# Benjamin Bratton: Presentation of The Stack (April 13, 2016)

{%youtube cUhhHw_xS4w %}

Hello, good evening. Welcome to the last lecture of the semester. Actually the last lecture of the academic year. It's my pleasure to introduce Benjamin Bratton. Let me do a little bit of housekeeping in terms of introduction and then I'll get to it.

你好，晚上好。歡迎來到本學期的最後一堂課。實際上是學年的最後一堂課。我很高興向大家介紹本傑明布拉頓。讓我在介紹方面做一些內務處理，然後我會開始。

Benjamin is a professor of visual arts at the University of California, San Diego. His world links philosophy, computer science, art and design and everything else in between and beyond. He's also a professor of digital design at the European Graduate School in Switzerland and visiting faculty at SAIAR for this year and for years to come. He's been teaching also on and off in SAIAR for the last 12 years or so. He has recently published his two books and one of them is the main reasons for tonight's lecture and tonight's event.

本傑明是加州大學聖地亞哥分校視覺藝術教授。他的世界將哲學、計算機科學、藝術和設計以及介於兩者之間和之外的一切聯繫在一起。他還是瑞士歐洲研究生院的數字設計教授，並在今年和未來幾年擔任 SAIAR 的客座教授。在過去 12 年左右的時間裡，他也在 SAIAR 斷斷續續地教書。他最近出版了他的兩本書，其中一本是今晚講座和今晚活動的主要原因。

These two books, one is Dispute Plan to Prevent Future Luxury Constitution from Eflux and the book that he's presenting tonight and the one that is here by our friends from Hennings and Ingles is called The Stack on Software and Sovereignty from MIT Press. This is like the official part. This is the official excuse in many ways why the lecture today and in relation to the book. I wanted to say something else about a couple of things more about Ben. Ben is one of those characters and individuals that is very, very difficult to try to sum up in a brief introduction.

這兩本書，一本是防止 Eflux 未來奢侈憲法的爭議計劃和他今晚要展示的書，還有一本是我們來自 Hennings 和 Ingles 的朋友在這裡的書，叫做 The Stack on Software and Sovereignty 來自麻省理工學院出版社。這就像官方部分。從很多方面來說，這就是為什麼今天要講課以及與這本書有關的官方藉口。我想多說一些關於 Ben 的事情。本是那些很難用簡短的介紹來概括的人物和個人之一。

I think his interest and his ambitions and so diverse and so field expanders. In many, many ways, his influence I think in the school but I'm talking now in personal level his influence in my own work and my own thinking and my own teaching has been enormous and remains. He's one of those guys when you talk to him you have the desire to go back and keep working because he opens a whole series of new possibilities and to see the world in such a way that is sometimes for us designers we tend to be much more monomaniacs and close readers in a way that it completely redefines how you think about architecture and design and culture at large. So in many ways what he's interested in is not easy to define in one singular sentence or on a particular body of work. He's one of those guys which I will say that as time goes by his work becomes more and more relevant.

我認為他的興趣和他的野心以及如此多樣化和如此領域的擴展者。在很多很多方面，他的影響我認為是在學校，但我現在說的是個人層面，他對我自己的工作、我自己的思想和我自己的教學的影響是巨大的，而且仍然存在。當你和他交談時，他就是那些人中的一員，你會渴望回去繼續工作，因為他開啟了一系列新的可能性，並以這樣的方式看待世界，有時對我們設計師來說，我們往往更喜歡以一種完全重新定義你對建築、設計和文化的看法的方式，成為偏執狂和親密的讀者。所以在很多方面，他感興趣的東西不容易用一個句子或特定的作品來定義。他是我要說的那些人之一，隨著時間的推移，他的工作變得越來越重要。

The reason why this is because his provocative, very provocative way of thinking which he delivers in a very calm and gentleman manner so sometimes he doesn't come across as abrasive but his ideas are incredibly provocative and corrosive and aggressive in a level that very, very few thinkers in the contemporary culture can achieve that level of sophistication. So in many ways for us it's a pleasure that he's back at SAIAC and it's always fascinating to listen what he has to say. For those of us who we have the fortune to be close to him I was trying to find a way to do some kind of a light touch because I know that the topics and the things that Ben is going to talk are incredibly heavy and are incredibly current in the current geopolitics and social territory that we are operating in these times. But I was trying to figure it out how to have like a humorous way to try to explain what is the experience when you go for a dinner or a coffee or a conversation with Ben. And the one I come across I think it maybe is a little bit unfair but I think it could be close to what it feels like.

這是因為他以一種非常冷靜和紳士的方式表達出挑釁性、非常挑釁性的思維方式，所以有時他不會給人留下粗暴的印象，但他的想法具有令人難以置信的挑釁性、腐蝕性和侵略性，其程度非常，在當代文化中，很少有思想家能夠達到那種成熟的水平。因此，從很多方面來說，對我們來說，很高興他回到 SAIAC，聆聽他所說的話總是令人著迷。對於我們這些有幸接近他的人，我試圖找到一種方法來做一些輕鬆的接觸，因為我知道本將要談論的話題和事情非常沉重，而且令人難以置信當前我們在這些時代運作的當前地緣政治和社會領域。但我試圖弄清楚如何用一種幽默的方式來解釋當你去吃晚飯、喝咖啡或與本談話時的體驗。我遇到的那個我認為它可能有點不公平，但我認為它可能接近它的感覺。

It goes along something like this. If you're looking for a berserk night out in the New New York I know just the place for you. New New York's hottest club is Whimsy. Condemned by GLAAD and the EPA from Ghostbusters. This old wet bandaid found in a jacuzzi is the kind of place that makes you feel weird the next time you see your parents.

它是這樣的。如果您想在紐約度過一個瘋狂的夜晚，我知道這個地方正適合您。紐約最熱門的俱樂部是 Whimsy。受到 GLAAD 和 EPA 的譴責，來自捉鬼敢死隊。這個在按摩浴缸裡發現的舊濕創可貼是那種讓你下次見到父母時感覺很奇怪的地方。

This place has everything. Kufa hats, congas, MTV's Dan Cortez. And that TV channel at the hotel that's like about the hotel. The vibe inside is strange yet familiar. Like when you see billboards for Seinfeld reruns in a Puerto Rican neighborhood.

這個地方什麼都有。 Kufa 帽子、康茄鼓、MTV 的 Dan Cortez。酒店的電視頻道與酒店有關。裡面的氣氛陌生又熟悉。就像你在波多黎各社區看到 Seinfeld 重播的廣告牌一樣。

Yo soy Castanza. I'm a big night at 6630. Anyway, a conversation with Ben it has everything. And architecture has to have everything and that's I think one of the many reasons why we always love to have Ben around. So please join me to welcome Ben Bratton once again to SAIYAR.

喲大豆卡斯坦扎。我在 6630 度過了一個重要的夜晚。無論如何，與 Ben 的談話包含了一切。建築必須擁有一切，我認為這就是我們總是喜歡讓 Ben 在身邊的眾多原因之一。所以請和我一起歡迎 Ben Bratton 再次來到 SAIYAR。

Thank you Hernan very much for the introduction which I will do my best to live up to. It's really a pleasure to be here and to launch this to launch the book here at SAIYAR which is a place as Hernan mentioned I've taught for on and off for 12 years or so. 2001 I think it was started. And so it really feels like home. A lot of the ideas that have gone into the book were hatched here.

非常感謝 Hernan 的介紹，我會盡力做到這一點。很高興來到這裡並在 SAIYAR 推出這本書，正如 Hernan 提到的那樣，我斷斷續續地教了 12 年左右的書。 2001 我認為它開始了。所以真的感覺像家一樣。書中的許多想法都是在這裡孵化的。

And so it sort of feels like bringing it back home. Some other people that should be acknowledged. The editor of the book at MIT Press, Lev Manovich, the editor of the software study series. Jeff Kipnis who spoke here earlier has been a big supporter of the book. Roger Friedland who was instrumental in an earlier version of this.

所以感覺就像把它帶回家一樣。其他一些應該承認的人。該書在麻省理工學院出版社的編輯 Lev Manovich，軟件研究系列的編輯。早些時候在這裡發言的 Jeff Kipnis 一直是這本書的大力支持者。 Roger Friedland 在早期版本中發揮了重要作用。

Ed Haven who designed the cover which was, believe me, a bit difficult to do with the MIT Press considering how wonderful their own internal design people are. And also my family, Bruna Mori and Lucian who just had his eighth birthday is in the back there somewhere as well. And they deserve the biggest thanks. Okay. So given that these talks are archived and that those who may be watching this could be sometime in the future who will be dating us by the references here as well.

Ed Haven 設計了封面，相信我，考慮到麻省理工學院出版社內部設計人員的出色表現，這有點困難。還有我的家人，Bruna Mori 和剛剛過了八歲生日的 Lucian 也在後面的某個地方。他們應該得到最大的感謝。好的。因此，鑑於這些談話已存檔，並且那些可能正在觀看此內容的人可能會在未來某個時候通過此處的參考資料與我們約會。

I want to start with my own litany of sorts of some of the things that we may want to account for. We can start with some recent news. Apple versus the FBI raising basic issues over state jurisdiction over the cloud. Which companies or which devices owned by which citizens can be compelled to be transparent to the government of which states and where. And this one ended in a no decision at this stage it would seem.

我想從我自己的一系列我們可能想要解釋的事情開始。我們可以從最近的一些新聞開始。 Apple 與 FBI 提出了有關州對雲的管轄權的基本問題。可以強制哪些公司或哪些公民擁有哪些設備對哪個州和哪裡的政府透明。而這個似乎在這個階段以沒有決定而告終。

Meanwhile, reactionary political imaginaries fantasize about states shoring up the territorial borders on land as well as in the cloud by building fantastic new jurisdictional membranes that would decisively cleave inside from outside, xeno from xenophobe. Meanwhile, transnational ethnic identities draw virtual homelands that overflow existing political borders. But already linked by very real economic information and cultural networks. While at the same time stateless persons and refugees whose formal citizenship doesn't apply in the part of the world in which they seek shelter are still connected to the real social economies through mobile devices that don't care whether they're documented or undocumented or even what that means. And at the same time, some partially imploding states, other partially emerging political economic entities experiment with blockchain based digital currencies that are perhaps better tuned to these kinds of platform sovereignties or perhaps not.

