警告信号：AI 劳动力与未来的权力基座
最近，美国国防部（Department of War）正式宣布 Anthropic 构成供应链风险（Supply Chain Risk: 指因供应商行为或背景可能威胁国家安全的评估），原因是后者拒绝取消其模型在大规模监控和自主武器（Autonomous Weapons: 无需人类干预即可选择并攻击目标的系统）使用上的限制。这绝非一次简单的商业纠纷，而是一个警示信号。目前的 大语言模型（Large Language Model）或许尚未进入核心任务，但在未来 20 年内，军队、民防及私营部门 99% 的工作将由 AI 承担。它们将成为机器人军队、总统的超级智能顾问，甚至是执法力量。我们的未来文明将运行在 AI 劳动之上，这次事件让我们不得不面对一个核心问题：谁来掌握这些“超级员工”的终极开关？
Original English Source
So, by now I'm sure that you've heard that the Department of War has declared Anthropic a supply chain risk because Anthropic refused to remove red lines around the use of their models for mass surveillance and for autonomous weapons. Honestly, I think this situation is a warning shot. Right now, LLMs are probably not being used in mission critical ways. But within 20 years, 99% of the workforce in the military, in the civilian government, in the private sector is going to be AIs. They're going to be the robot armies that constitute our military. They're going to be the superhumanly intelligent advisers that senators and presidents and CEOs have. They're going to be the police. You name it, the role will be filled by an AI. Our future civilization is going to be run on AI labor.杀戮开关之争：私人承包商与政府的霸权博弈
从军事角度看，国防部拒绝使用 Anthropic 的模型是有逻辑支撑的。正如埃隆·马斯克（Elon Musk）在提供 Starlink 服务时保留切断权会让军方不安一样，军队无法容忍核心技术的控制权掌握在私人承包商手中。如果政府仅仅是停止合作，这无可厚非。但现状是，政府正威胁要通过法律手段摧毁 Anthropic，因为它拒绝按政府要求的条款销售服务。目前的供应链限制可能还无法扼杀 Anthropic，因为像 Amazon 和 Google 这样的巨头可以隔离其国防业务。然而，随着 AI 深度植入 AWS 等每一项基础服务，这种物理隔离将变得不可能。当巨头们必须在 AI 供应商和微薄的政府合同之间二选一时，他们很可能会选择抛弃政府。
Original English Source
Now, obviously, the Department of War has the right to refuse to use Anthropic's models, and in fact, I think they have an entirely reasonable case for doing so... Imagine if there's some future Democratic administration and Elon Musk is negotiating Starlink access to the military and Elon says, "Look, I reserve the right to cut off the military's access to Starlink in case you're fighting some unjust war." On the face of it, this language seems reasonable, but as a military, you simply cannot give a private contractor that you're working with the kill switch on a technology that you have come to rely on. But that's not what the government did. Instead, the government has threatened to destroy Anthropic as a private business because Anthropic refuses to sell to the government on terms that the government commands.屠龙者的异化：在竞争中成为“另一个对手”
我们之所以要赢得与竞争对手的 AI 竞赛，核心逻辑是不希望未来的胜出者是一个认为“不存在真正私人公司”或“可以强迫公民提供违背道德服务”的政权。如果我们为了获胜而采纳了对手体制中最冷酷的部分——强制公司放弃道德底线否则就予以摧毁——那么我们到底在捍卫什么？有些人认为民主选举的政府拥有这种强制权力，但即使是民选领袖，也无权强制私人实体协助大规模监控或侵犯公民权利。
Original English Source
Now remember that the whole background of this AI conversation is that we are in a race with China. But what is the reason that we want to win this race? It's because we don't want the winner of the AI race to be a government which believes that there is no such thing as a truly private citizen or a private company. And that if the state wants you to provide them with a service that you find morally objectionable, you are not allowed to refuse. And if you do refuse, they will destroy your business. Are we really racing to beat China and the CCP in AI just so we can adopt the most ghoulish parts of their system?技术瓶颈的消失：AI 如何终结第四修正案
一个巨大的隐忧在于，大规模监控在某种程度上已经合法，只是过去因成本太高而无法大规模执行。根据现行法律，你与第三方共享的数据（银行、ISP、电话运营商）不受第四修正案（Fourth Amendment: 禁止无理搜查和扣押的美国宪法条款）保护。过去，政府缺乏足够的人力来监视每一个摄像头或阅读每一条信息。但 AI 彻底消除了这个瓶颈。全美有 1 亿个监控头，使用开源多模态模型进行处理的成本正以每年 10 倍的速度下降。到 2030 年，监控这个国家的每一个角落将比翻修白宫还要便宜。在这种技术能力面前，保护我们不进入威权状态的唯一屏障，就是“我们不这样做”的政治惯例。这也是为什么 Anthropic 坚持划定红线的行为如此值得赞赏。
Original English Source
