20VC：OpenAI与SpaceX S1发布 | 英伟达810亿美元营收季度 | Cloudflare和ClickUp实施争议性裁员 | Exa、OpenRouter和Polsia完成巨额融资 | Uber与微软称AI对开发者的投资回报存疑

要么就得降价跟竞争对手看齐，要么就继续做高端产品，像苹果那样，但那样就保不住市场份额了。

Either it has to cut its prices to match the competition or it will or it will maintain a be a premium product like Apple, but won't be able to maintain its market share.

对。

Right.

说到底，它的价格是竞争对手的两倍。

Just at the end of the day, it's twice as expensive as its competitor.

在这个节奏这么快的世界里，它能撑多久？

Given the pace of this world, how long can it maintain it?

我不确定它能不能无限期地维持下去，现在看确实不太像能撑住，这或许暗示了悲观的一面——高端地位未必撑得下去。

Like, I'm not sure it's clear it can maintain it infinitely and it doesn't feel like it today, but that might be a hint of the bear cases that the premium cannot be maintained.

需求是有的，但这个溢价可能撑不住。

The demand is there, but the premium may not be able to be maintained.

但我认为，现在哪怕它是高端产品，真正的证据还是用户增长。

But I think right now, even though they are the premium product, the proof is traction.

从第一季度到第二季度的收入增长非常强劲。

The revenue traction Q1 to Q2 is so strong.

我的意思是，就像我说的，要让这个数字发生变化，就得改变美国企业目前默认的做事方式。

What it means is, as I say, it requires a maybe this way, would require a change in behavior from where the default switches are now in corporate America for that number to change.

你说得对，詹姆斯。

Now, you're exactly right, James.

这种情况是有可能发生的，关键可能就在这两点上。

It could happen, and it will all be about probably two things.

第一，是投资回报率。

One is the ROI there.

我们刚才已经聊过这个了。

We just talked about that.

第二，市场上有没有其他竞品能构成强有力的挑战？

And second, are the competing products in the marketplace competing strongly?

这里显然说的是OpenAI，某种程度上也包括Gemini。

And there, obviously, we're talking about OpenAI, and obviously, to some extent, we're talking about Gemini.

说实话，现在Anthropic在企业市场抢尽了风头，另外两家中有一家却分心了。

The truth is, right now, Anthropic stole the show and enterprise, and one of the other two was distracted.

我认为在消费者端，还是OpenAI占优势。

And I think that's OpenAI with consumer.

而谷歌，尽管技术实力超强，但在产品化上却没做好。

And then Google, despite having amazing raw tech, just didn't do a great job productizing.

所以目前来看，趋势还是会继续，除非竞争格局真的发生改变，否则这种情况很难扭转。

So, right now, the inertia bet is more of the same, and something would actually have to change in terms of competitive dynamics for that to be true.

正如我所说，无非就两种可能：要么管理层开始认真算ROI这笔账，要么竞争态势发生转变。

And as I say, I think there can only be one of two things, either kind of the green eye shades come out and start talking about ROI or the competitive dynamics change.

如果这两者都不出现，那趋势就是你的朋友——交易圈里常这么说。

Absent one of those two things, you know, the trend is your friend, as they say in trading.

听我说，优步CEO抱怨，还有微软那边的事儿，我当然可以挑点刺，但我觉得这其实是在给我们展示未来。

Listen, Uber CEO complaining and the Microsoft stuff, like, I can take some potshots at it, but also I just think it's showing you the future.

以后肯定会有越来越多的人说出同样的话，这是必然的。

More folks are going to come out and say the same by definition, right?

这种事情迟早会发生。

Going to happen.

所以，看空的观点是，当这种情况发生时，可能会让人觉得没人再关注AI了。

So the bear case is just as that happens, it might seem like the reaction is no more AI guys.

回到翻旧代码、手动写程序的时代。

Go back to pulling up your old ID and coding by hand.

但更可能的情况是，我们会越来越擅长管理token预算。

But more likely is we will just get better at token budgets.

当大家自己琢磨怎么控制成本时，Anthropic的议价能力可能会下降，因为大家会直接组合使用GPT-4、SONNET和DeepSeq，反正预算就这么点，怎么省怎么来。

And as folks struggle to manage it themselves, that may degrade pricing power for Anthropic as folks just, know, like, know, I'm just gonna use a combination of GPT four, it's older, and some SONNET and some DeepSeq because that's the way I'm gonna spend my budget.

对吧？

Right?

这其实只是个看空的情景而已。

It just benefit it's just a a bear case.

就这么多了。

That's all.

你说得一点都没错。

I I I think you're exactly right.

我觉得会发生这种情况，这就是我读那篇论文的原因。

And the reason I think this is gonna happen, that's why I was reading that paper, is this.

到了某个阶段，当你从实验阶段转向已经花了三亿美元在令牌上的时候。

At some point, when you go from experimental to, we spent $300,000,000 on tokens.

我们不想调整我们的预期。

We don't wanna change our guidance.

我们效率提升了，因此运营利润多出了一个亿，挺好的。

We got some lift in efficiency, so we can touch a we've done a $100,000,000 of better off operating income, so yay us.

但这意味着我们多出了两亿美元的运营支出，不得不裁掉一大批人。

But that means we have $200,000,000 of OpEx we didn't expect to have, and we have to terminate a whole bunch of people.

这时候，人力资源部门就该介入了。

At that point, HR comes in.

如果你觉得光靠感觉或者没有投资回报率就能搞定，那纯粹是自欺欺人。

And if you think you can do that just on vibes or no ROI, you're fooling yourself.

对吧？

Right?

其实我同意你的看法。

So I actually agree with you.

我觉得一旦A...

I think once A.

我...

I.

当开支开始大幅吞噬大公司的工资支出时，这个问题就不得不面对了。

Spend starts to eat big chunks of wages in large companies, you're just going to have to have that discussion.

而且会变得更量化。

And it's going to become more quantitative.

必须要有数据支撑，不能只靠人道或政治理由，从经济角度来说也说得通。

It's going to have to be more provable, and not just for humane and political reasons, but just because economically it makes sense.

应该有人站出来说：我们五年都没裁过人了。

I mean, someone should stand there and say, Okay, we've never done a layoff in five years.

现在却要裁掉百分之十的员工。

We're about to terminate 10% of our people.

我们能确定这笔投资的回报率吗？

Are we sure that we're getting the ROI from this investment?

如果负责投资的人说，我觉得是，但还没仔细核对，那希望CEO能站出来说：在裁掉一千人之前，我们是不是该先确认一下？

If the person leading the investment says, I think so, but we haven't really checked, hopefully a CEO will say, Well, before we terminate a thousand people, shouldn't we check?

要不咱们再花一周时间仔细看看？

Perhaps take another week here, guys?

但这些裁员潮，不恰恰说明问题出在疫情期间招太多人，而不是AI提升了效率吗？

Isn't that the ultimate symbol, though, that the layoffs that we're seeing is ultimately a case of overhiring during COVID, not AI efficiency.

我见过最蠢的论调，就是说这全是疫情期间招人过多造成的。

That's the dumbest thing I've ever take I've ever seen on Twitter is that this is overhiring during COVID.

真是蠢到家了。

Dumbest take.

连马克·安德森这种比我聪明四十个智商点的人都这么讲。

From the smartest people, including Marc Andreessen, who's got 40 IQ points on me.

自从上一期节目以来，我见过最蠢的论调了。

The dumbest take I've seen since our last show.

