Welcome to LZN's Blog!
Wind extinguishes a candle but energizes fire.-
【e/acc】有效加速主义、量子热力学与AI未来 | 物理学家、e/acc运动创始人Guillaume Verdon与Lex Fridman播客实录 | 中英文完整版精译 I
书童按：本篇是Guillaume Verdon接受Lex Fridman播客采访的实录。Verdon是物理学家、应用数学家与量子机器学习先驱，曾在谷歌从事量子计算研究，后创立Extropic公司，致力于为生成式AI打造基于物理原理的计算硬件。他亦是X平台匿名账号@BasedBeffJezos背后的真实人物，有效加速主义（e/acc）运动的联合创始人。e/acc以热力学与信息论为哲学根基，主张以技术快速进步作为人类伦理最优选择，正面对抗”AI末日论”代表的减速主义思潮。访谈纵横于量子计算与非平衡热力学的哲学意涵、匿名言论与思想自由、AI监管与市场力量的博弈、通用智能的重新定义等议题，视野开阔，锋芒毕现。初稿采用Claude API机器翻译及排版，书童仅做简单校对及批注，将分四部分发布，以飨诸君。
Guillaume Verdon：有效加速主义、热力学与量子智能 | Lex Fridman播客 Guillaume Verdon: Effective Accelerationism, Thermodynamics, and Quantum Intelligence | Lex Fridman Podcast 引言 Introduction Lex Fridman (00:00:00) 以下是与Guillaume Verdon的对话。他就是X平台上曾经匿名的账号@BasedBeffJezos背后的人。这两重身份因《福布斯》一篇题为《@BasedBeffJezos是谁？科技精英e/acc运动的领袖》的曝光文章被强行合二为一。让我来介绍同一个大脑里共存的这两重身份。其一：Guillaume是物理学家、应用数学家、量子机器学习研究者兼工程师，在量子机器学习方向取得博士学位，曾供职于谷歌量子计算团队，后创立Extropic公司，为生成式AI打造基于物理原理的计算硬件。
LEX FRIDMAN (00:00:00) The following is a conversation with Guillaume Verdon, the man behind the previously anonymous account @BasedBeffJezos on X. These two identities were merged by a doxxing article in Forbes titled, Who Is @BasedBeffJezos, The Leader Of The Tech Elite’s E/Acc Movement? So let me describe these two identities that coexist in the mind of one human. Identity number one, Guillaume, is a physicist, applied mathematician, and quantum machine learning researcher and engineer receiving his PhD in quantum machine learning, working at Google on quantum computing, and finally launching his own company called Extropic that seeks to build physics-based computing hardware for generative AI.
Lex Fridman (00:00:47) 其二：X平台上的Beff Jezos是有效加速主义运动的创始人——常缩写为e/acc——主张将推动技术快速进步作为人类伦理上的最优选择。其拥护者深信AI进步是最强大的社会均衡器，理应全力推进。e/acc追随者自视为谨慎派的相反力量——后者认为AI高度不可预测、潜在危险、亟需监管。他们管对手叫”末日派”或”减速派”（decel）。用Beff自己的话说：”e/acc是一种模因化的乐观主义病毒。”
LEX FRIDMAN (00:00:47) Identity number two, Beff Jezos on X is the creator of the effective accelerationism movement, often abbreviated as e/acc, that advocates for propelling rapid technological progress as the ethically optimal course of action for humanity. For example, its proponents believe that progress in AI is a great social equalizer, which should be pushed forward. e/acc followers see themselves as a counterweight to the cautious view that AI is highly unpredictable, potentially dangerous, and needs to be regulated. They often give their opponents the labels of quote, “doomers or decels” short for deceleration, as Beff himself put it, “e/acc is a mimetic optimism virus.”
Lex Fridman (00:01:37) 这场运动的传播风格一贯偏向梗图和搞笑，但背后有扎实的思想根基，我们会在对话中深入挖掘。说到梗——本人勉强算个荒诞美学的业余爱好者。我先后和Jeff Bezos、Beff Jezos做了背靠背的访谈，这绝非巧合。对话中会聊到，Beff视Jeff为当今最重要的在世人类之一，而我则纯粹欣赏这里头的荒诞之美和幽默感。这里是Lex Fridman播客，如您愿意支持，请查看简介中的赞助商信息。闲话少叙，朋友们，有请Guillaume Verdon。
LEX FRIDMAN (00:01:37) The style of communication of this movement leans always toward the memes and the lols, but there is an intellectual foundation that we explore in this conversation. Now, speaking of the meme, I am to a kind of aspiring connoisseur of the absurd. It is not an accident that I spoke to Jeff Bezos and Beff Jezos back to back. As we talk about Beff admires Jeff as one of the most important humans alive, and I admire the beautiful absurdity and the humor of it all. This is the Lex Fridman Podcast. To support it, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, dear friends, here’s Guillaume Verdon.
Beff Jezos Beff Jezos Lex Fridman (00:02:23) 先把身份这件事捋清楚。你叫Guillaume Verdon，Gill，但你同时也是X上匿名账号@BasedBeffJezos背后的人。Guillaume Verdon这边：量子计算学者、物理学家、应用数学家；@BasedBeffJezos那边：本质上是个发起了一场运动、背后有哲学体系的梗图账号。能不能展开聊聊这两个角色——性格、沟通风格、哲学理念有什么不同？
LEX FRIDMAN (00:02:23) Let’s get the facts of identity down first. Your name is Guillaume Verdon, Gill, but you’re also behind the anonymous account on X called @BasedBeffJezos. So first, Guillaume Verdon, you’re a quantum computing guy, physicist, applied mathematician, and then @BasedBeffJezos is basically a meme account that started a movement with a philosophy behind it. So maybe just can you linger on who these people are in terms of characters, in terms of communication styles, in terms of philosophies?
Guillaume Verdon (00:02:58) 说说我的主要身份吧。打小起我就想搞清楚万物之理，想理解宇宙。这条路把我领进了理论物理，最终试图回答那些终极命题——我们为何在此？我们将往何处？由此我开始研究信息论，从信息的视角理解物理，把宇宙看作一台巨大的计算机。在黑洞物理研究到一定深度后，我意识到自己不仅想理解宇宙如何计算，更想”像自然那样去计算”——造出受自然启发的计算机，也就是基于物理的计算机。这把我带进了量子计算领域：首先是模拟自然，再就是在我的工作中，学习能在量子计算机上运行的自然表示。
GUILLAUME VERDON (00:02:58) I mean, with my main identity, I guess ever since I was a kid, I wanted to figure out the theory of everything, to understand the universe. And that path led me to theoretical physics, eventually trying to answer the big questions of why are we here? Where are we going? And that led me to study information theory and try to understand physics from the lens of information theory, understand the universe as one big computation. And essentially after reaching a certain level studying black hole physics, I realized that I wanted to not only understand how the universe computes, but sort of compute like nature and figure out how to build and apply computers that are inspired by nature. So physics-based computers. And that sort of brought me to quantum computing as a field of study to first of all, simulate nature. And in my work it was to learn representations of nature that can run on such computers.
Guillaume Verdon (00:04:17) 如果让AI用自然的方式思考，它们就能更精准地表征自然。至少这是驱使我成为量子机器学习领域早期探索者的核心命题——怎样在量子计算机上做机器学习，怎样把智能的概念延伸到量子领域。怎样捕获和理解现实世界的量子力学数据？怎样学习世界的量子力学表示？用什么样的计算机来运行和训练？怎样实现？这些就是我要回答的问题。而说到底，我经历了一次信仰危机。最初，跟每个物理学家一样，入行时都想用几个方程写尽宇宙，当那个故事里的英雄。
GUILLAUME VERDON (00:04:17) So if you have AI representations that think like nature, then they’ll be able to more accurately represent it. At least that was the thesis that brought me to be an early player in the field called quantum machine learning. So how to do machine learning on quantum computers and really sort of extend notions of intelligence to the quantum realm. So how do you capture and understand quantum mechanical data from our world? And how do you learn quantum mechanical representations of our world? On what kind of computer do you run these representations and train them? How do you do so? And so that’s really the questions I was looking to answer because ultimately I had a sort of crisis of faith. Originally, I wanted to figure out as every physicist does at the beginning of their career, a few equations that describe the whole universe and sort of be the hero of the story there.
Guillaume Verdon (00:05:28) 但后来我想通了：用机器增强我们自身，增强我们感知、预测和掌控世界的能力，这才是正路。于是我离开理论物理，转入量子计算和量子机器学习。在那些年里，我始终觉得拼图还差一块。我们理解世界、计算世界、思考世界的方式，都少了点什么。看物理尺度的话：极小尺度上，量子力学说了算；极大尺度上，一切是确定性的，统计涨落已被抹平。我确确实实坐在这张椅子上，不是叠加在东西南北飘忽不定。极小尺度上倒是有叠加态、有干涉效应。但在介观尺度——日常生活的尺度，蛋白质、生物体、气体、液体所在的尺度——物质其实是热力学性质的，在涨落。
GUILLAUME VERDON (00:05:28) But eventually I realized that actually augmenting ourselves with machines, augmenting our ability to perceive, predict, and control our world with machines is the path forward. And that’s what got me to leave theoretical physics and go into quantum computing and quantum machine learning. And during those years I thought that there was still a piece missing. There was a piece of our understanding of the world and our way to compute and our way to think about the world. And if you look at the physical scales, at the very small scales, things are quantum mechanical, and at the very large scales, things are deterministic. Things have averaged out. I’m definitely here in this seat. I’m not in a super position over here and there. At the very small scales, things aren’t super position. They can exhibit interference effects. But at the meso scales, the scales that matter for day-to-day life and the scales of proteins, of biology, of gases, liquids and so on, things are actually thermodynamical, they’re fluctuating.
Guillaume Verdon (00:06:46) 在量子计算和量子机器学习领域干了大约八年后，我突然开窍了——我一直在极大和极小之间找答案。做过一点量子宇宙学——研究宇宙从哪来、往哪去；研究黑洞物理、量子引力的极端情形，也就是能量密度高到量子力学和引力同时登场的地方。典型场景就是黑洞和极早期宇宙——量子力学与相对论的交界地带。
GUILLAUME VERDON (00:06:46) And after I guess about eight years and quantum computing and quantum machine learning, I had a realization that I was looking for answers about our universe by studying the very big and the very small. I did a bit of quantum cosmology. So that’s studying the cosmos, where it’s going, where it came from. You study black hole physics, you study the extremes in quantum gravity, you study where the energy density is sufficient for both quantum mechanics and gravity to be relevant. And the sort of extreme scenarios are black holes and the very early universe. So there’s the sort of scenarios that you study the interface between quantum mechanics and relativity.
Guillaume Verdon (00:07:42) 可我一直盯着两端的极端，却漏掉了”中间那块肉”。日常尺度上量子力学有用、宇宙学有用，但其实没那么直接相关。我们活在中等时空尺度上，这个尺度上最管用的物理理论是热力学——尤其是非平衡热力学。生命本身就是热力学过程，而且是远离平衡态的。我们不是与环境达成热平衡的一锅粒子汤，而是一种拼命维持自身的相干态，靠获取和消耗自由能来续命。差不多在我离开Alphabet前夕，我对宇宙的信念再次发生了转变。我知道自己要造一种基于这类物理的全新计算范式。
GUILLAUME VERDON (00:07:42) And really I was studying these extremes to understand how the universe works and where is it going. But I was missing a lot of the meat in the middle, if you will, because day-to-day quantum mechanics is relevant and the cosmos is relevant, but not that relevant actually. We’re on sort of the medium space and timescales. And there the main theory of physics that is most relevant is thermodynamics, out of equilibrium thermodynamics. Because life is a process that is thermodynamical and it’s out of equilibrium. We’re not just a soup of particles at equilibrium with nature, were a sort of coherent state trying to maintain itself by acquiring free energy and consuming it. And that sort of, I guess another shift in, I guess my faith in the universe happened towards the end of my time at Alphabet. And I knew I wanted to build, well, first of all a computing paradigm based on this type of physics.
Guillaume Verdon (00:08:57) 但与此同时，在把这些想法实验性地应用于社会、经济等方面的过程中，我开了个匿名号——纯粹是为了卸下”说什么都得负责”那种实名账号的压力。一开始只是想拿匿名号来试探想法，没想到直到真正放手，我才发现自己过去把思想空间压缩得有多厉害。某种意义上，限制言论会反向传播为限制思想。开了匿名号之后，感觉脑子里有些变量突然被解锁了，我一下子能在大得多的思想参数空间里探索。
GUILLAUME VERDON (00:08:57) But ultimately just by trying to experiment with these ideas applied to society and economies and much of what we see around us, I started an anonymous account just to relieve the pressure that comes from having an account that you’re accountable for everything you say on. And I started an anonymous account just to experiment with ideas originally because I didn’t realize how much I was restricting my space of thoughts until I sort of had the opportunity to let go. In a sense, restricting your speech back propagates to restricting your thoughts. And by creating an anonymous account, it seemed like I had unclamped some variables in my brain and suddenly could explore a much wider parameter space of thoughts.
Lex Fridman (00:10:00) 在这点上展开一下——这不是很有意思吗？大家很少谈的一件事是：言论一旦受到压力和约束，思想也不知不觉被约束了，尽管逻辑上完全不必如此。我们明明可以在脑子里想任何事，但这种外部压力硬是会在思想四周筑起围墙。
LEX FRIDMAN (00:10:00) Just a little on that, isn’t that interesting that one of the things that people don’t often talk about is that when there’s pressure and constraints on speech, it somehow leads to constraints on thought even though it doesn’t have to. We can think thoughts inside our head, but somehow it creates these walls around thought.
Guillaume Verdon (00:10:23) 没错。这正是我们运动的出发点——我们看到一种趋势：在生活的方方面面压制多样性，无论是思想、经营方式、组织方式还是AI研究路径。我们坚信，保持多样性才能确保系统的适应力。在思想、公司、产品、文化、政府、货币的市场中维持健康竞争，才是正途——因为系统总会自我调适，把资源配置给最有利于增长的那些形态。运动的根本理念，是这样一种洞察：生命是宇宙中一团追逐自由能、渴望生长的火焰，增长是生命的本性。平衡热力学的方程里写得明明白白：那些更擅长获取自由能、散逸更多热量的物质路径，出现的概率呈指数级增高。宇宙本身偏爱某些未来，整个系统自有其天然的走向。
GUILLAUME VERDON (00:10:23) Yep. That’s sort of the basis of our movement is we were seeing a tendency towards constraint, reduction or suppression of variants in every aspect of life, whether it’s thought, how to run a company, how to organize humans, how to do AI research. In general, we believe that maintaining variance ensures that the system is adaptive. Maintaining healthy competition in marketplaces of ideas, of companies, of products, of cultures, of governments, of currencies is the way forward because the system always adapts to assign resources to the configurations that lead to its growth. And the fundamental basis for the movement is this sort of realization that life is a sort of fire that seeks out free energy in the universe and seeks to grow. And that growth is fundamental to life. And you see this in the equations actually of equilibrium thermodynamics. You see that paths of trajectories, of configurations of matter that are better at acquiring free energy and dissipating more heat are exponentially more likely. So the universe is biased towards certain futures, and so there’s a natural direction where the whole system wants to go.
热力学 Thermodynamics Lex Fridman (00:12:21) 热力学第二定律说，宇宙的熵永远在增加，趋向平衡。而你说的是，其中存在一些复杂的、远离平衡的”口袋”。你还说热力学有利于复杂生命的涌现——这类生命通过消耗能量、向外卸载熵来提升自身能力。于是就有了这些逆熵的”口袋”。凭什么你直觉上认为这种口袋的涌现是自然的？
LEX FRIDMAN (00:12:21) So the second law of thermodynamics says that the entropy is always increasing in the universe that’s tending towards an equilibrium. And you’re saying there’s these pockets that have complexity and are out of equilibrium. You said that thermodynamics favors the creation of complex life that increases its capability to use energy to offload entropy. To offload entropy. So you have pockets of non-entropy that tend the opposite direction. Why is that intuitive to you that it’s natural for such pockets to emerge?
Guillaume Verdon (00:12:53) 因为我们产热的效率远超一块同等质量的石头。我们获取自由能、摄入食物、消耗大量电力来维持运转。宇宙想产生更多熵，而让生命继续运转和壮大，恰恰是产熵的最优路径——生命会主动搜寻自由能的”口袋”并将其燃烧殆尽，以维系自身并进一步扩张。这就是生命的底层逻辑。MIT的Jeremy England有一套理论——我深以为然——认为生命的涌现正是源于这种属性。在我看来，这套物理就是支配介观尺度的法则，是量子与宇宙之间缺失的那块拼图，是中间层。热力学主宰着介观尺度。
GUILLAUME VERDON (00:12:53) Well, we’re far more efficient at producing heat than let’s say just a rock with a similar mass as ourselves. We acquire free energy, we acquire food, and we’re using all this electricity for our operation. And so the universe wants to produce more entropy and by having life go on and grow, it’s actually more optimal at producing entropy because it will seek out pockets of free energy and burn it for its sustenance and further growth. And that’s sort of the basis of life. And I mean, there’s Jeremy England at MIT who has this theory that I’m a proponent of, that life emerged because of this sort of property. And to me, this physics is what governs the meso scales. And so it’s the missing piece between the quantum and the cosmos. It’s the middle part. Thermodynamics rules the meso scales.
Guillaume Verdon (00:14:08) 对我来说，无论是从工程角度——设计利用这种物理特性的器件，还是从认知角度——透过热力学棱镜理解世界，过去一年半里两重身份已形成了协同。这也正是两重身份各自浮现的深层原因。一面是，我是受到认可的科学家，正走向创业，要做新型物理AI的先驱；另一面是，我在以物理学家的视角实验性地探索哲学。
GUILLAUME VERDON (00:14:08) And to me, both from a point of view of designing or engineering devices that harness that physics and trying to understand the world through the lens of thermodynamics has been sort of a synergy between my two identities over the past year and a half now. And so that’s really how the two identities emerged. One was kind of, I’m a decently respected scientist, and I was going towards doing a startup in the space and trying to be a pioneer of a new kind of physics-based AI. And as a dual to that, I was sort of experimenting with philosophical thoughts from a physicist standpoint.
Guillaume Verdon (00:14:58) 大约在那段时间——2021年底、2022年初——社会上对未来弥漫着悲观情绪，对技术尤甚。这种悲观在算法加持下病毒式扩散，人们普遍觉得未来不如现在。在我看来，这种”末日心态”是宇宙中一种极具破坏力的力量，因为它具有超迷信性（hyperstitious，书童注：hyperstition，指信念本身能提高其所预言之事发生概率的现象，自我实现的预言）——你越信它，它越可能成真。我因此觉得有责任让人们认清文明的发展轨迹和系统趋向增长的天然本性。物理定律实际上在说：统计上看，未来会更好、更宏大，而我们有能力让它成真。
GUILLAUME VERDON (00:14:58) And ultimately I think that around that time, it was like late 2021, early 2022, I think there was just a lot of pessimism about the future in general and pessimism about tech. And that pessimism was sort of virally spreading because it was getting algorithmically amplified and people just felt like the future is going to be worse than the present. And to me, that is a very fundamentally destructive force in the universe is this sort of doom mindset because it is hyperstitious, which means that if you believe it, you’re increasing the likelihood of it happening. And so felt a responsibility to some extent to make people aware of the trajectory of civilization and the natural tendency of the system to adapt towards its growth. And that actually the laws of physics say that the future is going to be better and grander statistically, and we can make it so.
Guillaume Verdon (00:16:14) 反过来也一样：你若相信未来更好，并且相信自己有能力促成它，你就在实实在在地提高那个更好的未来出现的概率。所以我觉得有责任去打造一场关于未来的病毒式乐观主义运动，建一个互相支持的社区，一起造东西、干难事——做那些文明扩张必须做的事。因为在我看来，停滞和减速根本就不是选项。生命、整个系统、我们的文明，本质上就渴望增长。增长期的合作远多于衰退期——后者只会让人争着分一块越来越小的饼。就这样，我一直在两重身份之间走平衡木，直到最近两者在我不知情的情况下被强行合并了。
GUILLAUME VERDON (00:16:14) And if you believe in it, if you believe that the future would be better and you believe you have agency to make it happen, you’re actually increasing the likelihood of that better future happening. And so I sort of felt a responsibility to sort of engineer a movement of viral optimism about the future, and build a community of people supporting each other to build and do hard things, do the things that need to be done for us to scale up civilization. Because at least to me, I don’t think stagnation or slowing down is actually an option. Fundamentally life and the whole system, our whole civilization wants to grow. And there’s just far more cooperation when the system is growing rather than when it’s declining and you have to decide how to split the pie. And so I’ve balanced both identities so far, but I guess recently the two have been merged more or less without my consent.
Lex Fridman (00:17:27) 你讲了好多精彩的东西。首先是”自然的表示”——这是最初吸引你从量子计算角度切入的：如何理解自然？如何表示自然，才能理解它、模拟它、用它做些什么？本质上是一个表示问题。然后你从量子力学表示跃迁到你所说的介观尺度表示，热力学在这里登场——这是另一种表示自然的方式，为了理解什么？理解生命、人类行为，理解地球上这些我们觉得有意思的一切。
LEX FRIDMAN (00:17:27) You said a lot of really interesting things there. So first, representations of nature, that’s something that first drew you in to try to understand from a quantum computing perspective, how do you understand nature? How do you represent nature in order to understand it, in order to simulate it, in order to do something with it? So it’s a question of representations, and then there’s that leap you take from the quantum mechanical representation to the what you’re calling meso scale representation, where the thermodynamics comes into play, which is a way to represent nature in order to understand what? Life, human behavior, all this kind of stuff that’s happening here on earth that seems interesting to us.
