The computer will see you now
現(xiàn)在電腦能給你看病了
A virtual shrink may sometimes be better than thereal thing
有時候，虛擬縮小版反而比實際事物更好
ELLIE is a psychologist, and a damned good oneat that. Smile in a certain way, and she knows precisely what your smile means. Develop anervous tic or tension in an eye, and she instantly picks up on it. She listens to what yousay, processes every word, works out the meaning of your pitch, your tone, your posture,everything. She is at the top of her game but, according to a new study, her greatest asset isthat she is not human.
Ellie是一名心理學家，而且長于此道。面帶職業(yè)化微笑的她，清楚的知道你每個笑容的含義。即便是簡單的神經(jīng)抽搐或者眼神緊張，她也能立刻注意到這個細節(jié)。她仔細聆聽你的表達，分辨每一個字詞，研究你每個音調(diào)、口音、手勢等所有小動作的含義。最新研究認為，她處在行業(yè)頂端的優(yōu)勢在于，她不是人類。
When faced with tough or potentially embarrassing questions, people often do not telldoctors what they need to hear. Yet the researchers behind Ellie, led by Jonathan Gratch atthe Institute for Creative Technologies, in Los Angeles, suspected from their years ofmonitoring human interactions with computers that people might be more willing to talk ifpresented with an avatar. To test this idea, they put 239 people in front of Ellie to have a chatwith her about their lives. Half were told they would be interacting with an artificiallyintelligent virtual human; the others were told that Ellie was a bit like a puppet, and washaving her strings pulled remotely by a person.
當面臨艱難決定，或可能尷尬的問題的時候，人們一般并不會告訴醫(yī)生他需要聽到的內(nèi)容。然而來自洛杉磯的創(chuàng)新技術研究所的研究人員，在Jonathan Gratch的領導下，根據(jù)多年使用電腦監(jiān)控人際交流的結果，認為人們更愿意對著虛擬頭像吐露真心。為測試這一想法，他們請了239人同Ellie當面交流他們的生活。其中一半被告知實情，即他們同人工智能在互動;同時誤導另外一半，告訴他們Ellie就像是一個傀儡，被某個人遠程操控。
Designed to search for psychological problems, Ellie worked with each participant in thestudy in the same manner. She started every interview with rapport-building questions,such as, “Where are you from?” She followed these with more clinical ones, like, “How easyis it for you to get a good night's sleep?” She finished with questions intended to boost theparticipant's mood, for instance, “What are you most proud of?” Throughout the experienceshe asked relevant follow-up questions—“Can you tell me more about that?” forexample—while providing the appropriate nods and facial expressions.
為研究心理問題而設計的Ellie以相同的方式同每個參與者互動。每次會談她都以拉家常的問題開始，比如“你從哪兒來?”然后繼以更醫(yī)學性的問題，比如“你晚上睡眠質(zhì)量如何?”最后她的問題會刺激參與者的情緒，比如“你最驕傲的事是什么?”在整個過程中，她會問到相關的后繼問題，比如“能不能多聊聊這個?”同時還會適時地點頭，做出恰當?shù)孛娌勘砬椤?BR> Lie on the couch, please
請?zhí)稍谏嘲l(fā)上
During their time with Ellie, all participants had their faces scanned for signs of sadness, andwere given a score ranging from zero to one.Also, three real, human psychologists, whowere ignorant of the purpose of the study, analysed transcripts of the sessions, to rate howwillingly the participants disclosed personal information.
在同Ellie共處的時候，所有的參與者的面部都會被掃描，以尋找悲傷的特征，并評以0到10分。同時，三位真正的人類心理學家，在對此研究的目的一無所知的情況下，分析會談的視頻，并排出參與人員披露個人信息的意愿。
These observers were asked to look at responses to sensitive and intimate questions, suchas, “How close are you to your family?” and, “Tell me about the last time you felt reallyhappy.” They rated the responses to these on a seven-point scale ranging from -3 to +3. Allparticipants were also asked to fill out questionnaires intended to probe how they felt aboutthe interview.
這些觀察人員要注意對敏感而親密的問題的回答，比如“你同你家庭有多親密?”和“告訴我你上次覺得真的高興是什么時候?！彼麄兏鶕?jù)七分制對這些回答進行排序，-3表明完全不愿意表露信息，+3表示非常愿意。所有的參與人員也要填寫調(diào)查問卷，以說明他們對此次會談的感覺。
Dr Gratch and his colleagues report in Computers in Human Behaviour that, though everyoneinteracted with the same avatar, their experiences differed markedly based on what theybelieved they were dealing with. Those who thought Ellie was under the control of a humanoperator reported greater fear of disclosing personal information, and said they managedmore carefully what they expressed during the session, than did those who believed theywere simply interacting with a computer.
