马克·扎克伯格的个人超级智能、裁员与回报，用AI写作——与M.G.西格勒对话

马克·扎克伯格想要打造个人超级智能，但这个术语除了营销噱头外真有实质意义吗？我们看到科技巨头们一边豪掷1亿美元奖金，一边大规模裁员。这如何自圆其说？另外，该用AI写作吗？广告后马上揭晓。

Mark Zuckerberg wants to build personal superintelligence, but does the term have meaning beyond marketing hype? We're seeing $100,000,000 payouts and lots of layoffs in big tech. How does that work? Plus, should you use AI to write? That's coming up right after this.

欢迎收听《大科技》播客。每月第一个周一的特别节目，我们将与SpyGlass的杰出分析师MG Seigler畅谈科技与AI领域的所有动态。他的文章可在spyglass..org查阅。今天话题异常丰富：超级智能的真实定义、科技公司裁员潮下百万年薪是否合理、当然还有是否该用人工智能写作。Emjit，很高兴再次邀请你上节目。

Welcome to Big Technology podcast. First Monday of the month edition where we talk about everything happening in big tech and AI with the great MG Seigler of SpyGlass. You could find his writing at spyglass..org. And we have so much to speak with you about today, including what superintelligence actually means, whether people are actually worth a $100,000,000 as big tech companies are laying folks off, and, of course, whether you should use artificial intelligence. To write, Emjit, it's great to have you back on the show.

欢迎回来。

Welcome back.

谢谢邀请，Alex。如常荣幸。当前局势瞬息万变，我很期待深入探讨。

Thanks for having me, Alex, as always. And, yeah, there is so much going on right now, so I'm excited to dive into it a bit.

确实如此。好的，本期我们要讨论超级智能的定义——或者说这个概念的模糊性。我认为最佳切入点就是扎克伯格最近发布的这份关于个人超级智能的文件。我先来读段内容。

Definitely. Alright. So we're gonna discuss the definition of superintelligence on this show or the lack of definition of superintelligence on this show. I think the first way for us to get into that is just looking at this document that Mark Zuckerberg has laid out, about personal superintelligence. So I'll just start off.

他说：「过去几个月，我们开始看到AI系统自我改进的迹象。目前进展虽缓慢但确凿无疑。超级智能的研发已初见曙光。」那么在探讨扎克伯格的具体目标前，他究竟看到了什么？

He says, over the last few months, we have begun to see glimpses of our AI systems improving themselves. The improvement is slow for now but undeniable. Developing superintelligence is now in sight. Okay. So before we get into exactly what Mark Zuckerberg wants to build, what is this guy seeing?

更进一步说，所有AI实验室究竟看到了什么？这只是他们为获取更大融资和更高估值而夸大技术潜力？还是你认为他们确实共识性地看到了技术突破的前夜？

And in fact, what are all the AI labs seeing? Is this just them talking up the potential of the technology to get bigger funding rounds and better valuations on the public markets? Or do you think that in concert, they are all seeing that we're in the beginning of this curve?

这份备忘录在多个层面都很有趣。我认为你提到的因素都成立。我们确实处于独特的历史节点，这些公司似乎都认为AI开始具备——用他们的话说——某种自主进化能力，正迈向新的智能层级。具体定义我们稍后讨论。

This memo is very interesting on a few fronts. I do think sort of it's everything you're talking about is sort of true. Right? It can be true that we are at a unique time and that, you know, these these companies are seeing that AI is starting to it sounds like, you know, a lot of them are framing it that they're now able to sort of work on their own and sort of are are levering up to sort of this new level of intelligence. And again, we'll go into the definitions in a bit.

但扎克伯格的独特之处在于，他不需要像其他公司那样融资（虽然听说他们在发债支持扩张）。作为上市公司，他真正的动机是网罗全球AI人才。这份备忘录在我看来，是对当前某些人才不愿加入Meta的舆论反击。

But I also think Zucks, in particular angle here, is unique because, of course, he's not trying to necessarily raise money, though they are, it sounds like, I think, raising debt and stuff to help, you know, fund some of their expansion. But he's not raising from VCs, obviously, as they've long been a public company, of course. But he has a different incentive, which is that he's trying to bring in all the talent in the world that he possibly can in AI. And to me, when I first saw this memo, it felt sort of like a response to sort of some of the stories that you hear that some people are reluctant to go over to Meta. Right?

他必须勾勒出Meta的独特愿景——既要区别于同行，又要能激励人才。毕竟媒体总在质疑：别人在研究治愈疾病、重塑未来工作方式，Meta却还在搞社交AI小花招？扎克伯格意识到，他的王牌始终是Facebook时代延续至今的社交基因，只是如今改称「个性化」和「人际服务」罢了。

And so he needs to lay out a vision, a cohesive vision for what Meta is trying to do that's both different from sort of what some of the other players in the space are trying to do and also, you know, hopefully inspiring to some people. Because, again, I think a lot of there's at least in the press, there's a lot of sort of shade being thrown at Meta that look, are you going to go there to build the next sort of silly social AI element while these other places are trying to cure diseases and basically solve the future of work and do all these other things? And so Zuckerberg, I think, you know, realized that his one angle that he can definitely play up is obviously the historical strength of Facebook, of Meta dating back to the Facebook days and all the other sort of services and apps that they both built and bought is obviously around social media. But he won't sort of use that framing these days. But it's more around personalization and doing things, you know, for personal reasons, interpersonal reasons.

因此我认为他正将此视为自己的切入点。我们可以稍加探讨我是否觉得这是个值得采纳的好观点，但我欣赏他尝试这么做的态度。他在努力差异化。而备忘录本身的高层内容，某种程度上几乎像是山姆·奥特曼的风格——当我第一次看到时，确实如此。

And so I think that he's viewing that as his angle. We can go into a bit whether or not I think that that's a good good take to get, but I I appreciate that he's trying to do it. He's trying to differentiate. And, the high level of the memo itself, it sort of is almost like a Sam Altman memo when when I was Oh, exactly. First.

没错。你甚至看看那排版格式。是的。这篇发布在meta.com/superintelligence的文章，他甚至还把内容同步发到了Facebook上。

Yeah. And you even look at You even look at the formatting. And Yes. This is a post that was written meta.com/superintelligence. He even post the thing on Facebook.

对。如果大家还没看过，它长这样：纯粹白底黑字，简直像那些AI研究员网站的风格——他们表面装作不在乎品牌形象（虽然实际很在意），用着Courier字体和蓝色超链接之类。这完全就是那种感觉。从视觉策略来看，马克·扎克伯格非常清楚，这本质上是在试图塑造两种形象：a) 了解AI研究动向的专家，b) 所谓的AI远见者之一。

Yep. And it the if folks if you haven't seen it, this is what it looks like. It legitimately is like black text on a white background. It looks like the AI researcher websites where they like kinda wanna show that they don't really care about branding even though they really do and they're like in courier and like blue links and stuff like that. It has exactly that feel and it does have just if you look at the optics of this and Mark Zuckerberg knows this very well, it is sort of a a an attempt to position himself as a, someone who knows what's going on with AI research and b, you know, one of these AI visionaries.

是啊。这就像老派CEO们当年写Tumblr博文的风格对吧？刻意显得酷炫前卫，试图与员工群体打成一片，而不是...

Yeah. This is like the old school version of, you know, when CEOs might write, like, a Tumblr post back in the day. Right? Exactly. Being cool and edgy, and they're they're meeting they're meeting their employee base where they are rather than

他要是全用小写字母来写就更到位了——山姆·奥特曼就是这么写的。那样才真叫精准拿捏。

You should have just written the thing in, like, entirely lowercase, and then he really would have been, which is the way that Sam Altman writes. Then he really would have been on point.

或者干脆在终端里写好直接截图贴上来，连复制粘贴都省了。

Or you should have, yeah, done a copy and paste of of having written it in terminal in a terminal and then, you know, yeah, basically used a screenshot of it.

没错。虽然容易遭调侃，但我认为这其实是聪明的策略——你得向这些人证明你懂他们的语言。

Yeah. And I know it's like it's easy to make fun of, but I actually think this is, like, smart a smart play you kinda have to show to these folks that you're speaking their language.

是的。重申下，我觉得他只是在做自认为必要的事。显然他接触了各类人才，有些人加入了团队，但从各方报道来看，更多人选择拒绝。

Yeah. I mean, again, I think that he's doing what he feels like he needs to. I think he's been out there obviously talking to all sorts of people, know, in terms of who he could potentially bring on board. Some have come on board. Many have not, it sounds like, you know, from all the various reports on it.

我猜他正把这些对话作为内心权衡的参考：哪些观点能引起共鸣？哪些不行？需要做出什么改变？如何重新定位？关键是要围绕Meta的目标传递连贯信息，最好还能与竞争对手形成差异化。

And I think he's probably, you know, using those conversations as as inputs in his own head of, like, what's resonating? What's not? What do I need to do differently? What do I need to, know, how do I need to frame this? And, I think one of the key things is, like, having a cohesive message about what Meta is trying to do and, hopefully, one that's different from what the other competitors are trying to do.

而我认为这就是最终得出的结论。

And I think that that's where this sort of netted out.

那么让我们深入解读这条信息。他明确表示，未来几年人工智能将提升我们所有现有系统，并催生当今难以想象的新事物创造与发现。但作为一个开放性问题，我们将引导超级智能走向何方。此刻他提出：超级智能有望开启个人赋权的新纪元，让人们拥有更大能动性，按照自己选择的方向改善世界。

So let's get into that message. So he says, and it's clear in the coming years, AI will improve all our existing systems and enable the creation and discovery of new things that aren't imaginable today. But as an open question, what we will direct superintelligence towards. And now here he is. He says superintelligence has the potential to begin a new era of personal empowerment where people will have greater agency to improve the world in the direction they choose.

