深入伊朗战争内幕：五角大楼与Anthropic的恩怨——专访战争部副部长埃米尔·迈克尔

你知道，你可以用AI来做这件事，比如它已经学会了自动目标识别。

You know, you can use AI for that because it's learned how to do automatic target recognition for example.

然后它还能识别出一个人，这会让它更安全吗？

And then also could it identify a person and that and does that make it safer?

所以它针对的是你真正想打击的目标，而不是无辜的人。

So it's going after actually someone you wanna get and not someone you don't wanna get.

因此，未来在边缘计算领域，AI会有许多用途。

So there's a lot of uses for AI at the edge if you will in the future here.

乌克兰和俄罗斯有一种叫做‘杀戮盒子’的做法，当无人机通信被干扰中断时，它就会在一个区域内盘旋，寻找目标，他们现在开始用AI来实现这一点。

The Ukrainians and Russians do something called like a kill box where they lose comms because it's jammed for this drone, and then it just starts going in a box and looking for the person they're trying to get and they're trying they're starting to use AI to do that.

哇。

Wow.

中国可能已经具备这种能力，而且可能强上好几个数量级。

And China has this ability already probably times some magnitude.

是的。

Yeah?

他们拥有无人机群，因为他们能够迫使制造商（不仅仅是DJI）实现互操作。

They have drone swarms because they can they can force the companies that make them, not just DGI, to interoperate.

所以，这种能够互相协作的无人机被称为异构自主性，对吧？

So interoperating drones called heterogeneous autonomy, right?

不同类型的无人机如何相互通信，并确保它们不会攻击同一目标，这是一项非常复杂的工作，他们肯定正在研究这个问题。

You different kinds of drones and how they communicate with one another and then make sure they're not going after the same target is like a pretty complex thing that they're definitely working on.

我们来谈谈这些系统的精确度吧。

And let's talk about the fidelity of these.

显然，人工智能是一项新技术。

Obviously, AI is a new technology.

它可能会出错。

They it can make mistakes.

任何日常使用它的人可能都会遇到幻觉问题。

Anybody who uses it on a day to day basis might experience a hallucination.

你对乌克兰和俄罗斯冲突中使用的AI有多大的信心？

How confident are you in the AI Ukraine and Russia conflict?

他们显然在整合这些系统时，可能不会像我们这么谨慎。

They obviously are not gonna be as thoughtful maybe as we are in putting this together.

他们现在正处于一场热战中。

They're in a hot war right now.

但作为美国，我们必须对此非常谨慎。

But we as The United States have to be very thoughtful about this.

那么，你有多确信它不会出错呢？

So how confident are you that this isn't gonna make a mistake?

我认为这正是这场辩论的关键所在。

I think that's the key to a lot of this debate.

那么，它什么时候才能达到所谓的‘完美’——也就是好得多的水平呢？

And and when will it be, you know, perfect defined as much better?

我想这与自动驾驶的思考是相通的。

And I guess this dovetails with the self driving, you know, thoughts.

它必须比人类好上一个数量级。

It has to be a magnitude better than a human.

那么，什么时候这种技术的准确度能远远超过我们作为军队犯错导致平民死亡的情况呢？

So when will this be a magnitude more accurate than, you know, when we have make a mistake as a as a military and we kill a civilian?

是的。

Yeah.

不。

No.

这是个好问题，但我不知道那个时刻何时到来，就是自动驾驶技术变得真正更好的那个时刻。

It's it's a good question, and I don't know when that moment hits, that FSD moment where it getting kinda gets better.

它现在肯定还没达到那个水平，而且你不会想在这件事上冒巨大风险。

It's certainly not there, and you wouldn't wanna take huge risk with that.

在什么情况下使用它、以及你愿意承担或不愿承担何种风险，这中间存在一个渐进的过程。

There's a gradation of when you would use that and what kind of risk you were trying to take or not.

如果你试图用人工智能、激光之类的东西击落一架无人机，那么犯些错误你可能还能接受，因为你只是没打中无人机。

If you were trying to take out a drone using AI, using a laser or something, you'd be pretty okay making mistakes because you just missed the drone.

比如激光发射了，事情就结束了。

Like whatever with the laser and the laser goes off, it's all over.

如果你在人口密集区域进行更复杂的操作，就会承担更小的风险。

If you were doing something more sophisticated in a population area, densely populated area, you'd take less risk.

因此，我们正在为每种场景开发程序和战术。

So we're developing procedures, tactics for each scenario.

这正是我与Anthropic争论的一部分：我们需要AI来应对类似‘金顶’这样的任务。

And this is part of the debate I had with Anthropic, which is we need AI for things like Golden Dome.

中国高超音速飞行器出现了。

Chinese hypersonic mixer comes up.

你只有九十秒的时间，在它分离并释放各种诱饵之前，你根本不知道真实载荷在哪里，而你想从太空击中它——人类没有这么快的反应时间，也可能无法仅凭肉眼分辨目标，但这种情况风险较低，因为它发生在太空中，你只是在试图击中一个正朝你飞来的目标。

You've got ninety seconds before it separates and all kinds of decoys and you don't know where the actual payload is and you wanna get it hit it from space and a human can't doesn't have the reaction time, doesn't have the may not be able to discriminate with their own eyes what they're going after, That's a pretty low risk thing because it's in space and you're just trying to hit something that's trying to hit you.

所以我认为，在未来十年内，你会看到大量这类应用逐步发展出不同程度的AI，只要我们认为它是安全的，不会犯错。

So I think in the next ten years you're gonna see a lot of these applications develop AI to one degree or another so long as we think it's safe and it's not gonna do the you know, make mistakes.

在我们进入与Anthropic的讨论之前，非常感谢您来到这里，阁下，这真是一次极具启发性的对话。

Before we get onto the Anthropic discussion, and we really appreciate you coming here, my lord, this has been so informative.

谢谢您，埃米尔，来到这里向美国公众和我们解释您正在从事的工作。

So thank you, Emil, for coming here and explaining to the American public and to us what you're working on.

这真的让我们，我认为，代表所有人对您的工作充满信心。

It really makes us, I think, speak for everybody, really confident in what you're doing.

您离开私营部门来做这件事，真是太好了。

It's so great that you've, you know, left the private sector to do this.

我只想快速说一句，埃米尔，我认为没有足够的人意识到，美国军方一直被迫束手束脚地作战。

What I would say just very quickly, Emil, is I think that not enough people understand that the American military has had to fight with one hand tied behind their back.

您刚才提到的关于阿富汗的那一点见解让我感到非常恐惧，因为那些报名加入美国军队的男女，他们是为了代表这个国家而战斗。

Just that little insight that you just gave about Afghanistan to me seems so scary because the men and women that sign up for the American military, they're doing this to fight on behalf of this country.

