人工智能如何改变写作——与托尼·斯塔布宾对话

在AI时代，写作的未来是什么？Medium平台又将何去何从？广告之后我们将深入探讨。欢迎收听《大科技播客》，这是一档冷静客观探讨科技界及更广阔领域的节目。今天我们要探讨的是：AI安全本质上就是身份安全。一个AI代理绝不仅仅是一段代码。

What is the future of writing in the age of AI, and what does Medium wanna be? We'll cover that right after this. Welcome to Big Technology Podcast, a show for cool headed and nuanced conversation of the tech world and beyond. Today, we have The truth is AI security is identity security. An AI agent isn't just a piece of code.

它是数字生态系统中的一等公民，需要得到相应的对待。这就是为什么Okta正率先保护这些AI代理。解锁这层新防护的关键在于身份安全架构。企业需要统一全面的解决方案，用一致的策略和监督机制来保护每个身份——无论是人类还是机器。不要等到发生安全事件才意识到AI代理是巨大的防护盲区。

It's a first class citizen in your digital ecosystem, and it needs to be treated like one. That's why Okta is taking the lead to secure these AI agents. The key to unlocking this new layer of protection, an identity security fabric. Organizations need a unified comprehensive approach that protects every identity, human or machine, with consistent policies and oversight. Don't wait for a security incident to realize your AI agents are a massive blind spot.

了解Okta的身份安全架构如何帮助您保护新一代身份（包括AI代理）。访问okta.com。Capital One的技术团队不仅讨论多代理AI系统，他们已经实际部署了一套。

Learn how Okta's identity security fabric can help you secure the next generation of identities, including your AI agents. Visit okta.com. That's 0kta.com. Capital One's tech team isn't just talking about multiegenthic AI. They already deployed one.

这个系统名为'聊天礼宾'，它正在简化购车流程。通过自省机制、分层推理和实时API校验，它不仅帮助买家找到心仪车辆，还能安排试驾、获取贷款预批以及评估旧车置换价值。先进、直观且已投入使用——这就是他们的技术实力。

It's called chat concierge, and it's simplifying car shopping. Using self reflection and layered reasoning with live API checks, It doesn't just help buyers find a car they love. It helps schedule a test drive, get preapproved for financing, and estimate trade in value. Advanced, intuitive, and deployed. That's how they stack.

这正是Capital One的科技力量。今天我们有幸邀请到Medium平台的CEO托尼·斯塔布宾亲临演播室。托尼，见到你真好。欢迎来到...

That's technology at Capital One. Great conversation for you because we are being joined in studio by the CEO of Medium, Tony Stubblebine. Tony, it's great to see you. Welcome to the

节目。谢谢你们邀请我亲自到场。这太棒了，真的很高兴...

show. Thank you for having me in person. This is great. It's great to

你能来。今天我们有很多话题要探讨。我觉得Medium最引人入胜的一点是：你们正处于诸多AI相关问题的风暴中心。我们是否想要AI创作内容？生成式AI引擎应当如何抓取AI内容？

have you here. We're going to cover a lot of ground today. I think one of the things that's fascinating about Medium is you're sort of ground zero for a lot of the questions we ask about AI. Do we want AI writing? How should AI be crawled by generative AI engines?

以上所有内容。我们将深入探讨这一切。让我们直接从AI垃圾内容开始，何必慢慢来呢？《Medium》上有篇文章讨论AI垃圾如何泛滥媒体——抱歉，是《Wired》上有篇文章讨论AI垃圾如何充斥平台。你对这篇报道提出了质疑。

All of the above. We're going to get into all of it. Let's start right away with AI slop, because why start slow? There was a story in Medium talking about how AI slop is flooding media sorry, a story in Wired talking about how AI slop is flooding medium. You took issue with the story.

至少让我先陈述其前提，给你回应的机会。《Wired》采访了这家名为Pangram Labs的公司。他们分析了超过27万篇文章，发现约47%是AI生成的。AI垃圾内容正在成为互联网上日益严重的问题吗？

Let me just at least put the premise of it out there and give you a chance to respond. Wired spoke with this company called Pangram Labs. It looked at more than 270,000 stories. It found that something like 47% were AI generated. Is AI slop a growing problem on the internet?

怎么

How is

哦，当然。

Oh, for sure.

Medium平台如何应对？他们对你们内容做的这项研究公平吗？

How is Medium dealing with it? Is this a fair study that they did on your content?

哦，这是多个问题。是的，垃圾内容确实是当前的重要现象。我们需要先定义它吗？

Oh, these are multiple questions. Yes, slap is an important thing going on right now. Should we define it?

好的。你对AI生成内容如何定义？因为AI生成的故事未必都是垃圾，还是说它们就是？

Yeah. What's your definition of because AI generated stories aren't necessarily slop, or are they?

没错，这涉及一个光谱问题。首先，每个平台基本都在删除和隐藏发布的内容。所以‘审查制度不好’这种观点某种程度上是胡扯，因为如果你运营平台，就会发现用户试图发布的内容大部分都是垃圾信息。这类内容——比如伟哥广告、赤裸裸的金融诈骗，或是理应被法律禁止的儿童性虐待材料等——根本没人会质疑我们清理它们的正当性。

Right. There's a spectrum of it. So let's start with every platform is mostly deleting and hiding the things that get posted to it. So, like, this whole idea that censorship is bad is sort of like bullshit because if you run a platform, the majority of what people try to post on your platform is spam. And this is like no one would debate whether or not we're doing the right thing by getting rid of it because it's like Viagra ads or or just like really like like outright financial scams or like content that's literally made illegal by for good reason, CSAM and whatnot.

我们本就在从事阻止特定内容进入算法的工作。AI生成内容时代出现的是这种看似更人性化（或至少表面更像人类创作）实则空洞的内容，这不过是垃圾信息的新形态。我们对待它的方式与处理所有垃圾信息无异：能当场拦截就当场拦截。

So, we're already in the business of trying to prevent certain types of content from making it out into the algorithm. And what happened in the age of AI generated content is that there's this, like, slightly more human form of content, or that or at least it looked more human, but it's really nothing. It's just a new form of spam. And so we treat it the way we, like, treat all spam. It's like if we can, like, if we can catch it and block it outright, we catch it and block it outright.

若无法100%确定该用户应被封禁或移除，我们会允许内容留在平台，但会极力阻止其进入谷歌搜索索引或我们的推荐系统。说到《连线》那篇文章，我认为最有价值的是他们创造的模因——‘AI糟粕’这个短语，在那篇文章之前我从未见过这个表述。后来他们还写了几篇后续报道。

If we can't be 100% sure that, the user should be, blocked or, removed from the platform, we'll allow it onto the platform, but really try hard not to let it, make its way either into the Google search index or into our own recommendations. So this article from Wired, I think my favorite thing about it, for what it's worth, is the way that they created a meme. Like just this phrase AI slop, I had not seen it anywhere until that one article. And then they wrote some follow-up articles. Yeah.

这早就是个常用术语了。你居然没听过？真让我惊讶。

It was already a pretty common term. Oh, It's actually surprising to me that you hadn't. Really?

你们早就在用这个词了？我当时感觉这个术语瞬间就成了默认表述。我特别喜欢观察模因的传播曲线，这是个好术语，我们应该都采用它。老实说，我真正不认同的是他们提出了错误的问题。

You were already using that? I just, it just felt like that term became the de facto term in that moment. And I just like, yeah, I like to see, like, kind of the curve of a meme take off, and it it's a good term. It's the right we should all be using it. What I took issue with, honestly, was that it was asking the wrong question.

关键在于Medium上有多少糟粕内容吗？（这是他们问的问题）还是在于读者看到多少糟粕？（这是我要问的）我们做了大量工作防止读者看到糟粕，我认为成效显著。多数关于Medium上AI内容的投诉都集中在评论区而非正文，这说明推荐系统相当可靠。

Does it matter how much slop is on Medium, or does it matter, which is the question they were asking, and does it matter how much slop our readers are seeing, which is the question I'm asking, right? So we do all of this work to prevent readers from seeing the slop, and I think we're doing a really good job. I think, you know, like, for the most part, when I get complaints about AI content on Medium, it's what's showing up in the comments. It's not what's showing up in the posts. The recommendation system is quite good.

这是我第一个不认同的点，其次他们使用的服务提供商也很可疑——文章发布的同时，该供应商竟利用文章试图让我雇佣他们，这明显存在利益冲突。

So, I think that was the first thing I took issue with, and then there was something just suspect about the service provider that they use, where it's like, at the same time this article is coming out, that service provider is using the article to try to get me to hire them. And it felt like a conflict of interest.

哦对了，AI垃圾内容——给它下个定义的话，就是低质量的文字内容，有时也包括图片和视频。但在你这种情况下，主要指的是那些为了刷网络互动量而发布的文字内容。

Oh, by the way, AI slap, just to define it, just low quality written content, sometimes images and videos. But in your case, think written, that's just being posted on the internet for engagement hacking.

没错。你可以把它看作是一种提示词。就像有人会说'解释下AI'，然后跑去Chat2PT说'给我写5000字关于AI的文章'，最后直接复制粘贴到Medium上。

Yeah, right. I mean, you could just think of it as like a prompt. It's like, oh, explain AI. And you go to Chat2PT and say, write 5,000 words about AI for me. And then you just cut and paste that into Medium.

但我认为这种现象很大程度上也是顺应了互联网现有的激励机制。老实说，网上已经有大量内容是通过非常低质的方式生成的，无论是外包写作还是其他形式，本质上都是为了迎合搜索引擎的排名机制。

But I think a lot of it is also is following the incentives of the internet already because if we're being honest, there's a ton of content out there on the internet that is being sort of generated in really low quality ways, whether it's outsourced writing or whatever it might be, that's sort of responding to these incentives to get stuff in front of search engines.

那你觉得这和AI垃圾内容出现之前有什么本质区别吗？毕竟这些激励机制早就存在了。

And how different does this feel to you than pre AI slop? I mean, those incentives already existed.

没有区别。但我想问的是规模问题，因为你们作为平台方应该看得很清楚。Medium上这类内容是否因为规模效应而出现了实质性增长？

Not different. But the question I have for you is the scale, because you're seeing this on the provider end. Are you seeing a real increase in this type of content showing up on Medium because of the scale?

