科技乐观主义宣言，作者：马克·安德森和本·霍洛维茨

所以这并不是想回避末日式的问题，比如如果一切真的彻底瘫痪了会怎样，而是想探讨：我们该如何建立防御机制，以应对那些可能导致这种情况发生的严重场景？

And so this is not to sort of try to get away from the kind of the doomsday question of like what happens if it literally all stops working, but like, how do we build defenses against the really bad scenarios in which that would happen?

事实上，技术在这一点上是我们的盟友。

It actually turns out technology is our friend on that.

是的。

Yeah.

是的。

Yeah.

是的。

Yeah.

我们的朋友埃隆正在通过让我们成为星际物种来保护我们免受一切威胁，这同时也解决了小行星问题。

And our friend Elon is protecting us against everything by making us an interplanetary species, which also deals with the asteroid problem.

是的。

Yeah.

我的意思是，你看，恐龙可没有备选方案。

I mean, I mean, look, the dinosaurs had no plan B.

对吧？

Right?

不对。

Nope.

结果是。

Turns out.

所以约翰问：经济体系如何演变，以防止人类腐败渗透到超越我们理解能力的先进科技中？

So John asks, How can economic systems evolve to prevent human corruption from infiltrating advanced technologies that surpass our capacity for understanding?

是啊，本，你觉得呢？

Yeah, Ben, do you think?

或者你也许可以把问题缩小一点。

Or maybe you might narrow the question a little bit.

或者让

Or make

它更对。

it more Yeah.

你知道，我不确定自己是否完全理解他在这里的意思，但我认为这里的人类腐败是一种委托代理问题，我想你在核裂变问题上也隐约提到了这一点——随着这些系统的发展，你该如何防止人类利益把它们搞砸？

You know, I'm not sure if I totally understand what he's getting at here, but I think human corruption there is this agency problem, and I think that you kind of alluded to it on the kind of nuclear fission issue, where as these systems evolve, how do you keep the human interest from fouling them?

这恰恰触及了你在宣言中谈到的许多核心问题，比如，我们曾经经历过银行业危机，当时大家的初衷都是减少对那些强大到堪比世界上许多政府的巨型银行的依赖。

And this kind of gets to the heart of a lot of the things that you spoke about in the manifesto, which is, for example, we had this banking crisis, and everybody's intention was to basically lessen our reliance on giant banks that became as powerful as many governments in the world.

但当然，由于这种‘浸礼派与私酒贩子’的问题——银行是私酒贩子，政府是浸礼派——我们最终得到了完全相反的结果。

And of course, because of this Baptist and bootlegger issue where the banks were the bootleggers and the government was the Baptists, we basically got the opposite.

我们得到了更大、更强大的银行，而这种趋势仍在持续向前发展。

We got much bigger banks, much more powerful, and that trend is kind of continuing forward.

所以我认为，当我们审视系统如何腐败并引发真正危机时，必须警惕委托代理问题。

So I think that when we look at how systems get corrupt and create real crisis, we really have to beware of the agency problem.

我想，我们现在正经历其中几个问题，无论是人工智能还是加密货币领域，实际上，对于像科技公司变得如此庞大并成为垄断巨头这样的问题，我们该如何应对？

And we're going through a few of those now, I think, both on AI and also on crypto where actually a lot of the answer to some of these, like, huge, powerful monopolies, like, what do you do about tech companies getting so big and becoming monopolies?

对于银行变得如此庞大并成为垄断巨头，我们又该如何应对？

What do you do about banks getting so big and becoming monopolies?

我们其实拥有一种能够去中心化权力的神奇技术，它真正创造了利益相关者资本主义，让经济中的所有参与者都能因建设经济而获得回报。

We actually have a magic technology that decentralizes power, actually creates a real form of stakeholder capitalism where all of the participants in the economy get rewarded for building the economy.

而整个运动最大的对手，往往是那些被投机者蒙蔽的政府中的‘浸礼派’，以及大银行等势力，他们过分夸大了这项技术微小但真实的风险，试图扼杀技术的发展，从而导致了这种可怕的委托代理问题，形成了极其腐败的体系。

And the biggest adversaries of that whole movement end up being the kind of Baptists in the government conned by the bootleggers and the big banks and so forth, kind of over highlighting small real but small dangers of the technology and trying to stop the technology in its tracks and kind of lead to this horrible agency problem where you have these very corrupt systems.

所以我想强调的是，当有人声称‘这项新技术有问题，所以我们必须停止它’时，一定要格外谨慎。

So I guess my big thing would be, like, be really careful when somebody goes, oh, this is a problem with a new technology, so therefore we have to stop the new technology.

这种模式一再重复，曾让我们在能源领域遭受了惨重的损失。

Like that, I think, is the pattern that's repeated over and over again and hurt us so badly on energy.

它现在也威胁着我们在智能技术和去中心化领域重蹈覆辙。

And it threatens to hurt us on intelligence and threatens to hurt us on decentralization.

是的。

Yeah.

没错。

That's right.

是的。

Yeah.

对于那些在生活中从未接触过这种情况的人来说，理解这一点的一种方式是：支持企业与支持市场之间存在根本区别。

One of the ways to think about this for people who haven't run into this in their lives is there's a fundamental difference between pro business and pro market.

是的。

Yeah.

它们听起来像是同一件事，但其实不是。

And they sound like they're the same thing, and they're not.

因为支持企业会引发一个问题：支持哪些企业？然后又会问，市场的结构是怎样的？

Because pro business kinda begs the question of which businesses and then sort of, okay, what's the structure of the market?

我们谈的是，嗯。

And are we talking about, like Yeah.

对。

Right.

没错。

Exactly.

我们谈的是众多公司必须竞争并凭实力立足于世吗？

Are we talking about lots of companies having to compete and earn their way in the world?

我们谈的最终是裙带资本主义吗？

Are we talking about ultimately crony capitalism?

这基本上就是发生的事情的模式。

And, this is the pattern of basically basically what happens.

这正是‘浸礼派教徒与私酒贩子’理念的核心所在，即某种新技术出现，世界发生了变化。

This is kind of the point of the the Baptist and Bootlegger's idea of what happens, which is basically a new technology, something changes in the world.

大型在位企业非常反对这种变化，或者想控制它，想要将其牢牢掌控。

You have big incumbent companies that very much are opposed to that change or want to control it, and wanna control it, wanna lock it down.

是的。

Yeah.

于是他们去找政府，说：‘你们需要对此进行监管。’

And so what they do is they go to the government, and they basically say, oh, you need to regulate this.

