So anyway, who am I? I usually say to people, when they say, "What do you do?" I say, "I do hardware," because it sort of conveniently encompasses everything I do. And I recently said that to a venture capitalist casually at some Valley event, to which he replied, "How quaint."
好,我们开始吧。首先我是谁? 别人问起我做什么的时候,我通常会跟别人讲 “我是做硬件的” 因为那样可以很直接的涵盖我现在做的几乎所有东西 最近在硅谷的一次活动上 我就是这么跟一位风投说的。他说,这么怪!
(Laughter)
(笑声)
And I sort of really was dumbstruck. And I really should have said something smart. And now I've had a little bit of time to think about it, I would have said, "Well, you know, if we look at the next 100 years and we've seen all these problems in the last few days, most of the big issues -- clean water, clean energy -- and they're interchangeable in some respects -- and cleaner, more functional materials -- they all look to me to be hardware problems. This doesn't mean we should ignore software, or information, or computation." And that's in fact probably what I'm going to try and tell you about.
我当时真的是傻呆了 本来应该说点其他有趣的东西 后来想了一下 我现在可以这么回答 要是我们往前看100年 我们过去几天看到了各种各样的问题 那些大的问题,包括清洁饮水、清洁能源 ——这两者某种程度上是可以相互转换的 以及更干净更具功能化的材料 在我看来,这些都是硬件层面的问题 这不是说我们要忽视软件 或者信息或者计算 这就是我今天演讲的内容
So, this talk is going to be about how do we make things and what are the new ways that we're going to make things in the future. Now, TED sends you a lot of spam if you're a speaker about "do this, do that" and you fill out all these forms, and you don't actually know how they're going to describe you, and it flashed across my desk that they were going to introduce me as a futurist. And I've always been nervous about the term "futurist," because you seem doomed to failure because you can't really predict it. And I was laughing about this with the very smart colleagues I have, and said, "You know, well, if I have to talk about the future, what is it?" And George Homsey, a great guy, said, "Oh, the future is amazing. It is so much stranger than you think. We're going to reprogram the bacteria in your gut, and we're going to make your poo smell like peppermint."
我要告诉大家我们怎么制造东西 以及未来我们将怎么制造东西 假如你是一位演讲嘉宾,TED会给你发来大量的垃圾邮件 告诉你,要这么做,不要那么做,你还要填写大量的表格 你甚至也不知道他们会怎么描述你 我刚才想到,似乎TED要将我描绘成为一个未来学家 一听到未来学家这个词,我一向是很紧张的 因为事实上未来是不可预测的,所以你注定是要失败的 我和我的一位很聪明的同事在笑 我说,假如你要讲未来,那你会讲什么呢? 我的同事George Homsey是个很聪明的家伙,他说,“未来是很美好的 比你想象的要美好得多 我们将有可能给细胞重新编排他们的基因序列 也可以让你的粪便闻起来想薄荷一样
(Laughter)
(笑声)
So, you may think that's sort of really crazy, but there are some pretty amazing things that are happening that make this possible. So, this isn't my work, but it's work of good friends of mine at MIT. This is called the registry of standard biological parts. This is headed by Drew Endy and Tom Knight and a few other very, very bright individuals. Basically, what they're doing is looking at biology as a programmable system. Literally, think of proteins as subroutines that you can string together to execute a program. Now, this is actually becoming such an interesting idea. This is a state diagram. That's an extremely simple computer.
也许你会认为那是有点夸张的 但确实在这些方面我们取得了相当可喜的进展,使得那样的故事 有可能变为现实 这不是我的作品。是我的好朋友的作品 它叫标准生物部件组 它是由Drew Endy以及 Tom Knight主导的团队开发的 还要其他几个非常非常优秀的人 他们所做的,就是将生命看作是一个可编程的系统 真的, 你可以把蛋白质看成是 可以组合在一起形成一个程序的单元 这样的想法正变得非常有趣 这是一个状态图。是很简单的一部计算机。
This one is a two-bit counter. So that's essentially the computational equivalent of two light switches. And this is being built by a group of students at Zurich for a design competition in biology. And from the results of the same competition last year, a University of Texas team of students programmed bacteria so that they can detect light and switch on and off. So this is interesting in the sense that you can now do "if-then-for" statements in materials, in structure. This is a pretty interesting trend, because we used to live in a world where everyone's said glibly, "Form follows function," but I think I've sort of grown up in a world -- you listened to Neil Gershenfeld yesterday; I was in a lab associated with his -- where it's really a world where information defines form and function.
