Why The Laws of Startup Physics Have Changed | Ben Horowitz Interview
发布时间 2026-02-03 13:00:29 来源
本·霍洛维茨 (Ben Horowitz) 反思了风险投资行业发生的重大转型，这在很大程度上归功于他和马克·安德森 (Marc Andreessen)。他们的公司 a16z 已经达到了前所未有的机构规模，远超传统风险投资“小而精的利基市场”的范畴。霍洛维茨更宏大的使命是影响国家的发展轨迹，而不仅仅是特定的市场领域。
他对 2026 年的美国持乐观态度，强调其拥有健康的科技行业、强大的竞争力和杰出的创业文化，这与欧洲的监管障碍以及在重视成功方面的文化挑战形成了对比。他认为，由于刺激措施、更低的能源价格、放松管制以及用户友好的税法，美国经济比人们普遍认为的要强劲。然而，最关键的因素是人工智能。霍洛维茨将人工智能视为一个通用问题解决者，能够解决从工程到医疗保健等几乎所有问题，并且由于现有的互联网基础设施能够实现快速部署，预计在 12-24 个月内将产生广泛影响。
霍洛维茨指出，政策是这种积极发展轨迹的最大威胁，他引用了委内瑞拉和共产主义国家摧毁繁荣国家的历史案例。他主张采用基于技术的解决方案，而非政策解决方案，因为后者通常会带来意想不到的负面后果（例如，新冠疫情封锁，“削减警察经费”运动）。
人工智能正在重塑投资机会。虽然现有的软件巨头难以撼动，但人工智能使得“自己动手”变得更容易，从而导致新兴人工智能公司收入增长更快，并可能开拓更大的市场。公司建设的“物理法则”已经改变，资本、数据和 GPU 可以迅速创建具有竞争力的模型，挑战了传统的缓慢增长模式。这导致了对顶尖人工智能研究人员的强烈需求，这种稀缺性是来自学术界的技术人员通常不曾遇到的。
关于不平等问题，霍洛维茨承认存在“科比·布莱恩特效应”，即通过互联网和人工智能的全球影响力可以放大个人财富。然而，他也将人工智能视为一种民主化工具，可以在每部智能手机中提供“超级智能”，为所有人提供高级教育。他借鉴父亲的智慧（“生活是不公平的”）告诫人们，试图强制实现公平的制度往往会集中权力。相反，他强调为所有人提供 *机会*。他驳斥了由于人工智能而产生“永久底层阶级”的观点，认为新技术历来都能倍增机会并创造出意想不到的就业岗位，他援引了劳动力市场的不可预测性来支持这一观点。
霍洛维茨对 a16z 的抱负深受导师安迪·格鲁夫 (Andy Grove) 哲学的影响：行业领导者必须扩大市场。正如美国曾引领工业革命一样，a16z 的目标是确保下一波伟大的科技公司源自美国，从而维护其经济、军事和文化影响力。这涉及适应不断变化的资本市场，并支持投资组合公司在超越初期增长阶段后继续发展。
他认为公司的文化不是由陈词滥调定义的，而是由 *行动* 定义的。对 a16z 而言，这意味着具体的行为规范，例如从不迟到创始人会议、透明地解释投资拒绝原因，以及禁止任何贬低创业者的行为。这种对文化的强烈关注对于一个正在扩张的组织至关重要。
霍洛维茨分享了对他产生影响的人和事，包括他的父亲。他父亲曾是一名共产主义者，教导他共产主义的失败之处（专注于分配而非创造财富）以及生活固有的不公平。他目前正被人工智能对编码、好莱坞（让电影更好更便宜）和音乐（实现了类似早期嘻哈的“后后现代艺术”）的影响所吸引和启发。他将说唱歌手 Nas 视为重要的个人影响，钦佩其独特的视角和讲故事的天赋。
他使命的一个具体例子是与拉斯维加斯警察局的合作。他强调该局独特的结构（民选警长、社区警务）是技术应用的沃土。通过资助无人机项目、人工智能摄像头和增强型 911 系统等举措，该部门的犯罪率下降了 50%，警察枪击事件减少了 75%，这使得警务工作更安全，并恢复了警员的自豪感。
霍洛维茨最后分享道，对他而言，别人做过的最善良的事情是肯·科尔曼 (Ken Coleman) 给了他一个暑期实习机会，这为他打开了通往硅谷的大门，并塑造了他整个职业生涯。
Ben Horowitz reflects on the significant transformation of the venture capital industry, largely attributed to him and Marc Andreessen. Their firm, a16z, has achieved an unprecedented institutional scale, far beyond venture's traditional "small, tiny niche." Horowitz's broader mission extends to impacting the country's trajectory, not just specific market segments.
He offers an optimistic view of the US in 2026, highlighting a healthy tech sector, strong competitiveness, and outstanding entrepreneurship culture, contrasting it with Europe's regulatory hurdles and cultural challenges regarding valuing success. He believes the US economy is stronger than perceived due to stimulus, lower energy prices, reduced regulation, and a user-friendly tax code. The most significant factor, however, is AI. Horowitz sees AI as a universal problem-solver, capable of addressing nearly every issue, from engineering to healthcare, with widespread impact expected within 12-24 months due to existing internet infrastructure enabling rapid deployment.
Horowitz identifies policy as the biggest threat to this positive trajectory, citing historical examples like Venezuela and communist states that ruined prosperous nations. He advocates for technology-based solutions over policy solutions, which often have unintended negative consequences (e.g., COVID lockdowns, "Defund the Police").
AI is reshaping investment opportunities. While existing software giants are hard to dislodge, AI makes it easier to "DIY," leading to faster revenue growth for new AI companies and potentially larger markets. The "laws of physics" for company building have changed, where capital, data, and GPUs can rapidly create competitive models, challenging traditional slow growth. This has led to an intense demand for top AI researchers, a scarcity not typically seen for technologists coming from academia.
Regarding inequality, Horowitz acknowledges the "Kobe Bryant effect," where global reach via the internet and AI can amplify individual wealth. However, he also views AI as a democratizer, providing "super intelligence" in every smartphone, offering advanced education to all. Drawing on his father's wisdom ("life isn't fair"), he cautions against systems that attempt to enforce fairness, as they often concentrate power. Instead, he emphasizes providing *opportunity* for all. He dismisses the idea of a "permanent underclass" due to AI, arguing that new technologies historically multiply opportunities and create unforeseen jobs, citing the unpredictable nature of labor markets.
Horowitz's ambition for a16z is shaped by mentor Andy Grove's philosophy: industry leaders must expand the market. Just as America led the industrial revolution, a16z aims to ensure the next wave of great technology companies originates in the US, maintaining its economic, military, and cultural influence. This involves adapting to evolving capital markets and supporting portfolio companies as they scale beyond initial growth stages.
He defines a firm's culture not by platitudes, but by *actions*. For a16z, this means specific behaviors like never being late for a founder meeting, transparently explaining investment rejections, and prohibiting any behavior that denigrates entrepreneurs. This intense focus on culture is crucial for a scaling organization.
Horowitz shares personal influences, including his father, a former communist, who taught him about the failures of communism (focused on dividing, not creating wealth) and the inherent unfairness of life. He is currently captivated and inspired by AI's impact on coding, Hollywood (making movies better and cheaper), and music (enabling "post-postmodern art" akin to early hip-hop). He credits rapper Nas as a significant personal influence, admiring his unique perspective and storytelling genius.
A tangible example of his mission is his work with the Las Vegas Police Department. He highlights their unique structure (elected sheriff, community policing) as a fertile ground for technological application. By funding initiatives like drone programs, AI cameras, and enhanced 911 systems, the department has seen a 50% drop in crime and a 75% reduction in police shootings, making policing safer and restoring pride among officers.
Horowitz concludes by sharing that the kindest thing anyone ever did for him was Ken Coleman giving him a summer internship, which opened the door to Silicon Valley and shaped his entire career.
摘要
Ben Horowitz, co-founder of a16z, joins Patrick to discuss the changing landscape of technology and the future of America.
GPT-4正在为你翻译摘要中......
中英文字稿 
When Ben Horowitz and his partner Mark Andrewsson came into the venture capital industry, it was very different than it is today. You can argue that it is them more than almost anyone else that has reshaped this industry and matured it so much ever since. And recent Horowitz has become one of the most important institutions, not just investors, but institutions, in the private investing landscape, having achieved a scale that no one thought was possible in venture, which was always supposed to be this small, tiny niche corner of the world. This conversation is a bit unique relative to some of the other ones that Ben has had more recently. I tried to understand what the shaping forces and influences in his life and the ways that he thinks America most needs to change.
当本·霍洛维茨和他的合伙人马克·安德森进入风险投资行业时，这个行业与今天大不相同。可以说，是他们比其他几乎任何人都更多地重塑了这个行业，并使其成熟至今。近年来，霍洛维茨已成为私募投资领域中最重要的机构之一，不仅是投资者，还成了一个机构，达到了在风险投资领域中没人认为可能的规模。而风险投资一直被认为是一个小而精的利基市场。本次对话相较于本·霍洛维茨最近的一些其他对话显得有些特别。我试图理解他生命中塑造力量和影响的来源，以及他认为美国最需要改变的方式。
He's taken this as his life's mission to build a firm that affects outcomes in the country, not just in a small niche part of the market, but very broadly. Even having discussions in this conversation about his work with, say, the Las Vegas Police Department, which he's tried to infuse with technology to lower crime rates across the system. I hope you enjoyed this great and wide-ranging conversation with Ben Horowitz. I think a fun place to begin, Ben, would be your take on the state of the country. What does it feel like to you? In 2026, I know part of your mission is to directly impact the trajectory of the country. We'll talk about that a lot.
他把建立一家能够对国家整体发展产生影响的公司作为自己的毕生使命，而不仅仅是专注于市场中的小众领域。即便是在对话中谈论他与拉斯维加斯警察局的合作时，他也试图通过技术手段降低全系统的犯罪率。我希望你喜欢与本·霍洛维茨展开的这次内容丰富而广泛的对话。我想，可以从一个有趣的话题开始，本，你对这个国家的现状有何看法？在2026年，我知道你的使命之一就是直接影响国家的发展轨迹。我们会对此展开深入讨论。
But begin with what does the landscape, the playing field feel like to you today? I think the tech sector is very, very healthy. America's competitiveness is very, very good. Entrepreneurship culture is outstanding. That's the main thing I look at from my lens. If you look at, and I go all over the world and everybody wants Silicon Valley, how can we have Silicon Valley in the UK? How can we have it in France? The thing that I would say lacking, so they have a lot of the ingredients. They have great talent. They've got great universities. They have definitely a worse regulatory environment, an EU increasingly bad regulatory environment for entrepreneurship.
从你的角度来看，现在的环境和竞技场是什么样的？我认为科技行业非常健康，美国的竞争力非常优秀，创业文化也非常出色。这是我最关注的方面。我走遍了世界各地，大家都想拥有自己的“硅谷”。无论是在英国还是在法国，人们都在问，如何才能拥有“硅谷”？我认为大家已经有很多成功因素，比如优秀的人才和杰出的大学。不过，缺乏的是良好的监管环境，尤其是欧盟的监管环境对于创业来说越来越不利。
But there's a cultural challenge where succeeding, doing something larger than yourself, making the world a better place. Those aren't things that young people feel like society values. The likelihood, if you're building a company of getting people to work for you and dedicate their life to a mission like that, it's just not that great. Whereas in the US, it's amazing. I think the economy is in much better shape than people realize. Why? Start to see that. We've done a lot of things to stimulate it. We've got lower energy prices. We've got much less regulation. We've got more user friendly tax code. That's all starting to kick in now.
