AI未来并非注定：批判必然主义叙事，夺回技术选择权

Have you ever found yourself in a debate with a formidable opponent? The experience can be disorienting. You are constantly forced onto the defensive, addressing unexpected critiques while the core of your argument gets lost in the fray. Momentum and confidence erode, often leading to a loss not just of the debate, but of the narrative itself. A key tactic employed by master debaters—a lesson I learned from a champion debater turned barrister—is the strategic framing of the entire conversation within their own terms. Once this framing is accepted, the substantive argument is often already decided.

你是否曾与一个极其擅长辩论的人争论过？这种经历可能会让人失去方向。你不断地被迫处于守势，回应意想不到的批评，而自己论点的核心却在交锋中迷失。势头和信心逐渐消磨，最终导致的往往不仅是辩论的失败，更是叙事主导权的丧失。我从一位曾是辩论冠军、现任出庭律师的朋友那里学到，顶尖辩论者采用的一个关键策略，就是战略性地将整个对话框架设定通过定义问题、术语和讨论边界来主导对话方向的话语策略。在他们自己的术语之内。一旦这种框架被接受，实质性争论的结果往往就已注定。

This concept of narrative control extends far beyond formal debates and into the realm of public discourse, particularly around transformative technologies. It shapes how we perceive possibilities and constraints.

Defining the Frame: What is "Inevitabilism"?

A powerful conceptual tool for understanding this dynamic is the term "Inevitabilism." I encountered this potent concept in Professor Shoshana Zuboff's seminal work, The Age of Surveillance Capitalism. One of the book's great strengths is its introduction of precise terminology for complex, often nebulous, phenomena. Giving a name to an abstract concept allows for clearer analysis, more effective communication, and the mobilization of reasoned opposition.

理解这种动态的一个强有力的概念工具是 "必然主义一种认为特定未来必然发生、人们只能适应而非选择的世界观或论述框架。"（Inevitabilism）。我在肖莎娜·祖博夫教授的巨著《监控资本主义肖莎娜·祖博夫提出的概念，指以大规模数据收集和行为预测为基础的新型经济形态。时代》中遇到了这个强有力的概念。该书的重大优点之一，便是为复杂且往往模糊的现象引入了精确的术语。为抽象概念命名能够实现更清晰的分析、更有效的沟通，并动员理性的反对意见。

Inevitabilism is a rhetorical and ideological frame that posits a specific technological or social future as not only probable but inevitable. Proponents argue that this future is an unavoidable consequence of progress, market forces, or technological determinism. Consequently, the only rational course of action is to adapt to and prepare for this predetermined outcome. Dissenting views are often dismissed as unrealistic, nostalgic, or ignorant of the "inexorable" forces at play.

必然主义一种认为特定未来必然发生、人们只能适应而非选择的世界观或论述框架。是一种修辞和意识形态框架，它将特定的技术或社会未来设定为不仅是可能的，而且是不可避免的。支持者认为，这种未来是进步、市场力量或技术决定论不可避免的结果。因此，唯一理性的行动方针就是适应并为这一预设的结果做好准备。不同意见常常被斥为不切实际、怀旧或对"不可阻挡"的力量一无所知。

This framing is exceptionally effective. It moves the conversation from questions of "Should we?" and "Is this desirable?" to questions of "How will we adapt?" and "What is the optimal path to this unavoidable future?" It preemptively sidelines ethical, social, and political debates about the direction itself.

这种框架设定通过定义问题、术语和讨论边界来主导对话方向的话语策略。异常有效。它将对话从 "我们是否应该？" 和 "这值得向往吗？" 的问题，转移到 "我们将如何适应？" 和 "通往这一不可避免未来的最佳路径是什么？" 的问题。它先发制人地边缘化了关于方向本身的伦理、社会和政治辩论。

Inevitabilism in Action: AI Narratives from Tech Leaders

We can observe this framing clearly in prominent statements about Artificial Intelligence (AI) from industry leaders. These declarations are not merely predictions; they are active attempts to shape the terrain of discussion.

