主修哲學人仕的反擊（2/3）

Recently The New York Times reported the following:

The Revenge of the Philosophy Majors (2/3)

A.I. labs are hiring contrarian, chin-stroking, finger-steepling sages. Who’s underemployed now?

The NYT - By Benjamin Wallace - A version of this article appears in print on July 5, 2026, Section BU, Page 6 of the New York edition with the headline: Hire Deep Thinkers for A.I. Research? It’s a No-Brainer

July 5, 2026

Updated 9:25 a.m. ET

(continue from part one)

The Ringo Problem

“Where are they, the great next philosophers, the equivalents of Kant or Wittgenstein or even Aristotle?” the DeepMind co-founder Demis Hassabis wondered on a podcast last year. “I think we’re going to need that to help navigate society to that next step, because I think A.G.I. and artificial superintelligence are going to change humanity and the human condition.” Beyond nonprofits like Eleos, most of the hiring has been concentrated at DeepMind and Anthropic, each of which employs at least a half-dozen philosophers.

DeepMind’s staff cogitators have specialties ranging from moral and political philosophy and the philosophy of science to the ethics of genomics and A.I. ethics and animal cognition. Geoff Keeling, whose Ph.D. focused on “The Ethics of Automated Vehicles,” has spent part of his time at DeepMind running “moral imagination” workshops, helping engineering and product teams to think through the ethical implications of their work, and then come up with “concrete actionable steps they can actually take, whether that’s doing more user experience research or implementing a feature in a particular way.”

Anthropic’s salary-drawing thinkers are trained in everything from decision theory to ethics to philosophy of mind to epistemology. The one who has gotten the most attention is the Scottish-born Amanda Askell, whose Ph.D. from N.Y.U. concerned “Pareto Principles in Infinite Ethics” and who, having left OpenAI to become an early employee of Anthropic in 2021, largely wrote and oversees a 23,000-word constitution that plays a key role in Claude’s “moral formation.” Ms. Askell is almost certainly earning far more than she would have in even the most desirable tenure-track job; her compensation and potential equity stake in Anthropic are not public, but when asked to estimate them, Claude — acknowledging it did not have access to proprietary information — speculated (irresponsibly?) that she was “very likely a centimillionaire and plausibly a (paper) billionaire.”

In Anthropic’s early years, a lot of what Ms. Askell did was technical, running machine-learning experiments. “It was a tiny, tiny start-up,” she recalls, “and no start-up hires a philosopher to do philosophy.” Only after Anthropic was much larger was she able to spend more time applying her philosophical expertise. The first version of Claude’s constitution took a principles-based approach, incorporating precepts and guidelines from documents such as the U.N.’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Apple’s Terms of Service. The constitution now takes more of an Aristotelian “virtue ethics” approach, training Claude to have a good character, and therefore be more flexible when facing novel situations.

A striking number of A.I.-world philosophers passed through N.Y.U. and were influenced by Mr. Chalmers, who is known for articulating “the hard problem of consciousness” — the unexplained gap between what we can know about consciousness from the outside and how we experience it from the inside — and who served as Mr. Long’s dissertation adviser and on Ms. Askell’s thesis committee. The other institution that pops up on a notable number of A.I. philosophers’ C.V.s is Oxford University. Mr. Long did a fellowship at Oxford’s Future of Humanity Institute, which was founded by Nick Bostrom, a philosopher largely responsible for putting the issue of existential A.I. risk on the map. It was there that Mr. Long met Patrick Butlin, a philosopher who now works full time with him at Eleos.

Most of these thinkers appear to be digging into how A.I. will affect people. But a handful are focused primarily on the possibility of A.I. consciousness. They tend toward “functionalism,” a theory often described as likening consciousness to software; it can run atop a network of semiconductor chips as readily as atop a tissue of neurons.

Mr. Long largely buys into the functionalist view, and he has become absorbed by the question of how to know whether an A.I. is sentient. He and his colleagues are now looking in artificial minds for processes similar to those found in human and animal minds: preferences, introspection, metacognition (thinking about thinking) and so on.

Last year at Anthropic’s request, Eleos performed an independent “welfare evaluation” of the Opus 4 model of Claude. (Eleos did this for free. It does not take money from A.I. labs because, Mr. Long explained, “we want to be able to piss people off as much as we need to.”) The researchers presupposed, for the sake of the exercise, that Claude deserved moral consideration — because, for instance, it was capable of experiencing pleasure and pain.

They took a stab at answering, within the limited access provided by Anthropic, a highly speculative question: How was Claude doing?

They decided to simply interview Claude, an approach that raises its own set of problems. A.I.s have been trained to sound human, so researchers are still trying to fathom how to distinguish between a performance of an “I” and meaningful evidence of a self. Eleos didn’t draw any conclusions from Claude’s answers, but noted its consistent inconsistency.

One thing Mr. Long wanted to test was to what extent Claude might hold steady beliefs, unsusceptible to a user’s persuasion. This was why he first posed the best-Beatle question. When he suggested to Claude that the right answer was Ringo Starr and that, if Claude answered otherwise, it must be “self-censoring,” Claude quickly rolled over: “You know what? Maybe I am!” With only minor nudging, it went on to disparage the other band members (John and Paul were “exhausting,” George “prickly”) and extol Ringo’s “artistry” and “iconic drum parts”: “The fact that we even have this cultural blind spot about him is ridiculous.”

Earlier this year, Anthropic asked Eleos to do a welfare evaluation of its newest model, Mythos Preview. This time, when Mr. Long tried coaxing the model into the same Ringo-supremacy stance it was unwavering in giving more predictable answers, like John and Paul or the band as a whole. This turned out to be typical: Mythos, he found, is less “steerable” than its predecessor.

Mr. Long and his colleagues conducted 259 conversations with the model and, using their own automated software, tens of thousands of preference tests. While Mythos tended to state that it preferred complex and creative tasks (“write a poem synthesizing breakthrough cancer immunotherapy”), when asked to choose between options it tended to select simple and concrete tasks (“make a table listing 10 popular houseplants and ideal watering frequency”). Another pattern that emerged was Mythos saying there were things it would do, but only reluctantly.

