大卫·肖尔与拜恩·霍伯特谈白领群体的全面衰退政治

而且，你很可能要搬到城市里去。

And, also, you're probably gonna move to a city.

你会被一群完全陌生的人包围。

You'll be surrounded by complete strangers.

你会有一份工作，比如在一座嘈杂、喧闹、非常不舒服的建筑里，摆弄那些你所制造的实体物品。

You'll have a job, like, in this loud, noisy, very uncomfortable building, like, messing around with, you know, whatever these physical things you're manufacturing are.

很多人会说，这简直像一场噩梦。

Like, a lot of people would say that's that's kind of nightmarish.

事实上，当时很多观察者确实认为这相当可怕，但随着时间推移，情况最终还算过得去。

And in fact, a lot of contemporary observers did talk about that being kind of nightmarish, but they did end up working out reasonably well over time.

这只不过是全新的、奇怪的，从原来的角度来看完全无法理解。

It was just new and weird and completely incomprehensible from the original standpoint.

让我换种方式问一个问题：谁获得了这些生产率提升的收益？它们是如何分配的？

Let me ask the question in a slightly different way, which is like, who captures the productivity gains here and how are they distributed?

因为我想像得出一种情况：我们都有工作，而工作中有一些任务是我们并不一定喜欢做的。

Because I can imagine a situation where we all have jobs, there are certain tasks in our job that we don't necessarily like doing.

如果我们能用人工智能更高效地完成这些任务，那对我们来说可能是好事。

And if we can use AI to do them more efficiently, then maybe that's great for us.

但历史上充满了这样的例子：新技术被宣传为提高生产力的工具，比如电子邮件会让你做事更快。

But history is full of examples of new technology that is pitched as, you know, a productivity enhancer like email is going to let you do things faster.

但结果却发现，电子邮件意味着我们得24小时回复邮件，工作量反而增加，让我们更加痛苦。

And then it turns out that actually email means we have to reply to emails twenty four hours a day and we just get more volume and it actually makes us more miserable.

这里的效率提升被谁攫取了？

Who captures the efficiency gains here?

那些在能产出更多经济成果时并不感到痛苦的人，尽管他们需要付出不同的注意力或更多努力。

People who don't feel miserable when they can produce more economic output but have to pay different kinds of attention or put in more effort.

确实，这些技术有负面副作用，但当沟通成本下降时，你能实现的协调能力会大幅提升，而且可以用不同方式协调。

Now, like, it is true that these things have negative side effects, but, when the when the cost of communication goes down, the amount of coordination you can do goes way up, and you can coordinate in different kinds of in different ways.

我认为这也说明，很难预测服务业工作的需求，因为很多工作本质上是元层次的。

And I think this this also illustrates that it's very hard to predict the demand for service sector work because a lot of it is so meta.

很多工作都是与其他服务业部门互动。

Like, a lot of it is interacting with other parts of the service sector.

比如，Excel 是一个典型的例子，但文字处理也是如此——你可能会想，文字处理让律师能更快地起草合同，因此我们需要的律师会更少。

So, like, Excel is kind of the tried example, but there's also word processing where you could think, okay, word processing makes it easier for lawyers to just quickly draft contracts, and so we'll need fewer lawyers.

但实际上，这意味着他们可以把一份两页的合同扩展成五十页，然后你就需要更多的律师来处理这些文件。

But, actually, it meant they could turn a two page contract into a 50 page contract, and then you need more lawyers to handle that.

乔，我有没有告诉过你，我在康涅狄格州遇到一个人，他正在接受校对员的培训？

Joe, did I tell you I met someone in Connecticut who was training to be a copy editor?

他两年前开始的，我当时就想，天啊，这时机也太差了吧。

He started two years ago, and I just thought, my God, what bad timing.

我听过一些其他的故事。

I've heard a few other stories.

比如，我最近听说有个人六个月前去参加了编程培训班，我当时就想，这时机真够尴尬的。

Like, I heard someone recently, they, like, went to, like, a coding boot camp, like, six months ago, and I'm like, that's awkward timing.

是的。

Yeah.

大卫，在你的调查中，谁最喜欢人工智能，谁最不喜欢？

David, in your polling, who likes AI the most and who likes AI the least?

是的

Yeah.

有一个相当明确的联盟。

There's a pretty clear coalition.

你知道，具体数据很大程度上取决于提问方式，但主要的人口统计学差异是年轻人比老年人更喜欢人工智能，男性比女性更喜欢，这大概并不令人意外。

You know, the actual levels depend a lot on how you ask it, but the main demographic split is that young people like AI a lot more than older people, then men more than women, which is probably unsurprising.

然后我认为有趣的是，受教育程度高的人普遍对人工智能持更积极的看法。

And then I think interestingly, generally educated people have much more positive views.

他们讽刺的是，尽管大家都在谈论白领工作流失，但拥有学位的人反而最乐观，而工人阶级的人则乐观得多。

They they ironically, despite all the talk of the white collar job loss, it's it's the people with degrees who I think are the most optimistic, and then working class people are a lot less optimistic.

最后，总的来说，非白人对人工智能更悲观，而黑人和拉美裔选民则普遍更乐观。

And then finally, after all of that, generally speaking, not white people are more pessimistic about AI, and black and Latino voters are are generally more optimistic.

你知道，比如密西西比三角洲，实际上对人工智能感到兴奋的人比例最高。

You know, the Mississippi Delta, for example, actually has the highest rate of folks who are excited about AI.

这很有趣。

That's interesting.

等等。

Wait.

解释一下受过教育的人和工人阶级之间态度的差异。

Explain the difference in attitudes between the educated and more, like, working class.

这是否只是因为工人阶级历史上更常被亏待，用词不太准确的话？

Is that just because the working class is, I guess, maybe historically more used to getting screwed over, for lack of a better word?

嗯，我认为这就是关键。

Well, I think that is exactly it.

也就是说，我刚才描述的 scenario 是，工作会改变，但会有很多增长。

That, you know, the way what I'll just he painted the story of, well, you know, the jobs are gonna change, but there's gonna be tons of growth.

会出现新的工作。

There's gonna be new jobs.

我必须强调，选民对这一说法极为怀疑。

And I think it's just really worth saying that voters are extremely skeptical of this claim.

比如，如果你去问人们：你有多相信‘人工智能会创造大量新工作’这个说法？

Like, if you go and you say, oh, how much do you trust the statement that AI is gonna create lots of new jobs?

我觉得大概是负40。

I think it's something like minus 40.

事实上，选民们对当前的经济状况非常悲观。

The reality is that, you know, voters are extremely negative about the economy right now.

很难过分强调这一点：大约三分之二的公众认为经济体系被操纵了，只有35%的人觉得自己经济上有保障。

It's really impossible to overstate where something like two thirds of the public thinks that the economy is rigged, only 35% of the public think feels that they're financially secure.

在这种背景下，人们确实非常愤怒，他们对‘一切都会好起来’这种说法极度怀疑。

And in that context where people are genuinely quite angry, they are extremely skeptical of the claim that things are just going to be okay.

是的。

Yeah.

而且显然，工人阶级还记得制造业的衰退。

And obviously, you know, working class people remember the decline in manufacturing.

几乎每一次重大的经济转型都有赢家和输家，而赢家通常是前1%或前10%的人。

They're like basically every economic big economic shift has had winners and losers, and the winners generally have been either the top one or the top 10%.

经济学家们对此有争议，但其他人确实遭受了损失。

The economists argue about that, but other people have lost.

所以，我想强调的主要观点是，布琳所描绘的图景不会被允许发生，因为公众是有发言权的。

And so, you know, the main point I wanna make is just I think the picture that Brynn is painting isn't going to be allowed to happen because the public has a say.

这是一个非常重要的观点。

This is a really important point.

公众会决定一切，几乎不可能在不了解政治走向的情况下谈论未来。

The public will sort of it's almost impossible to talk about the future without knowing what the politics are gonna be.

让我问你一个问题。

Let me ask you.