我们观察到用户试图发布的内容量增长了约10倍。但从某个角度来说这不算大问题，因为我们用来应对的工具和之前过滤垃圾邮件、筛选优质内容的工具是同一套。虽然处理量暴增，但读者实际看到的内容质量并未下降。不过那篇报道能发表还是让我很困惑，因为对我们来说这根本不是事儿——虽然工作量增加了些，但工作性质完全没变

We saw like a 10x increase in what people were trying to post on Medium. But also, at some level, it was kind of a non issue because the tools we used to battle it are the same tools we were already using to battle spam and to filter out the filter the good stuff into the network and leave the bad stuff out. So we got a huge increase in volume, but not in what the readers see. And still, I'm like somewhat perplexed that that article made it to print, because it was really a nothing burger for us. It was a little bit of extra work, but the same type of work we were

和以前一样。你说增长很有趣，那个10倍的增长势头现在还在持续吗？

already doing. It's funny you say we got an increase. Is that increase still being sustained, that 10x increase?

是的，结果并没有呈指数级增长。它只是突然出现，我认为我们加强了控制，可能变得不那么有趣了。但你知道，这就像是一个阶跃函数和价格变化，现在价格变化不再那么显著，无法再产生那种冗余了。虽然价格逐渐变得更便宜，但它原本就相对便宜，后来变得非常便宜。这简直是天壤之别。而这种天壤之别，我认为，只是对平台接收垃圾信息量造成了一次性的改变。

Yeah, it didn't turn out to be exponential. It just, it came, and I think we tightened up, and maybe became less interesting. But, you know, it's like it was just a step function and the change in price, and that there's not as significant of a change in price to create that slop anymore, and, you know, it gets incrementally cheaper, but it's still like it was somewhat cheap, and then it became very cheap. And that's just like night and day. And that night and day, I think, just created a one time change in the amount of trash that was getting thrown at platforms.

我认为这对所有平台都是如此。

And I think that's true for all platforms.

你说了一件非常有趣的事，那个提供数据的科技公司在接入这些数据后，竟然反过来向你兜售他们的AI检测服务。我之前不知道这事。

You said something very interesting that the provider, tech company that went wired with this data then came to you and tried to sell you their AI detection services. I hadn't known that.

我是说，记者知道这事。真的吗？

I mean, the reporter knew. Really?

这是在报道进行期间发生的吗？他们有没有把这个写进报道里？

This was happening while the story was underway? Did they write did they include that in the story?

我记不太清了。好吧。这就像...我不确定。对我来说，这件事有点可疑就是因为这个。但记者确实至少提出了我们的观点：被阅读的内容比存在的内容更重要。

I can't quite remember. Okay. It was like I don't know. This is sort of a little bit to me, the story is a little bit sus just because of that. But the reporter did, you know, at least give our case that what gets read matters more than what exists.

没错，在演示稿里，托尼·斯塔布宾说过这根本不应该是个问题。但让我在这里提出一个反论点说明为什么它应该重要。你已经提到了搜索引擎索引问题，你正试图确保这些内容不会被搜索引擎索引。作为在Medium上写作的人，我也在Substack上写作。我们稍后会讨论Medium和Substack的区别。

Yeah, in the deck, it was Tony Stubblebine says, it shouldn't matter at all. But let me give this counterpoint here about why it should matter. You already brought up search engine indexing, and you're trying to make sure that this stuff is not indexed via search engine. One thing that Medium, as someone who writes on Medium, I also write on Substack. We're going to get into the difference between Medium and Substack in a bit.

但作为一个在Medium上写作的人，我注意到Medium在搜索引擎中的排名非常高。我写的这篇关于Dario Amode的报道在Substack上找不到，但发表在Medium上后，只要搜索Dario就能看到它名列前茅。我在想，如果我是专门生产AI垃圾内容来获取搜索引擎流量和收益的人，即使Medium不向读者推荐这类内容，单凭搜索排名优势，这里就是接触受众的绝佳平台。

But as someone who writes on Medium, one thing I see is Medium ranks really high in search. I wrote this story, this profile on Dario Amode. You cannot find it on Substack, but I posted the same post on Medium and it ranks way up there when you're searching for Dario. And I imagine that if I was someone who is in the business of putting up AI slop, trying to get traffic and revenue from search engines. Even if Medium is not recommending that to readers, it's actually a great venue to try to get in front of people because of the search ranking.

我想说的是，对听众而言，Medium的SEO确实很棒，这本身就是个值得在此写作的理由。至于对抗AI内容，我们的处理方式就和对付垃圾信息一样——直接从谷歌索引中移除它们。我们花了不少时间确保被谷歌索引的内容质量达标。有趣的是，谷歌方面反馈说有时会困惑于我们拒绝索引的内容标准。我就收到过邮件，直接质问为什么某10篇文章没被收录。

I mean, I feel like I'd rather just lean into, for your listeners, yeah, SEO on Medium is great, and that's a reason to write on Medium. As far as fighting the AI stuff, the thing that we do for them is the same as we do for spam is we we literally remove them from the Google index. Like, we spend a fair amount of time actually making sure that that the quality of what we index on Google is high. And I think what we've heard from Google actually is sometimes they're confused by what we're saying no index to. And I've gotten emails have brought up stories that literally ask why these 10 stories aren't indexed.

我们检查后认为：这些内容不够真实，不够原创，也不够有深度。

And we look at them and we think, yeah, because we don't think they're real enough. We don't think they're authentic enough. We don't think they're deep enough.

这话题很有意思，直接触及了‘所有AI生成内容是否都是垃圾’的讨论。我开启这个话题时就在问：AI时代下写作或博客的未来是什么？现在AI的写作能力似乎越来越强了。

Yeah. It's fascinating because it gets right into this conversation about whether all AI generated content is slop. Yeah. And I even let off this conversation asking, what's the future of writing or blogging in the age of AI? And it seems like AI is getting better at writing.

会不会有一天，处在你们这个位置的人觉得：AI写作比大多数人类都强了，干脆放手让它发挥？

And is there going to be a point where people in the position that you are in say, you know what? It's better than most humans at writing. Let's just let it rip.

每当人们担忧写作的未来时，我都感到困惑。让我们回归第一性原理：写作即思考，而聪明人热爱思考——这永远不会改变。当你把想法付诸纸面（或键盘）时，所有潜意识的感受和人生经验都会以某种方式具象化，连作者本人都能因此更清晰地理解自己的思想。

I am always confused by when people worry about the future of writing. So let me just start with first principles, right? Like, writing is thinking, and smart people like to think. That's not going away. When you have a thought and you put it onto paper, put it, you know, type it out, suddenly this, like, all these subconscious, like, feelings about that thought, all of your, like, life lessons get articulated in a way where just as the writer, you understand it better.

所以AI的角色不是取代你。如果你认同思考对人生的价值，你就不会停止写作。阅读也是同理——我们早就经历过‘只看摘要不读全文是否有价值’的争论，对吧？

And so the role of AI in there is not to replace you. Like, if you're someone that thinks there's value to your life and being smart, like, you're not going to stop writing. And it's the same with reading. We've been down this path with, is it valuable to get a summary rather than read the whole thing? Right?

这就像是故事的精简版。精简版无法取代原书，因为我们的大脑通过故事来学习。我们学到的很多是故事中的人性部分，不仅仅是一堆事实，而是涉及其中的人物。

This is like the cliff notes story. The cliff notes did not replace the book because there's something about the way our brains work that learn through story. And a lot of what we're learning is the human components of that story. It's not just a set of facts. It's the humans involved in that story.

他们学到了什么？他们怎么想的？如果他们给出建议，为什么所有这些最终都很重要。这就是为什么自助书籍那么长，建议通常只有一页，但半本书都是社会证明。这是有原因的，帮助你理解为何要努力采纳建议。

What did they, you know, what did they learn? What did they think of it? Like, if they're giving advice, why, you know, all of that stuff ends up mattering. And it's why self help books are as long as they are, you know, the advice is usually a page, but then half the book is social proof. And that's for a reason, is to help you understand why you might make the effort to take that advice.

所以我从不怀疑写作的趋势，因为我不认为会有人不再相信变得更聪明能让生活更好。这不会消失。人们困惑的是，很多写作只是为了应付，比如必须提交报告或应付官僚主义，只是在完成写作任务。

And so I just I never have any doubts about trends about writing because I just I don't think that there is ever going to stop being a market of people who think their life gets better if they get smarter. That's not going away, right? And so where people are getting confused is it just turns out there's a lot of writing that's only done for bullshit reasons, right? It's like I'm required to give a report, or I have to pass some writing up to some bureaucracy, right? And so you're just checking the box on having provided any writing at all.

是的，AI可以做到这些，但那从来不是为了思考或变得更聪明。

And yeah, AI can do that, but that was never about thinking or being smarter in the first place.

是的，我们都认同写作的真正价值。我以写作为生，你也是。从自以为知道到开始写作，才发现其实并不了解，试图在纸上连接这些想法很有价值。我们是科技播客，亚马逊写六页文档就是为了这个，虽然可能以后是AI生成，这是个问题。

Yeah, I think we'll both agree that there is real virtue in writing. I mean, I do it as living. You've done it as living for a long time. That idea of going from something that you think you know, and then you start writing it, and you realize you don't really know it at all, there's great value in trying to connect those ideas on the page. That's obviously, we're a big technology podcast, that's why Amazon does their six pagers, is to try to, although maybe those are going to be AI generated, and that's a real question.

他们这样做是为了避免PPT中想法脱节，写下来才能真正理解。我认为这是他们公司长期成功的关键。同样，当我深究概念或自以为知道某些事并写下来时，会发现还得再打电话，因为报道的故事中间发生了什么我完全不知道。

And they do it so they can, instead of having a PowerPoint where your ideas are disconnected, you write it down so you actually know what you're talking about. And I think that's been a big driver of success within that company for a long time. Similarly, when I'm trying to get into the bottom of concepts or think I know certain things and I'm writing it down, I'm like, oh god, I got to make another phone call because I have no idea what happened in the middle of that story that I'm reporting.

所以我喜欢那个例子。它很有力，对吧？你以为自己理解了，直到强迫自己用文字表达，才发现有很大漏洞。这就是写作对思考重要性的证明。

That So I love that. Like, that anecdote is so powerful, right? It's that you think you understood what you were talking about until you had to force yourself to put it into words, and then you realize there's huge gaps, right? That's like that is the proof of how important writing is to thinking.

是的。我认为我们都同意写作是件好事。让我们保留它。另一方面，我认为实际上我们甚至不知道我们俩曾认为AI不会或不太可能在写作中有用。而现在我们都认为它正变得更有用。

Yeah. So I think we're both in agreement here that writing is good. Let's preserve it. The other side of it, is that I think that we Actually, I don't even think I know that both of us believed that AI wasn't going to be or was not very useful in writing. And now we both believe that it is becoming more useful.

这是你八月份写的内容。有没有办法利用AI来加深理解或帮助作者讲述他们的人类故事？两年前，我们认为AI对作者和读者的价值低于零。AI公司在未经同意、署名或补偿的情况下榨取了你写作的价值。它们催生了一波试图用幻觉垃圾取代你作品的垃圾信息。

This is something that you wrote in August. Is there a way to use AI to deepen understanding or help writers tell their human stories? Two years ago, we thought the value to writers and readers was less than zero. The AI companies had leached value from your writing without offering consent, credit, or compensation. They enabled a wave of spam that tried to replace your writing with hallucinated slop.

