Ray Dalio: America’s Hidden Civil War, and the Race to Beat China in Tech, Economics, and Academia

发布时间 2025-02-21 22:09:00 来源

这段对话内容广泛，探讨了美国和世界的现状，重点关注技术、社会分化以及人类的未来。发言者认为，美国目前正经历一场“内战”，其特征是存在不可调和的差异以及为实现期望结果而斗争的意愿。这种冲突延伸到法律体系，双方都可能将他们的事业置于法治之上。他指出，财富差距和价值观差距是主要促成因素，并注意到美国政治日益两极分化，投票模式就是证据。发言者将这种两极分化归因于大部分人口生产力下降，而全球化和技术加剧了这种情况。他指出了精英阶层（他们受益于技术进步）与大多数美国人（他们缺乏参与这种新经济所需的教育和培训）之间的差距。然后，讨论转向人工智能（AI）的变革潜力。发言者认为，人工智能代表着我们所见过的最大影响，它正在彻底改变思维方式并影响一切，包括战争。人工智能的快速发展，能够通过多个领域的博士水平测试，将导致解决问题和制定战略的方式发生重大变化。这包括经济学和医学等领域，人工智能可以在分子水平上提供见解，从而实现个性化解决方案并更深入地理解因果关系。然而，发言者也承认人工智能的潜在弊端，包括就业岗位流失和极权主义社会控制的兴起。他强调，缺乏一个全面的应对这些挑战的计划，尤其是在大规模失业的可能性方面。他对从多国合作转向追求自身利益表示担忧，这导致了一个支离破碎的世界，存在着相互竞争的利益。他质疑谁在掌控局势，以及是否可以制定一个有凝聚力的计划来应对这个新时代的复杂性。对话触及了全球人工智能竞赛，发言者认为单个国家占据主导地位的可能性不大。他预计不同的实体将在人工智能的不同方面处于领先地位，例如美国在芯片设计方面，而中国在制造业和机器人技术方面。他认为，尽管美国在创新方面表现出色，并且拥有健全的法律和资本市场体系，但在制造业和机器人技术方面却落后了。讨论探讨了在人工智能塑造的世界中，现有的教育体系是否具有适应性并保持相关性。他强调了互动式和现实世界学习体验的潜力，以及人类与人工智能的融合。发言者认为，最重要的问题是人与人之间的互动方式。他强调和谐、生活质量和社区的重要性，并认为这些因素比仅仅实现技术进步更为重要。他认为，一个有能力的文明人将来自一个他们可以很好地合作以提高生产力的社会，但为了提高生产力，你必须拥有和谐。对话以对财富和幸福的简短反思结束，发言者认为，一旦满足基本需求，社区就成为幸福的最重要决定因素。

This transcript presents a wide-ranging conversation about the state of the United States and the world, with a focus on technology, societal divides, and the future of humanity. The speaker argues that the United States is currently experiencing a "type of civil war," characterized by irreconcilable differences and a willingness to fight for desired outcomes. This conflict extends to the legal system, with both sides potentially prioritizing their cause above the rule of law. He identifies wealth and values gaps as major contributing factors, noting the growing polarization in American politics as evidenced by voting patterns. The speaker attributes this polarization to a decline in productivity for a large segment of the population, exacerbated by globalization and technology. He points out the disparity between the elite, who are benefiting from technological advancements, and the majority of Americans who lack the education and training to participate in this new economy. The discussion then shifts to the transformative potential of Artificial Intelligence (AI). The speaker believes that AI represents the biggest impact we've seen, revolutionizing thinking and affecting everything, including warfare. The rapid advancements in AI, capable of passing PhD-level tests across multiple fields, will lead to significant changes in how problems are addressed and strategies are developed. This includes areas like economics and medicine, where AI could provide insights at a molecular level, allowing for personalized solutions and a deeper understanding of cause-and-effect relationships. However, the speaker also acknowledges the potential downsides of AI, including job displacement and the rise of totalitarian social controls. He highlights the absence of a comprehensive game plan to address these challenges, particularly regarding the potential for mass unemployment. He expresses concern about the shift from multinational cooperation to a pursuit of self-interest, creating a fragmented world with competing interests. He questions who is in control and whether a cohesive plan can be developed to navigate the complexities of this new era. The conversation touches on the global AI race, with the speaker suggesting that dominance by a single country is unlikely. He anticipates different entities being ahead in different aspects of AI, such as chip design in the U.S. and manufacturing and robotics in China. He believes that while the U.S. excels in inventiveness and has a robust legal and capital market system, it lags behind in manufacturing and robotics. The discussion explores whether the existing education systems will be adaptable and remain relevant in a world shaped by AI. He highlights the potential for interactive and real-world learning experiences, as well as a merging of humans and artificial intelligence. The most significant concern, according to the speaker, is how people interact with each other. He emphasizes the importance of harmony, quality of life, and community, arguing that these factors are more critical than simply achieving technological advancements. He argues that a capable civil person will come out to a society in which they can work well together to be productive, but in order to be productive, you have to have a harmony. The transcript concludes with a brief reflection on wealth and happiness, with the speaker suggesting that once basic needs are met, community becomes the most important determinant of happiness.

摘要

Ray Dalio on AI, the debt crisis and what actually makes people happy. (00:00) The Hidden Civil War Happening in the US (05:00) What Caused This Mass Polarization? (08:03) Will the Advancement of Tech Destroy Us? (16:44) Ray Dalio’s Predictions About AI (21:09) AI’s Impact on Economics Paid partnerships with: Levels: Get 2 extra months free at https://Levels.Link/Tucker Silencer Central: Promo code Tucker10 for 10% off your purchase of banish suppressors at https://www.silencercentral.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

GPT-4正在为你翻译摘要中......

中英文字稿

So, I've heard you say that the United States is in a civil war, and I think most Americans don't perceive that. Can you tell us what you mean by that? Well, what I mean by a civil war, I should say a type of civil war, right? And what I mean is that there are irreconcilable differences that each side is willing to fight for in order to get the outcomes that they want. And that, in that environment, the issues of how does the legal system work? Is that going to stand in the way of that fight? Or is there going to be a fight that will make the cause more important than anything? So that's the type of situation that we're in. And those gaps, we understand there's wealth and values gaps that are entering to this. We've seen this through history. So where that goes is a different question, but we are in that type of civil war, are we not? Clearly we are. Clearly we are.

我听说你说美国正在经历一场内战，而我认为大多数美国人并没有这样的感觉。你能解释一下你的意思吗？好吧，我所说的内战，其实是一种类型的内战。我的意思是，双方之间存在一些无法调和的分歧，而他们愿意为此而斗争，以实现他们想要的结果。在这种环境下，法律体系是如何运作的问题就变得很重要了。这个体系会阻碍这些斗争吗？或是斗争会让某个原因变得比一切都重要？这就是我们所处的情况。这种分歧，我们知道其中涉及到财富和价值观的差距，通过历史我们也看到了这一点。至于这些会走向何方，那是另一个问题，但我们确实处在这种类型的内战中，不是吗？很明显，我们确实是。

How are they resolved? I mean, clearly they can be resolved through violence, but what are the other ways you resolve the kind of conflict we have? Normally, they're resolved through conflict because you get to the point where both sides can't reach a grievance. Both sides don't even want to talk. Both sides don't want to respect the rule of the law. So when we're dealing with things like sanctuary city issues and we're dealing with enforceability, who has the enforceability? Okay. And you almost have to play out. Okay. Enforceability means police forces and such things. Right. People with guns. Yeah. People with guns and causes that just because the legal thing says they shouldn't do that, that's a going to stand in the way. We have that kind of a situation. So we are probably past the point of being able to resolve that by compromise and empathy and all of that.

