本集简介
双语字幕
仅展示文本字幕，不包含中文音频；想边听边看，请使用 Bayt 播客 App。
好了，各位。
Alright, everybody.
欢迎回到全球排名第一的播客——All In播客，新闻资讯尽在您的订阅中。
Welcome back to the number one podcast in the world, the All In podcast in the news, in your feed.
我们准备开始了。
We're ready to go.
原班四人组都在这里。
We've got the original quartet here.
乐队成员重聚了。
The band's back together.
好的。
Alright.
首先议程上，Sam Altman发出了红色警报。
First up on the docket, a code red has been called by Sam Altman.
他周一发了备忘录，要求员工停止支线任务（比如广告等），集中精力在核心业务上。
He sent a memo on Monday, told employees to stop working on side quests, you know, like ads, etcetera, and focus on the core.
Chat GPT，核心体验。
Chat GPT, the core experience.
让它更快。
Make it faster.
让它更好。
Make it better.
我想我们都知道原因。
And I think we all know why.
因为Gemini、Grok和Anthropic的Claude表现非常出色。
Because Gemini and Grok and Claude from Anthropic have been crushing it.
Chat GPT五，直白地说，有点失败。
Chat GPT five, let's call it what it is, was a bit of a flop.
它没有达到预期表现。
It didn't perform to expectations.
我们几周前或几个月前讨论过这个问题。
We discussed that a couple of weeks ago or months ago.
Anthropic从今年夏天开始在企业收入上超越了OpenAI。
Anthropic is beating OpenAI in enterprise revenue starting this summer.
我之前在节目中提过，现在越来越多的初创企业倾向于使用Anthropic的API以及谷歌Gemini的API，他们基本上不信任OpenAI不会窃取他们的业务。
And I talked about how, you know, previous episodes on the streets, I'm seeing more startups wanna use Anthropic's API and also Google, Gemini's API, and and they don't essentially trust OpenAI to not steal their business.
所以现在正经历重大变革。
So it's big changes right now.
这是一张基于七月数据的图表。
Here is a chart based on data from July.
Anthropic的收入大部分来自企业客户。
Most of Anthropics revenue here is corporate.
众所周知，OpenAI的收入主要来自消费者。
Most of OpenAI's, as everybody knows, is consumer.
这里还有另一张图表。
And here's another chart.
OpenAI新基础设施协议与收入对比，这仅仅是2025年的数据。
OpenAI's new infrastructure deals versus revenue, and this is just for 2025 alone.
大量交易正在进行，但竞争异常激烈。
A lot of deals being made, but competition is fierce.
Shammoth，你对场上局势有何看法？
Shammoth, your thoughts here on the game on the field.
在我们行业中，Code Red（红色警报）指的是所有人回到办公室集中精力处理一件事，显然Sam正在这么做。
Code Red for people who don't know in our industry is when everybody reports to the office and gets focused on one thing, and that's apparently what Sam's doing.
你如何解读这种情况？
How do you interpret it?
听着。
Look.
我认为有两方面。
I think that there are two things.
让我们从战略视角和战术视角分别来看。
Let's do the strategic lens and then the tactical lens.
从战略视角看，这是一个极其活跃且充满变数的市场，我认为现在要选出赢家还为时过早，除了芯片层面——那里的格局已基本确定。
The strategic lens is that this is an incredibly vibrant and dynamic market, and I think it's too difficult and too early to pick winners other than at the silicon layer, where largely that dye has been cast.
我认为这个市场会持续增长，所以我们可以讨论未来会有更多竞争，但基本格局将是英伟达加AMD加谷歌再加一批推理芯片厂商。
I think that it's going to grow so we can talk about how there'll be more competition, but it's roughly NVIDIA plus AMD plus Google plus a bunch of inference silicon.
这就是那个市场的概况。
So that's sort of that market.
但在模型市场层面，坦白说，这让我想起我们当初创建Facebook时的情景。
But above it at the model market, it reminds me, frankly, a lot of when we were building Facebook.
我记得我们高管团队六个人坐在一起，看着规模比我们大一个数量级的MySpace。
I remember sitting around our senior executive team, six of us, looking at Myspace, who was an order of magnitude bigger than us.
然后突然有一天，我们意识到：
And at some point, we were like, you know what?
我们的产品从根本上就比他们的好。
Our product is just fundamentally better than theirs.
他们拥有超过1亿用户，而我们只有约15个用户，但我们知道最终我们会超越他们。
And they had a 100,000,000 plus users, and we had sort of 15, but we knew that we were eventually gonna beat them.
其他人都不知道这一点。
Nobody else knew.
我感觉这个市场正在以类似的方式演变，虽然早期已有赢家出现，但仍有大量工作亟待完成。
And I feel like this market is similarly evolving, which is that you have these early winners, but there's still so much work to do.
仍有太多消费者期待尚未定义，现在判断最终赢家还为时过早。
There's still so many consumer expectations to define that it's too early to know who's gonna win.
最终我们领悟到——尤其当所有这些市场开始融合时——渠道分发依然至关重要，这对谷歌有利。
And, ultimately, what we are learning, especially as all these markets converge, is that distribution still matters a ton, which favors Google.
对Meta也有利，尽管Meta目前相当落后。
It favors Meta, although Meta's quite behind.
现在OpenAI也将受益，因为他们拥有8亿月活用户。
And now it will still favor OpenAI because they have 800,000,000 monthly actives.
那么战术层面的问题是：面对这种充满竞争的格局，你该如何应对？
So then the tactical thing is what do you do knowing that this dynamic is set up to have a lot of competition?
我认为必须精简聚焦，把每个机遇都当作危机来对待——毕竟企业总是会自然扩张。
And I think what you have to do is streamline the focus and try to make a crisis out of every opportunity because, look, the companies tend to just grow.
这种正向熵增趋势往往会导致企业在各个层级不断招人。
This positive entropy tends to cause people to hire at every level.
环顾四周，你会发现数千名甚至半年前还不认识的人。
And you look around, and there's thousands of people that you didn't know even six months ago.
因此我认为，如果Sam能利用不同时间节点来收紧核心关注点，他们会做得更好。
And so I think if Sam can use different points in time to tighten the core focus, they'll be better off.
我觉得这就是谷歌之前采取的做法。
And I think that is what Google did a while back.
如果你还记得整个黑人乔治·华盛顿事件，他们成功将其作为集结号，精简组织架构、集中精力，让最优秀最聪明的人去处理最具杠杆效应的任务。
If you remember the whole black George Washington thing, they were able to use that as a rallying cry to streamline the organization and to focus and to get their best and smartest people to work on the most highly leveraged tasks.
你现在看到的是他们从原有基础上取得的惊人超额表现。
And what you see now is an incredible overperformance from where they were.
我之前说过，但Gemini确实令人难以置信。
I've said this before, but Gemini is is incredible.
所以我认为这就是正在发生的事情。
So I think that that's what's happening.
现在下结论还为时过早。
Too early to call.
这是一场三到四方的竞赛，Sam需要严阵以待，我认为他借此机会叫停了一系列外围活动。
It's a three or four horse race, and Sam needs to batten down the hatches, and I think he used this opportunity to stop a bunch of peripheral activities.
是啊。
Yeah.
正如我们所见，Sergei亲自宣布了个人红色警报。
And as we saw, Sergei called a personal Code Red.
他说，我必须赶到办公室。
He said, I have to get in the office.
我必须激励所有人，因为如果我们失去搜索业务——虽然他们并未失去——这将是生死攸关的问题。
I have to inspire everybody because this this is existential for us if we lose the search franchise, which they haven't.
红色警报奏效了。
The Code Red works.
那么，David Freiberg，或许你可以稍作探讨。
So, David Freiberg, maybe you could discuss a little bit.
作为管理手段的红色警报。
Code Red as a management technique.
你当时在谷歌工作。
You were at Google.
我不知道那时候他们是否发布过红色警报，因为你们当时没有任何竞争对手，但现在我们面临的情况截然不同。
I don't know if they were calling Code Reds back then because you didn't have any competition, but we're in a much different world here.
我认为这是我们这辈子见过竞争最激烈的事情。
This is the most competitive thing we've ever seen in our lifetimes, I think.
谷歌在搜索领域早期领先，后来微软加入竞争，这促使谷歌形成了红色警报模式，他们用'加拿大项目'作为微软的代号。
Google had an early lead in search, and then Microsoft launched, and it formed a Code Red model at Google that was called Project Canada as the code word for Microsoft.
当时每周都会召开作战室会议，围绕微软带来的迫在眉睫威胁展开大量战略和产品决策——毕竟微软是个资金雄厚、工程人才储备惊人的庞然大物。
And there was a weekly war room meeting and a whole bunch of strategy and product decision making that was driven around the impending threat from Microsoft because Microsoft was such a big behemoth, so well capitalized, had incredible engineering talent.
应对措施之一是在柯克兰设立办公室，以便在西雅图招募工程师，积极扩大人才基础。
Part of the response was to set up an office in Kirkland to recruit engineers up in Seattle to aggressively grow that base.
从'加拿大计划'的战略视角中衍生出了一整套战术方案。
There was a whole bunch of tactics that emerged from the strategic lens of Project Canada.
这是一种非常有效的方法。
It is a very powerful method.
这正是美国在与俄罗斯的竞赛中登月的方式。
It is how The United States got to the moon in a race with Russia.
这也正是我们现在与中国争夺科技和人工智能领域主导权的方式。
It is how we are now in a race for supremacy in technology and AI against China.
面临迫在眉睫的威胁是一种非常强烈的激励策略。
Having an impending threat is a very strong motivational tactic.
这是一个极具聚焦性的环境，
It is a very focusing setting,
而且它
and it
推动创新。
drives innovation.
所以我们拭目以待吧。
And so we'll see what happens.
ChatGPT基本上曾是AI或LLM聊天界面市场的垄断者，而它唯一可能的方向就是下滑。
ChatGPT was basically the market monopoly in AI or LLM chat interface, and it only had one way to go, which was down.
我认为谷歌目前大约占据了14%的市场份额。
Google, I think, at this point has roughly 14%.
由此可见，OpenAI正处于下滑趋势。
So here you can see OpenAI is on the decline.
显然，一年多前，他们在生成式AI流量中的市场份额还超过90%。
Obviously, a little over a year ago, they were at 90% plus market share in generative AI traffic.
而如今，Gemini已占据15%的份额。
And today, Gemini is at 15%.
谷歌构建的深度与飞轮效应赋予了他们巨大的优势。
The depth, the flywheel that Google has built gives them such extraordinary advantage.
好的。
Okay.
让我们谈谈帕尔帕廷皇帝。
Let's go to emperor Palpatine.
这一切正如你作为AI和加密货币沙皇所策划的那样发展。
This is coming together as exactly as you orchestrated you as the czar of AI and crypto.
感谢你的服务，公务员大卫·萨克斯。
Thank you for your service, civil servant David Sachs.
你希望看到充满活力的竞争。
You wanted to see vibrant competition.
嗯，现在如你所愿了。
Well, here we have it.
请从华盛顿特区的角度评估当前竞争格局。
Assess the playing field as you see it from DC.
首先，我要赞扬萨姆发出红色警报、打破常规并拉响警钟的做法。
Well, first of all, let me give credit to Sam for calling this code red, breaking the glass, and pulling the the alarm.
我认为企业CEO们很容易陷入盲目乐观而忽视问题，特别是当讨论这些问题会引发他们不喜欢的公关风波时。
I think it's so easy for CEOs in general to engage in happy talk and ignore problems, especially when discussing them is gonna create a PR story that they don't like.
