Politics & the Future of Tech - YouTube
发布时间 2024-04-02 07:53:38 来源
中英文字稿 
You know, ignoring tech is kind of no longer an option in the government. Big tech has been present in Washington, but big tech's interests are not only very different than kind of startup innovation, innovators' interests, but we think also kind of divergent from America's interest as a whole. You know, if America's going to be America in the next 100 years, we have to get this right. Yep. Welcome back, everybody. We are very excited for this episode. We are going to be discussing a lot of hot topics. The theme of today's show is tech and policy and politics.
你知道，在政府中忽视科技已经不再是一个选择。大科技公司一直存在于华盛顿，但大科技公司的利益不仅与初创创新者的利益非常不同，而且我们认为也与美国整体利益存在分歧。你知道，如果美国在未来100年还要保持美国，我们必须对此做出正确的决定。是的，欢迎大家回来。我们对这一期节目非常激动。我们将讨论许多热门话题。今天节目的主题是科技、政策和政治。
And so there's, you know, just a tremendous amount of heat right now in the tech world about politics. There's a tremendous amount of heat in the political world about tech. And then we as a firm and actually I and both Ben and I as individuals have been spending a lot more time in policy and politics circles over the last several months. And we as a firm have a much bigger push here than we used to, which Ben will describe in a moment. But we're going to go into quite a bit of detail.
所以现在科技界对政治议题产生了很大的热度。政治界也对科技议题表现出了很大的关注。作为一个公司，实际上我和本人以及本人和本·都花了更多时间参与最近几个月的政策和政治圈。作为一个公司，我们在这方面的推动力要比以前大得多，本会在接下来详细描述。我们将会进行更详细的讨论。
The big disclaimer that we want to provide up front for this is that we are nonpartisan firm. We are 100% focused on tech politics and policy. We today in this episode are going to be describing a fair number of topics, some of which involve partisan politics. Our goal is to describe anything that is partisan as accurately as possible. And to kind of, you know, try to be as sort of fair-minded in representing multiple points of view as we can be, we are going to try very hard to not take any sort of personal political partisan position.
我们要提前声明的重要事项是，我们是一个非党派的公司。我们百分之百专注于科技政治和政策。在今天的节目中，我们将描述许多话题，其中一些涉及党派政治。我们的目标是尽可能准确地描述任何党派问题。我们会尽力以公正的态度代表多方观点，努力不持有任何个人政治党派立场。
So please, if you could get grant us some generosity of interpretation, what we say we are trying to describe and explain as opposed to advocate for anything specifically partisan. We advocate for tech policy topics. We do not advocate for other partisan topics. And actually, so yeah, on that theme, Ben, could you, you know, we wrote a little while ago, you wrote a blog post about and published about our firm's engagement in politics and policy. We sort of laid out our goals and then also how we're going about it. And we're actually quite transparent about this. And so I hope it may be as an introduction for people who haven't seen that if you could walk through what our plan of strategy is and how we think about this.
因此，请，如果你可以给予我们一些宽容的解释，我们所描述和解释的内容，与明确支持任何特定党派的观点是不同的。我们支持科技政策议题。我们不支持其他党派议题。实际上，是的，本，你可以，你知道，我们之前写了一篇关于我们公司在政治和政策方面参与的博客文章并发表了。我们详细阐述了我们的目标以及我们的行动方式。我们对此实际上相当透明。所以我希望对那些还没有看过这篇文章的人作为一个介绍，如果你可以解释一下我们的计划和策略是什么，以及我们是如何思考这个问题的。
Yeah, it kind of starts with, you know, why now? You know, why get involved in politics now? You know, historically, tech has been a little involved in politics, but it's been relatively obscure issues, H1B visas, um, stock option accounting, carried interest, things like that. But now the issues are much more mainstream. And it turns out that, you know, for most of kind of the software industry's life, you know, Washington just hasn't been that interested in tech, we're in regulating tech for the most part, but starting kind of in the mid 2000s, as software ate the world and tech started to invade all aspects of life.
是的，这种情况开始于，你知道吗，为什么现在呢？你知道，为什么现在要参与政治？历史上，科技在政治中的参与有点少，但主要是一些相对较不为人知的问题，比如H1B签证、股票期权会计、分红利税等。但现在的问题更加普遍。事实证明，对于大部分软件行业来说，长期以来华盛顿对科技并不太感兴趣，主要是没有对科技进行太多监管，但从2000年代中期开始，随着软件改变世界，科技开始渗透到生活的方方面面。
You know, ignoring tech is kind of no longer an option in the government. in that, you know, they've seen it impact elections and education and everything. And they, you know, I think policymakers really want to get in front of it is a term that we hear a lot. You know, we need to be in front of these things this time, not like last time when we were behind the curve. And so, uh, tech really needs a voice and in particular, little tech needs a voice.
你知道，在政府中忽视科技已经不再是一个选择。因为他们已经看到科技影响了选举、教育和各个方面。我认为政策制定者真的希望能够领先一步，这是我们经常听到的一个术语。我们这次需要站在前沿，而不是像上次那样总是落后于潮流。因此，科技真的需要有一个发声渠道，特别是小公司的声音。
So big tech has been present in Washington. Um, but big tech's interests are not only very different than kind of startup innovation innovators interest, but we think also kind of divergent from America's interest as a whole. And so that just makes it like quite imperative for us to be involved, not only to represent the startup community, but also to kind of get to the right answer for the country. Um, and you know, for the country, this is, we think a mission critical effort, because if you look at the last century of the world, you say, okay, why was America strong and why was basically any country significant in terms of military power, economic power, cultural power in the last hundred years.
