一名中國前高級法官公開致世界AI領軍人物信之四：Sam Altman——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. 4: Sam Altman — 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 Sam Altman: Before Aligning AI with Human Values, Must Humanity First Align the Standards by Which We Judge Value?

I understand that this address is intended primarily for media inquiries. I am writing only because I have not been able to identify a public channel for correspondence to Mr. Sam Altman. If appropriate, I would be deeply grateful if this message could be forwarded to Mr. Altman or to the OpenAI researchers working on collective alignment and AI governance.

Dear Mr. Sam Altman,

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 a question I have been thinking about for many years seems, in my view, to be converging toward the same root as the AI Alignment problem that you and OpenAI have been working to solve.

You and OpenAI have repeatedly asked:

How can increasingly powerful artificial intelligence be made to act in the direction humanity actually wants?

How can AI understand and follow human values?

How can superintelligence ultimately benefit humanity rather than harm, control, or even replace us?

These questions are unquestionably important.

But I would like to raise a question that comes even earlier:

Before asking AI to align with “human values,” has humanity itself established a system of value-judgment standards that can genuinely be aligned?

If not, then:

What exactly should AI align with?

Humanity clearly possesses many values:

freedom, fairness, security, efficiency, wealth, rights, order, democracy, national interest, individual happiness, equality, development, peace, justice, and many others.

Each of these may be extremely important.

But the problem is:

when these values conflict, what ultimately determines which should give way, by how much, how they should be combined, and what should count as “right”?

How much freedom may be restricted for security?

How much efficiency may be sacrificed for fairness?

How much power may be expanded in the name of national security?

How much military capacity may be increased in the name of peace?

How many minority rights may be sacrificed for the interests of the majority?

How much centralized control should be permitted for AI safety?

And how much amplified risk should be tolerated in order to make AI capabilities widely available?

Humanity has been answering such questions for thousands of years.

Yet we still have not found a stable standard capable of crossing national, cultural, religious, ideological, and concrete interest differences and serving as a common basis for judgment.

I therefore increasingly believe that:

the deeper problem behind what we call “value conflict” may not be that humanity has no shared values at all, but that we lack an underlying standard system capable of locating, comparing, and calibrating different values within a common framework.

This may be precisely the problem that AI Alignment cannot ultimately avoid.

For more than twenty years, through my experience with law, the judiciary, Chinese social reality, and the long evolution of human civilization, I have repeatedly asked:

Why does human social cooperation so easily fall out of balance?

Why can every institution begin with good intentions, yet over time gradually produce outcomes that contradict its original purpose?

Why does humanity continuously create new laws, institutions, and theories, yet repeatedly return to:

imbalances of power;

conflicts of interest;

distortion of information;

mutual suspicion;

zero-sum competition;

war;

and the repeated breakdown and reconstruction of structures of social cooperation?

I gradually formed a judgment:

what ultimately supports and drives the operation of social cooperation is human behavior; what governs human behavior is our mode of thinking; and the deeper force shaping our modes of thinking is the way we make value judgments.

This can be simplified as:

value judgment → mode of thought → behavior → interpersonal relationships → social structure → social outcomes.

If social outcomes repeatedly become unstable over long periods, then continually revising institutions and rules only at the top level may not be enough.

We must also ask:

By what standards are the people who actually operate those institutions making their value judgments?

This brings me to a word repeatedly used in the AI field:

Alignment.

For any complex cooperation to function, there must be some standard around which participants can align.

Machine components cannot form a functioning machine without shared standards.

Network protocols cannot communicate without common standards.

Traffic cannot form stable order without shared rules.

Currency cannot support lasting exchange without common units of measurement.

Then:

how can human society — a cooperative system far more complex than any machine — function without a common value-judgment standard that can run through concrete behavior?

I believe that one of the deepest unresolved problems of human civilization may be:

the foundational alignment of the standards by which human beings judge value.

But there is a very important distinction.

By “alignment of human values,” I do not mean:

making everyone believe in one religion;

accept one ideology;

submit to one political system;

live the same way;

or allowing one person to tell the entire world which values are correct.

I believe such approaches repeatedly generate new conflicts precisely because they still try to unify humanity around some concrete, visible goal or outcome.

Some people treat wealth as the highest goal.

Some treat power as the highest goal.

Some treat freedom as the highest goal.

Some treat equality as the highest goal.

Some treat the nation as the highest goal.

Others treat religion, ethnicity, class, or some ideology as the highest goal.

When different people treat different concrete objects as ultimate value goals, those goals will inevitably collide.

So I believe:

the direction that may truly enable foundational alignment of human value judgment should not be the search for another shared concrete goal. It should be a change in the standpoint from which human beings make value judgments.

That means moving:

from “What do I want to obtain?” to “By what procedures can we cooperate sustainably?”

from:

pursuing a fixed outcome

to:

studying what kinds of relational structures can operate over the long term;

from:

who ultimately wins and who obtains the most

to:

how the entire cooperative system can maintain dynamic balance and remain sustainable.

