我们如何使用ChatGPT，Meta的新AI眼镜，吉米·坎摩尔会被封杀吗？

OpenAI和Anthropic的新数据揭示了人们实际如何使用他们的聊天机器人。Meta的新AI眼镜已经问世。它们是通往超级智能的道路吗？另外，你真的能取消吉米·坎摩尔的节目吗？我们将在周五的大型科技播客节目中讨论这些话题，马上回来。

New data from OpenAI and Anthropic reveals how people are actually using their chatbots. Meta's new AI glasses are here. Are they the road to superintelligence? Plus, can you actually cancel Jimmy Kimmel? We'll talk about it on a big technology podcast Friday edition right after this.

Oktane是顶级的身份认证盛会，汇聚全球顶尖人才探讨安全访问的未来。现代身份安全架构的关键不是将安全整合到单一平台，而是统一防御体系。在Oktane，您将学习如何将该架构扩展到所有类型的身份，包括新兴的AI代理威胁。9月亲临拉斯维加斯参会，或在线观看主题演讲和分会场。注册并查看完整议程，请访问okta.com/oktane。

Oktane is the premier identity event, bringing together the world's leading minds to discuss the future of secure access. Instead of consolidating security into a single platform, a modern identity security fabric is the key to unifying your defenses. At Oktane, you'll learn how to extend that fabric across all types of identities, including the emerging threat of AI agents. Join in person in Las Vegas from September, or catch the keynotes and sessions online. To register and see the full agenda, visit okta.com/oktane.

网址是0kta.com/0ktane。

That's 0kta.com/0ktane.

您已习惯通过我的声音收听来自全球各地的访谈节目。

You're used to hearing my voice on the world bringing you interviews from around the globe.

而您常听到我报道环境与气候新闻。我是卡罗琳·比勒。

And you hear me reporting environment and climate news. I'm Carolyn Beeler.

我是马可·沃曼。现在我们将共同为您主持《世界》节目，以全新的声音呈现更多全球新闻报道。

And I'm Marco Worman. We're now with you hosting the world together. More global journalism with a fresh new sound.

请在当地公共广播电台或任何您收听播客的平台收听《世界》节目。

Listen to the world on your local public radio station and wherever you find your podcasts.

欢迎收听《大科技》播客周五特别版，我们将以一贯冷静细致的风格解读新闻。今天节目精彩纷呈，因为我们获得了来自OpenAI和Anthropic的大量新数据，揭示了聊天机器人的各种应用场景，这些数据或许能解答我们节目中长期争论的某些问题。我们还将探讨Meta新款AI眼镜的发布过程——虽然现场演示出了些状况，但我们会分析这款产品的未来走向。此外，吉米·坎摩尔秀的停播（或暂停）事件也值得讨论，在这个网络渠道如此丰富的时代，'停播'是否还保留着传统意义？一如既往，周五节目我们邀请到了《边际》的兰詹·罗伊。

Welcome to Big Technology podcast Friday edition where we break down the news in our traditional, cool headed, and nuanced format. We have a great show for you today because we have a boatload of new data from OpenAI and Anthropic looking at all the different uses of chatbots, some data that may settle some debates we've been having on the show for quite some time. We'll also talk about the rollout of Meta's new AI glasses, some live demo trouble, but we'll talk about what the where the product is going, and we'll also discuss the canceling or the pausing of Jimmy Kimmel's show, and really whether cancellation has the same meaning these days given the outlets available online to continue conversation. It's gonna be a great show. Joining us as always on Friday is Ranjan Roy of Margins.

兰詹，见到你真高兴。

Ranjan, great to see you.

幸会。简直难以置信，OpenAI刚刚引用了你的博客文章《生成式AI的三种应用场景》。我们稍后会深入讨论，但当我读到那份研究报告时，天啊，我甚至怀疑是不是GPT-5直接消化了《大科技》的博客内容，然后生成了这个分析框架。

Good to see you. I can't believe it. OpenAI just lifted your blog post, three ways people are using generative AI. We're gonna get into it, but when I was reading that research, oh man, I was like, did did GPT five just ingest the big technology blog and come up with here's, here's how we want to structure this.

说实话，我读报告时的反应是：这不就是OpenAI研究版《生成式AI三阶段论》吗？终于能基于真实数据展开讨论让我兴奋不已，让我们直入主题吧。OpenAI本周发布的这篇《人们如何使用ChatGPT》文章中，我自然最关心的是：关于AI陪伴功能的数据如何？

I have to be honest. I read that and I was like, that is the three phases of generative AI post just coming out in OpenAI research. So I'm so excited to be able to talk about the data because we finally do have, some real data and let's get right into it. So OpenAI releases this post this week how people are using ChatGPT. I, of course, was like, well, what's going on with the companionship side of things?

这方面我们确实也掌握了实际数据。根据报告原文显示：ChatGPT的用户对话主要围绕日常任务展开，四分之三的对话涉及实用指导、信息查询和文书写作——其中文书写作是最常见的工作场景，而编程和自我表达仍属小众需求。实用指导、信息查询和文书写作这三大主题合计占比近80%，其中实用指导包含家教辅导、各类主题的实操建议以及创意构思等应用场景。

And we actually have real data on that as well, but here is here's directly from the post. It says ChatGPT consumer usage is largely about getting everyday tasks done. Three quarters of conversations focus on practical guidance, seeking information, and writing, with writing being the most common work task, while coding and self expression remain remain niche activities. Practical guidance, seeking information, and writing are the three most common topics and collectively account for nearly 80% of all conversations. Practical guidance is the most common use case and includes activities like tutoring and teaching, how to advice about a variety of topics, and creative ideation.

那么兰吉特，我想听听你的看法：对于这些ChatGPT的主流应用场景你有何见解？既然机会难得，我再追加个问题——看到这些数据时我突然意识到：生成式AI对话与传统搜索对我来说始终是截然不同的体验。

So, Ranjit, I just wanna turn this over to you. What do you think about the fact that these are the most common use cases of ChatGPT? And I'll just add on another question because why not? When I saw this, I said, you know what? Chat, like chat with generative AI and search, have always felt like completely different things to me.

或许这正印证了那个终极命题：谷歌真的会被淘汰吗？为何谷歌能保持现有优势？为何生成式AI可能不似长期渲染的那般构成直接威胁？

And maybe this is some evidence for, like, this bigger overriding question of is Google toast? Why Google is seeing the success it is and why generative AI might not be the direct threat it was portrayed as for so long.

我要对此提出异议。你认为寻求信息的实用指导与传统搜索有何本质区别？这不正是传统搜索的主要或至少是重要组成部分吗？

I'm gonna push back on that. How do you see practical guidance in seeking information is distinct from traditional search? Like, wouldn't that be the main or at least a very large component of overall traditional search?

好的，观点很对。寻求信息无疑就是搜索，对吧？这毫无疑问属于搜索范畴。

Okay. Good point. Seeking information definitely is search. Right? That is without a doubt search.

但关键在于实用指导位居首位——之前存在一个误解，认为AI不过是搜索的翻版，是搜索的重构。这种观点可能源自出版商们的焦虑：我们的流量去哪了？而实用指导成为首要需求时，比如你可以直接问ChatGPT'我遇到这种情况该怎么办'——无论是工作、健康、人际关系还是健身问题（这个我们稍后会详谈）——

But the fact that practical guidance is number one, like I think there was a a misconception that AI was going to be just like search redone, a refactoring of search. And it's probably led by publishers who are like, where's our traffic going? But the fact that practical guidance is number one, where you can go to and we're gonna talk about it more, but you can go to ChatGPT and say, I'm facing this situation. What should I do? Whether that's a work situation, a health situation, a relationship situation, getting fit, which we're gonna talk about.

这在我看来是全新的应用场景。此前网络上根本不存在这种体验。

That to me is a brand new use case. You just have not had that online at all.

不不不，回溯2010年代初的媒体创业潮，当时就有Howcast这样的平台专门制作短视频，提供各种'如何...'的实用指导内容。

No. No. No. No. If you think back, there was I remember in the like February or early twenty tens media and startup days, there was entire there's one Howcast where it was just all short form video that would just do how to videos like how to do basically small elements of practical guidance.

所以这始终是核心需求，特别是那些高度SEO优化的流量。所有试图获取流量的出版商都在围绕'如何...'问题做文章。我想说的是...等等

So this was a core component, especially like very SEO optimized traffic. Again, every publisher that was trying to like pull in traffic, it was around these how to questions. So I think I I would start No. Hold on.

这正是我的论点：出版从业者主导了'AI是搜索自然演进'的叙事（出版界往往掌握话语权），他们说'我们早就做过这个，这就是搜索的变体'。但区别在于——Howcast需要人工生产所有内容，而现在是通过技术方案实现实用指导，这是前所未有的突破。

That's exactly the point I'm making here, which is that this has been a the belief that that AI is the natural inherited research has been driven in part by people who work in publishing, which is a place that the narratives tend to come out of. Who have said, we've done this before, and this is search, and this is taking search. The difference is you had to create all that content on Howcast. This is a technological solution to practical guidance, and that's emergent. That's something that we haven't had previously.

这是全新的技术。因此对我来说，与其说它是搜索技术的替代品，不如说这是在实用指导领域的一个全新技术层级。事实上，我甚至可以说——这可能有些争议——但我觉得它比Howcast和eHow做得更好。我无意冒犯曾为这些网站工作过的人，它们本质上是SEO的产物。

It's brand new. And so to me, this idea that it's a technology replacement to search comes second to this idea that this is a brand new technology layer on the practical guidance front. And in fact, I would say, maybe this is controversial, but I think this does a better job than those Howcast and eHow. I I and no offense to anybody who's worked on those websites before. They are a creation of SEO.

