among all forms of mistake,

在所有類型的錯誤之中，

prophecy is the most gratuitous.

預言是最沒根據的，

The person that we would all acknowledge

我們都要感謝這位作家。

as her 20th-century counterpart, Yogi Berra, agreed.

就是二十世紀的尤吉‧貝拉 (Yogi Berra) 也同意，

He said, "It's tough to make predictions,

他說：「預測很困難，

especially about the future."

尤其對未來的預測。」

I'm going to ignore their cautions

我不理會他們的警告，

and make one very specific forecast.

而且作出一項特別的預測。

In the world that we are creating very quickly,

現今的我們創造步調很快，

we're going to see more and more things

我們將要看到，

that look like science fiction,

像科幻小說一樣的東西越來越多

and fewer and fewer things that look like jobs.

而像工作的事越來越少

Our cars are very quickly going to start driving themselves,

在不久將來，汽車懂得自行駕駛，

which means we're going to need fewer truck drivers.

意味著我們需要更少的貨車司機，

We're going to hook Siri up to Watson

我們把 Siri 虛擬個人助理與 IBM 超級電腦華生連接起來，

and use that to automate a lot of the work

並使用這些虛擬助理，自動執行大量工作，

that's currently done by customer service reps

而現時這些工作須由客服處理、

and troubleshooters and diagnosers,

解答疑難問題和診斷。

and we're already taking R2D2,

我們已經使用阿凸（R2D2），

painting him orange, and putting him to work

替他塗上橙色，把他投入工作，

carrying shelves around warehouses,

叫他到倉庫拿貨，

which means we need a lot fewer people

意味著我們不需要那麼多的工人

to be walking up and down those aisles.

在走道上走來走去。

Now, for about 200 years,

約二百年來人們一直在說的，

people have been saying exactly what I'm telling you --

同時也是我現在告訴你們的 —

the age of technological unemployment is at hand —

這年代因科技而產生的失業問題，就在眼前 —

starting with the Luddites smashing looms in Britain

由英國勒德分子 (Luddites) 搗毀織布機開始，

just about two centuries ago,

大約兩個世紀前，

and they have been wrong.

他們一直是錯的。

Our economies in the developed world have coasted along

已發展國家的經濟

on something pretty close to full employment.

幾乎無法實現全民就業。

Which brings up a critical question:

這帶出了一條關鍵問題：

Why is this time different, if it really is?

為什麼這次不一樣了，真的不一樣嗎？

The reason it's different is that, just in the past few years,

不一樣的原因是，在過去的幾年，

our machines have started demonstrating skills

我們的機器開始有了

they have never, ever had before:

一些前所未見的能力

understanding, speaking, hearing, seeing,

理解、說話、聆聽、觀看、

answering, writing, and they're still acquiring new skills.

答問、書寫，他們仍在學習新的技巧，

For example, mobile humanoid robots

例如：行動人型機器人

are still incredibly primitive,

仍是令人難以置信的原始，

but the research arm of the Defense Department

但是國防部的研究部門

just launched a competition

剛剛發起了一場競賽，

to have them do things like this,

使他們製造一些類似東西，

and if the track record is any guide,

如果跟據過往成績紀錄以作參考，

this competition is going to be successful.

這樣的競賽將會成功。

So when I look around, I think the day is not too far off at all

現在看起來，我猜想這日子離我們不遠了

when we're going to have androids

人型機器人將會做很多的事，

doing a lot of the work that we are doing right now.

做很多目前人們在的工作

And we're creating a world where there is going to be

我們正在創造一個世界，那裡擁有

more and more technology and fewer and fewer jobs.

的科技越來越多，職位卻越來越少，

It's a world that Erik Brynjolfsson and I are calling

艾瑞克‧班恩約福森 (Erik Brynjolfsson) 和我叫這世界為

"the new machine age."

「新機器時代」。

The thing to keep in mind is that

我們要牢記

this is absolutely great news.

這絕對是個好消息，

This is the best economic news on the planet these days.

這些日子裡，在這顆星球上，最大的經濟新聞。

Not that there's a lot of competition, right?

並不是那麼多競爭，對嗎？

This is the best economic news we have these days

就是這些裡最大的經濟新聞，

for two main reasons.

原因有二：

The first is, technological progress is what allows us

首先，科技進步容許我們

to continue this amazing recent run that we're on

繼續這項驚人的運作，而運作正進行中，

where output goes up over time,

產量已持續上升了一段時間，

while at the same time, prices go down,

而同一時間，價格卻在下降，

and volume and quality just continue to explode.

