Adam Goodman

Audrey，很高興今天能和遠在臺灣的你連線。為了不把這場專訪搞砸，我特別邀請 Amy Tong 加入；如你所知，她是 Ballard Partners 新興科技暨 AI 實務團隊的主席。她有大約四十年協助加州推動數位革命的經驗。而談到最佳實務，加州可說是最先進的地方，對吧，Amy？

喔，我說錯了嗎？

我們才剛——Audrey，我們昨天才和 Amy 錄了一集節目；她談起自己多年的經歷時，我就擔心大家會忍不住算起來，於是就說：當然，她兩歲就入行了。

那你人生的下一章打算做什麼？這是我最想知道的。Audrey，你已經有這麼多成就了。

你知道，你所稱的「末日派」（doomers）與「綻放派」（bloomers）之間，張力正日益升高，對吧？究竟該擁抱 AI 與這些新科技，把它們視為繁榮的前兆，還是視為末日的開端？我們怎麼會走到這一步？

可是 Audrey，我們才剛接觸這一切，對吧？既然它帶來全面性的變革，我們本來就需要一些時間，才能理解自己的感受、該如何與它互動、它有多重要，又可能多麼危險。這不是很自然嗎？我們畢竟還在摸索，對吧？

所以，此刻我們至少陷入了某種僵局，對吧？兩端最響亮的聲音都在爭奪注意力，中間的每個人則還在摸索。我們似乎既不知道下一步會怎麼走，也不知道應該怎麼走。你也是這樣看嗎？

你知道，這當中最迷人的是——Audrey，我們之前聊過你在臺灣的經驗。你 2016 年加入內閣，而在那之前兩年，太陽花運動過後，測量政府支持度的民調——或許是很多份民調——一度降到 9%，對吧。把時間快轉到今天，臺灣政府獲得了巨大的支持。然而那種支持並不是建立在「所有人在所有事情上團結」的前提上，而是建立在我們正在談的這件事上：帶著你的想法、你的信念來到桌前，讓我們一起想想能拿它做什麼——而不是今天誰會贏、哪一邊今天會贏。不是 A 對抗 B，而是 A 和 B。

好，趁你講到猶他州那一段，我一定要問你這個。當你看美國——我們老是聽到，Amy，對吧？——紅州跟藍州的說法：這套做法不分顏色都行得通嗎？

你用了「公民能動起來」（civically enabled）這個說法。我聽到的時候覺得很受用，因為我認為人們想要重新連結。我想，在這個國家確實有一種疏離感：與政府疏離、與領導者疏離、與制度疏離，甚至更根本地，與彼此疏離。

如果這能成為你所說的搭橋機制，讓我們找到方法看見彼此最好的一面——那是我們在這個國家，至少過去五到十年，從來沒有認真嘗試過的事。而且 Amy 問了那個問題：這能不能從 2,300 萬人的臺灣，放大到 3 億 5,000 萬人以上的美國？為什麼不行？是什麼在阻止我們這樣做，Audrey？

你是怎麼走進這一切的，Audrey？我是說，你名列臺灣頂尖科技人士前十名之類的榜單。顯然你做過 TED 演講，也向世界各地的團體發表演講。是什麼讓你踏上這條路，又是什麼讓你在這個相對全新的領域持續走下去？

嗯，首先，這段對話讓我很受鼓舞。你看，現在世界各地有很多動向——我想法國最近就表態，討論是否要全面禁止未滿 15 歲的青少年使用社群媒體之類的。那真的不是答案，對吧，Audrey？

我想我們可以學到很多。這個國家可以從你在臺灣的經驗裡學到很多：2,300 萬人在十多年前，對於公部門——

（笑）

——以及那些想要代表他們的人，幾乎沒有一點好感。然後十年後，他們團結起來了。但他們不是以某種似是而非的方式團結，而是真正正當地團結，因為他們做了一件我們在這個國家做得太少的事：彼此對話。

所以，Audrey，我們真的非常感謝你今天的時間。希望你繼續發表，不要在我們這裡消亡。繼續發表，對吧？因為你正在說一種人們還不熟悉、卻需要聽見與學習的語言。因為我們越是互相尊重與愛護，我想我們就越有值得歡呼、對前路抱持希望的事物，也越能把 AI 和科技看成真正的資產、盟友與夥伴，而不是因為未知而仍讓許多人畏懼的東西。

說得再好不過了。保重自己，Audrey。真的很感謝你撥出時間。你再一次在我心裡激起的，是一種希望感。我覺得很好。「公民能動起來」這整件事——我很喜歡。這在美國應該成為一整場運動，帶我們重新走回正道，感覺我們又一次為了共同的目的而團結。

Well, Audrey, great to have you coming to us today from Taiwan. To make sure I don’t blow this interview, I brought into play Amy Tong, who, as you know, is the chair of the Ballard Partners group on emerging technology and AI practice. And she has about four decades of experience helping drive the digital revolution in California, which is, you know, Amy, kind of state of the art when you talk about best practices.

