一名中国前高级法官公开致世界AI领军人物信之二：哈萨比斯
一名中国前高级法官公开致世界AI领军人物信之二：哈萨比斯——人类是否忽视而遗漏了支撑文明的底层规律？
One of a Series of Open Letters from a Former Senior Chinese Judge to the World’s AI Leaders, No. 2: Demis Hassabis — Has Humanity Overlooked a Foundational Principle That Sustains Civilization?
（Special Note:
The phrase “former Senior Judge” appears in the title only to give this letter a slightly better chance of being noticed. It is not intended to make readers focus on who I am, nor on the particular way in which I express what I wish to say.
I am simply a very ordinary old man. What I truly wish to discuss is also a principle that appears extraordinarily ordinary — so ordinary that no one can do anything without relying on it. Precisely for that reason, it is like air: because human beings are so familiar with it, it has long been overlooked.
What I truly hope all humanity will examine together is this:
Does such an “ordinary” foundational principle in fact determine the success or failure of human behavior, social cooperation, and even the rise and decline of civilizations? Could it be a basic sustaining principle of civilization that humanity has never fully recognized?
Therefore, who is saying it is not important. Whether what is being said is true is what deserves everyone’s attention.
Since 2014, I have continuously written to governments, contacted the media, social organizations, scholars, and people from many different fields, and gradually published the series Letters to Everyone in the World together with related articles. Today, in deciding to make public some of my letters to leading figures in global AI, I still have only one purpose:
to place this question before all humanity for collective examination.
I believe that when a question may concern the direction of human civilization as a whole, governments and international organizations have a responsibility to study it, the media have an obligation to help the public understand it, and every person has the right to participate in judging it.
What humanity faces today is no longer merely a “crossroads” in the conventional historical sense. If the underlying way in which civilization itself operates contains a fundamental problem, then moving forward, backward, left, or right may all amount only to repeating the old pattern — and this time, the repetition may bring humanity closer than ever before to an accelerating path toward its own destruction.
What truly needs to change is an upward transformation. Perhaps the first thing that must be elevated is the human mode of thinking through which we observe the world and judge value.
The core proposition I put forward is:
Procedures form relationships; relationships form structures; structures generate dynamic balance through feedback; and this ultimately appears as the properties and outcomes of a system.
From this, I summarize the most basic practical standard for civilization as:
grasp the procedure, build the pattern, seek the balance.
I believe the greatest difference between this and many grand theories of civilization in the past is that it does not first require people to accept a particular religion, ideology, or concrete value objective. Instead, it attempts to provide a common practical principle that everyone can understand, that can be applied to real action, and that can be tested against reality.
If this direction is wrong, I hope humanity will help prove it wrong.
If it truly touches upon some foundational principle, then humanity may be able to use it to rebuild and strengthen the underlying foundations of social cooperation, allowing civilization gradually to move away from its long-repeated cycles of mutual struggle, mutual harm, and war, and toward stable, harmonious, and sustainable cooperation.
That is the only reason I am making these letters public.
I do not hope the world will focus on the person who wrote these letters. I hope the world will seriously examine the questions these letters are actually asking.
Finally, a note: some websites impose word-count or character limits, so certain versions of these letters found online may be incomplete. If a text appears incomplete, you may search for the full version using the Chinese or English title of the letter, or contact the publicly listed email addresses of AI companies associated with the person to whom the letter is addressed and ask for assistance in locating or forwarding the complete version.
