I want you to imagine walking into a room, a control room with a bunch of people, a hundred people, hunched over a desk with little dials, and that that control room will shape the thoughts and feelings of a billion people. This might sound like science fiction, but this actually exists right now, today.
我要各位去想像一個場景, 你走進了一個房間, 這個控制室裡有一群人, 一百多人縮在布置着 各種小儀表盤的辦公桌前, 而這間控制室, 即將影響 十億多人的想法與感受。 這聽起來像是科幻小說, 但它確實存在, 就在當下,今天。
I know because I used to be in one of those control rooms. I was a design ethicist at Google, where I studied how do you ethically steer people's thoughts? Because what we don't talk about is how the handful of people working at a handful of technology companies through their choices will steer what a billion people are thinking today. Because when you pull out your phone and they design how this works or what's on the feed, it's scheduling little blocks of time in our minds. If you see a notification, it schedules you to have thoughts that maybe you didn't intend to have. If you swipe over that notification, it schedules you into spending a little bit of time getting sucked into something that maybe you didn't intend to get sucked into. When we talk about technology, we tend to talk about it as this blue sky opportunity. It could go any direction. And I want to get serious for a moment and tell you why it's going in a very specific direction. Because it's not evolving randomly. There's a hidden goal driving the direction of all of the technology we make, and that goal is the race for our attention. Because every news site, TED, elections, politicians, games, even meditation apps have to compete for one thing, which is our attention, and there's only so much of it. And the best way to get people's attention is to know how someone's mind works. And there's a whole bunch of persuasive techniques that I learned in college at a lab called the Persuasive Technology Lab to get people's attention.
我會知道的原因,是因為 我也曾經是控制室裡的一員。 我曾經是谷歌的倫理設計學家, 我在研究如何在符合道德的前提下, 控制人們的思想。 因為我們不會去討論 這幾家科技公司裡面的人 會如何以他們的選擇意志 去控制十幾億人的想法。 因為當你拿出手機時, 他們已經設計好如何運作 或者要給你什麼資訊。 它已經在我們的腦中 安排好很多小時段。 如果你看了通知, 這會促使你產生一個 你也許不想要的想法。 如果你跳過那個通知, 它就會讓你多花點時間 投入到你不想要的東西上, 而你原本也許不想要 花時間在那上面。 當我們在談論科技時, 我們傾向於把它當作是 湛藍天空的機會。 它可以往任何方向發展。 但我想認真地說, 我要告訴各位, 為什麼科技正在往特定的方向發展。 因為科技的演變不是隨機的。 在我們所有創造的科技背後, 都隱藏著一個特定目標, 而那個目標就是 競相爭奪我們的注意力。 因為每一個新網頁── TED 網頁、選舉網頁、政客網頁、 遊戲網頁,甚至是冥想的應用軟體── 都必須競爭同樣的東西, 也就是我們的注意力, 但市場就這麼大。 而要獲得人們注意力的最佳方法, 就是去了解使用者的腦袋 是如何運作的。 有很多說服的技巧, 我是從大學的 「說服力技術實驗室」學來的, 他們教你如何獲得別人的注意力。
A simple example is YouTube. YouTube wants to maximize how much time you spend. And so what do they do? They autoplay the next video. And let's say that works really well. They're getting a little bit more of people's time. Well, if you're Netflix, you look at that and say, well, that's shrinking my market share, so I'm going to autoplay the next episode. But then if you're Facebook, you say, that's shrinking all of my market share, so now I have to autoplay all the videos in the newsfeed before waiting for you to click play. So the internet is not evolving at random. The reason it feels like it's sucking us in the way it is is because of this race for attention. We know where this is going. Technology is not neutral, and it becomes this race to the bottom of the brain stem of who can go lower to get it.
