X上爆火的一篇AI产品经理博客：我们会被AI取代吗？

这篇文章在X上爆火，今天将其转载并翻译，来自海外独立作者Dan撰写的，并且将其翻译为中文，希望可以帮助到关注我的产品经理读者们。

下面为源文

Everyone is worried about whether or not AI will replace them.
每个人都在担心 AI 会不会取代自己。

But I can't help but think that there is something about the human experience that can't be replaced.
但我忍不住觉得，人类体验里总有一些东西是无法被替代的。

I can't help but think that humans will still want to work. That is, they will still want to create something, share it with another, and be recognized for their contribution by receiving some form of currency in return.
我也忍不住觉得，人类依然会想要工作。也就是说，人类依然会想要创造点什么，把它分享给别人，并且希望自己的贡献被认可，作为回报得到某种形式的货币。

This is a fundamental aspect of human nature, but it's unfortunate that "work" has become a dirty word stripped of meaning as productivity has become our God.
这是人性中一个最基本的部分。但不幸的是，当生产力成了我们的上帝，“工作”这个词就变成了一个肮脏的词，被剥夺了意义。

I am less concerned with industrial factory-style work being automated. We all know what that soulless pit does to a person.
相比之下，我没那么担心工业化、工厂流水线式的工作被自动化。我们都知道那种没有灵魂的深坑会把一个人变成什么样。

I am much more concerned with creative work.
我更担心的是创造性工作。

What will that future look like?
那样的未来会是什么样？

Will money become obsolete?
钱会变得过时吗？

Will AGI write all prose and create all art?
AGI 会写完所有文字、创作出所有艺术吗？

If struggle, status, and curiosity are the generators of meaning, and AGI promises to rid us of such, what do we do?
如果挣扎、地位与好奇心是意义的生成器，而 AGI 承诺要把这些都从我们身上清除掉，那我们该怎么办？

What is the one thing that AGI can't replace, if anything?
如果真有的话，AGI 唯一无法替代的到底是什么？

In a world without scarcity, how do you become the scarce good?
在一个不再稀缺的世界里，你要怎样让自己成为稀缺品？

I want to share 6 ideas on the future of work, the skills and traits you must optimize for as a creative, and ultimately how to live a meaningful life in a future that feels daunting. I'll share both my own thoughts and theories that I believe hold relevant weight.
我想分享 6 个关于未来工作的想法：作为一个创作者，你必须优化的技能与特质，以及最终如何在一个令人望而生畏的未来里过上有意义的生活。我会分享我自己的想法，也会分享我认为相当有分量的理论。

And if you are a creative who wants to know if AI will ever replace your work, this is for you.
如果你是一个创作者，想知道 AI 会不会最终替代你的工作，这篇文章就是写给你的。

(By the way, my articles are long. If you don't have time right now, bookmark it, but I don't expect this to please those with goldfish attention spans. My goal with these is for you to understand rather than collect a bunch of bullet points that sound nice but do nothing for you.)
（顺便说一句，我的文章很长。如果你现在没时间，就先收藏。但我并不指望它能讨好那些注意力像金鱼一样的人。我写这些的目标，是让你真正理解，而不是让你收集一堆听起来好听、却对你毫无帮助的要点。）

I – The meaning crisis makes meaning worth paying for 一｜意义危机让“意义”变得值得付费

Meaning has become a scarce good.
意义已经变成了一种稀缺品。

It's not hard to see that.
这并不难看出来。

But to understand how we got into this mess, a little history lesson helps.
但要理解我们为什么会陷入这种混乱，先补一堂历史课会有帮助。

You see, reality develops toward greater complexity over time. When things become too complex or chaotic, a new ordered structure (or a new whole to envelop the parts) must emerge.
你看，现实会随着时间朝着更高的复杂度发展。当事情变得过于复杂或混乱时，就必须出现一种新的有序结构（或者一个能够包裹各部分的新整体）。

A few simple examples:
几个简单例子：

Letter → Word → Sentence → Paragraph
字母 → 单词 → 句子 → 段落

Atom → Cell → Molecule → Organism
原子 → 细胞 → 分子 → 有机体

Matter → Life → Mind → Spirit
物质 → 生命 → 心智 → 精神

This is how reality is structured.
现实就是这样被结构化的。

When it comes to meaning, I want to focus on how societies have evolved, which can be seen in two ways:
说到意义，我想聚焦社会如何演化——可以从两个角度看：

1. The techno-economic base (or dominant mode of production) of past societies and specific technology used.
   1）技术—经济基础（或主导生产方式）以及所使用的具体技术。

Foraging → Horticultural → Agrarian → Industrial → Informational → Whatever comes next (Intelligence?)
采集狩猎 → 园艺 → 农耕 → 工业 → 信息 → 接下来是什么（智能？）

1. The dominant worldview and value structure of people within those societies (their meaning-making system).
   2）这些社会中人们的主导世界观与价值结构（他们的意义生成系统）。

Premodern → Modern → Postmodern → Whatever comes next (Metamodern?)
前现代 → 现代 → 后现代 → 接下来是什么（元现代？）