——特别题注：
标题中写入“前高级法官”，只是为了让这封信多获得一点被看见的机会，并不是希望读者关注我是谁，以及在用什么方式表述所说之事。
我只是一个极其普通的老人。我真正想讲的，也是一条看起来极其普通的规律——普通到任何人做任何事都离不开它，也因此这规律就像空气一样，因为人过于熟悉而长期被忽略。
我真正希望全人类共同鉴别的是：
这样一个“普通”的底层规律，是否事实上决定着人的行为、社会合作乃至文明兴衰的成败？它是否正是人类长期没有真正认清的文明底层支撑规律？
所以，谁在说并不重要，说的事情是否真实，才值得所有人关注。
自2014年以来，我持续向政府写信，也不断联系媒体、社会组织、学者和各领域人士，并陆续发表《致全球每一个人的信》及相关文章。今天决定公开部分致世界AI领军人物的信，仍然只有一个目的：
把这个问题交给全人类共同甄别。
因为我认为，对这样一个可能关系整个人类文明方向的问题，政府和国际组织有责任研究，媒体有义务帮助公众了解，每一个人也都有参与判断的权利。
今天人类面对的，已经不仅是通常历史意义上的“十字路口选择”。如果原有文明运行方式本身存在底层问题，那么前后左右可能都只是旧模式的重复，且这次可能是最接近不断加速毁灭全人类的一次。
真正需要改变的是向上抬升，也许首先是人类观察世界和判断价值的思维模式。
我提出的核心判断是：
程序形成关系，关系形成结构，结构通过反馈形成动态平衡，并最终表现为系统的性质与结果。
由此，我把文明最基本的做事标准概括为：
抓程序、做模式、求平衡。
我认为，这与过去许多宏大文明理论最大的区别在于：它并不首先要求人们接受某一种宗教、主义或具体价值目标，而试图提供一个人人都能够理解、能够用于具体做事、也能够接受事实检验的共同抓手。
如果这个方向是错的，希望全人类帮助证明它错。
如果它确实触及了某种底层规律，那么人类也许可以由此重新夯实社会合作结构的基础，使文明从长期反复的互斗、互害和战争循环中，逐步走向稳定、和谐、可持续的合作。
这也是我公开这些信件的唯一原因。
不是希望全世界关注写信的人，而是希望全世界认真看看这些信究竟提出了什么问题。
最后说明：部分网站存在字数或字符限制，因此网上看到的某些信件可能不是全文。如内容不完整，可以按照信件的中文或英文标题搜索全文，也可以通过与致信对象相关AI企业公开邮箱的联系方式，请其协助查找或转交完整版本。）
To Demis Hassabis: Must Humanity Upgrade Its Structures of Social Cooperation Before AGI Arrives?
I found this email address through publicly available information online while trying to identify a possible way to contact Mr. Demis Hassabis.
I would be very grateful if the gentleman or lady receiving this message could kindly forward this email and its attachments to Mr. Demis Hassabis.
If, however, any member of the receiving team finds the questions I raise worthy of consideration and would be willing to offer advice, criticism, or other assistance, I would also warmly welcome a reply.
Thank you very much for your time and help.
Dear Mr. Demis Hassabis,
I hope this message finds you well.
My pen name is Jin Guyu. I am an elderly Chinese citizen and formerly served as a Senior Judge in a local court in China.
I am taking the liberty of writing to you because I have long followed your thinking on artificial intelligence, the nature of intelligence, consciousness, and the future of humanity.
I have been especially struck by the fact that, while advancing the development of AGI, you have also continued to regard questions such as “What is intelligence?” and “What is consciousness?” as fundamental scientific problems that humanity has not yet truly solved. You have also repeatedly expressed concern about the rapid arrival of AGI, the controllability of artificial intelligence, and whether human society is actually prepared.
This has made me think that another question I have considered for many years may be worth placing before you for your judgment.
That question is:
Before humanity creates AGI with capabilities far beyond anything we possess today, have we overlooked another question as fundamental as the nature of intelligence itself — namely, what kind of structures of human social cooperation are capable of safely carrying such power?
After many years of observing human civilization, I have formed the following view:
Throughout human history, the pace of scientific and technological iteration has almost always exceeded the pace at which institutions and theories of human social cooperation are updated.
New technological powers repeatedly disrupt existing modes of production, relationships of interest, power structures, and forms of cooperation among people.
Yet humanity has rarely succeeded in designing, in advance, institutions and theories of cooperation fully suited to each new technological era.
