From exploitation to irrelevance
从剥削到无关紧要
Potential solutions fall into three main categories: what to do in order to prevent jobs from being lost; what to do in order to create enough new jobs; and what to do if, despite our best efforts, job losses significantly outstrip job creation.
潜在的解决方案可以分为三大类：如何防止失业；如何创造足够多的新工作；如果尽管我们尽了最大努力，但失业人数仍然远远超过新工作就业人数，该怎么办？
从剥削到无足轻重
可能的解决方案分为三大类：如何避免工作消失；如何创造足够的新工作；就算尽了最大的努力，但消失的工作还是远远多于新创造的就业机会，该怎么办？【林俊宏】
Preventing job losses altogether is an unattractive and probably untenable strategy, because it means giving up the immense positive potential of AI and robotics. Nevertheless, governments might decide to deliberately slowdown the pace of automation, in order to lessen the resulting shocks and allow time for readjustments. Technology is never deterministic, and the fact that something can be done does not mean it must be done. Government regulation can successfully block new technologies even if they are commercially viable and economically lucrative. For example, for many decades we have had the technology to create a marketplace for human organs, complete with human 'body farms' in underdeveloped countries and an almost insatiable demand from desperate affluent buyers. Such body farms could well be worth hundreds of billions of dollars. Yet regulations have prevented free trade in human body parts, and though there is a black market in organs, it is far smaller and more circumscribed than what one could have expected.
完全避免失业是一个没有吸引力、甚至可能站不住脚的策略，因为这意味着放弃人工智能和机器人的巨大潜力。不过，各国政府可能会有意放慢自动化的步伐，以减轻自动化带来的冲击，并留出时间进行调整。技术从来都不是决定性因素，可以做的事情未必一定要做。即使新技术可以商业化并且有利可图，政府监管也能成功地阻止新技术的应用。例如，几十年来，我们的技术足以开辟人体器官交易市场，并且有欠发达国家的“人体农场”以及绝望的富裕买家近乎贪得无厌的需求作为配套。这样的人体市场很可能价值数千亿美元。然而，相关规定阻碍了人体器官的自由贸易，尽管仍然存在器官交易黑市，但其规模和范围远小于人们的预期。
避免工作消失，是最没有吸引力也最无法达成的策略，因为这代表着要人类放弃人工智能和机器人的巨大潜力。然而，政府可能会有意放慢自动化的脚步，以减少造成的冲击，争取时间进行调整。技术从来不是只有一条路：事情“可以做”并不意味着“必须做”。运用政府法规的牵制，就算某项新技术已经在商业上可行、在经济上有利可图，也能把它挡下来。比如，这几十年来．人类的技术发展早就足以创造出一个人体器官市场，在欠发达国家开设“人体农场”，应对富裕买家几乎永无止境的需求。像这样的“人体农场”，市场价值可能高达数千亿美元。然而，靠着各项法规禁止人体器官自由交易，虽然还是有黑市，但毕竟规模远小于原本可能的情况。【林俊宏】
Slowing down the pace of change may give us time to create enough new jobs to replace most of the losses. Yet as noted earlier, economic entrepreneurship will have to be accompanied by a revolution in education and psychology. Assuming that the new jobs won't be just government sinecures, they will probably demand high levels of expertise, and as AI continues to improve,human employees will need to repeatedly learn new skills and change their profession. Governments will have to step in, both by subsidising a lifelong education sector, and by providing a safety net for the inevitable periods of transition. If a forty-year-old ex-drone pilot takes three years to reinvent herself as a designer of virtual worlds, she may well need a lot of government help to sustain herself and her family during that time. (This kind of scheme is currently being pioneered in Scandinavia, where governments follow the motto'protect workers, not jobs'.)
放慢变革的步伐可能会给我们时间创造足够的新工作来弥补大部分消失的岗位。然而，如前所述，经济创业将不得不伴随教育和心理学的革命。假设新工作不仅仅是政府部门的闲职，那么可能需要高水平的专业知识。随着人工智能的不断发展，人类雇员将需要反复学习新技能、转换职业。政府必须介入，既要补贴终身教育部门，也要为不可避免的过渡时期提供安全网。如果一名40岁的前无人机飞行员花了三年时间转型成为一名虚拟世界的设计师，那么在这段时间里，她很可能需要政府的大量帮助来养活自己和家人。(该类计划目前正在北欧国家率先实施，这些国家的政府遵循“保护工人，而不是保护工作”的座右铭。)
放慢改变的速度，或许能让我们有时间创造足够多的新工作机会来弥补大部分损失。但就像前面说的，经济上的开创精神必须搭配教育和心理方面的变革。假设新的工作岗位不仅仅是政府部门的职位，那么也就可能需要高水平的专业知识：而且，随着人工智能不断改良，人类劳动者也需要不断学习新技能，改变自己的专业领域。政府必然需要介入，一方面提供终身教育补贴，另一方面提供安全网，协助国民面对无法避免的过渡期。假设一位40岁的前无人机驾驶员需要三年时间才能成功转型为虚拟世界的设计师，在这段时间内，他和他的家人很可能需要很多的政府协助才能维持生活。目前北欧各国正在试行此类方案，信念在于“保护劳工，而不是保护工作”。【林俊宏】
网友评论