Peter Thiel | All-In Summit 2024

Peter was the person who told me this really pithy quote. In a world that's changing so quickly, the biggest risk you can take is not taking any risk. This guy is a tough nut to try to sort of explain. Change money with PayPal was the first outside investor in Facebook, back Palantir, which is, I believe they helped find Osama bin Laden. Almost certainly the most successful technology investor in the world. I don't think the future is fixed. I think what matters is a question of agency. What I think works really well are sort of one of a kind companies. How do you get from zero to one? What great business is nobody building? Tell me something that's true that nobody agrees with you on. Alright Peter, welcome back. Good to see you. You don't do this too often, so we do appreciate it. But when you do do it, you're always super candid and we appreciate that as well. You fit right in here. You're sitting this year's political cycle out. Right in the politics. Well no, I mean I think this is a question we all have, which is, you were very active. You bet on JD in a major way. He delivered today, it was a very impressive discussion. Why aren't you involved, this cycle?

彼得是那个人告诉了我这句非常精辟的名言。在一个变化如此迅速的世界中，最大的风险就是不冒任何风险。这个家伙真是个难以解释的人。他是通过PayPal换钱的第一个Facebook外部投资者，还支持了Palantir，我相信他们帮助找到了奥萨马·本·拉登。他几乎可以肯定是世界上最成功的技术投资者。我不认为未来是固定的，我认为重要的是能动性的问题。我觉得特别卓越的是那种独一无二的公司。你怎样从零到一？什么伟大的商业目前还没有人去做？告诉我一些真理，但没有人同意你的看法。好了，彼得，欢迎回来，很高兴见到你。你不经常这样做，所以我们非常感谢。但当你做这件事时，你总是非常坦诚，我们也表示感谢。你非常适合这里。你今年没有参与政治周期。和政治有关的。嗯，不，我认为这是我们大家都有的问题，那就是，你以前非常活跃。你以重大方式押注了JD。他今天的表现非常出色，让人印象深刻。为什么你这次不参与呢？

It's very confounding to us because these are your guys. Man, how much time do we have? This was just talking about this for two hours or something. I don't know, look I have a lot of conflicted thoughts on it. I am still very strongly pro-Trump, pro-J.D. I've decided not to donate any money politically, but I'm supporting them in every other way possible. Obviously, I think there's, my pessimistic thought is that Trump is going to win and probably will win by big margin. He'll do better than the last time and he'll still be really disappointing. The elections are always a relative choice and then once someone's president it's an absolute. You get evaluated, do you like Trump or Harris better? There seem to be a lot of reasons. One would be more anti-Harris than anti-Trump. No one's pro any of these people, it's all negative.

这对我们来说非常困惑，因为这些是你们的人。老天，我们还有多少时间？我们刚刚讨论了这个问题大约两个小时。我不知道，看吧，我对此有很多矛盾的想法。我仍然非常支持特朗普和J.D. 我决定不再在政治上捐钱，但我会以其他所有可能的方式支持他们。显然，我悲观的想法是，特朗普会赢，而且可能会以很大的优势获胜。他会做得比上次更好，但仍然会让人非常失望。选举总是相对的选择，一旦有人当上总统，就变成绝对的。你被评估，你喜欢特朗普还是哈里斯？似乎有很多原因。有的人会比反对特朗普更反对哈里斯。没有人真正支持这些人，都是负面的。

But then after they win there will be a lot of buyers or more some disappointment. That's sort of the arc that I see of what's going to happen and it's somewhat under motivating. Just to describe it, I think the odds are slightly in favor of Trump but it's basically 50-50. My one contrarian view on the election is that it's not going to be close. Most presidential elections aren't and one side just breaks. 2016, 2020 were super close but two-thirds of the elections aren't and you can't always line things up and figure it out. I think either the Kamala bubble will burst or maybe the Trump voters get really demotivated and don't show up. One side is simply going to collapse in the next two months and then if you want to get involved with all the headaches that come with being involved, if it makes a difference counterfactually and if it's a really close election everything makes a difference. If it's not even close, I don't think it makes much of a difference.

但是，如果他们赢了，会有很多买家出现，或者更多的是一些失望。这基本上就是我看到将要发生的情况，而且这有点令人提不起劲。简单描述一下，我觉得特朗普略占优势，但基本上是五五开。关于选举，我有个相对不同的看法，就是这次选举不会很接近。大多数总统选举都不是很接近，总有一方会崩溃。2016年和2020年是非常接近的选举，但三分之二的选举并不是这样，你也无法总是预见结果。我觉得要么卡玛拉的泡沫会破灭，要么特朗普的支持者会非常失落而不去投票。在接下来的两个月里，总有一方会彻底崩溃。如果你想参与进来，承受这些参与所带来的头疼问题，只有在结果非常接近时，这种参与才会显得重要。如果结果并不接近，我认为这不会有太大影响。

If it is going to be close by the way, if it's like going to be a razor thin close election, then I'm pretty sure Kamala will win because they will cheat, they will fortify it, they will steal the ballots. If we can answer them in the event that it's close, I don't want to be involved. In the event that it's not close, I don't need to be involved. I have a straight forward analysis right there. By jumping off point, how much cheating on a percentage basis do you think happens every year? How much, and do you think Trump actually won the last time? You need to be careful with the verb. Cheating, stealing, that implies something happened in the dark night. I think the verb you're allowed to use is fortify.

如果选举结果非常接近，就像一场非常接近的选举那样，我非常确定卡玛拉会赢，因为他们会作弊、强化选举、偷选票。如果我们能在接近的情况下回应他们，我不想参与。如果结果不接近，我也不需要参与。这是我简单明确的分析。考虑到这个分析，您认为每年有多少百分比的作弊发生？还有，您认为上次其实是特朗普赢了吗？需要注意动词的使用。作弊、偷窃，这些词暗示着一些见不得人的事。我认为你可以使用的动词是“强化”。

We don't want to get canceled on YouTube. Ballot harvesting. There were all these rule changes that were done in plain daylight. I think our elections are not perfectly clean. Otherwise, we could examine it, we could have a vigorous debate about it. What would you change then? What should change? We all want everybody's votes to count. We want it to be clean. I'm talking about the audience here. At the minimum, you try to run elections the same way you do it. Every other Western democracy, you have one day voting. You have practically no absentee ballots. You have one day where everything happens. It's not this two-month elongated process. That's the way you do it in every other country. You have somewhat stronger voter ID and make sure that the people who are voting have a right to vote.

我们不希望在YouTube上被封禁。关于选票收集，这些规则的改变都是在光天化日之下进行的。我认为我们的选举并不是完全公正的。否则，我们本可以对其进行检查，开展激烈的辩论。那么你希望改变什么？应该改变什么？我们都希望每个人的选票都能被计算在内，我们希望选举过程是干净的。我这里指的是观众的想法。至少，您可以尝试像其他西方民主国家那样进行选举。您有一天的投票时间，几乎没有缺席选票。一切都在一天内完成，而不是一个长达两个月的过程。这是其他国家的做法。您需要更强的选民身份证明，确保投票的人有投票的权利。

Make it an actual holiday. That's basically what you do in every other Western democracy. It used to be much more like that in the U.S. It's meaningfully decayed over the last 20-30 years. In the 20-40 years ago, you got the results on the day of the vote. That stopped happening a while ago. What would make you not disappointed? Trump gets elected. What's your counter-narrative on where a year or two years passed the election? What makes you say I'm surprisingly not disappointed? What takes place? Man, I think there are some extremely difficult problems that it's really hard to know how to solve them. I wouldn't know what to do, but we have an incredibly big deficit. If you can find some way to meaningfully reduce the deficit with no tax hikes. Without GDP contraction. You would do it if you got a lot of GDP growth, maybe. If you could meaningfully reduce the deficit with no tax hikes, that would be very impressive.

