All-In Summit: In conversation with Vinod Khosla

Please join me welcoming Vinod Cozler to Sage. Vinod? Oh! How are you? How are you doing? Legend! Legend! I'm going home with you! Let your winner ride. Brainman David Satter. I'm going home with you! And it's said we open source it to fans and they just go crazy. Love you guys. I see you. We can come home with you! Please! Wow! Legend! How are you? Legend!

请和我一起欢迎 Vinod Cozler 加入 Sage。Vinod？哦，你好吗？你怎么样？传奇！传奇！我要跟你回家！让你的胜利继续。Brainman David Satter。我要跟你回家！并且据说我们会将它开源给粉丝们，他们会疯狂的。爱你们。我看见你们了。我们可以跟你回家！拜托！哇！传奇！你好吗？传奇！

Vinod, good to see you just by way of background. I think we all know Vinod. Vinod is a legend and a friend. His Indian Army officer dad wanted his kid to join the army and Vinod decided instead to go into business after reading about Intel and getting inspired by co-founder Andy Grove and immigrant who got funding for his start up in Silicon Valley. Vinod later got a Masters in Biomedical Engineering from Carnegie Mellon on a full scholarship. Stanford GSB rejected him twice. He finally got accepted and received his MBA in 1980. And he worked at several startups, some of which failed. And then one of them worked out pretty good. Some micro systems.

Vinod，很高兴见到你，简单介绍一下背景。我想我们都知道Vinod。Vinod是一个传奇和朋友。他的印度陆军军官父亲希望他的孩子能够加入军队，但Vinod决定在阅读了有关英特尔公司并受到联合创始人安迪·格鲁夫（Andy Grove）的启发后，选择进入商界。格鲁夫是一个移民，在硅谷获得了对他的创业公司的资金支持。Vinod后来获得了卡内基梅隆大学的生物医学工程硕士学位，全额奖学金资助。斯坦福大学商学院两次拒绝了他。最终他获得了录取，并于1980年获得了工商管理硕士学位。他在几家初创企业工作，其中一些失败了。然后有一家非常不错的企业成功了，就是一些微系统公司。

Started it in 1982 with his Stanford classmate Scott McDeeley, Andy Bechtelstein, and Bill Joy. Vinod raised $300,000 in seed capital from venture firm Kleiner Perkins Coughfield and Byers and within five years, son made a billion dollars in annual revenue. He became a GP at Kleiner where he helped create NextGen, which he sold to AMD for 28% of its market cap, the first successful Intel microprocessor clone company. And his largest return to date, maybe we'll talk about this today, was Juniper Networks, where the firm's $3 million investment in the 90s earned $7 billion.

他在1982年与他的斯坦福大学同学Scott McDeeley、Andy Bechtelstein和Bill Joy一起创办了该公司。Vinod从风险投资公司Kleiner Perkins Coughfield and Byers筹集了30万美元的种子资金，并在五年内公司年收入达到了10亿美元。他成为了Kleiner的合伙人，在那里他帮助创建了NextGen，并将该公司以28%的市值出售给了AMD，这是第一家成功克隆Intel微处理器的公司。迄今为止，他的最大回报可能是Juniper Networks，该公司在90年代对其进行的300万美元的投资，赚取了70亿美元的收益。

In 2004, he launched Coastal Adventures. 2006, I pitched him and he rejected me as an investor in my company. I came back in 2011 and he led my series B, and I had three competing offers, and I picked Vinod. So, Vinod's been a great partner. By the way, I will also give you guys, I had offers from, I guess I'll say it, founder's fund and Andreessen Horowitz for my series B, Vinod gave me the lowest valuation, and I still took his offer. Entry price manager, the ad mode value.

2004年，他创办了Coastal Adventures。2006年，我找他成为我公司的投资者，但他拒绝了我。我在2011年再次找到他，他带领我进行了B轮融资，而我同时还收到了其他三个竞争性的报价，但我选择了Vinod。所以，Vinod一直是一个很好的合作伙伴。顺便说一下，刚才我还提到了，创始人基金和Andreessen Horowitz也给了我B轮融资的报价，但Vinod给出的估值最低，尽管如此我还是接受了他的报价。入市价格管理者，广告模式价值。

Vinod's whole point was VC's typically add negative value. We're going to put a senator on your board that we know that knows this, and that firm and the other board members they brought and the partners they brought to the table for me were incredible. And he's been a great mentor and advisor. I'll also say I always gave people advice on Vinod because I get a lot of reference calls, like, should I take money from Vinod? I heard he's paying in the ass sometimes, and I'm like, let me tell you something about Vinod. I've never told you this in public, but I said, the thing about Vinod is you go into a meeting with Vinod, and he's like the oracle in Neo, the matrix. You go in the kitchen, and he's like, you know, she says, know thyself. She pulls out the chocolate chip cookies. She says, am I the one? She says, you're not the one. Kicks him out. He has to ultimately decide what the right decision is, and Vinod will cast for you a vision of all the things that you can be common and push you and try and make you extend your vision for your business and what is possible. And through that thought, through that conversation, through the vision hearing that he can help you do as an entrepreneur, sometimes you need to listen and sometimes you need to ignore the bullshit advice he gives you. But I will say that the role he plays is really important, and I've seen it work across some of the most important companies. In Silicon Valley in the world today, so Vinod, thanks so much for being with us.

Vinod的整个观点是风险投资者通常会给企业带来负面价值。我们将在你的董事会上安排一位参议员，我们知道他了解这一点，而且他所属的公司和其他由他带来的董事以及他们为我带来的合作伙伴都非常出色。他一直是我的良师和顾问。我还要说，我总是给那些问我是否应该从Vinod那里拿钱的人提供建议，因为我接到过很多关于他的参考电话，比如，我听说他有时很讨厌，然后我就会告诉他们一些关于Vinod的事情。我从未公开告诉过你这些，但是我说，关于Vinod的事情是，你去见他，他就像尼奥眼中的奥拉克尔，进入了矩阵。你去厨房，他就像你知道的，她说“认清自己”，然后拿出了巧克力曲奇饼干。她说：“我会是那个人吗？”她说：“你不是那个人。”把他踢了出去。你必须最终决定什么是正确的决策，而Vinod会为你构筑一个关于你的企业和可能性的愿景，并推动你，试图让你扩展你对企业的愿景。通过思考、对话和倾听他作为一名企业家如何帮助你实现愿景，有时你需要倾听，有时你需要忽略他给你的废话建议。但我要说的是，他所扮演的角色非常重要，我见过它在一些最重要的硅谷和当今世界上的公司中发挥作用，所以Vinod，非常感谢你能和我们在一起。

Can I just interrupt with one comment?

