本杰明·博伊斯 - 布雷特·韦恩斯坦的暗马播客第2期

大家好。

Hey, folks.

我是布雷特。

Bret here.

我正和一位大多数关注我的人肯定都认识的人坐在一起。

I am sitting with someone most of the people who follow me almost certainly know.

但对那些不认识的人，这位是本杰明·博伊斯。

But for those who don't, this is Benjamin Boyce.

嘿。

Hey.

自2017年那场风波以来，本杰明一直在记录埃弗格林发生的一切。

Benjamin has been chronicling what has been going on at Evergreen since the debacle in 2017.

我们之前并不认识，但本杰明是埃弗格林的校友。

He and I did not know each other before, but Benjamin is an alum of Evergreen.

我当时在那里任教，自那场事件之后，我们成了朋友。

I was teaching there and we've become friends in the aftermath of that event.

所以，我们在这里要谈论的，是即将成为布雷特·韦恩斯坦的《DarkHorse》播客的节目内容。

So anyway, we are here to talk on what will soon be the set of Bret Weinstein's DarkHorse podcast.

我们今天要讨论的是你、谷歌，以及最近Project Varitas曝光的事件。

We are here to talk about what is taking place with you, with Google, with the recent revelations out of Project Varitas.

你能不能谈谈你最近的经历，以及谷歌对你做了什么？

Do you wanna say something about what you've been up to and what you've experienced recently at the hands of Google?

好吧，我们先退后一步说。

Well, let's back up a little bit.

我一直在跟进关于惠特曼学院的故事，其中也包括你，但我已经超越了布雷特·韦恩斯坦的事件，深入到了学生 activism、学生反 activism，以及校方和教职员工的各个层面。

So I've been working on the story about Evergreen, which includes you, but I've gone beyond the Bret Weinstein story into various layers of student activism and student counter activism and then the administration and the faculty.

我已经追踪这件事整整两年了。

And I've been following this for now two years.

对我来说，很明显，我可能在惠特曼州立学院的某些人眼里相当烦人，因为我不断揭露他们极力不想被曝光的事情。

And it's kind of obvious to me that I might be kind of annoying for certain people within the institution of the Evergreen State College because I keep on bringing to light things that they very explicitly don't want to be brought to light.

然而，他们是一个公共机构，华盛顿州法律有明确的公共记录法规。

However, they are a public institution and Washington state law has a very explicit public records set of statutes.

所以他们欠我信息。

So they owe me information.

他们欠公众信息。

They owe the public information.

尽管他们通过官方渠道基本阻挠了我的信息获取，我仍然设法获得了这些信息。

And I've been able to get information even though they've been basically obstructing my access through official means.

公共记录部门基本上处于停滞状态。

The public records department is basically locked at a standstill.

所以我从其他地方获取信息。

So I get information from other places.

但等等，我想在这里打断你一下，因为我认为这是一个公众不知道的极其重要的事实：这个公共机构显然在合谋违反华盛顿州的法律。

But wait, I want to stop you right there because I think this is an incredibly important fact that the public doesn't know, which is that this public institution is by all evidence conspiring against the laws of the state of Washington.

他们阻挠你获取你依法有权从该机构获得的信息，并且一直在敷衍你。

It is obstructing your attempt to get information that you are legally entitled to get from the institution, and it's giving you the runaround.

这就引发了关于一个通过公共记录请求暴露出问题的机构的严重质疑。

So that raises serious questions about an institution that has problems that have been revealed through public records requests.

因此，实际上这个机构已经失控了，肯定存在某种法律机制应该被触发，迫使他们遵守规定，因为维持他们诚信的机制，就是像你我这样的人，获取我们能够提取的信息，将其公之于众、展开讨论，并让后果自然显现。

So effectively, the institution has gone rogue, and surely there is some legal mechanism that should kick in that forces them to comply because the mechanism that keeps them honest is people like you or me taking information that we are able to extract and exposing it and discussing it and letting the chips fall where they may.

我们还要补充一点，即伊弗格林的注册人数正在急剧下滑，而他们目前的主要收入来源是立法机构。

We'll add to that the fact that Evergreen's enrollment is tanking and their main source of revenue right now is the legislator.

而他们唯一能做的就是

And the only thing that they

是立法机构。

can It's the legislature.

立法机构。

Legislature.

立法机构，这是一个治理机构，由一群立法者组成。

The legislature, which is a governing body A governing body full of legislators.

是的。

Yes.

而伊弗格林唯一值得骄傲的成就，就是成功从立法机构争取到了资金支持。

And they have the one proud thing that Evergreen can tout as a win is getting securing funding from the legislature.

他们正在获得州政府的资金以维持生存。

They are getting state money in order to survive.

因此，这加剧了他们为何不遵守州法律条文甚至法律精神的合理性问题。

Therefore, it compounds the the problematics of why would they not be following the letter of the state law or even the spirit of the law.

他们为什么想要拿钱却不给予任何回报？

Why would they be wanting to take money but not giving anything back in return?

这看起来像是权钱交易。

It seems like a quid pro quo.

如果你是一名公职人员，那么你就对公众负有责任。

If you are a public servant, then you are beholden to the public.

是的。

Yeah.

法律就是法律，立法机构理应要求他们遵守华盛顿州的法律，并在他们不遵守时暂停拨款。

And the law is the law, and the legislature should surely be holding them to the laws of the state of Washington and presumably withholding funds if they don't comply.

我还认为，不遵守规定的指令一定来自某个地方，我想你和我都会猜到同样的来源。

I would also say that the instruction not to comply must have come from somewhere, and I think you and I would be likely to guess the same source.

