Bryn Freedman: You're a guy whose company funds these AI programs and invests. So why should we trust you to not have a bias and tell us something really useful for the rest of us about the future of work?
布莱恩·弗里德曼（BF）：你的公司 资助并投资了这些人工智能的项目。那么我们怎么能够相信你没有偏见， 会告诉我们关于未来工作的 一些真正有用的东西？
Roy Bahat: Yes, I am. And when you wake up in the morning and you read the newspaper and it says, "The robots are coming, they may take all our jobs," as a start-up investor focused on the future of work, our fund was the first one to say artificial intelligence should be a focus for us.
罗伊·巴哈特（RB）： 对，我投资人工智能。当你在清晨起床，浏览报纸， 报纸上说：“机器人来了， 它们可能会抢走我们所有的工作。” 作为一个关注职业未来的 初创公司投资者， 我们的基金第一个宣告 人工智能应该成为我们的焦点。
So I woke up one morning and read that and said, "Oh, my gosh, they're talking about me. That's me who's doing that." And then I thought: wait a minute. If things continue, then maybe not only will the start-ups in which we invest struggle because there won't be people to have jobs to pay for the things that they make and buy them, but our economy and society might struggle, too.
所以某个清晨我醒来， 读到那则消息后说， “哦，天哪，他们在谈论的是我。我正是这么做的人。” 然后我想：等等。如果事情继续发展下去， 那么不仅仅是那些我们所投资的 初创企业会陷入泥淖， 因为将来人类会失业， 无力购买它们制造的产品， 而且我们的经济和社会也会陷入泥淖。
And look, I should be the guy who sits here and tells you, "Everything is going to be fine. It's all going to work out great. Hey, when they introduced the ATM machine, years later, there's more tellers in banks." It's true. And yet, when I looked at it, I thought, "This is going to accelerate. And if it does accelerate, there's a chance the center doesn't hold." But I figured somebody must know the answer to this; there are so many ideas out there.
And I read all the books, and I went to the conferences, and at one point, we counted more than 100 efforts to study the future of work. And it was a frustrating experience, because I'd hear the same back-and-forth over and over again: "The robots are coming!" And then somebody else would say, "Oh, don't worry about that, they've always said that and it turns out OK." Then somebody else would say, "Well, it's really about the meaning of your job, anyway." And then everybody would shrug and go off and have a drink. And it felt like there was this Kabuki theater of this discussion, where nobody was talking to each other.
我本该坐在这里告诉你 “一切都会顺利的。所有问题最后都会解决。看，当初也引进了ATM机， 几年后，银行里的出纳员反而变多了。” 这是事实。但是，当我仔细审视后， 想到，“这个趋势会加速， 而一旦它加速发展了， 控制中心就有把握不住的可能。” 但是我想到某些人 一定知道这个问题的解决办法。因为好点子真是太多了。
我读了所有的相关书籍， 也参加了不少相关会议， 我们列举出了100多种 研究职业未来的方式。那是一次令人沮丧的经历， 因为我已经把相同的言论 反反复复听了无数遍了：“机器人就要来了！” 然后某个人会说， “哦，别担心，他们一直都说 这会有一个好结果。” 然后另一个人会说， “无论如何，这事关工作的意义啊。” 然后每个人都会耸耸肩， 离席去喝一杯。这感觉就像这场讨论中的 歌舞伎表演中心， 在这个问题上没有人在与其他人交流。
And many of the people that I knew and worked with in the technology world were not speaking to policy makers; the policy makers were not speaking to them. And so we partnered with a nonpartisan think tank NGO called New America to study this issue. And we brought together a group of people, including an AI czar at a technology company and a video game designer and a heartland conservative and a Wall Street investor and a socialist magazine editor -- literally, all in the same room; it was occasionally awkward -- to try to figure out what is it that will happen here.
