這篇文章在X上爆火，今天將其轉(zhuǎn)載并翻譯，來自海外獨(dú)立作者Dan撰寫的，并且將其翻譯為中文，希望可以幫助到關(guān)注我的產(chǎn)品經(jīng)理讀者們。

下面為源文

Everyone is worried about whether or not AI will replace them.
每個(gè)人都在擔(dān)心 AI 會(huì)不會(huì)取代自己。

But I can't help but think that there is something about the human experience that can't be replaced.
但我忍不住覺得，人類體驗(yàn)里總有一些東西是無法被替代的。

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.
我也忍不住覺得，人類依然會(huì)想要工作。也就是說，人類依然會(huì)想要?jiǎng)?chuàng)造點(diǎn)什么，把它分享給別人，并且希望自己的貢獻(xiàn)被認(rèn)可，作為回報(bào)得到某種形式的貨幣。

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.
這是人性中一個(gè)最基本的部分。但不幸的是，當(dāng)生產(chǎn)力成了我們的上帝，“工作”這個(gè)詞就變成了一個(gè)骯臟的詞，被剝奪了意義。

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，我沒那么擔(dān)心工業(yè)化、工廠流水線式的工作被自動(dòng)化。我們都知道那種沒有靈魂的深坑會(huì)把一個(gè)人變成什么樣。

I am much more concerned with creative work.
我更擔(dān)心的是創(chuàng)造性工作。

What will that future look like?
那樣的未來會(huì)是什么樣？

Will money become obsolete?
錢會(huì)變得過時(shí)嗎？

Will AGI write all prose and create all art?
AGI 會(huì)寫完所有文字、創(chuàng)作出所有藝術(shù)嗎？

If struggle, status, and curiosity are the generators of meaning, and AGI promises to rid us of such, what do we do?
如果掙扎、地位與好奇心是意義的生成器，而 AGI 承諾要把這些都從我們身上清除掉，那我們?cè)撛趺崔k？

What is the one thing that AGI can't replace, if anything?
如果真有的話，AGI 唯一無法替代的到底是什么？

In a world without scarcity, how do you become the scarce good?
在一個(gè)不再稀缺的世界里，你要怎樣讓自己成為稀缺品？

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 個(gè)關(guān)于未來工作的想法：作為一個(gè)創(chuàng)作者，你必須優(yōu)化的技能與特質(zhì)，以及最終如何在一個(gè)令人望而生畏的未來里過上有意義的生活。我會(huì)分享我自己的想法，也會(huì)分享我認(rèn)為相當(dāng)有分量的理論。

And if you are a creative who wants to know if AI will ever replace your work, this is for you.
如果你是一個(gè)創(chuàng)作者，想知道 AI 會(huì)不會(huì)最終替代你的工作，這篇文章就是寫給你的。

(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.)
（順便說一句，我的文章很長(zhǎng)。如果你現(xiàn)在沒時(shí)間，就先收藏。但我并不指望它能討好那些注意力像金魚一樣的人。我寫這些的目標(biāo)，是讓你真正理解，而不是讓你收集一堆聽起來好聽、卻對(duì)你毫無幫助的要點(diǎn)。）

I – The meaning crisis makes meaning worth paying for 一｜意義危機(jī)讓“意義”變得值得付費(fèi)

Meaning has become a scarce good.
意義已經(jīng)變成了一種稀缺品。

It's not hard to see that.
這并不難看出來。

But to understand how we got into this mess, a little history lesson helps.
但要理解我們?yōu)槭裁磿?huì)陷入這種混亂，先補(bǔ)一堂歷史課會(huì)有幫助。

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，現(xiàn)實(shí)會(huì)隨著時(shí)間朝著更高的復(fù)雜度發(fā)展。當(dāng)事情變得過于復(fù)雜或混亂時(shí)，就必須出現(xiàn)一種新的有序結(jié)構(gòu)（或者一個(gè)能夠包裹各部分的新整體）。

A few simple examples:
幾個(gè)簡(jiǎn)單例子：

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

Atom → Cell → Molecule → Organism
原子 → 細(xì)胞 → 分子 → 有機(jī)體

Matter → Life → Mind → Spirit
物質(zhì) → 生命 → 心智 → 精神

This is how reality is structured.
現(xiàn)實(shí)就是這樣被結(jié)構(gòu)化的。

When it comes to meaning, I want to focus on how societies have evolved, which can be seen in two ways:
說到意義，我想聚焦社會(huì)如何演化——可以從兩個(gè)角度看：

1. The techno-economic base (or dominant mode of production) of past societies and specific technology used.
   1）技術(shù)—經(jīng)濟(jì)基礎(chǔ)（或主導(dǎo)生產(chǎn)方式）以及所使用的具體技術(shù)。