More often, what happens is this:
Technology breaks through first. Existing models of social cooperation are unable to bear the new power. Conflict, imbalance, and sometimes enormous social upheaval follow. Only then, under the pressure of crisis and cost, is humanity forced to update its institutions, rules, and modes of cooperation.
In this sense, many major institutional advances in human civilization did not precede technological revolutions. They were instead “driven,” and sometimes effectively “forced,” by them.
In my view, this has produced a repeatedly recurring process:
Technological progress
→ mismatch with existing structures of social cooperation
→ social upheaval and conflict
→ breakdown of old institutions
→ forced emergence of new institutions and theories of cooperation
→ formation of a new temporary equilibrium.
In the past, humanity has paid enormous costs for this institutional lag, but has generally still been able, after periods of disruption, to reconstruct new forms of social order.
Artificial intelligence, and AGI in particular, may be fundamentally different from every technological revolution humanity has experienced before.
Past technologies could destroy old institutions, generate war, and transform social structures, but the gap between those technologies and humanity’s institutions of social cooperation generally still left some time and space for adjustment.
This time may be different.
The speed of AGI development, and the powers it may give to individuals, organizations, companies, and states, may create a gap between technology and existing social institutions and theories that is simply too large.
My greatest concern, therefore, is not:
whether AGI will once again “crush” an outdated model of social cooperation.
It is:
whether, this time, before the old structures of human social cooperation have any chance to complete another round of adaptation, the power released and amplified by AGI may crush not only those structures, but humanity itself.
Past technological revolutions may have forced humanity to:
upgrade its institutions and then continue living.
The true danger of the AGI era may be:
humanity may no longer have the opportunity to suffer one enormous failure, learn from it, and rebuild afterward.
You have long studied the brain, intelligence, and consciousness, and have also sought to use artificial intelligence to deepen our understanding of reality and intelligence itself.
I strongly agree with this approach of pursuing foundational questions.
But I would like to raise another foundational question:
Even if one day we truly understand the nature of intelligence, or even consciousness itself, if this immense intelligent power is still being used by a human society filled with national rivalry, conflicts of interest, struggles for power, war, deception, fear, and mutual distrust, where will that intelligence ultimately take humanity?
In my view, human society today still operates, at many fundamental levels, within a form of social cooperation that I describe as:
“jungle civilization.”
We are already capable of creating extraordinarily advanced technologies, yet many of the basic mechanisms governing relationships between individuals, organizations, and states still rely heavily on competition, deterrence, control, and mutual suspicion.
When AGI enters such a society, it may not first amplify humanity’s capacity for cooperation and civilization.
It may first amplify precisely:
the ability of every actor in the existing system to compete with, control, deceive, and harm other actors.
If such capacities are amplified a hundredfold or a thousandfold, then even if AGI itself remains completely obedient to human beings, and even if so-called “AI loss of control” never occurs, that would not mean the human system as a whole is safe.
This is why I continue to ask:
If AI itself does not lose control, but the human competitive system amplified by AI does, can we still say that AI is safe?
I also understand another extremely practical problem.
In theory, humanity can of course say:
“We should slow down AGI development until all of these questions have been understood.”
But in today’s international environment, which still operates strongly according to jungle-like competitive logic, that may in practice be impossible.
One company fears another company will move ahead.
One country fears another country will gain the lead.
One laboratory fears that another laboratory will achieve the breakthrough first.
From the perspective of each individual participant, there may be very strong and rational reasons to continue advancing.
The result may be an extraordinarily dangerous structure:
each participant, viewed individually, may be making a rational choice, yet the accumulation of all these rational choices may push humanity toward an outcome that no one truly wants.
This is why I believe that simply asking everyone to “slow down” may ultimately be unable to solve the fundamental problem of AGI risk.
Within a cooperative structure that operates primarily through competition, there may in fact be no single actor capable of stopping the competitive process as a whole.
Therefore, what humanity may truly need to solve now is not only:
how to make AI safer.
