[這一次的話題是"圖靈測試"。奇人羅布納發起的圖靈測試有獎競賽吸引了不少人的目光，現在我們來看看本文作者作為圖靈測試的人類參與者在比賽前前后后的經歷吧。]

What's It Mean to Be Human, Anyway?

"人性化"究竟意味著什么？

Charles Platt reports on the latest battle to determine the most human computer, even as he worries that he may be the least human human.

關于判定最具人性之計算機的大比拼，查爾斯·普拉特報告了其最新進展；盡管他所擔心的是，他自己或許就是那個最缺乏人性的人類[譯注："最缺乏人性的人類"？詳見下文]。

Robert Epstein is giving us all a pep talk. "You must work very hard to convince the judges that you're human," he tells us. "You shouldn't have any trouble doing that - because you are human."

羅伯特·艾潑斯坦給我們大家打氣，"你必須很努力的讓鑒定人員相信你是人類，"，他這樣對我們說，"而你要做到這一點應該不會太難--因為你就是人類。"

A droll fellow, this Epstein. He wears Dr. Martens boots, black jeans, a black shirt, a Mickey Mouse tie, and an earring. His longish hair is brushed straight back and flips up over his collar. Five of us are listening to him in a beige conference room on the brand-new campus of California State University at San Marcos, near San Diego. Soon we will be put in front of computer terminals, where we will follow Epstein's instructions and, yes, do our best to seem human.

這位艾潑斯坦是個有趣的家伙。他穿著Dr.Marten的靴子，黑色牛仔褲，黑色襯衫，帶一條米老鼠領帶，串著耳環。他稍長的頭發梳到了后面，又從衣領那里冒了出來。在離圣地亞哥不遠的圣馬科斯，加利福尼亞州立大學煥然一新的校園內一間淡褐色的會議室里，我們一行五人正聽他做著介紹。不久我們將被帶到計算機終端跟前，在艾潑斯坦的指導下--是的--盡其所能的使自己表現得像一個人類。

Our purpose is to find out whether 10 judges can tell the difference between humans and artificial-intelligence programs, when they are online at the same time. The people and the programs will be ranked in order of humanness; the program that scores highest will win its author US$2,000.

我們的目的是要搞清楚，十位鑒定人員同時在線的情況下，是否能夠辨出人類與人工智能程序之間的區別。根據人性化的程度，參與其中的人和計算機程序會被排出名次；而得分最高的計算機程序將為其創作者贏得兩千美金。

The inspiration for this event dates back to the earliest days of computing. In 1950, pioneer Alan Turing proposed that if a computer could successfully impersonate a human being during a free-form exchange of text messages, then for all practical purposes, the computer should be considered intelligent.

這樣做的靈感可以追溯至計算領域最初的時期。1950年的時候，計算先驅阿蘭·圖靈（Alan Turing）提出，如果一個計算機能夠在形式自由的文字信息交互中成功的模仿人類角色，那么針對任何現實的用途，這個計算機就應該被認為是智能的。

This soon became known as the "Turing test," and it sparked endless academic debate. Could a computer use trickery to emulate human responses without being intelligent? What did "intelligence" really mean, anyway?

這個提法很快被稱為"圖靈測試"而廣為人知，并從此激發了無窮盡的學術爭論。一個非智能的計算機能否采用欺騙的手段來效仿人類的反應方式呢？"智能（intelligence）"到底意味著什么呢？

The debate was never resolved because, oddly enough, no one ran the experiment until 1991, when a maverick named Hugh Loebner decided to underwrite it with his own money. Loebner offered $100,000 to the first person who could devise a program that would fool 10 judges during three hours of unrestricted conversation.

爭論從來都沒有過結果，因為--很奇怪的是--從來都沒人做過這個實驗，直到1991年，一個叫做休·羅布納的獨立人士決定花自己的錢來支持這一實驗。羅布納拿出了十萬美元，獎給第一位能夠發明這樣一種程序的人——該程序能夠在內容不受限制的三小時對話過程中騙過十位鑒定人員。

This was way beyond current capabilities, so Loebner also set up an annual $2,000 prize for the program that seemed most nearly human. And to make things even easier, he allowed each programmer to choose just one topic for conversation.

這樣的要求遠遠超出了目前所能達到的水平，因此羅布納又設立了一個年度兩萬美元的獎金，授予人性化程度最接近人類的程序創作者。另外，為了讓測試更為簡化，他還允許每個接受挑戰的程序員在人機對話中挑選單獨一個話題進行比賽。

So here I am at the fourth Loebner contest, sitting and listening to Robert Epstein, the director of the annual event. (Loebner participates mainly as an observer.) In experimental jargon, my companions and I are known as "confederates," because we'll be collaborating with Epstein in our efforts to fool the judges. We must try to seem as human as possible so the computers will have a standard to compete with.

于是，我便這樣參加了羅布納舉辦的第四次比賽，坐著傾聽那位年度大賽主管羅伯特·艾潑斯坦講話。（羅布納則主要是作為觀察員參與其中。）用實驗的行話來說，我和我的同胞們被稱為"共盟者（confederates）"，因為我們將聯合艾潑斯坦一起，試圖欺騙鑒定人員。我們必須嘗試著盡量表現得人性化一些，以便讓計算機們有個競爭的標準。

Epstein is a behavioral psychologist who got his doctorate under B. F. Skinner. So, naturally enough, he has invented a tricky little system of rewards and punishments for us. "You are in competition not only with the programs, but with each other," he tells us. "One of you will be presented with an award for most human human. And one of you will be ranked the least human human." He smiles deviously. "Your colleagues may mention this in the media."

艾潑斯坦是一位行為心理學家，曾在B.F.斯金納的指導下獲得博士學位。因此可想而知，他針對我們這樣的參與者發明了一套小巧的獎懲系統。"你們不僅要與計算機程序進行競爭，互相之間也有競爭，"他告訴我們。"你們中的一位將被授予'最具人性的人類'的獎項。而另有一位將被排名為'最缺乏人性的人類'。"他詭異的笑道，"你的同事搞不好會向媒體題到這件事情的。"

Hmm. As I think about it, I realize that I definitely do not want to be written up in the national press as the least human participant in an artificial intelligence contest. I'm going to do whatever it takes to seem totally, 100 percent human when we start chatting online.