把它变成一个真正的节日。这基本上是其他西方民主国家所做的。在美国以前也是这样的，只是最近20-30年明显退化了。在20-40年前，你在投票当天就能知道结果。这种情况在一段时间前就停止了。什么事情能让你不失望？特朗普当选。你认为在选举后一两年内会发生什么？是什么让你说“出乎意料，我并没有失望”？会发生什么？老兄，我觉得有些问题真的很难解决，我也不知道该怎么办。但我们有巨大的赤字。如果你能在不加税、不收缩GDP的情况下，有意义地减少赤字。如果你能找到一种方法做到这一点，如果你能大幅增加GDP，也许能做到。如果你能在不加税的情况下，有意义地减少赤字，那将非常令人印象深刻。

I think we're sort of sleepwalking into Armageddon with Ukraine and the conflict in Gaza are just sort of the warm-ups to the China-Taiwan war. If Trump can find a way to head that off, if they don't go to war in four years, that would be better than I would expect possible. In relation to Taiwan, if Trump called you and asked, should we defend it or not in this acute case, would you advise to let Taiwan be taken by China in order to avoid a nuclear Holocaust and a World War III? Or would you believe that we should defend it and defend free countries like that? I think you're probably not supposed to say. No, no, no. I think there's so many ways our policies are messed up. But probably the one thing that's roughly correct on the Taiwan policy is that we don't tell China what we're going to do. And what we tell them is we don't know what we'll do and we'll figure it out when you do it, which probably has the virtue of being correct. And then I think if you had a red line at Komoyi, Matsu, the island five miles off the coast of China, that's unbelievable. If you say we want some guardrails and we won't defend Taiwan, then they've get invaded right away. So I think the policy of not saying what our policy is and maybe not even having a policy in some ways is relatively the best.

我认为我们在乌克兰和加沙冲突中，正在不知不觉地走向末日，而这些冲突只是中美台战争的预演。如果特朗普能找到办法阻止这一切发生，如果四年内不爆发战争，那将比我预期的要好。在关于台湾的问题上，如果特朗普打电话问你：我们是否应该在这种紧急情况下防卫台湾，你会建议让台湾被中国占领以避免核灾难和第三次世界大战，还是认为我们应该防卫台湾，保护像台湾这样的自由国家？我认为你可能不应该直接回答这个问题。我认为我们的政策存在很多问题，但台湾政策唯一差不多正确的地方是，我们不告诉中国我们会怎么做。我们告诉他们，我们还不确定会怎么做，我们会在你们行动时再决定，这可能是正确的办法。我觉得，如果在像金门、马祖这些距中国海岸仅五英里的岛屿划设红线是不可信的。如果我们说要设一些界限但是不会防卫台湾，那台湾会马上被入侵。所以，我认为不明确表态我们的政策，甚至在某些方面不制定政策，可能是相对最好的选择。

I think anything precise you say, that's going to just lead to war right away. But what do you believe? Worth defending or not worth starting the conflict, democracy in this tiny island, worth going to war over or not, according to Peter Thiel. It's not worth World War III and I still think it's quite catastrophic if it gets taken over by the Communists. How does the world- Those can both be true. How does the world divide if we end up in heightened escalation? Is China, Russia, Iran, friends, is that an access that forms, think out the next decade in kind of your base case and- I don't know what happened. I estimate how the world divides out. I don't know what happens militarily if there's a China-Taiwan invasion. I mean, maybe we roll over, maybe it escalates all the way to nuclear war. Probably it's some very messy in between thing, sort of like what you have in the Ukraine. What I think happens economically is very straightforward.

我认为任何精确的言论都会立刻引发战争。但你相信什么呢？这事值得捍卫还是不值得为此开战？根据彼得·蒂尔的说法，这个小岛上的民主不值得为之发动第三次世界大战，但如果被共产主义者占领，结果依然是相当灾难性的。世界会如何分裂？这两种情况都可能是真的。如果我们陷入高度紧张的局势，世界会如何分裂？中国、俄罗斯、伊朗会成为朋友吗？是否会形成一个势力轴？想象一下未来十年的基本情境——我不知道会发生什么。我估计世界将如何分裂。我也不知道如果中国入侵台湾，军事上会发生什么。也许我们会屈服，也许会全面升级到核战争。很可能会是一个非常混乱的中间状态，有点像你在乌克兰看到的那样。我认为经济上会发生的事情却很简单明了。

I think basically with Russia and Germany, you had one Nord Stream pipeline and we have the equivalent of 100 pipelines between the US and China. And they all blow up. I met the TikTok CEO about a year ago. Maybe I wouldn't have said this now, but what I told him and what I felt was very honest advice was, you know, you don't need to worry about the US. We're never going to do anything about TikTok. We're too incompetent. But if I were in your place, I would still get the business out of China. I would get the computers out, the people out. I'd completely decouple it from ByteDance because TikTok will be banned 24 hours. 24 hours after the Taiwan invasion. And if you think there's a 50-50 chance this happens and that will destroy, you know, 100% of the value of the TikTok franchise. What was his reaction? You know, he said that they had done a lot of simulations and a bunch of companies in World War I and World War II that managed to sell things to both sides. He doesn't seem so bright to me. Do you think he's. So, he got. No, no, no, no. What did you chase on him? He didn't disagree with my frame. And so I always find that flattering of someone basically a little reasonable about framing.

我认为，基本上俄罗斯和德国之间有一个北溪管道，而在美国和中国之间我们则有相当于100条管道。而且它们全都爆炸了。我大约一年前见过TikTok的CEO。虽然我现在可能不会这么说，但我当时给了他非常诚恳的建议，就是，你不用担心美国。我们永远不会对TikTok采取任何行动，因为我们太无能了。但如果我是你，我还是会把业务从中国转移出来。我会把电脑搬出来，把人员搬出来，完全和字节跳动脱钩，因为在台湾被入侵后的24小时内，TikTok就会被封禁。如果你认为这种情况有50%的几率发生，那么它将摧毁TikTok所有的价值。他的反应是什么？他说他们做过很多模拟，很多公司在一战和二战中设法向双方出售商品。在我看来，他不是很聪明。你觉得他怎么样？他有没有反驳你的观点？没有，他没有反对我的框架，所以我总觉得对方基本认可我的框架还是挺让人满意的。

So, he seemed perfectly bright to me even though. Game theory, but a lot of bright people are wrong about that. I saw you give a talk last summer with Barry Weiss and you talked about this decoupling should be happening. You weren't saying should. You were recommending that every industry leader considered decoupling from China. I think your comment was it's like picking up nickels in front of a freight train. Do you remember saying that? Well, I think. There are a lot of different ways in which businesses are coupled to China. There were investors that tried investing. There are people who tried to compete within China. There are people who built factories in China for export. And, you know, there are different parts of that that worked to varying degrees. But, yeah, my. I certainly would not try to invest in a company that competed domestically inside China. I think that's virtually impossible. I think it's probably quite tricky even to invest in Chinese businesses. And then there is sort of this model of building factories in China for export to the west. And it was a very big arbitrage. These things do work. I visited the Foxconn factory nine years ago. And, you know, people get paid a dollar and a half, two dollars an hour. And they work 12 hours a day. And they live in a dorm room with two bunk beds where you get eight people in the dorm room. Someone's sleeping in your bed while you're working in vice versa. And you sort of realize they're really far behind us or they're really far ahead of us. And either way, you know, it's not that straightforward to just shift the iPhone factories to the United States. So I sort of understand, you know, why a lot of businesses ended up there and why this is the arrangement that we have. But, yeah, my intuition for, you know, what is going to happen without making any normative judgments at all is it is going to decouple. How inflationary will that be? It presumably is, it's presumably pretty inflationary. Yeah, that's probably the, you know, I don't know. You'd have to sort of look at, you know, what the inelasticities of all these goods are. So if that's true, what's the policy reaction? It's probably not that, it may not be as inflationary as people think because people always model trade in terms of pairwise, in terms of two countries. So if you literally have to move the people back to the US, that's insanely expensive. I don't know how much it would cost people to build an iPhone. Does India become a. You just, well, I think India is sort of too messed up. But you shifted to like Vietnam, Mexico, there are, you know, there are five billion people living in countries where the incomes are lower than China. And so, you know, probably the negative sum trade policy we should have with China is, you know, we should just shift it to other countries, which is a little bit bad for the US, extremely bad for China, and let's say really good for Vietnam. And that's kind of, and that's kind of the negative sum policy that's going to manifest as this sort of decoupling happens.