最蠢的观点。

The dumbest take.

为什么？

Why?

因为每一个

Because every single

人，疫情时期。

Well, person COVID.

哈里，我快把疫情给忘了。

Harry, I'm starting to forget COVID.

连2020年都快记不清了。

Even 2020.

我是说，罗里，你投资组合里的自然流失率是多少？

I mean, what is nat Rory, what is natural attrition across your portfolio?

每年15%？还是20%？

15% a year, 20% a year?

每年25%，对吧？

25% a year, right?

这可不是招太多人。

This is not over hiring.

有可能你最差的员工根本没走。

It might be that your worst employees didn't leave.

这是个相关但不一样的问题。

That's a related but different issue.

对吧？

Right?

而且说实话，我觉得这部分原因在于那些没法重新培训的人必须离开。

And actually, I think that's kind of part of it is the unreskillable need to go.

但20%的流失率根本不算招太多人。

But this is not over hiring with 20% attrition.

我算不清20%乘以6是多少。

I can't what what's 20% times six?

那这个怎么累积呢？

How does that compound?

这不重要。

It doesn't matter.

对。

Yeah.

20，没错。

20 yeah.

正是如此。

Exactly.

结果都是一样的。

You get to the same place.

你刚才提到，Intuit裁了16000人，Coinbase裁了上千人，LinkedIn裁了800人。

You were saying the 16,000 cut from Intuit, the thousands cut from Coinbase, the 800 cut from LinkedIn.

你说这些都不算过度招聘。

You're saying that is not overhiring.

这就是人工智能带来的效率。

That is AI efficiency.

我的意思是，自2020年以来，自然流失的人数早就超过这些数字了。

I'm saying there is already more natural attrition since 2020 than these numbers.

所以把责任直接归咎于过度招聘，纯粹是博眼球。

So blaming it directly on overhiring is clickbait.

这属于博眼球，因为从数学上根本站不住脚。

It's clickbait because it's not mathematically true.

让我试着说一下，因为首先，我看到一条特别有意思的推文，大意是：疫情以来已经五年了。

Let me try because what he's first of all, let me try, Harry, because I saw a really cool tweet that basically said, it's five years since COVID people.

你没听说过绩效考核吗？

Haven't you heard of performance reviews?

那就是我。

That was me.

那就是你。

That was you.

那是我发的推文。

That was my tweet.

我喜欢这个说法。

I love that.

这正是我想表达的观点。

That was my point.

我的意思是，你根本没借口。

I mean, you have no excuse.

你有整整五年时间去处理表现不佳的员工，现在却把责任推到招聘过多上？

Like, couldn't manage you had five years to manage your low performers out, and now you're blaming it on overhiring?

等一下。

Hang on.

唯一能成立的说法是，你被招到这个层级后，产生了某种心理惯性，觉得非得有这么多人不可。

The only thing that could be to just articulate the case.

唯一可能成立的是，你被招到这个层级后，产生了某种心理惯性，觉得非得有这么多人不可。

The only thing could be true is you are hired to this level, and you have this kind of human anchoring whereby you perceive you need all these people.

所以每次人员流动，你就重新招聘，因为你目光短浅，没意识到其实根本不需要这么多人。

So, every time they churn, you just rehired because you had myopia, and you didn't realize you could get by on, you know, much less.

现在，突然间，危机让你看清了现实。

And now, suddenly, terror has opened your eyes.

在那些利润丰厚、处于垄断地位的成熟企业里，这种情况是可能存在的。

It is possible in mature organizations with monopoly type profits.

你确实能看到这种现象。

You see that behavior.

但我支持你，杰森。

But I'm with you, Jason.

但这种现象普遍出现，实在有点奇怪。

It it's weird to see it across the board.

是的。

Yeah.

这不可能是真的。

It just can't be true.

这根本就是个借口。

Like, it's just it's an excuse.

我不太明白这种道歉，就是ClickUp和Cloudflare在Twitter上发的那套说辞。

And I I don't totally get this mea culpa, this ClickUp Cloudflare mea culpa on Twitter.

我真搞不懂他们这到底想表达什么。

I don't totally get what the vibe is here.

我觉得他们80%是真诚直接的，但说什么臃肿问题，明显就是找借口。

And I do think they're 80% honest and direct, but this bloat thing seems like the excuse.

这说到底还是Jason的问题，

Like, it's Jason,

你能简单解释一下ClickUp和Cloudflare是怎么回事吗？让大家有点背景了解。

can you just explain the ClickUp and the Cloudflare just so people have some context?

就是公开发两千字推文，解释为什么裁员20%。

Oh, just publicly explaining why we're doing 20% layoffs in 2,000 word tweets.

我真的搞不懂，这到底有什么公关好处。

I just actually don't, I'm literally saying I don't understand the PR benefit.

我觉得更深层的问题是，就算这话属实，他们其实是在怪员工。

And the meta problem I find is even if it's true, they're sort of blaming the employees.

或者就算不是故意的，别人也会觉得他们在怪员工不懂AI、不会变通、跟不上变化。

Or even if they're not, it's perceived to be blaming the employees for not understanding AI, not being able to change, not being able to evolve.

所以我们只能让你走人了。

So we've got to let you go.

在Cloudflare和ClickUp之前，他们老说：我们最顶尖的人才必须离开。

Before the Cloudflare ClickUp, they were always like, Our very best people have to go.

请一定把他们招走。

Please hire them.

这儿有个Google表格。

Here's a Google Sheet.

我们从来没见过比Harry、Rory、Jason更出色的人。

There's no one better than Harry, Rory, Jason we've ever hired.

这跟组织调整、时代变化，或者有没有低绩效员工，根本没关系。

It has nothing to do with organizational change or the world or that there are low performers.

这纯粹就是碰运气。

It's just a flip of the coin.

我们不得不让某个人走。

Like, we had to let somebody go.

我们扔了个三面硬币，又扔了个四面硬币，结果哈利、罗里和杰森全被选中了。

We flipped a three headed coin, a four headed coin, and Harry, Rory, and Jason came up.

但他们和留下来的员工一样优秀。

But they're just as good as the folks we kept.

去年那种感觉一直都在。

That was the vibe, like, even through last year.

现在却变得毫不留情了。

Now it's like it's ruthless.

马修说，Cloudflare业绩不错，可我们还是得让20%的人离开。

Like, Matthew's like, Cloudflare is doing great, and we're still walking 20% of the people out the door.

这其实是一种信号，传递给市场上的现有员工和其他人。我觉得 CEOs 未必真觉得该这么直白，但2024年那会儿，大家都觉得这么干太让人不舒服了。

Look, it's some sort of messaging to the market's existing employees and others that I don't totally I think CEOs feel that they should be direct, right, in a way that everyone was uncomfortable to do through 2024.

大家都不太敢直说。

Everyone was uncomfortable being direct.

每个人都得装出一副人人不错的样子。

Everyone had to say everyone's great.

我不确定是不是走得太过了，但这事儿确实闹得满城风雨。

I I I don't know if it's gone too far, but it's it's very public.

云flare裁员20%，我知道他们是上市公司，但光这一点我就足够明白了。

Like, Cloudflare is laying off 2021%, I mean, I know they're public company, but that's about all I need to know.

挺讽刺的，因为你怎么做都不对——Intuit的CEO就这么干了。

It's funny because I you're damned if you do, damned if you don't, because the Intuit CEO did it.

