Lex FridmanThe following is a conversation with Elon Musk, Part II. The second time we spoke on the podcast with parallels, if not in quality, then in outfit to the, objectively speaking, greatest sequel of all time, Godfather, part two. As many people know, Elon Musk is a leader of Tesla, SpaceX, Neuralink, and the Boring Company. What may be less known is that he's a world- class engineer and designer, constantly emphasizing first principles thinking in taking on big engineering problems that many before him have considered impossible.以下是与 Elon Musk 的第二次对话。这是我们第二次在播客中交流，和有史以来客观上最伟大的续集——《教父》第二部——相比，如果说不上质量相当，至少着装上有几分相似。很多人都知道，Elon Musk 是 Tesla、SpaceX、Neuralink 和 Boring Company 的领导者。鲜为人知的是，他是一位世界级的工程师和设计师，始终强调用第一性原理思维去攻克那些在他之前许多人都认为不可能完成的重大工程难题。
Lex FridmanAs scientists and engineers, most of us don't question the way things are done. We simply follow the momentum of the crowd. But revolutionary ideas that changed the world on the small and large scales happen when you return to the fundamentals and ask: "Is there a better way?" This conversation focuses on the incredible engineering and innovation done in brain computer interfaces in Neuralink.作为科学家和工程师，我们大多数人不会质疑事情的做法，只是随大流。但那些在大大小小的尺度上改变世界的革命性想法，恰恰发生在你回归基本原理、问自己「有没有更好的方法」的时候。这次对话聚焦于 Neuralink 在脑机接口领域所做的令人叹为观止的工程与创新。
Lex FridmanThis work promises to help treat neurobiological diseases, to help us further understand the connection between the individual neuron to the high-level function of the human brain. And finally, to one day expand the capacity of the brain through two-way communication, with computational devices, the internet and artificial intelligence systems. This is the Artificial Intelligence podcast. If you enjoy it, subscribe on YouTube, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, support it on the page you're on, or simply connect with me on Twitter, Lex Fridman, spelled F-R-I- D-M-A-N.这项工作有望帮助治疗神经生物学疾病，帮助我们进一步理解从单个神经元到人脑高层功能之间的联系。最终，有一天还能通过与计算设备、互联网和人工智能系统的双向通信来扩展大脑的能力。这里是人工智能播客。如果你喜欢，请在 YouTube、Apple Podcasts、Spotify 上订阅，在你正在浏览的页面上支持我们，或者直接在 Twitter 上关注我，Lex Fridman，拼写是 F-R-I-D-M-A-N。
Lex FridmanAnd now as an anonymous YouTube commenter referred to our previous conversation as the quote "historical first video of two robots conversing without supervision," here's the second time, the second conversation with Elon Musk.还有，某位匿名 YouTube 评论者把我们上次的对话称为「两个机器人在无人监督下对话的历史性第一视频」——现在是第二次，与 Elon Musk 的第二次对话。
Lex FridmanLet's start with an easy question about consciousness. In your view, is consciousness something that's unique to humans or is it something that permeates all matter? Almost like a fundamental force of physics?我们从一个关于意识的简单问题开始。在你看来，意识是人类独有的东西，还是说它渗透在所有物质之中，几乎像物理学的一种基本力量一样？
Elon MuskI don't think consciousness permeates all matter.我不认为意识渗透在所有物质之中。
Lex FridmanPanpsychics believe that. There's a philosophical ...泛心论者是这样认为的。有一种哲学……
Elon MuskHow would you tell?你怎么验证呢？
Lex FridmanThat's true? That's a good point.这倒是？这是个好问题。
Elon MuskI believe in scientific method. Don't want to blow your mind or anything, but the scientific method is if you cannot test the hypothes is, then you cannot reach meaningful conclusion that it is true.我相信科学方法。不是要震惊你什么，但科学方法就是这样：如果你无法检验一个假设，那你就无法得出任何有意义的结论说它是真的。
Lex FridmanDo you think consciousness, understanding consciousness is within the reach of science of the scientific method?你认为理解意识这件事，在科学、在科学方法的能力范围之内吗？
Elon MuskWe can dramatically improve our understanding of consciousness. I'd be hard pressed to say that we understand anything with complete accuracy, but can we dramatically improve our understanding of consciousness? I believe the answer is yes.我们可以大幅提升对意识的理解。我很难说我们对任何东西的理解都是完全准确的，但我们能不能大幅提升对意识的理解？我认为答案是可以的。
Lex FridmanDoes an AI system, in your view have to have consciousness in order to achieve human level or super human level intelligence? Does it need to have some of these human qualities like consciousness, maybe a body, maybe a fear of mortality, capacity to love, those kinds of silly human things?在你看来，AI 系统要达到人类水平乃至超人类水平的智能，必须具备意识吗？它需要拥有某些人类特质，比如意识、或许还有身体、对死亡的恐惧、去爱的能力，诸如此类那些「蠢乎乎的人类特质」吗？
Elon MuskIt's different. There's this scientific method which I very much believe in where something is true to the degree that it is testably so. And otherwise you're really just talking about preferences or untestable beliefs or that kind of thing. So it ends up being somewhat of a semantic question where we are conflating a lot of things with the word intelligence. If we parse them out and say, are we headed towards the future where an AI will be able to out-think us in every way, then the answer is unequivocally yes.这是两回事。有一套科学方法我非常信奉——某件事在多大程度上可被验证，它就在多大程度上是真的。否则你不过是在谈偏好、或者无法验证的信念之类的东西。所以这最终有点像是语义问题，我们用「智能」这个词把很多东西混在一起了。如果我们拆开来说，问「我们是否在走向一个未来，在那里 AI 能在每个方面都超越我们的思维」，那么答案是毫无疑问的：是的。
Lex FridmanIn order for an AI system that needs to out-think us in every way, it also needs to have a capacity to have consciousness, self-awareness and understand ...为了让一个 AI 系统在每个方面都超越我们的思维，它是否同样需要具备意识、自我意识，以及理解……