我可以打扰一下吗，只是想发表一点评论？

Yes.

是的。

You know, advice to all the entrepreneurs. Most VCs want to be your friend. And so they are hypocritically polite, instead of brutally honest in a way that can actually help you make a better decision. And that's sort of religion for me. I prefer brutal honesty to hypocritical politeness. And when people don't do that, they are actually harming the aunt nor. And having the aunt nor like them more. That's not my game.

你知道，这是对所有创业家的建议。大多数风险投资者希望成为你的朋友。因此，他们往往会虚伪地客气，而不是坦率地给出实质性的建议，以帮助你做出更好的决策。对我来说，这就是一种宗教信仰。我更喜欢坦率的诚实，而不是虚伪的客气。当人们不这样做时，实际上是在伤害我的利益，让他们更受我阿姨的喜欢。这不是我的游戏规则。

And is that what you mean when you say most VCs add negative value?

当你说大多数风险投资家都会带来负面价值，你是否指的是这个？

Well, they take a very short-term approach. Just going through a situation. Companies being recap, they ask us to participate. I said, you are hanging on to revenue that is bad revenue. If you get rid of it and restart the company with positive revenue in the right technology approach, would participate and even lead. But they are hung on to revenue since the beginning of this year. By the way, three years ago, I asked them to take a technology approach as opposed to a people approach the business. They did not because revenue came fast. The technology took time to develop. And they didn't investigate. Now they are going back.

嗯，他们采取的是非常短期的方法。只看眼前的情况。公司重新融资时，他们要求我们参与。我说，你们正在坚持的是不好的收入。如果你们抛弃它，并以正确的技术方法和正面的收入重新启动公司，我会参与甚至领导。但他们一直执着于今年年初的收入。顺便说一下，三年前，我建议他们采取技术方法而不是以人为本的商业方法。但他们没有听从，因为收入来得很快。技术需要时间来发展，他们没有进行调查。现在他们正在回头思考。

And I just got an email today saying they are happy to take our approach of really investing in the technology, lower one rate, not trying to show higher revenue so they can be acquired instead build a company. That's fundamentally the kind of thing I run into constantly. So I want to start our conversation with AI.

今天我刚刚收到一封电子邮件，他们表示很高兴接受我们专注于技术投资、降低费率的方法，而不是试图显示更高的收入以便被收购，而是建立一家真正的公司。这基本上是我经常遇到的问题。因此，我想以人工智能为话题开始我们的对话。

I'm going to kick this off. You invested in OpenAI. You have been investing in AI technology as people are framing it today for some time. Can you share with us a little bit about how you became an investor in OpenAI in the context of the AI trajectory that you have been seeing for some time? And also maybe give us a little color because we haven't had this question answered on our show about how OpenAI went from nonprofit to for-profit and what the future is for OpenAI.

我来开始说一下。您已经投资了OpenAI。您已经投资了人们如今所称之为的人工智能技术一段时间了。您可以和我们分享一下您是如何成为OpenAI的投资者的，在您长期观察到的人工智能发展轨迹的背景下？另外，您能否为我们解答一下OpenAI是如何从非盈利机构转变为盈利机构，并且OpenAI的未来是什么样的，因为我们在节目中还没有回答到这个问题。

Let me tell you a more general story first starting with the Internet. In 1982 when we started Sun we bet on the Internet. Only company to bet on the Internet. 1996 since you brought up Juniper. The Internet was growing but not yet clear. The senior management of every major telco in the United States told me they would never adapt TSPIP for the Internet. And I said fine we'll build Juniper to build TSPIP. Cisco told me they would never do TSPIP above what is probably your home service today OC12. Never. And so we built TSPIP. Why? Because we've seen the Internet on the next financial and the flat part of the exponential looked very uninteresting and nobody believed in it. We invested in Juniper for the 2500X return for us at Cliner. One of the largest returns in venture at least when Wall Street Journal did a piece on the SNAP IPO of largest venture returns ever. But we believed in something and did that.

首先让我给你讲一个更通俗易懂的故事，从互联网开始说起。1982年我们创办Sun时，我们押注在了互联网上，是唯一一个押注互联网的公司。1996年，既然你提到了Juniper，当时互联网正在增长，但还不太明朗。美国每家主要电信公司的高级管理人员告诉我，他们永远不会适应TSPIP技术来进行互联网传输。我说好吧，我们就创建Juniper来构建TSPIP。Cisco告诉我，他们永远不会在你们今天家庭服务所用的OC12以上使用TSPIP技术。永远不会。所以我们构建了TSPIP。为什么呢？因为我们看到了互联网的下一个财务增长阶段，指数增长的平缓段看起来非常无趣，没有人相信它。我们在Juniper上进行了投资，为我们在Cliner带来了2500倍的回报。至少在《华尔街日报》刊登关于SNAP首次公开募股的最大投资回报率时，是风险投资中最高的回报之一。但我们相信了某种可能性，并付诸行动。

How it relates to OpenAI? Probably year 2000 I gave an interview with the New York Times. My son just sent it to me so I remember it. And I said AI will be powerful enough. We don't know when. But we'll have to redefine what it means to be human. And I understand Stephen Wolfram had some interesting comments in that area so happy to talk about it. Ten years ago I wrote two blogs. The first one was called Do We Need Doctors? With the premise that AI would replace the expertise of doctors and let them do the things humans do really well. So 20% doctor, 80% AI is the thing I defined. And I wrote another blog called Do We Need Teachers? Because the only way to scale education at an equal level for every kid was with AI. That was January of 2012. So about 12 years ago.