他声称Meta的愿景是让超级智能惠及每个人。这与业内其他观点截然不同——那些人认为超级智能应该集中用于自动化所有有价值的工作，然后人类将生活在它产出的红利中。他实质上是在说：听着，有人想用这技术搞自动化，而我们想让每个人都能享受这项技术带来的益处。

And he says Meta's vision is to bring superintelligence to everyone. This is distinct from others in the industry who believe superintelligence should be directed centrally towards automating all valuable work, and then humanity will live on a dull of its output. So he's basically saying like, listen. There are others that wanna use this technology for automation. We wanna give everybody the benefit of being able to use this technology.

他正在确立这种...暂且称之为独特愿景吧，不过我要质疑这点。MG，你认为这个解读准确吗？

And there he is setting that, well, let's say unique vision for now, but I'm actually going to question it. But is that is that the right read on it, MG?

我认为是的。你看，包括谷歌在内的其他AI公司都在宣称他们即将解决——暂且不论品牌术语——通用人工智能或超级智能。这个模糊概念大家都认同它无所不能，但问题就在于没人真正知道它最终会被用来做什么。

I think so. Yeah. I mean, it's basically like, look, there's all of these other AI companies out there, including Google, by the way, which are, you know, saying that they're that they're closing in on solving again, we'll get to the branding, but whatever you want to call it, AGI or super intelligence. And that sense that it's though this nebulous term, which I think everyone would agree with, right, that it can be used for anything. So maybe it's a problem because no one really knows then what it's actually going to be used for.

在某些情况下这让很多人感到恐惧。扎克伯格试图将其框架为：我们不想包揽一切，不会用这技术做天下所有事。我们不像某些竞争对手那样专注于企业领域。

And in some cases, that's scary to people, to a lot of people. Right? And so what I think Zuckerberg is trying to frame it as like, we're not trying to boil the ocean. We're not going to use this technology to do every single thing under the sun. You know, we don't necessarily focus on enterprise like some of the competitors do.

我们聚焦人际关系。所以当我们达到这种技术水平时，会用它服务于个人目的，赋能人们自主运用。这试图传递的是赋权信息，而非其他可能听起来有点模糊吓人的论调——毕竟谁知道它最终用途呢？这种框架我能理解。

We focus on personal relationships. And so we're going to get to that technology, to this level of technology, and we're going to use it for your own personal purposes, to empower you to use it for your own personal purposes. Right? And so it's trying to be, again, an empowering message versus some of the others where it maybe sounds a bit not nefarious, but a little bit nebulous and scary in that regard because it can you know, who knows what it will ultimately be used for? And so, again, the framing, I understand.

我和你一样对这种框架持保留态度。但从纯粹传播角度看，向市场传递这样的信息至少是合理的。

I'm with you that I'm sort of skeptical about that necessarily that framing of it. But again, I think from a pure comms perspective, when you're trying to make this message to the market, I think that that at least makes sense.

所以我有些犹豫是否完全认同扎克伯格关于他们在个人赋权方面与众不同的说法。看看ChatGPT，那在我看来就是他们的目标。当初ChatGPT或许只是个演示版用来推销API？确实。但它现在不是已经超越了OpenAI的API业务吗？

So now, yeah, I I said I have some hesitancy about going fully along with Zuckerberg saying that they're gonna be distinct from the other labs in terms of personal, empowerment. Because if you look at what ChatchipBT is, I mean, that seems to me like that's the goal. Now, was ChatchiPT a demo maybe so that they could sell their API? Yes. But has it overtaken, that API business at OpenAI?

我相当确定是的。我认为如果模型持续进步，达到超级智能或通用人工智能水平，所有这些聊天机器人都会具备这种特性，你不觉得吗？

I'm pretty sure it has. So I think that, like, all of these chatbots, if the models improve, if we get to, let's call it superintelligence or even AGI, every single one of these chatbots are going to have that property. Don't you think?

没错。读到那段时我立刻想到的正是你说的这个。就像声称我们造出了第一台个人电脑，但它只能用于私人用途——这种说法你懂吧？

Yeah. The thing that immediately popped into my mind when I was reading that is is along the lines of what you're saying. It's basically like it reminds me of trying to say that, look. We've built the first personal computer, but it only can be used for personal reasons. Right?

它不会仅用于工作。这有点可笑。个人电脑（PC）本就可以且应当用于任何用途，对吧？我们用它工作，也用它处理个人事务。所以它是两者兼备的。

It's not gonna be used for work. And it's, like, silly. A personal computer, a PC can be used for anything and it should be used for anything, right? We use it for work, we use it for personal endeavors. And so it's both.

我认为AI的发展路径会与个人电脑类似——像ChatGPT这样的工具将被同时用于工作和生活场景，这正是当前正在发生的。扎克伯格试图将其局限在单一用途，这种限制既无必要，也不太可能成为现实。

And I think that AI, I mean, in my head, at least it's going to play out the same way that, yeah, we'll have tools like ChatGPT and other services and people use them for both work and and personal usage. And that's what's happening right now. And so Zuckerberg trying to sort of narrow this into just one use case. Again, it's like it's feels like unnecessarily confining, and I don't think it's gonna play out that way.

没错。虽然企业可以选择强化特定功能（比如Anthropic专注优化编程能力），但Meta未必能靠这种差异化胜出。扎克伯格说'人人拥有超级智能将帮助你实现目标/创造理想世界/体验冒险/成为更好的朋友/成就更好的自己'，却刻意回避了'与Meta产品中的超级智能成为朋友'这个隐含设定。

Right. So I don't think that meta will necessarily differentiate itself that way, although you can choose the types of features and the types of functionality you wanna focus on to make them stronger. For instance, Dario told me, on Wednesday that Anthropic chose to focus its energy on making coding better, that's obviously, you know, worked out for them or that it's actually shown out shown in in the product. So Zuckerberg says, everyone having a personal superintelligence will help you achieve your goals, create what you want to see in the world, experience any adventure, be a better friend to those you care about, and grow to become the person you aspire to be. I think he leaves out that you'll also, I think in their vision, will become a friend to that superintelligence and meta products.

不过这不是重点。即便他们无法垄断这个潜在产品方向，只要AI持续发展，这些愿景确实可能成为技术的主要应用场景——方向没错，只是不确定他们能否实现。

But I guess that's neither here nor there. Now despite the fact that I don't think that they're gonna have the stranglehold on this potential product, route, seems to me that this is if AI continues apace, all these things are actually gonna be the one of the main uses of the technology. Like, the vision isn't exactly off. I just don't know if they could do it, but the vision sounds like, yep. That might be where we're going.

对。别忘了扎克伯格清楚自己的优势：Meta运营着数十亿人使用的社交网络。如果AI真如你所说会朝这个方向发展，他们在社交应用场景的渠道优势是别人无法比拟的。他现在正明智地聚焦这个优势。

Yeah. And remember the other side of this, which is like Zuckerberg must be looking at the market and knowing, like, what advantages do I have? And the one major one you know, there's a few few one I think there's a few that he has, but one of the major ones is the fact that they run services, social networks that are that are used by billions of people. And so if you believe, you know, that this is going to be, as you're saying, like a sliver of what AI is, they have a distribution advantage that others don't in terms of being able to leverage the technology for these sort of more social use cases. And so I think that he's smartly sort of honing in on that that fact of it.

他确实直白地阐述了这对Facebook商业模式的助益：'如果趋势持续，人们会减少生产力软件的使用时间，增加创作与社交时间'——言下之意，当AI让你五小时完成工作后，剩余时间就会用来在Facebook发布AI生成内容。虽然这话带点讽刺，但似乎就是他的算盘。

Yeah. He definitely addresses how this could benefit the Facebook or the meta business model in a pretty direct way. He says if trends continue, then you'd expect people to spend less time in productivity software and more time creating and connecting. It's like, all right, so if you're able to get your work done in five hours, then maybe you're gonna wanna post your AI slop on Facebook. Now that's a little snarky, but, it seems like that's what he's thinking.

这正是借用奥特曼等人的论点：'未来技术将带来更多闲暇时间'。而扎克伯格潜台词是：'我们最懂如何填充闲暇时间——这是我们的专长'。

Yeah. And then that's sort of using some of the arguments that are out there from Sam Altman and others against them, right, where they're saying like, look, in the future, this technology is going to enable us all to have a lot more leisure time. And Zuckerberg saying, we know what to do with leisure time. Right? That's one of our specialties.

所以Meta宣称要'为这个未来做好准备并填补空白'。不过我个人怀疑这种'生产力提升带来闲暇'的论调——就像扩建高速公路反而诱发更多车流，技术省下的时间很可能被新的工作形式占据。

And so we're we're ready for that future and and we're going to help enable it and we're going to help sort of fill in that gaps. As an aside, I'm sort of skeptical of, like, the the idea of, you know, not necessarily productivity gains. I do think that those will happen, but I sort of go to the analogy of like when a freeway is overcrowded and so they expand it and, you know, you hope like, oh, well, then traffic will free up and instead just more traffic happens. Right? And so I feel like when we use technology to free up time, we're just gonna do more work, you know, in different ways with that time.

我不认为人类会像《机器人总动员》里那样整天躺在悬浮椅上看视频——虽然这可能是扎克伯格期待的景象，但现实未必如此发展。

I don't think that everyone's just gonna be sitting around like Wally, you know, watching the videos on our our hovercraft things. I do think that that, you know, that's that's maybe again playing into what Zuckerberg hopes happens, but I'm not sure it's gonna play out that way.

那么问题来了：Facebook创立时的核心是'连接网络好友'，这个目标在某些层面实现了，另一些层面却彻底失败——我指的可不只是Meta的那些丑闻。

Okay. But then let me ask you this. Obviously, Facebook started on the premise of connecting with your friends on the Internet. That's gone well in some ways, but, like, really not well in others. And I'm not even talking about meta scandals.

