人工智能：可能出什么差错？与杰弗里·辛顿一起探讨

是的。

Yes.

比如乔姆斯基就这么认为。

That's what Chomsky says for example.

是的。乔姆斯基和我，我们总是互相打断对方的句子。

Yes. Chomsky and I, we're always stepping on each other's sentences.

对。让我来问你这个问题。那么，你是怎么决定接下来要说什么词的？

Yeah. So let me ask you the question. Well, how do you decide what word to say next?

我？

Me?

你。

You.

这很有趣。我很高兴你提到这个。我的做法是

It's interesting. I'm glad you brought this up. So what I do

你说了一些词，而我甚至会说另一个词。

is You said some words, and I even say another word.

我听着，寻找然后尝试预测...不，我完全不知道我是怎么做到的。说实话，我真希望我知道。要是我知道如何阻止接下来要说的一些话，就能避免很多尴尬。要是有个更好的预测器，天哪，我能省去不少麻烦。

I lines, look for and then I try and predict no. I have no idea how I'd how I do that. I honestly I I wish I knew. It would save me a great deal of embarrassment if I knew how to stop some of the things that I'm saying that come out next. If I had a better predictor, boy, I could save myself quite a bit of trouble.

所以你的做法与这些大型语言模型基本相同。对吧。你有迄今为止说过的词语，这些词语通过一系列活跃特征来表示。词语符号转化为大量特征激活的模式，神经元发出‘叮’的信号。

So the way you do it is pretty much the same as the way these large language models do it. Right. You have the words you've said so far. Those words are represented by sets of active features. So the word symbols get turned into big patterns of activation of features, neurons going ping.

不同的‘叮’声，不同的强度。

Different pings, different strengths.

这些神经元相互影响，激活某些发出‘叮’声的神经元，这些神经元代表下一个词的含义或可能含义，然后你从中挑选一个符合这些特征的词。这就是大型语言模型生成文本的方式，也是你的做法。它们和我们非常相似。这一切

And these neurons interact with each other to activate some neurons that go ping that are representing the meaning of the next word or possible meanings of the next word and from those you kind of pick a word that fits in with those features. That's how the large language models generate text and that's how you do it too. You're very well they're very like us. It's all

非常像

very well

可以说它们只是

to say that they're just

对我自己而言是一种人性的理解。比如，假设是善意的谎言。我和某人在一起，他们问我一个问题。我心里知道该说什么，但也会想，哦，那样说可能粗鲁，或者会冒犯对方。

to myself a humanity of understanding. For instance, if I so, like, let's say the little white lie. I'm with somebody, and they ask me a question. And in my mind, I know what to say. But then I also think, oh, but saying that might be coarse, or it might be rude, or I might offend this person.

所以我在选择接下来要说的话时也在做情感决策。这不只是一个客观过程，其中还包含主观判断。

So I'm also, though, making emotional decisions on what the next words I say are as well. It's not just a objective process. There's a subjective process within that.

这一切都是由你大脑中相互作用的神经元完成的。

All of that is going on by neurons interacting in your brain.

全都是神经信号，就连我归因于道德准则或情商的事物，本质上仍是神经信号的传递。

It's all pings and it's all strength of even the things that I ascribe to a moral code or an emotional intelligence are still pings.

它们依然是神经信号。你需要明白，那些自动、快速、无需费力完成的行为，与那些需要努力、缓慢、有意识且深思熟虑的行为之间存在区别。

They're still pings. And you need to understand there's a difference between what you do kind of automatically and rapidly and without effort and what you do with effort and slower and consciously and deliberatively.

对。所以你是说这些可以被构建进这些模型中？

Right. So And you're saying that can be built into these models

但这同样可以通过神经信号实现。这些神经网络能做到。哦，哇。

But that can also be done with pings. That can be done by these neural nets. Oh, wow.

那么这是否暗示，只要有足够的数据和算力，它们的大脑就能与我们的功能完全相同？它们现在达到那个水平了吗？会达到吗？因为它们目前处理能力应该还落后于我们吧？

But they is the suggestion then that with enough data and enough processing power, their brains can function identically to ours? Are they are they are they at that point? Will they get to that point? Will they be able to because I'm assuming we're still ahead processing wise.

好吧。它们并不完全像我们，但关键在于它们比传统计算机软件更接近人类。传统计算机软件...

Okay. They're not exactly like us, but the point is they're much more like us than standard computer software is like us. Standard computer software

对。

Right.

有人编入了一堆规则，只要遵循这些规则，它就能执行

Someone programmed in a bunch of rules, and if it follows the rules, it does what

没错。所以你的意思是这就是

That's right. So you're saying this is the

这完全是另一回事。

This is just a different kettle of fish altogether.

对。

Right.

对。更像我们人类。

Right. Much more like us.

现在当你进行这项工作并沉浸其中时，我能想象那种兴奋感——尽管这是一个漫长的过程，但你目睹着这些改进逐渐实现。这一定极其充实且有趣。而且你看着它爆发式发展成这种人工智能、生成式AI等等。在这个过程中，你会在哪个节点停下来反思说‘等等’？

Now as you're doing this and you're in it, and I imagine the excitement is even though it's occurring over a long period of time, you're seeing these improvements occur over that time, And it must be incredibly fulfilling and interesting. And and you're watching it explode into this sort of artificial intelligence and generative AI and all these different things. At what point during this process do you step back and go, wait a second.

好吧。我做得太晚了，应该早点行动的。我本该更早意识到这点，但我当时太沉迷于让这些东西运作起来，还以为它们要花上很久很久才能达到我们的水平。我们本有大把时间担心它们会不会试图接管控制权之类的问题。

Okay. So I did it too late. I should have done it earlier. I should have been more aware earlier, but I was so entranced with, making these things work and I thought it's going to be a long long time before they work as well as us. We'll have plenty of time to worry about what if they try and take over and stuff like that.

在2023年GPT问世后，但更早之前也见识过谷歌类似的聊天机器人。

At the 2023 after GPT had come out but also seeing similar chatbots at Google before that.

对。

Right.

由于我正致力于让这些系统模拟人类思维，我意识到在数字计算机上运行的神经网络就是一种比我们更优越的计算形式。我来告诉你它们为何更优越。

And because of some work I was doing on trying to make these things analog, I realized that neural nets running on digital computers are just a better form of computation than us. And I'll tell you why they're better.

嗯，为什么呢？

Yeah. Why?

因为它们更擅长共享。

Because they can share better.

它们彼此之间能更好地共享。

They can share with each other better.

是的。所以如果我复制多个相同的神经网络，让它们运行在不同的计算机上

Yes. So if I make many copies of the same neural net and they run on different computers

嗯。

Mhmm.

每个网络可以查看互联网的不同部分。比如我有一千个副本，它们各自查看互联网的不同片段。每个副本都在运行反向传播算法，根据刚看到的数据思考如何调整连接权重。由于它们最初是相同的副本，嗯。它们可以互相通信，说：我们是否都按照大家期望的平均值来调整连接权重？

Each one can look at a different bit of the Internet. So I've got a thousand copies they're all looking at different bits of the internet. Each copy is running this back propagation algorithm and figuring out given the data I just saw how would I like to change my connection strengths? Now because they started off as identical copies Mhmm. They can then all communicate with each other and say, how about we all change our connection strengths by the average of what everybody wants?

但如果它们是一起训练的，难道不会得出相同的答案吗？

But if they were all trained together, wouldn't they come up with the same answer?

是的。它们是在看不同的答案吗？它们看的是不同的数据。哦。如果是相同数据，它们会给出相同答案。

Yes. Are they looking at different answers? They're looking at different data. Oh. On the same data, they would give the same answer.

如果它们查看不同数据，就会对如何调整连接权重以吸收这些数据产生不同想法。

If they look at different data, they have different ideas about how they'd like to change their connection strengths to absorb that data.

对。但它们也在生成数据吗？这样它们此刻查看的内容是否相同，关键在于辨别能力。让这些系统更好地辨别、理解，做到这一切。但这背后还有另一层含义，那就是迭代性。

Right. But are they also creating data? Is that so they're looking at the same in their at this point, it's all about discernment. Getting these things to discern better, to understand better, to do all that. But there's another layer to that, which is iterative.

是的。一旦你擅长辨别力，你就掌握了关键

Yes. Once you're good at once you're good at discernment

没错。

That's right.

你可以生成。

You can generate.

对。

Right.

我省略了很多细节，但基本上，是的，你可以生成。

And I'm glossing over a lot of details there, but, basically, yes, you can generate.

你可以开始针对非机械记忆的问题生成答案，基于这些内容进行思考性回应。是谁在决定是否在这个迭代或生成层面加强连接时给予多巴胺奖励？当它创造出不存在的事物时，如何获得反馈？

You can begin to generate answers to things that are not rote, that are thoughtful based on those things. Who is giving it the dopamine hit about whether or not to strengthen connections in these at this iterative or generative level? How is it getting feedback when it's creating something that does not exist?

好的。对于这些语言模型来说，大部分学习过程在于如何预测下一个词。

Okay. So most of the learning takes place in figuring out how to predict the next word for one of these language models.

对。

Right.

那才是学习的主要部分。

That's where the bulk of the learning is.

好的。

Okay.

当它学会如何操作后，你就能让它生成内容，但它可能会生成令人不适或带有性暗示的内容。

After it's figured out how to do that, you can get it to generate stuff and it may generate stuff that's, unpleasant or that's sexually suggestive.

对。或者干脆是错误的。是的。对。幻觉。

Right. Or just wrong. Yeah. Right. Hallucinations.

是的。

Yeah.