这些问题如何解决？我的意思是，显然可以通过暴力解决，但还有其他什么方法可以解决我们面临的这种冲突吗？通常，这些问题是通过冲突解决的，因为双方无法达成一致，也不愿意沟通，也不愿意尊重法律的规则。比如，当我们处理庇护城市问题时，涉及到执行力的问题，那么到底谁拥有执行力呢？执行力通常指警方等具有强制力的机构，对吧。这就意味着有持枪人员的参与，因为即便法律规定他们不该这样做，法律本身并不能阻止他们。在这样的情况下，我们可能已经无法通过妥协和共情来解决问题了。

So normally it goes that way. The only thing that can be done is to have the fear of that create a necessity for having another path. Like we were talking about the debt situation. So can there be a fiscal commission that gets together and then achieves those things or not? I think it's unlikely. I think we're going to more fragmentation. There are some states, other states. I think we're going to see more fragmentation. And so, but it's like this dynamic through history. This isn't the first time this happened. This happens repeatedly through history. And usually it runs its course.

通常情况就是这样。唯一能做的就是让对那种情况的恐惧促使寻找另一条路。就像我们谈论的债务问题那样。那么，是否可以成立一个财政委员会来解决这些问题呢？我觉得可能性不大。我认为我们将会看到更多的分裂。有一些州和其他州。我认为我们将会看到更多的分裂。不过，这种动态在历史上反复出现，这不是第一次发生。通常它会经历一个过程。

So the way our leaders in the United States have dealt with it over the past 30 years has just been to ignore it completely. Just ignore it. Well, there's a cycle. The cycle was, let's say, I don't know, Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill and Craig get together and they were operating in a certain way. And the manifestations of the circumstances, the manifestations of debt or wealth gap or values gaps were not as great. So you didn't, over that 30-year period, have as much polarity in many different ways. So now you've gone to greater polarity.

在过去的30年里，美国的领导者们对这个问题的处理方式就是完全忽视它。就是不去理会。你可以说，这其中有一个循环。比如，Ronald Reagan、Tip O'Neill和Craig聚在一起时，他们以某种方式运作。当时，债务问题、贫富差距或价值观差异等现象还没有那么严重。所以在这30年间，社会在很多方面的两极化并不明显。而现在，这种两极化变得更加严重了。

If you watch statistics, everything I do comes from measuring things. So I look at statistics. The gap in measuring conservative or liberal votes in the House and the Senate is the greatest gap since 1900. And the voting across party lines is the least since 1900. So you see this gap. You see it in the elections, right? The green and red. So the blue and red. So we're not, it's not just an evolutionary, it's where we are, where we have gotten to. That is the irreconcilable questions. Was the Supreme Court, you know, we thought about the Supreme Court differently? Not long ago, right? The Supreme Court was the Supreme Court.

如果你关注统计数据，我做的一切都是通过测量得出的。所以我查看统计数据。众议院和参议院在保守派和自由派投票上的差距是自1900年以来最大的。同时，跨党派投票的比例是自1900年以来最低的。因此，你可以看到这种差距，在选举中也能看出来，像绿色和红色，或者蓝色和红色。所以，这不仅仅是一个渐进的过程，而是我们现在所处的状态。这些是无法调和的问题。以前，我们对最高法院的看法不同，对吧？最高法院就是最高法院。

And so now it's different. So what accounts, I mean, there are a million ways to measure this in all of them. Do we do you agree? Well, of course I agree. Of course I agree. And I agree with you that every measurement shows the same result, which is the country's polarizer. Okay. So we know where we are. Completely. And we're not sure how it's resolved. But I think it's also causing to ask what happened? What was the change that led to the polarization that was unimaginable even 35 years ago?

所以，现在情况不同了。这种变化的原因是什么呢？我觉得有很多方法可以衡量这一点，你同意吗？当然，我同意。我完全同意。我们都看到所有衡量方法都显示出相同的结果，那就是国家变得两极分化。好吧，所以我们知道我们现在的状况。但我们不确定这将如何解决。不过，我认为我们也应该问一下，究竟发生了什么变化，导致了这种在35年前甚至难以想象的分化呢？

The change was in a combination of the system working well for the majority of the people and which has to do with the majority of the people not being productive. You have productivity equals income. Right. Okay. So now if you take education and you take measures of how productive or how well trained you're going to be, you see, and therefore also income, your productivity, you see, by all of these measures, great, great gaps that exist. So by way of example is unicorns and the changes that we're seeing, fabulous changes in what we're seeing in technologies.

变革的原因在于系统对大多数人来说运行良好，而这也与大多数人生产力不高有关。简单来说，生产力等于收入，对吧？好的。那么，如果你看教育和一些衡量你将会多么有生产力或训练有素的指标，你会发现，因此也能看出收入，通过所有这些衡量标准，存在很大的差距。举个例子，像是独角兽公司和我们在技术上看到的惊人变化。

But it really comes down to if you take the number of people who have been making those changes and have unicorns in this wonderful world, they go to the best universities and they make these wonderful things happen. That's about 3 million people in a country of a little over 330 million people. And if you take the average 60% of Americans have below a sixth-grade reading level, 60% of Americans. So when we deal with education, you have to make that population productive. And through productivity, they become educated and they become productive. They earn money and you have a better society.

但实际上，这归结为这样一个问题：在这个美好的世界里，参与这些变革并创造出独角兽企业的人大多就读于顶尖大学，并促成了这一切的发生。在一个人口刚超过3.3亿的国家里，大约有300万这样的人。同时，如果你看一下美国，有60%的人阅读水平低于六年级水平。因此，当我们谈论教育时，必须让这部分人口更具生产力。通过提升生产力，他们获得教育，从而变得更有成效。他们赚到钱，社会也因此变得更美好。

So a number of things change that. It was the combination of globalization and technology. Think about, I remember, you probably remember, what the middle class working on an assembly line and an auto plant was like and how manufacturing occurred. Yes. A combination of foreign producers and automation changed all that. Of course. So that produces a larger wealth gap. And then with that wealth gap, we also have very large values gaps. But it's driven by the wealth gap. It's both, you know, some population, here we are at the World Government Summit in Dubai.

有许多因素导致了变化，主要是全球化和技术的结合。想想看，我记得，也许你也记得，中产阶级曾在装配线和汽车工厂工作的情况，那时候制造业是怎样的。是的，外国生产商和自动化的结合改变了这一切。这自然带来了更大的财富差距。而随着财富差距的扩大，我们也看到了巨大的价值观差距。但这主要是由财富差距引发的。正如我们在迪拜的世界政府峰会上谈到的，这些变化影响了一些人群。

And you have very globalization and everybody, the elites, let's call them the elites, where they're among the elites are here doing deals and facing questions and all of that. And at the same time, then there's those who are dealing with their basics. So wealth gaps contribute to it. But there's also values gaps. Energy is part of the reason that we're here. Religion. Yes. You know, belief systems. These are important too. Of course. But we're on the edge of this AI transformation, which seems like it's going to accelerate the trends that have led us to where we are right now.

这段话大致表达的意思是：在全球化的背景下，那些可以称为精英的人们正在进行交易、面对各种问题。然而，同时也存在着那些只关注基本生活需求的人们。财富差距是造成这一现象的原因之一，但价值观的差异也是重要因素。能源、宗教、信仰系统也都很重要。当然，我们还处于AI变革的边缘，这一变革似乎会加速导致我们目前处境的趋势。

So what do you, I mean, if artificial intelligence, you know, increases efficiency, but leaves an even greater number of people without meaningful work in the United States. There needs to be a game plan. Yeah. Okay. There needs to be a game plan. That's the main thing. In other words, I can describe the circumstance. Yes. Okay. And we can agree that there needs to be a game plan. Well, let me ask you since I'm not responsible for the game plan. Everybody and you spend your life talking, everybody. And you're one of the world's biggest investors. So you're taking these questions seriously. Are you familiar with the game plan in progress?

