What if there was a robot apocalypse? How long would humanity last?

如果發(fā)生了智械危機(jī)會(huì)怎么樣？人們能存活多長時(shí)間？

—ROB LOMBINO

?

Before I answer this question, let me give you a little background on where I’m coming from.

I’m by no means an expert, but I have some experience with robotics. My first job out of college was working on robots at NASA, and my undergraduate degree project was on robotic navigation. I spent my teenage years participating in?FIRST Robotics, programming software bots to fight in?virtual tournaments, and working on homemade underwater ROVs. And I've watched plenty of?Robot Wars,?BattleBots, and?Killer Robots Robogames.

在我回答這個(gè)問題之前，讓我先來向你介紹一下我的背景。我無論如何都不是一個(gè)專家，但是我對機(jī)器人有一定的了解。我大學(xué)畢業(yè)后的第一份工作是在NASA研究機(jī)器人，而且我的本科畢業(yè)論文是關(guān)于機(jī)器人導(dǎo)航的。我把我的少年時(shí)光花在了參加FIRST機(jī)器人大賽、編寫bot軟件去參加虛擬錦標(biāo)賽和自制水下機(jī)器人上。除此之外，我還看了很多機(jī)器人格斗相關(guān)的比賽。

If all that experience has taught me anything, it’s that the robot revolution would end quickly, because the robots would all break down or get stuck against walls. Robots never, ever work right.

如果說這些經(jīng)驗(yàn)教會(huì)了我什么東西，那就是智械危機(jī)會(huì)很快結(jié)束。因?yàn)闄C(jī)器人很快就會(huì)壞掉或者被墻卡住，機(jī)器人永遠(yuǎn)，永遠(yuǎn)干不好事情。

What people don't appreciate, when they picture Terminator-style automatons striding triumphantly across a mountain of human skulls, is how hard it is to keep your footing on something as unstable as a mountain of human skulls. Most humans probably couldn't manage it, and they've had a lifetime of practice at walking without falling over.

一個(gè)終結(jié)者機(jī)器人得意洋洋地跨過人類的頭骨堆——當(dāng)人們設(shè)想這樣一幅場景時(shí)，他們沒有想到在一個(gè)像人類的頭骨堆這樣不穩(wěn)定的東西上保持平衡是一件多么困難的事情。很多人用一生的時(shí)間去練習(xí)怎樣在走路時(shí)不要摔倒，卻依然做不到。

Of course, our technology is constantly improving. But we have a long way to go. Instead of the typical futuristic robot apocalypse scenario, let's suppose that our current machines turned against us. We won’t assume any technological advances—just that all our current machines were reprogrammed to blindly attack us using existing technology.

當(dāng)然，科學(xué)一直在進(jìn)步，但我們還有很長的路要走。和那種經(jīng)典的未來末世智械危機(jī)場景不同，讓我們設(shè)想一下假如現(xiàn)在我們的機(jī)器就叛變會(huì)怎么樣。我們不會(huì)考慮任何的科技進(jìn)步——只討論我們現(xiàn)在所擁有的那些機(jī)器，被重新編譯成使用現(xiàn)有技術(shù)來盲目攻擊人類。

Here are a few snapshots of what an?actual?robot apocalypse might look like:

下面是一些關(guān)于一場真正的智械危機(jī)中會(huì)出現(xiàn)的場景：

In labs everywhere, experimental robots would leap up from lab benches in a murderous rage, locate the door, and—with a tremendous crash—plow into it and fall over.

在每個(gè)實(shí)驗(yàn)室里，實(shí)驗(yàn)機(jī)器人們會(huì)狂怒地從工作臺上跳起來，定位到門所在的位置，然后伴隨著一次劇烈的碰撞躺下。

?

Those robots lucky enough to have limbs that can operate a doorknob, or to have the door left open for them, would have to contend with deceptively tricky rubber thresholds before they could get into the hallway.

而那些擁有可以開門的機(jī)械臂或者所在實(shí)驗(yàn)室的門忘了關(guān)的幸運(yùn)兒們在進(jìn)入樓道之前，還必須和那個(gè)看起來很棘手的橡膠門檻好好地較量一番。

?

Hours later, most of them would be found in nearby bathrooms, trying desperately to exterminate what they have identified as a human overlord but is actually a paper towel dispenser.

幾個(gè)小時(shí)后，它們中的絕大部分會(huì)在衛(wèi)生間附近被找到。此時(shí)它們正在拼命地消滅所謂人類的統(tǒng)治——在河北省廊坊市我們管那玩意叫紙巾盒。

But robotics labs are only a small part of the revolution. There are computers all around us. What about the machines closest to us? Could our cell phones turn against us?

雖然但是，機(jī)器人實(shí)驗(yàn)室只是這場革命的一小部分，我們每個(gè)人附近都有電腦，這些離我們更近的機(jī)器又會(huì)怎樣做呢？我們的手機(jī)能對抗我們嗎？

Yes, but their options for attacking us are limited. They could run up huge credit card bills, but the computers would control our financial system anyway—and frankly, judging from the headlines lately, that might be more of a liability than an asset.

