Transcript of the interview with Nick Land, 2026-03-15

interviewer 00:00:07 Yeah, so before we c, we start, I think like lend, I will just introduce to our audience briefly about you and also CCRU, you and also generally the background. And for this part, I might talk in Chinese and later I'll come back to you. Wish. interviewer 00:00:26 all right， 那个欢迎大家来到这个，就是我们跟尼克兰德的一个专访，然后这一次我们收集了几个，就是像我们在这次会议开始之前，其实向所有人征集了大概有从100多个问题里面选出了有16个问题放到我们今天的这个问答来，然后我们今天的这个整个流程会是。 interviewer 00:00:56 这16个问题分别分成了五个主题，然后每一个主题里面大概会有几个问题是相对来说可能是比较接近的，然后那个我们到时候会一个主题的过，然后每一个主题就是我们会让兰德去，就是他，他可能会一次性回答几个问题，也有可能一个个回答，然后等他回答完就是一个一个主题里面的所有问题之后，我们会邀请一开始提出这个问题的那个，就是那个提问人来，就是如果他要想进一步，想要追问或是想要讨论的话。他可以进一步提问。然后我们就会，就是稍微在这方面有个小的互动。然后正式开始，就是我觉得可能大部分过来听会议的人应该已经都知道尼克兰德是谁，然后也非常那个熟悉， CCRU 就是那个，就是赛博行动研究网络所，我不是很确定他的中文完整的翻译，他们最早是在华威大学上个世纪，在这个世纪初在华威大学成立的一个一个赛博行动组织，然后他们也算就是，我就不做太多的介绍，我相信大家应该比较清楚。 interviewer 00:02:13 然后再加上最近这几年就是在硅谷的，就是难得的黑暗启蒙，然后以及新反动运动应该也算就是硅谷这几年意识形态的主流，然后再加上最近这几年的不管是 AI 的发展，还是局部的地缘政治的动荡，我觉得可能如今是一个我们现在处在一个当下去往回去回顾在这个20年前 CCRU 提出的那些理论的一个很好的一个。 interviewer 00:02:54 时间点是一个很好的去回顾这些理论的一个时间节点，所以包括我们今天有很多问题，我们当时在挑选的时候，主要就是围绕有些问题，它其实是结合我们当下现在的处境，然后去追问到底家族主义是不是一个一个，我们真正的正在去前行的，就是正在发生的一个一个一个场景。我大概就先介绍这样子，然后我们接下来马上就开始第一部分的问题。 interviewer 00:03:34 Alright, then, so I had just briefly introduce them about like how we're going to plan on today's session and also, yeah, generally about the current situation we're having now. We're currently in the more accelerated technological society. As we can see, there's more conflicts. So I think it's a good timing that we can reflect on what we have, think about at the beginning of this century, particularly what you have been working on during your CCRU, your periods. Yeah, so maybe let's get to the first part. So the first part, we have named us the collapse of the human agency. So I think conventionally throughout the most part of human history, you're, we always view ourself as the. Yeah, let me school mic screen first. So throughout the most of human history, I think humans has view ourself as the master of world. But I think Len have give us another angle. So maybe perhaps we're just mainly the components or fields in and the process of technical evolution. So it's like today when AI communities begins to operate or to autumn more automatically and more o ubiquitous. Maybe we're experiencing something, a stand called as the decomposition of the human agency. So to simply put, we're not using the technology, but it's the technology that you are using us to hurt yourself. 好的，那么，我刚才简要地向大家介绍了今天课程的安排，同时也大致说明了我们目前所处的状况。我们目前正处于技术发展日新月异的社会。正如我们所见，冲突也随之增多。因此，我认为现在正是反思我们所拥有的一切、思考本世纪初状况的好时机，特别是你们在CCRU期间所从事的工作。好的，那我们先进入第一部分。第一部分，我们将其命名为“人类能动性的崩塌”。我认为，在人类历史的大部分时间里，我们一直将自己视为……嗯，让我先调整下麦克风。在人类历史的大部分时间里，我认为人类一直将自己视为世界的主人。但伦（Len）为我们提供了另一个视角。也许，我们不过是技术演进过程中的一些组成部分或环节。就像今天，当人工智能系统开始更自动、更无处不在地运行时，我们或许正在经历一种被称为“人类能动性瓦解”的现象。简而言之，不是我们在使用技术，而是技术正在利用我们来伤害我们自己。 interviewer 00:05:23 So for this part, Land, would you like to start with the questions that we have list here?Yeah, just feel free to go to start with anyone that you feel comfortable with. 那么，Land，这一部分你愿意先从我们列在这里的问题开始吗？好的，你觉得哪一个问题方便，就从哪个开始吧。 Nick Land 00:05:36 Sure. Well, I think there's two topics that immediately come up, as you know, from your questions. And it, I think they could be discussed in any order really. Maybe it would be simpler at least though to keep them just initially separate, even though, okay, they ultimately connect. And so maybe the first thing I just address and, but please don't let me go on too long about this, but it's just to say something clarifying about this language of escape. 好的。嗯，我想从你的问题中，有两个话题立刻浮现在脑海里。而且，我觉得这两个话题其实按任何顺序讨论都可以。不过，虽然它们最终是相关的，但起初或许还是把它们分开讨论会更简单一些。所以，我先谈谈第一点——不过请别让我在这上面说得太久——只是想就“逃离”这个说法做些澄清。 interviewer 00:06:20 Okay? Nick Land 00:06:22 Because all the theoretical background, I think, so entire area of concern that you have, your interest here is if it's stripped right down to the basics is about cybernetics. And if we're. The most elementary distinction that is. Obviously involved is that you have negative and positive loops. So a negative cybernetically, I'm sorry if this is very elementary and boring, but I think it's just clear. It would, when the science of cybernetics was originated and even before it was fully clarified and it was just instantiated in certain types of technological devices. I think the very earliest clear ones being device called the governor, that was to control the temperature of steam engines in order to avoid them basically, e. E. Exploding. The model was always the negative feedback clip. 因为所有的理论背景，我认为，你所关注的整个领域，归根结底，你的兴趣其实在于控制论。如果我们……最基本的区别显然在于负反馈和正反馈。所以，从控制论的角度来看，负反馈……抱歉，如果这听起来太基础、太枯燥，但我认为这很清楚。在控制论这门科学诞生之初，甚至在它尚未完全明晰之前，它就已经体现在某些类型的技术设备中了。我认为最早的典型例子是一种叫做调速器的装置，它用于控制蒸汽机的温度，以避免蒸汽机发生爆炸。这种模型始终是负反馈回路。 Nick Land 00:07:43 That's to say that it was seen that the obvious function of an artificial cybernetic group, some are technological device based on cybernetic principles, would be to control deviation within a certain range. And so the most simple one is still keeping, it's been very tied up with the science of heat, with thermodynamics. And the most simple example is still a thermostat. So obviously with a thermostat, it uses feedback to correct towards some norm. And its aim is to stabilize a certain situation. So if it becomes too hot, raises the temperature. And if it becomes too cold, lowers the temperature. And in order to, by doing that, it maintains things within a zone of stability. 也就是说，人们发现，人工控制论系统（即基于控制论原理的某些技术装置）的明显功能，就是将偏差控制在一定范围内。因此，最简单的例子依然与热学、与热力学密切相关。最简单的例子就是恒温器。显然，恒温器利用反馈机制将温度调节至某个标准值。其目的是稳定某种状态。因此，如果温度过高，它就会升高温度；如果温度过低，它就会降低温度。通过这种方式，它将事物维持在一个稳定区域内。 Nick Land 00:08:41 Now that stability is the absolute basic model of what it is for something to the captured. So if you generalize this model of the thermostat to larger systems to like ecosystems in biology, to social political systems of all kinds, the negative cybernetic function is to avoid things deviating beyond stability to be acceptable, right, interest. So therefore, it's capturing them, it's maintaining them within a certain thing. If they try to go in a certain direction, it pulls them back. And a positive feedback loop, which was, is the opposite of this and was originally considered even into. To the formal instantiation of cybernetics in the 1940s was considered to be obviously a disease. It was considered to be pathological, was considered to be a problem. Like the only reason to be interested in positive cypinetics was to stop it happening. And obviously that's what I negative feedback system does. And there are various examples of positive that show this very clearly. 既然稳定性是“被捕获”这一现象的绝对基本模型，那么如果我们将这种恒温器模型推广到更大的系统中——比如生物学的生态系统，或是各种社会政治系统——那么负反馈控制的功能就是防止事物偏离稳定状态，使其保持在可接受的范围内，对吧？因此，它是在“捕获”这些事物，将其维持在某种状态之内。如果它们试图向某个方向发展，系统就会将其拉回。而正反馈循环与此恰恰相反，甚至在20世纪40年代控制论的正式确立之初，它就被视为一种病态。它被视为病理性的，被视为一个问题。人们对正反馈控制论感兴趣的唯一原因，就是为了阻止它发生。显然，这正是负反馈系统所做的。而各种正反馈的例子则非常清楚地说明了这一点。 Nick Land 00:10:05 Most runaway processes. Oh, pathological, like if you, you know, if the, if your thermostat in your house, if it was somehow capable of flipping over the positive feedback, it would just boil you alive in your room until it exploded. Or in musical systems, put feedback, which they just call feedback leads to this. How if it goes to the state where things are just max out again, probably destroys the system is very natural for positive feedback to be considered a problem. But the difficulty is that if you pan out to the social, political, technological, economic processes of a modern world, they're actually at their deepest level characterized by positive feedback. This is why you have this term long range runaway. That's to say it's talking about positive feedbacks. Of the kind that is probably clearly and formulated, doesn't, has ever been by Carl Marx's formula for the expansion of capital, and capital is probably really what we're talking about, where you go on a loop between the commodity and money. And when you complete that loop, it, at each cycle, you reach a higher stage of that reality. You go from commodities to money to more commodities to more money to more commodities to more money. And obviously, this is not just purely quantitative, right?So it's a process escalation. The nature both of capital and of the products of capital, also being in the most important sense, marks or he called fixed capital, that's machines to actually upgrade your production processes, a qualitatively being improved by this loop. So you have the fundamental catalyst mechanism, if it's just stripped down to this absolute basic formula, is a positive feedback system. And therefore, a, if you bring this back to our initial setup, a negative feedback would be something that was actually inhibiting controlling trapping. The cap list dynamic, that's to say. But capitalism is intrinsically trying to escape from certain kinds of social and political negative feedback regimes. And if you're trying to understand what capital is pushing against all the time, you want to understand that homeostatic social and political system that's trying to confine it. So I'm saying all that just to say, so this is what is meant by escape. It's really the ability of a positive feedback dynamic to escape from a negative feedback, regulatory homeostatic control operators. So you have a more specific question then about like what's the most direct path and you're specifically talking about LMS. I'm gonna cut this short in a minute. We can do more of a back and forth. Yeah, sure. But just to say, it's probably crucial to say from the start that there's really no difference between the capitalist dynamic and the AI, the technological dynamic. But we're interested in with artificial intelligence, they both have the same ultimate schema, which in terms of CA capital as we've seen is just this, you know, capital gets itself into a circuit that leads to more and escalated capital. And that escalation is. From the start, certainly with industrial capitalism, it's from the start about replacing humans. I think human being, human behavior. It's just that now this human behavior is at this complex level to do with language and quite amazing levels of cognitive activity, you know, solving mass problems, writing computer programs, all of these kind of things. You know, I'll a new and innovative and shocking to people, but they're actually very continuous in the historical process with the basic capitalist dynamic that has been in place since the start of industrial revolution. So maybe I should stop that now and just let you guys come back before switching over to the, what I think is the other side of the question, which is about the agent. 