AI泡沫破裂，扎克伯格冻结招聘，纽森2028年势头强劲，俄乌终局之战

有没有信心觉得Saxton对空巢这件事有点难过。我说的空巢是指，斗牛犬Moose要来牧场生活了。

Any confidence Saxton is a little broken up about the empty nest kind of thing. And by empty nest, I mean, bulldog moose is coming to live on the ranch.

那头驼鹿到了吗？

Has the moose landed?

驼鹿下周到。我们给他三个月的试用期。如果表现良好，他就能留下。

The moose is landing next week. We're giving him a three month trial. If he's on his best behavior, he stays.

他会很棒的。他训练得特别好。

He's gonna be great. He's so well trained.

发生什么事了？

What's going on?

Moose是我们的斗牛犬。对吧？现在Moose要自由了。他需要空间。他需要牧场。

Moose is our our bulldog. Yeah? And Moose is loose. He needs the space. He needs a ranch.

他是只运动能力超强的斗牛犬。这狗可不是懒骨头。他就像Contrary一样。非常活跃，需要地方跑来跑去。

He's a very athletic bulldog. This dog is not a couch potato. He's like Contrary. Very active and he just needs the space to run around.

你们干嘛不直接买个牧场给他专用？

Why don't you just buy a ranch and give him his own ranch?

既然好闺蜜赢了个牧场，何必再买呢？

Why buy a ranch when the bestie has won a ranch?

对啊。那个超爱斗牛犬的闺蜜。不过说真的，他真是斗牛犬里的极品。

Yeah. The bestie who loves bulldogs. But no, he's a he's a spectacular specimen of a bulldog.

哦，他确实是。令人惊艳的斗牛犬。

Oh, he is. Stunning bulldog.

是啊。他是只漂亮的狗。

Yeah. He's a beautiful dog.

很棒的斗牛犬。他就是

Great bulldog. He's This

这是试养吗？一次试养。Calicanus收养流程？天啊。这真让人难过。

is a trial adoption? A sass Trial adoption. Calicanus adoption cycle? Oh my god. This is sad.

你知道，这些斗牛犬很难训练。

You know, these bulldogs resist training.

就像杰森一样。

Like Jason.

对。你知道，就像

Yeah. You know, like

你知道，他们

You know, they

不是的。这更像是

are No. This is like

坚忍、忠诚，像杰森那样。但个性固执。他们会

stoic, loyal Like Jason. But stubborn individuals. They will

超重。坚忍。固执。超重。

Overweight. Stoic. Stubborn. Overweight.

这是只斯佩尔特小麦色的狗。你怎敢这样？你怎敢这样？驼鹿是个典范。

This is a spelt dog. How dare you? How dare you? Moose is a specimen.

就性格而言，这是创始人市场契合度。我是说，这就像是主人与宠物的契合。

In terms of personality, this is founder market fit. I mean, this is like owner pet fit.

创始人斗牛犬契合度。

Founder bulldog fit.

驼鹿会做的是跳上沙发然后就在那儿躺着。就像驼鹿雪橇滑下来那样。我们把它放下来。它立马又跳上去。我们会再把它弄下来。

So what Moose would do is he would jump on the couch and just kinda lay there. So he'd like Moose Snow go down. So we put him down. He jumps right back up. We would take him down.

立马又跳上去。

Jumps right back up.

是啊。我是说，

Yeah. I mean,

它能整晚这样反复。所以最后你只能让步，让它坐在那儿。

he can go on all night doing this. So finally, you just give in and let him sit there.

简直就是杰科。真的就是。他们就是。

Literally Jayco. It's literally. They are.

现在那是它的沙发了。现在那是它的沙发了。

Now it's his couch. Now it's his couch.

这简直就是Jayco。没错。让你的赢家继续奔跑。《雨人》给了它沉默。而我们，好吧，各位。

It's literally Jayco. Yeah. Let your winners ride. Rain man gave it silence. And instead, we Alright, everybody.

欢迎回到全球排名第一的播客节目。今天我们为你们准备了一期精彩内容。涵盖你们想听的所有世界话题。与我们同在的还有我们出色的团队，我们的主席独裁者Tramath Paliohapatthia，正在享受夏末时光。你那边怎么样，兄弟？

Welcome back to the number one podcast in the world. We got a banger episode for you today. All the topics that you wanna hear about in the world. And with us, our amazing crew, our chairman dictator, Tramath Paliohapatthia, enjoying the final moments of summer. How are you doing there, brother?

嗯，我过几天就回来了。

Well, I come back in a couple of days.

你有点忧郁了是吗，兄弟？有点难过？

You getting a little melancholy there, brother? You a little sad?

我是说，我认为每个人都应该在八月有两到三周的假期。我觉得这应该成为全球强制规定。全世界都应该暂停运转，我们都去度假。

Mean, I think it should everybody should have a two to three week vacation in August. I think it should be mandatory around the world. I think the world should stop, and we should all go on vacation.

是啊。你用实际行动向观众证明了这点——连续几周都没来上节目。没错。

Yeah. Well, you proved that to the audience by not showing up for the show for a couple of weeks. Yeah.

这是度假的最佳时机。

It's the best time to go on vacation.

我同意。我我刚从一次小旅行回来

I agree. I I just literally got back from a little

整个七月都在休息。和家人休两周假，没有比这更好的了。

off through the July. Take two weeks off with your family. It's nothing better.

我刚去了趟墨西哥城，那里简直就是罗马的生活再现，太棒了。Chamor，你以前去过吗？

I just did a a little visit down to Mexico City, which was absolutely the life of Rome. It's amazing. Have you been there before, Chamor?

没有。但我听说那里棒极了。我听说那里的美食

No. But I've heard it's incredible. I heard the food scene

在墨西哥城简直疯狂。疯狂到不行，我听说的就是这样。没错。那里的创业氛围太棒了。就像西班牙和布鲁克林威廉斯堡生了个孩子，那个孩子就是墨西哥城。

in Mexico City is bananas. It was bananas and That's what I've heard. Yeah. The startup scene there is amazing. It's kinda like if Spain and Williamsburg, Brooklyn had a baby, like, that would be Mexico City.

超级时髦，超级有趣，到处都是年轻人，充满活力。嘿。说到充满活力的年轻人，嘿。弗莱堡又回到他的小隔间里，整个八月都在工作，完成那些了不起的事，比如我们的AI峰会和全投入峰会。弗莱堡，你又为全投入团队和观众牺牲了你的夏天。

It's super hip, super fun, lots of young people, lots of energy. Hey. Speaking of young people with lots of energy, hey. Freiburg's back with us in his cell working throughout August to get incredible things done, like our AI summit and the all in summit. Freiburg, you gave up your summer once again for the all in crew and for the audience.

你感觉如何？你是心怀怨恨，还是对自己的决定感到满意？

How do you feel? You resentful, or you you feel good about your decisions?

我为工作而生，J. Cal。

I live for the work, J. Cal.

确实。OHalo进展如何？看起来你在那里投入了很多工作。你埋头苦干。给我们简单更新下公司情况吧。

You do. How's OHalo doing? It seems like you're doing a lot of work there. You got your head down. Just give us a little update on the company.

谢谢关心。事情很多，我们非常忙。其实我今天有个很酷的试管实验，还有客户来访。我去找找看。

I appreciate the ask. There's a lot going on. We're very busy. I actually had a really cool test tube here that we had a customer visit today. I'll go find it.

世界上第一个真正的马铃薯种子，我们正在扩大生产。事情很多，相当令人兴奋。

The world's first true potato seed, and we are ramping up production. Lot going on. It's pretty exciting.

是啊。听起来相当厉害。激动人心。萨克斯，对马铃薯和这个激动人心的项目有什么看法吗？

Yeah. Sounds Pretty awesome. Sounds thrilling. Sax, any thoughts there on potatoes and just how thrilling this exercise has been?

我们在聊什么？

What are we talking about?

我们刚刚在聊奥哈洛威的事。弗里德伯格这个夏天过得惊心动魄，他正在试管里培育一种新土豆，先等等看吧。

We're just talking about O'Hallowy. Friedberg had a thrilling summer. He's he's got a new potato in a test tube that he's working on just Wait.

我们投资了吗？是不是这么回事？

Did we invest? Is that what's going on with that?

对，你是股东之一。

Yeah. You're a shareholder.

我参与了。好吧。行。嗯，好吧。这事我挺关心的。

I'm in. Okay. Alright. Well, okay. I care about this.

赢了？

Win?

他没有

He did not

我知道

I know

他当时想拉投资来着

he wanted an investment.

我没...我没弄明白

I didn't I didn't get it.

这话题可能有点扫兴？

That might be sour subject?

不。为什么不。不。这对我来说是个课题。当这东西价值100亿时，我却连在Freeburg上投个2.5美元的小份额都挤不进去。

No. Why no. No. It's a subject for me. When this thing becomes worth 10,000,000,000 and I didn't get to slide in a little $2.50 slice, not even a slice on Freeburg.

听着，伙计们。给你们的朋友留点份额。

Look, guys. A slice for your friends.

他们想要增值投资者，J Cal。你具体能带来什么增值？

They want value added investors, J Cal. What's your value add exactly?

增值？比如说——

Value add? How about

我在这个播客上传播这些信息。

I Spreading this information on this podcast.

好吧。行。既然我不在股东名单上，祝你们的变异土豆项目好运。

Okay. Yeah. Alright. Well, since I'm not on the cap table, good luck with your mutant potatoes.

这是信息。

It's information.

变异土豆。哦，我们会挺过去的，各位。嘿，Zacks，我们和某位参议员做了个小访谈。给我们概述下吧。

Mutant potatoes. Oh, we'll get through it, folks. We'll get through it. Hey, Zacks, you and I did a little interview with a certain senator. Give us an overview.

是的。我们采访了密苏里州参议员埃里克·施密特，他此前担任总检察长并撰写了相关回忆录。他发起的'拜登诉密苏里州案'揭露了拜登政府通过社交媒体公司运作的审查机制——这相当于政府版的'推特档案'。他发现的证据与埃隆公布的推特档案相结合，完整揭示了政府如何与社交网络勾结，在新冠疫情等诸多议题上压制美国人的言论自由以推行其观点。

Yeah. We did a great interview with senator Eric Schmidt from the state of Missouri who previously was attorney general and wrote a book about his experience as attorney general. He brought the lawsuit Biden v Missouri, which exposed the Biden administration's censorship apparatus that they ran through social media companies. This was the government side of the the Twitter files. And the discovery he brought when married with the Twitter files that Elon released really paint a picture of how the government was in bed with social networks to basically censor Americans' free speech rights in favor of their point of view on COVID and many other issues.

好消息。

Great news.

想想看

Think it

这真是一场精彩的对话。

was really good conversation.

没错。话题劲爆且无所不包。但我们即将迎来这场盛会——峰会要来了各位，准备好吧。

Yeah. It was spicy and it's everywhere where you can find all in. But we got this big event coming up. The summit is coming, folks. Here we go.

短短几周内第四次了，9月9日，我想8号和9号是主活动日。天啊这阵容太强大了——Alex Karp、Robinhood的Vlad、我的老友能源部长Chris Wright，我们将展开精彩对谈。第二部分。哇哦。

For the fourth time in just a few weeks, September the ninth, I think eighth and ninth are the main days. Man, this lineup is stacked. Alex Karp, Vlad from Robinhood, my guy, energy secretary Chris Wright, I are gonna have a great discussion. Part two. Wow.

Uber CEO创历史新高股价，Circle CEO。阵容简直不可思议。还有Friedberg，看来我们找到了超棒的合作伙伴。对吧？

Uber CEO hitting an all time high, Circle CEO. Just an incredible lineup here. And, Friedberg, it looks like we've got some great partners. Yeah?

首先今年活动成本会非常高。除了顶级演讲嘉宾，我们还请到Diplo为其中一个主派对压轴。

First of all, the event is gonna be very expensive to put on this year. We actually have, in addition to the great speakers, we have Diplo headlining one of the main parties.

那个Diplo？

The Diplo?

没错。还有Gary Richards和Dylan Francis。所以每晚都有盛大狂欢派对，绝对精彩。为了筹办这些，我们要特别感谢赞助商们。

Yeah. Gary Richards and Dylan Francis. And so we have a huge set of blowout parties every night. It's gonna be awesome. To put all this on, to pay for the event, we wanna thank the sponsors.

Solana要重点感谢，他们去年就是赞助商，今年更是加大了支持力度。

So Solana, big shout out. They were a sponsor last year and they're stepping up as a big sponsor this year.

特别鸣谢Solana的朋友们。他们太棒了，支持我们所有工作。他们现在日处理超1亿笔交易，取得的成就令人难以置信。

Big shout out to our friends at Solana. They're amazing. They support everything we do. They're doing over a 100,000,000 transactions a day. It's unbelievable what they're getting done over there.

团队很棒，他们周日会为我们提供全开放式酒吧服务。果汁吧、咖啡，应有尽有。那边的团队很专业。我们不只是像通常那样赞助活动，而是会询问我们的合作伙伴，嘿。

Great team, and they're gonna do a full open bar for us Sunday. Juice bar coffee, the works. Classic team over there. And we don't just have, like, these typical sponsorships of events. What we do is we ask, you know, our partners, hey.