My own thinking leads me to hypothesize that every object we can perceive in the universe is, at a deeper level, a dynamically balanced pattern produced through combinations of processes arising from the movement of energy.

I regard this as a possible underlying commonality in the way systems across the universe evolve through time and space.

Applying this way of thinking to civilization, I summarize the standard of civilization in nine Chinese characters:

抓程序、做模式、求平衡

which I translate approximately as:

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

From this perspective, I have proposed a natural-philosophy hypothesis that I provisionally call:

the Procedural Determination Hypothesis.

Its basic question is:

Are the properties ultimately displayed by a system determined not only by the elements that compose it, but also to a major extent by the procedures through which those elements establish relationships, the structures formed by those relationships, and the way those structures achieve dynamic equilibrium through feedback?

And if the constituent elements are further decomposed internally, might their own properties likewise arise from relationships and structures formed through underlying procedures?

If what we call a “property” is itself the manifestation of energy exchanges required to maintain dynamic balance within a relational structure, then one may ask whether, mathematically, by treating the quantum level as a common underlying factor, the evolution of the universe might eventually be simplified into a form of procedural evolution.

This remains a hypothesis, not an established scientific conclusion.

I simplify the idea as:

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

In more ordinary language:

things do not naturally become orderly simply because they exist; rather, when the procedures become properly coordinated, the elements can form something that can sustainably exist.

So I increasingly believe that:

the true standard of human civilization may not be how much wealth, technology, power, or how grand a concrete goal humanity possesses.

The deeper civilizational standard may be:

whether a system can form a sustainable, dynamically balanced pattern of procedural cooperation.

And the basic method for judging whether human civilization can cooperate sustainably is:

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

“Grasp the procedure” means identifying the rules through which different actors establish relationships.

“Build the pattern” means allowing those relationships to form a stable structure of procedural cooperation capable of long-term operation.

“Seek the balance” means continuously adjusting information, power, interests, responsibility, supervision, and feedback so that the system does not drift toward an extreme and lose balance.

If this direction is valid, then:

procedure itself may become a common reference standard for locating different values.

This would also mean that humanity does not first have to settle the argument over “what everyone should ultimately pursue.”

Different people may still have:

different religions;

different cultures;

different lifestyles;

different political opinions;

different interests;

and completely different life goals.

What may truly need to be aligned is only a deeper civilizational standard:

When you pursue your values, do the procedures you use allow sustainable cooperation?

Does the relational pattern you create systematically destroy the conditions under which others can cooperate?

After your goal is achieved, can the overall system still remain in dynamic balance?

Under such a framework:

freedom is not unlimited;

equality is not mechanical sameness;

efficiency is not pursued regardless of cost;

security does not justify unlimited control;

a majority cannot unlimitedly override minorities;

and individual interest and public interest do not need to remain permanently opposed.

All of them must be located again within specific cooperative procedures and dynamic balance.

This may, for the first time, give humanity a lower-level coordinate system through which extremely complex and conflicting values can be discussed, compared, corrected, and perhaps even experimentally examined.

For this reason, I believe:

a truly complete form of AI Alignment may first require humanity to solve the alignment of its own standards of value judgment.

Otherwise we encounter a fundamental logical difficulty.

Suppose we tell a superintelligence:

“Act according to human values.”

Its first question might be:

Which human values?

If we answer:

“Integrate everyone’s values.”

It must still confront:

By what standard should conflicting values be weighted?

Who has final interpretive authority?

Which country’s values take priority?

Which historical era’s values take priority?

Does the immediate preference of the majority automatically constitute the correct answer?

If a majority wants something that will ultimately destroy the entire structure of cooperation, should AI still obey?

So:

the deepest difficulty may not be teaching AI all of humanity’s values, but humanity first finding a common meta-standard by which those values can be located and judged.

I believe:

procedure — pattern — dynamic balance

may be one direction worth testing.

This also changes how I understand the idea of collective alignment proposed by you and OpenAI.

I strongly agree that:

no single person, company, or government should decide alone what values AI should follow.

But if we simply collect more and more human opinions and then search for some average or majority consensus, is that enough?

I have doubts.

Because:

those opinions themselves are still generated by humanity’s existing modes of value judgment.

If the underlying judgment system is fragmented, short-term, overly focused on visible objects and immediate interests, then:

adding together one million unaligned judgments

does not automatically produce an aligned civilizational standard.

So I believe:

Collective Alignment may need to solve not only “how to collect more people’s values,” but “what common standard should be used to locate conflicting values.”

I believe it may be worth asking whether the Procedural Determination Hypothesis reflects a common rule in the way energy-based systems evolve across scales, and whether humanity could use the principles of grasping procedures, building patterns, and seeking balance to reconstruct its modes of thought.

