Can ‘super intelligence’ and a non-binding safety pact solve AI’s image problem?
Can ‘super intelligence’ and a non-binding safety pact solve AI’s image problem?
“超级智能”与非约束性安全协议能解决人工智能的形象问题吗？
President Donald Trump hosted many of the biggest names in artificial intelligence this week — in part to announce that the U.S. government isn’t calling it artificial intelligence anymore. Now it’s super intelligence. 唐纳德·特朗普总统本周接待了人工智能领域的许多重量级人物，部分原因是为了宣布美国政府不再将其称为“人工智能”（Artificial Intelligence），现在它被称为“超级智能”（Super Intelligence）。
On the latest episode of TechCrunch’s Equity podcast, Kirsten Korosec, Sean O’Kane, and I discussed the motivation behind the meeting and what effect it might have on the AI industry. We were all pretty skeptical that the “Joint Commitment on Frontier Responsibilities” that the executives signed will amount to much, especially since — as Sean noted — it’s “deeply non-binding,” at least from a legal prospective. (Instead, Trump said he considers it “morally binding.”) 在 TechCrunch 的《Equity》播客最新一期节目中，Kirsten Korosec、Sean O’Kane 和我讨论了这次会议背后的动机及其对人工智能行业可能产生的影响。我们都对高管们签署的《前沿责任联合承诺》（Joint Commitment on Frontier Responsibilities）能否产生实质性作用持怀疑态度，正如 Sean 所指出的，从法律角度来看，它“完全没有约束力”。（相反，特朗普表示他认为这是“道德约束”。）
Kirsten suggested that the meeting’s real significance may have been as “a rebranding effort around AI.” (An effort that continued this weekend with Trump’s announcement of a new Super Intelligence Force.) For her, the big message was, “AI is going to kill us, it’s scary, it is going to take jobs — but super intelligence is not.” Kirsten 认为，这次会议的真正意义可能在于“围绕人工智能的品牌重塑”。（这一努力在本周末随着特朗普宣布成立新的“超级智能部队”而得以延续。）对她而言，其核心信息是：“人工智能会杀死我们，它很可怕，它会夺走工作——但超级智能不会。”
Anthony Ha: Officially, by order of the president of the United States, it’s not artificial intelligence anymore, it’s super intelligence. We were talking about this last week, because this is something [Trump has] been hinting at — he doesn’t do hints, he’s been saying [it] for a while. But now it’s signed into executive order. If you’re an official U.S. representative, you are supposed to say super intelligence, not artificial intelligence. Anthony Ha： 正式地，根据美国总统的命令，它不再是人工智能，而是超级智能。我们上周就在讨论这个问题，因为这是[特朗普]一直在暗示的事情——他其实不怎么玩暗示，他已经说了有一段时间了。但现在它已被签署为行政命令。如果你是美国官方代表，你就应该说“超级智能”，而不是“人工智能”。
And this was also part of this broader announcement around AI safety, which I think is both interesting for this pact that was announced, but also the fact that it happened at all. It seemed to have come together fairly quickly, because just two weeks ago, a week ago, President Trump was saying, “We don’t need any of this, we need to lead in AI, we can’t constrain it in any way, we don’t need any regulation, anyone who’s saying that there’s any danger from AI is essentially a Chinese or Democratic plant.” And yet all these AI CEOs got together with him earlier this week and signed this pact. 这也是围绕人工智能安全这一更广泛声明的一部分。我认为，不仅宣布的这份协议很有趣，而且它能够达成这一事实本身也很有趣。它似乎是在相当短的时间内促成的，因为就在两周前、一周前，特朗普总统还在说：“我们不需要这些，我们需要在人工智能领域保持领先，我们不能以任何方式限制它，我们不需要任何监管，任何说人工智能有危险的人本质上都是中国或民主党的安插人员。”然而，本周早些时候，所有这些人工智能公司的首席执行官都与他会面并签署了这份协议。
Kirsten Korosec: Leading up to that, we should say, not only was there pushback on regulation, and we can talk about whether this executive order even does any of that — I would say no, there’s a little bit of theater there — but the important and interesting thing is that just days ago, Anthropic was really in the doghouse, if you will, in terms of what was happening behind the scenes with President Trump. Kirsten Korosec： 在此之前，我们应该说，不仅存在对监管的抵制——我们可以讨论这项行政命令是否真的起到了作用，我会说没有，这有点像是一场戏——但重要且有趣的是，就在几天前，Anthropic 在特朗普总统幕后的运作中还处于非常尴尬的境地。