在我们持续努力使Medium成为最佳读写平台的过程中，我们注意到并听到读者和作者反馈，某些AI应用正开始显现价值。所以它确实开始...

As we've continued working on making Medium the best place to read and write, we've noticed and we've noticed and heard from our readers and writers that some use of AI is starting to be useful. So it is starting to be

我曾带着缺陷的悔意写下那段文字，当你开始阅读时。但现在回听，我爱上了它。我那时毫不留情。那段话就像是对AI现状的直白评论。并非说两年前我认为AI永远不会有价值。

I a flawed regret thought I was going having written that when you started reading it. But now having heard it back, I love it. Like, I pulled no punches on that. What I was saying there is just like a blunt commentary of the state of AI at any given moment. And not that AI could like, two years ago, it wasn't that I thought AI could never be valuable.

我当时认为它纯粹是在制造问题。而且，我是说，那确实没错。它确实不够好到能真正帮助作者，反而制造了更多垃圾信息。虽然抵制它不需要太多功夫，但确实需要付出。这还在社区中造成了严重的不公平感。

I thought in that moment, it was literally just creating problems. And and, I mean, that was true. Like, it it was not good enough to really help the writers, and was providing more spam and more slop. I mean, it wasn't a ton of work to fight it back, but it was some. And it was creating a real sense of unfairness in the community.

我们的社区认为他们的内容被窃取了，不是出于法律原因，而是社会原因，对吧？社会运行在价值交换基础上。这些AI公司用内容训练却没有任何回报，这破坏了'你有所得我也该有所得'的公平感。

I mean, our community thinks that their content got stolen, and not for a legal reason, but for a reason of society, right? Like societies run on exchange of value. And for these AI companies to train on the content and offer nothing in return just breaks that sense of fairness that, well, if you got something, I should get something, too.

它们爬取并训练了Medium上的内容？

And they crawled and trained on Medium content?

哦，当然。所以我经常提到这个教训，因为我觉得如果他们再不收敛，我们就会再来一次。我们很早就发现Medium的数据量足以污染任何大型语言模型的输出结果。我们之所以知道这点，是因为我的老板、Medium创始人埃文·威廉姆斯在创建Medium时特别痴迷于长破折号。正是他早期在Medium里设置了规则——当你输入双短横线或在特定位置输入短横时，系统会自动转换为长破折号。

Oh, yeah, for sure. So here's a lesson that I'm bringing up more often, because I think if they don't get their act together, we're going to do it again. We learned really early on that Medium is a enough corpus of data that we can poison the results of any large language model. And the way we learn this is because my boss and the founder of Medium, Evan Williams, when he started Medium, he was a huge fan of Em dashes. And so he's the one that built it early on into Medium that if you do a double dash or dash in certain points, it gets automatically converted to Em dashes.

因此长破折号就这样自动添加进Medium内容长达十年，甚至成为了平台文化的一部分。许多从未听说过长破折号的作者突然开始频繁使用它。所以Medium训练数据集里充斥着长破折号，这完全源于埃文·威廉姆斯个人对排版美学的偏执——在众多排版观点中，他唯独觉得长破折号特别优美。

And so as a result, em dashes became just like automatically added into Medium content for a decade, and then also just culturally part of Medium, like writers who'd never heard of em dashes or suddenly seeing em dashes. And so the medium training the training set of just the medium corpus is so heavy on em dashes because that's what Evan Williams, like, thought he just thought they were beautiful among many typographical opinions of

等等，所以这就是为什么Chattypi tea会回复「是的」。

Wait, this is why Chattypi tea writes, Yes.

我说这就是Medium的影响。千真万确。某种程度上是我们让长破折号在互联网其他领域流行起来的，这很疯狂。但Medium语料库在这方面影响极深。所以当你看到满篇长破折号怀疑是AI写的时候——正因为AI是用Medium训练的，而Medium本来就有大量长破折号。

I'm saying it's because of medium. Absolutely. It's because we've, in part, popularized it in other parts of the Internet, crazy. But the medium corpus is very, very deep in those, and so great. So when you hear, oh, this must have been written by AI because it's got so many em dashes, it's because the AI is trained on medium, which does have a lot of em dashes naturally.

所以我觉得，如果找不到公平的价值交换，如果他们坚持绕过我们的封锁继续训练，甚至拒绝为训练数据付费——我们就会像其他平台那样，悄悄捕获他们的爬虫并污染训练数据。谁知道我们能往他们的训练集里塞进什么奇怪的幻觉呢？

So, like, I think that if can't find some fair exchange of value, if we can't get something going, if they insist on continuing to train and work around our blocks and, you know, continuing to avoid even paying for what they're training on. I think we're just like a lot of other platforms are going to quietly catch their crawlers and poison the content that they're training on. Who knows, you know, what weird hallucinations we can fit into their training sets.

所以你真会玩这种阴招？

So you would play dirty like that?

这就是囚徒困境啊。开始时你选择合作，如果对方也合作就保持合作。但如果对方不合作，你也只能改变策略对吧？要我说，他们这种行为本质上就是反社会的。

I mean, this is Prisoner's Dilemma, right? You start collaborative. If you're matched with collaborative, you stay collaborative. If you're not matched, then you have to switch too, right? Like, you know, effectively, they're antisocial is what I would say.

比如所有这些公司——OpenAI、Google、Anthropic——他们本可以这样开场：'嘿，我们想做这件事。我们认为能从中获得巨大价值。我们想用你们的内容训练模型。怎样才能帮你们也获得价值？'这本来可以成为对话的起点。

Like, all of these companies, OpenAI, Google, Anthropic, like, they could have started with, hey, we want to do this thing. We think we're going to get a lot of value out of it. We want to train on your content. How can we help you get value out of it? Like, that could have been the starting point.

但相反，完全出于他们自己的选择，他们选择了这样的开场白：'我们将用你们的内容训练模型。你们能怎样？'因此整个行业花了一些时间才做出反应，但我们现在正在反击。我多希望行业能更早行动。既然现在开始了，我认为我们将不得不看看哪些公司愿意坐到谈判桌前，哪些会继续我行我素。后者当然会遭到对等反制。

And instead, just like their choice, completely their choice, they took the starting point of, We're going train on your content. What are you going to do about it? And so it's taken the industry a while to react, but we are reacting right now, and I wish we had reacted as an industry earlier. But now that we do, I think we're going to have to, you know, have to see which of these companies want to come to the table and which are going to continue to be antisocial. And if they are, they're going to be met with antisocial behavior, of course.

好的。关于你们采取的反制措施，我们有些新闻要报道。稍后会详细说明，但我想先延续之前的话题：不久前AI写作工具还不太实用，现在正变得有用起来。

Yeah. Okay. So we have some news about the steps you're taking here to fight back. We're going to get to that in a minute, but I just want to keep following the thread that we started on, which is this idea that this was not very useful for writing, AI tools not very useful for writing a little bit ago. Now they're becoming useful.

那么你们在哪些领域发现了实用价值？

So where have you found the useful areas?

哦，最让我们兴奋的是AI助手在写作过程中扮演助理角色的构想。我们正在开发写作工具，实际上即将宣布已开始为Medium开发一款新的写作应用。

Oh, yeah. I think the thing we're most excited about is the idea of an AI agent acting as your assistant as you're writing. So as we're building, we're building writing tools right now. We're about to actually announce that we've broken ground on a new writing app for Medium.

这个可以多透露些细节。

We can say more about that.

周五来参加Medium Day活动就知道了。这期节目什么时候上线？

I mean, come to Medium Day on Friday. When does this go live?

这个之后会直播上线，所以你可以

This is going go live after that, so you can

多谈谈这个。是的。我们就像是Medium的伴侣，为你所有的写作、笔记、草稿、计划发布的内容、分享的内容服务，并整合所有为写作提供素材的东西。比如保存的文章，有时还有你的阅读历史。我们发现几个关键点：首先，AI应用于个人写作是搜索和组织内容的绝佳方式，对吧？

talk more about it. Yeah. So, we're a companion to Medium for all of your writing, for your notes, for your drafts, for things you're planning to publish, for things that you're sharing, and containing all of the things that feed into that writing. Know, saved articles, your reading history sometimes. We found a couple of things is, one, AI applied to your own writing is such a helpful way to search and organize it, right?

因为现在不再是关键词搜索，你可以用这种自由形式的方式说，比如‘我有一堆截止日期要到了，能总结下我关于这个即将开始项目的所有笔记，并按日期顺序列出截止时间吗？’现在你直接告诉AI就行。但我们之前只能通过整个互联网的视角来看待这个问题，对吧？ChatGPT就是为互联网上所有内容做这个的。

Because now instead of like a keyword search, you have this free form kind of way to say like, oh, you know, I've got all these deadlines coming up. Can you summarize all my notes about, you know, this upcoming project and list out the deadlines and date order? Like, you can just tell an AI that now, right? But we've only been able to look at it through the lens of the entire internet, right? That's what ChatGPT will do that for everything that's on the internet.

我们还没怎么见过AI被应用于你写过的所有内容。过去我从效率领域学到一课——我曾在那里花了很多时间——效率控们总爱建立复杂又脆弱的系统，而理想的系统应该允许你保持混乱。我认为这正是AI能帮你实现的。另外AI作为写作助手还有一点，我们的观点是你可以把AI放在一旁，它能让你保持思维连贯，对吧？

We haven't really seen a lot of that applied to everything that you've ever written. And there is a lesson I had learned in the past that used to come kind of from the world of productivity. I spent a big chunk of time there, which is productivity nerds are always making complicated systems that are fragile and break down, and the ideal system allows you to be messy. And I think that's what AI lets you do there. And then there's this other piece of AI as the writing assistant, and our view there is that actually you can kind of put the AI to the side, and then what it'll allow you to do is stay in your train of thought, right?

所以这不是AI取代你，而是AI让你更有人性化，比如把想法落到纸上。当你回头编辑时，AI会提供许多聪明建议。这就是我们在将当前AI技术融入写作辅助时的发现。

So this is not AI replacing you. This is actually AI letting you be more human, like get your thoughts onto paper. And then when you're coming back around for the edit pass, AI has like a lot of really smart suggestions, alongside of it. So that's what we've figured out as we start to actually fold the current state of AI into helping people write more.