If such a framework could gradually become internalized at a deep cultural — and perhaps eventually even evolutionary — level, then it might become part of a broader project of reconstructing human civilization through what I call Human Social Cooperation Engineering.

I believe this may be a direction worth examining.

This also directly relates to your idea of distributing AI capabilities broadly.

If the value orientations embedded in human modes of thought could become better aligned, and if humanity possessed a procedural framework oriented toward dynamic balance, then the broad distribution of AI capability might gain a far stronger foundation for safe and smooth implementation.

I understand why you are concerned about superintelligent power being concentrated in the hands of a very small number of individuals, companies, or governments.

Concentration can certainly create enormous risks.

But the opposite direction contains another problem:

if a society’s value judgments and structures of cooperation do not possess stable common standards, widely distributing enormous capability does not automatically mean widely distributing civilization.

It may simultaneously mean:

widely distributed creative power;

widely distributed capacity for deception;

widely distributed offensive capability;

widely distributed capacity for manipulation;

and widely distributed destructive power.

So:

the real issue is not simply “centralization versus decentralization.”

The deeper issue is:

whether concentrated or distributed, through what procedures does power enter what relational structures, and what kinds of dynamic feedback and constraints govern it?

That is what may ultimately determine the nature of the resulting system.

Likewise, today all frontier AI laboratories may understand that excessive competition can be dangerous.

All major countries may understand that an AGI arms race could be dangerous.

But why is it still so difficult for everyone to stop?

Because:

one company fears another company will move ahead;

one country fears another country will gain the lead;

and every actor, from its own local position, may make an entirely rational choice.

The result may be:

all locally rational choices accumulate into a system that moves toward an outcome no participant truly wants.

This is not simply a moral problem.

Nor is it merely a lack of goodwill.

It is:

a structural outcome generated by the procedures of cooperation themselves.

Therefore, I believe:

calling on AI companies to be more responsible;

calling on countries to exercise restraint;

or asking everyone to slow down for the common interest of humanity

are all important, but may still not reach the root of the problem.

What must truly be investigated is:

whether humanity can understand the underlying rules on which all forms of existence and cooperation depend, and whether from this understanding we can construct a new worldview, a new understanding of society, and a new conception of human purpose.

If we can understand how changes in the procedures through which social relationships are formed alter the resulting structures, then perhaps cooperation could become the natural outcome of each participant’s local rationality, rather than something that requires every participant first to sacrifice the security and material interests that appear necessary from the limited perspective of ordinary human perception.

This is why I have proposed another research direction:

Human Social Cooperation Engineering.

It is not a new ideology.

Nor is it a “perfect system” designed by one person and imposed upon all humanity.

My idea is:

to study human social cooperation itself as a complex system that can be observed, modeled, compared, experimented upon, falsified, and continuously optimized — just as we study artificial intelligence and other complex systems.

We could examine:

What information procedures tend to create trust?

What power procedures tend to generate loss of control?

What forms of interest distribution can sustain cooperation over the long term?

What forms of supervisory relationships can prevent supervisors themselves from becoming new concentrations of extreme power?

Why do some institutional designs appear sound at first, but gradually change character during operation?

Why does individual rationality so often create collective irrationality?

Why do good intentions repeatedly produce opposite outcomes during implementation?

Ultimately, all of these questions can be traced back to:

procedure.

Who decides?

Who executes?

Who supervises?

Who receives information?

Who bears responsibility?

Who receives the benefits?

Who is allowed to say “no”?

Who can correct mistakes?

And who has the authority to determine what counts as a mistake?

These procedures first determine what relationships people form with one another;

those relationships then create social structures;

and those structures ultimately determine the nature displayed by the entire system of social cooperation.

This is also why I believe:

AI safety is, at its foundation, also a procedural problem.

Who controls the model?

Who controls compute?

Who owns the data?

Who defines the rules?

Who may challenge AI decisions?

Who can see the basis of those decisions?

Who can correct errors?

Who bears responsibility?

Who receives the benefits?

These may appear to be separate AI governance questions,

but ultimately they all create:

procedures of relationship among humans, AI, corporations, governments, and society.

The structures formed by those relationships may ultimately determine whether AI entering society:

expands freedom,

or expands control;

expands cooperation,

or expands conflict;

expands prosperity,

or expands domination;

expands human civilization,

or expands humanity’s capacity for mutual harm.

So I believe that a truly complete form of AI Alignment may eventually require three continuous layers:

First layer: machine-behavior alignment.

Enable AI to understand and execute human intentions.

Second layer: alignment of human value judgment.

Not by unifying every concrete value generated through limited human perception, but by finding an underlying standard through which different values can be judged according to whether they support sustainable cooperation.

Third layer: alignment of social cooperation structures.

Ensure that the procedures and structures linking people with people, people with AI, organizations with organizations, and states with states can maintain long-term dynamic balance rather than continuously pushing capability toward mutual destruction.

If these three layers can truly be connected, then AI Alignment may no longer mean only:

“making machines obey people.”