但这存在一个文化上的挑战：成功、做一些超越自我的事情、让世界变得更美好，这些并不是年轻人觉得社会所重视的事情。在创办公司的时候，想要让人们为你工作并将他们的生命投入到这样的使命中，可能性并不是很大。而在美国，这种情况却很不一样。我认为经济状况比人们想象的要好得多。原因呢？我们开始看到很多刺激经济的举措已经起作用。我们有更低的能源价格、减少了许多监管，税法也更方便用户。这些都开始显现效果了。
From our perspective, I think the bigger thing is AI is it's going to impact everything. There's almost no problem you can think of that you can't go. Well, we have a real shot at solving that with AI. It's from what were the big problems in the US auto-desk. We've got an AI solution for that cancer. We have an AI solution for that. The fact that we've got a technology where we can address everything is a real new phenomenon. I think in a fairly major way over the next 12 to 24 months. Why do you think 12 to 24 months is a timeframe worth mentioning that some of this stuff will start to be felt more broadly? It's all starting to take effect now.
从我们的角度来看，我认为更大的事情是人工智能将影响到一切。几乎没有哪个问题我们不能尝试用人工智能去解决。不管是美国汽车行业的大问题，还是癌症等挑战，我们都有相应的人工智能解决方案。我们现拥有能够应对所有问题的技术，这真是一种新的现象。我认为，在接下来的12到24个月里，这种变化将以相当大的方式显现。为什么提到这12到24个月呢？因为在这段时间内，我们将更广泛地感受到这些变化的影响，现在一切都开始生效了。
It's got to roll out, get deployed. Now, deployments of technology in particular in the past have taken a long time. You had to build out the infrastructure to do it. For cars, you need things like roads and traffic lights and all that kind of thing. For the internet, you needed fiber in the ground and people to have smartphones. You needed to do a lot just to get going. The internet is here. If you want to use AI, if you want to apply it to your business, you just do it. There is no infrastructure that needs to be built to adopt the thing. What could most interrupt this good trajectory that America is on, where we are building solutions using technology? What are the biggest risks?
这句话的大意是说：技术需要推广和部署。在过去，尤其是技术的部署往往要花费很长时间。比如，汽车需要道路和交通信号灯等基础设施才能使用，而互联网则需要铺设光纤以及人们拥有智能手机，才能开始运作。现在，互联网已经存在，如果你想要使用人工智能，或将其应用于你的业务，你只需直接去做，不需要为此建立基础设施。然而，什么因素可能阻碍美国目前良好的发展轨迹，也就是我们正在利用技术构建解决方案的进程？最大的风险是什么？
I think policy. One of the things my father said to me was a bad government. No matter how many smart people you have, no matter how great a culture you have, no matter how great the country is, can ruin the whole thing. Venezuela was the fourth richest country in the world. Crazy. Then communism and that's that. If you look at how little comes out of so many of these countries in Europe that have so many smart people and the ones that went to communism, and there are so many genius, Romanian entrepreneurs, John Von Neumann and the number of great genius scientists that came out of Hungary like this little country.
我在思考政策。我的父亲曾告诉我，一个糟糕的政府，无论这个国家有多少聪明的人，无论文化多么伟大，国家多么强盛，都会毁掉一切。委内瑞拉曾是世界第四富有的国家，然后走向了共产主义，结果就那样了。如果你看看欧洲那些有很多聪明人才的国家，其中一些走向了共产主义，有许多天才的罗马尼亚企业家，比如约翰·冯·诺依曼，以及匈牙利这样一个小国家里走出的众多杰出科学家。
Then it was just gone once a communist took over. It was completely like nothing, from inventing everything to nothing overnight. I think that that can absolutely happen here. We could outlaw AI. I think there were pretty aggressive proposals. The last Biden administration executive order said that you could not sell a GPU without federal government approval. That was a real executive order and I got reversed. We were that close to being basically out of the global chip game. So it is fragile. By the way, technology solutions work much better than policy solutions. That's the other thing. Policy solutions is very hard to make anything work.
然后，一旦一个共产主义者掌权，一切就消失了。从发明一切到一夜之间什么都没有。我认为这种情况完全可能在这里发生。我们可能会禁止人工智能。我认为之前有一些相当激进的提议。上届拜登政府的行政命令曾说未经联邦政府批准不能出售GPU。那是一条真实的行政命令，但后来被推翻了。我们当时几乎就是要退出全球芯片市场了。所以，这是很脆弱的。顺便说一下，技术解决方案比政策解决方案更有效。这是另一点。政策解决方案很难有效实施。
So if you think about COVID, we could tell everybody's staying their house. Well, that's got some extremely bad side effects. It turned out not to work that well. Or we could invent a drug that cures it or a vaccine that works. It's just hard to have a policy solution. All the policy stuff on climate change. Europe actually reduced emissions and all that, but it didn't do anything because China didn't reduce emissions. But if you build a technology or really a safe nuclear efficient or a nuclear fusion facility, then that would have a big effect.
所以，如果你考虑新冠疫情，我们曾建议大家待在家里。然而，这带来了一些非常不好的副作用，事实证明效果并不理想。或者我们可以研发一种能够治疗新冠的药物或有效的疫苗。制定政策解决方案是很困难的。关于气候变化的所有政策，譬如欧洲确实减少了排放，但没什么效果，因为中国没有减少排放。但是，如果你能研发一项新技术，比如真正安全且高效的核能或核聚变设施，那会产生巨大的影响。
And I think in general, that's true. In police like Defund the Police did not make anybody safe for technology does. If you really want to change the world, if you really want to make it a better place, I think you can build a solution for a dining or anything. If you want to change the world for the better, it's never been a better time to be an entrepreneur. I was with a local restaurant tour yesterday here in New York, one of the best, for a couple hours having him describe to us how he is planning on using AI tooling to improve everything about his restaurant business.
我认为，这在一般情况下是正确的。在警察方面，比如"削减警察经费"的做法并未真正提高安全性，而技术则可以做到这一点。如果你真的想改变世界，想让这个世界变得更好，我认为你可以为餐饮或者其他任何领域构建一个解决方案。如果你想努力让世界变得更好，现在是成为企业家的最佳时机。昨天我在纽约与一位本地的餐馆经营者待了几个小时，他向我们描述了他计划如何利用人工智能工具来改善餐馆业务的方方面面。他是当地最优秀的经营者之一。
How do you think about the way all of this is changing the sort of potentially large attractive businesses that you want to invest in because there's been six things. With the restaurant example, toast is a great, many great companies that have been built in and around restaurant software businesses. It seems like this restaurant owner is going to be able to have his own spun up operating system specific to him. Not going to need any of that stuff. How does this changing the way in which you view investment opportunities?
你怎么看待这一切变化是如何影响到那些你想投资的潜在大型有吸引力的企业？因为有六大因素。以餐厅为例，Toast 是一家很棒的公司，还有很多围绕餐厅软件业务建立的优秀公司。看起来这个餐厅老板将能够拥有属于他自己的定制操作系统，不再需要那些软件。这样的变化如何影响你看待投资机会的方式？
On the positive, one, everything is up for grabs. I think people are kind of overreacting to that in the stock market and so forth. If you look at existing software companies, people think they're all dead. Some of these guys are extremely hard targets. It's not that easy to take out sales for a SRSAP. You would be surprised even with AI. Like how much heavy lifting that is. Having said that, it is true that a lot of these things, yeah, you can just make your own. You can do it yourself. It's going to be a lot easier.
从积极的角度来看，一切都充满了机会。市场上有些人对此反应过度，尤其是在股市等方面。如果你观察现有的软件公司，很多人认为它们都已经完蛋了。但其中有些公司是非常难以被击垮的。要打败像SRSAP这样的公司并不容易。即使有了人工智能，你可能会惊讶于仍需做出多少努力。不过，确实有很多事情是可以自己动手做的，制作自己的软件会变得更加简单。
That's just like the number of possible interesting companies I think went up a lot. I think the other thing we're seeing is the products work so much better than any technology products we've seen in the past. Revenue growth is so much faster for these AI companies. There's many such cases of companies coming out. Cursor, which is ostensibly an IDE. What's the biggest IDE before Cursor? I don't know, but it wasn't big. It took probably 12 or 15 years to get to that revenue level. They went over a billion dollars in revenue in no time.
我认为，现在有趣的公司数量大大增加了。另一个我们观察到的现象是，这些公司的产品表现得比以往任何科技产品都好太多。这些AI公司的收入增长速度快得惊人。市面上有很多这样的公司出现，比如Cursor，这家公司其实是一款集成开发环境（IDE）。在Cursor之前，最大的IDE是什么，我不太清楚，但肯定不大。那些以前的产品可能花了12到15年才达到那样的收入水平，而Cursor却在极短的时间内就超过了十亿美元的收入。
That's super interesting. I would say, though, from an investing standpoint, the laws of physics of company building changed, which is going to affect investing in what's currently, I would say, an unknown way. If you look at the one thing you knew if you'd ever built a software company, is you cannot throw money at the problem. What's a man-year 700 IBMers before lunch? That phenomenon, kind of everything was built on because you knew if somebody built a great product and it took them three years and they did it with a small team, Google's not going to hire 2,000 engineers and catch them.
这非常有趣。不过，从投资的角度来看，公司的构建规律已经发生了变化，这将以一种目前还未可知的方式影响投资。如果你曾经创建过一家软件公司，你就知道，不能简单地通过投入大量资金来解决问题。就像IBM在午餐前投入了700个工程人力年（man-year）。这种现象曾是公司构建的基础，因为你知道，如果有人用小团队花了三年时间开发出一款优秀的产品，谷歌也无法通过雇佣2000名工程师来赶超他们。
It's just not going to happen. That was a lot of physics. Now, if you have the data and you have enough GPUs, you can solve, damn near anything. We've seen that with Elon catching the big models in no time. He just took a lot of money and a really good data center design and some smart engineers. He's in the game. He got in the game very fast. That would have never happened in the past. The markets are also seem to be much, much, much bigger than anything we've ever seen.
这基本上不可能实现。那涉及到了很多物理学知识。不过现在，如果你有足够的数据和足够多的GPU，你几乎可以解决任何问题。我们已经见证了Elon（马斯克）快速追上大型模型的过程。他只是投入了大量的资金，以及一个非常好的数据中心设计和一些聪明的工程师。他进入了这一领域，并且进入得非常快。这在过去是绝对不可能发生的。市场似乎也比我们以往见过的要大得多。
It would cause you to think about valuations and long-term value and other sorts of things in a different way than we have in the past. On the one hand, it's like, well, when you calculate the long-term value, but if this market wasn't $50 billion, what if it was $5 trillion? Then, on the other hand, what if somebody could catch you? These are just concepts we've not dealt with. How would the conversations feel different to me if I came in? You've got all these great investors working at Andrews and Horowitz. The nature of the conversation amongst your teammates as they're debating this sort of stuff versus four years ago or something. Where does it feel most materially different internally?
这会让你以不同于以往的方式思考估值、长期价值以及其他类似问题。一方面，比如说，当你计算长期价值时，假设这个市场不是500亿美元，而是5万亿美元会怎么样？另一方面，如果有人能够赶上你怎么办？这些都是我们以前没有处理过的概念。如果我参与进来，这些讨论对我来说会有什么不同的感受？在Andrews和Horowitz，有许多优秀的投资者。与四年前相比，你的团队正在讨论这些问题时，内部讨论的性质有何显著不同？哪个方面的变化最为明显？
I would say one of the most different things is when you look at AI researchers, it is really a different kind of thing. If you haven't been at Google or Facebook or OpenAI or Anthropic and somebody gave you hundreds of millions of dollars to try and build a giant model and you were one of the main people, then you probably don't know how to do it because you can't learn it in school. You can't learn it in school because it's a little bit alchemistic in nature. It's a little bit of an art. If you've never done it before, the chance of, on your very first try, building some kind of large model that it's going to work well, isn't that great? Now, people are coming up to speed more. There's more companies. People are learning it.