他们不会直接说：‘你们需要监管这个，因为我们受益’，因为那样会被人嘲笑。

And they don't go in and say, you need to regulate this for our benefit because they would get laughed at.

是的。

Yeah.

所以他们说的是：‘你们需要对此进行监管，因为这样会’

So what they say is you need to regulate this That'd be

一个明显的破绽

a dead

泄露秘密。

giveaway.

是的。

Yeah.

那就会是一个明显的破绽。

That would be a dead giveaway.

所以，他们反而说，你们需要监管这个，以保护那些普通老百姓。

So instead, they say, we you need to regulate this to protect basically the little people.

但他们时时刻刻真正追求的，是为自己争取政府认可的竞争壁垒。

But what they're shooting for a 100% of the time, what they're shooting for is basically government sanctioned barriers to competition for themselves.

是的。

Yeah.

我甚至可以说，我来点悲观的看法。

And I would even argue, I'll do a little effect of pessimism.

在今天的美国，大多数行业实际上并不生活在你所说的自由市场体系中。

We don't, in America today, in most industries, actually live in what you call a free market system.

我们生活在一个被大企业卡特尔主导的生态系统中，你只要看看一个又一个行业，就会发现每个行业通常只有两到三家甚至四家公司占据压倒性的市场份额，赚取绝大部分利润，并与政府有着极其密切的勾结关系。

We live in more of captured kind of big business cartel ecosystem, and you look just across sort of sector after sector, what you see are sort of two or three or four companies that have, know, overwhelming market share in each sector and generate, you know, an overwhelming percentage of the profits and have this extremely incestuous relationship with the government.

顺便说一句，有时甚至到了它们亲自起草自己监管法规的地步。

By the way, often to the point where they're actually writing their own regulations.

对吧？

Right?

实际上是它们的游说者在起草这些法规。

Like, it it's their lobbyists actually writing the regulations.

是它们所掌控的行业团体在操作。

It's the industry groups that they run.

经典的例子是

Well, the classic example is

大多数法规的运作方式恰恰如此。

the majority of regulations works works exactly right.

是的。

Yeah.

没错。

That's right.

当然，还有另一种形式的腐败，那就是旋转门现象，也就是说，嗯。

And, of course, and then there's this other form of corruption, right, which is the revolving door, which is like, okay.

如果你是个监管者，出于纯粹的自身利益，很容易就会去迎合这些大公司的需求，因为做完之后他们就会雇用你。

If you're a regulator, it is extremely tempting just out of pure self interest to kinda do what these big companies want because they'll hire you, right, after you're done doing that.

所以这是一种事后发生的、由旋转门带来的腐败。

So this is sort of this corruption after the fact that happens with the revolving doors.

因此，你完全可以支持企业，完全赞同这一切。

So basically, you could be pro business and be completely in favor of all of that.

对吧？

Right?

因为归根结底，所有事情还是由企业主导的。

Because it is still businesses doing everything at the end of the day.

支持市场，对吧？不行。

Pro market, right, says no.

我刚才描述的这一切，都是不可接受的。

None of that, what I just described, is acceptable.

事情根本不应该这样运作。

That's not how things should work at all.

政府最不应该做的，就是给任何一家公司特殊的权利或能力，来阻止新竞争者的进入。

The last thing any government should be doing is giving any particular company some special right or some ability to block out new competition.

事实上，你想要的是更多的竞争。

And in fact, what you want is more competition.

你想要更多的竞争、更多的市场、更多的资本主义，而这恰恰是防止大公司彻底垄断、不再需要竞争的解决方案。

You want more competition, more markets, more capitalism, as actually the answer to that precisely to keep the big companies from basically just taking over and not having to compete anymore.

是的。

Yeah.

不。

No.

百分之百。

A 100%.

实际上，这很好地引出了下一个问题：市场究竟如何防止垄断？

And actually, that leads very well into the next question, which is how exactly will markets prevent monopolies?

请详细阐述你的观点。

Please elaborate on your point.

我认为这非常关键，因为看看公司的本质，即使是垄断企业，也会随着年龄和规模的增长而变得越来越缺乏适应性。

And I think this is so key because, look, the nature of companies, even monopolies, is that the older and larger they get, the less adaptive they become.

我们看。

And we we look.

我们已经看到了谷歌的例子，它发明了大部分新的AI技术，但后来却有些懈怠。

We've seen this with Google who invented most of the new AI technology and then was a little bit of sleep at the wheel.

当OpenAI发布GPT时，他们错过了这个机会，仅仅因为它们太大、太复杂、太慢，已经不再那么优秀了。

When OpenAI released GPT, they missed it just because they're big, they're complicated, they're slow, they're not as good anymore.

因此，如果新的AI公司能够自由竞争，如果开源AI能够自由竞争，那么这突然就成了打破垄断的最好方式。

And so if the new AI companies are free to compete, if open source AI is free to compete, then all of the sudden, that's the best kind of way to break that monopoly.

同样，社交媒体垄断和银行业垄断这类话题也广受热议。

Similarly, there's a lot of chatter on social networking monopolies and banking monopolies and these kinds of things.

而且，事实上，我们已经拥有一种绝佳的颠覆性技术来打破这些垄断。

And, again, we already actually have a technology that's a great insurgent technology to defeat those monopolies.

而阻碍这种技术发展的，正如你所说，并非支持市场，而是支持特定企业——那些有钱贿赂、腐蚀、游说政府制定法规，以阻止新公司竞争的企业。

And the thing that prevents that is, as you say, not a pro market, but a pro business, a pro very specific business, businesses that have enough money to bribe, corrupt, lobby the government into creating regulations that prevent the new company from competing.

对。

Right.

没错。

That's right.

我们现在正看到大量这样的情况。

And we're we're seeing a lot of that right now.

我觉得体制本身腐败得厉害。

I find the heart to be terribly corrupt.

有鉴于此，你能详细解释一下你的观点‘爱无法规模化’吗？

With that in mind, can you elaborate on your statement, love doesn't scale?

我不确定你是否是因心已腐败而这么说，但也许你确实是这个意思。

I don't know if you meant because the heart is corrupt, but perhaps you did.

嗯，我并没有说心是腐败的。

Well, so I I didn't say the heart is corrupt.

我的意思是，提问者所暗示的，大概是关于人性的永恒争论，即人本质上是善还是恶，这个话题我们也可以聊聊。

I mean, look, I I think what the questioner is alluding to there, would assume, is sort of this perennial debate about human nature, which is is man primarily good or or bad, which we could talk about.