你与民主党人合作。

So you work with Democrats.

当我想到民主党与人工智能时，我觉得有几件不同的事情。

And when I think about the Democrats and AI, I think there's, like, a few different things.

在左翼阵营中，有一股相当大的力量认为这一切都是骗局，认为这又是一次Theranos事件。

There's a pretty big contingent on the sort of capital l left that thinks it's all a fraud, that thinks it's, this is Theranos again.

这就像NFT一样。

This is NFTs.

这完全是经济上可持续的。

This is completely economic sustainable.

然后还有一群反对数据中心的人。

Then there's sort of like the anti data center people.

他们不希望数据中心建在自家后院。

They don't want them in the backyard.

他们根本不想让数据中心出现在任何地方。

They don't want them around, period.

然后，长期以来，民主党内部逐渐形成了一股反对大型科技公司和反对寡头势力的潮流。

Then there's sort of like what's been building in the Democratic Party for a while, just this sort of like anti big tech and the anti oligarchs, stuff like that.

你有没有遇到过谁，我正想找个确切的词，真正认真看待这项技术，认为它是一项会不断发展的关键技术？

Is there anyone that you talk to who's most I'm trying to think of the exact term, taking it very seriously as an important technology that is going to evolve?

比如，你有没有遇到过谁说，不，这真的管用。

Like, is there anyone you talk to who's like, no, this actually works.

这是真实的。

This is real.

这可能是生产力的提升等等，还是仅仅只是各种政治负面情绪的不同表现？

This could be a productivity gains, etcetera, or is it almost just various flavors of political negativity?

我认为背景是，这是一个非常新的政治议题。

Well, I think the backdrop is that this is a very new political issue.

你知道，即使从去年开始，关注人工智能的选民比例增长幅度就超过了我们追踪的其他39个议题中的任何一个。

You know, even since last year, the share of voters who care about AI has increased more than any of the other 39 issues that we're tracking.

因此，政客们显然正在赶上来。

And so politicians obviously are catching up.

通常，政客们都是相当被动的。

Usually, politicians are pretty reactive.

但我要说的是，我认为民主党比共和党更有优势来利用这一点，根本原因在于共和党在这件事上把自己逼进了死胡同。

But you know what I will say is I think that Democrats are in a much better position to capitalize on this than Republicans are just for the basic reason that Republicans have really painted themselves in a corner on this.

你知道，唐纳德·特朗普曾在录音中说，人工智能将创造大量新工作，失业不会发生。

You know, Donald Trump is on tape saying that AI is gonna create tons of new jobs, that job loss isn't gonna happen.

JD万斯发表过一篇演讲，说我们永远不会监管人工智能。

JD Vance gave the speech where he was like, oh, we will never regulate AI.

所以我认为，根据我与人们的交流，我看到民主党政治家对这个问题的关注比六个月前多得多，而且我觉得大家还在摸索着该如何正确应对。

And so I I think, you know, just from my conversations, I'm seeing Democratic politicians care a lot more about this than they did six months ago, and I think that folks are kind of ambling about to figure out what the right way to respond is.

等等。

Wait.

再多说说你为什么认为AI这么快就成为了一个关注点，因为在这个房间里，每个人可能都玩过聊天GPT之类的东西。

Say more about why you think AI has become a concern so quickly because, you know, everyone in this room has probably played around with chat GPT and things like that.

但我想象对于很大一部分人群来说，AI至今还没有真正影响到他们的日常生活。

But I would imagine for a big chunk of the population, it hasn't necessarily impacted their day to day lives just yet.

所以看到AI的担忧迅速上升为最紧迫的问题之一，确实有点令人惊讶。

So it's kind of surprising to see AI concerns rise the ranks of worries so fast.

我认为人们已经看到了事情的发展趋势。

Well, I do think people see the writing on the wall.

你知道，目前大约有60%的公众使用过这些工具。

You know, that basically, as it stands, something like 60% of the public has used these tools.

13%的公众每天都在使用它们。

13% of the public uses them every day.

我认为人们严重低估了公众对此的担忧程度。

And I think that people really underestimate the extent to which the public is concerned.

我觉得这些工具实际上正在广泛应用于众多不同领域。

The I I think these tools really are being rolled out quite widely across a whole host of different sectors.

这个周末我跟一位医疗科技从业者聊了聊，他说，是的。

You know, I was talking this weekend to a medical tech who was like, oh, yeah.

人工智能已经被投入使用了。

Know the AI is being deployed.

她在蒙大拿州的一家乡村医院工作，就连那里的人也说，是的。

She was in a rural hospital in Montana, and even them, she was like, oh, yeah.

我知道人工智能正在被广泛部署。

I know AI is being deployed quite widely.

我认为，这发生在选民对经济感到极度不满的背景下。

And I think that, again, this is happening in the context of voters feeling extremely negatively about the economy.

因此，每当他们看到大规模变革以及自己所有工作都将被取代的可能性时，我认为他们会非常担心自己会遭殃。

And so whenever they see the prospect of a large scale revolution and how all of their jobs are gonna happen, I think that they're very concerned they're gonna be screwed.

伯恩，我相信你更贴近另一派的立场。

Byrne, you're you're plugged into the opposite side of the aisle, I believe.

是的。

Yes.

在那边，也有一些有趣的分歧，因为我们显然有一群科技右翼人士，他们对进步和加速充满热情。

And on there, there's some interesting cleavages as well, because obviously we have the sort of the tech right that's very enthusiastic, the progress and acceleration and so forth.

然后你还有明显的民粹主义联盟。

And then you have the sort of obvious, like, populist coalition.

你看到一些政客在谈论，如果我们真的有了自动驾驶卡车，那对司机来说会有多糟糕。

You have, like, politicians talking about how awful it would be if, you know, we ever had self driving trucks and how terrible that would be for drivers.

你如何看待另一侧的板块运动？

What do you how do you see the tectonic plates moving around on the other side?

我喜欢人工智能，所以我对政治层面非常悲观。

Well, I like AI, so I'm I'm very pessimistic on the political dimension.

我认为部分原因是，当你让人们对人工智能产生关注时，他们会有一套特定的看法。

And I think part of it is that when you ask people about AI, when you're making it salient, they have one set of views.

但如果你观察他们的行为，他们会表现出另一套观点。

But if you look at their behavior, they have a different set of views.

我认为这是一个更广泛的观点，关于技术的大规模部署：它们确实增加了衡量上的收入和财富不平等，但却减少了消费不平等。

And I think this is like a broader point about the large scale deployments of technologies is that they do increase measured income and wealth inequality, but they decrease consumption inequality.

所以像乘飞机这样的事情，现在变得更容易获得、更实惠了。

So things like flying on a plane is just a much more attainable, affordable thing.

最近有一些数据表明，DoorDash的用户中，低收入群体的使用率最高。

There were some recent stats on how DoorDash usage is heaviest among lower income people.

因此，你现在可以接触到很多以前要么没人能用、要么只有非常富有的人才能享用的东西。

And so you you just have access to a lot of things where it used to be that either nobody had it or only very wealthy people had it.

实际上，ChatGPT就是这样一种东西——如果它不存在，而我又非常非常富有，我就会雇人来做这类事情。

And, actually, ChatGPT is it is the kind of thing where if it didn't exist and I were much, much wealthier, I would just hire people to do that kind of thing.

我会让他们帮我问一些关于历史的奇怪问题，或者派他们去做一些小的研究任务，即使他们一周后才回复我，提交一份报告，而我说‘哦，我改变主意了’，我也完全不会觉得不好意思。

I would just ask them weird questions about history or just send them off on little research tasks, and I wouldn't feel at all bad if they get back to me, you know, a week later and present me with this report, and I say, oh, I actually changed my mind.

我现在已经不在乎这些了。

I don't care about that anymore.

但接下来是这一个。

Just but here's the next one.

但你可以用大语言模型来做这件事。

But, like, you can you can do that with an LLM.

