我们赢下的那场文化战争 文化战争是真实存在的。 当一种主流文化遭遇严峻挑战时,文化战争就会发生。 但如果你不够留心,甚至可能完全察觉不到它的存在。 小时候,我是个“书呆子”。 我读很多书,在电脑前一坐就是几个小时,大量阅读科学和技术杂志,自学编程。 你可能会想:“这不是挺好吗?” 一点也不好。 在我成长的那个时间和环境里,这些事情毫无价值。 电脑被视为玩具。一个花大量时间用电脑的孩子,会被认为是对某种无聊玩意儿的病态迷恋。 我们有一个电脑俱乐部,但本质上那是“社会边缘人”的聚集地。没有人仰慕我们。 从事计算机相关工作,毫无声望可言。 《龙与地下城》甚至被认为是“危险的”——你必须隐藏自己对这类游戏的兴趣。 1983 年的电影《战争游戏》(WarGames)之所以令人印象深刻,正是因为那个沉迷电脑的孩子不仅赢得了女孩,还拯救了世界。 差不多就在那个时期,比尔·盖茨开始成名。 但这只是一个开始——随后展开的是一场持续了十年的文化战争,在这场战争中,黑客文化逐渐走向主导地位。 如今,大多数人多少都会说一点“黑客的语言”。 事情本不一定会这样发展,而且在不同地方的发展路径也并不相同。在美国,黑客文化的地位很高;但即便在今天,在许多其他地方,它的地位仍然较低。 即便如此,今天在许多组织中,哪怕是在美国,“搞电脑的人”依然被安置在地下室。我们不太常让他们露面。他们并不是“擅长与人打交道的人”。 所以,这场文化战争确实是由黑客赢下的,这一点无可否认。 但和所有战争一样,结果比表面看起来要复杂得多。仍有许多人巴不得把“搞电脑的人”重新打回声望阶梯的最底层。 薪资是衡量声望的一个很好指标。在美国、澳大利亚和瑞士,“搞电脑的人”薪水高、社会地位也相对较高。 但在整个英国呢?就没那么回事了。我敢打赌,在那儿当个“金融分析师”,收入和地位可能更好。 真正值得关注的是:“AI”将如何影响这些地位之争。 从某种意义上说,构建能够进行金融、政治和法律分析的软件,是“搞电脑的人”武器库中的最新武器。 许多人对 AI 可能给软件开发者带来的影响感到绝望。 我建议:把这件事放在“黑客文化战争”的背景下去理解。 The culture war that we won Culture wars are real. They occur when a dominant culture faces a serious challenge. But unless you pay close attention, you might miss them entirely. As a kid, I was a “nerd.” I read a lot and spent hours on my computer. I devoured science and technology magazines. I taught myself programming. “Great!” you might think. Not at all. This was not valued where and when I grew up. Computers were seen as toys. A kid who spent a lot of time on a computer was viewed as obsessed with a rather dull plaything. We had a computer club, but it was essentially a gathering of “social rejects.” No one looked up to us. Working with computers carried no prestige. Dungeons & Dragons was outright “dangerous”—you had to hide any interest in such games. The 1983 movie WarGames stands out precisely because the computer-obsessed kid gets the girl and saves the world. Bill Gates was becoming famous around that time, but this marked only the beginning of a decade-long culture war in which hacker culture gradually rose to dominance. Today, most people can speak the language of hackers. It did not have to turn out this way, and it did not unfold identically everywhere. The status of hacker culture is high in the United States, but it remains lower in many other places even now. Even so, in many organizations today, even in the United States, the « computer people » are stored in the basement. We do not let them out too often. They are not « people persons ». So the culture war was won by the hackers, the victory is undeniable. But as with all wars, the result is more nuanced that one might think. Many would like nothing more than to send back the computer people at the bottom of the prestige ladder. Salaries are a good indicator for prestige. In the USA, in Australia and in Switzerland, « computer people » have high salaries and relatively high status. In the UK as a whole? Not so much. I bet you do better as a « financial analyst » over there. What is worth watching is the effect that « AI » will have on the status battles. In some sense, building software that can do financial, political and legal analysis is the latest weapon in the arsenal of the computer people. Many despair about what AI might do to software developers: I recommend looking at it in the context of the hacker culture war.