數量和質量不斷爆發。

Now, some people look at this and talk about

現在，有些人看看這個情況，並且談論起

shallow materialism,

墮落物質主義，

but that's absolutely the wrong way to look at it.

但是，這絕對是錯誤的看法，

This is abundance, which is exactly

我們的經濟體系提供數量龐大的供應，

what we want our economic system to provide.

這也正是我們所期待的。

The second reason that the new machine age

新機器時代是一項好消息的

is such great news is that, once the androids

第二個原因為，一旦人型機器人

start doing jobs, we don't have to do them anymore,

開始做這些工作，那麼我們不需要做同樣的工作了，

and we get freed up from drudgery and toil.

可從苦差和勞碌工作中得到釋放。

Now, when I talk about this with my friends

現在當我和身在劍橋 (麻省)

in Cambridge and Silicon Valley, they say,

和矽谷的朋友們說起這話題時，他們說：

"Fantastic. No more drudgery, no more toil.

「極好的。再沒有苦差，再沒有勞碌的工作。

This gives us the chance to imagine

這樣就給我們機會去想像

an entirely different kind of society,

一個完全不同的社會，

a society where the creators and the discoverers

在這裡，創作人、發現者、

and the performers and the innovators

表演者、創新者、

come together with their patrons and their financiers

與他們的贊助者和融資者一起，

to talk about issues, entertain, enlighten,

談及不同議題，並款待、開導、

provoke each other."

挑釁彼此。」

It's a society really, that looks a lot like the TED Conference.

這樣的社會看起來真的就像一場 TED 研習會，

And there's actually a huge amount of truth here.

而事實上這裡有許多真理。

We are seeing an amazing flourishing taking place.

我們看到令人驚異的百花齊放，

In a world where it is just about as easy

在這世界，產生一件物體

to generate an object as it is to print a document,

就像打印一份文件那麼的容易，

we have amazing new possibilities.

我們有異乎尋常的新可能，

The people who used to be craftsmen and hobbyists

過往的技工、業餘愛好者，

are now makers, and they're responsible

現在成為了製造業者，他們負責

for massive amounts of innovation.

大量的創新，

And artists who were formerly constrained

而藝術家過往因種種制約

can now do things that were never, ever possible

而未能做到的事，

for them before.

現在可做到了。

So this is a time of great flourishing,

所以，現在就是繁華昌盛的年代，

and the more I look around, the more convinced I become

我越看得多，我更加堅信

that this quote, from the physicist Freeman Dyson,

物理學家弗里曼‧戴森 (Freeman Dyson) 所說的

is not hyperbolic at all.

根本不是誇飾，

This is just a plain statement of the facts.

只是簡單清楚的事實陳述。

We are in the middle of an astonishing period.

我們正處於令人驚訝的時期當中。

["Technology is a gift of God. After the gift of life it is perhaps the greatest of God's gifts. It is the mother of civilizations, of arts and of sciences." — Freeman Dyson]

「科技是上帝賜予的禮物。繼生命的禮物之後，這可是上帝賜予的最大禮物。這是一切文明、藝術、科學之母。」 — 弗里曼‧戴森

Which brings up another great question:

這帶來另一個大問題，

What could possibly go wrong in this new machine age?

在這個新機器時代，可會在什麼樣的情況下出錯呢？

Right? Great, hang up, flourish, go home.

對嗎？很好、拖延、繁榮、回家，

We're going to face two really thorny sets of challenges

我們正面對兩項相當棘手的挑戰，

as we head deeper into the future that we're creating.

尤其當我們朝著我們創造的未來一步步前進，

The first are economic, and they're really nicely summarized

第一是經濟上的，一個未經證實的故事

in an apocryphal story about a back-and-forth

貼切地做了總結

between Henry Ford II and Walter Reuther,

那是亨利‧福特二世與華特‧魯瑟之間的反覆答問，

who was the head of the auto workers union.

華特‧魯瑟是汽車工會領袖，

They were touring one of the new modern factories,

他們在新的現代化工廠巡視中，

and Ford playfully turns to Reuther and says,

福特以開玩笑的口吻對魯瑟說：

"Hey Walter, how are you going to get these robots

「你如何要這些機械人們

to pay union dues?"

向你的工會交會費？」

And Reuther shoots back, "Hey Henry,

魯瑟連珠發炮般回應對方：「嘿，亨利，

how are you going to get them to buy cars?"

你怎樣使它們購買你的汽車？」

Reuther's problem in that anecdote

這段趣聞軼事中魯瑟的問題是，

is that it is tough to offer your labor to an economy

你很難向一個經濟體提供勞動力，

that's full of machines,

而這個經濟體滿是機械人。

and we see this very clearly in the statistics.

