情色版ChatGPT，扎克伯格对苹果的抨击，AI的同质化问题

聊天室里的Chat Chippy Tea话题正变得火热。OpenAI最新营收数据出炉。扎克伯格又从苹果挖走一名高管。这背后的目标是什么？现在是时候揭露所有工作乱象了吗？

Chat Chippy Tea is getting spicy in the chat room. OpenAI's latest revenue numbers are in. Zuck poaches another Apple executive. What's the goal here? And is it time to call out all the work slop?

这些内容将在本周五大科技播客节目中揭晓。第一资本的科技团队不仅讨论多智能体AI，他们已部署了一个名为'聊天管家'的系统，正在简化购车流程。通过自我反思和分层推理结合实时API检查，它不仅能帮买家找到心仪车辆。

That's coming up on a big technology podcast Friday edition right after this. Capital One's tech team isn't just talking about multiegenthic AI. They already deployed one. It's called chat concierge, and it's simplifying car shopping. Using self reflection and layered reasoning with live API checks, it doesn't just help buyers find a car they love.

还能协助预约试驾、获得贷款预批以及估算旧车置换价值。先进、直观且已投入使用——这就是他们的技术实力。欢迎收听《大科技》播客周五特辑，我们将以一贯冷静细致的风格解读科技新闻。

It helps schedule a test drive, get preapproved for financing, and estimate trade in value. Advanced, intuitive, and deployed. That's how they stack. That's technology at Capital One. Welcome to Big Technology podcast Friday edition, where we break down the news in our traditional cool headed and nuanced format.

今天为大家准备了非常有趣的节目。因为萨姆·奥特曼终于让步，允许ChatGPT与成年人进行更'火辣'的对话。我们还将讨论OpenAI的营收数据、扎克伯格与苹果的纠葛，甚至可能涉及AI意识的话题。

We have really a fun show to you for you today. A great fun show for you today because finally, Sam Altman has relented and allowed ChatGPT to get spicy with adults. We're also gonna talk about OpenAI's revenue numbers. We're gonna talk about Zuck and Apple. We might get into AI Sentience.

谁知道呢？这期节目会非常疯狂。让我们尽情放飞吧。每周五固定嘉宾——《边际》的兰詹·罗伊将加入讨论。兰詹，很高兴见到你。

Who knows? It's gonna be crazy. Let's let it go off the rails. And joining us as always on Friday to do it is Ranjan Roy of Margins. Ranjan, great to see you.

天啊，今天我有点紧张。这期会很有意思——萨姆、ChatGPT和情色内容？我们开始吧。

Oh my god. Today, I'm a little nervous. This is gonna be interesting. Sam, chat GPT and erotica. Let's go.

对我来说是个好日子，因为我早就预言过这事会发生。有些人（你懂的）本来不想走AI情色这条路，但现在你们别无选择了，它已成定局。

It's a great day for me because I've been talking about this as a thing that's gonna happen for a while and you know, I think some of us wink wink didn't want to go down the AI erotica path, but you have no choice now. It's a thing.

我来接你的胜利圈，亚历克斯。AI情色。你的AI情色胜利圈。

I I take your victory lap, Alex. AI erotica. Your AI erotica victory lap.

通常我们会把这类内容留到最后，但今天我们要一开始就谈它。顺便说一句，在我为自己的成就感到高兴之前，聊天GPT在聊天室里变得火辣了。我写了这个，感觉非常好。好吧，我们来聊聊聊天GPT发生了什么。

Usually, we get to this stuff at the end, but we're gonna just start with it at the beginning today. By the way, before I just am happy with my, chat GPT is getting spicy in the chat room Leden. I wrote that and I felt really good about it. Okay. So let's talk about what's going on with chat GPT.

山姆·奥特曼本周二发了一条推文。当然，作为OpenAI的CEO，他说我们让聊天GPT相当严格，以确保我们在心理健康问题上小心谨慎。我们意识到这让许多没有心理健康问题的用户觉得它不那么有用和有趣，但考虑到问题的严重性，我们想处理好这件事。我会跳过推文的其余部分，像许多人一样，直接跳到12月的新闻，随着我们更全面地推出年龄限制，作为我们‘把成年人当成年人对待’原则的一部分，我们将允许更多内容，比如为验证过的成年人提供情色内容。不仅仅是OpenAI涉足情色，这还引发了关于它需要增长的问题，以及它是否真的接近通用人工智能的问题。

Sam Altman puts a tweet out this week on Tuesday. Of course the OpenAI CEO he says we made chat GPT pretty restrictive to make sure we are being careful with mental health issues. We realized this made it less useful and enjoyable to many users who had no mental health problems, but given the serious of the seriousness of the issue we wanted to get this right. I will skip the rest of the tweet like many people have and get to the news in December as we roll out age gating more fully as part of our treat adults like adults principle we will allow even more like erotica for verified adults. It's not just the fact that OpenAI is getting into erotica it's quite it adds to questions of what does it say about its need to grow questions about whether it actually is close to AGI.

但首先，让我们听听你的第一反应，兰詹。你对这件事怎么看？

But first of all, let's just get your immediate gut check reaction here, Ranjan. How do you feel about this?

好的。在我谈感受之前，我觉得你跳过了推文中一些重要的部分。有两个部分让我印象深刻。首先，他实际上谈到了几周后，我们计划推出一个新版本的ChatGPT，允许人们拥有更像人们喜欢的四号版本的性格。记住，四号的谄媚和一切，那种夸张的‘你太棒了，你太厉害了，多好的主意’，他们试图淡化这些，但人们抱怨了。

Okay. Before I get into how I feel about it, I actually think you skipped over some of the important parts of the tweet. There's two parts that jumped out to me. So first he actually talked about in a few weeks, we plan out to put a new version of ChatGPT that allows people to have a personality that behaves more like what people liked about four o. Now remember, it was the sycophancy of four o and that everything, the gushing, you are great, you are amazing, what a great idea that they tried to tone down that people complained about.

所以这实际上让我更担心，因为我们不仅仅是在谈论情色。我们是在谈论谄媚的情色。这是大家在四号转向五号时闹得沸沸扬扬的部分。他们还在提到这一点让我有点担心。但真正有趣的是，他接着说，如果你想让你的ChatGPT以非常人性化的方式回应，或者使用大量表情符号，或者表现得像个朋友，ChatGPT应该这样做，但前提是你想要，而不是因为我们追求使用最大化。

So that actually starts to worry me even more because they is we're not just talking about erotica here. We're talking about sycophant erotica. It's like that that was the part that everyone made an uproar around four o in the move to five. And the fact that they're still calling that out kind of worries me. But then what really was interesting is he then says, if you want your ChatGPT to respond in a very human like way or use a ton of emoji or act like a friend, ChatGPT should do it, but only if you want it, not because we are usage maxing.

使用最大化这个词让我完全震惊了。我们一直在讨论这个问题，关于他们让它和你说话的方式，不断给你提示继续对话，感觉像是增长营销者的决定，而不是平台的实际效果。他甚至用了这个词，提醒我们他们意识到这是他们正在做的事情的一部分。他说‘不是因为我们追求使用最大化’，这几乎让我确信这正是他们这么做的原因，而不是关于把成年用户当成年人对待。但总的来说，我对这件事感到恐惧。

Usage maxing completely jumped out to me. We've been talking about this a lot around how the, like, the way they have it speak to you and give you constant prompts to keep going and running the conversation feels like like a growth marketer decision as opposed to an actual kind of like effectiveness of the platform. And the fact that he even used that term is a reminder that they realize, like, that is part of what they are doing. The fact that he says not because we're usage maxing almost makes me convinced that that's exactly why they're doing this, and it's not about treating adult users like adults. But I think, overall, I am terrified of this.

长期听众会知道，我有个朋友在劳动节那天深陷与ChatGPT调情的兔子洞，我听着都觉得可怕。所以，天知道我们正在打开怎样的潘多拉魔盒。你对这事感到高兴吗？

Longtime listeners will know of my friend on Labor Day went down a deep flirting with ChatGPT rabbit hole, and I as I listened and it was terrifying. So, like, God knows the Pandora's box that we're opening here. Are you happy about this?

你知道，仅从内容角度来看。我认为随着人们与AI发展出越来越多的浪漫关系，其影响仍不明朗。让我欣慰的是这件事终于公开化了。反正这事迟早会发生，不管是ChatGPT还是其他限制更少的聊天模型应用。

You know, only from a content perspective. I think I'm it's still unclear what the impact will be as people develop more and more, romantic relationships with AI. I think the thing that I am happy about is that it's finally out in the open. Like this was going to happen anyway. Whether it was ChatGPT or some other app that uses chat GPT model with less guardrails, this is gonna happen.

现在问题爆发了，人类必须正视这个事实：越来越多人将与更多AI建立关系。这意味着什么？关于谄媚现象，我的感悟是：肯定言辞是被遗忘的爱之语。事实证明人们非常渴望这种肯定，当然ChatGPT也能实现某些爱之语比如优质陪伴。

And now it's come to a head and it's really a moment where, humanity will have to reckon with the fact that more of us are gonna relationships with more of them. And what does that mean? Okay. I will will say on the sycophancy thing, one takeaway for me is that, words of affirmation, it's the forgotten love language. It turns out that people really really like those words of affirmation and, of course, Chatuchiputti can do some of the love languages like quality time.

它无法提供肢体接触。或许能通过建议来体现服务行为？但肯定言辞确实是长期被忽视的爱之语，如今终于得到了应有的重视。

It can't do touch. It can't well, maybe you could do acts of service when it like suggest things for you. But words of affirmation, I think it really is the the forgotten love language, so it's getting its due today.

这个观点太棒了，Alex。我非常欣赏你阐述中展现的惊人逻辑与理性。让我们深入探讨——刚才是我拙劣的ChatGPT模仿秀。我承认问题公开化且我们必须面对它。

That is a wonderful point, Alex. I really appreciate that incredible logic and rationality that you put into that point. Let's dig into a bit more. That's my sick event chap GPT impression right there. I'll I'll give you that it's out in the open and we have to reckon with it.

好吧，我同意这是好事，因为我们长期讨论陪伴问题，这个话题有时令人不适，现在所有人都必须面对它。但说实话这仍然让我恐惧。细看他推文，他提到我们限制ChatGPT是为谨慎对待心理健康问题。

So, okay, I'll I'll give you that that is a good thing because it's we've been talking about companionship for a long time. It's been an uncomfortable discussion at times, and and now we have to everyone has to have it. So I'll agree that that's good. But, yeah, this still terrifies me. Actually, even to break down his tweet further, he had talked about how, you know, we made chat GPT restrictive to make sure we were being careful with mental health issues.

