一名中国前高级法官公开致世界AI领军人物信之五：Kevin Kelly——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. 5: Kevin Kelly — 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 Kevin Kelly: When Artificial Intelligence Enters a “Jungle Civilization,” Does It Strengthen Civilization — or Humanity’s Capacity for Mutual Struggle and Harm?

Dear Mr. Kevin Kelly,

Greetings.

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 follow your thinking, and one important reason is that you do not view technology merely as a tool in human hands. Rather, you place technology within a much longer process of evolution, observing how it expands possibilities, changes humanity, and changes civilization itself.

For that reason, I especially wish to ask you a question.

It can be expressed very simply:

When artificial intelligence enters a human civilization that still operates to a great extent according to the logic of the jungle, what does it strengthen first: humanity’s capacity to create civilization, or humanity’s capacity to struggle against and harm one another?

If the answer is mainly the latter, what happens next?

Will humanity be completely destroyed by some accident, misjudgment, escalation of competition, or runaway feedback — or will it be forced to evolve along an entirely different civilizational path?

That is the question I truly wish to ask you in this letter.

By “jungle civilization,” I do not mean that humanity today has no civilization.

Quite the opposite.

Humanity has created astonishing achievements in science, law, institutions, art, ethics, and technology.

But if we examine the underlying structure of social cooperation, we still seem to rely heavily on some very ancient mechanisms to maintain security and order:

competition;
deterrence;
balance of power;
exchange of interests;
control;
defense;
mutual suspicion;
and preventing others from harming us by possessing an even greater capacity to harm them.

States do this.

Corporations do this.

Political groups do this.

Many interpersonal relationships do this as well.

This gives rise to a strange paradox of civilization:

For the sake of peace, we continually increase our capacity for war.
For the sake of security, we continually increase our capacity for mutual deterrence.
In order not to be controlled, we seek greater power to control others.
In order to prevent ourselves from being harmed, we first acquire a greater capacity to inflict harm.

In the past, although this structure was dangerous, humanity may still have had time to correct itself after one disaster after another.

After wars, humanity created new rules.

After crises, humanity redesigned institutions.

After mistakes, humanity slowly learned.

But AI may change the timescale.

AI is not entering an empty human world.

It is entering our already existing:

relations among states;

military systems;

commercial competition;

financial systems;

political struggles;

information systems;

ideological conflicts;

individual desires;

and existing structures of human cooperation and confrontation.

So perhaps the real question is not:

“Is AI itself good or evil?”

But rather:

“Once AI enters today’s human relationship structures, which forces will call upon it first, and which structures will it amplify first?”

If AI increases scientific research capacity a hundredfold,

it can certainly help cure disease.

But it can also increase weapons research capacity a hundredfold.

If AI increases information capacity a thousandfold,

it can certainly help humanity gain knowledge.

But it can also increase deception, manipulation, surveillance, and cognitive warfare a thousandfold.

If AI greatly improves decision-making and organizational efficiency,

it can help humanity cooperate,

but it can also allow already competing states, corporations, and organizations to compete far more effectively.

Therefore, what I truly worry about is not:

AI suddenly becoming bad.

It is:

AI very faithfully and efficiently helping us continue doing things according to the structures we already have today.

If the underlying structure itself contains a problem, then an increasingly powerful AI may first make that problem increasingly powerful.

This leads me to a very simple question:

What is the relationship between the speed of technological progress and the speed of progress in human social cooperation structures?

If technological capability grows exponentially,

while the human ways of handling interests, power, security, responsibility, and mutual trust can still only be corrected slowly through war, crisis, and catastrophe,

will there emerge an ever-widening “civilizational speed gap” between the two?

Technology becomes stronger every day.

But humanity’s ways of cooperating may still remain trapped in structures that have repeated themselves for centuries or even millennia.

If this speed gap continues to widen, then what AI first brings humanity may not be an entirely new civilization,

but rather:

an increasingly powerful engine installed in an old civilization.

The question then becomes:

Where will an old direction, combined with immense new power, take us?