Elon MuskIt will be self-aware, yes. That's different from consciousness. I mean to me in terms of what consciousness feels like, it feels like consciousness is in a different dimension. But this could be just an illusion. If you damage your brain in some way physically, you damage your consciousness, which implies that consciousness is a physical phenomenon in my view.它会有自我意识，是的。但那和意识不是一回事。我的意思是，就我对意识的感受而言，意识感觉像是在另一个维度里。但这也可能只是一种幻觉。如果你以某种方式在物理上损伤大脑，你就会损伤意识，这意味着在我看来意识是一种物理现象。
Elon MuskThe thing is that I think are really quite likely is that digital intelligence will be able to out-think us in every way. And it will suddenly be able to simulate what we consider consciousness. So to the degree that you would not be able to tell the difference.我认为相当可能发生的事情是：数字智能将能够在每个方面都超越我们的思维，并且它将突然能够模拟我们所认为的意识，模拟到你完全无法分辨差别的程度。
Lex FridmanAnd from the aspect of the scientific method, it might as well be consciousness if we can simulate it perfectly?从科学方法的角度来看，如果我们能完美地模拟它，那它与意识其实并无二致？
Elon MuskIf you can't tell the difference when this is sort of the Turing test, but think of it more advanced version of the Turing test. If you're talking to a digital superintelligence and can't tell if that is a computer or a human. Like let's say you're just having a conversation over a phone or a video conference or something aware, you think you're talking, looks like a person, makes all of the right inflections and movements and all the small subtleties that constitute a human and talks like a human, makes mistakes like a human, and you literally just can't tell, are you really conversing with a person or an AI?如果你分辨不出差别——这有点像图灵测试，但想象一个更高级的版本。如果你在和一个数字超级智能交谈，完全分不清对方是计算机还是人。比如说，你只是在通过电话或视频会议和它对话，它看起来像个人，做出所有正确的语气和动作，以及构成一个人的所有细微之处，说话像个人，犯错像个人——你根本就无法判断，你到底是在和人还是在和 AI 交谈？
Lex FridmanMight as well.那就当它是人吧。
Elon MuskMight as well.那就当它是人吧。
Lex FridmanBe human. So on a darker topic, you've expressed serious concern about existential threats of AI, is perhaps one of the greatest challenges our civilization faces. But since I would say we're an optimistic descendants of apes, perhaps we can find several paths of escaping the harm of AI. So if I can give you three options, maybe you can comment, which do you think is the most promising?就当它是人吧。那换个比较沉重的话题，你表达过对 AI 存在性威胁的严重担忧，认为这可能是我们文明所面临的最大挑战之一。但既然我敢说我们是乐观的猿类的后代，也许我们能找到几条规避 AI 危害的出路。如果我给你三个选项，你能说说哪个最有前景吗？
Lex FridmanSo one is scaling up efforts in AI safety and beneficial AI research in hope of finding an algorithmic or maybe a policy solution. Two is becoming a multiplanetary species as quickly as possible. And three is merging with AI and riding the wave of that increasing intelligence as it continuously improves. What do you think is most promising, most interesting as a civilization that we should invest in?第一，大力扩展 AI 安全和有益 AI 的研究投入，希望能找到算法层面或政策层面的解决方案。第二，尽快成为多星球物种。第三，与 AI 融合，随着智能的持续提升乘风破浪。你认为哪个最有前景、最有价值——作为一个文明，我们应该把资源投在哪里？
Elon MuskI think there're a lot, a tremendous amount of investment going on in AI. Where there is a lack of investment is in AI safety, and there should be, in my view, a government agency that oversees anything related to AI to confirm that it is, does not represent a public safety risk. Just as there is a regulatory authority for, like the Food and Drug Administration, there's NHTSA for automotive safety, there's the FAA for aircraft safety. We've generally come to the conclusion that it is important to have a government referee or a referee that is serving the public interest in ensuring that things are safe when there's a potential danger to the public.我认为在 AI 上的投资已经非常非常多了。真正欠缺的是 AI 安全方面的投资。在我看来，应该有一个政府机构来监管所有与 AI 相关的事务，确认它不构成公共安全风险。就像有 FDA 管食品药品，有 NHTSA 管汽车安全，有 FAA 管航空安全一样。我们已经普遍达成共识：当存在潜在公共危险时，需要有一个政府裁判机构、一个服务于公众利益的机构来确保安全。
Elon MuskI would argue that AI is unequivocally something that has potential to be dangerous to the public and therefore should have a regulatory agency just as other things that are dangerous to the public have a regulatory agency. But let me tell you, the problem with this is that the government moves very slowly, and the rate of ... Usually the way a regulatory agency comes into being is that something terrible happens. There's a huge public outcry and years after that there's a regulatory agency or a rule put in place.我认为 AI 无疑具有对公众造成危险的潜力，因此应该像其他危险领域一样拥有一个监管机构。但问题在于，政府行动非常缓慢。通常情况下，一个监管机构的诞生是因为先发生了某件可怕的事情，引发巨大的公众呼声，然后多年之后才出现监管机构或出台规则。
Elon MuskIt takes something like seatbelts. It was known for a decade or more that seatbelts would have a massive impact on safety and save so many lives and serious injuries. And the car industry fought the requirements to put seatbelts in tooth and nail. That's crazy. And hundreds of thousands of people probably died because of that. And they said people wouldn't buy cars if they had seatbelts, which is obviously absurd.就拿安全带来说吧。人们知道安全带能极大提升安全性、拯救大量生命和减少重伤已经超过十年，而汽车行业却拼死拼活地抵制强制安装安全带的要求。这太疯狂了。这大概导致了数十万人的死亡。他们说如果汽车有了安全带，人们就不会买车——这显然是荒谬的。
