大卫·莫里斯，《窃取未来：山姆·班克曼-弗里德、精英欺诈与科技乌托邦崇拜》（沃特金斯媒体，2025年）

大家好。

Hello, everybody.

我是马歇尔·波。

This is Marshall Poe.

我是新书网络的创始人兼主编。

I'm the founder and editor of the New Books Network.

如果你正在听这个，那你应该知道，新书网络是全球最大的学术播客网络。

And if you're listening to this, you know that the NBN is the largest academic podcast network in the world.

我们拥有两百万的全球听众。

We reach a worldwide audience of 2,000,000 people.

你可能已经拥有一个播客，或者正考虑创办一个播客。

You may have a podcast or you may be thinking about starting a podcast.

正如你所知，这会遇到一些挑战。

As you probably know, there are challenges.

基本上分为两种。

Basically, of two kinds.

一是技术问题。

One is technical.

你需要掌握一些知识，才能制作和发布你的播客。

There are things you have to know in order to get your podcast produced and distributed.

第二个问题是，也是最大的难题，你需要吸引听众。

And the second is, and this is the biggest problem, you need to get an audience.

在播客领域，建立听众群体是当今最难做到的事情。

Building an audience in podcasting is the hardest thing to do today.

请记住，我们在NBN推出了一项名为NBN Productions的服务。

Put this in mind, we at the NBM have started a service called NBN Productions.

我们帮助你创建播客、制作播客、发布播客，并为你托管播客。

What we do is help you create a podcast, produce your podcast, distribute your podcast, and we host your podcast.

最重要的是，我们会将你的播客分发给NBN的听众群体。

Most importantly, what we do is we distribute your podcast to the NBN audience.

我们已经多次为许多学术类播客提供过这项服务，我们很乐意帮助你。

We've done this many times with many academic podcasts, and we would like to help you.

如果您有兴趣与我们讨论我们如何帮助您制作播客，请联系我们。

If you would be interested in talking to us about how we can help you with your podcast, please contact us.

请前往新书网络的首页，您会看到指向NBN制作的链接。

Just go to the front page of the New Books Network, and you will see a link to NBN productions.

点击该链接，填写表格，我们就可以交流了。

Click that, fill out the form, and we can talk.

欢迎来到新书网络。

Welcome to the New Books Network.

你好。

Hello.

我是新书网络经济学频道的黛德拉·威廉姆斯。

I'm Deidra Willard with the New Books Network Economics channel.

今天我在这里与戴维·Z·莫里斯见面。

I'm here today with David Z.

他是《偷走未来》一书的作者。

Morris, who's author of the book stealing the future.

这本书探讨了推动加密货币罪犯山姆·班克曼-弗里德的思想。

It's about the ideas that drove crypto criminal Sam Bankman Fried.

我读过几本关于山姆·班克曼-弗里德的书，但这一本与众不同。

I've read a couple books about Sam Bankman Fried, but this one was different.

它深入剖析了塑造山姆·班克曼-弗里德行为，以及许多其他科技精英行为背后的思想分歧。

It dives into the thought processes divide driving not just the behavior of Sam Bengford Fried, but also a lot of other tech elites.

大卫·C.

David C.

莫里斯曾是学者，后成为记者，为《Slate》、《财富》等多家媒体撰稿。

Morris is a former academic turned journalist who's written for Slate, Fortune, and many others.

欢迎。

Welcome.

嗨，金吉尔。

Hi, Ginger.

谢谢你的邀请。

Thank you for having me.

所以偷走未来。

So stealing the future.

你有研究加密货币的背景，同时也了解社会系统。

You've got this background in studying crypto, but also in understanding social systems.

所以这两者似乎在某种程度上结合在了一起。

So it seems like those two things came together a bit.

正如我所说，关于这个主题的书很少。

Like I said, few books on this topic.

你具体希望通过这本书实现什么？

What were you hoping to achieve specifically with this one?

是的，我的意思是，你对这本书的描述真的非常准确，我确实对欺诈和骗局产生了浓厚兴趣。

Yeah, I mean, think you really hit it right on the head with your description, which is, I got very interested in fraud and scams in general.

甚至在我专注于加密货币之前，我就在为《财富》杂志撰稿，发现并撰写、调查其他欺诈行为，比如尼古拉公司和特雷弗·米尔斯顿——如果你听说过这个名字的话。

And I would say that even before I was focused on crypto, was writing for fortune and spotting and writing about and investigating other frauds, including Nikola, Trevor Milton, if that name rings a bell

为了某些人，而且

for some And

所以加密货币成了我的关注重点，但也许更广泛地说，我一直在研究投资欺诈和骗局。

so crypto became my focus but perhaps even more broadly, I was looking at investment frauds and scams.

其中很多都基于非常相似的机制，即使不考虑FTX和山姆·班克曼-弗里德所发生的事，这种机制也被称为有效利他主义。

And a lot of it really hinged on very similar dynamics, even separate from what happened with FTX and Sam Bankman Fried, which is this specific thing called effective altruism.

再进一步扩大视野，回溯到我2018年、2019年的工作，当时已经非常明显，科技欺诈和科技投资欺诈正在加速蔓延。

Even sort of zooming out further from that, going back even to my work in 2018, 2019, it was becoming very obvious that technology fraud and technology investing fraud was accelerating.

然后到了2020年左右，我们出现了所谓的SPACs，一个叫查马斯·帕利哈皮蒂亚的人，不管好坏，如今已极具影响力，他主要靠这些SPACs赚钱，而这些SPACs在他收取了大量费用后大多跌至归零。

And then obviously in kind of 2020, we had these things called SPACs, guy named Chamath Palapatthia who for better or worse is now extremely influential made his money off mostly these SPACs that largely crashed to zero after he had collected a lot of his fees.

因此，‘窃取未来’这个标题，实际上指向了更广泛的现象——即那些具有欺骗性的投资宣传，其中一些是非法欺诈，而像查马斯这样的案例则完全合法。

And so that title stealing the future, it sort of speaks to this much broader phenomenon of sort of deceptive investment pitches, things that some of them are illegal frauds, some of them in Chamath's case were perfectly legal.

这一切都依赖于这样一个观念：只要你以各种方式描绘出一幅关于你未来将要创造之物的迷人图景。

And it all hinges on this idea that if you paint in various ways, this very hypnotic picture of something you're gonna build in the future.

我认为问题或现状的一部分在于，我们确实存在一些极其超前的技术，但人们并不完全理解它们。

I think part of the problem or part of the situation, I guess, is that we have these outlandish technologies that do exist and that people don't understand entirely.

加密货币就是其中之一。

Cryptocurrency is one of them.

我认为，这或许是我的书与关于萨姆·班克曼-弗里德的其他书籍之间的一个重要区别：我之所以写了这么多内容来充分理解这件事，是因为我不认为加密货币本身本质上就是欺诈。

And I think that this is perhaps one of the other big distinctions between my book and others about Sam Bankman Fried is that one of the reasons I have written so much understand it fairly well is that I don't believe that cryptocurrency itself is a fraud inherently.

这是一种全新的技术，有着有趣的用途。

It's a new kind of technology, there are interesting applications.

但正因为其复杂性，它与人工智能、自动驾驶汽车等前沿技术非常相似——人们对这些技术了解不多，这就为欺诈和骗局创造了巨大的空间。

But it also because it's so complex, in a way very similar to artificial intelligence, self driving cars, other technologies that exist at this frontier, where people don't understand them that well, that opens up a huge space for frauds and scams.

我认为，如今的人工智能，某种程度上就像特斯拉一样，是一种长期的欺诈。

I think that AI we now have, arguably in much the same way Tesla is sort of a long term fraud.

我认为，OpenAI 可以被理解为一种证券欺诈，因为它所承诺和谈论的许多事情根本不可能实现。

I think that open AI is going to, it can be understood in many ways as a securities fraud, the things that they're promising and talking about just will never happen.

这一点我没有在书中深入探讨，但当前的监管环境使得证券欺诈几乎无法被起诉。

This is not something I get into in the book, but the regulatory environment is such that securities fraud is essentially unprosecuted these days.

因此，我们面临着一种复杂的局面：尽管2010年代初期确实出现了一些巨大的科技投资回报，但如今我们仍处于其余波之中。

And so we have this complex situation where we're still in the hangover of yes, there were some huge technology returns in the early 2010s.