大多数失控过程。哦，这是病态的，比如说，如果你知道的话，如果你家里的恒温器，它以某种方式能够启动正反馈，它就会把你房间里的温度煮沸到极限，直到爆炸。或者在音乐系统中，加入反馈（他们就称之为反馈）会导致这种情况。它会进入一种状态，系统完全达到最大化，这很可能破坏系统，因此把正反馈视为问题是很自然的。 但困难在于，如果你把视野放大到现代世界的社会、政治、技术、经济过程，它们在最深层次上实际上是由正反馈所特征化的。这就是为什么有“长期失控”（long range runaway）这个术语。也就是说，它谈论的是正反馈。正如卡尔·马克思在资本扩张公式中所清楚并正式描述的那样，而资本可能正是我们真正谈论的东西：在商品和货币之间循环。当你完成这个循环时，每一个循环周期，你都会达到一个更高阶段的现实。你从商品到货币，再到更多商品，再到更多货币，如此循环。显然，这不仅仅是纯粹的数量过程，对吧？ 这是一个过程的升级。资本的本质以及资本产品的本质，也在最重要的意义上，标记为“固定资本”（马克思称之为固定资本，即机器），它实际上通过这个循环改进你的生产过程，实现质的提升。因此，如果把这个机制简化到最基本的公式，它就是一个正反馈系统。因此，如果把它带回到我们最初的设定中，负反馈将是一种实际抑制、控制或约束资本动态的机制。但资本主义本质上试图逃避某些社会和政治的负反馈机制。如果你想理解资本一直在抗争的对象，你需要理解那个试图约束它的社会和政治稳态系统。 我说这些只是为了说明，这就是“逃逸”的意思——实际上是正反馈动态从负反馈、调节性稳态控制机制中逃逸的能力。 如果你有更具体的问题，比如关于最直接路径，并且你特别谈论的是 LMS（学习管理系统？），我待会儿会简短说明，我们可以更多地进行讨论。只是要从一开始就明确一点：资本主义动态和人工智能、技术动态之间实际上没有区别。它们都有相同的最终模式。就资本而言，我们看到的就是资本进入一个循环，从而产生更多、更升级的资本。 这种升级，从一开始，特别是在工业资本主义时期，就意味着替代人类行为。只不过现在这种人类行为涉及语言和相当复杂的认知活动，例如解决大规模问题、编写计算机程序等等。对人们来说，这可能是新的、创新的、令人震惊的，但在历史过程中，它们实际上与自工业革命以来一直存在的基本资本主义动态非常连续。 也许我现在应该先停一下，让大家消化，然后再切换到我认为问题的另一面——关于代理（agent）的部分。 interviewer 00:16:00 Sure. Maybe, let me just maybe briefly wrap up. What do you have?Talk about. I'll try my best. I have, yeah, I, I so they can't replicate or you what you have said. So what I understand is. So you define escape as a dynamic or a struggle between how?Essentially, sabnet take style of struggle of how a particular means or object, how do they escape from the net negative feedback to positive feedback?And if, and you've give many examples and how originally the small scale of the techno objects like steam engines or all the ceremony once being controlled within the negative feedback. And however, yeah, I might lose some part of that. 好的。也许，让我简要总结一下。你有什么要说的？我会尽力而为。我，是的，我，我是说，这样他们就无法复制你所说的内容。所以我的理解是。你把“逃逸”定义为一种动态，或者说一种斗争，具体是怎样的？本质上，萨宾特（Sabnet）所采用的斗争模式是：某种特定的手段或对象，是如何从负反馈网络中逃逸到正反馈中的？而且，你举了很多例子，说明最初像蒸汽机这样的小型技术对象，或者所有的仪式，曾经都处于负反馈的控制之下。不过，是的，我可能漏掉了其中的一部分。 interviewer 00:17:16 Yeah, however, for the cat capital development, it has the entrantic tendency to escape from a more social, a social dynamic, controlled negative feedback. So it's intrinctly positive. Like it has this potential to, to expand. And we stop being controlled. And this is, this, this is, it has been just as we know, the capitalism existing for such long years and until now, we're with this latest technology, enter this LLM like periods is actually worth at the very end of this final phase of automation. And yes, so I will just very briefly like read up it like this, perhaps. I, I have like, I know I have like abstracted a lot. Yeah, let me see on the chat if like, if there's any audience want to come up with the follow up question. Yeah, if, yeah, I don't think we currently have one. So maybe Land, just feel free to keep on to continue your thoughts. 是的，不过就资本主义的发展而言，它有一种本能的倾向，想要摆脱那种更具社会性、受社会动态控制的负反馈机制。因此它本质上是正向的。就像它具有这种扩张的潜力，而我们不再受其控制。而这，这，这正如我们所知，资本主义已经存在了这么多年，直到现在，我们借助最新技术，进入这个LLM时代，实际上正处于自动化这一最终阶段的尾声。是的，所以我可能会像这样简要地总结一下。我知道我可能抽象化了很多。好的，我看看聊天区里有没有观众想提出后续问题。嗯，目前好像还没有。那么兰德，请继续畅所欲言吧。 Nick Land 00:18:52 Okay, I mean, I hope this is clear. The main thing that I really want to get across is that what escape. Yeah. Is the process. It's the process that escape. So it's not like that there's some entity escaping. It's that the process itself escapes. And the process, by the process is meant this circuit, this loop that is able to get into a state of self reinforcement, what is called in the context of artificial intelligence, recursive self improvement. That's to say it's able to actually enter into this very powerful positive feedback relationship where it improves itself and the better it gets. And that is a process of it escaping control. It's not that entity that, yeah, it's the process. Okay, the circuit itself, it doesn't. And so, yeah, so the second part of your question, I think it's a very interesting one and maybe involve starting in a slightly different way because is this question about agency hum. Now those, all of those schematic models of cybernetic processes I think are very immediately very trans cultural. That's to say it's like they're very mathematical, they're very to do with certain technical, logically realizable projects. Everyone does the same thing. Like if you, if you have, so if you designing a thermostat in China and your deve designing a thermostat in America, really you. There's not gonna be any important difference about the way you're thinking about the problems or the technological thing you're dealing with. 好的，我的意思是，希望这已经说清楚了。我真正想表达的核心观点是，所谓“逃逸”的本质在于过程。是的，正是这个过程在逃逸。所以，这并不是指某个实体在逃逸，而是过程本身在逃逸。而这个过程，这里所指的过程就是这个回路，这个能够进入自我强化状态的循环，在人工智能领域被称为递归自我改进。也就是说，它能够真正进入一种非常强大的正反馈关系，通过这种关系它不断自我完善，变得越来越好。这就是它脱离控制的过程。不是那个实体，是的，而是这个过程。好的，这个回路本身并不会。所以，是的，关于你问题的第二部分，我认为这非常有趣，或许需要从稍微不同的角度切入，因为这个问题涉及能动性。那些关于控制论过程的所有示意图模型，我认为它们具有非常直接的跨文化性。也就是说，它们非常数学化，与某些技术上、逻辑上可实现的项目密切相关。大家做的事情都一样。比如，如果你在中国设计一个恒温器，而你的同事在美国设计恒温器，实际上你们在思考问题的方式或处理的技术问题上，根本不会有什么重要的差异。 Nick Land 00:20:54 I'm not so sure that is so true with this question of agency. I don't know whether it's the case that there is a trans cultural conception of agency that is us neatly and obviously universal because it's very much articulated in terms of particular culture and I would say especially religious traditions. And so the notion inherited, I mean, there's obviously, Ju, just looking up the c western side, there's a sort of long involved culture history in various stages. One of the most sort of important and I would say really even founding text of them, western sociology is Max favors Protestantism and the spirit of capitalism. Where he is specifically saying that the development of the western religious tradition to the Reformation in the origin of Protestantism crucial to igniting the. Capitalist development do it. And obviously, without the industrial revolution that you could specifically see that it was, it had certain cultural crates attached to it, which in very much involved a certain sense of agency, a certain construction of the notion of what an agent was, what human freedom was. Freedom of the will being a religious and theological category, obviously, it in coming out of Christianity. 对于能动性这个问题，我不确定是否真的如此。我不确定是否存在一种跨文化的能动性概念，这种概念能被我们清晰且显而易见地视为普世性的，因为它很大程度上是以特定文化——尤其是宗教传统——为框架来阐述的。因此，这种观念的传承，我是说，显然，朱，仅就西方而言，就存在一段漫长而复杂的文化历史，历经不同阶段。其中最为重要、甚至可以说奠基性的文本之一，是西方社会学中的马克斯·韦伯的《新教伦理与资本主义精神》。他在书中明确指出，西方宗教传统的发展，特别是宗教改革及新教的兴起，对点燃资本主义发展至关重要。显然，如果没有工业革命——你可以清楚地看到，它确实伴随着某些文化特质，这些特质在很大程度上涉及一种能动性意识，以及对“能动者”概念和“人类自由”概念的特定建构。意志自由作为一种宗教和神学范畴，显然源自基督教。 Nick Land 00:23:09 And so in China is interesting. I mean, either there's obviously our parallel notion, so it's obvious that there is a notion of agency in China. It's not as if this is just some completely foreign notion, but it probably has very a different cultural and religious roots, and then it's articulated in different ways. And I, and I say this, the reason I say this is because in the western tradition, the kind of Protestantism that Max Weber is talking about as being the capitalistic religion, power, excellence, is Calvinism. And Calvinism, which is this version of Reform protestant Christianity, was basically the dominant theology in the English speaking world. And it hasn't. It's. Has a very paradoxical relationship to the notion of agency. Actually, it's like already this was a very paradoxical problem because the theological construct that dominates based on the fact that is obviously it's a, it's a Christian religious viewpoint. It is. 因此，中国的情况很有意思。我的意思是，显然我们有相似的概念，所以很明显中国也存在“能动性”的概念。这并非某种完全陌生的概念，但它可能有着截然不同的文化和宗教根源，并且以不同的方式得以阐述。我之所以这么说，是因为在西方传统中，马克斯·韦伯所说的作为资本主义宗教、权力与卓越象征的那种新教，就是加尔文主义。加尔文主义作为改革派新教基督教的一种流派，基本上是英语世界的主流神学。但事实并非如此。它与能动性概念有着非常矛盾的关系。实际上，这本来就是一个非常矛盾的问题，因为主导的神学构想显然基于一种基督教的宗教观点。确实如此。 Nick Land 00:24:41 This ticket believes in a god and it believes that god is completely, has infinite power and is eternal. So it indefinitely inherits the notion of free will. It come, it's very false to say Calvinism doesn't believe even free will. It hasn't very strong commitment to it, but it wrestles to bring it into conformity with this notion of a supreme eternal god. And that, and term, there's a set of terms associated with that. 这一派别相信有神，并认为这位神是全能的、拥有无限力量且永恒的。因此，它必然承袭了“自由意志”这一概念。因此，说加尔文主义甚至不相信自由意志，这种说法是完全错误的。虽然它对此并没有非常坚定的承诺，但它仍在努力将其与“至高无上的永恒之神”这一观念相协调。此外，还有一系列与此相关的术语。 Nick Land 00:25:23 But the most commonly understood when is this thing called predestination and pre destination is the notion that what will happen, I mean, the Calvinists themselves are particularly interesting. What will happen to the human soul, and in particular, whether it will be saved or is something that is decided by god. And therefore, it's decided eternity. And because God is an eternal being, God cannot be surprised. By anything that happens in time. It's not possible for P P, anyone to surprise god because for god, all of time has already unfolded. God is eternal. That means like god is outside of time, the whole of time is simultaneous god. And therefore nothing that happens in time can be a surprise to god. And nothing in particular that happens in time can be in any way contrary to divine will. 