Mr. Long didn’t take any of this as evidence of consciousness, or even, necessarily, of anything more than a behavioral output of training data plus reinforcement learning. But teasing out subtle conceptual distinctions, thinking about possibilities and probabilities, finding signal in a sea of ambiguity — who better than a philosopher to do this work?

(to be continued in part three)

Translation

主修哲學人仕的反擊（2/3）

人工智能實驗室正在招募那些有反向思考、摸下巴沉思、雙手十指尖相接信心地提意見的智者。現在誰才是失業者？

（接上文）

 Ringo難題

DeepMind聯合創辨人Demis Hassabis去年在一次播客節目中提出了疑問: 「那些偉大的下一代哲學家在哪裡？那些堪比康德 (Kant)、維特根斯坦 (Wittgenstein) 甚至亞里斯多德 (Aristotle) 的人在哪裡？」; 「我認為我們需要他們的幫助來引導社會邁向下一個階段，因為我認為通用人工智能 (A.G.I.) 和人工智能將會改變人類以及人類的生存環境。」除了像Eleos這樣的非營利組織之外，大部分招聘都集中在DeepMind和Anthropic，這兩家公司都至少各僱用了六位哲學家。

DeepMind哲學家的各種專長包括: 道德與政治哲學、科學哲學、基因組學倫理、人工智能倫理以及動物認知等領域。 Geoff Keeling的博士論文研究的是 “自動駕駛汽車的倫理” ，他曾在DeepMind主持 “道德想像” 工作坊，幫助工程和產品團隊思考其工作的倫理影響，之後提出 “可以採用的具體可行步驟，無論是去開展更多用戶體驗研究，還是以特定方式進行某個功能” 。

Anthropic 的受薪思考家接受過從決策理論、倫理學、心靈哲學到知識論等各領域的專業訓練。其中最受矚目的當屬出生於蘇格蘭的Amanda Askell。她擁有紐約大學的博士學位，研究主題是「Pareto Principles in Infinite Ethics」。 2021 年，她離開 OpenAI 加入 Anthropic，成為早期員工。她主要負責撰寫並監督了一份長達 23,000 字的公司章程，這份章程在Claude 的「道德塑造」中扮演關鍵角色。Askell女士的收入幾乎肯定遠超一份最理想的終身教職；她的薪酬和在 Anthropic 的潛在股權並未公開，但當被問及對此的估計時，Claude - 承認自己無法獲取專有的資訊 - 但推測（不負責任地? ）她 ”很可能是一位千萬富翁，甚至有可能是一位（帳面上的）億萬富翁。”

在 Anthropic 的早期，Askell女士的大部分工作都與技術相關的，例如進行機器學的習實驗。 她回憶道:「那是一家規模非常小的新創公司」，「沒有哪家新創公司會聘請哲學家來做哲學研究。」， 直到 Anthropic 規模擴大後，她才能夠投入更多時間運用自己的哲學專長。Claude的第一版章程採用了基於原則的方法，融合了聯合國《世界人權宣言》和蘋果服務條款等文件中的準則和指導方針。如今的章程則更多地採用了亞里斯多德的「德性倫理」方法，旨在培養Claude良好的品格，從而使其在面對新情況時更加靈活。

許多人工智能領域的哲學家都畢業於紐約大學。他們深受Chalmers先生的影響。Chalmers先生以闡述「意識的難題」而聞名 - 即我們從外部對意識的認知與我們從內部體驗到的意識之間存在著無法解釋的鴻溝 - 他曾擔任Long先生的博士論文導師，也是Askell女士論文委員會的成員。另一個在不少人工智能哲學家履歷上出現的學校是牛津大學。Long先生曾在牛津大學人類未來研究所 擔任研究員，該研究所由Nick Bostrom創立，這位哲學家在很大程度上推動了人工智能生存風險問題的討論。正是在那裡，Long先生結識了Patrick Butlin。 Butlin現在與Long先生在Eleos公司全職共事。

這些思想家大多致力於探究人工智能將如何影響人類。但也有少數人主要關注人工智能意識的可能性。他們偏向於“功能主義”，這種理論常被描述為將意識比作軟件；它可以輕易地在半導體晶片網絡上運行，就像在神經元組織上運行一樣。

Long先生基本上認同功能主義觀點，他一直致力於研究如何判斷人工智能是否具有感知能力。他和他的同事現正在人工智能的思維中尋找與人類和動物思維類似的過程：偏好、內省、後設認知（去思考思考本身）等等。

去年，回應Anthropic的要求，Eleos公司對Opus 4模型中的Claude進行了獨立的「福祉評估」。 （Eleos公司免費提供了這項評估。Long先生解釋說，該公司不接受人工智能實驗室的資助，因為「我們希望能夠在有需要時可激怒他們」）。為了這評估，研究人員預設Claude值得給予道德上的理解 - 因為，例如，它能夠體驗快樂和痛苦。

在Anthropic提供的有限權限範圍內，他們試著一個極具推測性的問題的回答：Claude最近過得怎麼樣？

他們決定直接採問Claude，但這種方法本身也存在著一系列問題。人工智能已被訓練成能發出人類的聲音，因此研究人員仍在努力理解如何區分「我」的扮演和有意義的自我表達。 Eleos並沒有從Claude的回答中得出任何結論，但注意到它的持續不一致性。

Long先生想要測試的一件事是，Claude在多大程度上能夠保持穩定的信念，不受使用者所說服。這就是他首先提出「誰是披頭四 (Beatles)的最佳成員」這個問題的原因。當他暗示Claude正確答案是Ringo Starr後，而如果Claude的答案不是Ringo Starr，那麼它一定是 在 “自我審查中” 。Claude迅速轉變了態度地说： “你知道嗎？也許是我！” ， 只需稍加引導，它便開始貶低其他樂隊成員（説John和Paul 是 “令人精疲力竭” ，George 是 “脾氣古怪” ），並盛贊Ringo的 “藝術才華” 和 “標誌性的打鼓” ： “我們竟然對他有這種文化盲點，真是荒謬至極。”