这是个双字节的计算器 或者从计算的角度来讲,那就相当于一个灯的开关 瑞士的一班学生 在一个生物学竞赛上制作出了这个东西 同样是在去年举办的这个竞赛上 来自得克萨斯大学的学生通过给细菌 编程 使得细菌可以感知灯光并且控制开灯或关灯 这是很有意思的 因为这意味着我们可以为实物铸入像 "if then for" 这样的口令了 这是一个很有趣的趋势 我们过去所生活的世界是一个模糊的世界 先有功能,后有形态,但我相信,我正在一个 ——像尼尔·歌申费尔德教授所描绘的世界 我就在一个跟尼尔教授有关系的实验室工作 在那里,信息决定了形态与功能
I spent six years thinking about that, but to show you the power of art over science -- this is actually one of the cartoons I write. These are called "HowToons." I work with a fabulous illustrator called Nick Dragotta. Took me six years at MIT, and about that many pages to describe what I was doing, and it took him one page. And so this is our muse Tucker. He's an interesting little kid -- and his sister, Celine -- and what he's doing here is observing the self-assembly of his Cheerios in his cereal bowl. And in fact you can program the self-assembly of things, so he starts chocolate-dipping edges, changing the hydrophobicity and the hydrophylicity. In theory, if you program those sufficiently, you should be able to do something pretty interesting and make a very complex structure. In this case, he's done self-replication of a complex 3D structure. And that's what I thought about for a long time, because this is how we currently make things. This is a silicon wafer, and essentially that's just a whole bunch of layers of two-dimensional stuff, sort of layered up. The feature side is -- you know, people will say, [unclear] down around about 65 nanometers now.
我有六年的时间就在想这个 但为了向你展示艺术相对于科学带给人们的震撼力—— 这是我画的一幅漫画,我管这样的漫画叫“好图画” 那是我跟一个非常优秀的叫Nick Dragotta的漫画家一起完成的 一共花去了我在MIT的六年时间 以及如此多的页数来描述当时我做的事情 但对于这位漫画家而言,他只需要一页就够了。Tucker是我们的灵感之源 他是个很有趣的孩子,这是他的妹妹Celine 他现在在做的 就是观察在他的饭碗里的燕麦圈的自组合过程 事实上,你可以通过编程,来使得物品进行自我组合 于是他从巧克力开始做 改变其抗水性以及亲水性 从理论来说,只要你的程序有足够的完整性 你可以做出任何有意思的东西 创造出很复杂的结构出来 他对三维的复杂结构很喜欢,现在是业余做这个。 我很久以来在思考的正是这个 因为这正是我们现在制造东西的方式 这是一个硅晶圆 它实际上就是很多重的二维结构的材料堆积起来 它的侧面 65纳米
On the right, that's a radiolara. That's a unicellular organism ubiquitous in the oceans. And that has feature sizes down to about 20 nanometers, and it's a complex 3D structure. We could do a lot more with computers and things generally if we knew how to build things this way. The secret to biology is, it builds computation into the way it makes things. So this little thing here, polymerase, is essentially a supercomputer designed for replicating DNA. And the ribosome here is another little computer that helps in the translation of the proteins. I thought about this in the sense that it's great to build in biological materials, but can we do similar things? Can we get self-replicating-type behavior? Can we get complex 3D structure automatically assembling in inorganic systems? Because there are some advantages to inorganic systems, like higher speed semiconductors, etc.