我想说，最大的区别之一在于AI研究人员真的属于一种不同的领域。如果你没有在Google、Facebook、OpenAI或Anthropic这些公司工作过，但有人给了你数亿美元去尝试构建一个大型模型，并且你还是其中的主要人物之一，那么你可能不知道如何去做，因为这无法在学校里学习。它有点像炼金术，是一种艺术。如果你从未做过，第一次尝试就构建出一个性能良好的大型模型的几率并不是很高。不过，现在越来越多的人开始掌握这项技能，出现了更多的公司，大家也在慢慢地学习和适应。
But that's kind of why you got to this, which from the outside world, probably like absolutely bananas that, well, why is somebody paying a hundred million dollars for an AI research or a billion dollars for an AI research? That's the craziest thing I've ever heard. Well, what if there were only 40 of them like in the world? You have a $14,000. Yeah. Then it changes the math on it a little bit. I think that's sort of where we were because it's kind of the first time we've had a need for a technologist that academia can produce. That is kind of probably one of the bigger things that change in the conversation is like who are all these people?
这就是为什么你会走到这一步，从外界看来，这可能是绝对疯狂的事情，为什么有人会花一亿美元或十亿美元用于人工智能研究？这是我听过的最疯狂的事。但是，如果全世界只有40个人拥有这种技术呢？你手上的价值就变成了14,000美元。那么这样算下来，数学计算就有点不同了。我认为这就是我们所处的情境，因为这是我们第一次需要学术界能够培养出的技术专家。这可能是对话中变化的一个重要方面：这些人都是谁？
Like we track all of them and know what they're doing, but it's very different. Your finance team isn't losing money on big mistakes. It's leaking through a thousand tiny decisions nobody's watching. Ramp puts guardrails on spending before it happens. Real-time limits, automatic rules, zero firefighting. Try it at ramp.com slash invest. Every investment firm is unique and generic AI doesn't understand your process. Rogo does. It's an AI platform built specifically for Wall Street connected to your data, understanding your process and producing real outputs. Check them out at rogo.ai slash invest.
就像我们追踪他们所有的行为并了解他们的动态，但这完全不同。您的财务团队不会因为大错而亏损，而是因为许多无人关注的小决策在不断漏钱。Ramp在消费发生之前就设置了保护措施。提供实时限制、自动化规则，避免紧急补救。您可以通过访问ramp.com/invest来试用。每个投资公司都是独一无二的，而通用的AI无法理解您的流程。但是Rogo可以。它是专为华尔街设计的AI平台，与您的数据相连接，理解您的流程并产生实际结果。请访问rogo.ai/invest查看更多信息。
The best AI and software companies from open AI to cursor to perplexity use work OS to become enterprise ready overnight, not in months. Visit work OS.com to skip the unglamorous infrastructure work and focus on your product. Everyone talks in venture about the parallel. The thing underneath the parallel is a sort of inequality. It seems like so many of the things that are happening are just massive multipliers on the trend of inequality in every way, the billion dollar researcher, the size of the biggest companies, the wealth of the people creating those companies.
从 Open AI 到 Cursor 再到 Perplexity，最优秀的人工智能和软件公司都使用 Work OS，以便在短时间内（而不是几个月内）做好企业准备。访问 WorkOS.com，跳过繁琐的基础设施工作，专注于您的产品。在风险投资领域，人们常谈论“平行”现象。下面潜藏的是一种不平等。似乎许多正在发生的事情都在各方面放大了不平等趋势，比如数十亿美元的研究项目、最大公司的规模，以及创造这些公司的人的财富。
I would argue that inequality is a feature not a bug of the American system, but I'm curious for you to riff on the nature of growing inequality and the good and the bad associated with that. What's happening in AI is sort of, I would just say an extension of the Kobe Bryant effect, which is a basketball player and whenever James J. Nase Smith invented the game, there was a limited amount of money you could make because you basically played the game in front of the people who could show up for the game. And that was it. That's a whole market.
我认为，不平等是美国体制的特点，而不是缺陷。我很想听听你对日益扩大的不平等现象及其利弊的看法。在我看来，人工智能的发展可以类比为科比·布莱恩特效应的延伸。科比是一名篮球运动员。当詹姆斯·奈史密斯发明篮球这项运动时，球员能赚到的钱很有限，因为他们只能在现场观众面前比赛，这就是全部市场。
Whereas once you add television and the global audience and some of these kinds of things, you can get to much bigger, you can be LeBron James. You can become a billionaire. That was not at all possible before. We first saw that with the internet where okay, now I can build a product and I can get to global distribution very fast, then all the sun that I can become extremely rich. And then AI is another layer on top of that and that okay, now take that same product and make it just more valuable thing. And so whoever invents that is whatever the internet company was plus plus plus. And so that's going to make them even richer.
一旦你加入电视、全球观众和类似的因素，你就有机会达到更高的高度，比如成为像勒布朗·詹姆斯那样的明星，甚至成为亿万富翁。这在以前是完全不可能的。最早我们在互联网时代就见证了这样的变化，当时我可以创造一个产品并迅速实现全球分销，这样我就能变得非常富有。人工智能则是进一步的升级，它能让你在已有的产品基础上赋予其更多价值。那些能够创造出这种产品的人将成为比传统互联网公司更加成功的企业，因此，他们将变得更加富有。
That's the kind of bad part of it. But I think the good part of it is it starting out day one, like completely democratized. Like the AI, anybody gets access to like very powerful AI. Anybody has a phone and now everybody, most people in the world at this point have smartphones. And now you've got like super intelligence in your phone. So that's a big, it's an equalizer of the opportunity in a lot of ways that I don't think we've ever seen a bigger opportunity equalizer than AI in that every child can have like a super advanced, amazing tutor teacher. So like education, great education is accessible to all. Now, so I think it's an equalizing technology and you know, there's some drive in any quality.
这就是其中的一些坏处。但我认为好处在于，从第一天开始，这种技术是完全民主化的。比如说，任何人都能使用非常强大的人工智能。谁有一部手机，现在大多数人都有智能手机。于是，你就在手机里拥有了“超级智能”。这在很多方面是一种机会的平等化，我觉得我们从未见过比人工智能更大的机会平等化。比如，每个孩子都可以拥有一个超级先进、很棒的导师，所以优质教育对所有人都变得触手可及。因此，我认为这是一个平等化的技术，并且在某种程度上推动了不平等的解决。
This is another thing I learned from my father. He said, look, son, life isn't fair. And that's extremely good advice because it's just not going to be fair. Like no matter what government or anything tries to do, it's not going to be fair. And the problem is if you create a system that tries to correct that, it doesn't make things more fair. It just transfers all the power to the person running the system. And that's what happened with Stalin. That's what happened with Chuchesky. That's what happened with Pol Pot. That's what happened with Mao. You know, not an accident that every single system like that went bad because it really ends up just being a power transfer. When you think about, well, what do you want?
这是我从父亲那里学到的另一件事。他说，孩子，生活是不公平的。这是一个非常好的建议，因为生活就是不会公平。无论政府或其他任何东西如何努力，也无法让它变得公平。如果你建立一个系统试图纠正这种不公平，它不会让事情变得更公平，只会把所有的权力转移给管理这个系统的人。这就是斯大林、齐奥塞斯库、波尔布特和毛泽东事件的结果。你知道，这并非偶然，因为每个这样的系统最终都会出问题，因为它实际上只是一个权力的转移。当你思考时，你想要的到底是什么呢？
You'd like everybody to have a chance. You know, like, don't give me no chance. Give me some chance. Now, it may not be as big a chance as the other guy. It may not be, you know, like a perfect chance. But if I have the desire, if I've got some capability, give me a chance to be something like to make my imprint on the world. And a system like that is going to end up with a lot of inequality. Oh, by the way, all systems end up with a lot of inequality. But you can try systematically to give everybody an opportunity. I think AI does a really good job of that. One of the memes that's very popular today is that you have a couple of years to get some capital or you're going to be a part of the permanent underclasses like the phrase that he's used on Twitter.
你希望每个人都有机会。你知道，就像，别不给我机会，而是给我一些机会。这个机会可能不像别人那么大，也可能不那么完美。但如果我有愿望，有一定的能力，请给我一个机会去成为某个人、在世界上留下我的印记。这样的系统最终会导致很多不平等。不过，顺便说一句，所有的系统最终都会导致很多不平等。但你可以尝试系统地给每个人一个机会。我觉得人工智能在这方面做得非常好。如今，有一种非常流行的看法是，你只剩下几年去获取一些资本，否则你将成为永久贫困阶层的一部分，就像他在推特上用过的短语。
And I certainly agree that now everyone has the best lawyer, accountant, you know, advisor in their pocket. And that's amazing. But what do you think about this notion that we're just going to, because of that, we need less labor. We need, it's going to be harder if you don't have some capital to begin with to accumulate capital and break in. I don't necessarily believe them. I'm just curious what you think about challenges will face because of AI, societally. Yeah, I don't really think that's right. I think that I don't think like the door is going to close behind you. I think like the opportunity is sent to multiply when you kind of open up a new door and open up like a new way of doing things.
当然，我同意现在每个人口袋中都有了最好的律师、会计师和顾问。这简直太了不起了。但是你怎么看待这样的观点：因为有了这些工具，我们需要更少的劳动力，如果你一开始没有一些资本，那么要累积资本并进入市场会更难。我并不完全相信这种观点。我只是好奇，你怎么看待由于人工智能而带来的社会挑战。我不认为这种说法是对的。我不觉得机会的大门会在你身后关闭。我认为，当你打开一扇新的大门，探索新的做事方式时，机会反而会成倍增加。
We saw that with crypto. So many people who made money on crypto were like people who you know literally didn't have much to start with. They just got into the technology early. And then they kind of parlayed it up. And so if you have something that grows really fast, that's actually the opportunity for somebody with a little bit of capital to make a lot of money because it doesn't take much. You know, if you bought Bitcoin for a nickel, you did really well. And all you needed was a nickel. And that's, you know, I think that's the nature of these things that go hyperbolic. And you know, particularly if you create something.
我们看到这种情况在加密货币上已经出现。许多在加密货币上赚到钱的人，原本并没有太多的资金。他们只是较早接触了这项技术，然后逐渐赚到了更多的钱。因此，如果你发现了一个增长很快的东西，这实际上给了那些拥有少量资金的人一个机会，让他们可以赚到很多钱，因为它不需要投入太多。比如，如果你以五分钱的价格买入比特币，那么你就赚大了，而且你只需要那五分钱。我觉得这就是那些增长迅猛事物的特质，尤其是当你创造出一些东西时。
I also think the labor market stuff, I think people are acting as though it's very predictable and when it's not at all predictable. So if you look at kind of the history of the world and automation, and this is what it is, it's kind of like an automation technology, we've been automating things since the agricultural days. And in those days, I think 95 or 96% of all jobs in the US were agriculture. Almost all those jobs have been eliminated. And the jobs we have now, the people doing agriculture wouldn't even consider jobs. And so like the idea that we could imagine all the jobs that are going to come, you know, sitting here, you know, that AI is going to enable.
我也认为，劳动力市场不应该被视为可预测的，事实上它完全不可预测。看看全球历史和自动化的情况，其实自动化技术早就存在了，从农业时代开始我们就在进行自动化。当时，美国大约95%或96%的工作都在农业领域。几乎所有这些工作都被消除了。而我们现在所拥有的工作，过去从事农业的人甚至都不会视为是工作。所以，我们无法想象所有这些将由人工智能带来的新工作。
I think as low, I think the need for like more creativity jobs is going to go way up and kind of need for kind of jobs to process work for the creatives will probably go down in some ways. But I'm not even sure about that. You know, we've had AI going, right, ImageNet was what 2012 and then natural language stuff in Burton, all that was like 2015 and then you know, Chatsy BT was 2022 and like, where's all the job destruction? You know, why isn't it happened yet? And why are you so fucking sure it's going to happen next? And why are you so sure? No jobs are going to be created.