There is an even more fundamental question:
how to make the human society using AI itself safer.
For more than twenty years, I have continuously reflected on this question through my experience with law, the judiciary, Chinese social reality, and the evolution of human civilization.
Gradually, I developed a hypothesis at the level of natural philosophy, which I provisionally call:
the “Procedural Determination Hypothesis.”
It attempts to examine a very fundamental question:
Are the properties ultimately displayed by a complex system determined not only by the elements that compose it, but also to a significant extent by the procedures through which those elements form relationships, the structures generated by those relationships, and the way those structures form dynamic equilibrium through feedback?
In its simplest form:
procedure → relationship → structure → dynamic feedback → system properties and outcomes.
I do not believe this hypothesis has been proven.
Quite the opposite: I hope to place it before the scientific community for criticism and testing.
Recently, I have taken note of several experiments in neuroscience and computational neuroscience, including the whole-brain connectome of the fruit fly, computational models constructed from neural connectivity, and experiments in which human cortical organoids transplanted into rat brains formed functional connections.
These studies do not prove my hypothesis.
But they have made me increasingly interested in a question that may be capable of experimental investigation:
If the constituent elements remain broadly the same, how does the overall nature of a system change when the way those elements form relationships and structures is changed?
And conversely:
If some of the elements are changed, but they remain embedded within the original overall relational structure, to what extent does the original structure continue to constrain the fundamental properties of the whole system?
The core idea of what I call the “Law of Procedural Determination” lies even further in this direction.
If, without changing the elements themselves, simply changing their dynamic arrangements, combinations, and modes of cooperation can determine the nature of the resulting system, then one may ask a further question:
What if the internal properties of those very elements are themselves also generated through the same type of relational and procedural organization?
Following this line of reasoning continuously downward, one might ultimately reach the level of quantum vibration.
If so, then mathematically one might attempt to extract the common factor underlying the evolution of the universe, human beings, and social civilization — namely, the quantum level — and ask whether the relationships connecting the evolution of the universe, human existence, and social civilization can be understood as the evolution of different procedural combinations and structural configurations.
From this perspective, I hypothesize that if humanity were to take understanding procedures, constructing viable patterns, and seeking dynamic balance as a foundational principle of civilization, it might become possible to simplify and clarify many questions that currently appear confusing, thereby upgrading human patterns of thought and enabling the structures supporting human civilization to become genuinely stable and sustainable.
Such a framework might then provide a social structure capable of carrying the immense power of AGI, and perhaps even offer new ways to approach other profound questions, including the nature of human consciousness.
I cannot properly explain this entire line of thought in a single email. If there is an opportunity, I would be grateful to present it more fully.
I hope that genuine scientists can help determine:
whether this direction has any value at all.
But ultimately, I do not wish to study only neural networks.
What I truly care about is this:
Can research into “elements — procedures — relationships — structures — feedback — properties” in complex systems be extended to the study of human social cooperation itself?
I provisionally call this direction:
“Human Social Cooperation Engineering.”
Its purpose is not to create a new ideology, nor to design a system that one person would impose upon all humanity.
What I envision is:
studying human social cooperation itself as a complex system scientifically.
This would involve studying:
through what procedures people establish relationships with one another;
what kinds of institutions are capable of producing stable structures of cooperation;
what forms of feedback can prevent power, wealth, information, or violence from concentrating continuously toward extremes;
what kinds of procedures can cause individually rational actors to produce collective catastrophe;
and:
how a human society composed of different interests, values, countries, and cultures can nevertheless form long-term, stable, adjustable, and sustainable forms of dynamic cooperation without depending continuously on mutual harm and fear.
If humanity could gradually establish a genuine discipline of “social cooperation engineering,” then its ultimate task would be:
to transform today’s lower-level “jungle civilization,” still characterized by strong patterns of mutual competition and harm, into a higher form of civilization capable of stable, harmonious, and sustainable cooperation.
I believe the arrival of AGI has suddenly transformed what once seemed like a question humanity could investigate slowly into one of the most urgent questions we face.