Foraging → Horticultural → Agrarian → Industrial → Informational → Whatever comes next (Intelligence?)
采集狩獵 → 園藝 → 農(nóng)耕 → 工業(yè) → 信息 → 接下來是什么（智能？）

1. The dominant worldview and value structure of people within those societies (their meaning-making system).
   2）這些社會(huì)中人們的主導(dǎo)世界觀與價(jià)值結(jié)構(gòu)（他們的意義生成系統(tǒng)）。

Premodern → Modern → Postmodern → Whatever comes next (Metamodern?)
前現(xiàn)代 → 現(xiàn)代 → 后現(xiàn)代 → 接下來是什么（元現(xiàn)代？）

For brevity, we can speedrun the first few.
為了簡(jiǎn)潔，我們可以快速略過前面幾個(gè)階段。

Foraging societies were hunter-gatherers. Easy.
采集社會(huì)就是狩獵采集者，很簡(jiǎn)單。

In horticultural societies, men were the hunters and women tended small plots.
在園藝社會(huì)，男人狩獵，女人耕種小塊土地。

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.
在農(nóng)耕社會(huì)，食物來自大規(guī)模農(nóng)業(yè)，產(chǎn)生了巨大的剩余，使得人們可以少勞動(dòng)，把騰出的時(shí)間用于探索、發(fā)現(xiàn)與征服。

The technologies of these societies developed from:
這些社會(huì)的技術(shù)從以下演進(jìn)而來：

Axes, spears, and fire → Hoe and digging sticks → Animal drawn plow (from human labor to animal labor).
斧頭、長(zhǎng)矛與火 → 鋤頭與掘土棍 → 畜力犁（從人力到畜力）。

All of these societies fell largely within the premodern worldview.
這些社會(huì)大多屬于前現(xiàn)代世界觀。

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.
也就是說，意義由更高的權(quán)威賦予（長(zhǎng)者、經(jīng)典、國(guó)王、祭司）。別人告訴你該信什么，你就服從并順從。主體性（agency）是一種可能讓你被殺或被驅(qū)逐的特質(zhì)。

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.
然后工業(yè)時(shí)代到來，食物生產(chǎn)來自機(jī)械化農(nóng)業(yè)。更少的農(nóng)民養(yǎng)活更多的人，食物變成了商品。主要技術(shù)是蒸汽、煤炭和石油。人力與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.
這里有一個(gè)關(guān)鍵洞見：一個(gè)社會(huì)的技術(shù)—經(jīng)濟(jì)基礎(chǔ)，會(huì)為一種新的世界觀與價(jià)值系統(tǒng)的大規(guī)模出現(xiàn)創(chuàng)造條件。

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.
工業(yè)社會(huì)使強(qiáng)調(diào)理性的現(xiàn)代世界觀得以確立。意義不再?gòu)膫鹘y(tǒng)中繼承，而是通過理性、科學(xué)與證據(jù)被發(fā)現(xiàn)。自然被“祛魅”，進(jìn)步取代了神圣，能力與功績(jī)?nèi)〈顺錾怼?/p>

That's where things started to go wrong.
問題從這里開始。

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，生產(chǎn)力從小就被過度強(qiáng)調(diào)。你一出生，就被期待上學(xué)、找工作、成為機(jī)器里的一個(gè)齒輪。你從一開始就像機(jī)器人一樣被編程。

Second, we disconnected from the tribe, village, and community. We are alone in a big digital world of artificial connection.
第二，我們與部落、村莊和社區(qū)斷開連接。在一個(gè)充滿“人工連接”的巨大數(shù)字世界里，我們變得孤獨(dú)。

Third, religious and spiritual frameworks were replaced with the mechanical model of the universe. Meaning was no longer given by the divine.
第三，宗教與精神框架被機(jī)械宇宙模型取代。意義不再由神圣賦予。

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，我們開始把主體性外包給機(jī)構(gòu)，忘記了自我驅(qū)動(dòng)工作的價(jià)值。朝九晚五取代了手藝人和農(nóng)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).
這些導(dǎo)致了我們做什么、以及如何工作的腐化。工作被拆成簡(jiǎn)單、重復(fù)的任務(wù)，讓工人對(duì)整體流程保持無知，從而無法自己復(fù)制整個(gè)過程（這也是為什么通才總能勝過專才——我們?cè)谥暗奈恼吕镉懻撨^）。

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.
換句話說，無意義的工作成了我們唯一的關(guān)注點(diǎn)和生存方式。以至于我們?cè)僖部床坏狡渌赡?。?dāng) AI 真把這種“癌癥”從我們身上切掉時(shí)，很多人會(huì)迎來一次殘酷的覺醒。