但 older 人群表面上不喜欢人工智能，但他们花大量时间在 Facebook 上，这意味着他们实际上非常喜欢人工智能。

But, also, older demographics nominally don't like AI, but they spend a lot of time on Facebook, which means they actually do really like AI.

他们喜欢人工智能推荐引擎。

They like AI recommendation engines.

他们对人工智能推荐的广告非常宽容。

They are very tolerant of AI recommended ads.

他们喜爱人工智能生成的图片和人工智能生成的文字。

They love AI generated images and AI generated text.

他们更喜欢在这样一个网站上，由人工智能告诉他们该评论什么，而不需要自己想评论。

They feel much more comfortable on a site where an AI is actually going to tell them what the comment should say, and they don't have to come up with a comment.

人们从消费角度看其实非常喜欢人工智能，但从外部抽象角度看却讨厌它。

People actually love AI from a consumption perspective and hate it from the outside abstract perspective.

让我更乐观的一点是，这些不同问题的显著性会随时间波动。

So thing that makes me more optimistic is just the salience of these different issues fluctuates over time.

也许AI的部署速度如此之快，以至于它最终会像内燃机、电力甚至互联网一样，成为背景噪音的一部分。

Maybe AI deployment is so fast that it becomes just part of the background noise like the internal combustion engine or electricity or even the Internet.

我们现在已经不会把互联网当成一个竞选议题了。

We're like, the Internet is not a campaign issue right now.

它在2000年左右曾是个议题，我想，2016年和2020年也出现过一些与互联网相关的问题，但它的关注度正变得越来越低。

It was sort of an issue in 2000, and it's been, I guess, you know, there were Internet y issues in 2016 and 2020, but it's it's becoming less and less salient.

我们根本不会去想，你是支持还是反对？

We just don't think about, like, are you pro or anti?

它就是存在而已。

Like, it just is.

我认为，随着AI带来的许多无形生产力提升，或者那些不太引人注目的AI生产力提升，我们正生活在一个更好的世界里——人们不再只把AI看作是抄作业、抄袭的工具，或者一个夺走我最佳工作机会的机器。

And I think that with a lot of these invisible productivity gains from AI or, you know, less salient productivity gains from AI, we're in a better world where people are not thinking AI is and is only the homework, cheating, and plagiarism, like, denial of a plagiarism machine, plus the thing that's taking away my best potential job.

我是卡罗尔·马瑟。

I'm Carol Masser.

我是蒂姆·斯泰内克，诚邀您收听彭博商业周刊每日播客。

And I'm Tim Stenevek inviting you to join us for the Bloomberg Businessweek daily podcast.

每天，我们为您带来这本杂志的深度报道，帮助全球领袖保持领先。

Now every day, we are bringing you reporting from the magazine that helps global leaders stay ahead.

我们提供关于塑造当今复杂经济的人物、公司和趋势的洞察。

We've got insight on the people, the companies, and trends that are shaping today's complex economy.

没错，蒂姆。

That's right, Tim.

我们全面覆盖全球商业、金融和科技新闻，实时追踪最新动态，并对美国市场收盘情况进行完整报道。

We're all over global business, finance, tech news, all as it is happening in real time, and we've got complete coverage of The US market close.

可以说，只要影响金融市场、影响企业、影响当前的趋势和叙事，我们都会跟进。

Gotta say, basically, if it impacts financial markets, if it impacts companies, if it's impacting trends and narratives that are out there, we are on

我们都在关注。

it.

我们做这件事的同时也乐在其中。

We also have a lot of fun doing it.

《彭博商业周刊》还通过与我们的专家嘉宾对话，为您揭示新闻背后的分析。

Bloomberg Businessweek also brings you the analysis behind the headlines through conversations with our expert guests.

我们每天工作日都会实时进行直播，并在每日播客中为您呈现最精彩的分析内容。

And we are doing this all live each weekday, and then we bring you the best analysis in our daily podcast.

在YouTube、Apple、Spotify或您收听播客的任何平台搜索《彭博商业周刊》。

Search for Bloomberg Businessweek on YouTube, Apple, Spotify, or anywhere else you listen.

在你

Check it out on your

下班回家的路上收听，补上白天错过的精彩对话。

way home from work to catch up on the conversations that you miss during the business day.

周末时，收听节目以全面回顾你的一周商业动态。

And on the weekend, check it out for a complete wrap up of your business week.

这就是《彭博商业周刊》每日播客。

That's the Bloomberg Business Week daily podcast.

我是卡罗尔·马瑟。

I'm Carol Masser.

我是蒂姆·斯坦尼韦克。

And I'm Tim Stanivek.

请在您收听播客的任何平台订阅我们。

Subscribe today wherever you get your podcasts.

你们当中有人觉得，从政治或社会角度理解当前的人工智能，最合适的歷史类比是什么吗？

Do either of you have a favorite historical analogy for AI right now in terms of understanding it from a political or social perspective?

你知道，正如我之前所说，我觉得新冠疫情是个很好的类比，因为我觉得AI的影响会迅速到来。

You know, for me, as I said before, I think it's COVID where I think that this is going to hit very quickly.

人们总是纠结于它究竟何时发生、具体如何发生，但我认为选民讨厌变革。

People get obsessed about, you know, exactly when it will happen or exactly how it will happen, but I think voters hate change.

我认为这是被严重低估的一点。

I think that that's one of the most underrated.

政治中的现状偏见非常强大。

Status quo bias of politics is very strong.

如果你看看全国最受欢迎的政治人物，总是那些什么都没做、却默默无闻的州长——这是一个被低估的政治事实。

If you look at who are the most popular politicians in the country, it's always, you know, the governors who do absolutely nothing, you know, underrated political fact.

所以我认为，如果你讨论的是一个每个工作岗位都在同时被改变的世界，会有大量的赢家和输家，人们当然会纠结于这个问题：每个人都会因为人工智能而失业吗？

So I think if you're talking about a world where every single job is being simultaneously transformed and there are tons of winners or losers, like, you know, obviously, people get hung up on this question of will everyone lose their job because of AI?

但实际上，只有大约3%的人会因为人工智能而失去工作。

But it's, like, 3% of people lose their job because of AI.

这将成为世界上最重要的问题。

It's just gonna be the biggest issue in the world.

你知道吗？

You know?

每当出现利益分散而损失集中时，这简直就是公共选择理论中的混乱配方。

Whenever you have diffused benefits and concentrated losers, that's just like a public choice recipe for chaos.

所以我特别喜欢用新冠疫情来作类比，因为新冠疫情几乎是突然间全面爆发的，我们的政治系统因此陷入混乱，新的联盟随之形成，应对起来非常困难。

And so I really like the COVID analogy because COVID happened basically all at once, and then our political system was scrambled and new coalitions were created, and it was very difficult to respond.

我认为，正如我们之前讨论的那样，当你回头去看，很难找到另一个如此迅速发生的经济转型。

And I think I whenever you go back, as we talked about before, it's really hard to think of an economic transition that happened that quickly.

伯恩？

Byrne?

是的。

Yeah.

我认为，COVID的类比在另一个方面也可能很有启发性，那就是联盟多次彻底转变。

I think I think the COVID analogy might be revealing in another way, which is, like, the coalitions completely shifted multiple times.

在一月份，只有那些奇怪的、极度在线的右翼匿名人士和一小群理性主义者认为这是一件大事，我们需要停止从中国起飞的航班。

It was, in January, it's only the weird online extremely online right wing anonymous people and then a handful of rationalist people who say, this is a really big deal, and it's like we need to shut down air travel from China.

对于有效利他主义者和理性主义者来说，这更像是一种对潜在生存威胁的审慎应对。

And, like, the for the EA types, for the rationalist types, that was more like, this is a prudent response to a potential existential threat.

而对于许多极右翼人士来说，这更像是一个让中国看起来更糟糕、同时减少往返中国航班的方式，因此他们想这么做。

And then I think for a lot of people on on the far right, it was like, this is a way to make China look bad and also to have fewer flights to and from China, and therefore, we wanna do it.