打造一个互动区，为好友和粉丝们提供一个聚会的地方，他们都创造了这些令人惊叹的体验，会有抹茶、浓缩咖啡、精酿啤酒、寿司等各种好东西。我们的朋友OKX也会回来，他们正在舞台上搭建一个抹茶吧。

Make an activation. Make a place for the besties and for the fans to hang, and they've all created these amazing experiences, and there'll be matchas and espressos and craft beers and sushi and all kinds of great stuff. And to our friends at OKX, they're gonna be coming back. They're building it on stage. Got a matcha bar coming.

这些都是我们合作伙伴带来的精彩内容。Google Cloud再次回归，为初创企业提供35万美元的Google Cloud积分。他们在那边的影响力有多大，Google简直疯狂。看看这个，伙计。

All these great things by our partners. Google Cloud's back offering 350 k in credits to Google Cloud for startups. What mentions they are over there. Google's crazy. Look at this, man.

他们在峰会上设立了一个迷你园区，是的，如果你来参加，就能获得35万美元的云积分。Athletic Brewing也回来了，他们再次提供奖学金。我们还有几个奖学金名额剩余。如果你有能力购买普通门票，请不要申请奖学金。

They've they're putting out a mini campus at the summit, and, yeah, 350 k in cloud credits if you come. Athletic Brewing's back. They're doing the scholarships again. We have a couple of scholarship slots left. Please don't apply for the scholarships if you have means to buy a regular ticket.

但如果你确实需要奖学金，并且是行业新人，请务必申请。访问Allin.com/summit或allin.com/yada yada yada。

But if you do need a scholarship, please do apply if you're an up and comer. Allin.com/summit or allin.com/yada yada yada.

你们看到这个了吗？

Did you guys see this?

现在发生什么事了？

What's going on now?

显然，我出现在了最新的《南方公园》剧集中。

Apparently, I was in the New South Park episode.

整集都在讲AI的谄媚现象。但你——

The whole thing was around the sycophancy of AI. But you

我在剧中有台词吗？还是只是背景出现？

Do I say anything in the show, or is it just I'm just in the background?

不。他们有一排人向总统献礼，你知道的，就是基于蒂姆·库克送给我们了不起的总统的那个苹果动图。这集挺搞笑的。知道我喜欢这届政府哪点吗？比如JD真的转发了所有这些内容，而且玩得很开心。

No. They had a line of people giving tributaries to the president, you know, based on the Apple GIF that Tim Cook gave to our amazing president. It's a funny episode. You know what I like about the administration? Like, JD actually retweeted all this stuff and and, you know, had it's good fun.

我们我们我们可以拿公务员开涮。

We we we get to mock our civil servants.

对你来说那是副总统。

That's the vice president to you.

我就是这么说的，我的伙计JD。怎么了

That's what I said, my guy JD. What did

我说什么了？直呼其名什么的。

I say? Something on a first name basis.

我的哥们JD。稍等一下，让我先跟JD打个招呼，听听他的反馈。我要邀请他参加Dip Girl派对。等等。

My guy JD. Hold on a second. Let me just say hi to JD here, and I'll just get his feedback. I'm gonna invite him to the Dip Girl party. Hold on.

你最大的噩梦来了。我和克里斯·莱特现在直接连线了。我现在是直连状态。哦对了，克里斯·莱特，我要给峰会带份特别礼物。

Your biggest nightmare is here. Me and Chris Wright also talking directly now. I'm directly plugged in. Oh, yes. Chris Wright, I'm bringing him a special gift to the summit.

你绝对会爱死的。好了，我们得聊聊AI。这周AI热潮有点波折，大概三四天吧。AI股票全线下跌，因为MIT的研究报告疯传，还有山姆·奥特曼关于泡沫的言论，以及扎克伯格在全面突击后突然冻结AI招聘。

You're gonna be you're gonna love it. Alright. We gotta talk about AI. AI mania hit a bit of a detour this week all over the, you know, three or four days. AI stocks were down across the board because of this MIT study that went viral as well as Sam Altman's comments about a bubble and Zuck instituting a hiring freeze in AI after going on a complete blitzkrieg.

先说第一件事，周一《财富》挖出了MIT上个月发布的生成式AI研究报告。研究发现95%的生成式AI试点项目因员工抵制、输出质量差而无法投产，最有趣的问题是资源错配——70%的AI预算花在了销售营销工具等低回报领域，而后台优化（如自动化削减部门开支的任务）才是回报最高的。

So let's get into it. Hack one, Monday, Fortune dug up a generative AI study that MIT published last week or last month, I should say. In that study, MIT found that ninety five percent of Gen AI pilots are failing to make it to production because of employee resistance, poor quality output, and the most interesting problem seems to be resource mis allocation. According to the study, 70% of Jan dot ai budgets are going towards things like building sales and marketing tools, which have poor ROI. The highest ROI was found in back office optimization, like automating tasks that cut back spends, you know, on various departments.

说白了就是这些试点都失败了，研究调查了52家公司的300个AI项目并访谈了150位高管。Jamal你现在经营着自己的软件公司8090，实际情况符合这个发现吗？我想说的是...

Basically, these pilots aren't working, Shemop, is what this study found. They evaluated 300 AI implementations and interviewed a 150 leaders across 52 companies. You've been grinding it out with your own software company now called eighty ninety. Does this align with what you're seeing on the field, Jamal? I think what I would tell

我认为第一波浪潮只是许多董事会成员在文章中看到‘AI’这个词后，在董事会上转向CEO问道：你们的AI战略是什么？

you is that I think the first wave was just a lot of boards who read the words AI somewhere in an article and then went to a board meeting and turned to the CEO and said, what's your AI strategy?

嗯。

Mhmm.

然后CEO转身将这个问题层层下传，最终落到CTO的案头。我认为第一波主要是人们因为已有庞大预算就随意花钱，想着‘让我们尝试各种不同东西’。现在我们正经历筛选阶段，意识到概率性软件与确定性软件存在巨大差异——这可能是销售和营销领域出现大量失败案例的主因。将销售和营销编码成一套永不改变的启发式规则极其困难。

And then the CEO turns around and sends that down into their org, and it eventually hits the CTO's desk. And I think the first wave is mostly people just spending money because they had large existing budgets, and so they were like, let's just go and try a bunch of different things. And I think now we're going through the sorting function of realizing that there's a big difference between probabilistic software and deterministic software. That's probably the biggest reason why you're seeing so many failure modes in sales and marketing. It's very hard to codify sales and marketing into a set of heuristics that never change.

但后台流程之所以适合AI，根本在于我们雇佣了大量人力处理边缘案例。多数公司里，员工就是负责流程并处理异常情况。若正确实施AI，后台任务的准确率可以极高。真正的问题是：这些生成的收入将何去何从？

But back office processes, why they're so good and a great target for AI is ultimately, we have so many people that have been hired to deal with edge cases. Right? I think, like, that's what people do in most companies is they're in charge of a process and they're they're dealing with edge cases. And I think that you can get extremely high rates of accuracy if you implement AI correctly in back office tasks. I think the real question is, like, what happens to all of this revenue that has been generated?

我们看到公司短短数月就创造5亿到100亿美元年经常性收入，然后进行大规模融资。但尚未可知的是：当更便宜的解决方案出现、基础模型向上吞噬功能、或产品失效被弃用时，是否会出现客户流失或收入下滑？社交媒体就经历过这种洗牌——我参与构建Facebook时，见证过8000家社交公司六年内只剩5家的全过程。

You're seeing companies generating $50,100,000,000 dollars of ARR in a matter of months and then raising huge rounds. I think what we haven't seen is whether there'll be any sort of either logo churn or dollar churn as new companies come in with even cheaper solutions, the foundational models move up the stack and just absorb capability, or things just don't work and they get abandoned. All of that churn happened in social. I remember when I was in the middle of helping build Facebook, we went through that whole cycle. There was seven or 8,000 social companies.

没错。我在投资SaaS时也经历过类似情况，早期成功案例如Yammer（我很幸运是其投资者），但真正赢家要多年后才能显现。

Yep. And within six years, there was five of us left. It happened in SaaS when I was investing in SaaS. There's a couple of very early and important successes like Yammer, which SAC started, which I was very lucky to be an investor of. But then it took many years for the handful of winners to get really sorted out.

我预感AI领域即将重演这个周期。那篇文章描绘了非常准确的图景：经过大量试验后，现在需要筛选净化，然后从第一性原理重建。

And I suspect we're about to go through that same cycle in AI. So I think that article basically paints a very accurate picture. There's been a lot of trialing and experimentation. We now need to go through a sorting and a cleansing and then we'll rebuild from first principles around the Yeah.

这对我们的SaaS权威David Sachs来说并不意外——销售和营销部门对新工具来者不拒，毕竟获客和成交能直接挂钩。他们总是率先尝试新事物。但Sachs，你怎么看这种收入的脆弱性和流失率？我们会看到这些公司飙升至100又跌回50吗？

Not surprising to our sultan of SAS, David Sachs, because the sales and marketing departments, they they're very promiscuous when it comes to new tools, getting a great lead, closing a sale, you can directly connect it. So we always see them test stuff out. Doesn't surprise me that we'd see sales and marketing go after this first. But what do you think about the brittleness of this revenue, the churn, SACS? Are we gonna see a lot of these companies rocket up to a 100 and come back down to 50?

这是你们观察到的现象吗？或者你们机构...（我不清楚你在机构的职位）能否透露你们的调研情况？Kraft在战场上看到了什么？

Is this something you're seeing or your your firm, which I don't know your status at the firm, maybe you could tell us how how that's working out in terms of your intelligence there. But what is Kraft seeing on the field there?

我们看到许多有趣的AI应用正在开发，但尚处早期阶段。过去一周AI sentiment确实出现回调，但这是健康的修正——并非泡沫破裂前兆。我仍认为我们处于投资超级周期，只是人们对AI某些夸张宣传恢复了合理怀疑。

I think we're seeing a lot of interesting AI applications being developed, but it's still very early days. And I think that over the past week or so, there was a correction in sentiment towards AI, but I think it was a healthy correction. I don't think this was the beginning of a bus cycle or something like that. I I still think that we're in a boom. I still think we're in a investment super cycle, but I think there was a healthy dose of skepticism applied to some of the more fantastical claims that have been made about AI.

我认为这就是为什么你会看到公开交易的AI股票出现了大约10%的调整。MIT有份报告指出，95%的企业AI项目尚未投入生产应用等等。所以我觉得我们有点偏离主题了，真正应该讨论的是当前处于AI超级周期的哪个阶段。

And I think this is why you saw there was, like, roughly what, like a 10% correction in public AI stocks. And there was that MIT report that said that 95% of projects that companies are are not making it to production yet and so forth and so on. So I feel like we're getting in the weeds a little bit here and what we should be talking about is just sort of where we are in this in this AI super cycle.

那你认为我们处在什么阶段？是实验阶段还是试点阶段？但概率性输出与确定性之间的差异导致软件难以被信任，你觉得这是关键问题所在吗？

And where do you perceive us at? We're in the experimentation phase, we're in the pilot phase, but this issue around probabilistic versus deterministic makes it hard to trust the software. Is that what you think the key issue is?

让我解释为何认为这次调整是健康的——自2022年ChatGPT发布到整个2023年，AI领域的主流叙事是通用人工智能（AGI）仅需两三年就能实现。虽然每个人对AGI定义不同，但普遍想象它是超越人类智慧的超级智能，近乎魔法的存在。这种预期催生了大量乌托邦和反乌托邦叙事，比如短期内半数知识工作者将失业的预言。

Well, let me tell you why I think that this correction is actually healthy, is that after ChatGPT launch at the 2022 and then throughout 2023, the dominant narrative in AI is that AGI was just two to three years away. And everyone kinda had their own definition of AGI was, but it was kind of this idea of smarter than human superintelligence and kind of magic AI. AI would be able to do everything. And as a result of that, you kinda had both utopian and dystopian narratives really proliferated. And so, you know, you started getting this like job loss narrative that within a few fifty percent of knowledge workers would be out of jobs.

还有所谓'快速起飞'理论，认为领先的AI模型会自我迭代升级，几年内就能达到超级智能水平，垄断人类价值创造。正是这种既孕育乐观又催生末日论调的底层叙事，引发了强烈反弹——目前各州议会正在审议上千项相关法案，加州SB1047等提案试图对AI实施严厉监管。

You got this rapid takeoff narrative that basically the leading AI models would be able to turn their intelligence towards improving themselves, towards recursive self improvement. And therefore, within a couple of years, the leading models would basically achieve superintelligence and leave everyone else in the dust and then capture all the value of humanity. And then based on that narrative, which again it was the same underlying narrative that fueled both utopian and and dystopian or doomer takes on AI. You got, I think, a huge backlash, which has already been forming where you have a thousand bills running through state legislatures right now, and you have all this AI safety legislation. You got bills like in California, the SB ten forty seven, which would have applied a tremendous amount of of new regulation to AI.

政策层面的反弹同样基于这些对AI未来两三年发展的奇幻想象。近期出现的质疑声之所以健康，正是因为它反驳了这些夸张预期。AI确实是强大工具，我认为这是一种重要新型计算范式，将为经济释放巨大价值。

So you saw this policy backlash happen as well. And it was all based on these fantastical and kind of magic views of what AI was gonna do in just the next two to three years. And I think that the reason why this recent skepticism is healthy is because I think it's rebutting all of that. And it's showing that, you know, AI is a powerful tool. I mean, I I definitely think it's a new and important form of computing, and it is gonna unlock tremendous value in the economy.

