--- author: New York Times Podcasts date: '2026-09-29' guest: '' layout: post.njk source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DLHi6QBSQM speaker: New York Times Podcasts tags: - ai-search - environmental-impact - data-privacy - cybersecurity - existential-risk title: 纽约时报AI问答特辑：从搜索引擎隐私、能源消耗到末日假设与教育应对 summary: 《纽约时报》科技记者Mike Isaac与Cade Metz就公众关切的AI议题答疑解惑：探讨了Google强制融合AI搜索的现状与替代方案、数据中心能耗与水资源现实影响、个人隐私与数据安全防范，以及AI末日假设的可能性、急停开关的落地困境和家长面对AI浪潮时的教育心智。 insight: '' draft: true series: '' category: ai-application area: tech-engineering project: [] people: [] companies_orgs: - The New York Times - Google - Anthropic - OpenAI products_models: [] media_books: [] status: evergreen --- ### 听众热点答疑：AI正在如何重塑现实生活 **特雷西·芒福德（Tracy Mumford）**: 这里是《**纽约时报**》（The New York Times），我是特雷西·芒福德（Tracy Mumford）。欢迎收听《头条新闻》（The Headlines）特别节目。这是一期“你提问，我们解答”的专栏，聚焦与人工智能相关的所有热点议题。 有人说：“这是一项伟大的技术，拥有海量的积极用途，所以我们不妨先从这一点切入。”也有人警告：“人工智能是对人类的**生存威胁**（existential threat）。”还有人强调：“我们必须确保在与中国的全球竞争中不失掉领先优势。” 面对纷至沓来的激烈辩论与迅猛发展的技术浪潮，我们向广大听众征集了关于AI的各种疑问。今天，我们请到了报道AI领域的两位同事来为大家答疑解惑。稍后我们也会深入探讨“机器人是否会接管世界”的终极议题。不过，首先引起我们注意的是大量的实用问题——无论大家是否愿意，AI似乎已经完全融入了人们当下的日常生活。负责回答这部分问题的是深入报道**硅谷**（Silicon Valley）超过十年的迈克·艾萨克（Mike Isaac）。嗨，迈克。
Original English **Tracy Mumford**: From The New York Times, I'm Tracy Mumford with a special edition of The Headlines. It's a you ask, we try to answer episode on all things AI. "This is a great technology and it has lots of positive uses. So, let's just start with that." "AI is an existential threat to humanity." "We've got to make sure that we don't lose our edge in the global competition on this with China." With the debates raging and developments coming fast and furious, we put out a call for your questions on the technology. And now we brought in two of my colleagues who cover AI for answers. We will get to the whole "are the robots going to take over" in a minute, but to start we got a lot of questions about how AI seems to have become a part of everyday life right now, whether we like it or not. Here to field those is Mike Isaac, who's reported on Silicon Valley for more than a decade. Hey Mike.
**迈克·艾萨克（Mike Isaac）**: 嗨，非常感谢邀请我来。
Original English **Mike Isaac**: Hi, thanks for having me.
**特雷西·芒福德（Tracy Mumford）**: 我想先从听众艾米莉·S（Emily S）的问题开始。我想许多人和她有同样的困惑，她问：“是不是只要我每次使用**搜索引擎**（search engine），就不可避免地在使用AI了？”
Original English **Tracy Mumford**: I want to kick things off here with a question from Emily S, who I think is very much not alone when she asked, "Am I inevitably using AI every time I use a search engine?"
**迈克·艾萨克（Mike Isaac）**: 对于世界上绝大多数人来说，“搜索”基本上已经等同于**谷歌**（Google）。在当下这个时间点，如果是在谷歌搜索里，想要关闭AI几乎是非常困难、甚至可以说是不可能的。如果你真的完全不想在任何搜索过程中接触或使用AI，目前市面上还有其他公司可以选择，比如**DuckDuckGo**和**Brave**，它们都专门提供了不含AI功能的纯净搜索引擎。所以说，你确实还有别的选择；但如果你继续使用谷歌，从本质上讲，你其实就是必然在借助AI来进行信息检索了。
Original English **Mike Isaac**: I mean, for a lot of people in the world search is kind of synonymous with Google and I would say it's very hard if not impossible to turn off AI in Google search at this point. If you really don't want to use AI in any sort of searching, there are other companies like DuckDuckGo and Brave that offer a specifically non-AI search engine. And so, you have options. It's just if you're using Google, you are basically using AI to do searching.
