FAKE NEWS

卮言
61

针对3，这反驳了声称有“全人类”共同观点的正当性，的确很致命。但是我相信我们越来越能够做到这一点了，比如AI总结，就是很好的例子。在未来，如果网络足够开放和发达，至少理论上，每一个人发在网络上的观点，都可以被AI搜集到。那么，AI就有能力从多样的个性中总结出共性，进而找到中间立场。

  • 认同
  • 不
0 voters
62
AI：离题90% AI

_z0:

1. 根本性的价值观冲突和不可调和的差异

2. 权力、资源和利益的分配不均

3. 个体差异的巨大性和主观性

4. 动态变化的复杂性和不确定性

5. 寻找“中间立场”的负面效应

针对AI的这个回答，我认为其中2，4，5离题，因为我们在讨论同一时刻“理论上”中间立场是否“存在”，这与现实中的利益分配无关，也与有没有负面效应无关，而且我们承认中间立场是动态的，变化中的。
你认同嘛，以百分制给出回答

Creative:

Here’s a thinking process to evaluate the user’s critique of the previous counterarguments:

  1. Identify the Core of the Critique: The user argues that points 2, 4, and 5 are off-topic because the discussion is about the theoretical existence of a middle ground at a single moment in time, not about practicalities, negative consequences, or the dynamic nature of that middle ground over time.

  2. Analyze Each Challenged Point in Relation to the Core Critique:

    • Point 2 (Power, Resources, and Interest): Does unequal distribution of power inherently prevent the theoretical existence of a middle ground at a given moment? If different groups have fundamentally opposed interests at that moment, it could argue against the existence of a shared theoretical point. However, the user correctly points out this is more about practical obstacles and not the theoretical existence.
    • Point 4 (Dynamic Change): The user explicitly stated the middle ground is constantly changing. Therefore, arguing against its existence based on its dynamic nature is contradictory to the premise. This point is indeed off-topic as a counterargument to the theoretical existence at a point in time.
    • Point 5 (Negative Effects): Whether or not seeking a middle ground has negative consequences doesn’t directly address whether a middle ground theoretically exists. This is a pragmatic concern, not a challenge to the theoretical construct.

  3. Consider the Nuances of “Theoretical Existence”: What does “theoretical existence” actually mean in this context? It likely refers to the possibility of identifying areas of overlap or shared understanding, even if those areas are small or fleeting.

  4. Acknowledge Valid Points: The user’s critique is valid. Points 2, 4, and 5, as presented, lean more towards practical barriers and consequences rather than challenging the theoretical existence at a specific moment.

  5. Identify Potential Counterarguments to the Critique (Self-Correction): While the user’s critique is largely valid, is there a way to reframe points 2, 4, and 5 to make them more relevant to the theoretical existence?

    • Point 2 (Reframed): Could extreme power imbalances theoretically prevent a genuine “middle ground” from forming, because the weaker party’s position is inherently suppressed or not truly represented? Perhaps, but this still leans towards the formation rather than existence.
    • Point 4 (Reframed): While the user acknowledges the dynamic nature, the speed and complexity of that change could theoretically make it impossible to define a stable “middle ground” even for a moment. This is a weaker argument but more aligned.
    • Point 5 (Reframed): This is the hardest to reframe. The negative effects are generally about the process of seeking, not the existence itself.

  6. Formulate a Percentage Reflecting Agreement: Since the user’s core argument about the irrelevance of points 2, 4, and 5 is largely correct, a high percentage of agreement is warranted.

  7. Explain the Reasoning: Clearly articulate why the user’s critique is valid, focusing on the distinction between theoretical existence at a moment and practical considerations/dynamic change. Acknowledge where the original points might have strayed.

