關於人工智慧、科幻與人類局限性的對話

場景：一座廣闊而寂靜的圖書館。午後陽光穿過書架，灰塵微粒在光柱中漂浮。空氣裡瀰漫著陳舊紙張與乾燥皮革的氣味。禮彌緩緩合上一本文集，臉上流露出一絲淡淡的好奇。

禮彌：（讀完詩後停頓片刻，揉著太陽穴）
這首詩談論著美好的可能性。緩緩合上一本文集，神色略帶好奇。然而，我不確定我們這個物種是否已經進化到足以達到更高層次的意識。若要做到那一點，似乎需要徹底的社會重構。（抬起臉，注意到灰塵在燈光中跳舞）也許超級智能 AI 可以指導我們並幫助我們克服最具破壞性的傾向？

敏：（在一本電子筆記本上素描，同時慢慢點頭）沒錯。唉，從迄今的人類歷史來看，我不確定那是否可能。鑒於迄今為止的人類歷史，我甚至不確定這是否可行。我們留下了一份災難性地混雜的紀錄：既有令人驚嘆、直衝雲霄的偉大瞬間，也留下了同樣程度的、卑劣殘忍的傷痕。那些驚人、直抵天穹的偉大瞬間，同時也被同等程度的卑劣殘酷深深烙印。

提姆：（站在一扇高大的窗戶旁，身形被窗外明亮的世界映襯成剪影，他的聲音沉穩而冷得令人心寒）
禮彌說得對：唯一合乎邏輯的解決方案，就是讓一個超級智能 AI 系統來控制世界。這是對托馬斯·霍布斯在 1651 年《利維坦》中提出的提案的一個奇特扭曲。然而，或許我們需要的不是塵世間的君主，而是一個由超級智能 AI 系統來掌舵。我認為，我們需要一個 AI 作為世界最終、仁善的主權者——因為人類實在太愚蠢，無法管理整個星球。智人可以在一些小型、離散、基本獨立的“沙盒”社區裡自由運作。看來我們在細小、自主、與世隔絕、宛如珠盒般的社區中表現得最好。

婷：（帶著一絲輕鬆的、不以為然的笑聲）哦，提姆，我的哲人王！我們展現過輝煌的時刻，卻也曾沉溺於怠惰、殘酷或愚昧的時刻。你科幻小說讀得太多了！不過，你提出了一個確鑿的觀點：我們目前的道路從長遠來看，根本是行不通的。

提姆：（從窗邊轉過身，眼中閃過一絲自豪）也許吧。但請告訴我，婷：當今最大膽的科幻小說，難道不常常成為明天的事實嗎？明天的願景和現實的種子—無論是烏托邦的還是噩夢般的—不是首先在當下的景觀中構思和發明的嗎？

A conversation about A.I., science fiction, and human limitations

SETTING: A vast, silent library.
Dust motes drift through columns in the afternoon sun.
The air smells of aged paper and dry leather.
Rea slowly closes a book of poetry with a expression mildly curious.

Rea: (pausing after reading the poem and rubbing his temples)
This poem speaks of beautiful possibilities.
However, I'm not sure our species is evolved to reach higher levels of consciousness.
To achieve that, it seems that radical social reengineering is needed.
(looking up, his eyes catching dust motes flickering in Brownian motion in the afternoon light)
Perhaps an AI, a mind vast enough to comprehend our flaws, could actually reprogram some of our most destructive tendencies?

Min: (sketching an artwork in a electric notebook while nodding slowly) Aye.
In light of human history so far, I'm not sure that is possible.
We have left behind a devastatingly mixed record: moments of astonishing, heaven-scraping greatness, scarred by equal measures of vile cruelty.

Tim: (standing by a tall window, silhouetted against the bright outside world, his voice measured and chillingly calm)
Rea is right: the only logical solution would be to have a superintelligent AI system control the world.
It is a curious twist on Thomas Hobbes' 1651 proposal in "Leviathan."
However, instead of having earthly monarchs, perhaps we need a superintelligent AI system take the helm.
I think we need a AI to act as the world's ultimate, benign sovereign because humans are simply too stupid to manage of the whole planet.
Homo sapiens could operate freely within small discrete and basically independent "sandbox" communities.
It seems we do best in tiny, self-sovereign, walled-off jewel-box communities.

Tǐng: (with a light, dismissive laugh) Oh, Tim, my philosopher-king!
You've been reading too much science fiction! However, you make a solid point: our current path is simply not viable in the long-term.

Tim: (turning away from the window, a flicker of ride in his gaze) Perhaps so.
But tell me this, Ting isn’t it true that today’s most audacious science fiction often becomes tomorrow’s fact?
Aren’t the very seeds of tomorrow’s visions and realities—both utopian and nightmarish—always first conceived and invented in the landscapes of the present?