ChatGPT三周年庆，OpenAI携手Thrive合作，David Sacks对决《纽约时报》| Diet TBPN

ChatGPT发布已经三年了。

It's been three years since ChatGPT launched.

我想稍微反思一下。

I wanted to reflect a little bit.

一切都变了，又或许什么都没变，也可能介于一切与虚无之间的某种变化程度。

Everything changed or maybe nothing changed or maybe some amount of change in between everything and nothing.

你更倾向于认为什么都没变。

You're more on the nothing changed camp.

某种程度上同意你的观点。

Sort of agree with you.

我刚才在思考，嗯，好吧。

I was sort of reflecting on, like, okay.

感恩节已经过去了。

Thanksgiving's happened.

上周末是感恩节。

It was Thanksgiving over the weekend.

你知道，我的世界有什么不同吗？

You know, how different is my world?

比如，并没有一个人形机器人在为我做饭。

Like, there's not a humanoid robot that's cooking for me.

而且，即使我们真有个人形机器人，我想感恩节那天我们也会让机器人待在壁橱里，因为'让他做饭'。

And, also, I even if we had a humanoid robot, I think that would I think Thanksgiving would be the day we let the robot sit in the closet because Let him cook.

我们才不要。

We enjoy no.

不要。

No.

让我们来做饭。

Let us cook.

我们享受烹饪的乐趣。

We enjoy cooking.

让我们来做饭。

Let us cook.

感恩节就像是烹饪界的赛道日。

Thanksgiving is like the track day of cooking.

即使你有机器人代劳，感恩节这天你还是想亲自下厨。

Like, even if you have the robot that does it, you still wanna do it on Thanksgiving.

你不会想在随便一个周二做饭的。

You don't wanna cook on a random Tuesday.

King，我刚刚又深入思考了代理型商务这件事。

King, I was reflecting more on the agentic commerce thing.

感觉ChatGPT和OpenAI确实在全力推动从代理型商务中创收，尤其是在这个假日季。

It feels like ChatGPT and OpenAI, they really are pushing to make revenue from agentic commerce, like, in this holiday season.

执行速度惊人。

Incredible speed of execution.

显然，如果能解决广告投放、商务转化并从中抽成，这将是个巨大机遇。

Like, clearly, it's a big opportunity if you can figure out how to, you know, run ads, commerce, convert, take a cut of that, that's big.

Chateappity的实际产品相当不错，但你能看到围墙花园已经开始筑起。

The actual product in Chateappity is pretty good, but you can see that the walled gardens are already going up.

所以我喜欢去Wirecutter看产品评测，特别是在节假日期间。

So one place that I like to go to for reviews of products, specifically around the holidays, is the Wirecutter.

Wirecutter的独特之处在于他们不会对每个产品进行评分。

Now the wire cutter, their whole twist was they wouldn't rate each product.

他们会选择一个品类，然后直接告诉你该品类中最好的产品是什么，有点像把吸尘器分成不同档次。

What they would do is they would pick a category, and then they would just tell you what their best product was in that category, sort of like a cluster mix of vacuums.

他们会给你推荐白金级的吸尘器，同时也会提供一个经济实惠的选择。

So they would give you the platinum tier vacuum and then a budget pick.

他们被《纽约时报》收购了。

They were acquired by The New York Times.

《纽约时报》目前正在与OpenAI打官司。

The New York Times is currently in a lawsuit with OpenAI.

所以如果你去ChatGPT然后说，嘿

And so if you go to ChatGPT and say, hey

而且我认为他们即将与大卫·萨克斯陷入一场诉讼

And I think they're about to be in a lawsuit with David Sachs.

也许吧。

Maybe.

但如果你去ChatGPT，我就试了试，我说，嘿，好吧，给我拉一份深度研究报告。

But if you go so I went to ChatGPT, and I was like, hey, Okay, pull a deep research report.

就把Wirecutter上的所有内容都调出来，告诉我每个类别和排名第一的产品。

Just pull everything from the wire cutter and and tell me every category and every product that's top ranked.

Wirecutter。

Wire cutter.

但它做不到。

But it couldn't do it.

它做不到。

It couldn't do it.