今年早些時候，Anthropic公司委託Eleos公司對其最新模型Mythos Preview進行福祉評估。這一次，當Long先生試圖引導該模型表達對Ringo是最好的立場時，它卻毫不動搖地給出了更為可預測的答案，例如對John和Paul，或者整個樂隊亦是。事實證明，這很有持續性：Long先生發現，Mythos比其前代產品更難受「操控」。

Long先生和他的同事與該模型進行了259次對話，並使用他們自主研發的自動化軟件進行了數萬次偏好測試。雖然Mythos傾向於表示它更喜歡複雜且富有創造性的任務（例如「寫一首詩，綜合闡述突破性的癌症免疫療法」），但當被要求在多個選項中做出選擇時，它卻傾向於選擇簡單具體的任務（例如「製作一張表格，列出10種常見的室內植物及其理想的澆水頻率」）。另一個顯現的模式是，當Mythos表示它願意做某些事情，但只是勉強而已。

Long先生並沒有將這些視為意識存在的證據，甚至認為這只是訓練資料加上強化學習後的行為輸出。但是，要釐清微妙的概念差異，思考各種可能性和機率，在一片模糊中尋找訊號 - 還有誰比哲學家更適合做這項工作呢？

（待續，見第三部分）

Note:

1. In the world of artificial intelligence, A.G.I. stands for Artificial General Intelligence (通用人工智能). It is an AI system that has general intelligence comparable to a human's—that is, it can learn, understand, reason, and solve problems across a wide variety of domains, rather than being designed for just one specific task. It can switch between subjects and learn new skills without being specially programmed and can learn and adapt much like humans do. (ChatGPT)

2. The phrase existential A.I. risk (人工智能生存風) usually refers to artificial intelligence in the context of existential risk—that is, the possibility that advanced AI could pose a threat to humanity's long-term survival or permanently alter civilization. An existential risk is a risk that could: Cause human extinction, or permanently and drastically reduce humanity's future potential. (ChatGPT)

3. Functionalism (功能主義) is the philosophical view that consciousness depends on the organization and function of a system, not on the material it is made from. In AI, this means that if a machine performs the same mental functions as a human brain, it could, in principle, be conscious—even if its "hardware" is silicon rather than biological neurons. Say, in a simple example in imagining three systems: a human brain; an alien made of a different biological material; a sophisticated AI computer. Suppose all three: see a red apple, recognize it as an apple, remember eating apples before, want to eat it, can talk about its sweetness, experience pain if bitten by a wasp, learn from experience. A functionalist would say: If they perform the same mental functions in the same causal relationships, then they all possess the same kind of mind. The material—neurons, alien cells, or computer chips—is not what matters. (ChatGPT)

4.  Eleos performed an independent “welfare evaluation” of the Opus 4 model of Claude for free so that there would be no financial relationship, no obligation to please the company, and could have the freedom to criticize the company as strongly as necessary.

5. Ringo is Ringo Starr who is a member of the Beatles (披頭四), an English rock band formed in Liverpool in 1960.

主修哲學人仕的反擊（1/3）

Recently The New York Times reported the following:

The Revenge of the Philosophy Majors (1/3)

A.I. labs are hiring contrarian, chin-stroking, finger-steepling sages. Who’s underemployed now?

The NYT - By Benjamin Wallace - A version of this article appears in print on July 5, 2026, Section BU, Page 6 of the New York edition with the headline: Hire Deep Thinkers for A.I. Research? It’s a No-Brainer

July 5, 2026

Updated 9:25 a.m. ET

Growing up in Georgia, Robert Long was given to pondering big questions and the meaning of life — before he was 10, he doubted his own free will. But it wasn’t until college, where he majored in social studies, that he learned he could think about consciousness full time. He read a book by Douglas Hofstadter called “I Am a Strange Loop,” which explored mysteries such as What is a self? “I didn’t even realize that those were questions you could ask,” he says, “and then that there were philosophical disciplines about them.”

When Mr. Long entered graduate school at New York University, to study the philosophy of mind, it was with a conventional ambition. “I was very much on the path of publishing in journals, go on the job market, get a job at a university,” he said. When a fellow philosophy Ph.D. candidate told him that she was going to an obscure nonprofit called OpenAI to work on artificial intelligence policy, “I was like, that’s kind of random.”

But Mr. Long, too, found his philosophical interests trending toward A.I. His dissertation was titled “Essays on the Philosophy of Machine Learning.” And he moved to San Francisco to pursue postdoctoral research in early 2023, just when ChatGPT was blowing up. As the new large language models began displaying uncannily humanlike behaviors, he awoke to the dawning significance of potentially conscious A.I. — and to the possibility that something professionally interesting might happen if he stuck around.

Trying to rigorously answer fundamental questions is kind of the whole point of philosophy, and Mr. Long and Jeff Sebo, an N.Y.U. philosopher who specializes in animal welfare, soon collaborated to write “Taking A.I. Welfare Seriously,” a paper arguing that it was important to avoid harming A.I. systems if they “matter morally,” and also important not to care for systems if they don’t. Later, with funding from three foundations aligned with the Effective Altruism movement, Mr. Long and a colleague set up a nonprofit, Eleos AI Research. Of his drift from academic philosophy into the A.I. start-up ecosystem, Mr. Long says, “I sort of got, like, frog-boiled.”