It may become:

“enabling humans and machines together to enter a civilizational structure capable of sustainable cooperation.”

You have argued that, in an important sense:

society itself is a form of advanced intelligence.

I strongly resonate with this idea.

If society is indeed a form of advanced intelligence, then:

human modes of thought are the underlying cognitive patterns of this large intelligence;

human value judgments are the directional system driving those modes of thought;

and laws, institutions, markets, governments, and corporations are different cooperative structures created by that social intelligence.

Therefore:

if the value-judgment standards of this enormous “social intelligence” remain fundamentally unaligned, then even if we create AI vastly more intelligent than any individual human being, we may simply be installing an infinitely powerful amplifier into a social intelligence that is still internally confused.

That is exactly what concerns me most.

In my view, humanity still lives today in a relatively low-level form of “jungle civilization” characterized strongly by:

competition for power;

competition for interests;

mutual suspicion;

zero-sum games;

and mutual deterrence.

When AGI enters such a structure, the greatest danger may not be that AI suddenly becomes malicious.

It may instead be that:

AI faithfully and efficiently helps every actor achieve his or her existing value goals.

If each person’s goals have never been located within a common civilizational standard,

then the stronger AI becomes,

the stronger humanity’s capacity to compete with, control, deceive, and harm one another may also become.

That is why I continue to ask:

If AI itself does not lose control, but the human value conflicts and competitive social system amplified by AI do lose control, have we truly solved AI safety?

This is the core question on which I hope you may help offer judgment:

Will the deepest problem of AI Alignment ultimately return to the alignment of humanity’s own system of value-judgment standards?

If this judgment deserves further examination, I especially hope that you or appropriate researchers at OpenAI might help review two directions:

the Procedural Determination Hypothesis

and

Human Social Cooperation Engineering.

What I most hope to receive is not agreement.

It is:

criticism, counterexamples, and falsification.

If “grasp the procedure, build the pattern, seek the balance” cannot serve as a common civilizational standard capable of crossing differences in concrete values, please help explain why.

If the direction contains some possibility, then I hope to investigate whether it can be transformed into explicit models, experiments, and real institutional-design questions.

If, after preliminary discussion by genuinely qualified experts, this direction is still considered worthy of investigation, I would also like to make a more ambitious request:

Could there be a truly interdisciplinary and international public discussion or conference devoted specifically to the following question:

Before humanity fully enters the era of superintelligence, must we first solve the foundational alignment of human value judgment and social-cooperation structures?

And further:

Can humanity cease relying on a single religion, ideology, nation, or concrete interest target to unify values, and instead use “whether procedures support sustainable cooperation, whether patterns can operate stably, and whether systems can maintain dynamic balance” as a more fundamental and testable common civilizational standard?

If this were possible, then:

different cultures could remain different;

different life goals could remain different;

states could continue to exist — or, within an entirely new human value framework, might gradually be integrated into larger cooperative wholes as functional local structures;

markets could continue to compete;

individuals could continue to enjoy extensive freedom.

What would be unified would not be the concrete value content directly perceived through ordinary human senses,

but rather:

the method of value judgment and the minimum conditions for cooperation.

This is what I mean by:

moving from concrete, visible value goals toward procedural goals of cooperation.

What makes my natural-philosophical thinking in this area different from many previous philosophical systems is that I believe the Procedural Determination Hypothesis may offer an alignment standard with concrete behavioral handles — something that can guide action rather than remain only at the level of abstract principle.

This is precisely what I hope, if possible, to place before humanity for open dialogue, exploration, and examination.

Based on my past experiences and present circumstances, I am concerned that after returning 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 truly ask is:

Please help judge whether I have at least identified a direction worthy of serious examination.

If it 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.

I have always believed:

true human civilization does not consist in how many powerful things humanity possesses, but in whether humanity has the ability to place those things within procedures and patterns capable of long-term cooperation.

In other words:

things do not naturally become orderly simply because we possess them;

rather:

only when the procedures become properly coordinated can we form something truly sustainable.

If superintelligence ultimately becomes the most powerful capability amplifier in human history,

then before it fully arrives,

I hope humanity can first complete an even more fundamental alignment:

moving our value judgments away from the endless competition for concrete, visible outcomes, and gradually aligning them toward procedures, patterns, and dynamic balance capable of sustaining cooperation.

May the AI of the future do more than execute humanity’s present fragmented desires with greater precision.

May it help humanity enter a higher form of civilization capable of genuine stability, harmony, and sustainable cooperation.

Thank you very much for taking the time to read this unusual 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: ——

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. To Demis Hassabis: Must Humanity Upgrade Its Structures of Social Cooperation Before AGI Arrives?

5. To Ray Kurzweil: If Technology Follows Accelerating Returns, Can Human Social Cooperation Keep Pace with the Singularity?