但关于‘爱无法规模化’这一点，让我直接回应一下，然后再探讨更宏大的议题。

But I think on the thing about love not scaling, let me hit that one directly, and then we can maybe go to the bigger topic.

这个说法源自一位名叫大卫·弗里德曼的人，他是经济学家米尔顿·弗里德曼的儿子。

So the formulation here is from a guy named David Friedman, who's an economist and Milton Friedman's son.

他所说的一句话让我印象深刻：从根本上说，让人为了他人做事，只有三种方式。

And the thing that he said that really stuck with me is, look, there's only three ways to get people to do things for other people, right, fundamentally.

一种是爱，你在人们的家庭和朋友圈中都能看到这种情形。

One is love, and you see that in people's families and their friend networks.

比如，我会为本做事，而他不必付我报酬。

Like, I'll do things for Ben without him having to pay me.

对吧？

Right?

嗯。

Yeah.

所以这是一种重要的力量，尤其是

And so that is an important force, especially

而且如果没有我的威胁，我就揍你。

And without me threatening, you kick your ass.

你说到另一个了。

You're coming to the other one.

是的。

Yes.

没错。

Exactly.

所以没有强制力。

So without force.

所以这里有爱。

So so there's love.

没有爱的话，基本上只有另外两种选择，那就是金钱和武力。

Without love, there's basically two other choices, and they're basically money and force.

对。

Right.

金钱是胡萝卜。

Money is the carrot.

武力是大棒。

The force is the stick.

看。

Look.

金钱是资本主义的答案。

Money is capitalism's answer.

武力是共产主义的答案。

Force was communism's answer.

是的。

Yeah.

而且，再来说说共产主义，多批评几句。

And, again, going back to just beat up on the communist a little bit more.

这正是二十世纪至今所有共产主义社会的重大认知，即共产主义及其衍生形式——社会主义等——都期望爱能够被规模化。

Like, this was the big realization of all the communist societies in the twentieth century and today, which is like, basically, what communism and its derivatives, socialism, and so forth expect, they expect love to scale.

是的。

Yeah.

因此，他们期望你去干苦力，比如在盐矿、田地里劳作，而你这么做是出于对同胞的爱、对社会的爱等等。

And so they expect that you should work in whatever the centurion salt mines or whatever it is, the fields or whatever, and you should do that out of love for your fellow man, and you should do that for love of society and so forth.

顺便说一句，纳粹就是国家社会主义者。

And by way, look, like, the Nazis are the national socialists.

他们对这一点也有自己的诠释。

Like, they have their own spit on this.

你应当为德意志民族的利益做事。

You're supposed to do things on behalf of the German people.

这是一回事。

It's the same thing.

你应该爱这个宏观整体，因为爱是无法扩展的。

Like, you're supposed to love this macro unit because love doesn't scale.

问题是，人们自然不会去爱那些他们不认识的人。

The problem is people just don't naturally love people they don't know.

对吧？

Right?

顺便说一下，我的观点是，这并不是因为他们道德上有问题。

And by the way, my view, that's not because there's something morally wrong with them.

而是因为他们不了解其他人。

It's because they don't know the other people.

对吧？

Right?

好吧。

And it's like, okay.

他们得到爱的回报了吗？

Are they being loved back?

对吧？

Right?

而且，其他人会尽自己的责任吗？

And, like, are the other people gonna be pulling their weight?

对吧？

Right?

还是会存在搭便车的问题？

Or is there gonna be a free rider problem?

当然，无论规模多大，只要人们不需要工作，就必然会出现搭便车的问题。

And, of course, the answer is at any level of scale, Of course, there there are free rider problems if people aren't required to work.

因此，这正是整个问题的核心悖论。

And so this is the irony of the heart of the whole thing.

一个建立在‘爱可以扩展’这一理念上的社会，最终会变成一个极其黑暗、反乌托邦、充满敌意且最终走向粗暴的地方，因为爱无法扩展。

A society built in the idea that love scales becomes an incredibly dark, dystopian, hostile, and ultimately brutalist place because love doesn't scale.

强制是一种解决办法，这没问题。

Force is one way around that, which is okay.

你要让那些不想工作的人去工作，尤其是当他们并不想为某个偏远地区的人效力时，就拿枪指着他们的头。

The way you get people to work even though they don't want to cause they don't want people in some remote area that they'd be working on behalf of is put a gun to their head.

没错。

Yep.

而由此直接衍生出的第三种选择是：那钱怎么样？

And then the third option that falls straight out of that is okay, how about money?

而钱，当然是一种替代品。

And then sort of money, of course, is a proxy.

钱是一种工具，用来实现所谓的理性自利，或者说开明的自利，也就是：我会因为做这件事而得到报酬。

Money is a tool for sort of, you know, what they call sort of rational self interest, right, or enlightened self interest, which is like, okay, I'm gonna get paid money to do this.

这会造福其他人。

It's gonna benefit these other people.

我主要不是因为这件事能惠及我从未见过的人才去做它。

I'm not primarily doing it because it's gonna benefit people I haven't met.

听着，也许我爱每一个人，也许我真的很想见到所有顾客。

Look, maybe I love everybody, and maybe I would love to meet all my customers.

顺便说一句，当你走进一家餐厅，从未见过老板或迎宾员时，他们看到你都会非常高兴。

And by the way, look, when you walk into a restaurant and you've never met the owner or the host before, like, they're thrilled to see you.

对吧？

Right?

那么，他们真的爱你吗？

And so do they literally love you?

你是他们新交的最好朋友吗？

Are are you their new best friend?

不是。

No.

他们见到你感到兴奋吗？

Are they excited to see you?

是的。

Yeah.

因为他们知道你会付钱，所以对你有非常积极的态度。

Well, they have a very positive sentiment towards you because they know you're they know you're going to pay.

对吧？

Right?

不管怎样，这是我们想出的最佳方案。

Anyway, so that's the best solution that we've come up with.

嗯。

Yeah.

除非人类本性发生深刻变化，人们突然变得比历史上任何时候都更加慷慨，否则这似乎将是一个稳定的状况。

Barring some profound change in human nature in which people all of sudden become far more generous than they've been historically, that seems like it's likely to be a stable state.

嗯。

Yeah.

嗯。

Yeah.

这真有趣。

It's funny.

这让我想起几年前我和一位在苏联长大的朋友的一次有趣对话。

That reminds me of a interesting conversation I had years ago with a friend of mine who grew up in the Soviet Union.

他随口说了一句，比如，斯大林是个疯狂的疯子之类的话。

And they made some offhand comment that like, whatever, Stalin was a crazy psycho or that kind of thing.

