第1914期:Economists Wonder If Few or Many Will Benefit from AI

Throughout history, technological progress has brought new wealth but has not always improved people’s lives. Economists now say it is not clear whether artificial intelligence (AI) will help or hurt society. Simon Johnson teaches economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology near Boston. He said AI has a lot of possibilities. But he added, “We are at a fork in the road.” A fork in the road is an expression used to describe a situation where the outcome is uncertain.

纵观历史，技术进步带来了新的财富，但并不总是改善人们的生活。经济学家现在表示，尚不清楚人工智能（AI）是否会帮助或损害社会。西蒙·约翰逊在波士顿附近的麻省理工学院教授经济学。他表示，人工智能有很多可能性。但他补充道，“我们正处于岔路口。”岔路口是一个表达方式，用来描述结果不确定的情况。

McKinsey is a business consulting company. It said AI could add between $14 trillion and $22 trillion of value to the world’s economy. Supporters say the technology will create wealth and improve living standards. Some go as far as saying AI will increase people’s free time and help them be more creative. But others are worried the technology will lead to lost jobs. They point to Hollywood writers and actors who are worried that they will be replaced by technology. The internet arrived with a similar promise of more productivity, wealth and jobs. Last month, the French bank Natixis noted in its research that most of the wealth has gone to a few billionaires. And many of the jobs do not require highly paid, skilled workers.

麦肯锡是一家商业咨询公司。报告称，人工智能可为世界经济增加 14 万亿至 22 万亿美元的价值。支持者表示，这项技术将创造财富并提高生活水平。有些人甚至说人工智能将增加人们的空闲时间并帮助他们更具创造力。但其他人担心这项技术会导致失业。他们指出好莱坞作家和演员担心自己会被技术取代。互联网的到来也带来了类似的承诺：提高生产力、财富和就业机会。上个月，法国外贸银行在其研究中指出，大部分财富都流向了少数亿万富翁。而且许多工作并不需要高薪、技术熟练的工人。

The bank warned in its report, “We should be cautious when estimating the effects of artificial intelligence on labor productivity.” In July, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development released its opinion research of 5,300 workers about AI. Some workers hope the technology will increase pay and job satisfaction. But they are also concerned that the technology could push people to work too hard.

该银行在报告中警告称，“在评估人工智能对劳动生产率的影响时，我们应该保持谨慎。” 7月，经济合作与发展组织发布了针对5300名工人对人工智能的意见研究。一些工人希望这项技术能够提高工资和工作满意度。但他们也担心这项技术可能会促使人们工作过度。

Such concerns are not unfounded. History has shown the economic impact of technological progress is generally uncertain, unequal and even harmful. Johnson recently published a book, Power and Progress, with Daron Acemoglu, another economist from MIT. They studied technological progress over the last 1,000 years including clothing production, train travel, and even food shopping. The two economists looked at an invention called the spinning jenny that made it easier to turn cotton and wool into yarn. They said the device helped clothing production and created wealth for many people in the late 1700s. However, it also increased the demand for cotton and led to longer hours for workers. The demand also led to the growth of slavery in the southern United States.

这种担忧并非没有根据。历史表明，技术进步的经济影响通常是不确定的、不平等的，甚至是有害的。约翰逊最近与麻省理工学院的另一位经济学家达伦·阿西莫格鲁 (Daron Acemoglu) 合作出版了一本名为《权力与进步》(Power and Progress) 的书。他们研究了过去 1000 年的技术进步，包括服装生产、火车旅行，甚至食品购物。两位经济学家研究了一项名为珍妮纺纱机的发明，它可以更轻松地将棉花和羊毛变成纱线。他们表示，该设备在 1700 年代末帮助服装生产并为许多人创造了财富。然而，这也增加了对棉花的需求，并导致工人的工作时间延长。这种需求也导致了美国南部奴隶制的增长。

Johnson noted that it is easier to create something new than to make sure it works for everyone. His book shows how the arrival of rail travel improved the lives of many people in England in the 1800s. People were able to travel longer distances and eat fresh food because it could move faster from farms to cities. On the other hand, Johnson said self-checkout technology at food stores does not lower the cost or make life easier for people. All it does is reduce the number of workers and help businesses lower labor costs. As for AI technology, Johnson wonders if it will make existing inequalities worse, or “could it help us get back to something fairer?”

约翰逊指出，创造新事物比确保它适合每个人更容易。他的书展示了 1800 年代铁路旅行的到来如何改善了许多英格兰人的生活。人们能够旅行更远的距离并吃到新鲜食物，因为它可以更快地从农场转移到城市。另一方面，约翰逊表示，食品店的自助结账技术并没有降低成本或让人们的生活更轻松。它所做的只是减少工人数量，帮助企业降低劳动力成本。至于人工智能技术，约翰逊想知道它是否会使现有的不平等现象变得更糟，或者“它能否帮助我们恢复更公平的状态？”