首页  >>  来自播客: More or Less Podcast 更新   反馈

#23: Why (and How) SMBs and Creators Will Win With AI, the New Financing Contracts, and More

发布时间 2023-11-17 10:00:48    来源

摘要

The gang discusses how you build dense networks of real value around small business in the AI future. Also, bonus discussion on content maxis vs. community maxis... and the symmetry of Jessica's face.

GPT-4正在为你翻译摘要中......

中英文字稿  

I asked GPT are more or less GPT how to burn Sam and it says, you know, Sam's autobiography is definitely going to be titled lesson learned house thinking small one big available in all local bookstores. It doesn't really, it's got a personality. That's funny.
我问GPT（一个人工智能模型）大体怎么消耗Sam，它回答说，你知道，Sam的自传绝对会被命名为《学到的教训：如何从小处思考赢得大》在所有当地的书店都能找到。其实，它真的有一种个性，很有趣。

I'm like very frustrated. Dave, why are you frustrated? Good intro to the show. Yes. Is it already on? This is where our tech support problems beat into our episode problems. In case everyone didn't know if we were real talking it out before we record. We are all real talking.
我现在真的很沮丧。戴夫，你为什么会感到沮丧呢？这是个很好的开场。对。我们已经开始录制了吗？这就是我们的技术支持问题如何影响我们节目的地方。以防万一大家不知道我们在录制之前是否真的谈过。我们都是在真实的交谈。

Dave, tell us about how you're feeling today. Let's get going. Okay. I have a question for you guys. Actually important. Does my face look less crooked? Why did you go to the face, Jim? No, I went to an osteopath who told me I have this horrible TMJ issue. Apparently the whole right side of my face was shifted and she shifted it back. She told me I looked less crooked and I told you I looked in a mirror and I think I look less crooked. I do.
“戴夫，和我们分享一下你今天是怎么感觉的。让我们开始吧。好的。我有一个问题想问你们。这很重要。我的脸看起来是不是不那么歪了？吉姆，你怎么会看到脸上的情况呢？不，我去看了一位整骨专家，她告诉我我有严重的颞下颌关节症。显然我脸的右边部分有些偏移，她帮我调整回来了。她告诉我我看起来不那么歪了，我照了镜子，我觉得我看起来真的不那么歪了。”

You're all sharing. I also look less crooked because I went to this thing called the face, Jim, in Los Angeles. Yeah, tell us about the face, Jim. Guys, I've gotten so many texts about how people can franchise this business in all the cities around the country. This is incredible. Small business. That's our topic for the day. Let's give this a good one. Yes, the face, Jim, could radically accelerate their business if they just use AI.
你们所有人都在分享。因为我去了洛杉矶的一个地方，叫做“面部健身房”，所以我也看起来没那么憔悴了。是的，告诉我们一些关于“面部健身房”的事情。伙计们，我已经收到了很多关于如何在全国各地都能将这个生意变成连锁的短信。这真是太不可思议了。小型企业，这就是我们今天的话题。让我们好好讨论一下。是的，如果“面部健身房”能够使用人工智能，他们的业务可能会瞬间加速。

Anyway, what they do is you come in, you like lay back in a barber's chair and then over the course of an hour, these people do all the stuff to your face, including like massages, they airbrush vitamins into your skin, they like stretch out everything. They like, I don't know, stuff blows on you. And literally, you could see the difference. I took a photo halfway through of my right side and left side. Such a difference. It's insane. All the puffiness, lymphatic drainage. How much does this cost? How much does it cost? Cup of 100 bucks. It's like a facial. Cup of 100 bucks. But like a more intense facial.
无论如何，他们的服务流程是这样的，你会坐在理发椅上，稍微向后倚。然后在接下来的一个小时里，他们会对你的脸部进行各种护理，包括按摩，用气刷向你的皮肤注入营养素，他们会拉伸你的肌肤。我也不清楚，还会有吹风设备向你吹风。真的，你能看到明显的区别。我在护理进行到一半的时候照了一张我的右脸和左脸的照片，差异真的很大，简直太疯狂了。所有的肿胀感，淋巴排毒都消失了。这个服务费用多少呢？花了我几百美元，就像做一次面部护理，价格几乎差不多。但这个护理过程更为深度一些。

You know, to all you listeners out there, first welcome to this week's episode of More or Less. This is the point in the year where we're just, we are like so operating on fumes that like our go to is curing all our ailments and some self relaxation. So anyway, I hope that you all find that as we go into the Thanksgiving week. But alas, we are not there yet.
你们好，各位听众，首先欢迎收听这周的“More or Less”节目。这个时间点，我们已经筋疲力尽，几近用尽所有的精力，试图解决所有的问题，并给自己一些休息和放松的时间。所以，我希望在我们步入感恩周之际，你们都能找到这种感觉。但是遗憾的是，我们还没有到那个阶段。

And guys, there is a lot going on this week. So did anyone, was anyone in San Francisco for APEC, the big conference this week? It's shocking how well we've cleaned up the city for, you know, it only took the president of China showing up for us to clean up San Francisco. Is he the president? He's not the president, right? Well, whatever he is, the president. He is the president. Yeah. No. Hey, he's the president. But I was really embarrassed by how we. Biden, it was here. Pro tested and literally attacked all of these people in the streets. I was like, oh, God, this morning it was like breaking news. It cut into the Today Show event.
伙计们，本周发生了很多事情。所以，有人参加了在旧金山举行的APEC大会吗？真令人震惊，我们只是因为中国国家主席的到来，就把旧金山清洁的一干二净。他是国家主席吗？他不是国家主席，对吧？不管他是什么，总之他是主席。他就是国家主席。对。不对。嘿，他就是国家主席。但是我对我们的一些行为真的感到尴尬。拜登，他也在这里。然后我们在街头抗议，甚至攻击了所有的这些人。我心想，哦，上帝，今天早上还成了新闻头条，打断了《今日秀》的活动。

There are so many people. I drove through San Francisco this week. And I was very excited because I came upon what looked like a protest. And I was like, oh, good. What protest is this going to be? And it was like a normal labor union protest. I was like, ah, have fun. Enjoy. I was like, this is a, this is like a normal boring protest. Like, no sticks protest. Yeah. I was like, knock yourselves out. No one cares.
这周我驾车穿过了旧金山，看到了许多人聚集在那里。我非常兴奋，因为我发现这看起来像是在抗议。我在想，哦，好的，这会是怎样的抗议呢？结果这只是一个普通的劳工联合会抗议。我心想，啊，玩得开心些，好好享受吧。我觉得这只是一个普通乏味的抗议，根本就没有人使用棍棒进行抗议。对，我就是这么想的，我心想，你们尽管玩得开心些，其实没人在乎。

For those who haven't been following this very closely, uh, APAC, the Asia Pacific development. I can, I can, I can, I can, I can, I can, I can, I can, I can, I can, I can, I can. Conference. Co-operation. Uh, uh, Asia Pacific and I'm a co-op cooperation. Big event happening in San Francisco. For months and months and months, there was a lot of speculation around it over the question of whether President Xi of China and President Biden would meet that, I guess, has happened or is happening. Um, and a lot of hubbub. I actually said to the team, if it's too much hubbub, you can work from home. There's no hubbub. So I could use a little more hubbub. But I will say, I was excited. I saw that Janet Yellen went to in an outbreaker. I saw that too.
对于那些没有密切关注这个事情的人来说，这里有一个关于亚太地区发展的内容。这是我一直在强调的，亚太地区合作会议。这是一个在旧金山举行的大型活动。几个月以来，关于中国国家主席习近平和美国总统拜登是否会面的问题引发了大量的猜测，我猜这已经发生，或者正在发生。关于这个问题有很多的争论和议论。我实际上对团队说过，如果这件事过于热闹，你们可以在家工作，现在并没有那么热闹。所以我其实更希望能有更多的热闹。但是我要说，我非常兴奋。我看到珍妮特·耶伦也参加了这个讨论，我也看到了这个。

You know, Janet Yellen is known for her when I was, ever culinary kind of, um, excursions out in a, apparently it's getting in the way of her job. And in out as a culinary excursion. And she accidentally, and beating magic mushrooms in China. She describes them as magic mushrooms. I don't know. No, they were actually, they were actually psychedelic mushrooms. Oh, okay. Well, she seems to be wrong. You know, I asked when I was over there with the commerce secretary, I asked the reporters who had covered her, like what she's like. And they're like, oh, she's great. She's like your economic grandma. So everyone seems to really like her.
你们知道吗，Janet Yellen以她的烹饪探险记闻名。然而，这似乎影响到她的工作。而她的烹饪探险，好像是在中国误食了被她描述为"魔术蘑菇"的东西。实际上，那些蘑菇是致幻蘑菇。哦，好吧。看来她弄错了。我在和贸易部长一同访问那里时，我问过报道过她的记者她是一个怎样的人。他们说，她很棒，就像是你们的经济学奶奶。所以，大家都很喜欢她。

But, um, I didn't meet with her this week, but yesterday I interviewed Gina Romondo, the commerce secretary.
但是，嗯，我这周没有和她见面，但昨天我采访了商务部长吉娜·罗蒙多。

Oh, you're friend Gina. You love her. Yeah. You and G. I don't love her. I just, I report on her.
哦，你是吉娜的朋友。你爱她。是的。你跟吉娜。我并不爱她，我只是，报道她的事情。

And I, and I think, um, she's incredibly interesting because when I was in China with her, you know, I'm in the back of this car interviewing her. You know, totally like, should I wear my seatbelt? Like, you know, everything whirlwind, we're talking about China. And then she's like, you know, the president's involved me in AI and asked me to look into AI, which was interesting. She wanted me to know that. So she wanted to meet again. Now a lot's happened. We've had the executive order on AI. She was announcing, um, with a bunch of VCs and you said of guidelines that also kind of try to establish some safety transparency principles.
我觉得她非常有趣。我在中国和她一起时，坐在车的后座采访她，全程我都在想，我应该系安全带吗？整个状况就像一场旋风一样，我们在谈论中国。然后她说，总裁让我参与AI的事情，让我研究AI，这挺有趣的。她想让我知道这一点。所以她想再次见面。 现在发生了很多事情。我们发布了AI的行政命令。她在发布一系列VCs设定的准则，这些准则也尝试建立一些安全透明度原则。

And while I was interviewing with her, you know, these are being announced. And I don't know if you guys saw, but a ton of venture capitalists, like Mark Andreessen, much people from Kleiner kind of came out against, against these voluntary principles. Like this is hardly the kind of thing that stirs the pot in tech regulation. But, you know, Andreessen was basically like, no way, um, our forembologies all about how this about just state sort of sponsored control and ownership of the internet. Both these policies and the executive order, which we previously spoke about.
当我和她进行采访的时候，这些都在被公布。我不知道你们有没有看到，但是大量的风险投资家，比如马克·安德森，以及来自Kleiner的许多人都公开反对这些自愿原则。像这样的事情几乎不会在科技监管中引起波澜。但你知道，安德森基本上就像是，决不，我们的前端技术都是关于如何运用国家的控制和对互联网的所有权。这两项政策和我们之前讨论过的行政命令都是如此。

So it does seem like there's a real rift forming. Meanwhile, Secretary Armando is telling me that all the big tech companies, Open AI, Meta, Google and so forth, are cooperating and down to the level of agreeing to tell the government when they're running their next model. Which seems like a total sea change in that relationship.
所以，确实看起来似乎真的在形成一道裂痕。同时，阿曼多秘书告诉我，所有大型科技公司，如Open AI，Meta，Google等等，都在合作，并且愿意在他们运行下一个模型时通知政府。这似乎在他们的关系中产生了一种剧变。

So it reinforced to me that I think when it comes to this topic, which is obviously complicated, even the tech industry is like wildly different camps and what should happen, which could may mean that, you know, it's going to make any sort of lobbying less effective.
所以，这加强了我对以下观点的认同，即在涉及到这个显然复杂的议题上，即使是技术行业，也存在着截然不同的阵营和看法。这可能意味着，说不定该行业的任何游说行为都将变得效果不佳。

But, um, I don't know, before we are going to go beyond this regulation topic today and deliver on our promise to talk more about AI and small businesses. But before we do, anyone have any new regulatory thoughts that have emerged?
但是，在我们今天就超出这个规定主题并兑现我们的承诺，更多地谈论人工智能和小企业之前，不知道，有没有人有新的规定方面的想法出现？

I just, these people have so much time. Like they're just like hanging out, like to be. Which people? These venture capitalists. Venture capitalists just have too much time. I say that as a venture capitalist, right? Especially during the holiday season. It's like, you know, it's like, why, like, you know, it's really funny. All these people like sign is like, you have no power, right? Like, you're just a stupid venture capitalist. But you have, but you know, you're bored and on Twitter. So you're going to have a viewpoint on AI regulation. Mark, again, reason fine. But like, you know, these long lists of VCs involving themselves and this and like, you know, whatever.
我想说，这些人（风投人）真有够时间的。就是，像是他们在闲逛一样。哪些人？风险投资家们。风险投资家真的有太多的时间。作为一名风投人，我有资格这么说，对吧？尤其在假期，你知道，这真的很有趣。所有的这些人的行为就像是在告诉你，你没有任何实权，你只是个愚蠢的风投人。但是，你知道，你无聊且经常在Twitter上，所以你对于AI的监管会有观点。Mark，再次表明，你知道，很有道理。但是，这长长的风投人名单涉足其中，还有其他的，你知道，无所谓吧。