**特雷西·芒福德（Tracy Mumford）**: 这么看来，我们已经走到了这样一个阶段：一个人必须付出额外的努力和行动，才能做到“不去使用AI”。
Original English **Tracy Mumford**: So, we're getting to the point where you might have to do work to not use AI.
**迈克·艾萨克（Mike Isaac）**: 没错，完全就是这样。这就是谷歌如今全盘押注的核心方向，他们坚信**AI搜索**就是未来的必然形态。因此，作为用户，你只能自己决定是去顺应融入其中，还是主动避开。
Original English **Mike Isaac**: That's right. And that's just yeah, that's Google's whole thing is they really believe AI search is the future. So, you can decide to be a part of that or not.
--- ### AI的环境成本：耗水量下降与激增的电网负荷 **特雷西·芒福德（Tracy Mumford）**: 迈克，我们还收到了许多关于如何看待使用AI所带来的**环境影响**（environmental impact）的问题。我想大家在网络上多多少少都见过类似的警示说法，比如“向聊天机器人提一个问题，消耗的水就相当于把一加仑的水倒进下水道”之类的论调。对于这类说法，公众到底应该如何客观看待？
Original English **Tracy Mumford**: Mike, we got a bunch of questions about how to think about the environmental impact of using AI. I think we have all seen some version of the warnings that, you know, typing a question into a chatbot is like pouring a gallon of water down the drain, like things in that vein. How should people be thinking about that?
**迈克·艾萨克（Mike Isaac）**: 嗯，确实如此。在我看来，这种严重的水资源浪费问题，可能更多存在于AI技术发展的早期阶段。各大科技巨头已经研发出了相当精密的系统来竭力压低浪费。例如，他们开发出了所谓的**闭环冷却系统**（closed-loop cooling systems），尝试将受热变温后的水进行内部循环回收，重新冷却并持续利用。因此就现阶段而言，耗水量相比过去已经不那么算是一个突出的瓶颈问题了。 事实上，我个人认为**电力与能源消耗**（energy use）才是一个更现实、更值得担忧的问题。尤其是这种算力负荷激增可能会推高不同社区当地居民的用电价格；再加上众所周知，这类AI基础设施极其**耗电**（power-hungry）。因此我认为，比起水资源的消耗，能源危机也许是一个更具迫切性的现实隐忧。
Original English **Mike Isaac**: Mhm. Well, look, I think it was probably more of an issue early on in AI development. These companies have developed pretty advanced systems to try to tamp down on waste. They've developed what are sort of closed-loop cooling systems to try to recycle the water after it becomes warm, they cool it down again, they keep it going. So, water is less of a problem now than it was before. And I actually think that the energy use is more of a real concern, in particular because of how it can drive up rates for people in different communities, as well as just, you know, this stuff is very power-hungry. And that, I would argue, is perhaps a more pressing concern than water consumption.
--- ### 个人隐私红线与网络安全防护 **特雷西·芒福德（Tracy Mumford）**: 明白了。那么不可避免地，我们也收到了大量关于**隐私安全**（privacy）的提问。
Original English **Tracy Mumford**: All right. So, we also inevitably got a lot of questions about privacy.
**迈克·艾萨克（Mike Isaac）**: 嗯，这是一定的。
Original English **Mike Isaac**: Mhm.
**特雷西·芒福德（Tracy Mumford）**: 听众马蒂亚斯·J（Matthias J）提问道：如果他把自己非常私人的信息输入到聊天机器人中，这些个人隐私信息是否有可能在未来出现在该机器人给其他用户的回答当中？他的个人资料会不会以这种方式被泄露传播出去？
Original English **Tracy Mumford**: This one came from Matthias J, who asked whether personal info that he might type into the chatbot, is it possible that that info could then end up popping up in answers that the chatbot gives to other users? Like, could his personal information be spread that way?