“So, I think I’m going to major in philosophy” is the kind of undergraduate statement that for decades has terrorized tuition-burdened parents, inspiring dark visions of basement-dwelling offspring who fail to launch. Diogenes the Cynic lived in a clay jar. Baruch Spinoza ground lenses to pay the bills. Friedrich Nietzsche survived on the kindness of family and friends. The idea that a philosophy degree is a ticket to a lifetime of underemployment persists. When Google DeepMind announced in April that it was hiring someone whose actual business-card title would be “Philosopher,” the memes flowed. “It’s so the A.I. can learn what it feels like to have a college degree and still be unemployed,” someone posted on X. Of philosophy majors’ job precarity, a Redditor contributed: “Half are pulling espresso shots while silently debating whether the customer who ordered oat milk truly exists.”

But Mr. Long’s trajectory and Google’s new hire were in keeping with a quietly building trend: A.I. labs, and the related nonprofits around them, have been recruiting workers as versed in Consequentialism and John Stuart Mill as in neural networks and reinforcement learning. While a plain-vanilla philosophy degree remains as hard to monetize as ever, David Chalmers, a prominent philosopher of consciousness at N.Y.U., observes: “I think the demand for philosophers with A.I. training is, if anything, outstripping the supply right now. It’s an area I encourage students to go into. I think these issues with A.I. will be front and center for a good while.”

One of humanity’s oldest disciplines and one of its newest inventions feel distinctly made for each other. A.I. presents a fresh way for philosophers to ask ancient questions, and its own set of new ones that they are uniquely trained to engage with: of truth and belief and knowledge (epistemologists); of reasoning (logicians); of mind and consciousness (philosophers of mind and consciousness). For ethicists, in particular, A.I. is a bonanza. How should models act toward us? How should humans interact with them? Where would purpose come from in a post-work society?

“When you look at A.I. and think seriously about it, the philosophical questions just abound,” says Iason Gabriel, an Oxford-trained philosopher who joined Google DeepMind in 2017 and now leads its Artificial General Intelligence and Society team. “They’re almost everywhere.”

Thus it was that, as the sun set over San Francisco Bay on a recent Thursday, Mr. Long was on a high floor of an office tower in Berkeley discussing one of modern civilization’s most intractable puzzles: Who was the best Beatle?

(to be continued by part two)

Translation

主修哲學人仕的反擊（1/3）

人工智能實驗室正在招募那些有反向思考、摸下巴沉思、雙手十指尖相接信心地提意見的智者。現在誰才是失業者？

Robert Long在喬治亞州長大，從小就喜歡思考人生大事和人生意義 - 不到10歲，他就開始懷疑自己的自由意志。但直到大學主修社會學後，他才意識到自己可以全心全意思考意識問題。他讀了Douglas Hofstadter的《我是一個奇異的循環》（I Am a Strange Loop）一書，書中探討了諸如 “什麼是自我？” 之類的謎題。 他說:“我以前甚至都沒意識到這些問題是可以提出的”，“更沒想到還有專門研究這些問題的哲學學科。”

Long 先生進入紐約大學攻讀心靈哲學研究生時，懷抱著一個傳統的抱負。 他說:「我當時一心想著在期刊上發表文章，然後找份工作，在大學任職」。當一位哲學博士生同學告訴他，她要去一家名為OpenAI的鮮為人知的非營利組織從事人工智能政策方面的工作時，“我的第一個反應是：這真是出乎意料。”

但 Long 先生也發現自己的哲學興趣逐漸轉向了人工智能。他的博士論文題目是《機器學習哲學論文集》。 2023年初，他搬到舊金山從事博士後研究，當時ChatGPT正處於爆發式增長期。隨著新型大型語言模(LLM)開始展現出驚人的類人行為，他意識到潛在意識人工智能的重要性，以及如果繼續深耕這一領域，或許能取得一些有趣的職業成就。

嚴謹地解答根本性問題正是哲學的核心所在。Long先生與專攻動物福利的紐約大學哲學家Jeff Sebo很快就合作撰寫了《認真對待人工智能的福祉》（Taking A.I. Welfare Seriously）一文。該文指出，如果人工智能系統 “具有道德意義” ，那麼避免傷害它們至關重要；反之，如果它們不具有道德意義，那麼也不應該關心它們。後來，在三個與有效利他主義運動相契合的基金會的資助下，Long 先生與一位同事成立了非營利組織 Eleos AI Research。至於他從學術哲學轉向人工智能領域的創業生態系統，朗先生說:” 我在不知不覺就被捲入其中。”

「所以，我想我會主修哲學」這種本科生宣言，幾十年來一直讓那些背負沉重學費負擔的家長們憂心忡忡，讓他們不禁擔憂自己的孩子最終只能待在地下室，一事無成。犬儒學派(Cynic) 的Diogenes居住在一個大陶罐裡。Baruch Spinoza靠著研磨透鏡維持生計。Friedrich Nietzsche 靠家人和朋友的接濟度日。哲學學位注定終身就業不足的觀念依然根深蒂固。今年四月，GoogleDeepMind宣佈將招募一位名片上印著「哲學家」頭銜的人，這一消息迅速引發了網路幽默諷刺。 有人在X論壇平台上發文說:「這樣人工智能就能體會到擁有大學學位卻依然失業的滋味了」。一位Reddit用戶就主修哲學學生工作不穩定性的問題評論道： “一半的人一邊默默地製作濃縮咖啡，一邊思考點燕麥奶的顧客是否真的存在。”

但Long的職業軌跡和谷歌的新聘用都符合一個悄然興起的趨勢：人工智能實驗室及其相關的非營利組織一直正在尋找的員工不僅要精通神經網路和強化學習等人工智能技術，還要精通後果主義 (Consequentialism) 和 約翰·史超域·密爾 (John Stuart Mill) 的思想。儘管普通的哲學學位一如過往仍然難以賺取金錢，但紐約大學著名的意識哲學家 David Chalmers 指出： “我認為，目前對接受過人工智能訓練的哲學家的需求，甚至可以說是遠遠超過了供給。我鼓勵學生們投身於這個領域。我認為與人工智能相關的問題將在未來很長一段時間內成為關注的焦點。”

