每周工作超过60小时的美国人报告说，他们平均希望每周少工作25小时。他们这么说是因为工作使他们遭受“时间饥荒”。一项2006年的研究发现，这影响了他们与配偶和孩子建立牢固关系、维持家庭、甚至过上令人满意的性生活的能力。哈佛商学院(Harvard Business School)最近一项高管调查的一名受访者自豪地坚称，“我晚上给孩子们的10分钟比花在工作上的10分钟伟大一百万倍。”只有十分钟！
优雅地或至少冷静地承受这些时间的能力已经成为精英成功的标准。一家大公司的一名高管接受了社会学家阿丽·拉塞尔·霍奇奇德(Arlie Russell Hochschild)为其著作《时间捆绑》的采访。她观察到，展示了自己技能和奉献精神的有抱负的经理面临着的“最终淘汰赛”是这样的: “有些人会火冒三丈，变得古怪，因为他们一直在无休止地工作……而高层的人非常聪明，工作得像疯子一样，而且不会火冒三丈。他们仍然能够保持良好的心态，保持家庭生活在一起。最终是他们赢得了比赛。”
YANG: If you’ve heard anything about me and my campaign, you’ve heard that someone is running for president who wants to give every American $1,000 a month. I know this may sound like a gimmick, but this is a deeply American idea, from Thomas Paine to Martin Luther King to today.
Let me tell you why we need to do it and how we pay for it. Why do we need to do it? We already automated away millions of manufacturing jobs, and chances are your job can be next. If you don’t believe me, just ask an auto worker here in Detroit.
How do we pay for it? Raise your hand in the crowd if you’ve seen stores closing where you live. It is not just you. Amazon is closing 30 percent of America’s stores and malls and paying zero in taxes while doing it. We need to do the opposite of much of what we’re doing right now, and the opposite of Donald Trump is an Asian man who likes math.
So let me share the math. A thousand dollars a month for every adult would be $461 million every month, right here in Detroit alone. The automation of our jobs is the central challenge facing us today. It is why Donald Trump is our president, and any politician not addressing it is failing the American people.
Mr. Yang, I want to bring you in. You support a Medicare for All system. How do you respond to Governor Inslee?
YANG: Well, I just want to share a story. When I told my wife I was running for president, you know the first question she asked me? What are we going to do about our health care?
That’s a true story, and it’s not just us. Democrats are talking about health care in the wrong way. As someone who’s run a business, I can tell you flat out our current health care system makes it harder to hire, it makes it harder to treat people well and give them benefits and treat them as full-time employees, it makes it harder to switch jobs, as Senator Harris just said, and it’s certainly a lot harder to start a business.
If we say, look, we’re going to get health care off the backs of businesses and families, then watch American entrepreneurship recover and bloom. That’s the argument we should be making to the American people.
YANG: I’m the son of immigrants myself. My father immigrated here as a graduate student and generated over 65 U.S. patents for G.E. and IBM. I think that’s a pretty good deal for the United States. That’s the immigration story we need to be telling.
We can’t always be focusing on some of the — the — the distressed stories. And if you go to a factory here in Michigan, you will not find wall-to-wall immigrants; you will find wall-to-wall robots and machines. Immigrants are being scapegoated for issues they have nothing to do with in our economy.
YANG: I speak for just about everyone watching when I say I would trust anyone on this stage much more than I would trust our current president on matters of criminal justice.
We cannot tear each other down. We have to focus on beating Donald Trump in 2020.
I want to share a story that a prison guard, a corrections officer in New Hampshire said to me. He said, we should pay people to stay out of jail, because we spend so much when they’re behind bars. Right now, we think we’re saving money, we just end up spending the money in much more dark and punitive ways. We should put money directly into people’s hands, certainly when they come out of prison, but before they go into prison.
LEMON: Mr. Yang, why are you the best candidate to heal the racial divide in America — your response?
YANG: I spent seven years running a non-profit that helped create thousands of jobs, including hundreds right here in Detroit, as well as Baltimore, Cleveland, New Orleans. And I saw that the racial disparities are much, much worse than I had ever imagined.
They’re even worse still. A study just came out that projected the average African-American median net worth will be zero by 2053. So you have to ask yourself, how is that possible? It’s possible because we’re in the midst of the greatest economic transformation in our history. Artificial intelligence is coming. It’s going to displace hundreds of thousands of call center workers, truck drivers — the most common job in 29 states, including this one.
