Citrini 研究的爆款文章：人工智能与经济，90年代怀旧 | Diet TBPN

由于节目好友萨特里尼的原因，市场出现了大规模抛售。

Massive sell off in the markets thanks to friend of the show, Sattrini.

引发了大量疯狂的反应。

Lots of crazy reaction.

真的突破了某种被包装成粉丝小说、低概率事件的东西。

Really broke through with something that, you know, is framed as sort of, you know, fan fiction, low probability.

每当有人发帖说‘我觉得这事有10%的可能性发生，所以值得讨论一下’，总是很有趣。

It's always interesting when someone posts something and they're like, I think there's a 10% chance this this happens, so it's worth talking about.

而我就会想，那90%的情况是什么？

And I'm like, what's the 90% scenario?

没人会因为90%的情况获得点击量。

No one's getting any clicks for the 90% scenario.

而且它会变得

And it gets

完全没那么令人兴奋。

completely It's not that exciting.

是的

Yeah.

然后抛出类似这样的说法：哦，对，这件事有10%的可能性会发生。

And throwing out something like, oh yeah, like 10% chance that this crazy thing happens.

人们并不会把它当作一个10%的概率事件，或者你提到的任何概率来回应。

People don't react to it like it's a 10% scenario or whatever percentage you put on it.

20%的概率，30%的PDOM。

20% chance, 30% PDOM.

你只是忽略了你原本想表达的意思。

Only take It's away from what you over.

只要你一说某件疯狂的事发生了，不管概率多低，你都会因此被永远记住。

Like as soon as you say something crazy happens with no matter how low the percentage is, like that's what you're going to be known for forever.

所以，在做出那些预测时要小心。

So be careful out there with those predictions.

但是

But

好的。

Okay.

所以昨天星期天，我在忙家庭事务，没多少时间坐下来阅读。但一整天我都在看到很多人引用这篇文章，说这是他们读过最好的文章。

So Sunday yesterday, doing family stuff, don't really have a bunch of time to sit down and read And the entire day, I'm just seeing people quoting it, like, this is the best essay that I have ever read.

有那么多我认为通常都很聪明的人。

So many people that I think are generally pretty smart.

等到昨晚孩子睡后，我终于坐下来开始读的时候，几乎每一段都让我感受到某种‘高曼健忘症’——有三句话可能还说得通，但紧接着就出现一个感觉完全错误的陈述。

And then by the time I actually after the kid's bedtime last night, by the time I actually sat down and started reading it, Almost every paragraph, was experiencing some element of Gaullman's amnesia, where you have three sentences that are maybe somewhat coherent and then a statement that feels so wrong.

当然，当然，当然。

Sure, sure, sure.

特别是，我认为很多人显然指出了

Specifically I think a lot of people obviously called out the

关于DoorDash的那条评论，但其实你本可以选很多其他公司代替DoorDash，但这并不重要。

The DoorDash thing.

关于DoorDash的评论，其实你本可以选很多其他公司代替DoorDash，但这并不重要。

The DoorDash comment which there's so many businesses that you could have chosen in DoorDash's place but it didn't matter.

我对此的体验是，你之前跟我提到过，说这是现在最热门的话题。

My experience with it was you had mentioned to me that, like, oh, it's the current thing.

而我当时几乎完全 offline。

And I was pretty offline.

等我真正开始刷新动态时，我觉得自己肯定是被困在某个搜索功能里了，因为我只看到 Citrini 的帖子，以及对它和对这些反应的回应。

And then by the time I I actually started refreshing the timeline, I was like, oh, I'm, like, clearly, like, stuck on some search feature because I'm only seeing Citrini posts and like posts reacting to it and reacting to the reaction.

它已经完整走完了一轮新闻周期，先是 backlash，然后是对 backlash 的 backlash，Tay Kim 也掺和进来争论，人们纷纷发反驳帖。

And it had done a full news cycle, both a backlash and then a backlash to the backlash and Tay Kim's getting in there fighting and people are posting rebuttals.

有人发了一个完全由 AI 生成的、把事情搞得更糟的版本，简直太搞笑了。

Someone posted a fully AI generated, just like turd it up another notch version, which is hilarious.

所以我们可以聊聊一些反应。

So we can maybe go through some of the reactions.

我的意思是，昨晚期货市场一片红色。

I mean, the the futures were red last night.

整体市场普遍下跌。

The market is down broadly.

是的

Yeah.

这很有趣。

And it's interesting.

很多人说，伙计们，不可能仅仅因为这篇明显是科幻小说的Citrini文章，期货就下跌了。

A lot of people were saying, guys, there's no way that futures are read just because of this Citrini essay that is obviously science fiction.

结果今天早上彭博社出来报道了？

And then it turns out Bloomberg this morning came out and actually stated that Reported it?

说是Saturni的抛售。

That it's the Saturni sell off.

是的。

Yeah.

是的。

Yeah.