Gratch博士及其同事在《人類行為同電腦》上報道稱，盡管每個人都與同一個頭像進行互動，他們的體驗卻顯著地取決于他們認為自己所交流的對象。同認為僅僅是同電腦互動的人相比，那些認為Ellie是在人類控制下的參與者更擔心揭露個人信息，并認為在會談期間，他們對表達的內(nèi)容更細心在意。
Crucially, the psychologists observing the subjects found that those who thought they weredealing with a human were indeed less forthcoming, averaging 0.56 compared with theother group's average score of 1.11. The first group also betrayed fewer signs of sadness,averaging 0.08 compared with the other group's 0.12 sadness score.
重要的是，監(jiān)測這一過程的心理學家發(fā)現(xiàn)，那些認為是在同人類交流的參與者，確實更內(nèi)向。相比于另一組的1.11的平均值，他們的平均值僅為0.56。第一組同樣泄露出了較少的悲傷特征，平均0.08，而另一組的悲傷得分為0.12。
This quality of encouraging openness and honesty, Dr Gratch believes, will be ofparticular value in assessing the psychological problems of soldiers—a view shared byAmerica's Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency, which is helping to pay for theproject.
Gratch博士認為，鼓勵開放和誠實的質(zhì)量將在評估軍人的心理學問題過程中起到重要作用。這一觀點得到了美國國防高級研究計劃局的認同。后者同時也是此項目的贊助方。
Soldiers place a premium on being tough, and many avoid seeing psychologists at all costs.That means conditions such as post-traumatic stress disorder, to which military men andwomen are particularly prone, often get dangerous before they are caught. Ellie couldchange things for the better by confidentially informing soldiers with PTSD that she feels theycould be a risk to themselves and others, and advising them about how to seek treatment.
軍人對表現(xiàn)堅強尤其看重，而且許多人竭力避免去看心理醫(yī)生。然而許多軍人都很容易產(chǎn)生創(chuàng)傷后應激障礙的問題。這意味著在發(fā)現(xiàn)的時候，往往這一問題已經(jīng)變得危險。Ellie能夠改變這一現(xiàn)狀，秘密通知她認為患有創(chuàng)傷后應激障礙的軍人可能對患者自身及其他人構成威脅，并建議他們?nèi)绾螌で笾委煛?BR> If, that is, a cynical trooper can be persuaded that Ellie really isn't a human psychologist indisguise. Because if Ellie can pass for human, presumably a human can pass for Ellie.
這一切的前提是，玩世不恭的兵哥哥要相信Ellie真的不是偽裝了的人類心理學家。畢竟如果Ellie能夠欺騙人類，那人類也能欺騙他。
現(xiàn)在電腦能給你看病了
A virtual shrink may sometimes be better than thereal thing
有時候，虛擬縮小版反而比實際事物更好
ELLIE is a psychologist, and a damned good oneat that. Smile in a certain way, and she knows precisely what your smile means. Develop anervous tic or tension in an eye, and she instantly picks up on it. She listens to what yousay, processes every word, works out the meaning of your pitch, your tone, your posture,everything. She is at the top of her game but, according to a new study, her greatest asset isthat she is not human.
Ellie是一名心理學家，而且長于此道。面帶職業(yè)化微笑的她，清楚的知道你每個笑容的含義。即便是簡單的神經(jīng)抽搐或者眼神緊張，她也能立刻注意到這個細節(jié)。她仔細聆聽你的表達，分辨每一個字詞，研究你每個音調(diào)、口音、手勢等所有小動作的含義。最新研究認為，她處在行業(yè)頂端的優(yōu)勢在于，她不是人類。
When faced with tough or potentially embarrassing questions, people often do not telldoctors what they need to hear. Yet the researchers behind Ellie, led by Jonathan Gratch atthe Institute for Creative Technologies, in Los Angeles, suspected from their years ofmonitoring human interactions with computers that people might be more willing to talk ifpresented with an avatar. To test this idea, they put 239 people in front of Ellie to have a chatwith her about their lives. Half were told they would be interacting with an artificiallyintelligent virtual human; the others were told that Ellie was a bit like a puppet, and washaving her strings pulled remotely by a person.
當面臨艱難決定，或可能尷尬的問題的時候，人們一般并不會告訴醫(yī)生他需要聽到的內(nèi)容。然而來自洛杉磯的創(chuàng)新技術研究所的研究人員，在Jonathan Gratch的領導下，根據(jù)多年使用電腦監(jiān)控人際交流的結果，認為人們更愿意對著虛擬頭像吐露真心。為測試這一想法，他們請了239人同Ellie當面交流他們的生活。其中一半被告知實情，即他們同人工智能在互動;同時誤導另外一半，告訴他們Ellie就像是一個傀儡，被某個人遠程操控。
Designed to search for psychological problems, Ellie worked with each participant in thestudy in the same manner. She started every interview with rapport-building questions,such as, “Where are you from?” She followed these with more clinical ones, like, “How easyis it for you to get a good night's sleep?” She finished with questions intended to boost theparticipant's mood, for instance, “What are you most proud of?” Throughout the experienceshe asked relevant follow-up questions—“Can you tell me more about that?” forexample—while providing the appropriate nods and facial expressions.