And you know who suffers most in a natural disaster? It’s people of color, people who have lower levels of capital and education and resources. So what are we going to do about it? We should just go back to the writings of Martin Luther King, who in 1967, his book “Chaos or Community”, said “We need a guaranteed minimum income in the United States of America.” That is the most effective way for us to address racial inequality in a genuine way and give every American a chance in the 21st Century economy.
你知道谁在自然灾害中受害最深吗?是有色人种，他们的资本、教育和资源水平较低。那么我们要怎么做呢?我们应该回顾一下马丁·路德·金(Martin Luther King)的著作，他在1967年出版的《混乱还是社区》(Chaos or Community)一书中说，“我们需要美国有保障的最低收入。”这是我们以真正的方式解决种族不平等问题、让每个美国人在21世纪的经济中都有机会（分享经济红利）的最有效方式。
BIDEN: – in research for new alternatives to deal with climate change.
BASH: Mr. Yang, your response?
BIDEN: And that’s bigger than any other person.
YANG: The important number in Vice President Biden’s remarks just now is that he United States was only 15 percent of global emissions. We like to act as if we’re 100 percent, but the truth is even if we were to curb our emissions dramatically, the earth is still going to get warmer.
And we can see it around it us this summer. The last four years have been the four warmest years in recorded history. This is going to be a tough truth, but we are too late. We are 10 years too late. We need to do everything we can to start moving the climate in the right direction, but we also need to start moving our people to higher ground.
And the best way to do that is to put economic resources into your hands so you can protect yourself and your families.
TAPPER: Thank you, Senator Gillibrand. Mr. Yang, in poll after poll democratic voters are saying that having a nominee who can beat President Trump is more important to them than having a nominee who agrees with them on major issues. And right now, according to polls, they say the candidate who has the best chance of doing that, of beating President Trump is Vice President Biden. Why are they wrong?
YANG: Well, I’m building a coalition of disaffected Trump voters, independents, libertarians, and conservatives, as well as democrats and progressives. I believe I’m the candidate best suited to beat Donald Trump and as for how to win in Michigan and Ohio and Pennsylvania, the problem is that so many people feel like the economy has left them behind.
What we have to do is we have to say look, there’s record high GDP in stock market prices, you know what else they’re at record high is? Suicides, drug overdoses, depression, anxiety. It’s gotten so bad that American life expectancy had declined for the last three years.
And I like to talk about my wife who is at home with our two boys right now, one of whom is autistic. What is her work count at in today’s economy. Zero and we know that’s the opposite of the truth. We know that her work is amongst the most challenging and vital.
The way we win this election as we redefine economic progress to include all the things that matter to the people in Michigan and all of us like our own heath, our well being, our mental health, our clean air and clean water, how are kids are doing.
If we change the measurements for the 21st century economy to revolve around our own well being then we will win this election.
TAPPER: Thank you, Mr. Yang. Congresswoman Gabbard, your response?
BASH: Mr. Yang, Mr. Yang, women on average earn 80 cents, about 80 cents for every dollar earned by men. Senator Harris wants to fine companies that don’t close their gender pay gaps. As an entrepreneur, do you think a stiff fine will change how companies pay their female employees?
YANG: I have seen firsthand the inequities in the business world where women are concerned, particularly in start-ups and entrepreneurship. We have to do more at every step. And if you’re a woman entrepreneur, the obstacles start not just at home, but then when you seek a mentor or an investor, often they don’t look like you and they might not think your idea is the right one.
In order to give women a leg up, what we have to do is we have to think about women in every situation, including the ones who are in exploitive and abusive jobs and relationships around the country. I’m talking about the waitress who’s getting harassed by her boss at the diner who might have a business idea, but right now is stuck where she is.
What we have to do is we have to give women the economic freedom to be able to improve their own situations and start businesses, and the best way to do this is by putting a dividend of $1,000 a month into their hands.
It would be a game-changer for women around the country, because we know that women do more of the unrecognized and uncompensated work in our society. It will not change unless we change it. And I say that’s just what we do.
Mr. Yang, Iran has now breached the terms of the 2015 nuclear deal after President Trump withdrew the U.S. from the deal, and that puts Iran closer to building a nuclear weapon, the ability to do so, at the very least. You’ve said if Iran violates the agreement, the U.S. would need to respond, quote, “very strongly.” So how would a President Yang respond right now?
YANG: I would move to de-escalate tensions in Iran, because they’re responding to the fact that we pulled out of this agreement. And it wasn’t just us and Iran. There were many other world powers that were part of that multinational agreement. We’d have to try and reenter that agreement, renegotiate the timelines, because the timelines now don’t make as much sense.
But I’ve signed a pledge to end the forever wars. Right now, our strength abroad reflects our strength at home. What’s happened, really? We’ve fallen apart at home, so we elected Donald Trump, and now we have this erratic and unpredictable relationship with even our longstanding partners and allies.
