You're talking about private industry, academia.

你說的是私營企業，學術界。

Where should the center of that research live?

這個研究的中心應該在哪裡？

If there is a center, it's a good question.

如果有一箇中心，這是個好問題。

I think that M.

我認為，M。

I t.

I t.

Would argue.

會爭論。

It should be.

應該是這樣的

And I think it's this.

我想是這樣的。

This round is quite shocking, I think, to the academics, because most of the money and the power of the core computer sciences and big companies uneven, open AI that some of our friends made that was a nonprofit and not inside an economic institution.

這一輪對學術界來說，我覺得是相當震撼的，因為大部分的資金和力量，核心的計算機科學和大公司參差不齊，開放的人工智能，我們一些朋友做的是一個非盈利的，而不是在一個經濟機構裡面。

And I think it's sort of surprising Historically would have probably been a group of academics with the government, so this is a new thing.

我認為這是一種令人驚訝的 歷史上可能會有一群學者與政府， 所以這是一個新的東西。

But I feel like as we start to emerge out of just the computer science mode to how does this affect society, for instance, to stake one of the areas that were really interested criminal justice, bail and parole?

但是我覺得當我們開始走出只是計算機科學的模式時，這對社會有什麼影響，比如說，要把真正感興趣的刑事司法的一個領域，保釋和假釋的樁？

That's probably much better to have a statistical AI supporting the the judge, but then it's not just about whether it's more efficient.

那由一個統計學上的人工智能來支持法官，可能會好很多，但那就不僅僅是是否更有效率的問題了。

You don't want to be judged by machine, right, so these as we start to move out.

你不想被機器評判吧，所以這些隨著我們開始搬出去。

I think it will be interesting to see who gets involved.

我想看看誰會參與進來，會很有趣。

I think as you start to get into the social sciences and the law and the philosophy that becomes more in government in academia.

我想，當你開始進入社會科學和法律以及哲學，變得更多的是在政府在學術界。

But it is curious, and I think that just way can't compete.

但它是好奇的，我認為，只是方式不能競爭。

We academia can't compete from the These guys are getting paid millions of dollars at post stock levels.

我們學術界無法與這些人競爭，這些人在股票後的水準上拿著幾百萬美元的工資。

They've got a tremendous amount of resource is.

他們有大量的資源是。

So I think we have to kind of assume now that But now the military are talking about funding a I so there may be another player that has a lot of money, but right now, most of the $1,000,000,000 labs all of them are really Look, I mean way No, the guys who are funding him and talkto Larry or others, uh, their general attitude, understandably, is the last thing we want is a bunch of bureaucrats, and you know that are slowing us down here as we chase uh, with unicorn.

所以我認為我們必須假設，但現在軍方正在談論資助一個我，所以可能有另一個球員有很多錢，但現在，大多數100萬美元的實驗室，所有這些人真的是看，我的意思是方式不，誰是資助他的傢伙，並與拉里或其他人，呃，他們的一般態度，可以理解，是我們最不希望的事情是一堆官僚，你知道，這是拖累我們在這裡，因為我們追逐呃，與獨角獸。

At the heart of the problem that we've seen is that our general commitment is a society to basic research has diminished.

我們所看到的問題的核心是，我們的普遍承諾是一個社會對基礎研究的承諾減少了。

Our confidence in collective action has been chipped away, partly because of ideology and rhetoric.

我們對集體行動的信心已被削弱，部分原因是意識形態和言論。

And so, if the notion is if it's government, it's bad.

所以，如果觀念是如果是政府，就不好。

And that's something that I do think needs to be reversed.

而這一點，我認為確實需要扭轉。

Now that requires government to be more nimble, faster, quicker, smarter.

現在，這就要求政府更加靈活、更加快速、更加快捷、更加智能。

It's hard in a big democracy with a lot of diverse views, sometimes to get it moving fast enough in the direction that something like a eyes moving.

在一個有很多不同意見的大民主國家，有時候很難讓它朝著眼睛移動這樣的方向快速發展。

It's moving so rapidly that sometimes governments always playing catch up.

它的發展如此迅速，有時政府總是在追趕。

But you that the analogy that we still use 50 years later when it comes toe a great technological achievement is a moon shot.