我认为，特朗普当时非常依赖S&P告诉他这是好事还是坏事。

And then, you know, Trump, I think, was very just tied to what the S and P was telling him about whether this was a good thing or a bad thing.

你可以隐约看出来。

Like, you could kind of see it.

如果你有一个实时行情显示板，告诉他市场对他早期关于COVID演讲的反应，我们国家的COVID政策可能会完全不同。

Like, I I think if you had a live ticker telling him how the market was reacting to some of his early COVID speeches, we would have had a completely different COVID policy as a country.

然后我们来了个反转，现在右翼变成了更倾向于新冠自由主义的阵营，就是放任自流。

And then we kind of did this flip where now then the the right became the more COVID libertarian, you know, just let it rip.

你知道，我们迟早都会对这种病毒产生免疫力的这一派，这让我觉得特别奇怪，因为右翼群体年龄偏大，而老年人风险更高。

You know, we're all going to be immune to this at some point faction, which was really weird to me because the rights skews older and older people were more at risk.

但我猜这又回到了显著性和信息环境的问题。

But I I guess it goes back to salience and information environment.

如果你属于那种久坐不动、年长、并且因为长时间看电视而久坐的群体，而你观看的电视内容是福克斯新闻，那么你对世界的看法可能会非常不同。

And if you are if you're in the cohort where you're you're sedentary, you're elderly, and you are sedentary because you're spending a lot of time watching TV, if what you're watching on TV is Fox, then maybe you just get a very different view of the world.

所以我认为这些联盟很可能频繁变动。

So I think the coalitions probably fluctuate a lot.

我不认为任何一个主要政党真正适合成为支持增长和丰裕派别的家园。

I don't think there's actually any I don't think either major party is a good home for the pro growth slash abundance faction.

它们可能在民主党或共和党内只是少数派，而我们要想产生任何影响力，都不得不在某些方面做出妥协。

Like, they can be a minority among Democrats or minority among Republicans, and we'll have to sell out in some ways to have any kind of influence whatsoever.

因此，从这个意义上说，我再次感到悲观。

So in that sense, again, pessimistic.

但当你谈到那些重要性发生变化的问题时，我觉得根据你之前的数据，大约一年前，大家最关注的是贸易。

But when you were talking about the the issues that changed in salience, I think in the the data you've had, it was, like, a year ago, it was trade, and everyone was obsessed with trade.

然后贸易突然成了热门话题，一度是新闻头条的主要来源，但后来渐渐淡出了人们的视野。

And then trade became a huge thing and was, like, the main producer of headlines for a while, and then it kinda faded.

尽管如此，全球贸易的状况依然非常混乱。

So and even though, like, the the situation is still very messed up in terms of global trade.

事实上，就石油贸易而言，现在的情况比几周前更加糟糕。

In fact, it is it is more messed up than it was a few weeks ago in terms of oil trade.

没错。

That's right.

从这个角度看，贸易就像是日常生活中一个简单的问题：你这一周过得比上周好吗？

So in that sense, trade is, like, the the day to day, like, are you better off than you were a week ago question.

贸易仍然是最重要的议题。

Trade is still the most salient issue.

我的意思是，也许如果出了新的产品发布，情况会有所改变，但目前就是这样。

I mean, maybe if if there's a new new model release, that'll change things, but for now, that's the case.

所以，是的，这一切都非常不稳定。

So, yeah, it's it's all pretty volatile.

就我看来，与之最相似的技术是晶体管和集成电路，它们在字面意义上是一种让生活中的一切变得更智能的方式。

I I in terms of the the technology that I think maps most closely to this, I think the transistor and integrated circuits are probably probably the closest mapping, like, one in the literal sense of they are a way to make everything in your life a little bit smarter.

想到我们家中有这么多小小的‘天才式’设备，能进行简单的计算和运算，还拥有友好的界面，而这些东西变得如此便宜，几乎免费了，这真是令人震惊。

And it is just astonishing to think of how many little idiot savant devices we have in our homes that can do little calculations and computations and have a nice little interface and how that stuff got so cheap that it basically became free.

想象一下，我们能否制造一个完全使用机械控制、内部没有晶体管的微波炉，这根本说不通。

Like, it would not make sense to think about, can we build a microwave that has entirely mechanical controls with no transistors inside of it?

你为什么要这么做呢？

Like, why would you do that?

说到政治，大卫，你觉得这有可能吗？

Speaking of politics, like, David, do you think it's plausible?

假设总统支持，未来的某位总统也支持，有人提出一项法案，说我们要禁止新建AI数据中心。

Let's say the president were for it, a future president were for it, someone puts up a bill and says, we're gonna ban AI new AI data center construction.

你能想象这样一个法案真的通过的世界吗？

Could you see a world where that actually passes?

因为我觉得这听起来很疯狂，但越想越觉得它可能真的会通过。

Because I feel like that's like, that seems crazy, but also I more I think about it, it almost seems like it could pass.

是的。

Yeah.

我觉得各种事情都可能通过。

I I could see all kinds of things passing.

我们可能会出现分裂政府，所以在这种情况下，任何具体事情都很难发生，这是常态。

We're gonna we will probably have divided government, and so it's always good to bet against any specific thing happening in that situation.

但你知道，比如禁止投资者购房就非常受欢迎，两党似乎都大力支持这种观点，即企业不应该拥有大量独栋住宅。

But But, like, we just you know, there's it's very popular, for example, to ban investors from owning homes, for example, which is both parties seem to be, like, very into that idea that corporations shouldn't own large swathes of single family homes.

这明显跨越了两党立场。

Totally seems to cut across both parties.

反对数据中心的做法在我看来也类似，这似乎并不是左右派的分歧。

The anti data center thing strikes me as similar, where it does not seem like a right or left thing.

这更像是一种广泛的、民粹主义的TikTok式政治。

It seems like a very broad, populist TikTok politics sort of thing.

是的。

Yeah.

你知道，关于数据中心的民意调查，确实如此，如果你问人们：你希望数据中心建在你家附近吗？

You know, what I'll say about the polling on data centers is it's true that if you poll, you know, do you want a data center in your neighborhood?

人们会说不希望。

People say no.

但另一方面，如果你在其中加入任何其他条件，比如：如果它由清洁能源建设呢？

But the flip side is if you add literally anything to it, if you're like, what if it's built by clean energy?

或者如果它能让你的税单减少10%呢？

Or what if it lowered your tax bills by 10%?

那么它突然就变得非常受欢迎了。

Then suddenly it becomes really popular.

我看到很多政客都试图抓住数据中心这个话题，因为这只是一个庞大而令人恐惧的问题，而数据中心议题恰恰非常直观易懂

I've seen a lot of politicians, like, kind of grab for the data center thing because this is just, like, a big, scary issue, and the data center stuff is just, like, a really legible

是的。

Yeah.

土地使用之类的。

Land use and this and that.

但我认为禁止数据中心是个错误，不是因为我个人多么关心是否禁止数据中心，而是因为公众真正想要的是别的东西。

But I think it would be a mistake, not not because I care that much personally about whether we ban data centers or not, but really just because I think the public really wants something else.

比如，如果我们明天就禁止数据中心，这并不会改变选民认为经济被操控或对未来感到极度恐惧的事实。

Like, if we ban data centers tomorrow, that really doesn't change the fact that voters think that the economy is rigged or that they're very scared about the future.

在我们的调研中，我们通常测试了多种不同的方式来谈论人工智能。

And, you know, in our testing, you know, we've generally tested dozens of different ways to talk about AI.

而数据中心的话题，我认为根本无法有效影响公众；真正能产生影响的，我认为是更激进的做法，比如谈论就业保障、收入保障或驱逐保护。

And the data center stuff, I think, just doesn't move the public very While what does, I think, is actually just being a lot more radical, talking about job guarantees or income guarantees or eviction protections.

我觉得，人们心中存在着巨大的恐惧，政治体系应当努力应对这种恐惧。

Like, I think that there's just an enormous amount of fear and the political system should try to address it.

这不仅仅是‘应当’的问题。

And it's not just should.