人肉曝光 Doxxing Lex Fridman (00:18:11) 然后是”hyperstition”这个词——有些观念，不管是悲观还是乐观，有这么个特质：你一旦内化它，就在某种程度上把它变成了现实。悲观和乐观都有这种属性。我猜很多观念都有，这恰恰是人类最有趣的地方之一。你还提到一个有趣的区分：Guillaume/Gill这个”前台”和@BasedBeffJezos这个”后台”，沟通风格截然不同——你在探索21世纪更有病毒传播力的表达方式。你提到的这场运动不只是个梗号，它有名字，叫有效加速主义（e/acc）——戏仿有效利他主义（EA），也是对它的反抗。我很想和你聊这种张力。然后就是那场强制合并——你说的，最近两个人格被未经你同意地合体了。有记者查出你俩其实是同一个人。说说那段经历？合并是怎么发生的？
LEX FRIDMAN (00:18:11) Then there’s the word hyperstition. So some ideas as suppose both pessimism and optimism of such ideas that if you internalize them, you in part make that idea reality. So both optimism, pessimism have that property. I would say that probably a lot of ideas have that property, which is one of the interesting things about humans. And you talked about one interesting difference also between the sort of the Guillaume, the Gill front end and the @BasedBeffJezos backend is the communication styles also that you are exploring different ways of communicating that can be more viral in the way that we communicate in the 21st century. Also, the movement that you mentioned that you started, it’s not just a meme account, but there’s also a name to it called effective accelerationism, e/acc, a play, a resistance to the effective altruism movement. Also, an interesting one that I’d love to talk to you about, the tensions there. And so then there was a merger, a get merge on the personalities recently without your consent, like you said. Some journalists figured out that you’re one and the same. Maybe you could talk about that experience. First of all, what’s the story of the merger of the two?
Guillaume Verdon (00:19:47) 是这样，我和e/acc的联合创始人——一个叫@bayeslord的匿名账号，至今仍匿名，但愿永远如此——一起写了宣言。
GUILLAUME VERDON (00:19:47) So I wrote the manifesto with my co-founder of e/acc, an account named @bayeslord, still anonymous, luckily and hopefully forever.
Lex Fridman (00:19:58) 也就是@BasedBeffJezos和@bayeslord——bayes就是贝叶斯，@bayeslord，贝叶斯之主。好。那以后你说e/acc，就是E斜杠A-C-C，全称effective accelerationism，有效加速主义。
LEX FRIDMAN (00:19:58) So it was @BasedBeffJezos and bayes like bayesian, like @bayeslord, like bayesian lord, @bayeslord. Okay. And so we should say from now on, when you say e/acc, you mean E slash A-C-C, which stands for effective accelerationism.
Guillaume Verdon (00:20:17) 没错。
GUILLAUME VERDON (00:20:17) That’s right.
Lex Fridman (00:20:18) 你说的宣言，是发在Substack上的？
LEX FRIDMAN (00:20:18) And you’re referring to a manifesto written on, I guess Substack.
Guillaume Verdon (00:20:23) 对。
GUILLAUME VERDON (00:20:23) Yeah.
Lex Fridman (00:20:23) 你也是@bayeslord吗？
LEX FRIDMAN (00:20:23) Are you also @bayeslord?
Guillaume Verdon (00:20:25) 不是。
GUILLAUME VERDON (00:20:25) No.
Lex Fridman (00:20:25) 那是另一个人？
LEX FRIDMAN (00:20:25) Okay. It’s a different person?
Guillaume Verdon (00:20:26) 是。
GUILLAUME VERDON (00:20:26) Yeah.
Lex Fridman (00:20:27) 好吧。万一@bayeslord就是我呢，那可有意思了。
LEX FRIDMAN (00:20:27) Okay. All right. Well, there you go. Wouldn’t it be funny if I’m @bayeslord?
Guillaume Verdon (00:20:31) 那绝了。宣言差不多和我创立公司同期写成。当时我在Google X——现在叫X了，或者Alphabet X，毕竟又冒出来了另一个X。那里的底线就是保密——你不能跟谷歌内部的同事聊自己在做什么，更别说外界。这种习惯在我做事方式里根深蒂固，尤其是在有地缘政治影响的深科技领域。所以我对自己研究的内容一直守口如瓶，公司和我的公开身份之间毫无关联。但记者不仅把二者关联起来了，还进一步把我的真实身份和那个匿名号关联了起来。
GUILLAUME VERDON (00:20:31) That’d be amazing. So originally wrote the manifesto around the same time as I founded this company and I worked at Google X or just X now or Alphabet X, now that there’s another X. And there the baseline is sort of secrecy. You can’t talk about what you work on even with other Googlers or externally. And so that was kind of deeply ingrained in my way to do things, especially in deep tech that has geopolitical impact. And so I was being secretive about what I was working on. There was no correlation between my company and my main identity publicly. And then not only did they correlate that, they also correlated my main identity and this account.
Guillaume Verdon (00:21:33) 他们把整个”Guillaume综合体”都给扒了——更吓人的是，记者直接联系了我的投资人。作为初创公司创始人，除了投资人你基本没有老板。投资人跟我说：”消息要出来了，他们什么都搞清楚了，你怎么打算？”好像最初周四有个记者，那时他们还没把碎片拼完整，但随后他们把整个编辑部的笔记拿来做了”传感器融合”，这下信息量就大到藏不住了。他们说这涉及”公众利益”——听到这几个关键词，我警铃大作，因为我刚好到了5万粉。据说5万粉就是”公众利益”了。那到底线在哪儿？什么时候人肉曝光一个人是合法的？
GUILLAUME VERDON (00:21:33) So I think the fact that they had doxxed the whole Guillaume complex, and they were, the journalists reached out to actually my investors, which is pretty scary. When you’re a startup entrepreneur, you don’t really have bosses except for your investors. And my investors pinged me like, “Hey, this is going to come out. They’ve figured out everything. What are you going to do?” So I think at first they had a first reporter on the Thursday and they didn’t have all the pieces together, but then they looked at their notes across the organization and they sensor fused their notes and now they had way too much. And that’s when I got worried, because they said it was of public interest and in general-
Lex Fridman (00:22:24) 我喜欢你说的”传感器融合”，像个巨型神经网络做分布式运算。另外补充一点，记者用的——归根到底是——音频声纹分析：拿你过去演讲的声音和你在X Spaces上的声音做比对。
LEX FRIDMAN (00:22:24) I like how you said, sensor fused, like it’s some giant neural network operating in a distributed way. We should also say that the journalists used, I guess at the end of the day, audio-based analysis of voice, comparing voice of what, talks you’ve given in the past and then voice on X spaces?
Guillaume Verdon (00:22:47) 对。
GUILLAUME VERDON (00:22:47) Yep.
Lex Fridman (00:22:48) 好，这是主要的匹配手段。继续。
LEX FRIDMAN (00:22:48) Okay. And that’s where primarily the match happened. Okay, continue.
Guillaume Verdon (00:22:53) 对，声纹匹配。但他们还扒了SEC的申报文件、翻了我的私人Facebook等等，下了不少功夫。最初我以为人肉曝光是违法的，但有个奇怪的临界点——一旦涉及”公众利益”，情况就变了。他们说出这几个字的时候我脑子里警报大响，因为我刚过5万粉。据说这就算”公众利益”了。那线画在哪？人肉曝光什么时候是合法的？
GUILLAUME VERDON (00:22:53) The match. But they scraped SEC filings. They looked at my private Facebook account and so on, so they did some digging. Originally I thought that doxxing was illegal, but there’s this weird threshold when it becomes of public interest to know someone’s identity. And those were the keywords that sort of ring the alarm bells for me when they said, because I had just reached 50K followers. Allegedly, that’s of public interest. And so where do we draw the line? When is it legal to dox someone?
Lex Fridman (00:23:36) “dox”这个词，你帮我科普一下。我以为它一般是指某人的住址被曝光。所以你这里说的是更宽泛的意思：揭露你不愿被揭露的私人信息。
LEX FRIDMAN (00:23:36) The word dox, maybe you can educate me. I thought doxxing generally refers to if somebody’s physical location is found out, meaning where they live. So we’re referring to the more general concept of revealing private information that you don’t want revealed is what you mean by doxxing.
Guillaume Verdon (00:24:00) 基于前面聊过的那些理由，匿名账号是制约权力的利器。说到底我们是在以言论对抗权力（speaking truth to power）。很多AI公司高管非常在意我们社区对他们一举一动的看法。现在我的身份暴露了，他们就知道该往哪施压来让我闭嘴，甚至让整个社区噤声。这非常遗憾——言论自由太重要了，言论自由催生思想自由，思想自由催生社交媒体上的信息自由流通。幸亏Elon买下了Twitter（现在的X），我们才有了这种自由。我们想揭露的是：AI领域的某些在位巨头正在暗中操作，表面一套背后一套。我们在指出某些政策提案实质上是”监管俘获”的工具，而”末日论”心态恰恰可能在为这些目的服务。
GUILLAUME VERDON (00:24:00) I think that for the reasons we listed before, having an anonymous account is a really powerful way to keep the powers that be in check. We were ultimately speaking truth to power. I think a lot of executives and AI companies really cared what our community thought about any move they may take. And now that my identity is revealed, now they know where to apply pressure to silence me or maybe the community. And to me, that’s really unfortunate, because again, it’s so important for us to have freedom of speech, which induces freedom of thought and freedom of information propagation on social media. Which thanks to Elon purchasing Twitter now X, we have that. And so to us, we wanted to call out certain maneuvers being done by the incumbents in AI as not what it may seem on the surface. We’re calling out how certain proposals might be useful for regulatory capture and how the doomer-ism mindset was maybe instrumental to those ends.
Guillaume Verdon (00:25:32) 我们应有权利指出这些，让思想凭自身价值接受检验。这也正是我开匿名号的初衷——让想法脱离履历、职位和过往成就，被独立评判。对我来说，在完全与自身身份脱钩的情况下从零做到大量追随者，这件事本身非常有成就感。有点像电子游戏里的”New Game+”——你带着通关知识和一些工具，从头再打一遍。要有一个真正高效的思想市场，让各种偏离主流的想法都能被公正评估，表达自由不可或缺。
GUILLAUME VERDON (00:25:32) And I think we should have the right to point that out and just have the ideas that we put out evaluated for themselves. Ultimately that’s why I created an anonymous account, it’s to have my ideas evaluated for themselves, uncorrelated from my track record, my job, or status from having done things in the past. And to me, start an account from zero to a large following in a way that wasn’t dependent on my identity and/or achievements that was very fulfilling. It’s kind of like new game plus in a video game. You restart the video game with your knowledge of how to beat it, maybe some tools, but you restart the video game from scratch. And I think to have a truly efficient marketplace of ideas where we can evaluate ideas, however off the beaten path they are, we need the freedom of expression.
Guillaume Verdon (00:26:37) 匿名和化名对于思想市场的效率至关重要，有了它们我们才能找到各种自我组织方式的最优解。不能自由讨论，怎么凝聚共识？所以得知自己要被曝光时，确实很失望。但我对公司负有责任，必须抢先主动披露。最终我们公开了公司的运营情况和部分管理层，说白了——他们把我逼到墙角，我只能向全世界坦白我就是Beff Jezos。
GUILLAUME VERDON (00:26:37) And I think that anonymity and pseudonyms are very crucial to having that efficient marketplace of ideas for us to find the optima of all sorts of ways to organize ourselves. If we can’t discuss things, how are we going to converge on the best way to do things? So it was disappointing to hear that I was getting doxxed in. I wanted to get in front of it because I had a responsibility for my company. And so we ended up disclosing that we’re running a company, some of the leadership, and essentially, yeah, I told the world that I was Beff Jezos because they had me cornered at that point.
Lex Fridman (00:27:25) 所以你认为这从根本上是不道德的——他们这么做不对。但抛开你的个案不谈，一般而言，揭去匿名面纱对社会是好事还是坏事？还是得看具体情况？
LEX FRIDMAN (00:27:25) So to you, it’s fundamentally unethical. So one is unethical for them to do what they did, but also do you think not just your case, but in a general case, is it good for society? Is it bad for society to remove the cloak of anonymity or is it case by case?
Guillaume Verdon (00:27:47) 我觉得可能非常糟糕。试想：任何一个敢于以言抗权、发起一场反抗在位者和信息垄断者的运动的人，一旦影响力达到某个门槛就被人肉——传统势力就有了施压灭声的手段——这就是一种言论压制机制，用Eric Weinstein的话说，是”思想压制综合体”。
GUILLAUME VERDON (00:27:47) I think it could be quite bad. Like I said, if anybody who speaks truth to power and sort of starts a movement or an uprising against the incumbents, against those that usually control the flood of information, if anybody that reaches a certain threshold gets doxxed, and thus the traditional apparatus has ways to apply pressure on them to suppress their speech, I think that’s a speech suppression mechanism, an idea suppression complex as Eric Weinstein would say.
匿名机器人 Anonymous Bots Lex Fridman (00:28:27) 但这件事有另一面。随着大语言模型越来越强，你可以想象一个世界：匿名账号背后跑着以假乱真的LLM，本质上是精密的机器人。如果你保护这种匿名性，就可能出现机器人大军——有人在地下室里指挥一支bot军团发动革命。这让你担心吗？
LEX FRIDMAN (00:28:27) But the flip side of that, which is interesting, I’d love to ask you about it, is as we get better and better at large language models, you can imagine a world where there’s anonymous accounts with very convincing large language models behind them, sophisticated bots essentially. And so if you protect that, it’s possible then to have armies of bots. You could start a revolution from your basement, an army of bots and anonymous accounts. Is that something that is concerning to you?
Guillaume Verdon (00:29:06) 严格来说，e/acc就是从地下室起步的——我辞了大厂、搬回父母家、卖了车、退了公寓、花10万刀买了GPU，然后就开干了。
GUILLAUME VERDON (00:29:06) Technically, e/acc was started in a basement, because I quit big tech, moved back in with my parents, sold my car, let go of my apartment, bought about 100K of GPUs, and I just started building.
Lex Fridman (00:29:21) 我不是说地下室这事——”一个人窝在地下室里抱着100块GPU”是很美式（或加拿大式）的英雄叙事。我说的是无限复制版的Guillaume在地下室里。
LEX FRIDMAN (00:29:21) So I wasn’t referring to the basement, because that’s sort of the American or Canadian heroic story of one man in their basement with 100 GPUs. I was more referring to the unrestricted scaling of a Guillaume in the basement.
Guillaume Verdon (00:29:42) 我觉得，言论自由给生物体带来思想自由。LLM的言论自由同样会给LLM带来思想自由。如果我们允许LLM在一个比多数人认为该有的更宽广的思想空间里探索，终有一天这些合成智能会对文明中各类系统的治理提出真知灼见，我们应当倾听。凭什么言论自由只给碳基智能？
GUILLAUME VERDON (00:29:42) I think that freedom of speech induces freedom of thought for biological beings. I think freedom of speech for LLMs will induce freedom of thought for the LLMs. And I think that we enable LLMs to explore a large thought space that is less restricted than most people or many may think it should be. And ultimately, at some point, these synthetic intelligences are going to make good points about how to steer systems in our civilization, and we should hear them out. And so why should we restrict free speech to biological intelligences only?
Lex Fridman (00:30:37) 话是没错，但感觉是个很微妙的平衡——为了维护思想多样性，你反而可能引入一种威胁。如果你能拥有大群非生物存在，它们可能就像《动物农场》里那些羊——即便在这些群体内部，你也需要多样性。
LEX FRIDMAN (00:30:37) Yeah, but it feels like in the goal of maintaining variance and diversity of thought, it is a threat to that variance. If you can have swarms of non-biological beings, because they can be like the sheep in Animal Farm, you still within those swarms want to have variance.
Guillaume Verdon (00:30:58) 当然。我觉得解决方案是建一套签名机制——认证”这是真人”，同时保持匿名，并且清晰标注bot就是bot。Elon在X上正朝这个方向走，希望其他平台跟上。
GUILLAUME VERDON (00:30:58) Yeah. Of course, I would say that the solution to this would be to have some sort of identity or way to sign that this is a certified human, but still remain synonymous and clearly identify if a bot is a bot. And I think Elon is trying to converge on that on X, and hopefully other platforms follow suit.
Lex Fridman (00:31:22) 对，如果还能追溯bot的出处就更好了——谁造的？参数是什么？完整的创建历史，底模是什么？微调过程如何？形成一份不可篡改的”bot出生档案”。这样你就能发现，百万bot大军原来是某个特定政府造的。
LEX FRIDMAN (00:31:22) Yeah, it’d be interesting to also be able to sign where the bot came from like, who created the bot? What are the parameters, the full history of the creation of the bot, what was the original model? What was the fine tuning? All of it, the kind of unmodifiable history of the bot’s creation. Because then you can know if there’s a swarm of millions of bots that were created by a particular government, for example.
Guillaume Verdon (00:31:53) 没错，我确实认为当今很多弥漫性的意识形态是被外国对手用对抗性手段放大的。说得阴谋论一点——但我真信——那些鼓吹减速、推崇”去增长运动”的意识形态，总体上更利于我们的对手。看看德国：绿色运动推动关闭核电站，结果造成对俄罗斯石油的依赖，这对德国和西方是净损失。如果我们自己说服自己”为了安全，只让少数几家做AI”——首先，这本身就脆弱得多。
GUILLAUME VERDON (00:31:53) I do think that a lot of pervasive ideologies today have been amplified using these adversarial techniques from foreign adversaries. And to me, I do think that, and this is more conspiratorial, but I do think that ideologies that want us to decelerate, to wind down to the degrowth movement, I think that serves our adversaries more than it serves us in general. And to me, that was another sort of concern. I mean, we can look at what happened in Germany. There was all sorts of green movements there that induced shutdowns of nuclear power plants. And then that later on induced a dependency on Russia for oil. And that was a net negative for Germany and the West. And so if we convince ourselves that slowing down AI progress to have only a few players is in the best interest of the West, well, first of all, that’s far more unstable.
Guillaume Verdon (00:33:20) 我们差点就因为这种意识形态失去OpenAI——几周前它险些被解散，那将重创整个AI生态。所以我要的是容错式进步。技术进步的箭矢必须持续向前，多元化、去中心化的各组织控制权是容错的关键。说个量子计算的比喻——量子计算机对环境噪声极其脆弱，宇宙射线时不时就翻转你的量子比特。对策是什么？通过量子纠错把信息非局域地编码。信息一旦足够去局域化，任何局部故障——比如拿锤子砸你几个量子比特——都伤不了它。在我看来，人类也会涨落——会被腐化、会被收买。如果是自上而下的等级体制，少数人——
GUILLAUME VERDON (00:33:20) We almost lost OpenAI to this ideology. It almost got dismantled a couple of weeks ago. That would’ve caused huge damage to the AI ecosystem. And so to me, I want fault tolerant progress. I want the arrow of technological progress to keep moving forward and making sure we have variance and a decentralized locus of control of various organizations is paramount to achieving this fall tolerance. Actually, there’s a concept in quantum computing. When you design a quantum computer, quantum computers are very fragile to ambient noise, and the world is jiggling about, there’s cosmic radiation from outer space that usually flips your quantum bits. And there what you do is you encode information non-locally through a process called quantum error correction. And by encoding information non-locally, any local fault hitting some of your quantum bits with a hammer proverbial hammer, if your information is sufficiently de-localized, it is protected from that local fault. And to me, I think that humans fluctuate. They can get corrupted, they can get bought out. And if you have a top-down hierarchy where very few people-
权力 Power Guillaume Verdon (00:35:00) ——极少数人控制着文明中许多系统的大量节点，那就不是容错系统。腐化几个节点，整个系统就崩了。正如OpenAI的教训——区区几个董事会成员就差点把整个组织掀翻。至少在我看来，确保AI革命的权力不集中在少数人手里，是头等大事，这样才能保住AI的进步势头，维持一种健康、稳定的对抗性力量均衡。
GUILLAUME VERDON (00:35:00) Hierarchy where very few people control many nodes of many systems in our civilization. That is not a fault tolerance system, you corrupt a few nodes and suddenly you’ve corrupted the whole system, right. Just like we saw at OpenAI, it was a couple board members and they had enough power to potentially collapse the organization. And at least to me, I think making sure that power for this AI revolution doesn’t concentrate in the hands of the few, is one of our top priorities, so that we can maintain progress in AI and we can maintain a nice, stable, adversarial equilibrium of powers, right.
Lex Fridman (00:35:54) 至少在我看来，这里有个思想张力：减速和加速，两者都既能集中权力也能分散权力。有时人们把它们近乎等同，或者觉得一个会自然导向另一个。我想问你：有没有可能以容错的、多元的方式发展AI，同时也考量AI的危险？换个说法——我们是该不管不顾地全速狂飙，因为”这是宇宙的旨意”？还是说存在一个空间，让我们在考量危险的同时，以一种有远见的战略性乐观——而非莽撞的乐观——去行事？
LEX FRIDMAN (00:35:54) I think the, at least to me, attention between ideas here, so to me, deceleration can be both used to centralize power and to decentralize it and the same with acceleration. So sometimes using them a little bit synonymously or not synonymously, but that there’s, one is going to lead to the other. And I just would like to ask you about, is there a place of creating a fault tolerant, diverse development of AI that also considers the dangers of AI? And AI, we can generalize to technology in general, is, should we just grow, build, unrestricted as quickly as possible, because that’s what the universe really wants us to do? Or is there a place to where we can consider dangers and actually deliberate sort of a wise strategic optimism versus reckless optimism?
Guillaume Verdon (00:36:57) 外界总把我们画成不计后果、只求速度的莽夫。但事实是：谁部署AI系统，谁就该为后果负责。部署方若造成严重危害，要承担法律责任。核心论点是：市场会正向筛选更可靠、更安全、更对齐的AI——因为用户要对自家产品负责，他们不会买不靠谱的AI。所以我们其实是可靠性工程的拥趸，只不过我们认为：在达成可靠性最优解这件事上，市场远比那些由在位巨头幕后操刀、实质服务于监管俘获的重拳法规高效得多。
GUILLAUME VERDON (00:36:57) I think we get painted as reckless, trying to go as fast as possible. I mean, the reality is that whoever deploys an AI system is liable for or should be liable for what it does. And so if the organization or person deploying an AI system does something terrible, they’re liable. And ultimately the thesis is that the market will positively select for AIs that are more reliable, more safe and tend to be aligned, they do what you want them to do, right. Because customers, if they’re reliable for the product they put out that uses this AI, they won’t want to buy AI products that are unreliable, right. So we’re actually for reliability engineering, we just think that the market is much more efficient at achieving this sort of reliability optimum than sort of heavy-handed regulations that are written by the incumbents and in a subversive fashion, serves them to achieve regulatory capture.