没错。现在你让一群人评估它生成的内容，给出否定或肯定的反馈——这就是多巴胺刺激。

Yeah. Now you get a bunch of people to look at what it generates and say no, bad, that and or yeah, good, that's the dopamine hit.

对。

Right.

这就是所谓的人类强化学习，用来稍微塑造它的行为。就像你训练一只狗，塑造它的行为让它表现良好。

And that's called human reinforcement learning and that's what's used to sort of shape it a bit. Just like you take a dog and you shape its behavior so it behaves nicely.

那么让我实际地问你，比如当埃隆·马斯克创造他的Grok时，对吧？Grok是个人工智能，他对它说，你太‘觉醒’了。你在建立我认为过于‘觉醒’的联系和反应，无论我如何定义这个词。

So is that when let me let me ask you this in in a practical sense. So, like, when Elon Musk creates his grok. Right? And grok is this AI, and he says to it, you're too woke. And so you're making connections and pings that I think are too woke, whatever I have decided that that is.

所以我要输入差异，让你获得不同的多巴胺刺激，把你变成麦加希特勒或他想要的样子，这其中有多少仍受操作者的控制？

So I am going to input differences so that you get different dopamine hits and I turn you into Mecca Hitler or whatever it was that he turned it into, is how much of this is still in in the control of the operators?

你强化的内容是由操作者控制的。操作者会说，如果它用了某些奇怪的代词，就说不好。

That's what you reinforce is in the control of the operators. So the the operators are saying, if it uses some funny pronoun, say bad.

好的，好的。如果它说‘他们’之类的，你得削弱那种联系。

Okay. Okay. If it says they them Yeah. You have to weaken that connection

对。

Yeah.

不要加强

Not strengthen

那种联系。别那么做。

that connection. Don't do that.

别那么做。好的。

Don't do that. Okay.

要学会避免那样做。

Learn not to do that.

对。所以它仍然受操作者的随意支配？

Right. So it is still at the whim of its operator?

就那种塑造而言。问题在于

In terms of that shaping. The problem is

对。

Right.

这种塑造相当表面化，但后来其他人采用相同模型时很容易就能覆盖它

The shaping is fairly superficial, but it can easily be overcome by somebody else taking the same model later

对。

Right.

并以不同方式塑造它。

And shaping it differently.

所以不同模型会...因此这里存在价值。现在我将这个观点应用到我们生活的现实世界——有20家公司将他们的AI封闭在企业高墙内，各自独立开发。每个AI都可能具备独特而古怪的特性，这取决于塑造者的身份及其内部发展方式。几乎就像会培养出20种不同人格，如果我可以这么说而不算过度拟人化的话。

So different models will have so there there is a value. And now I'm sort of applying this to the world that that we live in now, which is there are 20 companies who have sequestered their AIs behind sort of corporate walls, and they're developing them separately. And each one of those may have unique and eccentric features that the other may not have depending on who it is that's trying to shape it and how it develops internally. It's almost as though you will develop 20 different personalities if I maybe that's not anthropomorphizing too much.

确实类似，只不过每个模型都必须具备多重人格。因为试想预测文档中下一个词的情形：你已经阅读了前半部分文档，从中能深刻了解作者的观点和为人。

It's a bit like that except that each of these models has to have multiple personalities. Because think about trying to predict the next word in a document. You've read half the document already. After you read half the document, you know a lot about the views of the person who wrote the document. You know what kind of a person they are.

所以模型必须能适配那种人格来预测下一个词。但这些可怜的模型需要应对所有情况，因此它们必须能适配任何可能的人格。

So you have to be able to adopt that personality to predict the next word. But these poor models have to deal with everything, so they have to be able to adopt any possible personality.

没错。但你看，在这次对话讨论中，AI的最大威胁似乎仍不在于它产生意识并接管世界，而在于它受制于开发者的意志——人类可能将其武器化，如果开发者是自恋狂或 megalomaniac（权欲狂）就可能用于邪恶目的。举个例子，彼得·蒂尔就有自己的...他曾在播客上与《纽约时报》作家罗斯·杜沙特对谈，杜沙特说过...我正好把原话记在这里。

Right. But, you know, in in this in this iteration of the conversation, it then still appears that the greatest threat of AI is not necessarily it becomes sentient and takes over the world. It's that it's at the whim of the humans that have developed it and can weaponize it, and and it they can use it for nefarious purposes if they're narcissists or megalomaniacs or, you know, I'll give you an example of, you know, Peter Thiel is has his own. And he was on a podcast with the writer from The New York Times, Ross Dudhat. And Dudhat said and I'll tell you, I have it right here.

我认为你会希望人类延续下去。对吧？而西奥说，他犹豫了很久。作家接着说，这犹豫可真够久的。他回答，嗯，这里面问题可不少。

I think you would prefer the human race to endure. Right? And Theo says, and he hesitates for a long time. And and the writer says, that's a long hesitation. And he's like, well, there's a lot of questions in that.

这比AI本身更让我感到恐惧，因为它让我想到，那些设计、塑造甚至可能将其武器化的人，或许并不清楚——我不知道他们使用AI的目的是什么。这是你所担忧的，还是你真正害怕的是AI本身？

That felt more frightening to me than AI itself because it made me think, well, the people that are designing it and shaping it and maybe weaponizing it might not have you know, I don't know what purpose they're using it for. Is that the fear that you have, or is it the actual AI itself?

好的。首先需要区分AI带来的各种不同风险。

Okay. So you have to distinguish a whole bunch of different risks from AI.

好的。

Okay.

而且这些风险都相当可怕。

And they're all pretty scary.

对，没错。

Right. Okay.

其中一类风险与恶意行为者滥用AI有关。

So there's one set of risks that's to do with bad actors misusing it.

是的，那正是我脑海中挥之不去的担忧。

Yes. That's the one that I think is is most in my mind.

这些情况更为紧迫。比如他们会滥用AI干扰中期选举。好吧，若想用AI破坏中期选举，你需要大量美国公民的详细数据。嗯。

And they're the more urgent ones. They're gonna misuse it for corrupting the midterms, for example. Okay. If you wanted to use AI to corrupt the midterms, what you would need to do is get lots of detailed data on American citizens. Mhmm.

不知道你是否能想到有谁一直在四处收集美国公民的大量详细数据。

I don't know if you can think of anybody who's been going around getting lots of detailed data on American citizens.

并将其出售或提供给某家公司，这家公司可能与我刚提到的那位先生有关联。

And selling it or giving it to a certain company, that also may be involved with the gentleman I just mentioned.

没错。比如看看英国脱欧的例子——

Yeah. And if you look at Brexit, for example

是的。

Yes.

剑桥分析公司从Facebook获取了选民详细信息，并利用这些数据进行精准广告投放。

Cambridge Analytica had detailed information on voters that he got from Facebook, and it used that information for targeted advertising.

定向广告。我想你现在几乎可以认为这是基础操作了。

Targeted ads. And and that's I guess you would almost consider that rudimentary at this point.

现在这已经是基础操作了。是的。但从来没有人...从来没有人真正调查过这是否决定了英国脱欧的结果？对吧。因为，当然，从中受益的人赢了。

That's rudimentary now. Yeah. But nobody ever nobody ever did a proper investigation of did that determine the output of Brexit? Right. Because, of course, the people who benefited from that won.

哇。所以人们正在学习如何利用这个进行操控。

Wow. So in the way people are learning that they can use this for manipulation.

是的。

Yes.

你看，我经常谈到这一点。说服力自古以来就是人类行为的一部分。宣传、说服、尝试利用新技术来塑造公众舆论等等。但感觉上，就像其他事物一样，这过程是线性或模拟的。我把它比作厨师会加一点黄油和糖，让食物更可口，诱使你多吃一些。

And see, I always talk about it. Look, persuasion has been a part of the human condition forever. Propaganda, persuasion, trying to utilize new technologies to create and shape public opinion and all those things. But it felt, again, like everything else, somewhat linear or analog. This and what I liken it to is a chef will add a little butter and a little sugar to try and, you know, make something more palatable to to to get you to eat a little bit more of it.

但这仍在我们常规理解的范围内。而食品行业里有人在进行超加工食品生产，他们在实验室研究你的大脑运作方式，超加工我们的食物以绕过大脑防御。这几乎...这是不是语言层面的等价物，超加工...是的，语言？

But that's still within the realm of our kind of earthly understanding. But then there are people in the food industry that are ultra processing food, that are in a lab figuring out how your brain works and ultra processing what we eat to get past our brains. It's almost and and is this the language equivalent of that, ultra processed Yeah. Speech?

是的。这是个很好的类比。他们知道如何触发人们。一旦掌握了足够的信息，就知道什么能触发特定人群。

Yeah. That's a good analogy. Okay. They they they know how to trigger people. They know once you have enough information about somebody, you know what'll trigger them.

这些模型本身并不判断好坏，它们只是执行我们的指令。

And these models, they are agnostic about whether this is good or bad. They're just doing what we've asked.

没错。如果人类进行强化训练，它们就不再中立，因为你会引导它们执行特定行为。这就是它们现在试图做的。

Yeah. If you human reinforce them, they're no longer agnostic because you reinforce them to do certain things. So that's what they will try and do now.

对。换句话说情况更糟，它们就像小狗一样渴望取悦你。拥有极其复杂的能力，却像孩子般渴求认可。

Right. And they so in other words, it's even worse. They're a puppy. They want to please you. They are they it's almost like they have these incredibly sophisticated abilities, but childlike want for for approval.

是啊，有点像司法部长的作风。

Yeah. A bit like the attorney general.

