第二十七届韩素音青年翻译奖竞赛原文
韩素音青翻译奖赛中文原文及参考译文和解析

老来乐Delights in Growing Old六十整岁望七十岁如攀高山。
不料七十岁居然过了。
又想八十岁是难于上青天,可望不可即了。
岂知八十岁又过了。
老汉今年八十二矣。
这是照传统算法,务虚不务实。
现在不是提倡尊重传统吗?At the age of sixty I longed for a life span of seventy, a goal as difficult as a summit to be reached. Who would expect that I had reached it? Then I dreamed of living to be eighty, a target in sight but as inaccessible as Heaven. Out of my anticipation, I had hit it. As a matter of fact, I am now an old man of eighty-two. Such longevity is a grant bestowed by Nature; though nominal and not real, yet it conforms to our tradition. Is it not advocated to pay respect to nowadays?老年多半能悟道。
孔子说“天下有道”。
老子说“道可道”。
《圣经》说“太初有道”。
佛教说“邪魔外道”。
我老了,不免胡思乱想,胡说八道,自觉悟出一条真理: 老年是广阔天地,是可以大有作为的。
An old man is said to understand the Way most probably: the Way of good administration as put forth by Confucius, the Way that can be explained as suggested by Laotzu, the Word (Way) in the very beginning as written in the Bible and the Way of pagans as denounced by theBuddhists. As I am growing old, I can't help being given to flights of fancy and having my own Way of creating stories. However I have come to realize the truth: my old age serves as a vast world in which I can still have my talents employed fully and developed completely.七十岁开始可以诸事不做而拿退休金,不愁没有一碗饭吃,自由自在,自得其乐。
韩素音翻译大赛原文

Irritability is the tendency to get upset for reasons that seem – to other people – to be pretty minor. Your partner asks you how work went and the way they ask makes you feel intensely agitated. Your partner is putting knives and forks on the table before dinner and you mention (not for the first time) that the fork should go on the left hand side, not the right. They then immediately let out a huge sigh and sweep the cutlery onto the floor and tell you that you can xxxx-ing do it yourself if you know better. It was the most minor of criticisms and technically quite correct. And now they’ve exploded.There is so much irritability around and it exacts a huge daily cost on our collective lives, so we deserve to get a lot more curious about it: what is really going on for the irritable person? Why, really, are they getting so agitated? And instead of blaming them for getting het up about “little things”, we should do them the honour of working out why, in fact, these things may not be so minor after all.The journey begins by recognising the role of fear in irritability in couples. Behind most outbursts are cack-handed attempts to teach the other person something. There are things we’d like to point out, flaws that we can discern, remarks we feel we really must make, but our awareness of how to proceed is panicked and hasty. We give cack-handed, mean speeches, which bear no faith in the legitimacy (even the nobility) of the act of imparting advice. And when our partners are on the receiving end of t hese irritable “lessons”, they of course swiftly grow defensive and brittle in the face of suggestions which seem more like mean-minded and senseless assaults on their very natures rather than caring, gentle attempts to address troublesome aspects of joint life.The prerequisite of calm in a teacher is a degree of indifference as to the success or failure of the lesson. One naturally wants for things to go well, but if an obdurate pupil flunks trigonometry, it is – at base – their problem. Tempers can stay even because individual students do not have very much power over teachers’ lives. Fortunately, as not caring too much turns out to be a critical aspect of successful pedagogy.Yet this isn’t an option open to the fearful, irritable lover. They feel ineluctably led to deliver their “lessons” in a cataclysmic, frenzied manner (the door slams very loudly indeed) not because they are insane or vile (though one could easily draw these conclusions) so much as because they are terrified; terrified of spoiling what remains of their years on the planet in the company of someone who it appears cannot in any way understand a pivotal point about conversation, or cutlery, or the right time to order a taxi.One knows intuitively, when teaching a child, that only the utmost care and patience will ever work: one must never shout, one has to use extraordinary tact, one has to make ten compliments for