他却问：你在说什么？

And he goes, What are you talking about?

斯大林非常理性，非常聪明。

Stalin was very rational, very smart.

回去看看他写的东西，听听他的演讲。

Go back, read what he wrote, look at his speeches.

他是一个极其系统化的思考者，非常聪明。

He was super systematic thinker, very intelligent.

我当时说：那问题出在哪里呢？

I was like, well, like, what went wrong?

为什么他杀了自己国家两千万人？

Why did he kill 20,000,000 of his own people?

他只是说，当你拿走胡萝卜，剩下的就只有棍子了。

And he just said, when you take away the carrot, all you have is stick.

这真的太对了。

And that is so true.

我认为很多情况下，这正是关键所在。

And I think a lot you know, that's a lot of the point.

在大规模层面上。

At scale.

你的家庭，是的，你可以经营一个共产主义家庭。

And your family, yes, you can run a communist family.

在那个规模上，你甚至可以经营一个共产主义基布兹。

You can even run a communist kibbutz at that scale.

它当然可以奏效。

It it can work for sure.

是的。

Yeah.

没错。

That's right.

哈耶克提出了这一点，戴德丽·麦克洛斯基也这么说过，意思是：看，我们实际上生活在一个两种制度的叠加态中。

Hayek made this point, and Deirdre McClestius made this point also, which is like, look, we do live in a superposition of the two systems.

对吧？

Right?

因为，你可不想做个混蛋，比如在自家家庭里搞那一套。

Because, like, you don't wanna be the asshole who, like, you know, runs your family.

这其实是个资本主义企业。

Like, it's a capitalist enterprise.

比如，你八岁的孩子睡在自己的铺位上，你还向他们收房租。

Like, you charge your kids for, you know, for rent, like, for sleeping in their bunks when they're eight.

我们长大后，在家庭和朋友的环境中，其实都是以共产主义的方式相处的。

We all grow up, and and in our family and friend environments, like, we're all communistic in that context.

对吧？

Right?

但这就带来了一种分裂感：好吧，我们进入这个世界后，发现世界并不是这样运行的，突然间，交换和互动的方式都变了。

But then there's this kind of schizophrenia to it, which is like, okay, we got into the world, and the world doesn't act like that, and all of a sudden, there's a different way to exchange and a different way to relate.

因此，我认为最终的答案在于小规模与大规模之间的叠加状态。

And so I think ultimately, you know, the answer lies in the superposition of the small and the large.

让我们说，那些在这方面过于抽象的人，我认为会偏离正轨。

And let's just say, yeah, the people who are too abstract on this, I think, get derailed.

是的。

Yeah.

我觉得这就是每个人都困惑的地方，谁不希望国家像自己的家庭一样运作呢？

Think that's the exact point that everyone gets confused on because who wouldn't want the country to run like their family?

那样会好得多。

That would be so much better.

问题是，这根本不可能。

The problem is it's impossible.

下一个问题。

Next question.

这实际上是很多人从莫顿那里得到的观点。

This is actually one that I think a lot of people have from Morton.

在推动基础性进展方面，你怎么看待私人资本与公共研究经费的对比？

How do you see private capital versus public research budgets when it comes to fundamental progress?

除了AT&T的垄断推动了贝尔实验室之外，私人投资尚未带来系统性的技术进步。

Aside from AT and T's monopoly that drove Bell Labs, they've yet to see systemic technological progress from private investment.

我对最后一点有点不同意见，但还是让你先说吧。

Think I I would disagree with the last part, but I'll let you start.

是的。

Yeah.

实际上，我认为有三种模式。

So I actually say there's actually three models.

我说过，有私人模式、公共模式，还有一种我稍后会提到的第三种模式。

I would say there's private, there's public, and then there's a third that I'll come to.

你看。

So look.

我觉得有几件事是正确的。

Like, a couple of things I think are true.

所以一方面，我还是要给那些悲观主义者点赞，他们也在做这件事，你看。

So one is, again, I'll give the effective pessimists they're doing this one also, which is, look.

比如那种纯粹的基础研究，也就是传统上探索宇宙原理的方式，这种研究根本不知道自己是否以及何时能实现商业化。

Like, straight capital r research that is sort of the time honored way of, like, discovering the principles of the universe and so forth, the best of that, it has no idea if or when it will ever commercialize.

对吧？

Right?

因为从定义上讲，它根本不知道实验是否会成功，或者理论是否正确。

Because by definition, it has no idea whether or not the experiments will even pan out, right, or the theories are even correct.

所以这种研究历史上一直是由公共资金支持的。

And so there is this kind of research that historically has been publicly funded.

在美国，我们长期以来一直有国家科学基金会这样的机构在做大量这类工作。

And then look, in The US, we have had these agencies like the National Science Foundation that have done a lot of that for a very long time.

不管 NSF 有什么问题，如果你纵观其成立以来的总投入和成果，你就会说，从社会角度来看，这绝对是极其出色的投资。

And whatever issues NSF has, if you look at the totality of spend in their existence and then the results, so you would say, yeah, that was absolutely an outstanding investment from a societal standpoint.

对。

Right.

对。

Right.

非常长的时间，成百上千年的投入。

Very long time, hundreds and investments.

是的。

Yeah.

是的。

Yeah.

没错。

That's right.

而要成为一个有效的悲观主义者，很多这类研究可能不会由私营公司来做。

And, to be an effective pessimist, a lot of that research may not have been research that would get done by private companies.

看。

Look.

另一方面，我认为私营公司所承担的责任比人们想象的要多。

On the other hand, I think private companies carry their weight more than people think.

而且，部分原因在于提问者提到了贝尔实验室，但当这些大公司变得强大时，它们往往会做更多这类事情。

And look, part of it is the questioner alluded to Bell Labs, but there is this thing that happens when these companies you know, when the best of the big companies get big and powerful, they do more of this.

它们会开设这些实验室。

They open these labs.

对吧？

Right?

因此，AT&T就做过。

And so AT and T did it.

IBM、惠普、谷歌、微软以及许多其他行业的公司都做过这样的事。

IBM and Hewlett Packard at and Google and Microsoft and many others across many industries have done this.

我认为，坦率地说，其中一部分是公关。

And I think quite honestly, part of that is PR.

是的。

Yeah.

对他们来说，他们喜欢展示这一点。

For them, they like to show that off.

我认为其中一部分原因是，他们开始以更长远的眼光思考，并且最终确实希望推出新产品。

I think part of that is, look, they start to think in terms of longer time horizons, and they do want ultimately new products at some point.

