別讓新技術淪爲無罪欺詐
Globalisation has helped lift millions of people in the developing world out of poverty and showered cheap goods on western consumers.
全球化幫助發展中國家數以百萬計的人脫離貧困，並讓西方消費者有大量廉價商品可以選擇。
Yet at the ballot box it is also blamed by those very same people for increasing inequality and squeezing living standards.
然而在投票箱前，人們卻指責全球化加劇不平等，擠壓生活水平。
Pro-globalisation politicians are facing a noisy backlash in Europe and the US as populists demand greater protection for those who feel the system has been rigged.
在歐洲和美國，支持全球化的政治人士正面臨強烈反彈，民粹主義者要求加大保護那些覺得體制被操縱的人士。
In their view, globalisation is an innocent fraud, to use John Kenneth Galbraith’s phrase.
在他們看來，用約翰.肯尼思.加爾佈雷斯(John Kenneth Galbraith)的話來說，全球化是一種無罪欺詐。
The US economist argued in his 2004 book of that name that societies were often sustained by handy fictions, such as the idea that companies were run for the benefit of shareholders rather than managers.
這位美國經濟學家曾在他2004年的同名著作中辯稱，社會經常受到一些方便假想的支撐，例如認爲企業的經營是爲了股東利益，而非管理者。
Politics, Money and intellectual fashion create their own version of the truth, irrespective of reality.
政治、金融和學術潮流創造了各自版本的真理，而不管現實如何。
No one is especially at fault; what is convenient to believe is greatly preferred, Galbraith wrote.
加爾佈雷斯寫道：沒有人特別有錯；人們就是喜歡那些方便相信的事情。
There is a risk that technological disruption may come to be seen as the second great innocent fraud of our times.
風險在於，技術突變可能被視爲我們這個時代第二個巨大的無罪欺詐。
It is hard to dispute that promising new technologies — like globalisation — can bring enormous benefits.
頗有希望的新技術（與全球化一樣）能夠帶來巨大好處，這點很難質疑。
Energy, transport and healthcare are just three sectors that are likely to be transformed for the better in the next few years.
能源、交通和醫療是很可能會在未來幾年向好的方向轉型的其中3個行業。
But these new technologies will also threaten many established industries, markets and jobs.
但是，此類新技術還會威脅很多成熟行業、市場和就業。
As with globalisation, the digital revolution will bring generalised gain but cause localised pain.
與全球化一樣，數字革命將帶來普遍好處，但也會造成局部痛苦。
Many new technologies have unintended, and often adverse, consequences — or bite back.
很多新技術產生了意想不到而且往往不利的後果，即反咬。
For example, the combustion engine revolutionised transport.
例如，內燃機讓交通實現了革命。
But it also did terrible damage to the environment.
但它也對環境造成了嚴重損害。
Asbestos was once hailed as a miracle material.
石棉一度被吹噓爲一種神奇的材料。
But in the past 20 years we have spent billions stripping it from buildings.
但過去20年，我們花費了數十億美元將其從建築中拆除。
The potential bite back from the latest crop of new technologies, such as gene editing and artificial intelligence, is terrifying.
最新這批技術（例如基因編輯和人工智能）的潛在反咬令人害怕。
As Stephen Hawking, the British scientist, said last week, the creation of powerful artificial intelligence will be either the best, or the worst, thing ever to happen to humanity.
正如英國科學家斯蒂芬.霍金(Stephen Hawking)最近所說的，強大人工智能的出現將是對人類要麼最好要麼最壞的事情。
How can we ensure good outcomes? Here are three ideas.
我們怎麼能確保良好的結果呢？這裏有三個構想。
First, the private sector has to embrace the public sector, appreciating that they have common aims.
首先，私營部門必須擁抱公共部門，認識到大家有着共同的目標。
As Galbraith wrote, the interdependence of the two sectors is often so great as to render distinctions between them almost meaningless.
正如加爾佈雷斯所寫的，這兩個部門的相互依賴往往非常密切，以至於區分它們幾乎沒有意義。
Insurgent West Coast tech firms have a near messianic belief that they are bettering the lot of humanity and do not need adult supervision.
敢想敢幹的西海岸科技公司有着一種近乎救世主的信念：他們在爲全人類的福祉作出貢獻，不需要成人監護。
Their chief demand to government is: clear out of the way.
它們向政府提出的主要要求是：別擋道。
They are increasingly vocal in pushing such views, having become one of the biggest lobbying forces in Washington.
他們在形成華盛頓最大的遊說勢力之一後，正日益強勢地推動這些觀念。
In a conversation in Wired magazine, President Barack Obama argued that the adoption of new technologies was too important to be left to private companies.
在與《連線》(Wired)雜誌的對話中，美國總統巴拉克.奧巴馬(Barack Obama)辯稱，新技術的採用非常重要，不能留給私營企業。
But he warned confidence in collective action had been chipped away, partly because of ideology and rhetoric.
但他警告稱，對集體行動的信心已受損，部分原因是意識形態和花言巧語。
If we want the values of a diverse community represented in these breakthrough technologies, then government funding has to be a part of it, he said.
他表示：如果我們希望多元化社會的價值觀在這些突破性技術中得到體現，那麼政府資金不得不成爲其中的一部分。
Second, the public sector needs to retool itself to understand and meet the challenges posed by new technologies.
其次，公共部門需要調整自己，理解並迎接新技術所帶來的挑戰。
Many of the regulatory functions of government, introduced in the US in the early 20th century, were designed to protect the consumer from predatory monopolists and financial cartels.
美國在20世紀初引入的很多政府監管職能，是爲了保護消費者不受掠奪性壟斷者和金融卡特爾的損害。
But government institutions today need to protect us as citizens as much as consumers.
但現在的政府體制需要保護我們作爲公民以及消費者的雙重利益。
The frontline of regulation concerns issues of privacy, security, data use, employment rights and freedom of expression.
監管第一線涉及隱私、安全、數據使用、就業權利和言論自由等問題。
We need reinvigorated public institutions to help guarantee that new technologies are used in benign ways.
我們需要公共機構重振雄風，幫助保證良性利用新技術。
We also need enforced legal protections to ensure that government itself does not abuse these technologies.
我們還需要施行法律保護，確保政府自己不濫用這些技術。
Third, we may need to rewrite the implicit social contracts that govern our democracies, redefining what goods and services our governments provide.
第三，我們可能需要重寫治理我們民主社會的隱性社會契約，重新定義政府提供的商品和服務。
Economic historian Joel Mokyr argues that the present wave of technological change could create so much social turmoil that we may need to fundamentally rethink our political systems.
經濟歷史學家喬爾.莫克伊爾(Joel Mokyr)辯稱，當前的技術變革浪潮可能會造成巨大社會動盪，以至於我們可能需要從根本上反思我們的政治體制。
He suggests the necessary transformation could be on a par with the creation of the German welfare state in the 19th century or the New Deal of the 1930s.
他認爲，必要的轉型可能堪比19世紀德國福利國家的創建或者上世紀30年代的美國新政(New Deal)。
Change on that scale could do with input from the brilliant minds of the tech sector.
這種規模的變革需要科技行業優秀人才的集思廣益。
As Wired, guest-edited by Mr Obama, put it: Ask not what government can do for Silicon Valley; ask what Silicon Valley can do for the government.
正如奧巴馬擔任嘉賓主編的那一期《連線》雜誌所言：不要問政府能爲硅谷做什麼；要問硅谷能爲政府做什麼。