我认为硅谷独特之处在于，创始人和CEO们确实以更存亡攸关的态度对待公司处境，因为我们确实面临着激烈竞争。
And I do think one of the things that's unique about Silicon Valley is just that the founders and CEOs do treat the situation of their companies in a more existential way because we actually do have tremendous competition.
因此，每当有CEO愿意承受负面新闻来让团队聚焦真正的商业问题时，我认为他们都值得赞扬。
And so anytime I think a CEO is willing to, again, take a bad PR story in order to focus their troops on a real business problem, I think they deserve credit for it.
因为在我看来，当你观察《财富》500强其他企业时，这些CEO们基本上整天都在忙于公关管理。
Because I think when you look at the rest of the Fortune 500, you know, these CEOs are just kinda managing PR all the time.
就整个生态系统而言，竞争确实非常激烈。
Now with respect to the ecosystem as a whole, it is very competitive.
我认为我们有五家主要公司，它们各有所长。
And I think we've got five major companies, and they all have their strengths.
ChatGPT在消费者领域处于领先地位。
So ChatGPT is the leader in consumer.
他们在消费者使用LLM聊天机器人方面占据了约80%的市场份额。
They have something like 80% market share in consumer use of LLM chatbots.
但随后谷歌推出了新一代Gemini 3，凭借其产品优势以及与谷歌搜索的深度整合——用户进行搜索时很容易发现它，现在大家也意识到它确实相当出色——他们开始从ChatGPT那里夺取市场份额。
But then Google came out with their new Gemini three, and they were starting to take share based on the strength of Gemini three and the integration it has obviously within Google Search because it's very easy for people to discover it when they do a Google search and now they're seeing that it's actually pretty good.
所以他们开始蚕食ChatGPT的份额，我认为这正是Sam发布红色警报的原因。
So they were starting to take share from ChatGPT and I think that's why Sam issued the code red.
还有你提到的Anthropic，虽然我不太欣赏他们所谓的'监管套利'策略，但必须承认他们的产品非常优秀。
Then you've got Anthropic, like you mentioned, where I don't particularly love what I've called the regulatory capture strategy, but I have to acknowledge their products are very good.
似乎每家公司都声称自己拥有最好的编程助手，并且正在企业领域开拓利润丰厚的细分市场。
Everybody seems to say that they have the best coding assistant and they're carving out a very lucrative niche in enterprise.
然后是xAI，我认为由于与X平台的整合，它在时事方面表现最佳。
And then you've got xAI, which I think is the best at current events because of the integration with X.
而且埃隆似乎能够最快地扩展他的数据中心和训练集群。
And also Elon seems to be able to scale his data center, his training cluster the fastest.
他拥有，你知道的，先是Colossus一代，现在是Colossus二代，这对Grok五代来说是个好兆头。
He's got, you know, he had Colossus one, now he's got Colossus two, and that portends good things for Grok five.
它将在最大的Blackwell集群上进行训练。
He's gonna be trained on the largest cluster of Blackwells.
总之，这些公司目前都发展得相当不错。
So in any event, you've got all these companies that are doing pretty well.
虽然Meta遇到了一些阻力，但他们将继续在AI领域投入巨资，毕竟财力雄厚。
I guess Meta sort of hit some headwinds, but they're gonna continue investing tremendously in AI and they've got deep pockets to do it.
所以我认为他们会卷土重来。
So I think that they'll come back.
而且，你知道，你看到的是所有这些公司都在某种程度上相互超越。
And, you know, what you see is all these companies are kinda leapfrogging each other.
一个新版本出现后，它们就会在基准测试上相互超越。
You get a new version and then they sort of leapfrog each other in terms of benchmark.
正在展示这一点。
Are showing that.
是的，萨克斯。
Yes, Saks.
当你查看排行榜时，Grok总是排在Gemini之上。
When you look at the leaderboard, it's constantly Grok comes above Gemini.
Gemini又超越了Grok
Gemini comes above leapfrogging
持续进行。
going on.
还有很多，我想说现在正按照我刚才提到的方式进行专业化分工。
There's a lot of also, I'd say specialization now going on in the ways that I just mentioned.
这些公司都在发展各自的优势。
All these companies are developing strengths.
某种程度上正在形成垂直领域。
There's sort of verticals happening.
是的。
Yes.
因此我将此描述为一种‘金发女孩’情境：AI领域取得大量进展的同时，市场仍保持高度竞争。
And so I've described this as sort of a a Goldilocks scenario where you're making a lot of progress in AI, but the market is remaining very competitive.
理想情况下，市场不会像其他科技领域那样整合成单一垄断企业——否则最终会出现权力过度集中的科技巨头。
Ideally, it does not consolidate just to one monopoly player like we've seen in other tech markets because then you end up with a big tech company that's got too much power and control.
这对消费者或公民来说通常不是好事。
That's not generally a great thing for consumers or for citizens.
对比中国的高盛。
Versus China Sachs.
上面写着什么？我们与中国对比如何？
What does it say versus Us versus China?
那是一年前的对话内容。
That was that was the dialogue a year ago.
天啊。
Oh my god.
中国。
China.
天啊。
Oh my god.
中国。
China.
我们现在处于什么阶段？
Where are we at today?
因为这令人印象深刻，这种充满活力的竞争。
Because this is impressive, this vibrant competition.
嗯，你看，竞争能激发美国体系的最佳表现，我认为这正是推动最多进步的因素，也将让我们在与中国的人工智能竞赛中胜出。
Well, look, competition brings out the best in the American system, and I think that that is what creates the most progress, and that's what's gonna allow us to win the AI race against China.
中国也有激烈的竞争，但他们更倾向于扶持国家级冠军企业。
China has a lot of competition too, but they do tend to anoint national champions more.
我想他们通常在竞争阶段之后才会这么做，所以，你知道的，这也许并不妨碍竞争。
I guess they usually do it more after a competition stage, so, you know, maybe it doesn't prevent competition.
但听着，中国确实实力强大。
But look, China's formidable.
他们也有许多优秀的人工智能公司，这将是一场激烈的角逐。
They got a lot of good AI companies too, and this is gonna be a horse race.
不过重申一下，对美国而言毫无疑问。
But again, there's no question in the For American sure.
但毫无疑问，在美国体系中，竞争才能激发最佳表现，这正是我们当前所见。
But look, there's no question that in the American system, it's competition that brings out the best, and that's what we're seeing right now.
杰森，你怎么看？
Jason, what do you think?
有趣的是，我想稍微延伸一下弗赖伯格展示的内容。
Interestingly, I just wanna build a little bit on what Freiberg showed.
我现在的看法是，这就像是ChatGPT对抗全世界。
The way I'm sort of seeing this is now ChatGPT versus the world.
36个月前，ChatGPT和OpenAI拥有100%的市场份额。
Thirty six months ago, ChatGPT, OpenAI had a 100%.
对吧？
Right?
正如你正确指出的那样，David，他们开创了这个领域。
They started the category, as you pointed out correctly, David.
而他们市场份额的下降速度正在加快。
And their decline in market share is increasing in velocity.
如果我们只看12个月前，他们还占据着84%的市场，现在只剩68%了。
If we were looking at just twelve months ago, they had 84% of the space, and now they're at 68.
所以这种下滑正在加速。
So they've they've this is accelerating.
Chamath，你准确地指出了加速的原因。
You pointed out, Chamath, correctly why it's accelerating.
分发渠道至关重要。
Distribution matters.
我们在这里已经讨论过无数次了。
We've talked about it countless times here.
说实话，Meta强制你使用他们糟糕的AI搜索功能。
Meta is forcing you to use their AI search, which is pretty bad, I'll be honest.
每次在Instagram上搜索都很烦人，但这些都算作用户使用产品，就像Slack面临微软Teams捆绑时的竞争一样。
Every time you do a search on Instagram, it's annoying, But those all count as users using the product just like Slack face competition from Microsoft Teams when it bundle.
所以我持续追踪这个趋势，我认为未来四年将会这样发展。
And so I just track this out, and this is what I think is gonna happen over the next four years.
我认为OpenAI市场份额将降至三分之一左右，其他玩家将占据三分之二。
I think we're gonna see OpenAI go down to about a third of of the market, and I think the other players are gonna take two thirds.
我这么认为是因为正如Sax所说，专业化正在发生。
The reason I think this is because, to Sax's point, specialization's happening.
看看Google的图像处理工具Nano Banana，效果非常出色。
If you look at Nano Banana, which is the image processing over at Google, it's fantastic.
Grok Image非常出色。
Grok Image is fantastic.
所以你可以有四到五种不同的图像处理选择。
So you can have four different five different choices for images.
你可以有四到五种真正可靠的选择。
You can have four or five different really credible choices.
现在你还得看看竞争对手以及Sam面临的局面。
Now you have to look also at the competition and what Sam is facing.
我认识Sam已经有二十年了。
I've known Sam twenty years now.
他是个完美的交易撮合者，或许在交易方面过于出色了。
He is a consummate dealmaker, perhaps too good at dealmaking.
他在招募人才方面非常厉害，公关手段也很强。
He was incredible at recruiting, and his PR game was very strong.
这一点大家都心知肚明。
Everybody realizes that.
再看看他面对的对手：弗莱伯格、埃隆·阿格洛克、谷歌的谢尔盖和桑达尔、Meta的扎克伯格、达里奥·埃莱奥特罗普、微软的萨提亚，这些人曾是他的合作伙伴，如今却成了竞争对手。
And look at who he's facing, Freiberg, Elon Agrock, Sergei and Sundar at Google, Zuckerberg at Meta, Dario Eleotropic, Satya at Microsoft, who's his partner, who's now his competitor.
埃隆曾是他的资助者，现在却成了竞争对手。
Elon was his benefactor, now his competitor.
还有开源项目，比如DeepSeek等，以及中国的萨克斯。
You got the open source projects, DeepSeek, etcetera, Saks in China.
就连他曾经的员工现在也想置他于死地。
And then his former employees are trying to kill him as well.
比如伊利亚在搞SAFE超级智能（虽然还没发布），米拉在做思维机器。
So you have Ilya doing SAFE Superintelligence, which hasn't launched yet, and Mira doing Thinking Machines.
要知道，她之前可是负责所有视频相关业务的。
She's, you know, obviously was doing all the video stuff.
所以我认为，如果我们明年——不知道具体时间——在未来12到24个月内再看，他们的市场份额将跌破50%。
So I think what we're gonna see here, if we're sitting here, I don't know, next year, they're going to be, in the next twelve to twenty four months, under 50%.
而且这些公司都在明目张胆地试图扼杀OpenAI。
And these companies are explicitly trying to kill OpenAI.
山姆积累的恶意之深令人震惊，我认为这是因为他做了太多交易。
They the amount of bad will that Sam has built is colossal, and I think it's from doing too many deals.
如果你看看他对英伟达做的事，英伟达最近发布声明称他们拥有投资选择权。
And if you look at what he did to NVIDIA, NVIDIA put out a statement recently that they have the option to invest.
两个月前我们坐在这里时，我知道业内有人彻夜难眠，担心山姆正在进行的这些交易。
So we were sitting here two months ago, and I know people in the industry were staying up late at night worrying about all these deals Sam were was doing.
现在这些交易陆续曝光，原来都是期权协议。
All those deals apparently are coming out that they're options.
这些根本不是真正的交易。
These weren't real deals.
其中很多都是期权。
A lot of them were options.
所以黄仁勋站出来说：听着，
And so Jensen came out and said, hey.