很多在技术领域与我共事的人 并不与政策决定者交流；政策决定者也不会与他们对话。我们与一个叫“New America"的 无党派非政府智囊团结为伙伴 来研究这个问题。我们召集了一大群人， 包括一位来自技术公司的 人工智能主管， 一位电子游戏开发者， 一位忠实的保守主义者， 一位华尔街风险投资人， 和一位社会党的报刊编辑…… 事实上，当我们共处一室时， 气氛有时确实尴尬， 尤其当我们都想弄明白 究竟将会发生什么时。
The question we asked was simple. It was: What is the effect of technology on work going to be? And we looked out 10 to 20 years, because we wanted to look out far enough that there could be real change, but soon enough that we weren't talking about teleportation or anything like that. And we recognized -- and I think every year we're reminded of this in the world -- that predicting what's going to happen is hard. So instead of predicting, there are other things you can do. You can try to imagine alternate possible futures, which is what we did. We did a scenario-planning exercise, and we imagined cases where no job is safe. We imagined cases where every job is safe. And we imagined every distinct possibility we could.
我们提出的问题很简单， 就是：技术将为工作带来怎样的影响？我们放眼于将来的10到20年， 希望那个时候会出现一些真实的改变， 但是很快我们不再讨论 心灵传送或诸如此类的事情， 我们意识到， 而且我想，我们也一直 被这个世界提醒， 预言未发生的事是困难的。所以除了预知未来， 我们还有其它的事可做。我们可以尝试构想 其它可能的未来， 这也正是我们所做的。我们做了一个情境-计划的模拟演练， 我们想象 每一个职业都有危机的情况。我们也想象 每一个职业都是安全的情况。我们尽可能想象出 每一种独特的可能性。
And the result, which really surprised us, was when you think through those futures and you think what should we do, the answers about what we should do actually turn out to be the same, no matter what happens. And the irony of looking out 10 to 20 years into the future is, you realize that the things we want to act on are actually already happening right now. The automation is right now, the future is right now.
而结果让我们十分惊讶， 当我们深入思考这些可能的未来 并思考我们应该做些什么时， 答案事实上却是相同的， 无论发生了什么。我们在展望未来10到20年时， 感到讽刺的是 我们意识到我们采取行动的事物 实际上已经在当下发生着。自动化就在当下， 未来就在今天。
BF: So what does that mean, and what does that tell us? If the future is now, what is it that we should be doing, and what should we be thinking about?
BF：那是什么意思， 这又给我们什么启示呢？如果未来就是当下， 我们应该做的是什么？我们应该思考的是什么？
RB: We have to understand the problem first. And so the data are that as the economy becomes more productive and individual workers become more productive, their wages haven't risen. If you look at the proportion of prime working-age men, in the United States at least, who work now versus in 1960, we have three times as many men not working. And then you hear the stories.
RB：我们首先必须要了解这个问题。数据显示经济发展正在变得更高效， 每一个独立的劳动力 也正在变得更加多产， 但是他们的工资并没有增涨。如果你看到青壮年劳力所占比例， 至少拿美国来说， 将现在的比例与1960年相比， 我们现在有相当于之前三倍的 劳动力不在工作。你也一定听说了那些故事。
I sat down with a group of Walmart workers and said, "What do you think about this cashier, this futuristic self-checkout thing?" They said, "That's nice, but have you heard about the cash recycler? That's a machine that's being installed right now, and is eliminating two jobs at every Walmart right now." And so we just thought, "Geez. We don't understand the problem." And so we looked at the voices that were the ones that were excluded, which is all of the people affected by this change. And we decided to listen to them, sort of "automation and its discontents."