我认为对创意类工作的需求将大大增加，而对处理创意工作的一些职位的需求可能会有所减少。但对此我也不太确定。我们已经有一段时间在使用人工智能了，比如2012年的ImageNet，以及2015年的自然语言处理技术，如BERT，还有2022年的ChatGPT。可是，工作岗位的消失在哪儿呢？为什么它还没有发生？为什么你如此确定它接下来会发生？又为什么你认为不会有新的工作被创造出来呢？
I don't think it's nearly as predictable as people are saying. How would you describe the nature and scope of your ambition over the next 10, 20 years? One of the things that I learned, so I had a mentor is a great great CEO by the name Andy Grove and he was the CEO of Intel and he kind of famously did the major pivot of them out of the memory business into the micro process or business. Maybe the greatest tech CEO we've had. And one of the things that he said that, you know, in a way is very obvious, but I think is also profound is if you're the leader in the industry, then the growth of the industry is dependent on you. Like you, it's up to you to expand the market. Like nobody else is going to do it.
我认为事情并不像人们所说的那样可以预测。你会如何描述你在未来10年、20年的志向的性质和范围？我曾从一位导师那里学到一些东西，他是一位非常出色的CEO，名字叫安迪·格罗夫，他曾是英特尔的CEO，并成功将公司从内存业务转型为微处理器业务，可能是我们见过的最伟大的科技公司CEO之一。他说过一句话，在某种程度上显而易见，但也相当深刻：如果你是行业的领导者，那么行业的增长就取决于你。也就是说，市场的扩大需要你来推动，没有其他人会代劳。
And so when I think about the firm, I think about a lot in those terms, the reason America is America and there's many narratives on this, but like I think the factual one is like we won the industrial revolution. We really did. We had Henry Ford and we had Thomas Edison. We had like great entrepreneurs. They built great technology, the technology lead, like to military lead, lead to economically, lead to cultural dominance. None of that was by accident and had we not had all those inventions, had all those companies which led to, you know, everything from like winning World War II. We just want to be, we'd be some other thing. We wouldn't be America.
当我思考这家公司时，我经常从这些角度考虑。美国之所以成为今天的美国，有很多说法，但我认为有一个事实是，我们赢得了工业革命。我们确实如此。我们有亨利·福特和托马斯·爱迪生这些伟大的企业家，他们创造了出色的技术，这种技术优势带来了军事优势，经济优势，最终导致文化上的主导地位。这一切都不是偶然发生的，如果我们没有那些发明，没有那些公司带来的成果，比如赢得二战，我们现在可能会是另一个样子，而不是今天的美国。
So where they're again, like this is the equivalent change of the industrial revolution in terms of how everything works, government, societies, businesses, and you know, we're either going to be the leader of that technology, the provider of that technology, or we're not. And if we're not, we're not going to be the economic superpower, the military superpower, the cultural influence, the kind of standard of the world that we are now. At least I think that would be bad. I think, America's been kind of good for the world and good for giving people a chance like we talked about before. And so our role in that, you know, you know, taking a try and be humble with the role, but our role is like from a policy standpoint, from a funding standpoint, from helping people build standpoint, to make sure that that next set of great companies comes out of America.
所以，现在的情况就像是工业革命带来的重大变革一样，影响着政府、社会、商业的运作。我们要么成为这项技术的引领者和提供者，要么就不是。如果我们做不到，我们就不会再是经济强国、军事强国，也不会在文化上拥有影响力，不再是世界的标杆。我认为这将是非常不利的。我觉得美国在很多方面对世界是有益的，为人们提供了机会。我们的角色应该是，从政策、资金和支持人们创业的角度出发，确保下一批伟大的公司能够在美国出现。当然，做这件事的时候也要尽量保持谦逊。
Allied nations, a core ambition is to do our part in kind of helping them. I want to ask about some of the ingredients to do that well, but just as a quick sidebar on Andy Grove, his book is incredible. Like everyone should read High Output Management. What was it about? What's very specifically, did you learn from him? Like what did you see him do that impacted the way that you think or behave? Well, like I'm so overly influenced by him. It's hard to even pin it down, but so High Output Management, you know, I actually wrote the new forward for it, which I actually think that's the best thing I've ever wrote was a forward to High Output Management.
翻译成中文，尽量易读：盟国的一个核心目标就是在帮助他们方面尽我们的努力。我想问一下，为了做到这一点，有哪些关键要素？不过在此之前，我想简单提一下安迪·格罗夫，他的书非常了不起。每个人都应该读《高产出管理》。它的内容是什么？你具体从他那里学到了什么？他做了哪些事情对你的思维或行为方式产生了影响？实际上，我深受他的影响，以至于很难具体说出某一点。但就《高产出管理》这本书来说，我为它写了新版的序言，我甚至觉得那是我写过的最好的文字。
But the hard thing about the reason I wrote that forward was, you know, it was my favorite book, and I wrote the hard thing about hard things was basically intended to be the updated version of it, but the thing in High Output Management that he did so well that I tried to, you know, kind of do my own version of is, you know, the concepts of management are easy. Like, you'd need an eighth grade education maybe to kind of understand management. It's not like physics. It's pretty simple, but the psychological part of it is extremely difficult, particularly for a young person to be able to do. You know, it's super confrontational. You're having to kind of look through the conversation you're having to the entire organization.
我写那篇前言的原因是，因为那是我最喜欢的书。我写《艰难的事之艰难》基本上是想做它的新版。但《高效管理》中，他做得非常好的地方，我也尝试以自己的方式去实现，就是管理的概念本身很简单。大概初中水平就能理解管理，它不像物理学那样复杂。但心理层面的管理却非常难，特别是对年轻人来说。它充满了冲突，你必须在与某人对话时，还要同时考虑整个组织的情况。
You really have to be confusion at times. The good of the of the whole super seats, the good of the individual. And all these things are really complicated to do. His big influence on me was me trying to not only absorb that, but then kind of tell it in a more up-to-date kind of modern way. I went to visit him. He had this award on the wall, which was it was literally like manager of the year from for the Santa Clara facility of Intel. And it was from I don't know 1992. I'm like, handy. You were like the biggest CEO in the world. Like, why did they give you the manager of the year award for the Santa Clara facility?
有时候，你真的需要感到困惑。整体的利益高于个人利益。做到这一点真的非常复杂。他对我的巨大影响在于，我不仅试图吸收他的理念，还尝试以一种更现代化和与时俱进的方式表达出来。我去拜访他时，他墙上挂着一个奖项，上面写着“年度最佳经理”，授予英特尔圣克拉拉工厂的，可能是1992年的。我心想，你可是世界上最大的CEO之一，为什么你会获得圣克拉拉工厂的年度最佳经理奖？
And he goes, oh, man, he's like, you know, Santa Clara was like always scored like there was the lowest quality scores, the lowest fucking score on everything at Intel. And so I was just like, I'm going over there and talk to them. So I go over there. And he said, I brought a roll of toilet paper and I put it under my desk under my chair. And you know, I said like, when are you going to get this facility up to code? And they just started in with all this bullshit, bullshit, bullshit, bullshit, and I fucking reached under my chair, put off the toilet paper, I said, clean up your bullshit and tell me when the fuck you're going to be up to code. And in two months they were up to code, and they were always the highest rated facility thereafter, you know, just on that. So they gave them manager of the year for that.
他说，哎呀，Santa Clara在英特尔的所有评比中总是得最低分，质量评分也是最低的。我决定亲自去和他们谈谈。我带了一卷卫生纸，把它放在我椅子下面。我问他们什么时候能够把这个设施达到标准。他们开始跟我说一大堆废话，我从椅子下拿出卫生纸，说，把你们的废话清理干净，然后告诉我什么时候能够达到标准。结果两个月后，他们达到标准了，此后一直是评分最高的设施。因此，他们给了我年度经理的称号。
When did you first experience the lessons that drove his success, this confrontational, psychologically difficult aspect of management yourself? How would you encourage other people to like get it, get a taste of it? They can't just read about it, obviously. What happens to founders is you invent something, right? Now I've got to build a company. You don't know what you're doing and you make mistakes. And then those mistakes really cost the company and you lose confidence. And that leads you to hesitate. And that hesitation is what kind of causes the failure mode.
您什么时候第一次亲身体验到推动他成功的那些管理课程，这种对抗性和心理上困难的管理方面？您会如何鼓励其他人去理解和体验这种感觉？显然，他们不能仅仅是读读书就能明白。对于创始人来说，通常是先发明了某样东西，然后就要建设一家公司。但问题是，您可能不知道如何去做，于是犯下错误，然后这些错误会对公司造成很大损失，让您失去信心。失去信心之后就会犹豫，而这种犹豫往往就是导致失败的原因。
So then either like the company is into size of her, they get very open. All these guys got so open to input from their team and their executives. And like, but you know, the team doesn't have the full context. Only the leaders got the context. So even if they're smarter than you, you still likely can have better judgment because you have all the knowledge. But they defer. And then if you defer to people who work for you, then that kind of creates a weird political situation because people jump into the vacuum of like, you're not making a decision, I'll make the decision. And then that feels political to everybody else. And so that's the pattern people run into.
所以，要么公司对她的规模很感兴趣，他们会非常开放。这些人非常愿意接受团队和高管的意见。但是，团队并没有完整的背景信息，只有领导者才能掌握全局。因此，即使他们比你聪明，你仍然有可能做出更好的判断，因为你拥有所有的知识。但如果你把决定权让给下属，这就可能导致一种奇怪的政治局面，因为有人会趁机填补这个决策空白，自己做出决定，这对其他人来说就显得很有政治意味。这就是人们常常遇到的模式。
And so you really kind of have to build up enough confidence in them to have that confrontation. The hardest version of this, by the way, is the reorg because reorg is basically your redistributing power to make the company work better, to like have communication be better, to not have as much conflict. But what's going to happen is somebody who's really good, who you've had for a long time is going to lose power. And they're going to be fucking pissed. And so then if you compromise the organization so they can maintain their power, then you've just kind of redistributed power from the people doing all the work to the executives. And that's a catastrophe.
要翻译成中文并保持易懂：
所以你必须建立足够的信心，去面对这种对抗。顺便说一句，这里面最难的情况是公司重组，因为重组基本上就是在重新分配权力，让公司运作得更好，例如改善沟通、减少冲突。但是，必然会有人发生什么不满，比如一个在你这边工作了很久并且表现优异的人可能会失去权力，他们会非常生气。如果你因为他们的不满而妥协，让组织结构保持他们的权力，那就等于把权力从那些做具体工作的人手中转移给了高管们。这将是一个灾难。
So it's always that kind of thing where people don't want to have that conference confrontation. They don't want to tell that person, look, the organizations here, you helped us tell here, but like you either have to be happy in this new role or it's going to be a rap. When you're young and in experience, you know what's going to hurt to like tell him that. But I don't know it's going to help me to do this reorg because I don't, I'm not experienced enough to know that. I've never done that before. And so I'm going to go with no, no, no void hurt to the, to the theoretical avoid hurt. And that's when you wreck your company.
人们总是这样，他们不想面对冲突，不愿对那个人说，你对组织有帮助，但现在你必须在新角色中感到满意，否则就只能结束了。当你年轻且缺乏经验时，你会觉得告诉他这些话是很难的。但我不知道这么做的重组会不会有帮助，因为我没有足够的经验，从来没有做过这样的事情。于是，我选择不、不、不去避免伤害，理论上是避免伤害。但这就是毁掉公司的时候。
And so that's the pattern. And I always do my best to like lend them my experience on that. You were lucky that when you started the injuries in Horowitz, you and Mark had both had tons of operating experience both together. Yeah, still didn't know what I was doing. Fair enough. And he didn't know what he was doing either. Like his ideas. Now like if you ask Mark about management now, like he's so different than how he actually did it. And it actually makes him mad if you talk about it too much because he's like, I got such bad fucking advice. If they told me to hire all these guys.