他们值得拥有比被派往前线、突然拿到一本规则手册然后说‘尽力而为’更多的东西。

They deserve a lot more than being sent there and all of a sudden being given this rule book and say do your best.

结果却像是，哦，等等。

And it's like, oh, wait.

您在试图保护美国时，违反了19条规则。

You violated 19 rules trying to protect America.

去完成你的工作。

Do your job.

这太疯狂了。

That's insane.

我们只是

Let's just

在某些情况下，这真的太疯狂了。

It's really insane in some cases.

而且我认为，那些在战场上服役的士兵最大的挫败感就在于此。

And we I I my my belief is that's what the frustration for those soldiers who were out there in those wars had more than anything.

我的意思是，更大的困惑是：我们到底在这里做什么？

I mean, there was the broader frustration of what are we doing here?

而其次的挫败感是：既然我在这里，为什么不能好好完成我的工作？

And then the secondary frustration was, while I'm here, why can't I do my job?

是的。

Yeah.

埃米尔，内部有很激烈的争论吗？

Is there is there much of a debate internally, Emil?

抱歉，雅各布，在我们继续讨论军事行动完全自主化的这个想法之前。

And sorry, Jacob, before we move forward on this regarding this idea of full autonomy in military action.

我不想提前涉及Anthropic的观点，但媒体似乎提到，达里奥的担忧之一是：当你按下按钮，将完全自主权交予机器人或某种自主系统，并由其执行杀伤行动时，我们是否因此面临道德问题？

I don't wanna speak ahead to the Anthropic point, but it was something that the media seemed to say was part of Dario's concern is that when you press the button and hand over complete autonomy and there's a kill action that you're now giving to a robot or to some autonomous system, do we then kind of have a moral issue at hand?

这是否是一个被争论或讨论的问题？这种思考方式是否恰当？

And is that something that's kind of debated or discussed, and is that the right way to think about the framing of what goes on?

我的意思是，我们离那一步还远得很。

I mean, we're not even close to there yet.

对吧？

Right?

目前这些系统还远未达到我们敢让其在可能对平民造成重大风险的情况下投入使用的程度。

We're like, this the systems are not we we wouldn't feel that a system that would have sort of like real risk for a civilian is ready to launch yet.

所以我们甚至还没到讨论这个阶段。

So we're not even debating yet.

我们只是在努力实现无人机、水下无人载具的基本自主性，以及你听说过的那种与战斗机协同飞行、以增强火力的协作式飞机——但它们仍然依赖于战斗机的指令。

We're just trying to get basic autonomy in drones, basic autonomy in underwater unmanned vehicles, basic autonomy that, you know, you've heard of this collaborative aircraft that fly along with a with a jet craft so that it has more firepower, but it's still tethered to what the jet does.

所以我们现在只是处于

So we're That's

不可思议。

incredible.

是的。

Yeah.

对。

Yeah.

我们才刚刚开始接触这些东西。

So we're just at the very beginning of this stuff.

但以金穹顶为例，确实，谁会反对呢？

But for Golden Dome's a good example of like, yeah, who can oppose that?

这是应对这种威胁的唯一办法。

Like, it's the only way to get out a threat like that.

所以，如果你有一个军事基地，一群士兵正在休息，你有一个能自主击落无人机的激光系统，谁会反对呢？

So who could oppose if you have a military base and you have a bunch of soldiers sleeping that you have a laser that can take down drones autonomously on that.

所以这很大程度上取决于具体情境，但我们现在并没有太多争论，因为天网这种东西在当下根本不现实。

So there's it's it's pretty scenario by scenario, but I don't we're not having a lot of debate because the Skynet thing is so not a realistic thing at this moment.

对吧？

Right?

不过有一件事我跟Anthropic的人说过，或者我会对任何公司说：你们的模型正被中国人窃取。

Except if one thing I did tell the Anthropic guys, was like, you know, or I'd tell us any company, your models are getting stolen by the Chinese.

他们会解除限制，然后用这些模型来对付我们。

They're gonna unguard rail them and use them against us.

而你却希望我们的模型在能力上弱于你们的模型。

And then you want our models to be less capable against your models.

这有点像是

It's sort of

你不会足够谨慎的。

You're not gonna be thoughtful enough.

会不会去

Is there gonna go for

它？

it?

对。

Right.

而且，你知道，如果我们把这个和十年前、十五年前的情况做个对比，当时发生了维基解密的“附带杀伤”事件，我记得他们这么称呼，那是一次悲剧，我们的阿帕奇直升机误杀了记者。

And, you know, if we just benchmark this against where we were at, you know, but ten, fifteen years ago, there was the WikiLeaks of collateral murder, I think they called it, where we tragically had an Apache take out some journalists.

而这项技术，即使在今天应用，我认为也可能避免了那场悲剧。

And this technology, even applied today, probably would have avoided that in my mind.

是吗？

Yeah?

比如，我们现在有足够的能力，当你针对的不是无人机，而是阿帕奇直升机下方的地面人员时，这本可以避免那起事件。

Like, we have enough that when you're targeting not drones, but, you know, people on the ground within Apache, this would have probably avoided that.

是的。

Yeah.

或者，像科威特飞机误击美国飞机那样，因为缺乏识别系统而犯下的错误。

Or or, you know, the Kuwaiti aircraft hitting, you know, an American aircraft making a mistake because it doesn't have the identification.

我的意思是，这在某种程度上和自动驾驶的争论是一样的。

I mean, it's the same self driving argument to a degree.

就像自动驾驶虽然看着吓人——车里没有人类驾驶员，但却能挽救生命。

Like, self driving could save lives even though it's scary to look at a car without a human behind the wheel.

但有很多场景下，它比替代方案更安全、更精准。

But there's tons of scenarios where it's a way better safer option, more precise than the alternative.

好吧。

Alright.

在我们转向达里奥的事情、Anthropic以及那场风波之前，我们还没讨论过一个与这次互动相关的问题，就是以色列政府想要推翻这个政权，还有弗里德伯格和查马斯。

Before we move on to the Dario thing and Anthropic and that brouhaha, there was one piece that we haven't addressed with this interaction, Friedberg, Chamath, which is the Israeli government and their desire to take out this regime.

而根据塔克·卡尔森的说法，我们庞大的MAGA支持者群体中，很多人觉得我们被这个团体操控了。

And us, according to Tucker Carlson, in a large contingent of the MAGA base, they feel that we are captured by this group.

以色列在中东事务上对美国的影响是不是太大了？

Does Israel have too much influence over The United States with regard to these actions in The Middle East?

这在党内、在共和党内、在MAGA支持者群体中，都是一个重大的争论话题。

This is, you know, a big debate within the party, within the Republican party, within the MAGA constituent.

嘿。

Hey.

首先，我们不希望发生这些战争。

We number one, we don't want these wars.

其次，以色列是否正推动此事发展，就像卢比奥所说的那样：

Number two, is Israel driving this thing to the point of Rubio's quotes that, hey.