我们确实有机会投资OpenAI，但记得吗？山姆在达成OpenAI交易两周后，又搞了那个AMD交易。
We have the opportunity to invest in OpenAI, but you remember Sam did that AMD deal the week after he two weeks after he did the OpenAI deal.
这很大程度上正在制造负面情绪，我认为我们现在正处于OpenAI的巅峰期。
A lot of this is creating bad feelings, and I think we're at peak OpenAI right now.
我在几周前的节目中就说过。
I said it on the show a couple weeks ago.
我认为平行交易就是押注于CHECKPT对抗全世界，而我认为世界会赢得三分之二的胜利。
Think the para trade is to to bet against every it's CHECKPT versus the world, and I think the world wins two thirds.
他们仍可能处于有利位置。
They can still be in a good place.
我认为你说得对，这个市场可能会被分成三到四份。
I think you're right that this market probably gets split up three or four ways.
所以赢家可能会获得三分之一的市场份额。
And so the winner probably gets a third of the market.
大多数最终形成三到四方竞争的市场最终都会形成这种格局。
Most other markets that end up in a three or four person race ends up in that space.
但如果一个市场拥有五六十亿用户，即使只占三分之一份额仍然极具价值。
But a third of a market can still be very valuable if that market has five or 6,000,000,000 people using it.
确实如此。
Absolutely.
这将非常巨大。
It's gonna be tremendous.
是的。
Yeah.
而这仍能支撑起数万亿美元的市场估值。
And that can still support a multitrillion dollar market cap.
所以我并不认为这对OpenAI来说是丧钟，但这确实意味着许多项目可能需要关闭，因为你只需要把几件事做到极致，因为消费者会开始根据具体用途在不同垂直领域的产品间分配他们的购买决策，或者说使用决策。
So I don't think it's it's by any means a death knell for OpenAI, but it does mean that a lot of these projects probably need to get shuttered because you need to just do a few things very, very well because consumers will start to split their purchasing decisions, if you will, or their usage decisions across vertical things for specific purposes.
比如，我可能因为喜欢而使用Grok Image，它确实更出色；同时用Anthropic做代码生成，用Gemini进行深度研究，而对话式搜索则用ChatGPT。
So, yes, I may use Grok Image because I love that and it's just much better, but then I may use Anthropic for cogen while I use Gemini for deep research, and then I use ChatGPT for conversational search.
没错。
Yes.
现在我一下子就用上了全部四个产品。
Now all of a sudden I'm using all four.
这个结果非常现实。
That's highly realistic, that outcome.
事实上，我现在看看我的手机。
In fact, I look at my phone now.
我尽量限制手机上的应用数量，但Gemini和Grok是我的两个核心应用，因为我非常依赖它们，现在就在它们之间来回切换。
I try to limit the number of apps on the phone, but I have Gemini and Grok as the two anchor apps because I'm so reliant on both of them, and I just keep going back and forth between them now.
有趣的是，我有四个。
Interestingly, I have four.
我的桌面上还有Claude和Perplexity，我会轮流使用这四种工具。
I have Claude also in Perplexity on my on my desktop, and I go through all four of them.
以下是谷歌和其他公司的计划。
Here's what Google and other folks are planning.
他们将夺走OpenAI的主要收入来源，通过免费策略挤压市场空间，试图扼杀山姆和他的团队。
They're going to take the main revenue stream of OpenAI, and they're gonna suck the oxygen out of the room, and they're gonna try to strangle Sam and the team over there by making it free.
所以现在，75%的收入比喻。
So right now, 75% that revenue metaphor.
非常、非常暴力的比喻。
Very, very violent metaphor.
但这就是战争。
But this is war.
这就是
This is
自网景与微软互联网大战以来我们见证的最大战役。
the greatest battle we've seen since, like, Netscape versus Microsoft and the Internet.
他们将终身免费提供最优质的Gemini模型。
They're going to make Gemini free for life for the best models.
这是我对谷歌的预测，我认为Meta会紧随其后。
That's my prediction for Google, and I think Meta will be right behind them.
为什么？
Why?
他们已经建立了广告网络，并且深知你曾参与过的查莫夫与弗里伯格之间那场激烈竞争——这个双头垄断绝不想变成与山姆的三足鼎立。
They have the ad network already built, and they know in that fierce competition, which you were part of, Chamoff and Freeberg, how fierce that competition was, that duopoly does not wanna become a a thrumple with Sam.
我认为这将与网景公司的情况非常相似。
I think this is gonna be very analogous to what happened with Netscape.
人们过去曾为网景浏览器支付50美元。
People used to pay $50 for a Netscape browser.
后来微软进入市场使其免费，Chrome、海豚浏览器等无数提供商也纷纷免费，同样的事情会发生在ChatGPT身上。
And then the idea when Microsoft came in and made it free and, Chrome became free and Dolphin Browser and a million other, providers, same thing's gonna happen to ChatGPT.
目前80%的收入来自20美元的订阅费。
Right now, 80% of the revenue comes from $20 subscriptions.
这部分收入将会锐减至零。
That's gonna get decimated to zero.
我认为消费者不会为这个产品付费。
I don't think consumers are gonna pay for this product.
就像他们不会为搜索引擎付费，也不会为浏览器付费，因为谷歌和Meta会使其免费。
Just like they won't pay for search, and they won't pay for a browser because Google and Meta will make it free.
实际上我认为原因有所不同。
I think it's different reason, actually.
他们这么做的原因在于他们拥有如此巨额的现金，
The reason why they will do it is because they have such an inordinate amount of cash, and that cash is valueless on the balance sheet.
他们
So you might as well just rip it in.
如果你看看那些现在需要花钱
If you look at the companies that have a need to spend money right now, it's Google.
微软
It's Microsoft.
是Meta。
It's Meta.
是英伟达。
It's NVIDIA.
可能还有博通，但我们先别把博通算进来。
And maybe Broadcom, but let's just keep Broadcom out of it.
苹果也在其中。
Apple is there too.
还有苹果。
And Apple.
是的。
Yeah.
所有这些公司都有大量现金。
All of those companies have so much cash.
如果你仔细看看这些企业的贴现现金流和企业价值，就会发现它们几乎没从这些现金中获得多少认可，几乎到了毫无价值的程度。
If you actually look at the DCF of the enterprise value of these businesses, it gets very little credit for that cash almost to the point where it's worthless.
所以你需要在并购、股票回购或产品补贴上投入资金，以保持你在更广阔市场的领导地位。
And so you either need to spend it on m and a, spend it on buybacks, or spend it to subsidize a product so that you can maintain your leadership in the broader market.
因此你会看到这些大公司以更激进的方式进行这种资本配置模式。
And so what you're gonna see is these big companies do this capital allocation model in a much more aggressive way.
所以这些公司能做的股票回购也就这么多。
So there's only so many share buybacks that these guys can do.
他们批准了50.60、70、800亿美元的回购计划。
They approve $50.60, $7,080,000,000,000 dollars in buybacks.
这并不能像在产品领域展现领导力那样提振股价。
It just doesn't lift the stock price the same way it does when you actually show leadership in a product category.
没错。
Right.
所以按照你的观点，如果你要评估一个决策，只需看看谷歌过去三周的股价表现。
So to your point, if you're just gonna underwrite a decision, just look at the last three weeks of Google's stock performance.
基本上在我们认为Gemini非常出色时，股价就翻了一番。
It basically doubled once we thought that Gemini was incredible.
所以如果你想将Gemini打造得更出色，只需再投入十亿用户即可。
And so if you wanna make Gemini even more incredible, just get pour another billion users into it.
即便这要花费500亿美金，也没关系，因为你能创造万亿市值。
And if that costs you 50,000,000,000, it's okay because you'll make a trillion of market cap.
这简直是不用动脑子的事。
It's like a no brainer.
是啊。
Yeah.
而且想想那些大公司在规模上拥有的所有强化学习能力。
And and think about all the reinforcement learning that those big players have at scale.
我认为这将会是
I think it's gonna be just
顺便说一句，
By the way,
另外还有一点，如果我们扮演阴谋论者，我认为Sam之所以做那些交易——正如你所说，他是个极其老练且才华横溢的交易高手
the other the other thing is if we're playing conspiracy theorists, I think the reason why Sam did those deals, to your point, he is a consummate, very talented dealmaker
是的。
Yes.
很可能是因为他需要持续制造那种能筹集所需巨额资金的发展势头。
Is probably because he needed to continue to generate the type of momentum required to raise the quantum of capital that he needs.
如果你保持沉默，要筹集1000亿美元就困难得多。但如果你不断抛出各种消息，就能让人们相信存在值得以更高估值投资的发展势头。
So if you're silent, it's much harder to raise a $100,000,000,000, and you're shucking and jiving, and you're just putting a lot of things out there that could convince people that there's a level of momentum that's worth underwriting at a much higher valuation.
所以这一点也必须牢记。
So you have to keep that in mind too.
是的。
Yes.
我认为这是他高层次的，你知道的，四维棋局。
I think that that is his high level, you know, four d chess.
我认为英伟达现在正在预测这一点。
I think NVIDIA is predicting it now.
我认为英伟达不会行使投资OpenAI的期权，或者他们会大幅下调80%估值，并将资金分配给其他参与者。
I think NVIDIA is not gonna take their option to invest in OpenAI, or they're gonna really downgrade at 80%, and they're gonna allocate it to other players.
弗里德伯格，在我们结束这个话题前有什么最后想法吗？
Friedberg, any final thoughts here as we wrap up on this?
你这个预测的依据是什么？
What is your what's your basis for that prediction?
我认为英伟达想要更多地控制其他参与者。
I think that NVIDIA is wants to own more of the other players.
我确实有这方面的依据。
I do actually have a basis for this.
我认为他们对给予竞争对手的其他支持感到非常愤怒，
I think that they were very pissed off at the other support he gave to their competitors,
必须知道
having to know
他们拥有
they had
达成了那笔交易。
closed that deal.
我认识很多业内人士。
I know a lot of people in the industry.
你听起来像《纽约时报》。
You sound like the New York Times.
好吧。
Okay.
嗯，很好的过渡。
Well, great segue.
大家都知道。
Everybody knows.
你的消息来源是什么？
What's your source?
大家都知道。
Everybody knows.
大家都知道。
Everybody knows.
想要，比如说，透露我的
Wanna, like, reveal my
消息来源来说。
sources to say.
消息来源来说。
Source to say.
公开的秘密。
Open secret.
消息来源这么说。
Source to say.
抱歉。
Sorry.
我只是开个玩笑，让我把这个问题收个尾吧。
I'll just JK, let me just wrap up on the on the a Please.
好的。
Yes.
我刚才正想这么做
I was trying to do that on the
我就简单附和下托马斯说的观点。
And I'll just I'll just echo a little bit what Tomas said.
我认为这场战役的胜负关键不在大语言模型上。
I don't think that the battle's gonna be won and lost on LLMs.
我觉得战线有多条，而且AI发展还处于非常早期的阶段。
I think that there's several fronts, and we're so early in AI.
这不仅仅局限于基于文本的标记生成。
It's not gonna necessarily just be about text based token production.
这些非文本模型、非LLM模型，其复杂性和差异化程度远超LLM领域。
These non text based models, the non LLM models, the complexity to them and the differentiation is so much wider than it is in LLMs.
可以类比德州扑克与奥马哈扑克——奥马哈游戏中顶尖玩家与普通玩家的差距，远比德州扑克中的差距显著，因为前者复杂得多。
Kinda think about it in I I think about it in terms of, like, a Hold'em versus Omaha game, like, the difference between the median and the best player in an Omaha game is so significant compared to the median and the best player in a Hold'em game because it's just so much more complex.
