Welcome to LZN's Blog!
Wind extinguishes a candle but energizes fire.-
【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.
-
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）
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。其采访涉及技术停滞论、增长与环保的辩证、《回到未来》测试、医学研究中的风险承担、政治风险投资等深刻议题，言论犀利，思路深邃。初稿采用Claude API机器翻译及排版，书童仅做简单校对及批注，将分上下篇两个部分发布，以飨诸君。
彼得·蒂尔：人工智能、火星与不朽——我们的梦够大吗？ | 罗斯·多塔特"有趣时代"播客 Peter Thiel: A.I., Mars and Immortality: Are We Dreaming Big Enough? | Interesting Times with Ross Douthat 技术停滞论 The Case for Technological Stagnation 罗斯·多塔特 硅谷是否过于野心勃勃？我们更应该担忧世界末日还是发展停滞？为什么世界上最成功的投资者之一会担心反基督的降临？
ROSS DOUTHAT Is Silicon Valley recklessly ambitious? What should we fear more, Armageddon or stagnation? Why is one of the world’s most successful investors worrying about the Antichrist?
罗斯·多塔特 我今天的嘉宾是PayPal和Palantir的联合创始人，也是唐纳德·特朗普和J.D.万斯政治生涯的早期资助者。彼得·蒂尔是科技右翼的核心人物，以资助各种保守派和逆流而上的思想著称。今天我们要谈的是他自己的想法，因为尽管身为亿万富翁略有劣势，但有充分理由证明他是过去20年最具影响力的右翼知识分子。彼得·蒂尔，欢迎来到”有趣时代”。
ROSS DOUTHAT My guest today is the co-founder of PayPal and Palantir and an early investor in the political careers of Donald Trump and J.D. Vance. Peter Thiel is the original tech right power player, well known for funding a range of conservative and simply contrarian ideas. But we’re going to talk about his own ideas because despite the slight handicap of being a billionaire, there’s a good case that he’s the most influential right wing intellectual of the last 20 years. Peter Thiel, welcome to Interesting Times.
彼得·蒂尔 感谢邀请。
PETER THIEL Thanks for having me.
罗斯·多塔特 非常欢迎。感谢你来到这里。我想先让你回忆大约13或14年前的事情。你为保守派杂志《国家评论》写了一篇名为《未来的终结》的文章。文章的基本论点是，那种充满活力、节奏快、瞬息万变的现代世界，实际上并没有人们所想的那么充满活力。
ROSS DOUTHAT You’re very welcome. Thanks for being here. So I want to start by taking you back in time about 13 or 14 years. You wrote an essay for National Review, the conservative magazine called “The End of the Future.” And basically the argument in that essay was that the dynamic, fast-paced, ever-changing modern world was just not nearly as dynamic as people thought.
罗斯·多塔特 实际上我们进入了一个技术停滞的时期。数字生活是一个突破，但并没有达到人们期望的那样巨大。归根结底，世界基本上陷在里面。你并不是唯一提出这种论断的人，但你向来是最有力支持这一论断的人，因为你是在数字革命中致富的硅谷人。所以我很好奇，在2025年，你认为这种判断仍然成立吗？
ROSS DOUTHAT And that actually we entered a period of technological stagnation. That sort of digital life was a breakthrough, but not as big a breakthrough as people had hoped. And that sort of the world was kind of stuck, basically. And you weren’t the only person to make arguments like this, but it had a special potency coming from you because you were a Silicon Valley insider who had gotten rich in the digital revolution. So I’m curious, in 2025, right, do you think that diagnosis still holds?
彼得·蒂尔 是的，我仍然大体上相信停滞论。它从来不是一个绝对的论断。所谓的主张并不是说我们完全绝对地陷入泥潭。某种程度上，这是一个关于速度放缓的论断——速度并没有降为零，但你看从1750年到1970年……（分明更快）
PETER THIEL Yes, I still broadly believe in the stagnation thesis. It was never an absolute thesis. So the claim was not that we were absolutely completely stuck. It was in some ways a claim about that the velocity had slowed, it wasn’t zero, but that we were, I don’t know, from 1750 to 1970.
彼得·蒂尔 两百多年是加速变化的时期，我们不断地、无情地前进。轮船更快了，铁路更快了，汽车更快了，飞机更快了。这在协和式客机和阿波罗登月任务时达到顶点，之后在各种层面上事情都放慢了。
PETER THIEL Two hundred plus years were periods of accelerating change where we’re relentlessly, we’re moving faster. The ships were faster, the railroads were faster, the cars were faster, the planes were faster. It culminates in the Concorde and the Apollo missions and then that in all sorts of dimensions things had slowed.