Elon MuskOr look at the tobacco industry and how long they fought anything about smoking. That's part of why I helped that movie, Thank You for Smoking. You could see just how pernicious it can be when you have these companies, effectively achieve regulatory capture of government, the bad. People in the AI community refer to the advent of digital superintelligence as a singularity, that is not to say that it is good or bad, but that it is very difficult to predict what will happen after that point. And that there's some probability it will be bad, some probability it will be good. We want to affect that probability and have it be more good than bad.再看看烟草行业，他们对任何与吸烟有关的东西抵制了多久。这也是我参与那部电影《感谢你抽烟》的部分原因。你可以清楚地看到，当这些公司实际上实现了对政府的监管俘获时，会有多么有害——那才是真正的坏。AI 社区把数字超级智能的到来称为奇点，这不是说它是好是坏，而是说那个节点之后很难预测会发生什么。在那之后有一定概率是坏的，也有一定概率是好的。我们想要影响这个概率，让它好的可能性多于坏的。
Lex FridmanWell let me, on the merger with AI question and the incredible work that's being done in Neuralink, there's a lot of fascinating innovation here across different disciplines going on. So the flexible wires, the robotics sewing machine, the response to brain movement, and everything around and sharing safety and so on. So we currently understand very little about the human brain. Do you also hope that the work at Neuralink will help us understand more about the human mind, about the brain?那关于与 AI 融合这个问题，以及 Neuralink 正在进行的令人难以置信的工作——这里跨越了很多不同学科，有大量迷人的创新，比如柔性线缆、机器人缝合系统、对大脑运动的响应，以及围绕安全共享等各种工作。我们目前对人类大脑的了解还非常少。你是否也希望 Neuralink 的工作能帮助我们更深入地理解人类的大脑和心智？
Elon MuskYeah. I think the work in Neuralink will definitely shed a lot of insight into how the brain, the mind works. Right now, just the data we have regarding how the brain works is very limited. We've got fMRI, that's like putting a stethoscope on the outside of a factory wall, and then putting it all over the factory wall and you can hear the sounds, but you don't know what the machines are doing really. It's hard. You can infer a few things, but it's very broad brush stroke.是的。我认为 Neuralink 的工作绝对会为我们理解大脑、心智的运作方式提供大量洞见。目前，我们关于大脑运作方式的数据非常有限。我们有 fMRI，但那就像把听诊器贴在工厂外墙上，到处贴满墙壁，你能听到声音，却根本不知道里面的机器在做什么。很难。你能推断出一些东西，但只是非常粗略的轮廓。
Elon MuskIn order to really know what's going on in the brain, you have to have high precision sensors and then you want to have stimulus and response. Like if you trigger a neuron, how do you feel? What do you see? How does it change your perception of the world?要真正了解大脑在发生什么，你必须有高精度传感器，然后你还需要刺激和响应的回路。比如，如果你触发一个神经元，你有什么感觉？你看到了什么？这如何改变你对世界的感知？
Lex FridmanESP can do physically just getting close to the brain, being able to measure signals from the brain will give us, open the door and inside the factory.ESP 可以做到——就是在物理上靠近大脑，能够测量来自大脑的信号，这会给我们打开那扇门，让我们走进工厂内部。
Elon MuskYes, exactly. Being able to have high precision sensors, that tell you what individual neurons are doing and then being able to trigger neuron and see what the response is in the brain so you can see the consequences of, if you fire this neuron, what happens? How do you feel? What is changed? It'll be really profound to have this in people because people can articulate their change. Like if there's a change in mood or if they can tell you if they can see better or hear better or be able to form sentences better or worse or their memories are jogged or that kind of thing.是的，正是。能够拥有高精度传感器，告诉你单个神经元在做什么，然后能够触发神经元并观察大脑的响应，这样你就能看到后果——如果激发这个神经元会发生什么？你有什么感觉？什么改变了？在人身上拥有这个能力会非常深刻，因为人可以清晰地表达自己的变化。比如情绪是否有改变，或者他们能不能告诉你视力是变好了还是听力变好了，或者能不能更好地组织语句，或者记忆被唤起了，诸如此类。
Lex FridmanSo on the human side, there's this incredible general malleability, plasticity of the human brain. The human brain adapts, adjusts and so on.那说到人类这一侧，大脑有这种令人惊叹的整体可塑性，大脑会适应、调整，等等。
Elon MuskIt's not that plasticity, to be totally frank.说实话，可塑性没那么强。
Lex FridmanSo there's a firm structure, but nevertheless there is some plasticity, and the open question is if I could ask a broad question is, how much that plasticity can be utilized? On the human side, there's some plasticity in the human brain and on the machine side we have neural networks, machine learning, artificial intelligence. It's able to adjust and figure out signals. So there's a mysterious language that we don't perfectly understand that's within the human brain. And then we're trying to understand that language to communicate both directions.所以存在一个固定的结构，但仍然有一定的可塑性，开放的问题是——如果问一个宽泛的问题——这种可塑性能被利用到多大程度？人类这一侧，大脑有一定的可塑性；机器这一侧，我们有神经网络、机器学习、人工智能，它能够调整并学会理解信号。大脑内部存在一种我们还不完全理解的神秘语言，我们正试图理解这种语言，以便实现双向通信。
Lex FridmanSo the brain is adjusting a little bit. We don't know how much and the machine is adjusting. Where do you see as they try to reach together almost like with an alien species, try to find a protocol, communication protocol that works. Where do you see the biggest benefit arriving from, on the machine side or the human side? Do you see both of them working together?所以大脑在稍微调整，我们不知道调整幅度有多大，机器也在调整。就像两个试图建立联系的陌生物种，试图找到一个有效的通信协议。你认为最大的收益将来自哪一边——机器侧，还是人类侧？你认为两者会协同工作吗？
Elon MuskI think the machine side is far more malleable than the biological side, by a huge amount. So it'll be the machine that adapts to the brain. That's the only thing that's possible. The brain can't adapt that well to the machine. You can't have neurons start to regard an electrode as another neuron. Because a neuron just, it's like the pulse and so something else is pulsing. See, so there is that elasticity in the interface, which we believe is something that can can happen, but the vast majority of the malleability will have to be on the machine side.我认为机器侧的可塑性远远高于生物侧，差距非常大。所以是机器来适应大脑，这是唯一可能的方向。大脑没法很好地适应机器。你不可能让神经元开始把电极当作另一个神经元，因为神经元就是脉冲，而另一个东西也在脉冲。不过在接口处确实存在那种弹性，我们认为这是可以发生的，但绝大多数的可塑性必须来自机器侧。