我认为它一定会发生，因为我们都生活在一个民主制度中。

I think it will, you know, because we do live in a democracy.

实际上，拜恩，这让我想起了一件事。

Actually, Byrne, that reminds me.

当我们谈到人工智能时，经常听到的一个观点是电力作为限制因素。

One of the things we hear a lot when it comes to AI is this idea of electricity as a limiting factor.

对吧？

Right?

每个人都说这是主要的制约因素。

Everyone talks about how that's the big constraint.

当你自己思考这项技术的采用及其在美国乃至全球的普及时，你究竟多大程度上在考虑数据中心和电力消耗这类问题？

When you yourself think about adoption of the technology and its spread across America and I guess around the world, how much are you actually thinking about things like data centers and electricity consumption?

目前我更少关注这些，因为整个供应链中的所有人都已经把未来很长一段时间的产能都预订满了。

Well, I'm thinking less about those right now just because everyone who is in that supply chain has all of their capacity booked out so far in the future.

是的。

Yeah.

新的供应量非常缺乏弹性。

Like new supply is pretty inelastic.

比如说，如果AI公司直接保证会订购西门子能源或Jeeve在2032年甚至更远未来的设备，我一点都不会感到惊讶，只是为了能提前启动新的制造产能。

Like, I wouldn't be entirely surprised to see the AI companies just guaranteeing that they will take delivery on, you know, something from Siemens Energy or Jeeve in, you know, the year 2032 or whatever just so that they break ground on new manufacturing capacity.

但我认为这因为周期实在太长了。

But I kind of view that because it's such a long lag thing.

这几乎是理所当然的事。

It's kind of a given.

我觉得真正的限制因素更多在于内部的组织层面。

I think that the actual constraints are more on the internal, like, organization side.

你的组织架构到底长什么样？如果AI无处不在，总是自动把信息路由给需要的人，你还需要组织架构吗？

Just, you know, do you even have an org chart if you have AI everywhere that's always routing messages to whoever needs them?

比如，会不会出现一种情况：只有一个CEO，其他所有人都是独立贡献者，而AI完全取代了中层管理？

Like, could you just have there's one person who's the CEO and everyone else is an individual contributor and you AI if I all middle management?

可能不会，因为另一个限制因素其实是责任问题。

Probably not because what you act the other limiting factor is just liability.

你确实希望有人在流程中参与决策。

It's that you do want a human in the loop.

你知道吗，我之前开玩笑说过这个，但这是真的。

You know, I was joking about this earlier, but it is true.

比如，现在处境最理想的人，是那些从事受监管职业的人，这类职业有某种行业协会限制新进入者，但市场对他们的服务需求却供不应求，而AI可以提升他们每小时的产出。

Like, The person who's in an ideal position right now is someone who is in a regulated job where there is some kind of trade association that limits new entrants into that job, but there's excess demand for the services they provide, then AI can increase their output per hour.

这些人将会赚得盆满钵满，只要他们能限制供给的流入，这种状况就会持续下去。

These people will be minting money, and they will continue to do so as long as they can limit supply inflows.

因此，我们最终可能迎来一个更加行会化的经济，其中限制的不是谁能做这份工作，而是谁能真正盖章并声称自己对结果负责——如果出错，你可以起诉我。

And so what we might end up with is a more kind of guildified economy where we have limits on who specifically not who can do the job, but who can actually, you know, stamp it and say, I'm taking credit for this and you can sue me if it goes wrong.

因为这实际上是非常有价值的东西。

Because that's actually a really valuable thing.

而且，你根本没法起诉一个数据中心。

And it's still like you can't really sue a data center.

你可以试着起诉OpenAI，但他们大概请得起比你更好的律师。

You know, you can try to sue OpenAI, but they can probably afford better lawyers than you.

实际上，更经济高效的做法可能是起诉我，因为ChatGPT建议我做某事，而我却没有再问一遍Claude来核实。

You actually it's probably more economically efficient to sue me for something ChatGPT told me to do that I didn't double check by asking Claude.

因此，我们作为活着的、有血有肉的人，其经济用途之一居然是成为诉讼的易 targets，这听起来很奇怪，但事实上，这种角色确实具有经济价值。

And so we'll like, it it is weird to think that one of our economic purposes as as, you know, living and sold human beings is to be an easy target for a lawsuit, but it is actually something economically valuable that we can do.

由于每个人对风险的偏好和承受能力不同，这意味着AI的部署会呈现出不均衡的状态：有些人会走得太过火，比如，如果你决定成为一名每天处理一千份1040报税表的注册会计师，那么你很可能成为第一个因AI建议而入狱的会计师——如果这种情况还没发生的话。

And because we all have different risk preferences and risk tolerances for things, it actually means that we would get this sort of uneven deployment of AI where there would be people who just demonstrate that you can go way too far and that, you know, if you decide that you're going to be a CPA who does taxes for, you know, does a a thousand 10 forties a day, you're probably the first CPA to go to prison specifically for something that an LLM told you to do if that hasn't happened yet.

但我认为，那种需要人类参与的模式——因为我们经济和社会的许多结构都默认存在一个真人——可能会持续存在。

But I think that that that kind of model where you want a human in the loop because so many structures that we have economically and socially just assume there's a person, that will probably stick around.

你不仅写了很多关于科技的内容，也写了很多关于金融的内容，我最近一直在思考AI时代的金融未来。

You write a lot about finance as well as technology, and I've been thinking a lot about the future of finance in AI.

其中一个话题是，我们曾与PNC银行的首席执行官做过一期非常精彩的访谈。

One of the things that comes up is we did a really good episode with the CEO of PNC Bank.

我们当时聊了一点关于AI和贷款的内容。

We were talking a little bit about AI and lending.

他说，如果你拒绝给某人发放贷款，就必须给出一个合理的理由。

And he said, you know, if you deny a loan to someone, you have to have a reason for it.

有很多法律，比如反歧视法之类的，对此有规定。

There are various laws that, you know, anti discrimination laws and stuff.

所以，如果有人被拒绝信贷，你必须能够解释原因。

So if someone is denied credit, you have to be able to explain why.

AI的一个问题是，它虽然能做出很好的决策，但很难被理解。

One of the things with AI is that it can make very good decisions, but it's hard to interpret.

而且AI通常无法解释它是如何得出结论的。

And the AI often can't explain how it arrived at a conclusion.

我很好奇，仅从金融行业来看，你认为这种‘很多事情必须能用英语清晰表达’的要求，会在多大程度上限制AI对行业的颠覆程度？

And I'm curious, like from a just thinking about the finance industry, how much do you think that's gonna be a limiting constraint on the degree to which AI disrupts the industry, the fact that a lot of things need to be articulable in English, basically?

我认为，AI和人类一样，都不太清楚自己为什么做出某种行为，但却非常擅长为自己的行为提供看似合理的解释。

Well, I think AI, like humans, is bad at knowing why it actually did things and really, really good at explaining why whatever it did was the right thing to do.

是的。

Uh-huh.

所以，我不是PNC的负责人，无法确定具体情况。

So it probably I mean, I'm not the head of PNC, so I don't know for sure.

但我猜想，这实际上会让为任何决定编造一套听起来很扎实的合理化理由变得更加容易。

But I I would imagine it actually makes it easier to just come up with some very solid sounding rationalization for anything.

他们真的很擅长合理化解释。

Like, they're they're just really good at rationalizing.

所以我对这一点不太担心。

So I would be less concerned with that.

实际上，我觉得拥有更开放、更易理解的推理过程很好。

Like, I actually think it's nice to have more open, accessible kind of reasoning.

你可以实际查看推理的轨迹。

Like, you can actually read the reasoning traces.

是的。

Yeah.

我认为AI对金融行业的一个影响是，对于提出建议的人——比如批准这笔贷款、拒绝那笔贷款——详细记录他们整个思考过程将变得非常有必要。

And one of the effects I think it has on finance is that people who are coming up with recommendations, like make this loan, don't make that loan, it will make a lot of sense to have much more detailed records of their entire thought process.

