E169: Elon sues OpenAI, Apple's decline, TikTok ban, Bitcoin $100K?, Science corner: Microplastics

What are you giggling with you with your kids what's going on here you're making good night i got a message from now no i tell me no no i got a message from that she's so funny so you know i was like. Blah blah blah she did a little rainous joke into. I lost it like a free but i go it says that your name is a right there at the edge of the she's like are you hungry i could eat your rain is. All naw a great rest cotton a high bullets can All right, everybody. Welcome back to your favorite podcast of all time. It's episode 169 of All In with me again, the chairman dictator, Chamoc Polyapatia, David Freberg, your Sultan of science and the rain man. Yeah, definitely David Sachs has his Montclair hat back again. I guess they're back in stock. How we doing boys? Welcome back to the show. Let's get to the docket here. Issue one, Elon has sued open AI, begun the meme wars have after we finished the recording last week. The memes are incredible. After we finished recording last week, Elon sued Sam Waltman, Greg Brockman in the open AI organization. He's suing for breach of contract, fiduciary duty and unfair competition. And his argument is basically open AI started as an open source nonprofit.

你在和你的孩子一起傻笑什么事情发生了？你在搞什么好莱坞行为？我刚刚收到了一条消息现在。不，告诉我。我刚刚收到了一条消息，她真的很有趣，你知道我就像嘘嘘嘘，她开了一个小玩笑。我笑得不行了，但是我发现她写的字真的好，就在那个边缘。她问我饿不饿，说她可以吃了我的雨。不，不，不，没有那么好，在下一次高潮的时候。好了，大家。欢迎回到你们最喜欢的播客节目，这是第169集的《全力以赴》，我是你们的主席独裁者，查莫克·波利帕特亚，大卫·弗雷伯格，你们的科学苏丹和雨人。是的，绝对是的，大卫·萨克斯又戴上了他的蒙克莱帽子。我猜他们现货补充了。你们好吗？欢迎回到节目。让我们来看一看议程。第一项议题，埃隆起诉开放人工智能，开启了谣言战争之后我们上周录制完节目后，谣言简直令人难以置信。埃隆起诉了萨姆·瓦尔曼、格里格·布罗克曼和开放人工智能组织。他起诉他们违约、违反信托责任和不正当竞争。他的论点基本上是，开放人工智能最初是一个开源非营利组织。

As you know, he gave them something like 50 or 75 million of both those numbers quoted. And then of course, everybody knows opening eye turned into closed AI. They became a closed source for profit venture after the tech was deployed. This enabled them obviously to benefit from tax non profit tax breaks while building the tech, but they now have two corporate entities. This is non-profit called open AI. There's a for profit. It's called open AI global LLC. That was created in 2019. And there's all this funky relationship between the two. We'll get into that because it's kind of interesting actually. Elon said that if open AI is allowed to do this, then it should be the standard for every company going forward. That's an interesting point.

正如你所知道的，他给了他们大约50或75亿美元的两个数字中的一种。然后当然，大家都知道，开放眼睛变成了封闭AI。技术部署后，他们变成了一个以盈利为目的的封闭资源企业。这显然使他们在构建技术的过程中获益于非盈利税收优惠，但他们现在有两个公司实体。一个是非盈利的，叫做开放AI。另一个是盈利的，叫做开放AI全球有限责任公司。这是2019年创建的。这两者之间存在一些奇怪的关系。我们会详细介绍，因为实际上是很有趣的。埃隆表示，如果允许开放AI这样做，那么这应该成为未来每家公司的标准。这是一个有趣的观点。

You can start by donating money to a nonprofit and then make a for profit. It seems pretty capital efficient. So what does Elon want to get out of this? According to the lawsuit, he wants opening eye to open source their models. By the way, that's what Facebook and Apple are doing right now. So that seems more than reasonable since that's how the company was formed. He wants to make sure that shareholders receive no financial benefit from open AI. And we can get more into a bunch of the open AI nonprofit status and their structure. It's super convoluted. But I want to just get your initial reaction. Sacks. I haven't read the legal filings, Jason. My knowledge of the case is just coming from following what's on Twitter. And the last time I commented on one of Elon's lawsuits on this pod, I ended up in six hours of deposition. So remember that was the whole Twitter lawsuit at any event. My understanding of the case from the tweets that are flying back and forth is I think Elon is making two points. One is that when open AI was set up, it was set up to be a nonprofit and to promote AI as an open source technology that everyone could benefit from. And no one large tech company would control. In that case, Elon was primarily concerned about Google. I think now he's more concerned about Microsoft. Nonetheless, the idea was that this would be open source. So I think point number one is Elon feels like the rug was pulled out from under him after he donated 40 something million dollars to this. They completely changed what it was going to be. And I think he's used the word swindled before he feels like he was cheated.

你可以先捐钱给一个非营利组织，然后再创办一个盈利机构。听起来非常资本高效。那么埃隆想从中得到什么？根据诉讼，他想让开放AI公开他们的模型。顺便说一句，这正是Facebook和Apple现在正在做的。因此，这似乎更加合理，因为这就是公司成立的方式。他想确保股东从开放AI中获得的没有任何财务利益。我们可以深入了解一些开放AI非营利机构的地位和结构。这一切都非常复杂。但我只想听听你的初步反应，Sacks。我还没有阅读法律文件，Jason。我对这个案件的了解仅仅来源于关注Twitter上的内容。上次我在这个节目上评论埃隆的诉讼时，最后我被传讯了六个小时。所以记得那是整个Twitter诉讼的事。无论如何，根据来回飞掠的推文，我认为埃隆正在提出两点看法。首先是，当开放AI成立时，它被设置为一个非营利性机构，旨在推广人人受益的开放源技术，并且不受任何大型科技公司控制。在那种情况下，埃隆主要担心的是谷歌。我认为现在他更担心微软。尽管如此，这个想法是开放源的。所以我认为第一点是埃隆认为在他捐赠了4千多万美元后，他的捐款已被剥夺，他们完全改变了原来的设想。我认为他已经用过 "被欺骗 "这个词，他觉得自己被骗了。

And I think usually when there's a lawsuit like this, it's usually because somebody does feel fundamentally cheated by what happened. So I think that's the first point. The second is that I think that Elon's making is, well, wait a second, if you can start a company as a nonprofit using pre-tax dollars and then all of a sudden convert to for profit, then why wouldn't everybody do this in order to circumvent paying taxes? And I think that's another, I'd say valid, interesting point that he's made. Now, OpenAI has responded to this by publishing some of Elon's emails to them. And they think that they have a smoking gun here because apparently, Elon told them they need to raise far more money in order to have a chance of taking on Google slash DeepMind. I just don't know whether that's the smoking gun they claim it is, but that's basically what they're putting out there.

我认为通常类似这样的诉讼，通常是因为某人对所发生的事情感到基本上受骗。所以我觉得这是第一点。第二点是，我认为埃隆提出的是，等一下，如果你可以使用税前资金成立一个非营利性公司，然后突然转为营利性公司，那么为什么其他人不会为了规避纳税而这样做呢？我认为这是另一个，我会说是合理的，有趣的观点。现在，OpenAI已经回应了这一点，通过公布了埃隆给他们的一些电子邮件。他们认为他们有了一把明显的证据，因为显然，埃隆告诉他们他们需要筹集更多的资金才能有机会挑战谷歌/DeepMind。我不知道这是否是他们声称的那样有力的证据，但基本上这就是他们发布的内容。

And then to add fuel to the fire, you've got VCs coming over the top debating different aspects of this. You've got sort of a node defending OpenAI. He was the first VC investor in it. And so he's been out there attacking Elon. And then I think Mark Andreessen is responding to the node and maybe I'm not, I don't know if he's exactly defending Elon. Anyway, it's turned into a whole maelstrom on X and then everyone else is starting to put out a whole bunch of crazy memes. So I don't know who's going to win this case in court, but the memes are definitely lit. And maybe the funniest one is that Elon has said that if OpenAI was simply changed their name to closed AI, he'll drop the lawsuit. I think he's serious about that. I think he is serious about it. But I think he's making his point, which is you ended up doing something different than what you told me when you got me to write this big donation and when we co-founded this thing together. So I think that sort of sums up Elon's position on this. Jamaf, a year from now, where do you think we'll be with this?

然后火上加油的是，风投也参与进来，就这个问题展开辩论。有一个节点在为OpenAI辩护。他是最早的风投投资者。所以他一直在攻击埃隆。然后我觉得马克·安德森在回应这个节点，也许并不完全是为了保护埃隆。总之，这个问题已经演变成了一场围绕X的风暴，其他人也开始发布了大量疯狂的网络迷因。所以我不知道法庭上谁会赢得这场案件，但这些网络迷因肯定很火爆。也许最搞笑的是，埃隆说如果OpenAI简单地改名为closed AI，他会撤销诉讼。我觉得他是认真的。我认为他是认真的。但我认为他是在表达他的立场，即当初你们让我捐款和共同创立这个机构时，做的事情和你们告诉我的不一样。所以我认为这基本上总结了埃隆在这个问题上的立场。贾马夫，明年这个问题将发展到何种程度？

Well, I think there's one more thing, which is that they used his name pretty aggressively to get more money. And he was very instrumental in getting some of the early critical hires, particularly Iliya, which has been, I think, well documented, so it's clever to leave Google, right? So that's probably Saks where also some of this feeling that he was bamboozled comes from. But I think that all of those emotions matter less than the rule of law, which is his second point, which is the important point. Irrespective of whatever one email says or another email, it's not great for the US tax system if all of a sudden a big gaping loophole is identified and taken advantage of. There's a huge economic incentive for the state of California, every other state where these open AI employees lived and have gotten equity and now have gotten paid.

我认为还有一件事情，就是他们相当穷迫地使用了他的名字来获得更多的钱。他在起初的关键聘用中起了很大作用，特别是在Iliya这个人身上，这已经被充分记录了，所以离开谷歌是明智之举，对吧？这可能也是他感觉受骗的来源之一。但我认为所有这些情绪都不如法律的规定重要，这是他的第二点，也是重要的一点。无论一个电子邮件说了些什么，另一个电子邮件又反驳了些什么，如果突然发现并利用了一个巨大的漏洞对美国的税制不利，这是不好的。加州政府，以及这些开放AI员工所居住的其他州，他们获得了股权，现在得到了报酬，都存在巨大的经济动机。

There's an incentive for Treasury. There's an incentive for the IRS. It touches a lot of aspects of very complicated tax law. And so I think that's why there will be a resolution to this case, because I think that that answer is very important. And I think it will, as he has correctly identified, motivate a lot of people's actions going forward. So independent of what the emotional situation is amongst all the actors in this play, the reality is he's identified a loophole and that loophole needs to get fixed. I'll give you a different example of this. That's much more benign, but it dragged on for eight or nine years at Facebook. There's a period where, and this was public, so I can tell you, we transferred a lot of our IP to Ireland at one moment and there was a transfer payment and whatnot. And then a few years afterwards, when everybody realized, including us, and we had miscalculated, but when everybody realized the value of Facebook, that transfer payment did not seem correct. And it was a huge tax arb that we had facilitated, right? Because all of that IP sitting inside of Ireland gets taxed at a very different rate than that IP would have gotten taxed in the United States. And other companies had copied this. Long story short, the IRS sued. Similar to you, David, I was in years of depositions and interviews and all of this stuff. So the point is that the government really cares about these kinds of things because so much money is on the line. If OpenAI turns out to be this multi-hundred billion dollar behemoth, this will get figured out in court because there's just too much money in stake. Free work, any thoughts and maybe still, man, if you feel like it, open our eyes position? I think we're all ignoring the documents that OpenAI put out yesterday showing emails and interactions with Elon, where Elon acknowledged and recognized the necessity of having a for-profit subsidiary that could pursue the interests of the foundation by raising billions of dollars of outside capital. I think it's a really interesting set of facts that provides a different light on the story. And it was really important that OpenAI released it. I'm going to share a.

财政部有动机，税务局也有动机。它涉及到非常复杂的税法的许多方面。所以我认为这个案件会有解决的办法，因为我认为得到这个答案非常重要。而且正如他所正确指出的那样，这将激励很多人未来的行动。所以独立于这个剧中所有演员的情感状况是什么，事实是他已经发现了一个漏洞，这个漏洞需要修复。我给你举一个不同的例子，更加温和的例子，但在Facebook公司拖延了八到九年。有一个时期，这是公开的，所以我可以告诉你，我们把很多IP转移到爱尔兰的某个时间点，有一笔转移支付等等。然后几年后，当每个人都意识到了Facebook的价值，包括我们在内，我们当时算错了，但当每个人都意识到Facebook的价值，那笔转移支付看起来就是不正确的。这是我们促成的一个巨大的税收仲裁，因为在爱尔兰境内的所有那些IP被征税的速率和那些IP在美国被征税的速率是非常不同的。其他公司也效仿了这种做法。长话短说，税务局起诉了我们。跟你差不多，David，我经历了数年的证词和采访和种种事情。所以要点就是政府真的很在意这样的事情，因为牵涉到几百亿美元的资金。如果OpenAI最终成为这个价值数百亿美元的巨头，这将在法庭上解决，因为牵涉的资金太多。任何想法或者外部看法吗？我想我们都忽略了OpenAI昨天公布的文件，显示埃隆（马斯克）的电子邮件和互动，埃隆承认和认识到拥有一个可以追求基金会利益的营利子公司的必要性，通过筹集数十亿美元的外部资金。我认为这是一组非常有趣的事实，为这个故事提供了不同的视角。OpenAI发表这些文件非常重要。我想分享一下。

Well, but, but, well, hold on, if you were, I didn't mention that. Freeberg, I mentioned that too. My point is it doesn't allow you to break the law. Yeah. So let me just tell you guys a little bit about another example. My sister works at a nonprofit called the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation. Cystic Fibrosis is an inherited disorder, affects the lungs and digestive tract. It's debilitating, really affects children. There was a nonprofit called the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation established in 1955. They did tons of work on drug development research, and it was a nonprofit for years until they realized that there needed to be a market-based system to create the necessary incentives to drive the capital needed to find a drug that could cure Cystic Fibrosis.

嗯，不过，但是，等等，如果你是的话，我没有提到那个。弗里伯格，我也提到过。我的观点是它不能让你违法。是的。所以让我来告诉你们另一个例子。我的姐姐在一个名为囊性纤维化基金会的非营利机构工作。囊性纤维化是一种遗传性疾病，影响肺部和消化道。这种疾病很具破坏力，对儿童影响很大。1955年成立了一个名为囊性纤维化基金会的非营利机构。他们在药物开发研究方面做了大量工作，多年来一直是个非营利机构，直到意识到需要一个基于市场的系统来创造必要的激励措施，推动所需资金来寻找一种可以治愈囊性纤维化的药物。

And in the year 2000, they invested out of their foundation and diamond $40 million in a company called Aurora Biosciences. Subsequently, it was acquired by Vertex, and they continued to invest another $60 million with a total of $100 million in the lifetime of the development of a drug that could cure this disease. In 2005, a drug was discovered, and in 2012, the FDA approved it. The nonprofit then sold their rights, their interest in this for-profit entity for $3.3 billion. It was an incredible return. It was the largest investment return by a nonprofit in history. Who do they sell it to back to the company?

在2000年，他们从基金会和钻石中投资了4000万美元在一家名为奥罗拉生物科学的公司。随后，这家公司被维特克斯收购，他们继续投资了额外的6000万美元，总计在研发一种可以治愈这种疾病的药物的过程中投资了1亿美元。2005年，一种药物被发现，2012年，FDA批准了它。之后，这家非营利组织以33亿美元的价格出售了他们在这家盈利实体中的权益。这是一个难以置信的回报。这是历史上非营利组织最大的投资回报。他们将这些权益卖给了哪家公司？

I actually think they sold the rights to royalty pharma who you and I know well. That $3.3 billion is a continued opened up disability for them to continue to make investments. They now fund biotech VCs, and they make direct investments and other things. But it really set the benchmark for this concept of what's called venture philanthropy, where a nonprofit parent company can make investments in for-profits that can raise additional capital that's needed to pursue the broad, difficult interests of the nonprofit. And I think that this argument really kind of ties into what happened with OpenAI, and you can see it in the email exchanges with Elon, where he was so prescient that I give Elon extraordinary credit for this, that he saw that this is going to take billions of dollars a year of investment to realize the pursuit that OpenAI was going after.

我实际上认为他们将权利出售给了我们都很熟悉的皇家制药公司。那33亿美元是他们继续进行投资的一种持续性来源。他们现在资助生物技术风险投资公司，并进行直接投资和其他投资。但这确实为所谓的风险慈善概念设定了基准，即非营利母公司可以投资于营利性公司，这样可以筹集额外所需的资本，以追求非营利组织的广泛利益。我认为这个论点确实与OpenAI发生的事情联系在一起，你可以在埃隆的电子邮件往来中看到，他非常有远见，我要为他给予极大的赞扬，他看到这需要每年数十亿美元的投资才能实现OpenAI追求的目标。

And there was no way that Elon was going to be able to generate that cash himself, or that read, or others were going to just be able to pony up that money. They needed to have some sort of for-profit vehicle that would allow the market to work and allow capitalists to find their capital into this organization to make this investment interest. I think the real question with respect to OpenAI and trouble as a foundation is, does the nonprofit own a meaningful piece of the for-profit entity? I don't know the answer to that. I don't know if you guys do. Sounds like it. I mean, yeah, it must.

而埃隆不可能自己产生这笔现金，也不可能获取这笔钱，其他人也不可能轻松拿出这笔钱。他们需要一种营利性的车辆，让市场发挥作用，让资本家投入这个组织中，使这项投资变得有利可图。关于OpenAI和作为一家基金会的麻烦，真正的问题是，非营利机构是否拥有营利实体的重要股份？我不知道答案。我不知道你们是否知道。听起来好像是这样。是的，一定是的。

Right? So if they do, then they have an investment interest. The second question is, does the nonprofit parent still do charitable stuff? Because if it doesn't, then there's a real question on the nonprofit status. I think you have to have a certain amount of your assets deployed every year in order to qualify for 501c3. So I think the test and the courts will likely end up being, look, it's totally reasonable to have a for-profit entity, to fund a for-profit entity. Other nonprofits have done it, particularly when you need to attract billions of dollars of outside capital to make it work. The real question is, does the nonprofit still do nonprofit stuff?