没有谷歌它们就不会存在，而且质量并不高。就像，我不认为会有哪位功成名就的校友返校做毕业演讲时说：'我要感谢eHow团队，我所有问题都是通过eHow解决的'。实际上它最多能帮你解决三分之二的水槽修理问题。

They would not exist without Google, and they're not very good. Like, I don't think anyone, you know, going giving their their, coming back to a college giving the commencement address, somebody super successful. You know it says hey I want to just thank the people at eHow. Know, I had all these problems and I figured out everything on eHow. No, it was just like it could get you maybe two thirds of the way to fixing your sink.

当我回顾人生中取得的所有成就时，我要感谢Ehow、Howcast、Ask Jeeves等所有平台。是的，我想...

When I look back at all the success I have achieved in my life, I would like to thank Ehow, Howcast, Ask Jeeves, and all the above. Yeah. I think

同学们，你们或许在问'如何'，但你们应该问'eHow'（谐音梗）。

Students students, you you may be asking how, but you should be asking e how.

我们这代人在Z世代听众面前暴露年龄了，但这些网站确实曾盛极一时。言归正传，我觉得他们在区分这些概念时仍存在困难——实用指导和信息检索的界限其实非常模糊。

We're dating ourselves for any, gen z listeners here, but there was a time that these websites were were large and dominant. So, okay. So one thing I'll start to kinda, if we dig in further, practical, the way they start to distinguish these things, I still found a little difficult or problematic. So again, what is the difference between practical guidance and seeking information? Like there's gonna be a lot of blurry lines in there.

写作类目的划分还算清晰，但他们做了更细致的分类。根据你的博客观点，他们将消息分为三种模式：询问（49%）、执行（40%）和表达（11%）。

Writing I think is fairly fairly consistent, but to me, they had gone another level deeper. So they had those as one categorization. But then to me, going back to your blog post, they had three patterns within messages, asking, doing, and expressing. About half of messages, 49% are asking. And then expressing, doing is 40%, expressing is 11%.

这完美对应我们讨论过的思维-行动-陪伴框架。令人惊叹的是，他们看待世界的方式与我们不谋而合。唯一的分歧在于对'执行'的定义——他们认为是通过协助完成流程（如文本起草/编程），而我指的是真正付诸实践的行动。

These fit very neatly into our discussions, your blog post, thinking, doing and companionship. So I think they start it's kind of amazing that they're starting to see the world in the way that we've been talking about this, thinking, doing companionship, or asking, doing, expressing. The only thing for me I wanna start kinda like, I wanna hear your thoughts on, the way they define doing is not how I define it. They define doing as getting help in doing some kind of process, like getting help drafting text or planning or programming. The way I've been discussing this is to me doing is actually going out and doing it.

几周前我曾因行李问题向达美航空投诉，当时用ChatGPT写了邮件并告诉我发送路径，但它最终没有发出邮件。功能已经接近完善，但对我来说，真正的关键在于执行环节。不过除此之外，我很高兴他们开始像我们一样审视这个问题。

I had a complaint with Delta about luggage a few weeks ago and I had chatty p t write the email and tell me where to go, but it didn't send the email. So it's almost there, but it's not to me, that is the real doing. But otherwise, I'm glad they're they're starting to look through this, in the same way we are.

这是个很好的观点，我要进一步延伸。这些正是人们使用生成式AI或ChatGPT的任务类型——49%属于咨询类，我认为这应该归入'思维伙伴'类别。

Well, that that's a great point and I'm gonna take it one step further. Right? So this is these are the tasks that people are coming to generative AI or ChatGPT for. 49% is asking. That would be my thought partner, category.

11%是表达类，OpenAI将其定义为既非执行也非咨询，通常涉及情感倾诉或探索娱乐。在我看来这明显属于'陪伴'功能。而执行类应该算作'智能代理'，你说他们对执行类的定义比你理解的代理范畴宽泛得多，我完全同意。

11% is expressing, which OpenAI says is, captures uses that are neither doing, asking nor doing usually involves personal affection or exploration and play. To me, that's companion, obviously. Now doing should be agent. Right? And you're saying that their categorization of doing is actually much broader than you would use for agent, and I would agree.

像用聊天机器人起草文本这类功能，按你的定义来看，如果没有调用工具，就只是普通大语言模型的行为。我认为这项研究故意扩大了代理范畴，我好奇他们为何这样做——答案或许在于数据：ChatGPT绝大多数活动本质上仍是思维伙伴功能。

It seems like some of these things like using the, chatbot for drafting text, let's just go with your definition. If it's not calling a tool, it's just like normal LLM behavior. So I think that what they're doing in this study is expanding their agent category to encompass more than it really should, and I wonder what's why they're doing that. I think I have an answer. I think what we're seeing in the numbers here is the vast majority of activity within ChatGPT is really thought partner.

它本质上是思维伙伴工具。虽然代理功能还处于早期阶段，但他们可能不想让数据暴露其核心定位——特别是在刚发布GPT-5并重点优化代理功能时。这解释了为何老用户与新版本之间存在如此强烈的落差和争议。

It is a thought partner tool. And the agentic stuff, of course, is super early, but they didn't want maybe the numbers. And this is maybe somewhat conspiratorial, but I stand by it. They didn't want the numbers to show how deeply into thought partner they are when they just released a product, GPT five, not only released, tuned their product to the agent use case. To me, this explains why there's been so much, uproar and disappointment and disconnect between the people who've been using the previous models and the people using GPT five.

OpenAI原本拥有成熟的思维伙伴产品，却转向了只占少数的代理功能（深入分析后占比更小）。我认为这是战略问题，企业必须明确方向——三者难以兼顾，即便集成在同一产品中也必须设置模式切换功能。

OpenAI had a thought partner pro product, and they turned it into an agent product, which is, by their definition, a minority of the use uses. And as you look a level deeper, a very small percentage of the uses. And that to me is I think it's a problem, and that's why I think these companies are gonna have to have clarity over which one they're going for. You cannot really do all three. Maybe you can do it in the same product but you definitely need a switcher.

没错。我很认同这个观点，甚至不觉得是阴谋论。考虑到这份Times New Roman字体的PDF文件是以研究论文形式呈现的，我确实好奇他们的真实意图。

Yep. Okay. And I I like this. I don't think that's even conspiratorial. Actually, I will say I do wonder, like, because this was presented as a research paper, you know, and as a PDF in that Times New Roman font and, like, it just looks like a research paper.

你以为没有营销团队在幕后操控。但如果这是一份来自谷歌的精美PDF报告，你可能会觉得，好吧，随便吧，这不真实。或者说这只是营销手段。我其实很好奇像OpenAI这样的组织内部如何从政治角度划分这些发现，因为所有结论确实都在推动他们的商业案例。就像你刚才说的，对‘代理性’给出更宽松的定义，让人觉得他们拥有非常分散的用例，并且正在迈向代理世界，但实际上我们讨论的是他们并非如此。

You assume there's no marketing hand kind of overseeing it. Whereas if this was produced as a slick PDF like from a Google, you would just be like, okay, whatever. This isn't real. Like, or it's just marketing because and I I actually do wonder how that gets like, politically divided within a organization like OpenAI because all of the findings really do help push their business case. Like there's again, like as you said, giving that looser definition of agentic with doing makes it seem like they have very distributed use cases and they are moving towards this world of agent, but where in reality is we're discussing they're not.

他们还有近半数消息来自18至25岁的用户。所以猜怎么着？我们正在吸引年轻群体。人口统计差距正在缩小，现在女性使用率和男性相当，我觉得这挺有意思。或者说——

They also have nearly half of messages come from users aged 18 to 25. So guess what? We're capturing the younger demographic. They have, demographics gaps are shrinking that now women are using it as much as men, which I kind of found interesting Or That was

这是这项研究的主要发现。

the lead finding in this in this study.

是的。但他们明确表示这是在使用传统女性化名字的情况下。他们说：我们实际上没有你的数据，别担心。但我们正在使用——

Yeah. And but they they were very clear that it was like with using traditionally feminine gendered names. Like, they're like, we don't actually have data on you. Don't worry. But we're using

只是但是

just But

他们会

they're gonna

告诉你人们如何使用我们的产品，精确到每分钟，比如微小的百分比。好吧。

tell you exactly how people are using our product down to the minute, like, tiny little percentage. Okay.

没错，完全正确。然后他们提到，情感陪伴是罕见的。数据显示只有1.9%的消息涉及恋爱关系，0.4%是角色扮演。这就是我们所说的那种陪伴关系。

Exactly. Exactly. And then they have like, they said emotional companionship are rare. They said only 1.9% of messages are about, relationships and point 4% role play. That's a that's the companionship we're talking about.

但是，你知道，就像是...

But, you know, like It's

比普通陪伴更深一层的存在。

one one level deeper than companionship.

让我告诉你。一方寻求帮助，另一方进入角色扮演。但总体来看，他们甚至统计了地域数据——低收入国家开始更多使用这种技术。所以它被塑造成一种美好的民主化力量，像是弥合国家间财富差距的桥梁。我越研究就越觉得，最高级的内容营销就是让它看起来像篇学术论文。

Let me tell you. The one asking for help, the other getting into the role play. But but but overall, like, everything oh, they even had, like, geographical, like, lower income countries are starting to use this more. So it's positioning it as this beautiful democratizing force, like bridging the wealth gap between nations. So so overall, like the more I was looking at it, I'm like, the greatest form of content marketing you can do is make it look like a research paper.

然后突然间，可信度就大幅提升了。

And then suddenly, it just adds so much credibility to it.