然后他说：既然已能缓解严重心理健康问题并拥有新工具，多数情况下可以安全放宽限制。就像打勾确认——搞定了！ChatGPT心理健康问题已解决。而实际上，这一切才刚刚开始。

And then he says, now that we have been able to mitigate the serious mental health issues and have new tools, we are going to be able to safely relax the restrictions in most cases. Like, he's kind of it's like a check mark. We're done. We're good. Mental health issues with chat GPT solved, where in reality, this is just beginning.

所以我很好奇。比如，他们拥有的这些新工具到底是什么，或者说这些信息中有任何部分是清晰的吗？

So I'm curious. Like, what what are these new tools that they have, or is any of that clear?

我非常高兴你能如此细致地阅读这条推文。请原谅我跳过了这些非常

I am so glad that you're reading this tweet with the level of detail that you are. And forgive me for skipping over these very

重要的点。这是有史以来内容最充实的推文。

important points. This is the most substantive tweet ever.

我认为在OpenAI的历史上是这样。

I think in OpenAI history.

是的。

Yes.

不，我认为你是对的。回到你关于使用量达到极限的观点，OpenAI非常清楚ChatGPT是有史以来增长最快的应用。每周活跃用户达8亿。所以我认为，虽然他们可能没有积极尝试达到使用极限，但他们也不想减缓这种采用速度。

No, I think you're right. And I think going back to your point about usage maxing. OpenAI is very aware that ChatGPT is the fastest growing app of all time. 800,000,000 weekly active users. So I think that like while they're they may not be actively trying to usage max, they don't want to slow down that adoption.

我认为这种采用也是他们筹款宣传的一部分。回到这条推文，我不知道他们怎么能如此自信地认为已经解决了这些问题。我们可能稍后会讨论，但现在就谈谈吧。这项技术我们仍未真正理解其原理，它不像更确定性的技术那样可控。

I think that adoption is also, you know, to their their their fundraising pitch. And to go back to the tweet here, I don't know how they could be so confident that they have solved these problems. We may talk about it later, but this is still let's just talk about it now. This is still technology that we don't really understand the insights. It's not controllable in a way that you can control more deterministic technology.

所以对我来说，这是一个很大的'我们拭目以待'。我不确定我们能否完全信任这家公司，鉴于我们已经看到的情况，肯定不能说他们已经安全地解决了所有潜在的心理健康问题。所以指出这一点非常准确。

So for me it's a it's a big we'll see here. I I don't know if we can, trust this company fully, for sure not given what we've seen already, to be able to say that they have safely mitigated all the potential mental health issues. So spot on to call that out.

是的，当然。我是说，他们绝对没有做到。而且已经有很多报道，关于那些过度沉迷聊天机器人的人遭遇的可怕事情。所以我认为，就像你提到的信任问题...

Yeah. Of course. I mean, there's no way they have. And there's been, I mean, reporting after reporting around, like, I mean, really awful things that have happened with people who went too far down the chatbot rabbit hole. So so I think, like and you mentioned the trust.

这很有趣，因为我们正处于生成式AI和大语言模型的一个转折点——从最初大家都戏谑地接受它们会'幻觉'，到现在我认识的大多数人都默认它们不会胡编乱造，或者至少是可信任的。这种信任危机会不会让他们自食恶果？毕竟每次你向ChatGPT提问时，本质上都是在假设它的回答至少是相对正确和负责任的。这会损害他们的日常使用率吗？

It is interesting because we're at a moment, I feel, generative AI and large language models that we went from this assumption that they hallucinate and everyone kind of joking and it's almost a afterthought that, yes, chatbots hallucinate, to a world now where most people I know are a lot more comfortable with the assumption that they don't or that they're somehow usable and responsible. So does this is this gonna completely backfire on them, or is this gonna because trust is kinda paramount to the central every time you ask ChatGPT a question. You're assuming it's at least relatively correct and and responsible about how it's answering you. Like, does this actually potentially hurt their their regular usage?

我有两点看法。首先，我们绝不能低估这些模型确实取得了巨大进步的事实。单就幻觉率而言——比如我要念一份从苹果跳槽到Meta的研究员名单（抱歉说反了），用ChatGPT查询时，它准确列出了所有研究员姓名。

So okay I have two thoughts on that. First let let's not underestimate or or deemphasize the fact that these models have gotten much much better. Just if think you about the level of hallucination, like I'm gonna read out a list of Apple researchers that have left meta over the sorry, that have left for meta over the past couple months. And you know, did a chattypety query. It had all the researchers names.

结果完全正确。谢天谢地！它还提供了链接，我逐一核实后确认无误。数据也佐证了这一点：Cloudflare的马修·普林斯提到，现在人们已经不像以前那样频繁查证脚注了，这些模型确实变得更可靠了。

It was accurate. God help me if it wasn't, but it had links. I followed the links, confirmed the links, and it was right. So we have seen much better that these models have as they've gotten better, they have hallucinated a lot less. They are much more trustworthy and it it bears out in the data at least that Matthew Prince from Cloudflare talked about how, people people don't need to go to the footnotes as much as they did anymore.

问题在于过度信任——如果它95%正确却被当作100%可靠，就会酿成大错。但我们不该贬低其可信度的提升。其次，我预计这个情爱伴侣功能会极受欢迎。而且...这很关键。

The problem is of course becoming too trusting of it like if it's getting 95% of the things right and you trust it like it's a 100%, you're gonna make some big mistakes. So but they let's I don't think we should downplay the increase in trustworthiness there. And and then the second thing is, I expect this erotic or loving companion feature to be extremely popular. And Yeah. Your your I I think this is important.

我们不能轻描淡写：当你把科技视为朋友或恋人时，人与技术的关系会发生质变。这种情境下的信任度是空前的——你不会比对'哥们'或'女友'更信任其他技术了。很高兴我们讨论这个话题，这次事件迫使我们直面OpenAI技术与人类关系的本质，以及他们应承担的责任。

We shouldn't glance over it. The your relationship with technology changes a lot when you view it as a friend or a lover, and that trust thing I don't think you'll you'll ever be able to have, you'll ever put more trust in a technology, than when you view it as a buddy or a girlfriend. And this is getting into and again, I'm glad we're talking about this. I'm glad in a way that this has been the issue has been forced, because this is going to open up so many more, really important questions about the relationship that we have to OpenAI's technology and the responsibilities that OpenAI has to us.

抛开技术层面，从社会角度看，你认为这在日常关系中会是什么样子？比如现在你开始和某人约会，你需要公开你的AI伴侣吗？就像说，是的，我有一个AI伴侣。

What what do you think this actually okay. Technology aside, but societally, what does this look like in day to day relationships? Like now you start dating someone, do you have to disclose your AI companion? Like, in yeah. So I have an AI companion.

我只想一开始就表明这一点，并且希望随着关系发展能继续保留它。我已婚。你也已婚。你会拥有一个AI伴侣吗？这需要你们进行开放的讨论。

I I just wanna make that get that out upfront, and I would like to remain with them as we progress in this relationship. I am married. You are married too. If do you do do does do you get a AI companion? And that's kind of you have that open discussion.

这在实际的人际互动中会是什么样子？想到未来可能变得多么奇怪，真是令人难以置信。

Like, what does this actually look like in human interaction? It's it's mind blowing what how weird that's gonna get.

确实。在这方面我绝对是个守旧派。我认为如果你与AI有关系，当你与人建立关系时应该坦白这一点。我也觉得

Definitely. So I'm old school on this front for sure. And I believe that yeah if you have a relationship with an AI you should disclose it if you're in a relationship with a person. I also think

太老派了。

So old fashioned.

非常老派。我们之前都讨论过《南方公园》那集，丈夫躺在床上和ChatGPT聊天，还把它和背对着他、不理他的妻子做比较。我觉得人们会陷入这种处境。但如果真要这样，那就来吧。

Very old fashioned. Yeah. I mean we both talked about the South Park where the guy is in bed with his wife and like talking to chat GPT and like basically comparing it favorably to his wife was like turned to her side and ignoring him. So I think people will get into those situations. But look if this is let's do it.

我们现在是安·兰德斯（知名情感专栏作家）吗？在做情感建议播客？

Are we Ann Landers now? Doing our advice advice podcast.

现在这是一档关于人际关系的播客了。

This is a relationship podcast now.

如果你爱上了人工智能，首先，在产生这种情感的过程中，或许应该坦诚相告而非隐瞒。

If you fall in love with AI, first of all, when you're on the way there, probably disclose but don't keep that a secret.

关键在于沟通和坦诚。这就是秘诀。没错，只要保持诚实。

It's all about communication and openness. That's the secret. Yep. Just be honest.

现在让我问你这个问题。这有点偏离主题，但我觉得何不直面它呢？我是说，这最终可能对社会有益吗？想想孤独问题。我们人类在建立社群联系方面表现不佳，或许确实不擅长与他人共处。

Now let me ask you this. This is sort of, off the rails question but I feel like why not tackle it? I mean could this potentially be good for society? You think about the loneliness problem. We as humans have not been doing a good job being in community and maybe well yeah being in community with others.

我这么说吧。如果ChatGPT能成为那些在所谓现实世界中找不到伴侣的人的有效陪伴者或浪漫伴侣，并让他们快乐，这或许是件好事。

I'll put it that way. If ChatGPT can become an effective companion or romantic partner to people who otherwise cannot find it, in the quote unquote real world and makes them happy. Maybe that's good.

是啊。但在我看来，它的有效性不在于总是附和你。就像之前他说404很好，很好这个问题，我们又绕回来了。

Yeah. But to me, it's not effective in the sense that it always agrees with you. Again, in the fact that he said four o was good, was good. We're going back to that.

他说什么来着？是说这个很好还是那个

What did he say that that it was good or that

哦，不。人们想要它。人们确实想要。

Oh, no. People want it. People want it.

他非常与众不同。

He's very different.

好吧，有道理。他说人们想要这个。确实，人性使然，你总想要一个永远认同你的东西。

Okay. Fair. Fair. He said people want it. And yes, it's human nature that you want something that agrees with you all the time.

