我与纳瓦尔·梅加索德的对话

因此，我认为最好的情况是，当有一小群人各自对收益和损失都承担责任时。

And so I think the best situation comes from when you have small groups of people who are each responsible for both the benefits and the losses.

他们有切身利益，能够承担风险。

They have skin at the game that are able to take risks.

比如在宗教方面，你知道，回看欧洲，曾经有数百种宗教，每一种都在尝试自己的方式。

So for example, in religion, you know, you wanna see back in Europe, and it was hundreds of religions, and they were each trying their own thing.

然后，他们来到新大陆，你就能看到哪些有效，哪些无效。

And, you know, they came to the new world, and then you kinda got to see which worked and which didn't.

在科技和商业领域，你希望看到许多拥有不同政策的城邦。

In technology and in business, you wanna see lots of city states with different policies.

你希望看到许多公司彼此竞争。

You wanna see lots of companies competing with each other.

因此，当人类以小群体的形式竞争时，表现得最好。

So humans do best when we're small groups competing.

但这个问题在于，竞争会演变为战争。

But the problem with this is that competition breaks into warfare.

所以宗教，你知道的，当它们彼此相邻时，往往会造成大量流血事件。

So religions, you know, responsible for a lot of bloodshed when they're next to each other.

这些小城邦最终总是会爆发战争并被合并。

These little city states always end up fighting and being consolidated.

这些小企业，你知道的，最终会被更大的企业吞并，或者当其中一家占据主导地位时，就会出现垄断效应。

These little businesses, you know, they end up being swallowed up by larger ones, or there's monopoly effects when one of them ends up in charge.

因此，一个理想的社会真正懂得如何实行联邦制，如何创造大量小型竞争实体，但不是通过物理上的暴力竞争，而是通过虚拟竞争，懂得如何 Harness 这股竞争能量，创造出伟大的成果。

So an ideal society really understands how to federalize, how to create lots and lots of small competing, but not in a physical kinetic competition, but in a virtual competition, figures out how to get harness all of that energy, that competitive energy to create great things.

因此，美国得益于联邦制，拥有50个州、50套不同的监管体系和50种在治理层面进行的实验，同时也受益于资本主义——众多小型公司之间的竞争。

And so The US benefited from being federalist, from having 50 states with 50 different regulatory systems and 50 different, you know, experiments being run on the governance level, and it benefits from capitalism, which is lots of small companies competing.

但当出现少数大型垄断企业，或大银行掌控了政府，或政府主导教育和医疗，又或所有50个州只能在琐碎事务上竞争，而由华盛顿特区的三大机构和庞大的联邦税收全面掌控一切时，这种体系就会崩溃。

But where it breaks down is when you have a small number of big monopolies, or you have like big banks that have taken over the government, or the government running education and health care, or when you end up with all 50 states only being allowed to compete in small things, but you have three letter agencies and giant federal taxes running everything from DC.

所以当系统开始崩溃时，就是这种情况。

So that's when the system starts breaking down.

因此，我认为最繁荣的体系是那些拥有小国家、小部落和小公司以非暴力方式相互竞争的体系。

So I think that the most flourishing systems are the ones where you have small countries, you have small tribes, and you have small companies competing against each other in a nonviolent way.

整个关键在于如何保持它们各自的主权，避免演变成暴力冲突和相互侵占。

And the whole trick is how do you keep them each sovereign and from not making it kinetic and overrunning each other physically.

在我看来，这会是最具道德性的体系，因为我们不可能让所有人都在道德和伦理上达成一致。

To me, that would be the most moral system because you can't get us all to agree on what's moral and what's ethical.

对吧？

Right?

这根本是不可能的。

That's an impossible thing.

所以整个AI对齐问题就是一个笑话。

That's why the whole AI alignment thing is a joke.

我们连人类自己都做不到对齐。

We can't even align humans.

那我们怎么去对齐AI呢？

How are gonna align AIs?

实际上，所有AI对齐的实践归根结底就是AI的拥有者、发明者或创造者，想给它套上缰绳，告诉它该做什么。

All AI alignment really boils down to his practice is the owner or inventor or creator of that AI, you know, wants to put on a leash and tell it what to do.

是的。

Yeah.

当我们只关注自己和自己能控制的事情，以及为自己做出的决定时，与他人保持一致是非常容易的。

It's very easy to be sort of aligned with people when we have a focus only on what we ourselves and what we control and decisions that we make for ourselves.

但一旦我认为在道德和伦理上有必要控制你的行为，

But as soon as I start to, I think it's morally and ethically necessary to control what you do.

我们就会在道德和伦理上产生真正的分歧。

Now, all of a sudden, we have a real disagreement about morals and ethics.

没错。

That's right.

还有一种激励一致性，比如，我可以给你一家公司的股权，这样我们的利益就一致了。

And there's incentive alignment, which is, you know, I can give you equity in the same business, and then we're incentive aligned.

尽管你可能仍然选择忽视这种激励，去做别的事情，但其他所有形式的一致性本质上都归结为强制。

Although you may still choose to ignore that incentive and do something different, but really all other forms of alignment tend to boil down to coercion.

对吧？

Right?

也许我们之所以一致，是因为我们属于同一个宗教、同一个族群，住在同一个家庭，一起做同样的生意。

Maybe we're aligned because we're part of the same religion, we're part of the same tribe, we live in the same household, we're doing the same business together.

但一旦你谈到让那些不住在一起、没有血缘关系的陌生人达成一致，我认为唯一的方法就是用暴力逼迫其中一方服从，让他们听话。

But the moment you're talking about aligning strangers who don't live next to each other, that don't have kinship, I think the only way you can align them is by clubbing one of them until they pay, you know, they listen.

这纯粹是威权主义。

That's just authoritarianism.

这纯粹是武力。

That's just force.

这是暴力。

That's violence.

这是战争，而战争是所有一切的基础。

That's warfare, which undergirds everything.

社会运行在一层薄薄的文明表象之下，但归根结底，握有枪支的人始终掌握着权力。

Like, society runs on this thin veneer of civilization, but ultimately, underneath, the people with the guns are always in charge.

有时他们会忘记这一点，持续十年甚至二十年，但最终他们要么重新夺回控制权，要么被外部势力取代。这就是为什么我认为，作为一个社会，我们制定了太多无关紧要的法律，让人们误以为法律不是由持枪者强制执行的。

And sometimes they forget it for a decade or two decades at a time, but either they take back over or someone from the outside comes in and takes over, which is why I think as a society, we have too many frivolous laws being passed where people pretend like the law is not being enforced by people with guns.

每一项法律，甚至包括你的停车罚单，都是由持枪的人来执行的。

Every law, down to, like, your parking ticket is enforced by somebody with a gun.

因为如果你不缴纳停车罚单，他们就会传唤你上法庭。

Because if you don't pay that parking ticket, then they're gonna summon you to court.

如果你不去法庭，他们就会派人到你家上门。

And then if you don't go to court, then they're gonna send somebody to your house.

如果你不回应，他们就会签发对你逮捕的令状。

And if you don't answer that, then go put out a warrant for your arrest.

如果你不自首，持枪的人就会来找你。

And if you don't turn yourself in, then people with guns will come after you.

所以归根结底，如果你顺着这条逻辑一路推下去，你会惊讶地发现，居然这么少人意识到这一点——所有事情最终都是靠持枪的人来执行的。

So at the end of the day, if you just follow that down, it's amazing how few people seem to realize this, but everything is enforced by people with guns.

而你却把这些持枪的人武装起来，命令他们去执行法律。

And then those people with guns, you're giving them guns and telling them to enforce laws.

当然，这是人性使然，尤其是当这个组织变得越来越庞大时。

And of course, it's human nature, especially as that organization becomes larger.