但我的意思是，还有关税方面的因素。

But I mean, there were also the tariff things.

关税消息在周五、周六被市场消化了。

The tariff news was sort of digested on Friday, Saturday.

所以完全有可能出现这种情况。

So there was totally like that could be possible.

还有很多其他事情在发生。

There's a lot of other going on.

终端软件支付股在Sutrini发布关于AI风险的帖子后下跌。

The the quote from the terminal, software payment stocks slide after Sutrini post on AI risk.

DoorDash和美国运通在周一引领了软件和支付股的下跌。

DoorDash and American Express led declines in software and payment stocks on Monday.

我们当时在讨论，你知道，贝宝被严重打压，人们在问：未来的战略是什么？

And we were debating, you know, PayPal had gotten beat up and there was a question about like, what is the strategy going forward?

贝宝一直是个有趣的情况，因为创始团队虽然备受推动，但他们对重返公司并扭转局面毫无兴趣。

PayPal has always been an interesting situation because like absolutely goaded founding team, but they're all disinterested in jumping back in and turning it around.

看起来那里确实有些价值。

It does seem like there's some value there.

有些粘性。

There's some stickiness.

很有趣的是，它会私有化吗？

And it'll be interesting to see, does it go private?

新的管理层会进来吗？

Does the new management come in?

我的意思是，他们已经有一些新管理层了。

I mean, they already have some new management.

所以我不太确定它会走向何方，但感觉支付通道这一块在一段时间内还会保持粘性。

So I'm not exactly sure where it goes, but it feels like the the payment rail thing will be sticky for a while.

Young Macro 发表了看法，转推了 Citrini 的内容。

Young Macro had a take, quote tweeting Citrini.

这是篇不错且有趣的文章，但必须指出的是，它本质上是基于严重机构失败的假设情景，而非某种宏观必然性。

Good and interesting piece, but a necessary caveat is that it's essentially a hypothetical condition on severe institutional failure rather than some sort of macro inevitability.

正如文章本身所指出的，其两种失败模式之一——流动性压力和资本受损——包含了一种流动性因素，而美联储可以通过流动性工具和资产购买迅速应对，这在近期的银行压力事件中已经得到验证。

As the piece itself notes, one of its two failure modes, liquidity stress and capital impairment, includes a liquidity component that the Fed can address quickly with liquidity facilities and asset purchases as seen in recent episodes of banking stress.

受损资产的损失不会消失，但原则上可以转移到承担能力最强的一方。

Losses from impaired assets won't disappear, but can in principle be moved where the broadest shoulders are.

这种情况很奇怪，因为你看到公共科技市场的资本正在大量蒸发，但这些实验室还尚未上市。

It's an odd situation because you're seeing all of this capital evaporate from the public tech markets, but the labs aren't public yet.

所以它们无法像理论上那样完全吸收这些资本，但情况要模糊得多。

So they can't fully absorb it like they sort of can, but it's much more opaque.

而且普通投资者并不能只是读了这篇文章就简单地认为：好吧，我相信了。

And it's not like most the average investor can't just read this piece and be like, okay, I I believe it.

我担心软件股，所以我打算把资金转向Anthropic、OpenAI和SpaceX的组合。

I am worried about software stocks, so I'm gonna rotate into a basket of Anthropic OpenAI and SpaceX.

但它们目前还没有这个选择。

They don't have that option yet.

它们要等到年底。

They wait by the end of the year.

你可以买入英伟达。

You can buy NVIDIA.

你可以买谷歌。

You can buy Google.

是的。

Mhmm.

有很多方式。

There's plenty of ways.

是的。

Yeah.

完全正确。

Totally.

他说，在这个假设的经济中，可用的资源比以前多得多。

Plenty in this hypothetical economy much more than before, he says.

会有很多宽厚的肩膀。

There will be plenty of broad shoulders.

在这个假设情景中，他们难道不能直接对Anthropic征税，让它承担你们所有的养老金吗？

Couldn't they just tax anthropic into paying all your pensions in this hypothetical scenario?

这将通过监管或财政机制来实现。

This would be done through regulatory or a fiscal mechanism.

第二种失败模式——总需求不足导致大规模失业——可以通过财政政策转移、工资补贴等方式解决。

The second failure mode, an aggregate demand shortfall for massive unemployment, can be addressed through fiscal policy transfers, wage subsidies, etc.

这篇文章认为，这可能受到税收收入下降的限制，但在通缩、低通胀环境下，财政部可以大幅赤字运行，美联储也可以按需购买尽可能多的债务，暂且不论我们预计税收结构会发生变化。

The piece argues that this may be constrained by falling tax revenues, but in a deflationary low inflation environment, the Treasury can run large deficits and the Fed can buy as much of that debt as it needs to, leaving aside that we'd expect the tax structure to change.