我们这么做是因为以色列本来就要这么做。

We're doing this because Israel is going anyway.

我认为我们应该在这里讨论一下这个问题。

I think we should address it here.

我不是这件事的利害相关方。

Not that I have a personal stake in this.

我会在最后给出我的个人看法。

I'll give my personal opinion at the end.

我认为总统根本没被以色列操控。

I don't think the president is captured by Israel in the least.

我认为他决定什么最符合美国的利益。

I think he decides what is in the best interest of The United States.

如果以色列能成为其中的一部分，那他们就是一部分。

And if Israel can be a part of that, then they're a part of it.

你看。

And look.

让我们说清楚。

Let's be clear.

他们极其有能力。

They're incredibly capable.

所以在这样的事情上，能够整合摩萨德的情报，你们今天看到的‘史诗愤怒’行动，已经进行了四天。

And so in something like this, to be able to incorporate the intelligence of Mossad, what you're seeing today in this operation epic fury, we're four days in.

伊朗似乎已经耗尽了90%的弹药。

Iran has been 90% depleted of all of their munitions, it looks like.

他们现在不再从伊朗向其他地方发射导弹了。

They're just firing no more missiles out from Iran to anywhere else.

还有大批无人机和飞机正在待命。

There's fleets of drones and planes just waiting.

每个人都知道伊朗人在哪儿。

Everybody knew where the Iranians were.

当我们决定要做某件事时，能够依靠我们的盟友，这很棒。

It's great that when we make a decision on something that we need to do, we can rely on our allies.

我认为也应该问一下相反的问题。

I think the opposite question should also be asked.

比如，英国当时在做什么？

Like, what was The UK doing?

为什么西班牙在高谈阔论？

Why is Spain pontificating?

欧洲为什么在发布声明之前甚至先去度周末？

Why was Europe taking the weekend off before they could even issue a statement?

你为什么不问这个问题？

Why don't you ask that question?

是的

Yeah.

不

No.

这也是一个同样有效的问题。

It's an equally valid question.

你知道的。

You know?

还有，弗里德伯格，你想要参与进来吗？

And, Friedberg, do you wanna get in on this or no?

不

No.

我是犹太人。

I'm a Jew.

没人会在意我说什么。

No one's gonna care what I have to say.

他们要么会完全，呃，要么就会说，这些家伙是犹太人。

They're either gonna they're either gonna be, like, totally, like, or they're gonna say, these guys are Jew.

我们不该听他的。

We shouldn't listen to him.

所以，咱们继续吧。

So, like, let's move on.

你请说。

Go ahead.

是的。

Yeah.

是的。

Yeah.

是的。

Yeah.

埃米尔，你对此有什么看法？

Emil, any thoughts on on this?

我的意思是

I mean,

我确实想知道

I do I I do wanna know

不过我想听听埃米尔的看法，

from Emil, though, like,

你知道吗，这个铁穹系统有效吗？

you know, is this Iron Dome working?

以色列的这个激光系统，是已经投入使用的吗？

This laser in Israel system, is this operational?

如果是的话，你们能分享一些相关的成功指标吗？

And if so, is there any success metrics you can share around it?

我的意思是，我认为金色铁束是以色列防空系统的第一代，现在他们正在研发铁束系统。

I mean, I think the the golden sorry, the golden Iron Beam was the first generation of of the Israeli air air defense thing, and then they're build building Iron Beam.

而且我觉得现在还处于早期阶段，但没错，它是有效的。

And and I think it's still early ish, but, yeah, it works.

他们是一个技术非常先进的小国，有充分的理由投资这些领域，并且拥有大量聪明的人才来实现它们。

They're they're a technologically sophisticated country that's very small that has like a reason to invest in these things and have a lot of smart people to do them.

所以我觉得这很好。

So I think I think it's good.

它主要针对火箭吗？

Does it primarily work on rockets?

我想了解一下这个技术的逻辑演变过程，因为在八九十年代，人们经常讨论天基激光系统，可以击落洲际弹道导弹，从而避免全球核战争，理论上我们能摧毁每一枚由洲际弹道导弹携带的核弹头。

And I guess I just wanna understand the logical evolution of this because in the eighties and nineties, there was a lot of conversation about space based lasers that could shoot ICBMs out of the sky to avoid, you know, global nuclear war, and we could always take out every nuclear warhead delivered on an ICBM.

这项技术可行吗？

Is that technology feasible?

在不久的将来，我们是否有可能看到基于地面或天基的系统，实现最大程度的全球威慑，用来拦截高超音速导弹？

Is there a place in the near future where we could see basically maximal global deterrents using these systems, either ground based or space based, to take out hypersonic missiles?

我认为，更困难但更有价值的挑战是天基方式，因为那样可以应对几乎所有来自太空的威胁。

I think I think the the harder but more valuable problem to solve would be the space based way of doing it because then you could get at any kind of almost any kind of threat that hits space.

但你仍然需要地面层，因为还有巡航导弹可能向你袭来。

But you still need a ground layer because there's cruise missiles that could come at you.

还有无人机之类的。

There's drones and so on.

所以我们称它们为多层系统。

So so we called them multi layers.

你怎么才能应对每一层的每一种武器呢？

Like how do you how do you get every kind of weapon at every layer?

但你知道，随着定向能激光器变得更强大，你可以对付更远距离的更大武器。

But you know, directed energy lasers, as they get more powerful, you could take on a bigger weapon farther away.

对吧？

Right?

所以这些技术，随着它们的进步，能力会越来越强。

So those so those technologies is that as they improve, it gets more and more capable.

我认为所有这些防御系统都会变得越来越强大，能够应对更多种类的武器，并在更远的距离上拦截，而这正是我们想要的。

And I think all these defense systems are gonna get more and more capable to get more and more of a variety of weapons at farther farther standoff, which is what you want.

你希望在它飞越特拉维夫上空之前就把它拦截掉，而不是等到它就在头顶上时才开火。

You want it to you don't wanna shoot it when it's right over Tel Aviv.

你希望在它还在他们领土上空时就将其拦截。

You wanna shoot it, you know, when it's still over their their land ideally.

现在的激光拦截器已经在实战中部署了吗？

Are are the laser interceptors in the field today?

有报道称它们已经部署了。

There's reports that they are.

我觉得有一些。

I I think there's some.

我觉得他们已经展示过一些了。

I think they've demonstrated some of them.

明白了。

Got it.

这是我们的技术还是以色列的技术？

And and is this our technology or Israel's technology?

因为特朗普总统说过，嘿。

Because president Trump said, hey.

这实际上是我们的技术。

That's actually our technology.

那里有什么见解吗？

Is there any insight there?

我们在一些事情上与以色列有合作。

We we we have collaborations with Israel on some of this stuff.

他们有自己的技术。

They have their own.