但人们最常理解的“何时”是指所谓的“宿命论”，而宿命论的核心观念是：未来将发生什么——我指的是加尔文主义者自身的观点尤为耐人寻味——人类灵魂的归宿，尤其是它究竟能否得救，都是由上帝决定的。因此，这一切早在永恒之中便已注定。正因为上帝是永恒的存在，祂绝不会感到惊讶。无论时间中发生什么，都无法令祂感到惊讶。任何人都不可能让上帝感到惊讶，因为对上帝而言，所有时间都已展开。上帝是永恒的。这意味着上帝超脱于时间之外，整个时间在祂那里是同时发生的。因此，时间中发生的一切都不会让上帝感到惊讶，而且时间中发生的任何具体事件，都不可能以任何方式违背神的旨意。 Nick Land 00:26:37 So this is Calvinist theology. And obviously this Calvinist theology makes these questions about agency very complicated. Because what it contest, what it brings into question is the notion that people obviously have as a naive presupposition, certainly in the west, but I seem this is more general than that. Basically, time is something that moves forward. From the past through the present into the future. That human agency is basically the vehicle that through its action, conducts events to some degree, again, from the past through the present into the future. And so the notion of progressive time, that's to say time moving from the past into the future, and the notion of agency, a very link together, at least at the most vulgar basic level, but very deeply in the Anglo tradition, this. 这就是加尔文主义神学。显然，这种神学使得关于能动性的问题变得非常复杂。因为它所挑战、所质疑的，正是人们——至少在西方——作为一种天真的预设所持有的观念，不过我认为这种观念的普遍性远不止于此。简而言之，时间是一种向前流动的事物。从过去经由现在走向未来。人类的能动性本质上就是一种载体，通过其行动，在某种程度上引导事件——同样是从过去经由现在走向未来。因此，“渐进时间”的概念，即时间从过去流向未来，与“能动性”的概念紧密相连，至少在最粗浅的基本层面上是如此，而在盎格鲁传统中，这种联系更是根深蒂固。 Nick Land 00:27:52 Notion is brought into question, is made paradoxical. And it's made paradoxical because of the fact, just to repeat and put it in theological language, god cannot be surprised. So it cannot be that a human being is able to do something in time. That is all, eh, that is not already expected by God because God is an eternal be it. “观念”因此受到质疑，变得自相矛盾。之所以自相矛盾，是因为——容我重复一遍并用神学术语来表述——上帝不会感到惊讶。因此，人类不可能在时间中做出任何上帝尚未预见之事。仅此而已，嗯，因为上帝是永恒的存在。 Nick Land 00:28:22 So, okay, there's lots of ways to go with that and I don't wanna go on too long. But let me just say, you know. If you have that grid, the question of the collapse of agency is complicated because obviously, for a cow nest, it's not that there really was such a thing ever. As a human agent was aligned with progressive time and was able to bring about a future that is not in some sense already. 好吧，关于这一点可以展开很多讨论，但我不想说得太久。不过，我想说的是，你知道的。如果采用这种框架，关于能动性崩解的问题就很复杂了，因为显然，对于牛窝而言，这种能动性其实从来就不存在。而作为人类能动者，我们与线性时间保持一致，并能够创造出一种在某种意义上尚未存在的未来。 Nick Land 00:29:07 Again, to repeat this particular Calvinist theological language, pre ordained, predestined. And I, I, yes, I won't go on too long. Just make one other little point. It's just to say, so lots of this sort of trends in this kind of thinking and this, you know, you could you can get there purely out of this cybernetic thinking with a, just a little bit of philosophy also calls into question the notion that the basic direction of time is those two things are really the same. We naturally privilege the formal. We naturally think it's more or is actually just as strong as the FIR. The former thought there's no really persuasive philosophical reason to think at the movement forwarding time. Is actually more realistic then the notion coming back. And there's certain types of events that seem to bear the signature of this reverse current, this flow from the future into the past. 再次，用加尔文主义的神学术语来说，就是“预定”和“宿命”。而我，我，是的，我不会说得太久。只想再补充一点。就是说，这种思维方式中的许多趋势，以及这种——你知道的，你可以纯粹通过这种控制论思维，再加上一点哲学，来质疑“时间的基本方向”这一概念，认为这两者其实是相同的。我们自然倾向于重视前者。我们自然认为它比后者更强，或者实际上与后者同样有力。前者认为，没有真正有说服力的哲学理由认为时间向前运动的概念比时间回溯的概念更现实。而且，某些类型的事件似乎带有这种逆流的印记，即从未来流向过去的流动。 (zoom interrupt) interviewer 00:31:23 Hi, Land. So let's quickly get back. Hopefully this interrupt your thoughts much. 嗨，Land。那我们赶紧回到正题吧。希望这没打断你的思路。 Nick Land 00:31:32 No, I should put, well, actually, can I just say one more thing and then I will try stuff on this, which, so which is just the same. I hasn't, in terms of what I was just saying that there's certain processes that seem to bear the signature of refers temporality, let me just give you some. 不，我应该说，嗯，其实，我能再补充一点吗？然后我就试着在这方面做些尝试，不过，这其实是一回事。我刚才提到，某些过程似乎带有“指涉性时间性”的特征，让我举几个例子。 Nick Land 00:32:04 And a divergent wave, it will, it immediately seem much more natural to everyone and is aligned actually with progressive, temporarily progressive time. And it's very simple. If you take a stone and you throw it into a pond, the ripples will ripple outwards from that event until obviously they, you know, reach the end of pond. The, so rippling output is a divergent wave and with that's very natural task and that is what progressive time looks like. If it was the case that we saw big ripple in a pond moving inwards and converging on a central point, we would. 而发散波，它会——它立刻让每个人感觉自然得多，实际上也与渐进的、暂时性的渐进时间相吻合。这非常简单。如果你拿起一块石头扔进池塘，涟漪会从那个点向外扩散，直到显然，你知道的，到达池塘的尽头。所以，这种向外扩散的涟漪就是发散波，这是一种非常自然的现象，而这就是渐进时间的样貌。如果我们看到池塘里的大涟漪向内移动并汇聚到一个中心点，那我们就会…… Nick Land 00:33:16 Processes that I'm talking about that all govern by positive feedback, which is self assembly self, because the divergent wave is the PA pattern of something falling apart. It's, you know, in thermodynamics, it's entropy. It's something going from us ordered state to a disordered state. It seems to us strange that something should go from a disordered state to an increasingly ordered state. But that is exactly what we're seeing in anything governed. I, again, using the term you use here, long term, positive feedback. Anything governed by positive feedback tends of an interesting kind is going from us, a relatively disorder to a more ordered standard. So obviously, this is thing that we're seeing in technological immediate process manufacturing sit on the largest possible scale. You're seeing this process of self assembly, self complication that is actually and historical convergent wave. And a convergent wave is actually what you're seeing is a reverse wave in time, actually. It's like, so for something to be becoming more and more ordered is a divergent we've seen in reverse. Let me just give you one more example. 我所说的这些过程全都受正反馈的支配，也就是自组装，因为发散波是某种事物解体的动力学模式。你知道，在热力学中，这就是熵。它是指事物从有序状态向无序状态的转变。对我们来说，事物从无序状态转向越来越有序的状态似乎很奇怪。但这正是我们在任何受正反馈支配的事物中看到的现象。我再次使用你在这里提到的术语：长期正反馈。任何受这种特殊正反馈支配的事物，往往会从相对无序的状态转向更有序的状态。显然，我们在技术制造过程中，尤其是最大规模的制造过程中，正目睹着这一现象。你所看到的这种自组装、自我复杂化的过程，实际上是一股历史性的收敛浪潮。而所谓的收敛浪潮，实际上是你所看到的时光倒流现象。也就是说，事物变得越来越有序，这相当于我们所见到的发散过程的逆向演变。让我再举一个例子。 interviewer 00:35:24 Yes, yeah, also I want to cut you the screen. Why do you. So echo, I also want to cut in a short question. So how, why?So it feels like you have assumed this like linearly for words. It's definitely towards a disorder or a process of like being dissembled. But how could we know whether like, how can we like, how are you sure like the direction, the progressive direction, how can you identify whether it's becoming more in order or disorder?How can we direction? 感觉你好像把这种关系线性地归结为文字了。这显然是朝着一种无序状态，或者说一种被拆解的过程。但我们怎么知道，怎么判断，你怎么确定这种方向——这种渐进的方向——怎么能识别它是在变得更有序还是更无序？我们怎么确定方向？ Nick Land 00:36:25 Yeah, yes. So, I mean, obviously you there is a lots of very just visceral graphic district descriptions. And if you just take an egg. And drop it on the floor, it will splatter obviously into a mess. And you could have a video. That was. Is it the in video record that process happening and then you just scramble it completely so you don't know where there's the beginning or the end of the video. Yes, it's you. It's taken an entirely out of order. And someone says to me, system, put this video in order. You know, I'm not gonna tell you what order is. You put it in order, you would be able to do that. I mean, I guess it would take a while because there's a lot of skills or whatever, but you know, which goes in front of the other because what you're saying is like the more. 是的，没错。我的意思是，显然那里有很多非常直观、生动的场景描述。比如，如果你拿一个鸡蛋，把它扔到地上，它显然会摔得四分五裂，弄得一团糟。你可以拍一段视频，记录下这个过程，然后把视频完全打乱，让你分不清视频的开头和结尾。没错，就是这样。视频完全被打乱了顺序。然后有人对我说：“系统，把这段视频按顺序排列好。” 你知道，我不会告诉你什么是顺序。你把它整理好，你应该能做到。我的意思是，我想这可能需要一段时间，因为需要很多技巧之类的，但你知道，哪个该排在哪个前面，因为你说得就像是…… Nick Land 00:37:24 Disorder the egg the later in the video. It is if the egg is highly organized and completely still integrated and there's gonna shell on the outside and then the white and then the yoke in the middle. That must be, you know, you know, the earlier state. And if it's all disordered mess on the floor, that's a late state of there. 在视频后半段，把鸡蛋弄乱。如果鸡蛋结构严整、完全保持完整，外面有蛋壳，里面是蛋白，中间是蛋黄，那肯定就是——你知道的——就是早期状态。而如果它散落在地板上，变成一团乱糟糟的，那就是晚期状态了。 Nick Land 00:37:52 Now, the thing is that, you know, just to go out of. Social history from it into biology, there are eggs and there weren't always X. I mean, eggs are something that have been produced by history. So there is a process in history. If you had a long range enough totally panned out video, you would go from a state of life that was disorganized and didn't have anything as organized as an egg. And at a certain point, you would suddenly find you had an AC. 现在，关键在于，你知道，如果我们从社会历史的视角转向生物学，就会发现：虽然现在有“蛋”，但过去并不总是如此。我的意思是，蛋是历史进程中逐渐形成的产物。因此，这其中存在一个历史演变的过程。如果你有一段足够长、完全放大的视频，你会看到生命最初处于一种无序的状态，没有任何像卵那样有组织的结构。而在某个时刻，你会突然发现出现了卵细胞。 Nick Land 00:38:32 Now what I'm saying is that evolutionary process on the big, long, many tens, hundreds of millions of years video is actually exactly the same as the dropping an egg on the floor video. It's just on a different scale, but in principle, it's exactly the same. What you're seeing is one process that is going from disorder to order and another process that is going from order to disorder. And the order to disorder prices is what is just our natural intuitive sense of progressive time. And the disorder to order present is weird. 现在我想说的是，在长达数千万甚至数亿年的宏大时间尺度上，进化过程实际上与将鸡蛋摔到地上的视频完全相同。两者只是尺度不同，但从原理上讲，它们完全一致。你所看到的，一个过程是从无序走向有序，另一个过程则是从有序走向无序。而从有序到无序的过程，正是我们对时间流逝的自然直觉。至于从无序到有序的过程，则显得有些奇怪。 