右边的是放射虫 它是一种在海洋里大量存在的单细胞生物 它的直径为20纳米 并且它有复杂的三维结构 我们还可以用电脑制造很多其他的东西 假如我们懂得像放射虫那样去搭建起三维结构的话 生物之奥秘,在于它在造物的时候就把 一套计算的程式装进去了。这是一个聚合酶 它事实上就是一台专门用来复制DNA的超级计算机 而那些一个个突起的核糖体又是另外一种功能的计算机 它可以帮助实现蛋白质的合成 我一直在想 用生物材料可以搭建起非常有趣的东西 但用物理材料是否同样可行呢? 我们能否设计出具备自复制能力的机器呢? 我们能否让复杂的三维结构 在一个非生物的系统里自行组合起来呢? 因为非生物系统有些很好的优势 比如更高速的半导体等等
So, this is some of my work on how do you do an autonomously self-replicating system. And this is sort of Babbage's revenge. These are little mechanical computers. These are five-state state machines. So, that's about three light switches lined up. In a neutral state, they won't bind at all. Now, if I make a string of these, a bit string, they will be able to replicate. So we start with white, blue, blue, white. That encodes; that will now copy. From one comes two, and then from two comes three. And so you've got this sort of replicating system. It was work actually by Lionel Penrose, father of Roger Penrose, the tiles guy. He did a lot of this work in the '60s, and so a lot of this logic theory lay fallow as we went down the digital computer revolution, but it's now coming back.
这就是我的工作 研究怎么去建立一个可以实现自行复制的系统 有点像是巴贝奇最初设计的计算机 这些是微型机械电脑 这些是五状态的状态机 可以看到有三个并排的电灯开关 在自然状态下,它们不会自行接合 但假如我做了一串这样的东西 它们就可以实现自我复制 我们不妨从白色、蓝色、蓝色、白色开始 它们经过编码后,就可以实现复制,从一个到两个 再有两个到四个 于是我们就得到了这样一种自复制的系统 它最初是由Lionel Penrose发现的 也就是Roger Penrose的父亲 他在1960年代的时候做了很多这方面的研究 但是他的很多关于逻辑的理论没有被重视 因为我们走向了数字计算机革命,但今天我们又一次见到了这一理论重新发光的可能
So now I'm going to show you the hands-free, autonomous self-replication. So we've tracked in the video the input string, which was green, green, yellow, yellow, green. We set them off on this air hockey table. You know, high science uses air hockey tables --
接下来我会给大家看一个不经过人工干预的,全自动的复制过程 输入的初始状态是 绿色、绿色、黄色、黄色、绿色 我们把它放到桌上冰球游戏的桌面上 ——很多科学家都爱玩这个游戏
(Laughter)
(笑声)
-- and if you watch this thing long enough you get dizzy, but what you're actually seeing is copies of that original string emerging from the parts bin that you have here. So we've got autonomous replication of bit strings. So, why would you want to replicate bit strings? Well, it turns out biology has this other very interesting meme, that you can take a linear string, which is a convenient thing to copy, and you can fold that into an arbitrarily complex 3D structure. So I was trying to, you know, take the engineer's version: Can we build a mechanical system in inorganic materials that will do the same thing?
假如你长时间看的话也会感觉疲惫 因为事实上你看到的是原先的链条的复件 都是从零件出来的 我们看到了比特串的自复制 但为什么要让比特串实现自复制呢? 因为生物有个特性 你拿一个 线性的一串细胞,它可以很容易实现复制 你可以将它折叠成复杂的三维结构 于是我就想 我们能否用非生物材料来建一个机械的系统 并且使之实现同样的过程?
So what I'm showing you here is that we can make a 2D shape -- the B -- assemble from a string of components that follow extremely simple rules. And the whole point of going with the extremely simple rules here, and the incredibly simple state machines in the previous design, was that you don't need digital logic to do computation. And that way you can scale things much smaller than microchips. So you can literally use these as the tiny components in the assembly process.
