被列入黑名單的中國科技巨頭如何持續購買美國頂尖人工智能晶片（2/2）

Recently The New York Times reported the following:

How a Blacklisted Chinese Tech Giant Kept Buying America’s Best A.I. Chips (2/2)

Washington imposed sanctions on Inspur because of its work with the Chinese military. But the company’s subsidiary kept shipping Nvidia’s best chips to feed China’s leading A.I. firms.

The NYT - By Ana SwansonPaul MozurTripp Mickle and Keith Bradsher (Ana Swanson reported from Washington and Jinan, China; Paul Mozur from Taiwan and Singapore; Tripp Mickle from Milpitas, Calif.; and Keith Bradsher from Jinan.)

Sept. 6, 2026

Updated 6:45 a.m. ET

(continue)

Different Country, Same Tactic

Most Americans have never heard of Inspur, but the company is among the world’s largest makers of computer servers. It has also dodged one sanction after another.

When the U.S. blacklisted Inspur in 2023, it got a new name in the United States. In China, Inspur got a new address.

The entity list, which the United States uses to block trade to targeted companies, applies to the specific company name and address designated by the government. Just days after its 2023 listing, Inspur registered its main business to a building down the road.

Four months ago, a Times reporter visited that address, in the eastern Chinese city Jinan. It was a nondescript building with no signage beyond a bank on the ground floor. A security guard confirmed that Inspur had an office there, but said not many people worked in it. He said Inspur was really based at the industrial park down the street.

That compound was busy. A series of dark gray high-rises stood inside a vast enclosure ringed by a hedge of roses and rows of motorbikes. Inside the gates, a red sign flashed a key slogan from China’s leader, Xi Jinping: “Chinese dream.”

Inspur, which is majority-owned by Shandong Province, began as a state-owned electronics factory. It developed the world’s first pager capable of displaying Chinese characters. More than a decade ago, the Chinese military and state turned to Inspur’s servers to reduce the reliance on foreign companies.

That made Inspur an American target. In 2020, the Trump administration included it on a list of Chinese military companies. In 2023, the Biden administration said Inspur Group had sought U.S. technology to make military supercomputers and put it on the entity list. That meant U.S. firms could no longer ship to it without a special license.

A loophole quickly opened. Companies like Intel had been selling to Inspur’s subsidiary, not the parent company, which the order did not cover.

Two years later, the second Trump administration closed a part of the loophole, adding some of Inspur’s subsidiaries to the blacklist. Aivres was not among them.

The Standout Connection

Records show that billions of dollars of advanced servers and other technology have flowed from Aivres and Inspur’s other global subsidiaries to cloud-computing and assembly firms across Southeast Asia.

One connection stands out. Maginfra was created in China last year, and quickly began doing brisk business with a Malaysian electronics firm that transacts with Inspur’s companies in Hong Kong, mainland China, the United States and Singapore.

Maginfra imported more than $700 million of servers from Malaysia into China in a six-month period, including more than 1,500 servers that were priced consistently with high-end A.I. capabilities, ImportGenius data shows. These entries do not include detailed descriptions of the servers or chips inside them, but they do indicate per-unit prices.

Maginfra has a scant public profile and no direct link to Inspur on paper. It is also government-owned, and it is down the street from Inspur’s headquarters. Corporate records show that the legal representative of Maginfra’s parent company has held positions at companies affiliated with Inspur subsidiaries or investment partners.

According to Wirescreen, a data platform, many of the patents that Maginfra has registered were filed by inventors who have worked for Inspur. The two firms’ websites also share striking similarities.

When a reporter from The Times visited Maginfra’s listed address in China on Tuesday, it appeared deserted. A few chairs and empty desks sat inside a small locked room with no signs. Workers on the floor said they had not seen anyone use the office, and building receptionists said they had not heard of Maginfra.

Public filings analyzed by C4ADS, a Washington research nonprofit, show Chinese universities, some with ties to defense research, seeking and sometimes obtaining servers containing advanced computer chips built by Maginfra and Inspur.

Maginfra also inked a contract in November to sell $165 million of high-performance computing technology to a division of a Chinese state-owned bank, according to a filing on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange.

“It’s very hard to look at this and not see a state-sponsored Chinese network for bypassing export controls,” said William George, the director of research at ImportGenius, who analyzed the trade records.

But the Trump administration approved Maginfra this year for a license for Nvidia’s less powerful H200 chips, according to documents viewed by The Times. Reuters previously reported the license.

The subsidiary Aivres remains very visible in Silicon Valley. It advertised A.I. servers using AMD’s technology and was listed as an “elite” partner of Nvidia and a sponsor of its annual conference in San Jose, Calif. (AMD declined to comment.)

In May, Nvidia announced that Aivres was among the more than two dozen companies in full-scale production of the servers that would supply its next generation of A.I. technology.

Translation:

被列入黑名單的中國科技巨頭如何持續購買美國頂尖人工智能晶片（2/2）

華盛頓因浪潮集團與中國軍方合作而對其實施制裁。但該公司旗下子公司卻持續向中國領先的人工智能公司供應英偉達的頂級晶片

（繼續）

不同國家，相同策略

大多數美國人從未聽說過浪潮集團，但該公司是全球最大的電腦伺服器製造商之一。它也成功地規避了一次又一次的制裁。

2023年，美國將浪潮列入黑名單後，浪潮在美國啟用了一個新的名稱。在中國，浪潮則更換了辦公地址。

美國利用實體清單來阻止與特定公司進行貿易，該清單適用於政府指定的公司名稱和地址。就在被列入2023年實體清單幾天後，浪潮將其主要業務註冊到了附近的一棟辦公大樓。

四個月前，《紐約時報》記者走訪了位於中國東部城市濟南的這棟辦公大樓。這是一棟毫不起眼的建築，除了底層的一家銀行外，沒有任何標誌。一名保安人員證實浪潮在那裡設有辦公室，但表示員工不多。他說，浪潮的實際總部在街道落些的工業園區。

那個工業園區裡生意興隆。一排排深灰色高樓矗立在一片巨大的圍牆內，圍牆四周環繞著玫瑰花籬和成排的摩托車。大門內，一塊紅色標誌閃爍著中國領導人習近平的重要口號：「中國夢」。