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.
這就引出了信息時(shí)代：計(jì)算機(jī)的發(fā)明讓勞動(dòng)進(jìn)一步抽象化。我們大多坐在桌前工作，而不是耕地，并讓機(jī)器承擔(dān)重體力。

The dominant worldview now is Postmodern, where we have begun to deconstruct everything prior.
現(xiàn)在的主導(dǎo)世界觀是后現(xiàn)代，我們開始解構(gòu)此前的一切。

(By the way, I promise this is relevant to the future of work).
（順便說，我保證這和未來的工作相關(guān)。）

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.
后現(xiàn)代主義的關(guān)鍵洞見是“無特權(quán)視角”（aperspectivalism）：沒有任何一種視角天然更高貴。所有觀點(diǎn)都是有處境的、片面的、情境化的。這是巨大的成就，因?yàn)槲覀儸F(xiàn)在知道，任何一種觀點(diǎn)（宗教、政治等等）都不是人人必須服從的唯一真理與絕對(duì)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.
但這個(gè)成就也進(jìn)一步加速了意義危機(jī)。以至于我們開始意識(shí)到：某些東西必須改變。

It also leads to a contradiction that must be solved in the next stage of development (the age of intelligence) we are entering:
它還帶來了一個(gè)矛盾，而這個(gè)矛盾必須在我們即將進(jìn)入的下一階段（智能時(shí)代）被解決：

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.
如果沒有任何視角比另一種更好、更真實(shí)或更發(fā)展，那么“所有視角都同樣有效”這個(gè)主張本身也是一種視角，而你在宣稱它更好——它是一種價(jià)值排序。你通過創(chuàng)建自己的層級(jí)來解構(gòu)所有層級(jí)。

Postmodernism correctly saw that no perspective is absolute, but then incorrectly concluded that no perspective is better.
后現(xiàn)代主義正確地看到了：沒有任何視角是絕對(duì)的；但它錯(cuò)誤地得出了結(jié)論：沒有任何視角更好。

Some perspectives are, in fact, better.
事實(shí)上，有些視角確實(shí)更好。

Why does this matter?
這為什么重要？

First, meaning effectively evolved as so:
第一，意義大致是這樣演化的：

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?")
意義來自“上方”（諸神）→ 意義來自“外部”（生產(chǎn)力與進(jìn)步）→ 意義來自“無處”（所謂的平等）→ 接下來是什么（意義來自“內(nèi)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）將成為未來重要的核心技能，它要求你說出某樣?xùn)|西比另一樣更好，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，主體性（agency）也正在成為核心生存技能。過去很少有人有意識(shí)地體現(xiàn)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，你的個(gè)人視角可能正是 AGI 無法替代的東西，它可能就是你在創(chuàng)造性工作里的競(jìng)爭(zhēng)優(yōu)勢(shì)。

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，創(chuàng)作者是社會(huì)的意義建筑師。如果把嬰兒連同洗澡水一起倒掉（工作被整體拋棄），結(jié)果可能是災(zāi)難性的。

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，我們正處在混亂的正中央，迫使一種新結(jié)構(gòu)出現(xiàn)。我們能夠在未來如何成形這件事上扮演角色。這也是我寫這么多的一個(gè)巨大原因。

Further, productivity is no longer a reliable identity.
此外，生產(chǎn)力不再是一個(gè)可靠的身份來源。

Nobody knows what path to take or what skill to learn.
沒有人知道該走哪條路，也不知道該學(xué)什么技能。

Meaning is at an all time low, but so is certainty and security.
意義處在歷史低點(diǎn)，確定性與安全感也同樣如此。

So what's the next stage?
那么，下一階段是什么？

What can we learn to ensure that we don't enter this new world at a massive disadvantage?
我們能學(xué)些什么，才能確保自己不會(huì)以巨大的劣勢(shì)進(jìn)入這個(gè)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.
要理解這一點(diǎn)，我們必須理解正在出現(xiàn)的技術(shù)—經(jīng)濟(jì)基礎(chǔ)（人工智能），因?yàn)樗鼤?huì)為下一種世界觀創(chuàng)造條件，從而決定我們重視什么，甚至進(jìn)一步?jīng)Q定我們做什么。這很重要。

II – The acceleration of AI (and meaninglessness) 二｜AI 的加速（以及無意義的加速）

AI promises to remove us of all labor.
AI 承諾要把所有勞動(dòng)從我們身上移除。

At least that's what the hype is all about and what everyone is focused on.
至少炒作是這么說的，所有人也都盯著這個(gè)。

It promises to provide the necessities so that we no longer live in scarcity.
它承諾提供必需品，讓我們不再活在稀缺之中。