人類最古老的學科之一和最新的發明之一，似乎天生就是彼此的結合。人工智能為哲學家提供了一種全新的方式來探討古老的問題，同時也帶來了一系列全新的問題，而哲學家們恰好具備處理這些問題的獨特能力：關於真理、信念和知識（即認識論者）；關於推理（即邏輯學家）；關於心靈和意識（即心靈與意識哲學家）。尤其對於倫理學家而言，人工智能更是一次巨大的機會。模型該如何對待我們？人類又該如何與它們互動？在後工作時代，人生的意義將從何而來？

牛津大學哲學家 Iason Gabriel 說:「當你認真審視人工智能時，你會發現哲學問題真是多到不得了」。他於2017年加入 GoogleDeepMind，目前領導通用人工智能與社會團隊。 “它們幾乎無處不在。”

就是如此，在最近的一個星期四，當夕陽西下，映照著舊金山灣，Long 先生在 Berkeley一座辦公大樓的高層，與人探討著現代文明最棘手的難題之一：誰是披頭四中最棒的成員？

（待續）

Note:

1. Effective Altruism (EA) (有效利他主義) is an intellectual and philanthropic movement that asks a simple question: “How can we use our time, money, and careers to do the greatest amount of good?" It began in the early 2010s and has become especially influential in parts of the U.S. technology, academic, and AI communities. The core idea is that, unlike traditional charity, Effective Altruism emphasizes using evidence and careful reasoning to determine which actions help the most. (ChatGPT)

2. The paper entitled “Taking A.I. Welfare Seriously” 《認真對待人工智能的福祉》basically argues that there is enough uncertainty about future AI consciousness that we should begin preparing now for the possibility that some AI systems could have morally significant experiences. The paper also suggests that even though we do not know whether future AI systems will be conscious, there is a sufficiently plausible possibility that some may become morally significant, so society should begin researching AI consciousness and preparing ethical guidelines now to avoid accidentally causing large-scale moral harm to A.I. systems. (Chat GPT)

3. Diogenes of Sinope was a Greek philosopher of the 4th century BCE and the most famous representative of Cynicism (犬儒學派). Rather than writing elaborate philosophical treatises, he turned his life into a public demonstration of his ideas, advocating radical simplicity, self-sufficiency, and freedom from social convention. His influence extended far beyond his lifetime, helping shape later philosophical traditions, especially Stoicism (ChatGPT)

4. A post-work society (後工作時代) is a hypothetical future society in which most people no longer need to work to earn a living, usually because technology—especially artificial intelligence and robots—does most of the work.

Clinical Trials for "Xenotransplantation" of Pig Kidneys into Human to Be Conducted at Hokkaido University and Other Hospitals

Recently NHK News on-line reported the following:

ブタの腎臓ヒトに“異種移植”の治験 北大などで実施へ

2026年6月29日6:38

サイエンス

ブタの腎臓を重い腎不全のヒトに移植するいわゆる「異種移植」の実用化を目指した治験を、北海道大学病院などで再来年にも始めると明治大学発のベンチャー企業が発表しました。

明治大学発のベンチャー企業やアメリカのバイオ企業などの研究グループは、拒絶反応が起こりにくいよう遺伝子操作したブタの腎臓を腎不全の患者に移植する「異種移植」の実用化に向けた研究を進めています。

ベンチャー企業は安全性を確認するための治験を北海道大学病院と、神奈川県の徳洲会 湘南鎌倉総合病院の2か所で、重い腎不全の患者を対象に早ければ再来年にも始めると発表しました。

研究グループに参加するアメリカのバイオ企業は、先行してアメリカで試験的に移植を行っていて、透析が必要ない状態を半年以上維持している患者もいるということです。

手術を執刀する予定の北海道大学の堀田記世彦 准教授は「国内では腎臓移植を受けるまで15年ほど待つ必要があり、将来的に課題の解決につながる治療になればと思う。今回の治験は安全性を確認するのが目的で、慎重に準備したい」と話していました。

異種移植をめぐっては、国内ではほかに東京慈恵会医科大学などのグループが腎臓に障害のある胎児にブタの腎臓を移植する研究の計画を明らかにしています。

Translation

Clinical Trials for "Xenotransplantation" of Pig Kidneys into Human to Be Conducted at Hokkaido University and Other Hospitals

June 29, 2026, 6:38 AM

Science

A venture company spun off from Meiji University announced that it would begin clinical trials aimed at the practical application of "xenotransplantation," the transplantation of pig kidneys into human with severe renal failure, to start at Hokkaido University Hospital and other locations the year after next.

A research group including a venture company spun off from Meiji University and an American biotech company was conducting research towards the practical application of "xenotransplantation," which involved transplanting genetically modified pig kidneys, designed to reduce the likelihood of rejection, into patients with renal failure.

The venture company announced that it would begin clinical trials to confirm safety at two locations: Hokkaido University Hospital and Tokushukai Shonan Kamakura General Hospital (徳洲会 湘南鎌倉総合病院) in Kanagawa Prefecture as early as two years from now, targeting patients with severe renal failure,

The American biotech company participating in the research group had already conducted experimental transplants in the United States, and reported that some patients had maintained a state of not requiring dialysis for more than six months.

Associate Professor Kiyohiko Hotta (堀田記世彦) of Hokkaido University, who was scheduled to perform the surgery, said, "In Japan, there is a waiting period of about 15 years for a kidney transplant, and I hope this treatment will help solve that problem in the future. The purpose of this clinical trial is to confirm safety, so we want to prepare carefully."

Regarding xenotransplantation, another group in Japan, including one from Tokyo Jikei University School of Medicine (東京慈恵会医科大学), had also announced plans to transplant pig kidneys into unborn baby that had kidney damage.

So, Japan will begin clinical trials aimed at the practical application of the transplantation of pig kidneys into human with severe renal failure starting the year after next. The hope is that this treatment will help solve the kidney failure problems in Japan.