浪潮集團由山東省控股，最初是一家國有電子工廠。它研發出了世界上第一台能夠顯示中文的傳呼機。十多年前，中國軍方和政府開始使用浪潮的伺服器，以減少對外國公司的依賴。

這使得浪潮成為美國的目標。 2020年，特朗普政府將其列入中國軍工企業名單。 2023年，拜登政府稱浪潮集團尋求美國技術製造軍用超級計算機，並將其列入實體清單。這意味著美國公司如果沒有特殊許可，就無法再向其供貨。

然而，一個漏洞很快就出現了。像英特爾這樣的公司一直以來都是向浪潮的子公司而非母公司銷售產品，而該禁令並未涵蓋子公司。

兩年後，特朗普第二任期政府堵住了部分漏洞，將浪潮的部分子公司列入黑名單。Aivres並不在名單中。

引人注目的關聯

記錄顯示，數十億美元的先進伺服器和其他技術產品從Aivres和浪潮的其他全球子公司流向東南亞各地的雲端運算和組裝公司。

其中一個關聯尤為引人注目。 Maginfra去年在中國成立，並迅速與一家馬來西亞電子公司開展了密切的業務往來。這家馬來西亞電子公司與浪潮在香港、中國大陸、美國和新加坡的公司都有業務交往。

ImportGenius的數據顯示，Maginfra在六個月內從馬來西亞向中國進出口了價值超過7億美元的伺服器，其中包括1,500多台價格與高階人工智能功能相符的伺服器。這些條目並無伺服器或晶片的詳細描述，但標明了每台價格。

Maginfra 的公開資訊很少，文件上也看不出與浪潮有任何直接聯繫。該公司為國營企業，辦公地點與浪潮總部僅一街之隔。公司記錄顯示，Maginfra 母公司的法定代表人曾在浪潮子公司或投資夥伴公司擔任職務。

據數據平台 Wirescreen 稱，Maginfra 註冊的許多專利都是由曾在浪潮工作的發明人申請的。兩家公司的網站也驚人地相似。

週二，The Times記者前往 Maginfra 在中國的註冊地址時，發現那裡空無一人。一間上了鎖的小房間裡擺放著幾張椅子和幾張空桌子，沒有任何標示。該樓層的員工表示他們從未見過有人使用這間辦公室，而大樓的前台接待人員則表示他們從未聽說過 Maginfra 這家公司。

華盛頓一家非營利研究機構C4ADS分析的公開文件顯示，中國大學，一些與國防研究相關的，正在尋求並有時獲得搭載由Maginfra和浪潮製造的先進電腦晶片的伺服器。

根據香港聯交所的文件顯示，Maginfra還在11月簽署了一份合同，向一家中國國有銀行的子公司出售價值1.65億美元的高性能電腦技術。

ImportGenius 研究主管 William George 分析了貿易記錄後表示： “很難不把這看作是一個由中國政府支持的繞過出口管制的網絡。”

但根據《紐約時報》查閱的文件顯示，特朗普政府今年批准了 Maginfra 公司獲得英偉達性能較低的 H200 晶片的授權。The Times先前也曾報道這項授權。

Aivres 子公司在矽谷仍然非常活躍。該公司曾宣傳使用 AMD 技術的 AI 伺服器，並被列為英偉達的「精英」合作夥伴，同時也是英偉達在加州聖荷西舉辦的年度大會的贊助商。 （AMD 拒絕置評。）

今年 5 月，英偉達宣布 Aivres 是二十多家正在全面生產下一代 AI 技術伺服器的公司之一。

               So, in March 2023, the United States added Inspur Group to a blacklist with more than 3,000 companies that have been restricted from doing business with the United States because they are considered a security risk. But not long after, the Inspur sign was changed to Aivres, with the intention to evade American restrictions. In May, Nvidia announced that Aivres was among the more than two dozen companies in full-scale production of the servers that would supply its next generation of A.I. technology. Apparently, Chinese tech giant is still buying America’s best A.I. chips from the United States.

被列入黑名單的中國科技巨頭如何持續購買美國頂尖人工智能晶片（1/2）

Recently The New York Times reported the following:

How a Blacklisted Chinese Tech Giant Kept Buying America’s Best A.I. Chips (1/2)

Washington imposed sanctions on Inspur because of its work with the Chinese military. But the company’s subsidiary kept shipping Nvidia’s best chips to feed China’s leading A.I. firms.

The NYT - By Ana SwansonPaul MozurTripp Mickle and Keith Bradsher (Ana Swanson reported from Washington and Jinan, China; Paul Mozur from Taiwan and Singapore; Tripp Mickle from Milpitas, Calif.; and Keith Bradsher from Jinan.)

Sept. 6, 2026

Updated 6:45 a.m. ET

For years, a sign outside one of Silicon Valley’s many nondescript offices said Inspur, the name of one of China’s most important technology companies.

But in March 2023, the United States added Inspur Group to the so-called entity list, a blacklist with more than 3,000 companies that have been restricted from doing business with the United States because they are considered a security risk.

Not long after, the Inspur sign was changed to Aivres, the name of Inspur’s new U.S. subsidiary. The subsidiary continued with its Chinese parent company’s work, helping it build a thriving global network to provide the computing power that supplies China’s growing artificial intelligence industry.

The Silicon Valley subsidiary, which appears to be taking advantage of several loopholes in U.S. export law, has played a key role in Inspur’s sidestepping of American restrictions. Federal officials have begun looking into the subsidiary’s business, but it is not clear where that inquiry stands, said four officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not allowed to discuss it.

The New York Times examined thousands of shipment records, corporate documents and supply contracts to piece together how Inspur’s network works. Reporters also visited sites in China, Southeast Asia and California, and spoke with more than a dozen current and former officials, tech executives and industry analysts.

The U.S. government prohibits the most advanced chips, like the Blackwell chip from the Silicon Valley giant Nvidia, from being sent to any company in China. And U.S. law bars any company anywhere in the world from buying restricted products made with American technology on behalf of a blacklisted company. But there are few restrictions on companies in China that bar them from remotely gaining access to A.I. data centers in Southeast Asia.

Whether Chinese firms are getting access to cutting-edge technology, particularly high-end computer chips made by Nvidia, has become a hot question in Silicon Valley and Washington, where executives and officials worry that China could use A.I. for hacking, surveillance and military operations.

Chinese A.I. companies are also closing the performance gap on systems made by their American competitors, raising concerns that the Chinese companies are using American technology.

From April 2024 through February 2026, Aivres exported at least $5.6 billion of advanced technology from the United States to Southeast Asia, including more than $3 billion of computers containing cutting-edge Blackwell chips and equipment from Nvidia, according to trade records analyzed by ImportGenius, a data firm, and The Times.