After thinking about this problem for many years, I developed a hypothesis that still needs to be tested.

I call it:

the Procedural Determination Hypothesis.

Its simplest expression is:

Procedures form relationships; relationships form structures; structures generate dynamic balance or imbalance through continuous feedback; and this ultimately appears as the properties and outcomes of a system.

It can also be written as:

procedure → relationship → structure → dynamic feedback → system properties and outcomes.

I do not know whether this hypothesis will ultimately prove valid.

I would rather have scientists search for counterexamples, test it, and even prove it wrong.

But if there is some truth in this direction, then perhaps when we examine AI, we should not ask only:

How intelligent is the model?

What values does the model possess?

Does the model obey humans?

We must also ask:

What procedures does it enter?
With whom does it form relationships?
What permissions does it possess?
What interests drive it?
What feedback does it receive?
And what kind of social structure does it ultimately enter?

Because the same technology, once placed within different relationship structures, can produce entirely different civilizational outcomes.

So I would like to place the question before you more directly.

You have spent much of your work thinking about technological evolution.

From an evolutionary perspective, which of the following paths do you think is more likely?

Path One: AI Strengthens Civilizational Capacity

AI improves knowledge, creativity, production, medicine, education, and social coordination.

Humanity gradually uses new intelligence to reduce resource conflict, improve institutions, increase transparency, and expand cooperation.

AI therefore becomes a force driving civilizational advancement.

This is the future we most hope to see.

Path Two: AI First Strengthens the Capacity for Mutual Struggle and Harm

States use AI against states.

Corporations use AI to defeat corporations.

Political forces use AI to compete for power.

Individuals use AI to compete for interests.

From each side’s local perspective, this may be rational:

“Others are becoming stronger, so I cannot afford not to become stronger.”

The result, however, is an increasingly powerful positive feedback loop:

You strengthen — I strengthen.

I strengthen — you feel less secure.

You feel less secure — you strengthen further.

In the end, everyone becomes more powerful than before,

yet no one becomes safer.

If this process continues,

superintelligence may never need to “betray humanity.”

Human beings themselves may use superintelligence to increase their capacity for mutual struggle and harm to a level civilization can no longer withstand.

If the second path really emerges,

then the third question I most want to ask you is:

How will humanity evolve from there?

One possibility is:

destruction.

A seemingly minor error;

a military misjudgment;

an unexpected action by an AI agent;

a chain reaction involving finance, energy, nuclear weapons, biotechnology, or cyber systems,

amplified by extreme speed and enormous capability,

may eventually cross a threshold from which humanity can no longer return.

That may not be anyone’s plan.

There may not even be an “enemy” in the ordinary sense.

Every participant may simply be doing something “rational” according to a local objective,

yet together they may produce a catastrophic global outcome.

But is there another possibility?

Namely:

Could immense technological pressure force the structure of human social cooperation itself to undergo a fundamental evolution?

Could humanity, perhaps for the first time, be forced to recognize that the real issue is not merely:

who possesses stronger technology;

who controls more resources;

who wins the competition;

but rather:

By what procedures are our relationships organized?

In other words,

could technological evolution eventually force civilization itself to undergo an evolution of social cooperation structures?

If, in the past:

scarcity of resources pushed humans toward cooperation;

war pushed the formation of states;

trade pushed the creation of international rules;

nuclear weapons pushed humanity toward certain new strategic constraints,

then could artificial intelligence become an even stronger evolutionary pressure:

forcing humanity to move gradually from a civilization that maintains security through the capacity for mutual harm toward one that maintains security through stable structures of cooperation?

If so,

then perhaps the greatest revolution ultimately driven by AI

will not be the machine intelligence revolution,

but rather:

a revolution in how human beings cooperate with one another.

For this reason, I have proposed another still-immature concept:

Human Social Cooperation Engineering.

It is not an attempt to turn human beings into machines.

Rather, I simply wish to ask:

If humanity can already systematically study:

why bridges collapse;

why aircraft lose control;

why networks fail;

why AI systems produce unintended behavior,

then can we also study more systematically:

why social cooperation becomes unstable?

