大卫·萨克斯：人工智能、加密货币、中国、民主党与旧金山

欧洲人，我是说，他们对这类事情的思维方式截然不同。当他们谈论AI领导力时，他们指的是在制定法规方面领先。你知道，他们在布鲁塞尔聚在一起，研究所有规则应该是什么，这就是他们所谓的领导力。

The Europeans, I mean, they have a really different mindset for all this stuff. When when they talk about AI leadership, what they mean is that they're taking the lead in defining the regulations. You know, they get together in Brussels and figure out what all the rules should be, and that's what they call leadership.

这几乎像是一场游戏节目。他们竭尽全力在萌芽阶段就扼杀它们。然后如果这些小公司能熬过十年左右的打压，他们才会给钱让它们发展。

It's almost like a game show or something. They do everything they can to strangle them in their crib. And then if they if they make it if they make it through, like, a decade of abuse in small companies, then they're gonna give the money to grow.

罗纳德·里根有句名言：能动的东西就征税，继续动的就监管，停止不动的就补贴。是啊，欧洲人现在绝对处于补贴阶段。

Ron Reagan had a line about this, which is if it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. If it stops moving, subsidize it. Yeah. The Europeans are definitely at the subsidized stage.

如今，AI和加密技术正处于全球科技与经济领导力竞赛的核心。今天你将听到大卫·萨克斯、马克·安德森和本·霍洛维茨讲述美国如何保持领先优势。我们讨论了特朗普政府对AI和加密政策的新举措、创新与监管的平衡，以及美国如何在能源、芯片和开源领域引领潮流，同时避免过度监管的错误。让我们开始吧。

AI and crypto now sit at the center of the global race for technological and economic leadership. Today, you'll hear from David Sachs, Marc Andreessen, and Ben Horowitz on what it takes for America to stay ahead. We discussed the Trump administration's new approach to AI and crypto policy, the balance between innovation and regulation, and how The US can lead on energy, chips, and open source while avoiding the mistakes of overregulation. Let's get into it.

大卫，欢迎来到a16z播客。感谢你的加入。是的，很高兴来到这里。那么大卫，你是AI和加密领域的负责人。

David, welcome to the a six and z podcast. Thanks for joining. Yeah. Good to be here. So, David, you're the AI and crypto czar.

你能否先谈谈为什么把这两者放在一个组合里是合理的？它们之间有什么关联？然后我会请

Why don't you first talk about why it makes sense to have those as a portfolio? What do they have to do with each other? And then I'll have

你阐述特朗普的计划

you lay out what's Trump plan

关于这两个类别以及我们的进展。

on those two categories and how we're doing.

嗯，我认为有两项相对较新的技术，人们对它们存在很多恐惧。我觉得人们未必对它们了解很多，也不太清楚该如何看待。从政策角度来看——我们可以讨论其异同点——处理方式略有不同。对于加密货币，我认为最需要的是监管确定性。

Well, there are two technologies that I guess are relatively new, and so there's a lot of fear of them. And I think people don't necessarily know that much about them. They don't really know what to make of them. I think that from a policy standpoint, and we can talk about the similarities and differences, the approaches are a little different. I think with crypto, the main thing that's needed is regulatory certainty.

多年来我接触的所有创业者都表达了同样的诉求：只要告诉我们规则是什么。我们乐意遵守，但华盛顿方面却拒绝明确规则。实际上，在拜登执政期间，SEC主席采取了所谓'通过执法来监管'的方式——这意味着你直接遭到起诉。他们不告诉你规则是什么，你直接被起诉后，其他人只能从你被罚款或判刑的案例中揣测规则。

All the entrepreneurs I've talked to over the years, they all say the same thing, which is just tell us what the rules are. We're happy to comply, but Washington won't tell us what they are. And in fact, during the Biden years, you had an SEC chairman who took an approach, which I guess has been called regulation through enforcement, which basically means you just get prosecuted. They don't tell you what the rules are. You just basically get indicted, and then everyone else is supposed to divine what the rules are as you get prosecuted and fined and imprisoned.

这种状况持续了数年。结果导致整个加密货币行业几乎全部向海外转移。我认为美国正在错失这个未来产业。因此特朗普总统在去年竞选期间，在纳什维尔发表了那场著名的演讲，宣称要让美国成为全球加密货币之都，并要解雇根斯勒——这句话赢得了最热烈的掌声。

So that was the approach for several years. And as a result of that, basically, the whole crypto industry was in the process of moving offshore. And and America, I think, was being deprived of this industry of the future. And so president Trump during his campaign in last year, he gave a now famous speech in Nashville in which he declared that he would make The United States the crypto capital of the planet and that he would fire Gensler. That was, like, the big applause line.

我记得当时我也鼓掌了。他后来提到自己都很惊讶观众反应如此热烈，于是又重复了一遍，人群再次沸腾。总之他承诺要提供明确的监管框架，让行业理解规则并能够遵守。这样反过来能更好地保护消费者、企业等生态参与者，同时提升美国的竞争力。

I think he I applauded. He's talked about how surprised he was at what a big ovation he got at that. So he said it again, and the crowd erupted again. But in any event, he promised basically to provide this clarity so that the industry would understand what the rules are, be able to comply. In turn, that should provide greater protection for consumers and businesses, everyone who's part of the ecosystem, and it makes America more competitive.

所以加密货币领域的任务本质上是支持监管的——我们要建立规范。而人工智能则恰恰相反，我认为拜登政府干预过度。他们甚至还没理解这项技术就开始强力监管，没人真正花时间去了解AI的实际应用场景和真正风险。

So I think that's the mandate on crypto is, in a way, it's pro regulation. It's basically we wanna put in place regulations. In a way, AI is kind of the opposite where I think the Biden administration was too heavy handed. They were starting to really regulate this area without even understanding what it was. No one had really taken the time to understand how AI was even being used, what the real dangers were.

当时弥漫着严重的危言耸听氛围。结果拜登政府正在软件和硬件双方面推行严苛监管——这个我们可以深入探讨。而特朗普政府的立场很明确：我们要让美国赢得AI竞赛，这是一场全球竞争。

There was this intense fear mongering. And as a result of that, the approach the Biden administration was they were in the process of implementing very heavy handed regulations on both the software and hardware side. And we can drill into that. I think that with the Trump administration, the approach has been that we want The United States to win the AI race. It's a global competition.

有时我们会提到中国可能是我们在这一领域的主要竞争对手。他们是唯一一个拥有技术能力、人才、专业知识和技能，能在这一领域超越我们的国家，而我们希望确保美国能胜出。当然，在美国，真正推动创新的不是政府，而是私营部门。这意味着我们的企业必须赢得竞争。

Sometimes we mention the fact that China is our probably our main competitor in this area. They're the only other country that has the technological capability, the talent, the know how, the expertise to beat us in this area, and we wanna make sure The United States wins. And, of course, in The US, it's not really the government that's responsible for innovation. It's the private sector. So that means that our companies have to win.

如果你对企业施加各种疯狂繁琐的监管，那只会适得其反。几个月前的7月23日，总统发表了一场我认为非常重要的AI政策演讲，他明确表示我们必须赢得AI竞赛，并提出了实现这一目标的几大支柱：支持创新、支持基础设施建设（这也意味着支持能源和出口）。如果需要我们可以深入讨论这些内容，但这是总体方针。

And if you're imposing all sorts of crazy burdensome regulation on them, then that's gonna hurt, not help. So the president gave a, I think, very important AI policy speech a couple months ago on July 23 where he declared in no uncertain terms that we had to win the AI race. And he laid out several pillars on how we do that. It was pro innovation, pro infrastructure, which also means pro energy and pro export. And we can drill into all those things if you want, but that was the high line.

因此我认为，在AI领域，核心问题是如何释放创新活力。而在加密货币领域，更多是关于如何建立明确的监管框架。但就我的角色而言，为什么我要同时负责这两方面？我想共同点在于这些都是新兴技术，它们都源自科技行业——这个与华盛顿有着截然不同文化的领域。

And so I think that, again, with AI, the idea is kinda like, how do we unleash innovation? And I think with crypto, it's been more about how we create regulatory certainty. But, you know, in terms of my role, like, why am I doing both? I mean, I think the common denominator is just again, these are new technologies. They're both obviously come from the tech industry, which has a very different culture than Washington does.

我把自己的角色视为连接硅谷与华盛顿的桥梁。不仅要帮助华盛顿理解所需的政策或正在发生的创新，还要从文化层面让他们认识到科技行业的独特价值，以及如何保护它免受政府过度干预。

And I kinda see it as my role to help be a bridge between what's happening in Silicon Valley and what's happening in Washington. And helping Washington understand not just the policy that's needed or the innovation that's happening, but also kind of culturally, what makes the tech industry different and special and how that needs to be protected from a government doing something excessively heavy handed.

大卫，今天我们主要讨论AI。但关于加密货币，今年大选后我有个有趣的发现：当人们逐渐适应政府更迭后，我接触过不少政界人士——他们原本反对加密货币，现在正试图找到更理性的立场；还有金融服务业人士，他们曾参与过各种银行封禁行动却不明白发生了什么。但共同反应都是：'马克，我没想到情况这么糟糕'。

So, David, you know, we're gonna talk a lot about AI today. But just on crypto, I've had this interesting experience this year kind of after the election. Kind of people adjusted to the change of government, and I've had this discussion with a number of people who, let's say, in politics who were previously anti crypto, who have been trying to figure out how to kinda get to a more sensible position. And then also actually people in the financial services industry who kinda followed it from a or maybe participated in the the various debanking things without really understanding what was happening. But the common denominator has been they're like, Mark, I didn't really understand how bad it was.

我原本以为你们科技界只是在无病呻吟，像其他利益集团那样游说，觉得那些恐怖故事都是编造的——企业家被起诉、FBI突袭民宅等等。但现在回顾起来，天啊，实际情况比我以为的严重得多。

I basically thought you guys in tech were basically just whining a lot and pleading as a special interest and kinda doing the normal thing. And I figured the horror stories were kinda made up. People getting prosecuted and entrepreneurs getting their houses raided by the FBI and, like, the whole panoply of things that happened. And I now, in retrospect, now that I go back and look, I'm like, oh my god. This was actually much worse than I thought.

你有类似经历吗？现在你掌握了全部情况，你觉得人们真的意识到当时有多糟糕了吗？

Do you have that experience? And as you're in there and kind of as you now have a complete view of everything that happens, do you think people understand actually how bad it was?

我是说，我觉得这是个很好的观点。其实我之前也不太清楚。大家只是大概听说过。我们知道有银行账户封禁这回事。而且不只是加密公司，连它们的创始人个人账户也被封了。

I mean, think it's a great point. I mean, I didn't really know either. You kinda heard generally. I mean, we knew that there was debanking going on. And by the way, wasn't just crypto companies that were being debanked, but their founders were being debanked personally.

所以如果你是加密公司的创始人，你连银行账户都开不了。这问题太严重了。比如你怎么交易？怎么付款？怎么给员工发工资？

So if you were the founder of a crypto company, you couldn't open a bank account. I mean, that's a huge problem. It's like, how do you transact? How do you make payments? How do you pay people?

这基本上等于剥夺了你的生计。是一种非常极端的审查形式。这种情况确实存在。再加上SEC推动的所有诉讼。是的，情况真的很糟糕。

I mean, it basically deprives you of a livelihood. It's a very extreme form of censorship. So that was definitely happening. And then, of course, you have all the prosecutions that the SEC was behind. So, yeah, it was really bad.

我记得大概是三月份，我们在白宫举办了加密峰会。有位参会者说，一年前他觉得自己进监狱的可能性都比进白宫大。这对行业来说是个重大里程碑。他们从未获得过这种认可。在白宫举办活动这种事，以前根本不敢想象。

I remember back in I think it was in March, we had a crypto summit at the White House. And one of the attendees said that a year ago, I would have thought it was more likely that I'd be in jail than that I'd be at the White House. And so it was it was a really big milestone for the industry. They never ever received any kind of recognition like that. The idea that this was even a industry that you would do an event at the White House.

至少可以说，加密行业一直被视为不入流的。但无论如何，现在发生了巨大转变。我们基本上阻止了这种趋势。这很不公平，因为这些创始人都想遵守规则，却没人告诉他们规则是什么。我认为这都是故意要把加密业务赶到海外的策略。

I mean, at a minimum, I think crypto is seen as very declass a. But in any event, yeah, no, it's been a it's been a huge shift. I mean, we basically have stopped that. And it was very unfair because, again, these founders wanted to comply with the rules, but they weren't told what they were. And that was all part of a deliberate strategy, I think, to drive crypto offshore.

是的。我们注意到加密和AI领域一个很大不同是：加密行业大家都想要明确规则，整个行业相对团结；而AI领域却出现了很有意思的内部声音，有些公司明显在搞监管套利。那些领先的企业说要阻止新公司开发AI等等。你怎么看这个问题？觉得会怎么发展？

Yeah. One of the things that is very different between crypto and AI that we've noticed is that on the crypto front, everybody just wanted rules, and the industry was relatively unified. Whereas in AI, we've seen very, like, interesting kind of calls coming from inside the house with certain companies really going for regulatory capture. People who have early leads saying, let's cut off all new companies from developing AI and so forth. What do you make of that, and where do you think that's going?

我认为这是个很严重的问题。我最近还批评过我们某家AI模型公司搞监管套利策略。

I think it's a very big problem. I actually recently criticized one of our AI model companies for engaging in regulatory capture strategy.

是的。顺便说一句，这是个非常公正的批评。

Yes. A very fair criticism, by the way.

