Three leaders in their fields answer questions about our relationships with robot

三位行业领袖就人类与机器人的关系问题发表见解

When asked 'Should robots be used to colonise other planets?', cosmology and astrophysics Professor Martin Rees said he believed the solar system would be mapped by robotic craft by the end of the century. 'The next step would be mining of asteroids, enabling fabrication of large structures in space without having to bring all the raw materials from Earth…. I think this is more realistic and benign than the … “terraforming”* of planets.' He maintains that colonised planets 'should be preserved with a status that is analogous to Antarctica here on Earth.'

当被问及"是否该用机器人殖民外星球”时，宇宙学和天体物理学教授马丁·里斯表示，他相信本世纪末机器人飞船将完成太阳系测绘。"下一步是小行星采矿，实现太空大型结构就地建造，无需从地球运输原料。这比行星"地球化改造"*更现实可行。"他主张殖民行星"应参照南极条约予以保扪”

On the question of using robots to colonise other planets and exploit mineral resources, engineering Professor Daniel Wolpert replied, 'I don't see a pressing need to colonise other planets unless we can bring [these] resources back to Earth. The vast majority of Earth is currently inaccessible to us. Using robots to gather resources nearer to home would seem to be a better use of our robotic tools.'

工程学教授丹尼尔·沃尔珀特对此问题回应道:"除非能将外星资源运回地球，否则殖民需求并不迫切。地球绝大部分资源尚未开发，用机器人开采近地资源才是更合理的应用。

Meanwhile, for anthropology Professor Kathleen Richardson, the idea of 'colonisation' of other planets seemed morally dubious: 'I think whether we do something on Earth or on Mars we should always do it in the spirit of a genuine interest in “the Other”, not to impose a particular model, but to meet “the Other”.”

"人类学教授凯瑟琳·理查森则从道德层面质疑:"无论在地球还是火星，我们都应以真诚探索'他者”的心态行事，而非强加既定模式。

In response to the second question, 'How soon will machine intelligence outstrip human intelligence?', Rees mentions robots that are advanced enough to beat humans at chess, but then goes on to say, 'Robots are still limited in their ability to sense their environment: they can't yet recognise and move the pieces on a real chessboard as cleverly as a child can. Later this century, however, their more advanced successors may relate to their surroundings, and to people, as adeptly as we do. Moral questions then arise. … Should we feel guilty about exploiting [sophisticated robots]? Should we fret if they are underemployed, frustrated, or bored?'

针对第二个问题，"机器智能何时超越人类"的提问，里斯提到已能击败人类棋手的机器人，但指出:"它们感知环境的能力仍有限--连孩童都能灵活辨识移动真实棋盘棋子。不过本世纪末，更先进的机器人或将拥有人类般的环境互动能力，届时将引发道德争议:剥削高智能机器人是否该受谴责?它们遭遇失业挫折时我们是否该担忧?

Wolpert's response to the question about machine intelligence outstripping human intelligence was this: 'In a limited sense it already has. Machines can already navigate, remember and search for items with an ability that far outstrips humans. However, there is no machine that can identify visual objects or speech with the reliability and flexibility of humans…. Expecting a machine close to the creative intelligence of a human within the next 50 years would be highly ambitious.'

对于机器智能是否会超越人类智能的问题，Wolpert的回答是这样的:"从某种有限的意义上说，机器智能已经超越了人类智能。机器在导航、记忆和搜索项目方面的能力已经远远超过了人类。然而，目前还没有机器能够在识别视觉物体或语音方面达到人类的可靠性和灵活性。….预计在未来50年内，机器能够接近人类的创造性智能，这将是非常有野心的。"

Richardson believes that our fear of machines becoming too advanced has more to do with human nature than anything intrinsic to the machines themselves. In her view, it stems from humans' tendency to personify inanimate objects: we create machines based on representations of ourselves, imagine that machines think and behave as we do, and therefore see them as an autonomous threat. 'One of the consequences of thinking that the problem lies with machines is that we tend to imagine they are greater and more powerful than they really are and subsequently they become so.'