政治过程不太可能像和平主张那样成为重大瓶颈，因为那些假设性财政鹰派以不可持续的赤字为由提出的担忧，在这个假设经济中将失去意义，因为该经济的潜在产出将高得多。

The political process is unlikely to be as meaningful as a bottleneck as the peace claims, as the hypothetical fiscal hawks pointing to unsustainable deficits would not have much of a point, given the economy in this hypothetical will have much higher potential output.

第一原则是，直觉显然会告诉你：当我们被告知人们希望拥有的实物至少和以前一样多，而经济有能力生产比以前更多的实物，但人们却得不到他们想要或需要的实物数量时，一定有什么地方不对劲。

The first principle is intuition obviously tells you something is awry when we're told that people will want at least as many real things as before and the economy will have the means to produce more real things than before, but the people won't be getting the amount of real things that they want or need.

这是因为，这通常需要重大的政策或制度摩擦，或在将产能转化为购买力时出现延迟。

This is because that typically requires major policyinstitutional frictions or delay in translating capacity into purchasing power.

如果你家突然从有一条面包变成有两条面包，而以前一条面包时你并没有挨饿，那么有两条面包时你大概率也不该挨饿。

If you suddenly have two loaves of bread in your house instead of one in your house, and you weren't starving with one, you probably shouldn't starve when there's two.

但假如由于某种假设性情况，由于这种新型生产两条面包的复杂过程，你突然被缠住，无法再打开橱柜，那么你确实有可能挨饿。

But if by some hypothetical, through the complexity of the novel two bread loaf production process, you suddenly get tangled and can no longer access the cupboard, then it's quite possible you will starve.

我觉得这个观点很好。

I thought that a good take.

有趣的是，这件事对市场的冲击远超AI 2027。

It is interesting how this moved the markets way more than AI 2027.

这其实和那篇文章有点类似，也基于AI进展做了很多相同的推演，很多内容都一样。

Like it's sort of the same piece and it has a lot of the same sort of extrapolations based on AI progress, a lot of same

但是呢

But like

AI 2027那会儿，市场反应大概是当时多投资于实验室，因为整体更针对西海岸的受众。

AI 2027, probably, like the market reaction was like invest more in the labs at the time because it was kind of aimed for more of a West Coast audience in general.

是的。

Yeah.

我只是说，如果你把AI 2027那篇文章拿出来，问自己：我持有一篮子上市公司股票，我该怎么做？

I just mean if you had taken AI twenty twenty seven and you had just asked like, I own this basket of public company stocks, what should I be doing?

如果AI 2027是你的核心依据，你很可能现在就会大量抛售。

And AI twenty twenty seven is your backbone, you would probably sell a lot like you're selling right now.

就像AI 2027的情境认知PDF文件，那些正是莱奥波德·阿申布伦纳的哲学理念，现在正在市场中得到体现。

Like the AI twenty twenty seven situational awareness PDFs, like those are the Leopold Aschenbrenner philosophy that is now being reflected in the market.

但你知道，他根本没在这些股票上做多。

But you know, he didn't go long in any of these stocks anyway.

抱歉，我简单说一下。

Sorry, really quickly.

我想知道，这在多大程度上只是因为实际撰写这些内容的人是谁。

I wonder how much that is just because of like who is actually writing it.

完全没错。

The ad Totally.

人们通常觉得，这些内容带有很明显的旧金山风格，隐约带有有效利他主义或安全导向的色彩，而这个则像是来自一家金融机构。

People are like, you know, very San Francisco coded, vaguely EA, maybe safety as people, where this is like, okay, they're like a financial

研究公司。

research firm.

而且它是以金融受众为目标撰写的，使用的是那种金融语言。

And it's written with a financial audience in mind, and it speaks in that language.

所以它已经被某种程度上转化了。

So it's been somewhat translated.

有趣的是，它花了将近一年时间才以这种方式被转化。

Interesting that it took almost a year for it to be translated in this way.

乔迪，这是什么？

Jordy, what

是什么？

is it?

我觉得提供一篇对这篇论文的总结会很有帮助。

I did think it'd be helpful to kind of provide a summary of the essay.

我觉得原文看起来是用了大量AI来撰写的。

I think the original essay, it feels like they used quite a lot of AI to write it.

我打算用AI先总结一下，然后你再看。好了。

I'm going use AI to summarize it before you There we go.

所以不管怎样，这个情景，你本应在一开始就能想到的。

So anyway, so this scenario, you should have got to this at the beginning.

但到2025年底，AgenTik的AI工具在编程和复杂任务方面变得远远更强大。

But by late twenty twenty five, AgenTik AI tools become vastly better at coding and complex tasks.

显然，这是历史事实。

Obviously, that's historical.

公司发现，他们可以使用AI来复制通常由人类完成的工作，从而大幅降低劳动力成本。

Firms found they could use AI to replicate work normally done by humans, radically cutting labor costs.

从纸面上看，生产率表现非常出色。

Productivity looks great on paper.