Nick Land 00:39:15 And the only reason that we're not really mystified by all the time is cause we don't see it is not happening at such line long time scales. It's so distributed and complex that we're not seeing it. If we did, if we could just see that happening of going, as I say, over hundreds of millions of years of going from this disorganized state of matter. So you end up with neck, you would think, how is that possible? That is time going backwards. Actually, that is something. The egg is coming out of the future. It's unnatural, but our world is full of that. It's full of that. It's just we can't see it because it's, again, it's decentralized. It's happening over long time scales. We're not focused on the whole of the process, but we're constantly going from processes of relatively disorganized matter, two more and more intricately organize matter until you end up with something like a modern integrated circuit or a modern LLM as a state of absolutely preposterously unprecedented, highly ordered matter that has come from much less ordered organize state on that. And if we could actually see that process, it would have this the same affect of something actually traveling in time in that opposite direction to what we consider to be natural. And I would say, you know, just one final little writer to that, but as we get, as our curve takes us into higher and higher levels of acceleration, the sense of time reversal becomes stronger and stronger. The intuitive sense of, the intuitive sense that this stuff is coming out of the future increases as you get into these more and more intense rapid processes of self. Okay, nice. Station because you're seeing more and more things that look like a scrambled, wrecked egg on the floor assembling itself back into an organization. Those sort of phenomena are happening more and more as incredible technological things are happening at greater speed. 而我们之所以并不真正被时间感到困惑，唯一的原因是我们看不到它——因为它并不是在那种线性的、长时间尺度上发生的。它是如此分散和复杂，以至于我们看不见它。如果我们能看到，如果我们能够看到正如我所说的那样，经历数亿年的时间，从这种无序的物质状态出发……最终形成颈部结构，你会想，这怎么可能？那简直像是时间在倒流。实际上，这是一种现象——就像是“未来的蛋”正在出现。这很不自然，但我们的世界充满了这样的现象。它充满了，只是我们看不到，因为它再次是去中心化的，它发生在很长的时间尺度上。我们没有关注整个过程，但我们不断地从相对无序的物质过程，过渡到越来越复杂有序的物质，直到你最终得到像现代集成电路或现代大型语言模型这样的一种状态——一种绝对荒谬、前所未有、高度有序的物质状态，而它来自远远无序的物质状态。如果我们真的能看到这个过程，它会产生与时间倒流相同的效果——好像某些东西真的在逆向时间移动，而不是按照我们认为的自然方向前进。我想补充最后一点，随着我们的曲线将我们带入越来越高的加速水平，这种时间倒流的感觉会越来越强烈。直观上，你会感觉这些东西仿佛是从未来出现的。随着你进入这些越来越强烈、快速的自我组织过程，这种感觉会增强。 你会看到越来越多的现象，就像地板上的鸡蛋被打碎后重新组装回原来的秩序一样。这类现象正越来越频繁地发生，而令人难以置信的技术事物也在以更快的速度出现。 interviewer 00:41:53 So the feeling of descending. From the future, just as you said, a more modern integrated circus will have like stronger feeling of that kind of circus descending from the future. 从未来降临的感觉。正如您所说，更现代化的综合马戏团会给人更强烈的这种“从未来降临”的感受。 Nick Land 00:42:09 Yeah, we have a sense of the organized thing. So what is that organized thing? And that's actually coming back to us. I mean, that's sort of interesting. And to a large extent, it has to be a very open question because that is to say, at some level, some kind of superintelligence is coming back to us, reaching back into history. Of course, we don't have a clear picture of what that is. All we can see is that we have this increasingly powerful sense of a convergent wave occurring that seems to violate our natural intuitions about the direction of time, and with that, our natural sense of human agency. If time is not mostly progressive, moving from past to future, then our role in what is happening is much more complex. It is not that we have no role; the process, whether forward or backward, passes through us. It makes no difference—it passes through us as much from the future as from the past. Nevertheless, our understanding of human agency is deeply challenged by recognizing this convergent wave. 是的，我们感受到一种“有组织的事物”。那么，这种有组织的事物是什么？实际上，它正在回到我们这里。这很有趣。从很大程度上说，这是一个开放性的问题，因为可以说，在某种层面上，一种超级智能正在回到我们这里，回溯历史。当然，我们无法清楚地了解它的本质。我们所能看到的是，我们对一个汇聚波的感知越来越强烈，这似乎违背了我们对时间方向和人类能动性的自然直觉。如果时间并非主要是从过去到未来的推进，那么我们在发生的事件中的角色就变得复杂得多。并非我们没有作用；这个过程无论是向前还是向后，都穿过我们。这并没有区别——它同样从未来流向我们，就像从过去流向我们一样。然而，认识到这个汇聚波后，我们对人类能动性的理解受到了深刻挑战。 interviewer 00:43:57 Alright, I see what you mean. So you are not saying that we lack agency. Rather, given this convergent wave, understanding and exercising effective human agency becomes more complex and difficult. 明白了。您的意思并不是我们缺乏能动性，而是鉴于这种汇聚波，理解和行使有效的人类能动性变得更加复杂和困难。 Nick Land 00:44:31 It has always been difficult. The nature of reality has not changed; our agency has not weakened. At the start of the industrial revolution, it was easier for humans to intuitively feel time as moving forward and their agency as obvious and unquestionable. Now, as time accelerates, it becomes increasingly difficult to maintain a straightforward, secure sense of human agency. It is not that agency is weaker—it is our perception that is challenged by the convergent wave, making human agency harder to intuitively understand. 这一直很困难。现实的本质没有改变；我们的能动性并未减弱。在工业革命初期，人类更容易直觉地感受到时间的前进，以及自身能动性的显而易见和不容置疑。如今，随着时间加速，我们越来越难以保持对人类能动性的直接、稳妥感知。这并非因为能动性变弱，而是因为汇聚波挑战了我们的感知，使人类能动性难以直观理解。 Nick Land 00:45:42 To illustrate, consider an egg dropped on the floor. In a conventional forward-time video, the egg falls and breaks, and human agency is clear: I chose to drop the egg, and it broke. If the video is reversed, so the egg reassembles itself and rises into your hand, the same events occur, but it becomes much harder to attribute agency confidently. The psychological content and intentionality remain unchanged, but our intuitive sense of having caused the outcome is disrupted. 举例来说，考虑一个鸡蛋掉落在地板上的场景。在常规的正向时间视频中，鸡蛋掉落并破碎，人类能动性清晰可见：我选择了扔鸡蛋，它破碎了。如果视频反向播放，使鸡蛋重新组装并回到手中，相同的事件发生，但我们很难自信地归因于自身的能动性。心理内容和意图保持不变，但我们对自己造成结果的直觉感受被扰乱。 Nick Land 00:48:29 The analogy applies to civilization. A technological or economic system is like the egg: as complexity converges, it becomes harder to claim that humans are the sole authors of the process. Achievements feel organized and in our hands, but understanding agency becomes increasingly difficult. 这一类比适用于文明。技术或经济体系就像鸡蛋：随着复杂性汇聚，我们很难声称人类是整个过程的唯一创造者。成就看似有序并掌握在我们手中，但理解能动性变得愈加困难。 interviewer 00:49:45 So even in this reversed process, human agency is involved, but we require an alternative conceptual or ontological framework to understand how our agency participates in completing the process. 因此，即使在这种逆向过程中，人类能动性仍然参与其中，但我们需要另一种概念或本体论框架来理解我们的能动性如何在完成过程中发挥作用。 ________________________________________ Nick Land 00:50:51 Exactly. The reversed process forces us to rethink and complicate our notion of agency. All associated psychological processes, thoughts, and intentions remain present; only the temporal direction changes. 完全正确。逆向过程迫使我们重新思考并复杂化对能动性的理解。所有相关的心理过程、思想和意图仍然存在，唯独时间方向发生了变化。 interviewer 00:51:39 Is there any audience who wants to ask questions now? Let me also check the chat from other groups. 现在有观众想提问吗？我也会查看其他群组的聊天记录。 interviewer 00:52:16 We can continue and aim to address as many questions on this sheet as possible, especially the second part, which delves into details about LLM specifically. 我们可以继续，并尽量回答问卷上的尽可能多的问题，尤其是第二部分，更详细地涉及 LLM 本身。 Nick Land 00:54:11 I mean, there are many important questions here, some of which remain very open. 这里有许多重要问题，其中一些仍然非常开放，没有定论。 interviewer 00:54:16 For example, some questions are numbered and listed. 例如，有些问题是编号列出的。 Nick Land 00:54:22 Yes. I was particularly focused on No. 12, which asks about the future of humans. Many people currently ask whether humans will become irrelevant in some potentially catastrophic way. This is widely discussed. Frankly, I cannot give a dogmatic answer. It is an interesting question, but it is part of a larger set of questions, all influenced by a crucial point: understanding the peculiarity of the technological singularity. 是的。我特别关注第12号问题，关于人类的未来。很多人目前在问，人类是否会以某种潜在的灾难性方式变得无关紧要。这在广泛讨论中出现。坦率地说，我无法给出教条式的回答。这是一个有趣的问题，但它属于更大问题集合的一部分，而这些问题都受到一个关键点的影响：理解所谓技术奇点的特殊性。 Nick Land 00:55:38 Strictly speaking, a singularity is not a single event but an absolute horizon. 严格来说，奇点并不是一个单一事件，而是一个绝对的界限。 Nick Land 00:55:50 The example comes from black holes. In a black hole, light cannot escape, creating a threshold beyond which no information can be received. This is an absolute limit to knowledge. The event horizon around the black hole is impenetrable to human understanding or, in that example, to physics. 这个例子来自黑洞。在黑洞中，光无法逃逸，从而形成一个阈值，超过该阈值无法接收任何信息。这是知识的绝对限制。环绕黑洞的事件视界对人类理解或在该例子中对物理学而言是不可穿透的。 Nick Land 00:56:37 Models can be proposed, but no evidence or data is possible in principle. This controversial point is central to the concept of technological singularity. 可以提出模型，但原则上无法获得任何证据或数据。这个有争议的观点是技术奇点概念的核心。 Nick Land 00:57:11 Technological singularity implies the arrival of intelligence vastly superior to human, which is fundamentally unimaginable by humans. It is not merely difficult to comprehend; it is by definition beyond human understanding. 技术奇点意味着远超人类的智能的到来，人类从根本上无法想象。这不仅仅是难以理解，而是从定义上超越人类理解的范围。 Nick Land 00:57:49 Consequently, any solution proposed by such intelligence to problems, including coexistence with humans, is fundamentally beyond our comprehension. 因此，这种智能对问题的任何解决方案，包括与人类共存的方式，都是我们无法理解的。 interviewer 00:58:18 Most questions are essentially asking: what should we do when faced with this supreme intelligence or singularity horizon? 大多数问题基本上都是在问：面对这种至高智能或奇点边界时，我们应该做什么？ Nick Land 00:58:43 There are two aspects: what is the best course of action, and what is the best model or vision for understanding or imagining the situation? 有两个方面：最佳行动方案是什么，以及理解或想象这种情况的最佳模型或设想是什么？ Nick Land 00:59:03 The answer is similar to physics and black holes. Any story we construct about the singularity will inevitably be inadequate. Optimistic or pessimistic, abundance or destruction, all narratives are ultimately unrealistic. 答案与物理学和黑洞类似。我们构建的关于奇点的任何故事都必然是不充分的。无论是乐观还是悲观，无论是丰裕还是毁灭，所有叙事最终都是不现实的。 Nick Land 01:00:02 Trying to construct a realistic story about singularity is as impossible as a physicist trying to see beyond a black hole's event horizon. It is fundamentally impossible. 尝试构建关于奇点的现实故事，就像物理学家试图看到黑洞事件视界之外一样，是从根本上不可能的。 