一名中國前高級法官公開致世界AI領軍人物信之二：哈薩比斯——人類是否忽視而遺漏了支撐文明的底層規律？

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.

——特別題註：

標題中寫入“前高級法官”，只是為了讓這封信多獲得一點被看見的機會，並不是希望讀者關注我是誰，以及在用什麼方式表述所說之事。

我只是一個極其普通的老人。我真正想講的，也是一條看起來極其普通的規律——普通到任何人做任何事都離不開它，也因此這規律就像空氣一樣，因為人過於熟悉而長期被忽略。

我真正希望全人類共同鑑別的是：

這樣一個“普通”的底層規律，是否事實上決定着人的行為、社會合作乃至文明興衰的成敗？它是否正是人類長期沒有真正認清的文明底層支撐規律？

所以，誰在說並不重要，說的事情是否真實，才值得所有人關注。

自2014年以來，我持續向政府寫信，也不斷聯繫媒體、社會組織、學者和各領域人士，並陸續發表《致全球每一個人的信》及相關文章。今天決定公開部分致世界AI領軍人物的信，仍然只有一個目的：

把這個問題交給全人類共同甄別。

因為我認為，對這樣一個可能關係整個人類文明方向的問題，政府和國際組織有責任研究，媒體有義務幫助公眾了解，每一個人也都有參與判斷的權利。

今天人類面對的，已經不僅是通常歷史意義上的“十字路口選擇”。如果原有文明運行方式本身存在底層問題，那麼前後左右可能都只是舊模式的重複，且這次可能是最接近不斷加速毀滅全人類的一次。

真正需要改變的是向上抬升，也許首先是人類觀察世界和判斷價值的思維模式。

我提出的核心判斷是：

程序形成關係，關係形成結構，結構通過反饋形成動態平衡，並最終表現為系統的性質與結果。

由此，我把文明最基本的做事標準概括為：

抓程序、做模式、求平衡。

我認為，這與過去許多宏大文明理論最大的區別在於：它並不首先要求人們接受某一種宗教、主義或具體價值目標，而試圖提供一個人人都能夠理解、能夠用於具體做事、也能夠接受事實檢驗的共同抓手。

如果這個方向是錯的，希望全人類幫助證明它錯。

如果它確實觸及了某種底層規律，那麼人類也許可以由此重新夯實社會合作結構的基礎，使文明從長期反覆的互斗、互害和戰爭循環中，逐步走向穩定、和諧、可持續的合作。

這也是我公開這些信件的唯一原因。

不是希望全世界關注寫信的人，而是希望全世界認真看看這些信究竟提出了什麼問題。

最後說明：部分網站存在字數或字符限制，因此網上看到的某些信件可能不是全文。如內容不完整，可以按照信件的中文或英文標題搜索全文，也可以通過與致信對象相關AI企業公開郵箱的聯繫方式，請其協助查找或轉交完整版本。）

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到來以前，人類是否必須先升級自身的社會合作結構？

尊敬的 Demis Hassabis 先生：

您好！

我筆名金穀雨，一名來自中國的老人，曾任中國地方法院高級法官。

我冒昧給您寫這封信，是因為我長期關注您關於人工智能、智能本質、意識以及人類未來的思考。

我尤其注意到，您不僅在推動AGI的發展，同時一直把“智能究竟是什麼”“意識究竟是什麼”看作人類尚未真正解決的基礎科學問題，並且多次表達過對AGI快速到來、人工智能可控性以及人類社會是否已經做好準備的擔憂。