彼得·蒂尔 我们一直（仅仅）在数字世界例外。所以我们有计算机、软件、互联网和移动互联网。而且在过去10-15年里，我们有了加密货币和人工智能革命，我认为这在某种意义上确实很重大。但问题是，它是否足以让我们真正摆脱这种普遍的停滞感？
PETER THIEL There was, you know, I always made an exception for the world of bits. So we had, you know, computers and software and Internet and mobile Internet. And then, you know, the last 10, 15 years you had crypto and the AI revolution, which I think is, is, is in some sense pretty big. But, but the question is, you know, is it enough to, to really get out of this, this generalized sense of stagnation?
彼得·蒂尔 这里有一个认识论的问题，你可以从《回到未来》那篇文章（书童注：指2011年1月20日Peter Thiel受National Review邀约采访的通稿）谈起。我们怎么知道自己是处于停滞还是加速之中？因为晚期现代性的特征之一就是人们过度专业化。如果你没有花半辈子研究弦理论，你怎么敢说我们在物理学上没有取得进步？量子计算机呢？癌症研究和生物技术以及所有这些领域呢？而且你还得给这些事情分配权重——比如癌症研究的进步与弦理论的进步，该如何比较？所以从理论上说，这是一个极其、极其难以把握的问题。正因为它太难回答，我们只能依赖越来越窄的专家群体各自守护自己的领地，而这本身就值得质疑。所以是的，我认为我们大体上仍然处在一个相当停滞的世界里。但并非完全停滞。
PETER THIEL And there’s an epistemological question you can start with on the, you know, the, the “Back to the Future” essays. How do we even, how do we even know whether we’re in stagnation or acceleration? Because one of the features of late modernity is that people are hyper specialized. And so, you know, you know, can you say that we’re not making progress in physics unless you’ve devoted half your life to studying string theory? Or what about quantum computers or what about cancer research and biotech and sort of all these verticals and then how much does progress in cancer count versus string theory? And so you have to give weightings to all these things. So in theory, it’s an extremely, extremely difficult question to get a handle of because, yeah, the fact that it’s so hard to answer that we have ever narrower groups of guardians guarding themselves is itself cause for skepticism. And so, yes, I think broadly we’re in this world that’s still pretty stuck. It’s not absolutely stuck.
《回到未来》测试 The Back to the Future Test 罗斯·多塔特 是的，你提到了《回到未来》（书童注：罗伯特·泽米吉斯于1985年导演的科幻电影，非常值得一看），我们刚刚给孩子们看了原版《回到未来》，就是第一部，有迈克尔·J·福克斯的那部，当然就像……
ROSS DOUTHAT Yeah, you mentioned “Back to the Future” and we just showed our kids the original “Back to the Future,” the first one with Michael J. Fox, and of course it was like.
彼得·蒂尔 从1955到1985，回了30年。然后《回到未来2》是，我想是从1985到2015，这距今已经过去十年了。那就是有飞行汽车的地方。而2015年的未来与现实截然不同。
PETER THIEL 1955 to 1985, 30 years back. And then the “Back to the Future Two” was I think 1985 to 2015, which is now a decade in the past. And that’s where you had flying cars. And the 2015 future is wildly divergent.
罗斯·多塔特 与美国不同。2015年的未来中确实有比夫·坦能（《回到未来》中的虚构人物）似的唐纳德·特朗普作为掌权任务，所以有一定的预见性。但是，最明显的事情就是建筑环境看起来多么不同。
ROSS DOUTHAT From the United States. The 2015 future did have Biff Tannen as a Donald Trump-like figure in some kind of power. So it had some kind of prescience. But yeah, the big noticeable thing is just how different the built environment looks.
罗斯·多塔特 所以关于停滞论最有力的论据之一就是，如果你把某人从历史的各个时间点放进一台时间机器里，如果他们离开了1860年或——
ROSS DOUTHAT And so one of the strongest cases for stagnation that I’ve heard is that, yeah, if you put someone in a time machine from various points, they would recognize themselves to be in a completely different world if they left 1860 or.
彼得·蒂尔 从1890年到1970年，如果你活了这80年，那大概就是你的一辈子。
PETER THIEL 1890 to 1970, if you lived, those are the 80 years of your lifetime, something like that.
罗斯·多塔特 但对于我的孩子们来说，即使他们是2025年的孩子，回头看1985年，就像汽车稍微有些不同，没有人有手机，但世界看起来基本上是一样的。所以这是一种非统计学的，但这是常识性的理解。
ROSS DOUTHAT But the world just to my kids, even, you know, as children of 2025, looking at 1985, it’s like the cars are a little different and no one has phones, but the world seems fairly similar. So that’s a kind of, that’s a kind of non-statistical. But that’s the common sense. It’s a common sense understanding.
