预计阅读本页时间：-
Professor of behavioral science, London School of Economics and Political Science; author, Happiness by Design: Change What You Do, Not How You Think
广告：个人专属 VPN，独立 IP，无限流量，多机房切换，还可以屏蔽广告和恶意软件，每月最低仅 5 美元
At what point do we say a machine can think? When it can calculate things, when it can understand contextual cues and adjust its behavior accordingly, when it can both mimic and evoke emotions? The answer to the overall question depends on what we mean by “thinking.” There are plenty of conscious (system 2) processes that a machine can do better, more accurately, with less bias than we can. But a machine cannot think in an automatic (system 1) way. We don’t fully understand the automatic processes that drive the way we behave and think, so we cannot program a machine to behave as humans do.
The key question, then, is, If a machine can think in a system 2 way at the speed of a human’s system 1, then in some ways isn’t their “thinking” superior to ours? Well, context surely matters: for some things, yes; for others, no. Machines won’t be myopic. They could clean things up for us environmentally; they wouldn’t be stereotypical or judgmental and could really get at addressing misery; they could help us overcome affective forecasting; and so on. But on the other hand, we might still not like a computer. What if a poet and a machine could produce the exact same poem? The effect on another human being is almost certainly less if the poem is computer-generated and the reader knows this; knowledge of the author colors the lens through which the poem is read and interpreted.