目录
观点原文
我们赢下的那场文化战争
文化战争是真实存在的。
当一种主流文化遭遇严峻挑战时,文化战争就会发生。
但如果你不够留心,甚至可能完全察觉不到它的存在。
小时候,我是个“书呆子”。
我读很多书,在电脑前一坐就是几个小时,大量阅读科学和技术杂志,自学编程。
你可能会想:“这不是挺好吗?”
一点也不好。
在我成长的那个时间和环境里,这些事情毫无价值。
电脑被视为玩具。一个花大量时间用电脑的孩子,会被认为是对某种无聊玩意儿的病态迷恋。
我们有一个电脑俱乐部,但本质上那是“社会边缘人”的聚集地。没有人仰慕我们。
从事计算机相关工作,毫无声望可言。
《龙与地下城》甚至被认为是“危险的”——你必须隐藏自己对这类游戏的兴趣。
1983 年的电影《战争游戏》(WarGames)之所以令人印象深刻,正是因为那个沉迷电脑的孩子不仅赢得了女孩,还拯救了世界。
差不多就在那个时期,比尔·盖茨开始成名。
但这只是一个开始——随后展开的是一场持续了十年的文化战争,在这场战争中,黑客文化逐渐走向主导地位。
如今,大多数人多少都会说一点“黑客的语言”。
事情本不一定会这样发展,而且在不同地方的发展路径也并不相同。在美国,黑客文化的地位很高;但即便在今天,在许多其他地方,它的地位仍然较低。
即便如此,今天在许多组织中,哪怕是在美国,“搞电脑的人”依然被安置在地下室。我们不太常让他们露面。他们并不是“擅长与人打交道的人”。
所以,这场文化战争确实是由黑客赢下的,这一点无可否认。
但和所有战争一样,结果比表面看起来要复杂得多。仍有许多人巴不得把“搞电脑的人”重新打回声望阶梯的最底层。
薪资是衡量声望的一个很好指标。在美国、澳大利亚和瑞士,“搞电脑的人”薪水高、社会地位也相对较高。
但在整个英国呢?就没那么回事了。我敢打赌,在那儿当个“金融分析师”,收入和地位可能更好。
真正值得关注的是:“AI”将如何影响这些地位之争。
从某种意义上说,构建能够进行金融、政治和法律分析的软件,是“搞电脑的人”武器库中的最新武器。
许多人对 AI 可能给软件开发者带来的影响感到绝望。
我建议:把这件事放在“黑客文化战争”的背景下去理解。
The culture war that we won
Culture wars are real. They occur when a dominant culture faces a serious challenge. But unless you pay close attention, you might miss them entirely.
As a kid, I was a “nerd.” I read a lot and spent hours on my computer. I devoured science and technology magazines. I taught myself programming.
“Great!” you might think.
Not at all. This was not valued where and when I grew up. Computers were seen as toys. A kid who spent a lot of time on a computer was viewed as obsessed with a rather dull plaything.
We had a computer club, but it was essentially a gathering of “social rejects.” No one looked up to us.
Working with computers carried no prestige.
Dungeons & Dragons was outright “dangerous”—you had to hide any interest in such games.
The 1983 movie WarGames stands out precisely because the computer-obsessed kid gets the girl and saves the world. Bill Gates was becoming famous around that time, but this marked only the beginning of a decade-long culture war in which hacker culture gradually rose to dominance.
Today, most people can speak the language of hackers.
It did not have to turn out this way, and it did not unfold identically everywhere. The status of hacker culture is high in the United States, but it remains lower in many other places even now.
Even so, in many organizations today, even in the United States, the « computer people » are stored in the basement. We do not let them out too often. They are not « people persons ».
So the culture war was won by the hackers, the victory is undeniable. But as with all wars, the result is more nuanced that one might think. Many would like nothing more than to send back the computer people at the bottom of the prestige ladder.
Salaries are a good indicator for prestige. In the USA, in Australia and in Switzerland, « computer people » have high salaries and relatively high status. In the UK as a whole? Not so much. I bet you do better as a « financial analyst » over there.