大家看到的是,我们可以将二维的结构 图上的 B ——它是由一串基础元素 依据非常简单的规律组合而成的 而我们之所以要设置非常简单的规律 以及非常简单的初始状态 是因为我们不需要通过数字逻辑来实现计算 这样我们可以将那些比微型芯片更小的东西规模化 所以你完成可以用这些作为基础原料来组合出更复杂的东西
So, Neil Gershenfeld showed you this video on Wednesday, I believe, but I'll show you again. This is literally the colored sequence of those tiles. Each different color has a different magnetic polarity, and the sequence is uniquely specifying the structure that is coming out. Now, hopefully, those of you who know anything about graph theory can look at that, and that will satisfy you that that can also do arbitrary 3D structure, and in fact, you know, I can now take a dog, carve it up and then reassemble it so it's a linear string that will fold from a sequence. And now I can actually define that three-dimensional object as a sequence of bits. So, you know, it's a pretty interesting world when you start looking at the world a little bit differently. And the universe is now a compiler. And so I'm thinking about, you know, what are the programs for programming the physical universe? And how do we think about materials and structure, sort of as an information and computation problem? Not just where you attach a micro-controller to the end point, but that the structure and the mechanisms are the logic, are the computers.
我想Neil Gershenfeld周三的时候就给大家看过了这个视频 不过我还是想给你们再看一遍 这就是那些已经被染色的砖块的照片 每一种颜色都有不同的磁力 序列可以准确的规定生成的结构 假如你懂得一点点的图论知识 不妨看看这里,你会感到很舒服 因为它还能演化为任意的三维结构 事实上,我可以绘画出一条狗 而后将其重新组合,使之成为一个线性的长串 它最后可以实现复制 我还能将三维的物体变成一串比特 这里发生的事情都很有趣 当你以另外一个视角看这个世界的时候 整个宇宙就是一台汇编机器 于是我想,那些给物理宇宙进行编程的 都是怎样一些程序? 我们如何才能把材料与结构的问题 化为信息与计算的问题来解决? 不仅仅是在末端添加一个微控制器 而是让结构以及机械本身成为逻辑,成为计算机
Having totally absorbed this philosophy, I started looking at a lot of problems a little differently. With the universe as a computer, you can look at this droplet of water as having performed the computations. You set a couple of boundary conditions, like gravity, the surface tension, density, etc., and then you press "execute," and magically, the universe produces you a perfect ball lens. So, this actually applied to the problem of -- so there's a half a billion to a billion people in the world don't have access to cheap eyeglasses. So can you make a machine that could make any prescription lens very quickly on site? This is a machine where you literally define a boundary condition. If it's circular, you make a spherical lens. If it's elliptical, you can make an astigmatic lens. You then put a membrane on that and you apply pressure -- so that's part of the extra program. And literally with only those two inputs -- so, the shape of your boundary condition and the pressure -- you can define an infinite number of lenses that cover the range of human refractive error, from minus 12 to plus eight diopters, up to four diopters of cylinder. And then literally, you now pour on a monomer. You know, I'll do a Julia Childs here. This is three minutes of UV light. And you reverse the pressure on your membrane once you've cooked it. Pop it out. I've seen this video, but I still don't know if it's going to end right.