是的。

Yeah.

这其中一部分是为了吸引和留住最优秀、最聪明的技术人才，告诉他们可以从事研究并发表研究成果。

Part of that is it's a recruiting and retention exercise to get the best and brightest technical minds to stay there, is to tell them that they can do research and publish their research.

所以确实有这方面的原因。

And so there is that.

而且，本，你提到，人工智能的突破正是来自谷歌。

And look, Ben, you mentioned, like, look, the breakthrough on AI just came out of Google.

对吧？

Right?

它来自一家私营公司，没错。

It came out of a private company Yep.

这正是一个很好的例子。

Which is a great example of that.

所以，是的，你看，这里确实存在一些张力，你知道吗？

So, yeah, look, there's some You tension know?

要实现这一点，需要从学术界吸引相当多的研究人员。

Quite a few researchers out of academia to pull that off.

他们确实做到了。

They did.

事实上，过去十五年左右，科技公司与大学之间一直存在这种长期的紧张关系：随着这些新兴科技公司建立了大型研究实验室，它们从大学中挖走了大量优秀的教职员工。

And in fact, that's been a long running source of tension actually between the tech companies and the universities for the last fifteen years or so, which is as these new tech companies have built these big research labs, they have pulled a lot of the good faculty out of the universities.

顺便说一下，我认为这一过程在人工智能领域正在加速，因为进行现代人工智能研究所需的资金规模如此之大，以至于大学目前根本负担不起。

And by the way, that process, I think, is accelerating in AI specifically because the capital needs to actually do modern AI are so big that actually universities can't afford to do right now.

所以你就面临这样一个问题：你是否正在掏空大学里仅存的有能力的教授，只留下其他类型的教师？

So you get this kind of issue of like, are you draining the universities of their remaining competent professors and leaving only the other kind?

你可以就此展开辩论，我们也可以就公共与私人之间的优劣进行一场长时间的讨论。

And you could debate, and we could have a long debate about the pros and cons of public versus private.

还有第三种模式，人们常常将它视为一种理想，那就是这些大规模的社会项目。

There is a third model, and this is the one that people often talk about, you know, as sort of an aspiration, which is this idea of these very large societal projects.

在美国，我们特别会提到阿波罗计划和曼哈顿计划。

And in in The US, you know, we talk in particular about the Apollo project and the Manhattan project.

对吧？

Right?

这正是所谓‘衰落论者’经常发出的感慨：为什么我们不能再有更多像阿波罗或曼哈顿那样的项目？

And we say this is kind of a frequent lament from kind of declineists, right, which is why can't we have more Apollo projects than Manhattan projects?

但我认为这实际上是第三种模式，而这种模式本质上是军事化和战争导向的。

But I think that's actually a third model, and the third model is military and militaristic.

对吧？

Right?

曼哈顿计划就是一个纯粹的军事项目，由军方主导，目的是制造原子弹。

Manhattan was just a straight up military project, right, to build a bomb run by the military.

阿波罗计划虽然表面上是民用的，由NASA负责，但它发生在与苏联的军事军备竞赛和科技竞赛背景下，而当时的社会比今天更具军事化色彩。

Apollo was a sort of a civilian thing, NASA, but it was in the context of a military arms race with the Soviet Union and a technological arms race with the Soviet Union in a much more militarized society than we have today.

是的。

Yeah.

当然，当军队介入时，会发生两件事。

And, course, when the military gets involved, two things happen.

一是当他们真的想做时，能够迅速推进，因为他们直接命令人们该做什么；二是当情况变得艰难时，他们能获得大量资金。

One is they can do things at speed when they really want to because they just tell people what to do, and then also they get access to a lot of money when things get rough.

是的。

Yeah.

所以，我个人对这个问题有些摇摆不定。

And so, personally, I go back and forth a little bit on this.

我们是想要更多的曼哈顿计划和阿波罗计划吗？

It's like, do we want more Manhattans and Apollos?

一方面，很难说不。

On the one hand, it's hard to say no.

但另一方面，如果这需要一个更加军事化的社会，我真的希望如此吗？

On the other hand, do I want a society that is that much more militarized if that's what's required?

我不知道。

I don't know.

嗯。

Yeah.

那会意味着什么？如果我们重新回到像1941年甚至1960年那样高度军事化的状态，这会对世界产生什么影响？

That could Like, what would that mean for what is happening in the world if we get back to the point where we're as militarized as we were in 1941, right, or even 1960?

嗯。

Yeah.

不。

No.

现代世界的一大优点就是战争数量大幅减少，规模也小得多。

It's actually one of the great things about the modern world is we have so many fewer wars at such smaller scale.

但每一场战争依然可怕。

And every war is still horrible.

看吧，希望这种情况能持续下去。

Look, and hopefully that continues.

对吧？

Right?

是的。

Yes.

好的。

Okay.

这是来自Tux的一个很好的简单问题。

Here's a good, simple question from Tux.

你们如何弥合反国家主义与支持美国优先政策，或我们所支持的美国活力之间的差距？

How do you bridge the gap between being anti statist and supporting America first policies, or maybe American dynamism as we do.

是的。

Yeah.

所以，我认为所有这些最终都归结为权力以及它是如何运作的。

So, look, I think that all these things end up being a question of power and how it works.

因此，国家主义的极端形式是共产主义，其中100%的权力集中在公共部门，私人部门没有任何权力。

So the extreme form of statism is communism, where 100% of the power is in the public sector and no power is in the private sector.

这带来了我们之前讨论过的问题。

And that has the issues that we spoke of.

我认为，没有任何公共部门会迅速走向无政府状态，至少这不是我所倡导的。

I think that no public sector can quickly go to anarchy, and that's not, at least, not something that I would advocate for.

所以我认为，作为一个社会，我们某种程度上拥有这种集体性。

So I think, look, as a society, we kind of have this collective.

在共同价值观、共同道德观、什么可以接受、什么不可以接受方面，存在一定程度的集体主义。

There's a certain amount of collectivism in shared values, shared morals, what's okay, what's not okay.

在美国，我们有言论自由、做自己的自由之类的权利。

In America, we have things like freedom of speech, freedom to be who you are, kind of.

我们非常扎根于这些自由社会的理想。

And we're very anchored on these kind of free society ideals.

而你需要一个国家来实现这一点，至少我是这么认为的。

And you need a state to do that, at least I believe.

我认为可能有些人不这么认为，但你需要一个国家来做到这一点。

I think there are probably some people that don't believe that, but you need a state for that.