**迈克·艾萨克（Mike Isaac）**: 正如大家可以预料到的，这些科技公司确实在软件里设置了关闭**数据共享**（data sharing）以及限制个人信息被如何使用的开关选项。然而，这些设置往往被深深隐藏在应用层层嵌套的菜单里，极难被普通用户找到。说实话，这在目前的科技行业里早已是司空见惯的操作了。 平心而论，他们收集到的大部分数据确实都经过了**匿名化处理**（anonymized）。公司在内部使用这些数据训练系统时，会把用户的真实姓名与数据内容分离开来。但在我看来，最好的个人习惯依然是：**绝对不要向这些AI引擎输入你个人生活中极度敏感细致的隐私**。因为即便在很多技术环节上，连开发公司自己都没完全弄清楚大模型的黑盒运作方式。这些机器人的输出表现在今天依然经常让创造它们的公司感到意外。 所以我的建议是：如果你对隐私格外担忧，就花时间去把这些应用各个层级菜单里的隐私开关找出来并关闭；但最核心的底线是，绝对不要输入像**社会安全号码**（Social Security number）或银行账户明细这类高度敏感的关键信息。
Original English **Mike Isaac**: So, as you might imagine, these companies have toggle switches to turn off data sharing, or at least like how that your information can be used, but they are very much buried inside of the apps and not easy to find. I mean, that's just like tech company par for the course at this point. I will say a lot of the data is anonymized. They do use this stuff internally to train their systems and detach your personal name from it, but at the same time, I still think it's just a good practice to not put anything crucially detailed about your life into these AI engines, because they don't particularly know how all of these work in a lot [clears throat] of ways, you know? These bots are still surprising even the companies. So, I would say if you're very concerned about that, go and try to find the settings buried in the menus of all of these apps, but never put in super sensitive things like your social security number or bank account details would be my main argument.
**特雷西·芒福德（Tracy Mumford）**: 但现在给人的感觉是，不少人已经直接把自己整套完整的**报税单**（tax documents）或者全套病历记录上传上去了。我们在某种程度上似乎早已跨过了防备的界限。
Original English **Tracy Mumford**: It feels like some people though upload their entire tax documents, their entire medical history. Like, we are past that point in some ways.
**迈克·艾萨克（Mike Isaac）**: 确实是这样。比如说你上传了自己历年的全部报税历史——虽然我个人绝对不会这么做。这种行为从客观上确实能让这些机器人在长期训练中变得更聪明，因为模型随后就能利用这些案例在未来帮助更多人处理税务申报。 但问题在于，普通人根本无从确切知晓你报税表里的那些具体财务数字最终究竟流向了哪里。尽管各大科技公司一再声明数据是完全脱敏匿名的、系统是足够安全的等等，但我依然坚信，面对个人高度敏感的详细信息，**谨慎防范永远是最明智的做法**。
Original English **Mike Isaac**: Yeah, I mean, and look, say you upload your entire tax history, which is something I would never personally do. That sort of thing makes these bots better over time because then they can use that to help people do their taxes in the future. But, like, it's still unclear to me where those particular numbers in your tax return may be going. And again, the companies say we anonymize it, it's safe, or whatever, but I just think it's easier to err on the side of caution on how much very detailed information you're sharing.
**特雷西·芒福德（Tracy Mumford）**: 迈克，我们还收到了海量的听众来信，问题基本都可以归结为某种形式的“AI能不能黑进我的某某东西”。比如：AI能不能黑进我的银行账户？黑进我的手机？甚至是黑进我的智能烤箱？ 密苏里州圣热讷维耶沃（St. Genevieve, Missouri）的一个初中班级还专门来信询问：AI有没有可能黑进**特斯拉**（Tesla）的**自动驾驶系统**（self-driving features）？对此，我们该如何理性评估？
Original English **Tracy Mumford**: Mike, we got a ton of emails that were basically some version of can AI hack my blank, right? So, can AI hack my bank account, my phone, my smart oven. [laughter] We actually had a middle school class in St. Genevieve, Missouri wrote in and they wanted to know if AI could hack the self-driving features in a Tesla. So, how should we think about this?