这就是事情发展的模式。我总是尽量把我的经验分享给他们。当你们在Horowitz开始遇到那些麻烦时，你和Mark都已经有很多运营经验，这算是运气不错。不过，就算如此，我当时还是不知道自己在干什么。坦白说，他也不知道自己在干什么。现在如果你问Mark关于管理的话题，他和以前完全不一样了。其实要是过多提起这件事，他会生气，因为他觉得当时的建议糟透了。他们让他去雇那么多的人。
I think it's most different. Like what would he say is, or what do you observe to him to be the most different? I just think he's like way more in control of his like Mark is super emotional person. And he's just way more in control of it than he was then just in terms of just like the personality. He used to be like zero or a hundred, right? Like so he would be like full of motion. Like what the fuck are we doing? Or like I'm just not going to say anything. Like but nothing in between something.
我觉得这非常不同。你觉得他会说什么，或者你观察到他哪里最不同？我只是觉得他现在更能控制自己的情绪。马克是个情绪非常丰富的人，但他现在比以前更能掌控自己的情绪，尤其是在性格方面。他以前要么是零要么是一百。比如他可能情绪非常激动，说“我们到底在干什么？”或者一句话也不说，没有中间状态。
I know the least about about your firm is like the first, I don't know what period of time. Three days, three months, three years. And I'd love to hear about how you thought about the business right as it was getting started. Of course we're going to come back to what it is now. And those ingredients you mentioned for having the impact you want to have. But lots of this is an incredible part of the world. So convali Wall Street, you know, these are institutions that make America great. Lots of people listening have ambitions to do this sort of thing.
我对贵公司的了解最少，就像刚开始的那段时间一样，我不清楚是三天、三个月，还是三年。所以我很想听听你们在业务刚起步的时候是怎么考虑的。当然，我们稍后会回过头来讨论它现在的状况，以及你们提到过的那些实现目标的要素。不过，这个过程充满了让人惊叹的经历。像华尔街这样的地方，你知道的，这些是让美国变得伟大的机构。有很多人都有这样的志向，希望能做类似的事情。
And I'd love to hear like the very, very early, primordial case study of what it was like and what kinds of conversations you were having and what your initial ideas were. So venture capital, first of all, you kind of have to understand the context of it was there hadn't really been new top tier venture capital firms. So like the last one before we started that you'd say as top tier was probably benchmark, which ostensibly started in 1995. But it didn't really because all those guys came from another firm, Carl Merrill Pickard.
我很想了解最初的、非常早期的案例研究，了解当时的情况是怎样的、你们进行过哪些对话以及你们最初的想法是什么。首先，关于风险投资，你需要理解最初的背景是，当时并没有出现过新的顶级风险投资公司。在我们开始之前，你可以说最后一个算得上顶级的公司可能是Benchmark，这家公司表面上成立于1995年。但实际上不是，因为其创始成员都是从另一家公司，Carl Merrill Pickard出身的。
And that firm was like from the 80s. And there hadn't really been a new one from the 80s. And if you looked at why every VC was kind of reputation based. And so to be top tier, you had to have invested in Apple and Cisco and Google and you know Yahoo and all the great companies. And you can't from a standing start get to that. And then if you're not top tier in VC, you're not going to last because yeah, in a super hot period everybody makes money. But the best entrepreneurs will only work with the top tier firms because that's how you're going to recruit great engineers.
那家公司就像是80年代的产物。从80年代开始就没有什么新的公司。而如果你看看为什么每个风险投资公司都是基于声誉的，要成为顶尖的风投公司，你必须投资过像苹果、思科、谷歌、雅虎这些伟大的公司。而从零开始是无法达到这一点的。而且，如果你在风投界不是顶尖的，你就不会长久，因为在市场非常火热的时候，虽然人人都能赚钱，但最优秀的创业者只会选择与顶尖风投公司合作，因为这样才能吸引到优秀的工程师。
That's how you're going to get follow on money like everything comes out of that. So you'd never take money from a tier two if you could get it from tier one. And so that's why the tier one's always had better returns. So we knew we had to be tier one, but we had that problem. And the idea that we had was well venture capital is a great product for LPs. But it's not a great product for entrepreneurs. And so if we could build a better product for entrepreneurs, then we could win.
这就是你能获取后续资金的方式，所有事情都从这点出发。因此，如果你能够从一流投资人那里获得资金，就绝不会去接受二流投资人的钱。这就是为什么一流投资人的回报率总是更高。因此，我们知道我们必须成为一流，但当时我们面临一些问题。我们的想法是，风险投资对有限合伙人（LP）来说是个很好的产品，但对创业者而言并不理想。因此，如果我们能够为创业者打造一个更好的产品，我们就能取得胜利。
And that was like the original kind of framework. And the idea that we had for the product for entrepreneurs was you know, because we had been entrepreneurs was around what you and I had been talking about, which is well, if you're like a founder who wants to run their own company, you're not getting much. Like you need so much you don't have the confidence, you don't have the knowledge, you don't have the know how you don't have the network. What if we built a firm that like was designed to give you enough confidence, power, network reach, advice that you could actually be a CEO.
那就是最初的框架。我们对创业者产品的想法源于我们的创业经历。就是说，如果你是一个想要经营自己公司的创始人，你往往会发现自己得不到太多支持：你需要很多东西——比如信心、知识、技巧和人脉，而这些你可能都缺乏。那么我们是否可以创建一个公司，专门为你提供足够的信心、力量、人脉、建议，让你真正能够成为一名 CEO 呢？
And so that was the whole idea behind the firm originally. And then the second idea we had, which was the other thing like VCs didn't ever market themselves at all. Because if you're all based on your investing track record, it's best that it's just magic. Like why say anything? Like keep that a secret. And so they weren't talking. And so when we went out and talked like everybody covered it. So we instantly everybody knew we had this product.
最初，这就是公司背后的整个理念。然后我们的第二个想法是，传统风投公司一般从不宣传自己，因为他们全凭投资记录吃饭，最好保持神秘，根本无需多言。正因为如此，他们一直保持沉默。而当我们出来进行宣传时，所有人都关注到了，因此大家立刻就知道了我们有这样的产品。
Where did that, where did the germ of that specific idea come from? Like let's be fairly loud relative to what others do from the beginning. Well, it's funny because you know, Mark and I were talking about it. He said to me, he's like, why don't VCs market? And actually the original thing went all the way back to kind of the first class of VCs, which were the investor, the industrial revolution VCs were JP Morgan, Rothschild, Goldman Sachs, etc. Right?
那个具体想法的起源是哪里呢？比如一开始就要比别人更响亮。这很有趣，因为马克和我曾经谈论过这个问题。他对我说：“为什么风投公司不做市场推广呢？”其实，这个想法最早可以追溯到第一批风投公司，也就是工业革命时期的投资者，比如摩根大通、罗斯柴尔德和高盛等。
Like they were the ones financing these things. And it turned out that these guys were financing both sides of World War II. And so they really didn't want any publicity because that would have been like an extremely fucking bad thing. To large extent that just carried over all the way through Arthorac and all these things. And then the reputation thing clicked in and it was working so there was no need to do it.
就好像他们是那些提供资金的人。结果发现，这些家伙实际上为二战的双方提供了资金。因此，他们非常不希望被曝光，因为那会是件极其糟糕的事情。在很大程度上，这种情况一直延续到了Arthorac及所有相关事件。后来，名声效应产生了作用，一切进展顺利，所以再也不需要那么做了。
And we got a lot of criticism when we did it. Or LPs would say, you know, like the other VCs say, you guys are ego maniacs. You name the firm after yourself. You're marketing like this. And it was so funny because the reason we named the firm after ourselves is when we tried, we raised money in 2009, which is right on the edge of the financial crisis. And the big objection from LPs was, well, like you guys are like really good entrepreneurs. You're just going to leave this thing and go build another company and then we're going to be stuck with the fund.
当我们这样做时，我们收到了很多批评。我们的有限合伙人（LPs）可能会说，其他的风投公司都说你们这些人太自负了，把公司用自己的名字命名，还以这种方式进行市场推广。这件事情很有趣，因为我们之所以用自己的名字命名公司，是因为在2009年金融危机边缘时，我们试图筹集资金。当时LP们最大的反对意见是，"你们是很优秀的企业家，会不会去追求其他创业机会，不再专注于这家公司，让我们被基金套住。"
And we couldn't get them off of that. And so then I had the idea. I was like, well, why don't we just name it with our names and then they know we're safe. And that worked. As your business grows Vanta scales with you, automating compliance and giving you a single source of truth for security and risk. Learn more at vanta.com slash invest. Rigline is redefining asset management technology as a true partner, not just to software vendor. They've helped firms 5x in scale enabling faster growth, smarter operations and a competitive edge. Visit ridgelineapps.com to see what they can unlock for your firm.
我们没法让他们改变主意。于是，我想出一个办法：为什么我们不直接用我们的名字命名呢？这样他们就知道我们是安全的了。这个方法奏效了。随着你的业务增长，Vanta会与你一同扩展，自动化合规流程，并为你的安全和风险管理提供统一的信息来源。更多信息请访问vanta.com/invest。Rigline正在重新定义资产管理技术，不仅仅是软件供应商，更是一个真正的合作伙伴。他们帮助公司在规模上实现5倍增长，使得发展更快，运营更智能，并具备竞争优势。请访问ridgelineapps.com，看看他们能为你的公司解锁哪些潜力。
If you think about the the period of takeoff of the firm in 2009, up until you reach, let's call it like cruising altitude. Like when was cruising altitude? And and and what was the most difficult part about getting it from takeoff to that point? Well, I mean, the first thing is we really didn't know that much about investing. Mark and I had done some angel investing, but we'd not neither said any venture capital experience. And like, you know, credit to Sequoia, credit to, you know, Graylock and and and Cliner and all the guys who are around at that time.
如果你思考一下公司从2009年开始起飞的那段时期，到达我们可以称之为"巡航高度"的时候，你会问，什么时候算是达到了巡航高度？而那个过程中最困难的部分是什么呢？首先，我们其实对投资知之甚少。马克和我做过一些天使投资，但我们都没有风险资本的经验。这里要给予红杉资本、Greylock和Kleiner等当时在场的公司的功劳。
Yeah, they just had years and years of doing it. We made more than our fair share of investing mistakes, you know, missing things we should have done and and then, you know, doing things we should have done. But missing things that we should have done was probably the bigger one and, you know, and then the other thing is is that kind of how we thought about the profile of the investor was wrong. So we so over indexed on our idea that we had to help the founder become a CEO that we made it a requirement that you couldn't be an investor at Andrews and Horowitz if you hadn't like founded and or run a company.
他们已经在这方面有多年的经验。我们也犯了不少投资错误，比如错过了一些应该做的事情，有些事情我们做对了，但更多的是错过了我们本该做的事情。此外，我们对投资者特质的看法也是错的。我们过于强调需要帮助创始人成为CEO，以至于规定如果没有创办或经营过公司，就不能成为安德森•霍洛维茨的投资人。
And that, you know, was very good attitude and set the culture of the firm in a lot of ways and had good things that came from it. But I would just say that like most CEOs aren't as interested in investing as they think they are. And then also most CEOs aren't as good at helping somebody else learn the job. And so those two things ended up being, you know, not quite correct. So we made some adjustments. You know, fun one just went really well because we, you know, we hit the scene hard.
这在很多方面确立了公司的文化，并带来了很多好处。但我想说的是，大多数CEO对投资的兴趣没有他们想象的那么大。此外，大多数CEO在帮助他人学习工作方面并不那么擅长。所以这两点最终并不是特别正确。因此，我们做了一些调整。我们的一个项目进行得非常顺利，因为我们一开始就下了很大功夫。
It was a small fund. We did Skype. We did Slack. We did. I mean, like there was Stripe was in there like so like there were just too many good things and a $300 million fund for that thing that below the doors off. Fun too wasn't as good as one. And then by the time we got to three, that's when we had the contention among like, oh, we really don't have the right profile for GP here. And there was a while where we thought that was going to be a terrible fun.