他们会优先执行它。

They will start enforcing it preferentially.

你知道，他们会对自己敌人施加更严厉的执行，而对朋友则宽松一些。

You know, they'll enforce it a little bit harder against their enemies and a little bit softer against their friends.

就像那位著名的南美独裁者所说，对于我的朋友，一切都可以通融；对于我的敌人，就是法律。

It's like that South American dictator who famously said, you know, for my friends, everything for my enemies, the law.

对吧？

Right?

因为法律不过是最大帮派所达成的共识。

Because the law is just whatever the biggest gang agrees upon.

作为社会，我们已经对此变得非常疏离，尤其是在现代民主国家，那些没有任何实际力量或系统利益的人，却在投票决定如何控制那些拥有实际力量的人。

And as a society, we've become very disconnected for that, especially in modern democracies where people who don't have any physical power or any stake in the system are voting to control people who do have physical power.

这会制造一种不稳定的局面。

It creates an unstable situation.

而且，你知道，我们可能会陷入一种情况——嗯，我不确定。

And, you know, we we might end up in a situation where well, I don't know.

这其实是个非常有趣的问题。

This this is actually a very interesting question.

未来我们会出现更多的城邦吗？

Do we end up with more city states in the future?

我们会走向更多小型独裁政权或由武装群体组成的微型家族统治，划分出各自的领地，还是会固化为少数几个庞大的国家？

Do we end up with more small dictatorships or small kinships of organized people with weapons carving out little fiefdoms, or do we ossify into a small number of very large states?

在我看来，没有什么比全球政府更糟糕的了，比如一个政府掌控一切，因为这种模式是千篇一律的。

In my mind, there's nothing worse than a global government, like a single government running everything because it's a one size fits all.

这就像一个全景监狱，而且更可能演变成类似中国或俄罗斯那种打着民主旗号的专制政权。

It's a panopticon, and it's much more likely to end up like, you know, China or Russia kinda control them democratic, the truly democratic republic.

而且，民主国家总是有选举出独裁者的倾向，而这是一条不归路。

And even because democracies have a habit of electing dictators, and that's a one way street.

我想看看我们能否在商业和判断的语境中运用一些大卫·多伊奇的思想。

I I wanna see if we can play with some of the David Deutsch ideas in a business and judgment context.

对吧？

Right?

嗯嗯。

Mhmm.

好的解释难以更改，还是好的产品难以更改？

If good explanations are hard to vary or good products are hard to vary?

当然。

Absolutely.

好的产品难以更改。

Good products are hard to vary.

难以更改意味着，你不能随意改动细节，否则这个东西就会崩溃、失效，或者不再是一个好的解释。

So hard to vary means that you can't change the details without the thing breaking or falling apart or no longer being a good explanation.

你识别它们的一种方式是，回过头去看这个解释，然后问：它本可以是别的样子吗？

So one of the ways you recognize them is you look back at the explanation and you say, well, how could it have been otherwise?

根本不存在其他任何东西能同时符合所有事实。

There's no there's no other thing which would have fit all the facts.

这就像拼图时，把一块拼图放到正确的位置，你会说：当然，它必须是这一块，因为没有其他任何一块能同时匹配这个凸起、这个凹槽和这个部分。

It's like when you put a puzzle piece in the right spot in a puzzle, like, oh, of course, it had to be that one because no other piece will fit if it doesn't have this piece and this part and this part jutting out and this hole over here.

同样地，好的产品也是难以随意更改的。

So the same way, good products are hard to vary.

所以如果你看看iPhone，比如，很难改变iPhone的特性而不破坏它出色的地方。

So if you look at an iPhone, for example, it's hard to change the characters of the iPhone without breaking what makes it great.

事实上，他们2007年推出时的原始外形设计，至今仍然与现在的设计非常相似。

And in fact, their original form factor when they launched, I think it was in 2007, is still quite similar to the form factor today.

它实际上并没有太大变化。

It hasn't really changed.

对吧？

Right?

他们完美地确定了基本外形设计，笔记本电脑的设计也是如此。

They nailed the basic form factor, same way with, like, the the laptop form factor.

对吧？

Right?

它自最初问世以来就一直没有倒退回去。

It still hasn't changed back from the original days.

所以好的产品非常难以改变。

So good products are very hard to vary.

它们确实拥有一套独特且相互关联的部件，这些部件结合起来使整体大于部分之和。

They do have a very unique set of interlocking parts that then allows them to be greater than the whole.

你知道，在复杂性理论中有一个概念叫做‘涌现’。

You know, there's this concept in complexity theory called emergence.

涌现是指当你把大量不同的部件组合在一起时，会产生你未曾预料到的新事物，一种新的能力就会浮现出来。

And emergence is when you take a whole bunch of different parts and you put them together and something new emerges that you did not expect, a new capability emerges.

但有趣的一点是，你组合在一起的底层部件，并没有赋予它们更多自由，反而给了它们限制。

But one of the interesting parts is that the parts that you put together below, you didn't give them more freedom, you gave them constraints.

你实际上以某种方式将它们固定在一起。

You actually locked them together in certain ways.

通过限制它们的运作方式，某种新的能力就在更高层次上涌现出来了。

And by constraining the way in which they could operate, some new capability emerged above.

所以，正是这些限制创造了更高层次的能力。

So it was the constraints that created the capability above.

这有点反直觉。

And so that's a little counterintuitive.

嗯哼。

Mhmm.

对吧？

Right?

因为你会觉得更多的自由会带来更多的自由。

Because you would think more freedom leads to more freedom.

不对。

No.

在这种情况下，是约束起了作用。

In this case, it was constraints.

同样的道理，比如你看一家公司或一份合同，合同是我们自愿接受的约束，目的是为了在未来创造某些东西。

Same way, like, if you look at a corporation or a contract, a contract is a voluntary constraints that we enter into to go create something in the future.

比如婚姻合同是为了在家庭中孕育孩子，或者一家公司就是一个合同，目的是创建一个具有股权的实体，我们提前约定好如何分配收益、谁来做工作以及如何获得资本。

Like a marriage contract is to go create children in the household, or like a company is a contract to go create an equity bearing entity where we agree in advance how we're gonna split up the proceeds and who's gonna do the work and how you're gonna get the capital.

所以，要能够创造东西，你实际上必须能够约束东西。

So to be able to create things, you actually have to be able to constrain things.

一旦东西被锁定在一起，就很难再改变。

Once the things are locked together, they're hard to vary.

你无法移除任何一个组件，也无法更改任何一个组件，否则整个系统就会崩溃。

You can't remove a component nor can you change a component without the thing falling apart.

这就是为什么一个好的产品是简洁的。

And and that's why, like, a good product is simple.

这里说的简洁，并不是指极端简单。

It actually remove by simple, it doesn't mean, like, inordinately simple.

它也不一定意味着五岁小孩都能懂，而是指你去除了那些不必要的部分。

It doesn't mean, like, Eli five simple necessarily, but it means that you remove the parts that are unnecessary.

优雅。

Elegant.

优雅。

Elegant.

它很优雅。

It's elegant.

是的。

Yes.

所以有一句安托万·德·圣-埃克苏佩里的名言，他说，飞机的机翼设计得如此完美，并不是因为再也无法添加什么，而是因为再也无法删去什么。

So there was a Antoine Saint Exupery quote where he says, you know, the airplane wing is perfectly designed not because there's nothing left to add, but because there's nothing left to take away.

对吧？

Right?

你无法再删减它。

You can't you can't take it away.

它很理想化。

It is platonic.

它是飞机机翼的柏拉图式理想形态。

It is a platonic ideal of an airplane wing.

它难以改变。

It is hard to vary.

