永远不要忘记_永远不要说永远不在技术领域

永远不要忘记

“The difference between an interactive game and an interactive work of art is not just in the subject matter. It is also in the program and interface, which are important parts of the expression of a work.”

“互动游戏和互动艺术品之间的区别不仅在于主题。 它也在程序和界面中，它们是作品表达的重要组成部分。”

— Jim Campbell

—吉姆·坎贝尔

As a part of my Creative Coding class, I read Delusions of Dialogue: Control and Choice in Interactive Art by Jim Campbell. The essay was published by the MIT Press in 2000.

在我的创意编码课程中，我阅读了吉姆·坎贝尔(Jim Campbell) 的《对话的妄想：交互艺术中的控制与选择》 。 该论文由麻省理工学院出版社于2000年出版。

While reading through Campbell’s piece, I initially found myself a bit lost in the anachronisms. Talk of CD-ROMs in a time when the cloud has taken over did feel a little dated. Regardless, his theories were interesting and many of his statements are still relevant today.

在阅读坎贝尔的作品时，我最初发现自己在时代错误中有些失落。 在云被接管的时候谈论CD-ROM确实有些过时了。 无论如何，他的理论很有趣，而且他的许多陈述在今天仍然有意义。

Beyond that, he did get me thinking a bit more about the inherent function of a program. It was interesting to read about how a program can be boiled down to something that interprets sensory input, controls system memory, and generate a response based on the input. It sounds incredibly simple when stated like this, but this is the backbone of programs both modern and old.

除此之外，他的确使我对程序的固有功能进行了更多的思考。 阅读有关如何将程序简化为可解释感官输入，控制系统内存并根据输入生成响应的内容很有趣。 这样说起来听起来非常简单，但这是现代程序和旧程序的基础。

考虑一下用技术表达的含义是有帮助的。 (It’s helpful to think about what it means to be expressive with technology.)

Additionally, looking for some kind of inherent meaning in a program and the tasks it carries out lends itself to the modern artist’s dilemma of imbuing meaning into their work.

此外，在程序及其执行的任务中寻找某种固有的含义，很容易使现代艺术家陷入将意义纳入其作品的困境。

“Like the program, the memory in a computer is also invisible, even more so because information must travel through the program to get into or out of memory. The process that connects the real world to the internal memory must involve transformation but may or may not involve interpretation.”

就像程序一样，计算机中的内存也是不可见的，甚至更是如此，因为信息必须通过程序传播才能进入或退出内存。 将现实世界连接到内部存储器的过程必须涉及转换，但可能涉及或可能不涉及解释。”

— Jim Campbell

—吉姆·坎贝尔

Many of Campbell’s assertations have aged surprisingly well considering this piece was published by MIT back in 2000, which feels like a lifetime ago when you think about how much technology has evolved in that time. Even so, it’s still interesting to think about how the memory of computers and humans alike is technically “invisible.”

考虑到麻省理工学院于2000年发表的这篇文章，坎贝尔的许多断言都出人意料地好了，这回想起来就像一生前一样，回想起当时技术的发展。 即便如此，思考计算机和人类的内存在技术上是“隐形的”还是很有趣的。

但是，技术比以前的学者所能想象的强大。 (However, technology has become more powerful than earlier scholars could have imagined.)

VectorMine VectorMine提供

I hit a brick wall with Campbell when he said the following.

我和坎贝尔说了以下话，我撞到了砖墙。

“For example, there will never be a universal program that truly understands a sentence, because sentence comprehension clearly has a subjective element to it. Any sentence comprehension program will exhibit the biases of its programmer within its interpretations.”

“例如，永远不会有一个真正能理解句子的通用程序，因为句子理解力显然具有主观性。 任何句子理解程序都会在其解释范围内表现出程序员的偏见。”

— Jim Campbell

—吉姆·坎贝尔

In some ways, he is not entirely wrong, but I would be interested to hear his thoughts on software applications like Grammarly. It’s incredible how much we can do now without a human editor — Grammarly has the power to understand your sentences so completely that it can identify typos far more astutely than Microsoft Word or other word processors can.