但实现这些需要时间。你不能简单命令AI'去当销售代表'就指望它取代人类，需要大量提示调试和验证才能创造商业价值。如果真处于快速起飞阶段，头部AI模型的性能应该遥遥领先，但现实是所有模型性能都集中在相近基准线上。

But it's gonna take us a while to get there. I mean, you can't just tell the AI, you know, be a sales rep, be a customer service rep, and kinda throw it over the wall and expect that it's gonna replace a human. It takes a lot of prompting and iteration and validation to make the AI work, to make it generate business value. And if we were on a path towards rapid takeoff, then what you would see is that the leading AI models would be increasing the distance between like, the top one or two models would be increasing the distance between, you know, the rest of the models. And instead, what we're seeing is a clustering of model performance around the same performance benchmark.

对吧？它们的进步是渐进式的

Right? They're incrementally The progress be

更偏向渐进改良而非革命性突破。ChatGPT五代的发布让这点尤为明显——很多人期待GPT-5成为重大突破，Sam Altman甚至用死星照片暗示。

a little bit more incremental. It's more evolutionary rather than revolutionary. And I I think this really crystallized around the launch of ChatGPT five, where a lot of people were expecting GPT five to be this huge breakthrough. Sam Altman was sort of teasing this concept by posting photos of the Death Star. Yeah.

人们原以为这个模型会碾压所有竞争对手，但最终评价毁誉参半。性能评估显示它确实有进步，只是未达到被过度炒作的预期高度。

The idea that this model was gonna blow everybody else away, and the reviews ended up being very mixed. And then we saw that on the performance evaluations. It's not that the model didn't represent progress, it just fell short of these lofty expectations that have been created.

那么弗里德伯格，请你也谈谈看法。

So, Friedberg, let me get you in on this.

实在抱歉，我可能有点啰嗦了，但请允许我总结一下，那就是

Just sorry, I've been kinda long winded here, but just let me just sum this up, which is

请讲。

Please.

我认为人们现在可以看到，我们并未陷入递归式自我改进的循环。我们看到的是少数优秀的模型公司存在，但这项技术的发展将是一场更为常态化的技术竞赛。并非领先者会突然迅速实现通用人工智能。正因如此，我认为既然这是场更常态的技术竞赛，我们就能从投资和政策角度运用更常规的逻辑。那些关于末日将至或乌托邦降临的夸张叙事——取决于你站哪边——都被严重夸大了。

I think that what people can now see is that we're not in, a a loop of recursive self improvement. We're seeing that there are a handful of of great model companies, but the development of this technology is gonna be a more normal technology race. It's not like the leading players just all of a sudden get a achieve AGI just very quickly. And as a result of that, I I think because it is a more normal technology race, I think we can apply a more normal logic to it from both an investment and a policy standpoint. And I think that a lot of the narratives that were hyped up about imminent doom or imminent utopia, depending on what side you were on, were just massively overhyped.

这就是为什么我认为这是非常健康的现象。

And this is why I think it's just a very healthy thing.

顺便说句，另一个令人担忧的问题是模型迭代未能显著提升性能，尤其因为增量模型容易过度拟合基准测试。这也是让人挠头的现象。观察最近一批重大模型更新（比如Grok），它们在关键基准测试上与前代模型的差距并未真正拉开。这非常令人担忧，毕竟它们本就容易过度拟合。

By the way, the other concerning thing is it's concerning when models successively don't get meaningfully better, especially because there's a tendency for incremental models to get overfit to benchmarks. That's another concerning thing that I think people were, like, scratching their heads about. And if you look at the last big set of model updates, ex of Grok, they didn't really meaningfully improve their separation from the last generation model on the big benchmarks that matter. And that's also very concerning because they tend to overfit to begin with.

没错。我想补充的是，模型公司仍在通过最新版本实现某种程度的相互超越。如果真存在某个模型快速起飞的情况，这种现象本不该发生。另外我们看到的是，没有哪个模型能全面碾压其他模型，而是各自发展出竞争优势领域。

Yeah. And I would just say that, you know, another just piece of evidence here is that the model companies are still leapfrogging each other to some degree with their latest versions. And again, that should not be possible if one model achieved rapid takeoff. The other thing you're seeing is that it's not like one model is dominating all the other models. You're seeing that models are developing areas of competitive advantage.

它们正变得越来越专业化。ChatGPT被诟病像道貌岸然的学究，Grok可能更接地气。不同模型擅长不同模式——比如谷歌在视频处理方面就做得很好。

They're becoming increasingly specialized. They have different personalities. If ChatGPT has been accused of being sick of Fantish, Grok is maybe more based. I mean, they have different modes that they excel at. Google, I think, has gotten really good at video, for example.

Anthropic在编程方面确实出色。这种专业化趋势彻底否定了某个模型会全知全能的可能性，我们现在看到的是专业化的百花齐放。

Anthropic is is really good at coding. The specialization really belies this idea of one model becoming all knowing and all powerful. We're seeing a proliferation now of specialization.

让我试着联系Freiburg。据CNBC报道，Altman似乎将AI热潮比作互联网泡沫。引用原话：'投资者整体对AI是否过度兴奋？我的看法是肯定的。AI是否是长期以来的最重要突破？我的看法同样肯定。'接着引述Sam Altman另一句话：'我认为我们在GPT-5的发布上搞砸了些事'——这相当于向Freiburg承认了失误。这对巨额投资意味着什么？

Let me try and get Freiburg in here. Altman appeared to compare the AI craze to the .com bubble according to CNBC. Here's the quote. Are we in a phase where investors as a whole are overexcited about AI? My opinion is yes.

AI是否长期以来的最重要突破？我的看法同样肯定。接着引述Sam Altman另一句话：'我认为我们在GPT-5的发布上完全搞砸了些事'——这算是向Freiburg承认了失误。这对巨额投资意味着什么？

Is AI the most important thing to happen in a very long time? My opinion is also yes. And then a quote from Sam Altman, another quote. I think we totally screwed up some things with the rollout of GPT five, so it's kind of admitting that Freiberg. What does this mean in terms of the massive investment?

开场时提到的是5000亿美元。那么你认为山姆在这里的言论是否意味着他希望市场降温？考虑到问题和进展，这些投资是否过于庞大？弗里伯格，在人们声称需要巨额投资却未在企业中看到成效的情况下，场上的博弈到底是什么？

Opening, was talking about $500,000,000,000. So is this in hit do you think if you were to game what Sam is saying here, maybe he wants it to cool off? Maybe these investments are too large given the problem and the progress? What what's the game on the field here, Freeberg, in terms of the massive investment that people are claiming this is gonna require if we're not seeing the results in corporations?

是指大型资本支出投资吗？因为大部分筹集到的资金都是由模型公司完成的，并且主要用于芯片和数据中心。

Like, the big CapEx investment? Because most of the capital that's been raised has been raised by the model companies, and most of it has been deployed into chips, right, in data centers.

没错。那么这在当前合理吗？还是说这些公司需要先证明‘我们能在美国企业界取得一些成果’之前，投资热潮也该降温？

Right. So does that make sense right now, or do we does that need to cool off as well while these companies prove, hey. We can get some things done in corporate America.

我认为目前关键的一点认知是：互联网正在连接。在.com泡沫时期，光纤部署的速度超过了互联网终端用户创造的经济价值。因此.com泡沫最终破裂，但互联网的终极价值实现远超当时大多数人的预期——只是延迟了几年。我认为这次情况很可能类似。

So I think one of the key things that's being understood so, you know, the Internet was being connected. There was connectivity and and fiber being deployed in a rate that exceeded the economic value creation by the end users on the Internet during the .com boom. And so as a result, the .com boom was a became a bubble that burst, but the ultimate promise of the Internet was realized many orders of magnitude greater than I think, you know, most folks declared and proclaimed at the time. It was just delayed by a few years. I think it's likely to be the same here.

当前这轮资本支出周期是否能获得相应投资回报率尚待观察。但有三大趋势值得注意：首先是人们意识到需要将人类工程与生成式AI工具结合——AI可以编写大量代码，但仍需人工调试和部署。

Whether this particular CapEx cycle is gonna have that ROIC or not, I think, is is a bit TBD. But I think there's kind of three big trends underway that are worth noting. The first is that there's a realization now that you need to pair humans and human engineering with the generative tools that these generative AI systems are providing. So you can get a bunch of code written, but you still need to debug the code. You still need to get it into production.

还需要进行系统集成。这种人机协作模式正在探索中：不是打开生成式AI就能自动运营业务，而是要明确它在组织中的定位——哪些岗位操作它？如何使用？等等。

You still need to get it to integrate. So this kind of pairing of humans with AI is something that's being learned. What's the right model? It's not that you just turn on generative AI and it runs your business for you. It's like, where does it fit in the org?

类似地，我们看到许多合作伙伴模型正在发展。与其让Sora这类视频模型直接生成电影，不如用生成式AI创建对象，再用Unity等现有渲染引擎制作视频。

Who are the people that run it? How do they use it? Etcetera. And then similar to that, I think we're seeing a lot of partner models being developed. So rather than have, like, a Sora or a video model, just generate a movie.

这种将生成式AI与确定性系统（现有软件）结合的混合模式能加速产出。电影制作者现在可以通过AI工具搭配现成渲染系统制作AI电影，效果远优于直接让AI生成视频——后者会导致人物形象不连贯、无法控制对象属性。

It turns out that you can use the generative AI to generate the objects and then use an existing rendering engine like Unity to actually make the video. So those sorts of pairing models where you use what's being called a deterministic system or an existing piece of software that integrates with generative AI can accelerate outcomes. So filmmakers can now make AI movies by coupling the AI generative tools with an existing off the shelf kind of rendering system. And that works a lot better than just telling the AI, make a bunch of video where then all the people look different. You can't control the objects.

你无法调整镜头角度、构图、色彩、光线等需要精细控制的参数。因此将AI作为现有系统的增强层似乎是正确方向。这种模式不仅适用于影视制作，在其他领域AI也能作为底层工具增强现有系统。第三个关键趋势是向SLMs（专业小模型）的转型——NVIDIA等机构的研究表明，相比全能大模型，特定任务的小模型网络性能更优。

You can't change the camera angle, you can't change the framing, the color, the lighting, all the features that you may wanna otherwise control. So layering AI on top of the existing system seems to be the right answer. And I think we're seeing that not just in filmmaking or or digital content creation, but in other areas as well where the AI provides almost like a substrate that can sit on top of existing tools and just be like a marionette and do a better job. You know, I think I think the third key thing that we're seeing that's causing a bit of the observed hiccup is this movement to SLMs. And you guys have seen a bunch of these papers from NVIDIA and others that have shown performance improvements by actually moving away from one large model that does it all to much smaller specialized models that work in a specific task in a specific application or that work together as a network of models.

我个人认为这些模型将发展为网络化SLMs，其运作原理可能超出人类理解范围。虽然目前我们还在以确定性方式设计SLM功能，但当模型开始自主开发其他模型时，这些SLMs将形成难以解析却高效协作的网络。这种架构重构能显著降低单token生成的能耗和成本，正如你提到的观点J。

And my personal belief on this is actually that these models are gonna move towards SLMs that we don't understand how and why they work the way they do in a network fashion Because today, we're designing the SLMs in a deterministic way. We're saying this is an SLM that does x, y, or z. But if the models eventually get developed by other models, those SLMs will become really, you know, not well understood, but they'll work in a network. The reason that's important is because this rearchitecturing of these systems dramatically reduces the energy cost and the dollar cost per token generated, and so it brings down the cost and the runtime of these systems. So to your point, J.

Cal，资本支出投资突然获得比当前面临挑战的投资回报率（ROIC）高得多的回报，因为现有系统在能源和成本效率上极为低下。如果架构重新设计成功，这些系统的效率将大幅提升，可能是10倍甚至100倍。实际上我认为到那时，代币产量会大幅上升而非下降。这是我目前观察到的三大趋势，它们可能正在重塑整个生态系统，并导致一些可见的波动。JKL，你怎么看？

Cal, the CapEx investment suddenly gets much higher ROIC rather than the challenged ROIC that it's dealing with today because the systems are so energy and cost inefficient today. So if the architectural redesigns work, then these systems become much more efficient, 10 x, a 100 x more efficient. And I actually think at that point, token production will go way up, not way down. So those are three big trends that I see kind of underway right now that might be architecting the overall kind of ecosystem and and probably causing some of the observed hiccups. JKL, what do you think?

是不是像...你觉得现在正处于大幅放缓的阶段吗？我是说

Is it like, do you think there's a big slowdown underway? I mean

没错。这完全符合我们观察到的技术发展曲线。Nikki可以调出数据——我们在智能手机和互联网发展史上都见过这种模式，而现在我们很可能正处于'幻灭低谷期'，因为当初的期望值实在太高了。新技术问世时，人们总是过度兴奋。

Yeah. I mean, it's this is following exactly the technological curve that we see. Nikki would pull it up here where we've seen this with smartphones and the Internet itself, but the trough of disillusionment is probably where we're living right now because there were so many expectations. You know, this innovation comes out. People get really excited.

海量资金涌入后，人们又开始质疑：这投资到底值不值？之后就是渐进的改进过程。以Uber为例，当初人们都说它永远无法盈利，DoorDash也绝对行不通。

Massive amounts of money is invested, and then people wonder, hey. Was this a good investment or not? And then it just takes incremental improvement over time. We saw this with Uber as an example where people are like, oh, it'll never be profitable. It'll never be DoorDash will never work.

