Cloudflare 能否拯救网络免受人工智能的冲击？

我当时就说，你知道吗，我每天都要跟朝鲜和伊朗的黑客，还有中国人打交道。

And I was like, you know, I go to war every day with like North Korean and Iranian hackers and the Chinese.

他们真的很厉害，而且很会隐藏。

Like, they're really good at it, and they hide.

相比之下，帕洛阿尔托的那些极客们，他们注册的是特拉华州的C类公司。

Whereas, like, the nerds in Palo Alto have a Delaware based c corporation.

要找到他们很容易，不像那些人，而且他们很难大规模地躲过我们。

Like, it's pretty easy to identify them versus versus the others, and it's really difficult for them at scale to hide from from us.

事实上，我们看到的是，他们更愿意说，听着，我们会明确表明是我们来访问你的网站，你可以信任我们，我们会告诉你我们具体在做什么，这样你就有权控制这些信息是如何被获取的。

And and in fact, what we're seeing is actually much more of them being willing to say, listen, we will specifically identify when we are coming to a site that it is us, that you can rely on us and we'll tell you exactly what we're doing so that you can have the right to control how that information is is being being taken.

我觉得这个问题在两年前还挺有意思的。

I think that that's a that was an interesting question like two years ago.

但是，你知道吗，就连谷歌这样的公司，他们有时候也挺难搞的，因为谷歌就像漫威电影一样，昨天的英雄变成了今天的反派。

But, you know, even the Google's of the world who who who've who've been at times challenging through this because Google, you know, they they they're sort of like a Marvel film, like the hero of yesterday becomes the villain of tomorrow.

挑战在于，他们觉得，我们签了这么多协议来获取整个互联网的内容，现在我们可以随便用了。

Like, the the challenge has been that they they're like, we struck all these deals to get access to all the Internet, and now we can use it for whatever we want.

我们当时就觉得，以前你们是给网站带流量的。

And we kinda were like, in the past, you were sending people traffic.

现在你们却在拿别人的内容训练模型，却一点流量都不给人家。

Now you're training on things and sending them no traffic.

这跟以前那种互惠互利可不一样了。

That's a different give to get.

不过说实话，我对谷歌团队印象挺深的，他们现在更愿意参与进来谈这件事。

And what what I'm, you know, been really actually impressed with the Google team is that they are much more willing to engage here.

他们明白整个生态系统的价值。

They understand the value of the ecosystem.

谷歌里确实有人真心希望未来能有一个健康、可持续的生态系统。

There are people at Google who really do believe in making sure that there is a healthy, sustainable ecosystem going forward.

而且我觉得，他们已经在爬虫透明度方面做出了一些承诺，我预计他们接下来还会做更多。这其实是个好兆头，因为如果连谷歌都愿意这么做，愿意公开自己正在做的事情，那就能带动整个行业。

And I think already some of the things that they've committed to around transparency of their crawler and some of the things that I expect that they will do over the next little bit, I think that that that that's actually that's a good sign, and it's gonna make it so that, you know, if if if even Google is doing it and is willing to say, I'll announce what I'm doing.

而且在很多情况下，他们甚至愿意为内容付费。

And in in many cases, I'll even be willing to pay for content.

我觉得这其实让说服其他所有AI公司也这么做变得更容易了。

Like, I think that's actually just makes it even easier to convince all of the other AI companies to do the same.

你觉得需要把螺丝拧到底，真的屏蔽谷歌的爬虫，才能让他们付钱吗？

Do you think you need to turn the screws all the way and actually block the Google crawlers to get them to pay?

从9月15日起，我们会把所有免费客户的默认设置改为屏蔽谷歌的AI训练。

As of September 15, we're gonna set the defaults across all of our free customers for it to be that Google is gonna be blocked for AI training.

但如果他们不区分AI训练和搜索引擎训练，我们就会全面屏蔽他们。

But if they won't differentiate between AI training and search engine training, we're just gonna block them across the board.

即使你是网站所有者，你可能会说，我不想这样对我。

Even if you're a site owner, you're like, I don't want that to be for me.

我们会让你很容易关掉这个设置。

We'll make it easy for you to turn it off.

这只是我们默认设置的问题。

It's just about what we set the defaults to.

但我真的感到鼓舞的是，谷歌内部那些好的力量正在意识到，这必须是一个健康的生态系统，他们必须在这个新市场（也就是AI）中遵守与其他所有人差不多的规则，不能利用昨天在搜索领域的垄断来创造明天在AI领域的垄断。

But but I'm I'm really encouraged that Google is that the sort of good forces at Google are are realizing that this has to be a healthy ecosystem and that they have to play by somewhat the same rules for this new market, which is AI that everyone else is playing for and that they can't leverage the monopoly that they had in search yesterday to create a monopoly in AI tomorrow.

我和桑达尔谈过很多次了。

I've talked to Sundar about this many times.

我觉得他不太喜欢我老是提‘谷歌归零’这件事，但也就这样吧。

I don't think he loves the fact that I am the person who keeps calling Google Zero, but so be it.

桑达尔是个很有想法的人。

Sundar is very thoughtful.

他非常非常友善。

He's he's he's very kind.

每次我和他聊天，我都能感觉到他想说的是：那你当时怎么没做点什么？

Every time I talk to him, get the sense that what he wants to say is, well, you didn't do anything about it.

你们这些出版商光抱怨，你们太依赖我给的流量了，而且你们一点筹码都没有。

All you publishers are complaining, you got super addicted to my fire hose of traffic and you have no leverage.

你们自己没建立什么受众，什么都没做。

You built no audience of your own, you didn't do anything.

你看看我得跟多少其他平台竞争。

Look at all of these other platforms that I have to compete with.

TikTok出现了，YouTube不得不跟它竞争。

TikTok showed up and YouTube had to compete with them.

ChatGPT出现了，搜索团队也得跟它竞争，而你们什么都没做。

ChatGeeVee showed up and the search team had to compete with them and you did nothing.

这感觉有点意思，对吧？

This feels like this something, right?

我们要屏蔽谷歌的搜索流量，我们要屏蔽爬虫。

We're gonna block the Google search traffic, we're gonna block the crawler.

想想看，People的CEO居然在说要直接屏蔽谷歌。

Think the CEO of People is talking about literally blocking Google.

Reddit的Steve现在真的变得更强硬了。

Steve at Reddit has really become, you know, more aggressive.

如果谷歌搜不到这些内容，它就没法正常工作了。

And Google doesn't work if it can't search these things.

而且这对他们来说其实更关乎生死存亡。

And it's and it's actually more existential for them.

谷歌搜索排名的核心机制就是构建一棵树。

The very nature of how Google search ranking works is it builds a tree.

这就是PageRank的原理。

That's what page rank was.

它基本上就是说，好。

It sort of says, okay.

这里有一个超级权威的来源，然后看看它和网上其他内容是怎么关联的。

Here's here's a super reputable thing, and then let's see how it's connected to everything else that's online.

问题是，如果像Cloudflare这样占互联网20%以上的服务突然消失了，那就在这棵树中间留下了一个巨大的空洞。

The problem is if, you know, with Cloudflare, again, 20% plus of the Internet, if that just disappears, that's in a giant hole in the middle of tree.

所以这不仅会破坏这个。

And so it doesn't just break it for this.

它会破坏所有东西。

It breaks it for everything.

我觉得这就是我们和很多客户一起意识到的，我们可以说，听着，这已经不公平了。

And I think that that's the that's that's what, you know, we sort of realized that on behalf of and in conjunction with a lot of our customers, we could say, listen, this isn't fair anymore.

你这是在制造成本。

You're not you're creating costs.

你在拿别人的内容。

You are taking content.

你从这些内容中获取价值，无论是通过你卖AI工具的订阅，还是通过你投放的广告。

You are getting value from that content either in terms of the subscriptions that you're selling to your AI tools or to the ads that you're running against that.

而且这已经不再是公平的交换了。

And you're and and that's just not a fair give to get anymore.

所以这个协议必须改变。

And so the deal has to change.

我真的很自豪，我们在帮助出版行业转型方面发挥了作用。两年前我和《人物》杂志的尼尔吃饭时，他还在说‘唉，我们该怎么办啊？’

And so I'm really proud of the fact that, you know, we've played a role in helping, you know, the publishing industry go from what was, you know, two years ago when I had, you know, dinner with Neil from People, he's like, you know, he's like, woe is me, what are we ever gonna do?

我当时就说，我觉得我们能解决这个问题。

And I'm like, I think we can fix this.

而最近一次我见到他，我们互相击掌庆祝了。

And and now, like, last time I saw him, we gave each other a high five.

我说，我觉得我们正在取得进展。

I said, I think we're we're making progress.

大型出版商达成的协议明显好多了。

And the deals that large publishers are doing are significantly better.

现在的问题是，怎么把这个推广到整个互联网。

And and now I think the question is, how do we bring that to the rest of the Internet?

