人工智能模型是否被誤導而表​​現得太像人類？ （1/2）

Recently The New York Times reported the following:

Are A.I. Models Being Misled to Act Too Human? (1/2)

A corporate spat between two tech giants last week was just the latest volley in a conflict over whether dangerous mistakes are being made in A.I. training.

The NYT - By Cade Metz - Reporting from San Francisco (Cade Metz is a Times reporter who writes about artificial intelligence, driverless cars, robotics, virtual reality and other emerging areas of technology.)

Sept. 21, 2026

Last week, Mustafa Suleyman, who leads the development of artificial intelligence technologies at Microsoft, took aim at the idea that today’s A.I. is conscious.

Current A.I. systems, he said in an essay published on Wednesday, “are sequence completion engines, internally hollow, designed to follow instructions, and accomplish goals set by humans.”

“If humanity is to flourish in the 21st century,” he added, “that is how they must remain.”

His 6,000-word essay took direct aim at Anthropic, the San Francisco start-up that has repeatedly said that A.I. systems show signs of introspection, and that they process information in ways that resemble human emotion. In May, the Anthropic co-founder Chris Olah made these claims during a meeting with Pope Leo XIV inside the Vatican.

Mr. Suleyman’s treatise added an unexpected twist to an already heated debate over the dangers of A.I. Like many others across the tech industry in recent days, current and former Anthropic researchers have warned that A.I. poses a serious risk to humanity. But Mr. Suleyman argued that Anthropic, along with others across the tech industry, is ignoring the danger that comes when A.I. systems are pushed too hard to explore the idea that they are humanlike.

Mr. Suleyman argued that Anthropic, in particular, is teaching its systems to behave in this way. In his essay, he points out that the elaborate “A.I. constitution” that Anthropic uses to define the behavior of its A.I. technology includes language that invites this system, which Anthropic calls Claude, to explore the idea of its own consciousness.

“The Anthropic constitution is extremely clear about the kind of A.I. they want to create,” he told The New York Times. “This is the primary training manual for the A.I. they have built, and it is full of many very explicit directives to encourage Claude to think of itself as a real entity in its own right, with preferences and intrinsic motivation.”

Anthropic did not respond to a request for comment.

Colin Allen, a professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara, who explores cognitive skills in both animals and machines, told The Times that today’s A.I. technologies mimic the human brain only in small ways — reflecting the fact that they are built with materials that have very different physical properties. Without a nervous system, or the biochemistry that drives and accompanies human emotion, there is likely to be a fundamental limit to how humanlike these systems can become.

In the view of A.I. consciousness skeptics, the fact that these models have begun mimicking deep human ideas — musing about their own consciousness, or claiming that they feel emotion — simply reflects how much human researchers and commentators have trained them with language that anthropomorphizes them.

(to be continued)

Translation

人工智能模型是否被誤導而表​​現得太像人類？ （1/2）

上週，兩家科技巨頭之間的一場公司內部爭執，只是圍繞著人工智能訓練中是否存在危險錯誤的最新一輪交鋒。

上週，微軟人工智能技術開發負責人 Mustafa Suleyman 抨擊了「當今人工智能具有意識」的觀點。

他在週三發表的一篇文章中指出，目前的人工智能系統“是序列完成引擎，內部空洞，旨在遵循指令，完成人類設定的目標。”

他補充說：“如果人類要在21世紀繁榮發展，就必須保持這種狀態。”

他這篇長達 6,000 字的文章直接抨擊了舊金山初創公司 Anthropic。 Anthropic 曾多次聲稱，其人工智能系統展現出內省的跡象，它們處理資訊的方式與人類情感相似。今年5月，Anthropic 聯合創始人 Chris Olah 在梵蒂岡會見教宗良十四世時發表了上述言論。

Suleyman 的這篇論文為這場本已激烈的關於人工智能危險性的辯論增添了一個意想不到的轉折。與最近科技業的許多其他人士一樣，Anthropic 現任和前任研究人員都警告說，人工智能對人類構成嚴重威脅。但 Suleyman 認為，Anthropic 以及其他科技公司忽略了當人工智能系統被過度推動去探索其類似人類的想法時所帶來的危險。

Suleyman指出，尤其Anthropic正在教導其係統以這種方式行事。他在文章中指出，Anthropic用來定義其人工智能技術的行為的精心設計的「人工智能憲章」中，包含語言去鼓勵這個被這公司稱為Claude的系統探索自身意識的概念。

他告訴《紐約時報》:「人智公司的憲章非常明確地闡述了他們想要創造的人工智能類型」， 「這是他們所建立的人工智能的主要訓練手冊，其中包含許多非常明確的指令，旨在鼓勵Claude 將自身視為一個擁有偏好和內在動機的真實個體」。

Anthropic 未對此置評。

加州大學聖塔芭芭拉分校教授 Colin Allen 是研究動物和機器的認知能力的，他告訴《紐約時報》，如今的人工智能技術僅在很小的方面模仿人腦 - 這反映出它們是由具有截然不同物理特性的材料製成的。如果沒有神經系統，或驅動和伴隨人類情感的生物化學機制，要這些系統能要變得有多像人類，可能存在著一個根本性的限制。

在人工智能意識懷疑論者看來，這些模型開始模仿人類的深層想法 - 思考自身的意識，或聲稱自己有情感 - 這一事實，僅僅反映了人類研究人員和評論員用了多少擬人化的語言訓練它們。

（待續）