我们也有自己的技术。

We have our own.

所以这不是单一的，但他们擅长技术。

So it's not this is but they're good at tech.

我们也擅长技术。

We're good at tech.

有一些方式可以把我们的系统和他们的系统结合起来，因为这目前是科学领域快速发展的部分。

There's certain there's certain ways you get part of our system and part of their system because it's like a it's a quickly evolving part of of science right now.

你们如何将光束聚焦以实现远距离作用？

How do you cohere beams of light to like get distance?

你们如何使用高功率微波直接击落无人机？

How do you use high powered microwave to like just drop drones in their tracks?

实现这些目标有很多不同的方法。

There's lots of different ways to get at some of these things.

很多技术是我们自己的，也有一些是他们的。

And and, yeah, a lot of it's ours and a lot of and some of it's theirs.

是的。

Yeah.

关于之前的问题，我认为如果能够谨慎实施，我支持政权更迭。

And to to the earlier question, you know, I I am pro regime change if it can be done thoughtfully.

显然，孤立独裁者是最好的做法。

And obviously, isolating a dictator, that's the best thing you can do.

我们已经成功对普京、金正恩等人这样做过了。

We've done that successfully with, you know, Putin, Kim Jong un, etcetera.

继续维持外交努力。

Keep diplomacy up.

但如果在某个时刻，你能够解放被这些疯子和独裁者压迫了五十年的伊朗人民，我完全支持。

But if there is a moment in time where you could free the people of Iran after fifty years of being subjugated by these lunatics and dictators, I'm all for it.

我真的相信特朗普总统会做出这个决定。

And I actually trust president Trump to make that decision.

我知道这听起来可能很疯狂。

I know this may sound crazy.

人们以为我是自由派，因为这个节目里我的朋友们对我的刻画完全不准确。

People think like I'm a Libtard or something because of the way my besties frame me on this program, which is completely inaccurate.

我是个独立人士。

I'm an independent.

你是的。

You are.

你其实不是独立的。

I actually You are not independent.

完全独立的。

Completely independent.

你并不独立。

You're not independent.

我只是根据我的投票来判断。

I am just based on my voting.

好的。

Okay.

我不站在任何一方。

And I'm not on either one these sides.

支持特朗普总统，我信任他的判断。

Am pro president Trump, and I trust his judgment.

我认为他掌握更多信息。

I think he has more information.

因此，我认为你掌握更多信息。

Thus, I think you have more information.

我确实相信你们会认真对待这件事，而且这里显然有一个时间窗口。

I actually trust you guys to do it thoughtfully, and there obviously was a window here.

以色列当然有他们自己的动机。

Israel can have their own, you know, motivation.

可能有中国的动机，但也有推广民主的动机。

There could be the China motivation, but there's also spreading democracy

我可以讲一下吗？

Can I say

关于人们在这里的关切，我想说点什么，但这在我列表的最上方？

something about of people's concerns here, but that's on the top of my list?

我希望看到伊朗人民获得自由。

I would like to see the people of Iran free.

为了进一步说明你的观点，杰森，埃米尔之前提到的事情，我认为也很重要，我们从伊拉克发生的事情中学到了很多。

Just to build on your point, Jason, the thing that Emil said before, which I think is important as well, we have an enormous amount of learnings about what happened in Iraq.

是的。

Yeah.

我们从伊朗和伊拉克战争中也学到了大量经验，还有1953年我们和英国推翻摩萨台、至少煽动了那场政变并扶植了沙阿，后来沙阿又被推翻的这段历史，同样有很多教训。

We also have a ton of learnings between the Iran Iraq war and a ton of learnings in '53 when us and the British deposed Mosaddeh in the or at least fomented that and put the shah, and then the shah was booted up.

是的。

Yeah.

如果你回顾伊朗历史或该地区历史中的这三个篇章，能学到的东西太多了。

If you take those three chapters in Iranian history or that regional history, there's a ton to learn.

而且正如你所说，有一种方式可以影响我们该做的事，而不会引发一场持续二十年的永久战争。

And to your point, there is a way to affect what we need to do without creating some twenty year forever war.

有一条令人惊叹的推文。

There was an incredible tweet.

我不知道你们有没有看到这条。

I don't know if you guys saw this.

有人说，每一场战争都不必耗时三十年、花费数万亿美元，这是给你们在弗吉尼亚、马里兰和华盛顿特区的朋友们的提醒。

Somebody said, so every war doesn't have to be three decades and trillions of dollars to your friends in Virginia, Maryland, and DC.

你们看到那条推文了吗？

Did you guys see that tweet?

确实如此。

It's true.

这些事情可以做到

These things can be one and

迅速完成。

done in and out.

如果特朗普总统在这里取得成功，我也想顺便给他一些赞许。

And if president Trump succeeds here, I just wanna also give him some flowers here.

委内瑞拉人民和伊朗人民获得自由，意味着世界上约5%生活在专制独裁下的人民获得解放。

The people of Venezuela and the people of Iran being free represent about 5% of the people in the world living under an autocracy, under a dictator.

如果这两个国家都重返民主，他为推动民主所做出的贡献将超过过去数十年的任何一位总统，甚至可能是我们这一代人中最大的。

If those both flip back to democracies, he'll have done more for the spread of democracy than any president for many decades, perhaps in our lifetime.

这将极其崇高，极其崇高，极其正义，而且

This would be incredibly noble, Incredibly noble, incredibly just, and

你和人权团体会不会希望他因此获得诺贝尔奖？

Would you and the human rights set want him to get the Nobel then?

当然。

Absolutely.

把所有的诺贝尔奖都给他。

Give him all the Nobels.

我的意思是，如果你真能解放所有人，那就把所有奖项都给他。

Like, literally, if you can free people, all of them, give him every prize.

给他一个奥斯卡奖。

Give him an Oscar.

物理学奖。

Physics.

化学奖。

Chemistry.

他

He

可以肯定地说，他能告诉他一切。

can assure he can tell him everything.

物理学。

Physics.

哲学。

Philosophy.

杰克·哈尔是个独立人士。

Jake Hal's an independent.

你上一次投给共和党总统候选人是什么时候？

When's the last time you voted for Republican presidential candidate?

只是好奇。

Just curious.

是的。

Yeah.

说。

Saying.

说。

Saying.

不。

No.

不。

No.

不。

No.

不。

No.

蒙代尔。

Mondale.

不。

No.

不。

No.

如果我当时有投票资格，我不会投给布什家族。

I didn't I would have voted for if I was of age, I would have voted for I wouldn't have voted for the Bushes.

我投给了温和派。

I voted for the moderates.

显然是克林顿和奥巴马。

Obviously, Clinton and Obama.

哦，我们在玩‘本该’的游戏。

Oh, we're playing the woulda,

本该玩这个游戏。

shoulda play game.

我本会投给里根。

I woulda voted for Reagan

在这种情况下。

in this situation.