确实。毫无疑问有研究人员参与其中，但当企业发布研究时，我们必须带着...我并非认为你该全盘怀疑，只是需要稍微读懂字里行间的意思。其中肯定有真实数据——比如ChatGPT的使用方式这部分就很可信。对我来说，主要作为思维伙伴这个使用场景完全说得通。

Yeah. Look, have no doubt that researchers worked on this, but we cannot it's just one of those things when a company releases research, you have to look at it with a not I I don't think you you don't believe anything you read. You just have to, like, read between the lines a little bit and you can you can get some good data. Like I'm sure that part of this does really does reflect, the way that that ChatGPT is being used. Like the idea to me that most of it is this thought partner use case that makes total sense to me.

这完全符合我对聊天机器人的思考。但必须承认他们想推广某些叙事，你说得对。用研究论文形式发布，确实比写篇'此地无银三百两'的博客文章更有效——比如强调只有1.9%的ChatGPT消息涉及恋爱关系和个人反思。其实我最开始注意到这项研究，是因为有听众在推特上@我说：嘿，快看这个。

It it's totally tracks with what I've been thinking about, with that about the bot. But you do have to say there are certain narratives that they want out there, and you're right. If you put it out as this research paper, it does do a better job of advancing those narratives than a thou does protest too much blog posts saying only 1.9% of ChattyBT messages are in the topics of relationship of relationships and personal reflection. And in fact, this study, I initially, you know, found out about this study because I think one of our listeners tagged me on Twitter and said, oh, hey. Look.

仅有1.9%的用户将其作为伴侣。而我之前一直在鼓吹伴侣功能是主要应用场景之一，甚至可能说过这是头号使用场景。现在看来我得修正这个观点了。

Only 1.9% are companions. And I had been sort of beating the drum saying that companion, you know, is is one of the leading use cases. Maybe I even said it was the number one use case. I might have to I think you have. Revise that

我想你确实需要修正。

I think you have.

节目播出后，有篇《哈佛商业评论》的文章似乎支持这个观点，该文也被引用在OpenAI的研究中。尽管他们的发现截然不同，但我觉得他们还是给予了一定可信度。不过读完关于OpenAI的报道，听完相关播客，了解到人们如何与ChatGPT建立病态关系后——这么说吧，如果我是OpenAI的研究员，我会竭尽全力（可能我的理解完全错误）...

After the show. Well, was a HBR article that seemed to suggest that, and that HBR article was also cited in this OpenAI study. So I think they give some credence to it even though they found something completely different. But I would say after reading the articles that have come out about OpenAI and listening to the podcasts about OpenAI and how people are building relationships with ChatGPT and that's unhealthy, I if let's just say this. If I was a researcher at OpenAI, I would do whatever I could, and maybe this is me getting it completely wrong.

我愿意接受批评。我会尽一切可能减少这种使用场景。我认为只有极少数人会爱上ChatGPT。顺便做个粗略估算：ChatGPT有7亿用户，按1.9%比例计算...

I'm I'm open to that. I would do whatever I could to minimize that use case. I would say there's only a small percentage of people that are falling in love with ChatGPT. And by the way, let's just do our building relationships with the with ChatGPT, and let's just do the back of the envelope math here because we have 700,000,000 users of ChatGPT, and so this would say 1.9% of people have some sort of relationship with them. I think.

这意味着每周仍有1330万人与ChatGPT进行类恋爱对话。显然这不是主流用途，但人数依然惊人。

So that would still leave us with 13,300,000 people weekly having a relationship style conversation with ChatGPT. Obviously, it's not the overriding use case, but that's still shit ton of people.

哦，其实...

Oh, actually

要对机器人友善些。

Be friendly to the bot.

你看，每周有180亿条消息。我刚才算了下，光是恋爱类消息每周就有3500万条。

If you look at it, it's 18,000,000,000 messages per week. So I just did that's 35,000,000 relationship messages right there per week.

我们能不能粗略估算下，OpenAI运营这些虚拟男友女友服务要花多少钱？

Can we can we back of the envelope, figure out how much it's costing OpenAI to serve these online boyfriend and girlfriends?

其实他们...

Well, actually, they in

他们烧了100...你继续。

Well, they're burn a 100. Go ahead.

这很有趣，因为在GPT-5的世界里，明明可以用简单的非代理性回答维持对话，但它偏要进行多维度、多层次的思考，就为了说句'回答得真棒，你真聪明'而疯狂消耗计算资源。

In the world of it's also funny because like in the world of GPT five, where you could have a simple non agentic answer that can keep things going. Instead it's gonna do some like multi dimensional, multi layered thinking that's just burning tokens just to say that's a great answer. You are so smart.

你知道吗，这确实有意思。上周我们讨论过GPT-5总爱问'需要我帮你做这个吗？'就像烧烤时你朋友问'你在和ChatGPT调情吗？'它居然说'如果你想，我可以更暧昧些'。我很好奇在这种角色扮演深入时，ChatGPT究竟会建议下一步做什么。

You know, it is interesting because you do get I really I mean, maybe I should just do a test, but I really wonder how this agentic you know we talked last week about how GPT-five always asks like do you want me to do this for you? Like right your friend at the barbecue where it's like, where you said hey are you flirting with with, Chad GPT? And it's like, hey, I can be more flirty if you want. Like I do wonder when you get deep into those role plays like what Chad GPT is actually suggesting in terms of the next step.

应该找人研究这个...但我实在...这想法让我害怕。真的，我们需要有人把这个兔子洞探索到底的故事公之于众。

I someone for research go out. I just can't. I I just that that scares me too. Actually, that's where I feel like yeah. We need we need we need that story out there of someone who actually goes down that that rabbit hole.

亚历克斯

Alex

我不会说的

I'm not gonna say

我要提名你。

I'm nominating you.

我不会说我要做，但也不会说我不做。如果下周我没故事可讲，可能就得拼命尝试和ChatGPT角色扮演看看会发生什么。愿上帝保佑我们。这里还有个有趣的统计数据——他们说44.2%的ChatGPT消息与计算机编程相关，而Claude对话中工作相关的内容占33%。

I'm not gonna say I'm gonna do it, but I'm also not gonna say I'm not gonna do it. If I don't have a story for next week, I may have to desperately start to try to, go into a role play with ChatGPT and see what happens. God help us all. There was also another interesting speaking of stats here. Another interesting stat they say 44.2% of ChatGPT messages are related to computer programming compared to 33% of work related, Claude conversations.

有趣的是他们加了限定词'工作相关的Claude对话'。但即便如此，我认为他们想表达的是：'看，我们确实在编程领域下了功夫，鉴于Claude在编程上的高频使用及其作为新兴用例的潜力，我们在这方面大有可为。'

It's interesting how they have that qualifier, work related Claude conversations. But even still, I think what they're saying with this is, hey, we've really been working on coding and we have a lot of opportunity here on the coding front given how how intensely how intense Claude is used for coding and and sort of how it's still emerging as a use case for us.

没错。这个数据确实引人注目——我们几个月来一直在讨论这点。我们都认为Claude将编程作为变现核心用例的策略看似很成功，他们的收入增长势如破竹。随着新Codex产品发布，这就像在宣告：'各位，我们还有巨大空间，而Claude已经有点饱和了。'

Yeah. I agree that that one jumped out at me and and we have been talking about this for months now. And I I think both of us have agreed that, like, Claude's essentially pivot towards coding as, like, a core use case in terms of monetization has actually been a seemingly successful one as they've been just, like, ripping through revenue growth. But but, yeah, I it felt like as the new Codex product came out, like, this is another one, like, hey, everybody. We have plenty of opportunity here, and Claude's already a little bit saturated.

所以这感觉又是条精心挑选的便利数据。不过说实话，这个数据并不让我意外。毕竟我接触的人里，ChatGPT确实不是寻求编程帮助的首选工具。

So so it definitely, again, this one felt like one of those very, very convenient, statistics that was that was put out there. I I I'll say though actually, This one and it and I wasn't surprised by it either. Because again, I feel everyone I speak with ChatGPT is not the default for coding assistance and coding help. So this made sense.

没错。好的。我们来稍微谈谈工作与非工作用途的比例。消费者使用中有30%与工作相关，大约70%是非工作用途。这让我觉得很有趣。

That's right. Okay. Let's talk a little bit about work versus not work. 30% of consumer usage is work related, and approximately 70% is non work. That is interesting to me.

是的。但我认为，如何界定这些内容本身就很困难。不过我们也说过，他们必须赢得消费者。他们将自己定位为将赢得消费者的一方，并且目前在消费者领域处于领先地位。所以我觉得这也有助于强化这种叙事——非工作用途的比例显然从53%上升到了70%。

Yeah. I think but again, how this stuff gets defined, I think is is difficult. But but also, I think we've said before that they have to win consumer. And they position themselves as they're going to win consumer, and they they are leading in consumer. So I think this also still kinda helps drive that narrative too that and and apparently that it's up from 53 to 70% that is non work usage.

这表明它的重要性正在增长。普通人们每天都在使用ChatGPT，比如在劳动节周末用它查询烧烤技巧——这显然属于非工作用途。所以总体而言，我觉得这一点很清晰。

So they're showing that this is growing in importance. Everyday people are using ChatGPT, which I, again, flirting with it while it's telling you how to grill on a Labor Day weekend. Like, that's I'm gonna call that non work usage. So so overall, I think that one seems clear to me.

