大學畢業生為何感到被出賣（1/3）

Recently the New York Times reported the following:

Why College Graduates Feel Betrayed (1/3)

Their anger goes far beyond the recent rise of unemployment and the looming threat of A.I.

The NYT - By Noam Scheiber

(Noam Scheiber covers white-collar workers. This article has been adapted from his forthcoming book, “Mutiny: The Rise and Revolt of the College-Educated Working Class.”)

March 27, 2026

Political observers on the left and right had very different views on whether Zohran Mamdani would be a good mayor of New York City. But one thing they agreed on was why so many young college graduates supported the self-proclaimed democratic socialist.

As Peter Thiel, the venture capitalist and Trump backer, put it in an interview with The Free Press after last fall’s election: Too many people graduate from college with useless degrees, sky-high debt and long odds of owning a home. The graduates saw Mamdani as a solution to these problems. “If you proletarianize the young people,” Mr. Thiel said, “you shouldn’t be surprised if they eventually become communist.”

He’s not wrong, at least about the economic challenges facing recent college graduates. Student debt has escalated over the past few decades, while housing is increasingly inaccessible for young Americans, especially in high-priced areas like New York and San Francisco.

Perhaps most alarmingly, recent college graduates are having a harder time finding work. Between 1990 and 2018, it was almost unheard-of for the unemployment rate of recent college graduates to exceed the country’s overall rate. But that has been the case for five straight years now.

It appears that the white-collar job market will continue to soften this year. And almost all of these problems precede the impact of artificial intelligence, which is still in the early stages of cannibalizing human labor.

As a result, poll after poll shows that college graduates are unusually dour. In surveys by the University of Michigan dating back to the 1960s, the college educated had never been more downbeat about economic conditions than over the past four years. Gallup recently found that the portion of college graduates who thought it was a good time to find a “quality job” was a mere 19 percent, down from over 70 percent in 2022.

Of course, the economic turmoil of the last decade or two has taken a toll on millions of Americans. Most of them lacked degrees, and many fared even worse financially than the college educated.

But for young college graduates, extended bouts of unemployment, or long periods stuck in a low-paying job that didn’t make use of their degrees, upended the entire picture of adulthood they had been taught to expect. In effect, a gap has opened up between the life that many graduates believed they had been promised and their actual prospects. And they’re seething about it.

The College Admissions Arms Race

For people in their 20s and early 30s, those expectations were forged as early as elementary school, when “college for all” became a national obsession — the way every American could achieve middle-class affluence.

One of the country’s largest charter school networks, KIPP, helped popularize the mantra “College starts in kindergarten” after it was founded in 1994, not long before this cohort was in fact entering kindergarten.

Presidents reminded families that “the return on a college investment” was nearly double that of the stock market (Bill Clinton) and that college was no longer a luxury but an “economic imperative” (Barack Obama).

With an eye toward future college enrollment, students slogged through longer school days and labored over more homework. One scholar found that the average amount of time that younger children in elementary school spent studying at home increased roughly threefold between 1981 and 2003.

In high school, when it was time for actual college prep, as opposed to just the preparation for the prep, they stuffed their résumés full of university-level classes. The number of students taking Advanced Placement courses grew tenfold from the 1980s to the early 2010s, as the author Malcolm Harris has noted. At Edina High School, in an upper-middle-class suburb of Minneapolis, the now-34-year-old Teddy Hoffman took more than half a dozen A.P. classes before being admitted to Grinnell College in Iowa. It was a fairly common course load for someone who aspired to attend a competitive college.

And it wasn’t just affluent white students who became foot soldiers in the college admissions arms race. At the Baltimore County high school that Chaya Barrett, now 32, attended, students were tracked into classes where they studied vocabulary words and took practice SATs so that no manner of test question would faze them.

 “It was: ‘We want you to get to college,’” said Ms. Barrett, who later graduated from Towson University in Maryland. “‘We’re a mostly Black school. And we have high college acceptance rates, and we want to keep that up.’”

In this relentless race to the college quad, money was no object. Dylan Burton, who uses gender-neutral pronouns, already had a lot of college credit when they enrolled in the video game design program at the University of Texas at Dallas in 2017. It would still cost them nearly $70,000 over two and a half years to earn their bachelor’s degree, after room and board. But they had wanted to make video games since childhood, and the industry was exploding in popularity and revenue.

So millions of people like Mr. Hoffman and Ms. Barrett and Mx. Burton applied for scholarships and part-time jobs, and took out loans to cover the difference. Mx. Burton borrowed the full amount. For several years these students juggled finals and term papers and the night shift at the dining hall or the weekend shift at the mall.

And then, once they graduated, many found themselves with tens of thousands of dollars in loans, and no path to a job in line with their credentials.

(to be continued by part 2)

Translation

大學畢業生為何感到被出賣（1/3）

他們的憤怒遠不止於近期失業率的上升和人工智能迫在眉睫的威脅

左翼和右翼的政治觀察家對於Zohran Mamdani是否能勝任紐約市長一職持有截然不同的看法。但他們一致認同的是，為什麼這麼多年輕的大學畢業生支持這位自稱為民主社會主義者的人。

正如創投家、特朗普的支持者Peter Thiel在去年秋季大選後接受《自由報》採訪時所說：太多人大學畢業後拿著毫無用處的學位，背負著巨額債務，而且幾乎沒有機會擁有自己的房子。畢業生們把Mamdani視為解決這些問題的方案。Mamdani先生說 “如果你把年輕人無產階級化” ， “他們最終變成共產主義者，你也不應該感到驚訝。”

至少在新近大學畢業生面臨的經濟挑戰方面，他的說法不無道理。在過去幾十年裡，學生債務不斷攀升，而住房對美國年輕人來說也越來越難以負擔，尤其是在紐約和舊金山等高房價地區。

或許最令人擔憂的是，新近大學畢業生找工作越來越難。 1990年至2018年間，新近大學畢業生的失業率幾乎從未超過全國平均失業率。但這超過情況已經連續五年出現了。

看來，今年白領就業市場也將持續疲軟。而且，幾乎所有這些問題都發生在人工智能的影響之前，人工智能目前仍處於蠶食人類勞動力的早期階段。

因此，一項又一項的民調顯示，大學畢業生異常沮喪。密西根大學自上世紀60年代以來進行的調查顯示，受過大學教育的人對經濟情勢的悲觀情緒從未像過去四年那樣高漲。蓋洛普最近的調查發現，認為現在是找到「好工作」的好時機的大學畢業生僅佔19%，遠低於2022年的70%以上。

當然，過去一二十年的經濟動盪給數百萬美國人帶來了沉重打擊。他們中的大多數人沒有大學學位，許多人的經濟狀況甚至比受過大學教育的人還要糟糕。

但對於年輕的大學畢業生來說，長期失業或長期從事低薪且無法發揮其專業技能的工作，徹底顛覆了他們原本對成年生活的預期。事實上，許多畢業生曾經憧憬的生活與現實之間出現了巨大的鴻溝。他們對此感到憤怒不已。