它与OpenAI有什么关系？大概在2000年，我接受了《纽约时报》的采访。我儿子刚刚把它发给我，所以我记得。我说AI将足够强大，我们不知道何时，但我们将不得不重新定义人类的意义。我了解斯蒂芬·沃尔夫拉姆在这个领域有一些有趣的评论，所以很乐意谈论它。十年前我写了两篇博客。第一篇博客名为《我们需要医生吗？》，基于AI将取代医生的专业知识，让他们专注于人类擅长的事情。所以我定义了医生占比20%，AI占比80%的模式。我还写了另一篇博客，《我们需要教师吗？》，因为唯一能够在每个孩子平等水平上进行教育扩展的方式是借助AI。那是在2012年的一月，大约12年前的事了。

So five years ago, late 2018 is when I started talking to Sam, the opportunity came up to do something with OpenAI. I said this is a clear back. I couldn't predict when things will emerge, how much capability will happen, how fast. But you didn't need to know that. Whether it was in three years, five years or ten years. I was pretty convinced it would be pretty phenomenal and there would be practical applications along the way. They would have a large impact long before we got to AGI. So we placed the back. We placed the long term back. You know, this audience is going to hear from Bob Mungard. You know, five years ago I placed the back on the fusion. For the same reason, if we get it to work, these are him longest returns, big bets. But reasonably high probability of success initially, but very high payback. And I was so convinced in OpenAI, I placed twice, our initial investment was twice the largest previous investment I had made in 40 years in venture capital. 2x, the largest bet I had ever placed initially in a company.

五年前，也就是2018年末，我开始与萨姆进行交流，然后有机会与OpenAI合作。我当时就觉得这是个很明确的机会。我不能预测事情何时出现，能有多大的能力发展，发展速度有多快。但这些你并不需要知道。不管是在三年内、五年内还是十年内，我都相当确信它会非常出色，而且在实践中会有很多应用。在我们达到AGI之前，它们就会带来重大影响。因此，我们进行了投资。我们进行了长期投资。你知道，今天大家还将听到鲍勃·蒙加德的发言。五年前，我也为核聚变进行了投资。原因相同，如果我们能让它实现，那将是我做的最长期的投资，也是最大的赌注。但初始阶段，胜算相对较高，回报也非常可观。而且，我对OpenAI非常有信心，这是为何我进行了两次投资的原因。我们最初的投资金额是我在风险投资领域40年来进行的投资的两倍，也就是我最大的一次投资。

How did that go from nonprofit to for-profit and raise venture money? You know, those are details. But I would say the point, there are plenty of nonprofits in Europe that have for-profit arms. Right? It's a very good model to sustain and generate profit for a nonprofit to skip. Like I think the European model, some of these examples are really, really great. IKEA, BOSH, they have very large nonprofit ownership. And I think that's a very good model to skip. I mean, I just mentioned, do we need doctors? My son's building a primary care doctor, AI. My wife's doing a primary care or tutor AI as a nonprofit. It really doesn't matter how you do it. The question is, how can you gather the resources to scale the social good you're trying to do, whether with a doctor or with a tutor for every kid on the planet?

这是怎么从非盈利变成盈利，并且筹集了风险投资呢？你知道，这些都是细节问题。但是我想说的是，在欧洲有很多非盈利组织设立了盈利部门。对吧？这是一个非常好的模式，可以为非盈利组织提供可持续的利润并产生利润。像欧洲的这些例子，比如宜家和博世，它们拥有非常大的非盈利所有权。我认为这是一个非常好的模式。我刚刚提到了，我们是否需要医生？我儿子正在开发一款基础医疗护士AI。我妻子正在开发一款非盈利的基础教育辅导AI。无论你如何做，问题是，你如何获取资源来扩大你尝试做的社会公益，无论是通过医生还是为全球每个孩子提供导师服务。

There's a lot of discussion about how jobs might be displaced because of AI. You've seen, I guess, three or four of these amazing efficiency cycles. What's your take on that? Because this one does feel qualitatively different. And it does seem to be moving at a faster pace. So the speed at which AI is moving, and just the leaps and bounds of how it's making people augmented, you're saying 80% AI, 20% doctor. What do you think this does to jobs and do you have those concerns of displacement that a lot of people seem to be concerned about?

关于人工智能可能会导致工作岗位被取代的讨论很多。我猜你也已经见识了三四个令人惊叹的效率循环。对此，你有什么看法呢？因为这一次感觉与以往不同，似乎速度更快。人工智能的发展速度以及它如何使人们获得巨大进步，比如你提到的80%人工智能和20%医生。对于工作岗位来说，你认为这会带来什么影响？你是否担心像很多人一样，担心被取代？

I think it's a genuine concern. Okay. The path to getting to that point. So let me start with that. I think that in 2025 years from now, I think the need to work will disappear. People will work because they want to work, not because they need to work. And nobody wants a job doing the same thing for 30 years on an assembly line at GM. There's a set of jobs nobody wants to do that we shouldn't really call jobs. They're absolute. Sorry, yeah. So hopefully those disappear.

我认为这是一个真正的关切。好的。达到那个点的路径。让我从那里开始。我认为从现在起的2025年内，我认为工作的需求将消失。人们会工作，是因为他们想工作，而不是因为他们需要工作。没有人愿意在通用汽车的生产线上做同样工作30年。有一些工作是没有人愿意做的，我们不应该将其称为工作，它们是绝对的。所以希望这些工作能够消失。

I love my job. So 25 years from now, health permitting. I'll still be doing the same thing lightly. I'm 68, so, you know, and Warren Buffett's gone a lot longer than I have. I'm very passionate about what I do. I enjoy it so much. I do it for free and I'll keep doing it. And other people work. There will be new jobs. What do you call jobs or what people get paid for? So it's ex-games for spent a job? I don't know. I don't call it a job, but it is a passion that can pay. So I do think the nature of jobs will disappear.

我热爱我的工作。所以在25年后，如果身体允许的话，我还会轻松地从事同样的工作。我已经68岁了，你知道的，沃伦•巴菲特比我工作的时间更长。我对自己所做的工作非常有激情，我非常喜欢它。我愿意免费去做，而且我会一直坚持下去。而其他人在工作。会有新的工作。你如何称呼那些人通过工作得到报酬的职位呢？所以这是一种不再只为了挣钱而工作的体验吗？我不知道。我不把它称之为工作，而是一种可能带来收益的激情。所以我认为工作的性质将会消失。

Now, societies will have the transition from today to that vision of not needing to work if you don't want to. It will be very messy, very political, very. I would say controversial. And I think some countries will move much faster than others. I suspect, let's take something I'm very hawkish on, China. They will take a Tiananmen Square tactic to enforcing what they think is right for their society over a 25-year period. We will have a political process which I prefer to the Chinese style. You like the debate over the tanks. Well, debate always improves things, but it also does slow down. And certain societies may choose not to adapt these. And I think the societies that do that will fall behind. And I think that's a massive disadvantage for our political system. We may choose not to do it. We've done it before.