一個簡單的例子就是 YouTube。 YouTube 想要最大化 你花費在他們網站的時間。 那他們會怎麼做? 他們會幫你自動撥放下一部片。 這一招真的很有效, 他們也因此得到 使用者更多的時間。 但,如果你是 Netflix, 你看到了這樣的狀況,你會說, 不行,這樣會把我的客戶給搶走, 所以,我也要自動播放下一集。 但如果你是 Facebook, 你會說,那這樣我的市場 都被你們瓜分掉了, 所以我會在你點擊播放按鍵前 自動播放所有的影片給你看。 所以,網際網路的演化不是隨機的。 它會讓你感覺欲罷不能的原因, 就是因為這場注意力的爭奪賽。 我們知道這會有什麼後果。 因為科技不是中立的。 這個競賽已變成 看誰可以更深地滲入 使用者腦袋的比賽。
Let me give you an example of Snapchat. If you didn't know, Snapchat is the number one way that teenagers in the United States communicate. So if you're like me, and you use text messages to communicate, Snapchat is that for teenagers, and there's, like, a hundred million of them that use it. And they invented a feature called Snapstreaks, which shows the number of days in a row that two people have communicated with each other. In other words, what they just did is they gave two people something they don't want to lose. Because if you're a teenager, and you have 150 days in a row, you don't want that to go away. And so think of the little blocks of time that that schedules in kids' minds. This isn't theoretical: when kids go on vacation, it's been shown they give their passwords to up to five other friends to keep their Snapstreaks going, even when they can't do it. And they have, like, 30 of these things, and so they have to get through taking photos of just pictures or walls or ceilings just to get through their day. So it's not even like they're having real conversations. We have a temptation to think about this as, oh, they're just using Snapchat the way we used to gossip on the telephone. It's probably OK. Well, what this misses is that in the 1970s, when you were just gossiping on the telephone, there wasn't a hundred engineers on the other side of the screen who knew exactly how your psychology worked and orchestrated you into a double bind with each other.
我跟各位舉個例子, Snapchat。 不知道各位是否了解, Snapchat 目前是 美國年輕人之間, 最熱門的社交軟體。 所以,如果你們和我一樣, 有在用簡訊在與人交流, 應該知道 Snapchat 就是專門 設計給年輕人使用的, 差不多將近有一億人在使用它。 這家公司發明了一個叫做 Snapstreaks 的特色功能, 它會告訴你, 你跟你朋友兩個人之間, 連續不間斷地聊了幾天。 換句話說,它們給予的是一種 兩人都捨不得放棄的東西。 因為,如果你是年輕人 而有著連續 150 天的聊天紀錄, 你不會想讓紀錄就此中斷的。 所以想想孩子們 腦袋裡被設定好的時間模式。 我沒在騙你:已經有人證實, 當孩子在度假時, 他們會把密碼給另外五位朋友, 請他們幫忙維持 Snapstreaks 的聊天記錄, 就算他們不能用手機。 他們差不多有 30 種類似 這樣的東西要維護, 所以他們每天要東拍拍、西拍拍 拍牆壁、拍天花板, 不然當天他們會渾身不舒服。 所以這根本不像是 他們在真正的交流。 我們可能會這麽想, 他們用 Snapchat 的方式 就像我們曾經用電話聊八卦一樣。 應該還好吧! 但,不同於 1970 年代的是: 當你們用電話聊八卦時, 旁邊並沒有數百位工程師在監控你, 準確地知道你的心理, 並操控著你們倆緊緊地綁在一起。
Now, if this is making you feel a little bit of outrage, notice that that thought just comes over you. Outrage is a really good way also of getting your attention, because we don't choose outrage. It happens to us. And if you're the Facebook newsfeed, whether you'd want to or not, you actually benefit when there's outrage. Because outrage doesn't just schedule a reaction in emotional time, space, for you. We want to share that outrage with other people. So we want to hit share and say, "Can you believe the thing that they said?" And so outrage works really well at getting attention, such that if Facebook had a choice between showing you the outrage feed and a calm newsfeed, they would want to show you the outrage feed, not because someone consciously chose that, but because that worked better at getting your attention. And the newsfeed control room is not accountable to us. It's only accountable to maximizing attention. It's also accountable, because of the business model of advertising, for anybody who can pay the most to actually walk into the control room and say, "That group over there, I want to schedule these thoughts into their minds." So you can target, you can precisely target a lie directly to the people who are most susceptible. And because this is profitable, it's only going to get worse.