與此同時，反動的政治幻想幻想著國家通過建立奇妙的新管轄膜來鞏固陸地和雲端的領土邊界，這些膜將決定性地從內到外分裂，異種從仇外心理分裂。同時，跨國族裔身份吸引了超越現有政治邊界的虛擬家園。但已經通過非常真實的經濟信息和文化網絡聯繫在一起。與此同時，在他們尋求庇護的世界上，其正式公民身份不適用的無國籍人和難民仍然通過移動設備與真實的社會經濟聯繫在一起，而這些移動設備並不關心他們是否有證件甚至那是什麼意思。與此同時，一些部分崩潰的國家和其他部分新興的政治經濟實體正在試驗基於區塊鏈的數字貨幣，這些數字貨幣可能更適合這些類型的平台主權，也可能不適合。

Meanwhile, Estonia offers an e-residency program to those who wish to work in Estonia for Estonian based companies that remain physical outside of Estonian but remain outside of Estonian land. At the same time, atavistic religious fundamentalists who want to revert the world to a medieval order based on primordial political and sexual superstitions make heavy use of after effects templates and cloud based video hosting platforms to articulate their dystopian utopian vision. While China builds artificial islands near the Spratlys in order to more directly occupy with facts on the ground parts of the South China Sea that otherwise have no ground. While Ethereum is used to program a blockchain currency of energy that would circumvent or augment or even eventually encapsulate existing energy infrastructures, perhaps making finally a currency with a really real standard referent. Meanwhile, Berlin tries to outlaw Airbnb by threatening those who rent out their flats using the service with a 100,000 euro fine, pointing towards a future in which people are forced to use VPNs to access basic cloud services there like in Beijing.

同時，愛沙尼亞為那些希望在愛沙尼亞為總部位於愛沙尼亞的公司工作的人提供電子居留計劃，這些公司在愛沙尼亞境外但仍在愛沙尼亞土地之外。與此同時，想要將世界恢復到基於原始政治和性迷信的中世紀秩序的返祖宗教原教旨主義者大量使用 After Effects 模板和基於雲的視頻託管平台來表達他們反烏托邦式的烏托邦願景。而中國在南沙群島附近建造人工島，是為了更直接地佔據南海地面上沒有地面的部分。雖然以太坊被用來編寫一種區塊鏈能源貨幣，它可以規避或增強甚至最終封裝現有的能源基礎設施，也許最終會成為一種具有真正標準參照物的貨幣。與此同時，柏林試圖通過對使用該服務出租公寓的人處以 100,000 歐元的罰款來取締 Airbnb，這預示著未來人們將被迫使用 VPN 訪問那裡的基本雲服務，就像在北京一樣。

Since Airbnb's servers may be outside of Germany or Europe, the cat and mouse game of jurisdictional three card Monty ensues. Meanwhile, Microsoft's teenager persona bot turns into a Nazi porn game show after just 24 hours of unsupervised exposure to actual online culture. While Facebook announces a 360 degree camera to shoot VR content for their Oculus Rift platform so as to help turn your social news feed into immersive cinema. Meanwhile, Google's AlphaGo AI beats one of the world's best players, seeing patterns and making moves which, as Sidol said, no human could possibly see. Meanwhile, the highway transportation authority says that yes, an AI can legally qualify as a driver of a driverless car, sending insurance agents into a tailspin.

由於Airbnb的服務器可能不在德國或歐洲，管轄區三張牌Monty的貓捉老鼠遊戲隨之而來。與此同時，微軟的青少年角色機器人在不受監督地接觸實際在線文化僅 24 小時後就變成了納粹色情遊戲節目。 Facebook 宣布推出一款 360 度攝像頭，可以為他們的 Oculus Rift 平台拍攝 VR 內容，從而幫助將您的社交新聞提要變成身臨其境的電影院。與此同時，Google 的 AlphaGo AI 擊敗了世界上最優秀的棋手之一，它看到了模式並做出瞭如 Sidol 所說的人類不可能看到的動作。與此同時，公路交通管理局表示，是的，人工智能可以合法地成為無人駕駛汽車的司機，這讓保險代理人陷入了混亂。

While a Bangalore based mine tree announces a full IPV6 mesh stack for local and global IoT micro networks. While China's full stream push into automation threatens to invert 20 years of rural to urban migration and regional resettlement patterns around coastal factories. And meanwhile, nationalists, localists and skeptics of various stripes ponder not only the UK's leave from the EU, but perhaps the end of the EU. And if we're really not careful, perhaps the end of anything even resembling an international order. Welcome to the new normal.

雖然基於班加羅爾的礦樹宣布了一個完整的 IPV6 網狀堆棧，用於本地和全球物聯網微型網絡。雖然中國全面推進自動化，但有可能扭轉 20 年來農村向城市的遷移和沿海工廠周圍的區域重新安置模式。與此同時，民族主義者、地方主義者和各派懷疑論者不僅在思考英國退出歐盟，而且在思考歐盟的終結。如果我們真的不小心，甚至可能會終結任何類似國際秩序的事情。歡迎來到新常態。

The stack, the book, tries to form an image of this whole that sees these things not as a litany of many different exceptions and outliers, but as perhaps the elemental parts of an emergent order. One that is exciting and dangerous, full of positive and negative potentials. The key three things that we may see here is one, a delamination, if you like, of jurisdiction from geography. One operating in irrespective of the other. We see how planetary scale computation both distorts and deforms traditional Westphalian logics of the nation state and its political geography and produces new territories in its own image.

堆棧，這本書，試圖形成一個整體的形象，將這些東西看作不是一連串的許多不同的例外和異常值，而是可能是一個緊急秩序的基本部分。一個令人興奮和危險的，充滿積極和消極的潛力。我們在這裡可以看到的三件關鍵事情是一個，如果你願意的話，管轄權與地理的分層。一個在不考慮另一個的情況下運行。我們看到行星尺度計算如何扭曲和變形民族國家及其政治地理的傳統威斯特伐利亞邏輯，並按照自己的形象產生新的領土。

We see how these various forms and genres of this planetary scale computation should be seen not as a bunch of weird different species all spinning out on their own, but as something forming an accidental megastructure of sorts, which we call the stack. So first, before diving into that, what was the old order, the old system exactly, if we can remember? In an address to the Council of Foreign Relations on the need for a new geopolitical architecture, the outgoing Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, made a rather striking recommendation. We need a new architecture for this new world. More Frank Gehry than formal Greek, unquote.

我們看到了這種行星尺度計算的這些不同形式和類型不應該被看作是一堆奇怪的不同物種，它們都自己旋轉出來，而是形成某種偶然的巨型結構，我們稱之為堆棧。因此，首先，在深入探討之前，如果我們還記得的話，舊秩序、舊系統究竟是什麼？即將卸任的國務卿希拉里·克林頓 (Hillary Clinton) 在對外關係委員會就需要新的地緣政治架構發表講話時，提出了一項相當引人注目的建議。我們需要為這個新世界建立新的架構。比正式的希臘語更像弗蘭克·蓋里，不加引號。

She described the system dominated by the UN, NATO, and other large organizations and so forth as equivalent to the classical Parthenon of Athens. By contrast, there's Gehry's architecture. Some of his work might at first appear haphazard, but in fact, it's highly intentional and sophisticated, she said. Where once a few strong columns could hold up the weight of the world, today we need a dynamic mix of materials and structures. Now looking to contemporary design for new models of geopolitical architecture, both literal structures and figurative systems, may be exactly the right idea.

她將聯合國、北約和其他大型組織等主導的體系描述為相當於古典的雅典帕特農神廟。相比之下，有蓋里的建築。她說，他的一些作品乍一看可能是隨意的，但實際上，它是非常有意和復雜的。曾經幾根堅固的柱子可以支撐整個世界的重量，而今天我們需要材料和結構的動態組合。現在尋找地緣政治建築新模型的當代設計，無論是文字結構還是比喻系統，可能都是正確的想法。

But what drives this demand for a new armatures, new diagrams of global power and sovereignty? In the book, we make considerable use of the term from political theorist Carl Schmitt of the nomos. The nomos is Schmitt's term for how it is that within any political order system, there is first an act of inscription, a way in which the space of the earth is divided up in a particular way. This first line of occupation that cleaves the inside from the outside. The logic of that inscription, of that division, emerges and solidifies into a geopolitical order.

但是，是什麼推動了對新架構、新全球權力和主權圖表的需求？在本書中，我們大量使用了政治理論家卡爾·施密特 (Carl Schmitt) 的術語「nomos」。 nomos 是施密特的術語，指的是在任何政治秩序系統中，首先會有銘文行為，即地球空間以特定方式劃分的方式。這是從外部切割內部的第一線職業。該銘文的邏輯、該劃分的邏輯出現並固化為地緣政治秩序。

The nomos is both that logic of that inscription and the order that ensues. For Schmitt, the nomos is all about the land, not the sea, the opposition, let alone the air, or for that matter, the electromagnetic spectrum. But for us, it's exactly the issue. Something like a nomos of the cloud doesn't abide by the neat land versus sea versus air distinctions of modern political geography. And so where do we locate sovereignty instead?

nomos 既是銘文的邏輯，也是隨之而來的秩序。對於施密特來說，nomos 是關於陸地的，而不是海洋，反對者，更不用說空氣，或者就此而言，電磁頻譜。但對我們來說，這正是問題所在。像雲的 nomos 這樣的東西不遵守現代政治地理學對陸地、海洋和空中的明確區分。那麼我們在哪裡找到主權呢？

When I say it's moved past the sort of Westphalian model, what I mean by that is this. The 1648, just to sort of pick a model for this, the Treaty of Westphalia codifies the nation-state model of the circumscription of sovereignty, of subdividing the horizontal plane of the land into little loops, and inside the loops, sovereignty is held. A king, a currency, a flag, a World Cup team, and so forth. No territory without topography, no topography without topology. The situation which we find ourselves today, though, is one not by a further subdivision of loops, but rather a stacking of one order on top of another.

當我說它已經超越了威斯特伐利亞模型時，我的意思是這樣的。 1648 年，只是為此選擇一個模型，《威斯特伐利亞條約》將主權限制的民族國家模型編纂成法典，將土地的水平面細分為小環，在環內，擁有主權。國王、貨幣、國旗、世界杯球隊等等。沒有地形就沒有領土，沒有拓撲就沒有地形。然而，我們今天發現的情況並不是通過進一步細分循環，而是將一種順序堆疊在另一種順序之上。

Right. Now, furthermore, none of this ever really held. The Westphalian model tried to uphold this order, but it itself was always overcome by its own exceptions. Today we have, in addition to the adjacencies and these sort of models of state jurisdiction, also the vertical stacking of interdependent layers on top of each other. Sometimes these two geometries are in cahoot, that is, the state geography and the cloud geography.