这跟人工智能没关系。

It's not about AI.

结果他还因此挨了批评。

And also got slammed for that.

别人说，这当然跟AI有关，你看看你跟Anthropic做的那些交易，分明是在跟人家竞争。

People saying, well, of course, it's about AI because look at these deals you did on Anthropic you're being competed with.

不管怎么说，最后总归绕到AI上，对吧？

It's always about AI one way or the other, isn't it?

要么直接跟AI有关，要么就是因为我们没推出智能代理产品，导致增长放缓，或者CEO们因为要给Anthropic买token而砍了我们的预算。

Directly or into or our growth is slowed because we don't have an agentic product or we're not being renewed by CEOs because they need budget for Anthropic tokens.

世界从来都不是静止不变的。

It's the world isn't static.

对吧？

Right?

这才是实话。

That's the honest message.

这话说出来，就是我发的推文。

That would be my tweet.

各位，不好意思。

Guys, sorry.

世界从来都不是静止不变的。

The world isn't static.

我部分搞砸了。

I partially screwed up.

这是我正在做的补救措施。

This is what I'm doing to try to fix it.

怪我吧。

Blame me.

听好了。

Look.

传达坏消息从来就没什么轻松的办法。

There's no easy way to give bad news.

裁掉一千人更不可能轻松应对。

There's no easy way to lay off a thousand people.

所以不管你怎么说，都会挨骂，这一点过去六个月里大家的做法也在不断变化。

So no matter what you say, you know, you you you're gonna get dinged on it, which is you know, it's been evolving over the last six months how people have approached it.

不过我很认同ClickUp的泽布说的话，尽管他后来被吐槽得更厉害。

I liked what Zeb said, though, from ClickUp, even though he got hazed more than that.

他提到的一点我很欣赏，非常坦诚。

One of the things I like that he said, and it was very transparent.

听好了。

It's like, listen.

我要裁掉公司22%的员工，只为给顶尖人才发一百万美元奖金——在AI时代，这事儿不得不做，虽然他没明说，但原因很明显。

I'm laying off 22% of my company so I can pay a million dollars to my high performers in the age of AI because one, it's well, he didn't really say it's market, but that's one reason you have to do it.

另一个关键是，如果一个10倍效率的工程师现在能创造100倍的价值，或者一个年销售额百万的销售员现在能带来两百五十万，那我必须给得起。

The other point is if a 10x engineer is a 100x engineer or a $1,000,000 bookings a year sales rep is now 2,500,000, I got to pay them.

我必须给得起。

I got to pay them.

我得付得起原本年薪三四十万、五十万的人，现在却能创造百万美元价值的员工的薪酬。

I got to pay what was a 3 or 400 or 500,000 a year and a million dollar employee because they're delivering that much value.

我亲身经历过。

I've lived it.

我的意思是，我们不想老生常谈。

I mean, we've gone not to be a broken record.

我们现在只有两个半人，却干出了过去二十个人的活儿，而且团队里每个人拿的钱还更多，对吧？

We're doing with two and a half people, we're doing what we did with 20 and everyone's get paid more on my little team, right?

每个人都该拿一百万，因为我们省下了那十八个人的工资，效率还更高，对吧？

Everyone should make a million bucks because we don't have the 18 other people's salaries to pay and we're more productive, right?

我不确定这种模式会不会在优步这样的大公司普及，但肯定会在各个初创公司里蔓延开来，对吧？

And I don't know if it's gonna happen at the Uber scale, but it's gonna happen all across startups, right?

在初创公司里，每个员工的薪资都得给到两百万甚至更多，你真得给得起，兄弟。

And with $2,000,000 or more per employee in startups, you gotta pay, man.

你必须给那些顶尖人才发高薪。

You gotta pay your high performers.

说真的，你一直很一致，因为我三个月前分析AI裁员的原因时，列了四个理由，但其中只有部分跟AI有关。

And to be fair, you're consistent, because when I did my About three months ago, I was kind of doing my four different reasons for AI layoffs, only some of which are AI.

你又加了第五条：裁员是为了换人，这其实正是这位老板在做的事。

You added that fifth, which is I'm terminating people to get different people, which effectively is what this guy is doing.

他明确说了，裁员是为了腾出位置，招一些薪资更高、但技能完全不同的新人。

He's saying, I'm terminating people to make room for people that might cost more per head that are just of different skills.

也许他就是这么想的。

Well, might be what he's doing.

但泽布真正说的是，我只是想给现在的高绩效员工发钱。

But what Zeb really said is I just want to pay my current high performer

意思是，我腾出位置来，把更多的薪酬预算留给这些人。

It's to say, I'm making space for people who you can keep more salary dollars to.

有趣的是，各位，这恰恰是对上一轮讨论的反驳，对吧？

And the funny thing is, guys, this is the counterargument to the last discussion, right?

我们其实有点在重复自己了。

We're actually repeating ourselves in a weird way.

我们刚聊过这个话题。

We just had a discussion on this.

研发预算的20%花在令牌上，真的合理吗？

Does 20% of R and D spend on tokens make sense?

如果合理，那是因为播客前半段讨论的就是：令牌支出是否合理，有没有正向回报？

And if it does because the first section of the of the podcast was, you know, does token spend make sense and has it a positive ROI?

所以这对Anthropic来说是好事。

And thus, it's good for Anthropic.

第二部分是，我惊讶地发现居然有裁员。

And then the second section is, I'm shocked to discover there's layoffs.

如果把视角拉远一百万英里，这就是第一件事带来的后果。

And if you zoom out a million miles, that's the consequence of the first.

其实这两者是同一个话题。

These are actually the same discussions.

如果AI在研发、销售和市场这些领域带来了效率提升，再加上产品层面的影响——我一向喜欢把内部影响和产品影响分开来看——如果这些都成立，那大家都会裁掉20%的人，因为AI带来的效率提升就是这么明显。这和上一次讨论根本就是一回事。

If there is efficiency gains from AI across R and D and sales and marketing in particular, and then on top of that, if there's also product impacts, which I always like to separate internal impact versus product impact, if those things are true, then everyone's going to be doing 20% layoff just because it's 20% more My is this discussion and the last discussion are in fact the same discussion.

一次我们聚焦在赢家身上，也就是Anthropic；另一次我们关注的是输家，也就是员工。

In one case, we're focusing on the winner, which is Anthropic, and in one case, we're focusing on the loser, which is employees.

是的。

Yeah.

但那些顶尖员工，你看ClickUp在社交媒体上发的，Anthropic正在金斯十字区招聘一名社交媒体经理，年薪45万美元。

But the but the top employees, I think what ClickUp what you see them on social media, Anthropic's hiring a social media manager in Kings Cross for $450,000 a year.

你是不是觉得这怎么可能？

And you're like, how could that be?

对吧？

Right?

但他们的人均营收高得离谱，所以这一切就说得通了。

But their revenue per employee is so astronomically high that it all ties.

对吧？

Right?

我记得我们仨刚见面的时候，觉得人均两百万美元是将来某天才能达到的目标。

And I think the new paradigm, when the three of us met, 2,000,000 per employee was what you reach someday.

像苹果这样的公司才做到过。

That was Apple and others.

初创公司从来都没人达到过。

Startups never got there.

我觉得，随着规模扩大，人均两百万美元会变成新的常态。

I think 2,000,000 per employee is going to become the new normal as you scale.