致 Sam Altman：在讓AI對齊人類價值以前，人類是否必須先解決自身價值判斷標準的對齊問題？

尊敬的 Sam Altman 先生：

您好！

我筆名金穀雨，是一名來自中國的老人，曾任中國地方法院高級法官。

我之所以冒昧給您寫這封信，是因為我長期思考的一個問題，與您和 OpenAI 一直在努力解決的 AI Alignment 問題，在我看來已經越來越走向同一個根部。

您和 OpenAI 一直在追問：

怎樣使越來越強大的人工智能真正按照人類希望的方向行動？

怎樣使AI理解並遵循人類價值？

怎樣使超級智能最終造福全人類，而不是傷害、控制甚至取代人類？

這些問題無疑極其重要。

但我想進一步提出一個更靠前的問題：

在要求AI與“人類價值”對齊以前，人類自己有沒有形成一個真正能夠被共同對齊的價值判斷標準體系？

如果沒有，那麼：

AI究竟應該與什麼對齊？

人類當然擁有許多價值。

自由、公平、安全、效率、財富、權利、秩序、民主、國家利益、個人幸福、平等、發展、和平、正義……

這些價值中的每一個，都可以非常重要。

問題在於：

當這些價值彼此衝突的時候，最終用什麼來判斷誰應該讓位、讓多少、怎樣組合、怎樣才算“對”？

為了安全，可以限制多少自由？

為了公平，可以犧牲多少效率？

為了國家安全，可以擴大多少權力？

為了和平，可以增加多少軍備？

為了多數人的利益，可以犧牲多少少數人的權利？

為了AI安全，可以允許多少集中控制？

為了讓所有人獲得AI能力，又應該容忍多少被同時放大的風險？

人類幾千年來一直在回答這些問題。

但是，人類至今仍然沒有找到一種能夠跨越不同國家、文化、宗教、意識形態和具體利益，成為共同判斷基礎的穩定標準。

所以我越來越認為：

今天所謂的“價值衝突”，其更深層問題可能並不是人類完全沒有共同價值，而是人類缺乏一個能夠對不同價值進行統一定位、比較和校準的底層標準體系。

這恰恰可能是AI Alignment最終無法迴避的問題。

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長期演變中不斷思考：

為什麼人類社會合作總是如此容易失衡？

為什麼每一種制度建立時，都可能懷抱很好的目標，但運行久了以後，卻會逐漸產生與最初目標相反的結果？

為什麼人類不斷創造新的法律、制度和理論，卻仍然不斷重複：

權力失衡；

利益衝突；

信息失真；

互相猜疑；

零和競爭；

戰爭；

以及社會合作結構的反覆瓦解和重建？

我逐漸形成了一個判斷：

真正承托和驅動社會合作結構底層運行的，是人的行為；支配人的行為的是思維模式；而驅動思維模式的更深層來源，是人的價值判斷方式。

所以可以簡化成：

價值判斷 → 思維模式 → 行為方式 → 人際關係 → 社會結構 → 社會結果。

如果社會運行結果長期反覆失衡，僅僅在最上層不停修改制度和規則，也許還不夠。

我們還必須追問：

推動這些制度實際運行的人，其價值判斷到底是按照什麼標準發生的？

這使我想到，AI領域反覆使用的一個詞：

Alignment——對齊。

任何複雜合作真正能夠成立，都必須存在某種可以共同對齊的標準。

機器零件如果沒有共同標準，無法組成機器。

網絡協議如果沒有共同標準，無法通信。

交通如果沒有共同規則，無法形成穩定秩序。

貨幣如果沒有共同計量標準，交易也無法持續進行。

那麼：

人類社會這樣一個遠比任何機器都複雜的合作系統，為什麼可以沒有一個能夠貫穿具體行為的共同價值判斷標準？

我認為，人類文明過去長期沒有解決的，可能正是：

價值判斷標準的底層對齊問題。

但這裡有一個非常重要的區別。

我說的“價值觀對齊”，並不是：

讓所有人信一種宗教；

接受一種意識形態；

服從一種政治制度；

擁有完全相同的生活方式；

或者由某個人告訴全世界“什麼價值才是正確的”。

我認為，這些做法之所以最終都會產生新的衝突，恰恰是因為它們仍然試圖讓人類圍繞某一個具體、具形的目標或結果實現統一。

有人把財富當最高目標；

有人把權力當最高目標；

有人把自由當最高目標；

有人把平等當最高目標；

有人把國家當最高目標；

有人把宗教、民族、階級或者某種主義當最高目標。

當不同的人把不同的具體對象當作最終價值目標時，這些目標之間就必然會不斷發生衝突。

所以我認為：

真正可能實現人類價值判斷底層對齊的方向，不應該再是尋找一個新的“共同具體目標”，而應該改變人類進行價值判斷的立足點本身。

也就是：

從“我要得到什麼”轉向“我們按照什麼程序才能持續合作”；

從：

追求某一個固定結果

轉向：

研究怎樣的關繫結構能夠長期運行；

從：

誰最終贏、誰得到最多

轉向：

怎樣使整個合作系統保持動態平衡並可持續。因為依據我的思考認為，人類所能知覺的這個宇宙所有對象，其本質都是宇宙能量運動產生程序後形成程序組合的動態平衡模式，這就是整個宇宙所有系統全時空演繹的底層同一性。