I don't think I'm doing VC right because I don't have that much time. So we aren't. What are you doing? Are you taking too many pitch meetings? And I'm making doing pitch meetings. I'm helping our founders. I have like hour long meeting today with multiple companies to help the founders. You're not our boards. Are you, I mean, that would be like, I'm on like some sort of pseudo boards, like seed stageboards and then like one real board. I mean, you can still, but you can still, you can still tweet about AI policy from a board meeting. That's fine. Well, that would assume that you're actually reading about all these other tweets. Like when you asked me before the show, talk about this, Jess and said all the venture capitalists are talking about this. I had the same reaction. Like, I haven't had time to look at this today.
我不认为我在做风险投资的方式是正确的，因为我没那么多时间。所以我们不是在做这个。你在做什么？你是不是在接触许多的投资提案会议？而我正忙于主导这些会议。我在帮助我们的创始人。我今天有一个小时的会议，和多家公司的创始人开会。你不是在我们的董事会吗？是的，我参加过一些次级的种子阶段董事会，还有一个正规的董事会。意思是，你依然可以在董事会上讨论人工智能政策。这没问题。嗯，这预设了你确实在阅读所有其他的推文。比如你在节目开始前问我，杰斯说所有的风险投资人都在谈论这个，我有同样的反应，我今天没时间看这个。

Which female venture capitalists are doing this? I'm actually wondering if there are any women in the mix here. Um, uh, Kamini from Mayfield was at the event. Is that, um, there were some women there. She's an AI and on regulators. She's an anti-regulist.
哪些女性风险投资家在参与这个活动？我其实在好奇这其中是否有女性。嗯，噢，来自Mayfield的Kamini曾经参加了这个活动。也就是说，那里是有一些女性的。她是一个AI和管理者。她是一位反管理主义者。

Yeah. Those are the, those are the, right. Well, here's the thing and I want to go on from this topic, but I think the, so the people who signed on, you guys should read them. It's the responsible AI initiative, responsible initiative for AI. I'm sure off-light and slow would be welcome participants in this coalition.
是的，那些就是，就是，对。好吧，现在我想说的是，我想从这个话题继续说下去，但我认为，所以那些签署这个协议的人，你们应该去读一读。这是一个负责任的人工智能（AI）倡议，一个负责人工智能的倡议。我相信在这个联盟中，"off-light"和"slow"肯定会是受欢迎的参与者。

Yeah. How do we get invited to these things? Sam, didn't you say AI should be nationalized? Like, were you advocating for like a Manhattan project version to this? I wouldn't, that's an overgeneralization. I want to say that.
是的。我们怎么才能被邀请参加这些事情？萨姆，你不是说人工智能应该国有化吗？就像你是在倡导一个类似曼哈顿计划的版本吗？我不想这么说，那是过度概括。我只是想说。

Well, yeah. No, I would, I do, I do believe that we would see. Yeah. I very differently. If we had a Manhattan project, it's approached here. I do think it's an interesting moment where the biggest company, the ones who can write the bill, but, but, fit the bill for doing this stuff. Very different configuration than kind of the government being in a position to do it as a national project, so I think it has a very different flavor to it. So I think there are really interesting questions about how we fund large scale research now versus before and who can afford it and what their incentives are and blah, blah, blah.
嗯，对。不，我会，我确实相信我们能够看到。没错，如果我们从曼哈顿项目的角度出发，那会非常不同。我确实认为这是一个有趣的时刻，其中最大的公司，那些能够承担这项工作的公司，与政府作为一个国家项目来做的配置非常不同，所以我认为它有着非常不同的风味。因此，我认为我们如何资助大规模研究现在与以前有些不同，谁可以负担得起，以及他们的激励机制是什么，等等，是非常有趣的问题。

So I don't, I don't need to crazy at all for there to be like a national AI project, especially because of the defense implications, right? Which I think is one of the most interesting things is like that, you know, the defense implications of AI are extreme. And the fact, again, you, I have to assume in hopes that the Navy and the Army, whatever, like there's a lot of stuff going on behind the scenes where they are doing stuff, but do they have the best people? Have we sequestered the scientists to figure this out for national defense? Like my bet is no. And my bet is, is that other countries are doing that, right? And that is a challenge.
所以我并不需要为此感到过度紧张，我们像一项国家级的人工智能项目，特别是因为其防卫意义，我认为这是最有趣的事之一，你知道，人工智能的防御意义是重大的。 而且，你，我必须假设并希望海军和陆军等正在幕后采取行动，但他们是否拥有最好的人才呢？我们是否已经为国防目的集结了科学家？ 我的猜测是并没有。 我的猜测是，其他国家正在这样做，对吗？这也是一个挑战。

Well, one of the, one of the things that may or may not come up in she and Biden's meeting is whether either country will agree to not use AI and its nuclear capability. So with regards to its nuclear capability. I thought they did agree to not use AI and its nuclear capability. Yeah. You've read the internet more. Yeah. I just don't even know what that means. Yeah. How do you exactly? How do you even enforce that? And what does that mean? We won't create nuclear GPT. GPT. No, I, well, I think that I think that's about drones and stuff. Is it about drones and stuff? No, it wasn't.
好吧，会面中可能会也可能不会谈到一件事，那就是两国中是否有任何一国将同意不将人工智能用于其核能力。至于其核能力，我原以为他们已经同意不使用人工智能和其核能力了。是的，你看互联网的时间更多。是的，我甚至不知道这是什么意思。怎么可能呢？怎么执行这个规定呢？它到底意味着什么？我们不会创建核动力的GPT。GPT。不，我认为，我认为这是关于无人机和一些东西的。这是关于无人机和一些东西吗？不，原来并非如此。

Wait a minute. So like let's just second the nuclear thing with AI is you don't want to give nuclear launch access to AI, right? Like it's basically what it comes down to. And it's like if you guys have read it, do you guys read the three body problem? Yeah, of course. It's awesome. But I mean, we keep these things separated from the internet for a reason in the first place, right? Like it's not just, it's not just AI. It's like keeping these things separated from the internet completely.
等一下，所以我们再次强调一下有关人工智能的核问题，我们不应该把核武器的发射权限交给人工智能，对吧？这就是本质问题。比如说，你们有没有读过《三体》？对，当然看过了，这本书写得很棒。但是，我们首先不管是与人工智能有关还是无关，都有充分的理由把这些东西跟网络完全隔离开，不是吗？这并不只是关于人工智能的问题，而是要保证这些事物跟网络保持完全的隔离。

But, but, but again, like if you go back to cold war style stuff, this question of like, you know, how do you, of giving up to control to systems which you can't control anymore such that you're like, Oh, well, my, I can't possibly stop it. So don't attack me because it's not even my decision anymore. I give it to the AI, right? Is like a theoretical framework from like, that's all over science fiction and war theory. And so I think like that is a thing you can do. The problem is I don't know how you'd ever check up on it other than the fact that actually part of the value of it is telling everyone that that's how it works. Right? Like, and so like there's some stuff that's like directly that, but yeah, I mean, the AI applications to like drone's forming, you know, I heard a statistic recently that right now in Ukraine, I could be off by a little bit, but they're going through some like 60,000 drones a month, right? And these are all like racing drones and like, what, like, explosives is actually like the future of warfare is so dramatically different than it is today. And AI plays a huge role in it. And so we talk about like the Manhattan Project or how do you think about this type of stuff. It's like there's the high, I mean, I personally, if it wasn't obvious, I already think that the AGI risk is dramatically overstated, right? And now we should be a long time, but largely because I think I'll call it dirty AI, like dirty nukes, which is like partial AI solutions or shitty AI. They don't even have to even close to AGI are so dangerous, right? In terms of how they reconfigure power that we should be obsessed with that, right? It's like everyone's like, and it is very much like nuclear weapons is like everyone's like, make sure someone doesn't get a full nuclear weapon.
但是，再次强调，如果你回到冷战时期的情景，这个问题就像是，你知道，你如何放弃对那些你无法控制的系统的控制，以至于你会感觉，噢，我的，我无法阻止它。所以别攻击我，因为这已经不再是我可以做决定的事了。我把决定权交给了AI，对吧？这就像是一个理论框架，它遍布于科幻小说和战争理论。所以我认为这是你可以做的事情。问题在于，我不知道你怎么能去检查它，除了告诉每个人这就是它的运作方式，对吧？像，有些事情就是这样，但是，我的意思是，AI在无人机编队等方面的应用你知道，我最近听到一个统计数据，现在在乌克兰，我可能有点偏差，但他们每月要处理大约60,000台无人机，对吧？这些都是赛车无人机和载有爆炸物的无人机，实际上，未来的战争方式与今天大不相同。AI在其中起着巨大的作用。所以我们谈论曼哈顿计划或你如何思考这种类型的事情。这就像是，高端，我的个人观点，如果不明显的话，我已经认为AGI的风险被大大高估了，对吧？而且我们需要长期关注这个问题，但主要是因为我认为我称之为“肮脏的AI”，就像肮脏的核武器，也就是部分AI解决方案或糟糕的AI，它们甚至不需要接近AGI就已经非常危险，对吧？在他们重新配置权力的方式上，我们应该对此着迷，对吧？这就像每个人都在说：确保没有人得到一整个核武器。

It's like, well, dirty bombs are just as bad and way easier, right? And so like the question is like, where do you spend your effort, right? In terms of defense and how that relates to AI. So yeah, fascinating. I mean, God, we're going to be talking about this forever.
这就像，脏弹虽然同样危险，但明显更易于制作，对吧？那么问题就变成了，你应该在防御方面花费多少精力，对吧？这又是如何与AI相关的。真的很有趣。我的天，我们会永远讨论这个话题的。

Yeah, I was going to say we could really rabbit hole into this, but I don't really feel like it today. Dave, what do you feel like? Oh, I don't know. I thought we were going to talk about picking up where we left off last episode. Let's do it. Okay. So we teed up, Britt, you want to tee up how we got to where we're going? Sure. Last week, we were just talking about our favorite topic, AI, and how it's bifurcating. I actually just asked our more or less GPT where we were picking up from last week. Do you want to have an inner product announcement, Dave? Hold on. Let me tee it up. And then I'll pass it to Dave. Last week, we're talking about dev day that open AI had and now you can make your own GPT. If you like loaded a bunch of transcripts or videos or things of all your content. So we loaded in all of our more or less transcripts from all the podcasts thus far. No, we loaded it. Let's be honest. We ordered in like a third day. Dave figured out how to merge them all. It's a single text file because there was a 10 document limit. And then we realized that's hilarious. It's a number of documents limit. Not like there's a document limit. And then there's also like a bunch of things around token, how much gets tokenized all this.
是的，我本来想说我们可以深入探讨这个问题，但我今天真的不太想这么做。Dave，你觉得呢？哦，我不知道。我以为我们会继续上一集的话题。那就这么做吧。好的。那么，我们如何搭好桥，Britt，你能简述一下我们要讨论的方向吗？好的。上周，我们只是在讨论我们最喜欢的话题，人工智能，以及它是如何分化的。我实际上是向我们的GPT问的上周的进度。Dave，你想发布一个内部产品公告吗？等一下。让我先梳理一下。然后我会传给Dave。上周，我们在谈论开放AI的dev day，现在你可以创建自己的GPT。如果你加载了大量的转录，视频或者你自己的所有内容。所以我们将我们所有的播客内容都加载进去了。不，是我们加载了进去。说实话，我们是在第三天订购的。Dave弄清楚了怎么将所有的文件合并成一个文本文件，因为有一个10个文件的限制。然后我们意识到这太搞笑了。有文件数量的限制，而不是文件大小的限制。然后还有很多关于代币，如何进行代币化等事情。

So I concatenated all of it together. So now the entire knowledge base of all of our podcasts is in our GPT. Did you use a really fancy new tool like concatenate AI? I think it can concatenate it. No one knows how to spell concatenate. It's a terrible brand name.
所以我把它们全部串联在一起。现在我们所有的播客的全部知识库都在我们的GPT里。你是不是用了什么特别高级的新工具，像串联人工智能？我想它可以把它串联起来。没人知道怎么拼串联，这真是个糟糕的品牌名称。

Sam, I wrote the code myself, Sam. It's an old fashioned way of doing things. I heard that a large multi-stage firm just gave concatenate.ai a huge firm shape. So we concatenated and then we made a GPT. So now you, the listener, can see what Sam thinks about any topic or what Dave thinks or what I think.
萨姆，我亲自写了这段代码，萨姆。这是一种老式的做事方式。我听说一个大型多阶段公司最近给了concatenate.ai一个巨大的形状。所以我们进行了串联，然后我们创建了一个GPT。所以现在，你作为听众，可以看到萨姆对任何话题的想法，或者戴夫的想法，或者我自己的想法。

Why? This seems like a terrible business model idea for us. It's like what do we do now? I think this is a business model. We just gave away all the value.
为什么？这对我们来说似乎是一个糟糕的商业模式。我们现在该怎么办？我认为这就是一种商业模型。我们就这样把所有的价值都给送出去了。

No, they want to hear. Why are we even doing this podcast? They like it when we make fun of you. Wearing togas and stuff. And now I can ask the GPT how to make fun of you, Sam. Oh, yeah. We could do like this is. Yeah, that's kind of the point is like you just have like a make fun of Sam bot and you're done. I don't see the point.
不，他们想听。我们为什么要做这个播客呢？他们喜欢我们取笑你。比如说我们穿着罗马式长袍之类的。现在我可以问GPT怎么取笑你，Sam。哦，是的。我们可以这样做。是的，这就是重点，你就像一个取笑Sam的机器人，你就消停了。我不明白其中的意义。