大科技公司一直存在于华盛顿。但是大科技公司的利益不仅与初创创新者的利益非常不同，我们认为它们也与整个美国的利益有所分歧。因此，我们参与其中不仅是为了代表初创企业社区，还要为了找到对国家最好的答案。对于国家来说，我们认为这是一项使命至关重要的努力，因为在过去一个世纪的世界历史中，你可以问，为什么美国强大，为什么基本上任何国家在过去一百年里在军事实力、经济实力、文化实力方面都变得重要。
And it was really those countries that got to the industrial revolution first and exploited it best. And now at the dawn of the kind of information age revolution, um, we need to be there and not fall behind, not lose kind of our innovative edge. And that's all really up for grabs. Um, and really the kind of biggest way America would lose it, because we're still like, you know, from a you know, capitalistic system standpoint from an education standpoint and so forth from a talent standpoint, we're extremely strong and should be a great innovator. But the thing that would stop that would be kind of bad or misguided regulation that forces innovation elsewhere out of the country and kind of prevents us ourselves America and the American government from adopting these technologies as well.
那些国家真的是第一个实现工业革命并将其最好地利用起来的国家。现在在信息时代革命的黎明，我们需要参与其中，不落后，不失去我们的创新优势。这一切都还摇摆不定。美国可能失去的最大机会，因为我们在资本主义体系、教育体系和人才方面仍然非常强大，应该是一个伟大的创新者。但阻碍创新的可能是不良或误导性的法规，会迫使创新转移到国外，防止我们自己美国和美国政府采纳这些技术。
Um, and kind of driving that, you know, driving the things that would, kind of make us, you know, bad on tech regulation, or first really, you know, big tech whose goal is not to drive innovation or make America strong, but to preserve their monopoly. You know, we've seen that act out and out and AI in a really spectacular way where big tech has pushed for the banning of open source for safety reasons, safety reasons. Now, you can't find anybody who's been in the computer industry who can tell you that any open source project is less safe from a first of all, from a hacking standpoint.
嗯，某种程度上驱动着那些可能让我们在科技监管上变糟的事情，或者首先真的，你知道的，大科技公司的目标不是推动创新或让美国变得更强大，而是维护他们的垄断地位。你知道，我们已经看到了这种行为，AI以一种非常壮观的方式推动着，大科技公司为了安全原因而推动禁止开源项目。现在，你找不到任何计算机行业的人会告诉你，从第一方面，从黑客的角度来看，任何开源项目都会相对不安全。
Uh, you know, and you talk about things like prompt injection and, and then new attacks and so forth. You would much more trust an open source solution for that kind of thing. But also for, you know, a lot of the concerns of the US government about like, you know, copyrights, where does this technology come from and so forth? Not only should the source code be open, but the data should probably also be open as well. So we know what these things were trained on. And you know, and that's also for figuring out what their biases and so forth. How can you know if it's a black box? So this idea that, you know, closed source would be safer and big tech actually got this, you know, some of this language into the Biden administration executive order, like literally on, you know, like under the guise of safety to protect themselves, you know, against competition is really, really scary.
嗯，你知道的，你谈论的问题，比如快速注入和新攻击等等。对于这种情况，你会更信任开源解决方案。但是，对于美国政府对于像版权等问题的担忧，这项技术来自何方等等？不仅源代码应该是公开的，数据也可能应该是公开的。这样我们就可以知道这些东西是如何训练出来的。你知道的，这也是为了弄清楚它们的偏见等等。如果它是一个封闭的盒子，你怎么知道呢？所以这种认为封闭源代码更安全，大型科技公司实际上就采用了这种说法，你知道，有些语言进入了拜登政府的行政命令中，可以说是以安全的名义保护自己，防止竞争，这真的非常可怕。
And so that's kind of a big driver. The other kind of related driver is, I think, this combination of big tech pushing for fake safetyism to preserve their monopoly and then rather thin understanding of how the technologies work in the federal government. And so without somebody kind of bridging the education gap, they're very, very, you know, we are as a country very vulnerable to these bad ideas. And we also think it's just a critical point in technology's history to get it right. Because if you think about what's possible with AI, so many of our country's kind of biggest challenges are very solvable. Now, you know, things like education, better and more equal health care, you know, just thinning out the bureaucracy that we've built and making the government easier to deal with, particularly, you know, for kind of underprivileged people trying to get into business and do things and become entrepreneurs.
因此，这是一个很重要的动力。另一个相关的推动因素是，我认为这是大科技公司推动虚假安全主义以保护他们的垄断地位，以及联邦政府对技术工作方式的认识相对薄弱。如果没有人填补教育差距，我们国家就会非常脆弱，容易受到这些错误观念的影响。我们也认为，现在是技术史上关键的时刻，需要做对。因为如果想象一下人工智能的潜力，我们国家许多最大的挑战都是可以解决的。现在，像教育、更好和更平等的医疗保健、简化我们建立的官僚机构，使政府更易处理，特别是对于试图创业、做事并成为企业家的贫困人群来说，这些都是可能做到的。
All these things are made much, much better by AI. Similarly, you know, crypto is really our best answer for, you know, kind of getting back to delivering the internet back to the people and away from the large tech monopolies. It is the one technology that can really do that. And, you know, if we don't do that, you know, over the next five years, these monopolies are going to get much, much stronger. Probably some of them will be stronger than the US government itself. And we have this technology that can help us, you know, get to this, you know, dream of stakeholder capitalism and participation for all economically. And we could undermine the whole thing with poor regulation.
