Letters are welcome(欢迎的；可接受的) via email to letters@economist.com Find out more about(了解更多关于……的信息) how we process your letter
欢迎通过电子邮件投稿至 letters@economist.com。了解我们如何处理您的来信。
I think, therefore I am
我思故我在
“Could AIs become conscious(有意识的；意识到的)?”, you asked (August 22nd). That is the wrong question. The right question is, “Could AI systems have free will(自由意志)?” Without some revolutionary design change, the answer is clearly no. Even the most advanced AI models are still subject to the same limitations as all other computer systems. Provide the same inputs, with the same timing, and they will produce the same outputs.(只要输入相同、时序相同，它们就会产生相同的输出。) Without free will, consciousness, as we experience it, is not possible. To paraphrase(改述；换句话表达) David Chalmers(当代著名哲学家，意识研究代表人物), a philosopher you quoted, we are not just functional zombies(功能性僵尸（有功能无体验）).
“人工智能会产生意识吗？”你们在8月22日这样问道。这个问题问错了。正确的问题是：“人工智能系统可能拥有自由意志吗？”除非设计上出现某种革命性变革，答案显然是否定的。即便是最先进的人工智能模型，也仍然受制于所有其他计算机系统共有的局限。只要输入相同、时序相同，它们就会产生相同的输出。没有自由意志，我们所体验的那种意识便不可能存在。用你们引用过的哲学家戴维·查尔默斯的话说，我们不只是功能性的僵尸。
Some scientists, including Francis Crick(DNA双螺旋结构发现者之一，晚年研究意识) when he was alive, don’t believe that humans really have free will either, but that opinion runs counter to everyone’s perception of reality as well as beliefs that underpin(支撑；构成……的基础) such fundamental concepts as freedom, accountability(问责；责任追究), responsibility and initiative(主动性；倡议). Unless we are prepared to reconsider how civilisation works, the most consistent set of beliefs is that humans have free will and machines do not.(除非我们准备重新思考文明的运作方式，否则最一致的信念体系就是：人类拥有自由意志，而机器没有。) No AI system can do something its creators do not allow it to do, even if unintentionally(无意地；非故意地). Humans should feel no guilt about hitting the delete button(按下删除键；删除) when necessary.
包括弗朗西斯·克里克在内的某些科学家（在他生前）也不相信人类真正拥有自由意志，但这种观点与每个人对现实的感知相悖，也与支撑自由、问责、责任和主动性等基本概念的信念相悖。除非我们准备重新思考文明的运作方式，否则最一致的信念体系就是：人类拥有自由意志，而机器没有。任何人工智能系统都无法做出其创造者不允许它做的事，即便是无意间也不行。人类在必要时按下删除键，不必感到愧疚。
Grading a science paper
给一篇科学政策文章打分
Puppy love
小狗之爱
The manchild
巨婴