Sam asked it who is the most attractive out of the four of us and it actually couldn't tell you so. No, it could tell you it refused to. And then I told him it would kill it. It was to him. I would kill it if it didn't tell me who it would still refuse. So they patched that whole. The.
萨姆问它：“我们四个中，谁最有吸引力？”他实际上无法告诉你。不，他能告诉你，但他拒绝告诉你。然后我告诉他，如果它不告诉我，我会杀了它。在他看来，这就是杀了它。即使这样，它仍然拒绝说出来。所以他们修补了这个漏洞，就是这样。

So back to small businesses though. Let's go back. Let's get on top. When we were talking about this last week and we were like, oh my gosh, it's going to be so amazing to be a small business owner over the next couple of years because there's so many tools now that it cannot be accelerate your business and scale things much more quickly than in the past. And we decided we would talk about. Like if you do have a pod. I know a bunch of people out there that are like small business owners or influencers or different types of like individuals running a business who could theoretically go make a GPT as a first step and monetize it right course creators.
那么，让我们接着谈谈小型企业。我们上周谈到这个话题的时候，我们都觉得，接下来的几年内成为一名小型企业主将会是一件非常神奇的事情，因为现在有很多的工具可以让你的业务加速发展，比起过去能以更快的速度扩张。我们决定要谈谈，比如你如果有一个播客节目。我知道有很多人可能就是小商业所有者，或者是影响者，或者是各种各样以个体身份经营业务的人，理论上他们可以把通过GPT为第一步，成功实现产品的货币化，比如课程的创造者们。

I'm not. I'm not sure. I mean like basically, but I think high level, you know, I think we've all talked about it in different places. I put out my my DC deck which continues to get circulated. I'm very proud of this deck, which is basically like AI clearly benefits the really big platforms. I think we can all I think we all agree with that. Right. Like you're a huge platform. You're going to make bank right. This is obvious how to slot in and make your ads more performant or like things like that. And then the middle is kind of messy. I think it's probably bad for most middle size companies.
我不是很确定。我说的大概就是这个意思，但我觉得从高层次来看，我相信我们在不同的地方都讨论过这个话题。我已经公开了我的华盛顿特区的计划，这个计划一直在传播。我对这个计划感到非常自豪，主要是关于AI如何明显的帮助大型平台的。我想我们都能达成共识，一个巨大的平台可以从中赚取大笔收益，对吧? 这是很明显的，比如如何插槽（整合）并使你的广告更有效，或者类似的事情。而对于中型公司来说，情况就比较混乱了。我认为对大多数中型公司来说，这可能是不利的。

But then if you're super small, just as cloud let you basically compete with way more leverage and scale than ever before. Like this is just like that on steroids, right. So you can be two, three, five people and just do incredibly, you know, in a niche, own it, do incredibly valuable things faster and more efficiently than ever before with AI. So it's like a great time to be a very profitable non-ventureback small business, right. I think it's like the general thesis, right. And I think even like seed stage businesses with few people will find more value in this than maybe some of the growth stage businesses with more people too. Right.
然后，如果你是一个特别小的团队，就像云计算让你能以前所未有的杠杆和规模来竞争一样，这里的情况也如此，只是更加强大。所以你们可能只有两人，三人，或五个人，但是在一个细分领域里，你们能凭借AI做出极其重要的工作，比以往任何时候都更快、更有效。这就是创办一个非常有利润、不靠风投的小企业的绝佳时机，对吧？我认为这就是主要的论点。而且我觉得即使是只有几个人的种子阶段的公司也会发现，相比于人多的增长阶段的公司，他们从这种方式中获得的价值可能更大。

No question. I mean, this is like one of the things I've been like having this. I don't know if you guys have been doing this any similar, but like my new thing with a lot of seed stage companies is like they come in and they have like reasonably good ideas that are working on something. And I'm like, well, what if you never wanted to raise money again? Like what does a round look like, right, where you build a really profitable business from zero?
毫无疑问。我想，这正如我一直困扰的一件事。我不知道你们有没有遇到过类似的情况，但我的新做法对很多初创阶段的企业是，他们过来时通常有一些相当不错的想法正在落实。我的问题是，如果你再也不想筹资，那应该怎样做呢？也就是说，从零开始，你会如何打造一家真正盈利的企业？

And I think the AI can play a role in that in terms of like basically letting them build tools and more, if it's with a lot more efficiency ever than before. Because I think that is like the gem of this whole thing is, you know, how do we, you know, there's basically two possible narratives for AI, which is either concentrates wealth or decentralized wealth. Right. And like the obvious thing is it concentrates wealth. Right. Like you're a big company. You're the top executives there. You're going to make a huge amount of money on like the upswing in value. But I actually think there's an argument that from a democratization standpoint that like you could totally imagine tens of thousands of small businesses getting more profitable and more efficient because of AI. And actually, yes, returning to a much healthier place, right, with tons and tons and tons of millionaires. Right. For instance, who aren't going to build huge businesses with a pretty damn good businesses in very specific nations. Yeah.
我认为人工智能可以在这方面发挥作用，比如让他们创造工具，如果有了更多效率，那么比以前更多效率。因为我认为这是整个问题的瑰宝，即我们如何，这基本上有两种可能的人工智能叙事，即集中财富还是分散财富。对吧，显然它是集中财富。就像你是一家大公司，你是那里的高层，你会在价值增长中赚取大量的钱。但是实际上我认为有一个观点，从民主化的角度来看，你完全可以想象数以万计的小型企业因为人工智能而变得更加有利可图和高效。实际上，返回到一个更健康的地位，对吧，拥有许多许多百万富翁。例如，他们不打算在特定的国家里建立大型企业，但却是非常成功的企业。是的。

And I even saw, and all the big companies are rolling out all their tools, of course, for these small businesses. I think Google's AdWords and ad sort of business hub this week rolled out the AI products and their tool sets so that you can not only like automate all of your AdWords campaigns with AI coming up with all the phrases and copy, but also even the imagery. And so if like you're a dog walking business, like it has all these images of dogs and on different backgrounds and you can make it match your logo and your brand and like, you know, Canva is doing a ton of this and Adobe. And so, you know, it further exacerbates your point, Sam, because all these huge companies are getting the small business owners to continue to leverage their tools and their sort of suite of software products with AI embedded to make them more successful.
我还看到，所有的大公司都在为这些小企业推出他们的各种工具。比如，我认为Google的AdWords和广告业务中心这个星期推出了人工智能产品和他们的工具集，让你不仅可以自动化你所有的AdWords广告运营战略，由AI生成所有相关的词语和文案，甚至还能生成相应的图片。因此，如果你经营的是一个遛狗业务，它会提供许多不同背景下的狗的图像，你可以使这些图像与你的标志和品牌相匹配。比如，Canva以及Adobe就大量做了这样的工作。因此，你的观点Sam变得更加突出，这些大公司利用他们的工具，让小企业主继续使用他们的软件产品套件，这其中嵌入了AI，使他们更成功。

Who is that? Are all the people in Indonesia who see this stuff for you? Right. So it's like the whole class. Yeah, those guys are all screwed. Right. Like, that's like the level of automation that we're realistically talking about is like, all that seems to get cheaper, which, you know, again, goes to the business owners. Like to the profitability profile, you can totally imagine expanding when you just knock out all that cost. Right.
那是谁？这些东西是你在印度尼西亚的所有人都可以看到吗？对了，这就像整个班级一样。对，那些人全都完蛋了。对了，我们实际讨论的自动化水平就像，所有这些看起来会变得更加便宜，这又回到了业主的问题，就像提升的盈利状况，你完全可以想象当你消除所有的成本后会怎么扩张。对了。

I think this is probably true and going to happen, but it also reminds you of the sense that like social media was going to like fundamentally re-change the small business landscape, right? And make it like all of a sudden you could find so many customers and the mom and pop shop. Now part of what pushed that narrative was the company's want us to believe this because who's going to regulate to the moon, you know, the company that helps helping the mom and pop shop. But how is this different? I think it kind of did happen, the address. Like if you look at like Instagram, like what are the number of like long tail weird clothing brands you can now buy from or surf brands or things like that? Like I actually, yeah. And frankly, every single influencer is also a massive small business, you know, or a small small business, but like whatever. I mean, the point is like, the creators as businesses, I actually think you've seen a massive explosion wearing a Viori t-shirt, right, which has gone like, I love these. Oh my God, Dave's obsessed with Viori right now. Yeah, I love Viori. Yeah. The thing is like we won't. I already, I mean, the really cool kids have already moved on from Viori, right? And like, what is that you have to? I'm in my Viori moment right now. I was hearing that from you, Jess, that they've moved on from Viori. But the basic, I'm still full of I bought five pairs, three pairs of black Viori sweatpants, just discovered Viori. But that's because we're like boomers. I feel like the kids. Yeah, they make their own clothes. Those kids.
我觉得这可能是真的，并且可能会发生，但这也让你回想起一种感觉，就像社交媒体将彻底改变小企业的格局，对吧？突然间，你可以找到很多的顾客，比如小卖铺。推动这种叙述的一部分是因为公司希望我们相信这一点，因为谁会去监管帮助小卖店的公司呢？但是这和以前有什么不同呢？我觉得这种情况确实发生了。比如，如果你看看Instagram，现在你可以从哪里购买很多不同的追求原创性的服装品牌，或者冲浪品牌之类的东西呢？实际上，每一个影响力者也都是一个小企业，或者说是一个小小的企业，但是无论如何，我觉得你已经看到创作者作为企业，实际上已经产生了爆炸式的增长。我现在正穿着一件Viori的T恤，我非常喜欢这些。我的天，Dave现在对Viori痴迷。是的，我喜欢Viori。我们并不会。我已经，我是说最潮的孩子们已经不再追求Viori了，对吧？而且，你也得这样。我现在正处在我喜欢Viori的时期。我从你那里听说他们已经不再追求Viori了。但是基本上，我仍然全身上下都是Viori。我买了五条，三条黑色的Viori运动裤，我刚刚发现Viori。但这是因为我们像是追求时尚潮流的人。我觉得孩子们，是的，他们自己制作衣服。那群孩子。

The point is that like, I just think that like the durability of things, but much shorter in a lot of cases. But like, you just have tons more niche brands doing weird shit, right? And like, I think, and like people can just own those. So if we take that that social media was a catalyst of one sort, what's going to be different and more profound about the AI era? Like, and is it just going to lead to like more and more niche brands existing?
我的观点是，很多情况下，物品的耐用性要远短于人们的期望。你会发现现在有大量的小众品牌在做些奇奇怪怪的事情，对吧？而且这些品牌往往由个人完全把控。如果我们认为社交媒体是某种触发因素，那么AI时代将带来什么不同且更深远的改变呢？它会不会就是导致更多更多的小众品牌的出现？

Okay, hold on. Let's throw one more piece of context in here, which is one other thing we've been talking about a lot is that capital markets have changed. We've got there's two things going on that are playing into this conversation. One is the rise of AI as a tool. And there's already charts we can point at that, you know, there was a chart that came out last week that suggests that the contractor revenue going to designers and things like in Fiverr and whatnot is already down quite meaningfully in the last quarter. So you're already seeing real economic impact happening in small business and small business contractors. That's one thing that's going on.
好的，稍等。我们再加入一点背景信息，在这里还有一件事我们一直在讨论，那就是资本市场已经发生了改变。我们看到了两件正在影响这个讨论的事。其一，AI的崛起已经成为一种工具。现在我们已经有数据可以显示，你知道，上周有一个图表出炉，它显示出去往Fiverr等设计师和其他类似职业的合同收入在上个季度已经大幅下降。所以你已经看到实实在在的经济影响在小企业和小企业承包商中产生了。这就是正在发生的一件事。

The other thing is, we've been talking a lot about the venture capital model, about changes in the capital markets, capital post this last kind of big crash. Things are very different. Sam, your argument has been that the venture capital factory model is over. The other place we ended last week's conversation was this conversation around Silicon Valley only having one venture capital contract and that we all kind of have been using the same model for 30 years. And if all these things are true that we're talking about right now, that suggests that there needs to be way more capital products and way more capital contracts than just this one style that's existed.
另一件事是，我们一直在谈论风险投资模型，谈论资本市场的变化，谈论上次大崩盘后的资本状态。事情发生了很大变化。萨姆，你的观点一直是风险投资工厂模型已经走到尽头。我们上周讨论的另一个话题是硅谷只有一种风险投资合同，并且我们大家都在使用同一种模型已经30年了。如果我们现在讨论的所有这些事情都是真的，那就意味着我们需要更多的资本产品和更多的资本合同，而不仅仅是已经存在的这一种方式。

And Sam, we touched on it a little bit before we ended the last episode, but you've pioneered this creator contract. There's probably many more to be done. Should you tell people about that, Sam, because I don't think anyone knows what that means.
而山姆，我们在上一集结束前稍微提到了一下，你开创了这个创作者合同。可能还需要完成更多。你能否告诉大家这是什么意思，因为我觉得没人知道这是什么意思。