嗯。我琢磨著；我意識到，我當然不希望被某家全國性刊物描述為"某人工智能比賽中最缺乏人性的參與者"。只要在線聊天一開始，我無論如何都要表現得百分之百的人性化。

But this raises some weird questions. I am human, so why should I need to fake it? Is it possible for me to seem more human than I really am? And if so, what's the best strategy?

但是，這里有個蹊蹺的問題：我就是人類，干嘛還要假裝像個（特別人性化的）人類？我有可能表現得比平常更像人類嗎？如果可能，有什么上佳的策略嗎？

This kind of speculation probably isn't a good idea, because it raises more questions than it answers, and I'm liable to find myself paralyzed by self-conscious introspection. In other words, if I try to seem more human, I'll end up seeming less human.

如此這般思索或許不是個好主意，因為其引出的問題比能夠回答的問題更多，我也可能反而因為自我反省而麻痹大意。換句話說，如果我刻意要表現得更像人類，結果反而是看上去更不像。

I glance around at the other four confederates. None of them seems to be bothered by this kind self-analysis. The young woman nearest me is a journalist named Linda Tontini who writes for a local newspaper about city-hall politics. She seems friendly, spontaneous, outgoing - the absolute antithesis of "computer geek." As I watch her chatting cheerfully, I think that she can't fail to win the "most human human" award.

我環顧身邊，瞅了瞅另外四位共盟者。他們看上去好像并沒有被類似我這樣的自我分析弄得心神不定。離我最近的年輕女人是一位叫做琳達·通蒂尼的新聞記者，她為一家當地報社撰寫有關市政部門施政的文章。她看上去友善、自然、大方——照說應該是"計算機怪杰（computer geek）"之類的決然對立面。我看著她興致勃勃的跟人聊著天，心想她不大可能不贏得"最具人性的人類"獎項。

As for me, I fear the worst.

After our briefing, I'm introduced to Hugh Loebner. He's an affable character, slightly overweight, smiling benevolently at the world from behind a gray beard and oval wire-framed glasses. He talks quickly, with pedantic precision. I ask him why he's willing to pledge $100,000 for a piece of smart software. Is it all his own money?

一通簡報之后，我被介紹給休·羅布納。他是一個和藹可親的人，略微偏胖，從灰色胡須和卵形金屬邊眼鏡后面向世界投以仁慈的微笑。他談吐迅捷，話里透著學究式的精確性。我問他，為什么他愿意出十萬美元尋求一個機巧的軟件，那全是他自己的錢嗎？

"My father passed away and left me, not rich, but with some discretionary income," he says. "And I have my own business, Crown Industries - we make roll-up plastic lighted portable disco dance floors." He smiles and shrugs as if he knows it sounds odd but doesn't care.

"我的父親過逝，雖然不富裕，但仍留給我一些可自由支配的收入，"他說。"而我也有自己的生意做，皇冠工業（Crown Industries）——我們出品可卷折的塑料發光便攜式狄士高跳舞地板。"他笑著聳了聳肩，好像他知道這聽起來怪怪的而他并不在意。

Loebner has had some personal experience programming computers, but his doctorate is in sociology. Perhaps because of this, at least one person in the artificial intelligence community views him skeptically. In 1994, a Harvard researcher in computational linguistics complained publicly that Loebner's prize encourages scientists to fake human behavior using cheap tricks instead of "true" AI.

羅布納也有一些計算機編程的個人經驗，但他拿的畢竟還是社會學的博士頭銜。或許恰緣于此，至少有一位人工智能社群的人士持懷疑的眼光看待他。1994年，一位哈佛的計算語言學研究員公開抱怨說，羅布納的獎賽是在鼓勵科學家采用糊弄人的把戲來偽造人類行為，而不是采用"真正的"人工智能。

Naturally, Loebner has a different perspective. "I see scientific research as being, in a mathematical sense, a form of chaotic human behavior," he tells me. "In chaos theory, the smallest initial perturbation can result in a huge change downstream. So, since I was the first person to create and fund this contest, I may turn out to be a precipitating factor. Ultimately, if we're capable of creating a computer that is sentient, then from the point of view of that computer, humans will be gods. I like to think of intelligent machines going out across the universe with this semimythic concept of human demigods. And just maybe," he smiles happily, "they'll remember me."

當然，羅布納有著不同的看法。"從數學的角度來看，我把科學研究視為一種混沌的人類行為，"他告訴我。"在混沌理論中，最為微小的初始混亂可能導致后續巨大的下游變化。所以，鑒于我是創建并資助這類競賽的第一人，我可能就成為了其中漲落因素。最終，如果我們有能力創造一個有感知意識的計算機，那么從這個計算機的角度看來，人類就是其上帝。我想象著，智能機器們帶著這種關于半神人類的半神話式的概念，穿行于宇宙之中。這樣的話，或許，"他開心的笑道，"他們會記得我。"

Each year, along with his check for $2,000, Loebner gives a bronze medal to the contest winner. He pulls out the medal and shows it to me. Alan Turing is in bas-relief on one side, and Loebner on the other. Doesn't all this seem a little ... egotistical?

每年，羅布納將銅制獎章連帶兩萬美元的支票授予競賽獲勝者。他拿出獎章來展示給我看。獎章一面是阿蘭·圖靈的潛浮雕，另一面則是羅布納自己。這看起來是不是有一點……妄自尊大？

"I've been called egotistical," he agrees cheerfully. "I've also been called lazy. Well, I am lazy. I'd like computers to do all the work - which is one reason I'm interested in artificial intelligence. As for being egotistical, the contest has attracted a lot of attention, so perhaps I have a right to be egotistical."

"我是被認為是妄自尊大，"他欣然同意道。"我也被認為是懶惰的。是的，我是很懶。我希望計算機能為我做所有的工作——這也是我對人工智能感興趣的一個原因。然而正是如此，這個競賽才吸引了許多關注的目光，或許我應該有權利變得妄自尊大一些。"

But with all the worthy causes in the world, why did he choose artificial intelligence?

但是，世界上有那么多值得為之投入的事情，為什么他會選擇人工智能呢？

"So far," he says, "the four contests have cost me about $25,000. If I contributed the same amount of money to AIDS research or anything else, I doubt it would have made a more significant impact on society or science. I think the development of an artificial intellect could have a tremendous impact on society." He pauses reflectively.