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.
但從各方面看，它實(shí)現(xiàn)這一點(diǎn)的方式只會(huì)增加意義的稀缺。很多人——包括我自己——會(huì)從某種類型的勞動(dòng)中獲得意義。我一點(diǎn)也不反 AI，但我看不到一個(gè) AI 把手藝從創(chuàng)作者身上剝離的世界。

But why?
但為什么？

Why will work disappear?
為什么工作會(huì)消失？

And what replaces the economic function of jobs?
工作在經(jīng)濟(jì)上的功能會(huì)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“后勞動(dòng)經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)”（Post Labor Economics）是一個(gè)有用的理論，用來理解未來可能是什么樣。

The problem that's on everyone's mind is this:
所有人心里都在想一個(gè)問題：

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.
自從“工作”（為工資勞動(dòng)）存在以來，公司付錢給工人，工人花錢消費(fèi)，公司賺錢，如此循環(huán)。

But then AI comes along and threatens it all.
但 AI 出現(xiàn)后威脅了這一切。

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，讓機(jī)器做所有工作是很誘人的。人類昂貴、復(fù)雜、情緒化，還伴隨法律風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。直到現(xiàn)在，唯一的選擇還是雇人。

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 和機(jī)器人在某個(gè)崗位上跨過“更好、更快、更便宜、更安全”的門檻（我們先假設(shè)它們確實(shí)會(huì)到達(dá)這一點(diǎn)——目前只能猜），繼續(xù)讓人來做這份工作就會(huì)在經(jīng)濟(jì)上變得非理性。非理性不等于不道德，也不等于可選。我也不是來討論這件事的道德問題的。

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.
這之所以非理性，是因?yàn)殇z頭取代了掘土棍；畜力犁取代了鋤頭（并讓一個(gè)新的探索者與征服者階層出現(xiàn)）；工業(yè)機(jī)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個(gè)人的力量與潛能。在今天，一個(gè)人就能經(jīng)營(yíng)一家比過去許多公司更精簡(jiǎn)、更盈利的生意。你可以學(xué)任何東西、造任何東西。但即便擁有這種力量，多數(shù)人仍會(huì)無所作為；而那些真的去做的人，會(huì)與彼此陷入無盡競(jìng)爭(zhēng)，讓我們都在追問：競(jìng)爭(zhēng)優(yōu)勢(shì)到底在哪里？

But of course, there's a huge problem with AI replacing all jobs.
但當(dāng)然，AI 取代所有工作的設(shè)想有個(gè)巨大問題。

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，就沒人有錢；沒人有錢，就沒人買東西；沒人買東西，經(jīng)濟(jì)就會(huì)崩潰。

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:
我們會(huì)發(fā)現(xiàn)，上面這句話適用于“有工作的人”，但不適用于“有公司的人”。這讓我忍不住想到 Naval 的一句話：

There are almost 7B people on this planet. Someday, I hope, there will be almost 7B companies.
地球上大約有 70 億人。有一天，我希望會(huì)有大約 70 億家公司。

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:
現(xiàn)在，大多數(shù)人擔(dān)心的是：如果沒有工作，錢怎么來？家庭獲得收入只有三種方式：

Wages – Someone pays you for your labor (employer, customer, self-employment)
工資——有人為你的勞動(dòng)付錢（雇主、客戶、自雇）

Transfers – Government pays you (UBI, Social Security, SNAP, Medicare)
轉(zhuǎn)移支付——政府付錢給你（全民基本收入、社保、救助、醫(yī)保等）

Capital Income – Your assets pay you (dividends, rent, interest, appreciation)
資本收入——你的資產(chǎn)為你付錢（分紅、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.
如果第一項(xiàng)崩塌，第二和第三就必須扛起重量。但單靠轉(zhuǎn)移支付會(huì)帶來政治不穩(wěn)定，并且失去價(jià)格信號(hào)。作為整體方案，它行不通。

Meaning, one potential solution would be broadening capital participation. Regular people would own income-generating assets.
因此，一個(gè)潛在方案是擴(kuò)大資本參與：讓普通人也擁有能產(chǎn)生收入的資產(chǎn)。

To keep this brief, I will not list all of the proposed mechanisms for this.
為了簡(jiǎn)潔，我不展開列出所有可能的機(jī)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?yàn)槭聦?shí)是：有些人，尤其是創(chuàng)作者，仍然會(huì)想工作，并希望自己的工作被認(rèn)可。我們?cè)谶@里要談的就是這個(gè)。

