Who can survive the AI apocalypse? A crisis expert explains

原标题：谁能挺过人工智能末日？危机专家解析

RT talks to Dr. Mathew Maavak, an expert on global risks and artificial intelligence, about what may be the greatest test humanity has faced

RT 专访全球风险与人工智能专家马修·马瓦克博士，探讨人类可能面临的最大考验

RT: With the advent of generative AI, a joke appeared on the internet, comparing the future envisioned by utopian fiction authors – with robots doing menial physical work and humans free to pursue creativity – to the reality, where ChatGPT, Stable Diffusion et al. are creating texts and pictures while humans work minimum wage jobs at fast food and Amazon warehouses. Is this anti-utopian humor justified?

RT：随着生成式人工智能的出现，网络上流传着一个笑话，将乌托邦小说家设想的未来——机器人从事体力劳动，人类自由追求创造性工作——与现实进行对比：现实中 ChatGPT、Stable Diffusion 等工具在生成文本和图像，而人类却在快餐店和亚马逊仓库从事最低工资的工作。这种反乌托邦式的幽默有道理吗？

Mathew Maavak: Yes, the humor is more than justified. In fact, it is no longer funny.

马修·马瓦克：是的，这种幽默不仅合理。事实上，它已经不好笑了。

It took barely a decade for the sci-fi fantasy of robot butlers freeing humanity for art and leisure to be annihilated by reality. Instead of robots flipping burgers, we have AI painting portraits while humans flip the burgers until robots replace them. AI safety expert Dr. Roman Yampolskiy recently warned that Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) and Superintelligence may wipe out 99% of jobs in the near future.

机器人管家解放人类投身艺术休闲的科幻幻想，不到十年就被现实击得粉碎。我们没有看到机器人煎汉堡，反而看到 AI 在画肖像，而人类在煎汉堡——直到机器人取代他们。人工智能安全专家罗曼·扬波尔斯基博士最近警告称，通用人工智能（AGI）和超级智能可能在不久的将来消灭 99%的工作岗位。

Skeptics used to argue that robots lacked the dexterity for “real work” like plumbing, sanitation, car repairs, and warehouse drudgery. That is changing fast. True, humanoid robots still need refinement, and their maintenance costs will slow uptake. Their long-term reliability needs to be extensively tested. Failure to do so will result in corporate disasters, in a manner similar to the string of bankruptcies facing Western automakers who rushed out models without undertaking extensive, long-term tests.

过去，怀疑论者常辩称机器人缺乏从事管道维修、环卫工作、汽车修理和仓库苦力等“真正工作”所需的灵巧性。但这一状况正在迅速改变。诚然，人形机器人仍需完善，其维护成本也将延缓普及速度。它们的长期可靠性还需经过广泛测试。若不如此，企业将面临灾难性后果——就像那些未经长期全面测试就仓促推出车型的西方汽车制造商所遭遇的连环破产那样。

The immediate job threat therefore is not to plumbers or janitors. It is to the supposedly safe “knowledge class.”

因此当前最直接的职业威胁并非指向水管工或清洁工，而是那些自以为高枕无忧的“知识阶层”。

Why hire a lawyer when AI can draft affidavits in seconds without the pomp, theatrics, and obscene billing that lawyers cling to like a birthright? Most people don’t realize that they can represent themselves — “pro se” to use a legal term — with AI’s help, if not for numerous obstacles placed by the legal fraternity.

当人工智能能在数秒内起草宣誓书，既不需要律师惯常摆出的虚张声势、戏剧化表演，也不收取他们视为与生俱来权利的天价费用时，何必再雇佣律师？多数人并未意识到，若非法律界设置的重重障碍，他们本可在 AI 协助下自行辩护——用法律术语来说就是“亲自诉讼”（pro se）。

Why consult a university or library when LLMs like ChatGPT or DeepSeek can synthesize information in fields ranging from astrophysics to the Dead Sea Scrolls in the span of a coffee break? Which single professor can match that range and output?

当 ChatGPT、DeepSeek 等 LLMs 能在喝杯咖啡的工夫里，从天体物理学到死海古卷等各个领域整合信息时，何必再咨询大学或图书馆？又有哪位教授能同时具备如此广博的知识储备和高效产出？

Why trouble the neighbor or a mechanic about the capabilities of a new car when AI can explain every system with clarity and patience?