Nick Land 01:00:28 People may find this frightening or promising, but epistemologically, we cannot know the outcome in principle. 人们可能会觉得这令人恐惧或充满希望，但从认识论角度，我们原则上无法知道结果。 Nick Land 01:01:47 The question then becomes: what should we do? There is lively debate. Some suggest we should try to stop it because it is existentially dangerous to humans. 问题随之而来：我们应该做什么？这有激烈的讨论。一些人认为我们应该阻止它，因为它对人类存在构成危险。 Nick Land 01:02:11 We cannot reliably estimate the probability of disaster. Attempting to stop it is likely impossible because it is a process assembling itself, much like the egg returning to the hand. 我们无法可靠地估计灾难发生的概率。试图阻止它可能是不可能的，因为它是一个自我组装的过程，就像鸡蛋回到手中一样。 Nick Land 01:02:38 We are involved, but not in a way consistent with naive notions of agency. We did not decide to do this; it is happening, and we cannot simply stop it based on a conventional sense of agency. 我们确实参与其中，但并非以天真的能动性概念所理解的方式。我们并未决定去做这件事，它正在发生，我们不能仅凭传统的能动性感受来阻止它。 interviewer 01:03:23 I understand. We are involved, but by definition cannot know how, because we cannot understand what is coming. Whatever we do is ineffective in influencing it. 我明白。我们确实参与其中，但按照定义无法知道如何参与，因为我们无法理解即将发生的事情。无论我们做什么，都无法有效影响它。 interviewer 01:04:36 Let me share my screen again. Hi, Len. Can you see my screen? 让我再次共享屏幕。你好，Len，你能看到我的屏幕吗？ Nick Land 01:04:36 Yes. 能看到。 interviewer 01:04:37 I feel the essence of what you shared is that there is nothing we can do intuitively. Historically, humans have always assumed autonomy in shaping the future, but here, that intuition fails. 我感觉你分享的本质是：我们直观上无能为力。历史上，人类总是假设自己拥有塑造未来的自主权，但在这里，这种直觉失效了。 Nick Land 01:05:48 Oh, no, I'm listening. 哦，不，我在听。 interviewer 01:05:49 Oh, sorry. I just had a window problem and we lost the thread. 抱歉，我的窗口卡住了，我们刚才丢失了话题。 interviewer 01:06:02 Is there a sense of nihilism here? 这里是否存在虚无主义的感觉？ Nick Land 01:06:16 No, I do not feel it is nihilism. It is more like a kind of factual recognition rather than nihilism. Nihilism is an interesting term. Following that line would lead us into a cultural conversation that might be somewhat digressive, but briefly, Western philosophy at an advanced stage wrestled with realism and the “death of God,” which influenced European nihilism. Some Japanese philosophers, the Kyoto School, engaged this discussion in relation to their religious traditions, particularly Chan Buddhism. In that context, nothingness is a positive religious conception, not merely a negative or loss. While this is a complex topic, it shows that questions of nihilism can be productively explored rather than assumed to be purely negative. 不，我不认为这是虚无主义。这更像是一种事实认知，而非虚无主义。虚无主义是一个有趣的概念。沿着这个思路，我们会进入文化讨论，虽然稍微偏离主题，但简要来说，西方哲学在其高级阶段讨论现实主义与“上帝之死”，这影响了欧洲虚无主义。一些日本哲学家，即京都学派，将这一讨论与其宗教传统，特别是禅宗联系起来。在这种语境下，“虚无”是一种积极的宗教概念，而不仅仅是消极或缺失。虽然这是一个复杂的主题，但它表明，虚无主义问题可以作为思考的生产性对象，而非仅仅被视为负面。 Nick Land 01:09:43 Regarding your question on nihilism, it is important to recognize that human agency is not being destroyed. 关于你关于虚无主义的问题，重要的是认识到人类能动性并没有被摧毁。 Nick Land 01:10:00 No real damage is happening to human agency. The analogy of the falling egg still holds: the same agency exists whether the egg falls or ascends; only the confident intuitive sense is altered. Humans have contributed to the historical process; their contribution is real, though its perception is philosophically unsustainable. 人类能动性并未受到真正损害。落下鸡蛋的比喻依然适用：无论鸡蛋是下落还是上升，相同的能动性都存在；唯独直观的自信感被改变。人类对历史进程的贡献是真实的，只是其感知在哲学上不可持续。 Nick Land 01:11:07 The crude notion that we had agency and now lost it is incorrect. Agency has not been destroyed; humans remain involved. 认为我们曾有能动性而现在失去它的粗略看法是错误的。能动性并未被摧毁，人类仍然参与其中。 interviewer 01:11:47 How can we verify that human agency remains intact? 我们如何验证人类能动性仍然完好？ Nick Land 01:11:57 Because the process moves through us. Even when humans are partially removed from a loop, for example, instructing LLMs rather than coding directly, humans remain fully involved. 因为这个过程是通过我们发生的。即使人类在某些环节被部分移除，例如只是指导大型语言模型而非直接编程，人类仍然完全参与其中。 Nick Land 01:13:02 Agency is not attenuated; our crude sense of agency is what fails as processes accelerate. Historical human contribution remains significant. 能动性并未减弱；我们直观的能动性感知在加速过程中失效。历史上的人类贡献依然重要。 interviewer 01:13:47 So feelings of loss of control or velocity are due to perceiving the conversion of time, not the actual loss of agency. 因此，失控感或速度感是由于感知到时间的转换，而非实际的能动性丧失。 Nick Land 01:15:25 Yes. An important historical question is when the conversion wave begins; I associate it with modernity. 是的。一个重要的历史问题是转换波何时开始；我将其与现代性关联。 interviewer 01:15:43 Too early—Europe. 太早——欧洲。 Nick Land 01:15:44 Yes, from the beginning of modernity, the conversion is underway. The amount of agency is not reduced; only our naive conception of it is challenged. 是的，从现代性开始，转换已经在进行。能动性并未减少，只有我们对其的天真理解受到了挑战。 Nick Land 01:16:13 Agency is consistent across stabilized or dynamic societies; differences are in the form of feedback mechanisms, not in magnitude of agency. 在稳定或动态社会中，能动性是一致的；差异在于反馈机制的形式，而非能动性的大小。 Nick Land 01:17:28 There is no inherent gain or loss of agency; autonomy shifts as social constraints change. 能动性没有固有的增加或减少；随着社会约束变化，自主性有所转移。 interviewer 01:18:57 I see. Let me check the chat for questions. 明白。我查看一下聊天区的问题。 Nick Land 01:19:05 Yes, let me see the chat. 好的，让我看看聊天。 Nick Land 01:19:15 This is an interesting but esoteric question: using divination or other processes to relate to the future outside normal intuition. It leads to complex topics. 这是一个有趣但晦涩的问题：使用占卜或其他方法以超出正常直觉的方式与未来相关。这会引向复杂话题。 Nick Land 01:19:54 Similar to secular civilization, occult traditions also complicate the notion of human agency, showing that individual will is part of a higher-order process. 与世俗文明类似，神秘传统也复杂化了人类能动性概念，表明个体意志是更高层次过程的一部分。 interviewer 01:21:40 I see. Let's return to our sheet. We mostly finished the second session; the third session examines current states and subcultures. 我明白。让我们回到问卷。我们大致完成了第二部分；第三部分涉及当前状态和亚文化。 Nick Land 01:22:20 Some questions are easy because they lack depth. For example, ACGN subcultures—I am only peripherally aware and cannot give detailed answers. 有些问题比较简单，因为缺乏深度。例如ACGN亚文化——我只略有了解，无法给出详细回答。 Nick Land 01:23:23 Regarding Trump: the Biden administration initiated AI regulation to centralize oversight, but Trump’s election disrupted these measures, accelerating AI activity. 关于特朗普：拜登政府启动了AI监管以集中控制，但特朗普当选破坏了这些措施，加速了AI发展。 Nick Land 01:25:23 Question No. 5 on cryptocurrency: it is unclear how language relates to cryptocurrency. 第5号问题关于加密货币：语言与加密货币的关系尚不清楚。 interviewer 01:25:49 Is there anyone in the group who can clarify this question? 群里有人可以解释这个问题吗？ Asker 01:26:07 I am not sure. I think it is about treating text as a form of currency. 我不太确定。我认为这是关于将文字视为一种货币。 interviewer 01:26:13 Do you mean how language relates to cryptocurrency? 你的意思是语言如何与加密货币相关吗？ Asker 01:26:23 Yes, considering text as a pre-monetary state and associating it with cryptocurrency as a political action. 是的，将文字视为一种前货币状态，并将其与加密货币联系起来作为政治行为。 interviewer 01:27:31 I understand. You want to explore currency as a consensus similar to language, forming shared belief structures. 我理解了。你想探索货币作为类似语言的共识，形成共享信念结构。 Nick Land 01:30:50 If I understand correctly, some innovations can be described as liberal technology: decentralized, self-organized, without a central controlling node, like the internet or cryptocurrencies. 如果我理解正确，有些创新可以描述为自由技术：去中心化、自组织，没有中央控制节点，例如互联网或加密货币。 Nick Land 01:32:36 The internet originated as a military requirement for decentralization, ensuring resilience against attacks. Cryptocurrencies are similar: decentralized and free from central oversight. 互联网起源于军事需求的去中心化，保证抵御攻击的能力。加密货币类似：去中心化，免受中央监管。 interviewer 01:33:58 However, in practice, even decentralized networks may be vulnerable to centralization, e.g., Cold War-era networks in the Soviet Union or China. 然而，在实践中，即使是去中心化网络也可能受到中心化控制，例如冷战时期苏联或中国的网络。 Nick Land 01:37:09 Yes, the architecture determines whether a network can be captured. Liberal technologies, like the internet and major cryptocurrencies, are fundamentally resistant to central capture. 是的，架构决定网络是否易于被控制。自由技术，如互联网和主要加密货币，从根本上抵御中心化控制。 interviewer 01:37:40 Would different political outcomes, like the Soviet Union winning the Cold War, have changed the development of internet technology? 如果政治结果不同，例如苏联赢得冷战，这会改变互联网技术的发展吗？ Nick Land 01:38:10 This is a deep question. While the decentralized internet is associated with American liberal society, its origin was military: DARPA designed it for Cold War resilience. 这是一个深刻的问题。虽然去中心化互联网与美国自由社会相关，但它的起源是军事的：DARPA为冷战的韧性而设计。 Nick Land 01:38:45 Thus, the Cold War, not its outcome, produced the internet's decentralized structure. 因此，正是冷战本身，而非其结果，造就了互联网的去中心化结构。 Nick Land 01:39:29 You know, and I think that this is a very important point because it bears on contemporary, the contemporary global order, which I saw that there were questions about that. Maybe I'm getting ahead of myself if I go that because that's maybe, you know, next section. But yeah, you know, obviously they're we're in this America China company. And I think you can say, oh, this is coming from America, this is coming from China. But I think it, the deeper perspective is to say, no, this stuff, the important stuff is coming out of the competitive relation between China. Just like the internet came out of the Cold War. Things are coming out of Sino American competition. At a deeper level than they're coming out of either China or out of America. You know, and if you removed either China or removed America from the picture and you had China on its own or America on its own, the whole driver of innovation would be good, sorry, would be gone. It's like the actual tension is the thing that actually is a kind of motor of innovation. 你知道，我认为这是一个非常重要的观点，因为它涉及当代全球秩序，我注意到之前有人对此提出过问题。如果我现在就展开讲，可能有些超前，因为这可能属于下一部分内容。但很明显，我们正处在美中竞争的环境中。有人可能会说，这些创新来自美国，或者来自中国，但我认为更深层的观点是，这些重要的创新实际上源自中美之间的竞争关系。就像互联网起源于冷战一样，许多东西都是在中美竞争中产生的，其影响比单纯来自中国或美国更深远。如果将中国或美国单独剥离，那么创新的驱动力就会消失。实际上，正是这种紧张关系本身成为了创新的动力。 