最近一個叫做Sophia的人工智能機(jī)器人吸引了很多人的興趣，不過我在此想指出的是，人工智能是一個由政府、產(chǎn)業(yè)界和學(xué)術(shù)界共享的一種技術(shù)、平臺和理念。人工智能并不是一個個體、一個物體或是一個有知覺的存在。人工智能也沒有性別一說。

人工智能與機(jī)器人間的聯(lián)系和區(qū)別也是很微妙的。比如有些機(jī)器人的確基于人工智能技術(shù)，它們可以獨(dú)立運(yùn)行，從環(huán)境中學(xué)習(xí)，或者跟人類互動。但是還有很多人工智能的平臺、技術(shù)以及創(chuàng)新跟機(jī)器人沒有一絲一毫的關(guān)系，而且以后也不會有。

說起人工智能，人們最關(guān)心的一個問題，就是機(jī)器人能否進(jìn)化成人類。但這個問題忽略了一個關(guān)鍵點(diǎn)。人工智能能否幫助機(jī)器人變成人類并不重要，因?yàn)闄C(jī)器人根本就不應(yīng)該假裝成人類。機(jī)器人不必具備社會性的情感能力，也能幫助人類解決各種問題。人工智能的設(shè)計者只需要專注于解決問題和提高效能，就可以幫助人類。

目前的人工智能技術(shù)還遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)達(dá)不到人類的智能水平，它也不能理解人類的同理心，也不具備人何以為人的幾個關(guān)鍵特質(zhì)。如果給予人工智能一個人性化的平臺，或者過于強(qiáng)調(diào)人工智能的人性化，只會導(dǎo)致它造成的問題比解決的問題還多。它只會使全球社會對人工智能究竟是什么、人工智能能做什么，以及像我一樣的科學(xué)家為什么要耗費(fèi)一生來構(gòu)建人工智能平臺等問題產(chǎn)生不切實(shí)際的認(rèn)知。

我認(rèn)為，科研界應(yīng)該著重向大眾介紹人工智能本身的好處，而不是炒作一些不能解決任何實(shí)際問題的特例，因?yàn)檫@只會加重性別誤導(dǎo)和一些數(shù)據(jù)方面的偏見。技術(shù)界和全球社會應(yīng)致力于開發(fā)實(shí)用的、有目的性的人工智能技術(shù)，以解決醫(yī)療和交通等人類面臨的復(fù)雜問題，和提高產(chǎn)能、填補(bǔ)跨學(xué)科技術(shù)空白等商業(yè)問題。我們需要的是淡化偏見、取消性別因素的人工智能技術(shù)，運(yùn)用客觀數(shù)據(jù)來建立和促進(jìn)人工智能與人類的互動，并讓它從這種客觀互動中持續(xù)學(xué)習(xí)。

靠夸大人工智能和機(jī)器人“人的一面”來博眼球，讓社會相信機(jī)器人一朝一日必然會統(tǒng)治人類，只會讓我們所有人的生活都更加難過。對于消費(fèi)者來說，它使很多人對這項(xiàng)能夠日益帶來更多好處的技術(shù)心生畏懼。而對像我一樣每天研究人工智能的人來說，將人工智能妖魔化，只會阻礙科技創(chuàng)新和技術(shù)進(jìn)步。

我們不要低估了這個問題的重要性。探討有關(guān)人工智能和技術(shù)學(xué)習(xí)技術(shù)的道德問題是很有必要的，因?yàn)檫@有助于我們更好地利用這項(xiàng)新興技術(shù)，使我們不會錯過人工智能帶給全人類的真正機(jī)遇。

所以，我們在大談機(jī)器人和人工智能對社會的影響前，大可先松一口氣。因?yàn)槲覀兪紫纫龅模峭ㄟ^不懈努力，將自我學(xué)習(xí)技術(shù)的基礎(chǔ)打好。另外，包括我在內(nèi)的技術(shù)人士以及廣大業(yè)界、學(xué)界同仁和公共部門也應(yīng)該制定一套全面的道德標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，以規(guī)范行業(yè)的長期發(fā)展，并切實(shí)遵守。

