Competition. It's a fundamental part of human nature. I was a professional poker player for 10 years, so I've very much seen all the good, bad and ugly ways it can manifest. When it's done right, it can drive us to incredible feats in sports and innovation, like when car companies compete over who can build the safest cars or the most efficient solar panels. Those are all examples of healthy competition, because even though individual companies might come and go, in the long run, the game between them creates win-win outcomes where everyone benefits in the end.
競爭, 是人類的天性 我當了十年的專業撲克玩家 見識到人性各種善良、邪惡,及醜陋的體現 競爭,可以是助力 使我們在運動和創新方面達成壯舉 比如汽車公司, 競相製造出最安全的汽車 或最有效率的太陽能板。 這些都是良性競爭的例子, 因為即使公司倒了 這種良性競爭還是能留下雙贏局面 最後對大家都有好處
But sometimes competition is not so great and can create lose-lose outcomes where everyone's worse off than before. Take these AI beauty filters, for example. As you can see, they're a very impressive technology. They can salvage almost any picture. They can even make Angelina and Margot more beautiful. So they're very handy, especially for influencers who, now, at the click of a button, can transform into the most beautiful Hollywood versions of themselves. But handy doesn't always mean healthy. And I've personally noticed how quickly these things can train you to hate your natural face. And there's growing evidence that they're creating issues like body dysmorphia, especially in young people.
但並不是所有競爭都是良性的 有時反而會造成雙輸局面, 讓大家過得更慘 以這些 AI 美容濾鏡為例 如你所見,這科技非常厲害 幾乎能挽救任何照片 甚至能讓安潔麗娜和瑪格更加美麗 相當實用的科技 尤其是對網紅來說, 只要按個鈕 就可把自己變成跟好萊塢明星一樣美 但方便並不一定代表健康。 我開始注意到 這些科技會快速的讓你討厭自己天生的樣貌。 而且有越來越多的證據指出 這些科技增長了身體臆形症等心理問題, 尤其在年輕族群
Nonetheless, these things are now endemic to social media because the nature of the game demands it. The platforms are incentivized to provide them because hotter pictures means more hijacked limbic systems, which means more scrolling and thus more ad revenue. And users are incentivized to use them because hotter pictures get you more followers.
儘管如此, 這些科技已經在社交媒體上氾濫 因為如果想要在現有制度下成功, 你不能不用它 社群平台主動提供這些濾鏡 因為有更多性感照,就能綁架更多注意力 而更多的注意力,代表更高的廣告收益。 而用戶也被鼓勵去使用這些濾鏡 因為性感的照片能帶來更多追隨者
But this is a trap, because once you start using these things, it's really hard to go back. Plus, you don't even get a competitive advantage from them anymore because everyone else is already using them too. So influencers are stuck using these things with all the downsides and very little upside. A lose-lose game.
但這是一個陷阱, 因為這些科技你只要一用 就很難不再去用它 而且如果不繼續用, 你會因此處於劣勢 因為就算你不用,別人照樣會用 因此,被迫使用這些工具的網紅 承受其帶來的負面影響, 卻只換來微薄的收益 全盤皆輸
A similar kind of trap is playing out in our news media right now, but with much worse consequences. You'd think since the internet came along that the increased competition between news outlets would create a sort of positive spiral, like a race to the top of nuanced, impartial, accurate journalism. Instead, we're seeing a race to the bottom of clickbait and polarization, where even respectable papers are increasingly leaning into these kind of low-brow partisan tactics. Again, this is due to crappy incentives.
同樣的狀況也發生於新聞媒體 但造成的影響更加嚴重 照理來說,網路的出現 能促使新聞媒體之間的良性競爭 比誰能產出更多元、 有益且公正的新聞 但事與願違, 我們只看到新聞騙取流量,煽動爭議 連有威望的報社 也開始靠挑動黨派對立來爭取銷量 跟前面一樣,這是不良誘因造成的後果
Today, we no longer just read our news. We interact with it by sharing and commenting. And headlines that trigger emotions like fear or anger are far more likely to go viral than neutral or positive ones. So in many ways, news editors are in a similar kind of trap as the influencers, where, the more their competitors lean into clickbaity tactics, the more they have to as well. Otherwise, their stories just get lost in the noise. But this is terrible for everybody, because now the media get less trust from the public, but also it becomes harder and harder for anyone to discern truth from fiction, which is a really big problem for democracy.