所以，即使如此，他在我看来也很聪明。博弈论（Game theory），不过很多聪明人对此却有误解。我去年夏天看到你和巴里·韦斯（Barry Weiss）一起做的演讲，你谈到这种脱钩应该发生。你不是说“应该”，而是建议每个行业领导者都考虑与中国脱钩。我记得你说过这就像在火车前捡硬币。你记得说过这个吗？好吧，我想，企业与中国的联系有很多不同的方式。有投资者尝试投资，有人试图在中国进行竞争，还有人在中国建工厂用于出口。而且，你知道，这些方式取得了不同程度的成功。但是，是的，我肯定不会尝试投资一家在中国国内市场竞争的公司，我认为那几乎是不可能的。我认为即使投资于中国企业也相当棘手。然后还有一种模式是在中国建工厂然后向西方出口。这是一种非常大的套利行为。这些事情确实奏效了。我九年前访问了富士康（Foxconn）工厂。那里的人每小时工资一到两美元，而且每天工作12小时，住在有两张双层床的宿舍里，一个宿舍住八个人。当你在工作的时候，有人就在你的床上休息，反之亦然。你就会意识到，他们真的远远落后于我们，或者他们真的远远领先于我们。无论哪种情况，你都知道，把iPhone工厂直接转移到美国并不那么简单。所以我大致理解，为什么很多企业最终选择了那里以及为什么我们有这种安排。但是，是的，我的直觉是，在不做任何规范性判断的前提下，这种脱钩将会发生。这会引发多大的通货膨胀？可能会相当通胀。这大概就是，我也不知道。你得看看这些商品的这种非弹性有多少。如果这是真的，那么政策反应会是什么？可能不会像人们认为的那样通胀，因为人们总是按成对的国家来建模贸易。所以如果你真的要把人搬回美国，那是极其昂贵的。我不知道让人们在美国制造一部iPhone要花多少钱。印度会不会成为新的制造中心？我认为印度有点儿太乱了。你可以把生产转移到比如越南、墨西哥，有五十亿人生活在收入低于中国的国家。所以，我们可能应该对中国采取的消极贸易政策就是把生产转移到其他国家，这对美国有点儿不利，对中国极其不利，对越南等国家则非常有利。这就是这种消极政策在脱钩过程中会表现出来的形式。

Let's talk about avoiding it for a second here. Trump seems to be extremely good with dictators and authoritarians. Kim Jong Un seems like a big fan. I mean that in, like, as a compliment, as a superpower, right? Like, he doesn't have a problem talking to them. He connects with them, and they seem to like them. So, what would be the path to him working with Xi to avoid this? Is there a path to avoid this? Because we were sitting here last year talking about this, and it just seems mind-boggling that if everybody agrees that this is going to happen, that we can't figure out a way to make it not happen. Well, it's not just up to us.

让我们先谈谈如何避免这种情况。特朗普似乎非常擅长与独裁者和专制者打交道。金正恩似乎是他的超级粉丝。我是说，这是他的一个优点，一种超能力，对吧？他与这些领导人对话毫无障碍，并且他们似乎也喜欢他。那么，他该如何与习近平合作以避免这种情况发生？有没有可能避免这种情况的途径？因为去年我们也在讨论这个问题，令人难以置信的是，如果大家都认为这种情况会发生，我们却找不到办法去阻止它。这不仅仅是我们能决定的事情。

So, yeah, there's, there's, and so, I don't know, it's obviously somewhat of a black box. We don't exactly, we, I feel we just have no clue what people in China think, but, but I think it's sort of the sense of history is strongly the sort of Thucydides trap idea that you have a rising power against an existing power, and it tends to, you know, it's, it's Wilhelmin, Germany versus Britain before World War I, and, you know, it's, you know, Athens against Sparta, the rising power against the existing power, you tend to get conflict. That's, that's probably what deep down, I think, is, is really, really far in the China DNA.

所以，是的，有点，嗯，我不知道，这显然有点像是个黑箱。我们完全不了解中国人民的想法，但我觉得他们的历史观念大概非常符合“修昔底德陷阱”这个理论，即一个崛起中的大国对抗一个现存大国，往往会导致冲突。这就像是威廉时代的德国对英国的挑战引发了第一次世界大战，或者是雅典对斯巴达的挑战。崛起中的大国与现存大国的对抗往往会导致冲突。这大概是我认为深植在中国基因中的东西。

So, so I'd say maybe, maybe the first, I don't know, the meta version would be the first, the first step to avoiding the conflict would be we have to, we have to start by admitting that China believes that the other people are going to be able to avoid the conflict. Would be we have to, we have to start by admitting that China believes the conflict's happening. Right. And then if, if people like you are constantly saying, well, we just need to have some happy talk. Right. That's, that is a recipe. That's a recipe for World War II.

所以，我会说，可能第一步是先承认中国认为冲突正在发生。然后，如果像你这样的人总是说，我们只需要有些乐观的对话，那这简直是为第二次世界大战铺路。

I'm not advocating happy, John, necessarily. I'm not, I think he used to be a bit more hawkish. Obviously, obviously, in general, you know, I don't know, I'm not, I'm not sure Trump should talk to the North Korean dictator, but yeah, in general, it's probably a good idea to, to try to talk to people, even if they're, they're really, really bad people most of the time. And, and, you know, it's certainly a very odd dynamic with the US and, and Russia at this point, where I think it is impossible for anybody in the Biden administration, even to have a back channel. Communication with people.

我并不是一定支持哈皮，约翰。我觉得他以前有点更鹰派。显然，总的来说，你知道的，我不确定特朗普是否应该和朝鲜独裁者对话，但总的来说，尝试和人们对话可能是个好主意，即使他们大多数时候真的非常坏。而且，当然，现在美国和俄罗斯之间的动态非常奇怪，我认为在拜登政府里，任何人都不可能有秘密渠道与对方沟通。

I don't think Tucker Carlson counts as an emissary from the Biden administration. And if anybody gets tuckered, or I don't know what the verb is, who talks, you know, that's, that's, that seems, that seems worse than the alternative. Can we talk about technology? You have this, you have, you have a speech where you talk about some of the misguided things we've done in the past in the name of technology and use like big data as an example of that. What is AI? Oh man, that's, that's sort of a big question. I, it's, yeah, I always, I always, I always had this riff where I don't like the buzzwords. And, you know, machine learning, big data, cloud computing, you know, I'm going to build a mobile app, bring the cloud to, you know, if you have sort of a concave, you know, you're going to have to be able to get it. If you have sort of a concatenation of buzzwords, you know, my first instinct is just to run away as fast as possible.

