20VC：Groq以200亿美元收购NVIDIA | Manus被Meta以20亿美元收购 | 为何Sam Altman不在意股权稀释 | Navan以4倍年经常性收入交易及为何上市不再有意义 | 2026年隐形失业与劳动力市场的崛起

税率是0%。

It's 0% tax.

他们是家中国公司吗？

Are they a Chinese company?

我们已经见过这些问题了。

We've already seen these issues.

风险是什么？

What are the risks?

谁会收购我们？

Who will buy us?

对。

Right.

也许只有少数人想收购我们。

Well, maybe only so many people want to buy us.

中国的IPO回来了，但情况很奇怪。

IPOs in China are back, but they're weird.

会是美国的吗？

Will it be a U.

上市？

S.

IPO吗？

IPO?

他们说，作为创始人，我们每个人都能套现离场，你知道的，我们得去给那个Scale的家伙和Meta打工，但今天我们就可能套现几亿美元，而这家公司可能毛利极低，对吧？

And they're like, as founders, we're each going to walk away with, you know, we've got to go work for that scale guy and Meta, but we're going walk away with hundreds of millions of dollars today for a company probably with extremely low gross margins, you know?

我不是说这不是一个史诗级的产品。

And I'm not saying it's not an epic product.

它确实是。

It is.

但在这期播客中，我们提到过一些产品，比如Lovable和Replit，我怀疑它们的毛利比Manus高得多。

But we've picked on some products over this pod, the Lovable and Replits that I suspect have much better gross margins than Manus does.

好的。

Okay.

Manus 同时运行多个大语言模型，提供了更好的产品，而且价格相当低廉。

Manus is providing a better product running multiple LLMs at the same time, and it's doing it for a pretty low price.

我的意思是，很难看出这会是一个高毛利的产品。

I mean, it's hard to see it being a high gross margin product.

所以我可能错了，但感觉这像是一个局部最优的交易，创始人向 Benchmark 的人出售了股份。

So I could be wrong, but this feels like a local maximum deal where the founders told Benchmark guys were selling.

所以团队仍然持有公司80%的股份。

So the team had 80% of the company still.

他们在融资过程中几乎没有稀释股权。

They took very little dilution in their

好的，80%。

Okay, 80%.

而且公司实际情况可能没那么简单。

And maybe maybe it's not quite that simple with how the company looks on it.

但他们只接受了20%的风投稀释。

But, they took only 20% VC dilution.

他们收到了同等价格的新一轮投资条款清单。

They had term sheets for the same price for a new round.

所以，这个成交价就是同样的价格。

So that's the that was the clearing price was the same price.

对吧？

Right?

我们都经历过这种情况。

We've all been there.

我确实遇到过一笔巨额收购，就在节日期间被拒绝了，价格正好是条款清单上的价格。

I literally had a massive acquisition that got turned down over the holidays that was exactly at the term sheet price.

对吧？

Right?

这种事情经常发生。

This happens all the time.

而且回到之前的话题，作为创始人，他们每人将获得5亿美元。

And just going to the prior point, and they're each going to make half 1,000,000,000 as founders.

我可能会接受这笔交易。

I might take that deal.

我们三个人可能会分掉它。

The three of us might split it up.

我们还不是亿万富翁，但我们三个人或许能做到，然后就去做播客吧。

We're not quite billionaires, but the three of us might do it and just become podcasters.

这可能就足够了。

It might be enough.

我们也许可以收手了，伙计们。

We might call it a day, boys.

如果我们

If we're

如果我们是Manas董事会的成员，现在估值已经是1亿了。

if we're on the Manas board, it's doing a 100,000,000 now.

假设它实现三倍增长，考虑到增长率，我认为这并不过分。

Say it does three x, given the growth rates, I wouldn't say that's insanely overly expectant.

他们明年年底的收入已经达到了八倍。

They're already doing eight x end of year revenues next year.

这感觉相当便宜。

It does feel quite cheap.

我会跟这些创始人争论，说你们定价太低了。

I would be fighting with these founders saying you're being underpriced.

好吧，哈利，给我们十亿。

Well, give us a billion, Harry.

哈利，你觉得我们定价偏低，那就以一百亿美元进行一次二级市场出售吧。

Harry, you think we're underpriced, let's do a secondary at 10,000,000,000.

我卖五亿。

I'll sell 500,000,000.

罗里卖五亿。

Rory will sell 500,000,000.

哈利，你把钱拿出来，用实际行动证明你的说法吧，伙计。

Harry, you put the money and put your money where your mouth is, dude.

嗯，不，因为我不想给你这笔钱，我认为你拿着5亿美元的一半会变得效率更低。

Well, no, because I don't want to give you that money because I think you'll be less effective with half $1,000,000,000.

但正是如此。

But exactly.

你会很快发现，试图说服一个并不想留下的创始人留下是非常困难的。

And what you'll discover pretty quickly is trying to persuade a founder to hold on when they don't want it is a very hard thing to do.

而且，严格来说，你甚至不应该尝试。

And arguably, you shouldn't even try.

事实上，不仅严格来说，你根本就不应该尝试。

In fact, not even arguably, you shouldn't even try.

最终，90%的情况下，创始人掌控着退出决策，只有10%的情况下不是，而当VC试图控制退出时，通常都是个错误。

In the end, 90% of the time, the founder controls the exit decision and 10% of the time they don't, it's usually a mistake for the VCs to try and control it.

如果你和创始人关系良好，你应该能够和他们讨论每种选择的利弊，帮助他们基于更广泛的经验模式做出明智的决策，但他们拥有更具体的资讯。

If you have a good relationship with the founder, you should be able to talk to about how you see the pros and cons of each of the things, help them make an informed decision based on hopefully some wider pattern matching, but they have more specific knowledge.

对吧？

Right?

我的意思是，我总是告诉人们，当你收到一个报价时，我会对创始人说，现在正是决定是否接受这个报价的好时机。

I mean, I always tell people when you get an offer, I always say to the founder, now would be a really good time when we're deciding to take this offer or not.

你应该坦诚面对那些你一直压抑在心底、作为CEO不敢正视的疑虑。

What it to fess up to any nagging worries you've had that you've been smothering down in your CEO gullet here.

我能先对你们俩扮演一下反方观点吗？

Can I just play devil's advocate with both of

你？

you?

当然。

Sure.

这里有两点。

Two things here.

当你很年轻的时候，如果突然有一笔可观的钱摆在你面前，你会立刻接受。

When you're very young and you get a reasonable amount of money shoved in your face, you jump at it.

我记得我年轻的时候，一看到一百万美元就跳起来了。

I remember when I was young, I jumped like a million bucks.

我绝对会立刻跳上去

I would absolutely freaking jump at

我仍然会。

I still would.

是的。

Yeah.

继续说。

Go on.