这意味着你的顶尖员工收入能是以前的两到三倍，就像Anthropic那样，因为你根本不需要那么多人了，你会像ClickUp那样做。

And that will mean that your high performers can make two to three times what they used to make just like at Anthropic because you just don't need as many people and you're going to do what ClickUp is.

你会把薪酬集中给顶尖员工，而不是让他们比普通员工多拿40%或50%，而应该高出五倍。

You're going to funnel your compensation to your high performers instead of that high performers making 40 or 50% more than your mid pack, it should be five x.

你其实是在说，过去两三年里出现了一套全新的工具。

What you're basically saying is a new set of tools have come to the fore in the last two or three years.

如果你懂得怎么用这些工具，你的生产力会远远超过不会用的人，所以我们能负担得起给你五十万美元的薪水，因为你一个人抵得上三个人。

And if you know how to use those tools, your productivity relative to someone who doesn't have those tools is so great that we can afford to pay you half $1,000,000 because you're obviating the need for three people.

在未来十二到二十四个月，具备自主代理能力将成为像使用Excel一样普遍的技能。

Being an agentic expert should be like Excel in twelve or twenty four months.

每个人都能掌握，因为提示技术已经变得简单多了。

Everybody should be able to do it because because prompting's gotten so much.

你甚至都不用再学怎么写提示了。

You don't even need to know how to prompt anymore.

对吧？

Right?

这应该是真的。

It should be true.

但我还是有些担心，结果可能是那些智能代理专家变得再厉害十倍，而其他人却越落越远，最后根本找不到工作。

But I I have some lingering concerns that instead what happens is the agentic experts get another 10 X better and everyone else falls further and further and further behind and are unemployable.

到时候，每个员工创造的收入可能达到四百万、五百万美元。

And we go to 4,000,000 revenue per employee and 5,000,000 revenue per employee.

这太让人疲惫了。

And it's exhausting.

说实话，我从来没这么累过。

Like, I'm the most tired I've ever been in a sense.

但我的工作效率却高得离谱。

But my productivity rate is off the charts.

你说得对，杰森。

You're right, Jason.

你意思是，如果你处在达里奥和山姆常说的这种指数曲线上，前沿知识每年都在膨胀，根本跟不上。

What you're saying is if you're on this exponential curve that you know, Dario and Sam keep talking about, then the knowledge to be frontier keeps growing every year, and it's just super hard to keep up.

那样的话，情况确实会变得很残酷。

In which case, it does get pretty brutal.

我特别喜欢马克斯·普朗克的一句话，科学是一代代人去世后才进步的。

I mean, one of my favorite Max Planck quotes is, you know, science advances funeral by funeral.

换句话说，如果人们不学习、不改变观点，是不是只有那些持有错误观点的人才会被淘汰？

In other words, if people don't learn and change their views, did just the people with the wrong views die?

这确实很残酷，但事实就是这样。

And it's pretty brutal, but it's true.

慢慢地，所有相信地球是平的人也都走了，你知道的？

Gradually, all the people who believe the earth was flat died and the you know?

再培训真的很难。

And, you know, retraining is hard.

这正是为什么这种做法不受欢迎的原因。

I mean, it is which explains the unpopularity.

过了某个年纪，再学新东西就让人很不舒服，要是不学就得死，那简直太绝望了。

It's uncomfortable to have to learn new stuff beyond a certain age, and it must be pretty dystopian to have to do that or die.

别担心，罗里。

Don't worry, Rory.

你现在当播客了，安全了。

As a podcaster now, you're safe.

风险投资的人才惨了，但你现在是播客了。

The venture investors are screwed, but now you're a podcaster.

明白了，哈里。

Good to know, Harry.

我懂你的意思。

I got you.

别担心。

Don't worry.

我等着看你广告收入打到我账户上呢。

I look forward to seeing the pass through income from your advertising dollars coming into my account.

我查过了，哈里，钱还没到。

So far, I've looked, and they haven't hit, Harry.

哦，别担心。

Oh, don't worry.

别担心。

Don't worry.

很快就到了。

They're coming soon.

很快就到了。

They're coming soon.

就像生产力提升一样。

Just like just like productivity gains.

明白吗？

Okay?

是的。

Yeah.

挺可爱的。

It's cute.

听好了，S1。

Listen, S1.

咱们先从OpenAI说起。

Let's start with OpenAI.

德罗里，你上期结尾那段分析得太到位了，简直像突然破茧而出。

D'rorie, you teased it out at the end of last episode brilliantly as it kinda came breaking through.

机密文件显示，他们融资了1852亿美元，估值直逼万亿美元，准备Q4上市。

Confidential files s $1,852,000,000,000 to a trillion dollar valuation for a q four listing.

我最想知道的，也是大家可能都在想的问题是：OpenAI是不是在抢在Anthropic前面冲出来？

The main question that I had, mate, I think probably is on the minds of everyone, is OpenAI forcing its way out before Anthropic?

咱们先说这个。

Let's start with that.

是的。

Yes.

他们必须这么做，也应该这么做，非得现在就行动不可，因为已经被甩开了，情况相当严峻。

And they have to, and they should, and they must, and they gotta go now because they've been lapped, and it's pretty grim.

去年，Anthropic 的 GAAP 收入是 45 亿美元。

Last year, Anthropic GAAP revenue, 4 and a half billion.

OpenAI 的 GAAP 收入是 130 亿美元。

OpenAI GAAP revenue, 13,000,000,000.

第一季度，Anthropic 的 GAAP 收入达到 50 亿美元。

Q1, Anthropic GAAP revenue, 5,000,000,000.

仅第一季度，OpenAI 的收入就超过了去年全年，达到 55.54 亿美元。

So more than the entire last year, Q1 OpenAI revenue, $5.55400000000.

所以 OpenAI 仍然比 Anthropic 大，这正是他们故意泄露这个数字想说明的。

So still bigger than Anthropic, which is the point they were making by leaking that number.

但你仔细看，这其实只占去年全年收入的 35% 左右。

But if you look at it, it's only, what is it, 35% of last year's revenue.

Anthropic 在第一季度做的业绩，就等于去年一整年；而 OpenAI 在第一季度只完成了去年业绩的 30%，却只比 Anthropic 略大一点。

So, Anthropic has done as much in Q1 as all of last year, and OpenAI has done 30% of what they've done last year in Q1, and they're only slightly bigger than Anthropic.

你再往后推几个季度看看会怎样。

You play that out for a couple more quarters.

我们知道，如果Anthropic接下来每个季度都能保持100亿左右的收入，比如Q2、Q3、Q4都维持在100亿，那全年加起来就是350亿。

We know Anthropic, if they do anything close to 10, and then they flat for the rest of the year, let's say 10 in Q2, Q3, Q4, that's 35,000,000,000 in gap for the year.

如果一家公司年增长率是十倍，另一家只有两到三倍，而现在两家规模差不多，那再过几个季度，按目前的趋势——当然情况可能会变——Anthropic肯定会明显领先。

If one company is growing 10x year on year and the other company is growing two, three x year on year, and they're pretty close now, within a couple of quarters, Anthropic on the current trajectory, and it could change, will be visibly and obviously ahead.

也就是说，一家可能全年收入在280亿左右，而Anthropic能到380亿。

I mean, it could be something like high twenties gap revenue for one, high thirties gap revenue for Anthropic.

这可不太好看，尤其是当那家380亿的公司还盈利的时候。

That's not a good look, especially when the one with the high thirties is profitable.