确实非常公正。当然，他们当时矢口否认了。要我把这事说开吗？我是说，当然可以。没错。

It is very fair. And actually, of course, they denied it. And then should I tell the story? Mean Yeah, sure. Yes.

很少有人在X平台上能像我这次一样被彻底且完全地证明清白。因为这家公司基本就是Anthropic。他们否认后发生的是——Anthropic联合创始人兼政策主管杰克·克拉克在会议上发表演讲，将人们对AI的恐惧比作孩子以为黑暗中有怪物。但开灯后怪物真的就在那里。我觉得这个类比荒谬至极。

Rarely do you get vindicated on X so thoroughly and completely as I did on this. Because after this company was basically Anthropic. After they denied it, there was what basically happened is that Jack Clark, who's a co founder and head of policy for Anthropic, gave a speech at a conference where he compared fear of AI to a child seeing monsters in the dark or thinking there were monsters in the dark. But then you turn the lights on and the monsters are there. I thought that was such a ridiculous analogy.

这简直就是不打自招。幼稚到近乎自我指控——因为这等于承认恐惧是虚构的。总之我指出这是危言耸听，是他们监管套利策略的一环。他们当然否认。但现场有位律师揭露：杰克在问答环节承认Anthropic推动SB53法案等举措，名义上是促进透明度——

I mean, it's basically parole. I mean, it's so childish just to be almost self indicting because you're basically admitting the fear is made up, not real. In any event, so I said, well, this is like fear mongering and part of the regulatory capture strategy. Of course, they denied it. But then a lawyer who was in the crowd at his speech said, well, yeah, but Jack's not telling you what he said during the Q and A, which he basically admitted that everything that Anthropic was doing was with like things like SB 53, which is supposedly just implementing transparency.

他坦言那只是跳板，真正目标是在华盛顿建立新模型发布前的预审制度。他亲口承认制造恐慌就是策略的一部分。这简直是X平台论战中最确凿的实锤。但这种方法危害在于：过去几十年硅谷的特殊性恰恰来自无需许可的创新——

He said, no. He admitted that was just a stepping stone to their real goal, which was to get a system of pre approvals in Washington before you can release new models. And he admitted as part of the Q and A that making people very afraid was part of their strategy. So again, just as much of a smoking gun as you could ever get in a spat on X. But the reason why I think that that approach is so damaging is that the thing that's really made, I think, Silicon Valley special over the past several decades is permissionless innovation.

对吧？两个车库里的年轻人就能实践想法，或许从天使投资人那里筹点资金。这些愿意血本无归的投资者支持的，往往都是年轻创始人——

Right? It's the two guys in a garage can just pursue their idea. Maybe they raise some capital from angels or VC firms. Basically, who are willing to lose all of their money. And these are people who are young founders.

也可能是宿舍里的辍学生。他们能够自由追逐创意。我认为硅谷之所以独树一帜，而制药、医疗、国防、银行这些高度监管行业鲜有初创企业，正是因为后者需要华盛顿的审批许可。我在华盛顿的见闻是：审批标准设立时或有道理，但很快就会失效，最后全凭政府事务团队在官僚体系中周旋的能力。

They could also be future dropout in the dorm room. And they're able just to pursue their idea. And the only reason that I think has happened in Silicon Valley, whereas you look at industries like, I don't know, like pharma or healthcare or defense or banking or these highly regulated industries where you just don't see a lot of startups, is because they're all heavily regulated, which means you have to go to Washington to get permission to do things. And the thing I've seen in Washington is just that, you know, the approvals get set up for reasons, but those reasons very quickly stop mattering. And it just matters like how good your government affairs team is at navigating through the bureaucracy and figuring out how to get those approvals.

这并非典型初创企业创始人所能擅长之事。大公司之所以精于此道，正因他们掌握资源——这正是'监管俘获'的含义。硅谷成功的根本原因，其作为美国经济皇冠明珠和全球艳羡对象的核心，就在于各国争相复制硅谷模式的背后，是无许可创新的力量。

And it's not something that your typical startup founders are gonna be good at. It's something that big companies get good at because they've got the resources, and that's exactly what regulatory capture means. So the whole basis of Silicon Valley success, the reason why it's really the crown jewel of the American economy and the envy of the rest of the world. We see all these attempts by all these other countries to create their own Silicon Valley. The the reason that's the case is because of permissionless innovation.

当前针对AI领域正在讨论和实施的，是一套针对软硬件的审批制度。这绝非理论设想：硬件方面，拜登政府卸任前最后一周颁布了所谓'拜登扩散规则'，要求全球每笔GPU交易都需政府许可——即预先审批。虽有例外条款，但核心理念已明确：算力将成为受许可管制的领域。

And what is being contemplated and discussed and implemented with respect to AI is an approval system for both software and hardware. And this is not theoretical. This has already been happening. On the hardware side, one of the last things that the Biden administration did the last week of the Biden administration was impose the so called Biden diffusion rule, which requires that every sale of a GPU on earth be licensed by the government, which is to say pre approved. Unless it fits into some category of exception, but basically the overall idea is that, you know, compute is now going to be a licensed and pre approved category.

我们废除了该规定。至于软件方面，正如所言，其目标显然是从政府/各州的报备要求起步，最终演变为发布新模型前必须赴华盛顿获得许可。这将严重拖累创新速度，削弱美国竞争力——要知道这类审批动辄耗时数月。

We rescinded that. And then on the software side, like I said, I mean, the goal very clearly is to start with these reporting requirements to the government, to the states. And then where that ramps up to is you have to go to Washington to get permission before you release a new model. And this would drastically slow down innovation and make America less competitive. I mean, you know, these approvals can take months.

甚至可能长达数年。当芯片每年迭代而许可审批积压两年时，获批时技术早已过时。模型迭代周期仅三四个月的情况会更糟。更何况华盛顿的官僚体系究竟能掌握多少技术细节来做出合理审批？

They can take years. When models are when when a new chip is released every year and we have licenses that have been sitting in the hopper for two years. I mean, the requests are obsolete by the time they finally get approved. And that would be even more true with models where, you know, the the cycle time is, you know, like three three or four months for a new model. I mean, you know, and and and what exactly is bureaucracy in Washington gonna know about this technology that, you know, that they're that they're gonna be in a good position to to approve in any event.

但这就是当前酝酿中的方案。我认为这不仅将重创硅谷，更会扼杀创新，最终损害美国竞争力。若实施这套规则，我们必将在AI竞赛中败给中国等国家。

But this is what is being contemplated right now, and I think it would be a disaster for for Silicon Valley, but also and for innovation, but therefore for American competitiveness. And I think we will lose the AI race to countries like China if, you know, if this is the set of rules that we have.

他们论调最阴险之处在于：若真相信存在AI怪兽，为何自己采购GPU的速度比谁都疯狂？业内皆知他们的代码安全实践是全行业最差的——真要培育怪兽，岂会留下这么多可被黑客利用的漏洞？可见他们自己都不信这套说辞。

Yeah. One of the really diabolical things about their argument is if they really believe there was a monster, then why are they buying GPUs at a rate faster than anybody? And then the other thing that we know from being in the industry is their reputation is they have literally the worst security practices in the entire industry with respect to their own code. So if you were building this monster, the last thing you'd wanna do is like leave a bunch of holes around for people to hack it. So they don't believe anything they're saying.

这完全是为维持领先地位编造的谎言，简直丧心病狂。

It's like completely made up to try and maintain their lead by this. Really psychotic.

我认为，宣称我们正在创造一种可能毁灭人类但只有我们足够高尚能确保其正确发展的超级智能，这种说法本身就是一种令人陶醉的迷药。对吧？而且我觉得，这确实是个很好的招募手段。

I think there is I think it's a heady drug to basically say that that, you know, we're we're creating this, you know, new superintelligence that is going to it could destroy humanity, but we're the only ones who are virtuous enough to ensure that this is done correctly. Right? And I think that, you know It's a good recruiting tool.

加入高尚者团队吧。

Join the virtuous team.

是的，我觉得没错。但在所有公司中，那家公司在监管套利和推动这些法规方面确实是最激进的。让我们把话题提升一个层面。

Yes. I think that's right. But but yeah. But I think that is definitely you know, I I I think of of all the companies, that particular one has been the most aggressive in terms of the regulatory capture and pushing these for the these regulations. And just I mean, let's just bring it up a level.

不仅限于他们。目前各州立法机构正在审议约1200项AI监管法案，其中25%集中在四大蓝州——加州、纽约州、科罗拉多州和伊利诺伊州。已有超过100项措施通过，仅上个月加州就签署了三项。

Just doesn't have to be about them. There's now something like 1,200 bills going through state legislatures right now to regulate AI. 25% of them are in the top four blue states, are California, New York, Colorado, and Illinois. Over 100 measures have already passed. I think three of them just got signed in the last month in California alone.

让我具体说说科罗拉多州的情况。科罗拉多、伊利诺伊和加州都通过了某种形式的'算法歧视'法案，其发展方向令人担忧。这个概念意味着如果模型输出对受保护群体产生差异性影响，就构成算法歧视。受保护群体名单非常长，远不止常规类别。例如科罗拉多州将英语不熟练者也列为受保护群体。

I'll tell you just let me tell you what Colorado is actually, Colorado, Illinois, and California have all done some version of a thing called algorithmic discrimination, which I think is it's really troubling where where it's headed. What what this concept means is that if the model produces an output that has a disparate impact on a protected group, then that is algorithmic discrimination. And the list of protected groups is very long. It's more than just the usual ones. So for example, in Colorado, they've defined people who may not have English language proficiency as a protected group.

所以如果模型对非法移民发表了负面评价，基本上就违反了这条法律。我实在不知道模型公司该如何遵守这种规定。理论上歧视本来就是违法的——如果企业违反民权法实施歧视，本来就要承担责任。

So I guess if the model says something bad about illegal aliens, then you know, that would basically violate the law. I don't know exactly how model companies are even supposed to comply with this rule. I mean, presumably I understand. Presumably, discrimination is already illegal. So if you're a business and you violate the civil rights laws and you engage in discrimination, you're already liable for that.

如果企业在决策过程中使用了某种工具犯错，我们本就可以追究企业责任，没必要追溯工具开发商。但这些法律的根本目的就是针对工具本身——不仅要让使用AI的企业担责，还要让工具开发商担责。可开发商如何预知这些情况？当输出内容100%真实准确、模型只是正常工作，开发商又如何知道这个输出会被用于造成差异性影响的决策？

You know, there's no reason you know, if if you happen to, you know, make that mistake and you use any kind of tool in the process of doing it, we don't really need to go after the tool developer because we can already go after the business that's made that decision. But the whole purpose of these laws is to get at the tool. They're making not just the business that is using AI liable, they're making the tool developer liable. And I don't even know how the tool developer is supposed to anticipate this because how do you know all the ways that your tool is gonna be used? How do you know that that this output, you know, especially if the output is a 100% true and accurate and the model is just doing its job, you know, then how are you supposed to know that that was that output was used as part of a decision that had a disparate impact?

尽管如此，你仍需承担责任。我能想到模型开发者试图遵守这一规定的唯一方法，就是在模型中构建一个DEI（多样性、公平与包容）层，试图预判：这个答案是否会产生不同影响？如果会，我们要么不能给出答案，要么必须对答案进行净化或扭曲处理。推演到极致，我们又会回到所谓的'觉醒AI'，顺便说一句，这正是拜登政府的主要目标之一。

Nevertheless, you're liable. And the only way that I can see for model developers to even attempt to comply with this is to build a DEI layer into their models that tries to anticipate, could this answer have a disparate impact? And if it does, we either can't give you the answer. We have to sanitize or distort the answer. And, you know, you just take this to its launch conclusion, and we're back to, you know, woke AI, which by the way was a major objective of the Biden administration.

那份被我们特朗普政府废除的拜登关于AI的行政命令

That that Biden executive order on AI that we rescinded as part of the Trump administration

是啊。

Yeah.

其中包含了约20页关于DEI的表述。他们极力推动所谓的'在模型中融入DEI价值观'。后来我们看到了这样做的后果——比如那个把乔治·华盛顿画成黑人的事件，历史被实时改写，就因为有人在模型里植入了DEI层。

Had something like 20 pages of DEI language in it. They were very much trying to promote DEI values, they call it, in models. And then we saw what the results of that was. You know? It was you know, we saw the whole Black George Washington thing where history was being rewritten in real time because somebody built, you know, a DEI layer into the model.

而且我觉得，‘觉醒AI’这个词根本不足以解释正在发生的事情，因为它某种程度上淡化了问题的严重性。我们实际上讨论的是奥威尔式的AI——那种会对你撒谎、扭曲答案、实时篡改历史以服务于当权者政治议程的人工智能。这非常具有《1984》的色彩。在特朗普当选总统前，我们就已经走上这条路了。

And and I, you know, and I I almost feel like the term woke AI is insufficient to explain what's going on because it somehow trivializes it. I mean, what we're really talking about is Orwellian AI. You know, we're talking about AI that that lies to you, that that distorts an an answer that rewrites history in real time to serve a current political agenda of the people who are in power. I mean, it's it's it's very Orwellian. And and we were definitely on that path before president Trump's election.

这是拜登行政令的一部分。我们在首个Gemini模型发布时就目睹了这种现象——那些扭曲的输出绝非偶然，而是有源头的。所以在我看来，这实际上是AI最大的风险，它并非詹姆斯·卡梅隆描绘的场景，而是乔治·奥威尔预言的现实。

It was part of the Biden EO. We saw it happen, you know, in in the release of that first Gemini model. That was not an accident that, you know, that those distorted outputs came from somewhere. So it was, you know, to me, this is the biggest risk of AI actually is it's not it was not described by James Cameron. It was described by George Orwell.