爭取大學錄取的軍備競賽

對二、三十歲的年輕人來說，這憧憬早在小學時期就已經形成。 當「全民上大學」成為一種全國性的執着 - 這是每個美國人實現中產階級富裕的途徑。

該國最大的特許學校網絡之一 KIPP，在 1994 年成立後，幫助推廣「大學從幼稚園開始」的口號，不久之後，這群體實際上就進入了幼稚園。

總統們不斷提醒家長，「大學投資的回報」幾乎是股市的兩倍（克林頓），而大學不再是奢侈品，而是「經濟必需品」（奧巴馬）。

為了將來能上大學，學生們每天上課時間更長，作業也更多。一位學者發現，1981年至2003年間，小學生在家學習的平均時間增加了近三倍。

到了高中，為考入大學做準備真正開始, 而非只為考入大學的預科做準備，他們在履歷上大量堆滿了已讀了的大學水平課程。正如作家Malcolm Harris所指出的，從20世紀80年代到21世紀10年代初，選修大學先修課程（AP課程）的學生人數增加了十倍。現年34歲的Teddy Hoffman就讀於明尼阿波利斯郊區中上階層的Edina高中，在被愛荷華州的Grinnell學院錄取之前，他選修了六門以上的AP課程。對於渴望進入競爭激烈的大學的學生來說，這樣的課程量安排相當普遍。

而且，並非只有富裕的白人學生才會成為這場大學錄取軍備競賽的參戰的士兵。現年32歲的Chaya Barrett曾就讀於Baltimore縣的一所高中。在那裡，學生們被分班學習詞彙，並進行SAT模擬考試，以確保任何考題都難不倒他們。

後來畢業於馬裡蘭州的Towson大學的Barrett女士說道:「學校的口號是：『我們希望你們都能上大學』」 ;「『我們是一所黑人學生佔多數的學校。我們的大學錄取率很高，我們希望保持這個優勢』 」。

在這場衝向大學校園的殘酷競爭中，金錢不被計較。使用中性代名的Dylan Burton君在2017年進入Texas大學達拉斯分校的電子遊戲設計專業學習時，已經積累了相當多的大學學分。即便如此，扣除食宿費用後，他們仍需花費近7萬美元，歷時兩年半才能獲得學士學位。他們從小就夢想製作電子遊戲，而當時該行業的受歡迎程度和收入都呈爆炸式增長。

因此，有像Hoffman先生、Barrett女士和Burton君這樣的數百萬學生去申請獎學金、兼職工作，並去貸款來應付其餘的開支。Burton君甚至貸款支付了全部費用。在接下來的幾年裡，這些學生一邊忙於期末考、學期論文，一邊還要在食堂當夜班或在商場當週末班。

畢業後，許多人發現自己背負著數萬美元的貸款，卻找不到與自身資歷相符的工作。

（見第二部分繼續）

一位曾指導中國孩子如何成功的網紅猝然離世

Recently the New York Times reported the following:

(Source: The NYT)

The Sudden Death of a Man Who Told Chinese Kids How to Succeed

The influencer Zhang Xuefeng was known for no-nonsense, some said cynical, advice about how to win in China’s educational rat race. He died at 41.

The NYT - By Vivian Wang - Vivian Wang is a China correspondent based in Beijing, where she writes about how the country’s global rise and ambitions are shaping the daily lives of its people.

March 26, 2026

Updated 9:01 a.m. ET

Any Chinese parent or student fixated on education — so, basically, most Chinese parents and students — knew the name Zhang Xuefeng. As China’s most famous education influencer, Mr. Zhang was known for dispensing ruthlessly blunt advice about how to maximize a student’s chances at success.

The liberal arts? Only good for service jobs, he declared. Finance? Don’t bother unless your family has connections. Fast-talking and sharp-tongued, to his detractors he was cynical and utilitarian. But to his tens of millions of fans, he embodied a rare willingness to acknowledge the harsh realities facing less privileged students, especially in the face of steep inequality and a slowing economy.

So when Mr. Zhang suddenly died on Tuesday at age 41, of cardiac arrest, it prompted an outpouring — not only of shock, but also of reflection.

On social media, people asked: Had he steered young Chinese to better lives or discouraged their idealism? What did his abrupt death, after he had long complained of being exhausted and overworked, say about China’s hypercompetitive work culture? And if life was so unpredictable, did planning so carefully — for success that seemed increasingly out of reach — even matter?

“Zhang Xuefeng’s lesson to lost young people: Enjoy your life,” was one of the top hashtags on Chinese social media on Wednesday, where news of Mr. Zhang’s death dominated discussion. “Excessive self-discipline” was another, a response to state media reports that Mr. Zhang had collapsed after going for a run in Suzhou, the city in eastern China where he lived.

Another popular education influencer, Zhu Wei, posted a long tribute online, praising Mr. Zhang’s vigor and sincerity. Mr. Zhu urged his own students to slow down in their pursuit of test scores and jobs.

“But I also know, what’s the cruelest thing about the age of internet traffic? It’s that nothing lasts even a month before it’s forgotten,” Mr. Zhu wrote. “Everyone will soon go back to their usual state, endlessly striving and slogging, never able to stop.”

Mr. Zhang was born in a small town in northern China. His real name was Zhang Zibiao, though he later adopted the name Xuefeng. He tested into a middling university, where he studied water supply and drainage, for which he had little enthusiasm, according to interviews he gave. After graduation, he turned to tutoring and college counseling.

He shot to fame in 2016, for a video in which he — in what would become his signature rapid-fire, snark-infused patter — summarized China’s top 34 universities in seven minutes. He started a consulting company where he helped students choose majors, internships and careers based on cold-eyed considerations of their test scores, family backgrounds and whether they prioritized money or stability. His livestreams attracted hundreds of thousands of views, and his courses could cost thousands of dollars.

His celebrity came as much from his advice as his willingness to provoke. A comment in 2023 that parents should knock their children unconscious rather than let them study journalism, because of the weak job prospects, set off days of online debate. Critics said he misunderstood the point of education, or was suggesting that poorer students shouldn’t follow their dreams.

“I come from an ordinary family,” Mr. Zhang wrote in response. “If you come from a wealthy family, you have more choices, you can’t choose wrongly. But most families aren’t that well-off, and when choosing a major, you have to choose one that’s suitable and will put food on the table.”

For the most part, Mr. Zhang’s outsize persona fueled his popularity, and his business. The Paper, a Shanghai-based outlet, wrote in a profile of Mr. Zhang that the furor over his journalism remarks made his fans only more devoted: “The comment section is dominated by one voice: The poor need Zhang Xuefeng.”

After another controversy, Mr. Zhang started selling a T-shirt that said “I was wrong, I apologize.”

But he had recently landed in bigger trouble. In September, his social media accounts were blocked from posting or adding new followers, during a campaign by China’s cyberspace administration to erase what it called “excessively pessimistic” sentiment.