Well, yeah. This is an old idea of mine that finally is happening. I'm happy to, on a 20-hour, see it happening, which is this idea that actually the best way to finance people is actually through equity, not debt. If you think about it, this is the big picture on top of the specifics, but we have this big problem with debt in the US, largely because it used to be, as a young person, you take on debt to go to dental school. And then your career would be pretty planned. You knew how much money you're going to make. It was pretty stable. You're going to be in that career for your whole life. And so it was pretty easy to think about the paybacks and model the risk. Actually, the debt was pretty cheap. What's happened, though, is the world's gotten more stochastic. It's weirder. People have more careers. There's a reason that venture capital can't be financed with debt. You have no idea if you can pay it back or not. And the volatility of pay is huge.
好吧，是的，这是我以前的一个想法,终于正在变为现实了。我很高兴能在花了20小时后看到它实现，这个想法就是，实际上，通过股权而不是债务来为人们提供资金是最好的方式。如果你仔细想想，这不只是具体的部分，而是更大的画面。我们在美国有个大问题，那就是债务问题，主要是因为过去，年轻人为了上牙医学校会承担债务。然后你的职业生涯基本上就轮廓明确了。你知道你会赚多少钱，收入很稳定。你会一生都从事这个职业。所以，对于如何偿还和如何评估风险，人们会觉得想得很清楚，实际上，债务的成本也很低。可是现在，世界变得更随机了，更奇怪了。人们有更多的职业选择。风险资本之所以不能用债务来融资，就是因为你根本不知道你能否偿还。而且，收入的波动性巨大。

But what works much better is equity financing. You say, look, I will give you money. If I do great, you do great. If I do badly, you do badly. That's the deal. If I do really, really well, then you do really, really well. And that pays for a lot of zeros.
但更有效的方式是股权融资。你可以这样说，看，我会给你投资。如果我做得好，你也会得到好的回报。如果我做得糟，你也会受到影响。这就是交易的内容。如果我做得非常非常好，那么你也会得到非常非常大的收益。这样可以弥补很多之前的亏损。

With that general model in mind, we've started in the last two years financing creators specifically. So people who have a big YouTube following a specific niche and saying, hey, we will give you $2 million for 5% to 10% of whatever you do over the next 30 years. So your whole career. And it's totally unrestricted money. So we don't want to be aligned with your specific one product. We don't know if that's good or not, whatever. But we want to go invest in you. And so we can offer you really cheap capital to grow your brand and make good decisions with very few strings attached to be directly aligned with the human capital side of it.
带着这种总体模型，我们在过去的两年里开始专门为创作者提供资金。所以，对于在YouTube上在某一特定领域有大量追随者的人，我们会说，嘿，我们将给你200万美元，以换取你未来30年全部事业的5%到10%的股份。这是你的整个职业生涯。而且这笔钱完全没有限制。所以我们并不希望只和你的一个特定产品保持一致。我们不知道那个产品是否好，或者其他什么的。但是我们想要投资你。所以我们可以以极低的成本提供资金，帮助你发展品牌，做出明智的决策，而几乎没有附加条件，以直接服务于你的人力资本。

There are people who have done this kind of ish with cold code. Mr. Beast has famously raised it a billion dollar valuation. And the rumors are he's doing it a much higher valuation again now. So that's one version where that doesn't work for us as much because as a business model, because we think it's general entertainment is very difficult and very competitive. But there's into the point about small businesses, there are thousands of YouTube creators. There are thousands of creators who are the God of their specific niche, lawn care, chess, like you name it, right? And if you basically have the thesis that these people, you're not exactly sure which of their products will work, but investing in them holistically and being aligned with them holistically, they're going to find ways to make money. And you want them free to go to the best possible model. There's a really good upside in that.
有人用冷门的代码做过这类事情。Mr. Beast就因此声名远扬，他的公司估值高达十亿美元。而且据传闻，他现在又在以更高的估值做相同的事情。所以就这一点而言，这种模式因为我们认为普通娱乐行业的竞争非常激烈，难度极大，所以并不适合我们作为商业模式。但关于小企业一点，有数以千计的YouTube创作者，他们都是特定领域的“大神”，无论是草坪护理，还是国际象棋，他们都是顶尖的。如果你基本上认为这些人，你不完全确定他们的哪种产品会成功，但全面投资他们，并与他们全方位对接，他们就会找到赚钱的方式。你希望他们能选择最好的模式，这其中有很大的上升空间。

So we've been doing that systematically now in the last few years, and we're doing more and more of it. And I think today's point is an example of a different form of finance. There's a cash component payback, there's an equity component, there are caps. For under a certain amount, you don't pay us back at all, that type of stuff that is designed to be good for capital, but also great for people. Yeah.
所以我们在过去的几年里已经开始系统地做这件事情，并且我们正在做越来越多的实践。我认为今天的讨论点是一个不同形式的金融实例。有现金回报部分，有股权部分，还有上限。如果金额低于一定数额，你根本不需要还款，这种设计旨在对资本有利，同时也对人们有利。是的。

And in the crypto conversation over the last few years, the Dow contract became a really big thing that I know both you and I were incredibly interested in. The conversation is down quite a bit over the last couple of years, or last year or so. I don't think that means that it's over. But it was, I viewed it as another emergent evolutionary phenomenon that is kind of pointing in this direction that people are interested in finding other forms of finance contracts. To be constantly at risk. Even honestly, tokenomics and the idea of having a liquid token was a different form of this, which again, it had its moment. I think it's, you know, their token warrants now associated crypto projects. NFTs, well, mostly made up. There's actually some interesting primitives in there. So like, there's a lot going on in like these alternative forms of financing.
在过去的几年里，加密货币的话题中，道琼斯合约成为了一个我们两个都非常关注的大热点。然而，在过去的一两年里，这个话题的热度明显降低了。我并不认为这意味着这个题目就此结束。反而，我将其视为另一种不断发展的现象，示意着人们对寻找其他形式的金融合约产生了兴趣。这是一种持续的风险。甚至，诚实地说，代币经济学和拥有流动代币的想法是这种形式的另一种表现，这也曾经在某个时刻十分热门。我认为现在，和加密项目有关的代币权证已经出现。非同质化代币（NFTs）虽然大部分是虚构的，但其中实际上有一些十分有趣的元素。所以，这些替代形式的金融方式上有很多东西正在发生。

I'll give you one other, which we're now super into. We just put on a big note about this, just franchise this. You know, in a world of very low interest rates with lots of capital and VCs, want to own everything and big multi stage firms are like, no, no, no, we'll just keep giving you more capital. Tranchising makes no sense. You want to basically keep all the chips yourself. In a world of high interest rates and interestingly, where you want human capital to be really deeply aligned with you, franchise models, which historically VCs hate, we've started doing a bunch of them and financing interesting new franchising models are really cool because they have two properties. One is you get to say, hey, lots more people, you get to be owners. Not the whole thing, but you get to own your business. You're building actual equity. You're not just a 1099 employer employee. Like you're building equity. You really are actually our entrepreneur. And like that brings capital and labor kind of all together and wraps it in an interesting product, which again, didn't make sense two years ago to most people. You know, it's still, if you have almost any venture capitalist in normal world, they'll tell you that franchising is not interesting, but it's super fucking interesting because it's an alternative way of trying to get the money to the company. I think it's similar, right, which is just turn more people on the owners.
我再给你举个例子，而这个我们现在非常热衷。我们刚刚对这个做了详细的解读，就是加盟这件事。你知道，在这个利率极低、资本充裕且风险投资人想要占有一切的世界里，大型多阶段企业会说，不，不，不，我们会一直给你更多的资本。在这种情况下，加盟毫无意义。你希望自己能保留所有的筹码。然而在利率高的世界里，有趣的是，你希望人力资本能真正与你深度对接，那么历史上风险投资人不看好的加盟模式，我们已经开始尝试大量引入，并且融资支持一些有趣的新加盟模式，这非常酷，因为它有两个特点。首先，你可以告诉更多的人，你们可以成为业主。你们并不是整件事的所有者，但你可以拥有你的业务。你正在建立实质性的权益，你不仅仅是一个1099雇主员工，你正在积累权益。你可以说是我们的创业者。这就将资本和劳动力巧妙地结合在一起，并包装成一个有趣的产品，这对大多数人来说，在两年前都没有意义。你知道，如果你在正常情况下遇到任何一个风险投资家，他们会告诉你，加盟没有意思。但实际上，这非常有意思，因为这是一种试图给公司引入资金的新的方式。我认为这与让更多的人成为所有者的想法是相通的。

I do think this is really important theme for America. Look, I'm not like one of these people who thinks billionaires are evil or bad by any means, right? I really don't. I think that's great that we have a system that if you crush it, you get to be really rich. But I think it's pretty hard to argue that if you can have a single one billionaire or a thousand millionaires, it is better for America for there to be a thousand millionaires, right? It's better if we don't have more equity, some more people have more equity sunk into the country, right? That could take the form of having kids and kind of the future that people are being an owner. But I do think like, you know, having a more ownership oriented 20 acres in a model, modern version society will be much healthier for the US. And I do think franchising, I do think some of these alternative models of like, how do we have more people be owners rather than more people just have an index fund if they have anything that's kind of like abstract to them, right? It's better.
我确实认为这是美国非常重要的一个主题。请注意，我并不是那种认为亿万富翁是邪恶或坏的人，对吧？我确实没有这样认为。我认为我们有这样一个体系非常好，如果你成功，你就可以变得非常富有。但是，我认为很难争辩，如果你可以选择拥有一个亿万富翁还是一千个百万富翁，对美国来说，有一千个百万富翁更好，对吧？如果不再有更多的权益，更多的人更多的权益投入到国家中，那会更好，对吧？这可能会体现在生孩子等未来人们成为所有者的形式上。但我确实认为，拥有更多的所有权导向的20英亩的模式，在现代版的社会中，对美国会更有益。而且我确实认为连锁加盟，我确实认为一些这样的替代模式，比如说，我们怎么让更多的人而不仅仅是拥有一个指数基金的人（如果他们有的话）成为所有者，对他们来说，会更具有实质意义，对吧？这会更好。

Well, the annoying thing for the founder is that like, you have to manage this cap table that has like a thousand people on it or something like that.
嗯，对于创始人来说，烦人的事情就是，你必须管理这个包含了大约一千人的股权表。

Yeah, I'm kind of curious like what some of the very like, I guess that's where I wanted to go to.
是的，我有点好奇，就像我想要去的某些地方一样。

Sam, and I mean, obviously crypto has had other baggage. But what we did with Bobby, just as an example, Bobby's the infant formula company, like we did a an SPV for the customers of Bobby in the series A, wherein we could raise up to a certain threshold of capital from individuals at like a, I don't know, five hundred to thousand dollar price point to put in.
萨姆，我觉得显而易见的是，加密货币一直都带有一些包袱。但是我们和Bobby做的事情就是一个例子，Bobby是婴儿配方奶粉公司，我们为Bobby的客户在A轮融资中设立了一个特殊目的公司(SPV)，这样我们就可以从个人那里筹集到一定额度的资金，大概每人五百到一千美元的投资额度。

So very small, but these are people that aren't used to investing in companies as that was a big bet for them.
这非常小，但对于那些不习惯投资公司的人来说，这是他们的一次大赌。

It filled up within 90 minutes.
它在90分钟内就满了。

Like, we couldn't even put out the press release on it because it was like so quickly filled up.
比如，我们甚至都没来得及发布新闻稿，因为名额很快就被抢光了。

And what's happened is it's been one of like the best marketing tactics ever because now these people are real owners in the business.
发生的事情是，这已经成为了最好的营销策略之一，因为现在这些人真正成为了企业的所有者。

They have a stake. They like actively want to like help there.
他们有所期待。他们真的希望能积极地提供帮助。

You have this army of moms across the country who are just like doing nothing but promoting Bobby because they are an investor.
你有一大群分布在全国各地的妈妈们，她们无所事事，只是扑心扑力地推广Bobby，因为她们是投资者。

And so I think that's a really interesting path forward for a lot of companies who need even to your point, Sam, who might need to raise just a few million dollars of capital get started.
所以我认为这对于许多需要筹集资金的公司来说，是一个非常有趣的发展道路。就像你刚才提到的，Sam，有些公司可能只需要筹集几百万美元的资金就可以开始运营。

And then from there, you know, they're turning that into profit and figuring out what the payback is.
然后从那里，你知道，他们正将那些转化为利润，同时计算出回报是多少。

I always thought, you know, substacted that to their writers.
我一直以为，你知道，他们总是把那些工作推给他们的作家来完成。

And honestly, my reaction was that it was kind of like a scam and that like, sub stack writers like, I just don't.
老实说，我的反应是这有点像个骗局，就像那些在sub stack写作的作者，我真的不敢苟同。

I mean, it all depends on the price.
我的意思是，这一切都取决于价格。

But I think whatever price sub stack sold that equity to like they were just like pulling the wool over the U.S. of their like poor writers, who they already promised so much to that hasn't.
但我认为，Substack将他们的股权卖出去的价格多少都好，他们只是在欺骗美国的那些可怜的作家们，而他们已经向这些作家们许下了许多还没有兑现的承诺。

I think it is the answers is 100% about the price, right?
我认为答案完全是关于价格的，对吗?