What we have to do is we have to start investing those resources to solve the problems right here at home. We’ve spent trillions of dollars and lost thousands of American lives in conflicts that have had unclear benefits. We’ve been in a constant state of war for 18 years. This is not what the American people want. I would bring the troops home, I would de-escalate tensions with Iran, and I would start investing our resources in our own communities.
YANG: You know what the talking heads couldn’t stop talking about after the last debate? It’s not the fact that I’m somehow number four on the stage in national polling. It was the fact that I wasn’t wearing a tie. Instead of talking about automation and our future, including the fact that we automated away 4 million manufacturing jobs, hundreds of thousands right here in Michigan, we’re up here with makeup on our faces and our rehearsed attack lines, playing roles in this reality TV show.
It’s one reason why we elected a reality TV star as our president.
We need to be laser-focused on solving the real challenges of today, like the fact that the most common jobs in America may not exist in a decade, or that most Americans cannot pay their bills. My flagship proposal, the freedom dividend, would put $1,000 a month into the hands of every American adult. It would be a game-changer for millions of American families.
If you care more about your family and your kids than my neckwear, enter your zip code at yang2020.com and see what $1,000 a month would mean to your community. I have done the math. It’s not left; it’s not right. It’s forward. And that is how we’re going to beat Donald Trump in 2020.
大家看到的似乎是除了词例外长得一模一样的两张图，但实际上，两个坑有语义差异，两个萝卜也有语义差异，这些语义差异引发的内部的较量已经完成，可以说提前撇下句法进入语义了。相应语义标签，在下一阶段开发完成后也会提供出来。记得当年长者的同学窦祖烈先生的汉英机器翻译系统就栽在我给他出的这个例子上：“这辆车能坐六个人”被翻译成“This car can sit six people”。后来我说，把“坐”换成“载”试试？老先生这个高兴啊……
The term Artificial Intelligence (AI), which traces its roots to the milestone Dartmouth’s historic conference, is quite a bit of an afterthought by the then thought-leaders of the time, with an emphasis on artificiality. It, in essence, defines the true nature of AI as a fake intelligence that simulates human intelligence. But we seem to often forget that.
Those commonly known as “vegetarian chicken” or “vegetarian duck” are soy products, generally classified under the category of “artificial protein”. The gap between “artificial proteins” and “animal proteins” is very comparable to that between “artificial intelligence” and “human intelligence”. Every vegetarian eating “vegetarian chicken” knows clearly that it is fake meat so they feel comfortable enjoying it with its great taste. In contrast, almost all media and the majority of users of AI products today rarely regard the nature of AI as fake intelligence. That is quite a surprise to me.
I don’t know if it’s just tabloid hype or it’s true. But the impression is fairly clear that those popular AI stars more and more often act like god. They seem to love to use super big words and philosophical metaphors which lead the mass to the belief of an equal sign between AI and human I. I don’t think it is so much a sense of mission as a sense of superiority and ego, and they just feel too good about themselves in mastering some magic of AI algorithms. It occurs to me that if you act like God, talk like God, over time you will believe you are God. In times of AI bubbles, people buy that; more importantly, media love that, and investors are willing to pay high.
My entire career has been engaged in “natural language understanding” (NLU), with a focus on “parsing”, which was for a long time widely accepted as the key to language understanding, the crown of artificial intelligence as some experts put it. As practitioners in developing industrial products, we know all these AI terms such as language understanding, machine learning, neural networks, plus AI itself, are just analogy or metaphors. AI models are just simulations, mechanical programs attempting to mimic intelligent tasks. But that is apparently not what has been depicted by media’s efforts for “AI marketing”, nor is it educated by the few AI stars at the spotlight. The public opinions or even decision-makers, shaped or influenced by such media, run more and more towards the opposite. So it might be high time to air a different voice and re-uncover the true nature. Artificial intelligence is fake intelligence by its very nature, filled with “artful deception”, as pointed out by Pierce in the AI history. His criticism has never been out of time. In fact, there is never a time with this much “artful deception” built into products such as intelligent assistants, so artful that we start getting used to it for the convenience.
What is “understanding”? Strictly speaking, the computer has zero intelligence except for its mechanical computation and memorization. Natural language understanding has always been a metaphor by convention, that is why the Turing test was purposely designed to define “artificial intelligence” by bypassing “understanding”. This is by no means to deny the breakthrough in recent years in the functional success stories of AI applications such as speech processing, image recognition, and machine translation.
