymmetry of access to nukes to bully others as we speak), but it would also almost certainly lead to billions of deaths.
向每个人提供核武器肯定会结束核武器不平等（这是一个真正的问题；正如我们所说，我们看到强国利用获得核武器的不对称性来欺凌他人的多个例子），但这也几乎肯定会导致数十亿人死亡。
To give an example of negative social consequences without deliberate harm, giving everyone access to plastic surgery may well lead to a zero-sum competitive game where everyone spends a lot of resources and even takes health risks to look more beautiful than everyone else, but at the end we all get used to the higher levels of beauty and society ends up not really being much better.
举一个没有故意伤害的负面社会后果的例子，让每个人都能接受整形手术很可能会导致一场零和竞争游戏，每个人都花费大量资源，甚至冒着健康风险，让自己看起来比其他人更漂亮，但最终我们都习惯了更高层次的美丽，而社会最终并没有真正变得更好。
Some forms of biotech could end up having these kinds of effects on a larger scale.
某些形式的生物技术最终可能会产生更大规模的此类影响。
Many technologies (in fact, lots of biotech) are in between these two extremes.
许多技术（事实上，许多生物技术）都处于这两个极端之间。
This is a valid argument for wanting to go the opposite way: " I support it only if it's carefully controlled by trustworthy gatekeepers ".
这是想要走相反道路的一个有效论据：“只有当它受到值得信赖的看门人仔细控制时，我才支持它”。
Gatekeepers could allow positive use cases of a technology while keeping out negative use cases.
看门人可以允许技术的积极用例，同时排除消极用例。
Gatekeepers could even be given a public mandate to ensure non-discriminatory access to everyone who does not break certain rules.
甚至可以授予看门人一项公共授权，以确保每个不违反某些规则的人都能不受歧视地进入。
However, I have a strong default skepticism of this approach.
然而，我对这种方法抱有强烈的默认怀疑态度。
The biggest reason why is that I am generally skeptical that, especially in the modern world, trustworthy gatekeepers truly exist.
最大的原因是我普遍怀疑，特别是在现代世界，值得信赖的看门人是否真的存在。
Many of the most zero-sum and risky use cases of technology are military use cases, and militaries have a poor history of constraining themselves.
许多最具零和和风险的技术用例都是军事用例，而军队在自我约束方面有着糟糕的历史。
Given his restraint with regard to SDI and nuclear weapons, Gorbachev's actions related to the Soviet's illicit germ weapons program are puzzling, noted Hoffman.
霍夫曼指出，鉴于戈尔巴乔夫在战略防御计划和核武器方面的克制，他在苏联非法细菌武器计划方面的行动令人费解。
When Gorbachev came to power in 1985, the Soviet Union had an extensive biological weapons program initiated by Brezhnev, despite being a signatory of the Biological Weapons Convention.
1985 年戈尔巴乔夫上台时，尽管苏联是《生物武器公约》的签署国，但苏联还是由勃列日涅夫发起了一项广泛的生物武器计划。
In addition to anthrax, the Soviets also were working on smallpox, plague and tularemia, but their intentions and targets for such weapons are not clear.
除了炭疽之外，苏联还致力于研究天花、鼠疫和兔热病，但他们开发此类武器的意图和目标尚不清楚。
"Kateyev's papers showed there were multiple Central Committee resolutions about the biowarfare program issued in the mid- to late-80s.
“卡特耶夫的文件显示，中央委员会在八十年代中后期发布了多项关于生物战计划的决议。
It's hard to believe these were all signed and issued without Gorbachev's knowledge," Hoffman said.
很难相信这些都是在戈尔巴乔夫不知情的情况下签署和发布的，”霍夫曼说。
"There's even a May 1990 memo to Gorbachev about the biological weapons program – a memo that still didn't tell the whole story.
“甚至还有 1990 年 5 月给戈尔巴乔夫的一份关于生物武器计划的备忘录——这份备忘录仍然没有讲述全部故事。
The Soviets misled the world and they misled their own leaders.
苏联人误导了世界，也误导了他们自己的领导人。
Oh, and see this link arguing that this bioweapons program may have ended up being made available to other countries (!!) after the Soviet collapse.