我指的是社交网络明显转向的现象——人们不再关心朋友动态，只想看有趣内容。我们从好友动态流转向了推荐流，实际上不再与朋友在线交流。或许在通讯软件里还有联系。所以我想知道，虽然这想法有点偏门，但如果脸书不再让我们用互联网连接朋友，而是帮我们用AI朋友取代真人朋友，它会变成什么样子？

I'm talking about the fact that there was a clear shift on the social internet where people stopped caring about what their friends were doing, and they just wanted to watch fun stuff. And we went from the friend feed to the for you feed, and we don't really speak to our friends online. Maybe we do in messaging apps. I mean, we do in messaging apps. So I'm curious if you think, and this is kind of more on the weirder side, but what does Facebook become if it instead of like using the internet, instead of enabling us to use the internet to connect with our friends, it like basically helps us replace our friends with AI friends?

确实。这某种程度上是个根本性议题，可以追溯到社交网络早期。我在观察青少年时也常思考这种趋势会如何发展。

Yeah. I mean, in some ways this is a very fundamental debate. Right? And yeah, dates to sort of the earlier days of social networking. And I do think also, you know, with young kids about trying to extrapolate how this plays out.

你暗示的这种负面情景确实存在——可能加剧孤独感趋势，让人们更封闭，花更多时间与机器相处。从电脑手机开始，我们不再需要见朋友、出门或面对面交流，因为这些新工具让线上互动似乎更有趣。就像...在他理想世界里（当然他不会这么表述），与其出门和朋友玩，不如和AI为你们实时定制的游戏角色互动？这听起来确实反乌托邦。但要注意，人们会用不同方式运用技术，有些会很棒，有些则未必。

It feels like there's a definite sort of downside scenario that you're alluding to where it sort of accelerates the trend of loneliness, you know, if you want to call it that, and people sort of being more insular and spending more time with machines, you know, from obviously computers and phones on down, to not need to spend time with friends and not need to go outside and not do face to face time because we have all these new tools that sort of make it more fun in some ways, I guess, to interact with people. It's like, you know, in his ideal world, would and he would never, of course, frame it this way. But again, if you're just trying to extrapolate out what he's sort of suggesting, it's like, is it better to not go outside and play with your friends and instead do, you know, like a game with your friends that's built by AI, you know, personalized for the two of you in in real time? And, you know, again, that sounds dystopian. I wanna be mindful that, you know, like, there's various different ways, obviously, that that people will use these technologies, and some of them will be incredible and some of them will be good.

我并不认为社交网络和互联性该为孤独症负全责。虽然确实有影响，但绝非全部原因。某种程度上它们也能带来帮助。

And I do think it's like I I I'm not of the mind that social networking and and even connectivity is is fully to blame for loneliness epidemic or and whatnot. Oh, yeah. I won't go there. Part of it, but but I don't think it's, you know, fully to blame for all that. And I do think it can help in some ways.

你刚才提到的终极状态是：与你互动的不是人类朋友，而是AI生成的伙伴，这会对人的心理产生深远影响。

The sort of end state, though, of that, though, is what you were hitting at earlier, where it's like, it's not necessarily another human friend that you're playing with, but instead, you know, an AI friend who's just been generated and sort of what that means for your own internal psyche.

结果可能是我们减少了孤独感，却变得更封闭——这种趋势出人意料。我们节目采访过AI研究员兼CEO伊兰·布罗，她曾在Meta的FAIR团队工作。她提出个精彩观点：真人社交存在限制，比如你不可能凌晨三点打电话给朋友讨论问题。

Yeah, it could end up being that we become less lonely, but more insular, which is not like a trend that you would anticipate. But there was we had Elan Bourro on the show. She's an AI researcher and CEO who used to work at Meta in the FAIR organization. And she brought up this great point where there are social limits to what you can do with friends. You really can't continue to call a friend at 3AM in the morning if you're working through a problem or something like that.

但你可以无限次拨打AI电话。人类有限制，AI没有。这是好事吗？尚不确定，但有可能。

You can sort of make unlimited phone calls to AI and that's fine. So humans have limits, AI doesn't. Is that good? We don't know yet, but potentially. All right.

确实。

Yeah.

这事可以两面看。虽然会有积极面，但在公开信里很难解释这种复杂性。就像...

Again, I think that there's you can make the both sides argument to this. And I do think that there will be good elements to it, but it that's that nuance is way too hard to try to explain in a in an open letter. Right? As as

他正在做的这样。没错。他喜欢直截了当，最后还扔了个重磅结论：'Meta坚信应该打造赋能每个人的个人超级智能'。

he's doing here. Yeah. That's right. He prefers bluntness, and he does end with a very blunt mic drop. Meta believes strongly in building personal super intelligence that empowers everyone.

我们拥有构建所需庞大基础设施的资源与专业能力，并将通过产品向数十亿人提供新技术。我很兴奋能将Meta的重心转向构建这一未来。显然，扎克伯格曾多次表态，无论是视频还是VR，都曾是我们聚焦的领域。他会倾全公司之力乃至亲力亲为投入项目。而现在，显然是AI。

We have the resources and the expertise to build the massive infrastructure required and the capability, and we'll deliver new technology to billions of people across our products. I'm excited to focus Meta's efforts towards building this future. So obviously, like, Zuck has had these moments where he's like said, like, video or, you know, VR is the thing we're focused on. He puts all the company's attention and himself on the project. Clearly, is AI.

这听起来像是招聘话术——我们资金雄厚、技术专业、基建完备，趁早上船吧，因为等我们完成这个项目后，其他事情很快就不复存在了。这似乎是他向公众传递的终极信号，或许也是给那些拒绝过他的人，以及仍在考虑他邀约的人听的。

It does seem like this is the recruiting pitch, by the way. It's like, we got the money, we have the expertise, we have the infrastructure, get on board because whatever else you're doing is not gonna be around for much longer after we're done with this project. And that is sort of the the final note that he sends to the public and maybe to those who've spurned him and maybe those who are still considering his offers.

是的。当初Scale AI收购案后他们宣布要建立超级智能实验室时，我就写过相关质疑。我对成功持怀疑态度，我们讨论过这点。但Meta长期存在'露西抽走橄榄球'的把戏——比如转向视频时，所有新闻机构蜂拥而上，结果Facebook算法又偏好其他内容来提升参与度，最终媒体机构只能被迫转向。

Yeah. But and and I wrote about this a little bit when sort of the the news was first coming out after the Scale AI acquisition about what they were trying to build with the Superintelligence Labs. I'm skeptical that it will work, you know, and and we know, we've talked about that. But I think that there's a little bit of the Lucy pulling the football thing that Meta has long had both with the public in terms of, yeah, pivot to video and all the news organizations rush to pivot to video and then Meta, Facebook decides that they want something else for you know, their algorithms prefer something else when it comes to engagement. And so, you know, they basically have to meet the media organizations and do something else.

同样的情况也发生在用户和员工身上。他们曾让整个公司围绕元宇宙转型，如今除了AI相关话题外几乎不再提及。事后他们又辩解称'这原本就是计划的一部分'，扎克伯格说过没料到AI会先于元宇宙爆发。

But the same thing is true with both, I think, users and also their employee base, right, where it's like, yeah, we're gonna focus on this thing. And obviously, they pivoted the entire company to be around the metaverse. And it's like, we're not hearing too much about that these days aside from as it relates to AI. And again, they're they're sort of doing some hindsight narration about how, oh, it was always, you know, a part of the plan and AI, you know, we Zuckerberg has said in the past, right? I didn't real I maybe didn't realize that AI would take off ahead of, you know, the metaverse taking off.

我们原以为发展顺序会相反，但二者融合始终在计划中。这种说辞完全是事后诸葛亮。那些为元宇宙建设加入Meta的人，现在看着同事可能获得数亿美元AI项目奖金时作何感想？我打赌元宇宙团队现在可没这种待遇。

We thought it'd be sort of the inverse of it, but there was always a plan that the two of them were going to interact together. And so, again, I think that that's the argument made in hindsight. But if anyone who joined Meta for the metaverse build out and this was going be the future, like, what are you thinking right now as you have colleagues who are getting offered hundreds of millions of dollars potentially to build out AI? I don't think any of the metaverse team is getting those packages right now.

真够惨的。公司都改名元宇宙（Meta）了，你埋头苦干VR眼镜，而某个在OpenAI搞了两年AI的家伙跳槽就能拿1亿美金。虽然我有点开玩笑，但换谁都不好受。不过某种程度上你也得服气——

Yeah, you're big sad. I mean, they changed the name of the company to metaverse or meta. You've been laboring away on the VR goggles and some guy who's been working at two years on AI, at OpenAI, just got $100,000,000 to come over. I mean, I'm sort of being facetious here, but that wouldn't make me happy. Although, I sort of think you sort of respect the game.

就像勒布朗·詹姆斯加入你球队肯定能提升实力。但看着这么多'勒布朗'加盟，自己却还在元宇宙部门，感觉就...（叹气）

Like if LeBron James comes to your team, you know he's gonna make you better. But I don't know. It's hard to see all these LeBron James' coming over and you're still in the meta metaverse unit. So The the one

补充一点：我们常把元宇宙当作扎克伯格迅速转移目标的典型案例，但他并非直接转向AI。记得中间还经历过加密私聊的狂热期，他当时写了长篇备忘录强调——

other thing I would just add to this, that I was just reminded of, is we often, you know, bring up, yeah, the meta the metaverse element of it as as a easy one to to mention that Zuck was, you know, obsessed with and then sort of quickly changed focus. But remember, he didn't change focus right away to AI because it obviously took a little bit for it to come around. At first, there was the focus then became, if I remember right, in terms of order. At one point, he was highly focused on, like, encryption and personal one on one conversations versus, you know, they're he wrote this whole memo

私密对话。

Private to private.

对，隐私共享。没错。

Yeah. Private share. Privacy. Yeah. Yeah.

是的。所以那成了他们几个月的重点，因为之后加密货币的事情就开始出现了，对吧？他们还专门组建了一个早期团队，比如凯文·威尔就在那个团队里，如果你还记得的话。

Yeah. And so that was a focus for a few months, it seems like, because then then crypto stuff started happening. Right? And they had a whole team that they spun up that was early on it. And like Kevin Wheel was on that team, if you recall.