在某些方面，他并不是完全错误的，但是我很想听听他对诸如Grammarly之类的软件应用程序的想法 。 没有人工编辑，我们现在能做的事真令人难以置信-语法具有完全理解您的句子的能力，以至于它可以比Microsoft Word或其他文字处理器更准确地识别错别字。

On top of that, the software can make recommendations on things like tone and delivery, which are more subjective elements of reading and writing. Since Grammarly is programmed by many people, can we really say how heavily it is influenced by the programmers’ interpretations of words?

最重要的是，该软件可以对诸如语调和表达之类的东西提出建议，这是阅读和写作的主观要素。 既然语法是由许多人编程的，那么我们真的可以说它受程序员对单词解释的影响有多大吗？

在什么时候程序变得足够先进，以至于其理解力可以与人的程序媲美？ (At what point does a program become advanced enough that its comprehension rivals a person’s?)

I’m trying to look on the bright side here. While Campbell is a bit too firm in his opinions by saying this like “never” quite definitively, his arguably misguided opinions are a sign of how much technology has evolved in the last twenty years.

我试图在这里看光明的一面。 尽管坎贝尔肯定地说“从不”( Never)，但他的观点有点过于坚定，但他可能被误导的观点表明过去二十年来技术已经发展了多少。

Back then, even at MIT, I imagine it would have been hard to imagine how advanced machine learning has become today. I feel like in the next twenty years, as more and more software companies implement machine learning, we will someday have a program that has learned enough on its own from others that it would be less biased than a person.

那时，即使在麻省理工学院，我想也很难想象今天的高级机器学习已经变得如此。 我感觉在未来的20年中，随着越来越多的软件公司实施机器学习，我们总有一天会拥有一个程序，该程序可以从其他人那里学到很多东西，因此它不会比一个人有更多的偏见。

“The computer is certainly the first medium in history in which the expression of an emotion or a concept has to be reduced to a mathematical.”

“计算机无疑是历史上第一种必须将情感或概念的表达简化为数学的媒介。”

— Jim Campbell

—吉姆·坎贝尔

This seems to be truer now than Campbell could have imagined back then.

现在，这似乎比坎贝尔当时想象的要真实。

坎贝尔确实对程序在艺术界的意义做出了很好的断言。 (Campbell does make some excellent assertations about what programs mean in the world of art.)

VectorMine VectorMine提供

Shifting back to the more generalized point of the essay, there’s a lot to be said about the art of interactivity. When he states that “the new element to interactive art is the present,” I agree with him entirely. I’m fascinated by interactive storytelling and how technology can shape the way we tell stories in new and interesting ways.

回到文章的更概括点，关于交互性的艺术还有很多话要说。 当他说“互动艺术的新要素是现在”时，我完全同意他的看法。 我着迷于交互式讲故事，以及技术如何塑造我们以新颖有趣的方式讲故事的方式。

I feel that if the literature industry is to thrive in the distant future, we need to find ways to tell stories of the same caliber as novels with technology folded in to give the reader the opportunity to interact with the story.

我认为，如果文学业要在遥远的未来蓬勃发展，我们需要找到方法讲述与小说一样口径的故事，并结合技术，使读者有机会与故事互动。

With that said, the role of the storyteller is a bit uncertain. I used to believe that an AI could “never” write at the same level as a human author. Before long, we could reach the point where AIs can write surprisingly good stories. It’s an ironic modern reminder that we all can be proven wrong if we’re too fast to say “never.”

话虽如此，讲故事的人的角色还是不确定的。 我曾经相信AI不可能“永远”以与人类作家相同的水平写作。 不久，我们可以达到AI可以编写令人惊讶的好故事的地步。 这具有讽刺意味的现代提醒是，如果我们过快地说“从不”，我们所有人都可能被证明是错误的。

翻译自: https://medium.com/leigh-learns-creative-coding/never-say-never-in-the-realm-of-technology-85d14c7c5c51

永远不要忘记