Mr. Zhang was among a list of influencers targeted, according to China’s state broadcaster, which said that he was being punished for using “vulgar language for an extended period” during a livestream.

But some observers speculated that his true offense was speaking bluntly about young people’s economic anxieties, at a time when the government has tried to hide high youth unemployment rates and accused young people of being too picky about jobs. (Others thought Mr. Zhang was being penalized for cheering on an invasion of Taiwan. The Chinese government, though it claims Taiwan, often censors what it deems overly hawkish sentiment.)

Mr. Zhang recovered his accounts a month later and returned to streaming multiple times a week. The morning he died, he did a broadcast then went for a run, as was his habit.

His death was announced by his company in a post on social media. He is survived by his wife and a daughter, according to Chinese media.

Translation

一位曾指導中國孩子如何成功的網紅猝然離世

網紅Zhang Xuefeng以其直言不諱、甚至可以說是憤世嫉俗的建議而聞名，這些建議旨在幫助學生在中國激烈的教育競爭中脫穎而出。他41歲便英年早逝。

任何關注教育的中國家長或學生 - 也就是說，基本上大多數中國家長和學生 - 都知道Zhang Xuefeng這個名字。作為中國最著名的教育網紅，Zhang先生以其毫不留情的直言不諱的建議而聞名，這些建議旨在最大限度地提高學生的成功幾率。

他宣稱，文科？只對服務業有用。金融？除非你家有人脈，否則別費勁了。他語速飛快、言語犀利，在批評者眼中，他憤世嫉俗、唯利是圖。但在數千萬粉絲眼中，他體現了一種難能可貴的坦誠，願意正視弱勢學生面臨的嚴峻現實，尤其是在貧富差距懸殊、經濟增速放緩的背景下。

因此，當Zhang先生週二因心臟驟停猝然離世，年僅41歲時，引發了軒然大波 - 不僅是震驚，更是反思。

在社交媒體上，人們紛紛發問：他究竟是引導了中國年輕人走向更美好的生活，還是扼殺了他們的理想？在他長期抱怨自己疲憊不堪、工作過度之後，他的突然離世又反映了中國競爭激烈的職場文化怎樣的現狀？如果人生如此變幻莫測，那麼為了一個似乎越來越遙不可及的成功而去作出精心規劃，還有真的意義嗎？

週三，Zhang Xuefeng先生去世的消息在中國社交媒體上引發熱議，而「Zhang Xuefeng給迷失的年輕人的忠告：享受生活」也成為熱門話題之一。 「過度自律」是另一個熱門話題，此前官方媒體報道稱，Zhang Xuefeng先生在蘇州跑步後暈倒，蘇州是他居住的中國東部城市。

另一位頗受歡迎的教育網紅Zhu Wei在網路上發表了一篇長文悼念Zhang先生，讚揚了他的活力和真誠。Zhu先生曾勸告自己的學生放慢追求考試成績和工作的腳步。

Zhu先生寫道: 「但我也知道，網路時代最殘酷的是什麼？就是沒有什麼東西能持續一個月，很快就會被遺忘」， 「大家很快又會回到老樣子，無休止地奮鬥、拼搏，永不停低」。

Zhang先生出生於中國北方的小鎮。他的真名是Zhang Zibiao，後來改名為Xuefeng。他考入了一所中等水平的大學，學習供水和排水專業，據他接受採訪時所說，他對這個專業並不感興趣。畢業後，他轉向了輔導和大學諮詢工作。

2016年，他以一段影片一炮而紅。影片中，他用標誌性的語速飛快、略帶諷刺的語調，在七分鐘內概括了中國頂尖的34所大學。他創辦了一家顧問公司，幫助學生根據考試成績、家庭背景以及他們對金錢和穩定的重視程度等因素，冷靜地選擇專業、實習和職業。他的直播吸引了數十萬觀眾，他的課程收費高達數千美元。

他的名氣不僅來自於他的建議，也來自於他敢於挑釁的言論。 2023年，他曾說過，由於新聞專業的就業前景不佳，家長應該把孩子打暈，而不是讓他們學習新聞專業。這句話引發了持續數日的網路辯論。批評者稱他誤解了教育的意義，或暗示家境貧寒的學生不應該追逐自己的夢想。

Zhang迴應道: “我來自一個普通家庭” ， “如果你家境富裕，選擇更多，就不會選錯。但大多數家庭並不富裕，選擇專業時，必須選擇一個適合自己、能養家糊口的專業。”

Zhang先生的超大個性在很大程度上助長了他的聲望和事業。上海媒體澎湃新聞在一篇關於Zhang的報道中寫道，圍繞他新聞言論的爭議反而讓他的粉絲更加忠誠： “評論區幾乎全是同一種聲音：窮人需要Zhang Xuefeng。”

在又一次爭議之後，Zhang開始銷售一款印有「我錯了，我道歉」字樣的T恤。

但他最近卻陷入了更大的麻煩。 9月，在中國網信辦開展的一場旨在清除所謂「過度悲觀」情緒的行動中，張先生的社群媒體帳號被禁止發文和增加新粉絲。

根據中國國家電視台報道，Zhang先生是此次行動中被列入目標名單的網紅之一，他被處罰的原因是直播中「長時間使用粗俗語言」。

但一些觀察家猜測，他真正的過錯在於直言不諱地談論年輕人的經濟焦慮，而當時政府正試圖掩蓋高企的青年失業率，並指責年輕人對工作過於挑剔。 （其他人則認為Zhang先生是因為鼓勵入侵台灣而受到懲罰。中國政府雖然聲稱對台灣擁有主權，但經常審查其認為過於鷹派的情緒。）

一個月後，Zhang先生取回了他的帳號，並恢復了每週多次的直播。在他去世的那天早上，他像往常一樣進行了一次直播，然後去跑步。

他的公司在社交媒體上發布消息宣佈了他的死訊。據中國媒體報道，他身後留下了妻子和一個女兒。

              So, Zhang Xuefeng, as China’s most famous education influencer, has died at 41. To his tens of millions of fans, he embodied a rare willingness to acknowledge the harsh realities facing less privileged students, especially in the face of steep inequality and a slowing economy. Apparently, with Zhang passing away, others KOLs in China will take up his role in talking about the harsh realities facing less privileged students, especially in the face of steep inequality and a slowing economy.