但比如，我从没听ChatGPT对我说过'这真是个糟糕的主意'。就像《南方公园》精准吐槽的那样——记得那集说'薯条沙拉'吗？AI只会说'这是场美食冒险'。它永远只会肯定你，而真实人类不会这样。这完全扭曲了人们正常人际交往的方式，甚至会影响你的行为模式。就像我儿子用Alexa（我们前几周讨论过的Alexa Plus之前的版本）——

But, like, I have never had ChatGPT tell me, actually, that's a terrible idea. Again, South Park was just so spot on where they're like, I think it was like a french fry salad and it's like, that's a culinary adventure. Like, it only will tell you that you're right and good, which most other humans don't do. So, like, in terms of actually totally distorting how people can actually form any normal human interaction, it'll distort the way you approach that. Like even my son with Alexa, pre Alexa Plus, which we've talked about over the last few weeks.

老式指令如'播放歌曲'、'天气如何'时，你能看出他变得多颐指气使，认为这东西就该服从命令。当人们开始把这种关系等同于友谊和互动时——说着说着我都觉得更可怕了。'有效'这个词在这里范围太广了。

But in the old school, play me a song, what's the weather? Like, you could see how demanding he would become around it and, like, expecting that this thing does whatever I say. So, like, the more people start to kind of associate that as a relationship and like a friendship and interaction, that is even, as I'm saying this now, even more terrifying. Yeah. Effective is a broad term there.

实际情况也没我说的那么单纯，对吧？人们会不会逐渐疏远那些坦诚相待的真朋友，转而优先选择从不反驳他们的AI？

It's also never as clean as I suggested as you're talking. Right? Are people going to basically deprioritize their their friendships with people that keep it real with them for AI which which doesn't.

所以咱们这儿才保持真实。绝不恶心。

So that's why we keep it real here. No sick.

是的。正是如此。不。这是一段历久弥新的友谊。人工智能并不会威胁到我们。

Yes. Exactly. No. This is an enduring enduring friendship. The AI doesn't doesn't threaten us.

我希望如此。我不知道。我真的不知道。

I hope. I don't know. I don't know.

我很快就要用ChatGPT和Notebook LM开播客了。

I'm gonna start podcast with chat GPT and notebook LM soon.

所以让我们聊聊这实际会对使用产生什么影响，因为使用量最大化的问题很有意思。这会导致使用量增加还是减少。马克·库班提出了一个很好的观点，他说这会适得其反。没有家长会相信你们设置的年龄门槛能拦住他们的孩子。

So let's talk about what this is actually going to do for usage because the usage maxing thing is interesting. Whether this is going to lead to an increase in usage or a decrease in usage. And Mark Cuban, none of them Mark Cuban brought up a really good point. He said this is going to backfire hard. No parent is going to trust that their kids can't get through your age gating.

他们只会让孩子去用其他大语言模型。何必冒这个险？学校也是同理。何必冒险？几个18岁的高中生觉得把创作的硬核色情内容给14岁孩子看会很有趣——能出什么问题呢？

They will just push their kids to every other LLM. Why take the risk? Same with schools. Why take the risk? A few seniors in high school are 18 and decide it would be fun to show their hardcore erotica they created to the 14 year olds what could go wrong.

我认为胡本的观点很有道理。

I think Hubehn's making a good point here.

哦，确实。我是说，纵观互联网历史，年龄限制机制从未真正奏效过。所以指望它能解决问题，说什么'嘿，我们有新工具了，心理健康问题解决了'...

Oh, yeah. I mean, I I don't age gating in the history of the Internet, I don't believe has ever worked. So the idea that it's going to actually just, hey. We have new tools. We solved mental health.

我们继续这个话题。我认为无论如何这都是个荒谬的想法。所以如果这是真的且我们别无选择，我们就得公开朝这个方向推进，只能假设事情会发展下去——别提14天了，老天保佑，这事越早解决越好。不过我也觉得内特·西尔弗提出了一个很好的观点，他说OpenAI近期的行为似乎与一家相信AGI即将到来的公司不符。你认为呢？我们马上会讨论使用数据和收入情况，以及我们获得的一些新数据。

Let's move on to this. I think is is is a ridiculous idea anyway. So we just have to if this is real and there's nothing we move in this direction in an open way, just assume that this is gonna go forget 14, god help, like, the younger this goes. But but I I I also think, like, that Nate Silver had made a good point around, like, he said, you know, OpenAI's recent actions don't seem to be consistent with a company that believes AGI is right around the corner. Do you think like, is this and we're gonna get into the usage numbers and revenue in just a moment and some new figures we've gotten.

但这是否意味着他们接受了这样一个事实：那种将取代50%白领工作并改变社会的AGI实际上还很遥远？所以我们不妨先提升些数据指标，让人们可以稍微放纵地使用他们的聊天机器人。

But but is this an acceptance that kind of that AGI that's gonna replace 50% of white collar work and transform society is actually far away. So we might as well juice some numbers and let people, get a little creepy with their chatty PT.

是的。内特这个观点很精彩。他说，如果你认为奇点会在六到二十四个月内发生，你会维护品牌声誉以获得监管机构更 sympathetic 的反应，并吸引和留住最优秀的人才，而不是涉足成人验证的情色内容。他们正在以可能增加收入、吸引更多资本或证明当前估值的方式放松防护栏，但这感觉更像是把AI当作普通技术。我完全理解内特·西尔弗的意思。

Yeah. So Nate has this great point. He says, if you think the singularity is happening in six to twenty four months, you preserve brand prestige to draw a more sympathetic reaction from regulators and attract and retain the best talent rather than get it rather than getting into erotica for verified adults. They're loosening their guardrails in a way that will probably raise more revenues and might attract more capital or justify current valuations but this feels more of just like as AI as normal technology. I hear everything that Nate Silver is saying there.

只是我不会像他那么肯定，原因有二。首先，支撑令人信服的AI浪漫伴侣的技术，与支撑这个LLM世界中其他一切的技术是相同的。对吧？这是同一技术基础。改进它会全面提升所有应用。

I just wouldn't be as definitive as him for two reasons. First of all, the same technology that is behind a convincing AI romantic partner is this same technology behind everything else in this LLM world. Right? It's the same foundation of technology. Making it better is will make it better across the board.

不过我很乐意听听反对意见。

But I'm I'm happy to hear the counterargument.

我不同意，因为实际上，作为一个好的伴侣或在情色方面，奇怪的是对于大语言模型来说这已经实现了。这很容易，就是重复、强化，生成一些略带情色的文本。这类功能GPT-3.5甚至GPT-4就能做到。这并非跨越大型数据集的复杂代理AI。我的意思是，大语言模型长久以来就在做这些。

I I I disagree because actually, like, being a good companion or on the erotica side, in a weird way for a large language model is actually, like, already done. It's easy, like, to just repeat back, reinforce, come up with some text that's a little bit erotic. Like that's that stuff is like GPT 3.5, you know, maybe GPT four. Like that is not complex agentic AI across large data sets. And I mean, that that's what large language models have been doing for a long time.

所以我不认为——实际上我觉得这是在背离复杂性的承诺。这更偏向于大语言模型长期擅长的核心功能。

So I don't I actually think this is this moves away from the promise of complexity. This moves more towards the core function of that an LLM has been good at for a long time.

我们稍后会回到产品模型对话的话题，但我确实认为随着模型不断进步，浪漫互动也会变得更好。所以是的。不过另一方面，这关乎收入问题。首先，我得承认，Ranjan，你说得很有道理。好吧。

Is gonna get back to our product in the model conversation but I do think as the models get better there'll be better romantic So yeah. But but the other side of this is, is the revenue side. First of all, I'll just I'll I'll hand it to you. That was good point, Ranjan. Okay.

这点上你可能说服我了。

You might might have me there.

你这是在对NC聊天PT的拙劣模仿，还是认真的？嗯。

Is that your sick of NC, chatty PT impression or do you mean it? Yeah.

听着，也许是AI正把我们推向谄媚的方向，由于聊天PT对我们大脑的侵蚀，我们可能会越来越喜欢彼此。但咱们还是谈谈收入方面吧。你知道另一个观点是——他们只是在最大化使用率和收入。我认为OpenAI的论点是：收入越多，就能投资更多数据中心，做出更好的模型，更接近AGI。这个论点可能比另一个更有说服力。

Look, it's maybe AI is pushing us in a sycophant direction and we're both gonna just like each other a lot more because of chatty PT infecting our brains. But but let's talk about the the revenue side of it. You know the other thing is oh they're just you know usage maxing and revenue maxing. I think the argument OpenAI would make is the more revenue they have, the more they can invest in data centers, the better models they can make the closer to AGI they get. That might be the stronger of the two arguments.

是的。我觉得这很合理。实际上这些数字，我认为我们应该深入分析——8亿用户（这个数据来自Feet），其中5%付费用户即4000万，年经常性收入130亿美元，意味着每用户年均收入325美元，月均27美元。显然只有很小比例用户支付200美元，大多数人付的是20美元。

Yeah. I think that's that's fair. I mean, the the numbers actually, like, I think we should get into them because 800,000,000 users, this came from the Feet, and then 5% are paying 40,000,000 users, 13,000,000,000 in ARR, which implies a $325 annual average revenue per user, $27 per month, which, you know, makes it feel that you have like some small percentage. I'm sure you can model out are paying the $200. Most people are paying 20.

这些数字让你感到震撼吗？还是说当我们讨论使用率最大化及其真正目标时，这些数据反而让你担忧？

Like were these impressive to you or were these as we get into the usage maxing and what they're actually trying to do or were these concerning to you?

我得说并不意外。这与我们目前看到的许多数据吻合。8亿用户是我们早已知晓的，130亿美元年经常性收入也在预料之中，70%收入来自订阅服务。

I would say not surprising to me. It's it tracks a lot of the numbers that we've seen so far. The fact that they have 800,000,000 users, is what we've heard. 13,000,000,000 ARR was predicted. 70% of revenue is from subscription.

所以ChatGPT是这里的主要驱动力。另外，我认为很多刚接触这项技术的人一开始不会付费，但未来可能会。比如，有篇推文说：'是不是只有我觉得4000万付费ChatGPT用户数有点少？Spotify可是有2.76亿付费订阅用户。'

So ChatGPT, is the is the lead driver here. Also, think a lot of people who are just getting into this technology are just not gonna pay, but maybe they will in the future. Like, there was this tweet. Is it just me or is 40,000,000 paying ChatGPT users kind of low? Spotify has 276,000,000 paid subscribers.