罗斯·多塔特 但是，有什么东西可以让你相信我们正在经历一个起飞期？仅仅是经济增长吗？是生产率增长？你在看哪些停滞与活力的数据？
ROSS DOUTHAT But are there like, what, what would convince you that we were living through a period of takeoff? Is it just economic growth? Is it productivity growth? Like what are, are there numbers for stagnation versus dynamism that you look at?
彼得·蒂尔 当然，经济数据就是，你的生活水平与父母相比如何？比如说，如果你是一个30岁的千禧一代，你与你的父母——你的婴儿潮一代父母在30岁时相比，他们当时怎么样？
PETER THIEL Sure, it would be well, the economic number would just be how, you know, what are your living standards compared to your parents? You know, if you’re a 30-year-old millennial or you know, how are you doing versus when your parent, your boomer parents were 30 years old, how did they do at the time?
彼得·蒂尔 还有一些知识层面的问题，我们取得了多少突破？
PETER THIEL There are intellectual questions, how much, you know, how many breakthroughs are we having?
彼得·蒂尔 我们怎么量化这些事情？从事研究的回报是多少？从事科学或学术研究的回报确实在递减。也许这就是为什么其中许多领域给人一种反社会型的马尔萨斯式机构的感觉——因为你必须向某个领域投入越来越多的资源，才能获得同样的回报。到了某个临界点，人们就放弃了，整个体系便会崩溃。
PETER THIEL How do we quantify these things? Like, what are the returns of going into research? There certainly are diminishing returns to going into science or going into academia generally. And then maybe this is why so much of it feels like this sociopathic Malthusian kind of an institution, because you have to throw more and more and more at something to get the same returns. And at some point people give up and the thing collapses.
反增长的环保论据 The Environmental Argument Against Growth 罗斯·多塔特 好的，我们就接上这个话题吧。为什么我们应该想要增长和活力？因为正如你在一些论据中指出的那样，在西方世界的1970年代——大约是你认为事情放慢、开始停滞的时候——发生了一种文化变化，人们对增长的成本变得非常焦虑——尤其是环境成本。
ROSS DOUTHAT Well, right, so let’s pick up on that. Why should we want growth and dynamism? Because as you’ve pointed out in some of your arguments on the subject, right, there is a kind of cultural change that happens in the Western world in the 1970s, around the time you think things slow down, start to stagnate, where people become very anxious about the costs of growth, the environmental costs above all.
罗斯·多塔特 而这个想法就是你最终会形成一种广泛共享的观点，即我们已经足够富有了，如果我们试图过度致富，地球将无法支持我们，会产生各种退化，我们应该满足于现在的状态。那么这个论点哪里出了问题？
ROSS DOUTHAT And the idea being you end up with a widely shared perspective that we’re sort of rich enough and if we try too hard to get that much richer, the planet won’t be able to support us, we’ll have degradation of various kinds, and we should be content with where we are. So what’s wrong with that argument?
彼得·蒂尔 好吧，我认为停滞的发生有其深层原因。这里总有三个问题。你问历史上发生了什么，还有一个问题是应该采取什么措施。但中间还有一个问题：为什么会发生？——人们的想法枯竭了。我认为在一定程度上，机构退化了，变得厌恶风险，还有我们可以描述的那些文化变迁。
PETER THIEL Well, I think there are deep reasons the stagnation happens. So there are always three questions. You ask about history, what actually happened, and there’s a question, get to what should be done about it. But there’s also this intermediate question, why did it happen? People ran out of ideas. I think to some extent the institutions degraded and became risk averse and sort of these cultural transformations we can describe.
彼得·蒂尔 但我也认为在一定程度上，人们对未来有一些非常合理的担忧。如果我们继续加速进步，我们是否会加速走向环境末日或核末日，诸如此类？
PETER THIEL But then I think to some extent also people had some very legitimate worries about the future. Where if we continue to have accelerating progress, were you accelerating towards environmental apocalypse or nuclear apocalypse or things like that?
彼得·蒂尔 但我认为，如果我们找不到回到未来的方式，社会就会——怎么说呢——瓦解，运转不下去。中产阶级，我对中产阶级的定义是那些期望子女比自己过得更好的人。当这种期望崩塌时，我们便不再是一个中产阶级社会。
PETER THIEL But I think if we don’t find a way back to the future, I do think the society, I don’t know, it unravels, it doesn’t work. The middle class, I would define the middle class as the people who expect their kids to do better than themselves. And when that expectation collapses, we no longer have a middle class society.