every one negative remark and one must leave oneself plenty of time…All this wisdom we reliably forget in love’s cla ssroom, sadly because increasing the level of threat seldom hastens development. We do not grow more reasonable, more accepting of responsibility and more accurate about our weaknesses when our pride has been wounded, our integrity is threatened and our self-esteem has been violated.The complaint against the irritable person is that they are getting worked up over “nothing”. But symbols offer a way of seeing how a detail can stand for something much bigger and more serious. The groceries placed on the wrong table are not upsetting at all in themselves. But symbolically they mean your partner doesn’t care about domestic order; they muddle things up; they are messy. Or the question about one’s day is experienced as a symbol of interrogation, a lack of priva cy and a humiliation (because one’s days rarely go well enough).The solution is, ideally, to concentrate on what the bigger issue is. Entire philosophies of life stir and collide beneath the surface of apparently petty squabbles. Irritations are the outward indications of stifled debates between competing conceptions of existence. It’s to the bigger themes we need to try to get.In the course of discussions, one might even come face-to-face with that perennially surprising truth about relationships: that the other person is not an extension of oneself that has, mysteriously, gone off message. They are that most surprising of things, a different person, with a psyche all of their own, filled with a perplexing number of subtle, eccentric and unforeseen reasons for thinking as they do.The decoding may take time, perhaps half an hour or more of concentrated exploration for something that had until then seemed as if it would more rightfully deserve an instant.We pay a heavy price for this neglect; every conflict that ends in sour stalemate is a blocked capillary within the heart of love. Emotions will find other ways to flow for now, but with the accumulation of unresolved disputes, pathways will fur and possibilities for trust and generosity narrow.A last point. It may just be sleep or food: when a baby is irritable, we rarely feel the need to preach about self-control and a proper sense of proportion. It’s not simply that we fear the infant’s intellect might not quite b e up to it, but because we have a much better explanation of what is going on. We know that they’re acting this way –and getting bothered by any little thing – because they are tired, hungry, too hot or having some challenging digestive episode.The fact is, though, that the same physiological causes get to us all our lives. When we are tired, we get upset more easily; when we feel very hungry, it takes less to bother us. But it is immensely difficult to transfer the lesson in generosity (and accuracy) that we gain around to children and apply it to someone with a degree in business administration or a pilot’s license, or to whom we have been married for three-and-a-half years.We should try to see irritability for what it actually is: a confused, inarticulate, often shameful attempt to get us to understand how much someone is suffering and how urgently they need our help. We should – when we can manage it – attempt to help them out.。
历届韩素音翻译大奖赛竞赛原文及译文

历届韩素音翻译大奖赛竞赛原文及译文历届韩素音翻译大奖赛竞赛原文及译文英译汉部分 (3)Hidden within Technology‘s Empire, a Republic of Letters (3)隐藏于技术帝国的文学界 (3)"Why Measure Life in Heartbeats?" (8)何必以心跳定生死? (9)美(节选) (11)The Literature of Knowledge and the Literature of Power byThomas De Quincey (16)知识文学与力量文学托马斯.昆西 (16)An Experience of Aesthetics by Robert Ginsberg (18)审美的体验罗伯特.金斯伯格 (18)A Person Who Apologizes Has the Moral Ball in His Court by Paul Johnson (21)谁给别人道歉,谁就在道义上掌握了主动保罗.约翰逊 (21)On Going Home by Joan Didion (25)回家琼.狄迪恩 (25)The Making of Ashenden (Excerpt) by Stanley Elkin (28)艾兴登其人(节选)斯坦利.埃尔金 (28)Beyond Life (34)超越生命[美] 卡贝尔著 (34)Envy by Samuel Johnson (39)论嫉妒[英]塞缪尔.