是的。

Yeah.

乔治一直都在搞舆论操控。

George has been all about spin

布里奇斯总统。

President Bridges.

是的。

Yeah.

对。

Yes.

乔治·布里奇斯和现任总统。

George Bridges and Current president.

现任总统布里奇斯，竟然在经历了美国大学校园上最惊人的无能表现之一后，居然还没被解雇。

Current president Bridges, oddly not fired after one of the most amazing shows of incompetence anyone has ever seen on American College campus.

至少是直播了。

Well, at least livestreamed.

是的。

Yeah.

这当然没错。

Well, that's for sure.

但让我们假设，据我所知，没有其他大学校长展现出比这更严重的无能行为。

But let's just say we don't have evidence for greater incompetence shown by other college presidents that I'm aware of.

这种情况确实独一无二，而这个人却依然保住了职位。

This is really singular and yet the man retains his job.

那么，是什么让我的埃弗格林工作与这个Project Varitas的揭露产生了交集？关于谷歌如何操控信息，我们早已知道谷歌在其中扮演了角色。

So what brings it up to an intersection, my work on Evergreen intersecting with this Project Varitas revelation about the way that Google is we've already known that Google has a hand at controlling information.

这一点本该显而易见，但这次却变得非常明确。

That should be pretty much obvious, but this makes it very explicit.

几周前，我的频道被停止了广告收益。

A couple weeks ago I got demonetized.

不，是上星期二，我有大约40个视频被停止了广告收益，过去六个月的所有收益突然之间

No, last Tuesday I got demonetized about 40 videos and the last six months were all of a sudden

好吧，我不想在这里纠结，但我觉得我们必须非常谨慎。

Well, I I I don't wanna quibble here, but I think we have to be super careful.

你只是被部分限流了，是的。

You were soft demonetized Yeah.

部分限流。

Soft demonetized.

我甚至都不知道还有这种事，但显然一个已 monetized 的视频可以处于不同的收益级别，你的很多视频突然从绿色状态降到了黄色状态。

Which I wasn't even aware was a thing, but apparently a monetized video can exist at different levels of monetization, and a bunch of your videos suddenly dropped from the green state to the yellow state.

是的。

Yeah.

谢谢你纠正这一点。

Thanks for correcting that.

你向谷歌询问过原因吗？

And you have inquired from Google?

是的。

Yeah.

我对此进行了查询，被告知需要对所有这些视频进行人工审核。

I inquired into it and I was told that I need to have all those videos manually reviewed.

我已经提交了所有这些视频进行人工审核，大多数已经恢复为绿色状态。

And I've since submitted all those videos to manual review And most of them are getting flipped back into the green.

但更让我感兴趣的是，这促使我去查看了谷歌搜索，我输入了‘College’和‘Evergreen State College’。

But more interesting to me, this caused me to look at the Google search and I just typed in College and Evergreen State College.

我已经重复了几次这个操作。

And I've repeated this a couple times now.

我知道每个人的搜索结果都不同，可能是因为我身处Evergreen地区，系统为此做了某种调整。

And I know everybody has a different result, so it might be because I'm in the area of Evergreen that they're straining it for some reason.

但我有关于Evergreen State College的视频共有92个。

But my videos, of which I have 92, about the Evergreen State College.

其中大多数视频完全基于事实，而那些不完全是事实的部分，也只是我对这些文件内容的回应或解读。

And most of those videos are based entirely on fact, and what's not based on fact is me responding or processing what these documents say.

但所有内容都基于公共记录和原始资料。

But it's all based on public records, on primary sources.

这是每一个前来拍摄伊弗格林故事的纪录片制作人的重要资料来源。

It's a major source of material for every documentarian that comes and does the Evergreen story.

他们联系我，因为我拥有所有信息和人脉。

They contact me because I have all the information and the contacts.

所以我是任何关于伊弗格林故事的基础。

So I'm the basis for any story about Evergreen.

我的意思是，主要的基础。

I mean, the main basis.

而且我现在在谷歌搜索结果的视频标签中已经不再被列出了。

And I am no longer listed in the video tab on Google search results.

你变得很难找到了。

You have become hard to find.

是的。

Yeah.

事实上，如果你用谷歌搜索我，我觉得这太不可思议了。

In fact, if you use Google to search for you, which I find amazing.

另一方面，我听到一些意见，觉得你工作得太辛苦了。

On the other hand, there's something I hear you I would say you're working too hard.

你提到难以被找到，这让我非常不安。

What you're saying about the difficulty finding you is very disturbing.

但考虑到最近几天Project Varitas披露的内容，我认为有一种非常有趣的解读：谷歌正在运用机器学习来实现他们所谓的‘公平性’，而这种‘公平性’实际上与我们通常对这个词的理解恰恰相反。

But in light of what's come out of Project Varitas in the last couple days, I think there's a very interesting interpretation, which is that machine learning is being employed by Google in order to create what they're calling fairness, which is much like equity is the inverse of what we would normally assume that term means.

当谷歌使用‘公平性’这个词时，它的含义与我们通常的理解是相反的。

Fairness is the inverse of what we would normally assume that term means when deployed by Google.

但你们的视频突然被重新排序，随后又通过人工审查恢复，这表明可能是机器学习算法——无论它是被指派去审查你的内容，还是终于轮到处理你的内容，抑或是有人修改了某个参数，导致你的视频状态发生了变化。

But the idea that a bunch of your videos suddenly got shifted and then manual review is restoring them opens the possibility that what happened is that the machine learning algorithm, whether it was sent to look at your stuff or whether it finally got around to it or whether somebody changed a parameter and that's what caused your videos to be altered in in their state.

