播放次数最多的片段：AI公司如何对你进行煤气灯操纵 - Karen Hao

我觉得特别有意思的是，看看人们的言论是如何随着他们的动机而演变的。

What I find really interesting is to look at how people's quotes evolve over time with their incentives.

所以我查看了他们所有公开说过的话，包括播客、博客文章，看看它是怎么随时间变化的。

So I was looking at all of the things they've said on the record, on podcasts, in their blog posts, to see how it's evolved over time.

达里奥，之前是OpenAI的研究副总裁，现在去了Anthropic，他们开发AI的方法略有不同。他在2017年还在OpenAI的时候说过这样一段话：“我认为最极端的担忧就是尼克·博斯特罗姆那种，担心AGI会毁灭人类。我看不出原则上有什么理由不会发生这种情况。我觉得事情变得非常糟糕、达到人类文明级别的灾难的可能性，大概在10%到25%之间。”

And Dario, who was the former VP of research, OpenAI, and has now moved on to Anthropic, who are taking a slightly different approach to developing AI, said back in 2017 while he was still at OpenAI, this is a quote, "I think at the extreme end is the Nick Bostrom style of fear that an AGI could destroy humanity.

我看不出原则上有什么理由不会发生这种情况。

I can't see any reason in principle why that couldn't happen.

我觉得事情变得非常糟糕、达到人类文明级别的灾难的可能性，大概在10%到25%之间。

My chance that something goes really quite catastrophically wrong on the scale of human civilization might be somewhere between 10% and 25%."

你还提到了伊利亚，他是OpenAI的联合创始人，后来离开了。

And also you mentioned Ilya, who was a co-founder of OpenAI and then left.

我想问的第一个问题是，伊利亚为什么离开？

I guess the first question I'd ask is why did Ilya leave?

这是个好问题。

That's a great question.

所以他在试图让山姆·奥特曼被解雇这件事上起了关键作用，而且他也是那些随着时间推移开始觉得自己被奥特曼操纵、被引导去做自己并不认同的事情的人之一。

So he was instrumental in trying to get Sam Altman fired, and he's another one of the people who over time began to feel like he was being manipulated by Altman towards contributing something that he didn't believe in.

而且因为——

And for-

你怎么知道的？

How'd you know?

因为我采访了很多人。

Because I interviewed a lot of people.

特别是伊利亚，他有两个非常看重的核心目标。

Ilya, in particular, had two pillars that he cared about deeply.

一个是确保我们实现所谓的通用人工智能，另一个是确保我们安全地实现它。

One is making sure we get to so-called AGI, and the other is making sure that we get to it safely.

他觉得奥特曼在积极破坏这两件事。

And he felt that Altman was actively undermining both things.

他觉得奥特曼在公司内部制造了非常混乱的环境，让团队之间互相争斗，对不同的人说不同的话。

He felt that Altman was creating a very chaotic environment within the company, where he was pitting teams against each other, where he was telling different things to different people.

你跟他谈过话吗？

Have you ever spoken to him?

谈过。

I have.

我在2019年采访过他，当时是为《麻省理工科技评论》写一篇关于OpenAI的报道。

So, I interviewed him in 2019 for a profile that I did of OpenAI, for MIT Technology Review.

在2019年，他说过一句话：“未来对AI来说会是美好的，不管怎样。”

And back in 2019, he has a quote where he says, "The future's going to be good for AIs regardless.

如果对人类也好，那就更好了。

It would be nice if it was also good for humans as well.

不是说AI会主动仇恨人类或想伤害人类，但它会变得非常强大，我觉得一个很好的类比就是人类对待动物的方式。

It's not that it's going to actively hate humans or want to harm them, but it's just going to be so powerful, and I think a good analogy would be the way that humans treat animals.

并不是说我们讨厌动物。

It's not that we hate animals.

我觉得人类是爱动物的，对它们很有感情。

I think humans love animals, and have a lot of affection for them.

但是当需要修建一条连接两座城市的高速公路时，我们不会征求动物的同意。

But when the time comes to build a highway between two cities, we are not asking the animals for permission.

我们直接就做了，因为这对我们来说很重要。

We just do it because it's important to us.

而且我认为，默认情况下，这就是我们与真正自主、独立运作的人工智能之间的关系。"

And I think by default, that's the kind of relationship that's going to be between us and AI, which are truly autonomous and operating on their own behalf."

那是在2019年，也就是你采访他的那一年。

And that was in 2019, the year that you interviewed him.