That technology went to data centers and technology firms in Southeast Asia that serve China’s biggest tech firms, including Alibaba and ByteDance, trade records show. Megaspeed, a China-linked company that U.S. officials have been investigating over whether it smuggled restricted chips into China, was among that group of recipients. (One of Megaspeed’s subsidiaries has financial ties with Alibaba, according to Malaysian business documents.)

Other technology went from Inspur’s network of global subsidiaries to an electronics manufacturer in Malaysia, which has been shipping unlabeled but high-priced servers to China, according to trade records drawn mostly from Malaysia and Indonesia. The servers are sent to a new firm, Maginfra, which has supplied high-performance computers to Chinese universities and state-owned firms, according to Chinese contracts and procurement records.

Inspur, Aivres, Maginfra, Alibaba and ByteDance did not respond to requests for comment. Megaspeed did not provide a comment. John Rizzo, a spokesman for Nvidia, said the company did not support “diverted products,” and sold to well-known partners “who work with us to ensure that all sales comply with U.S. export control rules.”

The Trump administration rolled back Biden-era restrictions on remote access by Chinese companies to data centers in other countries, and both the administration and Congress have been weighing new rules to replace them. Nvidia’s Mr. Rizzo said the business brought “tens of billions of dollars and high-paying jobs home.”

The administration has also taken a more cautious approach to placing sanctions on Chinese firms, after attempts last year to expand the entity list drew blowback from China. Inside the Commerce Department, which enforces the list, six current and former officials described an agency that had lost its appetite for cases involving China or Nvidia. Ten months have passed without a firm’s being added to the entity list, the longest stretch in 18 years.

A White House official said the Trump administration had enacted the most rigorous export control regime in modern history and was committed to safeguarding America’s national security.

But Jordan Nanos, an analyst at SemiAnalysis, a tech research firm, who has studied Aivres’s business, said that the firm operated in the United States with the same servers, employees and offices as its parent company, Inspur, and that federal officials seemed to have done little about it.

“Are they trying to ban them, or are they not?” he said

(to be continued)

Translation

被列入黑名單的中國科技巨頭如何持續購買美國頂尖人工智能晶片（1/2）

華盛頓因浪潮 (Inspur) 與中國軍方合作而對其實施制裁。但浪潮的子公司卻持續向中國領先的人工智能公司供應英偉達的頂級晶片。

多年來，矽谷眾多不起眼的辦公大樓之一外掛著一塊牌子，上面寫著“浪潮”( Inspur)，這是中國最重要的科技公司之一的名字。

但2023年3月，美國將浪潮集團列入所謂的實體清單。這是一份包含3,000多家公司的黑名單，這些公司因被視為安全風險而被禁止與美國開展業務。

不久之後，浪潮的標誌被改為艾弗斯（Aivres），這是浪潮新成立的美國子公司的名稱。該子公司繼續進行其中國母公司的工作，幫助其建立一個蓬勃發展的全球網絡，為中國蓬勃發展的人工智能產業提供運算能力。

這家位於矽谷的子公司似乎利用了美國出口法律的多個漏洞，在浪潮規避美國限制方面發揮了關鍵作用。四位不願透露姓名的官員表示，聯邦官員已開始調查該子公司的業務，但目前尚不清楚調查進展如何。他們表示，由於未獲授權討論此事，因此要求匿名。

《紐約時報》查閱了數千份出貨記錄、公司文件和供應合同，以拼湊出浪潮的網絡運作方式。記者也造訪了中國、東南亞和加州的多個地點，並採訪了十幾位現任和前任官員、科技高層和行業分析師。

美國政府禁止將最先進的晶片，例如矽谷巨頭英偉達的 Blackwell 晶片，運往中國的任何公司。美國法律禁止世界任何地方的任何公司，去代表已被列入黑名單的公司去購買使用由美國技術製造來的受限產品。但中國公司在遠程地存取東南亞的人工智能數據中心方面幾乎沒有受到什麼限制。

中國公司是否能夠獲得尖端技術，尤其是英偉達生產的高階電腦晶片，已成為矽谷和華盛頓的熱門話題。當地的高層和官員擔心，中國可能會利用人工智能進行駭客攻擊、監控和軍事行動。

中國人工智能企業也正在縮小與美國作為競爭對手在系統之間的性能差距，這引發了人們對中國企業使用美國技術的擔憂。

根據數據公司 ImportGenius 和《紐約時報》分析的貿易記錄顯示，從 2024 年 4 月到 2026 年 2 月，Aivres 公司從美國向東南亞出口了至少 56 億美元的先進技術，其中包括價值超過 30 億美元搭載了英偉達 Blackwell 尖端晶片的電腦和設備。

貿易記錄顯示，這些技術被輸送到東南亞的数據中心和科技公司。這些數據中心和科技公司為包括阿里巴巴和字節跳動在內的中國大型科技公司提供服務。Megaspeed是一家與中國有關的公司，美國官員一直在調查該公司是否向中國走私了受限晶片，該公司也是那群接收技術者之一。（根據馬來西亞商業文件顯示，Megaspeed的一家子公司與阿里巴巴有財務聯繫。）

根據主要來自馬來西亞和印尼的貿易記錄顯示，其他技術則從浪潮集團的全球子公司網絡流向馬來西亞一家電子產品製造商，該公司一直在向中國出口未貼標籤但價格昂貴的伺服器。這些伺服器最終被送往一家名為Maginfra的新公司，根據中國的合約和採購記錄，該公司已向中國高校和國有企業供應高效能電腦。

浪潮集團、Aivres、Maginfra、阿里巴巴和字節跳動跳動均未回應置評請求。 Megaspeed也未置評。英偉達發言人John Rizzo表示，該公司不支持 “轉售產品” ，並向知名合作夥伴銷售產品， “這些合作夥伴與我們合作，確保所有銷售均符合美國出口管制規定” 。

特朗普政府撤銷了拜登時期對中國企業遠端存取其他國家数據中心的限制，目前美國政府和國會都在考慮制定新的規則來取代這些限制。英偉達執行長Rizzo表示，該業務為美國帶來了「數百億美元的收入和高薪就業機會」。

去年，美國政府試圖擴大實體清單，但遭到中國的強烈反對。此後，美國政府在對中國企業實施制裁方面採取了更謹慎的態度。負責執行清單的商務部內部，目前有六位現任或前任官員都表示，該機構似乎對涉及中國或英偉達的案件失去了興趣。十個月過去了，沒有一家公司被列入實體清單，這是18年來最長的間隔期。

一位白宮官員表示，特朗普政府已經實施了近代史上最嚴格的出口管制制度，並致力於維護美國的國家安全。

但科技研究公司 SemiAnalysis 的分析師 Jordan Nanos 曾研究過 Aivres 的業務。他表示，該公司在美國運營，使用與其母公司浪潮（Inspur）相同的伺服器、員工和辦公室，然而聯邦官員似乎對此並未採取任何行動。

他問:「他們到底有沒有試圖禁制這些公司？」。

（待續）

90歲的「DNA之父」，為甚麼被科學界割席？

 Recently Simon Shen (沈旭暉) posted the following article on Patreon:

【國際關係日評】 90歲的「DNA之父」，為甚麼被科學界割席？

沈旭暉 Simon Shen (simonshen@creator.patreon.com)

 Sun, Sep 6 at 4:04 p.m.