某种意义上，谷歌内部的某个系统替公众做了大量思考，决定让你的内容——显然对许多关注此事的人来说非常有趣——消失。

Somehow, something inside Google did a lot of thinking for the public and decided that your stuff, which is very interesting clearly to many who are paying attention to the story, should disappear.

这种事可能发生，这应该让我们感到恐惧，因为正如你所说，你所做的只是揭示事实真相。

And the idea that that can happen ought to frighten us because as you point out, what you do is really just expose the facts of the situation.

你对Evergreen并没有敌意。

You're not hostile to Evergreen.

通过与你的多次交谈——有些是摄像机前的，有些不是——我知道你、我和海瑟都希望看到这个机构自我革新，恢复我们深知能够成功教育学生的模式。

I know from many conversations with you, some of them on camera and some of them not, that you and I and Heather all share a desire to see the institution write itself and restore the model that we know can be so successful at educating students.

事实上，公众完全有理由观看你的内容，因为你对这个机构的批评，实际上是希望让它恢复昔日辉煌，变得更好，更好地服务学生。

So the fact is the public has every reason to wanna look at your content because the critique that you're leveling at this institution is actually in the hope of making the institution, restoring it to its former glory, making it better in the future, serving students.

而某些算法可能自以为最清楚人们应该了解关于Evergreen的什么信息，认为你因为Project Varitas所暗示的某种语言分析机制而被列为禁言对象，这种机制会搜索特定词汇，判断什么是所谓的保守内容，这种想法令人不安。

And the idea that some algorithm might think that it knows best what people should hear about Evergreen and that somehow you're off limits based on, I don't know, what Project Varitas suggested was that they're using some kind of analysis of language algorithm that searches for terms and decides what might be conservative of all things.

这简直失控了。

It's just it's out of control.

我不知道这是否更或更不令人不安，但会不会是Evergreen雇用的第三方为了提升其网络声誉，用了某种手段将我列为不可信的新闻来源？

Well, I don't know if this is more or less disturbing, but could it also be the case that some third party that was hired by Evergreen to boost their reputation on the web used a trick to get me listed somehow as an untrustworthy news source.

于是谷歌自动将我屏蔽了，因为我被告知不知怎的，我被标记了。

And so Google then automatically scrubbed me because I was told somehow I was flagged somehow.

好吧，让我们换种方式来思考。

Well, let's let's try that a different way.

假设确实存在某种算法在做出重大决策，不仅影响你的收入能力，也影响公众获取信息的能力，那么这种算法的存在，恰恰为另一方的代理人提供了操纵它的机会。

Let's say to the extent that there is some algorithm out there making decisions that have big consequences, not only for your ability to earn, but for the ability of the public to find information, that that algorithm, the existence of it, creates an opportunity for agents on the other side to game it.

所以如果存在这样一个算法，那么问题就来了：我需要做什么才能触发这个算法，让我的反对者的言论被隐藏？

So if there is an algorithm, then there's a question of, well, what do I have to do to trigger that algorithm to make my detractors content obscure?

是的。

Mhmm.

一段时间前，我发了一条推文提出了这个问题。

And some time ago, I tweeted the question.

我在推特上找不到那条推文了。

I I can't find it on Twitter.

我不太记得自己当时具体用了什么措辞，但问题大致是：如果可以付费给推特或其他平台来推广你的内容，那又有什么能阻止这些平台出售打压你竞争对手或反对者内容的权利呢？

I don't remember exactly what phraseology I used, but the question was approximately, if it is possible to pay Twitter or some other platform to promote your content, what is to stop those platforms from selling the right to down regulate your your competitors content or your detractors content?

我认为我们现在已经处于这种境地了。

And I think that's where we are.

没错，我们确实已经到了这一步，而且我们刚刚看了Project Varitas的视频，我想问你一个问题：如果我们中的任何一个人拥有像谷歌那样塑造世界的力量，

Well, we are there and we just watched the Project Varitas video and one of the questions I wanted to ask you about that is that if you if any one of us is given the power to shape the world, such as Google has the power to shape the world.

正如蒂姆·波尔所说，难道不试图用这种力量让世界变得更好，难道不是一种罪过吗？

To quote Tim Pool, Would it not be a sin to not try to shape the world for the better?

难道这不是不可避免的吗？一旦有人拥有如此大的权力，他们就会想要操纵现实或认知来达到目的？

Is this not something that is inevitable that somebody given this much power is going to want to manipulate reality or perception in order to manipulate reality?

我认为，如果你不在系统中建立某种保护机制，这种情况是不可避免的。

Well, I think it is inevitable if you don't build some sort of protection into the system.

我感到非常惊讶的是，在当下，许多人已经忘记了我们为何拥有像言论自由这样反直觉的权利。

And one of the things that I find very surprising about the present moment is that lots of people are losing touch with why we have counterintuitive rights like the right to free speech.

毕竟，

After all,

我们

we

我们都应该同意，有些人说的话确实非常糟糕，如果没人再说过这些话就好了。

should all be able to agree that certain things that people say are just terrible and it would be great if nobody ever said them again.

对吧？

Right?

我们不需要更多的纳粹垃圾。

We don't need more Nazi garbage.

但宪法本身之所以规定即使是这种言论也受到保护，是有原因的。

But there's a reason that the constitution itself says actually even that is protected.

它受到保护的原因在于，我们无法划出一条既能保护非主流言论又禁止真正令人反感言论的界限。

And the reason it is protected is because there is no way to draw the line that protects heterodox speech and bars truly obnoxious speech.