好的，我们来聊聊其中几点。首先关于AI允许你保持混乱——我没理解错的话，传统效率工具要求严格遵循它们的系统。比如Roam，我试过但完全搞不懂，太复杂了。

Okay, so let's talk about a couple of these things. So first of all, AI allowing you to be messy, Am I reading it right that for these old productivity tools, you'd have to really use their systems. I'm thinking about Roam. Yeah, right I tried to use that, it broke my brain. It was so complicated to use.

就像你必须创建标题、子标题、子子标题，还有各种父子层级关系。可能有些人思维方式适合这个，但我用不来。所以你的意思是，在效率方面AI能让你把所有笔记、写作和邮件都丢进去，然后直接查询，它能很好地处理这些非结构化数据？

It was like you have to make headings and subheads and subheads of subheads and subheads of different children and parent things. Some people who, I don't know, whatever their brain works that way could use it. I couldn't use it. And so what you're saying is what AI will allow you to do on the productivity end is maybe just dump all your notes and writing and emails into one thing, and then you can just query it, and it will be able to handle that unstructured data well.

是的。我们之前用过一个词，虽然不是应用名称，但‘bucket’这个词我们用了一段时间，它代表这样一种理念：你需要什么条件才能安心地认为‘这是个可以随意扔东西进去的桶，我不必花时间整理，也知道需要时能随时取出’。设计一个能实现这种功能的应用需要什么？我认为现在这是可能的。

Yeah. There was a word we were using, which is not the app name, but we've been using the word bucket for a while, which is just the idea of what does it take for you to feel safe to think like, this is a bucket that I can throw anything into it, and I don't have to spend time organizing it, and I know I'll be able to get it out when I need to. Like, what's required to design an app to do that? And I think it's possible now.

没错。以前的情况就像是，天哪，你得投入大量工作来构建所谓的‘第二大脑’。是啊，就像你整个第一大脑都在用来建造这个第二大脑。我确信这对某些人很有效，但对我没用。

Right. And before it was just like, you would have to like, goodness gracious, the amount of work that went into build, it's called building a second brain. Yeah. It's like your full entire first brain is being used to build this second brain. I'm sure it worked well for some people, not for me.

确实如此。如果你动力十足的话，我会说‘第二大脑’这个概念是主流，但目前的实现方式还...是的，太...

It did. It did. And if you're extremely motivated, yeah, I would say I think the second brain concept is mainstream, but the current implementation is not it's Yeah. Too

向所有被我冒犯到的效率爱好者道歉，但我们需要更好的工具。你说得对，生成式AI能让这类东西得以实现。我很期待用你们的产品。在写作方面，这将让作者拥有一个AI编辑。有趣的是我现在就用ChatGPT做这个。

Sorry to all the productivity folks that I've offended with that, but having a better tool. And I think you're right, generative AI could enable that type of thing being built. I'm looking forward to using yours. And then the writing side of things, this will enable the writer to basically have an AI editor. It's funny because I use that now with ChatGPT.

我会把草稿和采访记录丢进去，然后问‘我漏掉了什么？我是否真实还原了采访的基调？’所以你们要专门为这个场景开发工具？

I'll drop my drafts in, my interviews in, and I'll ask, what did I miss? Did I capture the tone of the interview faithfully? And so you're going to build something purpose built for that?

是的。你已经看到的部分功能就不错，我们会保留那些。但我们有些独特见解，我认为这反映出我们确实是真正的写作者，多年来写过很多东西，对从灵感到发表的整个写作流程有深刻理解。

Yes. And some of the things you've seen already are good, and we'll include those. But we have some unique takes on it that I think, reflect that we are actual writers, and we've written a lot over the years, and we have, kind of a deep understanding of the all the writing processes from idea to publication, yeah.

好的。那么AI如何改变写作的未来。我们稍微讨论了写作生产环节及其重要性。另一方面——既然我们正和Medium的CEO在一起——就是出版物或平台如何处理这些内容。你提到过不想让低质量AI内容出现在Medium上，会将其视为垃圾信息。

Okay. So how AI changes the future of writing. We've talked a little bit about the production of writing and why that is important. The other side of it is, since we're here with the CEO of Medium, is the other side of it is how a publication or a platform handles this writing. Now, you've talked a little bit about how you don't want low quality AI content on Medium and will treat it spam.

但在那篇讨论AI如何变得更实用的帖子中，你明确表示将限制AI生成内容的传播，并会在合作伙伴计划中对AI生成内容说不。随后你在标题后补充了一个有趣观点——即使ChatGPT能创作出完全有价值的故事，我们仍希望合作伙伴计划能激励人类创作者。这个‘即使’很耐人寻味，因为你从最初认为AI毫无用处，到现在已承认其创作价值。我们都见证了AI在内容创作上的进步。

But also in that post where you talked about how AI is becoming more useful, clearly say we're going to limit the distribution of AI generated content and you'll say no to AI generated content in your partner program. But then you had something interesting that you said after that headline about not including AI generated content in your partner program, which I think pays some humans to write on Medium. You wrote, Even if ChatGPT could generate a perfectly valuable story, we still want our partner program to incentivize human storytellers. And that even if is interesting because you really went from a place where you thought that there was no use here to now even acknowledging the fact that could write a valuable story. So we both see this stuff improving and making more useful content.

那么当ChatGPT的写作能力与人类比肩时，世界会变成什么样？重申一次——我们都认同写作的价值，但先抛开创作环节。现在我想探讨的是内容发布环节。

So what does a world look like where ChatGPT could write as well? Again, I'll go back to it. Forget, like, we both agree there's a virtue to writing, but forget the production side of it. Now I want to talk about the publication side of it.

不知道你是否有经典的研究案例参考？我常用的例子是：我大部分时间住在纽约市北部郊区，有个固定研究指令是‘查找未来两周本地活动’，并特别强调筛选体育赛事。由于地处偏远，能查到的只有小联盟棒球赛、低级足球联赛和轮滑德比比赛。但这就是我——

I wonder if you have a go to good research example. The one I've been using is, I spend most of my time a little bit north of New York City, and I have a go to research prompt, which is, go find events in my area in the next two weeks. And then I go on to say, specifically, look for these sporting events. I'm in the boonies, so my sporting events are minor league baseball, minor league soccer, and roller derby. But that's what I would

——想了解的信息。

just wanna know.

——它们是否在本地举办？县集市有什么活动？艺术展览开幕式？电影院在上映什么？

They in town? Right. Are there what's going on at the county fairs? What's going on at, like, art openings? Like, what's going on at the movies?

——把这些信息整合起来给我。这本质上就是为我量身定制的活动日历，可能对成千上万人都适用。既然如此，我为什么不发布它呢？

Like, just, like, find all of that and give it to me. And so this is a customized event calendar for me, essentially, that is probably relevant to anyone. Thousands of people. Thousands of people. So why wouldn't I publish that, right?

我认为这就是有价值的AI生成内容范例。其中的人为因素体现在我设定的检索指令偏好，而结果基本是事实性的——坦白说，若未经双重验证就直接发布确实不妥，因为我有多次以为获取了准确信息，结果发现全是AI的臆造。但假设人类贡献仅在于指令设定和事实核查，其余部分从头到尾都是AI完成的。

There's, I think, would be, for me, an example of valuable AI generated writing. The human element is my own taste in the prompt, and then the result is, like, fairly factual, and I think, let's be completely, like, honest. It would be tough. It would be rude to publish that without at least double checking that it was factually true, because I've had many times thought I was getting good research out of one of these AI tools and then only to find that, yeah, it had hallucinated the whole thing. But let's say it's the human effort is in the prompt and then in the fact checking, and as otherwise, that's AI written top to bottom.

是的，我认为那应该发表，而且我认为，你知道，发表它的人是在做一件有益的事。我们在Medium这个相当小众的角落所说的，其实80%发布在Medium上的内容都只是人们利用这个工具和平台进行传播。他们大多并非专业写手，互联网上绝大多数人都是非职业作者，只是寻找与世界沟通的途径，对吧？而这正是最初让我对Medium和博客写作感到兴奋的地方。他们分享的很多内容不过是人生经验。

Yeah, I think that should be published, and I think, you know, someone publishing it would be doing a service. What we're saying in this really kind of niche part of Medium, which is, you know, 80% of what gets published on Medium is by people that are just using the tool and the Medium network for distribution. They're not, you know, the vast majority of the internet is non professional writers, like just people who are looking for a way to communicate with the world, right? And that's what I that's like the part of medium and the part of blogging that got me excited in the first place. And a lot of what they're communicating is just a life lesson.

这件事发生在我身上，我想与你分享。而这些人生经验尚未被纳入AI训练数据集，对吧？如果这些人生经验不被发表，它们就不会出现在AI研究中，因为AI只是在全网爬取数据。那么，我们该何去何从？如何让人们继续分享他们的人生经验呢？

This thing happened to me, and I want to share it with you. And those life lessons are not in the AI training sets yet, right? And those life lessons, if they're not published, won't show up in the AI research because that is just scouring the internet. So, where are we going? How are we going to get people to continue sharing the lessons of their life, right?

必须建立某种激励机制，迄今为止这个角色一直由谷歌扮演，对吧？那种'你只需在网上写点东西，流量就会从天而降'的理念，某种程度上塑造了公共互联网。所以我思考的问题是：谷歌正在剥夺这种激励吗？如果激励机制消失，公共互联网会随之消亡吗？而我们的小小贡献在于，Medium有个板块会向作者付费，本质上是为了让订阅模式运转，获取部分优质内容（并非全部）置于付费墙后——这就是我们的商业模式。

There has to be some incentive systems, and to date it has been Google, right? Like, the idea that you can just write something on the internet and traffic will just show up out of the blue, that's kind of like made the public internet. And so a question that I wonder is, you know, is Google taking that away? If they take the incentives away, is the public Internet going to go away? And the small part that we play is that there's a section or medium that where we pay the writers, and we pay them essentially to make our subscription business work, to get some of the best writing, not all of it, but some of it behind the subscription, and that's how we've made a business.

所以你提到的就是我们的合作伙伴计划。对他们而言，我们就像是在表明立场：我们愿意付费确保存在于网络上的，是你真实的人生经验。而为花十五秒生成ChatGPT文稿付费？这对我们来说甚至算不上值得付费的事。但这与判断其价值无关——我们付费是为了让某些本不会存在于网络上的内容得以留存。

And so that's what you're saying is our partner program. So for them, we were just like taking a stand and saying, like, the thing that we want to pay for to make sure it exists on the internet is your real life lessons. And this idea of paying you to spend fifteen seconds generating a ChatGPT transcript just not even doesn't even make sense to us as a worthy thing to pay for. But that's different than saying whether or not it's valuable. It's like we're saying we're paying to make something exist on the internet that otherwise wouldn't exist.

