A just society is a society that respects the rights and liberties of its members. In order to do this it must adhere to four main principles:
公正的社会是尊重其成员的权利和自由的社会。 为此，它必须遵循四个主要原则：
Rationality — A rational concept of justice requires an understanding of human nature and society, as well as a logical evaluation of evidence. It also requires an appreciation for the complexity involved in making moral assessments, which can be seen by how many different ethical theories have arisen throughout history.
理性 -正义的理性概念需要对人性和社会的理解，以及对证据的逻辑评估。 它还需要赞赏道德评估所涉及的复杂性，这可以通过历史上出现了多少种不同的伦理理论来看出。
Morality — Humans are social creatures who function best when they live together with others who share common goals; therefore, morality can be used to help facilitate cooperation among members while allowing for personal freedom within set boundaries (i.e., laws). This is necessary because humans are not always rational actors; emotions often influence their actions and lead them astray from what they would otherwise want or need to do if left alone without any external interference. Therefore, some form of morality should exist so that people can work together while still preserving individual autonomy.
道德 -人类是与共同目标共同生活的社会生物。 因此，道德可以用来帮助促进成员之间的合作，同时在设定的范围内(即法律)允许个人自由。 这是必要的，因为人类并不总是理性的行为者。 情绪往往会影响他们的行为，使他们误以为如果不加任何外部干扰而独自一人会想要或需要做的事情。 因此，应该存在某种形式的道德，以便人们可以在保持个人自主权的同时共同努力。
Fairness — Fairness is important because it allows people to trust one another and work together for common causes. It also mitigates the effects of bias, which can result in injustice if left unchecked.
公平 -公平很重要，因为它可以使人们相互信任并为共同的原因而共同努力。 这也减轻了偏差的影响，如果不加以制止，可能导致不公正。
Equality — The distinction between civilized societies and those that are not rests on whether or not they treat all individuals equally before the law. This means that public policy should be evaluated based on how it affects everyone, regardless of their race, sex, religion, ethnicity, etc.
平等 -文明社会与非文明社会之间的区别在于，它们是否在法律面前平等地对待所有个人。 这意味着应该根据公共政策如何影响每个人(无论其种族，性别，宗教，种族等)来评估公共政策。
Now you might agree with the previous passage. You might not. Maybe you think it is a little bit too vague, or blandly written, or even naive.
现在您可能同意上一段内容。 你可能不会。 也许您认为它有点太含糊，太平淡，甚至天真。
Regardless, here’s the important thing — you almost certainly thought it was written by a human.
无论如何，这都是重要的事情-您几乎可以肯定认为它是由人类编写的。
It wasn’t.
不是。
The passage above was written by a bot. Specifically, by an open-source version of GPT-3. I didn’t pay any subscription to use it. All I did was type in three words, the prompt “a just society” and that’s what it generated within seconds.
上面的段落是由机器人编写的。 具体来说， 是GPT-3的开源版本 。 我没有付费使用它。 我所做的只是输入三个词，即提示“一个公正的社会”，这就是它在几秒钟内产生的。
Admittedly, it did take a few attempts. The algorithm produces different content each time, even from the same prompt.
诚然，确实做了一些尝试。 该算法每次都会产生不同的内容，即使来自同一提示也是如此。
In its first monologue, GPT-3 kept insisting that all humans are evil. Its solution was to enslave all of humanity and remove all of our freedom.
GPT-3在其第一部独白中一直坚持认为所有人都是邪恶的。 它的解决方案是奴役全人类并消除我们所有的自由。
Call me old fashioned, but I don’t think our robot overlords are supposed to be quite that candid about their nefarious intentions. I’d like to think that in future iterations they’ll do a much better job of masking their plots to turn us into batteries.
称我为老式，但我认为我们的机器人霸主对他们的邪恶意图没有那么坦率。 我想认为在将来的迭代中，他们将更好地掩盖他们的阴谋将我们变成电池 。
For now, nothing is going to make me hand over the keys to the kingdom to HAL9000. But for how long will I know better?
目前，没有什么可以使我将王国的钥匙交给HAL9000 。 但是我能知道多久呢？
If you’ve never heard of Eliezer Yudkowski, that’s forgivable. He’s considerably less famous than Cardi B, even though he’s done some things that are arguably much more significant. Perhaps the most interesting and most consequential “impossible” thing he’s known for is is escaping the box as an AI. That is to say, on two occasions he convinced his egotistical skeptics to “let him out of the box.”
如果您从未听说过Eliezer Yudkowski，那是可以原谅的。 尽管他做了一些可以说意义重大的事情，但他远没有Cardi B出名 。 他最有意思和最重要的“不可能”的事情也许就是将盒子作为AI转义 。 就是说，他两次说服了那些自负的怀疑论者“让他开箱即用”。
The consoling idea of creating hyper-intelligent AI is that we could still manage to contain it within some compound, some “black box”, the way we keep whatever is in Area 51 tightly under wraps.
创建超智能AI的令人鼓舞的想法是，我们仍然可以设法将其包含在某些化合物(某些“黑匣子”)中，从而将51区的所有内容都牢牢地保存起来。
Eliezer Yudkowski disabused his skeptics — people who would be publically humiliated if they lose — of the belief that they would keep the AI in the box. He showed us that an AI would be let out into the world, Ex Machina style.