我觉得我们应该退一步来审视一下，回到什么是人工智能、什么是智能这个问题上。

One of the things that I feel like we should take a step back to examine is going back to this idea of what even is artificial intelligence, and what do we mean by intelligence.

而且，你读到的那些不同人的观点和引语，很大程度上源于他们各自对智能是什么、什么构成智能这个问题的特定信念。

And a huge part of the views of the different people and the quotes that you're reading derives from a specific belief that they each have in this question of what is intelligence, what constitutes intelligence.

对伊利亚来说，在他的整个研究生涯中，他一直认为，归根结底，我们的大脑是巨大的统计模型。

For Ilya, he has throughout his research career felt that ultimately, our brains are giant statistical models.

这其实并不是我们已知的事实，但这是他自己的假设，也是他的导师杰弗里·辛顿的假设，辛顿也参加过这个播客。

This is not something that we actually know, but this is his own hypothesis, also the hypothesis of his mentor, Geoffrey Hinton, who also was on this podcast.

这就是为什么他们对构建统计模型的人工智能系统有如此强烈的信念，并且认为这种特定的方法会带来像我们一样智能的系统。

This is why they have such a strong conviction in the idea of building AI systems that are statistical models, and that this particular approach is going to lead to intelligent systems as we are intelligent.

这是他们的一个假设。

It's a hypothesis that they have.

这个假设还没有被科学证实，有些人在这一点上强烈反对他们。

It's not one that has been proven by science, and some people vehemently disagree with them on this particular thing.

但如果你站在他们的角度，接受这个假设并认为它是真的，即我们的大脑实际上是统计引擎，而他们正在构建的这些系统也是统计引擎，并且他们把这些系统做得越来越大，直到达到人脑的规模。

But if you step into their shoes and take on that hypothesis and assume that it's true, that our brains are in fact statistical engines, and that these systems that they're building are also statistical engines that they're making bigger and bigger and bigger until they become the size of the human brain.

这就是为什么他们说，在他们的框架中，将系统与人类智能进行比较，然后可能超越人类智能，这样的比较是相关的。

That's why they say that making this comparison where the system will become equal to human intelligence and then maybe exceed human intelligence is relevant in their framework.

伊利亚曾经在一次非常著名的人工智能研究会议上发表过演讲，这个会议每年举办一次，叫做神经信息处理系统大会。

And Ilya gave a talk at one point at this really prominent AI research conference that happens every year called Neural Information Processing Systems.

这个名字真拗口。

It's a mouthful.

但他在那次主题演讲中展示了一张图表，显示物种的大脑大小和智能程度，大致呈线性关系。

But he gave this keynote where he shows this chart of the size of brains and the intelligence of a species, and it's roughly linear.

大脑越大，物种就越聪明。

The bigger the size of the brain, the more intelligent the species.

所以对他来说，他认为自己是在构建一个数字大脑，因为他认为大脑只是统计引擎。

And so for him, he thinks he's building a digital brain because he thinks brains are just statistical engines.

按照这个逻辑，如果我们构建一个比人类大脑更大的统计引擎，那么根据这张图表，它就会更聪明，然后我们就会遭受我们对待动物的那种待遇。

So from that logic, it's like, okay, if we then build a bigger statistical engine than the human brain, then based on this chart, it will be more intelligent, and then we will be subjected to the same treatment that we've subjected animals.

但重要的是要明白，这些只是AI研究社区中某些个人的科学假设，关于这是否属实，存在很多争论。

But it's really important to understand that these are scientific hypotheses of specific individuals within the AI research community, and there's a lot of debate about whether this is in fact the case.

一些最大的批评者认为，将我们的思维简单视为统计引擎是非常简化的。

And some of the biggest critics say it's very reductive to think of our brains as simply just statistical engines.

知道机制为什么重要？

Why does it matter to know the mechanism?

难道不是只要知道结果就行了吗？比如它能为我制作视频，或者智能体能做我的工作。

Is it not just important to know the outcome, which is that it's going to be able to make a video for me, or agents are going to be able to do the work that I do?

我们真的需要知道背后的机制吗？

Does it really matter for us to know the mechanism behind it?

是也不是。所以这很重要，因为这些公司是根据这个假设来驱动他们未来的行动的。

Yes and no. So it matters because these companies, they are driving their future actions based on this hypothesis.

所以他们决定，我们认为这个假设是对的，我们应该继续构建越来越大的统计模型，以追求通用人工智能。

So they have decided, we think that this hypothesis is true, we should just continue building larger and larger statistical models in the pursuit of artificial general intelligence.

