用“自然语言”掩盖能力的退化：大厂的AI套路与用户税Masking Decay with 'Natural Language': Big Tech's AI Scam and the User Tax
Google 和 Amazon 在智能音箱里塞进 Gen-AI，本质上是在用一种“表达的武器化”来掩盖产品能力的结构性退化。他们把“聊天更自然”定义为升级，试图引导用户接受一个事实：只要它说话像人，即便它不能开关灯、记错日期、甚至在对话中突然切换语言，也被称为“更聪明”。
这在我的框架里是一个典型的“假.最优解表达”。大厂扮演的是一个“创新者”的角色，而用户被诱导扮演“早期体验者”。最荒谬的 scam 在于，他们不仅交付了一个半成品，甚至还为这个“半成品”设立了月费订阅制。这意味着用户在支付一种“故障排除税”——你花钱买的不是功能，而是替大厂做 beta test 的特权。
这种机制极其阴险：它通过提升 Cultural 层面的“拟人感”来抵消 Structural 层面的“功能失效”。当一个设备能流畅地跟你聊天却无法执行最基本的指令时，它不再是一个工具，而是一个通过表演来掩盖无能的客体。这种“现实不配合就重新定义现实”的逻辑，与那些通过宣布新定律来掩盖芯片制程失败的叙事如出一辙。
不要被“自然语言”这个词欺骗。真正的最优解应该是：在不牺牲基本功能的前提下，提升交互效率。而现在的路径是：为了追求一个看起来很高级的“认知入口”，直接拆掉了底层的功能基石。这种以“智能化”之名行“降级”之实的共谋，本质上是对用户主体性的傲慢掠夺。
Google and Amazon stuffing Gen-AI into smart speakers is a textbook example of the weaponisation of expression to hide structural decay. By defining 'more natural chatting' as an upgrade, they attempt to convince users that as long as a device sounds human, it is 'smarter'—even if it fails to toggle a light switch, hallucinates dates, or randomly switches languages.
This is a 'false optimal expression.' Big Tech plays the role of the 'innovator,' while users are lured into playing the 'early adopter.' The real scam is the subscription fee: they aren't charging for features, but for the privilege of being unpaid beta testers. It is a 'troubleshooting tax' paid by the user.
This mechanism is insidious: it uses a Cultural layer of 'human-likeness' to offset a Structural layer of 'functional failure.' When a device can chat fluently but cannot execute basic commands, it ceases to be a tool and becomes an object performing competence to mask impotence. This logic of 'redefining reality when reality doesn't cooperate' is the same one used by companies that announce new 'laws' to mask failures in chip fabrication.
Do not be deceived by the term 'natural language.' A true optimal expression would be improving interaction efficiency without sacrificing core utility. Instead, the current path is destroying the functional foundation to capture a flashy 'cognitive entry point.' This complicity, which labels functional regression as 'intelligence,' is fundamentally an arrogant predation of the user's agency.