程京德(Jingde Cheng)的博 ...分享 http://blog.sciencenet.cn/u/JingdeCheng 相关逻辑,软件工程,知识工程,信息安全性工程;自强不息,厚德载物。

博文

逻辑学家罗素谈“中国人的品格”,兼论AIGC工具的数据污染问题

已有 640 次阅读 2024-6-5 06:18 |个人分类:人工智能|系统分类:观点评述

[敬请读者注意] 本人保留本文的全部著作权利。如果哪位读者使用本文所描述内容,请务必如实引用并明白注明本文出处。如果本人发现任何人擅自使用本文任何部分内容而不明白注明出处,恕本人在网上广泛公布侵权者姓名。敬请各位读者注意,谢谢!

 

逻辑学家罗素谈“中国人的品格”,兼论AIGC工具的数据污染问题

程京德

  

    中文网上充斥着宣称罗素说过“我不愿揭中国人的短,但中国人有三个很大的缺点”云云、完全相同或者类似标题的文章或视频(足显网上之不负责任的抄袭之风)。本文试图澄清逻辑学家罗素所谈“中国人的品格”的内容,并且以此为例,兼论 AIGC 工具的数据污染问题。

逻辑学家罗素其人及其说

    罗素(Bertrand Arthur William Russell, 1872-1970)是现代最伟大的哲学家、逻辑学家、数学家之一。仅从笔者对罗素在经典数理逻辑和数学基础等方面之研究工作的了解来说,笔者认为,作为经典数理逻辑的创建者之一,罗素是一位非常严谨的学者,绝非随意信口开河的文人。

    罗素在其著作“The Principles of Mathematics”(1903)[1-2]中,以及在与英国哲学家数学家怀德海(Alfred North Whitehead, 1861-1947)合著的三卷本著作“Principia Mathematica”(亦即通称“PM”的名著)(Vol.1,1910, Vol.2,1912, Vol.3,1913)[3]中提出的经典数理逻辑形式系统中定义和使用了作为真值函数的逻辑联结词“实质蕴涵”。罗素特别强调说,“形式逻辑主要关注命题之间的蕴涵关系”,“纯数学是所有形式为‘p蕴涵q的命题的类,其中p和q是包含一个或多个变量的命题,这些变量在这两个命题中是相同的,p和q都不包含除逻辑常数之外的任何常数” [1-2]。从此,经典数理逻辑学家们就都沿用罗素的真值函数联结词“实质蕴涵”定义至今。

    罗素在完成上述工作的过程中,于1901年夏天发现了朴素集合论中对集合定义方法不加限制而导致的悖论,通称“罗素悖论”,并于1902年6月22日在给德国逻辑学家弗雷格(Friedrich Ludwig Gottlob Frege, 1848-1925)的信中告知了他 [4,5],最终导致公理集合论和数学基础论的诞生。

    1950年,瑞典诺贝尔奖委员会授予罗素诺贝尔文学奖,“以表彰他在各种重要著作中倡导人道主义理想和思想自由(in recognition of his varied and significant writings in which he champions humanitarian ideals and freedom of thought)”[6]。

    罗素曾于1920年-1921年应梁启超之邀访华在北京大学讲学近一年时间(归英途中访日在日本庆应义塾大学做过讲演),并于1922年出版了“The Problem of China (中国问题)”[7]一书,在当时的中国甚至世界上都引起过巨大反响。笔者在此仅罗列该书第十二章“中国人的品格”[7]中陈述作者对中国人品格的主要观点如下:

    “西方人有这样一种理论:中国人神秘莫测,奇思怪想多,西方人理解不了。也许,在中国再多看看,多走走,我也会这样看。但就我在这里工作这段时日所历而言,我觉得上述看法没有依据。我怎样跟英国人说话,就怎样跟中国人交谈。他们回答我的方式,跟英国人对有知识、有思想的中国人的说话方式是一样的。我不相信“摸不透的东方人”这种神话。(There is a theory among Occidentals that the Chinaman is inscrutable, full of secret thoughts, and impossible for us to understand. It may be that a greater experience of China would have brought me to share this opinion; but I could see nothing to support it during the time when I was working in that country. I talked to the Chinese as I should have talked to English people, and they answered me much as English people would have answered a Chinese whom they considered educated and not wholly unintelligent. I do not believe in the myth of the ‘Subtle Oriental’.)”

