20VC：Anthropic让市场蒸发数千亿美元 | Citrini研究：终极解析：智能代理、“幽灵GDP”、消费者支出等 | Figma业绩超预期及四只可买入的上市公司股票 | 杰克·阿尔特曼加入Benchmark

这很有压力。

It's stressful.

但另一方面，如果你做成了这个智能代理，看看这些人在Cloud Code基础上构建智能代理创造了多少收入。

But the flip side is if you nail the agent, look how much revenue these guys did building essentially an agent on top of Cloud Code.

他们通过构建一个之前并不存在的智能代理，创造了十亿美元的收入。

They built a billion dollars of revenue building the agent that didn't exist.

这就是另一面。

So that's the flip side.

我们的任务就是打造这些十亿美元级别的智能代理。

That's our job is to build these billion dollar agents.

如果你能做出以前根本不可能实现的、价值极高的东西，你第一周就能签下数百万美元的收入。

If you can do something that is extremely high valuable that could not be done before, you can close millions of revenue your first week.

在软件历史上，这从未发生过，对吧？

It's never happened before in the history of software, right?

完全同意，我明白。

Totally agree and get that.

在我们继续之前，我想再谈一下Anthropic，他们为员工股份出售筹集了50亿到60亿美元，估值为3500亿美元。

Before we move on, I do just wanna stay on Anthropic, and I wanted to discuss they've lined up 5 to $6,000,000,000 for an employee share sale at a $350,000,000,000 valuation.

显然，很多人排队等待参与，这跟几个月前OpenAI的做法如出一辙。

Obviously, there's people queuing up out the door for this following, obviously, OpenAI doing the same a couple of months ago.

当我们回顾OpenAI造就了多少百万富翁，以及Anthropic即将创造的财富时，我们是否曾见过如此规模的流动性？

Have we ever seen liquidity at this scale when we look at the number of millionaires minted from OpenAI, soon to be anthropic?

当我们看到已经存在的英伟达百万富翁时，还有人买得起硅谷的房子吗？

When we look at the NVIDIA million aires that exist already, is anyone going to be able to buy a house in the valley?

是的。

Yeah.

十二或十八个月前，人工智能领域很多事看起来都很荒谬。

There's a lot of things that seem silly in AI twelve or eighteen months ago.

但如果英伟达有两万个千万富翁，我想说，这些AI领军企业将造就十万名千万富翁。

But if NVIDIA has 20,000 decamillionaires, right, I'm going say we're going to produce 100,000 decamillionaires out of these AI leaders.

好吧。

Okay.

罗里在数学上比我强，但英伟达已经拥有两万名员工了。

And Rory's better at the math than me, but NVIDIA already has 20,000.

如果真是这样，那会很棒，如果所有人都充分就业，我们都有公司，员工收入达到六位数。

So if that's the case, that would be great if everyone was at full employment and we were all full of companies with 6 figure employees making money.

令人担忧的是，我们看到财富日益集中，而其他人却越来越拮据。

The worry is that we do see this concentration of wealth at the same time as everyone else gets leaner.

杰文斯悖论会增加科技行业的就业机会吗？

And will Jevan's paradox create more employment in tech or not?

我相信我们需要比以往更多的工程师。

I believe we will need more engineers than ever.

就像我们和迈克尔·坎农·布鲁克斯讨论时说的，我不知道这是否会创造更多就业。

Like when we talked with Michael Cannon Brooks, I I don't know if it will create more employment.

所以

So

听我说。

Listen.

这种连锁反应直接导致了市场的剧烈震荡，比如当你看到Citrini——不管你怎么发音——那份关于2028年全球智能危机的报告，那是一篇具有前瞻性、预测2028年状况的文章。

The knock on effect of that is is bluntly what has shaken market so much when you look at Citrini or however you wanna pronounce it, twenty twenty eight global intelligence crisis, which was a piece written kind of forward looking or predicting kind of the state at 2028.

我拆解了其中一些核心要素。

And I broke down kind of some of the core elements there.

我觉得我们可以从你刚才提到的一个点开始，杰森，那就是所谓的‘幽灵GDP’，它让市场与实体经济脱节。

I think we can start with actually one that you kind of mentioned there, Jason, which is kind of ghost GDP disconnects market from the real economy.

人工智能提升了生产率、企业利润和公司市值，推高了宏观经济增长数据，但消费者收入并未与市值和企业价值同步增长。

So you have AI boosting productivity and corporate profits and market caps of companies, inflating headline economic figures, but actually consumer income doesn't scale with market cap and enterprise value.

我们该如何分析和评估这种情况？

How do we analyze and assess that?

我觉得这里有问题。

I'm gonna call bullshit here.

我很喜欢诺亚·史密斯在Substack上的经济分析，我经常关注他。

I love the Noah Smith descriptions Substack who I follow in economics a lot.

他把这称为‘吓人的睡前读物’。

He called it basically scary bedtime reading.

对吧？

Right?

我觉得，如果你想讨论这个问题，其实你需要这样拆解：我尽量不说‘该怎么谈’，因为我知道我们迟早会谈到这个。

I think if you wanna have a conversation about I actually think the way you need to break it up is to I try not to say how to have because I knew we're gonna have this one.

对吧？

Right?

我看了你的七个要点，太细了，哈里。

And you I saw your seven points, and it's too much detail, Harry.

从宏观角度看，我建议我们这样来分析这个问题。

Big picture, I would suggest we approach this in the following fashion.

首先，你得弄清楚微观和宏观的区别。

The first thing you have to figure out is micro macro.

在微观层面，对于他所说的每一件事，我们相信它们真的会发生吗？

At a micro level, for each of the things he says are going to happen, do we believe they're going to happen?

换句话说，AI真的会取代编程吗？

In other words, is AI going to replace coding?

人工智能会取代DoorDash吗？

Is AI going to replace DoorDash?

人工智能会取代美国运通吗？

Is AI going to replace Amex?

对吧？

Right?

换句话说，令人欣喜的是，我认为这个团队非常有能力做这件事，因为我们都在投资那些处于技术采纳最前沿的风投公司。

In other words, and the wonderful thing is I think that's something this group is well equipped to do because we're all investing in venture companies who are the tippy point of the spear in terms of adoption.

我有权利提出一个有根据的问题一：从微观层面看，这些变化会发生吗？

I'm allowed to have an informed opinion question one, which is micro level, are these changes going to happen?

然后第二个宏观层面的问题，把其他所有事情归为一类是：这会带来哪些宏观影响？

Then the second big picture question, lumping all the other things into the other is, what are the macro consequences of this?

换句话说，如果你假设在短时间内人工智能的采用率会很高，那么每个人——正如我所说，我们可以讨论这一点，因为我们明白，每个人都可以对全球宏观趋势发表看法，而这正是你刚才开始谈论的。

In other words, if you assume that there's a high level of AI adoption over a short period of time, then everyone and that's, as I say, what we can talk about because we understand, that everyone gets to pontificate on global macro, which is what you were starting to do there.

我乐意回头再讨论这个，对吧？

And I'm fine coming back to that, right?

但我觉得，直接跳到‘天啊，GDP要终结了’这种结论，却完全没有思考过他实际上是在假设一个两年内几乎全面普及AI的周期——从ServiceNow到DoorDash再到Amex，全都在两年内被颠覆。

But I think jumping straight to the, Oh my God, the GDP is ending, with no thought process to I even believe that basically, he was hypothesizing a two year adoption cycle of almost everything, such that everything from ServiceNow to DoorDash to Amex gets rolled over in two years.

如果你相信这种情形真的会发生，那确实可以升级到宏观层面的问题，但我仍然认为他在这一点上是错的。

And I think if you believe that's happening, then you do graduate to the global macro question, and I still think he's wrong about that.