现在，社会将会从今天开始向不需要工作就能生活的愿景过渡。这将非常混乱，非常政治化，非常……我可以说有争议。我认为一些国家会比其他国家进展更快。让我们以我非常强硬的一件事，中国为例。他们将采取类似天安门广场的策略，在25年的时间内强制推行他们认为对他们社会有益的政策。我们将会有一个政治进程，我更喜欢这种方式，相比于中国的方式。你喜欢坦克之间的辩论。嗯，辩论总是有助于改进事物，但也会减慢进程。某些社会可能选择不适应这些变革。我认为那些做出这种选择的社会将会落后。我认为这对我们的政治制度是一个巨大的劣势。我们可以选择不这样做。我们以前就已经这样做过。

But we've also seen massive transitions before. Agriculture was 50% of US employment in 1900. By 1970, it was 4%. So most jobs in that area, the biggest area of employment, got displaced. We did manage the transition. Well, cost went down and productivity went up. So I do think we will have to rethink, so the one thing I would say is capitalism is by permission of democracy. And it can be revoked, that permission. And I'm worried that this messy transition to the vision I'm very excited about may cause us to change systems. I do think the nature of capitalism will have to change. I'm a huge fan of capitalism. I'm a capitalist. But I do think the set of things you're optimized for when economic efficiency isn't the only criteria will have to be increased. So disparity is one that will be increased. I first wrote a piece of 2014 in Forbes. It was a long piece that say AI will cause great abundance, great GDP growth, great productivity growth, all the things economists measure, and increasing income disparity. That was 2014. And I think I ended that to close this answer off, where we will have to consider UBI in some form. And I do think that will be a solution. But meaning for human beings will be the largest problem we face.

但是我们之前也见过巨大的转变。农业是1900年美国就业的50%。到1970年，它只占4%。因此，这个领域的大部分工作岗位都被取代了。我们确实成功地完成了这个转变。成本降低了，生产力提高了。因此，我确实认为我们必须重新思考，我想说的一件事是，资本主义是基于民主的许可的。这个许可是可以被撤回的。我担心，这个混乱的转变会导致我们改变体制，而我对此非常兴奋的愿景可能会使我们不得不改变。我确实认为资本主义的性质将不得不改变。我是资本主义的忠实拥护者。我是一个资本家。但是我确实认为，在经济效率不是唯一标准的情况下，你所优化的一系列事物将不得不增加。因此，不平等将会增加。我最早在2014年写了一篇文章发表在福布斯杂志上。文章指出，人工智能将带来巨大的丰富，巨大的国内生产总值增长，巨大的生产力增长，以及不断增加的收入差距。这是2014年的情况。我想结束这个回答时说，我们将不得不考虑某种形式的基本收入保障。我确实认为这将是一个解决方案。但是人类所面临的最大问题将是寻找生活的意义。

My follow-up, which is if you give people UBI, do you have concerns of the idle mind? And what happens? We've seen in other states when 25% of young men maybe don't have jobs, their minds wander in bed, things happen. And so what do you think the societal issues will be if we do offer UBI? I think we will have issues, but we will eliminate other issues. There's pros and cons to everything. It's very hard to predict how complex systems behave. And it's very hard for me to sit here and say I have a clear vision of how that happens. But I, for one, am addicted to learning. I know other people addicted to producing music. All of those are reasonable things for people to find meaning in or personal meaning. Yeah, there's others, like I said. Just want to perfect their participation in a certain sport. Or I love X Games because it wasn't even remotely considered a sport not that long ago. So, things, passions will emerge. And I think if people have very early in their life the ability to pursue passions, I hope that adds the meaning human beings will need. And in some sense, that's what I was talking about in 2000 when I said we'll have to redefine what it means to be human. Your assembly line job won't define you for your whole life. That'd be a terrible thing. Yeah.

我的后续问题就是，如果给人们提供UBI（普遍基本收入），你是否担心无所事事的心态呢？会发生什么情况呢？我们在其他国家已经看到，当大约25%的年轻男性没有工作时，他们的心思会游离，发生各种问题。那么，如果我们提供UBI，你认为社会问题会是什么呢？我认为肯定会存在问题，但同时也会消除其他问题。每件事都有利弊。预测复杂系统的行为非常困难。我很难坐在这里说我对此有清晰的看法。但是，我自己对学习上瘾。我知道其他人对制作音乐上瘾。这些都是人们能够找到意义或个人意义的合理方式。是的，还有其他的，就像我说的，有些人只是想提高他们在某项运动中的参与度。我之所以喜欢X Games，是因为不久前它甚至都不被视为一项运动。因此，热情会产生。我认为如果人们在生命早期就有追求激情的能力，我希望这能增加人类所需要的意义。从某种意义上说，这就是我在2000年谈到的重新定义人类的含义。你的流水线工作不会定义你的整个生命。那将是可怕的事情。是的。

In the AI landscape, just going back to that for a second. You have a lot of these big companies who seem to have been caught flat-footed, so they're acting pretty aggressively. I think even yesterday there was a leak of something where Metas trying to really superpower Lama II and then create some high-performance cloud that they effectively want to give away. We talked about this a little bit on the pod, but the idea seems like the big companies want to scorch the earth on the foundational model side. Then you have some other big companies that are working on Silicon.

在人工智能领域，回过头来看一下。你会发现很多大公司似乎被措手不及，所以它们正在采取非常积极的行动。甚至昨天还有个消息泄露，大概是Metas试图使Lama II变得超级强大，然后创建一些高性能的云服务，他们实际上想要免费提供这些服务。我们在节目中已经谈到过这个问题，但是这个想法似乎是大公司想要在基础模型方面毁掉对手。另外还有一些其他大公司正在研发硅芯片。

Can you just walk us through in your mind how you've organized, where the value is getting created, where there'll be product value, but no economic value, etc. Going back to OpenAI, part of my interest in funding OpenAI was when I looked at it, there was two major centers of excellence in AI. There was Google, they had DeepMind and Google Brain, but Google. Then there was an effort at Biden, and I was very worried the Chinese might win that. I'm hawkish on China, I have no trust there. I love Graham Allison's book, Destin for War. I'm a complete believer in that thesis. But I thought it'd be valuable to create a third center, and that was part of the motivation in funding OpenAI. I'm really glad Metas doing it, and others are trying to do it. And there's efforts in every country. Every country wants their national AI. I think more competition, especially in the set of countries subscribing to Western values, is good. And I think that will sort out. But I would say the following. Almost all the efforts I have seen are very limited. They're all trying to scale LLMs. And I spend my time looking at what besides LLM will play an important role. I haven't seen one effort among the majors that isn't following the same model. More NVIDIA GPUs, scale parameters, more data. Instead of saying, are there other methods?