因为如果不这样做，我们就会面临一个巨大的公地悲剧问题，大家都只会索取、索取、索取，增加成本、增加成本、增加成本，而真正创造东西的激励就没了，比如为维基百科这样的平台做贡献，建个新网站，写写当地新开的餐馆，做本地新闻和本地媒体，或者当个学者。

Because if we don't, we have this massive tragedy of commons problem where it's just gonna be take, take, take, impose costs, impose costs, impose costs, and and the incentives for actually creating things, for contributing to the Wikipedias of the world, for putting up a new website, for writing about what, you know, the new local restaurant is, for creating local news and local media, for being an academic.

如果做这些事情连饭都吃不上，那人们就不会去做了。

Like, if if we if there's not some way that you can do those things and still eat, like, still make enough to eat, then people aren't gonna do it.

这对我们所有人都有害。

And that harms us all.

多年来，我一直对谷歌持批评态度。

And, I I I've been very critical of Google over the years.

但我要说，过去几个月，他们的态度似乎开始转变了。

I will say that their tune appears to be changing over the last over the last few months.

而且我相信，他们内心深处确实明白这是一个生态系统，他们在其中扮演着重要角色，他们需要回馈这个生态系统，并且遵守规则，让这个生态系统蓬勃发展。

And I believe that at their core, they really do understand that this is an ecosystem, that they play an important role in that ecosystem, and that they need to give back to that ecosystem and and play by rules that allow the ecosystem to flourish.

你说谷歌很快会做一些改变。

You said Google's gonna make some changes soon.

会是哪些改变呢？

What changes would those be?

你知道，我觉得他们已经承诺的事情就是，让他们的爬虫在做什么变得更加透明。

You know, I think the thing that they've already committed to is just a lot more transparency on what their crawler is doing.

所以我们之前推动他们做的是，把他们的爬虫分开，说，你知道，我们会为了AI单独爬取，和为了网页爬取分开。

So what we had pushed them to do is split their crawler apart and say, you know, we are gonna crawl for, you know, AI separate from crawling for for the web.

而且我觉得他们，出于很多技术原因，反驳说，你知道，那实际上效率极低。

And I think that they they, for a lot of technical reasons, pushed back and said, you know, that actually is incredibly inefficient.

你不想——我们不需要爬两次。

You don't wanna we did not have to crawl twice.

那会给所有现有的东西带来双倍的负载。

That's gonna put twice as much load on on everything that's out there.

那如果我们换个方式，当我们的爬虫访问一个页面时，我们声明它在做什么，然后给你一个选择，如果你不喜欢，你可以说不行。

What if instead we just said when our crawler comes to a page, we'll announce what it's doing and then give you the ability that if you don't like it, doing something to say, no.

不行。

No.

这个不允许，但那个可以，然后把这两者结合起来。

That's not allowed, but but this is and and put that that together.

他们基本上已经表态了，主要是回应英国的一项裁决，他们会建立这些机制，让出版商有选择权，而且不只是英国，他们会在更广的范围内这么做。

That they have they have signaled that largely in response to what was a a ruling out of The United Kingdom that they were going to put those those procedures in place to allow publishers to make that choice and that they wouldn't just do it in The United Kingdom, but they'd actually do it on a on a broader basis.

我觉得这样下来，我们会得到一个更强大的网络，坦白说，也会有一个更好的谷歌，那真是太好了。

And I think we come out of this on the other side with a stronger web and frankly, with even a better Google, which would be which would be great.

我想你知道，关于音乐产业，我可以跟你争论一整天一整夜。

I could argue with you about the music industry all day and all night, I think you know that.

但确实，改变访问权、版权法以及围绕音乐产业的那些东西，改变了整个行业，对吧？

But it it is true that changing access and copyright law and all that stuff around music industry changed the business, right?

因为分发方式变了，举办演出和驻场演出的激励也变了。

The incentives to put on shows and do residencies and all that changed because of the distribution changing.

我觉得这一点我们大体上是认可的。

That I think we generally grant.

你描述的是一个信息市场，其中的激励机制会再次发生变化，对吧？

You're describing an information market where the incentives will shift again, right?

在那里，为机器人制作信息可能比为人制作信息更有利可图，这可能会塑造信息的本质。

Where it might be more economically lucrative to make information for the bots than for people and that might shape the very nature of the information.

你经营一家本地报纸，也许你的员工发布的餐厅评论最适合被大语言模型消化后再输出。

You run a local paper, maybe your people are publishing restaurant reviews that are best ingested by an LLM and spit out.

或者，与其评论一家酒店，不如评论每一间酒店房间。

Or or instead of reviewing a hotel, review every hotel room.

你知道吗，纽约时报上每出现一个词，那位记者可能在别处写下了大概一百个词。

You know, for every word that appears in a story in the New York Times, that reporter has written down probably a 100 words somewhere else.

这些都是其他的元数据，传统上它们受到限制，比如纸质报纸的栏宽，或者人类真正愿意花多少注意力在上面。

That's all that other metadata, which traditionally has been constrained by, you know, how many column inches you had in in the in the physical paper or how much attention a human would actually spend on that.

想象一下，如果你能对大语言模型说，嘿，听着，我们要卖纳乔。

Imagine if you could say to the LLMs like, hey, listen, we're gonna sell nacha.

而且，关于保护消息来源，有很多事情要考虑，有些东西你必须处理好。

And again, there's there's all kinds of things around protecting sources and you you have to get there's there's stuff you have to get right.

但如果处理得当，就会有一个非常丰富的、额外的信息目录来源。

But if you get it right, there's an enormous rich, like, source of of a catalog of additional information.

你在杂志或报纸上看到的每一张照片，可能都有五六十张是拍同一个东西的。

For every picture you see in a magazine or a newspaper, there are probably 50 or 60 that were taken of that same thing.

而且，这些对现在那些AI系统来说都很有价值。

And, like, that's all valuable to these AI systems that are out there.

所以我觉得我们可以想象很多方式，今天真的有很多内容被白白扔掉，其实它们可能非常有价值。

So I think there's a lot of ways that we can imagine how as there's just a bunch of content that's literally being thrown on the floor today that actually can be incredibly valuable.

这是我的领域。

This is my universe.

这个我有信心。

I feel confident about this one.

今天我为一个大报道开了个包装会议，我们关于封面图片和几周后要发的报道进行了很充分的讨论。

I was in a packaging meeting today for one of our big stories and we had a pretty fulsome debate about the lead image and a story we're gonna run-in a few weeks.

然后我们有分歧，最后我们选了一张，或者选了一个方向。那是一个编辑上的决定，目的是为了在人类身上引起某种反应。

Then we disagreed and we eventually we picked one or we picked a direction And that was an editorial choice that was designed to elicit some reaction in humans.

我们可以把其余的照片都发出来。

We could publish all the rest of the photos.

它们都真的非常好。

They're all really, really good.

我们决定一张是赢家，其余的不是。

And we decided one would be the winner and the rest wouldn't.

但如果我把所有照片都发出来，然后交给一个LLM，它会改变我们做出来的东西，对吧？

But if I publish all the photos and I give them to an LLM, it will change the thing that we made, right?

因为它的分发方式必然会改变，它的目标受众也会改变。

Because its distribution will necessarily change and its intended audience will change.

也许最大的解码套路就是，你的分发方式不可避免地会改变你做出的东西。到头来，也许我的未来就是做YouTube上的AG1广告，那就是所有播客的未来。

Like maybe the biggest decoder trope of all is that your distribution inevitably changes the thing you make and at the end of the day, maybe my future is just making YouTube face sling an AG one and that is the future of all podcast.

就是某种分发力量改变了你做出的东西。

It's just some force of distribution that changes the thing that you make.

你描述的这个结果好吗？

Is the outcome you're describing good?

我们是不是只是在制造无穷无尽的信息洪流，为了让人消费，中间还要经过聊天机器人的消化，然后针对搜索引擎优化？

We're we're just making an infinite flood of information GEO optimized for some human to consume digested by a chatbot in the middle?

嗯，我觉得，首先，现在的模式好吗？

Well, so so I think that so first of all, is the is the current model good?

你知道，我和你们母公司里的很多人聊过。

You know, I mean, I've talked with lots of lots of people at your your parent parent corporation.

再说一次，我觉得你们做得确实不错。

And again, think you guys do do a good job.

现在有很多媒体，就是想着怎么用最低的成本来创作内容。

There's I mean, there's a lot of, you know, media that with today was just how do we create content as inexpensively as possible?

确实。

Sure.

然后通过A/B测试标题，来激发多巴胺或者皮质醇反应。

And then AB test headlines in order to either stimulate a dopamine or cortisol response to that.

是这样吗？

Is that

要是媒体真有那么科学就好了。

If only the media was that scientific.

我们收购了很多，其实很多都是这样。

We we acquired a lot A lot of it is.