但如果你不认为普及会这么快，那你完全可以忽略后面的所有内容。

But if you don't think the adoption's gonna be that quick, you can literally ignore the rest of the piece.

首先，这种框架你觉得合理吗？

Does that make sense as a framing, first of all?

那我们不如先从微观层面开始吧，你认为我们足够成熟和负责任，可以发表有根据的看法？

Why don't we start with the micro then, where you think we are seasoned and responsible enough to have an informed opinion?

嗯，那我们来拆开分析一下。

Well, yeah, let's break it up.

我的意思是，他提到了软件开发、SaaS应用、像DoorDash这样的公司，还有像Amex这样的企业。

I mean, there was a hit points about software development, about SaaS apps, about companies like DoorDash, and then companies like Amex.

换句话说，这些是可以互换的，对吧？

In other words, interchange, right?

我们先说说那些荒谬的吧。

Let's do the stupid ones first.

DoorDash。

DoorDash.

他们的想法是你将希望委托给你的代理，让它负责采购，并在六个不同版本的DoorDash之间进行优化。

The idea was you're going to want to delegate to your agent purchasing of an optimizing for there's going to be six different versions of DoorDash and your agent will do between them.

而你今天不这么做，唯一的原因就是摩擦成本。

And the only reason that you don't do this today is because friction.

如果这个过程自动化了，你就会让代理帮你点披萨。

And if it was automated, you'd let the agents order your pizza.

我觉得这纯属胡说八道。

And I just call bullshit on that.

我的意思是，在消费者层面，周五晚上你点披萨时，你会跟老婆说：‘宝贝，上次我们吃的是那个该死的和服披萨。’

I mean, at the consumer level, when you're buying pizza on a Friday night, you're talking to your wife and you said, Honey, we had the freaking kimono last time.

我说咱们还是选意大利辣香肠披萨吧。

I say we go with the pepperoni.

她就说：‘不，我不喜欢这个。’

She was like, No, I don't like it.

我跟你说过，我们想坚持要两种沙拉的披萨。

I told you we want to stick with the two salads on the pizza.

这不是我们想要的，没人愿意把决定吃什么食物的权力交给代理，然后让东西自己送上来。

It's not something we want no one wants to delegate to an agent how to decide what food they get and then have the thing come up.

好消息。

Good news.

我帮你省了两美元。

I saved you $2.

坏消息。

Bad news.

你喜欢高档披萨，但我给你买了那种廉价的

You like the high end pizza, but I got you the crappy little

披萨。

pizza.

是的。

Yeah.

但是，罗里，我能补充一点想法吗？

But, Rory, can I add just one thought?

这是DoorDash的首席技术官安迪·方。

Here's Andy Fang, CTO of DoorDash.

我们坚信议程到商业的转变将为我们的行业带来变革性影响。

We strongly believe agenda to commerce will be transformative to our industry.

他相信这一点。

He believes this.

我相信它已经发生了。

I believe it has.

我在这领域有大量投资，我能看到智能代理和AI正在彻底改变它。

I have a large investment exposed to the space and I can see agents and AI ripping through it.

我认为我们所认为的安全例子。

I think the examples we think are safe.

这是Sito说，我们需要赢得为客户提供端到端服务的权利，包括发现、下单、配送和支持。

This is Sito saying we need to earn the right to service customers, agents, end to end, discovery, ordering, delivery and support.

我们需要在新世界中赢得这份权利。

We need to earn the right in the new world.

所以认为这些领域只需要被破坏是不对的。

So to think that these spaces only has to be maimed.

认为我们会自己用聊天编程来开发DoorDash，这想法太荒谬了，对吧？

The idea that we're going to vibe code our own DoorDash is stupid, right?

这想法真的很荒谬。

It is stupid.

他试图让别人获得数百万的浏览量，对吧？

And he's trying to get people millions of views, right?

所以他一开始提出的整个想法很荒谬，但你继续推演下去吧。

So the whole idea he started with is stupid, but keep on extrapolating.

但代理可以替你做决定这一威胁，CTO说这是真实存在的。

But the threat that an agent can decide for you here, the CTO says it's real.

这就是威胁。

That's the threat.

但他并没有说：‘好吧，你抓到我了。’

But he didn't say, Okay, you caught me.

我要回家了。

I'm going home.

你想在推荐系统周围增加更多自动化，比如提醒用户有三种不同的披萨，但你真觉得消费者会愿意为了这种愿景——在这个世界里出现五个不同的DoorDash竞争对手——而改变习惯吗？我真的不这么认为。

You want to make more automations around a recommendation, say, hey, there's three different pizzas, but do you really think it's going to be I mean, I just think the level of customer inertia on the consumer to move to have this vision of five different DoorDash competitive companies being enabled in this world, I just don't see it.

DoorDash融合了庞大的物流体系、大量的客户售后服务，以及大量餐厅的签约工作，对吧？

DoorDash is a combination of a huge amount of logistics, a huge amount of customer aftermarket service, a huge amount of signing up restaurants, right?

他们击败了四五个其他大型竞争对手，如今与Uber Eats形成了一种相对稳定的寡头格局，还有一家较小的玩家在美国内部。

They beat off four or five other big competitors to now have some kind of stable oligopoly with Uber order, and there was one other smaller player in The U.

S.

S.

在软件领域，究竟有什么能促成一个新的竞争者崛起，并在这个高固定成本的行业中夺取市场份额？

What in software is going to allow a new talk me through the new competitor emerging and taking market share in a high fixed cost business like this?

嗯，最简单的情况是，新竞争者可以决定Uber Eats、DoorDash还是直接配送哪个更适合。

Well, I mean, most simple one is that a new competitor can decide whether Uber Eats or DoorDash is the right thing for Uber Eats, DoorDash or Direct.

在美国，你有三个选择，对吧？

You have three options in The U.

S，明白吗？

S, okay?

其他选项基本不存在，对吧？

Nothing else really exists, right?

这个决策可能由代理来做出。

The agent may make that decision.

事实上，我更希望由代理来做决定，因为我懒得去判断该用DoorDash、Uber Eats还是直接配送。

In fact, I would prefer that because I don't want to figure out which one to use DoorDash, Uber Eats, or Direct.

我更希望Uber Eats能知道我的偏好。

I would prefer that Uber Eats knows my favorite.

我这只是举个例子，但这确实是当前真实存在的威胁。

And I'm just picking one example, but this is a real threat today.

这就是安迪所说的。

This is what Andy's saying.

这是一个真正的威胁。

It's a real threat.

我们不需要决定哪个对我们来说是最好的选择。

We don't need to decide which is the best place for us.

由代理决定这些选项中哪个是最划算的、哪个是我最好的来源、哪个最适合我的家人来做决定。

The agent decides which is the best deal between these options, which is the best source for me, which is the best for my family that makes the decision.

代理才是我们寻求帮助的对象。

The agent is who we go to.

只要我们找的是代理而不是第一方，就只是面临被颠覆的风险。

As long as the agent is who we go to rather than the first party, it just risks disruption.

这并不会摧毁公司。

It doesn't destroy the company.

这并不会毁掉它。

It doesn't destroy it.

我们来分析一下那些不切实际的言论。

Tracing through the unrealistic statements there.

让我们来看一个今天的实际例子。

Let's go to an existing example today.

Netflix的推荐系统，是的。

Netflix, recommendation Yeah.

我对DoorDash的看法是正确的，因为Andy Feng也说过同样的话。

I'm right about DoorDash because Andy Feng said the same thing.

为什么我们要回避那个大家都认为不会受到冲击的公司，而CTO却说地基正在他脚下动摇？

Why are dodging the one that everyone thinks is free from disruption when the CTO says the ground is shifting underneath his feet?