对吧？如果他们这样做了，那么他们就有投资利益。第二个问题是，非营利机构母公司是否仍然从事慈善活动？因为如果不从事，那么非营利机构的地位就会受到质疑。我认为每年必须部署一定数量的资产才能符合501c3的资格。因此，我认为检验和法院可能最终会得出结论，看，为了资助一个营利实体是完全合理的。其他非营利机构已经这样做了，特别是当你需要吸引数十亿美元的外部资本才能让它运转时。真正的问题是，非营利机构是否仍然从事非营利性质的活动？

That's an interesting question because, Freeber, do you think that when they booted off the nonprofit experts from the board that they may have crossed a tripwire there? Yes. Yeah. I'm the lawyer. I'm the lawyer. That's a great question. I did a little journalism and I talked to a couple of people who are in and around two other of these scenarios. One of the key issues here is that the IP, in your example, Freeber, it wasn't like that Cystic Fibrosis Organization did the drug discovery, right? They didn't do it, correct?

这是一个有趣的问题，因为，弗里伯，你认为当他们把非营利专家从董事会中除名时，他们可能触及了一个触发点吗？是的，我是律师。是的，我是律师。这是一个很好的问题。我做了一点新闻工作，和一些在另外两个类似情况中的人交谈了一些。这里的一个关键问题是，在你的例子中，弗里伯，囊性纤维化组织并没有进行药物发现，对吧？他们没有做，对吧？

Well, they funded it. They handed over some research that was open in public at the time and they funded an independent for-profit. What happened here was you had the IP and the employees of the nonprofit given, gifted, they were transferred over to the for-profit organization. When the Mozilla Foundation did this and another company called SamaSource, and these both have two structures, a nonprofit and a for-profit. In both of their cases, they set up separate boards and the two different boards, you know, answer to the for-profit concerns and the nonprofit concerns, they also didn't give huge chunks of equity to all of the employees, which then sold them in secondary. So what's happened here is all of the IP in all likelihood has been and the wealth transfer has gone to all these employees. They've now done the secondary and this actually triggers a lot of IRS investigations.

他们提供了资金。 他们递交了一些当时已在公开领域的研究，并资助了一个独立的盈利性机构。 这里发生的情况是，非盈利组织的知识产权和员工被赠送，转让给了盈利机构。 Mozilla基金会和另一家名为SamaSource的公司这样做了，他们两者都有非盈利和盈利结构。 在他们两者的情况下，他们设立了独立的董事会，这两个不同的董事会，一个回应盈利机构的关切，一个回应非盈利机构的关切，他们也没有将大部分股权分配给所有员工，这样他们就可以在二级市场出售。 因此，在这里发生的事情很可能是所有知识产权和财富转移都转给了这些员工。 他们现在进行了二级交易，这实际上引发了很多IRS调查。

The Mozilla Foundation, which was making the Netscape browser, which many of you probably have used over the years, they were making hundreds of millions of dollars a year, David, from advertising with Google. The IRS said, Hey, wait a second, you look like a for-profit to us. So they made a for-profit entity, all of the, uh, and Mitchell Baker and the team over there set this up. So all the money went back into the Mozilla Foundation in their nonprofit efforts and they just paid above market salaries. But it was very important that these things be separated and that the employees not have equity and that all that money flowed back up. And I think this is where OpenAI is going to get super tripped up. And I think the IRS is going to have a field day here.

Mozilla基金会曾经开发过Netscape浏览器，很多人可能多年来都用过。他们每年通过与谷歌的广告赚取数亿美元。但美国国税局说：“等一下，你们看起来像是营利性机构。”于是他们建立了一个营利性实体，米歇尔·贝克和团队设置了这个实体。所以所有的钱都流回了Mozilla基金会，支持他们的非营利事业，他们只支付超过市场水平的薪水。但很重要的是要把这些事情分开，员工没有股权，所有的钱都流回来。我认为OpenAI在这方面可能会遇到困难，美国国税局可能会在这里找到乐趣。

Here's the Nick, can you please throw the image up? This is from the OpenAI website that explains their structure. So let's just speculate for a second because we're, we're just guessing, but it has been reported that Microsoft owns 49%. Right? That's the number of the for-profit in this example, Microsoft, where it says minority economic interest, that number there would be 49. And that's what they own of this OpenAI global LLC. And the majority owner is this holding company. Okay. So that means 51% is there. But it says here that that 51% is owned by a combination of the nonprofit, employees and investors. So the question is, back to Sax's question, we can know very precisely how much the, the nonprofit owns by just, Xing out the investors and employees. And I'm going to guess it's at least 30 or 40%. I think that that's probably a pretty reasonable guess. So it means that the OpenAI Foundation probably owns somewhere between 5 to 20%. Is that fairly reasonable guess? At the maximum? That seems right. Yeah. And so I think that they're going to have to show that ownership structure and decompose all these entities and show the actual percentages. If it's a lot less than that, if it's say like a 1% thing, then it's a little bit more sketch, I think. But if it's really like 15 or 20%, they're still going to have to prove that all of this was done in a, in a clean way, because the big thing that these guys did was because by creating this LPGP structure and these cap profits, it's clear that they were trying to avoid something.

这是尼克，你可以把这张图片发上去吗？这是来自OpenAI网站，解释了他们的结构。所以我们只是在猜测，但有报道称微软拥有49%。对吧？在这个例子中，微软是盈利的，就像这里写着少数经济权益，那个数字就是49。这是他们在这个OpenAI全球有限责任公司中所拥有的。而大多数所有者是这个控股公司。那么这意味着还有51%在那里。但这里说51%是由非营利机构、员工和投资者组成的。所以问题是，回到Sax的问题，我们可以了解非营利机构拥有多少，只需要剔除投资者和员工。我猜至少是30%或40%。我认为这可能是一个相当合理的猜测。所以这意味着OpenAI基金会可能拥有5%到20%之间的股份。这个猜测相当合理吗？最多？看起来没错。是的。我认为他们将不得不展示所有权结构，并分解所有这些实体，并展示实际的百分比。如果比这少很多，比如说只有1%，那么我觉得有点可疑。但如果真的是15%到20%，他们仍然必须证明所有这些都是以清洁的方式完成的，因为这些家伙所做的重要事情是通过创建这个LPGP结构和这些资本收益，很明显他们是在试图回避某些事情。

And the question is in the discovery, will everybody learn what it is that they were trying to avoid? Because I've been through this. I think, Sax, you've been through it, Freberg, you were through it. When you set up these large vehicles and pooled amounts of money, folks come out of the woodwork with all kinds of convoluted structures. And the discipline is always to tell these lawyers and accountants, no. And they'll be like, let's set up a master feeder and you'll go through Bermuda and this and that. And it's so easy to say yes, because it's very seductive, what they're selling you. But it's always about trying to avoid something. So the real question is why this convoluted structure, what was it trying to avoid? And where did this IP come from? Like all that IP, Sax came from a nonprofit, all those employees worked for the nonprofit. And they decided to go from an open source model to closed. And then by doing that, they capture all the value. And then it's gifted to these employees and this investor base. That's where I think. But remember, I think it's important to remember the majority of the IP that exists at Open AI today was generated after the for profit was set up.

在这个发现中，问题就是，每个人是否都会学到他们试图避免的东西？因为我经历过这个过程。我想，Sax，你也经历过，Freberg，你也经历过。当你建立这些大型机构并聚集了大量资金时，人们会以各种复杂的结构纷至沓来。而纪律就是要告诉这些律师和会计师，不要。他们会说，让我们建立一个主要投资者和财务支持体系，你们可以经过百慕大这些地方。很容易说是，因为他们销售的东西很诱人。但始终是为了避免某些事情。所以真正的问题是，为什么要设置这种复杂的结构，它试图避免什么？这些知识产权是从哪里来的？就像所有那些知识产权，都是从一个非营利组织得来的，所有那些员工都是为这个非营利组织工作的。然后他们决定从开源模式转向封闭模式。通过这样做，他们获得了所有的价值。然后这些知识产权被赠予了这些员工和投资者群体。这就是我认为的情况。但请记住，我认为重要的是要记住，Open AI今天拥有的大部分知识产权都是在设立盈利组织之后产生的。

The real question was, there are fair transfer at the time when it was set up of value into this for profit entity. And my guess is that GP box that you just looked at, the compensation that they're earning through that GP box that the nonprofit earns is likely meant to be kind of a fair amount relative to what was contributed at the time. The real question for me still remains, what other nonprofit and charitable work does the Open AI 501c3 actually do? And if there's the answer is nothing and it's just a shell nonprofit and under it, the only thing that it owns is a for profit interest. Then I think there's a real question on what's the activity. And I don't mean to speak out of turn on all this stuff. I don't know enough. But I think that's the only sort of lens I would kind of look at this stuff through. Zach, you were going to say something.

真正的问题是，在建立这个盈利实体时是否有公平的转移价值。我猜想你刚刚看过的GP盒子，非营利机构通过这个GP盒子获得的补偿可能是相对于当时的贡献而言是公平的。对我来说真正的问题仍然是，Open AI 501c3实际上做了哪些其他非营利和慈善工作呢？如果答案是什么都没有，它只是一个空壳非营利机构，在其名下拥有的唯一东西是一个盈利权益。那么，我的问题是，这种活动是什么？我并不是想乱说什么。我并不了解足够多。但我觉得这是我看待这些事情的唯一途径。Zach，你要说点什么。

Well, a couple of points. One is one of my contentions has been never innovate on structure. All you do is create legal problems. There's a tried and true way of creating a startup, which is a C Corp. When you try to innovate on legal instead of product, it almost always backfires. The second point here is I think Open AI is in a little bit of a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation to go back to free verse point about the nonprofits sitting at the top there. Remember what created all the problems when Sam briefly got fired as CEO and then came back is they had these directors from the nonprofit world who didn't really seem to understand how startups work. And so either they fired Sam for no reason, which was kind of incompetent or they had a really good reason, but didn't communicate it properly, which was also incompetent. Either way, that whole thing was a spectacle. And it just kind of showed that there was this like culture clash going on between the for profit company and like the standard way of running a Silicon Valley startup to maximize the outcome. And then this nonprofit board that was sitting on top of the whole thing.

好吧，有几个要点。首先是我一直认为永远不要在结构上进行创新。你所做的只会带来法律问题。创办一家初创公司的可靠方法是设立C Corp。当你试图在法律方面进行创新而不是产品方面时，几乎总会适得其反。第二点是，我认为Open AI 处于一种左右为难的境地，回到关于非营利机构坐在公司顶层的那点。还记得当Sam被短暂解雇作为CEO然后又回来时所引起的所有问题吗？他们的董事部来自非营利界，似乎并不真正理解初创公司是如何运作的。所以，要么他们无故解雇了Sam，这有点无能，要么他们有一个真正的好理由，但没有恰当地沟通，这也是无能。不管怎样，整个事件都是一场闹剧。它只是显示出公司和同样希望最大化结果的硅谷初创公司运营标准之间存在着一种文化冲突，还有坐在整个事情顶端的非营利董事会。

So I think that now they're in the situation where they've changed that nonprofit board, they've booted off the nonprofit people. And that may have been the right thing for the for profit entity, but now it might get them in trouble because it lends credence to Elon's lawsuit that they've completely changed the original mission of this organization. It was supposed to be open source. Yes. And it was just be nonprofit and now it's for profit and close source. Think about this.

所以我认为他们现在的情况是他们已经改变了非营利董事会，把非营利人员赶走了。这可能对营利实体来说是正确的做法，但现在这可能会让他们陷入麻烦，因为这似乎支持埃隆的诉讼，他们已经完全改变了这个组织的原始使命。它本来应该是开放源代码的。是的。它原本只是为了非营利目的，现在变成了营利性且私有化的。想想这个。

And again, we are speculating here, but if the mission was to be open source and then you realize you've got something super valuable and you close source it, create a for profit and then take all the employees and all the IP and put it into the for profit, lock it down, break the original mission that, hey, this was going to help humanity because we're going to make it open source. So if you donate money here and we get the tax exemption, humanity benefits because everybody gets to look at that code at the same time and work on it and iterate now that they've just basically stolen all that in order to enrich themselves.

在这里，我们再次进行推测，但如果使命是开源的，然后你意识到拥有了一些非常有价值的东西，你就闭源它，创建了一个盈利机会，然后把所有的员工和知识产权都放入盈利机会中，将其固定下来，背离最初的使命，即这将帮助人类，因为我们打算开源。因此，如果你在这里捐钱，我们获得税收减免，整个人类受益，因为每个人都可以同时查看代码并进行工作和迭代，但他们基本上是为了自己的利益而窃取了所有这些。

And I think then you add to it, Sam, maybe doing some deal making, which seems to be one of the triggers according to reports and this open AI venture fund, et cetera, maybe that deal making made the nonprofit people say, Hey, listen, you're doing even more for profit stuff with the open AI name. There's supposed to be a nonprofit here. What's the venture fund thing? He started a venture fund to invest in companies called the Open AI Ventures Fund. And he was the sole owner of it, which they're saying now it's a clerical mistake or something, but he's invested in a bunch of startups that have unique access to the open AI, you know, I think sorry, he's the he's the GP on behalf of open AI. Yes, the open AI dot fund.

然后我认为你还应该加入一些元素，山姆，也许做一些交易，据报道这似乎是其中一个触发因素，还有这个开放AI风险基金等等，也许那些交易让非营利组织的人们说：嘿，听着，你正在用开放AI的名字做更多盈利性的事情。这里应该是一个非营利性机构才对。那个风险基金是什么？他开设了一个名为Open AI Ventures Fund的风险基金来投资公司。他是它的唯一所有者，他们现在说这是一个文书错误或者什么的，但他已经投资了一些初创企业，这些企业有独特的获得开放AI的机会，你知道，我认为抱歉，他是代表开放AI的GP。是的，openai.com。

Nobody. He said GP on behalf of himself or on behalf of open the way the paper was done. He was on behalf of himself. They're now saying that that was done in our. So okay, fine. Maybe it was. Maybe it wasn't. Who knows? It's actually the open AI fund. Yes. Whose money is that? Sam raised money to create an open AI fund to open to investing companies using open AI software. Okay. So that's a different kind of issue. That's called a corporate opportunity issue where open AI is fun. It's basically a conflict of interest where the economic opportunity of the open AI star fund should belong to open AI. If Sam created a separate fund with separate LPs that he's the GP of and gets economics in that, then that's a potential user patient of a corporate opportunity. I don't, I don't know the truth of that matter. I'm just saying that's a slightly different issue to go back to the point.

没有人。他说GP代表他自己或代表公开的方式完成了这篇论文。他是代表他自己。现在他们说这是我们做的。所以好吧，也许是这样。也许不是。谁知道呢？实际上，这是开放式AI基金。是的。那是谁的钱？萨姆筹集资金创建了一个开放式AI基金，用于投资使用开放式AI软件的公司。好的。所以这是一个不同类型的问题。这被称为企业机会问题，开放式AI基金基本上是一个利益冲突，开放式AI基金的经济机会应该属于开放式AI。如果萨姆创建了一个与他自己作为GP并在其中获得经济利益的独立LP的基金，那么这就是一个公司机会的潜在争端。我不知道这件事的真相。我只是在说这是一个稍微不同的问题，回到这一点。

This is the open AI name. Yeah, that that's where like the corporate opportunity becomes really explicit to go back to the point you were making a minute ago about the employees. I just think, I mean, you use the word stealing. I think it's like a really strong word. I mean, I think we have to compliment the employees of this company, if it is a company, including Sam, including Greg, including Iliya for creating an amazing product, right? Something incredible. They've created some incredible. Absolutely. I think an amazing ecosystem and there's a lot of developers building on top of this. And I think no one is attacking their work. And I think it's a little too harsh to say that anyone's stealing anything because they have created all the value.

这是开放的AI名字。是的，这就是像企业机会变得非常明确的地方，回到你刚才谈到员工的观点。我只是觉得，我是说，你用了偷窃这个词。我觉得这是一个非常强烈的词。我觉得我们必须称赞这家公司的员工，如果这是一家公司的话，包括山姆、格雷格、以及伊利亚，因为他们创造了一个令人惊叹的产品，对吧？一些不可思议的东西。他们创造了一些令人惊叹的东西。绝对是。我认为这是一个惊人的生态系统，有很多开发者在其上构建。我认为没有人在攻击他们的工作。我认为说有人在偷盗什么东西有点过于苛刻，因为他们创造了所有的价值。

The question, and I think you have to include Sam and that and say that he's done a great job. Okay. CEO, because they've built something amazing. And it's actually a point. Right. It's not stealing because very smart investors are putting in money. High is wide open. Yeah. I think that the criticism here is related to structure from my standpoint, is related to structure and whether Elon was told something at the beginning that's different, it got changed and clearly it got changed in a way that was not consistent with the terms under which he initially contributed all this money. Yeah. Mine is I'm stating what is the most cynical interpretation of what happened here.

问题是，我认为你必须包括山姆，然后说他做得很好。CEO，因为他们建立了一些令人惊叹的东西。实际上是一个要点。这不是偷窃，因为非常聪明的投资者在投入资金。高度完全开放。是的，我认为这里的批评与结构有关，从我的观点来看，与结构有关，以及埃隆在开始时是否被告知了不同的事情，它发生了变化，显然变化的方式与他最初贡献所有这些资金的条件不一致。是的，我的看法是，我在陈述这里所发生的事情的最愤世嫉俗的解释。

There is the most benign and benevolent interpretation you could have as well. And maybe the truth is in between the two. But the series of events that occurred does not look good when you have a mission to give this intellectual property to the world. So no one person benefits from it. All of humanity is supposed to benefit from it. That was the point of being open source. Right. Then you close it. Now, who gets the benefit if it's closed? Right. That's a good point. Right. That's going to be the crux of this. And if you really want to put the investors, the investors, but no, that's a sorry. But they're able to attract billions of dollars because you can't get billions of dollars. Great. To invest in something that's going to be open sourced and get the employees sell two billion in secondary.