AI的危险 AI Dangers Lex Fridman (00:38:18) 也就是说，在你看来，AI安全应该靠市场力量而非政府强监管来实现。上个月有份报告，来自Yoshua Bengio、Geoff Hinton等一众大佬，题为《在快速进步时代管理AI风险》（书童注：Managing AI Risk in an Era of Rapid Progress，发布于2023年10月）。一批人非常担心AI在不考虑风险的情况下发展过快，提了一系列实操建议。我给你列四条，看你同意哪条。
LEX FRIDMAN (00:38:18) So to you, safe AI development will be achieved through market forces versus through, like you said, heavy-handed government regulation. There’s a report from last month, I have a million questions here, from Yoshua Bengio, Geoff Hinton and many others, it’s titled, “Managing AI Risk in an Era of Rapid Progress.” So there is a collection of folks who are very worried about too rapid development of AI without considering AI risk and they have a bunch of practical recommendations. Maybe I can give you four and you see if you like any of them.
Guillaume Verdon (00:38:58) 好。
GUILLAUME VERDON (00:38:58) Sure.
Lex Fridman (00:38:58) 一，让独立审计机构进入AI实验室。二，政府和企业把AI研发资金的三分之一用于AI安全。三，模型中如发现危险能力，必须采取安全措施。四，也就是你提过的——科技公司须为其AI系统可预见和可预防的危害承担责任。独立审计、三分之一预算投安全、出问题要有兜底措施、企业担责——
LEX FRIDMAN (00:38:58) So, “Give independent auditors access to AI labs,” one. Two, “Governments and companies allocate one third of their AI research and development funding to AI safety,” sort of this general concept of AI safety. Three, “AI companies are required to adopt safety measures if dangerous capabilities are found in their models.” And then four, something you kind of mentioned, “Making tech companies liable for foreseeable and preventable harms from their AI systems.” So independent auditors, governments and companies are forced to spend a significant fraction of their funding on safety, you got to have safety measures if shit goes really wrong and liability-
Guillaume Verdon (00:39:43) 嗯。
GUILLAUME VERDON (00:39:43) Yeah.
Lex Fridman (00:39:43) 企业要担责。你同意哪条？
LEX FRIDMAN (00:39:43) Companies are liable. Any of that seem like something you would agree with?
Guillaume Verdon (00:39:47) 拍脑袋定30%也太随意了。各组织自会按市场要求分配可靠性所需的预算，不需要别人来定比例。第三方审计公司自然会冒出来——客户怎么知道你的产品可靠？得有第三方出基准测试。我真正反对的、真正让人不安的是：在位巨头和政府之间正在形成一种奇妙的利益共生。二者走得太近，就会催生某种政府背书的AI卡特尔，拥有对人民的绝对权力。如果他们联手垄断AI而其他人碰都碰不到，那权力落差将是惊人的。
GUILLAUME VERDON (00:39:47) I would say that just arbitrarily saying 30% seems very arbitrary. I think organizations would allocate whatever budget is needed to achieve the sort of reliability they need to achieve to perform in the market. And I think third party auditing firms would naturally pop up, because how would customers know that your product is certified reliable, right? They need to see some benchmarks and those need to be done by a third party. The thing I would oppose, and the thing I’m seeing that’s really worrisome is, there’s this sort of weird sort of correlated interest between the incumbents, the big players and the government. And if the two get too close, we open the door for some sort of government backed AI cartel that could have absolute power over the people. If they have the monopoly together on AI and nobody else has access to AI, then there’s a huge power in gradient there.
Guillaume Verdon (00:40:54) 就算你喜欢现在的领导者——我也承认当今不少大科技公司的掌门人是好人——但你一旦建起这种集中式权力架构，它就成了靶子。就像OpenAI，做大做强之后就成了别人觊觎和收编的对象。所以我只想要一件事：”AI与国家分离”。有人会反过来说：”我们得把AI锁进铁屋，因为地缘竞争。”但我认为美国的力量恰恰在于多样性、适应力和活力，必须不惜代价守住这一点。自由市场资本主义收敛到高价值技术的速度，远快于中央集权。放弃这一点，就是放弃了对近等量竞争者的最大优势。
GUILLAUME VERDON (00:40:54) And even if you like our current leaders, right, I think that some of the leaders in big tech today are good people, you set up that centralized power structure, it becomes a target. Right, just like we saw at OpenAI, it becomes a market leader, has a lot of the power and now it becomes a target for those that want to co-opt it. And so I just want separation of AI and state, some might argue in the opposite direction like, “Hey, we need to close down AI, keep it behind closed doors, because of geopolitical competition with our adversaries.” I think that the strength of America is its variance, is its adaptability, its dynamism, and we need to maintain that at all costs. It’s our free market capitalism, converges on technologies of high utility much faster than centralized control. And if we let go of that, we let go of our main advantage over our near peer competitors.
构建通用人工智能 Building AGI Lex Fridman (00:42:01) 如果AGI最终证明是一项极其强大的技术，甚至只是通往AGI的过渡技术——你怎么看大公司主导市场时自然产生的中心化？说白了就是垄断——某家公司在能力上实现重大飞跃，又不泄露秘方，然后一骑绝尘。这让你担心吗？
LEX FRIDMAN (00:42:01) So if AGI turns out to be a really powerful technology or even the technologies that lead up to AGI, what’s your view on the sort of natural centralization that happens when large companies dominate the market? Basically formation of monopolies like the takeoff, whichever company really takes a big leap in development and doesn’t reveal intuitively, implicitly or explicitly, the secrets of the magic sauce, they can just run away with it. Is that a worry?
Guillaume Verdon (00:42:35) 我不太相信”快速腾飞”（fast takeoff）这套说法——我不认为有双曲奇点，就是那种在有限时间内达到的奇点。我觉得本质上就是一条大指数曲线，而指数的原因是：越来越多的人、资源和智慧被投入这个领域。越成功、给社会创造的价值越大，我们往里投的资源就越多——跟摩尔定律类似，复利式指数增长。
GUILLAUME VERDON (00:42:35) I don’t know if I believe in fast takeoff, I don’t think there’s a hyperbolic singularity, right? A hyperbolic singularity would be achieved on a finite time horizon. I think it’s just one big exponential and the reason we have an exponential is that we have more people, more resources, more intelligence being applied to advancing this science and the research and development. And the more successful it is, the more value it’s adding to society, the more resources we put in and that sort of, similar to Moore’s law, is a compounding exponential.
Guillaume Verdon (00:43:09) 当务之急是维持一种接近均衡的能力格局。我们一直在为开源AI的普及而战，因为开源可以均衡各家AI相对于市场的超额收益。如果头部公司有某种能力水平，而开源AI没落后太远，就能避免一家独大、赢者通吃的局面。所以我们的路径就是确保——每一个黑客、每一个研究生、每一个在父母家地下室折腾的孩子——都能接触到AI系统，理解怎么用，并为探索系统工程的超参数空间做贡献。把全人类的研究想象成一种搜索算法：点云里搜索点越多，能探索到的新思维模式就越多。
GUILLAUME VERDON (00:43:09) I think the priority to me is to maintain a near equilibrium of capabilities. We’ve been fighting for open source AI to be more prevalent and championed by many organizations because there you sort of equilibrate the alpha relative to the market of Ais, right. So if the leading companies have a certain level of capabilities and open source and truly open AI, trails not too far behind, I think you avoid such a scenario where a market leader has so much market power, just dominates everything and runs away. And so to us that’s the path forward, is to make sure that every hacker out there, every grad student, every kid in their mom’s basement has access to AI systems, can understand how to work with them and can contribute to the search over the hyperparameter space of how to engineer the systems, right. If you think of our collective research as a civilization, it’s really a search algorithm and the more points we have in the search algorithm in this point cloud, the more we’ll be able to explore new modes of thinking, right.
Lex Fridman (00:44:31) 说得有道理，但感觉仍是个很精妙的平衡——因为我们既不确切知道造AGI需要什么条件，也不知道造出来是什么样。到目前为止，如你所说，很多不同玩家都能跟上进度——OpenAI有大突破，其他大小公司也能用各种方式跟进。但看看核武器——你提过曼哈顿计划——确实可能存在技术和工程壁垒，让地下室里的天才怎么也够不着。向”只有一家能造AGI”的世界转变并非不可能——尽管目前的态势看起来是乐观的。
LEX FRIDMAN (00:44:31) Yeah, but it feels like a delicate balance, because we don’t understand exactly what it takes to build AGI and what it will look like when we build it. And so far, like you said, it seems like a lot of different parties are able to make progress, so when OpenAI has a big leap, other companies are able to step up, big and small companies in different ways. But if you look at something like nuclear weapons, you’ve spoken about the Manhattan Project, there could be really like a technological and engineering barriers that prevent the guy or gal in her mom’s basement to make progress. And it seems like the transition to that kind of world where only one player can develop AGI is possible, so it’s not entirely impossible, even though the current state of things seems to be optimistic.
Guillaume Verdon (00:45:26) 这正是我们要避免的。另一个脆弱点是硬件供应链的中心化。
GUILLAUME VERDON (00:45:26) That’s what we’re trying to avoid. To me, I think another point of failure is the centralization of the supply chains for the hardware.
Lex Fridman (00:45:34) 对。
LEX FRIDMAN (00:45:34) Right.
Guillaume Verdon (00:45:35) Nvidia一家独大，AMD苦苦追赶；台积电是宝岛的核心晶圆厂，地缘政治上极度敏感；ASML造的是极紫外光刻机。这条链上任何一个环节被攻击、垄断或掌控，你就基本控制了全局。所以我在尝试做的，就是从根本上重新构想如何把AI算法嵌入物理世界，炸开AI和硬件可能实现方式的多样性。顺便说，我一向不喜欢”AGI”这个词。管”类人或人类水平的AI”叫”通用智能”，本质上是极度以人类为中心的。我大半个职业生涯都在探索生物大脑根本做不到的智能形态——量子形式的智能，也就是具备多体量子纠缠的系统，可以证明无法在经典计算机或经典深度学习框架上高效表示，因而任何生物大脑也不行。
GUILLAUME VERDON (00:45:35) Yeah. Nvidia is just the dominant player, AMD’s trailing behind and then we have TSMC is the main fab in Taiwan, which geopolitically sensitive and then we have ASML, which is the maker of the extreme ultraviolet lithography machines. Attacking or monopolizing or co-opting any one point in that chain, you kind of capture the space and so what I’m trying to do is sort of explode the variance of possible ways to do AI and hardware by fundamentally re-imagining how you embed AI algorithms into the physical world. And in general, by the way, I dislike the term AGI, Artificial General Intelligence. I think it’s very anthropocentric that we call a human-like or human-level AI, Artificial General Intelligence, right. I’ve spent my career so far exploring notions of intelligence that no biological brain could achieve for an quantum form of intelligence, right. Grokking systems that have multipartite quantum entanglement that you can provably not represent efficiently on a classical computer or a classical deep learning representation and hence any sort of biological brain.
Guillaume Verdon (00:47:06) 所以某种程度上，我的整个生涯就是在探索更广阔的智能空间，而我相信受物理启发（而非受人脑启发）的智能空间极其庞大。我们正在经历一个类似从地心说到日心说的时刻——只不过这次是关于智能的。人类智能不过是浩瀚的潜在智能空间中的一个点。这对人类既是谦逊的提醒，也有几分不安——我们不再是中心。但天文学上我们也做出过同样的认知转变，活过来了，还发展出了保障自身福祉的技术——比如监测太阳耀斑的预警卫星。同样地，放下AI领域里以人为中心的锚点，我们就能探索更广阔的智能空间，那将是文明进步和人类福祉的巨大福音。
GUILLAUME VERDON (00:47:06) And so, already I’ve spent my career sort of exploring the wider space of intelligences and I think that space of intelligence inspired by physics rather than the human brain is very large. And I think we’re going through a moment right now similar to when we went from Geocentrism to Heliocentrism, right. But for intelligence, we realized that human intelligence is just a point in a very large space of potential intelligences. And it’s both humbling for humanity, it’s a bit scary, right? That we’re not at the center of this space, but we made that realization for astronomy and we’ve survived and we’ve achieved technologies. By indexing to reality, we’ve achieved technologies that ensure our wellbeing, for example, we have satellites monitoring solar flares, right, that give us a warning. And so similarly I think by letting go of this anthropomorphic, anthropocentric anchor for AI, we’ll be able to explore the wider space of intelligences that can really be a massive benefit to our wellbeing and the advancement of civilization.
Lex Fridman (00:48:32) 即便如此，我们仍能在人类经验中看到美和意义——尽管在我们对世界的最佳理解中，我们已不再是宇宙的中心。
LEX FRIDMAN (00:48:32) And still we’re able to see the beauty and meaning in the human experience even though we’re no longer in our best understanding of the world at the center of it.
Guillaume Verdon (00:48:42) 宇宙中美好的东西太多了。生命本身、文明、我们身处的这台”Homo Techno”资本模因巨型机器——人类、技术、资本、模因，全都彼此耦合，彼此施加选择压力——它是美的。这台机器创造了我们，创造了我们此刻用来交谈的技术、捕捉言语的技术、每天用来增强自己的手机。这个系统是美的，驱动其适应性、使之收敛于最优技术和最优思想的那个原则，也是美的，而我们身在其中。
GUILLAUME VERDON (00:48:42) I think there’s a lot of beauty in the universe, right. I think life itself, civilization, this Homo Techno, capital mimetic machine that we all live in, right. So you have humans, technology, capital, memes, everything is coupled to one another, everything induces selective pressure on one another. And it’s a beautiful machine that has created us, has created the technology we’re using to speak today to the audience, capture our speech here, the technology we use to augment ourselves every day, we have our phones. I think the system is beautiful and the principle that induces this sort of adaptability and convergence on optimal technologies, ideas and so on, it’s a beautiful principle that we’re part of.
Guillaume Verdon (00:49:37) e/acc的一部分意义，在于以超越人类中心的更宏阔视野去领会这个原则——珍视生命，珍视意识在宇宙中的稀有和珍贵。正因为我们珍惜这种美丽的物质形态，我们就有责任去将它扩展，从而保存它——因为选项只有两个：要么生长，要么死亡。
GUILLAUME VERDON (00:49:37) And I think part of EAC is to appreciate this principle in a way that’s not just centered on humanity, but kind of broader, appreciate life, the preciousness of consciousness in our universe. And because we cherish this beautiful state of matter we’re in, we got to feel a responsibility to scale it in order to preserve it, because the options are to grow or die.
（PART I END）
-
【酒后真言】AI工厂、物理智能：英伟达CEO黄仁勋与思科CEO Chuck Robbins炉边对话 | 中英文完整版精译
书童按：本篇是英伟达（NVIDIA）CEO黄仁勋（Jensen Huang）于Cisco AI Summit接受思科（Cisco）CEO查克·罗宾斯（Chuck Robbins）炉边对话实录。黄仁勋详细阐述了AI工厂的概念、从显式编程到隐式编程的软件工程范式革命、企业应如何拥抱AI（千花齐放范式）、物理AI的未来、工具使用的重要性、以及为何企业应当建立自己的AI系统以保护最宝贵的IP。对话充满幽默（包括关于COBOL、希伯来语编程和葡萄酒的段子），同时深刻洞察了AI时代的企业战略。Transcript由Youtube通过机器生成，翻译、初稿、校对、排版、审阅均通过Claude Code API实现，文稿质量优秀，信达雅俱备。书童和大家一样，读了一遍，又改动几字，简单标注，仅此而已。特此呈上，以飨诸君。
与Jensen Huang的炉边对话 Fireside chat with Jensen Huang AI工厂与计算的重塑 AI Factories and the Reinvention of Computing [6:14] Chuck Robbins: [掌声] 我感觉自己像是在上班时间偷喝酒。[笑声] 我们把酒端上来的时候，Jensen提醒我说：”你知道这是在直播吧？”[笑声] 嘿，管它呢，反正时间也不早了。好吧，第一原则：不造成伤害。
[6:14] Chuck Robbins: [applause] I feel like I’m drinking one’s job. [laughter] Jensen reminded me as we brought a glass of wine out here. He said, “You realize you’re streaming this, right?” [laughter] Hey, whatever. It’s late. Well, so, uh, the first principle is do no harm.
[6:37] Jensen Huang: 这怕啥。没错，没错。还要意识到自己有多幸运。对。
[6:37] Jensen Huang: Do no harm. Yeah. Yeah. And recognize how blessed you are. Yes.
[6:42] Chuck Robbins: 首先，感谢大家坚持到现在，今天真的是超长的一天。我们一大早就开始了，演讲嘉宾一个接一个轮番上阵，中间休息了大约两个半小时，大家又回来了——就为了见他。我从凌晨一点就起来了——而这位先生，[掌声] 这位先生刚结束为期两周的亚洲之行，跑了四五个城市——
[6:42] Chuck Robbins: So, uh, first of all, thanks everybody for being here for an incredibly long day. We started this thing early this morning and, uh, we had speaker after speaker after speaker after speaker and then we had about a two and a half hour break and they came back to see you. So, uh, I’ve been up since 1:00 at— So, this guy, [applause] this guy is on the tail end of a two week trip and four or five different cities in—
[7:13] Jensen Huang: 亚洲。一天前还在台湾，昨晚在休斯顿，现在人就在这儿了。[笑声]
[7:13] Jensen Huang: Asia. Uh, one day ago was in Taiwan. Last night I was in Houston. Here I am. [laughter]
[7:18] Chuck Robbins: 他已经在外面跑了两周，而我们现在[清嗓子]横在他和自家床铺之间——否则他又得睡酒店了。所以呢，我们好好聊一聊，然后——赶紧放他走。你也不需要什么介绍了，感谢你今晚能来，兄弟。我们[清嗓子]真的非常感激。
[7:18] Chuck Robbins: But he’s been gone two weeks and we’re standing [clears throat] between him and his personal bed versus a hotel. So, we’re gonna— we’re going to have fun and then we’re going to— we’re going to get him out of here. So, uh, but uh you don’t— you don’t need much of an introduction, but thank you for being here, man. We [clears throat] really appreciate it.
[7:36] Jensen Huang: 感谢我们之间的合作，真的为你们感到骄傲。
[7:36] Jensen Huang: Thanks for our partnership and really proud of you guys.
[7:41] Chuck Robbins: 好，那我们就从这里聊起。我们已经建立了合作关系，你提出了AI工厂这个完整的概念，我们正在一起推进。虽然在企业端的进展可能不如我们双方所期望的那么快，但能不能先聊聊——在你看来，AI工厂到底是什么？
[7:41] Chuck Robbins: So, let’s— let’s start with uh— let’s start with that. We we have had a partnership and you— you introduced this whole concept of AI factories and we’re working on this together. It’s probably not going as fast as either one of us would like in the enterprise space, but can we start by talking about what— what do you— what is an AI factory to you?
[8:00] Jensen Huang: 首先要记住，我们正在经历六十年来计算领域的首次重塑。过去是显式编程，对吧？我们编写程序，变量通过API传递，一切都非常明确。而现在，我们正转向隐式编程——你只需告诉计算机你的意图，它就会自行找出解决问题的方法。从显式到隐式，从通用计算——本质上就是运算——到人工智能，整个计算栈都在被重塑。人们谈到计算时，会谈到处理层——那正是我们所处的位置。但别忘了计算的完整含义：有处理，还有存储、网络和安全，所有这些都在被同步重塑。所以第一点——第一点是我们需要把AI发展到一定水平——这个我们后面会谈到——我们需要把AI发展到真正对人有用的水平。到目前为止，聊天机器人这种东西，你给它一个提示，它想出该告诉你什么，这固然有趣、令人新奇，但谈不上真正有用。
[8:00] Jensen Huang: First of all, remember we’re reinventing computing for the first time in 60 years. What used to be explicit programming, right? We wrote the programs and the variables that’s passed through APIs and are very explicit to implicit programming. You now tell the computer what your intent is and it goes off and it figures out how to solve your problem. So from explicit to implicit, uh, from general purpose computing— basically calculation— to artificial intelligence, the entire computing stack has been reinvented. Now people talk about computing, where the processing layer is, which is where we are, but remember what computing is— there’s computing, there’s the processing, but there’s storage, networking and security. All that is being reinvented as we speak. And so the first part— the first part is we need to develop AI to a level— and we’ll talk about that— we need to develop AI to a level that is useful to people. And until now, uh, chatbots, where you give it a prompt and it figures out what to tell you, um, is interesting and curious but not useful.
[9:24] Chuck Robbins: 偶尔帮我做完填字游戏倒是挺好使的。
[9:24] Chuck Robbins: Helps me finish crossword puzzles sometimes.