这里还有最后一点值得讨论，因为他们特别强调了决策支持功能，这非常有意思。他们说创造价值的关键方式是通过决策支持。ChatGPT能提升判断力和生产力，尤其在知识密集型工作中。随着人们发现这些及其他优势，使用会深化，用户群体会因模型改进和新用例发现而增加活动频率。关于这点有几个观察：

There's, there's one last part here, which I think is worth talking about, because they they particularly call out this decision support side of things, and I it's very interesting. So they say a key way that value is created is through decision support. ChatGPT helps improve judgment and productivity, especially in knowledge intensive jobs. And as people discover these and other benefits, usage deepens with, with user cohorts increasing their activity over time through improved models and new use case discovery. A couple things on this.

首先，他们指出这种聊天机器人的生产力影响无法体现在GDP数据中，因为这不是明确的活动，但确实已经产生经济影响。另一方面，他们在这项研究中如此突出地强调实用指导功能，这让我意识到：到2025年——ChatGPT发布近三年后，我们对其的信任程度可能远超现有认知。我们信任它处理人际关系、职场事务，从健康建议到写派对邀请邮件。比如我刚写了封派对邀请函，截图丢给ChatGPT问'我的邮件主题怎么样？'

First of all, they are saying that this is a way that chatbot productivity is actually you can't see it in GDP numbers because it's not like a clear activity, but they say that this is actually already making a difference in terms of economic, impact. The other side of it is the fact that they're highlighting this and practical guidance, so prominently in this study just suggest to me that I don't think we have fully grasped the level with which people already in the year 2025, three years, nearly three years after the release of ChatGPT, we trust these things. We do. We trust it for guidance in our personal relationships, in our work world, everything from our health to, how to, you know, write an email inviting people to a party. For instance, I just wrote an email, inviting people to a party, and, I just screenshotted it and dropped it in ChatGPT and said, how's my subject line?

它直接给出了三个更好的主题建议。我没什么办派对的经验，但ChatGPT内置了大量相关数据。最后我不得不承认：你的主题比我的好。复制粘贴，直接发送。

And it, like, suggested three different subject lines. I'm not really the I don't have a lot of experience inviting people to parties, but Chatchipiti has a lot of that baked in. And I was like, know what? Your subject line is better than mine. Copy paste and away it goes.

现在回复正源源不断涌来。人们对这些机器人的信任程度已经达到难以置信的水平。

And the RCPs are flowing in. So, just the amount of trust people have in these bots is unbelievable already.

那是正在做的动作？还是正在思考？

That doing right there? Or is that thinking?

嗯，机器人并没有在做这件事。我是说，也许机器人正在做。我会把这归为思考伙伴的范畴。

Well, you're the bot's not doing it. I mean, maybe the bot is. I would put that in thought partner.

没错。但我想在OpenAI的语境下，这应该会被归类为...另外关于GDP和传统经济指标未能捕捉这些变化，这点很有意思。因为它们只会记录产出的提升，而所有这些...这让我想起数字时代初期，当时人们讨论Facebook发帖或推特互动其实创造的经济价值很少，更多是人们投入时间和精力。我认为随着人们花越来越多时间与AI聊天，这对整体经济活动测量会是个有趣课题——因为这些都无法被统计。

Yeah. So that's where but I would I'm guessing that would have been that would have been categorized as in the in the OpenAI context. I also that is an interesting point around how GDP and traditional economic metrics aren't capturing any of this. Because they'll they're only gonna capture, I guess, improves improvements in output, but all this and and this happened, I feel, like, in the early digital days where there's all this discussion around the time Facebook or posting on Twitter or all these kind of things actually created very little economic value, and it was more and it was more where, you know, people were just spending time and energy. And I think that's actually gonna be an interesting as people just spend more and more and more time with AI the chat, like, that actually means for overall measurement of economic activity because none of it is gonna be captured.

是的。除了你那些能提高转化率的邮件标题——这些当然会被计入统计数据。

Yep. Other than your No. Additional other than your better converting subject lines to get people to the party. That'll be captured certainly.

那些会被统计进去，没错。还有酒水消费。不过...你对'人们已经信任AI'这个观点怎么看？

That will be captured. Yes. And drinks served. But Yeah. What do you think about this idea that people trusted already?

我是说...好吧。考虑到所有...它真的可信吗？你说说看。

I mean Oh, alright. For all the and and is it trustworthy? Go ahead.

好。这里有两个问题。人们信任AI吗？毫无疑问是的。我认为我们确实已经过了临界点——我所有普通朋友都在日常个人生活中定期使用ChatGPT，或是Gemini、Claude等聊天机器人来提问。

Okay. Two separate questions there. I think, do people trust it? Yes. I mean, undoubtedly, everyone I think that we definitely have crossed the the the inflection point of all my normie friends using ChatGPT regularly or using some kind of chatbot Gemini, Claude, whatever for in day to day personal life and just asking it questions.

它值得信赖吗？我想我不确定。目前仍然存在困难，比如在查询信息质量不佳时，我仍会明显遇到事实性幻觉问题。因此在更小众的话题或存在信息冲突的领域，它显然不可靠——这本就不该被信任，因为大型语言模型本就不是这样运作的。

Is it trustworthy? I think I don't know. It's still tough because, like, hallucination I still very clearly get hallucinations on factual information if if the quality of information around the query is not good. So it's certainly not trustworthy around more niche topics or things where there's kind of like conflicting information out there because it shouldn't be trustworthy. That's not how an LLM is meant to work.

所以我认为未来这可能成为更大的问题。但现阶段，所有人都还处于某种蜜月期。你觉得呢？

So I think that could be more of a problem going forward. But still right now, everyone's in the kind of honeymoon phase. What about you?

没错。我确实觉得这很有趣。我无法断言这么多人信任它是好是坏，目前还无法判断，我认为我们掌握的数据还不够充分。

That's right. I I I do think it is very interesting. I can't tell you whether it's good or bad that so many people trust it. I don't know yet. I don't think we have enough data.

就我个人体验而言，它在一定程度是可靠的。比如当我生病时，我会让它预测本周一到周四每天的健康状况走势，结果相当准确。它能帮我规划应对措施，知道何时该休息何时不必。这只是个小用例——虽然确实存在幻觉现象，但它的正确率让我不知不觉越来越依赖它。

I have found it to be trustworthy to a certain extent. For instance, like in situations where I've been sick, I've said, give me a day to day of where my health is going to be on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday of this week. And it's been pretty accurate and it's been able to sort of help me figure out what to do, how to how to plan things, you know, when to take it easy, when not to. And that's just one small use case. I've found it to be obviously it hallucinates, but it gets stuff right so often that I found myself trusting it more and more.

这让我想起Cloudflare CEO马修·普林斯几周前说的：过去人们会点开参考链接，现在他们如此信任聊天机器人，连脚注都不看了。我觉得我们正在抵达那个临界点。

And it also goes back to this Matthew Prince thing, the CEO of Cloudflare that came on a couple weeks ago. And he said people used to click out to the links. Now they trust the bot so much they don't even care about the footnotes anymore. I think we're getting to that point.

是啊。我在想——互联网是否正在消亡？长期听众都知道我们经常讨论这个话题。由于大量网页变得不可信，或过度SEO优化，或根本难以使用，人们反而对能直接给出看似准确答案的工具感到兴奋。

Yeah. And I I think also is the web dead? Is the web in secular decline for any long time listener will know this is something we've debated regularly. I think just so much of the web actually became less trustworthy or just overly SEO optimized or just unusable that people are actually just excited that there's something that cleanly gives you an answer that at least seemingly or is fairly accurate. So people are just excited about that.

但是

But

是的。但这里的一个悲剧是，eHow的依赖度降低了。因此，我预计我们将因此培养出一代能力较弱的领导者。

Yes. But the the one tragedy here is that eHow is relied upon less. So I expect us to produce a generation of less capable leaders because of this.

让我们回到正题。

Let's bring it back.

Ehow.ehow。也许他们应该与ChatGPT合并。顺便说一句，最后一件事。报告中包含的使用数据，其中有一些关于人们如何使用ChatGPT的关键数据点，非常引人入胜。我们在2023年和2024年的节目中多次讨论过，比如ChatGPT的增长在哪里？

Ehow.ehow. Maybe they should merge with ChatGPT. By the way, one last thing. The usage numbers, which they included in this report, with some really, like, kind of key data points in terms of how people have used ChatGPT, it is fascinating. So we talked on the show a lot in 2023, 2024 about, like, where's the growth of ChatTPT?

ChatGPT是否停滞不前？实际上，到了2024年年中，它还没有达到2亿用户。尽管有人说它在2023年初就达到了1亿用户，但查看数据后，至少在每周用户数上并不明确。但到了2024年年中，你看到了一个高峰，用户数突破了2亿。

Is ChatTPT flatlining? And you actually see that getting into mid twenty twenty four, it had not reached 200,000,000 users. After people said it, you know, hit a 100,000,000 early twenty twenty three, which you look at the data, and it's not quite clear that it did at least weekly users. But then around mid twenty twenty four, you see a spike. So it crosses 200,000,000 users.

大约在2024年7月，用户数上升到3亿。到了2024年1月左右，今年有望在年底前达到8亿周活跃用户，甚至可能更多，达到9亿。这种增长令人震惊，我从未在任何产品中见过，老实说，甚至接近的都没有。

And around July 2024. It goes, up to 300,000,000 in around January 2024. This year, it's on track to hit 800,000,000 weekly users by the end of the year, maybe even more, maybe 900,000,000. That is astonishing growth and I have never seen this in any product ever before and to be honest, not even close.