我明白了。那么如果网络上充斥着AI生成的内容——考虑到你的活动日历旁边可能已经（甚至数量上超越）人类创作的内容——未来的网络会是什么景象？是的，很可能已经如此了。

I see. So what does the web look like if we're going to have a lot of writing that's generated by AI, given like, thinking about your event calendar sitting alongside and probably outnumbering human content, human generated content? Yeah. Yeah. If it doesn't already.

很可能已经是这样了。不过质量问题...虽然AI会不断进步。

Probably does already. But the quality question, it will keep getting better, though.

有可能。但我最初直接联想到人际关系——我们会厌倦彼此间的真实关系吗？也会更倾向于与AI建立关系吗？当然，这目前也属于AI发展的诡异边缘地带。

It could. Do we are we going to my head originally went straight to relationships, right? Are we going to get tired of having relationships with each other? Are we going to prefer an AI for a relationship, too? And of course, that's like the weird edge of AI right now, too.

你拥有AI女友、AI男友，而这种关系的可调节性正是人们在线创作和分享的另一个原因——我们试图与他人建立联系，对吧？我是说，我不认为这种需求会消失。我希望它永不消失。我依然喜欢与人交流。所以，我认为这将继续推动大量活动。

You have an AI girlfriend, AI boyfriend, and because it's like the degree to which that shifts is that's one of the other reasons that people write and share online, is because we're trying to create connections with each other, right? I mean, I don't think that will ever disappear. I hope it never disappears. I still like connecting with people. So, I think that'll continue to drive a lot of activity.

但我向朋友和顾问们提出的问题是：如果谷歌Gemini大幅减少搜索流量，导致公开平台失去发布内容的吸引力，人们是否会退缩到私人空间？我常举的例子是推特——我们已看到推特用户外流，多数人认为他们转向了Blue Sky和Threads，最初也有一部分去了Mastodon。但我认为更多人转到了Discord。这就是公共互联网退缩到私人空间的例证，在那里做真实的自己、展现怪癖、甚至...

But the question I've been posing to friends and advisors is if Google Gemini reduces search traffic enough that there isn't an incentive to post in public, will people retreat in private? And the example I usually give, because we already see this happening, which is we think Twitter there was a Twitter exodus and it went to like most people think, the Twitter exodus went to Blue Sky and to Threads and originally a little bit to Mastodon. I would make the case that a lot of it went to Discord. And that's an example of the public internet retreating into private spaces, where it's safer to be yourself, and to be weird, and to be

还能减少噪音干扰。

and to Also make less noisy.

好吧，我还没见过哪个Discord频道不会让我头疼的。

Well, I've never seen it at a Discord that didn't make my head explode, but.

你应该加入试试。我们为科技爱好者建了一个频道。说真的，我完全认同你的观察——我现在可以几周不推文（现实点说一周），但我整天泡在Discord里。那里确实没那么嘈杂。

Well, you should, I mean, you should join. We have one for big technology subscribers. Think I it's mean, seriously, like, but I was going to say that I've seen exactly the same thing that you've seen is that a lot of my could go weeks now without tweeting or a week, let me be realistic. But I'm in the Discord all the time. And it's just it is less noisy.

氛围更友好。当然不是所有频道都这样，但确实比推特友善——这也不难做到。信息密度更高，也不会引发疯狂情绪，毕竟没有那个让人抓狂的首页推送。

It's friendlier. Not all of them are, but it is friendlier than Twitter, which it's easy to be friendlier than Twitter. And it's more information dense and less madness inducing because you don't have that Home tab driving you Right.

好吧，你说服我了。聪明人都该加入大科技Discord。

All right. You've convinced me. Smart people join the big technology Discord.

你在这里最先听到的。

You heard it here first.

是啊，我并不担心什么文明终结之类的。我只是觉得互联网现在正经历巨大转变。没错，这可能是即将发生的转变之一——如果公共讨论的激励消失，人们就会转向其他方式来获得他们过去得到的东西。

Yeah, I think I'm not worried about, like, the end of civilization or something. I just think the Internet is shifting a lot right now. Right. That's probably one of the shifts that will happen, is if you don't if the incentives for public discussion disappear, you're going to see people shift into different ways to get kind of the same thing that they had been getting.

嗯。关于AI伴侣这件事很有意思。你表达的方式让我好奇，因为这并不一定是偏好问题。人们并非更喜欢AI女友而非人类伴侣，更多只是当那些关系不存在时的一种替代。

Yeah. On the AI relationship thing, it's interesting. I'm curious about the way that you put it because it's not necessarily a preference. The people prefer AI girlfriends over human girlfriends and boyfriends. It's more just like it's a substitute when those relationships are not there.

当然。对。没错。

Sure. Right. Right.

我在想内容方面是否也有类似说法。

Wonder if something can be said for content as well.

是啊，可以说是'既要又要'对吧？我觉得现在有很多占位内容，你知道的，用来消磨时间，但算不上深刻实质性体验的巅峰。我认为人际关系中是这样，某些写作中也是如此。

Yeah, it could be a yes and, right? Yeah, I think there's a lot of placeholder content. Fill, you know, fill your time, but it's not the pinnacle of a deep, substantial experience. I think that's true in human relationships, and it's, I think, true in certain writing.

嗯。目前是这样。让我们看看事情如何发展。好吧，我想聊聊你们Medium采取的策略——之前马修·普林斯坐在这把椅子上谈过Cloudflare如何试图强制AI公司为爬取出版商内容付费。你们最近也联合多家机构启动了类似计划。

Yeah. Well, for now. Let's see how things change. Okay, I do want to talk a little bit about the approach that you're taking at Medium to sort of we've had Matthew Prince on is in the same chair talking about how Cloudflare is trying to force AI companies to pay if they want to crawl publisher content. You recently started a similar program along with a number of others.

简单谈谈你们保护内容免受马修人类内容侵害的方法

Talk a little bit about your way to protect the content from Matthew human content

他就像我的英雄。我的看法和他非常相似。所以我想回到这一点，我们现在与AI公司处于对立关系，对吧？一开始就不是合作，而是对抗性的，对吗？

is, like, my hero. I I see it very similarly to how he sees it. And so I think to go back to this, like, we're in antisocial relationships between with the AI companies right now, right? Like, it's not it didn't start collaborative. It started antagonistic, right?

我在他与Cloudflare的联合声明中读到，我们需要让Cloudflare的众多客户能轻松屏蔽所有AI爬虫。如果我们为足够多的内容网站这样做，他们就不得不来谈判。这听起来就像他说的——先要有筹码。其他问题可以稍后解决，但首先你需要足够的筹码让他们坐到谈判桌前。这对我来说完全合理。

So what I read in his announcement with Cloudflare, which was that we need to make it easy at Cloudflare for a lot of our customers to block all the AI crawlers. And if we do that for enough content sites, then they're going to have to negotiate. And it really sounded like what he was saying was leverage first. Like, everything else can be figured out later, but first you need enough leverage to bring them to the table. So, like, that makes perfect sense to me.

我觉得不理想的是，这种做法依赖于单一服务提供商——只有成为Cloudflare客户才能迫使AI公司谈判。Medium确实是Cloudflare的满意客户，我们用它屏蔽所有不能为我们带来流量的爬虫。Cloudflare工具确实很好用，但我始终更倾向开放许可。最近刚推出的RSL就是一个简单的许可标准。

What is not ideal to me is that doing that would rely on a single service provider, that we could only bring them to the table if we're Cloudflare customers. Now, Medium is a Cloudflare customer and a happy one, and we do use Cloudflare to block basically any crawler that isn't crawling in a way that drives traffic back to us, we're blocking right now. And it's because the Cloudflare tools are so good. But I always would have preferred an open license. And so there is one that just launched, a real simple licensing standard RSL.

现在正在形成一个平台和媒体联盟。Quora、Reddit和Yahoo都参与其中，共同发布互联网标准，明确规定我们希望AI公司如何使用（或不使用）我们的内容。当然我们的基本立场会是'不，除非先与我们协商'。但现在至少能以官方形式表达这一立场。

And what it's getting is a coalition of platforms and media properties. Quora and Reddit are part of it. Yahoo is part of it to say, here's an internet standard that we're going to put out that lays out how we want AI companies to use or not use our content. And, you know, of course, the default thing we're going to say is no, we don't like we don't want you to do anything until you talk to us. But at least now we can say that in an official way.

对于那些不尊重规则的AI公司，我们就用Cloudflare等工具屏蔽它们。不过Cloudflare方案对我们还有个问题——他们推出的倡议中包含代谈判收费的条款。Medium可能是唯一想这么做的平台——如果我们从AI公司获得任何报酬，我们会全部返还给创作者。其他平台都在搞私下交易中饱私囊，这让我难以理解。

And for people that are not for AI companies that are not respecting it, then we use tools like Cloudflare to block it. Then there was like then there's this other reason why Cloudflare doesn't work for us, the initiative that they put out, because they have this one where they'll negotiate the payment for you. It's that Medium, I think and I think we're the only platform that wants to do this, is we want if we get any money out of these AI companies, we want to give all of it back to the creators. Like, so far, every other platform has been doing side deals and then just pocketing the money. And, like, I don't know that doesn't make sense to me.

Medium从来不做贩卖数据的生意，这些内容本就不属于我们。我甚至不知道我们怎么能卖掉它，但你知道，其他公司确实在这么做。所以我们...

Medium's never been in the sell your data business anyways, and it's not our like, we don't own this content. I don't know even know how we could sell it, but you know, people are, other companies have tried to do it that way. So we're

还有哪些平台像Reddit一样受欢迎？

Which others like Reddit?

我想是的。新闻稿给人的感觉就是这样。而且，我不知道为什么自己这么爱争论。我们不仅试图让AI公司难堪，还想让其他社交媒体平台难堪，好像我们都有责任代表内容创作者去谈判。我的工作就是为我们的作家争取从这些AI公司获得一些补偿。

I think so, yeah. That's what it, that's what the press releases made it seem like. And so, I think not only I don't know why I'm so combative. It's like not only are we trying to shame the AI companies, we're trying to shame the other, like, social media platforms that, like, it's like, we're all in a position to negotiate on behalf of our content creators. Like, I'm in the business of negotiating for our writers to get some compensation out of these AI companies.

如果我们能做到，本意是将收益直接返还给他们。我的首席财务官每次听我这么说都会抓狂，她会说‘我们难道不应该...’

And if we can do that, the intention is just to pass it directly back to them. My CFO is like, Are you like, like, just shake me every time she hears me say this. She's like, Well, shouldn't we

好吧，把钱收下。

okay Take that money.

不仅如此，关键在于如果我们承担了巨额法律费用，是的，我们会覆盖成本，没问题。但最重要的是我们必须恢复对所有创作者（不仅是作家）的激励，否则他们将会消失。如果我们剥夺所有激励，我们所热爱的这个互联网将会消失。

Not just that, but it's like, Okay, look, if we have, significant legal fees, yes. We'll cover costs fine, fine. But yeah, I think it's just really important that we get back to those incentives for all creators, not just writers. Otherwise, they're going to disappear. Like the thing that we love, this internet, it will disappear if you take all the incentives away.