彼得·蒂尔 也许有某种方式可以拥有一个静态且停滞的封建社会，或者也许有某种方式可以转向某种完全不同的社会，但这不是西方世界、也不是美国在其前200年中运作的方式。
PETER THIEL And maybe there’s, maybe there’s some way you can have a feudal society in which things are always static and stuck or Maybe there’s some way you can shift to some radically different society, but it’s not the way the Western world, it’s not the way the United States has functioned for the first 200 years of its existence.
罗斯·多塔特 所以你认为普通人最终不会接受停滞，他们会起来反叛，并在叛乱过程中把周围的一切拉垮？
ROSS DOUTHAT So you think that ordinary people won’t accept stagnation in the end, it’s that they will rebel and sort of pull things down around them in the course of that rebellion.
彼得·蒂尔 他们可能会反叛，或者我们的制度就行不通了。我们的制度中（经济）增长是一切的预设条件。
PETER THIEL You know, they may rebel or our institutions don’t work. You know, all of our institutions are predicated on growth.
罗斯·多塔特 确实如此。我们的预算当然预设了增长。
ROSS DOUTHAT Right. Our budgets are certainly predicated on growth.
彼得·蒂尔 是的。比如对比里根和奥巴马——里根代表的是消费主义式的资本主义，这本身就是矛盾修辞。就是说，你靠借钱消费，作为资本家你不存钱，反而借钱。奥巴马则代表低税社会主义，和里根的消费主义式资本主义一样自相矛盾。
PETER THIEL Yeah. If you say, I don’t know, Reagan and Obama, you know, Reagan was, was sort of consumer capitalism, which is oxymoronic. It was, you know, you borrowed, you don’t save money as a capitalist. You borrow money. And Obama was low tax socialism just as oxymoronic as the consumerist capitalism of Reagan.
彼得·蒂尔 而且我喜欢低税社会主义远胜于高税社会主义。但我担心它不可持续。在某个时刻，要么税率会上涨，要么社会主义会终结。所以它是深层不稳定的。这就是为什么人们不乐观。他们不认为我们已经到达了某种稳定的——格雷塔（书童注：瑞典激进环保主义者）式的未来。也许那可以行得通。
PETER THIEL And I like low tax socialism way better than high tax socialism. But I worry that it’s not sustainable. At some point, either the taxes go up or the socialism ends. So it’s, it’s, it’s deeply, deeply unstable. And that’s, that’s why people are, they’re not optimistic. They, they don’t think we’ve hit some stable, you know, the Greta future. Maybe it can work.
罗斯·多塔特 这是指格雷塔·通贝里。为了清楚说明，这是对环保活动人士格雷塔·通贝里的引用，她以反气候变化抗议而闻名，在你看来，她代表着一种反增长、实际上是威权主义的、环保主义主导的未来的象征。
ROSS DOUTHAT This is the Greta Thunberg. Just to be clear, that’s a reference to Greta Thunberg, the activist best known for anti-climate change protests, who to you, I would say represents a kind of symbol of a kind of anti-growth, effectively authoritarian, environmentalist dominated future.
彼得·蒂尔 当然。但我们还没走到那一步。我们还没走到那一步。如果你——
PETER THIEL Sure. But we’re not there yet. We’re not there yet. You know, it would be, it’d be like a very, very different society if you, if you, if you, if you.
罗斯·多塔特 真正生活在一种去增长的——你知道——小斯堪的纳维亚式的村落中。
ROSS DOUTHAT Actually lived in a kind of degrowth, you know, small Scandinavian villages.
彼得·蒂尔 我不确定它是否像朝鲜，但它一定是极度压迫人的。
PETER THIEL I’m not sure it would be North Korea, but it would be, it would be super oppressive.
危机寻求的危险 The Danger of Crisis-Seeking 罗斯·多塔特 有一件事始终让我印象深刻：当社会弥漫着停滞感、衰败感——借用我偏爱的那个词——你会发现一些人开始渴望危机。渴望某个时刻的到来，让他们可以彻底将社会从当前的轨道转向另一条道路。
ROSS DOUTHAT One thing that’s always struck me is that when you have this sense of stagnation, a sense of decadence. Right. To use, to, to use a word that I, I like to use for it in, in a society, you then also have people who end up being kind of eager for a crisis. Right. Eager for a moment to come along where, you know, they can, they can radically redirect society from the path it’s on.