但你說，我們50年後還在用的比喻，當涉及到一個偉大的科技成就時，就是月球射擊。

And, uh, somebody reminded me, maybe better.

而且，呃，有人提醒我，也許更好。

I want you that the space program was 1/2 a percent of GDP, and that doesn't sound like a lot 0.5% of GDP.

我想你，太空計劃是GDP的1/2，聽起來不像是GDP的0.5%。

But in today's dollars that be $80 billion that we would be spending annually on a I and right now we're spending less than a 1,000,000,000.

但以今天的美元計算，那是800億美元，我們每年要花在I上，而現在我們花的錢還不到100萬。

That undoubtedly will accelerate.

這無疑會加速。

But part of what we're gonna have toe understand is that if we want the values of a diverse community represented in these breakthrough technologies, then government funding has to be a part of it.

但我們必須明白的是，如果我們希望在這些突破性的技術中體現多元化社區的價值，那麼政府的資金必須是其中的一部分。

If government is not part of financing it, then understandably, those who, uh, pay the piper calls the tune.

如果政府不參與融資，那麼可以理解，那些，呃，付錢給吹笛者的人就會叫好。

And all the issues that Joy's raised about the values embedded in these technologies end up being potentially lost, or at least not properly debated.

而Joy提出的所有關於這些技術中蘊含的價值的問題，最終都有可能被遺失，或者至少沒有得到適當的辯論。

You bring up a really interesting tension there that Joey you've written about that idea of innovation happening on the margins or at the edges, and then with space program and NASA really essentially governed.

你帶來了一個非常有趣的張力，喬伊你已經寫了關於創新的想法發生在邊緣或邊緣，然後與空間計劃和NASA真的基本上管理。

How does that relationship change this this kind of development and thinking about where the transmission of those ideas can happen?

這種關係如何改變這種這種發展和思考，這些思想的傳遞可以在哪裡發生？

Well, I want to emphasize that the way we now think about crowd wisdom essentially on a bunch of experiments everywhere.

好吧，我想強調的是，我們現在思考人群智慧的方式，基本上是在各地的一堆實驗上。

Uh, I think that can accelerate rather than impede progress as long as everybody's linked together with a sense of common purpose and responsibility and accountability, just to give a very concrete example.

呃，我認為，只要大家懷著共同的目標、責任感和問責制聯繫在一起，就可以加快而不是阻礙進展，這只是一個非常具體的例子。

Part of our project and precision medicine is together big enough database of human genomes from a diverse enough set of Americans, all kinds of racial types, ethnic types, body types, you name it gender that instead of financing medical research, where way give the money to Stanford, Harvard or some other school, and they've got their samples.

我們的項目和精準醫學的一部分是一起足夠大的人類基因組數據庫，從一組足夠多樣化的美國人，各種種族類型，民族類型，身體類型，你的名字性別，而不是資助醫學研究，哪裡的方式把錢給斯坦福，哈佛或其他學校，他們已經得到了他們的樣本。

They're hoarding them and they're working on it.

他們在囤積他們，他們在努力。

It's a very linear process, you know, now have this entire database that everybody has access to on the potential to short circuit.

這是一個非常線性的過程，你知道， 現在有這個整個數據庫 每個人都可以訪問 在潛在的短路。

The research process before you've got promising candidates for treatment could be hugely accelerated because people aren't all holding on to their stuff.

在你得到有希望的治療候選人之前的研究過程可能會大大加快，因為人們並不是都抱著自己的東西不放。

And that's the power of the Internet.

這就是互聯網的力量。

That's the power of connectivity and the networked world that we live in.

這就是連接的力量，也是我們所處的網絡世界。

What I've tried to emphasize, though, is is that just because the government is financing it and helping to collect the data, it doesn't mean that we hoard it or only the military as a It's got to be a top down approach.

我一直試圖強調，雖然， 是，只是因為政府是資助它 並幫助收集數據， 這並不意味著我們囤積它 或只有軍隊作為一個， 它必須是一個自上而下的方法。

But there does have to be some common set of values a common architecture to make sure that the research is shared by people, that it's not monetized by one group rather than another on.