他这周亲口这么说的，CTO。

He literally said it this week, the CTO.

好的。

Okay.

没有人会说，一家上市公司的CEO会相信这些东西。

No one's gonna say when the CEO of a public company, I don't believe that stuff.

他们会说我们正在处理，因为这就是你必须传达的信息。

They're gonna say we're on it because that's the message you gotta say.

但我认为他们并不会说，天哪。

But I don't think they're saying, oh my god.

还有三家公司将取代我。

Three more companies are gonna displace me.

对吧？

Right?

作为投资者，我们的工作是分析事实，努力得出我们自己的独立结论。

Our job as investors is to be kinda analyze the facts try and come to our independent conclusions.

所以，我想从消费者层面选取两个最个人化的东西：你吃的食物和你看的电视内容。

So I'm just going to take I think two of the most personal things at the consumer level are the food you eat and the TV content you watch.

至于你看的内容，好消息是我们已经拥有十年的AI技术了——Netflix的推荐引擎，明确地说，这对他们来说是一个极其有用的工具，因为它在边际上帮助他们预测人们想要什么。

Now the good thing about the content you watch is we've had ten years of AI already, The Netflix recommendation engine, let's be clear, it is a massively useful tool to them because at the margin, it helps them predict what people want.

因此，我同意在整体层面上了解人们的偏好确实具有核心价值。

So I do agree there is core value in knowing people's preferences on the aggregate.

但当你坐下来观看Netflix时，有多少比例的内容你是完全盲目依赖推荐引擎选择的？

But how often, what percentage of your content viewing do you base entirely blindly on the recommendation engine when you sit down on Netflix?

5%？10%？

5%, 10%?

我觉得比例很低。

I think it's light.

抱歉，但B2B领域里什么是‘ barely’？

Sorry, but what is barely in B2B.

Netflix这个观点的意思是，如果你想要答案，我会回答你的问题，但我没跟上你的重点。

What the the what the Netflix point is, I'll I'll answer your question if you want the answer, but I'm missing the point.

我认为AI能颠覆Netflix吗？

Do I do I think AI can disrupt Netflix?

Netflix认为AI能颠覆它，因为我们都在观看短视频内容。

Netflix thinks AI can disrupt Netflix because we're all watching short form content.

在过去四十五天里，你可以在YouTube上看到完全由AI生成的精彩短视频，还能看到比那三部糟糕的最新电影更出色的《星球大战》故事，这些也都是AI生成的。

And as of the last forty five days, you can watch an incredible short on YouTube that was entirely AI generated, where you can watch Star Wars stories that are better than the crappy last three movies that are AI generated.

这对Netflix来说是彻底的颠覆。

That's utterly disruptive to Netflix.

他们太恐慌了，不得不收购一家工作室。

They're so panicked they have to buy a studio.

我把这个问题拆分成两个独立的部分。

I'm breaking it apart into two separate things.

如果你能用AI生成内容，我认为这实际上很有用，用AI生成内容是非常具有颠覆性的。

If you can generate, and I think that's actually useful, if you can generate content using AI, that's very disruptive.

我原本想聚焦在推荐系统上，因为这个想法是：对于消费者偏好，你会把决策权交给一个代理，它会‘知道’你想要什么。

I was trying to focus on recommendations because the idea was, I'm just looking at the idea, the idea is for consumer preference, you will entrust your decision making to an agent who will quote unquote know what you want.

你所说的正是关于DoorDash的情况。

That's what you're saying about DoorDash.

我们正在试图证明一件尚未发生的事情。

And we're trying to prove something that hasn't happened yet.

所以我想要说明的是，内容是另一件非常个人化的事情。

So I was making the point, content is another thing that's quite personal.

Netflix在过去十到十五年里一直运行着这个推荐引擎。

Netflix has had this agent running for the last ten or fifteen years, the recommendation engine.

在边际上，它在总体上对人们的需求预测做得不错。

And at the margin, it does a good job of predicting on aggregate what people want.

但如果你有两个选择，一个是完全按照推荐的内容，另一个是让你自己挑选，我会告诉你，你不会选择推荐引擎。

But if you had two choices, one program that gave you exactly what they recommended and then the other program that allowed you to pick, I'm gonna tell you, you're not gonna go with the recommendation engine.

你会说，我上周就不喜欢那个推荐。

You're gonna say, I didn't like that recommendation last week.

我不用了。

I'm done.

同样地，我不相信我愿意把我的饮食决定完全交给一个代理。

In the same way, I don't believe I want to entrust my eating decision entirely to an agent.

我觉得我们只是被这种想法迷住了。

I think we're just caught up in this.

任何事情都可能发生。

Anything could happen.

对吧？

Right?

但老兄，YouTube 是我们观看视频的最主要方式，而且它完全基于推荐引擎，是地球上最出色的推荐公司。

But, dude, YouTube is the number one way we consume video, and it is entirely based on a recommendation engine, and it is the best recommendation company on planet Earth.

YouTube 上已经没有任何频道还重要了。

There are no channels on YouTube that matter anymore.

粉丝数量也不再重要了。

Followers don't even matter anymore.

什么都无关紧要了。

Nothing matters.

每天我登录 YouTube，它都越来越懂我想看什么。

Every day I log into YouTube and it gets better and better at knowing what I want to watch.

每一天。

Every day.

它远远优于地球上任何其他平台，彻底颠覆了我们看待某些事物的方式。

It is epically better than anything else on the planet and utterly disruptive to how we view a few things.

说得有道理。

Good argument.

这点我同意。

I'll give you that.

今天大家都压力很大。

Everyone is stressed today.

这是好事。

It's a good thing.

你走得越远，就越多人有被AI伤害的风险。

The further you go, the more folks are at risk of being maimed by AI.

只是被伤害。

Just maimed.

除了佐治亚的CrowdStrike。

Except Georgia CrowdStrike.

他没事，但其他人都有被AI伤害的风险。

He's fine, but everyone else is at risk of being maimed by AI.

即使你的增长率从百分之三十一下降到百分之二十，这也是个大事。

Even if your growth goes from thirty one percent to twenty percent, that's a big deal.

我同意。

I agree.

但你真的相信你希望一个代理为你推荐食物吗？

But do you really believe that you want an agent to recommend you food?

我有数据。

I have the data.

我在这个领域有投资。

I have an investment in this space.

我早就知道答案是肯定的。

I already know the answer is yes.

这并不是我的观点。

It's not my opinion.

我有来自一万多家餐厅的数据。

I have data from over 10,000 restaurants.

我知道答案是肯定的。

I know the answer is yes.

对。

Right.

如果您的助手能掌握您和您妻子所有披萨订单的历史数据，了解价格区间、地点以及您预计的配送时间，还能分析所有从TikTok到Instagram的用户评价，捕捉最新的饮食趋势，并根据您妻子喜欢的酥脆口感，在该价格区间内为您推荐最新选项——因为它早已通过您的评论或WhatsApp对话了解了这些偏好，甚至能通过Open Claw实现精准推送。

If your agent, all the historical context on every pizza order you and your wife have made, and you know the price point, the location, so you know the delivery time that you're estimating, and it can also analyze every TikTok to Instagram review as latest food trends and tell you about the latest within that price band with that crisp topping that your wife likes because it already knows that because you left a review or because you said it in a WhatsApp, so it's got Open Claw and was able to deliver that to you.

我认为大多数人会喜欢。

I think most people would.

我会非常喜欢。

I'd love it.

我认为在边际上，是的。

I think that I but how at the margin, yes.

我会坐在DoorDash上想：我因为这个功能获得了5%的满意度和选择率提升。

I'd be sitting there on DoorDash going, I get a 5% extra satisfaction rate and selection rate from this.