Can we study:

What kinds of procedures tend to generate trust?

What kinds of relationships inevitably amplify suspicion?

What kinds of power structures continually reinforce themselves?

What kinds of feedback push all participants toward outcomes that none of them actually desire?

How can each participant protect legitimate interests without destroying the conditions under which the entire system can continue to cooperate?

If these questions can be observed, compared, modeled, tested, and falsified,

then perhaps humanity can, for the first time, move beyond relying only on moral appeals such as:

“Everyone should cooperate.”

And begin to truly understand:

“What kinds of structures make cooperation a rational and sustainable outcome over the long term?”

I summarize the civilizational principle I currently understand in nine Chinese characters:

抓程序、做模式、求平衡

which can only be translated approximately as:

grasp the procedure, build the pattern, seek the balance.

This does not require everyone to accept the same religion,

nor does it require every country to adopt the same political system,

nor does it require the whole world to hold exactly the same values.

What it truly asks is:

When different people, different nations, and different civilizations possess different values and interests,

is there a more fundamental procedure of cooperation that allows differences to continue to coexist over the long term?

If there is not,

then the stronger AI becomes,

the more efficiently we may simply come into conflict with one another.

If there is,

then AI may, for the first time, be used to help humanity discover, simulate, test, and optimize these cooperative structures.

Mr. Kelly,

I have noticed that you have consistently maintained a rare form of long-term optimism about the future.

I do not wish to use catastrophic imagination to argue against that optimism.

In fact, what I most want to ask you is:

What civilizational structural conditions can truly support long-term optimism?

If technology naturally continues to expand the space of possibility,

then:

What determines whether humanity uses that ever-expanding possibility space for creation rather than destruction?

If AI gives humanity, perhaps for the first time, an almost indefinitely expandable capacity for cognition and action,

then:

Do we also need to upgrade the civilizational procedures that determine how these capabilities interact with one another?

Otherwise,

technological evolution may become increasingly advanced,

while the social relationships into which technology enters may still preserve the most ancient logic of the jungle.

Can these two continue to coexist indefinitely?

So what I truly hope to ask you is not for one answer, but for several questions:

First, when AI enters today’s human social structures, do you believe it will first amplify civilizational cooperation or competitive and harmful capacity? Why?

Second, if AI amplifies both for a considerable period of time, which force is likely to grow faster?

Third, if the capacity for mutual struggle and harm crosses a dangerous threshold first, is humanity more likely to be destroyed by an accident, or to be forced by survival pressure to upgrade its cooperative structures?

Fourth, could the evolution of technology itself eventually force a structural transformation in human social relations comparable to an evolutionary leap?

Fifth, if such a transformation is possible, should we wait for catastrophe to force it upon us, or can we begin in advance to treat the structure of human social cooperation itself as a serious object of scientific study and experimentation?

I do not know the answers to these questions.

Nor do I know whether my Procedural Determination Hypothesis is correct.

But I am increasingly convinced of this:

If humanity upgrades intelligence without upgrading the structures through which intelligences cooperate with one another, then “smarter” does not necessarily mean “more civilized.”

We may even encounter an extraordinary historical contrast:

Humanity may create the most intelligent tools in the history of civilization, while still using the oldest logic of the jungle to determine how those tools interact with one another.

That may be one of the things most worth worrying about in the age of artificial intelligence.

But it may also imply another possibility:

Artificial intelligence may ultimately do more than change what humanity is capable of doing.

It may force humanity to reconsider:

How should we act together?

If this latter path can be discovered proactively, instead of being found only after humanity is forced onto it by immense catastrophe,

then artificial intelligence may truly become a civilizational upgrade rather than merely a capability upgrade.

This is the question on which I most hope to hear your thoughts and criticism.

If the question itself is worth discussing, I also hope you might place it before more people who study technology, complex systems, civilizational evolution, and artificial intelligence, so that they too may challenge it.

If my direction is wrong,

please help point out where it is wrong.