Lex FridmanBut it's interesting when you look at that synaptic plasticity at the interface side, there might be an emergent plasticity. Because it's whole nother, it's not like in the brain, it's a whole nother extension of the brain. We might have to redefine what it means to be malleable for the brain. So maybe the brain is able to adjust to external interfaces.但有趣的是，当你看接口处的突触可塑性时，可能会出现一种涌现性的可塑性。因为这是完全不同的东西，不像是在大脑内部，而是大脑的全新延伸。我们可能需要重新定义「对大脑而言可塑性意味着什么」。也许大脑能够调整以适应外部接口。
Elon MuskThere'll be some adjustments to the brain because there's going to be something reading and simulating the brain, and so it will adjust to that thing. But the vast majority of the adjustment will be on the machine side. This is just, it has to be that, otherwise it will not work.大脑会有一些调整，因为有东西在读取和模拟大脑，所以它会适应那个东西。但绝大多数的调整将来自机器侧。这是必然的，否则就行不通。
Elon MuskUltimately, we currently operate on two layers. We have a limbic like prime primitive brain layer, which is where all of our impulses are coming from. It's like we've got a monkey brain with a computer stuck on it, that's the human brain. And a lot of our impulses and everything are driven by the monkey brain, and the computer, the cortex is constantly trying to make the monkey brain happy. It's not the cortex that's steering the monkey brain, the monkey brain's steering the cortex.归根结底，我们目前运行在两个层次上。有一个边缘系统，类似原始脑的层次，我们所有的冲动都来自那里。就好像我们有一个猴脑，上面装了一台电脑，这就是人类大脑。我们大量的冲动和一切都是由猴脑驱动的，而电脑——大脑皮层——一直在努力让猴脑开心。不是大脑皮层在驾驭猴脑，而是猴脑在驾驭大脑皮层。
Lex FridmanBut the cortex is the part that tells the story of the whole thing. So we convince ourselves it's more interesting than just the monkey brain.但大脑皮层才是讲整件事故事的那部分。所以我们说服自己，这件事比单纯的猴脑要有趣得多。
Elon MuskThe cortex is what we call like human intelligence, so that's like the advanced computer relative to other creatures. Other creatures do not have, really they don't have the computer or they have a very weak computer relative to humans. But it seems like surely the really smart thing should control the dumb thing, but actually the dumb thing controls the smart thing.大脑皮层就是我们所说的人类智能，所以它相对于其他生物来说就像是一台高级电脑。其他生物基本上没有这台电脑，或者说电脑相对于人类来说非常弱。但看起来理所当然应该是聪明的东西控制笨的东西——然而实际上是笨的东西控制聪明的东西。
Lex FridmanSo do you think some of the same kind of machine learning methods, whether that's natural language processing applications are going to be applied for the communication between the machine and the brain? To learn how to do certain things like movement of the body, how to process visual stimuli and so on. Do you see the value of using machine learning to understand the language of the two-way communication with the brain?那你认为类似的机器学习方法——无论是自然语言处理应用还是其他方法——会被用于机器与大脑之间的通信吗？用来学习如何完成某些任务，比如身体运动、如何处理视觉刺激等。你认为用机器学习来理解与大脑双向通信的语言有价值吗？
Elon MuskSure. Yeah, absolutely. I mean we're a neural net and AI is basically a neural net. So it's like digital neural net will interface with biological neural net. And hopefully bring us along for the ride. But the vast majority of our intelligence will be digital. Think of the difference in intelligence between your cortex and your limbic system is gigantic. Your limbic system really has no comprehension of what the hell the cortex is doing. It's just literally hungry, or tired, or angry, or sexy or something. And then that communicates that impulse to the cortex and tells the cortex to go satisfy that.当然，绝对有。我们本身就是一个神经网络，AI 基本上也是一个神经网络。所以就像是数字神经网络与生物神经网络对接，希望能带着我们一起前行。但我们的绝大多数智能将是数字的。想想你的大脑皮层和边缘系统之间的智能差距，是天壤之别。你的边缘系统完全不理解大脑皮层在做什么，它只是单纯地饿了、累了、愤怒了、有性冲动了，然后把这个冲动传达给大脑皮层，让大脑皮层去满足它。
Elon MuskThen a great deal of, a massive amount of thinking, like truly stupendous amount of thinking has gone into sex without purpose, without provocation, without procreation. Which is actually quite a silly action, in the absence of procreation. It's a bit silly. Why are you doing it? Because it makes the limbic system happy, that's why.于是大量的——真的是海量的——思考都花在了「没有繁殖目的、没有诱因、没有生殖意义」的性上面。这实际上在没有生殖的情况下是相当蠢的行为，有点蠢。你为什么这么做？因为这让边缘系统开心，仅此而已。
Lex FridmanThat's why.就是这样。
Elon MuskBut it's pretty absurd, really.但这确实挺荒谬的。
Lex FridmanWell, the whole of existence is pretty absurd in some sense.嗯，在某种意义上，整个存在都挺荒谬的。
Elon MuskYeah. But I mean this is a lot of computation that has gone into how can I do more of that with the procreation not even being a factor? This is I think, a very important area of research by NSFW.是啊。但我的意思是，大量的计算资源都被用来思考「我怎样才能更多地这样做，而且连繁殖都不是一个因素」。我认为这是 NSFW 的一个非常重要的研究领域。
Lex FridmanAn agency that should receive a lot of funding, especially after this conversation.一个应该获得大量资助的机构，尤其是在这次对话之后。
Elon MuskI'm proposing the formation of a new agency.我提议成立一个新机构。
Lex FridmanOh boy. What is the most exciting or some of the most exciting things that you see in the future impact of Neuralink, both on the science, engineering and societal broad impact?哦天哪。你认为 Neuralink 在未来最令人兴奋的事情是什么，无论是在科学、工程还是更广泛的社会影响层面？