不知道你们是否记得克里斯·弗格森这个人。
I don't know if you remember this guy, Chris Ferguson.
他当年能赢下所有奥马哈锦标赛，因为是最早掌握诀窍的人之一。
He used to win every Omaha tournament back in the day because he was one of the first guys to figure it out.
那些只懂德州扑克的人以为能轻松转战奥马哈，结果被他彻底碾压。
So everyone that knew Holden thought that they could just step into Omaha and because he figured out how to do Omaha, he just wrecked everyone consistently.
以视频领域为例，他们结合扩散模型、Transformer架构，再用卷积神经网络构建帧内结构与帧间连贯性。
Anyway, in video, for example, right, they use diffusion models transformer architecture, and then they use these convolutional neural networks to create structure within the frame and continue structure between frames and video.
需要多个模型协同运作才能实现视频渲染。
There are multiple models that have to interact and work together to render video.
所以你必须要有良好的训练。
You So have to have good training.
你还需要有独特的架构。
You also have to have unique architecture.
因此，我认为目前视频AI领域的差异化可能性，远比我们在LLM这类文本AI中看到的要广泛得多。
And so the amount of differentiation that's possible in video AI is, I would say, this point today, so much wider than the differentiation in text based AI like what we see with LLMs.
随着这些技术逐渐成为主流，我认为我们今天尚未考虑到的应用场景，将会成为我们时间分配的重要领域。
As those things start to become more mainstream, I think that applications that we are not necessarily thinking about today are going to become a bigger use case for how we spend our time.
那时你才会真正看到这场竞赛开始以不同于今日的方式展开——当一切都在围绕聊天界面使用时，未来某天我们回看现在，
And that is really when you'll start to see, you know, this horse race start to kind of play out a little bit more differently than it does today where everything's all about usage on a chat interface, we're gonna look back at that one day.
那感觉就像当年人人都在用AOL即时通或雅虎即时通的时代。
It's gonna be the equivalent of everyone on AOL Instant Messenger or Yahoo Instant Messenger.
就像是...那根本不是真正的竞技场所在。
It's like, gives a That's not really where the game's gonna be played.
我们说话这会儿，Gemini刚刚发布了。
While we're speaking, Gemini just released.
Gemini三深度思考版已经发布。
Gemini three deep think is here.
所以比赛在我们录制节目的同时仍在继续。
So the race is continuing even as we're taping the show.
让我再补充一点，就是，我不知道，就在几个月前的节目上。
Let me add one more thing, which is, I don't know, just a few months ago on the show.
可能是三个月前，也可能是六个月前。
Maybe it was three months ago, maybe it was six months ago.
我们当时都在为谷歌致悼词。
We were all, like, giving eulogies for Google.
我没有。
I wasn't.
我甚至都没有。
I was not even.
我站在了另一边。
I took the other side.
我是说，我不知道。
I mean, I don't know.
当时有很多人持这种观点，而我——我绝对是站在多数人这边的
There were a lot of people who were, and I I was definitely I think the majority
整个行业都是如此。
of the industry was.
我确实站在了另一边。
I I did take the other side of it.
是的。
Yeah.
我想说的是布拉德·格利，抱歉
I think Brad Gurley and sorry.
布拉德·格纳和比尔·格利当时
Brad Gersner and Bill Gurley were
是布拉德·格利。
Brad Gurley.
展开剩余字幕（还有 480 条）
布拉德·格利秀。
The Brad Gurley show.
布拉德·格利秀。
Brad Gurley show.
只有一个人。
It's one person.
布拉德·格利绝对是其中之一。
Brad Gurley definitely were.
而且你看，这个论点很有道理——即便你相信谷歌会卷土重来推出可靠的人工智能产品，别忘了他们这次完全措手不及。
And look, and the argument made a lot of sense which was this, which is even if you believe that Google is gonna come back and have a credible AI product remember, were caught completely flat footed by this.
他们在2017年就研究出了Transformer架构，但后续基本没有实质动作，结果OpenAI抓住机会——就像你那张图表显示的——在大型语言模型领域领先了整整两年。
They figured out the transformer architecture back in 2017, but then they didn't really do anything with it and then OpenAI grabbed onto that and then like you showed on that chart, they basically had a two year head start on LLMs.
所以很多人认为谷歌大势已去，毕竟比起传统的十条蓝色链接，LLM在网页搜索上的优势太明显了。
So a lot of people were basically saying that this was it for Google because obviously LLMs are so much better at web search than the 10 blue links.
更重要的是商业化层面——在LLM主导的世界里，还需要什么广告链接或付费链接呢？
And moreover for monetization, why would you need to have you know ad links or paid links in an LLM world?
我认为布拉德和比尔提出的观点是，即使谷歌迎头赶上，他们在AI领域也永远无法像在搜索领域那样占据主导地位。
And and I think the point that Brad and Bill were making is again even if Google catches up, they'll never have the dominant position in AI that they have in search.
这可能仍然成立。
It still might be true.
谁知道呢？
Who knows?
但关键是当时所有人都在说谷歌陷入了大麻烦，
But the point is just everyone was saying that Google was in deep trouble just,
我
I
不知道，六个月后就像你说的，我认为谢尔盖回归给了他们一剂强心针，他们变得更加专注，现在推出了看起来确实
don't And know, six months then like you said, I think Sergei came back and that gave them a major shot in the arm and they got more focused and now they've launched what appears to be Yeah.
最好的或
The best or one of
最具竞争力的产品之一。
the A best competitive product.
这些其他公司之间正在进行大量的跨越式发展。
These other companies, there's a lot of leapfrogging going on.
我认为非常关键的是，这不仅仅是谢尔盖回归的问题，更是他们给自己允许承担风险的勇气。
I think really importantly, it's not just about Sergei coming back, it's about giving themselves permission to take risks.
多年来谷歌尽管拥有技术储备却未引领AI领域的原因，就是他们担心会蚕食搜索业务。
The reason Google didn't lead into AI for years, even though they had the technology sacks, is because they were nervous about cannibalization to search.
他们担心产品的质量。
They were nervous about the the quality of the product.
他们不想过早发布产品，后来他们改变了策略，采取了更敢于冒险的姿态。
They didn't wanna release things too early, and then they changed their posture, and they became a more risk taking posture.
这种转变赋予了他们奔跑的许可——顺便说一句，我认为这与OpenAI最近几个月的做法恰恰相反。
That gave them the permission to run, which by the way, I would argue is the opposite at OpenAI in the last couple months.
我以前经常使用ChatGPT的语音高级功能。
I used to use advanced voice on ChatGPT all the time.
现在我完全无法忍受它了。
I cannot stand it anymore.
我不再使用它了。
I do not use it.
它基本上已经失去了所有价值，因为它试图表现得过于礼貌。
It has basically hedged away all of the value because it tries to be polite.
它试图确保不断给你警告。
It tries to make sure that it's giving you warnings all the time.
它不想提供数据，因为它害怕可能给你错误的数据。
It doesn't wanna give you data because it's scared that it might give you the wrong data.
你可以看到它过去总是提供数据。
You can see it used to give you data all the time.
我现在再也无法让它给我数字了。
I cannot get it to give me numbers anymore.
我说：'把数字给我'。
I'm like, give me the numbers.
而它只会给出这种笼统的概括性陈述。
And it just says these kind of high level arching statements.
我说，这不是我想要的。
I'm like, that's not what I want.
我转去用Gemini了。
I went over to Gemini.
它给了我具体数字。
It gave me the numbers.
我认为谷歌愿意承担风险的态度在过去一年里真正凸显了这种姿态差异。
And I think that Google's willingness to take risk has really kind of highlighted the difference in posture in the last year.
ChatGPT现在的行为，以及OpenAI的表现，就像一个害怕失去市场份额、害怕在媒体上遭到攻击、害怕因说错话而被消费者攻击的现有巨头。
ChatGPT is now acting, and OpenAI has been acting like an incumbent fearful of losing market share and fearful of getting attacked in the media and attacked by consumers for saying the wrong thing.
因此他们采取了这种防御姿态，我认为这从根本上损害了产品和品牌。
And so they've taken this kind of defensive posture that I think has fundamentally damaged the product and the brand.
我正在愉快地思考着
I'm just having a great time thinking about
我在想象弗莱伯格在车里对着他的AI助手大喊大叫的样子。
I'm thinking about Freiberg yelling at his AI assistant in his car.
我们好像需要把这个拍成短片。
It's like we need to get make a short out of that.
继续。
Keep going.
嗯，谷歌还做了另一件重要的事。
Well, Google did one other important thing.
我是说，除了谢尔盖，他们还让德米斯·哈萨比斯负责整个AI部门。
I mean, in addition to Sergei, there was putting Demes Hassabis in charge of all of AI.
因为之前，我记得他只负责Google DeepMind。
Because before, I think he was just in charge of Google DeepMind.
那只是个分支部门，后来他们让他统管全局，我认为这也带来了巨大改变。
It was sort of a subset, and then they put him in charge of the overall, and I think that made a huge difference as well.
是啊。
Yeah.
而且市场蛋糕正在变大。
And the pie is growing.
因此搜索量和查询量正在急剧增长。
So the number of searches, the number of queries is increasing dramatically.
我认为查询量将增长二十到三十倍，因为答案质量提高了。
I think we'll have twenty, thirty times the amount of queries being done because the answers are better.
不仅仅是查询。
It's not just queries.
这不仅仅是查询的问题。
It's it's not just queries.
这就是我的观点。
This is my point.
更像是你不再用它来进行搜索了。
It's like more than you're not using it to use search anymore.
对吧？
Right?
你正在用它观看视频。
You're using it to watch video.
你在用它预订航班。
You're using it to book flights.
是的。
Yeah.
那些代理功能。
The agentic stuff.
我正在把这些都整合起来。
I'm I'm putting that all together.
所以你能从中获得的效用如此之大，将会增长20倍。
So the amount of utility that you can get from it is so great that it's going to go 20 x.
同样的情况也发生在拼车服务上。
The same thing's happening with ridesharing.
没错。
Right.
这不仅仅是搜索那么简单。
It's more than just search.
这才是关键所在。
It's the whole point.
它已成为我们生活中一切行为的重要组成部分，并将进一步占据我们更多的时间分配，其意义已远超搜索本身。
This has now become such an instrumental part of everything we do in our lives, and it's going to take over more of how we spend our time in our lives that it's not just about search anymore.
这是
It's a
一个全新的范式。
whole new paradigm.
市场规模将扩大20倍。
The pie will be 20 times bigger.
让我问你一个奇怪的问题。
Let me ask you a weird question.
你认为OpenAI相对保守的风险策略，是否源于他们（无论出于偶然还是设计）将消费市场定位为核心市场的决策？
Do you think that OpenAI's sort of more conservative risk posture, do you think it's a function of the fact that whether by luck or design they decided that the consumer market was sort of their core market?
而像Anthropic这样的公司，你看，他们主攻的是企业市场。
Whereas you look at something like Anthropic, right, and they've carved out enterprise.
但如果你做的是消费级产品，你需要应对的事情就多得多。
But if you're a consumer product, there's so many more things you have to address Yeah.
而且你会受到来自各方面的攻击。
And you're gonna be attacked in so many Yeah.
更多不同的
More different
而作为市场主导者，这实际上为谷歌创造了一个绝佳的陪衬，因为他们开始承受媒体关于健康建议、自杀、幻觉、发送错误信息等所有风险与危害的矛头攻击。
And and by being the market incumbent, it actually ended up creating a fantastic foil for Google because they started getting all of the arrows and slings from the media about health advice and suicides and hallucinations and sending wrong information and all the risks and damage that that causes.