盈利、增长更快、规模还更大。

Profitable, growing more quickly, and bigger.

这三点上，Anthropic都完胜。

That's Pareto dominant on all three vectors.

而OpenAI可能规模更小、增长更慢，还一直亏钱。

And OpenAI could be smaller, growing less quickly, still unprofitable.

这种战略位置，实在太糟糕了。

That's a horrible strategic place to be.

但把这个消息公开推向市场，确实挺难的，

But that's a tough message to come out into market with, like,

没错。

this.

是的。

Yes.

确实如此。

It is.

但你只有两个选择。

But you've got two choices.

要么抢先出手，至少你可以宣称：现在就能买到首个基础模型，所有人都知道你是谁。

You go first, and at least you can say, here's a chance to buy the first foundation model, now, which all you chatty pity, everyone knows who you are.

要么等别人先行动，然后你跟在后面说：我们跟Anthropic差不多，只是规模小一点，也没那么强？

Or you wait and are you waiting till the other guys go, and then you go right after them as, hey, we're like Anthropic, but smaller and not as good?

你是打算等两年，靠慢慢增长来扭转局面吗？

Are you saying you wait two years and grow your way out of it?

因为没有什么是永恒的。

Because nothing's forever.

你重新加速增长，然后在2029年上市。

You reaccelerate growth and you go public in 2029.

不，那太荒唐了。

No, that's craziness.

在这些行业里，第一条铁律就是第一名说了算，第二名只能跟着反应。

The rule of life in all these markets is the number one gets to choose what happens, and the number two has to respond.

OpenAI 当初是第一，拥有完全的主动权。

OpenAI was number one, had that degrees of freedom.

现在他们可能变成第二了。

Now they could be number two.

当你排在第二的时候，绝对不能等第一名上市定价后，再出来做个缩水版。

When you're number two, what you do not do is wait till the number one prices goes public, and then you come out as a pale version of that.

我觉得他们明智，必须得赶紧行动。

I think they're smart to go and they gotta go.

这可能是那种会耗尽可用资本池的情况，因为很多人说IPO会抢光资金，但其实过去从来不是这样。

And this might be one actually where the risk is you exhaust some of the capital pool available because these IPOs are this is always some people would say, but it was never really true.

对吧？

Right?

但传统上，参与IPO的投资者只是市场中很小的一部分，因为第二天你照样能买。

But but but traditionally folks that bought into the IPOs is a fairly slim segment of the market because you can always buy the next day.

对吧？

Right?

现在呢，我们都知道，Ceribus的认购情况简直爆了，对吧？

Now we have, you know, we know, Ceribus really was maximally oversubscribed, right?

就像Roy提到的，它的定价刚好卡在不用重新提交文件的最高限价上，避免了向SEC重新申报的风险。

As Roy made to the point, it priced to the exact highest thing you could do without refiling, right, without taking the risk of refiling with the SEC.

但即便有嘉信理财这些大机构都来抢购SpaceX的股票，投资人的池子依然不算宽广。

But it's still a relatively thin investor pool, right, even with Schwab and everyone coming in for SpaceX.

所以这次，或许真的该赶紧出手，以免把资本池给掏空了。

So this might be the one time where it really does help to go just just to not exhaust the capital pool.

来讲讲这个故事吧。

And tell the story.

你知道的，你看。

You know, look.

考虑到过去五年的发展轨迹，他们完全有资格来讲这个故事。

And given the trajectory of the last five years, they're they're entitled to tell the story.

他们确实开创了一个新领域。

They did build a category.

我宁愿成为这个领域里第一家上市的基础模型公司，而不是单纯地上市。

I would much prefer to go public as the first foundation model in the category than go public.

如果那些泄露出来的数据是真的——我得先说明，毕竟没人真正看过这些数据，对吧？

If in fact the numbers that we've had leaked, and I always caveat this because no one sees the numbers, right?

如果泄露的数据属实，到今年年中或下半年，你明显成了第二名，亏着钱还增长放缓，那你就别等到情况变得太难看了才行动。

If the numbers that have been leaked are correct, such that by the middle to latter part of this year, you're visibly number two, losing money and growing more slowly, then you do not want to wait until that becomes painfully obvious.

如果你是Anthropic，看到OpenAI现在强行推进上市，你会不会调整策略？

If you're Anthropic, do you change anything on the back of seeing OpenAI now force this out?

我再说一遍啊。

And again, I'm going to repeat myself.

因为你现在是第一，没必要跟着别人改。

Because you're number one, you don't have to change on what the other guy does.

对吧？

Right?

打个历史的比方，我记得当年英国称霸海洋，我老爱拿英国说事儿。

As this total historical analogy, I remember when Britain ruled the waves like to do my little Britain digs here.

对吧？

Right?

那时候英国海军统治全球，对吧？

When Britain ruled the waves and British the British Navy ruled the world, right?

海军大臣杰基·费舍尔就问过，英国海军存在的意义是什么？

Jackie Jackie Fisher, the lord of the admirals, he said, why do you have the British Navy?

他说，就是为了能去任何想去的地方，想怎么干就怎么干。

He said, to go anywhere you damn well please, whatever force you want.

对吧？

Right?

那就是你可以随心所欲。

It was you can do whatever you want.

当第一的好处就在这儿。

That's the point of being number one.

对吧？

Right?

这才是你真正想要的。

It was that this is what you want.

别老盯着别人在干嘛，自己纠结个没完。

You don't wanna be sitting there agonizing about what the other guy does.

别人怎么决定根本无关紧要，比如突然有人说，天哪。

It doesn't matter for and tropic could decide, oh my god.

OpenAI 计划九月份上市。

OpenAI is gonna go public in September.

也许我们定在十一月。

Maybe we go in November.

而且他们可能会把时间提前一点。

And maybe they do bring it up a little.

说到你的观点

Well, to your point

关于资本消耗的问题，我们有SpaceX作为例子

on exhausting capital supplies, we've got SpaceX

我们没那么担心这个，因为说到底，这确实是个问题，但如果你盈利良好、增长稳健，而且你本身就是更优秀的公司，指标也更吸引人，就算别人比你早三个月上市，所有投资者都会想：我先投一点，但我会留着钱等更好的那个，尤其是当他们已经明确透露了上市时间的时候。

And less worried about that, because look, it's to some extent, it's a thing, but if you're profitable and growing nicely, if let's just say that if you are the better company, right, and you have the more attractive metrics, and the other guy is going out three months ahead of you, everyone who's investing will think, I'm gonna put some money in this, but I'm gonna keep some money for the good one, especially if they have telegraphed when they're going out.

事实上，运营上的卓越能给你相当大的战略自主权。

The truth is this, operational excellence gives you a fair amount of strategic independence.

我的意思是，你拥有的选择空间要大得多。

I mean, you've got way more degrees of freedom.

或者，如果Anthropic真的盈利，而且对它的股票需求无限，根本不需要上市。

Or maybe, maybe if Anthropic truly is profitable and truly has infinite demand for its shares, doesn't need IPO at all.

如果我是达里奥，我早就把90%的股份捐给慈善机构了。

If I'm Dario, I've already pledged 90% of my shares to charity.

对吧？

Right?

我内心依然秉持着利他的使命。

I still have an altruistic mission at my heart.

如果我盈利良好，又能无限进行二级市场减持，说不定反而会像Stripe那样保持私有。

If I'm profitable and I have and I can do infinite secondaries, maybe ironically, they stay like Stripe.