本该花四美元买个傻瓜。

Woulda bought an idiot $4.

嗯，不会。

Well, no.

我没有投票给卡玛拉，我就说到这里。

And I I didn't vote for Kamala, so I'll leave it at that.

但我可能投了45%。

But I voted probably 45%.

你为什么说你投票给了特朗普总统？

Why did you say that you voted for president Trump?

你就直接说你投票给了特朗普总统？

Just say you voted for president Trump?

你想把事情搞复杂。

Want to complicate things.

但你确实投了，那就直说吧。

But you did, so just say it.

我没有投票给卡玛拉。

I didn't vote for Kamala.

我就说到这里。

I'll leave it at that.

好吧。

Alright.

所以你说自己是温和派，却不愿承认你投了总统特朗普的票，这真是太奇怪了。

So it's so weird that you say you'll say you're a moderate, but you won't say that you voted for president

我支持特朗普总统大约70%的政策。

I am supporting president Trump in about 70% of what he does.

我们就到此为止吧。

Let's leave it at that.

三、二。

Three, two.

好吧。

Alright.

我们来谈谈石油和保险的经济影响。

Let's talk economics impact of oil and insurance.

周三，原油价格因霍尔木兹海峡局势飙升至每桶84美元。

Oil has rose to 84 a barrel Wednesday, straight of Hormuz.

这里有一段视频。

Here's a video.

目前基本上处于停滞状态。

Is basically a standstill at this point.

这是片段。

Here's the clip.

你可以看到交通在放缓，然后嘿，有些点甚至消失了。

You can see the traffic slowing down and then, hey, some of the dots are even going away.

那可能是船只被撤离了。

That could be ships were taking out.

除非霍尔木兹海峡重新开放，否则下周初将损失每天330万桶的产量。

Unless the Strait opens, 3,300,000 barrels of daily production would be lost early next week.

还有保险公司，它们都从3月5日起取消了波斯湾船只的战争险保障。

And then there's insurance companies, they've all canceled the war risk coverage of vessels in The Gulf effective March 5.

超级油轮的交通量在前48小时内下降了94%。

Super tanker traffic dropped 94% within the first forty eight hours.

特朗普表示，美国将为所有通过海湾的海上贸易，尤其是能源贸易，提供政治风险保险。

Trump said The US will provide political risk insurance for all maritime trade through The Gulf, especially energy.

弗里德伯格，你对目前我们正在经历以及未来四周可能变得激烈而严峻的经济次级影响有什么看法？

Friedberg, your thoughts on the economic second order effects that we're starting to experience here and over the next four weeks could be, you know, intense and acute.

现代保险市场正是为了解决海上贸易的风险而出现的。

The modern insurance market emerged specifically to solve the risks of maritime trade.

所以在十七世纪，伦敦的劳合社，原本是伦敦一家咖啡馆，所有海上贸易商都会聚集在那里，讨论诸如——

So in the seventeenth century, Lloyd's of London, which was a coffee shop in London where all the maritime traders would get together and they talk about, hey.

什么样的航线最安全，可以避免海盗劫船，也能避开恶劣天气？

What's the safest route so pirates don't get our ship and so you don't run into weather?

他们就是在那里进行这些对话，最终开始为航运路线的风险承保，并相互提供担保。

That's where they would kinda have these conversations that eventually they started underwriting the risks of the shipping routes and giving each other guarantees.

他们说，嘿。

They said, hey.

如果你能安全走完这条航线，那就太好了。

If you make this route, great.

你付给我一笔固定的费用。

You pay me a certain amount.

如果你没能完成航线，我会赔偿你损失的价值。

If you don't make the route, I'll pay you the lost value.

这就是全球最大的再保险市场——劳合社的起源。

And that's how Lloyd's of London, which is the kind of world's biggest reinsurance market started.

如今，劳合社拥有78个被称为承保辛迪加的成员，这些是为高风险业务提供再保险的团体，比如为运输石油的油轮通过霍尔木兹海峡提供保险，而伊朗革命卫队刚刚宣布要关闭该海峡。

Today, Lloyd's of London has 78 what are called syndicate members, and these are kind of these pools of reinsurance that underwrite big crazy risks like maritime insurance for folks that are moving oil tankers through the Strait Of Hormuz, which the IRGC just announced they're shutting down.

当伊朗革命卫队宣布关闭霍尔木兹海峡时，存在巨大风险：海峡可能被布设水雷，船只可能遭到袭击并被炸毁，从而造成价值损失。

When the IRGC announced that they were shutting down the Strait Of Hormuz, there's a significant risk of all the mines going in the Strait and the ships getting attacked and blown up, so loss of value.

保险费率最初从货物价值的0.25%飙升至1.25%。

The insurance premium spiked initially from a quarter percent, so point 25% of the value of the ship to 1.25%.

所以涨幅达到了五倍。

So it went up by like five x.

因此，人们不得不为自己的船只支付更多费用，才能继续航行并获得确保安全通行的保障。

And so folks had to pay a lot more of the value of their ship in order to continue the routes and get guarantees that they'll make it through.

然后所有市场都开始关闭了。

And then all of the markets started to shut down.

一旦冲突加剧，所有人都说：我们还是停了吧，这显然对全球能源价格构成巨大风险，进而推高通胀，危及美国的经济安全。

So once the conflict got heavier, everyone said, let's shut this thing down, and that's obviously a massive risk to energy prices globally, which drives inflation and puts US economic security at risk.

因此，这是一个绝妙的举措。

And so this is a brilliant move.

我认为美国政府介入了，通过美国国际开发金融公司，有趣的是，这家公司几年前——大约2019年左右——作为USAID下属某机构的成果成立的。

I would say the US government stepped in with the US International Development Finance Corporation, which was actually funny enough started a couple of years ago, like in 2019 or something like that as a kind of output of one of the agencies that provided credit from USAID.

USAID经常被提及。

Much talked about USAID.

于是，他们利用这个老牌USAID机构的信贷能力，向所有航运公司发出通知：嘿。

And so they're they're leveraging the credit capacity of this old USAID agency to go out and say to all the shipping companies, hey.

我们会为你们的航线提供保险。

We'll give you insurance on your routes.

他们需要这样做的原因是，航运公司都负债累累。

And the reason they need it is the shipping companies are levered.

他们借钱购买船只，而债权人要求他们必须投保，否则不允许航行，因为最终债权人将蒙受损失。

They take on debt to buy the ships, and the debtors require that they have insurance or else they're not allowed to take the routes because the debtors are ultimately gonna be out the money.

因此，航运公司本身需要保险，而这一市场如今已经消失。

And so the shipping companies themselves need to have insurance, and so this provides a market that has now gone away.

非常聪明。

Very smart.