与此同时，所有人都在嘲笑谷歌并忽视他们。
Meanwhile, everyone's laughing and joking about Google and ignoring them.
事情远不止如此。
It was more than that.
记得去年夏天有个案子，法官判定他们垄断罪名成立，正准备裁决补救措施。
Remember remember last summer, there was the court case where the judge said that they were guilty of having the monopoly and then he was going to rule on what the remedies were gonna be.
我记得那是在...九月吗？
And I think that was in, what was it, September?
嗯。
Mhmm.
法官在夏季时这么说的，后来当他裁定补救措施时，表示他们的搜索业务面临生存威胁，所以一切都变了。
And the judge said that during the summer and then whenever it was that he ruled out the remedy that they were existentially threatened in their search business, and so everything had changed.
是啊。
Yeah.
我是说，所以现在有
I mean And so there's
已经分拆了。
there's broken out.
记得吗，当时正在考虑是否要拆分
Remember, were thinking about whether to spin out
Chrome。
Chrome.
YouTube。
YouTube.
是啊。
Yeah.
所有这些之类的，所以
All these kind of So
在某种程度上
in a in a way
对Alphabet来说，没有比OpenAI崛起更大的祝福了。
No greater blessing has ever happened to Alphabet than OpenAI's rise.
我认为这种崛起不仅为谷歌在垄断意义上树立了对手，还将注意力从谷歌转移到了OpenAI身上，而这种关注从根本上损害了OpenAI的战略产品能力，因为他们不得不开始更加谨慎地措辞行事，这从根本上损害了产品。
And I think that that rise, not only did it create the foil for Google in the monopoly sense, but it also took the attention away from Google, focused it on OpenAI, and that attention fundamentally damaged OpenAI's strategic product capabilities because they had to start to be so much more careful about what they said, how they said it, and it fundamentally damaged the product.
与此同时，谷歌的情况恰恰相反——董事会授权拉里、谢尔盖和桑达尔去冒险、全力推进解决问题，于是局面就扭转了。
And the opposite was happening at Google at the same time, which is Larry, Sergei, and Sundar being given permission by the board to take risk, to go hard, to figure this out, and boom.
你知道，这场竞赛格局的变化真是令人惊叹。
You know, it's amazing how the horse race has changed.
好吧。
Okay.
我们在拉斯维加斯度过了非常愉快的时光。
We had an amazing time in Vegas.
我要感谢我们在威尼斯人酒店的朋友们。
I wanna thank our friends at The Venetian.
你们是我们能想象到的最棒的主办方。
You guys were the best hosts we could have ever imagined.
你们给予闺蜜们以及我们的朋友和合作伙伴，这样的VIP待遇真是无与伦比。
What VIP treatment you gave the besties and our friends and partners.
我们与电影《茉莉牌局》的莫莉·布鲁姆进行了一次精彩的访谈。
And we had a great interview with Molly Bloom from Molly's Game, the movie, etcetera.
感谢我们的合作伙伴甲骨文、欧易和纽约证券交易所在拉斯维加斯与我们共同举办了一个非常成功的一级方程式周末活动。
Thanks to our partners, Oracle, OKX, and the New York Stock Exchange for partnering with us on a very successful f one weekend in Vegas.
我们与甲骨文公司共进了愉快的午餐。
And we had a great lunch with Oracle.
祝贺红牛车队在拉斯维加斯取得重大胜利，并与欧易共享了美妙晚餐——我的新好友主厨何塞·安德烈斯从巴扎肉类餐厅专程来为我们烹饪。
Congrats to them on Red Bull's big win in Vegas and an amazing dinner with OKX where my new bestie, Jose Andres, the chef, came from Bazaar Meats, and he cooked for us.
他和我们一起消磨时光。
He hung out with us.
还和我们玩了几把牌。
He played a little cards with us.
他真是个真正的绅士，人品极佳。
He's just a true gentleman in a mensch.
我期待未来能与何塞·安德烈斯有更多相处机会。
I'm looking forward to hanging out with Jose Andres a little more in the future.
好了。
Alright.
这周末还有另一件事。
There's another thing that went on this weekend.
重大科技新闻。
Big tech story.
虽然可能有点自我陶醉，但我们还是要报道一下。
And at the risk of being a little navel gazing here, we're gonna cover it.
《纽约时报》对阵大卫·萨克斯先生。
The New York Times versus mister David Sacks.
周日，《纽约时报》发表了一篇题为《硅谷在白宫的代表正为自己和朋友谋利》的文章。
On Sunday, The New York Times published an article titled Silicon Valley's man in the White House is benefiting himself and his friends.
萨克斯，显然他们指的就是你。
Sachs, you're obviously the man they're referring to.
据我们了解，有五名记者花了大约五个月时间报道这个故事，试图将你——萨克斯——塑造成一个存在利益冲突的形象。
Five reporters worked on this story for approximately five months is what we hear, and this story attempted to frame you, Sachs, as conflicted.
首先，你的公司Kraft投资了多家企业。
First, that your firm Kraft has investments in companies.
《纽约时报》的主要指控称，'萨克斯先生将自己定位为个人谋利'。
New York Times key claim, quote, mister Sachs has positioned himself to personally benefit.
他拥有700项ATEC投资，其中至少449项是与人工智能相关的企业股份。
He has 700 ATEC investments including at least 449 stakes in companies with ties to artificial intelligence.
作为背景补充，萨克斯、埃隆，你们都作为特殊政府雇员(SGEs)加入。
And for background, Sachs, Elon, you all joined as special government employees, SGEs.
这些与内阁成员在许多方面都有所不同。
These are different than cabinet members in a bunch of different ways.
基本上，他们每年工作时间不能超过130天。
Basically, they can't work more than a hundred thirty days.
他们可以分配时间在华盛顿的日常工作之间。
They're allowed to split time between their day jobs in DC.
他们无需经过参议院批准，且能提供特殊专业知识，就像萨克斯先生作为加密货币和人工智能领域的负责人所做的那样。
They don't have to be approved by the senate, and they provide special expertise as mister Sacks is doing as the czar of crypto and AI.
第二个主要指控是提升'All In'的知名度。
Second major claim, raising the profile of all in.
引述：
Quote.
萨克斯先生通过其政府角色提升了他每周播客'All In'的知名度，并扩展了业务，这非常可笑，因为我认为我们的流量在选举前就达到了顶峰。
Mister Sacks has raised the profile of his weekly podcast, all in, through his government role and expanded the business, which is super hilarious because I think our traffic peaked right before the election.
但是，萨克斯，显然你得到了大量的空中掩护。
But, Sachs, obviously, you got a ton of air cover.
人们认为这篇报道有偏见且是恶意攻击，结果反响平平。
People thought the story was biased and a hit job, and it fell pretty flat.
你对此有何看法？
What's your take on this?
也许可以带我们深入了解背后的故事。
Maybe take us behind take us behind the story.
嗯，我认为或许可以从对它的反应开始谈起。
Well, I think maybe a good place to start is with the reaction to it.
就像你说的，硅谷有大量人群的反应表明，他们明白这篇报道是恶意抹黑，带有偏见。
Like you said, there was this huge outpouring of people in Silicon Valley who reacted in a way that showed that they understood that this story was a hit piece, that it was biased.
而我认为最重要的是，它甚至都没能达到自己标题宣称的内容。
And I'd say most importantly, it didn't even live up to its own headline.
它没有证明标题中声称的事情。
It didn't prove the thing that they were asserting in the headline.
所以大家一眼就能看出这是篇恶意中伤的文章。
And so everyone could just see on its face that it was a hatchet job.
于是大家开始这样反应。
And so everyone started reacting that way.
能获得硅谷这么多不同人士的支持真是太好了，包括我们刚才提到的那些激烈竞争的公司。
And it was nice to kinda get that outpouring of support from so many different people in Silicon Valley, including many of the companies who we just talked about are so vigorously competing with each other.
我觉得这可能是山姆和埃隆去年唯一达成共识的事。
I mean, think this might be the only thing that Sam and Elon have agreed on in the last year.
是啊。
Yeah.
不是你们让大家发这些推文的吗？
Didn't you tell everyone to put these tweets out?
我是说，对吧。
I mean, like Right.
这其实是媒体试图散播的另一个大谎言——说这次回应是由我协调的。
That that was sort of the next that was the next big lie that the media tried to perpetrate was somehow that this response was coordinated by me.
不是。
No.
而哪个现实是
And the Which reality by is
这太疯狂了，因为你明确告诉我‘别插手，我不需要你这么做’。
way was crazy because you told me explicitly, stand down, I don't need you to do it.
我当时就像‘勒罗伊·詹金斯’一样。
And I was like, Leroy Jenkins.
我就直接冲进去发推说‘我要吐槽这堆破事’。
And I just went in and I was like, I'm tweeting about this bullshit.
不。
No.
我除了叫你们别理会外，从没指使过任何人。因为我不想让这破事——你们懂的——反而引来更多关注。
I never told anyone to do anything except for you guys and I told you guys not react to it because I didn't wanna the story, you know, where you basically draw even more attention to it.
这就是我的媒体应对策略。
That was my media plan.
然后事情就变成了这样。
And then what happened is the story
就这样发生了
just went
结果还是病毒式传播了，因为整个硅谷都自发地以草根且真实的方式做出了反应。
viral anyway because all of Silicon Valley reacted on their own in a grassroots and authentic way.
因为我认为他们实际上是真的被这篇报道的糟糕程度和表面上的荒谬所冒犯了。
Because I think they were actually genuinely offended by how bad the story was, how ridiculous it was on its face.
所以他们做出了反应，然后这就成了故事本身。
And so they reacted and then that became the story.
于是整个协调一致的叙事在某种程度上成为了媒体行业自我掩盖的一部分，就像是他们试图解释为什么大家都认为这篇报道如此糟糕。
And so this whole coordinated narrative became in a way part of the the media industry's cover up for itself, like their attempt to explain away why everybody thought that the story was so bad.
让我这么说吧，我认为这种如潮的支持确实说明了重要的一点，那就是《纽约时报》已经失去了多少影响力和尊重。
Let me just say I do think that this outpouring of support does illustrate something important, which is just how much power and respect The New York Times has lost.
要知道，十年前如果《纽约时报》对某人进行抨击，即使其他人不喜欢，他们也不敢说什么，因为害怕自己会成为下一个目标。
You know, ten years ago, if The New York Times ran a hippie on somebody, even if other people didn't like it, they wouldn't wanna say anything because they'd be afraid that they would be the next target.
而这种神秘感和恐惧感已经完全瓦解了。
And that mystique and that fear has completely broken down.
人们现在看清了《纽约时报》的本质，它本质上就是一群伪装成记者的政治活动家，他们实际上只是在为那些基本属于左翼民主党人的匿名消息源洗白观点，并试图将这些观点包装成某种中立或客观的真相——因为他们总把自己标榜为真相的中立仲裁者。
People kinda see The New York Times for what it is, which is basically a bunch of political activists who are pretending to be reporters, and essentially they just launder the point of view of their anonymous sources who are basically left wing Democrats and try to portray those viewpoints as somehow being neutral or objective truth, right, because they're kind of presenting themselves as these neutral arbiters of the truth.
我认为现在大家都能看穿这种把戏了。
And I think everyone can kind of see through that sham at this point.
是的。
Yes.
他们一开始用的就是那个标题。
The thing they started with was the headline Yeah.