你也可以有最良善和仁慈的解释。也许真相介于两者之间。但发生的一系列事件在你有将这个知识产权提供给世界的使命时看起来并不好。所以没有一个人从中受益。所有人类都应该从中受益。这就是开源的目的。对。然后你关闭它。现在，如果它关闭了，谁会获益？对。这是一个很好的观点。对。这将是关键。如果你真的想让投资者，投资者，但不，这是一个抱歉。但他们能够吸引数十亿美元，因为你无法获得数十亿美元。来投资一个将被公开的东西，并且员工赚取二十亿的次要销售金额。

So now you if you really want to take the most cynical approach to this or interpretation, again, this is just one interpretation, they took an open source project, they closed it, they raised money, and then within the next two years on this incredible innovation, they sold two billion dollars and put that in their pockets. Now, those employees, if it was a for-profit, obviously no problem with that. But they took the stated mission of giving this to all of humanity and then took three or four percent of that gain and put it in their pockets. That's where I think this whole thing is going to get really crazy. And this is where the IRS. And the IRS also interpreted Mozilla, which was just a hundred million dollars and none of the employees took any of it. The hundred million that came out of Mozilla, they were just saying, I think you should pay tax on that. Should you pay tax on that? And then they were investigated for years. So I think the IRS is going to be on this crazy based upon what happened to Mozilla, which was- Jason, do you think individual employee sellers are going to get audited by the IRS because of this? I mean, we're in uncharted territory here.

所以，现在，如果你真的想要以最愤世嫉俗的方式来看待这件事情或解释，这只是一种解释，他们拿起一个开源项目，闭源了它，筹集资金，然后在接下来的两年里，借助这种惊人的创新，他们卖出了20亿美元，把这笔钱装进了口袋。现在，那些员工，如果是为利润而做，显然这没有问题。但他们承诺把这个项目提供给全人类，然后拿这个收益的三四个百分点放进了自己的口袋。我认为这整件事情可能会变得非常疯狂。这也是IRS的介入点。IRS也曾对Mozilla进行过解释，那时只有一亿美元，员工没有拿走其中的任何一分。从Mozilla获得的那一亿美元，他们只是说，我认为你应该对此纳税。你认为应该对此纳税吗？然后他们被调查了好几年。所以我认为IRS可能会对此事进行疯狂的调查，基于Mozilla的遭遇，这是一个......Jason，你认为个人雇员因为这个问题会被IRS审计吗？我是说，我们目前无法探知这一领域的情况。

When I did some tweets and said, hey, can everybody contact me who has information on these structures, I was able to find the some- some- a- source example. And they did it very clean. And there was no like IP transfer or employees enriching themselves or, you know, a God King like Sam doing all kinds of deals and enriching himself. It was a very clean structure. And then Mitchell Baker, who set up Mozilla, also did the same thing. Hey, let's pay the employees an extra 50k on their salaries and they'll be a little overpaid in Silicon Valley, but they're not getting billions of dollars in equity, which again, I have no problem with people getting billions of dollars in equity in a for-profit. But this was supposed to benefit humanity. It was supposed to be open. If this was open source and they took the two billion, I would actually not have much of a problem with it because we could all be looking at that mission and then sacks and myself and Friedberg and anybody who wanted to use that code could go in there and adapt it.

当我发了一些推文并说，“嘿，谁有关于这些结构的信息可以联系我吗？”，我能够找到一些- 一些-一-资源的例子。他们做得很干净。没有像IP转让或员工自我丰富，也没有像山姆这样的神王做着各种交易自我丰富。这是一个非常干净的结构。而米切尔·贝克（Mitchell Baker）创建的Mozilla也做了同样的事情。嘿，让我们额外给员工50k加在薪水上，他们可能在硅谷会略微多得一点，但他们不会得到数十亿美元的股权，对此我并没有什么问题。但这应该造福人类。它应该是开放的。如果这是开源的，并且他们拿到了20亿，我实际上不会太介意，因为我们都可以看到这个使命，然后萨克斯和我自己以及弗里德伯格和任何想要使用该代码的人都可以进去，并进行调整。

But there are for-profits Apple and Meta, which are producing open source software. So if they're producing apples, pretty competent and meta super competent in this respect, they're able to do open source. But Sam is claiming or opening eyes claiming it's too dangerous to show us the open source code. I call bullsh** on that. Their code is not too dangerous for us to sit. That's complete utter bullsh**. So you think that there is a motivation for profit, basically. What you're saying is essentially that this was highly motivated by profit.

但是有营利性公司苹果和Meta，它们正在生产开源软件。所以如果它们能够生产优秀的产品，那么在这方面苹果是相当有能力的，Meta超级有能力。但是Sam声称或者说要让人们睁开眼睛，声称展示开源代码太危险了。我对此表示怀疑。他们的代码对我们来说并不会有太大危险。我认为这完全是胡扯。所以你认为这是出于营利动机，基本上是这个意思。你的意思基本上是这主要是出于谋利目的。

First thing, versus like some of the emails, the emails try to paint a picture of very industrious people on both sides who are trying to solve a very hard problem and dealing with a conundrum that's really around capital. We need to do all this training. It's going to be so expensive. But I think what you're saying, which is a deviation from that, it's actually, come on guys. These are all very smart people and those folks on opportunity to make a ton of money and they took it. I mean, that seems like what happened here to me. I mean, it's Hockham's razor kind of situation. I think they, if you look at it, I think they probably regretted making this a nonprofit and then try to figure out a way to reverse it. That's actually what I think is going on here. And I do think there was part of it, Shmoop, you're right, that they needed servers and they needed capacity. But they could have done that without giving the employees tons of equity, without selling billions of dollars, keeping it open source and then telling Microsoft, hey, if you want access to this open source or whatever and, you know, you're making a very, very good point in and and the reason is that if it was open source, Microsoft could have just taken it and done its own training and just paid for it. Yeah. Right. Or make a donation to the foundation.

首先，与一些邮件不同，这些邮件试图描绘双方都是非常勤奋的人，正试图解决一个非常棘手的问题，并且正在处理一个围绕资本的难题。我们需要做所有这些培训。这将非常昂贵。但我认为你说的与此不同，实际上是，来吧伙计们。这些都是非常聪明的人，这些人有机会赚很多钱，他们抓住了机会。我觉得这就是这里发生的事情。我是说，这对我来说就像是奥卡姆剃刀的情况。我认为，如果你仔细观察，我认为他们可能后悔把这变成一个非营利组织，然后试图想办法扭转这一局面。这实际上是我认为在这里正在发生的事情。我认为其中一部分是对的，他们需要服务器和容量。但他们本来可以不必给员工大量的股权，不必卖出数十亿美元的资产，保持开源，并告诉微软，嘿，如果你想要这个开源的访问权，或者其他什么，你提出了一个非常好的观点。这是因为如果是开源的，微软本可以自取，自行进行培训并支付费用。是的。对。或者向基金会捐款。

This is interesting because it's a good point because open AI, yeah, open AI dropped a few of the emails that they had with Elon. Obviously those are cherry pick to help their case the most. What we don't know is what are the other emails show? Like what were their alternatives to this particular structure? Could they have raised the necessary funds in a way that was more consistent with the original mission of the company? Could they have remained open source? For example, also, are there any emails where employees talk about the potential benefit to them of going private, going for profit, right? Those emails have already been leaked. There was this thing where in the open AI emails that were leaked, they talked about being able to swap this phantom equity and open AI into either YC equity and then Elon said, oh, maybe SpaceX too, but I'll have to figure that out.

这很有趣，因为这是一个很好的观点，开放AI删除了他们与埃隆的一些电子邮件。显然，这些是为了最大程度地帮助他们的案例而挑选出来的。我们不知道的是其他的邮件显示了什么？比如说，他们对这种特定结构的替代方案是什么？他们是否能够以更符合公司原始使命的方式筹集必要的资金？他们是否能够保持开源？另外，员工是否有提到私有化、盈利对他们的潜在好处的邮件呢？这些邮件已经被泄露了。在泄露的开放AI邮件中，他们谈到可以将这些虚拟股权转换成YC股权，然后伊隆说，哦，也许还有太空探索科技公司的股权，但我得弄清楚。

Well, then also like Microsoft coming in and buying 49% and then it's close. This is the other piece that I would want to see in Discovery as well. Again, I don't have any problem with any of the people that I love Sam Altman and Biggest Grade. I think all the people that are great. I think what they've done for humanity is great. I just think they should have kept this thing open source, which was the mission, but then they closed source at Chumaf and then give 49% of it all the weights, all the source code to Microsoft.

嗯，就像微软入股并购买了49％一样，然后就结束了。这也是我希望在Discovery中看到的另一个部分。再次强调，我对我所喜爱的人没有任何意见，我很喜欢Sam Altman和Biggest Grade。我认为他们做的一切对人类都是伟大的。我只是觉得他们应该保持这个项目开源，这本来是使命，但后来他们闭源了Chumaf，然后将其中49％的权益、所有源代码交给了微软。

So that to me was like a really, you want to talk about taking this non-profits IP and then some amount of that bag gets given to the employees for billions of dollars and then Microsoft gets 49% of all that non-profits effort to then go commercialize. And Microsoft has added what $500 billion in market caps since this whole thing has been announced. So now all that profit has been aggregated into Microsoft stock. And I think this is where you got to understand why Elon feel swindled is because not only are we going from nonprofit to for profit and open source to closed source, he was specifically concerned about all the benefits of AI crewing to one powerful big tech company. Now at that time, he thought it was Google. Now it's Microsoft. There's not really that much of a difference. He never wanted all the benefits of AI in the hands of one really powerful tech company. And Microsoft is the most, it's not what the biggest company in the world by market cap. So this is like the opposite of what he intended. They gifted a trillion dollars to Microsoft probably. There's an easy solution. If they are people of good faith and they're doing this for the right reasons, open source it. Just go back and open source it.

对我来说，这就像是一个很大的问题，你想讨论的是将这个非盈利组织的知识产权拿走，然后将其中一部分分给员工获得数十亿美元，然后微软获得了那个非盈利组织全部努力的49%，然后用来商业化。自从整个事情宣布以来，微软市值增加了多少？大约5000亿美元。所以现在所有的利润都被汇总到微软的股票里。我认为这就是为什么埃隆感到被欺骗的原因，因为我们不仅从非盈利组织变成了营利性机构，而且从开源变为闭源，他特别担心所有人工智能的好处都被一家强大的大科技公司吞掉。当时，他认为是谷歌，现在是微软。实际上并没有太大的区别。他从来不希望所有人工智能的好处都掌握在一家非常强大的科技公司手中。而微软是目前市值最大的公司。这完全是他所期望的反面。他们可能给微软带来了一万亿美元。这有一个简单的解决方案。如果他们是诚实善良的人，并出于正确的原因这样做，就开源吧。就回到开源状态。

Jason, but to your earlier point, that may solve the lawsuit and Elon may drop the lawsuit, but it's opened a can of worms with respect to tax and structuring. That's much bigger than just opening up. Yeah, I don't think it's hard not to profit industry. It's a tax problem for every new company.

杰森，但是针对你之前提到的问题，这可能解决了诉讼，埃隆可能会撤诉，但这在税收和结构方面却引发了一连串问题。这比仅仅解决诉讼问题要复杂得多。是的，我认为这不仅仅是一个与利润无关的行业问题，对每家新公司而言都是一个税收问题。

It's every other entrepreneur that studies this model and tries to replicate it for their own personal gain, even if that wasn't intentional here. So there's a whole set of issues that we've really cracked the egg here. We got to figure out how to unscramble. There's the IRS issues. Then there's what's morally right and then there's Elon's beef. And if it is a for profit company and Elon put in 50 million when it was a seed round, what would he own, Saks? What would his ownership in this for profit be? Oh my God. I mean, probably 98%. Okay. And so yeah, we know the total size of that round. He put in the first 40 million. Do we know what other people put in?

这是每一位企业家都研究这个模式并试图复制它以谋取个人利益，即使这不是本意。所以我们真的解开了一个很大的问题。我们必须想办法解决这些问题。有IRS的问题，还有道德问题，还有埃隆的纠纷。如果这是一家盈利公司，埃隆在种子轮投入了5000万，那么他会拥有多少股份？天哪。我想大概是98%吧。好的。我们知道那轮融资的总规模。他最初投入了4000万。我们知道其他人投入了多少吗？

It was most of the money, right? Yeah, it was most of the money. So I mean, if you put, let's just put a crazy valuation on it, 500 million. Okay. He owns whatever.

那是大部分的钱，对吧？是的，那是大部分的钱。所以我的意思是，如果你估价，比如说500百万。好吧。他拥有什么。

No, I know. I think it's at that point. At that point, it would, AI was not what it is today. So you would have raised that like, you would have raised 150 on 50 pre. Okay. I mean, that's the way that that if you're a CapEx intensive deal in a space that wasn't thought to yield big outcomes, that's unfortunate. Elon would have the company at least. At least. All right. So give him 20% of the company is $20 billion. That's even half of what you're saying, Saks, right?

不，我明白。我觉得就是那个时候。那个时候，人工智能还不是今天这个样子。所以你就会把那样的，你就会把150加在50之前。好的。我是说，如果你在一个被认为不会带来大利润的投资密集型交易中，那就很不幸了。至少Elon还会拥有这家公司。至少。好吧。所以给他这公司的20%，就是200亿美元。那甚至不到你说的一半，Saks，对吧？

We talked about on the show and that whole fracas with these nonprofit directors went down. As we said, go back and a restructuring the whole thing to make it what it always should have been, which is just a clean for profit entity. Give Elon his equity, give Sam his equity. Because it never made sense that Sam has no equity either. He has no equity, but he's got a venture firm. It's all so convoluted. It's a weird form of compensation in which they're giving him corporate opportunities in effect as like a type of compensation when really he should have compensation in the corporation.

我们在节目中讨论了那场与这些非营利机构主管的争执。正如我们所说，回过头来重新组织整个事情，使其成为它本应该成为的样子，即一个纯粹的盈利实体。给伊隆他的股权，给山姆他的股权。因为山姆没有股权也是毫无意义的。他没有股权，但是却有一家风险投资公司。这一切都太复杂了。这是一种奇怪的形式的补偿，他们实际上是把企业机会作为一种补偿的形式提供给他，当真正应该让他在公司中得到补偿。

And then the corporation should own all of its opportunities. Oh, that's okay. That's a really interesting thing you just said. So basically, yeah, it's like he famously has no equity, but then he has this retained optionality to monetize the ecosystem. So even though he's not monetizing the thing, he gets to monetize everything around. And it seems like the board or at least the new board's okay with that because he is being undercompensated with respect to the main thing. So then he gets the side things, but that's not really the way it should work either. You know, Bill Gates said to us famously when I was at Facebook, the value of an ecosystem is when the economic value generated by the ecosystem exceeds that of the platform.

然后公司应该拥有所有的机会。哦，没关系。刚才你说的是一件非常有趣的事情。基本上，是的，他是出了名的没有股权，但是他有保留权利来实现生态系统的货币化。所以即使他没有货币化这个东西，他也可以货币化周围的一切。似乎董事会，或者至少是新董事会对此表示认同，因为相对于主要事情，他的薪酬过低。所以他得到了副产品，但这也不是正确的工作方式。你知道，当我在Facebook工作时，比尔·盖茨对我们说过，一个生态系统的价值在于其经济价值超过平台的价值。

Now, in this case, you'd actually rather have 50 basis points of the ecosystem than 5% of open AI if that's true, because if this thing could be so revolutionary, you're talking 10, 20, 30 trillion dollars. What a mess. Oh, yeah, yoy. Sam should just be given like a huge option grand and open AI, but then open AI should own its own venture fund. Yeah.

在这种情况下，如果真的是这样的话，你其实宁愿拥有生态系统中的50个基点，而不是拥有开放AI的5％，因为如果这个东西可能如此革命性，那你将会谈论到10、20、30万亿美元。多么混乱啊。噢，是的，Sam应该被给予一个巨大的期权奖励，放在开放AI这里，但是开放AI应该拥有自己的风险投资基金。是的。

And the SEC is looking into all this stuff. You know, they look into a lot of things in fairness, but they're looking into it. They're looking at a mess and we'll keep track of it. The other thing that's crazy. I don't know if you guys know this, but Nick, just as we close here, the most insane part of opening eyes LP investment agreement, which is on their website, you can just search for open AI LP agreement is this part. The partnership exists to advance open AI inks mission of ensuring that safe artificial general intentions is deployed and benefits all of humanity. The general partners duty to this mission and principles advance in opening icing charty audio, yada, yada, take precedent over the obligation to generate a profit. The partnership may never make a profit and the general partners under no obligation to do so.

美国证券交易委员会正在调查所有这些事情。你知道，公平起见，他们调查了很多事情，但他们正在调查。他们正在查看一团糟，我们会继续跟踪。另一件疯狂的事情。我不知道你们是否知道，但尼克，在我们结束时，打开眼睛LP投资协议最疯狂的部分，就在他们的网站上，你可以搜索"open AI LP agreement"找到这部分。这个合作存在是为了推进开放人工智能公司的使命，确保安全的人工智能普及并造福所有人类。一般合作伙伴对该使命和原则的责任超过了产生利润的义务。该合作可能永远不会获利，并且一般合伙人没有义务这样做。

The general part is free to reinvest any and all of the operating entities cash flow into research and development activities and or related expenses without any obligation to the limited partners. And so they basically told everybody, the node and employees, or whatever, we can just basically make wipe your equity out and we can do whatever we want with the profits. And you're probably going to lose your money. So this structure is weird. Do you guys think that when the investors came in, especially in this latest round, the 86 billion dollar round, do you think they underwrote the legal risk and hear it in the structure? Or they just sort of hand waved over it and said, no, typically what happens in these deals is you hire somebody like KPMG or Deloitte or Ernst and Young to do like the full financial diligence packet, right?

总部部分可以自由将所有运营实体的现金流投入研发活动或相关支出，而无需向有限合伙人承担任何义务。因此，他们基本上告诉了所有人，包括节点和员工，等等，我们可以基本上清零你们的股权，我们可以随意处理利润。而且你们很可能会亏钱。因此，这种结构很奇怪。你们认为投资者进来时，特别是在最近的这一轮，他们是否考虑到了法律风险并在结构中考虑了？还是他们只是匆忙应付了它，并说，典型的情况是在这些交易中，你会聘请像毕马威、德勤或安永这样的公司来做全面的财务尽职调查。

And that typically tends to be how a lot of late stage organizations document that they've done and manage their fiduciary responsibilities on behalf of their limited partners. So what happens is you will do a deal, you'll sign a term sheet, you'll turn it over to Deloitte, you'll turn it over to KPMG and say, please go and run this down. And then what they do is they will furnish a report that says, yes, this meets all the customary expectations. I suspect that if these folks were doing a decent job of running late stage money, they probably sent it to those folks. And those folks probably produced something that said, this looks fine. Now, if you read Buffett's letter this year, he has a really great commentary on Deloitte and KPMG and these sorts of letters, which is not exactly the most supportive.