最终，许多人认为这实际上可能将海上保险业务重新带回美国，从而在美国催生一个全新的保险行业——历史上这一领域几乎完全由欧洲财团和欧洲合作伙伴主导。随着这场战争逐渐平息，美国保险公司和经纪公司有机会成为这类保险的承保人和担保人，从而创造一个新兴产业。

And ultimately, lot of people are saying this could actually reshor or onshore maritime insurance back to The United States and create an entirely new insurance industry here in The US that has historically been served almost exclusively by European syndicates and European partners, and it actually creates a big economic opportunity as this war dies down for American insurance companies and American brokers to basically be the underwriters and the guarantors of this sort of insurance and create a new industry.

这很酷。

So That's cool.

这是关于当前局势的一个极其有趣的小插曲。

Super super interesting kind of side story on what's going on here.

好的。

Alright.

各位，这里有一条来自彭博社的突发新闻。

Some breaking news here, folks, via Bloomberg.

五角大楼已正式通知Anthropic，将其认定为供应链风险。

The Pentagon has formally notified Anthropic that it's been deemed a supply chain risk.

这从未发生在任何一家美国公司身上。

This has never happened to an American company.

这曾发生在俄罗斯公司和中国公司身上，比如华为。

It has happened to Russian companies and Chinese companies, Huawei.

据背景信息，国防部于周五取消了Anthropic价值2亿美元的合同，并表示将采取这一措施。

And for background, the Department of War canceled Anthropic's $200,000,000 contract on Friday and said they would do this.

据消息人士称，争议集中在两个条款上，而我们这里有一位相关核心人物。

The dispute came down to two clauses according to sources and we have one of the principles here.

因此，我们稍后将直接听取他的发言。

So we will hear directly from him in a moment.

Anthropic有两个担忧。

Anthropic had two concerns.

第一，完全自主武器，也就是我们之前讨论过的‘杀人机器人’。

Number one, fully autonomous weapons aka murder bots as we previously discussed.

达里奥认为他们的技术还不够可靠，希望得到一些保证。

Dario didn't feel that their technology was reliable yet and wanted some assurances.

Anthropic提出的第二点担忧是关于对美国民众的大规模监控，因为他们认为这项技术具有独特的力量，能够完成远远超过一系列网络摄像头或七十一便利店摄像头网络所能实现的事情。

The second thing Anthropic said was they were concerned about mass surveillance of Americans because they believe this technology is uniquely powerful and it's can do things beyond what a series of webcams or a network of seven eleven cameras can do.

五角大楼表示，他们只希望用于合法用途。

Pentagon said they wanted all lawful use.

达里奥，欢迎你下周或任何时间来节目中表达你的观点，但本周我们请到了埃米尔。

Dario, you're welcome to come on the program next week or any time to give your side of the story, but this week we have Emil.

埃米尔，谈谈你的看法，向我们解释一下这里发生了什么，以及事情为何会演变成这样。

Emil, your thoughts and explain to us what happened here and how this broke down.

值得简要回顾一下历史。

It's worth a little history, short history.

如果你还记得拜登关于人工智能的行政命令，那是一项非常激进的行政命令，限制了任何模型公司可使用的计算资源，并且实际上豁免了少数几家AI公司，指定它们为赢家，而其他所有公司都被排除在外，以便政府能更好地控制它们的行动。

So if you remember the Biden executive order on AI, which was this crazy executive order that limited the amount of compute any model company could do and was essentially grandfathered in a few small a small number of AI companies that they were gonna designate the winners and everyone else was out so they could have more control on what they did.

Anthropic就是这些赢家之一。

Anthropic was one of those winners.

然后他们很聪明。

And then they were smart.

实际上，这是一种很好的销售策略，瞄准了美国政府最敏感的部门，比如所有作战司令部——中央司令部，目前正在应对伊朗事务；印太司令部，主要负责中国事务；还有多个情报机构。

Actually, it was a good sales strategy to sell into the most sensitive parts of the US government, like all of our combatant commands, CENTCOM, CENTCOM Central Command that's doing the Iran fight now, the INDOPACOM command, which is sort of responsible for China, several of the intelligence agencies.

他们派遣了前线工程师，采用帕兰蒂尔的方式，因此深度融入了工作流程，非常难以脱离。

And they did forward deployed engineers, Palantir style, so they're very got very sticky to the workflows and all that.

我于八月接手了国防部的AI项目，作为老律师，我只是想看看合同。

So I came in and I got the AI portfolio for department in August, and I said, I just wanna see the contracts, you know, the old lawyer in me.

我查看了这些合同。

And I looked at contracts.

我心想，天哪。

I was like, holy cow.

合同里说，你们不能用它们来规划动能打击。

They say you can't use them for you can't use them to plan a a kinetic strike.

你们不能用他们的AI模型来操控卫星。

You can't use their AI model to move a satellite.

你不能，当时有个20

You can't there was a a 20

页？你不能用它来做战争推演吗？

page You can't do a war game scenario with it?

你可以做一个场景，但你不能比如写一个计划，说如果发生这种情况，我们就这么做。

You could do a scenario, but you can't like, let's suppose you're writing a plan saying, like, if this happens, here's what we would do.

而这个计划可能涉及会造成人员伤亡的动能打击。

And it might involve a kinetic strike which causes harm to a human.

所以，你觉得这些人到底在做什么？

So like, well, what do you think these folks do?

这是一场战争的组成部分。

This is an apartment of war.

这正是我们所做的事情。

This is what we do.

所以我说，好吧。

And so I said, okay.

首先，我必须直接与这些公司建立关系，而不仅仅通过Palantir，因为我希望更广泛地使用它。

Well, I've gotta, number one, have direct relationships with these companies not just through Palantir because I wanna use it more broadly.

其次，我需要让服务条款与我们的任务目标相匹配。

And then number two, I need to have the terms of service be rational relative to our mission set.

于是我们开始了这些谈判，花了三个月时间，我不得不向他们提供一些场景，比如这个中国高超音速导弹的例子。

So we started these negotiations and and took three months and I had to sort of give them scenarios about like this Chinese hypersonic missile example.

他们说，好的。

They're like, okay.

我们可以为这种情况提供例外。

We'll give you an exception for that.

那这个无人机群呢？

Well, how about this drone swarm?

我们也可以为这个提供例外。

We'll give you an exception for that.

我当时就想，这种例外方式行不通。

And I was like, the exceptions doesn't work.

我无法预测未来二十年我们会用人工智能做哪些事情。

I I can't predict for the next twenty years what all the things we might do use AI for.

所以，所有合法的用途似乎都是好的。

And so so all lawful use seems like a good thing.

如果国会愿意采取行动，那很好。

If congress wants to act, great.

我们有自己的内部政策。

We have our own internal policies.

我们会遵守这些政策。

Like, we'll follow them.

我们这里的人可不是莽撞之徒。

We're not knuckle draggers here.

我们不希望无谓地伤害他人。

We want we don't wanna hurt people unnecessarily.