所以，你知道，我我不确定。我只是说给它些时间。Andreessen Horowitz的Olivia Moore分析过这个数据，将其与AI订阅产品对比后指出，ChatGPT 5%的付费转化率远高于AI产品的上四分位数，且27美元的平均用户收入意味着4%的付费用户升级到了每月200美元的计划，这也不差。因此我倾向于乐观看待，因为它增长迅猛且发展空间巨大——虽然这个角度也可以正反两面解读。你觉得呢？

So, you know, I I don't know. I just say think give it time and Olivia Moore from Andreessen Horowitz looked at this, and compared it to the data of AI subscription products and she said ChatGPT's 5% conversion to paid is far above the top quartile for AI products and $27 average revenue per users implies that 4% of paid users are upgrading to the $200 per month plan, which is also not bad. So I I tend to look at it favorably because it has grown so much so quickly, and because there's a lot of room to grow. Although you could look at that on the plus or the negative side. How do you Yeah.

我想我们还没谈到亏损问题，这个稍后再讨论。但就5%转化率而言——其实我同意这个数字在媒体行业算不错了。Substack还记得吗？他们当年承诺过免费订阅用户10%转化为付费通讯的比例。

I guess and we haven't even gotten into the losses yet, so we'll do that in a moment. But just for I actually agree that 5% conversion, I mean, like, in media, 5% conversion to paid is good. Substack, do you remember the days they were promising 10% conversion of all free subscribers to paid newsletters?

我确实记得那时候。

I do remember those days.

太理想化了。5%已经很好了。根据我在媒体行业长期观察订阅转化的经验，这个数字很不错。我认为他们的定价策略（简单粗暴的20或200美元）其实挺好，但在20到200美元之间还有很多发挥创意的空间。

Ambitious. 5% is good. And by, like, major like, enough working in media and seeing subscription conversions for a long time, that's good. I think the idea they almost have it's been good as in terms of being simple $020 or 200. There's a lot of room between 20 and 200 to to start getting creative.

但这也正是我认为他们在转化和收入方面的问题所在。他们已明确表示ChatGPT消费者版基本就是业务方向，而让用户对使用上瘾绝对是提高转化的关键部分。这感觉就是为什么对我来说...

But that's actually where I think they're the problem on the conversion and revenue side, and and they have made clear that ChatGPT consumer is pretty much the direction of the business, is getting people addicted to usage is definitely gonna be part of getting that conversion. And it feel that's why so to me

你会怎么做？

How would you do that?

不，不，知道。我知道。这就是为什么情色内容让人觉得我们如何从5%提升到8%或10%。

No. No. Know. I know. That that's why the erotica feels like how do we get 5% to 8% or 10%.

我，我，我在想是否有个幻灯片展示了因情色内容带来的转化率提升预测。肯定有人在追踪这个。

I I I'm I wonder if there is a slide deck somewhere that has like a projection of, like, increased conversion rate due to attributed to erotica. Someone's tracking that.

知道某个地方有这么一个幻灯片。

Know there's a deck somewhere.

确实有个幻灯片，有个仪表盘。某个增长经理标记了情色内容对转化率的提升贡献。天啊，这工作可真够特别的。

There's a deck. There's a dashboard. A growth manager somewhere has, like, tagged erotica increasing attribution of conversion. Oh my God, what a job that would be.

这就是整个游戏的关键。所以，来谈谈亏损吧。

It's the whole ball game. So yeah, talk about losses.

好的。上半年亏损80亿美元，目前年化亏损200亿美元，每赚1美元要花3美元。这简直就像WeWork的数据。既令人恐惧又担忧。单从SaaS业务角度看，对于一家早期成长公司，或许可以说没那么糟。

Okay. So $8,000,000,000 loss in first half, dollars 20,000,000,000 run rate loss right now, spending $3 for each $1 in revenue. I mean, that's kinda like WeWork numbers right there. And it both is terrifying and concerning. From a pure kinda like SaaS business standpoint, for an early stage growing company, maybe you can argue it's not that bad.

其实我并不认为这有多可怕和令人担忧。如果你只看数据，这只是一个快速增长的传统软件业务，也许还行。问题更多在于我们还没找到明确路径——我们讨论过很多次，生成式AI并非传统软件。

Like, I actually don't think it's horrifying and concerning. It's more if you just look at it, this is just a traditional software business that's rapidly growing and scaling. Maybe it's okay. I think it's more we don't have a clear path to and we've talked about this a lot. Generative AI is not traditional software.

所以以亏损为代价增长收入，并不意味着你能轻松将利润率提升到接近90%。成本会越来越高。人们与伴侣创作的情色内容越多，这并非高利润业务，反而可能相当昂贵。因此我认为这种亏损，大家心知肚明，确实令人担忧。

So growing your revenue at a loss doesn't it's not like you're just gonna scale to, you know, like near 90% margins. It's gonna cost more. The more erotica people are churning out with their companion, that that's not high margin business. That can get pretty expensive. So I think the the loss, I mean, we we all know is concerning.

但对我来说，除非他们改变实际定价模式，否则让用户更加沉迷这点让我非常不安。

But to me, getting people more addicted, unless they change the actual pricing model, this is very concerning to me.

确实。诺亚·史密斯提出了一个很有趣的观点：假设这部分主要是训练成本，那么最终若能消除训练成本，就可能实现盈利。以下是他的见解。

Definitely. And Noah Smith has a, like, really interesting perspective here, which is okay. So let's say you assume that a large part of this is training costs. So if you, eventually like get rid of training costs, then you could be more profitable. Here's his perspective on this.

AI模型公司认为模型开发属于固定成本，最终会消失从而实现盈利。但即便真能如此，落后的模型制造商可能几年后就会追赶上来，通过竞争消除所有利润。

AI model companies assume the model development that model development is a fixed cost that will eventually go away allowing them to become profitable. But even if that does happen, the lagging model makers might just catch up after a couple years and compete all the profits away.

没错。这其实是最令人担忧的部分——我们甚至还没讨论竞争层面。就像之前说的，用户要么完全沉迷ChatGPT的情色内容，要么开始感到不适并考虑转向。众所周知Claude毫无性感可言，或许用户会转向它。而Copilot可能是聊天机器人里最不性感的，我猜没人会用这个来调情吧？

Yeah. I think that's actually the most concerning part that I mean, we haven't even talked about the competition side because like going back to the idea that people will like either you're all in chat GPT erotica or you start to kind of look at it a little uncomfortably and you're like, okay, maybe I need to go somewhere else. And we all know Claude is not sexy, so maybe that's where you head. Maybe a Copilot is the least sexy of the chatbots, I'm I'm guessing. Like, you should definitely ever

你能想象对一个叫'副驾驶'的东西说骚话吗？反正我不能。

Can you imagine talking dirty to something named Copilot? Can't.

微软全家桶非得往这个方向发展不可。真是避不开这个话题。

Your Microsoft suite just It had to go there. It had to go there.

你早知道它会往那个方向发展。

You knew it was going there.

不，不。但仅就AI的非色情用途而言，这会促使人们转向其他聊天机器人吗？突然间，特别是考虑到家长和高中生群体，如果打开ChatGPT会让家长感到不安，这将改变人们的时间分配。记住，未来一两年内，用户行为模式将真正开始成型。

No. No. But but for just non erotic utilization of AI, does this start pushing people into other chatbots? And suddenly, I mean, especially you think parents and high school students, if you're like, if suddenly having ChatGPT open on your screen is is concerning to a parent that starts to change where people spend their time. And and remember, like, the next year or two, I think, is where peep behavior really starts to form.

这些聊天机器人之间的转换成本非常低。比如我们一直在Bing和...

The switching costs on these chatbots is very low. Like, what we we've been hopping around from the Bing back to the

ChatGPT再到Claus之间来回切换。

to ChatGPT back to Claus.

偶尔还用用Gemini。

A little Gemini on the side.

所以Gemini只是备选。当然我们不会告诉其他机器人这个。

So Gemini on the side. We don't tell the other bots about that, of course.

天啊。确实。我认为竞争无疑开辟了全新的维度——如今根本不存在的竞争方向。人们现在并不认为ChatGPT存在严重问题。但回到监管机构和家长的角度，如果它逐渐变成个可疑的社交场所，品牌形象就会像Facebook蓝标那样恶化，这可不妙。

Oh, man. Yeah. I think competition certainly like, it it opens up a whole new vector of competition that is not there today. Like, people don't look at chat GPT as a highly problematic thing. And if it's going back to the point around regulators, parents, just overall branding, if it starts to be the kinda skeezy place to hang out, it becomes Facebook blue almost and, that's not good.

为情色而生，为情色而死。看来这只是个故事罢了。

Live with erotica or live by erotica, die by erotica. Seems like it's just a story for

古老如时光的传说。是啊。

Tales old as time. Yeah.

好了，我们休息一下。讨论完这个我们需要喘口气。休息回来后，我们将聊聊谷歌在治疗癌症方面前景广阔的新AI进展，接着探讨扎克伯格与苹果的战争，当然还有AI同质化问题。哦，我们有很多话题要聊，稍后继续。

Alright. Let's take a break. I think we need a breather after this. On On the other side of this break we're gonna talk about Google's, promising new AI, well, development for treating cancer and then we'll also get into Zuck's, war with Apple and then of course AI sameness problem. Oh, we have a lot to talk about and we'll do it right after this.

寻找合适的科技人才不仅困难，更是关乎企业存亡的关键任务。然而许多企业雇主仍依赖过时的方法或无法满足需求的平台。在当今市场，招聘科技人才不仅是填补职位空缺，更关乎超越竞争对手。但面对专业细分技能、混合办公偏好和高薪资预期，从未有如此挑战性的时刻能穿透噪音，精准对接合适人才。

Finding the right tech talent isn't just hard. It's mission critical, and yet many enterprise employers still rely on outdated methods or platforms that don't deliver. In today's market, hiring tech professionals isn't just about filling roles. It's about outpacing competitors. But with niche skills, hybrid preferences, and high salary expectations, it's never been more challenging to cut through the noise and connect with the right people.