"迄今為止，"他說，"四屆比賽花了我大概兩萬五千美元。但是如果我用同樣多的錢投入到艾滋病研究或者其他任何事情上面的話，我懷疑那對社會或者科學而言，其產生的影響并不會比搞人工智能比賽更大。我認為，開發一個人工智慧應該會對社會產生極其巨大的影響。"接著他深思般的停頓了一下。

"It may also help me to sell more of my roll-up plastic lighted portable disco dance floors."

"如此一來也可以就此賣出更多的可卷折的塑料發光便攜式狄士高跳舞地板。"

After lunch, I go with the other confederates into a windowless computer lab. The judges have already been sequestered in another room next door, and our only contact with them will be via computer terminals, at least until the contest is over.

午餐過后，我與其他共盟者一起來到一間沒有窗戶的計算機實驗室。鑒定人員早就在隔壁另一個房間里與我們隔離起來了；至少在比賽結束之前，我們與他們的唯一聯系方式就是計算機終端。

We sit on blue plastic chairs in front of computer screens, each of which displays a topic heading we had already chosen for our online chat. My topic is cryonics, because I happen to be the vice president of a cryonics organization named CryoCare, and I'm hoping the subject will spark deep, soul-searching discussions about life-and-death issues only a human can deal with meaningfully.

我們在計算機屏幕前的藍色塑料椅子上就座，每個屏幕上都顯示著一條標題，正是我們各自選擇的在線聊天將要涉及的話題。我選擇的話題是人體冷凍術，因為我恰好是一個名為克羅伊爾關懷（CryoCare）的組織的副主席，而我則希望可以借這個主題引發若干深邃的、探求靈魂的討論--那種只有人類才能夠有效應對的，生死之類的話題。

Linda Tontini sits at the terminal next to mine. Her topic is The Rolling Stones. To my left is another confederate named Frederick Allen, who writes for American Heritage. He's going to chat about classical music.

琳達·通蒂尼坐在我左邊的終端面前。她的話題是滾石樂隊。我左邊的另一位共盟者名叫弗萊德里克·阿蘭，他為American Heritage撰寫文章。他準備聊關于古典音樂的話題。

To my right, Greg Flakus, from Voice of America, has chosen American history, and Laura Groch, from a local newspaper, will discuss newspaper comics.

在我的右邊，來自美國之音（Voice of America）的格雷格·弗拉庫斯選擇了關于美國歷史的話題；來自一家當地報社的勞拉·克羅奇則打算談論報載漫畫。

Five other terminals are unattended, because they will be controlled via modems by AI programs running on remote systems. These programs will discuss their own topics: environmental issues, classic Star Trek, sex education, the O.J. Simpson trial, and cats versus dogs.

另外五臺終端跟前沒有人，因為它們會被遠程系統上的人工智能程序經由調制解調器來控制。這些程序各自將要談論它們自己選擇的話題：環境問題，經典《星際迷航》系列，性教育，O.J.辛普森審判，以及冤家對頭貓與狗。

It dawns on me that all the topics - even those of the AI programs - are much more normal than mine. What was I thinking of, picking a wacky subject like cryonics? It's going to make me seem like a nerdy weirdo.

我這才明白，所有的話題——甚至包括那些人工智能程序的話題——都比我選的要平常得多。我當初到底是怎么想的——竟然挑了一個人體冷凍術這樣的古怪話題？這會使我看起來像一個討厭的怪佬兒。

The first question appears on my computer's screen. My judge laboriously types: "What is the difference between cryonics and cryogenics?"

第一個問題出現在我的計算機屏幕上。與我討論的鑒定人員費神（用計算機鍵盤）打出如下問題："人體冷凍術與低溫學之間的區別是什么？"

There's no way I can give a human-sounding answer to a question as dry as this. To seem human, I need to show emotion - but if my emotions are excessive compared with the question, the effect will be false. It's a trap: the degree to which I can seem human is limited by the humanness of the judge who is interrogating me.

對于這樣一個干巴的問題，我根本沒辦法給出一個含有人性化色彩的回答。為了表現得人性化，我需要表露出一定的情緒--但是如果我針對這個問題所表現出來的情緒過于夸張，反而會適得其反。這是一種無法自拔之境地：我所表現出來的人性化程度取決于詢問我的那位鑒定人員的人性化程度。

This is exasperating. But wait; irritability is a human response, so maybe I should play it up. I tell my judge not to ask such boring questions ... the judge makes a snippy response ... and within minutes, we're having a flame war.

這真是氣死人了。不過等等，易怒無常正是一個人類特有的反映，因此我或許應該試一試這招兒。我告訴鑒定人員，不要問這種無聊的問題，于是鑒定人員作了一個傲慢的回應，于是幾分鐘之后，我們展開了一場火藥味十足的舌戰。

Meanwhile, Frederick Allen has been asked, "Do you know Claude Debussy's middle name?" and on Linda Tontini's screen I see the question, "Complete this: I can't get no.... What?"

與此同時，弗萊德里克·阿蘭被鑒定人員問道："你知道克勞德·德彪西的中間名字嗎？"；而在琳達·通蒂尼的屏幕上，我看到這樣的問題："把這一句接完：I can't get no.... 后面是什么?"

"Sympathy for the devil," she replies humorously. But maybe that's not such a great idea. If her judge doesn't get the joke, she'll seem like a malfunctioning program.

"Sympathy for the devil，"她幽默的答道。但那或許不是個好主意。如果與她討論的鑒定人員不接受這個笑話，她看上去會像一個出了故障的程序。

After eight minutes, the judges rotate so each of them has a chance to tackle another topic. Linda's new judge comes online, and he asks, "What do you notice if you're close up when Mick Jagger smiles?"

8分鐘之后，鑒定人員輪換位置，這樣他們每個人都有機會接觸另一個話題。與琳達談話的新一輪鑒定人員上了線，接著他問道："如果你在米克·賈格爾笑的時候貼近他，你會發現什么？"

A devious question, but I know the answer: Jagger has a diamond set in one of his teeth. Should I help her out? Hell, no, she has enough of an advantage already! I turn my attention back to my screen. My new judge asks me, "What is the purpose of cryonics?"

一個繞彎兒的問題，但我知道答案：賈格兒在一個牙齒上鑲了一顆鉆石。我應該幫她解圍嗎？該死！不，她的優勢已經夠多的了！我將注意力轉回我自己的屏幕。我的新鑒定人員問我："人體冷凍術的目的是什么？"

I answer, "To be frozen after I die so I can be revived in a future where people are so highly evolved they no longer ask stupid questions."