不，我同意。而且，我认为很多技术都是这样，当它真正每天出现在你面前，不仅仅是早期采用者，甚至是iPhone。我记得我为第一部iPhone排队，还被同事嘲笑，他们问为什么要为一部手机排队。大约五六年之后，它才变得无处不在。

No. I agree. And again, you see it I think like with a lot of technology when it really is in front of you day to day, in front of not just early adopters, but, you know, even the iPhone. I remember I stood in line for the first iPhone and I was made fun of it, my work, but people are like, why are you standing in line for a phone? It was a solid, like, five or six years before you saw it just ubiquitous.

而这次的变化快得多，它已经完全融入每个人的生活，包括我的父母，流行文化。它无处不在。所以我要说，这证明了这些产品有多么革命性。

And, this has become a lot, lot faster where it's just fully immersed in everyone, my parents, pop culture. It's just out there. So I'll I'll give and it's a testament to just how revolutionary the actual products are.

没错。是的。它在南方公园。

That's right. Yeah. It's in South Park.

所以它是在南方公园播出的，但被取消了

So It's in South Park, which was cancelled

这周。南方公园这周被取消了

this week. South Park was cancelled this

不。不。不。他们撤下了——他们没有播出新的一集。他们说他们声称没完成制作，这真的很奇怪。

No. No. No. They they removed the they did not air their new episode. And they said that they said that that they did not have it done, which is just odd.

这从没发生过。是的。好吧。

That never happens. Yes. Okay.

不。我是说，是啊。

No. Mean yeah.

总之，广告回来后我们会讨论更多媒体怪象。如果你喜欢关于聊天机器人的数据，我们还有更多内容即将呈现——本周Anthropic分享的数据。看来这周是人工智能使用数据周呢，在《大科技播客》周五版中，广告后我们将继续深入探讨。

Anyways We'll talk we'll talk about more media weirdness, after the break. And if you enjoy data about the chatbots, we have more coming your way as we get into the numbers that Anthropic shared this week. It seems like it's AI usage data week here on big technology podcast Friday edition, and we'll do more of it right after this.

你已习惯通过我的声音，聆听来自全球各地的访谈节目。

You're used to hearing my voice on the world bringing you interviews from around the globe.

而我是负责报道环境与气候新闻的卡罗琳·比勒。

And you hear me reporting environment and climate news. I'm Carolyn Beeler.

我是马可·维尔曼。现在我们将共同为您主持《世界》栏目，以全新的声音呈现更多国际新闻报道。

And I'm Marco Werman. We're now with you hosting the world together. More global journalism with a fresh new sound.

您可以在当地公共广播电台及任意播客平台收听《世界》栏目。

Listen to the world on your local public radio station and wherever you find your podcasts. And

欢迎回到《大科技播客》周五特别版。上半场我们深入探讨了OpenAI那些令人着迷的数据——这些内容简直足以撑起整期节目，实在太有意思了。

we're back here on Big Technology Podcast Friday edition. Alright. So first half, we talked all about this fascinating data from OpenAI. I feel like that could have been an entire show on its own. Really fascinating stuff.

我确实欣赏这些公司公开数据的行为。即便我们需质疑其部分动机，但能借此窥见行业动向总是极富价值。本周Anthropic也发布了新数据——他们的经济指数报告指出：企业AI应用存在地域性差异。开头就有几个耐人寻味的统计数据。

I do love it when these companies publish the data. Even if we have to question some of their motives, it's always very interesting to get a picture of where things are going, and we have more data from Anthropic. So Anthropic released its economic index report this week. They say uneven geographic enterprise AI adoption. A couple interesting stats right off the top.

Anthropic数据显示：仅在美国，使用AI的雇主比例就从2023年的20%跃升至40%。如此迅猛的普及速度反映出：该技术凭借广泛适用性、基于现有数字基础设施的易部署性、无需专业培训的输入输出便捷性已显现实用价值。前沿AI技术的快速迭代很可能从各个维度加速了这一进程。报告还提供了历史对照：传统新技术往往需要数十年才能实现广泛普及。

In The US alone, Anthropic says 40% of employers report using AI at work, up from 20%, in 2023, two years ago. Such rapid adoption reflects how useful this technology already is for a wide range of application, its deployability on existing digital infrastructure, and its ease of use by typing and speaking without specialized training. Rapid improvement of Frontier AI likely reinforces fast adoption along each of these dimensions. Here's a little history lesson they give us. Historically, new technologies took decades to reach widespread adoptions.

电力的普及用了三十年。第一批大众市场个人电脑在81年触及早期采用者，但又过了二十年才进入大多数美国家庭。即便是快速普及的互联网，也花了大约五年时间才达到AI仅用两年就达到的采用率。那么，Ranjan，转给你，我们该如何看待AI的快速普及？是否正如Anthropic这里所暗示的，仅仅是因为它使用起来太简单了？

Adoption electricity took thirty years. The first mass market personal computers reached early adopters in '81, but did not reach the majority of US homes for another twenty years. Even the rapidly adopted Internet took around five years to hit adoption rate that AI has reached in just two years. So, Ranjan, turning it to you, what are we supposed to what what should we make of the rapid adoption of AI? Is it just the nature of the fact that it is so easy to use as Anthropic is suggesting here?

这是否意味着我们应该更加怀疑，因为它已经被广泛采用而我们仍在试图弄清楚投资回报率？还是说这是一个看涨信号，因为如此热情的采用意味着未来只会更加疯狂？

And does that mean we're we're, like, the you we should be more skeptical because it's been adopted so widespread and we're still trying to sort of find out what the ROI is? Or is it just a bull bullish sign because there's been such enthusiastic adoption that, it's just gonna get crazier from here?

是的。是的。这是个正确的问题，因为当你觉得这比电力还重要时——我记得是Sundar说过这是自火以来最伟大的发明。我当时在场

Yeah. Yeah. It's the right question because like the moment you're like, this is bigger than electricity and I think wasn't it Sundar who said like it's the biggest thing since fire. I was in

我也在场。

the room for that. I was in

在场。

the room.

我当时在NBC的一个节目上讲话，主持人应该是Kara Swisher，他说AI会比电力、比火更重要。所有人都觉得，这个叫Sundar的家伙是不是嗑药了。但现在看来，如果你现在这么说，我们至少得认真对待了。

I was talking on an NBC show. Think Kara Swisher was hosting it and he said it was bigger AI would be bigger than electricity and bigger than fire. And everyone's like, so this Sundar guy, he's on drugs. But it turns out that, you know, if you said it now, we'd have to at least take that seriously.

比火还重要。我觉得，确实如此。它的速度之快，我一直在思考类比对象。电力花了很长时间，因为电力是一种非常依赖基础设施的创新。要把它普及到每家每户自然需要更长时间。

Bigger than fire. I think, so yeah. The speed of it, I I really was trying to think through, like, what would be the corollary? Is it electricity took because electricity is a very, like, heavy infrastructure type of innovation. So to actually diffuse it across houses or just people is gonna take longer.

我不知道。比如，想想那些病毒式传播的应用，TikTok在规模和速度上是否也能相提并论？嗯，我确实不清楚。听起来挺让人兴奋的。

I don't know. Like, if you think about viral apps, could TikTok be somewhat comparable even in terms of scale and speed? Yeah. I I don't know. It sounds exciting.

听起来规模很大。但对我来说，放在千年、几个世纪以来的创新背景下看，我还没被说服。我在想，你知道吗？人们现在对ChatGPT趋之若鹜，但它真的已经具有革命性了吗？

It sounds big. That to me still though, this, like, millennia, like looking at the context of like innovations over centuries and millennia, I'm still not there. I'm like, you know what? People are people are flirting with chat GPT a lot more. But is it that revolutionary just yet?

我们仍需拭目以待。

We still have to wait and see.

我这么说吧。如果我现在重新运营这些研究，某种程度上它们就是营销手段。虽然也有帮助和提供信息的作用，但两者无法完全割裂。如果我在一家产品正如此火爆的公司负责发布这类报告，我会把它比作电力和火吗？天啊，当然会。

I'll say this. If I was running again, these studies are marketing in some way. They're also helpful and informative, but we can't separate the two. If I was running the publication of one of these at a company whose product was taking off this way, would I compare it to electricity and fire? I mean, hell yeah.

因为我的工作就是营销。我觉得我会这么做。但作为旁观者客观评价时，我会这么说吗？不，我不会。

That my job was marketing. I think I would. But I'm looking at it now, am I gonna say it as an impartial observer that it is? No. I'm not.

但我确实认为其快速普及率绝对值得关注，考虑到投资和关注度，我们可能很快就能得到关于这项技术实际影响的答案。Anthropic不仅提供了企业应用的部分数据——顺便说，约43%-40%的企业使用率，可能主要是API方面。我们知道更多人在组织内部使用ChatGPT。但这里有些关于云端应用的有趣数据。

But I do think that the the, fast adoption rate is definitely notable, and I think we'll probably have answers about what this technology will actually do sooner rather than later given the investment and given the attention. And we have seen we so Anthropic didn't just give us some of this data about enterprise use. By way, I think 43 40% of enterprise use, maybe that's on API side of things. We know that many more people are using this ChatGPT within their organizations. But here's, like, some interesting data on what cloud is being used for.

编程仍是首要应用场景占36%，教育任务从9.3%激增至12.4%，科学任务现占比从6.3%上升到7.2%。Ranjan，这个现象对你很有趣：用户给予Claude更多自主权。委托Claude完成复杂完整任务的指令式对话从27%跃升至39%。我们看到程序创建和编码增加，调试减少，表明用户可能通过单次交互就能实现更多目标。

So coding is still number one use case at 36%, but educational tasks have surged from 9.3 to 12.4%, and scientific tasks are now, six point they're they went from 6.3% to 7.2%. This is an interesting thing for you, Ranjan. Users are entrusting Claude with more autonomy. Directive conversations where users delegate complex, delegate complete tasks to Claude have jumped from 29 27% to 39%. We're seeing an increased, program, creation and coding and a reduction in debugging suggesting that users might be able to achieve more of their goals in a single exchange.