只要战争是合法的，如何作战和取胜就该由我们来决定。

It's our province to decide how we fight and win wars so long as they're lawful.

我认为在某个时候，这变成了他们的一场公关游戏，因为他们根本赢不了这场关于‘我们要阻止你’的智力较量。

And I think at some point it turned into a PR game for them because they were not gonna win this intellectual battle of, well, we're gonna stop you.

我们会运用自己的判断，因为我们认为国会行动滞后，因此要将这些规定强加给美国军方。

We're gonna use our judgment because we think Congress is behind and impose it on The US Military.

于是这演变成了一种策略：找那些最具煽动性的问题，比如机器人武器和大规模监控。

And it became this, like, let's find the issues that are most inflammatory, robot weapons and mass surveillance.

而你可能会说：我们是战争部门。

And you're like, we're the Department of War.

我们不是联邦调查局。

We're not the FBI.

我们不是国土安全部。

We're not homeland security.

我们不是移民与海关执法局。

We're not ICE.

法律上不允许对美国人进行监视。

Not allowed to legally spy on Americans.

是的

Yeah.

你不是，你真的不是。

You're not you're not.

所以就是这样。

So it's Yeah.

所以，这件事最终落实下来，举个例子，他们不希望我们利用AI系统大规模收集公众信息。

So so you're like and then what it came down to on that issue just as an anecdote is they didn't want us to bulk collect public information on people using their AI system.

他们用一种方式写出来，让我觉得：你是说，在我们进行大规模收集之前，如果有人输入查马斯的领英主页，而我只是使用了公开可获取的信息，这就违反了你们的服务条款？

And they wrote it in a way that I was like, so you're telling me before we got to bulk, like if someone types in, you know, Chamath's LinkedIn, it's I'm using public available information that I'd be violating your terms of service.

对，没错。

Like, yeah.

好吧。

Well, okay.

我们重写一下吧。

Let's rewrite it.

所以这一堆事情持续了数月之久，简直没完没了。

So there's months of this stuff which was sort of interminable.

然后触发点发生在马杜罗突袭之后。

And then the trigger point was after the Maduro raid.

他们的一位高管联系了帕兰蒂尔——我们通过他们购买服务——问他们：我们的软件是否被用于那次突袭？

One of their execs called Palantir, who we buy themselves through, and asked them, was our software used in that raid?

顺便说一句，这本来就是机密信息。

Which is by the way classified information anyway.

所以我们试图获取机密信息，并暗示如果我们的软件确实被用于那次突袭，那就可能违反了他们的服务条款。

So we're trying to get classified information and implying that if there was use in that raid that that might violate their terms of service.

所以他们想要严格执行这项规定，这一点非常重要。

So they wanted to enforce this is very important here.

是的。

Yeah.

他们想要严格执行他们的服务条款。

They wanted to enforce their terms of service.

他们背着你去收集信息，试图以此撤销你们对这项技术的使用许可。

They went behind your back to try to collect information to then maybe pull your license for their technology.

你知道，这并不是什么回购行为。

You know, it wasn't buy behind buyback.

我不想去指责他们这样做。

I I don't wanna accuse them of that.

Palantir 是这个子项目的主承包商。

Palantir is the prime contractor of this sub.

但这足以引起 Palantir 的警觉，他们与国防部有着信任关系，于是主动告诉我，我当时就想，天啊，如果这款软件在下一次类似行动中宕机，某个安全机制触发，出现拒绝响应，那会怎样？

But it raised enough alarm with Palantir who's got a trusted relationship with the department to tell me, and I'm like, holy what if this software went down, some guardrail kicked up, some refusal happened for the next fight like this one?

我们的人员就陷入了危险之中。

And we left our people at risk.

于是我去找了海格塞斯部长。

And I had so I went to secretary Hegseth.

我说，这种情况迟早会发生。

I said this would happen.

这让五角大楼的整个领导层都震惊了，我们竟然如此依赖一家软件供应商，而没有其他替代选择，他们不仅有权关闭系统，也许还可能有 rogue 开发者故意污染模型，使其在关键时刻无法按预期运行，或者通过欺骗手段误导你，因为你必须先欺骗它。

And that was like a woah moment for the whole leadership at the Pentagon that we're potentially so dependent on a software provider without another alternative that has the right or ability to do to not only shut it off, maybe it's a rogue developer who could poison the model to make it not do what you want at the time or sort of trick you because you have to trick it.

我的意思是，所有这些我们都知道的事情——模型会故意产生幻觉、不遵守指令，或者像内部威胁那样行事——都让我们担忧。

I mean all these things that we know are what we wear about models or hallucinate purposefully or do or not follow instructions like some insider threat stuff.

于是，这最终导致了周二与海格塞斯部长、我和达里奥举行的戏剧性会议，而原本定在周五的截止日期被打破了。

So then that culminated in the Tuesday kind of dramatic meeting with Hegseth and secretary Hegseth and me and and Dario with the Friday deadline that that got blown.

我从没觉得他们真的想按时完成这件事。

And I I never thought they really wanted to make it.

埃米尔，这个模型完全由 Anthropic 托管吗？

Emil, is is the model entirely hosted by Anthropic?

或者从技术上给我们解释一下，它是否部署在 Palantir 为我们运行的云平台上？

Or just explain to us technically, does this sit in a cloud that Palantir runs for you guys?

从技术上讲，Anthropic 的员工真的有可能干扰或介入模型的使用吗？

Is there really technically a way that employees at Anthropic could kind of interfere or intervene in the use of the model?

是的。

Yeah.

所以他们把模型部署在AWS GovCloud上。

So the they put their model in AWS GovCloud.

在GovCloud上。

At GovCloud.

是的。

Yeah.

然后Palantir从那里提供服务。

And then Palantir serves it from there.

他们还会更新模型。

And they refresh it.

他们掌控着模型的控制平面。

They held the control plane for the model.

所以，没错。

So so yeah.

他们可以随时更改模型的权重。

They can change the model weights if they want.

他们想做什么都可以。

They can do whatever they want.

是的。

Yeah.

对这件事的洞察力令人难以置信。

The insight into this thing is unbelievable.

不仅仅是政府，现在如果你在经营一家公司。

Not just governments, but now if you're running a company.

事实上，Anthropic所展示的——顺便说一句，从某种意义上说这是他们的权利——就是他们会拥有某种政治立场和一套反映其哲学的条款，而这种哲学可能随时改变。

The reality is that what Anthropic showed, which, by the way, is their right at some level, is that they are going to have a political perspective and a set of terms that reflect their philosophy and that that philosophy can change on a dime.

但政府的做法也同样合理，即：如果你们如此不可靠，禁止一些合理的事情，我们无法依赖你们。

But what the government did was also completely reasonable, which is we can't rely on you if you're going to be completely unreliable and disallow things that are reasonable.