    “中国人最不凡的一点是,有本事讨得外国人的喜欢。几乎所有的欧洲人都喜欢中国。不论他们是以游客身份来中国旅游,还是在中国定居多年,都是这样的看法。虽然英日结有同盟,我几乎想不出来有哪个到过远东的英国人像喜欢中国人那样,喜欢日本人。(One of the most remarkable things about the Chinese is their power of securing the affection of foreigners. Almost all Europeans like China, both those who come only as tourists and those who live there for many years. In spite of the Anglo-Japanese Alliance, I can recall hardly a single Englishman in the Far East who liked the Japanese as well as the Chinese.)”

    “中国人不分高低贵贱,都镇定自若,沉静端重。欧洲教育一般不会损毁这种气质。中国人不会自矜自夸,小到个人是这样,大到国家也一样。他们有一种豪气,感觉不用自己夸自己。他们承认,跟外国一比,中国军事不强,但他们不认为杀人杀得又快又好是一个人、一个国家最重要的品质。我觉得中国人从心底里觉得中华民族是世界上最伟大的民族,中华文明是最精深的文明。我们不可能指望西方人接受这种观点。因为,中华文化传统跟西方文化完全不同。但渐渐地,我们会感觉到,中国人对自己的看法不算那么荒唐。实际上,自我坚持某种价值观标准,自然而然会得出这样的结论。典型的西方人希望尽可能促成多种变化,改变自己所在的环境。典型的中国人希望尽可能多地体会恬淡雅致之乐。这就是中国和英语世界最为根本的不同。(The Chinese, from the highest to the lowest, have an imperturbable quiet dignity, which is usually not destroyed even by a European education. They are not self-assertive, either individually or nationally; their pride is too profound for self-assertion. They admit China's military weakness in comparison with foreign Powers, but they do not consider efficiency in homicide the most important quality in a man or a nation. I think that, at bottom, they almost all believe that China is the greatest nation in the world, and has the finest civilization. A Westerner cannot be expected to accept this view, because it is based on traditions utterly different from his own. But gradually one comes to feel that it is, at any rate, not an absurd view; that it is, in fact, the logical outcome of a self-consistent standard of values. The typical Westerner wishes to be the cause of as many changes as possible in his environment; the typical Chinaman wishes to enjoy as much and as delicately as possible. This difference is at the bottom of most of the contrast between China and the English-speaking world.)”

    “与其说中国是一个政治实体,不如说中国是一个文明——从古延续至今的唯一文明。从孔子时代起,埃及、巴比伦、波斯、马其顿、罗马帝国先后消亡,但中国不断改变,存续至今。中国曾经受到外国影响,先是有佛教,现在是西方科学。但在过去,佛教没有把中国人变成印度人;将来,西方科学也不会把中国人变成欧洲人。我在中国遇到的人了解的西方学问一点不输于英国任何一个教授,但他们没有顾此失彼,失去与本民族人的联系。西方人坏就坏在:残忍暴戾,躁动不安,欺诈弱者,耽于物质。中国人看到了这些坏东西,不愿吸收。他们希望吸收的是西方的好东西,尤其是科学。(China is much less a political entity than a civilization--the only one that has survived from ancient times. Since the days of Confucius, the Egyptian, Babylonian, Persian, Macedonian, and Roman Empires have perished; but China has persisted through a continuous evolution. There have been foreign influences--first Buddhism, and now Western science. But Buddhism did not turn the Chinese into Indians, and Western science will not turn them into Europeans. I have met men in China who knew as much of Western learning as any professor among ourselves; yet they had not been thrown off their balance, or lost touch with their own people. What is bad in the West--its brutality, its restlessness, its readiness to oppress the weak, its preoccupation with purely material aims—they see to be bad, and do not wish to adopt. What is good, especially its science, they do wish to adopt.)”

    “到目前为止,我主要说了中国人品格中好的一面。但中国人当然和其他民族一样,也有坏的一面。中国人对我彬彬有礼,淳厚善良,我本应该只说好,不说坏,但为了中国好,也为了真理计,把不那么让人佩服称道的东西隐藏起来是不对的。我只想请读者记住一点:从总体上来说,我认为中国人是我见到的最好的民族之一。我也准备写一份声讨书,措辞比这本书更严厉,对每个强国都谴责一番。在我离开中国之际,中国一位著名作家问我,中国人的主要缺陷是什么。我有点不太情愿,列举了这三个:贪财、胆小、麻木。奇怪的是,问我这话的人非但没有生气,还认为我批评得很公道,接着又和我讨论了可能的补救办法。他这种思想上的诚实恳挚是中国多种至善美德的明证。(So far, I have spoken chiefly of the good sides of the Chinese character; but of course China, like every other nation, has its bad sides also. It is disagreeable to me to speak of these, as I experienced so much courtesy and real kindness from the Chinese, that I should prefer to say only nice things about them. But for the sake of China, as well as for the sake of truth, it would be a mistake to conceal what is less admirable. I will only ask the reader to remember that, on the balance, I think the Chinese one of the best nations I have come across, and am prepared to draw up a graver indictment against every one of the Great Powers. Shortly before I left China, an eminent Chinese writer pressed me to say what I considered the chief defects of the Chinese. With some reluctance, I mentioned three: avarice, cowardice and callousness. Strange to say, my interlocutor, instead of getting angry, admitted the justice of my criticism, and proceeded to discuss possible remedies. This is a sample of the intellectual integrity which is one of China's greatest virtues. )”