既然人工智能能够清晰且耐心地解释汽车的每个系统功能，何必再去麻烦邻居或修车师傅呢？

Journalism is no safer. Copy-editors, proofreaders, and even anchors should have been redundant by now. If AI models can already sell fashion, even to those who crave a human appeal, why not deliver the evening news via an AI anchor? I tell you one reason why there will be lots of hesitancy in terms of mass adoption by the legacy media: An advanced AI anchor – quite ironically – may not ask scxted questions to get scxted answers.

新闻行业同样难以幸免。文字编辑、校对人员甚至新闻主播早该被淘汰——既然人工智能连时尚商品都能推销给追求人性化服务的群体，为何不能用 AI 主播播报晚间新闻？传统媒体大规模应用之所以会迟疑，有个讽刺的原因：先进的 AI 主播可能不会按剧本提问来获取预设答案。

The media in particular is staring at seismic shocks ahead. I joked in the newsroom nearly 30 years ago that all we really needed was software with templates for each kind of story. It wasn’t a joke after all, as it turned out to be quite prophetic.

媒体行业尤其面临着地震级冲击。约三十年前我在新闻编辑部开玩笑说，我们真正需要的只是能生成各类新闻模板的软件。这并非玩笑，如今看来竟颇具预言性。

RT: To be clear, generative AI can be an ingenious tool and assistant in many lines of work. Who do you think benefits the most from it?

RT：明确地说，生成式人工智能可以成为许多行业中的巧妙工具和助手。你认为谁从中受益最多？

MM: To answer that, you need to divide humans into two broad categories: the harnesser — a term I coined — and the herd. Notice that one can be both singular and plural, while the other is always plural. This is natural, as 99% of humanity is driven by herd instincts. They have consistently surrendered their critical faculties to accommodate the herd and find “safety” in their respective comfort zones. Those safe zones are now being obliterated by AI and many are sleepwalking into a future which has no place for them. This presages massive social upheavals.

MM：要回答这个问题，你需要将人类划分为两大类——我创造的术语"驾驭者"与"羊群"。注意前者既可以是单数也可以是复数，而后者始终是复数。这很自然，因为 99%的人类受羊群本能驱使。他们一贯放弃批判性思维以适应群体，并在各自的舒适区寻求"安全感"。这些安全区正被 AI 摧毁，许多人正梦游般步入一个没有他们容身之处的未来。这预示着大规模的社会动荡。

Globalist movers and shakers foresaw this specter long ago, which is why they commissioned “futurists” like Yuval Noah Harari to enunciate a mass, opiated future for so-called “useless eaters.”

全球主义的推动者们早已预见这一幽灵，因此他们委托尤瓦尔·赫拉利这样的"未来学家"为所谓的"无用之人"描绘出一个被麻醉的大众未来。

The harnesser, by contrast, is far more than a critical thinker. They can turn an impossible situation into a creative opportunity. Think of a sailor catching the wind in his sails and cutting through stormy waters. The harnesser has cultivated, often over decades, the trait of sailing against the current. They have neuroplastically conditioned themselves to question everything.

相比之下，驾驭者远不止是批判性思考者。他们能将绝境转化为创造性机遇。想象一名水手借风扬帆，劈波斩浪穿越暴风雨。驾驭者往往历经数十年锤炼，培养了逆流而上的特质。他们通过神经可塑性训练自己质疑一切。

The harnesser also applies a systems approach to problems; grasps complexity with ease; and may possess an uncanny repertoire of knowledge. Their interaction with generative AI is not a one-sided copy-and-paste exercise. They will interrogate and even correct it. Their tacit knowledge – diverse, refined, and somewhat inscrutable – remains beyond AI’s reach.

驾驭者还运用系统思维解决问题；轻松驾驭复杂性；可能拥有深不可测的知识储备。他们与生成式 AI 的互动绝非单向复制粘贴。他们会盘问甚至纠正 AI。其隐性知识——多元、精妙且难以捉摸——始终是 AI 无法企及的。

Here is an example to illustrate the point I am making: when I received these questions from RT, the biblical verse of Daniel 12:4 immediately came to mind. The verse reads in the King James version: “But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.”