但您认为AI的颠覆性如此之大，以至于值得专门成立一家新公司，宣称您在餐厅关系、物流和App上的所有投资都变得毫无意义，仅仅因为推荐准确率提高了5%吗？

But do you think AI is so disruptive that it can warrant the creation of an entirely new company that says, basically what you're saying is all the investment you made in restaurant relationships, logistics, the app, are as nothing because this new thing is disruptive enough just because the recommendations are 5% better.

如果所有这些SaaS应用都变成笨拙的数据库，而Toast仅仅成为一个收银系统，它们不会消失，但会变得越来越商品化。

If all these SaaS apps become dumb databases and Toast just becomes a POS system, they're not going away, but they become more and more commodified.

真正的问题是，它们没有捕捉到足够的增量价值。

And the real issue is they don't capture enough of the incremental value.

这才是增量价值。

It's the incremental value

杰森，我们正在投资，我想先处理那些简单的部分。

we're I investing Jason, I wanted to deal with the easy ones first.

你真的相信会有由AI驱动的、直接与DoorDash竞争的对手吗？

Do you really believe that there will be a direct competitor to DoorDash enabled by AI?

好吧，我们都同意这很吸引眼球，对吧？

Well, we all agree that that is clickbaity, okay?

所有这些都一样。

And so is all of it.

但听我说，即使我们先聊聊GhostGDP吧。

But listen, even if Let's talk about GhostGDP for a minute.

我承认我生活在技术的最前沿，好吧？

I admit I'm living on the bleeding edge, okay?

让我们承认，我就是一个实验室。

Let's concede that I'm a laboratory.

但我的小团队已经从12个人缩减到只有两个人，他们不仅做投资，还每年创造七位数的收入。

But we have gone from 12 people to two people on my little team that not only does investment, it generates 8 figures a year in revenue.

好吧。

Okay.

而这才是真正的GDP。

And that is goes GDP.

那些离开的人所带走的价值，剩下的利润都归到了两到三个人手里。

Those folks that are gone, that value, the profits that are left go to two people or three people.

给我定义一下后GDP。

Define post GDP for me.

后GDP的意思是，这种生产力不再流向普通劳动者然后被他们消费。

Post GDP is that this productivity is not going to human workers that then spend it.

我们担心的是，虽然创造了这种生产力，但却没有人类去消费这些钱。

That's the fear that we are creating this productivity, but it is not going to any there's no there's no humans to spend the money.

我能花更多的钱当然很好，但我不认为如果我只是稍微变富一点，这对经济就是好事。

It's great that I can spend more money, but that doesn't I don't think that's great for the economy if I get a little bit richer.

我们的团队失去了八个人。

Like, we lost eight people on our team.

首先，我同意。

First of all, agree.

我们现在在讨论宏观层面。

We're now doing macro.

在这种情况下，因为我们达成一致，所以可以讨论宏观问题。

And I, in this case, we can do macro because we agree.

只有在解决了微观层面的问题后，我们才能讨论宏观问题。

We can only do macro once we've conquered micro.

而在这个案例中，你已经解决了微观层面的问题。

And in this case, you've conquered micro.

你已经说过这种情况发生了。

You've said it has happened.

我以前有12个人。

I had 12 people.

现在我只剩下两个人了。

Now I only have two.

十个人已经失去了工作。

10 people no longer have jobs.

这意味著什么？

What does that mean?

或者至少他们找到了其他工作，但我们创造的价值——这八位数的价值——正越来越集中到越来越少的人手中。

Or at least whatever they have other jobs, but the value that we're creating, right, this 8 figures of value, it's accruing to fewer and fewer people.

买包包、鞋子、T恤和Netflix订阅的人也越来越少了。

And there aren't as many people to buy handbags and to buy shoes and to buy T shirts and to buy Netflix.

就连买Netflix的人也变少了。

Even just to buy Netflix, there's less people.

对吧？

Right?

这正是那篇煽动性、令人厌烦的文章中所谓的‘幽灵GDP’的本意。

That was the point of the ghost GDP in this inflammatory, annoying article.

但我不认为这些观点是错的。

But I don't I don't think that these things are wrong.

我认为他只是在声称所有事情都会在十八个月内发生，而实际上这些事情并不会在十八个月内发生。

I think he's just trying to claim everything's gonna happen in eighteen months that that it's not gonna happen in eighteen months.

但隐含在其中的——你必须逻辑清晰——是生产力提升是坏事，而生产力提升在过去两百年里一直是增长的引擎。

But but implicit in that, and you have to be logical, implicit in that is productivity gains, which have been the engine of growth for the last two hundred years, are bad.

这里隐含着一个被埋藏的观点：杰森现在用两个人就能完成过去需要十二个人才能完成的事情，这反而是坏事。

There's some and buried statement here is that it is bad that Jason is now able to do something with two people that he was hithertofore only able to do with 12.

我要说一点：自工业革命以来的两百年间，生产力提升一直是好事，因为那另外十个人——让我说完——过去浪费时间给杰森写垃圾内容的人，现在可以去做其他事情，而人类整体的成就将包含这些人所创造的额外价值。

And I'm going to say something, across the arc of the last two hundred years since the industrial revolution, productivity gains have been good because other 10 people, let me finish, the other 10 people who used to be wasting time writing slop for Jason can now do other things, and the sum total of human achievement will contain the extra work that those people do.

从长远来看，我认为你无法否认生产力提升是好事。

In the long term, I don't think you can argue but that productivity gains are good.

过去有80%的人在农场工作。

We used to have 80% of people working on farms.

现在只有10%的人在农场工作，实际上只有4%，但我们生产的粮食多到所有人都胖了。

We now have 10% of people working on farms, actually 4% of people working on farms, and we sell so much food that we're all fat.

另外那85%的人在做别的事情。

And those other 85% of people are doing other shit.

纵观历史，生产力简直太棒了。

Across the scope of history, productivity is fricking awesome.

它是让我们变得富裕的唯一原因。

It's the only thing that's made us rich.

我想说得清楚一点，因为所有这些宏观争论——我本想忽略的——本质上都是某种版本的说法：尽管长期来看生产力惊人，你没法否认这一点，但短期却出了问题，于是你得说明那问题到底是什么。

I want to say that so clearly, because then all these arguments, these macro arguments that I was hoping to ignore are basically some version of even though productivity is amazing in the long term, because you can't disagree to that, something bad is happening in the short term, and then the onus is on you to say what that is.

那问题到底是什么？

What is it?

持续变化、工作消失、新工作出现，这有什么不好？

What's so bad about constant change and the fact that jobs go away and new jobs emerge?

会发生什么糟糕的事情呢？

What's gonna happen that's so bad?

消费者支出会疲软。

A softening of consumer spend.

随着财富向更少的人集中，能在经济不同领域花钱的人就变少了，这会影响大量人群。

With concentration of wealth to fewer people, there are less people to spend money across different parts of the economy, and that impacts a large amount of people.

关于生产力如何实际导致经济恶化这一点，你只需要看看二十世纪九十年代的日本以及安倍经济学的必要性就明白了。

And to your point on how does productivity actually lead to a worsening in the economy, you only need to look at Japan in the nineteen nineties and need for Abenomics.

实际上，你在二十世纪九十年代看到了生产力的巨大提升，这得益于他们引入的机械基础设施的巨大改进。

And actually, you saw massive productivity increases in the nineteen nineties with massively improving mechanical infrastructure that they brought in.

而实际上，这种提升并没有惠及广大的日本人口。

And actually, it didn't disperse to a huge amount of the Japanese population.

所以，实际上有非常近的先例。

So there's very recent precedent, actually.