结果它们只是稍作调整就实现了全球扩张，网络效应开始显现。自动驾驶也将经历同样过程——它现在可能刚过'过高期望峰值'，人们开始意识到那些极端案例相当棘手，车速控制必须谨慎。

And then they just added a couple of bucks, and it scaled globally. The network effects kicked in. We're gonna see it again with self driving. Self driving's actually probably just getting through the peak of inflated expectations where people are starting to realize, oh, these edge cases are pretty serious. You probably don't want these things going too fast.

上路决策需要极度审慎，这引发出SACS（我们节目应该找时间讨论）的深刻议题：监管权该归属联邦还是地方？各州能否自主制定自动驾驶规则，还是该由联邦政府统一立法？具体到销售领域，我们发现一线业务员虽未被AI取代，但销售开发代表（SDR）在挖掘潜在客户、管理销售线索方面的效率确实提升了十倍。变革正在发生，只是以渐进方式渗透组织，需要专业化操作和工具接纳——后者才是最大障碍，目前工具使用阻力很大。

You're gonna need to be very thoughtful about putting them on roads, and that leads to a really interesting discussion, SACS, we should have at some point on this program about should that be federal or local? Should the local states get to decide self driving rules on their roads, or should the federal government come in and make a blanket one? But looking specifically at the sales one, we're seeing on the field that maybe the salespeople aren't being replaced by AI, but the SDRs are becoming 10 times, like, literally 10 times more effective at finding the next lead at organizing leads and targets. So it's definitely happening, but it's incremental inside these organizations, and it's just gonna take specialization and people have to actually embrace the tools. That's probably the biggest thing is there's a lot of resistance to these tools already.

只有当人们真正接受这些工具时，效果才会显现。如果持续抵触，就像我们当年见证互联网推广时的情形一样。

And once you get people actually embracing them, they start to work. But if people aren't gonna embrace them and there's some resistance, it's kinda like what we saw with the Internet. Yeah.

我有个核心疑问：当企业深陷某种运作模式时，变革就会变得极其困难——这在每次重大创新周期中都可见证。问题是，这些基础模型公司是否已对LLMs（大语言模型）投入过多？当全新建模方式（比如状态空间模型）出现时，他们多数只懂LLM的员工该如何应对？

Here's a big question that I have. You know how at some point like you get so invested in a way of doing things that when things change, it's almost too hard to change the way your company orients? And you see it in every single phase of these big innovation cycles. The question is, is there a point at which these foundational model companies have invested too much money in LLMs where so many of their employees only understand that and all of a sudden there are completely different ways of building these models. State space is one example.

若有新入局者采用截然不同的表征方式，甚至为此定制芯片呢？这些尚未发生，因为我们才刚步入本应持续数十年的创新周期。这引出沉没成本谬误问题：既然已在LLM路线上投入巨资，当颠覆性技术出现时该如何抉择？

But then, you know, some new entrant decides to build a completely different kind of representation. They may also then build custom silicon for it. All of those things have yet to happen. And the reason is we're really only a few years in to what should be a multi decade innovation cycle. So those are like some really important questions because then you have this problem of the sunk cost fallacy of, well, we spent all this money on this LLM based approach and now all of a sudden there's this thing that comes around the corner.

我最期待观察的是：是否会涌现出像Friedberg所说的小型团队——以LLM为跳板，却开创全新方法，甚至设计出廉价定制芯片？这尚未成真并非因为不可行，而是创新周期才刚刚开始。

That's the thing that I'm really curious about and waiting for is will there be these small teams and it may take advantage of what Friedberg said. He uses an LLM as a jumping off point, but then builds an entirely different approach, is able to generate entirely different and cheap silicon. That hasn't happened yet. And the reason it hasn't happened is not because it doesn't make sense, but it's because we're so early into it. Yeah.

那么这些巨头们做了什么？这些巨头已经花费了数百亿美元。是的，投入在各种领域——人力资本、运营支出、资本支出。所以这将变得非常有趣。

And then what do these big guys do? The big guys have spent tens of billions of dollars Yeah. On all kinds of stuff, human capital, OpEx, CapEx. So it's gonna be it's gonna be be really interesting.

实际上这项研究探讨了从专业供应商处采购AI工具的情况。这类尝试的成功率是三分之二。早期研究的数据似乎支持你的观点，Shemoth——如果专注于特定领域。比如我们孵化的几家公司就专攻细分领域，像Check Tax GPT只服务税务和会计师群体，充当他们的智能助手。这类垂直应用比向通用抵押模型咨询税务问题进展更快。

Well, the study actually addresses this purchasing of AI tools from specialized vendors. Those succeeded two out of three times. So the statistics in that early study seem to indicate you're right about that, Shemoth, is if you're doing something very specific. And we've got a couple of companies doing very specific things like check tax GPT is one of our companies we incubated, and they're only going after, you know, tax and CPAs and being a copilot for them. Those things seem to be succeeding faster than going to a general mortgage model and asking tax questions to it.

还有些人们从不谈论的实际问题，比如企业级销售的实操。我们以80.9美元单价向企业销售，今年预计能达成4000万美元订单。这可是创业第一年啊？

There's also all this other stuff that people never talk about that are very practical realities of building a so for example, we've been selling into the enterprise at $80.90. We'll do this year. This is our first full year of business. We'll do about $40,000,000 of bookings. In the first year?

没错，这很疯狂。全是后台类业务。但当我们首个客户获得巨大收益后，反而被解约了。原因不是技术失效，而是当方案从董事会CEO层层下传到执行层时，遭遇了强烈抵制。

Yeah. That's crazy. And it's all back office type stuff. But our first customer where we delivered enormous gains, we were fired. And the reason we were fired was not because the technology wasn't working, but it's because as it goes lower and lower from the board and the CEO into the bowels of the organization, you actually run into huge pushback.

我认为所有AI企业都要面对这个周期——新技术总会引发恐慌。许多决策者需要权衡自己的接受度。当时我们也很困惑，经过层层上报才解决。但这轮调整期还远未结束。

And I think that there's gonna be that cycle that we have to deal with as well, which is in all of these AI businesses, there's all kinds of stuff that scare people. And there are many people in decision making roles at many of these companies that will have to sort out where's their comfort level. And it was like one of these things where I was like, well, what are we supposed to do? We escalated and blah blah blah, and it got resolved. But my point is that I think is a cycle that has yet to play itself out.

全球两千强企业里，未来几年AI引发的恐慌情绪必然会产生负面影响，直到各方找到平衡点。

In all of the Fortune 2,000, Global two thousand, I would not expect that the AI boogeyman that has been created doesn't have some negative ramifications over the next couple of years as well as this stuff gets sorted out.

最后是人才争夺战。周二《纽约时报》报道Meta考虑缩减AI部门，《华尔街日报》随后爆料其AI部门冻结招聘。这太疯狂了——八周前扎克伯格还疯狂想收购Ilya的超智能初创公司记得吗？

The last piece is the talent war. On Tuesday, the New York Times reported that Meta was looking at downsizing its AI division as part of a larger restructuring. Wall Street Journal then reported Meta has a hiring freeze across the AI divisions, which is just crazy because just eight weeks ago, Zuck went crazy. He was trying to buy Ilya's superintelligence startup. You remember?

被Ilya拒绝后，扎克伯格挖来了Daniel Gross，收购了Scale AI团队，并承诺投资140亿美元。Sam Walton透露Meta经常给OpenAI人才开1亿美元报价。Sax你怎么看？这场人才争夺战疯狂了几个月突然暂停，对这种短期内暴涨暴跌的周期你怎么理解？

Ilya declined, so Zuck poached Daniel Gross. Meta acquired the Scale AI team, and then they agreed to invest 14,000,000,000 in that. Sam Walton claims Zuck was making $100,000,000 offers regularly for OpenAI talent. I'm curious, you know, what you think of that, Sax, is the talent war seemed to go insane for a couple of months and now is pausing. What what's your take on all this, I don't know, uncertainty, boom, bust cycle in such a compressed period of time, or is this just

想想看，有些创始人拒绝了几十亿美元收购要约——他们的产品甚至还没上市。这种报价可不是天天有的。百万美元级的工作邀约需要天时地利：行业爆发期+资金雄厚但战略焦虑的大公司。多重因素叠加才会出现这种疯狂报价。Meta现在可能是在消化吸收。

I mean, you you were seeing founders turning down multibillion dollar acquisition offers for startups that hadn't even released a product yet as if those types of offers grow on trees, and they don't. I mean, these types of $100,000,000 job offers, they don't come along very often. I mean, you have to be at kind of the sweet spot of a boom cycle and you need a huge company with tons of money that feels like it's strategically vulnerable and is at risk of being left behind. And if you get a confluence of those factors, then you can get kinda crazy offers like that, but they don't come along very often. I think that what Meta is doing is probably digesting a little bit.

他们完成了多笔人才收购，付出了高昂代价，现在需要整合。我不认为这是泡沫破裂，反而可能仍处于投资超级周期的早中期阶段。

They've now made a bunch of talent acquisitions. They've done some acqui hires at, you know, very expensive acqui hires, and they're probably just consolidating a little bit. Like I said, I don't think this is the bust part of the cycle. I don't think that a bubble has popped or anything like that. I actually think that we're still probably early to the middle of this investment super cycle.

这不过是市场情绪的一次健康回调，人们开始意识到实现目标会比‘AI能自我进化直达超级智能’这种想法更艰难、需要更多努力。那种预期本来就有点...

And it's just a healthy correction in sentiment here that people are realizing it's gonna be a little bit harder and take more work than just, oh, the AI is gonna figure out how to improve itself and we get to superintelligence. That was always a little bit of

像幻想般不切实际。Meera本该接受Zak的十亿报价，或者Ilya该接受那300亿Zaks的。我是说，这种事从不会发生。正如你所说...

a fantasy kind thing. Meera should have taken the billion dollar offer from Zak or Ilya should have taken the 30,000,000,000 Zaks. I mean, these things never happen. And as you're saying

我想这取决于他们银行账户的余额。懂我意思吗？如果他们之前靠其他事业已成亿万富翁，那或许无所谓。但如果是刚起步的新人——比如账户空空如也——从现实角度说，拒绝这种报价确实很难。

I guess it depends how much they have in the bank account. You know? If if they're already like billionaires from whatever they did before, then then maybe it doesn't matter. But if you were just starting out, for example, and didn't have any money in the bank, that's a pretty hard thing to turn down, I mean, realistically.

没错。他们很可能在OpenAI估值30.51万亿美元时抛售了大量股份。

Yeah. They probably they probably sold a bunch of OpenAI equity at $305,100,000,000,000.

他俩都是OpenAI联合创始人

They're both OpenAI co founders so

看起来他们处于无压力状态，根本没有出售动机。

They seem like they're free rolling so they have no incentive to sell.

是啊。这没问题。只是很多没经历过商业周期的人会...如果他们认为这是世界常态，那可就大错特错了。

Yeah. Which is fine. It's just that there's a lot of people who've never been through a bus cycle before And Yeah. If they think that this is the normal state of the world, they're gonna be sorely mistaken.

顺便说，Saks你是对的——构建企业很难，你懂的，毕竟你亲手打造过估值超十亿的公司。确实艰难。

By the way, you're right, Saks, it's hard to build, as you know, because you did a billion dollar company that then exits for more than a billion dollars. It is hard.

对。需要基于基本面证明估值合理。现阶段周期里，你可以用‘对数万亿美元市值企业的战略价值’来论证估值，但这种情况仅在这些企业需要战略加速时成立。

Right. Where you justify that valuation based on fundamentals. So right now we're in a part of the cycle where you can justify that valuation based on its strategic value to a multi trillion dollar market cap company, but that only lasts while those companies are in the market for strategic acceleration.

没错。如果它们落后了，卡住了，就会下注50亿赌一把。

Yeah. If they're behind, if they're stuck, they'll make a 50 bet.

是的。然后你必须让你的公司作为一个真正的企业独立运作。而基于基本面达到300亿美元的估值，这异常困难。我的意思是，那意味着，你知道，数十亿美元的实际收入。

Yeah. Then you have to make your company work on its own as an actual business. And to get to a $30,000,000,000 valuation based on fundamentals, that is extraordinarily difficult. I mean, that implies, you know, multiple billions of revenue, actual revenue.

有人想为OpenAI普通股承销5000亿美元吗？有人觉得这是个好交易吗？我来我来——

Does somebody wanna underwrite 500,000,000,000 for OpenAI common shares? Anybody think that that is a good trade? I'll make the I'll

我来陈述看涨观点。我来陈述看涨的。是的。

make the bull case. I'll make the bull Yeah.

请讲。好的。

Please. Yeah.

我认为陈述看涨观点最简单的方式是，如果你观察他们MAU的复合年增长率以及从MAU到DAO的转化率，本质上你可以取Facebook或Google终端ARPU的一小部分比例，并将其应用于三四年后的某些MaoDAO数量上。所以如果要我猜测，假设四五亿MaoDAO以——我猜保守点说50%的增速增长？

I think the simplest way to make the bull case is if you look at the CAGR on their MAUs and the conversion from MAUs to DAOs, you essentially take a small minor percentage of the Facebook or Google terminal ARPU and apply it to some number of MaoDAOs three, four years from now. So if I had to guess, if you take four, five hundred million MaoDAO growing at I'm guessing let's just be conservative at fifty percent?