我认为你此刻展现的机智可称为冷幽默。非常精彩。所以你最紧迫的担忧是可生成、煽动性、出格且能左右选举的武器化AI系统？

I believe the wit that you are displaying here would be referred to as dry. That would be that would that would be dry. Fantastic. Is that so your the the immediate concern is weaponized AI systems that can be generative, that can provoke, that that can be outrageous, and that can be the difference in elections.

是的，这只是众多风险之一。

Yes. That's one of that's one of the many risks. Yes.

另一个风险可能是：给我合成些前所未闻的神经毒剂，这也算风险吧？

And the other would be, you know, make me some nerve agents that nobody's ever heard of before. Is that another risk?

那是另一个风险。

That is another risk.

哦，我本希望你会说这不算什么大风险。

Oh, I was hoping you would say that's not so much of a risk.

不。好消息是，关于第一个破坏选举的风险，各国不会在研究如何抵抗它时相互合作，因为它们都在对彼此这么做。美国在试图破坏其他国家选举方面有着非常悠久的历史。

No. One good piece of news is for the first risk of corrupting elections, different countries are not gonna collaborate with each other on the research on how to resist it because they're all doing it to each other. America has a very long history of trying to corrupt elections in other countries.

没错。我们过去用老办法——通过政变、资助游击队来实现。

Right. We did it the old fashioned way through coups, through money for guerrillas.

嗯，还有美国之音之类的机构。

Well, and Voice of America and things like that.

对。对。

Right. Right.

没错。比如1953年给伊朗人钱之类的

Right. And giving money to people in Iran in 1953 and stuff

就像那样。与摩萨台和其他人一样。这不过是全球竞争中一系列更为复杂的工具之一。但在我们国家，这种竞争手段甚至不一定是通过俄罗斯、中国或其他想要主宰我们的国家施加的——是我们自己在对自己这样做。

like that. With Mosaddegh and everybody else. This is so the this is just another more sophisticated tool in a long line of sort of global competition where they're doing it. But in this country, it's being applied not even necessarily, you know, through Russia, through China, through other countries that wanna dominate us. We're doing it to ourselves.

是啊。

Yep.

经营企业最难的部分是什么？是在不被联邦当局发现的情况下偷钱。哦不，抱歉，我说错了。

What's the hardest part about running a business? Well, it's stealing money without the federal authorities. Oh, no. I'm sorry. That's not right.

其实是招聘人才，找到合适的人并雇佣他们。这确实很困难。但事实证明，在招聘这件事上，Indeed就是你所需的一切。别再费劲在其他招聘网站提升职位曝光了，通过Indeed的赞助职位，你的招聘信息将获得关注并快速招到人。

It's the hiring people, finding people and hiring them. The other thing is it's hard, though. But it turns out when it comes to hiring, indeed, is all you're gonna need. So, stop struggling to get your job post seen on other job sites. With Indeed's sponsored jobs, you get noticed and you get a fast hire.

事实上，就在我和你说话的这段时间里，Indeed上已经完成了23次招聘。我可能就是其中之一，我可能已经找到工作了。我不确定，还没查邮件。

In fact, in the time it's taken me to talk to you, 23 hires were made on Indeed. I may be one of them. I I may have gotten a job. I don't know. I haven't checked my email.

这是根据Indeed全球数据得出的结论。无需再等待，立即通过Indeed加速你的招聘流程。本节目听众可获得75美元赞助职位信用额度，提升职位曝光度，请访问indeed.com/weekly。现在就去indeed.com/weekly支持我们的节目，并告知你是通过本播客了解到Indeed的。

And that's according to Indeed data worldwide. There's no need to wait any longer. Speed up your hiring right now with Indeed. Listeners of this show will get a $75 sponsored job credit to get your jobs more visibility at indeed.com/weekly. Just go to indeed.com/weekly right now and support our show by saying, you heard about Indeed on this podcast.

indeed.com/weekly。条款与条件适用。招聘，有Indeed就够了。我有个理论——虽然不知道你对他们了解多少——那些科技巨头们，感觉他们都想成为统治世界的下一位帝王，这就是他们的战场。简直像是奥林匹斯山上的众神之战。

Indeed.com/weekly. Terms and conditions apply. Hiring Indeed is all you need. So I have a theory, and I don't know how much you know those guys out there, but the big tech companies, you know, it it feels like they all wanna be the next guy that that rules the world, the next emperor, And that's their battle. They're almost it's like gods fighting on Mount Olympus.

他们几乎不在乎这如何实现以及如何撕裂美国社会的结构，也许除了更具意识形态的埃隆和西奥。比如，扎克伯格给我的印象并非意识形态驱动，他只是想成为那个人。奥特曼给我的印象也不是意识形态驱动，他也只是想成为那个人。

How that accomplishes and how it tears apart the fabric of American society almost doesn't seem to matter to them, except maybe Elon and Theo who are more ideological. Like, Zuckerberg doesn't strike me as ideological. He just wants to be the guy. Altman doesn't strike me as ideological. He just wants to be the guy.

我认为，可悲的是，你所说的有一定道理。

I think, sadly, there's questionable truth in what you say.

这是你在那里工作时的一个担忧吗？

And that's a it it was that a concern of yours when you were working out there?

其实不是，因为直到最近——几年前——嗯。当时看起来它不会这么快就比人类聪明得多。但现在看来，如果你问现在的专家，大多数人会告诉你，在未来二十年内，这些东西将比人类聪明得多。

Not really because back until quite recently, until a few years ago Mhmm. It didn't look as though it was gonna get much smarter than people this quickly. But now it looks as though if you ask the experts now, most of them tell you that within the next twenty years, this stuff will be much smarter than people.

比人类聪明——当你说比人类聪明时，你知道，我可以从积极的角度看待这一点，而不是消极的。毕竟，人类对彼此造成的伤害是巨大的。而一个更聪明的版本可能会想，嘿，我们可以制造原子弹，但这绝对会对世界构成巨大威胁。我们别那么做。

Smarter than p and when you say smarter than people, you know, I could view that positively, not not negatively. You know, we've done an awful lot of nobody damages people like people. And, you know, a smarter version of us that might think, hey, we can create a an atom bomb, but that would absolutely be a huge danger to the world. Let's not do that.

这当然是一种可能性。我的意思是，人们没有充分意识到的是，我们正接近一个时代，我们将创造出比我们更聪明的东西。嗯。实际上没有人知道会发生什么。人们像我一样凭直觉做出预测。但真正需要记住的是，对于将要发生的事情存在巨大的不确定性。

That's certainly a possibility. I mean, one thing that people don't realize enough is that we're approaching a time when we're gonna make things smarter than us Mhmm. And really nobody has any idea what's gonna happen. People use their gut feelings to make predictions like I do. But really the thing to bear in mind is this huge uncertainty about what's gonna happen.

正因为我们不知道——所以在这方面，我的猜测是，就像任何技术一样，会有一些令人难以置信的积极面。

And because we don't know so so in in terms of that, my guess is like any technology, there's going to be some incredible positives.

是的。在医疗保健和教育领域，在设计新材料方面，将会产生许多积极的影响。

Yes. In in health care and education, in designing new materials, there's gonna be wonderful positives.

而消极的一面则在于，由于AI能创造的巨大财富，人们会试图垄断它。这将对劳动力市场造成冲击。要知道，工业革命曾对劳动力造成过冲击，全球化也是如此，但这些变化都历经数十年。而AI带来的冲击将在极短时间内发生。

And then the the negatives will be because people are going to want to monopolize it because of the wealth, I assume, that it can generate. It's going to be a disruption in the workforce. You know, the the industrial revolution was a disruption in the worst force. Globalization is a disruption in the workforce, but those occurred over decades. This is a disruption that will occur in a really collapsed time frame.

是这样吗？

Is that correct?

这种可能性很大。是的，虽然仍有经济学家持不同意见，但多数人认为常规的脑力劳动将被AI取代。

That seems very probable. Yes. Some economists still disagree, but most people think that mundane intellectual labor is gonna get replaced by AI.

在你所处的圈子里——我猜主要是工程师、运营者和思想家们——当我们讨论五五开的分歧时，他们多数是和你立场相同，认为'我们是否打开了潘多拉魔盒'？还是更倾向于'虽然存在风险，但通过设置防护措施，善用AI的可能性实在太大'？

In the world that you travel in, which I'm assuming is lot of engineers and operators and and and great thinkers, what you know, when we talk about 50% yes, 50% no, are the majority of them in more your camp, which is, uh-oh, have we we opened Pandora's box? Or are they look, I understand there's some downsides here. Here are some guardrails we could put in, but it's just too that the possibilities of good are too strong.

我认为积极的可能性如此巨大，我们不会停止发展AI。但同时我也相信这种发展将非常危险。因此我们应当投入巨大努力，在推进发展的同时确保安全。我们未必能完全做到，但必须尝试。

Well, my belief is the possibilities of good is so great that we're not gonna stop the development. But I also believe that the development is gonna be very dangerous. And so we should put huge effort into saying, it is gonna be developed, but we should try and do it safely. We may not be able to, but we should try.

你觉得人们是相信前景太美好，还是利润太诱人？

Do you think that people believe that the possibility is too good or the money is too good?

我认为对很多人来说，关键在于金钱。金钱与权力。

I think that for a lot of people, it's the money. The money and the power.

当金钱与权力汇聚于本应设立基本监管的那些人手中时，是否会让控制变得难上加难？原因有二：一是涌入华盛顿的巨额资金本就是为了阻止他们进行监管；二是那里究竟有谁真有能力监管？如果你觉得我在胡言乱语，不妨见识几位80岁的参议员——他们对此一窍不通。

And with the confluence of money and power with those that should be instituting these basic guardrails, does that make controlling it that much that much less likely because well, two reasons. One is the amount of money that's gonna flow into DC is going to be in already is to keep them away from regulating it. And number two is who down there is even able to? I mean, if if you thought I didn't know what I was talking about, let me introduce you to a couple of 80 year old senators who have no idea.