这是他们无论我们如何反驳都拒绝修改的唯一内容。
And that was the one thing they refused to change no matter how many times we refuted their narrative.
你知道他们每隔几周就会发来新的'事实核查'，而我们基本上都能揭穿其谬误。如果你想知道报道最初的样子和他们想证明什么，我们可以给你看部分这类核查材料。
You know, what they would do is every couple weeks they'd send us a new fact check and we would basically debunk it and we can show you some of those fact checks if you wanna see them to see where the story started, what they're trying to prove.
好的。
Yeah.
我们来看看吧。
Let's do that.
我觉得观众们会非常
I think audience would really
每次我们驳斥他们的指控后，他们每隔几周就会带着新的指控卷土重来。
And what would happen is every time we debunk one of their accusations, they would just come back to us with a new one in every couple of weeks.
他们报道中唯一不变的论点就是坚称我存在这些谋取私利的利益冲突
The only fixed point in their reporting was this idea that I had to have these conflicts of interest that were benefiting myself
我偷窃。
my stealing.
赛克斯，让我问你个问题。
Sex, let me ask you a question.
昨天在安德鲁·罗斯·索尔金的DealBook会议上，有人提出并得到纽森州长附和的说法是：你并未将所有投资转入保密信托。
So one of the statements that was made and then governor Newsom repeated it at Andrew Ross Sorkin's deal book conference yesterday is that you did not put all of your investments into a blind trust.
纽森在台上说你本该那么做。
You should have done that is what Newsome said on stage.
能否请你直接回应这点，说明你上任时实际采取了哪些措施？
Can you just address that, like and what actions you actually took when you chose to take the office?
法律上要求你采取哪些措施，以及为什么你没有设立保密信托，或者也许你确实设立了。
What were you legally required to take and maybe why you didn't do a blind trust or maybe you did.
我不知道。
I don't know.
嗯，没有。
Well, no.
我们考虑过这个问题。
We looked at that.
抱歉，萨克斯。
Sorry, Saks.
就给我
Just give
一秒钟。
me a second.
我只想说这个，因为你自己不会说，但我记得当你经历这些时，你非常担心利益冲突的观感，以至于你采取了极其严格的措施，包括出售和处置资产的程度，以确保你能干净彻底地履行职务。
I just wanna say this because you're not gonna say this yourself, but I remember when you were going through this, you were so concerned about the perception of a conflict of interest that you took such extraordinary measures about the degree at which you were selling things and getting rid of things to make sure that you could do the job cleanly and wholly.
我目睹了你这么做，也看到你做了些我认为极其夸张的事。
I watched you do this, and I watched you do something that I thought was so over the top.
我当时就想，天啊，你真的是为了这个该死的国家才这么做的，这让我非常震惊和意外，我想说出来是因为我亲眼所见，而他们居然还发表了这篇报道，考虑到你的所作所为，这让我非常震惊。
I'm like holy shit, you really are doing this for the fucking country and I was so shocked and surprised by it and I just wanna say that because I've observed it and they still came out with this piece which was so shocking to me given what you did.
所以你们都知道我经历了什么，因为我曾是你们一些基金的有限合伙人，而你们知道我撤资了。
So you guys know what I went through because I was LPs in some of your funds and you know that I divested them.
是的。
Yep.
可以说这超出了职责要求，但我只是想避免任何潜在的利益冲突。
Which you could argue was above and beyond the call of duty, but I was just trying to avoid any potential conflict.
我认为这就是这篇报道的核心谎言。
And that I think is the central lie of this piece.
这篇报道不仅不真实，简直是反真相。
Not only is the piece not true, it's the anti truth.
没错。
Yep.
因为事实是，我以个人净资产的重大损失为代价，减持了价值数亿美元的有前途科技风险投资。
Because the truth is that I divested hundreds of millions of dollars of positions in promising technology ventures at a substantial cost to my net worth.
所以这份工作不仅没有让我受益，反而让我在服务过程中损失了大量金钱。但我这样做是因为能被总统邀请任职是一种荣誉，也是我想做的事，我认为自己能有所作为。
So not only is this job not benefiting me, it's actually cost me a lot of money to serve, but I did it because it's an honor to be asked by the president to serve and it's something I wanted to do and I thought I could make a difference.
因此整篇文章的前提完全是虚假的。
So the whole premise here is just false.
而《纽约时报》经过五个月的调查明明知道这一点，却拒绝改变他们报道的前提。
And The New York Times, through its five months of investigations, knew this, but they just refused to budge on the premise of their story.
现在回答你的问题——如果你看他们提到的关键段落之一，杰森，就是当他们试图提及我有449项与AI相关的投资时，他们说这是他们调查发现的。他们的一些记者在播客上还试图把自己塑造成伍德沃德和伯恩斯坦那样的形象，声称他们揭露了
Now to your question here, if you look at one of the the key paragraphs that, Jason, you mentioned is when they they try to mention that I have 449 investments tied to AI, and they say their investigation uncovered this and some of their reporters on podcasts have tried to portray themselves as Woodward and Bernstein here having uncovered
这些疯狂的公司名单，我很好奇。
these crazy list of companies, I wonder.
是我主动披露的。
I disclosed them.
根本不是他们发现的。
They didn't uncover them.
我已披露过这些信息。
I disclosed them.
它们都在我的道德规范
They're in my ethics
对所有人公开。
available to everyone.
它们就在白宫网站我的道德信函中。
They're on the White House website in my ethics letter.
每位政府雇员，无论全职还是特别政府雇员，都要向政府提交披露文件，而我的道德信函基本上包含了这些长达数页的各种职位信息。
So every government employee, whether you're a full time or SG, files disclosures with the government, and my ethics letter is basically contained these pages and pages of all these different positions.
在那份道德信函中，他们明确表示我已启动或完成了对99%以上可能涉及AI利益冲突的职位剥离。
Now in that ethics letter, they said that I had divested, I had initiated or completed divestment of over 99% of the positions that could pose a conflict for AI.
这都白纸黑字写着。
And it's in there.
我认为《纽约时报》在此处再次表现出极大欺骗性——实际上是政府伦理办公室的职业公务员、律师和会计师们审核批准了这封信函及其全部内容，是他们审查了所有披露材料。
And this is where I think, you know, again, were very deceptive is it was the OGE, the Office of Government Ethics, the career civil servants, the lawyers, the accountants at OGE who approved that letter and all the contents of that letter, who reviewed all those disclosures.
而正是他们认定我没有任何利益冲突。
And they're the ones who concluded that I did not have any conflicts.
所以实际上，《纽约时报》是在与政府伦理办公室的职业公务员们较劲。
So really, what The New York Times' beef is with the career civil servants at OGE.
或许你可以详细说明一下你实际采取了哪些措施。
Maybe walk us through what you actually did do.
为什么你没有选择保密信托？帮我们理清一下背景
Why did you didn't do the blind trust and and help us So get the context
关于保密信托，这事儿其实挺有意思。
on the blind trust, so it's kinda funny.
《纽约时报》有位记者在播客里讨论过这个，我想纽森就是从这里听来的。
One of the New York Times reporters was talking about this on a podcast, which is where I think Newsom picked it up from.
我的道德律师——他在哈佛教授利益冲突课程——说那位记者真该去上他的课，这样就能真正了解冲突法。
My ethics lawyer, who teaches a course on conflicts of interest at Harvard, said that that reporter should really take his course because he would actually learn something about the the conflicts laws.
保密信托很少被采用，而在我的情况下根本行不通，因为我有未成年子女。
The blind trust idea is rarely used, and in my case, it would not have worked because I have minor children.
你只能通过保密信托让孩子成为受益人，前提是他们已成年。
You can only use the blind trust to have your kids be beneficiaries if they're adults.
这就是利益冲突法规的运作方式。
That's the way the conflict laws work.
所以这在我的案例中根本不适用。
So it just wasn't even applicable in my case.
而我采取的做法不是设立保密信托，而是直接剥离了那些
And what I did instead of creating a blind trust is I divested the positions
代价惨重。
At great cost.
折价出售。
At discount.
被认定存在利益冲突的资产——包括我的有限合伙人权益和所有这些基金，都是以低于公允市场价值的价格处理的。
Said were a conflict at a discount to their fair market value in the case of my LP interest and all these funds.
我剥离了近100支投资基金，包括风投基金、天使基金等类型，基本都是按照公允市场价值五折的价格处置的，因为
I divested almost a 100 funds that I had invested in, venture funds, things like that, angel funds, at roughly a 50% discount to their fair market value because
这太疯狂了。
That's insane.
因为，这些都是私募投资。
Because, well, they're private investments.
对吧？
Right?
你知道出售基金中的有限合伙人权益，根本没有流动性市场。
And you know that selling an LP interest in a fund, there's no liquid market for that.
是啊。
Yeah.
所以为了找到买家，必须让条件对他们极具吸引力。
So in order to even find a buyer, have to make it super attractive for them.
天啊。
God.
然后我出售了x AI的股份，还出售了Grok的权益，这些都是大幅低于下一轮融资估值的价格成交的——而下一轮融资现在已经完成了。
And then I sold, you know, x AI, I sold my interest in in Grok, and those were all at substantial discounts to the next round, which has now taken place.
所以政府并不是在搞什么赚钱计划。
So during the government's not a money making scheme.
对我来说，赚更多钱最简单的方法就是继续做我一直在做的事。
Simplest way for me to make more money would've just been to keep doing what I was doing.
是啊。
Yeah.
没错。
Right.
直接回到4.49美元那个话题。
Just go back to the $4.49.
他们又假装做了难以置信的调查，发现4.49美元这个数字——能把这段文字投屏显示吗？
So again, they're kinda pretending like they did this unbelievable investigation, and they find the the four forty nine can you just put up this paragraph on on the screen here?
因为这段话里几乎每句话都在揭露这个报道的虚假本质。
Because really every sentence in this paragraph kinda reveals the sham of this story.
先生
Mr.
萨克斯让自己处于可从中个人获益的位置。
Sacks has positioned himself to personally benefit.
并非如此。
Not true.
我的意思是，我本就是所有这些公司的投资者，而我让自己处于减持的状态。
I mean, I was already an investor in all of these companies, and I positioned myself to divest.
然后报道说我持有四家与人工智能有关联公司的股份。
Then it says I had four forty nine stakes in companies with ties to artificial intelligence.
顺便说，'与...有关联'这个说法完全是新闻界的滑头措辞，因为'有关联'可以指任何事，而且经济中的每家公司都会与人工智能'有关联'。
By the way, that whole phrase ties to is total journalism weasel words because ties to can mean anything and every company in the economy is gonna have ties to artificial intelligence.
然后他们说'可能直接或间接受益'。
And then they said could be aided directly or indirectly.
这根本不是利益冲突的定义。
That is not what a conflict of interest is.
利益冲突的标准是对某项利益产生直接且可预见的影响，而非间接影响。
The standard is having a direct and predictable effect on an interest, not indirect.
那篇报道中没有任何内容能证明我直接受益。
And there's nothing in that story that shows that I had a direct benefit.
这篇文章与你们刚才花这么长时间讨论的内容毫无关系。
This article has nothing to do with everything you guys just spent all this time talking about.
好的。
Okay.
这里什么都没有。
There is nothing here.
明白吗？
Okay?
这里没有犯罪。
There was no crime here.
这里没有可疑之处。
There's no smoke here.
这里没有任何问题。
There's no fire here.
不过你们确实说对了一点，那就是标题的意图。
What you did get right, though, is the headline, was the goal.
那么这个标题的意图是什么？
And what is the goal of that headline?