我是说，我和赫芬顿邮报、BuzzFeed的一些人聊过，他们就说，对，这就是游戏规则。

I mean, I I've sat with some of the, you know, the folks from Huffington Post, some of the folks from BuzzFeed where they were like, yeah, that's the game.

这就是我们玩的游戏。

And that's the game that we play.

再说，我不确定我们在所有地方都这么玩，但你甚至可以看到《纽约时报》的变化。

And again, I don't I don't know that a game we play everywhere, but you can even see you you can even track the New York Times.

你可以看看《华尔街日报》。

You can track the Wall Street Journal.

你可以看看《金融时报》，看看过去二十年里，标题变得多么煽动性，几乎像小报一样。

You can track the Feet and just watch how much more inflammatory and almost tabloid ish the headlines have gotten over the last twenty years.

而且，我觉得那些仍然是每一个都是很棒的媒体机构。

And and again, I think that that's that that those are still every one of those is an amazing media organization.

但为了在这个领域胜出，关键就变成了怎么去激发人们内心深处的某种情绪？

But in order to win in this space, it's been how do I provoke really a deep?

嗯，你描述的是他们在迎合自己的分发渠道，主要是社交媒体。

Well, what you're describing is they're playing to their distribution, which is largely social media.

那是算法驱动的社交媒体算法，而这就是分发方式，它也在塑造内容。

It's algorithmic social media algorithms, and that is the distribution and it's shaping the content.

所以我想问你，你描述的这种新的分发方式是什么？

So I'm asking you about the new distribution that you're describing.

那么，我们先把这个框架说清楚。我有一句话，每次说出来都会让谷歌的人对我大喊大叫，那就是：今天世界上所有的问题都是谷歌的错。

So it's a but let's let's just let's just frame that, you know, that that that this the sentence that I say that gets everyone at Google to yell at me is everything wrong with the world today is Google's fault.

这对谷歌来说并不公平。

That is that is not fair to Google.

谷歌总体上是一家很棒的公司，但谷歌催生了脸书，脸书又催生了抖音，把我们带进了这个注意力经济的陷阱，我们做的就是尽可能多地获取注意力。

Google has has been by and large been a great company, but Google begets Facebook, which begets TikTok, which has us in this attention economy hole where it's just like what we're trying to do is get as much attention as possible.

而要做到这一点，最好的方式就是再次激发一种深层的、哺乳动物式的本能反应。

And the best way to do that is to actually stimulate, again, a a deep sort of mammalian response.

这就是我们今天所处的媒体环境。

That's the media landscape that we live in today.

我觉得这个环境已经严重出了问题，也正是它让世界变得分裂。

And I think it's deeply broken, and I think it's what's divided the world.

我认为它导致了世界各地极具破坏性的民粹主义抬头，而真正的思想辩论反而少了很多。

I think it's what's led to the rise of of of sort of very destructive populism around the world, you know, much less sort of of real intellectual debate.

那我们能转向什么呢？

So what could we move to?

再说一次，我觉得这里面有很多地方可能会出问题。

And again, I think there's a lot that can go wrong here.

但如果你去跟OpenAI的Sam、Anthropic的Dario，或者谷歌DeepMind那些构建AI系统的团队聊聊，他们真正想要的是什么？

But what if you talk to Sam at OpenAI or Dario at Anthropic or you talk to, you know, the teams at Google that are building the AI systems at DeepMind and others, what do they really want?

他们想要的是真正的新知识。

They want new true knowledge.

他们想要的是还没人知道的东西。

They want the thing that nobody knows about yet.

他们想要的是那种没人报道的有趣故事。

They want the story about, you know, the the the interesting thing that no one else is covering.

他们想要的是真正推动人类知识进步的东西。

They want that thing which is actually advancing human knowledge forward.

这也是我想读的。

That's what I wanna read too.

我真的不想再看一篇关于特朗普白宫今天发生了什么的评论了。

I don't actually wanna read yet another take of what happened in the Trump White House today.

这种东西已经够多了，他们也不想要。

There's plenty of that, and and they don't want it either.

最好的证据就是这些分发协议是怎么达成的。

And and the best the best evidence of this is actually how some of these distribution deals have been done.

《纽约时报》这家了不起的媒体机构和Reddit这家同样了不起的媒体机构，在那里面拥有的token数量差不多。

So The New York Times, amazing media organization, and Reddit, also an amazing media organization, have about the same amount of tokens in that.

《纽约时报》已经出版很久了。

The New York Times has been publishing for a lot longer.

Reddit 的内容量要大得多。

Reddit is is a lot higher volume.

所以他们做交易。

And so they they do deals.

谁的内容更值钱？

Who gets more money for their tokens?

答案是 Reddit，至少高出七倍，有些衡量标准下是十四倍，还有些其他标准下……

The answer is Reddit by at least seven, by some measures 14, by some other

跟听众说明一下，你这里说的“内容量”是指新内容的数量吧。

Just to be clear for the audience, you're you're using tokens as a measure of amount of new content.

对，就是内容。

Of content.

就是里面的那些内容。

The content content that's that's that's in there.

而且，不仅仅是新内容，还有历史内容。

And, it's not just new content, but it's the legacy content as well.

所以问题就是为什么？

And so the question is why?

再说一次，这对《纽约时报》来说非常不公平。

And and, again, this is deeply unfair to the New York Times.

但如果你没有《纽约时报》，你可以直接授权《华尔街日报》，然后让AI把它改写成纽约自由派的风格。

But if you don't have the New York Times, then you can just license the Wall Street Journal and ask AI to rewrite it as if it's a New York liberal.

你就能得到《纽约时报》了。

And you get The New York Times.

这非常不公平，除非所有这些主要媒体出版物都把自己的业务变成了向各自的受众讲述完全相同的故事。

Deeply unfair, except that all of these media publications, the major media publications have made their business of telling the exact same story to their individual tribes.

而Reddit，如果你没有Reddit，就没有替代品。

Whereas Reddit, like, Reddit, if you don't have Reddit, there's no substitute for it.

Reddit就是那个独一无二的存在。

Reddit's Reddit is this unique thing that's out there.

所以我觉得，未来的媒体更像是真正独特的叙事方式，围绕本地社区、别人没讲过的独特故事，以及真正的知识创造，这些才是有价值的，而且已经被今天的市场证明了。

And so I think a media of the future that looks more like truly unique kind of storytelling around, again, local communities, unique stories that no one else has told, real knowledge creation is what is valuable and is proven valuable by the market that exists today.

但市场的另一面，简单来说，我理解这个模式，市场、买家，这个市场的买家就是一堆模型公司。

But the the other side of that market, just to be reductive here to say I understand the model, the market, the buyer in this market is a bunch of model companies.

不是人。

It's not people.

嗯，但最终，那些模型公司的客户，就是我们所有人。

Well, but but but then ultimately, the customers of those model companies, which is all of us.

如果你作为模型公司，给我的东西不是最新的信息，那么，令人惊讶的是，似乎这些模型公司没有哪一家能独自领先。

And if you as a model company are giving me stuff where I'm not at where it's where you don't have the latest information, then I then what's been amazing is it doesn't appear like any of these model companies on their own is going to, like, run away.

我的意思是，人们会说，哦，那如果OpenAI实现了AGI呢？

I mean, people are like, oh, well, what if, know, OpenAI gets AGI?

我会说，两天后，Anthropic也会有AGI。

I'm like, that's two days later, Anthropic will have AGI.

然后，你知道，Grok也会在几天后有，谷歌也会在几天后有。

And then, you know, Grok will have it a couple days after that and Google have a couple days after that.

然后，光有AGI就不够了。

And then it won't be AGI won't be enough.

得是AGI加，或者AGI加加，你懂我意思吧。

It'll be AGI plus or AGI plus plus or what I mean.

所以我觉得有意思的是，什么能让这些东西从商品变成真正有粘性、能卖出去的产品？

So what I think is gonna be interesting is what is it that's gonna turn these things from commodities into actually sticky products that people sell?

我觉得答案就是，谁能接触到最真实的知识，从而得到正确的答案。

And I think the answer is gonna be who has access to the most true knowledge that gets you the right answers.

所以，从终端消费者的角度来看，所有的动机都是想尽可能多地回馈给真正知识的创造者。

And so, like, that seems like all of the incentives from the end consumers are to say, I wanna get as much back to the the the the the creators of real knowledge as I possibly can.

现在，我来告诉你财务这块，我觉得我们能解决财务问题。

Now I'll I'll tell you the the financial piece, I think we can solve the financial piece.

我真正更担心的是另一块，这源于这个……你应该请丹尼尔·埃克上节目聊聊这些事，他聊起来特别有意思。

The piece that I'm actually much more worried about and, this comes out of this this com you should have Daniel Ek on the on the story because he's fascinating to talk about these things.

但他，他跟我聊过。

But he like, he's talking to me.

他说，听着。

He's like, listen.

你一直在想怎么让内容创作者赚到钱。

You've been thinking a lot about how to get content creators paid.