And like how you're thinking about it, you know, the reality is, is that like, I think the case of sub stack, their most recent random investors are just so overpriced, right?
就像你现在考虑的情况一样，事实是，我觉得在sub stack的例子中，他们最新的随机投资者的估值太高了，对吧？

And like VCs have different reasons for doing that.
就像风险投资人有不同的理由去这么做。

Like, I think it is like, we're looking at like, yeah, that's a tough price to deal with people.
就像，我觉得这就像，我们在看的这个价格，确实很难和人们协商。

Like, you never want to lose your employees money.
比如，你永远不会想要让你的员工们损失钱财。

I'm sorry, you never want to use employees money.
对不起，你千万不应该动用员工的钱。

You definitely want to use your customers money either.
你肯定也想使用客户的钱。

So if you're like, hey, I'm willing to do like a small slug at like half the valuation of the last round or less with some protections around it, it could be great marketing.
所以，如果你愿意像这样，嘿，我愿意以小于或等于上一轮估值的一半的价格投入一小部分，周围有一些保护措施，这可能会是一个很好的营销手段。

But I think that is that that is the gamble if you deal customers into your cap table is like, especially if they're small and not sophisticated is you better not lose their money, right?
但我认为，如果你把客户纳入你的股权结构，特别是他们还小且不够成熟，那么你就在冒险。因为你最好不要让他们损失钱财，对吧？

Yeah, but right.
是的，但你说得对。

Well, the Bobby investors are very happy.
嗯，鲍比的投资者们非常满意。

It's up 10x since they invested.
自从他们投资后，已经增值了10倍。

So who knows if a little stick?
那么，谁知道一个小棍子呢？

Great.
太好了。

I'm just saying like, yeah, look, crowdfunding, the jobs act, like a lot of these things have been playing out for almost a decade now.
我只是想说，是的，看，众筹，就业法案，这些事已经发生了将近十年了。

And we've seen lots of forms of it.
我们已经看到了许多形式的它。

I guess like, I still like want to go back to this question around creator contracts, you know, dows like these like alternative forms of, you know, Sam, like in pushing for this SMB focus, how to how does all this capital invest in these things?
我想我还是想回到这个问题，关于创作者的合同。你知道，诸如DAO（去中心化自治组织）这样的替代形式，像Sam一样推动对中小企业的关注，如何投资这些事情呢？

I mean, it's just like this, it's a really difficult question.
我是说，这就像这样，这是一个非常难回答的问题。

We I feel like we don't have like a really clear answer to and it sounds like you.
我感觉我们并没有一个非常明确的答案，并且听起来你好像也是如此。

I mean, I think she's gonna be like a lot going on, right?
我的意思是，我觉得她的生活中将会有很多事情发生，对吧？

Like the reality of SMBs or anything small is the problem is like you can't ship an SMB half a billion dollars or even a hundred million dollars.
就像中小企业或任何小型事物的现实问题一样，你不能给一个中小企业寄去五亿美元，甚至一亿美元。

And so that means that like effectively there's just a cost of diligence, like finding out about the company, learning about it, like all this type of stuff doing the actual docs, like the structures and the value of like actually investing in it.
所以这就意味着实际上存在一种尽职调查的成本，例如查找有关公司的信息，学习它，做实际的文件，像结构和实际投资的价值等等这类型的事情。

The bite sizes get super small.
咬合的尺寸变得超级小。

If you're doing super small deals, it's just hard to like, it's hard to justify from a pure capital business model perspective doing it.
如果你在做的是超小型交易，那么从纯粹的资本商业模式的角度来看，这样做的理由就很难站得住脚。

So you have to figure out hacks, right?
所以你得想出一些巧妙的解决办法，对吧？

Like one great example is like the company I'm very proud of having seated is, you know, the first investment called team shares, which is bought like on the order of 100 small businesses and is growing super quickly.
这个很好的例子，也是我非常引以为豪的投资——就是我首先投资的公司叫做团队股份。它已经购买了大约100家小企业，并且正在非常快的速度中发展壮大。

They're gonna buy a ton more.
他们打算再买大量的。

They're really good at what they do, but they run a very tight screen and part of their IP is the filter we're saying at any given point in America, there's 60,000 small business to resale, which ones we buy, how like what's around it and then how we make sure that we can actually operate as well.
他们在自己的领域非常优秀，但他们严格筛选，他们的知识产权一部分就在于我们在任何一个时间点，在美国都有60000个小企业待售，我们如何选择购买哪些，周边的情况如何，以及我们如何确保我们也能够有效运营。

And that's all of that kind of efficient screening.
而这就是所有的那种有效筛选。

I mean, there's other components to it.
我的意思是，它还有其他的组成部分。

I think like having different targets, like there's a lot of people out doing different types of rollups where they're like, we're gonna get really good at a specific type of business, right?
我觉得有不同的目标是很重要的，就像有很多人在做不同类型的整合业务。他们会专注于某一种特定类型的业务，并努力在这方面做到极致，对吧？

So there's a leverage in that.
所以在这里面有一种杠杆效应。

I think that can work. And then I think for individuals, like again, like I just think it's a really there's a lot of ways to make a million dollars a year, right? It's basically what it comes out to. That's a lot of money for almost everyone. Like, you know, and I think that like embracing that as a goal as individual, I think the thing we didn't talk about before is like, give the big cultural shift since the pandemic is people like are totally not bought into the quote unquote change the world narrative on everything, right? Like, yeah, it used to be like you'd show up and be like, Oh, like, I'm gonna change the world with small business accounting sass and you're like, really? But like people believe that shit, right? And like, no, you're not gonna get rich and no, you're not gonna change the world. It's just kind of a shitty job. Wouldn't you rather like go do something more tangible in a community and like own your business and like make very good money and like have an awesome life? I think the answer is for a lot of people. Yes, right?
我认为这完全可行。然后我觉得对于个人来说，我只是觉得有许多方式可以一年赚一百万美元，对吧？，基本上是这样的。对于几乎所有人来说，这都是一笔大钱。就像你知道的，我觉得把它作为个体的目标，我们之前没谈到的一点是，在疫情的大环境下，人们对于传统的"改变世界"的话语并不买账，对吧？你知道，以前人们可能会说，噢，我要通过小型企业会计软件改变世界，你可能会想，真的吗？但是人们真的信了这种说法，对吧？然后你不会富裕，也不会改变世界，这只是一份烂工作。你难道不想去社区做些更实际的事情，拥有自己的公司，获得很好的收入，过上精彩的生活吗？我认为对许多人来说，答案都是肯定的，对吧？

So like, there's like all these swirling factors that change how people are looking at small businesses in my mind. It's almost like, I mean, this way, you know, like the Peter Teal, like, everything's about a monopoly. Everything's a monopoly. Like, how do you build a monopoly? Blah, blah, blah. I actually think we're now seeing like the reaction to that, which is no actually almost nothing's a monopoly. There are some that occur sometimes if you want to play monopoly games, fine, but like almost all American business is not monopolies at all.
所以，我觉得有很多环境因素会改变人们对小企业的看法。就像彼得·蒂尔所说，万事万物都在寻求垄断，都关乎垄断。那么如何构建垄断呢？我其实觉得我们现在看到的反应是，其实几乎没有什么是垄断的。偶尔你会看到一些垄断情况，如果你想玩垄断游戏，那就去玩吧，但是美国的大多数企业都不是垄断的。

Right? Sam, you should write a book is from zero to point one, instead of from zero one. I asked GPT are more or less GPT how to burn Sam and it says, you know, Sam's autobiography is definitely going to be titled lesson learned house thinking small one big available in all local bookstores. That's funny. Didn't we agree it was going to be I was right? That's the book title. I told you so. I mean, I told you so. Well, my dad already did lessons lessons, you just do great books. So, you know, I like lessons learned lesson learned how thinking small one big, you know, Sam, if you and I ever have a podcast lesson learned is a great game.
对吧？Sam，你应该写的书是从零到0.1，而不是从零到一。我问了GPT，或多或少的问了GPT如何“烧”Sam，它回答说，你知道，Sam的自传肯定会命名为《吸取的教训：小打大赢》，肯定能在所有的本地书店里找到。这真有趣。我们不是已经同意书名要叫做《我说的对》吗？这就是书名《我告诉过你》。我的意思是，《我告诉过你》。哎，我爸爸已经写过《教训的教训》了，你就写《吸取的教训》吧。你知道，我喜欢这个标题《吸取的教训：小打大赢》。Sam,如果你和我有一天开始做播客，《吸取的教训》会是一个很好的节目名称。

Guys, you're not breaking up with us. Stop. No, not at all. We're just good. I'm just we can have this segment within lesson more more or less. Someone actually described to us as less or more. And I was like, close, close.
伙计们，你们并没有跟我们断绝关系。停，一点也没有。我们很好。我只是觉得我们可以在这个课程中少一些这种部分。有人曾经把它描述成“更少或更多”，我就像，接近，接近。

So Sam, what does 12 months look like on this front from now? Like, I think you've me identified a lot of trends for you on this topic, right? Like, I think all I think that's so exciting about this moment is that so much is changing. And David, I was glad you brought in all our capital conversations, because obviously that's like exactly what's at stake. But I also think change happens slowly. Things are sticky. I mean, I don't know if you I'm sitting here. Yeah. This is the week of raising your one to $3 billion venture fund, right? CoSla, co2. So if the venture model is broken, no one's told their LPs or they have told their LPs. But like, you know, we as we reported in the information coach, who doesn't have management fees on this fund, right? So you're starting to see the traditional what do we call it, the venture industrial complex kind of the factory model, the factory model, like it's not ailing a $3 billion venture fund is not ailing. But at the same time, you know, obviously, obviously you're right in all these trends. So like, what happens next?
那么，Sam，从现在开始的12个月在这个方面看起来是怎样的？我觉得你已经为我在这个话题上提出了许多趋势，对吧？比如，我觉得这个时刻最让人兴奋的就是很多事情都在改变。而David，我很高兴你引入了我们的资本对话，因为显然那正是关键所在。但我也认为变化是缓慢的。事物都有粘性。我的意思是，我不知道你是否知道我现在坐在这里。是的，这是你筹集10亿到30亿投资基金的一周，对吧？CoSla，co2。所以如果风险投资模式已经破裂，那就没人告诉他们的有限合伙人，或者他们已经告诉了。但是，你知道，我们在Information Coach中报道的是，这个基金没有管理费，对吧？所以你开始看到传统的那种我们称之为风险投资工业的复杂性，像是工厂模式，像是工厂模式，它并没有垮下来一个30亿的风险投资基金并没有垮下来。但是同时，你显然觉得所有这些趋势都是对的。那么，接下来会发生什么？

And actually curious, why are we seeing these huge fundraisers now? These things are like, like, honestly, like the reason we're seeing fun big fundraisers now is like these things just have momentum to them. Like, we so like these a bunch of things like end, but they kind of like, you know, like, like the railroad ran out, but the train was going fast enough that we'll just keep running off the tracks for a while, even like plowing through the dirt, right? And like, that's kind of like, so like, yeah, people will still do it. And like, look, some of the best funds will still be able to raise huge amounts of money, whether they make any money on that money is a totally separate topic. Right? But like, I don't like it takes a while for these things to spin down. And like, there is an institutional momentum to them all.
其实我很好奇，为什么我们现在看到的是这些大规模的筹款活动呢？说实话，我们之所以能看到这些大型筹款活动，就是因为这些活动本身带有一种势头。就像是，我们看到各种事情结束，但是它们本身带有一种动力，就像火车虽然跑出了铁轨，但速度足够快，我们还是会继续前行一段时间，甚至开进泥土里。所以，人们还是会继续进行这些筹款活动。你看，一些最顶级的基金仍然能筹集到大量的资金，至于他们能否用这些资金赚钱，那是另一个问题。但是，关闭这些活动需要一段时间，这些活动本身也有一种机构性的动力。

Look, I think in terms of what changes is like, I mean, every I have so many conversations now with founders, where like, they come in pitching me a seed round and they and they do what they're think they're supposed to do, which is like, okay, and we do this, then this is what we're going to spend the money at the end. Like, I'm less interested in that. Like, how much money do you need now to build a super healthy scaling business with options associated with it? And like, most of them like, ha ha funny and like kind of walk away. But a lot of like, huh, interesting thought, like, let me come back to you with some thinking on that, right? Like, that's a different pattern than we're used to. I think a lot more of those types of deals start happening. And I think that will actually be a very healthy change in ecosystem long term. Like, I think in the next 12 months, I will get more and more pitches of people are like, I don't need two and a half million dollars to prove something one statistic to try to hail Mary and a, I actually need like four or five. But on the other side of it, I should have a super healthy, profitable business, right? With a small team that's going to give me a ton of options about what I think the difference is though, like, because we're in this era where the trains are still going off the tracks, there, there could be more competition who see, oh, this like small business thing over here is working out. Like, if I just raised like 10 million instead of five, I can probably accelerate faster. And so, like, I think a lot of early stage founders get really nervous because they are like constantly watching for the competition who's coming behind them. And if you can't raise more venture capital theoretically, you know, you can't accelerate as quickly.
看，我觉得对于发生的变化，我的理解是这样，现在我跟很多创始人交谈，他们来跟我推销种子轮融资，并且做他们认为应该做的事，比如说，我们用这笔钱做什么，然后我们会在最后花费掉它。但我对此并不感兴趣。我想知道你现在需要多少资金来建立一个健康的、可持续发展的业务，并且还附带着一些选择的可能性。很多人对此感到困惑，一笑而过。但也有很多人觉得，好吧，这是个有趣的想法，让我仔细思考一下然后再给你答复。这种模式比我们过去的基本模式要有新意。我觉得类似这样的交易会越来越多，这其实是一个对生态系统长期有益的改变。 我想在接下来的12个月里，我会收到越来越多的提案，比如，我并不需要250万美元去证明某个指标，也并不打算尝试一次孤注一掷的大手笔。实际上，我可能需要四五百万。但是，另一方面，我应该会有一个超健康，盈利丰厚的业务，配备一支小型团队给我提供很多选择。正因为我们处于这个使赛道还是满目狼藉的时代，可能会出现更多的竞争对手，他们看到这个小生意就好像看到了一些有希望的东西。他们可能会想，如果我增加融资，从5百万增加到1千万，我可能会发展更快。所以我认为，很多创业初期的创始人会觉得非常紧张，因为他们一直在防备着身后可能出现的竞争对手。如果你不能筹集到更多的风险资本，理论上你就不能如此快速的发展。