约翰逊著 (39)《中国翻译》第一届“青年有奖翻译比赛”(1986)竞赛原文及参考译文(英译汉) (41)Sunday (41)星期天 (42)四川外语学院“语言桥杯”翻译大赛获奖译文选登 (44)第七届“语言桥杯”翻译大赛获奖译文选登 (44)The Woods: A Meditation (Excerpt) (46)林间心语(节选) (47)第六届“语言桥杯”翻译大赛获奖译文选登 (50)第五届“语言桥杯”翻译大赛原文及获奖译文选登 (52)第四届“语言桥杯”翻译大赛原文、参考译文及获奖译文选登 (54) When the Sun Stood Still (54)永恒夏日 (55)CASIO杯翻译竞赛原文及参考译文 (56)第三届竞赛原文及参考译文 (56)Here Is New York (excerpt) (56)这儿是纽约 (58)第四届翻译竞赛原文及参考译文 (61)Reservoir Frogs (Or Places Called Mama's) (61)水库青蛙(又题:妈妈餐馆) (62)中译英部分 (66)蜗居在巷陌的寻常幸福 (66)Simple Happiness of Dwelling in the Back Streets (66)在义与利之外 (69)Beyond Righteousness and Interests (69)读书苦乐杨绛 (72)The Bitter-Sweetness of Reading Yang Jiang (72)想起清华种种王佐良 (74)Reminiscences of Tsinghua Wang Zuoliang (74)歌德之人生启示宗白华 (76)What Goethe's Life Reveals by Zong Baihua (76)怀想那片青草地赵红波 (79)Yearning for That Piece of Green Meadow by Zhao Hongbo (79)可爱的南京 (82)Nanjing the Beloved City (82)霞冰心 (84)The Rosy Cloud byBingxin (84)黎明前的北平 (85)Predawn Peiping (85)老来乐金克木 (86)Delights in Growing Old by Jin Kemu (86)可贵的“他人意识” (89)Calling for an Awareness of Others (89)教孩子相信 (92)To Implant In Our Children‘s Young Hearts An Undying Faith In Humanity (92)心中有爱 (94)Love in Heart (94)英译汉部分Hidden within Technology’s Empire, a Republic of Le tters 隐藏于技术帝国的文学界索尔·贝娄(1)When I was a boy ―discovering literature‖, I used to think how wonderful it would be if every other person on the street were familiar with Proust and Joyce or T. E. Lawrence or Pasternak and Kafka. Later I learned how refractory to high culture the democratic masses were. Lincoln as a young frontiersman read Plutarch, Shakespeare and the Bible. But then he was Lincoln.我还是个“探索文学”的少年时,就经常在想:要是大街上人人都熟悉普鲁斯特和乔伊斯,熟悉T.E.劳伦斯,熟悉帕斯捷尔纳克和卡夫卡,该有多好啊!后来才知道,平民百姓对高雅文化有多排斥。
第十七届“韩素音青年翻译奖”赛中文原文及参考译文和解析

老来乐Delights in Growing Old六十整岁望七十岁如攀高山。
不料七十岁居然过了。
又想八十岁是难于上青天,可望不可即了。
岂知八十岁又过了。
老汉今年八十二矣。
这是照传统算法,务虚不务实。
现在不是提倡尊重传统吗 ?At the age of sixty I longed for a life span of seventy, a goal as difficult as a summit to be reached. Who would expect that I had reached it? Then I dreamed of living to be eighty, a target in sight but as inaccessible as Heaven. Out of my anticipation, I had hit it. As a matter of fact, I am now an old man of eighty-two. Such longevity is a grant bestowed by Nature; though nominal and not real, yet it conforms to our tradition. Is it not advocated to pay respect to nowadays?老年多半能悟道。
孔子说“天下有道”。
老子说“道可道”。
《圣经》说“太初有道”。
佛教说“邪魔外道”。
我老了,不免胡思乱想,胡说八道,自觉悟出一条真理 : 老年是广阔天地,是可以大有作为的。
An old man is said to understand the Way most probably: the Way of good administration as put forth by Confucius, the Way that can be explained as suggested by Laotzu, the Word (Way) in the very beginning as written in the Bible and the Way of pagans as denounced by the Buddhists. As I am growing old, I can't help being given to flights of fancy and having my own Way of creating stories. However I have come to realize the truth: my old age serves as a vast world in which I can still have my talents employed fully and developed completely.七十岁开始可以诸事不做而拿退休金,不愁没有一碗饭吃,自由自在,自得其乐。
第二十七届韩素英翻译比赛英译汉

“后一切”的一代我从未指望要通过文学理论课来领悟我们这一代人的本质,或者了解美国日新月异的大学格局。
在文学理论课上,就该和其他任何大二学生一样坐在教室后排,穿窄腿牛仔裤,戴厚框眼镜,套着印有俏皮话的T恤衫,再配上超大的复古耳机,坐等下课后点一支土耳其金香烟,边听照办乐队[1]边踱步去吃午饭。
我也这样打发时间:上着有关结构主义,形式主义,性别理论以及后殖民主义的课,实际却是在忙着听我的Ipod,根本无暇思考资本主义压迫下的父权社会与伊登·弗洛姆[2]到底有什么关系。
然而,学到后现代主义的时候,我却与某些东西产生了共鸣,精神为之一振,重新审视那些年纪轻轻却似乎面容倦怠的大学生们,而我也恰恰是他们之中的一员。
教科书里,定义后现代主义难就难在其无法定义,因为它太……“后”了。
它只是消极地否定先前的一切——自然主义,浪漫主义,以及热衷改革的现代主义,而它自己的真实内涵却难以说清。
它认为事物无法得到清楚的解释,甚至认为根本无法解释。
后现代主义还具有“模仿”的特征,它孤立、奇特,对于那些不懂它的保守主义者来说甚至带有威胁性。
尽管后现代主义起始于“战后西方”(该术语于1949年创造出来),眼见着它日渐壮大的人们却也仍未揭示出它对于未来的文化和社会有什么意义。
而后现代主义之所以能激起我的兴趣,是因为比起那些空泛的理论课,它更像一本敞开怀抱的书本,吸引着好奇的年轻人;此外,还有一个原因:后现代主义是如此的“后一切”,甚至难以给出定义,而对其内涵的探究又引发了一个更为宽泛的话题——与生长于后现代社会的大二学生密切相关的政治问题以及流行文化。
我们处于大学生的年纪,见证了太多“后”的事件——后冷战,后工业,后婴儿潮,后911……文学批判家弗雷德里克·詹姆逊还一度在他著名的论文集《晚期资本主义的文化逻辑》里称我们为“后学者”。
我们生长于20世纪末,20世纪发生的战争与革命颠覆了文明,推翻了剥削的社会秩序,使得我们拥有了空前的权益与机会。
第二十七届韩素音青年翻译比赛汉译英优秀奖的译文教学内容

保护古村落就是保护“根性文化”To Preserve “Ancient Villages”, to Protect the “Roots of Culture”传统村落是指拥有物质形态和非物质形态文化遗产,具有较高的历史、文化、科学、艺术、社会、经济价值的村落。
但近年来,随着城镇化快速推进,以传统村落为代表的传统文化正在淡化,乃至消失。
对传统村落历史建筑进行保护性抢救,并对传统街巷和周边环境进行整治,可防止传统村落无人化、空心化。
“Traditional villages” refer to those with tangible and intangible cultural heritages and of high historic, cultural, scientific, artistic, social and economic value. But in recent years, traditional cultures represented by traditional villages have been fading away or even dying out with rapid urbanization. In order to prevent those villages from being uninhabited or hollowed out, we must protect historic buildings at risk there, restore the old streets and lanes, and renovate their surroundings.古村落与其说是老建筑,倒不如说是一座座承载了历史变迁的活建筑文化遗产,任凭世事变迁,斗转星移,古村落依然岿然不动,用无比顽强的生命力向人们诉说着村落的沧桑变迁,尽管曾经酷暑寒冬,风雪雨霜,但是古老的身躯依然支撑着生命的张力,和生生不息的人并肩生存,从这点上说,沧桑的古村落也是一种无形的精神安慰。