它说，嘿。

It said, hey.

我们不能碰Wirecutter的内容。

We don't we can't touch the wire cutter.

比如，我们是禁区。

Like, we're it's off limits.

嗯哼。

Mhmm.

你得自己过去那边。

You gotta head over there yourself.

老兄，打开一个Chrome标签页吧。

Pop open a Chrome tab, brother.

如果你想自己去那边，那是你自己的事。

If you wanna head over there, like, that's on you.

感恩节期间真正改变的是话题方向。

The one thing that did really change on Thanksgiving was the discourse.

人工智能的讨论已经完全渗透到亲朋好友之间了。

Like, the AI narrative has fully arrived to just family and friends.

你是指家里的家人吗？

You mean family in in the in the home?

是的，是的。

Yes, yes.

那些不从事技术工作的人，他们的工作与

In people that don't work in technology, that don't their job is

他们最喜欢的领域无关。

not tied their favorite trough.

不是那个。

Not that.

更多是在讨论，这是泡沫吗？

More talking about, is it a bubble?

你认为这一切会走向何方？

Where do you think all this stuff goes?

我们一直在讨论的那些东西

The stuff that we've been talking Are

你确定你不是生活在泡沫中吗？

about sure you're not living in a bubble?

你认为美国的普通家庭是

You think the average family in America is

困在AI里了，我看到多份新闻通讯的主题都是关于如何在节日期间与家人谈论AI泡沫，以及如何与家人普遍讨论AI。

stuck I in the AI saw multiple newsletters where the whole conceit of the newsletter going into the holidays was how to talk to your family about the AI bubble and how to talk to your family about AI generally.

我认为这是真实的，因为如果你过去一年关注你的401k账户，你会看到先是大幅上涨，然后最近又大幅抛售。

And I think it's real because if you've been watching your four zero one over the last year, you've seen a massive spike and then a recent selloff.

如果你打开任何新闻或报纸，你会听到关于1万亿美元的消息，然后你会想，什么？

And if you've turned on any news or opened up any newspaper, you've been hearing about $1,000,000,000,000 And you're like, what?

一万亿美元？

A trillion dollars?

那个ChatGPT应用？

That ChatGPT app?

他们需要一万亿美元才能让那东西运转起来。

They need a trillion dollars to make that thing work.

聊天。

Chat.

对吧？

Right?

聊天？

Chat?

我想反思一下，过去三年发生了什么变化，特别是对'七巨头'而言。

I wanted to reflect on, like, what has actually changed over the last three years and specifically in the Mag seven.

'七巨头'的表现简直势不可挡。

The Mag seven has been on absolute tear.

仅仅过去三年，整体市值就基本翻了三倍。

Just over the last three years, the value as a whole has basically tripled.

之前市值略低于8万亿美元。

It was, a little under $8,000,000,000,000.

现在已超过21万亿美元

Now it's over $21,000,000,000,000.

这三年创造了惊人的价值。

That's a lot of value created in the last three years.

当ChatGPT发布时，英伟达在七大科技巨头中市值排名倒数第二。

NVIDIA was second to last in the max in the mag seven when ChatGPT launched.

当时它的市值仅为4200亿美元，这显然有问题。

It was worth just $420,000,000,000, something wrong there.

如今，该股票已上涨了超过10倍。

Today, the stock is up over 10 x, basically.

现在市值达到4.36万亿美元。

It's $4,360,000,000,000.

今天也上涨了。

And up today.

今天也上涨了。

And up today.

尽管一片混乱

Despite all the chaos

迪伦和帕特尔费尽心思想要打压那只股票，但他们没能成功。

Dylan in Patel was trying so hard to bring that stock down, but he couldn't do it.

我确实认为英伟达这10倍的增长，催生了一批疯狂的狂热分子，甚至形成了一个完整的产业体系，因为有太多人听说了AI。

I do think that the the Nvidia, the 10x that's happened, has really created some crazy zealots and just an entire industrial complex because there are so many people who heard AI.

他们尝试了ChatGPT，然后觉得：这太重要了。

They tried the ChatGPT thing, and they were like, This is big.

我该怎么参与进来？

How do I get in on this?