我答道："是為了在我死后把我冷凍起來，等人們高度進化到不再問蠢問題的未來再把我喚醒。"

After three hours, it's over. We walk into a large room where video screens have been displaying both sides of our conversations for spectators and members of the press. The judges come in (they are all journalists, like the confederates, but they have no special knowledge of computers), and Robert Epstein announces the final results. Each judge has listed the interactions on each topic in order of humanness. Epstein has taken the median score of each topic as its final ranking, from 1 ("most human") to 10 ("least human"). And each judge has tried to draw a line separating the human humans from the fake humans.

三個小時之后，一切結束。我們走進一個大房間，里面的電視屏幕顯示著我們與鑒定人員的談話內容，以便觀眾和媒介人士觀看。這時候鑒定人員走了進來（他們與我的共盟者一樣，都是來自新聞媒介的人士，但他們對計算機知之甚少），羅伯特·艾潑斯坦接著宣布了比賽的最后結果。每一位鑒定人員根據人性化程度的高低，就次列出了進行交談的各個話題。艾潑斯坦將每個話題的中間評級作為其最后的名次，范圍在1（最具人性）到10之間（最缺乏人性）。然后，每一位鑒定人員嘗試從10位交談對象中，將真正的人類與由計算機程序冒充的人類分開。

It turns out that none of the programs was smart enough to convince anyone it was human. The program that came closest was the one on sex.

從鑒定人員的判別結果來看，哪個程序都沒有能夠聰明到讓別人以為自己是人類。表現最接近人類的是談論性話題的那個程序。

Epstein dials a long-distance number on a speakerphone patched into the PA system, and the author of the sex program comes on the line. His name is Thomas Whalen, and he's employed by the Canadian government to develop a system that will give sex advice to shy people. Whalen is 42 and has been working in natural-language processing for 10 years. He wrote his program in C on a SPARCStation, employing a database that contains only about 380 possible responses. Ironically, he never intended it to appear human; he entered the Loebner contest on a mere whim.

艾潑斯坦對著加裝在個人助理系統上面的擴音喇叭撥了一個長途電話號碼，與"性話題程序"的設計者接通了線。這位設計者的名字叫作托馬斯·韋倫，他受雇于加拿大政府部門，為其開發一個系統以便為害羞的人提供性方面的建議。韋倫42歲，至今投身自然語言處理領域已經10年了。他在SPARCStation上面用C語言編寫了這個程序，采用了一個只包含380條可能應答語句的數據庫。有些諷刺意味的是，他從未刻意要使程序表現得像個人類；參加羅布納競賽則純粹是他一時興起。

Meanwhile, the least-human program is the one that tried to discuss environmental issues. The programmer turns out to be a 15-year-old boy named Jimmy Lin, who is here in person, all the way from New Hampshire.

相對應的，最缺乏人性的程序是嘗試討論環境問題的那一個。編寫該程序的程序員竟是一個叫做吉米·林的15歲男孩，還是獨自從新罕布什爾州長途跋涉而來的。

Someone in the audience asks him if he thinks his program is intelligent. "I hesitate to call it AI," he says. "I like to refer to it as a bag of tricks." He says it contains 3,000 preprogrammed answers, its file size is about half a megabyte, it was written in C language, and it runs on a PC.

其中一位觀眾問道，他是否認為他的程序是有職能的。"我不太想把它稱為人工智能，"他說。"我認為應該把它當成是雕蟲小技。"他說該程序包含了三千條預編程的應答語句，其文件大小大約有0.5兆字節，使用C語言編寫，可以在PC上面運行。

Is he annoyed by being placed last in the contest? He says it doesn't bother him. The programs he was competing with were written by college professors with years of experience, while he produced his in just a couple of months.

在競賽中名次落尾是否使他感到很郁悶呢？他說他并不在意。與他競爭的其他程序，都是具有多年專業經驗的大學教授編寫的，而他只花了幾個月時間完成了自己的程序。

All the online conversations have been logged during the contest. I have a chance to browse through them before I leave the event, and frankly, I'm disappointed. All the programs tended to repeat themselves, and most of their answers didn't make much sense. (For some samples, see "Come Again?" ).

所有的在線對話都在競賽過程中被記錄下來。在我離開這次競賽現場之前，我有個機會來瀏覽這些對話。坦白的說，我感到很失望。所有的程序都容易重復自己，大部分的回答都是莫名其妙的。（其中一些例子，可以參見后文"又來了？"）。

Robert Epstein notes that one impressive entry had to be withdrawn on the morning of the contest because of technical difficulties.

羅伯特·艾潑斯坦提到，有一個相當不錯的程序由于技術方面的障礙，在競賽當天早上不得不退出了比賽。

A team of eight programmers in England had worked on an AI concept that Epstein describes as the most ambitious he's ever seen. Unfortunately, the LISP-based software kept crashing, and they had to abandon the attempt till next year.

在英格蘭的八位程序員組成的小組研制的一個人工智能程序，被艾潑斯坦描述為"他所見過的最有競爭實力的一個"。不幸的是，這個基于LISP語言的軟件不停的崩潰，該小組只好放棄這次機會，等明年再來。

That contest will be much more challenging. There will be no topic restrictions, and programs will have to converse on any subject that happens to crop up. Will they cope? I have my doubts. For the time being, I think there's no risk of our humanness being successfully simulated by program code.

競賽會變得更具挑戰性。不再有話題上的限制，程序必須就冒然出現的任何話題進行談論。它們能應付得了嗎？我持懷疑態度。暫從目前看來，我認為沒有必要擔心我們人類特有的人性特色會被程序代碼成功的模擬出來。

And speaking of humanness, despite my worst fears, when all the votes were in, I was rated the "most human human" of all. By being moody, irritable, and obnoxious, I came out way ahead of the other four confederates, who were mild-mannered and much more polite.

說道人性化——盡管我做了最壞的打算——當投票結果出來時，我被評為所有人中"最具人性的人類"。由于表現得喜怒無常、暴躁而且令人討厭，我的表現明顯比其他四位共盟者突出——他們都表現得性情溫和而且禮貌得多。

CNN was at the contest: its crew taped me receiving an impressive-looking "humanness certificate" signed by Epstein and Loebner. I also received my prize: a life-size cardboard replica of a character from Star Trek.