For brevity, we can speedrun the first few.
为了简洁，我们可以快速略过前面几个阶段。

Foraging societies were hunter-gatherers. Easy.
采集社会就是狩猎采集者，很简单。

In horticultural societies, men were the hunters and women tended small plots.
在园艺社会，男人狩猎，女人耕种小块土地。

In agrarian societies, food came from large scale farming, enabling massive surpluses, allowing men to work less so they could use their new time to explore, discover, and conquer.
在农耕社会，食物来自大规模农业，产生了巨大的剩余，使得人们可以少劳动，把腾出的时间用于探索、发现与征服。

The technologies of these societies developed from:
这些社会的技术从以下演进而来：

Axes, spears, and fire → Hoe and digging sticks → Animal drawn plow (from human labor to animal labor).
斧头、长矛与火 → 锄头与掘土棍 → 畜力犁（从人力到畜力）。

All of these societies fell largely within the premodern worldview.
这些社会大多属于前现代世界观。

In other words, meaning is given by a higher power (elders, scriptures, kings, priests). You were told what to believe. You conformed. Agency was a trait that could get you killed or cast out.
也就是说，意义由更高的权威赋予（长者、经典、国王、祭司）。别人告诉你该信什么，你就服从并顺从。主体性（agency）是一种可能让你被杀或被驱逐的特质。

Then came the Industrial Age, where food production came from mechanized agriculture. Fewer farmers fed more people, food became a commodity. The primary technologies were steam, coal, and oil. Human and animal labor were needed far less.
然后工业时代到来，食物生产来自机械化农业。更少的农民养活更多的人，食物变成了商品。主要技术是蒸汽、煤炭和石油。人力与畜力的需求大幅下降。

One key insight here is that the techno-economic base of a society creates the conditions for a new level of worldview and value system to be possible at scale.
这里有一个关键洞见：一个社会的技术—经济基础，会为一种新的世界观与价值系统的大规模出现创造条件。

An industrial society allowed for the modern worldview to take hold that valued rationality. Meaning was discovered through reason, science, and evidence rather than inherited by tradition. Nature became disenchanted, progress replaced the divine, and merit replaced birthright.
工业社会使强调理性的现代世界观得以确立。意义不再从传统中继承，而是通过理性、科学与证据被发现。自然被“祛魅”，进步取代了神圣，能力与功绩取代了出身。

That's where things started to go wrong.
问题从这里开始。

First, productivity became overemphasized at a young age. The second you were born, you were already expected to go to school, get a job, and become a cog in the machine. You were programmed like a robot since the start.
第一，生产力从小就被过度强调。你一出生，就被期待上学、找工作、成为机器里的一个齿轮。你从一开始就像机器人一样被编程。

Second, we disconnected from the tribe, village, and community. We are alone in a big digital world of artificial connection.
第二，我们与部落、村庄和社区断开连接。在一个充满“人工连接”的巨大数字世界里，我们变得孤独。

Third, religious and spiritual frameworks were replaced with the mechanical model of the universe. Meaning was no longer given by the divine.
第三，宗教与精神框架被机械宇宙模型取代。意义不再由神圣赋予。

Fourth, we began outsourcing our agency to institutions and forgot the value of self-directed work. 9-5 jobs replaced the work of artisans and farmers.
第四，我们开始把主体性外包给机构，忘记了自我驱动工作的价值。朝九晚五取代了手艺人和农夫的工作方式。

These have all led to a corruption in what we do and how we work. Work was broken into simple, repetitive tasks that kept workers dumb to the entire process so they couldn't replicate it on their own (why generalists always beat specialists, as we've discussed in previous articles).
这些导致了我们做什么、以及如何工作的腐化。工作被拆成简单、重复的任务，让工人对整体流程保持无知，从而无法自己复制整个过程（这也是为什么通才总能胜过专才——我们在之前的文章里讨论过）。

In other words, meaningless work became our sole focus and means of survival. So much so that we can't see it any other way, and many people are in for a rude awakening when AI does remove this cancer from us.
换句话说，无意义的工作成了我们唯一的关注点和生存方式。以至于我们再也看不到其他可能。当 AI 真把这种“癌症”从我们身上切掉时，很多人会迎来一次残酷的觉醒。

That leads to the Information Age, where the invention of the computer led to a further abstraction from labor. We now sit at desks to work rather than tending fields - for the most part - and allow machines to do the heavy lifting.
这就引出了信息时代：计算机的发明让劳动进一步抽象化。我们大多坐在桌前工作，而不是耕地，并让机器承担重体力。

The dominant worldview now is Postmodern, where we have begun to deconstruct everything prior.
现在的主导世界观是后现代，我们开始解构此前的一切。

(By the way, I promise this is relevant to the future of work).
（顺便说，我保证这和未来的工作相关。）