我买不了OpenAI。

I can't buy OpenAI.

OpenAI正遥遥领先。

OpenAI is running away with it.

哦，他们需要英伟达的芯片。

Oh, they need NVIDIA chips.

这是合乎逻辑的下一步。

That's the logical next step.

他们投资了英伟达，获得了10倍回报。

They went into NVIDIA, and they got a 10x.

他们本可以在一百万美元上获得10倍收益。

And they could have gotten a 10x on, like, a million dollars.

一千万美元。

$10,000,000.

Runway的Sikhi Chen曾说过，我想那是在2020或2021年，他说他把一个令人不安比例的净资产...

Sikhi Chen from Runway was saying that back, I think it was twenty twenty, twenty twenty one, he he said he put an uncomfortable amount of his net worth Yeah.

...投入了英伟达。

Into NVIDIA.

是的。

Yep.

显然...没错。

And obviously Yeah.

还有在近赛亚人那里，同样的故事。

And in in in near Saiyan, same same story.

对吧？

Right?

仍然被低估了。

Still underappreciated.

Near？

Near?

是的。

Yeah.

英伟达十年基金。

The Nvidia ten year fund.

它所做的就是买入英伟达。

All it does is buy Nvidia.

你 是的。

You Yeah.

只要投资它，你就不可能卖出。

Just by investing in it, you can't possibly sell.

上帝选中的公司。

God's chosen company.

是的。

Yes.

我想，这就是那个基金的名称。

That's what the, I think, title of the fund was.

哦，真的吗？

Oh, really?

是啊。

Yeah.

没错。

Yeah.

这太搞笑了。

That's hilarious.

此前，2022年11月全球最大的公司是苹果。

Previously, the world's largest company in November 2022 was Apple.

当时，它们对微软、亚马逊和谷歌保持着相当大的领先优势。

And at the time, they had a sizable lead over Microsoft, Amazon, and Google.

如今随着超大规模企业在过去三年借助AI热潮的推动而增长，这一差距已有所缩小。

Now that gap has closed a bit as the hyperscalers have grown more over the last three years on the back of the AI boom.

这很有趣。

And it's interesting.

我的意思是，你可以按市值对MAG七巨头进行排序。

I mean, you can sort the MAG seven by, by market cap.

而今天你会看到以下排名：特斯拉第一，接着是Meta、亚马逊、微软、Alphabet、苹果，然后NVIDIA位居榜首。

And today, you get the following ranking: Tesla, then Meta, then Amazon, Microsoft, Alphabet, Apple, and then NVIDIA at the top.

我认为大家心中最大的疑问，也是我们这档节目每天报道的竞赛核心问题是：未来三年这个排名会变成什么样？

And the big question, I think, that's on everyone's mind and kind of underpins the horse race that we cover every day on this show is what would that ranking look like in the next three years?

NVIDIA真的形成垄断了吗？

Is NVIDIA really a monopoly?

它是否真的能抵御来自不同供应商的攻击？

Is it is it impervious to attacks from the from, you know, different suppliers?

博通需要怎么做才能跻身MAG七巨头之列？

What does Broadcom have to do to get into the Mag seven?

这里面也有点品牌效应的因素。

There's also just like a bit of branding.

我觉得，有些能入选'七巨头'的公司，'七巨头'这个称号本身就偏向于那些供应链上游、相对容易理解的企业。

Like, some of the companies that made it into the Mag seven were I feel like the Mag seven leaned understandable, like not that deep in the supply chain.

就连英伟达也曾是最默默无闻的。

Even NVIDIA was the deepest.

英伟达的消费者品牌认知度最低，但仍有大量用户使用其游戏显卡。

NVIDIA had the least of a consumer brand, but still, a lot of people use the gaming graphics cards.

博通的情况相当棘手，因为它完全没有面向消费者的切入点。

Broadcom is really tricky because there's no consumer angle whatsoever.

消费者可以购买特斯拉的产品。

Consumers can buy Tesla.

他们可以使用Meta的产品。

They can use Meta products.

他们可以在亚马逊购物，使用微软的操作系统。

They can buy on Amazon, have a Microsoft operating system.