這使我覺得，我長期思考的另一個問題，也許值得送到您面前，請您判斷。

這個問題是：

在人類創造出遠遠超過今天能力的AGI以前，我們是不是還遺漏了另一個與“智能本質”同樣基礎的問題——人類自身究竟依靠什麼樣的社會合作結構，才能安全地承載這種力量？

我長期觀察人類文明以後形成了一個判斷：

在人類歷史上，科學技術的迭代速度，幾乎始終快於人類社會合作制度和社會理論的更新速度。

新的技術力量不斷打破舊有的生產方式、利益關係、權力結構和人與人之間的合作方式。

但是，人類很少能夠提前完成與新技術相匹配的制度和合作理論設計。

更多時候發生的是：

技術先向前突破，舊的社會合作模式承受不了新的力量，於是出現衝突、失衡甚至巨大的社會震盪；然後，人類才在危機和代價中，被迫更新制度、規則和合作方式。

從這個意義上說，人類文明過去的很多次重大制度進步，並不是走在技術革命前面，而是被技術革命“鞭策”甚至“逼迫”出來的。

在我看來，這形成了一個長期反覆出現的過程：

技術進步
→ 原有社會合作結構失配
→ 社會震盪和衝突
→ 舊制度被打破
→ 新的合作制度和理論被迫產生
→ 形成新的暫時平衡。

過去，人類雖然為這種滯後付出過極其巨大的代價，但最終大體還能夠在震盪以後重新建立新的社會合作秩序。

但是，人工智能，尤其是AGI，可能與人類過去經歷的所有技術革命都不同。

過去的技術雖然能夠摧毀舊制度、製造戰爭、改變社會結構，但它與人類社會合作制度之間的能力差距，通常仍然存在某種調整的時間和空間。

而這一次可能不同。

AGI的發展速度以及它可能賦予人類個體、組織、企業和國家的能力，與現有人類社會合作制度和理論之間的跨度，可能突然變得過於巨大。

所以我最擔心的不是：

AGI會不會再一次“碾碎”一種落後的社會合作模式。

而是：

這一次，在舊的人類社會合作結構來得及完成迭代以前，AGI所釋放和放大的力量，會不會連人類本身一起碾碎？

過去的技術革命可能迫使人類：

制度升級以後繼續生活。

而AGI時代真正危險的地方可能在於：

人類未必還有經歷一次巨大失敗以後重新學習和重建的機會。

您長期研究大腦、智能和意識，也一直希望通過人工智能進一步理解現實和智能本身。

我非常認同這種追問基礎問題的方法。

但是，我想進一步提出另一個基礎問題：

即使有一天我們真正理解了智能甚至意識的本質，如果使用這種巨大智能力量的仍然是一個充滿國家競爭、利益衝突、權力爭奪、戰爭、欺騙、恐懼和相互不信任的人類社會，那麼這種智能最終會把人類帶向哪裡？

今天的人類社會，在我看來，在很多根本層面仍然是一種我稱之為：

“叢林式文明”

的社會合作狀態。

我們已經能夠製造高度先進的科技，但支配人與人、組織與組織、國家與國家關係的很多基礎機制，仍然大量依賴競爭、威懾、控制以及相互防範。

所以AGI進入今天的人類社會以後，未必會首先放大人類文明的合作能力。

它可能首先放大的，恰恰是：

現有社會中每一個主體競爭、控制、欺騙和傷害其他主體的能力。

如果這種能力被放大百倍、千倍，那麼即使AGI本身完全服從人類，即使所謂“AI失控”從未發生，也不能說明整個人類系統是安全的。

所以我一直在追問：

如果AI本身沒有失控，但被AI放大的人類競爭系統失控了，我們還能說AI是安全的嗎？

我也理解另一個極其現實的問題：

理論上，人類當然可以說：

“在所有問題都研究清楚以前，我們應該減慢AGI的發展。”

但是，在今天仍然具有強烈叢林競爭性質的國際環境中，這件事可能事實上根本做不到。

一個企業會擔心另一個企業領先。

一個國家會擔心另一個國家領先。

一個實驗室會擔心另一個實驗室首先突破。

每一個參與者從自己的立場出發，都可能有非常充分的理由繼續向前推進。

於是最終可能形成一個極其危險的結構：

每一個參與者單獨看都在作出理性的選擇，但所有理性選擇疊加以後，卻把全人類推向一個任何人都不真正希望到達的結果。

這正是我認為，僅僅要求“大家慢下來”，可能最終無法解決AGI風險的根本原因。

在一個以競爭為基礎運行的合作結構中，很可能沒有任何一個人真正能夠讓整個競爭過程停下來。

因此，人類現在真正需要解決的，可能不僅僅是：

如何使AI更加安全。

而是一個更基礎的問題：

如何使使用AI的人類社會本身變得更加安全。

過去二十多年裡，我從法律、司法、中國社會現實以及人類文明演變中不斷思考這個問題。

我逐漸形成了一個自然哲學層面的假說，我暫時稱之為：

“程序定質假說”（Procedural Determination Hypothesis）。

它試圖討論一個非常基礎的問題：

一個複雜系統最終表現出怎樣的性質，是否不僅取決於組成它的元素本身，還在很大程度上取決於這些元素通過什麼程序形成關係、這些關係形成什麼結構，以及這種結構如何通過反饋形成動態平衡？