所以这不仅仅是...实际上我不明白为什么AI公司不更担忧。他们正在一个非常不稳固的基础上构建产品，比如那些基于RAG的新型搜索，它们为你做所有研究，但所引用的信息将逐渐从互联网上消失。ChatGPT在2025年及之前能给你好建议，但之后就不行了。

And so it's not just I actually don't understand why the AI companies aren't more worried. I think they're building something on a very shaky foundation because, like, these new rag based searches where they're doing all this research for you, like, the information they're pulling in, it is literally going to stop showing up on the Internet. And it's like ChatGPT will give you good advice for 2025 and earlier, but nothing beyond that.

我认为他们不在乎，因为他们可以直接雇人写内容。实际上他们已经在通过第三方这么做了，比如Scale公司。所以他们看起来并不太担心。

I don't think they care, because they could just hire people to write directly for them. They're already doing that, basically, through third parties, like with scale. So it doesn't seem like they're too worried.

他们从不表现出对除我之外的任何事情的担忧

They never present as worried about anything other than I

想象一下，当你每年高兴地筹集400亿美元，却在五年间亏损1000亿美元时的心情

guess when you're happy to raise $40,000,000,000 a year and then lose $100,000,000,000 in a five year period.

我不会。你冷静。那种商业模式超出了我的理解范围。不是你的菜

I wouldn't. You chill. That style of business is beyond me. Not your thing.

好的。我想先稍作休息，然后谈谈为什么我作为一个独立出版商，乐意与AI公司合作，甚至愿意让我的内容无偿出现在ChatGPPT这样的平台。当然，我还想简单介绍下Medium是什么，以及它与Substack的区别——我相信很多听众对此有疑问。我们稍后继续

Yeah. All right. I want to take a quick break and then talk to you a little bit about why I, as an independent publisher, am happy to play ball with AI companies and want my stuff to appear even without compensation in places like ChatGPPT. And then, of course, I want to talk to you a little bit about what Medium is and how it's different from Substack, which is something that I'm sure some of our listeners have questions about. So let's do that right after this.

第一资本的科技团队不仅讨论多智能体AI，他们已经部署了一个名为'聊天礼宾'的系统，正在简化购车流程。通过自反思和分层推理结合实时API检查，它不仅帮助买家找到心仪车辆，还能安排试驾、获取贷款预批，并估算置换价值

Capital One's tech team isn't just talking about multi agentic AI. They already deployed one. It's called chat concierge, and it's simplifying car shopping. Using self reflection and layered reasoning with live API checks, it doesn't just help buyers find a car they love. It helps schedule a test drive, get preapproved for financing, and estimate trade and value.

先进、直观且已投入使用。这就是他们的技术实力。这就是第一资本的科技

Advanced, intuitive, and deployed. That's how they stack. That's technology at Capital One.

嘿，科技爱好者们。我是杰森·豪威尔。我是杰夫·贾维斯。在《AI内幕》节目中，我们将带着好奇心和一点幽默感，拨开AI的所有迷雾

Hey, big technology fans. I'm Jason Howell. And I'm Jeff Jarvis. On AI Inside, we cut through all the AI noise with curiosity. And a bit of humor.

每周我们都会花一小时解析那些真正重要的突破性进展，并对其进行现实检验。与Jan Lecun这样的行业先驱和Emily Bender这样的批评家一起。我们与您共同学习，让复杂的人工智能变得易于理解。想要获取启发而非煽动性的人工智能资讯？请在任意播客平台订阅《AI内幕》节目。

Every week, we spend an hour unpacking the breakthroughs that matter, and we reality check them. With industry pioneers like Jan Lecun and critics like Emily Bender. We're learning alongside you, making the complexity of AI make sense to all of us. Want AI news that informs and doesn't inflame? Subscribe to the AI Inside Podcast wherever you get your podcasts.

欢迎回到《大科技播客》，我是主持人，今天与Medium的CEO Tony Stubblebine对话。Tony，在休息前我提到过自己作为独立出版商的情况——我在Medium和Substack都有专栏，而且我希望AI爬虫能抓取我的内容。我觉得如果AI抓取我的内容会是个优势。

And we're back here on Big Technology Podcast with Medium CEO Tony Stubblebine. Tony, before the break, I talked a little bit about how I am an independent publisher. I'm on Medium. I'm on Substack, and I kind of want these AI bots to crawl. I think I'll have an advantage if the AI bots crawl my content.

因为在我看来，越来越多人正通过这些AI聊天机器人获取信息。虽然远未成为主流搜索方式，但ChatGPT已拥有7亿月活（或周活）用户，Gemini也有大量用户，Meta的工具使用量也在上升。

And that is because it seems to me more and more that the way that people are getting information is through these AI chatbots. Not a majority of search by any means. It's not anywhere close. But ChatGPT does have 700,000,000 monthly users or weekly users, and Gemini has lots of users. Meta's tool is starting to increase in usage.

如果越来越多人向这些机器人咨询我涉及的领域，我希望自己的作品能成为信息来源。首先这已开始带来推荐流量——我看到ChatGPT正为《大科技》带来付费订阅用户；其次，创作者的本质诉求就是触达人类读者，而现在这些机器人正成为新渠道。

If people are talking to these bots more and more about things that I cover, I want my work to be a source there, A, because it is already starting to drive some referral traffic. I'm seeing ChatGPT as a source for paid subscribers for big technology. But also, if you think about, again, this reason of why people who write and create content do what they do is they want to have it reach other humans. And now a good channel is through these bots.

根据我们掌握的数据——很乐意分享这个——ChatGPT目前带来的流量约为谷歌的1%，虽然占比不高，但关键是其转化付费订阅的效率是谷歌流量的四倍。从商业角度来说，相当于ChatGPT当前实际价值已是谷歌的4%。我们对增长曲线有些困惑：从去年秋天到今年春天爆发式增长后，现在已趋于平稳。

So here's the I have data, and so happy to share it. ChatGPT is about 1% of what we see from Google right now, so not nothing. But the thing that's really important to us is that it converts into paid subscribers four times higher than Google traffic. So I think it may be more accurate to say for what, you know, from a business standpoint, and like what you're saying too about having paid subscribers, is that ChatGPT is like 4% as big as Google right now already. I don't we're a little bit confused by the growth curve because it was on a tremendous growth curve from the fall of last year to the spring of this year and then leveled out.

很多人说用户都是大学生，开学后数据会回升。但我们并未观察到这种现象——ChatGPT经历急速增长后，至今保持平稳。

And a bunch of people said, oh, it's only it's all college students, and it'll pick back up when school starts again. We haven't seen that. So ChatGPT jumped so fast, and then it's just flat since.

明白了。

Okay.

谷歌几乎完全相反，我对此抱有希望，我认为他们正在表态，你知道，他们不想摧毁互联网，他们会找到某种方式成为世界更好的合作伙伴。但目前看来，我估计我们每从Gemini摘要获得一次点击，就会损失大约100次传统谷歌搜索的点击，这影响巨大。而且比ChatGPT更糟糕的是转化率毫无差异——这些访客并非高意向用户，只是流量突然大幅减少。

Google is almost the opposite, and I'm hopeful, and I think they're making noises that, you know, they don't want to destroy the internet, and they're going to find some way to be a better partner to the world. But right now, know, I would estimate that we lose about 100 clicks from traditional Google search for every one click we get back from a Gemini summary, and that's huge. And what is less good than ChatGPT is that there is no difference in conversion rate. These aren't like somehow higher intent visitors. It's just suddenly a lot less traffic.

我想说的是，即便他们付费，我最感兴趣阅读的许多内容创作者也不会在意。因为大多数网络写作者本就不是为了金钱而写作，他们追求的是认同感。如果失去读者，写作对他们而言就失去了意义。

And I would say my worry is even if they paid, I think a lot of the writing that I'm most interested in reading wouldn't care. It wouldn't be enough because most of the writers on the internet are not even doing it for money. They're doing it for validation. And if they don't get readers, the of the point of it goes away for them.

但我的意思是，通过将作品浓缩进AI答案，他们可能会获得更多读者。为什么他们要拒绝这种可能？

But this is what I'm saying, that they will get maybe even more readers by having their work summarized into an AI answer. Why should they not want that?

这正是我用数据想说明的——ChatGPT可能具有增量效应，像是多了一个流量渠道。但单从谷歌视角来看，它实际上在蚕食流量。大多数网站的谷歌流量整体下降明显，就像Medium观察到的：虽然我们的SEO优化（你之前提到的）确实带动了谷歌流量增长，但Gemini上线后点击率骤降近半。我认为这种此消彼长的关系并不健康。

Well, this is what I was getting at with that data, is that ChatGPT maybe feels additive. It's like, oh, here's another way that another traffic channel. But if you look at it just through the lens of Google, it's diminishing, right? Overall Google traffic to most sites has dropped quite a bit, and like the way that Medium sees it actually is that our SEO optimizations, which you were noting earlier, have been effective enough to grow Google traffic, but that the click through rate when Gemini launched dropped nearly in half. And so I think that that trade off is not a good trade off.

我们面临的是100:1的劣势。

It's 100 to one against us.

让我这样问你：如果像你说的，大多数人写作是为了获得认同或连接，那么读者是否实际访问他们的网站还重要吗？既然核心需求是连接和认同——我提出这点是因为值得深入探讨

Let me run this by you. If most people, like you say, are writing for validation or connection, does it matter that people are going to their actual website or reading their thoughts and experiences at all? Because if it's really connection and validation, and I'm just throwing this out there because it's worth talking through

这个很微妙。我们需要把问题彻底厘清。

Well, we've to It's subtle. We have to tease it all out,

那么他们正在获取这些内容。他们的论点只是被分发，而不是通过ChatGPT展示在他们的网站上，人们仍然在阅读那些内容。

Then for they're getting that. Their arguments are just being distributed instead of their website through ChatGPT, where people are still reading that.

你认为你会改变写作方式，减少深度，更注重那些能通过AI摘要传播的、具有病毒式传播潜力的想法吗？

Do you think you'll change how you write to focus less on depth and more on of a meme able idea that can travel through the AI summaries?

所以我会说不。实际上，对我来说，今年表现最好的文章——虽然不总是这样——是我写的这篇人物特稿。

So I would say no. To me, actually, best performing story, and it's not always like this, but the best performing story that I wrote this year has been this profile that I wrote on.