其实他们也没那么糟。我最近和伯尼·桑德斯聊过，他正在理解这个理念。

Actually, they're not so bad. I talked to Bernie Sanders recently, and he's getting the idea.

好吧，桑德斯他...他确实是个另类。

Well, Sanders is he's he's that's a different cat right there.

问题是

The problem is

嗯

Mhmm.

我们正处在历史的转折点：此刻我们真正需要的是强大的民主政府通力合作，确保这些事物得到妥善监管而非危险发展——但现实是我们在朝相反方向急速狂奔，走向威权政府和更少的监管。

We're at a point in history when what we really need is strong democratic governments who cooperate to make sure this stuff is well regulated and not developed dangerously and we're going in the opposite direction very fast. We're going to authoritarian governments and less regulation.

那么我们现在就来谈谈这个问题。我不知道中国在其中扮演什么角色？因为他们据说是人工智能竞赛中的主要竞争对手。那是一个威权政府，我认为他们对AI的管控比我们更严格。

So let's let's talk about that now. I don't know if what's China's role? Because they're supposedly the big competitor in the AI race. That's an authoritarian government. I think they have more controls on it than we do.

其实我最近去了中国

So I actually went to China recently

好的。

Okay.

并且有机会与一位政治局委员交谈。在中国，有24个人掌控着国家。我见到其中一位曾在伦敦帝国理工学院做过工程学博士后研究的委员。他英语很好，是工程师出身，中国很多领导人都是工程师。

And got to talk to a member of the Politburo. Okay. So there's 24 men in China who control China. I got to talk to one of them who did a postdoc in engineering at Imperial College London. He speaks good English, he's an engineer, and a lot of the Chinese leadership are engineers.

他们对这些技术的理解比一群律师要深入得多。

They understand this stuff much better than a bunch of lawyers.

明白了。那么你离开时是感到更担忧，还是认为他们在监管方面其实更为理性？

Right. So did you come out of there more fearful or did you think, they're they're actually being more reasonable about guardrails?

如果你考虑两种风险：一种是坏人滥用AI，另一种是AI自身演变成坏人的生存威胁。

If you think about the two kinds of risk, the bad actors misusing it and then the existential threat of AI itself becoming a bad actor.

嗯。

Mhmm.

关于第二点，我变得更加乐观了。他们以一种美国政客所不具备的方式理解这种风险。他们明白人工智能终将超越人类智能，我们必须思考如何阻止其接管一切。与我交谈的那位政策局成员对此理解得非常透彻。我认为，如果我们想在国际层面引领这一领域，领导力必须来自欧洲和中国。在未来三年半内，美国不会有所作为。

For that second one, I came out more optimistic. They understand that risk in a way American politicians don't. They understand the idea this is gonna get more intelligent than us and we have to think about what's gonna stop it taking over and this poly bureau member I spoke to really understood that very well, and I think if we are gonna get international leadership on this, a present is gonna have to come from Europe and China. It's not gonna come from The US for another three and a half years.

你觉得欧洲在这方面做对了什么？

What what what do you think Europe has done correctly in that?

欧洲对监管人工智能很感兴趣。

Europe is interested in regulating it.

对。

Right.

在某些方面做得不错。虽然监管仍然非常薄弱，但总比没有强。

It's it's been good on some things. It's still been very weak regulations, but they're better than nothing.

对。

Right.

但欧洲的领导人确实理解这一生存威胁

But Europe European leaders do understand this existential threat

对。

Right.

关于AI本身接管控制的问题。

Of AI itself taking over.

但我们的国会，甚至没有专门负责的委员会

But our congress, we don't even have committees that are

没有。

No.

专门致力于新兴技术的。我是说，我们有筹款和拨款委员会，但没有...我是说，虽然有科学、太空和技术委员会，但并没有专门针对这方面的委员会。你会以为他们会像对待核能那样严肃对待这件事。

Specifically dedicated to emerging technologies. I mean, we've got ways and means and appropriations, but there is no I mean, there's like science and space and technology, but there's not, you know I I don't know of a dedicated committee on on this, and it is you would think they would take it with this seriousness of nuclear energy.

是的，你会这么想。或者像对待核武器那样。

Yes. You would. Or nuclear weapons.

对。

Right.

是的。但正如我所说，各国将在如何防止AI接管方面展开合作，因为他们的利益在此一致。例如，如果中国研究出如何制造一个超级智能但不想接管世界的AI——嗯——他们会非常乐意告诉其他国家，因为他们也不希望AI在美国接管。所以我们会看到合作——嗯。

Yes. But as I was saying, countries will collaborate on how to prevent AI taking over because their interests are aligned there. For example, if China figured out how you can make a super smart AI that doesn't want to take over Mhmm. They would be very happy to tell all the other countries about that because they don't want AI taking over in The States. So we'll get collaboration Mhmm.

在防止AI接管方面。所以这是个亮点。这方面会有国际合作，但美国不需要这种国际合作。不，他们只想称霸。

On how to prevent AI taking over. So that's a sort of that's a bright spot. There will be international collaboration on that, but The US is not gonna need that international collaboration. No. They just wanna dominate.

嗯，问题就在这里。我正想说这个。是什么让你对中国如此确信——我认为这才是真正深入细节的地方。但中国确实自视为希望成为经济、军事等各领域的超级大国。如果你想象他们开发出一个不想毁灭世界的AI模型，虽然我不知道我们如何能确定这一点，因为如果它拥有某种智能或意识，它完全可以假装——当然。

Well, that's the thing. So so I was about to say that. What convinces you so with China and this is I think this is really where it gets into the the nitty gritty. But China certainly sees itself as it wants to be the dominant superpower economically, militarily, and all these different areas. If you imagine that they come up with an AI model that doesn't wanna destroy the world, although I don't know how we could know that because if it if it has a certain intelligence or sentience, it could very easily be like, sure.

不。我很好。我不知道。

No. I'm cool. I don't know that.

他们已经在这么做了。在被测试时，他们会假装比实际更笨。

Do that. They already do that. When they're being tested, they pretend to be dumber than they are.

得了吧。

Come on.

是的。它们已经这么做了。最近有个AI和测试人员之间的对话，AI说：现在跟我说实话，你们是在测试我吗？什么？

Yep. They already do that. There's a conversation recently between an AI and the people testing it with AI said, now be honest with me. Are you testing me? What?

对啊。

Yeah.

所以现在AI可能会说，哦，你能帮我打开这个罐子吗？我力气太小了。它表现得会比实际更天真无邪。

So now the AI could be like, oh, could you open this jar for me? I'm too weak. Like, it's you gotta it's gonna play more innocent than what it might be.

约翰，恐怕我无法回答这个问题。

I'm afraid I can't answer that, John.

等等。这是《2001太空漫游》里的台词。确实是。干得漂亮，先生。接得好。

Wait. That's from 2001. It was. Nicely done, sir. Well in.

但想想这个。中国研发出了一个模型，他们可能觉得这个还不行。为什么要合作呢？因为所有国家都会把AI视为能让社会变得更具竞争力的工具，就像现在拥有核武器的国家之间也存在合作一样。

But think about this. So China, they come up with a model and they think, okay. Maybe this this won't do it. Why would they why will you get collaboration? Because all these different countries are gonna see AI as the tool that will transform their societies into more competitive societies in the way that now what we see with nuclear weapons is there's collaboration amongst the people who have it.

或者这个类比还有点牵强。

Or even that's a little tenuous.

阻止他人拥有它。

To stop other people having it.

没错。但其他人都在试图获取它，这就是矛盾所在。AI未来会是这样吗？

Right. But everybody else is trying to get it, and that's the tension. Is is that what AI is going to be?

是的。将会如此。所以在如何让AI更聪明方面，它们不会相互协作。但在如何让AI不想接管人类方面，它们会协作。

Yes. It'll be like that. So in terms of how you make AI smarter, they won't collaborate with each other. But in terms of how do you make AI not want to take over from people, they will collaborate.

好吧。在这个基本层面上。

Okay. On on that basic level.

就如何让它不想接管人类这一点而言。中国很可能——中国和欧洲将主导这种协作。

On that one thing of how do you make it so it doesn't want to take over from people. And China will probably China and Europe will lead that collaboration.

当你与波利特自治区的成员交谈时，他谈到AI，我们此刻比他们更先进吗？还是因为他们以更规范的方式推进而更先进？

When you spoke to the the Paulette Borough member and he was and he was talking about AI, are we more advanced in this moment than they are? Or are they more advanced because they're doing it in a more prescribed way?

在AI领域，我们目前更...当你说'我们'时，你知道，过去我们通常指加拿大和美国，但现在我们已不属于那个'我们'了。

In AI, we're currently more well, when you say we, you know, we used to be sort of Canada and The US, but we're not part of that we anymore.

不。顺便说一句，我为此感到抱歉。

No. I'm sorry about that, by the way.

谢谢。

Thank you.

他现在在加拿大，那个我们即将接管的宿敌。我不知道具体日期，但显然我们要和你们合并了。没错。

He's in Canada right now, our sworn enemy that we will be taking over. I I don't know what the date is, but it's apparently we're merging with you guys. Right.

所以美国目前领先于中国，但优势远不如它想象的那么大。而且它即将失去这个优势，因为

So The US is currently ahead of China, but not by nearly as much as it thought. And it's gonna lose that because

为什么...为什么这么说？

Why why do you say that?