所有这些事情都得益于人工智能而变得更加完美。同样地，你知道，加密货币真的是我们回归将互联网交还给人民，远离大科技垄断的最佳解决方案。它是唯一可以真正做到这一点的技术。如果我们不这样做的话，在接下来的五年内，这些垄断会变得更加强大。也许其中一些会比美国政府本身还要强大。我们有这种技术可以帮助我们实现这个利益相关者资本主义和所有人经济参与的梦想。但如果监管不当，我们可能会破坏整个计划。
And then finally, you know, in the area of biology, which is we're at an amazing point in that if you look at the kind of history of biology, you know, we've never had a language just much like we never had a language to describe physics for a thousand years, we didn't have a language to really model biology till now that the language for physics was calculus, language for biology is AI. And so we have the opportunity to cure a whole host of things we could never, you know, touch before, as well as kind of address populations that we never even like did any testing on before and always put in danger.
然后最终，在生物学领域，我们正处于一个令人惊奇的时刻。如果看看生物学的发展历史，我们会发现，就像一千年来没有一种可以描述物理学的语言一样，我们直到现在才有一种可以真正模拟生物学的语言，物理学的语言是微积分，而生物学的语言是人工智能。因此，我们有机会治愈许多以前无法触及的疾病，还能够处理以前从未进行过任何测试并常常处于危险中的人群。
And you know, this again, you have big pharma whose interest is in preserving the existing system because it kind of locks out all the kind of innovative competition. And so for all those reasons, we've like massively committed the flag and the firm to being involved in politics. So you've been spending a tremendous amount of time in Washington. I've been spending time in Washington, you know, many of our other partners like Chris Dixon, BJ Conde, have been spending time in Washington. We have like real actual kind of lobbying capability within the firm when we talk about that some more, but call it government affairs, but at the, you know, they're registered lobbyists and they're working to kind of work with the government and set up the right meetings and help us get our message across.
你知道，又是这样，大制药公司的利益在于维持现有体制，因为这种体制会排斥所有创新性竞争。出于所有这些原因，我们已经将旗帜和公司全力投入到政治事务中。所以你一直在华盛顿度过大量时间。我也在华盛顿度过时间，我们的许多其他合作伙伴，如克里斯·迪克森、BJ康德，也在华盛顿度过时间。在我们谈到这一点时，我们在公司内部确实有着真正的游说能力，我们可以再谈谈这个，但是可以称之为政府事务，他们是注册的游说者，他们致力于与政府合作，安排正确的会议，帮助我们传递我们的信息。
And then we're deploying, you know, a really significant amount of money to basically pushing innovation forward, making, you know, getting to the right regulation on tech that preserves America's strength. And we are not only committed to doing that this year, but for the next decade. And so this is a big effort for us. And we thought it'd be a good idea to talk about it on the podcast. Yeah, thank you. That was great.
然后我们正在投入一大笔资金，推动创新，制定合适的科技监管法规，保护美国的实力。我们不仅承诺今年这样做，而且在未来十年都会持续投入。这对我们来说是一个重大的努力。我们觉得在播客中谈论这个话题是一个好主意。谢谢你，非常棒。
And then yeah, the key point there at the end is worth double underlining, I think, which is long-term commitment. You know, there there have been times with with tech, specifically where there have been people who kind of cannonball their way onto the political scene, you know, with, you know, large, you know, kind of bomb, you know, sort of money bombs. Yeah. And then, you know, maybe they were just single issue or whatever, but they're in and out or, you know, they're just in and out. They just, you know, it was just like they thought they could have short term impact. They, you know, then two years later, they're gone. We're thinking about that very differently. Yeah, any, you know, then that's why I brought up, you know, the historical lens. We really think that, you know, if America's going to be America in the next hundred years, we have to get this right. Yep. Good.
然后，最后的关键点值得特别强调，我认为，那就是长期的承诺。你知道，有时候在科技领域，会有一些人突然冲进政治舞台，带着大规模的财力炸弹。然后，你知道，也许他们只关心一个单一议题，但他们来去匆匆，或者说他们只是匆匆而过。他们可能觉得他们能有短期影响，然后两年后，他们就不见了。我们对此有着完全不同的看法。是的，任何方面，这也是为什么我提到了历史的视角。我们真的相信，如果美国未来一百年还想继续是美国的话，我们必须做对这件事。对，就是这样。
Okay, we're going to unpack a lot of what you talked about and go into more detail about it. So I will get going on the questions, which again, thank you, everybody, for submitting questions on X. We have a great lineup today. So I'm going to combine a bunch of these questions because there was some themes. So Jared, Jared asks, why has tech been so reluctant to engage in the political process, both at the local and national level until now? And then Kate asks, interestingly, the opposite question, which I find this juxtaposition very interesting because this gets to the nature of kind of how we've got, how we've gotten to where we've gotten to. Kate asks, tech leaders have spent hundreds of millions lobbying in DC, right, the opposite point. In your opinion, has it worked? And what should we be doing differently as an industry when it comes to working with DC?
好的，我们将详细讨论您提到的许多内容，并更深入地讨论。因此，我将开始问问题，再次感谢大家在X上提交问题。我们今天有一个很棒的阵容。所以我将合并一些这些问题，因为有一些主题。Jared问，为什么科技公司到现在为止一直对参与政治进程都很不情愿，无论是在地方还是在国家层面？而Kate问，有趣的是，正好是相反的问题，我发现这种并列很有趣，因为这涉及到我们如何达到现在的地步。Kate问，科技领袖在华盛顿游说已经花费了数亿美元，对吗？在你看来，这有效果了吗？在与华盛顿合作时，我们作为一个行业应该做些什么不同的事情？
And so I wanted to kind of juxtapose these two questions because I actually think they're both true. And the way that they're both true is that there is no single tech, right? Yep. To bend to your point, there is no single tech. And so and maybe once, upon a time there was, you know, and I would say, you know, my involvement in political, you know, kind of efforts and, you know, in this domain started, you know, 30 years ago. And so I've seen a lot of the evolution over the last three decades. And I was, you know, I was in the room for the founding of TechNet, which is one of the sort of legacy, you know, kind of like, a lot of terms. Andor, John Chambers and John Doar. So, you know, so I've kind of seen a lot of twists and turns on this over the last 30 years. And I think, you know, the way I would describe it is, you know, as Ben said, you know, so one is, look, they're just, you know, was there a diversion? Was there, was there a sort of a distinction and a real difference of view between big tech and little tech 20, 30 years ago? Yes, there was. It's much wider now. I would say that that whole thing is really gapped out. You know, the big tech, even big, you've been, then you probably remember, big tech companies in the 80s and 90s often actually didn't really do much in politics. You know, they didn't really have, you know, and probably most famously Microsoft probably, you know, Microsoft probably would everybody at Microsoft and I'd probably say they had underinvested, you know, kind of given what happened with the antitrust case that unfolded.