由于我们无法精确地划分这条界限，而非主流言论的价值如此重大，且开国先贤们对其重要性极为明确，因此他们设立了防止政府干预此类言论的保护机制。

And because we can't draw that line surgically, the value of heterodox speech is so great and the founders were so clear on its importance that they put in a protection against governmental interference with such speech.

然而，不幸的是，开国先贤们并未预见当今的时代。

Now, unfortunately, the founders did not see the present moment.

他们不可能预见。

They could not.

我的意思是，他们连自行车都没见过。

I mean, were people who never saw a bicycle.

他们从未见过电锯、火车。

They never saw a chainsaw, a train.

他们完全无法想象我们会生活在一个怎样的世界里。

They didn't have any idea what world we would be living in.

他们根本无法想象像谷歌这样的实体，它作为人类之间的一个界面，一个机械层面的中介，某种具有初步智能的东西竟能决定我可以说什么、谁有资格听到、以及他们接触到这些信息的可能性。

They would have no way of imagining a an entity like Google that sat as an interface, a literal interface between human beings at a mechanistic level, that something that has some kind of crude intelligence could be making decisions about what I am able to say and who gets to hear it and how likely they are to encounter it.

开国元勋们绝不会预料到这种情况。

Founders would never have seen that coming.

正因为如此，他们没有充分意识到私人对言论的干预所带来的危险。

And because they didn't, they didn't properly fear private interference with speech.

因此，第一修正案正如我所说，仅针对国会，它不足以保护开国元勋们试图保障的权利——即思想的自由交流。

So the First Amendment is just what I said to Congress is it's inadequate to protect the right that the founders were attempting to protect, is free exchange of ideas.

所以你是主张政府扩大其影响力，以赋予更多自由，像控制一样，更多地介入以实现？

So are you advocating that the government expand its reach in order to give more liberty, like control, like take more liberty in order to

作为一个自由主义者，没有什么比政府管控更让我高兴的了。

As a liberal, there's nothing I like better than governmental control.

我们拥有的管控越多，我就越开心，这基本上就是我的立场。

The more of it that we have, the happier I am is basically where that falls out.

不过，我多次说过，自由主义思想的问题在于它低估了‘解决方案制造’所带来的危险。

Now, look, I've said many times that the problem with much liberal thought is that it underrates the danger of solution making.

当你提出解决方案时，总是会带来意想不到的后果，而自由派对这些问题却视而不见。

And that as you make solutions, are always inviting unintended consequences and that liberals have a blind spot about those things.

相信我，如果我们试图通过监管来解决这个难题，我很担心这会让情况变得更糟。

So believe me, I have lots of fear about what happens if we attempt to regulate our way out of this puzzle, we could make things worse.

因此，我也认为我们必须认识到，总体而言，我们正处在一个前所未有的境地，那些塑造了这个有缺陷但伟大的国家的文件，将无法应对我们所面临的问题。

And so I also believe we need to recognize that we are generally, just across the board, we are in novel circumstances where the documents that we were handed that built this flawed but great nation are going to find themselves without the ability to address the problems that we encounter.

这意味着我们必须弄清楚该如何应对。

And that means that we have to figure out what to do about that.

你打算召开制宪会议吗？

Do you open up a constitutional convention?

事实上，我认为如果真这么做，那将是一场灾难。

Well, I happen to think that would be a disaster if you did it.

所以我并不支持召开制宪会议。

So I'm not in favor of a constitutional convention.

你是什么意思？

What do mean?

为什么会是灾难？

Why would it be a disaster?

那你想象中的这次大会会是什么样子？

And what do you envision this convocation to be like?

如果你召开制宪会议，突然间，将出现巨大的可能性，使共和国的性质偏向某一群体或另一群体。

Well, if you opened a constitutional convention, suddenly the immense potential to shift the nature of the republic in favor of one constituency or another would be on the table.

我看不出我们有足够智慧能以不造成损害的方式进行这项工作。

And I don't see the wisdom available to us to do it in a in a way that would not be detrimental.

而我看到的是，许多强大的利益方不会错过这种试图按自身利益重塑国家的机会。

And what I do see is a lot of powerful players who would not resist the opportunity to attempt to remake the nation to their interests.

因此，我不支持这种做法，但我确实主张我们正视一个普遍问题：我们的制度相对于保护我们的这些文件而言，正面临前所未有的挑战。

So I don't favor that sort of thing, but I do favor us thinking about the fact that we have a general problem with the novelty of our of our systems relative to the documents that are built to protect us.

我们必须坦诚地讨论该如何应对这个问题。

And we have to have a frank conversation about what to do about that.

如果这些公司如此庞大且对任何内容创作者都如此重要，那么推特对我来说绝对是与思想者、受众互动、扩大受众基础，同时作为内容创作者成长和进步的必备工具。

Well, if these companies are so big and so important to anybody who creates content, Twitter is absolutely essential for me to interface with other thinkers and my audience and grow my base and then also figure out and grow as a content creator.

YouTube对我来说非常好。

YouTube's been wonderful for me.

Evergreen对我来说也非常有帮助。

Evergreen was very good for me.

YouTube对我来说非常好。

YouTube's been wonderful for me.

它给了我声音，给了我从未想象过的人际联系。

It's given me a voice, it's given me contact that I never imagined was possible.

那么在这些框架内，有可能改变它们吗？

So within these frameworks, is it possible to change them?

我们能否联合起来，让人们对这些事发声？但似乎抗议并不起作用。

Is it possible to band together to get people to don't know, outcry doesn't seem to work.