达里奥

The Dario

那篇关于Anthropic公司CEO达里奥·阿门德的文章。它通过所有渠道传播——Substack、Medium，谢谢你们在Medium上重点推荐了它。

piece. Dario Amende, the Anthropic CEO. And that went through all channels. So through Substack, through Medium, thank you. You guys highlighted it on Medium.

你是说Medium上的SEO效果更好。

And the SEO is better on Medium, you're saying.

是的，Medium的SEO非常棒。显然我们还上传到YouTube，做成播客。不是每篇你花几个月心血的文章都能有这样的回报，这确实令人沮丧。但当它成功时，感觉棒极了。所以对我来说，这或许指明了方向。

Yeah, great SEO on Medium. Obviously, put on YouTube, we put on the podcast. You don't always get that return on a story that you work a couple months for, and that's really frustrating. But when it works, it's really great. So that, to me, was indicative of maybe that's the direction.

这种由AI引擎生成并推送的模因化内容创作理念，对我来说没那么有吸引力吧。

And this idea of writing this memeable content that gets produced, that gets put forward in AI engines is less exciting to me, I guess.

我在媒体行业的起点是为科技出版社O'Reilly工作，那时Stack Overflow还不存在。可以说，互联网是由书架上摆着O'Reilly书籍的人构建起来的。没错，我亲身经历了那个时代。

Well, I got my start in media essentially working for this tech publisher, O'Reilly, back before Stack Overflow existed. Like, the internet was built by people that had O'Reilly books on their shelf. Right? Oh, yeah. And I was there in that era.

创始人Tim O'Reilly让我欣赏的是，他的业务本质是销售最深入的信息——汇集顶尖作者和技术评论家的精品书籍，质量极高。但他同时也在从事概念命名，因为他认为如果能定义概念，就能围绕它建立商业体系。比如O'Reilly就创造了'Web'这个术语

And what I liked about the founder, Tim O'Reilly, is, like, you know, essentially the business was selling the most in-depth information possible, like the best books with the best, like the best authors and the best tech reviewers, like really good, high quality stuff. But he was also in the business of trying to name things, because he thought, I think, if he could name it, he could then build a business, you know, underneath it. So like O'Reilly coined the phrase Web

Web二点零

Web two point point

随后还配套举办了相关会议。现代互联网有时会双向运作，有人专精某个领域，但确实两种方式都能有效改变人们的观念。

zero. And then had a conference business behind it, right? Yeah. And so it is the modern internet kind of works both ways sometimes, and maybe sometimes people specialize, but it is true that both ways can be powerful ways to kind of get that validation of you change people's minds.

是的，我2022年去过Tim在奥克兰的家——算来已是三年前了。当时我为Medium写的文章提到：'Tim O'Reilly创造了Web2.0概念，他认为Web3的炒作很天真'。现在看来他的判断是对的。

Yeah, I went and visited Tim in his Oakland home a couple of years ago. It's 2022, so three years ago already. And the story I wrote and I wrote it for Medium was Tim O'Reilly coined web two point o. He thinks web three hype is naive. I think he was he was right.

他说得对。他当时问：'如果泡沫破裂，那些无聊猿NFT还会有价值吗？'事实证明并没有。Tim的预见性一直很准。

He's right. He said, if the bubble if bubble pops, are we going to find value in those bored apes? I don't think we did. So I'm okay. Tim has been right about things for a while.

是的，为了一个

Yeah, for a

很长时间。但你知道吗，这很有趣。我正在看这个故事，它发表在Medium上，这是Medium当时运营的一个项目，目的是吸引记者和类似背景的人专门为Medium写作。这个项目现在已经不存在了。所以很明显，从外部看，Substack已经崛起并吸收了很多这种能量。

long time. But you know what, it's interesting. I'm looking at this story and it's on Medium and it was part of this program that Medium was running to get, I guess, journalists and folks of that nature to write exclusively for Medium. And that has since gone away. And so obviously, I'd say looking from the outside, it seems like Substack has emerged and picked up a lot of that energy.

这让我不禁思考Medium的定位是什么，以及Medium想要服务谁。既然我现在正坐在Medium的CEO对面，我觉得这是个很好的提问机会。

And it leaves me wondering what Medium is for and who Medium wants to serve. And now that I'm sitting across from the CEO of Medium, I thought this would be a good opportunity to ask.

我认为Medium是普通人写作的地方，互联网上确实需要专业写作者的空间，而且令人惊讶的是这类写作者正在不断增长。但这些人应该使用专业工具，我认为Substack就是其中之一。Patreon、Kit、Gumroad对吧？这些都是让你职业化的途径。但普通人、大多数人并不想辞去日常工作成为内容创作者。

I think Medium is a place for real people to write, and I think that there is a space on the internet for professional writers, and it's kind of amazing how that class of writers is growing right now. But those people should be using specialized tools, and I think Substack is one of them. Patreon, Kit, Gumroad, right? Like, these are all paths to professionalize your life. But your average person, most people, the majority of people are not trying to quit their day job to be content creators.

在我们看来，互联网已经转向服务于内容工厂、内容创作者和独立媒体人——这类身份你完全符合，

And what it looked like to us is that the internet had really shifted to serve content mills, content creators, independent media people, like, which you would qualify for,

没错，绝对是这个类别。你已经进入这个领域了。不是内容工厂，而是独立创作者。

Yeah, definitely in that category. You've gone into it. Not content mill, but independent creators.

明确地说，你属于行业人士对吧？你一定感受到很多机会，不必在那种可能压抑且不总是稳定的大企业生态系统中从事你的职业，对吧？

You qualify as industry, to be clear, right? And you must like feel like so much opportunity that you don't have to be, you know, like doing your profession in this like big corporate ecosystem that maybe is like stifling and also not always stable. Right?

这本书不错。

That's a good read.

但那不是互联网的主体，也不是我爱上互联网的部分。我爱上的是这样一种理念：每个人在生活中自然学到的点滴都值得分享，并能给他人带来价值。我们多次提到‘验证’这个词——这实际上是对生活本身的肯定。有时这些经验可能微不足道，但正如蒂姆·奥莱利教会我的：你不会找记者来写编程书籍。

But that's not the majority of the internet, and that's not the part of the internet that I fell in love with. What I fell in love with was the idea that every single person is learning something just through the act of their life that's worth sharing and that other people would get value from. Like, we threw the word validation around a couple of times. Like, that's really validating just about the act of living. And sometimes the lessons are quite trivial, but this is the thing I learned from Tim O'Reilly, is you don't get a journalist to write a book about programming.

你会让程序员来写编程书籍。这就像...我能够学会工作技能，是因为比我更擅长这个的人恰好在网上分享——这才是互联网上最具商业价值的内容。说实话，对于那些想靠这个谋生的人，那些拥有顶尖工作的人分享经验才是最赚钱的，因为读者愿意为此付费。发布者通过声誉间接获利，很多优秀作者这么做是为了吸引人才，相当于在打广告说'我是个好老板'。也有人选择独立发展，成为商业顾问之类。

You get a programmer to write a book about programming. That's like, that's not that idea of I could learn how to do my job because someone else who's better at my job just happens to be writing about it on the internet, like, that's the most commercially viable content on the internet. Like, I hate to break it to you, to anyone that's, like, trying to, like, make a go of it. Dude, like, people with killer jobs sharing how to do it, like, everyone makes money on that because it's like the readers want to pay for it. The people publishing it, they get paid in the secondary, like they get paid on reputation, they get paid a lot of times, they're just a lot of great writers are doing it to try to get people to come work for them, so they're advertising like, hey, I'm a good person to work for, or they go independent, and they're working as like business consultants or whatnot.

这类人根本不想陷入内容生产的流水线，因为他们的价值恰恰来自不参与这种循环。他们扎根于现实生活。我始终更愿意倾听那些忙于生活、无暇钻研网络游戏规则的人。在Medium时我做的最重要决策（基于我担任CEO前作为合伙人的经验）就是明确转型：我们专注服务真实平凡的普通人——但这绝不意味着平庸。

So like that group is not trying to be be on the content treadmill, Cause by definition, their value comes from not being on the content treadmill. It comes from being, like, living somewhere, right? Like, and I just I'd always rather hear from someone that's so busy living that they don't have time to learn all these Internet games. And so, like, the the number one thing I did with at Medium, which was all based on lessons that had I'd learned by being a partner to Medium before I was the CEO, is just to switch us and be clear. We're not, we're focused on real people and regular people, which does not mean average.

他们中很多人见识非凡。只要我们能为他们提供最佳写作平台，就能获得成功。至于专业阶层，你们是我们社区虽小但受欢迎的一部分，但并非核心。

I mean, a lot of them are spectacularly informed. But if we can serve them and be the best place for them to write, then we're golden. And so then all of this, like the professional class, you're a small but welcome part of our community, but not the core of it.

确实，程序员最适合写编程内容这点我并不意外。Substack排行榜就是明证——前三名中两位是写工程学的Gergey Orsos和写系统论的Alex Zhu。你的意思是：与其吸引那些离职转行做专职内容创作的程序员，你更希望留住仍在全职编程的人，把Medium当作分享专业知识的平台，而非职业内容创作者的跳板——所以他们不会去开Substack。

Yeah, no, it's not news to me that the programmers are the best folks to write about programming because, I mean, the proof is that if you look at the Substack Leaderboard, actually, they're two of the top three are Gergey Orsos and Alex Zhu, who both write about, Gergey writes about engineering, Alex writes about systems. So what you're saying is instead of having the people who've left like those programming jobs and want to do that professionally, you would rather have like one programmer who is doing this full time look at Medium as a place to write about something that they know expertly, but without the interest of being a professional content creator, so they wouldn't want to start a substack.

日常写作需要刻意制造话题，而我更欣赏那些无需强求的创作者。就像有话说就说，没话就沉默——这种节奏才是健康的。

There's a skill in being an everyday writer, is that you have to manufacture something to write about. And I like hearing from people that didn't have to, like, manufacture It's just like when you have something to say, say it. And if it's a while till you have something to say again, that's fine too. That's healthy.

是的。我是说，Medium最初对我来说就是这样的用途。我一直在Medium上写作，现在是2025年，大概从2010、2011年就开始了。那时候我还不是专业作家，我是做市场营销和销售的。

Yeah. I mean, was my original use case for Medium. I've been writing on Medium, so it's 2025, I think since twenty ten, 'eleven. And it was these I was not a professional writer. I was marketing and sales.

当时只是写些零散文章，觉得可能会有人感兴趣。我用过很多平台，Medium、Tumblr之类的。但我会把一些好内容，甚至是我最满意的作品放在Medium上，因为我知道那里的算法可能会推给更多人看。这和Twitter配合得很好。我想正是这些内容让我后来被BuzzFeed录用，成为旧金山的一名记者。

And just doing these one offs, that I observed that I thought might be interesting. I was using a lot of different platforms, Medium and Tumblr and stuff. But I was putting some good stuff, I think some of my best stuff on Medium because I knew that there was a chance that that algorithm would show it to more people. It worked well with Twitter. And I think it's actually what got me like when I got hired at BuzzFeed to be a reporter in San Francisco.