所以，Claude被用于教育、科学和更全面的测试。让Claude去做这些事，然后人们就会信任它。

So, Claude being used for, education, science, and more complete tests. Go do this Claude and then people trust it.

没错。实际上，正如我们讨论过的，这些都完美契合Anthropic的战略目标。当我们深入探讨时，会发现Anthropic正推动Claude进入更多编程、教育科学类应用场景，这非常便利。我注意到他们这次的研究成果没有采用学术PDF格式，而是以博客文章形式发布。

Yeah. Actually, and again, as we've discussed, those all very neatly fit into Anthropic strategic objectives. So as we get into these, it's like we know Anthropic is pushing Claude into more coding, more kinda like educational scientific use cases and very conveniently. I will say I was just looking. They presented this research not in that academic PDF format, but actually as a blog post.

所以我对Anthropic的建议是：把它做成像史诗级学术论文那样的PDF，我们会更信任它。但总体而言，所有这些内容都很有趣，感觉方向是对的。不过说实话，除了我的《边际》节目搭档John之外，我还不认识谁真正把Claude当作思维伙伴来频繁使用——他可是彻头彻尾的Claude思维搭档拥趸。

So my one my one, call out to Anthropic, just make it a PDF that looks like an epic academic paper and, we'll we'll trust it more. But but overall, it's all of this stuff I think is interesting. I think it's it feels correct. Again, I I don't know anyone who's using Claude that much in terms of the thought partner side of it other than my my cohost of margins, John. He's been using he's been he's like a Claude head for thought partnership through and through.

但总的来说，确实不认识其他深度使用者。所以这个调查结果看起来是合理的。

But but overall, yeah, I don't know anyone else who's who's using it. So this this seems to add up.

我有个不太妙的消息要告诉你：有个庞大群体似乎正在将其作为思维伙伴，那就是美国政府。人均Claude使用率最高的地区是华盛顿特区，看来美国政府现在是由...

I unfortunately have, some news to report to you here, which is that there is a big group that seems to be using it for thought partnership and that is the US government. The city that or region that had the most clawed adoption per capita is Washington DC. So US government seems like it's being run by

Claw（爪）

Claw.

说实话，这说不定算是个进步。

Which frankly might be an improvement.

我现在不知道这说明了克劳德的什么情况。考虑到

I don't I don't know what that says about Claude right now. Given

克劳德取消了吉米·坎摩尔的节目。

Claude canceled Jimmy Kimmel.

是的。克劳德正在作证。将被传唤到国会面前回答一些问题。是的。不过我在想。

Yeah. Claude Claude is testifying. Gonna be pulled up in front of congress and has to answer some questions. Yeah. I wonder though.

看，这就是数据变得有点可疑的地方，比如他们定义人均使用量的方式。我其实查过，他们有个公式是关于总使用量相对于总人口的。而且，我是说，如果你只是有几个大型联邦合同在使用克劳德，而华盛顿特区的人口密度相对于其他大多数城市来说较小，那会完全扭曲这个数据。所以我不太明白这一点，这个看起来不太容易理解。

See, this is where the data gets kind of just questionable like the way they define per capita usage. I had actually looked, they had a formula around like total usage relative to overall population. And, I I mean, if you just have a couple of big federal contracts that are using Claude and DC is a smaller population density area relative to like, you know and most other cities that would skew that data completely. So I don't know that one, that one seems not the most, easy to understand.

我们来看一个我觉得相当有趣的标题，这里引起了最多的关注，那就是自动化测试正在超越增强功能对于克劳德。他们抱歉。Anthropic表示77%的商业用途涉及自动化，而大约50%的云用户是这样，你看他们整理的图表，自动化实际上要少得多，41%的自动化对比55%的增强。我想这是在他们的第一版中。今天，自动化已经超过了增强。

Let's get to one headline that I think was pretty interesting, that sort of got the most attention here, and that is automation tests are surpassing augmentation for Claude. They sorry. Anthropic says 77% of business uses involve automation compared to about 50% of cloud users, and you look at the chart that they put put together, and automation was actually a was actually much less, 41% automation compared to 55% augmentation. I think this is in their v one. Today, automation has has passed augmentation.

49%自动化，47%增强。所以这个观点是人们在尝试增强还是自动化工作？研究似乎表明自动化正在优先。然而，我要说的是，通常你可以自动化工作任务，然后让其他人腾出手来做别的事情。那算是增强任务吗？

49% automation, 47% augmentation. So this idea that are people trying to augment or automate work? The study seems to suggest that automation is taking priority. However, I will just say that oftentimes you can automate work tasks and then free somebody else free someone up to do something else. Is that an augmentation task?

不。在数据中可能被视为自动化，但实际上，实际上和增强是一回事。如果你们是的。我同意。

No. It's probably in the data seen as automation, but it's actually, it's actually the the same thing as an augmentation. If you guys Yeah. I do.

不，不，不。我我我同意。再问一次，这里的自动化定义究竟是什么？

No. No. No. I I I agree. Again, what does what is the definition of automation here?

因为实际上，我猜主要是编程。毕竟Claude有些连接器能与其他系统交互，我试过，目前还不完善。所以很难想象它们能支撑大规模应用，比如人们用它构建复杂的工作流。

Because in reality, I'm assuming it's mostly coding. Because, like, Claude has some connectors where that allow you to do stuff with other systems. I've tried them. They're not great right now. So I cannot imagine that they at any kind of scale usage, like, people are building these, like, complex agentic workflows using it.

所以我很好奇他们如何定义这个方向。总体而言，听众可能觉得这些数字完美契合公司战略叙事时，我很难全盘接受这些表面说法。

So so I I I'm curious how they define that, directive. I think overall, as as listeners can feel like when all these numbers just so neatly fit into the existing strategic narrative of these companies, I have a hard time just, you know, taking it at full face value.

没错，这正是我们的价值所在。我们想为讨论增添细微差别，以局外人的客观视角分析，而不是单纯宣扬公司立场。

Yeah. And by way, that's what we're here for. Like, we wanna provide nuance in these conversations. We wanna read it. We wanna attack it with, some perspective as impartial outsiders that you wouldn't get necessarily from, someone who's just trying to push the company line.

总结来说，我们都认为这是有趣的数据点，但绝非终极结论。

So I think overall, just to wrap this up, we both say this is interesting data, I believe, and, it is just a data point I would say and not the be all end all.

还会得到离谱建议，比如'把发现写成学术论文格式能增加可信度'。

And you also get incredible recommendations like put your findings into an academic style PDF paper and it will increase the credibility.

说真的，Roy和Cantro营销公司的本质就是——我们只是在干活。

I mean, the marketing agency of Roy and Cantro is we're we're just doing work.

这是核心功能之一。让你的研究看起来更可信。

That's one of the core offerings right there. Your research look more credible.

把它放进PDF里。

Put it in a PDF.

没错。放进PDF里。

Yep. Put it in a PDF.

听着，这些都是不显而易见的事情。好吧。我们时间不多了，还有两件事要讨论。

Listen. It's these are non obvious things. Okay. We're running out of time. We have two more things to talk about.

简单来说，Meta有799美元的眼镜。我们上周讨论过。我觉得这周不需要深入细节，但现在我们知道了真相。这次Meta活动中有个非常有趣的两极现象：评测者对眼镜赞不绝口，而台上的Meta团队却无法让它们正常工作。

So briefly, Meta has the $799 glasses. We talked about it last week. I don't think we have to go into it too much detail this week, but we now know, the the, the truth here. Very interesting dichotomy during this meta event. Reviewers gushing over the glasses, meta on stage unable to get them to work.

有时候这是因为活动现场的WiFi拥堵，但看到这种情况发生很有意思。对我来说，关键问题是这些摄像头会配备显示屏。我们看看。Berman表示，Meta可能会逐步允许用户将通常由手机处理的部分功能转移到眼镜上。那么这会成为手机的替代品吗？

Now sometimes that's because the Wi Fi in an event space gets jammed, but it was very interesting to see this happening. To me, big question here is that there's gonna be a display on these cameras. Let's see. Berman says that, over time, Meta might allow, people to offload some functionality to their eyewear that would normally be on their phone. So could this be a replacement, for the phone?

显示屏基本上相当于取景器。你可以在拍照前预览照片效果。还有实时字幕功能，能像电视闭路字幕那样实时显示语音内容（包括翻译）。这很酷。你还能发消息。

The display basically lets you have a viewfinder. You see what your your photos are gonna look like before you snap them. There's also live captions, a live captions features, that displays spoken words in real time including translation, similar to closed captions on TV. That's cool. You can message.

你可以在WhatsApp上聊天。将会有一款由Spotify驱动的音乐应用。Instagram最初仅支持直接消息功能，但Meta计划在今年晚些时候增加Reels观看功能，因为显然，在眼镜上你要做的就是坐下来看Reel。我听起来有点像在吐槽。我对使用这项技术很感兴趣。

You can talk on WhatsApp. There's going to be a music app powered by Spotify. Instagram will initially only support direct messages, but Meta plans to add Reels viewing later this year because that's apparently, what you have to do on your glasses is sit back and watch a Reel. I'm I'm kind of sounding like a hater. I'm interested to use this technology.

我们俩都喜欢Ray Ban Metas。对我来说，在一个我已经被电脑过度吸引的世界里，在眼前放一块屏幕的想法并不太吸引人。

We both like the Ray Ban Metas. I just to me, the idea of putting a screen in front of my eyes in a world that I'm already sucked in by computing too much is not very appealing.