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.
就我個(gè)人而言，我不想坐在那里領(lǐng)一份基礎(chǔ)現(xiàn)金。我的人生意義很大一部分來自在多個(gè)領(lǐng)域里實(shí)現(xiàn)個(gè)人與職業(yè)成長(zhǎng)，而成長(zhǎng)需要主體性。如果金錢從生產(chǎn)力指標(biāo)轉(zhuǎn)變成表達(dá)主體性的方式，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.
我建議你進(jìn)一步研究 Shapiro 的想法，并關(guān)注他未來會(huì)出版的關(guān)于該主題的完整著作《Labor Zero》。

Fortunately, there are jobs that may persist even when automation is superior. These jobs are based on humans specifically demanding other humans:
幸運(yùn)的是，即使自動(dòng)化更強(qiáng)，有些工作仍可能存在——因?yàn)檫@些工作基于“人類明確需要另一個(gè)人類”：

High-liability roles (where there's someone to blame)
高責(zé)任崗位（需要一個(gè)可以追責(zé)的人）

Statutory positions (legally required humans)
法定崗位（法律要求必須由人承擔(dān)）

Experience economy (bartenders, boutiques, art)
體驗(yàn)經(jīng)濟(jì)（酒保、精品店、藝術(shù)等）

Meaning makers (helping people navigate the human experience)
意義制造者（幫助人們穿越人類體驗(yàn)）

Relationship/trust jobs (sales, diplomacy, negotiation)
關(guān)系/信任型工作（銷售、外交、談判）

As an everyday creative, I want to focus on the third and fourth option. That is what humans will pay a premium for.
作為一個(gè)普通創(chuàng)作者，我想聚焦第三和第四種。人類會(huì)愿意為此支付溢價(jià)。

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.
但在我們談如何加入新的意義經(jīng)濟(jì)、或需要什么高級(jí)技能之前，我們漏掉了一個(gè)關(guān)鍵點(diǎn)：意義最初是如何生成的？

III – The evolution and anatomy of meaning (robots vs humans) 三｜意義的演化與結(jié)構(gòu)（機(jī)器人 vs 人類）

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.
未來的優(yōu)雅不在于人與機(jī)器對(duì)抗，而在于分工：硅為必需品打磨掉粗糙邊緣，讓碳得以上升到意義。我們會(huì)廢除咖啡師、封圣廚師；讓中介沉默、讓演員返場(chǎng)。在這兩個(gè)領(lǐng)域里驅(qū)動(dòng)我們的其實(shí)是同一種自私本能——清除摩擦、保留敘事——它推動(dòng)一個(gè)世界：最枯燥的雜活由電路完成，而最有汁水的故事由會(huì)流血的人講述。

– 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.
在大多數(shù)歷史時(shí)期，人類通過仰望天空來尋找意義——或者說活下去的理由?！霸谏厦?。”意義是被賦予的。

Then, we got smarter, supposedly. We made productivity our God. We looked to science and reason for meaning. "Out there." Meaning was earned.
后來，我們據(jù)說變聰明了。我們把生產(chǎn)力當(dāng)成上帝，轉(zhuǎn)向科學(xué)與理性尋找意義。“在外面?！币饬x是掙來的。

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.
現(xiàn)在，我們聰明得有點(diǎn)過頭了。我們?cè)谙鄬?duì)性里尋找意義，卻找不到?！盁o處?！币饬x被解構(gòu)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.
走向未來，你的工作就是把碎片撿起來。你必須接受你作為創(chuàng)造者的角色：工具的建造者、探索者、問題的解決者。如果你把太多主體性外包給機(jī)器，它們完全不介意把你接到集體多巴胺點(diǎn)滴上。

Now, meaning must be generated.
現(xiàn)在，意義必須被生成。

How do you generate meaning?
你如何生成意義？

Well, it helps to look at what creates meaninglessness.
先看看什么制造了無意義，會(huì)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，無意義源于停滯。如果你的人生什么都不做——就像很多人在工作消失、僅靠基本供給勉強(qiáng)維持之后那樣——你不會(huì)保持不變，你會(huì)慢慢滑向混亂。熵增同樣會(huì)發(fā)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，無意義會(huì)被孤立放大。沒有部落與村莊，我們比任何時(shí)候都更孤獨(dú)。臉貼著屏幕，等下一份工資，好繼續(xù)買買買。

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.
因此我們可以說，意義的兩根支柱是：前進(jìn)的感覺，以及與比你自身更大的東西的連接——進(jìn)步與貢獻(xiàn)。

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.
很長(zhǎng)一段時(shí)間里，我們把這兩者都外包了：進(jìn)步由雇主提供，連接由神圣權(quán)威提供。現(xiàn)在，兩者都在你手里，這對(duì)很多人來說并不好受。