2017年韩音素翻译竞赛英译汉原文

英译汉竞赛原文:The Concep t of Intell igenc e in Cross-cultur al Perspe ctive s[1] One of the positi ve outcom es from so much resear ch on the relati onshi p betwee n cultur e and intell igenc e is an expand ed view of what intell igenc e may be, and how it may be concep tuall y relate d to cultur e. This issueis intric ately intert wined with cross-cultur al resear ch on intell igenc e becaus e one of the possib le confou nding factor s in previo us studie s that docume ntedcultur al differ ences has been cultur al differ ences in the very concep t and meanin g of intell igenc e.[2] Resear chers in this area have discov eredthat many langua ges have no word that corres ponds to our idea of intell igenc e. The closes t Mandar in equiva lent, for instan ce, is a Chines e charac ter that means“good brainand talent ed”. Chines e people oftenassoci ate this concep t with traits such as imitat ion, effort, and social respon sibil ity. Such traits do not consti tuteimport ant elemen ts of the concep t of intell igenc e for most Americ ans.[3] Africa n cultur es provid e a number of exampl es. The Bagand a of East Africa use the word obugez i to referto a combin ation of mental and social skills that make a person steady, cautio us, and friend ly. The Djerma-Songha i in West Africa use the term akkal, whichhas an even broade r meanin g – a combin ation of intell igenc e, know-how, and social skills. Stillanothe r societ y, the Baoule, uses the term n’glouel e, whichdescri bes childr en who are not only mental ly alertbut also willin g to volunt eer theirservic es withou t beingasked.[4] Becaus e of the enormo us differ ences in the ways cultur es define intell igenc e, it is diffic ult to make validcompar isons from one societ y to anothe r. That is, differ ent cultur es valuediffer ent traits (theirdefini tionof “intell igenc e”) and have diverg ent viewsconcer ningwhichtraits are useful in predic tingfuture import ant behavi ors (also cultur allydefine d). People in differ ent cultur es not only disagr ee aboutwhat consti tutes intell igenc e but also aboutthe proper way to demons trate thoseabilit ies. In mainst reamNorthAmeric an societ y, indivi duals are typica lly reward ed for displa yingknowle dge and skills. This same behavi or may be consid eredimprop er, arroga nt, or rude in societ ies that stress person al relati onshi ps, cooper ation, and modest y.[5] Thesediffer ences are import ant to cross-cultur al studie s of intell igenc e becaus e succes sfulperfor mance on a task of intell igenc e may requir e behavi or that is consid eredimmode st and arroga nt in Cultur e A (and theref ore only reluct antly displa yed by member s of Cultur e A)but desira ble in Cultur e B (and theref ore readil y displa yed by member s of Cultur e B). Clearl y, such differ ent attitu des toward the same behavi or couldlead resear chers to draw inaccu rateconclu sions aboutdiffer ences in intell igenc e betwee n Cultur e A and Cultur e B.[6] Anothe r reason it is diffic ult to compar e intell igenc e cross-cultur allyis that testsof intell igenc e oftenrely on knowle dge that is specif ic to a partic ularcultur e; invest igato rs basedin that cultur e may not even know what to test for in a differ ent cultur e. For exampl e, one U.S. intell igenc e test contai ns the follow ing questi on: “How does a violin resemb le a piano?” Clearl y, this questi on assume s priorknowle dge aboutviolin s and pianos–quitea reason ableexpect ation for middle-classAmeric ans, but not for people from cultur es that use differ ent musica l instru ments.