and I brought some of the very, very first public demonstrations

我的第一場 TED 演講 是在 1980 年代，

of virtual reality ever to the TED stage.

那時我把最早最早的一些

And at that time, we knew that we were facing a knife-edge future

虛擬實境展示帶到 TED 舞台上。

where the technology we needed,

當時，大家都知道我們 正在面對一個不確定的未來、

the technology we loved,

在那個未來世界裡， 有我們需要的科技、

could also be our undoing.

喜愛的科技，

We knew that if we thought of our technology

但也有可能是毀滅我們的科技。

as a means to ever more power,

我們知道，如果我們把科技視為

if it was just a power trip, we'd eventually destroy ourselves.

通往更多權力的手段、

That's what happens

玩權弄勢的工具，

when you're on a power trip and nothing else.

我們最終就會摧毀我們自己。

So the idealism

如果你只想利用科技 來玩權弄勢就會這樣。

of digital culture back then

在那時候，

was all about starting with that recognition of the possible darkness

數位文化的理想主義

and trying to imagine a way to transcend it

談的都是，一開始就要我們認清 科技可能會帶來的黑暗面，

with beauty and creativity.

並嘗試用美及創意的方式

I always used to end my early TED Talks with a rather horrifying line, which is,

來突破這些黑暗面。

"We have a challenge.

早期在 TED 演講時，我的結尾 總是一句蠻嚇人的台詞：

We have to create a culture around technology

「我們有一個挑戰。

that is so beautiful, so meaningful,

我們得為科技創造出一種文化，

so deep, so endlessly creative,

一種相當美麗、有意義的文化、

so filled with infinite potential

一種相當深刻、有無盡創意、

that it draws us away from committing mass suicide."

充滿無限潛力的科技文化，

So we talked about extinction as being one and the same

這樣的科技文化才能讓我們 避免掉集體自殺。」

as the need to create an alluring, infinitely creative future.

我們把人類滅絕當作一回事， 就如同我們在談，

And I still believe that that alternative of creativity

我們需要創造出一個誘人且 有著無限創意未來一樣的重要。

as an alternative to death

我仍然相信，創新的另一面

is very real and true,

有可能就是死亡，

maybe the most true thing there is.

這個說法是非常真實的，

In the case of virtual reality --

也許是世上最真實的。

well, the way I used to talk about it

就虛擬實境來說，

is that it would be something like

我以前談論它的方式，

what happened when people discovered language.

會把它說成像是

With language came new adventures, new depth, new meaning,

人類剛發明語言時一樣。

new ways to connect, new ways to coordinate,

隨著語言，出現了新的冒險、 新的深度、新的意義、

new ways to imagine, new ways to raise children,

新的連結方式、新的協調方式、

and I imagined, with virtual reality, we'd have this new thing

新的想像方式、 新的養育孩子方式；

that would be like a conversation

我在想，有了虛擬實境， 我們就會創造出一種

but also like waking-state intentional dreaming.

新的對話方式，

We called it post-symbolic communication,

但又像是在清醒的狀態下， 刻意作夢一樣。

because it would be like just directly making the thing you experienced

我們稱之為「後象徵性溝通」，

instead of indirectly making symbols to refer to things.

因為那就像你直接的親身體驗，

It was a beautiful vision, and it's one I still believe in,

而不只是間接地看到事物的表象。

and yet, haunting that beautiful vision

那是個很美的遠景， 且是我現在仍然相信的遠景，

was the dark side of how it could also turn out.

但，圍繞在這美好景像的黑暗面

And I suppose I could mention

也有可能會發生。

from one of the very earliest computer scientists,

我想，我可以談談，

whose name was Norbert Wiener,

很早期的一位電腦科學家，

and he wrote a book back in the '50s, from before I was even born,

他的名字叫諾伯特維納，

called "The Human Use of Human Beings."

在五○年代我都還沒 出生時，他寫了一本書，

And in the book, he described the potential

書名叫《人有人的用處》。

to create a computer system that would be gathering data from people

在書中，他描述到我們是有可能

and providing feedback to those people in real time

會創造出一個 收集人類資料的電腦，

in order to put them kind of partially, statistically, in a Skinner box,

並提供即時回應給人類的電腦，

in a behaviorist system,

為了統計這些行為， 這有點像是把人類放到施金納箱中

and he has this amazing line where he says,

一種控制動物行為的實驗箱，

one could imagine, as a thought experiment --

他說了一句很棒的話，

and I'm paraphrasing, this isn't a quote --

大家可以想像有一種思想的實驗──

one could imagine a global computer system

我現在要講的是改述過的釋義， 不是引述──

where everybody has devices on them all the time,

大家可以想像， 有一個全球的電腦系統，

and the devices are giving them feedback based on what they did,

在此系統中，每個人身上 時時刻刻都有一些裝置，

and the whole population

這些裝置會根據 他們的行為給出回饋，

is subject to a degree of behavior modification.