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.
進(jìn)步與貢獻(xiàn)通過創(chuàng)造性解決問題被激活：你有一個(gè)面向未來的目標(biāo)，你識(shí)別出阻礙你前進(jìn)的問題，你通過實(shí)驗(yàn)創(chuàng)造解決方案，再把它交給處境相似的人；如果對(duì)方認(rèn)為它足夠有價(jià)值，就會(huì)用另一種價(jià)值與你交換。

Of course, that doesn't help with understanding how creatives will survive if all jobs are gone. We're getting to that.
當(dāng)然，這還不足以解釋：如果所有工作都消失，創(chuàng)作者怎么生存。我們馬上會(huì)講到。

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.
我想強(qiáng)調(diào)的是：你必須成為創(chuàng)造者。你必須做你自己的東西。你必須走你自己的路。你必須表達(dá)你的主體性。無論如何都不要坐等世界某天承諾替你解決所有問題，因?yàn)槲冶ＷC它不會(huì)。

Beyond the two pillars of meaning, there are three generators:
除了意義的兩根支柱，還有三個(gè)生成器：

Struggle – The engine of progress. What you choose to struggle for (or care about) is your purpose.
掙扎——進(jìn)步的引擎。你選擇為何而掙扎（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——進(jìn)步的方向。用非線性的注意力選擇去解決問題。

Status – The proof of contribution. The recognition that completes the loop.
地位——貢獻(xiàn)的證明。完成閉環(huán)的認(rèn)可。

When you put all those together, you get a story.
把這些放在一起，你就得到一個(gè)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，真實(shí)的故事，才會(huì)值得溢價(jià)。因?yàn)槿四X是故事引擎，我們靠故事理解世界。

We hate when something is slow when it should be fast.
當(dāng)一件事本該快卻很慢時(shí)，我們會(huì)討厭它。

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.
我們討厭車管所的長(zhǎng)隊(duì)；討厭遲到還愛閑聊的 Uber 司機(jī)；討厭為了一個(gè)本該簡(jiǎn)單的客服問題等 30 分鐘；討厭快餐訂單弄錯(cuò)。

But we will pay top dollar to fly across the world to dine at a five-star restaurant.
但我們會(huì)愿意花大價(jià)錢飛到世界另一端去吃一家五星餐廳。

We sit on the edge of our seats while watching a tear-jerking play at the theatre.
我們會(huì)在劇院里看一場(chǎng)催淚戲劇看到坐立不安。

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.
當(dāng)任務(wù)關(guān)乎速度、準(zhǔn)確或?qū)嵱眯詴r(shí)，就交給機(jī)器。但當(dāng)我們的心智離開“必須把事情做完”的狀態(tài)（當(dāng)我們進(jìn)入休閑，而未來會(huì)有大量休閑），我們渴望的就是另一種東西。

We crave the potential for failure.
我們渴望失敗的可能性。

We crave the lesson of the man who bleeds.
我們渴望從“會(huì)流血的人”那里學(xué)到東西。

We crave the story, drama, novelty, myth and meaning, and we pay good money for it.
我們渴望故事、戲劇性、新奇、神話與意義，并愿意為此付出真金白銀。

An entire economy will be built around this, and the construction has already started.
一整個(gè)經(jīng)濟(jì)都會(huì)圍繞這一點(diǎn)建立，而建設(shè)已經(jīng)開始。

The question then is, what is so unique about you? And how can we be sure this won't be replaced by machines?
那么問題來了：你身上到底有什么獨(dú)特之處？我們?cè)趺创_定它不會(huì)被機(jī)器替代？

IV – The creator economy = the meaning economy 四｜創(chuàng)作者經(jīng)濟(jì) = 意義經(jīng)濟(jì)

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?
如果你不再通過一份工作拿工資，同時(shí)你也無法在“只賺夠覆蓋基本生活的被動(dòng)收入”中找到意義，那還剩下什么？

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：從那些相信你正在做的事情、并希望在世界上看到更多這種事情的人那里獲得報(bào)酬。

You pursue what you care about and inspire people to care about it too.
你追求你真正關(guān)心的東西，同時(shí)也讓別人開始關(guān)心它。

Attention, then, is the scarce resource that creatives will be competing for.
因此，注意力將成為創(chuàng)作者之間競(jìng)爭(zhēng)的稀缺資源。

We've already been seeing this play out in the creator economy.
我們已經(jīng)在創(chuàng)作者經(jīng)濟(jì)中看到這一切正在發(fā)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 為最明顯的例子，他理解注意力的原始力量。他幾乎可以憑借注意力直接塑造未來。他能夠調(diào)動(dòng)資本、人才與網(wǎng)絡(luò)——這是一切資源中的終極資源——來確保他讓人類成為跨行星物種的人生事業(yè)得以推進(jìn)。