6 Sept 2026

 James Watson 是20世紀最重要的科學家之一。1953年，他與 Francis Crick 提出 DNA 雙螺旋結構，後來與 Maurice Wilkins 共同獲得諾貝爾獎。今天我們談基因工程、DNA鑑證，都離不開這場科學革命。想不到到了晚年，Watson 卻因為另一套關於基因的理論 / 想法，被自己曾經領導的科學界集體割席。

2007年，Watson 公開表示黑人與白人在智力測試上的平均差異可能與遺傳有關，引起巨大爭議，最終離開領導多年的 Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory。2019年，已經90歲的 Watson 在 PBS 紀錄片再次被問到這個問題，仍然表示自己的看法沒有改變。Cold Spring Harbor 隨即褫奪他所有榮譽職銜，直指他的說法「沒有科學根據」。

Watson 是不是納粹或者今天所說的 far right？都不是。但他的思想確實具有明顯優生學色彩：他相信人類很多重要特徵受到遺傳影響，也不抗拒利用遺傳科技選擇某些特徵、避免另一些特徵。

一個破解 DNA 結構的諾獎得主這樣說，是否特別可信？起碼主流科學界認為「不是」。Watson獲得諾貝爾獎的研究，是 DNA 的分子結構和遺傳資訊如何傳遞，幫助我們了解基因如何運作，卻沒有證明「黑人與白人的平均智力差異由基因造成」。後者是另一個完全不同、而且複雜得多的命題。

換句話說，今天科學界並不否認智力受到遺傳因素影響，但一項特徵具有遺傳性，不代表不同群體之間的平均差異就是遺傳造成。最簡單的例子是南北韓：兩邊人口遺傳背景非常接近，但今天南韓年輕人的平均身高明顯高於北韓人。不是南韓人在兩三代之間突然進化出「高佬基因」，而是營養、醫療和成長環境不同所致。

智力比身高更複雜。教育、營養、家庭環境、收入、文化、甚至測量方法，都可能影響結果。因此由「智力具有遺傳性」，跳到「兩個族群的平均 IQ 差異是基因造成」，中間就缺少了最重要的一步，也就是缺乏 correlation。因此，Watson 晚年的爭議很諷刺：他最偉大的發現告訴我們基因非常重要，但他後來希望論證「群體差異可以由基因解釋」，卻處處碰壁，乃至接近身敗名裂。

(待續)

（第二部份繼續於）https://www.patreon.com/c/simonshen/posts?filters%5Btag%5D=%E5%9C%8B%E9%9A%9B%E9%97%9C%E4%BF%82%E6%97%A5%E8%A9%95)

I agree with the viewpoint that intelligence is more complex than height. Education, nutrition, family environment, income, culture, and even measurement methods can all influence the development of intelligence. Therefore, jumping from "intelligence is heritable" to "the difference in average IQ between two ethnic groups is caused by genes" misses an important link: to prove the correlation.

Note:

1. Simon Shen (沈旭暉) is a Hong Kong born international relations scholar, political commentator, and public intellectual. He is particularly known for his work and commentary on China's foreign policy, U.S.–China relations, nationalism, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and international politics. He studied at Yale University and subsequently obtained a doctorate in politics/international relations from the University of Oxford. He has held academic and research positions at universities and institutions in Hong Kong and overseas. (ChatGPT)

2. James Watson (1928–2025) was an influential American molecular biologist and geneticist. In 1953, he co-discovered the double-helix structure of DNA alongside Francis Crick, drawing on pivotal X-ray crystallography data. This landmark breakthrough revolutionized modern biology by demonstrating how genetic information is stored and replicated. For this achievement, Watson shared the 1962 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. Later in his career, he led Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory and directed the Human Genome Project. (Google)

作者與出版商就Anthropic人工智能15億美元和解協議展開爭奪（2/2）

 Recently The New York Times reported the following:

Authors Wrangle with Publishers Over $1.5 Billion Anthropic A.I. Settlement (2/2)

The tech giant must pay $3,000 per pirated book that it used to train its chatbot. Many authors fear they could lose funds to others in the book business.

The NYT - By Neil Vigdor

Sept. 5, 2026

(continue)

Another author, Amy Lupold Bair, who has written guidebooks about blogging and how families can navigate the digital world, vented on social media over her potential diminishing share of the settlement.

“My publisher is fighting the default 50/50 payout split from the Anthropic class action settlement,” she wrote on Threads. “They only want me, the author whose entire work was stolen, to get 10%. So that’s a fun email to wake up to.”

Her post, which did not name the publisher, received more than 1,000 likes and started a lengthy discussion about the settlement process.

She declined to comment.

John Wiley & Sons Inc., which was listed as the publisher for two of her books on her website, “Raising Digital Families for Dummies” and “Blogging for Dummies,” did not address whether it was seeking a 90 percent cut.

In a statement on Friday, a representative for the company said that it was following the settlement terms when it filed claims for “all Wiley-published” works covered by the Anthropic agreement.

Allocations for educational titles were set by individual contracts, said the representative, which did not immediately say whether Wiley put its Dummies guidebook series in that category.

The Association of American Publishers, a trade group that represents most of the major publishing houses in the United States and has hundreds of members, did not immediately provide a comment on Friday.

In 2024, a group of authors filed a class-action lawsuit against Anthropic after learning that the company, seeking huge amounts of digital text needed to train A.I. technologies, had used their work without paying for it and stockpiled millions of pirated books.

Anthropic chose to settle the case after a judge paved the way for the case to go to trial, finding that the company’s stealing of books had given the plaintiffs cause.