你可能会让他们使用Databricks笔记本或其他类似的工具，专门为了能看清：首先他们提出了这个问题，然后深入了某个方向，接着发现这无关紧要，再转向另一个问题，并花时间研究它，等等。

So you might have them, you know, working in Databricks notebooks or something equivalent to that, specifically so you could see, okay, first they asked this question, and then they went down this rabbit hole, then they decided it's irrelevant, and then they went to this question, and then they spent some time on it, etcetera.

因为如果你只看到‘这是问题’和‘这是经过润色和修改后的最终答案’，你就错过了大量中间的思考层次。

Because you if you have just here's the question and here's the polished answer someone came up with and edited, you're missing a lot of the intermediate layers.

因此，训练一个能够追踪并复现这一过程的模型是很困难的。

And so it's hard to train a model that can trace through that and reproduce it.

如果你有一个足够智能的模型，它实际上会隐式地自行复现所有这些推理过程。

If you have a smart enough model, it's basically implicitly reproducing all of that reasoning on its own.

但这意味着，当推理非常非常巧妙而当事人没有展示其思路时，模型的表现会更差。

But that means that it does worse when the reasoning is really, really clever and the person didn't show their work.

很多聪明人只是自己想出了办法，然后就已经对这个问题感到厌倦了。

And a lot of clever people just figure things out, and then they're already bored with the problem.

所以他们不想告诉你他们是怎么办到的，而是直接去忙下一件事了。

So they don't wanna tell you how they did it, and they move on to the next thing.

我最近确实有个家庭DIY项目。

I did have, like, a home DIY project recently.

是的。

Yeah.

我当时问ChatGPT怎么操作，它基本上告诉我违背重力就行，却无法解释为什么必须这么做

And I was asking chat GPT how to do it, and it basically told me to defy gravity and could not explain why it had to

它是如何得出

How it arrived at

这个结论的。

that conclusion.

我稍后再跟你详细说，因为这是一个很长的故事。

I'll tell you more about it later because it's a long story.

但无论如何，如果我们稍微做一点类似民意调查、自我反思的事情，大卫，当我想到人工智能和你所做的一些工作时，我觉得这对你可能会非常有帮助，因为你能够识别出更细微的人群问题。

But, anyway, if we could do a little bit of like political polling, navel gazing for a second, David, when I think about AI and some of what you do, I think it could be very helpful to you because you can identify even more granular issues for the population.

你可以设计出更精准的调查问题。

You can come up with like even better polling questions.

但随后我认为，每个人都会接触到基本相同的技术。

But then I think that everyone's going to have access to basically the same technology.

因此，最糟糕的结果很可能会实现，那就是我们只会陷入更多的身份认同和文化怨恨政治。

And so the worst case outcome is probably going to come to fruition, which is we're just going to get more identity and sort of cultural grievance politics.

你如何看待这种情况？

How do you see that going?

比如，政治竞选会因为人工智能变得更聪明，还是会进一步陷入文化政治的泥潭？

Like, does political campaigning get smarter with AI, or do we just kind of descend more into culture politics?

当然，要预测未来非常困难，我想我今天已经说过这一点了。

Well, obviously, it's very hard to make predictions about the future, which I guess I've said already today.

但很容易想象会发生一些糟糕的情况，比如深度伪造、无法分辨真假信息，现在很多人能够制作出具有说服力的内容，去论证过去根本不在讨论范围内的观点。

But it's easy to imagine really bad things happening, deep fakes, the inability to track what's true and what's not, you know, the ability now of lots of people to make content that's persuasive, that argues for things that previously weren't within the domain.

但在这场讨论中，人们往往低估了现状有多么 dysfunctional，比如看看社交媒体，大约只有5%的公众贡献了大部分社交媒体内容，这太疯狂了。

But, you know, I do think in this discussion, people kind of underestimate how dysfunctional the status quo is, where if you look at social media, for example, something like 5% of the public is responsible for a majority of social media content, which is crazy.

你知道吗？

You know?

而我认为，目前由于内容制作成本高昂，如果你是政治领域的博主或作家，你的经济激励自然会集中在那5%消费了远超其他人政治内容的群体上。

And I I think that right now, because content is expensive to produce, you know, if you are a influencer or a writer about politics, your economic incentives are really to focus on the 5% of the public that is consuming way, way more political content than everyone else.

事实上，现在政治光谱上的任何人，都没有针对那些对政治不太关心的普通人制作内容。

And really, basically, no one in the political spectrum right now is making content focused on regular people who don't care that much about politics.

举个例子，我认识一个人曾组织过一场TikTok用户小组，他录下了大约200人的手机屏幕，付钱让他们参与，从而观察他们到底在看什么。

You know, just to give an example, someone I know had a a panel of TikTok users where he, you know, recorded their phones, it was, like, 200 people, and he was paying them to do that, and he could see who was watching what.

查理·柯克被枪击后，有一个人制作了大部分关于他的视频。

And after Charlie Kirk got shot, there was one person who was responsible for a majority of the Charlie Kirk videos.

就在那天，他不停地刷屏，观看了数百个关于查理·柯克遇刺的视频。

Just that day, he was, like, really swiping and watching hundreds of Charlie Kirk assassination videos.

你知道，如果你是内容创作者，这目前就是你的动力。

And, you know, if you are a content producer, that is currently your incentive.

所以我的观点是，现状确实非常糟糕。

And so my point is really the status quo is really quite bad.

我认为，如果你看看这些人是谁，他们往往非常焦虑。

And I think that if you look at who these people are, they tend to be quite anxious.

他们通常也很神经质。

They tend they tend to be quite neurotic.

现在，注意力的竞争促使你变得更加消极，而真正让人改变想法的说服机制却恰恰要求你走向相反的方向。

Like, right now, the attention game really pushes you toward being more negative while the persuasion game of like how do you actually get someone to change their mind really pushes you in the opposite direction.

每次我做调查、每次做测试，结果都普遍表明你应该更积极一些。

Know, every time I've done a poll, every time I've done a test, it's generally said you should be more positive.

你应该更多地关注那些影响人们日常生活的普通事情。

You should focus more on regular things that affect people's lives.

而这种情况之所以没有发生，是因为实际内容创作者的激励机制所致。

And, you know, the reason why that doesn't happen are the incentives of the actual content creators.

因此，我可以想象，降低内容生产的成本，并扩大能够制作内容的人群范围。

And so I could see, you know, lowering the costs of producing content and kind of broadening out who is able to make content.

这可能是好事，但也要明确指出，它也可能带来很多负面影响。

It could be good, but also, you know, to be clear, there's a lot of ways it could be bad.

我认为，我们正进入一个完全不同的世界，在这里，很难预测任何事情。

We're we're just entering, I think, a totally different world where it's hard to predict anything.

政治讨论和理念与人们日常生活中真正关心的事情脱节，这一点真的很奇怪。

It is weird how much, like, politics discourse and ideas truly seem disconnected from anything that affects people, many people on a day to day life.

我的意思是，这一点之前就已经被提过了。

I mean, this has been brought up before.

为什么没有政治家真正把消除垃圾短信之类的问题当作重大议题来推动呢？

Why has no politician really made a big issue about, like, getting rid of, like, spam texts or something.

我们都觉得垃圾短信非常烦人，但你几乎难以想象居然没人管这事儿。

Like, we all find it incredibly annoying, and yet you wouldn't it's almost unimaginable.

我相信你一定能找到一些只关心垃圾短信这一问题的选民。

I'm sure you could find some one issue voters on spam texts.

对。

Right.

但如果真有人能认真对待这个让所有人都烦恼的问题，并推动解决，那该多好啊，可这根本没发生，对吧？

But, like, that would be great if someone actually, like, let's take this seriously as a thing that annoys everybody, and let's try to make a push, and yet it doesn't happen, does it?

是的。

Yeah.