The key insight of postmodernism is aperspectivalism, or that no perspective is privileged. All views are situated, partial, and contextual. This is a great achievement, because we now know that one view is not the one true and absolute view (religiously, politically, etc) that everyone must conform to.
后现代主义的关键洞见是“无特权视角”（aperspectivalism）：没有任何一种视角天然更高贵。所有观点都是有处境的、片面的、情境化的。这是巨大的成就，因为我们现在知道，任何一种观点（宗教、政治等等）都不是人人必须服从的唯一真理与绝对真理。

This achievement, however, has only accelerated the meaning crisis even further. So much so that we are waking up to the fact that something has to change.
但这个成就也进一步加速了意义危机。以至于我们开始意识到：某些东西必须改变。

It also leads to a contradiction that must be solved in the next stage of development (the age of intelligence) we are entering:
它还带来了一个矛盾，而这个矛盾必须在我们即将进入的下一阶段（智能时代）被解决：

If no perspective is better, truer, or more developed than another, then the claim that all perspectives are equally valid is a perspective you are claiming is better. It is a value ranking. You deconstruct all hierarchies by creating your own.
如果没有任何视角比另一种更好、更真实或更发展，那么“所有视角都同样有效”这个主张本身也是一种视角，而你在宣称它更好——它是一种价值排序。你通过创建自己的层级来解构所有层级。

Postmodernism correctly saw that no perspective is absolute, but then incorrectly concluded that no perspective is better.
后现代主义正确地看到了：没有任何视角是绝对的；但它错误地得出了结论：没有任何视角更好。

Some perspectives are, in fact, better.
事实上，有些视角确实更好。

Why does this matter?
这为什么重要？

First, meaning effectively evolved as so:
第一，意义大致是这样演化的：

Meaning from "Up There" (the Gods) → Meaning from "Out There" (productivity and progress) → Meaning From "Nowhere" (supposed equality) → What comes next (Meaning From "In Here?")
意义来自“上方”（诸神）→ 意义来自“外部”（生产力与进步）→ 意义来自“无处”（所谓的平等）→ 接下来是什么（意义来自“内在”？）

Second, taste is a core skill that will matter going into the future, demanding that you say one thing is better than another. It demands exclusion.
第二，品味（taste）将成为未来重要的核心技能，它要求你说出某样东西比另一样更好，并且要求你排除。

Third, agency is also becoming a core survival skill. Very few people of the past consciously embodied it.
第三，主体性（agency）也正在成为核心生存技能。过去很少有人有意识地体现它。

Fourth, your individual perspective may just be the one thing that AGI can't replace. It may just be your competitive edge in your creative work.
第四，你的个人视角可能正是 AGI 无法替代的东西，它可能就是你在创造性工作里的竞争优势。

Fifth, creatives are the meaning-architects of a society, and if the baby is thrown out with the bathwater (jobs), the result could be catastrophic.
第五，创作者是社会的意义建筑师。如果把婴儿连同洗澡水一起倒掉（工作被整体抛弃），结果可能是灾难性的。

And last, we're smack in the middle of chaos, demanding a new structure to emerge. We get to play a role in how the future is formed. This is one massive reason why I write so much.
最后，我们正处在混乱的正中央，迫使一种新结构出现。我们能够在未来如何成形这件事上扮演角色。这也是我写这么多的一个巨大原因。

Further, productivity is no longer a reliable identity.
此外，生产力不再是一个可靠的身份来源。

Nobody knows what path to take or what skill to learn.
没有人知道该走哪条路，也不知道该学什么技能。

Meaning is at an all time low, but so is certainty and security.
意义处在历史低点，确定性与安全感也同样如此。

So what's the next stage?
那么，下一阶段是什么？

What can we learn to ensure that we don't enter this new world at a massive disadvantage?
我们能学些什么，才能确保自己不会以巨大的劣势进入这个新世界？

To understand that, we must understand the emerging techno-economic base (artificial intelligence), because that creates the conditions for the next worldview, and thus what we value, and even further what we do. Important stuff.
要理解这一点，我们必须理解正在出现的技术—经济基础（人工智能），因为它会为下一种世界观创造条件，从而决定我们重视什么，甚至进一步决定我们做什么。这很重要。

II – The acceleration of AI (and meaninglessness) 二｜AI 的加速（以及无意义的加速）

AI promises to remove us of all labor.
AI 承诺要把所有劳动从我们身上移除。

At least that's what the hype is all about and what everyone is focused on.
至少炒作是这么说的，所有人也都盯着这个。

It promises to provide the necessities so that we no longer live in scarcity.
它承诺提供必需品，让我们不再活在稀缺之中。

But by all measures, the way in which it does so only increases the scarcity of meaning. Many people, including myself, derive meaning from a certain type of labor. I am not anti-AI in slightest, but I do not see a world where AI removes the craft from the creative.
但从各方面看，它实现这一点的方式只会增加意义的稀缺。很多人——包括我自己——会从某种类型的劳动中获得意义。我一点也不反 AI，但我看不到一个 AI 把手艺从创作者身上剥离的世界。