你能告诉我们在你的脑海中是如何组织的，价值是如何被创造的，哪里会有产品价值而不是经济价值等等。回到OpenAI，我对资助OpenAI感兴趣的部分原因是当我看到它时，人工智能有两个主要的卓越中心，一个是Google，他们有DeepMind和Google Brain，但是谷歌。然后有一个努力在拜登那边，我非常担心中国可能会赢。我对中国持强硬态度，我对那里没有信任。我喜欢格雷厄姆·艾里森的书《背注一战》。我完全相信这个观点。但是我认为创建一个第三个中心是有价值的，这也是资助OpenAI的动机之一。我非常高兴Meta正在做这个，其他人也在尝试。而且各个国家都在努力。每个国家都希望拥有自己的国家级人工智能。我认为更多的竞争，特别是那些订阅西方价值观的国家，是有益的。我认为那将得到解决。但我想说的是，我几乎见过的所有努力都非常有限。他们都试图扩展LLM。而我花时间看的是除了LLM以外还有哪些方法会起重要作用。我还没有看到任何一个主要机构不遵循相同模型的努力。他们只是更多地使用NVIDIA的GPU，扩展参数，增加数据。他们没有考虑其他方法吗？

So I'll mention we made an investment in a symbolic logic idea. Would that be dramatically additive? And just like OpenAI didn't look that interesting for five years ago, 2018, late 18, is when we really made our decision to invest, it got took a while to get organized. But I'm saying what else would look like that in 2028? Would it be symbolic logic? All in dust in anybody doing that? Are you really trying to do that? Are you really trying to do that? Is it completely other ways, like multi-agent systems? There are going to be other axes in which we will see progress. Said differently, do you need to make sure there are other axes so that we're not looking back a few years from now? Is there a massive kuda lock-in? Nothing can happen without one gatekeeper? The great thing about Wensher and Wensch-Gapless is they like to play long bets. So I'll place all those long bets on alternative ways to learn, and not replace, but add to LLM. I think it's the more likely scenario, though who knows.

因此，我要提到我们对一种象征性逻辑的想法进行了投资。这将会是一个重大的增量吗？就像OpenAI五年前并不那么有趣，2018年，也就是在18年末，我们真正决定进行投资，但花了一段时间才进行组织安排。但我在问，2028年还会有其他什么东西看起来像那样呢？会是象征性逻辑吗？还有人在研究它吗？你真的在努力做到这一点吗？真的吗？还是会有其他方式，比如多智能体系统？我们将在其他方面看到进展。换句话说，你需要确保有其他的途径，这样几年后我们不会后悔吗？是否存在巨大的束缚？没有一个“门卫”就什么都不能发生？Wensher和Wensch-Gapless很喜欢打长期的赌注，这是一件很棒的事情。因此，我会在其他学习方式上进行所有那些长期的投注，而不是取代，而是添加到LLM上。我认为这更有可能发生，尽管谁也说不准。

But even among just, imagine LLM's do it all. It's good that there's multiple players. And so more big companies pop up, great. I also do think governments will have their own efforts. China, of course, has won, but plenty of other rumblings of governments trying to put together an effort in my country. And that's all good. Tell us up-leveling away from just AI, but broadly speaking, venture. Give us the state of the Union of Venture Capital in September 23.

即使只是在公平正义中，想象一下法律硕士也做全部工作。有多个参与者是很好的，因此出现了更多的大公司，很棒。我也认为各国政府将做出自己的努力。中国当然已经取得了成功，但还有许多其他国家政府试图组织起行动。这一切都是很好的。告诉我们关于风险投资的提升，而不仅仅是人工智能方面的情况。给我们一个2023年9月的风险投资联盟的现状。

So let me give you a perspective. I've been doing venture for some 40 years. In that time, I have not seen, and people get surprised at this, one example of a large innovation that came from a large company or institution. So the only thing you can do, not one. The only two examples I could find was in the early 70s, which was if you go back 50 years, when I was Bank of America put debit and credit on a plastic cart. Like, that wasn't even a major innovation, but I'll give them that. But I couldn't think of examples like that. Could you have with the iPhone maybe? That was Steve Jobs. I think it was a founder led. I should have said founder led innovation is a more accurate description. I like that one.

那让我给你提供一个观点。我从事风险投资已经有大约40年了。在这段时间里，我没有看到过一种大型创新是来自大公司或机构的，这让人们感到惊讶。所以你只能做一件事情，只有一种情况。我找到的唯一两个例子是在70年代初，大约50年前，当时美国银行在塑料卡上推出借记卡和信用卡。虽然那并不是一个重大的创新，但我认可他们这个。但是我找不到其他类似的例子。或许iPhone的创新算吗？那是史蒂夫·乔布斯的功劳。我认为是创始人领导下的创新更加准确。我喜欢这个描述。

Did General Motors do driverless cars or Waymo? Would somebody at Avis do Uber? Would somebody at Hilton do Airbnb? Would somebody and Elon speaking next, but somebody at Lockheed Martin do Space X or Rocket Lab? We investors in Rocket Lab, so I'll like it a little more. They do have a superior strategy, but Space X has done a great job. But think of every large social change. Is there a large company that played? The only thing somebody came up with was debt structuring that the bankers did. And I said, they didn't take any risk. They took a risk with somebody else's money. But I think a lot of people's money is easy to play with, whether you're in finance or in government. Other people's money is easy. But my idea is innovation comes from groups like this. And I'm completely convinced I lost the original question, but this is very innovation will come down.

通用汽车和Waymo做无人驾驶汽车了吗？Avis的人会做Uber吗？希尔顿的人会做Airbnb吗？下一个是埃隆，但洛克希德·马丁的人会做Space X或Rocket Lab吗？我们是Rocket Lab的投资者，所以我会更喜欢他们。他们确实有一种优越的策略，但Space X做得非常出色。但想象一下每一个大的社会变革。有没有一家大公司参与其中？唯一的例外是银行家们进行的债务结构调整。我说，他们没有承担任何风险。他们用别人的钱冒险。但我认为，无论是在金融界还是在政府机构，都很容易拿别人的钱玩弄，但我认为创新来自于像这样的团体。我完全相信我忘记了最初的问题，但这是非常重要的，创新将会发生。

What's the state of India?