在現代,我們不只會閱讀新聞 還會藉由分享、留言與其互動 而能引起恐慌或怒氣的聳動頭條 比起中立或正向報導,更能激起討論熱度 新聞編輯陷入和網紅相似的困境 當對手用釣魚標題獲得更多流量時 自己也被迫照做 否則報導就會被埋沒 但這對每個人都有壞處 因為不只是新聞媒體失去了公信力 也讓我們更難辨視事實真假 在民主社會中,是很嚴重的問題
Now, this process of competition gone wrong is actually the driving force behind so many of our biggest issues. Plastic pollution, deforestation, antibiotic overuse in farming, arms races, greenhouse gas emissions. These are all a result of crappy incentives, of poorly designed games that push their players -- be them people, companies or governments -- into taking strategies and tactics that defer costs and harms to the future. And what's so ridiculous is that most of the time, these guys don't even want to be doing this. You know, it's not like packaging companies want to fill the oceans with plastic or farmers want to worsen antibiotic resistance. But they’re all stuck in the same dilemma of: "If I don't use this tactic, I’ll get outcompeted by all the others who do. So I have to do it, too.”
這種失序競爭的情況 就是許多當代問題的最大主因 塑料污染 森林砍伐 養殖業抗生素濫用 軍武競賽 溫室氣體排放 這些都是負面競爭的結果 設計不良的制度 逼得不管是民眾、企業或政府 都必須已危害未來的方法做事, 讓後人承擔後果 但荒唐的是 大部分的人也不想這麼做 包裝公司也不想用塑料填滿海洋 養殖者也不想用抗生素 但他們都陷入相同的困境: 「如果我不採用這種手法 我會輸給其他這麼做的競爭者 所以我也必須這樣做」
This is the mechanism we need to fix as a civilization. And I know what you're probably all thinking, "So it's capitalism." No, it's not capitalism. Which, yes, can cause problems, but it can also solve them and has been fantastic in general. It's something much deeper. It's a force of misaligned incentives of game theory itself.
導正這個狀況,是我們文明人的義務 你們可能心想:「啊! 萬惡的資本主義!」 不,它不是原因 它的確會製造問題 但同時也能解決問題,整體來說很棒 問題出在更深層的地方 出自於不鼓勵良性競爭的環境
So a few years ago, I retired from poker, in part because I wanted to understand this mechanism better. Because it takes many different forms, and it goes by many different names. These are just some of those names. You can see they're a little bit abstract and clunky, right? They don't exactly roll off the tongue. And given how insidious and connected all of these problems are, it helps to have a more visceral way of recognizing them.
幾年前,我退出撲克圈 一部分是因為我想深入了解這種失衡機制。 它有各種不同的面相,不同的稱呼 這些只是其中幾個名字 [協調問題][負和賭局] 這些只是其中幾個名字 [多方角逐][共有地悲劇] 如你所見,都是些很抽象生硬的名詞,對吧? [逐底競爭][多方囚犯困境] 十分拗口 [社會難題][不當平衡] 這些課題難以被察覺又互相關聯 所以我們需要個極端的例子,來了解、辨別它們
So this is probably the only time you're going to hear about the Bible at this conference. But I want to tell you a quick story from it, because allegedly, back in the Canaanite days, there was a cult who wanted money and power so badly, they were willing to sacrifice their literal children for it. And they did this by burning them alive in an effigy of a God that they believed would then reward them for this ultimate sacrifice. And the name of this god was Moloch. Bit of a bummer, as stories go. But you can see why it's an apt metaphor, because sometimes we get so lost in winning the game right in front of us, we lose sight of the bigger picture and sacrifice too much in our pursuit of victory. So just like these guys were sacrificing their children for power, those influencers are sacrificing their happiness for likes. Those news editors are sacrificing their integrity for clicks, and polluters are sacrificing the biosphere for profit.