If there is even a small part of it that deserves further study,

please help transform it from the reflections of an ordinary old man into a question that more people can examine together.

Thank you for reading this letter.

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:——

（This is followed by the original Chinese text of the letter.）

致凯文·凯利：当人工智能闯入“丛林文明”，它增强的究竟是文明能力，还是人类互斗互害的能量？

尊敬的 Kevin Kelly 先生：

您好！

我笔名金谷雨，是一名来自中国的老人，曾任中国地方法院高级法官。

我关注您的思想，一个重要原因是：您并不只是把技术看作人类手中的某一件工具，而是把技术放进一个更长的演化过程之中，观察它怎样扩展可能性、改变人类，也改变文明本身。

因此，我特别想向您请教一个问题。

这个问题可以非常简单地表达为：

当人工智能闯入今天仍然具有强烈“丛林逻辑”的人类文明以后，它首先增强的，究竟是人类创造文明的能力，还是人类互斗互害的能量？

如果答案主要是后者，那么接下来会发生什么？

人类会在某一次意外、误判、竞争升级或者失控反馈中全部毁灭，还是会在巨大压力之下走出另外一条文明演绎路径？

这就是我写这封信真正想请教您的问题。

这里所说的“丛林文明”，并不是说今天的人类没有文明。

恰恰相反。

人类已经创造了令人惊叹的科学、法律、制度、艺术、伦理和技术。

但如果从社会合作结构的底层观察，我们似乎仍然大量依靠一些非常古老的机制维持安全与秩序：

竞争；
威慑；
实力平衡；
利益交换；
控制；
防范；
相互猜疑；
以更强大的伤害能力阻止对方伤害自己。

国家如此。

企业如此。

政治集团如此。

很多人与人之间的关系也是如此。

于是就出现一个奇怪的文明悖论：

为了和平，我们不断增强战争能力；
为了安全，我们不断增强相互威慑能力；
为了不被控制，我们努力获得控制别人的能力；
为了防止受到伤害，我们先获得更强的伤害能力。

在过去，这种结构虽然危险，人类也许还有时间在一次次灾难之后修正。

战争发生以后，人类建立新的规则。

危机发生以后，人类重新设计制度。

错误发生以后，人类慢慢学习。

但是AI可能改变这个时间尺度。

AI并不是进入一个空白的人类世界。

它进入的是我们已经存在的：

国家关系；

军事体系；

商业竞争；

金融体系；

政治斗争；

信息传播；

意识形态冲突；

个人欲望；

以及人与人之间已有的合作与对抗结构。

那么真正的问题也许不是：

“AI本身是善还是恶？”

而是：

“当AI进入今天这种人类关系结构以后，它会被什么力量首先调用，并被什么结构首先放大？”