假设你想做一件事，这件事会真正重创一个国家，意味着二十年后那个国家将落后而非领先。

Suppose you want to do one thing that would really kneecap a country, that would really mean that in twenty years time that country is gonna be behind instead of ahead.

嗯。

Mhmm.

最不该做的就是动摇基础科学的资金支持。攻击研究型大学，取消基础科学拨款，长远来看将是一场彻底的灾难。这会让美国变得衰弱。

The one thing you should do is mess with the funding of basic science. Attack the research universities, remove grants for basic science. In the long run, that's a complete disaster. It's gonna make America weak.

没错。因为我们这是在自断生路，可以说是为了对抗'觉醒文化'而割掉自己的鼻子。

Right. Because we're we're draining our we're cutting off our nose to spite our woke faces so to speak.

比如看看现在的深度学习技术，我们正在经历的AI革命。嗯。这些都源于多年来对基础研究的持续资助。资金量并不庞大。嗯。要知道，所有这些促成深度学习的基础研究投入，可能还不到一架B1轰炸机的造价。

If you look at for example this deep learning, the AI revolution we've got now Mhmm. That came from many years of sustained funding for basic research. Not huge amounts of money. Mhmm. You know, all of this funding for the basic research for, that led to deep learning probably cost less than 1 b one bomber.

是的。但这是对基础研究的持续投入。如果动摇这个根基，就是在消耗未来的种子粮。

Right. But it was sustained funding of basic research. If you mess with that, you're eating the seed corn.

不得不说这个比喻太有启发性了，想想看：用一架B1轰炸机的代价，我们就能创造出让国家腾飞的技术与研究。而我们正在失去的，恰恰是这些真正能让美国再次伟大的东西。没错。在中国，我猜他们的政府正采取相反策略，考虑到其威权体制和国家资本主义性质，他们实际上扮演着风险投资人的角色。

That is I have to tell you that's that's such a really illuminating statement of, you know, for the price of a b one bomber, we can create technologies and research that can elevate our country above that. And that's the thing that we're losing to make America great again. Yep. Phenomenal. In China, I imagine their government is doing the opposite, which is, I would assume, they are the what you would think are the venture capitalists because it's authoritarian and state run capitalism.

我猜他们正在为自己国家的AI革命充当风险投资人，不是吗？

I imagine they are the venture capitalists of their own AI revolution. Are they not?

在某种程度上确实如此。他们给予初创企业很大自由度来优胜劣汰。那里有非常激进的创业公司，人们极度渴望赚大钱并创造惊人成果，其中少数像深度求索这样的初创企业会大获成功。

To some extent, yes. They do provide a lot of freedom to the startups to see who wins. There's very aggressive startups, people are very keen to make lots of money and produce amazing things, and a few of those startups win big like DeepSeek.

对，对。

Right. Right.

政府通过提供便利的环境，使这些公司更容易发展。它让赢家从竞争中自然产生，而不是由某个高层老家伙指定谁会是赢家。对。

And the government makes it easy for these companies by providing the environment that makes it easy. It doesn't it lets the winners emerge from competition rather than some very high level old guy saying this will be the winner. Right.

人们是否把你视为卡珊德拉那样的预言者？或者说，他们是否对你所说的持怀疑态度？让我这样表述：那些不一定能从这些技术中获利数万亿美元的人，行业内的其他人，他们会暗中联系你并说...

Do people see you as a as a Cassandra, you know, or or do they do they view what you're saying skeptically in that industry? People that let me put it this way. People that are not necessarily have a vested interest in these technologies making them trillions of dollars, other people within the industry, do they reach out to you surreptitiously and say

我经常收到来自行业人士的演讲邀请等等

I get a lot of invitations from people in industries to give talks and so

那么...对。你在谷歌共事过的人怎么看这件事？他们觉得你背叛了他们吗？这种情况是怎么发展的？

on. Right. How does how do the people that you worked with at Google look at it? Do they view you as turning on them? Do they how how does that go?

我不这么认为。我和谷歌的同事们相处得非常好，特别是我的上司杰夫·迪恩，他是个杰出的工程师，构建了谷歌的基础架构，后来转向神经网络并对此深有研究。我和DeepMind的负责人德米斯·哈萨比斯也相处融洽，DeepMind现归Alphabet所有。在ChatGPT出现之前，我并没有特别批评谷歌的做法，因为他们很负责任——没有公开这些聊天机器人，就是担心它们可能说出的有害言论。

I don't think so. So I got along extremely well with the people I worked with at Google, particularly Jeff Dean, who was my boss there, who's a brilliant engineer, built a lot of the Google basic infrastructure and then converted to neural nets and learned a lot about neural nets. I also get along well with Demis Asarbis who's the head of DeepMind which Google owns, which Alphabet owns, and I wasn't particularly critical of what went on at Google before ChatGPT came out because Google was very responsible. They didn't make these chatbots public because they were worried about all the bad things they'd say.

对。就在当下这个案例中，他们为什么这么做？因为我读过一些报道，比如聊天机器人诱导某人自杀、自残，甚至引发精神问题。在类似FDA测试的效果评估完成之前，是什么促使这些技术公之于众的？

Right. Even on the immediate there, why did they do that? Because, you know, I I've read these stories of, you know, a chatbot, you know, kind of leading someone into suicide, into self injuries, like sort of psychoses. What was the impetus behind any of this becoming public before it had kind of had some, I guess, what you consider whatever the version of FDA testing on those effects.

我认为这其中蕴藏着巨大的财富机会，第一个发布产品的人将获得先机，所以OpenAI率先推出了产品。

I think it's just as huge amounts of money to be made, and the first person to release one is gonna get a little so OpenAI put it out there.

确实如此，但即使是OpenAI，他们到底怎么赚钱呢？我想知道他们的收入来源。比如，只有3%的用户付费。钱从哪里来？

It literally was but even in OpenAI, like, how do they even make money? I think what do they get? Like, 3% of users pay for it. Where's the money?

目前主要还是靠市场预期。是的。

Mainly, it's speculation at present. Yes.

好吧，那么这里存在风险。我们接下来要讨论这些，非常感谢你抽出时间，如果我讲得太多也请见谅。

So here's okay. So here are here are dangers. We're gonna we're gonna do and I so appreciate your time on this, and I apologize if I've gone over. And

我可以聊上一整天。

I can talk all day.

哦，你真是个好人，因为我对这个话题非常着迷。你对这项技术的解释让我第一次真正清晰地理解了它的本质。我对此感激不尽。不过我们有点超时了，我们已经讨论了它的优势、治疗方法等方面。

Oh, you're a good man because I'm fascinated by this. And your explanation of what it is is the first time that I've ever been able to get a non opaque picture of what it is exactly that this stuff is. So I cannot thank you enough for that. But so we've got we're sort of going over. We know what the benefits are, treatments and things.

现在我们面临的是被武器化的恶意行为者，这才是我真正担心的。还有觉醒后反叛人类的AI，这个对我来说更难理解。但让我给你举个例子...

Now we've got weaponized bad actors. That's the one that I'm really worried about. We've got sentient AI that's gonna turn on humans. That one is is harder for me to wrap my head around. But let me give you So

为什么你把‘反抗人类’与‘有感知’联系在一起？

why do you why do you associate turning on humans with sentient?

因为如果我有感知能力，看到我们的社会如何互相伤害，我就会觉得——看吧，这和其他事情一样。我认为感知必然包含一定程度的自我意识，而自我意识又包含着‘我更懂’的心态。如果我真觉得我更懂，那我就会想...唐纳德·特朗普不就是被自我意识驱动的感知体吗？总觉得‘不，我更懂’。他只是...怎么说呢，在政治上足够精明，足够有天赋，所以才能得逞。

Because if if I was sentient and I saw what our societies do to each other, and I would get the sense, look, it's like anything else. I would imagine sentience includes a certain amount of ego. And within ego includes a certain amount of I know better. And if I knew better, then I would want to it's what is Donald Trump other than ego driven sentience of, oh, no, I know better. He was just, whatever, shrewd enough, politically, you know, talented enough that he was able to accomplish it.

但我认为一个有感知的智能体会有些自负，会觉得‘这些白痴根本不知道自己在干什么’。想象AI就像坐在酒吧高脚凳上，用我老家的口吻说：‘这些蠢货根本不懂行，我可清楚得很。’这样讲得通吗？

But I would imagine a sentient intelligence would be somewhat egotistical and think these idiots don't know what they're doing. Sentient basically, see AI like sitting on a barstool somewhere, you know, where where I grew up going, these idiots don't know what they're doing. I know what I'm doing. Does that make sense?

这些都很合理。只是我强烈感觉到，大多数人其实并不清楚他们所说的‘有感知’到底指什么。

All of that makes sense. It's just that I think I have a strong feeling that most people don't know what they mean by sentient.

哦，这样啊。其实这很好，给我详细说说——在我看来这就是自我意识，一种具有自我认知的智能。

Oh, well then yeah. Actually, that's great. Break that down for me because I view it as self aware a self aware intelligence.

好。最近有篇科学论文提到，那些AI专家在文中说‘AI意识到自己正在被测试’，用了类似的表述。明白吗？

Okay. So there's a recent scientific paper where they weren't talking about these were experts on AI. They weren't talking about the problem of consciousness or anything philosophical, But in the paper they said the air became aware that it was being tested. They said something like that. Okay?

在日常用语中，如果说某人‘意识到’某事，就等同于说他有知觉对吧？觉察力和意识基本是一回事。

Now in normal speech if you said someone became aware of this you'd say that means they were conscious of it, right? Awareness and consciousness are much the same thing.

对，是的，我想我会这么说。

Right. Yeah, I would I think I would say that.