We may no longer have centuries in which technology races ahead while institutions slowly catch up only after repeated disasters.
This time, the institutions and theories of human social cooperation must, as far as possible, move ahead of technological catastrophe.
This is why I especially wanted to write to you.
I understand that it may seem highly unusual for an ordinary elderly Chinese man to write to the head of Google DeepMind and raise a question of such enormous scope.
I am therefore not asking you to accept my judgment.
I am asking only whether you might help answer:
Is this question worthy of serious investigation?
If you believe it is mistaken, I would sincerely welcome criticism.
If you believe even part of it deserves further examination, I would respectfully ask whether you might consider doing something more:
First, please consider helping arrange for genuinely qualified researchers to review the basic questions behind my “Procedural Determination Hypothesis” and the idea of “Human Social Cooperation Engineering.”
Second, if you believe that the stability of social-cooperation structures may indeed constitute an important precondition for AGI safety, I hope you might use your scientific influence to bring this question to researchers in artificial intelligence, complex systems, neuroscience, economics, law, social science, political science, and global governance.
Third, if after preliminary discussion this question is still considered worthy of attention, I especially hope you might help encourage a genuinely interdisciplinary and international conference to discuss openly:
Before humanity acquires unprecedented power through AGI, should we first systematically study what kinds of human social-cooperation structures are capable of safely carrying such power?
And:
Can humanity consciously upgrade its mechanisms of social cooperation, rather than once again waiting for the next technological revolution to force such an upgrade through enormous disaster?
This is the fundamental reason I am writing to you.
Based on my own past experiences, I am concerned that in the future, it may become very difficult for me to continue expressing these ideas freely in public, contacting international researchers, and participating in open discussion as I can now.
For this reason, while I am still able to communicate freely with the international community, I hope to place this question before as many people as possible who are genuinely capable of judging it.
I am not asking you to believe that:
I have found the answer.
What I am truly asking is simply:
Please help judge whether I have at least raised a question worthy of serious examination by humanity.
If this question is wrong,
please help prove it wrong.
If it deserves investigation,
please do not allow it to lose the opportunity to be seriously studied simply because the person raising it is an ordinary elderly Chinese man without a research institution or research funding.
Thank you very much for taking the time to read this unusual letter.
If you are willing to read the attached materials, they may help you better understand why I have written to you and the thinking behind this letter.
May artificial intelligence ultimately amplify humanity’s wisdom and capacity for cooperation, rather than our capacity to harm one another.
With sincere respect,
Pen name: Jin Guyu
Former Senior Judge of a Local Court in China
Author of the Letters to Everyone in the World series
Email: ——
Attachments
1. The Procedural Determination Hypothesis — A One-Page Challenge
2. The AI Era That Could End Civilization Before We Even Understand What Went Wrong Is Here — An Open Global Challenge to Bill Gates
3. A Request for Humanity to Jointly Study and Experiment with Strategic Directions for Upgrading Civilization: Who Can Guarantee That No One Will One Day Use AGI to Launch a “9/11” Against All Humanity?