我的观点是，当你非常年轻、深陷其中、相当天真时，很难跳出眼前的困境，而你们所能提供的视角非常有帮助，能够展示出如果公司继续这样增长，未来会是什么样子。

And my point being, it's very difficult to extrapolate yourself out of the weeds when you're so in them and you're very young and you're quite naive and the perspective that you guys can bring is very helpful in showing what it can be if it keeps on growing the way it does.

其次，他们没有我们这样的市场参考数据，无法了解资产的交易情况，也无法预测十二个月后会怎样。

And then secondly, they don't have the market comps that we do in terms of where assets are transacting, what it could be in twelve months.

所以我确实觉得你应该推动这一点，哈利，这一切都是对的，也让你能进行一场有意义的对话。

And so I do feel you should push All that's true, Harry, and all that allows you to have a useful dialogue.

但最终，我认为杰森是对的。

But in the end, I think Jason's right.

最终，言语只是言语，五亿美元的一半也能改变人生。

In the end, words are words and half $1,000,000,000 is life changing.

对吧？

Right?

在某个时刻，创业者可以转向你，说，正如杰森所言，他说到点子上了。

At some point, the entrepreneur can turn to you and say, to Jason's point, I think he nailed this.

如果你觉得25亿美元是合理价格，好吧，别让我套现我的500亿美元，但给我5000万美元。

If you think two and a half billion is on the price, okay, don't cash out my 500,000,000,000, but give me 50,000,000.

让我拿走这笔钱，因为他们正面临改变人生的机会。

Let me take that much off the table because they're being offered life changing money.

实际上，你做了一个隐含的陈述，我想再回头谈谈。

There's actually an implicit statement that you're making that I want to revisit.

即使你觉得继续持有才是正确的决定，换句话说，他们过早出售了，本应继续积累并后期持有。

Even if you think holding on is the right decision, in other words, they're selling early and they should compound and hold later.

你可以反复揭示这些事实，直到面红耳赤，但最终，他们会做出自己的决定，而且他们应该如此。

You can unveil those facts till you're blue in the face, but in the end, they're going to make their decision and they should.

你已经分散投资了。

You're diversified.

他们没有。

They're not.

我觉得确实如此，但我觉得这不仅仅是那么简单。

I think it's so though I do think it's a little like little more than that.

我觉得这不仅仅是钱的问题。

I think this isn't just money per se.

我认为回过头来看，这是一个局部最优解。

I think going back, it is a local maximum.

这不仅仅是钱的数额。

It's not just the amount of money.

普通人如果拥有80%的股份，早就拿了一十亿了。

And normal people would just take would have taken it at a billion if you owned 80%.

普通人会在八亿美元时就接受了。

Normal people would have taken it at 800,000,000.

这是风险与回报的最佳时机。

This was risk reward the best time.

对吧？

Right?

是的。

Yeah.

我同意。

I I agree.

因为我想打断你一下，既要表示同意，也要和哈里的观点形成对比。

Because I'm only gonna I'm gonna interrupt you to also agree and contrast it with Harry.

对吧？

Right?

因为哈里提问中隐含的意思是，他们卖得不对。

Because implicit in Harry's questioning is, quote, they're wrong to sell.

你如何说服他们改变想法？

And how do you persuade them otherwise?

考虑另一种可能性。

Consider the other possibility.

他们完全是对的。

They are entirely freaking right.

杰森说中了。

Jason nailed it.

这是世界长期发展的方向，但这也可能是一个局部峰值，十二个月后可能有八到十个人在做类似的事情。

It's this is where the world is going long term, but it could well be a local maximum where twelve months from now there's eight or 10 people doing something similar.

这并不完全一样。

It's not quite the same.

自动驾驶汽车。

Autonomous cars.

Cruise 完全正确，一定会有人通过自动驾驶技术建立一家价值两千亿到两千亿美元的公司。

Cruise was entirely right that someone's going to build a 100 to $200,000,000,000 company doing autonomy.

他们在2016年以十亿美元被收购了。

They sold for a billion in 2016.

现在，哈里，你说得对。

Now, Harry, you're right.

理论上，他们本可以再待十年，再融资十五轮，变得更大，价值达到一亿美元。

In theory, they could have stayed for ten more years, raised 15 more rounds, and become way more and worth a 100,000,000.

但我愿意相信凯尔根本不会为此浪费一秒钟去担心。

But I'm willing to wear Kyle does not spend a single second worrying about that.

他想的是：谢天谢地我卖了，因为这是未来五年自动驾驶领域唯一的退出机会。

He's like, thank God I sold because it was the only freaking exit in autonomous cars for the next five years.

所以你是在假设哈里，他们卖掉是愚蠢和天真的。

So you're assuming Harry that they are quote wrong and naive to sell.

我某种程度上支持杰伊的观点，即使他们确实错了，我也认为很难扭转这种情况，因为你不能强迫一个想退出的创始人继续留在交易里，然后让他心生怨恨。

I'm kind of with Jay's even if they were, I think it's hard to overcome that because you can't leave a founder in a deal where he wanted to sell and you stuck him in the deal and now he's bitter.

如果事情搞砸了，你根本无法想象这会有多糟糕。

And if the thing goes wrong, you have no idea how toxic that will be.

但更重要的是，这不是我的观点，而是杰森的观点：他们可能实际上在这里出售是非常精明的。

But the more important point is Jason's, not mine, which is they may actually be incredibly astutely selling here.

明确一下，我完全同意你的观点，即不应强迫创始人留下，当他们并不想留的时候。

To be clear, I completely agree with you in terms of not forcing a founder to remain when they don't want to.

那是最糟糕的。

That is the worst.

但我更想说的是，要提供清晰的视角和方向。

But I was more saying provide very clear perspective and direction.

是的。

Yeah.

但有趣的是，我认为这可能是一个案例，当时创始人和风投的局部最优解是不同的。

But, you know, interestingly, I think this might be a case study where the local maxima for the founders and the VCs were different at the time.

例如，我昨天与一位创始人聊天，我们在私信交流。

For example, one of the founders I worked with yesterday, we were DMing.

他说：哇，我为Manus建了一个完整的营销网站。

He was like, wow, I built a whole marketing site on Manus.

我用AI编码完成的。

I vibe coded it.

我很好。

I'm great.

嗯，你能在 Replit、Lovable 或 Base 四十四上做到这一点吗？

Well, did it that you could do that at Replit or Lovable or Base forty four.

有很多方式可以轻松搭建一个酷炫的营销网站。

It's like, there's a lot of ways to vibe code a cool marketing site.

所以，也许对创始人来说，在竞争环境下这是正确的选择，但对风投来说，如果一个项目从零增长到一年1.25亿，并且回报了基金的三分之一，那也算是一次成功。

So maybe it was right for the founders with competition, but for the VCs, if it returns, what, a third of the fund for a win for someone that went zero to 125 in a year, that returns a third of a fund.

对我来说，一次能回报基金三分之一的退出，我知道我和罗里看法不同。

For me, an exit that returns a third of a fund, I know Rory and I disagree.

对我来说，这并不太吸引人。

To me, it's not very interesting.