如果用最簡單的方式表達，就是：

程序 → 關係 → 結構 → 動態反饋 → 系統性質與結果。

我並不認為這個假說已經被證明。

恰恰相反，我希望把它交給科學界批評和檢驗。

最近我注意到一些神經科學和計算神經科學實驗，包括果蠅全腦連接組、基於連接結構建立的果蠅計算模型，以及人類皮層類器官植入大鼠大腦以後形成實際功能連接的實驗。

這些研究並沒有證明我的假說。

但是，它們使我越來越感興趣於一個可以實驗化的問題：

在組成元素大體相同的條件下，如果改變元素形成關係和結構的方式，系統整體性質會發生怎樣的變化？

以及反過來：

如果某些元素發生變化，但它們仍然被嵌入原有的整體關繫結構，整個系統的基本性質是否仍然受到原結構的強烈約束？

我提出的“程序定質規律”的核心理念更在於這個方向的假說，如果不改變元素而只改變元素之間的動態排列組合合作模式，就能夠決定了該模式的性質，那麼就應可以進一步追問，如果其組合的元素內部也是按照這個規律來實現元素的性質的呢。由此一直推到量子振動層面。那麼，在數學上，就可以將整個宇宙與人類及其社會文明的全部演繹中的公因數即量子提取出來，整個宇宙與人類本體及其社會文明全部演繹關聯關係，就是只有程序組合構架的演繹，說明人類只要以抓程序、做模式、求平衡為文明標準之綱，就能簡約化釋明一切迷惑而覺醒來升級人類思維模式，使得承托人類文明的社會合作構架真正實現穩定可持續，來承托整個AGI能量而解開人類所有迷惑，包括人類意識的問題，.........具體的有機會再陳述。

我希望有真正的科學家幫助判斷：

這個方向究竟有沒有價值。

但我最終希望研究的並不只是神經網絡。

我真正關心的是：

能不能把對複雜系統“元素—程序—關係—結構—反饋—性質”的研究，進一步用於研究人類社會合作本身？

我暫時把這個方向稱為：

“人類社會合作工程”（Human Social Cooperation Engineering）。

它所試圖解決的不是建立一種新的意識形態，更不是設計一種由某個人強加給全人類的制度。

我設想的是：

把人類社會合作本身作為一種複雜系統進行科學研究。

研究：

人與人按照什麼程序建立關係；

什麼樣的制度能夠形成穩定的合作結構；

什麼樣的反饋機制能夠防止權力、財富、信息或者暴力不斷向極端集中；

什麼樣的程序會把原本理性的個體推向集體性災難；

以及：

怎樣使一個由不同利益、不同價值、不同國家和不同文化組成的人類社會，在不依賴持續互害和恐懼的情況下，仍然能夠形成長期穩定、可調整、可持續的動態合作。

如果我們能夠逐步建立這樣一門真正意義上的“社會合作工程”，那麼它最終要解決的，就是：

怎樣把今天仍然帶有強烈互斗互害特徵的低級“叢林式文明”，升級為一個能夠穩定、和諧、可持續合作的更高級文明。

我認為，AGI的到來，使這個原來似乎可以慢慢研究的問題，突然變成了人類最緊迫的問題之一。

因為我們可能已經沒有幾百年時間，讓技術繼續在前面狂奔，再讓制度在一次又一次災難以後慢慢追趕。

這一次，人類社會合作制度和理論必須儘可能走到技術災難的前面。

這也是我為什麼特別希望給您寫這封信。

我知道，一個普通中國老人寫信給 Google DeepMind 的負責人，提出這樣一個範圍極大的問題，看起來可能非常不尋常。

所以我並不請求您接受我的判斷。

我只是希望您能夠幫助回答：

這個問題是不是值得認真研究？

如果您認為它是錯誤的，我非常希望得到批評。

如果您認為其中哪怕只有一部分值得進一步檢驗，我則想懇請您考慮能否做更多一點：

第一，請幫助安排真正有能力的研究人員審閱我提出的“程序定質假說”以及“人類社會合作工程”的基本問題。

第二，如果您認為“社會合作結構是否構成AGI安全的重要前提”確實值得研究，希望您能夠利用自己的科學影響力，把這個問題介紹給更多人工智能、複雜系統、神經科學、經濟學、法學、社會科學、政治學和全球治理領域的研究者。

第三，如果經過初步討論以後，這個問題仍然被認為具有價值，我尤其希望您能夠幫助推動一次真正跨學科、跨國家的國際會議，公開討論：

在人類獲得AGI這樣前所未有的力量以前，是否應該先系統研究什麼樣的人類社會合作結構，才有能力安全地承載這種力量？

以及：

人類能否有意識地完成一次社會合作機制的升級，而不再等待下一次技術革命通過巨大災難來強迫我們升級？

這就是我給您寫這封信最根本的原因。

基於我個人過去的經歷，我擔心以後，很難再像現在這樣自由地公開表達這些觀點、聯繫國際研究者和參與討論。

所以，我希望趁自己仍然能夠與國際社會自由聯繫的時候，把這個問題儘可能送到真正有能力判斷它的人面前。

我並不要求您相信：

我已經找到了答案。

我真正請求的只是：

請幫助判斷，我是否至少提出了一個值得全人類認真檢驗的問題。

如果這個問題是錯的，

請幫助證明它錯。

如果這個問題值得研究，

請不要讓它因為提出者只是一個沒有研究機構、沒有科研資金、已經年老的普通中國人，而失去一次被認真研究的機會。

非常感謝您閱讀這封不同尋常的信。附上的附件，如果你願意閱讀，或許能幫助你進一步理解我為什麼會給你寫此信以及我的想法。

願人工智能最終放大的，是人類的智慧與合作，而不是人類彼此傷害的能力。

謹致敬意！

筆名：金穀雨
曾任中國地方法院高級法官
《致全球每一個人的信》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)