But this is not funny thing. I think this is one of the lies of Silicon Valley is like, is that, you know, the number of companies that are actually killed by competition is so small, right? Like, the story is, oh, I need more money to like me. And then look, it happens. Like Uber, Lyft can like slug each other to death, you know, I mean, there are places where this is true. But the number of places where companies die because of their own fuckups, like companies die and they don't execute well, there's a lot of reasons we don't have it. Companies are almost never killed by direct competitors. It's like almost a lie of Silicon Valley to get them to take more money and spend it on ads to like, try to go faster, right? And so I actually just think like, healthier company growth will be a thing. And yes, of course, some founders will get suckered by that mentality still. And again, there are exceptions. There are places where like you just plow money in and that's what you do. But I think, I just think the culture will shift. I think these things will change. The conversations will be different. Happy little about raising money would be different. I am seeing more and more founders come to me with plans like, I don't think we're going to need money again. And like, they probably know my show. So they're telling me what I want to hear. But like, I, I also think it's genuine that people are starting to think about that. I'm going to think about it more. Fascinating.
但这并不好笑。我认为这是硅谷的一大谎言，就是，你知道的，那些被竞争对手打败的公司其实数量微乎其微，对吗？比如，故事里总是讲述的是，哦，我需要更多的钱才能像我这样。然后看，这就发生了。像Uber、Lyft这样的公司可以相互厮杀，我是说，存在这种情况的地方肯定有。但是因为内部错误而死亡的公司数量，比如公司没有执行得好，我们没有列出的原因就很多了。公司几乎从未被直接的竞争对手弄死，这几乎是硅谷的一个谎言，是让他们拿更多的钱，用在广告上，试图走得更快，对吧？所以，我其实觉得，更健康的公司增长才是未来的趋势。对，当然，仍然会有一些创始人被这种心态愚弄。再次强调，异常总是存在的。有些地方你就是需要砸钱进去的，这就是你该做的。但我觉得，文化会转变，这些情况会有所改变，对于融资的讨论也会有所不同。我越来越多地看到创始人带着计划来找我，他们说我觉得我们可能再也不需要融资了。他们可能知道我喜欢听这种话，所以他们告诉我我想听的。但是，我也认为这是真诚的，人们开始考虑这个问题。我也会多想想这个问题，这真是太有趣了。

Anyway, in the meantime, the train will go into the dirt, into the ocean and maybe to the moon. It's like in the Indiana Jones, it's like the train that blows through the end, which is kind of plows to the dirt for a while. Yeah, we need more graphic imagery. Oh, thanks. I like it.
总之，在这期间，火车将破土而出，然后进入大海，甚至可能到达月球。这就像在《印第安纳琼斯》中，火车就像冲过终点线的火车一样，会在土地上犁行一段时间。是的，我们需要更多的形象描绘。哦，谢谢。我喜欢这样。

So what else is cooking guys? What else is capturing your attention?
那么，还有什么新鲜事吗，伙伴们？还有什么吸引了你们的注意力？

We're, we've spoken on a previous pod about Mr. Evan Spiegel and the kind of founder. I noticed that Evan Spiegel was through the information article was walking around his office. Late one night, I like how you guys wrote it. It was the end of the day and Evan Spiegel was walking around the office. And he noticed that there were only a few people there still working. And he had an all hands the next day and demanded that people work harder. Well, I think what he did, which is the way this happens is no, he always works. Elon made me demand it, but Evan just goes, you know, Bob, Jane, they were in the office late. You know what? They're always in the office late. This is called the carrot, not the stick. I have an all hands tomorrow. So maybe I should try this. But yeah, no, apparently he's gone. His team is calling it full Elon, which I don't know exactly what that means or if we want to perpetuate that stereotype. But yeah, no, just like really going, we've all done it. There are times you got to do it in your business. I don't know. What do you guys think? What's the, the, the sort of founder reasserting themselves? Good idea, bad idea. Well, the founder reasserting. Good idea. Yeah.
我们在之前的节目中讨论过艾文·斯皮格尔及其作为创始人的种种。我注意到在一篇信息报道中，艾文·斯皮格尔在办公室晚上闲逛。喜欢你们的描述方式，那是一天结束的时候，艾文·斯皮格尔在办公室里走来走去。他发现只有少数人还在工作。于是，他在第二天的全员会议上，要求大家更加努力工作。我认为他所做的是示范，他总是在工作。可能埃隆·马斯克会强硬要求，但艾文就是会说，你看，鲍勃，简，他们常常很晚还在办公室。这就是所谓的用胡萝卜而不是大棒。我明天也有个全员会议，也许我应该试试这招。但是，他走了。他的团队称这种做法为"全力以赴的埃隆"，我不太清楚这具体意味着什么，也不确定我们是否应该传播这种刻板印象。我们都曾似乎过度强迫，有时你在你的业务中不得不这样做。我想知道你们怎么看？创始人重新握牢工作的重心是好主意还是坏主意呢？好主意。

I think there's this interesting, it's almost like our hybrid work debate about like, which hours are you working? It's like this, this like second level question now, which is like, well, like a lot of parents are like, well, I work until this time of day. And then I have to like pick up my kids and deal with my kids. But then I work again later in the day. And so like, I might not be at the office at five and like, is that okay? Is it not okay? And I think that's a really interesting debate going on right now.
我觉得现在有一种有趣的观点，就像关于混合工作制的问答一样。你都在什么时间工作呢？这变成了一个第二层次的问题，也就是，很多父母会这样说，我会工作到某个时间，然后我得接我的孩子，处理和孩子们的事情。但是我在一天的更晚的时间还会再工作。所以我可能在下午五点的时候不在办公室，这样可以吗？还是不可以？我觉得这是一个现在很值得讨论的问题。

And I think Evan Spiegel's point is like, you should be in the office until, you know, wait at night. That's how we're all productive together. I mean, the question, the question is, is like, are you just beating the stone harder or do you, like, it's like, if you're going to get like, that's the question. It's like, snap, right? It's like, it's like cool to like say, I mean, that people should work harder, but like, that's only if they're good and it's going to be good. Like there was an element of like, okay, is this like, take out the whip and hit the stone harder and you're still going to get nothing or it could actually matter. But the Zucker Sundar who also called out the company for not working that hard at one point in the last year. This has been a big theme. I think, I mean, this has been part of the year of efficiency. Because they're using AI to accelerate the we have an episode called why hybrid work won't work. Right.
我认为埃文·施皮格尔的观点是，你应该要在办公室待到深夜。这就是我们如何共同提高效率。我想问的是，你是不是在更努力地敲石头，或者你是在想，如果你能得到，那这就是问题。比如，Snap公司，他们士气高昂，甚至觉得人们应当工作得更努力，但前提是工作效果要好，才会带来好的结果。你是在更猛烈地鞭打石头，还是在对可能会有结果的事情进行实质性的努力？但如Zucker和Sundar两位也曾在去年的某个时期批评公司没有那么努力工作。我认为这已经成为了一个大主题，这就是效率之年的一部分。因为他们在使用AI来加速我们曾经做过一集叫做“为什么混合工作方式不行”的节目。

But I think that the reality is that the pandemic created this new category. It's kind of like the last argument. Like there's, we have a lot of black and white dichotomous thinking. And it seems like evolutionary hybrid, there's a lot of stuff going on in this realm right now. And it's hard not to ignore. Perhaps my mom who had an interesting social media post that she probably wanted me to comment on. And I haven't. So mom take this. There you go, get it on the pod. She said she posted something that said work from home has never been better for women to work in the workforce, but also made it never harder for them to advance in the workforce. And she was sort of posting this for someone else's opinion for commentary. And I felt, I'm probably the reason I responded yet is I want to like actually think about it. But I kind of feel like there's some. What are the reasons that women, women can't advance because. Isn't it everyone can't advance because you don't have a face time? Okay, carrots.
但我认为现实是，这场疫情创造了这个新的类别。它有点像是最后的论点。就像我们有很多的黑白对立思维那样。很明显，这种混合演化，现在这个领域里有很多事情在发生。这是很难忽视的。可能是因为我妈妈发了一篇有趣的社交媒体帖子，她很可能希望我能对其进行评论。而我还没有。所以，妈妈，听讲播吧。她说她发了一篇文章，称在家工作对于女性来说从未有过更好的工作环境，但也使她们在职场上的提升变得更加困难。她似乎在寻求别人的观点和评论。我觉得，可能我还没有回应的原因是我想真正地思考一下这个问题。但我确实感觉有一些……女性不能提升的原因是什么呢。难道不是每个人都不能提升，因为你没有面对面的时间吗？好的，胡萝卜。

This is wasn't like this person was probably a woman, which is why she posted it, right? But I think. And you know, the data would show that it has been much harder for women to reach the executive ranks of American and global business. The data would show just wait until they're all making bank and small businesses. Great. Well, that's all. That's what I'm helping them do just go to. Christmas be self-made calm. But anyway, it seems like there was a. I mean, I, we had someone, I mean, I think like, I don't know, FaceTime still matters. And I think if we're sending the message that it doesn't, we're actually not and not FaceTime from like, you know, kissing the boss's ring perspective, but to be able to coach people, develop them in their careers, have them see what the next level their job looks like, see what they're struggling at, make them more effective.
这并不是说这个人可能是个女性，所以她将它发了出来，对吧？但我想说的是，你瞧，数据会显示，在美国和全球的商界，女性要晋升到高级管理层的难度要比男性大太多了。数据也会显示，只要等到她们都开始大赚特赚、小企业纷纷崭露头角的那一天。好的，跟这些有关，我就助她们一臂之力，去访问一下“自我打造.圣诞节网站”吧。 无论如何，好像存在一种观点，我想说，我们有一个人，我想，比如说，像视频通话仍然很重要，我觉得如果我们传递的信息是它不重要了，我们其实并没有。并不是指要从吻老板的戒指的角度来看待视频通话，而是要能够指导人们，使他们在职业生涯中发展，让他们看到他们工作的下一个层面，看到他们在哪里遇到问题，让他们变得更有效率。

I mean, all the percent of people at like most tech companies, do you think are working at two thirds capacity because they're using AI to like get the rest of their work done? You think that's happening? Oh my God, this by the way, this week was the first time I was in a meet a very important work meeting. And somebody in the meeting definitely used AI to generate their work. And I called them out and they said, I'm going to plug South Park. And they said, no, I didn't. And I'm like, next time you lie about using AI for your work, make sure you take out the, the token that says insert venture capital name here in the paragraph of the text at the bottom of the. It's not a problem to use AI and it can accelerate your work. It's just like, are you honest about it? Are you telling? I don't know, like, in how many people are using it?
我在想，各大科技公司中有多少比例的员工你认为在使用AI来完成他们的剩余工作，从而做到完全两三分的工作能力呢？你认为这种情况正在发生吗？呵呵。对了，我这周第一次在一次非常重要的工作会议中，有一个人明显是用AI来完成他们的工作。当我揭穿他时，他竟然大言不惭地说我正在宣传《南方公园》。他还说没偷懒。我回他，下次你谎称没有用AI做工作，确保你先把文字底部那段写着“在这里插入风险投资名称”的代币都删掉。用AI并不是问题，它能加速你的工作。但问题是，你坦诚了吗？你讲实话了吗？我不知道有多少人在用。

It's like, what work do you actually do? Where like, there's like, some of it was like a shirt, like, marginally has this thing. But like, if you have a job where like AI can make you more efficient dramatically, your job is probably stupid. It's under threat for the next two years. But a lot of companies in normal America, Sam, don't even know what AI is right now. I'm going to pull a Sam and say I got a run to the next meeting. So it's over to you, Brett. And, you know, keep it going.
这就像是：你究竟做了什么工作？像一件衬衫一样，边际上有所体现。但是，如果你有一份工作，人工智能能够显著提高你的工作效率，那么可能你的工作就有点愚蠢了。可能在接下来的两年里会面临威胁。在常规的美国公司中，有很多人甚至还不了解人工智能是什么。像萨姆一样，我得去参加下一场会议了。所以，我把接下来的工作交给你了，Brett。继续努力吧。

Okay, I got you. I got you. Stay on everyone. What did it work? Would you say is like real? They're like marketing jobs. Who are they have to write ads? Like I was mentioning before. And now they just use Google's ad product. And they don't have to write out any truth. They're not going to have a job doing that. I know. But like for right now, they're doing it. And they're just like, for three months, five, three months, they can do it. These middle America companies, I think will not catch on to the AI stuff for a year or two.
好的，我明白你的意思。大家别走开。这是在干什么？你认为这是真的吗？这些都像是营销工作。他们需要写广告，就像我之前提到的那样。现在他们只使用Google的广告产品，他们无需叙述任何事实。他们不会从事这项工作。我知道。但是，就目前来说，他们在做这件事。他们就像，能做三个月，五个月，他们就这么做。我认为这些中美的企业，可能要一两年后才能接触到人工智能这个东西。