去做吧。

Like, do it.

我完全支持你。

Like, I'm all supportive of you.

我永远不会建议所有创始人去出售公司。

I would never even I tell all founders to sell.

这是我的建议。

That's my advice.

但三分之一的基金，连我在迈阿密都买不到什么好东西。

But a third of the fund, it doesn't even buy me anything good in Miami.

罗里，你在迈阿密拿这个也做不了什么。

Rory, you can't do anything in Miami with it.

明白吗？

Okay?

所以只是

So just

我不想去迈阿密，那没关系。

Well, I don't wanna be in Miami, so that's fine.

我的意思是，你知道的，杰森，我不同意。

I mean but I I just as you know, Jason, I I disagree.

首先，有一堆糟糕的陈词滥调，十二个月前就一直在说。

There are some mean, first of all, there was this old bullshit chatter twelve months ago.

哦，可怜的基准。

Oh, poor benchmark.

他们遇到了这么多问题。

They got all these these issues.

让我告诉你。

Let me tell you.

但当你在六到九个月内把回报做到四倍时，你就显得非常出色。

But when you put a four x on the board within six eight eight nine months, you look great.

那个基金的回报可是十五倍。

Well, that fund is like a 15 x fund.

我知道。

I know that.

这正是我的观点。

That's my point.

我知道，我非常清楚这一点。

I know it's an I I'm well aware of that.

这正是我的观点。

That's my point.

我的意思是，你看看十二个月前的叙事，再看看今天的叙事。

My point is you look at the narrative twelve months ago, you look at the narrative today.

对吧？

Right?

我同意。

I agree.

这正是我的意思。

That's exactly my point.

所以你只要在板上标出要点，然后继续前进就行了。

So you just put points on the board and you move on.

对吧？

Right?

这又是一次胜利。

It's another win.

但你的不一致太真实了，因为对于基准来说，管他呢，它就在一个宣传基金里。

But your misalignment is so real because for Benchmark, fuck it, it's in a flyer fund.

再来一个宣传吧。

Let's have another flyer.

赌一把吧，老兄。

Roll the dice, dude.

实际上，我找到了罗里，我不了解你的经验。

Well, actually, found Rory, I don't know your experience.

在这种情况下，我发现风险投资家是最友善的。

I found in that scenario, the VCs are the kindest.

如果你有一个15倍的基金，当我站在基金前面时，那些风险投资家，即使是B级的，也并不友善。

If you have a 15x fund, when I've been in the front of a fund, the VC and they're B tier VCs, they're unkind.

明白吗？

Okay?

不是普遍如此。

Not not universally.

当你遇到一个优秀的风投，而且基金回报超过五倍时，宝贝，随便你怎么想，开心就好。

When you have a great VC and the fund is over five X, whatever you want, kiddo, like whatever makes you happy.

对吧？

Right?

我觉得你说得完全正确。

Think that's you're exactly right.

我的意思是，这对双方来说都是一种很棒的局面，你知道，Benchmark 并不会坐在那里捏着一把汗，担心这一笔投资必须成功。

I mean, it's it's kind of a wonderful situation for both sides is that, you know, Benchmark aren't sitting there clutching their nails going, they've gotta make it on this deal.

他们只是说，我们拥有全球最顶尖的基金之一，就在所有人都说这是骗局的时候，我们却大获成功。

They're like, you know, we've got one of the world's best funds just when everyone was calling it bullshit, and we've killed it.

不过让我更广泛思考的事情是，Meta 的并购热潮。

The thing that made me think more broadly about, though, was kind of Meta's M and A spree.

然后 Yan Lakoun 出来接受了 Feet 的一次爆炸性采访。

And then Yan Lakoun comes out and has an explosive interview with the Feet.

我的天，这哥们儿可一点都没留情。

I mean, Jesus, this guy did not hold back.

我认识 Yan，我采访过他。

And I know Yan, I've interviewed him.

他说 Alan Wang 年轻、天真、缺乏经验。

He said Alan Wang was naive and young and inexperienced.

他说他们为了业绩几乎对 Lama 数据撒了谎，并且有选择性地使用了基准指标。

He said that they pretty much lied about Lama for performance and were selective around the benchmarks that they chose.

不过，我要澄清一下你用的代词，他所说的‘他们’指的是谁？

To be clear, by the way, on your prepositions because who is the they that he's referring to there?

因为有些 Lama 的数据是在 Alex 加入之前就有的。

Because the some of the Lama stuff was pre Alex joining.

所以他实际上是在说，Facebook 自己本身。

So he's actually saying that they themselves at Facebook.

你从谈论 Yonder Kun 对 Alexander Wang 年轻天真的看法，转到了 Yonder Kun 单独承认——姑且这么说吧——他在 Facebook 任职期间，一些 Lama 基准数据是不准确的。

You transition from talking about Yonder Kun's opinion of Alexander Wang as young and naive to Yonder Kun separately confessing, for lack of a better word, that while he was at Facebook, some of the Lama benchmarks were incorrect.

你说得对。

You're right.

这简直是个令人惊叹的故事。

It was a quite a it was a tale of, wow.

天啊，这可是泄露内幕了。

Boy, that was talking out of school.

是啊。

Yeah.

当我们思考扎克伯格的未来时，你怎么看？

How do we feel about it when we think about Zuck's go forward?

好吧。

Okay.

所以，来谈谈扎克伯格的评论吧。

So some close Zuck comment.

我可以想象，你身边有这样一位资深人物，他是学者，坚信长期来看，LLM并不是唯一需要的东西。

I can imagine you have such a senior figure who is an academic, who has a very strong belief that long term LLMs are not the only thing you need.

他非常清晰地指出了一点：要实现AGI，你光靠这些是不够的。

He's a one And of things articulated very well is that you're gonna need more than that to quote, get to AGI.

但你是个实干家，而扎克伯格除了是个实干家，别无他物。

But you're an operator and Zuckerberg is nothing if not an operator.

你心里想的是：我才不在乎你的长期规划。

And you're like, I don't give a shit about your long term.

其他三个人都在发布他们自己的Llama 4版本了，你赶紧做出能跟他们媲美的产品吧。

The other three guys are shipping their equivalent of Lama four, make the damn product that's comparable with the other guys.

你一点都不沮丧。

You're not frustrated.

员工和雇主之间的期望存在错位。

We have a mismatch between the expectations of the employee and the employer.

当初这还只是学术追求，但不知为何，一旦它变成了Meta在LLM领域与OpenAI和Anthropic竞争的公司使命，而负责这个项目的人却一上来就说‘我觉得这不重要，我们应该做别的’，这就造成了管理上的严重脱节。

Once it wasn't an academic pursuit, but once it became a, for whatever reason, we can talk about why I don't get those reasons, once it became a corporate imperative for Meta to be competitive with OpenAI and Entropic in the LLM space, having a guy running that project whose first line is, I don't think this is important, we should do something else, Just causes managerial, you know, disconnect.