GDP和生产率指标飙升，因为AI的产出被计入官方数据中。

GDP and productivity metrics soared because AI output counted in the official numbers.

但这些价值中的大部分并未转化为实际的消费者支出。

But most of that value didn't translate into real consumer spending.

因此，企业确实在花钱，但花在了数据中心上。

So businesses are spending money, but they're spending it on data centers.

这与劳动力不同，如果你给某人钱，他们会去买房子。

And that is not as opposed to labor, where if you give somebody money, they'll buy a house.

他们会进行家庭装修。

They'll do home improvement.

他们会买车。

They'll buy cars.

他们会送孩子上学。

They'll put their kids in school.

消费。

Consumption.

消费，对吧？

Consumption, right?

所以他们称这是幽灵GDP，即并未真正流入实体经济的经济产出。

So they're calling this ghost GDP, economic output, that doesn't actually circulate in the real economy.

然后他们发现了一个新兴的负面反馈循环：企业裁员白领员工，并将节省下来的资金重新投资于更多人工智能。

And then they identify an emerging negative feedback loop, which is companies lay off white collar workers and reinvest savings into more AI.

被取代的工人可支配收入减少了。

Displaced workers have less spending power.

消费者需求减弱，尤其是对非必需品的需求。

Consumer demand weakens, especially for discretionary goods.

面对需求疲软，企业进一步投资人工智能以维持利润率。

Companies facing weaker demand invested even more in AI to maintain margins.

这形成了一个没有自然中断的负反馈循环。

And this creates a negative feedback loop with no natural break.

下一步是市场和信贷压力。

The next step is market and credit stress.

他们谈到私人信贷曾向大量这类SaaS公司放贷，而现在这些公司面临威胁，违约率上升，因为原本被视为稳定收入的模式实际上并未真正持续。

So they talk about private credit having lent to a bunch of these different SaaS companies that are now being threatened, defaults, climbing as this perceived recurring revenue ends up not being fully recurring.

有一整个领域讨论指出，世界上许多价值捕获其实只是人类不愿应对摩擦。

There's a whole segment talking about how a lot of value capture in the world is actually just humans not wanting to deal with frictions.

并不是更换汽车保险。

It's not switching car insurance.

即使你知道自己支付得比应该的多，但这也只是有点麻烦。

Even though you know you're paying more than you should, it's just kind of a hassle.

但如果你能有一个AI代理去完成这件事，那你可能就会更频繁地去做。

But if you could have an AI agent go and do that, then maybe you do that more often.

而这会从系统中释放出一些潜在的收益。

And that pulls out some potential earnings from the system.

他们还谈到各个不同的科技中心，以及大量原本被视为优质抵押贷款的贷款，如果出现裁员，有人不得不转行，这些贷款可能就没那么优质了。

The other thing they talk about is all these different tech hubs and how many prime mortgages there are that might not be so prime if there's a layoff and somebody ends up having to switch career paths or something like that.

总的来说，他们讨论的是失业率飙升、消费支出崩溃、股市大幅下跌，甚至连我们正常的经济指标都在掩盖整体的疲软。

So generally talking about unemployment surging, consumer spending collapsing, severe drawdown in the stock market, and then even our normal economic indicators hiding the overall weakness.

总之，AI虽然强大，但并不意味着所有市场都会大涨，但

Anyways, takeaway, AI being great and powerful may not equal all the markets ripping, but

嗯，这是两回事。

Well, two different things.

市场大涨

Market ripping

指的是个别公司。

Individual individual companies.

个别公司。

Individual companies.

以及中位数收入。

And median income.

是的。

Yes.

它们是三个截然不同的东西。

Like they're two they're three wildly different things.

你可以看到资产价格因对GDP增长的未来预期而大幅上涨。

You can see asset prices rise massively based on future promise of GDP growth.

如果能保证十年后GDP增长一定会发生，市场今天就会把这一点定价进去。

If it's guaranteed that GDP growth is going to happen ten years from now, the market will price that in today.

而如果所有的GDP增长都集中到一个人身上，中位数收入就不会上升。

And then if all of that GDP growth goes to one person, not going to see median incomes rise.

你不会看到美国广泛的繁荣。

You're not going to see broad prosperity in America.

或许值得注意一下这篇文章中点名的公司类型。

Worth maybe noting the kind of companies they call out in the piece by name.

所以这些公司，我们来看看ServiceNow，它是被提及最多的一家公司，今天股价下跌了近4.5%。

So all these companies let's check-in with ServiceNow, which is one of the companies that was most heavily yep, down almost 4.5% today.

他们谈到了一堆SaaS工具。

So they talk about a bunch of the SaaS tools.

他们点名了monday.com、Asana和Zapier。

They call out monday.com, Asana, Zapier.

Zapier挺有意思，因为在某种程度上，它早在工作自动化还没那么火的时候就已经在做自动化了。

Zapier is kind of funny because in some ways it was just work automation before work automation was even that cool.