这个标题的意图是暗中影射并施压萨克斯，但更微妙的是，它要向所有与萨克斯相似的人施压。
The goal of that headline is to insinuate and to pressure Sachs, but subtly, it's to pressure everyone else that looks like Saxe.
看起来像萨克斯意味着什么？
Now what does it mean to look like Saxe?
这不仅关乎共和党人。
It's not just about Republican folks.
未来也可能是民主党人。
This could be a Democratic person as well in the future.
你们是一个行业。
You're an industry.
你们知道一些非常具体的事情。
You know something very specific.
你运用这些知识做得非常出色。
You've done very well applying that knowledge.
突然间，你就处于一个能够积极影响美国发展轨迹的位置。
Now all of a sudden, you're in a position where you could go and positively impact the trajectory of The United States.
时任美国总统要求你去做某件事。
You're asked by the then sitting president of The United States to do something.
这篇文章试图恐吓这类人，让他们感叹：哇。
What this article does is it tries to intimidate those kinds of people to say, wow.
这不值得。
This is not worth it.
这实在太让人头疼了。
This is just too much of a headache.
关键在于这个标题，目的是引发足够多的热议，让萨克斯这类人以及未来其他人直接说：你知道吗？
The whole point was the headline, and the whole point was to get enough chatter about the headline so that people like Sachs and then other people in the future just say, you know what?
不干了。
Not working.
试试这个。
Gonna try this.
那他们想要什么呢？
And what do they want instead?
他们真正想要的是能紧密合作并最终被收编的人。
What they want instead are people that they can work with very closely and ultimately co opt.
看看像佐兰·马姆达尼这样被《纽约时报》钟爱的人物，或是同样受宠的莉娜·汗，他们的共同点是什么？
If you look at people like Zoran Mamdani, who's beloved by The New York Times, or if you look at Lena Khan, who's beloved by The New York Times as well, what's the through line?
就是完全缺乏经验。
It's a total and complete lack of experience.
所以你实际上是在设立一个非常简单的试金石。
And so what you're creating is essentially a very simple litmus test.
如果你有经验，我们就会把你描绘成利益冲突者，所以请远离。
If you have experience, we're gonna paint you as conflicted, so stay away.
但如果你毫无经验，从未做过任何事，虽然可能会搞砸，但至少你会被我们掌控。
But if you're completely inexperienced and have no experience whatsoever, have never done anything, and you're probably gonna screw it up, but at least you'll be in our pocket.
我们会与你合作，因此不会干涉你。
We'll work with you, and so we will leave you alone.
这就是这篇文章的核心观点，也是当前争议的焦点。
That is the point of this article, and that is what is on trial here.
我认为我们所有人都需要理解这个简单的道理并予以抵制——无论你是共和党人还是民主党人，因为最终双方都会有众多真正聪明的人被要求为美国效力，而你需要无视《纽约时报》那些蠢货的言论，做好自己的事。
And I think what we all need to do is understand that simple thing and push back on it, not just if you're a Republican, but also if you're a Democrat, because there are tons of really smart people on both sides that will eventually be asked to do something for The United States, and you need to ignore the idiots at the New York Times and do it.
确实。
Yeah.
说得好，这恰恰也是我想表达的观点——我们正在构建两个截然不同的世界。
This is well said, and this literally was gonna be the the point I was gonna make as well, which is we're we're setting up two worlds.
你想优先获得准入权吗？
Do you wanna have access first?
你只会——
You will only exactly.
政府里将只剩下毫无经验的蠢货。
You'll only have inexperienced morons in the government.
这有什么帮助？
How does that help?
毫无帮助。
It doesn't.
这是个非常好的观点，Shmoop。
And here's it's such a good point, Shmoop.
我们现在面临一个选择。
We have a choice right now.
我们是希望让毫无现实世界经验的律师和学者在华盛顿制定政策，还是想要真正的专家？
Do we wanna have lawyers and academics with no experience in the real world setting policy in Washington DC, or do you want to have experts?
你们想要更多像迈克尔·布隆伯格这样的人吗？
Do you want more Mike Bloombergs?
你们想要更多杰夫·贝索斯、更多大卫·萨克斯、更多贝桑特（同样也是民主党人）吗？
Do you want more Jeff Bezos, more David Sacks, more Besant, also a democrat?
还有卢特尼克，之前也是民主党人。
Lutnick, also previously a democrat.
我们需要华盛顿特区最聪明的人才。
We want the smartest people in Washington DC.
这正是开国元勋们所期望的。
That's what the founders wanted.
美国的开国元勋们希望人们短期任职。
The founding fathers of this country wanted people to do short stints.
我们需要短期任职制度。
We want short stints.
我们不想要南希·佩洛西或米奇·麦康奈尔这样的职业政客，他们在位长达三四十甚至六百年。
We don't want career politicians like Nancy Pelosi or, you know, Mitch McConnell in there for thirty, forty, six hundred years.
说真的，这些人在华盛顿特区看起来就像僵尸一样。
Like, literally, these people are like look like zombies in Washington, DC.
他们都已经机能失调了。
They're glitching out.
我们需要正值事业巅峰的人进入政界，就像你说的那样，为我们效力四到八年，然后功成身退。
We want people in the prime of their careers to go in there, Chamuff, like you're saying, and kick ass for us for four or eight years and then come back.
顺便说一句，当你去华盛顿特区建立一些人脉时，每个人都会受益。
By the way, everybody benefits when you go to Washington DC and you make some connections.
当然，克林顿夫妇离任后做了什么？
Of course, when the Clintons left office, what did they do?
克林顿基金会、出书协议、奥巴马的书约、Netflix合约。
Clinton Foundation, book deals, Obama's, book deals, Netflix deals.
每个人离开时都会沾点光。
Everybody gets a little shine when they come out.
这在你离任时很自然，但我们希望最优秀最聪明的人在那里。
That's natural when you come out, but we want the best and brightest there.
萨克斯，你能去那里是种馈赠。
It's a gift that you went there, Sachs.
这是种馈赠。
It's a gift.
我想是的。
I think yeah.
我们可以辩论所有这些议题，没错，公务员应当受到监督。
We can debate all these issues, and, yes, civil servants should be under scrutiny.
无论是莉娜·汗还是你，萨克斯，人们都应当为自己的所作所为负责。
Whether it's Lena Khan or you, Sachs, people should be held to account for anything they're doing.
你做得很对。
You did it right.
你做得超乎寻常，现在他们却试图惩罚你，还想阻止下一批优秀的美国人去那里。
You went above and beyond, and now they're trying to punish you, and they're trying to dissuade the next group of great Americans from going there.
是啊。
Yeah.
嗯，谢谢你。
Well, thank you.
对。
Yeah.
继续说吧。
Go ahead.
有
There are
我将引用托马斯·杰斐逊的两句话，因为我认为这非常重要。
two quotes from Thomas Jefferson I'll just read because I think it's actually very important.
他在1788年的一封信中写道：'我担心，彻底放弃公职轮换原则终将导致权力滥用。'
He said in a letter in 1788, I apprehend that the total abandonment of the principle of rotation in the elected offices will end in abuse.
后来他又在1809年表示：'天性使我沉醉于宁静的科学探索——这本是我的至乐。'
And then he also later said in eighteen o nine, nature intended me for the tranquil pursuits of science, which is what he was into, by rendering them my supreme delight.
但他说：'这个时代的滔天巨浪迫使我投身抵抗，将自己抛入政治激情的汹涌海洋。'
But the enormities of the times in which I have lived have forced me to take a part in resisting them and to commit myself on the boisterous ocean of political passions.
正如你们所说，杰伊·卡尔和查马斯，开国元勋们坚定致力于让美国成为自由市场，成为人们能够自由追求商业、科学与生活理想的地方。
The founding fathers, to your point, Jay Kal and Chamath, were vehemently committed to The United States being a free market, being a place where people could pursue with absolute liberty their interests in business, in science, in life.
而担任政治职务、竞选公职的行为，本质是出于服务需求——作为公务员服务国家、服务民族，捍卫那些让我们能自由选择人生道路的权利根基。
And the action of political office, of getting elected to a political office, was out of a requirement to serve, out of civil service, service to this country, service to the nation, and service to the enablement of the freedoms that allow us to do the things that we choose and want to do.
当你看到这些职业政客积累的财富，就明白他们为何要攻击萨克斯、贝松、莱特尼克、凯莉·洛夫勒等所有在私营领域取得成就后出于爱国心选择从政的官员——他们——这些人宁愿把时间花在公共服务上而非赚钱上。
And if you look at the wealth that's been accumulated by these career politicians, it is no surprise that they are attacking Sachs and Besson and Letnick and Kelly Loeffler and all of these other elected or appointed officials in this government who have had success in private life and who have chosen out of a commitment to patriotism to spend their time rather than making money in private life.
他们已有足够的财富，却仍致力于让政府和国家步入他们所期望的正轨。
They have enough money, but to try and get the government and the country on the track that they hope it will go on.
我认为这正是关键区别所在——有人能看清这篇文章的本质，而有人则通过阅读来强化他们，我该称之为，对现政府及未来挑战的激烈对抗立场。
And I think that that is the key difference between those who see this article for what it is and those who read it to reaffirm their, I would say, violent opposition to what is this current administration and the challenge that's ahead.
因此我认为这些文章就像罗夏墨迹测验，当你审视萨克斯等政府成员及其决策时，会不禁思考：他们是在投机取巧，还是根本无需如此？
So I think it's a real Rorschach test when you read these articles and you look at Sacks and others in this administration and the choices that they've made to say, they doing it to grift or are they doing it because they don't need to grift?
让我
Let me
再补充一点。
just also say this.
事实胜于雄辩。
Proof is in the pudding.
若我们派专家去华盛顿，看看萨克斯早期的政绩——他成功推动了稳定币相关事务。
If we send experts to Washington DC, if you look at Sacks' early track record, you got the stablecoin stuff done.
我们刚讨论过人工智能市场竞争有多激烈。
We just talked about how competitive the AI market is.
我们讨论过要建设更多能源。
We talked about building more energy.
这个你知道吗？
This you know?
而且，我再次声明，我不同意特朗普政府的许多做法。
And, again, I disagree with a lot of the things in the Trump administration.
但我完全认同并全力支持的是那些专家们和他们出色的工作表现。
The thing I don't disagree with and I fully endorse is the experts and the great job they're doing.
霍华德·鲁特尼克干得非常出色。
Howard Lutnick's crushing it.
你做得非常出色。
You're crushing it.
你们早期频繁完成的所有这些监管措施，正在使加密货币合法化，为其建立法律框架——顺便说一句，前两届政府，第四十五届和第四十六届，都没能完成这件事。
All these regulations that you've gotten done early and often are making crypto legal, a legal framework for crypto, which, by way, the last two administrations, the forty fifth and the forty sixth, didn't get done.
你们在六个月内就搞定了。
You got it done in six months.
对吧？
Right?
这里已经有记录了。
There's already a track record here.
如果你派专家去，他们就能以初创公司的速度按时完成专业任务。
If you send experts, they'll get expert done on time, on on on startup speed.
所以，我们不妨也谈谈结果。
So, like, let's talk about the results as well.
是啊。
Yeah.
我是说，看吧，他们根本不想要结果。
I mean, look, they don't want the results.
我的意思是，他们把结果视为负面因素，他们真正想做的是将政策分歧刑事化。
I mean, they consider the results to be a negative, and what they're trying to do is criminalize policy disagreements.
这才是正在发生的事情。
That's really what's going on.