而这正在产生全球性的后果。

And that's then having global consequences.

为了继续这样做，他们正在收集越来越多的数据。

In order to continue doing that, they're hoovering up more and more data.

他们正在建造越来越多的数据中心。

They're building more and more data centers.

他们正在剥削越来越多的劳动力，以继续这条道路。

They're exploiting more and more labor in order to continue on this path.

这里有一个我认为很重要的问题要问，那就是为什么我们要试图构建与人类重复的AI系统？

Here's a question that I think is important to ask is, why are we trying to build AI systems that are duplicative of humans?

我们现在正在进行这样的对话，我们已经把这个行业的前提当作了一件好事。

We're kind of having this conversation right now where we've just taken the premise of this industry as a good thing.

他们说我们应该构建AGI，所以我们就说我们应该构建AGI。

They said that we should be building AGI, so we say that we should be building AGI.

但我想问的是，我们为什么要这么做？

But I would like to ask, why are we doing that?

为什么我们要构建一种最终旨在取代人类、将人类自动化掉的技术？

Why is it that we are building a technology that is ultimately designed to replace and automate people away?

这不是技术的使命。

That is not the enterprise of technology.

我们应该构建技术，而历史上技术的目的是促进人类繁荣，而不是取代人类。

We should be building technology, and the purpose of technology throughout history has been to improve human flourishing, not to replace people.

所以，这是我对这些公司和科学家的批评的关键部分，他们只是采纳了这个目标，并坚持不懈地追求它，投入了巨大的资本和资源，但这是正确的目标吗？

And so this is a critical part of my critique of these companies and these scientists that have just adopted this goal and have relentlessly pursued it and have had enormous capital and enormous resources to pursue it, is this the right goal?

我们为什么要这样做？

Why are we doing this?

为什么我们不能构建那些能加速药物发现、改善人们医疗保健结果的人工智能系统，而这些系统与他们试图构建的、旨在复制人脑的统计引擎毫无关系。

Why can't we just build AI systems that do things like accelerate drug discovery and improve people's healthcare outcomes, which are systems that have nothing to do with the statistical engines that they're trying to build to duplicate the human brain.

那他们为什么要这么做呢？

So why are they doing it?

你采访过这些人。

You've interviewed all these people.

我想想，总共大概300人，其中80到90位来自OpenAI，就是ChatGPT的开发者。

I think it's, what, 300 people in total, 80 or 90 of them from OpenAI, the maker of ChatGPT.

你觉得他们为什么要这么做？

Why do you think they're doing it?

我觉得是因为他们被一种帝国式的目标所驱动，所以我称这些公司为AI帝国。

I think it's because they're driven by an imperial agenda, and that is why I call these companies empires of AI.

你说的帝国式目标是什么意思？

What do you mean by an imperial agenda?

这个说法具体指什么？

What does that term mean?

帝国是我找到的唯一一个能完全涵盖这些公司所有行为维度、运作规模以及驱动他们做这些事的动机的比喻。

Empire is the only metaphor that I've ever found to fully encapsulate all of the dimensions of what these companies do, and the scale that they operate, and what motivates them to do what they do.

而且你会发现，我所说的AI帝国和历史上的帝国之间有很多相似之处。

And there are many parallels that you see between what I call the empires of AI and the empires of old.

他们为了训练这些模型，占用了不属于自己的资源。

They lay claim to resources that are not their own in the pursuit of training these models.

这些资源包括个人的数据，艺术家、作家和创作者的知识产权，还有他们为了建造训练下一代模型的超级计算机设施而进行的土地掠夺。

That's the data of individuals, the intellectual property of artists, writers, and creators, their land grabbing in order to build these supercomputer facilities for training the next generation models.

其次，他们剥削了大量的劳动力。

Second, they exploit an extraordinary amount of labor.

他们在全球范围内，包括在美国，雇佣了数十万工人，最终制造出这些技术。

They contract hundreds of thousands of workers all around the world, including in the US, to ultimately make these technologies.

这个我们可以稍后再谈。

We can talk about that more.

而且他们还把工具设计成自动化劳动的，这样当这些技术被部署时，也会影响劳工权益，因为它会侵蚀劳工权益。

And they also design their tools to be labor automating so that when the technologies are deployed, it also affects labor rights because it erodes away labor rights.

这是他们做出的一个政治选择。

And this is a political choice that they have.