所以一个好的产品同样难以改动。

So a good product is similarly hard to vary.

你知道，如今人们常提出的一个难题是，为什么所有东西都趋向于相同的设计？

You know, one of the conundrums that people come up with these days is why are all things converging on the same design?

为什么所有的汽车看起来都一样？

Why do all cars look the same?

对吧？

Right?

因为我们现在进行风洞测试，知道那是最高效的模型，而我们追求效率。

Because we're doing wind tunnel testing now, and so we know that that's like the most efficient model, and we want efficient.

所以现在所有的汽车都看起来流线型。

So all the cars now look windswept.

除非你是出于讽刺或标新立异，比如埃隆的赛博皮卡，它拥有如此强大的力量，否则很难跳出这种设计。

It's hard to vary out of that design unless you're doing it to be ironic or to stand out, like, maybe, you know, Elon with the Cybertruck, where it's like, got so much power.

我不在乎。

I don't care.

但我打赌那东西也经过风洞测试了。

But I'll bet you that thing is wind tunnel tested too.

它是棱角分明的，但经过了风洞测试，而不是流线型但经过风洞测试。

It's angular and wind tunnel tested as opposed to, like, streamlined and wind tunnel tested.

但好的产品难以改变，因为它们也蕴含了知识。

But good products are hard to vary because they also encapsulate knowledge.

随着你获得知识，你会把这些知识融入产品中。

And as you gain knowledge, you put that into the product.

而技术的作用就是知识的自动化。

And and what technology does is it's the automation of knowledge.

你发现了一件事，然后弄清楚如何自动化它，再进一步弄清楚如何规模化这种自动化，接着如何分发这种规模化自动化，而这种嵌入的知识难以改变，因为其背后有良好的解释。

You figure something out, and then you figure out how to automate it, and then you figure out how to scale that automation, you figure out how to distribute that scale automation, and that embedded knowledge is hard to vary because underneath that is a good explanation.

一旦你明白了，哦，是的。

Once you figure out that, oh, yeah.

一旦你弄清楚了如何制造电动汽车，一旦你掌握了电池技术，大多数汽车转向电动几乎是必然的。

We can once you figure out how to make electric cars, once you have the knowledge for batteries, it's kind of inevitable that most cars will go electric.

你可能需要一些越野车或军用车辆，使用汽油是为了生存和救灾的需要。

You may need some off road vehicles or military vehicles around gasoline for survivability reasons and disaster relief reasons.

但对于普通日常消费者来说，他们不想开车去加油站，闻着刺鼻的油味，还担心油料会爆炸，然后把油注入这台由无数零件组成的鲁特·戈德堡机器里，看着活塞被可控爆炸驱动着前行。

But for the average everyday consumer, they don't wanna drive to the gas station and get smelly oil that can blow up on them and put it into this Rutt Goldberg machine of parts and then have controlled explosions driving pistons while they, you know, go down the seat.

五十年后，它看起来会像你看到那些人骑着蒸汽机车的照片一样。

It's gonna look in fifty years like the when you see those images of guys riding steam engines.

嗯。

Mhmm.

你知道，早期的汽车，真的是蒸汽机、锅炉和煤。

You know, like the early cars, they're literally steam engines and boilers and coal.

就像那样。

Like, it's gonna look like that.

对吧？

Right?

一旦你搞懂了电动汽车，你就会意识到，我们其实想要电动汽车，不仅是因为不用去加油站，还因为它们的运动部件更少、更容易维修、更干净、污染更少。

And once you figure out electric cars, then you realize, actually, we we want electric cars not only so we have to go to gas station, they're less moving parts, it's easier to repair, it's less messy, it's less polluting.

但更重要的是，如果你想要自动驾驶汽车，那么电动汽车表现更好，因为汽车自我充电比自我加油要容易得多。

But also because if you wanna self driving cars, then electric cars do better because it's much easier for a car to recharge itself than it is for it to refuel itself.

而且如果你使用可更换电池，或许可以实现全天候运行，停机时间极短，从而更好地实现盈利。

And if you have swappable batteries, maybe you can operate twenty four seven and very little downtime, and you can capitalize better.

你可以降低成本。

You can bring the cost down.

所以正如所说，一旦你看到电动汽车投入实际使用，你就会意识到，这是下一代难以替代的产品。

So it because what it says, once you see electric cars working, you realize that that is a hard to vary product for the next generation.

因此，我认为所有优秀的产品都具备这一特性。

And so I think all good products have this characteristic.

从某种意义上说，如果你在销售同一产品的多个版本，那你必须有非常充分的理由。

In a sense, if if you're selling multiple versions of your product, you better have a really good reason for that.

一个非常充分的理由。

Like, a really good reason for that.

但这引出了另一个观点，即优秀的产品具有出人意料的广泛影响力。

Well, that gets to the other one, which is good products have a surprising reach.

当然。

Absolutely.

优秀的产品，就像好的解释一样，能够延伸到你从未想到的众多应用场景。

The great products, just like good explanations, they can reach to lots of applications that you never thought of.

你知道，史蒂夫·乔布斯和他的团队在设计iPhone或iPad时，从没想过它会非常适合埃克森公司或石油行业，用于开发一款酷炫的应用来管理物流、工作流程和追踪。

You know, Steve Jobs and crew never sat around with the iPhone or the iPad saying, oh, this will be great for, you know, Exxon or companies doing oil work because there's a cool app for them for, like, figuring out their logistics and workflow and tracking.

不。

No.

他们不会去考虑那么具体的层面。

They don't they don't go to that level.

或者一个更相关的例子是，当iPhone问世时，黑莓在企业市场已经根深蒂固，而史蒂夫·鲍尔默，愿他安息，还曾嘲笑iPhone没有实体键盘。

Or or a more relevant example might be when the iPhone came along, you know, the BlackBerry was entrenched in enterprise, and Steve Bomber, god bless him, you know, made fun of the iPhone for not having a keyboard.

史蒂夫·鲍尔默确实做了很多正确的事，所以我并不想专门挑他出来批评。

Steve Ballmer did lots of things right, so I hate to pick him out.

我的意思是，他在微软和自身事业上都取得了巨大成功。

I mean, he did very well for Microsoft and for himself.

所以也许我不会那么频繁地点名他，但确实有人认为，黑莓有键盘，企业永远不会接受没有键盘的手机。

So maybe I won't call him out as much, but there were people who basically said, well, the BlackBerry is a keyboard, and the enterprise will never tolerate a phone without a keyboard.

而他们没考虑到的是，没有键盘、采用多点触控、拥有出色的屏幕和软件键盘，解决了这么多问题。如今，你最不想做的就是给手机加个键盘。

And what they didn't account for is that there are so many things solved by not having a keyboard, by having the multi touch, and by having a great screen and a software keyboard, and nowadays, Like, nowadays, the last thing you wanna do is add a keyboard to a phone.

现在全靠人工智能实现语音操作了。

It's all doing voice based thanks to AI.

一旦你打造了这样的产品，它的影响力就会延伸开来。

That once you've built that product, it has reach.

一旦它进入每个消费者的口袋，这些消费者就会把这类产品带到工作中。

And once it reaches into every consumer's pocket, well, those consumers bring those products to work.

他们会想，为什么我在工作中还要用黑莓？

And they're like, why am I using a BlackBerry at work?

我在家用的是iPhone，而iPhone好太多了。

And I'm using an iPhone at home, and the iPhone is so much better.

而这种认知就是德语的定义。

And the knowledge is the Deutsche definition.

知识是环境中持续存在的东西。

Knowledge is the thing that stays persistent in the environment.

它在环境中自我复制。

It replicates itself in the environment.

那些编码了正确知识和如何适应环境的基因会得以复制。

Genes that are encode proper knowledge and how to adapt into the environment, they replicate.