当时Meta内部还有很多人参与其中，看起来他们准备引领新一轮的加密热潮——当然，如果以现在的眼光看，他们入场实在太早了。我记得他们开发的产品叫Libra。但后来这个项目完全被放弃了，因为对他们不再有利。

And there were many other people within Meta at the time who were on that team who, you know, it seems like they were going to be at the forefront of, you know, a new crypto boom that, of course, they were just way too early for, if you want to consider it happening now. And Libra, I think was, yeah, the name of the product that they were working on. But again, that was a focus for a while until they just totally got rid of that because it was not advantageous to them anymore.

没错。所以'隐私转型'是他们试图捕捉社交分享趋势的尝试。就像我之前说的，我们不再在信息流分享内容，所有分享都转移到通讯应用了。他们通过这个转型宣告要抢占先机，某种程度上确实奏效了。

That's right. And so pivot to privacy was their attempt to capture where the social sharing was going. Like I mentioned earlier, that we weren't sharing in the feeds anymore and all sharing was happening in messaging apps. So that was their way of saying that's where it's going and we're gonna try to be at the forefront of that. And that, you know, in some ways worked.

他们拥有全球领先的通讯应用WhatsApp。虽然多年前就收购了它，但显然投入了大量产品精力——无论好坏。他们刚违背承诺引入了广告。这种看似无头苍蝇般追逐趋势的行为，其实大公司历史上不乏先例。

They have WhatsApp and that is the leading messaging app in the world. So I think there is I mean, they they had obviously bought it years beforehand, but clearly put a lot of product focus there, for better or worse. They obviously also just introduced advertising after promising they would not. So I think there is some merit in running around what seems like on the outside as chickens without a head trying to go trend to trend. There are definite stories of big companies in the past who've been like, Oh, we're too cool for that next new trend.

等到世界转向新领域时，那些自诩清高的公司还在生产扫描仪和复印机。所以Meta的策略看似滑稽，但确有智慧之处。

And then, you know, they're making scanners and copying machines as the world has moved on. So I think that meta looks a little ridiculous for this strategy, but there is some wisdom to it.

对。要知道这是扎克伯格的核心论点——凭借跨平台的广告基础设施，他们能频繁试错，这是其他公司做不到的。就像谷歌当年被嘲是'一招鲜'公司。

Yeah. And, you know, I I do think that because and this is a big part of of Zuckerberg's pitch, right? Because they have this fundamental underlying advertising infrastructure across their different social properties, they can take a lot of swings, whereas other companies cannot. Right? And they are if you remember, like, Google used to have definitely the notion thrown at them that they were a one trick pony, right?

当时人们认为谷歌只会做搜索广告。现在虽然仍是主业，但他们成功实现了多元化：云业务、Waymo自动驾驶等等。

That they could only ever do search ads. And that was the only business. Now, it's still obviously the primary element of the business, but they've done a pretty good job, I think, diversifying in many ways. Right? They have the cloud business, they have Waymo now, which is up and coming.

他们开辟了各种盈利渠道，比如完全货币化的YouTube——虽然仍是广告，但已是独立产品线。而Meta至今没找到这样的第二曲线，仍在靠VR设备和元宇宙尝试突破。

They have all different sorts of ways that they can potentially make money. YouTube, that's a different form of advertising, but still it's, you know, a different product line now that they have that's fully monetized, which is incredible. And Meta still hasn't found that yet. Right? Like they've been trying with the metaverse stuff and selling VR goggles and selling different types of products.

但目前几乎全部收入仍来自社交信息流广告。关键是要在占据优势时大胆尝试，如果你预见到现有业务可能被AI或其他平台颠覆，就该趁早布局。

But still, almost all of it comes from social feed advertising right now. But again, you want to take these swings while you have that in the position of power. And if you believe that that business is going to get disrupted in some way, be it by AI, people using other products, people spending more time on YouTube or Netflix and whatnot, you want to get it done while you can take all those swings while you can.

好。我们整场对话都在讨论Meta的超级智能计划——个人超级智能。和往常一样，我们还没定义这个概念。这是故意的，因为接下来我们要专门探讨：这个词到底什么意思？为什么大家都在用？

Okay. So this entire conversation we've been talking about Meta's super intelligence effort, personal super intelligence. And as with many conversations, we have yet to define it. But that is intentional because we are gonna make time to say, what is this word? Why do people keep using it?

这究竟意味着什么？我们马上就会揭晓。大家好，让我向你们介绍《Hustle每日秀》——一档融合商业、科技新闻与原创故事的播客，助你紧跟趋势潮流。超过200万专业人士订阅《Hustle》的每日邮件，获取他们对商业科技新闻犀利而富有洞见的解读。

And what could it possibly mean? And we're gonna do that right after this. Hey, everyone. Let me tell you about the hustle daily show, a podcast filled with business, tech news, and original stories to keep you in the loop on what's trending. More than 2,000,000 professionals read the hustle's daily email for its irreverent and informative takes on business and tech news.

如今他们推出了每日播客《Hustle每日秀》，由撰稿团队在15分钟内拆解重大商业头条，并阐释其重要性。你可以在当前使用的播客应用中搜索订阅。回到《Big Technology》播客现场，这是MG Seigler主持的每月首个周一特别版。MG的文章可在spyglass.org阅读。说到超级智能的定义，MG你刚写过相关文章《AI的无尽品牌重塑》，指出AI这个术语从通用人工智能（AGI）到如今超级智能的演变过程——这究竟是概念升级还是营销噱头？

Now they have a daily podcast called the hustle daily show, where their team of writers break down the biggest business headlines in fifteen minutes or less and explain why you should care about them. So search for the hustle daily show and your favorite podcast app, like the one you're using right now. And we're back here on big technology podcast, MG Seigler, Monday of first Monday of the month edition. You can find MG's writing at spyglass.org. And speaking of the definition of super superintelligence, MG, you actually have a piece on this, the endless rebranding of AI, basically saying that for a while AI was good enough, then people went to, gen AI, then they started talking about AGI, and now AGI isn't enough, And now we're talking about superintelligence.

接下来会怎样？超级智能究竟意味着什么？或者这纯粹是营销炒作？

What's next? What what does superintelligence mean, or is it purely marketing hype?

这个术语其实存在已久，真正引起我注意的是Ilya Sutskever创立Safe Superintelligence公司时。他显然有意通过这个命名与OpenAI的AGI路线形成差异化。

I mean, this is so obviously, the term has been around for a bit. It first really came on my radar, I think, actually, when Ilya Sutskever spun out and and made his company called Safe Superintelligence. Right? And presumably, he did that. Obviously, he did that on purpose, but presumably, he did it also to help differentiate from what OpenAI was doing.

当时OpenAI正全力推进AGI（通用人工智能），甚至将其写入与微软的合同条款——至今这仍是争议焦点。AGI被模糊定义为计算机达到人类智能水平（尽管存在争议），而超级智能则是更高级别的存在。

Right? They were at the time, it was all the talk was the march towards AGI. Famously, now they had it baked into their contract with Microsoft, which is still an ongoing dispute, it sounds like. And so, you know, they're deciding like, okay. Well, AGI, nebulously defined as sort of computers reaching human level intelligence, though some would disagree with that.

超级智能意味着超越人类认知极限——当然具体定义因人而异。根本问题在于连AGI本身都缺乏明确定义。就像AI概念先被泛化后又细分，AGI如今也面临同样困境。

And then superintelligence is a level above that. Right? It's it's it's going beyond what humans are capable of. Again, there are depending on what you read, depending on who you talk to, people disagree about this. No the part of the problem is no one ever really defined what AGI itself was.

现在超级智能概念也开始分化：个人超级智能、安全超级智能...微软也在研发自己的版本。这越来越像文字游戏，本质上都是营销手段。我们必须追问：你们究竟要构建什么？预期成果是什么？

And then, you know, going back again, as you did, like with with AI itself, it's like that was the all encompassing thing. But then we got all different sorts of, like, subsections of it because people were wanted to be more focused on it, and they thought AI was was too nebulous a term. And then AGI came along, and then AGI was too nebulous a term. So now superintelligence. Now superintelligence is too nebulous a term because we have personal superintelligence, and we have safe superintelligence.

整个局面已显得荒谬。这些术语越来越像营销话术。我们有必要要求从业者明确回答：你们实际构建的是什么？最终会产生什么结果？

Microsoft is working on their own variants of superintelligence that they want to talk about. And so it's it's getting a little silly. It feels all it's it just is obviously all marketing at this point. And so I I do feel like that, you know, you got to at some point pin people down to say, like, what are you actually trying to build and what what is the outcome of that going to be?

没错，正如上半场讨论的——本质上大家都在做同样的东西，只是换了不同标签。

Yeah. I think we can agree here, and this is something that we've been talking about in the first half. It's the same damn thing. It's the same thing. Everyone's building the same thing.

但有人会反驳说AGI代表人类级别智能（通过各类数学测试验证），而超级智能是更高层次。我们可能接近AGI但尚未完全实现，至于超级...

But people would argue with you about that. Right? Because they'd say, no. AGI, again, is is sort of human level intelligence, and we have we're close to that maybe, but we haven't quite gotten there yet with, you know, with all the various math tests and and the different, you know, tests that they've built to to prove that. And super safe or sorry.

常规超级智能只是比那更高一个层次。就像，很多人会对此争论不休，也有很多人会坚称它们其实是完全相同的概念。

Regular superintelligence is just a level beyond that. Like, there's lots of people who would argue about that and lots of people would argue for that they're the same exact thing.

我要站在桌子上大声说它们就是一回事。我认为关键在于——如果有不同的技术路径，比方说Facebook在这边研发超级智能，而OpenAI还在那边捣鼓过时的通用人工智能，那还能说得通。但他们现在都只是在训练大语言模型而已。

I'll I'll stand on the table here and say it's the same thing. I think it's if there were different techniques, think I this is really what it comes down to. If there are different techniques to build AGI and superintelligence, I would say, okay, sure. Facebook's building superintelligence over here and OpenAI is stuck building stale old AGI over there. But they're just training large language models.