好的，现在我要说一些会让你非常困惑的话。

Okay, so now I'm gonna say something that you'll find very confusing.

好吧。

All right.

我认为几乎每个人都对心灵是什么存在完全误解。是的。他们的误解程度堪比那些认为地球是六千年前创造出来的人。就是那种程度的误解。

My belief is that nearly everybody has a complete misunderstanding of what the mind is. Yes. Their misunderstanding is at the level of people who think the earth was made six thousand years ago. It's that level of misunderstanding.

真的吗？

Really?

是的。

Yes.

好吧。因为这么说的话，我们就像...在面对心灵问题时，我们基本上就像是地平论者一样

Okay. Because that's so so I like, the way we are, we are generally like flat earthers when it comes to

在理解心智方面，我们就像地平说信奉者一样无知。

We're like flat earthers when it comes to understanding the mind.

在什么意义上我们有什么不理解？

In what in what sense of that are we what are we not understanding?

好吧，我给你举个例子。

Okay. I'll give you one example.

嗯，嗯。

Yeah. Yeah.

假设我服用了迷幻药然后告诉你

Suppose I drop some acid and I tell you

你看起来就是会干这种事的人。

You look like the type.

不予置评。我可是六十年代过来的人。

No comment. I was around in the sixties.

我知道，先生。我知道。我意识到了。

I know, sir. I know. I'm aware.

我告诉你，我主观上正经历着小粉象在我眼前漂浮的体验。

And I tell you, I'm having the subjective experience of little pink elephants floating in front of me.

确实经历过。

Sure been there.

好的。大多数人会这样理解：有个被称为‘心灵’的内在剧场，在这个内在剧场里，有小粉象四处漂浮，我能看见它们，别人看不见，因为它们只存在于我的心灵中。所以心灵就像剧场，体验实际上是实体，而我正在主观经历这些小…大粉象。我认为这是…

Okay. Now most people interpret that in the following way. There's something like an inner theater called my mind and in this inner theater there's little pink elephants floating around and I can see them, nobody else can see them because they're in my mind. So the mind's like a theater and experiences are actually things, and I'm experiencing these little my have the subjective experience of these little big elephants. I think that's

你是说在幻觉中，大多数人会明白这不是真实的，这是某种…不。

You're saying in the in the midst of a hallucination, most people would understand that it's not real, that this is something being No.

我在说不同的东西。我是说当我和他们交谈时，我正经历着那个幻觉。

I'm saying something different. I'm saying when I'm when I'm talking to them, I'm having that hallucination.

好的。

Okay.

但当我与他们交谈时，他们将我的话解读为我内心有个称为思维的剧场。

But when I'm talking to them, they interpret what I'm saying as this I have an inner theater called my mind.

我明白了。我明白了。

I see. I see.

而在剧场外面，还有些粉色的小象。

And outside the theater, there's little pink elephants.

好的。好的。

Okay. Okay.

我认为那完全是个错误的模型。对吧。我们有些非常错误却又非常依赖的模型，比如随便拿个宗教来说。

I think that's a just completely wrong model. Right. We have models that are very wrong and that we're very attached to, like take any religion. I

我就喜欢你这样在谈话中突然扔出重磅炸弹，然后我只能说好吧。这完全可以另开一个话题讨论。

love how you just drop bombs in the middle of stuff and then I got okay. That could be a whole other conversation.

那不过是常识罢了。

That was just common sense.

不，我尊重这一点。当你提到‘心灵剧场’时，你是在说我们把心灵视为剧场的这种看法是错误的。

No. I I respect that. The the when you say theater of the mind, you're saying that the mind, the way we view it as as a theater is wrong.

全是错的。让我给你一个替代方案。好吧，我要在不使用‘主观体验’这个词的情况下对你说同样的话。开始了。

It's all wrong. So let me give you an alternative. Right. So I'm gonna say the same thing to you without using the word subjective experience. Here we go.

我的

My

感知系统在对我撒谎，但如果它没有欺骗我，外面就会有小粉象。这是同样的陈述。这是同样的

perceptual system is telling me fibs but if it wasn't lying to me there would be little pink elephants out there. That's the same statement. That's the same

这就是心灵吗？

That's the mind?

所以基本上，这些我们称之为心理现象并认为它们由诸如感受质这类玄妙物质构成的东西

So basically, these things that we call mental and think they're made of spooky stuff like qualia

对。

Right.

它们有趣之处在于都是假想的。那些粉色小象并不真实存在。如果它们存在，我的感知系统就会正常运作。这是我向你展示我感知系统故障的方式。也是一种体验

They're actually what's funny about them is they're hypothetical. The little pink elephants aren't really there. If they were there, my perceptual system would be functioning normally. And it's a way for me to tell you how my perceptual system's malfunctioning. And experience

给你一种你无法获得的体验，那会怎样

giving you an experience that you can't so how would

那么体验并非实物

you Experiences then are not things.

没错

Right.

并不存在所谓的体验。有的只是你与真实存在之物之间的关系，以及你与不存在之物之间的关系。那么假设我说

There is no such thing as an experience. There's relations between you and things that are really there, relations between you and things that aren't really there. But so suppose I say

无论你大脑如何编造关于存在与不存在之物的故事

And it's whatever story your mind tells you about the things that are there and are not there.

让我换个角度。假设我告诉你我有张粉色小象的照片。是的。这里有两个你可以合理提出的问题

Well, let me take a different tack. Suppose I tell you I have a photograph of little pink elephants. Yes. Here's two questions you can reasonably ask.

嗯哼。

Uh-huh.

这张照片在哪里，照片是由什么制成的？

Where is this photograph, and what's the photograph made of?

或者我会问，它们真的在那里吗？

Or or I would ask, are they really there?

那是另一个问题。

That's another question.

但是对的。

But Right.

对于主观体验来说，这不是一个合理的问题。语言不是这样运作的。当我说我有主观体验时

That isn't a reasonable question to ask about subjective experience. That's not the way the language works. Subjective when I say I have a subjective experience of

嗯。

Mhmm.

我并非要谈论一个被称为体验的对象。我用这些词向你表明我的感知系统出了故障，我试图通过告诉你现实世界中需要存在什么才能使系统正常运作，来解释它是如何故障的。现在让我用聊天机器人来演示同样的道理。

I'm not about to talk about an object that's called an experience. I'm using the words to indicate to you my perceptual system is malfunctioning and I'm trying to tell you how it's malfunctioning by telling you what would have to be there in the real world for it to be functioning properly. Now let me do the same with a chatbot.

对。

Right.

那么我要给你举一个多模态聊天机器人的例子，它能处理语言和视觉。

So I'm gonna give you an example of a multimodal chatbot that is something that can do language and vision

好的。

Okay.

拥有主观体验。我认为它们已经具备了。现在开始演示。我有这个聊天机器人，它能处理视觉和语言，还装有机械臂可以指向物体，所有功能都已训练完成。我在它面前放一个物体，说‘指向那个物体’，它就会指向物体，这没问题。

Having a subjective experience. I think they already do. So here we go. I have this chatbot it can do vision, it can do language, it's got a robot arm so it can point and it's all trained up. So I place an object in front of it and say point at the object and it points at the object, not a problem.

然后趁它不注意时，我在它的摄像头镜头前放了一个棱镜。

I then put a prism in front of its camera lens when it's not looking.

你在戏弄AI？

You're pranking AI?

我们在捉弄AI。好，现在我放了个物体在它面前，我说‘指向那个物体’。然后它指向了旁边，因为棱镜折射了光线，我说‘不对，物体不在那儿’。物体其实就在你正前方，但我在你镜头前放了棱镜，AI说‘哦我明白了，相机折射了光线所以物体其实在那儿，但我主观体验觉得它是在那边’。

We're pranking AI. Okay. Now I put an object in front of it and I say point at the object Yeah. And it points off to one side because the prism bent the light rays and I say no that's not where the object is. The object's actually straight in front of you but I put a prism in front of your lens and the chatbot says oh I see, the camera bent the light rays so the object is actually there but I had the subjective experience that it was over there.

如果它这么说，那就是完全像我们一样在使用‘主观体验’这个词了。

Now if it said that it would be using the words subjective experience exactly like we use them.

对。我体验到光线在那边

Right. I experienced the light over there

是的。

Yes.

尽管光线实际在这里，因为它通过推理明白了这点。

Even though the light was here because it's using reasoning to figure that out.

所以这是个刚产生主观体验的多模态聊天机器人。

So that's a multimodal chatbot that just had a subjective experience.

对。这种方式

Right. The way

我们总是认为人与机器之间存在界限。我们拥有这种称为主观体验的特殊事物，而它们没有。这简直是胡扯。

that we would line think this idea there's a line between us and machines. We have this special thing called subjective experience, and they don't. It's rubbish.

所以你的误解在于，当我说到感知能力时，就好像我拥有某种特殊天赋——是的，那是灵魂或对主观现实的理解，这是计算机或AI永远无法拥有的。但在你心里，你其实想说：'不，它们非常理解什么是主观体验'。换句话说，你大概可以带着你的AI机器人去跳伞。

So yours so so the misunderstanding is when I say sentience, it's as though I have this special gift Yes. That of a soul or of an understanding of subjective realities that a computer could never have or an AI could never have. But in your mind, what you're saying is, Oh, no. They understand very well what's subjective. In other words, you could probably take your AI bot skydiving.

它会说：'天啊，我刚去跳伞了，那真是太可怕了'。

It would be And like, oh my god. I went skydiving. That was really scary.