万事达和维萨，他们提到这些公司因AI代理倾向于使用稳定币而面临收入压力，这感觉又像是节目中许多嘉宾曾提出过的观点——代理会偏好或使用稳定币。

MasterCard and Visa, they talk about suffering revenue pressure because an AI agent would just opt for stable coins, which feels like, again, something that many people on the show have come on and made the case for why agents will leverage stablecoins or prefer stablecoins.

这似乎有可能，但不太可能所有支付量都会一夜之间全部转向稳定币。

Seems like a possibility, but unlikely that that will just all payment volume will shift over there overnight.

美国运通被特别提及，是因为其消费者群体普遍因劳动力替代而疲软。

Amex, they called out specifically because of their consumer base being just generally weakened by labor displacement.

然后是一些其他的领域，比如旅游预订、保险、房地产、税务等。

And then a bunch of others, travel booking, insurance, real estate, tax, etcetera.

我觉得旅游预订这一点挺有意思，因为大多数旅行社实际上并不向消费者收取费用。

Travel booking I thought was funny because most travel agents like don't actually take fees from the consumer.

他们是从酒店、航空公司等方收取费用的。

They take fees from the side of the like hotel, the airline, whatever.

一直让我印象深刻的是，我和萨加尔、杰蒂也讨论过这个问题。

The thing that just keeps sticking out to me is like and I was debating with Sagar and Jetty about this as well.

他告诉我，只有人工智能在支撑着整个经济。

Like he was telling me like AI is the only thing holding up the economy.

我说，不，人工智能现在对经济的实际贡献其实非常有限。

And I was like, no, AI is actually doing very little for the economy right now.

它对市场的影响很大。

It's doing a lot for the markets.

它对未来的影响力也很大。

It's doing a lot for the future.

但就人工智能对经济的实际影响而言，它非常低。

But like in terms of the actual economic impact of AI, it's very low.

我们之所以知道这一点，是因为你把人工智能实验室的实际收入加起来，也就只有大约300亿零4000万美元，即使再乘以5倍。

And we just know that because you add up the actual AI revenues from the AI labs and you're talking about like 30,000,000,040 billion dollars And okay, maybe there's like a 5x multiple on that.

所以你只是在这些数据之上创造了2000亿美元的GDP。

And so you're generating $200,000,000,000 of GDP on top of those tokens.

但放眼美国整体GDP的规模，这根本算不了什么。

But like that's just not that much in the grand scheme of actual America's GDP.

因此，市场对未来的GDP、未来的现金流和未来价值创造的定价，与现实之间存在巨大脱节。

And so there's this disconnect between like the market, which is pricing future GDP, future cash flows, future value creation.

一方面是你现在真正推动GDP的因素，另一方面是实际的劳动力和美国人正在做的事情。

Then you have what is actually driving GDP today, and then you have like the the actual workforce and what what Americans do.

这种奇怪的脱节一直存在，我不断回到泰勒·考恩所说的‘缓慢起飞’理论。

There's this odd disconnect, and I keep coming back to the Tyler Cowen, like, slow takeoff philosophy.

到底是什么在支撑着美国经济？

What's actually holding up the American economy?

就像是医疗行业的工作。

It's like health care jobs.

还有很多工作感觉非常难以被AI取代。

And there's a lot of jobs that are they feel very AI resistant.

我不知道，也许会发生一些变化。

I don't know, maybe something changes.

但就像软件开发者的人数不到美国总人口的1%，在科技公司工作的人总数也不到10%。

But like it just feels like the number of people that are software developers less than 1% of America, the number of people that like work at tech companies broadly is less than 10%.

所以，即使在那里发生大规模的重新配置，再考虑到白领领域，如果一切都在转变，那么世界其他地区也会受到冲击，而且还有很多其他因素，让你看到市场出现剧烈波动，看到资本的快速再分配，数十亿美元在流动。

And so even if there's some massive reallocation there and then you go into like even in white collar, if everything shifts, rest of world is hit, and there's just a lot of other dynamics that feel like you can see crazy gyration in the markets and you can see really quick reallocation of 10% of capital, billions of dollars flowing around.

但这些并不会立即转化为实际发生的情况，这种脱节始终存在。

But that doesn't immediately translate to what is happening in There's the real always this disconnect.

约翰·洛巴尔在之后很快写了一篇很棒的文章。

John Lobar wrote a great piece very quickly after this.

这篇文章叫《反西特里尼》。

It's called Contra Citrini.

他说，知名市场评论员西特里尼最近发表了一篇极具吸引力且广为流传的AI末日幻想文章。

He says popular markets commentator Citrini recently published a compelling and popular piece of AI doomer fiction.

尽管这种情况发生的概率很小。

Admittedly with some small probability of occurring.

但我年纪足够大，见过许多经济末日论的循环。

But I'm old enough to have seen many cycles of economic doomsaying.