他们可以使用谷歌。

They can use Google.

他们可以拥有iPhone。

They can have an iPhone.

他们还可以拥有NVIDIA的游戏

And they can have an NVIDIA gaming

显卡目前位居榜首。

graphics The top right now.

特斯拉目前排名第十。

Tesla's sitting at 10.

台积电位列第九。

TSMC at nine.

第八名是沙特阿美。

Eight is Saudi Aramco.

第七名是Meta。

Seven, Meta.

第六名是

And then six is

我也认为必须是美国公司才能进入这个所谓的MAG七强或任何热门排名，比如FAANG。

I I also think you have to be an American company to be in this, like, MAG seven or whatever the hot ranking is, like FAANG.

FAANG从未包含石油公司，也从未包含国际公司。

FAANG did not include never included oil companies, never included international companies.

因为如果你往那个方向考虑，你可能会说，哦，那我们也可以把价值一万亿美元的中国烟草公司之类的加进来。

Because if you go there, then you could be like, oh, well, let's include, like, the Chinese tobacco company that's worth $1,000,000,000,000 or something like that.

确实存在一些疯狂的、外资控股的公司，如果它们独立运营，可能价值一万亿美元，因为它们拥有真正的垄断地位。

Like, there are some crazy there are some crazy, like, foreign owned companies that are, if they were independent, might be worth $1,000,000,000,000 because they just have so much of True monopoly.

资产。

Assets.

是的。

Yeah.

没错。

Exactly.

但这其实不算数，因为它只是存在于虚无之中。

But it doesn't really count because it's just sitting there out in the out in the ether.

Gemini应用的下载量正在追赶ChatGPT，而且Gemini用户现在在应用内花费的时间比ChatGPT用户更多。

Gemini app downloads are catching up to ChatGPT, and Gemini users now spend more time in the app than ChatGPT users.

人们一直在争论：Gemini能追上吗？

People are going back and forth on can Gemini catch up?

这个模型显然非常优秀。

The model, clearly very good.

周末半分析文章中的重磅消息是，OpenAI自2020年4月以来就没有进行过完整的预训练，4.5版本的预训练基本被搁置了。

The big bombshell in the semianalysis piece over the weekend, this idea that, OpenAI has not done a proper pre train since 04/2000, and the 4.5 pre train kind of got mothballed.

这就引出了一个问题：预训练时代结束了吗？

There was this question about, is pre training dead?

谷歌团队似乎给出了否定答案。

Seems like the Google folks said, no, it's not.

然后他们进行了预训练，Gemini 3的表现超越了预期。

And then they went and did a pre train, Gemini three outperformed.

Anthropic也进行了预

Anthropic also pre

训练。

trained.

我是说，没错。

I mean, yeah.

预训练，对。

Pre Yeah.

训练至上？

Trained pilled?

我是说，我们问过奇尔顿这个问题。

I mean, we asked Chilton about this.

而他

And he

说，哦，是的。

said, oh, yeah.

我们依然看好规模化发展。

We're still bullish on scaling.

我...我觉得预训练这棵柠檬里还有汁水可榨，但关键不在规模。

I I I feel like there's still there's still juice in the lemon of pre training, but it's not scale.

要知道，我们只有一个互联网。

Like, we only have one Internet.

Ilya在这点上是对的。

Ilya was correct about that.

我认为无人质疑的是，Gemini三号模型配合Nano Banana Pro和v o three，其基础智能水平已足够称霸消费级AI领域。

I I think the thing that no one is debating is the fact that the Gemini three as a model with Nano Banana Pro, with v o three is just like the actual foundational intelligence is plenty good to be dominant in the consumer AI category.

问题在于，你能否真正让用户安装并使用这款应用？

The question is, can you actually get people to install the app, use it?

他们能享受其中吗？

Can they enjoy it?

会不会用着用着就转回Chechiuti了？

Do they not churn and go back to Chechiuti?

这确实是一场冲刺，要打造一个像ChatGPT那样具有粘性的应用，因为ChatGPT这个应用本身设计得非常出色且精良。

It's a really it's a sprint to actually create an app that is as sticky as ChatGPT because ChatGPT, the app, is fantastic and very, very well designed.