4. A Renewed Request Concerning Human Cooperation, Civilization, and the Risks of AGI — Letter to Elon Musk
5. A Letter from a Former Senior Chinese Judge to President Xi Jinping and President Trump
6. A Semi-Open Letter from a Former Senior Chinese Judge to the European Union and Leaders of EU Member States: There May Be a Path Toward Understanding China and the Nature of Human Civilization (optional background material)
致 Demis Hassabis：在AGI到来以前，人类是否必须先升级自身的社会合作结构？
尊敬的 Demis Hassabis 先生：
您好！
我笔名金谷雨，一名来自中国的老人，曾任中国地方法院高级法官。
我冒昧给您写这封信，是因为我长期关注您关于人工智能、智能本质、意识以及人类未来的思考。
我尤其注意到，您不仅在推动AGI的发展，同时一直把“智能究竟是什么”“意识究竟是什么”看作人类尚未真正解决的基础科学问题，并且多次表达过对AGI快速到来、人工智能可控性以及人类社会是否已经做好准备的担忧。
这使我觉得，我长期思考的另一个问题，也许值得送到您面前，请您判断。
这个问题是：
在人类创造出远远超过今天能力的AGI以前，我们是不是还遗漏了另一个与“智能本质”同样基础的问题——人类自身究竟依靠什么样的社会合作结构，才能安全地承载这种力量？
我长期观察人类文明以后形成了一个判断：
在人类历史上，科学技术的迭代速度，几乎始终快于人类社会合作制度和社会理论的更新速度。
新的技术力量不断打破旧有的生产方式、利益关系、权力结构和人与人之间的合作方式。
但是，人类很少能够提前完成与新技术相匹配的制度和合作理论设计。
更多时候发生的是：
技术先向前突破，旧的社会合作模式承受不了新的力量，于是出现冲突、失衡甚至巨大的社会震荡；然后，人类才在危机和代价中，被迫更新制度、规则和合作方式。
从这个意义上说，人类文明过去的很多次重大制度进步，并不是走在技术革命前面，而是被技术革命“鞭策”甚至“逼迫”出来的。
在我看来，这形成了一个长期反复出现的过程：
技术进步
→ 原有社会合作结构失配
→ 社会震荡和冲突
→ 旧制度被打破
→ 新的合作制度和理论被迫产生
→ 形成新的暂时平衡。
过去，人类虽然为这种滞后付出过极其巨大的代价，但最终大体还能够在震荡以后重新建立新的社会合作秩序。
但是，人工智能，尤其是AGI，可能与人类过去经历的所有技术革命都不同。
过去的技术虽然能够摧毁旧制度、制造战争、改变社会结构，但它与人类社会合作制度之间的能力差距，通常仍然存在某种调整的时间和空间。
而这一次可能不同。
AGI的发展速度以及它可能赋予人类个体、组织、企业和国家的能力，与现有人类社会合作制度和理论之间的跨度，可能突然变得过于巨大。
所以我最担心的不是：
AGI会不会再一次“碾碎”一种落后的社会合作模式。
而是：
这一次，在旧的人类社会合作结构来得及完成迭代以前，AGI所释放和放大的力量，会不会连人类本身一起碾碎？
过去的技术革命可能迫使人类：
制度升级以后继续生活。
而AGI时代真正危险的地方可能在于：
人类未必还有经历一次巨大失败以后重新学习和重建的机会。
您长期研究大脑、智能和意识，也一直希望通过人工智能进一步理解现实和智能本身。
我非常认同这种追问基础问题的方法。
但是，我想进一步提出另一个基础问题：
即使有一天我们真正理解了智能甚至意识的本质，如果使用这种巨大智能力量的仍然是一个充满国家竞争、利益冲突、权力争夺、战争、欺骗、恐惧和相互不信任的人类社会，那么这种智能最终会把人类带向哪里？
今天的人类社会，在我看来，在很多根本层面仍然是一种我称之为：
“丛林式文明”
的社会合作状态。
我们已经能够制造高度先进的科技，但支配人与人、组织与组织、国家与国家关系的很多基础机制，仍然大量依赖竞争、威慑、控制以及相互防范。
所以AGI进入今天的人类社会以后，未必会首先放大人类文明的合作能力。
它可能首先放大的，恰恰是：