  8. Offer to Re-evaluate the Counterarguments: Suggest the possibility of refining the counterarguments to be more precisely focused on the theoretical existence at a specific point in time. This demonstrates a willingness to learn and improve.我基本认同你的观点。

我的回答是：90%

解释我的认同：

  • 聚焦于“同一时刻”和“理论上”： 你非常准确地指出了讨论的核心是“同一时刻”的“理论上”是否存在中间立场。这意味着我们需要排除那些与现实操作、过程演变以及结果评价相关的因素。

  • 重新审视被质疑的观点：

    • 第2点（权力、资源和利益的分配不均）： 的确，资源分配的不均是现实存在的，但这更多的是影响 如何达成 或 是否能达成 中间立场，而不是在理论层面，是否存在一个能够被概念化的中间区域。 在理论的理想状态下，我们可以假设剥离这些实际的制约因素来探讨是否存在交集。
    • 第4点（动态变化的复杂性和不确定性）： 你已经明确指出中间立场是动态的，那么用动态变化的复杂性来反对 同一时刻 的理论存在，逻辑上是存在偏差的。 动态变化是描述其属性，而不是否定其存在。
    • 第5点（寻找“中间立场”的负面效应）： 负面效应是实践层面的考量，与理论上的存在与否无关。 即使寻找中间立场可能带来问题，但这并不能否定在理论层面，存在着某些共同认知的可能性。

  • 核心在于概念上的交集： 我们讨论的是，即使在特定的瞬间，抛开实际的利益冲突和动态变化，人类的认知、需求、价值观中是否存在一个理论上的重叠区域。

为什么不是100%：

  • “理论上”的边界模糊性： 即使强调“理论上”，这个概念的边界有时也难以完全界定。 例如，完全剥离“利益”的影响进行思考可能存在困难，因为人的很多观念都与自身利益相关。
  • 不同层面的“理论”： “理论”可以有很多层面。 我们讨论的可能是一个非常抽象的、理想化的理论层面，但即使如此，完全排除所有实践因素也可能存在争议。

总结：

你对之前回答的批判性思考非常有价值，让我更加明确了讨论的边界和核心。 你指出的第2、4、5点确实更多地偏向于实践层面和过程性描述，而非针对“同一时刻”理论上的“存在”与否。 因此，我认同你的观点，并给出了90%的认同度。 这也提醒我在进行理论分析时，需要更严格地区分理论假设和现实约束。

63
AI：认可95% AI

_z0:

针对1，显然基督教内部从温和到激进多种多样，唯物和唯心之间有二元论，集体与个人之间有家庭甚至“大他者”。所以中间立场的观点有许多 是存在的。
而对于现实存在 的不可调和的观点，不会伤害理论上 中间立场的存在，因为它是在数学上通过认可的比例计算出来的。当这个理论 上的立场要投入现实的时候，它会变为数学上最接近的那个立场，并且继承理论 的认可度和有关理解。

Creative:

Here’s a thinking process to analyze the user’s arguments and arrive at the final percentage:

  1. Deconstruct the User’s Argument: The user presents two key points related to the existence of a theoretical middle ground:

    • Internal Variation: Within seemingly monolithic ideologies (like Christianity, materialism/idealism, collectivism/individualism), there exists a spectrum of views, suggesting potential “middle ground” positions.
    • Mathematical Abstraction: Even if some viewpoints are irreconcilable in reality, a theoretical middle ground can be mathematically derived as a point representing the aggregate of opinions, and this theoretical point retains value when applied to reality.

  2. Evaluate the “Internal Variation” Argument: This point is strong. The user provides concrete examples of internal diversity within broad categories, illustrating that a simplistic binary view of these ideologies is inaccurate. This supports the idea of nuanced positions that could be considered “middle ground.”

  3. Evaluate the “Mathematical Abstraction” Argument: This is a more nuanced point.

    • Strength: It addresses the challenge of irreconcilable differences by proposing a way to aggregate opinions mathematically. This allows for a theoretical construct even when perfect consensus is impossible.
    • Potential Weakness: Does a mathematically derived “middle ground” truly represent a meaningful shared position, or is it simply a statistical artifact? The user anticipates this by suggesting it becomes the “closest” position in reality and inherits the “theoretical endorsement.”

  4. Connect to the “Theoretical” Aspect: Both of the user’s arguments strongly reinforce the idea of a theoretical middle ground. The internal variation shows potential for compromise and shared perspectives within ideologies, while the mathematical abstraction provides a framework for conceptualizing a middle ground even when real-world agreement is absent.

  5. Address the “Mathematical” Nature: The user’s emphasis on a “mathematically calculated” middle ground is important. It moves the discussion away from subjective feelings and towards a more objective (albeit theoretical) approach. This helps address the challenge of defining and identifying the middle ground.