印度的状况如何?

Yeah. So any large area you'll be hearing from Bob Mumgard, you know, four or five years ago, invested in fusion. It may fail. I think we are much more likely to succeed sitting here today than fail. But it's possible. Can you talk about that just while you're on fusion? We've got both Bob and David from Healing On Tomorrow Morning. Yeah.

是的。所以在任何一个大的领域里，你会听到来自鲍勃·曼加德（Bob Mumgard）的声音，你知道，四五年前他投资了核聚变。核聚变可能会失败。我认为我们今天坐在这里成功的可能性比失败要大得多。但它是有可能失败的。你能在谈论一下这个问题吗？我们明天早上有鲍勃和大卫（Bob and David）来分享一下吗？

And there's broadly, call it, six or some number of general architectural approaches to solving the future. Yeah, there's six approaches, a dozen companies. I think it's. Well, now they're 70, but yeah. It's just ballooning, but how do you think about the role that a Commonwealth, or even an open AI, I guess, how big of a role does capital play in getting there? Because what makes Commonwealth different is how much capital they've raised. A billion dollar plus at this point, open AI, similar. The decision as an investor, how much of it is predicated on this team or this architecture? Let me tell you the commonwealth story before Bob has a chance to tell you. Does he hear, by the way? To my.

而且从广义上说，解决未来问题有大约六种或更多的一般性建筑方法。是的，有六种方法，大约有十几家公司。我想是这样的。嗯，现在有70家，但是是的。它正在不断增长，但是你如何考虑Commonwealth或者OpenAI这样的机构在这一进程中所扮演的角色有多大？因为Commonwealth的与众不同之处在于他们筹集的资本规模非常大。截至目前，超过10亿美元的资本，OpenAI也类似。作为投资者，决策有多大程度上取决于团队或者体系结构呢？在Bob有机会告诉你之前，让我先来给你讲讲Commonwealth的故事。顺便问一下，他听见了吗？

Yeah. Yeah. I'm sure he's here somewhere because they're meeting him in half an hour. Oh, yeah, he must have a backstage. But here's the thing. They may have raised a lot of money. It took double digit millions to handle the single biggest risk in building the architecture. Right? Which was, can you build a 20 Tesla man? Yeah, the magnet. Right? And Bob and I had this discussion. I said, if fusion doesn't work, but you can build a 20 Tesla magnet, we got lots of interesting applications in nuclear medicine. Yeah. You know, a fusion reactor is a particle accelerator. That technical breakthrough we can pivot somewhere else. Yeah, nuclear medicine, MRI machines, lots of areas. So let's go build with double digit millions, which is not a huge amount in the context of the upside of maybe a bigger upside than the 2500x Juniper had. If you solve the fusion problem, there's still a 10x upside if you just solve the MRI machine problem. So you're thinking of probabilities.

是的，是的。我敢肯定他在这附近，因为他们将在半小时后与他会面。噢，是的，他一定有一个后台。但有件事要说。他们可能筹集了很多资金。在构建这一体系结构中，处理最大的风险需要数以百万计的资金。对吧？这个风险是，你能否建造一个20特斯拉的人？噢，那个磁铁。对吧？鲍勃和我就这个问题讨论过。我说，如果聚变不起作用，但你可以建造一个20特斯拉的磁铁，我们在核医学领域有很多有趣的应用。是的。你知道，聚变反应堆是一个粒子加速器。如果我们在技术上取得突破，我们可以在其他领域转向。是的，核医学、MRI机器等等。所以让我们用数百万的资金去建设，考虑到可能比朱尼珀公司的2500倍收益更大，数百万并不是一个巨大的金额。如果解决了聚变问题，即使只是解决了MRI机器的问题，收益仍然有10倍的增长空间。所以你要考虑概率。

Well, and today we're not. But when we started, that was clearly to look at off-raps, right? Like, where else could we go if we only had double digit millions? We didn't. We built the magnet. If we didn't build the magnet, we failed. That's venture capital. So how do you know that that investment at this point is still a good investment or you keep putting more capital in if there's now six competing architectures, any one of which could have their own breakthrough that could yield better economics?

好吧，现在我们不是这样了。但是当我们刚开始时，显然是为了寻找卸妆的方法，对吧？如果我们只有几千万美元，我们还能去哪里呢？我们没有选择。我们建造了这个磁体。如果我们没有建造这个磁体，我们就失败了。这就是风险投资。那么你怎么知道现在这个投资仍然是一个好的投资，或者如果有其他存在六个竞争架构，其中任何一个都可能有自己的突破，可能带来更好的经济效益，你会继续投入更多资本吗？

So we've continued to invest in it mostly because I think Bob's just phenomenal CEO. And if anybody can make this happen and the world needs it to happen, Bob can. But I'm also optimistic and as you know, we invested in Sam too, he invested in Healyan. I think there's more than one approach that could be successful. In fact, I guess 15 years from now, we'll be looking at one more than one company that's successful. Zach, you had a question. I want to make sure you got to ask. Well, let's let the data finish up. Okay. I thought it was finished. Anything else?

所以我们持续投资的主要原因是我觉得鲍勃是一位了不起的首席执行官。如果有人可以实现这一目标，而且世界需要实现这一目标，那就是鲍勃。但我也持乐观态度，你知道的，我们还投资了山姆，他投资了Healyan。我认为有很多方法可以取得成功。事实上，我猜15年后，我们会看到不止一个成功的公司。萨克，你有一个问题，我希望你有机会提问。我们等数据处理完吧。好的，我以为已经处理完了。还有其他事情吗？

So my view is large problems like that. You'd think GE would solve. Not a chance. Not a chance. Right. Siemens, not a chance. Yeah. You know, we take any of these. One of my favorite, you take large problems. One of my biggest beefs is the traffic in cities. I actually think we are very much on track to replace most cars in most cities in 25 years. How? By building a different kind of public transit system. Anybody want to invest in it? I'm really excited about it. You know, we're going to the way of autonomous cars for consumers or taxis. Autonomous cars in public transit will increase throughput. The only thing fixed in cities is lane rate. You have a road certain size. You don't destroy buildings on both sides. So if you can increase passengers per hour through it, and by the way, bicycles don't. We love bicycles, but they don't.