如果AI使科研能力增长一百倍，

它当然可以帮助治疗疾病。

但它也可以使武器研究能力增长一百倍。

如果AI使信息能力增长一千倍，

它当然可以帮助人类获得知识。

但它也可以使欺骗、操纵、监视和认知战争的能力增长一千倍。

如果AI使决策和组织效率大幅提高，

它可以帮助人类合作，

也可以让原本互相竞争的国家、企业和组织更加高效地竞争。

因此，我真正担心的并不是：

AI突然变坏。

而是：

AI非常忠实、非常高效地帮助我们继续按照今天的结构做事。

如果今天的底层结构本身存在问题，那么一个越来越强大的AI，也许首先会使这个问题变得越来越强大。

这让我想到一个非常朴素的问题：

技术进步的速度，与人类社会合作结构进步的速度，究竟是什么关系？

假如技术能力呈指数级增长，

而人类处理利益、权力、安全、责任和相互信任的方式仍然只能通过战争、危机和灾难慢慢纠正，

那么两者之间是否会出现一个越来越大的“文明速度差”？

技术每天都在变强。

但人类合作方式却可能仍然停留在几百年甚至几千年来反复出现的结构里。

如果这种速度差持续扩大，那么AI带给人类的首先可能不是一种全新的文明，

而是：

给旧文明安装上一个越来越强大的发动机。

问题就变成了：

旧的方向，加上新的巨大动力，会把我们带到哪里？

我长期思考这个问题以后，形成了一个仍然需要检验的假说。

我把它叫作：

“程序定质假说”（Procedural Determination Hypothesis）。

它最简单的表达是：

程序形成关系，关系形成结构，结构通过持续反馈形成动态平衡或失衡，并最终表现为一个系统的性质和结果。

也可以写成：

程序 → 关系 → 结构 → 动态反馈 → 系统性质与结果。

我并不知道这个假说最终能否成立。

我更希望科学家寻找反例、检验它，甚至证明它错误。

但如果这个方向存在一部分真实性，那么我们观察AI时，也许不能只问：

模型有多聪明？

模型拥有什么价值？

模型是否服从人类？

我们还必须问：

它进入了什么程序？
与谁形成关系？
拥有怎样的权限？
被什么利益驱动？
受到怎样的反馈？
最后进入了什么样的社会结构？

因为同一种技术进入不同关系结构以后，完全可能产生不同的文明结果。

于是，我想把问题进一步交给您。

您长期思考技术的演化。

那么从演化的角度看，您认为下面哪一种路径更可能发生？

第一条路径：AI增强文明能力

AI提高知识、创造、生产、医疗、教育和社会协调能力。

人类逐渐利用新的智能降低资源冲突，改善制度，提高透明度，扩展合作。

AI因此成为推动文明升级的力量。

这是我们最希望看到的未来。

第二条路径：AI首先增强互斗互害的能力

国家使用AI对抗国家。

企业使用AI击败企业。

政治力量使用AI争夺权力。

个人使用AI争夺利益。

每一方从自己的局部角度看，都可能是理性的：

“别人正在增强，所以我不能不增强。”

结果却形成一个越来越强的正反馈：

你增强——我增强；

我增强——你更加不安全；

你更加不安全——你继续增强；

最终每个人都比以前更强大，

却没有任何人因此更加安全。

如果这种过程一直持续，

超级智能也许根本不需要“背叛人类”。

人类自己就可能借助超级智能，把互斗互害能力提高到文明无法承受的程度。

如果第二条路径真的出现，

那么我最想请教您的，就是第三个问题：

人类随后会怎样演化？

一种可能是：

毁灭。

某个不起眼的错误；

某次军事误判；

某个AI agent未经预期的行为；

一次金融、能源、核武器、生物技术或者网络系统的连锁反应，

经过极高速度和巨大能力放大以后，

最终越过人类无法返回的临界点。

那可能不是任何人的计划。

甚至没有真正意义上的“敌人”。

所有参与者都只是在自己的局部目标下做“合理”的事，

最终却共同制造了毁灭性的整体结果。

但是，还有没有另一种可能？

也就是：

巨大的技术压力反而迫使人类社会合作结构本身发生一次根本演化。

人类第一次不得不认识到：

真正的问题不仅是：

谁拥有更强的技术；

谁掌握更多资源；

谁赢得竞争；

而是：

我们的关系究竟按照什么程序组织？

也就是说，

技术演化最终是否会反过来迫使文明完成一次“社会合作结构的演化”？

如果过去：

资源不足推动合作；

战争推动国家形成；

贸易推动国际规则形成；

核武器推动人类建立某些新的战略约束，

那么人工智能是否可能成为一种更加强大的演化压力：

迫使人类从以互害能力维持安全的文明，逐步走向以稳定合作结构维持安全的文明？

如果是这样，

AI真正推动的最大革命，

也许最终不是机器智能革命，

而是：

人类社会合作方式的革命。

我因此提出另一个尚不成熟的概念：

“人类社会合作工程”（Human Social Cooperation Engineering）。

它并不是要把人变成机器。

相反，我只是想问：

既然人类已经能够工程化地研究：

桥梁为什么会倒塌；

飞机为什么会失控；

网络为什么会崩溃；

AI系统为什么会产生不期望行为，

那么我们能不能也更加系统地研究：

社会合作为什么会失衡？

能不能研究：

什么样的程序容易形成信任？

什么样的关系必然放大猜疑？

怎样的权力结构会不断自我强化？

怎样的反馈会把所有参与者推向共同不希望看到的结果？

怎样使每个参与者在维护自己合理利益的同时，不破坏整个系统继续合作的条件？

如果这些问题能够被观察、比较、建模、实验和证伪，

那么人类也许第一次有可能不仅依靠道德呼吁：

“大家应该合作。”