我和一群沃尔玛的员工说：“你们觉得人工智能收银员怎么样？就是那个未来主义的自助购物设备？” 他们说：“那很好， 但是你听说过现金回收机吗？那是一个现在正被安装的机器， 却正在将两份工作从沃尔玛彻底清除。“ 所以我们就想：“天哪， 我们还不了解这种问题。” 所以我们看着那些 曾被我们排除在外的声音， 都是由深受这转变影响的人们发出的。我们决定听听他们的心声， 类似于“自动化和它带来的不满情绪”。
And I've spent the last couple of years doing that. I've been to Flint, Michigan, and Youngstown, Ohio, talking about entrepreneurs, trying to make it work in a very different environment from New York or San Francisco or London or Tokyo. I've been to prisons twice to talk to inmates about their jobs after they leave. I've sat down with truck drivers to ask them about the self-driving truck, with people who, in addition to their full-time job, care for an aging relative. And when you talk to people, there were two themes that came out loud and clear.
过去的几年，我们一直在做这件事。我曾去到弗林特，密歇根 和俄亥俄州的扬斯敦， 和企业家们交谈，试图 在截然不同的环境中推进这项研究， 从纽约到旧金山， 甚至伦敦或东京。我曾去过监狱两次， 去与那些犯人谈论 他们出狱后的工作。我也曾与卡车司机们促膝谈心， 询问他们对于无人驾驶卡车的看法， 还有那些在全职工作之外， 正照料着他们年迈亲人的人。当你与他们交谈的时候， 他们提出的两个主旨响亮而明确。
The first one was that people are less looking for more money or get out of the fear of the robot taking their job, and they just want something stable. They want something predictable. So if you survey people and ask them what they want out of work, for everybody who makes less than 150,000 dollars a year, they'll take a more stable and secure income, on average, over earning more money. And if you think about the fact that not only for all of the people across the earth who don't earn a living, but for those who do, the vast majority earn a different amount from month to month and have an instability, all of a sudden you realize, "Wait a minute. We have a real problem on our hands."
第一个是人们很少担心薪水太低， 因被机器人夺去工作而感到恐惧， 他们想要的只是一些稳定的东西。他们想要些可以预测的东西。所以如果你在人群中做调查， 问他们想从工作中获得什么， 对于每一个年薪少于 15万美元的人来说， 他们一般会倾向于一份 稳定有保障的平均薪酬， 而不是赚取更多的钱。如果你考虑到一个事实， 就是不仅对全世界所有 不能维持温饱的人们而言， 就算那些能够维持温饱的人， 绝大多数人每月的薪酬 都不固定，或者生活中 存在一些不稳定因素， 突然间你意识到， “等一等。现在我们手上 确实有了一个棘手的问题。”
And the second thing they say, which took us a longer time to understand, is they say they want dignity. And that concept of self-worth through work emerged again and again and again in our conversations.
而他们会说的第二件事， 我们也花了很久去理解， 就是他们说他们想要尊严。而这种通过工作获取自我价值的观念 在我们的谈话中连续不断地浮现。
BF: So, I certainly appreciate this answer. But you can't eat dignity, you can't clothe your children with self-esteem. So, what is that, how do you reconcile -- what does dignity mean, and what is the relationship between dignity and stability?
BF：这么说吧， 虽然我真的很欣赏这个答案。但是尊严不能用来果腹， 你也不能让你的孩子们用自尊蔽体。所以你如何协调这两者间的关系—— 尊严究竟指什么， 而尊严和稳定性之间的关系又是什么？
RB: You can't eat dignity. You need stability first. And the good news is, many of the conversations that are happening right now are about how we solve that. You know, I'm a proponent of studying guaranteed income, as one example, conversations about how health care gets provided and other benefits. Those conversations are happening, and we're at a time where we must figure that out. It is the crisis of our era.
RB：尊严确实不能用来果腹。首先你需要稳定。好的方面是， 许多现在正在进行的讨论 都是关于如何解决这个问题的。我是一个研究有保障收入的坚决拥护者， 举一个例子， 关于如何提供健康护理服务的讨论 和其它有益的讨论。这些讨论都在进行中， 而我们现在正 亟需理清这些问题。这是我们时代的危机。
And my point of view after talking to people is that we may do that, and it still might not be enough. Because what we need to do from the beginning is understand what is it about work that gives people dignity, so they can live the lives that they want to live. And so that concept of dignity is … it's difficult to get your hands around, because when many people hear it -- especially, to be honest, rich people -- they hear "meaning." They hear "My work is important to me." And again, if you survey people and you ask them, "How important is it to you that your work be important to you?" only people who make 150,000 dollars a year or more say that it is important to them that their work be important.