Elon MuskSo Neuralink, I think at first will solve a lot of brain related diseases. So create anything from like autism, schizophrenia, memory loss, like everyone experiences memory loss at certain points in age. Parents can't remember their kids' names and that kind of thing. So there's, I think a tremendous amount of good that Neuralink can do in solving a critical damage to the brain, or the spinal cord. There's a lot that can be done to improve quality of life of individuals and those will be steps along the way. And then ultimately, it's intended to address the rest of the existential risk associated with a digital superintelligence.我认为 Neuralink 首先会解决很多与大脑相关的疾病——从自闭症、精神分裂症到记忆丧失，每个人在某个年龄段都会经历记忆衰退，父母记不住孩子的名字，诸如此类。所以我认为 Neuralink 在解决大脑或脊髓的关键性损伤方面能做的好事非常多，可以做很多事情来提升个人的生活质量，这些都将是沿途的步骤。最终，它的目的是应对与数字超级智能相关的那部分存在性风险。
Elon MuskWe will not feel to be smarter than a digital supercomputer. So therefore, if you cannot beat them, join them. And at least we won't have that option.我们不会感觉自己比数字超级计算机更聪明。所以既然打不过，就加入它们。至少我们会有那个选项。
Lex FridmanSo you have hope that Neuralink will be able to be a connection to allow us to merge, to ride the wave of the improving AI systems?所以你希望 Neuralink 能够成为一个连接，让我们能够融合其中，随着不断进步的 AI 系统乘风破浪？
Elon MuskI think the chance is above 0%.我认为这个概率高于 0%。
Lex FridmanSo it's non-zero?所以是非零的？
Elon MuskYes.是的。
Lex FridmanThere's a chance.有这个可能。
Elon MuskHave you've seen Dumb and Dumber?你看过《阿呆与阿瓜》吗？
Lex FridmanYes.看过。
Elon MuskSo I'm saying there's a chance.所以我是说，有这个可能。
Lex FridmanSo you're saying one in a billion or one in a million, whatever it was that Dumb and Dumber?所以你说的是十亿分之一，还是百万分之一，就像《阿呆与阿瓜》里那样？
Elon MuskIt weren't for maybe one in a million to improving, maybe it'll be one in a thousand, and then one in a hundred, then one in 10. It depends on the rate of improvement of Neuralink and how fast we're able to make progress.可能不止百万分之一，也许会提升到千分之一，然后百分之一，然后十分之一。这取决于 Neuralink 的进步速度，以及我们能以多快的速度取得进展。
Lex FridmanWell, I've talked to a few folks here that are quite brilliant engineers. So, I'm excited.嗯，我在这里和几位相当出色的工程师聊过，所以我很兴奋。
Elon MuskYeah. I think it's fundamentally good. Giving somebody back full motor control after they've had a spinal cord injury, restoring brain functionality after a stroke, solving debilitating genetically oriented brain diseases. These are all incredibly great, I think. And in order to do these, you have to be able to interface with the neurons at a detailed level. You need to be able to fire the right neurons, read the right neurons. And then effectively you can create a circuit, replace what's broken with silicon and essentially fill in the missing functionality.是的。我认为这从根本上是件好事。让一个脊髓损伤的人恢复完整的运动控制，让中风后的人恢复大脑功能，解决那些令人衰弱的遗传性脑病——我认为这些都是极其了不起的事情。而要做到这些，你必须能在精细的层面上与神经元交互，需要能够激发正确的神经元、读取正确的神经元。这样你就能构建一个回路，用硅来替代损坏的部分，基本上填补缺失的功能。
Elon MuskAnd then over time we can develop a tertiary layer. Like limbic system as a primary layer, then the cortex is a second layer. And I said, obviously the cortex is vastly more intelligent than the limbic system. But people generally like the fact that they have a limbic system and a cortex. I haven't met anyone who wants to delete either one of them. They're like, okay, I'll keep them both. That's cool.随着时间推移，我们可以开发第三层。就像边缘系统是第一层，大脑皮层是第二层——大脑皮层显然比边缘系统聪明得多，但人们普遍喜欢自己同时拥有边缘系统和大脑皮层这一事实。我从没遇到过想删掉其中任何一个的人，大家都说，好，我两个都留着，挺好的。
Lex FridmanThe limbic system is kind of fun.边缘系统确实挺好玩的。
Elon MuskThat is where all the fun is, absolutely. And then people generally don't want to lose their cortex either. Right? So they like having the cortex and the limbic system. And then there's a tertiary layer which will be digital superintelligence. And I think there's room for optimism given that the cortex is very intelligent and limbic system is not, and yet they work together well. Perhaps there can be a tertiary layer where digital superintelligence lies. And that will be vastly more intelligent than the cortex, but still coexist peacefully in a benign manner with the cortex and limbic system.所有乐趣都在那里，绝对是。人们一般也不想失去大脑皮层，对吧？所以他们喜欢同时拥有大脑皮层和边缘系统。然后还有第三层，那将是数字超级智能。我认为有理由保持乐观——大脑皮层非常聪明而边缘系统并不聪明，但它们合作得很好。也许可以存在一个第三层，数字超级智能居于其中，它将远比大脑皮层聪明，但依然能与大脑皮层和边缘系统和平共处、以一种良性的方式共存。
Lex FridmanThat's super exciting future, both in the low-level engineering that I saw is being done here and the actual possibility in the next few decades.这是个超令人兴奋的未来愿景，无论是从我在这里看到的底层工程工作，还是从未来几十年的实际可能性来看。
Elon MuskIt's important that Neuralink solves this problem sooner rather than later because the point at which we have digital superintelligence, that's where we pass the singularity and things become just very uncertain. It doesn't mean that they're necessarily bad or good, but the point of which we pass singularity, things become extremely unstable. So we want to have a human brain interface before the singularity or at least not long after it, to minimize existential risk for humanity and consciousness as we know it.Neuralink 尽早解决这个问题很重要，因为一旦我们拥有数字超级智能，那就是我们越过奇点的时刻，事情将变得非常不确定。这不意味着一定是好事或坏事，但越过奇点的那一刻，事情会变得极度不稳定。所以我们希望在奇点之前——或者至少不要落后太久——就拥有人脑接口，以最大限度地降低对人类和我们所认知的意识的存在性风险。
Lex FridmanThere's a lot of fascinating actual engineering, low-level problems here at Neuralink that are quite exciting.Neuralink 这里有很多迷人的实际工程底层问题，相当令人兴奋。