这通常是很多晚期组织记录他们为有限合伙人管理和执行受托责任的方式。通常情况下，你会做一项交易，签署一份条款协议，然后将它交给德勤、毕马威等审计公司，让他们进行审计。他们会提供一份报告，确认这符合所有惯例的期望。我觉得如果这些人在管理晚期资金方面做得很好，他们可能已经把这份文件送给了审计公司，并得到了肯定的结果。如果你读过巴菲特今年的信件，你会发现他对德勤和毕马威以及这些文件有很好的评论，尽管不完全支持它们。

That's what it's saying. You can find that mentioned. In his case, it's Deloitte and Tuche, but typically Saks, that's what they do. They go to a KPMG or a Deloitte or a nursing young and say, and by the way, 99% of the time, they're, I mean, they do really good work, but it's a standard structure. And they just want to make sure that nothing nefarious is a muck. In this case, I doubt anything was a muck. Anyways, I doubt though that they looked at the structure and then also elevated the litigation risk of this getting unwound. I just don't see that that diligence report and I've seen enough of them typically has that section in it.

这就是它所说的内容。你可以找到它被提及的地方。就他的案例而言，是德勤和Tuche，但通常是Saks，他们会去找KPMG或德勤或护士嫩去说，顺便说一句，99%的情况下，他们真的做得很好，但这是一个标准的结构。他们只是想确保没有任何可疑的事情发生。在这种情况下，我怀疑是否有任何可疑的事情发生。不管怎样，我还怀疑他们是否查看了结构，并提高了此事被取消的诉讼风险。我只是认为尽管我看过足够多的尽职调查报告，但典型的报告通常不会包含这一部分。

The other thing that's completely hypocritical here is they said it when they hit AGI and they're going to be like a sentient artificial intelligence going on here, Friedberg, that they would wrap up shop and they're going to no longer be a nonprofit, et cetera. But they haven't, but they're claiming they haven't hit that, but they close the software. So it should be open source if they haven't hit AGI and you don't think they've hit general intelligence, right, Friedberg, for anything close to it. And maybe you could educate the audience on what that is and that claim that they have to shut up before profit. Yeah, they haven't. But I think the, we keep repeating this concept of the models should be open source versus closed source. Making AI for the benefit of humanity can be interpreted in a lot of ways. There may have been some anecdotal conversation at some point with Elon or others about we're going to make the models open source. But there was a reason that that change was made along the way, which was to attract dollars. And those dollars need to have some return of capital available to them because they're private investor dollars. And so I don't think that that was necessarily, and correct me if I'm wrong, I don't think that's in the mission that the open AI software models will be open source. Making AI for the benefit of humanity could probably be interpreting a lot of different ways. And we'll see. But no, I don't think that anyone has this achieved this holy grail of general intelligence.

这里完全虚伪的另一件事是，当他们达到通用人工智能（AGI）时，他们会像Friedberg说的那样成为一个有思维的人工智能，他们会关闭业务，并且不再是非营利组织等等。但他们没有，但他们声称他们还没有达到那个程度，但他们关闭了软件。所以如果他们还没有达到AGI，你认为他们还没有达到通用智能，对吧，Friedberg。也许你能向观众解释一下是什么意思，以及他们声称他们必须放弃利润。是的，他们没有。但我认为，我们一直在重复这个概念，即模型应该是开源的而不是闭源的。为了造福人类而开发人工智能可能有多种解释。也许有一些与伊隆或其他人的关于我们将开源模型的轶事性谈话过。但在这条道路上做出这种改变是有理由的，那就是为了吸引资金。而这些资金需要有一些回报资本的机会，因为它们是私人投资者的资金。因此，我不认为开放AI软件模型将开源是使命之一。为了造福人类而开发人工智能可能有多种不同的解释。我们将看到。但不，我不认为有人已经取得了通用智能这个圣杯。

Yeah. I think one of the, one of the more interesting and kind of wacky things about open AI is that their mission is explicitly to create EGI, which most people would associate with some sort of sci-fi dystopian outcome. And I think this is like raise the fear factor around AI because they're explicitly trying to create the sentence that's going to replace humanity. Now I think they defined a GI in a different way. They say it's something that can replace 80% of the jobs. But I think we all kind of know what it really is. So I just wonder if- I don't know. I think that that's like, that assumes a steady state in the world. So if you end up with a system and the system has all the capabilities of a bunch of really highly qualified knowledge workers, and I can sit in front of a computer terminal and I can say, let's design a mission to Mars. A mission to Mars could be a 20 year engineering project with hundreds of people involved to design the buildings, to design the flight path, to figure out the fuel needs, to figure out how you would then be able to terraform Mars. And what if one person could interact with a computer and design a plan to go and inhabit Mars? All of the technical detail docs could be produced. All of the engineering specifications could be generated. All of the operating plans, all of the dates, the amount of labor needed, the amount of production needed, the amount of capital needed. What would otherwise take NASA or some international or well funded private company many, many decades to do, a piece of software could do in a very short order.

是的。我认为关于Open AI其中一个更有趣和有点疯狂的事情是，他们的使命明确是创建EGI，大多数人会将其与某种科幻末世结果联系起来。我认为这提高了人们对人工智能的恐惧感，因为他们明确试图创造能够取代人类的实体。现在我认为他们以不同的方式定义了一个GI。他们说这是可以替代80％的工作。但我认为我们都知道它真正是什么。所以我只是在想-我不知道。我认为这假设了世界的稳定状态。如果你最终拥有一个系统，并且该系统具有一群高素质的知识工作者的所有能力，我可以坐在计算机终端前并说，让我们设计一项登陆火星的任务。登陆火星可能是一个需要几百人参与的20年工程项目，需要设计建筑物，设计飞行路径，找出燃料需求，找出你如何能够对火星进行环境改造。如果一个人可以与计算机互动并设计计划去居住在火星，所有的技术细节文档都可以生成。所有的工程规格都可以产生。所有的运营计划，所有的日期，所需的劳动力数量，所需的生产数量，所需的资本数量。以前NASA或某些国际或资金充裕的私营公司需要很多年才能完成的任务，一个软件可以在很短的时间内完成。

I think that's like a really, like, for me, poignant example of the potential of having these tools broadly available, that the potential of humanity starts to become much broader. We could say, I want to develop a city underneath the ocean because I want to explore more of the earth. I think humans need to go solve cancer, figure out the biologic drugs and the combination of biologic drugs that would be needed to solve cancer based on this patient's genotype. The extensibility of highly knowledgeable or what other people might call general intelligence type tooling is extraordinary. That one individual starts to have an entire cohort of knowledge workers available at their disposal to do things that we can't even imagine today.

我认为这是一个非常打动人心的例子，展示了拥有这些工具的潜力，人类的潜力开始变得更加广泛。我们可以说，我想建设一个城市在海底，因为我想更多地探索地球。我认为人类需要去解决癌症，找出基于患者基因型的需要用于解决癌症的生物药物及其组合。高度专业知识或其他人可能称之为通用智能类型工具的可拓展性是非凡的。一个人开始拥有一个整个知识工作者队伍，可以根据我们今天甚至无法想象的方式做事。

So I don't think that it is nefarious. It's nefarious because we assume a steady state of the world today that nothing changes, therefore, a piece of software replaces all of us. But the potential of humanity starts to stretch into a new era that we're not really comfortable with because we don't really know it or understand it yet. I'm not saying it's nefarious to want to develop AI because I agree with you about all the extraordinary potential of it. I'm saying there's something a little bit cultish and weird about explicitly devoting yourself to AGI, which I think in common parlance means sky net. Yeah, it means something.

因此，我并不认为这是邪恶的。之所以说邪恶，是因为我们假设世界今天处于稳态，什么都不会改变，因此一个软件取代了我们所有人。但人类的潜力开始延伸到一个我们并不真正舒适的新时代，因为我们还不真正了解或理解它。我并不是说想要发展人工智能是邪恶的，因为我同意你对其所有非凡潜力的看法。我只是觉得完全致力于AGI有点邪教式和奇怪，我认为在普通用语中意味着天网。是的，它代表着某种含义。

I mean, when you talk about people, I think that's smart. I think that parlance is what needs to be addressed, which is AGI effectively enables equivalents to a human knowledge worker. And that can unleash a new set of opportunities. So you think that's what it is? My definition for AGI is smarter than the smartest human being who ever lived. Yeah, I was talking to somebody this week who's in a position who said the definition of AGI is very fuzzy. I mean, I think that there isn't a clear definition. And therefore, it allows every side to kind of anchor on their interpretation of what that term means and therefore kind of justifies their position.

我的意思是，当你谈论人类时，我认为那很聪明。我认为需要解决的是AGI，它有效地使人类知识工作者的等价物成为可能。这可以带来一系列新的机会。所以你认为就是这样吗？我对AGI的定义是比历史上任何一个最聪明的人还要聪明。是的，我这周和一个身处这个领域的人聊天，他说AGI的定义非常模糊。我的意思是，我认为没有一个清晰的定义。因此，每一方都可以根据他们对这个术语的理解来确定自己的立场。因此，这种模糊性让每一方都可以为自己的立场提供合理的解释。

So I don't really feel great about just saying, are we at AGI? We don't have a clear sense of what it means. I do think if you look at some of the work that was done by anthropic and published in the CLOG 3 model this week, did any of you guys see the demos that were done of the output of that model? There was a guy who wrote a thesis in quantum physics on a very esoteric complicated problem set and he asked CLOG 3 to solve this problem set and it came up with his thesis. It was really like extraordinary.

所以我并不觉得只是简单地问，我们是否已经达到了人工智能通用等级（AGI）？我们并没有清晰的概念。我确实认为，如果你看一下这周由 anthropic 完成并发表在 CLOG 3 模型上的一些工作，你们有没有看到这个模型输出的演示？有一个人在量子物理学上写了一个超级晦涩复杂的论题，他让 CLOG 3 来解决这个问题集，结果它给出了他的论文。真的是非常厉害。

And this is something he's like, no one in the world knows this stuff. And he's like, I can't believe this model like came up with my thesis. And that's the sort of thing that very few people on earth even read or understand. And the CLOG 3 model was able to kind of recreate the basis, the buildup and then the output of his thesis would be like somebody writing a screenplay and then giving it the first two acts and say, guess the third act. It's like, oh, yeah, this is a third act. Here's what happens. Like it's pretty impressive. But I mean, these are like, yeah, complicated.

这是他喜欢的事情，世界上没有人知道这些东西。他觉得，我简直无法相信这个模型竟然能推出我的论文。几乎没有人读懂或理解这种事情。CLOG 3模型能够重新塑造他论文的基础、逐步发展以及输出，就像有人写一部剧本然后把前两幕给你，让你猜猜第三幕会是什么。这就像说，“哦，是这样的第三幕。这里会发生什么。“ 这相当令人印象深刻。但我的意思是，这些事情很复杂。

I asked you like deep down when these guys say they're going to create AGI. What do you think they really mean in their heart of hearts? Oh, they mean the Terminator. Yeah, they mean the sentient God. You guys are you guys are propagating some bad shit. You guys shouldn't be saying anything. I think that's what they think. Remember what Larry made said? You remember when Larry Page said to Elon, don't be specious.

当这些人说他们要创建AGI时，我问你内心深处的想法是什么？你认为他们真正的意思是什么？哦，他们指的是终结者。是的，他们指的是有意识的上帝。你们在传播一些不好的东西。你们不应该说任何话。我想这就是他们的想法。记得Larry曾经说过什么吗？你还记得当Larry Page对Elon说不要歧视动物吗？

Yeah. I think there's like, I think there's a meaningful number of people in the tech community who deliberately want to give rise to the super intelligence. There's another point of view of super intelligence where super intelligence means that the software is now more intelligent than all humans. And as a result, the software may have its own motivations to figure out how to supersede humans on earth. Now, the Larry Page statement, which I don't know firsthand. I read the same article you did is one that a group of people might say, evolution is evolution. You know, people that would say that. That's right.

是的，我觉得在科技界有很多人故意想要发展出超级智能。有另一种观点认为，超级智能意味着软件现在比所有人类更聪明。因此，软件可能会有自己的动机来想方设法超越人类在地球上的地位。现在，Larry Page的声明，我不是第一手了解。我看了你看的同一篇文章，其中有一些人可能会说，进化就是进化，就像那些会这样说的人。是的。

And I know you on stake in this point of view that like, you know, we need to maintain human. Human supremacy, but my favorite test is, you know, there was there's the Turing test, which like, you can't tell if it's a human or if it's a robot, but Mustafa came up with the with the modern Turing test, which is an AI model is given a hundred thousand dollars and has to obtain one million. Go. Kind of interesting. And the other good idea.

我知道你在这个观点上有立场，就像，你知道的，我们需要维持人类的至上地位。但是我的最爱的测试是，你知道的，有图灵测试，就是你无法分辨是人还是机器人，但慕斯塔法提出了现代的图灵测试，就是给一个AI模型十万美元，让它赚到一百万。挺有趣的。还有其他好主意。

The other interesting one was Gary Marcus. He said the IKEA test, the flat pack furniture test and AI views the parts and structures of an IKEA flat pack product that controls a robot to assemble the furniture correctly. Oh, look, what's up, sunny? It's now time to do just a quick little congratulations to our dear friend, Sundeep Maundry. We call him Sonny. That's his nickname. And he's one of our poker buddies. He keeps building great companies. And in this case, Sundeep is the first person to collect all four besties. We all invested in his company, definitive. And definitive was working in AI, but we got some great news this week. And we thought we would give him his flowers. Sonny, you want to tell us what happened this week with our investment in your company, definitive intelligence at definitive.io, I believe you're a good man. Yeah. Well, you know, with your guys support and, you know, we've been growing our company and we saw a really great opportunity to work together with GRAK. And we've been working with them for a couple of months. And all the hype that you've seen has been built on the collaboration that we've done, building the cloud offering, the API offerings. And so, you know, we've decided to merge with them and we're super excited. And all the besties are now, not only shareholders in definitive previously, but now shareholders in GRAK. This is this is the first investment, I think, where we're all on the cap table, right? So we can we're all rooting in the same direction.

另一个有趣的演讲者是Gary Marcus。他提到了“宜家考验”，也就是将宜家平装家具进行拆解，让人工智能查看零件和结构，控制机器人正确组装家具。哦，看啊，阳光明媚的天气！现在是时候恭喜我们亲爱的朋友Sundeep Maundry了。我们叫他Sonny。这是他的昵称。他是我们的扑克好友之一，一直在创办优秀的公司。在这个案例中，Sundeep是第一个收集到所有四位投资人的人。我们都投资了他的公司Definitive。Definitive一直在从事人工智能的工作，但这周我们得到了一些好消息。我们想给他点表扬。Sonny，你想告诉我们这周在你的公司Definitive Intelligence（网址为definitive.io）投资方面发生了什么吗？是的。嗯，你们的支持以及，你们我们公司的增长，我们看到了一个与GRAK合作的绝佳机会。我们已经与他们合作了几个月。所有你看到的热闹都是基于我们的合作构建的，建立云服务、API服务。所以，我们决定合并，并且我们感到非常兴奋。现在所有的投资人不仅是Definitive的股东，而且还是GRAK的股东。我想这是我们所有人第一次在股权表上，对各自的发展方向给予支持。

What's happening in the developer's side? How's the momentum? Well, the momentum is incredible. You know, we have now 16,000 plus developers in our, you know, sell sort of playground as well over like a thousand apps that people have developed using the API and all kinds of new functionality. You know, the API allows people to get a higher rate of throughput on tokens and low latency. So there's all kinds of new applications from voice to real time translation of web pages. You know, we're collecting them on our Discord.

开发者那边情况如何？进展如何？嗯，势头非常强劲。你知道的，现在我们在我们的"游乐场"里有16,000多名开发者，以及超过一千款使用API开发的应用程序。API能够让人们获得更高的令牌吞吐量和低延迟。因此有各种各样的新功能。通过API，人们可以开发从语音到实时网页翻译等各种新应用。你知道的，我们正在Discord上收集这些新应用。

We have, you know, 3,000 people in the Discord. As well, it is a real community that's come together building around GRAK. And what I will say is, you know, sort of the same jump that developers saw when we went from dial up internet to broadband, they're seeing that now and from using like traditional APIs for LLMs to using, you know, the ones that we offer. You guys support the latest and profit models that they just launched that seem pretty kickass.

我们在 Discord 上有 3,000 多人。同时，这是一个真正的围绕 GRAK 建立起来的社区。我想说的是，开发人员们现在正在经历一种类似于从拨号上网过渡到宽带的飞跃，他们正在从传统的 API 转向我们提供的 API。你们支持最新和盈利模式，看起来相当牛逼。

No, we don't have those yet, but we're in just, you know, we're having discussions with everyone out there. We want to support their models. Right now, what we've done given all the demand is we've kind of limited it to LAMA-270B and Mixtrol. And we actually have a bunch of other models that we make available in private mode for folks. We're pretty excited. But if there's anyone out there that wants to have us, you know, give us a call and we'll get you going on our systems.

不，我们还没有那些，但我们正在和所有人进行讨论。我们想要支持他们的模型。现在，鉴于所有的需求，我们已经将它限制在LAMA-270B和Mixtrol。实际上，我们还有很多其他型号在私人模式下提供给人们。我们感到非常兴奋。但如果有人想要我们的产品，给我们打电话，我们会为您启动我们的系统。

Well, Sonny, congrats to you. You're an incredible entrepreneur. And it's always fun to kind of be on the journey with you. This is my fourth business that I've done with Sonny Madra. That's amazing. Extremely. Yeah. Then there was a company in between. No, no, no, there was a company in between. You have to understand, Sonny and I met because Sonny went to school where I grew up. He went to the University of Ottawa. I grew up there. And we met through a mutual friend and his first company was called Spongefish, which I backed, I think in 2006, maybe. I mean, I have no money. I might have written that $10,000. Yeah, would you give me $10,000? Maybe less. Maybe less $5K. Yeah. I mean, whatever. I've done it that much. I like it. Scraped it together. And it's our fourth business. Sonny's a very full rabbit's foot. You're a rabbit's foot, Sonny. It is true. He is. He's a lot of box. Let's prefer as a prepared company.