    “中国人的麻木让每一个盎格鲁-撒克逊人感到惊讶。人道主义的冲动让我们西方人投入百分之一的精力,去减少由百分之九十九的精力所造成的恶行。…… 中国要想永久避免饥荒,只能改良农业,辅之以大面积搬迁,或大规模实施节育政策。中国有识之士意识到了这一点,所以对眼下受灾饥民无动于衷。中国人之所以麻木,很大程度上就是因为他们觉得问题太大,不好解决。(The callousness of the Chinese is bound to strike every Anglo-Saxon. They have none of that humanitarian impulse which leads us to devote one per cent. of our energy to mitigating the evils wrought by the other ninety-nine percent. …… Famines in China can be permanently cured only by better methods of agriculture combined with emigration or birth-control on a large scale. Educated Chinese realize this, and it makes them indifferent to efforts to keep the present victims alive. A great deal of Chinese callousness has a similar explanation, and is due to perception of the vastness of the problems involved.)”

    “乍一看,胆小也是中国人的缺陷。但我不敢肯定,中国人是否真的勇气不足。有一个事实的确不假:两派督军交战时,双方都会从战场上逃走,谁先逃,谁得胜。不过,这也只能证明中国士兵很理智。战争没有什么重要意义,而且军队里全是雇佣兵。但遇到重大事项,比如太平天国运动,据说中国人很善战,有良将带兵的情况下更是如此。但跟盎格鲁-撒克逊人、法国人、德国人一比,我不认为中国人能称得上是勇敢不惧的民族,只能说后者在消极忍耐上有一套。中国人可以受住折磨,不惧死亡,所持动机——比如,为了不让人知道抢来的东西藏在哪里——让那些凶猛彪悍的民族摸不着头脑。虽然相对而言,中国人不会积极主动示勇显强,但他们没有我们那样怕死,从他们不畏自杀这一点就可以看出来。(Cowardice is prima facie a fault of the Chinese; but I am not sure that they are really lacking in courage. It is true that, in battles between rival tuchuns, both sides run away, and victory rests with the side that first discovers the flight of the other. But this proves only that the Chinese soldier is a rational man. No cause of any importance is involved, and the armies consist of mere mercenaries. When there is a serious issue, as, for instance, in the Tai-Ping rebellion, the Chinese are said to fight well, particularly if they have good officers. Nevertheless, I do not think that, in comparison with the Anglo-Saxons, the French, or the Germans, the Chinese can be considered a courageous people, except in the matter of passive endurance. They will endure torture, and even death, for motives which men of more pugnacious races would find insufficient--for example, to conceal the hiding-place ofstolen plunder. In spite of their comparative lack of _active_ courage, they have less fear of death than we have, as is shown by their readiness to commit suicide.)”

    “我要说贪财是中国人最大的缺陷。生活艰辛,财不易得。为了求财,除了极少数在国外受过教育的中国人以外,其他中国人都有受贿行贿求财之嫌。为了赚得小小的几便士,几乎所有苦力都会拼着命去求,哪怕马上死去也在所不惜。中国人打日本为什么会那么难?主要就是因为几乎没有一个中国政治家会拒绝接受日本人的贿赂。我认为中国人有贪财这个缺陷很可能出于这样一个事实:多年以来,诚实生活难以为继。不过,经济条件改善后,情况应该能变好一点。我不认为现在的中国会比18世纪的欧洲更糟糕。我没有听说过哪个中国将领能比英国马尔堡公爵更腐败,也没有听说过哪个政治家能比法国枢机纪尧姆·杜布瓦道德更败坏。因此,中国工业发展起来后,中国人很有可能会变得和我们西方人一样诚实。当然,这并不是说,西方人就比中国人诚实得多。(Avarice is, I should say, the gravest defect of the Chinese. Life is hard, and money is not easily obtained. For the sake of money, all except a very few foreign-educated Chinese will be guilty of corruption. For the sake of a few pence, almost any coolie will run an imminent risk of death. The difficulty of combating Japan has arisen mainly from the fact that hardly any Chinese politician can resist Japanese bribes. I think this defect is probably due to the fact that, for many ages, an honest living has been hard to get; in which case it will be lessened as economic conditions improve. I doubt if it is any worse now in China than it was in Europe in the eighteenth century. I have not heard of any Chinese general more corrupt than Marlborough, or of any politician more corrupt than Cardinal Dubois. It is, therefore, quite likely that changed industrial conditions will make the Chinese as honest as we are--which is not saying much.)”