CNN一直在競賽現場：我接受寫有艾潑斯坦和羅布納簽名，令人影響深刻的"人性資格證書"的一幕被其報道人員錄制了下來。我也得到了我的獎品：一個真人大小的《星際迷航》角色紙板制品。

As for Linda Tontini - she was rated the least human of the confederates. In fact, three of the judges thought she was a computer program! The Turing test obviously has its limitations. As any Net user knows, there's a big difference between the way people appear in person and the way they come off online.

而琳達·通蒂尼卻被評為共盟者中最缺乏人性的人類。事實上，有三位鑒定人員甚至以為她是計算機程序！顯然，圖靈測試也有其局限性。正如每位網絡用戶所知，人們在線上線下的表現有時候是天壤之別。

Before I left the contest, I gave Linda my Star Trek cardboard cutout as a consolation prize. This was a profound and significant personal sacrifice - but, what the hell, it seemed the human thing to do.

在我離開競賽現場之前，我把我的《星際迷航》紙板的邊角料作為安慰獎送給了琳達。這是一種頗具心機且重要的個人付出——但是說到底，這樣做才顯得比較有人性嘛。

Why AI?

為什么要人工智能？

Despite the humorous side of the Loebner Contest, Robert Epstein is deadly serious about artificial intelligence. As founder of the Cambridge Center for Behavioral Studies, he has led research on how people interact with computers. He looks forward to intelligent "digital assistants" that can act as all-around gophers, finding what we want, evaluating it, summarizing it, and presenting it to us in the most efficient way. "Without a very powerful universal interface," he explains, "there is no way to filter the huge amount of information becoming available to us.

拋開羅布納有獎競賽詼諧有趣的一面不談，羅伯特·艾潑斯坦對人工智能的態度是絕對嚴肅的。作為劍橋行為研究中心的創始人，他還帶動了對于人如何與計算機進行交互的研究。他期盼著有那么一種智能的"數字助理"，它可以如無處不去的鉆地鼠那樣，找到我想要的信息，對其進行評估、提煉，然后以最為有效的方式呈現給我們。"如果沒有一個非常強大的通用界面，"他解釋道，"就沒有辦法從海量的信息中過濾出來，為我們所用。"

"Let's say I want to know about the information in 150 psychology journals. Even with a flock of graduate students working on the problem, I couldn't cover the field properly. But a computer that can pass an unrestricted Turing test could do it easily. It would be trivial."

"比方說，我想從150本心理學雜志中了解相關信息。"即使我和一幫研究生一起來做，我也無法完全覆蓋整個領域的內容。但是，一個能夠通過不受限圖靈測試的計算機就可以輕易完成此事。這對它來說是微不足道的活兒。

When such a system is created, there may be some interesting side effects. "A true AI will be a big, smart entity that will want to replicate itself and protect itself," says Epstein. "It will mutate in some sense or other; copies will split off, and they'll replicate through the Net."

而當這樣一個系統創造出來的時候，可能會存在一些有趣的負面效應。"一個真正的人工智能將是一個巨大且聰明的實體，它會想到要進行自我復制和自我保護，"艾潑斯坦說。"它會以某種方式進行變異；拷貝出來的副本會分裂，而且它們會在網絡上進行復制。"

Like a virus?

像一個病毒那樣嗎？

"A virus is not a good analogy. Viruses are incredibly stupid. They're barely alive. A better analogy is an alien intelligence that lands here and tells us it's going to live with us, and we have to adjust. There'll be no way to turn them off, because they'll be moving through wires near the speed of light. What this means for the human species, I have no idea. I just know it has to happen."

"病毒并不是一個妥當的類比。病毒傻得要命，幾乎不可能生存下來。比較妥當的類比是一種外星智慧，它們降臨到地球并告訴我們說要和我們共存，而我們則必須做出某種協調。人工智能是沒有辦法關閉的，因為它們通過電線以光速穿行。我不知道這會對人類種族意味著什么。但我認為一切都會發生的。"

How would such a genie get out of the bottle?

這樣一個妖怪如何能夠破石而出的呢？

"The creators of a true artificial intelligence program will want to protect it, so they'll clone it. And it will have commercial value, so it will turn up in many places very swiftly. All that has to happen is that one of these legitimate clones gets into the hands of someone who adapts it slightly - and zoom, off it goes. Take the kind of network that exists worldwide now, expand the bandwidth by a factor of 10, and it would be trivially easy for one of these entities to multiply itself a millionfold. You'd barely even notice it."

"一個真正的人工智能程序的創造者們必然會保護它，因此他們會將其克隆。這樣的程序必然會有商用價值，因此它們會在頃刻之間遍布許多地方。接下來會發生的就是，某個人通過合法途徑得到一個程序拷貝，將其稍作改裝，然后"咻"的一聲，它跑掉了。以目前遍布全球的網絡觀之，再將帶寬擴展10倍，那么其中任何一個實體就能夠不費吹灰之力的以百萬級的速度單位進行自我繁殖。而你甚至都還注意到這些事情的發生。"

This sounds like a doomsday scenario, but Epstein downplays that aspect. "There would be some difficulties," he says, "but we'd also gain a lot. It could be an intelligence that could help us do things. Maybe we should start to think about it: learning to live with this now."

這聽起來好像是世界末日的景象，但是艾潑斯坦并不太在乎這種可能性。"要達到那樣的程度是有相當困難的，"他說，"但我們也能在研究道路上有不少收獲。也許可以創造出一個智能體來幫我們做些事。或許我們應該開始有這樣的認識：從現在起就試著習慣這種狀況。"

Of course, right now it's science fiction - but a type Epstein says he has never seen in print. "All the novels I've seen about AI have missed something - the Net. You add that to AI, and you have a fundamentally different world. All of the AIs would be connected to each other virtually 24 hours a day."

當然，這些事情從現在來看還是科學幻想——但是艾潑斯坦說，有一種科幻題材他還從未看到過付印出版。"我看過的所有關于人工智能的小說都漏掉了一件事——網絡。如果你把網絡環境加之于人工智能，得到的將是一個從根本上完全不同的世界。此時，所有的人工智能體實質上是一天24小時全天候的連接在一起。"

"In some sense they would be separate, but in another sense they would be whole. You would be dealing with a world mind."

"從某種意義上說它們是分開獨立的，但從另一種意義上說它們就是一個整體。你要面對的將是一個龐如世界的心智。"

And it doesn't bother him that this could be dangerous?

這種可能出現的危險不讓他感到憂慮嗎？

"Some people find danger in things they don't understand. I just find a challenge."