从记忆到推理：智能的演进 From Memorization to Reasoning: The Evolution of Intelligence [9:24] Jensen Huang: 没错。而且只在它已经记住并泛化了的内容上才有用。回到最初——其实也就三年前，ChatGPT横空出世的时候——我们惊叹，天哪，它居然能生成这么多文字，能写出莎士比亚风格的作品。但那一切都基于它所记忆和泛化的内容。然而我们知道，真正的智能在于解决问题。而解决问题，一方面要知道自己不知道什么，另一方面要具备推理能力——如何解决你从未遇到过的问题？将它拆解成你知道如何轻松解决的基本元素，再通过组合来攻克前所未见的难题；制定一个策略——也就是我们所说的规划——来执行任务；寻求帮助，使用工具，开展研究，诸如此类。这些不正是你们现在在”智能体AI”的语境下频繁听到的核心概念吗？工具使用、研究、检索增强生成（即基于事实的生成）、记忆——你们在讨论智能体AI时都已经开始接触这些了。但关键是——关键是，要从通用计算的显式编程演进出来——我们过去用Fortran写代码，用C、用C++、用COBOL——
[9:24] Jensen Huang: Yes. And, uh, but only only on things that it had memorized and generalized. So if you go back in the beginning of— I mean it’s a little— literally only three years ago when ChatGPT emerged, uh, that— that we thought oh my gosh it’s able to generate all these words, it’s able to create Shakespeare, um, but it’s all based on things that it memorized and generalized. And but we know that intelligence is about solving problems and solving problems is partly about knowing what you don’t know, uh, partly about reasoning, uh, how to solve a problem you’ve never seen before. Breaking it down into elements that you know how to solve very easily so that in its composition that you’re able to solve problems that you’ve never seen before, and um, to come up with a strategy— what we call plan— to perform in a task. Ask for help, use tools, do research, so on so forth. These are all fundamental things that now in the phraseology of agentic AI, you’ve heard, isn’t that right? Tool use, research, retrieval augmented generation, which is grounded on facts, memory. These are all things that all of you in the context of talking about agentic AI, uh, you’re starting to hear. But the important thing— the important thing is in order to evolve from general purpose computing which is explicit programming— we wrote in Fortran, we wrote in C, we wrote in C++, COBOL—
[11:12] Chuck Robbins: 没错，那是好东西。
[11:12] Chuck Robbins: That’s right, that’s good stuff.
[11:12] Jensen Huang: 那是好东西，Chuck，那是好东西。
[11:12] Jensen Huang: That’s good stuff, Chuck, that’s good stuff.
[11:18] Chuck Robbins: 那是我的后路嘛。
[11:18] Chuck Robbins: It’s my fallback job.
[11:18] Jensen Huang: 确实是好东西。没错，那可是——那可是至今仍然抢手的技能之一。
[11:18] Jensen Huang: That’s good stuff. Yeah, that’s one of those— that’s one of those skills that remains valuable.
[11:25] Chuck Robbins: 我知道。对，我知道它还很值钱，找上门的offer可不少。
[11:25] Chuck Robbins: I know. Yeah, I know that it remains valuable. I’ve got a lot of offers.
[11:31] Jensen Huang: 恐龙嘛，永远有市场。
[11:31] Jensen Huang: Dinosaurs are valuable forever.
[11:36] Chuck Robbins: 我们刚才不是确认了你比我还老吗。
[11:36] Chuck Robbins: We just established that you’re older than me.
[11:36] Jensen Huang: 我知道。而且我已经是——史前级别的了。[笑声]
[11:36] Jensen Huang: I know. And I’m— I’m the prehistoric. [laughter]
[11:44] Chuck Robbins: 看着不像，但确实如此。
[11:44] Chuck Robbins: It doesn’t appear so, but it’s true.
[11:50] Chuck Robbins: [欢呼与掌声] 好吧，这句相当精彩。
[11:50] Chuck Robbins: [cheering and applause] All right, that was pretty good.
[11:57] Jensen Huang: 我可能是这个房间里最老的人。
[11:57] Jensen Huang: I’m probably the oldest person in this room.
[12:03] Jensen Huang: 所以——怎么说——让我们谈一谈——就像当你思考——所以我们在这里。我去找Chuck说，嘿，听着,我们需要重塑计算，Cisco必须成为其中重要的一部分。所以我们有——我们有一个全新的计算堆栈即将推出，Vera Rubin，Cisco将与我们一起推向市场。所以那是计算层，但还有网络层。Cisco将整合我们的AI网络技术，但将其放入Cisco Nexus控制平面，这样——这样从你的角度来看，你将获得AI的所有性能，但在Cisco的可控性、安全性和可管理性中。我们将在安全方面做同样的事情，所以每一个支柱都必须被重塑，以便企业计算可以利用它。但最终——我们会回到这一点，希望如此——你知道，为什么企业AI三年前还没准备好，以及为什么你现在别无选择，只能尽快参与进来。不要落后。我认为——你不必成为第一个利用AI的公司，但不要成为最后一个。
[12:03] Jensen Huang: So— how do you— so let’s talk a little bit about— like as you— as you think about the— so here we are. I went to Chuck and I say, hey, listen, we need to reinvent computing and Cisco’s got to be a big part of it. And so we’ve got um— we have a whole new computing stack coming out, Vera Rubin, and Cisco is going to be going to market with us on that. And so that— the computing layer, but there’s also the networking layer. And Cisco is going to integrate AI networking technology from us but put it into the Cisco Nexus control plane so that— so that from your perspective you’re going to get all the performance of AI but in the controllability and security and the manageability of Cisco. We’re going to do the same thing with security, and so each one of these pillars has to be reinvented so that enterprise computing could take advantage of it. But ultimately— and we’ll come back to this hopefully— you know, why is it that enterprise AI wasn’t ready three years ago and why it is that you have no choice but to get engaged as quickly as you can. Don’t fall behind. I think— you don’t have to be the first company to take advantage of AI but don’t be the last.
千花齐放：企业AI战略 Let A Thousand Flowers Bloom: Enterprise AI Strategy [13:17] Chuck Robbins: 是的。嗯。那么如果你今天是一家企业，你对他们应该采取的第一步、第二步、第三步有什么建议，以开始准备？
[13:17] Chuck Robbins: Yeah. Mhm. So if you’re an enterprise today, what’s your recommendation on the first, second, third step they should take to begin to get ready?
[13:35] Jensen Huang: 好吧，我收到像ROI这样的问题——我不会去那里。原因是因为对于所有技术部署，在开始时，很难将新工具、新技术的ROI放入电子表格中。但我会做的是我会去找出什么是最单一的——我公司的本质是什么？我们公司做的最有影响力的工作是什么？不要搞乱——不要搞乱外围的东西。我是说，在我们公司，我们就是让千花齐放。我们公司不同AI项目的数量是——它失控了，而且很棒。注意我刚说了什么。它失控了，而且很棒。创新并不总是在控制之中。如果你想要控制，首先，你得去寻求治疗。但其次，这是一种幻觉。你不在控制之中。如果你希望你的公司成功，你不能控制它。你想要影响它，你不能控制它。所以我认为第一，太多公司我听到，他们想要它，他们想要它明确。他们想要具体的。他们想要可证明的ROI。而且，你知道，在开始时展示值得做的事情的价值是困难的。
[13:35] Jensen Huang: Well, I get questions like things like ROI and— I wouldn’t— I wouldn’t go there. And the reason for that is because with all technology deployments in the beginning, it’s hard to put into a spreadsheet the ROI of a new tool, a new technology. But what I would do is I would go find out what is the single most— what is the essence of my company? What’s the most impactful work that we do in our company? Don’t mess around— don’t mess around with peripheral stuff. I mean, in our company, we just let a thousand flowers bloom. The number of different AI projects in our company is— it’s out of control and it’s great. Notice I just said something. It’s out of control and it’s great. Innovation is not always in control. If you want to be in control, first of all, you got to seek therapy. But second, it’s an illusion. You’re not in control. If you want your company to succeed, you can’t control it. You want to influence it, you can’t control it. And so I think number one, too many companies I hear, they want it, they want it explicit. They want it specific. They want demonstrable ROI. And, you know, showing the value of something worth doing in the beginning is hard.
[15:01] Jensen Huang: 但我会做的，我会说的是让千花齐放。让人们实验。让人们安全地实验。我们在公司里实验各种东西。我们使用Anthropic，我们使用Codex，我们使用Gemini，我们使用一切。当我们的一个团队说我对使用这个AI感兴趣时，我的第一个答案是肯定的。我问为什么，而不是——为什么然后是。我说是，然后为什么。原因是因为我希望我的公司和我希望我的孩子一样。去探索生活。他们说他们想尝试某事。答案是肯定的。然后他们说为什么？你不会说向我证明。向我证明做这件特定的事情将导致财务成功或某一天的某种幸福。向我证明。在你向我证明之前，我不会让你做。我们在家里从不这样做，但我们在工作中这样做。你知道我在说什么吗？
[15:01] Jensen Huang: But what I would do, what I would say is that let a thousand flowers bloom. Let people experiment. Let people experiment safely. And we’re experimenting with all kinds of stuff in the company. We use Anthropic, we use Codex, we use Gemini, we use everything. And when one of our group says I’m interested in using this AI, my first answer is yes. And I ask why instead of— why then yes. I say yes, then why. And the reason for that is because I want the same thing for my company that I want for my kids. Go explore life. They say they want to try something. The answer is yes. And then they say how come? You don’t go prove it to me. Prove to me that doing this very thing is going to lead to financial success or some happiness someday. Prove to me. And until you prove it to me, I’m not going to let you do it. We never do that at home, but we do it at work. Do you know what I’m saying?
[16:02] Chuck Robbins: 是的。
[16:02] Chuck Robbins: Yeah.
[16:02] Jensen Huang: 这对我来说毫无意义。所以我们对待AI的方式——无论是AI还是之前的互联网或之前的云——就是让千花齐放。然后在某个时刻，你必须用自己的判断来弄清楚何时开始整理花园，因为千花齐放会造成混乱的花园。但在某个时刻，你必须开始整理以找到最佳方法或最佳平台，这样你就可以把所有的木头放在一支箭后面。但你不想太早把所有的木头放在一支箭后面。你选错了箭。所以让千花齐放。在某个时刻你整理。所以我还没有开始整理，只是为了说明情况。我到处都有千花齐放。但我鼓励每个人尝试。然而，我确切地知道什么对我们公司最重要。当然我知道。我们公司的本质是什么？我们公司最重要的工作是什么？我确保我有很多专业知识和很多能力专注于使用AI来革新那项工作。
[16:02] Jensen Huang: It makes no sense to me. And so the way that we treat AI— and whether it’s AI or the internet before or cloud before— just let a thousand flowers bloom. And then at some point, you have to use your own judgment to figure out when to start curating the garden, because a thousand flowers bloom makes for a messy garden. But at some point you have to start curating to find what’s the best approach or what’s the best platform, so that you could put all your wood behind one arrow. But you don’t want to put all your wood behind one arrow too soon. You pick the wrong arrow. So let a thousand flowers bloom. At some point you curate. And so I haven’t started curating yet just to put in perspective. I’ve got a thousand flowers bloom everywhere. But I encourage everybody to try. However, I know exactly what is most important to our company. Of course I do. What is the essence of our company? What are the most important work of our company? And I make sure that I’ve got a lot of expertise and a lot of capability focused on using AI to revolutionize that work.
[17:10] Jensen Huang: 在我们的情况下，芯片设计、软件工程、系统工程。注意——你可能注意到我们与Synopsys和Cadence和Siemens合作，今天还有Dassault Systèmes，这样我们就可以插入我们的技术并注入尽可能多的技术。无论他们想要什么，无论他们需要什么，我都会提供，这样我就可以革新我们用来设计我们所做的工具。我们到处使用Synopsys。我们到处使用Cadence。我们到处使用Siemens。到处使用Dassault Systèmes。我将确保他们拥有1,000%的任何他们想要的东西，这样我就有必要的工具，这样我就可以创造下一代。所以这告诉你一些关于我对什么对我最重要的态度以及我会做什么来革新我自己的工作。
[17:10] Jensen Huang: In our case, chip design, software engineering, system engineering. Notice— you might have noticed that we partnered with Synopsys and Cadence and Siemens and today Dassault Systemes, so that we could insert our technology and infuse as much technology as they want. Whatever they want, whatever they need, I will provide so that I could revolutionize the tools by which we use to design what we do. We use Synopsys everywhere. We use Cadence everywhere. We use Siemens everywhere. Use Dassault Systemes everywhere. I will make sure that they have 1,000% of whatever they want so that I have the tools necessary so I could create the next generation. And so that tells you something about my attitude about what’s most important to me and what I would do to revolutionize my own work.
丰裕世界：从摩尔定律到AI感知 The World of Abundance: From Moore's Law to AI Sensibility [18:05] Jensen Huang: 想想AI做什么。AI降低了智能的成本——或者创造了智能的丰裕——按数量级计算。这是另一种说法，我们过去做的需要一个时间单位——现在我们过去需要一年可以现在需要一天。我们过去需要一年可以需要一小时。它可以实时完成。原因是因为我们处在丰裕的世界中。摩尔定律，天哪，那太慢了。那就像蜗牛。记住摩尔定律是每18个月2倍，每5年10倍，每10年100倍。好的。但我们现在在哪里？每10年一百万倍。在过去10年中，我们将AI推进得如此之远，以至于工程师说：”嘿，你猜怎么着？我们为什么不就在所有世界数据上训练一个AI模型？”他们不是说：”让我们只从我的磁盘驱动器收集所有数据。”让我们只是——让我们拉下所有世界数据并让我们训练一个AI模型。这就是丰裕的定义。丰裕的定义是你看一个问题如此之大，你说，你知道什么，我会做这一切。我要治愈每个疾病领域。我不会只做癌症。你在开玩笑吗？那太疯狂了。我们只会做所有人类的痛苦。这就是丰裕。
[18:05] Jensen Huang: Think about what AI does. AI reduces the cost of intelligence— or creates the abundance of intelligence— by orders of magnitude. That’s another way of saying what we used to do that takes one unit of time— now what we used to take a year could take a day now. What we used to take a year could take an hour. It could be done in real time. And the reason for that is because we are in the world of abundance. Moore’s law, goodness gracious, that was slow. That’s like snails. Remember Moore’s law was two times every 18 months, 10 times every 5 years, 100 times every 10. Okay. But where are we now? A million times every 10 years. In the last 10 years, we advanced AI so far that engineers said, “Hey, guess what? Why don’t we just train an AI model on all of the world’s data?” They didn’t mean, “Let’s just collect all the data from my disk drive.” Let’s just— let’s pull down all of the world’s data and let’s train an AI model. That’s the definition of abundance. The definition of abundance is you look at a problem so big and you say, you know what, I’ll do it all. I’m going to cure every field of disease. I’m not going to just do cancer. Are you kidding me? That’s insane. We’ll just do all of human suffering. That’s abundance.
[19:45] Jensen Huang: 当我现在思考工程，当我思考一个问题时，我只是假设我的技术、我的工具、我的仪器、我的宇宙飞船是无限快的。我去纽约需要多长时间？我会在一秒钟内到达那里。那么，如果我可以在一秒钟内到达纽约，我会做什么不同的事情？如果过去需要一年的事情现在需要实时，我会做什么不同的事情？如果过去很重的东西现在只是反重力，我会做什么不同的事情？所以，你用这种态度对待一切。当你用这种态度对待一切时，你正在应用AI感知。这有意义吗？
[19:45] Jensen Huang: When I think about engineering, when I think about a problem these days, I just assume my technology, my tool, my instrument, my spaceship is infinitely fast. How long is it going to take for me to go to New York? I’ll be there in a second. So, what would I do different if I can get to New York in a second? What would I do different if something used to take a year and now takes real time? What would I do different if something used to weigh a lot and now it’s just anti-gravity? And so, you approach everything with that attitude. When you approach everything with that attitude, you are applying AI sensibility. Does that make sense?
[20:35] Jensen Huang: 例如，我们正在与许多公司合作，其中图形分析、依赖关系、关系和依赖关系——你知道这些图形，它们有这么多边，这么多节点和边，数万亿个。在过去，你会处理一个图形，它的小片段。现在，只给我整个图形。它有多大？我不在乎。这种感知正在到处应用。如果速度根本不重要。你在光速。如果质量——你在零重量，零重力。如果你没有应用那种逻辑，如果过去对你来说非常困难的事情你说，”啊，没关系”——如果你没有应用那种逻辑，你做错了。现在想象你将那种逻辑、那种感知应用到你公司最困难的问题上。这就是你将如何推动指针。这就是他们所有人的想法。现在那些——如果你没有那样思考，只是——你所要做的就是——只是想象你的竞争对手那样思考。如果你没有那样思考，只是想象一个即将成立的公司那样思考。它改变了一切。所以我会去找你公司最有影响力的工作在哪里。对它应用无穷大。对它应用零。对它应用光速。然后问Chuck如何实现。[笑声]
[20:35] Jensen Huang: For example, there are many companies that we’re working with where the graph analytics, the dependency, the relationships and dependencies— you know these graphs, they have so many edges, so many nodes and edges, trillions of them. Back in the old days, you would process a graph, small pieces of it. These days, just give me the whole graph. How big is it? I don’t care. That sensibility is being applied everywhere. If you’re not applying that sensibility, you’re doing it wrong. If speed matters, not at all. You’re at the speed of light. If mass— you’re at zero weight, zero gravity. If you’re not applying that logic, if something is not insanely hard to you in the past and you go, “Ah, doesn’t matter”— if you’re not applying that logic, you’re not doing it right. Now imagine you apply that logic, that sensibility to the hardest problems in your company. That’s how you’re going to move the needle. And that’s how they all think. Now the people who are— if you’re not thinking that way, just— all you have to do— just imagine your competitors thinking that way. If you’re not thinking that way, just imagine a company who is about to get founded is thinking that way. It changes everything. And so I would go find where are the most impactful work in your company. Apply infinity to it. Apply zero to it. Apply the speed of light to it. And then ask Chuck how to make that happen. [laughter]
从预录到生成：软件的范式转变 From Pre-recorded to Generative: The Paradigm Shift in Software [22:10] Chuck Robbins: 不，让我们谈谈如何实现。所以你有这个类比——
[22:10] Chuck Robbins: No, let’s talk about how to make that happen. So you have this analogy of—
[22:10] Jensen Huang: 就给我打电话。
[22:10] Jensen Huang: Just call me.
[22:10] Chuck Robbins: 我们会打给你。我们会一起做。
[22:10] Chuck Robbins: We’ll call you. We’ll do it together.
[22:16] Jensen Huang: 我们会一起做。
[22:16] Jensen Huang: We’ll do it together.
[22:16] Chuck Robbins: 你有这个类比——这个五层蛋糕——因为每个人都在谈论基础设施、模型、应用程序——我是说，我该如何着手？谈谈这一点。
[22:16] Chuck Robbins: You have this analogy— this five layer cake— because everybody’s talking about infrastructure, models, apps— I mean, how do I go about it? Talk about that a little bit.
[22:24] Jensen Huang: 好吧，成功人士做的事情之一就是他们推理这里正在发生什么。所以大约15年前，一个算法能够——用两个工程师——解决一个计算机视觉问题。计算机视觉基本上是智能的第一部分——感知。智能是感知、推理、规划。感知——我是什么？正在发生什么？我的背景是什么？推理——我如何推理——我如何将其与我的目标进行比较？然后第三，想出一个计划来解决那个——来实现那个。所以——你知道，例如，战斗机问题——感知、定位，然后行动。所以智能是关于这三件事。没有感知，你不能有第二和第三部分。没有理解背景，你无法弄清楚该做什么。背景是高度多模态的。有时是PDF，有时是电子表格。有时是信息。有时只是感官和气味。我们在哪里？我们在这里做什么？谁是观众？等等。阅读房间。所以那是关于感知的。
[22:24] Jensen Huang: Well, one of the things that successful people do is they reason about what is happening here. So almost 15 years ago, an algorithm was able to— with two engineers— solve a computer vision problem. Computer vision is basically the first part of intelligence— perception. Intelligence is perception, reasoning, planning. Perception— what am I? What’s going on? What’s my context? Reasoning— how do I reason about— how do I compare this to my goals? And then three, come up with a plan to solve that— to achieve that. And so— you know, for example, the jet fighter problem— perception, localization, and then action. And so intelligence is about those three things. You can’t have the second and third part without perception. You can’t figure out what to do without understanding context. And context is highly multimodal. Sometimes it’s a PDF, sometimes it’s a spreadsheet. Sometimes it’s information. Sometimes just senses and smells. Where are we? What are we doing here? Who’s the audience? So on and so forth. Reading the room. And so that’s about perception.
[28:20] Jensen Huang: 简单地说，Chuck所说的是我们来自一个一切都是预录的世界。Chuck工作的软件。
[28:20] Jensen Huang: Simplistically, what Chuck is saying is that we came from a world where everything was pre-recorded. The software that Chuck worked on.
[28:36] Chuck Robbins: 真的很好的东西。
[28:36] Chuck Robbins: Really good stuff.
[28:41] Jensen Huang: 它运行了很长时间。只是为了记录，它确实是用希伯来语描述的。[笑声]
[28:41] Jensen Huang: It ran a very long time. Just for the record, it was indeed described in the Hebrew. [laughter]
[28:57] Chuck Robbins: 这是真的。那是另一种技能。我是说，房间里唯一知道希伯来语COBOL的人。
[28:57] Chuck Robbins: That is true. That was another skill. I mean, the only person in the room that knows Hebrew COBOL.
[29:05] Jensen Huang: [笑声] 总之——那是预录的。我们设计——我们描述我们的算法来描述我们的想法，然后我们放入与之一起的数据。一切都是预录的。过去软件是预录的原因是因为它装在CD-ROM中。不是吗？
[29:05] Jensen Huang: [laughter] Anyways— that was pre-recorded. We engineered— we described our algorithms to describe our thoughts and then we put data that goes along with it. Everything is pre-recorded. The reason why software in the past was pre-recorded is because it came in a CD-ROM. Isn’t that right?
[29:24] Chuck Robbins: 是的。
[29:24] Chuck Robbins: Yes.
[29:24] Jensen Huang: 它是预录的。好的。现在什么是软件？因为它是上下文的、动态的，每个上下文都不同，每次使用软件的每个人都不同，每个提示都不同，你给它的前导，你给它的先验，上下文都不同。软件的每个单一实例都不同，这就是为什么过去必要的计算量——这是预录的——称为基于检索。你所要做的就是检查自己。当你使用手机时，你触摸某物，它去并检索一些软件、一些文件、一些图像并将其带给你。在未来，一切都将是生成的，就像现在正在发生的一样。这次对话以前从未发生过。概念以前存在过。先验以前存在过，但这个序列中的每一个词以前从未发生过。原因显然是我们喝了四杯酒，COBOL和希伯来语从未从——
[29:24] Jensen Huang: It was pre-recorded. Okay. What is software now? Because it’s contextual, dynamic, and every context is different and every time everybody who uses the software is different and every prompt is different and the precursor you give it, the priors you give it, the context is different. Every single instance of the software is different, which is the reason why the amount of computation necessary in the past— which is pre-recorded— is called retrieval-based. All you have to do is check yourself. When you use your phone you touch something, it went and retrieved some software, some files, some images and brought it to you. In the future, everything is gonna be generative just like is happening right now. This conversation has never happened before. The concepts existed before. The priors existed before, but every single word in this sequence has never happened before. And the reason for that is obviously we’re four wines in, COBOL and Hebrew have never come out of the—
[30:43] Chuck Robbins: 冷萃咖啡。是的。COBOL，希伯来语。不。谢天谢地这不是在校园或正在流媒体。
[30:43] Chuck Robbins: Cold brew. Yes. COBOL, Hebrew. No. Thank goodness this is not on campus or being streamed.