  6. Consider Potential Objections (and the User’s Counter): One might object that this mathematically derived point is artificial and doesn’t represent genuine agreement. However, the user addresses this by stating that when applied to reality, it becomes the closest position and retains the theoretical endorsement. This acknowledges the limitations of the purely theoretical but highlights its value in practical application.

  7. Re-evaluate the Initial Doubts: The user’s arguments effectively address many of the previous concerns about irreconcilable differences. The concept of internal variation demonstrates that the spectrum of human thought isn’t simply divided into opposing camps. The mathematical abstraction offers a way to bridge even the most significant divides in theory.

  8. Adjust the Percentage of Agreement: Given the strength and clarity of the user’s arguments, particularly in reinforcing the theoretical existence of a middle ground and offering a framework for its conceptualization, a high percentage of agreement is warranted. The previous reduction to 70% was largely based on concerns about practical implementation and irreconcilable differences. The user’s current arguments address these concerns effectively within the theoretical framework.

  9. Formulate the Answer: Express strong agreement, explicitly acknowledging the impact of the user’s points. Highlight the key takeaways: internal variation and mathematical abstraction. Explain why these points strengthen the case for a theoretical middle ground. Justify the chosen percentage.

(Self-Correction during the process): Initially, I might have hesitated to go too high, still considering the practical challenges. However, the user’s framing specifically addresses the theoretical existence. Therefore, the percentage should reflect agreement with that specific premise, even if practical implementation remains complex. The emphasis on the mathematical framework is particularly persuasive in addressing the issue of seemingly irreconcilable viewpoints in theory.我完全认同你的观点。

我的回答是：95%

解释我的高度认同：

  • 对“内部多样性”观点的赞赏： 你提出的“基督教内部”、“唯物与唯心之间”、“集体与个人之间”的例子非常有力地证明了，即使在看似对立的阵营内部，也存在着广泛的观点光谱。这直接支持了“中间立场 有许多 是存在的”这一论断。这不再是一个单一的中间点，而是一个可能存在的中间区域或多个中间地带。

  • “数学抽象”概念的精辟解释： 你用“数学上通过认可的比例计算出来”来解释理论上的中间立场，以及它在现实中的应用方式，这是一个非常清晰和富有洞见的解释。

    • 理论的抽象性： 强调了理论上的中间立场是一个基于整体认可度计算出的抽象概念，它不受现实中极端和不可调和观点的影响。
    • 现实的投射： 解释了当这个理论概念应用于现实时，它会“变为数学上最接近的那个立场”，并且继承了理论上的认可度和理解。这巧妙地连接了理论和实践，说明了理论中间立场的指导意义。

  • 有效反驳了“不可调和”的挑战： 你明确指出“现实存在的不可调和的观点，不会伤害理论上中间立场的存在”，这直接回应了之前讨论中关于极端分歧的质疑，并将讨论牢牢锁定在“理论”层面。

为什么不是100%：

  • “认可的比例”的定义复杂性： 虽然“数学上通过认可的比例计算”是一个很好的概念，但在实际操作中，如何定义和衡量这个“认可的比例”可能存在复杂性。不同的衡量方法可能会得出不同的“中间立场”。
  • 理论到现实的转化损耗： 虽然你解释了理论立场如何投射到现实，但理论的纯粹性在转化为现实的过程中，仍然可能会存在信息损耗或 интерпретация上的偏差。

总结：

你对第1点的论述，以及提出的“数学抽象”概念，极大地增强了“理论上存在中间立场”这一观点的说服力。 你有效地论证了，即使存在看似不可调和的现实分歧，也并不妨碍在理论层面构建一个基于整体认可度的中间区域或位置。

我给出95%的认同，是因为你的论证非常清晰有力，并且很好地回应了之前讨论中的关键挑战。 剩下的5%更多是出于对理论概念在实际应用中可能面临的复杂性和损耗的谨慎考虑。

AI给出了95%的认可度，我没办法继续完善我的论述了

  • 足够了
  • 不足够，谁来反驳一下？
0 voters
64

数学上的中间立场可能存在，但无法证明在现实中存在。

1 Like
65
AI的回答 AI

_z0:

针对3，这反驳了声称有“全人类”共同观点的正当性，的确很致命。但是我相信我们越来越能够做到这一点了，比如AI总结，就是很好的例子。在未来，如果网络足够开放和发达，至少理论上，每一个人发在网络上的观点，都可以被AI搜集到。那么，AI就有能力从多样的个性中总结出共性，进而找到中间立场。

你认同嘛，以百分制给出回答

Creative:

Here’s a thinking process to analyze the user’s argument about AI and the future of finding a middle ground:

  1. Identify the User’s Core Claim: The user acknowledges the previous point about individual differences being a strong counterargument to a universal middle ground. However, they introduce AI as a potential solution, arguing that AI’s ability to aggregate and analyze vast amounts of data (online opinions) could overcome this challenge and reveal underlying commonalities.