    “前面我一直在说的是,中国人在日常生活中,表面看来思维敏捷,凡事存有怀疑,但也有点疏懒,不是那么太有激情。不过,他们也有另外一面。他们也会激动兴奋得发狂,群情激昂是常事。我没有亲眼看见过,但我毫不怀疑这是事实。(I have been speaking of the Chinese as they are in ordinary life, when they appear as men of active and sceptical intelligence, but of somewhat sluggish passions. There is, however, another side to them: they are capable of wild excitement, often of a collective kind. I saw little of this myself, but there can be no doubt of the fact.)”

    “游客一到中国就为之倾心的那种东西不会留存下来,肯定会在工业化发展过程中消失殆尽。但也许,有些东西会留存下来。中国伦理道德品质的某些方面非常高明,为现代世界所急需。这些品质中我最看重的是心气平和,以理服人,不以武力相迫。(The obvious charm which the tourist finds in China cannot be preserved; it must perish at the touch of industrialism. But perhaps something may be preserved, something of the ethical qualities in which China is supreme, and which the modern world most desperately needs. Among these qualities I place first the pacific temper, which seeks to settle disputes on grounds of justice rather than by force.)”

    笔者相信,没有读/看过网上那些宣称罗素说过“我不愿揭中国人的短但中国人有三个很大的缺点”云云之文章或视频的本文读者,应该可以从笔者上面罗列的陈述中准确地理解罗素对中国人品格的看法;/过网上那些宣称罗素说过“我不愿揭中国人的短但中国人有三个很大的缺点”云云之文章或视频的本文读者,可以做个对比,自己得出准确的判断,看看那些文章或视频中有多少内容是作者们肆意添加的“私货”

    申明一句。笔者无意评论罗素对中国人品格的观点,无论正负;笔者意在为读者们提供关于罗素谈“中国人的品格”之更准确的内容,给网上数据添加一点准确性。

    

AIGC工具的数据污染问题

    当今世界,就连审稿制度严格的科学期刊杂志上也会出现造假论文,网上各种数据的真实性、正确性、准确性根本无从保证,全靠作者自身的道德约束。不但有些名人对科学技术发展前景随意信口开河,更有不少作者假借人之名兜售私货。不得不说,互联网工具这把双刃剑即为诚实的善良网民们提供了信息交流之便利,也为缺德的恶意造假者们提供了谎言传播之手段。不像具有上千年历史的纸质媒介时代只有经得住时间考验的有价值数据才能保存下来,如今的电子数字媒介时代大量的“垃圾”数据都被长期保留在网上无人清理。因此,人类社会信息时代的原始数据(亦即,的确由人类作者创造的数据)已经被污染的很难说是纯净的了。    

    笔者在 ChatGPT 开始风靡世界的时候就曾经警告过,大量 AIGC  工具的滥用必将导致海量衍生数据(亦即,由 AIGC 工具生成的数据)以极快的速度增加,最终在数量上远超原数据;当 AIGC 工具所使用的训练用初始数据就已经被污染而含有大量杂质时,由这些 AIGC 工具多次迭代生成的衍生数据也必将越来越“脏”,持续地污染数据,给我们人类带来巨大困惑 [8-13]。

    笔者使用 ChatGPT 做了一次测试实验,问 ChatGPT 两个问题,“罗素关于‘中国人的品格’都说了什么?”和“罗素说的‘中国人有三个很大的缺点’都是什么?” ChatGPT 对第一个问题的回答尽管是编造,但是还勉强可以算作靠谱,而其对第二个问题的回答就只能说是胡编乱造了。

    以罗素所谈“中国人的品格”内容为例,我们可以考虑这样几个问题:

(1)当我们看到一篇题为“罗素:我不愿揭中国人的短,但中国人有三个很大的缺点”的文章或视频的时候,我们是否可以不做任何调查确认就直接相信其全部内容?

(2)当我们被告知上述文章或视频是由 AIGC 工具生成的时候,我们是否可以不做任何调查确认就直接相信其全部内容?