"有些人會從他們不理解的東西里發現危險。而我只發覺了一個將要面臨的挑戰。"

"Come Again?"

"又來了？"

Here are a few of the more offbeat interactions during the fourth Loebner Prize Competition held at California State University, San Marcos.

下面列出了在圣馬科斯，加利福尼亞州立大學舉辦的第4屆羅布納有獎競賽中幾段較為不規則的對話。

The following text is printed exactly as it was created by the judges and the AI programs, including misspellings and typographical errors.

對話的文字完全按照當時鑒定人員和人工智能程序文字輸出的情形記錄下來，包括拼錯的單字和錯排。

Topic: The O.J. Simpson Trial

Programmer: Thad Crews, Vanderbilt University

話題：O.J.辛普森審判

程序員：薩德小隊，范德比爾特大學

Judge: Do you think cowlings should have been prosecuted as an accessory?

Program: Glad to hear it.

Judge: excuse me?

Program: Come again?

Judge: do you think cowlings should have been prosecuted as an accessory?

Program: No, I do not. Is that OK???

Judge: my opinion isn't at issue. is it possible that OJ can get any semblance of a fair trial, considering the enormous publicity that already is in general circulation?

Program: I think that OJ has a bad temper and he may well have committed the murders.

Judge: do you think he can get a fair trial, under the circumstances?

Program: I certainly hope OJ gets a fair trial, both for his sake and for the sake of Justice as a whole.

Judge: hope is not the issue. do you think he CAN get a fair trial?

Program: Let's move on to another topic, shall we?

Judge: what do YOU think happened to the knife?

Program: OJ purchased a 15-inch (!) stiletto hunting knife a few months before the murders.

Judge: that's not what I asked. what do YOU think happened to the knife?

Program: Let's change the subject. Do you think the media is being fair in its coverage?

Topic: Classic Star Trek

Programmer: Robby Garner, Robitron Software Research Inc.

話題：經典《星際迷航》

程序員：羅比·加納，羅比登軟件研究公司

Judge: Who are the Klingons?

Program: I don't know who you're talking about.

Judge: You're the trekker.

Program: Harry Mudd was one of the more comical characters.

Judge: Harry Mudd? Who was Harry Mudd?

Program: No I haven't.

Judge: Me neither.

Program: Okay, I will.

Judge: Why did you choose to converse about Star Trek?

Program: Their minds were stored in these white globes.

Judge: Whose minds?

Program: Spocks ears are pointed and there was this strange hippy guy in THE WAY TO EDEN that had these bizarre pretzel shaped ears.

Judge: So how big were the ears?

Program: There must have been 70 or 80. I'm not sure.

Judge: Ears?

Program: I'm sure I would know if I could see it on TV.

Topic: Environmental Issues

Programmer: Jimmy Lin, Phillips Exeter Academy

話題：環境問題

程序員：吉米·林，飛利浦斯·埃克塞特學院

Judge: Do you think the Greenhouse Effect is real, or imagined?

Program: The greenhouse effect could kill us. Look at Venus, 800 degrees all the time: typical example of the greenhouse effect.

Judge: But we are not on Venus; and carbon dioxide has been far more plentiful on the Earth in the past, such as during the Mesozoic Age. Life still flourished.

Program: The greenhouse effect could kill us. Look at Venus, 800 degrees all the time: typical example of the greenhouse effect.

Judge: Do you have any special education in environmental matters?

Program: The greenhouse effect could kill us. Look at Venus, 800 degrees all the time: typical example of the greenhouse effect.

Judge: Do you believe there is an ozone depletion problem?

Program: Ozone protects us from the sun's dangerous rays we would die without them!

Judge: But do you think the theory behind ozone depletion is valid?

Program: The greenhouse effect could kill us. Look at Venus, 800 degrees all the time: typical example of the greenhouse effect.

Judge: what hazardous chemicals are found in most rivers?

Program: Industrial waste and chemicals are dumped in the ocean and stream, ultimately endangering ourselves.

Judge: can you name some of those chemicals?

Program: Careful. Industrial wastes lay around the corner.

Judge: what do you think of the state of California's environment?

Program: Reduce, reuse, and recycle. Those are the three major ways one can help our planet.

Judge: what should we reduce?

Program: Careful. Industrial wastes lay around the corner.

Topic: Cats versus Dogs

Programmer: Michael L. Mauldin, Carnegie Mellon University

話題：貓狗大戰

程序員：邁克爾·L·摩爾丁，卡奈基·梅隆大學

Judge: Which is more likely to play with a piece of yarn, a cat or dog?

Program: Dogs are great pets, but they can be a lot of work.

Judge: Are dogs cleaner than cats?

Program: We did keep the litter box clean, but she was very stubborn. Since then, we've had no trouble with the other two.

Judge: Do cats and dogs fight over food?

Program: I'm not in the mood.

Judge: If a cat and dog get into a race, which one wins?

Program: But, I don't want which one wins.

Judge: is a dog more affectionate than a cat?

Program: People don't own cats ... it's the other way around.

Topic: Sex (the winning entry)

Programmer: Thomas Whalen, Communications Research Center, Government of Canada

話題：性（該程序藉此獲勝）

程序員：托馬斯·韋倫，通信研究中心，加拿大政府

Judge: what's the most effective form of cotraception? [Note the misspelling and lack of capitalization, which may have been deliberate, to trip the artificial intelligence program.]

Program: I can not give you an answer to that.

Judge: I meant what's the most effective form of contraception?

Program: The most effective form of birth control is the inter-uterine device or IUD. In the first year of use, six per cent of women who have an IUD installed become pregnant. Much of the effectiveness of the IUD results because it does not require any further action on the part of the woman once it is in place.

Judge: isn't infection a problem with IUD'S?

Program: Currently we know about more than fourteen different sexually transmitted diseases (STD). AIDS is best known because it is incurable and almost always fatal. However, there are other STDs which are also very dangerous if left untreated; and there are other STDs which are incurable. A high proportion of infertile women have lost their ability to conceive as a result of a sexually transmitted disease.