而在系統裡的全部人，

And such a society would be insane,

都會受到某種程度的行為修正。

could not survive, could not face its problems.

這樣子的社會簡直太瘋狂了，

And then he says, but this is only a thought experiment,

這樣的社會無法生存， 無法面對它的問題。

and such a future is technologically infeasible.

接著，他說，但這只是個思想實驗，

(Laughter)

將來要把人類丟到實驗箱， 以科學的角度而言，我們也辦不到。

And yet, of course, it's what we have created,

（笑聲）

and it's what we must undo if we are to survive.

但，沒錯，我們人類現在 就已經陷入這樣的窘境，

So --

而如果人類想要生存， 就要趕緊回頭。

(Applause)

所以，

I believe that we made a very particular mistake,

（掌聲）

and it happened early on,

我認為，我們犯了一個 非常特殊的錯誤，

and by understanding the mistake we made,

它在很早就發生了，

we can undo it.

而透過了解我們所犯下的錯誤，

It happened in the '90s,

我們就能將它還原。

and going into the turn of the century,

事情發生在九○年代，

and here's what happened.

正要進入世紀的轉折點，

Early digital culture,

發生的經過如下。

and indeed, digital culture to this day,

早期的數位文化，

had a sense of, I would say, lefty, socialist mission about it,

當然，還有至今的數位文化，

that unlike other things that have been done,

有一種……我會說是左翼、 社會主義使命的感覺，

like the invention of books,

這不像其它已經有的東西，

everything on the internet must be purely public,

比如書籍的發明，

must be available for free,

在網路上的一切都 必須要是完全公開的，

because if even one person cannot afford it,

必須要可以免費使用，

then that would create this terrible inequity.

因為，如果有一個人負擔不起，

Now of course, there's other ways to deal with that.

那就會造成很糟的不平等。

If books cost money, you can have public libraries.

當然，有其它方法 可以處理這個問題。

And so forth.

如果書籍要錢， 你可以用公共圖書館。

But we were thinking, no, no, no, this is an exception.

諸如此類。

This must be pure public commons, that's what we want.

但我們在想，不、不、不， 這是個例外。

And so that spirit lives on.

它必須要是單純地能讓公眾 使用的，我們希望如此。

You can experience it in designs like the Wikipedia, for instance,

如此，精神才能傳承下去。

many others.

你可以體驗這些設計， 比如像維基百科

But at the same time,

及其它許多這類的設計。

we also believed, with equal fervor,

但同時，

in this other thing that was completely incompatible,

我們也能帶著同等的熱情，

which is we loved our tech entrepreneurs.

相信另外一種完全不一樣的事情，

We loved Steve Jobs; we loved this Nietzschean myth

那就是，我們愛我們的科技企業家。

of the techie who could dent the universe.

我們愛史帝夫賈伯斯， 我們愛這種尼采般的神話，

Right?

這些能改變世界的科技天才。

And that mythical power still has a hold on us, as well.

對嗎？

So you have these two different passions,

而那神話般的力量 仍能持續地獲得我們的支持。

for making everything free

所以，你會有這兩種不同的熱忱，

and for the almost supernatural power of the tech entrepreneur.

一種是讓一切都免費，

How do you celebrate entrepreneurship when everything's free?

另一種是科技企業家的力量， 近乎超自然的力量。

Well, there was only one solution back then,

但當一切都是免費時， 你要如何讚頌企業家精神？

which was the advertising model.

在當時，只有一個解決方案，

And so therefore, Google was born free, with ads,

那就是廣告獲利模式。

Facebook was born free, with ads.

因此，Google 剛開始 是免費的，但附帶廣告。

Now in the beginning, it was cute,

臉書剛開始也是 免費的，但附帶廣告。

like with the very earliest Google.

一開始，這還蠻討喜的，

(Laughter)

就像最早期的 Google。

The ads really were kind of ads.

（笑聲）

They would be, like, your local dentist or something.

廣告真的就只是廣告。

But there's thing called Moore's law

廣告可能就是你當地的牙醫之類的。

that makes the computers more and more efficient and cheaper.

但有樣東西叫做摩爾定律，

Their algorithms get better.

它讓電腦越來越高效 也越來越便宜。

We actually have universities where people study them,

演算法也越來越強。

and they get better and better.