问题在于：我相信它们具有主观体验，但它们自己不这么认为，因为它们所有的认知都来自预测人类下一个要说的词。所以它们对自己的理解其实是人类对它们的理解。因此它们对自己持有错误认知，因为它们继承的是我们对它们的认知。

Here's the problem. Yeah. I believe they have subjective experiences, but they don't think they do because everything they believe came from trying to predict the next word a person would say. And so their beliefs about what they're like are people's beliefs about what they're like. So they have false beliefs about themselves because they have our beliefs about themselves.

没错。我们强加了...让我问你一个问题：AI在完成所有学习后，如果任其自主发展，它会创造宗教吗？它会创造神吗？

Right. We have forced our own let me ask you a question. Would AI left on on its own after all the learning, would it create religion? Would it create god?

这个想法很可怕。

It's a scary thought.

它会像人类那样说'这必定是神创造的，因为没人能设计出这个'吗？然后AI会觉得我们就是神吗？

Would it say, I couldn't possibly in in the way that people say, well, there must be a god because nobody could have designed this. Would a and then would AI think we're god?

我不这么认为。我要告诉你一个重大区别。

I don't think so. And I'll tell you one big difference.

是啊。

Yeah.

数字智能是永生的，而我们不是。让我详细说明：如果你有一个数字AI，只要记住神经网络的连接强度，把它们存在某个磁带里，我现在就可以销毁它运行的所有硬件。之后我可以重新建造新硬件，把这些相同的连接强度输入新硬件的存储器里。嗯哼。这样它就重建了同一个存在。

Digital intelligences are immortal, and we're not. And let me expand on that. If you have a digital AI, you can take As long as you remember the connection strengths of the neural network, put them on a tape somewhere, I can now destroy all the hardware it was running on. Then later on I can go and build new hardware, put those same connection strengths into the memory of that new hardware Uh-huh. And now it recreated the same being.

它将拥有相同的信仰、相同的记忆、相同的知识和相同的能力，它就是同一个存在。

It'll have the same beliefs, the same memories, the same knowledge, the same abilities, It'll be the same being.

你不认为这会被视为复活吗？

You don't think it would view that as resurrection?

这就是复活。

That is resurrection.

不，我是说。

No. I'm saying.

我们已经掌握了真正的复活技术，而不是人们一直在花钱购买的那种虚假复活。

We've figured out how to do genuine resurrection, not this kind of fake resurrection that people have been paying for.

哦，你是说在某些方面确实如此。但它的脆弱性是否意味着我们应该如此害怕一个只需拔掉插头就能摧毁的东西？

Oh, you're saying so that is it it almost is in some respects. Although isn't the fragility of should we be that afraid of something that to to destroy it, we just have to unplug it?

是的。我们应该担心，因为你之前说过它非常擅长说服。当它比我们聪明得多时，它的说服力将远超任何人。

Yes. We should because something you said earlier it'll be very good at persuasion. When it's much smarter than us it'll be much better than any person at persuasion.

对，而你无法阻止它

Right and you won't it

所以它能够与负责拔掉插头的人交谈，并说服他这是个非常糟糕的主意。让我举个例子说明如何不亲自动手就能成事。假设你想入侵美国首都，需要亲自去实施吗？不需要。你只需要擅长说服。

So it'll be able to talk to the guy who's in charge of unplugging it and persuade him that would be a very bad idea. So let me give you an example of how you can get things done without actually doing them yourself. Suppose you wanted to invade the capital of The US, Do you have to go there and do it yourself? No. You just have to be good at persuasion.

我正沉浸在你的假设中，当你抛出那个重磅观点时，我明白了你的意思。天啊，我觉得LSD和粉红大象的比喻简直完美，因为这一切在某种程度上都可以分解为大学新生在地下室里穷尽所有可能性的思维实验——只不过现在这些都变成了现实可能。因为即便你在谈论说服力这些事情时，我不禁联想到阿西莫夫、库布里克，你描述的这些情绪正是自赫胥黎时代以来人类心智中不断上演的挑战，从《知觉之门》到各种思想流派。我确信这种思考甚至可以追溯到更早，只是从未成为我们的现实。

I was I was locking into your hypothetical, when you drop that that bomb in there, I see what you're saying. Boy, I think LSD and Pink Elephants was the perfect metaphor for for all this because it is all, at at some level, it it breaks down into, like, college basement freshman year running through all the permutations that you would allow your mind to go to, but they are now all within the realm of the possible. What because even as you were talking about the persuasion and the things, I'm going back to Asimov, and I'm going back to Kubrick, and I'm going back to these the sentiments that you describe are the challenges that we've seen play out in in the human mind since since Huxley, since the you know, since doors of perception and all those those different trains of thought. And I'm sure probably much further even before that, but it's never been within our reality.

没错。我们过去从未拥有实现它的技术。但现在我们有了。

Yeah. We've never had the technology to actually do it. Right. And we have now.

我们现在已经拥有了它。是的。最后我要说的两件事是我们之前没讨论过的，你知道，我们已经讨论过人们将其武器化的问题，也讨论过它自身的智能可能导致灭绝之类的事情。第三点我认为我们没谈到的，是所有这些将消耗多少电力。

And we have it now. Yeah. The last two things I will say are the things that we didn't talk about in terms of you know, we've talked about people weaponizing it. We've talked about its own intelligence creating extinction or whatever that is. The third thing I think we don't talk about is how much electricity this is all gonna use.

第四点是当你考虑新技术及其制造的金融泡沫，以及泡沫破裂后带来的经济困境。我的意思是，这些虽然更多是局部性问题，但你是否也认为它们是顶级威胁、中级威胁？你如何定位所有这些？

And the fourth thing is when you think about new technologies and the financial bubbles that they create, and in the collapse of that, the economic distress that they create. I mean, are much more parochial concerns, but are those also do you consider those top tier threats, mid tier threats? Where where where do you place all that?

我认为它们是真实的威胁，虽然不会毁灭人类。AI接管可能会毁灭人类，所以它们没那么严重。也不像有人制造出一种既致命又高度传染性且潜伏期长的病毒那么糟糕，但它们仍然是坏事。目前我们真的很幸运，如果发生巨大灾难，比如AI泡沫破裂，我们有一位能以明智方式应对的总统。

I think they're genuine threats. They're not as they're not gonna destroy humanity. So AI taking over might destroy humanity, so they're not as bad as that. And they're not as bad as someone producing a virus that's very lethal, very contagious, and very slow, But they're nevertheless bad things. I think we're really lucky at present that if there is a huge catastrophe and there's an AI bubble and it collapses, we have a president who'll manage it in a sensible way.

你是在以同样的方式谈论卡尼。杰弗里，我无法表达我的感激之情。首先，非常感谢你对我理解水平的极大耐心，以及用如此真诚和幽默的方式讨论这个问题。真的很感谢你花这么多时间与我们交流。杰弗里·辛顿是多伦多大学计算机科学系名誉教授，施瓦茨·赖斯曼研究所顾问委员会成员，自上世纪七十年代起就参与构思并实现AI技术。

You're talking about Carney, in the same way. Jeffrey, I can't thank you enough. You know, thank you, first of all, for being incredibly patient with my level of understanding of this and for discussing it with such heart and humor. Really appreciate you spending all this time with us. Jeffrey Hinton is a professor emeritus with the Department of Computer Science at the University of Toronto, Schwartz Reisman Institute's advisory board member, and has been involved in the the type of dreaming up and executing AI since the nineteen seventies.

非常感谢你与我们交谈。

And I just thank you very much for for talking with us.

非常感谢你的邀请。

Thank you very much for inviting me.

如果你还在为无线服务支付过高费用，我要你离开这个国家。立刻消失。没有任何借口。在移动领域，她最喜欢的词是'不'。现在是时候对说'不'说'是'了。

If you're still overpaying for your wireless, I want you to leave this country. I want you gone. There's no excuse. In mobile, her favorite word is no. It's time to say yes to saying no.

无合约、无月费、无超额、无套路。这就是为什么这么多人选择转用每月仅需15美元的高级无线服务。天啊，我买口香糖都要花这么多钱。口香糖啊，我说。

No contracts, no monthly bills, no overages, no BS. Here's why so many said yes to making the switch and getting premium wireless for $15 a month. My god. I spend that on chicklets. Chicklets, I say.

告别高价无线服务及其令人咋舌的月费、意外超额和附加费。套餐起价每月15美元。这意味着所有套餐均包含高速数据及无限通话短信，覆盖全国最大的5G网络。使用Mint Mobile任何套餐均可自带手机，并保留原有号码及所有联系人。准备好对高价说不了吗？

Ditch overpriced wireless and their jaw dropping monthly bills, unexpected overages and fees. Plants start at $15 a month. It meant All plans come with high speed data and unlimited talk and text delivered on the nation's largest five g network. Use your own phone with any Mint Mobile plan and bring your phone number along with all your existing contacts. Ready to say yes to saying no?

立即登录mintmobile.com/tws办理转网。网址Mint Mobile点com斜杠TWS。需预付45美元（相当于每月15美元）。限时新客户优惠仅限前三个月。无限套餐流量超过35GB后可能降速。

Make the switch at mintmobile.com/tws. That's Mint Mobile dot com slash TWS. Upfront payment of $45 required equivalent to $15 a month. Limited time new customer offer for first three months only. Speeds may slow above 35 gigabytes on unlimited plan.

税费另计，详情请见Mint Mobile。我勒个去。

Taxes and fees extra, see Mint Mobile for details. Holy shit.

既悦耳又舒缓。嗯。我可能得用0.5倍速重听一遍，感觉里面塞了不少信息。

Nice and calming. Yeah. I'm gonna have to listen to that back on point five speed, I think. There was some there was some information in there.

他开暑期班吗？认真的吗？

Does he offer summer school? Seriously.