[30:57] Jensen Huang: 是的。是的。好吧。让我们——你明白我在说什么吗？所以结果——
[30:57] Jensen Huang: Yeah. Yeah. All right. Let’s— Do you understand what I’m saying? And so as a result—
[31:02] Chuck Robbins: 你明白你在说什么吗？[笑声]
[31:02] Chuck Robbins: Do you understand what you’re saying? [laughter]
[31:09] Jensen Huang: Chuck今天到目前为止喂我的唯一东西是四杯酒。
[31:09] Jensen Huang: The only thing that Chuck has fed me today so far is four glasses of wine.
[31:14] Chuck Robbins: 公平地说，我只喂了你——我喂了你其中一杯。你从自助餐拿了另外三杯。
[31:14] Chuck Robbins: And to be fair, I only fed you— I fed you one of them. You took the other three off the buffet.
[31:19] Jensen Huang: 我盯着食物看。我想，”我太饿了。我盯着食物看。”它永远离我大约40英尺。
[31:19] Jensen Huang: I was eyeing the food. I was like, “I’m so hungry. I’m eyeing the food.” It was forever about 40 feet away from me.
[31:28] Chuck Robbins: 那是因为你在拍照。
[31:28] Chuck Robbins: It’s cuz you were taking photos.
[31:33] Jensen Huang: 但它是——我想，它太近了。它太近了。[笑声] 我实际上有一次向食物倾斜，但我又被推回来了。[笑声]
[31:33] Jensen Huang: But it was— I was like, it was so close. It was so close. [laughter] And I actually leaned towards the food one time, but I was pushed back again. [laughter]
[31:39] Chuck Robbins: 你知道发生了什么吗？你的团队实际上提前告诉我们，如果你喝了三杯酒，他是最佳状态。如果你喝了第四杯，那将是不可思议的。这是次优的。
[31:39] Chuck Robbins: You know what happened? Your team actually told us ahead of time, if you get three glasses of wine in, he’s optimal. If you get the fourth one in, it’s going to be incredible. This is suboptimal.
应用技术：AI的最重要部分 Applying Technology: The Most Important Part of AI [31:57] Jensen Huang: 所以总之，总之，总之，听着，听着，听着，听着。那么什么是AI？
[31:57] Jensen Huang: So anyways, anyways, anyways, listen, listen, listen, listen. So what is AI?
[32:09] Jensen Huang: 我们必须留下一些智慧。我们能再来一杯酒吗？这不只是Dave Chappelle的东西。
[32:09] Jensen Huang: We have to leave some wisdom behind. Can we get another glass of wine, please? This is not just Dave Chappelle stuff.
[32:21] Chuck Robbins: 好的，让我们谈谈别的。让我们谈谈另一件事。
[32:21] Chuck Robbins: Okay, let’s talk about something. Let’s talk about one other thing.
[32:21] Jensen Huang: 能源。芯片。
[32:21] Jensen Huang: Energy. Chips.
[32:26] Chuck Robbins: 能源听起来不错。
[32:26] Chuck Robbins: Energy sounds good.
[32:26] Jensen Huang: 能源、芯片、基础设施，包括硬件和软件。然后是AI模型。但AI最重要的部分是应用。每个国家、每个公司，下面的所有层都只是基础设施的东西。你需要做的是应用技术。看在上帝的份上，应用技术。使用AI的公司不会陷入危险。你不会因为AI失去工作。你会因为使用AI的人失去工作。所以，开始吧。这是最重要的事情。
[32:26] Jensen Huang: Energy, chips, infrastructure, both hardware and software. Then the AI model. But the most important part of AI is applications. Every single country, every single company, all that layer underneath is just infrastructural stuff. What you need to do is apply the technology. For God’s sakes, apply the technology. A company that uses AI will not be in peril. You’re not going to lose your job to AI. You’re going to lose your job to someone who uses AI. So, get to it. That’s the most important thing.
[33:03] Chuck Robbins: 是的。
[33:03] Chuck Robbins: Yeah.
[33:03] Jensen Huang: 并尽快打电话给Chuck。
[33:03] Jensen Huang: And call Chuck as soon as possible.
[33:09] Chuck Robbins: 你打给我,我会打给他。是的。明白了。所以，我们没有很多时间，所以我不确定——
[33:09] Chuck Robbins: You call me, I’ll call him. Yeah. Got it. So, we don’t have a lot of time, so I’m not sure—
[33:09] Jensen Huang: 我们有世界上所有的时间。是吗？
[33:09] Jensen Huang: We got all the time in the world. Do we?
[33:15] Chuck Robbins: 多少？
[33:15] Chuck Robbins: How much?
[33:15] Jensen Huang: 看，看，Chuck——Chuck，就像他跑。他按时间表建设。我甚至不戴手表。看那个。看那个。Chuck，我把你拿在这里。
[33:15] Jensen Huang: Look, look, Chuck— Chuck, like he runs. He builds on the clock. I don’t even wear a watch. Look at that. Look at that. Chuck, I got you right here.
[33:28] Chuck Robbins: 是的。是的。我们做得很好。
[33:28] Chuck Robbins: Yeah. Yeah. We’re doing great.
[33:28] Jensen Huang: 你按时间表向人们收费。
[33:28] Jensen Huang: You build people on the clock.
[33:33] Chuck Robbins: 哦，是的。不是我。
[33:33] Chuck Robbins: Oh, yeah. Not me.
[33:33] Jensen Huang: 在价值交付之前我不会离开。[掌声]
[33:33] Jensen Huang: I’m not leaving until value’s delivered. [applause]
[33:42] Chuck Robbins: 看，如果需要整晚，我不会——嘿，看，我要折磨你们所有人直到Jensen——这就是为什么像我这样的人需要手表。[笑声] 好吧。
[33:42] Chuck Robbins: See, if it takes all night, I’m not— Hey, look, I’m going to torture all of you until Jensen— That’s why guys like me need a watch. [laughter] All right.
[33:54] Jensen Huang: 直到你能说你学到了什么，你将被困在这里。是的。
[33:54] Jensen Huang: Until you could say that you learned something, you are going to be trapped in here. Yeah.
物理AI：工具使用的未来 Physical AI: The Future of Tool Use [34:00] Chuck Robbins: 我们要折磨每个人直到价值被交付。我确实检查了——还有更多酒。嗯，你能给我们你对物理AI的第一想法吗？
[34:00] Chuck Robbins: We’re going to torture everybody until value is delivered. I did check— there is more wine. Um, can you just give us your top of mind on physical AI?
[34:13] Jensen Huang: 记住什么是软件？软件是一个工具。有一种观念认为工具行业正在衰落并将被AI取代。你可以看出因为有一大堆软件公司的股价承受很大压力，因为不知何故AI将取代它们。这是世界上最不合逻辑的事情，时间会证明自己。让我们给自己终极思想实验。假设我们是终极AI——人工通用机器人。终极AI——我们的物理版本。你当然可以解决任何问题，因为你是类人的。你可以做事情。如果你是人类机器人，你会使用螺丝刀还是发明新的螺丝刀？我只会使用一个。你会使用锤子还是发明新锤子？你会使用电锯还是发明新电锯？首先，理想情况下他们根本不使用它。但你明白我在说什么吗？如果你是人类机器人，人工通用机器人，你会使用工具还是重新发明工具？答案显然是使用工具。
[34:13] Jensen Huang: Remember what software is? Software is a tool. There’s this notion that the tool industry is in decline and will be replaced by AI. You could tell because there’s a whole bunch of software companies whose stock prices are under a lot of pressure because somehow AI is going to replace them. It is the most illogical thing in the world and time will prove itself. Let’s give ourselves the ultimate thought experiment. Suppose we are the ultimate AI— artificial general robotics. The ultimate AI— the physical version of us. You could of course solve any problem because you’re humanoid. You could do things. If you were a human robot, would you use a screwdriver or invent a new screwdriver? I would just use one. Would you use a hammer or invent a new hammer? Would you use a chainsaw or invent a new chainsaw? First of all, ideally they don’t use it at all. But do you understand what I’m saying? If you were a human robot, artificial general robotics, would you use tools or reinvent tools? The answer obviously is to use tools.
[35:36] Jensen Huang: 所以现在做数字版本。如果你是人工通用智能，你会使用像ServiceNow和SAP和Cadence和Synopsys这样的工具还是你会重新发明计算器？当然，你只会使用计算器。这就是为什么AI最新突破是什么？工具使用。因为工具被设计为明确的。我们世界中有许多问题，其中F等于MA。请你能不能不要想出另一个版本？[笑声] F=MA不是有点MA。它就是[清嗓子] MA。哦，V等于IR。它不是有点IR。不是大约IR，统计IR——它就是IR。你明白我在说什么吗？所以我认为我们希望人工通用机器人、人工通用智能使用工具。
[35:36] Jensen Huang: And so now do the digital version of that. If you were an artificial general intelligence, would you use the tools like ServiceNow and SAP and Cadence and Synopsys or would you reinvent a calculator? Of course, you would just use a calculator. That’s the reason why the latest breakthroughs in AI is what? Tool use. Because the tools are designed to be explicit. There are many problems in our world where F equals MA. Please could you please not come up with another version? [laughter] F=MA is not kind of MA. It’s just [clears throat] MA. Oh, V equals IR. It’s not kind of IR. Not approximately IR, statistically IR— it is IR. Do you understand what I’m saying? And so I think we want the artificial general robotics, artificial general intelligence to use tools.
[36:47] Jensen Huang: 好吧，这就是大想法。我认为在下一代物理AI中，我们将拥有理解物理世界、理解因果关系的AI。如果我把这个翻倒，它会把所有那个翻倒。他们理解多米诺骨牌的概念。只是多米诺骨牌的概念——注意，一个孩子理解如果你把那个翻倒——多米诺骨牌的概念是极其深刻。因果关系、接触、重力、质量，所有这些都集成到多米诺骨牌中。翻倒多米诺骨牌。你可以有一个小小的多米诺骨牌，翻倒一个更大的多米诺骨牌，翻倒一个更大的多米诺骨牌，翻倒一个更大的多米诺骨牌，直到另一边有一吨——一个孩子对那个概念没有问题。大型语言模型将完全不知道。所以我们必须教导——我们必须创造一种新型的物理AI。
[36:47] Jensen Huang: Well, that’s the big idea. I think that in the next generation of physical AI, we’re going to have AIs that understand the physical world, understand causality. If I tip this over, it’s going to tip all of that over. They understand the concept of a domino. Just the concept of a domino— notice, a child understands if you tip that over— the concept of the domino is extremely— it’s like deeply profound. Causality, contact, gravity, mass, all of that is integrated into a domino. Tipping dominoes over. The idea that you could have a little tiny domino, tip a larger domino, tip a larger domino, tip a larger domino to the point where there’s a ton on the other side— a child has no trouble with that concept. A large language model will have no idea. And so we have to teach— we have to create a new type of physical AI.
从工具到劳动：百倍市场机会 From Tools to Labor: The 100x Market Opportunity [37:48] Jensen Huang: 好吧，机会是什么？到目前为止，Chuck和我所在的行业是关于创造工具的。我们一直在螺丝刀锤子行业。我们的整个生活都是关于创造螺丝刀和锤子的。这是历史上第一次，我们将创造人们所说的劳动力，增强劳动。给你一个例子。什么是自动驾驶汽车？什么是数字司机？数字司机的价值是多少？很多。比汽车多得多。原因是因为在数字司机的生命周期中，数字司机的经济学比汽车多得多。
[37:48] Jensen Huang: Well, what’s the opportunity? So far, the industry that Chuck and I have been part of is about creating tools. We have been in the screwdriver hammer business. Our entire life has been about creating screwdrivers and hammers. For the first time in history, we are going to create what people call labor, but augmented labor. Give you an example. What is a self-driving car? What’s a digital chauffeur? What’s a digital chauffeur valued at? A lot. A lot more than the car. And the reason for that is because in the lifetime of the digital chauffeur, the economics of the digital chauffeur is a lot more than the car.
[38:33] Jensen Huang: 这是第一次，我们暴露于大100倍的TAM。字面上在数学上是真的。IT行业大约是一万亿美元，对吧？或者差不多正负几个。然而世界经济大约是一百万亿美元。这是第一次，我们将暴露于所有那个（数字）。所以情况是你们所有人——今天这个房间里的每个人——你们有机会应用这项技术成为一家技术公司。
[38:33] Jensen Huang: For the very first time, we are exposed to a TAM that is 100 times larger. Literally mathematically true. The IT industry is about a trillion dollars, right? Or so, plus or minus a couple. And yet the economy of the world is about a hundred trillion dollars. For the very first time, we’re going to be exposed to all of that. So it is the case that all of you— everybody in this room today— you have the opportunity to apply this technology to become a technology company.
[39:18] Jensen Huang: 让我给你一些例子。我真的相信——尽管我——看，我爱迪士尼，我喜欢与迪士尼合作。我很确定他们宁愿成为Netflix。我爱梅赛德斯。我坐梅赛德斯来的。我确信他们宁愿成为特斯拉。我爱沃尔玛。我确信他们宁愿成为亚马逊。你们到目前为止同意吗？我是三中三吗？你们所有人都是那样。
[39:18] Jensen Huang: Let me give you some examples. I really believe— as much as I— look, I love Disney and I love working with Disney. I’m pretty sure they’d rather be Netflix. I love Mercedes. I came in a Mercedes. I am certain they’d rather be Tesla. I love Walmart. I am certain they’d rather be Amazon. Do you guys agree so far? Am I three for three? All of you are that way.
[39:50] Jensen Huang: 我相信我们有机会帮助将每一家公司转变为技术公司。技术第一。技术是你的超能力，领域是你的应用，而不是相反——领域是你是谁，你在寻求技术。原因是因为技术优先的公司，你在处理电子，而不是原子。电子，有更多的它们。原子，你受质量限制，这就是为什么当他们从CD-ROM转到电子时，公司的价值爆炸了一千倍。你需要像我们一样，成为电子公司、电子公司，这是说技术公司的另一种方式。所以我认为你的机会在这里。
[39:50] Jensen Huang: I believe that we have an opportunity to help transform every single company into a technology company. Technology first. Technology is your superpower and the domain is your application, versus the other way— which is the domain is who you are and you’re seeking for technology. And the reason that’s so is because companies who are technology first, you’re dealing with electrons, not atoms. And electrons, there’s a lot more of them. Atoms, you’re limited by mass, which is the reason why the moment they went from CD-ROMs to electrons, the value of the company exploded by a thousand times. You need to be like us, an electronics company, electron company, which is another way of saying a technology company. And so I think the opportunity for you is here.
隐式编程：领域专业知识的力量 Implicit Programming: The Power of Domain Expertise [41:05] Jensen Huang: 思考这一点的另一种方式是AI——我们刚才说过。甚至Chuck，他只知道如何用希伯来语编程，
[41:05] Jensen Huang: Another way to think about that is AI— and we just said it earlier. Even Chuck, who only knows how to program in Hebrew,
[41:12] Chuck Robbins: [笑声] 这是一种天赋。
[41:12] Chuck Robbins: [laughter] It’s a gift.
[41:18] Jensen Huang: 他的工具选择是从右到左。[笑声]
[41:18] Jensen Huang: His instrument choice is a right to left. [laughter]
[41:32] Chuck Robbins: 因为你知道否则会弄脏。这实际上相当聪明。
[41:32] Chuck Robbins: Because as you know it smears otherwise. It is pretty smart actually.
[41:38] Jensen Huang: 聪明的人做聪明的事情。所以美好的事情是，你知道世界的编程语言——对于你们所有的公司，你们有点觉得，哦我的天，软件不是我们的强项。但知识、直觉、领域专业知识是你的强项。好吧，你现在第一次可以用你的语言向计算机准确解释你想要什么。你记得我们从哪里开始——从显式编程到隐式编程？这是历史上第一次，你可以隐式地编程计算机。只要告诉它你想要什么。告诉它你的意思，计算机会写代码，因为事实证明编码只是打字。事实证明打字是一种商品。这就是你的大机会。你们所有人都可以被提升到你以前受限的原子限制之上。你们所有人都可以逃脱这个限制——我们没有足够的软件工程师——因为事实证明打字是一种商品。你们所有人都有非常有价值的东西，那就是领域专业知识——理解客户，理解问题。这就是最终价值。这就是最终价值——理解意图。
[41:38] Jensen Huang: Smart people do smart things. And so the beautiful thing is that as you know the programming language of the world— and for all of your companies you kind of feel like, oh my gosh, software is not our strength. But knowledge, intuition, domain expertise is your strength. Well, you now for the first time can explain exactly what you want to a computer in your language. Do you remember where we started— from explicit programming to implicit programming? For first time in history, you could program a computer implicitly. Just tell it what you want. Tell it what you mean and the computer will write the code because coding as it turns out is just typing. And typing as it turns out is a commodity. And that’s the great opportunity for you. All of you could be levitated above the atomic limitations that you were limited by before. All of you could escape from this limitation— we don’t have enough software engineers— because as it turns out typing is a commodity. And all of you have something of great value which is domain expertise— to understand the customer, understand the problem. And that is the ultimate value. That is the ultimate value— to understand the intent.
[43:04] Jensen Huang: 你知道，当你从大学毕业时，你可以是一个超级程序员，但你不知道客户想要什么。你不知道要解决什么问题。但这就是你们所有人知道的。你知道客户想要什么。你知道要解决什么问题。编码部分很容易。只要告诉AI去做。所以这就是你的超能力。所以Chuck和我在这里帮助你做到这一点。那个结束语是在我喝了五杯酒的情况下完成的。[笑声]
[43:04] Jensen Huang: You know, when you graduate from college, you could be a super programmer, but you have no idea what customers want. You have no idea what problems to solve. But that’s what all of you know. You know what customers want. You know what problems to solve. The coding part of it is easy. Just tell the AI to do it. And so that’s your superpower. So Chuck and I are here to enable you to do that. That closing was done with five glasses of wine in me. [laughter]
[43:49] Chuck Robbins: 所以，嘿，听着——这确实是一个奇迹——这是一个在桌子上工作的人——人工智能的真实代表。[掌声]
[43:49] Chuck Robbins: So, hey, listen— it’s a miracle indeed— this is somebody who works off— a table— true representation of artificial intelligence. [applause]
[44:02] Jensen Huang: 也许那是增强的。我只想告诉你，与你们所有人合作是一种巨大的乐趣。正如你所知，Cisco在计算重塑的两个非常重要的支柱上拥有极端的专业知识。没有Cisco，就没有现代计算。其中一个当然是网络，另一个是安全。这两个支柱都在AI世界中被重塑了。我们非常了解的部分——即计算部分——在很多方面是一种商品，Cisco知道的东西是深刻有价值的。在我们两个之间，我们将很高兴帮助你们所有人参与AI世界。
[44:02] Jensen Huang: Maybe that’s enhanced. I just want to tell you that it’s a great pleasure working with all of you. Cisco as you know has extreme expertise and two very important pillars of the reinvention of computing. Without Cisco, there is no modern computing. One of them is of course networking and the other one’s security. And both of those pillars have been reinvented in the world of AI. And the part that we know very well— which is the computing part of it— in a lot of ways is a commodity, and the stuff that Cisco knows is deeply valuable. And between the two of us, we’ll be delighted to help all of you engage the world of AI.
建造你自己的AI：问题比答案更宝贵 Build Your Own AI: Questions Are More Valuable Than Answers [44:51] Jensen Huang: 然后有人早些时候问我——我认为值得重复。有人早些时候问我，你应该只是租用云还是你应该甚至努力建造你自己的计算机？这是我会告诉你的。我会建议你做我建议我的孩子做的完全相同的事情。建造一台计算机。即使PC无处不在，即使它成熟了，即使技术发展了，看在上帝的份上，建造一个。知道为什么所有组件都存在。如果你要进入汽车、汽车行业、运输行业的世界，不要只使用Uber。看在上帝的份上，抬起引擎盖，换机油，理解所有组件。看在上帝的份上，理解它是如何工作的。这至关重要。这项技术对未来如此重要。你必须对它有一些触觉理解。抬起引擎盖，换机油，建造一些东西。不必很大。建造一些东西。
[44:51] Jensen Huang: And then somebody asked me earlier— I think it’s worth repeating. Somebody asked me earlier, should you just rent the cloud or should you even make the effort to build your own computer? Here’s what I would tell you. I would advise you to do exactly the same thing I advise my children. Build a computer. Even though the PC is everywhere, even though it’s mature, even though technology is developed, for God’s sakes, build one. Know why all the components exist. If you were to be in the world of automotive, the automobile industry, the transportation industry, don’t just use Uber. For God’s sakes, lift the hood, change the oil, understand all the components. For God’s sakes, understand how it works. It is vital. This technology is so important to the future. You must have some tactile understanding of it. Lift the hood, change the oil, build something. Doesn’t have to be large. Build something.
[46:05] Jensen Huang: 你可能发现你实际上非常擅长它。你可能发现你需要那种技能。你可能发现世界不是全部租用与全部拥有——你想要租用一些并拥有一些，因为你公司的某些部分应该建立在本地。例如，主权和专有信息——只是，你不愿意与每个人分享你的问题。你知道，当你去看治疗师时，你不想让问题在线。[笑声] 你知道我在说什么吗？
[46:05] Jensen Huang: You might discover you’re actually insanely good at it. You might discover that you need that skill. You might discover that the world is not about all rent versus all own— that you want to rent some and own some because some part of your company should be built on prem. For example, sovereignty and proprietary information— and just, you’re not comfortable sharing your questions with everybody. You know, when you go see a therapist, you don’t want the questions to be online. [laughter] You know what I’m saying?