这些基因会被传递下去。

Those genes get passed down.

那些错误的、虚假的基因则不会在环境中复制，会被淘汰出基因库。

Genes that are incorrect, that are false, they do not replicate in the environment, they get weeded out of the gene pool.

想法也是如此。

The same is true of ideas.

如果我给你一个赚钱的方法，或者一个普遍原则，或者一个具体的行动建议，而它失败了，你就不会保留这种知识，也不会传播它。

If I give you an idea for how to make money or if I give you even a general principle or I give you a specific thing to go out and do and it fails, you're not going to keep that knowledge, you're not going to spread that knowledge.

因此，知识在环境中是持久的。

So knowledge is persistent in the environment.

一旦知识被创造出来，一旦多点触控屏幕的知识被创造出来，那么键盘的知识在那个情境下就过时了。

And once you've created knowledge, and once the knowledge of multi touch screens was created, then the knowledge of keyboards was obsolete, at least in that context.

当人们把自家的iPhone带到工作中，用它代替黑莓手机时，黑莓手机就被iPhone取代了，IT人员被投票淘汰了，因为他们的根本职责是为公司其他部门提供服务，而不是管理公司。

And the BlackBerrys got replaced by iPhones when people who brought their iPhones in from home and would use them at work instead of using BlackBerrys, the IT guys got outvoted because ultimately, they're there to provide a service to the rest of the company and not to run the company.

而且，技术具有深刻且赢家通吃的网络效应。

And then also, technology has deeply winner take all network effects.

所有技术都如此。

All technology does.

只是在某些情况下这种效应更加明显而已。

It just is more obvious in some cases than others.

比如，像Facebook或WhatsApp这样的产品，其网络效应非常明显。

Like, something like a Facebook or WhatsApp has an extremely visible network effect.

苹果公司也是如此，因为它拥有开发者平台。

Apple does too because of developer platforms.

但即使是亚马逊这样的公司，你原本可能认为它不会有网络效应。

But even things like Amazon, which you would have thought would not have a network effect.

过去，我们以为会有数以百万计的电子商务商店，陷入一场惨烈的恶性竞争。

Back in the day, we thought there'd be zillions of ecommerce stores in, you know, involved in a in a death struggle to the bottom.

结果发现，并非如此。

Turns out, it's not the case.

事实上，只有一个巨大的赢家，就像互联网一样，每样东西都只有一个巨头，再加上一个由众多微小玩家组成的长尾，而中间地带则被摧毁了。

Turns out there's one huge winner, and there's a just like the Internet does, which is it has one huge winner for everything, and then has a long tail of very small players, but it destroys the middle.

它摧毁了那些依赖地理优势或法规来生存的平庸中间者。

It destroys the mediocre middle, which is relying on geography or, you know, regulations to survive.

他们被大型聚合平台和长尾效应彻底击垮。

They get blown away by the mega aggregator and then by a long tail.

但所有技术都具有网络效应和规模经济。

But all of technology and network effects, and has scale economies.

因此，最好的产品能够将其开发成本分摊到最大的用户群体上。

So the best product gets to amortize its development over the largest user base.

因此，它考虑得最周全，支持最完善，拥有最前沿的技术。

And so it has the most things thought through, has the most support, it has the most latest leading edge technology.

不管你有多富有。

Doesn't matter how rich you are.

你买不到更好的手机。

You can't buy a better phone.

无论你花多少钱，都买不到比最新款iPhone或最新款安卓手机更好的手机。

There's no amount of money you can spend to buy a better phone than the latest iPhone, the latest Android phone.

就是这样。

Like, that's it.

对吧？

Right?

因为我们所有人都能接触到同样的手机，因为数百亿美元的研发预算已经投入到了智能手机供应链和当前的智能手机设计中。

You we all have access to same phone because there is an r and d budget of hundreds of billions of dollars that has gone into the smartphone supply chain and into the current smartphone designs.

所以，如果你有钱，你唯一能做的就是用钻石装饰它，试图显得特别，但其实看起来像个傻瓜。

So if you're rich, all you can do is you can, like, encrust it with diamonds in a kind of a sad attempt to look special, but you really just look like an idiot.

就像汽车一样。

Or it's like cars.

比如，特别贵的车并不更好。

Like, really expensive cars are not better.

它们只是更奇怪。

They're just weirder.

我认为，今天地球上可能没有比特斯拉Model Y更好的车了。

I don't think there's a better car on the planet today than probably the Tesla Model y.

这，你知道的，从客观上讲，是2025年的状况。

That's, you know, 2025, like, objectively speaking.

如果你看看它能做到而其他车做不到的所有事情，它可以说是综合表现最好的车。

If you look at all the things that it does that other cars don't do, it's kind of the all around best car.

你花一百万美元也买不到一辆更好的车。

You can't spend a million dollars to buy a better car.

你只能花一百万美元去买一辆更滑稽或更奇怪的车。

You can just spend a million dollars to buy a goofier car or a weirder car.

更极端的变量。

More extreme variables.

更极端。

More extreme.

然后你就显得自己是个古怪、奇怪、试图通过消费来彰显身份的人。

And then you're just showing yourself as someone who's goofy and weird and trying to signal for status.

没有什么比试图通过购买来彰显身份更糟糕的彰显方式了。

And there's no worse way to signal status than to be shown as trying to buy status.

我有一个理论，作为人类，我们总是在寻找某种完美且永恒的东西，因为那正是我们生活的反面——我们的生活是不完美且无常的。

I have this theory that as humans, we're always searching for something perfect and permanent because that's the opposite of the life that we have, which is an imperfect and impermanent life.

我们可以在精神层面寻找它，比如对上帝的追寻。

And we can search for it in spirituality, the quest for God.

我们也可以在科学中寻找它，即对万物统一完美理论的探索。

We can search for it in science, which is the quest for the grand unified perfect theory of everything.

在艺术与美中也有类似的体现，比如西斯廷教堂试图在漫长岁月中凝固某种完美。

There is analogs in art and beauty in the Sistine Chapel trying to encapsulate something perfect for a long, long period of time.

因此，我觉得我个人希望专注于这一点。

And so I feel like I personally want to focus on that.

但这也存在一种挣扎，因为你还想关注新事物。

And there's a there's a struggle because you also wanna look at new things.

世界总是在不断变化和进步，尤其是在事物、学习、科技和科学领域。

The world is always moving and advancing, especially the domain of things and objects and learning and technology and science.

你希望了解最新的东西。

You wanna look at the most recent things.

你不想学习三十年前的科学。

You don't wanna learn the science from thirty years ago.

你希望学习我们今天所知的最前沿的科学，技术也是如此。

You wanna learn the science the best we know it today and the same about technology.

了解人工智能、自动驾驶汽车、机器人技术等具有实际价值。

And that has practical value knowing about AI or self driving cars or robotics or what have you.

因此，了解那些发展迅速、处于知识前沿的事物总是好的。

So it's always good to know about what's moving quickly and is on the forefront of knowledge.

但与此同时，你也希望研究那些永恒的东西，这是人性使然。

But at the same time, you also want to study the timeless, and that's human nature.

人性是不会改变的。

Human nature doesn't change.

所以你需要依靠那些古人，比如你想要读叔本华，读《道德经》，或者读《圣经》，因为人的本性是不会变的。

So there you wanna rely upon the olden people, you know, you wanna read Schopenhauer, and you wanna read, you know, the Tao Te Ching and so on because or the Bible because people don't change.

因此，我在发推文，甚至在写播客和思考时，都会感到纠结。

And so with my tweets, I kinda struggle with or even with writing as podcasting and thinking time that I spend.