正確的。現在，此外，這一切都沒有真正成立。威斯特伐利亞模式試圖維護這一秩序，但它本身總是被自己的例外所克服。今天，除了國家管轄權的鄰接關係和這類模型之外，我們還有相互依存的層次的垂直堆疊。有時這兩種幾何學是相互勾結的，即國家地理和雲地理。

Sometimes they're completely diagonal to one another, sometimes they're totally unrecognizable to one another. But they both exist at once, they both claim the same site, the same person, the same data, the same flow. This is the new armature. The model of the stack is based on software hardware stacks. It's an old diagram of the OSI stack.

有時它們彼此完全成對角線，有時它們彼此完全無法辨認。但它們同時存在，它們都聲稱擁有相同的站點、相同的人、相同的數據、相同的流量。這是新的電樞。堆棧的模型基於軟件硬件堆棧。這是 OSI 堆棧的舊圖。

In summary, the way in which the software hardware stacks, network stacks work like this, the network itself is subdivided into these specific modular layers, specific technologies that do a specific thing. So long as the technology that's situated in that layer is able to talk to the layer above it and the layer below it, it can be anything. It could be copper wire, it could be fiber optic cable, it could be a wireless transmission. The stack is set up in a way so that you can't know in advance what a future technological innovation would be, but you don't need to. You can simply pull one technology out and put another one in, and the whole armature works the same.

總而言之，軟件硬件堆棧、網絡堆棧的工作方式是這樣的，網絡本身被細分為這些特定的模塊化層，特定的技術做特定的事情。只要位於該層的技術能夠與其上層和下層通信，它可以是任何東西。可以是銅線，可以是光纜，也可以是無線傳輸。堆棧的設置方式使您無法提前知道未來的技術創新是什麼，但您不需要。你可以簡單地拉出一種技術並放入另一種技術，整個電樞的工作原理都是一樣的。

Any user at the top activates the whole thing at once, application layer all the way down, across, and back up again. So in every gesture or column up and down that one makes, the user activates the entire system twice, once on the way down and once on the way up. All stacks are platforms, but not all platforms are stacks. And the logic of platforms is actually a really important part of both the political, technological, and design theory of the book. Platforms are based on a rigorous standardization of the scale, duration, and morphology of their essential components.

頂部的任何用戶都會立即激活整個應用程序層，一直向下，跨越並再次備份。因此，在用戶做出的每一個向上和向下的手勢或列中，用戶都會激活整個系統兩次，一次是在向下的過程中，一次是在向上的過程中。所有堆棧都是平台，但並非所有平台都是堆棧。平台的邏輯實際上是這本書的政治、技術和設計理論的一個非常重要的部分。平台基於對其基本組件的規模、持續時間和形態的嚴格標準化。

That's how they work. They introduce the universalization through the standardization. But because platforms don't work according to pre-existing master plans, they set a premeditated, they set stage for actions to unfold through ordered emergence. An ideal platform is like an empty diagram through which users might mediate new and archive information. A search engine, for example, does not produce new internet content for its users, but rather structures the value of content that other users produce.

他們就是這樣工作的。他們通過標準化引入了普遍化。但由於平台不按照預先存在的總體規劃運作，它們是有預謀的，它們為通過有序出現展開的行動奠定了基礎。一個理想的平台就像一張空圖表，用戶可以通過它調解新的和存檔的信息。例如，搜索引擎不會為其用戶生產新的互聯網內容，而是構建其他用戶生產的內容的價值。

Such are platforms. And so the design politics of platforms is characterized by this apparent paradox between the strict imposition of an invariable mechanism, in order to participate you have to use these protocols, and autocracy of means, that provides for an emergent heterogeneity of self-directed uses, a liberty of ends. Anything that abides by the protocols can participate, regardless of any other precedent, forms of credentialization, such as citizenship. So next to states and markets, platforms are a third form, coordinating through fixed protocols while scattering free-range users, watched over in loving, if also disconcertingly, omniscient grace. Drawing the interfaces of everyday life into one another, the maximal state and the minimal state start to look weirdly similar.

這就是平台。因此，平台的設計政治的特點是在嚴格實施一種不變的機制（為了參與你必須使用這些協議）與手段的專制之間存在明顯的悖論，這提供了自主使用的緊急異質性，目的的自由。任何遵守協議的人都可以參與，無論任何其他先例、證書形式，例如公民身份。因此，除了國家和市場之外，平台是第三種形式，通過固定協議進行協調，同時散佈自由范圍的用戶，以無所不知的恩典（如果也令人不安的話）充滿愛意地照料著。將日常生活的界面相互融合，最大狀態和最小狀態開始看起來出奇地相似。

And so this is our accidental megastructure, our stack, the model and the schema, both a technology that is a schematic jurisdictional model, a political geography that also is itself a computational megastructure. And so what I would like to do in the next few minutes is go through some of the existing logic of these layers and some thoughts on what the design problematics of each of them may be. First, the earth layer. We assume that computation was discovered more than it was invented, and that the forms that we take, the forms in which we encounter computation today, are ones that are based not on its virtuality, but on its deep and intrinsic physicality, that the calculation of information through the hardware is a physical event, and that the whole megastructure of the stack is a vast, hungry, energy-intensive mechanism that in no way should be understood as a problematic of the virtual. It's based not only on silicon, but on other kinds of conflict minerals, heterogeneous minerals pulled from mountain streams in Central Africa that go into all of the electronics that we use.

所以這是我們偶然的巨型結構，我們的堆棧，模型和模式，兩者都是一種技術，是一個示意性的管轄模型，一個政治地理，它本身也是一個計算巨型結構。因此，在接下來的幾分鐘內，我想做的是了解這些層的一些現有邏輯，並思考一下它們每一層的設計問題可能是什麼。第一，地球層。我們假設計算的發現多於發明，我們採用的形式，我們今天遇到計算的形式，不是基於它的虛擬性，而是基於它深刻和內在的物理性，計算通過硬件傳輸信息是一個物理事件，堆棧的整個巨型結構是一個巨大的、飢餓的、能量密集型的機制，絕不應該被理解為虛擬的問題。它不僅基於矽，還基於其他種類的衝突礦物，這些礦物是從中非山區溪流中提取的異質礦物，用於我們使用的所有電子產品。

The stack terraforms the host planet by drinking and vomiting its elemental juices and spitting up mobile phones. The shiny surfaces of our handsets demand gore to feed the gloss of its face. And so all of us are carrying around little bits of Africa with us in our pockets. This physical virtual problem and the misrecognition of one for the other is also to a certain way why we don't understand the ecological consequences of the footprint of the cloud, this incredibly hungry physical system that passed the airline industry years ago in terms of its energy usage. It's one of, in its own way, it's arguably one of the key, if you take it as a whole, one of the key agents or causes of climate change.

堆棧通過飲用和吐出其元素汁液以及吐出手機來改造宿主星球。我們手機的閃亮表面需要血塊來增加其表面的光澤。因此，我們所有人的口袋裡都帶著非洲的小碎片。這種物理虛擬問題和對另一個的錯誤識別在某種程度上也是為什麼我們不理解雲足蹟的生態後果，這個令人難以置信的飢餓物理系統在幾年前就超過了航空業能源使用。它是其中之一，以它自己的方式，它可以說是關鍵之一，如果你把它作為一個整體，它是氣候變化的關鍵因素或原因之一。

It's also, if you take in all of the satellite systems and sensors and other kinds of mechanisms, it's also the only reason we know that climate change is happening at the level of granularity that we know it to be happening because of this thing. By some estimates, if we continue the use of cloud computing at the rates in which we're doing so, the most likely scenario is a landscape filled with data center shaped ruins with nothing to power them. In other scenarios, it's precisely because of a more ubiquitous and intensive use of information technology in computing that we can rationalize the use of energy and other resources in such a way that we can continue something like the infrastructures that we want. In other words, we don't know whether or not, we don't know how or whether or not, but whether or not we should be building, whether we can build the stack fast enough to save us from the consequences of building the stack. This is the snake eating its own tail problem of the earth layer itself.

這也是，如果你考慮所有的衛星系統和傳感器以及其他類型的機制，這也是我們知道氣候變化正在發生的唯一原因，我們知道它是因為這件事而發生的。據估計，如果我們繼續以目前的速度使用雲計算，最有可能出現的情況是到處都是數據中心形狀的廢墟，沒有任何東西可以為它們提供動力。在其他情況下，正是由於信息技術在計算中的更普遍和更密集的使用，我們才能合理地使用能源和其他資源，這樣我們就可以繼續建設我們想要的基礎設施。換句話說，我們不知道是否，我們不知道如何或是否，但我們是否應該構建，我們是否可以足夠快地構建堆棧以節省我們構建的後果堆。這就是地球層本身的蛇吃自己尾巴的問題。

This was brought home to me a few years ago. I did a panel with a guy named Stanley Williams, who's a chip architect at HP. He was talking about a project he was working on with then Vice President Gore, who had commissioned a bunch of researchers such as himself to come up with a plan for a computer that could model the entire earth's climate in real time. What would it take to engineer this sort of machine? What the panel concluded was that it was possible to do theoretically, it would require zettabyte computation, which was a few orders of magnitude above what's still available, but that the computer itself would be roughly the size of Paris, and it would be the single most significant anthropogenic energy event that it itself would be modeling.

這是幾年前帶回家給我的。我和一個叫 Stanley Williams 的人做了一個小組討論，他是 HP 的芯片架構師。他正在談論他正在與當時的副總統戈爾合作的一個項目，戈爾委託了一群像他這樣的研究人員來製定一項計劃，開發一台可以實時模擬整個地球氣候的計算機。設計這種機器需要什麼？該小組得出的結論是，理論上可以做到，這將需要澤字節計算，這比現有的計算量高出幾個數量級，但計算機本身大約相當於巴黎的大小，而且它將是唯一的它本身將建模的最重要的人為能源事件。

This is the conundrum of the earth layer of the stack. To the cloud. Right. As said, the cloud itself is not numinous. It is a specific vast infrastructure.

這是堆棧的地球層的難題。到雲端。正確的。如前所述，雲本身並不神秘。它是一個特定的龐大基礎設施。

It has more in common with Superstudio's continuous monument or ArcaZoom's no-stop city than it does with water vapor or floating immateriality. It also has geography. The platforms of the cloud layer of the stack are structured by dense plural and non-contiguous geographies, a hybrid of USA super jurisdictions and the charter cities, which would carve new partially privatized polities from the whole cloth of these sovereign lands. But perhaps there's more there. It's also fundamentally rural in a lot of ways.