But why?
但为什么？

Why will work disappear?
为什么工作会消失？

And what replaces the economic function of jobs?
工作在经济上的功能会被什么替代？

To get a full picture, David Shapiro's Post Labor Economics is a useful theory for what the future could look like.
要看到全景，David Shapiro 的“后劳动经济学”（Post Labor Economics）是一个有用的理论，用来理解未来可能是什么样。

The problem that's on everyone's mind is this:
所有人心里都在想一个问题：

Since jobs have been a thing (working for a wage), companies pay the workers, workers spend the money, companies make the money, and the cycle continues.
自从“工作”（为工资劳动）存在以来，公司付钱给工人，工人花钱消费，公司赚钱，如此循环。

But then AI comes along and threatens it all.
但 AI 出现后威胁了这一切。

As a company, the thought of having a machine do all your work is enticing. Humans are expensive, complicated, emotional, and legally risky. Up until now, the only option was to hire humans.
站在公司的角度，让机器做所有工作是很诱人的。人类昂贵、复杂、情绪化，还伴随法律风险。直到现在，唯一的选择还是雇人。

Once AI and robots cross the "better, faster, cheaper, safer" threshold for given job (let's assume they actually do reach that point, we can only guess for now), it becomes economically irrational to keep humans doing the work. Irrational does not mean immoral or optional. I'm not here to take a stab at the morality of doing this.
一旦 AI 和机器人在某个岗位上跨过“更好、更快、更便宜、更安全”的门槛（我们先假设它们确实会到达这一点——目前只能猜），继续让人来做这份工作就会在经济上变得非理性。非理性不等于不道德，也不等于可选。我也不是来讨论这件事的道德问题的。

It's irrational because the hoe replaced the digging stick. The animal drawn plow replaced the hoe (and allowed a new class of explorers and conquerers to emerge). Industrial machines replaced the plow.
这之所以非理性，是因为锄头取代了掘土棍；畜力犁取代了锄头（并让一个新的探索者与征服者阶层出现）；工业机器取代了犁。

With each evolution, the power and potential of an individual who utilized the tools increased. In today's world, an individual can run a more lean and profitable business than many corporations could in the past. You can learn anything and build anything, but even with that power, most people will do nothing, and those who do will be in endless competition with each other, making us all ask where one's competitive advantage lies.
每一次演化，都提升了使用工具的个人的力量与潜能。在今天，一个人就能经营一家比过去许多公司更精简、更盈利的生意。你可以学任何东西、造任何东西。但即便拥有这种力量，多数人仍会无所作为；而那些真的去做的人，会与彼此陷入无尽竞争，让我们都在追问：竞争优势到底在哪里？

But of course, there's a huge problem with AI replacing all jobs.
但当然，AI 取代所有工作的设想有个巨大问题。

If everyone gets fired, no one has money. If no one has money, no one buys anything. If no one buys anything, the economy collapses.
如果所有人都被解雇，就没人有钱；没人有钱，就没人买东西；没人买东西，经济就会崩溃。

As we'll find, the above sentence applies to people with jobs, not people with companies, and I can't help but think about this quote from Naval:
我们会发现，上面这句话适用于“有工作的人”，但不适用于“有公司的人”。这让我忍不住想到 Naval 的一句话：

There are almost 7B people on this planet. Someday, I hope, there will be almost 7B companies.
地球上大约有 70 亿人。有一天，我希望会有大约 70 亿家公司。

Right now, most people are worried about how they'll get paid if they don't have a job. The only three ways households get money is as so:
现在，大多数人担心的是：如果没有工作，钱怎么来？家庭获得收入只有三种方式：

Wages – Someone pays you for your labor (employer, customer, self-employment)
工资——有人为你的劳动付钱（雇主、客户、自雇）

Transfers – Government pays you (UBI, Social Security, SNAP, Medicare)
转移支付——政府付钱给你（全民基本收入、社保、救助、医保等）

Capital Income – Your assets pay you (dividends, rent, interest, appreciation)
资本收入——你的资产为你付钱（分红、租金、利息、升值）

If the first collapses, the second and third have to carry the weight. But transfers alone create political instability and lose price signals. It just won't work as an overall solution.
如果第一项崩塌，第二和第三就必须扛起重量。但单靠转移支付会带来政治不稳定，并且失去价格信号。作为整体方案，它行不通。

Meaning, one potential solution would be broadening capital participation. Regular people would own income-generating assets.
因此，一个潜在方案是扩大资本参与：让普通人也拥有能产生收入的资产。

To keep this brief, I will not list all of the proposed mechanisms for this.
为了简洁，我不展开列出所有可能的机制。

Because the truth is that some people, especially creatives, will still want to work and be acknowledged for their work. That's what we're here to talk about.
因为事实是：有些人，尤其是创作者，仍然会想工作，并希望自己的工作被认可。我们在这里要谈的就是这个。

Personally, I do not want to sit around and collect a baseline level of cash. Much of the meaning in my life comes from growing personally and professionally across various domains of life, and growth requires agency, and if money shifts from a productivity metric to a way to express agency, that is the path I would want to pursue.
就我个人而言，我不想坐在那里领一份基础现金。我的人生意义很大一部分来自在多个领域里实现个人与职业成长，而成长需要主体性。如果金钱从生产力指标转变成表达主体性的方式，那才是我想走的路。