这是一个小型基金。我们投资了Skype，投资了Slack。我们这样做了。我是说，还有Stripe在其中，所以有太多好的项目，对那个价值3亿美元的基金来说，实在是让人惊艳。二期基金没有一期好。等到我们进行到三期基金时，就产生了争议，认为我们在这里没有合适的总经理人选。那段时间，我们一度认为这会是一个糟糕的基金。
I didn't know about being a great fun because we had, you know, Coinbase and Databricks and Lyft and GitHub. But that one was scary for a while. But coming out of that, we kind of knew what the firm needed to be. And so I think it was settled down after that, you know, it wasn't such a like startup. It was like, okay, we got across that chasm. But then the bigger thing was we always had this idea about software is eating the world. And you know, which is Mark articulated really well in his 2011 piece.
我当时对成为一个有趣的人并不了解，因为我们有像Coinbase、Databricks、Lyft和GitHub这样的公司。但是有段时间确实让人感到有些害怕。不过，在经历了那段时期后，我们逐渐明确了公司需要的发展方向。因此，我认为公司在那之后开始稳定下来，不再像一个初创企业了。我们迈过了那个难关。但更重要的是，我们一直坚信软件正在吞噬世界，而马克在他2011年的文章中对此阐述得非常好。
And so we always felt like venture capital firms needed to be able to scale. And the other firms would have trouble scaling because of the way they worked, the way they shared control. So that could be an opportunity for us. But we hadn't figured out how to do it yet. And then I'd say starting with like the bio and the crypto fund, I started to get to the kind of organizational picture of how we would become, be able to address every market of technology. And but with investing teams that weren't 20 people, like that doesn't work.
因此，我们一直认为风险投资公司需要具备扩展的能力，而其他公司由于它们的运作方式和控制权的分配方式可能会在扩展上遇到困难。所以这对我们来说可能是一个机会。不过，我们当时还没找到实现这一目标的方法。后来，从生物科技和加密货币基金开始，我逐渐看到了组织架构的蓝图，让我们能够应对每个科技市场。而不是依赖一个由二十人组成的投资团队，因为那样的方式行不通。
So you need an investing team of like four or five people, but you have to, you can't address the whole technology market with five people. So you have to have multiple teams. Having multiple teams in a venture capital firm is a little bit of a novel idea, particularly when each team has like a platform that helps the founder build the company. And so we began it really in earnest with the crypto fund, I think, like around 2018. And then, and you know, now the whole firm is kind of organized that way.
因此，你需要一个由四到五个人组成的投资团队，但仅靠五个人是无法覆盖整个科技市场的。所以，你需要多个团队。在风险投资公司中，设立多个团队还是一个比较新颖的想法，特别是当每个团队都有自己的平台来帮助创业者构建公司的时候。这种模式大概是在2018年，我们真正开始实施的时候，从加密货币基金开始的。现在，整个公司基本上都是按照这种方式来组织的。
If you think, if we zoom now to today and back to what you said, which is that the scope of your ambition is big, as the leader, be the one to help or be the ones that are expanding the market, what are the components of doing that? Like what is the system need that it doesn't currently have that you might be able to provide? One is that the capital markets have changed, you know, dramatically with not much help. So I went public at 18 months old with $2 million in trailing revenue.
如果你考虑一下，如果我们把视角拉到今天，再回顾你所说的，也就是你的抱负范围很大，作为领导者，成为帮助者或市场扩展者，你认为实现这一目标的要素是什么？现在的系统中缺少什么，而你可能能够提供什么？一个方面是资本市场发生了巨大的变化，这种变化并没有得到太多帮助。我在公司成立后的18个月实现了上市，当时的收入仅有200万美元。
That wasn't a good idea, but companies used to go public routinely with $50 million in revenue. It was fine. You know, now nobody's going public. A billion, right? Like you get to go public or something like that. And you're kind of small if you don't have that. And so you kind of need a lot more out of the private markets than VCs are built to do. And so, you know, that's one of the kind of things we have to think about.
这不是个好主意，但以前公司常常在收入达到5000万美元时就公开上市。当时这样是可以的。但现在，几乎没有公司上市了。现在可能要到十亿美元才可以上市吧？如果没有达到这个水平，你就算是小公司。所以，现在你需要从私募市场获得更多支持，而这超出了风险投资公司通常能提供的。因此，这就是我们需要考虑的问题之一。
Another one is the companies in the portfolio, you know, they'd leave you at a hundred million revenue. They're going public. They're out to the racist. Well, that's not true anymore. And so what do you need when you get to be 200 million, 300 million revenue? Well, you need to be multi product. You need to be multi channel. You need to be multi geography. So as a venture firm, you know, we need to help them. And as a venture industry, we need to help them do that. Like how do I get to Japan? How do I get to South America? Like most venture firms don't provide much along those lines.
另一个情况是，这些投资组合中的公司曾经在达到一亿美元收入时就可以进行上市，蓄势待发。但是，现在情况不再如此。那么，当公司达到两亿、三亿收入时，需要做些什么呢？公司需要多产品、多渠道和多地域发展。作为一家风险投资公司，我们需要协助他们实现这些目标。作为整个风险投资行业，我们也需要帮助他们。比如，他们可能会问：我该如何进入日本市场？如何进军南美市场？而大多数风险投资公司在这方面提供的支持并不多。
So we kind of have to step up to those ideas if we're going to have companies in the portfolio at that stage. Do you hope that over time you're forming? Maybe some others like it that have become these big institutions and venture. Go on to be sort of like the blackstone, you know, Apollo type companies that are big, publicly traded, you know, enduring businesses.
因此，如果我们希望在那个阶段的投资组合中拥有公司，我们就需要努力迎合这些想法。你是否希望随着时间的推移，培养出其他一些类似的公司，使它们成长为大型机构并在风险投资领域有所建树？比如，发展成类似黑石（Blackstone）或阿波罗（Apollo）那样的大型、公开交易且具有持久性的企业。
A big, huge wave among venture capitalists is private equity AI rollups. It's a good business idea. Like a really good business idea, which is, okay, you know, just like the spreadsheet kind of created the original private equity business. AI is kind of creating a new private equity business where you can buy any existing company, optimize it with AI and it'll be more valuable. That's a good idea. It's a good thing to invest in. It's not something we're going to do for two reasons.
在风险投资界中，一个重要且巨大的趋势是私人股本AI收购。这是一个不错的商业想法，就像电子表格曾创造了最初的私人股本业务一样。现在，人工智能正在创造一种新的私人股本业务模式，你可以购买任何现有公司，通过人工智能进行优化，然后该公司的价值就会提高。这是一个值得投资的好想法。不过，我们不会涉足这个领域，原因有两个。
One, it's like the cultural opposite of who we are. So we're about building new things, growth, believing in the entrepreneur, price doesn't even matter as long as the thing succeeds, you're going to do well. Private equity is like entry price is key. Like the, I mean, you know, I had a great dinner with Mark Rowan, who's a super genius, runs Apollo, and he was like entry price, entry price, entry price. You know, we never even think about that. We think about it, but it's not like first and foremost at all, like thinking about containing costs and this and that. The other, that's just not like what a good venture capital frame of mind is.
这与我们的文化几乎是完全相反的。我们注重的是创造新事物、追求增长、相信企业家，价格并不重要，只要事情能成功，你就会有好的回报。而私人股本则是把入场价格看得很重。我和超级天才、阿波罗的负责人马克·罗恩共进晚餐时，他反复强调入场价格的重要性。但我们从来没特别关注这个问题。我们会考虑，但这绝不是我们首要考虑的事情，比如在控制成本等方面的思维方式。这不是优秀风险投资人的思维方式。
So like culturally, I didn't want to mix those two things, but more than that, like I just didn't want to be in a business where the way you make money is you figure out how to optimize an existing thing and, you know, lay off people and that kind of thing. We're about like new technology companies building the future, taking things forward, and I'll leave that to the other smart guys in the industry.
所以，从文化上来说，我不想把这两件事混在一起。但更重要的是，我不想从事一种需要通过优化现有业务和裁员来赚钱的行业。我们专注于新技术公司，推动未来的发展。我会把那些事情交给行业里的其他聪明人去做。
What if any trade-offs feel like they might exist at this scale as you continue to scale as you consider all these different people you're trying to serve well. The investors, internally, the LPs, the founders, so many people need to, nothing's perfect. Like what are the trade-offs to the path that you've chosen? I think, you know, with any scale of organization, you really have to overpay attention to culture or the culture will drift.
在这种规模下，随着你继续扩大业务，并考虑到所有你想要很好服务的不同群体时，可能存在哪些权衡？投资者、内部人员、有限合伙人、创始人，很多人都需要得到关注，但没有什么是完美的。对于你选择的道路，有哪些需要取舍的地方？我认为，在任何规模的组织中，你都必须特别关注企业文化，否则文化就可能会偏离。
We probably spend more work on that than any venture capital firm. I'm going to like, you're not allowed to join unless you sign the culture document. I spend an hour with every single employee teaching them the culture, like it's like that level of investment. And then, you know, we really try to enforce it hard when we can. And, you know, we have pretty good consistency, but like that's that is hard to maintain as you grow.
我们可能在这方面投入的工作比任何一家风险投资公司都多。就像，我会说，你不允许加入，除非你签署文化文件。我花一个小时和每位员工讲解公司文化，这就像是那种投资的程度。而且，我们确实努力去严格执行它，你知道的，我们在这方面做得相对一致，但随着公司发展，想要保持这种一致性是很困难的。
Can you teach me more about culture? You've written a book about it. You've built them. You've studied some very interesting cultures that you wrote about in the book. If you had to teach a seminar or something on like what a culture is in the first place and then how to design one given what you do and who you are, and then how to, you know, make sure that people live by it.
你能教我更多关于文化的东西吗？你写过一本关于文化的书，你也曾创建过文化，并且研究过一些你在书中提到的非常有趣的文化。如果让你举办一个研讨会，讲解什么是文化，以及如何基于你的经验和身份设计一个文化，并确保人们真正遵循这种文化。你会怎么做呢？
Let me give you kind of like a small but like the probably the most important insight, which is from Boshito, the way of the warrior from the samurai. A culture is not a set of ideas. It's a set of actions. And so if you define your culture as a kind of set of ideas, integrity, do the right thing. We have each other's backs or any kind of like these ideas, they call them corporate values. It's actually just a bunch of if I can platitudes.
让我给你提供一个小小的但可能是最重要的见解，这个见解来自武士道（即武士的生活方式）。文化不是一套想法，而是一系列行动。因此，如果你把文化定义为一组观念，比如诚信、做正确的事情、互相支持或任何类似的理念，他们称之为企业价值观。实际上，这只是一堆空谈。
It doesn't mean anything. The culture has to be defined in terms of the exact behavior that you want that support that idea. What do you have to do to actually be that thing that you want it to be? And so, and it's the little things, you know, how responsive are you to your colleagues? What's the SLA on returning a Slack message or an email? Do you show up to meetings on time? And this is like not everybody has those ideas, but if you want that idea, you've got to manifest it through something else.
这没有任何意义。文化必须通过你想要支持的想法中的具体行为来定义。你需要做些什么才能真正成为你想要的那个样子？这与细节有关，例如你对同事的响应速度、回复Slack消息或电子邮件的服务水平协议（SLA）是什么样的？你是否准时参加会议？并不是每个人都有这些想法，但如果你想实现那个想法，就必须通过其他具体的行为表现出来。
So like, we have an idea about like, you have to respect entrepreneurs. What is that behavior? Well, like, one, you can't ever be fucking late to a meeting with an entrepreneur. That is to fine people 10 dollars a minute in the beginning of the firm to reinforce it. And then you know, you have to get back to an entrepreneur. If you say no, like you have to say no, you have to explain why you're not investing. And you know, it has to be clear. And we're going to survey that entrepreneur after you say no to make sure that you said no and that they had a good experience.