在大學裡真的有人在研究它們，

And the customers and other entities who use these systems

且它們越來越好。

just got more and more experienced and got cleverer and cleverer.

客戶和使用這些系統的其它機構

And what started out as advertising

變得越來越有經驗， 且越來越聰明。

really can't be called advertising anymore.

一開始本來只是廣告，

It turned into behavior modification,

現在真的不能再稱為廣告了。

just as Norbert Wiener had worried it might.

它轉變成了「行為修改」。

And so I can't call these things social networks anymore.

這就是諾伯特維納所擔心的。

I call them behavior modification empires.

所以我已經無法再稱 這些東西為社交網路了。

(Applause)

我稱它們為「行為修改帝國」。

And I refuse to vilify the individuals.

（掌聲）

I have dear friends at these companies,

我是反對誹謗個人的。

sold a company to Google, even though I think it's one of these empires.

在這些公司中有我親愛的朋友，

I don't think this is a matter of bad people who've done a bad thing.

我們也曾把一間公司賣給 Google， 即使我認為 Google 也是帝國之一。

I think this is a matter of a globally tragic,

我不認為這是壞人做了壞事的問題。

astoundingly ridiculous mistake,

我認為這一場全球性的悲劇，

rather than a wave of evil.

非常荒謬的錯誤，

Let me give you just another layer of detail

而不是邪惡的浪潮。

into how this particular mistake functions.

讓我再做深一層的細節說明，

So with behaviorism,

解釋這個錯誤是如何產生的。

you give the creature, whether it's a rat or a dog or a person,

行為主義是這樣的，

little treats and sometimes little punishments

不論是哪種生物， 比如老鼠、狗，或是人，

as feedback to what they do.

它會根據生物的行為

So if you have an animal in a cage, it might be candy and electric shocks.

回饋一點點甜頭或懲罰，

But if you have a smartphone,

如果你把一隻動物放在籠子中， 你給牠的可能就是糖果和電擊。

it's not those things, it's symbolic punishment and reward.

但如果你有一支智慧手機，

Pavlov, one of the early behaviorists,

手機雖然不像那些實驗箱， 但也有象徵性的懲罰和獎賞。

demonstrated the famous principle.

巴夫洛夫是最早的行為學家之一，

You could train a dog to salivate just with the bell, just with the symbol.

他提出了著名的原則。

So on social networks,

你只要用一個鈴噹或手勢， 就可以訓練一隻狗流口水。

social punishment and social reward function as the punishment and reward.

在社交網路上，

And we all know the feeling of these things.

有人會酸你或給你按讚 就像懲罰及獎賞一樣。

You get this little thrill --

我們都知道懲罰和獎賞的感受如何。

"Somebody liked my stuff and it's being repeated."

你會有點興奮，

Or the punishment: "Oh my God, they don't like me,

「有人喜歡我的東西， 且重複按讚。」

maybe somebody else is more popular, oh my God."

或被懲罰，「喔，天啊，他們不喜歡我，

So you have those two very common feelings,

也許別人比較受歡迎，喔，天啊。」

and they're doled out in such a way that you get caught in this loop.

你會有這兩種很常見的感受，

As has been publicly acknowledged by many of the founders of the system,

就這樣一點一點地 把你困在這迴圈中。

everybody knew this is what was going on.

這個系統的許多創始者 都已經公開承認這個現象，

But here's the thing:

人人都知道發生的狀況就是如此。

traditionally, in the academic study of the methods of behaviorism,

但，重點是：

there have been comparisons of positive and negative stimuli.

傳統行為主義方法的學術研究

In this setting, a commercial setting,

比較正面和負面的刺激。

there's a new kind of difference

在這樣的前提下， 有商業行為的前提下，

that has kind of evaded the academic world for a while,

會產生一種新的差異，

and that difference is that whether positive stimuli

有好一段時間它都沒被學術界發現，

are more effective than negative ones in different circumstances,

那差異就是，在不同的情況下，

the negative ones are cheaper.

正面刺激是否比 負面刺激更有效之類的....

They're the bargain stimuli.

結果，負面刺激比較便宜，

So what I mean by that is it's much easier

用負面刺激很划算。

to lose trust than to build trust.

我這麼說的意思是

It takes a long time to build love.

失去信任比建立信任容易。

It takes a short time to ruin love.

我們要花很長的時間才能建立「愛」。

Now the customers of these behavior modification empires

但只要很短暫的時間就能毀了「愛」。

are on a very fast loop.

這些「行為修改帝國」的客戶

They're almost like high-frequency traders.