罗斯·多塔特 因为我倾向于认为，在富裕社会中，当财富积累到一定程度，人们会变得非常安逸，厌恶风险，而要从衰败中走向某种新事物确实很难——没有危机就很难做到。对我来说，最典型的例子是9·11事件之后，外交政策保守派中弥漫着一种观念：我们此前一直深陷衰败与停滞，现在是我们觉醒并发动新十字军、重塑世界的时候了。显然那个结果非常糟糕。但类似的思潮——
ROSS DOUTHAT Because I tend to think that in rich societies you hit a certain level of wealth, people become very comfortable, they become risk averse, and it’s just hard, it’s hard to get out of decadence into something, into something new without a crisis. So the original example for me was after September 11, there was this whole mentality among foreign policy conservatives that we had been decadent and stagnant and now is our time to, you know, wake up and launch a new crusade and remake the world. And obviously that ended very badly. But something similar it was, it was.
彼得·蒂尔 小布什直接告诉人们去购物就好了。
PETER THIEL Bush 43 just told people to go shopping right away.
罗斯·多塔特 所以对他们来说并没有反衰败。
ROSS DOUTHAT So it wasn’t anti-decadent for them.
彼得·蒂尔 大部分情况下是这样。所以你看，也许在一些新保守派外交政策圈子里，有人在”角色扮演”以试图走出衰败。但最主流的态度是小布什告诉人们——你们继续去购物吧。
PETER THIEL For the most part. So you, there was, there was, maybe there was some neocon foreign policy enclave in which people were larping as a way to get out of decadence. But the, the dominant thing was Bush 43, people telling people just to go shopping.
罗斯·多塔特 那么，为了逃脱衰败，你愿意承担多大的风险？似乎这里确实存在一种危险，那就是想要反衰败的人必须承受大量风险。他们必须说，看，你们有这个好的、稳定的、舒适的社会，但猜猜呢？我们希望打一场仗，或者制造一场危机，又或者完全重组政府等等。他们必须倾向于冒险。
ROSS DOUTHAT So what risks should you be willing to take to escape decadence? It does seem like there’s a danger here where the people who want to be anti-decadent have to take on a lot of risk. They have to say, look, you’ve got this nice, stable, comfortable society, but guess what? We’d like to have a war or a crisis or a total reorganization of government and so on. They have to lean into, into danger. Right.
彼得·蒂尔 我不知道我能否给你一个精确的答案，但我的方向性回答是——多得多，我们应该承担更多风险。我们应该做得更多，而且我不知道，我可以举例说明所有这些不同的领域。
PETER THIEL I don’t know if I have to answer, you know, I don’t know if I’ve give you a precise answer, but my directional answer is a lot more, we should take a lot more risk. We should be doing a lot more and I don’t know, I can go through all these different verticals.
彼得·蒂尔 比如说，如果我们看生物技术，像痴呆症、阿尔茨海默症这种疾病，我们在40到50年间几乎没有任何进展。人们完全困在β淀粉样蛋白上。显然行不通。这只是某种愚蠢的勾当，人们只是在互相强化。所以是的，我们在这个方面确实需要承担更多风险。
PETER THIEL It’s, you know, if we, if we look at biotech, something like dementia, Alzheimer’s, we’ve made zero progress in 40 to 50 years. People are completely stuck on beta amyloids. It’s obviously not working. It’s just some kind of a stupid racket where the people are just reinforcing themselves. And so, yes, we need to take way more risk in that department.
医学研究中的风险 Taking Risks in Medical Research 罗斯·多塔特 好吧，我想问一件具体的事情，让我们保持具体，我想在这个例子上再停留一下，问一下好的，说”我们需要在抗衰老研究中承担更多风险”到底意味着什么？这是意味着FDA必须后退，说任何人只要有治疗阿尔茨海默症的新疗法就可以直接在开放市场上销售吗？医学领域中的风险究竟是什么样子的？
ROSS DOUTHAT Well, I want to ask, to keep us in the concrete, I want to stay with that example for a minute and ask, okay, what does that mean saying we need to take more risks in anti-aging research? Does it mean that the FDA has to step back and say anyone who has a new treatment for Alzheimer’s can, you know, go ahead and sell it on the open market? Like, what is, what is, what is risk in the medical space look like?
彼得·蒂尔 是的，你确实会承担更多风险。如果你有某种致命疾病，你可能可以承受更多的风险。研究人员也可以承受更多的风险。
PETER THIEL Yeah, you would take a lot more risk. You know, if you have some fatal disease, there probably are a lot more risks you can take. There are a lot more risks the researchers can take.
