For years, the world’s tech giants have pushed back against regulation, spending a fortune to keep ‘Big Government’ out of Silicon Valley.

多年以来，全球科技巨头一直在反规避，花费大笔资金将“大政府”拒之门外。

Last year alone, Google spent more than $21m on lobbying the US government, while Amazon and Facebook increased their own lobbying spends to record highs.

仅去年一年，谷歌就花费了超过2100万美元游说美国政府，而亚马逊和Facebook却增加了自己的游说支出以创历史新高。

While the caricature of big tech founders as staunch libertarians is exaggerated, their views on regulation have been consistently clear. In fact, while only 24% of tech founders identify as libertarians, 80% are against regulation within the tech industry.

尽管夸大了高科技先驱者作为坚定的自由主义者的讽刺意味，但他们对监管的看法一直很明确。 实际上，虽然只有24％的科技创始人认定自己是自由主义者，但80％的人反对科技行业的监管。

Traditionally, the arguments of these individuals have been twofold. First, that government regulation stifles innovation and holds back good ideas. And, second, that the advancement of technology is simply inevitable — you may as well try and hold back progress itself. In summary, regulation is either bad for society, or just plain pointless.

传统上，这些人的观点是双重的。 首先，政府法规扼杀了创新并阻碍了好主意。 其次，技术的进步是不可避免的，您也可以尝试阻止进度本身。 总之，监管要么对社会不利，要么毫无意义。

At least, that was the argument.

至少，那是争论。

In the last twelve months, Silicon Valley has had an uncharacteristic change of heart. Now the world’s biggest tech brands are climbing over themselves to be regulated.

在过去的十二个月中，硅谷的心灵发生了反常的变化。 现在，世界上最大的科技品牌都在自我规范。

Nowhere is this more true than in the field of artificial intelligence (AI). Like a gesture of self-flagellation, the founders of IBM, Microsoft and Google recently took to the stage at Davos to call for greater regulation of AI. This move was also repeated by Elon Musk and even Mark Zuckerberg (hardly the poster child for open democracy), who called for a “more active role for governments and regulators” in AI.

在人工智能(AI)领域，这是最真实的。 就像自我鞭gesture的姿态一样，IBM，Microsoft和Google的创始人最近在达沃斯(Davos)登台演讲，呼吁加强对AI的监管。 埃隆·马斯克(Elon Musk)甚至马克·扎克伯格(Mark Zuckerberg)(几乎不是开放民主的榜样)都重复了此举，他们呼吁在AI中“为政府和监管机构发挥更积极的作用”。

So if regulation is so bad for tech, why the sudden penchant for masochism? Is the idea of unchecked AI so terrifying that even Silicon Valley CEOs are crying out to be regulated? Or, have they finally realised the vital role that governments can play in helping to shape their future products?

那么，如果监管对科技如此不利，为什么突然对受虐狂情有独钟呢？ 不受约束的AI的想法是否如此恐怖，以至于甚至硅谷的CEO也都在呼唤要受到监管？ 或者，他们是否终于意识到政府在帮助塑造其未来产品方面可以发挥的至关重要的作用？

Sadly, both seem unlikely. As is so often the case, there may be a little more to this change of heart than meets the eye.

可悲的是，两者似乎都不大可能。 在这种情况下，这种改变的心可能会比见到眼睛多得多。

To my mind, there are two possible explanations for Silicon Valley’s sudden support of regulation. The first is the cynical explanation. While the second… is the more cynical explanation.

在我看来，对于硅谷突然支持监管有两种可能的解释。 首先是愤世嫉俗的解释。 而第二个……是更愤世嫉俗的解释。

The first explanation is just good old-fashioned public relations. Following ten years of bad publicity surrounding tax avoidance, data harvesting and consumer privacy infringements, the Big Five have finally come to realise that being publicly anti-regulation is bad for business.

第一个解释只是良好的老式公共关系。 经过十年来关于避税，数据收集和侵犯消费者隐私的恶劣宣传，五大巨头终于意识到，公开进行反监管对企业不利。

Likewise, quoting Ayn Rand and pushing aggressively free market rhetoric no longer gets you a standing ovation at Davos. If anything, it gets you a wave of public outcry and a front row seat at the next US Judiciary hearing.