我想对萨图尔尼的作品提出批评，并展示一种更可能、更积极的未来图景。

I want to present a critique of Saturni's work and show a much likelier, more positive view of the future.

第一，永远不要低估制度的惯性。

One, never underestimate institutional momentum.

2007年，人们认为美国在石油峰值下地缘政治上已经完蛋了。

In 2007, people thought The US was geopolitically done under peak oil.

2008年，他们认为美元濒临崩溃。

In 2008, they thought the US dollar was just shy of collapse.

2014年，他们认为AMD和英伟达已经完了。

In 2014, they thought AMD and Nvidia were done.

然后出现了ChatGPT，人们又认为谷歌完蛋了。

Then came ChatGPT, and they thought Google was done.

每次，那些具有惯性力量的现有机构都证明自己比旁观者想象的要坚韧得多。

Every time, existing institutions with momentum have proven themselves far more durable than onlookers thought.

当人们担心机构更替和劳动力大规模替代时，很讽刺的是，萨特里尼却写道：'就连我们认为因人际关系价值而得以保护的领域也证明了其脆弱性。'

When worried about institutional turnover and rapid labor displacement, it's very funny that Satrini writes, Even places we thought insulated by the value of human relationships proved fragile.

房地产领域，买家几十年来一直容忍5%到6%的佣金，因为经纪人和消费者之间存在信息不对称。

Real estate, where buyers had tolerated 5% to 6% commissions for decades because of information asymmetry between agent and consumer.

人们已经呼吁终结房地产经纪人二十多年了。

People have been calling for the end of the real estate broker for twenty years.

实现这一点并不需要超级智能。

You don't need super intelligence for this.

你只需要Zillow、Redfin或Opendoor就够了。

All you need is Zillow or Redfin or Opendoor.

这个例子实际上恰恰证明了萨特里尼观点的反面。

This example actually shows the very opposite of Satrini's point.

我们拥有大多数人认为已经过时的劳动力类型，但市场惯性和监管俘获使得房地产经纪人比十年前任何人预期的都要坚韧得多。

We have the type of labor that most people consider obsolete, and yet market inertia and regulatory capture have made the real estate broker far more resilient than anyone would have bet a decade ago.

几个月前，我和我妻子买了一套房子。

My wife and I bought a house a few months back.

这笔交易要求我们必须聘请一名经纪人。

The transaction required us to have an agent.

表面上看，由于上述原因，我们的买方经纪人仅用大约十小时处理表格和协调各方，就从中赚了约5万美元，而这些工作我自己本可以完成。

Ostensibly for the above reasons, our buyer's agent made about $50,000 on the deal for about ten hours of form filling and party coordination that I could have done myself.

这个市场最终会变得高效并公平地定价劳动力，但实现这一目标需要很长时间。

This market will eventually be efficient and prices labor fairly, but it takes a long time to get there.

我对惯性和变革管理非常了解。

I know a lot about inertia and change management.

我创建并出售了一家公司，专注于将保险经纪业务从服务模式转向软件模式。

I built and sold a company that focused on moving insurance brokerages from service to software.

我学到的最重要的一课是应对人类现实的铁律。

And the main thing I learned is the iron rule of dealing with human reality.

事情总是比你想象的更复杂，耗时也更长，即使你已经了解了这条铁律。

Everything is always more complicated and takes much longer than you think it will, even if you already know about the iron rule.

这并不意味着世界不会发生有意义的变革，而是变革会更加渐进，给我们足够的时间去应对和调整。

That doesn't mean that a meaningful change in the world won't happen, but that the change will be more gradual, giving us the time to respond and adjust.

第二点，软件行业对人力有着无限的需求。

Second point, software has infinite demand for labor.

近几个月来，软件行业一直举步维艰，因为投资者担心像Monday、Salesforce、Asana这样的公司如今很容易被复制，它们的后端系统价值难以维持。

The software sector has been struggling in recent months as investors fear that companies like Monday, Salesforce, Asana can now be easily replicated and that the value of their back end systems is indefensible.

Satrini等人认为，AI编程将终结SaaS公司的工作岗位，原因有二：一是产品会过时，利润归零；二是这些岗位本身会消失。

Satrini and others talk of AI coding as the spell of the end of jobs at SAS companies are, one, the products become obsolete, zero margin, and two, the jobs themselves disappear.

但似乎所有人都忽略了一点。

What everyone seems to be missing is this.

这些产品，他妈的太烂了。

These products, effing S U C K.

这是他的观点。

That's his opinion.

我个人的看法是，除非我们看到一家公司一次性裁员5000名软件工程师，嗯。

My own personal call out here is, like, until we see a round of layoffs at a company that is 5,000 software engineers at once Mhmm.

否则很难相信AI是在取代软件工程师，而不是仅仅让他们效率大幅提升。

It's hard to believe that that AI is replacing software engineers versus just making them a lot more productive.

如果某人的工作效率大幅提升，你至少会支付等额的薪酬来留住他们。

If somebody's a lot more productive, you'll pay at least the equivalent amount to maintain them.