它與 Superstudio 的連續紀念碑或 ArcaZoom 的不間斷城市比與水蒸氣或漂浮的非物質有更多共同點。它也有地理。堆棧雲層的平台由密集的複數和非連續的地理區域構成，是美國超級管轄區和特許城市的混合體，它們將從這些主權土地的整個布料中雕刻出新的部分私有化的政體。但也許還有更多。它在很多方面也基本上是農村的。

We tend to think of the cloud as something that happens in the center of the city, but most of the data centers, the key centers of its supply chain and logistic archipelagos dot the rural landscape, not the urban landscape. But it not only dots our geography and fills it up, it also produces it in wares ways. As you will recall, this incident a few years ago where someone at Google shifted the boundary between Nicaragua and Costa Rica in response when Nicaragua mobilized its army and occupied the land that Google had bequeathed it from Costa Rica. A few phone calls were made and cooler heads prevailed. But from here we see that our contemporary cloud platforms are displacing, if not also replacing, traditional core functions of states and demonstrating for both good and ill new spatial and temporal models of politics and publics.

我們傾向於認為雲是發生在城市中心的事情，但大多數數據中心、其供應鏈的關鍵中心和物流群島點綴在鄉村景觀，而不是城市景觀。但它不僅點綴我們的地理並填滿它，它還以商品的方式生產它。你會記得，幾年前谷歌有人改變了尼加拉瓜和哥斯達黎加之間的邊界作為回應，當時尼加拉瓜調動軍隊佔領了谷歌從哥斯達黎加遺贈給它的土地。打了幾個電話，冷靜的頭腦佔了上風。但從這裡我們可以看到，我們當代的雲平台正在取代（如果不是也取代）國家的傳統核心職能，並為政治和公眾展示新的時空模型。

The larger geographical drama is seen perhaps most explicitly in the ongoing Sino-Google conflicts of 2008 to the present. China hacking Google, Google pulling out of China, the NSA hacking China, the NSA hacking Google, Google ghostwriting books for the State Department, and Google wordlessly circumventing the last instances of state oversight altogether, not by transgressing them but by absorbing them into its service offering. Meanwhile, Chinese router firmware bides its time. Consider the words of Fan Bingjing, one of the chief architects of the so-called Great Firewall. It's like the relationship between riverbed and water.

從 2008 年至今仍在持續的中谷歌衝突中，或許可以最清楚地看到更大的地理戲劇。中國黑客谷歌，谷歌退出中國，美國國家安全局黑客攻擊中國，美國國家安全局黑客攻擊谷歌，谷歌為國務院代寫書籍，谷歌悄無聲息地完全規避國家監督的最後實例，不是通過違反它們，而是通過將它們吸收到它的服務產品。與此同時，中國路由器固件也在等待時機。想一想所謂防火牆的主要設計師之一范冰晶的話。這就像河床和水的關係。

Water has no nationality, but riverbeds are sovereign territories. We cannot allow polluted water from other nations to enter our country, speaking of Google. And so as said, two geographies at work in those geographies are often quite weird. Another example, consider Google's filed patents for offshore data centers to be built in international waters on towers using tidal currents and available water to keep their servers cool. The complexities of jurisdictions suggested by a global cloud piped in from non-state space are fantastic, but they're now less exceptional than they are exemplary of that new normal.

水沒有國籍，但河床是主權領土。我們不能讓其他國家的污染水進入我們的國家，就谷歌而言。正如所說，在這些地區工作的兩個地區通常很奇怪。另一個例子，考慮一下谷歌申請的離岸數據中心專利，這些數據中心將在國際水域的塔上建造，利用潮汐流和可用水來保持服務器涼爽。從非國家空間輸送過來的全球雲所暗示的司法管轄區的複雜性令人驚嘆，但它們現在不像新常態的典範那樣特殊。

Between the hackers of the People's Liberation Army and Google, there's more than a standoff between the proxies of two state apparatuses. There is rather a fundamental conflict over the geometry of political geography itself, one bound by the territorial integrity of the state and the other by the gossamer threads of the world's information demanding to be organized and made useful, as Google's motto would have it. This is a clash between two logics of governance. For example, in India and Pakistan, where they both share this border in the Himalayas, where India puts sensors to measure the changing shift in the ice pack on one side, Pakistan's put sensors to shift the ice on the other. The ice, of course, doesn't know where it is, and over the course of the season slides back and forth.

在中國人民解放軍和谷歌的黑客之間，不僅僅是兩個國家機器代理人之間的對峙。在政治地理學本身的幾何學上存在著根本性的衝突，一個受國家領土完整的約束，另一個受世界信息的薄紗線的約束，這些信息要求組織起來並發揮作用，正如穀歌的座右銘所表達的那樣。這是兩種治理邏輯之間的衝突。例如，在印度和巴基斯坦，它們在喜馬拉雅山共享邊界，印度在一側放置傳感器以測量冰塊的變化，而巴基斯坦在另一側放置傳感器以移動冰塊。當然，冰並不知道它在哪裡，並且隨著季節的推移來回滑動。

What you see happening is that Pakistan will claim the territory where its sensors end up in the shifted ice. India claims the territory where its sensors shifted up in the ice. The capacity to sense the territory actually produces the sovereign claim over that site, not the other way around. These multiple geometries of territory, one the subdivision of the horizontal, the other a stacking of vertical layers. One the state, the other a para-state, one superimposed on top of the other at any point in the map and never resolved into some consensual cosmopolitanism.

你所看到的是，巴基斯坦將宣稱其傳感器最終位於移動的冰層中的領土。印度聲稱其傳感器在冰層中向上移動的領土。感知領土的能力實際上產生了對該地點的主權要求，而不是相反。這些領土的多種幾何形狀，一個是水平的細分，另一個是垂直層的堆疊。一個是國家，另一個是準國家，一個在地圖上的任何一點都疊加在另一個之上，並且從未解決成某種共識的世界主義。

We move up. Tilting our eyes slightly higher, we see in this total image that urban fabric we inhabit has shifted from hunter-gatherer landscapes to sedentary fortresses back to itinerant mobilities between enclaves and exclaves linking not just points within one city, but all cities in a kind of discontiguous grid. Touchpoint by touchpoint, the city layers perhaps where the birth pangs of stacked geopolitics are felt most viscerally. The arrival of any political constitution is accompanied by a corresponding political violence, and this is no less true of planetary scale computation and the jurisdictions emerging in its interfacial networks. But unlike modern political states that may have exploded into being by the breaching or establishment of specific symbolic centers, the constitutional violence of planetary computations and platform sovereignties occur at the surface of the entire city, in and on every object seemingly all at once, as ubiquitous and convergent as it is partial and partitional.

我們向上移動。將我們的眼睛稍微抬高一點，我們在這個整體圖像中看到我們居住的城市結構已經從狩獵採集景觀轉變為久坐不動的堡壘，再回到飛地和飛地之間的流動流動性，這些飛地不僅連接一個城市內的各個點，而且連接所有城市不連續的網格。一個接一個的接觸點，城市層層疊疊的地緣政治帶來的陣痛或許是人們最發自內心感受到的地方。任何政治憲法的到來都伴隨著相應的政治暴力，行星規模的計算和在其界面網絡中出現的司法管轄區也是如此。但與可能通過破壞或建立特定符號中心而爆發的現代政治國家不同，行星計算和平台主權的憲法暴力發生在整個城市的表面，在每個物體中和每個物體上似乎同時發生，因為無處不在和收斂，因為它是部分和分區的。

So the city layer of the stack comprises the environment of discontiguous megacities and mega networks that situate both settlement and mobility in combined physical and virtual envelopes. These partition and subdivide access to urban space, but in their generic comprehensiveness they may also provide for forms of accidental cosmopolitanism, ones derived not from parliamentary certificates but from a shared physical relationship to ubiquitous infrastructure. And under those circumstances, the plasticity of sovereignty, not only on individual privacy, but also on the valuation of plural motion, gesture, and movement, is the basis of fabricated polities. One axis of innovation is between the rights and responsibilities that the urban interface gives to and demands from a user who is a formal legal citizen of its explicit jurisdiction versus those it gives to and demands from a user who is not. We may find that in the future the non-citizen may in some ways enjoy certain advantages over the citizen as infrastructures may not already be pre-programmed to govern that user directly as a formal subject, but merely to transact services with her.

因此，堆棧的城市層包括不連續的特大城市和特大網絡的環境，這些網絡將定居點和流動性置於物理和虛擬的組合包絡中。這些劃分和細分進入城市空間的通道，但在它們的一般綜合性中，它們也可能提供偶然的世界主義形式，這些形式不是來自議會證書，而是來自與無處不在的基礎設施的共享物理關係。在這種情況下，主權的可塑性，不僅在個人隱私上，而且在對多元運動、姿態和運動的估價上，都是虛構政治的基礎。創新的一個軸心是城市界面賦予明確管轄權的正式合法公民用戶的權利和責任以及對用戶的要求與它賦予非明確管轄權的用戶的權利和義務之間的權利和責任以及對用戶的要求。我們可能會發現，在未來，非公民可能在某些方面比公民享有某些優勢，因為基礎設施可能尚未預先編程為直接作為正式主體管理該用戶，而只是與她進行服務交易。

Some designers, often architects, may see software as something added onto space. They may see the idea, therefore, of smart cities as essentially stupid because the notion itself already assumes that cities are not already intelligent, and they're right. Other designers, perhaps programmers, may see cities as modules of hardware that fit together one at a time into that distributed megastructural matrix, and they too are right. One mode of design is ultimately, eventually, nested inside the other. Cities defined in this way, with perspectives mixed from both public health planning, supply chain logistics, and urban systems, are infrastructure for living and non-living matter to consume itself and for some forms of matter to achieve and hone sentient intelligence, which in turn remakes cities in its image.