I would recommend digging further into Shapiro's ideas and folllowing him for when his comprehensive book on this topic, Labor Zero, comes out.
我建议你进一步研究 Shapiro 的想法，并关注他未来会出版的关于该主题的完整著作《Labor Zero》。

Fortunately, there are jobs that may persist even when automation is superior. These jobs are based on humans specifically demanding other humans:
幸运的是，即使自动化更强，有些工作仍可能存在——因为这些工作基于“人类明确需要另一个人类”：

High-liability roles (where there's someone to blame)
高责任岗位（需要一个可以追责的人）

Statutory positions (legally required humans)
法定岗位（法律要求必须由人承担）

Experience economy (bartenders, boutiques, art)
体验经济（酒保、精品店、艺术等）

Meaning makers (helping people navigate the human experience)
意义制造者（帮助人们穿越人类体验）

Relationship/trust jobs (sales, diplomacy, negotiation)
关系/信任型工作（销售、外交、谈判）

As an everyday creative, I want to focus on the third and fourth option. That is what humans will pay a premium for.
作为一个普通创作者，我想聚焦第三和第四种。人类会愿意为此支付溢价。

But before we talk about how to join the new meaning economy or what high-level skills are required, we've missed something critical, which is how meaning is generated in the first place.
但在我们谈如何加入新的意义经济、或需要什么高级技能之前，我们漏掉了一个关键点：意义最初是如何生成的？

III – The evolution and anatomy of meaning (robots vs humans) 三｜意义的演化与结构（机器人 vs 人类）

The elegance of the future is not in man versus machine but in their division of labor: silicon sanding the rough edges of necessity so carbon can ascend to meaning. We will abolish baristas and canonize chefs, silence agents and encore actors. It is the same selfish instinct in both arenas—purge friction, preserve narrative—driving a world where the driest chores are done by circuits and the juiciest stories are told by people who bleed.
未来的优雅不在于人与机器对抗，而在于分工：硅为必需品打磨掉粗糙边缘，让碳得以上升到意义。我们会废除咖啡师、封圣厨师；让中介沉默、让演员返场。在这两个领域里驱动我们的其实是同一种自私本能——清除摩擦、保留叙事——它推动一个世界：最枯燥的杂活由电路完成，而最有汁水的故事由会流血的人讲述。

– Chris Paik
——Chris Paik

For most of history, humans found meaning - or a reason to live - by looking up to the sky. "Up there." Meaning was given.
在大多数历史时期，人类通过仰望天空来寻找意义——或者说活下去的理由。“在上面。”意义是被赋予的。

Then, we got smarter, supposedly. We made productivity our God. We looked to science and reason for meaning. "Out there." Meaning was earned.
后来，我们据说变聪明了。我们把生产力当成上帝，转向科学与理性寻找意义。“在外面。”意义是挣来的。

Now, we've become too smart for our own good. We looked for meaning in relativity and couldn't find it. "Nowhere." Meaning was deconstructed.
现在，我们聪明得有点过头了。我们在相对性里寻找意义，却找不到。“无处。”意义被解构了。

Going into the future, it is your job to pick up the pieces. You must accept your role as the creator you are. The tool builder. The explorer. The problem solver. If you outsource too much of your agency to the machines, they will be just fine having you hooked up to a collective dopamine IV.
走向未来，你的工作就是把碎片捡起来。你必须接受你作为创造者的角色：工具的建造者、探索者、问题的解决者。如果你把太多主体性外包给机器，它们完全不介意把你接到集体多巴胺点滴上。

Now, meaning must be generated.
现在，意义必须被生成。

How do you generate meaning?
你如何生成意义？

Well, it helps to look at what creates meaninglessness.
先看看什么制造了无意义，会更容易理解。

First, meaninglessness stems from stagnation. If you do nothing with your life - like many will once jobs are gone and they have just enough to stay afloat - you do not stay the same. You slowly fall into chaos. Entropy can be observed in the mind, too.
第一，无意义源于停滞。如果你的人生什么都不做——就像很多人在工作消失、仅靠基本供给勉强维持之后那样——你不会保持不变，你会慢慢滑向混乱。熵增同样会发生在心智上。

Second, meaninglessness is amplified by isolation. Without tribes and villages, we are the loneliest we've ever been. Screen in face waiting for the next paycheck so you can buy buy buy.
第二，无意义会被孤立放大。没有部落与村庄，我们比任何时候都更孤独。脸贴着屏幕，等下一份工资，好继续买买买。

We could then say that the two pillars of meaning are the feeling of forward movement and a connection to something greater than yourself. Progress and contribution.
因此我们可以说，意义的两根支柱是：前进的感觉，以及与比你自身更大的东西的连接——进步与贡献。

For the longest time, we outsourced both. Progress was given by an employer and connection was given by a divine authority. Now, both are in your hands, and that will not sit well with a lot of people.
很长一段时间里，我们把这两者都外包了：进步由雇主提供，连接由神圣权威提供。现在，两者都在你手里，这对很多人来说并不好受。