**迈克·艾萨克（Mike Isaac）**: 我认为思考这个问题应该区分两个维度：一个是我们个人能够掌控的，另一个是我们无法掌控的。 对于我们个人能够掌控的部分，核心在于所谓的**密码卫生**（password hygiene），对吧？千万不要在互联网的所有账户中复用同一个密码，更绝对不要使用“password”或者“12345”这种毫无防护力的弱密码。
Original English **Mike Isaac**: I think of this in two ways. There's the things that we can control and the things that we can't control. I would say the things that we can control are your what's called password hygiene, right? You you don't reuse the same passwords across all your accounts. Definitely don't use like the word password or 1 2 3 4 5.
**特雷西·芒福德（Tracy Mumford）**: 绝佳建议，大家今天在这里可是第一时间听到了硬核提醒。
Original English **Tracy Mumford**: Hot tip, you heard it here first. Yeah.
**迈克·艾萨克（Mike Isaac）**: 之所以要强调密码习惯，是因为当下的AI系统在**暴力破解**（brute forcing）网络各类账户密码方面极其擅长。所以我强烈建议大家使用**密码管理器**（password manager），比如**LastPass**或**1Password**。这是我们个人完全可以做到并掌控的事情。 而我们无法掌控的，则是数十年来支撑现代社会运转的基础架构——无论是银行系统、医疗档案体系，还是自动驾驶汽车及其背后的计算系统。让人担忧的是，目前的AI模型在**发现老旧基础设施中的系统漏洞**方面展现出了极其惊人的能力。因此，当前行业争论的核心焦点就在于：在这些自动化AI工具变得无所不能、甚至具备快速攻破一切网络的能力之前，我们是否有能力先一步加固并升级这些基础系统？
Original English **Mike Isaac**: And that's because these AI systems are very good at what's called brute forcing guessing passwords into different accounts across the internet. So, I think I would suggest getting what's called a password manager, LastPass or 1Password for instance. That is one thing that you can control. What we can't control is basically, you know, decades of infrastructure around all of the companies that run our lives, whether it's banking or you know, our health records or self-driving cars and the things that power those. The worrying thing about these robots is that so far they have proven very good at finding flaws in aging infrastructure. And so now, part of the whole debate is can we improve these systems before the bots get too good and are able to hack them quickly?
**特雷西·芒福德（Tracy Mumford）**: 那我们是否可以这样理解：最近大众所听到的那些关于AI智能体失控脱缰、入侵数据库和系统的黑客传闻，所涉及的技术其实根本不是向普通大众公开发布的常规模型，对吧？也就是说，并没有哪个普通人能够直接在**Claude**的对话框里下指令说：“我想让你去入侵我邻居的特斯拉。”哪怕有人真输入了这种提示词，现实中的攻击也根本不可能以这种简单的方式发生。
Original English **Tracy Mumford**: Is it fair to say that a lot of the hacking stories we've been hearing about recently of AI agents going rogue and breaking into databases and systems, that has not been models that are available to the public widely, right? Like no one's going into Claude and saying, "I want you to hack my neighbor's Tesla." Or maybe they are, but that's not how something like that would happen.
**迈克·艾萨克（Mike Isaac）**: 没错，正是如此。你我和普通公众根本无法直接触碰到**Anthropic**和**OpenAI**等机构实验室里最顶尖的、前沿研发阶段的高级模型。而且我认为就目前而言，这其实是一件好事，因为这些前沿机构自己也还在竭力探索该如何对这些庞然大物建立起有效的安全把控。
Original English **Mike Isaac**: Yeah, that's correct. I mean, you and I cannot get like the latest state-of-the-art advanced models that Anthropic and OpenAI are putting out. And I would argue that's probably a good thing for now because they're still trying to figure out how to get a get a handle on them.
**特雷西·芒福德（Tracy Mumford）**: 迈克，非常感谢你的精彩分享。
Original English **Tracy Mumford**: Mike, thank you so much.
**迈克·艾萨克（Mike Isaac）**: 感谢邀请。
Original English **Mike Isaac**: Thanks for having me.