第三，他们垄断了知识的产生，所以他们给人一种印象，好像只有他们真正了解这项技术是如何运作的。

Third, they monopolize knowledge production, so they project this idea that they're the only ones that really understand how the technology works.

所以如果公众不喜欢，那是因为他们实际上对这项技术了解不够。

And so if the public doesn't like it, it's because they don't actually know enough about this technology.

他们对公众这样做，对政策制定者也这样做，而且他们还吸引了大多数研究AI局限性和能力的科学家。

They do this to the public, they do this to policymakers, and they've also captured the majority of the scientists that are working on understanding the limitations and capabilities of AI.

你觉得他们在某种程度上是在误导公众吗？

You think they're gaslighting the public in a way?

是的，他们确实在这样做。

They are, yeah.

所以，如果世界上大多数气候科学家都由化石燃料公司资助，你认为我们能得到关于气候危机的准确信息吗？

So if most of the climate scientists in the world were bankrolled by fossil fuel companies, do you think we would get an accurate picture of the climate crisis?

不能。

No.

同样，AI行业雇佣并资助了世界上大多数AI研究人员。

And in the same way, the AI industry employs and bankrolls most of the AI researchers in the world.

所以他们通过把钱引向自己的优先事项，以温和的方式设定了AI研究的议程，这样只会产生某些类型的AI研究。

So they set the agenda on AI research in soft ways, simply by funneling money to their priorities so that only certain types of AI research are produced.

但他们在不喜欢研究者的发现时，也会审查研究者。

But they also will censor researchers when they do not like what the researcher has found.

所以我在书中谈到了蒂姆尼特·格布鲁博士的案例，她是谷歌伦理AI团队的联合负责人。

And so I talk about the case of Dr. Timnit Gebru in my book, who was the ethical AI team co-lead at Google.

当她被专门聘请来批评谷歌正在构建的AI系统时，她与人合著了一篇批判性研究论文，展示了大型语言模型如何导致某些有害结果。

When she was literally hired to critique the types of AI systems that Google was building, she then co-wrote a critical research paper that was showing how large language models specifically were leading to certain types of harmful outcomes.

为了阻止这项研究发表，谷歌最终解雇了格布鲁，然后又解雇了她的另一位联合负责人玛格丽特·米切尔。

And in an attempt to try and stop this research from being published, Google ended up firing Gebru and then fired her other co-lead, Margaret Mitchell.

所以他们压制和扼杀那些对帝国议程不利的研究。

And so they control and quash the research that is inconvenient to the empire's agenda.

你有没有例子说明这种情况也发生在记者身上，他们向团队成员提问？

Did you have an example where this is happening to journalists as well that are asking questions of their team members?

我记得看过你的一段视频，里面有个年轻人说有人出现在他门口，敲门，要求提供信息、电子邮件、短信，这个人来自一家大型AI公司。

I think I was watching a video of yours where there was a young man that was saying he had someone show up at his door, knocked on his door, and asked for information, emails, text messages, and this person was from one of the big AI companies.

这是OpenAI开始传唤一些批评者，是的，这看起来像是一场恐吓运动，但同时也像是在搜集更多信息，进一步摸清批评者的网络。

This was OpenAI started subpoenaing some of its critics, yeah, as part of what appears to be a campaign of intimidation, but also what appeared to be a campaign of fishing for more information to map out the network of critics further.

但这个人经营着一个小型监督非营利组织，那段时间他们做了很多工作，试图就OpenAI从非营利转为营利的问题提出质疑。

But this was a man who runs a small watchdog nonprofit, and they had been doing a lot of work during that time to try and ask questions about OpenAI's attempt to convert from a nonprofit to a for-profit.

最终，OpenAI成功完成了转型，但在转型对OpenAI来说生死攸关的那段时间，很多公民社会团体和监督组织，比如Meitis，都在试图阻止这一过程在深夜悄悄进行。

Ultimately, OpenAI was successful in that conversion, but during the period where it was sort of existential for OpenAI to complete this conversion, there were a lot of civil society groups and watchdog groups like Meitis who were trying to prevent the process from happening in the dead of night.

他们试图争取更多透明度。

They were trying to get more transparency.

他们试图推动更多公开讨论，因为这是前所未有的。

They were trying to have more public debate about this because it's unprecedented.

就在那时，有人敲了他的门，向他送达了法律文件。

And it was then that there was a knock on his door, and he was served papers.

文件上写了什么？

What do the papers say?

文件要求他交出所有可能与马斯克有关的通讯记录。

The papers ask him to reproduce every single piece of communication that he had had that might have involved Musk.