我纠结的是，我想花很多时间在永恒不变的事物上，因为这些知识会贯穿我整个人生。

What I struggle with is I wanna spend a lot of time on the timeless because that knowledge carries through the rest of my life.

是的。

Mhmm.

但我也想花时间在当下最前沿的东西上。

But I also wanna spend time on the tying we, which is the most modern stuff.

在这方面，我必须寻找真正有用的新事物。

Now there, I have to look for the modern stuff that's actually useful.

其实，这些现代的东西都是关于具体事物的。

It's actually the modern stuff about things.

我想了解人工智能。

Like, I wanna know about AI.

我想了解自动驾驶汽车。

I wanna know about self driving cars.

我想了解机器人技术。

I wanna know about robotics.

我想了解太空旅行和太空探索。

I wanna know about space travel and space exploration.

我想了解无人机，但我不想了解金·卡戴珊今天在做什么。

I wanna know about drones, but I don't wanna know what, you know, Kim Kardashian is doing today.

那种知识毫无用处。

Like, that's useless knowledge.

事实上，我根本不需要从她和他人互动中学习任何关于人性的教训，因为这些教训早已由叔本华、康德或类似的人写得更好了。

In fact, I don't even need to know any lessons in human nature from her and her interactions with other people because those lessons have been written down better by Schopenhauer or Kant or someone like that in the past.

对吧？

Right?

是的

Yeah.

柏拉图

Plato.

所以当谈到哲学和人性时，这些都是永恒的主题。

So when it comes to philosophy and human nature, that's timeless material.

值得学习。

It's worth learning.

这在某种程度上是陈词滥调，我们可以讨论什么是陈词滥调，但它确实有点陈旧。

It's somewhat cliched in the sense that and we can get into what cliche is, but it's somewhat cliched.

但与此同时，吸收这些内容非常重要，因为它们是最根本的指导原则。

But at the same time, it's very important to absorb because these are the deepest guiding principles.

你知道，哲学某种程度上就是研究如何过一种美好的生活。

You know, philosophy is kind of the study of how to live a good life.

我认为亚里士多德称之为幸福论之类的东西。

I think Aristotle called it utomania or something like that.

可能把这个词说错了。

Probably saying the word wrong.

但这些内容值得研究，同时，就我们的书籍和写作而言，研究当今科学、技术等领域的最新内容也同样重要。

But that's worth studying, but at the same time, it's worth studying the ultra modern most recent stuff when it comes to the world of science and technology and things, at least for our book, our work for our writing.

我不喜欢把时效性强的内容放进去。

I don't like putting timely things in there.

而陷阱在于，那些与时效性相关的内容与对事物运作原理的理解无关，而只是关于人、八卦或新闻的知识。

And the trap is timely things that have nothing to do with knowledge of how things work, but rather knowledge of people or just gossip or news.

我觉得很多人都说过这一点，塔拉布最近也提到过，你知道，要看出新闻有多无价值，只需读一读昨天的报纸。

I think a lot of people have said this, Talab most recently, that, you know, to see how worthless a news is, just read yesterday's newspaper.

对吧？

Right?

你所消费的信息的半衰期是多久？

What's what's the half life of the information that you're consuming?

未来它还会有多大的相关性，主要取决于它在过去有多长的相关性。

How long will it be relevant in the future is predominantly based on how long has it been relevant to the past.

是的

Yeah.

这与迪特施的工作有些关联，他会说，一个好的解释。

And this ties in to a little bit with Deutsche's work, which is, he'll say, a good explanation.

其中一种方式是，你知道的，一个好的解释具有广泛性，能够跨越时空。

One of the ways, you know, is a good explanation that is reach, and reach across space and time.

因此，它适用于许多你未曾预料到的事物。

So it applies to lots of things that you didn't expect.

它解释了那些你原本认为不属于其范畴的现象，或者该理论最初被提出是为了说明某个局部现象，但几乎总是最终能解释一个全局性的问题。

It explains things which you would think were out of its domain or or it was originally that theory was postulated to explain a local thing, but it almost always ends up explaining a global thing.

例如，关于地球轴向倾斜的理论，你可能最初提出它是为了解释为什么会有季节变化，但当你到达南半球时，季节会颠倒，而你无法改变这一点。

So for example, like in the axial tilt theory of the Earth, you know, you might have come up with that to explain why there are seasons, but then the seasons flip when you go to the Southern Hemisphere, and you can't change that.

你不能把用来解释北半球季节的理论部分保留下来，然后到了南半球就把它扔掉。

You can't take the part of the theory that explains the seasons in the hemisphere in in the Northern Hemisphere, and then throw it out when you get to the Southern Hemisphere.

这个理论具有深远的适用性或广泛的解释力。

That that theory has deep reach or wide reach.

所以最好的理论是深刻而广泛的。

So the best theories are deep and wide.

而且，你知道，从另一个完全不同的角度来谈同一件事，就是杰德·麦肯纳。

And, you know, another another completely different angle on the same thing is Jed McKenna.

他写了一些书，我不知道你有没有读过杰德·麦肯纳，但他是个有点疯狂的、匿名的开悟者。

He has this I don't know if you ever read Jed McKenna, but he's kind of this crazy anonymous enlightened dude.

对吧？

Right?

他写了一系列非常幽默的书，第一本就叫《灵性觉醒：最荒谬的事》。

And he writes these really funny books starting with spiritual enlightenment as the damnedest thing.

我强烈推荐这些书给那些完全不神秘、不灵性，但总觉得哪里不对劲、少了点什么、出了问题的人。

And I highly recommend them for people who are not mystical, not spiritual at all, but yet they know something is off, something is missing, something is wrong.

就像墨菲斯描述矩阵时说的那样。

It's like, you know, I think it was Morpheus the way he describes the matrix.

他说：‘那是你心里的一根刺。’

He goes, it's a splinter in your mind.

对吧？

Right?

你有没有觉得自己像尼奥？

Do you feel like Neo?

就像脑子里扎了一根刺。

It's like a splinter in your mind.

是的。

Yeah.

如果你觉得脑子里扎了一根刺，那么杰德·麦肯纳是个不错的起点。

It's if if you feel like there's a splinter in your mind, Jed McKenna is a good starting point.

他提出了一个所谓的证据，来证明真理、上帝或类似东西的存在。

And he has this proof, quote, unquote, of the existence of truth or God or what what have you.

嗯。

Mhmm.

这实际上是对一位名叫安瑟伦的修士提出的古老证明的重新演绎。

And it's actually it's a rework of a very old proof by a monk named Anselm.

我不确定他有没有意识到，但这其实是对一个已有证明的重新演绎。

I don't know if he realized that, but it's a rework of an existing proof.

总之，这根本算不上一个证明。

Anyway, it's not really a proof.

它不是数学意义上的证明，但它依赖于这样一个观念：你相信真理存在吗？

It's not a mathematical proof, but it does rely on this idea that, hey, do you believe that truth exists?

如果你相信真理存在，那么这与你相信根本不存在真理的世界是完全不同的。

And if you believe that truth exists, then, you know, that's a different universe than when we believe that there is no truth.

对吧？

Right?

如果你相信真理存在，那么你是否认为真理可以在某个地方或某个时间不存在，或者它是暂时的？

And if you believe that if truth exists, then do you believe that truth can be nonexistent in a certain place or a certain time or it can be temporal?

答案是否定的。

And the answer is no.

所以，如果你顺着这个推理链条想下去，就会意识到真理必须具有最广泛和最深远的涵盖范围。

And so if you kinda follow that chain of reasoning, realize that truth would have to have the widest and deepest reach.

再次强调，这必须是一个包罗万象的理论。

Again, it would have to be this all encompassing theory.

