Marc Andreessen: What We Got Right—and Wrong—About the Future of Tech

以下是这段对话的中文翻译： 马克和埃里克之间的这段对话深入探讨了风险投资的演变、瞬息万变的科技行业，以及技术、政策和社会影响之间日益复杂的交汇点。他们首先回顾了风险投资的早期和互联网泡沫时期，将当时对科技普遍存在的负面情绪与后来Facebook等公司的崛起进行了对比。 马克分享了关于Facebook早期挣扎的轶事，包括媒体对社交媒体的怀疑态度以及雅虎的差点收购。他强调了技术公司面临怀疑和负面情绪的反复模式，即使在取得重大成功之后也是如此，他将其描述为“摔倒着上楼”的过程。他认为马克·扎克伯格驾驭这些挑战的能力非常出色。他接着描述说，Facebook已经成为最具争议的技术之一，从几乎没有功能的想法到被描述为“精神控制”，并被指控影响选举结果。 谈话转向马克公司的起源，强调其成立于2009年金融危机期间，并决定采取不分阶段的方法，投资于从种子期到成长期的公司。这一策略的驱动因素是意识到，即使是对世界级公司的后期投资也能产生风险投资规模的回报。 他们讨论了从通用投资模式到更专业化、垂直化方法的转变。这种转变是由“全栈”公司颠覆传统行业以及认识到深厚的领域专业知识对于识别特定领域最有希望的风险投资至关重要所推动的。埃里克和马克探讨了领域专业知识可能成为关键差异化因素的观点，类似于技术专业知识在Y Combinator崛起期间的价值。 谈话扩展到国际投资策略，马克承认全球对科技的热情，但也强调了政府法规和政策带来的挑战，尤其是在欧洲。他强调该公司对美国投资的重视，原因是人才集中，以及国际创始人倾向于搬到美国。他对欧洲及其与科技相关的法规持悲观态度。 讨论转向了“小科技议程”的出现，这是一个为应对科技行业日益政治化而提出的概念。马克解释了“小科技”（初创企业和新兴公司）和“大科技”（已建立的科技巨头）之间的区别，强调该公司倡导营造一个能够促进创新和清晰度的监管环境，而不是完全解除管制。 最后，他们谈到了科技行业与政府之间不断变化的关系，尤其是在国家安全和国防方面。马克将当前的观点与越南战争时期的反战情绪进行了对比，突出了几代人之间在科技公司和政府机构之间加强合作方面的转变。他承认其中涉及的道德复杂性，但强调了美国为国家安全保持其技术优势的重要性。 他说，新的模式很明确，我们必须在这些新的行业中共同努力。

This conversation between Mark and Eric dives into the evolution of venture capital, the ever-shifting landscape of the tech industry, and the increasingly complex intersection of technology, policy, and societal impact. They begin by reflecting on the early days of venture capital and the dot-com bubble, contrasting the prevailing negativity towards tech at the time with the subsequent rise of companies like Facebook. Mark shares anecdotes about Facebook's early struggles, including the press skepticism surrounding social media and the near acquisition by Yahoo. He highlights the recurrent pattern of technology companies facing skepticism and negativity, even after achieving significant success, describing it as a process of "falling up the stairs." He credits Mark Zuckerberg's ability to navigate these challenges as being exceptional. He goes on to describe that Facebook has become one of the most polarizing technologies to exist, going from the idea that it had a near-zero amount of functionality to being described as "mind control," with allegations it's affecting election outcomes. The conversation pivots to the origins of Mark's firm, emphasizing its founding in 2009 amidst the financial crisis and the decision to adopt a stage-agnostic approach, investing in companies from seed to growth stages. This strategy was driven by the realization that even later-stage investments in world-beating companies could generate venture-scale returns. They discuss the shift from a generalist investment model to a more specialized, verticalized approach. This transition was prompted by the rise of "full-stack" companies disrupting traditional industries and the recognition that deep domain expertise was crucial for identifying the most promising ventures within specific sectors. Eric and Mark explore the idea that domain expertise might become a key differentiator, similar to how technical expertise was valued during the rise of Y Combinator. The conversation expands to international investment strategies, with Mark acknowledging the global enthusiasm for tech but highlighting the challenges posed by governmental regulations and policies, particularly in Europe. He underscores the firm's emphasis on US-based investments due to the concentration of talent and the tendency of international founders to relocate to the US. He gives a bleak outlook on Europe and its regulations as they relate to tech. The discussion shifts to the emergence of the "Little Tech Agenda," a concept developed in response to the increasing politicization of the tech industry. Mark explains the distinction between "little tech" (startups and emerging companies) and "big tech" (established tech giants), emphasizing that the firm advocates for a regulatory environment that fosters innovation and clarity, rather than complete deregulation. Finally, they touch on the evolving relationship between the tech industry and the government, particularly in the context of national security and defense. Mark contrasts the current perspective with the anti-war sentiment of the Vietnam era, highlighting a generational shift towards greater collaboration between tech companies and governmental agencies. He acknowledges the ethical complexities involved but emphasizes the importance of the US maintaining its technological edge for national security. He says that the new model is clear, we must all work together in these new industries.