好的，如果人工智能提高了效率，但在美国导致更多人失去有意义的工作，那么就需要一个应对计划。是的，需要一个计划，这是关键。换句话说，我可以描述这种情况。好的，我们可以一致认为需要一个计划。那么让我问问你，因为我并不负责这个计划。大家都在谈论这个问题，而你是世界上最大的投资者之一，所以你会认真对待这些问题。你了解进行中的应对计划吗？

There is not a game plan at all. No, that seems crazy. You know, yeah, it seems crazy. It seems of we are going from a transition. I'm just being analytical. Yes. Mechanical. Okay. So, from a transition in which there is, I don't know, collectivism, a multi-national, you know, all the constituents working together kind of environment that has also created a bureaucracy and inefficiencies and so on. So you're going from an environment in which there was a World Health Organization, a trade organization, a World Bank and all of that, to unilateral, in my own interest, in other words, as a country or within a country, as a constituency, my tribe, what is my interest and you're going to fight for it.

完全没有一个计划。这听起来很疯狂。是的，这似乎很疯狂。我只是试着分析一下，是的，就像是从一个集体主义、多国合作的过渡。所有成分一起工作的环境也导致了官僚主义和低效等等。所以，你从一个有世界卫生组织、贸易组织、世界银行等的环境过渡到一个以自身利益为主的环境。换句话说，不论是作为一个国家还是在国家内部，作为一个群体、一个团体，关注的是“我的利益是什么”，然后为之而斗争。

So we have evolved into that kind of land situation. And so the question is almost, what is the we? Who is in control? Okay. I mean, we change control very quickly. I've not. So, and then who has the plan? So now you get in control. You fight to get into control. You're in control. You've got to do things quickly and you're doing things quickly. You know, we don't have the continuity to be able to work together to be able to have a plan.

所以，我们已经演变到这样的土地状况了。那么问题几乎是，我们是谁？谁在掌控局面？嗯，我的意思是，我们的控制权变化得非常快。我还没有。那么，谁有计划呢？所以现在你掌握了控制权。你努力争取到了控制权，你在掌控中。你必须快速行动，并且你确实在快速行动。我们缺乏能够合作以制定计划的持续性。

Well, to be more specific about it, I would say that people developing the technologies so they would be various Chinese companies, of course, but also Google and Microsoft. Sam Altman. Parker, you're so idealistic, but no, I'm from realistic. Yes, we all should work together. No, no, no. I'm merely saying if I'm, you know, unleashing something on the global population, then I think it's fair to ask me, like, what, you know, like, what do you expect to happen to everybody? I think, no, no, but I think that's what I mean.

好的，更具体地说，我认为开发这些技术的人，包括各种中国公司，当然还有谷歌和微软。Sam Altman。帕克，你太理想主义了，但我很现实。是的，我们都应该合作。不是的，我只是说，如果我向全球公众发布某个东西，我觉得大家有权问我预期会发生什么。我想，这就是我的意思。

The notion that it's fair to deny the reality that we're in an environment of pursuit of self-interest. So if you take the fight, let's say, of technologies, of course, the one who wants to get the latest AI out wants to beat the other one who does it, let alone an American firm and a Chinese firm. And I'm just trying to describe the reality of Tucker. So now let's look at those realities. That's the reality. So when you say they should, okay, that's the theoretical should. They should come up with rules that is better for the harmony of the people as a whole.

我们身处一个追求自身利益的环境，否认这一现实是不公平的。以技术竞争为例，想要推出最新人工智能技术的人，当然想击败其他竞争者，尤其是在美国公司和中国公司之间。我只是试图描述塔克眼中的现实。现在让我们来看这些现实，这是现实。所以当你说他们应该怎样时，那就是理论上的"应该"。他们应该制定有助于整体和谐的规则。

Okay, I agree. They should. I guess I'm saying is I'm once a realistic. I be a little bit. You got to grow up, Tucker. I know. I'm 55. I'm still disappointed. But you're absolutely right. And I'm not here to sort of inspire a moral lecture from your deliver one. I just want to kind of know what you think is going to happen.

好的，我同意。他们确实应该这么做。我想我是在说，我曾经是一个现实主义者。我有点像这样。你得成长，塔克。我知道，我已经55岁了，我仍然感到失望。但你完全正确。我不是来从道德上说教的。我只是想知道你认为会发生什么。

So you have these technologies. Is it fair to say that they really are as transformative? There is big and huge. Hugely. The greatest. So I've studied history, right? Yes. What was the impact of the printing press and what was the impact for the industrial revolutions and so on? This in my opinion is the biggest impact that we have because it will revolutionize all thinking that applies to everything and applies to everything.

所以你们有了这些技术。那么，是否可以说它们确实具有颠覆性？规模大得惊人。我学过历史，对吧？是的。印刷术和工业革命的影响是什么？在我看来，这次的影响最大，因为它将彻底改变我们对一切事物的思考，并且适用于所有领域。

So whatever you're doing, it will make it much more efficient, much more powerful. But that includes wars too. Everything is going to be radically transformed because anything that we apply thinking to is going to be very much transformed by it.

所以，无论你在做什么，它都将变得更加高效、更加有力。但这也包括战争。因为任何我们应用思考的事情都将因此而发生巨大的变化。

We did an interview with a woman called Casey Means. She's a Stanford educated surgeon and really one of the most remarkable people I have ever met. In the interview, she explained how the food that we eat produced by huge food companies, big food in conjunction with pharma, is destroying our health, making this a weak and sick country.

我们采访了一位名叫Casey Means的女性。她是斯坦福大学受过教育的外科医生，也是我见过的最杰出的人之一。在采访中，她解释了我们所吃的由大型食品公司生产的食物，如何在与制药行业的配合下，破坏我们的健康，使我们的国家变得虚弱和生病。

The levels of chronic disease are beyond belief. Well Casey Means, who we've not stopped thinking about ever since, is the co-founder of a healthcare technology company called Levels. And we are proud to announce today that we are partnering with Levels. And by proud, I mean sincerely proud. Levels is a really interesting company and a great product.

慢性病的程度令人难以置信。我们一直记挂着的Casey Means，是一家名为Levels的医疗技术公司的联合创始人。今天，我们很自豪地宣布与Levels展开合作。这里的“自豪”是真心的，因为Levels是一家非常有趣的公司，提供了很棒的产品。

It gives you insight into what's going on inside your body, your metabolic health. It helps you understand how the food that you're eating, the things that you're doing every single day, are affecting your body in real time. And you don't think about it. You have no idea what you're putting in your mouth and you have no idea what it's doing to your body.

它让你了解身体内部的状况，尤其是代谢健康。它帮助你理解每天所吃的食物和所做的事情是如何实时影响你身体的。你平时可能不会去思考这些，也不知道自己吃下的东西对身体到底有什么影响。

But over time, you feel weak and tired and spacey and over an even longer period of time you can get really sick. So it's worth knowing what the food you eat is doing to you. The Levels app works with something called the continuous glucose monitor, a CGM. You can get one as part of the plan where you can bring your own.

但是随着时间的推移，你会感到虚弱、疲惫、精神恍惚，甚至在更长的时间之后可能会生病。因此，了解你吃的食物对身体的影响是很值得的。Levels应用程序与一种叫做连续血糖监测仪（CGM）的设备配合使用。你可以通过计划获得一个，或者你可以自带。

It doesn't matter. But the bottom line is big tech, big pharma and big food combined together to form an incredibly malevolent force pumping you full of garbage, unhealthy food with artificial sugars and hurting you and hurting the entire country. So with Levels you'll be able to see immediately what all this is doing to you.