举例说明我的观点：当我收到 RT 这些提问时，《但以理书》12 章 4 节的经文立刻浮现脑海。英王钦定本写道："但以理啊，你要隐藏这话，封闭这书，直到末时。必有多人来往奔跑，知识就必增长。"

Knowledge has indeed increased, exponentially so for those who choose to harness it. But what does “to and fro” mean? What does the original text say? I interrogated ChatGPT because I suspected there was more to it. And I was right. “To and fro” appears only in the Masoretic text. The Theodotion text (Septuagint) omits it entirely, while the Old Greek version of Daniel contains a surprising addendum. I leave it to the curious reader to examine the variations themselves.

知识确实在增长，对那些选择驾驭它的人来说更是呈指数级增长。但"来回奔走"究竟何意？原文到底说了什么？我追问 ChatGPT，因为我怀疑其中另有深意。果然。"来回奔走"一词仅见于马索拉文本。西奥多田译本（七十士译本）将其完全删除，而但以理书的古希腊文版本却包含一个惊人的补充说明。我留给好奇的读者自行查考这些版本差异。

What truly caught my attention, however, was the Hebrew rendering of the verse in the Dead Sea Scrolls. It included the niqqud (diacritical marks) that did not exist at the time the scrolls were written. ChatGPT stood corrected after I pressed it, and admitted that its rendering was speculative guesswork.

然而真正引起我注意的是死海古卷中该节经文的希伯来文呈现。其中包含了古代抄写时期根本不存在的尼库德（元音符）。在我追问下，ChatGPT 承认错误，坦言其呈现纯属推测臆断。

To cut the analogy short: in the coming AI tsunami, many will be tossed “to and fro” and left adrift in the societal ocean. Those who can harness this elemental force – tempered by life’s struggles – may stand a better chance of finding their shores.

简言之：在这场即将到来的人工智能海啸中，许多人会被"来回抛掷"，在社会汪洋中随波逐流。唯有那些历经生活淬炼、能驾驭这股原始力量的人，或许更有希望找到自己的彼岸。

RT: But wouldn’t these so-called “harnessers” be seen as a threat to authoritarian regimes? What about political implications? Are there any, given the fact that the companies behind generative AI engines are based almost strictly in the West?

RT：但这些所谓的"驾驭者"是否会被视为威权政体的威胁？政治影响又如何？考虑到生成式 AI 引擎背后的公司几乎都集中在西方，是否存在这方面的考量？

MM: “Questioning everything” does come with consequences, often in the form of self-imposed solitude. But the harnesser-types I have observed also carry a healthy cynicism toward politics. They are unlikely to join the herd in mass demonstrations. If rallies and protests actually worked, Western governments would have addressed various public grievances long ago. Instead, they have doubled down. This is why I consider Western governments and their satellites to be intellectually hostile, despite their pretension to the contrary.

MM："质疑一切"确实会带来后果，往往表现为自我强加的孤立。但我所观察到的驾驭者类型对政治也保持一种健康的怀疑态度。他们不太可能加入大规模示威的群体。如果集会和抗议真能奏效，西方政府早就解决各种民怨了。相反，他们变本加厉了。这就是为什么我认为西方政府及其附庸在思想上是充满敌意的，尽管他们假装并非如此。

As for the harnesser’s fate in a future political order — that remains an open question.

至于驾驭者在未来政治秩序中的命运——这仍是一个悬而未决的问题。

The broader political implications, however, are plenty. In geopolitics, the next “superpowers” will be AI superpowers. In Asia, these include Russia, China, India, Iran, Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea, with Vietnam likely to join their ranks. All of them take the concepts of national and AI sovereignty pretty seriously.

然而，更广泛的政治影响是多方面的。在地缘政治中，下一个"超级大国"将是 AI 超级大国。在亚洲，这些国家包括俄罗斯、中国、印度、伊朗、日本、台湾（地区）和韩国，越南可能也将加入它们的行列。它们都非常重视国家主权和 AI 主权的概念。

For the rest, the long-term outlook is rather bleak. At best, they will be colonized appendages of Western Big Tech. For the time being, they will likely delude themselves into thinking that the BRICS bloc can serve as their new geopolitical and technological sugar daddy. I would rather not dwell on the worst-case scenario. Perhaps their ministers and “technocrats,” so enamored of their World Economic Forum (WEF) lixs, should simply make Yuval Noah Harari their chief government advisor.

至于其他国家，长期前景相当黯淡。他们最好的结局不过是沦为西方科技巨头的附庸殖民地。眼下，这些国家很可能还沉溺于金砖集团能成为其地缘政治与科技新靠山的幻想中。最坏的情形我不愿赘述——或许那些痴迷于世界经济论坛关系的部长和"技术官僚"们，干脆该把尤瓦尔·赫拉利聘为政府首席顾问。

The most immediate political question, for both AI powers and laggards alike, is this: how prepared are governments to deal with mass unemployment on a scale induced by AI?