是啊。更荒谬的是我们连基础概念都没界定清楚，就急着给这些衍生概念下定义——追溯这些术语的最初定义就知道有多滑稽。所以当我看到微软也跳进这个命名大战，试图给超级智能打上自家标签时，立刻写了那篇文章。

Yeah. And it's wild that we're trying to define the sort of offshoots of any of them when we haven't defined the first part of it and dating back to the original sort of definitions of these things. So it's it's a little bit silly. That's why obviously why I wrote the post once I saw that Microsoft, you know, was jumping in the ring as well to try to to come up with their own individual branding for superintelligence. And then, of course, you could see it.

扎克伯格那份我们正在讨论的新备忘录，标题就是这么写的对吧？但他开始植入这个概念要追溯到《信息报》杰西卡·莱森的采访，他突然漫不经心地提到'个人超级智能'，我当时就想：他该不会是想暗示他们专注微观层面吧？

So Zuckerberg's new memo that we're talking about, it's titled that. Right? But he started dropping this. The first time I heard him mention this was in an an interview with Jessica Lesson of the information where he just started, like, to casually mention personal superintelligence. And it's like, oh, did he is he just trying to, like, say something offhandedly about how they're, you know, they have a sort of micro focus?

结果不是。他反复强调这个词，明显是要把它打造成Meta的品牌标签。

But no. He just kept saying it over and over again that they clearly were gonna try to make this a branding thing for Meta.

说真的，只要带'超级'这个词就让人莫名兴奋。

Yeah. I mean, it's I think that it's very exciting when the word super is in there. I mean, really.

那什么时候出'究极智能'？我已经准备好了

Alright. When are we gonna get Ultra intelligence and I'm ready

坐等'究极'版

for Ultra.

超级究极巨无霸智能。绝对碾压我们之前讨论的那些——还记得通用人工智能吗？快忘了吧。

Super Ultra Mega Intelligence. It's gonna it's gonna just blow away what we had. Remember when we were talking about AGI? Forget that.

当年我们太天真了。现在得看超级巨无霸究极智能。对了，你文章里有意思的一点是微软实际上被法律禁止研发通用人工智能？

We were such losers back then. Now Super Mega ultra intelligence. That's where it's at. One one interesting thing I saw in your story was that, Microsoft cannot actually work on AGI legally. This is what you write.

恼人的OpenAI合同里确实这么写着，这揭示了Mustafa Soleiman过去一年左右传达的论点——微软乐于看到恶意软件的前沿工作交给OpenAI。所以或许这意味着，微软不能构建AGI因为OpenAI在做这件事，但它可以研究超级智能因为合同里没禁止这一项？

The pesky OpenAI contract says as much, which sheds light on the talking points that Mustafa Soleiman delivered over the past year or so that Microsoft is happy to see see the frontier of malware work to OpenAI. So maybe this is maybe this is, meaningful that, like, well, Microsoft can't build AGI because OpenAI is doing it, but it can work on superintelligence because that's not in the contract?

没错。我感觉这事绝对被讨论得不够。之前有过报道，但现在因为OpenAI和微软可能正就AGI条款重新谈判，关系未来如何发展，原始合同里那个所谓的'条款'才又被曝光——微软承诺过他们自己不会涉足AGI研发。事后看来，这引出了各种耐人寻味的点。就连Mustafa Suleiman都说过：我们很乐意让OpenAI做前沿基础模型。

Yeah. And so this, I feel like, is definitely under talked about. It's been reported before, but I feel like now because OpenAI and and Microsoft are maybe in the midst, in the heat of of a new negotiation over the AGI term and and how that's gonna play out for, you know, their relationship going forward, It has come to light again that, yeah, apparently, a part of their original contract with, you know, the quote unquote clause in it around AGI was that Microsoft said that they would not, you know, themselves go to work go after AGI and working on that. And that, in hindsight, brings up all sorts of, yeah, interesting points. I think, you know, when you've talked to even Mustafa Suleiman, he's brought up the point of like, yeah, you know, we're happy to let OpenAI work on the cutting edge, foundation models.

我们只需退居二线做些定制化方案——但现实是，如果会导致AGI，他们技术上就不能碰前沿领域。当然他们可以说不会导致AGI，但所有人都会反对这说法。更高层面上，Sam Altman曾在备忘录里把话题从AGI转向超级智能，我认为部分原因就是微软合同里的条款。这显然是两家公司的矛盾点，Satya Nadella甚至在播客里说过AGI近在咫尺的说法很荒谬。

We'll just we'll sit back and work on sort of more tailored, custom tailored one when the reality was, yeah, they're technically not allowed to work at the cutting edge if it's going to lead to AGI. Now they could say maybe it wouldn't, but everyone else would probably disagree with that. And I also think at an even higher level, part of the reason why I would imagine that you even saw Sam Altman sort of pivot his talking points from AGI to superintelligence at one point in various memos that he's written himself was because of, yeah, the clause in the Microsoft contract. And it was clearly a point of tension, you know, between those two companies. And it's like you've heard Satya Nadella talk on on, I think, on podcasts about, like, the you know, I think at one point, he called it ridiculous, the notion of sort of that we were close to AGI.

对吧？因为他显然不希望接近AGI，那会破坏与OpenAI的商业条款。所以Sam Altman改谈超级智能是不是在给他台阶下？但既然原始条款禁止微软研究AGI，现在他们当然乐于接受这种概念转换——Mustafa Sulaiman可以尽情研究各种'超级智能'变体，反正不算AGI。

Right? Because, obviously, he's very incentivized for them not to be close to that because it would potentially sever the business terms with with OpenAI. And so it was almost like, was Sam Altman sort of throwing him a bone by starting to talk about other things other than AGI and rebranding as superintelligence? But yeah, if the clause is in there originally that Microsoft is not able to work on AGI And now they're happy to have this rebranding too, where Mustafa Sulaiman can work on all the variants of superintelligence that he wants to because it's not AGI.

这引出了我们讨论的重点：微软和OpenAI的诡异合同关系。你还指出更少被谈论的是——科技巨头即便用不同马甲也掌控着AI浪潮。这是你整理的清单：英伟达持股OpenAI、XAI、Mistral、Perplexity、Cohere、Scale AI...哇好多。

It sort of brings us to this point that we're talking about how Microsoft and OpenAI are linked and they have these weird contractual terms. And you also point out that something that's not talked about enough is just that big tech owns so much of this AI moment, even if they go by different names. So this is the list, that you put together. NVIDIA owns stakes in OpenAI, XAI, Mistral, Perplexity, Cohere, Scale AI. Oh, that's a bunch.

我都不知道他们投了这么多

I didn't realize they had stakes in

远不止这些，我刚列举的是主要项目。他们几乎给所有玩家都投了钱。

all It's even more than that. Those are just like the major ones that I was pulling out. They own so many stakes in everyone.

微软持股OpenAI和Mistral。苹果没投任何AI明星初创，不过可能对Perplexity有兴趣...算了这幻想就此打住。谷歌投了Anthropic，

Microsoft owns stakes in OpenAI and Mistral. Apple owns stakes in none of the big AI startups, but there's potential for, you know, maybe perplexity. Okay. I'm gonna let go of that dream at this point. Google owns a stake in Anthropic.

亚马逊也投了Anthropic。Meta持有Scale AI和Safe Super Intelligence股份，甲骨文投了Cohere。你说这是分散押注，是否意味着无论AI革命由Meta内部还是某家初创实现，科技巨头都能稳赚不赔？

Amazon owns a stake in Anthropic. Meta owns stakes in Scale AI and Safe Super Intelligence now, and Oracle owns a stake in Cohere. You say this is a lot of hedging. Does that mean basically that, like, if this AI moment takes off, like, big tech is just gonna be you know, they're gonna be good whether it happens in a start whether they build superintelligence at home at Meta or whether they a startup actually is able to do this?

当然他们最想亲自摘桃子。但有趣的是除了Anthropic融资时——毕竟亚马逊谷歌持股比例很高——这事很少被讨论。据说Anthropic在融资文件里限定了持股上限，就是不想被控制。当年Dario离开OpenAI，就有传言说他不满微软介入影响使命。

I mean, obviously, to be clear, they want to do it themselves, right? And they want to capture that full opportunity. But it is interesting to me that this isn't talked about all that often, except around when new fundraisers happen, in particular with Anthropic, right, because Amazon and Google own such relative large portions of that company. And famously, Anthropic apparently built into their fundraising documents that those companies can only own up to a certain threshold because they didn't want to be beholden. You know, famously, when when Dario left OpenAI, there was some talk that he didn't like the Microsoft element getting involved, right, with with OpenAI and what that was going to do to the mission.

所以，是的，所有这些大型科技公司——除了前面提到的苹果——基本上都在这些不同企业中持有股份，有些甚至持有多家公司的股份，因为这些公司需要筹集大量资金。我认为，如果简单推演AI的终极成功状态，假设OpenAI、Anthropic等少数几家公司会成为下一个价值数万亿美元的企业。比如微软当前正在进行的谈判中，如果他们最终持有OpenAI三分之一的股份，而该公司某天估值达到十万亿美元，这对微软而言也是笔可观的数字。虽然以微软的体量，这笔投资目前已经意义重大，但还比不上他们的许多核心业务。不过要记住，现在仍处于相对早期阶段。

So But yeah, all of these All the big tech companies, aside from Apple, as mentioned, basically have their stakes in these different companies and some of them with multiple stakes now because these companies have had to raise so much money. And I do think if you were just to sort of extrapolate out in the ultimate success state of AI and say that OpenAI and Anthropic and maybe a couple others are the next multi trillion dollar companies. If, say, Microsoft, again, in the negotiations that they're going through right now, if they end up owning one third of OpenAI and it's one day worth $10,000,000,000,000 that's meaningful money even to Microsoft. It's already meaningful money to them because that company is so highly valued, but it's not more meaningful than a lot of their other sort of core businesses. But again, this is relative early days.