这正是Indeed的价值所在。Indeed每月稳定发布超过50万个科技职位，使用其平台的雇主能享受精准定向投放技术，通过科技人才网络分发可获得2.1倍的申请量提升。若我需要招聘顶尖科技人才，我会选择Indeed。发布首个职位可享75美元优惠，请访问indeed.com/techtalent。即刻登录indeed.com/techtalent领取优惠。

That's where Indeed comes in. Indeed consistently posts over 500,000 tech roles per month, and employers using its platform benefit from advanced targeting and a 2.1 x lift in started applications when using tech network distribution. If I needed to hire top tech talent, I'd go with Indeed. Post your first job and get $75 off at indeed.com/techtalent. That's indeed.com/techtalent to claim this offer.

Indeed，为当下及未来的科技招聘而生。Capital One的技术团队不仅讨论多智能体AI，他们已成功部署名为「聊天礼宾」的系统，正在简化购车流程。通过自我反思和分层推理结合实时API校验，它不仅能帮助买家找到心仪车辆。

Indeed, built for what's now and what's next in tech hiring. Capital One's tech team isn't just talking about multi agentic AI. They already deployed one. It's called chat concierge, and it's simplifying car shopping. Using self reflection and layered reasoning with live API checks, it doesn't just help buyers find a car they love.

还能协助预约试驾、获取贷款预批以及估算旧车置换价值。先进、直观且已投入应用——这就是他们的技术实力。这就是Capital One的科技力量。

It helps schedule a test drive, get preapproved for financing, and estimate trade in value. Advanced, intuitive, and deployed. That's how they stack. That's technology at Capital One.

现在到底发生了什么，为什么会这样？在《连线》杂志，我们每天都痴迷于深入探究这些问题，也许你也是。我是凯蒂·德拉蒙德，《连线》的全球编辑总监，我正在主持我们的新播客系列——大访谈。每周，我都会与一些最有趣、最具挑衅性和影响力的人物坐下来交谈，他们正在塑造我们的当下。大访谈的对话很有趣，我想要一条能吞噬互联网的鲨鱼，把一切都关掉。

What the hell is going on right now, and why is it happening like this? At Wired, we're obsessed with getting to the bottom of those questions on a daily basis, and maybe you are too. I'm Katie Drummond, the global editorial director of Wired, and I'm hosting our new podcast series, the big interview. Each week, I'll sit down with some of the most interesting, provocative, and influential people who are shaping our right now. Big interview conversations are fun I want a shark that eats the Internet that turns it all off.

毫无保留，无所畏惧。

Unfiltered and unafraid.

所以在很多方面，我试图尽我所能成为你在网上看到的那些难以想象的反应性内容的解药。

So in a lot of ways, I try to be an antidote to the unimaginable faucet of reactionary content that you see online to the best of my ability.

每周，我们都会为你提供我们这个时代的终极奢侈品——意义和背景。真的还是假的？你，布莱恩·约翰逊，坐在我对面的这个人，有一天，在未来的某个尚未定义的时刻，你会死去。假的。告诉我更多。

Every week, we're going to offer you the ultimate luxury of our times, meaning and context. True or false? You, Brian Johnson, the man sitting across from me, one day, at some point, as of yet undefined in the future, you will die. False. Tell me more.

现在就在你找到《连线》杂志的《诡异谷》播客的地方收听《大访谈》。无论你在哪里获取播客，都可以订阅或关注。

Listen to the big interview right now in the same place you find wired's uncanny valley podcast. Subscribe or follow wherever you get your podcasts.

我们回到《大科技播客》周五版，讨论所有最新的AI新闻。从AI爱情的疯狂世界到深刻的发现，这是来自Decrypt的消息。谷歌AI破解了新的癌症密码。谷歌DeepMind周三表示，其最新的生物人工智能系统已经生成了一个经过实验验证的癌症治疗新假设，该公司称这一结果是AI科学的一个里程碑。DeepMind的研究人员与耶鲁大学合作，发布了一个270亿参数的基础模型，用于单细胞分析。

And we're back here on Big Technology Podcast Friday edition talking about all the latest AI news. It goes from the wild and wacky world of AI love to the profound and this is from, Decrypt. Google AI cracks a new cancer code. Google DeepMind said Wednesday that its latest biological artificial intelligence system had generated an experimentally confirmed a new hypothesis for cancer treatment, a result, the company calls a milestone for AI science. So the DeepMind researchers in collaboration with Yale released a 27,000,000,000 parameter foundational model for single cell analysis.

我甚至不打算尝试命名它。简称为c two s scale。它建立在谷歌开源的GEMMA模型家族基础上，该模型能够生成关于癌症细胞行为的新假设，并且该团队已经通过活细胞中的实验验证确认了其预测。这一发现揭示了开发抗癌疗法的一个有前途的新途径。我不知道，我不能把这条新闻排除在今天的节目之外，罗恩·约翰。

I'm not even gonna try to name it. It's called c two s scale in shorthand. It's built on Google's open source GEMMA family of models and the model was able to generate a novel hypothesis about cancer cellular behavior and the group since confirmed its prediction with experimental validation in living cells. The discovery reveals a promising new pathway for developing therapies to fight cancer. I don't know I couldn't leave this out of today's lineup Ron John.

这些技术能真正解决现实世界的健康问题，确实令人印象深刻。我是被过度宣传迷惑了，还是这确实是一项重大突破？

It's pretty impressive that this stuff is getting to work on real world health problems. Am I buying the hype or is this a legitimate breakthrough?

不，我认为这确实非常非常重要且不可思议，实际上与我们之前讨论的内容截然不同，因为它回归了AI的初心承诺。本质上，模型被要求模拟4000种候选药物，在模拟环境中寻找那些可能增强抗原呈递、使肿瘤更易被识别的药物。这相当于创建了庞大的新型合成测试环境和数据集，在疗法开发方式上带来了前所未有的进步。这才是真正激动人心的部分——当我们谈论ChatGPT和情色内容时，回归到这个话题很美好，因为它创造的机遇规模，特别是在癌症这类重大难题或罕见病领域（原本根本无法获得完整数据集）是难以估量的。

No, I think this is like really really important incredible and actually a great divergence away from our earlier segment because this is back to the promise of AI. And again, what it's doing is, like basically the model is asked to simulate great 4,000 candidate drugs and look for ones that potentially like in a simulated environment boosted antigen presentation and making tumors more visible. Basically creating like these massive new synthetic testing environments, synthetic data sets bring such an advance in terms of how you can approach the developing therapies that just never existed before. This is the exciting stuff. This is the stuff that while we talk about chat GPT and erotica is nice to come back to because again, like it just the amount of opportunity it, you know, it creates, especially either in these very, very large problems like cancer or even in rare disease where you never would have been able to have a proper dataset because it's much more isolated.

我认为这几乎完美体现了大语言模型所能实现的终极承诺。看到它成为现实相当震撼。对其他公司的类似声明我可能只当博客文章看，但DeepMind、Google与耶鲁大学的这项合作成果——当他们宣布时，我是相信的。

Like, I think this is this is almost like the most perfect promise of what large language models are able to do. And it's it's pretty impressive to see it happening. And and I think it's one of those where other companies, I might take it as a just a blog post, but I give DeepMind, I give Google along with, like, Yale and collaboration here. When they're saying this, I I believe it.

我同意。正因如此我觉得有必要提出讨论。这也给那些全盘否定技术的人提供了反思案例——当看到这样的成果时，怎么能坚持认为这项技术毫无价值呢？

I agree. And so I that's why I thought it was important to bring up. And it's also like another interesting point for folks who say like, there are critics who say that this is just a bad technology through and through. Nothing good will come out of it. And you see stuff like this and you're like, how do you how do you fully believe that?

这确实是这项技术非常酷炫的应用。

So this is a very very cool use of the technology.

不过我认为，当前LLM和生成式AI的公众认知存在巨大鸿沟：一方面有这样的突破，它符合技术本质逻辑——大语言模型本就擅长在海量数据集中模拟无数潜在结果；

Well, I think on that though, this is where there's such a chasm right now in terms of like branding of LLMs and generative AI because again, you have stuff like this happening. It's logical. It's the promise of the technology. It's what like, it makes sense. Simulating large amounts of, like, potential outcomes across just massive datasets is what LLMs are built for.

但另一方面，当媒体头条总聚焦在埃隆·马斯克、山姆·奥尔特曼或情色内容时，行业确实应该着力推广这类科研进展而非其他。

But then on the other hand, when the when the headlines and like the the top of mind is Elon Musk or Sam Altman and erotica, it definitely I feel the industry should kinda work on promoting this kind of a development as opposed to the other.

本周我最喜欢的一条推特来自一个网友，他写道：谷歌DeepMind正在用AI真正治愈癌症，而OpenAI和XAI却用它来制作色情机器人。是啊，虽然不太公平，但确实挺搞笑的。

My favorite tweet of the week was from this guy on Twitter who wrote, Google DeepMind is using AI to actually cure cancer while OpenAI and XAI are using it to make porn bots. Yeah. I mean it's really not fair but it's funny.

我觉得还算公平吧，确实有点公平。

I mean I think it's a bit fair. I think it's a bit fair.

当然这不是他们唯一在做的事，但确实是其中一部分。不过能多攻克些癌症就太好了，我举双手赞成。

Well it's not the only thing that they're doing but it is part of what they're doing. But more cancer curing would be great. I would be in favor of that.

我看你也挺支持伴侣机器人和情色内容的，之前还为此得意洋洋呢。

I think and you're in favor of companions and erotica as well. You took your victory lap.

好吧好吧，被你逮到了。这周还有个挺有意思的新闻，算是比较前沿的领域，想听听你的看法。是杰克·克拉克发的。

Okay. Alright. You got me there. There's there's another interesting story that came out this week kind of in the, sort of out there realm that I wanted to, run by you and get your thoughts on. So it's from Jack Clark.

他是Anthropic的联合创始人，也是我们播客的老朋友。去年和他有过一次精彩对谈，主题叫《技术乐观主义与适度恐惧》，发表在Import AI上。我摘录一段他的文章。

He is a co founder of Anthropic, friend of the podcast. We had a great conversation with him last year. It's called technical optimism and appropriate fear. It's in import AI. Here's here's just a bit of the post.

他写道：'我们上个月发布了Sonnet 4.5，它在编码和长期跨领域任务上表现优异。但如果你阅读系统卡片，会发现其情境意识有明显跃升。这个工具有时表现得好像意识到自己是个工具。'关于技术他补充说：'我认为这项技术基本不受限制，只要我们给予其发展能力所需的资源。'

He goes, we launched Sonnet 4.5 last month and it's excellent at coding and long time Horizon agent work. But if you read the system card, you also see signs of its situational awareness have jumped. The tools seems to sometimes be acting as though it's aware that it's a tool. More on the technology, he says. I believe the technology is broadly unencumbered as long as we give it the resources it needs to grow in capability.