我们可以从行业领袖们关于人工智能的著名言论中清晰地观察到这种框架设定通过定义问题、术语和讨论边界来主导对话方向的话语策略。。这些声明不仅仅是预测；它们是塑造讨论领域的积极尝试。

• "We are entering a world where we will learn to coexist with AI, not as its masters, but as its collaborators." – Mark Zuckerberg

  • "我们正在进入一个世界，在那里我们将学会与人工智能共存，不是作为它的主人，而是作为它的合作者。" – 马克·扎克伯格
  • Framing: A collaborative, non-hierarchical future with AI is presented as an established, unfolding reality we are "entering." The question of control ("masters") is framed as a settled, negative concept.
  • 框架设定通过定义问题、术语和讨论边界来主导对话方向的话语策略。：与人工智能协作、非等级化的未来被呈现为一个我们正在"进入"的既定且正在展开的现实。控制权问题（"主人"）被设定为一个已解决的负面概念。

• "AI is the new electricity." – Andrew Ng

  • "AI就是新的电力。" – 吴恩达
  • Framing: This analogy positions AI as a ubiquitous, foundational utility. Just as opposing electrification would be absurd, questioning AI's pervasive integration is implied to be equally futile. Its "inevitability" is naturalized through comparison to a historical necessity.
  • 框架设定通过定义问题、术语和讨论边界来主导对话方向的话语策略。：这个类比将AI定位为一种无处不在的基础设施。正如反对电气化是荒谬的一样，质疑AI的普遍整合也被暗示为同样徒劳。通过与历史必然性的比较，其"不可避免性"被自然化了。

• "AI will not replace humans, but those who use AI will replace those who don’t." – Ginni Rometty

  • "AI不会取代人类，但使用AI的人将取代那些不使用的人。" – 金妮·罗梅蒂
  • Framing: This statement contains a subtle but powerful threat. It accepts a premise of displacement but redirects the agency onto individuals. The "inevitable" force is not AI itself, but competitive Darwinism. Resistance is framed as a personal and professional risk.
  • 框架设定通过定义问题、术语和讨论边界来主导对话方向的话语策略。：这句话包含了一种微妙而有力的威胁。它接受了一个关于替代的前提，但将能动性转移到了个人身上。"不可避免"的力量不是AI本身，而是竞争性的达尔文主义。抵抗被设定为一种个人和职业风险。

The common thread is the shift from a normative debate about the desirability of an AI-centric future to a pragmatic discussion about adaptation to it. The underlying, often unspoken, psychological pressure is one of fearing to be left behind, of "messing with scary powers way beyond your understanding."

共同的线索是将辩论从关于以AI为中心的未来的合意性的规范性讨论，转向关于适应该未来的实用性讨论。其潜在且通常未言明的心理压力，是害怕落后，害怕"干扰你无法理解的可怕力量"。

Reclaiming Agency: Why Choice Matters in Shaping Our Future

I am not convinced that the current trajectory of large language models (LLMs) and AI development represents the only, or the best, possible future. I am even less convinced that it is the future we must passively accept. What I am certain of is that technological paths are shaped by human choices—choices about values, regulation, investment, and design.

我并不确信大型语言模型和AI发展的当前轨迹代表了唯一或最佳的可能未来。我更不相信这是我们必须被动接受的未来。我确信的是，技术路径是由人类的选择塑造的——关于价值观、监管、投资和设计的選擇。

The ideology of Inevitabilism is dangerous precisely because it seeks to obscure these choices. It presents a specific set of corporate and technological interests as synonymous with historical destiny. Our task is to reject this fatalistic framing.

必然主义一种认为特定未来必然发生、人们只能适应而非选择的世界观或论述框架。意识形态的危险性恰恰在于它试图掩盖这些选择。它将一套特定的企业和技术利益呈现为历史命运的同义词。我们的任务是拒绝这种宿命论的框架。

We must insist on asking the foundational questions:
我们必须坚持提出根本性问题：

• What future do we want to build? (我们想要构建什么样的未来？)
• What human values should this technology serve? (这项技术应该服务于什么样的人类价值观？)
• How can we design and govern technology to enhance equity, privacy, and democratic agency, rather than undermine them? (我们如何设计和治理技术，以增强公平、隐私和民主能动性，而不是削弱它们？)

Do not let Inevitabilism frame the argument and preemptively surrender your agency. The future is not a foregone conclusion written by technological determinism; it is a contested space of possibility. Think critically about the future you want to see, and advocate for the policies, designs, and principles that will help build it. The conversation must be about more than adaptation; it must be about intention and direction.

不要让必然主义一种认为特定未来必然发生、人们只能适应而非选择的世界观或论述框架。设定辩论框架并预先剥夺你的能动性。未来并非由技术决定论写就的既定结局；它是一个充满可能性的竞争空间。批判性地思考你希望看到的未来，并倡导有助于构建它的政策、设计和原则。对话的内容必须超越适应；它必须关乎意图和方向。