我把這一判斷運用在文明上，將文明標準概括成九個字：

抓程序、做模式、求平衡。

我依據前述認知，提出了一個自然哲學層面的假說，暫時稱為：

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

它的基本問題是：

一個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，更在很大程度上取決於這些元素通過什麼程序建立關係、這些關係形成什麼結構，以及這種結構如何通過反饋實現動態平衡？如果將組成的元素進一步內在解構，也是按照程序關係形成結構來展示性質的，而性質本身就是關繫結構維持程序合作動態平衡需要平衡交還能量的彰顯，那麼在數學上將量子作為公因數提取後，整個宇宙演繹或許可以簡約化為程序演繹。

我把它簡化為：

程序 → 關係 → 結構 → 動態反饋 → 系統性質與結果。

換一句更加通俗的話：

不是“有了”以後自然就會“順”，而是程序真正“順了”，各種要素才能形成一個能夠長期存在的“有”。

所以，我現在越來越認為：

人類文明的真正標準，也許並不是擁有多少財富、多少科技、多少權力或者多麼宏大的具體目標。

真正的文明標準應該是：

一個系統能不能形成可持續的程序組合動態平衡合作。

而判斷人類文明可持續合作的基本方法就是：

抓程序、做模式、求平衡。

“抓程序”，是判斷各種主體究竟通過什麼規則建立關係；

“做模式”，是使這些關係形成能夠長期運行的穩定程序組合合作結構；

“求平衡”，則是通過信息、權力、利益、責任、監督等不斷反饋和調整，使系統不會持續向某一個極端失衡。

如果這個方向成立，那麼：

程序本身就可以成為不同價值之間的共同定位標準。

這也意味着：

人類不必首先解決“所有人到底應該追求什麼”的爭論。

不同的人仍然可以擁有：

不同宗教；

不同文化；

不同生活方式；

不同政治意見；

不同利益；

甚至完全不同的人生目標。

真正需要共同對齊的，可能只是一個更底層的文明標準：

你追求自己的價值時，採用的程序能不能形成可持續合作？

你所形成的關係模式，會不會系統性破壞別人的合作條件？

你的目標實現以後，整個系統還能不能保持動態平衡？

於是：

自由並不是絕對無限；

平等也不是機械相同；

效率不是不計代價；

安全不是無限控制；

多數也不能無限壓倒少數；

個人利益和公共利益也不需要永遠相互排斥。

它們都需要重新放進具體的合作程序和動態平衡中定位。

這可能使過去極其複雜、雜亂的價值衝突，第一次擁有一個可以共同討論、比較、修正甚至實驗的底層坐標系。

所以我認為：

真正完整的AI Alignment，可能必須先解決人類自身的“價值判斷標準對齊”。

否則，我們會遇到一個根本性的邏輯困難。

假如我們告訴超級智能：

“請按照人類價值行動。”

它可能首先要問：

哪一種人類價值？

如果我們回答：

“綜合所有人的價值。”

它還必須繼續面對：

不同價值發生衝突以後，按照什麼標準加權？

誰擁有最終解釋權？

哪個國家的價值優先？

哪個時代的價值優先？

多數人的即時偏好是否就是正確答案？

如果多數人希望一件最終會毀掉整個合作結構的事情，AI是否仍然應該服從？

所以：

真正困難的可能不是讓AI學會人類的各種價值，而是人類自己先要找到一種能夠給這些價值定位的共同元標準。

我認為：

“程序—模式—動態平衡”

可能正是值得檢驗的這個方向。

這也使我重新理解您和 OpenAI 所提出的“collective alignment”。

我非常贊同：

不應該由一個人、一家公司或者一個政府獨自決定AI應該遵守什麼價值。

但是，如果只是不斷收集越來越多人的意見，然後尋找某種平均或者多數共識，是否就足夠？

我對此有疑問。

因為：

意見本身仍然來自人類現有的價值判斷模式。

如果底層價值判斷方式本身就是雜亂、短期化、物象化、局部利益化的，那麼：

把一百萬個未經對齊的判斷加在一起，

並不會自動產生一個經過對齊的文明標準。

所以我認為：

Collective Alignment真正需要解決的，可能不僅是“怎樣收集更多人的價值”，而是“用什麼共同標準對這些彼此衝突的價值進行定位”。我認為，認知程序定質規律是不是宇宙能量全時空演繹同一性規律，進而用抓程序、做模式、求平衡的系統標準理念對人類思維模式進行重構，逐漸在基因層面固化，全面重構人類文明的社會合作工程。這似乎可能是一個值得思考的方向。