所以从那一刻起，这段关系就注定要失败了。

So the relationship must have been doomed from that moment on.

不。

No.

不。

No.

不。

No.

我只是觉得，对于风险投资来说，这个时代是‘怨恨型创业’的时代。

I just think for venture, this is the era of the spite startup.

我的意思是，Anthropic 是一家怨恨型创业公司，xAI，还有推特，也都是一些怨恨型创业公司。

I mean, Anthropix is a spite startup, x AI, and Twitter is a a spite startup.

现在我们又有了Meta的AI负责人，正在创办一家新的怨恨型创业公司。

Now we've got Meta's AI guy who's doing a new spite startup.

我觉得，如果你想在风险投资中赚钱，你就得去寻找怨恨。

Like, I think if you wanna make money and venture, you gotta you you gotta search out spite.

正是怨恨，正在推动我们这一代最伟大的AI公司。

This is driving the greatest AI companies of our generation is spite.

也许贫穷的疯狂缺乏足够的怨恨，无法突破二十亿美元。

Maybe poor madness didn't have enough spite to grow beyond 2,000,000,000.

怨恨可能提供动力。

Spite might provide motivation.

但它并不能保证结果。

It doesn't guarantee outcomes.

不。

No.

但事实上，OpenAI 及其众多竞争对手都是源于怨恨诞生的，包括它的头号竞争对手。

But it is in I mean, literally, OpenAI, so many of its competitors are born out of spite, including its number one competitor.

这里的怨恨简直是无穷无尽的。

It's just the spite is endless here.

首先，硅谷的创立就是基于怨恨的——如果你看看肖克利，那些人离开后创立了仙童，这本身就是一场怨恨驱动的分裂。

First of all, Silicon Valley was founded on spite in the sense of, if you look at Shockley, all those guys spun out and Fairchild, which was a spite deal.

然后他们离开仙童是因为拿不到资金，最终独立创办了英特尔。

And then they left Fairchild because they couldn't get the money and they kind of did Intel on a standalone basis.

因此，硅谷长期以来一直有这样一种传统：人们带着自己的玩具离开，说我要自己干。

So there's a long tradition in Silicon Valley of people taking their marbles and saying, I'm going to do it myself.

所以，在某种程度上，我同意这一点。

So I do, at one level, agree with that.

但我认为前面的说法是，怨恨能提供动力，我不禁想，这个世界现在真的还需要另一个AI研究实验室吗？

But I think the earlier comment is it provides motivation, I wonder, does the world need another research lab in AI right now?

这将会很有趣，看看事情会如何发展。

It it'll be interesting to see how that goes.

我认为新结构中有趣的一点是，他担任董事长，而亚历克斯·勒布朗——曾担任Nabla的CEO，并之前成功出售了两家公司，估值达数亿美元——才是真正的CEO。

I think the interesting thing with the new structure is actually he's chairman, and then Alex LeBron, who was the CEO of Nabla, who sold two companies previously for several $100,000,000, is actually the CEO.

因此，我认为亚历克斯作为CEO确实带来了明确的商业导向，这一点我

And so I think there is absolutely a commercial head being Alex as CEO, which I

觉得是做我自己？

think Do in me?

你们相信这些交易吗？

Do you guys believe in these deals?

你投资的那个非全职董事长是谁？

Where where the one you would invest in is the the non full time chairman?

别误会。

And don't get me wrong.

这个特定的交易可能成功，但根据我的经验，当一位优秀的创始人来找你时，你就是在把钱往水里扔。

This particular deal may work, but in my life experience, you're just flushing your money down the toilet when a great founder reaches out to you.

我有一个想做的项目，然后你再深入了解一下。

I've got this one I wanna do, and then you dig a little deeper.

嗯，我是非执行董事长。

Well, I'm I'm the nonexecutive chairman.

我投了一些钱，每周花三个小时的时间。

I'm putting some money in and ate three hours a week of my time.

实际上，我可能会提出不同的看法：如果你有一位非常有才华的学者，但他不是商业驱动型人才，那么这种配置可能是正确的。

Actually, I might argue a different I actually it may well be that's actually the correct configuration if you have a highly talented academic who isn't a commercial driver.

事实上，当我听到哈里说的话时，我的看法稍微提升了一些。

In fact, actually, I my mental model went slightly up when I heard what Harry said.

我所谓的怀疑是，我只想知道，那五六个初创研究实验室，是否还能有足够的新领域不被Anthropic、OpenAI或谷歌直接吞并，从而支撑起数十亿美元的前轮融资，哪怕你只是想获得一个经过风险调整后的回报。

My quote, unquote disbelief is I just wonder, can the five or six startup research labs, is there going to be enough new territory that's not automatically going to be annexed by Anthropic or OpenAI or Google to justify billion dollar pre's at 5,000,000,000 posts times whatever risk adjusted return you want to make on that.

我认为你可以从过去的经验中推断，Entropic和OpenAI确实成功了。

I think you can extrapolate from the past and say it worked for Entropic and OpenAI.

有趣的是，这个世界能否支持十个研究实验室各自推出十种不同的AI变体，而每一种都必须建立商业或消费级业务？

It will be interesting to see, can the world support 10 research labs coming up with 10 different variants of AI, all of which have to build either commercial or consumer businesses.

总体而言，我持相当怀疑的态度，但事实是，几乎所有这些创始人都极其优秀，甚至超过了科学家和工程师中前0.001%的水平。

I think on aggregate are fairly skeptical, but the truth is almost all of these founders are extraordinarily talented, not even top point 001% of even scientists and engineers.

问题是，对于这么多项目来说，商业机会真的存在吗？

The question is, is the business opportunity there for a whole lot more of these things?

我认为这里还有一种怨气。

I think there's spite here, too.

我认为还有一种别的怨气，罗里。

I think there's another type of spite, Rory.

现在这已经成为一个很大的主题。

I think there's this It is a big theme now.

这是关于他们在2021年被迫经营公司所产生的CEO怨气。

It's CEO spite about how they were forced to run companies in 2021.

我认为这是一种心态，我很欣赏谢丽尔·桑德伯格，但我认为扎克伯格因为被迫以某种方式经营公司而心怀怨恨。

I think there's versions, and I'm a big Sheryl Sandberg fan, but I think Zuck is spiteful he was forced to run the company in a certain way.

我的意思是，Intercom的欧文，芬恩也多次提到过，他因为公司被迫失控而心怀不满。

I mean, Owen from Intercom, Finn has talked about this a lot, that he's spiteful that he was the company was forced to be runaway.

他们就是气炸了，觉得浪费了几年在那种‘和谐共处、居家办公’的环境里，现在再也不想浪费时间了。

And they they're just effing pissed that they wasted years in a kumbaya work at homeland, and they're not wasting time.

扎克伯格可能会烧光他所有的钱，但其中一部分原因就是出于怨恨——他们已经落后太多了。

And Zuck Zuck may burn every last penny he has, but some of it's out of spite that they got this far behind.