我们可以讨论为什么会这样，但科技投资的回报率已经进入了递减阶段。

We can talk about why that was, but we've sort of entered the diminishing returns on technology investment.

因此，许多人在不同时间段本可以成为诚实的交易者，但现在却实际上转向了以欺诈为商业模式。

And so a lot of people who maybe in different timeframes would have been honest dealers are effectively transitioning to fraud as a business model.

这其中有一种正当化的理由，涉及到FTX和萨姆·班克曼-弗里德的伦理问题。

And there is this kind of justification behind it that gets to the ethics of of FTX and Sam Beggenfried specifically.

因此，他认为自己只是更大规模情境中的一个典型案例。

So he's kind of this one case of a much larger, I think situation.

嗯，这正是我觉得这本书如此有趣的地方，因为你谈到了有效利他主义，我们稍后会深入讨论，还有理性主义。

Well, that's what I found so interesting about the book is is that you talk about effective altruism, which we'll get into, but also rationalism.

因此，有一种思维模式在某种程度上为欺诈或非欺诈行为，或者不惜一切代价取胜提供了正当性。

So there's sort of this this thought process that kind of justifies whether it's fraud or not fraud, or just sort of winning at all costs.

请谈谈这些哲学思想，以及预测性分析在其中所起的作用。

So talk a little bit about these philosophies, and the role of predictive analytics in all of this.

我觉得这非常引人入胜。

I found that fascinating.

是的。

Yeah.

关于理性主义（大写的Rism），我想说一点。

So I'll say one thing about rationalism, capital r ism.

我正开始和我的出版商讨论下一本要为他们写的书。

I'm beginning to talk to my publisher about the next book I'm gonna write for them.

这本书很可能是对各种欺诈手段和方法的分类。

And it's probably going to be some sort of taxonomy of tactics and methods of fraud.

今天早上我坐在那里，为下一本书记笔记时，就在思考其中一个点：模仿和相似性非常强大。

And one of the ones that I actually was thinking about this morning, I'm just sitting down working on my little outline for the next book, and sort of imitation and similarity are very powerful.

而且一旦你发现了明显的欺诈或误导迹象，就会立刻警觉。

And also like once you spot them really big red flags for fraud or misdirection.

我之前提到过尼古拉公司。

So I mentioned Nikola earlier.

尼古拉公司在2018年刚出现时，就引起了我的注意，因为我想：尼古拉，尼古拉·特斯拉。

Nikola even back in like 2018 when they first appeared, really set off my radar because I'm like, Nikola, Nikola Tesla.

它刻意唤起与特斯拉的关联，而不愿独立立足。

Evoking parallels to Tesla intentionally and not trying to kind of stand on their own feet.

理性主义，人们可能因为伊莱扎·尤德科夫斯基最近出版了一本名为《如果有人建造它，所有人都会死》的书而对它有所了解，我们或许可以稍微谈一谈，但这里可以先提供一些背景。

Rationalism, people might be familiar with because Eliza Yudkowsky kind of the figurehead recently published a book called If Anyone Builds It, Everyone Dies, which maybe we can talk about a little bit, but we can put some context on it here.

事实上，理性主义是一种欺诈，其运作机制与将公司命名为‘尼古拉’而非‘特斯拉’如出一辙。

So rationalism honestly is a fraud based on a very similar dynamic to naming your company Nikola instead of Tesla.

理性主义希望你相信它等同于理性，也就是说，我们日常生活中在关注事实、试图从现实情况中推导结论时所采用的思维方式，而不是陷入神话或类似‘约会时的理性主义’或‘日常生活中的理性’这种概念。

Rationalism wants you to think that it is synonymous with rationality, which is to say the way that we all think on an everyday basis when we focus on facts and try and deduce from the facts on the ground and instead of sort of engaging in mythology or whatever we think of like as rationalism on a date or rationality on a day to day basis, thinking rationally.

而理性主义实际上恰恰是这种思维方式的完全颠倒。

Rationalism is in fact the entire inversion of that.

现在尤德科夫斯基的这本书出版了，我认为它制造了一点人为的轰动，因为他们的资金非常雄厚，这也是我在书中提到的一点。

Now we had the Yudkowsky book come out, I think it made a little bit of a manufactured splash because they are very well funded, which is one of the things that I talk about in the book.

但它并没有产生太大影响，因为我认为整个AI泡沫正在消退，人们对此的关注度降低了。

But didn't have much impact because I think the AI bubble is popping more generally and people are less concerned.

但关于理性主义和尤德科夫斯基与AI的起源，我认为自2000年左右以来——也就是他19岁起的二十五年间，尤德科夫斯基一直深信不疑的，并非某种特定的思维方式或方法。

But the origins of sort of rationalism and Yudkowsky I thought about AI are that since about 2000, so for twenty five years, since he was 19 years old, Yudkowsky has been entirely convinced not of any particular way of thinking or of any method.

他最出名的作品是一本名为《哈利·波特与理性方法》的同人小说。

He's sort of became most famous for a book, a sort of fan fiction book called Harry Potter and the methods of rationality.

但理性主义实际上并不是关于理性方法的。

But rationalism is not actually about the methods of rationality.

我们可以谈谈《哈利·波特》那件事。

We can talk about the Harry Potter thing.

这很奇怪，也是这种邪教性质的一部分：他们通过粉丝小说有针对性地吸引了那些脆弱的人。

It is weird and it's part of the cultish nature of this, that they sort of targeted frankly vulnerable people by using fan fiction.

但副标题是‘理性方法’，而现实是，理性主义并不基于任何方法。

But the subtitle is the methods of rationality but the reality is that rationalism is not based on any method.

它基于一个结论，而任何了解理性真正含义的人都知道，它不应基于先入为主的结论。

It is based on a conclusion which with anybody who knows what rationality means, it is not based on a preconceived conclusion.

自19岁起，尤德科夫斯基就一直深信人工智能将获得意识、发明纳米机器人并毁灭人类。

Yudkowsky since he was about 19, has been entirely convinced that artificial intelligence will gain sentience, invent nanobots and destroy the human race.

这就是理性主义的基础。

This is the basis for rationalism.

尤德科夫斯基之所以推动‘理性方法’或试图发展它们，并不是因为他对理性力量有某种抽象信念，而是因为人们不同意他对人工智能的结论，于是他决定他们需要学会更好地思考。

The reason that Yudkowsky decided to promote the methods of rationality, or try and develop them is not because he had some abstract belief in the power of rationality, it's because people disagreed with his conclusions about AI and so he decided that they needed to learn how to think better.

任何接受过真正批判性思维训练的人都知道，这完全是颠倒的。

Anybody who's trained in actual critical thinking knows that this is entirely backwards.

正如我在书中所讨论的，FTX有一个原罪，那就是他们从2019年起就开始挪用客户资金；几乎在平行意义上，理性主义也有一个原罪，那就是它基于一种结论，而非一种方法。

Much as I talk about in the book, FTX has this original sin, which is they immediately started embezzling customer funds in 2019, almost after they were Exactly in the parallel sense, rationalism has an original sin, which is it is based on a conclusion and not a method.

为了更深入地探讨理性主义（大写的R）与有效利他主义之间的共性，原因在于——我会稍微推进我的论点，当然这很容易引发争议——但我所看到的理性主义，是一种对物理世界可预测性的深刻信念。

And to dig a little bit deeper into the commonalities between rationalism, capital R, and effective altruism, the reason, and this is where I push my argument a little bit and obviously it's quite open to disagreement, but what I see with rationalism is a deep belief in the predictability of the physical universe.

他们可能会用各种方式回避这一点，但操作上，尤德科夫斯基曾表示，我们基于物理世界是可预测的这一假设行事。

They'll hedge around it in all kinds of ways, but operationally Yudkowsky has said that we operate on the assumption that the physical universe is predictable.

你可以从本体论的角度争论这是否是一个事实。

You can make sort of ontological arguments about whether that's a fact or not.

但无论是有效利他主义还是理性主义，都建立在这样一个信念之上：无论宇宙本身是否可预测，人类实际上能够预测结果。

But both effective altruism and rationalism hinge on the belief that regardless of whether the universe itself is predictable, that human beings can actually predict outcomes.

而这一点，根据大量的数学知识和存在主义认知，已被证明是错误的。

And this is provably untrue based on a lot of mathematical and just sort of existential knowledge.