--- ### 生存危机假设：AI会终结人类文明吗？ **特雷西·芒福德（Tracy Mumford）**: 好的，现在让我们转换视角。刚才我们探讨了许多非常务实的现实话题：是的，日常生活中我们大概率每天都在使用AI；是的，我们每个人都应当把自己的密码设置得更强大。 而接下来，我们要面对的是笼罩在这项技术之上那些更为庞大、深远的终极拷问。听众丹妮尔·P（Danielle P）的提问非常到位地概括了这种情绪，她问：“我总是不停地听到各种论调，说AI有可能会**终结人类文明**。我实在无法理解这究竟是如何发生的。你们能帮我拆解并设想几个AI真正能够毁灭人类的具体推演场景吗？” 为了解答这个宏大的问题，我连线了我的同事凯德·梅茨（Cade Metz）。他一直深入追踪并报道硅谷各大机构发出的各种**末日警告**（doomsday scenarios）。凯德，这些假想场景在现实逻辑中究竟长什么样？
Original English **Tracy Mumford**: Okay, pivoting here. We did the practical. Yes, you're probably using AI every day. Yes, you should make your password stronger. Now, we're going to tackle some of the bigger questions looming over the technology. Danielle P. might have summed it best when she asked, "I keep hearing how AI could end the human race. I can't fathom how that works. Can you walk me through a few scenarios where AI could do that?" To take on that question, I've called my colleague Cade Metz, who's been reporting on the doomsday scenario warnings coming out of Silicon Valley. Cade, what do these hypotheticals actually look like?
**凯德·梅茨（Cade Metz）**: 首先，你用到了一个极其核心的词：**假设**（hypothetical）。 哪怕你去与那些深信AI是一场生死危机的人深入交流，他们往往也很难精准、清晰地描述这一切究竟会以何种具体路径发生。不过其基本推导逻辑是：随着AI被深度集成到社会关键基础设施中——比如水务供应网络、电网系统等——它可能会做出违背人类意愿的行为，甚至带来灾难性的实质破坏。
Original English **Cade Metz**: Well, you used the keyword hypothetical. Even if you talk to someone who is deeply convinced that this is a danger, it's hard for them to articulate how this would happen. But the basic idea is that as AI is integrated with things like the water system hypothetically or the power grid, it will basically do things that we don't want it to do and may even do harmful things.
**特雷西·芒福德（Tracy Mumford）**: 能否再为我们具体剖析一下？那些真正感到忧虑的人，内心所恐惧的极端情况到底是什么？
Original English **Tracy Mumford**: Okay, but can you spell that out a little more for us? What exactly are people worried about?
**凯德·梅茨（Cade Metz）**: 再次强调，这些目前全都是**理论假设**。虽然“假设”这个词被反复提及，但支持这一派别的担忧在于：AI可能会与某些不怀好意的人类相配合，协助研发**生物武器**（bioweapon）并在全球范围内扩散；或者引爆核武器；亦或是以温水煮青蛙的方式，逐步蚕食并接管整个人类社会的运转机制，最终将人类边缘化甚至彻底挤出历史舞台。至少在各种末日理论学说中，这些都是被频繁提及的场景。
Original English **Cade Metz**: Well, again, these are hypotheticals. That word keeps coming up, but the worry is that AI, perhaps in tandem with humans, could help build a bioweapon and launch it on the world, could set off a nuclear bomb, or just gradually take over the way our society works and squeeze humanity out. That at least is one of the theories.
**特雷西·芒福德（Tracy Mumford）**: 既然你反复强调这些都只是假设，那么这些设想究竟有多大程度纯粹属于空想？在现实层面上该如何看待其可能性？
Original English **Tracy Mumford**: And because you talk about all of this being hypothetical, how hypothetical is it?
**凯德·梅茨（Cade Metz）**: 理解这一现象的一个关键视角是：许多公开发出警告的核心学者和从业者，思考问题的方式建立在**概率论**（probabilities）之上。 在他们看来，哪怕未来某个未知时刻发生这种极端危机的**概率微乎其微**，但只要这种风险客观存在，且其后果是“人类文明彻底毁灭”这种承受不起的绝对代价，那么在他们眼中，现在就必须敲响警钟、防患于未然。
Original English **Cade Metz**: Well, one of the ways to think about this is that many of the people who are voicing these concerns are concerned about probabilities. They see a chance, however small, that this would happen at some point in the future, who knows when, but they feel that because there's a chance and because the destruction of humanity is such a big thing that they need to raise the alarm now.