对所有国家——无论是 AI 强国还是后进者——而言，最紧迫的政治议题是：各国政府准备好应对 AI 引发的大规模失业危机了吗？

RT: Many, you included, have written about how generative AI is eroding people’s ability to think for themselves, reinforcing false notions and providing false information. How much of a threat is this to humanity as a whole? Which categories of humanity are the most susceptible to it?

RT：包括您在内的许多人都撰文指出，生成式 AI 正在侵蚀人类的独立思考能力，强化错误观念并传播虚假信息。这对整个人类构成多大威胁？哪些群体最容易受其影响？

MM: The cohort that benefits most from generative AI are those educated before the mass-Internet era. It sounds paradoxical, but that generation had to read books and journals, scrounge for information, and cultivate a regimen for inquiry. Most “harnessers” hail from this group and they are dying out.

MM：从生成式人工智能中受益最多的群体，是那些在互联网大规模普及前接受教育的人。这听起来有些矛盾，但那一代人必须阅读书籍期刊、主动搜集信息，并培养系统性的探究习惯。目前绝大多数能"驾驭 AI"的使用者都来自这个正在凋零的群体。

It is easy to blame AI for “dumbing down” society, but in truth, society was already hopelessly dumbed down. Just look at the quality and theatrics of politicians today, especially in the West. More ominously, their successors are little more than parrots reciting scxts. Can anyone take them seriously, with their sensitivities as fragile as eggshells?

人们很容易将社会"智识退化"归咎于 AI，但事实上这种退化早已不可逆转。只要看看当今政客的素质与作秀姿态——尤其是西方政坛——就一目了然。更可怕的是，他们的继任者不过是照本宣科的复读机。这些心理脆弱如蛋壳的傀儡，如何能赢得公众的尊重？

AI is not the cause of this decline; it is merely an accelerant. Thanks to decades of trickle-down bad governance dressed up in technocratic jargon, the younger generation is not being taught how to harness AI. This does not augur well for humanity. What will the young people of today do tomorrow?

AI 并非导致退化的根源，它只是催化剂。由于数十年来技术官僚话术包装下的治理失能，年轻一代根本没有学会如何驾驭 AI。这对人类文明绝非吉兆。今天的年轻人将如何面对未来？

Worse, the herd is dumbing down AI itself. Generative AI thrives on feedback loops. If each cycle grows dumber, what happens to AI in the long run? Threats related to AI and humans cut both ways.

更糟的是，群体愚昧正在反向侵蚀 AI。生成式 AI 依赖反馈循环进化，如果每个迭代周期都在变得更加愚蠢，长期来看 AI 会变成什么？AI 与人类正在彼此构成双向威胁。

To avoid meltdown, I suspect LLM designers have “fail-safed” their systems to personalize responses. DeepSeek and ChatGPT, among others, do not behave identically for everyone. That raises two issues: privacy and surveillance. These tools can triangulate even the most “anonymous” user by analyzing syntax, interests, typos, reactions, typing patterns and more.

为避免系统崩溃，我怀疑 LLM 设计者已为其系统设置"故障保险"机制来实现回答个性化。DeepSeek 和 ChatGPT 等工具对每个人的反应并不完全相同，这引发了两个问题：隐私与监控。这些工具能通过分析语法习惯、兴趣偏好、打字错误、反应模式、输入节奏等数据，最终定位到最"匿名"的用户。

Think about it: out of 8.2 billion people, AI can pinpoint who you are almost instantly – even if you change handles, borrow someone else’s phone number, relocate, or cloak yourself in digital camouflage.

想想看：在 82 亿人中，人工智能几乎能瞬间锁定你的身份——即便你更换用户名、借用他人电话号码、搬迁住所或披上数字伪装。

That should terrify people. Personally? I say: bring it on.

这应该让人们感到恐惧。但就个人而言？我要说：尽管来吧。

RT: After a recent ChatGPT upxe, which disabled certain kinds of interactions, there have been numerous reports of people having to “break up” with their “AI boyfriends/girlfriends.” Why would anyone want to “date” a machine?