嗯，儿子，祝贺你。你是一个不可思议的企业家。能和你一起踏上这个旅程总是很有趣。这是我第四次和Sonny Madra合作创业。这太神奇了。极其神奇。后来还有一家公司。不，不，中间有一家公司。你要明白，我和Sonny是通过一个共同的朋友认识的，他去了我长大的地方的奥塔华大学。我们在2006年左右认识，他的第一家公司叫Spongefish，我支持过它。我可能没有太多钱，可能只投了1万美元，或者更少。也许只有5千。嗯。不管怎样，总之，这是我们的第四家公司。Sonny是一个非常幸运的兔子脚。你是个幸运的人，Sonny。确实如此。他很幸运。他是个幸运的兔子脚。让我们继续成功。

Well, I mean, I've been in two of Sundeep's companies and I thank him for that. And then Extreme Labs, actually, to thank you again. You sponsored a lot of my events 10 years ago and I was coming up, so I appreciate that. So it's just great to see a nice guy win, as opposed to the three-minver people who I work with on this podcast keep winning. So it's good. Now, finally, a good guy wins, as opposed to the four of us. Well, I appreciate all your guys' support. It means a lot to us. You guys get in the developers and keep putting it out there and keep us honest as well. So if we're not doing something right, let us know. We really appreciate you guys all.

嗯，我的意思是，我曾在Sundeep的两家公司工作过，我为此感谢他。而且Extreme Labs，再次感谢你们。10年前，你们赞助了很多我的活动，当时我正在起步阶段，所以我很感激。看到一个好人获胜真是太好了，而不是那些我在播客中合作的三分钟做事的人一直获胜。所以，这真是太好了。最后，终于是一个好人获胜了，不是我们四个中的任何一个。我感谢你们所有人的支持。这对我们来说意义重大。你们挑选开发者，并继续奉献您的努力，也让我们保持诚实。如果我们做错了什么，请告诉我们。我们真的很感激你们。

Zach, do you want to say something motivational to Sonny here? I know you always have a great motivational word for your friends, something you say that just gives people that thrill of being in the game. Go ahead, Zach. You always have something. We're going to ship 20 million into your safe note. I know you closed it, but we're going to pry it open and get some allocation. You're prying. We're not safe. The safe. If there's a wedge, I know a guy with a podcast who's got 800,000 followers. Maybe I could slip in a quick five-hundee. Is there possible? What do you think, Cindy? Let us know right now. I don't know. We did a really big announcement of the Saudis this week, so that price might be up. So let us ship something into that safe note, so we actually have some real skid in the game. David, text me. All right, we'll do.

扎克，你想对桑尼说些激励性的话吗？我知道你总是对朋友们说一些鼓励人心的话，那种让人感觉像是在比赛中的激情。挑战吧，扎克。你总是有办法的。我们要向你的保险柜里注入2000万。我知道你已经关闭了它，但我们要强行打开并获取一些分配。我们在强劲。我们不安全。这个保险柜。如果有一根楔子，我认识一个播客有80万粉丝。也许我能快速加一点。有可能吗？辛迪，你怎么想？现在就告诉我们。我不知道。我们这周和沙特阿拉伯人有了一个重大的公告，所以价格可能上涨。让我们向那个保险柜里放点东西，确保我们真正参与其中。大卫，给我发个短信。好的，我会的。

Well, no, but seriously, hey, Cindy, wait a second. If he's. If you're going to get a second. I got to get a second chip in the pocket. Yeah, 100, 100. So once in 500, by that he means $500. So we'll let you. No, I got a gift card for you from Starbucks. And if I had a gift card for you in the team, I think I got like 100 tickets. Jacob's going to redeem that Starbucks gift card. Yeah. Give us a $0.20 in the dollar and then shipping. Let me set it in. Let me set it in. Maybe I can 100 exit. No, seriously, 500k from your boy, Jay Cal.

嗯，不是，但是说真的，嘿，辛迪，等一下。如果他是的话。如果你要再来一次的话。我得再在口袋里拿一个筹码。是的，100，100。所以说一次是500，他指的是500美元。所以我们让你选择。不，我给你Starbucks的礼品卡。如果我有给你和团队的礼品卡，我想我有大约100张门票。雅各布要兑换那张星巴克的礼品卡。是的。给我们0.2美元一美元的汇率，然后加上运费。让我设置进去。让我设置进去。也许我可以100倍出局。不，说真的，你的小伙子Jay Cal从500k而来。

All right, everybody. Thanks to Sunny for jumping on. Congratulations on the merch. Thanks, guys. All right, issue two. Issue two. Apple is battling two major iOS developers and regulators or siding with the devs. You may know about the Apple versus Epic Games saga. We've talked about it here. Epic Games planning to create a custom app store on iOS because Europe's DMA, the Digital Markets Act, has said that Apple now has to allow third-party apps for us in the EU. So Epic created a developer account based in Sweden. And Apple actually approved the account two weeks ago, then on Wednesday, Apple flipped, terminated Epic's EU developer account. And Apple said one of the reasons they terminated the account was because Epic CEO publicly criticized their DMA compliance plan. Additionally, on Monday, Apple was fined $2 billion by the EU's antitrust regulators and was forced to remove its anti-steering rules for music apps like Spotify. Basically, Apple has been restricting music apps from informing users about pricing and discounts and the European Commission considered this anti-competitive since Apple runs Apple Music. And they want Spotify to pay 30% Daniel Eck, a friend of the pod. You know, basically did a whole video on this about how they can't charge 30% more. Yada yada.

大家好。感谢Sunny的加入。恭喜你们的商品。谢谢，伙计们。好了，第二个问题。第二个问题。苹果正在与两家主要的iOS开发者和监管机构进行斗争，还是站在开发者这边。你们可能知道苹果与Epic Games的战争。我们在这里已经谈过了。Epic Games计划在iOS上创建一个定制的应用商店，因为欧洲的DMA，即数字市场法案，已经规定苹果现在必须允许欧盟国家使用第三方应用程序。所以Epic在瑞典创建了一个开发者帐户。苹果实际上在两周前批准了这个帐户，然后在周三，苹果改变主意，终止了Epic在欧盟的开发者帐户。苹果表示终止该帐户的原因之一是因为Epic的CEO公开批评了他们的DMA合规计划。此外，周一，苹果被欧盟反垄断监管机构罚款20亿美元，并被迫取消了像Spotify这样的音乐应用的反导向规定。基本上，苹果一直在限制音乐应用程序告知用户价格和折扣信息，而欧洲委员会认为这是反竞争的，因为苹果经营着Apple Music。他们想让Spotify支付30%的费用。Daniel Eck，一个我们的朋友做的一个关于这个问题的视频，内容是他们不能收取30%的费用。等等。

Sax, you've spoken about Apple's monopoly before. Your thoughts on what's happening in the EU and then we'll get into Apple's wider problems. I mean, did you just say that Apple booted Epic from their App Store because they didn't like what Epic said about them? I think they're telling to a heart. Well, they're violating Epic's free speech because they don't like what Epic is saying. I mean, this is crazy heavy-handed by Apple. Apple heavy-handed with developers? Yeah. Have they lost their minds? I mean, this is right out of power corrupts and absolute power corrupts, absolutely. I mean, whatever dispute you have with Epic, you don't boot them out of your App Store because you don't like their criticism of you. I mean, this is basically proving exactly what everyone's been saying about Apple, which is they're too powerful and heavy-handed. Apple is coming along and saying, let me confirm it for you guys by acting tyrannically against Epic. Talk about a backfire. This seems insane to me. Yeah, it's super nuts.

Sax，你之前谈过关于苹果垄断的问题。你对欧盟正在发生的事情有什么看法，然后我们再深入讨论苹果面临的更广泛问题。你是不是刚刚说苹果把Epic从他们的App Store中踢出去是因为他们不喜欢Epic说的话？我觉得他们打压言论自由了。嗯，他们违反了Epic的言论自由，因为他们不喜欢Epic说的话。我是指，苹果的做法实在是太过份了。苹果对开发者很霸道吗？是的。他们是不是失去了理智？我是说，这就是权力腐败，绝对权力腐蚀的体现。我是说，无论你与Epic有什么争执，你都不应该因为不喜欢他们对你的批评而将他们从你的App Store中踢出去。这基本上证明了大家一直在说的苹果的问题，即他们太过强大和霸道了。苹果的做法就像在说：“让我通过对Epic的专制行为来证实给你们看。”说起一个适得其反的结果。这对我来说似乎是疯狂的。是的，这太疯狂了。

Shamat, any thoughts on this before we get into Apple's other problems? I think it's the beginning of the decay of Apple. Peek Apple. Well, let's get into that. There's tons of headwinds facing Apple. You can add a bunch of other things to the list as well, Jason. Yeah. The thing is Apple for the last couple of years has been what is effectively what we call a GDP plus growth company, which means that take GDP to 3, 4%. Maybe they can grow by a couple of percentage points more than that, but they are effectively levered to GDP, meaning when you look at a Facebook or an Nvidia, they're growing at 50%, 200%, 2000%, whatever it is, that's not tied to GDP.

Shamat，在我们讨论苹果的其他问题之前，你对此有什么想法吗？我认为这是苹果衰败的开端。看看苹果。好吧，让我们深入讨论一下。苹果面临着许多困难。杰森，你还可以把其他很多事情加入到列表中。是的。问题是，过去几年，苹果实际上一直是我们所说的GDP增长公司，这意味着他们的增长与GDP相关，也就是说，当你看到Facebook或Nvidia的增长率达到50%，200%，2000%，无论是什么数字，这与GDP没有关系。

They're just taking share. But Apple is a company now that grows as the economy of the world grows. So that's not super great for its future prospects, unless it can expand the surface area of where they operate. And then on that dimension, there are a few trillion dollar markets that they can really penetrate. And they just announced that they've killed a project in one of those areas, which is autos, project Titan, which was $10 billion, turned out to be a failure. So all of these things, I think, mean to me that it is effectively becoming a cyclical rate sensitive stock. And then the coup de grace Warren Buffett. And Nick and I were talking about it this week. And what was interesting about Buffett's letter is that you can tell when Buffett has gotten disengaged with a company based on the number of times he mentions it in his annual letter.

他们只是在分走市场份额。但是苹果现在是一家随着世界经济增长而增长的公司。因此，对于它未来的前景来说并不是非常乐观，除非它能够扩大他们运营的范围。在这个维度上，有一些万亿美元的市场可以让他们真正渗透。他们刚刚宣布取消了在其中一个领域的项目，即汽车项目Titan，投资了100亿美元，结果是一场失败。所有这些事情，我认为，意味着它有效地正在变成一个周期性的对利率敏感的股票。而沃伦·巴菲特则是敲响的最后一击。尼克和我本周讨论过这个问题。巴菲特的信中有趣的地方在于，根据他在年度信中提到的次数，你可以看出他何时对一家公司失去了兴趣。

So in this example, this is the number of times Apple was mentioned. And just to be clear, what I mean by mentions is not when it's included in a chart or part of a disclosure. What I mean is when Warren actually explicitly mentions it in a positive or even negative way, or he doesn't mention it at all, which I think rings very loudly. He went from basically saying Apple was the absolute end all and be all. And now what you can start to see is this shrinking. And it's gone from basically a bunch of times to almost none. He did mention it once, but he mentioned it in the context of talking positively about Coca-Cola and hammocks. And he was lauding these two positions, but just mentioning that they were not as large in comparison to Apple.

所以在这个例子中，这是提到苹果的次数。只是为了澄清，我的意思并不是当它包含在图表中或作为披露的一部分时。我的意思是沃伦实际上明确地以积极的或者甚至消极的方式提到它，或者根本不提到，我觉得这一点非常明显。他过去基本上说苹果是绝对的终极产品。现在你可以开始看到这种缩小。基本上已经从很多次减少到几乎没有了。他确实提到过一次，但是那是在谈到可口可乐和吊床时提到的。他赞扬这两个职位，但只是提到它们相较于苹果不那么大而已。

That's the only mention in this year's annual letter. What's interesting about that is the last time that that happened was with drumroll, Wells Fargo over 15 and 20 years. Buffett built up a huge position. I think he was able to weather the vicissitudes of the market. So even when the markets would contract, he knew when to hold on to that company until he realized that that company was not really one of his forever stocks. And he got out of it. And the number of times it basically was mentioned in his letter went to zero. So interestingly, I think this Buffett index is a really important one for Apple, which is it went from a forever holding that he said he would own forever to barely getting mentioned. And above him, above Apple on that list were all the Japanese trading companies that Buffett owns, American Express, Coca-Cola.

这是今年年度信中唯一提到的事项。有趣的是，上一次发生这种情况是在15到20年前，那时巧合的是富国银行。巴菲特建立了一个庞大的头寸。我认为他能够经受住市场波动。所以，即使市场下跌，他知道何时该继续持有该公司，直到意识到那家公司实际上并非他永远的股票之一。然后他退出了。在他的信中提到该公司的次数基本上降至零。因此，有趣的是，我认为这个巴菲特指数对苹果公司非常重要，它已经从他所说会永远持有的永久性投资变成了几乎不提及的股票。在这个清单上排在苹果之前的是巴菲特所拥有的所有日本贸易公司、美国运通和可口可乐。

So that is a person that understands the economy, I think, better than anybody else in the world. And so if you're basically taking a lever bet to the economy as a reason to own Apple and the person that understands the economy the most has now started to pivot away. He started to sell in quarter four. And then you see all of these things, entry trust rules, killing projects in trillion-dollar tams. Unfortunately, it speaks for a very bad next five to 10 years for this company, unless they figure something out. I think it's just such a great insight with the worm Buffett mentions. And we should do that forward looking like, who is he talking about now? And let's the monitor when he stops talking about them. I have the theory about this.I think this is really just about peak iPhone. If you look at the majority of their revenue, it's obviously from the iPhone, which has become massively profitable over time. But the iPhone revenue has been flat for a couple of years now. And they're starting to make their money from services. Everybody knows Apple one iCloud storage, Apple arcade, Apple music, Apple plus TV. They've got a great collection of services and services revenues growing.

这是一个比世界上任何人都更了解经济的人。如果你基本上以经济为理由持有苹果的杠杆赌注，那么最了解经济的人现在开始转变了。他在第四季度开始出售。然后你会看到所有这些事情，加入信托规则，终止了价值数万亿美元的项目。不幸的是，这预示着接下来的五到十年对这家公司来说将会非常糟糕，除非他们找到解决方法。我觉得这是巴菲特提到的一种很棒的见解。我们应该展望未来，思考他现在说的是谁？并观察一旦他停止谈论这些人。我有一个关于这个的理论。我认为这实际上只是关于iPhone销售达到顶峰。如果你看大部分他们的收入，显然是来自iPhone，随着时间推移，iPhone已经变得非常盈利。但是iPhone销售额已经连续几年保持平稳。他们开始从服务中赚钱。每个人都知道苹果的iCloud存储、游戏、音乐和电视等服务。他们拥有一系列出色的服务，服务收入正在增长。

But I don't think that they are filling in this growth problem with the iPhone. And this happened to me for the first time. And I don't know if you gentlemen have had the same experience, but I was buying every Apple phone and then I would buy every like medium upgrade, like when they would do like a 12 and then a 12 S or an 11, 11 S. And when I got to iPhone 13, I was like, this thing's kind of peaked. And I just forgot to buy the 14 didn't need it. And then I bought the 15 and I'm sitting here at my 15 and my 13. I really couldn't tell the difference between them. And so now I'm a technologist who would buy it every year, the latest one. And I don't feel the need to upgrade it. And I think that a lot of people and I have family members who would take two generations off. Now they take three or four generations off. I don't even know what number I'm on. I don't even know either. It all looks the same to me. Okay. I mean, that's the problem here. And then if you look at their roadmap, what's what is the device post the Steve Jobs era that they have launched? How do you know what device you have? You go to general in your settings and about I just checked it. I'm I from 13 pro. What version of the? Yeah. What is 15 general? They're on 15 and I'm on 13 pro. I don't even know.

但我觉得他们并没有用iPhone填补这个增长问题。这对我来说是第一次发生。我不知道你们是否有同样的经历，但我以前会买每一款苹果手机，然后会买每一款中等升级的手机，比如他们发布12之后再发布12S或者11之后发布11S。当我拿到iPhone 13时，我觉得这个产品已经达到巅峰了。然后我忘了买14，不需要。之后我买了15，现在我手里有15和13。我真的看不出它们之间的区别。现在作为一个科技爱好者，我以前每年都会买最新的手机，但现在我不觉得有必要升级。我觉得很多人，包括我的家人，会跳过两代，现在他们跳过三四代。我甚至不知道我现在用的是哪一代。对我来说，它们都看起来一样。这就是问题所在。如果你看看他们的路线图，史蒂夫·乔布斯时代之后他们发布了什么设备？你怎么知道你有哪个设备？你可以在设置里找到常规信息，然后查看版本。我刚刚查了一下，我用的是13 Pro。他们现在用的是15，而我还在用13 Pro。我甚至都不知道。

Yeah. And you're not price sensitive. Yeah. And these things have gotten absurdly expensive. So they're trying to really extract what is the what is the latest? 15. 15. I'm on a 14. I don't like the hassle of having to like reset everything when I get a new phone. Yes. And it's easy to do now. It's like all in the cloud. But even that going to the store buying it like who cares. It's not. But then on my apps, I have to re log in and free.

是的。而且你不太在意价格。是的。这些东西变得荒谬地昂贵。所以他们真的在极力挖掘最新的是什么？15。15。我现在用的是14。我不喜欢每次换新手机都要重新设置一切的麻烦。是的。现在很容易做到了，都在云端。但就算去商店买，又有什么关系呢。其实不是。但是我的应用程序中，我得重新登录和重新免费下载。

Burke, what a what Android phone are you on? Are you you're a googler? Didn't the Googlers all have Android phones? Where are you and I your team iPhone? I got the Macintosh original in 1984. I've only been on Macintosh and Apple products since then. What iPhone are you on? Be honest. 15 pro. Okay. Have you ever tried a Pixel V-Pro? I don't like it. But I just I'm not used to the OS. I just what was the rule at Google? If you worked at Google, did where you kind of forced to have an Android phone or you just keep your iPhone in your pocket and not take out?