但是，確實必須有一些共同的價值觀，一個共同的架構，以確保研究是由人們分享，它不會被一個群體而不是另一個群體貨幣化。

There has to be some core principles that we all agree to and nets, I think, on appropriate role that some group like and I h, for example, complaint and I think that if you look at the moon shot, a lot of the value were the tools that were created in order to do that or if he will get CERN.

必須有一些核心原則，我們都同意和網絡，我認為，在適當的角色，一些組喜歡和我h，例如，投訴和我認為，如果你看看月球拍攝，很多的價值是工具，被創建以做到這一點，或者如果他將得到歐洲核子研究中心。

They've got some esoteric physics problem, but they invent the Web while they're at it.

他們有一些深奧的物理學問題，但他們在發明網絡的同時，還發明瞭網絡。

And so I think these mega projects bring together an interdisciplinary group to solve a problem.

所以我認為，這些超大型項目將一個跨學科的小組聚集在一起，解決一個問題。

And so that's really interesting.

所以這真的很有趣。

And I think one of the problems with standard peer reviewed government funding is it goes out in this kind of hierarchical pattern that's very politically correct and very rigorous.

我認為標準的同行評審政府資助的問題之一是它是以這種等級模式進行的，非常政治正確，非常嚴格。

But it doesn't really get these big ideas going.

但它並沒有真正讓這些大意。

And I would say, The other thing that you have that you're doing well is the open data initiative, right?

我想說的是，你們還有一件事做得很好，就是開放數據的舉措，對吧？

So when you're talking about A I, you need data.

所以當你在談論A I時，你需要數據。

The government has data, and I helped start a nonprofit in Japan after Fukushima to get citizens to collect data on radiation measures.

政府有數據，福島事件後我幫助日本成立了一個非營利組織，讓公民收集輻射措施的數據。

We have 53 million of them.

我們有5300萬的人。

We did well, and so we came to Washington, D.

我們做得很好，所以我們來到了華盛頓特區。

C.

C.

And we did a workshop by the A I.

我們還做了一個由A I的研討會。

P a E p a guys and the SS.

P a E p a們和黨衛軍。

And then it says, say, you guys and they had all the data.

然後說，比如說，你們和他們有所有的數據。

But they had It was open but wasn't published.

但他們有 它是開放的，但沒有公佈。

And we showed that actually, there's data around the White House that was clap like for national security.

我們表明，實際上，白宮周圍的數據，是拍手稱快的國家安全。

They didn't publish and we and we invited all those guys and our guys taught them how to make the kits, and they walked around and measure the radiation around as well.

他們沒有發表，我們和我們邀請了所有這些傢伙，我們的人教他們如何製作套件，他們走來走去，也測量周圍的輻射。

Now that is public.

現在，這是公開的。

We really sedated.

我們真的鎮靜了。

What now developed Is this a bunch of citizen science kids?

現在發展起來的是一群公民科學的孩子嗎？

A lot of them in Japan now working with the P A and the N s A.

他們中的很多人現在在日本與P A和N S A合作。

And in trying to figure out how to take radiation data, empower citizens were selling these kids and these kits and high schools and pivoting into Teoh air and things like that.

而在想辦法拿輻射數據的時候，賦能市民是賣給這些孩子和這些工具包和高中，並轉入泰奧空氣等事情。

And what's interesting is if you get kids that are sufficiently motivated, kids on the edges and give them some sort of interface to this data.

而有趣的是，如果你讓孩子們有足夠的動力，孩子們在邊緣，並給他們一些數據的接口。

And I think right now you're agencies air getting much more inclusive and and it used to be you talk to some professor at some university, give them limited access to the data.

我認為現在你是機構的空氣 越來越多的包容性，它曾經是 你跟一些教授在一些大學， 給他們有限的訪問數據。

But it turns out that that kids will figure out how to use the data, and right now it's mostly visualization.

但事實證明，孩子們會想辦法使用數據，現在主要是可視化。

But once we get a I, A farmer may be able to go directed and collect the data, build a model and use a I to to do something.

但是一旦我們拿到一個I，A農民可能就可以去定向收集數據，建立模型，用I去做一些事情。

And that's just gonna be a lot of how tools get better, but also how the government interacts with those people.

而這只是會是很多工具如何變得更好，但也是政府如何與這些人互動。