彼得·蒂尔 从文化层面想象一下，那就像早期现代时期，那时人们确实认为我们会治愈疾病。他们认为我们会实现根本性的延长寿命、甚至不朽。这是早期现代的项目，是弗朗西斯·培根、孔多塞的信条。也许这反基督教，也许是基督教竞争的下游产物。如果基督教承诺了你肉体的复活，那么科学就必须承诺同样的事情才能成功。
PETER THIEL Culturally, what I imagine it looks like is early modernity where people, yeah, they thought we would cure diseases. They thought we would have radical life extension, immortality. That was part of the project of early modernity. It was Francis Bacon, Condorcet. And maybe it was anti Christian, maybe it was downstream of Christianity was competitive. If Christ, if Christianity promised you a physical resurrection, you know, science was not going to succeed unless it promised you the exact same thing.
彼得·蒂尔 我不知道。我记得1999年、2000年，那时我在经营PayPal，我的联合创始人之一卢克·诺塞克（Luke Nosek）对Alcor和人体冷冻学很感兴趣，他认为人们应该在死后冷冻自己。有一天我们带着整个公司去参加了一个”冷冻派对”——你知道，就像特百惠派对一样。在冷冻派对上人们推销冷冻保单。
PETER THIEL But I don’t know. I remember 1999, 2000, when I was running PayPal, one of my co founders, Luke Nosek, he was into Alcor and cryonics and people should freeze themselves. And we had one day where we took the whole company to a “freezing party.” You know, Tupperware party. People sell Tupperware policies at a freezing party.
罗斯·多塔特 他们出售的——只是头部会被冷冻吗？
ROSS DOUTHAT They sell their. Was it just your heads what was going to be frozen?
彼得·蒂尔 你可以选择全身或者只有头部。
PETER THIEL You could get a full body or just the head?
罗斯·多塔特 只冷冻头部比较便宜。
ROSS DOUTHAT Just the head was cheaper.
彼得·蒂尔 当点阵打印机出故障、冷冻保单打不出来的时候，场面确实挺诡异的。但回想起来，这仍然是技术停滞的一个缩影。
PETER THIEL It was disturbing when the dot matrix printer didn’t quite work and so the freezing policies couldn’t be printed out. But in retrospect, this was still technological stagnation once again.
罗斯·多塔特 确实。
ROSS DOUTHAT Right.
彼得·蒂尔 但这也是衰落的一个症候。在1999年，这并不是主流观点，但仍然存在一种边缘的婴儿潮一代的信念——他们仍然相信自己可以永生。而他们是最后一代这样想的人。我一向反感婴儿潮一代，但也许我们连这种边缘的婴儿潮式自恋都失去了——至少那时还有几个婴儿潮一代相信科学能治愈他们所有的疾病。今天没有哪个千禧一代还相信这种事了。
PETER THIEL But it’s also a symptom of the decline, because in 1999, this was not a mainstream view, but there were still a fringe boomer view where they still believed they could live forever. And that was the last generation. So I’m always anti boomer, but maybe there’s something we’ve lost even in this fringe boomer narcissism, where there were at least a few boomers who still believed science would cure all their diseases. No one who’s a millennial believes that anymore.
政治风险投资 Political Venture Capitalism 罗斯·多塔特 我认为还有一些人相信另一种不朽——现在，我认为对人工智能的痴迷有一部分与超越极限的特定愿景有关。在问你这个之前，我想先问你一些关于政治的事情。
ROSS DOUTHAT I think there are some people who believe in a different kind of immortality, though. Right now, I think part of the fascination with AI is connected to a specific vision of transcending limits. And I’m going to ask you about that after I ask you about politics.
罗斯·多塔特 因为你最初关于停滞的论断——主要关于技术和经济——中让我印象深刻的事情之一是，它可以被应用到很广泛的领域。而当你写那篇文章时，你对海洋家园感兴趣——本质上就是建造独立于僵化的西方世界的新政治体。
ROSS DOUTHAT Because one of the striking things I thought about your original argument on stagnation, which was mostly about technology and the economy, was that it could be applied to a pretty wide range of things. And at the time you were writing that essay, you were interested in seasteading this ideas of essentially building new polities independent of the sclerotic Western world.
罗斯·多塔特 但后来你在2010年代做了一个转变。你是少数——也许是唯一——硅谷中最显眼的唐纳德·特朗普支持者。2016年，你支持了几个经过仔细筛选的共和党参议院候选人。其中一个现在成为了美国副总统。而我作为观察者的看法是，你基本上是在做政治风险投资。你在说，这里有一些可能改变政治现状的颠覆性代理人，值得承受一定风险。你是这么想的吗？
ROSS DOUTHAT But then you made a pivot in the 2010s. So you were one of the few prominent, maybe the only prominent Silicon Valley supporter of Donald Trump. In 2016, you supported a few sort of carefully selected Republican Senate candidates. One of them is now the Vice President of the United States. And my view as an observer of what you were doing was that you were basically being a kind of venture capitalist for politics. Right. You were saying, here are some disruptive agents who might change the political status quo and it’s worth a certain kind of risk here. Is that how you thought about?