一些設計師，通常是建築師，可能會將軟件視為添加到空間中的東西。因此，他們可能認為智慧城市的想法本質上是愚蠢的，因為這個想法本身已經假設城市還不是智能的，而他們是對的。其他設計師，也許是程序員，可能會將城市視為硬件模塊，一次將一個模塊組合到分佈式巨型結構矩陣中，他們也是正確的。一種設計模式最終最終嵌套在另一種設計模式中。以這種方式定義的城市，從公共衛生規劃、供應鏈物流和城市系統的角度來看，是生命和非生命物質消耗自身以及某些形式的物質實現和磨練感知智能的基礎設施，這在turn 以其形象重塑城市。

It's also then home for emergent urban scale AI. The AI city may be embodying itself, but not as humans do. A co-mingling of diverse sensors of light and air and sound and chemistry draws a landscape of sensing and thinking little species, partially embodied discreetly one and with another, and partially co-embodied with one another as their information inputs are aggregated, modeled, and acted upon in various pluralities. In short, we should imagine an AI urbanism in terms of Jacob van Uyghur's stroll into the field populated by intermingling, mutually oblivious little life worlds, or in terms of Deleuze's parable of the tick, the latter laying in wait for some threshold event to come its way, at which point it triggers a pre-programmed response at and into its own little void. Many of our urban sensors and their limited forms of AI work similarly and with similar nobility.

它也是新興城市規模 AI 的發源地。人工智能城市可能正在體現自己，但不像人類那樣。不同的光、空氣、聲音和化學傳感器的混合繪製了一幅感知和思考小物種的景觀，部分地謹慎地體現在一個和另一個身上，部分地與另一個共同體現，因為它們的信息輸入被聚合、建模、並採取多種多樣的行動。簡而言之，我們應該根據 Jacob van Uyghur 漫步到由相互交織、相互遺忘的小生命世界組成的田野，或者根據德勒茲關於滴答聲的寓言，後者等待某個閾值事件的到來，來想像一種 AI 都市主義它的方式，在這一點上它觸發了一個預編程的反應，並進入它自己的小空隙。我們的許多城市傳感器及其有限形式的 AI 都以相似的方式工作，並且具有相似的高貴性。

More versatile synthetic intelligences occupy more complex omvelt. Some are predator, some are prey, some are in motion, some are flowering, some are pollinating. And as we stroll among them, we may be registered by them or we may be ignored. We may be the primary cause of concern or we may be a passing interference in the evolutionary dynamic in which we are neither protagonist nor target. Homo sapiens comes equipped with an extraordinary array of sensory faculties which may be augmented by various synthetic layers in various ratios, ranging from the sensors and trackers in our phones that we carry about like mules to more intimate media of artificial images and sounds.

更通用的人工智能佔據更複雜的omvelt。有些是捕食者，有些是獵物，有些在運動，有些在開花，有些在授粉。當我們在他們中間漫步時，我們可能會被他們注意到，也可能會被忽略。我們可能是引起關注的主要原因，也可能是我們既不是主角也不是目標的進化動態中的臨時干擾。智人配備了一系列非凡的感官能力，這些能力可以通過不同比例的各種合成層得到增強，從我們像騾子一樣隨身攜帶的手機中的傳感器和跟踪器，到更親密的人造圖像和聲音媒體。

Situating ourself in this expanded field, we are both sensors and sensed. The work of abstraction for urbanism then is not only to deploy abstract forms, but to set in motion mechanisms and programs that are capable of their own feats of abstraction and to calibrate how they abstract us and one another accordingly. Up a layer to the address layer. Swirling just closer to the top of the image, we see that any instance, singular or plural of matter, particle or wave, is potentially identified by universal addressing systems in which mapping and linking is tooled at the scale of an Avogadro's number of addresses allotted theoretically to every user. The global credential of the address subdivides heterogeneous territories, hard and soft, Hertzian space and carbon space into a disintegrated communicative array, an atmospheric metropolis built of digit strings.

置身於這個擴展的領域，我們既是傳感器又是被感知的。城市主義的抽象工作不僅是部署抽象形式，而且是啟動能夠實現自己的抽象專長的機制和程序，並相應地校準它們如何抽像我們和彼此。上一層到地址層。在靠近圖像頂部的地方旋轉，我們看到任何實例，無論是物質的單數還是複數、粒子或波，都可能被通用尋址系統識別，在該系統中，映射和鏈接是在阿伏加德羅分配的地址數量的規模上進行的理論上對每個用戶。地址的全球憑證將異質區域、硬區域和軟區域、赫茲空間和碳空間細分為一個分裂的交流陣列，一個由數字串構建的大氣大都市。

Because for something to appear to the stack, to participate in its platform logic, it must be addressed. It must be nominated and enumerated as something that can speak and be spoken to. Its position is thus one of both a mapping problem and of set theory. Interesting then that by at least one definition of allocations of IP4 address blocks to RERs, we run out of addresses. One solution to the scarcity of IPv4 addresses are IPv6 addresses, which for the sake of argument as 128-bit address string would theoretically allocate something of the order of 10 to the 23 addresses to every person on earth.

因為要讓某些東西出現在堆棧中，參與其平台邏輯，就必須對其進行處理。它必須被提名和列舉為可以說話和被說話的東西。因此，它的位置既是映射問題又是集合論問題。有趣的是，根據至少一種將 IP4 地址塊分配給 RER 的定義，我們用完了地址。 IPv4 地址稀缺的一種解決方案是 IPv6 地址，為了作為 128 位地址字符串的爭論，理論上可以為地球上的每個人分配大約 10 到 23 個地址的數量級。

IPv4 is about 4 billion addresses, theoretical space. IPv6 is obviously much, much larger. What you do with 10 to the 23 addresses, it's an incomprehensibly large number. If you wanted to allocate a discrete IP address to every single thing you ever came in contact with over the course of your life, you would never, ever exhaust 10 to the 23 addresses. You would have to be working down to the scale of individual cells and molecules in the things that you encounter.

IPv4 大約有 40 億個地址，理論空間。 IPv6 顯然要大得多。你用 10 到 23 個地址做什麼，這是一個難以理解的大數字。如果你想為你一生中接觸過的每一件事分配一個獨立的 IP 地址，你永遠不會用完 23 個地址中的 10 個。你將不得不在你遇到的事物中縮小到單個細胞和分子的規模。

But if you were to assign an address not to the thing itself, but to your relation to that thing, the bottle of water as an address, but the fact that it's in front of me, a fact that has no mass, has no materiality, this relation could have an address. And then where the water comes from, where the source of the plastic comes from, and so forth and so on. The relations of relations of relations growing exponentially, you could exhaust this allocation all but instantaneously. So somewhere between never and instantaneously is the design space of the address layer. And in this addressability of physical objects withdrawn into their specific enumeration, itself then overmatched by the abstract relations between objects, they're compositing and sorting into higher order sets, all of which are addressed and which address one another by a process that is itself addressed by them, meta-addressing all the way down into the abyss.

但如果你不是為事物本身分配地址，而是為你與那個事物的關係分配地址，那瓶水作為地址，而是它在我面前的事實，沒有質量，沒有物質性的事實, 這個關係可以有一個地址。然後是水從哪裡來，塑料從哪裡來，等等。關係的關係呈指數增長，你幾乎可以瞬間耗盡這個分配。所以介於 never 和 instantaneously 之間的是地址層的設計空間。在物理對象的這種可尋址性中，它們被撤回到它們的特定枚舉中，然後它們本身被對象之間的抽象關係所超越，它們正在組合併分類成更高階的集合，所有這些都被尋址，並且通過它本身的過程相互尋址由他們解決，元尋址一直到深淵。

And importantly, this deep address is then not only a mechanism for the capture of what exists, a formalization and a space of juxtaposition, it's also a medium for the creative composition of those traces and positions and the interrelation between these, across natural scale and temporality, drawing otherwise illegible forms into a wider internet of hiacities. It's a mapping problem, but it's also then a set theory problem. What is related to what and what is inside of what? Arguably one of the problems of the financial crisis of 2008, figuring out where anything was, what were related to anything else, demonstrated the granularity of our current mapping system is probably due for an update. Now, the prospect of an addressing map that is capable of addressing the things in the world, the material relations between things in the world at this level of granularity is of course disconcerting for obvious reasons.

重要的是，這個深層地址不僅是一種捕捉存在的機制、一種形式化和並置空間，它還是一種媒介，用於創造性地組合這些痕跡和位置，以及這些痕跡和位置之間的相互關係，跨越自然尺度和暫時性，將原本難以辨認的形式吸引到更廣泛的空曠互聯網中。這是一個映射問題，但它也是一個集合論問題。什麼與什麼有關，什麼在什麼裡面？可以說是 2008 年金融危機的問題之一，弄清楚任何東西在哪裡，什麼與其他任何東西相關，表明我們當前地圖系統的粒度可能需要更新。現在，地址地圖的前景能夠解決世界上的事物，世界上事物之間在這種粒度級別上的物質關係當然令人不安，原因顯而易見。

The capacity to nominate and enumerate and to capture in this way provides for, in a certain sort of way, an image of totalitarianism in a molecular scale. But it may be that in a certain way that the compulsion to appear to ubiquitous computation in this way also guarantees the disappearance of those things as they're provided to the invisible alternatives and addressable landscapes. That is, it may be that the solution to the closure of one totality is not only the undermining of their totality, but the introduction of an additional totality. Multiple totalities, one on top of another, sometimes not even knowing the other one even exists. Multiple systems addressing the different things in different ways.

以這種方式提名、列舉和捕捉的能力以某種方式提供了分子尺度上的極權主義形象。但在某種程度上，以這種方式出現在無處不在的計算中的強迫症可能也保證了這些東西的消失，因為它們被提供給無形的替代品和可尋址的景觀。也就是說，解決一個總體性關閉的方法可能不僅是破壞它們的總體性，而且是引入一個額外的總體性。多重整體，一個在另一個之上，有時甚至不知道另一個的存在。多個系統以不同的方式處理不同的事情。

And so again, this is vertical stacking of interdependent layers, one on top of another. Two geometries sometimes in cahoots, sometimes diagonal or unrecognizable to one another. To the interface layer. Early, in the co-evolution of our anatomy and our technologies, hands have been a primary interface to the world in how we grasp things and how we go forth with them. And as we started to build computers, augmenting and prostheticizing the hands, Douglas Engelbart's first mouse, became an obvious priority to grab and to point and to click and to indicate through the hand in this particular kind of way.

同樣，這是相互依賴的層的垂直堆疊，一個在另一個之上。兩種幾何圖形有時相互配合，有時相互對角線或無法識別。到界面層。早期，在我們的解剖結構和技術的共同進化過程中，手一直是我們與世界接觸的主要界面，決定了我們如何掌握事物以及如何處理事物。當我們開始建造計算機，增強和假肢手時，道格拉斯·恩格爾巴特的第一隻鼠標顯然成為優先選擇，可以通過手以這種特殊方式進行抓取、指向、點擊和指示。

Just because my son is here, it's his birthday yesterday, I wanted to embarrass him. This is from when he was about one years old. Pictures of him when he found this clicker in our home office at home and sat there for about an hour and a half turning the light and the fan on and off in the office. He had discovered this fundamental thing about some objects in the world that when you manipulate them, they cause some other object in the world to do something in this spooky distance within the world. And then like a lot of kids, he went on this button pushing mania for the next few years as well.