因此我想将这两个问题进行对比，因为我实际上认为它们都是正确的。它们都是正确的方式是没有单一的科技，对吧。根据你的观点，没有单一的科技。或许过去有，你知道，我参与政治方面的工作始于30年前。因此我见证了过去三十年的演变。我在TechNet成立时在场，这是一家具有遗产意义的公司，像是安德尔和约翰·奇摩斯、约翰·多尔。所以我在过去30年中见证了许多波折。我认为，就像本所说，一个是，他们只是，你知道，20、30年前大科技与小科技之间是否存在分歧？是的，那时存在。现在的差距更大。整个情况已经演变。80、90年代的大科技公司往往并没有在政治上做太多事情。你可能还记得，微软可能是其中最著名的一个，他们或许投入不足，就像反垄断案中展现的那样。
Yeah, actually, the one issue we were united on was the stock option accounting, which, you know, interestingly, and we were against Warren Buffett and, you know, Warren Buffett was absolutely wrong on it and one. And it's actually very much strengthened tech monopoly. So, I think did the opposite of what, you know, people in, certainly in Silicon Valley wanted. And I think people, you know, in Washington, DC, and in America would have wanted was to, you know, make these monopolies so strong and using their market cap to further strengthen their monopoly because we moved from stock options to, you know, to esoteric to get into here. But let's just say, trust me, it was bad. Yes, yes, it was very good for big companies, very bad for startups. So, yeah,
是的，实际上，我们在股票期权会计问题上是团结一致的，而你知道，有趣的是，我们反对沃伦·巴菲特，你知道，沃伦·巴菲特在这个问题上绝对是错的。这实际上大大加强了科技垄断。所以，我认为这与人们，尤其是硅谷的人们所期望的完全相反。我认为人们在华盛顿特区和美国都不希望这些垄断公司变得如此强大，并利用它们的市值进一步加强垄断地位，因为我们从股票期权转向了更为深奥的机制。但我只能说，相信我，这是不好的。是的，这对大公司非常有利，对创业公司非常不利。所以，是的。
and actually, that's another thing that actually happened in the 2000s is, so there's a fundamental characteristic of the tech industry and a particular tech startups and tech founders, which, and Ben and I would include ourselves in that group, which is we are idiosyncratic, disagreeable, iconic, classic people. And so, like, there is no tech startup association, like every, every industry group in the world, in the country, has like an association that has like offices in DC and lobbyists and like major financial firepower. And you know, these undernames like, you know, the MPAA in the music industry or the movie industry and the RAA in the record industry and the National Association of Broadcasters and, you know, the National Oil and Gas Association and so forth.
实际上，另一件在2000年代发生的事情是，科技行业及特定的科技初创公司和科技创始人有一个基本特征，本和我会把自己归入其中，那就是我们都是与众不同、难以相处、标志性、经典的人。所以，就像每个国家世界上的每个行业团体一样，科技初创公司却没有一个类似的协会，那些团体在DC设有办事处，有游说团队，有强大的财务支持。就像音乐行业或电影行业的MPAA，唱片业的RAA，广播协会，石油和天然气协会等等一样。
So, like every other industry has these, these groups that basically were basically the industry participants come together and agree on a policy agenda. They hire lobbyists and they put a lot of money behind it. The tech industry, just we've just never been good at actually, especially the startups, we've never been good agreeing on a common platform. And in fact, Ben, you just mentioned the stock option accounting thing like that. That's actually, that's my view of what happened at TechNet, which is TechNet was an attempt to actually get like the startup founders and the new, you know, kind of the new dynamic tech companies together.
因此，就像每个行业都有这样的团体一样，这些团体基本上是行业参与者共同制定政策议程的地方。他们聘请说客，投入大量资金支持。科技行业，我们只是从来没有擅长真正地，特别是初创企业，我们从来没有擅长达成共识。事实上，本，你刚提到的股票期权会计问题之类的。实际上，这就是我对TechNet发生的事情的看法，TechNet是一次尝试将初创公司的创始人和新兴的、充满活力的科技公司聚集在一起的尝试。
But the problem was, we all couldn't agree on anything other than basically there were two issues. We could agree on stock option expensing as an issue and we could agree on a carried interest or venture capital firms as an issue. Yeah, very dishearsed tax treatment. And so, there were the basically what ended up happening was, again, my my view, you know, kind of TechNet early on got anchored on these, I would say pretty esoteric accounting and financial issues. And just never had a view on, you know, could not come to agreement on many other issues. And I think a lot of attempts to coordinate tech policy in the valley of head that characteristic.