所以，我们有一个想法，就是你必须尊重创业者。那么，这种行为是什么呢？首先，绝对不能迟到和创业者的会议。在公司成立之初，为了强调这一点，我们对迟到实行每分钟罚款10美元的制度。此外，如果你不打算投资，你必须及时回复创业者，你要明确地说“不”，并解释为什么不投资。我们还会在你拒绝后，调查那个创业者，以确保你确实说明了理由，并且他们的体验是良好的。
So like, that's a behavior. If you try to make yourself look good by making an entrepreneur look bad, you're fired. So like, you get on X and say, oh, he's selling dollars for 85 cents. No, no, no, no. We're dream builders. We're not dream killers. Fuck that. Where, somebody wants to do something larger than themselves, build a company, you know, make the world a better place. We're for that. We're gonna give fuck what the idea is, you know, and or if Sequoia funded them or whatever, we'd love that. That's who we are.
所以，这算是一种行为。如果你试图通过贬低创业者来提高自己，你就会被炒鱿鱼。比方说，你在网上说，“哦，他在亏本卖美元。”不，不，不。我们是梦想的缔造者，而不是梦想的扼杀者。去他的。只要有人想成就一番大事业，创办公司，让世界变得更美好，我们支持他们。我们不在乎这个想法是什么，或者是否得到了红杉资本的投资，我们都喜欢这些。这就是我们的立场。
And so the behavior is the culture is the actual thing that gets you the idea as opposed to the idea and then figure out how you're going to behave. And so that's probably the main thing on culture. Can you say more about the influence your dad had on you? You mentioned that lesson of nothing's fair. Her life isn't fair. Tell me about your dad. He was what's done as a red diaper baby. He, my grandparents were communists. Like, they went to secret meetings. They had cards.
行为即文化，这种文化实际上是先于想法而存在的，它会带给你启发，而不是你先有想法再决定如何去行动。这可能是关于文化最重要的观点。你能多谈谈你父亲对你的影响吗？你提到过他给你上的课——生活是不公平的。告诉我关于你父亲的事。他是所谓的“红尿布宝宝”。我的祖父母是共产党员，他们曾参加秘密会议，还持有党员证。
My grandfather was fired during the McCarthy era from being a junior high school teacher, you know, for being a communist. And he grew up a communist and he started out. On the left, he was editor of a, there's very famous new left magazine called Grandparts Magazine, which he was editor of. And he, you know, was involved in the Black Panthers with Huey Newton and, you know, in the old conchapter, Eldridge Cleaver, and he sort of dropped out of politics and he re-emerged, I guess, probably eight years later on the right.
我的祖父在麦卡锡时代因为是共产主义者被解雇，当时他是一名初中教师。他从小就是共产主义者，并从左翼开始了他的政治生涯。他曾担任过一个非常有名的新左派杂志《祖父杂志》的编辑。他还曾与休伊·牛顿一起参与了黑豹党，并在老康分会与埃尔德里奇·克利弗合作。后来，他淡出了政治舞台，大约八年后，他又回到了政治领域，不过这次是在右翼。
He really understood kind of the ills of communism and socialism, which helped me a lot. Like, one of the things that he said to me that always stuck with me, he's like, son, go to the library. Pick any book on socialism. There's hundreds of books. And in that book, I guarantee you, you will find page upon page, chapter upon chapter of how to divide the wealth. You will not find a single sentence on how to create how to make it.
他对共产主义和社会主义的弊端有很深刻的理解，这对我帮助很大。有一句他对我说的话让我印象深刻：他说，儿子，去图书馆，挑一本关于社会主义的书，那里有成百上千本这样的书。在这些书中，我敢保证，你会看到一页接一页、一章接一章的内容都是在讲如何分配财富，但你找不到一句关于如何创造财富的内容。
And I was like, oh, wow. That's not like a very good system. I learned a lot about systems thinking from that, which, you know, ended up being, I'd say, very helpful to me as CEO. He wasn't like, you know, this, this new age father, he wasn't like, you know, in the old days, your father, like they wouldn't even talk to you until he gets to be like 12. And then you get these little snippets of wisdom.
我当时心里想，哇哦，这系统不怎么样。通过这件事，我学到了很多关于系统思维的知识，这对作为CEO的我来说非常有帮助。他不像那种所谓的新时代父亲，也不像过去那种父亲，直到你快12岁才开始和你说话，偶尔给你点人生建议。
And like one of the ones I actually put in the hard thing about hard things. But I had, you know, three kids. I was young. And I remember there's like 102 degrees. The air condition was broken. The kids were going crazy. Like one of them poured a hole, bottle Apple juice, like a gallon of apple juice into the ragged apple juice is steaming out of the carbon. I'm just sitting there looking like I was going to die. And my father looks at me and he goes, son, you know what's cheap? I said, what?
这句话的中文翻译是：“其中一个让我觉得特别辛苦的事情，就像是我曾经在关于困难的事情中提到的。那时候我有三个孩子，我还很年轻。我记得当时气温有102华氏度，空调坏了，孩子们闹得不可开交。其中一个把整瓶一加仑的苹果汁倒了出来，苹果汁直接从地毯冒出来。我坐在那里，感觉自己像要崩溃了一样。我父亲看着我，说，儿子，你知道什么是不贵的吗？我说，什么？”
He goes, flowers, flowers are cheap. I said, okay. He said, you know what's expensive? I said, no, what? He said divorce. And you know, he had been married four times. As you look out today in the world, I'm curious what things are captivating you most. And maybe even like most inspiring you. You get, you've such an interesting perch. You get to see you so much.
他跟我说：“鲜花，鲜花是便宜的。” 我回答：“好吧。” 然后他说：“你知道什么是昂贵的吗？” 我问：“不知道，什么？” 他说：“离婚。” 你知道吗，他已经结过四次婚了。当你放眼今天的世界时，我很好奇有什么事情最吸引你。也许还有哪些事情最能激励你。你有一个很有趣的视角，能够看到很多东西。
Yeah. So what's going on in coding now is like quite phenomenal. Well, you know, like we kind of went through this period where like, okay, AI can write code. Cool. Okay, you can vibe code stuff with a lot of security calls fine. But I think over the break over the kind of winter break, it turned a corner where like really, really good programmers were going, whoa. Oh god.
好的。现在编程领域正在发生一些相当惊人的事情。我们之前经历了一个阶段，就是 "哇，AI可以写代码！真酷。" 你可以用大量安全调用来随意编写代码，这也挺不错的。但我觉得在这个冬季假期期间，事情有了质的飞跃，很多非常优秀的程序员都在想，“哇哦，天哪。”
This is this helps me. I just became a hundred times more productive. And I can't remember any kind of technology where like just all the sun you wake up and everything, the whole world just changed like that. And that's happening on a pretty regular basis, I would say. And then, you know, we spent a bunch of time with people in Hollywood who are using AI. I think AI will help you make movies both better and at much lower cost because you can do, you know, you can shoot a scene and then have the AI do a variation of that scene. That's very, very good. And so you don't have to do, you know, the really like if you're an actress, you have to shoot a scene like 15 or 20 times or something. It wouldn't be nice to shoot it three times. And then you just like take the pieces you like and make it what you want. So it's I think, it's a little underestimated as a tool for creatives, I think. And I think that's true in music too, you know, I was kind of a young person when hip hop started and the huge criticism was like, this is not music, they're just taking music and they're like remixing it and they're wrapping over it and it's a bunch of bullshit like it's a novelty. But it was postmodern art. And I think we're going to get into kind of post-postmodern art with like what people will be able to do with AI and music.
这对我帮助很大。我感觉自己的生产力提高了百倍。我想不起来还有哪种技术能让你一觉醒来就发现整个世界完全改变了。而这种改变现在似乎频繁发生。我们花了一些时间与在好莱坞使用人工智能的人交流。我认为人工智能将帮助电影制作更好，同时成本更低。因为你可以拍摄一个场景，然后用人工智能对该场景进行非常出色的变体制作。这样一来，演员就不必反复拍摄同一个场景，只需拍三次，然后挑选喜欢的部分，将其组合成自己想要的效果。因此，我认为人工智能作为创意工具有些被低估了。我认为在音乐领域也是如此。我还是年轻人的时候，嘻哈音乐刚兴起，当时对它的批评是，这不是音乐，他们只是把音乐拿来重新混音，并在上面说唱，这都是胡扯，只是一种新奇。但其实那是一种后现代艺术。我认为随着人们用人工智能在音乐上做出更多尝试，我们将进入某种后后现代艺术的时代。
And that was like one of the most exciting times in music. Like the invention of the new art form is when it gets really exciting. What people in hip hop specific people have had the largest impact on you personally and how? Nas is a very good friend of mine. And he, he's definitely had a big impact just that the lens at which he sees the world is so different and interesting for me. So we're both like very big fans of Ra Kim who is kind of like the John Coltrane of Ra. And so Ra Kim had one of his first big songs with the song called My Melody. And Nas and I are listening to My Melody. And the first line is Turn Up the Bass Pull Up a Chair, Hand Out a Sagar. I'm letting knowledge be born. My name's R and so he puts it on, hands out a cigar and he pauses it and he goes Ben, why is he handing out a cigar? And I go, I don't know why. Then he plays the next line. I'm letting knowledge be born. He's like, it's a birthbin. He's passing out cigars at the birth of knowledge. And I was like, oh shit, it was like a thousand times. I never heard that. And I can't tell you how many times like he sees or hears something that's there that I don't see. So having somebody that I can talk to who has just like a completely different perspective of all things in life.
那段时间是音乐史上最令人兴奋的时期之一。新艺术形式的诞生总是特别激动人心。在嘻哈音乐中，哪些人对你个人产生了最大的影响？Nas 是我的好朋友，他对我的影响很大。他看世界的视角与众不同，对我来说非常有趣。我们俩都是 Ra Kim 的超级粉丝，他就像嘻哈界的约翰·柯川。Ra Kim 的第一首大热歌曲之一是《My Melody》。有一次，Nas 和我一起听这首歌，歌词开头是“调高低音，拉把椅子，递上一支雪茄。我正在传播知识。我叫 R。”他放了这段音乐，递给我一支雪茄，然后暂停音乐问我，“Ben，他为什么要递雪茄？”我回答说，“我不知道。”然后他播了下一句，“我正在传播知识。”他说，“这是一种诞生，他是在知识诞生时递雪茄。”我听了上千次这首歌都没注意到这一点，真是让我大吃一惊。Nas 总能注意到我没看见或没听到的东西，能和一个总是以完全不同视角看待事物的人交流，真是太好了。
And it was interesting, we did the coin based deal together. And he had called me like two weeks prior to us really kind of seeing that because he wanted to learn about Bitcoin. So I explained to him how it worked. And he was very interested in when I was talking to Chris Dixon, who was work on the deal. I was like telling me about the guys. And he's like, well, one of them Fred is like really into hip hop. I was like, okay. And so I brought Naso over to my, I was like, haven't come over to my house. There's a boxing match on Saturday. I had Nas come over and that's how we got that deal. But yeah, he's just like a big influence on me personally. And then he's such a, you know, I, you know, I, as a, whatever, as a leader and so forth, like storytelling is, and a writer is important to me. And I think he's one of the great storytellers of all times, you know, like just a super genius on that.
翻译成中文，表达意思，尽量易读：
有趣的是，我们一起做了那笔以加密货币为基础的交易。大概两周前，他给我打电话，因为他想了解比特币的运作。所以我向他解释了比特币的工作原理。他表现出了浓厚的兴趣。当我与负责这笔交易的克里斯·迪克森交谈时，我询问他们的相关情况，他告诉我，其中一位，弗雷德，非常喜欢嘻哈音乐。我听完后说：“好吧，那就让他到我家来吧，周六有场拳击比赛。”我邀请了Nas到我家，就是这样我们达成了这笔交易。
他对我个人有很大影响。我认为作为一个领导者，故事讲述和写作对我很重要。而我觉得Nas是有史以来最伟大的故事讲述者之一，在这方面他真的是个天才。
Is there a CEO comparable to Nas where, you know, there's this class of guys in the 90s where Jay-Z, you know, I'm not just the businessman, I'm a businessman. Yeah. And they're these just massive franchises that got born. These guys all became incredibly successful in the business world. And it felt more like industrialized almost, like the whole process, whereas not like even just his album that just came out is it feels, just like, it'll, it feels like it could have come out then or now. It's like this weird timeless quality. He still has that somehow. And like premier same thing. Yeah. Do you know anyone else like that in another domain? It seems like he's such a unique person relative to his peers. Maybe Jensen. Jensen has like this like very defined, you know, agree with her and not, but it's like this view of who he is, what the company is, and so forth. That's kind of gone across eras. But it's still the same thing, right?