如果現在你有點生氣了, 有沒有注意到,你生氣了? 因為激怒你也是引起你 注意的方式之一, 因為就算我們不想生氣, 它還是會發生。 如果你是 Facebook 的新聞推送者, 不管你是刻意或是不經意, 人們憤怒的時候,實際上你是受益的。 因為憤怒不僅僅在 情感上讓你有個宣洩的出口, 更提供了你一個發洩的空間。 我們還會想和其他人 分享我們的憤怒。 所以我們會按下分享鍵然後說, 「你敢相信他們說的嗎?」 所以讓人發怒,可以吸引到注意力, 所以,如果 Facebook 可以在 向你展示令人憤怒或者 令人平靜的消息之間進行選擇, 他們會選擇向你展示令人憤怒的消息, 不是因為有人刻意如此選, 只是因為這樣可以讓你 更注意到他們。 新聞控制室不對我們負責。 它只對最大化注意力負責。 它也要向── 因為商業模式的關係, 它也要向走進控制室 付廣告費的人負責, 他們會說,「那個團體在那邊, 我想要灌輸一些想法到他們腦裡。」 所以你可以定位, 你可以準確直接定位到 那些最容易被受到影響的人。 因為這是有利可圖的, 所以狀況只會越來越糟。
So I'm here today because the costs are so obvious. I don't know a more urgent problem than this, because this problem is underneath all other problems. It's not just taking away our agency to spend our attention and live the lives that we want, it's changing the way that we have our conversations, it's changing our democracy, and it's changing our ability to have the conversations and relationships we want with each other. And it affects everyone, because a billion people have one of these in their pocket.
所以我今天來到這裡的原因, 是因為這件事的代價太高了。 我認為沒有其它事 比這問題還要緊急, 因為其它所有問題的背後, 都與這個問題有關。 它不僅剝奪我們的自主權, 還浪費我們的注意力, 影響我們的生活方式。 也改變了我們的交流方式, 改變了我們的民主制度, 而且還改變了我們 想要與他人交流、 維持關係的能力。 這會影響到每一個人, 因為十幾億人口的口袋裡 都有一台這個東西。
So how do we fix this? We need to make three radical changes to technology and to our society. The first is we need to acknowledge that we are persuadable. Once you start understanding that your mind can be scheduled into having little thoughts or little blocks of time that you didn't choose, wouldn't we want to use that understanding and protect against the way that that happens? I think we need to see ourselves fundamentally in a new way. It's almost like a new period of human history, like the Enlightenment, but almost a kind of self-aware Enlightenment, that we can be persuaded, and there might be something we want to protect. The second is we need new models and accountability systems so that as the world gets better and more and more persuasive over time -- because it's only going to get more persuasive -- that the people in those control rooms are accountable and transparent to what we want. The only form of ethical persuasion that exists is when the goals of the persuader are aligned with the goals of the persuadee. And that involves questioning big things, like the business model of advertising. Lastly, we need a design renaissance, because once you have this view of human nature, that you can steer the timelines of a billion people -- just imagine, there's people who have some desire about what they want to do and what they want to be thinking and what they want to be feeling and how they want to be informed, and we're all just tugged into these other directions. And you have a billion people just tugged into all these different directions. Well, imagine an entire design renaissance that tried to orchestrate the exact and most empowering time-well-spent way for those timelines to happen. And that would involve two things: one would be protecting against the timelines that we don't want to be experiencing, the thoughts that we wouldn't want to be happening, so that when that ding happens, not having the ding that sends us away; and the second would be empowering us to live out the timeline that we want.
所以我們要如何修復這個問題? 我們需要對科技和我們的社會 做三大激進的改變。 首先,我們需要了解 我們是會被說服的。 一旦你了解 人腦可以被有計劃性地 注入一些思想 或被占用掉一些時間時, 我們難道不會利用這點 來防止這樣的事發生嗎? 我認為我們需要以全新的方式審視自己。 就像是人類歷史上新的篇章, 就像啟蒙運動, 但是是自覺性的啟蒙運動, 瞭解到我們是會被說服的, 並意識到我們也有想要保護的東西。 第二點是我們需要新的 模式和責任系統, 如此,當世界變得越來越好、 我們越來越容易被說服時── 因為它只會變得更有說服力── 這樣在控制室裡的那些人 才會對我們想要的東西負責 並把它透明化。 道德說服存在的唯一前提就是: 只有當說服者的目標 和被說服者的目標是一致時才存在。 而這涉及到對大型事件的質疑, 像是廣告的商業模式。 最後, 我們需要一個經過設計的 科技文藝復興, 因為一旦你對人性本質 有一定的了解, 那你就可以控制十億人的時間軸── 想像一下,人都會有一些慾望, 會有想做的事、想思考的事、 想感受的事物、想了解的事物, 而我們卻只能被引導到其它方向。 十億人只會被引導到這些不同的方向。 所以,試想一下 一個完整的文藝復興設計, 可以幫助我們引導至 正確的、有自主性的、 時間分配良好的路上。 那就得包含兩件事: 一是我們要保護自己的時間軸 不被支配到不想經歷的事情上、 不去產生我們不想要的想法, 如此,當簡訊的提醒聲響起時, 我們就不會被牽著鼻子走; 二是要讓我們能活出 自己想要的時光。
So let me give you a concrete example. Today, let's say your friend cancels dinner on you, and you are feeling a little bit lonely. And so what do you do in that moment? You open up Facebook. And in that moment, the designers in the control room want to schedule exactly one thing, which is to maximize how much time you spend on the screen. Now, instead, imagine if those designers created a different timeline that was the easiest way, using all of their data, to actually help you get out with the people that you care about? Just think, alleviating all loneliness in society, if that was the timeline that Facebook wanted to make possible for people. Or imagine a different conversation. Let's say you wanted to post something supercontroversial on Facebook, which is a really important thing to be able to do, to talk about controversial topics. And right now, when there's that big comment box, it's almost asking you, what key do you want to type? In other words, it's scheduling a little timeline of things you're going to continue to do on the screen. And imagine instead that there was another button there saying, what would be most time well spent for you? And you click "host a dinner." And right there underneath the item it said, "Who wants to RSVP for the dinner?" And so you'd still have a conversation about something controversial, but you'd be having it in the most empowering place on your timeline, which would be at home that night with a bunch of a friends over to talk about it. So imagine we're running, like, a find and replace on all of the timelines that are currently steering us towards more and more screen time persuasively and replacing all of those timelines with what do we want in our lives.