我不认为塔克·卡尔森能算作拜登政府的使者。如果有人感到疲惫，或者我不知道该用什么动词，总之就是，如果有人听他说话，你知道，那看起来比其他选项更糟糕。我们能聊聊科技吗？你有一个演讲，讨论了我们过去以科技的名义做的一些误导性事情，并以大数据为例。什么是人工智能？哦，伙计，这是个大问题。我一直有个观点，就是我不喜欢那些流行词汇。你知道，机器学习、大数据、云计算，这类词汇堆砌在一起，总让我想赶紧逃离。

Some really bad groupthink. And, and for many years, I, I, my bias is probably that AI was one of the worst of all these buzzwords. It meant, you know, the next generation of computers, the last generation of computers, you know, anything in between. So it's meant all these, all these very different things. If we, if we roll the clock back to the 2010s, you know, the, probably the AI, to the extent you concretize, I would say the AI debate was maybe framed by, by two, the two books, the two canonical books that framed it with, there was the Boston book, Superintelligence 2014, where AI was going to be this super human, super duper intelligent thing. And then the anti-Boston book was the Kifu Lee 2018 AI superpowers, you can think of the CCP rebuttal to Boston, where basically AI was going to be surveillance tech, face recognition, and China was going to win because they had no qualms about applying this technology.

一些非常糟糕的集体思维。多年来，我的偏见可能是认为AI是所有这些流行词中最差的一个。它可以指代下一代计算机，上几代计算机，甚至介于两者之间的任何东西。所以，它的含义非常多样化。如果我们回到2010年代，可以说AI的讨论可能是由两本权威书籍所定义的。一本是2014年的波士顿著作《超级智能》，书中描绘了AI将成为超级人类、超高智能的东西。而与之相对的是2018年李开复的《AI·未来》，你可以将其视为中共对波士顿一书的反驳，基本观点是AI将成为监控技术、面部识别的工具，而中国会因为毫不犹豫地应用这些技术而获胜。

And, and then if we now think about what actually happened, let's say with the LOMs and, and chat, GPT was really neither of those two. And it was this in between thing, which was actually what people would have defined AI as for the previous 60 or 70 years, which is passing the Turing test, which is, you know, the somewhat fuzzy line. It's a computer that can pretend to be a human, or they can fool you into thinking it's a human. And, and, you know, even with the fuzziness of that line, you could say that pre chat GPT wasn't passed, and then chat GPT passed it. And that seems, that seems very, very significant.

如果我们现在回想一下实际发生了什么，比方说关于LOMs和对话，GPT其实都不完全是这两者中的任何一个。它是介于两者之间的某种东西，而这恰恰是过去六七十年人们定义人工智能的方式，即通过图灵测试。图灵测试，是一个模糊的标准，即一台计算机能够假装成一个人，或者能让你误以为它是一个人。即便这个标准有些模糊，以前的对话系统或GPT并没有通过这个测试，而现在的ChatGPT通过了。这一点看起来非常非常重要。

And, and then obviously, it leads to all these questions. What does it mean? You know, is it going to compliment people? Is it going to substitute for people? You know, what does it do to the labor market? Do you get paid more? Yeah, I mean, it could take less. You know, so there are all these, all these questions, but it, it seems extremely, it seems extremely important. And, and it's probably, you know, certainly the big picture questions, which I think Silicon Valley is always very bad at talking about is like, you know, what does it mean to be a human being? Right.

这显然会引发很多问题。它到底意味着什么？你知道，它会对人们起到补充作用还是会取代人们？它对劳动力市场有什么影响？你的工资会增加吗？也可能会减少。所以有这么多问题，但这看起来又极其重要。而且，这很可能是一些宏大的问题，硅谷总是不擅长讨论这些宏大问题，比如说，人类存在的意义是什么，对吗？

Sort of the, I don't know, the stupid 2022 answer would be that humans differ from all the other animals because we were good at languages. If you're three year old or an 80 year old, you speak, you communicate, we tell each other stories, this, this is what makes us different. And so, so yeah, I think there's something about it that's incredibly important and, and very disorienting. You know, the question I always have as a, I know the narrower question I have as an investor is sort of how do you make money with this stuff? And, how do you make money? I, it's, it's pretty confusing. And I think, I don't know, this is always where I'm anchored on the late 90s.

这个嘛，我觉得，可能愚蠢的2022年答案是什么？人类与其他动物不同之处在于我们擅长语言。不管是三岁小孩还是八十岁老人，我们都会说话、交流、讲故事，这就是我们的与众不同之处。所以，我认为这确实非常重要，同时也非常让人迷惑。作为一个投资者，我常常在想，怎么能从这些东西中赚钱呢？这真的很令人困惑。我总是忍不住回想上世纪90年代末的情况。

It's sort of the formative period for me, but I keep thinking that AI in 2023, 2024 is like the internet in 1999. It's, it's really big. It's going to be very important. It's going to transform the world, not, you know, in six months, but in 20 years. And then there are probably all kinds of incredibly catastrophic approximations where, you know, what businesses are going to make money, you know, who's going to have monopoly, who's going to have pricing power is, you know, is, is, is super unclear. Probably, you know, one layer deeper of analysis, you know, if attention is all you need, and if you're not post economic, you need to pay attention to who's making money.

对我来说，这是一个形成期，但我一直在想，2023年和2024年的人工智能就像1999年的互联网。它真的很大，很重要，将会改变世界，不是在六个月内，而是在未来的二十年里。而且可能会有各种各样令人难以置信的重大变化，比如哪些企业能够赚钱，谁会垄断市场，谁拥有定价权，这些都非常不确定。或许更深入一层的分析就是，如果关注度是关键，而且如果你还没有实现经济独立，你需要注意谁在赚钱。

And in AI, it's basically one company is making, Nvidia is making over 100% of the profits. Everybody else is collectively losing money. And so, and so there's sort of a, you have to do some sort, you should do, you should try to do some sort of analysis. You know, do you go long in video? Do you go short? You know, is it, you know, my monopoly question? Is it a, is it a really durable monopoly? You know, and then I, it's hard for me to know because I'm in Silicon Valley and I haven't done anything.

在人工智能领域，基本上只有一家公司的利润超过100%，那就是英伟达。其他公司整体上都在亏钱。所以，你应该进行某种分析。比如说，你要长线持有英伟达的股票，还是做空呢？这是否属于垄断？这种垄断是否持久？对我来说这很难判断，因为我身处硅谷，但并没有实际操作。

We haven't done anything in semiconductors for a long time. So I have no clue. Do you, if you, let's debuzzword the word AI and say it's a bunch of process automation. Let's just say that's version 0.1, where brains that are roughly the equivalent of a teenager can do a lot of manual stuff. What do you, have you thought about what it means for, you know, 8 billion people in the world if there's an extra billion that necessarily couldn't work or, like whether that, in political or economic terms?

我们很久没有在半导体领域做什么了。所以我也没什么头绪。如果你把“人工智能”这个词去掉一些流行语，简单说它就是一系列的过程自动化。我们可以说这是版本0.1，相当于拥有一个青少年智力水平的“脑子”来处理很多手动工作。你有没有想过这对世界上80亿人意味着什么，如果多出10亿人因此无法工作，或者从政治和经济角度来看，这会带来什么影响？

I don't know, the, the, the, I don't know if this is the same, but this is, you know, the history of 250 years, the industrial revolution, what was it, you know, it, it adds to GDP, it frees people up to do more, more productive. Things, you know, maybe there's, you know, there was, yeah, there was a, I know there was a Luddite critique in the 19th century of the factories that people were going to be unemployed and wouldn't have anything to do because the machines would replace the people. You know, maybe the Luddites are right this time around.

