尊敬的用户您好，这是来自FT中文网的温馨提示：如您对更多FT中文网的内容感兴趣，请在苹果应用商店或谷歌应用市场搜索“FT中文网”，下载FT中文网的官方应用。
Like a lot of people, I’ve been dabbling with OpenAI’s ChatGPT with varying seriousness for about 12 months.
和许多人一样，过去大约12个月里，我以不同程度的认真态度在尝试使用OpenAI的ChatGPT。
“Make me a 12-week marathon training plan”, “Create me a six-week marathon training plan”, “Make a photo of me as the next Pope”, “Is it possible to run a marathon without any training?”
“为我制定一个为期12周的马拉松训练计划”、“为我制定一个为期6周的马拉松训练计划”、“把我P成下任教皇的照片”、“不经过任何训练就能跑马拉松吗？”
When the platform went kaput this month, I was midway through writing an application for a voluntary role with an academic magazine. I’ve scoffed at accounts of students using artificial intelligence to get through college, deriding them for only cheating themselves. In my own much superior and honest scholarly pursuits, I only ever used it to source articles . . . or plan . . . and sometimes reference . . . or clean up those long sentences that don’t really go anywhere, nor make the point you want to make, but roll on and on for far too long, eating up word count.
本月平台突然崩溃时，我正写到一半，准备申请一个学术杂志的志愿职位。我曾经嘲笑那些靠人工智能混过大学的学生，讥讽他们只是在欺骗自己。而在我自认为高尚且诚实的学术追求中，我只用它来查找文章……或者做计划……有时也用来查找参考文献……或者润色那些冗长、没有重点、说不到点子上的句子，这些句子总是没完没了地拖下去，白白占用了字数。
As a result of the blackout, however, I ended up with two very different halves of an application. The first, produced with ChatGPT’s help, sounded like something I’d written, if you ignored a few of the more exotic word choices and overlooked the box-ticking style of the answers. It did everything the question had asked of it, and it wasn’t necessarily a fabrication.
然而，由于这次服务中断，我的申请表被分为两部分，风格截然不同。第一部分是在ChatGPT的帮助下完成的，如果忽略一些较为生僻的用词和略显“对号入座”式的回答风格，这部分听起来就像是我自己写的。它完全按照问题的要求作答，而且并不算虚构。
The second wasn’t as polished. Pulitzer-worthy accounts of my leadership and prowess in adversity made way for honest accounts of my achievements. Sentences were clipped and to the point. At the end, I realised there were a few ideas that I’d missed but just couldn’t shoehorn them in. But it was definitely me talking about me.
第二篇就没那么精致了。那些堪称普利策奖水准的关于我在逆境中展现领导力和能力的描述，被对我成就的坦率陈述所取代。句子简洁明了，直截了当。写到最后，我意识到有些想法被遗漏了，但实在无法硬塞进去。不过，这篇文章确实是我在讲述自己。
An obsession with performance is continuously being maximised, from schools to the workplace to public services. But at what cost? Tim Harford’s Undercover Economist column “Shared values over profit” (Spectrum, June 7) and his account of Alasdair MacIntyre’s “tale of two fishing crews”, illustrated the perils of this fascination excellently. The first crew is driven by nothing but profit. The second allows time for the cultivation of character and human connection within the team, yet often comes out on top.
从学校到职场，再到公共服务领域，对绩效的极度追求正被不断推向极致。但这样的追求究竟要付出怎样的代价？蒂姆•哈福德(Tim Harford)在其《卧底经济学家》(Undercover Economist)专栏“共享价值胜于利润”（光谱，6月7日）中，以及他讲述的麦金泰尔(Alasdair MacIntyre)“两个捕鱼队的故事”，都很好地揭示了这种痴迷所带来的隐患。第一个捕鱼队只以利润为唯一驱动力，而第二个则为团队成员的品格和人际关系的培养留出了时间，结果却往往表现得更为出色。
ChatGPT’s outage opened my own eyes to how I’d sleepwalked, slowly but surely, into believing maximum utility was somehow better than sticking to my values. This dilemma isn’t just an issue for business; it’s a challenge for individuals too.
ChatGPT的宕机让我意识到，自己是如何在不知不觉中，慢慢却不可避免地相信了最大化效用比坚守自身价值观更重要。这种两难不仅是企业面临的问题，也是个人的挑战。
Rowan Hill
Rowan Hill
Hazel Grove, Cheshire, UK
英国柴郡Hazel Grove