也许国会某天会针对它们采取行动。

Maybe Congress will go after them at some point.

我们真的需要从头再来吗？

Do we have to reboot everything?

我们不可能重置一切。

We can't reboot everything.

所以很遗憾，我目前还不能公开谈论这个问题，但我可以说，这是我们面临的核心问题：究竟该如何应对像文明这样复杂的机制？

So I'm unfortunately not quite ready to talk about this publicly yet, but I will say I think this is the core question that we face, which is how exactly do you deal with a mechanism as complex as civilization has become?

你该如何在不使其停机、不使其崩溃，或不发生任何我们承受不起的后果的情况下对其进行升级？

How do you upgrade it without taking it offline or allowing it to collapse or any of the things that we can't afford?

我认为，对于这个问题，确实存在一类解答。

And I do think there is a category of answers to this question.

至于该如何应对网络，我认为这将是第一个测试案例。

And the question about what to do about the net is I think going to be the first test case.

问题是，网络还足够新，而我们用来升级它、使其不至于沦为极权主义噩梦的机制，实际上已经掌握在我们手中，只要我们能足够跳出框架地思考——虽然我不太想用这个陈词滥调，但确实需要足够聪明地部署它们。

Question is, the net is new enough and the mechanisms by which we might upgrade it so that it did not become a totalitarian nightmare, those mechanisms actually exist at our disposal if we can think, I hate to use a cliche, but think outside the box enough to deploy them intelligently.

我们已经看到了足够多的可用组件，公众其实无需获得许可，就能自行升级网络。

We have seen enough components that are available to us that actually we the public can upgrade the net without asking permission to do it.

好的。

Okay.

对吧？

Right?

我们可以在专制者的领域内有效超越他们。

We can effectively outcompete the authoritarians in their own landscape.

这听起来像是一个技术解决方案。

That sounds like a technical solution.

你有没有关于文化解决方案的想法？

Do you have any ideas about a cultural solution?

我们彼此互动的方式，我们训练自己倾向于什么样的内容，或者我们在内心促进或抑制哪些类型的互动，这些可能正中这些庞大巨头的下怀？

The way that we interact with one another, kind of content that we train ourselves to favor or the types of interactions that we promote or demote inside of ourselves that might be playing into the hands of these large behemoths?

我不确定这些问题是否不同。

I am not sure those are different questions.

我的感觉是，比如看看电视。

My sense is, if you look at, for example, television.

当我成长的时候，你没比我小多少。

When I was growing up, you're not that much younger than me.

你四十岁了。

You're 40.

是的。

Yeah.

好吧。

Okay.

我五十岁。

I'm 50.

是的。

Yeah.

无论如何，我小时候，大家都认为电视是有害的，尤其是对孩子有害。

In any case, when I was growing up, everybody understood television to be dangerous and destructive especially to kids.

到我上高中的时候，我开始说，问题不在电视本身，而在于商业模式。

And about the time I was in high school, I started saying, it's not the box, it's the business model.

电视本身，还有让我产生这种想法的原因是，我花了很多时间看公共电视台的纪录片，但我并没有觉得它们让我变得低俗。

The the box itself and, you know, the thing that caused me to think that was that I spent plenty of time watching documentaries on public TV and I didn't have the sense that I was degraded by them.

事实上，我觉得自己得到了提升。

In fact, I felt enhanced.

我从中学到了东西。

I was educated by them.

所以显然，它们都是通过同一个盒子传输的，不同的是商业模式。

And so obviously it came over the same box, and what was different was that the business model was different.

现在，我不认为NPR或PBS能代表任何模式。

Now, I don't think NPR or PBS are a model of anything at the moment.

我认为它们已经被某种相当危险的东西所掌控，但我知道的是，HBO最初，后来Netflix和其他平台，利用了同一个原本传输有毒内容的盒子，通过让用户预先付费来修复了它，从而提供了一种更高质量的内容，这种内容不需要通过操纵你来让你留在座位上。

I think they've been captured by something quite dangerous, but what I do know is that HBO at first, and then later on Netflix and others, have taken the very same box that was delivering really toxic content and has repaired it by getting people to pay upfront for a service and then delivering them a higher quality good that does not require the content to manipulate you into keeping in your seat.

好的。

Okay.

对吧？

Right?

所以，那种必须让你一集接一集、广告接广告地回来的需求，导致了低劣的内容。

So the the the need to keep you coming back commercial break after commercial break caused bad content.

HBO的模式是，他们向你出售观看长篇叙事内容的权利，且不会用广告打断它，实际上，你可以在这一领域做非常精细的事情。

The HBO version where what they do is they sell you the right to watch some long form narrative and they don't interrupt it with commercials, actually you can do something very sophisticated in that space.

是的，现在仍然有很多垃圾内容，但关键是，要改变叙事内容并提升它，根本不需要改变技术本身。

And yeah, there's a lot of garbage out there still, but the point is nothing had to change about the tech in order to change the narrative content and enhance it.

我认为同样的情况也发生在互联网上，我们现在的平台由于所处的竞争环境，被迫操纵我们，让我们停留更久，保持在线，正如他们所说的，而从我们的心理健康角度来说，我们其实应该站起来关掉电脑，去做点别的事情。

And I think the same thing is going on with the Net, where what we have are platforms that because of the competition they are caught in, are forced to manipulate us into sticking around longer than is healthy for us, to staying on-site, as they say, when our mental health would suggest that we should get up and turn off the computer or do something else.

