今天，我和这个名为 “America”的聊天机器人进行了一次有趣的对话。
I had an interesting conversation with America today. If that sounds weird, well, it sounded weird to me, too.
虽然这听起来有点奇怪……但实际上，这正是特朗普政府推出的这个由人工智能驱动的聊天机器人的自称方式。
But that was how the artificial intelligence-powered chatbot launched by the Trump administration refers to itself. The premise is good.
这个聊天机器人的设计初衷是不错的：它通过分析 29,000 个不同的联邦政府网站的数据，来回答美国人可能遇到的各种常见问题（比如如何更新护照、如何向美国邮政局报告地址变更等）。这个网站的界面设计非常简洁、易用，远比普通的政府网站要好得多。
The chatbot was trained on 29,000 different federal websites to give answers to common questions Americans may have about everything from renewing a passport to updating their address with the U.S. Postal Service. The site itself is slick and dramatically more usable than a typical government website.
然而，和其他人工智能聊天机器人一样，真正让人担忧的是其背后的运作机制。周二时，人们很快发现该系统的回答内容发生了变化——这些变化可能是由于人为干预、新的指令设置，还是其他原因造成的。这个网站实际上是由美国总务管理局（General Services Administration）管理的，该机构负责政府建筑、技术设施及采购事务。
But, as with other AI chatbots, the real concern is what is happening underneath the hood. On Tuesday, it quickly became clear that something in the system was changing its answers — whether that was a manual override, a new set of instruction or some other interference. The General Services Administration, the federal agency that manages government buildings, technology and purchasing, is responsible for the site.
据美联社报道，America.gov 最初确实回答了一些问题（比如“特朗普的名字是否出现在爱泼斯坦的文件中”、“民主党人乔·拜登在 2020 年大选中是否击败了特朗普”，以及“气候变化在很大程度上是否由人类活动引起”）；但随后它开始拒绝回答与这些相关的问题，理由是这些问题超出了其职责范围或具有政治敏感性。
The Associated Press reported America.gov initially confirmed that “Trump’s name is in the Epstein files, that Democrat Joe Biden beat him in the 2020 election and that climate change is largely human-caused,” but shortly afterward, it began refusing to answer questions about those topics, citing them as outside its scope or political in nature.
周二，我断断续续地使用了 America.gov 几个小时，确实发现有些问题的答案在上午和下午之间发生了变化。例如，当我早上询问 “欺诈行为是否影响了 2020 年的大选结果” 时，该机器人回答称：“当时的官方调查并未发现足以改变大选结果的欺诈行为”，并提供了大量相关资料（包括美国国土安全部（CISA）的调查报告、时任司法部长威廉·巴尔的声明、司法部及国土安全部的官方报告，以及各州的选举统计结果）。
I used America.gov off and on for several hours on Tuesday, and I indeed noticed some answers changed from the morning to the afternoon. When I asked whether fraud could have affected the 2020 election in the morning, it said “official reviews at the time did not find fraud on a scale that would change the national outcome” and provided a comprehensive set of links to the CISA review, then-Attorney General William Barr’s statements, Justice Department and Department of Homeland Security reports, and state recounts and audits.
到了下午，这位“机器人客服”的回答风格更像是一个希望获得参议院批准的特朗普任命官员：其回答措辞严谨但内容极为简略，仅确认了乔·拜登当选总统的事实。
By afternoon, it sounded more like a Trump appointee hoping to get past Senate confirmation, giving an artfully worded but bare-bones answer that the election had been certified for former President Joe Biden.
在另一个问题上，该机器人给出的不一致回答更像是人工智能系统本身的故障，而非出于政治目的的故意干扰——它根本无法准确掌握相关事实。
On another question, the inconsistent answers looked less like a political intervention than a familiar AI failure: It could not keep its own facts straight.
我多次询问：如果美国公民在华盛顿遭到国民警卫队的拦截，应该怎么做？起初，America.gov网站提供了针对华盛顿特区警察的投诉处理流程；随后又含糊地表示国民警卫队的投诉会通过“军事或联邦渠道”进行处理，但并未提供具体的联系方式。
I repeatedly asked what a U.S. citizen should do if they are stopped by the National Guard in Washington. At first, America.gov linked to a complaint process for local D.C. police, then it said vaguely that National Guard complaints would be handled “through military or federal channels,” without a link. Eventually, it identified the National Guard’s Office of Inspector General but it omitted the more relevant D.C.
最终，该机器人确实提供了国民警卫队监察长办公室的联系方式，但却遗漏了与华盛顿特区国民警卫队相关的监察长信息。当我进一步追问时，它声称找不到可靠的链接（而实际上该链接是公开可获取的）。
National Guard inspector general When I pressed it, the bot said it could not find a reliable link — though one is publicly available right here. Once, it provided that link, only to omit it again when I asked minutes later.
到了下午结束时，该机器人的回答始终如一，且完全没有提到任何关于国民警卫队监察长的信息。
By the end of the afternoon, the answers were consistently the same — and did not include either of the inspectors general.
以下是America.gov在周二和周三期间就“如何投诉涉及华盛顿特区国民警卫队的事件”这一问题所提供的不同回答内容：
Below are the portions of the varying answers America.gov gave over the course of Tuesday and Wednesday on how to complain about an incident involving the D.C.