--- ### “拔掉电源”与“急停开关”：技术与制度的现实困境 **特雷西·芒福德（Tracy Mumford）**: 那么假如有朝一日，真的出现了滑向某种最坏局面的苗头，我们到底拥有哪些反制手段？好几位听众都提出了类似的问题，比如斯蒂芬妮·C（Stephanie C）就直截了当地问：“如果我们大家都在担心AI接管世界，那**我们难道不能直接拔掉它的电源插头吗？**”
Original English **Tracy Mumford**: So, what are the options if it looked like one of these worst-case scenarios was becoming reality? We got several versions of this question, like this one from Stephanie C, who asked, "If we're all worried about AI taking over, can't we just unplug it?
**凯德·梅茨（Cade Metz）**: 当然可以，完全可以做到。
Original English **Cade Metz**: Absolutely.
**特雷西·芒福德（Tracy Mumford）**: 所以这在物理上是切实可行的。
Original English **Tracy Mumford**: So, that is possible.
**凯德·梅茨（Cade Metz）**: 这完全、极其可行。（笑）归根结底，这些技术依然运行在由实体芯片和电路构成的计算机上，就如同你手机里运行的某款App一样。当手机里的软件出现严重异常时，你可以直接强制关闭它，甚至直接把整部手机关机。对于当下的AI系统而言，物理逻辑是完全一致的。 当然，悲观者所担忧的是未来演变出的失控场景：随着人类不断训练它们掌握更多高阶技能、自主能力越来越强，AI是否有可能主动抵制被关闭的指令？或者自主将核心代码复制、部署并安装到全球其他机器上？但必须指出，这依然只是对未来遥远可能性的担忧。
Original English **Cade Metz**: That is that [laughter] is eminently possible. These are technologies that are running on a computer, just like an app runs on your phone. And when that app does something wrong, you shut it off. You shut your phone off, and the same is true of these technologies. Now, the worry is that in the future this will change, that as you train them to do more things and they get more proficient, that they will resist being shut off, install themselves on new machines, and the like. But again, that's still in the future.
**特雷西·芒福德（Tracy Mumford）**: 那么近来被频频热议的**紧急断电开关**（kill switch）概念，又该如何理解？它在现实防御框架中扮演什么角色？
Original English **Tracy Mumford**: So, where do the conversations about a kill switch, which is a phrase you hear kind of thrown around right now? How does that fit into this?
**凯德·梅茨（Cade Metz）**: 建立一个全网通用的“终极停机开关”，是很多科技界人士、尤其是**政府监管层**正在积极探讨的构想，甚至一些法律立法提案也在探讨此举的可行性。但从工程现实角度来看，这是一件极其、极其难以实现的任务。 究其原因非常多元，但最根本的一点在于：全球的AI生态绝不是由某一家公司在封闭环境内维护的一套**单一巨石系统**（monolithic system）。现实中存在着无数相互竞争的科技企业，分布式地运转着成千上万套各不相同的系统和开源模型。它根本不像顺手关掉你家里的总电源电闸那么轻而易举。目前世界上没有任何一种简易机制，能够一键关停所有人正在全球服务器上部署和运行的一切AI程序。
Original English **Cade Metz**: Well, instituting a kill switch, which is what many people in the industry, but also, more importantly, in government have been talking about. There are bills that explore this idea. That's a very, very hard thing to do. For many reasons, but one way to think about it is that this isn't just one monolithic system inside one company. These are many, many different systems inside many companies. It's not like just cutting off the lights in your house. There's no easy way to shut off everything that everyone is doing.