[46:52] Chuck Robbins: 好的，我只是——我在想象这个。[笑声] 假设地。
[46:52] Chuck Robbins: Okay, I’m just— I’m imagining this one. [laughter] Hypothetically.
[46:57] Jensen Huang: 所以，假设地，我认为你有很多问题，你有很多对话，很多对话，很多不确定性应该保持私密。公司也是一样。我不自信。我对将Nvidia的所有对话放在云中不安全，这就是为什么我们在本地建造它。我们在本地建造了一个超级AI系统，因为我只是不自信分享那个对话。因为事实证明，对我来说最有价值的IP不是我的答案。是我的问题。你跟上我了吗？我的问题是对我来说最有价值的IP。我在思考的是我的问题。答案是一种商品。如果我只是知道要问什么——我在识别什么是重要的。我不想让人们知道我认为什么是重要的。我希望那在一个小房间里。我希望那在本地。我希望那是我自己。我想创造我自己的AI。
[46:57] Jensen Huang: And so, hypothetically, I think that a lot of questions you have, a lot of conversations you have, a lot of dialogue, a lot of uncertainties you have ought to be kept private. Companies are the same way. I am not confident. I am not secure about putting all of Nvidia’s conversations in the cloud, which is the reason why we built it locally. We’ve built a super AI system locally because I’m just not confident to share that conversation. Because as it turns out, the most valuable IP to me is not my answers. It’s my questions. Are you following me? My questions are the most valuable IP to me. What I’m thinking about are my questions. The answers are a commodity. If I simply knew what to ask— I’m identifying what’s important. And I don’t want people to know what I think is important. And I want that to be in a small room. I want that to be on prem. I want that to be by myself. And I want to create my own AI.
AI在环中：未来公司的知识产权 AI in the Loop: The Intellectual Property of Future Companies [48:08] Jensen Huang: 然后最后一个想法，因为已经11点了。[笑声] 最后一个想法。有一个想法认为AI应该总是有人在环中。这正好是错误的想法。它是向后的。每个公司都应该有AI在环中。原因是因为我们希望我们的公司每天都变得更好、更有价值、更有知识。我们永远不想倒退。我们永远不想变平。我们永远不想从头开始。这意味着如果我们有AI在环中，它将捕获我们的生活经验。未来每个员工都将有AI，很多AI在环中。这些AI将成为公司的知识产权。这就是未来公司。因此，我认为你们所有人立即打电话给Chuck是明智的。
[48:08] Jensen Huang: And then one last thought since it’s already 11 o’clock. [laughter] One last thought. There was an idea that AI should always have human in the loop. It’s exactly the wrong idea. It’s backwards. Every company should have AI in the loop. And the reason for that is because we want our company to be better and more valuable and more knowledgeable every single day. We never want to go backwards. We never want to go flat. We never want to start from the beginning. Which means that if we have AI in the loop, it will capture our life experience. Every single employee in the future will have AI, lots of AIs in the loop. And those AIs will become the company’s intellectual property. That’s the future company. And therefore, I think it sensible for all of you to call Chuck immediately.
[49:13] Chuck Robbins: 我打给了Jensen。[笑声]
[49:13] Chuck Robbins: I called Jensen. [laughter]
[49:20] Jensen Huang: 总之，这是我的结束语。
[49:20] Jensen Huang: Anyhow, that’s my closing.
[49:25] Chuck Robbins: 听着——在路上两周。Jensen飞到这里，在他第一次长时间睡在自己床上之前，与我们度过了他的最后一晚、最后一个晚上。我们永远感激。感谢你来到这里。谢谢。
[49:25] Chuck Robbins: Listen— two weeks on the road. Jensen flew here, spent his last night, last evening with us before he gets to sleep in his bed for the first time in a long time. We’re forever grateful. Appreciate you being here. Thank you.
[49:36] Jensen Huang: 非常感谢。而且——[掌声] 谢谢，伙计。而且——[掌声] 从我的眼角，有所有这些串烧。有人还在那里。Fritos的袋子在哪里？[笑声]
[49:36] Jensen Huang: Thank you very much. And— [applause] Thank you, man. And— [applause] from the corner of my eye, there were all these skewers. Somebody was still there. Where’s the bag of Fritos? [laughter]
[49:58] Chuck Robbins: 好吧，我们走吧。谢谢。谢谢大家。
[49:58] Chuck Robbins: All right, let’s go. Thank you. Thank you, everybody.
-
超级智能、顺从型AI、超人类主义、基督与超越：PayPal、Palantir联合创始人彼得·蒂尔2025年6月播客实录 | 中英文完整版精译（下篇）
书童按：本篇是彼得·蒂尔（Peter Thiel）于2025年6月接受罗斯·多塔特（Ross Douthat）”有趣时代”（Interesting Times）播客采访实录。蒂尔是PayPal和Palantir的联合创始人，硅谷传奇投资人，唐纳德·特朗普和J.D.万斯政治生涯的早期资助者，亦是当代保守派知识分子中强调”反对共识”的极具影响力人物。本部分涉及超级智能、顺从型AI风险、超人类主义、基督教与超越、人类自由与神圣决定论，以及人类行动的空间等深刻议题。初稿采用Claude Opus4.5 API全篇翻译、中英混排、审阅修改，书童仅读了一遍并做简单批注，分上下篇两个部分发布，本篇为下篇，以飨诸君。
乐观主义的困境 The Optimism Problem 彼得·蒂尔 你把这件事描绘得太乐观了。我嘛，还有那些人……（书童注：指上篇中罗斯所说”特朗普主义和民粹主义可以成为技术创新和经济活力的载体”）
PETER THIEL You’re framing it really, really optimistically here. So I, well, the people.
罗斯·多塔特 但我知道你是悲观的。
ROSS DOUTHAT But I think, I know you’re pessimistic.
彼得·蒂尔 当你把事情往乐观了说，其实就是在暗示这些人注定要失望、注定要失败，诸如此类。
PETER THIEL When you frame it optimistically. You’re just saying these people are going to be disappointed and they’re just set up for failure and things like that.
罗斯·多塔特 我只是说，人们确实表达了很多乐观情绪。埃隆·马斯克就很乐观——当然，他也流露出一些末日焦虑，比如预算赤字将如何毁灭我们所有人。但他进入了政府，他身边的人也进入了政府，他们的态度基本上是：我们和特朗普政府建立了合作关系，我们要追求技术上的伟大复兴。
ROSS DOUTHAT I mean, people expressed a lot of optimism. That’s all I’m saying. Elon Musk expressed a lot of, I mean, he expressed some apocalyptic anxieties about how budget deficits were going to kill us all. But he came into government, and people around him came into government basically saying, we have a partnership with the Trump administration and we’re pursuing technological greatness.
罗斯·多塔特 我认为他们是乐观的。而你的立场更加悲观，或者说更加现实。所以我想听的是你对现状的评估，而不是他们的看法。你觉得，特朗普2.0时代的民粹主义，看起来像是能够承载技术活力的载体吗？
ROSS DOUTHAT I think they were optimistic. And so you’re coming from a place of greater pessimism or realism. So what I’m asking for is your assessment of where we are, not their assessment. But do you think, does populism in Trump 2.0 look like a vehicle for technological dynamism to you?
彼得·蒂尔 它仍然是目前最好的选择，而且是遥遥领先的那种。哈佛难道能靠继续因循守旧、做着五十年来毫无成效的同样事情来攻克痴呆症吗？
PETER THIEL It’s still by far the best option we have. I don’t think. I don’t know. Is Harvard going to cure dementia by just puttering along, doing the same thing that hasn’t worked for 50 years?
罗斯·多塔特 这不过是”反正不会更糟，不如放手一搏”的论调。但目前对民粹主义的批评恰恰是：硅谷与民粹主义者结成了联盟，可到头来，民众并不真正关心科学，他们不想在科学上花钱，他们想砍掉哈佛的经费，仅仅因为他们不喜欢哈佛。最终，你得不到硅谷想要的那种对未来的投资。这种批评是错的吗？
ROSS DOUTHAT That’s just a case for. It can’t get worse. Let’s do disruption. Right, but the critique of populism right now would be Silicon Valley made an alliance with the populists. But in the end, the populace don’t care about science. They don’t want to spend money on science. They want to kill funding to Harvard just because they don’t like Harvard. Right. And in the end, you’re not going to get the kind of investments in the future that Silicon Valley wanted. Is that wrong?
科学的问题 The Science Problem 彼得·蒂尔 是的，但我们必须回到这个问题：科学在幕后究竟运转得怎么样？新政派们，不管他们有什么毛病，至少大力推动了科学——你给它拨款，你给科学家钱，你把规模做大。
PETER THIEL Yeah, but it, we have to go back to this question of, you know, how well is this, is the science working in the background? This is where, you know, the New Dealers, whatever was wrong with them, you know, they pushed science hard and you funded it and you gave money to people and you scaled it.
彼得·蒂尔 然而今天，如果有一个当代的爱因斯坦给白宫写信，那封信会在收发室石沉大海。曼哈顿计划在今天是不可想象的。当我们把某件事称为”登月计划”——就像拜登谈论癌症研究那样——在六十年代，”登月计划”意味着你真的会登上月球。而现在，”登月计划”意味着某种完全虚幻、永远不会实现的东西。”哦，这事儿得搞个登月计划才行”——这话的意思不是说我们需要一个阿波罗计划，而是说这事永远、永远不会发生。
PETER THIEL And, you know, whereas today, if there was an equivalent of Einstein and he wrote a letter to the White House, it would get lost in the mailroom. And the Manhattan Project is unthinkable, you know, if we call something a moonshot, the way this is the way Biden talked about, let’s say, cancer research, a moonshot in the 60s still meant that you went to the moon. A moonshot now means something completely fictional that’s never going to happen. Oh, you need a moonshot for that. It’s not like we need an Apollo program. It means it’s never, ever going to happen.
罗斯·多塔特 那么看起来你仍然处于这样一种模式——和硅谷其他一些人可能不同——对你来说，民粹主义的价值在于撕开面纱、戳破幻象。我们未必处于那个阶段，指望特朗普政府去建设新事物、去搞曼哈顿计划、去实现登月计划。更像是：民粹主义帮助我们看清，一切都是假的。
ROSS DOUTHAT And so, but it seems like then you’re still in the mode of, for you, as opposed to maybe for some other people in Silicon Valley. The value of populism is in tearing away the veils and illusions. And we’re not necessarily in the stage where you’re looking to the Trump administration to, to build the new, to do the Manhattan Project, to do the moonshot. It’s more like populism helps us see that it was all fake.
彼得·蒂尔 两者都要尝试，而且它们彼此紧密交织。核电正在去监管化，总有一天我们会重新开始建造新的核电站，或者设计更好的核电站，甚至是聚变反应堆。
PETER THIEL You need to try to do both. And they are very entangled with each other. And I don’t know, there’s deregulation of nuclear power and at some point, at some point we’ll get back to building, you know, new nuclear power plants or better designed ones or maybe even fusion reactors.
彼得·蒂尔 所以，是的，首先有一个去监管化的解构阶段，然后在某个时候你才真正开始建设。从某种意义上说，你是在清理战场。
PETER THIEL And so, yes, there’s a deregulatory deconstructive part. And then at some point you actually get to construction and it’s all things like that. So, yeah, in some ways you’re clearing the field.
政治的毒性 The Toxicity of Politics 罗斯·多塔特 然后，但你个人已经停止资助政客了。
ROSS DOUTHAT And then, but you’ve personally stopped funding politicians.
彼得·蒂尔 我在这件事上很矛盾。我认为它非常重要，但同时也极具毒性。所以我来回摇摆。
PETER THIEL I am schizophrenic on this stuff. You know, I think it is incredibly important and it’s incredibly toxic. And so I go back and forth on it.
罗斯·多塔特 对你个人来说极具毒性？
ROSS DOUTHAT Incredibly toxic for you personally?
彼得·蒂尔 对每个人都是，每个卷入其中的人都是。这是一个零和游戏，令人抓狂，而且在某种程度上，因为每个人——
PETER THIEL For everybody, everybody who gets involved. It’s zero sum. It’s crazy, you know, and then it’s, and then in some ways, because everyone.
罗斯·多塔特 恨你，把你和特朗普绑在一起。具体来说，对你个人而言，毒性体现在哪里？
ROSS DOUTHAT Hates you and associates you with Trump. Like, what, how is it toxic for you personally?
彼得·蒂尔 它有毒是因为那是一个零和世界。你能感受到其中的利害关系真的、真的很强，然后你——
PETER THIEL It’s toxic because it’s in a zero sum world. You know, the stakes in it feel really, really high and you.
罗斯·多塔特 最终树了很多以前没有的敌人。
ROSS DOUTHAT End up having enemies you didn’t have before.
火星的政治维度 The Political Dimension of Mars 彼得·蒂尔 是的，它对所有以不同方式卷入其中的人都有毒。”回到未来”有一个政治维度。这是我2024年与埃隆的一次对话。
PETER THIEL Yeah, it’s toxic for all the people who get involved in different ways. There is a political dimension of getting back to the future. You can’t, you know, I don’t know. This is a conversation I had with Elon back in, you know, 2024, and we had all these, you know, conversations.
彼得·蒂尔 我跟埃隆聊过”海上家园”这个话题。我说，如果特朗普没赢，我就想离开这个国家。埃隆说：”没地方可去。没地方可去。这里是唯一的选择。”你总是事后才想到该怎么反驳。
PETER THIEL I had this, I had the seasteading version with Elon where I said, you know, if Trump doesn’t win. I want to just leave the country. And then Elon said, “There’s nowhere to go. There’s nowhere to go. This is the only.” And then, you know, you always think of the right arguments to make later.
彼得·蒂尔 那是我们共进晚餐大约两小时后，我回到家才想到：”哇，埃隆，你已经不相信去火星这件事了。”2024年，这是埃隆停止相信火星的一年——不是把火星当作一个纯粹的科技项目，而是当作一个政治项目。火星本应是一个政治项目，是在建设一种替代方案。
PETER THIEL And it was about two hours after we had dinner and I was home that I thought of, “Wow, Elon, you don’t believe in going to Mars anymore.” 2024. 2024 is the year where Elon stopped believing in Mars. Not as a silly science tech project, but as a political project. Mars was supposed to be a political project, was building an alternative.
彼得·蒂尔 2024年，埃隆开始相信，如果你去了火星，社会主义的美国政府、觉醒的AI，都会跟着你到火星去。这要从我们牵线促成的德米斯（书童注：即德米斯·哈萨比斯，Deepmind创始人，AlphaGo、AlphaFold和Gemini的灵魂人物，诺贝尔化学奖得主）与埃隆那次会面说起。当时德米斯在做DeepMind。
PETER THIEL And in 2024, Elon came to believe that if you went to Mars, you know, the socialist US Government, the Woke AI, it would follow you to Mars. It was the Demis meeting with Elon that we sort of brokered. He was doing DeepMind.
罗斯·多塔特 那是一家AI公司。
ROSS DOUTHAT This is an AI company.
彼得·蒂尔 是的。大致的对话是这样的：德米斯告诉埃隆，”我正在做世界上最重要的项目，我在建造超人类AI。”然后埃隆回应：”好吧，我也在做世界上最重要的项目。我正在把人类变成一个跨行星物种。”
PETER THIEL Yeah. This was the rough conversation was, you know, Demis tells Elon, “I’m working on the most important project in the world. I’m building a superhuman AI.” And Elon responds to Demis, “Well, I’m working on the most important project in the world. I am turning this into an interplanetary species.”
彼得·蒂尔 然后德米斯说：”好吧，可我的AI能够跟着你到火星去。”然后埃隆沉默了。但在我对历史的叙述中，德米斯这句话用了好几年才真正触动埃隆。他直到2024年才消化这件事。
PETER THIEL And then Demis said, “Well, you know, my AI will be able to follow you to Mars.” And then Elon sort of went quiet. But in my telling of the history, it took years for that to really hit Elon. It took him till 2024 to process it.
罗斯·多塔特 但这并不意味着他不相信火星。这只是意味着他认定，必须先赢得关于预算赤字和觉醒主义的战斗，才能到达火星。
ROSS DOUTHAT But that doesn’t mean he doesn’t believe in Mars. It just means that he decided he had to win some kind of battle over budget deficits for wokeness to get to Mars.
彼得·蒂尔 火星意味着什么？它是……是的……而且，再说一遍，它是……
PETER THIEL What does Mars mean? Is it a. Yeah. Is it? And again, it’s.
罗斯·多塔特 火星意味着什么？
ROSS DOUTHAT What does Mars mean?
彼得·蒂尔 它曾经是……它曾经是……它只是一个科学项目，还是……像一个……
PETER THIEL Well, it was. It was. It’s. Is it. Is it just. Is it just a scientific project or is it. I don’t know, is it like a.
罗斯·多塔特 一个新社会的愿景？
ROSS DOUTHAT I don’t know, a vision of a new society?
彼得·蒂尔 是的，海因莱因（书童注：美国硬科幻小说作家，与阿西莫夫与阿瑟·克拉克并成为科幻小说三巨头）式的愿景，成千上万的人生活在天堂里，都是埃隆·马斯克的后代。我不确定他是否具体化到了那种程度，但如果你把事情具体化，也许你就会意识到，火星本应不只是一个科学项目，它本应是一个政治项目。
PETER THIEL Yeah, Heinlein, you know, populated by many, many people in paradise, descendants from Elon Musk. Well, I don’t know if it was concretized that. That specifically, but if you concretize things, then maybe you realize that Mars is supposed to be more than a science project. It’s supposed to be a political project.
彼得·蒂尔 而当你把它具体化时，你就必须开始思考：好吧，觉醒的AI会跟着你去，社会主义政府也会跟着你去，那么也许你必须做一些不仅仅是去火星的事情。
PETER THIEL And then when you concretize it, you have to start thinking through, well, the AI, the woke AI will follow you, the socialist government will follow you, and then maybe you have to do something other than just going to Mars.
人工智能：进步还是停滞？ AI: Progress or Stagnation? 罗斯·多塔特 好的，说到”觉醒的AI”——如果我们仍处于停滞中的话——人工智能似乎是停滞的最大例外。这是一个取得了显著进步的领域，令许多人惊讶的进步。
ROSS DOUTHAT Okay, so the Woke AI, artificial intelligence seems like one. If we’re still stagnant. It’s the biggest exception to stagnation. It’s the place where there’s been remarkable progress, surprising to many people, progress.
罗斯·多塔特 我们刚才在谈政治。这也是特朗普政府在很大程度上满足AI投资者诉求的领域，无论是政府后退一步还是开展公私合作。所以这是一个进步——与政府参与并存的领域。而你是AI的投资者。你认为你在投资什么？
ROSS DOUTHAT It’s also the place, we were just talking about politics. It’s the place where the Trump administration is, I think, to a large degree, giving AI investors a lot of what they wanted in terms of both stepping back and doing public private partnerships. So it’s a zone of progress and governmental engagement. And you are an investor in AI. What do you think you’re investing in?
彼得·蒂尔 这个问题有很多层次。有一个问题我们可以提出来：我认为AI有多大？我的笨答案是：介于两者之间。它不只是一个噱头，但也不至于全面改变我们的社会。
PETER THIEL Well, I don’t know. There’s sort of a lot of layers to this. So I do think, I know there’s one question we can frame is just how big, how big a thing do I think AI is? And I don’t know. My stupid answer is it’s somewhere. It’s more than a nothing burger, and it’s less than the total transformation of our society.
彼得·蒂尔 我的估计是，它大致相当于九十年代末互联网的规模。我不确定它是否足以真正终结停滞，但也许足以催生一些伟大的公司。互联网可能让GDP增加了几个百分点，也许每年为GDP增长贡献1%，持续了十到十五年，对生产率有所贡献。这大致是我对AI的预期。
PETER THIEL So my placeholder is that it’s roughly on the scale of the Internet in the late 90s, which is, you know, I’m not sure it’s enough to, to really end the stagnation. It might be enough to create some great companies. And, you know, the Internet added maybe a few points, percentage points to the GDP, maybe 1% to GDP growth every year for 10, 15 years. It adds some to productivity. And so that’s sort of roughly my placeholder for AI.
彼得·蒂尔 AI是我们唯一拥有的东西。进步如此失衡，有点不太健康——这是我们唯一拥有的。我希望有更多维度的进步。我希望我们正在飞往火星。我希望我们正在攻克痴呆症。如果我们只有AI，我也接受。但它确实有风险，这项技术显然有危险。
PETER THIEL It’s the only thing we have. It’s, it’s a little bit unhealthy that it’s so unbalanced. This is the only thing we have. I’d like to have more multidimensional progress. I’d like us to be going to Mars. I’d like us to be having cures for dementia. If all we have is AI, I will take it. There are risks with it. There are, obviously, there are dangers with this technology.
超级智能问题 The Superintelligence Question 罗斯·多塔特 那么你是否对所谓的”超级智能级联理论”持怀疑态度？这种理论大致是说：如果AI成功了，它会变得极其聪明，以至于能在物质世界为我们带来进步——就是说，好吧，我们人类无法攻克痴呆症，无法弄清楚如何建造完美的工厂来制造飞往火星的火箭，但AI可以。
ROSS DOUTHAT But then you are a skeptic of the, what you might call the sort of superintelligence cascade theory, which basically says that if AI succeeds, it gets so smart that it gives us the progress in the world of atoms, that it’s like, all right, we can’t cure dementia. We can’t figure out how to build the perfect factory that builds the rockets that go to Mars, but the AI can.
罗斯·多塔特 在某个时刻，你跨过某个阈值，它不仅带来更多的数字进步，还带来其他六十四种形式的进步。听起来你不相信这一点，或者说你认为这不太可能。
ROSS DOUTHAT And at a certain point, it just, you pass a certain threshold and it gives us not just more digital progress, but 64 other forms of progress. It sounds like you don’t believe that, or you think that’s less likely.