Oh, did I get it wrong?

Well, we just — Audrey, we just had a show with Amy, we taped yesterday, and when she talked about all of her long experience, I was worried that people were doing the math. And I said, well, of course, she started when she was two.

Well, what are you going to do in the next part of your life? That’s what I want to know. You’ve done so much already, Audrey.

So, there’s an increasing tension between what I think you referred to, Audrey, as the doomers and the bloomers, right? About whether you want to embrace AI and all this new technology as the harbinger of prosperity, or it’s the beginning of the end. How did we get to this point?

But Audrey, we’re kind of new into all this, right? So isn’t it kind of natural — since this is representing change across the board — that it’s going to take us a while to figure it out? About how we feel about it, and how we interact with it, how meaningful it is, how perhaps dangerous it could be. We’re still new into all of it, right?

So we have kind of reached, at this moment at least, a stalemate of sorts, right? You have the loudest voices on both ends that are trying to get attention. You have everyone in the middle trying to figure it out. But it feels like we’re not sure what the next move is going to be, and what the next move should be. You see it the same way?

So, you know, what’s fascinating about this — and we had a prior conversation, Audrey, about your experience in Taiwan. You joined the cabinet there in 2016, but two years before, a public poll — or maybe many public polls — measuring public support for government was down to 9%, right, following the Sunflower Movement. And now you fast-forward and there’s huge support for government in Taiwan. And yet that support was not conditioned on everyone uniting on everything. It was conditioned on the very thing we’re talking about, which is: come to the table with your ideas, your beliefs, and let’s figure out what to do with that — as opposed to who’s going to win today, which side is going to win today. It’s not A versus B; it’s A and B.

Okay, I got to ask you this, as you’re going through that Utah note. As you look at the United States, where we hear all the time — Amy, right? — about red states and blue states: that this works regardless of color?

You used the word “civically enabled.” And when I heard that, it made me feel good, because I think people want to be reconnected. I think there is a sense, certainly in this country, of being disconnected: disconnected from government, from leaders, disconnected from institutions, disconnected even more fundamentally from each other.

And if this could be, as you call it, a bridging mechanism where we find a way to find the best in each other — it is something we have fundamentally not tried in any concerted fashion in this country for certainly the last five to ten years. And Amy asked the question: can you scale this up, you know, from a Taiwan, which is 23 million people, to the United States of America, which is over 350 million people? Why not? What’s stopping us from doing that, Audrey?

How did you get into all this, Audrey? I mean, because you’re on, like, the top-10 list of some of the most amazing technologists in Taiwan. Obviously you’ve given TED Talks, you’ve spoken to groups around the world. What got you started, and what keeps you going in a field that is relatively brand new?

Well, first of all, I’m very encouraged by this conversation. And, you know, you see a lot of movements around the world right now. I think France recently weighed in, talking about maybe banning social media altogether for citizens under the age of 15 or something. That’s really not the answer, is it, Audrey?

I think we can learn a lot. This nation can learn a lot from your experience in Taiwan: how 23 million people, over a decade ago, were not liking anything about—

[laughs]

—public government, and people that were seeking to represent them. And then ten years later, they’re united. But they’re not united in a specious way. They’re united legitimately, because they did something that we don’t do enough of in this country, which is to talk to each other.

So, Audrey, we really appreciate your time today. I want you to keep publishing. Don’t perish on us — keep publishing, right? Because you’re speaking a language that people are not familiar with, and that they need to hear and learn. Because the more we respect and love each other, I think the more we have to cheer for and to feel hopeful for moving forward, and be able to then see AI and technology as a real asset, ally and partner in it — as opposed to something that many still fear because of the unknown.

Couldn’t have said it better. Take care of yourself, Audrey. Really appreciate your time. What you really provoked within me is a sense, again, of hope. I feel good about it. The whole thing about being civically enabled — love that. That should be a whole campaign in America, to kind of get us back on the high road, and feeling that we are uniting once again in common purpose.