当你完全理解了这一理念之后 我们就能以不一样的视角来看待许多问题 假如宇宙就是一台计算机 那么你可以把这一滴水看成是 在进行一种计算 你给它设定一些条件,比如重力 表面张力、密度等等,而后按“执行” 于是宛如魔术一般,宇宙就给你制造出了一个完美的球状镜片 这样的思维同样可以用来 解决其他问题,比如世界上有5到10亿人 不能很轻松的购买到廉价的眼镜 那么我们是否可以做出一台机器 让它可以在任意地方,按照人们的需求,以最快速度做出人们需要的镜片? 这样一台机器你确实要给它设置一些边界条件 比如设定为圆形,那么得到的将是球状的镜片 假如是椭圆形,就可以用于制作散光镜片 而后把薄膜放在上面,施加压力 那还需要另外的流程 事实上,只要有那样两个输入数据 即边缘状况以及压力 我们可以定义出无限种可能的镜片 可以涵盖人类全部的反射缺陷 从负12到正8 的屈光度 而后将其浇灌到单体上 我现在是在学Julia Childs (著名法国厨师)了 这是三分钟的紫外光 将薄膜的受压面换过来 加热,而后敲打出来 我看过这个视频,但我不知它是否真的可以实现
(Laughter)
(笑声)
So you reverse this. This is a very old movie, so with the new prototypes, actually both surfaces are flexible, but this will show you the point. Now you've finished the lens, you literally pop it out. That's next year's Yves Klein, you know, eyeglasses shape. And you can see that that has a mild prescription of about minus two diopters. And as I rotate it against this side shot, you'll see that that has cylinder, and that was programmed in -- literally into the physics of the system. So, this sort of thinking about structure as computation and structure as information leads to other things, like this.
反转过来。这是很老的一个片子 我们有新的原型,事实上两面都是可弯曲的 希望这个可以让你看懂个中奥秘 做好镜片之后,把它敲出来 这会成为明年的Yves Klein作品,一个镜片形的作品 你会看到它是有一个很小的负2度的屈光度 当我从侧面旋转的时候,你会看到它是圆柱形的 也是我们预先通过程序设定的 就是我们可以 将系统的物理特性设定好 这样一种将结构看成是一种计算 以及结构即信息的思维可以带来其他的东西
This is something that my people at SQUID Labs are working on at the moment, called "electronic rope." So literally, you think about a rope. It has very complex structure in the weave. And under no load, it's one structure. Under a different load, it's a different structure. And you can actually exploit that by putting in a very small number of conducting fibers to actually make it a sensor. So this is now a rope that knows the load on the rope at any particular point in the rope. Just by thinking about the physics of the world, materials as the computer, you can start to do things like this.
这是我在 SQUID Labs 的朋友做的 叫电子绳 讲到绳子,你会想到很复杂的纤维结构 当受到一种外力的时候,它显现一种结构 不同的外力会带来不同的结构 你还可以 加上一些导电的纤维,将其改造成一个传感器 所以这是一个能够感知外力的绳子 并且可以准备的知道绳子的任意位置的受力大小 当你开始如此看世界之后 即将材料看成计算机 你就可以做这样的事情了
I'm going to segue a little here. I guess I'm just going to casually tell you the types of things that I think about with this. One thing I'm really interested about this right now is, how, if you're really taking this view of the universe as a computer, how do we make things in a very general sense, and how might we share the way we make things in a general sense the same way you share open source hardware? And a lot of talks here have espoused the benefits of having lots of people look at problems, share the information and work on those things together. So, a convenient thing about being a human is you move in linear time, and unless Lisa Randall changes that, we'll continue to move in linear time. So that means anything you do, or anything you make, you produce a sequence of steps -- and I think Lego in the '70s nailed this, and they did it most elegantly. But they can show you how to build things in sequence. So, I'm thinking about, how can we generalize the way we make all sorts of things, so you end up with this sort of guy, right? And I think this applies across a very broad -- sort of, a lot of concepts.
现在我想转换到这个图 我将向大家介绍我正在 思考的一些物体 我现在非常感兴趣的一点是 假如你真的把宇宙看成是一个计算机 我们如何制造出一般的东西? 还有我们如何分享我们制造东西的方法和过程呢? 能否使之变得跟共享开源硬件一样简单? 很多人已经在此谈论过 让许多人关注一个问题 彼此交换信息、共同协作解决问题的好处 作为一个人,我们都是在线性的时间里移动的 除非Lisa Randall可以改变这一事实 我们仍将这么做 也就是说,你做的任意事情,或你制造任意物体 都是有一串的步骤的 Lego在1970年代就看到了这一点 并且以最美丽的方式去展现这一点 他们的产品就是最好的明证 于是我想,我们怎么才能将我们制造东西的方式 一般化? 是不是就变成这样的人? 我想这是对于很广的概念都适用的
You know, Cameron Sinclair yesterday said, "How do I get everyone to collaborate on design globally to do housing for humanity?" And if you've seen Amy Smith, she talks about how you get students at MIT to work with communities in Haiti. And I think we have to sort of redefine and rethink how we define structure and materials and assembly things, so that we can really share the information on how you do those things in a more profound way and build on each other's source code for structure. I don't know exactly how to do this yet, but, you know, it's something being actively thought about.