Mr. Beast is another. He is a master of attention capture, reinvests that back into production, which leads to more attention.
Mr. Beast 是另一個(gè)例子。他是捕獲注意力的大師，并把注意力重新投入到內(nèi)容生產(chǎn)中，從而獲得更多注意力。

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.
想想你今天是如何獲取教育、新聞和知識(shí)的。大部分內(nèi)容都來自社交媒體上的創(chuàng)作者——他們把“提供自己的觀點(diǎn)”當(dāng)成一份工作。集中化的教育與信息體系仍然存在，但不會(huì)持續(xù)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.
但我并不想成為下一個(gè) Mr. Beast。你大概也不想承受 Musk 那樣的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)與批評(píng)。你只是想追求自己的興趣，并把它分享給一群同樣關(guān)心你愿景的人——就像你的大腦天生被這樣設(shè)計(jì)的一樣。你想創(chuàng)造并分享意義。

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.
關(guān)于創(chuàng)作者經(jīng)濟(jì)最大的誤解，是認(rèn)為它是一個(gè)“贏家通吃”的戰(zhàn)場(chǎng)。這離事實(shí)再遠(yuǎn)不過了。

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."
這個(gè)領(lǐng)域里的朋友 Justin Welsh，以追求安靜生活而聞名。他想要有意義的工作、充足的家庭時(shí)間，以及在沒有財(cái)務(wù)壓力的情況下做自己想做的事。他過得很好，并且完全掌控自己“工作”的時(shí)間。

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種規(guī)模。很多擁有小規(guī)模受眾的人，已經(jīng)賺得足夠過上好生活。他們不需要每天苦干 16 個(gè)小時(shí)，也不在乎成為億萬富翁。他們只是擁有一些自己認(rèn)為有意義的東西，并把它分享出來（同時(shí)配合能夠獲取注意力的具體技能，稍后我們會(huì)討論）。

You see these people every day.
你每天都能看到這樣的人。

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.
順便說一句，如果你想成為億萬富翁，或者想極端地工作，那請(qǐng)便。有些人確實(shí)熱愛這種生活方式，我不是來教你怎么活的。

"But Dan, what about the dead internet? Isn't AI just going to flood the space with brain rot and slop?"
“但是 Dan，‘死互聯(lián)網(wǎng)’怎么辦？AI 難道不會(huì)用垃圾內(nèi)容和低質(zhì)信息把空間淹沒嗎？”

Yes, actually.
是的，確實(shí)會(huì)。

How is that not a good thing?
這為什么不是一件好事？

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：所有人都在用平庸內(nèi)容灌水，所以從來沒有像現(xiàn)在這樣容易脫穎而出？

I think most of the worry about AI slop stems from a lack of understanding how attention works.
我認(rèn)為，大多數(shù)對(duì) AI 垃圾內(nèi)容的擔(dān)憂，源于對(duì)注意力機(jī)制的誤解。

Once everyone can do it instantly, it becomes instantly worthless.
一旦每個(gè)人都能瞬間做到，它就會(huì)立刻變得毫無價(jià)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?
當(dāng)然，任何人都可以用 AI 寫 1000 條帖子或 10 篇文章來搏算法彩票。但你真的經(jīng)?？吹健袄鴥?nèi)容”爆紅嗎？如果它真的爆紅了，那是不是說明它其實(shí)不算垃圾？

Slop lives on a spectrum.
垃圾內(nèi)容是存在于一個(gè)連續(xù)譜上的。

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.
上周我大爆火時(shí)，有人把我的文章簡(jiǎn)化成“一堆自我提升的陳詞濫調(diào)”。但如果你真的讀過那篇文章，就知道這種說法有點(diǎn)夸張——尤其是考慮到其中關(guān)于心理學(xué)、認(rèn)識(shí)論和人類行為的內(nèi)容。

There is no AI prompt that could produce that exact same article, or even this same article.
不存在一個(gè) AI 提示詞，可以生成完全一樣的那篇文章，甚至連這篇也不行。

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?
我不是說那是地球上最深刻的寫作，但這讓我懷疑：為什么一點(diǎn)自我提升內(nèi)容就能讓某些人暴跳如雷——也許自我提升正好能幫到你？

Smart people are often biased to the domains they are smart in, which is quite an unproductive way of thinking.
聰明人往往在自己擅長(zhǎng)的領(lǐng)域里帶有偏見，而這是一種非常低效的思維方式。

And frankly, once a piece of content becomes "popular," people who identify as anti-mainstream immediately find a reason to hate it.
坦白說，一旦某個(gè)內(nèi)容變得“主流”，那些自我認(rèn)同為反主流的人就會(huì)立刻找到理由去討厭它。

One mans slop is another mans treasure and vice versa.
一個(gè)人的垃圾，可能是另一個(gè)人的寶藏，反之亦然。