Elon MuskThe problems that we face in Neuralink are material science, electrical engineering, software, mechanical engineering, microfabrication, it's a bunch of engineering disciplines, essentially. That's what it comes down to is you have to have a tiny electrode, it's so small, it doesn't hurt neurons. But it's got to last for as long as a person, so it's got to last for decades. And then you've got to take that signal, and you've got to process that signal locally at low power.我们在 Neuralink 面临的问题涉及材料科学、电气工程、软件、机械工程、微加工——基本上是一堆工程学科。归根结底，你需要有一个极其微小的电极，小到不会伤害神经元，但它必须和人一样长久，所以要能持续数十年。然后你要采集这个信号，并在低功耗条件下在本地处理它。
Elon MuskSo we need a lot of chip design engineers, because we've got to do signal processing. And do so in a very power efficient way so that we don't heat your brain up. Because the brain's very heat sensitive. And then, we've got to take those signals and we've got to do something with them. And then we've got to stimulate back to, so you could bi-directional communication.所以我们需要大量芯片设计工程师，因为我们必须做信号处理，而且要以非常省电的方式做，以免加热你的大脑——因为大脑对热非常敏感。然后，我们必须处理这些信号，对其做些什么，还要做反向刺激，实现双向通信。
Elon MuskSo if someone's good at material science, software, mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, chip design, microfabrication, those are the things we need to work on. We need to be good at material science so that we can have tiny electrodes that lasts a long time. And it's a tough thing with the material science, it's a tough one because you're trying to read and simulate electrically in an electrically active area, your brain is very electrically active and electrochemically active.所以如果有人擅长材料科学、软件、机械工程、电气工程、芯片设计、微加工，这些都是我们需要攻克的方向。我们需要在材料科学上做好，以便拥有能长期使用的微型电极。材料科学是个棘手的问题，因为你试图在一个电活跃的区域里进行电气读取和刺激——你的大脑电活动和电化学活动都非常强。
Elon MuskSo how do you have, say a coding on the electrode that doesn't dissolve over time? And is safe in the brain? This is a very hard problem. And then how do you collect those signals in a way that is most efficient, because you really just have very tiny amounts of power to process those signals. And then we need to automate the whole thing. So it's like LASIK, so if this is done by neurosurgeons, there's no way it can scale to large numbers of people. And it needs to scale to large numbers of people because I think ultimately we want the future repeated, to be determined by a large number of humans.那么，如何才能让电极上的涂层不随时间溶解，同时在大脑中是安全的？这是个非常难的问题。然后如何以最高效的方式采集这些信号，因为你真的只有极少量的功率来处理这些信号。接下来还需要把整个流程自动化，就像 LASIK 那样——如果这事必须由神经外科医生来做，那就根本不可能扩展到大量人群。而这必须要扩展到大量人群，因为我认为最终我们希望未来由大量的人来共同决定。
Lex FridmanDo you think that this has a chance to revolutionize surgery, period? So neurosurgery and surgery [crosstalk 00:00:24:38].你认为这有没有可能彻底革命性地改变外科手术本身？神经外科，乃至整个外科手术领域？
Elon MuskYeah, absolutely. Yeah, for sure. It's got to be like LASIK, like if LASIK had to be hand done, done by hand by a person, that wouldn't be great. It's done by a robot. And the ophthalmologist just needs to make sure your head's in my position and then they just press a button and go.是的，绝对会。必须要像 LASIK 那样——如果 LASIK 必须由人手工操作，那就不好了。它是由机器人来完成的，眼科医生只需确保你的头在正确位置，然后按下按钮就走了。
Lex FridmanSmart Summon and soon AutoPark takes on the full beautiful mess of parking lots and their human-to-human nonverbal communication. I think it has actually the potential to have a profound impact in changing how our civilization looks at AI and robotics because this is the first time human beings, people that don't own a Tesla, that may have never seen a Tesla or heard about a Tesla, get to watch hundreds of thousands of cars without a driver. Do you see it this way, almost like an education tool for the world about AI? Do you feel the burden of that, the excitement of that, or do you just think it's a smart parking feature?Smart Summon，以及即将推出的 AutoPark，正在全面应对停车场这个复杂混乱的场景，以及其中人与人之间的无言沟通。我认为这实际上有可能对我们的文明如何看待 AI 和机器人产生深远影响，因为这是第一次人类——那些没有 Tesla 的人，可能从未见过或听说过 Tesla 的人——可以亲眼看到成千上万辆没有司机的汽车行驶。你是这样看待这件事的吗？几乎像是一个向全世界普及 AI 的教育工具？你是否感受到这种使命感、兴奋感？还是你只是把它当作一个智能停车功能？
Elon MuskI do think you are getting at something important, which is, most people have never really seen a robot. And what is the car that is autonomous, it's a four-wheeled robot.我认为你说到了一个重要的点：大多数人从未真正见过机器人。而一辆自动驾驶的汽车，就是一个四轮机器人。
Lex FridmanRight. Yeah. It communicates a certain message with everything from safety to the possibility of what AI could bring to its current limitations, its current challenges. It's what's possible. Do you feel the burden of that? Almost like a communicator educator to the world about AI?对，是的。它传达了某种信息——从安全性到 AI 可能带来的可能性，再到它当前的局限性和挑战，展示的是「什么是可能的」。你是否感受到这种使命感，几乎像是向世界传播 AI 的沟通者和教育者？
Elon MuskWe were just really trying to make people's lives easier with autonomy, but now that you mention it, I think it will be an eyeopener to people about robotics. Because most people have never seen a robot and there are hundreds of thousands of Teslas. Won't be long before there's a million of them that have autonomous capability, and the drive without a person in it. And you can see the evolution of the car's personality, and thinking with each iteration of autopilot. You can see it's uncertain about this, or now it's more certain. Now it's moving in a slightly different way.我们只是真的在尝试用自动驾驶让人们的生活更轻松，但既然你这么说，我认为这会让人们对机器人大开眼界。因为大多数人从未见过机器人，而 Tesla 已经有数十万辆了。不久之后就会有一百万辆具备自动驾驶能力、能在没有驾驶员的情况下行驶的汽车。你可以看到随着每次 Autopilot 迭代，汽车性格和思维方式的演变——你能看出它对这个情况不确定，或者现在更有把握了，或者现在移动的方式稍微不同了。