有没有一位CEO可以与Nas相提并论？在90年代，有一类人，比如Jay-Z，不仅仅是商人，更是一种商业帝国的化身。这些人在商业领域取得了极大的成功，似乎整个过程都更像是一种产业化。然而，Nas的新专辑给人的感觉是无论它是在过去还是现在发行都合适，展现了一种奇妙的永恒品质。他似乎依然保有这种特质，类似的还有制作人Premier。你知道在其他领域有谁像这样吗？Nas似乎在同辈中显得与众不同。也许Jensen算一个。Jensen有着很明确的个人风格和价值观，无论你是否赞同，这种风格贯穿了多个时代。从某种程度上来说，Jensen的轨迹和Nas有些相似。
Like it's not that it like it played in gaming. It played in Bitcoin, it plays an AI, but it, it's still in video. Like it's not, he never thought he had to change the name of the company. He's gotten better over the years. But in a weird sense, it never felt like he's trying to be current. So like not as never kind of feels like he's trying to write a hit.
这段话的意思是：
就像它在游戏中发挥作用一样。它在比特币中发挥作用，它在人工智能中也有用，但它仍然在视频领域中活跃。就像他从没想过要更改公司的名字一样。这些年来他变得更好了。但从某种奇怪的意义上说，从来没有感觉到他在努力赶潮流。所以说，他从来不像是在刻意制造一个热门产品。
Can you tell the story of the work you're doing with the Vegas police department? And I'm asking about this one because it's super interesting. But also because it feels like an interesting different kind of example of what the application of this constellation of new technologies might allow for in terms of improvement efficiencies, you know, it's just such an interesting case study.
你能讲讲你在拉斯维加斯警察局工作的故事吗？我之所以问这个问题，是因为它非常有趣。而且，这个例子展现了新技术应用的不同方式，以及这些技术如何能够提升效率。这是一个非常有趣的案例研究。
A couple of things about the Las Vegas police force for intriguing to me. The biggest one was they were different than other police forces in the country because they're a big metropolitan area that's not run by the chief of police but run by the sheriff. And the reason that's important is the sheriff is an elected official and does not report to the mayor. So they never got caught in the big political movement and defund the police and they were the one of the only cities that didn't reduce the police budget or anything like that.
关于拉斯维加斯警察局，有几点我觉得很有趣。其中最主要的是，它们与美国其他警察局不同。因为拉斯维加斯是一个大都市区，但并不是由警察局长管理，而是由治安官管理。而这很重要，因为治安官是民选官员，不需要向市长汇报。因此，他们没有卷入大规模的政治运动和“削减警察经费”的风波，成为唯一没有削减警察预算的城市之一。
So they kind of stayed in tact and they're also interestingly the one or the one that I knew that never militarized and they do community policing and you can see it in the numbers. So the murder clearance rate in Las Vegas is the highest murder clearance rate, meaning they they solve the murder. 94% and you know, I think San Francisco is like 75% and then Chicago's like in the 30s and the national average is below 60.
他们基本上保持了原样，而且有趣的是，我所知道的，它们是从未军事化的警方之一。他们实行社区警务，这从他们的数据中可以看出来。比如，拉斯维加斯的凶杀案破案率是最高的，达到94%。相比之下，旧金山大约是75%，而芝加哥只有30%左右，国家平均水平则低于60%。
And I asked them I said, you know, why why is your murder clearance rate so high? And the sheriff Kevin Mayhull said, Ben, you know, when somebody is murdered, there's always somebody who knows who did it. They just don't talk to the police. So but they talked to us because we're part of the community like they know us. And so it's like, wow, that's a great kind of environment to see if this new technology worked.
我问他们，我说，你们的凶杀案侦破率为什么这么高？警长凯文·梅霍尔回答说："本，你知道，当有人被谋杀时，总会有人知道凶手是谁。只是他们不和警察说。但他们愿意和我们说，因为我们是社区的一部分，他们认识我们。"我心想，哇，这是一个很好的环境，可以看看这种新技术是否奏效。
And I knew about all the public safety technology because we invested in through American dynamism. So I was like, like, we're going to become the highest tech police force in America, hopefully the world. And I'm just going to fund it. And so I bought, you know, we've got a drone program and we've got, you know, prepared 911 and we've got Flock Safety, you know, AI cameras.
通过美国活力计划的投资，我对所有公共安全技术都很了解。所以我想，我们会成为美国，甚至有希望成为世界上技术最先进的警察部队。我决定资助这个计划。因此，我购买了很多设备，比如无人机项目、预备911系统，还有Flock Safety的人工智能摄像头。
If an emergency call, if a 911 call comes in or if a gunshot goes off, there will be a drone deployed in there within 90 seconds. And then that drone video feed will be in every police officer's phone in the vicinity like instantly. Since we started the program, I think crime is down over 50% and then, you know, shooting of suspects by police is down like close to 75%. But everybody's safer.
如果接到紧急电话，例如911呼叫，或者有枪声响起，会在90秒内派遣无人机到现场。然后，无人机拍摄的视频会立即传送到附近每位警察的手机上。自从我们启动这个项目以来，我认为犯罪率下降了超过50%，而警察对嫌疑人的开枪次数减少了接近75%。大家的安全都提高了。
And I think this is the thing that that was the most surprising to me on the technology deployment is that so when you talk to the police, they go, look, the problem is the descriptions cause like half the violent confrontation. So I'm like, well, what do you mean? So somebody jacks a car. There's a baby in the back seat. We get a description of the car. It's 2004 Hyundai. That's blue.
我觉得在技术应用中最让我感到惊讶的是，当你和警察交流时，他们会说，问题在于描述的过程，这一过程导致了一半的暴力对抗。我就问他们，什么意思呢？比如说，有人抢了一辆车，车后座上还有个婴儿。我们得到的车的信息是：这是一辆蓝色的2004年款现代汽车。
Well, it's really a 2008 Hyundai that screened, but we pull a guy over in a 2004 Hyundai that's blue. And you know, that person has had bad experiences with the police. And you know, now he's got a gun in the car. And all of a sudden, we've got an incident and like an innocent citizen gets armed or police gets shot with AI camera.
这其实是一个2008年的现代汽车被监控到了，但我们拦下的是一辆2004年蓝色的现代车。你知道，那个人之前和警方有过不愉快的经历。现在，他车里有一把枪。突然之间，我们就有了一个突发事件，比如一个无辜的市民被武装起来，或者警察被AI摄像头拍到的时候遭到枪击。
We know that's the car. That's it. And we know there's a baby in the car. And so we're not sending one guy with a gun to see if that's the guy who we're sending a whole squad. And we're apprehending them safely. And so everything about like policing is inherently dangerous, but intelligence makes it dramatically safer.
我们知道那就是那辆车，就是它。而且我们知道车里有一个婴儿。因此，我们不会只派一个带枪的人去查看，而是派出整个小队。我们会安全地抓捕他们。执法工作本身具有危险性，但情报能够大大提高安全性。
And so I'm a huge believer in this technology for making everybody safer, you know, suspects, criminals, citizens, police, everybody. The other kind of, not going to affect is it's kind of put the pride back into policing. We used to have a big problem in Vegas where you know, because nobody wants to be a police officer, we were lowering the standard.
因此，我非常相信这项技术能够提高所有人的安全性，比如嫌疑人、罪犯、市民和警察等所有人。还有另一个影响，这项技术让警务工作重新变得值得骄傲。过去在拉斯维加斯有一个大问题，因为没人愿意当警察，我们不得不降低录用标准。
But now the standard is really high. So between the drone center, which is like super say to the art, and then you have these cyber trucks that look so like amazingly futuristic and cool driving around, like everybody wants to be a police now. And Las Vegas happens to have the highest concentration veterans in the country.
但现在的标准确实很高。首先是那个无比先进的无人机中心，然后还有那些看起来极其未来感和酷炫的网络卡车在路上行驶，好像每个人都想成为警察。另外，拉斯维加斯恰好是全美退伍军人最集中的地方。
So plenty of like super qualified people to choose from. They'll want to be police. So that's all gone really well. The last question I ask everyone is the same. What is the kindest thing that anyone's ever done for you? A mentor might have a fellow by the name of Ken Coleman, who was a big executive at Silicon Graphics.
所以有很多非常合格的人可以选择。他们会愿意当警察。因此，这一切进展得非常顺利。我问每个人的最后一个问题都是一样的：别人为你做过的最善意的事情是什么？我有一个导师，名叫肯·科尔曼，他曾是Silicon Graphics的一位重要高管。
And when I was, I guess a sophomore in college, I got an introduction into him and he gave me a job as a summer intern. And without that job, I don't know that I ever get to Silicon Valley or that whole thing. So I would say that's probably that that was the highest impact. Just he didn't have to do that thing that anybody did for me. It may interest you that that is the most common form of answer across 500 of the someone that like took a bet when they didn't need to.
当我大二的时候，我认识了他，他给了我一个暑期实习的工作。如果没有这个工作，我可能就不会来到硅谷，或者不会走上这条路。可以说，这个工作对我影响很大。他本来没必要那么做，这可真是对我最大的恩惠。可能会让你感兴趣的是，在500人的调查中，这种类型的回答是最常见的，也就是有人在不需要的情况下愿意给你一个机会。
Then pleasure to finally do this with you after a couple years of watching you and learning from you. So thank you so much for your time. Thank you, Patrick. You know how small advantage is compound over time that's true in investing and just as true in how you run your company. Your spending system is your capital allocation strategy. Ramp makes it smarter by default that are data that are decisions better economics over time. See how at ramp.com slash invest as your business grows, Vanta scales with you, automating compliance and giving you a single source of truth for security and risk.
很高兴在观察和学习了你多年之后，终于能与你一起做这件事。非常感谢你所花的时间。谢谢你，Patrick。你知道，微小的优势会随着时间的推移而累积，无论是在投资中还是在管理公司时都是如此。你的支出系统就是你的资本分配策略。Ramp 使得系统在默认情况下更加智能化，我们的数据和决策随着时间的推移会带来更好的经济效益。访问 ramp.com/invest 了解更多。随着你的业务增长，Vanta 会与你一同发展，自动化合规管理，并为安全和风险提供一个可靠的真实来源。
Learn more at vanta.com slash invest. Every investment firm is unique and generic AI doesn't understand your process. Rogo does. It's an AI platform built specifically for Wall Street connected to your data, understanding your process and producing real outputs. Check them out at rogo.ai slash invest. The best AI and software companies from open AI to cursor to perplexity use work OS to become enterprise ready overnight, not in months.
了解更多信息，请访问 vanta.com/invest。每家投资公司都是独特的，通用的人工智能无法理解您的流程，而 Rogo 可以。Rogo 是一个专为华尔街打造的人工智能平台，它与您的数据相连，理解您的流程并产生实际成果。详细信息请访问 rogo.ai/invest。从 OpenAI 到 Cursor 再到 Perplexity，顶级的人工智能和软件公司通过 Work OS 在一夜之间就做好了企业级准备，而不是需要数月时间。
Visit work os.com to skip the unglamorous infrastructure work and focus on your product. Ridge line is redefining asset management technology as a true partner, not just a software vendor. They've helped firms 5x and scale enabling faster growth, smarter operations and a competitive edge. Visit ridgelineapps.com to see what they can unlock for your firm.
访问 work os.com，跳过繁琐的基础设施工作，专注于您的产品。Ridge line正在重新定义资产管理技术，他们不仅仅是软件供应商，更是真正的合作伙伴。他们帮助公司实现五倍的增长和规模扩展，从而实现更快速的增长、更聪明的运营以及竞争优势。访问 ridgelineapps.com，看看他们能为您的公司带来什么。