為研究心理問題而設計的Ellie以相同的方式同每個參與者互動。每次會談她都以拉家常的問題開始，比如“你從哪兒來?”然后繼以更醫(yī)學性的問題，比如“你晚上睡眠質(zhì)量如何?”最后她的問題會刺激參與者的情緒，比如“你最驕傲的事是什么?”在整個過程中，她會問到相關的后繼問題，比如“能不能多聊聊這個?”同時還會適時地點頭，做出恰當?shù)孛娌勘砬椤?BR> Lie on the couch, please
請?zhí)稍谏嘲l(fā)上
During their time with Ellie, all participants had their faces scanned for signs of sadness, andwere given a score ranging from zero to one.Also, three real, human psychologists, whowere ignorant of the purpose of the study, analysed transcripts of the sessions, to rate howwillingly the participants disclosed personal information.
在同Ellie共處的時候，所有的參與者的面部都會被掃描，以尋找悲傷的特征，并評以0到10分。同時，三位真正的人類心理學家，在對此研究的目的一無所知的情況下，分析會談的視頻，并排出參與人員披露個人信息的意愿。
These observers were asked to look at responses to sensitive and intimate questions, suchas, “How close are you to your family?” and, “Tell me about the last time you felt reallyhappy.” They rated the responses to these on a seven-point scale ranging from -3 to +3. Allparticipants were also asked to fill out questionnaires intended to probe how they felt aboutthe interview.
這些觀察人員要注意對敏感而親密的問題的回答，比如“你同你家庭有多親密?”和“告訴我你上次覺得真的高興是什么時候?！彼麄兏鶕?jù)七分制對這些回答進行排序，-3表明完全不愿意表露信息，+3表示非常愿意。所有的參與人員也要填寫調(diào)查問卷，以說明他們對此次會談的感覺。
Dr Gratch and his colleagues report in Computers in Human Behaviour that, though everyoneinteracted with the same avatar, their experiences differed markedly based on what theybelieved they were dealing with. Those who thought Ellie was under the control of a humanoperator reported greater fear of disclosing personal information, and said they managedmore carefully what they expressed during the session, than did those who believed theywere simply interacting with a computer.
Gratch博士及其同事在《人類行為同電腦》上報道稱，盡管每個人都與同一個頭像進行互動，他們的體驗卻顯著地取決于他們認為自己所交流的對象。同認為僅僅是同電腦互動的人相比，那些認為Ellie是在人類控制下的參與者更擔心揭露個人信息，并認為在會談期間，他們對表達的內(nèi)容更細心在意。
Crucially, the psychologists observing the subjects found that those who thought they weredealing with a human were indeed less forthcoming, averaging 0.56 compared with theother group's average score of 1.11. The first group also betrayed fewer signs of sadness,averaging 0.08 compared with the other group's 0.12 sadness score.
重要的是，監(jiān)測這一過程的心理學家發(fā)現(xiàn)，那些認為是在同人類交流的參與者，確實更內(nèi)向。相比于另一組的1.11的平均值，他們的平均值僅為0.56。第一組同樣泄露出了較少的悲傷特征，平均0.08，而另一組的悲傷得分為0.12。
This quality of encouraging openness and honesty, Dr Gratch believes, will be ofparticular value in assessing the psychological problems of soldiers—a view shared byAmerica's Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency, which is helping to pay for theproject.
Gratch博士認為，鼓勵開放和誠實的質(zhì)量將在評估軍人的心理學問題過程中起到重要作用。這一觀點得到了美國國防高級研究計劃局的認同。后者同時也是此項目的贊助方。
Soldiers place a premium on being tough, and many avoid seeing psychologists at all costs.That means conditions such as post-traumatic stress disorder, to which military men andwomen are particularly prone, often get dangerous before they are caught. Ellie couldchange things for the better by confidentially informing soldiers with PTSD that she feels theycould be a risk to themselves and others, and advising them about how to seek treatment.
軍人對表現(xiàn)堅強尤其看重，而且許多人竭力避免去看心理醫(yī)生。然而許多軍人都很容易產(chǎn)生創(chuàng)傷后應激障礙的問題。這意味著在發(fā)現(xiàn)的時候，往往這一問題已經(jīng)變得危險。Ellie能夠改變這一現(xiàn)狀，秘密通知她認為患有創(chuàng)傷后應激障礙的軍人可能對患者自身及其他人構成威脅，并建議他們?nèi)绾螌で笾委煛?BR> If, that is, a cynical trooper can be persuaded that Ellie really isn't a human psychologist indisguise. Because if Ellie can pass for human, presumably a human can pass for Ellie.
這一切的前提是，玩世不恭的兵哥哥要相信Ellie真的不是偽裝了的人類心理學家。畢竟如果Ellie能夠欺騙人類，那人類也能欺騙他。