理查森认为，我们对机器智能过度发展的恐惧更多源于人性而非机器本质。在她看来，这种恐惧源自人类将无生命物体拟人化的倾向:我们按照自身形象创造机器，幻想它们会像人类一样思考行动，从而将其视为潜在的自主威胁。"将问题归咎于机器的后果之一。

This led on to the third question, 'Should we be scared by advances in artificial intelligence?' To this question, Rees replied, 'Those who should be worried are the futurologists who believe in the so-called “singularity”.** … And another worry is that we are increasingly dependent on computer networks, and that these could behave like a single “brain” with a mind of its own, and with goals that may be contrary to human welfare. I think we should ensure that robots remain as no more than “idiot savants” lacking the capacity to outwit us, even though they may greatly surpass us in the ability to calculate and process information.'

这引出了第三个问题:"人工智能的进步是否令人恐惧?"对此里斯回应道:"真正该担忧的是那些信奉所谓'奇点**'理论的未来学家...另一个隐忧是我们日益依赖可能形成统一"意识’的计算机网络这种集体'大脑'可能产生与人类福祉相悖的自主目标。

Wolpert's response was to say that we have already seen the damaging effects of artificial intelligence in the form of computer viruses. 'But in this case,' he says, 'the real intelligence is the malicious designer. Critically, the benefits of computers outweigh the damage that computer viruses cause. Similarly, while there may be misuses of robotics in the near future, the benefits that they will bring are likely to outweigh these negative aspects.'

沃尔珀特指出，我们已经通过计算机病毒见识了人工智能的破坏性影响。"但究其本质，"他分析道，"真正的智能在于恶意程序的设计者。关键在于计算机的益处远大于病毒造成的损害。同理，虽然机器人技术短期内可能被滥用，但其带来的正面效益终将超越这些负面影响。

Richardson's response to this question was this: 'We need to ask why fears of artificial intelligence and robots persist; none have in fact risen up and challenged human supremacy.' She believes that as robots have never shown themselves to be a threat to humans, it seems unlikely that they ever will. In fact, she went on, 'Not all fear [robots]; many people welcome machine intelligence.'

理查森对此问题的回应是:"我们需要追问为何对人工智能的恐惧经久不衰?事实上从未有任何机器人真正挑战过人类霸权。"她认为既然机器人从未展现过威胁性，未来也不太可能构成实质危险。她进一步阐述:"并非所有人都恐惧[机器人];许多人其实欢迎机器智能的发展。

In answer to the fourth question, What can science fiction tell us about robotics?', Rees replied, 'I sometimes advise students that it's better to read first-rate science fiction than second-rate science more stimulating, and perhaps no more likely to be wrong.'

针对第四个问题"科幻作品对机器人技术有何启示"，里斯答道:"我常建议学生，阅读-流科幻作品胜过阅读二流科普--前者更具启发性，且出错概率未必更高。"

As his response, Wolpert commented, 'Science fiction has often been remarkable at predicting the future. Science fiction has painted a vivid spectrum of possible futures, from cute and helpful robots to dystopian robotic societies. Interestingly, almost no science fiction envisages a future without robots.'

沃尔珀特评论道:"科幻文学在预测未来方面成就斐然….它描绘了从可爱助手到反乌托邦机器人社会的各种可能图景。

Finally, on the question of science fiction, Richardson pointed out that in modern society, people tend to think there is reality on the one hand, and fiction and fantasy on the other. She then explained that the division did not always exist, and that scientists and technologists made this separation because they wanted to carve out the sphere of their work. 'But the divide is not so clear cut, and that is why the worlds seem to collide at times,' she said. 'In some cases, we need to bring these different understandings together to get a whole perspective. Perhaps then, we won't be so frightened that something we create as a copy of ourselves will be a [threat] to us.'

最后关于科幻作品的讨论，理查森指出现代人习惯将现实与幻想二元对立，但这种分野并非自古有之。"科学家和技术专家人为划分界限是为了界定工作领域，"她解释道，"但这种区隔并不绝对，因此两个世界时常产生交集。某些情况下我们需要整合不同认知维度才能获得完整视角，或许到那时，我们就不会如此恐惧自己创造的"复制品'会成为[威胁]。

*terraforming: modifying a planet's atmosphere to suit human needs

**地球化改造:改变行星大气环境以适应人类需求

** singularity: the point when robots will be able to start creating ever more sophisticated versions of themselves

**奇点:机器人能够自主制造更复杂版本自身的临界点