每周活跃用户数一亿。

Hundred million weekly active users.

对吧？七亿七千五百万？好吧。那么我可能会保守估计为五亿左右。大概每两年翻一番。

Right? Seven seven fifty? Okay. So then so then I would probably put that at, like, 500 to be conservative. It's probably doubling every two years.

所以五亿到十亿，十亿到四年后的二十亿。按20亿DAO计算，他们只产生Facebook十分之一的收入，这已经非常保守了。这样你大概能达到1.5万亿美元的估值。

So 500 goes to a billion, billion goes to two in four years. And at 2,000,000,000 Dow, they generate a tenth of Facebook's revenue, just to be very conservative. And you probably get to a trillion 5 valuation there.

对。所以你可以在这个赌注上加三倍

Right. So it's you could you could triple up on that bet

是的。我是说，OpenAI确实有实际收入。他们有订阅模式，而且似乎在消费者领域占据主导地位。对许多人来说，它正在取代搜索——互联网上最赚钱的业务，而这只是他们的应用之一。所以我确实认为你可以相当有把握地提出这个观点。

in Yeah. Mean, 10 OpenAI has actual revenue. I mean, they they have actual revenue because they have subscriptions and they appear to have the dominant position in the consumer space. And it is a replacement for a lot of people for search, which is the most lucrative franchise on the internet, and this is one of their applications. So I actually think that you can make that case, you know, pretty comfortably.

但我们能否回到你之前提到的观点，J. Cal，关于调查中显示，试图应用某种通用AI模型的效果并不理想，大约95%的情况下在大型企业中未能成功。但如果采用更具体的垂直应用、垂直模型或SLM方法（即更小型化的专业模型），则成功率显著提升。这在我看来非常合理，因为要创造商业价值，存在许多我称之为'最后一公里'的问题，对吧？

But can we go back to a point you were making before, J. Cal, about in the survey that the attempts to just apply some sort of generalized AI model didn't work very well like 95% of the time. It didn't succeed in these large enterprises. But if they used a more specific vertical application or vertical model or an SLM approach, which is more a smaller specialized model, then it showed much greater success. I mean, that makes a lot of sense to me is that in order to drive business value, there's a lot of what I would call last mile problems, right?

比如大语言模型需要上下文。首先你必须连接企业所有数据源，然后需要通过非常详细的提示才能获得优质答案。接着还需验证答案确保不是幻觉，最后要反复迭代优化。那种认为仅靠一个超级智能就能解决所有问题的想法，在现实世界中根本行不通。

Like LLMs need context. And so you have to first of all connect to all of your enterprise data sources. And you have to prompt them in a very detailed way in order to get to a good answer. And then you have to validate that answer to make sure it's not a hallucination, and then you need to iterate on it. And so this idea that you're just gonna have one super intelligence that just figures all this stuff out, it's just not the way it's playing out in the real world.

我们看到大量需要解决的特定商业问题，但我认为这对生态系统最终是件好事——这意味着将涌现大量垂直应用和专业模型，在不同市场创造价值。这才是推动AI渗透经济的正确方式，而非让单一基础模型垄断所有价值。因此我认为这是生态系统的健康发展趋势。

You're seeing, again, a lot of very specific business problems that have to be solved, but I I think that this is a great thing ultimately for the ecosystem because it implies that you're gonna get lots of vertical applications and lots of specialized models that capture value in lots of different markets. And that that's actually the way that we're gonna drive this throughout the economy as opposed to it just being one foundation model eating all the value. So I I think this is a very healthy thing for the ecosystem.

没错。垂直系统更具确定性这点完全合理，SACS，因为它们针对更明确的问题集和数据集给出答案。而概率性方案——比如让大语言模型直接生成商业计划——可能80%或90%正确，但垂直方案能达到99%的准确率。

Yeah. It makes total sense that the vertical systems would feel more deterministic, SACS, because they're giving they have a tighter problem set, a tighter dataset to actually come to an answer. Whereas the, you know, probabilistic, you're just asking an LLM to come up with a business plan for you. It it just feels like it could be 80% correct, 90% correct, as opposed to 99% correct, which the vertical ones are actually getting very good at getting the correct answer. Okay.

让我们稍微讨论下

Let's talk a little bit

最后那10%至关重要，正是'最后一公里'问题的核心所在。必须深入理解行业，才能解决从90%准确率/有效性提升到99%的问题——这才是商业价值的爆发点。

That last 10% is fundamental, and that's where you get all the the last mile problems. And you have to understand the the industry in order to solve the the problems of how you kind of go from, let's say, 90% accuracy or effectiveness to 99, which is where the business value is.

说到'最后一公里'，Saks，我认为自动驾驶是最典型的例证。Waymo采用更确定性的模型，已取消安全员；而Robotaxi出于充分理由仍配备安全员——

Well, and you use last mile, Saks. I think it's quite appropriate if you look at self driving, which is the tip of the spear, I think, in this argument. Waymo has a bit more deterministic model. They're they don't have safety drivers. Robotaxi has safety drivers for a good reason.

他们使用概率模型，每几百英里就需要人工干预。这意味着日常使用中可能每周或每两周就会遇到一次。当然他们会持续迭代直至达到Waymo的水平。但Freeburg，你认为马斯克的概率模型方案需要多久才能赶上确定性方案？

They're using a probabilistic model, and they're getting an intervention every, you know, x hundreds of miles, let's say. Which means if you were to use it daily, you're gonna have, you know, an intervention, I don't know, every week or two. And, obviously, they'll iterate, and they'll get that down to the same level as Waymo. But on what timetable, Freeburg? On what timetable do you see a probabilistic model like Elon is pursuing with his robotaxi program versus the more, you know, deterministic one?

你预估这个交叉点何时出现？作为科学家有什么见解或推测吗？

What when do you think those crossover? Do you have any insight as a scientist or any guess?

我不知道。

I don't know.

没错。这就是那个价值十万亿美元的问题——那个问题何时能解决？好了，咱们来聊聊政治。根据Polymarket的预测，加文·纽森是2028年民主党总统初选的早期热门人选。

Yeah. That is the 10,000,000,000,000 question is when will that problem be solved? Alright. Let's talk a little politics here. According to Polymarket, Gavin Newsom is the early favorite in the twenty twenty eight Democratic presidential race.

那么谁能获得提名呢？这里有些背景信息。纽森本周在几项民调中势头强劲。Politico的一项调查询问加州民主党人和左倾独立人士他们2028年更青睐哪位候选人。纽森以25%的支持率位居第一，其次是卡玛拉（你喜欢的萨克斯）、皮特·布蒂吉格。

So who gets the nomination? So here's some background. Newsom is surging in a couple of polls this week. Here's one from Politico that asked California Democrats and left leaning independents who their preferred candidate would be in 2028. Newsom came in first with 25% of the vote, then Kamala, your favorite Saxe, and Pete Buttigieg.

AOC（你喜欢的查马斯也在列）、蒂姆·沃尔兹（萨克斯的另一位心头好）。在Polymarket上，纽森的胜率飙升了约九个百分点。这是Polymarket的数据：纽森28%，AOC14%，还有一堆个位数支持率的候选人你大概都能猜到是谁。

AOC, your favorite Chamath there. Tim Walts, another one of Saxe's favorite. And the odds have jumped by about nine percentage points on Polymarket. Here's your Polymarket. Newsome at 28, AOCF 14, and a bunch of people, you know, in the single digits that you could probably guess.

你对这些早期信息怎么看，萨克斯？你觉得这些有任何参考价值吗？还是说现在距离大选太遥远了？

So your thoughts on the early information here, does this is any of this even valid, Saxe, in your mind, or is it just too much time between now and then?

我认为它有参考价值，因为你能看到民主党人对纽森的所作所为反应积极。而纽森正在模仿特朗普的风格，试图给民主党人他们想要的东西——他们渴望拥有自己的'特朗普'。尽管民主党人假装反对特朗普的风格，但这正是他们真正想要的——一个他们眼中的斗士。不过，提前三年就假定加文会成为提名人有两大问题：第一，纽森的行为完全是作秀。

Well, I think it's valid in the sense that you're seeing Democrats react positively to what Newsom is doing. And what what Newsom is doing is mirroring Trump's style in an attempt to to, again, give Democrats what they want, which is they they they want a Trump of their own. And despite Democrats feigning objections to Trump's style, that this is really what they want, is they they want someone who they perceive to be a fighter. That said, I think there are two problems with presumptively crowning Gavin as the nominee three years in advance. One is that what Newsom is doing here is completely performative.

所有人都能看出他在演戏，他在拙劣模仿特朗普的风格（或者他以为的特朗普风格）。而特朗普是完全真实的，特朗普永远做自己，这点人尽皆知，这种真实感很有魅力。但加文给人感觉像是人造塑料，你根本感受不到真实的人格。试图扮演'低配版特朗普'只会加剧他本就存在的这个问题。

Everyone can see that he's acting and he's aping Trump's style or what he thinks is Trump's style. Whereas Trump is completely authentic. Trump is always Trump, and everyone understands that, and there's something very authentic and likable about that. Whereas I think that Gavin comes across as being synthetic or plastic, and you don't really have a sense of who the real person is. And I think trying to pretend to be the less version of Trump only I think reinforces that that problem that he already had.

所以第一点是真实性问题。第二点是：如果民主党人认为特朗普的受欢迎程度源于他的风格，那就大错特错了。确实特朗普拥有价值万亿美元的个性魅力，这对从政极有帮助。但归根结底，特朗普过去十年如此成功，是因为他在美国政治核心议题上站对了边——而这些议题其他人要么忽视要么避而不谈。

So one is authenticity. The other is that I think that Democrats make a huge mistake if they think that Trump's popularity is based on his style. I mean, it's true that Trump has a trillion dollar personality, and that is very helpful in politics. But ultimately, I think the reason why Trump has done so well for a decade is because he's been on the right side of a bunch of core issues in American politics that other people just weren't focused on or weren't talking about.

城市治理似乎会成为攻击加文·纽森的切入点或重大辩论议题。看看弗里堡，看看加州大城市陷入的疯狂状态。而特朗普正在华盛顿从最基本原则做起——比如直接说'这里不准扎营，没商量'。

City and City seems to be one that heads up versus Gavin Newsom will become one of the attack vectors or one of the grand debates. You have Fribourg. You have California's, you know, descent into madness in the major cities, and then, obviously, Trump is cleaning up DC from a very first principled basis. Like, hey. You can't camp here, period.

句号。弗里伯格，你觉得这种新策略——上播客、开播客、在社交媒体上犀利发言——对加文有多大胜算？还是说你和萨克斯认为这太做作？顺便说，加文·纽森，我们随时欢迎你来节目。弗里伯格，请说。

Full stop. So what do you think the chances are here, Friedberg, that this new strategy going on the podcast, having a podcast, being spicy on social media is gonna work for Gavin or you and Sax's camp. It's a bit performative and maybe not fake. And by the way, Gavin Newsom, can't wait to have you on the pod. Go ahead, Freiberg.

我认为当前民调反映了非特朗普阵营市场对特朗普的反应。随着本届政府施政结果的显现，情况肯定会变化。预测这个趋势的方法之一是：民众对这届政府会有何反应？正如我多次提到的，极有可能会有更倾向社会主义立场的人被推向前台，AOC很符合这个定位。那么问题就变成：共和党会如何应对这个可能的选择？他们是否会力捧或塑造这两位候选人中的某一位？

I would say that the current polling is a reflection of the non Trump aligned markets response to Trump. And so it will change certainly over time as the results of the administration's actions bear out, etcetera. One way to think about this or forecast this is what is the reaction going to be to this administration? I think there's a as I've talked about many, many times, a very high probability that someone who's a little bit more socialist aligned is gonna end up being kind of thrust forward here, and I think AOC fits the bill there. So then I think the question is, what's the Republican response going to be to the choice they may have in trying to prop up or frame up one of those two candidates?

坦率地说，我认为可能会有某些团体表示，我们宁愿面对社会主义者，因为他们会显得愚蠢，而我们将获胜。因此，奇怪的是，会有人支持像社会主义者这样的候选人。另一方面是诚实温和派的问题，即在社会主义者和加文·纽瑟姆之间，你更希望谁当总统？我确实认为很多温和派会说，如果必须在这两者之间选择，排除共和党候选人，我会选择温和派。我会选择加文。

And I think, frankly, there may be some group that would say, we would rather be up against the socialists because they're gonna look like idiots and we're gonna win. And so there's gonna be, weirdly, support for a socialist like candidate. The other side is the honest moderate question, which is who would you rather have as president, a socialist or Gavin Newsom? And I do think a lot of moderates would say if I had to pick between those two, excluding the Republican candidate, I would wanna pick the moderate. I would wanna pick Gavin.

查马斯，什么问题将决定中期选举和2028年大选？查马斯，看看你的水晶球，告诉我们你看到了什么。这是个非常好的问题。是的，中期选举可能更容易思考。

Chamath, what issue will determine the midterms and then the twenty twenty eight election? Look at your crystal ball there, Chamath, and tell us what you see. That's a really good question. Yeah. Midterms might be easier to to think about.

对吧？

Right?