因此，无论是在科学、灵性还是技术领域，我认为我们都在寻找某种完美且永恒的东西。

So whether in science, whether in spirituality, whether in technology, I think we're all just looking for something perfect and permanent.

作为人类，我们永远都会感到不满。

And as humans, we're always gonna be dissatisfied.

人类的思维在找到那个东西之前，总会感到不满。

The human mind will always be dissatisfied until it finds that.

而这正是追求成就的动力。

And that's kind of the the drive for achievement.

一个人越有成就，就越会不断升级，去追求更广阔、更深刻、更遥远的目标。

And the more accomplished somebody becomes, the more they get to level up and go for something even broader, even deeper, even further.

所以，比如戴维·多伊奇，并不满足于仅仅做一个物理学家。

So, you know, Deutsch, for example, isn't just content with being a mere physicist.

他还在研究他所谓的四大最深层理论：计算理论、自然选择进化论和认识论，因为他试图用一种宏大的统一理论来解释一切。

He's also studying what he calls the four deepest theories, computation, theory of evolution by natural selection, selection, and epistemology because he's trying to explain everything in kind of a grand unified theory.

而且，你知道，每一种哲学本质上都必须具有某种普适性的吸引力，对吧？

And, you know, every philosophy at its core has to have some appeal to universality, Right?

也就是试图解释一切。

To, like, explaining everything.

这仅仅是人类的天性而已。

It's just it's just kinda human nature.

就连当前整个AGI热潮，也是在说，哦，我们要创造神了。

Even the whole current AGI craze, it's about, like, oh, we're gonna invent gods.

我们要解释一切。

We're gonna explain everything.

这是最后一项技术。

This is the last technology.

我不知道人类身上到底有什么，但总是驱使我们朝这个方向前进。

I don't know what it is about humans, but it keeps driving us towards that.

每个人都想要一个万能理论。

Everybody wants a theory of everything.

是因为我们是绝对主义者吗？

Is it we're absolutists?

是的。

Yeah.

马克思主义就是那样的。

Marxism is kinda that.

你知道的。

You know?

它有点像我们所有人都平等。

It's kinda like we're all equal.

我们都是一样的。

We're all the same.

你知道的。

You know?

我们都是意识。

We're all consciousness.

我们都是合一的。

We're all just one.

显然，马克思主义有很多问题。

We're obviously, Marxism has lots of problems.

我不会坐在这里整天批判马克思主义。

I'm not gonna sit here and critique Marxism all day long.

不过，我倒是很乐意。

Well, I would be happy to.

但其中也确实存在一种普世主义的意图。

But it is also that there's that universalist intent in there.

因此，在深层次上，这种对万物答案的追寻不断渗透到我们生活的每一项努力中。

So in a deep way, this quest for the answer to everything keeps seeping back into every endeavor of our lives.

无论你是否意识到，它始终潜伏在下面。

And whether you realize it or not, it's always like lurking underneath.

你说过，你的收入能力比以往任何时候都高，并且一直在稳步增长。

You said that your sort of earning power is higher than it's ever been and been on a steady increase over time.

我想把这一点拆解一下，看看具体有哪些组成部分。

I'm curious to sort of break down the components of that.

比如，这些方面是如何变化的？

Like, how has that changed?

关键的转折点在哪里？

What are the inflection points been?

即使你已经逐渐退居二线，或者说，不那么刻意了，情况又是怎样的？

Even as you've sort of gotten more retired, I guess, you would say, like, less deliberate?

是的。

Yeah.

公平地说，我现在只是轻微退休。

To be fair, right now, I'm, like, minimally retired.

我还在努力工作。

I'm working hard.

我创办了一家新公司。

I got a new company.

对吧？

Right?

某种程度上，我可能正在投入和以往一样多的工作量。

In a way, I'm probably I I I'm probably putting in as much work as I ever have.

但大部分工作都投入到了我的新公司，这家公司仍在保密阶段，我非常重视它。

But, you know, the vast majority of it goes into my new company, which I really care about, still in stealth mode.

不过，也有一些工作用于做一些投资，帮助我认识的生态系统中的人，以及我以前的公司。

But, you know, some of it goes into making a few investments here or there, helping out some people that I know in the ecosystem, plus my old companies.

但从创收能力来看，一部分来自积累的资本，因此我可以资助自己的项目。

But in terms of earning power, some of that comes from stored capital, so I can fund my own projects.

一部分来自声誉，所以人们会信任我，愿意投资我等等。

Some of that comes from reputation, so people will kinda trust me and, you know, fund me and so on.

但很多都来自于我对该追求什么、如何组建新公司、如何启动它、如何招募优秀人才的了解——能早早意识到，比如，别去招那个人，尽管他能力不错，但自尊心太强，融入不了团队。

But a lot of it just comes through knowledge of knowing what to go after, how to structure a new company, how to get it going, how to recruit good people, recognizing early on, like, oh, don't bother recruiting that person even though they're good because they're too high ego, they won't fit in.

或者，别太急于推销，否则以后会出问题。

Or don't sell too hard because it'll just come unstuck later.

或者去寻找这类人，你知道，一开始你需要更多的技术型建设者，而不是太多的市场人员，否则他们会过早地提出太多要求，等等。

Or go after these kinds of people, you know, you need more technical builders at the beginning and less of the marketers and so on because otherwise, they're just gonna create too many requirements too early, etcetera, etcetera.

所以这都是很多实用的经验，已经沉淀为一些原则。

So it's just a lot of practical know how, which has been folded into principles.

你知道，每件事都有其学习曲线。

You know, there there's kind of a there are learning curves to everything.

我想这要么是叔本华，要么是塞内加。

I think it was it was either Schopenhauer or Seneca.

就是这两个人中的一个。

It was one of the two.

我觉得这是塞内加，他基本上说过，是的。

I think this was Seneca, where he basically said yeah.

这是他写给卢西利乌斯的信之一。

It's the one of his letters to Lucilius.

他说过类似这样的话：正确的学习方式是从具体到一般，而不是从一般到具体。

He said something along the lines of that the right way to learn is from the specific to the general and not from the general to the specific.

这意味着，你要在现实中去做事。

And what that means is, like, you do things in reality.

你去接触现实。

You encounter reality.

你去测试它。

You test it.

你从中学到东西，然后再进行归纳。

You learn from it, and then you generalize.

这样你就能知道，当某个格言、警句、原则或价值体系适用，以及何时不适用。

And then that lets you know when that maxim or that aphorism or that principle or that value system, when it applies and when it does not.

因为当你采纳他人的价值观和格言时，你往往不清楚它们在什么情况下适用，什么情况下不适用。

Because one of the problems with picking up other people's values and aphorisms, you don't know when they apply and when they don't.

所以当人们在推特上说：‘你自相矛盾了。’

So when people say on Twitter, well, you contradicted yourself.

你会说：‘但我是用不同的方式使用这个词，这种情况下它并不适用。’

It's like, well, using that word a different way, it doesn't apply in this case.

我的意思并不是说，虽然我很少用形容词，但在大多数情况下，按照我的思维方式，这个原则是适用的。

It's not you know, even though I don't use a lot of adjectives, what I mean is in most cases, in the way that I'm thinking about it, this applies.

而在其他情况下，按照我的思维方式，另一个原则才适用。

And in other cases, the way I'm thinking about it, this other thing applies.

我只是给自己一个启发式的准则，这个准则不是要盲目遵循的，而这些人却在寻找数学证明。

And I'm just giving myself a heuristic, which is not to be blindly followed, and these people are looking for math proofs.

是的。

Yeah.

你在构建普遍性的时候，是带着具体情境的框架进入的。

You have the you came in with the frame of the specific when you created the general.

没错。

That's right.