[7] Our expand ing knowle dge aboutcultur al differ ences in the concep t of intell igenc e has had import ant ramifi catio ns for our theore tical unders tandi ng of intell igenc e in mainst reamAmeric an psycho logyas well. Althou gh tradit ional thinki ng and reason ing abilit ies have domina ted viewsof intell igenc e in the past, in recent yearspsycho logis ts have begunto turn theirattent ion to otherpossib le aspect s of intell igenc e. Untilvery recent ly, for exampl e, creati vitywas not consid ereda part of intell igenc e; now, howeve r, psycho logis ts are increa singl y consid ering this import ant humanabilit y as a type of intell igenc e. Otheraspect s of intell igenc e are also coming to the forefr ont. A psycho logis t has sugges ted that thereare really sevendiffer ent typesof intell igenc e: logica l mathem atica l, lingui stic,musica l, spatia l, bodily kinest hetic, interp erson al, and intrap erson al. Accord ing to this scheme, not only do the core compon entsof each of theseseventypesof intell igenc e differ, but so do some sample end-states(such as mathem atici an versus dancer). His theory of multip leintell igenc es has broade ned our unders tandi ng of intell igenc e to includ e otherareasbeside s “book smarts”.[8] Perhap s the fieldis coming to realiz e that intell igenc e in its broade st sensemay be more aptlydefine d as “the skills and abilit ies necess ary to effect ively accomp lishcultur al goals”. If your cultur e’s goals,for exampl e, involv e succes sfull y pursui ng a profes siona l occupa tionwith a good salary in orderto suppor t yourse lf and your family, that cultur e will foster a view of intell igenc e that incorp orate s cognit ive and emotio nal skills and abilit ies that allowfor pursui ng such an occupa tion. Thoseskills and abilit ies may includ e deduct ive reason ing, logica l though t, verbal and mathem atica l skills– the sortsof skills that are foster ed in contem porar y Americ an cultur e. If your cultur e’s goals,howeve r, focusmore on the develo pment and mainte nance of succes sfulinterp erson al relati onshi ps, workin g with nature, or huntin g and gather ing, intell igenc e will more aptlybe viewed as the skills and abilit ies relate d to such activi ties.[9] On one level,theref ore, people of all cultur es sharea simila r view of intell igenc e –a catcha ll concep t that summar izesthe skills and abilit ies necess ary to live effect ively in one’s cultur e. At the same time, howeve r, cultur al differ ences natura lly existbecaus e of differ ences in how cultur es define goalsand skills and abilit ies needed to achiev e thosegoals.Future resear ch will need to delveinto thesedual proces ses, search ing for common aliti es as well as differ ences across cultur es and explor ing what contex tualvariab les affect intell igenc e-relate d behavi ors, and why.[10] Awaren ess of cultur al differ ences in intell igenc e raises diffic ult questi ons concer ningtestin g and the use of test scores. Should bias in testin g be elimin atedat the expens e of the predic tivevalidi ty of the test? Many educat ional instit ution s and busine ss organi zatio ns todayface this diffic ult questi on, whichis compou ndedby legalramifi catio ns and the consta nt threat of litiga tion. Perhap s we need to give consid erati on to yet anothe r aspect of intell igenc e – that is, our attitu des regard ing intell igenc e. A cross-cultur al unders tandi ng of differ ences in the defini tions and proces ses of intell igenc e should help to deepen our apprec iatio n and respec t for cultur es differ ent from our own, and help us to find simila ritie s as well as differ ences amongpeople.。
韩素音英译汉原文

Outing A.I.: Beyond the Turing TestThe idea of measuring A.I. by its ability to “pass” as a human – dramatized in countless scifi films – is actually as old as modern A.I. research itself. It is traceable at least to 1950 when the British mathematician Alan Turing published “Computing Machinery and Intelligence,” a paper in which he described what we now call the “Turing Test,” and which he referred to as the “imitation game.” There are different versions of the test, all of which are revealing as to why our approach to the culture and ethics of A.I. is what it is, for good and bad. For the most familiar version, a human interrogator asks questions of two hidden contestants, one a human and the other a computer. Turing suggests that if the interrogator usually cannot tell which is which, and if the computer can successfully pass as human, then can we not conclude, for practical purposes, that the computer is “intelligent”?More people “know” Turing’s foundational text than have actually