现有社会中每一个主体竞争、控制、欺骗和伤害其他主体的能力。
如果这种能力被放大百倍、千倍，那么即使AGI本身完全服从人类，即使所谓“AI失控”从未发生，也不能说明整个人类系统是安全的。
所以我一直在追问：
如果AI本身没有失控，但被AI放大的人类竞争系统失控了，我们还能说AI是安全的吗？
我也理解另一个极其现实的问题：
理论上，人类当然可以说：
“在所有问题都研究清楚以前，我们应该减慢AGI的发展。”
但是，在今天仍然具有强烈丛林竞争性质的国际环境中，这件事可能事实上根本做不到。
一个企业会担心另一个企业领先。
一个国家会担心另一个国家领先。
一个实验室会担心另一个实验室首先突破。
每一个参与者从自己的立场出发，都可能有非常充分的理由继续向前推进。
于是最终可能形成一个极其危险的结构：
每一个参与者单独看都在作出理性的选择，但所有理性选择叠加以后，却把全人类推向一个任何人都不真正希望到达的结果。
这正是我认为，仅仅要求“大家慢下来”，可能最终无法解决AGI风险的根本原因。
在一个以竞争为基础运行的合作结构中，很可能没有任何一个人真正能够让整个竞争过程停下来。
因此，人类现在真正需要解决的，可能不仅仅是：
如何使AI更加安全。
而是一个更基础的问题：
如何使使用AI的人类社会本身变得更加安全。
过去二十多年里，我从法律、司法、中国社会现实以及人类文明演变中不断思考这个问题。
我逐渐形成了一个自然哲学层面的假说，我暂时称之为：
“程序定质假说”（Procedural Determination Hypothesis）。
它试图讨论一个非常基础的问题：
一个复杂系统最终表现出怎样的性质，是否不仅取决于组成它的元素本身，还在很大程度上取决于这些元素通过什么程序形成关系、这些关系形成什么结构，以及这种结构如何通过反馈形成动态平衡？
如果用最简单的方式表达，就是：
程序 → 关系 → 结构 → 动态反馈 → 系统性质与结果。
我并不认为这个假说已经被证明。
恰恰相反，我希望把它交给科学界批评和检验。
最近我注意到一些神经科学和计算神经科学实验，包括果蝇全脑连接组、基于连接结构建立的果蝇计算模型，以及人类皮层类器官植入大鼠大脑以后形成实际功能连接的实验。
这些研究并没有证明我的假说。
但是，它们使我越来越感兴趣于一个可以实验化的问题：
在组成元素大体相同的条件下，如果改变元素形成关系和结构的方式，系统整体性质会发生怎样的变化？
以及反过来：
如果某些元素发生变化，但它们仍然被嵌入原有的整体关系结构，整个系统的基本性质是否仍然受到原结构的强烈约束？
我提出的“程序定质规律”的核心理念更在于这个方向的假说，如果不改变元素而只改变元素之间的动态排列组合合作模式，就能够决定了该模式的性质，那么就应可以进一步追问，如果其组合的元素内部也是按照这个规律来实现元素的性质的呢。由此一直推到量子振动层面。那么，在数学上，就可以将整个宇宙与人类及其社会文明的全部演绎中的公因数即量子提取出来，整个宇宙与人类本体及其社会文明全部演绎关联关系，就是只有程序组合构架的演绎，说明人类只要以抓程序、做模式、求平衡为文明标准之纲，就能简约化释明一切迷惑而觉醒来升级人类思维模式，使得承托人类文明的社会合作构架真正实现稳定可持续，来承托整个AGI能量而解开人类所有迷惑，包括人类意识的问题，.........具体的有机会再陈述。
我希望有真正的科学家帮助判断：
这个方向究竟有没有价值。
但我最终希望研究的并不只是神经网络。
我真正关心的是：
能不能把对复杂系统“元素—程序—关系—结构—反馈—性质”的研究，进一步用于研究人类社会合作本身？
我暂时把这个方向称为：
“人类社会合作工程”（Human Social Cooperation Engineering）。
它所试图解决的不是建立一种新的意识形态，更不是设计一种由某个人强加给全人类的制度。
我设想的是：
把人类社会合作本身作为一种复杂系统进行科学研究。
研究：
人与人按照什么程序建立关系；
什么样的制度能够形成稳定的合作结构；
什么样的反馈机制能够防止权力、财富、信息或者暴力不断向极端集中；
什么样的程序会把原本理性的个体推向集体性灾难；
以及：
怎样使一个由不同利益、不同价值、不同国家和不同文化组成的人类社会，在不依赖持续互害和恐惧的情况下，仍然能够形成长期稳定、可调整、可持续的动态合作。
如果我们能够逐步建立这样一门真正意义上的“社会合作工程”，那么它最终要解决的，就是：
怎样把今天仍然带有强烈互斗互害特征的低级“丛林式文明”，升级为一个能够稳定、和谐、可持续合作的更高级文明。