如果你相信AI尚处发展初期，而这些巨头持有大量股权，最终这些投资将成为他们业务中极其重要的组成部分。这让我想起当年微软在Facebook上市前对其投资时，人们激烈反对这笔交易，认为史蒂夫·鲍尔默又干了件蠢事，结果这却成了他最成功的投资之一。当然，事后诸葛亮谁都会当。但我认为这是个精明之举，因为他们当时还达成了广告销售等多项合作。

If you believe this is early days of AI and these players own these giant stakes, it will end up being a huge, huge element of those companies. And I was reminded of when, back in the day when Microsoft invested in Facebook before they went public and people were like up in arms about the deal thinking it was such a bad deal. Like Steve Ballmer was doing another boneheaded thing and ended up being one of the best deals that he ever struck, Certainly, you know, easy, of course, to say in hindsight. But I think it was a savvy move, you know, because they did it alongside a partnership. I think it was involved with with ad sales and various other things at the time.

可能Bing搜索也参与了合作——年代太久记不清了。但我现在确实是以这个视角来看待的。微软的错误在于Facebook上市后不久就抛售了股份，那些股份如今本应价值数百亿。同理，如果微软、谷歌、亚马逊长期持有这些AI公司的股份，而这些公司最终成长为万亿美元级企业，这些股权未来可能价值数万亿。

Maybe Bing was involved in it as well. It was a long time ago. But but I do sort of view it through that lens now. Their mistake was selling off that stake in in Facebook, you know, a little bit after perhaps it went public, whereas now that would be worth billions and billions of dollars. And again, if Microsoft, if Google, if Amazon hold on to these AI stakes and these companies end up being worth trillions of dollars, these stakes themselves could be worth trillions of dollars down the road.

没错，总得把Bing扯进来才完整。我可不能把Bing排除在等式之外。不过...

Yep. You always gotta get Bing involved. That's important. I can't leave Bing out of the equation. But it

的

Of

你知道吗，这很有趣，因为它真正凸显了投入的资金、资源和关注度有多大。就像我们刚谈到的扎克伯格对此的投入，还有这些巨额投资——谷歌持有Anthropic部分股权，亚马逊也持有Anthropic股份。

you know, it's interesting because it it really underscores how much money, resources, attention. Like, just spoke about how much money and attention Zuckerberg is putting into this. We talked about, of course, like these massive investments. Like, we talked about Google has some of Anthropic. Amazon has some of Anthropic.

实际上我记得分别是30亿和80亿美元，他们合计持有约30%甚至更多股份。谷歌和亚马逊对Anthropic的持股比例，比微软对OpenAI的持股还要高。这太疯狂了。我在想，如果回到'所有人都在造相同东西'的局面，这些赌注要怎么才能赢？

Actually, it's, I think, 3 and $8,000,000,000 respectively. They own something like you had this in your story, something like 30% or or more of the company. Actually, Google and Amazon own more of Anthropic than Microsoft owns of OpenAI. So it's wild. And I just wonder, I mean, if we go back to, like, everyone building the same thing, is there a way that these bets pay off?

作为投资者，你认为这些投资要取得回报需要什么条件？我们得看到哪些迹象才能证明钱没白花？

Like, what would it take? So you've spent a lot of time as an investor. What would it take for these bets to pay off? Like, what do we need to see for this money to be money well spent?

先说清楚，根据我查阅的法庭文件计算，谷歌和亚马逊合计持股略高于36%，而微软在能够转换为实际股权的情况下，可能持有OpenAI约33%的股份。至于如何才算成功？首先必须要有可行的商业模式...

So and just to be clear, yeah, Google and Amazon combined, I believe, if my math is correct from all these court documents that I sort of went through. But I believe it's it's roughly correct that I think them those two combined own something just north of 36%, whereas Microsoft, again, potentially in this scenario would own 33 or around that percent of OpenAI if and when they can convert to actually have equity ownership in the company. To answer your question, though, yeah, what would what would it take? Takes a business model, first and foremost. I mean Yeah.

那倒是不错。

That'd be nice.

要知道，OpenAI和Anthropic从年度经常性收入（ARR）的角度来看确实发展得不错。它们的模型虽略有差异，但都在各自市场领域有效推广着自家产品。不过目前这些收入还不足以让任何一家实现盈利。因此它们必须采取多种措施——要么保持当前惊人的增速继续扩张（这在某种程度上是可能的），但更可能的是需要在业务中叠加其他层级，搭建多元化的商业模式来实现资金运转。

You know, both OpenAI and Anthropic certainly are it seems like are growing well, you know, on the from an ARR perspective. You know, their models are obviously slightly different, but they're doing a good job in different markets sort of selling selling their wares. But it's certainly not enough to turn either one of them profitable at the moment. And so they're going to need they're going to have to do a number a number of different things. Either they have to keep growing at the incredible growth rates that they've been growing at, and that's, you know, possible up to a certain extent, more likely that they're going to have to add other layers to their business, other stools of their business to figure out how to to make sort of the money work.

我认为最大的变数在于，就像当年的谷歌一样，这些公司若想达到终极成功状态，最终可能会创造出新型商业模式——倒不一定是前所未闻的模式，而是像谷歌乃至Meta那样。它们通过搜索广告的意图匹配，通过信息流广告，开创了比传统广告更 lucrative 的变现形式。

I think the main wildcard, though, is much like Google back in the day. It might end up being that these companies in the ultimate success state, if they're able to reach it, end up creating sort of new models and not necessarily new that we've never heard of before, but much like Google and even, you know, Meta to some extent. Right? They basically created new forms of advertising that ended up being more lucrative than previous forms of advertising because of search ads, because of intent, right? And then with Meta, because of the feed.

这些都是传统变现方式的革新版本。那么AI时代的未来版本会是什么样？虽然OpenAI的Sam Altman曾明确表示不愿走广告路线，但我认为他们最终还是会踏上这条路。不过关键点在于：如果真要走这条路，其形态必将与传统的搜索广告截然不同。

And so these are different forms of an old school version of monetization. But so what does that look like in the future version of AI? And, you know, OpenAI is famously sort of said, right, that Sam Altman didn't want to go down the path of advertising. And I mean, I would chalk that up to I do think that they will eventually go down that path. But I also chalk that up to the fact that, again, I think that if they go down that path and if it's meaningful to them, it will look different than what sort of search advertising has historically looked like.

考虑到目前搜索功能已整合进ChatGPT，广告必然会成为其中一环，但表现形式需要革新。回到如何实现企业终极成功的问题，我认为必须构建多元化业务支柱——不能仅靠API销售或产品高级订阅，还需要拓展其他领域，很可能包括硬件设备。

I think there will be a part of that because, obviously, search is a part of of ChatGPT right now. But I think it just look it probably has to look different. And, again, you ask about what it takes to make these companies ultimately successful. I think it's gonna be multi sort of stools of their business and not just selling APIs or not just selling access, you know, in in premium versions and whatnot of their products. I think that they're gonna have to have a lot of different things, including probably devices.

OpenAI确实已在布局硬件。但我认为关键在于：通过传统商业模式的新形态——比如各种创新广告形式——来实现突破。现在戴上VC的帽子思考：该如何建模预测？虽然可以基于现有业务增长率来推算，但...

Right? Obviously, we know OpenAI is working on that. But I do think that there will be different flavors of advertising, newfangled versions of of different old business models is what leads to their success. With the with the investor hat on, with the VC hat on, how do you how do you try to model that out? I mean, again, you can model out where you think the growth rate is, you know, just of the current business and and what that looks like.

OpenAI的模型预测2029年实现盈利。但根据我作为投资者与OpenAI及其他初创公司打交道的经验，这些五年、十年期的预测模型从未准确兑现过——有时会超预期，但绝不会严丝合缝。这类模型本质上是描绘'如何在烧掉数百亿后可能盈利'的路线图。

And I think OpenAI has said in their models that they're going to get to profitability by 2029. The late again, having had some experience now with with OpenAI in particular on the investor side, but with other companies, just, you know, generic X companies say, those models that are five year, ten year horizon models, those never play out the way that they're modeled out to. Now, there can be upside to that. Maybe they play out better in some cases, but they never exactly like it. It's just to try to paint a picture of how you can get to a space where you could say be profitable even when you're burning billions and billions of dollars.

而AI行业正在上演这个剧本的极致版本。

This is just the extreme version of that with AI.

没错。我之前为Dario的专访采访过Lightspeed的Ravi Mantra，询问他如何评估这项投资——这里只是转述大意，并非精确引用。

Right. So I spoke with Ravi Mantra from Lightspeed for the Dario profile that I wrote. And I said, tell me how you thought about this investment. And I'm going to get it just directionally accurate. It's not going be precise.

他的思路是：先测算全球知识劳动力的总价值池，再判断AI能否替代或增强这个市场。结论是150-200万亿美元的市场规模下，即便只获取600亿或1000亿的份额，也足以获得风投级别的回报。

But he basically is like, well, we took a look at the entire pool for knowledge labor and then said, well, could this just either augment or replace that? And he said, yeah. The market is 15 to $20,000,000,000,000. He goes, you work backwards and just say at 60,000,000,000 or a 100,000,000,000, could you get a venture style return? You absolutely could.

有时市场测算需要自上而下的视角。他透露Lightspeed已向Anthropic投资10亿美元——这种基于巨大未知和疯狂预测的决策方式实在耐人寻味。

Sometimes it's about how you size the markets top down. And then he told me that they put a billion dollar check into Anthropic. So it's just fascinating how these how these it's it's so unknown, and and such wild projections to get to the numbers you have to get to.

我举个例子，比如上一代公司中这种情况的体现，我曾参与过的一个小案例——围绕Uber投资。当时你观察市场，他们只有黑色出租车业务。这时候就需要进行所谓的TAM分析（总可寻址市场分析），对吧？

I'll give you one, just example of, like, you know, an last generation of of company that sort of this this played out at that, you know, that I was a small part of, which was, you know, around an Uber investment where it's like you're looking at the market. They just had the black cab market at that point. And it's like, how do you do what you're talking about basically the TAM analysis? Right? The total addressable market.