我更倾向于关注那些我们已知存在的结构性优势。

I would much more look at like what are the structural advantages that we know exist.

我的意思是，就Gemini而言，其中一个优势就是关于Wire Cutter的那个观点——你知道Wire Cutter出现在哪里吗？

And I mean, with Gemini, one of them is to that point about the wire cutter, you know where the wire cutter shows up?

谷歌搜索结果里。

Google search results.

你知道哪家公司用一个爬虫抓取所有内容吗？

You know what company has one bot for scraping everything?

谷歌。

Google.

所以谷歌爬虫是以单一实体身份存在的。

So the Google bot is, identifies as one entity.

因此你只能选择允许或禁止谷歌抓取。

So you can either say, I'm allowing Google or not.

这要求有点高，就像说‘我不想出现在谷歌搜索结果中’那样。

And it's a tall order to be like, yeah, don't want to be in Google results.

我用过一个有趣的Gemini集成功能，当你进入一个Hangout时，只需问‘这个人是谁？’

A funny Gemini integration that I've used that you land in a Hangout, and you just say, who is this person?

这是真的吗？

Is this real?

你真的能做到那样？

You could actually do that?

确实可以。

It is.

它会弹出一个侧边栏。

It pulls up a sidebar.

你可以直接问‘我现在在和谁开会？’

You can just ask, like, who am I meeting with right now?

然后它就会给你提供

And it'll give you like a

很明显。

It's clearly.

我正在和谁见面？

Who am I meeting with?

我该对什么说什么

What should I say to What

我该问他们什么？

should I ask them?

我的名字是什么？

What is my name?

他们想了解我什么？

What are what what do they wanna know about me?

我该告诉他们关于我的哪些事？

What what what should I tell them about me?

大卫·萨克斯正在与《纽约时报》开战。

David Sacks is going to war with the New York Times.

他称《纽约时报》内部为'谣言工厂'，之所以这么称呼是因为《纽约时报》发表了一篇关于大卫·萨克斯的文章，标题是《硅谷在白宫的代表正在为自己和朋友谋利》。

He says inside the NYT's hoax factory he calls it hoax factory because The New York Times posted a a piece about David Sacks saying that, the the headline was Silicon Valley's man in the White House is benefiting himself and his friends.

他说五个月前，《纽约时报》派出五名记者编造了一篇关于我作为白宫人工智能和加密货币主管存在利益冲突的报道。

He says five months ago, the five New York Times reporters were dispatched to create a story about my supposed conflicts of interest working as the White House AI and crypto czar.

通过一系列事实核查，他们披露了这些指控，而我们已详细驳斥了这些说法。

Through a series of fact checks, they revealed their accusations, which we debunked in detail.

不出所料，最终刊登的文章只截取了我们回应内容的片段。

Not surprisingly, the published article included only bits and pieces of our responses.

他们的指控五花八门，从捏造与某科技巨头CEO共进晚餐，到虚构接触总统的承诺，再到毫无根据地宣称影响国防合同。

Their accusations ranged from a fabricated dinner with a leading tech CEO to nonexistent promises of access to the president to baseless claims of influencing defense contracts.

每次我们刚驳斥完一项指控，《纽约时报》就立刻转向下一个指控。

Every time we would prove an accusation false, NYT pivoted to the next allegation.

这就是为什么这场风波持续了五个月之久。

This is why the story has dragged on for five months.

今天他们显然直接放弃挣扎，发表了这篇毫无实质内容的报道。

Today, they evidently just threw up their hands and published this nothingburger.

任何仔细阅读这篇报道的人都能看出，他们拼凑了一堆与标题不符的轶事。

Anyone who reads the story carefully can see that they strung together a bunch of anecdotes that don't support the headline.

当然，这正是他们的目的。

And, of course, that was the whole point.

总的来说，科技界人士对此普遍持支持态度。

Well, people have been, supportive of this broadly in tech.

让我们来看看一些反响吧。

Let's go let's go through some of the reaction.

山姆·奥特曼表示，大卫·萨克斯真正理解人工智能，并关心美国在创新领域的领导地位。

Sam Altman says David Sachs really understands AI and cares about The US leading in innovation.