At the same time, the judge said that the company’s training of its chatbot with books that it had legally acquired was a “fair use.”

Anthropic referred to a statement in May by Aparna Sridhar, the company’s deputy general counsel, as the settlement was going through final approval.

“We are pleased that more than 91 percent of authors and publishers covered by the settlement have claimed their share of the payment, and we’re looking forward to bringing this matter to a close,” the statement said.

JND Legal Administration, the settlement administrator, did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Thursday. Neither did a lawyer for the plaintiffs in the case.

Kristelia García, a professor at Georgetown Law who specializes in copyright law, said the dynamics of divvying up the Anthropic settlement funds were reminiscent of a 2007 federal lawsuit over the distribution of digital royalties for the music of the rapper Eminem.

Producers who discovered Eminem sued a subsidiary of the Universal Music Group and argued that they should receive a higher percentage of royalties from downloads at iTunes and other digital stores.

The two sides reached a settlement in 2012.

Not all book contracts have language about who is entitled to settlement payments in copyright infringement cases or revenues from emerging technologies, including A.I., García said.

“So I think this is just kind of the publishing industry having that sort of streaming moment where their contracts didn’t contemplate this,” she said.

Muddying the settlement process further, according to the Authors Guild, are more recent book ownership changes.

Rasenberger said an author contacted the guild this week with a dilemma: Rights to the books had reverted to the author this year.

“It depends on who owned the rights when the books were downloaded when the infringement happened, which is, you know, 2021 and ’22,” Rasenberger said.

In instances when ownership disputes remain unresolved, Rasenberger said, a court-appointed arbitrator will have the final say, but she added the guild “will fight tooth and nail for them if they are, in fact, being screwed over.”

Translation

作者與出版商就Anthropic人工智能15億美元和解協議展開爭奪（2/2）

這家科技巨頭必須為每本用於訓練其聊天機器人的盜版書籍支付3,000美元。許多作者擔心他們的資金可能會被其他出版業人士所瓜分

（繼續）

另一位作者 Amy Lupold Bair 撰寫了關於部落格寫作和家庭如何駕馭數位世界的指南，她在社交媒體上表達了對和解協議中可能減少的份額的不滿。

她在Threads上寫道:「我的出版商正在反對Anthropic集體訴訟和解協議中預設的50/50賠償分配方案」; 「他們只想讓我 - 一個作品全部被盜用的作者 - 拿到10%。所以，一早醒來就收到這樣的電郵，真係幾開心喎」。

她的貼文並未指明出版商，但獲得了超過1,000個贊，並引發了關於和解流程的長時間討論。

她拒絕置評。

約翰威立父子出版公司（John Wiley & Sons Inc.）是她網站上列出的兩本書的出版商，兩書分別是《養育數位家庭入門指南》（Raising Digital Families for Dummies）和《部落格入門指南》（Blogging for Dummies）。該公司並未回應是否要求90%的版稅。

該公司一位代表在週五的聲明中表示，他們已按照和解條款，就所有受Anthropic協議約束的 “威立(Wiley)出版” 作品提出索賠。

這位代表表示，教育類書籍的版稅分享比例由單獨的合約決定，但並未立即說明威立是否將其「入門指南」系列歸入此類別。

美國出版商協會（Association of American Publishers）是一個代表美國大多數主要出版社的行業組織，擁有數百名會員。該協會週五未立即對此事發表評論。

2024年，一群作家對 Anthropic 公司提起集體訴訟，因為他們發現該公司為了訓練人工智能技術，未經許可使用了他們的作品，並囤積了數百萬冊盜版書籍。

在法官裁定該公司盜版書籍的行為構成原告的訴訟理由，允許案件進入審判程序後，Anthropic公司選擇與原告達成和解。

同時，法官表示，該公司使用合法取得的書籍訓練聊天機器人屬於「合理使用」。

在和解協議最終獲批之際，Anthropic 公司援引了其副總法律顧問 Aparna Sridhar 於5月發表的聲明。

聲明中寫道：“我們很高興超過91%的受和解協議約束的作家和出版商已領取了他們應得的賠償金，我們期待著此事​​能夠圓滿結束。”

和解管理人 JND Legal Administration 週四未立即回應置評請求。本案原告律師也未回應。

喬治城大學法學院專攻版權法的 Kristelia García 教授表示，Anthropic 和解金的分配方式讓人想起2007年一起關於說唱歌手 Eminem 的電子音樂版稅分配的聯邦訴訟。

發掘 Eminem 的製作人起訴了環球音樂集團的子公司，並主張他們應該從iTunes和其他電子商店的下載中獲得更高的版稅比例。

雙方於2012年達成和解。

García 指出，並非所有圖書合同都包含有關在版權侵權案件中指出誰有權獲得和解金，或源自新興技術（包括人工智能）的收入的條款。

她說:「所以我認為這只是出版業在經歷串流媒體時代之後，合約中沒有考慮到這一點的一種體現」。

據美國作家協會稱，近期圖書版權所有權的變更進一步加劇了和解過程的複雜性。

Rasenberger 表示，本週有一位作家聯繫了協會带來了一個難題：今年圖書的版權又返回到了作者手中。

Rasenberger 說: 「這取決於侵權發生時 - 也就是2021年和2022年 - 圖書被下載時的版權歸屬」。

Rasenberger 表示，如果版權糾紛無法解決，法院指定的仲裁員將擁有最終裁決權，但她補充說，如果作家協會「確實受到了不公平對待，會將竭盡全力為他們爭取權益」。

              So, in 2024, a group of authors filed a class-action lawsuit against Anthropic after learning that the company, seeking huge amounts of digital text needed to train A.I. technologies, had used their work without paying for it and stockpiled millions of pirated books. Now, thousands of authors are waiting for their share of the largest copyright settlement in U.S. history from Anthropic. In instances when copyright ownership disputes remain unresolved, a court-appointed arbitrator will have the final say. Apparently, training the chatbot is a costly endeavor.

作者與出版商就Anthropic人工智能15億美元和解協議展開爭奪（1/2）

Recently The New York Times reported the following:

Authors Wrangle with Publishers Over $1.5 Billion Anthropic A.I. Settlement (1/2)

The tech giant must pay $3,000 per pirated book that it used to train its chatbot. Many authors fear they could lose funds to others in the book business.

The NYT - By Neil Vigdor

Sept. 5, 2026

The sum is gargantuan: $1.5 billion.