当时如何看待这个问题？早期的Uber必须蕴含更多可能性。我记得UberX的雏形理念是让模式更民主化，不仅限于豪华车服务，但这个构想尚未成熟，也未正式推出。所以你需要相信这个愿景。

And and how do you think about that? And with with Uber back in the day, it always had to be like that there would be something else to it. And, you know, there was the notion I think the early notion of what UberX would become where it, you know, it more democratizes the model, and it's not just about black cars, but it wasn't fully baked yet. It wasn't rolled out yet. And so you sort of had to buy into this vision of it.

最终确实实现了，但关键还包括Uber Eats等意外要素——当初谁能预见送餐会成为核心业务？虽然有过模糊设想，比如利用司机网络成为民主化版联邦快递，运送包裹和其他物品。

It ended up obviously working out that way. But there still were other elements that were key to what they were doing, including things like Uber Eats, right, which came along, which you never would have sort of envisioned was necessarily a part of it. There was some inkling like, yeah, could they be like the next version of, you know, again, like a democratized FedEx or something like that. Right? Because they have all these drivers on the road and you can you can move parcels around and move different things around.

但这些都只是理论。你尝试做市场分析推演，但事后回想都很可笑，因为包括公司自身在内，其实没人能预知未来。归根结底还是那句话：打造好产品。

And and but it's all just theoretical. And so, yeah, you try to do like this these market analysis and figure it out. But it's all very, you know, silly to look back upon at the end of the day because no one actually knows, including the companies. Right? It's just it all almost always goes back to the notion of like, build a good product.

如果用户喜爱产品就会持续使用，未必意味着立即找到正确商业模式。但只要拥有足够用户并找到变现途径，显然就是巨大机遇。至少对AI公司来说，比起当年那些VC补贴型企业，它们已有可行商业模式。

If people love using it, they're going to continue using it. And that doesn't necessarily mean that you're going to figure out the right model for it. But if you have enough users and you figure out a way to monetize those users, it's going to be a massive opportunity, obviously. And at least the good news for these AI companies, unlike some of the other sort of, if you want to call them VC subsidized businesses back in the day, they have models that are working. Right?

几年前太多公司依赖风投补贴，根本没有商业模式，只想着先扩张...后盈利。而现在...

Like, were so many different companies even just a few years ago where, again, it was VC subsidized. They had no actual models, and it was just like, let's get to scale dot dot dot profit thing. Right? And now

没错。

Yep.

至少现在有现金流进来。问题在于它们能否降低训练模型的巨额开支，直至达到收支平衡的规模。

At the very least, we have we have, you know, money coming in. And it's just a matter of, are they going to be able to ever slow down the spend that they have to do to train these models in order to get to a scale at which they can actually finally sort of equalize that a bit.

从这个角度看，你如何分析它们在人才上的投资？想想这个：亚马逊上市时市值4亿美元，而扎克伯格据传正开出十亿美元offer挖人。

And in that context, how would you analyze the investments in people that they're making? Because think of it this way, something Amatr told me. Amazon went public at $400,000,000. Mark Zuckerberg is handing reportedly billion dollar offers to people.

是的。没错。

Yep. Yep.

那么你需要做些什么才能从中获得回报呢？

So what would you need to do to get the payoff on that?

这就是我赞同扎克伯格观点的地方。他提出的论点本质上可以归结为——我曾写过一篇相关文章——一切都是相对的。对吧？比如，如果Meta现在每年投入约750亿美元资本支出用于AI基础设施建设，那么将其中一部分用于雇佣真正能推动项目的人才，难道不合理吗？

This is where I am sympathetic to Zuckerberg's arguments. You know, he's made the argument that basically it's it essentially boils down to, and I wrote a post about this, that it's all relative. Right? Like, okay. If you are Meta and you're spending whatever it is, $75,000,000,000 on CapEx right now per year on this on infrastructure build out for AI, does it not make sense to spend, you know, some subset of that on the people who can actually make this work?

这就变成了一道数学题：怎样分配才合理？完全可以论证说，迄今为止人力投资的比重远低于资本支出或基础设施投入。这种失衡很诡异——正如我们之前讨论的——他正在市场上制造异常扰动，因为这种薪酬标准完全颠覆了历史常态。原本科技公司工程师的'正常薪资'是数十万美元，现在却可能有人能拿到数亿美元来参与项目。

And then it's just, you know, it sort of becomes like this math equation of like, well, what makes sense? And you could certainly make the argument that to date, the human level of investment has been way under indexed versus what the, again, the CapEx or the infrastructure has been. And it's a weird dynamic, right, for reasons that we were talking about before, where he's creating this weird disturbance in the market because it's totally changing what the historical norms have been in terms of compensation. So you can have people who are getting paid what the quote unquote normal rate was for an engineer before, which is, say, in the hundreds of thousands of dollars at one of these tech companies. And now you have people getting paid hundreds of millions of dollars potentially to come work on this.

再次强调，我试图理解扎克伯格的立场。如果你需要在AI领域追赶，每年投入750多亿美元建设基础设施，那么即便开出1亿美元合约，人力成本相比基建支出仍是九牛一毛。而若人才是项目成功的关键要素，你就必须这么做。

And again, trying to be sympathetic to Zuckerberg's position here. If you're needing to catch up in AI, you're spending $75,000,000,000 plus a year on infrastructure. The amount that you're spending on people is gonna be even even with these $100,000,000 contracts is gonna be such a small subset of what you're spending on infrastructure. And if they're a key ingredient to making it work, you got to do it.

没错。我们已经为那些致力于元宇宙的可怜工程师默哀过了。但本期标题的另一部分是'裁员与高薪'。你怎么看待科技行业当前的现象——在发出天价聘书的同时，数万人正被裁员？从财务角度看，他们似乎并不需要裁掉这些人。

Right. And so we've already poured one out to the poor engineers who are working on the metaverse. But part of the title of this episode is layoffs and payoffs. And what do you make of the fact that we're seeing, this moment in the tech industry where literally tens of thousands of people are being laid off as these mega offers come in. It seems like they don't really need to lay off those people from a financial standpoint.

那为何要大规模裁员？特别是考虑到微软的情况。

So why would they cut so many? I mean, thinking about Microsoft in particular.

是的。因为萨提亚·纳德拉为此发布了内部备忘录——我猜公开是因为知道会泄露——本质上他试图解释：微软今年已分多轮裁掉约1.5万人。而与此同时，他们正疯狂增加资本支出，还重金聘请像穆斯塔法·苏莱曼这样的人才并收购其公司。

Yeah. And because Sachin Nadella wrote a memo about this, which he released internal memo, which he released publicly, I'm sure, because it was gonna leak. And so, you know, they had they wanted to to get ahead of this anyway. But he's basically trying to explain they've done, I think the number is in total now, 15,000 people have been laid off from Microsoft over a couple rounds or a few rounds this year. And that's, you know, again, in the same time as we're talking about that they're that they're spending insane amount of money on CapEx and just to hire people like Mustafa Suleiman to come over and acquiring his company.

如何解释这种矛盾？纳德拉将其称为这个时代的'谜题'——表面上看不合逻辑，但本质上我们正处于AI变革时期（套用所有人的陈词滥调）。但我认为深层原因有几个：首先，企业普遍在重新评估是否真的需要这么多员工。

And so how do you sort of square that circle? Satya Nadella basically tried to do it, That calling sort of tried to do it. He called it an enigma, I think, of a of a time and and that it doesn't make a lot of sense on paper. But that basically, you know, we're in this transformational moment with AI, yada yada, what everyone says. But I do think, like, there's a there's a number of things going on here one level deeper, which is one, I do think that we're businesses in general are sort of looking at the landscape and figuring out, do they need all of these people?

如今多数科技公司员工规模都超过10万，其中很多人从事的工作——残酷地说——可能被管理层视为'过时的创新'，或是AI即将替代的领域。其次，他们知道华尔街终将对这种资本支出感到不安，尤其当AI收入未能同步快速增长时。

Tech companies in particular now, almost all of them are around 100,000 or more people, you know, on their payroll. And a lot of those people are doing things which, you know, the unfortunate truth is that the, you know, the internal powers that be, the leadership infrastructure probably views them as like not necessarily They're not bad people, but they're doing stuff that was last year's innovations. Right? Or they're doing stuff that they might think that AI is able to eventually replace, if not now, but sooner rather than later. I also think that there's a part of it where, look, they know that Wall Street at some point is gonna get skittish on this CapEx spend, and especially if the AI revenue isn't, you know, growing in in concert with it at some point soon.

因此我认为这也是向华尔街示好的方式：'虽然我们在资本支出上看似挥霍，但财务上仍保持审慎。我们正在重组业务架构——淘汰不再需要的人员，同时引进AI领域的关键人才'。这种矛盾现象就像是我文章标题的缩影：'赢家通吃'时代的真实写照。

And so I do think that this is a way to throw a bone to Wall Street and say, like, look, even though, you know, it looks like that we're being sort of wild on our spend when it comes to CapEx, we are being prudent financially. We're thinking about, you know, how how we, you know, basically organize the business overall. And and that includes, you know, letting go of some of the people that we've had previously that we feel like we don't need anymore while we continue to bring on new people that we do feel like we need, you know, from from the AI perspective and and building that out. And so the the weird things of how this plays out to me, it's almost like a microcosm, right, of, like, the the overall debate being had about, you know, as I titled my thing, like, of the haves and haves nots.

但这是一种绝妙的否定。你你写的有许多，也有许多，我认为这真的就是它

But it's a great sort of no. You you write the have lots and the have have lots, which I think is just it really is It's

不仅仅是拥有。而是拥有更多钱。正如我所说，我认为在某种程度上，他们得到的报价比任何职位（包括这些公司的CEO）所获得的都要高。或许有些明星运动员在考虑代言费和薪资总和时能拿到类似的数额。

above just having. It's having Right. More money Lots. Than I as I put, I think, at one point, it's basically they're getting offers more money than than anyone gets offered for any position, including the CEOs of these companies. Maybe there's some star athletes who make something comparable when consider their endorsement deals alongside whatever they make in salary.