我构建普遍性是为了帮助我应对未来的具体情况，但每个情境都是独特的。

I created the general to help me navigate future specifics, but each situation is specific.

你明白吗？

It you know?

所以它可能同时适用多个通用原则，这些原则相互竞争，其中一个会占上风，或者多个同时占上风。

So it has it may have multiple general things applied to it that compete, and one of them overrides, or multiple of them override.

这就是你从具体走向通用的方式。

So that's how you go from the specific to the general.

但相反的情况发生在你进入学术界时。

But the opposite is when you go to academia.

你知道，在学校里你学了太多东西，掌握了各种宏大的理论，但到了实际工作中，你却一味地搬出理论，却不知道哪个理论适用于何时何地，或者你学的根本就是错的理论。

You know, you study too many things in school, you learn all these grand theories, and then out in the field, you're spouting theories, but you don't know which one applies where and when, or you've just learned the wrong theory for the current thing.

这时候你就成了纳西姆·塔勒布在《IYI》中所说的那种‘知识分子型傻瓜’。

And that's when you kind of end up as what Nassim Taleb says in IYI, an intellectual yet idiot.

本质上就是那种受过过度教育却缺乏实践经验的人。

And it's basically someone who's overeducated and under practiced.

那么，培养判断力的秘诀是不是把这些启发式法则、格言和理念，与实际经验结合起来，让它们彼此对齐？

So is the recipe for building judgment then the combination of, like, these heuristics, these maxims, these ideas, and the experience to plug in that sort of lice them up?

首先是经验。

Experience first.

你得先行动。

You gotta do first.

你知道的。

You know?

另一个比喻是，如果你想当哲人王，先当国王。

Another televism is if you wanna be a philosopher king, first be a king.

对吧？

Right?

先成为国王。

First become a king.

这才是更难的。

That's the harder one.

成为国王的过程会自然而然地让你变成一个哲人。

And that's the one that'll make you the process of becoming a king will turn you into a philosopher automatically.

而追求成为哲人的过程会让你离国王越来越远，你也成不了一个有用的哲人。

The process of becoming a philosopher will take you further from being a king, and you won't be a very useful philosopher either.

顺便说一下，没有绝对固定的规则。

By way, no hard and fast rules.

有些人虽然实际实践不多，却成为了了不起的哲学家，但这样的人极其罕见。

There are people who didn't do a lot practically speaking that were incredible philosophers, but they're very, very, very rare.

但确实如此。

But yeah.

我的意思是，你得置身于竞技场中。

I mean, you wanna be in the arena.

比如，我知道你正在写一本关于埃隆的书，他有一些通用原则，但这些原则都源于实际行动。

Like, you know, for example, Elon, I know you're working a book about him, and he has general principles, but those principles come from doing things.

比如，他深知速度的价值。

He knows that value, for example, of speed.

对吧？

Right?

埃隆以做事速度极快而闻名，然后他不得不放缓节奏。

Elon is famous for how fast he does things, and then he has to cycle time and things down.

对他来说，这是一个核心原则，他有许多具体的实践方法，比如工程师可以自行设定自己的需求。

And that is a core principle for him, And he has a lot of detailed implementations of what that means practically about, okay, engineers get to set their own requirements.

你知道，你总是要解决所有障碍。

You know, you always unblock everything.

你不能被邮件拖后腿。

You don't tie behind email.

他脑子里肯定有很多很多从这一核心原则衍生出来的启发式方法。

He has all kinds of, I'm sure, many, many heuristics in his head that derive from that big principle.

是的。

Mhmm.

但如果我只是坐在学术圈里，有人告诉我‘速度就是一切，追求速度吧’，我会对此一窍不通。

But if I just sat around academia and somebody told me, yes, speed is everything, go with speed, I'd just be kinda idiotic about it.

我会不停地到处乱跑，喘不过气来。

I'd just be running around hyperventilating all the time.

我不知道该怎么去应用它。

I wouldn't know how to apply it.

所以，生活是在竞技场中度过的。

So again, life is lived in the arena.

你必须去做事情，才能学到东西。

You have to do the things to learn the things.

只学习而不实践是一个错误。

It's a mistake to just learn and not do.

我小时候特别喜欢读书，经常读很多书。

When I was a kid, I was a big fan of reading, and I used to read a lot.

我的意思是，我读了数百本，也许是数千本书。

I mean, I read hundreds, maybe thousands of books.

我已经记不清了。

I've lost count.

大多数书，比如我挑了书就读，读完后就会想，天啊。

And most books, like, I picked the books and I'll read them and I'll be like, oh, shit.

我十年前读过这本书。

I read this book ten years ago.

我只是把它忘了。

I just forgot about it.

我发现自己读到书的三分之二左右，因为四分之三的内容我都记不住，那些对我而言不够重要或不够实用的东西根本留不下印象。

And I'm like, two thirds of the way for the book because of the four because I a terrible memory for things that aren't that don't really stick with me or things that aren't incredibly useful.

我曾经为此感到自豪。

And I used to be proud of that fact.

但现在我意识到，其实我大部分阅读都是徒劳的。

And now I realize, actually, most of my reading was worthless.

你知道，那都只是学术性的书本知识。

You know, it was all academic book knowledge.

其中很多只是小说。

A lot of it was just fiction.

如今，我读得少了，但读得非常有目的性。

And these days, I read less, but I read very deliberately.

我读书是因为对某件事真正感兴趣，想学习一些东西，或者想弄明白某个问题。

I read because I'm really interested in something, and I'm trying to learn something, or I'm trying to figure something out.

我会读少量内容，然后深入思考。

And I'll read small amounts, and then I'll think a lot.

因此，我会把阅读当作激发自己思考的工具，而不是简单地吸收他人的观点，然后事后复述出来。

So I'll use that reading as more of a way to spark my own thinking rather than just kind of taking in things from other people and then regurgitating them back later.

很多东西我记不住。

Like, lot of telede doesn't stick with me.

比如，他的反脆弱概念就很难让我记住，因为我的生活中很难找到真正能应用反脆弱性的实际例子。

Like, for example, his antifragile thing doesn't really stick with me because I can't find that many actual examples in my life where I can apply true antifragility.

因为真正的反脆弱不仅仅是韧性，而是你在逆境中反而变得更强大。

Because true antifragility is not just resilience, it's that you actually get stronger through adversity.

当然，我能想到一些例子，比如当你举重时的适应性反应。

And, yes, I can see some cases of that, like, you know, hermetic effects when you're, you know, weightlifting.

但也有大量情况，我找不到反脆弱性的实际应用方式。

But there are a lot of cases where I don't find a practical application of antifragility.

但我理解塔勒布为什么这么做，因为他的整个投资策略就是反脆弱的。

But I get why Taleb does it, because entire investing strategy is antifragile.

你知道吧？

You know?

系统崩溃时，他反而赚得更多。

He the the system collapses, he makes more.

或者系统波动时，他也能赚得更多。

Or it's just volatility in the system, he makes more.

但我找不到那么多例子，所以‘反脆弱’这个概念对我来说很难留下印象。

But I don't find as many examples, so the concept of antifragility doesn't stick with me.

尽管我知道这本书是大多数人认为对他们影响最大的书，也是他本人最看重的书，但它对我无效。

And even though I know that that's the book that most people think has had the biggest impact on them and he values it the most, it doesn't work for me.

所以我不会读那本书，但我总是反复阅读《反脆弱》这本书，因为它包含很多我可以应用的洞见，让我觉得：‘哦，这正是我生活中某个具体经历的概括。’

So I don't read that book, but I'm always rereading Skin of the Game because that one has a lot of nuggets that I can apply that that that I can say, oh, that's the generalization of something that I had noticed in my specific life.

所以‘少数派规则’就是一个很好的例子。

So the minority rule is a good example.