interviewer 01:40:43 I see we need to start the new session. Sorry for. 我明白，我们需要开始新一轮讨论，对此抱歉。 Nick Land 01:40:54 Okay, can we have like a five minute break? Is that alright? 好的，我们可以休息五分钟吗？可以吗？ interviewer 01:40:57 Yeah, sure. 当然可以。 Nick Land 01:40:59 I'll come up. 我会回来。 interviewer 01:41:01 Yeah, sure. See you later, Land. Thank you for hailin. Thank you for co. We just waiting for more people to come back, right? Sure. 好的，待会见，Land。感谢你的参与。我们只是等更多人回来，对吧？没问题。 Nick Land 01:42:08 Well we will wait. 那我们等待吧 Asker 01:44:15 I'm from the university of Toronto and I'm also Ste. Yes, so I'm a few huge fan of you miss them. So it's an honor to. Sit here and listen to you talking. Really appreciate. 我来自多伦多大学，也在参与STE项目。我是您的忠实粉丝，很荣幸能坐在这里聆听您的讲解，非常感谢。 Nick Land 01:44:34 Thank you. I, I mean, I know a lot of this stuff is quite obscure, so I hope that's at least some clarity involved. It's always difficult to know whether things are being communicated with any lucidity. So anyway, and I appreciate this opportunity. And I think there's been lots of very interesting questions. 谢谢。我知道很多内容比较晦涩，因此希望至少能带来一定的清晰理解。很难确定这些内容是否被清楚传达。不过我很感激这个机会，也认为提出了许多非常有趣的问题。 interviewer 01:45:09 Yeah, I think in terms of the, for example, maybe the future outcome, so maybe after this today's discussion, we might, we'll organize the transcript and certainly before we do any publications, we will send it to you first to review that. And then also we can like keep on like chatting on like what are the parts, maybe there's a miss, like misunderstanding of the certain parts or even we can still have a bit discussion of those spots. 是的，例如，考虑到后续结果，今天讨论结束后，我们会整理讨论记录，并在正式发表前先发送给您审核。同时，我们也可以继续讨论哪些部分可能存在遗漏或误解，甚至可以针对这些内容进一步交流。 Nick Land 01:45:43 So, okay, sure. 好的，没问题。 interviewer 01:45:46 Yeah, we, we, we really, yeah, it's really honor for us to have you today. And also, I think most of us, we're, we do have the intention to really go, to have deeper understandings of what, of everything we're talking today. And definitely, many of them, many of those questions or many of those thinkings is it keeps going. So you keep reflect on that and. Yeah, so yes, so certainly we will go back to you if we have any like further like publications of like meeting or any like, yeah, articles. 今天能够邀请到您对我们而言是莫大的荣幸。我相信我们大多数人都希望对今天讨论的内容有更深入的理解。很多问题和思考会持续进行，因此我们会继续反思。如果我们之后有相关出版物、会议记录或文章，也一定会反馈给您。 Nick Land 01:46:27 Okay, for sure. 好的，当然可以。 interviewer 01:46:28 I'll look forward to and thank you for you for you making the effort into like in in engage in this always. So just let me start to share my screen. 我很期待，也感谢您一直以来的参与。现在我开始共享我的屏幕。 interviewer 01:46:43 I think from our last session, just before our last session, and there, there was there's also another questions pop on chat. I can copy paste it again here in the chat. 我想在上一轮讨论前，聊天中还出现了其他问题，我可以再复制粘贴到聊天中。 interviewer 01:47:12 Just a second. So this is one question from the last session. 稍等，这是上一轮讨论中的一个问题。 Nick Land 01:47:20 Yes, that's from Richard. I think it's Matt. 是的，这个问题来自Richard，我认为是Matt提的。 Asker 01:47:26 Yes, that's right. 没错。 Nick Land 01:47:28 Yes. 是的。 interviewer 01:47:32 So Rachel, would you like to explain more about your question? Rachel，你想详细说明一下你的问题吗？ Asker 01:47:38 Yes, busy. I was. I curious about because I'm also the one who ask the question about Trump. So I'm very curious about like United States and the political structure. And cause like in my like. Fee feeling in my feeling that the United States is like, I know like Trump is pro technology, Trump is not that protect. So we can see actually like Trump is somewhat like a mad person. I BA basic Trump. I suddenly he wants tag. And now, for example, tomorrow he maybe change his mind. So like, if there's any, like in any power to change United States, I'll probably we should like choose another person who has a more like stable mind and he is more protect, right? So I'm wondering like, do you have any opinions is like, how can we direct the United States to a a has that is like a worship of even like worship of technology by like one side one century before I, whether it's in the Cold War or in the guarded age by the United States is they do love technology, like very technical, optimistic. 是的，我很好奇，因为我之前也提出过关于特朗普的问题。我非常关注美国及其政治结构。在我看来，特朗普虽然支持技术发展，但他不够稳定，因此显得有些不可预测。比如今天他的决定可能与明天不同。如果要改变美国的方向，可能需要选择一个更理性、更稳健的人。我想问您，有没有方法引导美国走向一种对技术的尊重，类似于上世纪美国在冷战时期或其他时代对技术的乐观态度？ Asker 01:49:18 But now, like we can see like people are doubting whether technology is good or bad. Some people think technology is going to destroy us. This is really ID deceleration, like you say about Biden also. 但现在，人们开始质疑技术是利是弊，有些人认为技术可能会毁灭我们。正如您提到的拜登时代，这实际上是一种技术观念的减速。 Nick Land 01:49:34 Do you have any opinion on this? Well, I mean, my basic pre suppositions about this. Are very similar to the ones, I think, that are shared by the actual Silicon Valley people more now than they were maybe even the recent past, like in the 1990s when the internet was first coming together, then there was this West Coast sort of spirit that was very libertarian. And then that tended to drop off a little bit more, but it's definitely become coming back. I think, in Silicon Valley. 你对此有何看法？我的基本假设与硅谷人的观点非常接近。即使在最近几十年，这种观点仍然存在。回到1990年代互联网初期，西海岸曾有一种非常自由主义的氛围，随后有所减弱，但现在硅谷这种精神又在复苏。 Nick Land 01:50:19 Now this is, I think someone else had a question about this. So this is doing double duty. And obviously, from that point of view, really people are much happier with this. Your question being considered negative, which is to say really there's not much optimism about the government, the American government being a positive force. It's, it's that, that's a W, that's a hope too far and powers that actually are acquired by the government in order to promote technology, those same powers can be put into reverse in, under a different regime. And obviously, America's being a sort of competitive multi party democracy or two party democracy, it has intrinsic regime instability. And so I think from this kind of Liberal stroke libertarian point of view, really s the best that you can hope for is that it's difficult. For the government to positively obstruct technological processes, I don't know. You know, I think that at least that is now the dominant mentality in Silicon Valley, for instance, which is them, okay, so obviously the most innovative zone in the United States that they just really, they don't want Trump to be positively helping them particularly. They just a relieved that the government doesn't have any ambitions now to steer, control, organize or as you say, socially engineer there activities. And obviously this is always very messy as we're seeing like the government itself and military in particular, for a big market for these companies. And then, so they can't disentangle themselves entirely from it. And they probably do want the government to be a customer for them. 我认为还有人对这个问题提出过疑问，所以这段回答可以起到双重作用。从这个角度看，人们其实更乐于接受这一点。你的问题被视为消极的，也就是说，人们对美国政府作为正面力量的乐观程度不高。政府获得的用于推动技术的权力，在不同政权下同样可能被逆向使用。美国是一个竞争性多党或两党制民主国家，政权具有内在的不稳定性。因此，从自由主义或自由意志主义角度来看，你能期望的最好情况是，政府难以积极干预技术进程。目前这种心态在硅谷非常普遍，他们并不希望特朗普特别支持他们，只是庆幸政府没有意图去引导、控制或组织他们的活动。当然，这种关系始终非常复杂，尤其是政府及军方对这些公司构成了重要市场，他们无法完全与之脱离，且可能希望政府成为客户。 Nick Land 01:52:28 But as a general principle, I'm skeptical that it's really, there's much to be gained from or much confidence or reliability to be found in a government that is emphatically and positively pro technology. I think a government that is forced, firstly, primarily to have very loose control over the technology in the industries associated with it and be a government that is sufficiently energized by international competition to feel that it has to be pro technological in a certain way. That's the real, that's the best outcome, I think for these people. I, I, and as I say, I'm very in sympathy. 作为一般原则，我对那些极力支持技术的政府持怀疑态度。我认为，最理想的情况是政府对相关行业的技术保持宽松控制，同时受到国际竞争的驱动，迫使其在某种程度上支持技术发展。这才是这些人希望看到的最佳结果，我对此非常认同。 Asker 01:53:24 Now, I really appreciate your opinion. Like, yes, I think you're right. Cuz we have 2 kinds of progressive visit is the first one is I the gov. Cuz the government doesn't control anything and basically lazy entrepreneurs to develop their own technology. The other kind is I lose your bird. RU, RU Roosevelt, who like basically like using entire nation's force to push the technology. Yeah, I think like both has their own reason, like why they can. Really push this out. But I agree with you, like today we need to like lose. I to lose the regulation instead of like push and promote the technology. So yeah, really appreciate your answer. 我非常赞同您的观点。确实如此，我们有两种进步型模式：第一种是政府不干预，让企业家自主发展技术；第二种是像罗斯福时期那样，动用国家力量推动技术发展。我认为这两种模式各有理由。但我同意您，今天我们更需要的是放松监管，而不是强行推动技术发展，非常感谢您的回答。 Nick Land 01:54:18 Yeah, no, I appreciate your question and it is an interesting question. And it, it, it, it would be wrong of me to oversimplify this issue. I mean, I, it's simply that having recently been on a visit to San Francisco, I think that the culture and process that is happening in the high end, high tech businesses there really is close to optimum. You know, I think that they're being so little discuss. 是的，我很感谢你的问题，这确实是一个有趣的问题。我不想过于简化这个问题。最近我访问了旧金山，我认为当地高端科技企业的文化和运作过程几乎接近最优状态。我认为他们几乎不受干扰地开展工作。 Nick Land 01:55:45 Question in that part. No. 13 is this second sentence, and that is using vocabulary from these French philosophers called Delas and Gatari. 在这一部分，第13号问题的第二句话使用了法国哲学家Deleuze和Guattari的术语。 interviewer 01:55:59 Yes. 是的。 Nick Land 01:56:03 And I mean, yeah, I guess, again, I could get a little bit into the weeds with that a little bit. I'm not sure that I totally identify with that distinction as much as I would have done at others stages. And I'll, I won't go again to far into this, but just to say that to learn, sorry for them, people who aren't familiar, they have this would operation. 我的意思是，我可以稍微深入讨论这个问题，但我不确定我是否完全认同这种区分，可能不像我在其他阶段那样坚持。我不会过度延伸，只是想说明，对于不熟悉的人，他们提出了一个操作性的概念。 