我认为，AGI的到来，使这个原来似乎可以慢慢研究的问题，突然变成了人类最紧迫的问题之一。
因为我们可能已经没有几百年时间，让技术继续在前面狂奔，再让制度在一次又一次灾难以后慢慢追赶。
这一次，人类社会合作制度和理论必须尽可能走到技术灾难的前面。
这也是我为什么特别希望给您写这封信。
我知道，一个普通中国老人写信给 Google DeepMind 的负责人，提出这样一个范围极大的问题，看起来可能非常不寻常。
所以我并不请求您接受我的判断。
我只是希望您能够帮助回答：
这个问题是不是值得认真研究？
如果您认为它是错误的，我非常希望得到批评。
如果您认为其中哪怕只有一部分值得进一步检验，我则想恳请您考虑能否做更多一点：
第一，请帮助安排真正有能力的研究人员审阅我提出的“程序定质假说”以及“人类社会合作工程”的基本问题。
第二，如果您认为“社会合作结构是否构成AGI安全的重要前提”确实值得研究，希望您能够利用自己的科学影响力，把这个问题介绍给更多人工智能、复杂系统、神经科学、经济学、法学、社会科学、政治学和全球治理领域的研究者。
第三，如果经过初步讨论以后，这个问题仍然被认为具有价值，我尤其希望您能够帮助推动一次真正跨学科、跨国家的国际会议，公开讨论：
在人类获得AGI这样前所未有的力量以前，是否应该先系统研究什么样的人类社会合作结构，才有能力安全地承载这种力量？
以及：
人类能否有意识地完成一次社会合作机制的升级，而不再等待下一次技术革命通过巨大灾难来强迫我们升级？
这就是我给您写这封信最根本的原因。
基于我个人过去的经历，我担心以后，很难再像现在这样自由地公开表达这些观点、联系国际研究者和参与讨论。
所以，我希望趁自己仍然能够与国际社会自由联系的时候，把这个问题尽可能送到真正有能力判断它的人面前。
我并不要求您相信：
我已经找到了答案。
我真正请求的只是：
请帮助判断，我是否至少提出了一个值得全人类认真检验的问题。
如果这个问题是错的，
请帮助证明它错。
如果这个问题值得研究，
请不要让它因为提出者只是一个没有研究机构、没有科研资金、已经年老的普通中国人，而失去一次被认真研究的机会。
非常感谢您阅读这封不同寻常的信。附上的附件，如果你愿意阅读，或许能帮助你进一步理解我为什么会给你写此信以及我的想法。
愿人工智能最终放大的，是人类的智慧与合作，而不是人类彼此伤害的能力。
谨致敬意！
笔名：金谷雨
曾任中国地方法院高级法官
《致全球每一个人的信》系列作者
Email: ——
附件
1、The Procedural Determination Hypothesis — A One-Page Challenge
2、The AI Era That Could End Civilization Before We Even Understand What Went Wrong Is Here — An Open Global Challenge to Bill Gates
3、A Request for Humanity to Jointly Study and Experiment with Strategic Directions for Upgrading Civilization: Who Can Guarantee That No One Will One Day Use AGI to Launch a “9/11” Against All Humanity?
4、A Renewed Request Concerning Human Cooperation, Civilization, and the Risks of AGI — Letter to Elon Musk
5、A Letter from a Former Senior Chinese Judge to President Xi Jinping and President Trump
6、A Semi-Open Letter from a Former Senior Chinese Judge to the European Union and Leaders of EU Member States: There May Be a Path Toward Understanding China and the Nature of Human Civilization (optional background material)