当时，负责与《纽约时报》对接的我的公关人员问他们，你们说的朋友具体指谁？
Now at one point, my comms person who was dealing with The New York Times asked them, you know, what friends are you talking about?
比如，他到底让哪些朋友受益了？
Like, what friends did he benefit?
他们连一个具体的名字都说不出来。
And they couldn't name a specific one.
我想这就是为什么他们会提到'全投入'龙舌兰和'全投入'峰会——可能他们试图把你们描绘成受益的朋友群体。
I think this is why you guys why they mentioned All In Tequila and the All In Summit because I think maybe they're trying to portray you guys as the friends who benefited.
我们根本不是靠这种方式卖更多龙舌兰的。
That's not how we sold more tequila.
我峰会。
I summit.
关于'全投入'，我简单说一句。
Let me just say one thing on all in.
由于与特朗普政府存在关联，我们很难邀请嘉宾上节目。
We can't get speakers to come on the show because of the association with the Trump administration.
我们在六月份那个活动上亏了钱，我花了十二天时间筹备它。
We lost money on that event in June that I spent twelve days of my life working on.
那真是让人头疼。
It was a pain in my ass.
这些对我们没有任何个人利益。
There was no personal benefit to us for any of this.
根本不存在什么中饱私囊。
There's no grifting going on.
老实说真的很麻烦。
It's honestly a pain in the ass.
我们这么做是为了萨克斯，他想让我们帮他筹办那个活动，所以
We do it for Sax because he wanted us to help him out with putting that event on, so
我们是为了萨克斯才做的。
we did it out of Sachs.
现在你是节目的兼职人员了。
Now you're part time on the show.
我们有
We have
十次出场中在这里。
be here in 10 out.
时间。
Time.
是啊。
Yeah.
从一开始，这就是个非营利活动。
From the get go, it was a nonprofit event.
我们没有售票。
We did not sell tickets.
全部免费赠送。
We gave them all away for free.
如果想赚钱，就该卖票。
If we wanted to make money, you sell tickets.
赞助商投入资金是为了帮助我们分摊成本，因为我们在这次活动上花费了一百多万美元。
Do sponsors that put money in to help defray the cost because we spent like a million plus dollars on this thing.
他们的标志只出现在视频里，甚至不在现场活动中。
They got their logo on the video, not even in the live event.
只是当我们把视频上传到YouTube时，它才出现在视频里，
It was just on the video when we put it on YouTube,
这是我们的方式。我们继续吧。
which was our way Let's move on.
转到《纽约时报》的话题。
To the New York Times.
但这对所有人来说都没有好处。
But there's no benefit to all in.
这对所有人来说都没有好处。
There's no benefit to all in.
而且，而且，而且他们不得不抛出那个事实
And and and the fact that they had to throw that
要我说的话，
show if you ask me,
不过，是的，我同意。
but, yeah, I concur.
因为他们把所有东西都扔进去，试图制造出一种假象，让人觉得这里面真有什么名堂。
It's because they kitchen sink this thing to try and create the illusion that there was something there.
好吧。
Alright.
我们早知道这会抢了节目的风头，因为我们都情绪激动，而且我们都知道你在这件事上做得非常出色。
We knew this would take over the show because we're all hot under the collar and we all know you're doing a great job there.
我们需要更多专家。
We want more experts.
职位描述是让我们在AI领域获胜。
The job description is to have us win AI.
是的。
Yes.
他们指责我的基本上就是在履行我的职责。
That's what they're accusing me of is basically doing my job.
恭喜。
Congratulations.
你做得很好，现在我们要在《纽约时报》上编造你的谎言了。
You did a great job, and now we're gonna lie about you in the New York Times.
但你和黄仁勋是朋友，现在黄仁勋可以卖芯片了。
But you're friends with Jensen Huang, now Jensen can sell chips.
天啊。
Oh my god.
你
Do you
想看看事实核查吗？
wanna show the fact check?
太疯狂了。
It's so crazy.
这太疯狂了。
It's crazy.
事实核查。
Fact check.
这家伙是世界上最大公司的CEO。
This guy is the CEO of the largest company in the world.
他从事设计工作已有多年。
He's been designing for years.
是啊。
Yeah.
他三十年来一直在精心设计这些芯片。
He's been meticulously designing these chips for thirty years.
为游戏玩家设计的。
For gamers.
在Sax连h100这个词都还不会拼写的时候，他就已经造出来了。
Before Sax could even spell h 100, he had made them.
为游戏玩家设计的。
For gamers.
他当时在做视频游戏显卡Saxes。
He was making video game cards Saxes.
三十年前的事了。
Thirty years ago.
好吧。
Okay.
等等。
Wait.
我得给你们看看他们有多不诚实的一个例子。
We gotta I gotta show this example of how dishonest they are.
他们每隔几周就会给我们发这些所谓的'事实核查'。
So they would send us these fact checks every couple weeks.
明白吗？
Okay?
好的。
Okay.
所以这才是真实的邮件，萨克斯。
So here's the real email, Sax.
他们给你发了一个又一个要点。
They were sending you bullet points after bullet points.
这一部分从第33个要点开始。
This section starts at bullet point number 33.
这显然是你收到的众多邮件之一。
It's obviously one of many emails you got.
他们在这些事实核查中所做的是，基本上把计划要写的故事拆分成若干部分，然后给你大约24小时对每个句子或段落做出回应，让你表明是否同意，并给你机会发表声明。
What they do in these fact checks is they basically take the story that they're planning to write and just break it up into chunks and then they give you like twenty four hours to respond to each sentence or paragraph and say whether, you know, you agree or disagree with it and give you the chance to make a statement.
这就是所谓的事实核查。
That's what a fact check is.
明白了。所以他们计划写的故事是：今年春天，萨克斯在华盛顿与英伟达CEO黄仁勋共进晚餐。
Got So this is the story they were planning on writing which is in the spring, Sachs had dinner with NVIDIA CEO Jensen Huang in Washington.
他们讨论了几项外国出口问题。
They discussed several foreign export issues.
晚餐期间，萨克斯听到一个令人信服的反驳观点：向包括中国在内的竞争对手出售美国芯片会让这些国家依赖美国技术。
During the dinner, Sachs heard a convincing counterargument that selling American chips to rivals, including China, will get those nations hooked on US tech.
萨克斯随后将这个论点带到白宫，并推动官员们取消拜登时代的限制措施，等等。
Saxon then took that argument to the White House and pushed officials to eliminate Biden era restrictions, etcetera, etcetera.
这个叙述只有一个问题。
There's just one problem with this narrative.
根本没有这样的晚餐。
There was no such dinner.
我们查了我的日程表。
We checked my schedule.
他们编造了那次晚餐。
They made up the dinner.
没有。
No.
我们核查了所有人的日程安排。
We checked everyone's schedules.
根本没有这场晚宴。
There is no dinner.
所以他们找了个凭空捏造的消息来源。
So they've got a source who's just making this up.
《纽约时报》作何回应？
And how does the New York Times respond?
他们只是删除了晚宴部分，却保留了其他所有内容。
They just delete the dinner, but they don't delete any other part of this.
但是
But
如果你的消息来源已经被揭发编造了这场所谓的谈话晚宴，那他就彻底不可信了。
if your source has already been caught fabricating a dinner at which this conversation supposedly took place, it's totally discredited.
他们是在试图恐吓你。
They're trying to intimidate you.
他们某种程度上制造了这种暗示，说我通过友情关系被影响了。
They kinda create this insinuation that somehow I'm being influenced through friendships.
但后来发现这些友情关系根本不存在。
But then it turns out that those friendships don't even exist.
我的意思是，在很多情况下，他们只是我加入政府后才认识的人。
I mean, they're just people I met after I joined the administration in lot of cases.
总之，我认为节目的观众都清楚我对AI的看法，因为过去一年我一直在公开倡导这些观点。
So in any event, look, I think the audience of the show knows my views on AI because I've been publicly advocating for them for a past year.
而且你也受到了严格审查。
And you've had scrutiny.
我们每周都会在这里向你提出尖锐的问题。
We ask you hard questions every week here.
我们不断挑战你，迫使你解释这些立场，并与你和观众一起进行压力测试。
We bust your chops and and force you to explain these positions, and and we stress test them with you and the audience stress tests them.
这就像是给美国人民的一份礼物。
That's like that's like a gift to the American people.
我认为人们很难理解一个观念：那些极其富有的人实际上并不需要搞利益输送。
And I think it's very hard for people to contemplate the idea that folks who are significantly wealthy don't actually need to self deal.
就像，他们根本不需要这样做。
Like, they they just don't need it.
而事实是，那些试图在政界建立事业的人才是必然会搞利益输送的，因为这是他们致富的途径。
And the truth is the folks who are trying to build a career in politics are the ones who are necessarily going to self deal because that's the path to wealth for them.
如果你已经找到了致富之路，就不需要搞利益输送了。
And if you've already found your found your path to wealth, you don't need to self deal.
我觉得人们真的很难理解
And I think it's just so hard for people to grok
有人为了服务国家正在损失巨额财富
understand that somebody is losing a massive amount of money serving their country.
我个人要感谢他倾尽所有去报效国家
I, for one, thank you for losing all of his money and going and serving the country.
我是
I'm
我为你感到非常自豪，尽管人们可能不认同你的政治立场，即使我不完全赞同你的言行，萨克斯，但我从未怀疑过你的正直与初衷，也从不认为你会涉及任何形式的自我交易或腐败行为。就我个人而言，认识你这么多年，我可以肯定地说这一点。
very proud of what people don't agree with your politics, even if I don't agree with everything you say or do, Saxe, again, I never doubt your integrity and your intentions, and I never once thought that you would be someone who would ever self deal or engage in any sort of grift or corruption, and I'll say that just personally having known you for a very long time.
很好
Great
轮
round.
我很感激
I appreciate that.
谢谢
Thank you.
我生你的气，因为你没给我五折优惠
I'm mad at you because you didn't sell me everything at 50% discount.
是啊
Yeah.
哪里是啊
Where's yeah.
别这样。
Come on.
这是我第一次听说。
That's the first time I heard it.
我当时
I was
希望我是...我整段视频都在生气，想着，什么？
hoping I was I've been so angry this whole clip thinking, what?
哪里什么？
Where what?
是我的电话吗？
Was my call?
天啊。
Oh my god.
我本来可以给你55%折扣的。
I would have given you 55%.
把它给我。
Give it to me.
我本来会买下的。
I would have bought it.
另一个热门话题是关于新贫困线和即将实施的一些税法。
Another story that's been trending is the new poverty line and some of these incoming tax laws.
投资者兼基金经理迈克·格林上周因声称美国贫困线计算存在严重错误而走红。
Mike Green, an investor and fund manager, went viral last week for claiming The US poverty line math is very wrong.
历史上，贫困线是按照1963年最低食物成本的三倍，并根据通货膨胀调整后计算的。
Historically, the poverty line has been measured as three times the cost of a minimum food diet in 1963 adjusted for inflation.
基于这一标准，2025年四口之家的贫困线设定为31,000美元。
Based on that measures, the poverty line for a family of four is set at $31,000 in 2025.
格林表示实际数字要高出四倍多，达到140,000美元。
Green says the real number is over four x higher at a 140,000.
他通过计入育儿成本得出这个数字，育儿支出已超过住房成为家庭最大平均开支。
He gets that number by factoring the cost of childcare, which has surpassed housing as the largest average expense.
关于 Bayt 播客
Bayt 提供中文+原文双语音频和字幕，帮助你打破语言障碍，轻松听懂全球优质播客。