好的。这就是我对这个产品感到非常兴奋的地方。我上周就谈过，尽管我们会谈到那个失败的演示，但总的来说，这正是我所期待的。作为参考，我有Meta Ray Bans可以拍照，向Meta AI提问非常简单的问题。除此之外，它们不会在纽约街头走动。

Okay. So this is where I am incredibly excited about this. I talked about it last week, but even from and we'll get into the failed demo, but overall, like, this is exactly what I was hoping for. So for reference, I have the meta Ray Bans taking photos, asking very simple questions to Meta AI. Otherwise, it doesn't get them walking around New York.

我很喜欢。实际上我还有Snap Spectacles，不是那种AR眼镜。我参与了开发者计划并一直在测试它们。所以有了增强现实屏幕，它们又大又笨重，绝对是开发者产品而不是面向消费者的。我已经看到了潜力，甚至在四处走动时，你可以用它玩不同的游戏。

I love it. I also actually have Snap Spectacles, not like the AR Spectacles. I'd been part of the developer program and had been testing them. So having an augmented reality screen, they're like big and bulky and they're definitely a developer product as opposed to anything kind of consumer. Already, I saw the potential and even like walking around, there's different games you can play with it.

你可以有不同的信息流。所以Snap的版本仍然很笨拙，但你仍然可以看到它的潜力所在。对我来说，这一定会发生。这是未来的方向。再说一遍，如果你在过马路时看Reels，那可不妙。

You can have different information feeds. So it's still very clunky, the snap version, but still you could see where the the promises is. So to me, this is gonna happen. This is the direction. I think the screen again, if you're watching reels while crossing the street, that's not good.

如果你在镜片右侧20度的视野范围内有一点轻量信息，显示一条短信，这样你就不用掏出手机或边走边盯着看——纽约的每个人都是这样做的，我觉得这很棒。所以我认为这种稍微增强的计算层，如果做得好，可能会非常巨大。

If you have, like, a light bit of information to in the 20 degree field of view in the far right of your lens that shows you a text message so you don't pull out your phone or stare at it as you're walking, which everyone in New York City does, I think that's great. So I I think like that slightly augmented layer of computing, though if it's done well, this could be massive.

我仍然持怀疑态度。但我愿意尝试看看效果如何。说实话，我只是想更多地远离网络。

I remain skeptical. But I'm willing to try them and see what happens. I just again, like, I wanna get offline more, honestly.

不，但听我说。现实与希望之间存在差距。对我来说——或许纽约比其他城市更明显——但我在巴黎时也看到同样的情况：人们边走边玩手机。我其实很喜欢这种状态。虽然多年来我对Meta及其领导层并无太多好感，但我欣赏安德鲁·博斯沃思的观点——关键在于把手机放回口袋。

No. But come on. This is but there is the reality and there's the kind of, like, the hope. And and to me, and maybe it's New York City more than other cities, but actually I was just I mean, in Paris and like, same people are just they have their phones out as they're walking around and and I think anything and I actually loved that. And I am not the biggest fan of Meta or its leadership for many years, but like I loved Andrew Bosworth talking about this is about keeping your phone in your pocket.

这正是我长期以来对计算界面的理解，而他们正在胜出。此刻他们领先，并且发展方向也是正确的。

That's what that's exactly how I've seen this whole interface of computing for a long time, and they are they're winning. They're winning right now, and they're they're moving in the right direction as well.

苹果手表不也一样吗？你肯定遇到过这种情况：正和人交谈时，对方手腕一震，低头看个无聊通知，对话节奏就被打断了。所以...我会保留判断。我期待使用这些设备吗？

Is that the same thing about the Apple Watch? And I'm sure you've been with people who you're having a conversation with, and their wrist buzzes, and they look at it and some dumb notification, and it ruins the train of conversation there. So Yeah. I will reserve judgment here. Am I looking forward to using them?

当然期待。我紧张吗？也确实紧张。

Hell, yes. Am I nervous? Also, yes, also.

还有社交礼仪问题——如果交谈时对方眼珠向右飘忽，他们是在刷短视频吗？这可能会给人类互动带来有趣的变量。我不...

And the social normalcy of like, if you're in a conversation with someone and you see their eyeballs kind of like moving to the right and not looking at you, Are they are they just like scrolling reels right there? That's a Probably. It'll add some interesting dynamics to human interaction. I'm not gonna

记得谷歌眼镜的恶搞视频吗？比如约会时偷偷查聊天话题。想象一下戴着这个设备约会——肯定会出现恶搞视频：某人开着Meta AI助手学习如何花言巧语。

And you remember all the parodies of Google Glass. It's like I'm on a date and I'm like looking up things to say. Now especially, could you imagine you're like on a date? Like this, there will be a parody of this. Someone's on a date and they have Meta AI turned on and it's teaching them how to be like smooth talker.

嘿，如果这能帮到不善言辞的人，难道不好吗，亚历克斯？

Hey, you know what? If it helps those who cannot talk smoothly, is that a bad thing, Alex?

是的。做你自己就好。那次约会就算了。反正她也不适合你。

Yes. If it Be yourself. Blow that date. That was she wasn't right for you anyway.

你会对它产生依赖的。没错。

She you become dependent on it. Yep.

说得对。

That's right.

就保持和Chatty PT聊天吧。它会一直陪着你。

Just stay chatty PT. She'll always be there for you.

你能想象这样一种关系吗？某人在户外环境里表现得超级从容，但一旦去游泳，就完全像个呆子。他们没法戴眼镜。

Could you imagine a relationship where someone's like super smooth in like outdoor environments, but like the second you go for a swim, they're just like a total dud. They can't wear their glasses.

在海滩上

On the beach

这肯定会拍成电影的，我告诉你。

this This is gonna be a movie, I'm telling you.

没错。而且我们会在VO上实现它。

Yep. And we'll make it on VO.

是的。好吧。所以他们确实讨论了演示失败的原因。显然，扎克伯格说，嘿，Meta，启动实时AI。这激活了房间里所有人的AI，实际上对服务器进行了DDoS攻击。

Yep. Alright. So they did talk about the why the demo failed. Apparently, Zuck said, hey, Meta, start live AI. It activated everybody's, AI in the room and effectively DDoS the servers.

所有的服务器，所有的流量都被路由到了公司在冰岛的服务器，显然。所以这就是它崩溃的原因。好吧。我不会因为他们无法进行现场演示而责怪他们。

All of the servers were all all the traffic was also rooted to the company's servers, in Iceland apparently. So that's why it broke. Alright. I'm not gonna kill them on on not being able to demo live.

我太高兴了。我们上周就讨论过这个问题，说一直没有现场演示。苹果毁掉了什么是现场演示。我喜欢它。说实话，不想给他们太多赞誉，但我认为，一个稍微有点问题的演示也很棒。

I'm so happy. We talked about this last week how there's been no live demos. Apple destroyed what is a live demo. And I loved it. Honestly, like, not trying to give them too much credit here, but I was like, I like, a a slightly wonky demo is awesome.

就像，这就是现在世界想要的。已经很久了。我实际上认为这会给开发者更多信心，认为这是真实的，虽然有点问题，现在在舞台上没有成功。但他们至少展示了什么是真实的，而不是像苹果那样。每个人都失去了对什么是真实和不真实的信心。

It's like, that's what the world wants right now. It's been so long. I actually think it's gonna give a lot more credibility among developers that this is real and it's wonky and it didn't work on stage right now. But they're at least showing what is real rather than Apple. Everyone has lost all faith in in terms of like what's real and what's not.

没错。好吧。我们还剩五分钟。我想谈谈吉米·坎摩尔的事情。我希望我们有更多时间讨论这个部分。

True. Alright. We got five minutes left. I wanna touch on the Jimmy Kimmel thing. I wish we had much more time for this segment.

基本上，今天早上发生的事情是你和我在互相发短信，问我们是否应该对坎摩尔发表意见。不代表我们两个人。我认为我们都认为政府把坎摩尔暂时停播是荒谬的。如果你想认真对待自己，如果你想被别人认真对待，你必须愿意，你知道，有足够的信心接受嘲笑。这对左派和右派都适用。

Basically, what happened this morning was you and I were texting and asking each other whether we should weigh in on Kimmel. Not to speak for both of us. I think we both believe that it's ridiculous that the government, pushed, Kimmel off air even if it's temporary. If you're gonna take yourself seriously, if you're gonna be taken seriously, you have to be willing to, you know, to be confident enough to take ridicule. It goes for the left and the right.

这只是我的个人观点，我并非代表安詹发言。当你开始针对喜剧演员时，即便你认为他们不好笑——我知道美国政府确实觉得吉米·坎摩尔不怎么好笑——这会让你显得软弱。在我看来，这正是当前发生的情况。显然，已有许多来自不同政治立场的人发声，基本都在说这太荒谬了。

It's just my perspective. I'm not speaking for Anjan here. And when you start to go after comedians, even if you don't think they're funny, which I know the government US government doesn't think Jimmy Kimmel is very funny, you look weak. And to me, I think that that is that is, what's happening here. It's, you've seen obviously lot of people speaking out from every political angle, basically saying this is ridiculous.