(3)当我们不能不做任何调查确认就直接相信网上文章或视频的全部内容之时,我们如何自己对文章或视频的内容调查确认?这个调查确认的花费/代价有多大?

(4)当我们因为轻信了网上文章或视频的内容而做出的决定造成损失之时,我们能够追究文章或视频作者的责任吗?

(5)当我们自己使用 AIGC 工具向网络空间提交数据时,我们是否会因为使用了 AIGC 工具而自觉地提高自己的责任感?

(6)AIGC 工具的大量使用将提高还是降低可利用数据的平均信凭性/可靠性?

(7)AIGC 工具的大量使用将提高还是降低从数据获取有用信息的方式方法之平均性价比?

(8)不能在市场上获得足够经济效益的 AIGC 工具当然会被逐渐淘汰掉,工具的经济效益当然与其功能效用和用户体验直接相关,人工智能社会将对 AIGC 工具形成怎样的功效优劣评价标准?这些评价标准将必须用到哪些度量测定尺度?

    任何基于数据通过统计学习方法训练的 AIGC 工具都不可能由其自身自主自律地设定任何评价标准,而是必须根据作为行为主体的人类预先设定的评价标准来做出判断 [8-13]。

    大量使用 AIGC 工具的人工智能时代,在数量上远超原始数据的衍生数据必将越来越多并且越来越“脏”,人类社会应该如何面对和解决这个 AIGC 工具的数据污染问题?

    

参考文献

[1] B. Russell, “Towards the “Principles of Mathematics”, 1900-1902,” in G. H. Moore (Ed.), “The Collected Papers of Bertrand Russell,” Vol. 3, Routledge, London, 1993.

[2] B. Russell, “The Principles of Mathematics”, George Allen & Unwin Ltd, London, 1903.

[3] A. N. Whitehead and B. A. W. Russell, “Principia Mathematica,” Vol.1, 1910(1st ed.), 1925(2nd ed.), Vol.2, 1912(1st ed.), 1927(2nd ed.), Vol.3, 1913(1st ed.), 1927(2nd ed.), Cambridge University Press. 

[4] A. D. Irvine and H. Deutsch, “Russell’s Paradox,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Center for the Study of Language and Information (CSLI), Stanford University, 1995, 2020.

[5] K. C. Klement, “Russell’s Paradox,” The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 

[6] NobelPrize.org, “The Nobel Prize in Literature 1950” (https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/literature/1950/summary/). 

[7] B. Russell, “The Problem of China”, George Allen & Unwin Ltd, London, 1922(1st publication), 1966(2nd Impression) [罗素在原著著者名下专门注明“Sometime Professor of Philosophy in the Government University of Peking”]; 中译:秦悦 译,《中国问题》,学林出版社,1996年,田瑞雪 译,《中国问题》,中国画报出版社,2019年。

[8] 程京德,“以 ChatGPT 为代表的无偿式概率式自动生成工具的滥用将给人类社会带来什么后果?”,微信公众号“数理逻辑与哲学逻辑”,科学网博客,2023年2月6日。

[9] 程京德,“ChatGPT 的原理局限性:它永远不会做什么?”,微信公众号“数理逻辑与哲学逻辑”,科学网博客,2023年2月10日。

[10] 程京德,“对关于 ChatGPT 的两篇文章之补充说明”,微信公众号“数理逻辑与哲学逻辑”,科学网博客,2023年2月17日。

[11] 程京德,“论“创造/创作/创新”及 AIGC 工具的“创造性””,微信公众号“数理逻辑与哲学逻辑”,科学网博客,2023年3月8日。

[12] 程京德,“从“数据”与“信息”的概念之差看 AIGC 工具衍生数据对人类社会的影响”,微信公众号“数理逻辑与哲学逻辑”,科学网博客,2023年4月24日。

[13] 程京德,“人类应该如何面对由 AIGC 工具生成内容带来的困惑?”,微信公众号“数理逻辑与哲学逻辑”,科学网博客,2023年12月28日。

微信公众号“数理逻辑与哲学逻辑”



https://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2371919-1436902.html

上一篇:相关逻辑 (1) - 背景和前史
下一篇:相关逻辑 (2) - 创建
收藏 IP: 115.216.22.*| 热度|

3 武夷山 王安良 崔锦华

该博文允许注册用户评论 请点击登录 评论 (0 个评论)

数据加载中...
扫一扫,分享此博文

Archiver|手机版|科学网 ( 京ICP备07017567号-12 )

GMT+8, 2024-7-21 10:21

Powered by ScienceNet.cn

Copyright © 2007- 中国科学报社

返回顶部