在我看来，真正的威胁不是《终结者》，而是《1984》。当AI吞噬互联网并成为我们获取在线信息的主要方式时，掌权者会用它来控制我们接收的信息，植入意识形态偏见，本质上就是实施审查。所有为社交媒体打造的‘信任与安全’机制都将被移植到这个AI新世界。马克，我知道你经常谈及这点，我认为你的观点完全正确。

You know, it's in my view, it's not the Terminator, it's 1984. That, you know, that as AI eats the Internet and becomes the main way that we interact and get our information online, that it'll be used by the people in power to control the information we receive, that it'll contain an ideological bias, that essentially it'll censor us. All that trust and safety apparatus that was created for social media will be ported over to this new world of AI. Mark, I know that you've spoken about this quite a bit. I think you're absolutely right about that.

除此之外，你还面临着监控问题——人工智能将掌握你的一切信息，成为你的私人助手。这简直是政府监控和控制你的完美工具。在我看来，这显然是人工智能最大的风险，也是我们应该努力防范的。

And then on top of that, you've got the surveillance, issues where, you know, AI is gonna know everything about you. It's gonna be your kind of personal assistant. And so it's kind of the perfect tool for the government to monitor and control you. And to me, that is by far the biggest risk of AI. And that's the thing we should be working towards preventing.

问题在于，许多由危言耸听手段催生的法规，实际上正在赋予政府实施这类控制的能力——我认为我们都应该对此感到非常恐惧。

And the problem is a lot of these regulations that are being whipped up by these fear mongering techniques, they're actually empowering the government to, to engage in this type of control that I think we should all be very afraid of, actually.

山姆·奥尔曼本周早些时候表示，他预计到2028年将实现自动化研究人员。我很好奇你对当前AI模型发展或整体进展的看法？有些人声称通用人工智能（AGI）两年内就会出现，比如2027年AI论文中阿申布伦纳的情境意识论文。你如何看待当前AI发展态势及其潜在影响？

Sam Allman earlier this week said that in 2028 or by 2028, he expects to have automated researchers. I'm curious just for your sort of state of of AI sort of model development or or just progress in general, and what do you think are the implications? Some people have been sort of, you know, saying that, you know, AGI is two years away. Sort of the AI 2027 paper labeled Ashenbrenner's situational awareness papers. I'm curious kind of what's your reading of the of the state of play in terms of AI development, and what what are the implications from that?

我的感觉是硅谷人士正在从'AGI迫在眉睫'的论调中退缩。安德烈·卡帕西最近接受采访时突然改口，称AGI至少还要十年，他基本是在说强化学习存在局限性——虽然它确实很有用。

So so my sense is that people are in Silicon Valley are kinda pulling back from the, let's call it, imminent AGI narrative. Mhmm. I saw Andre Karpathy gave an interview where now all of a sudden, he's he's reunderwritten this, and he says AGI is at least a decade away. He's basically saying that that, you know, reinforcement learning has its limits. I mean, it's it's very useful.

强化学习虽是当前取得重大进展的主要范式，但他指出人类学习方式其实并非通过强化。我们采用不同方式，这反倒是好事，意味着人类与AI能形成互补。基于强化学习的AI理解方式会与我们直觉推理有所不同。

It's the main paradigm right now that they're making a lot of progress with. But he says that actually the way that humans learn is not really through reinforcement. We do something a little different, which I think is a good thing because it means that human and AI will be synergistic. Right? I mean, the AI's understanding if it's based on RL will be a little different than the way that we intuit and reason.

但无论如何，我感觉越来越多人正从'AGI即将到来'的论调中抽身。所谓'两年内出现AGI'的说法——当然人们对AGI定义本就模糊——曾被用来渲染超级智能失控的恐怖图景。现在人们开始意识到，虽然进步惊人，但'智能'本就是多维度的概念。

But in any event, I I sense more of a pullback from this imminent AGI narrative. You know, the idea that AGI's two years away. Of course, it's like kind of unclear what people mean by AGI, but it's kind of, you know, it was used in this like scary way that it's kind of the superintelligence that would grow beyond our control. I feel like people are pulling back from that and understanding that, yes, we're still making a lot of progress, and the progress is amazing. But at the same time, you know, what we mean by intelligence is multifaceted.

我们在某些维度取得进展，但并非所有方面。因此我认为当前处境恰如'金发姑娘'情境——极端情况要么是《终结者》式的失控超级智能，要么是媒体常说的'整个AI领域都是泡沫'的完全否定论调。

And it's not like, you know, there's progress we made along some dimensions, but it's not along every dimension. And so therefore, I think, again, I would just, I mean, I've described actually the situation we're in right now is a bit of a Goldilocks scenario where, you know, the extremes would be, you know, you kinda have the the scary Terminator situation, imminent superintelligence that'll grow beyond our control. On the other the other narrative you hear in the press a lot is that we're in a big bubble. So in other words, the whole thing is fake.

嗯。

Mhmm.

媒体基本上同时在推动两种叙事。是的。但无论如何，我认为真相更接近中间值。这有点像金发姑娘情景，我们看到大量创新涌现。我认为进展令人印象深刻。

And the media is basically pushing both narratives at the same time. Yeah. But in any event, I think that the truth is is more in the middle. That's kind of a Goldilocks scenario where we're seeing a lot of innovation. I think the the progress is impressive.

我认为我们将从中看到经济生产力的巨大提升。但我很喜欢巴拉吉最近的观察，他说有几点让我深受触动。一是AI是多神论而非一神论的。意思是，我们看到的是众多专业化的小型模型，而非一个全知全能的神。我们尚未进入那种递归自我改进的阶段，但确实看到各类模型在不同领域取得进展。

It's I think we're gonna see big productivity gains in the economy from this. But but I like the observations that Balaji made recently where he said there's a couple of things that really struck me. One was AI is polytheistic, not monotheistic. Meaning, what we're seeing is many instead of just one all knowing, all powerful god, what we're seeing is a bunch of smaller deities, more specialized models. You know, it's not that sort of we're not on that kind of recursive self improvement track just yet, but, you know, we're seeing many different kinds of models make progress in different areas.

另一点是他的观察：AI是中间到中间，而人类是端到端，因此两者关系极具协同效应。我认为这个观点很正确。所有这些观察都与我对当前阶段的认知产生共鸣。

And then the other one was just his observation that AI was middle to middle, whereas humans are end to end, and therefore the relationship is pretty synergistic. And I think that's right. I mean, I think all those observations resonate with me in terms of where we're at right now.

这与我们的观点高度一致——那些原以为会被大模型吞并的创意，正因宇宙的长尾效应异常显著而发展成差异显著的业务。要构建有效模型，需要对特定场景有非常专业的理解。这就是现状：模型还没学会解决所有问题。

And that's very consistent with what we're saying as well, where ideas that we thought would for sure get subsumed by the big models are becoming amazingly differentiated businesses just because the fat tail of the universe is very fat and you need really kind of specific understanding of certain scenarios to build an effective model. And that's just how it's going. Model has just figured out how to do everything.

确实。模型在有上下文时表现最佳。我们都见过这种情况：问题越笼统，获得优质回应的可能性就越低。如果你问AI'我能创建什么价值十亿美元的生意'这种宽泛问题，它给不出可操作的答案。

Yeah. I mean, and the models work best when they have context. And the more, I mean, we've all seen this. The more general your prompt, the less likely it is that you're gonna be able to get a great response. And I don't know, if you tell the AI you know, something very general like what business can I create to make a billion dollars, it's not gonna give you something actionable, you know?

你必须明确具体目标，并提供相关数据支持，它才能针对问题给出具体答案。这正应和了巴拉吉的部分观点：AI不会自主设定目标，它需要被引导。

You have to get very specific about what you're trying to do. And it has to have access to relevant data. And then it can give you some specific answers to a prompt. And I think this is, you know, partly Balaji's point, which is, you know, the AI does not come up with its own objective. You know, it needs to be prompted.

它需要被告知该做什么。我们目前没有看到任何迹象表明这一点正在改变。在AI自主设定目标方面，我们仍处于起步阶段。正因如此，模型需要被提示才能产生输出，而这个输出还需要被验证。你必须确保它是正确的，因为模型仍可能出错。

It needs to be told what to do. We've seen no evidence that that's, at this stage, that that's changing. We're still at step zero in terms of AI kind of, you know, somehow coming up with its own objective. And, and as a result of that, you know, the model has to be prompted, and then it gives you an output, and that output has to be validated. You have to somehow make sure it's correct because models can still be wrong.

更可能的情况是，你需要多次迭代，因为它不会直接给出你想要的结果。所以现在你需要重新提示。我们都有过这种经历，这就是为什么我喜欢聊天界面——它之所以必要，是因为通常需要多次迭代才能获得对你有实际价值的输出。毕竟人类是端到端的，而AI是中间环节。

And more likely, you have to iterate a few times because it doesn't give you exactly what you want. So now you kinda reprompt. And we've all had this experience, right, as you this is why I like the chat the chat interface is so is so necessary is because it takes you a few times to kinda iterate to get to the output that actually has value for you. Again, you know, the humans are end to end, and the the the AI is middle to middle. Yeah.

我只是...我们没看到任何证据表明这种基本模式正在改变。我很想听听你们的看法。显然我们正处于智能体发展的初期阶段。你可以给智能体设定目标，它们能代表你执行任务。但我认为当智能体拥有更狭窄的上下文时，它们会表现得更好。

I just don't you know, we haven't seen any evidence that that fundamental dynamic is is changing. I mean, I think, you know, we're at the I mean, I'd love to hear what you guys think about this. I mean, we're obviously at the outset of of agents. And, you know, in agents, you can give an objective to, and then we'll be able to take tasks on your behalf. But I suspect that the agents will work better as well when they have a much more narrow context.

它们越不容易偏离轨道或走向奇怪的方向。如果你给它一个非常宽泛的任务，它很可能在需要人工干预前无法完全理解。但如果给它非常具体的任务，成功率就会高得多。比如你直接告诉AI'卖我的产品'，它不太可能自己理解这意味着什么以及如何操作。

They're much less likely to go off the rails, start going in weird directions. If you give it like a very broad, you know, a very broad task, it's just not likely to completely figure it out before it needs human intervention. But if you give it something very narrow to do, then it's much more likely to be successful. So, you know, I would just guess like, okay, just you tell the AI, you know, sell my product. You know, it's it's very unlikely that it's just gonna figure out like what that means and how to do that.

但如果你是销售代表，用AI来辅助工作，你很可能可以给它非常具体的任务，这样它会更成功。这也回应了关于失业的讨论——我认为AI将长期作为协同工具存在，不会取代人类工作，人类认知的需求也不会消失。

But if you're a sales rep and you're using the AI to help you, there's probably very specific tasks that you can tell it to do, and it would be much more successful doing that. So I I just tend to think I mean, also kind of speaks to the whole job loss narrative. I just think that this is gonna be a very synergistic tool for a long time. I don't think it's gonna wipe out, human jobs. I don't think the need for human cognition is going away.

至少在可预见的未来，这将是我们获得巨大生产力提升的工具。我不知道是否有人能预测五年或十年后会发生什么，这只是我目前的观察。

It's something that, you know, we'll all use to kinda get this big productivity boost, at least for the foreseeable future. I mean, I don't know. I don't know if anyone can predict any of us can predict what's gonna happen beyond five or ten years. But I mean, that's just what I'm seeing right now. I don't know.

我很好奇，你们在这方面有什么发现？

I'm curious. What what are you guys seeing at this front?

是的，大体上与此一致。情况正在改善。比如早期的智能体，任务运行时间越长，它们就越容易完全失控、偏离轨道。人们正在解决这个问题。

Yeah. Generally consistent with that. Things are improving. So like on agents, the early agents, the longer the running task, the more they would go like completely bananas and off the rails. People are working on that.

我确实认为在特定环境下一切都在更好地运作。至少从我们观察到的来看，这种趋势会持续。关于超级智能模型，就像你说的，市面上有十几种视频模型，但没有一个在所有方面都是最好的，甚至接近全能最优。实际上有十几种模型各自在某一方面最擅长，这有点出乎意料，至少对我来说是这样，因为你会以为海量数据本身就是优势。但事实并非如此。

I do think like everything's working better in a context. At least from what we've seen that will continue. And even to your point on like super smart models, there's like a dozen video models out there, and there's not one that's the best at everything or even close to the best at everything. There's like literally a dozen that are all the best at one thing, which is a little surprising, at least to me, because you would think just the sheer size of the data would be an advantage. But even that hasn't quite proven out.

这取决于你想要什么。你是想要表情包？想要电影？还是广告？这些都是截然不同的需求。

Is like depending on what you want. Do you want a meme? Do you want a movie? Do you want an ad? Like it's all very, very different.

我认为这触及了你的主要观点——马克·扎克伯格说过一句我很赞同的话：'智能不等于生命'。我们通常与生命关联的那些特质，比如

And I think this gets to your main point, which is, and Mark Zuckerberg said something that I really liked. He's like, intelligence is not life. And these things that we associate with life, like

我们拥有

we have

目标、自由意志和感知能力，这些都不是数学模型的一部分——无论是通过概率分布寻找答案的模型，还是通过强化学习技术优化逻辑的模型。所以将AI与人类相比，我认为在很多方面都站不住脚。我们只是不同而已。这些模型在某些方面确实非常出色。

an objective, have free will, we're sentient. Those just aren't part of a mathematical model that is searching through a distribution and figuring out an answer or even a model that through a reinforcement learning technique can kind of improve its logic. So it's just like the comparison to humans, I think, it just falls short in a lot of ways is what we're saying. We're just different. And the models are very good at things.