That all changed when [Anthropic CEO] Dario Amodei was invited to a 10 p.m. dinner. He had this sit-down, and then just days later, we had this luncheon, and at this luncheon, we have pretty much every tech power broker from every major tech company that exists. So Mark Zuckerberg was there, Jeff Bezos was there, Elon Musk was there, Dario of course was there, they were all there. I’m wondering if any of you watched the press conference that happened afterwards, which there’s been many, many memes about, because of the interesting, funny behavior when you bring a bunch of tech CEOs together. But I guess my bigger question for both of you is: What does this all mean? And does it mean anything? 当[Anthropic 首席执行官] Dario Amodei 被邀请参加晚上 10 点的晚宴时，一切都改变了。他进行了这次会谈，几天后我们就举行了这次午宴，在午宴上，几乎所有主要科技公司的权力掮客都出席了。马克·扎克伯格在场，杰夫·贝索斯在场，埃隆·马斯克在场，Dario 当然也在场，他们都在那里。我想知道你们是否看了随后的新闻发布会，网上有很多关于它的表情包，因为当把一群科技公司 CEO 聚在一起时，他们的行为确实很有趣。但我对你们两人的大问题是：这一切意味着什么？它真的有意义吗？
Sean O’Kane: How much time do you have? First off, sure, they had dinner, Trump and Dario. If you read the Time magazine interview that Trump just did, your guess is as good as mine as to how informed he was that that dinner was even going to be happening, which is a strange reality to live in, but it’s just the one we inhabit. Sean O’Kane： 你有多少时间？首先，没错，他们确实吃了晚饭，特朗普和 Dario。如果你读了特朗普刚刚接受的《时代》周刊采访，你和我一样，都无法确定他对于那场晚宴是否真的知情。生活在这样的现实中很奇怪，但这确实是我们所处的现实。
I will also say one other thing that makes me skeptical — surprise, surprise — of how repaired the relationship is between the administration and Anthropic, is that for as much as there are clearly people trying to put those two groups together, the Defense Department is still very adamant that Anthropic is terrible and woke and a national security risk. Emil Michael goes off on Anthropic every other day on X, it seems. I think there’s still some distance there despite Dario showing up to this thing. 我还要说另一件让我怀疑的事情——不出所料——政府和 Anthropic 之间的关系修复到了什么程度。尽管显然有人试图撮合这两方，但国防部仍然非常坚定地认为 Anthropic 很糟糕、过于“觉醒”（woke），且存在国家安全风险。Emil Michael 似乎每隔一天就在 X 上抨击 Anthropic。我认为尽管 Dario 出席了这次活动，但双方之间仍有距离。
As far as the agreement and all of that, let’s be real, they misspelled the United States on the agreement that they all signed. It is also just deeply non-binding. I mean, it is completely voluntary. I think my favorite aspect about it was that Trump described it as quote “morally binding,” which is just a level of abstraction and terminology that I’ve never heard of before. 至于协议之类的东西，说实话，他们在签署的协议上把“United States”（美国）都拼错了。而且它确实完全没有约束力。我的意思是，它是完全自愿的。我觉得最有趣的一点是，特朗普将其描述为“道德约束”，这是一种我从未听说过的抽象概念和术语。
Anthony: In terms of Anthropic and their relationship with the Trump administration, there’s been a sort of a lot of reporting, especially during that big blow up with the Defense Department, that different parts of the White House had different relationships with Anthropic. The Treasury Secretary seemed to be a big fan, whereas the Defense Department — definitely not big fans, or at least unhappy with some of the conditions that Anthropic were trying to put on the use of their technology. Anthony： 就 Anthropic 与特朗普政府的关系而言，有很多报道，特别是在与国防部发生大冲突期间，指出白宫的不同部门与 Anthropic 的关系各不相同。财政部长似乎是他们的忠实粉丝，而国防部则绝对不是，或者至少对 Anthropic 试图对其技术使用施加的一些条件感到不满。
In that sense, it feels like nothing has necessarily changed. There are people in the White House who want to use Anthropic’s technology, want them involved in these decisions, and others who really, really, really, really don’t. In terms of the agreement, it seems not super meaningful. What is meaningful is just the fact that they felt that this was something worth doing. As indicated by the fact that they misspelled United States, it seemed like they rushed to put all of this together. [But] the fact that this kind of gesture was needed seems significant, even if I don’t think the agreement itself is going to lead to any major changes. 从这个意义上说，感觉并没有什么实质性的改变。白宫里有人想使用 Anthropic 的技术，想让他们参与这些决策，而另一些人则非常、非常、非常、非常不想。就协议而言，它似乎意义不大。有意义的是他们认为这是一件值得做的事情。正如他们拼错“United States”所表明的那样，他们似乎是匆忙拼凑了这一切。[但是]需要这种姿态这一事实本身似乎意义重大，即使我不认为协议本身会导致任何重大变革。
Kirsten: I do think that there was one important thing that happened. And to me, this is the point of it, which was a rebranding exercise around AI. “AI is going to kill us, it’s scary, it is going to take jobs, but super intelligence is not.” This isn’t my personal belief. To me, that was the message. Kirsten： 我确实认为发生了一件重要的事情。对我来说，这就是重点，即围绕人工智能的品牌重塑。“人工智能会杀死我们，它很可怕，它会夺走工作，但超级智能不会。”这不是我的个人信仰。对我来说，这就是他们想要传达的信息。