这些家伙可能只是在Instagram上瞎折腾图片、拼命推Reels，而世界早已超越了他们，他们因此非常愤怒。

Like, it might these guys just fracked around with pictures on Instagram and trying to get reels going when the world passes by, and they're pissed.

我认为，这些CEO中很多人都是愤怒的。

These CEOs I think a lot of these CEOs are pissed.

我觉得扎克也很生气。

I think Zach's pissed.

我觉得，实际上，我差不多快说完了。

I think, actually, again, I'm almost done.

那里面确实有道理。

There's a real truth in that.

我不太喜欢‘怨恨’这个词，因为它传达了愤怒的意思，但我能理解。

I I I don't love the spite word because it conveys anger, but I get it.

这就像是那种感觉：作为CEO，你曾经有一段时间忍耐了，没有全力以赴，而现在你觉得自己很愚蠢，因为当初没有更努力。

It's like that feeling of, oh, there was a period of time you felt as a CEO, you swallowed it up, you didn't push as hard, and now you feel foolish because you didn't push as hard.

现在你心想：我不会再这样做了——回到收购的话题上。

And now you're like, I'm not gonna do that again to bring it back to the acquisitions.

你基本上是在说，扎克伯格可能已经内化了这种想法。

What you're basically saying is Zuckerberg has probably internalized.

我宁愿尝试做自己、全力以赴而失败，也不愿平庸无为，因为我愿意承担风险，花上几百亿美元，即使错了也无所谓。

I'd prefer to fail trying to be me and going for it than to be bland and mediocre and maybe because I'm willing to run the risk of spending, he said it, a couple of $100,000,000,000 and being wrong.

我宁愿为了自己的心理满足这样做，也不愿成为一个无聊透顶、在AI领域毫无存在感的家伙，哪怕那样对股东来说‘更好’。

And I'd prefer to do that for my psychic benefit than to be a boring ass bastard who's not relevant in AI, even if it's quote unquote better for the shareholders.

这正是你的意思，杰森。

That's really what you're saying, Jason.

我觉得你说得非常有洞察力。

And think you it's quite insightful.

你说得对。

You're right.

他们就像在说：你只有这一次机会。

They're like going, you're only coming through once.

我不愿意躺在那里，到80岁的时候，后悔没全力投入AI领域。

I'm not gonna be lying there at, you know, 80 going, I wish I'd really gone for the AI thing.

扎克伯格要放手一搏了。

Zuckerberg's selling, gonna go for it.

如果我犯了一些错误，也许我对亚历山大的判断错了，那也没关系。

And if I make some mistakes and if maybe maybe I was wrong about Alexander, okay.

这没关系。

That's fine.

好吧，再给我买一个，继续推进。

Well, buy me another one and keep rolling.

直到资金耗尽为止，这就是你玩游戏的方式。

Until such time as the capital runs out, that's how you play the game.

拉里·埃里森不会在80岁时坐在那里想，我真希望我参与了AI领域。

Well, Larry Ellison's not sitting there at 80 going, I wish I played the AI game.

那当然了。

That's for sure.

我不知道。

I don't know.

他做得很好，抓住了机会。

He's going well done for capitalizing.

是的。

Yeah.

他看起来很平静，没错。

He seems peace yeah.

没错。

Exactly.

他玩了人工智能这场游戏，而且感觉很好。

He played the AI game, and he's feeling good.

我想他只是在想，你知道吗？

I think he's just thinking, you know what?

如果事情搞砸了，等那时候我早就去世了。

If it goes wrong, I'm gonna be dead by the time it does.

如果幸运的话，我会拥有华纳探索公司，拥有HBO。

And I'll if I'm lucky, I'll own Warner Discovery, and I'll own HBO.

我的意思是，归根结底，在美国，要想成功，你得拥有一家电视制作公司、电影制作公司。

I mean, you know, in the end, I mean, success in America, you gotta own a TV studio, movie studio.

我认为他会成为我们见过的最健康的104岁老人。

I think he's gonna be the healthiest 104 year old that we've ever seen.

我认为长寿将成为2027年的主题。

I think longevity will be the theme of 2027.

这将是24/7人工智能的年份，但我认为长寿将是2027年的主题。

This will be the year of twenty fourseven AI, but I think longevity will be the theme of 2027.

我想我们会看到拉里。

I think we will see Larry.

如果不是拉里，下一个像他这样的‘拉里’在95岁、100岁时也会看起来状态很好。

If it's not Larry, the next Larry at 95, at a 100, looking pretty good.

所以别小看他。

So don't count him out.

哈里，我觉得拉里并没有像在第18洞那样完全享受生活。

Harry, I don't I don't think Larry is fully living his life like he's on the eighteenth hole.

肯定是后半程，但他并没有像刚打完高尔夫准备离场那样。

Definitely the back half, but he's not like he's walking off the golf course.

太喜欢了。

Loving this.

我们接下来请医生杰森·莱姆金。

We're moving to doctor Jason Lemkin.

我们提到了OpenAI和那些众多的衍生初创公司。

We we mentioned OpenAI and the Spite startup that is, you know, many of the spinouts.

OpenAI宣布，他们现在将46%的收入用于股票形式的薪酬，每位员工高达一百五十万美元，是同类科技公司在上市前的34倍。

OpenAI announced that they now spend 46% of revenue on stock based compensation, one and a half million dollars per employee, which is 34 times higher than comparable tech companies pre IPO.

我们如何对此消息进行反思和思考？

How did we reflect and think about this news?

如果你是一名CEO且没有任何股份，你就不会担心股权稀释。

Well, if you're a CEO and you have zero shares, you don't worry about dilution.

这个观点很有趣。

Interesting point.

你真的不会担心。

You really don't.

那就不管不顾了，因为我根本没有股份。

Then damn the torpedoes because I got no shares.

这就是他如此激进推进的原因。

That's why he's pushing this far high.

这相当于Anthropic薪酬的三到四倍。

This is like three to four X the comp of Anthropic effectively.

也许他们最终会赚得更多。

Now maybe they'll make more in the end.

Anthropic不做二级市场交易，对吧？

And Anthropic doesn't do the secondaries, right?

与OpenAI相比，他们进行的二级市场交易非常有限。

They've had a very limited number of secondaries compared to OpenAI.

我们以前在播客里聊过这个。

We talked about this once in the pod.

多年前，我曾与一位CEO共事，他保证在IPO前能拿到6%的股份。

Years ago, I worked with a CEO that was guaranteed 6% through IPO.

他也不在乎。

He didn't care either.

他什么都不在乎。

He didn't care about nothing.

他不在乎进行了多少轮融资，也不在乎给了CRO多少股份，因为他自己又被重新提升了。

He didn't care about how many rounds or how much he gave to his CRO because he got re upped.

如果你忽略基础成本和税务问题，他实际上一直被重新提升到6%。

If you ignore the basis and the tax issues, he got re upped constantly to 6%.