如果你想看看这个问题的反乌托邦版本，去日本见见那些B2B的创始人吧。

If you want to see a dystopian version of this, go to Japan and meet with B2B founders.

去年十一月，我参加了一场晚宴，所有出席者都是市值两千万美元以上的公司代表。

I was at a dinner last November with all from IPO 20,000,000 and up only.

这是一场由主办方精心组织的贵宾晚宴。

It was a VIP dinner put together.

气氛非常好。

It was great.

那是顶尖中的顶尖，明白吗？

It was the best of the best, okay?

他们都在谈论自己的客户基础如何在不断萎缩。

And they're all talking about how inherently their seat base shrinks.

我们今天讨论的不只是AI话题中的客户基础风险。

This is not just the AI topic we're talking about today about seat based risk.

去年他们就在讨论，每年自己的客户都在减少，因为他们的经济在萎缩，对吧？

This was last year all talking about how just each year their seats shrink because their economy is shrinking, right?

正如哈里所指出的，从短期来看，这对作为投资者的我们来说确实很有利。

It is, just to Harry's point, it is a think in the short term, this is all great for us as investors.

我们能获得更高的生产力，这太棒了。

It's terrific for us to get more productivity.

我们会从中赚钱，然后把钱存进银行，逃到迈阿密或摩纳哥去，虽然我不确定这对每个人来说都是好事。

Well, we're gonna get we're gonna make money out of it, and we should put it in the bank and flee to Miami or Monaco because I don't but I'm not sure it's good for everybody.

我得说这纯属胡扯。

I I'm gonna call bullshit on that.

在拆解基于座位的评论时，有两三个不同的问题。

There's there's two or three different things with disaggregating deceit based comment.

你是在评论日本的人口减少吗？我觉得这不能归咎于人工智能。

Are you making a comment on Japanese depopulation, which I don't think we can blame on AI?

这已经持续了三十年了。

It's been a trend for thirty years.

我只是觉得，这确实是对的。

I just think there's a Right.

这和哈利提到的‘幽灵GDP’概念有一个松散的类比，即人口减少。

A loose parallel to this ghost GDP idea, to Harry brought up, of the depopulation.

嗯，即使人类仍然存在，也有多种方式可以减少劳动力规模。

Well, there's different ways you can depopulate a workforce even if the humans are still there.

对吧？

Right?

但这是一种类似结构性逆风，影响人们消费。

But it's a similar it's a structural headwind, right, to folks buying stuff.

我们在Saster的10个代理创造了数百万收入，但他们什么都不买。

Our 10 agents at Saster generate millions of revenue, but they buy nothing.

我们的代理什么都不买。

Our agents buy nothing.

他们整个周末都在工作，Repli、RD、Quali、Monty。

They work all weekend long, Repli, RD, Quali, Monty.

他们是好孩子。

They're good kids.

他们制造了很多噪音。

They create a lot of noise.

他们确实很费心，但他们什么都不买。

Like, they're a lot of work, but they buy nothing.

什么都不买。

Nothing.

什么都不买。

Nothing.

除了，除了，除了代币以外。

Except except except tokens.

他们唯一买的就是代币，而且真的买了数以百万计的代币。

That's the only thing they buy are tokens, and they they buy millions and millions of to for real.

真的。

For for real.

这和过去有点不一样。

That is a little different than the past.

生产率的提升只有在消费者钱包充裕、能够花钱时才有意义。

Productivity increases are only good if the consumer wallet is dispersed and they are able to spend money.

如果这一点萎缩了，那就不是好事。

If that shrinks, that is not a good thing.

是的。

Yes.

但是，但是，那你该怎么办呢？

But the but but so what do you do?

禁止提高生产率吗？

Ban productivity increases?

好消息是，我们都过得不错。

Good news, we're all doing fine.

坏消息是，我们都生活在1790年，随时可能因为一次收成不好就挨饿，但只要不出问题，我们就都挺好，对吧？

Bad news, we're all 17 90 and we're all, you know, one bad harvest away from starvation, but yay, we're all fine as long as nothing goes wrong, right?

这不是一个可信的论点。

It's not a credible argument.

在非常微观的层面上，你可以说——这正是我们必须回归微观层面的原因：如果颠覆发生得异常迅速，人们没有时间适应，那么短期内，确实会出现某种结构性错位，导致经济衰退或GDP放缓，如果这些人无法迅速被新工作吸纳的话。

At a very micro level, you could argue if aand this is why we actually have to go back to the microif the disruption happens extraordinarily quickly and people don't have time to adjust, then in the short term, you will have some element of structural dislocation that will result in definitely some form of recession GDP slowdown if those folks can't be digested in new jobs quickly.

所以我的观点是：在短期内，你可以阐述一个论点，你只是在说，对吧？

So my point is this: in the short term, you can articulate a thesis you're just saying, right?

如果所有45岁的程序员同时被解雇，街上突然多了600万程序员，而他们又没有其他工作可做，并且这一切发生在一个月内，那么短期内确实会对GDP造成冲击，但从中长期来看，我仍然认为GDP增长会让我们所有人摆脱困境。

If all the 45 year old programmers are let go at the same time and the 6,000,000 programmers on the street and there's no other work for them and it happens in a month, then in the short term, there would be this GDP hit, while I'm still correct over the medium and long term GDP growth builds us all out.

所以这就是为什么问题又回到了微观层面：你认为这一切会如此迅速地发生吗？

So that's why it does go back to the micro is do you think it's all gonna happen so quickly?

我们是否认为所有这些事物都将以极快的速度被取代？

Do we think that all these things are going to be displaced extraordinarily quickly?

我，我不知道。

I I don't know.

当我看到卡帕西谈论过去六个月里他的工作有多少已经交给AI时，我确实对此有所质疑。

When I look at Kapathi talk about the evolution of how much of his work has gone to AI in the last six months, I I do question it.

好的。

Okay.

你这么说是什么意思？

What do you mean by that?

我认为越来越多的劳动力将被AI取代。

I think more and more of labor will be replaced by AI.

我们将看到价值集中到更少的人手中，而拥有资金在经济中消费的消费者也会减少，这将导致问题并造成经济萎缩。

We will see the concentration of value to a fewer people, and fewer consumers will have money to spend in the economy, which will lead to problems and a shrinkage of that economy.

美国大约有1.5亿人在工作。

There are a 150 odd million people working in The US.

对吧？

Right?

那么，你对岗位替代的预估是多少？

So what what's your estimate for displacement?

我只是想了解一下情况。

I'm just trying to get a sense of it.

这取决于时间范围，但我对此感觉不太乐观。

It depends on the time horizon, but I'm not feeling that great about it.

我的意思是，如果我们看最明显的领域，比如客服支持、法律记账，这些看起来情况不妙。

I mean, if we look at the most obvious, which is, you know, customer support customer support legal bookkeeping, that doesn't look great.

如果我们把魏玛的情况算上，以及它在四年时间内对自动驾驶的影响，天啊，我觉得你可能会看到三千万到四千万人。

If we wanna add in Weimar and what it'll do for self driving within a four year period, gosh, I think you could see 30 to 40,000,000

再强调一遍，魏玛是个很好的例子。

Take away take away again, Weimar's a good example.

我的意思是，十年前人们谈论自动驾驶时的预测，你还能找到当时那些苏特里尼的文章，说一切都会在四年内实现。

I mean, you look at the projections ten years ago when people talk about self driving, and you can find all the, you know, the Suttrini articles of then saying it's all going to happen in four years.

这已经结束了。

It's over.

我们今天就在这里。

Here we are today.

尽管我认为Waymo非常出色，他们年收入达三亿五千万美元，但拥有的自动驾驶汽车数量只有几千辆，只在几个城市逐步推广，增长缓慢。

And even though I think Waymo is amazing, they're doing $350,000,000 I think they have single digit thousands numbers of automobiles, you know, in a few cities, steady rollout started to increase.