所以真正的问题是，如果我们修复互联网以及建立在其上的平台，这会对对话质量产生什么影响？

So the real question is if we were to fix the net and fix the platforms that ride on it, what would that do to discourse?

我的猜测——这并非随意猜测，而是有根据的推测——我认为对话的质量会大幅提升。

And my guess, and it's not a wild guess, it's an educated guess, my guess is the quality of discourse would go way up.

事实上，我认为IDW已经证明了这一点。

And in fact, I think IDW has been a demonstration of this.

那么，是什么会让质量提升呢？

So what would cause the quality to go up?

是因为不再需要让人被绑定在平台上，而是提供他们真正想要的东西，而不是他们被告诉应该想要的东西，或被操纵着去想要的东西？

The need to no longer keep people stuck around but give them something that they want rather than something that they're told they want or manipulated into wanting?

是的。

Yes.

如果你修正了内容以及创作者与平台之间互动的激励机制，嗯。

If you fix the incentive structure around the content and the interaction between, let's say, creators and platforms Mhmm.

那么所传递的内容质量就会提高，人们会主动寻找更能满足他们需求的东西。

Then that which was delivered, the quality of it would go up and people would seek out that which served them better.

你知道，很久以前你拍过一段关于我的视频，我们当时聊了一点关于智慧的话题。

You know, in in a video that you filmed of me quite some time ago, we talked a little bit about wisdom.

对。

Yeah.

我曾提出，智慧的核心在于延迟满足。

And I argued that the the core of wisdom was delayed gratification.

有趣的是，在那段视频发布后，很多人告诉我，其他地方也有不少人提出过同样的观点，认为延迟满足才是智慧的核心。

And it's funny, in the aftermath of releasing that video, people have pointed me to lots of other places where other people have argued that that's actually the core of wisdom.

所以这是一个引起共鸣的想法。

So I it's a resonant idea.

我认为关键是，如果有好的工具，人们关于如何在线分配时间的智慧会提升。

And I think the point is, given good tools, wisdom about how to spend your time online will go up.

我们现在并没有发生这种情况，因为我们面对的是对手。

We don't have that happening now because we have antagonists.

我们有非常精明的对手，他们利用先进的机器学习技术阻止我们变得明智，让我们不断回来消费他们提供的垃圾内容。

We have very sophisticated antagonists who are deploying very sophisticated machine learning to keep us from getting wise, to keep us coming back for the junk food that they're delivering.

但与此同时，我认为我们至少可以对谷歌的公平性提升团队之类的东西抱有一点善意，他们的命名本身就很有说明性。

Well, at the same time, I think we can be a little bit generous with at least the intentionality of the Google, whatever it's called, fairness enhancement team or whatever they have, the language itself is really telling.

他们如何命名自己的各个部门，简直处处是警报。

Like how they frame all their little ministries is just alarm bells.

尤其是那个‘没什么可看的，继续走吧’部门。

Especially the nothing to see here move along ministry.

这到底是什么意思，走开？

What the hell is Go away.

走开。

Go away.

但在Project Varitas的视频中，那个被拍到的、在拨款或适当性委员会中职位较高女性，似乎想改变选举结果。

But it seems like in the Project Varitas video, the woman that was caught on camera who's higher up on some level of the appropriations or the appropriateness committee, She wants to change the election.

她不希望特朗普上台。

She doesn't want Trump to happen.

他们真的非常害怕特朗普。

Like they're really scared of Trump.

他们真心希望世界变得更好。

They really want the world to be a better place.

所以看起来，他们的行为是出于智慧、善意或关切。

So it seems like they are acting out of an idea of wisdom or care or concern.

那么，有没有办法

Well, is there any way

去影响他们，让他们不要走上这条道路呢？

to reach them and get them to not go down this direction?

没有。

No.

我完全相信，根本无法与他们沟通。

I'm utterly convinced there is no way to reach them.

这些人已经疯了，却意识不到自己已经变成了这样。

These are maniacs who do not realize that that's what 've become.

你知道，我们在埃弗格林就见过这种情况。

And, you know, we we saw this at Evergreen.

是的。

Yeah.

当时有办法与埃弗格林的教职员工沟通吗？

Was there any way to reach Evergreen's faculty?

现在依然无法与他们沟通。

There's still no way to reach.

这说明了一些问题。

Which tells you something.

我认为这正是当前状况的写照。

I think that's a model of of what's going on.

谷歌无法质疑自身行为的明智性。

And Google is incapable of questioning the wisdom of doing what it's doing.

关于他们对特朗普的观点，我也认为特朗普当选是一个令人恐惧的事实。

Now, with respect to their point about Trump, I too think that the election of Trump is a very frightening fact.

当我们面临与伊朗可能爆发战争的威胁时，让唐纳德·特朗普这样的人掌控我们是否走向战争的决定，我认为会使我们更加脆弱。

As we are staring down the barrel of potential war with Iran, having a guy like Donald Trump in charge of whether or not we go that direction makes us much more vulnerable, I believe.

因此，这个问题确实值得探讨：这究竟意味着什么？

And so there is something to be said for the question of, well, what does this mean?

但另一方面，谷歌认为自己有权调整内容，以阻止他再次当选，这种想法是极度傲慢的。

On the other hand, the idea that Google thinks it has the right to adjust content so that he doesn't get elected again is the height of hubris.

这背后潜藏着一个极其明显的危险，而谷歌作为研究人工智能的机构，本应清楚这一点：如果你从一个预设的结论出发——比如我希望生活在一个唐纳德·特朗普不会当选的世界里——然后开始调整内容，使其远离像特朗普这样的人，你就会使我们陷入混乱。

And it carries with it a very obvious danger, which Google, which has studied artificial intelligence, should well understand, which is if you start with the conclusion, which is I'd like to live in a world in which Donald Trump doesn't get elected, and then you start adjusting content so that it points away from a guy like Trump, you derange us.