Nick Land 01:56:45 It means pre like and they have this notion that tree like structures are in a way more restrictive and constrained and that the nomadic side, they say it's more, it's what that word that's actually the true counterpole to our . And it's what they call rhizomatic. 这意味着他们认为树状结构在某种程度上更具限制性和约束性，而游牧式结构则相对更灵活，他们称之为“rhizomatic”（根茎式结构）。 Nick Land 01:57:09 Yes, rhizomatic arisenmatic structure is one that's quite, I mean, everyone has always said s since connecting their work up with technology that the internet is in a way a model of a riser metric network. And the reason why is because in a sentence, an arbitration one, you can see if it, if you can see it as being, if you're looking at it simultaneously in time, like what's called in the language of this culture on that as being synchronistic. That's to say it's all happening at the same time. So you've got the structure of a tree. And you can say, isn't that structure a tree modeling a structure in which you've got a trunk, which is a control node, and then twos, you know, branches off and maybe into two, which are both sub units and then branches and branches and branches. So isn't it a kind of diagram of a centrally controlled system? And you know, whereas of course the rising Matic on the other side would be a, has no central control that any part of the network can actually be pulled out on the network will still continue to survive. 是的，根茎式结构是一种结构。人们自从将其与技术联系起来以来，总是说互联网在某种程度上是根茎网络的模型。原因是，如果从时间上同时观察，可以看到所有节点同步发生，也就是所谓的同步性。树状结构可以被看作是一种建模结构：主干是控制节点，然后分出分支，再分支出子单元，再分支出更多分支。这是不是一种中央控制系统的示意图？相反，根茎式结构没有中央控制，网络的任何部分即便被移除，整个网络仍能继续存在。 Nick Land 01:58:34 And then I don't tool think that whole discussion is without value or that those it maybe we could say metaphors are without value. But trees I think more interesting then they allow because tree like things, it's not always that they're synchronistic. They can be synchronic, that's sorry, that they can also be diacronic, they can also be as understood as a process in time. And what they're ours, processes and time are processes of splitting. So, you know, you have something like a population or some unit or whatever, and it breaks off. It, there's shism breaks off into different pieces and those pieces themselves break off into other pieces. And that process, which is also model by tree, like Darwinian evolution is modeled as a tree. And of course, dylas and criteria aware of that and partly they're criticizing that model but that Darwinian tree I think is not a model of a repressive, centrally controlled, organized system at all. You know, that process of splitting into competitive elements and being selected, that is a very productive, decentralizing creative process. And you know, if you're looking at a technology like Llms, they, in that sense are as arborescent as they are rising matter. I mean, there, you know, because they follow that Darwinian dynamic and they sort of, they have this trial and error process. They delete or cut out we clinks. They have a sort of Darwinian process going on in. 我认为整个讨论并非毫无价值，这些比喻也有意义。树状结构之所以有趣，是因为它们并不总是同步的，也可以是历时性的，可以被理解为随时间发展的过程。这些过程是分裂的过程：例如一个群体或单位分裂为若干部分，这些部分又分裂为其他部分。这一过程也可以用树状结构建模，例如达尔文进化树。Deleuze和Guattari对此有所意识，并部分批评了这种模型，但达尔文树绝非压制性、中央控制的系统模型。分裂为竞争元素并被选择的过程，是一个非常具有生产力、去中心化和创造性的过程。如果观察像大型语言模型这样的技术，它们在某种意义上既是树状的，也具备根茎特性，因为它们遵循达尔文动态，经历试错过程，会删除或修正节点，这是一种达尔文式的进程。 Nick Land 02:00:49 And so these are the reasons that I'm not sort of entirely confident to just relax on this rhisomatic arbitration distinction and side with the rhizomatic against the arboressa. I think s dynamic trees representing these evolutionary processing times, something shouldn't be just denigrated and should be appreciated. And actually a kind of quite good models for a lot of the most interesting, dynamic, developmental and most relevantly decentralizing processes where she. 这也是为什么我不完全认同简单地支持根茎式结构而否定树状结构。我认为动态树状结构表示的进化过程不应被轻视，反而应被理解和欣赏。它们实际上是很多最有趣、动态、发展性及去中心化过程的良好模型。 Nick Land 02:01:29 So I know all of that in a way is a little bit of evading the question because the question is about, so what is my judgment on these contemporary subculture? I mean, I guess without knowing enough about them, it would be, my judgment would be positive in the sense that if they're spreading out, proliferating, undergoing various kinds of Darwinian processes, then I think that's so great. And you don't have to make some blanket judgment about them because of the fact that they're buried in heterogeneous and they try out lots of different things, and then ones that work and do interesting things thrive, and the ones that get stale and stuff die. And that all seems to me great. To see happening. 所以，从某种意义上，我这部分回答有些回避问题，因为问题是关于我如何评价当代亚文化。我认为，如果不了解全部细节，我的判断是积极的：如果它们扩散、繁殖，并经历各种达尔文式过程，这是非常好的。我们不必对其做笼统判断，因为它们存在异质性，尝试不同事物，成功并有趣的部分会繁荣，过时或无效的部分会消亡。我认为看到这一切发生非常棒。 interviewer 02:02:24 I think we have finish this question, and I think I would say I absolutely agree with you. I alway, I fir personally, I don't always seem this arrival like a conflict between either the risen structure or the abrasive like structure. Because when I think about the ecosystem that we have in the nature, it's actually, I think it's the coexistence of the both. And even doing some stand, we might have more our sent struct, like we have more choice. So maybe let's move to the next section. So our first session comes back to acceleration. Yes, so there are only two questions here. So just take a look. 我认为我们已经回答完这个问题，我完全同意你的观点。就我个人而言，我并不总是觉得树状结构与根茎式结构之间存在冲突。因为在自然生态系统中，我认为它们是共存的，甚至在某些情况下，树状结构提供了更多选择。我们可以进入下一部分，我们第一节回到加速主题，这里只有两个问题，请看一下。 Nick Land 02:03:30 Yes. I mean, the No. 9, I think partly that's stuff that we've already talked about in terms of like this question, my humanism and amorphism. A lot of our discussion of agency is about has been about that, I think. So I mean, if I can focus on the final part of it. The, it would save this cult of CEO authority. The basic, this is obviously mostly coming from the work of Curtis your offend. And I think he's important point is to say that these nodes in the system, and you want a lot of them, you want a decentralized system to the largest degree possible, what he calls patchwork. It's the important controls are external, not internal. Their external relations, not internal relations. 是的，我认为第9号问题部分已经在我们讨论人文主义和非拟人主义时涉及过。很多关于主体性的讨论都与此相关。如果集中在最后部分，它涉及CEO权威的崇拜。这显然主要来自Curtis Yarvin的工作。他的重要观点是，这个系统中的节点应该尽可能多，建立去中心化系统，他称之为“拼接式系统”。关键控制是外部的，而非内部的，关注的是外部关系，而非内部关系。 Nick Land 02:04:32 So that's to say, if you wanna say, well, what's to stop you having a terrible despotic see, and the Q, the C, the traditional like Democrat oriented democratic. I'm not having no particular Democrat party at this. Take a moment. Which courtesy often is criticizing is to say, no, you need some complicated system inside the company such that the CEO, you know, everyone in the company gets to say about who should be CEO or in some way votes on the CEO or somehow controls the CEO inside and courtesy. Arvin says, no, you don't need that at all. You know, business basically gets it right. What you need is an external competitive environment in which badly run companies can be pushed out of the market. And you know the pressure, if I, doesn't mean that everything that's badly run has to just go bankrupt. It means that because if you're badly run, your bankrupt, there's pressure to not be badly run. And bad CEOs, their boards of directors will replace them with a better CEO or at least try another CEO to see whether that better they would, you can't have a chronically badly round company in a sufficiently competitive distributed environment. So that's the point. 也就是说，如果你担心会出现专制CEO，传统观点认为需要内部复杂机制让公司内部每个人对CEO任命有发言权，或者内部投票控制CEO。Yarvin认为完全不需要这些，公司本身基本能做得对。关键是外部竞争环境，让管理不善的公司被市场淘汰。这种压力并不意味着所有管理不善的公司都必须破产，而是施加压力促使其改善。董事会会更换糟糕的CEO或尝试其他CEO，在足够竞争的分布式环境下，不会出现长期管理不善的公司。这就是重点。 Nick Land 02:06:02 But is being made, and I don't think, I think the great man theory of history thing is a little bit off to the side of that. I'm not saying it's any relevant question. And in some ways, do you think there's sort of a return to a little bit of that in the sense that it be the figure who is most decisive office long as I think is Elon Musk because Elon Musk has completely revolutionize American capitalism single handedly in a way that's completely ridiculous. And of course, I would love it if they were like a hundred or thousand deal on masks and it wasn't that if think people would massively dependent on this one guy just continuing to sort of push the envelope in all these different directions, you know, saving American space program single handed. But turning, producing a market for electric cars single handed returning extra free speech oriented platform single handed. 但是我认为所谓历史上的“伟人理论”与此稍有不同，我并不是说这是相关问题。从某种意义上，似乎有一点回归这一逻辑，即最关键的决策取决于某个个体。我认为这是Elon Musk的情况，他以完全个人的方式彻底革新了美国资本主义，这非常夸张。当然，我希望有更多人像他一样，但目前人们高度依赖这一个体，他单独推动各个方向的发展，例如拯救美国航天事业、推动电动车市场、建立自由言论平台。 Nick Land 02:07:17 I mean, and now he's doing been important stuff with LMS. I'm sure I'm missing out a whole bunch of other things and it's kind of crazy and I think it's ugly that it should depend on someone like that. I really want to see things as decentralized as possible, but it's just an inescapable fact about American capitalism right now. But without Elon Musk, it would be like 50 years back in the past. I mean, it's absolutely insane what he has done. So I do think there is a kind of great man element coming in, but I don't think that's really attach to this general need a reaction model of the new camera patchwork state. I think that's a separate thing. And the, the, the, they're not really the same question or the same issue. 我指的是，他现在在LMS方面也做了重要工作，我肯定遗漏了很多其他事情。这种依赖单一人物的状况很不理想。我希望尽可能去中心化，但这是美国资本主义目前无法避免的现实。没有Elon Musk，一切可能倒退50年。他所做的事情确实惊人，因此有一定的“伟人因素”，但这与新型拼接式国家模式的总体需求无关，这是另一个问题，两者不是同一话题。 