We all have had personal life experiences when we were amazed at some functions performed by a non-human. As a child, I was amazed for quite some time that the radio could “talk”, how “intelligent” this box called radio was. My mother had been confined to a remote rural area in her childhood, and when she went to a middle school in the nearby town, she had a chance to see an automobile running on the road for the first time. She ran away in awe and years later described to me the shock at the time when a non-human machine was running so fast. That is beyond intelligent to her mind. We all had those first times of “intelligence” shock, the first time we had access to a calculator when I was a middle school kid, the first time we walked through an automatic door, the first time we went to the bathroom which automatically flushed the toilet, not to mention the first time we used GPS. All those fake intelligence behaviors look so true and superior to our modest being when we are first exposed to them. But now such “intelligence-like behavior” is all out, we all accept that it is non-I. By human nature, we tend to over-read the meaning when we do not understand something. We are shocked to see any “automatic” behavior or response from a non-human, regardless of whether the mechanism behind is simple or an algorithm with complexity. Such shock is easy to amplify, and it’s hard not to be fooled by wonders if we don’t understand the mechanisms and principles behind, which happens a lot around the media talks about AI. In recent years, the media and industry are never tired of “man-machine competitions”, in games and knowledge showoffs, in order to demonstrate that now AI beats human. Sometimes in my dreams, I have been haunted by similar images of human weight lifting champions challenging a crane to see who could lift the ton of steel with a single swipe.
In recent years, some celebrity CEOs in industry and legendary figures in the science community have seriously begun to talk about the problem of the emotional machines and the threat from machines equipped with super-human AI. It is often far fetched, citing functional AI success as autonomous intelligence or emotions. I would not be surprised when the topic is taken one step further to start discussing the next world problem as recreating hormones and reproductive systems in machines. Why not? Machines are believed to develop a neural network to become this powerful, it is a natural course to be reproductive and even someday marry humans for the man-machine hybrid kind. Science fiction and reality tend to get mingled all in a mass too easily today.
Nowadays, artificial intelligence is just like a sexy modal attracting all the eyeballs. Talking to an old AI scholar the other day, he pointed out that AI is, in fact, a sad subject. A significant feature of AI is to temporarily hold things whose mechanisms are not yet clear. Once the mechanisms are clear, it often becomes “non-artificial intelligence” and develops into a specialized discipline on its own. The plane is up in the air, the submarine is under the water, deployed everywhere in our land for decades. Do people who design airplanes and submarines call themselves artificial intelligence researchers? No, they are experts of aerodynamics, fluid dynamics, and have little to do with AI. Autonomous driving today is still under the banner of AI, but it has less and less to do with AI as time moves on. Aircraft has long been self-driving for the most part, no one considered that artificial intelligence, right? Artificial intelligence is not a science that can hold a lot of branches on its own. The knowledge that really belongs to artificial intelligence is actually a very small circle, just like the part that really belongs to human intelligence is also a very small circle, both of which are much smaller than what we anticipated before. What is the unchangeable part of AI then? We might as well return to some original formulations by the forefathers of AI, one being a “general problem solver” (Simon 1959).
(Courtesy of youdao-MT for the first draft translation of my recent Chinese blog, without which I would not have the energy and time in its translation and rewriting here.)
现如今人工智能好比一个性感女郎，沾点边的都往上面贴。今天跟一位老人工智能学者谈，他说，其实人工智能本性上就是一个悲催的学科，它是一个中继站，有点像博士后流动站。怎么讲？人工智能的本性就是暂时存放那些机理还没弄清楚的东西，一旦机理清楚了，就“非人工智能化”了（硬赖着不走，拉大旗作虎皮搞宣传的，是另一回事儿），独立出去成为一个专门的学科了。飞机上天了，潜艇下水了，曾几何时，这看上去是多么人工智能啊。现在还有做飞机潜艇的人称自己是搞人工智能的吗？他们属于空气动力学，流体动力学，与AI没有一毛钱的关系。同理，自动驾驶现如今还打着AI的招牌，其实已经与AI没啥关系了。飞机早就自动驾驶了，没人说是人工智能，到了汽车就突然智能起来？说不过去啊。总之，人工智能不是一个能 hold 住很多在它旗下的科学，它会送走一批批 misfits，这是好事儿，这是科学的进步。真正属于人工智能的学问，其实是一个很小的圈圈，就好比真正属于人类智能的部分也是很小的圈圈，二者都比我们直感上认为的范围，要小很多很多。我问，什么才是真正的恒定的AI呢？老友笑道，还是回到前辈们的原始定义吧，其中主要一项叫做“general problem solver”（西蒙 1959）。
所有话术都那么具有可爱的欺骗性，until 最后一句，莫名其妙回应说 this isn’t supported.
