????人工智能無疑是很多美國人耳熟能詳?shù)臇|西，這既托了電影《她》的福，也是因為很多人一直擔心機器人會搶了我們的飯碗。《紐約時報》(The New York Times)最近刊發(fā)的一篇名為《機器人護士的未來》的文章樂觀地表示，機器人護工未來可能會承擔起照顧“嬰兒潮”一代老年人的重任，從而將大大減輕我們這一代年輕人的養(yǎng)老壓力。

????“在理想世界里，等我們老了，每個人都應該至少有一名善良、合格的人類護工來照顧我們的身體和精神需求。但我們大多數(shù)人并非住在‘理想國’，因此一個可靠的機器人很可能強于一個不可靠甚至有虐待傾向的人——更別說可能根本沒人來照顧我們?！?/p>

????這篇文章聲稱，在日本，由于護工不足，機器人已經(jīng)承擔起了與老年癡呆患者交談的任務。類似的護士機器人也出現(xiàn)在了瑞典等歐洲國家。

????但也并非所有人都歡迎這種新進展。對于這篇文章，北卡羅來納大學(University of North Carolina)信息學院社會學教授澤伊內(nèi)普?圖菲克希撰文回應道：“這是第三個機器時代的失敗。”

????“在我看來，把大量的老人和孩子關(guān)在屋子里——尤其是有殘疾的兒童，然后用機器人陪著他們干這干那，而全球大量的人類則忙著找一份勉強糊口的工作，這其實比狄更斯筆下的機器工業(yè)化噩夢更可怕，比卡夫卡筆下冷漠、疏遠的職場更可悲?！?/p>

????“這相當于放棄了對保持人性的渴望，放棄了通過關(guān)愛來彼此聯(lián)系，放棄了互相照顧?！?/p>

????圖菲克希認為，從失業(yè)數(shù)據(jù)來看，我們并非面臨護工的短缺。相反，“我們面臨的是缺乏關(guān)愛。”

????與此同時，皮尤研究中心（Pew Research）的一項新研究顯示，對科技行業(yè)有影響力的人們在機器人究竟會促進還是會損害國民經(jīng)濟的問題上持不同態(tài)度。約半數(shù)以上受訪者認為，機器人搶走的工作不會比它們創(chuàng)造的工作多，因此會給經(jīng)濟帶來正能量。另一半受訪者則對與機器人共處的未來感到不太樂觀。

????“有48%的受訪者認為，未來10年里，機器人將會取代大量白領(lǐng)和藍領(lǐng)工人。這不僅會導致大量人口失業(yè)，還會導致社會失序?！?/p>

????布雷西亞認為，Jibo并不是要成為老年人的護工，也不想取代人力勞動。研制這些機器人的目的，是為了幫助用戶能夠獨立面對老年生活。她表示：“Jibo是要給人以能量，幫助人們做他們想做、需要做的事，而不是要取代別人。”

????她表示：“有很多人本能地表示反對。我們并不是要發(fā)明一個機器人護工，而是要讓人們能夠獨立生活，在情感上與他們的家庭保持連接，因為這才是最重要的。”（財富中文網(wǎng)）

????譯者：樸成奎

????Artificial intelligence has certainly been top-of-mind for many Americans, both because of the film Her and ever-present economic fears that robots will make our jobs redundant. A recent New York Times article, “The Future of Robot Caregivers,” sunnily outlined how robots could lighten the burden of caring for aging baby boomers:

????“In an ideal world, it would be: Each of us would have at least one kind and fully capable human caregiver to meet our physical and emotional needs as we age. But most of us do not live in an ideal world, and a reliable robot may be better than an unreliable or abusive person, or than no one at all.”

????In Japan, robots help with a nursing shortage by conversing with patients that have dementia. Similar life-helper robots can be found in Sweden and around Europe, according to the Times.

????Not everyone welcomes this development. “This how to fail the third machine age,” wrote Zeynep Tufekci, a sociology professor at the University of North Carolina’s iSchool, in response to the article.

????“In my view, warehousing elderly and children—especially children with disabilities—in rooms with machines that keep them busy, when large numbers of humans beings around the world are desperate for jobs that pay a living wage is worse than the Dickensian nightmares of mechanical industrialization, it’s worse than the cold, alienated workplaces depicted by Kafka.”

????“It’s an abdication of a desire to remain human, to be connected to each other through care, and to take care of each other.”

????Tufekci argues that based on unemployment figures, we’re not facing a shortage of caregivers. Rather, she writes, “we’re facing a shortage of caring.”

????Meanwhile, a new study from Pew Research suggests that tech industry influencers are split on whether robots will help or hurt the economy. Just over half of those surveyed believed robots won’t take away more jobs than they create, resulting in a net positive for the economy. However, the other half felt less optimistic about our robotic future.

????“The other 48%, though, think that robots will displace huge numbers of white and blue collar workers in the next 10 years, which would not only leave people unemployed but which could disrupt social order.”

????Breazeal contends that Jibo isn’t meant to be a caregiver for aging people or a replacement for human labor. The robots are meant to help older users age independently. “Jibo is about empowerment and helping people do what they want to do and what they need to do,” she says. “Its not about replacing people.”

????“There’s a lot of kneejerk reaction,” she adds. “We’re not trying to create a robot caregiver at all. We’re empowering people to live independently and be emotionally connected to their family, because that’s what matters.”