但问题是，除了基本上有两个问题，我们都无法达成一致意见。我们可以就股票期权支出达成一致意见，并且可以就承担利息或风险投资公司达成一致意见。是的，税收待遇非常混乱。因此，实际上最终发生的事情是，我认为，TechNet在早期主要专注于这些我认为是相当晦涩的会计和财务问题。并且从未对其他很多问题达成一致意见。我认为在硅谷试图协调科技政策的许多尝试都具有这种特征。
And then look, quite honestly, you know, the other side of it, Ben, you highlighted this, but I want to really underline it. It's just like, look, the world has changed. And, you know, up until 2010, you know, I would say up around until about 2010, I think you could argue that, you know, politics and tech were just never that relevant to each other. You know, for the most part, what tech companies did was they made tools. You know, those tools got sold to customers, they use them in different ways. And so, you know, regularly, you know, how do you regulate it, you know, database software or an operating system or a word processor or a router? He were regulating a power drill or a hammer, right? Yeah, exactly, right. Exactly. Like, yeah, what, you know, what are appropriate trouble regulations? And so, it just wasn't that important.
然后看，说实话，你知道，另一面，本，你强调了这一点，但我想要强调一下。就像，看，世界已经变了。你知道，直到2010年，我想说，大约到2010年左右，你可以说，政治和科技彼此之间从来不那么相关。你知道，大部分时间，科技公司所做的就是制造工具。这些工具被卖给客户，他们以不同的方式使用它们。所以，你知道，通常，你如何监管数据库软件或操作系统或文字处理软件或路由器？就像监管电钻或锤子一样，对吧？是的，确实如此。确实。对，是的，你知道，哪些是适当的监管规定？所以，它就不那么重要了。
And then, you know, look, this is where I think Silicon Valley deserves, you know, kind of deserves it, share a blame for anything, whatever's gone wrong, which is a consequence. I think we all just never actually thought it was that important, you know, to really explain what we were doing and to be really engaged in the process out there. And then, you know, look, the other thing that happened was, you know, there was a love affair for a long time. You know, there was a view that, you know, tech started, there was just a view that like tech startups are purely good for society, tech is purely good for society. There were really no political implications to tech. And by the way, this actually continued interesting up through 2012.
然后，你知道的，看，这就是我认为硅谷应该，你知道的，有点需承担责任的地方，无论发生了什么问题，都是其后果。我想我们都从未真正认为将我们正在做的事情解释清楚，真正参与其中是多么重要。然后，你知道，另一件事发生了，有很长一段时间人们激情四射。你知道，以前一直认为，科技创业对社会纯粹是好的，技术纯粹对社会是好的。技术没有任何政治影响。顺便说一句，这实际上一直持续到有趣的是2012年。
You know, people now know of all the headlines that, you know, social media is destroying democracy and, you know, all these things that kind of really, you know, kicked into gear after 2015, 2016. But you know, even 2012, like the narrative, you know, social media had become very important, actually, in 2012 election, but the narrative in the press was like almost uniformly positive. You know, you know, it was very specifically that social media is protecting democracy by making sure that certain candidates get elected. And then also, by the way, Obama, you know, there were literally headlines from, you know, very, you know, newspapers and magazines today that are very anti tech, they were very pro tech at that point, because the view is tech help Obama get reelected. And then the other thing was actually the Arab Spring, you know, there was this moment where it was like tech is not only going to protect democracy in the US, but it's going to protect democracy all over the world.
你知道，现在人们都知道所有的头条新闻，你知道，社交媒体正在破坏民主，你知道，所有这些事情在2015年、2016年之后就真的开始变得非常严重。但是你知道，甚至到2012年，社交媒体已经变得非常重要，实际上在2012年的选举中，社交媒体对报道的影响非常积极，几乎是统一的正面报道。你知道，就是具体地说，社交媒体通过确保某些候选人当选来保护民主。而且，顺便说一句，奥巴马，你知道，很多报纸和杂志今天都对科技持反对态度，但是在那个时候他们是支持科技的，因为他们认为科技帮助奥巴马连任。而另一件事实际上是阿拉伯之春时期，那时候的看法是，科技不仅能保护美国的民主，还能保护世界各地的民主。
And you know, face Google where the catalyst, at the time, reviewed as the catalyst for the Arab Spring, which is going to, of course, bring a flowering of democracy in the Middle East that has been. It didn't work out that way, by the way. Did not work out that way. And so, so anyway, the point is like, it is relatively recent in the last 10, 12 years, that is just sort of just like everything is just kind of come together. And all of a sudden, you know, people in the policy arena are very focused on tech, people in the tech world have very strong policy, politics, opinions, the media, you know, weighs in all the time. And then by the way, though, this, you know, none of this is a US only phenomenon. We'll talk about other countries later on, but there's also a global, you know, kind of thing, you know, these issues are playing out globally in many different ways.
你知道，面对谷歌这样的催化剂，在当时被认为是阿拉伯之春的催化剂，当然会带来中东的民主之花。但实际情况并非如此。并没有按照那样的方式发展。所以，总之，重点是，在过去的10、12年中，一切似乎突然汇聚在一起。突然之间，政策领域的人们非常关注技术，科技界的人们持有强烈政策观点，媒体也时常发表看法。顺便说一句，虽然这并不仅仅是美国的现象。我们稍后会讨论其他国家，但这也是一个全球性的现象，这些问题以各种方式在全球范围内得到展现。
But I guess one thing I would add is like, when I'm in, you know, I do a fair amount in DC on the on the on the non-political side. And when I'm in, you know, meetings involving national security or intelligence or, you know, civil policy of whatever kind it's it's striking how many topics that you would not think are tech topics and end up being tech topics. And so, you know, and it's just because like when the state exercises power now, it does so through, you know, with technologically enabled means. And then when citizens, you know, basically resist the state or fight back against the state, they do so with technologically enabled means. And so they're sort of, you know, they're sort of this.