RT：在 ChatGPT 最近一次更新后，某些交互功能被禁用，已有大量关于人们不得不与他们的"AI 男友/女友""分手"的报道。为什么会有人想和机器"约会"？

MM: The particular attachment to AI “girlfriends” and “boyfriends” is the latest expression of a very old human tendency: to anthropomorphize, project emotion, and form bonds with non-human obxts when those obxts provide comfort, agency, or reciprocal illusion. The novelty is not the attachment itself, but the sophistication of the obxt – moving from wood and cloth, to clockwork, to pixels, to adaptive AI.

MM：对 AI"女友"和"男友"的特殊依恋，其实是人类古老倾向的最新表现：当非人类对象能提供慰藉、能动性或互动幻象时，我们就会将其拟人化、投射情感并建立联结。真正的新颖之处不在于依恋行为本身，而在于对象的精密程度——从木头布料，到机械装置，再到像素图像，最终进化成具有适应能力的 AI。

Let me explain.  

让我来解释一下。

Since ancient times, people have projected agency and personality onto carved images of gods or ancestors in the form of idols and statues. They have personal ties with obxts imbued with “power” such as talismans. Children, even today, are known to talk to their dolls and teddy bears.  In the 18th and 19th centuries, mechanical dolls and automata sparked both fascination and emotional investment. By the 20th century, people were already forming bonds with erotic mannequins.

自古以来，人们就将主观意志与人格特质投射到神像、祖先雕像等偶像崇拜物之上。他们与护身符等被赋予"神力"的物体建立个人联系。即便是现代，孩子们仍会对着玩偶和泰迪熊自言自语。18 至 19 世纪，机械玩偶与自动人偶既令人着迷又承载情感寄托。到了 20 世纪，人们甚至开始与情趣人偶建立情感纽带。

On a more meaningful note, people still speak to their pets, whose presence and antics can be both calming and outright funny. Parents articulate on behalfof babies and toddlers, and this is how familial and social attachments are formed, as well as the first vocabularies of a young life. As children, we develop our language by reading or listening to anthropomorphized stories involving animals. I still remember the parting words of B’rer Rabbit to B’rer Fox at the well scene, even if I forget the “spur of the moment” epiphanies I had included in Op-Eds written months back.

更具意义的是，人们至今仍会与宠物对话——它们的存在与俏皮举动既能抚慰心灵又充满趣味。父母会替婴幼儿表达想法，正是在这个过程中形成了家庭与社会联结，也奠定了人生最初的语言基础。童年时，我们通过阅读或聆听拟人化的动物故事发展语言能力。我至今仍记得柏油娃娃故事中兔子老弟在井边对狐狸老弟说的告别语，尽管数月前撰写的评论文章中那些"灵光乍现"的感悟早已淡忘。

AI mates, however, represent a new paradigmaltogether. For the first time ever, the obxt of affection can “talk back” in real-timeon a variety of topics, and these interactions seem more real and fulfilling than those with humans who can carry grudges, tempers, malice etc.

然而，AI 伴侣彻底开创了情感关系的新范式。有史以来第一次，爱慕对象能够实时就各种话题"回应交流"，这些互动比与可能心怀怨恨、脾气暴躁或充满恶意的人类相处显得更真实且令人满足。

In my opinion, AI mates are an extrapolation of the imaginary friends many children cultivate while growing up. It is a form of escapism.

在我看来，AI 伴侣是许多孩子在成长过程中培养的"幻想朋友"概念的延伸。这是一种逃避现实的形式。

The rise in AI relationships may also be caused by growing distrust of fellow human beings, compounded by a cultural drift encouraged by academics, politicians, and other traditional gatekeepers. The lunatics are running the asylum in all social spheres, and people feel let down, disoriented, and desperate for stability. Just think of the recent epidemic of gender dysphoria that was encouraged and celebrated by those in authority.

AI 恋爱关系的兴起，也可能源于人类彼此间日益增长的不信任感——这种不信任被学者、政客及其他传统守门人所鼓励的文化偏移进一步放大。当今社会各领域都呈现"疯人管理疯人院"的乱象，人们感到失望、迷失，并极度渴望稳定。只需想想近期被权威人士鼓吹庆祝的性别焦虑症流行现象就明白了。

In that vacuum, AI becomes a substitute anchor. These “relationships” emerge from the collision of unmet human needs (loneliness, intimacy, safety, etc.) with hyper-personalized technology. In a cultural climate where traditional norms around love, sex, and marriage are dissolving, machines become the path of least resistance.