就因為兒子來了，昨天是他的生日，我就想為難他。這是他大約一歲時的事。當他在我們家裡的家庭辦公室找到這個答題器並坐在那里大約一個半小時打開和關閉辦公室的燈和風扇時的照片。他發現了世界上一些物體的基本原理，即當你操縱它們時，它們會導致世界上的其他物體在這個幽靈般的距離內做一些事情。然後像很多孩子一樣，在接下來的幾年裡，他也繼續按下這個按鈕來推動狂熱。

Today, the dominant mode of the interface that we have is the GUI, the graphical user interface. Earlier, hand-based tools may have passed for a moment into a kind of iconic point and click models of the interface, such that the diagrams that we have of how the systems work not only describe that system, they actually do the thing that they represent once they're manipulated. You click on the button, the image of the bomb, and a bomb actually happens. And so we are all a species now of button pushers, buttons with words on them. It's how we interact with the stack and how the stack interacts with us.

今天，我們擁有的界面的主要模式是 GUI，即圖形用戶界面。早些時候，基於手動的工具可能已經暫時轉變為一種標誌性的點擊界面模型，這樣我們所擁有的系統工作原理圖不僅描述了該系統，而且它們實際上做了它們所要做的事情代表一旦他們被操縱。你點擊按鈕，炸彈的圖像，炸彈就真的發生了。所以我們現在都是按鈕推動器的一個物種，按鈕上有文字。這就是我們如何與堆棧交互以及堆棧如何與我們交互。

And in accumulation, as they multiply, interfaces assemble into interfacial regimes which present and enforce synthetic diagrammatic total images of how the entire platform can work for a user who perceives that platform through the grammar of that same machine. In other words, the complexity of the stack, of everything you could do with it through a particular interface, is more than anyone could think, more than anyone could comprehend. And so interfaces, the inevitably synthetic reduction of all of those possibilities into an array, tells us what there is there and what there is to do with it. Now, the diagrammatic image instrument interface of the GUI is one thing, but VR and AR are perhaps virtual reality and augmented reality is perhaps quite another. With GUI, there is at least some space between the interface and what it represents.

在積累過程中，隨著它們的增加，界面會組裝成界面機制，這些界面機制呈現並強制執行合成圖解總體圖像，說明整個平台如何為通過同一台機器的語法感知該平台的用戶工作。換句話說，堆棧的複雜性，以及您可以通過特定界面對其進行的所有操作的複雜性，超出了任何人的想像，超出了任何人的理解。因此接口，不可避免地將所有這些可能性合成減少到一個數組中，告訴我們那裡有什麼以及與它有什麼關係。現在，GUI 的圖解圖像儀器界面是一回事，但 VR 和 AR 可能是虛擬現實，而增強現實可能是另一回事。對於 GUI，界面和它所代表的內容之間至少有一些空間。

The naturalistic synthesis of cognition and interfaciality in this space, this metaphorical space between the icon and what is represented, between the interface and the platform of interfaces, with VR and AR, that space of representation begins to implode, begins to actually see the interfacial regimes not as something in the world, but as something literally laminated or superimposed upon the world. And so subsequently, some platform totalities are drawn into a theologic projection for which the work of anamnesis is externalized into perceptual and instrumental events, which provide both the signification and the significance of objects and events, as well as the terms of encounter that the user should have with them. The most imminent accident of augmented reality is, I suppose, a deeply granular and pervasive advertising by which our embodied perceptions and gestures generate the monetizable exchange value of the network user profile. AR is perhaps where the micro-targeting business models of cognitive capitalism melt into the choreography of the mobile user subject. And the work that that user subject already does to protect, to perfect targeting algorithms for search engines can be scaled from finger points and clicks all the way up to the very musculature and dance of dwelling itself.

在這個空間中，認知和界面性的自然主義綜合，圖標和所代表的東西之間，界面和界面平台之間的隱喻空間，隨著 VR 和 AR，代表空間開始內爆，開始真正看到界面政權不是作為世界上的某物，而是作為字面上層疊或疊加在世界上的某物。因此，隨後，一些平台整體被引入神學預測，為此，回憶的工作被外化為感知和工具事件，這些事件提供了對象和事件的意義和意義，以及用戶遇到的條件應該和他們一起。我想，增強現實最迫在眉睫的意外是一種深度顆粒化和無處不在的廣告，通過這種廣告，我們具體的感知和手勢會產生網絡用戶配置文件的可貨幣化交換價值。 AR 可能是認知資本主義的微目標商業模式融入移動用戶主體的編排中的地方。該用戶主題已經為保護、完善搜索引擎的定位算法所做的工作可以從手指點和點擊一直擴展到居住本身的肌肉組織和舞蹈。

I'll just let this play out. Okay. So it's basically drugs. However, I fear that ultimately a less secular danger is latent in AR, especially VR as well, but perhaps AR even more so, and that the killer app is not marketing, but fundamentalist religion of some sort, various sorts. AR promises the design of a differential sacrality whereby the Manichean political theological segmentation of the polis into friend versus friend and enemy becomes a direct and literal annotation of the life world itself, the subtitling of clean and unclean, ours and theirs, sacred and profane, empire and rebel forces, orc and not orc, red team and blue team.

我會讓這個發揮出來。好的。所以基本上都是毒品。然而，我擔心最終在 AR 中潛伏著一種不那麼世俗的危險，尤其是 VR，但也許 AR 更是如此，而且殺手級應用不是營銷，而是某種形式的原教旨主義宗教。 AR 承諾設計一種不同的神聖性，摩尼教的政治神學將城邦劃分為朋友與朋友和敵人，成為生活世界本身的直接和字面註釋，乾淨與不潔、我們的與他們的、神聖與褻瀆的字幕，帝國和叛軍，獸人和非獸人，紅隊和藍隊。

We fear a militarization of cognition itself as atavistic fundamentalisms move into the direct augmentation of reality and new political theologies emerge alongside them. This is again, totalities layered on top of totalities, but here in the elemental terms of their superimposition is the catechism of war. But of course, that's not the only path possible. It may also allow for, one hopes, forms of empathetic cinematic co-experience we can scarcely imagine, allowing for co-embodied users across locations and for the induction and deduction of far more complex information flows, such as between energy and currency, into a matter of normal course. Then to the sixth of the layers of the stack, the user layer, where most of us spend our time.

我們擔心認知本身的軍事化，因為返祖原教旨主義轉向直接增強現實，新的政治神學隨之出現。這又是總體層疊在總體層之上，但在這裡，在它們疊加的基本術語中，是戰爭的要理問答。但當然，這不是唯一可能的途徑。人們希望，它還可能允許我們幾乎無法想像的移情電影共同體驗的形式，允許跨位置的共同體現的用戶以及歸納和演繹更複雜的信息流，例如能源和貨幣之間的信息流，進入很正常的事情。然後是堆棧的第六層，即用戶層，我們大多數人都在這裡度過了我們的時間。

One of the useful paradoxes of the user's position as a political subject is the contradictory impulse directed simultaneously towards an artificial over-individuation and its ultimate pluralization, with both participating differently in the geopolitics of transparency. We require, I argue, a real redefinition of the political subject in relationship to the real operations of the user, because it's all quite weirder than our current vocabulary will ultimately allow for. This definition should focus on composing and elevating sites of governance from the immediate and suturing material, the interfacial material between subjects, and in the stitches and the traces and the folds of interaction between bodies and things at a distance, congealing into different networks demanding very different kinds of platform sovereignty. Among these is the fact that as far as the stack is concerned, anybody or anything can be a user, animal, vegetable, mineral, high-tech trading algorithms, Madagascar-Hitching cockroaches. Platforms ultimately don't care what phylum the user belongs to or whether or not they contain carbon atoms.

用戶作為政治主體的立場的一個有用悖論是同時指向人為的過度個性化及其最終多元化的矛盾衝動，兩者都以不同的方式參與透明的地緣政治。我認為，我們需要根據用戶的實際操作對政治主體進行真正的重新定義，因為這比我們當前的詞彙最終允許的要奇怪得多。這個定義應該側重於從直接和縫合的材料、主體之間的界面材料，以及身體和遠處事物之間相互作用的縫線、痕跡和褶皺中構成和提升治理場所，凝結成不同的網絡，要求非常高不同類型的平台主權。其中一個事實是，就堆棧而言，任何人或任何東西都可以是用戶、動物、蔬菜、礦物、高科技交易算法、馬達加斯加-搭便車蟑螂。平台最終不關心用戶屬於哪個門，或者他們是否包含碳原子。

All users may have platform sovereignty. In security speak, a user is qualified by three qualifications, something you know, like a password, something you are, like a fingerprint, something you have, like a key card. So if someone or something can be, have, and know, it can be a user. A trading algorithm, a driverless car, a sun paper, arrive, a chemical reaction triggering a threshold reaction in an environmental sensor embedded on a leaf in a rainforest, all users. And it's the generic universality of platforms that makes them formally open to users, human and non-human.

所有用戶都可能擁有平台主權。在安全方面，用戶具有三個條件：您知道的東西，例如密碼；您的身份，例如指紋；您擁有的東西，例如鑰匙卡。因此，如果某人或某物可以是、擁有和知道，那麼它可以是用戶。交易算法、無人駕駛汽車、太陽報、化學反應觸發嵌入雨林葉子的環境傳感器中的閾值反應，所有用戶。正是平台的通用性使它們正式向人類和非人類用戶開放。

If the user's actions are interoperable with the protocols of the platform, then in principle, it can communicate with its systems and its economies. For this, platforms generate user identities, whether they're desired or not. Anything that can initiate interactions with the platform can be a user, and the platform may see them and interact with them back without knowing or caring who they are or what they are. Platforms don't care if the state sees you as an illegal immigrant or if the market sees you as a negative externality. The user is an open position.