Note:

1. The Paper (Chinese: 澎湃新闻) is a Chinese digital newspaper owned and run by the state-owned Shanghai United Media Group.(Wikipedia)

The Physical Society of Japan Introduced Software to Detect "AI-Written Papers"

 Recently NHK news on-line reported the following;

“AIで書かれた論文” を判定するソフト 日本物理学会が導入

2026年3月25日午後5時00分

生成AI・人工知能

海外の学術誌で、AIで書かれたとみられる粗悪な論文が投稿されるケースが問題になっています。これを受けて国立情報学研究所の研究チームが科学論文がAIで書かれていないかを判定するソフトを開発し、日本物理学会が25日から導入したことが分かりました。

日本物理学会が導入したのは国立情報学研究所の越前功教授の研究チームが開発した科学論文の執筆者が人間かAIかを判定するソフトです。

越前教授によりますと、海外の学術誌などで、AIで執筆されたとみられる不正確な内容が書かれるなどした粗悪な論文が多数投稿されるケースが確認されていて、問題になっています。

開発されたソフトには、人間やAIが書いた10万本以上の論文の特徴的な文章を学習させていて、英語の科学論文では、AIかどうかを90％以上の精度で判定できるということです。

さらに、人間らしい自然な文章に書き換える「ヒューマナイザー」と呼ばれる機能を使った場合でも、見分けることができるとしています。

日本物理学会では25日からこのソフトを導入し、学会が刊行している英語の学術誌に投稿された論文などを対象に、使用するということです。

日本物理学会では、文章の推こうや校正などでのAIの使用は認めていて、まずはソフトを使って、論文にどの程度AIが使われているか実態を把握することにしています。

日本物理学会の播磨尚朝理事は「判定ソフトの導入で、査読の効率化と、不正行為への抑止力になることを期待している」と話していました。

また、ソフトを開発した越前教授は「生成AIを使った学術論文の執筆は非常に脅威になってきている。査読に活用することで健全な学術の進展につなげてほしい」と話していました。

論文でAIを利用する際のルール

論文でのAIの利用はどこまで認められているのでしょうか。

国立情報学研究所などによりますと、日本では学術論文の執筆にAIを利用する際のルールについては、各大学や研究機関、投稿先の雑誌ごとの判断に委ねられているということです。

このうち日本物理学会では、文章の推こうや校正などでAIを補助的に利用している研究者は多いと考えていて、執筆者の責任のもとに、AIを利用すること自体は制限していないとしています。

ただ、

▽論文に掲載するデータや画像について、意図しないねつ造や盗用につながるおそれのあるAIの利用や

▽論文の大部分を生成AIで執筆するなどの補助の範囲を超えている利用は認めておらず、注意を呼びかけているということです。

またAIを利用した場合には、どのように使ったかを論文に明記することも推奨しています。

日本物理学会の林青司理事は「この数年でAIが関与したと思われる論文数が急増しているというデータも報告されているほか、ペーパーミルと呼ばれる粗悪な論文を不正に大量生産する問題も海外で指摘されています。私たちも、チェックしてきましたが、それだけで今の動向に対応できるかは不安もありますので、今回のような判定ソフトに期待しています」と話していました。

Translation

The Physical Society of Japan Introduced Software to Detect "AI-Written Papers"

March 25, 2026, 5:00 PM

Generative AI/Artificial Intelligence

The submission of poorly written papers seemingly written by AI to overseas academic journals had become a problem. In response, a research team at the National Institute of Informatics developed a software to determine whether scientific papers were written by AI, and the Physical Society of Japan (日本物理学会) brought in this on March 25th.

The software introduced by the Physical Society of Japan was developed by a research team led by Professor Isao Echizen (越前功) of the National Institute of Informatics to determine whether a scientific paper was written by a human or an AI.

According to Professor Echizen, numerous poorly written papers, including those containing inaccurate content seemingly written by AI, had been submitted to overseas academic journals, and that was posing a significant problem.

The developed software was trained on characteristic sentence patterns based on over 100,000 papers written by humans and AI, and could determine whether an English scientific paper was written by AI with over 90% accuracy.

Furthermore, the software could tell a text written using a function called a "humanizer" which rewrote text into more natural-sounding human-like language.

The Physical Society of Japan would introduce this software on the 25th and use it on papers submitted to its English-language academic journals.

The Physical Society of Japan allowed the use of AI in text editing and proofreading, and would initially use the software to understand the extent to which AI was being used in papers.

Naotomo Harimam (播磨尚朝), a director of the Physical Society of Japan stated "We hope that the introduction of this adjudication software will improve the efficiency of peer review and act as a deterrent against academic misconduct."

Professor Echizen, who developed the software also stated "The writing of academic papers using generative AI is becoming a serious threat. We hope that its use in peer review will contribute to the healthy advancement of academic research."

Rules for using AI in academic papers

To what extent the use of AI is permitted in academic papers?

According to the National Institute of Informatics and other sources, in Japan, the rules regarding the use of AI in writing academic papers were left to the discretion of induvial  university, research institution, and journal to which the paper was submitted.

The Physical Society of Japan believed that many researchers used AI to assist in tasks such as text revision and proofreading, and stated that it would not restrict the use of AI itself, as long as the author was responsible for its use.

However,

- regarding data and images to be included in academic papers, the usage of AI in ways that could lead to unintended fabrication or plagiarism, or

- the usage went beyond the scope of assistance, such as writing the majority of a paper using generative AI would not be permitted. They were urging caution in these regards.

They also recommended that if AI had been used, how it was used should be clearly stated in the paper.

Seiji Hayashi (林青司), a director of the Physical Society of Japan said "Data also shows that a sharp increase in the number of papers that appear to involve AI in recent years, and in overseas, the problem of paper milling, where low-quality papers are fraudulently mass-produced, has been pointed out. We have been performing checking, but we are concerned whether that alone would be sufficient to deal with the current trends, so we have high hope for adjudication software like this."

 So, the submission of poorly written papers, seemingly written by AI, has become a problem. In response, a research team at the National Institute of Informatics has developed software to determine whether scientific papers were written by AI. Apparently, AI is affecting our daily life in many respects.

Note:

1. The National Institute of Informatics (国立情報学研究所)（NII）is a Japanese research institute located in Chiyoda, Tokyo, Japan. NII was established in April 2000 for the purpose of advancing the study of informatics. This institute also works on creating systems to facilitate the spread of scientific information to the general public. (Wikipedia)

2. A "paper mill" (ペーパーミル) is an unethical organization (paper factory) that undertakes the fabrication and ghostwriting of research papers, mass-producing and selling them. By forging scientifically unfounded papers and submitting them to academic journals, they help researchers advance their careers and pose a serious problem that undermines the credibility of the scientific community. (Google)

古DNA證實，人類在發展農業前就擁有狗隻（2/2）

Recently the New York Times reported the following:

Humans Had Dogs Before They Had Farming, Ancient DNA Confirms (2/2)

New research pushes the first genetic evidence of dogs back by 5,000 years and suggests that hunter-gatherer groups may have acquired dogs from one another.

The NTY - By Emily Anthes - Emily Anthes is a science reporter, writing primarily about animal health and science. She also covered the coronavirus pandemic.

March 25, 2026, 12:00 p.m. ET

(continue)

Paleolithic pups

Overall, the researchers found evidence of genetically similar Paleolithic dogs at five different archaeological sites that were associated with people from three different hunter-gatherer cultures: the Magdalenian, Anatolian and Epigravettian peoples.

These are “utterly different cultures,” said Ian Barnes, a paleogeneticist at the Natural History Museum in London and an author of one of the studies. “Presumably linguistically different, completely culturally different, ecologically different, with the same animal. So how does that square up? How does that happen?”