哦，请参阅此链接，该链接认为在苏联解体后，该生物武器计划可能最终被提供给其他国家（！！）。
Other countries have large mistakes to answer for themselves.
其他国家也有巨大的错误需要自己承担。
I need not link to everything that has been uncovered regarding many countries' participation in gain-of-function research and the risks that it implies ( this book is good though).
我不需要链接到有关许多国家参与功能获得性研究的所有已发现的内容及其隐含的风险（尽管这本书很好）。
In the realm of digital software (eg.
在数字软件领域（例如。
finance), the history of weaponized interdependence shows how what was meant as abuse prevention easily slides into one-sided power projection by the operator.
金融），武器化相互依存的历史表明，防止滥用的含义如何很容易滑入运营商单方面的权力投射。
This is another weakness of gatekeepers: by default, they will be controlled by national governments, and these countries' political systems may well have an incentive to ensure equality of access within the country, but there is no powerful entity with a mandate to ensure equality of access between countries.
这是看门人的另一个弱点：默认情况下，它们将受到各国政府的控制，这些国家的政治制度很可能有动力确保国内的准入平等，但没有强大的实体有权确保国家之间的准入平等。
To be clear, I am not saying "the gatekeepers are bad too, so let's have a free for all" (at least, not for gain-of-function research).
需要明确的是，我并不是说“看门人也很糟糕，所以让我们对所有人免费”（至少，不是为了功能获得研究）。
Rather, I'm saying two things:
相反，我想说两件事：
Note also that "open source" does not imply "free for all".
另请注意，“开源”并不意味着“所有人免费”。
For example, I would favor geoengineering being done in an open-source and open-science way.
例如，我赞成以开源和开放科学的方式完成地球工程。
But this is not the same as "anyone can go redirect any rivers and sprinkle what they want into the atmosphere", and it will not lead to that in practice: laws and international diplomacy exist, and such actions are easy to detect making any agreements quite enforceable.
但这并不等同于“任何人都可以改变任何河流的方向，并将他们想要的东西撒到大气中”，并且在实践中也不会导致这种情况：法律和国际外交是存在的，而且这种行为很容易被发现，使得任何协议都具有很强的可执行性。
The value of openness is (i) ensuring that it's more democratized (eg.
开放的价值在于（i）确保它更加民主化（例如。
usable by many countries instead of just one), and (ii) increasing the accessibility of information, so people can more effectively form their own judgements of whether or not what is being done is effective and safe.
(ii) 增加信息的可获取性，以便人们能够更有效地对正在做的事情是否有效和安全形成自己的判断。
Most fundamentally, I see open source as the strongest possible Schelling point for how technology can be done with less risk of concentrating wealth and power and asymmetric information.
最根本的是，我认为开源是最有力的谢林点，它说明了如何在减少财富和权力集中以及信息不对称的风险的情况下完成技术。
One can try to construct more clever institutions that try to split apart the beneficial and negative use cases of a technology, but in the modern chaotic world, the approach that is most likely to stick is a very easily publicly-understandable guarantee that things are happening in the open and anyone can go and understand what's going on and participate.
人们可以尝试建立更聪明的机构，试图将一项技术的有益和消极用例分开，但在现代混乱的世界中，最有可能坚持的方法是一种非常容易公众理解的保证，即事情是公开发生的，任何人都可以去了解正在发生的事情并参与。
In many cases, these concerns less important than the extreme value of making technology go faster (or, in a few cases, the importance of slowing it down as much as possible, until either countermeasures or alternative ways of achieving the same goal are available).
在许多情况下，这些担忧不如让技术更快发展的极端价值重要（或者，在少数情况下，尽可能放慢技术发展的重要性，直到有实现相同目标的对策或替代方法可用）。
On the margin, however, the third option - focusing less on rate of progress, and more on style of progress, and using a norm of expecting open source as an easily legible lever to push things in a better direction - is an underrated approach.
然而，在边缘，第三种选择 - 较少关注进展速度，更多关注进展风格，并使用期望开源作为一种易于理解的杠杆来推动事情朝着更好的方向发展的规范 - 是一种被低估的方法。