但理性主义为了使其AI更安全的计划，希望引入一种被称为——我会把确切术语说错——类似可编程智能的东西。

But rationalism as part of its program to make AI safer wanted to introduce this thing called, I'm gonna get the exact terminology wrong, but something like programmable intelligence.

他们希望一切都能按部就班，A加B等于C，所有事情都必须有明确的解释，这完全基于我们所说的分析哲学，并相信分析哲学真的能带来关于如何面向未来行动的清晰可行的结论。

Like they want everything to be step by step, A plus B equals C, everything is accounted for, it's purely about what we would call analytical philosophy and believing that analytical philosophy can actually bring you to clear actionable results about how you act towards the future specifically.

这对他们来说是个真正的问题。

So this is a real problem for them.

有效利他主义本质上是功利主义的一个子集，而这是所有功利主义哲学的共同问题：功利主义主张，我们的道德应基于行为的影响，而非道德准则。

Effective altruism is ultimately subset of utilitarianism, and this is a problem common to all utilitarian philosophies, which is utilitarianism claims that if we should base our morals on what our impact will be rather than on moral rules.

因此，你就会看到像山姆·班克曼-弗里德这样的人告诉他的朋友，他认为像‘不要撒谎’和‘不要偷窃’这样的规则在功利主义框架下是站不住脚的。

And this is how you get things like Sam Bakeman Fried told his friends that he didn't believe that rules like don't lie and don't steal were defensible under utilitarianism.

不存在普适的道德准则，只有结果。

There are no universal moral rules, there are only outcomes.

整个伦理框架崩溃的原因，以及为什么你会遇到像山姆·班克曼-弗里德这样的人——他愿意犯罪，名义上是因为他认为未来会有更好的结果——是因为当你告诉人们他们能计算自己行为的影响时，就犯了一个根本性错误。

The reason this entire ethical framework breaks down and the reason you end up with somebody like Sam Bankman Fried who's willing to commit crimes sort of nominally because he thinks there will be better outcomes in the future is because there's this basic error when you tell people that they can calculate the impacts of their actions.

可以说，在后宗教时代，我们的道德准则，比如‘不要撒谎’或‘不要偷窃’，之所以存在，正是因为我们无法预测自己行为的影响，我们试图——我想说——限制伤害。

Arguably in a sort of post religious era, our moral rules, things like don't lie or don't steal, are actually there specifically because we cannot predict the impacts of our own actions and we're trying to, I guess limit harm, I think would be the way to put it.

如果没有这些准则，山姆·班克曼-弗里德就能说服自己，认为拿走所有客户委托他投资的钱是合理的。

Without those rules in place, Sam Bankman Fried was able to convince himself essentially that taking all of his customers money that they were trying to invest through him.

这就是骗局的核心，对吧？

This is the sort of basis of the scam, right?

他获得了大量现金，也就是人们存入FTX用于投资加密货币代币的美元。

He got all this cash, US dollars that people were taking to FTX with the intention of investing in cryptocurrency tokens.

这些钱实际上从未被用来购买加密货币。

That money was never actually used to buy cryptocurrency.

这些美元一直留在Alameda Research，并被用于投资初创公司、捐赠给政治竞选活动，以及为他的父母购买房地产等众多用途。

Those US dollars stayed with Alameda Research and were used to invest in startups, to donate to political campaigns and to buy real estate for his parents among many other things.

归根结底，这源于他的一种信念：他个人能够比那些委托他托管资产并自行做出投资决策的人做出更好的投资选择。

And what this boiled down to was his belief effectively that he individually could make better investing choices than the people who were trusting him to custody their assets while they made investing choices.

他实际上提前替自己的客户做出了他们原本想做的投资决定，把资金投向了包括Anthropic在内的多家AI初创公司。

He essentially preempted his own customers desired investments and sent them to among other things, Anthropic, his friends at an AI startup.

因此，这是一种迂回的方式来解释有效利他主义和功利主义的伦理问题，而这一切背后隐含的威权主义，也是我书中一个非常重要的主题：如果你达到了某种层次的功利主义者或有效利他主义者，你就必须相信萨姆·班克曼-弗里德所相信的那件事——我比这些客户都更聪明。

And so this is sort of a winding way to explain the ethics of effective altruism and utilitarianism, is, and kind of the hidden implicit authoritarianism of all of this is also a really big subject for my book, which is if you're a utilitarian at a certain level or an effective altruist, at a certain level you have to believe the thing that Sam Bankman Fried believed, which is I'm smarter than all of these customers.

我比他们更懂，因为我在理性地思考——我们又回到了理性主义；而更进一步地说，我在书中强调的一个重要观点是，这其实关乎优生学。

I know better than them because I'm thinking again, rationally, we go back to rationalism, and that even further down from that, one of the big points I make in the book is that this is about eugenics.

这关乎一种信念，即你自认为在基因上比他人更聪明，因此可以合理化自己与他人意见相左，并坚信自己对未来的发展判断绝对正确。

This is about believing that you have genetically higher intelligence than somebody else, so that you can justify you disagreeing with people but being firmly correct about what's gonna happen in the future.

尽管有非常明确的理由表明我们无法预测自己的行为。

Even though there is this like very clear reason to believe that we can't predict our actions.

因此，这是一种层层嵌套的自我合理化，而我认为这种逻辑也延伸到了埃隆·马斯克、查马斯、萨姆·阿尔特曼等人身上——这种逻辑支撑着他们不顾任何质疑，执意将巨额投资资本集中于他们相信自己能够实现的远期项目。无论你多少次告诉人们，人类殖民火星在技术上根本不可能，埃隆·马斯克依然坚持说：不，这不对。

So this is the sort of nested doll of justifications that these people and this again extends I think out to whether it's Elon Musk, Chamath, Sam Altman, this logic underpins all of these people's desire to agglomerate huge amounts of investment capital towards these far future projects that they believe they can fulfill even against any kind of skepticism no matter how no matter how many times you tell people that it is literally impossible for humans to colonize Mars, you still have Elon Musk out there saying like, no, that's not true.

我无法给出任何具体理由说明我们为何能实现火星计划，除了我是天才。

I can't offer any specific reasons why we're gonna do this Mars thing except that I'm a genius.

因此，这一切再次助长了一种极权主义结构，渗透到我们当前的经济乃至政治体系之中。

And so again, this all feeds into a sort of, again, quite authoritarian structure to our economy on top of our politics at this point.

而这也正是我觉得特别有趣的地方，即‘天才少年’的神话，你在书中也略微提到了这一点。

Well, that's what I find fascinating too is is the myth of the boy genius, which you talk about a little bit in the book.

我还发现了一个非常有趣的关联，那就是你谈到的科幻小说。

And there's this connection that I found really interesting that you talk about science fiction.

你提到了《沙丘》的作者弗兰克·赫伯特，以及艾萨克·阿西莫夫。

So you talk about Frank Herbert, who wrote Dune and Isaac Asimov.

还有一条反乌托邦和乌托邦小说的线索，影响的不仅是萨姆·本福德·弗里德，还有许多这些科技亿万富翁对未来的看法。

And there's this thread of dystopian and utopian fiction that influences not just Sam Bengford Fried, but a lot of these techno billionaires and how they consider the future.

嗯。

Mhmm.

是的。

Yeah.

而这个未来是非常特定的。

And and that future is a very specific one.

你越深入探究，就越发现它荒诞不经，甚至可以说是妄想。

And the more you dig into it, the more fantastical and frankly delusional it reveals itself to be.

我应该提一下埃米尔·托雷斯和蒂姆尼特·格布鲁的研究工作。

I should shout out the work of Emile Torres and Timnit Gebru.

蒂姆尼特是谷歌的AI安全与伦理研究员，大约在2019年，我想是2020年之后，她因发表一篇论文创造了‘随机鹦鹉’一词来描述大语言模型而被解雇。

Timnit was the AI safetyethics researcher at Google who was fired from her role in roughly 2019, I wanna say after maybe 2020, after publishing a paper that coined the term stochastic parrot to describe LLMs.

实际上，她因揭露当前整个一代AI本质上是‘机械土耳其人’——一种模仿智能却并不真正具备智能的骗局——而被解雇。

Effectively she was fired for revealing that the entire current generation of AIs is essentially a mechanical Turk, a kind of con job that imitates intelligence but doesn't actually perform intelligence.

