内容来源：https://www.theverge.com/ai-artificial-intelligence/942629/as-ai-gets-better-it-reveals-an-empty-promise

内容总结：

谷歌AI助手“Spark”实测：高效得令人恐惧，却治不了社会的病

本周，我的同事大卫·皮尔斯和杰伊·彼得斯先后对谷歌新一代AI智能体“Spark”进行了深度体验。两人得出的结论惊人一致：它太强了，强到让人脊背发凉。Spark能准确说出大卫养的狗叫“弗里达”，也知道杰伊妻子的名字，而这两位同事从未主动向谷歌提供过这些信息。然而，比这种“全知”更让我担心的，是这一切似乎都指向一个所谓的“高效未来”，却完全无视了当下世界真正需要修补的裂痕。

AI越强大，越显露出空洞的承诺

你的新助手能帮你安排会议，却治不好这个千疮百孔的世界。如今，“生产力”常被包装成治愈个人生活困境的万能药，甚至在你效率不高时，还会被贴上道德有亏的标签。这种对“忙碌”的崇拜，其实是“奋斗文化”与“闲散是万恶之源”这类谚语的混合体。我并不主张大家都躺平，但我们至少该看清，我们被推销的东西到底是什么。

电脑上的当代工作任务，往往给人既重要又紧急的错觉，哪怕事实并非如此。我们正活在“忙碌陷阱”和“软件大脑”的邪恶联盟里。这恰恰让AI辅助显得无比珍贵！但本质原因是，那些科技巨头正在试图解决它们自己制造的问题。谷歌、微软、苹果等公司花了数十年，模糊了办公室与个人生活的边界。法国政府曾不得不立法赋予员工“下班离线权”，而我的美国思维至今仍觉得那“矫枉过正”。

读到同事用Spark轻松一键给日历标色、执行各种花哨指令时，我总想起小时候，妈妈为了省钱买食品杂货，不得不花大量时间剪优惠券。有时客厅堆得像个拼贴艺术实验室。那些时间，本属于她、属于我们全家，却被无情偷走——为了什么？或许90年代有个AI助手，能帮她找到更优惠的折扣，但它永远无法修补那个逼得她必须靠剪券才能生活的经济体系。

生产力的终点在哪里？

那些富可敌国的人正在描绘一个“后工作时代”的愿景：机器人包办一切，我们只管享受人生。但看看埃隆·马斯克那个屡屡失败的机器人，你就会明白，这更像是约翰·亚当斯写给妻子信中的理想：我必须研究政治与战争，这样我的儿子们才能有自由去研究数学与哲学，如此代代相传，直到孙辈才能享受绘画与诗歌。所以，在苦苦挣扎“超越”之后，AI大概会让我们都变成“剧场小孩”。

与此同时，马克·扎克伯格正把他387英尺长的游艇停靠在一个不久前刚大规模裁员的城市，而那些被裁的员工，正是他为AI投资付出代价的牺牲品。至少AI“解放”了这些被解雇工人的时间？我只能祝他们在好莱坞好运，尤其当他们发现，制片方正试图用AI生成的演员来取代他们这些“刚出师的剧场小孩”时。

“生产力进步”背后，潜藏着一丝阴险。过去一百年，生产力飙升的同时，工资却未能跟上。没人因此工作得更少，只是挣得更少。当AI相关公司收割万亿美元市值时，美国当局却在掏空社保体系——而正是这种社保，才是我们所有人未来可能失业、沦为“剧场小孩”时的最后保障。你不能把这些割裂来看：如果私有企业优化劳动力后的结果是没人需要工作，那社会就必须保证每个人仍有房住、有饭吃。但看看那些一边削减食品券、一边用纳税人的钱建舞厅的政客，谁敢拍胸脯保证？

如果连享受闲暇的时间都负担不起，一个能帮你规划快乐一天的AI助理，又有什么用？

历史上对新技术的抵制从未停止，“卢德分子”一词流行两百年仍不过时。眼下对AI的反对声，有理有据、真诚而深刻。诚然，那些花哨的功能确实有趣，在个人生活中也许很实用。但我实在想不出，每月花99美元让AI帮你发邮件、排日程、做表格，算什么有前途的未来？更别提这笔“投资”背后的代价，是对自然美景的挥霍和将我们置于企业全知监控下的恐惧。