工程師們應(yīng)該確保他們構(gòu)建出的人工智能產(chǎn)品有能力識別各種偏見，不要讓人工智能把傳統(tǒng)的人類偏見繼續(xù)帶入到職場和社會中。歸根結(jié)底，社會的責(zé)任不是讓人工智能更加擬人化，而是要讓人工智能顯著提高人類的生活。（財富中文網(wǎng)）

本文作者Kriti Sharma是全球集成會計薪酬系統(tǒng)提供商Sage公司的人工智能副總裁。她也是全球首個虛擬理財助手Pegg的創(chuàng)建者，該服務(wù)的用戶現(xiàn)已遍及全球135個國家。

譯者：賈政景

While folks are fixated on the journey of Sophia the robot, I’d like to point out that artificial intelligence is a technology, a platform, and a concept shared by government, industry, and academia. AI is not an individual, object, or sentient being. And AI definitely doesn’t have a gender.

The connections and distinctions between AI and robots are more nuanced as well. Indeed, some robots run on AI technology that allows them to operate independently, learn from surroundings, and interact with people. However, there are a lot of AI platforms, technologies, and innovations that have nothing to do with robots—and never will.

The fundamental—and commonly sensationalized—question of whether robots can be human also misses a crucial point. It’s not about whether AI can help robots become human. Robots should not pretend to be human at all. AI can help people solve human problems without assuming a sentient role in society. People building AI can help fellow humans by focusing on problem solving and enhancing productivity.

AI, for its part, is not nearly advanced enough—yet—to be able to claim human-level intelligence, empathy, or possession of several fundamental qualities that make people human. Giving AI a human platform—and over-humanizing the technology, in general—creates more problems than it solves. It also presents the global community with a false sense of what AI actually is, what the technology can do, and why people like me dedicate their lives to building AI platforms.

I believe it’s significantly more important for technologists to communicate the benefits of the AI technology itself, rather than focus on examples of robots that do not solve real issues, perpetuate gender perceptions, and reveal data-driven biases. The technology community and global society need to work on developing useful and purposeful AI that solves human problems like complex health care and transportation issues, and business problems like boosting productivity and filling gaps in technical expertise across disciplines. We need AI that neutralizes biases by taking gender out of the equation completely and using objective data sources to build, grow, and learn from interactions with human counterparts.

Using AI and robots to sensationalize the human experience and scaremonger society into believing a robot takeover is an inevitable future makes life harder for everyone. For consumers, it prevents people from truly embracing the increasingly personalized benefits AI can offer to their daily lives. For technologists like me who work on AI every day, the practice of demonizing and aggrandizing AI advancement severely impedes actual innovation and technical progress.

Let’s not underestimate the importance of this debate. Talking about the ethics that surround the conversation of AI and machine learning is critical as it will help us make the best use of this emerging technology—ensuring that we don’t miss the real opportunity that AI can bring to all our lives.

So, before we think about making new, outsized claims about robots and AI integrating into society, let’s all take a breath. After all, we should be working tirelessly and together to get the basics of the self-learning technology right. My fellow technologists and I from industry, academia, and the public sector need to develop comprehensive ethical standards that hold up for the long term. And commit to them.

Engineers need to ensure that the AI they create has the ability to learn, discern bias, and avoid making the same mistakes prior to replacing traditionally human-held positions in the workforce and in society, in general. Ultimately, society’s responsibility is not to make AI more human-like, but to make AI that significantly improves human lives.

Kriti Sharma is the vice president of artificial intelligence at Sage, a global integrated accounting, payroll and payment systems provider. She is the creator of Pegg, the world’s first virtual assistant managing everything from money to people, with users in 135 countries.