所以这就像是OpenAI那种奇怪的偏执，认为马斯克在资助这些人来阻止转型。

So this was like the strange paranoia that OpenAI had that Musk was somehow funding these people to block the conversion.

实际上他们中没有任何人是由马斯克资助的。

None of them were actually funded by Musk.

所以在这个具体案例中，面对这个要求，他只是简单地回答：'我没有任何文件，因为这些东西根本不存在。'

So in this particular case, the request, he simply just answered, "I don't have any documents because this doesn't exist."

所以回到你提到的帝国这个概念，你之前说帝国的要素之一是领土扩张，那下一个是……

So going back to this point of empires, you were saying that one of the factors of an empire is a land grab, and then the next one was...

是劳动力剥削。

Was labor exploitation.

劳动力剥削。

Labor exploitation.

第三个是控制知识生产。

The third one, controlling knowledge production.

还有一个很重要的点，特别是关于AI帝国的，就是帝国总是会向公众讲述一个叙事，比如'我们是好的帝国，我们之所以要成为帝国，是因为世界上还有坏的帝国。'

And one of the other ones that's really important to understand about the AI empires in particular is empires always have this narrative that they say to the public like, "We're the good empire, and we need to be an empire in the first place because there are also bad empires in the world.

如果你允许我们拿走所有的资源，使用所有的劳动力，那么我们承诺会为大家带来进步和现代文明。

And if you allow us to take all the resources and use all of the labor, then we promise we will bring you progress and modernity for everyone."

我们会带你们进入一个乌托邦式的状态，就像AI的天堂一样。

"We will bring you to this utopic state akin to an AI heaven.

但如果邪恶帝国先做到了，我们就会陷入地狱。

But if the evil empire does it first, we will descend into a hell."

而且——

And-

那么，这里的邪恶帝国指的是谁？

And the evil empire being, in this case?

这里通常指的是中国。

In this case, most often it's China.

但实际上，早期OpenAI把谷歌当作邪恶帝国。

But actually in the early days, OpenAI evoked Google as the evil empire.

所以他们所有的决定都是关于我们必须先做到，因为否则谷歌，这个由利润驱动的邪恶公司，而我们是一个慈善性质的非营利组织，这是一场关键性的较量，看谁先胜出。

So all of their decisions were about we need to do it first because otherwise Google, this evil corporation that's driven by profit, us as a benevolent nonprofit, this is a critical contest of who wins.

你觉得这些AI公司的创始人现在相信结果会全是好的吗？

Do you think the people building these AI companies believe that the outcome is going to be all good now?

你觉得他们认为这会惠及所有人，会进入丰饶时代，一切都会顺利吗？

Do you think they think that it's going to serve everyone, it's going to be the age of abundance, everything's going to go well?

你觉得他们相信什么？

What do you think they believe?

你觉得山姆相信什么？

What do you think Sam believes?

这很有趣，他们围绕AI行业创造的神话中，核心的一部分就包括相信它可能会变得非常糟糕。

So this is so funny is such a core part of the mythology that they create around the AI industry includes the belief that it could go very badly.

这两者是相辅相成的。

It goes hand in hand.

他们需要神话中的那一部分，然后才能说："正因如此，我们需要掌控这项技术，因为只有这样它才会变得非常好。"

They need that part of the myth in order to then say, "And that's why we need to be in control of the technology, because that's the only way that it's going to go really, really well."

奥特曼曾公开说过："最坏的情况，就是所有人完蛋。

And Altman has said publicly, "The worst case, lights out for everyone.

最好的情况是，我们治愈癌症，解决气候变化，实现富足。

The best case, we cure cancer, we solve climate change, and there's abundance."

达里奥·阿莫迪也是同样的论调。

And Dario Amodei, same kind of rhetoric.

他说，最坏的情况是给人类带来灾难性或存在性伤害。

He's like, "Worst case, catastrophic or existential harm for humanity.

最好的情况是人类大规模繁荣。

Best case, mass human flourishing."

所以这是同一枚硬币的两面。

So this is two sides of the same coin.

他们必须同时使用这两种叙事，才能继续为一种极其反民主的AI发展方式辩护，这种方式不允许广泛参与开发这项技术。

They have to use both of these narratives in order to continue justifying an extremely anti-democratic approach to AI development, where there should not be broad participation in developing this technology.

他们必须每一步都掌控一切。

They must be the ones controlling it at every step of the way.

山姆·奥特曼发了一条推文说："有一些关于OpenAI和我的书要出版了。

Sam Altman did a tweet saying, "There are some books coming out about OpenAI and me.