中文翻译：

本周，我与同事戴维·皮尔斯和杰伊·彼得斯一同上手体验了谷歌的新型AI助手——Spark。他们得出的结论如出一辙：强大到令人恐惧。Spark知道戴维的狗叫弗里达，也知道杰伊妻子的名字，尽管两人都未曾向谷歌明确透露过这些信息。但真正让我不寒而栗的，是这一切似乎都在指向一个完全无视现实世界亟待修复问题的"效率至上"未来。

随着AI越发强大，它暴露出的却是一个空洞的承诺：你的新助手能安排会议，却无法修复这个支离破碎的世界。你的新助手能安排会议，却无法修复这个支离破碎的世界。

"效率"常被包装成治愈个人生活困境的灵丹妙药，甚至当人们效率低下时，还要被扣上道德有亏的帽子。效率游走于奋斗文化与谚语之间——毕竟"闲散之手是魔鬼的工坊"。我并非主张人人都该浑噩度日，但我们应当看清自己正在被兜售的东西究竟是什么本质。

当代计算机任务往往让人感觉既重要又紧迫，即便事实并非如此。我们正生活在"忙碌陷阱"与"软件大脑"的不祥联姻之下。这使得AI辅助显得价值连城！但这恰恰是因为掌控这一切的公司正在试图解决他们自己制造的诸多问题。谷歌、微软、苹果等公司花费数十年时间模糊了职场生活与个人生活的界限。这种向无处不在效率的缓慢进军，曾促使法国政府宣布劳动者离开办公室后享有"离线权"。（惭愧的是，我的美国式思维仍觉得那未免矫枉过正。）

当我读到Gemini Spark能让同事轻松按指令标记日历、执行其他便捷操作时，我不禁清晰回忆起童年时母亲为了买得起杂货，不得不花大量时间精心剪下优惠券的场景。有时客厅简直成了拼贴艺术的巨型实验场。那些本应属于她和我们家庭的时光被无情窃取——换来了什么？或许90年代有个AI助手能帮我们找到并整理最优惠的折扣，但它永远无法修复那个迫使我们如此精打细算的经济体系。

效率的征程终点究竟在何方？现在富可敌国的人们描绘了一个后工作时代的愿景：机器人包办一切，让我们无需在矿井中苦干就能享受生活。（嗯，内容生产的矿井除外。）如果你见过马斯克的失败机器人，就会明白这与其说是《太空堡垒卡拉狄加》，不如说是亚当斯致阿比盖尔信中的预言："我须研习政治与战争，以让我的儿子得以研习数学与哲学"——如此代代相传，直到孙辈能够享受绘画与诗歌。所以理想状态下，在熬过技术超越前的艰苦岁月后，AI将把我们全体变成戏剧爱好者。

与此同时，扎克伯格正将他那艘387英尺长的游艇停泊在刚刚大规模裁员以对冲AI投资的城市。至少AI为这些被解雇的员工节省出了时间？我祝他们在好莱坞好运，尤其是当他们正试图用AI生成的演员来取代那些新晋戏剧爱好者时。

在这些效率进步的表象下潜伏着险恶的基调，因为对效率提升的回应正是过去一个世纪最大的骗局之一。早在消费级AI登场之前，效率已经突飞猛进，而工资却未能同步增长。没有人工作得更少，只是赚得更少了。随着更多AI相关公司坐拥万亿美元估值，当前美国政权正在劫掠社会保障网——如果我们都要变成失业的戏剧爱好者，这种保障网就必须存在。你根本无法孤立地看待这些问题。如果私营企业优化劳动力的最终结果是人人无需工作，那么我们必须建立一个能让人们仍有房住、有饭吃的公平社会。当领导人在削减食品券福利的同时，用纳税人的钱建造宴会厅时，有人确信这个愿景会实现吗？

如果你连享受闲暇时光的能力都没有，那能帮你规划愉快一天的AI助手又有何用？

对新技术的抵制从未停止——以至于"卢德分子"这个称谓在英国纺织工人反抗自动化200年后依然振聋发聩。对AI的抵制真实、知情且论据充分。尽管如此，有些新奇的便捷功能确实有趣，甚至在个人生活中颇为实用。但我无法想象每月支付99美元来收发邮件、安排日历、制作电子表格，这究竟是一个多么光明的未来愿景，或是多么划算的投资回报。尤其是当更广泛的代价是挥霍我们土地的壮丽，同时让我们屈服于企业全知全能的监控之下。