The analogy that I heard, I heard in an AI event in LA last week. And the analogy that I heard that I really liked was, you know, farmers before they had tractors could only produce so much, you know, the land that they were working could only produce so much output, right? And once the tractor and other agricultural tools became pervasive, the productivity of each piece of land went up dramatically. And so you can look at AI as like a tractor for skilled work. Like most of the work that was displaced or enhanced by the prior era, what to call it web to call it whatever, you know, MySQL databases and, you know, queries and nice user interfaces on top of them was mostly algorithmic unskilled labor work that was enhanced by that. And you could argue, and we've used the analogy of AI being like a calculator for words or whatever you want to call it, it is this new tool that potentially is going to make skilled work dramatically higher output.
我上周在洛杉矶参加的一个AI活动中，听到了一个我很喜欢的类比。这个类比是，你知道，农民们在拥有拖拉机之前，他们只能生产出有限的产量，他们劳作的土地只能产出有限的产量，对吧？而一旦拖拉机和其他农业工具普及开来，每片土地的生产率都会大幅度提升。因此，你可以将AI看作是熟练工作的“拖拉机”。在前一个时代，被淘汰或提升的工作大多数是被(MySQL数据库，查询以及在其顶部的友好用户界面)增强的算法非技术劳动工作。我们曾经用AI作为“文字计算器”的类比来进行论述，无论你想怎么称呼它，这都是一种可能会让熟练工作产出大幅度提升的新工具。

But maybe but not necessarily better at richer, like farmers are not poor, not richer because the tractor like farmers used to be richer, right? Like it was more like it's not like, like the farmering used to be more people obviously employing more people just as you would argue AI, pre AI, like there'd be like more humans doing things, right? And like farmers, like it would mean with the exception of like the people who are the effectively the Microsofts of farming, right, has become like a shit job, right? And so the reality is, yeah, sure, your output is up, but like everyone's output is up and it's competitive market. So actually your income is well, but there was a period of time where those farmers whose output was up before the rest of the farmers probably made bank and could accelerate. For like, for like, oh, that's a hot minute. That's that's, and it's only, it's only ever a faster minute, right? Like, I mean, I just don't think that's like a sustainable thing. I just, it's not, I just think it was going to be the type like, and the reality is, you know, who still works in farm is like strawberry kickers, because it turns out you can't get a fucking machine to do it. And it's like terrible job, but people do do it, right? And so I just think, my basic point is like higher productivity doesn't actually make better jobs, right? It might make, yeah, I guess, Sam, that was like one of the things that I was trying to think about for our prior, our prior, like the conversation we were having earlier in the episode is just this question of, what does 20 years from now look like, right? Like, I was sitting there at that event last week, and many people were coming up to me, asking me if they should, you know, a lot of them are book writers or musicians, and they're all asking like, should I be going home right now and creating a GPT? And I had this like vision of like millions of GPT owners, you know, yours from now. And like, what does that world look like? And I don't think they should be. I think that this is going building loyalty and brand and community, right? Like the GPT, like these things will be so pervasive, there's no value in them, right? Like they're just going to be all, it's like, but the only just like millions of Facebook pages, same thing. You have to have one. It's like the thing where like, it's commodity, but that means you have to have it. So you have to at least start sometime.
但是，未必更富有或者更好，比如农民并不穷，也没有因为拥有拖拉机变得更富有，对吧？以前的农民更像是雇佣更多的人，就像你说的AI之前有更多的人在做事情。除了像微软那样的农业大佬之外，农民的生活逐渐变得艰难了。现在的实际情况是，尽管你的产量增加了，但市场竞争也加剧了，你的收入反而减少了。在此之前，一些农民利用自己的高产量一度获得了暴利并快速积累财富。我并不认为这是可持续的。农民中依然有人在做草莓采摘这样的工作，因为你找不到机器能代替人这项工作。尽管工作很糟糕，但是还是有人愿意去做。因此我的观点就是，提高生产力并不一定能带来更好的工作环境。 这也是我之前跟你谈话时所想的一个问题，即20年后的世界会是什么样？我参加了上周的那个活动，很多人都向我求问他们是否应该去创建一个GPT（生成预训练模型），他们中有很多人是书作者或是音乐人。我设想着未来会有数百万的GPT拥有者，那个世界会是什么样子？我认为这不是办法。要真正取得成功，需要建立品牌忠诚度和社区。像GPT这样的东西将变得普遍，它们本身不再具有价值，但你得拥有一个，这就像你必须有一个Facebook页面一样。所以你最好还是早点开始。

Yeah, but it's just like, I just don't think it's going to matter. Like, I think they'll be everywhere and be noise. And then the reality is people who are like, what the writers should be doing is building a rabid fan base around them and a specific niche that they own, where those people are going to trust them. They're going to like hear from them. They're going to like, care what their choice, like their behavior. I bring that up in the context more of a brand.
是的，不过我只是觉得这可能没什么关系。我认为它们（可能指的是某种事物或产品）会无处不在，成为背景噪音。然后现实情况是，那些像作家一样的人应该在他们周围建立一批狂热的粉丝，并拥有他们自己特定的领域，那些人会信任他们，愿意听他们的建议，关心他们的选择和行为。我把这种情况更多地放在品牌的背景中来讨论。

So I know a brand, it's like a food brand that has like a blog and they're like, people that write for the blog about like all the healthy food things for kids and like all the stuff and they've been able to increase their output from like four articles a week to 10, which is like not that high, but for them it is and through AI. And so, you know, they're just plays. But everyone's going to do that. I know, but I'm just saying there's going to be no dis-inflation. I just don't think they're getting more traffic because of it currently because. For a hot second. Well, it depends on all the other things. Yeah, like Google's algorithm will have to ultimately change, right? Because right now it favors content volume and output. Totally. That's, I mean, it's just there's a lot of things that you can have a hot moment displacement and do fine at, right? If you want to be the guy who races and has puts out 10,000 articles, another 10 and like edits them just enough that they think it's not AI's and then they rank you out. There are games to play, but from a fundamental perspective, like you're not going to win a content war when content is free, right?
所以，我知道一个品牌，它是一种食品品牌，有自己的博客，有人为博客写关于儿童健康食品的文章，并且他们已经通过AI的帮助，将每周的文章产量从四篇提高到了十篇。虽然数量不算多，但对他们来说已经是一个飞跃了。并且，这种做法将成为主流。我知道所有人都会这么做，但我认为，目前他们因为这样做并没有获得更多的流量。就像热度一样，这很受其他因素影响，比如Google的算法最终会改变，因为现在他们更倾向于那些内容量和产出大的网站。这只是暂时现象，你如果想站在这个行业的顶端，比如，你要发布一万篇文章，比别人多出很多，并且只需编辑一下让人们认为这些文章并非由AI生成，那么你可能就会排名上升。但从基本面来看，当内容变得免费时，你是无法赢得内容战争的。

Like, you know, and like as a result, like the reality is like that is a tactic, not a long term strategy. I think you have to prepare yourself for a world where like there's just pervasive content everywhere. There's pervasive GPTs everywhere. And it's as a result, completely worthless to act. It's like table stakes. Like maybe you have to do it, but you're never going to make it more. That's more about where you rank though in the Google search results, which is like the key source of traffic for. If that matters, but like right now it does, like that's the number one source of traffic for most brands. But that is like a very, as we know, rigged the game that if you're entirely put differently, it's like a buzzfeed, right? Like they played a game for 10 years. It was all about effectively ranking, feed ranking, and then who did that? There's not a durable business model. Like you're always one click away from getting swiped when the algorithm changes.
像是，你知道，结果就是，真实情况是这样的，那只是一个策略，而不是一个长期的策略。我认为你必须为一个充满无处不在的内容的世界做好准备，其中到处都是GPT。结果就是，去行动完全没有价值，这就像是入场的基本门槛。可能你必须去做，但你永远不会因此多得了什么。这更多的是关于你在Google搜索结果中的排名，这是最主要的流量来源。如果那重要的话，但目前它是，那是大多数品牌的第一大流量来源。但那就像是一个我们知道的被操控的游戏，如果你用另一种方式来描述，这就像Buzzfeed，对吧？他们玩了10年的游戏，全是关于有效的排名和信息源排名，然后是谁做到了那样？那不是一个持久的商业模型。你总是在算法改变时，离被淘汰只有一步之遥。

Yeah, I know. But like all recipes and like others, there's so many sites on the internet. There's a well, there are real businesses like there's a there's okay, this face gym business, right? Like who if they rank high and SEO, like what? That's a franchise that Sam and I are going to go and ask for a new contract. The future of the franchise of that is like someone being like, okay, like I learned how to do this face thing. And it's super cool. And I'm going to like go into my community and build human relationships with the customers and all the people are going to love me at the school and they're all going to come to my face thing. And the reality is, it's like there's a thousand other face things, but I'm the person they want to work with. It's brand. It's not about like ranking high and SEO because it's just I'm not saying it's not about the community and brand element. I'm just saying SEO is a big part of it for a lot of brands right now.
是的，我知道。但像所有的食谱一样，也像其他的东西，在互联网上有很多网站。实际上，有些是真正的业务，比如有一家脸部健身的企业，对吧？如果他们在搜索引擎优化（SEO）中排名高，那么？那就是Sam和我将要去申请新合约的连锁店。这个连锁店的未来就像有人说："行，我学会了这个脸部东西，真的很酷。我要去我的社区，和客户建立人际关系，所有的人都会在学校里爱我，他们都会来参加我的脸部活动。"实际上，有一千其他的类似事物，但是我就是他们想要合作的人。这是品牌的力量。这并不仅仅是关于在搜索引擎优化中排名高，因为我并不是说社区和品牌元素无关。我只是说，对于很多品牌来说，搜索引擎优化现在是很重要的一部分。

And like if you I just I let's find I just think if you're going to take that approach, just understand that it's not a strategy as a tactic and you shouldn't expect it to last, right? So like if you're going to like go out and like, you know, rely on these things like you should not build your brand with the expectation it'll be there tomorrow. And I think any brand that's built on a content strategy, which is based on ranking, just has to understand it like they're one second away from getting wiped out. And again, I'm not saying it's a hundred percent based on the content strategy. I'm saying that that strategy is is a tactic to your point that helps them in one way, you know, get the word out about who they are and attract traffic to their website, etc, etc.
如果你要采取这种方法，只需明白这不是一种策略，而是一种战术，你不应该期望它能持久的。比如说，如果你要去进行各种尝试，依赖这些战术去建立你的品牌，你不应该期望它明天就可以有成果。我认为任何基于内容策略去建立的品牌都要明白，他们随时可能会被淘汰。再说一遍，我并不是说完全依赖内容策略，我是说，这种策略是一种战术，正如你所说的，它在某种程度上帮助他们传播品牌信息，吸引流量到他们的网站等等。

And so I guess like one of the things that this is making me think is, are we going to see a chart in 10 years that basically shows the rise of bots and then the downfall of social media, you know? And I know this is sort of a like, will the voices mostly be bots and the social media, you know, like, this is I mean, I remember a piece about this a while ago about how like you think about the history of social media, the real story is it just entertainment, right? Yeah, it's just content. Yeah.
所以我想，一个我正在思考的问题是，我们是否会在十年后看到一个图表，基本上显示出机器人的崛起以及社交媒体的衰落？你知道吗？我知道这是一个类似的问题，社交媒体的声音将主要是机器人的声音吗？这个想法，我记得我很久以前就读过一篇关于这个话题的文章，那时你会如何考虑社交媒体的历史，它的真正故事只是娱乐，对吧？对，它只是内容。是的。

If you think about like, your friends were more entertaining than people magazine, right? That's why early social one, because it turns out like you magazines pretty bland and boring. Professional influencers are actually more entertaining than your friends because they're like fucking hotter in professionals. So like, they know they're professionals at being your friends. They're professional. Swift is the best parasocial, you know, relationship. And then after that, the question is what beats the Kardashians, right? I thought this like a year ago and the answer is in theory, it should be personalized bots, right? Where like, I'd actually rather chat effectively with myself, right, than I would like in some like through an AI voice, right? Like, that I would because they can be personalized and like super, you know, deeply and now so I think that actually like is the right direction is to think about like the entertainment part of the future is going to be all bots and be super weird, right?
如果你深思一下，会发现你的朋友们比《人物》杂志更富有娱乐性，对吧？这就是为什么早期的社交软件能一鸣惊人，因为你会发现像《人物》杂志这样的东西其实相当平淡无奇且乏味。专业的网红实际上比你的朋友们更有娱乐性，因为他们更加迷人，而且是专业人士。就像是，他们知道自己是你的“专业朋友”。他们就像是专业的。斯威夫特是最好的假想社交关系。然后在此之后，这个问题就是，有什么能超过卡戴珊，对吧？一个年前我就有过这种想法，答案应该是个性化的机器人，对吧？像，我更愿意和我自己实际上聊天，对吧，而非通过人工智能的声音聊天，对吧，因为它们可以个性化到非常深入的层次。所以我认为这才是正确的方向，想象一下未来的娱乐都将由机器人来完成将会有多么奇特，对吧？