他说，你看音乐家，人们成为音乐家有两个原因，为了赚钱和为了出名。

He said, if you think about musicians, there are two reasons that people become musicians, to get rich and to get famous.

如果最后非得让音乐家排个序，哪个更重要，出名可能比赚钱更重要。

And if you, at the end of the day, like, had to cause musicians to rank, which one is more important, fame probably beats rich.

顺便说一句，这是个愚蠢的策略。

It's, by the way, it's a stupid strategy.

有钱但没人认识你，那才是最好的。

Being rich and anonymous is the best.

真的。

Story.

但这是事实。

But the but but but that's true.

我觉得很多人确实渴望得到认可。

I think that a lot of people really do want recognition.

这也是为什么维基百科的贡献者数量和贡献内容在下降，因为人们得不到足够的认可，因为你不会去查原始来源。

This is part of why Wikipedia is seeing a drop in the number of contributors and information that's contributing is because people don't get recognized as much because you're not going to the original sources.

所以我觉得这是个问题。

And so I think that's a problem.

这是下一个问题。

That's the next problem.

我觉得我们能解决经济问题，但下一个问题是如何真正认可创作者。

I think we'll solve the financial problem, but the next problem is how do we actually recognize the creators?

所以我一直在向大型AI实验室提议，我们应该设立某种奖项，不管是诺贝尔奖还是奥斯卡奖，但要有一种认可机制，用数学来衡量谁在某个特定领域对哺乳动物生物学研究贡献最大，在过去一年里进行衡量，然后举办一场盛大的颁奖典礼，给他们颁奖，庆祝他们，并谈论他们在推动这方面有多出色。

And so what I've been pitching to the big AI labs is we should create I don't know if it's the Nobel Prize or the Academy Awards, but some sort of recognition where we use math to measure who create, you know, contributed the most to, you know, I don't know, mammalian biological research in some specific field and measure it in the last year and then have a big ceremony and give them an award and and celebrate them and talk about how wonderful they were at advancing this.

我觉得要弄清楚如何仍然认可那些真正在创造知识的人，即使知识传播的媒介可能不再直接来自原始研究。

I think figuring out how we still take the people who are actually out there creating the knowledge and say that even though the medium through which they're going to be, that knowledge can get disseminated might be removed from the original research.

可能是AI机器人或聊天机器人在传播这些知识。

It might be the AI bot or the chatbot that's out there.

我们还是要说，你们在做非常重要的工作，我们会为这份重要的工作认可你们。

We still have to say, but you're doing really important work and we're gonna recognize you for that important work.

上次你来的时候，我们花了很多时间讨论内容审核，以及Cloudflare如何利用它在互联网上的权力，基本上让像Stormfront这样的新纳粹网站更难存在。

The last time you're on, we spent a lot of time talking about content moderation and and Cloudflare using its power on the Internet to, you know, essentially make it harder for sites like Stormfront which are neo Nazi website to exist.

你当时对此非常纠结。

And you had a lot of you were you were in torment about it.

你手握大权，你打算使用它，你还为此发表了一些专栏文章。

You had a lot of power, you were going to use it, you published some op eds about it.

我们讨论了一段时间，最终你决定不想和这些人做生意，后果就是后果，但应该有某种框架来规范你的权力。

We talked about it for a while and eventually you came to decide you don't wanna be in business with these folks and the consequences are the consequences, but there should be some frameworks to regulate your power.

很多事情都变了，但我们确实进行了一场关于Cloudflare利用其权力阻止AI爬虫并创造经济机会的长谈。

Many things have changed, but we've kinda had a long conversation about Cloudflare using its power to block AI scrapers and create economic opportunity.

这在很多方面是同样的权力。

It's the same power in many ways.

这是互联网一个关键层的权力，能够阻止事情发生。

It's a power of a layer of the Internet that is predominant to to stop things from happening.

你改变主意了吗？

Have you changed your mind?

是因为经济上的考虑让你觉得更安心了，还是有别的原因？

Is it just the economic rationale that's made that more comfortable for you, or is there something else happening?

你知道吗，我觉得在Cloudflare内部，有一件事一直很有意思，就是当我们看到这些利用我们的坏事时，我觉得会有一个非常人性的反应。

You know, I think what's one one of the things is and one thing that's been interesting in inside of Cloudflare has always been, like, when we see these bad things that are using us, you know, there's there's, I think, a very human reaction.

而且通常是我的联合创始人Michelle会说，听着，我明白那些棘手的道德问题，但这本身就是坏事。

And it's often my co founder Michelle who's like, listen, I realize all the hard thorny moral questions, but this is per se bad.

我们应该做点什么。

We should do something about it.

我觉得我们大体上已经表明了态度，就是说，这很难。

And I think we have largely come out to say, know, that's it's tough.

我们不想成为决定什么好什么坏的人，而且实际上，真正算得上本身就是坏的事情并不多。

Like, we don't wanna be the ones that are deciding what's good and bad and even and there and there actually aren't that many things that are just sort of per se bad that that are out there.

但如果我们能改变激励机制，让创造这些各种东西的动机减少，那岂不是很好？

But wouldn't it be great if we could change the incentives so that, you know, there's less incentive to create these these various various things.

而我觉得有趣的是，关于互联网未来商业模式的问题，这大概是我第一次想到，也许我们不应该只是去处理这里或那里的不良内容，那基本上就像是在拔蒲公英，一个一个地处理。

And and what I found interesting about, you know, the the the the the question of what the future business model of the Internet is gonna be is it's sort of the first time I've I've thought, well, maybe instead of trying to kinda deal with, you know, bad sight here or there, which is basically like just, you know, cutting down dandelions, like, gonna, you know, spot up.

你并没有解决根本问题。

You're not solving the root problem.

我觉得如果我们能让互联网下一个商业模式的激励不再围绕着如何制造愤怒和情绪——顺便说一句，成为新纳粹是最能激怒人们的方式之一，他们往往会点击你的内容。

I think if we can get the incentives for the next business model of the Internet to be less around how do we just create rage and emotion and which by the way, being a neo Nazi is one of the most effective ways to just really piss people off and they tend to click on your things.

然后去买营养补品之类的。

And then and then buy nutritional supplements or whatever.

所有这些背后都是非常奇怪的商业模式。但我觉得如果我们能回到一个真正奖励信息创造和知识创造，而不是愤怒创造的模式，那也许才是触及根本问题所在。

All these things are very weird business models that are behind But I I think if we can get back to something where we're actually rewarding not rage creation, but information creation and knowledge creation, that that that that maybe that's actually getting at what is, you know, the fundamental kind of roots that are there.

也许我太乐观了，但我认为要阻止我们在网上看到的许多可怕事情，方法就是解决那个真正破碎的商业模式，正是它导致了我们今天所看到的在线社区。

And maybe I'm too much of an optimist, but I think the way that you stop a lot of, again, the the just horrible things we see online is by solving the business model that is really broken, that has led to the online communities that we have that we have today.

而且我们要摆脱那种非常以注意力为基础的经济，转向一个更加以信息和知识为基础的经济。

And and that we get away from what has been very much an in from a a excuse me, an attention based economy to one that is much more of an information knowledge based economy.

所以当我们思考互联网的未来会是什么样子时……

And so as we're thinking about, like, what does the future of the Internet look like?

这就是我们努力的目标。

That's what we're playing for.

所以，这其实是同样的权力。

Is that so it's the same power.

你，Cloudflare 在互联网上拥有很大的权力。

It you you have Cloudflare has a lot of power on the Internet.

作为一个平台层，你们有很大的影响力。

It's a platform layer of there's a lot of influence.

你们有能力阻止一些事情。

You're able to stop things.

在那些新纳粹网站的事情上，你们选择不使用这种权力。

In in the case of the neo Nazi websites, you declined to use your power.

这，不。

This is No.

不。

No.

我们，我的意思是，我们确实把他们从我们的系统里踢出去了。

We I mean, we do we do we kicked them we kicked them off our our our systems.

你说过，你不能让Cloudflare保护你免受DDoS攻击，然后也许他们就会用DDoS攻击把你打到彻底消失或者别的什么。

You said you we you can't have Cloudflare protect you from DDoS attacks, and then maybe they're just gonna DDoS to new oblivion or whatever.

或者，我的意思是，他们其实都还在。

Or or or I mean, they're they're all still around.

所以，从某种程度上说，这说明了它的局限性。

So that so so at some level, it, you know, it it shows that that it's limited.

但在这种情况下，你会使用你的权力。

But in but in this case, you're gonna use your power.

你会说，我们实际上会用Cloudflare来阻止事情发生，而这会创造一个市场。

You're gonna say we're actually we will use Cloudflare to stop things from happening, and that will create a market.

我想问题在于，你知道，权力。

I guess the question is, you know, power.

所以，你知道，注册Cloudflare只需要五分钟。

So, you know, it takes five minutes to sign up for Cloudflare.

我们有免费版的服务。

We have a free version of service.