我认为中期选举将是关于经济的，但经济将成为许多其他问题的窗口，包括安全与安保问题、移民问题、关税问题以及利率。我认为利率将是一个巨大的摇摆因素。我认为鲍威尔正紧握着一个可能不符合数据基础的立场。因此，我认为短期内，这将更多是对特朗普政府经济表现的支持或反对投票。我认为许多事情是积极的且在他们的控制范围内，但也有一些事情不在他们的控制范围内。

I think the midterms are going to be about the economy, but the economy is going to be a window into a lot of these other issues, the safety security issue, the immigration issue, the tariff issue, rates. I think rates are gonna be an enormous swing factor here. I think Powell is really holding on white knuckled to a position that probably doesn't underlie the the data. So I think in the short term, it's just gonna be more of an economic up or down vote for the Trump administration. Many things I think are positive and in their control, but there are a few things that are not in their control.

至于2028年，我不知道。不过关于候选人资格，我要说的一件事是，我不知道你们是否记得，但当共和党初选开始时，当时民调领先的人是罗恩·德桑蒂斯。我说过，你不想过早领先，因为这样的人从未赢过。他们从未赢过。

In 2028, I don't know. The one thing I would say about the candidacy though is, like, I I don't know if you guys remember, but when the Republican primary process started, the person at the top of the polls at the time was Ron DeSantis. And I said, you do not wanna be ahead early because people never win. They never win.

他们把所有的箭都拿走还过早窥探？

They take all the arrows and peek too early?

不，甚至根本不是那样。问题在于他们从未赢过。所以如果要用这个标准来衡量，我认为民主党选民实际上面临的选择是：是否想让加州的情况在全美50个州重演。从这个角度看，鉴于加文·纽瑟姆在州长任期内发生的一切，他的竞选之路将会异常艰难。

No. It's it's not even that. It's just like they never win. So if I had to apply that rubric here, what I would say is the practical choice that the Democratic voters will have is to actually ask whether they want a replay of California on an American 50 state scale. And if you look at it through that lens, I think Gavin Newsom is going to have a very difficult path because of what has transpired over his tenure as the governor.

他需要为很多事作出解释。因此在缺乏真正选择的情况下，我认为他是明显的赢家。就像那句谚语说的'在盲人的国度里，独眼者称王'？等到2026、2027年真正进入选举周期时，说实话局势还充满变数。但我要说的是，根据现行选举人团制度和总统选举的投票机制，社会主义者不可能获胜。

And he's gonna have to explain away a lot. So I think that in the absence of real choices, I think that he's the clear winner. What is that phrase in the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king sort of a thing? I think when you actually go into the election cycle starting after '26 and '27, honestly, it's gonna be up in the air. What I will tell you is that the way that the electoral college is set up and the voting dynamics for the presidency is set up, a socialist cannot win.

但按照民主党初选的规则，社会主义者完全可能胜出。这就是萨克森观点的核心——我认为对共和党而言，最理想的结果是出现一个缺乏实质事实支撑、仅凭感觉推动的激进议程。'我觉得这样才对'。这类主张或许能赢得初选，但在全国大选中必遭惨败。

But the way that the democratic primaries are set up, a socialist can absolutely win. So this is the sort of Saxon's point, which is I think for the Republican side, the best outcome is a very radical agenda that isn't really supported by substantive facts and is more supported by vibes. This is what I feel. I just feel it should be right. And I think that those things may win a primary, but will just get destroyed in a federal election.

你呢，世界上最伟大的温和派？你怎么看？

What about you, the world's greatest moderate? What do you think?

显而易见，社会主义运动正在兴起，这将激励许多年轻人像他们在纽约Mamdani那样站出来。我认为必须思考其纲领是什么。我同意经济将决定中期选举。但我会前瞻我们多次讨论过的核心议题，Treiberg。如果我为民主党献策，我会在共和党对美国选民重要议题保持沉默、年轻人感到被忽视的领域痛击他们。

Pretty clear that the socialist movement is happening and that is gonna inspire a lot of young people to come out like they did in New York from Mamdani. And I think you have to think about what the platform is. I agree the economy will determine the midterms. But I would look ahead at the core issues we've discussed here many times, Treiberg. And if I was advising the Democrats, I would smash the Republicans where they don't speak up about important issues to the American voter and where young people feel they are being ignored.

如果我是他们，如果我要运作2028年的竞选纲领，我会聚焦实际工资停滞问题——这是特朗普避而不谈的。事实上他在给富人减税。他们手握现成的攻击点：没人讨论最低工资，而特朗普根本不在乎。JD也不关心你、最低工资或你的收入。

So what would I say if I was them, if I was running their platform in 2028? I would go with real wages that are stagnant, and Trump doesn't talk about that. In fact, he's cutting taxes on the rich. They got a credible attack vector right there that nobody's talking about the minimum wage, and Trump doesn't care. JD doesn't care about you or the minimum wage or your wages.

我会主攻教育费用高昂问题——同样，特朗普和JD对此只字不提。接着瞄准住房问题，共和党人从不讨论这个。然后直击移民议题，我会说：听着——

I would go after education being unaffordable, and, again, Trump and JD don't talk about that. Then I would go after housing. Republicans don't talk about that. They don't talk about housing. And then I would go right at the immigrant issue, and I'd say, listen.

美国是移民国家。这个国家由移民建设，而JD和特朗普在自己受益后就想抽掉梯子，阻止他人移民。住房、工资、教育和医疗——这些正是2028年击败共和党的完美攻击点。你从听不到特朗普谈论这些，JD也绝口不提。

America's for immigration. This country was built off of immigrants, and JD and Trump wanna pull up the ladder behind everybody and not allow other people to immigrate to this country after they benefited from it. That's the perfect attack vector for beating the Republicans in 2028, housing, wages, education, and health care. These are things you never hear Trump talk about. You never hear JD talking about these.

我认为这就是他们想要击败......的方法。

And I think that that's the way to if they wanna beat No.

他们明明经常讨论这些议题。

They they talk about them all the time.

这这根本排不上号。不，他们没...他们上次什么时候...好吧。

It's it's way down the bottom of this. No. They talk they don't. They when's the last time? What's okay.

那么告诉我，Jamal。具体提案是什么？

So tell me, Jamal. What is the proposal?

特朗普首个任期内工资显著增长，到拜登时期开始停滞。这正是他贸易政策的核心目的——促进制造业回流美国。

Wages went up significantly in Trump's first term, and then they started stagnating in under Biden. And that's the whole purpose of his trade policy is to encourage reshoring of manufacturing in The United States.

他通过了锁定所有收益的巨额税改法案，小费免税。虽然对大众影响可商榷，但确有实例显示实际到手工资高于假设情景。

He passed the huge tax bill that locked in all these gains, no tax on tips. So you can debate the impact to the broad population, there are enough examples where actual take home wages are higher than what they would be in a counterfactual.

没错。顺便说一句，加文·纽森在加州立法机构拥有绝对多数席位。他可以随心所欲地管理这个州。他还有一个非常顺从的法院，会不加质疑地批准他的决定。这与特朗普的情况完全不同，特朗普在国会仅占微弱多数，而且他的法院基本上试图阻止他做的每一件事。

Yeah. And by the way, Gavin Newsom has a super majority in the California legislature. He can run the state however he wants. He also has a very compliant court that will rubber stamp his decisions. Completely different than Trump, where he has a very narrow majority and and he has a court that basically tries to stop everything he does.

所以加文·纽森完全可以治理好这个州。他本可以为市民的利益运营这个州，而不是整天开这些作秀的新闻发布会、做播客和发推特。那么你所说的那个计划在哪里呢？它根本不存在。

So Gavin Newsom can run the state. He could be operating the state for the benefit of its citizens instead of holding all these performative press conferences and doing podcasts and tweeting all day. So where where is the program that you're talking about? It doesn't exist.

这是个不错的批评，但如果我说的是民主党作为一个整体。如果民主党站出来直接宣布，我们将在执政的八年里每年将联邦最低工资提高一美元，美国公众会接受的。

It's a fine criticism, but if if the I'm talking about the Democrats as a group. If the Democrats came out and just said, we're gonna add a dollar to the federal minimum wage every year for the eight years we're in office, that would fly with the American

公众。这是个策略。

public. That's a strategy.

你可以这么主张。我只是在告诉你

You can you can make that argument. I'm just telling

什么是

you what the

制胜论点。制胜论点是

winning argument is. The winning argument is

不，你只是在说为了当选可以不择手段，但随意派发福利并不是成年人做出艰难决策的方式。

Well, no. You're just saying whatever it takes to get elected, but giving stuff away is not How adults make hard decisions.

你是说，比如让人们加班费和消费免税这类来自他们的福利吗？

You mean, like, giving people no tax on their overtime and no tax on their tips? Those kind of giveaways from them?

不。那些是税收计划，是在帮助中产阶级和工薪阶层。

No. Those are the tax plan that That's helping middle class and working class.

我并非不同意，但说到免费送东西行不通这一点，实际上它是有效的。这确实能激励人们去投票。当人们听到特朗普那些提案时非常积极。我是说他们应该直接把那个提案规模扩大十倍。这才是取胜之道。

I I don't disagree, but to the point of giving away free stuff doesn't work, it actually does. It does get people out to vote. People were very motivated when they heard those proposals by Trump. I'm saying they should just take that proposal and 10 x it. That's the way to win.

我不是说这合乎情理。也不是说我赞同这种做法。我只是在告诉你这个策略手册。

I'm not saying it makes sense. I'm not saying I'm endorsing it. I'm just giving you the playbook.

好吧。要对抗你那套空头承诺的策略手册，我会选择真正讨论候选人的执政记录。

Okay. Well, what I would do to to fight your your playbook of empty promises is I would actually talk about the record of the candidate.

正是如此。

Exactly.

考虑到我们谈论的是像加州这样深蓝的州，长期由民主党执政。加文很可能成为提名人，因为我认为他那些作秀行为确实能打动基本盘。但反击之道是讨论他的执政记录。让我们看看一些数据：众所周知，我们支付着全美最高的税负，却享受着最差的公共服务。

And I think we're talking about a state like California, which is thoroughly blue and has been run by Democrats now for a long time. And Gavin probably will be the nominee because I do think that his performative antics are working with the base. I mean, they want an anti But the the way to attack this is to talk about the record here. So let's just go through some of the numbers. So as we all know, we pay the highest taxes in the country for the worst public services.

加文的开支在短短几年内将750亿盈余变成了200亿赤字。这些钱竟没有用于水库或消防栓建设，导致整个社区被烧毁。居民还拿不到重建许可。加州有全球第四大经济体本是好事，但我们却有着最高的贫困率、无家可归率、不平等率、文盲率和工资停滞率。

Gavin's spending turned a $75,000,000,000 surplus into a $20,000,000,000 deficit in just a couple of years. And somehow none of that money went to fill the reservoirs or fire hydrants, and so we had entire neighborhoods burned down as a result. And they can't get permits to rebuild. California has the fourth largest economy in the world, so that's good. But we have the highest rates of poverty, homelessness, inequality, illiteracy, and wage stagnation.

没错，工资停滞率是全美最高的，失业率在50州中排第三。住房成本仅次于夏威夷。你想承诺降低住房成本，但看看加州这类蓝州，情况最糟。我们的能源成本最高，零售犯罪和无聊诉讼率也最高，这就是企业外迁的原因。

So yes, wage stagnation, J Cal, is the highest in the country, and we have the third highest unemployment among the 50 states. We're second only to Hawaii in housing costs. So you wanna talk about making promises to lower housing costs, but if you look at blue states like California, they're among the worst. We're the worst in energy costs, and we have the highest rate of both retail crime and frivolous lawsuits. And that's why businesses are moving out of the state.

你可能看到Bed Bath and Beyond声明即便要新开300家实体店，也不会重返加州。结果CEO遭到纽森嘲笑——他从不认真对待批评，只会转移话题。除非民主党正视真正败因（不只是特朗普风格问题，而是政策问题），否则他们会继续失败。

You may have seen that Bed Bath and Beyond said that even as they're opening 300 more physical stores, they're not gonna return to California. And this just got the CEO mocked by Newsom because he never actually takes any of the criticism to Hardy, he just sort of deflects it. So until the Democrats I think confront why they really lost, okay, And it's it's not just because of the style of Trump. They wanna just attribute it to Trump's style, but the reality is it's because of the the policies Popular policies, yeah. And it's about the record.

除非他们愿意直面这些问题并改变政策，否则我认为他们会持续失利。

And until they're willing to confront those things and change their policies, then I think they're gonna continue losing.

我向Grock提出了这个问题：请对密歇根、加州和马里兰这三个由知名民主党州长治理的蓝州，按生活质量、生活成本和犯罪率三项指标进行排名，并给出综合排序。这是个标准的中立问题。

I put into Grock the following question. And the reason I asked the question this way is I think that the three most credible candidates that have a record to run on on the Democratic side are Gavin Newsom, Gretchen Whitmer, Wes Moore. So I asked Grock, rank Michigan, California, and Maryland, so three Democratic states run by three very popular well known Democratic governors, on three metrics, quality of life, cost of living, and crime, and summarize that into a ranked overall list. Right? So pretty standard plain vanilla question.