But as thousands of authors wait for their cut of the largest copyright settlement in U.S. history from Anthropic, the tech giant that used pirated books to train its artificial intelligence chatbot, some are accusing the publishers of their books of trying to squeeze them out of a percentage of the payout.

The haggling is coming into plain view as a settlement administrator attempts to clear up who owns the rights to some of the more than 482,000 books covered by the agreement in the class-action case, which was approved in July by a judge in the U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California.

For many of those titles, ownership is undisputed, but on repeated occasions, authors and publishers have staked competing claims with the settlement administrator, which began recently informing them of those discrepancies, said Mary Rasenberger, chief executive of the Authors Guild, a professional association that says it has more than 18,000 members.

In an interview on Thursday, Rasenberger said the settlement process was ripe for such misunderstandings.

“My big fear when this was all set up is that not all publishers keep great records of what books they’ve reverted rights to,” Rasenberger said. “And so you know, they should be taking it off their catalog.”

Rasenberger said she did not believe that publishers were acting in bad faith.

“I don’t see this as a grab by the publishers,” she said, adding, “I don’t think they’re specifically trying to screw any author over.”

Authors could receive up to $3,000 for each one of their books that a judge ruled last year were illegally downloaded and stored by Anthropic in the development of its online chatbot Claude.

But they must split the proceeds with publishers they granted book rights to and with co-authors, according to the Authors Guild, a trade group.

Rasenberger said the percentages were determined by a class-action council that sought input from the guild and publishers.

Textbook authors will receive far less — in some cases, 10 to 15 percent of the total — as determined by their contracts with their publishers, she said.

“It’s the textbooks where there are a lot of unhappy authors right now,” Rasenberger said.

April Henry, a New York Times best-selling author of more than 30 mysteries and thrillers for teens and adults, said she was baffled when she logged into the settlement claims portal to see that HarperCollins, her former publisher, had claimed partial ownership of her first book, “Circles of Confusion.”

Henry, 67, said in an interview on Thursday that the rights to the book, published in 1999, had reverted to her in 2007.

“I was like, well, that’s not right,” said Henry, echoing a complaint she made on social media on Wednesday.

Her agent provided her with a letter confirming that she owned the book’s rights that Henry said she uploaded to the portal. When she checked back in the portal, she said, she learned that she would receive the full $3,000 for that book.

“I don’t think Harper was deliberately trying to cheat,” she said.

HarperCollins declined to comment.

Henry said she has 22 titles on the list of books that Anthropic had illegally obtained, and that she expected to receive in the mid-$20,000 range after her publishers and co-authors collect their cut.

Having to share part of the settlement with a publisher was a source of frustration for Henry, who said she was first told that the payments could start flowing in August, only to hear that it might not happen until later this year.

(to be continued)

Translation

作者與出版商就Anthropic人工智能15億美元和解協議展開爭奪（1/2）

這家科技巨頭必須為每本用於訓練其聊天機器人的盜版書籍支付3,000美元。許多作者擔心他們的資金可能會被圖書業的其他人所瓜分

金額高達15億美元。

數千名作者正等待著從Anthropic（這家科技巨頭使用盜版書籍訓練其人工智能聊天機器人）那裡分得美國歷史上最大的版權和解金，但一些作者指責他們的出版商試圖從中榨取一部分賠償金。

隨著和解管理人試圖釐清這件集體訴訟案中涉及的48.2萬餘本圖書的版權歸屬問題，各方討價還價的局面也逐漸浮出水面。該集體訴訟案已於7月獲得加州北區聯邦地區法院法官的批准。

美國作家協會（Authors Guild）執行長Mary Rasenberger表示，許多圖書的版權歸屬並無爭議，但作者和出版商卻屢次向和解管理人提出相互衝突的版權主張。該協會自稱擁有超過1.8萬名會員。

Rasenberger 在週四接受採訪時表示，和解過程本身就容易出現此類誤解。

Rasenberger 說: “我當初最擔心的是，並非所有出版商都會妥善保存已歸還版權書籍的記錄” ， “所以你知道喇，他們應該把這些書從目錄中移除。”

Rasenberger 表示，她不認為出版商有惡意行為。

她說道:“ 我不認為這是出版商的掠奪行為”，又說:“我不認為他們是故意想害任何作者。”

去年，一位法官裁定，Anthropic公司在開發其線上聊天機器人Claude的過程中非法下載並儲存了作者的書籍。根據該裁決，作者每本書最高可獲得3,000美元的賠償。

但據美國作家協會（一個行業組織）稱，作者必須與獲得書籍版權的出版商，以及共同作者平分這筆賠償金。

Rasenberger表示，這些分攤比例是由一個集體訴訟委員會决定的，該委員會徵求了作家協會和出版商的意見。

她也表示，教科書作者獲得的賠償金要少得多 - 在某些情況下，只有總額的10%到15% - 而具體數額取決於他們與出版商簽訂的合約。

Rasenberger 說: 「現在最讓作者們不滿的就是教科書了」。

《紐約時報》暢銷書作家April Henry著有30多部青少年和成人的懸疑驚悚小說。她說，當她登入版權索賠入口網站時，發現她之前的出版商哈珀柯林斯（HarperCollins）聲稱擁有她第一本書《混亂之環》（Circles of Confusion）的部分版權，這讓她感到困惑不已。

67歲的 Henry 在周四的採訪中表示，這本書於1999年出版，版權已於2007年歸還給她。

Henry 說道: 「我當時就想，這不公平」，這與她週三在社交媒體上的抱怨如出一轍。

她的代理人給她提供了一封信函，確認她擁有該書的版權。Henry說，她已將這封信上傳到了索賠入口網站。她說，當她再次登入門戶網站查看時，得知她將收到該書的全部3,000美元。

她說:「我不認為哈珀是故意作弊」。

哈珀柯林斯出版社拒絕置評。

Henry 表示，她有22部作品被列入Anthropic非法取得版權的名單中，她預計在扣除出版商和合作作者的分成後，她將獲得2萬美元左右的賠償。

Henry 感到沮喪的是，她不得不與出版商分享部分賠償金。她說，她最初被告知款項可能在8月開始支付，但後來又聽說可能要到今年晚些時候才能支付。

（待續）

科學家發現1,000多個與人格相關的基因變異（2/2）

Recently The New York Times reported the following:

Scientists Find More Than 1,000 Genetic Variants Linked to Personality (2/2)

More than one million genomes helped identify DNA variants linked to extroversion, agreeableness, neuroticism and more. Researchers measured how those traits influenced how people lived.