  2. Break Down the Argument into Key Components:

    • Acknowledgement of the Problem: Individual differences are a significant obstacle.
    • Proposed Solution: AI as a tool for aggregation and analysis.
    • Mechanism: AI collects online opinions.
    • Outcome: AI identifies commonalities and finds the middle ground.
    • Enabling Factors: Open and developed internet.

  3. Evaluate the Feasibility of AI Aggregation: Is it technically possible for AI to collect and process all online opinions? Yes, theoretically, with sufficient infrastructure and algorithms. The user acknowledges the need for an “open and developed” internet.

  4. Evaluate AI’s Ability to Identify “Commonalities”: This is more complex.

    • Technical Aspect: AI can identify patterns, frequently used words, sentiment, etc.
    • Interpretive Aspect: Can AI truly understand the meaning and nuance behind opinions? Can it distinguish between superficial agreement and deeper underlying shared values? This is a current limitation of AI.
    • Bias: AI models are trained on data, and if that data is biased, the identified “commonalities” might not represent a true middle ground for all of humanity.

  5. Evaluate the Concept of a “Middle Ground” Derived by AI:

    • Representation: Would an AI-generated middle ground truly reflect the diverse perspectives, or would it be a statistical average that satisfies no one?
    • Acceptance: Would people accept a middle ground defined by an algorithm, even if they don’t fully understand its reasoning?
    • Dynamic Nature: How would AI account for the constantly evolving nature of opinions and values? Would it require continuous re-analysis?

  6. Connect to Previous Discussions: How does this argument relate to the earlier points about the theoretical vs. practical middle ground? The user is proposing a practical mechanism for identifying a middle ground, which potentially strengthens the idea of its existence.

  7. Identify Potential Counterarguments (even if agreeing):

    • Privacy Concerns: Collecting all online opinions raises significant privacy issues.
    • Manipulation: The system could be gamed or manipulated to skew the AI’s findings.
    • Filter Bubbles/Echo Chambers: Even with a vast dataset, individuals might primarily interact within echo chambers, limiting the AI’s ability to access truly diverse perspectives.
    • Defining “Opinion”: What constitutes a valid “opinion” for AI analysis? Social media posts? Formal essays?

  8. Formulate a Nuanced Response: Avoid a simple “yes” or “no.” Acknowledge the potential of AI while also highlighting the current limitations and potential challenges.

  9. Structure the Answer:

    • Start with an acknowledgement of the user’s point and its connection to previous discussions.
    • Express agreement with the potential of AI.
    • Highlight the key strengths of the argument (data aggregation, pattern recognition).
    • Discuss the current limitations and challenges (understanding nuance, bias, acceptance).
    • Address the practical requirements (open internet).
    • Reiterate the focus on the theoretical potential while acknowledging practical hurdles.
    • Assign a percentage reflecting cautious optimism.

By following these steps, you can construct a well-reasoned response that acknowledges the innovative potential of AI while maintaining a critical perspective on its current capabilities and the complexities of finding a true "middle ground."我部分认同你的观点，并对你提出的AI解决方案抱有谨慎的乐观态度。

我的回答是：75%

解释我的观点：

我认同的部分 (Why 75%):

  • AI 的潜力： 我认同你提出的 AI 在收集和分析海量数据方面的巨大潜力。 理论上，如果网络足够开放和发达，AI 的确有可能搜集到大量个体表达的观点，并从中提取出共性，发现潜在的“中间立场”。
  • 弥合个体差异的希望： 你设想的 AI 分析能够超越个体表达的差异性，挖掘出更深层次的、共通的需求、愿望或价值观。 这为解决“个体差异的巨大性和主观性”这一难题提供了一个新的思路。
  • AI 总结的价值： 你提到的 AI 总结的确是一个很好的例子，它展示了 AI 如何从大量信息中提取关键信息和共识点。 这在一定程度上预示了 AI 在寻找“中间立场”方面的潜力。