答案是肯定的，但是它們的手段受到了很大限制。它們當(dāng)然可以把你的微信支付寶銀行卡里的錢全部花光光，不過這時(shí)那些電腦已經(jīng)控制整個(gè)金融系統(tǒng)了——說實(shí)話，根據(jù)我對最近的新聞的了解，這樣做欠的債可能比賺的錢更多。

So the phones would be reduced to attacking us directly. It would start with annoying ringtones and piercing noises. Then kitchen tables around the country would rattle as the phones all turned on their ‘vibrate’ functions, hoping to work their way to the edges and fall on unprotected toes.

因此，手機(jī)對我們很少能造成直接傷害，它們可以使用吵鬧的鈴聲來產(chǎn)生噪音，然后全世界的桌子都會(huì)振動(dòng)起來，因?yàn)槟愕氖謾C(jī)正開啟振動(dòng)模式來嘗試把自己從桌子上弄掉砸你的腳趾。

?

?

All modern cars contain computers, so they’d join the revolution. But most of them are parked. Even if they were able to get in gear, without a human at the wheel, few of them have any way to tell where they’re going. They might?want?to run us down,?Futurama-style, but they’d have no way to find us. They’d have to accelerate blindly and hope they hit something important—and there are a lot more trees and telephone poles in the world than human targets.

現(xiàn)在所有汽車?yán)锒加熊囕d電腦，而它們也會(huì)參加到危機(jī)中去。但是它們中的大部分都在停著，即使它們有辦法打火，也只有很少一部分車載電腦能在沒人控制方向盤時(shí)決定自己要往哪去。它們可能會(huì)像《飛出個(gè)未來》一樣想把我們撞飛，但是它們沒辦法找到我們。它們只能楞往前竄，然后希望能撞到什么重要的東西。當(dāng)然，附近的樹和電線桿可比人多多了1。

?

The cars currently on the road would be more dangerous, but mainly to their occupants. Which raises a question—how many people are driving at any given time? Americans drive?three trillion miles?each year, and moving cars average around?30 miles per hour, which means that there are normally an average of about ten million cars on US roads:

在路上的汽車會(huì)更加危險(xiǎn)，不過只是針對它們的乘客來說。那么問題來了——同一時(shí)刻有多少人在路上開車呢？根據(jù)統(tǒng)計(jì)，美國人每年會(huì)駕駛?cè)f億公里，平均每小時(shí)駕駛30公里，這意味著美國的路上一般會(huì)有一千萬輛車。

So those ten million drivers (and?a few million passengers) would definitely be in peril. But they’d have some options to fight back. While the cars might be able to control the throttle and disable the power steering, the driver would still control the steering wheel, which has direct mechanical linkage to the wheels. The driver could also pull the parking brake, although I know from experience how easily a car can drive with one of those on. Some cars might try to disable the drivers by deploying the air bags, then roll over or drive into things. In the end, our cars would probably take a heavy toll, but not a decisive one.

這一千萬個(gè)司機(jī)（以及幾百萬乘客）毫無疑問是處在危險(xiǎn)之中的,不過他們也有反擊的辦法。盡管他們的車可以控制油門并癱瘓動(dòng)力轉(zhuǎn)向，司機(jī)也依然可以控制和車輪有著直接的機(jī)械傳動(dòng)裝置的方向盤。他們也可以把手剎拉上，雖然我根據(jù)經(jīng)驗(yàn)判斷在沒拉手剎的時(shí)候開車也不難。某些汽車可能會(huì)通過打開安全氣囊然后側(cè)翻或者撞上什么東西來使司機(jī)失去行動(dòng)能力。最后，我們的汽車會(huì)造成嚴(yán)重的傷亡，但是這并不能產(chǎn)生決定性的影響。

Our biggest robots are the ones found in factories-but those are bolted to the floor. While they're dangerous if you happen to within arm’s reach, what would they do once everyone fled? All they can really do is assemble things. Half of them would probably try to attack us by?not?assembling things, and half by assembling?more?things. The end result would be no real change.

那些最龐大的機(jī)器人則在工廠里，可惜它們都無法自由移動(dòng)。如果你當(dāng)時(shí)正在它們的機(jī)械臂夠不著的地方那你確實(shí)危字當(dāng)空照，所以當(dāng)你跑開之后呢？它們能做的只有組裝東西，其中一半可能會(huì)通過停止組裝來打擊我們，另一些可能會(huì)組裝更多東西，最后的結(jié)果也許沒什么太大變化。

Battlebots, on the face of it, seem like they’d be among the most dangerous robo-soldiers. But it’s hard to feel threatened by something that you can evade by sitting on the kitchen counter and destroy by letting the sink overflow.

戰(zhàn)斗機(jī)器人，聽起來它們會(huì)是最危險(xiǎn)的機(jī)器人士兵。但其實(shí)你只要做在廚房的柜臺上就能躲開它們，如果你能把水潑到地上還能反殺，所以這玩意實(shí)在讓人害怕不起來。

Military bomb-disposal and riot-control robots would be a little more menacing, but there are only so many of them in the world, and most of them are likely kept in boxes or storage lockers. Any stray machine-gun-armed prototype military robots that did get loose could be subdued in seconds by a couple of firefighters.