在这种真空中，AI 成为了替代性的情感锚点。当未被满足的人类需求（孤独感、亲密渴望、安全感等）遇上高度个性化的技术，这些"关系"便应运而生。在一个关于爱情、性与婚姻的传统规范逐渐瓦解的文化环境中，与机器建立联系成了阻力最小的选择。

AI can simulate affection and shower compliments without the conflicts of real relationships. The financial and psychological costs appear minimal, but the emotional entanglement can be very real. 

人工智能可以模拟情感并给予赞美，而无需面对真实关系中的冲突。财务和心理成本看似微不足道，但情感纠葛却可能无比真实。

All generative AI has done is turbocharge our innate instinct for attachment.. In fact, early text-based programs like ELIZA in the 1960s showed how easily people could be drawn into confiding in “mere code.”

生成式 AI 所做的，不过是放大了我们与生俱来的依恋本能。事实上，早在 1960 年代，像 ELIZA 这样的早期文本程序就展示了人们多么容易向"区区代码"吐露心声。

RT: Is this just loneliness, or some sign of deeper psychological issues – maybe even mental disorder?

RT：这只是孤独感，还是某种更深层次心理问题的征兆——甚至可能是精神障碍的迹象？

MM: Loneliness is often the entry point, but it is rarely the whole story. The Hikikomori phenomenon in Japan – now being mirrored elsewhere – long predated the public rollout of generative AI. Why do children and young adults shut themselves out of society? Maybe because society is getting more hypocritical, cowardly and outright fake? Individuals enter their own simulated social matrix where conformity to lies, half-truths and outright nonsense is a prerequisite.

MM：孤独往往是起点，但很少是全部原因。日本的"蛰居族"现象——如今也在其他地方显现——早在生成式 AI 公开面世前就已存在。为什么儿童和年轻人会将自己与社会隔绝？或许因为这个社会正变得愈发虚伪、懦弱且彻底虚假？人们遁入自己模拟的社交矩阵，在那里，顺从谎言、半真半假和彻头彻尾的荒唐成为必备条件。

Most human relationships are toxic to some degree; one where each participant degrades the creativities or potentials of the other by subtle gaslighting. This enables couples or friends to remain together and the phenomenon is broadly called the “crab bucket mentality.”

大多数人际关系都带有某种程度的毒性；通过微妙的心理操控，参与者们彼此削弱着对方的创造力或潜力。这使得伴侣或朋友能够维持关系，这种现象被广泛称为"螃蟹桶心态"。

Extrapolate this and you have chain-ganged cohorts and ultimately, a timid society that sticks with convenient lies. Just think of so-called intellectuals who lampoon the notion of God as an “imaginary fairy in the sky,” but have no problems concocting new gender forms.

由此推演，你会看到被锁链串联的群体，最终形成固守便利谎言的怯懦社会。想想那些所谓知识分子吧，他们讥讽上帝是"空中想象的仙女"，却毫不费力地编造出各种新性别形态。

This is what I referred to as the “herd” earlier.

这就是我先前所说的"群体"。

As scxture reminds us, “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?” (Jeremiah 17:9). AI cannot truly understand the human heart either, as it can only simulate human affections.  Yet, AI can certainly feel “safer” and more “real” for an increasing number of lonely people.

正如圣经所言："人心比万物都诡诈，坏到极处，谁能识透呢？"（耶利米书 17:9）。人工智能同样无法真正理解人心，因为它只能模拟人类情感。然而对日益增多的孤独者而言，AI 确实能带来更"安全"且更"真实"的体验。

To cut a long explanation short, we live in a culture of deceit and shallow connections, where public life feels like a revolving circus of drama and demoralization. That erosion of meaning breeds anxiety, depression, and other psychosocial stresses.

简而言之，我们生活在一个充满欺骗与浅薄联结的文化中，公共生活犹如循环上演的戏剧马戏团，令人士气低落。这种意义感的侵蚀滋生了焦虑、抑郁等心理社会压力。

There are also elements of addiction and dependency in the context of AI relationships, as virtual companions are designed to be endlessly available and affirming. This bypasses the growth and friction of genuine relationships, reinforcing escapism. Artificial bonds therefore become a substitute for human connection.