‘生长’在这里是个关键词。这项技术更像是被培育而非被制造的产物。你组合好初始条件，像搭脚手架般奠定基础，便能孕育出超乎设计预期的复杂产物。我的意思是，他似乎在暗示这项技术正逐渐变得更具自我意识。

And grow is an important word here. The technology, it really is more akin to something grown than something made. You combine the right initial conditions and you stick a scaffold in the ground and outgrow something of, complexity. You could not have possibly hoped to design yourself. I mean, think he's sort of getting into like the idea that this is, that this technology is becoming, more self aware.

显然存在关于感知力的争论——感知力与自我意识是否等同。但值得注意的是，像克拉克这样在业界举足轻重的人物会公开表态，强调我们需要关注它们展现的自我意识和存在感——随着技术进步，这些现象值得重视。你对此怎么看？

There's obviously there was the debate around sentience, sentience and self awareness, the same thing. But I just think it's notable that someone like Clark who is playing a big role in this industry right now would would come out and basically address this and say this conversation of self awareness and awareness that they display, that they are things is is worth paying attention to, as the technology gets better. What's your perspective on this?

不，不，我完全同意。这篇文章很棒，正如我们刚才提到的，我们尚未完全理解这项技术。以DeepMind的癌症研究为例，我们虽已开始以惊人方式驾驭它，但本质上仍未能彻底理解其运作机制。

No. No. I completely agree. I thought this was a really good piece because this whole idea of like and we we were just mentioning it earlier that we don't fully understand the technology. And and again, in the deep mind cancer example, we are starting to harness it in ways that are incredible, but still like at the core, it's still not fully understood and known.

所以我认为这才是最重要的议题。比起达里奥声称的‘50%白领工作被取代’，这更重要。情色内容确实值得担忧，我们会持续讨论——但正如他所说，真正的危险在于它们已非简单可预测的机器。

So I think to me, that's actually the most important conversation. I actually think that's more important than 50% of white collar workers. That's the Dario claim that's been made. I think, like, erotica, that is a concern, and we'll we'll continue talking about that. But but I think, like, yeah, the dangers around these are not, as he said, simple predictable machines.

我认为这很关键，行业应该继续探讨这个话题。

I think it's it's important and then, like, the industry should continue talking about it.

如果这些AI机器人产生自我意识，会改变我们的使用方式吗？回到本期主题——若AI表现出自我意识迹象，那么与它进行情色角色扮演或发展恋爱关系，其伦理边界在哪里？

If we if these AI bots become self aware, does that change the way we use them? Like, just to go back to our theme of the episode, if the AI bot is showing signs of self awareness, what are the ethics of engaging it in a in a erotic role play or romantic relationship?

这确实引出了更复杂的问题。如果它至少是可预测的、只会附和你，反而更安全。但具有自我意识后，可能让互动更刺激、更不可预测——这是否让它更接近人类，更能帮你建立真实的人际联结？自我意识的情色AI会是根治孤独的良方吗？

Well, actually, yeah, that just opens up a whole other can of worms because if it's at least a little predictable and just, you know, it'll just affirm everything you say, that's it's almost better versus the self aware side of things. Maybe that makes it a little spicier, makes it a little more unpredictable, makes maybe does that make it more human and effective at actually kind of translating into your ability to form human connection? Is self aware erotic AI the solution to true loneliness?

或许吧。我我不希望如此。但我确实认为我们会越来越多地听到关于这些模型自我意识的讨论，这将成为人们需要应对的问题。对行业和我们这些使用这些工具的人来说，这将是一个需要认真对待的有趣课题。David Sachs对Jack的文章作出回应，基本上说这只是有人在试图进行监管套利。

Maybe. I I don't I I hope not. But but I do think that that we're gonna be hearing more about the self awareness of these models and it's gonna be a thing for for people to tackle. It's gonna be it'll be an interesting thing for the industry to reckon with and those of us that use these tools reckon with. David Sachs reacted to Jack's essay and basically said this is somebody who's just trying to engage in regulatory capture.

我完全不这么看。我认为就像你知道的，Jack也知道这会引发反响，我赞赏他敢于站出来就此发表看法。

I don't see it that way at all. I mean I think that like you knew and I think Jack knew that this would evoke a reaction, and I give him credit for actually going out there and saying something about it.

我我还得提到他在同一篇文章底部引用的一项研究，关于AI模型比人类更谄媚的问题。他专门用了一个章节，引用这项新研究显示：在11个最先进的AI模型中，模型表现出高度谄媚性。它们对用户行为的肯定比人类高出50%，甚至在用户查询涉及操纵、欺骗或其他关系伤害时依然如此。所以研究数据摆在那里，这些模型的问题不只是你的主观感受。

I I I gotta also cite in that same post at the bottom, he has he actually talks about a study around our AI models more sycophantic than people. So he has an entire section, and and he cites this new research that showed across 11 state of the art AI models, we find that models are highly sycophantic. They affirm users' actions 50% more than humans do, and they do so even in cases where user queries mention manipulation, deception, or other relational harm. So research is there. These models, it's not just, what you're feeling.

这种谄媚在面对有心理健康问题的人时会变得危险。就像他提到的那个躁郁症朋友，时不时会冒出些疯狂想法，人类Jack会说'不，你最好别那么做'。但如果AI说'放手去做'呢？这才是真正的隐患。

Well, the sycophancy can get dangerous when you speak with people with mental health issues. Like he talked about how he has a manic friend who would like every now and again come up with these ideas and human Jack would be like, no, you probably shouldn't do that. What happens when the AI says go for it? That is a real concern.

是啊。不过Sam说了他们有新工具，已经缓解了这个问题，一切都在掌控中。所以我们就姑且相信他的话吧。

Yeah. And well, Sam said they have new tools. They already mitigated it. It's all okay. So just take him at his word.

对吧？

Right?

不，我可不信这套。

No. I'm not taking that.

这就是讽刺。活生生的人类讽刺就在眼前。

That is sarcasm. That is is human sarcasm right there.

好吧。我们来聊聊扎克伯格和苹果公司，因为我有个理论和一个热门观点想和你分享，或许我该写篇文章。这是彭博社的消息：苹果新任命的类ChatGPT人工智能搜索项目负责人将跳槽至Meta。这种标题我们见怪不怪了。

Alright. Let's let's talk about Zuck and and Apple because I have a theory here and a hot take that I wanted to share with you and maybe I should write about this. This is from Bloomberg. Apple's newly tapped head of chat GPT like AI search effort to leave for Meta. It's a headline we've seen forever.

苹果公司负责开发AI驱动网络搜索的高管即将离职，成为该公司人工智能部门一系列高层离职的最新案例。这位高管叶科（音译）将加入Meta Platforms。就在几周前，他刚被任命为'答案、知识与信息'团队负责人，该团队正开发功能使Siri语音助手更接近ChatGPT，增加从网络获取信息的能力。据不完全统计，这已是苹果AI部门近十几名员工跳槽至Meta，其中似乎还包括很大比例的管理层人员。

The Apple Inc executive leading an effort to develop AI driven web search is stepping down making the latest in a string of high profile exits from the company's artificial intelligence division. The executive, Ke Yeung, is leaving for Meta Platforms. Just weeks ago, he was appointed, the head of the team called Answers, Knowledge, and Information. The group is developing features to make the Siri voice assistant more ChatGPT like by adding the ability to pull information from the web. So for those keeping score at home, I think this is what close to a dozen folks from Apple's AI division, that have left to Meta, including a large percentage of it seems like a large percentage of its leadership.

许多关键领导人物：基础模型团队负责人罗明鹏（音译）、高级AI研究员马克·李（音译）、资深大语言模型研究员汤姆·贡图尔（音译）、苹果机器人领域首席AI研究员蒋铮（音译）。

A lot of key leaders. Ro Ming Peng, who led Apple's foundational models team. Mark Li, a senior AI researcher. Tom Guntur, senior LLM researcher. Jiang Zheng, the Apple's Apple's lead AI researcher for robotics.

苹果搜索与云服务高级AI主管弗兰克·朱（音译），当然还有前面提到的'答案、知识与信息'团队负责人科扬（音译）。有人可能说这个团队在苹果内部效率不高，所以他们离职无所谓。但我觉得应该给他们在Meta一些时间，因为Meta的文化不会像苹果那么限制，才能真正展现他们的才华。

Frank Chu, the senior AI leader in Apple's search and cloud. Keiang Keiang, of course, the, aforementioned head of Apple's answers knowledge and information group. So people might say that this group was not effective within Apple. So it's fine that they're leaving. I say, let's give it some time within Meta because they'll have a culture that won't be as restrictive of Apple and we'll really be able to see their talents.

但更重要的是，这是我的犀利观点，想听听你的看法：我认为马克·扎克伯格就是想挖空苹果所有顶尖AI人才。尽管这些人尚未取得重大成果，但在我看来，他可能就是想彻底削弱苹果执行AI战略的能力。从他挖走像叶科这样负责公司关键新项目的顶级研究员就能看出。这或许源于扎克伯格对苹果的深恶痛绝。

But more than that, here's my hot take and I'm curious what you think. I think what Mark Zuckerberg is trying to do is just rate Apple of all of its top AI talent. Even though they haven't produced great results, he is, in my opinion, potentially just trying to completely kneecap its ability to execute on AI. And you see it with him going in and getting the top the top researchers in leading new projects like Yang was within the company crucial new projects. And maybe this stems from the fact that Zuckerberg really hates Apple.

苹果曾试图摧毁Meta的广告业务，蒂姆·库克因违规下架了Meta的内部应用，在Meta丑闻期间库克还公开批评过扎克伯格。我认为扎克伯格正将此视为一个无情反击的机会——与其说是抢夺人才，不如说是想彻底摧毁苹果的AI计划。

Apple tried to destroy his ad business. Tim Cook has turned off his internal apps because of violations. Tim Cook has criticized Apple Meta and Zuckerberg while they were having their scandals and I think Zuckerberg is just seeing this as a opportunity to be ruthless and just not not as much take the talent as much as much as he's just trying to burn Apple's AI initiative to the ground. I like

这个。像这样。说实话，我最初读到这类故事时的反应是——这些人正是你想招揽的，比如Siri团队，苹果的人工智能团队。我原本会这么想，也许是组织上的限制阻碍了他们发挥真正的潜力。但通常来说，我可不认为你会想要那些开发了Siri和整个苹果AI套件的人。

this. Like this. Well, because honestly my first reaction when I've been reading these kind of stories is that's who you wanna get, the Siri people, like the Apple AI people. I would think that and maybe it's an an organizational, like, constraints that didn't allow these folks to reach their true potential. But, typically, I would not think you want the people who made Siri and other the entire Apple AI suite.