而在跟人们谈论之后，我的观点 是我们或许可以做到这些， 当然这些可能还不够。因为从一开始 我们需要做的就是去理解 究竟是工作的哪一方面 给予了人们尊严， 让我们能过上想要的生活。所以尊严的概念是—— 这很难真正弄明白， 因为许多人听到它时—— 不瞒你说，尤其是富有的人—— 他们听到的是“意义“。他们听到的是 “我的工作对我很重要“。另外，如果你在民众中调查，问他们 “你的工作对你来说有重要意义这点， 对你来说有多重要？” 只有那些每年能挣 至少15万美元的人 会说工作重要这件事对他们来说很重要。
BF: Meaning, meaningful?
RB: Just defined as, "Is your work important to you?" Whatever somebody took that to mean. And yet, of course dignity is essential. We talked to truck drivers who said, "I saw my cousin drive, and I got on the open road and it was amazing. And I started making more money than people who went to college." Then they'd get to the end of their thought and say something like, "People need their fruits and vegetables in the morning, and I'm the guy who gets it to them."
RB：就这么下定义吧， “工作对你来说重要吗？” 随便被问者怎么理解这句话的意思吧。话说回来，尊严依然是至关重要的。曾与我们交谈过的卡车司机说， “我曾看到我的表兄开车，然后当我有机会 开车在路上飞驰的时候，那感觉太棒了。之后我开始比那些 上了大学的学生挣更多的钱。" 然后在他们思绪的末尾， 他们开始说，诸如：“人们在清晨需要水果和蔬菜， 而我正是那个把这些东西送给他们的人。”
We talked to somebody who, in addition to his job, was caring for his aunt. He was making plenty of money. At one point we just asked, "What is it about caring for your aunt? Can't you just pay somebody to do it?" He said, "My aunt doesn't want somebody we pay for. My aunt wants me." So there was this concept there of being needed.
我们曾经和一个在工作之外 还要照顾自己阿姨的人交谈。他当时有着不错的收入。有一次我们就问他， “你为什么要自己照料你的阿姨？你难道不能花钱雇别人来吗？” 他说，“我阿姨不想 让我们花钱雇人照顾她。她想要的是我。” 所以这就是“被需要”的概念。
If you study the word "dignity," it's fascinating. It's one of the oldest words in the English language, from antiquity. And it has two meanings: one is self-worth, and the other is that something is suitable, it's fitting, meaning that you're part of something greater than yourself, and it connects to some broader whole. In other words, that you're needed.
如果你仔细研究这个词“尊严”， 它其实很有趣。它是最古老的英文单词之一， 算是老古董了。而它其实有两重含义：一个是自我价值， 而另一个则是一些合适的， 适合你的东西。意味着你是比你更宏大的 某个东西的一部分， 而这一部分将你 与一个更广阔的整体相连。换句话说，那就是你被需要。
BF: So how do you answer this question, this concept that we don't pay teachers, and we don't pay eldercare workers, and we don't pay people who really care for people and are needed, enough?
BF：那么你如何回答这个问题：按这个概念， 如果我们不付工资给教师， 不花钱请老年疗养师， 也不付工资给那些必需的看护者， 这就够了吗？
RB: Well, the good news is, people are finally asking the question. So as AI investors, we often get phone calls from foundations or CEOs and boardrooms saying, "What do we do about this?" And they used to be asking, "What do we do about introducing automation?" And now they're asking, "What do we do about self-worth?" And they know that the employees who work for them who have a spouse who cares for somebody, that dignity is essential to their ability to just do their job.