我很感激有他在。

I'm grateful we have him.

这是我的看法。

Here's my takeaway.

是的。

Yeah.

如果你认为人工智能和加密货币是美国应该支持的产业，那么你会希望有一位主管专注于这些领域，并对它们持积极态度。

If you believe that AI and crypto are industries that we should support in The United States, then you want to have a czar focused on those things that generally feels positively about those things.

我认为实际上在这两方面都存在争议，对吧？

I think that there's actually a debate on both fronts, right?

比如左翼人士认为人工智能和加密货币本质就是有害的。

Like there's people on the left that think AI and crypto are just default bad.

他们希望减少这些技术。

They want less of them.

右翼人士中也有持相同观点的人。

And there's people on the right that believe that, too.

我认为归根结底，关于美国为何应在稳定币领域保持领先地位是有论据支持的，这也是《天才法案》重要的部分原因。

I think that ultimately, there's arguments for why The US should bleed in stablecoins, which is part of why the Genius Act is important.

而在人工智能行动计划中，很多具体条款都会有争议。

And a lot of the AI action plan, there's going to be debates on individual points in that.

但总体而言，我认为在美国营造一个能持续引领人工智能发展的环境很重要。

But in general, I think creating an environment in The US where we can continue to lead in AI is important.

我在这些材料中没发现任何确凿证据。

I didn't see any smoking gun in any of this stuff.

有一些关于

There were some allegations around the

我认为他们根本不怎么抽烟。

all I don't think they smoke very much at all.

我觉得他们主要是喝龙舌兰酒。

I think it's mostly tequila drinking.

这倒是真的。

That's true.

确实如此。

They do.

全都喝龙舌兰。

All in tequila.

我没看到任何非常具体的内容。

I didn't see anything very specific.

我是说，这完全是投入其中。

I mean, it's it's it's all in.

就像，他们超级有关系网。

Like, they're they are super connected.

如果你以某种方式与他们合作，你应该能更了解他们在华盛顿的时间分配和关注点。

If you partner with them in some ways, like, you would expect to get more of a read on where they're spending time in DC, what they're seeing.

看起来在可分享内容上有明确界限，比如什么会让你变成游说公司，虽然我不了解David Sacks，但我需要更多政府事务的专业知识。

That seems like there are cleared lines on what you can share, like, what what turns you into a lobbying firm and what I don't know, David Sacks, but I want more expertise in government.

专家们通常在自己的专业领域赚过钱，也有该领域的人脉。

Experts tend to have made money in their area of expertise, have friends in their area of expertise.

如果人们在领导某个领域前不能有相关履历或人脉，那我们的领导者将一无所知。

If our peep if people can't have history or friends in a field before leading it, then our leaders won't know anything.

我认为这是对核心争论的精辟总结：是否该让从未参与过某个行业的人来监管它？

And I thought this was a dig good distillation of, like, the core debate about, like, should you have someone who has never participated in in in in an industry overseeing it?

而且我相信有些读者

And I believe there's some readers

是的。

Yeah.

可能《纽约时报》的一些读者会希望由一个从未涉足这两个行业的人来担任这样的角色。

And probably people at The New York Times that would like somebody that hasn't participated in either industry to be running in a role like that Yeah.

并且对这两个行业一概持反对态度，某种程度上是在阻碍它们发展。

And just blanket against both industries and just sort of, like, hold them back.

所以亚历克斯说，你构想的那种架构叫做委员会。

So Alex says, the construct you're thinking of is called a council.

这种形式长期被用于让选举产生的、对某领域知识有限的官员获取专家群体的共识意见。

It's been used for a long time to allow the elected, with limited knowledge on a domain, to get a consensus of options from a range of experts.

这能最小化冲突并防止盗贼统治。

This minimizes conflicts and prevents kleptocracy.

这不就是所谓的'沙皇'吗？

Isn't that what a czar is?

我以为我以为萨克斯是个委员会。

I thought I I thought I thought he Saxx was a council.

他不是民选官员。

He's not an elected official.

民选官员是唐纳德·特朗普，总统本人。

The elected official is Donald Trump, the president.