我不知道要过多少年才能达到更大规模的普及。

I don't know how many years you're talking about before it gets to kind of further mass scale.

所以，所有技术的普及都比你想象的要慢。

So all diffusion takes longer than you think.

对吧？

Right?

我认为我们在这里严重高估了采用的速度。

I think we massively overestimate the pace of adoption here.

它有没有更快的时候？

Does it ever take you shorter?

因为每当人们谈论扩散速度时，都会提到工业革命，那时候你得购买机器、运输、培训。

Because everyone always says about the pace of diffusion, they use the, you know, industrial revolution where you had to buy machinery, transport it, train.

当它是Nano Banana Pro并取代整个行业时，那么

When it's Nano Banana Pro and it removes an entire industry, well

我觉得时间更短。

I think it's shorter.

在我的人生中，在我看来，时间更短。

In my life, it's in my life, it's shorter.

这件事令人焦虑的地方在于，而这也是赚钱的方式，焦虑在于——我也不想没完没了地谈 vibe 编程应用，但我有太多经验了。

The thing that is stressful on this, and it's and it's a way to make money is the stressful thing is that and, again, I don't wanna endlessly talk about vibe coding apps, but I have so much experience.

对吧？

Right?

我震惊了。

I'm shocked.

一切都比我想象的更快、更好。

Everything is faster than I would have ever and better than I would have ever expected.

我们一开始谈的是安全，对吧？

We started this about security, right?

如果我们刚开始做这个播客时有人告诉我，今天我可以直接跟一个 vibe 编程平台对话，它就能在我坐飞机时完成一个 A 级安全审计，而我什么都不用做，我肯定会说：伙计们，它把我的整个数据库删了。

If you told me when we started this podcast that today I could just talk to a vibe coding platform and it would do like an A tier security audit while I was on an airplane and I didn't have to do anything, would have said, Guys, it deleted my whole database.

我根本想不到它能完成一个企业级的安全审计，可现在它真的做到了。

There's no way it's gonna do a frigging enterprise grade security audit, yet here we are.

然后我们回头一看，Anthropic 今年能做到的一切，都比我们之前想象的更快、更好、更强。

Then we turn around and everything Anthropic can do this year is faster and better and bigger than we thought.

我不是说这是元级别的。

I'm not saying it's a meta level.

一切并没有我们想象的那么慢。

Everything isn't slower than we think.

对。

Right.

当然，那篇愚蠢的文章，对吧？

Certainly that dumb article, right?

DoorDash下周被Base44颠覆，这说法太荒谬了。

DoorDash being disrupted by by base forty four next week is dumb.

但天啊，这种加速真的很难形容，它实在太快了。

But God, this acceleration, it's it's just it's hard to it's it's fast.

快得离谱。

It's so fast.

从实际角度来看。

In practical terms.

我来给你讲讲实际的影响。

I'll give you the the practical ramification.

我们现在使用的几乎所有B2B软件都很糟糕。

Almost all the B2B software we use today is terrible now.

太差了。

It's terrible.

我根本没法和它交流。

I can't talk to it.

我几乎都不想用WordPress。

I can barely bring myself to use to WordPress.

我在WordPress里什么都改不了。

I can't change anything in WordPress.

这些产品全都糟糕透顶。

All these products are terrible.

我们这些创始人很喜欢、Harry经常提到的那些产品，现在也都变糟了，因为AI软件实在太出色了。

A lot of the ones that that we the founders we love that Harry talks to, the products are terrible now because AI software is so good.

你得花两个小时把数据手动输进系统，简直让人崩溃，对吧？

Blow your brains out to input data for two hours into your system, right?

这太糟糕了。

It's terrible.

至少，这种加速如此之快，以至于行业领导者根本跟不上自己的产品已经如此过时的事实。

If nothing else, that is accelerating so quickly that the leaders cannot keep up with the fact that their products are so dated.

它们太过时了。

They're so dated.

我认为这大体上是对的。

I think that's broadly true.

而且我认为，当你具体来看时，这正是我之前说的，当把AI对美国一百万到一百五十万工人影响的微观层面细化时。

And I think when you narrow it, that's why I said, when you narrow it down to the micro of the impact of AI on the million to a million and a half workers in The U.

美。

S.

在广义定义的软件和科技行业，其破坏性可能要大得多。

In the software and tech industry broadly defined could be way more disruptive.

对吧？

Right?

而且我认为这实际上是一个有益的讨论。

And I think that's actually a useful conversation.

但值得指出的是，美国大约有57%的工作岗位

But it's worth pointing out that plus or minus 57% of all jobs in The U.

每年

S.

都会受到冲击。

Are disrupted every year.

这大约是1%，不到所有工作岗位的1%，也许是1%到1.5%。

This is 1%, less than 1% of all jobs, maybe 1%, 1.5% of all jobs.

即使整个软件行业被彻底摧毁，其影响也无法与十年前或十五年前汽车行业的衰落相提并论。

If the entire software industry got nuked, it still wouldn't be the same as losing the car industry ten or fifteen years ago.

所以我的观点是，再次强调，要区分微观层面的讨论：B2B软件公司是否陷入困境，以及困境有多深？

So my point is, again, differentiate the micro discussion of, Are B2B software companies in trouble and how much are they in trouble?

这是一个非常好的讨论，如果你以投资B2B软件公司为生，那么这就是唯一重要的事情，对吧？

Is a really good discussion, and if you make your living investing in B2B software comes, it's the only thing that matters, right?

但从那里跳跃到宣称我们所知的文明已经终结，正如你所说，贾森，这只是点击诱饵，我们应该直接忽略它。

But jumping from there to saying civilizations we know it ended is just, as you say, Jason, clickbait, and we should just ignore it.

我的意思是，我要说得更直接一点。

I mean, I'm going put it even more directly.

当汽车行业一落千丈时，硅谷并没有流血牺牲。

We didn't bleed in Silicon Valley when the car industry went down the toilet.

别指望他们会来找我们并说，如果这里唯一受影响的是B2B软件行业，我怀疑世界其他地方的反应会是：是的，我愿意失去那些人。

Don't hold your breath thinking they're going to come for us and say, If the only thing that's impacted here is the B2B software industry, my suspicion is the rest of the world will go, Yeah, I'm willing to lose those guys.

但我想你是对的。

But then I think you're right.

问题是，在占GDP 2%的软件业务中，谁因AI而胜出，谁又落败？

The question is, who wins, who loses in the 2% of GDP software business with AI?

我认为这才是关键问题。

And I think that is the question.

所有这些软件呢？

All that software?

所以所有这些软件现在都是一堆垃圾，看起来过时了。

So all that software is crap and looks outdated today.

很多都是。

A lot of it.

还有另一个观点，我们之前谈过Shopify的Toby，他是最顶尖的，对吧？

Well, and also one other point, and we talked about Toby before from Shopify is about the best of the best, right?

我认为Shopify在这些方面处于领先地位。

And I think Shopify is on top of these things.

它现在的员工人数和三年前一样多。

It has the same number of employees it did three years ago.

在过去三年里，它的净员工人数没有增加任何一人，但收入却增长了50%，达到120亿美元。

It has not added a single net head count in three years and has grown 50% at 12,000,000,000 in revenue.

从宏观层面来看，这也是一种衰退。

At a meta level, that is a decline too.

它的收入增长了50%至120亿美元，却没有增加任何一名净员工。

It has grown its revenue 50% to 12,000,000,000 and not added a single net headcount.

这已经是对我们几年前所处的科技生活方式的一种经济损失，对吧？

That already is an economic loss to the tech lifestyle we lived just a couple years ago, right?