离开只需要三十秒。

It takes thirty seconds to leave.

所以如果我们做了任何不符合客户利益的事，我们就会失去客户。

So if we're ever doing something that's not in our customers' interest, we'll lose our customers.

所以我们非常以客户为中心。

And so, you know, we are very much at the service of our customers.

我记得第一次有媒体公司打电话给我，说我们遇到了新的威胁。

And I remember the first time that, you know, a media company called me and said, you know, we have this new threat.

你必须阻止它。

You have to stop it.

你知道吗？

You know?

我当时就问，是什么威胁？

And I was like, what is the threat?

他们说，是那些AI公司。

And they're like, it's the AI companies.

我翻了翻白眼。

And I rolled my eyes.

我觉得这是我听过最蠢的事。

I was like, it's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

为什么所有媒体公司都这么守旧？

Why are all media companies such Luddites?

但后来我们一查数据，发现确实，互联网的运作方式真的面临一个生存威胁。

But but then we only pulled the data and we saw that really, again, that there was an existential threat to how the Internet was working.

我觉得我们开始相信了。

And I think we became convinced.

我确实相信了，这件事值得我们花时间和资源去对抗。

I certainly became convinced that that this was something that was that was worth us spending our time and our resources on on fighting it.

所以，你知道，我觉得我们有一个非常有利的位置，因为我们为那么多公司提供了那么多价值，他们信任我们。

So, you know, again, think that we we have, you know, a a really privileged position because we have provided so much value to so many companies that are out there that they trust us.

但如果我们一旦搞砸了，他们马上就会离开我们。

But if we if we ever if we ever screw that up, you know, they'll leave us in a second.

所以，你说这是权力，还是只是对互联网的一种负责任的态度？

So, you know, is that power or or is that just being a good steward to the Internet?

现在是2026年。

It's 2026.

互联网上言论的性质已经变了。

The valence of speech on the Internet has changed.

如果今天再让你做关于Kiwi Farms和Daily Stormer的决定，你还会做出同样的选择吗？

If you had to make the Kiwi Farms Daily Stormer decisions again today, would you make them the same way?

我觉得每件事都是特定时刻的产物，而且，你知道，这些决定都有得有失。

I think each of those things is sort of a moment in time and there were, know, I think there are puts and takes under all those things.

我觉得在某种程度上，我们当时做关于Daily Stormer的决定时，没人知道Cloudflare是什么。

I think that the, you know, at some level, you know, we we at the time, like, no one knew, like, when we made the the decision around the daily storm, no one knew what Cloudflare was.

而且我们当时看到网上有很多监管措施，这些措施真的可能对互联网的基本运作方式构成真正的威胁。

And we were seeing a bunch of regulation that was that was happening online that was that was really could have been, you know, a real threat to the underlying way the internet worked.

像DNS和TLS这样的关键协议，监管起来挺麻烦的。

Regulating kind of key protocols like DNS and and TLS.

我们当时对此很担心。

And and we were nervous about that.

所以问题就是，你怎么表达这个观点？

So And the question was, how did you make that point?

所以，你知道，把Daily Stormer踢出去的一个真正原因，就是我们写文章、上新闻、在《华尔街日报》发评论，都是为了帮助我们界定什么样的政策决策才是正确的。

And so, you know, one of the real rationales of kicking Daily Stormer off was it we and then writing about it, talking about it, going on the news about writing another Wall Street Journal editorial about it was because it helped us then frame what was the right kind of policy decision was out there.

而且，我们上次聊过罗尔斯。

And and, again, you know, we talked about Rawls last time.

这次我想聊聊康德。

I'll talk about Kant this time.

你知道，我们那样做其实挺违背康德思想的。

You know, we very much offended Kant in that.

我们把这个网站当作达到目的的手段，而不是目的本身。

We were using this site as a means to an end that was not into a a, you know, itself.

但是如果你要把某个东西当作达到目的的手段，比如用来表达观点，那新纳粹分子用来做这个还挺好用的。

But but if you're gonna use something as a means to an end, like to make a point, neo Nazis are pretty fun to use to that point.

所以我觉得我们确实达到了目的。

And so I think we we were able to make the point.

我们确实在一定程度上改变了政策决定。

We were able to sort of change the policy decision.

我们能够讨论面临的挑战是什么，而且我们做到了。

We were able to talk about what the what the challenges were and we could do it.

所以今天，如果完全相同的状况再次出现，那也不会是完全相同的状况了。

So so today, if the exact same set of facts came up, it just wouldn't be the exact same set of facts.

因为现在，显然，Cloudflare 的名气大得多了。

Because today, obviously, Cloudflare is much more known.

我们已经进行过那些关于政策的讨论。

We've we've had those those policy conversations.

但这并不意味着，你知道，感觉好像每隔五年，就会有类似的事情冒出来。

And that that doesn't mean that, you know, it it it kinda feels like every five years, you know, another one of these things pops up.

所以我们可能很快又要遇到一次了。

So we're probably due for one sometime soon.

我觉得每次背后的情况都会非常非常不同。

I think that this the situation behind each of them is is gonna be very, very different.

这是来自Global的广告内容。

This is advertiser content from global.

大家好。

Hey, everybody.

本期Decoder Sessions由The Verge总经理Andrew Melazack与Global增长与创新全球管理合伙人Raj Sharma对话。

This edition of Decoder Sessions features Andrew Melazack, The Verge's general manager, in conversation with Raj Sharma, global managing partner for growth and innovation at Global.

希望你们喜欢这次对话。

I hope you enjoy this conversation.

我们来聊聊人工智能吧。

Let's talk about AI.

人工智能能给我的企业带来什么？

What is AI bringing to my enterprise?

安德鲁，从宏观层面来看，dot ai 是我们多年工作的结晶，我们构建了基础设施、智能层和合规生态系统，所有这些都整合进了一个重塑引擎，其中包含我们的技术平台、深厚的行业专长、深入的领域知识，以及我们带给客户的培训和人员，从根本上重新构想现有的流程。

So dot ai at a high level, Andrew, is a culmination of many years of work where we have built our infrastructure, intelligence layer, our compliant ecosystems, all bundled into a reimagination engine, which has got our technology platforms, our deep industry expertise, our deep domain knowledge and our training and our personnel that we bring to the clients to fundamentally reimagine that process that is out there.

当你与CEO、CTO、创新负责人坐下来交谈时，你看到的一些常见错误是什么？

What are some of the mistakes that you see when you sit down with CEOs, CTOs, heads of innovation?

你会说，好吧，我们可以介入，我们经常看到这种情况，我们可以帮你。

You're like, okay, we can get in here, we see this all the time, we can help you.

我们总是提醒客户要注意的一点是，在讨论AI时不要过于狭隘。

The one thing that we always ask our clients to watch out for is to get too narrow in the discussion of the AI that is out there.

AI的好坏取决于使用它的人。

AI is only as good as the hands that shape it.

如果你要投资这类技术，你需要从商业思维出发，明确你希望从企业角度创造什么价值，而不是采取技术优先的方法。

If you're going to invest into that type of a technology, you need to start with a business mindset of the value that you want to create from an enterprise perspective rather than taking a technology first approach.

审视业务，重新构想业务以及它未来的可能性，然后看看AI如何帮助你实现目标，这才是根本。

Looking at that business, looking at reimagining that business and what it could be in future and then looking at how AI can help you get there, that's the fundamental thing.

我通常先问编码器问题，我们刚刚进入正题。

I usually do the encoder questions first, we just got into it.

所以我想先快速问第一个问题，然后我想花很多时间在结构上。

So I wanna ask the first one first really quickly and then I wanna spend a lot of time on structure.

上次你上节目的时候，我问过你是怎么做决定的，我们聊了很久关于价值观和使命，以及你是怎么找到自己的价值观和使命的，然后你又回到了那个话题。

The last time you're on the show, I asked you how you made decisions and we had a long conversation about values and mission and how you kind of came to figure out what your values and mission were and you came back to that.

已经两年了。

It's been two years.

你现在还是那样吗？

Are you still there?

你还是用那个方式来做所有决定吗？

Is that how you make all your decisions?

完全是的。

Totally.

另一个大决定是你最近在五月份做的，你裁掉了1100人，你说这大约是公司人数的20%。

The other so the big decision you recently made in May, you laid off 1,100 people, which you said was about 20% of the company.

Cloudflare现在有多少员工？

How many employees is Cloudflare today?

大概在450万到500万之间吧。

Somewhere between 4,505,000.

所以跟两年前相比，你们是在增长的。

So you're growing compared to two years ago.

你非常公开地把裁员归因于公司内部对AI的使用。

You very openly attributed layoffs to AI usage inside the company.

我知道这是真的，因为你确实在《华尔街日报》上发表了一篇专栏文章。

And I know that's true because you literally published an op ed in the Wall Street Journal.

标题是《我如何选择用AI替代哪些员工》。

The title was How I Choose Which Employees to Replace with AI.

