[Economist] 数字助理：丢脸（一）

Digital assistants:Losing face

数字助理：丢脸

---

Sometimes, computer programs seem too human for their own good
有时，从其自身考虑计算机软件显得太智能了

DIGITAL assistants such as Siri and Cortana are increasingly common on phones and computers. Most are designed to give their users the impression that a humanlike intelligence lies behind the program’s friendly voice. It does not, of course. But dozens of experiments over the years have shown that people readily build strong bonds with computerised helpers which are endowed with anthropomorphic features, whether visual or vocal.

诸如 Siri 以及 Cortana 之类的数字助理越来越多地出现在手机和电脑上。他们中的大多数都被设计成让人们以为在程序友好声音的背后存在着一个人类模样的人工智能。当然这并不存在。但是近几年的研究表明，人们乐意和这些不管是语音还是视频类的人工智能助手建立一种强烈的关系。

Developing an emotional relationship with a piece of software can, however, cut both ways. As a study published in Psychological Science by Park Daeun, of Chungbuk National University in South Korea, and her colleagues, shows, one emotion sometimes involved in machine-human interaction is embarrassment. This, Dr Park has discovered, makes some users reluctant to ask for help from their artificially intelligent pals. Apparently, they are sheepish about doing so.

和软件建立情感纽带却是有利有弊的。来自韩国 Chungbuk National University 的 Park Daeun 和他的同事在 Psychological Science 发表的一项研究表明，有时在人机互动中所表现出来的一种情感是害羞。对此，Dr Park 研究表明，使得一些用户不愿意向其人工智能伙伴寻求帮助。看起来，这些用户对这么做感觉难为情。

Dr Park and her team recruited 187 participants into their study. To start with each was presented with a series of statements on the malleability of intelligence. These included, “you have a certain amount of intelligence, and you can’t really do much to change it”, and “you can always sub-stantially change how intelligent you are”. Participants rated their responses to these statements on a six-point scale, on which one meant “strongly disagree” and six meant “strongly agree”. The reason for this initial test was that Dr Park knew from previous work that, in academic settings, those who believe intelligence to be malleable are comfortable asking for assistance while those who believe it to be fixed often feel ashamed to do so.

Dr Park 和他的团队招聘了 187 位参与者来开展研究。研究开始后每位参与者都拿到了关于智力的可塑性的报告。诸如“你的智力是固定的，你几乎没有什么方法可以改变这一点”，以及“你可以非常大的改变你的聪明程度”。参与者对这些问卷进行六分制的评分，一分代表完全不同意，六分代表完全同意。把这项试验放在最前面是因为，Dr Park 通过之前的研究发现，在这些学术设定中，那些相信智力可以改变的人通常愿意向数字助理寻求帮助，而其他人则不好意思这么做。

The initial test done, the researchers presented their volunteers with a second, which involved looking at 16 sets of three words and trying to think of a fourth word that linked them. For example, when offered “room, blood, salts” a correct answer would be “bath”. Sometimes the first three words were accompanied by an unrequested hint (in the example given, this was “tub”). Sometimes they were not.

在第一项试验之后，研究者会给这些参与者第二项试验，让他们观察 16 组由三个单词组成的排列，然后猜测规律以写出第四个单词是什么。比如，当前三个为“房间，血，盐”，那么正确的答案就是“浴缸”。有时前三个单词还会额外提供一个提示，（比如之前那个例子中就是“盆”），有时不提供。