他们会说：我们已经做得够好了。

They're like, listen, we crushed it.

干嘛还要稀释一点股份，去惹那一堆麻烦？

Why would I want to float a small amount of my shares and deal with the headaches?

我要坚持自己的初心。

I'm going to stay true to my mission.

我来告诉你为什么。

I'll tell you why.

我觉得，像Stripe这样长期保持私有化的模式，和Anthropic完全不一样，因为Stripe的业务已经相当稳定了。

And I actually think that the dynamics of staying private longer are super different for people like Stripe than Anthropic, because at Stripe, you're in a fair degree of predictability.

商业模式清晰，资金需求低，现金流充沛，还能回购股份。

The business model is understood, the capital needs are light, you're kicking off cash, you're buying back shares.

他们想什么时候上市都行，完全没必要着急。

Those guys can actually stay private as long as they want.

这是一家规模庞大、盈利稳定的支付处理公司。

It's a payment processing company at scale with profits.

这事儿太漂亮了。

It's a glorious thing.

将来能值多少钱，谁也说不准。

Who knows how it will be valued?

公募市场怎么定价还不好说，但至少他们能一直撑下去。

And that's still TBD in the public markets, but you can chunk on forever.

但Anthropic不一样，它的资金需求太大了，能上市的时候最好早点上市。跟Stripe不一样，Stripe资金压力小，而Anthropic呢，虽然现在不用自己掏钱，因为有云巨头傻乎乎地替你垫着，但每多赚一美元收入，就得先砸进去四到五美元的资本开支。

I just think the cap needs for Anthropic are such that you would be wise to access the public markets when you can, because unlike Stripe, where your capital needs are light, in the case of Anthropic, even though you're not bearing those capital needs today because you are lucky enough to have hyperscalers foolish enough to build on your behalf, For every dollar of revenue that you add, someone has to invest $4 or $5 in CapEx upfront.

所以，如果你有一天想做到一千亿美元的收入，就得有人先投五万亿，而你肯定也希望自己能从中分到一部分运营自主权。

So if one day you want to do $100,000,000,000 in revenue, someone's got to invest $500,000,000,000 and you probably want the operational freedom to get one of that money for yourself.

有没有一个金额门槛，只有公开市场才能满足？

Does a dollar sum above which only the public markets can do it?

尽管人们总在说，天啊，私募市场有多厉害。

Because even though people again, people talk about, oh my god, the private markets.

SpaceX的招股说明书就非常明智地指出，它的资本效率其实很高。

SpaceX, as its prospectus points out so wisely, was pretty capital efficient.

它总共融了二百三十亿美元，对吧？

$23,000,000,000 raised, right?

但那跟一万亿还是没法比。

It's not a 100,000,000,000.

而且如果詹森说得对，回头想想，要是每年的资本支出真高达三万亿美元，而你又是这个领域的领头羊，那你可能得融三千亿美元——因为再过两年，亚马逊可能就不想再给你当云服务商了。

And it's entirely credible that if Jensen's correct, going back to the thing, and if CapEx is shock hour, 3,000,000,000,000 a year, and you're the leader in that industry, you might need to raise 300,000,000,000, because maybe two years from now, or Amazon doesn't want to be your hyperscaler provider.

所以我觉得他们选择上市，是因为这里的资金需求远远超出了以往任何情况。

So I think they go public because the capital needs here dwarf anything we've seen.

或者至少能带来某种程度的自主性。

Or at least at least it may provide some independence.

对吧？

Right?

英伟达有两千亿美元的现金流，总得想办法用掉。

Nvidia has got 200,000,000,000 of cash flow you need to do something with.

再说回刚才的话题，所以我并不觉得这种循环收入像你想象的那么负面。

And the other thing going back to being in conversation, that's why I don't think this circular revenue is as negative as you think.

英伟达现金太多了，不得不把这笔资本再循环起来。

Nvidia has so much cash, it has to recirculate this capital.

它实在没别的地方可花。

It has no other use for it.

是吧？

Right?

再回到刚才说的

Just going back

说到这个。

to this.

如果我们先做SpaceX之前，OpenAI先推出，你觉得市场会怎么反应？

If before we do SpaceX, if OpenAI were to go out, what do you think the reception would be?

你觉得会得到压倒性的正面回应吗？

Do you think it will be overwhelmingly positive?

在现在的市场环境下，是的，因为大家偏向高风险投资，都想押注AI。

In today's market, yes, because we're risk on and people wanna make an AI bet.

而且他们是领头羊。

And they're the leader.

他们是开创者，这个领域就是他们建立起来的。

They are the leader and they built the category.

你要是走出硅谷，提到Claude，别人可能一脸茫然，但一说ChatGPT，人人都知道。

You go outside the valley and you utter the word Claude and people look at you, chat GPT is the thing.

他们的收入肯定会非常亮眼，虽然现在亏损不是问题——想想SpaceX将来的发展就知道了。

And they're going to have stellar revenue, albeit And clearly, losses aren't a problem at the moment, I mean, when you look at where SpaceX is going to come out.

所以我觉得我们会非常出色。

So, I think that we would be really good.

我的意思是，‘非常出色’可能还比不上Anthropic，人家不仅全都有，还赚钱呢。

Mean, really good might mean not quite as good as Anthropic, which is all that plus profits too.

但现在，公众能接触到的纯粹AI公司，除了像CoreWeave、Cerberus这样的，也没别的了。

But I think right now, the public doesn't have any pure play AIs other than, you know, something like CoreWeave, now something like Cerberus.

很明显，最顶尖的都是那些财务模型公司，我觉得市场反响会非常好。

It's obvious that the top of the heap are the financial model companies, and I think it'll be a great reception.

所以他们要是不这么做，那才真是疯了。你得记住，这些消息早就泄露了。

That's why they'd be crazy not to do You've got to remember, all this leaked.

我们 CFO 那边预计要到 2027、2028 年才准备好了。

We're not going to be ready yet from the CFO 2027, 2028.

我猜我们内部开过一次不错的会，大家一致决定：就这么干吧。

I would imagine we had a good internal session where, like, we're doing this, guys.

谢谢你的建议。

Thank you for your input.

但诉讼一结束，我们就马上推进这件事。

But the day after the litigation settled, we are going for this thing.

我觉得他们说得对。

And I think they're right.

我只想到两点。

I just think two things.

第一，我们会先看到一点苗头：如果SpaceX在散户中需求特别高，那OpenAI完全可以照搬，对吧？

One, we're going to get a little preview, which is if this retail demand for SpaceX is super high, then OpenAI can copy it, right?

我的意思是，埃隆把这次史上最大IPO的30%份额都放给了散户。

I mean, Elon's putting 30% of this massive IPO, the largest in history so far into retail.

听起来他是在Robinhood上搞民主和 meritocracy，也许确实如此。

It sounds like he's being democratic and meritocratic in Robinhood, and maybe he is.

但我认为这会推高股价，因为大家想拥有的是埃隆本人，不是奥克兰的陪审团——而是全美很多人想买它的股票。

But I think it will benefit the stock price because they want to own Elon, not the jury in Oakland, but but a lot of the country wants to own it.

如果OpenAI把这套模式复制到自己的粉丝群体里，股价真涨了，那他们就能提前看到这招到底有多管用。

And it will give if if OpenAI clones that for its fan base and it drives the stock up, they'll get a little preview of how well that strategy works.