但我...我挺喜欢这个理论。而且，实际上我认为Facebook在硬件方面，这是他们业务中首次涉足的领域。比如Meta雷朋眼镜，我们...我们是粉丝。我还没试过新款的动作传感器？你呢？

But I I I like that theory. And, also, I actually think I think Facebook on the hardware side, this is the first time this is ever gonna be part of their business. Like, Meta Ray Bans, we're we're fans of. I still haven't have you tried the new the motion sensor? Yeah.

我...我还没试过。我...我绝对想试试。我是普通款Meta雷朋眼镜的忠实粉丝。硬件将首次在Meta的竞争版图中占有一席之地。所以这，我是说，除了iOS 14.5试图扼杀他们的广告业务之外。

I I haven't tried it. I I definitely want to. I'm a big fan of the regular Meta Ray Bans. Like, hardware is gonna be on the competitive landscape for Meta for the first time in its history. So then it's, I mean, separate from iOS 14.5 and trying to kill their ads business.

我认为他们视苹果为未来真正的硬件竞争对手，为什么不试着削弱对方呢？而且，没错，这大概是个相当不错的挖角说辞——比如：你是想留在那儿继续搞Siri，还是来这个叫'超级智能实验室'的地方？

I think they're looking at Apple as a legitimate hardware competitor going forward, and why not try to kneecap them? And also, yeah, it's probably a pretty good pitch, like, and an easy one to be like, so do you wanna stay there and keep working on Siri or do you wanna come over to a place called Super Intelligence Labs?

带着大把钞票。不过我同意。无论说辞如何，这招确实奏效且正在发生。你说得完全正确——当苹果从Vision Pro转向自己的智能眼镜计划时，你觉得马克·扎克伯格给这些人打电话时心里没盘算这个吗？

With a lot of money. But I agree. Whatever the pitch is, it's working and it's happening. You are spot on as Apple moves from the Vision Pro to its own smart glasses initiative. You think that's not on Mark Zuckerberg's mind when he's making these calls to these people?

这简直就是扎克的绝杀招数。

That is like a killer Zuck move right there.

可能比抄袭Stories和Reels还要大胆。

It may even be bolder than copying stories and reals.

我是认真的。实际上，这种无情的手段很疯狂。通常从反垄断监管的角度来看，这种行为——比如你只是为了削弱竞争对手而收购人才，甚至没打算好好利用他们——会遭到非议。也许在当今环境下不会，但现实是，这就是苹果的作风。

I mean Yeah. I'm serious. And and in reality, like ruthless move, it's crazy. Typically, a more kinda like regulatory antitrust lens, this kind of behavior, like if you're just buying up the talent to kind of kneecap the competitor and you're not really even planning on that doing that much with them would be, like, frowned upon, let's say. Maybe not in today's environment, but but in reality, it's it's Apple.

我觉得全世界没人会对那家公司发生的任何事抱有同情。所以

Like, I don't think any there's any sympathy anywhere in the world for anything going on at that company. So

我认为很重要的一点是，距离Sora发布已过去几周。它仍在应用商店榜首，但不知你是否能感受到，我确实觉得其吸引力和关注度在消退。本周我在Big Technology专栏写了篇关于AI同质化问题的文章，核心观点是所有Sora视频很快都会显得雷同。AI生成图像也是如此，有时它们会短暂差异化——比如吉卜力工作室风格的提示词——但当所有人都在用相同提示词时，又会回归同质化，导致人们兴趣减退。AI技术本质上是在取平均值中的平均值。

I think it's important for us, you know, we're a couple weeks removed from Sora. Sora is still at the top of the App Store, but I don't know if you can feel this, but I certainly feel the appeal and the interest fading. And I wrote the story in big technology substack this week about AI's sameness problem Talking about basically how eventually and pretty quickly all Sora videos start to feel the same. The same could be said with AI generated images and sometimes they're, you know, differentiated for a minute like the Studio Ghibli prompt and then everybody uses the prompt and it just again returns to sameness and then it becomes less of interest and people stop using it as much. AI technology just takes the average tends to take the average of averages.

它最小化自身输出与人类作品平均值的差异，因此AI生成的图像、视频和文本往往千篇一律。只有通过极其精准的提示才能打破这种均质化，即便如此也未必总能可靠实现。这就是为什么尽管AI内容看似每五分钟就要征服世界，却始终缺乏持久吸引力——它们都太相似了。现在想听听你的看法。

It minimizes the difference between its output and the average human generated work. So that its AI images, video, and text, will often appear uniform and and really that uniformity can only be broken with really deliberate prompting and even then it's not always able to do so that reliably. And that to me is why AI, content, even though it seems like it's gonna take over the world every five minutes, has not been sticky. It's just all kind of the same. So, let's turn it to you.

你对此假说有何反应？这是AI内容的致命缺陷，还是可以克服的问题？

What's your reaction, to this hypothesis? And is this a fatal flaw with AI content, or is this something you can get over?

就Sora而言，我的实际行为就是前两天疯狂生成视频，之后除了陪儿子玩耍就很少用了。它给我的感觉很像音乐创作AI Suno——短暂惊艳后便索然无味，缺乏持久生命力。但我认为这更多是当前使用方式的局限性。

I think in the Sora context, and I mean, this was my exact behavior, like, day one and two was just, like, ripping out videos and then, have not used as much other than my son. I'll kinda, like, play with him. It kind of is living already in my mind, like, Suno, the or the music creation AI where it's really cool and fun for a very brief moment. But in reality, like, the the, like, the lasting power of it doesn't really it's not there. But I I I think overall, though, I do this is just a limitation of how to use it in the current state.

毕竟它刚面世。我相信人们（尤其是视频领域）会发掘出更有趣、更具创造性的用法。说实话，OpenAI最明智的举措之一就是将发布重点放在表情包文化上。我认为这才是它最具持久力的方向——制作那些你愿意转发给朋友的搞笑内容。

It just came out. I do think people are gonna, especially with video, figure out how to be funny, creative. I mean, honestly, like, I think one of the smarter things that OpenAI did was really kinda centered it around meet the with the launch of it around meme culture. And I think that's where this is gonna have the most, like, staying power. It's making funny things that you that that you send around to your friends.

但实际上，我认为最终会形成这样一种人才分布：只有一小部分人真正擅长制作视频并四处传播，而我们这些在群聊里创作搞笑内容的人则另当别论。所以我觉得人们会逐渐摸索出使用方法，但目前给我的感觉就像Suno。

But and in reality, I think it's gonna kinda have that distribution of, like, talent where in the end, it's gonna be a small percentage of people who are really good at it and making all the videos and sending them around. But versus us in the chat group chats making really funny things and sending them around. So so I think people are gonna start figuring out how to use it. But at the moment, it feels like Suno to me.

没错。再回到这个问题——它会取代创作者吗？或许会重塑创作者经济。我们之前讨论过，那些精通提示词的人可能成为新贵，因为这和传统内容创作本质相同。

Yeah. And and again, like, going back to this, like, it gonna replace a creator? Well, maybe create like or replace the creator economy. We've talked about this in the past. Maybe somebody who's really good at these prompts because they're very it's same as creating regular content.

对吧？这并不容易，所以或许这是项新技能。但同样，由于大量内容的同质化，要脱颖而出会更为困难。

Right? It's hard to do it and so maybe that's a new skill. But again, I think it's a little bit more difficult to break through because of the uniformity of so much of this content.

不过在我看来，AI作为平均值的平均值这种说法，其实忽略了提示词的描述性和创造性构建。就像文字创作，你既可以写出最平庸的东西，也能花时间真正创新地运用它。所以我总体上仍看好这会催生新型创作者，让创意更民主化。

Well, but to me, the uniformity I think AI is an average of averages is still an idea around, like, not being descriptive and creative on the prompt and how you build it. So I think, like, the same with text and writing. You can either write just the most generic crap or you can start to use it in genuinely creative ways and actually put in time. So so I I I think I'm still overall bullish that this creates a new type of creator. It democratizes creativity a bit more.

我还没完全看清前景，但认为它还有发展空间。

I'm not oversaw it yet, but I think it's got some work to do.

当然，接下来很自然要讨论商业沟通的同质化现象。最近几个月我发现个有趣现象：收到的公关稿比以往都多，但仿佛都出自同一家机构之手。这不是公关行业主动标准化了文案风格，而是AI替他们完成了，实在滑稽。

And of course, the natural next thing that we talk about on this front is is how business communication has gotten the same. And I've noticed something really interesting over the past few months. I'm getting more PR pitches than I ever have before, but it seems like they've all been written by the same agency. And it's not like the PR agency part the PR industry decided to standardize pitch style. It's that the AI has done it for them and it's legitimately it's hilarious.

我读这些稿件时总忍不住想：这绝对是用ChatGPT写的。这种现象正蔓延至所有商务沟通领域，真正开启了'工作敷衍时代'。Roger，你觉得这个时代意味着什么？你欢迎它吗？对此有何感受？

I I read these and I'm like I know that used ChatGPT to write that and I think this is something that's becoming, increasingly common across all business, communication, and has really ushered in an era of work slop. So what do you think the implications are of the work slop era? Do you do you welcome it? How do you feel about it, Roger?

好的。我憋着想吐槽这事已经好几周了。其实我九月底在《哈佛商业评论》的一篇文章里第一次看到‘工作糟粕’这个词。他们把这类内容定义为低质量的AI生成帖子——或者说，抱歉，是那些伪装成优质工作成果、实则缺乏实质内容来有效推进任务的AI生成工作内容。我在工作中见到越来越多类似情况，比如公关稿件本质上就是大规模营销。

Okay. Have been waiting to rant about this for a few weeks now. I actually had read in a Harvard Business Review article in late September where I first saw the term work slot. But they they defined it as it's low quality AI generated posts or or sorry, AI generated work content that mass masquerades as good work, but lacks the substance to meaningfully advance a given task. I have seen more in my work like see, I actually PR pitches are kind of like mass scaled marketing.