read it. This is unfortunate because the text is marvelous, strange and surprising. Turing introduces his test as a variation on a popular parlor game in which two hidden contestants, a woman (player A) and a man (player B) try to convince a third that he or she is a woman by their written responses to leading questions. To win, one of the players must convincingly be who they really are, whereas the other must try to pass as another gender. Turing describes his own variation as one where “a computer takes the place of player A,” and so a literal reading would suggest that in his version the computer is not just pretending to be a human, but pretending to be a woman. It must pass as a she.Passing as a person comes down to what others see and interpret. Because everyone else is already willing to read others according to conventional cues (of race, sex, gender, species, etc.) the complicity between whoever (or whatever) is passing and those among which he or she or it performs is what allows passing to succeed. Whether or not an A.I. is trying to pass as a human or is merely in drag as a human is another matter. Is the ruse all just a game or, as for some people who are compelled to pass in their daily lives, an essential camouflage? Either way, “passing” may say more about the audience than about the performers.That we would wish to define the very existence of A.I. in relation to its ability to mimic how humans think that humans think will be looked back upon as a weird sort of speciesism. The legacy of that conceit helped to steer some older A.I. research down disappointingly fruitless paths, hoping to recreate human minds from available parts. It just doesn’t work that way. ContemporaryA.I. research suggests instead that the threshold by which any particular arrangement of matter can be said to be “intelligent” doesn’t have much to do with how it reflects humanness back at us. As Stuart Russell and Peter Norvig (now director of research at Google) suggest in their essential A.I. textbook, biomorphic imitation is not how we design complex technology. Airplanes don’t fly like birds fly, and we certainly don’t try to trick birds into thinking that airplanes are birds in order to test whether those planes “really” are flying machines. Why do it for A.I. then? Today’s serious A.I. research does not focus on the Turing Test as an objective criterion of success, and yet in our popular culture of A.I., the test’s anthropocentrism holds such durable conceptual importance. Like the animals who talk like teenagers in a Disney movie, other minds are conceivable mostly by way of puerile ventriloquism.Where is the real injury in this? If we want everyday A.I. to be congenial in a humane sort of way, so what? The answer is that we have much to gain from a more sincere and disenchanted relationship to synthetic intelligences, and much to lose by keeping illusions on life support. Some philosophers write about the possible ethical “rights” of A.I. as sentient entities, but that’s not my point here. Rather, the truer perspective is also the better one for us as thinking technical creatures.Musk, Gates and Hawking made headlines by speaking to the dangers that A.I. may pose. Their points are important, but I fear were largely misunderstood by many readers. Relying on efforts to program A.I. not to “harm humans” (inspired by Isaac Asimov’s “three laws” of robotics from 1942) makes sense only when an A.I. knows what humans are and what harming them might mean. There are many ways that an A.I. might harm us that have nothing to do with its malevolence toward us, and chief among these is exactly following our well-meaning instructions to an idiotic and catastrophic extreme. Instead of mechanical failure or a transgression of moral code, the A.I. may pose an existential risk because it is both powerfully intelligent and disinterested in humans. To the extent that we recognize A.I. by its anthropomorphic qualities, or presume its preoccupation with us, we are vulnerable to those eventualities.Whether or not “hard A.I.” ever appears, the harm is also in the loss of all that we prevent ourselves from discovering and understanding when we insist on protecting beliefs we know to be false. In the 1950 