但他们创造了‘测试现实’这个术语，我书里没用，因为它有点拗口，但本质上它和我的‘技术乌托邦主义’是同义词，而后者基于一段悠久的思想传统。

But they coined this term test real, which I don't use in the book because it's a little bit unwieldy, but it's essentially a synonym for my term techno utopianism, which is based on this long legacy of thought.

‘测试现实’代表超人类主义、永生主义、奇点论和宇宙主义。

Test real stands for transhumanism, extropionism, singularitarianism, cosmism.

宇宙主义是一个很有趣的概念，可以追溯到20世纪20年代苏联成立前的俄国。

Cosmism is a fascinating one that goes back to sort of pre Soviet Russia in the 1920s.

宇宙主义、理性主义、EA（有效利他主义）、L（长期主义）。

Cosmism R, rationalism, EA, effective altruism, L, long termism.

长期主义可以说是所有这些思想中最危险的，因为它认为一万年后的未来，将有二百亿人类生活在太空中，他们每个人的生命在伦理上都与当下任何活着的人完全等价。

So long termism is arguably I would say the most toxic of all of these because it's this idea that ten thousand years in the future, there will be 20,000,000,000 human beings living in outer space and all of their lives are ethically equivalent to those of any presently living human.

我认为，这正是所有这些观念真正道德败坏的共同根源。

This is I think the really ethically nefarious shared root of all of this stuff.

当你看埃隆·马斯克时，就能清楚看到这种思想在起作用：我们必须牺牲当下人类的生活，以服务这种人类最终生活在太空中的未来愿景。

And it's really what, you look at Elon Musk and you can see it in action, this idea that we have to ultimately make sacrifices in terms of the lives of currently living humans in service of this future vision of humanity living in outer space.

这非常令人担忧，因为这些牺牲是真实存在的。

And it's very, very worrisome because those sacrifices are real.

显然，我们现在——我认为美国的绝大多数人——都因为运行人工智能数据中心的成本而支付了更高的电费。

Obviously we are, I think pretty much everybody in The United States right now is paying more in electricity bills because of the cost of running AI data centers.

而这只是其中一个非常小的例子。

And that's just one very small example.

他们之所以能够合理化这一点，再次说明了理性主义如何变成了合理化——这是第三种东西——即一种完全虚构的想法，认为当前这一代数据处理人工智能真的能解决气候变化、火星殖民，甚至更基本的问题如癌症。

The reason they're able to rationalize that again, rationalism becomes rationalizing, which is a third thing, is this totally made up idea that the current generation of data crunching AIs is actually going to solve problems like climate change, like the colonization of Mars, even more basic problems like cancer.

你经常听到萨姆·阿尔特曼承诺这些：我们会解决癌症，因此我们需要花费3000亿美元来建设这些数据中心，但这些数据中心目前并没有给人类生活带来任何明显的改善。

These are things you hear Sam Altman promise all the time, like we're gonna solve cancer and therefore we need to like spend $3,000,000,000,000 on these data centers that don't really at this point provide any noticeable improvement to human life.

于是，所有这些问题都被推到了遥远的未来。

And so it all just gets pushed off into the far future.

这一切都像是‘也许’和‘如果’，你知道，驱动像ChatGPT这类东西的大型语言模型，实际上与任何能改善癌症诊断或推动蛋白质折叠以促进医学发展的数据挖掘技术几乎没有关系。

And it's all kind of like, maybe and what if, you know, these LLMs that are fueling things like chat GPT, they have almost nothing to do with any sort of data mining technology that would, for example, improve cancer diagnostics or work on protein folding in order to advance like medicine.

这些几乎是完全不同的事情，而正是在这里，乐观主义滑向了欺诈：他们把这些事情当作一回事来谈论，但它们绝对不是一回事。

These are like almost completely different things and here's where you get from optimism to fraud, which is they're talking about these things as if they're the same and they're absolutely not.

所以，这可以说是这些未来愿景中另一个非常重要的部分：因为它们太过遥远，这让我想起一位名叫——我实际上要忘记具体是谁了——可能是德国哲学家乌尔里希·贝克，他在20世纪80年代和90年代研究风险问题。当他谈论风险计算和未来思考时，他使用了——可能是‘贝克’，我可能记错了——但有一个术语，叫‘所有未来预测的隐藏外部决定因素’，即当我们开始思考未来，并且从一个对未来有切身利益的视角出发时——比如，我们对未来的思考会影响当前的财务状况——我们就会被这些当下因素所驱动。

So this is kind of like the, and this is where I think another really important part of these visions of the future is that because they're so far off, this is something that a writer named, I'm actually gonna forget exactly who said this, it might have been Ulrich Beck, a German philosopher who thought about risk in the 1980s and 1990s, But when he talked about calculating risk and thinking about the future, he used, might have been back, I might be getting it wrong, but there's this term, a hidden external determinant of all projections of the future, which is when we start thinking about the future and we're coming from a perspective where we have a stake in the future, where the way we think about the future for example, impacts our current finances, we start to be motivated by those present day determinants.

那不是理性主义，而是我下周会不会收到支票。

The thing that is not rationalism, but is whether or not I'm gonna get a check next week.

而理性主义，你可以看到它在发挥作用，因为存在一种非常短的通用人工智能时间线现象。

And with rationalism, you can see it in action because there's a phenomenon of very short AGI timelines.

所以，所有这些人工智能投资者都在说，我们即将发明通用人工智能，我们会创造计算机大脑，它们能治愈癌症，能想出超级天才级别的东西，对吧？

So all of these AI investors are talking about like we are going to invent AGI, we're gonna invent computer brains, they're gonna solve cancer, they're gonna come up like super genius level stuff, right?

但如果你说你将在四十年后实现这一点，这并不是一个很有吸引力的投资。

But if you're saying you're gonna do that forty years from now, it's not a very interesting investment.

当你开始说你将在五年内实现时，它就变成了一个有趣得多的投资。

When you start saying you're going to do that five years from now, it becomes a much more interesting investment.

而你实际上可以收集到这些投资资金，这些资金才是许多人真正财富的来源，而不是实际的生产性收入。

And you actually can connect collect those investment dollars, which you know, are actually the real source of wealth for a lot of these people, rather than actual productive revenues.

所以你在思考人工智能、火星殖民或类似的事情时。

And so you're thinking about AI or Mars colonization or anything like that.

我认为人们陷入骗局时犯的一个重大错误是：你有没有考虑到，做出这些预测的人正直接从你相信他们中获益？

It's one of the really big mistakes that I think people get caught up in frauds about is, are you considering that these people making these predictions are benefiting directly from you believing them?

马斯克对火星的愿景又是一个非常典型的例子。

Musk's vision of Mars again is a very typical one.

如果他没有提出一个更宏大的未来愿景，他就不会获得对SpaceX如此高水平的投资。

He would not have the level of investment in SpaceX if he didn't have this pitch for something even bigger down the road.

因此，我认为看待所有这些对未来预测或展望的一个非常重要的方式是，它们与吸引投资资本直接相关。

And so I think this is a very important way to think about all of these predictions of the future or projections of the future is that they're very directly tied to attracting investment capital.

而且说实话，我认为你几乎听不到这些人谈论任何与投资资本无关的未来版本。

And I think you'll rarely, frankly, hear these people even talk about any version of the future that isn't directly tied to investment capital.

关于新的政治结构或普通人如何参与经济的新方式，几乎没有什么讨论。

Very little discussion about like new political structures or new like ways that average people are going to engage with the economy.

这些并不是他们的关切。

These are not their concerns.

他们想要描绘一个可投资的未来图景。

They want to paint a vision of the future that is investable.

这才是真正对他们重要的事情。

That's what really matters to them.

显然，萨姆·班克曼-弗里德和弗里德也体现了这一点，因为在2020到2022年这段时间，加密货币的未来前景被极度夸大了。

Obviously Sam Bengt and Fried embodied that as well, because the future horizon for cryptocurrency at that particular time of 2020 to 2022 was just astronomically inflated.

我认为另一点值得注意的是，在这种由泡沫驱动的经济中，一旦一个叙事消退，我们就必须创造出另一个叙事，以便继续筹集更多投资资金。

I think that's another sort of thing to keep in mind is that in this bubble driven economy, once one narrative dies out, we have to cook up another one so that we can collect more investment funds.

我认为这塑造了他们整个思维方式。

I think that structures their entire way of thinking.