另一点是，我们总爱聊这两大巨头在风险投资领域的对决，但作为公开市场的股票投资者，我觉得同时持有两家公司也没什么不对。

And the other thing is we it's fun to talk about this two horse race on the 20 VC, but again, I I don't think there's anything wrong with owning both as a as a public market equities investor.

我觉得同时持有两者是个不错的策略。

I think owning both is a good strategy.

为什么呢？

Why?

为什么？

Why?

变化实在太多了。

There's so much change.

就算Anthropic更胜一筹，为什么不把两家的IPO都入手呢？

Even if Anthropic is better, why not buy into the IPOs of both?

每家投五千万、一亿，甚至两亿五千万，看看未来几年会怎么发展。

Put in 50,000,000 into each, a 100,000,000, $250,000,000 to each and see how it plays out over the next years.

整体趋势还是很强劲的。

The overall trends are strong.

不是每个人都得是天才。

Not everyone needs to be a savant.

换个角度看，这三位CEO都在做一件极其困难的事——要在我们见过的最具活力、变化最快的行业和技术趋势中保持领先。

One of the ways to think about this is these are three CEOs trying to do something incredibly hard, which is stay on top of the most dynamic, evolving industry and tech trend we've ever seen.

他们三位——也就是SpaceX、Anthropic和OpenAI——都没打出完美的一局。

No one none of the three of them, and by that, mean, SpaceX, Anthropic, and IPO, is pitching a perfect game.

你可以挑出他们任何一家的某些做法，说：‘这地方确实不够好。’

You can look at aspects of what any of the three of them have done and go, oh, that's not as good.

但事实是，他们三家都是从零开始，建起了价值约一万亿美元的公司，并且牢牢抓住了这波趋势，其他人根本没法比。

But the truth is all three of them from a standing start have built companies worth plus or minus a trillion dollars and are riding this trend, no one else is even close.

我的意思是，如果你看成绩单，没错，你说得对。

I mean, so if you look at the report card, you know, yeah, you're right.

Anthropic在模型构建上做得非常出色，但讽刺的是，这也导致他们的资本支出预测出错了，因为他们低估了自己模型的成功程度。

Anthropic did an amazing job of building the model, which ironically meant that their CapEx forecasting was wrong because they underestimated the success of their own model.

某种程度上，OpenAI的情况正好相反。

And to some extent, OpenAI has been the other way around.

他们在资本支出上做得真到位。

They really nailed it on CapEx.

算力方面他们把握得非常好，但也许在模型的企业级功能上多花点时间会更好。

They nailed it on compute, but maybe should have spent a little more time on the enterprise features of their model.

所以在这一点上，他们落后了。

So they're behind there.

当然，如果你撇开其他部分，单看SpaceX的AI业务，他们在快速搭建数据中心方面绝对是全球顶尖，这点值得肯定。

And obviously, if you look at the x.ai part of SpaceX, leaving aside the thing, focus on their AI business, they're the world's best builders of fast data centers, so they get points for that.

但另一方面，他们没能把这些设施充分利用起来，这扣了分。

But on the other hand, they lose points because they weren't able to fill it with their own stuff.

而且你说得对，他们在现代化程度和SOC 2合规性上，确实不如OpenAI的一些成果。

And you're right, it's not quite perhaps as modern or as SOC two compliant as some of the stuff OpenAI got.

所以没错，这三家都有可以挑刺的地方，但从零开始算起，过去五年里，每一家都创造了价值约一万亿美元的AI业务。

So yeah, you can make knocks on all three, but zooming out from a standing start, they've each created a trillion dollars in AI in the last five years.

你暑假都干了点啥？

You know, what did you do on your summer vacation?

而且，埃隆是这两家公司的创始人。

Well, and Elon founded both of them.

你得记住这一点。

You have to remember that.

还有 Neuralink，他用大脑控制人体的技术，还有超级高铁，再加上特斯拉。

Plus, Neuralink, plus his controlling people's, bodies with his brains, plus the Hyperloop, plus Tesla.

我们完全可以聊聊这个，特别是说到 SpaceX 时，他们把未来估值的很大一部分都归功于 AI，这背后其实是埃隆——他眼看着 OpenAI 做起来了，心里想：‘他妈的，我也得搞一个自己的’，然后真就干成了。

Well, we can talk about that the entire because the SpaceX when we come to talk about SpaceX, the proportion of their future value they attribute to AI, it's either me this is Elon, you know, effectively losing OpenAI and says, goddamn it, I'm have one of my own, and made it happen.

完全是凭空造出来的。

Realized it from whole plot.

那我们干脆直接聊聊 SpaceX，趁他们刚提交了 S1 文件。

Let's discuss SpaceX directly then with the S1 dropping.

罗里，既然我没找准最关键的数据，那你看了 SpaceX 的 S1 文件后，觉得哪些数字最重要？

Rory, given the fact that I I didn't correctly identify the most important numbers, what did you think were the most important numbers when you looked at SpaceX's S1 dropping?

cynical 的回答是：我觉得那些数字根本没那么重要。

Cynical answer, I don't think the numbers matter down.

对吧？

Right?

关键是，大家都这么说。

Because the point is this, everyone said the same thing.

你在这三家公司上，拿到了它们各自价值的总和。

You you won the sum of parts on these three businesses.

虽然有一块增长缓慢，但那是靠科技驱动的惊人太空业务。

There's a lowest growth, but tech enabling amazing space business.

还有一块增长不错、盈利稳定的星链业务，它的总市场潜力远超单纯的火箭和发射业务，而且年增长率高达30%到40%。

There's a good growth, profitable Starlink business that has much, you know, a bigger TAM than this simple rocket business and the launch business, but it's growing 3040%.

而X.AI在提交文件时，还是个巨大的资金黑洞，投入了150亿美元，却看不到任何明显收入。

And then there's x dot ai that at the time of filing was a great big gaping hole of $15,000,000,000 in CapEx and no obvious revenue.

但从那以后，他显然完成了两项了不起的交易，找到了收入来源，现在这个业务的年收入已经达到了150亿美元。

Since then, obviously, he's done two amazing deals to find revenue, and now he's got a $15,000,000,000 run rate business.

但你把所有这些加起来，对吧？

But you add it all up, right?

事实上，你有火箭发射业务，有可以估值的星链业务，还有类似Core Weave那样的AI业务——毕竟现在的AI业务已经变成这样了。

And the truth is you get to launch business, you have a Starlink business which you can value, and you have a Core Weave type business, because that's what the AI business has now become.

这些业务加起来的估值，远低于当前提出的估值。

And the sum of those parts is so far lower than the proposed valuation.

而这两者之间的唯一差别，就是埃隆溢价。

And the only difference between the two is the Elon premium.

这个溢价并不是招股说明书里能算出来的数字。

And that's not a number that comes out of the prospectus.

我仔细看了这些数据，读了，也理解了，但它们根本帮不上我评估这家公司，除了说出一些荒谬的话，比如特斯拉的基本价值是两千亿美元，而股价却是它的六倍。

So I looked at the numbers, I read them, I understood them, but they offer me no value in trying to value this company, you know, other than saying utterly stupid things like the fundamental value of Tesla is 200,000,000,000 and the trading price is six times that.

也许这个‘氦气溢价’就是六倍估值。

So maybe the helium premium is six x value.

我不确定。

I don't know.

这可能是AI时代的GeoCities交易。

It could be the GeoCities deal of the AI era.

我们将来回看这段时期，

We could look back on this.