维护这些价值观和生活方式至关重要。

And preserving that, those values, and that way of life is extremely important.

这主要是政府的角色，需要我们所有公民共同参与。

And that's primarily the role of the government with all of us citizens participating.

我们通过美国活力计划努力参与其中，这非常重要。

And we try to participate in that through our American dynamism efforts, and that's important.

所以当我自称反现状时，我实际上是指反对共产主义，反对过度依赖公共部门而牺牲自由市场和公民自由。

So when I say I'm anti status, I'm really saying I'm anti communist and anti too much weight on the public sector at the expense of free markets and basically freedom for the citizens.

是的。

Yeah.

本，我

Ben, I

我认为你可能想把反共产主义的含义扩大一些，或者更广泛地说，是反威权主义。

think you would probably mean broaden out anti communist also, or by extension, anti authoritarian.

是的。

Yeah.

当然。

For sure.

反专制，我认为这两者是相关的，因为除非拥有巨大的权力，否则很难成为专制者。

Anti and I think those go together because it's hard to be an authoritarian unless you have an amazing amount of the power.

对吧？

Right?

比如，如果你想在美国搞专制，我们确实时不时会有一些政客和领导人表现出专制倾向，但真的很难实现，因为你没有足够的权力来达成目的。

Like, if you wanted to be authoritarian in The US, and we we certainly, like, had authoritarian tendencies from time to time from various politicians and leaders, but it's really hard to do because you don't have enough power to pull it off.

我认为，我们制度最了不起的地方就在于，你不可能在美国积累足够的权力来彻底变成专制者。

And that's the greatest thing about our system, I think, is you can't gather enough power to become completely authoritarian in The US.

这或许是我们最想保留的核心原则。

And that's maybe the most fundamental thing we wanna preserve.

扎克·T，你能进一步解释一下加速回报定律，以及它在未来可能如何体现吗？

Zach T, can you further define the law of accelerating returns and how it may play out in the future?

所以我认为，我从不确定你是否把这当作一个如此出色的隐喻。

So I think it's I never know whether you use this as a such a great metaphor.

那我来使用这个比喻吧。

I'll go ahead and use it.

所以这是保罗·罗默使用的比喻。

So it's a Paul Romer uses this metaphor.

他说，想法会交配。

He says ideas have sex.

让我们说，想法会繁殖。

Let's say ideas reproduce.

它们经历同样的繁殖和进化过程。

They go through the same reproduction and evolutionary process.

那就是

That's

和交配不一样，

different than having sex, by

顺便说一下。

the way.

嗯。

Yeah.

你说得对。

You're right.

好的。

Okay.

没问题。

That's fine.

现在我们有了避孕措施和其他这些手段。

Now that we have birth control and all these things.

更长的形式可能更好。

Longer longer form is is probably better.

所以这个观点基本上是：想法孕育想法，嗯。

So the argument is basically ideas beget ideas Mhmm.

就像人孕育人一样。

In quite the same way that people beget people.

所以，基本上，你拥有的想法越多，就能组合出越多的想法组合。

So, basically, it's like the more ideas that you have, the more combinations of ideas you can have.

而这些想法的组合本身也是新的想法。

And those combinations of ideas are themselves ideas.

然后基于此，它们可以进一步复制、交叉融合，产生‘后代’。

And then based on that, then they can further kinda replicate know, they can kinda cross breed and have offspring.

当然，只要你是在开发任何一种技术产品，你就会看到这种现象：你会从各个地方汲取灵感。

And and you see this anytime, of course, you're building any kind of technological product is that you're pulling in ideas from like all over the place.

你会从你技术栈中所有底层的技术中获得启发。

You're getting inspired by all the different technologies that are below you in the stack.

你会从其他人曾经尝试构建的任何应用程序中获得灵感。

You're getting inspired by all the other applications anybody has ever tried to build.

你会从各种各样的事物中获得启发。

You're getting inspired by all kinds of things.

你看，人工智能本质上就是直接受到大脑神经结构的启发，对吧？

Know, look, AI is inspired by the neural structure of the brain, quite literally, right?

源自生物学，交叉融合到计算机科学和数学中。

Deriving from biology crossbred over into computer science and mathematics.

因此，如果这个过程如预期般运作，你应该会看到一种加速的多样性爆炸、物种分化、繁殖，以及世界上创意数量的扩展，这种过程像链式反应一样自我催化。

And so, basically, if this process is working the way that it should, you should see sort of this accelerating explosion of variety and sort of speciation and reproduction and scaling of the number of ideas in the world that sort of catalytic feeds on itself like a chain reaction.

顺便说一下，这也是将这一点与人类人口联系起来的论点。

By the way, this was also the argument to connect this back to the idea of human population.

这是朱利安·西蒙的观点，我非常钦佩他。

So this was the argument for this guy Julian Simon, who I admire a lot

哦，是的。

Oh, yeah.

他写了一本名为《终极资源》的书。

Who wrote this book called the ultimate resource.

他的许多工作都集中在六七十年代，当时围绕自然资源和环保主义展开了诸多激烈辩论。

And a lot of his work was in the sixties and seventies when there were all these pitch battles, of course, around natural resources, environmentalism.

他可以说是斯科特·保罗·埃利希的公开对手，而埃利希正是那位预言技术增长将导致大规模饥荒和死亡的人。

And he was kind of the avowed enemy of the Scott Paul Ehrlich who was the guy who predicted mass famine and death from kind of increases in in technology.

所以朱利安·西蒙说，不。

And so Julian Simon said, no.

实际上，你希望世界上有更多的人。

Actually, what you want is you actually want a lot more people in the world.

人类，人才是终极资源。

Humans, people are the ultimate resource.

对吧？

Right?

不是任何一种原材料，而是实实在在的人。

Not any kind of raw material, but literally people.

他说，为什么你希望世界上有更多的人？

And he said, why do you want more people in the world?

因为人越多，就会产生越多的想法。

Because if you have more people, you'll get more ideas.

是的。

Yeah.

对吧？

Right?

所以人越多，就会有越多的想法。

And so more people means you'll have more ideas.

更多的想法与想法结合，会产生更多的想法。

More ideas in combination with ideas leads to more ideas.

这些想法带来了让世界变得更美好的方式。

Those ideas lead to ways to make things better in the world.

这些想法所促成的事情之一，就是以更多方式支持地球上的人口。

Among the things that those ideas make possible are ways to support more people on the planet.

对吧？

Right?