Progress and contribution are activated through creative problem-solving. You have an aim for the future, you identify a problem preventing you from moving forward, you create a solution through experimentation, and you pass that on to someone else in a similar position, and if that person deems it valuable enough, they will exchange another form of value back with you.
进步与贡献通过创造性解决问题被激活：你有一个面向未来的目标，你识别出阻碍你前进的问题，你通过实验创造解决方案，再把它交给处境相似的人；如果对方认为它足够有价值，就会用另一种价值与你交换。

Of course, that doesn't help with understanding how creatives will survive if all jobs are gone. We're getting to that.
当然，这还不足以解释：如果所有工作都消失，创作者怎么生存。我们马上会讲到。

What I am arguing is that you must become a creator. You must build your own thing. You must take your own path. You must express your agency. Do not, by any means, sit around waiting for the day when the world promises to solve all your problems, because I promise that it won't.
我想强调的是：你必须成为创造者。你必须做你自己的东西。你必须走你自己的路。你必须表达你的主体性。无论如何都不要坐等世界某天承诺替你解决所有问题，因为我保证它不会。

Beyond the two pillars of meaning, there are three generators:
除了意义的两根支柱，还有三个生成器：

Struggle – The engine of progress. What you choose to struggle for (or care about) is your purpose.
挣扎——进步的引擎。你选择为何而挣扎（或在乎什么），就是你的目的。

Curiosity – The direction of progress. The non-linear choice of attention to solve problems.
好奇心——进步的方向。用非线性的注意力选择去解决问题。

Status – The proof of contribution. The recognition that completes the loop.
地位——贡献的证明。完成闭环的认可。

When you put all those together, you get a story.
把这些放在一起，你就得到一个故事。

Stories, authentic stories, are what will demand a premium price tag. Because the human brain is a story engine. That's how we make sense of the world.
故事，真实的故事，才会值得溢价。因为人脑是故事引擎，我们靠故事理解世界。

We hate when something is slow when it should be fast.
当一件事本该快却很慢时，我们会讨厌它。

We hate long lines at the DMV. We hate the small-talking Uber Driver that's late. We hate sitting for 30 minutes on hold to ask what should be a simple support question. We hate when our fast food order is wrong.
我们讨厌车管所的长队；讨厌迟到还爱闲聊的 Uber 司机；讨厌为了一个本该简单的客服问题等 30 分钟；讨厌快餐订单弄错。

But we will pay top dollar to fly across the world to dine at a five-star restaurant.
但我们会愿意花大价钱飞到世界另一端去吃一家五星餐厅。

We sit on the edge of our seats while watching a tear-jerking play at the theatre.
我们会在剧院里看一场催泪戏剧看到坐立不安。

When the task is about speed, accuracy, or utility, leave it to the machines. But when our mind leave the state of needing to do something just to get it done (when we engage in leisure, which there will be plenty of in the future) we crave something entirely different.
当任务关乎速度、准确或实用性时，就交给机器。但当我们的心智离开“必须把事情做完”的状态（当我们进入休闲，而未来会有大量休闲），我们渴望的就是另一种东西。

We crave the potential for failure.
我们渴望失败的可能性。

We crave the lesson of the man who bleeds.
我们渴望从“会流血的人”那里学到东西。

We crave the story, drama, novelty, myth and meaning, and we pay good money for it.
我们渴望故事、戏剧性、新奇、神话与意义，并愿意为此付出真金白银。

An entire economy will be built around this, and the construction has already started.
一整个经济都会围绕这一点建立，而建设已经开始。

The question then is, what is so unique about you? And how can we be sure this won't be replaced by machines?
那么问题来了：你身上到底有什么独特之处？我们怎么确定它不会被机器替代？

IV – The creator economy = the meaning economy 四｜创作者经济 = 意义经济

If you are not paid from a job, and you do not find meaning in collecting just enough passive income to cover your necessities, what's left?
如果你不再通过一份工作拿工资，同时你也无法在“只赚够覆盖基本生活的被动收入”中找到意义，那还剩下什么？

To get paid from people who believe in what you are doing and want to see more of it in the world.
那就是：从那些相信你正在做的事情、并希望在世界上看到更多这种事情的人那里获得报酬。

You pursue what you care about and inspire people to care about it too.
你追求你真正关心的东西，同时也让别人开始关心它。

Attention, then, is the scarce resource that creatives will be competing for.
因此，注意力将成为创作者之间竞争的稀缺资源。

We've already been seeing this play out in the creator economy.
我们已经在创作者经济中看到这一切正在发生。

Elon Musk, as an obvious example, understands the raw power of attention. He can quite literally shape the future with it. He can marshal capital, talent, and networks. He resource of all resources to ensure that his life's work of becoming interplanetary is carried out.
以 Elon Musk 为最明显的例子，他理解注意力的原始力量。他几乎可以凭借注意力直接塑造未来。他能够调动资本、人才与网络——这是一切资源中的终极资源——来确保他让人类成为跨行星物种的人生事业得以推进。