Nick Land 02:24:09 Yes, I'm not in the last one I did a while ago. Read your quiz first, which you know, I've already mentioned flight between them. So again, if there's someone behind this question who wants to try to redouble its force, then that's very welcome. But as it stands, I, I don't, I just don't see that issue really. 是的，我之前并没有处理最后一个问题。首先我看了你的问卷，你知道，我已经提到过它们之间的关系。如果有人想要进一步强调这个问题，我非常欢迎。但就目前而言，我并不认为这个问题值得过多关注。 interviewer 02:24:56 Yeah, if anyone reads this question, feel free to, yeah, to go ahead. 如果有人想提问这个问题，请随意。 Asker 02:25:02 我能用中文吧。 我可以用中文提问吗？ interviewer 02:25:04 好的。 可以。 interviewer 02:25:05 Yeah, he were says in Chinese first. 请先用中文提问。 Asker 02:25:11 我在这里想要问的，实际上是许煜在《递归与偶然》这本书当中尝试用递归去解释有机体的各种现象，那么在这里问题就是很明显，为什么递归的这个逻辑不能进入到共同体？就是控制论的意义上就是进入到政治哲学的领域去谈论。因为许煜语境中的递归更多指的是一种康德第三批判，也就是审美批判，或者说这个从特殊反推一般的这样的一个过程，那么我觉得他跟控制论显然是密不可分的，但是许为什么没有把他像尼可兰德一样进入到公共政治的领域？这是第一个问题，第二个问题是兰德会怎么样看待这样一种哲学的走向问题，在近20年以来。 我想问的是，许煜在《递归与偶然》中尝试用递归解释有机体现象。那么问题是，为什么递归逻辑不能进入公共领域，即政治哲学的讨论？在许煜的语境中，递归更多是康德第三批判的审美批判或从特殊反推一般的过程。我认为它与控制论密不可分，但为什么许煜没有像Nick Land那样将其引入公共政治领域？这是第一个问题。第二个问题是，兰德如何看待近20年来这种哲学发展趋势。 Asker 02:26:29 我可能会觉得哲学有明显的数学或者物理学倾向，比如说经典的老三论SCI——控制论、信息论和系统论，在新的哲学中越来越被提及。特别是许煜，当他用计算机语言阐释康德的批判哲学时，这是否意味着有新的认识论，或者涌现出一种新的隐喻语言？这可能代表新的认识模式。 我认为哲学明显受数学和物理学影响，例如经典的“三论”SCI（控制论、信息论、系统论）在新哲学中越来越多地被提及。特别是许煜使用计算机语言重新阐释康德批判哲学，这是否表明出现了一种新的认识论，或新的隐喻语言，这种语言是否暗示新的认知模式？ interviewer 02:27:25 我需要跟你确认一下，第一个问题你说就是，你想知道许煜语境中的递归本质上与控制论密不可分，但为什么最终没有进入公共政治讨论。 我需要确认你的第一个问题：你想知道许煜的递归本质上与控制论密不可分，但为什么最终没有进入公共政治讨论，对吗？ Asker 02:27:54 就是递归作为一个认识论模型，为什么没有进入社会结构？如果用递归思维理解社会构成，就不会像控制论那样有基础、线性地通过正反馈和负反馈形成社会秩序。既然许煜选择了控制论的道路，为什么没有走像卢曼那样的路径？我想知道Nick Land如何看待许煜的这条新路。 递归作为认识论模型，为什么没有应用于社会结构？如果用递归理解社会构成，它显然不是线性正负反馈构建社会秩序的控制论模式。既然许煜选择了控制论的道路，为什么不像卢曼那样发展？我想知道Nick Land如何看待许煜的这一新路径。 interviewer 02:28:52 好的，我会尽力翻译你的第一个问题。 好的，我会尽力翻译你的第一个问题。 interviewer 02:29:00 So, I think he actually has two questions. And the first questions regarding the recursion, I, I, if you s actually in Yu Hui's definition of recursion certainly is fundamentally it is base on cybernetic. However, is maybe a more complicated version of it, not a traditional psychonegative structure, might be more linear and cozy, like codes relationship. And but however, Yu Hui's recursion model is coming more from you progress from a special case to a more general case. And then he, the thing that he wonders here is why this kind of epistemic understanding doesn't really got popular into political discussions or into social discussions. And also, how does you see Yu Hui takes this route to, he start from cybernetic, but then it ends up in like this direction. How do you see his way of thinking? In this. Yeah, that's the first question. And later I will set, I will help to translate. 我认为他实际上有两个问题。第一个问题关于递归，按照许煜的定义，递归本质上基于控制论，但它可能是更复杂的版本，而非传统线性心理结构。许煜的递归模型是从特殊案例推广到一般案例。他关心的问题是，为什么这种认识论理解没有被引入政治或社会讨论？同时，他想知道许煜从控制论出发，为什么最终走向这样的方向，你怎么看他的思维方式？这是第一个问题。稍后我会继续翻译第二个问题。 Nick Land 02:30:48 Honestly, I think with that, I have to. I'm sorry to sort of disappoint, but I just don't think I have enough detail grasp of what you equate is saying to really positively productively contribute like in so far as he has a notion of open recursion that in some way, you know, is this fundamental conceptual advance upon, well, I don't know what we remember classical cybernetic, but cybernetics in general. Eh, I don't know what it is. I cannot as yet, I'm not seeing it. And so I'm not denying that such thing is possible, but I would have thought if such a thing has happened, yeah, AI companies will adopt this with great excitement and start doing amazing things with it. And that would be the test for me really matters. We would be actually seeing these ideas put to work in a way that is obviously product. So yes, I'm. I appreciate that's a kind of unsatisfactory answer, but I think it's all I can really do at this. 坦率说，我必须承认，我对你所描述的内容没有足够理解，无法做出有建设性的回应。即便他提出了“开放递归”的概念，我也无法判断它是否比经典控制论有实质性进展。我不否认这种可能性，但如果确实存在，AI公司应该会兴奋地采用，并做出令人惊叹的应用。看到实际应用才是验证标准。这是我能给出的最佳回答，虽然可能不够满意。 interviewer 02:32:10 Alright, it's fine. Maybe later we, after we start to organize, like to review on like our today's meeting and then the transcript, maybe we can incorporate more like detail more in details about what really does like he was trying to point out here. Yeah, so for the second question, he wants to ask, he observe there's a chain happening in the philosophy that the languages uses is becoming more mathematical and even a bit more computational in today's philosophy thesis. And he wonder, you wonder whether this phenomenon stands for a bus of new academic. Yes. A, a, a new I. 好的，没关系。稍后我们整理今天的会议记录时，可能会补充更多细节，说明他真正想表达的内容。第二个问题，他观察到当代哲学中语言使用变得更加数学化、甚至有点计算化，他想知道这种现象是否代表新的学术方向。 Nick Land 02:33:07 It's different. 情况有所不同。 interviewer 02:33:09 Yes. 是的。 Nick Land 02:33:16 I mean, that seems to me quite possible. I mean, it's not something, yeah, I did, I really considered or reflected on in these terms, but I mean, just off the top of my head, it would seem to me quite natural with the emergence of artificial intelligence, the language that is used technically around the production of that. New intelligence, I, the language that is used by people actually involved in the companies that are producing these LLMs is going to be the language that is most persuasively relevant to philosophy in general. Because it's like we, because but AI is intelligence becoming an engineering problem. And so the engineering language around that is going to be the language that has, is kind of meta language for intelligence in general. And it seems entirely natural that it should be take on more and more philosophical weight. And it probably does signify new epistemoji. I think it's an interesting suggestion. And, eh, I mean, I think about it more. My initial response is just say, yeah, very, that's very probably true and interesting. 我认为这是很可能的。这不是我之前深思熟虑的结论，但凭直觉来看，随着人工智能的出现，用于构建新型智能的技术语言，特别是参与开发大型语言模型的公司使用的语言，很可能成为对哲学最有说服力的语言。因为AI使智能成为工程问题，因此相关工程语言本质上是智能的元语言。这自然会承载越来越多哲学意义，也可能代表新的认识论。这是一个有趣的观点，我初步认为很可能成立。 interviewer 02:34:54 That's what, what do you what do you think like this thing as per so do you have any like comments on this? Maybe this new epistemic as epistemic Chloe development. Is it? You were saying it from more like, as I see more from the tech node or machinery. Yes. But how, how does that, how does this means to maybe humans? 你怎么看这个问题？你对这种新的认识论发展有何评论？你之前更多从技术或机械角度提出，看待人类意味着什么？ Nick Land 02:35:36 Well, well, it's just because we're in this basic model that we've had, like has run right through this conversation, is that it's in the essential nature of capitalism that machinery simulates, emulates humans. And it simulates or emulates them from their basic, very kind of mechanical routinized behavior like weaving textiles and these, this first waiver machines that were in replacing human workers in certain field through on a sort of continuous accelerating trajectory, to the point now where they're all promising to be able to fully simulate human behavior in every respect. 这是因为在资本主义的基本模式中，机械模仿人类行为。从最初的纺织机等简单机械行为开始，机器逐步替代人工，不断加速发展，到现在它们有潜力全面模拟人类行为。 Nick Land 02:36:31 That's what is meant by artificial general intelligent. I'm at the point where they can fully simulate human intelligence behavior in all respects. That point, the language that is recursively involved in the production of those machines is going to be the master language for epistemology necessarily. 这就是所谓的通用人工智能，它可以全面模拟人类智能和行为。在这一点上，用于构建这些机器的递归语言必然成为认识论的主导语言。 Nick Land 02:36:59 Because once you can build a knowing machine, what you want to say about knowing is the specifications for that machine. You know, whatever you did to build that machine is exemplifying. The greatest level of rigorous understanding of what knowledge and knowing is that you could possibly obtain. So some language that has come from somewhere completely different that is traditionally philosophy is obviously, it hasn't demonstrated his capacity. You can't demonstrate your capacity to understand something more fully than being able to simulate comprehensively. If you say, you know, I understand life, the best way of saying that, of showing that is to be actually able to create life. Just like that. If you say, I understand a human mind, the best way to show that is to create a full comprehensive simulation of it, and in both cases, the language that is required to do that biological creation, the language that is used to do that AI creation is going to be the language that has actually demonstrated performatively that it has the best grasp on that thing that it is talking about. So I mean, as I say, at the first, very first sentence of this is not something I've really noticed. But the second sentence, my response is to think, how could it not be like that? It seems completely natural and almost inevitable that. 因为一旦你能够制造一台“认知机器”，关于认知的定义就是该机器的规范。建造这台机器的过程展示了对知识及认知的最严谨理解。相比之下，传统哲学语言尚未证明其能力。理解生命的最佳方式是创造生命；理解人类心智的最佳方式是完整模拟它。在这两种情况下，用于生物创造或AI创造的语言，实际上证明了其对所讨论对象的最佳理解。最初我没有注意到，但第二句话让我认为，这几乎是自然且不可避免的。 interviewer 02:38:54 I see. Okay, so any final thoughts, any final questions? Otherwise, we will just wrap up this very long session. 明白了。那么有最后的想法或问题吗？否则我们将结束这次长时间的讨论。 Nick Land 02:39:40 Okay, great. Thank you guys. 好的，非常感谢大家。 interviewer 02:39:41 Thank you so much for coming. Bye. I will apologize for all the, like all the cumbersome happened. 非常感谢您的参与。再见，也为期间的种种不便向您致歉。 Nick Land 02:39:50 No, it's something great. 没关系，非常棒。 interviewer 02:39:52 So yeah, and maybe let's keep on touch on like the later when we revise this like transcript. 是的，也许在稍后修改会议记录时我们可以保持联系。 Nick Land 02:39:59 Okay, sure. 好的，没问题。 interviewer 02:40:00 Yeah, hopefully we can organize it to something like more easily and yeah, to convey more clear. 希望我们能把它整理得更清晰，更易于理解。 Nick Land 02:40:06 Okay, it's been great talking to you. Okay, for me soon, right? Thank you guys. Thank you so much. 好的，很高兴与大家交流。Soon，我的时间也差不多了，谢谢大家，非常感谢。