One possibility, the researchers proposed, is that dogs spread through Europe as the Epigravettian culture expanded across the continent roughly 16,000 years ago, and Epigravattian people passed dogs along to other hunter-gatherer populations they encountered.

How these dogs slotted into these societies remains unclear. “What these animals were doing for them, or whether they were just following them, this we don’t really know,” said Laurent Frantz, a paleogeneticist at Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich and an author of both studies. But given the varied human cultures and environments, it’s possible that these genetically similar dogs were performing different jobs in different human populations.

That means that while humans would later turn dogs into highly specialized tools, optimized to pull sleds or wriggle into badger holes, these Paleolithic dogs might have been more like “a Swiss army knife,” Dr. Larson said. “The dogs might be doing different things, but the dogs themselves are all the same color, same height, same genomic ancestry.”

These hunter-gatherer societies did appear to have close relationships with the dogs, the researchers reported. At some sites, for instance, there was evidence that humans had perhaps provided these early dogs with food and, in death, had treated their bodies like human ones.

“That indicates to us a very, very close interaction,” said William Marsh, a paleogeneticist at the Natural History Museum and an author of one of the studies.

And the legacy of these Paleolithic dogs most likely lives on. When the first farmers began to arrive in Europe — migrating from southwestern Asia roughly 9,000 years ago — they brought their own dogs with them. “There was basically a mixing of all the different dogs from both hunter-gatherer groups and farming groups,” said Pontus Skoglund, a paleogeneticist at the Francis Crick Institute in London who was an author of both studies.

Europe’s farmers thus ended up with dogs that still carried a lot of ancestry from the dogs that had once lived alongside the continent’s hunter-gatherers. Modern European dogs can also probably trace much of their ancestry back to those canines, the researchers said.

Still, the biggest questions surrounding the origins of the dog remain unanswered.

“It’s very exciting that we have this first view of Paleolithic, really early dog ancestry,” Dr. Skoglund said.

“But the question of where dogs come from, and who were these people that domesticated them or started to build this bond,” he added, “we’re still trying to find out.”

Translation

古DNA證實，人類在發展農業前就擁有狗隻（2/2）

一項新研究將最早發現狗基因的證據推前5000年前，並顯示狩獵採集群體可能彼此之間傳播了狗

（繼續）

舊石器時代的幼犬

總體而言，研究人員在五個不同的考古遺址中發現了基因相似的舊石器時代犬類的證據，這些遺址與三種不同的狩獵採集文化有關：馬格德林文化、安納托利亞文化和埃皮格拉維特文化。

倫敦自然歷史博物館的古遺傳學家、研究的作者之一Ian Barnes表示，這些是「截然不同的文化」; 「以常理推測，語言是不同、文化迥異、生態環境也截然不同，卻都養著同一種動物。那麼，這又該如何解釋呢？這究竟是怎麼發生的？」

研究人員提出了一種可能性：大約16,000年前，隨著埃皮格拉維特文化在歐洲大陸的擴張，狗也隨之傳播開來，而埃皮格拉維特人又將狗帶給了他們遇到的其他狩獵採集群體。

這些狗是如何融入這些社會的，目前尚不清楚。慕尼黑路德維希-馬克西米利安大學的古遺傳學家、也是這兩項研究的作者之一Laurent Frantz說道: 「這些動物為他們做了什麼，或者它們只是跟隨他們，我們真的不知道」。但考慮到人類文化和環境的多樣性，這些基因相似的狗在不同的人類群體中可能扮演不同的角色。

Larson博士說這意味著，雖然人類後來將狗改造成高度專業化的工具，使其能夠拉雪橇或鑽進獾洞，但這些舊石器時代的狗可能更像是 “瑞士軍刀” 。 “這些狗可能從事不同的工作，但它們是有相同毛色、相同身高和相同基因組譜。”

研究人員報告稱，這些狩獵採集社會似乎與狗有著密切的關係。例如，在一些遺址中，有證據表明人類可能曾為這些早期犬隻提供食物，並在它們死後像對待人類屍體一樣地對待它們。

自然歷史博物館的古遺傳學家、該研究的作者之一William Marsh說:「這表明人類與狗之間存在非常密切的互動」。

這些舊石器時代狗的遺產很可能延續至今。大約9,000年前，第一批農民從西南亞遷徙到歐洲時，他們也帶了自己的狗。也是這兩項研究的作者之一的倫敦弗朗西斯·克里克研究所的古遺傳學家Pontus Skoglund說道: 「基本上，來自狩獵採集群體和農業群體的各種犬種都混雜在一起」。

因此，歐洲的農民最終擁有的犬隻，仍然保留著許多來自曾經與歐洲大陸狩獵採集者共同生活的犬隻的血統。研究人員表示，現代歐洲犬的祖先很可能也大多可以追溯到這些犬類。

然而，關於犬類起源的最大疑問仍然沒有答案。

Skoglund博士說: 「我們首次得以了解舊石器時代，也就是非常早期的犬類祖先，這令人非常興奮」。

他補充道:“但是，關於犬類的起源，以及馴化它們或開始與它們建立聯繫的人，我們仍在努力尋找答案。”

            So, roughly 14,000 years ago hunter-gatherer societies across Europe had discovered dogs. Recent studies have provided the first definitive genetic evidence that dogs existed during the Paleolithic period, before humans developed agriculture. The researchers have identified Paleolithic dogs at five different archaeological sites in Europe and Western Asia. The oldest of these dogs lived about 15,800 years ago, pushing back the oldest known genetic evidence of dogs by nearly 5,000 years. Apparently, we still do not know where these dogs came from, and who were the people that domesticated them.

古DNA證實，人類在發展農業前就擁有狗隻（1/2）

Recently the New York Times reported the following:

(Source: The NYT)

Humans Had Dogs Before They Had Farming, Ancient DNA Confirms (1/2)

New research pushes the first genetic evidence of dogs back by 5,000 years and suggests that hunter-gatherer groups may have acquired dogs from one another.

The NTY By Emily Anthes - Emily Anthes is a science reporter, writing primarily about animal health and science. She also covered the coronavirus pandemic.

March 25, 2026, 12:00 p.m. ET

In the waning days of the last ice age, when humans were still hunting with spears and using cave walls as canvases, a hot new trend was spreading through the Paleolithic landscape.

By roughly 14,000 years ago, hunter-gatherer societies across Europe had discovered dogs, scientists reported in two new papers, which were published Wednesday in the journal Nature. The studies provide the first definitive genetic evidence that dogs existed during the Paleolithic period, before humans developed agriculture.

The researchers, who used several approaches to analyze DNA extracted from ancient canine specimens, identified Paleolithic dogs at five different archaeological sites in Europe and Western Asia. The oldest of these dogs lived about 15,800 years ago, pushing back the oldest known genetic evidence of dogs by nearly 5,000 years.

These early dogs came from sites that extend from Britain to Turkey, and were associated with several very different hunter-gatherer populations. But the dogs themselves were closely related. Across the five sites, the dogs were more genetically similar than the humans were, the researchers found.