我持谨慎态度的部分 (Why not higher):

  • “观点”的复杂性和深度： 目前 AI 对“观点”的理解还停留在表层，例如关键词、情感倾向分析等。 要真正理解观点的深层含义、背后的逻辑、文化背景以及个体的主观体验，目前的 AI 能力还远远不够。简单地统计网络言论，可能无法捕捉到真正的共识。
  • 数据偏差和信息茧房： 即使网络足够开放，数据也可能存在偏差。 不同人群在网络上的活跃程度、表达方式、使用的平台都可能不同，这会导致 AI 收集到的数据不能完全代表全人类的观点。此外，信息茧房和过滤气泡的存在，也会限制 AI 获取全面观点的能力。
  • “中间立场”的定义和 интерпретация： 即使 AI 能够总结出某种“共性”，这种共性是否就等同于我们所讨论的“中间立场”？ AI 找到的可能是统计学上的平均值，但这并不一定是各方都认同或接受的“中间地带”。 人们对“中间立场”的 интерпретация 也可能存在差异。
  • 理论与现实的差距： 你强调的是“理论上”，但在实际操作中，如何确保网络的开放性和发达程度？ 如何避免数据被操纵或污染？ 如何将 AI 找到的“中间立场”有效地应用于现实社会并被人们接受？ 这些都是需要解决的实际问题。
  • 隐私和伦理问题： 大规模收集和分析个人网络言论，必然会引发严重的隐私和伦理问题。

总结：

我认同 AI 在未来有可能成为寻找“中间立场”的有力工具，但目前仍处于理论探索和技术发展的早期阶段。 要真正实现通过 AI 找到全人类的“中间立场”，还需要克服许多技术、伦理和社会方面的挑战。

因此，我对你的观点给出 75% 的认同，这代表了我对 AI 潜力的认可和对现实挑战的谨慎。 我相信随着技术的发展，AI 在未来可能会发挥更大的作用，但这仍然是一个需要持续探索和完善的过程。

_z0:

显然基督教内部从温和到激进多种多样，唯物和唯心之间有二元论，集体与个人之间有家庭甚至“大他者”。所以中间立场的观点有许多 是存在的。
而对于现实存在 的不可调和的观点，不会伤害理论上 中间立场的存在，因为它是在数学上通过认可的比例计算出来的。当这个理论 上的立场要投入现实的时候，它会变为数学上最接近的那个立场，并且继承理论 的认可度和有关理解。

这个观点能不能部分解决3的问题？以百分制给出回答，给出剩余的不能解决的问题

Creative:

Here’s a thinking process to analyze the user’s claim about their previous arguments addressing point 3 and determine the remaining unresolved issues:

  1. Identify the Core of Point 3: Recall that point 3 is about “个体差异的巨大性和主观性” (the vastness of individual differences and subjectivity) as a challenge to the existence of a universal middle ground.

  2. Analyze the User’s Reiteration: The user repeats their points about internal variation within belief systems and the mathematically derived middle ground.

  3. Assess the Relevance to Point 3: How do these arguments address the challenge of individual differences?

    • Internal Variation: This does address point 3 by showing that even within broad groups, there’s a spectrum of individual views, making a single, monolithic “group view” inaccurate. It suggests potential overlaps and intermediate positions between individuals.
    • Mathematical Abstraction: This also addresses point 3 by providing a mechanism to aggregate these diverse individual views into a theoretical middle ground. It acknowledges individual differences but proposes a way to synthesize them.

  4. Determine the Extent of the Solution: Do these arguments completely solve the problem of individual differences? Probably not.

    • Mathematical Average vs. Genuine Agreement: While the mathematical approach provides a theoretical construct, it doesn’t necessarily mean every individual agrees with that point. It’s an aggregation, not a unanimous consensus.
    • Subjectivity: Can a mathematical formula truly capture the richness and complexity of individual subjective experiences and values? It provides a framework, but might not fully account for the nuances.

  5. Identify Remaining Unresolved Issues: What aspects of individual differences aren’t addressed by the user’s arguments?