統計讓我們看清楚這件事，

If you look over the past couple decades

如果你回望過去幾十年的

at the returns to capital -- in other words, corporate profits --

資本收益率，換句話說即是企業利潤，

we see them going up,

我們見到持續上升，

and we see that they're now at an all-time high.

現在利潤看起來是空前的高，

If we look at the returns to labor, in other words

如果我們看一下工作回報，簡言之，

total wages paid out in the economy,

在整個經濟裡，資方所給付的總工資，

we see them at an all-time low

我們看到工資卻是空前的低，

and heading very quickly in the opposite direction.

而且兩者快速向相反方向而行，

So this is clearly bad news for Reuther.

所以對魯瑟來說，這真是一則壞消息，

It looks like it might be great news for Ford,

對福特來說，看起來倒像是一則好消息，

but it's actually not. If you want to sell

然而實際上並不是好消息。如果你想

huge volumes of somewhat expensive goods to people,

向人們銷售大批價格稍微高一點的貨品，

you really want a large, stable, prosperous middle class.

你就真的想要一群穩定的、富足的、為數可觀的中產階級，

We have had one of those in America

在美國我們就有這樣的一群，

for just about the entire postwar period.

約在整段戰後的時期，

But the middle class is clearly under huge threat right now.

然而中產階級明顯地正遭逢巨大的威脅，

We all know a lot of the statistics,

我們都知道許多的統計資料，

but just to repeat one of them,

這裡只是重複一項罷，

median income in America has actually gone down

事實上，美國的收入中位數

over the past 15 years,

在過去 15 年都下跌了，

and we're in danger of getting trapped

而我們身在危險中，

in some vicious cycle where inequality and polarization

受困於惡性的循環，不平等現象和兩極分化

continue to go up over time.

經過一段時間後繼續往上走，

The societal challenges that come along

我們要留意那些社會上的不公平。

with that kind of inequality deserve some attention.

我們要留意那些社會上的不公平。

There are a set of societal challenges

事實上我並不擔心

that I'm actually not that worried about,

那一連串的社會挑戰，

and they're captured by images like this.

他們被這樣形容，

This is not the kind of societal problem

但這並不是我所關心的

that I am concerned about.

社會問題種類。

There is no shortage of dystopian visions

反烏托邦的願景並不短缺，

about what happens when our machines become self-aware,

當我們的機器變為擁有自我意識時，

and they decide to rise up and coordinate attacks against us.

而機械人決定揭竿起義，並聯合起來攻擊我們，

I'm going to start worrying about those

我開始擔心終有一天，

the day my computer becomes aware of my printer.

我的電腦察覺到我的印表機，

(Laughter) (Applause)

(笑聲) (掌聲)

So this is not the set of challenges we really need to worry about.

所以這不是我們真正需要擔心的挑戰，

To tell you the kinds of societal challenges

為了告訴你在新機器時代

that are going to come up in the new machine age,

將面對的各種社會挑戰，

I want to tell a story about two stereotypical American workers.

我想告訴你一個故事，是關於兩個陳規定型的美國工人，

And to make them really stereotypical,

為使故事讀來真的是刻板印象的，

let's make them both white guys.

就當他們是兩個白種男人罷，

And the first one is a college-educated

第一個是受過大學教育的，

professional, creative type, manager,

專業、創作型的、經理、

engineer, doctor, lawyer, that kind of worker.

工程師、醫師、律師、那類型的工作者，

We're going to call him "Ted."

我們稱他為「泰德」，

He's at the top of the American middle class.

他位處美國中產階級的頂端。

His counterpart is not college-educated

另一個並沒有接受大學教育，

and works as a laborer, works as a clerk,

他是一個勞動者、普通文員、

does low-level white collar or blue collar work in the economy.

做一些低級白領或藍領階級的工作，

We're going to call that guy "Bill."

我們稱他為「比爾」。

And if you go back about 50 years,

如果你回到大約五十年前，

Bill and Ted were leading remarkably similar lives.

比爾和泰德過著極其相似的生活，

For example, in 1960 they were both very likely

例如：在 1960 年，他們倆極有可能

to have full-time jobs, working at least 40 hours a week.

同樣得到全職職位，每週工作總時數至少四十小時，

But as the social researcher Charles Murray has documented,

但是社會研究員查爾斯‧麥瑞 (Charles Murray) 用文件證明了，

as we started to automate the economy,

當我們開始建立自動化時，

and 1960 is just about when computers started to be used by businesses,

而 1960 年就是我們在日常工作中剛剛開始使用電腦的時候，

as we started to progressively inject technology

我們開始逐步向市場經濟

and automation and digital stuff into the economy,

注入科技、自動化、數位化的東西，

the fortunes of Bill and Ted diverged a lot.