The NYT - By Emily Baumgaertner Nunn (Emily Baumgaertner Nunn is a national health reporter for The Times, focusing on public health issues that primarily affect vulnerable communities.)

Sept. 3, 2026

(continue)

“It was kind of a conspicuous absence,” said Dr. Tucker-Drob, whose academic work focuses on “individual differences,” a realm of psychology that examines the ways people diverge in their thoughts, feelings and behaviors. To him, personality is not just an abstract concept: The way people engage with themselves and the world can help determine how much money they make, the types of medical care they seek, and how strong their friendships are.

Personality is “meaningfully related to all sorts of outcomes that I think everyone in society values,” he said.

The research team scanned roughly 10 million genetic variants across the genome in order to map the “Big Five.” By aggregating disparate studies on various traits, researchers were able to uncover the ways personality predispositions rippled out into health, habits and lifestyle choices.

Researchers found 258 different genetic variants linked to extroversion, for example, a 15-fold increase in the number of variants previously known. A genetic profile with high extroversion seemed to reduce a person’s risk of anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder, all of which involve internalizing distress. But the trait was also linked to neurodevelopmental conditions such as A.D.H.D.

People who were predisposed to conscientiousness — or a capacity for productivity and organization — appeared more likely to exercise, choose low-calorie foods and sleep well. Genetic scores for conscientiousness helped predict who would move out of urban centers and into affluent suburbs by age 50.

Neuroticism, which is defined as a tendency toward emotional instability, was predictably correlated with 10 different psychiatric disorders, plus a higher body mass index and increased rates of smoking. Study participants with genetic profiles high in neuroticism seemed to second-guess themselves in real time, frequently selecting options such as “I don’t know” on research survey questions.

Since neuroticism can be a strong predictor of mental illness, some researchers are particularly interested in how the new findings illuminate possible triggers and avenues of disease. Dalton Conley, a sociologist at Princeton University who was not involved in the research, was particularly intrigued by the way the consortium’s results challenged a long-held theory among psychologists that neuroticism is primarily driven by differences in serotonin levels. Depression and anxiety are often successfully treated with medications that boost the chemical.

The new analysis showed that neuroticism variants were indeed especially active in brain cells — but revealed nothing pronounced about the serotonin system in particular. “I wouldn’t say it’s slaying that theory forever,” Dr. Conley said, “but it’s definitely casting doubt.”

Another unexpected finding came in the context of relationships. Behavioral geneticists know that people tend to select life partners with similar DNA profiles in areas such as educational attainment. But in the new study, personality traits did not show much so-called “assortative mating” at all: In fact, personality variants among partners were matched mostly at random.

In contrast, spouses’ actual personalities — specifically their openness to experience — were sometimes correlated, perhaps because sharing daily life makes people more similar over time. Dr. Conley, who studies the interplay between genes and the environment, said that such hidden phenomena, scattered throughout the data set, are helpful for researchers like himself who are interested in understanding cause and effect.

“The next study that has double the sample size will find 3,000 variants, no surprise,” he said. “But the fact that we can now look into the dynamics between personality and marital stability, or personality and the labor market, or personality and the education system — that’s what makes this a really useful tool.”

Translation

科學家發現1,000多個與人格相關的基因變異（2/2）

超過一百萬個基因組幫助科學家辨識出與外向性、親和力、神經質等人格特質相關的DNA變異。研究人員測量了這些特質如何影響人們的生活方式

（繼續）

Tucker-Drob博士，一個在心理學上專注去研究人在思想、情感和行為上的差異， 叫 “個體差異” 的學術研究領域的人說: 「這確實是一個明顯的空白」。對他而言，人格不僅僅是一個抽象的概念：人們與自身和世界互動的方式會影響他們的收入、他們尋求的醫療保健類型，以及他們交友的倾向度。

他說：“個人性格與我認為社會上每一個人都會重視的各種實況都有密切相關。”

研究團隊掃描了基因組中約1,000萬個基因變異，以繪製「五大人格特質」圖譜。透過整合各種特質的不同研究，研究人員得以揭示人格傾向如何影響健康、習慣和生活方式的選擇。

例如，研究人員發現了258種與外向性相關的基因變異，比先前已知的變異數量增加了15倍。具有高度外向性的基因特徵似乎可以降低個體焦慮症、憂鬱症和創傷後壓力症候群的風險，這些疾病都涉及內化痛苦。但這種特徵也與過動症（ADHD）等神經發育障礙有關。

那些具有責任感（或稱為高效能和組織能力）的人似乎更有可能鍛鍊身體、選擇低熱量食物並擁有良好的睡眠。責任感的基因分數有助預測哪些人會在50歲時從市中心遷往富裕的郊區。

神經質被定義為一種情緒不穩定的傾向，它與10種不同的精神疾病、更高的體重指數，以及更高的吸煙率均有顯著相關性。研究參與者中，神經質基因評分較高的人似乎會即時地自我懷疑，經常在問卷中選擇「我不知道」之類的選項。

由於神經質可以作為精神疾病的強烈預測指標，一些研究人員對這些新發現如何揭示疾病的潛在誘因和途徑特別感興趣。普林斯頓大學的社會學家Dalton Conley並未有參與這項研究，但他對該研究結果挑戰心理學家長期以來所持有的一個理論 - 即神經質主要由血清素水平的差異所驅動 - 尤為感興趣。憂鬱症和焦慮症通常可以透過提高血清素水平的藥物來有效治療。

新的分析表明，神經質變異體確實在腦細胞中特別活躍 - 但並未揭示血清素系統有任何顯著差異。Conley博士說: “我不會說它會永遠徹底推翻那個理論”，“但它無疑提出了質疑。”

另一項出乎意料的發現來自人際關係領域。行為遺傳學家知道，人們傾向於選擇在教育程度等方面擁有相似DNA特徵的伴侶。但在這項新研究中，人格特質幾乎沒有表現出所謂的「同型交配」：事實上，伴侶之間的人格變異體大多是隨機匹配的。

相較之下，配偶的實際人格 - 特別是他們對新體驗的開放情度 - 有時卻存在相關性，這或許是因為共同的日常生活會隨著時間的推移使人們變得更加相似。研究基因與環境交互作用的Conley博士表示，這些散佈在資料集之中的各種隱藏現象，對於像他般致力於去理解因果關係的研究人員來說，是非常有幫助。

他說:「下一項樣本量翻倍的研究將會發現3,000個變異，這並不令人意外」 ，「但我們現在可以研究人格與婚姻穩定性、人格與勞動力市場、人格與教育體系之間的動態關係 - 這才是真正令它成為有用的工具」。

So, scientists have long known that personality is influenced by a number of factors — including DNA. The challenge has been deciphering the specific pathways through which a genetic blueprint influences the direction of a person’s life. Recently, a group of researchers find a symphony of 1,260 genetic markers that have ties to personality, nearly two-thirds of them are identified for the first time. Apparently, we can now look deeper into the dynamics between personality and marital stability, or personality and the labor market, or personality and the education system.

