本文分享Geoffrey E. Hinton获奖后的Telephone interview
以下是pythonic生物人的译文，
杰弗里·辛顿：你好？ 亚当·史密斯：哦，您好。我是在和杰弗里·辛顿通话吗？ GH：是的。 AS：我是亚当·史密斯，诺贝尔奖官方网站的来电。 GH：好的，我知道您是谁，因为很久以前我就注意到，他们会有人打电话来询问获奖者的反应。 AS：没错。所以我们可以聊几分钟吗？ GH：可以。 AS：非常感谢。首先，当然要祝贺您。 GH：谢谢。 AS：您现在在哪里？消息是在哪里传到您的？ GH：我在加利福尼亚的一家廉价酒店，没有网络连接，而且电话信号也不太好。我原本计划今天去做MRI扫描，不过我想我得取消了。我完全不知道自己被提名了诺贝尔物理学奖，非常惊讶。 AS：听起来这似乎是个不错的地方接受消息，因为你有些隔离，可以在一天的忙碌前整理一下思绪。 GH：是的。另一方面，现在是凌晨两点。 AS：哦，天哪。是的，抱歉。呃，恐怕…… GH：我想现在应该是三点了。 AS：……我不知道您是否还能镇定地回去睡觉，还是已经接受今天会是漫长的一天。 GH：是的，我想我没那么镇定了。 AS：那么，完全出乎意料。您当时的第一反应是什么？ GH：我第一个想法是如何确认这不是恶作剧电话。 AS：然后呢？您怎么确认的？ GH：电话是从瑞典打来的，说话的人有很浓重的瑞典口音，而且有好几个人。 AS：是的，所以要伪装成一群冒牌货还是挺不容易的，我想。 GH：是的。 AS：您如何描述自己？您会说自己是计算机科学家，还是说自己是想通过研究生物学来理解大脑的物理学家？ GH：我会说我是一个不知道自己具体属于哪个领域，但想要了解大脑如何运作的人。在我试图理解大脑工作原理的过程中，我帮助创造了一项出乎意料有效的技术。 AS：我注意到，您公开表达了对这项技术可能带来的担忧。您认为应该采取什么措施来缓解您和其他人表达的这些担忧？ GH：我认为这与气候变化有很大不同。对于气候变化，大家都知道该做什么——我们需要停止燃烧碳。问题只是政治意愿以及大公司不愿放弃巨大利润的阻碍。但该做的事情是明确的。而这里我们面对的事物不太一样，我们对未来会发生什么以及如何应对了解得少得多。所以，我希望能有一个简单的解决方案，比如“只要做这个，所有问题都会解决”。但我没有。特别是关于这些技术失控并接管一切的生存威胁问题，我认为我们正处于历史的分叉点，在未来几年内我们需要找到应对这一威胁的办法。因此，我认为现在非常重要的是，人们要致力于研究如何保持控制。我们需要投入大量研究精力。我认为政府能做的一件事是强迫大公司投入更多资源进行安全研究。例如，像OpenAI这样的公司不能把安全研究置于次要位置。 AS：这是否与生物技术革命有相似之处？当时，生物技术领域的专家们在Asilomar会议上聚集，讨论潜在的危险，并决定要自我监管。 GH：是的，我认为确实有相似之处，我也认为他们做得非常好。不幸的是，人工智能有更多的实际应用，而那些生物学家试图控制的东西（比如克隆技术）还没有这么多应用。所以，我觉得这会更难。但我认为生物学家们当时的做法是一个不错的参考模型。他们达成了一致，科学家们做到了这一点，这令人印象深刻。 AS：比如大型语言模型，我想您担心的原因之一是您认为这些模型比许多人所说的更接近理解。对于诺贝尔奖在这一领域的影响，您认为它会带来改变吗？ GH：是的，我认为会带来改变。希望它能让我的观点更具可信性，当我说这些模型确实理解它们在表达什么时。 AS：您担心人们不把您当回事吗？ GH：有一种来自乔姆斯基的语言学派认为，说这些模型理解语言完全是胡说八道，它们处理语言的方式与我们完全不同。我认为这种观点是错误的。现在很明显，神经网络在处理语言方面远远优于乔姆斯基语言学派曾经提出的任何东西。但在语言学家中，这个问题仍然存在很大的争论。 AS：我想回到您接到这个消息的情景，凌晨，在酒店房间里。某种意义上，这是一种孤独的经历，没有人可以拥抱庆祝。 GH：哦，我的伴侣和我在一起。她非常兴奋。 AS：好吧，是的。当然了。不过，再次祝贺您。 GH：谢谢。好的。 AS：再见。 GH：再见。
以下英文原文，
Geoffrey Hinton: Hello? Adam Smith: Oh, hello. Am I speaking with Geoffrey Hinton? GH: You are. AS: This is Adam Smith calling from the website of the Nobel Prize. GH: Okay. I know who you are ’cause a long time ago I noticed that they have somebody who calls up to get people’s reactions. AS: Exactly. So could we talk for just a few minutes? GH: Yes. AS: Thank you very much indeed. First of all, of course. Many congratulations. GH: Thank you. AS: And, where are you? Where did, where did the news reach you? GH: I’m in a cheap hotel in California, without an internet connection, and with a not very good phone line, phone connection. And I was planning to get an MRI scan today, but I guess I’ll have to cancel that. I had no idea I’d even been nominated for the Nobel Prize in Physics. I was extremely surprised. AS: It sounds like, quite a sensible place to receive the news in a way. Because you’re a little bit isolated. You can collect your thoughts before, before the deluge of the day. GH: Yes. On the other hand, it’s two o’clock in the morning. AS: Oh, goodness. Yes. I’m sorry. Yes. Uh oh dear. I don’t know if you’ve got … GH: I think it’s three o’clock by now. AS: … I don’t know if you’ve got the sang froid to go back to bed or whether you just have to accept that the day is going to be a long one. GH: Yeah, I don’t think I’ve got that much sang froid. AS: Well, an utter surprise. What, what were your first thoughts? GH: My very first thought was how could I be sure it wasn’t a spoof call. AS: And? How could you? GH: It was coming from Sweden and the person had a strong Swedish accent and there were several of them. AS: Yes. So it would have to be a posse of impersonators, which is unlikely, I suppose. GH: Yes. AS: How would you describe yourself? Would you say you were a computer scientist or would you say you were a physicist trying to understand biology when you were doing this work? GH: I would say I am someone who doesn’t really know