我们只参与了两本，一本是凯奇·哈吉写的？

We only participated in two of them, one by Kech Hagee?"

凯奇·哈吉。

Keach Hagee.

“凯奇·哈吉那本主要写我，另一本是阿什利·万斯写OpenAI的。”

"Keach Hagee focused on me, and one by Ashley Vance on OpenAI."

他接着说：“没有哪本书能完全写对，尤其是当有些人一心要歪曲事实的时候。”

He went on to say, "No book will get everything right, especially when some people are so intent on twisting things.

“但这两位作者是在努力做到准确。”

But these two authors are trying to."

你转发了山姆·奥特曼的那条推文，还说：“那本没提名字的书《AI帝国》是我写的。”

You quote retweeted that tweet from Sam Altman, and you said, "The unnamed book, Empire of AI, is mine."

你觉得山姆·奥特曼那条推文是在指你的书吗？

Do you believe that tweet from Sam Altman was in reference to your book?

百分之百，因为关于他的书只有三本要出版。

100%, because there's only three books coming out about him.

而且他听说你的书要出版了，然后——

And he'd caught wind that your book was coming out and-

他知道我的书要出版，因为我在一开始写书的时候就联系了OpenAI，说：“我现在正在写一本书。”

He knew my book was coming out because I had contacted OpenAI from the very beginning of my process and said, "I'm working on a book now.

你们愿意参与吗？

Will you participate in it?"

实际上，他们一开始是答应了的。

And actually, initially, they said yes.

我和OpenAI的渊源是，我为《麻省理工科技评论》写过这家公司的专题报道。

So my history with OpenAI, I profiled the company for "MIT Technology Review."

2019年，我在他们办公室待了三天，进行深入采访。

I embedded within the office for three days in 2019.

我的这篇报道在2020年发表。

My profile comes out in 2020.

领导层对此非常不满。

The leadership are very unhappy.

而且在我的书里，我确实引用了一封邮件，那是山姆·奥特曼发给公司关于我的报道的，邮件里说：‘对，这不太妙。’

And in my book, I actually quote an email that I received that Sam Altman sent to the company about my profile saying, "Yeah, this is not great."

从那时起，公司对我的态度就是：‘我们不会参与你做的任何事。’

And from then on, the company's stance to me was, "We are not going to participate in anything that you do.

‘我们不会回应你收到的任何问题。’

We are not going to respond to anything, any questions that you receive."

这些都是他们明确说出来的。

And this was things that they explicitly articulated.

不是我自己猜的。

It wasn't me inferring.

所以我在《麻省理工科技评论》有个同事也报道人工智能，有一次，OpenAI给他发了一份新闻稿，说：‘我们很希望你能报道这个故事。’

So I had a colleague at "MIT Technology Review" that also covered AI, and at one point, OpenAI sent him this press release being like, "We would love for you to cover this story."

他就说：‘我真的很忙。’

And he was like, "I'm really busy.

‘你能把它发给凯伦吗？’

Will you send it to Karen?"

他们就说，'哦不，我们之间有过节，你懂的。'

And they were like, "Oh no, we have a history, you understand."

所以整整三年，他们拒绝跟我说话。

And so for three years, they refused to talk to me.

但后来我去了《华尔街日报》，因为那是《华尔街日报》，他们觉得有点不得不重新开启沟通渠道。

But then I ended up at "The Wall Street Journal" where they felt a bit compelled because it was "The Journal" to reopen the lines of communication.

于是我开始跟他们有更多对话。

And so I started having more dialogue with them.

每次我写一篇文章，我都会给他们发，'这是我的评论请求。'

Every time I wrote a piece, I would always send them, "Here's my request for comment."

我总是问他们，'你们愿意接受采访吗？'

I would always ask them, "Will you sit for interviews?"

我们确实建立了更有成效的关系。

And we did get to a more productive relationship.

然后我开始写书，所以我离开了报社，全职专注于写书，我马上告诉他们，'我在写这本书。'

And then I embarked on the book, so I left the journal to focus on the book full time, and I told them right away, "I'm working on this book.

我想继续这种富有成效的对话，确保在书中反映OpenAI的观点。

I want to continue this productive conversation where I make sure I reflect OpenAI's perspective in the book."

然后他们就说，"我们可以为你安排采访。

And so they were like, "We can arrange interviews for you.

你可以回到办公室来。

You can come back to the office.

我们会安排一些对话。"

We'll set up some conversations."