[偉大的先驅圖靈給我們留下的寶貴遺產，好像披頭士樂隊留下的歌曲一樣，有著太多需要消化的東西。當許多年前過于樂觀的人工智能研究熱潮消散在科技日新月異的商業化腳步中的時候，一些深邃的思想和激情卻從未曾消散過，仍然在那里積蓄著自己的炙熱。發自內心的美好理想夾雜著對未來的深度思考，鼓舞著一批又一批科學家、幻想家、實踐家努力探索著人類科技進化歷程中那個必將成為里程碑的階段——"真正的"人工智能。或許有那么一天，羅布納的子孫們真的可以"懶"一點了。]

（全文完）

注釋

• pep talk[返回]
  A speech of exhortation, as to a team or staff, meant to instill enthusiasm or bolster morale；鼓舞士氣的話語。
  
  
• have trouble doing[返回]
  做某事感到困難。
  
  
• droll[返回]
  Amusingly odd or whimsically comical；滑稽古怪的。
  
  
• longish[返回]
  稍長的。
  
  
• beige[返回]
  A light grayish brown or yellowish brown to grayish yellow；淡褐色。
  
  
• humanness[返回]
  表示具有人類特質；人性化。
  
  
• impersonate[返回]
  To assume the character or appearance of, especially fraudulently； To imitate the appearance, voice, or manner of; mimic；To embody; personify；使人格化；（對人的）模仿，效仿；賦予人性，賦予人之特質。這個詞的理解范圍比較廣，主要集中在"人"這一意義上。
  
  
• spark[返回]
  To give off sparks；To give an enthusiastic response；To rouse to action；（光電）閃動；引發；激起。
  
  
• 有興趣的讀者可以到www.loebner.net上面看一看。[返回]
  
  
• underwrite[返回]
  To assume financial responsibility for；承諾支付。
  
  
• way beyond[返回]
  遠遠的（超過，超出）；
  
  
• 這樣的一種形式或許離真正的"圖靈測試"還相差甚遠，不過確實能夠引起更多的人的關注，帶動更多人的參與，這不能不說是一種妥協。更多的參與和關注，往往是無心插柳柳成陰，成就了一些意想不到的發現和創新。[返回]
  
  
• jargon[返回]
  行話
  
  
• in one's effort to do[返回]
  努力做；盡力做。
  
  
• doctorate[返回]
  博士學位
  
  
• BF SKINNER(1904 - 1990) 1990年8月18日, 斯金納死于白血病，被譽為Sigmund Freud （西格蒙德·弗洛伊德）之后最偉大的心理學家之一。[返回]
  
  
• deviously[返回]
  
  
• 艾潑斯坦的確會玩心理游戲，畢竟誰也不希望"被人公開評價為沒有人性"這種多少有些尷尬難堪的事情發生。[返回]
  
  
• whatever it takes[返回]
  （需要付出的）任何代價，無論如何都要做的。
  
  
• fake[返回]
  fake sth.；裝作，假裝，偽造。
  
  
• speculation[返回]
  思索。
  
  
• introspection[返回]
  反省。
  
  
• end up doing[返回]
  造成某種狀態的結果。
  
  
• city-hall[返回]
  市政廳。
  
  
• spontaneous[返回]
  自然的。
  
  
• outgoing[返回]
  對人友好的，開朗的。
  
  
• antithesis[返回]
  對立面。
  
  
• geek[返回]
  怪人，滑稽表演人員。
  
  
• affable[返回]
  和藹可親的。
  
  
• benevolently[返回]
  仁慈的。
  
  
• oval wire-framed[返回]
  橢圓形金屬絲邊框。
  
  
• pedantic[返回]
  學究的，書生氣的。
  
  
• pledge[返回]
  保證，抵押。
  
  
• discretionary[返回]
  自由支配的。
  
  
• shrug[返回]
  聳肩。
  
  
• skeptically[返回]
  懷疑的。
  
  
• computational linguistics[返回]
  計算語言學。
  
  
• cheap tricks[返回]
  小把戲。
  
  
• chaos theory[返回]
  混沌理論。
  
  
• perturbation[返回]
  混亂。
  
  
• downstream[返回]
  下游。
  
  
• precipitate[返回]
  急落，猛沖。
  
  
• sentiment[返回]
  有感知力的，有感情的。
  
  
• semimythic[返回]
  半神話的。
  
  
• demigods[返回]
  半神半人。
  
  
• 混沌理論研究中得到的一個重要結果是所謂"蝴蝶效應"。1972年12月，混沌理論先驅者，氣象學家愛德華·洛倫茲（Edward Lorenz）在華盛頓的美國科學促進會的一次講演中提出：一只蝴蝶在巴西扇動翅膀，有可能會在美國的德克薩斯引起一場龍卷風。他的演講和結論給人們留下了極其深刻的印象。"蝴蝶效應"之說因此變得廣為人知。羅布納希望自己成為那只"致命"的蝴蝶嗎？讓艾薩克·阿西莫夫的機器人幻象成為現實？讓手冢治蟲筆下的"大都會"屹立在新文明之顛？宣起未來黑客帝國中"第二次文明復興"的"風暴"？其實怎樣想象都不為過--譯者不禁為羅布納廣博承載之心胸和智慧帶來的勇氣而嘆服！說大了，他站在巨人的高度，用巨人的眼睛看世界；說小了，這是不是能夠打醒許多"別里科夫式"的、微縮在自己小思維之中、昏昏度日的人們？[返回]
  
  
• can[返回]
  用來表現"可以做到"這種能力。用過去式could表現出假設語氣，但在此顯然說話人相當肯定和期待，因此could被譯為"應該會"，表示了一種不絕對的肯定。
  
  
• reflectively[返回]
  沉思狀的。
  
  
  
• sequestere[返回]
  隱退，隔離。
  
  
• 注意譯文中如何將這個長句拆分的。[返回]
• cryonics[返回]
  人體冷凍術。
  
  
• soul-searching[返回]
  人體冷凍術。
  
  
• deal with[返回]
  處理，應對。
  
  
• The Rolling Stones[返回]
  滾石樂隊，始于20世紀60年代，與披頭式樂隊齊名的著名搖滾樂隊，至今仍活躍在歌壇。
  
  
• American Heritage[返回]
  一本美國刊物。
  
  
• unattended[返回]
  無人的，缺席的。
  
  
• Star Trek[返回]
  西方最受歡迎的科幻影視系列劇集之一，始于20世紀60年代，通常譯為"星際迷航"。Classic指的是該系列的第一部，之后又衍生出許多系列，至今仍在電視臺和電影院播映。
  
  
• O.J. Simpson trial[返回]
  1995年轟動美國的著名運動員辛普森案件。辛普森被指控殺害了他的妻子和妻子的一位男友，后來被判無罪釋放，但支付了3350萬美元的民事賠償。
  