听我说，我本人也是支持马斯克的，

And listen, I'm I'm all I'm on Team Elon.

这你得承认，

Okay?

但市销率一百倍，将来我们可能会说，那些确实是不错的公司，但一百倍？天哪，

But a 100 times trailing sales, we may look back and say these were some good companies, but a 100 times, my god.

天哪，

My god.

不对，

No.

不对，

No.

不对

No.

我要去围栏那边。

I'm going to the fence.

不管怎样，这三家公司都非常出色。

Like, no matter what happens, these are three amazing companies.

对吧？

Right?

而且增长已经暴跌了，自从他收购以来，收入缩水了一半。

And just growth has fallen off the it's it's shrunk 50% since he bought it.

埃隆在推特上简直是压缩收入的魔术师。

Elon's the magician of revenue compression in Twitter.

他的收入已经下降了百分之五十。

He revenue has fallen 50%.

没错。

Yes.

推特确实如此。

Twitter agree.

Twitter呢，再说一遍，如果你把这三个业务拆开来看，发射业务其实是个不错、稳定、有点无聊的生意，但技术特别厉害，增长率大概能到百分之十到二十就不错了。

Twitter is I mean, again, if you disaggregate the three businesses, the launch business is a good, stable, boring business with amazing technology that probably would get tapped out at 10% to 20% growth rate.

星链业务是个很棒的生意，总市场空间大得多，增长率能到百分之三十到四十，想想看，年收入一千四百亿，还盈利，对吧？

The Starlink business is a great business with a much bigger TAM, but 30%, 40% growth rate, 10 Well, think about 14,000,000,000 in revenue and EBITDA positive, right?

所以我给你看个最有趣的图表，哈里，就是那个包含总市场分析的数据。

So actually, I will give you the most interesting chart, Harry, and the number in the thing with the TAM analysis.

我记得好像是二十八万亿美元，史上最大的总市场空间。

And I want to say, if I remember, was something like 28,000,000,000,000, largest TAM in history.

但其实这个数字没那么惊人。

That's actually not as interesting.

真正有意思的是，十年前这还只是个火箭发射公司，两年前它还是个加上通信业务的发射公司。

The interesting part is, even though, listen, ten years ago, this was a launch company, and two years ago, this was a launch company with a communications business.

但他们当时锁定的总市场空间里，有百分之九十根本不在这两个领域里。

90 of the TAM that they identified is not in those two sectors.

全都是关于人工智能的。

It's all about AI.

有趣的是，他们想讲的故事，90%都没聚焦在他们真正独特和有优势的两个领域上。

So the interesting thing is the story they're trying to tell is a story that's 90% not focused on the two things where they're unique and differentiated.

他们在AI领域并不独特，因为Glock作为基础模型根本没走通。

They're not unique and differentiated in the AI story because Glock as a foundation model has gone nowhere.

但他们确实做了一笔非常聪明的交易——他们快速建成了Colossus系统。

They did make an enormously clever deal in the sense that they had Colossus, they built it quick.

而且S1文件里写得清清楚楚。

And again, the S1 is very clear on that.

我们相信，自己开发速度比谁都快。

We think we build faster than anyone else.

然后他们把这套系统租给了Anthropic。

And they've sold that to Anthropic.

每月租金12.5亿美元，据说双方都有90天的随时解约权。

They've rented that to Anthropic for $1,250,000,000 a month with, I think, a ninety day cancellation clause on either side.

也就是说，一年下来就是150亿美元，对吧？

So, basically, it's $15,000,000,000 a year, right?

从某种角度说，这确实惊人——你花了二十年才建立起一个一千八百亿美元的业务，结果仅仅靠一个一年半前才开发出来的产品，一次交易就额外增加了一千五百亿美元。

In one sense, that's amazing, because it's amazing to think that you had an $18,000,000,000 business built over twenty years, and then you just added $15,000,000,000 to that in one transaction on a product you only built a year and a half ago.

这么说来，这也印证了那个观点：AI业务的爆发力，甚至超过了当年通信业务刚起步时的势头。

So in one sense, it validates the comment that the AI business is so much more dynamic even than the launch of the comms business.

只要你愿意提前砸钱，比如投一百亿美元建数据中心，而算力需求又真的存在，那十五亿美元的年收入很快就能实现。

If you're willing to spend the capital upfront and invest 10,000,000,000 in a hole in the ground and the compute demand is there, you can get to 15,000,000,000 in revenues pretty quickly.

但你真正厉害的地方，是成了更高效的算力供应商。

But what you are is a more efficient COWISE.

这值两万亿美元？

That's worth 2,000,000,000,000?

因为詹森是你的朋友，你又是他的大客户，靠出租芯片就能值四十三万亿美元？

Renting out chips because Jensen's your buddy and you and you're a good customer, that's worth $2.02 $43,000,000,000,000?

还是说，火箭业务增长了百分之十，或者推特缩水了百分之五十？

Or are the Rockets growing 10% or the Twitter declining 50%?

到底哪一项业务，才真值两到三万亿美元？

Which of them exactly is worth two to three trillion?

所以我才投身进了GeoCities这件事。

And that's why I jumped in the GeoCities thing.

我真的很喜欢S1。

I love the S1.

但我觉得这一切都太疯狂了。

But I think it's all madness.

我不会去买任何一股。

I wouldn't buy a share.

我只是喜欢这种乐观精神。

I just love the optimism.

我就是欣赏他们坚持做了整整二十年这件事。

I just love the fact that they've done this thing for twenty years.

他们说的一些优点，其实确实都站得住脚。

And, you know, the some of the assertions of why they're great were totally true.

对于把火箭送上天的人来说，我们的资本使用效率已经算很高了。

We've been fairly capital efficient for people who put rockets in space.

我们做事的速度比谁都快。

We build faster than anyone else.

我们在工程上有明确的准则，有一套让效率最大化的方法。

We have organizing principles around engineering, the algorithm to make things efficient.

这里有很多夸张的说法，但都是基于这位可能是全球最杰出的创业者之一，二十年来的实际成就。

There's a lot of balls out claims here that are justified on the basis of twenty years' achievement from probably one of the most talented entrepreneurs everywhere.

读起来真过瘾。

It was a great read.

真好，美国能有这种事。

Go America that we can have this.

说了这么多，你说得对，杰森。

So after I say all that, you're right, Jason.

离两千亿美元的现金流折现值差得太远了，想想都头疼。

I'm so far from $2,000,000,000,000 in DCF that my head hurts.

其实啊，情况可能更糟。

Well, you know, it's it's almost worse.

一百倍营收的 trailing 数字，真的很难说得清楚。

The 100 x rev trailing revenues is, like, it's hard to it's hard to tie.

对吧？

Right?

我站在马斯克这边。

And listen, I'm on Team Elon.

我买了五辆特斯拉。

I've bought five Teslas.

我名下有三个星链服务订阅。

I've got like three Starlinks subscriptions across.

我可是从很早以前就关注了，但说真的，现在这情况让我挺怀疑的。

I am from the very early days, but in some ways, is just very cynical.

这完全是财务操作，我确实很佩服，但天啊，你把一堆完全不相干的资产硬凑在一起。

This is financial engineering, which I have mad respect for, But my God, you're taking a bunch of disparate assets that most of them have no connection.

你拿一份 S1 文件，大谈特谈人工智能的历史——可一年前这根本就不是你的业务。

You're throwing an S1 talking about the history of AI, which wasn't even your business a year ago.