彼得·蒂尔 当然。这有多重考量。一方面是——我们希望让泰坦尼克号避开它正驶向的冰山，或者换个比喻——真正地通过政治途径让社会改变航向。
PETER THIEL Sure. There were all sorts of levels. I mean, one level was, yeah, was these hopes that we could redirect the Titanic from the iceberg was heading to, or whatever the metaphor is, you know, really change course as a society through political piece.
彼得·蒂尔 也许更窄的、更聚焦的愿望是，我们也许至少可以让这个话题被谈论起来。当特朗普说”让美国再次伟大”时，好的，这是一个正面的、乐观的、有雄心的议程，还是仅仅是对我们现在所处状态的非常悲观的评估——我们不再是一个伟大的国家？
PETER THIEL Maybe a narrower, a much narrower aspiration was that we could maybe at least have a conversation about this. When someone like Trump said, “make America great again,” okay, is that a positive, optimistic, ambitious agenda, or is it merely a very pessimistic assessment of where we are, that we are no longer a great country?
彼得·蒂尔 我对特朗普能做出什么积极贡献并没有太大期望，但我认为，至少在一百年来第一次，我们有了一个不再给我们灌输那种甜腻虚伪的布什式废话的共和党人。这并不等同于进步，但我们至少可以开始对话了。
PETER THIEL And I didn’t have great expectations about what Trump would do in a positive way, but I thought, at least for the first time in a hundred years, we had a Republican who was not giving us this syrupy Bush nonsense. And that was not the same as progress, but we could at least have a conversation.
彼得·蒂尔 回顾过去，这简直是一种荒谬的幻想。我在2016年有这两个想法，而且你往往会有一些想法恰好在你潜意识中。但我当时有的两个想法是——第一，如果特朗普输了，没有人会因为我支持特朗普而生气。第二，我认为他有50%的获胜机会。（书童注：注意这两个想法，构成了一个严格遵循塔勒布“反脆弱”的杠铃策略）
PETER THIEL In retrospect, this was a preposterous fantasy. I had these two thoughts in 2016, and you often have these ideas that are just below the level of your sort of consciousness. But the two thoughts I had that I wasn’t able to combine was, number one, you know, nobody would be mad at me for supporting Trump if he lost. And number two, I thought he had a 50-50 chance of winning.
罗斯·多塔特 如果他输了为什么没有人会生气？
ROSS DOUTHAT Why would nobody be mad at you if he lost?
彼得·蒂尔 这实在太古怪了，而且也不会真有什么影响。
PETER THIEL It would just be such a weird thing and it wouldn’t really matter.
罗斯·多塔特 好的。
ROSS DOUTHAT Okay.
彼得·蒂尔 然后我认为，他有50%的获胜机会，因为问题是深层的，停滞令人沮丧。然后我的幻想就是——如果他赢了，我们就能开始这个对话。而现实是人们还没准备好。
PETER THIEL And then I thought, you know, he had more. He had, I thought he had a 50-50 chance because the problems were deep and the stagnation was frustrating. And then the fantasy I had was, yeah, if he won, we could have this conversation. And the reality was people weren’t ready for it.
彼得·蒂尔 而现在，也许到了2025年，特朗普崛起十年之后，我们终于可以进行这场对话了。当然你不是那种僵化的左翼人士，Ross。但这——
PETER THIEL And then, you know, maybe we’ve progressed to the point where we can have this conversation at this point in 2025, a decade after Trump. And of course, you’re not a zombie left wing person, Ross. But it’s, this is.
罗斯·多塔特 我被叫过很多名字，很多名字。
ROSS DOUTHAT I’ve been called many things, many things.
彼得·蒂尔 我愿意接受任何进步。
PETER THIEL I’ll take whatever progress I can get.
停滞对话 The Stagnation Conversation 罗斯·多塔特 从你的角度来说。假设有两层。一层是社会需要颠覆，需要风险。特朗普就是颠覆，特朗普就是风险。第二层是特朗普愿意说一些关于美国衰退的真话。
ROSS DOUTHAT So from your perspective of. So let’s say there’s two layers, right? There’s sort of a basic sense of, you know, this society needs disruption. It needs risk. Trump is disruption. Trump is risk. And the second level is Trump is actually willing to say things that are true about American decline. Right.