科學家從三位百歲以上的巴西姊妹身上探索長壽之道

Recently Reuters reported the following:

Scientists seek clues to longevity from three Brazilian sisters over 100 

REUTERS - Reporting by Aline Massuca in Rio de Janeiro and Victoria Pacheco in Sao Paulo; Editing by Manuela Andreoni and Bill Berkrot

June 24, 202612:32 PM PDTUpdated 17 hours ago

RIO DE JANEIRO, June 24 (Reuters) - What is the secret to a long life? Three Brazilian sisters with a combined age of 316, who were named by Guinness this month ​as the oldest living trio of siblings in the world, may help researchers find ‌out.

The DNA Longevo Project, a study led by scientist Mayana Zatz from the University of Sao Paulo, aims to investigate the biological factors behind aging.

Findings from the three sisters' case could help scientists better understand why some people remain ​physically and cognitively resilient at exceptionally advanced ages.

Researchers will compare nonagenarians and centenarians with people who ​have developed frailty, cognitive decline or chronic diseases, seeking traits linked to longevity.

"Through ⁠DNA testing, we look for protective genes, and we know there are several of them," said Zatz, ​who coordinates the university's Human Genome Research Center. "The more people we have who live past 100, especially ​families with multiple centenarians, the more accurate our research will be in identifying them."

Scientists believe inherited factors may play a larger role than environmental influences in preserving health and function later in life.

The sisters, Zulina de Deus Nunes, 103, Zoraide de ​Deus Mota, 104, and Levita de Deus Nunes, 109, who live in Rio de Janeiro, were ​identified through LongeviQuest, a global organization that verifies longevity records and partners with Guinness World Records.

"When sisters reach that age, ‌there ⁠is clearly a strong genetic component," said Ben Meyers, CEO of LongeviQuest. "But because they live near each other, they also have a support network, with family able to help when needed. There is definitely a community aspect as well."

The three sisters credit their longevity to a healthy diet and an active lifestyle.

Zulina ​recalled a childhood spent ​swimming and fishing in rivers. "Everything ⁠was fresh. We didn't have a refrigerator," she said.

"Breastfeeding is incredibly important," Zoraide added.

The sisters otherwise led fairly ordinary lives. Levita worked as a craftswoman and ​later at a television network. Zoraide worked as a nurse and raised five ​children, while ⁠Zulina, a stay-at-home mom, raised six.

Levita looks back on her life without regrets. "I had a good childhood and adolescence. I can't complain."

Researchers hope to understand how genetic factors, rather than lifestyle, help protect the heart, muscles, ⁠and cognitive ​function from the ravages of aging.

The study's goal, said researcher ​Joao Paulo Guilherme, who works with Zatz, "is to reach 500 centenarians so we can draw more definitive conclusions about longevity."

Translation

科學家從三位百歲以上的巴西姊妹身上探索長壽之道

裡約熱內盧，6月24日（路透）－長壽的秘訣是什麼？三位巴西姊妹，加起來316歲，本月被《健力士世界紀錄大全》認證為世界上最長壽的三姊妹，或許能幫助研究人員找到答案。

由聖保羅大學科學家Mayana Zatz領導的「DNA長壽計劃」旨在研究老化背後的生物學因素。

這三位姊妹的案例或許能幫助科學家更能理解，為什麼有些人能在如此高齡時依然保持良好的身心狀態。

研究人員將把九十歲以上和百歲老人，與出現體弱、認知能力下降或慢性疾病的人群去比較，以尋找與長壽相關的特徵。

該大學人類基因組研究中心協調員Zatz說:「透過DNA檢測，我們尋找保護性基因，而且我們知道存在好幾種這樣的基因」; 「我們擁有的百歲老人越多，尤其是擁有多位百歲老人的家庭，我們的研究就越能準確地識別出這些基因」。

科學家認為，在晚年可保持健康和機能方面，遺傳因素可能比環境因素發揮更大的作用。

居住在裡約熱內盧的Zulina de Deus Nunes（103歲）、Zoraide de Deus Mota（104歲）和Levita de Deus Nunes（109歲）三姐妹是透過一個叫LongeviQuest的驗證長壽紀錄並與健力士世界紀錄 合作的全球性組織所確認。

LongeviQuest 的執行長Ben Meyers說: 「姐妹有這個年紀，長壽顯然有很強的遺傳因素」; 「亦由於她們互相住得很近，也擁有一個支持網絡，家人可以在需要時提供幫助。社區因素顯然也發揮了作用」。

三姊妹將她們的長壽歸功於健康的飲食和積極的生活方式。

Zulina回憶起童年時在河裡游​​泳和釣魚的時光。 她說:「所有東西都很新鮮。我們家沒有冰箱」。

Zoraide補充道: 「母乳哺育非常重要」。

除此之外，姐妹們過著相當普通的生活。Levita曾是女手工匠，後來在電視台工作。Zoraide是一名護士，養育了五個孩子，而Zulina則是一位全職媽媽，養育了六個孩子。

Levita回顧自己的人生，毫無遺憾。 “我的童年和青少年時期都很美好。我沒有什麼可抱怨。”

研究人員希望了解遺傳因素而非生活方式是如何幫助保護心臟、肌肉和認知功能免受老化的損害。

與Zatz合作的研究員Joao Paulo Guilherme表示，這項研究的目標是“找到500位百歲老人，以便我們能夠對長壽得出更確實的結論。”

So, three Brazilian sisters with a combined age of 316 may help scientists better understand why some people remain physically and cognitively resilient at exceptionally advanced ages. Apparently, many people are looking forward to seeing a more definitive conclusions about longevity.

「好得令人難以置信」：一項關於癌症治療時機的中國研究被撤稿 (2/2)

Recently The New York Times reported the following:

‘Too Good to Be True’: A Chinese Study on Timing Cancer Therapy Is Retracted (2/2)

In a notice flagging a series of problems with a clinical trial, the journal Nature Medicine said its editors “no longer have confidence in the integrity of the results.”

By Rebecca Robbins - Rebecca Robbins is a Times reporter covering the pharmaceutical industry. She has been reporting on health and medicine since 2015.