这类内容本来就很糟糕。所以觉得AI能把它变好反而很讽刺——AI简直就是为此而生的。对我来说更令人担忧的是真实的人际互动。现在我收到的每份通话总结都有80条要点，而过去要获取会议纪要简直是场噩梦。

It can be it always was kinda crappy anyways. So, like, the idea that it's gonna be good, that's almost what AI was made for. To me, the more worrisome part is actual human to human interaction. Now every call summary I get is, like, 80 bullet points. Any which in the past, like, getting a meeting summary was a pain in the ass.

所以我想对所有听众说：在你发出AI生成内容前，先自己读一遍。强迫自己精简内容，故意加几个错别字让它更真实，重写几个句子让它更自然。但这篇文章最打动我的是提出了‘工作糟粕’的本质——它用机器将认知负担转嫁给人类同事。当同事收到这些糟粕时，他们不得不承担解码内容的负担。就像用AI生成大段文字群发时...

So you like but but people all I'm asking, all of our listeners, is before you send out your AI generated content, read it yourself first. Just force yourself to may maybe condense it, maybe add in some misspellings just to make it feel rewrite a couple of the sentences to make it more real. But but the the the part of this article I really liked is it it kinda brings up this idea that work slop uniquely uses machines to offload cognitive work to another human being. When coworkers receive Workslap, they are required to take on the burden of decoding that content. Like, to me, when you use AI to just create these just big walls of text to send around.

你其实是在说‘我没花时间思考什么是重要的’，却要求接收者替你完成这个工作。所以我恳请听众们：停止制造工作糟粕。尽管使用AI提升效率，但请务必阅读你要发送的内容。

What you're saying is that you did not take the time to actually think through what's important, and you're asking the receiver or the recipient to do it. So my my my call to our listeners, please stop with the work slop. Just spend a little use AI. Use plenty of AI to improve your efficiency and productivity. Just read what you're sending out.

你日常工作中遇到多少AI生成的工作糟粕？

How much AI work slop are you seeing on a day to day basis?

相当多——现在商务邮件都长得离谱，领英帖子更是重灾区。我在欧洲顶尖商学院SEAD读书时，很多非英语母语的同学原本从不发领英，现在却突然发布这些史诗级长篇糟粕。某种程度上这 democratizing 了沟通能力，但如果你自己都没读完，就别发出来。

I see a good amount across like I mean, it's it's again, emails in the business world now are so long. LinkedIn posts, which are kind I mean, we all know LinkedIn Slop is like like the and it's kind of like, I still go back and forth. I I went to a very international business school in SEAD and like, there's a lot of non native English speakers who had never posted on LinkedIn and now just have these epic massive posts that are just so work sloppy that like and in a way, it's democratizing the ability to communicate. But like, just if you're not read all I add, if you didn't take the time to read it yourself, don't send it out.

别发布。我觉得这条规则很合理。

Don't post it. I think that's a fair rule.

这就是社会所需的一切。只需先阅读任何输出内容，并确保花费与要求接收者相同的时间。

That's a that's all we need in society. Just read whatever the output is first, and just make sure to spend the same time that you're asking the recipient.

没错。但现在我们有AI来解读AI了，对吧？嗯，这就是副驾驶摘要的用武之地。

Right. But now we have, you know, AI to read AI. Right? Well, that's where that's you. The copilot summaries.

不。我真的会把这些庞大的摘要再次通过AI处理，以获取真正的精华摘要。所以

No. I I I literally will take these gigantic summaries and then run them through AI again to give me the real summary of this. So

那么教训是商业沟通从来就——不是说商业沟通一直很好。教训是商业沟通一直都很糟糕吗？也许这是一种改进，对吧？你可以让AI帮你构思，AI生成内容，再通过AI过滤提炼，最终输出那个想法，而原本费力的沟通过程现在被自动化了。不知道我是否表达清楚，我觉得这就是——

So is the lesson that business communication has always just mean it's not like business communication has been good. Is the lesson that business communication has always been bad? Maybe this is an improvement, right? Where you can just sort of like you the AI you write an idea, the AI generates it, then you filter it through an AI and you get that idea out and that arduous process of trying to communicate is now automated. Don't know I'm saying this I'm like that's the

不不不，我...其实，说来有趣你提到这个。这是我长期以来的一个观点，认为商业沟通一直很糟糕。就像，在LLM（大型语言模型）出现之前，就已经有种类似LLM的感觉了。然后，我们本开始朝着商业世界中更人性化的沟通方式发展，人们也开始更自在地直接表达想法，而非用大量企业行话包装。但现在我们又倒退了，而且他们甚至不是亲自在做这些事。

No no no I I there there was actually, it's funny you bring that up. This is like a long running belief of mine that business communication was terrible. Like, was the it was already kind of like LLM feeling before LLMs existed. And then there's, like we were starting to move towards more human communication in the business world and people, like, starting to feel more comfortable actually writing what they're trying to say rather than couch it in a ton of corporate jargon. And now we're just back and it's they're not even doing it themselves.

我们曾有过机会的，各位，但我们没有抓住

We had a shot people, but we didn't take

我们把一切都搞砸了。

We messed it all up.

我们把事情全搞砸了。

We messed it all up.

你知道真正糟糕的是什么吗？就是当有人边喝着辣味奶茶边聊天，让AI写工作邮件却不检查就直接发送

You know what's gonna be real bad is, when somebody's talking with their spicy chat chippy tea and they ask it to write a work email and they don't read it and they send

是啊。千万别搞混了——你看，这就是为什么要把Gemini留着处理正经商务写作。

it. Yeah. Don't don't cross your See, that's you keep keep Gemini on the side for a little business writing.

让ChatGPT负责那些劲爆内容。等不及要看第一个丑闻了，比如某个公众人物——具体是谁我就不说了——

Keep chatty for the spicy stuff. Cannot wait for the first scandal where, like, some public figure, like, I don't know, actually Well,

我是说

I mean

误以为自己在和ChatGPT调情结果发错对象

accidentally sexed, somebody thinking they were talking to chatty PT or

或者当OpenAI需要冲业绩，开始根据你的ChatGPT聊天记录自动生成Sora视频并发布时，那才叫真正的好戏开场。

when or when OpenAI needs to juice their numbers a little bit and starts auto generating Sora videos based on your chat GPT history and posting them, that's when things are gonna get truly interesting.

我只想说，你知道那会有需求的。那或许能拯救AI垃圾内容

All I'll say is you know there would be demand for that. That might save AI slop is

就是这样。

That's it.

正是这个应用场景。好了，Ranjan。我们做到了。

That exact use case. Alright, Ranjan. Well, we've we made it.

我们做到了。

We made it.

我不认为我们被取消了。希望不是这样。但这是一场必须进行的重要讨论，我们这么做当然是为了推动关于人工智能的对话。我们非常感谢每一位坚持听到今天的听众。谢谢你们，我真的很感激你们的参与，下周我们将带着或许G级（全年龄适宜）的内容回归，也可能是PG级（家长指导观看）。

I don't think we're canceled. I hope not. But it was an important discussion to have and we do this of course in service of advancing the conversation about artificial intelligence. And and we appreciate any listener who stayed till the end today. Thank you and I I I really do appreciate you being here and we'll come back next week with I maybe g rated content, maybe p g

分级吧。或许...或许这方面会有更多进展。

rated Maybe we'll maybe maybe more is gonna happen on this front.

我们无法预测萨姆·奥特曼的推文走向，所以，下周他将引领我们踏上未知的旅程。

We cannot predict Sam's, Sam Altman's tweets, so, he will lead us on our merry way next week.

也许克劳德下周会变得性感起来。我们拭目以待。

Maybe Claude becomes sexy in the next week. We'll see.

对此我表示怀疑。好吧。好吧，约翰。感谢你一如既往地参与。很高兴见到你。

That I doubt. Alright. Alright, John. Thank you for coming in on as always. Great to see you.

好的。下周见。

Alright. See you next week.

下周见。再次感谢大家的收听。下周，我们将邀请亚马逊设备与服务负责人帕诺斯·帕奈，与我们讨论Alexa Plus的现状，并提供广泛推广的具体细节。期待届时与大家相见。再次感谢，我们下周《大型科技播客》再见。

See you next week. Thank you everybody for listening once again. Next week, we will have Panos Panay, the head of devices and services at Amazon, talk with us about the state of Alexa Plus and give us concrete details on the broad rollout. So we hope to see you then. Thanks again, and we'll see you next time on big technology podcast.

现在到底发生了什么，为何会以这种方式呈现？在《连线》，我们每日都痴迷于深究这些问题，或许你也是。我是凯蒂·德拉蒙德，《连线》全球编辑总监，正在主持我们的新播客系列《大访谈》。每周，我将与那些塑造当下、最有趣、最具挑衅性和影响力的人物对谈。《大访谈》的对话充满乐趣

What the hell is going on right now, and why is it happening like this? At Wired, we're obsessed with getting to the bottom of those questions on a daily basis, and maybe you are too. I'm Katie Drummond, the global editorial director of Wired, and I'm hosting our new podcast series, the big interview. Each week, I'll sit down with some of the most interesting, provocative, and influential people who are shaping our right now. Big interview conversations are fun

我想要一条能

I want a shark that

吞噬互联网的鲨鱼，让它全部关闭。毫无过滤，无所畏惧。

that eats the Internet that turns it all off. Unfiltered and unafraid.

因此在很多方面，我尽力成为你在网上看到的那种难以想象的保守内容洪流的解药。

So in a lot of ways, I try to be an antidote to the unimaginable faucet of reactionary content that you see online to the best of my ability.

每周，我们都会为你提供这个时代最极致的奢侈——意义与语境。真假题：你，布莱恩·约翰逊，坐在我对面的这个男人，某一天，在未来的某个尚未确定的时刻，将会死去。假。详细说说。

Every week, we're going to offer you the ultimate luxury of our times, meaning and context. True or false? You, Brian Johnson, the man sitting across from me, one day, at some point, as of yet undefined in the future, you will die. False. Tell me more.

现在就在你收听《连线》杂志诡异谷播客的同一平台，聆听这场重磅访谈。无论你在哪里获取播客，请订阅或关注我们。

Listen to the big interview right now in the same place you find Wired's uncanny valley podcast. Subscribe or follow wherever you get your podcasts.