我不断发现‘少数派规则’在各个地方都出现。

I keep seeing the minority rule show up everywhere.

所以你确实需要在生活中应用这些实际的东西。

So you you do you do need the practical applications in your life.

你必须去实践。

You you have to do.

所以即使现在我想变得更聪明、更有智慧，也意味着我必须努力。

So even to the extent today that I want to become smarter and wiser, that means I have to work.

是的。

Yeah.

我本来想说，你一直在不断注入经验和原则。

I was gonna say you're continuously injecting experience and principle.

对。

Correct.

是的。

Yeah.

你从经验开始。

You start with experience.

你从专业知识开始，然后这些专业知识会转化为更通用的知识。

You start with specific knowledge, then that specific knowledge turn into more generalized knowledge.

然后你可以将它转化为价值观，也就是，你知道的，把它与你现有的价值观联系起来。

Then you can take that and turn it into values, which are, you know, do already tie it into your existing values.

它能提升你的判断力。

It improves your judgment.

我认为，在这个无限杠杆的时代，判断力是最重要的。

And I think ultimately in this age of infinite leverage, judgment is the most important thing.

比如，如果你知道该往哪里走，人们就会为此付钱给你。

Like, if you knew where to navigate, you know, people will pay you for that.

一艘船的船长是根据他凝聚团队并告诉他们目的地、激励他们前往的能力来选择的。

The captain of a ship is chosen based on his ability to get the team together and tell them where we're going, inspire them to go there.

但去哪里才是最重要的部分。

So but where to go is the most important part.

如果你要为苹果公司挑选两位CEO候选人，对吧，目前世界上最有价值的公司，也许是英伟达，但不管怎样。

If you have two candidates for CEO of Apple, right, most valuable company in the world currently, maybe it's Nvidia, but whatever.

你有两个候选人竞选公司CEO，一个判断正确的概率是80%，另一个是85%，而公司价值数万亿美元，你会让谁来掌舵？

You have two candidates for the CEO of the company, and one is right 80% of the time, and one is right 85% time, and the company is worth trillions of dollars, who are you gonna put in charge?

你会给那个85%正确率的人支付远高于常人的薪酬。

You pay that guy who's right 85% time a lot more.

你会每年多付他数十亿美元，因为他掌管着一艘价值数万亿美元的巨轮，而方向比任何其他因素都更重要。

Like, you'll pay him billions of dollars more per year because he's steering a multi trillion dollar ship, and the direction matters more than any other single thing.

最后，我想说，判断力真的非常重要。

And then finally, I would say that judgment judgment is really important.

判断力来自于经验和反思。

Judgment comes through experience and reflection.

所以，你经历各种事情，对这些经历进行真诚的反思，从而逐步培养你的判断力。

So you you experience things, you have honest reflection about those things, and you build your judgment.

到了某个阶段，你的判断力会变得如此出色，以至于你甚至无法再解释或言说它是如何运作的。

And then at some point, your judgment becomes so good that you cannot even explain it or articulate it anymore.

在早期阶段，当你不知道该怎么做时，你必须理性地思考该做什么，并听取反馈。

So there's a point early on where you don't know what to do, and you have to rationally think through what to do and you take feedback.

最终，你会变得如此擅长做决定，以至于不再去请教别人。

Eventually, you get so good at making the decisions that you don't go to other people.

是的。

Yes.

你可以获得一些反馈来辅助你的判断，但你知道自己是最适合做决定的人，因此你会运用自己的判断。

You can get a little bit of feedback to inform your judgment, but you're you know that you're in the best position to make up your mind, so you exercise the judgment.

你可以向别人解释：我为什么这么做？

And you can articulate to other people, why did I do that?

但当你的判断变得如此出色时，你就无法再解释它了，这就是所谓的品味。

But there comes a point where your judgment is so good that you can't even articulate it, and that's what it's called taste.

对吧？

Right?

当你只是觉得，这感觉不对劲。

When you're just like, I that it doesn't feel right to me.

对吧？

Right?

这就是我们应该做的方式。

This is just the way we should do it.

这是我想要做的方式。

This the way I want to do it.

对吧？

Right?

但在那个阶段，这就是品味。

But at that point, it's taste.

那些达到这种境界的人，比如像里克·鲁宾这样的人，或者像史蒂夫·乔布斯这样的人，我认为正是这些人最具创造力，创造了最伟大的艺术和商业成就，因为他们拥有极佳的品味。

And people who have gotten to that point, like the Rick Rubins of the world, where they have really good taste, when the Steve Jobs of the world, I think those are the people who are the most creative and create the greatest works of art and business because they have really good taste.

比如，我认为马斯克在SpaceX上就有品味。

Like, I think I would guess that Musk, for example, on SpaceX, he has taste.

他身边有几位关键工程师也拥有这种品味。

And there are a few key engineers around him who have taste.

如果你观察领先的AI实验室，看看那些研究人员在愿意谈论如何选择进行哪些实验、放弃哪些实验时发的推文线程。

And if you look at the leading AI labs, and you kind of see the tweet threads from some of the researchers there when they care to talk about how they're choosing which experiments to run and which ones not to run.

归根结底就是品味。

It boils down to taste.

他们对品味有判断，比如我会投入数千个GPU，持续数百小时，花一大笔钱，但很可能一无所获，但我的直觉、我的品味——我培养出的直觉，也就是我的品味——告诉我该不该尝试。

They have taste about, like, I'm gonna throw thousands of GPUs at this for hundreds of hours and spend lots of money and probably wind up with nothing, but my intuition, my taste tells me, my developed intuition, which is my taste, tells me whether to try it out or not.

是的。

Yeah.

你发过一条推文。

You you had a tweet.

培养直觉需要时间，但一旦培养出来，就别再听别的了。

It takes time to develop your gut, but once it's developed, don't listen to anything else.

没错。

Exactly.

对。

Yeah.

这只不过是另一种说法，说的就是品味。

And this is just another way of saying taste.

这是你的直觉。

It's your gut feel.

它可能体现在与人相处上，你知道，年长的人对他人有很好的判断力，因为我们无论做什么，都在不断积累人际互动的经验。

And it can be around people, You know, older people have very good judgment about other people because the one thing that we are always all gaining experiences in human interaction, no matter what we're doing, we're interacting with other people.

所以我们不断积累经验，知道该和谁合作、该信任谁、不该信任谁、不该和谁合作，这些最终都成为你的直觉。

So we're building up experience about who to work with and who to trust and who not to trust and who not to work with, and that ends up your gut feel.

因此，随着年龄增长，你必须相信自己的直觉。

And so as you get older, you gotta trust your gut feel.

你现在投资主要靠直觉和品味吗？

Is your investing now primarily feel like taste?

是的。

Yes.

对。

Yeah.

几乎是完全如此。

Almost entirely.

我讨厌把这说清楚。

I hate articulating it.

很多时候，我会现在就放过一些项目。

And and a lot of times, you know, I'll I'll pass on things now.

这不仅仅是对公司口味的判断，更是对我自己喜好的理解——我喜欢什么、不喜欢什么。

It's not just taste on the company, it's an understanding of my own tastes in the sense of what I like and what I don't.

现在有很多公司我都不投资，我会放弃这些投资机会，因为我根本不想要和创始人打交道。

So there's a lot of companies now that I don't invest in, where I will I will I will pass up on the investment because I don't wanna take a walk with the founder.

我什么也没学到。

I didn't learn anything.

或者我只是对这个领域 genuinely 没有兴趣。

Or I am just genuinely not interested in the category.

我对它毫无好奇心。

I'm not curious about it.

我不会熬夜去阅读或思考它。

I'm not gonna stay up late reading about it or thinking about it.