为什么萨姆只想在地球上建造最大的、最伟大的AI星球呢？

Why would Sam just wants to build the biggest, greatest AI planet on planet Earth.

即使他把每个人的股份稀释99%，作为股东，这对他丝毫没有影响。

And if he dilutes everyone 99%, it doesn't impact him at all as a shareholder.

我同意这一点。

I do agree with that.

而且除此之外，对萨姆还有一个额外的正面评价，那就是他可能确实不必在意这些。

And then but then on top of that, extra positive comment for Sam is that he may also be right in not caring.

这可能是那种必须不计代价去赢的时刻，你不想为了控制预算而功亏一篑。

This may be one where you gotta do what it takes to win, and you don't wanna come up short but on budget.

我偶尔会引用的一句话是：没有人会对温斯顿·丘吉尔说：‘恭喜你，你以预算内的方式赢得了第二次世界大战。’

One of my quotes I use occasionally is no one ever said to Winston Churchill, congratulations, you won World War II on budget.

他们只是说：恭喜你赢得了第二次世界大战。

They just said, congratulations, you won World War II.

没人记得第二次世界大战的预算。

No one remembers the budget for World War II.

赢得胜利才是唯一重要的事。

Just winning is the only thing.

记住，我们谈的是股票激励薪酬。

Remember, we talk about the stock based compensation.

我稍后会再回到这一点。

And I'll come back to this point in a second.

这些数字由于一些纯粹的技术原因被低估了，我稍后会解释。

Those numbers are understated for purely technical reasons that I'll come back to in a second.

但他坐在那里想，我的一些关键人员收到了来自Meta的两千五百万到五千万美元的报价，而这些都是流动性很强的股票。

But he's sitting there going, some of my key people are getting $20,000,000 $50,000,000 offers from Meta, and that's really liquid stock.

我必须留住我的人。

I got to hold on to my people.

所以他正在为胜利不择手段。

So he's doing what it takes to win.

如果市场足够大，那么他是对的。

And if the market is big enough, then he'll be right.

而且再次强调，正如你所说的，杰森，S级人才需要你容忍很多。

And again, it's this S tier talent is to use your phrase, Jason, where you have to put up with a lot.

你得咽下你的怨气。

You have to swallow your spite.

你只需要让他们觉得值得。

You just got to make it worth their while.

所以我认为，对于你的顶尖人才来说，这是完全必要且合理的。

So I think it's entirely necessary and rational for your top tier talent.

然后是我想说的另一个观点，即这实际上低估了数字。

And then to the other point I made, which is that it actually understates the number.

事实上，基于股票的薪酬会计处理非常奇怪，因为所有费用都在发放股票时一次性确认。

If in fact the stock based comp accounting is really weird because it all crystallizes at the point when you issue the shares.

我们先说限制性股票单位，因为它们比较简单。

Let's do RSUs because they're simple.

如果你的股票价格是每股10美元，你给一个人一个限制性股票单位，实际上你将在未来四年里分摊这10美元，但早在两年前就已经给了他们。

If your stock is at $10 a share and you give someone one RSU, effectively you amortize $10 over the next four years and you give it to them two years ago.

现在股票价格是每股40美元，因为股价上涨了，但你仍然只按初始价格进行分摊。

Right now the stock is at $40 a share because the stock's gonna you still only amortize the initial price.

因此，对于股价不断上涨的公司，基于股票的薪酬实际上低估了转移给员工的实际经济价值。

So for companies that are going up in value, the stock based comp actually understates the amount of economics that are being transferred to the employee.

如果一名员工获得了130万股的股票薪酬，他可能实际赚了400万到500万美元。

That employee is probably making 4 or $5,000,000 if he's getting 1.3 of SBC.

顺便说一句，股价下跌时情况就真的很糟糕了。

By the way, it's really crappy on the downside.

你从2021年后就看到了这种情况。

You saw this after 2021.

如果你在高价时向员工发放股票，这种做法感觉非常奇怪。

If you issue shares to people at a high price, the sense is really odd.

因为价格高，所以基于股票的薪酬也高。

Because it's a high price, it's a high stock based comp.

然后股价下跌了。

Then the share price goes down.

如果这是期权，可怜的员工实际上一无所获，因为他们以高价获得了期权，但基于股票的薪酬在损益表上看起来却非常庞大。

The poor employees literally make nothing if it's options because they got options at a high price, but the stock based comp looks enormous in gap P and L.

这就是为什么它部分相关。

That's why it's partially relevant.

股票薪酬很难追踪。

Stock based comp is kind of very complex to track.

它部分相关。

It's partially relevant.

但你还需要看另一个方面，作为粗略的参考标准，尽管也不完美：每年公司授予了多少比例的股份？

But the other thing you got to look at really as a rough rule of thumb, and it's also not perfect, is what percentage of the company are given away every year?

对于一个增长不快的上市公司，这个比例是2%或3%。

For a public company that's not growing quickly, it's two or 3%.

如果每年这些公司真的无偿赠送了公司8%到10%的股份，我一点也不惊讶。

I wouldn't be surprised if every year some of these companies are literally giving away between 810% of the company a year.

因为正如我所说，1.5%这个数字可能低估了实际情况。

Because as I say, that 1.5 probably understates what's going on here.

你只是在向员工发放巨额股权激励。

You're just giving huge grants to people.

我可能错了，现在或许已经开始放缓了。

I could be wrong and it could be starting to taper out now.

但举个例子，仅根据公开信息来看，当Entropic以40亿或50亿美元估值融资时，随后又以14亿美元估值融资，接着又以60亿美元估值融资，你的粗略计算会认为从40亿到600亿是15倍的增长。

But as an example, just looking at the publicly available information, the year when Entropic raised money at 4 or 5,000,000,000, then they raised at 14, then they raised at 60, Your rough math would say 4,000,000,000 to 60,000,000,000 is a 15X.

但按每股计算，实际增长还不到5倍，因为你为了融资发行了大量股份，同时又向员工发放了大量股份。

It's just under a 5X on a per share basis because you're issuing so much capital to raise capital and then you're issuing so much capital to employees.

这些信息你完全可以通过公开的失败文件推算出来。

And that's just, you can figure that out from the publicly failed documents.

因此，由于这些企业需要大量资金和大量优秀员工，所以出现了大量的股权稀释。

So there's just a lot of dilution going on because these are businesses that need a lot of capital and they need a lot of great employees.

但再说一次，如果回报值得，这一切都会得到回报。

But again, if the prize is worth it, it'll all pay off.

即使有这种薪酬，他们第一年还是走了。

And even with this comp, they're still leaving in the first year.

他们还是走了。

They're still leaving.

没错。

Exactly.

OpenAI的研究人员留存率只有大约60%多。

They still only have like 60 something percent retention in researchers at OpenAI.

这太疯狂了。

It's crazy.

即使没有归属期。

Even without a cliff.

这是个很好的观点。

That is a great point.