我不知道，这个，这个，我不知道这是否是一样的，但这是，你知道的，250年的历史，工业革命，它是什么，你知道，它增加了国内生产总值（GDP），它让人们有更多的时间去做更有效率的事情。你知道，也许当时，嗯，在19世纪的确有拉德分子的批评，他们认为工厂会让人失业，因为机器会取代人力。这一次，也许拉德分子是对的。

I'm, I'm, I'm probably, I'm probably pretty, pretty skeptical of it. But yeah, it's, it's extremely confusing, you know, where, where the gains and, and losses are there, there probably are, you know, there's always sort of a hobby, you can always just use it on your hobby horses. So I don't know the, you know, my anti Hollywood or anti university hobby horse is that it seems to me that, you know, the, the AI is quite good at the woke stuff. And it'll, and so, you know, if you want to, if you want to be a successful actor, you should be maybe a little bit racist or a little bit sexist or just really funny. And you won't have any risk of the AI replacing you.

我，我，我可能，我可能对此相当，相当怀疑。但确实，这，这非常让人困惑，就是说，收益和损失在哪里，可能总会有，这总是一种兴趣爱好，你总能在你的兴趣爱好上使用它。所以我不知道，我的反好莱坞或反大学的观点是，在我看来，AI在迎合政治正确方面做得很好。所以，如果你想成为一个成功的演员，或许你应该有点种族主义或性别歧视，或者非常搞笑。这样你就不会有被AI取代的风险。

I don't know. I don't know. Claudine Gay, the plagiarizing Harvard University president, you know, the AI is going to play, you know, the AI will produce endless amounts of, of these sort of, I don't even know what to call them, woke papers. And they were all already sort of plagiarizing one another, because they were always saying the same thing over and over again. They were using their own version of the AI is just going to flood the zone with even more of that. And that, you know, I don't know, obviously they've been able to do it for a long time and no one's noticed. But I think at this point, it doesn't seem promising from a competitive point of view.

我不知道。我不知道。你知道，哈佛大学校长克劳丁·盖一再被指控剽窃，AI会制造无限量的这种我甚至不知道该怎么称呼的“觉醒论文”。事实上，这些论文早就已经在互相剽窃了，因为它们总是在不断重复同样的内容。AI只会在这个领域进一步泛滥。你知道，显然他们已经这样做了很久，而且没人注意到。但从竞争的角度来看，现在看来情况不太乐观。

What are the areas? It's obviously my hobby horses. So I'm just, this may be just wishful thinking on my part. What are the areas of technology that you're curious about, that your mind is like, wow, this is really, I have to learn more pay attention. You know, I'm always, I always think you want to instantiate it more in companies than things or, you know, if you ask sort of like, where is innovation happening? You know, in our society, it doesn't have to be this way, but it's, it's mostly in a certain subset of relatively small companies.

有哪些领域呢？显然这些是我特别感兴趣的地方。所以这可能只是我自己的一厢情愿。你对哪些技术领域感兴趣，让你觉得“哇，我必须了解更多，关注一下”？你知道吗，我总是觉得应该把它更多地体现在公司中，而不是事物上。如果你问在哪些方面创新正在发生，在我们的社会中，这种情况下大多数创新确实是在一小部分相对较小的公司中发生的。

We have these relatively small teams of people that are really pushing the envelope. And that's, that's sort of, you know, that's sort of what I find, you know, inspiring about, about venture capital. And then obviously you don't just want innovation. You also want it to, it to, it to, um, it to translate into, into good businesses. But that's, that's where it happens. It's somehow, it doesn't happen in universities. It doesn't happen in government. You know, there was a time it did. I mean, you know, somehow in this very, very weird different country that was the United States in the 1940s, you had, you know, somehow the army organized the scientists and got them produced a nuclear bomb and lost almost in three and a half years. And you know, the way the New York Times editorialized after that was, you know, it's, you know, it was sort of an anti libertarian write up. It was, you know, there were, you know, obviously maybe if you'd left the pre Madonna scientists to their own, we would have taken them 50 years to build a bomb and the army could just tell them what to do. And this will silence anybody who doesn't believe the government can do things. And they don't write editorials like that in the New York Times anymore. But I think, um, yeah, but I think that's sort of, that's, that's sort of where, where, when, where, when she looked at it, I think it, I think, I think a crazy amount of it still happens in the United States. You know, and, and it's sort of, you know, we've, we've, we've, we've, you know, episodically tried to do all this investing. So we've probably tried to do too much investing in Europe over the years. It's always sort of a junket. It's sort of, it's a nice place to go on vacation as an investor. And, and it's, it is, it is very, it's, it's very, I don't have a great explanation. It's a very strange thing that so much of it is still, the US is somehow still the country where people do new things.

我们有一些相对较小的团队，他们真的在努力突破创新的界限。这也是我对风险投资感到鼓舞的原因之一。当然，你不仅仅希望有创新，你也希望这些创新能够转化为成功的商业。但这正是它发生的地方。这个过程不在大学里发生，也不在政府中发生。曾经有一段时间确实如此。在1940年代的美国，那是一个非常不同的、奇怪的国家，你知道，军队 somehow组织了科学家，并在三年半的时间里制造出了核弹。当时《纽约时报》的社论认为，如果把这些自负的科学家单独留下来，可能需要50年来制造核弹，而军队可以直接告诉他们该做什么。从某种程度上，这个社论会让任何不相信政府能够做事的人闭嘴。而现在《纽约时报》已经不再写这样的社论了。 但我认为，当你回过头来仔细观察，你会发现这种疯狂的创新依然在美国大量发生。我们或多或少一直在尝试在欧洲进行投资，可能是因为那里是投资者度假的好地方，但在创新方面总是显得差强人意。我没有太好的解释，这确实是一个非常奇怪的现象，美国仍然是那个创新不断涌现的国家。

Peter, is that a, is that a team organizational social evolutionary problem in the United States? What is the root cause of the failure to innovate in the United States relative to the expectation going back 70 years, 50 years, et cetera? From, you know, the rocket ships and we're all going to live there. Yeah. Well, this is always, this is always, is always one of the big picture claims I have that we've been in an era of relative tech stagnation the last 40 or 50 years or the, you know, the tagline. Um, that we hadn't- And techs know that that stuff too. And, like, the promise to find cars all we got was 140 characters which is not an anti Twitter, anti X commentary even though the way, the way I used to always qualify it was that at least, you know, at least, it was at least a good company. You had, you know, 10,000 people who didn't have to do very much work and, because you smoke marijuana all day. Very similar to Europe. And so I, I think that actually that part actually did get corrected but, um, but, very subtle. But I think. But I think like what went wrong because you point out that it's not a technology trend tracker that you think about It's about people and teams that innovate and drive to outcomes based on their view of the world And what's gone wrong with our view of the world and our ability to organize to Achieve the seemingly unachievable with very rare exceptions. Obviously you want here later, but you know, it's it's it's it's over determined the The the rough frame I always have and again, it's not that there's been no innovation There's been there's been a decent amount of innovation in the world of bits Computers internet mobile internet, you know crypto AI so there's sort of all these world of bits Places where there was you know a Significant but sort of somehow narrow cone of progress, but it was everything having to do with atoms that was slow This was already the case when I was an undergraduate at Stanford in the late 80s and retrospect any applied engineering field was a bad idea

彼得，这是一个团队组织的社会进化问题，还是美国特有的问题？为什么与70年前、50年前等期望相比，美国在创新方面的表现却不尽如人意呢？从火箭到我们都要住在太空的梦想等等。嗯，这一直是我认为的一个大背景论点，即过去40或50年我们经历了相对的科技停滞期，所谓的标语就是——我们没有实现飞行汽车，而我们只得到了140个字符。这并不是在攻击Twitter（现称为X），虽然我过去经常这样强调，至少这是一家好公司，有1万名员工不需要做太多工作，整天吸大麻，与欧洲非常相似。我认为那个问题已经有所改正了，但是很微妙。不过，我认为问题出在我们的世界观出了问题，以及我们组织起来实现看似无法实现的目标的能力，尽管有极少数的例外。显然，你想知道的是更多的，粗略的框架是，虽然这不是说完全没有创新，在比特世界（计算机、互联网、移动互联网、加密货币、人工智能等）确实有不少创新，但与物理实物相关的一切都发展缓慢。这种情况在我80年代末做斯坦福本科生的时候已经存在了，回过头来看，任何应用工程领域都是不明智的选择。