伯克，你用的是什么安卓手机？你是谷歌员工吗？难道所有谷歌员工都在用安卓手机吗？我们团队里你和我是唯一用苹果手机的吗？我在1984年就开始使用麦金塔原版了，从那时起我只用过麦金塔和苹果产品。你用的是哪款iPhone？坦诚以对。15 Pro。好的。你试过Pixel V-Pro吗？我不喜欢，可能是因为不习惯操作系统。谷歌的规定是什么？在谷歌工作的人，是被要求使用安卓手机还是可以一直放在口袋里不拿出来？

There weren't a lot of Android's on the market when I was at Google because we acquired the company when I was there. Oh, we acquired Andy Rubens company in 04. And I think the first major devices started to roll out in 07. And so this was all post my era. I left at the end of 06. Wow. That's an amazing chart. Holy. So pull up this chart. Now, here's the global here's the global statistics. The US market share is 57% for iOS. But on a global basis, iOS only has a 27% market share in mobile operating systems. Android is 72%. And all other is less than 1%.

当我在谷歌的时候，市场上并没有很多安卓手机，因为我们在那时收购了这家公司。哦，我们在04年收购了安迪·鲁本的公司。我记得第一批重要的设备是在07年开始推出的。所以这都是在我的时代之后。我在06年底离开了。哇，这是一个令人惊叹的图表。天哪。快拉出这张图。现在，这是全球统计数据。在美国，iOS的市场份额为57%。但在全球范围内，iOS在移动操作系统市场中只有27%的市场份额。安卓占据了72%的份额。其他所有操作系统都少于1%。

But look at this. It's all the future GDP is on Android. Brazil, Nigeria, India, holy. Well, but I think this is one counter to your point, Chamoc, that the macro driver is as the economic position, the GDP per capita scales in these BRICS nations. They can start to afford to buy iPhones, which are generally some multiple of the Android devices in these markets that you see here. So while today Android is 72% of the market, if the emerging markets continue to grow GDP per capita and iOS continues to be the superior product, you'll see Apple able to steal into more share over time.

但是看看这个。未来GDP的所有增长都在安卓手机上。巴西、尼日利亚、印度，哇！嗯，但我认为这是对你观点的一个反驳，Chamoc，宏观驱动因素是经济地位，BRICS国家的人均GDP在这些市场上逐渐增加。他们将可以开始负担得起购买iPhone，而通常在这些市场上，iPhone的价格是安卓设备的多倍。所以尽管今天安卓市场占比为72％，如果新兴市场继续增长人均GDP，而iOS产品仍然保持卓越品质，你会看到苹果公司在未来能够逐渐夺取更多市场份额。

But how do you do that when you have messaging groups on Android, when you have photos in Google photos? Is it does the switching cost stop that? Do you think? I don't know the answer to that. It's a good question. They're down to 15 to $25 for these Android phones in India. There's a famous answer to the difference. That's the difference. Yeah. Right. So these Android devices, I think Apple is leveraged to GDP global GDP. So they need to figure out some way to grow superior to that. Like a company. So what is the market? What could they do? Services. A company that generally has a bunch of cash flow being generated by some set of products today and you will see them stasis. Over time, the market share for those products could be eaten away. You'll see the profits per year go down. And a company like that will trade anywhere from 7 to 20 times.

但是当你在安卓上有消息群，当你在谷歌相册里有照片时，你如何做到这一点呢？是切换成本阻止了吗？你认为呢？我不知道答案。这是一个很好的问题。在印度，这些安卓手机的价格已经降到了15到25美元。有一个著名的答案解释了这个差异。对，就是这个区别。所以这些安卓设备，我认为苹果与全球GDP有关。所以他们需要找到一种超越这一点的增长方式。就像一个公司。那么市场是什么？他们能做什么？服务。一个公司通常通过一系列产品产生的大量现金流，并且你将看到它们停滞不前。随着时间的推移，这些产品的市场份额可能会被侵蚀。你会看到这种公司的每年利润下降。这样的公司会以7到20倍的价格交易。

The technology value arises from the value of the brand that you can launch new products, leverage your brand, leverage your distribution, leverage the sale of new services. And new products. I think to your point, the challenge Apple is facing is that the pool of options, the portfolio of call options that you would get a new product coming out of Apple is shrinking. Very limited. With the car being taken out of that pool now, Apple Vision Pro, a lot of question marks on how much it can scale. As you guys know, I feel like there's going to be a market for that device. But it's a high-end device today. It has to become more cheap. The thing where ubiquitous. The thing that a lot of these companies confront though is that you can also grow inorganically.

技术价值来自于品牌价值，你可以推出新产品，利用你的品牌，利用你的分销渠道，促进新服务和新产品的销售。我认为，苹果所面临的挑战在于，你能从苹果推出的新产品的备选选择池正在缩小。非常有限。随着现在从这个池中剔除了汽车，苹果 Vision Pro，有很多疑问关于它能扩张多少。就像大家知道的，我觉得这个设备会有市场。但它今天是一个高端设备。它必须变得更便宜。变得无处不在。许多这些公司面临的问题是，你也可以通过非自然方式增长。

You don't necessarily have to incubate these projects. We can remember the moment Apple had a chance to buy Tesla. Then they didn't take it. Apple still has a chance to buy a picture company that would take a sweet acquisition off or Rivian, Lucid, Polestar, whatever it is. I'm not saying that these companies are good or not good. I'm just saying that Apple has the one tool that they've never used in their toolbox is the large inorganic acquisition. At this point, if they are proving that they can't execute internally, the market is going to demand that they prove they can use that balance sheet as a cudgel to go and execute it externally.

你不一定要孵化这些项目。我们可以回忆一下苹果有机会收购特斯拉的那一刻。然后他们没有采取行动。苹果仍然有机会收购一家影视公司，或者Rivian、Lucid、Polestar等任何项目。我不是说这些公司是好还是不好。我只是说苹果有一个工具，他们从未在工具箱里使用过的，那就是大规模的非自然增长。在这一点上，如果他们证明他们无法内部执行，市场将要求他们证明他们可以利用资产负债表作为一种武器去外部执行。

If they don't do that, they're going to discount that cash to zero. The challenge is that there's a certain discipline and quality to the products and the businesses that Apple produces and runs. It's very hard to see that in other markets. Why would they go buy a money losing low-margin car hardware company when they are proven to make it depends on the reasons project type and film? The article in Bloomberg basically said that the reason that they abandoned the project was in part that they did not know how to go from where they were to a full production vehicle that could be level five. Then when it was proposed that they stepped down and just launched a level three autonomous vehicle, everybody said no, that it wasn't disruptive enough. If that's the case, the thing that they made a decision about there was not going into a market because of regulation, not because of technical capability. I don't think that that's necessarily a smart decision. They would have been better off going into the car market, launching a level three vehicle and just letting the market play out. They probably, just like they were able to do music, have the influence to change the laws, especially if they stepped in there with their rigor. They're not doing that. So it's a little bit of a head scratcher what's going on over there. They need some new products. I mean, maybe Apple Vision Pro someday becomes a platform in the future, but they've squeezed as much revenue as they can out of the iPhone. Services seems like the best place for them to make money. But as we see, well, my idea for them was under assault. My idea was just that they should launch a huge competitor to AWS as you were in GCP. So if you look, every developer that Apple has theoretically could have been running on an Apple, not just on Apple's SDK and APIs, but they should be running in an Apple cloud. You could have made that claim and it would have made a ton of sense for app developers to have turn key access to that, right? And they could have subsidized it. And by the way, to Saxis Point, that would have been an incredible way to defend a 30% rev share. Okay, listen, I'm taking 30%, but here's a bunch of subsidized access to hardware. And the market would have loved it. And in this AI shift, they can still do that where now people are chipping away at the 30%, right? People are saying, well, I can just build around you. They need to do something. And services, Jason, the most valuable thing they could do would be to launch a big cloud, I think. Yeah, I mean, they have all the app developers on TestFlight ready to go. They just email them and say, hey, here's your free storage. I mean, they could just slowly add features, right? And they're doing this open source. I think it's called Maggie or Magpie or something, but they're doing an image one. And. Well, if they could just make Siri work, like the way it was supposed to using an LLM, and have a beef like Snappy, that'd be a major upgrade to the iPhone. I don't think you need to buy a new iPhone for that because it'd be a software upgrade. But just getting Siri to work would be the big win. I think that's where they're going with their silicon. And they just announced the M3 on the MacBook Airs. Like they're making their own silicon. And I think it's going to power LLM locally on the devices. And that's so powerful. I was using iPhoto this week. And in Apple Photos, there's now on certain images. If you swipe through them, you'll see the little AI icon. When you click it, it tells you things in the photo. Like that's a bulldog. That's pasta. And so they're already suddenly adding these features. Now, that's a feature Google's had in Google Photos for five years. But go ahead and open your phone right now and search for dog or bulldog or whatever type of dog you got. You know, Labrador, and then watch Golden Retriever that it actually knows how to do it. They never announced it. It's just subtly being put in there. So there's so many opportunities. If they required a hardware upgrade to get like actually good AI built into the software, then everyone's going to have to upgrade for that. You'd be on a pretty big motivation to upgrade. There you have it, Tim Cook. Somebody sent this clip to Tim Cook. Put AI chips on your phone. This is an art, right? I mean, all they got to do is just take the latest open source models and figure out how to customize them for their own products. Yeah, and they're doing it. They're doing it right now. All right.

如果他们不这样做，他们就会把这笔现金打折至零。挑战在于苹果生产和经营的产品和业务具有一定的纪律性和质量。在其他市场很难看到这一点。当他们已经被证明可以依靠项目类型和电影的原因时，为什么要去购买一个亏损、低利润的汽车硬件公司呢？彭博社的文章基本上说，他们放弃这个项目的原因部分是因为他们不知道如何从目前所处的阶段转变为一个可以达到五级别的完全生产的车辆。然后当有人建议他们放低标准，只是推出一个三级别的无人驾驶车辆时，每个人都说不，认为这样还不够颠覆性。如果是这样的话，他们做出的决定就是不进入市场是因为规定，而不是因为技术能力。我不认为这一定是一个明智的决定。他们最好是进入汽车市场，推出一个三级别的车辆，然后让市场自行发展。他们可能像他们能够做音乐一样，有影响力来改变法律，尤其是如果他们带着他们的严谨进入。但他们没有这样做。所以目前发生的事情有点令人费解。他们需要一些新产品。我的意思是，也许苹果Vision Pro将来会成为一个平台，但他们已经把iPhone上的收入榨干了。服务似乎是他们赚钱的最佳途径。但正如我们所看到的，我的想法受到了打击。我的想法只是他们应该推出一个巨大的对抗AWS和GCP的竞争对手。所以如果你看看，理论上所有苹果的开发人员都可以在苹果的SDK和API上而不仅仅是在苹果云上运行。你可以这样说，并且对于应用开发人员来说，有现成的访问权限是非常有意义的，对吧？他们本可以补贴。顺便说一句，从Saxis的观点来看，这将是捍卫30%收入份额的一种不可思议的方式。好吧，听着，我会拿走30%，但这里有一堆补贴的硬件访问权限。市场会喜欢的。在这种人工智能转变中，他们仍然可以做到这一点，现在人们正在逐步减少30%的份额，对吧？人们说，我可以绕过你来构建。他们需要做点什么。在服务方面，杰森，他们能做的最有价值的事情是推出一个大型云，我想。是的，我的意思是，他们所有的应用开发人员都正准备好在TestFlight上进行，他们只需给他们发送电子邮件，然后说，嘿，这里是你的免费存储空间。我是说，他们只需慢慢增加功能，对吧？他们正在开源这个。我想叫做Maggie或Magpie之类的名字，但他们正在开发一个图像功能。如果他们能让Siri正常工作，就像预计的那样可以利用LLM进行操作，并拥有像Snappy那样的功能，那将是iPhone的重大升级。我认为不需要为此购买新的iPhone，因为这只是一个软件升级。但要让Siri正常工作将是重大胜利。我认为他们正在朝着他们的硅片技术进行。他们刚刚在MacBook Air上推出了M3。他们正在制造自己的硅片，并且我认为这将在设备上本地驱动LLM。这是非常强大的。这周我正在使用iPhoto，苹果照片现在在某些照片上。如果你在照片中滑动，就会看到一个小的AI图标。当你点击它时，会告诉你照片中的事物，比如那是一只斗牛犬，那是意大利面。所以他们已经在悄悄地添加这些功能。现在，五年来，谷歌相册一直拥有这个功能。但是现在打开你的电话，搜索狗、斗牛犬或你拥有的任何狗品种，比如拉布拉多，然后看看金毛寻回犬，它实际上知道如何做。他们从未宣布过。它就被悄悄地放进去了。所以有很多机会。如果他们需要硬件升级才能将真正的良好人工智能融入软件中，那么每个人都必须为此升级。这将是一个相当大的升级动机。所以提醒你，Tim Cook。在你的手机上放AI芯片。这就是艺术，对吧？他们只需要使用最新的开源模型，并找出如何为他们自己的产品定制化。是的，他们正在这么做。他们现在正在这样做。好的。

Let's go to issue four. TikTok bipartisan ban. Will the CCP agree a bipartisan group of a dozen plus lawmakers introduced a bill that would effectively ban TikTok? And the House this week, the bill is officially called the protecting Americans from foreign adversary controlled applications act gives by dance 165 days to divest from TikTok. That's the pairing company, the Chinese company that owns TikTok, the app that's very popular in the West, especially here in America. It would make it illegal for companies like Apple and Google to show TikTok in their app stores. As you know, TikTok, 170 million US users. And they claim that they're headquartered in Singapore.

让我们来看第四问题。 TikTok 跨党派禁令。 一群由十几名以上议员组成的跨党派团体提出了一项旨在有效禁止 TikTok 的法案，中共是否会同意？本周在众议院，该法案正式命名为《保护美国人免受外国对手控制应用程序法案》，给予达比舜165天的时间将 TikTok 投资。这是拥有 TikTok 的中国公司——TikTok的母公司。尤其在美国，这个应用非常受欢迎。该法案将使像苹果和谷歌这样的公司在他们的应用商店中显示 TikTok 是非法的。正如你所知，TikTok 在美国有1.7亿用户。他们声称总部设在新加坡。

I know people who have worked at TikTok or do work at TikTok. And they said that's nonsense to me. The company said it has not and will not share user data with the CCP. In my mind, it's an obvious lie. In 2021, the CCP took a board seat on by dance Beijing based subsidiary. That's according to Reuters. And then in 2022 by dance admitted that it accessed IP addresses and data by journalists covering TikTok to see if they've been in the same place as by dance employees, obviously to find leakers. And by dance claims, they fired the people involved. Yada Yada last year, a former head of engineering of by dance US said CCP members had God Mode access to user data in 2018. Saks, I can go explain more of this, but I just got to go to you here.

我认识那些在抖音工作或曾在抖音工作过的人。他们告诉我，公司声称不会和不会与中国共产党分享用户数据都是胡说八道。在我看来，这显然是一个谎言。根据路透社的报道，2021年，中国共产党在字节跳动北京的子公司获得了董事会席位。然后在2022年，字节跳动承认他们查看了覆盖抖音的记者的IP地址和数据，以查看他们是否和字节跳动员工在同一个地方，显然是为了找出泄密者。字节跳动声称他们解雇了涉及的人员。去年，一位前字节跳动美国工程主管称，2018年中国共产党成员拥有用户数据的上帝模式访问权限。嗯，我可以解释更多的细节，但是现在我得转给你了。

If this if by dance is not spying on Americans and the CCP is on the board, that would be make no logical sense to me. And why are they fighting the divestiture? If it's just the financial reason, why would they take the CCP off their board? Do you think it's spyware? Do you think the US is crazy for allowing this product here in the United States when we're not allowed to put. Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, pick your social network in China. We have zero reciprocity here. Look, if it's true that TikTok is sharing data with the CCP, then I think the United States as well within its rights to either ban it or cause it to be divested. And I personally like the divestiture option. I mean, that's what Trump was suggesting during his term. Because we don't, I think in the United States like to just essentially confiscate or destroy people's property.

如果TikTok并没有监视美国人，而中共在董事会上，这对我来说是没有逻辑的。为什么他们要反对资产处置呢? 如果只是出于经济原因，为什么他们要将中共从董事会上除名呢? 你认为这是间谍软件吗? 你觉得美国允许这种产品在这里销售是疯了吗，而我们没法使用Twitter、Facebook、Instagram等社交网络在中国。我们在这里没有零互惠条款。看，如果TikTok真的在与中共分享数据，我认为美国有权禁止它或促使其处置。我个人偏好处置选项。我是说，在特朗普执政期间，这就是他建议的做法。因为我们不想在美国简单地没收或摧毁别人的财产。

But I think we're within our rights to require it to be divested to an entity that we know is completely separate from and won't cooperate with the CCP. This bill is a better is better than the last bill we talked about that was targeted at TikTok. I don't know if you remember that one, but it was weirdly prohibiting Americans from using VPNs and gave the government the right to go after. Americans are using VPNs. So this one seems cleaner and better and more narrowly targeted at divestiture. Now, at the beginning of my response to you, I did say if, you know, I know that everyone's just assuming that it's true that TikTok is sharing data with the CCP.

但我认为我们有权要求将它剥离给一个与中共完全分开且不会合作的实体。这项法案比我们之前讨论的那个针对TikTok的法案更好。我不知道你是否还记得那个法案，但奇怪地禁止美国人使用VPN，并赋予政府追究使用VPN的美国人的权利。因此，这个法案看起来更干净、更好，并且更狭义地针对剥离。现在，在我回答你时，我确实说过，如果，你知道，我知道每个人都默认认为TikTok在与中共分享数据是真的。

But I just want to confirm that that is the case because they are denying it. And I can understand why people think it and why it might even be likely. But since we do have a concept to do process in America, I do think some evidence you provided that that actually is taking place. Well, we've had, you know, whistleblowers inside there, but Chumath, if the CCP is spying on their own citizens, what are the chances that they wouldn't take the opportunity to spy on government officials who have TikTok on their phone or their kids and get compromised on them possibly or no locations of people? What does your gut tell you? Is this too dangerous for us to have here in America under CCP control or this kind of influence being on their board? I think you're asking the exact right question. I have two comments to make. One is, Nick, if you can bring up this article about the Google AI IP case, basically what happened was that the DOJ filed an indictment.