这无所谓，但关键是，大型科技公司、大型制药公司和大型食品公司联合起来，形成了一股极其恶劣的势力，把你塞满了垃圾和含有人工糖分的不健康食品，对你和整个国家造成伤害。有了Levels，你将能够立即看到这些对你身体的影响。

You get access to real time personalized data and it's a critical step to changing your behavior. Those of us who like Oreos can tell you firsthand. This isn't talking to your doctor and annual physical, looking backwards about things you did in the past. This is up to the second information on how your body is responding to different foods and activities, the things that give you stress, your sleep, etc., etc.

你可以获得实时的个性化数据，这是改变你行为的关键一步。那些喜欢奥利奥的人可以亲身体会到。这不是在和医生谈论你的年度体检，也不是回顾你过去做过的事情。这是关于你的身体如何对不同食物和活动做出反应的即时信息，包括导致你压力的因素、你的睡眠状况等等。

It's easy to use. It gives you powerful personalized health data and you can make much better choices about how you feel and over time it'll have a huge effect. Right now you can get an additional two free months when you go to Levels.Link.slashtucker. That's Levels.Link.slashtucker.

这很容易使用。它为你提供强大的个性化健康数据，让你能够做出更好的选择，改善自身感受。随着时间的推移，这将产生巨大的效果。现在，如果你访问Levels.Link.slashtucker，还可以额外获得两个月的免费使用。网址是Levels.Link.slashtucker。

This is the beginning of what we hope will be a long and happy partnership with Levels and Dr. Casey Means. Tucker says it best. The credit card companies are ripping Americans off and enough is enough. This is Senator Roger Marshall of Kansas. Our legislation, the Credit Card Competition Act, would help in the grip Visa and Mastercard have on us.

这标志着我们与Levels和Dr. Casey Means希望建立的长期而愉快的合作关系的开始。Tucker说得很明白，信用卡公司正在剥削美国人，大家已经受够了。我是堪萨斯州的参议员罗杰·马歇尔。我们的立法——《信用卡竞争法案》将有助于打破Visa和万事达卡对我们的控制。

Every time you use your credit card, they charge you a hidden fee called a swipe fee and they've been raising it without even telling you. This hurts consumers and every small business owner. In fact, American families are paying $1,100 in hidden swipe fees each year. The fees Visa and Mastercard charge Americans are the highest in the world, double candidates and eight times more than Europe's.

每次你使用信用卡时，他们会向你收取一个隐藏费用，叫做刷卡费，并且他们一直在悄悄地提高这个费用而不通知你。这对消费者和每个小型企业主都是一种损害。事实上，美国的每个家庭每年要支付1100美元的隐藏刷卡费。Visa和万事达卡对美国人收取的费用是全世界最高的，是加拿大的两倍，是欧洲的八倍。

That's why I take an action but I need your help to help get this passed. I'm asking you to call your Senator today and demand they pass the Credit Card Competition Act. Paid for by the Merchants Payments Coalition, not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee, www.merchantspaymentscoallition.com.

这就是为什么我要采取行动，但我需要你的帮助来促成这件事。我请求你今天打电话给你的参议员，要求他们通过《信用卡竞争法案》。此信息由商家支付联盟提供，与任何候选人或候选人委员会无关。请访问：www.merchantspaymentscoallition.com。

Can you give us some concrete examples that you believe will come to pass in the next few years? Change that we at this point can understand. Right now, tests of AIs is we, all of them, can pass tests that are equivalent to the PhDs in all fields in one mind so that there is what we call Mollipaths, the people who can think both across domains.

您能给我们一些具体的例子，让我们了解您认为在未来几年会发生的变化吗？是我们现在能够理解的变化。目前，AI的测试是所有AI能够通过相当于各个领域博士水平的测试，这样我们就有了所谓的Mollipaths，即能够跨领域思考的人。

In that, we have these operating so that it's not just like a PhD in one area, it's like a PhD in all areas and that it could look across those areas and give you answers and operate that way. That has created the, there's an acceleration of this because it compounds as it learns the learning compounds and it produces that. So that is a reality today. People just haven't yet experienced all of that.

在这方面，我们的操作方式不仅仅像是在一个领域获得博士学位，而是像在所有领域获得博士学位。它能够跨越这些领域提供答案并以这种方式运作。这种方式引发了一个加速过程，因为学习会累积进步，进而产生更多成果。因此，这已经成为今天的现实。只是人们尚未完全体验到这一切。

And so you're very quickly going to be in a situation where the problems are going to be given to it. We're going to ask it strategies and so on that can take into consideration all of the things that are happening from everywhere and how the cause effect relationships work. Think about it this way. There's so much complexity in the world. Everything that where, you know, what happened, there's their economic policies or economic things, there are financial things, there are health things, there are all of these things.

这段话可以翻译成中文如下：很快，你就会面临这样一种情况：问题会被交给它解决。我们会向它寻求策略，这些策略能够考虑到全球正在发生的所有事情，以及因果关系如何运作。想想看，世界如此复杂，无论发生了什么，有经济政策、经济事务、金融事务、健康问题，还有所有这些事情。

And they all relate to each other. It's called, I think the butterfly syndrome, you know, butterfly changes, flaps its wings, it has these secondary consequences. This is all very complex. It's very complex for the human mind to think about those things. We're now having a situation where it can all be taken into consideration and be a partner, a thought partner that can actually go beyond our capacities to think about those relationships.

它们彼此之间都有联系。这种现象被称为“蝴蝶效应”，你知道的，蝴蝶扇动翅膀会导致一系列间接的后果。这一切都非常复杂，对于人类的思维来说，理解这些事情非常困难。现在，我们正处于一种能够全面考虑所有因素的境地，这种状态可以成为我们的思维伙伴，能够超越我们的能力去思考这些关系。

And in thinking about those relationships and so on, it has an enormous impact. Somebody in the medical area was giving me the example of learning about all the causes, but with the data that they're going to have on each one of us about what were our experiences and what is our diagnosis of each of the parts. And you watch that over time. What air do you breathe? What environment are you in? What stress are you in and all that?

在思考这些关系等问题时，它产生了巨大的影响。某位医学领域的人士向我举了一个例子，说到了解所有的原因，但更重要的是他们将掌握关于我们每个人的数据，比如我们的经历是什么以及我们对每个部分的诊断是什么。你可以随着时间的推移观察这些数据。你呼吸的空气是什么？你所处的环境怎样？你承受了哪些压力等等。

That there will be the understanding of these cause-effect relationships that in turn change things and then you go down to the microscopic level of dealing with practically at the molecular cell level in dealing with these problems, okay, changing of DNA and these types of things. All of those we are in the midst of a tremendous revolutionary change.

人们将理解这些因果关系，这种理解会带来改变。然后，你深入到微观层面，从分子细胞层次上处理这些问题，比如改变DNA等等。所有这些领域都处在一场巨大的革命性变革之中。

What about the field of economics? Can you take the art and the guessing out of it? You're saying you have said many times you've written a lot about it, but the need of governments to get down to 3% of GDP with their debt. So else everything collapses. How do you do that? All these political consequences, the population doesn't want less money spent on them. Obviously you could get government's falling and stuff.

关于经济学领域呢？你能把其中的艺术性和猜测去掉吗？你说过很多次，也写了很多关于这个问题的文章，即政府需要将债务降至占GDP的3%。否则，一切都会崩溃。那该怎么做到呢？所有这些政治后果，民众不希望政府减少对他们的花费。显然，这可能导致政府垮台等等。

Wouldn't AI just solve that for you? You said it produces strategy. There's AI control human nature. No, but these are human nature. My bet is that human nature is going to be the biggest force and it's all going to come down to like how we are with each other. I'm so glad though. So there'll be room for human beings still, even as we're changing DNA and implanting chips in our brains and stuff.