（顺便一提，上面终于发现一个语音转写错误，我跟 Google Assistant 说的是，you are both funny and sometimes amusing. 她听成了 and sometimes I’m using. 从纯粹语音相似角度，也算是个 reasonable mistake，从句法角度，就完全不对劲了，both A and B 要求 A 和 B 是同类的词啊。大家知道，语音转写目前是没有什么语言学句法知识的，为了这点改错，加上语言学也不见得合算。关键是，其实也没人知道如何在语音深度神经里面融入语言学知识。这个让深度学习与知识系统耦合的话题且放下，以后有机会再论。）
除了已经死去的语言，语言的地理分布不难确认。可世界语国（Esperantio）在哪里？世界语者（Esperantistoj）会很自豪地告诉你：nenie kaj chie (哪里都没有，可又无所不在). Esperantio estas tie kie estas Esperantistoj. (哪里有世界语者，哪里就成为世界语国。) 这使我想起我的基督徒朋友，他们对精神家园也有类似的表述。圣经说（大意），哪里有基督徒聚会，哪里就是我的国度。
圣马力诺世界语科学院院长、西德控制论专家 Frank 教授是致力于世界语和科技相结合的头面人物。Frank 一家都热衷于世界语活动，在71届世界语大会前，他携夫人和女儿全家来访。来之前，信息管理系主任、老世界语者欧阳文道跟我联系，安排我为 Frank 全家现场表演我编制的世界语软件：一是我的硕士项目，一个世界语到汉语和英语的自动翻译系统（叫 E-Ch/A），二是我编制的一个英语到世界语的术语自动转写系统（叫 TERMINO）。这是他接待 Frank 教授的一个重头戏。我于是认真准备，在机房等待欧阳先生陪 Frank 全家进来。我的印象是，Frank 教授西装革履，风度翩翩，他太太雍容华贵，和蔼可亲，两个金发女儿，也亮丽鲜艳。我用世界语招呼客人后，一边讲解，一边演示。果然，Frank 教授一家对我的两个系统兴趣浓厚，当场试验了几个句子和一批术语，连连称赞。Frank 当即问我，你能尽快把该系统的概述给我的杂志发表么？我说，已经提交世界语科技研讨会了。教授说，没有关系，我们不介意，只要你允许我发表即可。Frank 教授回国后，以最快时间在他的控制论杂志作为首篇刊发了我的系统概述，这成为我学术生涯上在科技刊物正式发表的第一篇论文。我也被吸收为圣马力诺世界语科学院成员。不仅如此，Frank 教授随后在他给陈原和欧阳文道诸先生的探讨中德合作计划的长信中，强调要资助立委硕士到他的实验室继续开发这套系统。可惜，由于种种原因，我未能成行。（见《朝华午拾：一夜成为万元户》）
说到伊朗世界语者，还遇到一位姑娘，身材高挑，皮肤白皙，极为漂亮，可惜世界语只是初级水平，不易沟通。她是由母亲（也很年轻，有人说她们是姐妹）带领来参加盛会的。漂亮姑娘谁不愿意多看一眼，所以在大会组织到长城游览时，我就有意无意跟在她一拨登长城。记得在长城半路，遇到外院一批小伙子下长城，这几个挺帅气的小伙子同时在少女前停下来，惊为天人。他们毫不掩饰地赞叹，天哪，你怎么这么漂亮。（我还是第一次听到中国小伙子当面夸姑娘漂亮，但是他们的率真很可爱）。姑娘微笑不语（大概也不会英语），小伙子于是转向她的妈妈：“Your sister is so beautiful”。妈妈说：“Thanks. But she is my daughter.” 言语里透出无限的自豪骄傲，看样子她当年肯定也是个大美人。后来我想，原来，人的爱美之心都是一样的。记得当时，北京电视台摄影记者大会采访，也随我们登上了长城，跟我们一样兴奋，制作了关于世界语的一个文艺片，还配上了很好听的歌曲。（真的是好制作，可惜只播放了一次，不知道有没有有心人存录下来）。
人都说世界语不是任何人的母语，只是部分无产阶级或者小资产阶级的业余爱好。其实，因为热衷世界语的人往往喜欢国际交往和各处旅游，结果成就了很多婚姻。这样的世界语家庭里面已经出现了一批母语（家庭用语）是世界语的后代。71届世界语大会时候遇到过一批来自欧洲的这样的少年，他们很自豪地告诉我：“Ni estas denaskaj Esperantistoj” (We are Esperantists by birth)。