同样，引用艾恩·兰德(Ayn Rand)并大肆宣传自由市场言论已不再让您在达沃斯起立鼓掌。 如果有的话，它会在下一届美国司法听证会上引起公众的强烈抗议和前排座位。

From a cynic’s perspective, bigging up the government’s role (and the people’s role) in the future of big tech is little more than lip service; it’s about spinning the right story while continuing to spend tens of millions of dollars on fighting regulation behind the scenes.

从愤世嫉俗的人的角度来看，在大技术的未来中扩大政府的角色(以及人民的角色)只不过是口头上的服务。 这是在讲述正确的故事，同时继续花费数千万美元在幕后对抗法规。

Now for the even more cynical, and possibly more likely, explanation.

现在进行更愤世嫉俗的解释，并且可能做出更多解释。

The thing about regulation is that it’s expensive. Starting up in AI is hard enough as it is, without adding the hundreds of thousands (or even millions) of dollars needed to manage and meet regulatory criteria.

关于监管的问题是它很昂贵。 在AI中启动已经足够困难，而无需增加管理和满足监管标准所需的数十万(甚至数百万)美元。

The sad truth is that the biggest players in tech know this fact. They know that, if the right regulation is introduced, it will seal off the AI industry for years to come — cementing their place as the only viable players in the market.

可悲的事实是，科技领域的最大参与者知道这一事实。 他们知道，如果引入正确的法规，它将在未来几年封杀AI行业-巩固其作为市场上唯一可行的参与者的地位。

Ironically, regulation designed to protect and improve the AI market may be the very thing that ensures a continued oligarchy.

具有讽刺意味的是，旨在保护和改善AI市场的法规可能会确保持续的寡头垄断。

As Harvard professor Karim R. Lakhani put it at a recent Nesta AI event, “We should be suspicious when Google, Facebook and Amazon say ‘we need more regulation’. Why? Because they’re the only ones who can afford to pay the regulatory costs. That’s why the next Spotify will never come out of Sweden. The market is being shut down and the monopolies are being locked in.”

正如哈佛大学教授卡里姆·拉哈尼(Karim R. Lakhani)在最近的内斯塔AI事件中所说：“当Google，Facebook和亚马逊说'我们需要更多的监管'时，我们应该感到怀疑。 为什么？ 因为他们是唯一有能力支付监管费用的人。 这就是为什么下一个Spotify永远不会离开瑞典的原因。 市场被关闭，垄断被锁定。”

I’m aware a lot of this may make me sound anti-regulation, but I’m not. The age-old arguments about regulation stifling technology innovation simply don’t stand up. Look at the world’s most regulated industries: aerospace, telecoms or pharmaceuticals. Are you honestly telling me that there’s no innovation in these fields?

我知道很多可能会使我听起来反法规，但事实并非如此。 关于规章制止技术创新的古老论点根本站不住脚。 看一下世界上管制最严格的行业：航空航天，电信或制药。 您是真的告诉我在这些领域没有创新吗？

Well-written rules and regulations can provide a level playing field upon which innovation is built, especially in tech.

精心编写的规章制度可以为建立创新提供一个公平的竞争环境，尤其是在技术领域。

In an industry as complex and ethically challenging as artificial intelligence, good regulation is needed more than ever. What that regulation looks like, however, must be decided in the public domain.

在像人工智能这样复杂且在道德上具有挑战性的行业中，比以往任何时候都需要更好的监管。 但是，该法规的外观必须在公共领域中确定。

It shouldn’t be up to the Facebooks and Googles of the world to be regulated on their own terms. Regulation should be about supporting the big players, but also protecting the little guys, whether consumers, AI start-ups or new challenger brands.

应该以自己的方式监管世界上的Facebook和Google。 监管应该既要支持大公司，也要保护小公司，无论是消费者，人工智能初创企业还是新的挑战者品牌。

It’s a difficult balance to strike, but anything less can only do more damage than good.

这是很难达成的平衡，但是少做任何事情只会带来弊大于利。