AI不能直接解决这个问题吗？你说它能制定策略。AI难道人性吗？不，某些事情是属于人性的。我认为人性将会是最大的力量，一切最终都会取决于我们如何相处。不过我感到很高兴。即使我们在改变人类的DNA并在大脑中植入芯片时，仍然会有空间留给人类。

Well, if not, we're lost and if so, we're dealing with each other. I don't know how well that's going to go either. But I wonder like there's still debates. I mean, you're effectively the economist. The debates about supply side versus demand side, what is the near and far term effect of these economic costs? We're going to be able to understand at a micro level how things work better.

好吧，如果不是这样的话，我们就迷失了，而如果是这样的话，我们就要进行互相应对。我也不知道这会走向何方。但是我想知道，现在还是存在争论。你就像是经济学家一样，讨论供应方和需求方的问题，这些经济代价在近期和远期有哪些影响？我们会更好地在微观层面了解事物的运作。

Exactly. By the way, again, I put out this writings, this study that shows the mechanics. I don't want to convey that mechanics so everybody can see the mechanics. But you're going to go down to a molecular level. That means like nowadays we or policy makers like the Federal Reserve think about something like inflation.

没错。顺便说一下，我再次发布了这项写作和研究，展示了其中的原理。我并不想解释得那么详细，以至于所有人都能完全理解这些原理。不过，这个研究深入到了分子层面。就像现在，我们或者像美联储这样的政策制定者在考虑类似通货膨胀问题时的思考一样深入。

And there'll be maybe five measures of inflation. We're using the term inflation because our minds are limited in its capacity of the number of things we could think about. When we're now in this new reality, which we now are, you can go down to a molecular level essentially and saying I could see all the different transactions of what was bought and what was sold and why.

我们可能会使用五种不同的通胀指标。我们之所以使用“通胀”这个词，是因为我们的大脑在同时思考事物的数量上有限。当我们处在人类面临的新现实中，我们能够深入到分子级别的细节，基本上可以看到所有买卖交易及其背后的原因。

And now I can really have a level of understanding. We don't have to be at this brand level that we don't. We're going to be at the molecular level of understanding individual transactions and what's affecting them and be able to deploy resources at the individual molecular level just like we can do it in biology or physical existence and so on.

现在我真的能达到一种理解的层次。我们不必停留在我们不了解的品牌层面。我们将深入到分析每个交易的细节，了解其影响因素，就像在生物学或物理存在中一样，可以在这些微观层面上精准地分配资源。

So I mean, this will sell lots of downsides to AI. Obviously, I'd dread it. I would end it if I could. But there are upsides and this sounds like one of them. So like if you- Of course. So we have a COVID again and we're thinking about should we issue COVID checks with AI we can know the effects of-

这意味着，虽然 AI 有很多负面影响，我当然很害怕这些。如果可以，我会想要去结束这些负面的影响。不过，AI 还是有好处的，而这听起来就是其中一个好处。比如说，如果我们再次面临 COVID 疫情，考虑要不要发放疫情补助金的话，利用 AI 我们可以知道这样的措施会带来什么效果。

And what the money's gone for and that'll change everything. It'll change the controls. And it but it is of course a two-edged sword, right? It'll change who controls it, who has access to it, who can use it detrimentally to other people. All of these things are part of the question. Is there any way to avoid like totalitarian social controls under AI with AI?

这笔钱的去向将改变一切，包括控制权。但是，这当然是一把双刃剑，对吧？它会改变谁来控制它，谁有权限访问它，谁可能用它来对他人造成不利影响，这些都是需要考虑的问题。有没有办法在人工智能的情况下避免极权主义的社会控制呢？

I think there's a question of whether you can have social and totalitarian controls or maybe you just have anarchy. I mean, I don't know where we're going. I can't tell you, I cannot tell you what this world. I do believe we're going to go through a time warp. Okay. What I mean, it's going to feel like you're going through over the next five years. And that environment is because of these five major forces that have to do all of these things. And the changes in the technologies, particularly artificial intelligence and related technologies. So the world five years from now is going to be a radically different world. And I don't know what that's going to look like when you go into the world of quantum computing and what quantum is like in so many different ways. It raises questions of, you know, what is that? Like I'm not smart enough to tell you what that world is going to look like.

我认为，现在有一个问题是：我们究竟会在社会上实施全面的控制，还是会陷入无政府状态。我不知道我们将走向何方。我无法告诉你，这个世界将会变成什么样。但我相信，我们将经历一个时间的转折点。换句话说，未来五年我们将经历巨大的变化。这种变化环境是由于五个主要力量的影响，尤其是技术的变化，特别是人工智能和相关技术。因此，五年后的世界将会截然不同。而当我们涉足量子计算的世界时，这种变化会以多种方式呈现出来。这引发了一些问题，我不知道那个世界究竟会是什么样子。我没有足够的智慧来预测那时的情况。

But as an investor for 50 years. Who is in control? I don't know who's in control. Okay. So, but right. So this is like the opposite of what you've done your whole life where you try to predict, you know, five years hence, that's your whole business, right? Well, that's, I said my, my business is try to predict, but I would, I'd say first thing, whatever success I've had in life has more to been due to my knowing how to deal with what I don't know than anything I know. Okay. So how you deal with what you don't know, okay, is so important.

作为一名拥有50年经验的投资者。谁在掌控局面？我不知道谁在掌控。所以，这与你一生所做的事情相反，你的职业就是预测未来五年，对吗？我说，我的工作就是进行预测。但我认为，我人生中取得的一切成功，更多地归功于我知道如何处理那些我不了解的事情，而不是依靠我所了解的东西。所以，如何处理那些未知，真的非常重要。

So I, yes, my, my business in a nutshell is I try to find a bunch of bets that I think are good bets, but to diversify well so that I have a bunch of diversified bets because I, I do not know. I mean, in terms of my actual track record, I've probably been right about 65% of the time. Okay. And I, and any one bad bet can kill you. So I've known how to deal with that. That's what I've learned, including how to deal with what I don't know. So now you're describing an environment where you can't really know anything about the world in five years. You, well, I can know, I could place good bets.

所以，是的，简单来说，我的业务就是努力找到一些我认为好的赌注，但要进行良好的多元化，以便拥有一系列多样化的赌注，因为说实话，我并不知道结果。在我的实际记录中，我大概有65%的时间是正确的。而且，任何一个糟糕的赌注都可能让你失败，所以我学会了如何应对这种情况，包括如何应对我不知道的事情。现在，你描述的是一个在五年后无法真正了解世界的环境，不过，我仍然可以做出好的赌注。

Okay. There are some things that are highly knowable. Okay. Highly knowable. Like they say, you know, death in taxes. Right. Demographics. Okay. Um, so I can know or have a view, for example, that owning, I believe owning dead assets is not going to be a good thing. So I could think about alternative store holds of wealth. I can think about that. I can place some bets that allow me, you know, they're not the certain bets, but I can place enough bets and have enough diversification that I can be relatively confident of some things, but never absolutely all totally confident. But I think when we're coming back anyway, that's the reality.

好的，有些事情是非常明确的。就像他们常说的，死亡和税收一样明确，对吧？人口统计也是如此。所以，我可以知道或认为，比如说，我认为持有无收益的资产将不会是一个好选择。因此，我可以考虑替代的财富储存方式。我可以考虑这些，我可以下注，这些下注不一定是确定无疑的，但如果我下注足够多并且足够多样化，我可以对某些事情有相对的信心，不过绝对不会完全确信。但我认为，当我们回到现实中来，这就是事实。

I'm just describing my, our reality, the best I can. That's why people who are confident in the future and are just experiencing the present, you know, right now people are describing all of them are describing how things are. And almost everybody thinks the future is going to be a modified version of the press. A pure extrapolation forward. Yeah. Okay. Things are good. All right. I get it. Okay. Things. Well, I'll guarantee you there will be big changes. So those are dumb people you're saying, making those. I'm not, I'm saying it's under, it's understandable, but when you study change and the nature of change, it's a, you know, the world changes in dramatic ways because of causes that we can look at and get a good understanding of.