然后在我们来回沟通的时候，董事会解雇了山姆·奥特曼。从那时起，事情就开始变得不太妙了，因为公司开始对审查变得非常敏感。

And then as we were going back and forth on this, the board fires Sam Altman And that's when things started going kind of south because the company started becoming very sensitive to scrutiny.

所以然后他们就开始拖延，把事情往后推。

And so then they started pushing, kicking the can down the road.

我一直在说，"嘿，我们什么时候重新安排这个？

And I kept saying, "Hey, when are we rescheduling this?

怎么回事？"

What's going on?"

然后我收到一封邮件说：“我们完全不参与了。”

And then I get an email saying, "We are not going to participate at all.

“你不用来办公室了。”

You are not coming to the office.

“你也不用做采访了。”

You're not doing interviews."

其实我当时已经订好机票了，本来都准备飞旧金山去做采访了。

And I had actually already booked my tickets, so I was already going to fly to San Francisco to have the interviews.

所以我就跟他们说，我说：没关系。

And so then I told them, I was like: That's fine.

我还是会继续这个过程，我会给你们大量的评论请求。

I will still engage in the process where I'll give you extensive requests for comment.

通过我的报道，我会让你们随时了解我发现的所有事情，这样你们可以选择是否评论。

Through my reporting, I'll keep you updated on all the things that I'm finding so that you can choose to still comment.

我给了他们40页的评论请求，而且给了他们一个多月的时间来回复所有内容。

I gave them 40 pages of requests for comment, and I gave them over a month to respond to all of that.

所以那条推文出来的时候，我们正在来回沟通，试图……

So this was when the tweet came out, was we were doing all this back and forth, trying to...

就在那时，奥特曼发了那条推文。

And that's when Altman tweeted this.

而那40页的内容，他们一个字都没回应。

And they never responded to a single one of the 40 pages.

山姆·奥特曼做了很多采访。

Sam Altman does a lot of interviews.

他一直在做各种采访。

He's doing a lot of interviews all the time.

他上过所有播客。

He's done every podcast.

我见过他上过塔克·卡尔森的节目，还有西奥·冯、乔·罗根的播客，全世界各地的节目都有他。

I've seen him on everything from Tucker Carlson to, I think he's done Theo Von, Joe Rogan, podcasts all over the world.

我就纳闷，他为什么不上我的节目。

I wonder why he won't do mine.

嗯，也许吧。

Well, maybe.

我不知道为什么。

I don't know why.

我不知道。

I don't know.

我觉得我对每个人都很公平。

I think I'm fair with everyone.

我只是问一些我真正关心的问题。

I just ask questions I genuinely care about.

我不会带着很大的先入之见来，或者至少第一次见面时是这样。

I don't come in with huge preconceptions, or at least meet people for the first time.

但我听说他不想上我的节目。

But I've heard through the grapevine that he doesn't want to do mine.

回到你之前说的，关于OpenAI和这些公司控制研究的方式，你问过，他们是否也对记者这样做？

Going back to what you were saying earlier, that with the way that OpenAI and these companies control research, you asked, do they also do this with journalists?

是的，答案是肯定的，而且显然，他们也会对任何拥有广泛大众传播平台的人这样做。

Yes, the answer is yes, and apparently, they also do it with anyone who has a broad mass communications platform.

这不仅仅关乎你将要与他们进行的对话。

It's not just about the conversation that you're going to have with them.

还关乎你选择为谁提供平台。

It's about who you also choose to platform.

在科技新闻领域存在一个大问题，公司知道他们能给科技记者的一大诱饵就是访问权限。

And there's this huge problem in technology journalism where companies know that a really big carrot that they can give to technology journalists is access.

如果他们得知你在与他们不希望你交谈的人交谈，他们会立刻收回这个访问权限。

And they will withholds that access at the drop of a hat if they catch wind that you're speaking to someone that they didn't want you to speak to.

这太真实了，我觉得普通人真的不太理解这一点。

This is so true, and I don't think the average person really truly understands this.

所以这听起来像是理论，但我不打算点名，因为我觉得这不重要。

So this kind of sounds like theory as you say it, but I'm not going to name names here because I don't think it's important.

但确实有一个AI领域的人，他的团队基本上已经18个月以来一直用他们来这里的胡萝卜来吊着我们，我就想，你们不需要吊这个胡萝卜。

But there is a particular person in AI whose team have basically dangled the carrot of them coming here for 18 months, and I'm like, you don't have to dangle the carrot.