你让我们无法进行任何有深度的对话。

You make it impossible for us to have a nuanced conversation.

你让我们无法进行一场允许反直觉观点发挥重要作用的对话，因为算法，你知道的，它并不是人工智能的天才。

You make it impossible for us to have a conversation in which the counterintuitive plays an important role because the algorithm, you know, it's not artificial genius.

这甚至不配被称为智能。

It doesn't even deserve the intelligence.

对。

Right.

称其为智能本身就已经是夸大其词了。

Intelligence is a stretch in and of itself.

所以关键是，听好了，你们必须让我们进行讨论。

So the point is, look, you have to let us have discussions.

而且你和蒂姆·波尔确实。

And the fact that you and Tim Pool Yeah.

发现自己处于这个算法的对立面，这已经说明了一切。

Are finding themselves on the wrong end of this algorithm tells you everything you need to know.

那么，这说明了什么？

Well, what

它告诉我什么？

does it tell me?

我就是想不通，他们为什么会觉得我重要到需要被屏蔽。

I just just can't get my head around why they would think I am important enough to scrub out.

让我这样跟你说吧。

Let me let me put it to you this way.

这说明算法认为你对未来的走向有害。

It tells you that the algorithm thinks that you are bad for the future.

但实际上，我听过你的发言。

When in fact, I've listened to you.

你是一个艰难但积极的力量。

You are a difficult but positive force.

你之所以是个艰难的力量，是因为你迫使人们去面对他们不想看到的东西。

You're a difficult force because you're forcing people to look at something they don't want to see.

而且，我遇到的情况也是同样的。

And, you know, it's the same thing I encountered.

Evergreen这个故事的问题在于，好人不喜欢一个充满种族主义恶棍的故事。

The problem with the Evergreen story was that good people don't like a story with black bigots.

黑人偏执者才是问题所在。

Black bigots were the problem.

我不喜欢一个包含黑人偏执者的故事。

I don't like a story with black bigots.

另一方面，如果我们像在尤因学院遇到的那样，确实存在黑人偏执者，你就不能因为这与你偏好的叙事相悖，就决定这个故事不可报道。

On the other hand, if there are black bigots, which we encountered at Evergreen, you can't decide that story is unreportable because it goes against the narrative that you favor.

你必须说，好吧，到底发生了什么？

You have to say, well, what's happened?

为什么这种现象会在当下发生？

Why why is that a phenomenon that's occurring in the present?

所以，无论如何，我的观点是，你和蒂姆·波尔正在提供非常高质量的内容。

And so anyway, my point would be you and Tim Pool are delivering very high quality material.

而算法却决定认为你们所做的是适得其反的，这说明算法根本不在乎真相。

And for the algorithm have to decided to have decided that what you are doing is actually counterproductive tells you that the algorithm is not interested in truth.

它不在乎深入的探索，因为你们两人所做的正是深入挖掘这些现象，让人们看到这场恐怖秀，也看到正在失去的东西。

It's not interested in in in-depth explorations because what both of you are doing is you are exploring things in-depth so that people can see the horror show, they can also see what's being lost.

无论如何，我反对任何认为你或蒂姆·波尔站在历史错误一方的算法，因为我相信你们站在历史正确的一方，尽管你们的同行并不像

And in any case, I'm against any algorithm that would decide that you and or Tim Pool were on the wrong side of history because I believe you are on the right side of history and not in as great company as

嗯，我并不站在那些想要篡改历史的人一边。

Well, I'm not on the side of those who would rewrite history.

这一点我们现在很清楚了。

We know that at this point.

你有一种无法移开视线的特质。

Well, you have an inability to look away.

是的。

Yeah.

你提到的智慧——延迟满足，这让我不禁思考，我们为何如此渴望宣告结果，或如此注重结果导向？

It seems like in that what you brought up with wisdom, that delayed gratification, there's also it just makes me wonder what is that desire for us to declare an outcome or to be outcome oriented?

在某些方面，不以结果为导向似乎是一种反直觉的原则，比如他们希望特朗普当选。

And it seems like an unintuitive principle to not become outcome oriented in certain respects with regards to they want Trump elected.

在埃弗格林，他们想修正数字，尽管这些数字本身已经在自行修正。

With Evergreen, they want to fix the numbers even though the numbers were fixing themselves.

他们希望弥合不同种族之间在成就上的差距。

They wanted to fix these gaps between different races and their achievements.

而这种结果平等，看起来似乎很好。

And that equality of outcome, it seems really good.

但它看起来像是愚者的黄金。

It seems like a fool's gold, though.

它看起来像是一种愚昧的智慧。

It seems like a foolish wisdom.

你明白吗？

Do you see that?

你似乎提到了谷歌在决定去向时，试图搅浑水来达成目标。

It seems like you brought that up with Google deciding where to go and then trying to muddy the waters to get there.

某种事物已经转向了对立面，而压制埃弗格林或学术界探究欲望的做法显然是自相矛盾的。

Well, is a way in which something has switched sides and the desire to stamp out inquiry at Evergreen or in the academy is obviously paradoxical.

而这种欲望，我的意思是，这是谷歌。

And the desire to I mean, this is Google.

谷歌之所以成为谷歌，是因为它让人们能够发现世界上真正存在的东西。

Google became Google because it allowed people to discover what was actually available in the world.