我給各位舉個例子。 比如說,今天你朋友取消了 與你的晚餐約會, 所以你感到有點寂寞。 那當下你會做甚麼? 你會打開 Facebook。 而就在那一刻, 控制室裡的設計者 想要準確地規劃一件事, 那就是最大化你盯著螢幕的時間。 現在,反過來,想像一下, 是否這些設計師可以創造出一個 不一樣的時間軸,以最簡單的方法、 利用他們所有的數據, 幫你準確地約出你關心的人? 試想一下,消除社會中所有的寂寞, 這樣的時間軸不就是 Facebook 想要為我們實現的嗎? 或試想另一個對話。 比方說你想要在 Facebook 上 發表備受爭議的言論, 你覺得這個爭議性話題很重要, 需要被拿出來討論。 現在,有一個很大的留言區, 它就像是在問你, 你想要輸入什麽東西? 換句話說,它正在安排一些時間軸, 好讓你可以繼續待在螢幕上。 試想如果有另一個按鈕跳出來說, 你想怎麼安排你的時間? 然後你點選,「舉辦一個晚餐的聚會」。 然後,底下就會跳出一個, 「有誰想要聚餐,請盡速回覆」? 所以,你的爭議性話題 可以被繼續討論, 而且可以放置在你時間軸上 最顯眼的位置, 那天晚上,你就可以邀請到一堆朋友 來你家裡晚餐並討論這個話題。 想像我們正在賽跑, 想盡快找到並替換掉 所有那些正在促使我們 花越來越多的時間在螢幕上的時間軸, 並盡快把這些時間軸 用我們在生活中想做的事情替代掉。
It doesn't have to be this way. Instead of handicapping our attention, imagine if we used all of this data and all of this power and this new view of human nature to give us a superhuman ability to focus and a superhuman ability to put our attention to what we cared about and a superhuman ability to have the conversations that we need to have for democracy. The most complex challenges in the world require not just us to use our attention individually. They require us to use our attention and coordinate it together. Climate change is going to require that a lot of people are being able to coordinate their attention in the most empowering way together. And imagine creating a superhuman ability to do that.
真的不須要這樣。 不需要癱瘓我們的注意力, 試想如果我們利用所有這些數據和能力, 加上對人性本質的全新認識, 來讓我們擁有超人般的注意力、 讓我們更關心我們在乎的事情、 讓我們擁有超人般的能力, 來進行民主所需要的互動交流。 世界上最複雜的挑戰, 不僅需要我們每個人的注意力。 也需要我們的同心協力才能克服。 地球暖化議題需要大家 一起使用最有力的方式 將所有人的注意力整合起來。 試想如果有了這樣的超人能力會怎樣。
Sometimes the world's most pressing and important problems are not these hypothetical future things that we could create in the future. Sometimes the most pressing problems are the ones that are right underneath our noses, the things that are already directing a billion people's thoughts. And maybe instead of getting excited about the new augmented reality and virtual reality and these cool things that could happen, which are going to be susceptible to the same race for attention, if we could fix the race for attention on the thing that's already in a billion people's pockets. Maybe instead of getting excited about the most exciting new cool fancy education apps, we could fix the way kids' minds are getting manipulated into sending empty messages back and forth.