是的，有一种奇怪的联系，比如萨姆·班克曼-弗里德这种短视思维，他说：‘我必须赚钱，世界可能只剩很短的时间了。’

Yeah, there's this there's this odd connection between very short term thinking like Sam Bank from Freeze saying, you know, I have to make money, there's only a short period of time the world might end.

但另一方面，又有一种极其长远的视角，就像你刚才提到的，我们正在展望未来。

And then there's this on the other hand, there's this way far out thing like what you just talked about with, you know, we're we're seeing into the future.

我们正在展望千年之后的未来。

We're seeing into a thousand years from now.

为了更深入探讨这一点，我想谈谈长寿与这种思维之间一种奇特的关联。

And to to dive into that even a little bit deeper, there's this weird connection I want to talk about between the focus on longevity.

因此，这些人都非常热衷于做各种疯狂的事情来延长自己的肉体生命。

So you have a lot of these people think that they're very interested in doing all sorts of crazy things to extend their physical bodies.

与此同时，正如你经常提到的，他们希望通过上传意识来逃避死亡，创造数字自我。

At the same time, as you talk a lot about this too, they want to sort of elude death by uploading their consciousness, the digital self.

那么，这些想法是如何推动这些科技亿万富翁的呢？

So how does some of those ideas really fuel some of these techno billionaires?

是的，我认为这种现象一直以某种形式存在。

Yeah, I mean, I think that there has always been some version of this.

我觉得，这种追求长寿的东西，从某种奇怪的角度看，与政治理论家所说的‘退出’有关。

Think that there's, in a weird way, this longevity stuff, I feel like is connected to what political theorists call exit.

显然，我们目前在科技政治的右翼中看到了大量关于‘退出’的推动。

And obviously we're seeing a lot of pushes towards exit in the sort of right wing of tech politics right now.

我的意思是，现在出现了一种非常新兴的现象，我认为我们比以往任何时候都更愿意称之为‘科技法西斯主义’，因为像巴拉吉·斯里尼瓦桑这样的人正在呼吁，我们需要建立一些没有法律的独立城市，推行各种疯狂的自由意志主义理念。

Mean, have this, you know, really emergent, I think we're now more willing than ever to call it techno fascism, because we have people like Balaji Srinivasan and others who are calling for, we need to like build these independent cities with no laws and all of this like crazy libertarian stuff.

我觉得，长寿研究和计算机化永生研究都是这种‘退出’欲望的体现，也就是说，渴望不再需要与他人共同生活所伴随的政治纷争。

And I do feel like the both longevity research and the sort of computerized immortality research are versions of this desire for exit, that is to say like a desire to no longer have to deal with the politics of living with other people.

我认为，这一切归根结底是：很多这类想法本质上源于一些非常基本的冲动，只是被这种科技愿景过滤过了；而我们现在所处的基本现实是，我们的医疗体系正在崩溃。

And what that boils down to I think is, I mean, a lot of this stuff I think boils down to very basic impulses that have been filtered through this techno vision and the very basic impulse or the very basic kind of understanding that we live with now is that our healthcare system is collapsing.

所以，就像我认为许多亿万富翁的主要动机是害怕有朝一日不得不去麦当劳吃饭。

And so just like I think a lot of billionaires, their main motivation is the fear that they might have to eat at a McDonald's someday.

我认为他们的另一个主要恐惧是，有朝一日不得不和普通人一起去医院。

I think that another one of their major fears is that they might have to actually like go to a hospital with normal people someday.

因此，我们将会拥有高端医疗，拥有那些前沿的、私人资助的医疗服务——哦，如果我真的得了什么病，这其实可以追溯到20世纪60年代，对吧？

And so this like idea that we're going to have boutique medicine, have stuff that is like the very cutting edge, privately funded, oh, and if I actually get something that, this goes back by the way to the 1960s, right?

冷冻技术。

To cryogenics.

冷冻技术只是这种延长生命理念的早期形式，意思是如果我得了绝症，我就把自己冷冻起来，等到遥远的未来，人们会找到治愈这种疾病的办法，也会知道如何解冻我们、修复我们。我书里提到的一个非常有趣的例子是，冷冻技术如今基本上已经变成了一种庞氏骗局。

Cryogenics was just an early version of this life extension stuff where cryogenics was if I get a fatal disease, I'm just gonna freeze myself and then in the far future, they're gonna come up with a cure for that disease, they're also gonna know how to thaw us out and fix us and one of the anecdotes that I have in the book that I think is very interesting is that cryogenics has basically turned into a pyramid scheme at this point.

20世纪60年代的早期冷冻公司显然不仅没能撑到医学足够进步以复活并拯救所有患者的那一天，而且也没有建立能持续维持所有人冷冻状态的商业模式。

The early cryogenics firms in the 1960s, they obviously, not only did they not last long enough for medical science to advance far enough to reconstitute and save all of their patients, they didn't have a business model that allowed them to keep everybody frozen.

因此，一些最早的冷冻机构最终不得不解冻他们的客户，像普通人一样把他们埋进坟墓。

So some of the very earliest cryogenics operations actually eventually had to like thaw out their clients and just dump them in graves like normal people.

所以现在，冷冻公司要求你在活着的时候就订阅服务，以支付你自己的冷冻费用，以及维持当前所有已冷冻人员的费用。

And so now cryogenics companies actually require a subscription while you're still alive in order to pay for not just your own freezing but actually the maintaining of the people who are currently frozen.

所以你是在为前方排队的人提前支付。

So you're paying it forward to the people ahead of you in line.

我认为这充分体现了我们不会依赖任何社会体系。

I think that I think is quite emblematic of, we're not going to rely on any kind of social system.

我们甚至都不会真正依赖资助医学研究，这一点也很有趣。

We're not even really gonna rely on like funding medical research, which is interesting here too.

低温保存并没有资助任何医学研究来真正实现他们承诺的治疗。

Cryogenics is not funding medical research to actually fix any of the things that they promise.

他们只是说将来某一天会解决，奇怪的是，这种逻辑在很多科技圈人士中其实很常见。

It's just someday it'll be fixed, which I think is actually quite the common logic with a lot of these techno guys weirdly enough.

但说到短期与长期的问题，对吧？

But to speak to the sort of short term versus long term, right?

这里的关键概念是紧急情况。

The key concept here is emergency.

当下的紧急状况成为将权力交予任何当下最有说服力的提议者的理由。

The emergency of the present moment becomes a justification for handing power to whoever has the most convincing pitch for the moment, basically.

当我们不再以具体、务实的视角思考近期未来——比如五年后、十年前——在美国政治中，我们根本没有认真提出任何切实可行的解决方案来解决当前的问题。

When we stop thinking in concrete and grounded terms about the near future, like five years from now, ten years ago, we don't have any like, in American politics, don't have any serious proposals for how we're going to fix anything really right now.

因此，这种所谓的远见卓识的未来愿景对大众来说变得更具吸引力，因为传统政治并没有提供任何替代方案。

And so this visionary quote unquote, vision of the far future becomes much more attractive to the general populace because we're not being offered any alternatives by conventional politics.

与此同时，还有其他几件事正在发生。

And at the same time, a few other things happen.

一是因为远期未来过于空想，而我们现在又将金融资产与远期未来绑定，导致这些投机性资产极其不稳定，对吧？

One is because the far future is so speculative and we now have financial assets tied to the far future, speculative assets are incredibly volatile, right?

比如你看特斯拉的股票，特斯拉的股价大约是……我曾长期担任《财富》杂志的撰稿人，也一直从事金融领域的写作。

If you look at like Tesla stock, for example, Tesla stock trades at something like, I was a staff writer for fortune for a long time, and I've just been writing about finance for a long time.

因此，我试图将真实的金融知识融入这一分析中。

So I try and bring real finance to this analysis.

如果你观察公开股票市场的股价，会看到一个叫做市盈率（PE）的指标，它表示以当前股价买入股票后，需要多少年的利润才能回本。

And if you look at a stock on the public stock market, you have this thing called a price earnings ratio or PE, which is always the sort of the multiple of each year's profit that it would take to pay back the price you paid for the stock.

比如像苹果这样成熟的公司，其市盈率会随时间变化，主要取决于投资股市的人数，但苹果的市盈率大约在26到30之间。

So if you look at something like an established company like Apple, these have changed over time, just based on the amount of the number of people who are invested in the stock market basically, but Apple's PE ratio is something like 26 to 30.