但我只是想确认那是否属实，因为他们在否认。我可以理解为什么人们会这样认为，甚至可能是有道理的。但由于美国有法治理念，我认为你提供的一些证据实际上表明了这一点。我们有内部告发者，但如果中共正在监视自己的公民，那他们不会错过监视安装有TikTok的电话或他们的孩子的政府官员的机会，可能会受到威胁，或者得知人们的位置。你的直觉告诉你什么？这对我们在美国来说太危险了，由中共控制，或者让这样的影响力存在于他们的董事会上吗？我认为你问了正是正确的问题。我有两点评论。一是，尼克，如果可以请你提出这篇关于谷歌AI知识产权案件的文章，简而言之，司法部提起了起诉。

I think I sent you guys the actual indictment. But essentially what happened is there was an engineer at Google that has been charged with stealing AI secrets for China. And I don't know if whether he's back in China now or not. But the whole point is that if it's happened at Google, right where there's a motivation for the Chinese intelligence apparatus and frankly every intelligence apparatus to infiltrate that organization and get access to all kinds of data, I think we should presume by default that all of these organizations are infiltrated.

我想我已经给你们发送了真正的起诉书。但基本上发生的事情是，谷歌有一名工程师被指控窃取人工智能机密给中国。我不知道他现在是否回到中国。但关键是，如果这种情况发生在谷歌，那么中国情报机构和实际上每个情报机构都有动机渗透该组织并获取各种数据的机会，我认为我们应该默认所有这些组织都已被渗透。

And I think that that's probably a more conservative and reasonable posture. So Facebook is infiltrated. Google is infiltrated. Apple is infiltrated. TikTok is infiltrated. So on that dimension, I think that it should be considered a hundred percent certainty that this data is getting back to not just the Chinese, but multiple state sponsored actors. So the question about TikTok then I think should be one of business. And I think Palmer Lucky did a very good job of simplifying this down to its essence, which is essentially what he called the law of equivalent exchange. If you want to just play this, it's like just a few seconds. I was kind of frustrated that people made TikTok into a cultural issue. By the way, I'm totally on the culture war side of it. But I was saying practically speaking, you should not make this a culture war issue.

我认为这可能是一个更加保守和理性的立场。脸书被渗透。谷歌被渗透。苹果被渗透。TikTok被渗透。在这个维度上，我认为应该百分之百确定这些数据不仅传回中国，还传给了多个国家赞助的行动者。因此，关于TikTok的问题我认为应该是一个业务问题。我认为帕尔默·拉基很好地简化了这个问题的核心，他基本上称之为等价交换法则。如果你只是想玩这个，就差几秒了。我有点不满于人们把TikTok变成了一个文化问题。顺便说一下，我完全在文化战争的一边。但我说实际上，你不应该把这个问题变成文化战争问题。

Don't talk about how it's ruining our youth's ideals. Just say strictly on a trade basis. We cannot allow them to sell this thing to us if we can't sell the same thing to them. Like that should be totally fair. That's reciprocity. That's reciprocity. Me and Palmer Lucky in sync. Right. So this is what he calls the law of equivalent exchange. And I think it just makes a lot of sense. So on the face, what I would say is, Jake, all my responses. I think that the CCP, but also other intelligence organizations have infiltrated all of these big companies and all of our data is accessible by them. I'm not going to say on a whim, but I think it's accessible. I think you have to deal with TikTok as a business issue.

不要谈论它如何毁掉我们青年的理想。只是说严格按照交易基础。如果我们不能向他们出售同样的东西，我们就不能允许他们向我们出售这个东西。就像应该完全公平的。这就是互惠的。这就是互惠的。我和帕尔默·拉奇心连心。 是的。这就是他所说的等价交换法则。我觉得这非常有道理。所以我要说的是，杰克，所有我的回应。我认为中共，以及其他情报组织已经渗透进了所有这些大公司，我们所有的数据都可以被他们访问。我不会随口说，但我认为这是可以访问的。我认为你必须把TikTok当作一个商业问题来处理。

And I agree with Palmer Lucky, which is they should not be able to sell to us, but we cannot sell to them. And I think that that's a fair principle that we can live on. The reciprocity is a very simple position. Freeberg. Let me use your creativity, your love of cinema. If you were to use this tool, let's take the most cynical approach here. We're interpretation. CCP has complete access to the algorithms, and they want to do maximum damage. Let's say during the election, let's say in a conflict like the one going on in Ukraine, with Russia, or in Gaza. What could they do using the algorithm, using videos? What would be the doomsday scenario for America? As in the CCP comes in and influences the management of this company and tells them what to tweak and how and why. Yes. What would they do? I think we saw this during after October 7th that there was a significant surge in pro-Hamas videos relative to Israel support videos. That's the sort of thing where you could kind of see something that sets an opinion that may be disruptive to the social fabric, to the election cycle, that starts to get shared more frequently and shows up in feeds more frequently.

我赞同Palmer Lucky的观点，即他们不应该能够向我们销售，但我们也不能向他们销售。我认为这是一个公平的原则，我们可以依此生活。互惠原则是一个非常简单的立场。Freeberg先生，让我借用一下您的创造力，您对电影的热爱。如果您要使用这个工具，让我们采取最愤世嫉俗的方式。纵观解释。CCP拥有对算法的完全访问权限，并且他们希望造成最大的破坏。比如说在选举期间，比如说在类似俄罗斯与乌克兰或在加沙所发生的冲突中。他们可以通过算法，通过视频做些什么? 对美国来说，会是什么样的末日情景？ 有一天CCP进来并影响了这家公司的管理，告诉他们应该如何调整和为什么调整。 是的。他们会做什么呢？我认为我们在十月七日之后看到了这一点，支持哈马斯的视频数量显著增加，相对于支持以色列的视频。这是一种情况，你可以看到一些形成意见的事情，可能会对社会结构、选举周期造成破坏，开始更频繁地被分享，并在信息流中更频繁地出现。

Unlike Facebook and other places where there's a linear feed where you can scroll up and select what you want to watch, as you know, TikTok has already lined the videos up. So when you scroll up, they automatically play the next thing for you. So the ranking really matters in terms of viewership on TikTok, unlike a lot of other kind of select-to-play social media type networks. Could it shift an election? Harch in minds? You know, war? Well, I've always said this. I think it's the craziest thing in the world that someone can spend advertising dollars and change someone's vote. Like, just think about that fact for a second. I mean, I've said this before and people have told me I'm an idiot for saying it. But think about the fact- Think about the can or that it does. That both. That it does. Oh, it has its own strength. But think about it. Like, people don't individually go and gather data and then make an informed opinion about who they're going to vote for. Their opinion changes based on seeing an ad. It is so crazy to me that that's the truth. I think the country knew that it does. That's why they prevented it from happening until it's united.

与Facebook和其他地方不同，在那里有一个线性的信息流，你可以向上滚动并选择想要观看的内容，正如你所知，TikTok已经将视频排列好了。所以当你向上滚动时，它们会自动播放下一个内容。因此，在TikTok上的观众群真的很重要，不像很多其他种类的社交媒体网络那样需要选择播放。它可能改变选举吗？潜藏在大脑中？你知道，战争？嗯，我一直说过这一点。我觉得世界上最疯狂的事情之一就是一个人可以花钱广告来改变别人的选票。想想这个事实一秒钟。我的意思是，我以前说过这种话，有人告诉我是个白痴。但是，想想这个事实- 想想它可以还是会这么做。两者都是。就是这样。想象一下，人们并不是个别地收集数据，然后做出对他们要投票给谁的明智决定。看到一则广告就会改变他们的意见。我觉得这个事实太疯狂了。我认为这个国家明白这一点。这就是为什么他们防止发生这种情况直到团结一致。

Yeah, exactly. But I mean, I think that's what's so nuts is that there's no longer a forced discourse that kind of makes people go out and choose what content they want to consume, what they want to hear, debate stages, etc. That now it's about who spends the most money to get the most views in front of someone. And that that actually influences someone's decision on who to vote for is what's so compelling to me about why all of these systems have such extraordinary power. It's just so amazing to me that the more frequently someone sees an ad, the more likely they are to buy something or do something. Here's the bottom line. This thing is somewhat of a medic on TikTok, the more likely they are to vote something differently.

是的，确实。但我的意思是，我认为最疯狂的是，现在已经没有强迫性的对话，让人们去选择他们想要消费的内容，他们想要听到的内容，辩论舞台等等。现在，重要的是谁花了最多的钱，让他们的观点出现在某人面前。这实际上会影响某人在选举时的决定，这是我觉得这些系统有如此强大的力量的原因。对我来说，最令人惊讶的是，某人看到广告的次数越多，就越有可能购买某样东西或做某事。这才是重点。当某人在TikTok上看到一则广告时，他们就更有可能改变他们的选票。

This thing is far too powerful for the CCP to have any kind of access to it, for the Chinese government to have any kind of access to it. It has to be divested. If you look at what we went through in the last couple of election cycles, not being partisan in here at all, but we've said and we've talked about Hunter Biden's laptop is but one example. You know, that was suppressed, obviously, on social networks. That could have been amplified in social networks and it could have had the opposite effect. Hillary Clinton's emails, Trump this, Hillary this, Biden that you could really sway an election by putting in specific subtle information, let alone taking a hack and releasing it like they did with Hillary Clinton's email. So those things might not have swayed an election, but Sacks, if Putin had access to this, like somebody who's super capable and he had access to it. Of course, it's always where it goes. No, I just, it's partly, it's certainly pulling the strings. Or Iran. Okay, Iran. This is the biggest threat inflation ever. Okay, look, if you ask, if you ask people out there, do you think other people's votes are influenced by social media? They'll say, yeah, of course, people are brainwashed. If you say to them, is your own vote influenced by social media, do you make up your own mind based on all the information you have? They'll say, yeah, of course, I'm not brainwashed. Everybody else is. And I believe that people are closer to telling the truth when they're talking about themselves because they understand their own situation better than they understand everyone else's situation.

这件事对中共来说是太过强大了，他们根本不能接触到，中国政府也不能接触到。这必须被剥离出去。如果你看看我们在过去几个选举周期中经历的事情，我这里并不想偏袒任何一方，但我们可以看到亨特·拜登的笔记本只是其中一个例子。你知道，这明显被压制在社交网络上。它本来可以在社交网络上被放大，从而产生相反的效果。希拉里·克林顿的电子邮件、特朗普这样，希拉里那样，拜登这样，通过输入特定微妙的信息，你真的可以左右一场选举，更不用说利用黑客攻击并泄露像希拉里·克林顿的电子邮件那样。这些事情可能并没有左右选举的结果，但如果普京有这样的访问权限，就像有些非常有能力的人有了访问权限一样，当然，这总是朝着哪个方向发展的问题。我只是，部分原因是肯定是在操纵。或者伊朗。好吧，伊朗。这是有史以来最大的威胁通胀。好吧，如果你问问外面的人，你认为别人的选票是否受社交媒体的影响？他们会说，是的，当然了，人们被洗脑了。如果你问他们，你自己的选票是否受社交媒体的影响，你是否根据自己获得的所有信息做出自己的决定？他们会说，是的，我当然不会被洗脑。别人都被洗脑了。而我相信人们在谈论自己的时候更接近真相，因为他们了解自己的处境比了解别人的处境更好。

The fact of the matter is that all of us are constantly bombarded with information 24 hours a day, seven days a week through all of the channels, both online and offline, where we get information. Some of those data points come from advertisements, but I don't think we take ads very seriously. We're trained to kind of even just block out the ads. When I see banner ads or even ads in my stream, I just like scroll past them. They don't even factor in my consciousness. I am influenced by accounts that I follow, but there are accounts that I've chosen to follow because I think they have signal over noise. And the more noisy those accounts are, the more I disregard them and take them less seriously with advertisements being the most noisy and least useful channels.

事实是，我们每个人每天24小时，每周七天，通过在线和离线的所有渠道都在不断接收信息。有些数据来自广告，但我认为我们并不会认真对待广告。我们习惯于屏蔽广告。当我看到横幅广告或者我的信息流中的广告时，我会忽略它们。它们甚至不会进入我的意识中。我受我关注的账号影响，但有一些账号我选择关注，因为我认为它们有信号胜过噪音。那些账号越喧闹，我就越会忽视它们，并对它们的广告越不认真对待。

So look, I think at the end of the day, this idea that we're all being brainwashed and secretly influenced by malign foreign actors, I think is at a minimum threat inflation and that entire narrative might just be completely bogus. Nonetheless, I do agree that for data collection reasons and reciprocity reasons, I think it's like I said, we're within our rights to require the divestment of of TikTok. I don't make this into more than it is. Again, I think this whole disinformation narrative, by the way, you want to know why they push it so hard? It's because our own intelligence community wants to be involved. And there are political actors in the US who want to regulate, quote, disinformation on our own social networks. And I'm not talking about TikTok. I'm talking about X, I'm talking about Facebook, Insta and so on.

所以看，我认为在一天结束的时候，这种认为我们所有人都被恶意外国行动者秘密影响和洗脑的想法，至少在威胁夸大，整个叙事可能完全是虚假的水平上。尽管如此，我同意出于数据收集和互惠原因，我认为我们有权要求TikTok的剥离。我并没有将这件事夸大。再次，我认为整个虚假信息叙事，顺便说一句，你想知道他们为什么如此强烈地推动它吗？这是因为我们自己的情报机构想要参与其中。而且在美国政治人物中，有些人希望监管我们自己社交网络上的所谓虚假信息。我说的不是TikTok。我说的是X，我说的是Facebook、Instagram等等。

And we saw this in the Twitter files. We saw what a cozy relationship. The intelligence community had with Twitter, they were all up in there trying to control what legacy Twitter was allowed. And what they're censoring. You are out. They blocked the New York Post URL. And you've sat on this program that you believe that could have swung the election. Well, I think it was that I think that actually was genuine election interference. I actually said I didn't know whether it could swing the election. I think that. But I think that.

我们在Twitter的文件中看到了这一点。我们看到了情报机构与Twitter之间多么亲密的关系。他们一直在那里试图控制传统Twitter被允许发布的内容以及他们在审查什么内容。你被封锁了。他们屏蔽了纽约邮报的链接。你在节目中说你认为这可能会左右选举结果。嗯，我认为那是真正的选举干预。我实际上说过我不知道这能否左右选举结果。但我认为。但我认为。

I think it was a story that deserves a public a published so that and distributed online so that the public could take that into account when they voted. I mean. And so if it had been widely received, do you think I'm asking a question? OK, you're you're asking me a question that I personally think is irrelevant. How would I know whether the suppression of that story swung the election? How can I know that? The point is that the American people were deprived of information that that. Most Republicans believe that actually is an election. They'll have swung the election. Yeah, I can't prove. I can't prove that it's swung the election. What I'm saying is that it was a type of election interference.

我认为这是一个值得公开发表并在线发布的故事，这样公众在投票时可以考虑到这一点。我是说，如果它得到广泛的接受，你认为我是在问一个问题吗？好吧，你正在问我一个我个人认为无关紧要的问题。我怎么知道压制那个故事是否影响了选举？我怎么能知道呢？问题是美国人民被剥夺了那个信息。大多数共和党人实际上相信那确实是一场选举。他们认为可能会影响选举。是的，我不能证明。我不能证明它是否影响了选举结果。我想说的是，这是一种选举干预行为。

Why was that story suppressed? Because 51 former intelligence officials who still maintain close relations for the intelligence community publish a bogus letter saying that it was Russian information, which it wasn't. And then that caused our social media sites to suppress it. So that to me is as concerning, if not more concerning than whatever it is, a TikToks accused of. So I don't want social media companies being used by the intelligence communities of either China or the United States to swing or to influence our elections. And we need to be equally concerned about that as we are about suppose a Chinese influence. Just go back in time. You probably remember the Willie Horton ad. I mean, that kind of sunk to caucus if you remember that. I mean, media and these ads can really have a big impact. So people should just look historically.

为什么这个故事被压制了呢？因为51位前情报官员仍与情报界保持密切关系的人发布了一封虚假信件，声称这是俄罗斯的信息，但事实并非如此。然后这导致我们的社交媒体站点对其进行了压制。所以对我来说，这比被控告的TikTok问题更令人担忧，甚至更令人担忧。因此，我不希望社交媒体公司被中国或美国的情报界利用来操纵或影响我们的选举。我们需要同样关注这一点，就像我们关心中国的影响一样。只需要回顾历史。你可能还记得Willie Horton广告吧。我是说，如果你还记得的话，那种广告曾在某次竞选中起到了作用。媒体和这些广告确实可以产生重大影响。因此，人们应该从历史上看待这些问题。

There have been many moments where whether it's Nixon sweating on TV or the Willie Horton ad. There have been many moments where video can do this. And I think that they could be done even more subtly by the Chinese by just, you know, promoting certain videos. All right, let's move on to Bitcoin. Issue five, Bitcoin's back, baby. It hits an all time high, 69,000 interesting number on Tuesday, 69,000 before dropping, sitting around 68 K as we're taping. There'd be 75 by the time you hear this or 50. It's been ripping in 2024 of 70% since January 25.

有许多时刻，不管是尼克松在电视上冒汗还是威利·霍顿广告。有许多时刻，视频可以做到这一点。我认为中国人可能会更加巧妙地通过推广某些视频来做到这一点。好的，让我们继续讨论比特币。问题五，比特币卷土重来。周二创下历史新高 69,000 的有趣数字，然后下跌，目前围绕在 68,000左右。到你听到这个消息的时候可能已经升至 75,000或下跌至 50,000。自1月25日以来，2024年的涨幅已达70%。

There's two things going on here that you've probably heard about. The Bitcoin ETFs finally arrived in the US. They were approved by the SEC on January 10. We'll get into that in a minute, Shama. Obviously, it's an ETF. It's super easy to buy them and sell them. They've been a total hit. BlackRock Bitcoin ETF became the fastest ETF to ever reach 10 billion in assets. Also, as the technical crypto heads in the audience know, there is a having happening in April. This happens about every four years at the current pace. Last one was May of 2020.