這與您提出的“讓AI能力廣泛分配給更多人”的方向也直接相關。因為人類思維模式中的價值觀對齊了，且有了程序抓手和動態平衡模式的方向，“讓AI能力廣泛飛陪給更多人”的安全性，就會在所有人都能遵循程序動態平衡標準體系中獲得最安全與順暢的實施保障。

我理解您為什麼擔心超級智能的力量集中到極少數人、公司或者政府手中。

集中當然可能產生極大風險。

但反過來也存在另一個問題：

如果一個社會的價值判斷和合作結構本身沒有穩定的共同標準，那麼把巨大能力廣泛分配，並不必然等於廣泛分配文明。

它也可能同時意味着：

更強的創造能力被廣泛分配；

更強的欺騙能力被廣泛分配；

更強的攻擊能力被廣泛分配；

更強的操縱能力被廣泛分配；

更強的破壞能力也被廣泛分配。

所以：

真正的問題不是“集中還是分散”本身。

而是：

無論力量集中還是分散，它通過什麼程序進入什麼關繫結構，並受到什麼樣的動態反饋與制衡。

這才會決定最終形成的系統性質。

同樣地，今天所有前沿AI實驗室都可能知道：

過度競爭可能危險。

所有主要國家也可能知道：

AGI軍備競賽可能危險。

但為什麼大家仍然很難真正停下來？

因為：

一個企業擔心另一個企業領先；

一個國家擔心另一個國家領先；

每一個主體從自己的局部立場出發，都可能作出完全理性的選擇。

結果卻可能是：

所有局部理性的選擇疊加以後，把整個系統推向一種任何人都不真正希望看到的結果。

這不是簡單的道德問題。

也不只是缺乏善意。

這是：

合作程序本身產生的結構性結果。

因此，我認為：

僅僅呼籲AI公司更加負責；

呼籲國家更加克制；

或者要求大家為了全人類共同利益放慢速度，

都很重要，但可能還沒有觸及根部。

真正要研究的是：

怎樣認知這個宇宙一切存在共同依賴的底層支撐規律以及是否能由此建立新的宇宙觀與世界觀和人生觀，看清改變社會合作關係形成的程序關聯，將使“合作”成為各方局部理性能夠自然形成的結果，而不再要求每一個參與者都必須首先犧牲自己基於五官局限視野限制的安全感和現實利益。

這就是為什麼我提出另一個研究方向：

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

它不是一種新的意識形態。

也不是一種想由誰設計以後強迫全人類執行的“完美制度”。

我的設想是：

像研究人工智能和其他複雜系統一樣，把人類社會合作本身作為一個可以觀察、建模、比較、實驗、證偽和不斷優化的複雜系統。

我們可以研究：

什麼樣的信息程序容易形成信任？

什麼樣的權力程序容易形成失控？

什麼樣的利益分配結構能夠長期維持合作？

什麼樣的監督關係能夠避免監督者本身重新形成新的權力極端？

為什麼一些制度設計看起來很好，實際運行以後卻會逐漸變質？

為什麼個體理性會形成集體非理性？

為什麼良好的目標會在運行過程中不斷產生相反結果？

這些問題最終都可以歸結到：

程序。

誰決定？

誰執行？

誰監督？

誰獲取信息？

誰承擔責任？

誰獲得利益？

誰能夠說“不”？

誰能夠糾錯？

誰又有權判斷什麼叫錯誤？

這些程序首先決定人與人形成什麼關係；

關係再形成社會結構；

結構最終決定整個社會合作系統表現出什麼性質。

這也是為什麼我認為：

AI安全首先也是一個程序問題。

誰控制模型？

誰控制算力？

誰擁有數據？

誰定義規則？

誰可以質疑AI？

誰可以看到其決策依據？

誰能夠糾正錯誤？

誰承擔責任？

誰享受收益？

這些看起來是不同的AI治理問題，

但最終仍然都在形成：

人—AI—企業—政府—社會之間的關係程序。

這些關係形成什麼結構，

最終就可能決定AI進入社會以後究竟表現為：

擴大自由，

還是擴大控制；

擴大合作，

還是擴大衝突；

擴大財富，

還是擴大支配；

擴大人類文明，

還是擴大人類互斗互害的能力。

所以，我認為真正的AI Alignment，最終可能必須形成三個連續層次：

第一層：機器行為對齊。

讓AI能夠理解和執行人的意圖。

第二層：人類價值判斷對齊。

不是統一所有基於五官感知產生的具體價值，而是找到一種能夠共同判斷不同價值是否有利於可持續合作的底層標準。

第三層：社會合作結構對齊。

讓人與人、人與AI、組織與組織、國家與國家形成的程序和結構，能夠維持長期動態平衡，而不會不斷把能力推向互相毀滅。

這三層如果真正連起來，AI Alignment可能才不再只是：

“讓機器聽人的話”。

而成為：

“讓人類和機器共同進入一個能夠持續合作的文明結構。”