如果用戶的操作可以與平台的協議互操作，那麼原則上，它可以與其係統和經濟進行通信。為此，平台會生成用戶身份，無論是否需要。任何可以啟動與平台交互的東西都可以是用戶，平台可以看到他們並與他們交互，而無需知道或關心他們是誰或他們是什麼。平台不在乎國家是否將您視為非法移民，或者市場是否將您視為負外部性。用戶是一個未平倉位。

And so to develop the political and economic design model for the stack to come is thereby inseparable, I think, from the philosophical and technological reconception of the human as a kind of user and of the user as something that is not necessarily human. You may recall about this time last year, Google's Deep Dream program began to make the news, an algorithm that was trained to find faces of dogs and things. The research team did a project with this where they ran a sort of find edges filter on these pictures, fed it the pictures, told it to find the dog face, fed it back in again, over and over and over and over and over, and the AI begins to hallucinate dog faces where dog faces don't normally see. One of the amazing things about Deep Dream, it seems to me, is not only the fact that AIs are capable of apophenia and these kinds of hallucinations as well, but it's the exercise of sort of seeing the world through the eyes of this rather bizarre form of intelligence. Instead of thinking of AI in terms of the human like the Turing test does, it's intelligent if it will behave as though it thinks the way humans think humans think.

因此，為即將到來的堆棧開發政治和經濟設計模型是不可分割的，我認為，從哲學和技術上將人類重新定義為一種用戶，並將用戶視為不一定是人類的東西。你可能還記得去年這個時候，谷歌的 Deep Dream 程序開始上新聞，這是一種經過訓練可以找到狗和東西的臉的算法。研究團隊用這個做了一個項目，他們在這些圖片上運行了一種查找邊緣過濾器，將圖片提供給它，告訴它找到狗的臉，再次將它反饋回來，一遍又一遍，一遍又一遍，一遍又一遍，並且 AI 開始在狗臉通常看不到的地方產生幻覺。在我看來，Deep Dream 的驚人之處之一不僅在於 AI 能夠出現失語症和此類幻覺，而且還在於通過這種相當奇異的眼睛看世界的練習情報的形式。不是像圖靈測試那樣從人類的角度來思考人工智能，如果它的行為就像人類思考人類思考的方式一樣，那麼它就是智能的。

The real issue is to understand it in a certain sort of way, is to learn to think in whatever sort of incomplete way amongst these other forms of intelligence. It also should, in a certain way, shift some of the things we think about Google, or at least expand them in a way. If the Deep Dream images are artifacts of a computer's hallucination and phantom conclusions, then the conspiratorial figure of evil Google's stepfather is perhaps that same paranoid vision turned inside out, back on itself. Perhaps Google, the AI, is as paranoid in how it sees us as some of us are in how we see it. It's not perhaps coincidental or surprising that as the AI matures, its own pattern recognition faculties would reach the plateau of this creative apophenia.

真正的問題是以某種方式理解它，是學會在這些其他形式的智能中以任何一種不完整的方式思考。它還應該以某種方式改變我們對谷歌的一些看法，或者至少以某種方式擴展它們。如果 Deep Dream 圖像是計算機的幻覺和幻覺結論的產物，那麼邪惡的 Google 繼父的陰謀人物可能就是同樣的偏執狂幻覺，從裡到外，回到自身。也許谷歌，人工智能，在它如何看待我們方面就像我們中的一些人在我們如何看待它一樣偏執。隨著 AI 的成熟，它自己的模式識別能力將達到這種創造性apophenia 的高原，這也許並不巧合或令人驚訝。

Now, expanding this position, this subject position of this global infrastructure, away from the, in such a way that it undermines to a certain degree the special snowflake status of humans or humanism, is certain to, and already does, provoke extraordinary pushback. Some of it is fervent as it is irrational. There are, for example, some affinities with certain technologies, however fictitious or bizarre those affinities may be, that are thought to embody the essence of a kind of creationist order, on the one hand, food, or a personal human mastery, such as the car. Based on some discussions I have with some friends who are former students who are now at Google X, I would go so far as to predict that there would in time be a movement to identify human-driven automobiles as a type of arms, and that the second amendment to the US Constitution, now used to shield gun owners from obvious liabilities, and to protect their sense of personal dominion, will be flown to keep human beings behind steering wheels. In other words, your life may be ended by someone encased in a two-ton steel box careening down the asphalt vista, trying to prove a point about how technology will never capture his natural humanity.

現在，擴大這一立場，這一全球基礎設施的主體地位，以某種方式在一定程度上破壞人類或人道主義的特殊雪花地位，肯定會，而且已經在激起非同尋常的反擊。其中一些是狂熱的，因為它是非理性的。例如，某些技術具有某些親和力，無論這些親和力可能是虛構的或離奇的，它們被認為體現了一種創造論秩序的本質，一方面是食物，或者是人類的個人掌握，例如車。根據我與一些朋友的討論，他們以前是學生，現在在 Google X美國憲法的第二項修正案，現在用來保護槍支擁有者免於承擔明顯的責任，並保護他們的個人主權意識，將被取消以讓人類留在方向盤後面。換句話說，你的生命可能會被一個裝在一個兩噸重的鋼箱裡的人終結，他在瀝青路面上傾斜，試圖證明技術如何永遠無法捕捉他的自然人性。

So while this stages the death of the user in one sense, the eclipse of a certain resolute humanism, it does so because it also brings the multiplication and proliferation of other kinds of non-human, inhuman, and exo-human users, including sensors and algorithms and robots and nanometric, from nanometric to landscape scale, into the mix, any combination of which one of us may enter into a relationship as part of a composite user. Lastly, perhaps most importantly, the stack to come. As said, the rationale of the model of the stack is that whatever exists in any one layer, maybe not only might be replaced, but is in the process of inevitably being replaced. This mechanism is set up so that the form remains as the content churns. I was also surprised, which would imply we need not just one stack theory with multiple.

因此，雖然從某種意義上說，這意味著用戶的死亡，某種堅定的人道主義的黯然失色，但它之所以如此，是因為它也帶來了其他類型的非人類、非人類和非人類用戶的繁殖和擴散，包括傳感器算法、機器人和納米，從納米到景觀尺度，混合在一起，我們中的任何一個人都可以作為複合用戶的一部分建立關係。最後，也許最重要的是，即將到來的堆棧。如前所述，堆棧模型的基本原理是任何一層中存在的任何東西，可能不僅可能被替換，而且不可避免地處於被替換的過程中。設置此機制是為了在內容攪動時保持形式。我也很驚訝，這意味著我們需要的不僅僅是一個堆棧理論和多個堆棧理論。

Imagine my surprise when after the book had gone to press, someone sent me this slide from one of the NSA PowerPoints, that Der Spiegel published. It turns out the NSA are also stack theorists. They have a geographic, physical layer, large network cyber persona, and persona layer as well. They almost got it right, but we can come back to them a little bit later. Thinking now about the stack to come, looking askance at our idiot predicaments of today, we can well wonder whether our current faculties of analysis and making, our hideous languages are actually even capable of authoring any lasting alternatives.

想像一下，當這本書付印後，有人給我發了一張美國國家安全局 PowerPoint 中的這張幻燈片，由 Der Spiegel 出版，我很驚訝。事實證明，美國國家安全局也是堆棧理論家。它們具有地理、物理層、大型網絡網絡角色和角色層。他們幾乎做對了，但我們可以稍後再回來找他們。現在想想即將到來的堆棧，看看我們今天的白痴困境，我們很想知道我們目前的分析和製作能力，我們醜陋的語言是否真的能夠創作任何持久的替代品。

But in some ways, design always does its best work in relationship to an emergency. Now we have lots to pick from, ecological emergencies, securitarian emergencies, financial emergencies. So take your pick. Among these, in terms of a version of this you may well avoid, we might call cloud feudalism. Cloud feudalism could be understood as the particular distribution of power between central and commanding platform services, and quasi-autonomous, if relatively powerless, network clients as applied to human economics.

但在某些方面，設計總是在緊急情況下發揮最大作用。現在我們有很多選擇，生態緊急情況、安全緊急情況、金融緊急情況。所以選擇你的。其中，就您可能會避免的一個版本而言，我們可以稱之為雲封建主義。雲封建主義可以理解為中央和指揮平台服務之間的特定權力分配，以及適用於人類經濟學的準自治（如果相對無能為力）網絡客戶端。

Others have articulated the problems associated with these sorts of arrangements, their deflationary impact on demand side growth, and their ultimate macroeconomic instability, not to mention the social inequity. Now the critique of infrastructure is essential, but it must also rotate ultimately into infrastructure scale design, if it is serious and not just posturing. For this it's useful I think to think in terms of totalities, such as the stack, because they provide a way to see the interrelationships of distributed agency, subjectivity, causality, in effect, all at once. The Anthropocene is not just then, should be understood not just then as the reign of humans, and my point about post-humanism and the non-human user is not anti-human position, some of my best friends are humans. The Anthropocene should be seen also in terms of the reign of a certain kind of humanism, and to survive it we must graduate beyond the notion that the human experience of human experience is A, the central purpose of the world given there for us, and B, something that is separate from our own biotechnological evolutionary emergence itself ongoing.

其他人則闡述了與此類安排相關的問題、它們對需求側增長的通縮影響以及它們最終的宏觀經濟不穩定，更不用說社會不平等了。現在對基礎設施的批評是必不可少的，但它也必須最終轉向基礎設施規模設計，如果它是認真的而不是裝模作樣的話。為此，我認為從整體性（例如堆棧）的角度來思考是很有用的，因為它們提供了一種方式來同時查看分佈式代理、主觀性、因果關係之間的相互關係。人類世不只是那時，不應該被理解為人類的統治，我關於後人道主義和非人類用戶的觀點並不是反人類的立場，我的一些最好的朋友是人類。人類世也應該從某種人道主義的統治的角度來看待，為了生存下去，我們必須超越這樣的觀念，即人類經驗的人類經驗是 A，世界的中心目的是為我們提供的，並且B，與我們自己的生物技術進化出現本身不同的東西正在進行中。

Unfortunately, our humanist hangover, ultimately a folk psychology that weaves asceticism, solipsism, and various naturalistic fallacies into a political aesthetics, is to me more of a theologic expression of a mode of global dwelling that sees the world as here for us. This humanist exceptionalism, this is the exact recipe of the Anthropocene. And in the fetishization of human experience of human experience, it makes it far too difficult to see the geo-design project, which we're all participating, for what it should be, more like molecular gastronomy at landscape scale, a restored and resorted ecology designed to taste itself in new forms of richly spiced and imaginatively sauced mutual ingestion. The relationship of humanities and theory to technology and engineering inevitably will have to shift a bit. The things that we take as being the domain of science and engineering, science is a method, it's not a subject matter.