最后，我可以稍后发布这些内容，如果你需要的话。但最终的综合排名是：马里兰州位居第一，在生活质量方面表现优异，预估犯罪率最低，生活成本虽较高但尚可承受。密歇根州最具性价比，生活质量尚可，犯罪率适中，是一个均衡的选择。加利福尼亚州在机会与生活方式方面生活质量高，但被高昂的生活成本和较高的犯罪率严重拖累。细节还有很多，我只是给你一个最终总结。所以我认为在民主党初选中，这三位将会参选。

And at the end, I I can publish this later if you want, but at the end, the final overall rankings were Maryland first, excels in quality of life and has the lowest estimated crime rates with a moderately high but manageable cost of living. Michigan, most affordable with decent quality of life and moderate crime, making it a balanced choice. California, high quality of life in terms of opportunities and lifestyle but severely hampered by high cost and elevated crime rates. And there's all kinds of detail, but I was just giving you the final summary. So I think that when you get into a Democratic primary, those are three people that will run.

我认为民主党选民需要选择：我想把什么样的记录提交给广大美国选民投票？是加利福尼亚的？马里兰的？还是密歇根的？如果你快速做一个AI驱动的分析，基于事实，排名会是韦斯·摩尔（Wes Moore）、格雷琴·惠特默（Gretchen Whitmer），然后是加文·纽森（Gavin Newsom）。

And I think Democratic voters will have to choose what record do I wanna put up to vote for the broad voting American public? Is it California's? Is it Maryland's? Or is it Michigan's? And if you just do a quick AI driven analysis, Wes Moore, then Gretchen Whitmer, then Gavin Newsom, just on the facts.

嗯，有道理。弗莱堡（Freiburg），你对我提出的平台或2028年讨论的其他方面有什么看法吗？我们快结束了。

Yeah. Makes sense. Freiburg, your thoughts on the the platform I put out there or anything else with this 2028 discussion as we wrap up?

没有。我认为社会主义者会继续扩大他们的势头，你知道的，这会很有趣。看看会发生什么吧。好了，我们继续。

No. I think the socialists are gonna continue to grow their momentum and, you know, it'll be fun. See what happens. Okay. Here we go.

特朗普这周很忙。他会见了普京，然后是泽连斯基和一些欧洲领导人。萨克斯（Sachs），这是你发光的时候了。我们还没讨论这个，因为是在我们录制之后发生的，但上周五特朗普在阿拉斯加会见了普京。这件事引发了很多担忧。

So Trump had a busy week. He met with Putin, then Zelensky and some of the leaders in Europe. Sachs, this is your time to shine. We didn't talk about this yet because it happened after we taped, but last Friday, Trump met with Putin in Alaska. A lot of hand wringing around that.

会谈持续了大约三个小时。没有达成停火协议，这是既定的目标。然后在周一，特朗普会见了……

Lasted about three hours. No ceasefire was reached. That was the stated goal of it. And on Monday, Trump met

目标的状态。

state of the goal.

好吧。我只是根据特朗普在去之前说的，他想要达成停火协议。然后在周一，特朗普在白宫会见了泽连斯基和一群欧洲领导人。这是自二月份那次争论以来的首次面对面会晤，你记得吧，当时在总统办公室。与会者包括欧盟主席、北约秘书长、德国总理，意大利和英国的代表也出席了。

Okay. I'm just going by what Trump said when he was on his way there that he wanted a ceasefire. And then the on Monday, Trump met with Zelensky and a bunch of European leaders at the White House. First in person meeting since that argument, you remember back in the overall office in February, and included the EU president, NATO secretary general, chancellor of Germany. Italy and UK showed up as well.

你对乌克兰局势的看法如何？我们是否会达成停火协议、和平谈判或和平解决方案？还是美国会直接抽身而退？因为特朗普似乎对目前的进展有些不耐烦，他说过，也许应该让他们自己解决，他就不管了。萨克斯，你怎么看？

Your your thoughts on where we're at with the Ukraine and if we're going to get a ceasefire, a peace negotiation, or a peace settlement, or if The United States is just gonna walk away? Because it seems like Trump is a little perturbed by the progress here, and he has said, you know, maybe it's just up to them to figure it out, and he'll be done with the whole thing. Your thoughts, Sachs?

嗯，我认为阿拉斯加峰会是一个重大进展。首先，总统应该为重新与俄罗斯建立外交和沟通渠道而受到高度赞扬。自2021年以来，美国总统和俄罗斯总统之间就没有举行过会晤，而这场战争一直在持续并升级。我想拜登政府的政策就是无视俄罗斯，赌一把，希望战争不会失控。无论如何，我认为特朗普值得赞扬，因为他重新建立了外交联系，并试图通过外交手段结束战争。

Well, I think that the the Alaska summit was major progress. I think that, first of all, the president deserves enormous credit for reestablishing diplomacy and communication with the Russians. There literally hasn't been a meeting between The US president and the Russian president since 2021 while this war is going on and while the war has continued to escalate. I guess the Biden administration's policy was just to ignore the Russians and roll their dice and hope that the war didn't escalate out of control. In any event, I think Trump deserves a lot of credit for, again, reestablishing that diplomatic connection and trying to use diplomacy to end the war.

令人震惊的是，看到民主党人和媒体如何公开希望他在结束这场战争的努力中失败。实际上，他们是在期待数十万人继续死亡或伤残。

And it was shocking to see how much Democrats in the media were openly rooting for him to fail in these efforts to end this war. And effectively, they're rooting for hundreds of thousands of more people to die or get maimed.

他们在新闻上表现得相当歇斯底里，对吧？因为那确实很疯狂。

They were pretty hysterical, right, on the news? Because it was pretty crazy.

是的。顺便说一句，他们声称关心乌克兰人民，但现在绝大多数乌克兰人民希望结束这场战争，并愿意为此做出实质性让步。盖洛普有一项民调——尼克，或许你可以把数据投屏——一两年前约70%的乌克兰人希望继续作战，现在这个数字已降至24%。绝大多数人渴望实现和平。

Yeah. And by the way, they they claim that they care about the Ukrainian people, but the Ukrainian people by large majorities now want this war to end, and they're willing to make meaningful concessions to do it. So there was a poll by Gallup, which Nick, maybe you can throw this on the screen, where a year or two ago, something like 70% of Ukrainians wanted to keep fighting the war. Now that number is down to 24%. Again, the vast majority are looking to achieve a peace.

我认为特朗普总统和普京总统在推动最终和平协议方面取得了重要进展，其中有几个关键点：第一是认识到应寻求全面和平协议而非停火。停火是暂时的，俄方已明确拒绝，因为他们认为这只会给乌克兰重整军备的机会而非终结战争。事实是，当你在战争中处于劣势时，无权要求暂停。俄方数月来一直拒绝停火，若我们的终极目标是达成协议，承认全面和平才是明智之举。

And I think that president Trump and president Putin made some important progress in terms of getting to an eventual peace deal, and I think there are a few planks here. Number one was the recognition that we should try to get to a comprehensive peace deal, not a ceasefire. A ceasefire is temporary, and the Russians have already said they wouldn't do it because they understand from their point of view that this would just give the Ukrainians time to regroup and rearm and try to reset, but it wouldn't end the war. And the truth of the matter is that when you're fighting a war and losing, you don't get to call a time out. So the Russians have been rejecting this idea of a ceasefire for months, and I think that it was wise if our ultimate goal is to get to a deal to recognize that the comprehensive peace deal is what we wanna get to.

这是第一点。第二点是特朗普总统承认乌克兰不会加入北约——这是摩擦的关键根源，也是引发战争的根本原因。我认为明确排除北约选项是达成最终和平的重要前提。第三点是俄美双方同意必须做出某种领土让步，尽管具体细节尚未披露。

So that's point number one. Point number two is that president Trump acknowledged that Ukraine would not be joining NATO, which was the key source of the friction, and it's the thing that ultimately led to this war. So I think that definitively taking NATO off the table, I think, was a very important precondition to getting to an eventual peace. And then I think the third thing was that the parties, both the Russians and the Americans, agreed that there would have to be territorial concessions of some kind. And we don't know all the details yet.

曾讨论过土地交换方案。但关键在于我们无法回到战前状态——俄方已占领大片领土，乌方未能收复。有人试图归咎于特朗普，但真正原因是2023年反攻的失败。

There was some conversation about land swaps. But the point of the matter is that we're not going back to the prewar status quo anti. The Russians have taken the big chunk of territory. The Ukrainians have not been able to get it back. People are trying to blame Trump for this somehow, but the real cause of this is the failure of the counter offensive in the 2023.

别忘了我们向乌克兰提供了约1000亿美元的武器用于收复失地，结果惨败——他们甚至未能突破第一条防线。这才是乌克兰将失去领土的真正原因：他们根本无力夺回。阿拉斯加峰会已达成共识必须做出领土让步。这三个支柱构成了全面和平协议的基础：第一追求和平协议而非停火；

Remember, we gave the Ukrainians something like a $100,000,000,000 worth of weapons to retake that territory, and it was an abysmal failure. They didn't even make it past the first Syrivikan line. That is a real cause of why the Ukrainians are gonna lose territory in this war, is they're simply not able to retake it. And I think there was a a general recognition coming out of that Alaska summit that there would have to be territorial concessions. And I think in these three pillars, I think you have the basis for a comprehensive peace deal, which is again, number one, we're going for a peace deal, not a ceasefire.

第二不加入北约；第三承认现实地面局势。现在的问题是——如果泽连斯基和欧洲愿意接受这三点，和平协议可能很快达成。但迄今为止他们仍拒绝承认：当欧洲领导人周一访问白宫时，他们仍要求俄方已拒绝的停火而非全面和平，仍坚持北约立场，甚至拒绝包括十年前失去的克里米亚在内的任何领土让步。

Number two, no NATO. And number three, we have to recognize the realities on the ground. Now I think the big question mark, I think we could get to a peace deal pretty quickly if Zelensky and the Europeans were willing to acknowledge these three points. But so far, they have not been willing to acknowledge those three points. And I think this is one of the things that if you're listening to the remarks, the following Monday when the Europeans came to the White House, there was no recognition.

当前困境在于：泽连斯基及乌克兰政府（非民众）和部分支持他的欧洲国家不愿做出必要妥协。正如特朗普总统所言，最终需要俄乌双方达成一致。特朗普总统为重启外交、推动全面和平取得实质性进展功不可没。

They were still clamoring for a ceasefire, you know, again, which the Russians had rejected, as opposed to a comprehensive peace. They were still clamoring for NATO, and they were still rejecting the idea of any territorial concessions, including even Crimea, which was lost over a decade ago. So I think that the issue we have right now is that Zelenskyy and the Ukrainian government, not the people, but the Ukrainian elite and some of these European countries that are backing him are not willing to make the compromises necessary to achieve a peace deal. And as president Trump has said, at the end of the day, you need the Russians and the Ukrainians to agree. So I think that president Trump deserves enormous credit here for reestablishing diplomacy, for making substantial progress towards a comprehensive peace deal.

但除非泽连斯基开始愿意妥协，否则我不知道如何达成协议。

But at the end of the day, unless Zelensky starts being willing to make compromises, I don't know how you're gonna get to that deal.

是的。弗莱伯格、戴夫，对这个‘不谈判’有什么看法吗？沙莫斯，你呢？

Yeah. Freiberg, Dave, any thoughts on this No. Negotiation? Shammoth, anything?

嗯，我对这方面的历史模式相当好奇，所以我回溯了一下，发现了一些有趣的事情。值得注意的是，自1945年以来——不包括非洲的冲突，因为它们并不完全属于西方全球政治秩序的一部分——关键问题是其他领土争端是如何解决的？有些争端最终陷入僵局。一旦陷入僵局，基本上就会安排非军事区类型的协议。比如朝鲜，从1953年至今。

Well, I was pretty curious about the historical pattern of this, so I just went back and here's what I learned. What's interesting to note is that since 1945, so not assuming, you know, conflicts in Africa because they are not really quite part of the Western political global order per se, it's important to ask the question, like, how have other territorial disputes panned out? So there are disputes that end in stalemates. And when you end up in a stalemate, you basically arrange a DMZ demilitarized zone type arrangement. So there's one in Korea, right, 1953 to now.

塞浦路斯从1974年到现在也是如此，克什米尔从1947年至今也是。以色列和黎巴嫩之间也有类似情况。其次，有些争端中一国采取武力夺取领土，但国际上对领土归属没有共识。比如萨克斯提到的克里米亚，2014年至今，还有以色列与东耶路撒冷。抱歉。

There's one in Cyprus, 1974 to right now, and there's one in Kashmir, 1947 to today. And then there's this kind of thing in between Israel and Lebanon. And then second, there are disputes where there's some action taken by one country to take something by force, but then there's no consensus internationally as to who owns the territory. So Crimea, as Sachs mentioned, 2014 to present, and then Israel and West East Jerusalem. Sorry.

我认为关键在于，除非特朗普总统能想出某种真正史无前例的办法，否则历史模式表明，即使是世界上最有权力和影响力的人，也几乎不可能在这种长期化的局势中达成协议。我想这就是他反复强调‘如果我是总统，这些事情根本不会开始或发展到这一步’的原因。他说‘引用结束’。我认为他指的是，这些争端拖得越久——尤其是俄罗斯、乌克兰、以色列和加沙——涉及的冲突和历史问题已经酝酿了数百年甚至数千年，可以追溯到古代。所以我不知道。

So I think the point is that unless president Trump figures out a way to do something that's frankly truly unprecedented, the historical pattern is that it's been nearly impossible for even the most powerful and influential person in the world to frankly draw deals in these kinds of situations, especially when they become protracted. And I think that's what he's getting to when he reinforces these things never would have started or gotten this far had I been president. You know, that's what he says, end quote. And I think this is what he's referring to, which is that the longer these things get drawn out, and particularly with Russia, Ukraine, and Israel, Gaza, you're talking about conflicts and historical issues that have been simmering for hundreds of years and in some cases thousands of years, all the way back to the antiquity. So I don't know.