這次集會應該只有我這場會提起聖經 但我想說個小故事, 因為據稱, 在迦南時代, 有個非常渴望金錢與權力的邪教 甚至願意將親生血肉綁在木像上 活活燒死,想以此換取財富與權力 相信他們的神會獎勵這種終極犧牲 這位神叫“摩洛” 這故事滿負面的 但也是一個恰當的比喻 因為有時我們會為了搶得先機 而犧牲未來 不知不覺的付出我們無法承受的代價 就像為了權力獻祭親生骨肉的邪教徒 網紅為了按讚數, 犧牲自己的快樂 新聞編輯為了流量, 犧牲自己的信用 而污染者為了獲利, 犧牲了大自然
In all these examples, the short-term incentives of the games themselves are pushing, they're tempting their players to sacrifice more and more of their future, trapping them in a death spiral where they all lose in the end. That's Moloch's trap. The mechanism of unhealthy competition. And the same is now happening in the AI industry.
以上的例子, 都是為了短利的負面競爭造成的 誘惑每個人犧牲越來越多的未來 把大家拉進負面漩渦中, 人人都不好過 陷入摩洛的圈套 鼓勵負面競爭的機制 而相同的故事, 也在AI產業上演中
We're all aware of the race that's heating up between companies right now over who can score the most compute, who can get the biggest funding round or get the top talent. Well, as more and more companies enter this race, the greater the pressure for everyone to go as fast as possible and sacrifice other important stuff like safety testing. This has all the hallmarks of a Moloch trap. Because, like, imagine you're a CEO who, you know, in your heart of hearts, believes that your team is the best to be able to safely build extremely powerful AI. Well, if you go too slowly, then you run the risk of other, much less cautious teams getting there first and deploying their systems before you can. So that in turn pushes you to be more reckless yourself. And given how many different experts and researchers, both within these companies but also completely independent ones, have been warning us about the extreme risks of rushed AI, this approach is absolutely mad. Plus, almost all AI companies are beholden to satisfying their investors, a short-term incentive which, over time, will inevitably start to conflict with any benevolent mission.
我們都知道各個公司在互相競爭 比誰能獲得最高分的運算評比 誰能獲得最多的經費、 最頂尖的人才 當競爭對手逐漸增加 公司必須超越對手的壓力也越來越大 驅使公司犧牲重要的堅持, 比如安全測試 摩洛圈套的特點在此展露無遺 想像你是一位執行長 真心認為你的團隊有能力做出安全又強大的AI 但如果你動作太慢, 就可能被其他沒那麼嚴謹的團隊超越 搶先部屬它們的系統 這種風險反而使你更加魯莽 己經有不少學者與專家 不管是來自職場還是獨立的 都開始警告我們草率推出AI的風險 是非常不負責任、瘋狂的行為 況且,幾乎所有 AI 公司 都有必須滿足的投資者、股東 這種必須短期內達成的目標 久而久之, 必定會與善良的本意衝突
And this wouldn't be a big deal if this was really just toasters we're talking about here. But AI, and especially AGI, is set to be a bigger paradigm shift than the agricultural or industrial revolutions. A moment in time so pivotal, it's deserving of reverence and reflection, not something to be reduced to a corporate rat race of who can score the most daily active users. I'm not saying I know what the right trade-off between acceleration and safety is, but I do know that we'll never find out what that right trade-off is if we let Moloch dictate it for us.
如果今天只是在討論烤麵包機, 那就沒什麼大不了 但人工智慧, 尤其是通用人工智慧 將會徹底改變社會型態 影響大於農業或工業革命 處在轉捩點的我們 必須認真反思這個議題 別以為這只是企業在互相比較 比誰能搶到更多用戶 我不知道如何在進步與安全中取得平衡 但我知道, 如果我們不脫離摩洛圈套 我們永遠不會找到正確的平衡點
So what can we do? Well, the good news is we have managed to coordinate to escape some of Moloch's traps before. We managed to save the ozone layer from CFCs with the help of the Montreal Protocol. We managed to reduce the number of nuclear weapons on Earth by 80 percent, with the help of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty in 1991. So smart regulation may certainly help with AI too, but ultimately, it's the players within the game who have the most influence on it. So we need AI leaders to show us that they're not only aware of the risks their technologies pose, but also the destructive nature of the incentives that they're currently beholden to. As their technological capabilities reach towards the power of gods, they're going to need the godlike wisdom to know how to wield them.