所以他说，实际上，对于自然资源消耗——比如自然资源的限制、环境考量等等——答案并不是保罗·埃利希那种减少人口的方案。

And so he said, like, that quite literally, the answer to natural resource consumption, right, for example, or natural resource, whatever limitations or environmental considerations or whatever, the answer is not the Paul Ehrlich approach of depopulate.

对吧？

Right?

减少人类人口，从而减少想法的数量，减少人口数量和想法数量。

Reduce the human population, therefore reduce the number of ideas, most the number of people and number of ideas.

答案其实是踩下油门，更多的人，更多的想法，更多的解决方案。

The answer is to actually put the pedal forward, more people, more ideas, more solutions.

是的，我同意他在这一论点上的观点。

And, yes, clearly, I agree with him in that argument.

太惊人了。

Amazing.

顺便说一句，朱利安·西蒙可能是过去一百年中最被低估的经济学家和哲学家之一。

But by the way, Julian Simon is probably one of the most underrated economists and philosophers of the last hundred years.

所以如果你还不熟悉他，那绝对值得一读。

So if you're not familiar with him, that's a great one to read.

快速提一下，他提出的一个绝佳观点是，当人们第一次读到时会大为震惊：他论证说，你永远不会耗尽任何自然资源。

On that real quick, a great point that he made that really blows people's minds when they read it for the first time is he made the argument that you'd never run out of any natural resource.

没错。

Yeah.

而且他

And he

打过一个赌。

had a bet on that.

对吧？

Right?

就像他确实做了。

Like He did.

他确实做了。

He did.

所以他打过

So he had

他与《人口炸弹》的作者保罗·埃hrlich进行了一场著名的十年赌约，赌的是未来十年一组自然资源商品的价格。

a famous had a ten year bet with Paul Ehrlich, the population bomb guy, and it was a bet on the price of a basket of natural resource commodities ten years in the future.

而埃hrlich当然100%确信。

And Ehrlich was, course, 100% convinced.

这跟石油价格峰值有关。

That's with the price peak oil.

是的。

Yeah.

整个石油峰值问题，正是同样的事情。

The whole peak oil thing, exactly, is that same thing.

而且我认为他让Ehrlich实际上定义了这篮子商品，所以某种程度上他偏向了自己这一方。

And he let Ehrlich actually define, I believe, the basket of the commodities, so he kinda loaded it in his direction.

赌注是：十年后，这篮子商品的价格会比今天高还是低？

And the bet was, will the price of this basket be greater or less than it is today in ten years?

而当时所有主流观点都认为，显然这些东西的价格会上涨，因为人口更多了，消费也更多了。

And everybody who's kind of been the sort of conventional thinking on this was like, well, obviously, the prices of all this stuff are gonna go up because there's more people, there's more consumption.

多年来，媒体上所有人都这么认为。

And that's that's everybody out in the press for many years.

没有人像朱利安·西蒙那样说。

Like, nobody was saying what Julian Simon was saying.

对。

Right.

然后，赢家是朱利安·西蒙，他赢得了赌注。

And then the tinker is Julian Simon won the bat.

十年后，这个商品篮子的价格降低了。

The price of that basket was lower in ten years.

重点是我们从未耗尽自然资源。

The point was we never run on natural resources.

他的观点是，通过市场，我们得知某种自然资源变得稀缺的方式是价格开始上涨。

His point was with markets, the way that we know that a natural resource is becoming scarce is this price starts to rise.

当价格开始上涨时，自利机制促使我们寻找减少对这种自然资源依赖的方法。

As this price starts to rise, self interest says we should figure out ways to not need as much of that natural resource.

对。

Right.

对吧？

Right?

因此，当油价上涨时，我们突然有了经济动力去开发各种替代能源，包括太阳能、风能，一直到核能等等，是的。

And so as the price of oil rises, then all of a sudden, we have an economic incentive to develop alternative energy ranging, by the way, from solar to wind through to things like nuclear Yeah.

然后也许在未来，甚至还有核聚变。

And then maybe in the future even nuclear fusion.

所以这实际上是市场在最佳状态下的运作。

And so it's actually market's working at their best.

当某种东西的价格上涨时，你寻求替代方案的动机——你自利的动机——也会随之增强。

As the price of something rises, your incentive, your self interested incentive to come up with the alternative rises.

那些以前不具备价格优势的替代方案，现在变得具有价格竞争力了。

And alternatives that were not previously price effective actually become price effective.

对吧？

Right?

所以，水力压裂技术就是这样兴起的。

So this was the rise of fracking.

对吧？

Right?

水力压裂之所以有效，是因为石油和天然气的价格涨到了一定程度，使得水力压裂的额外成本变得值得投入。

Fracking worked because oil and gas started to get expensive enough where all of a sudden, the additional cost of fracking was actually worthwhile.

明白了。

Got it.

然后，水力压裂又把价格拉了回来。

And then fracking brought the price right back down.

水力压裂就是一个典型的创新例子。

And and fracking was a classic example of an idea.

它是人类创造力催生的创新。

It was innovation made born by human creativity.

所以，朱利安·西蒙基本上说的是，这种机制在系统中起到了自我调节的作用，这并不是一个我们注定会耗尽所有资源、人人冻死饿死的反乌托邦情景。

And so, basically, what Julian Simon says is that that's the homeostasis kind of in the system, and this is not a dystopian scenario in which we are doomed to run out of everything and everybody's gonna freeze and die.

事实上，这也不完全是乌托邦。

In fact, it's not necessarily utopian.

换句话说，自然资源仍然需要花钱，但这是一种根本上积极的视角：正是人类的智慧将让我们避免那些人所预言的问题，而过去三百年来的历史证明，情况一直不错。

Like, it's still, like, natural resources still cost money, but it's a fundamentally positive view, which is it is human ingenuity that is going to cause us to not have the problems that the dudes there say we're gonna have, which and, again, three hundred years of this and so far so good.

是的。

Yeah.

这是一种对世界的丰裕观，而不是稀缺观。

It's an abundance view of the world as opposed to scarcity view of the world.

事实证明，丰裕观是正确的，这对我们所有人来说都是个好消息。

Turns out the abundance view is right, which is good news for all of us.

没错。

Yep.

马修有个问题，我觉得你的回答很特别：核聚变的梦想是否阻碍了我们享受裂变带来的巨大收益？

Matthew has a question, which I think you have an unusual answer to, which is the dream of fusion stopping us from enjoying the insane gains we can get from fission?

是的。

Yes.

所以，主要阻碍我们享受裂变巨大收益的原因是……

So primarily what's preventing us from enjoying the insane gains from fission.

顺便说一句，这些收益确实非常惊人。

And by the way, they are insane.