前几天我确实和一群处于规模化阶段的B2B首席执行官们交谈过，我提了一个观点，他们一开始都觉得是笑话，直到他们认真想了想。

And I was literally talking with a group of B2B CEOs at scale the other day, and I made a statement that everyone thought was a joke at first until they thought about it.

我说，在未来十二个月内，有一位行业领袖将会效仿埃隆·马斯克，一天之内裁掉一半的团队。

I said, one of the leaders in the next twelve months is going to do an Elon Musk and just cut half their team in one day.

他们将一次性裁掉公司一半的员工。

They're going lay off half the entire company.

我们曾觉得埃隆在X公司这么做太疯狂了，但公司股价却挺住了。

Elon, we thought Elon was crazy at X, but it stayed up.

而那些没有跟上新时代转型的人，终将意识到，他们只需从四千名员工减到两千名，照样能过得很好。

And one of these folks that is not making a big transition to the new world, right, is going to realize they're just going to go from 4,000 to 2,000 employees and be fine.

所以，即使Shopify三年来保持不变，这一趋势也可能加速。

So this trend could accelerate even if Shopify is the same for three years.

对吧？

Right?

总之，听着，就当是开个玩笑，然后我们可以休息一下。

Anyhow, listen, just for fun, then we could break.

我问了Claude，他可不是推特上那个为了博眼球而疯狂的家伙。

I asked Claude, who isn't that crazy guy on Twitter trying to get views.

回到我的观点，如果借助AI，我们能够将科技行业人员数量减少50%，会发生什么？

Going to my point, what would happen if with AI we were able to reduce tech headcount by 50%?

仅仅因为Claude说了简版数据——GDP影响6000亿到9000亿美元，总共损失400万到500万个工作岗位（包括所有乘数效应），以及五到六个科技集中的城市将遭受地方经济重创——就减少50%的人员。

Just reduce headcount by 50% because of Claude said the short version, 600,000,000,000 to 900,000,000,000 in GDP impact, four to 5,000,000 total jobs lost, including all multiplier effects, and local economic devastation in five to six cities where tech is concentrated.

这将是美国历史上除世界大战或疫情外最大的经济冲击之一。

It would be one of the largest economic shocks in US history outside of a world war or pandemic.

我不是说这一定会发生，但我只是让Claude分析了一下如果我们裁掉一半员工的数据。

I'm not saying it's true, but I just asked Claude to parse the data if we lost half our headcount.

现在这就是我脑子不够用的地方了。

Now here's where I'm not smart enough.

甚至从某些方面来说，十年间员工人数的增长其实也是一种人员流失，对吧？

Even in some ways, growing headcount for a decade is losing headcount too, right?

因为收入会增长得非常高，对吧？

Because the revenue will grow so high, right?

是的。

Yes.

但回到你刚才说的，我觉得你有一件事说得对。

But go back to your thing, I think you are right about one thing.

我认为会有不少公司进行这种剧烈的裁员。

I think the number of companies will do that kind of dramatic headcount reduction.

而最明显的例子将是那些高杠杆的私募股权支持的SaaS公司，因为如果你没有高杠杆，如果是上市公司，有时间的话，你可以像托比那样保持人员规模稳定，依靠增长。

And I think the most obvious place will be all the levered PE backed, highly levered SaaS companies, because if you're not levered, if you're public, if you have time, you can do the Toby thing and just hold headcount flat, rely on growth.

你不必进行创伤性的手术，只需逐步提高效率即可。

You don't have to do traumatic surgery, you'll just be able to become steadily more efficient.

如果你的债务是EBITDA的六倍，收购时价格是八到九倍，而现在股价只值四倍，你就必须开始偿还债务，但增长却停滞了。

If you owe six times EBITDA on debt, and you bought the thing for eight or nine times, and now it's trading at four times, you have to start paying down that debt and there's no growth.

所以我认为很多这类公司会采取极其严格的成本控制措施。

So I think a lot of those guys will look at very draconian expense management structures.

是的，这是个好观点。

Yeah, it's a good point.

如果你

If you

你是TOMA Bravo旗下的Cooper和Anaplan，我并不是专门挑它们的毛病，刚才这么说并不是那个意思。

are a TOMA Bravo with Cooper and Anaplan, I'm not picking on I didn't mean to pick on that.

我只是拿这个作为例子。

I'm using this as an example.

所以请记住，你的回答并不依赖于Cooper和Anaplan，而是指这一类公司。

So please, your answer is not dependent on Cooper and Anapam, but that ilk.

你正在以20%的速度增长，但没有创始CEO，而是聘请了职业CEO来运营。

And you're growing at 20% with no founder CEO, so hired CEO, p run.

你会怎么做？

What do you do?

我认为Rory提出了一个更尖锐且更有说服力的观点：像这样的公司，虽然只增长6%，却背负着巨额债务杠杆。

I think Rory's making a more brutal and cogent point, which is there's folks like that that are growing 6% that are out of massive debt leverage.

好吧？

Okay?

他们别无选择，只能收缩。

They have no choice but to shrink.

对吧？

Right?

数学上没有其他解法。

The math doesn't solve any other way.

对吧？

Right?

20%的增长率，至少你还有选择。

20%, at least you have options.

你大概可以采用TOBI的策略。

You can probably do the TOBI playbook.

如果你的增长率超过20%。

If you're north of 20.

很可能在那个水平上，账目勉强能算平。

Probably the math barely pencils out at that level.

在四到五年内复合增长到足以偿还债务的程度。

Compounds to enough growth over four to five years to pay off your debt.

那些个位数增长的公司，比如蓝猫头鹰及其同行，他们在这笔债务上完全是倒挂的。

The single digit, all these Blue Owl and friends, they're just upside down on this debt.

他们根本还不起。

They can't pay it off.

会发生什么？

What happens?

我...我认为如果债务情况恶化，就像Blue Owl那件事一样，那么股权就没了。

I I think if the debt is upside down, hence the Blue Owl thing, then the equity is gone.

我觉得这些人中的很多，他们不会就这么轻易认输放弃。

I think a lot of these folks, they're not just going to roll over and die.

他们会完全按照Jason说的去做。

They're going to do exactly what Jason said.

他们会试图削减开支，咬牙坚持，而债权人会延长债务期限，因为他们不想实现亏损。

They're going to try and cut expenses, knuckle down to a very the debtors will extend the debt because they won't want to crystallize the loss.

股权方会继续运营企业，并努力用现金偿还债务。

The equity will run the business and try hard to pay down cash.

他们会大幅裁员。

They will reduce headcount dramatically.

这里将变得对员工缺乏吸引力。

There'll be much less attractive place to work.

供应商也会变得不那么有吸引力，因为他们不会再投资研发。

There'll be much less attractive vendors to supply to you because they won't be investing in R and D.

但这是一个令人难过的情况：许多软件合同的惯性如此之大，导致企业会缓慢地衰亡。

But, and this is the sad comment, the inertia in a lot of software contracts is such that it'll take a long time of dying.

所以，这将是一个持续而痛苦的煎熬过程。

So, it'll just be a steady, nasty grind.

我认为这不会是那种在周五突然全面崩溃的灾难性事件。

I don't think it'll be the cataclysmic all going wrong on Friday kind of thing.

我觉得这将是一场漫长的五年苦熬。

I think it'd just be a long five year grind.

但是，是的，我的猜测是，我不是想跑题，我听到罗里你对这个问题想得更多，可能哈里也是，我的猜测是我们最终会看到越来越多的初创公司，收入在五千万到一亿到两亿美元之间，以两倍或更低的收入估值被合并在一起。

But, yeah, my guess, I don't mean to go off top, I hear Rory, you've thought more about this, and probably you have Harry, is my guess is we will end up seeing more and more five to six to eight startups at 50 to 100 to 200,000,000 in revenue mashed together at nominal prices of two times revenue or less.