Elon MuskI can tell immediately if a car is on Tesla Autopilot because it's got just little nuances of movement. It just moves in a slightly different way. If a car's on Tesla Autopilot, for example on the highway, are far more precise about being in the center lane than a person. If you drive down the highway and look at where cars are, the human driven cars are within their lane. They're like bumper cars. They're moving all over the place. The car on Autopilot, dead center.我能立刻分辨出一辆车是否处于 Tesla Autopilot，因为它的动作有一些细微之处，动作方式稍有不同。比如在高速公路上处于 Tesla Autopilot 的车辆，在保持居中行驶方面远比人类精准。如果你在高速公路上开车，看看旁边的车，人类驾驶的车就像碰碰车一样，在车道里到处晃。Autopilot 的车，正正好好在中间。
Lex FridmanYeah. So the incredible work that's going into that neural network, it's learning fast. Autonomy is still very, very hard. We don't actually know how hard it is fully, of course. You look at most problems you tackle this one included, with an exponential lens, but even with an exponential improvement, things can take longer than expected sometimes. So where does Tesla currently stand on its quest for full autonomy? What's your sense? When can we see successful deployment of full autonomy?是的。投入到神经网络中的大量工作，它学习得很快。自动驾驶依然非常非常难，我们也确实不完全知道它究竟有多难。你看待你攻克的大多数问题——包括这个——用的都是指数级的视角，但即便是指数级的进步，有时事情也会花费比预期更长的时间。那么 Tesla 目前在追求完全自动驾驶的道路上处于什么位置？你有什么感觉？我们什么时候能看到完全自动驾驶的成功部署？
Elon MuskWell on the highway already, the probability of intervention is extremely low. So, for highway autonomy with the latest release, especially the probability of needing to intervene, is really quite low. In fact, I'd say for stop-and-go traffic, it's far safer than a person right now. The probability of an injury or an impact is much, much lower for autopilot than a person. And with navigate and autopilot, you can change lanes, take highway interchanges.嗯，在高速公路上，需要人工干预的概率已经极低了。就最新版本而言，尤其是在需要干预的概率上，已经真的相当低了。事实上，我敢说在走走停停的拥堵路况中，它现在比人类安全得多。Autopilot 发生碰撞或事故的概率比人类低得多得多。有了 Navigate on Autopilot，还可以变道、通过高速公路交叉口。
Elon MuskAnd then we're coming at it from the other direction, which is lower speed, full autonomy. And in a way this is like, how does a person learn to drive? You learn to drive in the parking lot. The first time you learn to drive probably wasn't jumping on Walker Street in San Francisco. That'd be crazy. You learn to drive in the parking lot, get things right at low speed.然后我们从另一个方向来——低速完全自动驾驶。在某种程度上，这就像一个人学习驾驶的方式：你在停车场学开车，第一次学开车大概不是直接冲上旧金山的 Walker Street，那会很疯狂。你在停车场学，低速把事情搞定。
Elon MuskAnd then the missing piece that we're working on is traffic lights and stop streets. Stop streets I would say are actually also relatively easy because you know where the stop street is. Worst case you can geocode it, and then use visualization to see where the line is and stop at the line to eliminate the GPSR. So it's actually, I'd say it's probably complex traffic lights and very winding roads. The two things that need to get solved.我们正在攻克的缺失一环是交通灯和停车标志街道。停车标志街道我认为实际上也相对容易，因为你知道停车标志在哪里，最差的情况可以做地理编码，然后用视觉识别来找到停车线并在线前停下，从而排除 GPS 误差。所以我认为，真正需要解决的两件事大概是复杂的交通灯和非常蜿蜒的道路。
Lex FridmanWhat's harder, perception or control for these problems? So being able to perfectly perceive everything or figuring out a plan once you perceive everything? How to interact with all the agents in the environment? In your sense, from a learning perspective, is perception or action harder, in that giant, beautiful, multi-task learning neural network?对于这些问题，感知和控制哪个更难？是能够完美感知一切更难，还是一旦感知完了决定怎么行动更难——如何与环境中所有其他主体互动？从学习的角度，在那个巨大的、美丽的多任务学习神经网络里，感知和行动哪个更难？
Elon MuskThe hardest thing is having accurate representation of the physical objects in vector space. So, taking the visual input, primarily visual input, some sonar and radar and then creating an accurate vector space representation of the objects around you. Once you have an accurate vector space representation, the planning and control is relatively easier. That is relatively easy.最难的是在向量空间中对物理对象建立精确的表示。也就是说，输入视觉信息——主要是视觉，加上一些声纳和雷达——然后创建出你周围物体准确的向量空间表示。一旦你有了精确的向量空间表示，规划和控制就相对容易了，那部分是相对容易的。
Elon MuskBasically, once you have accurate vector space representation, then you're like a video game, like cars in Grand Theft Auto or something. They work pretty well. They drive down the road, they don't crash, pretty much unless you crash into them. That's because they've got an accurate vector space representation of where the cars are, and then they're rendering that as the output.基本上，一旦你有了精确的向量空间表示，你就像在玩电子游戏，像《侠盗猎车手》里的 NPC 车辆一样。它们运作得挺好——沿着路行驶，基本不撞车，除非你去撞它们。那是因为它们有精确的向量空间表示，知道车在哪里，然后把这个信息渲染成输出。
Lex FridmanDo you have a sense, high level that Tesla's on track on being able to achieve full autonomy? So on the highway ...你有没有一种大体的感觉，Tesla 在实现完全自动驾驶的道路上是否走在正轨上？比如在高速公路上……
Elon MuskYeah, yeah, absolutely.是的，是的，绝对是。
Lex FridmanAnd still no driver state? Driver sensing?还是没有驾驶员状态监测？驾驶员感应？
Elon MuskWe have driver sensing with torque on the wheel.我们有方向盘扭矩感应的驾驶员感知。
Lex FridmanThat's right. By the way, just a quick comment on karaoke, most people think it's fun, but I also think it is the driving feature. I've been saying for a long time, singing in the car is really good for attention management and vigilance management.对了。顺便说一句，就卡拉 OK 这个话题随便说一句——大多数人觉得它好玩，但我也认为它是一个驾驶辅助功能。我一直以来都在说，在车里唱歌对注意力管理和警觉性管理真的很好。