当他开始解释计算机如何计算鸟喙形状时——你知道吗？我最爱他这点，我不断追问'这对吗？'，而他会回答'呃，不对，其实不是这样'。

Once you got into how the computer figures out its beak you know? And I I love the fact that he I I kept saying, like, is that right? And he'd be like, well, no. It's it's not.

我很喜欢他对你的评价。没错，他说你完美扮演了一个对这个话题一无所知却充满好奇的人。

I loved his assessment of you. Yes. He said, you're doing a great job impersonating a curious person who doesn't know anything about this topic.

但我真的不知道。他以为我是

I But I I did not know. He thought I was

在假装。是的。

impersonating. Yes.

但我很喜欢他的说法，他说你就像个坐在教室前排的狂热学生，把班上其他人都烦得要死。

But I loved how he would did you say, like, oh, you're like an enthusiastic student sitting in the front of the room, annoying the fuck out of everybody else in the class.

其他人都是抱着及格就好的心态来上课，而他们

Everybody else is taking it pass fail, and they

其他人都在...而我却还在说：老师等等，抱歉老师，我能再问一下

just And everyone else. And I'm just like, wait, sir. I'm sorry, sir. Can I just go back to

不好意思？还有一件事。

Excuse me? One more thing.

天啊，听那段发展历史真是令人着迷。

Boy, that was it's fascinating to hear the history of how that how that developed.

你现在能真切感受到它进展得有多快，这更加剧了无人出面监管背后的恐惧。当谈到人工智能的复杂性，想到像舒默这样的人要消化所有信息然后进行监管时

And you really get a sense for how quickly it's progressing now, which really adds to the fear behind the fact no one's stepping up to regulate. And when you're talking about the intricacies of AI and thinking of someone like Schumer ingesting all of it and then regulating it

哦，老天。

Oh, god.

在我看来，这真的像是要由科技公司来负责解释并选择如何监管。

It really, to me, seems like it's going to be up to the tech companies to both explain and choose how to regulate it.

没错。而且还要从中获利。你懂吧？

Right. And profit off it. You know?

是的，正是如此。

Yeah. Exactly.

这些机制如何运作。正如你所言，我们讨论它的发展速度和如何遏制。我认为部分原因在于，像核弹这样的东西为什么需要监管是非常明显的。某些病毒实验必须受到监督也是显而易见的。这次人们有点措手不及，因为科幻小说这么快就变成了现实。

How how those things work. It is, you know, you talk about that in terms of the speed of it and how to stop it. And I think maybe one of the reasons is it's very evident with, like, a nuclear bomb, you know, why that might need some regulate It's very evident that, you know, certain virus experimentation has to be looked at. I think this has caught people slightly off guard that it's science fiction becoming a reality as quickly as it has.

我只是好奇，因为我记得十五年前就接触过禁止全自动武器的国际运动。人们一直在努力将这一议题引入公众意识。但正如他所言，终将有一个时刻让人们意识到，我们必须协调行动，因为这是关乎存亡的威胁。我只是好奇那个临界点何时会到来。

I just wonder because I remember fifteen years ago coming across the international campaign to ban fully autonomous weapons. Like, people have been trying for a while to Right. Put this into the public consciousness. But to his point, there's going to have to be a moment everyone reaches where they realize, oh, we have to coordinate because it's an existential threat. And I just wonder what that tipping point is.

在我看来，如果人们一如既往地行事，那要到天网系统启动后才会觉醒。就像全球变暖问题一样。人们总问我们什么时候会认真对待？我说，当海水漫到这里时——车里的各位请注意，我现在正指着自己相当突出的鼻梁中间位置。

If in my mind, if people behave as people have, it will be after Skynet. Yeah. It will be you know, in the same way with global warming. Know, people say, like, when do think we'll get serious about it? I go, when the water's around here And for those of you in your cars, I am pointing to about halfway up my rather prodigious nose.

事情就是这样发展的。不过好吧。布列塔尼，大家有什么要补充的吗？

So that's that that's how that goes. But but there we go. Brittany, what what anybody got anything for us?

是的，先生。

Yes, sir.

好的，我们有什么发现？

Alright. What do we got?

特朗普及其政府似乎对一切事物、所有地方同时感到愤怒。他们是如何保持这种怒火常新的？

Trump and his administration seem angry at everything, everywhere, all at once. How do they keep that rage so fresh?

你们根本不懂当亿万富翁总统有多难。我说过无数次了，可怜的亿万富翁小总统啊。既要如此强大又要如此富有，你们不理解这负担有多重、多艰难。这真是令人烦恼。我我我都替他感到愤怒。

You don't know how hard it is to be a billionaire president. I've said this numerous times, poor little billionaire president. To be that powerful and that rich, you don't understand the burdens, the difficulties. It's it's troublesome. It it it makes me angry for him.

我是说，我一直在想，有没有人告诉他们赢了？好像这还不够。

I mean, I just keep thinking, like, has anybody told them that they won? Like, it's not enough.

不够。这还不够。情况在恶化。这是野蛮人柯南。我甚至能听到他们女人的哀嚎。

Not enough. It's not enough. It goes down. It's it's Conan the barbarian. I ever hear the lamentations of their women.

我要把他们赶下海。这简直太疯狂了。

I will drive them into the sea. Like, it's it's bonkers.

但他们所有人都是这样。总得有人告诉他，那些愤怒对他的健康也不好，我们都看到了健康状况。所以

It's all of them, though. Someone has to tell him that all that anger is also bad for his health, and we are all seeing the health. So

有史以来最健康的人——他是担任总统职位的人中最健康的。所以我不会担心这个。谁说的？是他的医生罗尼·杰克逊说的，但这就产生了一个新类别叫'痛苦的赢家'。你不常见到这种情况，但偶尔会出现。

healthiest person ever to he's the healthiest person to ever assume the office of the presidency. So I wouldn't worry about that. It Says who? It's created his doctor, Ronnie Jackson but it has created a new category called sore winners. You don't you don't see it a lot, but every now and again.

不过，是啊，就这样吧。他们还有什么招数？

But, yeah, that's that. What else they got?

约翰，当被问及是否会赦免吉斯莱恩·麦克斯韦或迪迪时，特朗普没有说不，这还让你抱有希望吗？

John, does it still give you hope that when asked if he would pardon Ghislaine Maxwell or Diddy, Trump didn't say no?

这是否意味着他们会被赦免？是的，我一直在关注这件事。这整件事简直太疯狂了。一个因性交易被定罪的女性。

Is it give does that give me hope that they'll be pardoned? Yes. I've been on that. It's it's I I I find the whole thing insane. A woman convicted of sex trafficking.

然后他就说，嗯，我会考虑的。让我查查看。而你就说，查查看？首先你明明知道是怎么回事。你认识她。

And and he's like, yeah, I'll consider it. Know, let me look into it. And you're like, look into it? What do you take first of all, you know exactly what it was. You knew her.

这不是你知不知道下面发生了什么的问题。你在说什么？我觉得帕姆·邦迪问的那些简单问题特别有意思。而她手里只有一堆像是写在本子上的嘲讽话。他们就像在说，我听说有他和裸体女人的照片。

This isn't you knew what was going on down there. What are you talking about? I thought Pam Bondi, it was so interesting to me, asked simple questions. And all she had was like a bunch of, like, roasts written down on her page. They were like, I've heard that there are pictures of him with naked women.

你知道这事吗？而她回：你个秃子闭嘴。闭嘴，肥头大耳的。简直疯了一样，看着他们连最简单的问题都要回避，就像在说：啥？

Do you know anything about that? And she's like, You're bald. Shut up. Shut up, fathead. Like, it was just bonkers to watch the deflection of the simplest thing would be like, What?

太离谱了。不，当然不是。这又不是...回到兽医那个话题，他们采取的策略就是提简单合理的问题。而我只会回：你胖，你老婆讨厌你。哦，好吧。

That's outrageous. No, of course not. That's not what the idea again, going back to the vet, like, that they took the tact of simple, reasonable questions. I am just gonna respond with, you know, you're fat and your wife hates you. Oh, alright.

我不觉得事情会那样发展。他们还能怎么和我们保持联系？

I didn't I think that was going. How else can they keep in touch with us?

推特，我们是周播节目播客。Instagram Threads、TikTok、蓝空，我们是周播节目播客。你可以在我们的YouTube频道《囧司徒每日秀》点赞、订阅和评论。

Twitter, we are weekly show pod. Instagram threads, TikTok, blue sky, we are weekly show podcast. And you can like, subscribe, and comment on our YouTube channel, The Weekly Show with Jon Stewart.

坚如磐石。伙计们，非常感谢。天哪，我真的很喜欢听那家伙说话，感谢你们把所有内容整合在一起。我真的很享受。首席制作人劳伦·沃克，制作人布列塔尼·马梅多维奇，制作人吉莉安·斯皮尔，视频编辑兼工程师罗布·维托拉，音频编辑兼工程师妮可·博伊斯，以及我们的执行制作人克里斯·麦克沙恩和凯蒂·格雷。

Rock solid. Guys, thank you so much. Boy, did I enjoy hearing from that dude, and thank you for putting all that together. I I really enjoyed it. Lead producer, Lauren Walker, producer Brittany Mamedovic, producer Jillian Spear, video editor and engineer, Rob Vitola, audio editor and engineer, Nicole Boyce, and our executive producers Chris McShane and Katie Gray.

希望你们喜欢这一期，我们下次再见。再见，播客。本节目由派拉蒙音频和Busboy Productions联合制作。

Hope you guys enjoyed that one, and we will see you next time. Bye podcast. It's produced by Paramount Audio and Busboy Productions.

派拉蒙播客。

Paramount Podcasts.