标题不是我定的，因为现在媒体的运作方式就是这样，他们会把标题改得很夸张，但内容确实是我写的。

I didn't get to choose the title because again, the way media works today is they rage rage rage rage rage the titles but that's but yes, but I wrote but I wrote the rest of it.

那篇专栏文章确实支持那个标题。

The op ed supports that title.

我不确定在《华尔街日报》发表社论就能说明事情是真的，但那是社论编辑的决定。

I don't know that that's how you tell that something is true that somebody wrote a Wall Street Journal editorial, but that's the editorial the editorial editor.

那就是标题。

That was the headline.

而且，你知道，开头是两周前，你裁掉了超过20%的员工。

And, you know, the opening is two weeks ago, you laid out more than 20% of your workforce.

那是你写的。

You wrote that.

然后你说你这么做不是因为Cloudflare遇到了困难，而是因为未来Cloudflare需要改变。我就想直接过一遍你的标准，特别想问问你这个标准。

And then you said you didn't do it because Cloudflare is struggling, you did it because so in the future, Cloudflare needs to change and I'm just going to run through your rubric and I just want to ask you about that rubric specifically.

你说你把员工分成了建设者、销售者和衡量者，基本上要裁掉所有做衡量工作的人，也就是所有审计职能的人。

You said you broke people into builders, sellers and measures and you're basically going to cut all the people who did measurement, all the audit functions.

不是全部，但很多。

Not all, but a lot.

确实是这样。

That certainly is.

我们裁掉的大多数人都属于那一类。这又回到了那些老派的基本商业研究，就是说任何公司都有三种职能。

The majority of the people that we laid off came from that that category of and this is so, you know, comes back to some, you know, old school basic, you know, business research, which is that there are three functions with any with any firm.

有一种人是负责建造东西的。

There's a there are people that build things.

比如工程师、产品经理，那些真正创造新产品的人，还有负责销售的人，那些在外面跑业务、把东西卖出去的人。

So the engineers, the product managers, the folks that actually create new products, the people that sell things, people that are out there actually doing the deals and and selling those things.

然后第三类就是，你知道，我们组织里很多很多的人，就是那些真正负责衡量事物的人。

And then the third category is what, you know, a lot of a lot of our organization is, which is the people that actually measure things.

而且，我觉得这三类人受到AI的影响方式会非常不同。

And and again, I I think each of those is going to be impacted by AI in very different ways.

最近我节目上来了很多软件公司的CEO，我们聊到AI如何颠覆每一家软件公司，我通常会问关于产品经理、设计师和工程师的问题，对吧，就是那些建造者。

I've had a lot of software CEOs on the show recently and we've talked about how AI is scrambling every software company and I usually ask about product managers, designers and engineers, right, the builders.

而这些角色全都乱套了，对吧？

And all of those roles are totally scrambled, right?

他们基本上都在做自己工作的一部分。

They're all kind of doing one of their jobs.

而且我不

And I don't

我觉得不是这样。

think that's true.

我确实觉得现在越来越需要多面手了，因为有了这些工具，产品经理能做很多工程师的活，工程师也能做很多产品经理的活。

I do think that there's a sort of increasingly jack of all trades kind of aspect to this where, you know, that that where because you can have these tools, you know, someone who's a product manager can do a lot of what an engineers do, someone with an engineer can do a lot of product managers do.

在这个领域里，真正胜出的是那些能左右开弓、样样都行的人。

And the people that are winning in that space are the people that can that are sort of ambidextrous.

他们能同时处理很多不同的事情。

They can do multiple different things out there.

但让我困惑的是，有些AI乐观派说我们都会失业。

But but like, I where where I get lost with some of the sort of AI maximalists are like, we're all gonna lose our jobs.

比如，如果我雇一个工程师，他们现在效率提高了十倍，这确实是事实。

Like, if I can hire a builder and they are now 10 times as productive, which is which is they are.

说实话，看着我们团队里那些工程师现在的效率，真是让人惊叹。

I mean, just it is wild to watch, you know, how much more productive, you know, are are the the builders on our team are today.

我会尽可能多雇这样的人，因为我有很多事情要做。

I'm gonna hire as many of them as I can because I got lots of stuff to do.

所以，这并没有降低我们招聘工程师、产品经理和其他人的积极性。

And so I I like, that hasn't decreased the incentive for hiring engineers and product managers and everyone else.

实际上反而提高了积极性，因为我在这些人身上花的每一分工资，现在能带来的回报几乎是原来的十倍。

It's actually increased the incentive because the return that I get for the salary dollars that I spend on one of these these people is now essentially 10 times as much.

所以当然，我会尽可能多地招人，这正是我们现在在做的。

And so of course, I'm gonna hire as many as as I as I possibly can, which is which is exactly what we're doing.

那你跟我讲讲这个决定是怎么做的吧。

So just walk me through this decision.

你某天醒来，说，我得……这是彼得·德鲁克说的吧？

You you woke up one day and said, I've gotta I am it's Peter Drucker, think is he quoted.

这个框架其实是来自“建设者、销售者、衡量者”那个模型。

It's built it is sort of the builder seller measure framework comes out of

对于懂行的听众来说，这是经典的管理学思想。

For for the decoder heads out there, this is like old school management philosophy.

你是怎么做出这个决定的？

You just how'd you make this decision?

你当时就想，我必须得这么做。

You were like, I I gotta do this.

我要把这些人分到这些类别里。

I'm gonna sort these people into these categories.

然后我们开始裁员。

And we're gonna start making cuts.

你在数据里看到什么证据了吗？

Did you see any evidence in the data?

给我讲讲。

Walk me through it.

我们看到了很多不同的东西。

We saw we saw a number of different things.

其中一件事是，世界似乎在分成两个阵营。

So so one thing that we saw was that the world was was sort of dividing into into two camps.

一个阵营，往往是组织内两种不同的群体。

One camp, tended to be sort of two different demographics within the organization.

要么是非常资深的人，要么是非常初级的人。

It was either people who are very, very senior or people who are very, very junior.

这些人简直疯狂地在用AI。

And those folks were like adopting AI like crazy.

初级的人是因为他们天生就熟悉这个。

The junior folks because they were just native to it.

资深的人是因为他们有信心，敢拿自己的职业生涯去赌，觉得这种范式转变能让他们学习新东西、迎接新挑战。

The senior folks because they they had the confidence to to to to to kind of bet their their career that that these paradigm shifts would be a way for them to kinda learn new things and take on new challenges.

而且他们对工作很有把握，所以敢这么做。

And they were confident enough in their jobs that they that they could they could do that.

另一类人，你知道的，就是那些职业生涯刚起步的人。

The the other camp was sort of, you know, the the folks who were kind of earlier in their, you know, career.

他们可能不是最资深的，但也不是刚进来的新人。

They might not have been the most senior folks, but they weren't just the brand new folks who had come in.

他们一路走来，受过培训，被教导说在商业中成功的方式就是遵守一套特定的规则。

So they'd come through and been trained and sort of been taught that way the way you succeeded a business was by playing by a certain set of rules.

然后突然间，他们看到周围的同事都在用这些新工具来完成任务。

And then all of sudden, they've they watched around them as their colleagues were all of a sudden, you know, using these new tools that were that were out there to be able to deliver these things.

我用的这个比喻虽然不太完美，但就像我们雇了最擅长用螺丝刀的人，想象一下我们的工作就是把螺丝拧进木头里，我们雇了最擅长用手动螺丝刀的人。

And the and the analogy, is wildly imperfect analogy that I use is it's it's like we had hired the best kind of screw if you imagine our job was to screw screws into wood, we hired the just the best people at using manual screwdrivers to screw screw screws into wood.

然后突然之间，我们发明了电动螺丝刀。

And then all of a sudden, we invented an electric screwdriver.

Eric出现了，我们买到了它。

Eric came along, we were able to buy it.

对大多数工作来说，不是所有工作，但大多数工作，用电动螺丝刀就是更好，能完成更多事情。

And for most jobs, not every job, but for most jobs, using the electric screwdriver is just better and you can get a lot more done with it.

而且，早期职业生涯的人或者晚期职业生涯的人都在采用它。

And, again, the people early in their career were the ones who who who adopted or the people who were kinda late in their career were were adopting it.

所以我们在2025年中期开始做的第一件事就是，嘿，各位。

And so the first thing that we sort of started to do back in kind of the middle of twenty twenty five was say, hey, guys.

现在情况是这样的。

This is what's going on.

我理解，如果你属于第二类人，你的所有动机都会让你去抵制电动螺丝刀。

And I understand all the incentives if you're if you're kind of in that second camp are to fight against the electric screwdriver.

但是，我们可以给你提供培训资源。

But, like, let's give you the resources to train you.

让你有信心，你会有工作，你会做这些事情，但我们要确保每个岗位的人都在学习如何做到这一点。

Let's give you the confidence that you're you're gonna have a job and you're gonna do these things, but let's make sure that everybody across every role is learning how they can how they can do that.