它们已经在许多方面超越了人类。

They're better than humans at things already, many things.

关于这一点，我还想提出另一个相关但略显独立的问题：世界的未来是否会由少数公司、政府或超级AI掌控一切？所有价值都集中在少数实体手中。这既可能是超级资本主义版本——几家公司赚取所有利润，也可能是超级共产主义版本——国家完全掌控一切。

The other thing I'd bring up related to this, which is sort of this so I think it's a little orthogonal, but also quite related, which is sort of is is the future of the world going to be one or a small number of companies or for that matter, governments or super AIs that kind of own and control everything? And sort of all the value rolls up into a handful of of entities. And and, you know, and there you get into this. You know, there's, the hyper capitalist version of it where a few companies make all the money, or there's, like, the hyper communist version of it where you have total state control or whatever. You know?

还是说这项技术将广泛普及，成为每个人手中的工具，赋能创造力与个人表达，成为大众皆可使用的利器？我认为当前时期最引人注目的一点，正是第二种情景正在清晰上演——AI正在实现高度民主化。它正以史上最快速度向全球数十亿用户扩散，消费者产品用户已达6亿，并迅速向50亿迈进。

Or is this a technology that's gonna diffuse out and be like in everybody's hands and be a tool of empowerment and creativity and individual effort, you know, expressiveness and and and as a tool for basically everybody to use. And I think one of the really striking things about this period of time and you being in this role is that this this is the period in which the scenario number two is very, I think, very clearly playing out, which is that this is the time in which AI is actually hyper democratizing. I I think actually AI is actually hyper democratized. It has spread to more individuals both in the country and around the world in the shortest period of time of any new technology, I think, in history. You know, we're we're it's something like 600,000,000, you know, users today on on rapidly on the way to a billion, rapidly on the way to 5,000,000,000, you know, kind of across all the all the consumer products.

事实上，世界上最优秀的AI就在消费级产品中。即便投入更多资金，你也无法获得比现有消费产品更强大的AI。现实正在证明：这项技术终将普及，人人都能用它优化工作、获得思维伙伴、创建企业助手，无论是创业、艺术创作还是实现各种人生目标。

And then and then the best AIs in the world are are in the consumer Right? And so if you use the if you use, you know, current day or any of these things, like, you know, I I can't spend more money, you know, and, and and get access to a better AI. It's it's it's in the consumer products. And so just in practice, what you have, like, playing out in real time is this technology is going to be in everybody's hands. And everybody is going to be able to use it to opt you know, optimize the things that they do, have it be a thought partner, have it be, you know, somebody, you know, a a a, you know, an assistant for for for building companies, you know, starting companies or creating art or, you know, doing all the things that people wanna do.

今早我妻子就用AI为10岁孩子设计了一套创业课程。短短几小时就完成了整套视频游戏公司创业教程，包括所需技能和资源列表。

You know, my wife was just using it this morning to design a new an entrepreneurship curriculum for our 10 year old. Right? You know? Right? Like, you know, like, literally, it's like, oh, wow.

这种能力层级在过去没有现代AI工具时难以想象。大卫，我认为你们团队在推动这场变革中扮演着关键角色。

That's like a really great idea. And it took her a couple hours, and she has, like, a full curriculum for him to be able to start his first video game company, and here's all the different skills that he needs to learn, and here's all the resources. And and, like, that's just a level of capability. I mean, to to to, you know, to have done that without without without without modern consumer AI tools, know, you'd have to go, And and I think and I think, David, I think you guys are really playing a key role in making making that happen.

保持这项技术的去中心化至关重要，因为奥威尔式的担忧正是终极集权。值得庆幸的是，目前市场呈现高度竞争态势——五家主要模型公司激烈角逐，模型性能评估结果相近，呈现你追我赶的态势。

I think it's so important that this technology remain decentralized because the kind of the Orwellian concern is kind of the ultimate centralization. And fortunately, so far what we're seeing in the market is that it's hyper competitive. There's five major model companies all making huge investments. And the the benchmark the the the model performance, the evaluations are relatively clustered, and there's a lot of leapfrogging going on. So, you know, Grok releases new model.

比如Grok发布新模型超越ChatGPT，随后ChatGPT又反超。这种胶着竞争是良性状态，与预测中即将出现AGI的叙事截然相反——那种故事里领先模型会通过自我改进不断扩大优势，形成递归式进化。

It leapfrogs ChatGPT and but then ChatGPT releases something new. They they leapfrog. So they're all like very competitive and close to each other, and I think that's a that's a good thing. And it's the opposite of what was predicted, you know, through this like imminent AGI story where the the the sort of the the storytelling there was that one model would get a lead, and then it would direct its own intelligence to making itself better. And then so therefore, its lead would get bigger and bigger, and you kinda get this recursive self improvement.

很快，你们就要迎来技术奇点了。但我们其实还没真正见识过这种情况。要知道，我们还没见过哪个模型在能力上完全一骑绝尘。我认为这是好事。Eric，你提到的关于虚拟AI研究员的说法，其实是即将实现AGI的叙事变体之一——步骤会是模型变得更聪明，模型创造出虚拟AI研究员，然后你得到上百万个虚拟AI研究员，接着...就是奇点降临。

And pretty soon, you're off to the the singularity. And and and we haven't really seen that. You know, we haven't seen one model completely pull away in terms of capabilities. And I think that's a good thing. And so Eric, to your point about this narrative about the virtual AI researcher, was one variant of this sort of imminent AGI narrative is that the steps would be models get smarter, the models create virtual AI researcher, and then you get a million virtual AI researchers, and then, you know, it's Singularity.

我觉得这里偷换概念的地方在于：什么是虚拟AI研究员？对吧？这个词说起来容易，但它实际意味着什么？就像拓扑学观点说的，AI目前还是中间层到中间层，并没有实现端到端。

And I think just the slight of hand in that is what is a virtual AI researcher? Right? It's like a very easy thing to say, but like, what does that really mean? And you know, topology's point about, you know, AI is still middle to middle. It doesn't it's not end to end.

如果说AI研究员要实现端到端，那这个人必须能自主解决很多事情：他们需要设定自己的目标，能够以AI做不到的方式灵活转向。说真的，创造虚拟AI研究员真的可行吗？我觉得这份工作有些部分AI确实能做得很好，甚至超越人类。

So if an AI researcher is end to end, there's like things that has to things the person has to figure out. They've gotta set their own objective. They've gotta be able to pivot in ways that AI can't. You know, like, is that really feasible to create a virtual AI researcher? I think there's like parts of the job that, you know, AI could get really good at or even better than humans.

但这类工具很可能仍需由人类AI研究员来操作。所以我猜这个论点可能带有目的论色彩——你可能需要先有AGI才能创造出虚拟AI研究员，而不是反过来。如果是这样，就不会直接导致奇点降临。我对这个说法持保留态度，我们拭目以待吧。

But probably that tool has to be used by a human AI researcher. So I guess the the the the the argument, I suspect, could be sort of teleological in the sense that you might need AGI to create a virtual AI researcher as opposed to the other way around. And if that's the case, you don't just you know, you're not gonna get, like, singularity. So I'm a little bit skeptical of that claim. You know, we'll see.

Sam说他能在2028年实现？嗯，那就等着看吧。

What Sam said he could do it in 2028? I mean, I guess we'll see. And

我觉得这类主张更像是招聘噱头

I I think all those claims tend to be like recruiting ideas

而非真正的预测。他并不是第一个提出这个想法的人，其他模型公司也一直在鼓吹。不过Leopold也提到过这个，我们...走着瞧吧。

as opposed to actual predictions. He's he's not the first to to mention that idea. Other other model companies have been promoting it. But, you know, Leopold's mentioned that too. You know, we'll we'll we'll see.

但我怀疑那个论点的问题在于，虚拟AI研究员需要通用人工智能（AGI）。所以认为通过虚拟AI研究员就能实现AGI的想法是本末倒置的。不过我们拭目以待吧。

But I suspect that that's what's wrong with that argument is that virtual AI researcher requires AGI. And so the idea that you're gonna get AGI through a virtual AI researcher is is backwards. But we'll see. You know, we'll see.

David，你和政府一直非常支持开源AI，我认为这与市场竞争密切相关。能否谈谈你们在这方面的成果和思考？

David, you've also you and the administration, I think, have also been very supportive of open source AI, which I think also dovetails into this in terms of, the market being very competitive. Yes. Do you wanna spend a moment on what you guys have been able to do on that and how you think about it?

是的。开源之所以重要，是因为它本质上等同于自由——软件自由。人们可以在自有硬件上运行模型，掌控自己的数据。事实上，全球约半数数据中心是企业自建的，政府和机构都在运营自己的数据中心。

Yeah. I mean, so so just to the open source is very important because I just think it's synonymous with, you know, freedom. I mean, software freedom. You basically could run your own models on your own hardware and retain control over your own information. And by the way, this is what enterprises typically do all the time is, you know, about half the global data center market is, you know, is on prem, meaning enterprises and governments create their own data centers.

他们并不依赖公有云。虽然我对超大规模云服务商没有意见，但人们确实喜欢自建数据中心来保持数据主权。某种程度上消费者也会如此。这是个值得鼓励的领域。讽刺的是，目前市场上最好的开源模型都来自中国。

They don't go to the big clouds. And by the way, I've got nothing against the hyperscalers, but just, you know, people like to run their own data centers and, you know, maintain control over their own data and that kind of thing. And I think that will be true for consumers to some degree as well. So I do think it's an important area that we should, you know, want to encourage and promote. The irony right now in the market is that the best open source models are Chinese.

这有点反常对吧？与预期相反——本该是美国倡导开放而中国倾向封闭，现实却完全颠倒过来了。

And it's sort of a quirk. Right? It's the opposite of what you'd expect. You'd expect, like, the American system would promote open and somehow the Chinese system would promote closed. That has kinda, you know, ended up being a little backwards.

我认为存在合理原因：可能是历史偶然性，比如深度求索创始人极度推崇开源从而带动风潮；也可能是战略考量——作为追赶者，开源能吸引全球开发者参与，这是封闭项目做不到的绝佳赶超策略。

I think there's, like, good reasons for it. It it could just be it could just be kind of a historical accident, the fact that the DeepSeek founder was, like, very committed to open source and kinda just kinda that like, got things started that way. Or it could be part of a deliberate strategy. If you're China and you're trying to catch up, open source is a really good way to do that because you get all the non aligned developers to wanna help your project, which they can't do if, you know, with a closed project. So it's a great strategy for catching up.

此外，若国家或企业的商业模式是硬件规模化生产，自然会希望配套软件免费——这是典型的互补品商品化策略。不确定中国是误打误撞还是有意为之，但美国正确的应对之道应该是扶持本土开源生态，推动更多开源项目发展。

And then also, if you think that your business model, as a company or as a country is, let's say scale manufacturing of hardware, then you would want the software part to be free or cheap because it's your compliment, right? So you try to commoditize your compliment. And I don't know whether it's by accident or part of design that that seems to be what the Chinese strategy has been. I think that the the right answer for The US in this is to, you know, to encourage our own open source. I mean, I think it'd be a great thing if we saw more open source initiatives get get going.

我想有一个很有前景的项目叫Reflection，是由前谷歌DeepMind工程师创立的。所以我希望我们能在西方看到更多开源创新。但你看，我认为这非常重要，至关重要。就像我说的，在我看来，它与自由是同义词。

I guess there's one promising one called Reflection, which was founded by former, you know, engineers from Google DeepMind. So I hope we see more open source innovation in in the West. But but look, I think it's it's very important. It's critical. And like I said, I in my view, it's synonymous with with freedom.

这绝对不是我们想要压制的。现在回到封闭生态系统这个话题一下。确实我们有五个主要竞争对手，他们都在投入大量资金。我确实有点担心，在某个重要时间点，市场会整合，最终形成垄断或双头垄断，就像我们在其他技术市场看到的那样。我们在搜索引擎市场就见过这种情况，等等。

And it's definitely not something we wanna suppress. Now just back to the the the closed ecosystem for a second. It's true we have five major competitors there, and they're all spending a lot of money. I do worry a little bit that at some important at some point in time that the model consult not the model, the the market consolidates, and we end up with, you know, like a monopoly or duopoly or something like that as we've seen in other technology markets. We saw this with search and, you know, and so on down the line.

我只是认为如果这个市场能保持更多竞争而不仅是一两个赢家会更好。我其实不知道对此能做些什么，只是提出这个观察。我认为保持开源作为一个选项，即使市场整合，也能确保你有替代方案。这个替代方案更完全在你的掌控中，而不是由大公司或深层政府控制——就像我们在推特文件中看到的，深层政府与所有这些社交媒体公司合作，实施的审查范围之广超出我们任何人的想象。

And I just think that it would be good if this market stayed more competitive than just one or two winners. And I I don't I don't really know what to do about that. I'm just making that observation. And I I do think that having open source as an option always then ensures that even if the market does consolidate, that you do have an alternative. And it's an alternative that's more fully within your control as opposed to a large corporation or, you know, or or the deep state, you know, working with that corporation as we saw in the Twitter files that, you know, the deep state was working with all these, you know, social media companies, you know, in in implementing much more widespread censorship than I think we any of us thought possible.

所以我们过去在社交网络领域已经看到政府如何以不正当方式介入的证据，拥有替代方案会很好，这样可以预防或减少AI领域出现类似情况的可能性。

So we've seen evidence in the past and again in the social networking space about how the government could get involved in nefarious ways, and it would be good to have alternatives so that so, you know, to prevent that or to make it less likely that that scenario comes about with AI.