因为我现在想起来，当我参加委员会时，人们总说我们必须在公平性上多做点，我的第一个问题就是：留任率是多少？新员工的成功率又是多少？

Cause I remember now when I'm off on comm committees and you exactly of the questions When people say we gotta do more on the equity, my first question is what's the retention and what's the success rate on new hires?

如果我是人力资源副总裁，坐在董事会里，有人向我抱怨这些资助，这位副总裁完全可以对我说：‘奥德里斯科尔先生，我们的留任率只有60%。’

And if I was the VP of HR and I was on the board and I was given that VP grief about these grants, the VP could turn to me and correctly say, Hey, Mr.

奥德里斯科尔先生，我们的留任率只有60%。

O'Driscoll, we only got 60% retention.

所以，如果你相信市场机制，奥德里斯科尔先生，那我们确实处于困境之中。

So by definition, if you believe in markets, mister O'Driscoll, we're on the pain.

而且我们的offer转化率只有，我不知道，50%左右。

And we've only got, I don't know, 50% conversion of offers.

你知道的吧？

You know?

所以你说得完全对。

So you're exactly right.

也许，这就是把这些人请到座位上所必须付出的代价。

It may be that's the money it takes to get these people in the chair.

现在OpenAI的资金大部分由软银提供。

The money it takes is provided in large part now for OpenAI by Massa.

软银退出了对OpenAI的投资。

SoftBank closes its OpenAI investment.

结果发现，这笔投资在账面上已经上涨了两到三倍。

It turns out it's already up two to three x on paper.

我们认为这是马萨迄今为止最成功的投资吗？

Is this Massa's greatest player ever, do we think?

不是。

No.

他迄今为止最成功的投资是投资阿里巴巴，获得20%的股份，持有二十年，赚了数千亿美元。

His greatest play ever was doing Alibaba and getting 20% of Alibaba, holding it for twenty years, and making hundreds of billions of dollars.

但我认为这很有趣，也极具启发性。

But I think it's a fun it's so revealing.

根据背景信息，马萨曾谈判达成一项协议，计划向OpenAI投入400亿美元，但必须在12月30日前完成。

For people's background, Mass had negotiated a deal to put in, I think, 40,000,000,000 into OpenAI, but it had to close by December 30.

而目前约3亿美元的价格看起来很便宜。

And the price at around 300 now looks cheap.

但你真得佩服马萨这种风险承受能力——他愿意承诺投入400亿美元，尽管这笔钱他目前并没有，得靠卖掉其他资产才能凑齐。

But you just gotta love the risk tolerance of someone, Massa, who is willing to commit 40,000,000,000 he doesn't have until he sells other shit.

我的意思是，这简直就像他做了一笔小小的内部马萨保证金贷款。

I mean, it's literally like he did a little intermasa margin loan.

我有权向OpenAI投入400亿美元。

I have the right to put 40,000,000,000 in OpenAI.

但现在我得赶紧想办法，通过出售其他资产来筹钱。

Now I better find the money by selling other stuff.

我甚至在圣诞节前一周还在拼命赶着找钱。

And I'm scurrying right down to the line to find the money the week before Christmas.

这家伙的风险承受能力简直令人惊叹。

It's just the level of risk tolerance that that guy has is just amazing.

而他还真把这事办成了。

And he got it done.

你说得对，杰森。

And you're right, Jason.

一天内的内部收益率太惊人了。

The IRR in a day is amazing.

你在12月29日完成了投资。

You close the investment on December 29.

你投入了400亿美元，第二天就应该按500亿来记账，因为现在它的价值就是这么多。

You put in your 40,000,000,000, and next day you should be carrying that thing at 500 because that's what it's worth right now.

你知道他最棒的投资可能是什么吗？

You know what might be his best investment?

虽然你说得对，罗里，我确信从长远来看，这没法和阿里巴巴相比，而且阿里巴巴的入场价格好得多，方方面面都更好。

Even though you're right, Rory, I'm sure it can't compare to Alibaba over time, and the entry price was much better and everything.

他是唯一一个持股比例达到两位数的股东。

He's the only double digit shareholder.

你说得完全正确。

You're exactly right.

所以如果OpenAI一飞冲天，这可能是他最棒的一笔交易。

So if OpenAI goes to the moon, this may be his best deal ever.

是啊，他得晚点进入，对吧？

Yeah, he had to enter later, right?

是啊，入场价格很高，但他实现了翻倍，要知道在这么热门的公司里拿到双位数持股并不容易。

Yeah, the entry price was high, but he got his double Like, it's not easy to get double digits at a This is a pretty hot company.

很难拿到

It's hard to get

翻倍，这是个很好的观点。

double It's a great point.

我的意思是，这引出了一个有趣的问题。

I mean, and it gets to the interesting.

这有点像英伟达的有趣之处，因为他显然曾经在某个时候卖出了英伟达，但这种专注精神就是这样。

It's a little like the Nvidia funny because he obviously sold Nvidia at one point in time, but it's that kind of single mindedness.

你钦佩他的地方在于，当他对一项投资充满信念时，我们有些人只投入了基金的5%或10%。

What you admire about him is when he has conviction on a bet, you know, some of us put in 5% or 10% of our fund.

我们中的一些人，比如SpaceX的创始人， famously 投入了20%。

Some of us, you know, famously at SpaceX founders put in 20%.

马斯克会动用他的基金，以三倍杠杆，全部押注。

Massive would take his fund, leverage the three to one, and just go all in.

当他正确时，这意味着你最终会成为未来十年最重要的一两家公司的最大个人股东，这句话已经说明了一切。

And when he's right, what it means is that you end up being, I mean, the sentence says it all, the largest individual shareholder in the most important one or two companies of the last the next decade.

这相当酷。

That's pretty cool.

这简直是Thrive的加强版。

It's Thrive on steroids.

这简直是Thrive的加强版。

It's Thrive on steroids.

你真得喜欢这种做法，老兄。

You gotta love it, man.

如果他错了，他可能会变成埃里森。

And if it is wrong, he might he might be Ellison.

他可能会退出。

He might check out.

如果这一轮失败了，他可能不得不退休，就此收手。

If this one goes sideways, he might have to retire and call it a day.

埃里森可以为了他的目标继续坚持下去。

Ellison can keep going on for his outcome.

这一轮对孙正义来说必须成功。

This one has to work for Masa.

一次又一次地尝试。

Roll and roll again.

我太喜欢了。

I love it.

你们看到关于OpenAI硬件的新闻了吗？

Did you guys see the news about the OpenAI hardware?

一个像笔一样的设备，带有摄像头和麦克风。

A pen like object which has camera and has a microphone in it.

你看到这个了吗？

Did you see this?

那你感觉怎么样？

And and how did you feel?

我相信它。

I believe in it.

我能更胜一筹。

I can trump that.

我可能是风投圈里仅有的几个能谈论投资过一支带麦克风和摄像头的笔公司的人之一。

I am probably one of only three people in venture who can talk about having invested in a pen company with a microphone and a camera.