Elon MuskThat's right. Tesla Caraoke is great. It's one of the most fun features of the car.对，Tesla Caraoke 很棒，是车里最好玩的功能之一。
Lex FridmanDo you think of a connection between fun and safety sometimes?你有没有想过，有时候好玩和安全之间存在关联？
Elon MuskYeah, if you can do both at the same time, that's great.是啊，如果能同时做到两者，那当然最好了。
Lex FridmanI just met with Ann Druyan, wife of Carl Sagan, who directed Cosmos.我刚见过 Ann Druyan，Carl Sagan 的妻子，她执导了《宇宙》。
Elon MuskI'm generally a big fan of Carl Sagan, he's super cool. And had a great way of putting things. All of our consciousness, all civilization, everything we've ever known and done is on this tiny blue dot. People also get too trapped in their squabbles amongst humans, and just don't think of the big picture. They take civilization and our continued existence for granted. They shouldn't do that. Look at the history of civilizations, they rise and they fall, and now civilization is all, it's globalized. And so civilization, I think now rises and falls together. There's not geographic isolation. This is a big risk. Things don't always go up. That should be an important lesson of history.我总体上是 Carl Sagan 的超级粉丝，他超酷。他有一种非常棒的表达方式。我们所有的意识、所有的文明、我们曾经知道和做过的一切，都在这个小小的蓝点上。人们也太容易陷在人类之间的纷争里，根本不去想大局。他们把文明和我们持续的存在视为理所当然——不应该这样。看看各大文明的历史，它们兴起，然后覆灭，而现在文明已经全球化。所以文明，我认为，现在是兴衰与共的。没有地理隔离了，这是个巨大的风险。事情不会一直向上。这应该是历史留给我们的重要教训。
Lex FridmanIn 1990 at the request of Carl Sagan, the Voyager One spacecraft, which is a spacecraft that's reaching out farther than anything human-made into space. Turned around to take a picture of Earth from 3.7 billion miles away, and as you're talking about the pale blue dot, that picture, there it takes up less than a single pixel in that image. Appearing as a tiny blue dot, as a pale blue dot, as Carl Sagan called it. So he spoke about this dot of ours in 1994. And if you could humor me, I was wondering if in the last two minutes you could read the words that he wrote describing this pale blue dot?1990 年，应 Carl Sagan 的要求，旅行者一号——一艘比任何人造物体都飞得更远的宇宙飞船——掉转方向，从 37 亿英里之外拍下了地球的照片。就像你说的「暗淡蓝点」，地球在那张照片里还不到一个像素，就那么一个小小的蓝点，Carl Sagan 称之为「暗淡蓝点」。他在 1994 年谈论过这个点。如果你不介意的话，我想请你用最后两分钟读一读他描述这个暗淡蓝点的文字？
Elon MuskSure. It's funny, the universe appears to be 13.8 billion years old. Earth, like four and a half billion years old. In another half billion years or so the sun will expand and probably evaporate the oceans, and make life impossible on Earth. Which means that if it had taken consciousness 10% longer to evolve, it would never have evolved at all, 10% longer. And I wonder how many dead one-planet civilizations there are out there in the cosmos, that never made it to the other planet and ultimately extinguished themselves or were destroyed by external factors? Probably a few.当然。有趣的是，宇宙据说已经有 138 亿年的历史，地球大约有 45 亿年的历史。再过大约 50 亿年，太阳会膨胀，很可能蒸发掉海洋，使地球上的生命成为不可能。这意味着，如果意识的进化再多花 10% 的时间，它就根本不会进化出来，多 10% 而已。我不禁想：宇宙中有多少颗死去的单行星文明，永远没能到达另一颗星球，最终自我毁灭或被外部因素摧毁？大概不少。
Elon MuskIt's only just possible to travel to Mars. Just barely. If G was 10% more, wouldn't work really. If G was 10% lower, it would be easy. You can go single stage from surface of Mars, all the way to the surface of the Earth because Mars is 37 syndrome of gravity, there abouts. You need a giant boost to get off the Earth.前往火星刚刚处于可能的边缘，仅仅是可行的。如果引力常数 G 再大 10%，基本上就行不通了。如果 G 小 10%，就轻松多了——从火星表面单级飞到地球表面，因为火星的重力大约是 37% 的 g。而要离开地球，你需要极大的推力。
Elon MuskChanneling Carl Sagan. Look again at that dot that's here. That's home. That's us. On it, everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you've ever heard of, every human being who ever was lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering. Thousands of confident religions, ideologies and economic doctrines. Every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every King and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer. Every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every superstar, every supreme leader, every Saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there. Automotive dust suspended in a sun beam.借 Carl Sagan 之口。再看看那个光点——它就在这里，那就是家园，那就是我们。在它上面，有你爱的所有人，你认识的所有人，你曾经听说过的所有人，每一个曾经活过的人。我们全部的喜悦与苦难，数千种自信的宗教、意识形态和经济主张。每一个猎人和采集者，每一个英雄和懦夫，每一个文明的创造者和毁灭者，每一个国王和农民，每一对热恋中的年轻情侣，每一位母亲和父亲，充满希望的孩子，发明家和探险家。每一个道德教师，每一个腐败的政客，每一个超级明星，每一个最高领袖，我们物种历史上所有的圣人与罪人——都曾生活在那里，一粒悬浮在阳光中的尘埃。
Elon MuskOur planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity, in all those vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves. The earth is the only world known so far to harbor life. There was nowhere else, at least in the near future to which our species could migrate.我们的星球是浩瀚宇宙黑暗中一颗孤独的微粒。在我们这种渺小、在这片茫茫虚空之中，没有任何迹象显示会有外援从别处降临来拯救我们免于自我毁灭。地球是迄今已知唯一孕育生命的世界。至少在不远的将来，没有其他地方可供我们的物种迁徙而去。
Elon MuskThis is not true. This is false, Mars.这是错误的。这是假的，因为有火星。
Lex FridmanAnd I think Carl Sagan would agree with that. He couldn't even imagine it at that time. So thank you for making the world dream. And thank you for talking today. I really appreciate it. Thank you.我想 Carl Sagan 也会同意的，他那个时代根本想象不到这种可能。所以感谢你让这个世界有了梦想，也感谢你今天的交流，我真的非常感激。谢谢你。
Elon MuskThank you.谢谢你。