人机关系中还存在着成瘾性与依赖性——虚拟伴侣被设计成随时在线、永远肯定的存在。这绕过了真实关系中的成长与摩擦，强化了逃避主义。人工联结由此成为人类关系的替代品。

Do AI relationships constitute a psychological disorder, or is society itself a mental asylum? In my view, the two cannot be separated: you cannot study and label the former without acknowledging the pathology of the latter. Clinical language already exists for paraphilias involving attachment to inanimate obxts. These include agalmatophilia (attraction to statues or mannequins), obxtophilia (a broader category), and, more specifically, pygmalionism – the condition of “falling in love with an obxt of one’s own creation.”

与人工智能建立情感关系是否构成心理障碍，抑或社会本身才是精神病院？在我看来，二者不可分割：若不承认后者的病态，就无法对前者进行研究和归类。临床心理学早已为涉及无生命物体依恋的性偏好命名：雕像恋（对雕像或人体模型的性吸引）、物体恋（更广泛的类别），以及更具体的皮格马利翁情结——即"爱上自己创造的物件"的病态表现。

The term comes from Greek mythology, where Pygmalion was a sculptor who fell in love with a statue he had made. In the modern era, George Bernard Shaw’s play Pygmalion reimagined the myth, transforming an underclass flower girl, Eliza Doolittle, into an obxt of refinement. What appeared to be an innocent stroke of genius becomes more unsettling when one recalls that Shaw himself openly advocated for mass population culling based on perceived “unworthiness.”

这个术语源自希腊神话，皮格马利翁是一位爱上自己雕刻的雕像的雕塑家。在现代，萧伯纳的戏剧《皮格马利翁》重新诠释了这个神话，将底层卖花女伊莉莎·杜利特尔塑造成优雅的化身。然而当人们想起萧伯纳本人曾公开主张根据所谓的"不配生存"标准大规模淘汰人口时，这种看似天真的天才创意便显得格外令人不安。

Sounds familiar?  

听起来熟悉吗？

RT: The information age has provided numerous opportunities for people to meet and get together – with the advent of the internet and of dating apps you don’t even have to go to the pub and strike up conversations anymore. Is that not enough, that people are turning to artificial relationships?

RT：信息时代为人们提供了无数相遇和相聚的机会——随着互联网和约会应用的出现，你甚至不必再去酒吧搭讪聊天。难道这还不够，人们竟转向了人工关系？

MM: I will reiterate once more that many human relationships were artificial in the first place. Would we still talk to that colleague or superior in our workplace if we had enough money to retire or pursue our true passions? Relationships are forged and enforced by various types of power gradients. It has been so since time immemorial. It is only now, in the information age – as both knowledge and multiple stresses increase – that some are willing to acknowledge the phenomenon.

MM：我要再次重申，许多人际关系从一开始就是人为构建的。如果我们有足够资金退休或追求真正热爱的事业，还会与职场中那位同事或上司交谈吗？各种权力梯度塑造并强化着人际关系。这种现象自古有之。直到现在这个信息时代——随着知识增长与多重压力加剧——才有人愿意承认这种现象。

Rising living costs are also rapidly dismantling traditional opportunities for socializing. Not many people can actually afford to visit a pub anymore. What was once an affordable source of conviviality for the working classes and the indigent is becoming increasingly expensive.

生活成本的不断攀升正迅速瓦解传统的社交机会。如今真正负担得起酒吧消费的人已寥寥无几。这一度是工人阶级和贫困人群负担得起的欢乐源泉，如今却变得越来越昂贵。

What about less expensive or free avenues of socializing? I have seen nature treks organized on Facebook, only to be cancelled due to lack of response. Traditionally, churches and the like offered the ideal avenue for individuals to meet and strike up bonds. Now, traditional values have eroded and too many churches have fallen into disrepute. Church attendance in the West has also shown a hopeless decline since the post-WW2 period. Some charismatic churches are not cheap to attend either, as Old Testament tithing is enforced.

那么成本更低或免费的社交途径呢？我曾见过脸书上组织的自然徒步活动，却因无人响应而取消。传统上，教堂之类场所为人们相识结缘提供了理想渠道。如今传统价值观式微，太多教堂已声名狼藉。西方国家的教堂出席率自二战后更是呈现出不可逆转的衰退趋势。某些魅力型教会的参与成本也不低廉，因为它们强制实行旧约十一奉献制度。

Dire economic circumstances play a crucial role in the rise of AI relationships.