essay, Turing offers several rebuttals to his speculative A.I., including a striking comparison with earlier objections to Copernican astronomy. Copernican traumas that abolish the false centrality and absolute specialness of human thought and species-being are pricelessaccomplishments. They allow for human culture based on how the world actually is more than on how it appears to us from our limited vantage point. Turing referred to these as “theological objections,” but one could argue that the anthropomorphic precondition for A.I. is a“pre-Copernican” attitude as well, however secular it may appear. The advent of robust inhuman A.I. may let us achieve another disenchantment, one that should enable a more reality-based understanding of ourselves, our situation, and a fuller and more complex understanding of what “intelligence” is and is not. From there we can hopefully make our world with a greater confidence that our models are good approximations of what’s out there.。
- 1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性,平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
- 2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
- 3、如文档侵犯您的权益,请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间:9:00-18:30)。
“CATTI杯”第二十七届韩素音青年翻译奖竞赛英译汉竞赛原文:The Posteverything GenerationI never expected to gain any new insight into the nature of my generation, or the changing landscape of American colleges, in Lit Theory. Lit Theory is supposed to be the class where you sit at the back of the room with every other jaded sophomore wearing skinny jeans, thick-framed glasses, an ironic tee-shirt and over-sized retro headphones, just waiting for lecture to be over so you can light up a Turkish Gold and walk to lunch while listening to Wilco. That’s pretty much the way I spent the course, too: through structuralism, formalism, gender theory, and post-colonialism, I was far too busy shuffling through my Ipod to see what the patriarchal world order of capitalist oppression had to do with Ethan Frome. But when we began to study postmodernism, something struck a chord with me and made me sit up and look anew at the seemingly blasécollege-aged literati of which I was so self-consciously one.According to my textbook, the problem with defining postmodernism is that it’s impossible. The difficulty is that it is so...post. It defines itself so negatively against what came before it –naturalism, romanticism and the wild revolution of modernism –that it’s sometimes hard to see what it actually is. It denies that anything can be explained neatly or even at all. It is parodic, detached, strange, and sometimes menacing to traditionalists who do not understand it. Although it arose in the post-war west (the term was coined in 1949), the generation that has witnessed its ascendance has yet to come up with an explanation of what postmodern attitudes mean for the future of culture or society. The subject intrigued me because, in a class otherwise consumed by dead-letter theories, postmodernism remained an open book, tempting to the young and curious. But it also intrigued me because the question of what postmodernism –what a movement so post-everything, so reticent to define itself –is spoke to a larger question about the political and popular culture of today, of the other jaded sophomores sitting around me who had grown up in a postmodern world.In many ways, as a college-aged generation, we are also extremely post: post-Cold War,post-industrial, post-baby boom, post-9/11...at one point in his famous essay, “Postmodernism, or the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism,” literary critic Frederic Jameson even calls us “post-literate.”We are a generation that is riding on the tail-end of a century of war and revolution that toppled civilizations, overturned repressive social orders, and left us with more privilege and opportunity than any other society in history. Ours could be an era to accomplish anything.And yet do we take to the streets and the airwaves and say “here we are, and this is what we demand”? Do we plant our flag of youthful rebellion on the mall in Washington and say “we are not leaving until we see change! Our eyes have been opened by our education and our conception of what is