而开始真正理解：

“怎样的结构能够使合作成为长期理性的结果。”

我把自己目前理解的文明做事原则压缩为九个中国字：

抓程序、做模式、求平衡。

英文只能近似表达为：

grasp the procedure, build the pattern, seek the balance.

这不是要求所有人接受同一种宗教，

也不是要求所有国家接受同一种政治制度，

更不是要求全世界拥有完全相同的价值。

它真正追问的是：

当不同的人、不同国家、不同文明拥有不同价值和利益时，

有没有一种更底层的合作程序，使不同者仍然能够长期共同存在？

如果没有，

AI能力越强，

可能只是让彼此冲突得更有效率。

如果有，

AI也许第一次可以被用于帮助人类发现、模拟、检验和优化这些合作结构。

Kelly先生，

我注意到，您始终对未来保持一种罕见的长期乐观。

我并不希望用灾难想象反驳这种乐观。

事实上，我更想请教：

真正能够支撑长期乐观的文明结构条件究竟是什么？

如果技术天然不断扩展“可能性”，

那么：

什么决定人类从这些越来越大的可能性空间中，选择创造，而不是毁灭？

如果AI将使人类第一次拥有接近无限扩展的认知和行动能力，

那么：

我们是否同时需要升级决定这些能力如何彼此发生关系的文明程序？

否则，

技术的演化可能越来越先进，

但技术所进入的社会关系却仍然保持着丛林时代最古老的逻辑。

这两者能够长期共存吗？

所以，我希望真正向您请教的，并不是一个答案，而是几个问题：

第一，您认为AI进入今天的人类社会结构以后，首先会放大文明合作能力，还是竞争和互害能力？为什么？

第二，如果AI在相当长时间内同时放大两者，哪一种力量会增长得更快？

第三，如果互斗互害能力率先跨过危险临界点，人类更可能因为一次意外而毁灭，还是会因为生存压力而被迫升级合作结构？

第四，技术自身的演化是否可能最终倒逼人类社会关系发生一次类似“物种跃迁”的结构性变化？

第五，如果这种变化可能发生，我们是否应该等待灾难迫使它发生，还是可以提前把“人类社会合作结构”本身变成一个严肃的科学研究和实验对象？

我不知道这些问题的答案。

我也不知道我的“程序定质假说”是不是正确。

但我越来越确信：

如果人类只升级智能，却不升级智能之间彼此合作的结构，那么“更聪明”未必等于“更文明”。

甚至可能出现一个极大的历史反差：

人类创造出了文明史上最聪明的工具，却仍然用最古老的丛林逻辑决定这些工具彼此怎样发生作用。

这可能是人工智能时代真正值得警惕的事情。

但它也可能意味着另一种可能：

人工智能最终不仅改变人类能够做什么，

还迫使人类重新理解：

我们究竟应该怎样共同做事。

如果后一条路能够被主动发现，而不是必须等到巨大灾难以后才被迫走上去，

那么人工智能也许真的能够成为一次文明升级，而不仅仅是一次能力升级。

这就是我最希望听到您思考和批评的问题。

如果这个问题本身值得讨论，我也希望您能够把它交给更多研究技术、复杂系统、文明演化和人工智能的人共同质疑。

如果我的方向错了，

请帮助指出它错在哪里。

如果其中存在值得研究的一小部分，

也请帮助把它从一个普通老人的思考，变成一个可以由更多人共同检验的问题。

谢谢您阅读这封信。

谨向您致以诚挚的敬意！

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:——