比爾和泰德兩人的財富就此各走各路。

Over this time frame, Ted has continued

經過一段時間後，泰德繼續

to hold a full-time job. Bill hasn't.

持有一份全職工作，比爾則沒有全職工作，

In many cases, Bill has left the economy entirely,

在許多情況下，比爾完全離開了經濟體系，

and Ted very rarely has.

而泰德則很少離開。

Over time, Ted's marriage has stayed quite happy.

過了一段時間後，泰德的婚姻仍然幸福美滿，

Bill's hasn't.

比爾的卻不美滿，

And Ted's kids have grown up in a two-parent home,

泰德的小孩在健全完整的家庭中長大，

while Bill's absolutely have not over time.

然而長時間來看, 比爾的小孩卻不是。

Other ways that Bill is dropping out of society?

那麼比爾是否退出了社會？

He's decreased his voting in presidential elections,

他總統選舉的投票次數減少了

and he's started to go to prison a lot more often.

而他更開始進出監獄，次數漸多，

So I cannot tell a happy story about these social trends,

我並不是在陳述一個令人開心的社會潮流

and they don't show any signs of reversing themselves.

他們沒有任何可扭轉人生的機會

They're also true no matter which ethnic group

無論哪個民族

or demographic group we look at,

或人口的數量分布結構，他們也都如此，

and they're actually getting so severe

實際上，他們變得如此嚴重，

that they're in danger of overwhelming

有覆沒的危險，

even the amazing progress we made with the Civil Rights Movement.

即使我們在民權運動取得驚人的進展。

And what my friends in Silicon Valley

而我在矽谷和在劍橋(麻省)的朋友

and Cambridge are overlooking is that they're Ted.

所忽略的，就是他們是泰德，

They're living these amazingly busy, productive lives,

他們過著這些異常忙碌兼有意義的生活，

and they've got all the benefits to show from that,

從那裡看到，他們得到了所有優勢，

while Bill is leading a very different life.

而比爾則過著非常不同的生活。

They're actually both proof of how right Voltaire was

實際上他們都證實了伏爾泰談到工作的好處，

when he talked about the benefits of work,

他所說的都是正確，

and the fact that it saves us from not one but three great evils.

事實是工作救我們脫離不只一種而是三種大惡，

["Work saves a man from three great evils: boredom, vice and need." — Voltaire]

「工作使人遠離三種罪惡：無聊、惡習和匱乏。」 — 伏爾泰如是說。

So with these challenges, what do we do about them?

所以我們面對這些挑戰時應做什麼呢？

The economic playbook is surprisingly clear,

經濟劇本是出奇的清晰，

surprisingly straightforward, in the short term especially.

出奇的直截了當，特別是短期內，

The robots are not going to take all of our jobs in the next year or two,

在未來一至兩年，機械人不會拿走我們所有的職位，

so the classic Econ 101 playbook is going to work just fine:

所以經典的經濟學 101 劇本仍可有效運用於實際情況，

Encourage entrepreneurship,

鼓勵創業、

double down on infrastructure,

下兩倍注在基礎設施的投資、

and make sure we're turning out people

確定我們教育系統培養出來的學生

from our educational system with the appropriate skills.

配搭適合的技能，

But over the longer term, if we are moving into an economy

但就長遠來看，即將來臨的經濟是

that's heavy on technology and light on labor,

注重科技而看輕勞工，

and we are, then we have to consider

我們必須考慮

some more radical interventions,

一些較為激進的干預，

for example, something like a guaranteed minimum income.

例如：類似最低薪資保障的事物，

Now, that's probably making some folk in this room uncomfortable,

現在也許使這房間裡的一些人感到不舒服，

because that idea is associated with the extreme left wing

因為這意念與極端左翼相關聯的，

and with fairly radical schemes for redistributing wealth.

也與財富重新分配的激進計劃有所關聯。

I did a little bit of research on this notion,

我對這概念做了些少的研究，

and it might calm some folk down to know that

也許使那些人平靜下來，

the idea of a net guaranteed minimum income

最低薪資保障是受到

has been championed by those frothing-at-the-mouth socialists

口吐白沫的社會主義者維護支持 -

Friedrich Hayek, Richard Nixon and Milton Friedman.

弗里德里希‧海耶克、理察‧尼克森、米爾頓‧弗里德曼。