possible has been expanded by our privilege and we demand a better world because it is our right”? It would seem we do the opposite. We go to war without so much as questioning the rationale, we sign away our civil liberties, we say nothing when the Supreme Court uses Brown v. Board of Education to outlaw desegregation, and we sit back to watch the carnage on the evening news.On campus, we sign petitions, join organizations, put our names on mailing lists, make small-money contributions, volunteer a spare hour to tutor, and sport an entire wardrobe’s worth of Live Strong bracelets advertising our moderately priced opposition to everything from breast cancer to global warming. But what do we really stand for? Like a true postmodern generation we refuse to weave together an overarching narrative to our own political consciousness, to present a cast of inspirational or revolutionary characters on our public stage, or to define a specific philosophy. We are a story seemingly without direction or theme, structure or meaning –a generation defined negatively against what came before us. When Al Gore once said “It’s the combination of narcissism and nihilism that really defines postmodernism,” he might as well have been echoing his entire generation’s critique of our own. We are a generation for whom even revolution seems trite, and therefore as fair a target for bland imitation as anything else. We are the generation of the Che Geuvera tee-shirt.Jameson calls it “Pastiche”–“the wearing of a linguistic mask, speech in a dead language.”In literature, this means an author speaking in a style that is not his own –borrowing a voice and continuing to use it until the words lose all meaning and the chaos that is real life sets in. It is an imitation of an imitation, something that has been re-envisioned so many times the original model is no longer relevant or recognizable. It is mass-produced individualism, anticipated revolution. It is why postmodernism lacks cohesion, why it seems to lack purpose or direction. For us, the post-everything generation, pastiche is the use and reuse of the old clichés of social change and moral outrage –a perfunctory rebelliousness that has culminated in the age of rapidly multiplying non-profits and relief funds. We live our lives in masks and speak our minds in a dead language –the language of a society that expects us to agitate because that’s what young people do. But how do we rebel against a generation that is expecting, anticipating, nostalgic for revolution?How do we rebel against parents that sometimes seem to want revolution more than we do? We don’t. We rebel by not rebelling. We wear the defunct masks of protest and moral outrage, but the real energy in campus activism is on the internet, with websites like . It is in the rapidly developing ability to communicate ideas and frustration in chatrooms instead of on the streets, and channel them into nationwide projects striving earnestly for moderate and peaceful change: we are the generation of Students Taking Action Now Darfur; we are the Rock the V ote generation; the generation of letter-writing campaigns and public interest lobbies; the alternative energy generation.College as America once knew it –as an incubator of radical social change –is coming to an end. To our generation the word “radicalism” evokes images of al Qaeda, not the Weathermen. “Campus takeover”sounds more like Virginia Tech in 2007 than Columbia University in 1968. Such phrases are a dead language to us. They are vocabulary from another era that does not reflect the realities of today. However, the technological revolution, the revolution, the revolution of the organization kid, is just as real and just as profound as the revolution of the 1960’s –it is just not as visible. It is a work in progress, but it is there. Perhaps when our parents finally stop pointing out the things that we are not, the stories that we do not write, they will see the threadsof our narrative begin to come together; they will see that behind our pastiche, the post generation speaks in a language that does make sense. We are writing a revolution. We are just putting it in our own words.汉译英竞赛原文:保护古村落就是保护“根性文化”传统村落是指拥有物质形态和非物质形态文化遗产,具有较高的历史、文化、科学、艺术、社会、经济价值的村落。