Cameron Sinclair昨天就在这里说到 我怎么才能让 每个人都参与到设计的过程中 让地球人都能为人道建站贡献自己的一分力? 假如你看过Amy Smith的演讲 她就是讲如何让MIT的学生 去到海地帮助当地人建设自己的社区 我想我们需要重新定义以及构想 关于结构、材料以及我们做东西的方式 让信息共享成为现实 或者说我们怎么才能发明出更优秀的方式去做那些事情 在其他人的基础上搭建新的东西 现在我还不知具体可以怎么做 但我相信很多人正在想这个问题
So, you know, that leads to questions like, is this a compiler? Is this a sub-routine? Interesting things like that. Maybe I'm getting a little too abstract, but you know, this is the sort of -- returning to our comic characters -- this is sort of the universe, or a different universe view, that I think is going to be very prevalent in the future -- from biotech to materials assembly. It was great to hear Bill Joy. They're starting to invest in materials science, but these are the new things in materials science. How do we put real information and real structure into new ideas, and see the world in a different way? And it's not going to be binary code that defines the computers of the universe -- it's sort of an analog computer. But it's definitely an interesting new worldview.
于是可以引发这样的问题 这是编译器吗?这是子路径吗? 还有很多此类的有意思的事情 也许我讲得有点抽象了 但是,假如我们回到刚才这幅漫画 这样一种宇宙的视野 我想未来会变得相当普遍 从生物技术到材料合成。我听到Bill Joy的演讲,很振奋 他们正希望在材料科学方面进行投资 但我们见到了这类新的材料科学 我们如何才能把真正的信息以及结构化为真正的点子 进而以不一样的视角来看世界?新的世界视野 将不再是2进制的视野 那很快会像模拟计算机一样走向衰败 但必然是很有趣的一种视野
I've gone too far. So that sounds like it's it. I've probably got a couple of minutes of questions, or I can show -- I think they also said that I do extreme stuff in the introduction, so I may have to explain that. So maybe I'll do that with this short video.
我也许讲得有点离题了 我想还剩几分钟 我想——有人说我会做一些极端的东西 我就解释一下吧 也许可以放这个视频给大家看
So this is actually a 3,000-square-foot kite, which also happens to be a minimal energy surface. So returning to the droplet, again, thinking about the universe in a new way. This is a kite designed by a guy called Dave Kulp. And why do you want a 3,000-square-foot kite? So that's a kite the size of your house. And so you want that to tow boats very fast. So I've been working on this a little, also, with a couple of other guys. But, you know, this is another way to look at the -- if you abstract again, this is a structure that is defined by the physics of the universe. You could just hang it as a bed sheet, but again, the computation of all the physics gives you the aerodynamic shape. And so you can actually sort of almost double your boat speed with systems like that. So that's sort of another interesting aspect of the future.
这是一个3000平方英尺的风筝 也是一个可以吸取能量的最低直径 还是回到刚才所讲的 以不一样的视野看宇宙 这是由Dave Kulp设计的风筝 为何要做这么大的风筝呢? 它简直就跟你家一般大小啊 因为只有这样你才能很快的拉动一条船 我也在跟一些朋友 在做这个 这是另外一种看—— 假如允许我用抽象的语言讲的话 这是一种被宇宙定义的结构 你可以像蚊帐一样挂着它 但各种物理成分的计算 则使得它可以实现一种很强的空气动力结构 并且还能给船的速度加倍 这会是未来很有趣的一种应用
(Applause)
(掌声)