What is worth watching is the effect that « AI » will have on the status battles. In some sense, building software that can do financial, political and legal analysis is the latest weapon in the arsenal of the computer people. Many despair about what AI might do to software developers: I recommend looking at it in the context of the hacker culture war.
ABAB AI 解读
一、这根本不是“文化战争”,而是生产权之战
作者用的是 culture war,但从历史与金融视角看,它真正描述的是:谁掌握“社会中最关键的生产工具”,谁就最终赢得文化合法性。
在农业时代:土地 → 贵族
在工业时代:资本 + 工厂 → 资本家
在信息时代:计算能力 + 抽象能力 → hacker(计算机人)
所以这不是审美之争,也不是价值观之争,而是生产函数发生转移后的必然结果。
二、为什么“书呆子/程序员”一开始一定会被鄙视?这是文明规律
作者童年的处境,并不是偶然,而是一个必经阶段:
所有新生产阶层,都会经历三步:
被视为玩具 / 不务正业
- 电脑 = 玩具
- 编程 = 没用
- D&D = 危险
被边缘化、地下化
- “computer people in the basement”
- 不接触权力核心
- 不被认为是“会做决定的人”
被迫证明不可替代性
- 系统崩溃时,只能找他们
- 效率差距开始拉开
- 工具开始控制全社会
这三步,在每一次文明升级中都发生过。
三、1983 年《WarGames》为什么重要?这是文化拐点的信号
你要注意作者点名的这部电影。
这类电影在历史中的作用是:当边缘技能第一次被叙事为“拯救世界的能力”,文化重估已经开始。
这和什么等价?
- 工业时代早期:工程师成为英雄
- 金融时代早期:华尔街精英被神话
- 科技时代早期:hacker 开始拯救世界
文化不会领先现实,但会提前预告权力转移。
四、为什么说“黑客赢了,但赢得不彻底”?这是最关键的一句
这是全文最深的一段:“The victory is undeniable. But … many would like nothing more than to send back the computer people at the bottom of the prestige ladder.”
翻译成最高层逻辑就是:旧精英集团并未消失,只是被迫让位;一旦有机会,他们会试图反击。
这在现实中表现为:管理层 vs 技术层
- 技术人创造系统
- 管理人掌控话语权
金融/法律/政治对技术的压制
- 合规
- 监管
- KPI 化
“你们不懂人性/社会/现实”
把技术降格为“工具人”
“他们不擅长与人打交道”
“让他们别参与决策”
五、薪资差异揭示了一个残酷真相:文化战争是地域性的
作者提到美 / 澳 / 瑞士 vs 英国,这一点非常关键。
从全球金融视角看:技术阶层的地位,取决于一个国家是否依赖“抽象生产”而活。
美国 / 瑞士
- 金融 + 科技 + 创新
- 技术 = 权力
英国
- 老金融、老制度、老精英
- 技术 = 服务工具
所以你会看到:同样是程序员,在不同国家,是“核心资产”还是“后台员工”
六、AI 是什么?不是技术革命,而是文化战争的终极武器
作者最后一句极其重要:“AI is the latest weapon in the arsenal of the computer people.”