因此，从理论上讲，你必须持有苹果股票三十年，才能通过利润收回你购买股票所支付的本金。

So theoretically, you would have to own Apple stock for thirty years to get back in profit the price that you paid for the stock itself.

这已经非常高了，反映了未来预期收益随时间的某种通胀。

That's already really high and reflects some sort of inflation over time of those expected future earnings.

特斯拉的市盈率是多少呢？让我快速查一下。

Tesla's PE ratio, in fact, let me just look it up real quick.

过去，它的市盈率曾高达100左右。

It has been in the past as high as like 100.

天哪，现在竟然达到了300，嗯，目前看起来确实是300左右。

Oh my good Lord, It is now 300 apparently, which I'm yeah, it's it's three ten right now, it looks like.

因此，从这个数据来看，如果你以今天的价格买入特斯拉股票，要想通过公司利润收回成本，你需要持有300年。

So looking at that, that means that looking profits of Tesla Inc, you would have to own the stock for three hundred years, having bought it at today's price in order to actually pay back the price that you paid for it.

造成这种情况的原因是，被视为投机性的股票，其市盈率倍数远高于苹果这类所谓的成熟公司。

Now, reason for that is that stocks that are considered speculative have a much higher earnings multiple versus quote unquote established companies like Apple.

现在特斯拉的问题在于，它已不再是成长型公司了；当你面对一家初创小公司时，市盈率中会包含一个成长溢价，但特斯拉的盈利已经不再增长了。

The trick that you have now with Tesla is that it's no longer a growth company, you have a growth premium to your price earnings ratio that you get when you have a small new company, Tesla, Tesla earnings aren't even growing anymore.

所以这就是为什么埃隆·马斯克一直在大肆宣传人形机器人和自动驾驶出租车，因为他必须不断许诺更多未来的前景，对吧？

And so you have, this is why you have Elon Musk out there singing and dancing about things like humanoid robots and robotaxis because he has to keep promising more and more things about the future, right?

同时，当然，他大量抛售自己的股票，名义上是为了筹资收购推特，然后任由其衰败，但那是另一个话题了。

At the same time, of course, he's selling a lot of his own stock nominally so he can go out and fund his purchase of Twitter, which he can then run into the ground, but that's a whole other topic.

但短期来看，长期承诺是由创始人或投资者对高度投机性资产做出的，而他们随后套现，将未来预期转化为当前的实际价值。

But the short term long term is you have long term promises that are being made about highly speculative assets by founders or investors who then cash out into present day value.

所以当你看查马斯这样的人时，他曾对像 Clover Health 这样的初创公司许下过宏大的承诺。

So when you look at somebody like Chamath, he promised these big things about startups like Clover Health.

我认为维珍银河，另一家太空初创公司，也是他的另一个SPAC项目。

I think Virgin Galactic, another space startup was another one of his SPACs.

所以他当时说，我们五年或十年内就能实现太空旅游之类的。

So he was saying like, oh, we're gonna have space tourism in five years or ten years or whatever.

但他通过自己的公司和个人，实实在在赚了15亿美元。

But he made between his company and him personally, made $1,500,000,000 in real dollars.

他并没有持有这些股票。

He didn't keep the stock.

他拿到了现金，拿到了美元。

He got cash, he got US dollars.

然后所有这些股票都归零了，就像我认为特斯拉可能不会归零，但未来一两年内肯定会大幅回调。

And then all of those stocks went to zero, just the way that I think Tesla probably, they might not go to zero, but they're gonna correct pretty hard in the next year or two.

我认为这正是当前游戏的关键所在：你做出这些未来的承诺。

And that I think is a big part of the game right here is that you make these future promises.

我的意思是，这就是这本书名为《偷走未来》的原因。

I mean, this is why the title of the book is stealing the future.

你对未来做出宏大的承诺，使其能够转化为可销售的资产。

You make big promises about the future in a way that can be captured in a saleable asset.

因此，这种风险可以是某种未来的不确定性。

So that can be the risk of some future thing.

我们来看像Polymarket或Calisty这样的平台的兴起，它们的核心是为风险定价。

So we look at the rise of platforms like polymarket or call sheet, they're about pricing risk.

因此，未来的风险就变成了当前可销售的资产，你可以将其转嫁给那些你成功说服这是个好赌注的人，或者收取费用——比如Polymarket和Calisty，它们从人们赌未来的行为中收取手续费。

And so that risk of the future becomes a saleable asset in the present where you can either offload it to somebody else who you have convinced this is a good bet, or you take fees, I mean, Polymarket and Calisty, you take fees off of people trying to gamble about the future.

所以这些就成了眼前的收益，对吧？

And so those become present gains, right?

就像我现在手里的钱，你可以随意去赌未来。

Like that's money that I have now, you can go off and bet on the future all you want.

我现在就要拿我的美元，谢谢。

I'll take my US dollars today, thank you very much.

这正是许多科技未来主义者的真实态度。

That's the actual attitude of a lot of these tech futurists.

当他们谈论未来有多么伟大、多么美好，谈论他们向你提供的巨大投资机会时，暗地里他们却在拿走美元，紧紧攥在手里。

While they're talking about how big and great the future is going to be, while they're talking about these huge investment opportunities that they're offering you, in the back door, they're taking dollars, and that's what they're holding on to.

至于Kalshi和Polymarket，这让我觉得特别有趣，因为你在书中提到，掷骰子看起来比去创造真正有意义的东西更合理。

Well, the the thing about Kalshi and and Polymarket is fascinating to me because you have a line in the book about how rolling the dice can seem more reasonable than trying to build anything meaningful.

我认为这正是当前正在发生的事，尤其是在越来越多的州，体育博彩变得更加普遍和合法之后。

And I think that's a lot of what is happening, especially for young men in a sports gambling became more prevalent and more legal in more states.

加密货币走的也是类似的路子，人工智能也是如此。

And crypto sort of runs a similar track AI is is similar too.

嗯。

Mhmm.

这又回到了萨姆·班克曼-弗里德。

And it connects back to Sam Bankman Fried.

你提到他有一种无法感受情绪的能力。

You talk about how he has this inability to feel things.

我们知道，如今全球年轻男性正面临高发的抑郁问题。

And we know right now, young men really around the world are struggling with high rates of depression.

他们花更多时间在网上。

They're spending more time online.

他们很容易受到你所描述的这种思维的影响。

They're sort of susceptible to the kind of thinking that you're talking about.

所以请你解释一下，加密货币、交易文化与人工智能是如何相互影响的。

So explain a little bit about how crypto and trading culture and AI kind of feed each other.

是的，是的，我认为在这方面可以把人工智能稍微分开来看。

Yeah, yeah, I mean, I would say I separate AI a little bit in this.

我的意思是，很多相同的动态依然存在。

I mean, I think a lot of the same dynamics are in place.

但事实上，人工智能在公开市场中的参与度没那么高。

But the fact is like AI is not in public markets as much.

因此，这方面直接的关联要少一些。

So there's a little bit less of that directly with that.

但肯定还是有联系的。

But there are connections for sure.

让我稍微回溯一下我之前说过的话：我相信加密货币的基本前提，但我也认为，它实际上已经成为这些赌博动态的巨大渠道——早在2017年、2018年，这类现象就在加密货币中出现了。

And to sort of rewind to something I said earlier, I am in the rare position of, I believe in the sort of basic premises of crypto, but I also believe that it has become a huge vector frankly, for these gambling dynamics that this stuff was happening in crypto as early as like 2017, 2018.

真正冲击华尔街和主流社会是在2020年新冠疫情期间，伴随着迷因股票热潮。

It really hit Wall Street and kind of the mainstream during COVID in 2020 with the meme stock craze.

所以人们听说了像GameStop这样的股票，还有一些我一时想不起来的其他例子。

So people heard about like GameStop and there are others that are evading me right now.

但当时人们被困在家，疯狂交易，直白地说，个人进行日内交易就像赌博，是确保自己亏钱的绝佳方式。

But people were stuck at home trading and just to put it right out there, day trading as an individual is just like gambling a way to guarantee that you're losing money.

日内交易实际上可能比赌博更具掠夺性，我们可以深入探讨这一点，但我想明确提醒任何考虑参与日内交易的人：绝对不要进行日内交易。

Day trading is actually probably more extractive than gambling and we can go into that but that's just sort of something to really signpost for anybody who's considering this like you should not day trade, period.