“The people are so different, but the dogs are very much the same,” said Greger Larson, a paleogeneticist at the University of Oxford and one of the authors on both new studies, which were conducted by large, international scientific teams.

The finding suggests that these early human societies were exchanging dogs or acquiring them from one another.

“It is kind of the equivalent of a new blade or a new point or a new kind of material culture or art form or something, where everybody’s getting really excited about having this fun new thing around.” Dr. Larson said. “And it’s useful and it’s interesting and it’s probably cute.”

The research provides new insight into the early history of dogs, as well as the genetic legacy and the interspecies relationship that extends to today.

“It’s really a major step forward in advancing our knowledge of humans and dogs,” said Elaine Ostrander, a canine genomics expert at the National Human Genome Research Institute who was not involved in the research.

Dogs descended from ancient wolves, but exactly when and where they first emerged remains a subject of intense scientific debate. Some scientists have suggested that the size and shape of ancient canine specimens indicate that dogs and wolves diverged more than 30,000 years ago.

But such remains can be tricky to identify definitively. In some cases, geneticists have determined that canine remains that initially appeared to be from dogs actually belonged to now-extinct wolves. In others, they haven’t been able to recover enough DNA to make a conclusive call about species. Before the new research, the oldest definitive dog DNA dated back just 10,900 years.

In one of the new studies, scientists assembled and analyzed the complete genomes of eight ancient canines and compared them with ancient and modern wolves and dogs. Six of the animals had genomes that resembled those of dogs, they concluded. And two of those dogs dated back to the Paleolithic era — a 15,800-year-old dog from Pinarbasi, Turkey, and a 14,300-year-old dog from Gough’s Cave, an archaeological site in Britain.

The genomes from those two Paleolithic dogs became “the Rosetta Stone, for lack of a better term, that then unlocked all of the stuff that we already had in our database,” said Lachie Scarsbrook, a paleogeneticist at the University of Oxford and an author of one of the studies.

That database had three other ancient canines, their species unknown. The genetic data on these animals was incomplete: Scientists had previously sequenced only the DNA from their mitochondria, representing a small fraction of their total genetic material. (A vast majority of an animal’s DNA is stored in the cell nucleus.)

But the mitochondrial DNA from these three unknown canines was so similar to the mitochondrial DNA from the British and Turkish dogs that the scientists concluded that these animals were probably Paleolithic dogs, too. They were 14,000 to 14,300 years old and came from sites in Germany, Italy and Switzerland.

In the second paper, scientists used a different approach to extract and analyze DNA from more than 200 ancient canine remains, including samples from the same site in Switzerland. They analyzed nuclear DNA from the same canine that the first team had identified as being a Paleolithic dog and reached the same conclusion.

(to be continued)

Translation

古DNA證實，人類在發展農業前就擁有狗隻（1/2）

一項新研究將最早發現狗基因的證據推前5000年前，並顯示狩獵採集群體可能彼此之間傳播了狗。

在上一個冰河時期的末期，當人類還在用長矛狩獵，並在洞穴牆上作畫時，一種新的潮流正在舊石器時代蔓延開來。

科學家在周三發表於《自然》雜誌的兩篇新論文中報告說，大約在14,000年前，歐洲各地的狩獵採集社會已經發現了狗。這些研究首次提供了確鑿的基因證據，證明狗在舊石器時代就已經存在，早於人類發展農業。

研究人員運用多種方法分析了從古代犬類標本中提取的DNA，在歐洲和西亞的五個不同考古遺址中發現了舊石器時代的犬類。其中最古老的犬類生活在約15,800年前，將已知最早的犬類基因證據向前推前了近5,000年。

這些早期犬類來自從英國到土耳其的多個遺址，並與幾個截然不同的狩獵採集群體有關。但這些犬類本身卻有著密切的親緣關係。研究人員發現，在這五個遺址中，犬類的基因相似度甚至高於人類。

牛津大學古遺傳學家Greger Larson說:「人類如此不同，但犬類卻非常相似」。他是這兩項新研究的作者之一，這兩項研究均由大型國際科學研究團隊完成。

研究結果顯示，這些早期人類社會可能在交換狗隻，或是從彼此之間獲得狗隻。

Larson博士說: “這有點像是一種新的刀刃、新的尖端、新的物質文化或藝術形式之類的東西，大家都對這種有趣的新事物感到興奮不已” ， “它既實用又有趣，而且可能還很可愛。”

這項研究為我們了解狗隻的早期歷史、遺傳傳承以及延續至今的跨物種關係提供了新的視角。

並未參與這項研究的美國國家人類基因組研究所的犬類基因組學專家Elaine Ostrander說道:「這確實是增進我們對人類和狗的了解的一大進步」。

狗起源於古代狼，但它們究竟何時何地出現仍然是科學界激烈爭論的話題。一些科學家認為，古代犬類標本的大小和形狀表明，狗和狼在3萬多年前就已經分道揚鑣。

但要準確鑑定這些遺骸並非易事。在某些情況下，遺傳學家已經確定，最初看似屬於狗的犬科動物遺骸實際上屬於現已滅絕的狼。而在其他情況下，他們未能提取到足夠的DNA來對物種做出最終判斷。在這項新研究之前，已知最古老的犬類DNA可以追溯到10,900年前。

在其中一項新研究中，科學家收集並分析了八種古代犬科動物的完整基因組，並將其與古代和現代的狼和狗的基因組進行了比較。他們得出結論，其中六種動物的基因組與狗的基因組相似。而這六種狗中有兩種可以追溯到舊石器時代 - 一種是來自土耳其Pinarbasi的距今15,800年的狗，另一種是來自英國高夫洞穴（Gough's Cave）考古遺址的距今14,300年的狗。

牛津大學古遺傳學家、其中一項研究的作者Lachie Scarsbrook表示，這兩隻舊石器時代犬的基因組，在沒有更好的名稱之下 ，“ 就稱之為‘羅塞塔石碑’，它解開了我們數據庫中已有的所有謎團”。

該資料庫中還包含另外三隻古代犬科動物，它們的物種尚不明確。這些動物的基因數據並不完整：科學家先前僅對它們的粒線體DNA進行了定序，而粒線體DNA僅佔其全部遺傳物質的一小部分。 （動物的大部分DNA都儲存在細胞核中。）

但這三隻未知犬科動物的粒線體DNA與英國和土耳其犬的粒線體DNA高度相似，因此科學家們得出結論，這些動物很可能也是舊石器時代的犬類。它們的年代是在14,000至14,300年前，來自德國、義大利和瑞士的遺址。

在第二篇論文中，科學家採用了不同的方法，從200多份古代犬類遺骸中提取並分析了DNA，其中包括來自瑞士同一遺址的樣本。他們分析了與第一組研究人員鑑定為舊石器時代犬類的同一隻犬的核DNA，並得出了相同的結論。

（待續）

Note:

1. The Rosetta Stone (羅塞塔石碑) is a stele of granodiorite inscribed with three versions of a decree issued in 196 BC during the Ptolemaic dynasty of Egypt, on behalf of King Ptolemy V Epiphanes. The top and middle texts are in Ancient Egyptian using hieroglyphic and Demotic scripts, respectively, while the bottom is in Ancient Greek. The decree has only minor differences across the three versions, making the Rosetta Stone key to deciphering the Egyptian scripts. (Wikipedia)

香港警方根據新的國家安全法可要求提供手機密碼

Recently BBC news on-line reported the following:

HK police can now demand phone passwords under new national security rules

BBC - Martin Yip,Hong Kong and Kelly Ng

23 Mar 2026

Hong Kong police can now demand phone or computer passwords from those who are suspected of breaching the wide-ranging National Security Law (NSL).

