A Speed Limit for Computers
A Speed Limit for Computers
计算机的“限速”
The home and personal computing revolutions of the 70’s, 80’s, and 90’s put the power of computing in the hands of the masses. For those of us that grew up with these machines, it can be hard to reconcile the computer culture of our youth with the industry we find ourselves in today. But at some point, a threshold was crossed and increasing computing power no longer translated to increased autonomy. Quite the opposite.
70、80 和 90 年代的家庭与个人计算革命将计算能力交到了大众手中。对于我们这些伴随着这些机器成长的人来说，很难将我们年轻时的计算机文化与今天所处的行业联系起来。但在某个时刻，我们跨越了一个临界点：计算能力的提升不再意味着自主权的增加，反而恰恰相反。
In 1973, before the first commercially successful home computer, and with the Western world in the beginnings of an energy crisis, Ivan Illich wrote an essay titled ‘Energy and Equity’. In it, he argued that - above a certain threshold - energy had marginal disutility. And that applying more of it would yield negative returns. What is generally overlooked is that energy and equity can grow concurrently only to a point. Below a threshold of per capita wattage, motors improve the conditions for social progress. Above this threshold, energy grows at the expense of equity. Further energy affluence then means decreased distribution of control over that energy.
1973 年，在第一台商业上成功的家用电脑问世之前，正值西方世界能源危机初期，伊万·伊里奇（Ivan Illich）撰写了一篇题为《能源与公平》（Energy and Equity）的文章。他在文中指出，能源在超过一定阈值后会产生边际负效用，投入更多能源反而会带来负面回报。人们通常忽略的一点是，能源与公平只能在一定限度内同步增长。在人均瓦数低于某个阈值时，动力机械能改善社会进步的条件；而一旦超过这个阈值，能源的增长就会以牺牲公平为代价。能源的进一步富足，意味着对能源的控制权分配在减少。
To make his argument concrete, he applied this theory to traffic and speed: Beyond a certain velocity, motorized vehicles create remoteness which they alone can shrink. They create distances for all and shrink them only for a few. And he singles out speed, not the form of conveyance, as the factor driving transport inequality. Accelerating speed inevitably concentrates horsepower under the seats of a few and compounds the increasing time-lack of most commuters with the further sense that they are lagging behind.
为了使论点具体化，他将这一理论应用于交通和速度：超过一定速度后，机动车辆所创造的距离，只有它们自己才能缩短。它们为所有人制造了距离，却只为少数人缩短了距离。他特别指出，速度而非交通工具的形式，才是导致交通不平等的因素。速度的提升不可避免地将马力集中在少数人的座位下，并加剧了大多数通勤者日益严重的“时间匮乏感”，让他们感到自己正在落后。
Eventually, in 1974, the UK - feeling the pinch of the oil crisis - did introduce restrictions on vehicle speed to more equitably ration fuel. Slowly and reluctantly, we have continued to constrict vehicle speed ever since. But while we still fall short of the “low-energy, convivial modernity” imagined by Ivan Illich, politically determined limits on what a vehicle is technically capable of are accepted as necessary.
最终，在 1974 年，英国在感受到石油危机的压力后，确实引入了车辆限速措施，以更公平地分配燃料。自那时起，我们一直在缓慢而勉强地限制车速。尽管我们距离伊万·伊里奇所设想的“低能耗、宜居的现代性”仍有差距，但通过政治手段限制车辆的技术性能已被视为必要之举。
In computing, however, we are at the very beginning of this legal and political journey. Restrictions on the industry tend to focus on data processing and accountability rather than limiting the power of our machines. But imagine the effect of a maximum hard drive size, CPU clock frequency, or network speed. If we still had the machines of the 80’s or 90’s, would we face the same problems we have today? Could you build Meta or Anthropic on the backs of Amigas and Acorn Archimedes? If not, technological capability plays a role. So how many of our problems derive from the inherent inequity of increased computing power?
然而在计算领域，我们才刚刚踏上这段法律与政治之旅的起点。行业限制往往集中在数据处理和问责制上，而不是限制机器本身的性能。但试想一下，如果限制硬盘容量、CPU 主频或网络速度会产生什么影响？如果我们仍在使用 80 或 90 年代的机器，我们还会面临今天的问题吗？你能在 Amiga 或 Acorn Archimedes 电脑上构建出 Meta 或 Anthropic 吗？如果不能，那么技术能力确实在其中扮演了角色。那么，我们有多少问题是源于计算能力提升所带来的内在不平等呢？
Of course, there’s no sense dragging everyone back to the 70’s to re-run the home computing revolution. But I’d like to highlight a technology in a different category that is defined by its restraint: the e-bike. In the UK and Europe, the motor of the ‘electrically assisted pedal cycle’ (EPAC) cuts out at 15 mph [25 km/hour]. This is not a technological limitation but a legal and political choice that slots it neatly into the infrastructure built for the regular human-powered bicycle. That rule might have been a convenience, but I think, surprisingly, it’s now the e-bike’s most radical intervention.
当然，让所有人回到 70 年代重演家庭计算革命毫无意义。但我想要强调一种定义于“克制”的特殊技术：电动自行车。在英国和欧洲，电动助力自行车（EPAC）的电机在时速达到 15 英里（25 公里/小时）时会自动切断动力。这并非技术限制，而是一种法律和政治选择，使其能够完美融入为普通人力自行车构建的基础设施中。这条规则起初可能只是为了方便，但我认为，令人惊讶的是，这现在成了电动自行车最激进的干预方式。
The speed is what’s important. Because, when Ivan Illich attempted to determine a threshold for the disutility for speed, he observed the following: From our limited information it appears that everywhere in the world, after some vehicle broke the speed barrier of 15 mph [25 km/hour], time scarcity related to traffic began to grow. In other words, he believes we maximise utility for all by travelling at the speed of a bicycle. And because it is the speed and not the effort of your legs that is crucial, the e-bike increases access to transport (for those who cannot pedal unassisted) without increasing the ‘time-lack’ of others.
速度才是关键。因为当伊万·伊里奇试图确定速度负效用的阈值时，他观察到：根据我们有限的信息，世界各地似乎在任何交通工具突破 15 英里/小时（25 公里/小时）的速度壁垒后，与交通相关的时间匮乏感就开始增长。换句话说，他认为以自行车的速度行驶能实现全社会效用的最大化。由于关键在于速度而非腿部力量，电动自行车在增加交通便利性（为那些无法独立踩踏的人）的同时，并不会增加他人的“时间匮乏”。
In computing, however, we have no comparable machine. Where governments have attempted to apply legal and political constraints to technology - in an attempt to stymie our loss of autonomy to big tech - the collateral damage has been the loss of real community infrastructure that cannot meet their demands. So, could we make space for a restrained class of computer? A category of machine designed to attract fewer laws and offer some “low-energy, convivial modernity” by its use? What limits would it have, this bicycle for the mind?
然而在计算领域，我们还没有类似的机器。当政府试图对技术施加法律和政治约束——以阻止我们向大型科技公司让渡自主权时——其附带损害往往是那些无法满足合规要求的真实社区基础设施的消亡。那么，我们能否为一类“克制型”计算机留出空间？一类旨在减少法律监管，并通过使用它来提供某种“低能耗、宜居现代性”的机器？这种“思维的自行车”应该具备什么样的限制呢？