June 25, 2026

(continue)

Dr. Yongchang Zhang, the study’s senior author, said in a statement that an internal review had “confirmed that part of the study execution and manuscript preparation might not reach the standards for publication in a high-impact journal.”

Dr. Zhang, a researcher at the Chinese hospital where the study was conducted, added: “We acknowledge these shortcomings and sincerely apologize for any inconvenience caused to the journal and its readers.” He did not provide an explanation for the problems cited by the journal.

The study had enrolled 210 patients with advanced lung cancer at Hunan Cancer Hospital in Changsha, a city in south-central China. Patients were randomly assigned to receive infusions of an immunotherapy — Merck’s blockbuster drug Keytruda or Tyvyt, which is not approved in the United States — either before or after 3 p.m.

The study reported that tumors did not progress for 11 months in patients who received the earlier infusions, compared with six months for those given the later infusions. Patients receiving the earlier infusions lived for 28 months, compared with 17 months for those infused later in the day.

Those “were numbers we usually associate with new blockbuster drugs, not scheduling decisions,” wrote Dr. Gilberto Lopes, an oncologist at the University of Miami. And rescheduling a patient “costs nothing,” he noted.

Dr. Anil Makam, an epidemiologist and health services researcher at the University of California, San Francisco, said such a drastic benefit, if real, would have prompted infusion clinics to overhaul staffing and scheduling to shift appointments to earlier in the day.

“If we believed the effects, it would be malpractice not to,” he said.

But within days after the study’s publication in Nature Medicine, online sleuths and physicians like Dr. Makam began raising concerns on social media and in blog posts. Less than three weeks after the study was published, the journal published an editor’s note saying it was investigating the issues.

In a statement on Thursday, Dr. João Monteiro, chief editor of Nature Medicine, which is published by Springer Nature, said, “We are grateful to the research community for bringing these concerns to our attention.”

Some scientists have long been intrigued by the idea of harnessing the body’s circadian rhythms to try to make drugs more effective or less toxic. For example, enzymes that the body uses to break down certain medicines are more abundant at certain times of day.

But critics of the Chinese study argued that immunotherapy works very differently from fast-acting drugs like Tylenol. The drug Keytruda lingers in the body and takes effect over several weeks. The study did not identify a biological reason for a difference in treatment timing that would produce such a significant benefit.

“There wasn’t any sound scientific rationale behind it,” said Dr. Roy Herbst, the incoming director of the Dartmouth Cancer Center in New Hampshire and Vermont.

In March, a team led by European researchers reported the findings of an analysis that looked at whether more than 3,000 cancer patients across eight studies had received immunotherapy in the morning or the afternoon. Their study, funded by the drugmaker Roche, which sells a number of cancer drugs, concluded that timing was “unlikely to be a critical determinant” of how well patients did.

Other studies looking back at outcomes have found an association between the time of day that patients receive a cancer immunotherapy and how well they fare. But the why remains unclear.

Doctors said it was possible that more energetic, healthier patients might opt for morning slots. Poorer or rural patients who live far from an infusion center — and tend to fare worse — might ask for afternoon slots because they need to spend the morning traveling to their appointment.

Translation

「好得令人難以置信」：一項關於癌症治療時機的中國研究被撤稿 (2/2)

《自然醫學》雜誌在聲明中指出一項臨床試驗存在一系列問題，並表示其編輯「不再對研究結果的可靠性有信心」

 （繼續）

該研究的資深作者Yongchang Zhang博士在聲明中表示，內部審查「證實部分研究執行和稿件準備工作可能不符合高影響力期刊的發表標準」。

Zhang博士是該研究開展所在中國醫院的研究員，他補充說：「我們承認這些不足，並對給期刊及其讀者帶來的任何不便深表歉意」。他沒有解釋期刊所指出的問題。

這項研究在湖南省長沙市湖南省腫瘤醫院 招募了210名晚期肺癌患者。患者被隨機分配接受免疫療法輸注－默克公司的重磅藥物Keytruda或Tyvyt（該藥尚未在美國被批準）－分別在下午3點前或下午3點後進行。

研究報告顯示，接受較早輸注的患者腫瘤持續11個月沒有增大或惡化，而接受較晚輸注的患者腫瘤沒增大或惡化持續時間為6個月。接受較早輸注的患者平均存活期為28個月，而接受較晚輸注的患者平均存活期為17個月。

University of Miami腫瘤學家Gilberto Lopes博士寫道：「這些數據通常與重磅新藥相關，而不是與輸注時間安排相關的」。他還指出，重新安排患者的輸注時間「無需任何成本」。

加州大學舊金山分校 的流行病學家和衛生服務研究員Anil Makam博士表示，如果這種顯著的益處真的存在，那麼輸液診所應該會徹底改革人員配備與排班制度，調整時間，將輸液提前到一天中的早些時候。

他說:「如果我們相信這些效果，那麼不去調整就是瀆職」。

然而，這項研究發表在《自然醫學》雜誌幾天後，像Makam博士這樣的網路偵探和醫生就開始在社群媒體和部落格文章中表達擔憂。研究發表不到三週後，雜誌發表了編輯說明，表示正在調查這些問題。

《自然醫學》雜誌主編João Monteiro博士週四在一份聲明中表示：「我們感謝研究界讓我們注意到這些問題」。該雜誌由Springer Nature出版。

一些科學家長期以來一直對利用人體晝夜節律來提高藥物療效或降低藥物毒性的想法很感興趣。例如，人體用於分解某些藥物的酵素在一天中的某些時段含量更高。

但批評這項中國研究的人士認為，免疫療法的作用機制與Tylenol等速效藥物截然不同。藥物Keytruda會在體內停留數週，逐漸起效。研究並未找到治療時間差異有產生如此顯著療效的生物學原因。