It was a bad you become a chemical engineer, you know a mechanical engineer Aeroaster was terrible nuclear engineering everyone knew I mean no one did that you know and And and there's something about yeah, the world of atoms that you know from a libertarian point of view you'd say got regulated to death They're probably You know there's there's some there's some set of arguments where The low-hanging fruit got picked and got harder to find new things to do although I always I always think that was just a sort of baby boomer excuse for for covering up for the failures of that generation and and then and then I think but I think maybe maybe maybe a very big picture part of it was that At some point in the 20th century the idea got to call that not all forms of Technological progress were simply good and simply for the better and there's you know There's something about the two world wars and the you know the development of nuclear weapons that Gradually pushed people into this this more risk of our society and it didn't happen overnight But you know maybe a quarter century You know after the nuclear bomb it's like I would really it happened. I would stock it happened Yeah, cuz that was the same summer we landed on the moon. Yeah, what's talk was three weeks after that. Yeah The tipping progress stopped in the house. Okay sex We shift gears is to the domestic economy. What do you think's happening the domestic economy? It is this backdrop we've had something like 14 straight months of downward revisions to jobs The revisions are supposed to be completely random. It's somehow they've all been down But he doesn't mean anything There's also what's happening with with the yield curve, but I'll stop there. What's your take on what's happening in the economy?

你知道，成为一名化学工程师并不是个好选择。机械工程师也很糟糕。大家都知道核工程更糟糕，没人学这个。而且从自由意志主义的角度来看，原子世界被监管得太死了。可能有些人会争辩说容易取得的成果已经被拿走了，找新的东西变得更难了。尽管如此，我总觉得这其实是所谓"婴儿潮一代"用来掩盖他们失败的借口。 也许，在20世纪某个时候，人们开始认为并不是所有形式的技术进步都是好事和对社会有利的。这可能与两次世界大战、核武器的发展有关，这些逐渐让人们变得更加谨慎。这种变化不是一夜之间发生的，可能花了二十五年的时间。在核弹之后，社会的进步在某种程度上被制止了。 至于国内经济的情况，我们已经经历了大约14个月的就业数据下调修正。而这些修正本应是完全随机的，但却全都是降低的，这意味深长。此外，还有收益率曲线的问题。在这种背景下，你怎么看当前的经济状况呢？

You know it's it's Man, it's always hard hard to know exactly. Yeah, I suspect we're close to a recession. I've probably thought this for a while It's it's being Stopped by really big government spending so you know in in May of 2023 the projection for the deficit in 20 fiscal year 24 which is October of 23 to September 24 Was something like 1.5 1.6 trillion? The deficit's gonna come in about 400 billion higher and so which you know It was a sort of crazy deficit was projected and it was way off and then somehow And so if we had not found another 400 billion To add to you know this this crazy deficit at the top of the economic cycle You know you're supposed to you're supposed to increase deficits in a recession not at the not at the top of the cycle You know things would be probably very shaky. There's there's there's there's there's there's there's some way where We yeah, we have a Too much debt not enough sustainable growth You know again, I always think it comes back to you know tech innovation There probably are other ways to grow an economy without tech or intensive progress But I think they we we don't have those don't seem to be on offer and then that's that's where it's very deeply stuck

你知道，这一直是，很难确切知道到底怎么回事。我怀疑我们离经济衰退很近了，我可能已经这样想了一段时间了。这一直被巨大的政府支出所阻止。比如在2023年5月，对2024财年（即2023年10月至2024年9月）的预算赤字预测约为1.5到1.6万亿美元。而实际上的赤字比预测多了大约4000亿美元。所以，如果我们当时没有找到额外的4000亿美元来加到这个已经很高的赤字上，在经济周期的顶端，你应该在经济衰退中增加赤字，而不是在周期顶端。现在的情况可能会非常不稳。我们有太多的债务，但没有足够的可持续增长。我总是认为这归结于技术创新。也许还有其他方式可以在没有技术或创新进展的情况下推动经济增长，但这些方法似乎都没有被采取，这就是问题所在，它卡在了这里。

If you wind back over the last 50 years There's always a question why did people not realize that this tech stagnation had happened sooner? And I think there were two one-time things people could do economically that had nothing to do with science or tech There was in 1980s Reagan Thatcher move which was to massively cut taxes deregulate allow lots of companies to merge and combine and and It was sort of a one-time way to make the economy a lot bigger Even though it had it was not something that really had the sort of compounding effect So it led to one great decade and then there was um, you know And that was sort of the right-wing capitalist move and then in the 90s there was sort of a Clinton Blair Center left thing which was sort of leaning into globalization and there was a giant Global arbitrage you could do which also had you know a lot of negative externalities that came with it But it sort of was a one-time move and I think both of those are are not on offer You know, I don't necessarily think you should undo globalization. I don't think you should raise taxes like crazy But you can't you can't do more globalization or more tax cuts here That's not gonna be the win and so I think you have to somehow get back to the future

如果你回顾过去的50年，人们总会有一个问题：为什么人们没有更早地意识到科技停滞？我认为有两个一次性的经济举措，这些与科学或技术无关。 首先是1980年代里根与撒切尔的改革：大幅削减税收、放松管制、允许大量公司合并。这是一种让经济迅速扩大的一次性方式，虽然它并没有长期的复利效应，但确实带来了一个辉煌的十年。 接下来是90年代的克林顿与布莱尔领导的中左派改革，他们推动了全球化。这是一种巨大的全球套利，也带来了许多负面外部效应，但这同样是一种一次性的举措。 我认为，这两种方式现在都无法再实现了。我并不认为应该取消全球化，也不认为应该疯狂加税，然而我们也不能通过更多的全球化或更多的减税来获得成功。因此，我们必须以某种方式回到未来（找到新的长期发展路径）。