我认为这是你在初期必须采取的一个非常重要的步骤。

And I think that that's just a really important step that you have to do in the in the first part.

但后来我们发现，当我们让所有人，不仅仅是工程师，还有财务、法务等各个部门的人开始使用这些工具时，我们发现AI在衡量事物方面特别出色。

What we then learned though is that as we got everyone, not just the engineers, but people on finance and legal and anything else to start to use these tools, we found that one place where AI just shined was in measuring things.

我觉得我们很少讨论AI优势的一个方面是，AI确实有偏见，但这些偏见通常与组织其他部分的偏见不相关。

And I think one of the places where we don't talk about the advantage of AI enough are that, you know, AI is biased, but the biases are uncorrelated to the rest of the organization typically.

而人类有各种偏见，但一个团队一起工作时，他们的偏见是高度相关的。

Whereas humans have biases like crazy, but a group working together has biases that are massively correlated together.

即使你是在做内部审计，你应该扮演那个盯着每个人看的坏人角色。

Even if you're working on internal audit, right, and you're supposed to be kind of the bad guy who's looking over everyone's shoulder.

你还是会在同一个食堂吃午饭，和同样的人聊天，参加同样的全员大会。

Like you still go to lunch at the same cafeteria, you talk to the same people, you participate in the same all hands.

最终你会形成同样的偏见，但AI不会。

You end up developing the same biases, whereas AI doesn't.

它有一套非常不同的东西。

It has a very different set of things.

所以我们发现，可以用这些工具来大幅提高效率。

And so we found that we could use these tools in order to do things significantly more efficiently.

我们团队里有个叫希瑟的女士。

So there's a woman on our team named Heather.

希瑟之前在投资者关系团队。

Heather was on our investor relations team.

她负责带领一个团队，每次我们快要结账、准备发布财报之前（因为我们是上市公司），他们大约20个人会花两周时间，拼命工作，生成所有相关信息。

And what she would do was lead a team that every time we would kind of close the books before we'd have earnings because we're a public company, they would spend about two weeks, team about 20 people, and and they worked like crazy to generate all of the kind of information.

他们基本上是把数据整理好，然后生成文件，在财报发布时发给所有投资者。

They basically took the measurements and then generated documents that we would then distribute during earnings to all of our our investors.

希瑟当时就说，我觉得我们可以用工具把这件事做得更好。

And Heather was like, I think we can use tools to do this better.

于是我们把原本需要两周的工作，缩短到了三分钟。

And so we took what used to take two weeks, and we reduced it down to three minutes.

我们的投资者都惊呆了。

And our investors are like, wow.

这些文件质量好多了。

These documents are much better.

错误也少了。

There are fewer errors.

失误也少了。

There's there's there's there are less mistakes.

而且，你知道，我们的工具在审计所有这些不同的东西。

We've you know, and and our and our tools are auditing all of all of those different things.

所以对于那20个人，我们帮他们找了其他岗位，但他们很多人其实喜欢的就是那种工作。

And so for those 20 people, like, we look for other places for them, but a lot of them, what they like doing was that sort of work.

而且他们在做那种工作时会非常出色，就像希瑟在某个初创公司或其他地方那样，但我们只是不再需要某些职能了。

And and they would be great at doing that sort of work as the heather at some startup or somewhere else that was there, but we just didn't need some of the functions that were there.

而这些被裁掉的职能大多是那些以测量为主的工作。

And what it tended to be were all of those functions that that were largely measurement.

所以，是的，像内部审计这样的工作，我们实际上能够做得更高效。

And so, yeah, there was things like internal audit, which we were able to just get actually much more efficient at doing.

还有像中层管理这样的职位，传统上哈佛商学院的数据是，平均每个经理应该有大约六个直接下属。

There's also things like middle management where traditionally kind of the Harvard Business School number is that on average you should have, every manager have like six direct reports.

我们发现有了工具，我们可以在管理上更高效，对我们来说合适的数字开始变成，当我们让经理们拥有更多工具，能更早地发现问题并了解团队状况时，平均每个经理可以有大约十二个直接下属，而且每个人实际上都更满意。

We found with tooling, we could actually be much more efficient with managers and that the right number for us started to feel like when we enabled managers to have more tools to better participate in surface issues early and see how their team was doing, that we could get up to like 12 on average direct reports and everyone's actually happier in doing that.

这之所以重要，是因为当你增加直接下属的数量时，实际上是在减少任何组织中的层级数量。

And why that matters is because as you'd increase the number of direct reports, what you actually do is decrease the amount of hierarchy in any in any organization.

这是衡量一个组织是扁平还是层级分明的方式。

That's the way of measuring how flat versus how hierarchical organization is.

所以，我们再次利用这些工具说，嘿，让我们把组织扁平化，这使组织变得更快、更灵活。

And so, again, we could use these tools to say, hey, let's flatten the organization, which has made the organization much faster and more nimble.

但在这个过程中，有一大批中层管理者其实并不合适。

But in the process, there are a whole bunch of middle managers that just weren't the right folks.

所以我们当时就在想，天哪，我们知道这些岗位必须得砍掉。

And so, like, I think we sat there and we're like, gosh, we know we've gotta get rid of these jobs.

问题就是，我们是现在动手还是以后再动手？

And so the question is, do we do it now or do we do it later?

现在动手的问题在于，我们会觉得非常没有安全感。

And the problem with doing it now is like, we feel very exposed.

我们会觉得非常孤立无援。

We feel very alone.

我是说，我收到的死亡威胁数量，不只是来自我们的员工，还有那些反对人工智能的陌生人，真的挺吓人的。

Like, I mean, the number of death threats that I got, not and then not even from our employees, but from just random people who are sort of anti AI was was was really coming pretty scary.

但同时我们也在想，现在宣布这些变动，然后不仅提供丰厚的遣散费和其他福利，还努力帮这些人找到新工作，因为他们都是很优秀的人，这样做是不是更仁慈一些？

But but but at the same time, we're like, is it kinder to say we're gonna make these changes now and then do the work to not only give great severance and and everything else, but actually go place these people because they're great people.

把他们安排到其他岗位上去。

Place them at other positions around.

而且我们在各个方面都做得非常成功。

And and we've been very successful at doing that across the board.

还是说，更好的做法是先保住自己的位置，等到行业里其他人也都得出同样的结论再说。

Or is it better to kind of cover our own ass, wait until everybody else in the industry is is is is sort of saying is coming to the same conclusion.

顺便说一句，那个时刻就要来了。

And and by the way, that's coming.

优步刚刚裁员，理由完全一样。

Uber just did a a layoff, the exact same rationale.

你会看到整个行业，不只是科技行业，所有人都会开始意识到这一点。

You're gonna see across the industry, not just in tech, but everyone start to get to this realization.

我觉得我们行动得比较早。

I think we were early.

但问题是，是我们四月份做这件事的时候找工作更容易，还是明年四月份大家都这么做的时候更容易？

But is it gonna be easier to get a job back in April when we did this or next April when everyone is doing it?

一旦我们意识到这一点，我们就想，如果我们真的是领导者，就应该由我们来挡箭。

And once we kinda realized that, we were like, if we're real leaders, we should be the ones taking the arrows.

我们应该保护我们的团队。

We should be protecting our team.

我们应该努力确保，即使是我们告诉过‘听着，我们已经没有你的职位了’的那些人，

We should be working to make sure that even the people that we said, listen, we don't have a role for you anymore.

我们也能帮他们在其他地方找到好工作，因为他们都是很棒的人。

We can help them find great roles at other places because they're great people.

我觉得这才是真正的领导力。

And that that's that I think is what real leadership is.

而且我觉得，当我跟很多同行聊天时，他们其实都坐在那儿说，是的，我知道我们需要这么做，但是天哪，我看到你的股价跌得很厉害，你还收到了那些可怕的死亡威胁之类的东西，我可不想经历那些。

And I think a lot of when I talked to a lot of my peers, they're sort of sitting around saying, yeah, I know we need to do this, but gosh, I saw, like, your stock went way down and you got all these really scary, you know, death threats and other things, I don't wanna have to go through that.

我觉得那太怂了。

I think that's chicken shit.

如果你是个真正的领导者，就站出来，真正去做事。

Like, if you're a real leader, get out there and actually do the work.

而且，是的，经济方面会有很多变化。

And and, yeah, there's a lot of things about the economy that are gonna change.

但这并不意味着工作就没了。

Doesn't mean jobs are over.

我们会尽可能多地招聘建设者和销售者。

We're gonna hire as many builders and as many sellers as we possibly can.

而且我们团队里还有一些衡量标准。

And there are still some measures on our team.

有些人得去，你知道，去建设工具，去做那些事情。

Some people have to, you know, build build the tools and and do those things.

但未来的样子会非常不同。

But but what it's going to look like going forward is is gonna be very different.