英文来源：

This week we’ve got tandem hands-ons with Google’s new Gemini AI agent — Spark — from my colleagues David Pierce and Jay Peters. Their takeaways are similar: It’s so effective that it’s scary. Spark knew that David’s dog is named Frida and knew the first name of Jay’s wife, even though neither of them explicitly provided this information to Google. But what’s scary to me is how all of this stuff seems geared toward a future of “productivity” that completely misses what needs to be fixed in our world.
As AI gets better, it reveals an empty promise
Your new assistant can schedule a meeting but it can’t fix our broken world.
Your new assistant can schedule a meeting but it can’t fix our broken world.
“Productivity” is often pitched as a panacea for what befalls us in our personal lives, even going so far as to implicate our moral worthiness when we are less productive. Productivity lives somewhere in the space between hustle culture and proverb: After all, “idle hands are the devil’s workshop.” I’m not suggesting we should all aspire to be bumps on a log, but we ought to see what we’re being sold for what it really is.
Contemporary tasks on computers have a tendency to feel both important and urgent all of the time, even if they’re not. We’re living under the unholy alliance of the “busy” trap and “software brain.” And that makes AI assistance seem super valuable! But that’s because the companies in charge of all this stuff are now trying to solve a lot of problems that they created. Google, Microsoft, Apple, and others have spent decades blurring the line between office life and personal life. This slow march toward ubiquitous productivity once led the French government to declare a “right to disconnect” from work when leaving the office. (Shame my American sensibilities still convince me that’s a bridge too far.)
As I read about Gemini Spark making it easy for my colleagues to color-code calendars and perform other neat tricks on command, I couldn’t help but vividly remember witnessing as a child all of the hours my mom had to spend carefully cutting coupons so we could afford groceries. Sometimes it got to the point where our living room looked like a giant experiment in collage art. All of that time was stolen from her and our family — for what? Maybe having an AI assistant in the ’90s could have helped find and organize the best deals, but it could never fix an economic system that required them in the first place.
Where does the productivity march end? The people making more money than God right now have professed a vision of a postwork future where robots do everything for us so we can enjoy life without toiling away in the mines. (Well, except for the content mines.) If you’ve seen Elon Musk’s failure bot, you’ll know this is all actually less Battlestar Galactica and more John Adams in his letter to Abigail: “I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy,” and so-on and so-on until the grandchildren can enjoy painting and poetry. So, ideally, after we slog through pre-transcendence, AI will make us all theater kids.
Meanwhile, Mark Zuckerberg is posting up his 387-foot yacht in a city where he just laid off a meaningful part of his workforce to offset his investments in AI. At least AI has freed up the time of these fired workers? I’d say good luck to them in Hollywood, especially because they’re trying to replace newly minted theater kids with AI-generated actors.
There’s a sinister tone lurking beneath some of these advancements in productivity, because the response to increased productivity has been one of the biggest scams of the past century. Well before consumer AI entered the scene, productivity exploded while wages failed to keep pace. Nobody is working less, they’re just earning less. And as more AI-related companies reap trillions in valuation, the current US regime is looting the social safety net — the kind that must exist if we’re all going to become out-of-work theater kids. You simply can’t look at these things separately. If the end result of private companies optimizing the workforce means nobody has to work, then we have to live in a society where people can still have a roof and a meal. Is anyone confident that will happen while leaders are cutting SNAP benefits while building taxpayer-funded ballrooms?
What good is an AI assistant that can help you plan a fun day if you can’t actually afford any free time in your life?
There has always been resistance to new advancements — so much so that the term “luddite” is still potent 200 years after English textile workers revolted against automation in their industry. The AI backlash is genuine, well-informed, and well-argued. Nonetheless, some of those new neat tricks are fun and maybe even pretty useful in our personal lives. But I can’t imagine that paying $99 a month to send emails, make calendar appointments, and create spreadsheets is a promising vision of the future or even a good return on investment. Especially if the broader cost is squandering the splendor of our lands while subjecting us to corporate omniscience.