我们本可以通过现代核裂变反应堆产生如此巨大的能量，而且安全性也极高，这简直让人沮丧。

Like, the level of energy that we could be producing from modern nuclear fission reactors and the safety of it is, like, just absolutely frustrating.

现在就可以做到。

Doing it right now.

是的。

Yeah.

是的。

Yeah.

是的。

Yeah.

法国就在这么做。

France is doing it.

是的。

Yeah.

顺便说一句，法国的情况特别有意思，因为法国大力支持核能，而欧洲其他地区却强烈反对核能。

By the way, France just got I mean, European politics are so entertaining on this because France is so pronuclear, the rest of Europe is so antinuclear.

法国不得不从德国获得豁免，以继续运行其核反应堆，而他们刚刚才获得这一豁免。

France just had to get a waiver from Germany to continue to run their nuclear reactors, which they finally just got.

因为更多的负担

Because more of the burden

而在法国，他们的裂变反应堆正在运行。

and going in France is their fission reactor.

是的。

Yeah.

德国几十年来一直决心关闭这些反应堆。

And the the German grains have been determined for fifty years to turn those reactors off.

所以是的。

So yeah.

所以你看。

So look.

我们今天没有广泛使用核裂变发电的主要原因，是出于预防原则，源于对灾难的恐惧，这让人情绪化，而这种情绪化的决定实际上是一个非常有害的错误决定，因为替代方案往往是天然气和煤炭。

The big reason why we don't have widespread nuclear fission power today is because of the precautionary principle, because of the, basically, the fear of disaster, which basically makes people emotional, and then turns out here the emotional decision is a very damaging bad decision because the alternatives turn out to be things like gas and coal.

因此，这占了绝大多数原因。

And so that's overwhelmingly it.

话虽如此，回到问题本身，是的。

Now having said that, back to the question is, yeah.

所以，如果你试图反对核裂变，现在你可以这么说：我们不需要它，因为聚变技术马上就要实现了。

So the new thing that you can say if you're trying to fight nuclear fission is, oh, we don't need it because we have fusion right around the corner.

顺便说一下，我本来想说，我希望这是真的。

And by the way, look, I I was gonna start by saying, I hope that's right.

我希望聚变真的马上就要实现了。

I hope fusion really is right around the corner.

它已经‘马上就要实现了’很久了。

It's been right around the corner for a while.

我希望它真的马上就要实现了。

I hope it's right around the corner.

那将会很棒。

That would be great.

结果证明，它比裂变难得多。

It turned out to be harder than fission by quite a bit.

这确实非常困难。

It's it's quite difficult.

然后，我觉得会发生的是，我看了一下。

And then, look, I think what's gonna happen is I look.

我认为我们终将实现核聚变。

I think we'll get fusion to work at some point.

有很多聪明人在研究它。

There's very smart people working on it.

我认为他们会成功的。

I think they'll get it there.

我认为，那些阻碍核裂变部署的力量、理念和人员，也会立即阻碍核聚变的部署。

I think the same forces and ideas and people that have prevented the deployment of nuclear fission will immediately prevent the deployment of fusion.

所以我认为，突然之间

And so I think this idea that all of a sudden

同样的负面叙事，同样的悲观和腐败情绪。

The the same kind of bad narrative, corrupt pessimism.

会是同样的论点。

It'll be the same arguments.

这是一件极其危险的事情，谁知道如果出错会怎样，如果这样那样怎么办，我们不能承担这些风险，他们能证明它永远、无限安全吗？

It's this incredibly dangerous thing, and who knows if it goes wrong, and, like, what if it this and that and the other, and, like, we can't take these risks, and can they prove it's gonna be safe forever, infinitely?

而且这会是同样的论点。

And it's gonna be the same arguments.

这些核聚变公司一开始会非常乐观，但会撞上监管、情感、政治和意识形态阻力的高墙。

And these nuclear fusion companies are gonna start out being very optimistic, and they're gonna hit this wall of sort of regulatory and emotional and political and ideological resistance.

我希望他们能突破这道墙。

And I hope they punch through it.

但你看。

But look.

理查德·尼克松在七十年代初做了两件事。

Richard Nixon did two things in the early seventies around this.

一是他宣布了一项名为‘能源独立计划’的举措，声称美国将在1980年前建成一千座新的核裂变发电厂，实现完全能源自给，彻底从中东撤出，并达到零排放；但他随后成立了核管理委员会，结果阻止了这一计划的实施。

One is he declared something called Project Independence, where he said we, The US, would build a thousand new nuclear fission power plants by 1980, become completely energy sufficient, be able to withdraw completely from The Middle East, be able to be zero emission, and then he created the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which then prevented that from happening.

真蠢。

Dope.

是啊。

Yeah.

他们批准了多少座新的核反应堆？

How many new nuclear reactors have they approved?

四十年来一座新电厂都没批准。

Zero new plants in forty years.

哇。

Wow.

所以情况不妙。

So not good.

而且，再回到激励机制的问题上。

Well, and again, here, go back to incentives.

好的。

Okay.

现在想象一下。

Now imagine okay.

再来，想想魔鬼的做法。

Now, again, get the devil's do.

假设你是一名新上任的监管者。

Like, imagine that you're the newly appointed regulator.

你是新上任的主席。

You're the newly appointed chairman.

你知道，本·霍罗威茨，你是1973年新上任的核管理委员会主席。

You know, Ben Horowitz, you're the newly appointed chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 1973.

你的激励是什么？

What are your incentives?

如果我们建了一些新反应堆，你能获得多少荣耀？但万一再发生一次核事故，你的生活会有多糟糕？

How much glory are you gonna get, right, if we built some new reactors versus how horrible is your life gonna be if there's another nuclear accident?

嗯。

Yeah.

对。

Right.

对。

Right.

对。

Right.

另一种激励机制的代理问题。

Another kind of incentive agency problem.

嗯。

Yeah.

对。

Right.

顺便说一下，现有的能源公司也在那里做他们的事。

And then by the way, you've got the existing energy companies in there doing their thing.

对吧？

Right?

说，哦，不。

Saying, oh, no.

别担心。

Don't worry about it.

石油和天然气。

Oil and gas.

顺便说一下，我们要做的是，我们要清洁，我们要有清洁的石油。

And by way, we're gonna do We're gonna clean we're we're gonna have clean oil.

清洁的石油。

Clean oil.

我们要清洁大众汽车。

We're gonna clean the Volkswagen.

我们要有清洁的柴油。

We're gonna we're gonna have clean diesel.