但这笔金额实在惊人。你如何将其与这些裁员相权衡？我将其视为我们所处世界的一个缩影——社会一端是超级富豪，另一端则是每日挣扎求生的普通人。这种极端在公司内部同样存在，会导致怎样的内部政治和怪异的企业动态？我想这就是为什么萨提亚·纳德拉等人要发布那封基本备忘录，试图未雨绸缪。

But it's just an incredible amount of money. And how do you weigh that against yeah, these layoffs? And again, it's like I think of it as like a sort of a microcosm of, yeah, like the world in which we live in which, you know, there's the extremes of society with the ultra billionaires while people are struggling, you know, on the ground on a daily basis. And the microcosm that that that can be within a company itself, what does that lead to in terms of internal politics and weird intercompany dynamics? And I think that's part of why I think Satya Nadella and others have written that basic memo of like, I think that they're trying to get ahead of that.

最后我想说，类似情况我们已经见过多次。安迪·贾西等人传达的信息很明确：要么立即将AI融入工作，要么出局。因为变革已至，这将是我们未来的商业模式。

And also, lastly, I would just say, because we've seen this a few times now, and I think from Andy Jassy and others, they're basically giving the message that, look, you got to incorporate AI into what you do or you got to get off board right now because this is coming and this is how we're all going to do business. So do it right now or else you're gone.

没错。文章开头简直就是《双城记》的翻版——这是最好的时代，也是最坏的时代。这个开头真是绝了。

Yep. You go full tale of two cities at the beginning of that piece. It was the best of times. It was the worst of times. I mean, that is the way to start that piece.

好的，我们到此结束。AI写作颇具争议。我认为AI的写作水平正在达到基本可用的程度。

Okay. So let's end here. AI for writing. It's pretty controversial. I think AI is getting to the point where it's starting to write adequately.

不算优秀，但尚可。我个人不用它写作，但阅读AI生成内容时不再有排斥感。你精准指出了关键——写作不仅是传递信息的方式，更是组织思维、进行思考的途径。

Not well, but adequately. I don't use it for writing, but when I read AI written stuff, I no longer have a gag reflex. But you write, I think, something very, very, spot on about what it means, for our society or our lives, and it's that writing is not just a way to communicate information. It's a way to organize your thoughts. It's a way to think.

我们过分关注AI写作的输出，却极少关注输入环节。如果人们完全依赖AI工具来表达思想，这里将出现严重问题。请详细阐述你的观点，并谈谈你认为AI写作最终会是利大于弊还是相反。

And so we focus so much on the output of AI writing, but very little on the input. And that's where it's gonna hurt if people start relying entirely on these AI tools to convey their thoughts. So kinda take us through your thinking there and Yeah. Talk a little bit about whether you think AI writing is gonna be a net positive or negative.

是的。这个观点源于我对使用AI写作的推演——就像你一样，我目前并不使用。我在思考：未来会使用吗？技术现在发展到什么程度了？

Yeah. This this came from me just trying to extrapolate out how I would view using AI to write, which I don't like you. I don't right now. And it's like, would I ever? And I was trying to think through, like, yeah, how how good is the technology now?

正如你所说，AI似乎已能胜任多种写作类型。我一直在思考电子邮件这个痛点——和许多人一样，我长期厌恶邮件。十五年前我在TechCrunch工作时就撰文宣布放弃使用邮件，当时那篇文章引发不少争议。

And to your point, it seems like, you know, it's getting good enough for a lot of different types of writing. And I've also been thinking a lot about one thing I hate is email as many people do, but I've long written about my sort of dislike of it. Fame is a long time ago. Fifteen years ago, I quit for a long time doing email And I wrote about it in TechCrunch when I when I wrote there back in the day. And I got a lot of a lot of flack for that story.

但我觉得它之所以引起共鸣，是因为人们会想：你真的需要亲自做这件事吗？我认为在AI发展至今的节点上，你可能确实不再需要了。对吧？比如你可以让AI代写邮件。而最终的发展方向很可能是：另一端也有AI在阅读这些邮件，演变成机器人与机器人之间的通信，最后只给你发一份待办事项清单，列明需要采取行动的内容。

But but I think it also resonated with people because it's like, well, do you actually need to do it? And I think we're getting to the point with AI where you probably don't need to do it anymore. Right? Like, because you could basically have AI write your emails for you. And then I do think eventually the way that it plays out is that then you have AI reading those emails on the other end and sort of it ends up these bots sort of writing to other bots and then sending you like a to do list of whatever needs the action items need to be from that.

因此我从这个角度思考过，但转念想到我真正热爱的写作本身——我的工作内容和创作乐趣。我永远不会用AI来代笔，哪怕是撰写关于AI的文章，因为这会剥夺写作带给我的价值。和许多人一样，写作能帮助我思考，梳理个人观点。我相信很多人也有同感，即便他们未必意识到这一点。

And so I was thinking about it from that perspective, but then I then I go to, you know, my actual love of writing and and sort of what I what I do and why I love to do it. And I would never use AI to write, say, an article about even AI for me because that would take away what I the value I get out of actually writing, which is writing like many people. It helps me think. It helps me form my own thoughts. And so I do think that that's true of a lot of people even if they don't necessarily realize it.

我认为职业写作者或经常写作的人能体会到这种本质，但其他人可能会忽略这个事实。不过作为社会整体，我推测未来可能是：像邮件这类繁琐的写作会被自动化取代，但创造性写作不会消失——甚至包括那些帮助你整理思路的备忘录。因为这些写作的关键在于思考过程本身，而不仅仅是纸面上的成果，它关乎你头脑中如何形成并组织想法。

I think that people who write for a living or write a lot do realize that, you know, real element to it, but I think people who don't, you know, probably gloss over that fact. But I, you know, I do think, like, as a society, I would imagine that it plays out in a in a way where maybe there's some level of writing like email, like the tedious stuff that does get automated away, but the the sort of certainly, the creative endeavors, but also even just, yeah, like, the the memos that help you sort of formulate your own thoughts. Those don't go away because it's just about the process. It's just as much about the process of writing as it is about what you put down on paper, what goes on in your head and how you formulate those thoughts.

这让我开始反思：虽然我清楚写作的价值，但眼下正发生着教授们在推特上晒学生迟交作业的截图，结尾还写着'去问ChatGPT'。学生们直接复制聊天机器人的内容，而教授们的批改反馈可能也是AI生成的。这样下去，社会将变成人们互相转发AI文本的循环。考虑到我们过去写的那些繁琐内容，或许不算最糟的情况——但确实存在这种风险：缺乏写作，我们对事物的思考将不再深入。

It does make me wonder about whether I see the value, obviously, in writing, but I also know what's happening right now, where there's these great screenshots that go around Twitter of professors scorning their students for being late on their assignment and ending it with Ask ChatGPT. Like, they're copying and pasting it directly out of the chatbot, and those students are gonna be like, Okay, well, here's the assignment, and then they're gonna paste their assignment, and it's gonna say, ask chat, GPT. So we're just gonna be a society, I think, of just people shuffling AI written text back and forth, which like, give it I mean, maybe you're right. Given the amount of tedious stuff that we've been writing in our lives, that might not be the worst thing, but I think there is that risk of the fact that, like, yeah, we're not gonna think as deeply about things anymore without writing.

说到底，学生作弊根本不是新鲜事。这种现象一直存在，对吧？

Look, the last thing I would say about that is student cheating is nothing new. It's always existed. Right?

只不过现在用上了大语言模型。

Just began with large language models.

之前还有计算器之类的工具。我认为最终社会会找到平衡点。当然，由于当前大语言模型的强大能力和技术的新颖性，这确实是个现实问题。我们需要经历很长的学习曲线，才能界定哪些场景适用AI，哪些不适用。但归根结底，如果是为个人成长而做的事——无论是写作还是其他——选择自动化工具实际上是在剥夺自我成长的机会。

Calculators and everything before that. And so I think ultimately that will sort of suss itself out in some way. I do think it's a real issue, obviously, because of how good these LLMs are and how new you know, this this whole wave is right now. And so it's gonna take a lot of learning curve to get to the point where we sort of, again, reach an equilibrium of where it where it makes sense, where it doesn't. But I do think at the end of the day, like, if you're doing something for your own, you know, purposes, be it writing, be it many other different elements of life, like, you're only robbing yourself if you're using, a tool, you know, to do it in an automated fashion.

所以对于某些不想写的作业，用AI无伤大雅。但人生总会有你愿意投入的事情，那些能带来价值的事物。我相信这个问题最终会自然解决。

So, yeah, for maybe for some writing assignments that you don't wanna do, fine. You didn't wanna do them. That's fine. But ultimately, there's gonna be something that you do wanna do or that you get value out of that. I think that that will work itself out.

我完全同意。好了各位，我们的网站是spyglass.org。MJ Siegler每月第一个周一都会来节目做客，这是我们系列对谈的第二期，希望这个系列能持续下去。

I agree completely. Alright, folks. The website is spyglass.org. MJ Siegler joins us the first first Monday of every month. This is part two of what I hope will be a long series.

MJ，再次见到你真高兴。感谢你的参与。

MJ, great to see you again. Thanks for joining.

非常感谢，亚历克斯。回头聊。

Thanks so much, Alex. Talk soon.

好了，各位。感谢收听。我是Jad Masad，Replit的首席执行官，周三将与我们一同探讨氛围编程。它是什么？长远来看会有效吗？

Alright, everybody. Thank you for listening. I'm Jad Masad, the CEO of Replit will be on with us on Wednesday to talk about vibe coding. What is it? Will it work in the long run?

它可持续吗？会带来哪些改变？敬请关注，我们下次在《大科技播客》中再见。

Is it sustainable? And what will it change? So stay tuned for that, and we'll see you next time on big technology podcast.