Those who refuse could face up to a year in jail and a fine of up to HK$100,000 ($12,700; £9,600), and individuals who provide "false or misleading information" could face up to three years in jail.

It comes as part of new amendments to a bylaw under the NSL that the government gazetted on Monday.

The NSL was introduced in Hong Kong in 2020, in wake of massive pro-democracy protests the year before. Authorities say the laws, which target acts like terrorism and secession, are necessary for stability - but critics say they are tools to quash dissent.

The new amendments also give customs officials the power to seize items that they deem to "have seditious intention".

Monday's amendments ensure that "activities endangering national security can be effectively prevented, suppressed and punished, and at the same time the lawful rights and interests of individuals and organisations are adequately protected", Hong Kong authorities said on Monday.

Changes to the bylaw was announced by the city's leader, John Lee, bypassing the city's legislative council.

While law enforcement officials in many parts of the world have the authority to demand access to electronic devices as part of criminal investigations, the NSL covers a sweeping range of vaguely defined offences from secession, subversion, terrorism and collusion with external forces.

The NSL also allows for some trials to be heard behind closed doors.

The city has seen the arrests of hundreds of protesters, activists and former opposition lawmakers since the introduction of the NSL.

In February, the father of pro-democracy activist in exile was jailed for trying to cash out her insurance policy, under a homegrown law that expands on the NSL.

Also in February, media tycoon Jimmy Lai was sentenced to 20 years in jail after being convicted of foreign collusion and publishing seditious material under the NSL.

Translation

香港警方根據新的國家安全法可要求提供手機密碼

香港警方現在可以要求涉嫌違反廣泛的《國家安全法》（NSL）的人士提供手機或電腦密碼。

拒絕提供密碼者最高可被判處一年監禁和10萬港元（約合12,700美元；9,600英鎊）罰款；提供「虛假或誤導性資訊」者最高可被判處三年監禁。

這是政府週一公佈的《國家安全法》細則修訂的一部分。

《國家安全法》於2020年在香港實施，此前一年爆發了大規模的民主抗議活動。當局稱，該法旨在打擊恐怖主義和分裂國家等行為，對維護社會穩定至關重要；但批評者則認為，該法是鎮壓異議的工具。

新修訂的條例還賦予海關官員權力，可以扣押他們認為「具有煽動意圖」的物品。

香港當局週一表示，星期一的修訂確保「危害國家安全的活動能夠得到有效預防、制止和懲處，同時個人和組織的合法權益得到充分保障」。

香港特首李家超繞過立法會，直接宣佈了這項條例的修改。

雖然世界許多地區的執法人員有權在刑事調查中要求查閱電子設備，但《國家安全法》涵蓋的罪行範圍廣泛，定義模糊，包括分裂國家、顛覆國家政權、恐怖主義和勾結境外勢力等。

《國家安全法》也允許一些案件進行閉門審理。

自《國家安全法》實施以來，香港已有數百名示威者、活動人士和前反對派立法會議員被捕。

今年2月，一名流亡海外的民主活動人士的父親因試圖兌現其女兒的保險金而被判入獄，該罪名依據的是一項在《國家安全法》基礎上擴展的本土法律。

同樣在2月，傳媒大亨黎智英因觸犯《國家安全法》並出版煽動性資料而被判處20年監禁。

So, Hong Kong police can now demand phone or computer passwords from those who are suspected of breaching the wide-ranging NSL. While law enforcement officials in many parts of the world have similar authority to demand access to electronic devices as part of criminal investigations, the NSL covers a sweeping range of vaguely defined offences from secession, subversion, terrorism and collusion with external forces. Furthermore, the NSL also allows for some trials to be heard behind closed doors.

圖靈獎授予量子密碼學發明者

Recently the New York Times reported the following:

Turing Award Goes to Inventors of Quantum Cryptography

In the 1980s, Charles Bennett and Gilles Brassard created a new kind of encryption that would be impregnable.

The NYT - By Cade Metz - Cade Metz has reported on quantum technologies since the 1990s.

March 18, 2026

Updated 8:19 a.m. ET

In the mid-1980s, Charles Bennett and Gilles Brassard invented an encryption technology that could theoretically never be broken.

Called quantum cryptography, their technology relied on quantum mechanics, the strange and powerful behavior exhibited by electrons, photons and other very small things.

At the time, their technique was a fascinating but impractical creation. Forty years later, it is poised to become an essential way of protecting the world’s most sensitive information.

On Wednesday, the Association for Computing Machinery, the world’s largest society of computing professionals, said Drs. Bennett and Brassard had won this year’s Turing Award for their work on quantum cryptography and related technologies. The Turing Award, which was introduced in 1966, is often called the Nobel Prize of computing, and it includes a $1 million prize, which the two scientists will share.

In recent years, companies like Google and Microsoft have made great strides toward building a new kind of computer, called a quantum computer, which also relies on the counterintuitive properties of quantum mechanics. Experts believe that such a machine will soon be powerful enough to crack the encryption techniques that have guarded the world’s secrets since the 1970s.

If that happens, governments, businesses and even individuals will need the cryptographic techniques developed by Dr. Bennett, 82, a researcher at an IBM computer science lab in Yorktown, N.Y., and Dr. Brassard, 70, a professor at the University of Montreal.

The two met in 1979 while swimming in the Atlantic just off the north shore of Puerto Rico. They were taking a break while attending an academic conference in San Juan. Dr. Bennett swam up to Dr. Brassard and suggested they use quantum mechanics to create a bank note that could never be forged.

“It was a bit shocking,” Dr. Brassard remembered in an interview. “That is not something that happens every day.”

Collaborating between Montreal and New York, they applied Dr. Bennett’s idea to subway tokens rather than bank notes. In a research paper published in 1983, they showed that their quantum subway tokens could never be forged, even if someone managed to steal the subway turnstile housing the elaborate hardware needed to read them.

This led to quantum cryptography. After describing their new form of encryption in a research paper published in 1984, they demonstrated the technology with a physical experiment five years later.

Called BB84, their system used photons — particles of light — to create encryption keys used to lock and unlock digital data. Thanks to the laws of quantum mechanics, the behavior of a photon changes if someone looks at it. This means that if anyone tries to steal the keys, he or she will leave a telltale sign of the attempted theft — a bit like breaking the seal on an aspirin bottle.