RB：好的方面就是 人们终于在问这个问题了。作为人工智能投资者， 我们经常接到 从基金会，首席执行官 和董事会打来的电话说， “我们该怎么办？” 他们过去常问， “我们该怎么引进自动化？” 而现在他们在问， ”我们该怎么体现自我价值？“ 而他们知道 为他们工作的雇员中 谁有配偶， 谁又有亲人需要照顾， 对这些人来说，尊严是他们能够完成工作的必要条件。
I think there's two kinds of answers: there's the money side of just making your life work. That's stability. You need to eat. And then you think about our culture more broadly, and you ask: Who do we make into heroes? And, you know, what I want is to see the magazine cover that is the person who is the heroic caregiver. Or the Netflix series that dramatizes the person who makes all of our other lives work so we can do the things we do. Let's make heroes out of those people. That's the Netflix show that I would binge.
我认为对这个问题有两个答案：一个是从仅仅维持生计的角度。那是稳定性。你需要吃饭。然后你从更广的视角 仔细考虑我们的社会文化， 你会问：我们把什么样的人称作英雄？我想在杂志封面上看到的 是英雄守护者式的人物。或者是Netflix连续剧 戏剧化了的人物， 让万物照它现有的状态运转， 从而让我们能够安居乐业。让我们按那些人来想象英雄吧。我会非常喜欢这样的Netflix节目。
And we've had chroniclers of this before -- Studs Terkel, the oral history of the working experience in the United States. And what we need is the experience of needing one another and being connected to each other. Maybe that's the answer for how we all fit as a society. And the thought exercise, to me, is: if you were to go back 100 years and have people -- my grandparents, great-grandparents, a tailor, worked in a mine -- they look at what all of us do for a living and say, "That's not work." We sit there and type and talk, and there's no danger of getting hurt. And my guess is that if you were to imagine 100 years from now, we'll still be doing things for each other. We'll still need one another. And we just will think of it as work.
而我们曾经有过 这样的年代史编者—— Studs Terkel, 美国工作经历的口述史。而我们所需要的就是这样 互相依赖的经历， 彼此之间互相联系。或许这就是我们该如何以 一个社会的形态相处的答案。对于我来说，这个思维训练是：如果我们倒回100年前见到—— 我的祖父母，曾祖父母， 可能是裁缝，或者矿工—— 他们了解了我们谋生的工作， 会说，“这可不是工作。” 我们坐在那儿打字，聊天， 没有受伤的危险。而我的猜测是，如果 想象一下一百年以后的未来， 我们仍然会为彼此做事。我们依然相互需要。而我们也还会把这看成是工作。
The entire thing I'm trying to say is that dignity should not just be about having a job. Because if you say you need a job to have dignity, which many people say, the second you say that, you say to all the parents and all the teachers and all the caregivers that all of a sudden, because they're not being paid for what they're doing, it somehow lacks this essential human quality. To me, that's the great puzzle of our time: Can we figure out how to provide that stability throughout life, and then can we figure out how to create an inclusive, not just racially, gender, but multigenerationally inclusive -- I mean, every different human experience included -- in this way of understanding how we can be needed by one another.
总的来说，我认为尊严不应该仅仅意味着有一份工作。因为如果你和很多人都觉得 需要一份工作来获得尊严， 那么同时也相当于让所有的父母， 所有的教师和所有的看护者 开始认识到，他们所从事的无偿工作 使得他们缺少了这个重要的品质。对我来说，这是我们时代的巨大谜团：我们是否能够找到 保障终生稳定的方法， 是否能学会怎么创造一个包容的， 不仅仅是在种族，性别， 更是在代际之间的包容的—— 我是说每一种不同的 人生经历都能被包容—— 能用这种方式去理解 我们如何能被彼此需要。
BF: Thank you. RB: Thank you.
BF: Thank you very much for your participation.