那时我还在《广告时代》当记者，但我很确定是Medium上的那些文章引起了编辑们的注意，才让我得到了这份全职工作。

I was a reporter at Ad Age at the time, but I'm pretty sure it was the stuff I was writing on Medium that caught the attention of the editors there and got me that full

写作就像是通用作品集。科技带来的创新之一就是人们开始从简历转向作品集。GitHub是工程师的作品集，Dribbble是设计师的作品集。

time job. Writing is like the universal portfolio. And that is also one of the innovations of tech is that people start moving from resumes to portfolios. GitHub is a portfolio for engineers. Dribbble is a portfolio for designers.

如果这些不适合你，就写写你的工作内容，那也能成为你的作品集。我喜欢雇佣那些能让我通过文字了解他们思考方式和解决问题方法的人。这比他们之前在哪里工作、简历上列了什么要点要有价值得多。

But if those don't work for you, just write about your job, and that can be a portfolio for you. And I like, I love to hire people who I can read how they think and how they approach a problem. Like, that's way more informative than where they had worked, right, and what bullet points they put on their resume.

是啊，但是呢？我的反驳观点是，互联网上还是需要新闻的。让我们好好讨论下这个，因为在我看来，Medium历史上最重要的时刻之一...我很好奇你怎么看，就是当时亚马逊的Jay Carney还是奥巴马的...不对，他当时在为奥巴马工作。Jay Carney在那来回交锋的时候。

Yeah. But what? My counterpoint would be that you need news a like You need news on the internet. Well, think So actually, let's talk this through, because to me, one of the biggest moments of medium history I'm curious what you think about this was when was it Jay Carney at Amazon and Obama or no, he was working for Obama. Jay Carney was doing this back and forth.

让我确认下我记得对不对。看来我真是暴露年龄了，因为具体细节已经记不清了。

Let me make sure I have this right. Now I see I'm really showing because I can't remember exactly what happened.

我觉得自己似乎会在媒体谜题的某个关键环节上栽跟头。

I feel like I have to feel like I might fall down on some key part of media mystery here.

好吧好吧。事情是这样的：《纽约时报》曾报道亚马逊员工在工位上哭泣的新闻。是的。

Okay. Okay. So, all right, here it was. The New York Times wrote a story about how people at Amazon were crying at their desks. Yeah.

整场论战实际上是在Medium平台上展开的——亚马逊公关负责人杰伊·卡尼发表了《纽约时报没告诉你的事》，时任编辑迪恩·麦凯对此作出回应，随后卡尼又针对麦凯的文章发表了评论。

And the entire battle back and forth actually happened on Medium, where Jay Carney, the person running public affairs at Amazon Yeah. Wrote this post what The New York Times didn't tell you. Then Dean McKay, the editor at the time, wrote a response to that. And then there's Jay Carney. He wrote a comment based off of what Dean McKay wrote.

这一切都发生在Medium上。最让我感兴趣的是，由于新闻正在平台上实时发酵，这种紧迫感促使人们像卡尼和麦凯那样激烈交锋时，会激发你在Medium上发表观点的欲望，因为你清楚这里具备引爆话题的潜力。不过或许这只是我从记者视角的片面看法，未能看清全局。

All this happened on Medium. And the interesting thing to me is that there was the urgency there because the news was taking place on it. And that when you saw people like Jay Carney and Dean McKay going back and forth, it made you want to write stuff on Medium because you knew it had that ability to blow up. But maybe I'm just looking at that from a journalist perspective, and I'm not seeing the big picture. Well,

这正是Medium偶尔会呈现的互联网评论版氛围——要知道杰伊·卡尼并非在经营粉丝群体，也不是日常内容创作者。这其实是Medium的使用场景之一，只不过不属于日常高频用例。试问每月有多少人会在Medium上参与公共论战呢？

this is the of the op ed of the internet sort of vibe that Medium sometimes has, where, you know, Jay Carney is not building an audience. He's not hustling to be an everyday content creator. That's actually this is one of the use cases. For Medium, it's just not the daily use case, right? Like, how Like, how many people per month on Medium are fighting some, you know, public dust up?

其实非常少。我甚至一个月都注意不到这类事件。但既然你提到这种模式——确实，杰夫·贝索斯就曾在Medium上自曝婚外情对吧？因为《国家问询报》即将曝光此事。我还见过托尼·罗宾斯在平台上为他辩护。

You know, very few. Like, I don't even think this doesn't even cross my radar, like, once a month. But now that you, like, bring it up as a pattern, yeah, I mean, look, Jeff Bezos had an affair that he posted about on Medium, right? And because it was about to leak through the National Enquirer, I've seen Tony Robbins defend him.

那算是婚外情吗？还是说...是些不雅照片之类的东西？

Was it an affair, or was it Maybe something. Lewd photos or something?

抱歉，杰夫·贝佐斯。

I'm sorry, Jeff Bezos.

说到好文章，这确实是一篇相当不错的贝佐斯风格文章。我是说，贝佐斯是个很棒的作家。没错，写得非常好。至少我是这么认为的，我说的是标题部分。

It was really was actually quite a good Bezos, speaking of good writing. I mean, Bezos is a great writer. Exactly. That was very well written. I think it was anyway, I say the title.

我觉得确实如此

I think it was so

看到Carta的CEO以那种方式使用Medium平台，你知道的，这种情况时有发生。我认为关键在于，能找到一个根据内容本身价值来提升曝光度的平台，而不是基于你已经积累了多少读者群，这很棒。所以对于只有一件重要事情要写的人来说，这里确实是个理想的发布地。我在想，对我们而言最具新闻价值的内容就是新冠疫情初期，因为当时有很多非常重要的疫情信息来自那些——谢天谢地——不玩读者增长游戏，而是进行深度研究分析后发布在Medium上的人。

much As seeing the CEO of Carta, you know, use Medium that way, I mean, it happens. And I think it's like, what's nice is to go to a platform that's going to elevate a story based on the merit of that story rather than how much audience you've already built. So it is actually like a good place to just land if you have just one major thing to write. And I was thinking, for us, what we would say the most newsworthy stuff was the start of COVID, because there was a lot of really big COVID information that was coming from people, thankfully, who weren't in the audience building game, but were doing pretty deep research and analysis and posting it on Medium.

是的，我记得读过那些文章，非常精彩。作为一个快乐的Medium用户、发布者和读者，我想感谢你抽时间交流。我认为你们已经实现盈利，而且这个平台会持续发展下去。

Yeah, I remember reading those posts. It was fascinating. Well, as a happy Medium user, publisher and reader, I want to say thank you for your time. And I think you're profitable and it's not going anywhere.

比那更好。我们经历了一段艰难时期，但走出来了。实现盈利后，我们现在想说的是：我们并不打算参与创作者经济的竞争。

It's better than that. I think it's like we had a rough stretch. We got out of it. We were profitable. And then this, like, we're trying to say, like, we're not competing with the creator economy.

有件事人们可能没注意到：在Medium上写作的人数一度停滞不前，但在我们摆脱了那个本不想参与的奇怪竞争后，现在写作者数量比1月1日时增长了50%。现在我们又回归初心——成为让人能安心开始写作，无需顾虑其他琐事的平台。

And for a while, one of the things that people don't see is how many people are writing on Medium. It had been flat during our struggles, and it's like our writer numbers are 50% higher than they were on January 1, and that's because we got out of, kind of being in this weird competition that we didn't want to be in. And now we're back to just being like a place to just go and start writing and not having to worry about all that other stuff.

是的，这很有趣，因为对我来说，Medium在大型科技公司之后，是我的第一份合同。对。所以与Medium签约的那一刻，我第一次觉得这事可能能成。那是在2020年。

Yeah, it's interesting because for me, so Medium, after starting big technology, Medium was my first contract. Yeah. So that was signing a contract with Medium was like the first moment where I was like, maybe this will work. Yeah. That was in 2020.

然后你来了，取消了合同。我说，你知道吗？

Then you came in and canceled it. And I said, you know what?

不是我取消的。但我同意取消。不，不，这本来就不合适。

I'm not the one who canceled it. But I agree with the cancellation. No, no. It wasn't right

对我们来说。你一来，我参与的项目就没了。你知道我当时说什么吗？

for us. Once you came in, the program that I was in went away. And you know what I said?

真的吗？

Really?

我说，不过没关系，因为这是那种我显然希望能继续的事，我现在还在Medium上发表文章，只是没那么频繁。我本希望能继续下去。但看到你现在的方向，听你讲述——因为我们已经聊过几次，包括在Mike节目内外——你选择这个方向而非其他可能，确实很有道理。而且也没必要再做一个追逐Substack的创作者经济公司，谁想干那个呢。

I said, it's fine though, because it's one of those things where I was like, I obviously would love to have kept, and I'm still publishing on Medium, just not as much. I would have loved to have kept going. But now seeing the direction you've gone, hearing you talk through, because we've spoken a couple of times now, both on Mike and not, it makes a lot of sense that you're taking it this direction as opposed to what could have been. Yeah. And also ran creator economy company that's just running after the substacks and who wants to do that.

是啊。总之，我觉得因为我们雇了那么多记者又解雇他们，留下了些不良情绪，这跟你没关系。

Yeah. So anyway, yeah. I wish, I think because we had hired so many journalists and then let them go, there's this lingering bad blood, which you're not I presenting

不，我真的没有，我尊重你们选择的方向。我没有任何恶意，我认为我们双方的事业都很好。

do not, I seriously don't, I respect the direction that you guys went. I have no bad blood and I think both of our businesses are okay.

是的，我总是试图保持一种'是的，而且'的态度。就像，是的，我希望专业媒体能够存在并蓬勃发展。而Medium有不同的商业模式。我们不是实现这一目标的人。所以，这很好

Yeah, I want to always try to have some yes and. It's like, yes, I want professional media to exist and thrive. And Medium has a different business. We're not the ones that are going to make that happen. So Well, it's good

看到一切按计划进行很高兴，祝你们在继续对抗AI奴役的斗争中好运。我

to see everything going as planned, and good luck on your continuing fight against AI slavery. I

非常感谢。好的。很棒的讨论。谢谢

appreciate it. Alright. Great discussion. Thank you

好的，感谢大家的参与。网站是medium.com，去看看吧。好的。感谢大家的收听。

for Alright, having everybody. The website's medium.com. Go check it out. Alright. Thank you all for listening.

我们下次在《大科技》播客中再见。

We'll see you next time on big technology podcast.