我想跟谁谈就跟谁谈，不管有没有那个诱饵。

I'm going to speak to whoever I want to, regardless of the carrot or not.

如果这个人想来，我会给他们一个公平的机会。

And when this person comes, if they want to come, I'll give them a fair shot.

我会问他们所有我真正好奇的问题，关于他们在做什么，他们的动机。

I'll ask them all genuinely curious questions about what they're doing, their incentives.

我不会故意刁难他们。

I won't gotcha them.

我从来没有故意刁难过任何人。

I don't have a history of ever gotcha-ing anybody.

即使我有不同的意见——

Even if I have a different of opinion-

……

...

我也会问那个问题。

I'll ask the question.

但他们总是抛诱饵，然后说——

But they dangle carrots, and they say-

对

Yes

嗯，如果他在考虑这件事，我们就想想日期和策略。我觉得他们没意识到，大多数人不知道的是，如果我们一直吊着这个诱饵，他们最终就会按我们想要的方式行事，还会对我们很友好。

... well, if he's thinking about it, let's think about a date and what the strategy is, and I don't think they think most people don't understand is if we just dangle it for long enough, then they will perform in the way that we want them to do, and they'll be pleasant about us.

他们不会批评。

They won't be critical.

他们不会发声。

They won't give a voice.

他们不会给我们的批评者提供平台。

They won't platform our critics.

我们的批评者。

Our critics.

我觉得他们的整个策略就是永远吊着这根胡萝卜。

And I think all of their game is just dangle the carrot forever.

对。

Yes.

最理想的结果就是，我们只要一直吊着他们，告诉他们，对，不，我们只是在看时间安排。

That's the optimal outcome is if we just dangle it, if we just tell them, yeah, no, we're just looking at the schedule.

这根本行不通。

It just doesn't work.

我觉得在现代社会，你就得直接去那里，说出你的观点。

I think in the modern world, you just have to go there and give your opinion.

让不同的观点在公共场合碰撞。

And allow the clash of ideas in the public forum.

让观众自己判断——

Let the viewers decide for themselves-

……他们自己的想法。

... what they think.

这是他们运作中非常重要的一部分，他们用这些策略来美化这些公司的公众形象，确保他们不想公开的信息，甚至不想公开的观点，都不会被公开。

This is such a huge part of their machinery is the way that they use these tactics to massage the public image of these companies and make sure the information that they don't want out, and even opinions that they don't want out there, go out there.

所以现在我觉得很幸运，OpenAI 很早就对我关上了大门。

And so I feel very lucky now that OpenAI shut the door early on me.

当时我并不觉得幸运。

At the time, I didn't feel lucky.

我觉得自己把事情搞砸了。

I felt like I had screwed myself over.

我当时想，我是不是应该在报道里对他们更友好一点，这样就能保持访问权限了？

I was like, should I have been nicer to them in the profile so that I could maintain access?

作为记者，问这个问题很糟糕，对吧？

Which is a horrible question to ask as a journalist, right?

你应该报道真相，而且始终应该为了公众利益报道。

You're supposed to report the truth, and you're always supposed to report in the interest of the public.

这就是新闻业的意义。

That is the point of journalism.

而那一刻，我的职业生涯还相对初级。

And in that moment, I was relatively junior in my career.

我当时就想：我是不是误解了新闻业的本质？

I was like: Did I misunderstand what journalism is about?

我是不是其实应该玩那种搞关系的游戏？

Should I have actually been playing the access game?

但已经太晚了。

But it was too late.

大门已经对我关上了，所以我不得不带着这样的认知去发展事业：正门永远不会为我敞开。

I had the door shut to me, and so I had to build my career understanding that the front door was never going to be open.

而这实际上大大增强了我如实报道的能力。

And that actually really strengthened my own ability to just tell it like it is.

保持客观。

Be objective.

就是把我看到的事实报道出来，不管公司喜不喜欢。

And just report what I see are the facts being presented to me, irrespective of whether the company likes it or not.

大多数时候，公司确实不喜欢，但我还是能继续做我的工作。

And most often, the company really does not like it, but I can continue to do the work.

他们不需要为我打开大门。

They don't need to open the front door for me.

我仍然完成了超过300次采访。

I was still able to do more than 300 interviews.

你刚才听到的是上一集里被重播最多的片段。

What you just listened to was a most replayed moment from a previous episode.

如果你想听完整的那一集，我在下面放了链接。

If you want to listen to that full episode, I've linked it down below.

看看描述栏。

Check the description.

谢谢。

Thank you.