一旦你作为组织意识到这一点，我认为越早做到，对团队就越仁慈。

And once you realize that as an organization, I think that sooner that you can do that is the kindest way that you can be to your own team.

另一个达科他州的常见说法是，结构是文化的一个粗略代表。

One another Dakota trope is that structure is a rough proxy for culture.

我总说，如果你告诉我你公司的结构，我就能猜出你大约80%的问题。

I'm always saying, if you tell me the structure of your company, I can tell you about 80% of your problems.

剩下的20%通常才是真正的精髓所在。

The 20% is usually where the actual magic is.

你的组织结构是怎么变化的，这又如何影响了你们的文化？

How has your structure changed, and how has that changed your culture?

嗯，我觉得首先是我们大幅精简了组织层级。

Well, think the first thing is we've just we've flattened the organization a lot.

很多中层管理岗位被取消了。

There's a lot of middle management that went away.

而且这不仅仅是因为裁员，还有一大批经理主动举手说，我不想再做管理了。

And and and not just because we laid people off, but there's a whole bunch of managers that are are raising their hand and saying, I don't wanna be a manager anymore.

我想回到一线做具体工作。

I wanna go back to being an individual contributor.

看到这么多资深高管放弃高职位，跑到Anthropic去做一线员工，真是让人感慨。

I mean, it's it's wild to see all these really senior managers that are leaving big jobs to go to Anthropic to be an individual contributor.

那是因为，你懂的，这样做能让你拥有更大的影响力。

And that's because, like, you can just there's so much more leverage that you can you can have.

我觉得经理和个人贡献者之间的界限会变得非常模糊。

And I think that what is a manager versus what's an individual contributor is gonna get really fuzzy.

这也是我们花了很多时间思考的问题之一，就是分成两条不同的职业路径到底有没有意义。

And that's one of the things that we're spending a lot of time thinking about is, does it even make sense to have those as two separate tracks?

也许最终会合并成一条路，因为你知道，现在连个人贡献者也要管理一群替他们干活的智能体。

Maybe that all merges together into into one thing because, you know, even individual contributors now are managing a fleet of agents that are working on on their behalf.

所以我觉得最大的变化就是我们大幅扁平化了组织架构。

And so I think the the biggest thing is that we've we've flattened the organization, you know, quite a bit.

另外，我们还通过一个叫 Cloudflare OS 的东西实现了集中化，现在我们已经把它开源了，因为很多客户都觉得这玩意儿太酷了。

And then I think the other thing is that we've we've centralized through something we call Cloudflare OS, which we've now open source because enough of our customers were like, that's really cool.

我们也想用这个。

We wanna use that too.

所以现在有一大堆客户拿它去改造，变成什么某某公司自己的 OS 之类的。

And so we've got a whole bunch of customers that are taking it and turning it into, you know, x y z company OS, whatever it is.

它其实就是一套工具，把 Cloudflare 内部积累的知识、那些必须坚持的原则、影响我们决策的因素都整合起来，然后让团队里的每个人都能方便地使用各种不同的工具。

But it's it's a set of tools that essentially takes a bunch of just the knowledge that's inherent to Cloudflare, the things that have to be true, the things that sort of inform our decisions, then and allows anyone on our team to have access to, you know, a wide range of the different tools that are out there.

但它会持续不断地拉取和更新那些必须成立的信息，这样当你想弄清楚，比如，从Salesforce或Workday，或者Cloudflare的任何记录系统里提取什么信息时，能够把这些信息整合到一个统一的界面里，这真的让我们的团队效率大大提升，跨部门协作也做得更好了。

But then continuously is pulling and updating the information about what has to be true and having it so that when you want to figure out, like, what information is is is pulling out of Salesforce or Workday or, you know, any of the systems of record that we have at at Cloudflare, being able to pull that into one consistent interface has just allowed allowed our teams to be significantly more productive and and a much better at cross collaboration.

这里有些东西可能只是软件公司的本质，就是这样，这是一种我能理解的世界观，因为软件公司和科技公司的运作方式就是，公司里发生的一切都在数字系统里。

There's something here which maybe is just the nature of a software company and and that's what it is and it's a it's a world view that I understand because of how software companies and tech company works, where everything that is happening in your company happens in a digital system.

然后那些东西就可以被衡量。

And then that thing can be measured.

你在你的文章里提到过这一点。

You've got a line in your piece.

作为CEO，我从来没有过这么好的工具来精确衡量业务表现，包括识别我们的新星。

As CEO, I've never had better tools to measure exactly how the business is performing including identifying our rising stars.

这意味着你的新星们产生的数据可以被AI衡量，然后AI可以告诉你这些人就是明星。

This implies your rising stars are producing data that could be measured by an AI and then the AI can tell you these people are the stars.

这让我觉得特别有意思。

There's something about that that is fascinating to me.

不是每家公司都这样运作，不是每个人的工作都是把每件事告诉Slack或者告诉Cloudflare OS。

Not every company works that way where everyone's job is to tell Slack everything that's going on or tell Cloudflare OS everything that's going on.

比如，他们在外面做实际的事情。

Like, they're out in the world doing stuff.

你怎么把这些点连起来？

How do you connect those dots?

因为这似乎是硅谷看待世界的方式和其他企业看待自己的方式之间的挑战。

Because that seems to be the challenge of how Silicon Valley might see the world and how every other business might see itself.

我觉得，我们都在不同时期做过一些工作，那时候会想，天哪，我这么努力却得不到认可。

I mean, I think that like, I think we've all at various times worked in jobs where we're like, gosh, I'm just not being recognized for for the hard work that I'm doing.

或者有时候，你会觉得自己被过度认可了，但其实我并不……可能我并不……

Or or other times where, you know, you're like, I'm kind of, like, over recognized and and I'm not and I and maybe I don't I don't

我从来没觉得被过度认可过。

I've never felt over recognized.

如果……

If if

如果能再多一点，那就太好了。

I could get some more, that'd be great.

你做得很好。

You're you're doing a great job.

那你能让你的聊天机器人告诉我怎么做好工作吗？

Now can you get your chatbot to tell me how to do a good job?

因为那会很有用。

Because that'd be really good.

所以，我觉得，再说一次，确实有很优秀的人在Cloudflare工作过，但过去我们错过了他们。

So the I I think that the again, I think I think it is absolutely the case that there have been great people who've worked at Cloudflare that we just missed in the past.

而且，原因有很多很多。

And and and and for, you know, a million different reasons.

也许他们所在的部门，我们当时没有给予足够的认可。

You know, maybe they're part of the organization that we just, you know, didn't didn't recognize enough.

也许他们没有遇到好的经理。

Maybe they didn't have a great manager.

也许他们没有意识到，这些工具的好处之一就是可以用不同的方式来表达，我们作为一个组织到底看重什么。

Maybe didn't think one of the things that's great about these tools is you can find different ways to say, what do we as an organization value?

然后再更广泛地看看，哪些人真正表现非常出色。

And then look more broadly across who are the people who are really performing incredibly well.

而且这必须让系统能够识别出来。

And that has to be legible to the system.

所以就像，AI会盯着每一次代码提交，然后说那个人做了很多事，或者那个人在Slack里对代理最友好，或者，得用某种方式观察他们。对。

So it's like, the AI is gonna watch every code commit and say that person's doing a lot, or that person is the nicest to their agents in Slack, or, like, have to watch them in some way Yeah.

来获取那些数据。

To get that data

从那里。

from that.

但每个组织内部其实都有各种各样的信号。

But there's there's all kinds of signal that that, you know, is inside of every organization.

所以你给我的，我，我卡在这个问题上了，而且我时间快不够了，抱歉打断一下。

So you give me I I'm just stuck on this, and I'm I'm running out of time, I'm sorry to interrupt.

但给我举个例子，说明AI如何通过信号帮你识别出后起之秀。

But give me an example of signal that helped you through AI identify rising stars.

所以我们知道哪些人是高绩效员工。

So we knew people who were high performers.

我们根据高绩效员工的表现来训练模型。

We trained models based on what their high performers were.

我们收集了大量相关数据。

We ingested a ton of things across that.

当然，显然包括代码提交和各种其他东西，但这些在某种程度上是可以被操纵的。

I mean, obviously, you know, code commits and and all all kinds of things, but those are gameable in in various ways.

所以你真的需要关注，比如，这个人做了这件事，然后追踪它在整个组织中的影响，最终带来了什么结果，是更高的收入、更低的成本，还是更好的团队协作。

And and and so you you really wanna look at kind of here, this person did this thing and then trace it all the way through the organization and what did that result in either higher revenue or lower cost or better kind of collaboration across the team.

而且，你说得对，因为我们是一家非常数字化的公司，所以我们有这些数据。

And and and again, you're right because we we have, you know, signal because we are a very digital digital company.

我们能够获取这些数据。

We're able to pull that.

但我认为每家公司都有各种形式的数据。

But but I think every company has, you know, signal in various ways.