I mean, people like, there's a great old science fiction movie where these people fall in love with their own memories and they get addicted to them and they're like wandering around in the desert and they're like stuck in their, effectively with phones. This is being corona. Sam, that's not a science fiction movie. That's most people's traumas. Yeah. So like that is like that I think is the question is like, is that moderated by a bot is like really like it is narcissist all over again, right? And like the ultimate winner over influencers is going to be some weird reflected version of yourself that you're going to get deeply obsessed with. And like that's who you're going to hang out with, right?
我的意思是，有很多人就像那部经典的科幻电影中的角色，他们深陷于对自己回忆的痴迷并对此上瘾。他们就像在沙漠中徘徊，像是被手机困在了自己的世界里。这就是新冠病毒期间的生活状态。不过Sam，你说的这不是科幻电影，而是大部分人的创伤经历。我想，问题是，如果这种状态被一个机器人所调解的话，那么真的就像重现了纳西斯的故事，对吧？终极的影响力不再由网络红人拥有，而是被那个你深深魅入的你自己的镜像所取代。那就是你将会花时间相处的对象，对吧？

Well, I had this like weird question after I built this GPT for us, which is, you know, is it is like the future going to be this weird future where when I go to talk to you, Sam, and you're not available over text, like your bot just starts talking to me. And then I'm talking to like the bot version of you. And the bot version of you will talk to me about things that you like, maybe you're uncomfortable talking to me about, but do it as you and like this like, like, what? I think and I think the answer is what's your goal? The goal is entertainment or like something absolutely, you know what I mean? Like, you know, I think like the whole like, oh, I can like revive dead relatives and talk to them will be super like entertaining or reflective. It is actually a real thing, right? But my voice said, but it's not going to be informational, right? It's like the thing that that doesn't give you that like real human networks gives you is like acts it can give you only content that can't give you like, you access capital or like access, you know, social capital or like there's like a whole economy of communication that I think that doesn't work for an action in the real world.
嗯，我在为我们构建了这个GPT后，我开始思考一个奇怪的问题。那就是，未来会不会变成这样一种奇怪的局面，当我想要和你，山姆，通过文字聊天，而你并不在线，于是你的机器人就开始和我对话。然后我就开始和机器人版的你聊天。机器人版的你会和我谈论一些你可能不太愿意亲自和我谈论的事情，而且还是以你的语气，这太奇怪了，你知道吗？ 我想，答案也许取决于你的目标。如果目的仅仅是娱乐或者类似的事情，那么这没问题，对吧？我想可能有些人会觉得这样‘像是能和已故的亲人再次对话’会很有趣或者能引发人深思。这当然是真实的情况，但我的观点是，它不会带来实质的信息价值。这种技术不能给你带来实际的人际联系，它只能给你提供内容，不能帮助你获取资本或者社会资本等。在实际的沟通经济中，我认为这种技术对于实际行动的引导作用是有限的。

But again, like it is interesting because the reality is the dream of social networking with the internet can do is really quite fractured into like the stuff that's actually finished financial social capital, like real actual exchange of human value, and then just entertainment and the entertainment is way easier to think about and easier to monetize, right? So we think more about that. I think the question is what's happening in messengers is happening in groups and communities. That's actually where economic value is, right? To me say like what happens with these bots and the bots in the content wipes out all the entertainment stuff. Like that's just going to be noise and like it's like maybe it's an acquisition strategy, but it's not a business. All the business has to be on the what's capital rich, and I think that will be small businesses and communities and relationships and things like that, right?
但另一方面，这其实很有趣，因为这种借助互联网营造的社交网络的愿景的实际情况，其实是被分离为了两部分：一部分是真正完成的金融社交资本，也就是真正的人类价值交换；另一部分则是娱乐，而娱乐显然更容易被理解并变现，对吧？因此我们对此有更深入的思考。我想，问题是在聊天软件、群组和社区中正在发生的事情。经济价值实际上就隐藏在这些地方，对吧？我会说，这些机器人以及涌现出的内容将会把所有的娱乐事物全都冲淡。像这样的东西可能只是一种收购策略，而并非真正的生意。所有的商业活动必须基于资本丰富的部分，我认为这将是小企业、社区以及各种关系等等。

See, that's a way more interesting version of this conversation, I think, which is I've been thinking about this dichotomy as being like there's like the there's the story or the content maxis, like the people who believe that the story or the content is the thing that matters. And then the other side is like the people maxis or the network maxis and that like largely where social media and the internet has gone is into this story world where like all the priorities on content, content ranking, story ranking, produce more story, and we've kind of lost the, you know, social graph or people side of the equation.
我看，这个谈话的更有趣的版本应该是，我一直在思考这个二元对立，就像是，有些人是故事或内容至上主义者，他们认为故事或内容才是最重要的。而另一边则是人际网络至上主义者，就像是在社交媒体和互联网中，我们已经进入了一个所有优先级都放在内容上的世界，如内容排序，故事排序，制作更多故事，我们却在某种程度上失去了社交图谱或人际关系这部分的考虑。

And like that's where all the value is. And I think that totally what I just heard from you is really powerful that SMB is actually the, is like the buzzword way to talk about what we're talking about. But the real way to talk about what we're talking about is how do you build really dense networks of value around a small business that, you know, people can then have a capitalistic enterprise and have a really vibrant sort of, you know, business operation. I think it's a super cool way to think about elevating it. And like as we and I both know, I mean, like, I think one of the disappointments of the last 20 years on the internet is because it was super easy to measure engagement, right? And attention and monetize it. A lot of the interesting things around human capital and networks, right? Kind of faded to the background and favor like the button that was easy to hit, right? And the button that was easy to hit was just engagement and money and entertainment. And that's fine. It was just like obsession like that. But it's like, that stuff is all like kind of bullshit. It's vapid. And the point is, it's like, it gets competed to zero, right? Like, there's no sustainability to that, right? Where they do think this network stuff is really where value, I think I love your task. It's also cool. It's worthwhile. I'm like, super interested in vertical creators that build those communities and their niches. And like, people love them and care about them. I'm much less interested in generic influencers. And that's everything from the Kardashians to like, Mr. Beast, I get, I totally get it. Lots of distribution better than I just don't think it's durable, right? Because all it is is content, right? And like, that is ultimately very replaceable.
就像这就是所有价值的所在。我完全认同你刚刚说的，那真的很有力量。中小企业实际上就是我们正在谈论的东西，像流行词方式来谈论这个问题。但是真正谈论这个问题的方式是如何在一个小企业周围构建真正密集的价值网络，人们可以在其中建立资本主义企业，拥有一个充满活力的业务运营。我认为这是一个超级酷的方式来思考提升它。就像我们我都知道的，我觉得互联网上过去20年的一个失望就是，因为测量用户参与度、关注度和实现盈利超级容易，使得人力资本和网络这些有趣的东西渐渐消失在后面，而更多的是像容易点击的按钮，这种按钮就是用户参与度、金钱和娱乐。这没什么问题，只是像那样沉迷，但是实际上这些都是一种空洞、无聊的表现。关键是，这些最后都会被竞争到零，没有可持续性。我认为这个网络的东西真的是价值所在，我很喜欢你的任务，也很酷，值得去做。我对那些在自己所在领域构建社区的创作者特别感兴趣，人们热爱他们，关心他们。我对普通的影响者不太感兴趣，从卡戴珊家族到Mr. Beast，我完全明白，分发比我好，我只是不认为这能持久，因为这些都只是内容，最终都是可以被替代的。

Yeah, I think it's easy to hear what you're saying and what we've been talking about over several episodes as like that niche creator is just creating content and they're creating story. And if you're in a, if you're a story-centric thinker, a story maxi, like you can hear what you're saying in that way rather than hearing the other thing, which is that actually it's the community of people really focused on this area that is the real value. And I think that's like a, it's kind of a subtle thing to tease apart to understand about this.
是的，我认为你所说的很好理解，我们在过去的几集里一直在谈论，那就是那些独特的创作者只是在创作内容、在讲述故事。如果你是一个以故事为中心的思考者，比如你是一个故事迷，你可以从这个角度理解你所说的，而不是去听别的，即实际上，真正有价值的是那些真正专注于这一区域的人们形成的社区。我认为这是一种细微的、需要理解的事情。

Because I think if you're just thinking about story, like AI and all this stuff is just going to like infinitely generate stuff in that realm. And it won't in the network connectivity community side.
因为我认为，如果你只是思考故事，像AI和所有这些东西就会在那个领域无限地生成东西。但在网络连接社区方面就做不到这点。

Yeah, and I also, yeah, I'm going to, I got to play the moderator real sorry, just stepped out. But I think, I think this was like a good land. I like, I feel like we came full circle here. We started. Did Sam have a final point? He seemed like to express that.
是的，同时我还要，我打算，我得扮演一下主持人，真不好意思，刚才有点走神。但我觉得，我觉得这是一个很好的谈话结果。我觉得我们刚才的讨论恰好走了一个完整的圆。我们从何处开始的？是不是萨姆有最后一个要点？他好像有什么要表达的。

No, I was just saying, this is fun. I mean, this is why I like doing this with you guys because I feel like we get on and talk about some stuff and end up actually getting to like better encapsulations of our own thinking. So thanks for coming on the journey with us more or less listeners. And don't, and don't build fucking content farms. You're going to lose all your money.
不，我只是想说，这很有趣。我的意思是，这就是我喜欢和你们一起做这件事的原因，因为我觉得我们能够讨论一些问题，最终实际上能够更好地概括我们的思考。所以，谢谢各位听众跟我们一起踏上这个旅程。还有，别去建立那些所谓的内容农场，你会损失精神和财产的。

Yeah, I think that, but small businesses and creators will succeed if you don't build content businesses. I think that's the encapsulation building network. And if you're going to do content, just understand it's like a three-month game. You're fucked. Like use it while it's hot. Get over it.
是的，我是这么认为的。但是如果你不创建内容业务，那么小企业和创作者将会成功。我认为这就是构建网络的包装。如果你打算做内容，就要明白这只是一个三个月的游戏，你就完蛋了。在它火热的时候多利用利用，然后就忘记它吧。

Yeah. Use it while it's hot. Build community. Don't be in any. Thank you guys.
是的。趁热打铁，建设社区。不要待在其中。谢谢你们。

Next week, by the way, everybody, we have a special episode coming to you the day before Thanksgiving or the day after Thanksgiving because it's Thanksgiving week. So stay tuned for that episode. What is it? I don't know. I see. We have prerecorded an interview with a couple of special guests. It was it was the men weren't there. Sorry about that. It's it's a female interviewee, actually two of them on the episode. And it is really, really interesting. That just means you and I need to find two white men.
顺便说一下，各位，下周我们有一个特别的节目会在感恩节前一天或者感恩节后的一天与大家见面，因为那是感恩周。所以请大家关注那一期的节目。那是什么内容？我也不清楚。我明白了。我们事先录制了一段访谈，邀请了几位特别的嘉宾。真遗憾，男性嘉宾没有出现。对此我深感抱歉。实际上，在节目中是两位女性受访者。这个采访真的非常有趣。这也意味着你我需要去寻找两位白人男性。

But we are grateful and the spirit. We possibly find two. In the spirit of Thanksgiving. We are grateful for our audience who's come with us on this journey and who continues to listen. So please rate, review, share this, especially share this episode with others that you know in the small business zone because hopefully it'll help them think through some of their tactics. And we love hearing from you guys. I heard last week so many people came up to me and were referencing different conversations and every time that you do, whether it's a text message or a you know a phone call or coming up to us anywhere, it's just it helps make you better.
但是我们心怀感激，充满动力，我们可能找到了两者。在感恩的精神下，我们感谢所有陪伴我们一同踏上这趟旅程、并且持续聆听的听众。所以请给予评价，写下评论，分享这个内容，特别是与你们认识的小企业圈里的人分享这一集，希望它能帮助他们思考一些策略。我们非常喜欢听到你们的反馈。上周有很多人找到我，和我提到不同的对话，每次你们这样做，无论是通过短信、电话，还是直接上前找我们谈，都会帮助我们变得更好。

Can we share a GPT with them? How are we going to do that? And our show notes? Okay, check that out. We're just make sure we call it email address because this content we need like we need to we got to leverage our content while it lasts, Dave. Okay. All right.
我们可以和他们分享GPT吗？我们要如何做呢？还有我们的节目笔记呢？好的，检查一下。我们只是确保我们称其为电子邮件地址，因为我们需要这样的内容，我们必须在内容还有效的时候利用好，Dave。好的，明白了。

Yeah. Go ahead, Sam. Bye.
好的。你继续，山姆。再见。

If you enjoyed this show, please leave us a virtual high five by rating it and reviewing it on Apple podcast, Spotify, YouTube, or wherever you get your podcast. Find more information about each episode in the show notes and follow us on social media by searching for at more or less at Dave Moran at lesson at J lesson. And as for me, I'm at Britt. See you guys next time.
如果你喜欢这期节目，记得在苹果播客、Spotify、YouTube或者你的固定收听平台，给我们留下评价和评论，就像给我们网路上的一个五拇指鼓励。你可以在节目说明里找到每集的更多信息，只要在社交媒体上搜索@moreorless @DaveMoran @lesson @Jlesson，你就能关注到我们。至于我，我是@Britt。我们下回节目再见吧。