罗斯·多塔特 那么你觉得你作为一个投资者、风险投资家，在特朗普的第一届任期中有没有获得什么？特朗普在第一届任期中做了什么让你觉得是反衰败或者反停滞的？如果答案是什么都没有的话，也可以。
ROSS DOUTHAT So do you feel like you as an investor, as a venture capitalist, got anything out of the first Trump term? Like what did Trump do in his first term that you felt was anti decadent or anti stagnation? If anything, maybe the answer is nothing.
彼得·蒂尔 好吧，我认为——我认为它比我想要的花了更长时间，也更慢。但我们确实取得一定进展：很多人认为出了问题。而这在2012、2013、2014年就不是我在进行的对话了。
PETER THIEL Well, I think we, I think it took longer and it was slower than I would have liked. But we have gotten to the place where a lot of people think something’s gone wrong. And that was not the conversation I was having in 2012, 2013, 2014.
彼得·蒂尔 我在2012年和Eric Schmidt进行了一场辩论，在2013年和Marc Andreessen进行了辩论，在2014年和Bezos也进行了辩论。我站在”存在停滞问题”这一侧。而他们三个人都是”一切进展良好”的版本。我认为至少这三个人——在不同程度上——已经更新了，调整了，（整个）硅谷——调整了。
PETER THIEL I had a debate with Eric Schmidt in 2012 and Marc Andreessen in 2013 and Bezos in 2014. I was on the “There’s a stagnation problem.” And all three of them were versions of “everything’s going great.” I think at least those three people have, to varying degrees, updated and adjusted Silicon Valley’s. Adjusted.
罗斯·多塔特 硅谷——尽管比”调整”更多——硅谷很大一部分——
ROSS DOUTHAT Silicon Valley, though, has more than adjusted a big part of Silicon.
彼得·蒂尔 在停滞问题上。确实。
PETER THIEL Valley on the stagnation. Right.
罗斯·多塔特 在停滞问题上。但然后硅谷的很大一部分在2024年选择了特朗普（一边），包括显然最著名的伊隆·马斯克。
ROSS DOUTHAT On the stagnation. But then a big part of Silicon Valley ended up going in for Trump in 2024, including obviously, most famously, Elon Musk.
彼得·蒂尔 是的，在我的叙事框架中，这与停滞问题深度相连。当然，这些事情总是超级复杂的。我的解读是——而且我非常不愿意代表所有这些人发言——但比如像扎克伯格或Facebook Meta，在某种程度上，我不认为他很意识形态化。他并没有真正深入思考过这些问题。
PETER THIEL Yeah, this is deeply linked to the stagnation issue in my telling. I mean, these things are always super complicated, but my telling is, you know, I don’t, and again, I’m so hesitant to speak for all these people, but, you know, someone like Mark Zuckerberg or Facebook Meta, and, you know, in some ways, I don’t think he was, he’s very ideological. He didn’t think this stuff necessarily through that much.
彼得·蒂尔 默认的做法就是当一个自由派，而且一直以来的逻辑都是——如果自由主义不起作用，你该怎么办？年复一年，答案都是：加大力度。你不断加大剂量，花数亿美元，完全走”觉醒”路线，结果所有人都恨你。到了某个时刻你不得不想——好吧，也许这条路走不通。
PETER THIEL It was the default was to be liberal and it was always what, you know, if the liberalism isn’t working, what do you do? And for year after year after year, it was, you do more. You know, if something doesn’t work, you just need to do more of it. And you up the dose, and you up the dose and you spend hundreds of millions of dollars and you go completely woke and everybody hates you. And at some point it’s like, okay, maybe this isn’t working.
罗斯·多塔特 所以他们转变了方向。
ROSS DOUTHAT So they pivot.
彼得·蒂尔 是的，这不是一种亲特朗普的事情。
PETER THIEL Yes, it’s not a pro Trump thing.
罗斯·多塔特 这不是亲特朗普的事情，但确实，无论是在公开还是私下的对话中，都有一种感觉——在2024年——也许在2016年还不是这样，那时候Peter是唯一的支持者——但现在到了2024年，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，等等。
ROSS DOUTHAT It’s not a pro Trump thing, but it is, you know, just both in public and private conversations, it is a kind of sense that Trumpism and populism in 2024, maybe not in 2016, when Peter was out there as the lone supporter. But now in 2024, they can be a vehicle for technological innovation, economic dynamism and so on.
（上篇完）
- 【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?
- 存在篇（一） | 永恒轮回：如果，你的生命，终止于此时此刻，你会选择重播它么？