是的。如你所知，我们和其他人正在非常积极地投资各类新型模型公司，包括新的基础模型公司。而且，可能你也知道，还有很多尚未公开的新开源项目，希望未来几年能结出果实。我认为至少在中短期内，我们看到的是模型开发的爆发而非整合。之后我们会看到结果如何。

Yeah. Well, as you know, we we and others are very aggressively investing in new model companies of many kinds, including new foundation model companies. And then also, you know, as you're probably there there are a whole bunch of new open source efforts, you know, that are not yet public that, you know, hopefully will bear fruit over the next couple years. I think that's at least at least in the in the medium term, I think we're looking at an explosion of model development as opposed to consolidation. And then, you know, we'll we'll see what happens from there.

是的，听到这个很好。我是说，如果我们评估中美AI竞赛的态势，唯一看起来我们落后的领域就是开源模型这块。如果不区分开源闭源，我认为我们是领先的。

Yeah. That's really good to hear. I mean, I think, you know, if we assess kind of the the state of the AI race vis a vis China, this is the only area where we appear to be behind is in this area of open source models. Yeah. I I think, you know, if you don't care whether it's open or closed, I think we have the lead.

是的。我认为我们的顶级模型公司领先于中国顶尖公司，虽然他们也很优秀。但就在开源这个狭窄领域他们似乎有优势。所以听到你们看到更多努力进入市场真是太好了。

Yeah. I think our top models, model companies are ahead of the top Chinese companies, although they're quite good. But Yeah. But just this narrow area of open source seems to be where they have an advantage. So it's great to hear that you guys are seeing, you know, a lot more efforts coming to market.

对，对，还有更多要来的。

Yeah. Yeah. There's more coming.

没错。很好。对。对。对。

Yep. Good. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

肯定还有更多要来的。

Definitely more coming.

彼得·蒂尔多年前曾打趣说，他认为加密货币会是自由主义或去中心化的，而人工智能会是共产主义或集中化的。我想我们或许学到了一点，那就是技术并非决定性的，而是有一系列选择决定了这些技术是去中心化还是集中化的。也许我们可以借此话题更深入地探讨与中国竞争的现状。戴夫，也许你可以阐述一下哪些方面最关键需要做好。你已经提到开源就是一个例子。

The, Peter Thiel quipped, you know, many years ago that he thought, you know, crypto would be libertarian or decentralizing and that AI would be communist or or centralizing. And I think one thing we've perhaps we've learned that technology isn't deterministic and that there there are a set of choices that determine whether these technologies are decentralizing or or or centralizing. And may maybe we could segue use that as a segue to go deeper into the the state of the race with China. May maybe, Dave, you could lay out the sort of the what's most important to to get right. You've already indicated, you know, open source is one example.

你之前提到了我们与芯片相关的策略。有人说我们这样做很好，因为这能限制国内半导体生产；也有人说这些公司表示芯片是他们最大的限制因素，所以我们是否在某种程度上帮了他们？不如你来谈谈当前局势和我们的策略？

You know, you you alluded earlier to sort of our strategy as it relates to chips. You know, some people say that, yeah, yes, it's it's a good idea to do what we're doing because it'll, you know, limit domestic semiconductor product production. Other people say, oh, well, some you of these companies say chips are their biggest limiting factors. And so are we enabling them in some way? Why don't you talk about the sort of state of play and then our strategy?

是的，当我们谈论赢得AI竞赛时，有时会说我们在与中国赛跑，有时则说得比较模糊。因为我认为我们不应过分沉迷于关注竞争对手或对手。我们能否获胜主要取决于我们对自己技术生态系统的决策，而不是我们针对他们采取的行动。总统在2023年7月关于AI政策的演讲中提到了赢得这场AI竞赛的几个关键支柱。

Yeah. So when we talk about winning the AI race, sometimes we say we're in a race against China, and sometimes we just leave it a little bit more vague. Because I I don't think we should become overly obsessed with our competitors or adversaries. I think whether we win or not will mostly have to do with the decisions we make about our own technology ecosystem, not about, you know, what we do vis a vis them. And so the president in his July 23 speech on AI policy, think mentioned a few of the key pillars of, you know, of how we win this AI race.

顺便说一句，我并不是说这场竞赛会有终点。这可能是场无限游戏，但我们至少希望保持领先。我认为可能会有一段时期，就像互联网那样——互联网仍在发展，但我们已经知道谁是赢家了。所以在AI领域，可能也会有段时期赢家格局基本定型。

And by the way, I'm not saying it ever ends. It might be an infinite game, but we wanna be in the lead at least. And I do think that there could be a period of time where like, you know, take the Internet where, I mean, the Internet's still going on. It's happened, but we understand that kinda who the winners are is kinda baked now. So there could be a period of time in which, you know, it's kinda baked to the the winners in AIR.

但无论如何，在如何赢得这场竞赛的问题上，我提到了几个关键支柱。首先是创新。支持私营部门至关重要，因为创新正是由他们推动的。我们无法通过监管来击败对手，必须在创新上超越他们。

But in any event, you know, in terms of how we win this race, you know, I mentioned a few of the key pillars. Number one is innovation. You know, it's very important to support the private sector because they're the ones who do the innovation. We're not gonna regulate our way to beating our our adversary. We just have to out innovate them.

我刚才提到，我认为当前最大的障碍是各州此起彼伏的过度监管狂潮。我们亟需一个统一的联邦标准。五十个州各自为政的监管体系会带来难以承受的合规负担。即便是支持这些监管的人现在也承认我们需要联邦标准——问题在于他们所谓的联邦化，实质是想把各州最严苛的法律版本推广到全国。

I mentioned, I I think right now the biggest obstacle is the the the frenzy of overregulation happening at the states. Desperately think we need a federal a single federal standard. A patchwork of 50 different regulatory regimes can be incredibly burdensome to comply with. I think even the people who support a lot of this regulation are now acknowledging that we're gonna need a federal standard. The problem is that when they talk about it, what they really want is to federalize the most onerous version of all the state laws.

这种情况同样不能允许。所以接下来会有一场较量。随着各州监管越来越臃肿——初创企业需要向50个州的不同机构在不同时间汇报50项不同事务——人们终将意识到这种疯狂，转而推动联邦化。届时核心争议将在于：我们获得的是强力联邦优先权还是温和版本。

And that can't be allowed either. So, you know, there's gonna be a battle to come. I think as the states become more and more unwieldy, you know, as it becomes more of a trap for startups that they now have to report into 50 different states at 50 different times, to 50 different agencies about 50 different things. People are gonna realize this is crazy, and they're gonna try to federalize it. And then the question I think is whether we get preemption heavy or preemption light.

我认为最终所有人都会支持单一联邦标准。因为美国最大的优势就在于我们拥有统一的大市场，而非50个割裂的州市场。就像欧盟成立前的欧洲，由于30种不同监管体系，在互联网领域毫无竞争力。欧洲初创企业即便在本国成功，仍需攻克30个国家才能称雄欧洲。

You know, do we do we get a yeah. I think everyone's gonna ultimately be in favor of a of a single federal standard. Because I think one of America's greatest advantages is that we have a large national market, right, not 50 separate state markets. Like kind of, you know, Europe before the EU wasn't competitive at all on the Internet because it's 30 different regulatory regimes. And so, you know, if you're a European startup and even if you won your country, it didn't get you very far because you still had to, like, you know, figure out how to compete in 30 other countries before you could even win Europe.

而与此同时，美国竞争者早已拿下整个北美市场并准备全球扩张。统一国内市场是我们竞争力的根基，也是美国赢家能最终征服世界的原因。我们必须守住这个优势。虽然联邦优先权终将实现，但关键仍在于获得的是强力版还是温和版。

And then meanwhile, your American competitors won the entire American market and is ready to scale up globally. So the fact that we have a single national market is is fundamental to our competitiveness, and it's why, you know, winners in America then go on to kinda win the whole world. So we have to preserve that. And I think we will eventually get some some federal preemption. I think the question will just again be whether we preempt heavy or preempt light.

第二大领域是基础设施和能源。我们要助力当前惊人的基建热潮，而最大制约因素就是能源。特朗普总统在这方面极具远见——他多年前就提出'钻探吧宝贝'的口号。

Second big area is infrastructure, you know, and energy. You know, we wanna help this this amazing infrastructure boom that's happening. And the biggest, I think, limiting factor there is just gonna be around energy. I think president Trump's been incredibly farsighted in this. I mean, he was talking about Drill Baby Drill many years ago.

他深知能源是一切的基础，更是当前AI爆发的前提。我们需要扫除不必要的监管、许可限制和地方保护主义，让AI公司能顺利建设数据中心并获取电力。这部分可以深入探讨，但能源确实是赢得AI竞赛的第二大关键。第三大领域则关乎出口。

He understood that energy is the basis for everything. It's definitely the basis for this AI boom. And we wanna basically get all of these unnecessary regulations, the permitting restrictions, a lot of the nimbyism out of the way so that AI companies can build data centers and get power for them. And we can talk about that more if you want, but I think that that's a second really huge, part of the of what it's gonna take to win the AI race. And then the third area is is around exports.

这可能是最具争议的一点，它真切反映了硅谷与华盛顿之间的文化鸿沟。我们硅谷人都明白，赢得技术竞赛的关键在于构建最大的生态系统。对吧？让最多开发者基于你的平台开发，让你的应用商店拥有最多应用。

And maybe this has been the most controversial one, and it really speaks to the cultural divide between Silicon Valley and and Washington. So I think all of us in Silicon Valley understand that the way that you win a technology race is by building the biggest ecosystem. Right? You get the most developers building on your your platform. You get the most apps in your app store.

大家都会使用你的平台。我是说，通常获胜的公司就是那些拥有所有用户和开发者的企业。所以我们硅谷人秉持合作共赢的理念，只想发布API让所有人使用。而华盛顿则持不同态度。

Everyone just uses you. I mean, you know, those are the companies that typically win are the ones that get all the users, all the developers, and so on. And so we in Silicon Valley have a partnership mentality. Know, we wanna just publish the APIs and get everyone using them. Washington has a different mentality.

对吧？他们更倾向于命令与控制。他们希望你获得批准，某种程度上想垄断这项技术，认为只有美国才该拥有它。

Right? It's much more of a command and control. We want you to get approved. You know, we kinda wanna hoard this technology. Only America should have it.

我认为这从根本上解释了拜登政府的防扩散规定——该规定的核心就是阻止技术扩散。在华盛顿眼中，'扩散'是个负面词汇。但在硅谷，我们明白扩散才是制胜之道。

And and this this was really fundamental, I think, to the Biden diffusion rule where the the point of that rule is to stop diffusion. Right? Diffusion is a is a is a bad word. But in Silicon Valley, we understand that diffusion is how you win. Right.

说实话，我们以前从不用'扩散'这个词，这对我来说是个新说法。我们一直称之为'应用'。

I know. I mean, I don't think we ever called it diffusion before. That was a new word for me. We just called it usage. Yeah.

但我们深知用户规模决定成败。所以现在存在根本性的文化冲突。在我看来，对华销售决策永远复杂，毕竟中国既是竞争对手又存在技术两用风险。但对其他国家销售本应简单——我们理应希望与世界做生意。

But we understand that, like, getting the most users is how you win. So there's, a fundamental culture clash going on right now. And, you know, the way I kinda parse it is that what we decide to sell to China is always gonna be comp complicated because, you know, they're our competitor and our adversary, and there's the whole potential of dual use. And so the the the question of what you sell to China is is nuanced. But what we sell to the rest of the world, that should be an easy question, which is we should want to do business with the rest of the world.

我们应该追求最大的生态系统。每将一个国家排除出技术联盟，实际上就是将其推向中国怀抱，壮大他们的生态。在拜登执政期间，我们看到美国不断将其他国家推向中国，2023年10月从海湾国家开始——像沙特、阿联酋这样的长期盟友，竟被禁止购买美国芯片，这意味着他们无法建立数据中心参与AI发展。

We should wanna have the largest ecosystem possible. And every country we exclude from our technology alliance, we're basically driving into the arms of China, it makes their ecosystem bigger. And what we saw under the the the the Biden years is that they were constantly pushing other countries, into the arms of China, starting with the Gulf States in, October 2023. Basically, the The Gulf States, you know, I'm talking about countries like Saudi Arabia, UAE, longstanding US allies, they weren't allowed to buy chips from The US. In other words, they weren't allowed to set up data centers and participate in in AI.

我们一边告诉各国人工智能是未来的基石、将成为经济的基础，一边却将他们排除在美国技术体系之外。结果显而易见——我们等于亲手把他们推向中国。这些政策本质上是在为中国芯片和模型创造压抑性需求，简直是在打造华为版的'一带一路'。

And here we are telling all these countries that AI is fundamental to the future. It's gonna be the basis of the economy, and yet we're excluding you from participating in the American tech stack. Well, it's obvious what they're gonna do. The only play we're giving them is to go to China. And so all of these rules basically just create pent up demand for Chinese chips and models, and it creates a Huawei Belt and Road.

我们正目睹华为在中东和东南亚地区加速扩张。这完全是种适得其反的策略，简直是在自断后路。最具讽刺意味的是，那些把各国逼入中国怀抱的人还自诩为'对华鹰派'——好像他们真在打击中国似的。根本不是。

And we are hearing that that Huawei is starting to proliferate or diffuse in The Middle East and in Southeast Asia. And I just think it's a really counterproductive strategy. We're completely shooting ourselves in the foot. And, like, the the greatest irony is that the people who've been pushing this strategy of driving all these countries into China's arms have called themselves China hawks, you know, as if what they're doing is, is hurting China. No.