We have time for a couple more questions you I think saw that maybe those Ivy League institutions Maybe weren't producing the best and brightest or weren't exactly Hitting their mandate and you created the teal fellows And you've been doing that for a while and I meet them all because they all have crazy ideas and they pitched me for angel investment What have you learned getting people to quit school giving them a hundred thousand dollars? And then how many parents call you and get really upset that their kids are quitting school It's Well, I I've learned a lot I mean it's it's um I don't know I think I think the universities are far worse than I even thought when I started this thing Yeah, it's um You know, I did this I did this debate at Yale last week, you know resolved a higher education's a bubble and and you should go through all the different numbers and the and Then you know and again, I was careful to word it in such a way that I didn't have to you know And then people kept saying well, what's your alternative? What should people do instead and I said no, that's not was not the debate. I'm not you know, I'm not your guidance counselor I'm not your career counselor. I don't know how to solve your problems But if something's a bubble, you know, the first thing you should do is probably not You know lean into it in too crazy away and you know the student debt was 300 billion in 2000 It's it's basically close to two trillion at this point. So it's just been the sort of runaway this runaway process and and then if you look at it by cohort if you graduate from college in 1997 12 years later People still had student debt, but most of the people had sort of paid it down but the first by 2009 we started the teal fellowship in 2010 and it you know felt To by 2009 was the first cohort where this really stopped if you take the people graduated from college in 2009 And you fast forward 12 years to 2021 the median person had more student debt 12 years later than they graduated with because it's actually just it's just compounding faster It was you know partially partially the global financial crisis the people had less well-paying jobs. They stayed in college longer And the colleges, but it's just sort of been this background thing where it's it's decayed in these in these really significant ways And you know again, I think it's on some level. There are sort of a lot of debates in our society that are probably dominated by sort of a boomer narrative and Maybe the baby boomers were the last generation were college really worked and you know, they think well, you know I worked my way through college and why can't why can't why can't you know an 18-year-old going to college do that today and And so I think the bubble will will will be done once the boomers have exited stage left But does the government be good if we figured something out before then you know does the government need to stop? Underwriting the loans because it's the lending I think the 90 plus percent of the the capital and the student loan programs is funded by federal federal the federal government and There's if you're an accredited university you can take out a loan and go to it and accreditation in a in a rigid kind of Free market system you would have an underwriter that says are you gonna be able to graduate make enough money to pay your loan off? Is this a good school? Are you gonna get a good job? And then the market would figure out whether or not to give you a loan would figure out what the rate should be and so on But in this case the government simply provides capital to support all this and as a result everything's gotten more expensive and The rigidity in the system that basically qualifies schools and the quality of those schools relative to the earning potential over time It's gone sure we need the government to get out of like the student loan business Yeah, but look the place where I'm yeah, I know the I'm sort of some ways. I'm right wing some ways I'm left wing on this so the place where I'm left wing is I Do think a lot of the students got ripped off and and so I think there should be some kind of broad Relieved up forgiveness point.

我们还有时间再回答几个问题。我认为你可能也注意到那些常春藤联盟的学校也许并没有培养出最优秀的学生，或者说并没有完全履行他们的职责。因此你创建了提尔奖学金，并且已经做了一段时间了。我见过所有的奖学金获得者，因为他们都有些疯狂的想法，并向我推销以获得天使投资。那么，你从这些人中学到了什么？他们辍学，获得十万美元的资助，然后有多少家长给你打电话，对孩子辍学感到非常不满？ 嗯，我学到了很多。我觉得大学的情况比我刚开始这个项目时想象的还要糟糕。上周我在耶鲁大学进行了一场辩论，主题是“高等教育是一个泡沫”。我们讨论了很多不同的数据。我小心措辞，以免引起争议。人们不断问我：“替代方案是什么？人们应该做什么？”我回答说，那不是辩论的主题，我也不是你的指导顾问，我不知道如何解决你的问题。但是如果某件事是个泡沫，你首先应该做的可能就是不要过度投入。2000年的学生债务是3000亿美元，而现在基本接近2万亿美元。这整个过程完全失控了。 当你按年级来看，1997年毕业的大学生在12年后大多数还清了债务。但到了2009年，我们于2010年启动了提尔奖学金，到2009届毕业生为止的情况开始恶化。如果你看2009届毕业生，12年到2021年后，中位数债务比毕业时还要高，因为负债利息实际上在更快地复利。这部分是由于全球金融危机，很多人找到的工作薪水不高，他们在大学待的时间更长。而学院则一直在退化。 在某种程度上，我们的社会讨论中有许多话题或许被婴儿潮一代的叙事主导了。也许婴儿潮一代是最后一个大学真的有用的一代，他们认为：“我当年可以一边工作一边上大学，为什么现在的18岁大学生做不到？”我认为，一旦婴儿潮一代退场，这个泡沫可能就会破灭。但我们最好能在此之前找到解决办法。政府是否应该停止支持学生贷款？超过90%的学生贷款资金来自联邦政府。如果你是被认证的大学，就可以获取贷款，而在一个自由市场体系中，贷款方会评估你是否能毕业后挣到足够的钱来偿还贷款，学校是否良好，工作前景如何，然后市场会决定是否给你贷款以及利率是多少。但是在这种情况下，政府提供了支持，结果一切变得更加昂贵，系统内认证学校的资格和质量相对于长期收入潜力的相关性越来越差。所以我们确实需要政府退出学生贷款业务。 不过在这种情况下，我持一些左翼观点。我认为很多学生确实被欺骗了，因此应该有某种广泛的减免或债务豁免。

We should pick up the tab, but it's not just the taxpayers It's the universities and it's the the the bond holder the bond take a little bit out of those in down at the university and And then obviously if you just make it the taxpayers then then you'll just then the universities can just charge more and more No, no incentive to reform what whatsoever, but I mean, you know It's in 2005 it was under Bush 43 that the bankruptcy laws got rewritten in the US where you cannot discharge student debt Even if you go bankrupt and if you haven't paid it off by the time you're 65 your Social Security wage it checks will be garnished It's crazy. So so you know, I do think but should we stop lending should the federal government get out of the student lending business? well if if we if we say that if we start if we start with my place where you know a lot of the student debt should be forgiven and then and then reform and then we'll see how many people are willing to lend you You know how much how many the colleges can pay for all this? What's your what's your sense if it was a totally free market system? How many colleges would shut down? Because they wouldn't be able to so there's no tuition support

我们应该付款，但不仅仅是纳税人。这还涉及到大学和债券持有人，应当从这些大学那里收取一些费用。显然，如果只是让纳税人承担，那么大学就会不断涨价，完全没有改革的动力。你知道吗，2005年在布什43时期，美国的破产法修改了，导致即使你破产也无法免除学生债务，如果你到65岁还没还清，社会保障工资支票将被扣押。这简直是疯狂。所以，我确实认为我们应该停止贷款，联邦政府是否应退出学生贷款业务？好吧，如果我们认为我们可以从偿还一部分学生债务开始，然后进行改革，那接下来你会看看有多少人愿意贷款，看看有多少大学可以支付这一切。你觉得如果是一个完全自由的市场体系，有多少大学会因为无法继续生存而关闭，因为没有学费支持？

It it probably would be a lot smaller it it might it might you might not have to shut them down because there's you know a lot of them have gotten extremely Uploaded it's like bow moles cost disease where you know, I don't know if you I have no you like the place like UCLA it probably has You know twice or three times as many bureaucrats as they had 30 40 years ago, so there's sort of all these sort of parasitic people that have sort of gradually approved and And so there's probably a lot of there would be a lot of rational ways to dial this back, but yeah You know, maybe we're gonna need a new location for new year The only way to lose weight is to cut off your thumb. That's kind of a difficult way to go on a day. Um Peter Three of your collaborators long-time collaborators Elon Musk Mark Zuckerberg and Sam Altman are Arguably the three leading AI language model leaders Which one is gonna win rank them in order and tell us a little bit about each Peter said he would answer any question I said it would take any question I didn't say to answer any question You said you would honestly said today you felt extremely honest and candid I've already been extremely honest and candid It's whoever I talked to last okay, well, they're all very very convincing people so you know I I'm gonna talk to Elon a while ago and and you know and it was it was just How ridiculous it was that Sam Altman was getting away with turning open AI from a nonprofit into a for-profit That was such a scam if everybody was allowed to do this everybody would do this That it has to be totally illegal what Sam's doing and it shouldn't be allowed at all and that seemed really really convincing in the moment And then sort of half an hour later. I thought to myself, but you know actually Man it was it's been such a Horrifically mismanaged place at open AI with this preposterous nonprofit board They had nobody would do this again And so there actually isn't much more hazard from it. So but yeah, whoever whoever I talked I find very convincing in the moment