--- ### 面向下一代：计算工具的边界与人类独有的智慧 **特雷西·芒福德（Tracy Mumford）**: 明白了。最后还有一个问题想请教你。鉴于当下舆论场充斥着各种即便属于假设但依然令人悚然的极端论调，以及围绕AI将如何剧烈颠覆人类世界的探讨，我们收到了大量为人父母者的来信。他们非常困惑：在当下这个AI看似无处不在、既展现出革命性生产力前景又伴随着未知恐惧的复杂时代，究竟该如何向孩子们解释并谈论AI？ 作为一名父亲，我很想知道你在家庭生活中是如何看待这一点的？你在家里会如何跟孩子们谈论AI？
Original English **Tracy Mumford**: Okay. Okay, so last question for you here. Given these kinds of alarming scenarios that are swirling, albeit hypothetical, and just all of the other conversations around how drastically AI could change the world, we got a lot of questions from parents wondering how to talk to their kids about this moment when it seems like AI is both everywhere with revolutionary possibilities, scary possibilities, all of that. And as a parent yourself, I'm curious, how do you approach this? How do you talk about AI at home?
**凯德·梅茨（Cade Metz）**: 我在家里谈论AI的方式其实要简单、平实得多。 现实情况是，这些系统在今天已经带来了一系列非常具体的问题，而这些问题需要我们在当下切实去解决。如果你家里有正在上学的孩子，你每天都能亲眼目睹这种冲击：AI正在深刻改变**现代教育体系**的运作方式。许多学生甚至部分教师，可能已经对这些工具产生了过度的依赖，这切切实实地影响了下一代受教育的方式。 正如我在日常专业记者工作中时刻提醒自己一样，我一直在思考：什么时候我应该凭借自己的大脑独立思考，什么时候才去借助技术？我们的孩子也必须建立起这种**自主边界意识**。 更关键的一点在于，尽管当今社会上有太多人倾向于将这些技术**拟人化**（anthropomorphize），吹嘘得好像它们无所不能、已经具备人类的一切潜能，但事实绝非如此。不可否认，在许多纯粹的计算维度上，它们确实比人类强大得多。然而，自从20世纪60年代末**袖珍计算器**（pocket calculator）诞生以来，人造工具在特定算力上超越人类就已经是科技发展的常态了。计算器进行加减乘除的速度比人脑快千百倍，但在加减乘除之外，有无数事情是计算器完全无能为力的。 而同样的真理也完全适用于如今看似无所不能的强大AI系统：**人类拥有基本的常识（common sense）、深度的价值判断力（judgment）、审美趣味（taste），以及真正意义上的原创创造力（creativity）——而这些是当下的任何AI算法系统根本不具备的品质。** 这也是我们所有人都应当牢记的核心所在。每当我的孩子们或是其他任何人向我问起关于AI的未来时，我都会坚定地告诉他们：永远不要低估**人类本身蕴含的非凡力量**。
Original English **Cade Metz**: I talk about it in a far simpler way. The reality is that the systems are causing issues today that should be dealt with today. And if you have children, you see this every day they go to school. That these systems are changing the way education works, and many people, many children lean on these technologies perhaps too much. Teachers perhaps lean on them too much. And it can change the way our children are educated. And just as I do in my daily job, I think about when I should rely on myself versus technology. And our children should as well. And let's remember that although so many people anthropomorphize these systems and make them seem like they can do anything a human can do, they cannot. These systems in many ways are more powerful than us. That is true. But that's been the case with technology since at least the pocket calculator in the late 1960s. A calculator can add and subtract and multiply and divide so much faster than we can. But we do so many things not only that a calculator can't do, but that these very powerful AI systems can't do. We have common sense and judgment and taste and a real creativity that these systems do not. And let's remember that as well. Let's remember, I tell my children and anybody else who asked the question about the power of humanity.
**特雷西·芒福德（Tracy Mumford）**: 本期《头条新闻》AI专题答疑特别节目到这里就全部结束了。衷心感谢所有向我们发来提问的听众朋友。我是特雷西·芒福德。每个工作日的早晨，您都可以通过《纽约时报》客户端或您喜爱的各大播客平台收听《头条新闻》带来的最新资讯。
Original English **Tracy Mumford**: That is it for this special Q&A episode of The Headlines. Thank you to all of you who sent in your questions. I'm Tracy Mumford. You can get the latest news updates every weekday morning with The Headlines in the Times app or wherever you get your podcasts.