科學家發現1,000多個與人格相關的基因變異（1/2）

Recently The New York Times reported the following:

Scientists Find More Than 1,000 Genetic Variants Linked to Personality (1/2)

More than one million genomes helped identify DNA variants linked to extroversion, agreeableness, neuroticism and more. Researchers measured how those traits influenced how people lived.

The NYT - By Emily Baumgaertner Nunn (Emily Baumgaertner Nunn is a national health reporter for The Times, focusing on public health issues that primarily affect vulnerable communities.)

Sept. 3, 2026

Are you naturally anxious? Highly adventurous? More argumentative than you’d like to admit?

Those tendencies are often measured through what psychologists call the “Big Five” dimensions of personality: extroversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism and openness to experience. Each trait exists on a continuum and tends to remain fairly stable throughout adult life.

But what determines where you land on those spectra? Scientists have long known that personality is influenced by a host of factors — including DNA. The challenge has been deciphering the specific pathways through which a genetic blueprint nudges the direction of a person’s life.

To map this sprawling architecture, a group of experts formed a research consortium and analyzed more than one million genomes, searching for variants associated with personality. The researchers also compared the genes of thousands of siblings and parent-child pairs to rule out other factors that could be at play. With data from 46 different study cohorts, they found a symphony of 1,260 genetic markers tied to personality, nearly two-thirds of them identified for the first time.

The findings, published on Wednesday in the journal Nature, reaffirmed scientists’ understanding that temperament and disposition are shaped not by a few particular genes, but by thousands of tiny variants that can be expressed in different circumstances. The sheer scale of the project also brought new statistical power to the study of personality genetics, giving researchers a tool kit to investigate the biological mechanisms behind how we think, feel and behave.

“I view the 1,260 variants as kind of a testament to the fact that we’ve now got the power to answer all of these other questions that we couldn’t answer before,” said Elliot Tucker-Drob, a professor of psychology at the University of Texas at Austin and a leader of the study.

Common genetic differences identified in this study still account for only about 5 to 10 percent of personality variation among people. But experts caution against thinking about personality drivers as a pie chart, divided into neat percentages of genes versus environment. In reality, a person’s DNA and context are constantly interacting; experiences are the very tool that genetic predispositions use to mold who a person becomes.

In studies of genetic influence on educational attainment, much of what appears driven by DNA often turns out to be parental privilege or home environment in disguise. With personality, however, family comparison studies that looked for such confounding variables revealed that about 96 percent of the genetic influence indeed came directly from the DNA itself. That makes intuitive sense: Growing up in the same household might give siblings similar launching pads, but it almost never gives them similar temperaments.

Wednesday’s publication is, in some ways, a revitalization. In the late 20th century — the era of classical twin studies — personality was a central focus of behavioral genetics. But over the last decade, personality genetics has not been studied with nearly the intensity that other traits have, such as the risk of developing schizophrenia, in part because most personality traits were not considered medically relevant.

(to be continued)

科學家發現1,000多個與人格相關的基因變異（1/2）

超過一百萬個基因組幫助科學家辨識出與外向性、宜人性、神經質等人格特質相關的DNA變異。研究人員測量了這些特質如何影響人們的生活方式

你天生焦慮嗎？你充滿冒險精神嗎？你比自己願意承認的更愛爭辯嗎？

這些傾向通常透過心理學家所說的「五大人格特質」來衡量：外向性、宜人性、盡責性、神經質和開放性。每一種特質都存在於一個連續光譜上，並且在成年生活中往往保持相對穩定。

但是，是什麼決定了你在這些特質譜上的位置呢？科學家早已知道，人格受多種因素影響，包括DNA。真正的挑戰在於，如何解讀基因藍圖如何影響人的一生。

為了繪製出這套龐大的基因圖譜，一群專家組成了一個研究聯盟，分析了超過一百萬個基因組，尋找與人格相關的基因變異。研究人員還比較了數千對兄弟姐妹和親子對的基因，以排除其他可能的影響因素。他們利用來自46個不同研究隊列的數據，發現了1,260個與人格相關的基因標記，其中近三分之二是首次被發現。

這項研究成果於週三發表在《自然》雜誌上，再次印證了科學家們的認知：人的氣質和性格並非由少數特定基因決定，而是由數千個微小的基因變異共同帶來作用的結果，這些變異會在不同的情況下表達出來。該計劃的龐大規模也為性格遺傳學研究帶來了新的統計力，為研究人員提供了一套工具，用於探索我們思考、感受和行為背後的生物學機制。

德克薩斯大學奧斯汀分校心理學教授、該研究的負責人之一Elliot Tucker-Drob說道:「我認為這1,260個變異體證明了我們現在有能力回答以前無法回答的所有問題」。

這項研究中發現的常見基因差異仍只佔人格差異的5%到10%。但專家提醒，不要把性格驅動因素看成一個圓餅圖，簡單地劃分成基因和環境的百分比。事實上，一個人的DNA和環境因素一直在相互作用；個人經歷正是基因傾向塑造一個人性格的工具。

在關於基因對教育成就影響的研究中，許多看似由DNA驅動的因素，最終往往被證明是父母的優勢或家庭環境所變相驅動的。然而，在人格方面，針對此類混雜變數的家庭比較研究表明，約96%的遺傳影響確實直接來自DNA本身。這符合直覺：在同一個家庭中成長，或許能為兄弟姊妹提供相似的起點，但幾乎不可能讓他們擁有相似的個性。

週三發表的論文在某種程度上是對人格研究的復興。在20世紀後期 - 經典雙胞胎研究的時代 - 人格是行為遺傳學的核心研究方向。但在過去十年中，人格遺傳學的研究強度遠不及其他性格特徵，例如罹患精神分裂症的風險，部分原因是大多數的個人格特質被認為是無醫學上的關連。

（待續）