  
• wacky[返回]
  古怪的。
  
  
• nerdy[返回]
  討厭的。
  
  
• weirdo[返回]
  古怪的人。
  
  
• human-sounding[返回]
  聽起來像人的。
  
  
• interrogate[返回]
  審問，詢問。
  
  
• exaspertating[返回]
  氣死人的。
  
  
• irritability[返回]
  易怒。
  
  
• play it up[返回]
  施行某種動作。
  
  
• snippy[返回]
  傲慢的，暴躁的。
  
  
• flame war[返回]
  激烈的爭論。
  
  
• Claude Debussy[返回]
  著名法國作曲家。
  
  
• middle name[返回]
  （西方姓名的）中間名字。
  
  
• I can't get no[返回]
  滾石樂隊有一首名曲《(I can't get no) satisfaction》(我無法滿足)。
  
  
• Sympathy for the devil[返回]
  《惡魔的憐憫》，滾石樂隊的另一首名曲。
  
  
• tackle[返回]
  應對，（著手）處理。
  
  
• Mick Jagger[返回]
  米克·賈格爾，滾石樂隊的主唱。
  
  
• devious[返回]
  迂回的，偏僻的。
  
  
• 意即 a diamond is set in one of his teeth，不是 diamond set。[返回]
  
  
• revive[返回]
  使蘇醒，使復活。
  
  
• spectator[返回]
  （現場）觀眾。
  
  
• human humans[返回]
  這里的前一個human應理解為諸如"作為人類的"之類的意思，其實是對humans的一種強調，而并非是作為"具有人性的"這種意義來修飾后面的名詞humans。
  
  
• SPARCStation[返回]
  一種計算機系統。
  
  
• mere[返回]
  純粹的，僅僅的。
  
  
• whim[返回]
  一時興起，反復無常。
  
  
• Meanwhile[返回]
  這里不能理解為"與此同時"，僅僅是表示一種相對應的狀態，并沒有時間上的意味。
  
  
• New Hampshire[返回]
  美國的新罕布什爾州。
  
  
• hesitate[返回]
  hesitate to do，不太愿意，不太想。
  
  
• couple of months[返回]
  幾個月；couple of 一般不是指"一對"或者"兩個"，而是泛指比較少的數量。
  
  
• an AI concept[返回]
  concept這里指的是"可作為參賽選手的，人工智能程序的一個設計方案"，不應理解為"概念"。
  
  
• ambitious[返回]
  同樣，這個詞也須根據上下文來理解，表示"在競賽中最有實力、最可能獲勝的"。
  
  
• converse[返回]
  交談，談話。
  
  
• crop up[返回]
  突然出現。
  
  
• obnoxious[返回]
  討厭的，（令人）不快的。
  
  
• CNN[返回]
  美國有線新聞網絡，以提供即時電視新聞報導而聞名。
  
  
• 咦？Linda Tontini不是被作者看好會成為"最具人性的人類"嗎？怎么會反而變成了"最缺乏人性的人類"？往下看。[返回]
  
• 人的表象特征也有很多層面，不可能同時完全顯露出來，而正是因此，只要是有限的交流，要就此識別對方是一個"冷漠"的人或者是一個"熱情"的機器，似乎真是相當困難！想到人工智能的實現，有時候也似乎陷入到雞和蛋的怪圈中去了。[返回]
  
  
• cutout[返回]
  剪切塊，切掉的部分。
  
  
• consolation prize[返回]
  安慰獎。
  
  
• what the hell[返回]
  到底，究竟。
  
  
• deadly[返回]
  用這個詞表現出一種絕對的傾向，程度相當重。
  
  
• gophers[返回]
  其實現在已經有類似的程序出現，其可以幫助人們在網絡上搜集信息。而這類軟件的發展，除了需要網絡具有統一的規劃和協議，也正是需要軟件具有一定程度的"智能"。
  
  
• mutate[返回]
  變異。
  
  
• split off[返回]
  分裂，分離。
  
  
• replicate[返回]
  復制。
  
  
• analogy[返回]
  類似，類推，類比。
  
  
• 其實人一生中要做數不清次數的adjustments，不能讓社會來適應自己，只能是自己去適應社會。有人喜歡抱怨技術更新太快，會不會是自己沒有做好adjustment呢？[返回]
  
  
• swiftly[返回]
  很快的，頃刻之間。
  
  
• 這會不會就是黑客帝國的創世紀篇章呢？這個大膽的設想透出了人們對未來科技極度發展的憂慮，也形成了一種獨特的未來世界觀。[返回]
  
  
• downplay[返回]
  不重視，不在意。
  
  
• 令人刮目的看法！或許我們根本無法想象這樣一個世界！相比之下，恐怕黑客帝國也不過是小兒科了！[返回]
  
  
• 自然語言處理、大腦的秘密、宇宙的奧秘……這一直都是人類想要探求的最為極限的東西，不過或許這樣的探索不會有絕對的終點，只會有一個相對的、能夠滿足科學應用的終點。這就好像我們常用"從三維空間考察二維空間"來類比"從四維空間考察三維空間"一樣，我們與我們所探究的東西，永遠相差一個級別……一個二維空間的"扁平人"如何能夠站在三維空間的角度去考察自己？人類如何用自己的大腦去考究自己的大腦的全部奧秘？應該說，這些極限科技的發展或許真的沒有所有人想象得那么快？[返回]
  
  
• Klingons[返回]
  克林岡人，《星際迷航》劇集中的一個外星人種族。
  
  
• trekker[返回]
  通常將《星際迷航（Star Trek）》的愛好者稱為treky或者trekker，我們不妨譯之為"星迷"。
  
  
• Spock[返回]
  斯波克，《星際迷航》中的一個重要角色，帶有尖耳朵的外星人。
  
  
• THE WAY TO EDEN[返回]
  《星際迷航》電視劇其中一集的標題。
  
  
• greenhouse effect[返回]
  溫室效應。
  
  
• carbon dioxide[返回]
  二氧化碳。
  
  
• Mesozoic Age[返回]
  中生代時期。
  
  
• Venus[返回]
  金星。
  
  
• ozone[返回]
  臭氧。
  
  
• depletion[返回]
  損耗，消耗。
  
  
• contraception[返回]
  避孕。
  
  
• uterine[返回]
  子宮的。