因此我认为在这方面我们没什么可补充的。我觉得有趣的问题是：2025年你还会以传统方式被'封杀'吗？因为假设你像科尔伯特即将做的那样离开电视台，或许坎摩尔也会如此，你仍有成立独立媒体机构的机会。你可以看看一长串成功转型的名单：比如被SNL取消合作后才加入剧组的沙恩·吉利斯，还有塔克·卡尔森、梅根·凯莉，甚至被'封杀'后又重回HBO的比尔·马厄。

So I don't think we have much to add on that front. I think what is interesting here is the question of can you be canceled in the traditional way in 2025? Because, let's say, you were to leave a network like Colbert is going to and maybe Kimmel will after this, you still have the opportunity to form an independent media agency. And you could look at a list of a long line of people who've done this. Shane Gillis, after he was canceled by SNL before joining the cast, but also Tucker Carlson, Megan Megan Kelly, even Bill Maher after he was canceled, although he ended up back on HBO.

所以比尔可能不算完美例子，但最终你完全可以独立发展，不依附任何公司，甚至可能做得更好。显然，在不深入探讨先前事件细节的情况下，我很好奇你认为这对坎摩尔实际意味着什么，以及这次事件是否还像过去那样具有冲击力。

So maybe Bill isn't, like, the perfect example, but you could end up, basically going independent, not being dependent on any, any, company, and you could do better that way. So, you know, obviously, like, without getting too much into the details of, like, the the whole thing before, I'm just kinda curious, like, what you think this actually means for Kimmel, and whether this is as impactful as it was previously.

先回答第二个问题：这次影响力和过去一样大吗？不，我认为完全不是。事实上，那种'我被封杀了，快来订阅我的Substack'的套路，已经被很多人玩得炉火纯青且变现成功。从传播角度看，深夜脱口秀这种形式本身就很奇怪——我最近花了不少时间研究Nexstar、Sinclair等公司与电视台的附属合作模式。

Taking the second question first, is this as impactful as it would have been in the past? No. I don't think it is at all. In fact, I mean, that playbook of they canceled me, subscribed to my sub stack is something that, like, so many people have perfected in terms of monetizing so well. And in reality, like, from a distribution standpoint, late night TV is such a weird format that the more I like, I hadn't spent a lot of time in a lot, like, reminding myself how Nexstar and Sinclair and the whole affiliate model works with these networks.

但重申一点：现在没人会看直播了。价值全在后续的节目片段里。平台虽仍有部分价值，但真正的品牌是吉米·坎摩尔本人，是斯蒂芬·科尔伯特本人。《深夜秀》或《今夜秀》这类节目名称早已不再是金字招牌了。

But again, these no one is watching this stuff live anymore. So the value comes out in the clips afterwards. There's still value in the platform to an extent, but in reality Jimmy Kimmel is the brand. Stephen Colbert is the brand. Like, the late night show to or the Tonight Show, like, these things are no longer the brand anymore.

所以在我看来，你确实可能被'封杀'——特别是当你把'主流媒体在打压我'作为核心叙事时。就连《华盛顿邮报》的卡伦·纳提亚（发音可能不准）也...对，邮报的。

So to me, like, you can get canceled. And if especially if you make that a central part of your they're coming for me in the mainstream media. Even Karen Natia, I'm not sure how to pronounce it, from the Washington Post. Post. Yeah.

她也发了整篇Substack文章说'他们封杀我''想让我闭嘴''快来订阅'。这种套路已经变得近乎令人烦躁，却又相当奏效。如果坎摩尔愿意，他完全可以高喊'订阅我的Substack'，保持同等影响力。不过我好奇的是，像他这样的人是否愿意玩这种游戏。

Like, again, like, she had an entire Substack post about, like, they canceled me. They're trying to silence me. Subscribe to my Substack now. So, like, it's become such an almost, like, frustrating playbook, but a successful one that if Kimmel wanted to, he could go all in blue sky, subscribe to my subs deck, and, like, be just as influential. I'd be curious though if someone like him wants to play that game.

我不认为他会，但我不确定。你觉得呢？

I don't think he does, but I don't know. What about you?

我认为他能做到。显然，就像康纳·奥布莱恩的例子，他作为喜剧演员并未被取消节目而是主动离开，现在通过播客获得的影响力不亚于甚至超过从前，且掌控力明显更强。这再次说明，有些人会说他的收视率本来就不佳、不盈利，但我不认同这种说法。关键在于，处在他这样的位置，现在面临的是什么？

I think he could do it. Obviously, it's like worked Conan O'Brien is a great example of a comedian who wasn't canceled but left, and I think has just as much influence, if not more, with his podcast, now than and obviously much more control than he did previously. This is again us just like, you know, there there have been some people who've been like, well, he had bad ratings anyway, and he wasn't profitable. I don't think that was the scenario. But I think the overriding story of like, if you're somebody in his position, what are you facing now?

这件事影响有多大？这对我们是个切题的问题。CNN上有句精彩评论——杰夫·贾维斯（愿上帝保佑他）在节目中表示：'唯一的好消息（虽然不忍心对CNN的朋友们说）是大众媒体正在消亡。'如今作为娱乐从业者或类似角色，拥有自己的受众群体显然更有意义。

And how impactful is this? That that is, for us a pertinent question. And there was this great line on CNN, Jeff Jarvis, God bless him, was there. And he's told the panel, the only good news I see, and I hate to say this to my friends at CNN, is that mass media are dying. And it is sort of this thing where, like, if you're an entertainer or in a position like that, it just today, it makes much more sense to own your audience.

或许让喜剧演员主持电视台晚间新闻的模式终将消失。

And maybe this idea that you would have a comedian anchoring a network's evening coverage is just gonna go away.

是啊，杰夫从2030年就开始这么说了。

Yeah. I I think and Jeff has been saying that since 2030.

所以他可能并非恶意，显然也不全错。但趋势似乎与他的论点背道而驰。

So He's probably not mean, he's obviously don't think wrong. Doesn't seem like it the trend is counter ual to his argument.

我得承认他说对了。但事实上，他之所以走红是因为CNN的平台。这说明主流平台仍具备传播力。我同意——就算吉米·坎摩尔的18-45岁实时观众只有12.9万，但他的实际影响力丝毫未减。

I'll I'll give him he got it right. But in in truth though, he was going viral because he was on CNN. Like, think this is where there's still there's power and platform to have those kind of secondary I agree. Like, if only a 129,000 people are viewing live between ages of 18 to 45, Jimmy Kimmel, yeah. But the influence he has is that actually doesn't denigrate it at all.

这意味着我们整天都在Instagram、TikTok和YouTube上观看短视频。但从商业模式来看，广告商付费是为了在电视直播节目旁边展示广告，而电视节目已经消亡了。我是说，它彻底完蛋了。所以，这确实提醒我们需要重新思考整个商业模式。我认为这些与他被停职的原因毫无关系。

It means that we all see clips on Instagram or TikTok and YouTube all day long. So but but in terms of the business model, advertisers are paying to be shown alongside that live viewing part of it for the actual TV show, which is dead. I mean, it's completely dead. So so I do think we need it's a good reminder we need to rethink that overall business model. I think none of that has anything to do with why he was suspended.

这很可怕，而且我认为在情况好转之前会变得更丑陋、更黑暗。但总的来说，我并不为世界上的辛克莱媒体之流感到惋惜。

And it is terrifying and it's gonna get uglier and darker, I think, before it gets better. But but overall, I think I'm not I'm not pouring one out for the Sinclair medias of the world.

对。好的。我知道你时间有限，最后我想说，下一代吉米·坎摩尔们不会像这一代这样。比如，下一个喜剧演员不会有去电视网主持《今夜秀》或《深夜秀》的抱负。他们本身就是吉米·坎摩尔秀。

Right. Okay. I know you have to go one last thought and then I'll end this is, you know, the next generation of Jimmy Kimmel's are not gonna look like this generation. Like, the next comedian, is not gonna have this aspiration to go host The Tonight Show or The Late Show on a television network. They are the Jimmy Kimmel show.

他们将完全——这显示了我们变化有多快——他们是数字原生代。他们会拥有YouTube频道，会有播客，将成为自己内容的主人，不受这些束缚。

They are going to be just it shows how quickly we've changed. They're gonna be digital native. They are going to have a YouTube channel. They're gonna have a podcast. They're gonna be the owners of their content and not be subject to this stuff.

所以，虽然发生的事情很不幸，但我认为未来政府做这类事情的权力会受到更多限制，因为他们无法去YouTube说‘封杀吉米·坎摩尔’。

So, I think it's unfortunate what happened, but I also think that it's it's looking forward the government's power to do this type of stuff is gonna be much much more limited because they don't have the ability to like go to a YouTube and say yank Jimmy Kimmel.

没错。就像我们俩都拥有自己的观众群体一样——虽然还没到那个程度——频道和内容。对，对。

Yeah. And and just like both of us who own our own audience Not yet. Channels and content. Yeah. Yeah.

干脆封杀我们吧，这样我们就能巡演说‘我们被禁了，快来订阅’。好了。

But just cancel us so we can go on tour saying, we got canceled. Subscribe. Alright.

加入我们的Discord。进入Discord。成为付费订阅用户加入Discord。加入这场反抗。

Get us in the Discord. Join the Discord. Join become a paid subscriber. Join the Discord. Revolt.

推翻Ranjan和我，我们将着手开发eHow的下一版本。感谢大家的收听。谢谢你，Ranjan。和你交谈总是很愉快，Ranjan。再次感谢。

Overthrow Ranjan and I, and we will get working on the next iteration of eHow. So thank you all for listening. Thank you, Ranjan. Always great to talk to you, Ranjan. Thank you again.

下周见。

See you next week.

好了各位。下周，我相信我们将邀请到Wiz的联合创始人Ynon Kostica来讨论人工智能与网络安全。我们下次在《大科技播客》中再见。

Alright, everybody. Next week, I believe we're gonna have Ynon Kostica, the cofounder of Wiz talking about AI and cybersecurity. So we will see you next time on big technology podcast.