如果你不是专业人士，没有接受过相关训练，也没有在华尔街风格的机构中积累过实际经验，你就根本不该这么做。

Like if you're not a professional, if you're not really trained in it, if you don't literally have experience with like a Wall Street style shop to teach you how to do this, you shouldn't do it.

我认为，这正是我们真正触及的地方——我来自一种马克思主义的理论背景，倾向于从物质层面思考问题。

And I think that this is where we really get, I come from like a Marxist sort of theoretical background of trying to think about things in material terms.

显然，当前经济形势十分严峻。

And obviously the economy is in a rough place right now.

人们在找工作方面遇到困难，但情况也还没糟糕到灾难的地步。

People are having trouble with finding jobs, but it's also not like a disaster zone.

因此，我认为，目前我们的失业率相对合理，这简直是个奇迹，毕竟右翼一直竭尽全力侵蚀和破坏经济以实现其自身目的。

And so I think that, they're like, we have relatively reasonable unemployment rates and things like that at this point, miraculously given how hard the right wing has tried to erode and destroy the economy for their own ends.

但美国仍然存在一个可触及的基本繁荣水平。

But we do have this baseline of prosperity in America still that is accessible.

因此，这促使我们从文化角度去思考：在加密货币领域，即使回到2017年、2018年，人们甚至以被称为‘degen’（赌徒）或‘堕落赌徒’为荣。

And so it really gets you thinking about it from a cultural perspective, which is in crypto, even again, going back to like 2017, 2018, there's kind of pride of being what we call jokingly a degen or degenerate gambler.

这正是几天前《华尔街日报》一篇大文章所讨论的，它反映了很多人开始称之为金融虚无主义的观点：如果你没有足够储蓄来买房，那还省什么钱呢？

This is where, there was actually a big Wall Street Journal piece about this a couple days ago, and that speaks to what I think a lot of people have begun to call financial nihilism, This idea that yeah, if you're not reasonably in sight of saving up money in order to buy a house, then why bother saving it all?

为什么要像我们这些幸运地每月往401(k)账户存500美元、看着它每年增长10%的人那样，缓慢而枯燥地积累呢？顺便为这种做法做个反向推广。

Why bother slowly, like the slow boring work of those of us who are lucky enough to put $500 a month into a four zero one ks and like watch it grow by 10% a year, which again, to do an opposite plug for.

我今年46岁，很幸运拥有非常保守的父母，他们从小就教我存一点钱，积少成多。

I'm 46 and I'm lucky enough to have had a very conservative pair of parents financially who just taught me to put away a little bit and that does add up.

所以，从个人角度，我想强调一下：不要日内交易，做枯燥但有效的事——把钱存入税递延IRA账户，投资指数基金，你不可能战胜市场，只需跟随指数即可。

And so I'll just on a personal level put out a plug there, do not day trade, do the boring thing, put your money into a tax deferred IRA, use an index fund, you're not going to beat the market, just ride that index.

过一段时间后，这看起来就相当不错了，比如我每个月偶尔会收到一条通知，说我退休账户又多了2000美元的收益，积少成多。

It starts looking pretty cool if after a while, know, I get a notification once every month or so that I got like a $2,000 distribution just back into my retirement account, just it adds up.

所以，再次强调，作为个人建议，选择枯燥但可靠的方式，这才是真正有效的。

So again, just to like as a personal note, do it the boring way, it's what works.

但有一种文化现象将赌博神圣化了，我认为这种观念与背后的现实物质基础有些脱节。

But there has been this like cultural valorization of gambling in a way that I think is somewhat disconnected from the material reality underlying it.

我认为，做一个理性保守的人——储蓄，仍然是一条可行之路。我认为你的父母和祖父母实际的节俭程度，可能远超你从那些关于千禧一代生活轻松的网络迷因中所想象的，过去的人们同样在挣扎。

I think that there is still a path to just be a reasonable conservative person like save, I think your parents and grandparents scrimped and saved a lot more than you might think when you look at like these boomer memes about how easy everything was, people still struggled in the past.

因此，人们感到经济中的机会正在减少，但同时也有一种强大的文化力量在推动将这种现象正常化。

And so there is this sense of like the opportunity in the economy declining, but there's also a very big cultural push towards normalizing this stuff.

而且，你必须思考：这究竟让谁受益？受益者正是像Robinhood这样的交易平台，它们正在吸引这些新的交易者。

And again, you have to think about well, who does it benefit and who it benefits are the people like Robinhood, the trading platforms who are attracting all of these new traders.

还有那些资产发行方，比如你是一家没有实际产品的加密公司，但你有一个代币，你希望鼓励人们赌这个代币，即使你知道它根本没有实际用途，甚至知道这有点像骗局。

And also the asset issuers who, if you're a crypto company that doesn't have any real product, but you have a token, you wanna encourage people to gamble on the token, maybe even knowing that there's no actual utility there, maybe even knowing that it's a little bit of a scam.

因此，你只是让这一切变得正常，因为你的收入来源正是交易手续费，或者你控制大量资产的增值——这正是FTX欺诈案的另一个关键部分：他们发行了一种叫FTT的代币，本质上是凭空印出来的，然后用各种金融手段将其作为贷款抵押品。

And so you just normalize this stuff because that's really where your income is coming from, is either the fees from trading or the appreciation of an asset that you control a lot of, which is, this is another major part of the FTX fraud was this token called FTT that they essentially printed from nothing and then use kind of financial shenanigans to use as collateral for loans.

所以，再举一个例子：通过鼓励人们成为投机性赌徒，你实际上只是通过让人们下注，给你的空壳代币或糟糕的SPAC赋予了一点价值。

And so again, another example of like, by encouraging people to be speculative gamblers, you actually give your nothing token or your shitty SPAC a little bit of value by just encouraging people to bet on it.

如果下注本身成了价值，那么你就越来越脱离了‘企业应该创造实际价值’这一基本理念。

If the bet becomes the value, then you just disconnect increasingly from the idea that a business is actually something that should provide value.

因此，所有这一切，显然都是一团乱麻。

And so all of this, it's obviously all a crazy nest.

我的意思是，我们生活在一个这样的社会里，对吧？

I mean, we live in a society, right?

很多事情正在发生。

There's a lot going on.

但这一切都在逐渐促使人们习以为常。

But it's all kind of converging towards it sort of training people to normalize.

是的，本质上就是赌博。

Yeah, gambling, essentially.

我觉得这感觉非常男性化。

And it feels it feels very male to me.

我想听听你对卡罗琳·艾利森的一些看法。

And I wanted to get your impressions a little bit about Caroline Ellison.

她成了萨姆·班克曼-弗里德和FTX事件的替罪羊，或许能比预期更早出狱。

She becomes the fall guy for Sam Bank of Freedom for FTX research, maybe getting out of prison a little earlier than expected.

是的。

Yeah.

所有人都聚焦在萨姆身上。

Everyone focuses on SPF.

他是杂志封面的那个人。

He's the guy on the cover of the magazine.

他们对她的动机讨论不多，除了说她爱他，但她对有效利他主义也非常感兴趣。

They don't really discuss her motivations beyond the idea that she loved him, but she was also very interested in effective altruism as well.

是的。

Yeah.

关于她，还有什么缺失的吗？

What are missing about her?

是的。

Yeah.

我的意思是，这确实很有诱惑力。

I mean, it is very tempting.

而且，我认为她本质上是被他情感操控了，但她并不是一个好人。

And, you know, I do think that she was essentially emotionally manipulated by him, but she's not a good person.

这一点非常明确。

That's definitely very clear.

她不仅对有效利他主义这种抽象概念感兴趣，还把自己的个人博客命名为‘虚假慈善极客女孩’，这背后显然贯穿着一种愤世嫉俗的态度；同时，她也是科学种族主义、智商理论、优生学等一系列思想的狂热支持者，这正是我开头提到的、贯穿整个事件的优生学底色——因为权威依赖于你天生具备某种智力。

Not only was she interested in, you know, effective abstractly, not only did she name her personal blog fake charity nerd girl, is this like there's this cynicism running through all of this, but she was also, which is another common thread running through a lot of this, was a big aficionado of scientific racism, IQ theory, eugenics and all of this other stuff, which I alluded to at the beginning that like there is sort of a eugenic underpinning to all of this because the authority depends on you having some inherent native intelligence.