所以我的观点是像这样的大问题。你会认为通用电气会解决的。没有机会。没有机会。没错。西门子，没机会。是的。你知道，我们拿任何一个来说。我的最爱之一，你来看看大问题。我最大的不满之一就是城市的交通问题。我真的认为在25年内，我们非常有可能在大多数城市替代大部分汽车。怎么做到的呢？通过构建一种不同种类的公共交通系统。有人想要投资吗？我对此非常兴奋。你知道，我们正在朝着为消费者或出租车普及自动驾驶汽车的方向发展。公共交通中的自动驾驶汽车将提高吞吐量。在城市中唯一固定的是车道数。道路规模是一定的。你不能摧毁两边的建筑物。所以，如果你能增加每小时的乘客数，顺便说一下，自行车不能做到。我们喜欢自行车，但它们不能。

Scooters don't. Public transit autonomously driven in small parts will make public transit on demand so unscheduled, on demand, anytime of the day or night, end point to point. You don't stop for anybody else to get up. It's a beautiful way to do change cities. I think it'll happen. There's no question about it. It's also like overpool, but with a larger mini bus type format. No, no, no. You don't want to go to mini bus because then you'll have to stop for other people to get up. So just autonomous. If it's two or four person vehicles, it's faster than your private car. It doesn't stop at traffic lights. It's on demand. You don't have to park it. I could go on and on. I don't want to spend too much time on one particular idea.

滑板车不会。小部分自主驾驶的公共交通将使公共交通随需而至，没有时间表，可以在白天或黑夜的任何时候提供端到端服务。你不需要为其他人停下来。这是一种改变城市的美妙方式。我认为它会发生。没有任何疑问。它也像超级共享车，但采用更大的迷你巴士型号。不，不，不。你不想搭乘迷你巴士，因为那样你就必须停下来让其他人上车。所以只需要自主驾驶。如果是两人或四人车辆，那比私家车更快。它不会停在红绿灯前。它是按需提供的。你不需要停放它。我可以继续说下去。我不想在一个特定的想法上花太多时间。

But all I'm saying is whether it's fusion or public transit and we're doing 3D printed buildings, one of my favorites is a new, and you were asking about this, a music model to produce music that is not trained on any YouTube or public music. So completely IP free of any constraints. Like I'm really excited about it. They've built an outfit in Australia and they've just produced a, released a product that would be the mid-journey for music. Like, you're really excited. What's your favorite genre of music? What do you like to do? I'm not a huge music fan, to be honest. I hate to hear about it. But you know, I love a great challenge when this entrepreneur came to me and said, hey, in some period of time, say 10 years, and this was four or five years ago. And long before AI was a big thing, he said, I want to produce a music, a song, a top 10 music song, untouched by a human. I said, I love a challenge like that. Let's go. It literally took me half an hour to say, I'm in. No diligence. Didn't need all that.

但是我想说的是，无论是融合还是公共交通，我们正在进行3D打印建筑方面的创新。其中我最喜欢的一个创新是一种新的音乐模型，可以创作没有受任何YouTube或公共音乐限制的音乐作品，完全独立的知识产权。我对此非常激动。在澳大利亚有一个团队已经研发了这个项目，并且刚刚发布了一款中途产生音乐的产品。你对此应该也很兴奋。你最喜欢哪种音乐类型？你喜欢做什么？说实话，我不是一个特别热衷于音乐的人。但是你知道的，当这个创业者来找我并说，在某个时间段内，比如十年，这大概是四五年前的事情了，在人工智能还没有大热之前，他说，我想创作一首音乐，一首不经过人类干预的前十名音乐。我说，我喜欢这样的挑战。一起去做吧。我真的只花了半小时就做出了决定，没有做过多的尽职调查，不需要太多的了解就想加入这个项目了。

David? Yeah, I think where Chamath was going to go a minute ago about the State of the Union in VC is that we talk a lot on the part about the fact that we've just been through an asset bubble that popped last year. And it really inflated during COVID with all the money printing that went on. And it may have been inflating before that with these ZIRP policies going back, I don't know, 15 years. I guess my question to you is, how much fakeness do you think that created in the ecosystem? Is there any way to even quantify it? I mean, I think we see now that the size of venture funds is contracting, that new funds are going to be smaller. Probably there's a lot of VCs who shouldn't even be in business. I think you'll be happy about that. We've estimated on the pod there's 1,400 unicorns right now. We've tried to sort of get our half of them fake. I guess my question to you is, how much did this asset bubble sort of inflate everything in VC? And where do you think it stands right now?

大卫？是的，我觉得Chamath刚才关于风险投资生态系统的情况的言论是说我们在讨论一个事实，即去年我们经历了一个资产泡沫的破裂。而且这个资产泡沫在COVID期间得到了进一步的膨胀，主要是因为货币印制量剧增的原因。而在此之前，也可能是在过去15年以来的零利率政策下，这个泡沫已经在不断膨胀。我的问题是，你认为这种情况在生态系统中产生了多少虚假？有没有办法进行量化？我的意思是，我觉得我们现在看到的是风险投资基金规模在收缩，新基金将会更小。可能有很多风险投资家甚至不应该做这个行业。我们在广播节目中估计目前有1400个独角兽企业，我们试图弄清楚其中有多少是假的。我的问题是，这个资产泡沫在风险投资中到底膨胀了多少？你认为现在的情况如何？

You know, it inflated things a lot in certain areas and it deflated things a lot in certain areas. But let me give you two analogies to understand this. Investors only, and there's a fair number of investors I hear here, only care about two emotions, fear and greed. And they bounce between the two and there's nothing in the middle. And so the key to being a good investor is saying focus on the long term in the middle. So any time you get a hype cycle, you'll get inflation and then you will get deflation.

你知道，在某些地区，它让事情膨胀得很夸张，而在另一些地区，它又让事情萎缩得很厉害。但是，让我给你举两个类比来理解这个问题。只有投资者，这里听说有相当数量的投资者，只关心两种情绪，恐惧和贪婪。他们在这两种情绪之间来回跳跃，没有中间地带。所以成为一个好的投资者的关键就是保持中间态度，专注于长期目标。所以每当你遇到一波炒作周期，你会看到通货膨胀，然后会出现紧缩。

But let me ask you the following question. 1998, there was a dot com bubble, a bust. Tell me, and there was clearly a change in Wall Street prices and valuations and all that. There was absolutely no bust in the amount of internet traffic. So if you look at internet traffic, you can't tell when the dot com bust happened.

