A LAW OF 21st-century life seems to be that every new technology we adopt arrives with a new way to embarrass(使尴尬，使难堪) ourselves. Just ask my Great-Uncle Howard, who once mistook the Facebook status update bar for the Google search bar while looking for “foods to increase the sex drive of women over 60”. His third wife was not amused(并不觉得好笑，很不高兴).
21世纪生活似乎有一条定律：每当我们采用一项新技术，它总会带来一种新的出丑方式。问问我的叔公霍华德就知道了——他曾在找“提高60岁以上女性性欲的食物”时，把Facebook的状态更新栏当成了谷歌搜索栏。他的第三任妻子可没觉得好笑。
By this standard, Stanley Druckenmiller’s AI-written op-ed(专栏文章，特约评论) published recently in the Wall Street Journal is a non-event(无足轻重的事，虚张声势的事件). “Many contributors, especially prominent politicians or CEOs, employ speechwriters,” Paul Gigot, the Journal’s opinion editor, wrote in response to the outrage.(《华尔街日报》评论版主编保罗·吉戈特在回应众怒时写道：“许多投稿人，尤其是知名政客或CEO，都雇有演讲稿撰写人。”) “How different is that from using AI to streamline(精简，使效率更高) an essay?” In an ideal world, it wouldn’t be.
按这个标准，斯坦利·德鲁肯米勒最近发表在《华尔街日报》上那篇由AI撰写的专栏文章根本不算什么大事。《华尔街日报》评论版主编保罗·吉戈特在回应众怒时写道：“许多投稿人，尤其是知名政客或CEO，都雇有演讲稿撰写人。这和使用AI来精简一篇文章有多大区别？”在理想的世界里，确实没有区别。
I have been a professional speechwriter for 15 years—long enough that the exact number of op-eds I’ve ghostwritten for the Journal now escapes me(我当了15年职业演讲稿撰写人——久到我已经记不清为《华尔街日报》代笔过多少篇专栏文章了。) (I’ve also written for By Invitation). The job involves much more than writing, but that’s the basic goal of it: write someone’s words better than they could themselves. Which is exactly what AI did for Mr Druckenmiller. He is, by his own admission(据他自己承认), a poor writer. So are most people.
我当了15年职业演讲稿撰写人——久到我已经记不清为《华尔街日报》代笔过多少篇专栏文章了（我也为《By Invitation》栏目写过稿）。这份工作远不止是写作，但其基本目标就是：把别人的话写得比他们自己写得好。这正是AI为德鲁肯米勒先生做的事。他自己也承认，他文笔不佳。而大多数人都是如此。