但这一点非常具体，比如FTX的资金曾资助了一个名为‘光锥研究’的组织，该组织在2022年和2023年于旧金山举办的‘光之避难所’活动中，曾邀请白人至上主义者和优生学家参加。

But it's really specific, I mean, FTX money went to fund this group called Light Cone Research, which hosted white supremacists and eugenicists at an event in San Francisco, both in, I think it was 2022 and 2023 called Light Haven.

回到卡罗琳，她绝不是什么圣人。

To circle back around to Carolyn, she's no angel.

我认为这种‘男性气质’及其对应的女性 counterpart 非常重要。

And think that the sort of maleness of it and the sort of female counterpart is really important.

尽管她是个有争议的人物，但我认为必须承认，有效利他主义和理性主义这两种文化本质上是极度厌女的。

And I think that despite the fact that she's a problematic figure, I think it's important to acknowledge that like effective altruism and rationalism as cultures are extremely anti woman you would say.

已有大量内部报道指出，这些运动中的强势男性领袖利用对资金的控制权，对女性进行性骚扰和剥削。

There is extensive reporting from inside these movements of powerful male leaders leveraging their control over funding to harass and exploit women sexually basically.

还有大量报道显示，这些运动中的人曾利用所谓的‘一对一会面’——本意是让新人了解这个运动——来骚扰女性。

There is a lot of reporting that people within these movements have used these like one on one meetings that are supposed to introduce people to the movement to harass women.

如果你，我的意思是，我本不想显得太以貌取人，但我还是忍住这种倾向吧。

If you, I mean, I hate to be well, I'll resist the urge to be a lookist about it.

但人们可以想象，这些运动中的许多男性需要帮助，或者认为自己需要帮助来操控女性，这背后有各种原因。

But there are various reasons why you can imagine a lot of the men in these movements need some help or think they need some help to manipulate women.

他们以多种方式令人反感，除了具有种族主义倾向之外。

They're off putting in various ways, in addition to being racist.

数字不会说谎。

And the numbers don't lie.

事实上，有效利他主义和理性主义群体中的男女比例大约是70%男性对30%女性，甚至可能更不平衡。

Mean, the proportion participation in effective altruism and rationalism is something like 70% male to 30% female, if not more imbalanced than that.

我认为，到了这一点，很难不变成拉里·萨默斯那样的人，因为确实有种感觉——再次强调，并非因为任何固有的优势或劣势，而是围绕交易、概率计算以及有效利他主义和理性主义中大量根深蒂固的这些东西，已经被彻底男性化了。

And I think that, you know, this is where it's difficult not to turn into Larry Summers at some point, because there is this sense that like, again, not because of any inherent advantage or disadvantage, but the culture around trading and probability calculation and a lot of this stuff that is very deeply ingrained in effective altruism and rationalism, those things have just been made male.

很多人知道这段历史：在20世纪50年代、60年代和70年代，计算机科学曾是一个女性占主导的领域。

Mean, lot of people know this history, but computer science was a heavily female field in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s.

‘计算机’这个词最初指的是在纸上进行计算的人类，而这些‘计算员’这一职业主要由女性担任。

The word computer originally referred to a human performing calculations on paper and most of those computers, that profession was largely filled by women.

因此，计算文化的这一转变——加密货币在很大程度上是计算文化的延伸，它源自密码朋克运动。

And so this shift of computing culture, crypto is an extension of computing culture to a significant degree, it grows out of the cypherpunk movement.

这种男性特质，归根结底一切都回到物质，对吧？

This sort of like the male, again, everything goes back to material, right?

随着计算变得更有利可图，这些工作薪酬提高，计算领域的男性化趋势也随之加速。

The maleness of computing accelerated as computing became more profitable and those jobs became more highly paid.

因此，女性被排除在计算机科学、理性主义这些领域之外，这种观念本质上是为计算机行业设计的一种哲学。

And so this sort of exclusion of women from the spaces of computer science of, you know, rationalism is sort of this idea that is intended to be like a philosophy for the computer industry.

因此，它被男性和男性思维所主导。

And so it's dominated by males and male thinking.

但同样，这里很难不陷入某种困境，我认为应该将女性的文化身份与你所说的荣格式的‘神圣女性’区分开来，以此区分看待世界的不同方式。

But again, this is where it's difficult to not, I think I would separate sort of female cultural identity from what you might call Jungian divine feminine as a way of separating just kind of ways of thinking about the world.

有一种强烈的、带有负面意味的男性特质，就是渴望在事情发生前计算出所有结果。

And there is something very, in a negative connotation, very male about the desire to calculate every outcome before it happens.

以及相信你可以收集所有事实，把它们写在纸上，然后从中推导出结论。

And the belief that you can gather all the facts and put them on paper and then derive a conclusion from that.

而另一方面，冒着简化和生物还原论的风险，所谓女性的思维方式——我认为这种思维方式在我们每个人身上都以某种比例存在——是一种更批判性、直觉性、整体性的思考方式。当人们看到像FTX、有效利他主义或理性主义这样的东西时，会直觉地觉得‘这根本说不通’，因为我们无法预测未来，对吧？

Whereas again, at the risk of being reductive and maybe a biological reductionist here, the sort of feminine way of thinking, which again I think is in all of us exists in some proportion, is this more, you know, sort of critical, intuitive, holistic way of thinking that I think is when people look at something like FTX, and they're like, like effective altruism, and you're like, or rationalism, you're like, I just just like inherently doesn't make sense intuitively to me, because we can't predict the future, right?

就像倾听自己一样，这并不是要讨论真正的男人和女人，而是关于一种思维方式——那种极端男性化的理性主义观点，认为我们可以认知并控制一切，只有这些结论才重要；而另一种则是对世界持更开放的直觉性看法。这一点很有趣，当你开始思考时，你会发现人工智能和理性主义的奇怪之处在于，这些人都完全不了解人类大脑的真实运作方式，对吧？

Like, that's the listening to yourself that again, not to make it about actual men and women, but as about like a way of thinking the sort of hyper masculine rationalist view that we can know and control everything and those are the conclusions that matter versus this more openness to an intuitive view of the world to like and this is something that, you know, once you start thinking, this is the funniest thing about artificial intelligence and rationalism, all this stuff is that these people have no idea how actual human brains work, right?

而且，我们完全可以将这一点与所谓的男性和女性特质完全剥离，因为人类的情感实际上是我们做决策时非常重要的组成部分。

And this is we can we can separate it from the male and female ness of it at all entirely because human emotion is actually a very significant portion of how we make decisions.

我们的情绪中心实际上是大脑的认知中心，负责整合信息；我们的情绪是关于我们潜意识中已达成结论的信号——你或许会说，这些结论整合的信息比我们能理性写在纸上的还要多。

Our emotion centers are actually cognitive centers of the brain that collate information and our emotions are indicators about conclusions that we have reached subconsciously you might say, but really those conclusions integrate more information than we can rationally put down on the page.

因此，当你审视像FTX这样的重大失误时，一种理解方式是：这种理性计算的世界观总是会失败，因为当你试图把一切写在纸上时，必然会有遗漏。

And so when you look at epic screw ups like FTX, one way to think about it is this like rationalist calculating view of the world always fails because there is always an exclusion when you're trying to put everything down on the page, you're gonna miss something.

但这并不是说你应该完全依赖直觉框架，因为直觉和基于事实的决策是相互补充的，对吧？

And this is not to say that you should operate on an entirely intuitive framework, because intuitive and fact based decision making are counterparts, right?

许多伟大的科学发现都源于这样一个说法——灵光一现，我的意思是，这种瞬间的灵感最终能导向严谨的数学结论。

Like a lot of great scientific discoveries have come, hear this phrase flash of inspiration, I mean, that leads to serious mathematical conclusions.

世界上最具客观理性的人，他们的洞见往往在某一刻突然浮现，然后才被记录下来，对吧？

People who are the most objective reasoners in the world, stuff comes to you in a moment and then you put it down, right?

如果你排斥直觉，排斥那个始终在运作的大脑部分，而只关注这个能将事物转化为语言和数字的前额叶，那你实际上是在牺牲自己巨大的认知能力。

If you exclude your intuition, if you exclude that part of your brain that is always working, and you're only paying attention to this forebrain here that can put things into words and put it into numbers, you're actually sacrificing a huge amount of your own cognitive power.