您曾經提出，從某種重要意義上說：

社會本身就是一種高級智能。

這一判斷讓我非常有共鳴。

如果社會真的是一種高級智能，那麼：

人類思維模式就是這個巨大智能的底層認知方式；

人類價值判斷就是驅動這種思維模式的方向系統；

法律、制度、市場、政府、企業等則是這種社會智能形成的各種合作結構。

所以：

如果這個巨大“社會智能”的價值判斷標準本身沒有完成底層對齊，那麼即使我們創造出了遠遠超過個人智能的AI，我們也可能只是給一個仍然混亂的社會智能安裝了一個無限強大的放大器。

這恰恰是我最擔心的事情。

在我看來，人類今天仍然生活在一種具有強烈：

權力競爭；

利益爭奪；

互相猜疑；

零和博弈；

相互威懾

特徵的低級“叢林式文明”中。

AGI進入這樣的結構以後，最危險的地方也許並不是AI突然產生惡意。

而是：

AI忠實、高效地幫助每一個人實現自己現有的價值目標。

如果每一個人的目標都沒有經過共同文明標準定位，

那麼AI越強，

人類彼此競爭、控制、欺騙和傷害的能力也就可能越強。

所以我一直追問：

如果AI本身沒有失控，但被AI放大的人類價值衝突和社會競爭系統失控了，我們真的解決了AI安全問題嗎？

這就是我希望您幫助判斷的核心問題：

AI Alignment的最底層問題，是否最終會回到“人類自身價值判斷標準體系的對齊”？

如果這個判斷值得進一步研究，那麼我尤其希望您或者 OpenAI 的適當研究人員能夠幫助審閱：

“程序定質假說”

以及：

“人類社會合作工程”

這兩個方向。

我最希望得到的不是認同。

而是：

批評、反例和證偽。

如果“抓程序、做模式、求平衡”根本不能成為跨越具體價值差異的共同文明判斷標準，請幫助指出為什麼。

如果這個方向存在一些可能性，我則希望進一步研究：

能否把它轉化成明確的模型、實驗以及現實制度設計問題。

如果經過真正有能力的專家初步討論以後，這個方向仍然被認為值得研究，我還想提出一個更加大膽的請求：

是否可以推動一次真正跨學科、跨國家的公開討論或者國際會議，專門討論：

在人類全面進入超級智能時代以前，是否必須先解決人類自身價值判斷和社會合作結構的底層對齊問題？

進一步討論：

人類能否不再依靠某一種宗教、主義、國家或者具體利益目標來統一價值，而是以“程序能否形成可持續合作、模式能否穩定運行、系統能否保持動態平衡”作為一個更加基礎、可檢驗的共同文明標準？

如果能夠做到這一點，那麼：

不同文化仍然可以不同；

不同人生目標仍然可以不同；

國家仍然可以存在，或者在人類全新價值追求體系中被融合成合作整體的自然功能性局部結構；

市場仍然可以競爭；

個人仍然擁有充分自由。

真正被統一的並不是具體五官直接感知的價值內容，

而只是：

價值判斷的方法和合作底線。

這正是我所謂：

從具體具形的價值目標，轉向程序合作目標。

關於我在這方面的自然哲學思考，與過去所有哲學不同的是，我認為程序定質規律是有具體行為抓手之綱的對齊標準體系。這正是我期待有機會希望與全人類對話來探索甄別的。

基於我過去的經歷和現實情況，我擔心以後，很難再像現在這樣自由公開地表達這些觀點、聯繫國際研究人員並參與討論。

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

我不要求您相信：

我已經找到了答案。

我真正請求的是：

請幫助判斷，我是不是至少提出了一個值得認真檢驗的方向。

如果它是錯的，

請幫助證明它錯。

如果它值得研究，

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。

我始終認為：

人類真正的文明，不在於擁有多少強大的東西，而在於人類有沒有能力把這些東西放進一個能夠長期合作的程序和模式中。

也就是：

不是“有了”以後自然就會“順”；

而是：

“順了”，才能形成真正可持續的“有”。

如果超級智能最終將成為人類歷史上最強大的能力放大器，

那麼我希望，在它全面到來以前，

人類首先完成一次更加基礎的對齊：

把我們的價值判斷，從不斷爭奪具體具形結果，逐步對齊到能夠持續合作的程序、模式與動態平衡。

願未來的AI，不只是更準確地執行人類今天雜亂的願望，

而是幫助人類進入一種真正能夠穩定、和諧、可持續合作的更高級文明。

非常感謝您閱讀這封不同尋常的信。

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. To Demis Hassabis: Must Humanity Upgrade Its Structures of Social Cooperation Before AGI Arrives?

5. To Ray Kurzweil: If Technology Follows Accelerating Returns, Can Human Social Cooperation Keep Pace with the Singularity?