严峻的经济形势在人机恋兴起中扮演着关键角色。

Dating apps, on the other hand, can be deceptive. Borrowing from a familiar computer phrase: “What you see online is not always what you get.” While some relationships may emerge from these platforms, genuine long-term success stories are relatively rare. In many cases, what initially appears to be compatibility is shaped less by personal connection than by practical considerations such as career prospects, social mobility, or immigration opportunities. When relationships are based on “supply and demand” rules and steep power gradients, imagine the subtle ramifications for subsequent generations?

另一方面，约会应用可能具有欺骗性。借用一句熟悉的计算机术语："网上所见未必即所得"。虽然确实有些关系通过这些平台建立，但真正长久的成功案例相对罕见。许多情况下，最初看似契合的关系，与其说是源于心灵共鸣，不如说是由职业前景、社会阶层流动或移民机会等现实考量所塑造。当人际关系建立在"供需规则"和悬殊的权力梯度之上，试想这对后代子孙将产生怎样潜移默化的影响？

Within this context, how much more “fake” are AI relationships? Yes, it is unhealthy, but what is the true health of “normal society” today?

在此背景下，人工智能关系又该有多"虚假"？是的，这确实不健康，但当今"正常社会"的真实健康度又如何呢？

RT: Now that the scale of the problem has become evident, will it get better or worse? Various “AI girlfriend” services exist already – will they get normalized and become mainstream, like sex toys and VR pornography, for example? Will there be therapy sessions and get-clean programs, like Alcoholics Anonymous or those for drug or porn addicts?

RT：既然问题的严重性已经显现，情况会好转还是恶化？目前已有各种"AI 女友"服务——它们会像性玩具和 VR 色情那样被正常化并成为主流吗？是否会出现类似戒酒匿名会或戒毒、戒色瘾那样的治疗课程和康复计划？

MM: Loneliness will proliferate, and so will various forms of digital escapism and parasocial bonds. Immersive technologies will one day allow individuals to feel the thrill of exploring faraway caves, visiting fictitious planets, or enjoying sexual intimacy with any character conjured up by an AI prompt.

MM：孤独感将会蔓延，各种形式的数字逃避主义和类社会关系也将盛行。沉浸式技术终有一天会让人体验到探索遥远洞穴、造访虚构星球或与 AI 生成的任何角色发生亲密关系的快感。

This is a slippery slope. Imagine if you are an “explorer” in a paleolithic setting and you need to kill in order to survive in that simulation? Would you transpose this acquired trait to the real world? How real will it get? What does it feel like being Jack the Ripper in Victorian London? Will the Darknet evolve into the primary marketplace for immersive technologies that exploit primal desires and sexual deviance?

这是一条危险的滑坡。想象一下，如果你是一个旧石器时代背景下的"探险者"，需要在那个模拟环境中为了生存而杀戮？你会把这种习得的特质转移到现实世界吗？虚拟体验会真实到什么程度？在维多利亚时代的伦敦扮演开膛手杰克是什么感觉？暗网会演变成利用原始欲望和性变态的沉浸式技术的主要市场吗？

There will always be therapy sessions for those addicted to various forms of digital addiction. But in my opinion, the best cure is a supervised camping trip, with no modern gizmos allowed.

对于沉迷于各种形式数字成瘾的人，治疗课程总会存在。但在我看来，最好的疗法是一次有监督的露营旅行，期间禁止使用任何现代科技产品。

RT: Is this a test for humanity’s will to survive as a species?

RT：这是对人类作为一个物种生存意志的考验吗？

MM: Absolutely. This is why our globalists overlords prattle repeatedly over the Great Reset and the New World Order ad nauseum. They know that the society they had forged is crumbling at its foundations, and they need a new paradigm where the majority of humanity can be safely herded into a digitally-curated gulag. Once inside, the denizens may be provided with free immersive technologies, along with psychotropic drugs, to keep them pliant and pacified. That is precisely what Yuval Noah Harari suggested in reference to the future of “worthless or useless eaters.”

MM：确实如此。这正是为什么我们的全球主义主宰者们不厌其烦地反复念叨"大重置"和"新世界秩序"。他们深知自己打造的文明正从根基崩塌，亟需构建一个新范式——将绝大多数人类安全驱赶进数字化的古拉格集中营。一旦进入其中，囚徒们或许能获得免费的沉浸式技术设备，辅以精神类药物，从而保持温顺与镇静。这正是尤瓦尔·赫拉利在谈及"无用饭桶"未来命运时暗示的图景。