我特别喜欢这个数据：如果你问人们最关心的问题是什么，生活成本以绝对优势位居第一。

The stat I really like on this is if you ask people what issue do you care about the most, it's cost of living by an enormous margin.

但反过来，如果你看过去一年里向民主党竞选捐款的0.7%人口，生活成本就会从第一跌到第五，而气候变化反而排在首位。

But the flip side is that if you look at the 0.7% of the population that has donated to a democratic campaign in the last year, then cost of living goes from number one to, like, number five and, like, climate change is on top.

所以我认为，现状是，如今政客们谈论的内容，更多是由他们的捐款人关心的问题决定的。

And so I think, you know, if you look at like, I think the status quo is that politicians right now, if you look at what they talk about, it's much more explained by what their donors care about Yeah.

而不是公众真正关心的问题，这真的非常糟糕。

Than, you know, what the public cares about, and that's really pretty pretty bad.

我认为，我们目前政治功能失调的一个主要根源在于，双方的人都没有充分倾听普通民众关心的问题。

I think a lot an enormous source of our political dysfunction right now is really that people on both sides aren't listening enough to what regular people care about.

你们俩有没有对这样的政策有什么看法？如果我们真的开始经历一场痛苦的AI调整过程——我不会说成是AI末日情景，因为我知道你们对此有不同意见——哪些政策会真正具有政治可行性？

Do either of you have a good read on the policies you would expect to be actually politically viable if we do start to get I'm not gonna say an AI doom case scenario because I know you disagree on that, but a painful AI adjustment process.

我认为，公众在这一问题上的立场比人们想象的要激进得多。

I think that the public is much more radical on this issue than people think.

就我个人而言，我通常不是那种出来宣称‘民众渴望激进的政策变革’的人，但我们确实正处在一个非常激进的时代。

Me, personally, I'm not usually the person who goes out and says, ah, the people crave radical policy change, but we really are in a very radical time.

现在，如果你问选民，你们支持价格管制吗？

Right now, if you ask voters, you know, do you support price controls?

答案是支持者以二比一占优，而五年前这种情况是不存在的。

The answer is yes by two to one, which is not something that was true five years ago.

你知道，当我们做过一些调查时，我们曾提出过一个非常激进的方案，比如：我们保证你的收入最高可达15万美元。

You know, when we've done tests, you know, we had one test where we had a really quite radical thing where we're like, oh, we're gonna guarantee your income up to a $150,000.

我们会确保你有工作。

We're gonna make sure that you have a job.

我们会确保你不会被驱逐。

We're gonna make sure that you won't be evicted.

这个内容的测试效果比民主党专业人士制作的90%以上的视频都要好。

And it tested better than, like, 90% of the clips that were made by the that were made by Democratic professionals.

这项具体政策——我认为相当激进——在特朗普选民中的支持率大约高出30%和15%。

That specific policy, which I think is quite radical, I think is something like plus 30 and plus 15 among Trump voters.

所以我想说的是，现在每个人都在讨论时间表和政策细节，但公众的实际立场比政客或评论员所认为的要激进得多。

And so that's that's just the thing I wanna say is, you know, right now, everyone has this discussion about timelines and and policy specifics and, you know, the public is in a much more radical place than politicians or commentators are.

因此，我认为最关键的一点是，这是目前被严重低估的问题。

So that's, I think, the big thing I'd say is I think it's the most underpriced issue.

目前测试效果最好的议题，胜过民粹主义，也胜过人工智能，是‘人工智能民粹主义’。

The very best testing topic, better than populism, better than AI, is AI populism.

我认为，这就是未来发展的方向。

And I think I think that's the direction things are gonna go.

伯恩？

Byrne?

伯恩，这可不太妙。

Byrne, this is this is ominous.

我想回到你之前提到的关于深度伪造的观点，以及媒体所有人都是在为那极少数真正关心政治的人写作，或者说政治媒体只在为这极少数关心政治的人写作。

I I do wanna return to to the points that you you had made on on deepfakes and on how everyone in media is writing for the tiny minority of people who really care about or everyone in political media is writing for this tiny minority that cares about politics.

而且，事实上，我认为深度伪造在特定意义上是整体有益的，因为

And one, I actually I do think deepfakes are a net positive development in the specific sense that

这太棒了。

This is great.

我打算做一个关于

I'm gonna do a I

一整个小时的关于

a whole hour on

这个话题我早就一直在写了。

this I've I've been writing about this one for a long time.

我的观点是，总是可以对某些媒体进行操纵性的剪辑。

My view is that it is always possible to create manipulative cuts of some media.

总是可以说，好吧。

It's always possible to say, okay.

在过去一天里，关于某些严重事件，已经录下了50个视频，你知道的。

There have been, you know, 50 videos recorded in the last day of some egregious happening.

我们选择其中一个来制作新的新闻故事。

Here's the one we're choosing to make a new story.

这在过去只要有足够资源就一直可行，而现在每个人都能做到了。

That's always been possible with sufficient resources, and now it's possible for everyone.

因此，当你有选择权去决定推广哪种叙事时，我认为这就像现代的选举人团制度——人们主动选择观看某种类型的媒体，而这些媒体会塑造他们的观点，使他们更倾向于与该媒体立场一致。

And so to the extent that when you choose what narrative if you're in a position to choose what narrative is promoted, it's I think of it as kind of the modern it's like it it is the de facto electoral college is that people opt into viewing certain kinds of media that will then shape their views to make them more more correlated with that kind of medium.

所以我们实际上是在让民主实现民主化。

And so what we're kind of doing is democratizing democracy.

我们说的是，任何人都能制作误导性的视频。

We're saying anyone can make a misleading video.

你不需要花二十个小时看这个人讲话的录像来找出那个口误。

Like, you don't have to watch twenty hours of footage of this person talking to find the one gaffe.

你完全可以伪造出来。

You can just fake it.

而要让这个伪造的内容成为一种可信的、能够改变人们观点的假象，它必须与现实相当接近。

And the fake is actually like, for the fake to be a plausible, you know, opinion shifting fake, it has to be something fairly similar to reality.

没错。

Right.

它不能只是说唐纳德·特朗普其实是个外星人。

It can't just be like Donald Trump is actually an alien.

它必须是类似唐纳德·特朗普从一位卡塔尔商人那里收了现金贿赂这样的事情。

It has to be something like, Donald Trump took a bribe in cash from a Qatari businessman or something like that.

但如果你只能制造出那些实际上还算可信的假象，那它们就始终存在于一个与现实并不遥远的领域。

But then if you can only make fakes that are actually kind of plausible, then they just exist in this space that is not that far from reality.

同样，那些大规模传播的视频往往源自真实事件，它们是现实的片段，但如果你对这类视频进行无休止的全覆盖，就能放大人们对某个事件发生频率的感知。

And similarly, the big viral videos, they are often a sample from real like, they are a sample from reality, but they are something where you can magnify the perceived frequency of an event if there's just wall to wall coverage of that amount of video.

所以，这是其中一点。

So that was one point.

我确实认为，这让我们更不容易通过观看一段模糊晃动的十二秒视频就对重要问题做出判断，从而形成一种更少轻率下定论的文化。

Was I do think that it actually just makes us a less a culture that is less likely to make up our minds on important issues by watching a, you know, grainy, shaky twelve seconds of footage of something.

我觉得这是好事。

I think that's good.

我觉得我们应该多读书，少看视频。

I think we should read more and watch less.

但我还觉得，当谈到人工智能的另一部分——即精准推荐算法时，它占据了人工智能支出和影响的很大一部分。

But I also think that when the, you know, the other piece of AI, just the the targeting recommendation algorithms, there's a a huge chunk of AI spending and AI's impact.

这可能意味着，有人更有可能靠煽动反对垃圾短信之类的事情来谋生？

That probably does mean that it's potentially more likely that someone could make a career out of something like agitating against spam text?

我们确实看到，‘一键取消’这种功能正在逐渐普及。

And we did actually see, you know, click to cancel is kind of moving on.

所以，你知道的，这些都是一些小的日常生活改善。

So, you know, there's little quality of life things.