我只是尽我所能描述我的、我们的现实。这就是为什么那些对未来充满信心并只是体验当下的人，他们正在描述现状。几乎所有人都认为未来将是现状的一种演变，只是简单地向前推测。嗯，好的，事情不错。我明白了，情况不错。但是，我可以保证，将会有大的改变。所以，你是在说那些做这种预测的人很愚蠢吗？我不是这样说，我只是觉得这是可以理解的。但是，当你研究变化及其本质时，会发现世界由于一些可以研究并理解的原因而发生剧烈变化。

I, we can't be sure about anything because of the nature, but in this specific, I mean, that's always true. And why is people understand that? Like you don't, you're not in control of the future. Of course you're not God. But in this specific case where there are specific technologies whose development, we understand because we're watching it, it almost feels like there's no human agency here. Like not one person ever suggests like, well, why don't we just stop the development of the technologies by force?

我，因为自然界的本质，我们无法对任何事情有绝对的把握，但在这种特定情况下，我的意思是，这总是成立的。而为什么人们会理解这一点呢？就像你无法掌控未来一样。当然，你不是上帝。但在这种特定情况下，有一些我们关注其发展的特定技术，似乎人类没有什么主动权。没有人会建议，比如说，为什么我们不强行停止这些技术的发展呢？

Well, there's, I think could be theoretically, you know, just look how the system works. Okay. Who makes what decisions how? Like, I think you have the bias of we should stop all these technologies and just stop it. Somebody else has another visit, a view and the other people have other views. And as a, and then there's a means by which those views turn into actions. Okay. And so it's correct the system that we're dealing in will make those types of decisions.

好的，我认为可以从理论上来看一下这个系统是如何运作的。看看是谁在做什么决定，以及这些决定是怎么做出的。我觉得你可能会偏向于主张停止所有这些技术。而其他人可能会有不同的看法。而这些不同的观点最终会通过某种方式转化为行动。所以说，我们现在所处的这个系统，的确会做出这样的决策。

And we could discuss the pros and cons of all of those things, but that's just how it works, right? I don't know. I mean, they're, they're all kinds of pernicious long-standing things that we've stopped like the global slave trade. The Brits are like, we're not for this. We're stopping it. And they did. Tucker, you, you are using that we stopped. Okay. No, Britain stopped it. Okay. But I'm just trying to say you have to look at the system and say, who has their hands on the levelers of power? Right. And what will they do? And what are their motivations? How does the system work? I think that's right. How does the machine work to make decisions? Okay. We, so if we can agree on this person makes these types of decisions about these things and it works this way, then we can say we, the collective we can do that. But the theoretical collective we that is going to make decisions like we could sit here and be very theoretical. I get it.

我们可以讨论所有这些事情的利弊，但事实就是这样的，对吧？我不太确定。我是说，存在各种各样根深蒂固的有害现象，比如曾经的全球奴隶贸易，不过我们已经停止了。英国人当时的立场是反对这个，他们就真的停止了这项贸易。Tucker，你说的是我们停止的。好吧，确实是英国停止的。我只是想说，你得看看整个系统，谁掌控着权力的杠杆？他们会采取什么行动？他们的动机是什么？这个系统是怎么运作的？我认为这是正确的。机器又是如何做出决策的呢？如果我们能够达成一致，某个人负责这方面的决策，并以这种方式运作，那么我们就可以说，我们，作为一个集体能够做到这一点。但我们可以在这里讨论得很理论化。我明白。

I get it. A determination probably can't stop this. So that, my second question is you keep hearing that there's this AI race between the United States and China. Yeah. Is it true that one country will be completely dominant by the end of this race and that that will be meaningful? I think, no, I think that what's going to happen is, and again, I'm speaking now probabilistically, I think that there will be different types of developments, but by and large, you, you, it's very difficult to keep intellectual property. Yes. But you, when you take the products of the intellectual property and you put them in the public. Exactly. That'll last about six months. I mean, at most, and you'll develop your, the nearest, and so intellectual property protections and isolation is probably not going to work. So, and so now we're going to have different advantages and disadvantages.

我明白了，仅仅靠决心可能无法阻止这一切。因此，我的第二个问题是，你总是听说美国和中国之间有一场AI竞赛。对。这场竞赛是否会导致一个国家完全占据主导地位，并且这一点会具有重要意义？我觉得，不会。我认为未来的情况是——这里是基于概率的分析——会有不同类型的发展，但总体来说，很难完全保护知识产权。是的，但是，当你把知识产权的成果公开时，最多能维持大约六个月的时间，然后就会有近似的技术出现。因此，单靠知识产权保护和隔离可能行不通。我们将会看到不同的优势和劣势。

Say, for example, in China's case, there are many fantastic chips, not quite at the same level. And see, we design chips, but we can't produce chips effectively. We can't produce, by and large, we can't produce things, any manufactured goods as effectively, cost-effectively, by and large. We have a problem doing that. So what we'll do is we'll design those better chips. You won't have the intellectual protections. And you're going to then have the production of things in China at a very inexpensive way. Manufacturing. China has about 33% of the manufacturing in the world, which is more than the United States, Europe, and Japan combined. They manufacture effectively cheaply. They will embed chips in the manufacturing, the application of chips. They are more ahead on China's more ahead on the application of chips, robotics.

比如说，在中国的情况下，中国有很多出色的芯片，但水平不太一样。看，我们可以设计芯片，但不能高效地生产芯片。总体来说，我们不能以成本效益高的方式生产任何制造商品。这是我们面临的问题。所以，我们会设计更好的芯片，但可能没有知识产权保护。然后，中国会以非常便宜的方式进行生产。中国在制造业方面约占全球制造的33%，超过美国、欧洲和日本的总和。他们能够高效并廉价地进行制造。在芯片应用方面，尤其是机器人技术方面，中国走在前面。

So we're talking about just thinking, but when you connect the thinking to bodies that are automatic bodies, and you have robotics and so on, they're ahead on that type of thing. So different entities are going to be ahead in different ways. And we're going to then be in this world in which there's competition in that world. And then there's an attempt to be protectionist or whatever, or to fight those differences. And that's what the world looks like. Does the combination of AI and robotics bring manufacturing back to the United States? We are behind in both of those areas, greatly behind. So I would say we're not going to have competitive advantages in those things.

所以我们在讨论的只是思维，但是当你把思维与自动化身体连接起来，比如机器人等，他们在这类事情上处于领先地位。因此，不同的实体将在不同的方面领先。我们将生活在这样一个世界中，一个充满竞争的世界，然后会有人试图通过保护主义或其他手段来应对这些差异。这就是世界的现状。人工智能和机器人技术的结合能否让制造业回归美国？在这些领域，我们都远远落后。所以我认为我们在这些方面不会有竞争优势。

What we're competitive in is that small percentage of the population that is uniquely inventive, in terms of inventiveness, the number of Nobel Prize winners in the United States. The United States dominates Nobel Prize winners in the world. The inventiveness, best universities, and so on. We have a system that is a legal system and a capital market system. And we can bring the best from the world all to the United States to create an environment if we can work well together in that inventiveness with rule of law working and all of that working. We have those things that are competitive advantage. We do not have manufacturing and we're not going to go back and be competitive in manufacturing with China in our lifetimes, I don't believe.