有時世界上最要緊、最重要的問題 不是未來我們可以創造的 假設性事物。 有時最要緊的問題, 就是我們眼前的問題, 已經在影響著十億人思想的事情。 與其花時間對擴增實境感到興奮、 對虛擬實境這類酷炫產品感到興奮── 對這些注意力競賽的產品感到興奮── 不如把時間放在修正注意力競賽上, 修正十億人口袋裡的那台機器上。 與其花時間對刺激、 酷炫的教育軟體感到興奮, 不如花時間找出方法, 來挽救那些已經被操控、 腦中只想傳些空洞簡訊的孩子們。
(Applause)
(掌聲)
Maybe instead of worrying about hypothetical future runaway artificial intelligences that are maximizing for one goal, we could solve the runaway artificial intelligence that already exists right now, which are these newsfeeds maximizing for one thing. It's almost like instead of running away to colonize new planets, we could fix the one that we're already on.
與其擔憂那假想的未來: 只為了吸引我們注意力的 人工智慧未來, 倒不如開始解決我們現有的、 已經失去控制的人工智慧, 也就是這些為了吸引我們注意力 推送新聞的人工智慧機器。 就像是,與其逃跑到新的殖民星球, 不如好好地拯救我們的地球。
(Applause)
(掌聲)
Solving this problem is critical infrastructure for solving every other problem. There's nothing in your life or in our collective problems that does not require our ability to put our attention where we care about. At the end of our lives, all we have is our attention and our time. What will be time well spent for ours?
解決這個問題 是解決其它問題的關鍵所在。 在你生命中或是我們彼此的共同問題中, 沒有一件事是不需要我們 花時間關注、花心思在乎的。 畢竟,到了生命的盡頭, 我們最後所擁有的 就是曾經在乎的美好時光。 讓時間為我們所用。
Thank you.
謝謝各位。
(Applause)
(掌聲)
Chris Anderson: Tristan, thank you. Hey, stay up here a sec. First of all, thank you. I know we asked you to do this talk on pretty short notice, and you've had quite a stressful week getting this thing together, so thank you. Some people listening might say, what you complain about is addiction, and all these people doing this stuff, for them it's actually interesting. All these design decisions have built user content that is fantastically interesting. The world's more interesting than it ever has been. What's wrong with that?
克里斯 · 安德森: 崔斯頓,謝謝你。請留步。 首先,謝謝你。 我知道我們很晚才通知你要做這次演講, 你這禮拜壓力很大, 為了這次的演講,所以謝謝你。 有些聽眾可能會說, 你抱怨的是沉迷, 而對於那些已經沉迷的人來說, 他們認為那是興趣。 所有這些設計過的決策、內容, 對用戶而言是相當有趣的。 這個世界從未如此有趣過。 這有什麽錯嗎?
Tristan Harris: I think it's really interesting. One way to see this is if you're just YouTube, for example, you want to always show the more interesting next video. You want to get better and better at suggesting that next video, but even if you could propose the perfect next video that everyone would want to watch, it would just be better and better at keeping you hooked on the screen. So what's missing in that equation is figuring out what our boundaries would be. You would want YouTube to know something about, say, falling asleep. The CEO of Netflix recently said, "our biggest competitors are Facebook, YouTube and sleep." And so what we need to recognize is that the human architecture is limited and that we have certain boundaries or dimensions of our lives that we want to be honored and respected, and technology could help do that.
崔斯頓.哈瑞斯:我認為這確實有趣。 我們換個角度看這件事, 假設,你在用 Youtube 看影片, 你總是希望下一部影片是最有趣的。 你希望下一部推薦的影片越來越棒, 但是即使你推薦了一部比一部好看, 所有人都想要看的完美影片, 這只會讓你一直盯著螢幕看。 而其中遺漏的是要找出 我們的邊界。對吧? 你會想讓 YouTube 知道, 你甚麼時候會「睡著」嗎? Netflix 的 CEO 最近說, 我們最大的競爭者就是臉書、 YouTube 和「睡著了」,對吧? 所以我們需要認識到 人體是有極限的、 我們的生活是有某種界線的、 我們都想要被尊重, 而科技可以幫我們做到。
(Applause)
(掌聲)
CA: I mean, could you make the case that part of the problem here is that we've got a naïve model of human nature? So much of this is justified in terms of human preference, where we've got these algorithms that do an amazing job of optimizing for human preference, but which preference? There's the preferences of things that we really care about when we think about them versus the preferences of what we just instinctively click on. If we could implant that more nuanced view of human nature in every design, would that be a step forward?