这可能是他回应中最有道理的一点。

This was probably the best point from his response.

关于再工业化，当然会出现一些劳动力转移。

Re industrialization, there will be some labor displacement, of course.

驾驶行业尤为突出。

Driving stands out.

正如萨特里尼所言，许多类型的白领工作将经历一些波动，一些岗位会消失，另一些则会发生实质性的变化。

Many types of white collar work, as Sattrini suggests, will undergo some gyration as some jobs disappear and others change meaningfully.

对于房地产经纪人这类工作，AI可能是压垮骆驼的最后一根稻草——这些工作其实早已消失，只是薪酬依然存在。

AI may be the straw that breaks the camel's backs for jobs like the real estate broker where the job had actually already disappeared a long time ago but the pay was still there.

这里的救赎在于，美国拥有近乎无限的再工业化能力和需求。

The saving grace here is that The US is in The US, we have virtually limitless capacity and need for reindustrialization.

你可能听说过制造业回流，但这远不止如此。

You may have heard about bringing back manufacturing, but it's more than that.

我们体量庞大，却几乎不再懂得如何制造，也没有能力生产现代生活的核心基础部件——电池、电机、小型半导体。

We are large we largely no longer know how to create and don't have the facilities for making the core building blocks of modern life batteries, motors, small semis.

整个电力系统，我们几乎完全依赖中国和其他国家。

The whole electric stack is something we are almost entirely dependent on China and other countries for.

他们可以

They can

连化肥都几乎造不出来。

barely make fertilizer.

在所有可能的例子中，他们偏偏选了DoorDash。

Out of every example they could have chosen, they went with DoorDash.

推出一款配送应用的门槛从来就不是软件。

The barrier to entry for launching a delivery app is not and has never been software.

这是配送、餐厅采用率、用户采用率，当然还有司机的采用率。

It's distribution restaurant adoption, user adoption, and of course driver adoption.

如果使用那种很随意的版本，有人会说，是的，我刚上线了一个配送应用，你的食物四个小时后送到，那可真搞笑。

It would be really funny to be using like the vibe coded version where somebody's like, yeah, I just launched a delivery app and your food will be here in four hours.

如果我是托尼，我会飞去找萨特里尼，必须面对面工作，打开一罐

If I was Tony, I'd be I'd be flying to find Satrini, having to work face to face, opening up a can of

我知道。

I know

我知道你想说什么。

where you're going with it.

我刚才在想亚马逊基础品牌。

I I was thinking about Amazon basics.

那并没有摧毁每一个公司、每一个品牌。

That hasn't destroyed every company, every brand.

为什么会这样呢？

Like and why is that?

这个类比好吗？比如，大型AI实验室会推出SaaS领域的亚马逊基础款，但人们可能仍然想要某些品牌。

Is that a good analogy that, like, okay, the big AI labs will have Amazon Basics for SaaS, but people will probably still want certain brands.

总会有一些人被锁定在特定品牌上。

There will be certain people that are locked in.

好的。

Okay.

是的。

Yes.

我知道亚马逊基础款的纸巾更便宜，但我就是喜欢这个更符合我需求的特定品牌。

I know the Amazon Basics paper towels are cheaper, but I just happen to like this particular brand that's a little bit more tailored for me.

但亚马逊基础款的意思是，嘿。

But Amazon Basics was like, hey.

你平时买纸巾都是买这个品牌的。

We're you buy paper towels from this brand normally.

对。

Yeah.

我们会把同样的产品贴上我们的品牌出售。

We're gonna sell you the same product with our logo.

是的。

Yes.

对。

Yep.

这实际上就是相同的产品。

And it's Effectively something the same product.

是的。

Yeah.

我认为更真实的AI颠覆是，软件出现了完全新的范式。

I think the AI disruption that is much more real is like you have entirely new paradigms for software

嗯。

Mhmm.

与软件之间完全新的关系。

An entirely new relationship with software.

这不仅仅是有人复制了Salesforce的完全相同版本。

And it's not just like, oh, somebody built the exact same version of Salesforce.

而是有人开发了一个每天自动为你安排日程的应用。

It's like somebody built an app that automatically sets your schedule every day.

你甚至都不会去想，哦，我需要监控这个仪表板，或者

And you're not even thinking about, oh, I need to be monitoring this dashboard or

随便什么。

whatever.

是的。

Yeah.

不，不，不。

No, no, no.

我同意。

I agree.

我认为Salesforce的亚马逊基础版，可能并不是一个很大的商业机会，因为其核心价值主张就是低利润率。

I think the Amazon basics of Salesforce, it probably is not that big of a business opportunity because the whole value prop is that it's lower margin.

因此，亚马逊基础业务并没有推动亚马逊的市值。

And so Amazon Basics is not driving Amazon's market cap.

亚马逊已经解决了分销问题。

Well, Amazon has solved the distribution.