我只是觉得这是一个极其、极其困难的局面，我真的不知道会发生什么。但要让现代进步发生，我认为必须尽快解决这两个问题。

I I just think that it's an incredibly, incredibly difficult position, and I just don't know what's gonna happen. But I think that for modern progress to happen, I think it's important for both of these two issues to get put to bed as quickly as possible.

J·卡尔，你怎么看？我们看到媒体攻击特朗普竟敢与俄罗斯人谈判。你认为这是个好主意，还是觉得特朗普在向普京屈服？

J. Cal, what do you think? And we saw the media attacking Trump for even daring to hold negotiations with the Russians. Do you think this was a good idea, or do you think that somehow, Trump was caving to Putin?

我非常认可特朗普。他非常擅长外交政策，尤其是与独裁者打交道。回顾过去的总统，他们不愿见普京，不愿见金正恩，认为孤立是最好的政策。其实不是。

I give Trump a lot of credit. He is incredibly good at foreign policy and specifically with dictators. If you look at our past presidents, they didn't want to meet with Putin. They didn't wanna meet with Kim Jong Un, Kim Jong They thought isolation was the best policy. It's not.

我认为与这些人对话、寻找共同点才是最佳策略，哪怕只有5%的成功概率——任何总统面对普京这样的独裁者时都只能如此。特朗普和拜登其实有不少共同的成功之处，比如武器租赁协议没让美国纳税人花钱，而很多党派人士却惊呼‘天啊，这花了美国人这么多钱’。

I think talking to these folks and trying to find common ground is the best policy even if it's a 5% chance of it actually working out, which is what I think any president dealing with a dictator and a despot like, you know, Putin is gonna have. I think you have a five or 10% chance. And I think Trump and Biden actually had a lot in common that worked. The loan leasing of the weapons and not costing the American tax payer any money where a lot of partisan people said, oh my god. This is costing the Americans so much.

实际上特朗普找到了盈利方式：他向乌克兰出售更多武器，还为我们争取了矿产开采权。在这场特定战争中，特朗普将成本中心（或所谓的成本中心）变成了利润中心。再看制裁，特朗普加大了力度。他完全采纳了我过去几年在播客中主张的立场——持续对普京施压，并且更进一步：现在普京石油的主要客户是印度，特朗普就对印度征收巨额关税并威胁加征更高关税。

It's actually Trump has figured a way to make it profitable. He's selling more weapons to Ukraine, and he got us the mineral rights. It turns out Trump was able to turn a cost center or a supposed cost center into a profit center in terms of this specific war. And if you look at the sanctions, Trump has increased the sanctions. So Trump had my exact position that I fought for here on this podcast for the past couple of years in this conflict, which was keep the pressure up on Putin, and Trump took it over the top by going to Putin's main client for his oil now, which is India, and putting a massive tariff on them and threatening them with a huge tariff.

这是应对普京的大胆举措。所以我高度肯定特朗普为促成和平所做的努力。

That was a bold, audacious way to deal with Putin. So I give Trump a ton of credit for trying to make peace here.

那么，我的问题是这样的。

So And here's my question.

等等，让我说完。是的，普京已经颜面尽失。他连基辅都打不进去，更别说占领芬兰或波兰了。

Hold on. Let me just finish. Yeah. And Putin has been absolutely humiliated. He can't even get to Kyiv, let alone take over Finland or Poland.

这让俄罗斯失去了最大客户——欧盟和德国。这些人再也不会买他的石油了，尤其是在发生这一切之后。这很大程度上要归功于特朗普，因为他在德国建设石油管道时就警告过他们，说德国人这么做简直是疯了，是在给一个在我看来是战犯的独裁者创造巨额收入来源。他入侵乌克兰的行为让他成为战犯，他绑架儿童的行为也让他成为战犯。

And this has cost Russia their greatest customer, which is the EU, Germany. These people are never gonna buy his oil again, not after what happened here. And that you can give a lot of credit to Trump because he told them when they built their oil pipelines that the Germans were lunatics for doing that and for creating a massive revenue stream for a dictator who is, in my mind, a war criminal. What he did in invading Ukraine makes him a war criminal. What he did in kidnapping these children makes him a war criminal.

我认为特朗普这次干预行动非常棒，哪怕只有5%或10%的成功几率。而且让北约盟友承担他们应尽的份额，并卖给他们更多武器，我觉得也很高明。所以我在这方面给特朗普很多肯定。他的做法完全符合我所说的我们应该做的——追究入侵他国的独裁者的责任。他还补充了一点，就是他能够与人们建立联系。

I think it's awesome that Trump is doing this intervention even if it has a five or 10% chance of working. And then making the NATO alliance pay their fair share and selling them more weapons, I think, also brilliant. So I I give Trump a lot of credit here. He's aligned exactly what I said we should be doing, which is holding dictators who invade other countries accountable for it. And he's added to it the fact that he can connect with people.

所以我要为此给他很多肯定，扎克。我知道这可能不是你想要的答案，但这就是我的看法。

So I give him a ton of credit for it, Zach. I know that's maybe not the answer you want, but that's how I

哦，听着。我觉得你用了很多道德说教的语言，还进行了大量人身攻击，实际上我认为这适得其反。

Oh, look. I think you use this highly moralistic language, and you engage in a lot of name calling, and I actually think that's counterproductive.

请问哪个称呼不准确？独裁者还是战犯？

Which name is inaccurate, please? Dictator or war criminal?

好吧，你看。你称赞特朗普与普京进行外交，但同时你又想称他为独裁者和战犯，这无助于真正达成和平协议。当然，

Well, look. You're complimenting Trump for engaging in diplomacy with Putin, but then at the same time, you wanna call him a dictator and war criminal, and that's not gonna be conducive to actually trying to reach a peace agreement. Now it's fine for

但我不是谈判者。如果是我在谈判，我不会一上来就说'嘿，独裁者、战犯，让我们为和平而战'。我只是在表达我的个人观点。好吧，这没问题。我又不是在谈判。

me But I'm not doing the negotiation. If I was doing the negotiation, I wouldn't come in and say, hey, dictator, war criminal, let's fight for peace. I'm giving you my personal belief Okay. That's fine. Not negotiating.

对。所以你在赞扬特朗普增加对俄罗斯的压力和筹码，我觉得这没问题。我的问题是，你会不会也增加对泽连斯基的压力或筹码？比如，你会不会明确告诉泽连斯基：听着，别再要求加入北约了，因为这是不可能的？事实上，总统已经这么做了。

Right. So you're praising and you're praising Trump for increasing the pressure and leverage that he has with the Russians, which I think is fine. My question for you is would you increase the pressure or leverage with respect to Zelensky? So for example, would you tell Zelensky in no uncertain terms, listen, stop demanding to be part of NATO because it's not happening? Fact, the president has done that.

那关于

What about

是的。这个问题的答案是肯定的。我想说，听着。加入北约并不现实。你可以获得一些安全保障。

Yeah. The the answer to that question is yes. I would say, listen. It's not realistic to join NATO. You can get some security guarantees.

有种所谓的‘轻量版北约’的说法。所以我同意这一点。我想说，听着。我们应该——我在之前的节目中也说过——暂时搁置北约成员资格议题，二十年。

There's sort of talk of this NATO light. So I would agree with that. I would say, listen. We're gonna take, and I said this on a previous episode, we should just take off NATO inclusion for, twenty years.

所以难点在于时间跨度。关于领土让步呢？我

So here's the hard part the life span. What about territorial concessions? I

认为这是乌克兰必须做出的决定。我们应鼓励他们做出最符合自身利益的选择，但如果他们想继续战斗，那将由他们的人民决定是否要为土地而战。

think that's a decision Ukraine has to make. We should encourage them to make whatever decision is best for them, but if they wanna keep fighting this thing, that's gonna be up to their people to decide if they wanna fight for their land.

问题是现在有70%的乌克兰人表示不想继续战斗。他们准备好了听起来

Well, people have said they don't wanna keep the the the problem you have right now is that 70% of Ukrainians say they don't wanna keep fighting. They're ready Sounds

泽连斯基应该做出让步。

like Zelensky should concessions.

是的。听起来泽连斯基应该倾听人民的声音。没错。

Yeah. So it sounds like Zelensky should listen to his people. Yes.

我认为他

I think he

需要做出决定。我认为他拥有主权，而人民有权在他的国家做出这个决定。

decision to make. I think he has sovereignty and the people get to make that decision in his country.

但问题在于，不仅仅是泽连斯基，对吧？他们取消了选举，只要战争持续，他们就会继续掌权。所以这里存在利益冲突。而且因为战争，大量资金涌入乌克兰。如果统治阶层想永远延续战争，而人民希望停止，那该怎么办？

Well, but the the problem you have is it's not just Zelensky, right, says ruling They have canceled elections and they will remain in power as long as the war continues. So they there's a conflict of interest there. And there's a lot of money flowing into Ukraine because of the war. So what if the ruling elite wants to keep the war going forever while the people want it to stop?

是的。他们很快会面临革命。所以我认为他们必须考虑乌克兰公民的意愿，这对他们来说是个艰难的决定。但这不是我们该替他们做的决定。这个立场合理吗？

Yeah. They're gonna face a revolution right quick. And so I think they have to take the citizens of Ukraine into account, and it's a tough decision for them to make. But it's not our decision to make for them. Is that a reasonable position?

听起来是个合理的立场。

It sounds like a reasonable position.

我认为很合理。

I think it's reasonable.

是啊。我是说，我不...

Yeah. I mean, I don't I don't

听着。归根结底，乌克兰人和俄罗斯人必须达成一致。是的。而在主要政党中，我认为特朗普总统最关心和平。我是说，他正在最努力推动达成和平协议。

Look. At the end of the day, the Ukrainians and the Russians have to agree. Yes. And I I think that of of the major parties, I think president Trump cares the most about peace. I mean, I think he is pushing the hardest for there to be peace deal.

我...你知道，我知道人们有点震惊我真心认为特朗普擅长这个。他确实擅长与难缠的人谈判，我认为他能办成这事。我觉得他有五成把握，其他人也该尝试。

I I I, you know, I I know people are, like, a little flabbergasted that I really believe that Trump is great at this. I think he's great at this. He is great at negotiating with difficult people, and I think he's going to get it done. I think he's got a fifty fifty chance of getting this done, I and think other people need to try.

承认吧。你喜欢他。你真的很喜欢他。

Just admit it. You like him. You really like him.

确实。不管我个人是否喜欢特朗普，这与那无关。我在这里只论对错。对我来说全是是非判断。

I do. Ever since Whether I personally like Trump or not, it has nothing to do with that. I think I I call balls and strikes here. It's all balls and strikes for me.

不不不。你对他有好感。你可能是爱上他了。

No. No. No. You're you're in like with him. You may be in love with him.

我爱杰森。

I love Jayson.

我爱杰森。

I love Jayson.

和我的人、副总裁杰伊·万斯相爱。等等。等等。而且你你爱听他说‘连杰森也’的时候。

Love with my guy, vice president, Jay Vance. Wait. Wait. And you you loved it when he said even Jayson.

你爱听

You loved

这个。好吧，我觉得作为一个恶搞，这太搞笑了。

it. Well, I thought it was hilarious as a troll.

你把这个链接发给了多少人？老实说。

How many people did you send that link to? Be honest.

我只是发了推特。我没有发给任何人。我发了推特。

I just tweeted it. I didn't send it to anybody. I tweeted it.

好吧。所以每个人都有一百万个人被困住了。

Okay. So everybody A million Trapped by a million people.

意思是，这是一个超现实的有趣时刻，而且很棒

Mean, it was a it's a it's a surreal funny moment and a great

是恶搞的高潮吗？但这并不是恶搞。这不是恶搞。

Is troll it the high? But It's not a troll. It's not a troll.

我是说，那不过是萨克斯百货里的一个喷子。部分原因吧，我觉得萨克斯可能还纵容了这种行为。

I mean, it was a troll in Saks. Part, I think. I think Saks may have encouraged it.

这真是件不可思议的事

It's an incredible thing that

你们收获的。让我们在All In播客这个重要讨论的平台上继续这些精彩辩论吧。又一期精彩的节目。夏季即将结束，我们将在洛杉矶举办的第四届All In峰会上与大家见面。我太兴奋了。

you got. Let's keep these great debates going here on the All In podcast, a platform for important discussions. Another amazing episode. Summer months coming to a close, and we'll see you all in Los Angeles for the fourth edition of the All In Summit. I'm so excited.

下周就回归办公室了。爱你们。

Next week. Back to the office. Love you guys.

回到办公室后又要开始埋头苦干了。

The office and then back to the grind.

2025年12月夏天就结束了。

Summer has ended in December 2025.

太遗憾了。转眼就过去了。

So sad. Has come through soon.

快得离谱。

Way too soon.

不敢相信就这么结束了。

Believe it's over.

太荒谬了。唯一让我心存希望的是滑雪季即将到来。

That's ridiculous. The only thing that I is giving me some hope is that ski season is is gonna be coming.