但我想我要补充的一点是，当我在华盛顿做一些非政治性工作时，参与国家安全、情报或民事政策等会议时，讨论出的许多话题都是科技话题，这让人印象深刻。因为如今国家行使权力时，都是通过科技手段来实现的。当公民对抗国家或反抗国家时，他们也是通过科技手段来实现的。所以在这个过程中，科技扮演着非常重要的角色。
So, you know, sometimes say we're the dog that caught the bus on this stuff, right, which is, you know, we all want to tech to be important in the world. It turns out tech is important in the world. And then it turns out that things that are important in the world end up being end up getting pulled into politics. Yeah, I think that's right. You know, on the second part of the question, I think that's a, you know, like why is tech been so ineffective despite pouring all the money out of it. And I think there are like a few kind of important issues around that. One is, you know, really arrogance in that I think, you know, we in tech and a lot of people went in are like, oh, we're the good guys, we're for the good and everybody will love us when we get there and we can just push our agenda on, you know,
所以，你知道，有时候我们就像是这方面抓住了大机会的狗，对吧，我们都希望科技在世界上起到重要作用。事实证明，科技在世界上确实很重要。然后事实证明，世界上重要的事情最终都会被卷入政治。是的，我认为是这样的。你知道，对于问题的第二部分，我认为这是一个，你知道，为什么尽管投入了大量资金，科技仍然效果不佳。我觉得这其中有一些重要问题。其中之一是，你知道，有一种自大，我认为，我们在科技这一行，还有很多人认为，哦，我们是好人，我们是为了好的东西，每个人都会喜欢我们，当我们到达目标时，我们就可以推动我们的议程。
kind of on the policymakers without really putting in the time and the work to understand the issues and the things that, you know, you face as somebody in Congress or somebody in the White House in trying to figure out what the right policy is. And I think that, you know, we are coming at that from kind of our cultural value, which is we take a long view of relationships. We try never to be transactional. And I think that's especially important on policy because these things are massively complex. And so we understand our issues and our needs. And, but we have to take the time to understand, you know, the issues of the policymakers and make sure that, you know, we work with them to come up with a solution that is viable for everyone. And so I think that's thing one. I think Texas has been very bad on that. And the second one is I think that, you know, they've been partisan where like, it's been like, not necessary or not even smart to be partisan. So people have come in with whatever like political, bent mostly kind of Democrat, Democratic Party that they have and like, okay, we're going to go in without understanding you and only work with Democrats because we're Democrats and this kind of thing.
有一点倾向于决策者，但并没有真正付出时间和努力去理解你在国会或白宫所面临的问题和挑战，试图找出正确的政策。我们从文化价值观上来看待这个问题，我们保持长期关系的观点，努力避免短视的交易。我认为这在政策上尤为重要，因为这些问题非常复杂。我们了解自己的问题和需求，但我们也要花时间去理解决策者面临的问题，确保与他们合作找到对所有人都可行的解决方案。这是第一个问题。我认为德克萨斯州在这方面做得很糟糕。第二个问题是，我认为他们在党派方面表现出了不必要或者不明智的偏见。因此，人们以他们大多是民主党的政治立场进入，并且只与民主党合作，因为我们是民主党，这种情况并不明智。
And I think, you know, our approach is like, we are here to represent tech. We want to work with policymakers on both sides of the aisle. We want to do what's best for America. We think that if we can describe that correctly, then then we'll get support from both sides. And, and that's just a really different approach. So hopefully, hopefully that's right. And hopefully we can make progress. Okay, good. So let's go to the next question. So this is again, a two-part question.
我认为，你知道，我们的做法是，我们在这里代表科技。我们希望与两党的政策制定者合作。我们想为美国做最好的事情。我们认为如果我们能正确描述这一点，那么我们将得到双方的支持。那就是一个非常不同的方法。所以希望，希望这是正确的。希望我们能取得进展。好的，让我们继续下一个问题。这也是一个两部分问题。
So she asks, in what ways do you see the relationship between Silicon Valley and BC evolving and coming years, particularly in light of recent regulatory efforts targeting tech giants? And we'll talk about we'll talk about TikTok later on, but you know, there's been obviously big, you know, there's big flashpoint kind of events happening right now. By the way, also for Gullo and Senior, do the DOJ just filed a massive antitrust lawsuit against Apple? Yeah, you know, that the the the the the the the the tech topics are very hot right in DC. So how do we see the relationship? Right. No way. That's an interest.
她问，你认为硅谷和区块链之间的关系在未来几年会如何发展，特别是考虑到最近针对科技巨头的监管努力？我们稍后会谈到TikTok，但你知道，显然现在发生了一些重大事件。另外，关于Gullo和Senior，美国司法部刚对苹果提起了一场巨大的反垄断诉讼。是的，你知道，科技话题在华盛顿非常炙手可热。那么我们如何看待这种关系呢？确实，这很有趣。
请问你有没有周末回家的计划？我想跟你一起去看电影。
That one's an interesting one of the one of the things that I've talked about, which is, you know, a lot of little tech, I think is is very much in alignment with some of the things that the FTC is doing, but probably we would do it in a very different against a different kind of set of practices and behaviors of some the tech monopolies. And you know, it just shows why like more conversation is important on these things, because you know, what we think is the kind of abuse of the monopoly. And you know, with the lawsuit is, I would say you're not exactly the same thing. Well, let's talk about that. Let's talk about that for a moment, because this is a good case study of kind of the dynamics here.
这是我谈论过的一个有趣的事情，很多小技术在很大程度上与FTC正在做的事情是一致的，但我们可能会采取一种非常不同的做法来对付一些科技垄断行为。这就是为什么更多的讨论对于这些事情是重要的，因为我们认为的滥用垄断权，以及诉讼所涉及的问题，并不完全相同。让我们谈谈这个，这是一个这里动态的良好案例研究。
So the traditional kind of free market libertarian view, you know, is sort of very, you know, very critical of antitrust, you know, theory in general, and it's certainly very critical of the, you know, current prevailing antitrust theories, you know, which are kind of more expansive and aggressive than the ones of the last 50 years, you know, as shown in things like the Apple, the Apple lawsuit and many other actions recently. And so, you know, there's sort of a, you know, for people in business, there's sort of a reflexive view that, you know, basically says business should be allowed to operate. But then very specifically, there's this view where I like, you know, there are certainly people who have this view that basically says, you know, any additional involvement of the political machine, especially the sort of prosecutorial machine in tech, you know, is invariably going to make everything worse in tech.