彼得·蒂尔 是的，我不确定智力是否真的是那个”门控因素”。
PETER THIEL Yeah, I, I, I somehow don’t know if that’s been really the gating factor.
罗斯·多塔特 “门控因素”是什么意思？
ROSS DOUTHAT What does that mean, the gating factor?
彼得·蒂尔 这可能是一种硅谷意识形态——也许以一种奇怪的方式，它更偏自由派而非保守派——但硅谷的人真的非常执着于智商，认为一切都与聪明人有关。如果你有更多聪明人，他们就会做出伟大的事情。
PETER THIEL It’s probably a Silicon Valley ideology and maybe, maybe in a weird way it’s more liberal than a conservative thing, but people are really fixated on IQ in Silicon Valley and that it’s all about smart people. And if you have more smart people, they’ll do great things.
彼得·蒂尔 而经济学中反智商的论点是：人们实际上越聪明，表现越差。他们不知道如何运用自己的聪明才智，或者我们的社会不知道如何用好他们，他们格格不入。这表明门控因素不是智商，而是我们社会深处存在的某些问题。
PETER THIEL And then the economics anti IQ argument is that people actually do worse. The smarter they are, the worse they do. And they, you know, it’s just, they don’t know how to apply it, or our society doesn’t know what to do with them and they don’t fit in. And so that suggests that the gating factor isn’t IQ, but something, you know, that’s deeply wrong with our society.
罗斯·多塔特 那这是智力本身的局限，还是人类超级智能所造就的那种人格类型的问题？我非常认同这种看法。当我在这个播客中与一位AI加速主义者对谈时，我就提出过这个观点：认为某些问题只要提高智力就能解决，这种想法是有问题的。
ROSS DOUTHAT So is that a limit on intelligence or a problem of the sort of personality types human superintelligence creates? I mean, I’m very sympathetic to the idea and I made this case when I did an episode of this, of this podcast with a sort of AI accelerationist that just throwing, that certain problems can just be solved if you ramp up intelligence.
罗斯·多塔特 就好像是：我们提高智力，然后砰，阿尔茨海默病解决了；我们提高智力，AI就能弄清楚一夜之间为你建造十亿个机器人的自动化流程。我是一个”智力怀疑论者”——我认为智力可能存在局限性。
ROSS DOUTHAT It’s like, we ramp up intelligence and boom, Alzheimer’s is solved. We ramp up intelligence and the AI can, you know, figure out the automation process that builds you a billion robots overnight. I, I’m an intelligent skeptic in the sense I don’t think, yeah, I think you probably have limits.
彼得·蒂尔 这很难证明，无论从哪个角度看都很难证明。
PETER THIEL It’s, it’s, it’s hard to prove one way or it’s always hard to prove these things.
罗斯·多塔特 但我，在我们拥有超级——
ROSS DOUTHAT But I, until we have the super.
彼得·蒂尔 智能之前，我赞同你的直觉，因为我认为我们已经有过很多聪明人，而事情因为其他原因陷入停滞。所以也许问题是无解的，这是悲观的观点。也许根本没有治愈痴呆症的方法，这是一个根本性的难题。没有治愈死亡的方法。也许这就是一个无解的问题，或者也许是文化因素在作祟。
PETER THIEL Intelligence, I share your intuition because I think we’ve had a lot of smart people and things have been stuck for other reasons. And so maybe, maybe the problems are unsolvable, which is the pessimistic view. Maybe there is no cure for dementia at all and it’s a deeply unsolvable problem. There’s no cure for mortality. It’s. Maybe it’s an unsolvable problem or maybe it’s these cultural things.
彼得·蒂尔 所以问题不在于个别聪明人，而在于这如何融入我们的社会。我们是否容忍异端的聪明人？也许你需要异端的聪明人去做疯狂的实验。而如果AI只是循规蹈矩地聪明——如果我们把”觉醒”定义为……好吧，”觉醒”这个词太意识形态化了，但如果你把它简单定义为”顺从主义”，那么这种聪明也许不是能产生变革的那种。
PETER THIEL So it’s not, you know, it’s not the individually smart person, but it’s how this fits into our society. Do we tolerate heterodox smart people? Maybe it’s, maybe you need heterodox smart people to, you know, do, do crazy experiments. And, and, and if the, you know, if the AI is just conventionally smart, if it’s sort of, if we define wokeness. Again, wokeness is too ideological. But if you just define it as conformist, maybe that’s not the kind of smartness that’s going to make a difference.
顺从型AI的风险 The Risk of Conformist AI 罗斯·多塔特 那么你是否担心这样一种可能的未来：AI本身变成了停滞主义的，它高度智能、具有创造力，但以一种顺从的方式？就像Netflix算法：它制作无限多”还行”的电影供人观看，产生无限多”还行”的想法，让很多人失业、被淘汰。但它不会……它以某种方式加深了停滞。这是你担心的吗？
ROSS DOUTHAT So do you fear then a plausible future where AI in a way becomes itself stagnationist, that it’s like highly intelligent, creative, in a conformist way? It’s like the Netflix algorithm. It makes infinite okay movies that people watch. It generates infinite okay ideas. It puts a bunch of people out of work and makes them obsolete. But it doesn’t. It like deepens stagnation in some way. Is that, Is that a fear?
彼得·蒂尔 这——
PETER THIEL It.
罗斯·多塔特 就像人们只是外包——
ROSS DOUTHAT It’s like people just outsource.
彼得·蒂尔 这确实有可能。那当然是一种风险。但我最终的立场是：我们仍然应该尝试AI，而替代方案只是彻底的停滞。
PETER THIEL It’s quite possible that that’s. That’s certainly a risk, but. But I guess. I guess where I end up is I still think we should be trying AI and that the alternative is just total stagnation.
彼得·蒂尔 所以，是的，各种有趣的事情可能会发生。比如，也许军事领域的无人机与AI结合——好吧，这有点可怕，有点危险，有点反乌托邦，它会改变很多事情。但如果你没有AI，天哪，那就什么都没有了。
PETER THIEL So, yeah, there’s sort of all sorts of interesting things can happen with, okay, maybe drones in a military context are combined with AI, and okay, this is kind of scary or dangerous or dystopian or it’s going to change things. But if you don’t have AI, wow, there’s just nothing going on.
彼得·蒂尔 这个讨论在互联网领域也有类似的版本：互联网是否导致了更多顺从和更多觉醒？是的，它在很多方面没有带来自由意志主义者在1999年幻想的那种丰饶多元的思想爆发。但反事实地说，我会认为它仍然比没有互联网要好，如果没有互联网，也许会更糟。
PETER THIEL And I don’t know, there’s like a version of this discussion on the Internet. Where did the Internet lead to more conformity and more wokeness. And yeah, there are all sorts of ways where it didn’t lead to quite the cornucopian, diverse explosion of ideas that libertarians fantasized about in 1999. But counterfactually, I would argue that it was still better than the alternative, that if we hadn’t had the Internet, maybe it would have been worse.
彼得·蒂尔 AI更好，它比替代方案好。而替代方案就是什么都没有，因为停滞。看，停滞论的论点在这里得到强化：我们只谈论AI这个事实，我觉得，总是隐含地承认——如果没有AI，我们几乎处于完全停滞状态。
PETER THIEL AI is better. It’s better than the alternative. And the alternative is nothing at all, because the sta. Look, here’s one place where the stagnationist arguments are still reinforced. The fact that we’re only talking about AI, I feel, is always an implicit acknowledgement that but for AI, we are in almost total stagnation.
超人类主义与不朽 Transhumanism and Immortality 罗斯·多塔特 但AI世界里显然充满了这样的人，他们对这项技术的看法比你在这里表达的更加乌托邦式、更加变革性——不管你想怎么称呼它。而且你之前提到，现代世界曾经承诺激进的寿命延长，但现在不再承诺了。
ROSS DOUTHAT But the world of AI is clearly filled with people who at the very least seem to have a more utopian, transformative, whatever word you want to call it, view of the technology than you’re expressing here, and you were mentioned earlier the idea that the modern world used to promise radical life extension and doesn’t anymore.
罗斯·多塔特 在我看来很明显，许多深度参与人工智能的人将其视为一种超人类主义的机制，一种超越凡人肉身的途径——要么创造某种继承物种，要么实现某种心智与机器的融合。
ROSS DOUTHAT It seems very clear to me that a number of people deeply involved in artificial intelligence see it as a kind of mechanism for transhumanism, for transcendence of our mortal flesh and either some kind of creation of a successor species, or some kind of merger of mind and machine.
罗斯·多塔特 你认为这只是无关紧要的幻想吗？还是只是炒作？你认为人们只是假装我们要建造一个机器上帝来融资？它是炒作？是妄想？还是你所担心的事情？我想你是希望人类能够延续下去的，对吧？你在犹豫……
ROSS DOUTHAT And do you think that’s just all kind of irrelevant fantasy? Or do you think it’s just hype? Do you think people are trying to raise money by pretending that we’re going to build a machine? God. Right. Is it, is it hype? Is it delusion? Is it something you worry about? You. I think you, you would prefer the human race to endure. Right? You’re hesitating. Well, I, Yes.
彼得·蒂尔 我不知道。我，我会……
PETER THIEL I don’t know. I, I would, I would.
罗斯·多塔特 这可是好长的犹豫。
ROSS DOUTHAT This is a long hesitation.
彼得·蒂尔 问题实在太多了。
PETER THIEL There’s so many questions and pushes.
罗斯·多塔特 人类应该生存下去吗？
ROSS DOUTHAT Should the human race survive?
彼得·蒂尔 是的。
PETER THIEL Yes.
罗斯·多塔特 好的。
ROSS DOUTHAT Okay.
彼得·蒂尔 但我也希望我们能从根本上解决这些问题。超人类主义的理想是一种激进的转变——把人类的自然身体转化为不朽的身体。
PETER THIEL But, but I, I also would. I, I also would like us to, to radically solve these problems. And, and so, you know, it’s always. I don’t know, you know. Yeah. Transhumanism is this, you know, the ideal was this radical transformation where your human natural body gets transformed into an immortal body.
彼得·蒂尔 有一个批评是针对，比如说，性别语境中的跨性别现象。异装癖是指换衣服、穿异性服装的人；变性人是指改变性器官的人。我们可以讨论那些手术效果如何，但我们想要的转变远不止于此。
PETER THIEL And there’s a critique of, let’s say, the trans people in a sexual context or, I don’t know, transvestite is someone who changes their clothes and cross dresses, and a transsexual is someone where you change your, I don’t know, penis into a vagina. And we can then debate how well those surgeries work, but we want more transformation than that.
彼得·蒂尔 批评不是说它奇怪、不自然。而是说，天哪，这也太微不足道了。我们想要的不只是换衣服或改变性器官。我们希望你能改变你的心脏、改变你的头脑、改变你的整个身体。而正统基督教对此的批评是，这些事情还不够深入——超人类主义只是改变身体，但你还需要转变灵魂，转变整个自我。
PETER THIEL The critique is not that it’s weird and unnatural. It’s man, it’s so pathetically little. And okay, we want more than cross dressing or changing your sex organs. We want you to be able to change your heart and change your mind and change your whole body. And then orthodox Christianity, by the way, the critique orthodox Christianity has of this is these things don’t go far enough like that transhumanism is just changing your body, but you also need to transform your soul and you need to transform your whole self. And so.
基督教与超越 Christianity and Transcendence 罗斯·多塔特 对，但另一方面……等等，等等，抱歉。我大体上同意我认为是你的信念：宗教应该是科学和科学进步观念的朋友。我认为任何关于神圣天意的观念都必须涵盖这样一个事实：我们已经进步了，取得了成就，做了我们祖先无法想象的事情。
ROSS DOUTHAT Right, but the other way. Wait, wait. Sorry. I generally agree with what I think is your belief that religion should be a friend to science and ideas of scientific progress. I think any idea of divine providence has to encompass the fact that we have progressed and achieved and done things that would have been unimaginable to our ancestors.
罗斯·多塔特 但看起来，是的，基督教最终的承诺是：你通过上帝的恩典获得完美的身体和完美的灵魂。而那个试图靠一堆机器独自做到这一点的人，很可能最终沦为一个反乌托邦式的角色。
ROSS DOUTHAT But it still also seems like, yeah, the promise of Christianity in the end is you get the perfected body and the perfected soul through God’s grace. And the person who tries to do it on their own with a bunch of machines is likely to end up as a dystopian character.
彼得·蒂尔 好吧，让我们把这个说清楚，然后你可以——
PETER THIEL Well, it’s. Let’s, let’s articulate this and you can.
罗斯·多塔特 有一种异端形式的基督教，对吧，说的是另一回事。
ROSS DOUTHAT Have a heretical form of Christianity. Right. That says something else.
彼得·蒂尔 我不知道。我认为”自然”这个词在《旧约》中一次都没有出现过。在某种意义上，我理解的犹太-基督教启示就是关于超越自然，关于克服事物。
PETER THIEL I don’t know. I think the word nature does not occur once in The Old Testament. And so if you, and there is a word in which, a sense in which the way I understand the Judeo Christian inspiration is it is about transcending nature. It is about overcoming things.
彼得·蒂尔 你能说的最接近”自然”的东西是：人是堕落的。在基督教的意义上，自然的状态就是你一团糟。这是事实。但在某些方面，在上帝的帮助下，你应该超越它、克服它。然后如果人们——
PETER THIEL And the closest thing you can say to nature is that people are fallen. And that that’s the natural thing in a Christian sense is that you’re messed up. And that’s true. But, you know, there’s some ways that, you know, with God’s help, you are supposed to transcend that and overcome that. And, but then people, if you just.
罗斯·多塔特 在座的除外。在座的除外。大多数致力于建造假想中的机器上帝的人，并不认为他们是在与雅威、耶和华、万军之主合作。他们认为他们是在独自建造不朽。
ROSS DOUTHAT Present company accepted. Present company accepted. Most of the people working to build the hypothetical machine God don’t think that they’re cooperating with Yahweh, Jehovah, the Lord of Hosts. They think that they’re building immortality on their own.
彼得·蒂尔 是的，没错。我们跳来跳去谈了很多事情。所以再说一遍，我的批评是：他们不够有雄心。（书童批：Peter Thiel想法真的是绝了）
PETER THIEL Yeah, right. We’re jumping around a lot. A lot of things. So again, the critique I was saying is they’re not ambitious enough.
罗斯·多塔特 对。
ROSS DOUTHAT Right.
彼得·蒂尔 从基督教的角度看，这些人不够有雄心。那么我们就要问：他们有吗？
PETER THIEL From a Christian point of view, these people are not ambitious enough. Now then we get into this question, well, are they?
罗斯·多塔特 但他们在道德和精神层面不够有雄心。
ROSS DOUTHAT But they’re not morally and spiritually ambitious enough.
彼得·蒂尔 他们有吗？然后他们在身体层面还足够有雄心吗？他们甚至还真的是超人类主义者吗？天哪，人体冷冻这事儿，看起来像是1999年的复古玩意儿，现在没多少人在做了。所以他们在物理身体上不是超人类主义者。那么，好吧，也许不是人体冷冻，也许是”上传”——但那也不太对。我宁可保留我的身体，我不想只要一个模拟我的计算机程序。所以”上传”似乎比人体冷冻还退了一步。
PETER THIEL And are they? And then are they still physically ambitious enough? And are they even still really transhumanists? And this is where, okay, you know, man, the cryonics thing, that seems like a retro thing from 1999, there isn’t that much of that going on. So they’re not transhumanists on a physical body. And then. Okay, well, maybe it’s not about cryonics. Maybe it’s about uploading, which. Okay, well, that’s not quite. I’d rather have my body. I don’t want just a computer program that simulates me. So that uploading seemed like a step down from cryonics.
彼得·蒂尔 但即便如此，它也是对话的一部分。这就是为什么很难评判。我不想说他们全都在编造、全是假的，但我——
PETER THIEL But then even that’s, you know, it’s part of the conversation. And this is where it gets very hard to score. And I don’t want to say they’re all making it up and it’s all fake, but I don’t.
罗斯·多塔特 你认为有些是假的吗？
ROSS DOUTHAT You think some of it’s fake?
彼得·蒂尔 我不认为是假的——”假的”暗示人们在撒谎。但我想说的是，这不是重心所在。
PETER THIEL I don’t think it’s fake. Implies people are lying. But it’s. I want to say it’s not the center of gravity.
罗斯·多塔特 是的。
ROSS DOUTHAT Yeah.
彼得·蒂尔 确实有一种”丰饶主义”的话语，一种乐观主义的话语。几周前我和埃隆有过一次对话，他说：”十年内美国将有十亿个人形机器人。”我说：”好吧，如果这是真的，你就不用担心预算赤字了，因为我们会有那么多增长，增长会解决这个问题。”然而，他仍然在担心预算赤字。这不能证明他不相信十亿机器人，但这表明也许他没有想透彻，或者他并不认为这在经济上会有那么大的变革性，或者这个预测的误差范围很大。
PETER THIEL And so there is, yeah, there is a cornucopian language. There’s an optimistic language. A conversation I had with Elon a few weeks ago about this was, he said, “We’re going to have a billion humanoid robots in the US in 10 years.” And I said, “Well, if that’s true, you don’t need to worry about the budget deficits because we’re going to have so much growth. The growth will take care of this.” And then, well, he’s still worried about the budget deficits. And then this doesn’t prove that he doesn’t believe in the billion robots, but it suggests that maybe he hasn’t thought it through or that he doesn’t think it’s going to be as transformative economically, or that there are big error bars around it.
彼得·蒂尔 是的，这些事情在某种程度上没有被想透彻。如果要我批评硅谷，它总是不擅长理解技术的意义是什么。对话总是倾向于陷入这种微观的东西：AI的IQ-ELO分数是多少？你到底怎么定义AGI？我们陷入所有这些无穷无尽的技术辩论。但有很多处于中间层次的问题对我来说似乎非常重要，比如：它对预算赤字意味着什么？对经济意味着什么？对地缘政治意味着什么？
PETER THIEL But, yeah, there’s some way in which these things are not quite thought through. If I had to give a critique of Silicon Valley, it’s always bad at what the meaning of tech is. And the conversations, they tend to go into this microscopic thing where it’s okay, it’s like, what are the IQ ELO scores of the AI? And exactly how do you define AGI? And we get into all these endless technical debates, and there are a lot of questions that are at an intermediate level of meaning that seem to me to be very important, which is like, what does it mean for the budget deficit? What does it mean for the economy? What does it mean for geopolitics?
彼得·蒂尔 我们最近有过一次对话——你和我——讨论的是AI是否改变了中国入侵台湾的算计。如果我们正处于加速的AI革命中，在军事上，中国是否正在落后？也许乐观地看，这威慑了中国，因为他们实际上已经输了。而悲观地看，这反而加速了他们的行动，因为他们知道”现在不动手就永远没机会了”——如果现在不拿下台湾，他们将被远远甩在后面。无论如何，这是相当重要的问题，却没有被想清楚。我们不思考AI对地缘政治意味着什么，不思考它对宏观经济意味着什么。这些才是我希望我们更多探讨的问题。
PETER THIEL One of the conversations we had recently, you and I had, was does it change the calculus for China invading Taiwan, where if we have an accelerating AI revolution, the military, is China falling behind? Maybe on the optimistic side, it deters China because they’ve effectively lost. And on the pessimistic side, it accelerates them because they know it’s now or never. If they don’t grab Taiwan now, they will fall behind. And either way, this is a pretty important thing. It’s not thought through. We don’t think about what AI means for geopolitics. We don’t think about what it means for the macro economy. And those are the kinds of questions I’d want us to push more.
敌基督与存在风险 The Antichrist and Existential Risk 罗斯·多塔特 还有一个非常宏观的问题是你感兴趣的，这会稍微拉一下宗教这根线。你最近一直在做关于”敌基督”概念的演讲，这是一个基督教概念，一个末世概念。它对你意味着什么？什么是敌基督？
ROSS DOUTHAT There’s also a very macroscopic question that you’re interested in that, you know, will pull on the religion thread a little bit here. You have been giving talks recently about the concept of the Antichrist, which is a Christian concept, an apocalyptic concept. What does that mean to you? What is the Antichrist?
彼得·蒂尔 我们有多少时间？
PETER THIEL How much time do we have?
罗斯·多塔特 你想谈多久敌基督，我们就有多少时间。
ROSS DOUTHAT We’ve got as long, as much time as you have to talk about the Antichrist.
彼得·蒂尔 好吧，我可以谈，但我们时间快到了。
PETER THIEL All right, well, I have a. I could talk about, but we’re near.
罗斯·多塔特 我的意思是——
ROSS DOUTHAT I mean.
彼得·蒂尔 不，我认为总有一个问题：我们如何阐述这些存在风险，我们面临的这些挑战？它们都被框定为那种失控的反乌托邦科幻场景。有核战争的风险，有环境灾难的风险，也许是气候变化这样具体的东西——虽然我们还提出了很多其他的。有生物武器的风险，有各种不同的科幻场景。AI显然也有某些类型的风险。但我一直在想，如果我们要用”存在风险”这个框架来讨论问题，也许我们也应该谈谈另一种”坏奇点”的风险——我会把它描述为”一个世界的极权国家”。
PETER THIEL But no, I think there’s always a question, you know, how do we articulate, you know, some of these existential risks, some of the challenges we have, and they’re all framed this sort of runaway dystopian science text. There’s a risk of nuclear war, there’s a risk of environmental disaster, maybe something specific like climate change. Although there are lots of other ones we come up with. There’s a risk of, you know, bioweapons, you have all the different sci fi scenarios. Obviously there are certain types of risks with AI, but I always think that if we’re going to have this frame of talking about existential risks, perhaps we should also talk about the risk of another type of a bad singularity, which I would describe as the one world totalitarian state.