what field he’s in but would like to understand how the brain works. And in my attempts to understand how the brain works, I’ve helped to create a technology that works surprisingly well. AS: It’s notable, I suppose that you’ve very publicly expressed fears about what the technology can bring. What do you think needs to be done in order to allay the fears that you and others are expressing? GH: So I think it’s rather different from climate change. With climate change, everybody knows what needs to be done. We need to stop burning carbon. It’s just a question of the political will to do that. And large companies making big profits not being willing to do that. But it’s clear what you need to do. Here we’re dealing with something where we have much less idea of what’s going to happen and what to do about it. And so, I wish I had a sort of simple recipe that if you do this, everything’s going to be okay. But I don’t. In particular with respect to the existential threat of these things getting out of control and taking over, I think we’re a kind of bifurcation point in history where in the next few years we need to figure out if there’s a way to deal with that threat. So, I think it’s very important right now for people to be working on the issue of how will we keep control? We need to put a lot of research effort into it. I think one thing governments can do is force the big companies to spend a lot more of their resources on safety research. So that, for example, companies like OpenAI can’t just put safety research on the back burner. AS: Is there a parallel with the biotechnology revolution when, the bio technologies themselves got together in those Asilomar conferences and sat down and said, you know, there is potential danger here and we need to, we need to be on it ourselves? GH: Yes. I think there are similarities with that, and I think what they did was very good. Unfortunately there’s many more practical applications of AI. And for the things like cloning that the biologists were trying to keep under control. And so, I think it’s going to be a lot harder. But I think the biologists, what they did is, a good model to look at. It’s impressive that they managed to achieve agreement, and the scientists did it. AS: So, for instance with the large language models, the thing that I suppose contributes to your fear is you feel that these models are much closer to understanding than a lot of people say. When it comes to the impact of the Nobel Prize in this area, do you think it will make a difference? GH: Yes, I think it will make a difference. Hopefully it’ll make me more credible when I say these things really do understand what they’re saying. AS: Do you worry that people don’t take you seriously? GH: So there is a whole school of linguistics that comes from Chomsky that thinks that it’s complete nonsense to say these things understand, that they don’t process language at all in the same way as we do. I think that school is wrong. I think it’s clear now that neural nets are much better at processing language than anything ever produced by the Chomsky School of Linguistics. But there’s still a lot of debate about that, particularly among linguists. AS: I just wanted to come back though, to the circumstances of you receiving this news, in your hotel room, in the middle of the night. In some ways, a rather lonely place to hear the news. No one to turn to, to sort of hug and celebrate. GH: Well, I’m here with my partner. I’m here with my partner and she’s quite excited. AS: Okay. Yes, indeed. But for now, many, many congratulations. GH: Thank you. Okay. AS: Bye. GH: Bye.
https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/2024/hinton/interview/