Slop aside, you have access to ChatGPT, right? Then why are you reading this?
先不談垃圾內(nèi)容。你也能用 ChatGPT，對(duì)吧？那你為什么還在讀這篇文章？

Is it because you didn't know what to type into the chatbot?
是因?yàn)槟悴恢涝撏奶炜蚶镙斎胧裁磫幔?/p>

Is it because there's more to life than answering the questions you know to ask?
是因?yàn)槿松恢皇腔卮鹉阋呀?jīng)知道該怎么問的問題嗎？

Do you think ChatGPT is just going to deliver this exact article to you on a silver platter one day?
你覺得有一天 ChatGPT 會(huì)把這篇完全一樣的文章端到你面前嗎？

Seriously, think about those questions before you start going on about how everything is doomed.
在開始宣稱“一切都完了”之前，請(qǐng)認(rèn)真想想這些問題。

The truth is that skills are being abstracted up a layer.
事實(shí)是，技能正在被抽象到更高一層。

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.
在頁(yè)面上打字、在畫布上落筆這些手工動(dòng)作仍然重要，因?yàn)榘岩磺卸級(jí)嚎s進(jìn)一個(gè)聊天輸入框，會(huì)剝奪那些需要個(gè)人觸感的工作的主體性。但它們不再像藝術(shù)家本人的大腦那樣重要。

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.
營(yíng)銷、說服、寫作、數(shù)字藝術(shù)、編程等技能依然重要，但能取得最大成果的人，是在更高層級(jí)上運(yùn)作的。

They're operating at the human level.
他們是在“人類層級(jí)”上運(yùn)作。

V – The last defensible moat is you 五｜最后一道可防守的護(hù)城河，是你自己

As a writer, I've been thinking about this a lot over the past few years.
作為一名寫作者，過去幾年我一直在反復(fù)思考這個(gè)問題。

Will AI ever be able to fully replace creatives and artists? That seems kind of bleak no matter which way you spin it.
AI 是否終有一天能完全取代創(chuàng)作者和藝術(shù)家？無論怎么說，這個(gè)結(jié)論聽起來都很灰暗。

Can AI ever write what I write?
AI 能寫出我寫的東西嗎？

Can AI ever create the music of a famous musician?
AI 能創(chuàng)作出著名音樂家的音樂嗎？

Can AI ever produce a Spielberg level film?
AI 能拍出斯皮爾伯格級(jí)別的電影嗎？

Can AI ever build a company like Steve Jobs could with Apple?
AI 能像喬布斯打造蘋果那樣建立一家公司嗎？

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.
很多人會(huì)認(rèn)為，隨著模型越來越強(qiáng)，AI 能生成漂亮的文章或電影。但他們忽略了一件關(guān)鍵的事。

Let's call this The Swap Test:
我們把它稱為“交換測(cè)試”：

If you could swap the creator and the creation would be just as valuable, then AI can replace it.
如果你可以把創(chuàng)作者換掉，而作品依然同樣有價(jià)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.
如果這個(gè)作品只有在“你來做”的前提下才成立，那就是你的優(yōu)勢(shì)。它承載著你的視角、你的處境和你的品味。

You see, certain types of work have an objective floor.
你看，某些類型的工作有一個(gè)客觀的下限。

When it comes to writing, it's perfectly fine if AI writes documentation, summarizes multiple sources of information, or makes instructions clearer.
在寫作上，讓 AI 寫文檔、匯總多來源信息、或把說明寫得更清楚，完全沒問題。

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.
甚至可以說，AI 可以把你原始的頭腦輸出整理成一篇可發(fā)布的文章——但有些人還想表達(dá)自己的風(fēng)格。

In other words, if speed and efficiency matter over voice, you can hand off control to AI.
換句話說，如果速度和效率比聲音更重要，你就可以把控制權(quán)交給 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.
但當(dāng)你寫的是失去父母后的悲痛隨筆，或者一篇論證“極簡(jiǎn)主義為何是創(chuàng)作者陷阱”的文章時(shí)，事情就不同了。

Your point of view is at play.
此時(shí)起作用的是你的觀點(diǎn)。

You know, the most unique thing on this planet that nobody else has access to.
你知道的，那是這個(gè)星球上最獨(dú)一無二、無人能夠接近的東西。

The culmination of beliefs, ideas, and experiences that can't be reversed or resimulated that has been forming since the day you were born.
那是從你出生那天起，由信念、想法與經(jīng)歷不斷累積而成、無法被逆轉(zhuǎn)或重新模擬的總和。

Dan Koe

靠長(zhǎng)期自學(xué) + 寫作 + 產(chǎn)品化個(gè)人思想跑出來的獨(dú)立創(chuàng)作者。