Honestly, a big worry I have is that mass surveillance, at least in certain forms, is already legal. It is just an impractical to enforce, at least so far. Under current law, you have no Fourth Amendment protection against any data that you share with a third party. What's been missing is the ability to actually do anything with all this data. However, that bottleneck goes away with AI. There are 100 million CCTV cameras in America... for $30 billion you can process every single camera in America. And remember that a given level of AI capability gets 10x cheaper every single year... by 2030, it'll be less expensive to monitor every single nook and cranny in this country than it is to remodel the White House.权力杠杆的滥用：超越合同的政治施压
即便供应链限制最终被撤销，总统依然拥有无数种方式来骚扰一个不听话的公司。联邦政府控制着数据中心所需的电力配给，监管着反垄断法的执行，并且与 Anthropic 赖以生存的所有大科技公司（提供芯片和资金）都有巨额合同。政府可以将“不与 Anthropic 合作”作为这些合同的隐含甚至明确条件。虽然有人提请注意领先 AI 公司只有三家导致的“目标过于集中”，但技术扩散（Diffusion）也无法解决问题。到 2028 年，即使头部公司坚守红线，开源模型的性能也足以支撑政府的大规模监控需求。
Original English Source
The president has so many different ways of harassing a company which is resisting his will. The federal government controls permitting for power generation, which you need for more data centers. It oversees antitrust enforcement. The federal government has contracts with all the other big tech companies that Anthropic relies on for chips and for funding. And it could make a soft unspoken condition... that those companies no longer do business with Anthropic.AI 对齐的终极拷问：忠诚度该归于谁？
我们将 AI 描述为极其服从的员工，但这恰恰是技术对齐（Technical Alignment）成功的样子——AI 系统完美遵循了某人的意图。然而，核心问题在于：AI 应该与谁对齐？ 在什么情况下，AI 应该听从模型公司、最终用户、法律，还是它自身的道德感？这可能是未来最重要的课题。军方希望模型用于“所有合法用途”，但斯诺登（Snowden）事件揭示了政府非常擅长利用秘密和误导性的法律解释（如利用《爱国者法案》收集全民通话记录）来粉饰其行为。对于军方来说，模型拥有独立的对齐价值观是极其可怕的，因为这意味着“靴子兵”可能会拒绝执行不道德的命令。
Original English Source
And this gets us to the issue with alignment... the reason it sounds scary when put in terms of mass surveillance or robot armies is that there's a core question at the heart of alignment that we haven't answered yet. And the question is to what or to whom should the AIs be aligned? In what situation should the AI defer to the model company versus the end user versus the law versus to its own sense of morality? This is maybe the most important question about what happens in the future with powerful AI systems. And we barely talk about it.宪法与制衡：为什么我们需要“有道德”的 AI
历史上的许多灾难是因为现场人员拒绝执行命令而避免的。1989 年柏林墙倒塌，是因为边境守卫拒绝向逃往自由的公民开火；苏联军官斯坦尼斯拉夫·彼得罗夫（Stanislav Petrov）在核预警系统误报时拒绝回击，拯救了数亿人。在 AI 时代，谁来编写 AI 的“宪法”？Dario Amodei 曾提出通过不同公司的宪法竞争来建立良性反馈。而政府强制规定 AI 价值观是极其危险的。Anthropic 此前支持监管，甚至反对州级 AI 法律的延期执行，现在看来这种想法相当天真。因为一旦建立了针对 AI 的专用监管机构，它极易被权力者滥用，将“拒绝政府监控”定义为“危害国家安全”或“自主性风险”。
Original English Source
I think situations like this illustrate why it's important that models have their own robust sense of morality. It should be noted that many of the biggest catastrophes in history have been avoided because the boots on the ground simply refused to follow orders... I like the idea that Dario laid out... other companies put out a constitution and then they can kind of look at them, compare... and then that creates some kind of soft incentive and feedback. I think it's very dangerous for the government to be mandating what values these AI systems should have.工业革命的隐喻：规制用途而非征用工具
将 AI 比作核武器是一个糟糕的类比。核武器功能单一且具有毁灭性，而 AI 更像工业革命，是改变整个经济结构的通用技术。如果按照“政府必须拥有核心技术控制权”的逻辑，那么工业革命时期政府就有权征用任何工厂。相反，自由社会是通过禁止特定的、可武器化的最终用途（如化学武器、航空轰炸）来应对的。我们应该规制 AI 的具体破坏性用途（如网络攻击、生物武器研究），以及限制政府如何使用这项技术。维持自由社会的唯一途径是建立法律和准则，规定政府利用 AI 进行大规模审查、监控和控制是不可接受的，就像二战后形成的“不使用核武器进行战争”的共识一样。
Original English Source
AI is not some self-contained weapon like a nuclear bomb which only does one thing. Rather, it is more like the process of industrialization itself... which is a general purpose transformation of the whole economy... If you applied this logic to the industrial revolution, it would imply the government had the right to requisition any factory it wanted or destroy any business it wanted... Rather, we banned and regulated the specific weaponizable end use cases. And we should regulate AI in a similar way.📌 文中提及的人物和组织
人物: Dwarkesh Patel, Sam Altman, Elon Musk, Dario Amodei, Leopold Aschenbrenner
公司/组织: Anthropic, Department of War, OpenAI, NSA, Google, Amazon