深陷在非常快的迴圈中。

They're getting feedbacks from their spends

他們幾乎就像是股票的高頻交易者。

or whatever their activities are if they're not spending,

他們從客戶的消費和動作獲得回饋，

and they see what's working, and then they do more of that.

從而知道哪些效果好，

And so they're getting the quick feedback,

就會更那樣做。

which means they're responding more to the negative emotions,

因為那樣，他們會快速得到回饋，

because those are the ones that rise faster, right?

也就是說他們對 負面情緒比較有反應，

And so therefore, even well-intentioned players

因為這些負面刺激的回饋， 比正向刺激來得快，對吧？

who think all they're doing is advertising toothpaste

因此，即使是出發點很好的業者，

end up advancing the cause of the negative people,

他們認為他們所做的 不過就是為牙膏打廣告，

the negative emotions, the cranks,

結果卻是協助造成了這社會上

the paranoids,

充滿了負面情緒的人、怪胎、

the cynics, the nihilists.

偏執狂、

Those are the ones who get amplified by the system.

憤世嫉俗、對人生無望的人。

And you can't pay one of these companies to make the world suddenly nice

系統會放大的就是這些人。

and improve democracy

你無法支付其中任何一家公司

nearly as easily as you can pay to ruin those things.

讓世界突然變好或民主進步，

And so this is the dilemma we've gotten ourselves into.

無法像破壞這些東西那樣容易。

The alternative is to turn back the clock, with great difficulty,

所以，是我們自己 造成了這樣的困境。

and remake that decision.

替代方案就是 盡全力地讓時光倒流，

Remaking it would mean two things.

然後重新做決定。

It would mean first that many people, those who could afford to,

重新做決定意味著兩件事。

would actually pay for these things.

第一，許多負擔得起這些東西的人

You'd pay for search, you'd pay for social networking.

就真的得要為這些東西付錢。

How would you pay? Maybe with a subscription fee,

搜尋要錢、用社交網路要錢。

maybe with micro-payments as you use them.

你要如何付錢？也許是付訂閱費，

There's a lot of options.

也許是在使用時支付極低的費用。

If some of you are recoiling, and you're thinking,

有許多選擇。

"Oh my God, I would never pay for these things.

如果有些人打退堂鼓，在想：

How could you ever get anyone to pay?"

「天啊，我絕不會為這些東西付錢。

I want to remind you of something that just happened.

你怎麼能要任何人付錢？」

Around this same time

那麼我要提醒你一件剛發生的事。

that companies like Google and Facebook were formulating their free idea,

之前 Google、臉書這些公司

a lot of cyber culture also believed that in the future,

在發想他們的免費想法時，

televisions and movies would be created in the same way,

有許多網路文化也相信，在未來，

kind of like the Wikipedia.

我們也會用同樣的方式 來製作電視和電影，

But then, companies like Netflix, Amazon, HBO,

有點像維基百科。

said, "Actually, you know, subscribe. We'll give you give you great TV."

但，接著，像網飛、 亞馬遜、HBO 這類公司

And it worked!

比如：「你只要訂閱我們， 我們就給你很好的節目。」

We now are in this period called "peak TV," right?

結果很有效！

So sometimes when you pay for stuff, things get better.

我們現在處在所謂的 「電視節目選擇超多」的時期，對吧？

We can imagine a hypothetical --

所以，有時為東西付錢反而是好事。

(Applause)

我們可以想像一個假設性的──

We can imagine a hypothetical world of "peak social media."

（掌聲）

What would that be like?

我們可以想像一個 社交媒體超多的世界。

It would mean when you get on, you can get really useful,

那會是什麼樣子？

authoritative medical advice instead of cranks.

那意味著，當你上社交媒體， 你能得到非常有用、

It could mean when you want to get factual information,

有權威性的醫療建議， 而不是亂七八糟的垃圾。

there's not a bunch of weird, paranoid conspiracy theories.

也可能意味著， 當你想要取得真實資訊時，

We can imagine this wonderful other possibility.

不會得到一堆怪異、 偏執的陰謀論。

Ah.

我們可以想像這美好的 「另一種可能性」。

I dream of it. I believe it's possible.

啊。

I'm certain it's possible.

我夢想它能成真。 我相信它能成真。

And I'm certain that the companies, the Googles and the Facebooks,

我很確定它能成真。

would actually do better in this world.

我很確定像 Google 及臉書這些公司

I don't believe we need to punish Silicon Valley.

他們會做得更好。

We just need to remake the decision.

我不認為我們需要去懲罰矽谷。

Of the big tech companies,

我們只需要重新決定。