但是让我问你一个问题。1998年，发生了一个点 com 泡沫，一个破裂。告诉我，沃尔街的价格和估值明显发生了变化。但是互联网流量的数量没有发生任何破裂。所以，如果你看互联网流量，你无法确定点 com 破裂发生的时间。

So I'm saying the reality of using the internet didn't change just because people had inflated values and then deflated them. That's just a fear reaction and a great reaction. Same thing happened with the original bubble in the 1830s in England. If you got the right to build a railroad between two cities, you could offer strips on the market, big bubble. Then a big collapse. But more railroad was built in the 10 years after the bubble collapsed in England in the 1830s than before.

所以我要说的是，虽然人们曾经过度夸大价值然后又把它们打压下去，但这并没有改变使用互联网的现实。这只是一种恐惧反应和伟大的反应。英国1830年代的最初泡沫也发生了同样的情况。如果你拥有在两个城市之间修建铁路的权利，你可以在市场上出售地块，这造成了一个巨大的泡沫。然后，泡沫破灭了。但在泡沫在1830年代的英国破灭后的10年里，修建的铁路比之前更多。

My point is the reality of the underlying business, if you're adding value, does not change that much. It can accelerate a little bit or slow down because less resources are available. But fundamentals is a good way to invest sort of the Warren Buffett method, not the short term, but hey, he's valuing it twice, so let me pay up. And then you'll pay twice as much as that or soft bank will later. I think that's a question of you can't time the market. You can't time the market.

我的观点是，基础业务的现实状况并不会发生很大的变化，只要你可以为其增加价值。虽然少了一些资源可能会稍微加速或放慢发展，但基础是一个很好的投资方式，就像沃伦·巴菲特的方法一样，不追求短期利益，不过，嘿，他给它估值高了一倍，所以我愿意付更多。然后你将会比付的钱多一倍，或者软银以后会这样。我认为这是关于不能准确把握市场的问题。你不能准确把握市场。

As long as you know that this is an investable technology, an investable trend, timing what price you're coming in at. I mean, this is an older doge in markets. It doesn't really matter what price you're coming at. In inflationary times you pay a little bit more. But you get less dilution later because other people are investing. And then when it goes into a deflationary cycle, you just have to learn to respond quickly. And good investors will help guide entrepreneurs correctly through all those phases. We've seen a lot of that in climate investing.

只要你知道这是一项值得投资的技术，一个值得投资的趋势，并且你知道进入的价格是多少，那么就没什么关系了。毕竟，在市场上，这是一只老狗币。通胀时期你可能要支付更高的价格，但是后期你会减少被稀释的程度，因为其他人也在投资。而当进入通缩周期时，你只需学会快速应对。优秀的投资者将会帮助创业者正确地经历这些阶段。我们在气候投资中已经看到了很多这样的情况。

You know, very low valuations. Look, when we invested in impossible foods, it was a $3 million valuation. Primarily. Crazy idea. Crazy idea. Nobody taught. The plant proteins wasn't a word. Another one of my favorite projects is replace soy as a protein source on this planet. And I think we are well on our way to do that. I'm very excited. But at that level, it doesn't matter whether evaluation in the end goes up or down by a factor of two. It doesn't really matter if you're adding fundamental value and long term things. I know that your long term view is critical to making Silicon Valley work. I think that we all kind of appreciate your leadership, your support, your mentorship. And the fact that you're willing to make those big bets in very low probability outcomes. But if they work, the return is so much more than that multiple, that ratio that you're getting. And it matters so much.

你知道的，非常低的估值。看吧，当我们投资于不可能食品时，估值只有300万美元。主要是一个疯狂的想法。疯狂的想法。没有人教过。植物蛋白质还不是一个词。我最喜欢的项目之一是取代大豆成为地球上的蛋白质来源。而且我认为我们在实现这一目标的路上已经很成功了。我非常兴奋。但在那个水平上，最终的估值增加或减少两倍并不重要。如果你增加了基本价值和长期的东西，那就不是问题了。我知道你的长期观点对于使硅谷运作至关重要。我想我们所有人都对你的领导才华、支持和指导表示感激。而且你愿意在很低的概率结果上下重注。但是如果它们奏效，回报将远远超过你获得的那个倍数。这真的很重要。

I just want to add, it's just inspiring how much you share with all of us who are behind you and how much we've all learned from you. And I didn't mention it, but you've taken a lot of time for Trimoth. You've taken time for me and my career. And I just think it's like a great gift to us.

我只是想说，你和我们所有人分享的信息让我感到非常受启发，我们都从你身上学到了很多。我没提到，但你为Trimoth付出了很多时间，也为我的事业付出了时间。我觉得这对我们来说就像一份伟大的礼物。

I can end with a quick story. When I try to, we really do have to jump. I email, I mail, paper mail. I'm going to try 40 or 50 people to try to get a job in VC in 2000. The only single person sent me a handwritten rejection letter, VK. Give it up. Good night. Good night. Good night. Good night. Everybody. Yeah. Another standing ovation. Wow. No, thank you. Thank you, sir. It was great. Thank you. That was great. Thank you.

我可以讲一个简短的故事来结束。当我尝试的时候，我们真的不得不跳起来。我通过电子邮件、纸质邮件不断地联系。在2000年，我尝试着向40到50个人申请VC（风险投资）的工作。唯一一个人给我寄来了一封手写的拒绝信，VK。算了吧。 晚安。晚安。晚安。晚安。大家。是的。又一次起立鼓掌。哇。不，谢谢。谢谢你，先生。太棒了。谢谢。太好了。谢谢。

What are we? Let's go. We have to. Let's go. axxLaughs. I'm trying. Bestest is all over. As my dog taking a mission driveways and acts. I am my natural weakie. We should all just get a word in it to have one thing you George. Because your office is like this like sexual tension. You just need to release your outfit. What? You're the B. What? You're a B. You're a B. What? We need to get my bestest on the planet. I'm going all in. I'm going all in.

我们是什么？让我们走吧。我们必须去。让我们走。哈哈大笑。我在努力。最最最好的已经结束了。就像我的狗开始执行任务一样。我是天生的软弱者。我们所有人都应该有一个共同点，就是你乔治。因为你的办公室里充满了性紧张感。你只需要解放一下自己的服装。什么？你是个B（指性格不好的人）。什么？你是个B。你是个B。什么？我们需要把我地球上最好的东西拿出来。我全力以赴。我全力以赴。