Mr. Beast is another. He is a master of attention capture, reinvests that back into production, which leads to more attention.
Mr. Beast 是另一个例子。他是捕获注意力的大师，并把注意力重新投入到内容生产中，从而获得更多注意力。

Think about how you get your education, news, and knowledge today. Most of it is on social media from creators who have taken it on as their job to provide their point of view. Centralized education and information is still at large, but not for long.
想想你今天是如何获取教育、新闻和知识的。大部分内容都来自社交媒体上的创作者——他们把“提供自己的观点”当成一份工作。集中化的教育与信息体系仍然存在，但不会持续太久。

However, I don't want to be the next Mr. Beast. You probably don't want the risk and criticism of Musk. You simply want to pursue your interests and share it with a tribe of people who care about your vision just as much as you do, just like your brain is wired for. You want to generate and share meaning.
但我并不想成为下一个 Mr. Beast。你大概也不想承受 Musk 那样的风险与批评。你只是想追求自己的兴趣，并把它分享给一群同样关心你愿景的人——就像你的大脑天生被这样设计的一样。你想创造并分享意义。

The biggest misconception of the creator economy is that it's a winner takes all battleground. That couldn't be any further from the truth.
关于创作者经济最大的误解，是认为它是一个“赢家通吃”的战场。这离事实再远不过了。

Justin Welsh, a friend in the space, is known for wanting a quiet life. He wants meaningful work, ample family time, and the ability to do what he wants without financial stress. He does quite well for himself and has full control over how long he "works."
这个领域里的朋友 Justin Welsh，以追求安静生活而闻名。他想要有意义的工作、充足的家庭时间，以及在没有财务压力的情况下做自己想做的事。他过得很好，并且完全掌控自己“工作”的时间。

But you don't even have to go that big. There are plenty of people with small followings that make more than enough to live well. They don't grind 16 hours a day. They don't care about becoming billionaires. They just have something they deem meaningful and share it (while pairing it with the specific skills that allow them to garner attention, as we will discuss).
但你甚至不需要做到那种规模。很多拥有小规模受众的人，已经赚得足够过上好生活。他们不需要每天苦干 16 个小时，也不在乎成为亿万富翁。他们只是拥有一些自己认为有意义的东西，并把它分享出来（同时配合能够获取注意力的具体技能，稍后我们会讨论）。

You see these people every day.
你每天都能看到这样的人。

And by the way, if you want to become a billionaire or work extreme hours, be my guest, some people love that way of life and I'm not here to tell you how to live.
顺便说一句，如果你想成为亿万富翁，或者想极端地工作，那请便。有些人确实热爱这种生活方式，我不是来教你怎么活的。

"But Dan, what about the dead internet? Isn't AI just going to flood the space with brain rot and slop?"
“但是 Dan，‘死互联网’怎么办？AI 难道不会用垃圾内容和低质信息把空间淹没吗？”

Yes, actually.
是的，确实会。

How is that not a good thing?
这为什么不是一件好事？

You're telling me that everyone is flooding the space with mediocre content so it's never been easier to stand out?
你的意思是：所有人都在用平庸内容灌水，所以从来没有像现在这样容易脱颖而出？

I think most of the worry about AI slop stems from a lack of understanding how attention works.
我认为，大多数对 AI 垃圾内容的担忧，源于对注意力机制的误解。

Once everyone can do it instantly, it becomes instantly worthless.
一旦每个人都能瞬间做到，它就会立刻变得毫无价值。

Sure, anyone can have AI write 1000 posts or 10 articles to play the algorithm lottery, but how often do you see "slop" actually go viral? And if it did, doesn't that mean it's not slop?
当然，任何人都可以用 AI 写 1000 条帖子或 10 篇文章来搏算法彩票。但你真的经常看到“垃圾内容”爆红吗？如果它真的爆红了，那是不是说明它其实不算垃圾？

Slop lives on a spectrum.
垃圾内容是存在于一个连续谱上的。

When I went mega viral last week, I had people reducing my article to "just a bunch of self-help cliches" when, if you actually read the article, you know that is a bit of a stretch - considering the sections on psychology, epistemology, and human behavior.
上周我大爆火时，有人把我的文章简化成“一堆自我提升的陈词滥调”。但如果你真的读过那篇文章，就知道这种说法有点夸张——尤其是考虑到其中关于心理学、认识论和人类行为的内容。

There is no AI prompt that could produce that exact same article, or even this same article.
不存在一个 AI 提示词，可以生成完全一样的那篇文章，甚至连这篇也不行。

Not to say that it was the deepest writing on Earth, but it makes me question why a bit of self-help sends certain people into a blind rage - could self-help not help you there?
我不是说那是地球上最深刻的写作，但这让我怀疑：为什么一点自我提升内容就能让某些人暴跳如雷——也许自我提升正好能帮到你？

Smart people are often biased to the domains they are smart in, which is quite an unproductive way of thinking.
聪明人往往在自己擅长的领域里带有偏见，而这是一种非常低效的思维方式。

