0:00
未来看来，金钱将变得无关紧要。我的意思是，货币仍然存在，但我认为货币将以基本物理指标来衡量，比如功率、瓦特数、吨位、质量和能量。基本上就是质量和能量。
0:25
传统货币未来将不重要，这只是我的猜测。我觉得这是显而易见的。一旦经济规模远超地球，满足人类所有可能的需求就非常容易了。
0:46
如果你的经济规模比地球大几个数量级，那么提供人类想要的商品和服务非常简单。
0:57
那么作为人类，我们该做什么？什么赋予我们意义？我们如何组织自己？
1:04
我说的是，你是否也为这个问题感到困惑？我们会找到快乐的方法，就像退休的人似乎相对幸福，尽管他们不工作。
1:18
但我认为现实是，人类不可能…没有什么是AI和机器人做不到且做得更好的。一种比喻是园艺，你不必自己种水果蔬菜，可以直接去店里买。
1:37
但有时候人们喜欢自己种水果蔬菜，邀请朋友做饭，这也是一种不错的体验。
1:46
那创作艺术或这种类型的创造力呢？这更符合人类吗？
1:51
是的，你当然可以创作艺术或做任何你想做的事情。
1:56
我们喜欢把这称为前所未有的技术变革时代，但历史学家会回顾1890年代，那时电力、电话、汽车、地铁、无线电和电影几乎同时出现。这带来了很多变化，
2:15
但通常也导致贫富差距扩大，出现了许多剥削者，很多人拿起干草叉，认为这是坏事，现在也有类似的回响。我们有办法防止这种情况吗？鉴于财富的巨大增长，
2:33
我们是否会像1890年代那样，将某些事务置于公共领域，比如普及免费高中教育？我们会说，“比如说医疗保健，直接纳入公共领域”，这样可以缓解部分民众对现状的强烈反感。
2:50
这就是一些发生的事。”
2:51
我的意思是，正如我所说，我认为未来钱仍然重要。任何人都可以得到自己想要的商品和服务。我也不认为所谓的富人最终会控制AI，我认为他们会控制自己。
3:11
所以你不必划清界限……我认为经济学上的根本误解在于混淆了资源分配和消费。
3:26
一个人能消费的有限，很快就会达到饱和点。所以财富从十亿美元增至百亿美元，并不会让你幸福或有意义增加十倍，也不会拥有十倍的物品。实际上只是资源的分配问题。
3:43
资源分配。
0:00
The future look like money becomes irrelevant. I mean, there will be still a
0:04
currency, but
0:05
I think currency will be measured in fundamental physics metrics like power,
0:10
like wattage and
0:13
tonnage, mass and energy. Mass and power energy, basically. But conventional
0:24
currency will
0:25
not matter in the future, so that's my guess. I think it's pretty obvious. As
0:33
soon as you
0:34
start getting to many orders of magnitude bigger than Earth's economy,
0:38
satisfying whatever
0:39
humans can possibly think of for their needs is very easy. If you're several
0:45
orders of
0:46
magnitude bigger than Earth's economy, then providing humans whatever goods and
0:52
services
0:53
they can think of, that they might want is trivial.
0:57
And so what do we do then as humans? What gives us meaning? How do we organize
1:03
ourselves?
1:04
I mean, do you struggle with this question? We'll find ways to be happy in the
1:12
same way
1:13
that people who retire seem to be relatively fairly happy, even though they're
1:17
not working.
1:18
But I think the reality is that humans will not... There won't be anything that
1:23
humans
1:23
can do that the AI and the robots can't do better. One analogy might be
1:30
gardening, you
1:32
know, where you don't have to grow your own fruits and vegetables, you can just
1:37
go buy
1:37
them from the store. But sometimes people like to grow their own fruits and
1:42
vegetables
1:42
and make dinner for friends, and it's kind of a nice touch.
1:46
What about creating art or that type of creativity? Is that more in the sphere
1:50
of humans?
1:51
Yeah, you could certainly create art or whatever you feel like doing,
1:55
essentially.
1:56
We like to think of this as a time of unprecedented technological change, but
2:01
we historians go
2:02
back to the 1890s when you get electricity and telephones and cars and, you
2:07
know, subways
2:08
and radio and movies, all these things happening at once. And it leads to many
2:14
things, but
2:15
it all often leads to a great disparity of wealth, a lot of sense of robber bar
2:20
ons, a
2:21
lot of people then picking up pitchforks and deciding that this is bad, and
2:25
there's
2:26
some echoes of that now. Is there a way to prevent that given the amount of
2:32
wealth being
2:33
generated where we put certain things in the commons, the way they did in the
2:38
1890s, when
2:39
they make high school, universal and free? Will we say, "Okay, health care, for
2:43
example,
2:44
you'd just be in the commons and that's going to sap some of the populist rev
2:49
ulsion at
2:50
what's happening."
2:51
Well, I mean, as you could me say, I think money's going to matter in the
3:00
future. Like
3:01
anyone would be able to have any goods and services that they want. And I don't
3:05
think
3:05
even so-called wealthy people will ultimately control the AIs. I think they'll
3:09
control themselves.
3:11
So it's not like you have to separate... I think a sort of a fundamental
3:17
misunderstanding
3:19
of economics arises because of conflating resource allocation and consumption.
3:26
So there's a limit
3:27
to what any single human can consume. You hit that saturation point pretty fast
3:32
. So going
3:33
from say $1 billion net worth to $10 billion net worth doesn't make you 10
3:39
times happier
3:40
have meaning or 10 times more stuff. It actually means you've got a resource
3:43
allocation.
回覆