評論
打印
To tackle these problems, they have a radical proposal.
為了解決這些問題，他們提出一項激進的建議。
Rather than being regarded as capital, data should be treated as labour—and, more specifically, regarded as the property of those who generate such information, unless they agree to provide it to firms in exchange for payment.
與其被視為資本，數據應當被作為勞動力對待——更具體地說，應當被看作是生產此類信息的人的財產，除非他們同意將其提供給公司，以換取報酬。
In such a world, user data might be sold multiple times, to multiple firms, reducing the extent to which data sets serve as barriers to entry.
在這樣一個世界中，用戶數據或許被多次出售，或是被出售給多家公司，降低了數據集充當準入門檻的標準。
Payments to users for their data would help spread the wealth generated by AI.
為數據而給用戶付費會有助于傳播由AI生產的財富。
Firms could also potentially generate better data by paying.
公司還可能通過付費潛在地生產更好的數據。
Rather than guess what a person is up to as they wander around a shopping centre, for example, firms could ask individuals to share information on which shops were visited and which items were viewed, in exchange for payment.
例如，較之猜測人們在逛購物中心時在忙什么，公司可以要求人們分享哪些店鋪得到光顧、哪些商品被瀏覽了的信息，以換取報酬。
Perhaps most ambitiously, the authors muse that data labour could come to be seen as useful work, conferring the same sort of dignity as paid employment: a desirable side-effect in a possible future of mass automation.
作者沉思道，或許，最野心勃勃的是，數據勞動可能最終被視為有用的工作，賦予同有償勞動一樣的尊嚴：在可能的大規模自動化未來中，這是一種值得期待的附帶效應。
The authors' ideas need fleshing out; their paper, thought-provoking though it is, runs to only five pages.
作者的思想需要完善和充實；他們的論文，盡管具有啟發性，只有5頁紙之多。
Parts of the envisioned scheme seem impractical.
設想中的項目的某些部分似乎不切實際。
Would people really be interested in taking the time to describe their morning routine or office habits without a substantial monetary inducement (and would their data be valuable enough for firms to pay a substantial amount)?
在沒有實質性的金錢誘惑下，人們真得會對花費時間來描述他們早晨的慣例和辦公室的習慣感興趣（而且他們的數據會值得公司支付一大筆錢）嗎？
Might not such systems attract data mercenaries, spamming firms with useless junk data simply to make a quick buck?
這類系統是否有可能招來單純是想用毫無用處的數據掙一筆快錢的數據水軍或者垃圾郵件公司呢？
譯文來源考研英語時事閱讀