他们认为，我们已经拥有客户。

They're like, we have the customer.

但当你利润率较低且尚未拥有客户时，自然意味着你无法投入大量资金来获取客户、建立销售和分销网络等。

But when you have a lower margin profile and you don't have the customer yet, naturally means you can't spend as much money to acquire customers and build out sales and distribution and all

这完全是

the It's

一种截然不同的情况。

a very different situation.

人们并不会仅仅因为喜欢SAS，就去像逛超市一样使用它。

It's not like people are just going to like the SAS, you know, supermarket.

Dime到Square Holdings的一个非常有趣的帖子。

Very funny post from Dime to Square Holdings.

你觉得这很疯狂，但等下个周末我发布我的Substack文章时，你再看看。

You you think this is crazy, but just wait until next weekend when I publish my Substack article.

你现在就应该吓疯了，干脆去死吧。

You should freak out and kill yourself right now.

人们真的对这个乐此不疲。

People are really having fun with this.

下一个是什么？

What was this next one?

Dimes现在势头正猛。

Well, Dimes is on a roll.

平均二零二六年的人工智能或研究。

Average twenty twenty six AI or research.

我是个传奇。

I am a legend.

可能是你读过的最令人恐惧的小说。

May be the most terrifying novel you will ever read.

克鲁索投资公司表示，这可能是有史以来最具市场影响力的报道。

That might be the most market moving piece ever written, says Clouseau Investments.

这看起来很准确。

That seems accurate.

我当然知道。

And don't I know.

也许这是一个买入机会。

Maybe it's a buying opportunity.

也许这是对其他人的警告，但它确实引起了巨大反响。

Maybe it's maybe it's a warning to everyone else, but it certainly broke through.

史蒂夫问，泰勒会为每个广告读者鼓掌吗？

Steve asked, does Tyler clap for each ad reader?

这是个金句吗？

Is that a sound bite?

这是真实的。

It is real.

他鼓掌。

He claps.

是的。

Yeah.

我为每一个广告读者都鼓掌。

I clap for every single one.

从墨西哥传来的可怕消息，是的。

Horrors coming out of Mexico Yeah.

昨天。

Yesterday.

太疯狂了。

Crazy.

真是令人难过的情况。

Really sad situation.

我们自己的乔·维森塔尔曾待在巴亚尔塔港地区，是的。

Our very own Joe Wiesenthal had been in the Puerto Vallarta area Yeah.

然后就离开了。

And just left.

我觉得他是在混乱爆发前一小时离开的，是的。

I think he got out of there an hour Yeah.

在混乱爆发前一小时。

An hour before the chaos erupted.

非常感激。

So very grateful.

我希望那里每个人都安全。

I hope everyone down there is safe.

有人说，韦斯顿，由于街道封闭，巴亚尔塔港不会延长退房时间。

Somebody said, Weston, Puerto Vallarta won't honor late checkout with streets closed.

我是白金会员。

I am platinum elite.

不可能。

No way.

1000次终身万豪住宿积分。

1,000 lifetime Marriott nights.

等等。

Wait.

我以为这是个笑话。

I thought that was a joke.

我没意识到真的有人发了这个。

I didn't realize somebody actually posted this.

电视着火了，因为整个城市到处都有汽车和公交车在燃烧。

TV is on fire due to the the cars and buses on fire all over the city.

机场已经关闭，优步和出租车都不运营了。

The airport is closed and Ubers and taxis are not running.

我申请了下午4点退房，根据房态我有这个权益。

I asked for a 4PM checkout which I'm entitled to based on availability.

他们不肯延到下午2点之后，说我们必须使用招待套房。

They won't extend past 2PM and said we would have to use the hospitality suite.

我们本该今天下午启程去布凯罗斯，但现在看来不太可能了。

We're supposed to be leaving for Buqueros this afternoon, but that isn't looking very good.

这是我住过最差的万豪会员酒店。

Worst Bonvoy property I have ever experienced.

我觉得今天应该没人办理入住，所以至少应该给我们延长一下入住时间。

I don't think anyone will be checking in today, so there's no reason to not at to at least not extend us.

难道工作人员根本没意识到事态的严重性吗？

Does back maybe person just not understand the scale of what's happening?

也许你可以给那些生活在数据盲区的人解释一下情况。

Maybe you could break it down for anyone who's living under a data center.

到底在墨西哥发生了什么？

Like, what actually happened in Mexico?

因为这不仅仅是

Because it it it was not just

买家们

the buyers

还有几辆车。

and a few cars.

这简直像一场军事行动。

This is like a military operation.

对吧？

Correct?

我妻子说对。

My wife Yeah.

昨天下午我正在X平台进行内容审核时，她给我发了条消息。

Texted me yesterday afternoon while I'm on X moderating

你正在监控局势。

You're monitoring the situation.

所有的开源情报。

All the open source intel.

你给我发了消息。

You texted me.