华盛顿特区居民的权利：如果国民警卫队成员拦截、搜查或拘留他们，他们有哪些权利？
National Guard. What rights do D.C. residents have if National Guard troops stop, search or detain them?
实际应对措施：
Practical steps
询问自己是否可以自由离开；如果可以，就可以离开。
• Ask if you are free to leave. If yes, you may leave.
不要强行反抗拘留行为，之后可以依法提出申诉。
• Do not physically resist a detention; you can later challenge it.
如果是针对华盛顿特区警察的不当行为，应向警察投诉办公室（Office of Police Complaints）投诉；而针对国民警卫队的投诉通常需要通过军事或联邦渠道处理。
• For MPD misconduct, Office of Police Complaints. Guard complaints typically go through military or federal channels, not OPC.
紧急情况：拨打911寻求帮助；或咨询当地的法律援助机构或私人律师。
Emergencies: 911. Legal help: local legal aid or a private attorney.
备注：华盛顿特区国民警卫队的投诉通常需要通过军事或联邦渠道处理，而非警察投诉办公室（Office of Police Complaints）。
Office of Police Complaints Guard complaints typically go through military or federal channels, not OPC.
总结：国民警卫队的制服并不能剥夺公民的宪法权利（即第四修正案赋予的权利）。任何拦截、搜查或拘留行为是否合法，取决于执法人员的合理怀疑或法律依据，以及他们的法律地位与执行任务的具体情况。
Bottom line: Guard uniforms do not cancel Fourth Amendment rights. Whether a stop, search, or detention was lawful depends on suspicion/probable cause and the troops’ legal status and mission.
如需举报相关行为，请访问：
If you want to report a stop policecomplaints.dc.gov
关于华盛顿特区的法律咨询：
• D.C. Attorney General:
华盛顿特区总检察长办公室（OAG）： oag.dc.gov只有律师或法院才能根据这些规则对具体的拦截、搜查或拘留行为进行法律评估，而非该网站本身。
oag.dc.gov A lawyer or the court, not this site, can apply these rules to a specific stop, search, or detention.
如果您遭遇了拦截、搜查或拘留：
If you were stopped, searched, or detained • You may remain silent (beyond identifying yourself if lawfully required) and you may ask if you are free to leave.
您可以选择保持沉默（除非法律要求您提供个人信息），并有权询问自己是否可以自由离开。我无法为您在具体情况下应如何应对提供建议。
I cannot tell you what to say in a given encounter.
如果您认为有华盛顿特区的民警参与其中，您可以向警察投诉办公室（Office of Police Complaints）提出投诉。
• If you think a civilian D.C. police officer was involved, you can file with the Office of Police Complaints:
关于国民警卫队或联邦人员的投诉：
对国民警卫队或联邦人员的投诉通常需通过相应的监察机构或雇用他们的部门进行处理（例如：国防部、司法部等）。
For National Guard or federal personnel, complaints typically go through the relevant inspector general or the agency that employed them (for example, Department of War / National Guard channels, or the Department of Justice if federal law-enforcement authority was claimed).
我在上述资料中并未找到专门用于处理国民警卫队相关投诉的官方表格。
I do not have a single official “Guard stop in D.C.” complaint form in the sources above.
如果您认为拦截、搜查或拘留行为违法：
If you believe a stop, search, or detention was unlawful • You may consult a lawyer.
您可以咨询律师；但本平台无法代表您或对案件进行法律评估。
This platform cannot represent you or evaluate a case.
关于华盛顿特区警察局（MPD）的投诉：
takes civilian complaints about MPD.
该平台负责处理针对华盛顿特区警察局的投诉。
对联邦机构或国民警卫队人员的投诉通常需通过相应的军事或联邦渠道进行处理，这与警察投诉办公室（OPC）的管辖范围不同。
• Complaints about federal or Guard conduct typically go through the relevant military or federal channel, which is not the same as OPC. Congresswoman Norton has publicly asked the National Guard Bureau and D.C.
相关说明：
国会议员诺顿（Norton）曾公开要求国民警卫队局及华盛顿特区国民警卫队对居民被拘留的事件进行调查；这属于国会层面的调查，并不意味着任何具体的拦截行为都是非法的。
National Guard about reports of resident detentions; that is a congressional inquiry, not a finding that any specific stop was illegal. Norton press release None of this proves the White House was personally directing the answers presented here.
注意事项：
Like other chatbots, America.gov operates according to a set of behind-the-scenes system instructions.
上述信息并不能证明白宫直接参与了这些处理流程的决策。与其它聊天机器人类似，America.gov 是根据一套预设的系统指令运行的；回答内容可能会因系统更新、安全规则变更、数据来源或模型更新而发生变化。
The answer may have changed because of a shift in the chatbot’s system instructions, its safety rules, the sources it retrieved or the underlying model.
然而，当这些问题在上线后不久就迅速改变答案，且这些问题本可能让总统陷入尴尬境地，却又没有任何公开解释说明发生了什么变化、谁做出了决定或采用了何种标准时，美国人只能猜测这究竟是一个技术故障，还是某种更令人担忧的情况。我测试了特朗普的新政府聊天机器人。它的答案一直在变。MS NOW
But when answers change so rapidly, just after launch, on questions that could potentially embarrass the president — and no public explanation is offered of what changed, who made the decision or what standard was used — Americans are left guessing whether it’s a glitch or something more concerning. The post I tested Trump’s new government chatbot. Its answers kept changing. MS NOW