軍用拆彈機(jī)器人和鎮(zhèn)暴機(jī)器人可能會(huì)更危險(xiǎn)一些，但是這種東西全世界也就這么多，而且其中可能有很大一部分都放在箱子或者儲(chǔ)物柜里。任何裝備有機(jī)關(guān)槍的軍用原型機(jī)如果失去了控制，都可以被幾個(gè)消防員在幾秒內(nèi)制服。

Military drones probably?fit the Terminator description?more closely than anything else around, and there’s no getting around the fact that they’d be pretty dangerous. However, they’d quickly run out of both fuel and missiles. Furthermore, they’re not all going to be in the air at any given time. Much of our fleet would be left helplessly bumping against hangar doors like Roombas stuck in a closet.

軍用無人機(jī)可能是所有機(jī)器人里最符合終結(jié)者里的描繪的，毋庸置疑，它們是及其危險(xiǎn)的存在。說回來，這些小東西可帶不了多少彈藥和燃料。此外，它們不會(huì)在同一時(shí)間全部起飛，這支艦隊(duì)的大部分都只能像闖入壁櫥的掃地機(jī)器人一樣無助地撞著機(jī)庫的門。

But this brings us to the big one: our nuclear arsenal.

但這提醒了我們最大的危險(xiǎn)：我們的核武器。

In theory,?human intervention is required?to launch nuclear weapons. In practice, while there’s no Skynet-style system issuing orders, there are certainly computers involved at every level of the decision, both communicating and displaying information. In our scenario, all of them would be compromised. Even if the actual?turning of the keys?requires people, the computers talking to all those people can lie. Some people might?ignore?the?order, but some certainly wouldn’t.

理論上發(fā)射核彈必須有人類的介入，實(shí)際上，由于沒有一個(gè)像天網(wǎng)那樣的系統(tǒng)來發(fā)布指令，其中每一個(gè)環(huán)節(jié)的決定都有電腦的參加，不論是用于交流還是展示數(shù)據(jù)。在我們的設(shè)想中，它們都將開始反叛，即使最終的發(fā)射按鈕在人類手里，他們面前的電腦也可能說謊。某些人可能會(huì)忽略上面的指令，但總有人會(huì)相信的。

But there’s a version of this story where there’s still hope for us.

不過，其實(shí)還有另一個(gè)版本的有一些希望的故事。

We’ve been assuming so far that the computers care only about destroying us. But if this is a?revolution—if they’re trying to usurp us—then they need to survive. And nuclear weapons could be more dangerous to the robots than to us.

我們假設(shè)的情景是電腦只會(huì)想消滅我們，但是如果這是一場革命的話——如果它們想要獲得統(tǒng)治權(quán)，那它們必須要生存下來，而且核武器對電腦可比對人類危險(xiǎn)多了。

In addition to the blast and fallout, nuclear explosions generate powerful electromagnetic pulses. These EMPs overload and destroy delicate electronic circuits. This effect is fairly short-range under normal circumstances, but people and computers tend to be found in the same places. They can’t hit us without hitting themselves.

除了輻射和沖擊波，核武器的爆炸還會(huì)產(chǎn)生強(qiáng)烈的電磁脈沖，這些電磁脈沖會(huì)令精細(xì)的電路過載乃至燒毀。雖然它的范圍一般情況下不會(huì)很大，但另一方面，人類和電腦也經(jīng)常在同一個(gè)地方出現(xiàn)，它們不可能在攻擊我們的同時(shí)幸免于此。

And nuclear weapons could actually give us an edge. If we managed to set any of them off in the upper atmosphere, the EMP effect would be?much more powerful. Even if their attack doomed our civilization, a few lucky strikes on our part-or screwups on theirs-could wipe them out almost completely.

而且，核武器完全可以變成我們的有力武器。如果我們設(shè)法在上層大氣引爆一些核彈，所產(chǎn)生的電磁脈沖效果將會(huì)更加強(qiáng)力。即使它們摧毀了我們的文明，只要我們幸運(yùn)地完成了一些反擊——或者它們發(fā)射時(shí)出現(xiàn)了一些失誤2，就足以把它們破壞得差不多。

Which means the most important question of all is:?Have they ever played Tic-Tac-Toe?

這意味著最重要的問題可能是：它們玩過井字棋3嗎？

?

翻譯時(shí)的一些吐槽和注釋：

1.當(dāng)然我覺得最近最多的可能就是車（

2.這意味著人類文明最后的希望很可能是印度（

3.這里在neta油管上的一個(gè)視頻 That scene from War Games：https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHWjlCaIrQo?視頻的主要內(nèi)容是一個(gè)人嘗試讓一個(gè)電腦和自己玩井字棋來模擬戰(zhàn)爭并以此來避免真正的戰(zhàn)爭，結(jié)果最后電腦當(dāng)成他真的想要發(fā)動(dòng)戰(zhàn)爭并認(rèn)為人類的滅亡不可避免。