它们都会被混在一起。

They'll just be all mashed up.

每个人都知道这并不是最好的主意。

Everyone knows it's not the best idea.

每个人都知道，Clari收购的这11家公司并不具备完美的协同效应，对吧？

Everyone knows that the 11 companies Clari has bought do not have perfect synergies, right?

但这是我们在2倍、1.5倍估值下，对这些公司能做的最好的选择。

But it's the best idea we have for these companies at 2X, one and a half.

我知道这可能连一个合理的倍数都算不上，而是1.5到2倍。

I know it's probably not even an error multiple, but one and a half to two times.

人们会说：够了，已经够了。

People will just say enough already.

是时候了。

It's time.

一点五倍到两倍的营收。

One and a half, one to two times revenue.

我们会妥协，然后你就会看到这些类似弗兰肯斯坦的B2B公司，它们有自己的小星座或别的什么，但这是剩下的最佳策略了。

We'll capitulate and you'll see these sort of Frankenstein B2B companies that have their mini constellations or whatever, but it's the best play left.

对吧？

Right?

然后你会引入专业的管理团队，他们将管理20个产品。

And you'll bring in professional management that will have 20 products.

产品。

Products.

对吧？

Right?

我们会看到20家独角兽公司合并成一家，并在2027年上市。

We'll see 20 unicorns merge into one thing that will IPO in 2027.

同意。

Agreed.

接受最后一句话。

Accept the last sentence.

他们将尝试在2027年上市。

They'll try and IPO in 2027.

但你说得对，杰森。

But you're right, Jason.

我认为这是个好主意，是他们最好的想法。

It is I think that's a great it's the best idea they got.

你有五千万美元的收入，却没有收购方。

You've got this $50,000,000 revenue thing with no acquirer.

也许如果你有大约五亿五千万美元收入的公司，处于相似的市场，你就能打造一个两亿五千万美元的实体，足够盈利，或者实现规模增长。

Maybe if you had $550,000,000 revenue things in roughly the same market, you could build a $250,000,000 thing that would be profitable enough and or get some growth at scale.

合并所有这些债务将会是一场噩梦。

It'll be a miserable way to consolidate all that debt.

这些公司将受到这种对持续收入公司估值下降的最严重影响。

Those are going to be the most impacted by this kind of decline in the perceived value of recurring revenue companies.

我们可以接下来讨论Figma的盈利情况，或者OpenAI的支出增加。

We can either talk about Figma's earnings or OpenAI's spending increases next.

你想先谈哪一个？

Which one do you wanna do?

我不知道。

I don't know.

我想知道Rory认为OpenAI的暴利时代什么时候会结束。

I wanna know from Rory when the where he thinks the OpenAI gravy train ends.

我的意思是，到底会怎样？

I mean, is it what what is it?

再增加180亿和1100亿美元？

Another 180 and 110,000,000,000?

我们都开过这样的董事会。

We've all had this board meeting.

伙计们，我们进去了。

Guys, we walk in.

有好消息和坏消息。

There's good news and bad news.

好消息是，三年后我们的硬件和其他收入会增长。

The good news is we're making up more hardware and other revenue three years out.

坏消息是我还需要再拿1100亿美元才能实现。

The bad news is I need I need another 110,000,000,000 to get there.

好的。

Okay.

那我们还是现实一点吧。

Let let's ground it in in then.

OpenAI计划到2030年将支出翻倍至6650亿美元，但它们将收入预测上调27%至2800亿美元，依据的主要是目前还不存在的产品——硬件、广告以及其他一切。

OpenAI is doubling spend to 665,000,000,000 by 2030, but they're upping their revenue forecast by 27% to 280,000,000,000 based on products that mostly don't exist today, hardware, ads, everything else.

罗里？

Rory?

从某个层面来看，观察到克劳德现在获得了信任，人们相信它能颠覆一切，而曾经备受追捧的OpenAI却不再享有任何信任，几乎像一场闹剧，这确实很有趣。

At one level, it's been interesting just watching the conversation that Claude now gets the benefit of the doubt and people believe it can kill everything, and OpenAI, which was the darling, now gets no benefit of doubt and almost like it's a clown show.

我认为真相可能是，没有人会像表面看起来那样好或坏。

And I think the truth is probably no one is ever as good or bad as they seem.

这其实很简单。

It's pretty straightforward.

在消费者领域，OpenAI在心智份额方面仍然是明显的赢家。

OpenAI is still the clear winner in the consumer space in terms of mindshare.

我认为他们正在纠结的是，在这些资本市场中，他们能有多大的雄心？

I think what they're grappling with is how ambitious can they be in these capital markets?

他们显然仍然希望保持雄心，并且仍在获得资金支持以实现这些雄心。

And they clearly still want to be ambitious, and they're still getting funded to be ambitious.

但你说得对，当你把数字算清楚时，首先是有实际存在的消费者产品，然后加上已经存在但表现不如Ontropic的企业产品，再叠加尚未存在的代理型产品，最后再加上非订阅模式的消费者变现——即300亿到770亿美元的广告和其他收入。

But you're right, it's that when you run the math out and it's the consumer product that does exist, then you add onto it the enterprise product that exists but is not doing as well as Ontropic, and then you add onto that agentic products that don't yet exist yet, and then you add on that consumer monetization beyond subscription of $30,000,000,000 to $77,000,000,000 which is basically ads and other stuff.

你就会意识到，你们正在用当前大量的真金白银，去赌Nvidia和其他公司预期未来能收回的巨额资金，这些未来收入虽然完全值得相信，但其中包含了大量对未来的过度押注。

What you recognize is you're spending a large amount of current real dollars that Nvidia and all the other people think they're going to collect in anticipation of a whole bunch of future anticipated dollars, which are entirely credible to believe, but there's a lot of leaning into the future here.

所以到目前为止，回到萨特里尼备忘录的观点，只要这些公司被看作是强大到可以摧毁一切，它们就能获得资金。

And so far, going back to the Sattrini memo, as long as these companies are perceived as so powerful that they can destroy everything, they will be able to get money.

因为事实是，如果你相信自己是可以消灭所有其他对手的存在，那么作为投资者唯一理性的反应就是：天哪。

Because the truth is, if you believe you're the thing that can kill everyone else, then the only rational response as an investor is, oh my god.

如果模型将要接管世界，我最好也弄一些模型。

If the models are gonna take over the world, I better get me some models.

所以所有这些危言耸听对双方都有好处。

So all this fear mongering is good for both of them.

我想问题是，你认为萨姆在所有战线——硬件、广告、发现、Codex、健康——都采取如此激进的策略是正确的，还是应该更专注于达里奥那种以企业编码为核心的思维模式会更好？

I guess the question is, do you think Sam is right to be as aggressive as he is being on all fronts, hardware, ads, discovery, codex, health, or will it be a better play being much more focused in the Dario mindset of enterprise coding?

正如我们所见，他正在不断扩张，但仍然更侧重于企业领域，更为具体。

He's expanding more and more as we're seeing, but it's still enterprise focus more specific.

杰森曾说过这一点，但务实地说，你必须承认，如果你曾领先竞争对手10倍，而现在只领先3倍，从某种程度上讲，你确实让他们获得了市场份额。

Jason had said this, but just pragmatically, you've got to say that if you were 10x ahead of a competitor and now you're only 3x ahead of a competitor, at some level, you did allow them to gain market share.

而游戏的目标是击败对手，所以你给了对方一些空间。

And the objective of the game is to beat the other guy, so you've allowed the other guy some room.