那里有各种各样的人。

And there's a variety of folks there.

而萨克斯是被任命担任这个'沙皇'角色的。

And Sax is appointed to this czar role.

他并没有凭空制定立法的权力。

He doesn't have the ability to just create legislation out of thin air.

我正想查查'沙皇'的历史沿革。

Was trying to look up the history of czars.

对吧？

Right?

这确实挺奇怪的。

It is weird.

我们一直都有沙皇这样的职位吗？

Have we always had czars?

知道有个关于'第一边境挑衅'的完整事件

Know there was a whole thing about First border baiting

1918年，总统伍德罗·威尔逊任命伯纳德·巴拉克为战时工业委员会主席。

czar Bernard Barak appointed by President Woodrow Wilson to head the War Industries Board in 1918.

媒体称他为'工业沙皇'，因为他拥有协调战时生产的广泛权力。

The press dubbed him the industry czar because he had sweeping powers to coordinate wartime production.

二战期间，富兰克林·D·罗斯福总统

During World War II, President Franklin D.

任命了多位沙皇来管理庞大的战时经济，包括航运沙皇和合成橡胶沙皇。

Roosevelt appointed several czars to manage the massive wartime economy, including a shipping czar and a synthetic rubber czar.

这些角色至关重要。

These roles were essential.

合成橡胶沙皇？

Synthetic rubber czar?

最具标志性的

One of the most iconic

对此很兴奋。

Stoked for that.

人们没怎么讨论我们持续需要合成橡胶沙皇的必要性。

People don't talk about the need for our ongoing need for synthetic rubber czar.

没有。

No.

这些角色之所以关键，是因为现有政府官僚体系处理全面战争紧急需求的速度太慢。

These roles were essential because existing government bureaucracies were too slow to handle the urgent demands of total war.

1973年石油危机期间，尼克松任命威廉·西蒙为能源沙皇来应对燃料短缺问题。

During the nineteen seventy three oil crisis, Nixon appointed William Simon as the energy czar to manage fuel shortages.

总之，我认为除非你完全反对这些行业，否则很难说你会想要一个对这些行业毫无专业知识的人。

Anyways, again, I think unless you're just blanket against these industries, it's hard to argue that you want somebody that doesn't have any expertise in said industries.

如果你是《纽约时报》的普通订阅用户，他们可能对这个新闻非常兴奋。

If you're the average New York Times subscriber, this is probably they were probably very excited by this story.

这篇报道一出，《All In》播客就要成为历史最佳了。

All in pod about to be an all timer after this article.

你觉得有没有可能大卫和杰森是串通好搞这篇抹黑文章，好让《All In》更火？

Do you think it's possible that David and Jason coordinated to get this hit piece done to grow All In even further?

时间线确实因为这事乱套了。

The timeline truly is in turmoil over this.

好多人都在给我转《纽约时报》那篇关于大卫·萨克斯的报道。

Lots of people are sending me the New York Times story on David Sacks.

除了那个《All In》赞助提案——说好听点是缺乏常识，说难听点就是腐败——我没看到什么新内容，至少对长期关注的人来说是这样。

Outside of the all in sponsorship proposal, which feels oblivious at best, corrupt at worst, I'm not seeing much in there that's new, at least to those who've been following.

丹·普里马克顺便提到，确实SACS/Kraft还有大量AI投资。

Dan Primak says, as an aside, it's true that SACS slash Kraft still have a ton of AI investments.

问题是现在所有科技投资都算是AI投资。

Thing is, all tech investments at this point are AI investments.

这有点像现在的互联网投资。

It's kind of like Internet investments at this point.

如果你投资科技初创企业，实际上就是在投资人工智能初创企业。

If you invest in tech startups, you de facto invest in AI startups.

如果说有什么影响的话，深入政治领域对All In来说总体上是负面影响，至少在我看来，如果我们坚持科技、市场、科学、风投等领域，我们的增长速度会更快，也不会失去一部分左倾观众。

If anything, going deep into politics has been a net negative for all in, at least in my opinion, we would we would be growing faster and wouldn't have lost some percentage of our left leaning audience if we'd stuck to tech, markets, science, VC, etcetera.