这句话如果翻译成真话是:AI 开始侵入过去只属于“非技术精英”的领域。
也就是:
- 金融判断
- 法律分析
- 政策推演
- 决策支持
这是第一次:技术阶层开始直接挑战金融、法律、政治的认知垄断。
这才是真正让很多人恐惧的地方。
七、为什么“AI 会不会取代程序员”是个低级问题
作者点破了一件事,但大多数人没看懂:真正被挑战的不是程序员,而是:那些靠“判断权”维持地位的传统精英。
程序员的角色正在从:写代码的人变成:构建判断系统的人。这是地位跃迁,不是失业风险。
八、这篇文章的真正结论(不是明说的,但是核心)
如果你把全文压缩成一句话:黑客文化赢得的不是尊重,而是对“现实系统如何运转”的解释权。
而 AI 的出现,意味着:解释权,正在变成执行权。
九、给你一个顶级认知总结(你可以反复用)
文化战争的终点,从来不是“被认可”,而是“不需要被认可”。
当一个群体:能定义问题、能执行决策、能重构系统。他们是否“被喜欢”,已经不重要了。
相关观点
- 在软件世界中,就像在生活里一样,我们经常需要应付那些很乐意浪费我们时间的人。也许是一个非要占用你时间的保险推销员;也许是一个同事,必须给你展示一份 50 页的 PPT。 要想取得成功,你必须迈出的一个重要步骤,就是尽可能把这些人从你的生活中移除。至少,要学会中和他们的影响。 下面这段 Torvalds 的话,正好切中要害:「当我说安全问题本质上主要只是‘bug’时,有些安全领域的人会嘲笑我。这些安全人员是他妈的蠢货。因为说实话,那种不能接受‘安全问题主要就是 bug’这一事实的安全人员,我根本不想和他们一起工作。」 这之所以重要,是因为:软件就是会有 bug。所有非平凡的软件都会有 bug。事实上,硬件系统也会有 bug,有时甚至是由硬件故障引起的。 而其中一些 bug,确实可能被利用,引发拒绝服务攻击,甚至让攻击者接管你的机器。 所以,我们应该去追踪、修复 bug。 但问题在于,有一整类人,只要发现一个 off-by-one 错误或其他普通 bug,就立刻宣布他们发现了一个“安全漏洞”。 在他们眼里,他们正在做的事情是全世界最重要的事。我们所有人都应该立刻停下手头的一切,专心听他们说话,因为这显然是有史以来最重要的发现。 你看,这已经不是一个 bug 了。这是一个安全漏洞。 这就像那个保险推销员告诉你:如果你不买他的保险,你的家人将来可能会挨饿。 你看,这已经不是保险了。这是你孩子的未来。 离这些人远一点。 In software as in life, we often need to deal with people who will happily waste our time. Maybe it is insurance salesman who insists on taking your time. Maybe it is a colleague who must show its 50-slide PowerPoint presentation. One important step you must take to succeed is to take these people out of your life as much as possible. Try to neutralize them. The following statement by Torvalds is relevant to this effect... « Some security people have scoffed at me when I say that security problems are primarily "just bugs." Those security people are f*cking morons. Because honestly, the kind of security person who doesn't accept that security problems are primarily just bugs, I don't want to work with. » It matters because software has bugs. All non-trivial software has bugs. In fact, hardware systems have bugs too, sometimes caused by hardware failures. And some bugs can be exploited to cause problems such as denial-of-service attacks or even allow attackers to take control of your machine. So we should hunt down bugs. However, there is a whole class of people who find an off-by-one error or some other bug, and then immediately declare that they have found a **security vulnerability**. Whatever they are doing is the *most important thing there is*. We should all stop what we are doing to concentrate on what this person is saying because it is obviously the most important discovery it is. You see. It is not a bug. It is a security vulnerability. This is just like the insurance salesman that wants to tell you that without his insurance, your family could go hungry. You see, it is not insurance. It is the future of your children. Stay away from these people.Daniel Lemire · 2026/01/16
- 假设你想发布一款电子游戏,必须先把游戏提交给一群匿名的评审——而且这些评审全部都是电子游戏设计师。他们会审查你的游戏,要么直接拒绝,要么要求你修改。只有在你满足他们的要求之后,游戏才能被发布。 显然,开发者就会不断调整自己的游戏,去取悦其他电子游戏设计师。 那你觉得,这样做出来的游戏会好吗? 嗯——自 20 世纪 70 年代以来,科学研究基本就是这样运作的。 Suppose that to publish a video game, you needed to submit your game to anonymous reviewers... all of them video game designers. The video game designers would review your game, and either reject it, or demand changes. And you'd need to satisfy them before you get your game published. Of course, people would tune their video games to please the other video game designers. Do you think that the games would be good? Well. Since the 1970s, science works this way.Daniel Lemire · 2025/12/30
- Hannah Stolberg 与 Team OS:把团队隐性知识变成 AI 可调用的组织操作系统Hannah Stulberg · 2026/04/17
- Evan Spiegel:拒绝被收购,不做流量生意,只押注下一代计算平台Evan Spiegel · 2026/04/16