克里斯:可否請你說明一下, 這裡還有個問題是,會不會 我們把人性想的太天真了? 如何判別各式各樣 人類偏好的合理性, 我們可以用這些演算法 幫我們完成, 幫我們優化人類的偏好, 但是,是哪方面的偏好? 有我們確實關心的、 在意的事情的偏好, 也有我們只是直覺地點擊的偏好。 如果我們在每個設計中 植入了對人性本質的微妙了解, 這會是一種進步嗎?
TH: Absolutely. I mean, I think right now it's as if all of our technology is basically only asking our lizard brain what's the best way to just impulsively get you to do the next tiniest thing with your time, instead of asking you in your life what we would be most time well spent for you? What would be the perfect timeline that might include something later, would be time well spent for you here at TED in your last day here?
崔斯頓:那是肯定的。 我的意思是,我認為現在 好像我們的科技基本上 只詢問我們本能反應的腦的意見, 它們最好的方式就是強迫你 在下一秒、下一刻做出一些小事, 而不是問你人生中的大事、 問你花時間在哪方面 才是對你有幫助的? 也不是問你接下來 完美的時間安排是怎樣的, 最後一天你要不要 聽一下 TED 演講之類的?
CA: So if Facebook and Google and everyone said to us first up, "Hey, would you like us to optimize for your reflective brain or your lizard brain? You choose."
克里斯: 所以,是不是要臉書、 谷歌在一開始就問我們, 嘿,你想要我們優化思考的腦 還是優化本能反應的腦? 由你來選擇。
TH: Right. That would be one way. Yes.
崔斯頓:是的。這也是個方法。是的。
CA: You said persuadability, that's an interesting word to me because to me there's two different types of persuadability. There's the persuadability that we're trying right now of reason and thinking and making an argument, but I think you're almost talking about a different kind, a more visceral type of persuadability, of being persuaded without even knowing that you're thinking.
克里斯:你剛提到的「說服能力」, 對我來說這個詞很有趣, 因為在我看來, 有兩種不同的說服能力。 有一種說服能力是我們現在在嘗試的, 用前因後果、提出看法的方式說服聽眾, 但是我覺得你是在談論另一種 更能引起「情緒上本能反應」 的說服能力, 那種不經思考就被說服的能力。
TH: Exactly. The reason I care about this problem so much is I studied at a lab called the Persuasive Technology Lab at Stanford that taught [students how to recognize] exactly these techniques. There's conferences and workshops that teach people all these covert ways of getting people's attention and orchestrating people's lives. And it's because most people don't know that that exists that this conversation is so important.
沒錯。我會十分關心這個問題的原因是 我在史丹佛的說服力技術實驗室待過, 那裡就是在教導人們這些技術。 那裡有論壇和討論,教導人們 使用這些偷偷摸摸的方式 來獲得人們的注意力, 指揮人們的生活。 正因為大部分人不知道 有這項技術的存在, 所以我們的討論才會如此重要。
CA: Tristan, you and I, we both know so many people from all these companies. There are actually many here in the room, and I don't know about you, but my experience of them is that there is no shortage of good intent. People want a better world. They are actually -- they really want it. And I don't think anything you're saying is that these are evil people. It's a system where there's these unintended consequences that have really got out of control --
克里斯:崔斯頓,你和我都認識 許多來自這些公司的人。 許多人也在這裡, 我不知道你是怎麽樣的, 但就我的經驗而言, 他們也都是善意的。 大家都想要一個更好的世界。 他們確實──他們真的想要。 我不認為你所說的, 是在指這些人是壞人。 你指的是有一個系統, 導致了一些意想不到的後果 且超出了控制範圍──
TH: Of this race for attention. It's the classic race to the bottom when you have to get attention, and it's so tense. The only way to get more is to go lower on the brain stem, to go lower into outrage, to go lower into emotion, to go lower into the lizard brain.
崔斯頓:關於注意力的競爭。 當你想要吸引人家的注意 它就是一場無視規則的精典賽, 而且競爭很激烈。 取得更多注意的唯一辦法, 只有更深入腦袋、 更引起憤怒、更深入情感、 更深入本能反應的腦。
CA: Well, thank you so much for helping us all get a little bit wiser about this.
克里斯:非常感謝你幫助我們 對這個問題有更進一步的了解。
Tristan Harris, thank you. TH: Thank you very much.
謝謝你。
(Applause)
崔斯頓:非常感謝。