我们在竞争中占优势的是那小部分拥有独特创造力的人群，就发明创造而言，比如美国诺贝尔奖获得者的数量。美国在全球诺贝尔奖获得者中占主导地位。我们的优势在于创造力、一流的大学等等。我们拥有一个法律体系和资本市场体系。如果我们能够在创造力、法治等方面良好合作，我们可以汇聚全球最优秀的人才到美国，创造一个良好的环境。这些是我们的竞争优势。但我们没有制造业方面的优势，我认为在我们的有生之年，制造业竞争是无法和中国抗衡的。

Okay. So now the question is how we deal with that. Are inventiveness, you just said, and many have said, comes from our education system from our universities. But then you begin the conversation by saying that AI is already- And foreigners. Well, sure. If you look at that population, there's 3 million people who's just basically changing, about half of them are foreigners. If you can attract the best and the brightest. And there's a lot to be attracted to in the United States from the best and the brightest because we are a country of all of these different people operating this way. And we create these equal opportunities.

好的。那么现在的问题是我们该如何应对。你刚才提到的发明创造能力，很多人都认为，来源于我们的教育体系和大学。但是你一开始就提到人工智能已经——还有外国人。没错。如果你看看这个群体，有300万人基本上在变化，其中大约一半是外国人。如果你能吸引到最优秀和最聪明的人才，那么美国有很多吸引力，因为我们是一个由各种不同民族组成的国家，我们以这种方式运作，并创造了这些平等的机会。

Look who's running some of the countries, companies. They come from different places. If we can have the best of the world in the world, come in that kind of environment to be creative and so on. We can invent and so on, but we can't produce. But those, the people you're describing have come to our universities. That's basically- That's right. We're Silicon Valley's there, Costanford's there.

看看是谁在管理一些国家和公司。他们来自不同的地方。如果我们能在那种环境下，聚集全球最优秀的人才，让他们发挥创造力，我们就能进行发明等等，但我们无法生产。不过，那些你所描述的人已经来到了我们的大学。基本上就是这样——我们有硅谷，有斯坦福。

That's right. Was it a restaurant the other night? In fact, this weekend. And I had a little trouble hearing what people were saying and I thought to myself, I'm a little young to go deaf. Why? Well, because I grew up shooting bird hunting, target shooting. And I remember my father saying, just stick a marperal filter in your opposite ear and you'll be fine. I wish we'd had suppressors, but we didn't.

没错。那天晚上是在一家餐馆吗？事实上，是这个周末。我当时听别人讲话有点吃力，我心想，我还这么年轻，不应该这么快就听不见了。为什么会这样呢？因为我从小就打猎、射击。我记得我父亲曾说，只要在另一只耳朵里塞一个简易滤器就没问题。我真希望我们那时候有消音器，但我们没有。

You can now check out Silencer Central. Silencers play a crucial role in improving accuracy, maximizing your experience and protecting your hearing. They're not dangerous or scary. It's just the opposite. Not using them can be dangerous. I have dinner with me in a restaurant and you'll know what I mean. Silencer Central can fix your problems immediately. They will find the perfect silencer for you and make it very easy to buy one.

你现在可以了解一下Silencer Central（消音器中心）。消音器在提高射击准确性、提升体验以及保护听力方面起着至关重要的作用。它们并不危险或可怕，恰恰相反，不使用它们可能会带来危险。和我一起在餐厅就餐，你就会明白我的意思。Silencer Central可以立即解决你的问题，他们会为你找到最合适的消音器，并让购买过程变得非常简单。

It's not the hassle you thought it was. I know because I just went through it. So you get approved and then Silencer Central ships your order straight to your door. No hassle whatsoever. It is easy. It doesn't get any better in fact. So if you thought it was impossible to shoot suppressed, you were wrong. Go to silencercentral.com right now. Start browsing. Use the code TUCKER 10 for 10% off your first purchase of banish suppressors. Highly recommended.

这不是你以为的那么麻烦。我知道，因为我刚刚经历过。只要通过审批，Silencer Central 就会把订单直接寄到你家门口，完全没有麻烦。真的很简单，再好不过了。如果你以为使用消音器来射击是不可能的，那你就错了。马上访问 silencercentral.com，开始浏览。首次购买banish消音器时，使用代码TUCKER 10可以享受9折优惠。强烈推荐。

But you began the conversation by saying that AI is now at the point where, you know, the machines have the equivalent knowledge of a PhD in every different topic. So like at some point, are you going to have a university? We'll redefine what universities are like. But you're going to have that combination of things working together because still we're a long way from the point of the decision making will be made by the AI because, okay, and the wisdom will be by the AI.

你开始这段对话时提到，现在的人工智能已经达到了这样的水平：它们在每个不同领域都拥有相当于博士学位的知识。那么，有一天我们会不会有一个专门的大学呢？我们将重新定义大学的样子。不过，尽管如此，我们距离完全由人工智能做出决策以及拥有智慧的那一天还有很长的路要走。

Like you're not going to have the AI determine how you raise your kid and different people will raise their children differently and so on. The actual you'll rely on it, but it's really the magic for the foreseeable future is remarkable people with remarkable technologies producing remarkable changes. And then we're going to have then the consequences of that. As long as human decision making plays a role, I'm totally fine with it.

就像你不会让人工智能决定你如何抚养孩子一样，不同的人也会以不同的方式养育孩子。实际上，你可能会依赖人工智能，但在可预见的未来，真正的转变来自于杰出的人与杰出的技术共同带来的显著变化。然后，我们会面临这些变化的后果。只要人类的决策仍然在其中起作用，我对此完全没有问题。

Yeah. You say that the university is going to change. I mean, how could it not? I thought the internet was going to get rid of universities. It didn't happen. But I mean, how long does it take for the current model to change? It's pretty resistant to change. I think it's yes, it's slow to change. And those who change slowly will be left behind.

好的。你说大学会发生变化。我是说，这怎么可能不变呢？我本以为互联网会淘汰大学，但这并没有发生。不过，我想知道现有的大学模式需要多久才能改变？这一模式对变化的抵抗力相当强。我认为它确实变化缓慢，而那些变化缓慢的人将被落在后面。

And then you'll have the best. I would say you see things taking place, but anyway, I would expect that it's going to life is more like a game, I think. It's almost like a video game. And you're going to be able to have real world learning experiences in many different ways to be able to provide education, but it's going to be interactive.

然后你会拥有最好的。我想说的是，你会看到事情在发生。但无论如何，我预计生活更像是一场游戏。我认为它几乎就像一个电子游戏。你将能够通过许多不同的方式获得现实世界的学习体验，以提供教育，不过这将是互动的。

You're going to see a type of merging, whether you like it or not, you're going to see a type of merging of the man and the artificial intelligence. Is that where you? Of course it worries me and then it excites me. You know, what worries me most fundamentally is how people are with each other.

无论你是否愿意，你将会看到一种融合的出现，一种人与人工智能的融合。你对此怎么看？当然，这让我感到担忧，同时也让我感到兴奋。你知道，最让我担心的根本问题是人与人之间的相处。

Okay. So, what harmony and happiness togetherness, can we resolve decisions, issues? Can we deal with these issues together? That is the most important thing. I think we emphasize too much the wonderful, remarkable things that we get from AI, like we'll have greater life expectancy and less disease and we can have all of those things.

好的。那么，通过和谐和幸福的团结，我们能共同解决决策和问题吗？我们能一起处理这些问题吗？这是最重要的事情。我认为，我们过于强调从人工智能中获得的那些美好和非凡的东西，例如更长的预期寿命和更少的疾病，以及其他类似的好处。

But the question is do we have harmony, quality of life? You know, I did a study. It's also I put it out free online, which is ratings, not statistics used for rating various conditions of countries, 24 top countries. It's called the Global Powers Index. It's online free for anybody who wants to look at it.