这里有两件事情，你可能已经听说过了。比特币ETF终于在美国到来了。它们在1月10日获得了SEC的批准。稍等一下，Shama，我们会深入讨论这个。显然，它是一个ETF，非常容易购买和出售。它们已经成为了一个巨大的热门。黑石比特币ETF成为了有史以来资产达到100亿最快的ETF。另外，对于在场的技术加密头脑者而言，四月份会进行减半。按照目前的速度，这大约每四年一次。上一次是在2020年5月。

When these happen, the mining rewards are cut in half. This reduces the supply of new bitcoins entering circulation and can cause some swings. Shama, we had a, we released a clip, I think, just about your prediction. And you nailed it again. You said this would be a big year for Bitcoin. So your thoughts on being right. I don't have much thoughts on that, but my two comments are that I talked to a lot of Bitcoin traders and folks that seem to have a very good pulse and touch on this market. I don't say that I do because I don't really look at it every day, but they seem to think that this thing is on a death march to 100k. I'm not sure whether that price is realistic or not in the year, but I will say that.

当这些情况发生时，挖矿奖励会减少一半。这会减少新比特币投放市场的数量，并可能引起一些波动。沙玛，我们发布了一个视频片段，我想，就是关于你的预测。你又命中了。你说今年对比特币来说将是一个重要的一年。你对于预测准确的想法是什么？我对此没有太多想法，但我想说的两点是，我和许多比特币交易者和行家交流过，他们对这个市场的脉搏和动态似乎非常敏感。我不敢说我也有这样的能力，因为我不是每天都在关注它，但他们似乎认为比特币价格可能会暴涨至10万美元。我不确定这个价格在今年内是否现实，但我想说。

We're going to get to a tipping point where everybody really talks about this. I still don't think we're there yet. I think we're just at the beginning. But when you see the inflows into these ETFs, check out, it's like a very big deal because it just allows every mom and pop individual to buy some to the extent that they want to own it or they want to speculate on it, whatever it is. So I think it's been a very big year. And I think that psychologically it's proven a lot of folks wrong. And it's a setup for something really constructive. The other thing I'll say is that it's not just Bitcoin, but as goes Bitcoin, there are a handful of other things that people are now speculating that there's going to be an Ethereum ETF that gets approved as well. Because if you approve one, there's probably legitimate cause to approve a few others. So these things are becoming part of the financial fabric. And I think that that should not be underestimated. And the SEC is still taking action against certain bad actors and crypto. There were a couple of those this week, but Bitcoin, Freberg is incredibly resilient, just on a technological basis.

我们将很快达到病毒传播的临界点，每个人都会开始谈论这个话题。我仍然认为我们还没有到那里。我认为我们只是刚刚开始。但是当你看到这些ETF的资金流入时，你会发现，这是一个非常重要的事情，因为它让每个普通人都有机会购买一些，无论是想要拥有还是想要投机，都可以。所以我认为这是一个非常重要的一年。我认为从心理上讲，它证明了很多人的错误。这为未来带来了积极的迹象。另外我想说的是，不仅仅是比特币，随着比特币的发展，人们现在也在猜测是否会批准以太坊ETF。因为如果批准一个，很可能也会批准其他几个。所以这些东西正在逐渐成为金融体系的一部分。我认为这点不应该被低估。SEC仍在采取行动打击某些加密货币中的不法分子。本周就有几起案例。但就技术基础而言，比特币是非常具有韧性的。

The fact that it hasn't broken down under stress, it hasn't had, you know, a denial of service type of attack or a government hasn't been able to capture 51% of the mining or or some great amount of it or just even be hacked in any way. You have to be impressed by the fundamental technology here at Freberg. You'd speak to that level of success that this thing is so stable and trustworthy and reliable to date. It's, you know, it's got a great incentive model as long as Bitcoin price remains high, the miners will still be there and the system will keep running. If Bitcoin price drops, transaction fees will decline, the value of mining will decline. And, you know, it kind of goes the other way as well. I think the real question is in the last couple of years, have we really seen it? Seen a change in Bitcoin being used for transactions or for commerce in any meaningful way? I think the answer is still likely not. No, definitely not.

事实上，在受到压力的情况下，它从未崩溃过，没有遭受过拒绝服务类型的攻击，也没有任何政府能够控制51％的挖矿或大量的挖矿，甚至没有被黑客攻击过。你必须对Freberg这里的基本技术感到 impressed。你可以说它的成功程度就在于这个系统如此稳定、可信且可靠。只要比特币价格保持较高水平，矿工们仍然会留在这里，系统也将继续运行。如果比特币价格下跌，交易费用将下降，挖矿的价值也将下降。而且，反之亦然。我认为真正的问题是，在过去几年里，我们是否真的看到比特币在任何有意义的方式上被用于交易或商业活动中发生了变化？我认为答案仍然可能是否定的。绝对不是。

And it's really a stored value system and it's become this kind of stored value asset. Freberg, this microplastics thing, we talked about it on the show. And since that time I refused to open plastic bottles. I'm doing all glass. I'm getting rid of all this goddamn plastic. I already did glass bottles on my house because I'm cheap. And I like to fill it from my water filter, but. We're uncovering more information. And then I saw this headline this week that microplastics are in our blood streams in some cases. And what back does that mean? It's worse than that.

这实际上是一种储值系统，已经演变成了一种储值资产。弗雷伯格，关于这个微塑料问题，我们在节目中讨论过。自那时起，我拒绝打开塑料瓶。我现在全都使用玻璃瓶。我正努力摆脱这些该死的塑料。我之前已经切换到了玻璃瓶，因为我比较省钱。我喜欢用我的净水器把玻璃瓶灌满。我们正在发现更多信息。然后我这周看到了一个标题，说微塑料在某些情况下已经进入我们的血液。那意味着什么？情况比我们想象的更糟糕。

Team of scientists in Italy collected samples from patients that had plaque removed from the carotid artery. It's a kind of common cardiac procedure where you get that block that blocks up in your carotid. They go in, they remove the plaque. So a total of 304 patients agreed to have the plaque that was removed from their artery submitted for analysis. And then what this team did is they took that plaque and they studied it to see. How much plastic was found in that plaque and they used a bunch of measurement techniques to do this, including electron microscopy and mass spec. So they because it's really hard to find these molecules and microplastics or nano plastics. Remember, less than five millimeters in size with a mean level of 21 micrograms per milligram of plaque.

意大利的科学家团队收集了从患者身上取下的颈动脉斑块样本。这是一种常见的心脏手术，其中会去除颈动脉堵塞物。他们进入患者体内，去除斑块。一共有304名患者同意将从他们的动脉中取出的斑块提交进行分析。然后这个团队研究了这些斑块，看看里面有多少塑料，他们使用了一系列的测量方法，包括电子显微镜和质谱仪。因为发现这些分子和微塑料或纳米塑料非常困难。记住，这些塑料小于五毫米，平均每毫克斑块中含有21微克。

Roughly one per 50 is the ratio of plastic to plaque that they found, which is really incredible because it shows that plastics, these little nano and microplastics are accumulating good or incredible. Incredible bad that these microplastics, these nano plastics are accumulating in the human body. Now, here's the scary part. They then did a follow up 34 months later. The patients that had plastic in their blood had a four and a half times higher ratio or likelihood of having a heart attack, stroke or death from any cause.

大约每50个牙菌斑中就有一部分是塑料，这个比例真的令人难以置信，因为它表明塑料，这些微纳塑料正在大量积累。这些微型塑料，这些纳米塑料在人体中积累是非常糟糕的。现在，让人害怕的是，34个月后进行了跟踪调查。那些在血液中含有塑料的患者患心脏病发作，中风或因任何原因死亡的可能性是没有含塑料的患者的四倍半。

So all of these major health effects were four and a half times elevated in patients that had plastic in their blood. This was published in the New England Journal of Medicine, if I didn't say it. It really indicates that there is this kind of cumulative problem and that the cumulative problem is likely leading to really adverse health outcomes. And I'll just highlight one other paper from a team in Germany and Norway back in May of 2022. And this team tried to figure out how plastics are causing adverse health effects in the body.

因此，所有这些重大健康影响在患有塑料血液的患者中提高了四倍半。如果我没有提到的话，这是发表在《新英格兰医学杂志》上的。这实际上表明存在这种累积问题，并且这种累积问题可能导致严重不良健康结果。我只想强调一篇来自德国和挪威的团队在2022年5月发表的另一篇论文。这个团队试图弄清楚塑料是如何在人体中引起不良健康影响的。

And they had a theory like, let's put little microplastics or nano plastics together with all the human cells that we know, shake it up and see what happens. And what they found was that these little plastic fragments were binding to dendritic cells and monocytes, key cells in the immune system. And when those cells were bound by plastic, they release these cytokines and the pro-inflammatory signals go through the roof. It causes the immune system to go high wire, increases inflammation, and the cascading effects of that obviously can ultimately lead to many of the events that we're mentioning were measured in this set of patients in Italy.

他们有一个理论，即将一些微塑料或纳米塑料与我们所了解的所有人类细胞结合起来，摇晃一下，看看会发生什么。他们发现这些小塑料碎片会与免疫系统中的重要细胞树突状细胞和单核细胞结合。当这些细胞被塑料包裹时，它们会释放这些细胞因子，导致炎症信号飙升。这会导致免疫系统失控，增加炎症反应，显然这种连锁效应最终可能导致我们所提及的许多事件，这些事件在意大利一组患者中被测量。

So again, we're just starting to uncover these effects, this concept that microplastics and nano plastics that are accumulating. Let me just say these plastics are mostly PET, which is what we use to make plastic bottles that we drink water and drinks out of, and PVC or polyvinyl chloride, which is what a lot of our plastic plumbing and piping is made from. And so as little tiny bits of these plastic materials either are exposed to sunlight and break off and end up in our water and food supply and we consume them, they are slowly accumulating in bodies and they may be driving inflammatory response, they may be driving adverse health outcomes.

因此，我们刚刚开始揭示这些影响，即微塑料和纳米塑料的累积概念。让我说一下，这些塑料主要是PET，我们用它来制造我们喝水和饮料的塑料瓶，以及PVC或聚氯乙烯，我们的许多塑料管道和管道是由它制成的。因此，当这些塑料材料的小小颗粒暴露在阳光下并断裂后进入我们的饮用水和食品供应中，并且我们食用它们时，它们会逐渐在我们的身体中积累，可能引起炎症反应，可能引发不良的健康结果。

We're really kind of tip of the iceberg in really studying this understanding and analyzing it. But here's another really interesting empirical data set that highlights that this really is. A pretty significant half the patients had it and of that half, they had a four and a half times higher chance of dying or having a heart attack or a stroke in the 34 months that followed. Yeah, the thing that that study said, which was nuts, is it look like the nanoparticles, the nanoplastics and microplastics were effectively acting as scaffolding for plaque.

我们在真正研究和理解并分析这个问题时只是冰山一角。但这里有另一个非常有趣的实证数据集，突显了这一点。有相当可观数量的患者患有这种情况，而在随后的34个月里，这一半的患者中有四分之一有更高四倍半的死亡、心脏病发作或中风的风险。是的，这项研究所指出的让人震惊的事实是，纳米颗粒、纳米塑料和微塑料似乎有效地充当了形成斑块的支架。

So it was a shim that allowed it to grow. The question is, would it have grown faster than it would have otherwise, that's even scarier. So I did not like reading that paper. That really freaked me out. Really, really freaked me out. I was drinking water from plastic water bottles this week and every time I drink water out of a plastic bottle now, I'm like, like nervous every time I take a sip. You're not supposed to double your the risk of all cause mortality by drinking a Fiji water. You know what I mean? Four and a half X, four and a half X. It's crazy.

所以这是一个垫片，使得它可以生长。问题是，它的生长速度是否比其他情况下更快，那就更可怕了。所以我不喜欢读那篇论文。那真的让我感到害怕。真的，真的很害怕。这周我一直在喝塑料瓶装水，现在每次我喝塑料瓶装水的时候，我都感觉很紧张。你不应该通过喝斐济水来增加患全因死亡的风险。你懂我意思吗？四倍半，四倍半。太疯狂了。

In 34 months, think about the cumulative effect over time. Over time? Over time? Yeah. Yeah. Imagine drinking water out of a plastic bottle, thinking you're doing the right thing and then trotting over to the recycling bin, you know. Yeah. And you do that for 20 years, you may be killing yourself. Well, there it is. So wait, what's the if you if the water? Glass bottles. Yeah. You must use what you cannot use plastic. You just can't over no plastic. No plastic. You've got to stop. It's over. It's done. It's done. Glass cans. Good plastic. Can't stay in the steel. Stainless steel is fine.

在34个月内，考虑随着时间的累积效应。随着时间的推移？随着时间的推移？是的。是的。想象一下，喝着塑料瓶装水，以为你在做正确的事情，然后跑到回收箱那边。是的。如果你这样做了20年，你可能正在伤害自己。嗯，就是这样。所以等一下，如果你如果用玻璃瓶？是的。你必须使用玻璃，不能用塑料。你不能再使用塑料了。必须停止。结束了。用玻璃瓶罐。不要用塑料。可以留在钢罐里，不用不锈钢就可以。

Just like I mentioned when we talked about this a few weeks ago, the carbon footprint, the environmental cost, the cash cost is much higher with all these alternatives to plastic. So there are big challenges with respect to having some big massive response to plastics using our supply. But, you know, living in the luxury world that we all get to live in, we get to have that choice and we'll make that choice. But it's a real problem for humanity because plastics are so ubiquitous in so many things and they've they've enabled. They've enabled affordability of consumer goods. This is such bull. Honestly, like all you have to do is have glass bottles or carry a water bottle with you.

就像我们几周前谈到的那样，与塑料替代品相比，碳足迹、环境成本和现金成本都要高得多。因此，在采购供应时，要针对塑料提出一些大规模应对的挑战。但是，你知道的，在我们所有人都能享受的奢华世界中，我们有选择权，我们会做出选择。但这对人类来说是一个真正的问题，因为塑料在许多事物中是如此普遍，并且它们已经实现了产品价格的可负担性。说实话，这太扯淡了。老实说，你只需要用玻璃瓶或者随身携带一个水壶就可以解决。

Like I have a Contigo one I like. I carry it with me. I empty it. No, I put G-Cal. And then I have a filter in my house and we fill water bottles and put them in the fridge. No, but what if you like yogurt? Yogurt comes in a plastic container. There's all kinds of stuff. You can't avoid plastic. That's what I'm so scared. We try to. That's what's so scary. We do have a French yogurt that comes in glass bottles, but yes, it is hard. Yes. We do the French yogurt in glass bottles. It's so nice. It's so nice. Where are you going to? It's fun.

我有一个Contigo水壶，我很喜欢。我经常带着它。我会把它倒空。不，我用G-Cal再装水。然后我们家有个过滤器，我们用它灌满水瓶然后放进冰箱。但是如果你喜欢吃酸奶呢？酸奶通常是塑料容器装的。有各种各样的东西。我们无法完全避免塑料。这让我很担心。虽然我们尽量减少使用。这就是让人害怕的地方。我们确实有一种法国酸奶是装在玻璃瓶里的，但是确实很难。是的。我们确实有法国酸奶是装在玻璃瓶里的。非常棒。哪里去了？这很有趣。

There's a French yogurt that comes in glass bottles. That's a water bottle. It's called like Levenwater. How do we get water or something? Levenwater? No, water you just install a filter system which you have at the mausoleum and just fill huge glass bottles. Just have your staff fill glass bottles and put them in the fridge and don't throw them away and give your kids like some of these thermoses or whatever. But don't have the water bottles. Like, you know, it's funny. It's been a disaster in the poker game in some ways.

有一种法国酸奶是装在玻璃瓶里的。那是一个水瓶。它叫Levenwater。我们怎么弄水或者什么的？Levenwater？不，在墓地那边你只需要安装一个过滤系统，然后装满大玻璃瓶。让你的员工去给玻璃瓶灌水，然后放在冰箱里，不要扔掉，给你的孩子一些保温瓶之类的。但是不要用水瓶。你知道，有点好笑的是，某种程度上在扑克游戏中这个搞砸了。

We got rid of it and there's been way more broken glass. People knock over the, you know, the side tables. I get it. It's been a huge pain, but I will not go back. No, it's the right thing to do. I'm sorry. I think to do. Okay. Well, if if to mouth is endorsing this, I guess I'm going to pick it seriously. I think you got to do it. My opinion doesn't matter sex. I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just saying that you're threshold for becoming concerned. Is lower.

我们把它处理掉了，现在碎玻璃更多了。人们常常碰到，你懂的，边桌。我明白。这真的很麻烦，但我不会退却。不，这是正确的做法。对不起。我认为是值得做的。好的。嗯，如果口碑背书了这个，我想我会认真考虑的。我觉得你应该去做。我的意见无关紧要。我不是说你错了。我只是说，你开始担心的程度低了。

And then if it hits to mouth threshold, which is higher, I'm going to take it more seriously. As your bestie, I would like you to stop using plastic for the rest of your life. Okay. You're in a position to do it. I would ask you to not do it. All right, everybody. Can I come back to the barriers so we can see? Absolutely. I miss you guys. All right. Love you guys. I miss you. I miss you guys too for the Sultan of Science, the Chairman Dictator, and the Rain Man David Sacks. I am the world's greatest moderator. Okay. Love you guys. I got to go. Love you. Love you. See you next time. Bye. Besties are gone. I'm going to do that. That's my dog taking an audition. Right. Wait. It's an ex. Right. No. No. No. No. Oh, man. My eyes are really weak. I'm going to go. We should all just get a room and just have one big huge orgy because they're all because we're just like this like sexual tension that we just need to release. I'm going. What? You're the big. What? You're a big. You're a big. You're a big. Big. What? Good. Good. We need to get merges. Besties are now. I'm going all this. What? I'm going all this.

然后，如果它达到口中的阈值，这个阈值更高，我会更认真对待。作为你最好的朋友，我希望你以后都不再使用塑料。好的。你有能力做到。我要求你不要这样做。好了，大家。我们能回到屏障那里看一下吗？当然可以。我想念你们。好了。爱你们。我想念你们。我也想念这位科学大师、主席独裁者和雨人大卫·萨克斯。我是世界上最伟大的调解员。好的。爱你们。我得走了。爱你。爱你。下次再见。再见了。最好的朋友们不见了。我要去做那件事。那是我的狗在试镜。对了。等等。那是前任。对。不。不。不。喔，天啊。我眼睛真的很疲倦。我得走了。我们应该找个房间就让所有人一起开一场大型的聚会，因为我们都有着这种性紧张感，我们需要释放出来。我要走了。什么？你是大的。什么？你是大的。你是大的。大的。什么？好的。好的。我们需要合并。现在是最好的朋友们。我去做这一切。什么？我去做这一切。