这根本就是在帮中国开拓市场。我们的产品更优秀，但如果不给这些国家选择美国技术的机会，他们当然会转向中国方案。中国正在全球积极推广深度求索模型和华为芯片，他们可不会纠结于'向阿联酋数据中心出口芯片会制造终结者'这种我们编造的荒谬借口——这些正是我们用来拒绝向盟友出售技术的托词。最终结果与我们鼓吹的目标完全背道而驰。

It's like it's it's helping China. I mean, it's basically just handing them markets. And our products are better, but if you don't give these countries a choice to buy the American tech stack, obviously, they're gonna go with the Chinese tech stack. And, you know, China China is out there promoting, you know, DeepSeek models and Huawei chips, and they're not, like, wringing their hands about, you know, whether, you know, exporting chips for a data center in UAE is gonna, like, create the Terminator and, you know, all these, like, ridiculous narratives that we've invented to you know, reasons we've invented not to sell American technology to our friends. So, you know, that that has ended up being, I think, surprisingly, maybe the most converse to a part of what we've advocated for.

但事实就是如此。我就先说到这里，这些是我们主张的核心要点。我们是否应该...

But, but there you have it. So in any event, I'll stop there. Those are kinda some of the major pillars of what we've been advocating. Should we should

要不要深入探讨基础设施和能源方面的具体需求？比如实现产能达标的关键要素，或是您提到的第二要点中最关键的部分？

we go deeper on sort of the infrastructure and energy point in terms of what it's really gonna take to to to get enough capacity or what's what's most important in that second bullet you were talking about?

确实，在能源领域有比我专业得多的专家。就我所知：首先，特朗普政府已签署多项行政令简化核能审批，甚至开放联邦土地用于数据中心建设，试图绕过地方监管限制。总统也确实大幅降低了新建能源项目的准入门槛。

Yeah. I mean, well so, I mean, there there are definitely people who are much more knowledgeable about energy than I am and are experts in the space. But here's what I've been able to kinda divine is so first of all, the administration president Trump has signed multiple executive orders to to allow for nuclear, to make permitting easier. We've even freed up federal land, for for data centers to hopefully just trying to help get around some of these state and local restrictions. And obviously, the president has made it a lot easier to to stand up new energy projects, power generation, all that kind of stuff.

但我认为美国地方层面的'邻避主义'问题日益严重，若不能妥善解决，将严重拖累基础设施建设进度。就电力而言，核能需要5-10年周期，短期只能依靠天然气为数据中心供电。

I still think though that we have a growing NIMBY problem at the state and local level in in The US that that is becoming a little bit worrisome. And and and if we don't figure out a way to to address it, then it could really slow down, the build out of this infrastructure. In terms of of power, so my understanding is that nuclear is gonna take five or ten years. It's just it's just not something that we're gonna be able to do in the next two or three years. So in the short term, it really means that, like, gas is the way that these data centers are gonna get powered.

天然气的问题在于短缺——我指的是，美国其实有丰富的天然气资源，而且这些资源大量存在于红州，完全可以就近建设数据中心，这很明智。但问题是燃气轮机短缺，全球只有两三家制造商，订单积压长达两三年。所以我认为这才是当前亟需解决的燃眉之急。不过未来两三年内，电网效率应该能大幅提升。

And the the issue with gas is the shortage there is not I mean, America has plenty of natural gas, and there's, it exists in plenty of red in enough red states where you could just build out data centers, like, close to the source, which would be smart. The issue is there's, a shortage of these, gas turbines. You know, there's only, two or three companies that make these things, and, like, there's like a backlog of two or three years. So I think that's probably the the the immediate problem there that needs to get solved. However, I do think that in the next two or three years, we could get a lot more out of the grid.

能源行业高管告诉我，如果能将每年40小时的峰值负荷转移给备用发电机或柴油机组等，就能释放出额外的800亿瓦电力——这相当可观。因为电网实际利用率只有50%，全年50%的容量是为极端天气预留的，比如夏季最热和冬季最冷的那几天。他们不敢过度承诺供电容量，以防严冬时居民供暖不足，所以无法与数据中心等用户签订长期供电协议。

So I've had, you know, energy executives tell me that, that if we could just shed, forty hours a year of peak load from the grid to, like, backup generators to diesel, things like that, you could free up an additional 80 gigawatts of power, which is a lot. Because I guess the way that it works is is, you know, the the grid is only used about 50%. 50% of the capacity is used throughout the year because they have to build enough capacity for the the peak the peak days, like the hottest day in summer, the coldest day in winter, those are your peak days. And they don't want to commit to a bunch of the capacity being used, and then, you know, you find out that you have a really cold day in winter and people can't get enough heat for their their homes. And so so they can't, like, overcommit to, you know, to say contracts or data centers, things like that.

但若能转移每年40小时的峰值负荷，就能释放出800亿瓦电力，这足以支撑未来两三年，直到燃气轮机产能瓶颈缓解，最终过渡到核能。问题在于现有法规严禁负荷转移措施，比如禁止使用柴油发电机。

But if you could, again, just like if you could shed that, like, forty hours a year of peak load to backup, then you would be able to free up eighty eighty gigawatts, which is a lot. And that would definitely get us through the next, you know, two or three years until the gas turbine bottleneck's been alleviated, and then eventually you get to to nuclear. So that would be very good. I think, the the issue there is just there's a whole bunch of insane regulations preventing, you know, load shedding. So like for example, you can't use diesel.

能源部长克里斯·赖特对此很有见地，他正在推动解除这些限制，让我们能真正实施这些方案。

And this you know, Chris Wright is the secretary of energy. He's very good on all this stuff, and I think he's working on unraveling all of this so we could actually, actually do this.

大卫，听你讲这些真有意思——我忍不住觉得，这简直就是在和欧盟反着来。

It's funny, David, as you talk about this stuff, it's I I can't help it. A little bit like it's a little bit like the principles just do the opposite of the EU.

是啊，就像

Yeah. Like,

基本上我们讨论的所有方案，都与欧洲的应对策略完全相反。

basically, every I think everything we've talked about so far is basically the opposite of the European approach.

是的。我是说，欧洲人对于这类事情有着截然不同的思维方式。当他们谈论AI领导力时，他们指的是在制定法规方面领先。他们引以为豪的就是这个——他们认为这是他们的比较优势所在，就是在布鲁塞尔聚在一起决定所有规则应该是什么，这就是他们所谓的领导力。

Yeah. Well, I mean, the Europeans, I mean, they have a really different mindset for all of this stuff. When when they talk about AI leadership, what they mean is that they're taking the lead in defining the regulations. And they all you know, it's like that's what they're proud of is that like, they think that's what their comparative advantage is is that, you know, they get together in Brussels and figure out what all the rules should be, and that's what they call leadership. The

欧盟刚刚宣布了一个...我不该太过分，但他们确实宣布了一个大型新增长基金，一个公私合作的大型科技增长基金，旨在扶持欧盟企业扩大规模。而我...说实话我当时就想，这简直像个游戏商店似的。他们用尽手段扼杀初创企业于摇篮中，然后如果这些小公司能熬过十年虐待，他们才肯给钱让它们发展。

the EU the EU just announced a, I shouldn't be done too much, but they just announced a big new growth fund, a big new public private sector, tech growth fund to grow, EU companies to scale. And I I just I would literally I was just like, well, they it's it's actually quite it's almost like a game store or something. They do everything they can to strangle them in their crib. And then if they if they make it if they make it through, like, a decade of abuse of small companies, then they're gonna give the money to grow.

嗯，这倒是个主意。

Well, it's an idea.

这个嘛...你知道罗纳德·里根有句名言：'能动的东西就征税，继续动的就监管，不动了就补贴。'没错，欧洲人现在绝对处于补贴阶段。

Well, it's it's what you know, Ronald Reagan had a line about this, which is if it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. If it stops moving, subsidize it. Yeah. The Europeans are definitely at the subsidized stage.

是啊。我...唉我不该太刻薄。但我就是不喜欢这样。我一直以身为美国人为荣，尤其是现在，因为我们...我们真的感觉在很多讨论的话题上，我们正在重新聚焦美国的核心价值观，这真的太棒了。

Yeah. And I I yeah. I shouldn't be doing them too much. But I just didn't like it. I've always been proud to be an American, but particular particularly now, because, like, we we just the fact that we've we've we've been we we are we it really feels like we're recentering on core American values in a lot of the things that we're talking about, which is just really great.

对。我想说，我们的观点首先是必须赢得AI竞赛。我们希望美国在这个关键领域领先，这对我们的经济和国家安全都至关重要。具体怎么做？

Yeah. I mean, again, it's you know, our our view is that the first of all, we have to win the AI race. We want America to lead in this critical area. It's, like, fundamental for our economy and our national security. How do you do that?

我们的企业必须成功，因为创新要靠它们。再说一次，靠监管是赢不了AI竞赛的。我不是说完全不需要监管，但重点在于...

Well, our companies have to be successful because they're the ones who do the innovation. Again, you're not gonna regulate your way to winning the AI race. I'm not saying we don't need any regulations, but the point is just that's not

那并不能决定我们是否是赢家。大卫，你最近发推说，基于比尔·盖茨最近的言论，气候末日论或许正在让位于AI末日论。你这话是什么意思？你是说这将成为美国左翼的主要战线吗？还是什么？你这条评论想表达什么？

how that's not what's gonna determine whether we're the winners or not. David, you recently tweeted that climate doomerism perhaps is giving way to AI doomerism based on, you know, Bill Bill Gates' recent comments. What do you mean by this? Do do you mean it's gonna be a major flank, you know, of of of the, you know, US left? Or what do what what do you mean by this comment?

嗯，我认为左翼需要一个核心的灾难性议题来为他们接管经济、全面监管尤其是控制信息空间提供正当理由。我觉得气候末日论的整体吸引力已经有所消退——可能是因为十年前他们预言全球将在十年内被淹没，但这并未发生。所以到了一定程度，你自己的灾难预言就会让你信誉扫地。我猜几年后AI末日论也会面临同样处境。

Well, I I think the left needs a central organizing catastrophe to justify their, takeover of the economy and to to regulate everything and especially to control the information space. And I think that you're seeing that kind of the allure of the whole climate change doomer narrative has kind of faded. Maybe it's the fact that they predicted ten years ago that the whole world would be underwater in ten years, and that hasn't happened. So it's like at a certain point, you get discredited by your own catastrophic predictions. I suspect that's where we'll be with AI doomerism in a few years.

但与此同时，它确实是个很好的叙事，可以取代气候末日论。实际上两者有很多相似之处——已有大量好莱坞电影和流行文化在为这种观念铺垫，比如《终结者》《黑客帝国》这类作品。人们早被教育要对AI感到恐惧。

But in the meantime, it's a really good narrative to kinda take the place of the climate doomerism. There's actually a lot of similarities, I would say. You know, you've kind of got, there's a lot of kinda preexisting Hollywood storytelling and pop culture that supports this idea. You know, you've got the Terminator movies and the Matrix and all this kind of stuff. So people have been taught to be afraid of this.

而且背后还有足够的伪科学支撑。就像那些人为设计的研究，比如声称AI研究员被自己的模型勒索的案例。听着，引导模型给出你想要的答案非常容易，很多这类研究都很牵强，但表面却披着伪科学的外衣。技术性足够强，普通人根本不敢断言这毫无道理。

And then, you know, you you there's enough kind of pseudoscience behind it. You know, kinda like, you know, with like, you've got all these contrived studies that like the one where they claimed that the AI researcher got blackmailed by his own AI model or whatever. Look, it's very easy to steer the model towards the the answer that you want. And and a lot of these studies have been very contrived, but there's this patina of pseudoscience to it. It's certainly technical enough that the average person doesn't feel comfortable saying that this doesn't make any sense.

毕竟你不是专家，你能知道什么？就连共和党政客似乎也在落入这个圈套。所以这确实是个极具吸引力的叙事。随着AI渗透到经济各个领域，每家企业都会在某种程度上使用它。

I mean, it's more like you're not an expert. What do you know? And even Republican politicians, I think, are kind of falling for this. So, yeah, I mean, it's a really desirable narrative. And, of course, you know, as AI touches more and more things, more and more parts of the economy, every business is gonna use it to some degree.

若能监管AI，就等于间接控制了其他许多领域。正如我所说，AI正在吞噬互联网——它已成为人们获取信息的主要渠道。所以只要能在AI展示内容时施加影响，就能控制人们所见所闻所思，这与左翼从未放弃的审查议程完美契合，也和他们给儿童洗脑的'觉醒'运动一脉相承。

If you can regulate AI, then that kind of gives you a lot of control over lots of other things. And like I mentioned, AI is kinda eating the Internet. It's like the main way that you're getting information. So again, if you can kinda get your hooks into what the AI is showing people, now you can control what they see and hear and think, which dovetails with the whole with the left censorship, you know, agenda, which they've never given up on. Dovetails with their agenda to brainwash kids, which we you know, which is kind of the whole woke thing.

因此这对左翼极具诱惑力。事实上他们已经在行动了——这不是我的预测。就在FTX诈骗案主谋入狱后...

So, I mean, this is this is gonna be very desirable for for the left. And and this is why I mean, look. They're they're already doing this. This is not like some prediction on my part. Basically, after scam bank run fraud, did what he did with FTX, got sent to jail.