这是个有趣的观点。

That's an interesting take.

我仍然认为政治让它变得如此重要。

I still think It politics it so made it so big.

嗯，是的，而且这让内容变得两极分化。

Well, yeah, and it made the content polarizing.

是啊。

Yeah.

但我认为媒体中的两极分化是好事。

But I think that polarizing in media is good.

没错。

Yeah.

你实际上能获得更多关注。

You actually get more attention.

从所有角度来看未必是好事，确实。

Not necessarily good from all points of view Yeah.

但从纯粹的触及率来说是有利的。

But good from a pure just like reach.

CNBC的规模比彭博社大不少，因为彭博社过于专业晦涩，而CNBC更亲民——它的全称就是消费者商业新闻频道。

CNBC is bigger than Bloomberg by like a pretty significant margin because Bloomberg's like extra wonky and CNBC is a little bit I mean, it's, like, literally called Consumer Business News.

比如，我相信这就是C所代表的含义。

Like, that's what the C stands for, I believe.

然后还有福克斯，它甚至更甚。

And then and then you have Fox, which is even more.

福克斯新闻是政治性的，它的收视率远超CNBC或彭博社。

It it like, Fox News is political, and it's much bigger ratings than CNBC or Bloomberg.

而ESPN则是目前遥遥领先的最大媒体。

And then ESPN is, like, by far the biggest.

是啊。

Yeah.

因为体育嘛。

Because it's like sports.

大家都爱体育。

Everyone loves sports.

当我妻子问晚餐吃什么却否决我前两个提议时。

When my wife asks what we should eat for dinner but says no to my first two suggestions.

又回到了我喜欢的年纪。

Are back to the age I like it.

然后当她问我想吃Bazelord的什么时，答案自会揭晓。

And then, when she asks what I want for dinner from Bazelord, the answer to that question will reveal itself.

我觉得会有很多可能的答案。

I think there will be lots of possible answers.

太真实了。

Very true.

这是个非常棒的新梗模板。

It's a great great new meme template.

我喜欢。

I like it.

当我丈夫问还有多少个亚马逊包裹在路上时，这个问题的答案会自己显现出来。

When my husband asks how many Amazon packages are still on the way, the answer to that question will reveal itself.

我觉得会有很多可能的答案。

I think there will be lots of possible answers.

但我认为这确实是事实。

But I think that's actually true.

比如，如果他创造了一些新的人工智能，那么就有很多不同的方式来将其变现。

Like, if he creates some new AI, like, there's a bunch of different ways to monetize it.

我们知道这是事实。

We know this is a fact.

当然，现在伊利亚正与严乐昆、理查德·萨顿和安得拉·基尔帕西这些行业传奇人物一道，或多或少地宣称规模扩展已经结束，大语言模型已死

But, of course, Ilya is now joining the ranks of Yan Lakoun and Rich Sutton and Andhra Kirpathi of sort of industry legends that are more or less saying that scaling is over and LLMs are dead

规模扩展已到尽头，大语言模型是条死路。

Scaling is over and LLMs are a dead end.

啊，你真贴心。

Aw, you're sweet.

规模扩展已到尽头，大语言模型是条死路。

Scaling is over and LLMs are a dead end.

喂？

Hello?

人力资源部？

Human resources?

我喜欢他的梗图模板，因为就像Jan Lakoun一直在说的那样。

I love his meme template because it's like, yeah, Jan Lakoun has been saying the same thing.

他说，Jan表示，记录一下，我现在的BMI是24。

He says, Jan says, for the record, my current BMI is twenty four.

这家伙太棒了。

This guy rocks.

时间线一片混乱。

And the timeline was in turmoil.

很多人对Semi Analysis的最新帖子非常不满，你知道的。

Lots of people very, you know, upset with semi analysis latest post

你竟敢，你竟敢

How dare you dare you

胡说八道。

take shit.

他们竟敢挑战王者。

A they took a swing at the king.

他们说TPU v7。

They said TPU v seven.

谷歌向王者发起挑战。

Google takes a swing at the king.

王者当然是英伟达。

King is, of course, NVIDIA.