Sometimes you embark on(着手，开始) a project and realise that you have misjudged(判断失误) things. To your horror you realise it’s too late to turn back. So you plough on(硬着头皮继续) and hope to avoid catastrophe(灾难，大祸). But enough about Mark Zuckerberg drinking Guinness(扎克伯格喝吉尼斯黑啤的梗). Other artificial-intelligence bigwigs(大人物，巨头) harbour(怀有（想法）) deep misgivings(疑虑，担忧) of another kind—about the potential effects of the technology they are developing. On October 18th Anthropic, an AI lab, said it plans to put 5% of its shares into a public-benefit fund that might end up distributing cash to people affected by economic upheaval(剧变，动荡). A day later Elon Musk pledged(承诺，保证) to give one share in SpaceX to every child in America.
有时候，你着手一个项目，然后意识到自己判断失误。令你惊恐的是，你发现已经来不及回头。于是你硬着头皮继续干，希望避免灾难。不过，关于马克·扎克伯格喝吉尼斯黑啤的事就说到这里吧。其他人工智能巨头则怀有另一种深深的疑虑——对他们正在开发的技术可能带来的影响感到不安。10月18日，AI实验室Anthropic表示，计划将5%的股份投入一个公益基金，该基金最终可能会向受经济动荡影响的人发放现金。一天后，埃隆·马斯克承诺给每个美国孩子一股SpaceX股票。
There is no sign yet of an AI jobs apocalypse(末日，大灾难). But if the technology were to destroy many more jobs than it creates, the question of how much paid employment matters, not just to people’s income but also to their happiness and dignity, would become salient(显著的，突出的) indeed.
目前还没有AI引发就业末日的迹象。但如果这项技术摧毁的工作远多于它创造的，那么有偿就业到底有多重要——不仅对人们的收入，也对他们的幸福和尊严——这个问题就会变得非常突出。
There are Pollyanna-ish(盲目乐观的) answers to this question. Some point out that history is full of societies that were not organised around paid work. Survey data show that most retired Americans report being satisfied with their lives. Solve the piddling problem of how to fund a life without work, in other words, and everyone could merrily spend their days growing prize-winning tomatoes or going on river cruises.(换句话说，只要解决如何为无业生活提供资金这个微不足道的问题，每个人就都能快乐地种番茄或乘河轮。)
对这个问题，有一些盲目乐观的答案。有人指出，历史上满是并非围绕有偿工作组织起来的社会。调查数据显示，大多数退休美国人对自己的生活表示满意。换句话说，只要解决“如何为没有工作的生活提供资金”这个微不足道的问题，每个人就都能快乐地种出获奖番茄，或者去乘河轮旅行。