因此，传统的自由市场自由主义观点通常对反托拉斯法律理论持批评态度，尤其对目前盛行的反托拉斯理论持高度批评，这些理论比过去50年来的更广泛和进取，就像最近的苹果公司诉讼以及其他行动一样。对于商界人士来说，有一种“本能”的看法，认为基本上应该允许企业运作。但具体来说，有些人认为，任何政治机器，尤其是科技领域的检察机器，介入会不可避免地使科技行业变得更糟。
And so yeah, you know, they sue Apple today and maybe you're happy because you don't like Apple today because, you know, they abuse your startup or whatever. But like, if they win against Apple, they're just going to keep coming and coming and coming and do more and do more and more of these. The posing view, the opposite view would be the view that says, no, actually, the interest at your point, the interest of big tech and little tech have actually really diverged. And that actually, if there is not actually strong and vigorous investigation and enforcement and then ultimately things, things like the Apple lawsuit, you know, actually these these companies are going to get so powerful that they may be able to, you know, really seriously damage, you know, little tech, you know, for a very long time.
所以是的，你知道，他们今天起诉了苹果，也许你很高兴，因为你今天不喜欢苹果，你知道，他们可能对你的初创公司做出了不公平的待遇或其他什么。但是，如果他们对苹果获胜，他们只会继续前来，做更多、更多、更多的这种事情。相反的观点是说，实际上，大型科技公司和小型科技公司的利益实际上已经出现了很大分歧。如果没有强有力的调查和执行，最终像苹果诉讼这样的事情，实际上这些公司将变得如此强大，以至于他们可能会严重损害小型科技企业很长一段时间。
So maybe you've been talk a little bit about how, you know, kind of we think through that kind of, you know, because we even debate this inside our firm. But they're talking a little bit through about how to process through that. And then, you know, what you think and then also kind of where you think those lines of argument are taking us. Yeah. So look, I definitely think and by the way, right, you know, I mean, I should full disclosure when we were on Netscape, we were certainly on the side of little tech against big tech and, you know, Microsoft at that time had a 97% you know, market share on desktop and, you know, it was very, very difficult to innovate on the desktop. It was just, you know, bad for innovation to have them, you know, in that level of position of power. And I think that's happened on the smart phone now, you know, particularly with Apple, I think the kind of the epic case and the Spotify cases are really great examples of that where, you know, I am, I am fielding, you know, product that's competitive with Spotify. And I am charging Spotify 30% tax on their product. Like that seems unfair.
也许你已经聊了一点关于我们如何思考的话题，因为我们甚至在公司内部也在辩论这个。他们正在讨论如何处理这个问题。然后，你认为和你认为这些论点将把我们带向何方。是的。所以看，我绝对认为，顺便说一句，你知道，我应该全盘承认，当我们在网景时，我们肯定站在小科技对抗大科技的一边，而当时的微软在台式电脑市场占有率达到了97％，在台式电脑上进行创新变得非常困难。他们拥有如此强大的地位是对创新不利的。我认为现在的智能手机上也出现了这种情况，特别是苹果，我认为史诗游戏案和Spotify案是很好的例子，我正在推出和Spotify竞争的产品，而我要向Spotify收取30％的税费，这看起来是不公平的。
I'm just from like a consumer like, like just, just from the standpoint of the world. And, you know, it does seem like it's, you know, using monopoly power in a very aggressive way. I think it's certainly against our interest and the interest of new companies for the monopolies to exploit their power to that degree. You know, like, like when the government gets involved, it's not going to be like a clean surgical like, okay, here's exactly the change that needs that's needed.
我只是像一个普通消费者一样，像世界的一个普通人一样。你知道，似乎这种行为是在非常具有侵略性的方式下利用垄断权。我觉得这绝对不符合我们的利益，也不符合新公司的利益，如果垄断公司滥用他们的权力到那种程度。你知道，当政府介入的时候，这不会像一个干净的外科手术那样，可以准确地提出改变的必要性。
But I also think, you know, with these global businesses with tremendous lock and, you know, you just have to, you know, at least have the conversation and say, okay, what is this going to do for consumers if we let it run? And, and, you know, we need to represent that point of view, I think from the, from the kind of small tech perspective. Yeah. And the big tech companies are certainly not doing us favors right now. So, there's certainly not acting in ways that are pro startups.
但我也认为，你知道，对于这些拥有巨大市场份额的全球企业，你必须至少要进行讨论，看看如果让它们继续发展，会对消费者产生什么影响。而且，我认为我们需要从小科技公司的角度来代表这种观点。大型科技公司现在肯定不是在帮助我们，他们显然不是在支持初创公司。
I think we can say as a general. No, no, no, the opposite. Sure. Quite the opposite. One of my, one of my ideas that kick around a lot is it feels like it feels like companies, it feels like any company is either too scrappy or too arrogant. Yeah. But never in the middle. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And like, it's like people. Right. You're the underdog or you're the overdog and there's not not a lot of, yeah, a lot of reasonable dogs.