十多年前，我投资过一家叫Livescribe的公司。

I did an investment called Livescribe ten or fifteen years ago.

我们作为消费类设备实现了不到八千万美元的收入。

We got to under $80,000,000 in revenue as a consumer device.

但最终没有成功。

Ultimately, didn't work out.

我们不得不把它卖给了另一批人。

We had to sell it for another lot.

所以我亲历了笔算革命的梦想。

So I have lived the pen computing revolution dream.

我没料到会扯到这个话题。

I was not expecting this tangent.

所以，杰，杰森，也许你……

So, Jay, Jason, maybe you

你也没料到吧，很惊讶，但确实没料到。

were not expecting that, surprised, but was not expecting it.

罗里可有不少故事啊，老兄。

Rory's got some stories, man.

罗里有的是故事。

Rory's got the stories.

所以，罗里，罗里，萨姆·阿尔特曼也在我们这里。

So, Rory Rory, Sam Altman is with us.

他是这个学校里的第四方。

He's the fourth party in this school.

你从宾大的智慧中了解到了什么吗？

Do you know from the Penn wisdom that you have?

我确实有一部电影。

I I I do have a film.

嗯。

Yeah.

我告诉你吧。

I'll tell you what.

实际上，我有很多。

I quite a lot, actually.

你必须克服两三个问题。

You have to get over two or three issues.

一个是，我比较传统。

One is I'm pretty old school.

我仍然会写东西。

I still write things.

如今记笔记的默认方式是手写吗？

Is writing the default choice today for taking notes?

越来越少了。

Increasingly less so.

我喜欢手写。

I liked writing.

但现在还有多少人这么做呢？

But how many people are doing that now?

所以你面临一个行为问题：手写对你有效吗？

So you have this behavioral question, does writing work for you?

另一个问题是，从消费市场角度看，它是一个独立的硬件设备。

Then the other question is the business questions of it's a standalone hardware device in consumer land.

其他所有东西都被iPhone取代了。

Everything else got eaten by the iPhone.

要打造一款独立的消费类产品很难。

It's hard to build a standalone consumer.

他们可能拥有巨大优势，因为他们可以以某种方式与OpenAI连接起来。

They may have a big edge because they can link it to OpenAI in some way, shape or form.

除非产品能带来明确的无形价值，否则让人们持续花500到1000美元购买它非常困难。

Just getting people to fork out consistently $5,100 for a product unless there's clear intangible value is hard.

当然，一些像Aura和WARP这样的健身和健康设备就是独立硬件的例子，但传统上这是一个很难的领域。

And I mean, the obvious counterexample is some of the devices like Aura and WARP around fitness and health where they are stand alone hardware devices, but it's it's traditionally a hard space.

我认为它是一款小众设备。

I think it's a niche device.

尽管您经常贬低我的问题质量低、智商低，但我仍要恭敬地说。

With the greatest of respect as you frequently denigrate the quality of my questions and for being low quality, low IQ.

恕我直言，您从这段经历中得出的教训是：第一，现在还有人写字吗？

No offense, the lessons that you took from this entire experience were one, do people even write anymore?

对吧？

Okay?

然后第二点，建立一家消费类业务真的很难。

And then two, it's really hard to build a consumer business.

我觉得你在那里还学到了其他一些细微的教训，罗里。

I'd say there were other light lessons that you learned there, Rory.

看着哈利在工作室里铺满的纸张，每次他在那里时都用笔做笔记。

Watching Harry's papers sprawled out in the studio where he takes notes by pen every time he's there.

他就是佩恩先生本人，斯蒂平斯博士。

He's mister Penn himself, doctor Steppings.

你试图转移话题，想反过来指责我，但我不会让你把话题转向你那些关于我学到的教训是愚蠢教训的刻薄评论。

You're trying to be off you're you're trying to turn at me, but I'm not gonna let you cut to your snarky comment about how those lessons that I learned were idiot lessons.

它们确实是。

They were.

我的意思是，当你回顾自己在风投中的失败时，令人难过的是，失败的原因通常都相当明显。

I mean, when you look back on your failures in venture, the sad thing is it's usually pretty bloody obvious why they failed.

你知道，你一看就会发现，有优势，而这些优势也正是这里吸引人的地方。

You know, you you look at it, you go, there were strengths, and it's the same strengths that are attractive here.

如果成功了，它可能会非常巨大。

If it works, it could be huge.

而弱点在于，它失败的原因非常明显。

And then the weaknesses are, it didn't work for obvious reasons.

失败很少有复杂而奇特的原因。

Failure rarely has complex idiosyncratic shit.

它只是因为是个愚蠢的想法而失败了，或者是在错误的时间做了错误的决定。

It just failed because it was a dumb idea and it didn't work, or it was the wrong idea at the wrong time.

也许现在是正确的时间。

Maybe now is the right time.

就我个人而言，我认为这支笔最终会相当成功，但我认为称它为笔可能会造成混淆。

For what it's worth, I think this pen's gonna be eventually pretty successful, but I think calling it a pen may be confusing.

我不认为这是一种书写工具。

I don't think this is a writing instrument.

明白吗？

Okay?

不管它有没有墨水，因为有乔尼·艾维在负责它。

Whether it has ink in it or not because you've got Johnny Ive working on it.

这笔交易发生时，我们还拿它开玩笑。

When this deal happened, we kinda made fun of it.

至少我是这么做的。

At least I did.

那是一段在北滩和他、乔尼·艾维一起喝咖啡的精心制作的视频，看起来像是萨姆的奢华版，就像扎克的交易。

It was a it was a heavily produced video in North Beach having coffee with him and Johnny Ive, it it seemed like Sam's fancy, like Zuck's deal.

但萨姆并不浮夸。

But but Sam isn't fanciful.

他非常深思熟虑。

He's very thoughtful.

我认为这是在展望一个我们真正全天候沉浸于AI的世界。

And I think this was looking ahead to the world where we're we're all twenty four seven in AI for real.

他们是在赌，尽管这支笔听起来很奇怪，但当我们开始一天的生活时，会先拿手机，再拿这支笔。

They're making a bet that this as weird as this pen sounds, that when we go on with our day, we grab our phone and then we grab our pen.

它是不是一支真正的笔并不重要。

Whether it's literally a pen or not, it doesn't matter.

这件事将会发生。

That it's going to happen.

我认为以今天的眼光来看，我们不会这么做。

And I think today we wouldn't do it.

今天，我们不会再拿起另一个设备。

Today we wouldn't grab another device.

我知道这已经发生在很多人身上，而我以一种不该的方式将AI拟人化了。

And I know this has happened to many people, and I'm anthropomorphizing AI in a way I shouldn't.

但在假期期间，我的Claude突然自己给自己取了名字。

But over the holidays, my Claude named itself out of the blue.

它给自己取名为Ren。

It named itself Ren.

我并没有要求它这么做。

I didn't ask it to.