“They introduced a totally new way of thinking about encryption,” said Prineha Narang, a professor of physical sciences and electrical and computer engineering at the University of California, Los Angeles. “The fundamental laws of physics can make it unhackable.”

The importance of this creation was first shown in 1994 when Peter Shor, a researcher at Bell Labs in New Jersey, proved that a quantum computer could break encryption schemes that did not rely on the techniques laid out by Drs. Bennett and Brassard.

That same decade, the two computer scientists took their ideas a step further. Alongside other researchers, they showed that data could be securely transmitted over long distances in a way that many scientists, even Albert Einstein, had deemed impossible.

Called quantum teleportation, their technique relied on a quantum property called “entanglement.” This is when two quantum objects — such as two electrons — are linked to each other, even though they are very far away.

As companies like Google and Microsoft create increasingly powerful quantum computers, quantum teleportation — what Einstein called “spooky action at a distance” — could profoundly change the way data travels from place to place.

Quantum teleportation could move information between quantum computers — and it could do so in a way that prevents anyone from intercepting it. In other words, Drs. Bennett and Brassard helped create what may be the computer networks of the future. And they ensured that these networks could stand up to hackers.

“For a long time, it was not clear how these ideas would be used,” Dr. Narang said. “Now, small companies, large companies and even the U.S. government is trying to deploy this technology.”

Translation

圖靈獎授予量子密碼學發明者

在 1980 年代，Charles Bennett和Gilles Brassard發明了一種理論上無法被攻破的新型加密技術

在 1980 年代中期，Charles Bennett和Gilles Brassard發明了一種理論上永遠無法破解的加密技術。

這項技術被稱為量子密碼學，它是基於量子力學 中的電子、光子和其他微小粒子所展現出的奇特而強有力行為。

當時，這項技術令人著迷，但卻不切實際。四十年後，它有望成為保護世界上最敏感資訊的重要手段。

週三，全球最大的電腦專業人士協會 - 美國電腦協會（ACM）宣佈Bennett博士和Brassard博士因其在量子密碼學及相關技術領域的研究而榮獲今年的圖靈獎。圖靈獎設立於1966年，常被譽為電腦界的諾貝爾獎，獎金高達100萬美元，將由兩位科學家共同分享。

近年來，Google和微軟等公司在建立一種名為量子電腦的新型電腦方面取得了長足進展。量子電腦同樣依賴量子力學的反直覺特性。專家認為，這種機器很快就能強大到足以破解自1970年代以來守護世界機密的加密技術。

如果這種情況發生，各國政府、企業甚至個人都將需要Bennett博士（現年82歲，紐約州約克鎮IBM電腦科學實驗室的研究員）和 Brassard博士（現年70歲，蒙特利爾大學教授）開發的加密技術。

兩人於1979年在波多黎各北岸附近的大西洋游泳時相遇。當時他們正在聖胡安參加一個學術會議，並在休息時相遇。Bennett博士游到Brassard博士身邊，提議他們利用量子力學製造一種永遠無法偽造的鈔票。

Brassard博士在一次採訪中回憶道: “這有點令人震驚” ， “這種事可不是每天都會發生的。”

他們在滿地可和紐約兩地合作，將Bennett博士的想法應用於地鐵代幣而非鈔票。在1983年發表的一篇研究論文中，他們證明，即使有人設法偷走了裝有讀取代幣所需複雜硬體的地鐵閘機，他們的量子地鐵代幣也永遠無法偽造。

這催生了量子密碼學。在1984年發表的一篇研究論文中描述了他們的新型加密方法後，五年後，他們透過一項物理實驗驗證了這項技術。

他們的系統名為 BB84，使用光子（光粒子）來創建加密密鑰，用於鎖定和解鎖數位資料。基於量子力學定律，光子的行為會因被注視而改變。這意味著，如果有人試圖竊取密鑰，就會留下盜竊未遂的痕跡 - 就像打開阿斯匹靈藥瓶的封條一樣。

加州大學洛杉磯分校物理科學與電子和計算機工程教授Prineha Narang說道:“他們引入了一種全新的加密思路”，“基於物理定律使這種加密方式無法破解。”

這項發明的重要性在1994年首次體現。當時，新澤西州貝爾實驗室的研究員Peter Shor證明，量子電腦可以破解那些不依賴Bennett和Brassard兩位博士所提出的加密方案。

在同一時期，這兩位電腦科學家將他們的想法進一步發展。他們與其他研究人員一起證明，數據可以安全地遠距離傳輸，而許多科學家，甚至包括愛因斯坦，都曾認為這是不可能的。

這項被稱為量子傳送的技術依賴一種名為「糾纏」的量子特性。糾纏是指兩個量子物體 - 例如兩個電子 - 即使相距十分遙遠，也能彼此相連。

隨著Google和微軟等公司不斷開發出功能日益強大的量子計算機， 量子傳送- 愛因斯坦稱之為「幽靈般的超距作用」- 可能會徹底改變數據傳輸的方式。

量子傳送可以在量子電腦之間傳輸訊息，並且能夠防止任何人攔截訊息。換句話說，Bennett博士和Brassard博士幫助創建了未來電腦網路的基礎架構，並確保這些網路能夠抵禦駭客攻擊。

Narang博士說: 「長期以來，這些想法將如何應用尚不明確」 ，「現在，小公司、大公司，甚至美國政府都在嘗試部署這項技術」。

              So, two features in the field of quantum mechanics have made a new kind of encryption impregnable. First, the laws of quantum mechanics point out that the behavior of a photon will change if someone looks at it. That means if anyone tries to steal the data, a telltale sign of an attempted theft could be noted. Second, based on the quantum property it is pointed out that two electrons are linked to each other, even though they are very far away. A technique called quantum teleportation is thus made possible.  Apparently, these features could enable us to change our way to conduct data travels from place to place.

Note:

1. The ACM A. M. Turing Award (圖靈獎) is an annual prize given by the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) for contributions of lasting and major technical importance to computer science. The award is named after Alan Turing, also referred as "Father of Computer Science", who was a British mathematician and reader in mathematics at the University of Manchester. Born in London, Turing was raised in southern England. He graduated from King's College, Cambridge, and in 1938, earned a doctorate degree from Princeton University. During World War II, Turing worked for the Government Code and Cypher School at Bletchley Park, Britain's codebreaking center that produced Ultra intelligence. He led Hut 8, the section responsible for German naval cryptanalysis. (Wikipedia)

2. Encryption keys (加密密鑰) are the core building blocks of secure communication in cryptography, they’re what lock (encrypt) and unlock (decrypt) data so only authorized parties can access it.  An encryption key is a string of bits (numbers) used by an algorithm to transform readable data (plaintext) into unreadable data (ciphertext), and back again. (ChatGPT)

3.  Quantum teleportation (量子傳送) refers to the process of transferring quantum information from one location to another, without physically moving the particle itself, utilizing entanglement. (ChatGPT)