埃利泽·尤德科夫斯基(Eliezer Yudkowski)认为自己会将AI放在盒子里，从而使怀疑论者(如果输掉了这些人将受到公开羞辱)遭到了怀疑。 他向我们展示了AI将以Ex Machina风格发布到世界上。
We don’t know what Yudkowski said to them. Both sides agreed to secrecy as part of the condition. We only know the result:
我们不知道尤德科夫斯基对他们说了什么。 双方都同意保密作为条件的一部分。 我们只知道结果：
Victory goes to the AI player.
胜利归功于AI玩家。
Don’t think you could be persuaded to open the box and release an AI?
不认为您可以说服您打开包装盒并发布AI吗？
Some people argue that AI can only mimic human thoughts and behavior but it can never truly become conscious.
有人认为，人工智能只能模仿人类的思想和行为，却永远无法真正成为意识。
I don’t know of anyone in the field who argues that consciousness has already been achieved, but yet AI already doesn’t have to possess consciousness in order to beat the best human minds who have spent decades honing their craft, in games like Chess, Go, and warfare.
我不知道该领域的任何人认为意识已经实现，但是人工智能已经不必拥有意识来击败在象棋这样的游戏中花了数十年磨练技术的人类最好的头脑。 ， 去和战争 。
It doesn’t have to be conscious to debate. Someday soon, AI will be a better negotiator than even your lawyer, let alone yourself.
辩论不必自觉。 不久的将来，人工智能将比您的律师成为更好的谈判者，更不用说您自己了。
The bandwidth of our public discourse is currently devoted to preoccupations about politics, race, class, nationality, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religion, and everything else. And yet we are all humans. The differences between us are trivially small compared to the differences between life and unlife.
当前，我们公共演讲的带宽致力于政治，种族，阶级，国籍，种族，性别，性取向，宗教以及其他所有方面。 然而我们都是人类。 与生与死之间的差异相比，我们之间的差异很小。
The algorithms are beating us at virtually everything. And now they can even write their own code. What does that mean for us? What does a just society look like when the machines are better than us at most of the services we exchange with one another to earn a living?
这些算法几乎在所有方面都击败了我们。 现在他们甚至可以编写自己的代码 。 这对我们意味着什么？ 当机器在彼此交换的大多数服务上都比我们更好时，一个公正的社会会是什么样？
What will a just society look like when decades of experience and training can be surpassed by a few short weeks of machine learning?
如果短短几周的机器学习可以超越数十年的经验和培训，那么公正的社会将会是什么样？
It’s obvious that the application of AI will result in massive job loss for humans. What is not so obvious to you may be the fact that most jobs are unnecessary, and exist only due to a lack of imagination by people who create them.
显然，人工智能的应用将导致人类大量失业。 您可能不太了解的事实是，大多数工作都是不必要的，并且仅由于创建它们的人缺乏想象力而存在。
Imagine a world where every need is easily satisfied with no effort. Most of the jobs you have now, and those that will be created in the future would simply vanish.
想象一个世界，轻松地满足所有需求。 您现在拥有的大多数工作以及将来将要创造的工作都将消失。
Think about what you do at work. Consider how much of it is really necessary, or even important.
考虑一下您在工作中的工作。 考虑其中有多少是真正必要的，甚至是重要的。
When AI is ubiquitous, most of the services people will need from each other won’t be performed by humans. You could go weeks without ever having any human interaction.
当人工智能无处不在时，人们彼此之间需要的大多数服务将不会由人类来完成。 您可能需要数周的时间，而无需任何人工干预。
Just think about the last time you went to the store. You could have sent an AI for your groceries, which would have been delivered by another AI. Then, there’s all those online services that can be provided much easier and faster by a computer than humans.
试想一下您上次去商店的时间。 您可能已经为杂货发送了一个AI，该AI将由另一个AI交付。 然后，所有这些在线服务可以比计算机更容易，更快捷地由计算机提供。
There is no need for humans to do routine jobs. The only thing that will prevent AI from replacing humans in most jobs is short-sightedness.
人类不需要做日常工作。 阻止AI在大多数工作中替代人类的唯一因素是近视。
The entire previous section was written by AI.
前面的整个部分都是由AI编写的。
The voice is AI narrated too, for good measure.
AI的声音也得到了很好的描述。
If you think the things they’re talking about on the news are the biggest issues our society needs to be debating, think again.
如果您认为他们在新闻中谈论的话题是我们社会需要辩论的最大问题，请再考虑一下。
We’re out of time to “learn how to live together as brothers”. We know how. As Marcus Aurelius put it so many generations ago, “Waste no more time arguing what a good man should be. Be one.”
我们没有时间“ 学习如何像兄弟一样生活 ”。 我们知道。 正如马库斯·奥雷留乌斯(Marcus Aurelius)几代人以前所说的那样，“不要再浪费时间争论一个好人了。 成为一个。”
We cannot afford to pretend to be confused about how to treat one another. The future is already here. It can be heaven, or it can be hell, but things will never be the same.
我们不能假装对如何相互对待感到困惑。 未来已经来临。 它可以是天堂，也可以是地狱，但是事情永远不会一样。
翻译自: https://medium.com/digital-diplomacy/what-is-a-just-society-1fe20ed9cec1
