评论
打印
To tackle these problems, they have a radical proposal.
为了解决这些问题，他们提出一项激进的建议。
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.
与其被视为资本，数据应当被作为劳动力对待——更具体地说，应当被看作是生产此类信息的人的财产，除非他们同意将其提供给公司，以换取报酬。
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.
在这样一个世界中，用户数据或许被多次出售，或是被出售给多家公司，降低了数据集充当准入门槛的标准。
Payments to users for their data would help spread the wealth generated by AI.
为数据而给用户付费会有助于传播由AI生产的财富。
Firms could also potentially generate better data by paying.
公司还可能通过付费潜在地生产更好的数据。
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，较之猜测人们在逛购物中心时在忙什么，公司可以要求人们分享哪些店铺得到光顾、哪些商品被浏览了的信息，以换取报酬。
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，或许，最野心勃勃的是，数据劳动可能最终被视为有用的工作，赋予同有偿劳动一样的尊严：在可能的大规模自动化未来中，这是一种值得期待的附带效应。
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实；他们的论文，尽管具有启发性，只有5页纸之多。
Parts of the envisioned scheme seem impractical.
设想中的项目的某些部分似乎不切实际。
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)?
在没有实质性的金钱诱惑下，人们真得会对花费时间来描述他们早晨的惯例和办公室的习惯感兴趣（而且他们的数据会值得公司支付一大笔钱）吗？
Might not such systems attract data mercenaries, spamming firms with useless junk data simply to make a quick buck?
这类系统是否有可能招来单纯是想用毫无用处的数据挣一笔快钱的数据水军或者垃圾邮件公司呢？
译文来源考研英语时事阅读