但问题是，我们是否拥有和谐和生活质量？你知道，我做了一个研究。我还把它放到了网上，免费提供给大家观看，这是一个对24个主要国家的各种情况进行评分的报告，而不是使用统计数据，叫做全球力量指数。任何想看的人都可以在网上免费查看。

When I rated different powers, economic power, military power, education power and so on, then I rated health, how long you lived, the diseases you're encumbered by and so on, and happiness, what your happiness level is. And what's interesting about that is that the measures of power don't have a, past a certain level of living standards, don't have a correlation with health, which is amazing because you have all the money to produce the health, or have no correlation with happiness.

当我评价不同的力量时，比如经济实力、军事力量、教育实力等等，然后我评价健康，包括你的寿命、你受到的疾病困扰等，以及幸福感，你的幸福水平是什么。有趣的是，到了某种生活水平之后，这些力量的指标与健康没有关联，这是很惊人的，因为你拥有所有的钱来促进健康，却没有与幸福感存在关联。

Like for example, in the United States, which is the most powerful country in the world by these measures, our life expectancy is five years less than Canadians, so they're right next to us, and five years less than countries of equal income levels. Okay, so health, we don't, there's poor correlation. And unhappiness, there's no correlation. Like Indonesia has the second highest happiness, breaking, you know. So all I'm saying is we think about also how we work with each other, how we are with each other. The highest determinant of happiness is community. Of course. If you have a good community, you have happiness and it has a positive effect on health.

例如，在美国，这个世界上按这些标准衡量最强大的国家，我们的平均寿命比加拿大人少五年，而他们就紧挨着我们。而且我们的寿命也比同等收入水平的国家少五年。所以，在健康方面，情况并不理想，也没有很好的相关性。而在幸福感方面，关联性也不明显。比如，印尼的幸福感排名第二。总之，我想说的是，我们应该考虑一下我们如何彼此相处以及与他人合作。幸福感的最大决定因素是社区。没错。如果你有一个良好的社区，你就会感到幸福，而且这对健康也有积极的影响。

So I think it all comes down to how we are with each other that is going to, in dealing with all of the questions that you're raising. There's been no advance in like changing human nature over time, right? I mean, let's detect the logical advance, no advance in getting along with each other. It goes in ebbs and cycles. I would look at it this way. There are many religions in the world. Most of the religions have two components to them. The first component is, you know, follow the word of God and you have to follow it in that way. But the others are about harmony. And they are, in other words, how do we create a harmonious society?

所以，我认为一切最终归结为我们如何与彼此相处，这将决定我们如何处理你提出的所有问题。随着时间的推移，人类本性的变化没有进展，对吧？虽然我们在科技方面有了进步，但在人际和谐相处方面并没有进展。相处模式时好时坏，循环往复。我会这么看这个问题：世界上有许多宗教，大多数宗教都有两个组成部分。第一个部分是遵循神的旨意，要按这样的方式去遵循。但另一个部分则是关于和谐，也就是说，如何创造一个和谐的社会。

You know, so you look at the Ten Commandments or something and they're rules for how do you achieve harmony? And they're things like karma. Okay. So, how do you achieve harmony? So different societies have different ways of trying to achieve harmony. So I think that's important, harmony. I think it comes down to some basic things like, I watch, I study this thing and I go around the world. I think first, do you educate, raise your children well. Okay. In other words, educate them in capabilities. So they're capable.

你知道，当你看《十诫》或类似的东西时，它们是关于如何实现和谐的规则。它们就像是业力之类的原则。那么，如何实现和谐呢？不同的社会有不同的方法来努力实现和谐。我认为这很重要，和谐这个概念。我观察过、研究过这些事情，并走遍世界各地。我认为首先要看的是，你是否好好地教育和抚养你的孩子？换句话说，就是要培养他们的能力，使他们有足够的能力。

But also in civility and how they are with each other because a capable civil person will come out to a society in which they can work well together to be productive. That people have to be productive, right? So but they, in order to be productive, you have to have a harmony. They have to deal with the questions. I'm answering your question about how we deal with this. I'm saying we have to deal with it together. There's only in an environment where there's harmony rather than fighting.

但在文明和彼此相处的方式上，一个有能力的文明人能够在社会中很好地合作，以提高生产力。人们需要有生产力，对吧？所以，为了提高生产力，必须要有和谐。我们要应对各种问题，我正在回答你关于我们如何处理这些问题的问题。我的意思是，我们必须共同处理这些问题。只有在一个和谐而非争斗的环境中，我们才能做到这一点。

Are you going to be able to address the types of questions that you're raising, right? How do you, you know, you, when you're asked me, you know, is what's going to happen with AI and, and then you say, we need to do this and we need to do that. It strikes me that it depends how the we's deal with each other to be able to deal with those things is the most important things. And there are basics of how we deal with each other. That's the most important thing. I agree with that.

你能处理你提出来的这些问题吗？当你问我关于人工智能未来的发展时，你会说我们需要做这个，需要做那个。让我觉得关键在于“我们”如何彼此合作与处理问题，这才是最重要的。而我们之间如何相处才是最基本也是最重要的。我同意这种看法。

Last question. You didn't grow. I don't think you grew up in like a billionaire world. No, my dad was a jazz musician and, you know, we had a low middle class family, but I have at everything I ever needed. Well, so that's kind of my question. Now you live obviously in a billionaire world, which is where do you run into more happy people? Oh, almost general. If you get past the things that you, your basics, you know, if I can, you know, health, education, habitat, and you get past those, you've got everything you need.

最后一个问题。你并不是在亿万富翁的世界里长大的吧？不，我爸爸是个爵士乐手，我们家是低中产阶级，不过我一直都有我需要的一切。所以，我的问题是，现在你显然生活在亿万富翁的世界里，你在哪里遇到更多快乐的人呢？哦，一般来说，如果你能满足基本的需求，比如健康、教育和住所，超越这些之后，你也就拥有了你所需要的一切。

And then if you have community, you have everything you need. That is the best. Rodelio, thank you very much. Thank you. If you've been paying attention, you know that out is not just another nicotine pouch. It is literally the best nicotine pouch in the world. And we know because we use it all day long, we've used all of them. It turns out you can actually make money by telling people about out.

如果你有一个社区，你就拥有了一切。这是最好的。Rodelio，非常感谢你。谢谢你。如果你一直在关注，你就会知道Out不仅仅是另一个尼古丁袋。它是世界上最好的尼古丁袋。我们知道这一点，因为我们整天都在用它，并且已经用过所有其他的。事实证明，通过告诉他人关于Out的信息，你实际上可以赚钱。

We're launching our affiliate program. If you have an audience, figure small, you can cash in. You earn a 10% commission on every sale about that you bring in. And to make it even easier, we'll give you a 10% off link for your followers. They save you earn. It's really simple. By the way, compared to all the other products people sell online, help is truly good. It's delicious. It is easy to sell because it's heartfelt. So spread the word, get rewarded for it.

我们正在启动我们的联盟计划。如果你有一个哪怕数目不大的观众群体，也可以获得收益。你可以从你带来的每笔销售中赚取10%的佣金。为了让这更简单，我们还会提供一个给你的粉丝的九折优惠链接。他们能省钱，而你能赚钱。非常简单。顺便说一下，与其他在线销售的产品相比，我们的产品好得多。它美味可口，容易推广，因为它是用心制作的。所以，快去宣扬这个好消息，并因此获得奖励。

You can sign up at alpouch.com. It's alpouch.com. L-P-P-O-U-C-H.com. Best nicotine pouch in the world.

您可以在 alpouch.com 注册。就是 alpouch.com。L-P-P-O-U-C-H.com。全球最佳尼古丁袋。