那我們該如何改善現況呢? 好消息是, 我們以經在某些部分達成共識 躲掉了一些摩洛的陷阱 在蒙特婁議定書的幫助下, 成功的保護臭氧層, 不被氟氯碳化物破壞 1991年的削減戰略武器條約 成功減少了八成的核武 同理,我們也能用相同的方式規範人工智慧 但說到底 對此事最有影響力的, 就是在AI產業裡的人 因此, 我們必須要求他們證明 他們不只了解開發AI的潛在風險 也知道負面競爭的現況, 對未來百害無一利 如果他們要發展那麼神的科技 那他們也必須展現神一般的智慧, 才有資格掌控它
So it doesn't fill me with encouragement when I see a CEO of a very major company saying something like, "I want people to know we made our competitor dance." That is not the type of mindset we need here. We need leaders who are willing to flip Moloch's playbook, who are willing to sacrifice their own individual chance of winning for the good of the whole. Now, fortunately, the three leading labs are showing some signs of doing this. Anthropic recently announced their responsible scaling policy, which pledges to only increase capabilities once certain security criteria have been met. OpenAI have recently pledged to dedicate 20 percent of their compute purely to alignment research. And DeepMind have shown a decade-long focus of science ahead of commerce, like their development of AlphaFold, which they gave away to the science community for free. These are all steps in the right direction, but they are still nowhere close to being enough. I mean, most of these are currently just words, they're not even proven actions.
因此, 當我聽到某大公司執行長說出: 「我們可把競爭對手逼到跳腳啦!」 這種話時 我並不感到興奮, 那不是我們現在需要的心態 我們需要能翻轉摩洛圈套的領導者 願意犧牲自己勝利的機會 來換得全體福祉 幸運的是, 現在有三個頂尖實驗室展現此意 Anthropic 最近宣布了他們的責任分級政策 【模型能力越強,安全標準越高】 該政策承諾,只在符合安全標準時 【模型能力越強,安全標準越高】 才會提升人工智慧的能力 【模型能力越強,安全標準越高】 OpenAI 最近承諾把兩成的運算資源 用於確保AI是往對人類有益的方向發展 而 DeepMind透過十年的堅持 證明比起商業利益,他們更注重科學精神 比如他們將自己開發的AlphaFold 免費開放給科學社群使用 這些方向是對的 但單靠這些方法仍然不夠。 畢竟,這些都只是紙上談兵 還沒被實際執行
So we need a clear way to turn the AI race into a definitive race to the top. Perhaps companies can start competing over who can be within these metrics, over who can develop the best security criteria. A race of who can dedicate the most compute to alignment. Now that would truly flip the middle finger to Moloch.
因此,我們需要明確的規則, 確保AI的發展為良性競爭 促使公司自主遵守規範 或誰制定的安全標準最完善。 比誰能投入最多的運算力於AI對齊上 如果成功的話, 就等於是對摩洛豎起了大大的中指
Competition can be an amazing tool, provided we wield it wisely. And we're going to need to do that because the stakes we are playing for are astronomical. If we get AI, and especially AGI, wrong, it could lead to unimaginable catastrophe. But if we get it right, it could be our path out of many of these Moloch traps that I've mentioned today. And as things get crazier over the coming years, which they're probably going to, it's going to be more important than ever that we remember that it is the real enemy here, Moloch. Not any individual CEO or company, and certainly not one another.
競爭,可以是一種美好的工具 前提是我們明智的運用它 而我們也必須如此 因為這場競爭的風險, 大的難以想像 如果我們錯用 AI, 尤其是通用人工智慧, 很有可能鑄下難以彌補的大錯 但相反的,如果我們做得正確, AI能成為脫離摩洛圈套的途徑 接下來這幾年, 情勢大概只會更加瘋狂 所以我們更需要意識到: 真正的敵人, 是摩洛和祂的圈套 不是某個企業, 或哪個執行長,更不是你我彼此
So don't hate the players, change the game.
所以不要仇視對手 要改寫規則
(Applause)
(掌聲)