不幸的是，我們的人文主義宿醉，最終是一種將禁慾主義、唯我論和各種自然主義謬誤編織成政治美學的民間心理學，對我來說更像是一種全球居住模式的神學表達，這種模式將世界視為我們的存在。這種人文主義的例外論，正是人類世的秘訣。在對人類體驗的迷戀中，我們很難看到我們都參與的地理設計項目，因為它應該是什麼，更像是景觀尺度的分子美食，一個恢復和度假的地方生態設計旨在以新的形式品嚐自己的味道，這種形式富含香料和富有想像力的醬汁，可以相互攝取。人文和理論與技術和工程的關係不可避免地會發生一些變化。我們把科學和工程領域的東西，科學是一種方法，而不是一個主題。

And so the types of things, the kinds of biological and technological operations existing in these skills are equally available to humanities and theory, and the counter-incursion should occur. Instead of a form of relationship of theory to design, in which philosophy comes up with concepts and models and then design makes things in the images of these models, we need, I think, in many ways to revert this. Today, in many ways, our technical engineering capacity has produced forms of knowledges and insights for which we are inherited philosophical equipment is inadequate to do the job. And so the job now, in many ways, is to invent and innovate the conceptual tools that are needed. In other words, for this, it's philosophy from design, not design in the image of philosophy.

因此，這些技能中存在的事物類型、生物和技術操作的種類同樣適用於人文和理論，反入侵應該發生。與理論與設計的關係形式不同，哲學提出概念和模型，然後設計按照這些模型的形象製造事物，我認為，我們需要以多種方式恢復這種關係。今天，在許多方面，我們的技術工程能力已經產生了知識和見解的形式，我們繼承的哲學設備不足以完成這項工作。因此，從許多方面來說，現在的工作是發明和創新所需的概念工具。換句話說，對於這一點，它是來自設計的哲學，而不是設計哲學的形象。

Or put differently, Copernican traumas that abolish the false centrality and specialness of human thought and species being are priceless accomplishments. The advent of robust inhuman AI and the geopolitics that could ensue from it, if we are willing to compose it, will provide for similar disenchantments, one that should enable a more reality-based understanding of ourselves, our situation, and a fuller and more complex understanding of what intelligence is and is not. A broader space. And from there, we can hopefully make the world with greater confidence that our models are good approximations of what's actually out there, always a helpful thing. I'd like to conclude, then, with some last thoughts on the stack that we have and what we call the black stack, a kind of generic figure for the stack to come.

或者換句話說，消除人類思想和物種存在的錯誤中心性和特殊性的哥白尼創傷是無價的成就。強大的非人道 AI 的出現以及由此產生的地緣政治，如果我們願意編寫它，將提供類似的祛魅，一種應該使我們對自己、我們的處境有更基於現實的理解，以及更全面、更全面的認識。對什麼是智能，什麼不是智能的複雜理解。更廣闊的空間。從那裡，我們可以希望讓世界更有信心我們的模型是對實際情況的良好近似，這總是有幫助的。最後，我想總結一下我們擁有的堆棧以及我們稱之為黑色堆棧的一些最後想法，黑色堆棧是即將到來的堆棧的一種通用圖形。

It's multiple alternative totalities that we, in some ways, are both, in some ways, inevitable but unknowable. The stack we have is defined not only by its form, its layers and platforms and their interrelations, but also by its content. And as is now painfully clear, leak after leak, that content is also the content of our daily communications, now weaponized against us. If the panopticon effect is when you don't know if you're being watched or not, and so you behave as though you are, then the inverse panopticon effect is when you know you're being watched but act as if you aren't. This is today's surveillance culture, exhibitionism in bad faith.

在某些方面，我們在某些方面都是不可避免但不可知的，這是多種多樣的整體。我們擁有的堆棧不僅由其形式、層和平台及其相互關係定義，而且還由其內容定義。現在非常清楚，一次又一次的洩露，這些內容也是我們日常交流的內容，現在被用來對付我們。如果圓形監獄效應是當你不知道自己是否被監視時，所以你的行為就像你被監視一樣，那麼逆全景監獄效應是當你知道自己被監視但表現得好像你沒有被監視時噸。這就是當今的監視文化，惡意的暴露狂。

The emergence of stack platforms doesn't promise any solution or even distinctions between friend and enemy within this optical geopolitics. At some dark day in the future, when considered versus the Google caliphate, the NSA may even come to be seen as some form of the public option. At least it's accountable in principle to some parliamentary limits, they may say, rather than merely stockholder avarice and flimsy user agreements. If we take 9-11 as the rollout and the rollout of the Patriot Act as sort of the year zero for the USA's massive data gathering, encapsulation and digestion campaign, one that we're only now beginning to comprehend, even as parallel projects from China and Russia and Europe come to light, then we could imagine the entirety of network communication for the last decade, the big hall, as a single deep and wide digital simulation of the world, or a significant section of it. It's an archive, a library of the real, and its existence as the purloined property of the state, just as a physical fact, is almost a cult, almost.

堆棧平台的出現並不能保證任何解決方案，甚至不能在這種光學地緣政治中區分敵友。在未來某個黑暗的日子，當與穀歌哈里發相對時，美國國家安全局甚至可能被視為某種形式的公共選擇。他們可能會說，至少它在原則上對某些議會限制負責，而不僅僅是股東的貪婪和脆弱的用戶協議。如果我們將 9-11 事件作為美國大規模數據收集、封裝和消化活動的零年，將愛國者法案的推出和愛國者法案的推出作為某種意義上的零年，我們現在才開始理解這一點，即使是來自平行項目中國、俄羅斯和歐洲曝光，那麼我們可以想像過去十年的整個網絡通信，大廳，作為世界的一個單一的深度和廣泛的數字模擬，或者它的重要部分。它是一個檔案館，一個真實的圖書館，它作為國家被盜財產的存在，就像一個物理事實，幾乎是一種崇拜，幾乎。

The geophilosophical profile of this big hall, from the energy necessary to preserve it to its governing instrumentality, understood as both a text, a very large text, and as a machine with various utilities, this overflows the traditional politics of software. Its story is much more Borges than Lawrence Lessig, and its fate is as well. Can it be destroyed? Is it possible to delete this simulation, and is it even desirable to do so? Is there a trash can big enough for the big delete?

這個大廳的地緣哲學概況，從保護它所必需的能量到它的管理工具，被理解為一個文本，一個非常大的文本，以及一個具有各種用途的機器，這超越了傳統的軟件政治。它的故事更像是博爾赫斯而不是勞倫斯萊西格，它的命運也是如此。它可以被摧毀嗎？是否可以刪除此模擬，是否需要這樣做？是否有足夠大的垃圾桶來進行大刪除？

And even if the plug could be pulled on all future data halls, stopping it all immediately, surely there must be a backup somewhere, the identical double of the simulation, such that if we delete one, the other will be forever haunting history until it's rediscovered by future AI archaeologists interested in their own Paleolithic origins. Would we bury it, even if we could? Would we need signs around it, like those designed for the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste disposal site, warning of unknowable future excavations? Those of us lucky enough to be alive during this 15-year span would enjoy a certain illegible immortality, curious to whatever metacognitive entity pieces us back together by our online activities, both public and private, proud and furtive, each of us rising back centuries from now, each of us a little Ozymandias of cat videos and Pornhub. For some dramas, but hopefully not for the fabrication of the stack to come, black or otherwise, a certain humanism and companion figure of humanity still presumes its traditional place in the center of the frame.

即使未來所有數據大廳的插頭都可以拔掉，立即停止，肯定在某處有一個備份，相同的模擬副本，這樣如果我們刪除一個，另一個將永遠縈繞在歷史的陰影中，直到它被刪除被未來對舊石器時代起源感興趣的人工智能考古學家重新發現。即使可以，我們會埋葬它嗎？我們是否需要在它周圍設置標誌，例如為尤卡山核廢料處理場設計的標誌，警告未來不可知的挖掘？我們這些幸運地活在這 15 年的跨度中的人將享受某種難以辨認的不朽，對通過我們的在線活動將我們重新組合起來的任何元認知實體感到好奇，無論是公開的還是私人的，驕傲的和偷偷摸摸的，我們每個人都在幾個世紀前崛起從現在開始，我們每個人都有一點 Ozymandias 的貓視頻和 Pornhub。對於一些戲劇，但希望不是為了製作堆棧，黑色或其他，某種人道主義和人類同伴形象仍然假定其在框架中心的傳統位置。

We must let go, I think, of the demand that any AI arriving at sentience or sapience must care about humanity, us specifically, as the subject and object of its knowing and its desire. The real nightmare, in other words, worse than the one in which the big machine wants to kill you, is the one in which it sees you as irrelevant or not even as a discrete thing to know. Worse than being seen as an enemy is not being seen at all, or as Elizabeth Yudkowsky puts it, the AI does not hate you, nor does it love you, but you are made of atoms which it can use for something else. And so one of the integral accidents of the stack may be an anthracidal trauma that shifts us from a design center as the authors of the Anthropocene to the role of supporting actors in the arrival of a post-Anthropocene. The stack to come may also be black because we cannot see our own reflection in it.

我認為，我們必須放棄這樣的要求，即任何達到感知或智慧的人工智能都必須關心人類，特別是我們，作為其知識和願望的主體和客體。真正的噩夢，換句話說，比大機器想要殺死你的噩夢更糟糕的是，它認為你無關緊要，甚至不被視為一個需要知道的離散事物。比被視為敵人更糟糕的是根本不被視為敵人，或者正如 Elizabeth Yudkowsky 所說，AI 既不恨你，也不愛你，但你是由原子組成的，它可以用來做其他事情。因此，堆棧的一個不可或缺的事故可能是炭疽創傷，它將我們從作為人類世作者的設計中心轉變為支持演員在後人類世到來中的角色。接下來的堆棧也可能是黑色的，因為我們在其中看不到自己的倒影。

In the last instance, its accelerationist geopolitics is less eschatological than chemical because its grounding of time is based less on the promise of historical dialectics than on the rot of isotope decay. It's drawn, I believe, from inhuman and inhumanist molecular form-finding, pre-Cambrian flora changed into peat oil, changed into children's toys, dinosaurs changed into birds, changed into ceremonial headdresses, computation itself converted into whatever metamachine comes next. The stack into the stack to come. Thank you.

最後，它的加速地緣政治與其說是化學地緣政治不如說是末世論的，因為它的時間基礎與其說是基於歷史辯證法的承諾，不如說是基於同位素衰變的腐爛。我相信，它是從不人道和不人道的分子形式發現中汲取靈感的，前寒武紀植物群變成了泥炭油，變成了兒童玩具，恐龍變成了鳥類，變成了儀式頭飾，計算本身變成了接下來出現的任何元機器。棧進棧來。謝謝。