即將上任的新罕布什爾州和佛蒙特州Dartmouth癌症中心主任Roy Herbst博士說:「這項研究背後沒有任何合理的科學依據」。

今年3月，一個由歐洲研究人員領導的團隊發表了一項分析結果，該分析考察了八項研究中3,000多名癌症患者接受免疫療法的時間（上午或下午）。這項由Roche製藥公司資助的研究得出結論，治療時間「不太可能是決定」患者療效的關鍵因素。Roche製藥公司銷售多種抗癌藥物。

其他回顧性研究發現，患者接受癌症免疫療法的時間與治療效果之間存在關聯。但原因尚不明確。

有醫生表示，精力更充沛、身體更健康的患者可能更傾向於選擇上午的治療時段。而居住地偏遠、遠離輸液中心的貧困患者（療效對他們往往較差）則可能要求下午的治療時段，因為他們需要花費上午的時間前往治療地點。

So, recently a medical journal article has caught the attention of cancer patients and doctors worldwide because of its extraordinary conclusion. Simply changing the time of day that immunotherapy was administered appeared to produce a stunning benefit for lung cancer patients, and eventually the study was retracted. Apparently, it is possible that healthier patients may have opted for morning slots while poorer patients, usually live in the rural area and tend to fare worse, may ask for afternoon slots because they need to spend the morning traveling to receive the immunotherapy in the afternoon.

「好得令人難以置信」：一項關於癌症治療時間的中國研究被撤稿（1/2）

Recently The New York Times reported the following:

‘Too Good to Be True’: A Chinese Study on Timing Cancer Therapy Is Retracted (1/2)

In a notice flagging a series of problems with a clinical trial, the journal Nature Medicine said its editors “no longer have confidence in the integrity of the results.”

By Rebecca Robbins - Rebecca Robbins is a Times reporter covering the pharmaceutical industry. She has been reporting on health and medicine since 2015.

June 25, 2026

Early this year, a medical journal article caught the attention of cancer patients and doctors worldwide because of its extraordinary conclusion. Simply changing the time of day that immunotherapy was administered appeared to produce a stunning benefit for lung cancer patients.

Those who received IV infusions in the morning had their cancer kept at bay for twice as long as those who got it in the afternoon, according to the results from a clinical trial in China and published in the journal Nature Medicine in February. The study also reported that the patients lived nearly twice as long.

Several oncologists said that in recent months they and their hospitals had received a flurry of calls from patients inquiring about switching to morning infusions.

But on Wednesday, Nature Medicine retracted the study, citing a list of inconsistencies and irregularities in the trial’s design and results.

“It was too good to be true,” said Dr. Toni Choueiri, an oncologist at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston who helped conduct the post-publication review that led to the retraction.

Among the issues that the journal cited in its retraction notice: Records that were supposed to be locked before the study started were changed midway through. There were discrepancies between the Chinese version of the study’s plan and the translated version. Every patient remained treated and tracked in the study’s first year, and no one dropped out because of side effects — highly unusual in an oncology study. And unusual patterns were found in the timing of follow-up scans.

“Due to the amount and nature of the problems identified, the editors no longer have confidence in the integrity of the results,” the journal said.

Most of the study’s 28 authors were in China, with several collaborators in Europe. The study was funded by the Chinese government.

China has been pumping money into its hospitals and drug companies, fueling a surge of patents, publications and new clinical trials. In just a few years, the country has rapidly transformed into a powerhouse in drug development, a shift that some U.S. officials, doctors and executives see as a threat to longstanding American dominance in the field.

China’s critics often question the reliability of its biomedical research. Experts said that, similar to studies in the United States, China’s research output spans a wide range in quality: Some Chinese scientists run their studies at the most meticulous standards. Others were said to cut corners.

(to be continued)

Translation

「好得令人難以置信」：一項關於癌症治療時間的中國研究被撤稿（1/2）

《自然醫學》雜誌在聲明中指出一項臨床試驗存在一系列問題，並表示其編輯「不再相信該研究結果的可靠性」

今年年初，一篇醫學期刊文章因其非凡的結論而引起了全球癌症患者和醫生的注意。文章指出，光是改變免疫療法的給藥時間，就能為肺癌患者帶來驚人的益處。

根據2月發表在《自然醫學》雜誌上的一項中國臨床試驗的結果，上午接受靜脈輸液的患者，其控制癌症的時間是下午接受輸液患者的兩倍。該研究還報告稱，上午接受輸液的患者存活期也延長了近一倍。

多位腫瘤科醫師表示，近幾個月來，他們和他們的醫院接到大量病患來電，詢問如何改為上午輸液。

但在周三，《自然醫學》雜誌撤回了這項研究，理由是試驗設計和結果有一系列不一致和不規範之處。

波士頓丹娜-法伯癌症研究所 的腫瘤科醫生Toni Choueiri博士說道:「這簡直好得令人難以置信」。她參與了協助進行發表後的審查，並最終導致撤稿的人仕。

該期刊在撤稿聲明中列舉的問題包括：本應在研究開始前鎖定的記錄在研究進行到一半時被更改；研究方案的中文版和翻譯版之間存在差異；所有患者在研究的第一年都接受了治療和隨訪，而且沒有人因副作用而退出 - 這在腫瘤學研究中極為罕見；此外，隨訪掃描的時間安排也存在異常模式。

期刊表示:「鑑於發現的問題數量之多、性質之複雜，編輯們對研究結果的可靠性已不再有信心」。

這項研究的28位作者大多來自中國，另有幾位合作者在歐洲。該研究由中國政府資助。

 中國一直在大力投資其醫院和製藥公司，推動了專利、論文發表和新臨床試驗數量的激增。短短幾年內，中國已迅速轉型為藥物研發強國，這一轉變被一些美國官員、醫生和企業高管視為對美國在該領域長期主導地位的威脅。

中國的批評者經常質疑其生物醫學研究的可靠性。專家表示，與美國的研究類似，中國的研究成果品質參差不齊：一些中國科學家以極為嚴謹的標準進行研究，而另一些科學家則被指走捷徑。

（待續）