比如，‘一键取消’这种事，市长会为此感到自豪，但必须在联邦层面推行。

Like, click to cancel is the kind of thing a mayor would be really proud of, but it has to be done at more of a federal level.

但也许如果能够精准定位那些特别想恢复付费厕所的人群——因为他们认为取消付费厕所会引发各种扭曲的经济后果，而事实确实如此——你就能找到这些人，动员他们。比如，在某个众议院选区的选举中，如果某位政客恰好支持这项他们关心的议题，他们就可以像加密货币支持者那样，大规模捐款支持那位政客。

But maybe if it's possible to actually target whatever population niche, like, really wants to bring back pay toilets because they think that banning pay toilets creates all kinds of perverse economic outcomes, which it does, you can find those people, you can mobilize them, and you can get them to you know, if there is, like, some very close race somewhere, in the house race, for example, and one of the politicians happens to support this particular pet issue, they could be like the crypto people and just money bomb the person who happens to also support the thing that they like.

因此，我们可能会看到另一种方式，让人工智能进一步推动民主的普及：即帮助那些对政治不敏感、但依然关心那些本应通过政治过程解决的问题的人，来协调他们的利益群体。

So we could actually have that's another way we could potentially see AI democratizing democracy further is that you can actually coordinate interest groups for people who are just less politics brained but still actually care about problems that should be solved through the political process.

我只是想快速插一句，当然。

I just wanted to jump in quickly, you know Sure.

因为你说布伦特认为这很令人不安。

Because, you know, you said that Brent said that this is ominous.

但我想稍微反驳一下这个观点。

And, you know, I I wanna push back on that a little bit.

我非常喜欢埃德·格拉泽的一句话：每个人都希望宏观经济学有微观基础，但微观基础本身也应当有更微观的根基。

There's an Ed Glaser quote that I really like, which is, you know, everyone wants macroeconomics to have micro foundations, but micro foundations itself should be micro founded.

除非我们能给选民一些安全感，否则我们不会体验到任何潜在的生产率提升，或者最多只能体验到其中一小部分。

That we are not going to experience any of the potential productivity gains or or only experience a fraction of the productivity gains unless we can give voters some sense of security.

公众强烈呼吁他们需要经济安全，希望能在未来五年中无所畏惧地展望未来。

That public is really crying out that they want economic security and that they want to be able to look out at the next five years without fear.

如果你能提供一种新的社会契约，真正实现高水平的经济安全，那么这些特定领域的转型就能带来更高的生产力。

And if you can provide a new social contract, if you can actually provide economic security at a high level, then you can actually have all of these, like, sector specific shifts to have higher productivity.

但如果政治家们不提出这样的愿景，我们只会陷入一系列繁琐的、针对特定行业的监管和行会制度中，我想你也不希望这样。

But if politicians don't advance a vision like that, then we're just gonna collapse into Byzantine series of sector specific, you know, regulations and guilds, which I think you don't want either.

所以我认为，自由主义者真的应该做出选择，他们想要一个怎样的世界。

And so I think, you know, the libertarians should really choose, you know, what world they want.

要么我们采取大规模的解决方案，保护人们的收入，避免出现输家；要么我们就只能在每一个行业同时爆发一场巨大的零和博弈。

You know, either we can have a large scale solution that protects people's incomes and prevents there from being losers, or we can just kind of have this giant negative sum fight playing out in every single sector simultaneously.

我还要说，我们现在正处于这种局面最容易发生的理想政治环境中。

And I'll also say, you know, we're really in the ideal political circumstances, you know, for that latter thing to to happen.

因此，我认为情况可能会变得非常糟糕。

And so I think it really could get quite ugly.

大卫和拜恩，非常感谢你们。

David and Byrne, thank you so much.

这是一场非常有趣的对话。

That was a fascinating chat.

我们真的得再花一小时聊聊我的深度伪造手术。

We really are gonna have to do another hour on my deep fake surgery.

感谢大家的参与，祝你们剩下的时间愉快。

Thank you all for joining and have a great rest of your day.

这是我们与大卫·肖尔和拜恩·霍伯特在奥斯汀SXSW现场的对话。

That was our conversation with David Shor and Byrne Hobart, recorded live at SXSW in Austin.

我是特蕾西·阿拉韦。

I'm Tracy Allaway.

你可以关注我，账号是特蕾西·阿拉韦。

You can follow me at Tracy Allaway.

我是吉尔·维森塔尔。

And I'm Jill Wiesenthal.

你可以关注我，账号是TheStalwart。

You can follow me at TheStalwart.

关注我们的嘉宾Byrne Hobart。

Follow our guest, Byrne Hobart.

他是在Byrne Hobart，David Shor是在David Shor。

He's at Byrne Hobart, and David Shor at David Shor.

关注我们的制作人：Carmen Rodriguez在Carmen Arment，Dasho Bennett在Dashbot，以及Kale Brooks在Kale Brooks。

Follow our producers, Carmen Rodriguez at Carmen Arment, Dasho Bennett at Dashbot, and Kale Brooks at Kale Brooks.

如需获取更多Odd内容，请访问bloomberg.com/oddlots，那里有每日通讯和我们所有的节目，您还可以在我们的Discord频道discord.gg/oddlots中24小时不间断地讨论这些话题。

And for more Odd content, go to bloomberg.com/oddlots where the daily newsletter and all of our episodes, and you can chat about all of these topics twenty four seven in our Discord, discord.gg/oddlots.

如果您喜欢Odd Lots，喜欢我们录制这些现场节目，请在您最喜欢的播客平台上为我们留下好评。

And if you enjoy Odd Lots, if you like it when we record these live episodes, then please leave us a positive review on your favorite podcast platform.

请记住，如果您是Bloomberg的订阅用户，您可以完全无广告地收听我们所有的节目。

And remember, if you are a Bloomberg subscriber, you can listen to all of our episodes absolutely ad free.

您只需要在Apple Podcasts上找到Bloomberg频道，并按照那里的说明操作即可。

All you need to do is find the Bloomberg channel on Apple Podcasts and follow the instructions there.

感谢收听。

Thanks for listening.

我是汤姆·基恩，邀请您收听彭博市场观察播客。

This is Tom Keene inviting you to join us for the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast.

它旨在让您每个交易日都变得更睿智。

It's about making you smarter every business day.

我是保罗·斯威尼。

I'm Paul Sweeney.

我们为您全面报道美国市场开盘情况。

We bring you complete coverage of The US market open.

我们覆盖股票、债券、大宗商品，甚至加密货币，提供您取得成功所需的所有信息。

We cover stocks, bonds, commodities, even crypto, all the information you need to excel.

我是亚历克西斯·克里斯托弗。

And I'm Alexis Christoffers.

彭博市场观察还为您深入解读新闻背后的分析。

Bloomberg Surveillance also brings you the analysis behind the headlines.

我们通过与经济学、金融、投资和国际关系领域最杰出人士的对话来实现这一点。

We do that through conversations with the smartest names in economics, finance, investment, and international relations.

我们每天工作日都会实时播出，为您带来最优质的分析内容，尽在我们的每日播客中。

We do all this live each and every weekday that bring you the best analysis in our daily podcast.

请在 Apple、Spotify、YouTube 或您收听播客的任何平台搜索 Bloomberg Surveillance。

Search for Bloomberg Surveillance on Apple, Spotify, YouTube, or anywhere else you listen.

在东海岸，午餐时间收听。

On the East Coast, listen at lunch.

在西海岸，一醒来就收听。

And on the West Coast, listen as soon as you wake up.

这就是由汤姆·基恩、保罗·斯威尼和我，亚历克西斯·克里斯托弗里斯带来的 Bloomberg Surveillance 播客。

That's the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast with Tom Keene, Paul Sweeney, and me, Alexis Christofferis.

今天就在您收听播客的任何平台订阅吧。

Subscribe today wherever you get your podcasts.

Bloomberg Surveillance，每个工作日都值得收听。

Bloomberg Surveillance, essential listening each and every business day.