他曾是一位颇具影响力的有效利他主义者，将大流行病视为首要议题。当需要新目标时，他们转向了存在性风险（x风险）理念——即如果人工智能有1%概率毁灭世界，我们就该放下一切专注防范。因为期望值计算显示，哪怕概率再小，只要涉及人类存亡就是唯一重点。他们确实重组力量推动此事，并获得了不少支持者。

He was like a big effective altruist, and he had made pandemics like their big cause. They needed a new cause, and they got behind this idea of of x risk, which is existential risk. The idea being if there's, like, a 1% chance of AI ending the world, then we should drop everything and just focus on that. Because you do the expected value calculation, and so if it ends humanity, then that's the only thing you should focus on even if it's, you know, a very small percentage chance. But they really, like, reorganized behind this with all of and, you know, they've got quite a few advocates.

实际上，这故事惊人地展现了他们在拜登执政期间如何通过幕后运作获得巨大影响力。他们成功说服了所有拜登政府核心幕僚：超级智能即将降临，我们必须严阵以待，将其控制权集中在少数企业手中——理想状态下仅由两三家美国公司掌握。

And actually, it's it's an amazing story about how much influence they were able to achieve largely behind the scenes or in the shadows during the Biden years. They basically convinced all of the major Biden staffers of this view of this like imminent super intelligence is coming. We should be really afraid of it. We need to consolidate control over it. There should only be, you know, ideally two or three companies that have it.

他们主张绝不能让世界其他地区获得这项技术，并声称只要确保由两三家美国公司垄断，就能解决协调问题——这就是他们眼中的自由市场。通过收购这些企业，他们就能完全控制局面，防止技术如魔瓶精灵般失控。我认为这完全是对未来发展的偏执想象，而现实已在逐步驳斥这种观点。

We don't want anyone in the rest of the world to get it. And then what they said is, you know, once we make sure that there's only two or three American companies, we'll, we'll solve the coordination problems. That's what they consider to be the, you know, the free market. We'll solve those coordination problems for buying those, companies, and we'll be able to control this whole thing and prevent the the genie from escaping the bottle. I think it was like this totally paranoid version of what would happen, and it's already being it's already in the process of being refuted.

但正是这种理念催生了拜登的AI行政令，也推动了所谓的拜登扩散规则。马克，你提到过参加拜登团队会议时，他们明确表示要禁止开源，钦定两三家赢家通吃——确实如此。

But this this vision is fundamentally what animated the Biden executive order on AI. It's what, animated the the Biden diffusion rule. Mark, I mean, you've talked about how you were in a meeting with Biden folks, and they were gonna basically ban open source, and they were gonna they're basically gonna anoint two or three winners, and that was it. Yeah.

他们对我们直言不讳地承认了这点。当我们质疑禁止开源技术的可行性——毕竟这涉及教科书、YouTube视频和大学课堂都在教授的数学算法——他们竟回应道：冷战时期我们连整个物理学科都能禁，必要时对数学同样可以。

They told us that they told us that explicitly. And, yeah, they told us exactly what you just said. They told us they're gonna ban open source. And when we challenged them on the ability to ban open source because it's, you know, we're talking about, you know, math, you know, like mathematical algorithms that are taught in textbooks and YouTube videos and in universities. You know, they they they said, well, during the Cold War, we banned entire areas of physics and put them off limits, and we'll do the same thing for math if we have to.

没错，他们确实...这就是...这就是他们宣称的所谓最佳利益。你会很高兴地...

Yeah. And that's the, yeah, that's the yeah. That that that was the best interest. And you'll be happy

得知那位发表此论的人现在已是Anthropic公司的员工。不。

to know that the guy who actually said that is now an anthropic employee. No.

完全正确。所有这些，我是说，毫不夸张，拜登政府刚下台，所有顶尖的拜登AI官员就跳槽去了Anthropic，这清楚表明他们在拜登任期内为谁效力。

That's exactly right. All all those and and, I mean, literally, the minute the Biden administration was over, all the top Biden AI employees went to go work at Anthropic, which tells you who they were working with during the Biden years.

是啊，是啊。不过，不是的，

Yeah. Yeah. But, no,

但我想说，这套说辞当时甚嚣尘上。人们渲染超级智能即将降临，反复强调AI堪比核武器，GPU就像铀或钚之类的原料。于是主张需要类似国际原子能机构的监管体系。

but I mean, this this was this was very much the narrative. You sort of had this imminent superintelligence. And then, you know, the one of the refrains you heard was that AI is like nuclear weapons, and and GPUs are like uranium or plutonium or something. Yeah. And and so and then therefore, we need, like, an you know, the way the proper way to to regulate this is with, like, an International Atomic Energy Commission.

这样一来，一切都会被集中管控，钦定两三个赢家。如今这套说辞随着深度求索的发布开始崩塌——那恰好发生在特朗普政府上任头几周。因为若问这些推动监管的人当时对中国的看法，他们本质上认为...等等，如果我们自废武功过度监管AI，难道不会让中国赢得竞赛吗？

And so, you know, again, everything would be sort of centralized and controlled, and they would anoint two or three winners. And, you know, now Yeah. This I think this narrative really started to fall apart, with the launch of deep seek, which really happened in the first, I don't know, couple weeks of the Trump administration. Because, you know, if you ask any of these people what they thought of of China during this time when they were pushing all these regulations, they basically you know, and specifically, well, wait. If if we shoot ourselves in the foot by over regulating AI, you know, won't China just win the AI race?

若追问他们的回答，他们会坚称中国落后太多不足为虑，更荒谬的是——这完全缺乏证据——他们认为只要我们放缓脚步实施所谓'健康监管'，中国就会照搬我们的做法。这种天真观点简直可笑。我们自缚手脚时，中国只会说声谢谢，然后接管技术领导权。

If you were to ask them that, what they what they would have said, they did say, is that China is so far behind us, it doesn't matter. And furthermore, and this was said completely without evidence that if we basically slow down to impose, you know, all these supposedly healthy regulations, well, China will just copy us and do the same thing. I think it was absurdly naive view. I think that if we shoot ourselves in the foot, China will just be like, thank you very much. We'll just take leadership in this technology.

我们当然会这样！可他们当时就是这么说的。起草拜登AI行政令时，根本没人讨论中国竞争问题。大家想当然认为我们遥遥领先，可以随意折腾本国企业而不会影响竞争力。

Why wouldn't we? But this is what they said. And and, you know, when when when the Biden executive order on AI was crafted, there was no discussion whatsoever of the China compete. You know? It was just it was just, again, assumed that we were so far ahead that that we could basically do anything to our companies, and it would just be it it wouldn't it wouldn't really affect our our competitiveness.

我认为深度求索在模型层面彻底粉碎了这种论调。四月份华为推出的CloudMatrix技术，通过将384枚芯片联网——虽然单颗性能不如英伟达——凭借网络技术优势构建了整个机架系统，实际演示证明：没错，英伟达芯片更强，但...

And I think I think that narrative really started to fall apart with DeepSeek at the model level. Back in April, Huawei launched a technology called CloudMatrix in which they compensate for the fact that their chips individually are not as good as NVIDIA's chips by networking more of them together. So they took 384 of them. You use their prowess in networking to create, you know, this rack system, CloudMatrix. And it was demonstrated to show that, you know, yes, NVIDIA chips are better.

它们在能效上表现更优。但在机架层面、系统层面，华为确实能凭借昇腾芯片和云矩阵完成任务。这再次表明，我们并非芯片领域的唯一玩家——如果我们不向中东等地的盟友出售芯片，华为必然会填补空缺。这一连串的发现不断颠覆着他们原有的认知和信念。我们讨论过，市场最终呈现出的去中心化程度远超他们当初的预测。

They're much more power efficient. But at the rack level, at the system level, you know, Huawei could get the job done with these, you know, Ascend chips and CloudMatrix. And so, again, I think that showed that, you know, we're not the only game in town on chips, which means that if we don't sell our chips to, you know, our our friends and allies in The Middle East and other places, then Huawei certainly will. So I think this has been kind of one revelation after another in which we've learned that that a lot of their preconceptions and belief were wrong. And we've talked about the fact that that the that the markets ended up being much more decentralized than they ever could have predicted.

我还想补充一点：他们曾坚信某些迫在眉睫的灾难会发生——就像全球变暖论调说我们现在本该被海水淹没一样。他们声称用10到25浮点运算训练的模型风险极高，但如今所有前沿模型都在这个算力级别上训练。如果2023年听从这些人的意见，我们根本达不到今天的成就——而这不过是两三年前的事。

And and I'd also say one other thing, which is they they they also believe that there'd be, you know, imminent catastrophes that haven't so this is kinda like the equivalent to the global warming thing where we're all supposed be underwater by now. They they were saying that models trained on, I think, I don't know, like 10 to 25 flops or whatever were, like, way too risky. Well, every single model now at at the frontier is trained on that level of compute. And so they would have banned us from even being at the place we're at today if we had listened to these people back in 2023. So just a couple of years ago.

必须牢记的是，他们预言的灾难性后果已被事实驳斥。事态发展正朝着与ChatGPT刚问世那年他们设想的完全不同的方向前进。

So that's, like, really important to keep in mind that their predictions of imminent catastrophe have already been refuted. And so things are moving in a direction that that I think are very different than, you know, what they thought in, you know, let's call it the first year after the launch of ChatGPT.

太好了。大卫，趁你还谈着加密话题，我想快速回顾下：今年早些时候政府取得重大胜利，总统签署了《稳定币法案》（即《天才法案》）。实际产生的积极影响甚至超出预期——不仅对稳定币行业，现在各类金融机构都在以前所未有的方式接纳稳定币。

Great. So, David, just to come back real quick while we still have you on on crypto. So the administration and I think the country had a significant victory earlier this year with the president signing the stablecoin bill into law, which was the Genius Act. And I I think that I'll just tell you what we see is, like, the positive consequences of that law have been even bigger than we thought. And I would say that's both for the stablecoin industry, and you now see actually a lot of a lot of financial institutions of all kinds embracing stablecoins in a way that that they weren't before.

这种现象正在美国蔓延——我们处于领先地位且表现优异。更深远的意义在于，这向加密行业释放信号：新时代真正来临了。即将建立的监管框架既负责任，又能真正促进行业在美国蓬勃发展。目前正在制定的《市场结构法案》（《清晰法案》）是立法议程第二阶段，你能否谈谈对该法案重要性的看法，以及当前进展？

And, you know, sort of the the the phenomenon spreading in America, you know, by the way, do it, you know, being being in the lead and doing very well there. But but but just also more broadly, as a signal to the crypto industry that, like, this, you know, this really is a, you know, this really is a new day, and they're they're really they really are going to be regulatory frameworks that that make these things possible and and, you know, that that are responsible, but also make this industry really possible to to flourish in The US. As you know, there is a second piece of legislation, you know, being constructed right now, which is the market structure bill called the the Clarity Act, which is sort of phase two of the legislative agenda. And and I wondered maybe if you could just tell us a little bit about your view of of the importance of that of that bill and and then, you know, kinda how do you think that process is going?

这极其重要。《天才法案》仅针对占市值6%的稳定币，而《清晰法案》将涵盖其余94%的代币类型，为所有加密项目提供监管框架。虽然现任SEC主席保罗·阿特金斯很优秀——

I think it's extremely important. So as you mentioned, we we passed the the Genius Act few few months ago, but that was just for stablecoins. Stablecoins are about 6% of the total market cap in terms of tokens. So 94% are all the other types of tokens, and the Clarity Act would apply to all of that and provide the regulatory framework for all those other crypto projects and companies. You know, if we could be sure that you know, currently, we have a great SEC chairman, Paul Atkins.

如果我们能确保永远由保罗·阿特金斯这样的人执掌SEC，或许不需要立法，因为他们已在推进更完善的规则。但现实充满不确定性。创业者需要未来10-20年的确定性，我们要鼓励长期项目。因此必须通过立法将规则法典化：先提供清晰度，再确保稳定性，最终形成法律保障。

And if we could be sure that Paul Atkins and a person like Paul Atkins was always at the SEC forever, we then wouldn't necessarily need legislation because they're already in the process of implementing, like, much better rules and providing regulatory clarity. But the truth is that we don't know for sure. And if you're a founder who's trying to make a decision now about where you're gonna build your company, you wanna have certainty for ten years out, twenty years out. You know, we wanna encourage long term projects. And so, again, I think it's very important to to canonize the the the rules that that's first to provide the clarity and then to make sure there's enough stability around them and sort of canonize those rules in legislation.

这是你提供长期稳定性的唯一方式。我认为我们将完成《清晰法案》。如你所提到的，该法案在众议院以约300票通过，其中约78票来自民主党人。因此它具有显著的跨党派支持。我认为现在它正在参议院审议中。

That's the only way that you provide that long term stability. I think that we will get the Clarity Act done. Like you mentioned, it passed the house with about 300 votes of about 78 Democrats. So it was substantially bipartisan. I think it will we're it's now going through the senate.

我认为最终会通过。我们正在与大约十几名民主党人协商。我们需要获得60票，这是艰难的部分——根据阻挠议事规则，必须拿到60票。但我们正与约12名民主党人谈判，我确实认为最终能达到这个数字。顺便说一句，我们最终在参议院为《天才法案》争取到了68票，包括18名民主党人。

I think it will ultimately get done. We're negotiating with a dozen or so Democrat. We have to get to 60 votes, so that's the the hard part is under the filibuster, we gotta get 60. So but we're negotiating with about a dozen Democrats, and I I do think that we will ultimately get to to that number. We by the way, we ended up having 68, votes in the Senate for Genius, including 18 Democrats.