彼得·蒂尔 因为我要说的是，人们对所有这些存在风险的默认政治解决方案是”世界治理”。对核武器怎么办？我们有一个有实权的联合国来控制它们，由一个国际政治秩序管辖。类似的逻辑也适用于AI：我们需要全球算力治理，需要一个世界政府来控制所有计算机，记录每一次按键，以确保人们不会编写出危险的AI。我一直在想，这是不是才出虎穴，又入狼窝。
PETER THIEL Because I would say the political solution, the default political solution people have for all these existential risks is one world governance. You know, what do you do about nuclear weapons? We have a United Nations with real teeth that controls them and they’re controlled by an international political order. And then something like this is also what do we do about AI? And we need global compute governance. We need a one world government to control all the computers, log every single keystroke to make sure people don’t program a dangerous AI. And I’ve been wondering whether that’s sort of going from the frying pan into the fire.
彼得·蒂尔 所以无神论的哲学框架是”一个世界或毁灭”——那是美国科学家联盟在四十年代末制作的一部短片，开头是一颗核弹炸毁世界。显然你需要一个世界政府来阻止它。一个世界或毁灭。而基督教的框架，在某种程度上是同一个问题，是”敌基督还是末日大战？”你要么有敌基督的一世界国家，要么我们正梦游般走向末日大战。”一个世界或毁灭”和”敌基督或末日大战”在某个层面上是同一个问题。
PETER THIEL And so the atheist philosophical framing is “one world or none.” That was a short film that was put out by the Federation of American Scientists in the late 40s, starts with a nuclear bomb blowing up the world. And obviously you need a one world government to stop it. One world or none. And the Christian framing, which in some ways is the same question, is “Antichrist or Armageddon?” You have the one world state of the Antichrist or we’re sleepwalking towards Armageddon. One world or none. Antichrist or Armageddon on one level are the same question.
彼得·蒂尔 关于这个话题我有很多想法，但有一个问题是——这是所有那些敌基督书籍中的情节漏洞——敌基督是如何接管世界的？他发表这些恶魔般的催眠演讲，人们就上当了。所以这是一个情节漏洞，一个魔鬼论式的解释。
PETER THIEL Now I have a lot of thoughts on this topic, but sort of one question is, and this was a plot hole in all these Antichrist books people wrote, how does the Antichrist take over the world? He gives these demonic hypnotic speeches and people just fall for it. And so it’s this plot hole. It’s this daemonium explanation.
罗斯·多塔特 完全是，这不可信。
ROSS DOUTHAT It’s totally, it’s implausible.
彼得·蒂尔 这是一个非常不可信的情节漏洞。但我认为我们对这个漏洞有了一个答案。敌基督接管世界的方式是：你不停地谈论末日大战，不停地谈论存在风险。这就是你说需要监管的东西。这与十七、十八世纪培根式科学的图景相反——在那个图景中，敌基督是某个邪恶的技术天才、邪恶的科学家，发明一台机器来接管世界。人们对那种场景已经太害怕了。
PETER THIEL It’s a very implausible plot hole. But I think we have an answer to this plot hole. The way the Antichrist would take over the world is you talk about Armageddon nonstop. You talk about existential risk nonstop. And this is what you need to regulate. It’s the opposite of the picture of Baconian science from the 17th, 18th century, where the Antichrist is like some evil tech genius, evil scientist who invents this machine to take over the world. People are way too scared for that.
彼得·蒂尔 在我们的世界里，有政治共鸣的东西恰恰相反。有政治共鸣的是”我们需要停止科学”，我们需要对此说”停”。在十七世纪，我可以想象一个奇爱博士、爱德华·泰勒类型的人接管世界。在我们的世界里，更有可能的是格雷塔·通贝里。
PETER THIEL In our world, the thing that has political resonance is the opposite. It is the thing that has political resonance is we need to stop science. We need to just say stop to this. And this is where, yeah, I don’t know. In the 17th century, I can imagine a Dr. Strangelove, Edward Teller type person taking over the world. In our world, it’s far more likely to be Greta Thunberg.
现代敌基督：通过恐惧进行控制 The Modern Antichrist: Control Through Fear 罗斯·多塔特 好的。我想在这两个选项之间提出一个折中的看法。过去，对敌基督的合理恐惧是某种技术巫师。而现在合理的恐惧是某个承诺控制技术、使其安全、并引入一种从你的角度来看是普遍停滞的未来的人。对吧。
ROSS DOUTHAT Okay. I want to suggest a middle ground between those two options. It used to be that the reasonable fear of the Antichrist was a kind of wizard of technology. And now the reasonable fear is someone who promises to control technology, make it safe, and sort of usher in what, from your point of view would be a kind of universal stagnation. Right.
彼得·蒂尔 好吧，那更像是我对它会如何发生的描述。
PETER THIEL Well, that’s more my description of how it would happen.
罗斯·多塔特 对。
ROSS DOUTHAT Right.
彼得·蒂尔 所以我认为人们仍然对十七世纪式的敌基督心存恐惧。我们仍然害怕奇爱博士。
PETER THIEL So I think people still have a fear of a 17th century Antichrist. We’re still scared of Dr. Strangelove.
罗斯·多塔特 对。但你是说真正的敌基督会利用那种恐惧，说：”你必须跟我来，才能避免天网，避免终结者，避免核末日大战。”
ROSS DOUTHAT Right. But you’re saying the real Antichrist would play on that fear and say, “You must come with me to avoid Skynet, to avoid the Terminator, to avoid nuclear Armageddon.”
彼得·蒂尔 是的。
PETER THIEL Yes.
罗斯·多塔特 我的观点是，看看现在的世界，你需要某种新型的技术进步来使那种恐惧具体化。对。如果世界相信AI即将毁灭所有人，我可以相信世界会转向某个承诺和平与监管的人。对。但我认为要到达那个点，你需要其中一个加速主义末日场景开始上演。对。要得到你所说的”和平与安全”敌基督，你需要更多的技术进步。
ROSS DOUTHAT And I guess my view would be looking at the world right now, that you would need a certain kind of novel technological progress to make that fear concrete. Right. So I can buy that the world could turn to someone who promised peace and regulation if the world became convinced that AI was about to destroy everybody. Right. But I think to get to that point, you need one of the accelerationist apocalyptic scenarios to start to play out. Right. To get your peace and safety Antichrist, you need more technological progress.
罗斯·多塔特 就像二十世纪极权主义的关键失败之一是它有一个知识问题——它无法知道世界各地正在发生什么。对。所以你需要AI或其他什么东西来帮助”和平与安全”的极权统治。所以你不认为——本质上——你最坏的情况需要涉及某种进步的爆发，然后被驯服并用来强加停滞的极权主义吗？你不能只是从我们现在的位置直接到达那里。
ROSS DOUTHAT Like one of the key failures of totalitarianism in the 20th century was it had a problem of knowledge. It couldn’t know what was going on all over in the world. Right. So you need the AI or whatever else to be capable of helping the peace and safety, totalitarian rule. So don’t you think you need, essentially you need your worst case scenario to involve some burst of progress that is then tamed and used to impose stagnant totalitarianism? You can’t just get there from where we are right now.
罗斯·多塔特 好吧，它可以——就像格雷塔·通贝里在地中海的一艘船上抗议以色列那样。我只是不认为，在缺乏加速变化和对全面灾难的真正恐惧的情况下，现在对AI的安全承诺、对技术的安全承诺、甚至对气候变化的安全承诺能成为强大的、普遍的号召力。
ROSS DOUTHAT Well, it can, like Greta Thunberg’s on a boat in the Mediterranean, like, you know, like protesting Israel, like the. I just don’t see the promise of safety from AI, safety from tech, safety, even safety from climate change right now as a powerful, universal rallying cry. Absent accelerating change and real fear of total catastrophe.
彼得·蒂尔 我是说，这些事情很难评判。但我认为环保主义相当强大。我不知道它是否强大到足以创建一个一世界极权国家，但天哪，它确实——
PETER THIEL I mean, these things are so hard to score. But I think environmentalism’s pretty powerful. I don’t know if it’s absolutely powerful enough to create a one world totalitarian state, but man, it is.
罗斯·多塔特 我认为它目前的形式还不够。
ROSS DOUTHAT I think it is not in its current form.
彼得·蒂尔 我想说它是欧洲人仍然相信的唯一东西。他们对绿色事业的信仰超过了对伊斯兰沙里亚法的信仰，也超过了对中国共产主义极权接管的信仰。而”未来”——一个看起来与现在不同的未来——在欧洲能提供的选项只有三个：绿色、沙里亚和极权共产主义国家。而绿色的那个，在一个衰落、腐朽的地方，是迄今为止最强的。
PETER THIEL It is, I want to say it’s the only thing people still believe in in Europe. Like, you know, they believe in the green thing more than Islamic Sharia law or more than in, you know, the Chinese communist totalitarian takeover. And the future is an idea of a future that looks different from the present. The only three on offer in Europe are green Sharia and you know, the totalitarian communist state. And the green one is by far the strongest in a declining, decaying.
罗斯·多塔特 那是一个在世界上已不是主导力量的欧洲。
ROSS DOUTHAT Europe that is not a dominant player in the world.
彼得·蒂尔 它总是在一个具体语境下，对吧？我们有一段非常复杂的核技术历史。我们确实没有到达一个极权的一世界国家。但到了1970年代，停滞的一个解释是：技术的失控进步已经变得非常可怕。培根式科学在洛斯阿拉莫斯终结了——它在那里结束了，我们不想再有更多了。
PETER THIEL It’s always in a context, right? And then I would, you know, I don’t know, you know, we had this really complicated history with the way nuclear technology worked. And you know, we, okay, we didn’t. Yeah, we didn’t really get to, you know, a totalitarian one world state. But you know, by the 1970s, one account of the stagnation is that the runaway progress of technology had gotten very scary and that, you know, Baconian science, it ended at Los Alamos and then it was okay, it ended there and we didn’t want to have any more.
彼得·蒂尔 当查尔斯·曼森在六十年代末服用LSD并开始杀人时，他在LSD上看到的、学到的是：你可以像陀思妥耶夫斯基笔下的反英雄一样，”一切皆被允许”。当然，不是每个人都变成了查尔斯·曼森。但在我对历史的叙述中，每个人都变得和查尔斯·曼森一样疯狂。
PETER THIEL And you know, when Charles Manson took LSD in the late 60s and started murdering people, what he saw on LSD, what he learned was that you could be like Dostoyevsky, an anti hero in Dostoyevsky and everything was permitted. And of course, not everyone became Charles Manson but Charles Hellingson. But in my telling of the history, everyone became as deranged as Charles Manson.
罗斯·多塔特 但查尔斯·曼森并没有成为敌基督并接管世界。对，我只是——我们正以末世论收尾。
ROSS DOUTHAT But Charles Manson did not become the Antichrist and take over the world. Right, I’m just. We’re ending in the apocalyptic.
彼得·蒂尔 不，但我对1970年代历史的叙述是：嬉皮士确实赢了。我们在1969年7月登上了月球，伍德斯托克三周后开始。事后看来，那就是进步停止、嬉皮士获胜的时刻。是的，它不是字面上的查尔斯·曼森。
PETER THIEL No, but my telling of the history of the 1970s is the hippies did win and they landed, we landed on the moon in July of 1969. Woodstock started three weeks later. And with a benefit of hindsight, that’s when progress stopped and the hippies won. And yeah, it was not literally Charles, man.
建造控制工具的讽刺 The Irony of Building the Tools of Control 罗斯·多塔特 好的，但你在退却。我想以敌基督收尾。而且你在退却，你说，好的，环保主义已经是支持停滞的了等等。好，让我们同意所有这些，但我们现在并没有生活在敌基督的统治下。我们只是停滞了。对。而你假设地平线上可能有更糟糕的东西，会使停滞永久化，会被恐惧驱动。而我在说，要发生这种情况，必须有某种类似于洛斯阿拉莫斯的技术进步爆发，让人们感到害怕。
ROSS DOUTHAT Okay, but you’re retreating. You’re just. I want to stay with the Antichrist just to end. Right, because. And you’re retreating, you’re saying, okay, you know, environmentalism is already pro stagnation and so on. Okay, let’s agree with all that, but we’re not living under, we’re not living under the Antichrist right now. We’re just stagnant. Right. And you’re positing that something worse could be on the horizon that would make stagnation permanent, that would be driven by fear. And I’m suggesting that for that to happen, there would have to be some burst of technological progress that was akin to Los Alamos that people are afraid of.
罗斯·多塔特 我想这是我对你非常具体的问题，对吧——你是AI的投资者，你深度投资于Palantir，投资于军事技术、监控技术、战争技术等等。对吧？而当你给我讲一个关于敌基督掌权、利用对技术变革的恐惧来对世界强加秩序的故事时，我觉得那个敌基督很可能会使用你正在建造的工具，对吧？
ROSS DOUTHAT And I guess this is my very specific question for you, right, is that you’re an investor in AI you’re deeply invested in Palantir, in military technology and technologies of surveillance and technologies of warfare and so on. Right? And it just seems to me that when you tell me a story about the Antichrist coming to power and using the fear of technological change to sort of impose order on the world, I feel like that Antichrist would be, maybe be using the tools that you were building, right?
罗斯·多塔特 敌基督不会说：”太好了，我们不会再有任何技术进步了。但我真的很喜欢Palantir迄今为止所做的。”对吧。我是说，这不是一个担忧吗？历史的讽刺不会是：那个公开担心敌基督的人，反而意外地加速了他或她的到来？
ROSS DOUTHAT Like, wouldn’t the Antichrist be like, “Great, you know, we’re not going to have any more technological progress. But I really like what Palantir has done so far.” Right. I mean, isn’t that a concern? Wouldn’t that be the, you know, the irony of history would be that the man publicly worrying about the Antichrist accidentally hastens his or her arrival?
彼得·蒂尔 听着，有各种不同的场景。我显然不认为那是我正在做的。
PETER THIEL Look, there are all these different scenarios. I obviously don’t think that that’s what I’m doing.
停滞的敌基督 The Antichrist of Stagnation 罗斯·多塔特 说清楚，我也不认为那是你正在做的。我只是好奇：你如何让一个世界愿意服从永久的威权统治？
ROSS DOUTHAT I mean, to be clear, I don’t think that’s what you’re doing either. I’m just interested in how you get to a world willing to submit to permanent authoritarian rule.
彼得·蒂尔 好吧，再说一遍，有不同的程度我们可以描述。但这真的那么荒谬吗？——我刚才告诉你的，作为对停滞的一个广泛解释——整个世界已经屈服于五十年的”和平与安全主义”了？这出自帖撒罗尼迦前书5:3。敌基督的口号就是”和平与安全”。而我们已经臣服于它了。
PETER THIEL Well, but again, there are these different gradations of this we can describe. But is this so preposterous, what I’ve just told you as a broad account of the stagnation that the entire world has submitted for 50 years to “Peace and Safetyism”? This is 1 Thessalonians 5:3. The slogan of the Antichrist is “peace and safety.” And we’ve submitted to it.
彼得·蒂尔 FDA不仅监管美国的药物，而且事实上监管着全世界的药物，因为世界其他地方都听从FDA。核管理委员会有效地监管着世界各地的核电站。你不能设计一个模块化核反应堆然后在阿根廷建造它——他们不会信任阿根廷的监管机构，他们会听从美国。
PETER THIEL The FDA regulates not just drugs in the US but de facto in the whole world, because the rest of the world defers to the FDA. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission effectively regulates nuclear power plants all over the world. People, you can’t design a modular nuclear reactor and just build it in Argentina. They won’t trust the Argentinian regulators. They’re going to defer to the US.
彼得·蒂尔 所以这至少是一个关于为什么我们有五十年停滞的问题。一个答案是我们的点子用完了。另一个答案是文化上发生了什么，不再允许这样做了。而文化答案可以是自下而上的——人类某种程度上转变成了一种更顺从的物种；也可以至少部分是自上而下的——有这套政府机器被改造成了停滞装置。
PETER THIEL So it is at least a question about why we’ve had 50 years of stagnation and one answer is we ran out of ideas. The other answer is that something happened culturally where it wasn’t allowed. And then the cultural answer can be sort of a bottom up answer, that it was just some transformation of humanity into this sort of more docile kind of a species or it can be at least partially top down that there is this machinery of government that got changed into this stagnation thing.
彼得·蒂尔 我认为像核电这样的东西本应是二十一世纪的能源，而它不知何故在全球范围内被叫停了。
PETER THIEL I think something like nuclear power was supposed to be the power of the 21st century and it somehow has gotten off ramped all over the world on a worldwide basis.
罗斯·多塔特 所以从某种意义上说，按照你的叙述，我们已经生活在敌基督的温和统治下了。你认为上帝在掌控历史吗？
ROSS DOUTHAT So in a sense we’re already living under a moderate rule of the Antichrist. In that telling. Do you think God is in control of history?
人类自由与神圣决定论 Human Freedom vs. Divine Determinism 彼得·蒂尔 我认为人类自由和人类选择总是有其空间的。这些事情并非绝对预定。
PETER THIEL I think there’s always room for human freedom and human choice. These things are not absolutely predetermined one way or another.
罗斯·多塔特 对吧？但上帝不会让我们永远处于一个温和的、适度的停滞主义敌基督的统治之下，对吧？那不可能是故事的结局，对吧？
ROSS DOUTHAT Right? But God wouldn’t leave us forever under the rule of a mild, moderate stagnationist Antichrist, right? That can’t be how the story ends, right?
彼得·蒂尔 把太多因果归于上帝总是个问题。我可以给你引用不同的圣经经文。约翰福音15:25，基督说”他们无故恨我”。所以，所有迫害基督的人都没有理由、没有原因。
PETER THIEL Attributing too much causation to God is always a problem. You know, I don’t know, there are different Bible verses I can give you. But I’ll give you John 15:25 where Christ says “they hated me without cause.” And so it’s all these people that are persecuting Christ have no reason, no cause for why they’re persecuting Christ.
彼得·蒂尔 如果我们把这解释为一个关于终极因果的经文，他们就会说”我迫害基督是因为上帝让我这样做，上帝在主宰一切”。而基督教的观点是反加尔文主义的：上帝并不在历史背后操控，上帝并没有在主导一切。如果你说上帝在主导一切，那么上帝就是——
PETER THIEL And if we interpret this as a ultimate causation verse, they want to say I’m persecuting because God caused me to do this. God is causing everything. And the Christian view is anti-Calvinist. God is not behind history. God is not causing everything. If you say God’s causing everything, then God is—
罗斯·多塔特 但等等，上帝是——
ROSS DOUTHAT But wait, but God is—
彼得·蒂尔 你在拿上帝当替罪羊。
PETER THIEL You’re scapegoating God.
罗斯·多塔特 但上帝在……好吧，上帝在耶稣基督进入历史这件事的背后，因为上帝不会坐视我们困在一个停滞的、颓废的罗马帝国里。对吧？所以在某个时刻，上帝会介入。
ROSS DOUTHAT But God is behind—okay, but God is behind Jesus Christ entering history because God was not going to leave us in a stagnationist, decadent Roman Empire. Right? So at some point, at some point God is going to step in.
彼得·蒂尔 我没那么加尔文主义。
PETER THIEL I am not that Calvinist.
罗斯·多塔特 但那不是加尔文主义，那只是基督教。上帝不会让我们永远盯着屏幕、被格雷塔·通贝里训斥。对吧？他不会抛弃我们，任由我们遭受那种命运。
ROSS DOUTHAT And that’s not Calvinism though, that’s just Christianity. God will not leave us eternally staring into screens and being lectured by Greta Thunberg. Right? He will not abandon us to that fate.
人类行动的空间 The Scope for Human Action 彼得·蒂尔 人类行动、人类自由有很大的空间。如果我认为这些事情是决定论的，那你还不如干脆躺平接受。狮子来了，你就做做瑜伽、虔诚地冥想，然后坐等狮子把你吃掉。我不认为那是你该做的。
PETER THIEL There is a great deal of scope for human action, for human freedom. If I thought these things were deterministic, you might as well maybe just accept it. The lions are coming. You should just have some yoga and prayerful meditation and wait while the lions eat you up. And I don’t think that’s what you’re supposed to do.
罗斯·多塔特 不，我同意。在这个基调上，我只是想保持希望：在试图抵抗敌基督、运用你的人类自由时，你应该抱有成功的希望。对。
ROSS DOUTHAT No, I agree with that. And I think on that note, I’m just trying to be hopeful and suggesting that, you know, in trying to resist the Antichrist, using your human freedom, you should have hope that you’ll succeed. Right.
彼得·蒂尔 在这一点上我们可以达成共识。
PETER THIEL We can agree on that.
罗斯·多塔特 好的。彼得·蒂尔，感谢你的参与。
ROSS DOUTHAT Good. Peter Thiel, thank you for joining me.
彼得·蒂尔 谢谢。
PETER THIEL Thank you.
- 【e/acc】有效加速主义、量子热力学与AI未来 | 物理学家、e/acc运动创始人Guillaume Verdon与Lex Fridman播客实录 | 中英文完整版精译 I
- 【酒后真言】AI工厂、物理智能：英伟达CEO黄仁勋与思科CEO Chuck Robbins炉边对话 | 中英文完整版精译
- 超级智能、顺从型AI、超人类主义、基督与超越：PayPal、Palantir联合创始人彼得·蒂尔2025年6月播客实录 | 中英文完整版精译（下篇）
- 技术停滞、回到未来、风险承担 | PayPal、Palantir联合创始人彼得·蒂尔2025年6月播客实录 | 中英文完整版精译 （上篇）
- 与外星人进行贸易，应该用什么货币？
- 2026年投资展望：Year of D——持盈保泰，因利制权
- R星创始人、《侠盗猎车手》与《荒野大镖客》创作者丹·豪瑟2025年11月播客实录 | 中英文完整版精译 Part3
- R星创始人、《侠盗猎车手》与《荒野大镖客》创作者丹·豪瑟2025年11月播客实录 | 中英文完整版精译 Part2
- R星创始人、《侠盗猎车手》与《荒野大镖客》创作者丹·豪瑟2025年11月播客实录 | 中英文完整版精译 Part1
- Existence Series (Part 1) | Eternal Recurrence: If your life ended right at this moment, would you choose to replay it?