它对内容进行了足够的索引，使我们能够真正找到自己想要的东西。

It allowed it indexed it enough that we could actually find what we were looking for.

因此，在某种意义上，谷歌成了一种更高层次的感知装置。

And so in some sense, Google became a kind of next level perceptual apparatus.

是的。

Yes.

就像一只眼睛，去观察文明和正在发生的事情。

Like an eye to look into civilization and what's taking place.

那么，这只眼睛现在在做什么？

And now what is that eye doing?

它在筛选你能看到的内容。

It's editing what you can see.

为特定的思维服务。

Serving a particular brain.

它正在变得

It is it is becoming

专制 paternalistic，而且它已经决定，不希望你查看自己的内容并自行评估。

paternalistic, and it has decided that it doesn't want you to look at your content, for example, and evaluate it for yourself.

它会替你评估，然后直接让你看不到。

It's gonna evaluate it for you and just, you know, disappear it.

如果你真的想找，你还是能找到的。

And if you really wanna find it, you can.

但你我都清楚，谷歌在你和你的受众之间介入的程度，决定了你未来的命运。

But you and I both know that the degree to which Google intervenes between you and your audience, that adjusts your fate going forward.

它们已经决定，由它们来审查你的内容，这样其他人就不必了。

They've decided that they've looked at your content so other people don't have to.

这到底算什么？

And what the heck?

谷歌真的要来决定这些吗？

Google is gonna decide that?

是的。

Yeah.

这就像学院决定质疑本身就是一种压迫。

That's like the Academy deciding that inquiry is a form of oppression.

是的。

Yeah.

这真的很奇怪。

It's it's it's odd.

当我作为内容创作者成长时，我努力去设计内容。

And I try to design as I developed as a content creator.

我在这个实验中还处于非常早期的阶段。

I'm still very early in this experiment.

但我试图设计一些复杂的内容，利用那种本能反应来吸引人们进来。

But I tried to design content that was complex, kind of used that knee jerk reaction to get people into the door.

获得关注很重要。

Getting attention is important.

我保持注意力并试图推进、操控注意力、分解注意力、并在此过程中激发意图的方式，是不去依赖那些点击诱饵内容，而是主动打破预期，与你平时不会交谈的人进行长篇对话。

The way that I kept attention and tried to go forward and manipulate attention or to break apart attention and to engage intention over the course was to not feed on those clickbait things, is to actually upset expectations and have long form conversations with people that you wouldn't normally have a conversation with.

看起来，如果算法误读了我以及我的意图，或者从中解读出某种特定意图，那可能是它无法处理这种复杂性，或者这种复杂性与算法操控者希望发生的结果相悖。

And it seems like if the algorithm is somehow misreading me and my intentions or reading a certain intention into it, that it either can't process that level of complexity or that level of complexity goes against what its handlers want to happen.

当我想到我们此刻所展现的这种复杂性时，我认为任何机器都不可能真正衡量我们在做什么，这种复杂性，我相信，才是前进的方向，是我们能够在分歧中依然能共同建设、或做任何我们需要做的事情的途径？

When I think that that level of complexity such as we're exercising right now, that I don't think any machine could actually gauge what we're actually doing here, that level of complexity, believe, is the way forward, is the way for us to get to a place where we can disagree and build something while disagreeing on things or whatever we need to do?

我 elsewhere 曾说过，我们在对人工智能的恐惧方面错失了良机。

Well, I've said elsewhere that we missed the boat with respect to the fears about AI.

我们原本期待的是机器人，而实际上，我们现在正生活在人工智能末日的初期阶段，却甚至没有意识到这一点，因为机器人并不是关键因素。

That we were expecting robots and that we are actually now living the very early stages of the AI apocalypse, and we don't even know it because the robots aren't an important factor.

是的。

Yeah.

真正的问题在于算法。

That what it is is the algorithms.

某种程度上，算法已经开始替我们思考了。

And in some sense, the algorithms have started to think for us.

现在，这里有个非常基本的问题。

Now, here's a very basic question.

谷歌的高管们能否逃脱他们自己算法对现实的调整？

Do the executives at Google have an escape from their own algorithmic adjustment of reality?

还是说，这是一种正反馈循环，谷歌的高管们会被他们自己愚蠢启动的算法说服？

Or is this a positive feedback where the executives of Google are going to be convinced by the algorithms that they stupidly set in motion?

他们会强化自己的错误认知吗？

Are they going to be reinforced in their wrong think?

我讨厌

I hate

在这里用这个词带有讽刺意味。

to use that term ironically here.

是我们这些人

We're the ones who are

他们认为我们参与了错误的思考。

They think we're involved in wrong think.

但就他们对什么值得听、什么不值得听采取了过于简化的看法而言，他们是否在制造一个将使自己陷入混乱的回音室？

But to the extent that they have deployed an overly simplistic view of what's worth hearing and what isn't, Are they creating their own echo chamber, which is then going to derange them?

对吧？

Right?

换句话说，这些统治者已经种下了自我毁灭的种子。

In other words, the overlords have created the seeds of their undoing.

这就像某部电影里的场景，机器人反过来对付他们的创造者。

And it's, you know, it's very much like the scene in whatever movie where the robots turn on their creators.

这些算法不可避免地会混淆那些编写算法的谷歌员工。

The algorithms are inevitably going to confuse people at Google who are programming the algorithms.

是的。

Yeah.

每隔一阵子，就会有一段新视频从波士顿那些动态公司流出，那里有机器人。

It seems like we every once in while a new video surfaces from one of those dynamic companies out in Boston where they have a robot.

波士顿动力。

Boston Dynamics.