所以我认为，即使我们只获得《天才法案》三分之二的民主党支持票数，我们在《清晰法案》上也能顺利过关。但要知道，这将再次为除稳定币外的所有其他代币提供监管框架，我认为这是至关重要的立法。是的，这最终将基本完成加密议程——我们正从拜登的加密战争转向特朗普的'加密星球之都'。届时行业将获得所需的稳定性，可以专注创新，虽然还会有规则更新等调整，但根本上已为行业奠定基础。关于《天才法案》，特朗普总统确实让该法案成为可能。

So I do think that even if we just get, you know, two thirds of the number of Democrats that we got for Genius, then, you know, we'll we'll be we'll be fine on on clarity. But I you know, it it this will provide the the regulatory framework again for all the other tokens besides stablecoins, and, I think it's just a critical piece of of legislation. And, yeah, this this would ultimately, I think, kinda complete the crypto agenda where we've kinda you know, moving from, you know, Biden's war on crypto to Trump's crypto capital, the planet. And then, you know, I think the industry will have the stability it needs and can just focus on innovating, and there'll be, you know, rule updates and things like that, but, you know, fundamentally have the foundation for the industry in place. On Genius Act, you know, President Trump really made that bill possible.

首先，是他的当选彻底改变了关于加密的讨论。如果选举结果不同，我们现在可能还在与SEC周旋，创始人仍会面临起诉，规则仍不明确，伊丽莎白·沃伦将掌握话语权。

Mean, first of all, it was his election that completely shifted the conversation on crypto. We would still be you know, if a different result had been reached, we would have, again, sort figure out the SEC. The the founders would still be getting prosecuted. We wouldn't know what the rules are. Elizabeth Warren would be calling the shots.

因此特朗普总统的当选让一切成为可能，正是他对行业的承诺，以及他在选举期间兑现承诺的决心促成了这一切。但他还直接参与了确保《天才法案》通过的工作——这项立法曾多次被宣告死亡。我亲眼见证他如何说服顽固议员、施加压力、软硬兼施，最终推动法案通过。

So President Trump's election made everything possible, and it's his commitment to the industry and he and his commitment to keeping his, promises during the election that's made all of this possible. But also, I mean, he got directly involved in making sure the Genius Act passed. It was the legislation was declared dead many times. I saw it with my own eyes that, you know, he was able to persuade, recalcitrant votes and, twist arms, cajole, and, charm. And, you know, he ultimately got it done.

我认为《清晰法案》也会有类似结果。人们总是过早宣判这些法案的死刑。立法过程确实充满波折，正如人们所说'不想看香肠制作过程'。但无论如何，我认为目前进展良好。

And, and I think that clarity will be a similar result. People are always prematurely declaring these things to be dead or whatever. There are a lot of twists and turns to legislative process. It's definitely true that you don't wanna see the sausage getting made. But, but, anyway, I think we're on a good track right now.

很好。太棒了。太好了。

Good. Fantastic. Great.

皮特·布蒂吉格最近参加了《All In》节目，你们讨论了左派的身份认同危机，他希望能出现更多温和派，也就是中间偏左的力量。与此同时，我们看到纽约的曼达尼现象。我很好奇你如何看待民主党的未来走向？是会出现更多温和派，还是这种曼达尼式的觉醒民粹主义？

Pete Pete Buttigieg went on all in recently, and you guys talked about the the left's identity crisis, and he's hoping for more of a moderate, you know, center center left, to to to emerge. At the same time, we see Mamdani in New York. I'm I'm curious what you you think of what what what are you seeing in terms of what is the future in terms of for the for the Democratic Party in terms of it? Is there more moderate presence, or is it kind of this Mamdani style pop you know, woke populism?

在我看来，曼达尼和所谓的'觉醒社会主义'似乎注定会成为民主党的未来。党内的活力都集中在这个阵营。虽然我不希望如此——我更希望看到一个理性的民主党——但这确实是他们的基本盘所在。而且你很少听到党内民主党人试图自我约束或与之划清界限。

I mean, it certainly seems to me that Mamdani and and, I don't know, like, the woke socialism seems to be the future of the party. I mean, that's where all the energy is in their base. I mean, I don't want that to be the case. I'd rather have a rational Democrat party, but but that seems to be where their base is, where the energy is. And you don't really hear Democrats within the party trying to self police and distance themselves from that.

你看，民主党所有重要人物都支持曼达尼。所以没错，这似乎就是该党的方向。部分原因是他们的基本盘在此，部分可能是对特朗普的误读——他们觉得建制派政治已经失败，所以需要左翼民粹主义来对抗右翼民粹主义。我认为这可能是他们选择这条路的部分考量。

You saw, I mean, all the major figures in the Democrat party have endorsed Mamdani. So, yeah, I mean, that's where that party seems to be headed. I I I think that partly it's where their base is at. I think partly it it might be a misread of of it sort of it could be kind of like a partial reaction to to Trump where they feel like, you know, establishment politics has kinda failed, and so they need a populism of the left to compete with a populism of the right. And so I think that's maybe part of the calculation for why they're going this direction.

但根本上我认为这行不通。社会主义行不通，'削减警力'、'清空监狱'这些政策也行不通。纽约即将给我们再上一课。虽然对这座城市不是好事，但这样的剧情我们已经见过太多次了。

But I don't you know, I fundamentally, I don't think it works. I don't think socialism works. I don't think the, you know, defund the police, empty all the jails policies work. So, you know, I think we're about to get another, you know, case a teaching moment in New York. Unfortunately, it's not gonna be good for the city, but, you know, we we've seen this movie before.

但现实就是如此，这就是民主党现在的状态。我无法完全理解——虽然很多人也注意到这点——他们在每个二八开议题上都站在20%那端：开放边境、对犯罪软弱、释放惯犯、反资本主义路线...这些对经济将是灾难性的。但这就是当前民主党的现状。

But, but, yeah, that's that's where I mean, it does appear that's where the Democrat Party is. Don't completely get it. I mean, other people have made this observation, but they do seem to be on the 20% side of every eighty twenty issue. You know, opening the border, you know, on the soft on crime stuff, you know, releasing all the the repeat offenders, and and just sort of this, you know, anti capitalist approach, you know, which I think will be disastrous for the economy. I mean, this but this is this is kinda where the party's at right now.

这确实有点可怕，因为这意味着如果我们输掉选举，可能会面临非常糟糕的局面。美国政治已经不再是在中场线博弈了。某种程度上，要不是因为特朗普，我们可能已经身处那种境地了。我们必须确保特朗普掀起的这场革命持续下去。

It is it's a little scary because it does mean that if we lose elections in places where we do lose elections, it's like, you know, there you could end up with something really horrible, not just like you know, we're not just playing in the 40 yard lines anymore in American politics. And that that is a little bit scary. Yeah. And I I do think that, you know, if it weren't for Donald Trump, I think in a way, we we might already be there. You know, I think you know, but we have to make sure that this this, the the Trump revolution continues.

最后谈谈旧金山——在最近一期《All In》节目中，你支持动用国民警卫队。贝尼奥夫对此发表了反复无常的评论。说到教训，我好奇你是否认为旧金山还有救？如果要挽救，需要满足哪些条件？

Lastly, and we're just talking about New York. Recently, in an episode all in in San Francisco, you you, you know, endorsed bringing the the National Guard. You know, Benioff had his comments. He sort of, you know, went back and forth both of those comments. I'm curious if speaking of teaching moments, I'm curious if you see San Francisco as savable in in some sense and and what what needs to be true to to get there if so.

丹尼尔·卢里是我们几十年来遇到的最好的市长。我认为在旧金山现有的种种限制下，他已经做得非常出色。但不幸的是，旧金山的市长职位本身权力就有限——我指的不是他本人，而是整个制度设计如此。

Well, Daniel Lurie is the best mayor we've had in decades. So I think he's doing a very good job within the constraints that San Francisco presents. So the the mayor job, unfortunately, we have a weak mayor in San Francisco. I I don't mean him. I just mean like the way it's all set up.

市议会掌握着巨大权力。多年来，他们逐渐把原本属于市长的权力转移到了自己手中。更不用说还有那些左翼法官——现在就有个让我震惊的案子，几年前特洛伊·麦克阿利斯特案就让我深感愤怒。这个惯犯在除夕夜杀害了两名路人。

The Board of Supervisors has, you know, a ton of power. And, over time, they've been able to kind of transfer power from the mayor to to themselves. And then, of course, you got all these left wing judges. I mean, it's just amazing to me that there's a case right now. This is a case that galvanized me several years ago, the case of Troy McAllister who was a repeat offender who, killed peep two people on New Year's Eve.

我记得大约是2020年。此前一年他就被逮捕了四次，最终酿成这起双命案。他有极其漫长的犯罪史：持械抢劫、多次偷车...他本该在监狱里，却因时任地区检察官切斯·布丁的零保释政策获释——后来我们发起了对他的罢免。

I think it was, like, 2020. And he was arrested four times, you know, in the year before that he he he ended up killing these two people, and he had a very, very long criminal history. He had committed armed robbery before, stolen many cars. And he should have been in jail. He should not have been released, but he was basically released thanks to the zero bail policies of Chase Boudin, who was then the district attorney who we got recalled.

当时引发了巨大公愤。要知道在旧金山这种地方，能激起罢免左翼官员的民愤...

There was a huge outcry. I mean, even in San Francisco, for there to be a recall of a I mean, you gotta be, like, seriously left wing to

非常冷静。

Very calm.

...说明他彻底得罪了旧金山人。但我不明白为什么特洛伊·麦克阿利斯特至今没被判终身监禁，案件还在法院没完没了地审理。现在有个左翼法官甚至考虑给他'分流处理'——说白了就是戴个电子脚镣就能释放。

To basically alienate San Francisco. And Chase Boudin managed to be so far out there that he alienated even San Francisco. And yet, don't I know why Tory McAllister isn't senseless already in in jail for twenty years plus, but his case is still pending through the courts, never ending. And there's a left wing judge who's considering just giving him diversion. Basically means you just get released with an ankle bracelet or something.

这太疯狂了。这就是我们在旧金山面对的现状：那些想释放所有罪犯的极端左翼法官。我不禁怀疑丹尼尔是否面对太多体制束缚——虽然我知道他不希望总统派遣国民警卫队，但或许最终这会有帮助。不过目前总统已经同意暂缓行动，毕竟丹尼尔与他进行了良好沟通并请求暂缓。

That's insane. So, I mean, that's what we're dealing with in San Francisco. I mean, like, crazy left wing judges who wanna release all the criminals. And, you know, and so I just wonder, like, is Daniel up against too many constraints, and therefore I know he doesn't want the president to send to the National Guard, but maybe, ultimately, it would be helpful. But in any event, I think the president has has agreed to kinda hold off on that, out of you know, Daniel had a good conversation with the president and asked him to hold back.

然后，你知道，总统同意了，并给了他时间来实施他的解决方案。听着，如果丹尼尔和他的团队能继续取得进展，解决问题而不需要国民警卫队介入，那就再好不过了。我们拭目以待，我知道他想要这样。就像我说的，他是我们几十年来最好的市长。问题只是他是否会受到城市里其他权力机构的太多限制。

And, and then, you know, the president, agreed and is giving him time to implement his solutions. And look, if if, if Daniel and his team can keep making progress and fix the problems without the National Guard having to come in, then so much the better. We'll just see if and and I know he wants to. And like I said, he's the best mayor we've had in decades. It's just a question of whether he'll be too constrained by the other powers that be in the city.

大卫，非常感谢你参加这个播客节目。

David, thank you so much for coming on the podcast.

是啊，很高兴

Yeah. Good to

见到你

see you

们。太棒了。谢谢你，大卫。

guys. Fantastic. Thank you, David.

大卫，真是太棒了

David, it was great

的一期节目。感谢你所做的工作。我们和其他人一样，非常感激你过去为解决问题所做的努力，以及为我们铺就了通往美好未来的道路。

episode. And thank you for the work. It's we we, as much as anybody, appreciate the work that you've done to fix the things in the past and and to put us on a great road to the future.

是的。好的，谢谢。我也很感激你们所做的一切。所以感谢你们的支持，以及你们正在做的所有事情。

Yep. Well, thanks. I appreciate what you guys have done as well. So thank you for for your support, everything you're doing.

所以，是的。非常感谢。绝对的。

So Yeah. Appreciate it. Definitely.

感谢收听本期a16z播客。如果你喜欢这期节目，请记得点赞、评论、订阅、给我们评分或写评论，并与你的朋友和家人分享。更多节目请前往YouTube、Apple Podcasts和Spotify。在X（推特）上关注我们@a16z，并订阅我们的Substack：a16z.substack.com。再次感谢收听，我们下期节目再见。

Thanks for listening to this episode of the a 16 z podcast. If you like this episode, be sure to like, comment, subscribe, leave us a rating or review, and share it with your friends and family. For more episodes, go to YouTube, Apple Podcasts, and Spotify. Follow us on x at a sixteen z, and subscribe to our Substack at a sixteen z dot Substack dot com. Thanks again for listening, and I'll see you in the next episode.

温馨提示，此处内容仅供信息参考，不应视为法律、商业、税务或投资建议，也不应用于评估任何投资或证券，且不针对任何a16z基金的现有或潜在投资者。请注意，a16z及其关联机构可能持有本播客讨论公司的投资。更多详情，包括我们的投资链接，请参见a16z.com/disclosures。

As a reminder, the content here is for informational purposes only, should not be taken as legal business, tax, or investment advice, or be used to evaluate any investment or security, and is not directed at any investors or potential investors in any a sixteen z fund. Please note that a sixteen z and its affiliates may also maintain investments in the companies discussed in this podcast. For more details, including a link to our investments, please see a 16z.com forward slash disclosures.