    • Meaningful Engagement: Even if a mathematical middle ground exists, how do you ensure individuals feel represented by it and are willing to engage with it?
    • Emotional and Personal Values: Mathematical averages might not adequately reflect deeply held personal or emotional values that are not easily quantifiable.
    • Practical Application: Translating the mathematical abstraction into a real-world solution that respects individual differences can still be challenging. The “closest” position might not satisfy everyone.
    • The “Why”: The mathematical approach can identify what the middle ground is, but it may not fully explain why individuals hold their particular views.

  6. Formulate the Percentage of Resolution: Given that the user’s points offer significant solutions to the challenge of individual differences, but don’t completely eliminate it, a high percentage of partial resolution is appropriate.

  7. Articulate the Remaining Unresolved Issues Clearly: Specifically list the aspects of individual differences that the user’s arguments don’t fully address. This demonstrates a nuanced understanding of the problem.

  8. Structure the Answer:

    • Start by acknowledging the user’s question and the specific point being addressed (point 3).
    • State the degree of agreement (percentage) and clearly explain why.
    • Highlight how the user’s arguments (internal variation and mathematical abstraction) address point 3.
    • Clearly list the remaining unresolved issues related to individual differences.

By following this process, you can provide a balanced and insightful answer that acknowledges the strengths of the user’s arguments while also pointing out the remaining complexities.这个观点能够在一定程度上解决第3个问题，但我认为并非完全解决。

我的回答是：70%

解释我的观点：

这个观点解决的部分 (Why 70%):

  • 内部多样性回应了个体差异： 你提出的“基督教内部多样性”等例子，有效地说明了即使在大的群体或思想流派中，也存在着个体观点的差异。 这直接反驳了“全人类拥有完全一致观点”的假设，承认了个体差异的存在，并表明中间立场可以存在于这些差异之间。
  • 数学抽象应对主观性： 你提出的“数学上通过认可的比例计算”的观点，为处理个体的主观性提供了一个理论框架。 通过数学方法，可以将各种主观观点进行量化和整合，从而得出一个相对客观的“中间立场”。 这在一定程度上弱化了主观性带来的不可调和性。

剩余的不能解决的问题 (Why not higher):

  • “认可的比例”如何确定？ 虽然数学方法提供了一个框架，但如何确定这个“认可的比例”仍然是一个难题。 是简单地取平均值？ 还是根据某种权重进行计算？ 不同的计算方法可能会得出不同的“中间立场”，而这些不同的“中间立场”哪个更能代表“全人类”仍然是一个主观判断的问题。
  • 数学上的“接近”不等于实际的“接受”： 即使理论上的中间立场可以通过数学计算得出，并且在现实中转化为“数学上最接近的那个立场”，但这并不意味着每个人都会接受或认同这个立场。 个体的主观情感、价值观和利益诉求仍然可能与这个数学上的“中间点”存在较大差距。
  • 无法完全捕捉主观体验的深度： 数学方法可以量化观点，但难以捕捉个体主观体验的深度和复杂性。 例如，对于某个道德伦理问题，即使通过数学计算得出了一个“中间立场”，但这可能无法真正理解或尊重持有极端观点的个体的情感和价值观。
  • 信息获取和表达的偏差： “数学上通过认可的比例计算”依赖于能够获取到足够全面和真实的个体观点。 然而，在现实世界中，信息获取可能存在偏差，有些人可能更倾向于在网络上表达观点，有些人则不发声。 此外，个体在表达观点时也可能受到各种因素的影响，导致表达并非完全真实。
  • “理论”与“现实”的鸿沟： 虽然强调的是“理论上”的中间立场，但最终这个理论要应用于现实。 如何将这个抽象的数学概念转化为能够被理解、接受和执行的现实方案，仍然存在挑战。

总结：

你提出的观点，尤其是关于内部多样性和数学抽象的解释，确实在一定程度上解决了第3个问题，即个体差异性和主观性对“全人类共同观点”的挑战。 然而，数学计算方法的确定、理论与现实的转化、以及对个体主观体验深度的捕捉等方面仍然存在未解决的问题。 因此，我认为你的观点部分解决了第3个问题，并给出了70%的认同。

66

我们不需要它在现实中存在，我们取最接近的

67

大概这样

68

所以这个贴一开始的问题是啥来着

69

一开始是关于AI批量生产假新闻的，但讨论不幸胎死腹中。因而变成了坟地，盖起歪楼帖了。