And frankly, once a piece of content becomes "popular," people who identify as anti-mainstream immediately find a reason to hate it.
坦白说，一旦某个内容变得“主流”，那些自我认同为反主流的人就会立刻找到理由去讨厌它。

One mans slop is another mans treasure and vice versa.
一个人的垃圾，可能是另一个人的宝藏，反之亦然。

Slop aside, you have access to ChatGPT, right? Then why are you reading this?
先不谈垃圾内容。你也能用 ChatGPT，对吧？那你为什么还在读这篇文章？

Is it because you didn't know what to type into the chatbot?
是因为你不知道该往聊天框里输入什么吗？

Is it because there's more to life than answering the questions you know to ask?
是因为人生不只是回答你已经知道该怎么问的问题吗？

Do you think ChatGPT is just going to deliver this exact article to you on a silver platter one day?
你觉得有一天 ChatGPT 会把这篇完全一样的文章端到你面前吗？

Seriously, think about those questions before you start going on about how everything is doomed.
在开始宣称“一切都完了”之前，请认真想想这些问题。

The truth is that skills are being abstracted up a layer.
事实是，技能正在被抽象到更高一层。

The manual task of typing words on a page or adding brush strokes to a painting still matter, because compiling everything into a chat input removes agency for work that demands a personal touch, but they don't matter as much as the mind of the artist doing that thing.
在页面上打字、在画布上落笔这些手工动作仍然重要，因为把一切都压缩进一个聊天输入框，会剥夺那些需要个人触感的工作的主体性。但它们不再像艺术家本人的大脑那样重要。

Skills like marketing, persuasion, writing, digital art, programming, and more still matter, but the people who are able to get the most results are operating from a higher level.
营销、说服、写作、数字艺术、编程等技能依然重要，但能取得最大成果的人，是在更高层级上运作的。

They're operating at the human level.
他们是在“人类层级”上运作。

V – The last defensible moat is you 五｜最后一道可防守的护城河，是你自己

As a writer, I've been thinking about this a lot over the past few years.
作为一名写作者，过去几年我一直在反复思考这个问题。

Will AI ever be able to fully replace creatives and artists? That seems kind of bleak no matter which way you spin it.
AI 是否终有一天能完全取代创作者和艺术家？无论怎么说，这个结论听起来都很灰暗。

Can AI ever write what I write?
AI 能写出我写的东西吗？

Can AI ever create the music of a famous musician?
AI 能创作出著名音乐家的音乐吗？

Can AI ever produce a Spielberg level film?
AI 能拍出斯皮尔伯格级别的电影吗？

Can AI ever build a company like Steve Jobs could with Apple?
AI 能像乔布斯打造苹果那样建立一家公司吗？

The answer I came to was... yes, but no.
我得出的答案是：能，但也不能。

Many will argue that AI can generate a beautiful essay or film, especially as the models get better, but they're missing something crucial.
很多人会认为，随着模型越来越强，AI 能生成漂亮的文章或电影。但他们忽略了一件关键的事。

Let's call this The Swap Test:
我们把它称为“交换测试”：

If you could swap the creator and the creation would be just as valuable, then AI can replace it.
如果你可以把创作者换掉，而作品依然同样有价值，那 AI 就能替代它。

If the creation only works because you made it, then that's your edge. It carries your perspective, your situation, and your taste.
如果这个作品只有在“你来做”的前提下才成立，那就是你的优势。它承载着你的视角、你的处境和你的品味。

You see, certain types of work have an objective floor.
你看，某些类型的工作有一个客观的下限。

When it comes to writing, it's perfectly fine if AI writes documentation, summarizes multiple sources of information, or makes instructions clearer.
在写作上，让 AI 写文档、汇总多来源信息、或把说明写得更清楚，完全没问题。

Hell, I would even argue that AI can take a brain dump of your original thoughts and structure them into something publishable, but some people may have a style they want to get across as well.
甚至可以说，AI 可以把你原始的头脑输出整理成一篇可发布的文章——但有些人还想表达自己的风格。

In other words, if speed and efficiency matter over voice, you can hand off control to AI.
换句话说，如果速度和效率比声音更重要，你就可以把控制权交给 AI。

But when it comes to writing a personal essay about grief after losing a parent, or writing an article arguing why minimalism is a trap for creatives, there's something different at play.
但当你写的是失去父母后的悲痛随笔，或者一篇论证“极简主义为何是创作者陷阱”的文章时，事情就不同了。

Your point of view is at play.
此时起作用的是你的观点。

You know, the most unique thing on this planet that nobody else has access to.
你知道的，那是这个星球上最独一无二、无人能够接近的东西。

The culmination of beliefs, ideas, and experiences that can't be reversed or resimulated that has been forming since the day you were born.
那是从你出生那天起，由信念、想法与经历不断累积而成、无法被逆转或重新模拟的总和。

Dan Koe

靠长期自学 + 写作 + 产品化个人思想跑出来的独立创作者。