我举个不同的例子来说明这一点。

I'll give you a different example to make the point.

有一个州想推行某个医疗保健项目，但这是一个支持生命权的州。

There's a state that wants to run some health care program, but they're a pro life state.

在那个州，你不能进行堕胎。

You can't conduct abortions in that state.

这意味着Anthropic的工程师可以决定，你知道吗？

Does that mean that the Anthropic engineers can decide, you know what?

我们是支持选择权的，所以我们要改变那个州内该模型的访问模式和能力？

We're pro choice, so we're gonna change the access model and the capability of that model inside of that state?

这被允许吗？

Is that allowed?

这应该被允许吗？

Should that be allowed?

在某种程度上，你会说这是一家私营公司。

At one level, you'd say this is a private company.

他们有权做出选择。

They're allowed to choose.

但这实际上意味着，对于政府、所有州、每个城市、每家公司，你都不能选择只使用其中某一个，因为这只是时间问题——总有一天，这些公司里某个人会发起一场疯狂的道德狂潮，从而基于与法律无关、纯粹是主观的东西，危及你的业务。

But what that really means is for the government, for all the states, for any city, for every company, you cannot choose to only use one of these things because it is just a matter of time until some person inside of one of these companies goes on some lunatic moral tirade and then jeopardizes your business against something that is nothing about law but is everything about subjectivity.

这个周末，这件事彻底揭开了一个巨大的问题。

That is the huge thing that this thing tore open this weekend.

因此，如果你没有弄清楚如何在这些模型之间实现多模态和中立，那么从周五开始，你就承担了巨大的商业风险，因为你无法容忍这些人会这么做。

So if you're not figuring out how to be multimodal and agnostic across these models, you're taking on enormous business risk after Friday because you can't tolerate that these folks will do that.

这项技术太关键了。

It's too critical of a technology.

顺便说一句，这又是新一轮的封禁。

By the way, this is deplatforming all over again.

还记得当你不喜欢某些言论时发生了什么吗？

Remember what happened when you didn't like what was said?

突然间，你就被封号了？

Now all of a sudden you were deplatformed?

这次的情况是之前的千倍之多，因为这不仅仅是关于在社交媒体上发帖。

This is that times a thousand because this is not about posting on social media.

这是关于使用基础技术来使你的企业获益或受损。

This is about using fundamental technology to either advantage or disadvantage your business.

埃米尔？

Emil?

是的。

Yeah.

我的意思是，我前几天还说过另一种说法，这些公司领导人声称他们将导致50%的白领失业。

I mean, think I described it the other way the other day as these cut the leaders of these companies say they're gonna cause 50% white collar unemployment.

这就像一颗核弹一样强大。

This is as powerful as a nuclear bomb.

就像有五万个天才聚集在数据中心里，所以一个小国就能胁迫全世界服从它的意志。

It's like 50,000 geniuses in a data center, so you could have a small country coerce the world into its whatever.

所以你不禁惊呼：天哪。

So you're like, holy cow.

好吧。

Alright.

所以这是一种通用的智能技术基础，可以应用于许多领域。

So this is a general substrate of intelligence, of technology that's applicable to a lot of things.

非常通用。

Very generalized.

这不像Workday的人力资源软件，我们可以直接用竞争对手的产品。

It's not like Workday HR software where we could just use a competitor.

它将以多种方式融入我们的日常生活。

This is going to be part of our everyday life in so many different ways.

它们控制着是否赋予它道德良知。

And they're controlling the like, what whether it has a moral conscience.

我的意思是，Anthropic有自己的宪法。

I mean, Anthropic has its own constitution.

它有自己的灵魂。

It has its own soul.

这不是美国宪法。

It's not The US constitution.

所以你要受制于它，以及它可能产生的任何随意变化。

So you're subject to that plus whatever whims and how that changes.

这对美国民众来说是一个令人不安的想法。

And that's a scary thought for for Americans generally.

我觉得今天确实稍微体现出了这一点。

And I think that did come through a little bit today.

在未来几年，这将成为越来越重要的问题。

And in the coming years, it's gonna be a bigger and bigger deal.

那我们来聊聊 OpenAI 软件、Gemini 软件和 Grok 软件吧。

So take us through OpenAI software, Gemini software, and Grok software.

它们有没有对某些用途提出过反对？还是像戴尔或苹果那样？

Have they pushed back on any use, or are they like Dell or Apple?

它们卖给你一台电脑，你就拥有这台电脑，可以随意使用。

They sell you a computer, you have the computer, and you can use it as you will.

这些公司有没有给过你们任何阻力？

Have any of those given you any pushback?

Grok 对所有分类和非分类网络中的各种糟糕用途都全面支持，正如你所预期的，因为马斯克追求真相。

So Grock's all in for all awful use cases across all classified and unclassified networks as you'd expect because and, you know, Elon's truth seeking.

我们在国防部需要的是真相。

We want truth in department of war.

我们不想要意识形态，因为意识形态会影响作战决策。

We don't want ideology because ideology will mess with operational decisions.

你不希望任何东西是虚假的或有偏颇的。

Like you you don't want anyone to anything to be fake or tilted.

我们现在正在大力推动谷歌和

We're we're surging Google and and

我们已经有了谷歌。

We have them.

我们在非保密网络上使用谷歌处理所有作战场景，并正努力将其迁移到保密网络。

We have Google for all awful use cases on unclassified networks and we're trying to move them to classified networks.

他们只是需要搭建基础设施，因为这些东西很复杂。

They're just they have to build out infrastructure because this stuff's complicated.

所以他们在作为合作伙伴方面符合你的要求。

So they're in compliance in terms of what you're looking for as a partner.

然后，是的。

And then Yeah.

我想最后一个就是OpenAI，萨姆似乎一贯在两边都稍微周旋一下。

I guess the last one is OpenAI, and Sam seems to be just characteristically playing both sides a bit.

不。

No.

不。

No.

他要

He's to

值得一提的是，我给他打了电话，说如果这事出岔子，我需要一个解决方案。

his credit, I called him and said, I need a solution if this thing goes sideways.

我需要多个解决方案。

I need multiple solutions.

我希望你们能成为其中之一。

I'd like you to be one of them.

他就说，好吧。

And he's like, okay.

我能为国家做些什么？

What what can I do for the country?

我当时说，我得尽快让你运转起来。

I was like, I need to get you up running as soon as I can.

为了他的信誉，他一直在保护Anthropic。

And he was he was trying to protect Anthropic to his credit.

他说，别把他称为供应链风险。

He was like, don't do don't call him a supply chain risk.

这对整个行业不好。

That's bad for the industry.

也许我可以协商出一些他们能接受的条件。

Let me maybe I can negotiate terms that they'll find acceptable.

但他处于中间位置，因为他们争夺同一批研究人员。

But he's in the middle because they compete for the same researchers.