这段文本表达的是一个人对现代大学中官僚主义膨胀的看法、人工智能领域的竞争，以及他对与三位著名科技人物交流的反思。以下是翻译和简化后的中文版本： 这也许会变得更小，可能你不必关闭它们，因为很多人已经变得极其臃肿。就像肿瘤病一样，比如UCLA，在过去30到40年间，官僚人员可能增加了两三倍。所以有很多寄生虫式的人渐渐被批准存在，所以有很多合理的方法可以去减少这些人员。但可能我们需要一个新地方过新年，就好比只有砍掉你的拇指才能减肥一样，这是一种很难接受的解决方法。 彼得，你的三个长期合作伙伴——埃隆·马斯克、马克·扎克伯格和山姆·奥特曼——可以说是三位AI语言模型领域的领导者。谁会取胜？请按顺序排名并描述一下每个人。 彼得说他会接受任何问题。我说我会接受任何问题，但没说一定会回答任何问题。 你说你今天会非常诚实和坦率。 我已经非常诚实和坦率了。无论我最后和谁交谈，我都会觉得他们非常有说服力。比如，我之前和埃隆聊过，他觉得山姆把OpenAI从非营利变成营利机构是个大骗局，如果大家都能这样做，那就一定是违法的，完全不该被允许。当时听上去非常有说服力，但半小时后我想，其实OpenAI的管理一直很糟糕，那个荒谬的非营利董事会根本没人愿意再这样做了，所以其实也没什么更大的危害。不过无论我和谁聊，我都会被他们说服。

Well, well that space is get commoditized. I mean do you see a path to monopoly there? Well again, this is this is again where you know you should you know attention is all you need you need to pay attention to who's making money It's NVIDIA. It's it's the hardware the chips layer and and And then that's just it's just what we you know, it's not what we've done in tech for for 30 years Are they making a hundred twenty percent of the profits? They're they're making they're I think everybody else is losing money collectively. Yeah, everyone else is just fascinating money on on the computer So it's one it's one company that's making I mean, maybe there are a few other people are making some money

好吧，好吧，那块市场正在商品化。我是说，你觉得那里有形成垄断的可能性吗？好吧，再说一遍，这是你知道你应该注意的地方，你需要关注谁在赚钱，是NVIDIA。是硬件，是芯片层面的公司。然后，这只是我们过去30年在科技领域一贯的做法。他们赚取了120%的利润吗？我认为其他公司总体上都在亏钱。对，其他公司只是在电脑上烧钱。所以这是一家公司在赚钱，可能还有少数几家公司也有赚一点钱。

I mean I assume TSMC and ASML, but but but yeah, I think everyone else is collectively losing money What do you think of Zuckerberg's approach to say I'm so far behind this isn't quarter my business? I'm gonna open source it Is that going to be the winning strategy? It's candy cap that for us Again, I I I would say My my again my big my big qualification is you know, my model is AI feels like it does feel Uncomfortably close to the bubble of 1999 so I'm we haven't invested that much in it and I want to have more clarity in investing but but the the the simple simplistic question is you know Who's gonna make money?

我猜是台积电和ASML，但但但对， 我觉得其他所有人加起来都是在亏钱。你怎么看待扎克伯格的做法，他说他已经落后太多，这已经不是他的主要业务了，所以他要把它开源。这会是一个成功的策略吗？能不能给我们分析一下？ 再说一次，我我的，我要强调的是，我的看法是，AI感觉上有点像1999年的泡沫，所以我们还没有在这上面投资太多，我希望在投资前能有更多的明确信息。但简单的问题是，谁会赚钱？

You know, I think a year ago two years ago in retrospect NVIDIA would have been a good buy You know, I think at this point everyone it's it's sort of too obvious that they're making too much money Everyone's gonna try to copy them on the chip side. Maybe that's straightforward to do. Maybe it's not but but that's No, I'd say probably You should you should if you want to figure out the AI thing you should not be asking this question about you know meta or Open air or any of these things you should really be focusing on the NVIDIA questions the chips question and the fact that we're not able to focus on that That that tells us something about how we've all been trained.

你知道吗，我觉得一两年前回想起来，买NVIDIA会是个不错的选择。现在呢，大家都知道他们赚了很多钱，变得太明显了。每个人都想在芯片领域模仿他们。或许这很容易做到，或许不容易，但总之，对于如何理解AI问题，你不应该问关于Meta或OpenAI之类的问题，应该把注意力集中在关于NVIDIA和芯片的问题上。我们现在无法集中注意力于此，这说明了我们在某些方面被训练得不对。

You know, I think NVIDIA got started in 1993 Yeah, I believe that was the last year Where anybody in their right mind would have studied electrical engineering over computer science right 94 Netscape takes off and then Yeah, it's probably a really bad idea start a semiconductor company even in 93 But the benefit is there was gonna be no one would come after you no no talented people started semiconductor companies after 1993 because they all went into into software score their monopoly power It's I think it's quite strong because this this history that I just gave you where none of us know anything about ships And then I think the you know, I think the risk it's always you know if attention is all that you need The qualifier to that is you know when you get started isn't you know actress as a startup as a as a company You need attention then it's desirable to get more and at some point Attention becomes the worst thing in the world and there was the one day where NVIDIA had the largest market cap in the world earlier this year And I do think that representative phase transition once that happened They probably had more attention than was good.

你知道吗，我觉得NVIDIA是在1993年成立的。我相信那一年是最后一个任何理智的人会选择学习电气工程而不是计算机科学的年份。94年，Netscape起飞，然后在93年就已经开始半导体公司是个很糟糕的想法了。但好的一面是，没有人会在你之后成立新的公司。因为1993年后，所有有才华的人都投入到了软件领域，享受其垄断的力量。我认为这种垄断很强大，因为我们当中没有人了解芯片的历史。 然后，我认为风险总是存在的，如果注意力是你唯一需要的，那么当你作为一个初创公司或企业刚开始时，需要的是更多的关注。而在某个时候，注意力会变成世界上最糟糕的事情。今年早些时候，有一天NVIDIA的市值是全球最高的，我觉得那是一个代表性的重要转折点。一旦这种情况发生，他们可能获得了比所需更多的关注。

Hey Peter as we wrap here Your brain works in a unique way. You're an incredible strategist. You think you know very differently than a lot of the folks That we get to talk to With all of this are you optimistic for the future? I Always man, I always push back on that question. I I Think I think extreme optimism and extreme pessimism are both really bad Attitudes and they're somehow the same thing, you know extreme pessimism nothing you can do extreme optimism The future will take care of itself So if you have to have one it's probably you want to be somewhere in between maybe mildly optimistic mildly pessimistic, but You know I believe in human agency and that it's up to us and it's not you know It's not some sort of winning a lottery ticket or some astrological chart that's going to decide things And I believe in human agency and that's sort of an axis.

嘿，彼得，当我们在这里结束时，我想说你的大脑运作方式非常独特。你是个了不起的战略家，你的思维方式和我们通常接触到的很多人都不一样。在这一切之下，你对未来乐观吗？ 我总是对这个问题持保留态度。我认为极端的乐观和极端的悲观都是不好的态度，它们在某种程度上是一样的。极端悲观意味着你什么也做不了，极端乐观则认为未来会自己解决问题。所以，如果一定要选择一种态度，可能需要介于两者之间，稍微乐观一些或稍微悲观一些。 但我相信人的主观能动性，我们的未来是由我们自己来决定的，而不是靠赢得彩票或某种星象图。因此，我相信人的主观能动性，这是一个重要的轴心。

That's very different from optimism or pessimism What a great great optimism extreme pessimism. They're both excuses for laziness. What an amazing place to end Ladies and gentlemen, give it up for Peter kill. Thank you. Thank you. Come on now. Thanks. Wow Peter kill.

那和乐观或悲观非常不同。一个极度乐观，一个极度悲观。其实它们都是懒惰的借口。真是一个完美的结尾。女士们，先生们，请为彼得·基尔鼓掌。谢谢，谢谢。来吧，谢谢你们。哇，彼得·基尔。