我认为我们可以通常这样说。不，不，不，相反。当然。完全相反。我经常考虑的想法之一是，感觉公司要么太拼命，要么太傲慢。是的。但从来没有中间境界。是的。就像人一样。你要么是弱者，要么是强者，很少有，是的，很少有理性的人。
Exactly. Exactly. Yeah. So there's been here attention there. It seems very hard for these companies to reach a point of dominance and not figure out somebody who abuse it. I think you kind of touch on an important point, which is, you know, we're, you know, in representing little tech, we're not a pure libertarian, anti regulatory kind of, you know, force here. We think we need regulation in places.
确切地说，确切地说，是的。因此，这里存在着一些关注点。对于这些公司来说，要达到支配地位并不让滥用权力似乎非常困难。我认为你触及了一个重要的点，那就是，你知道，在代表小型科技公司方面，我们并不是一种纯粹的自由主义者，反对监管的力量。我们认为在某些地方需要监管。
We certainly need it in drug development. We certainly need regulation and crypto and financial services, the financial services aspect of crypto is very, very important. It's very important to the industry that, you know, that would be strong in America with a proper kind of regulatory regime. So we're not anti regulation. We're kind of pro the kind of regulation that will kind of make both innovation strong and, you know, the country strong.
在药物开发中，我们当然需要它。我们肯定需要对加密货币和金融服务进行监管，加密货币在金融服务方面非常重要。对于行业来说，具有适当监管机制的美国将会变得强大。所以我们不是反对监管的。我们支持那种能够促进创新和国家强大的监管。
Yeah. And we should also say, look, like, when we're advocating on behalf of little tech, there obviously there's self interest, you know, kind of as a component of that because we're a venture capital firm and we back startups. And so there's obviously a straight financial interest there.
是的。我们也应该说，就像，当我们代表小型技术公司进行倡导时，显然会有自身利益在内，因为我们是一家风险投资公司，支持初创企业。因此，显然会存在直接的经济利益。
You know, I will say, you know, I think Ben, you'd agree with me, like we also feel like philosophically, like this is a very sort of pro America position, very pro consumer position. And the reason for that is very straightforward, which is, you know, Ben, as you've said many times in the past, the motto of any monopoly is, or what's the motto? We don't care because we don't have to. Right.
你知道，我会这么说，我觉得本，你会同意我的想法，就像我们从哲学角度来看，这是非常支持美国，也是非常支持消费者的立场。而原因很简单，就像你过去说过很多次的那样，任何垄断企业的座右铭是什么？是的，我们不在乎，因为我们没有必要在乎。
Exactly. And so we take a proper experience if you've called customer service, when one of these monopolies has, you know, kicked you off their platform. Yes, exactly. Yes, exactly. And so, yeah, it's just that there is something in the nature of monopolies where they just they have a, you know, if they no longer have to compete and if they're no longer disciplined by the market, they basically go bad.
没错。所以，如果你曾经打过客服电话，了解这些垄断企业中的一个把你踢出平台的情况，你就会有适当的经验。是的，没错。是的，没错。而且，是的，这就是垄断企业本质上的问题，它们在不再需要竞争，也不再受市场约束的情况下，基本上会变坏。
And then, and then, you know, how do you prevent that from happening? The way you prevent that is from forcing to compete the way that they have to compete. You know, in some cases, they compete with each other, although often they collude with each other, which is another thing, you know, monopoly and cartel are kind of two sides of the same coin.
然后，你知道，你怎样防止这种情况发生？防止这种情况发生的方式是强迫他们以必须竞争的方式竞争。你知道，在某些情况下，他们互相竞争，虽然通常他们会勾结在一起，这就是另一回事，你知道，垄断和卡特尔实际上是一个硬币的两面。
But, you know, really, at least in the history, the tech industry, it's really when they're faced with startup competition. You know, when they've got, you know, when they've got a, when the elephant has a terror at his heels, nipping at him, you know, taking increasingly big bites out of his foot, like that's when big companies actually act and when they when they when they do new things. And so without healthy startup competition, you know, like, there are many sectors of the economy where it's just very clear now that there's not enough startup competition because the incumbents that everybody deals with on a daily basis are just practically intolerable.
但是，实际上，在科技行业历史上至少如此，当他们面对初创公司的竞争时，大公司才会真正行动起来。你知道的，当大象被恐惧逼近，不断啃咬他的脚时，这时大公司才会采取行动，去尝试新的事物。因此，如果没有健康的初创公司竞争，就像现在许多经济领域一样明显，没有足够的初创公司竞争，因为每个人每天都要面对的现有公司实际上是无法忍受的。
And it's not in anybody's interest, ultimately, you know, from from a national policy standpoint, you know, for that to be the case, you know, that, you know, that, you know, things can get bad where it's to the benefit of the big companies to preserve those monopolies would very much not anybody else's benefit. Yeah, not exactly. Exactly.
从国家政策角度来看，对于那种情况来说，要想保留垄断对大公司有利是不符合任何人的利益的。是的，不完全是。当然。
Yeah, you know, which is, I would say it's such a big impetus behind our kind of political activity. Yeah, that's right. Okay, we'll keep going. So in what ways do you, okay, now we're going to future looking so in what ways do you see the relationship between Silicon Valley and DC evolving in the coming years? And then specifically, and again, what we're going to be not we're not going to be making partisan recommendations here, but you know, there is an election coming up. And it is a big deal. And it's going to have, you know, both both what happens in the White House and what happens in the Congress is going to have big consequences for everything we've just been discussing.
是的，你知道，我会说这是我们政治活动的一个很大动力。是的，没错。好的，我们继续吧。那么，你认为硅谷和华盛顿在未来几年会以何种方式发展？具体来说，我们不会提出党派建议，但你知道，选举即将到来，这是一件大事，对我们刚讨论的一切都将产生重大影响，无论是白宫的结果还是国会的结果。
So how do we see the upcoming election affecting tech policy? And then why don't you start Yeah, well, I think there are, you know, several issues that end up being really important to kind of educate people on now because whatever you whatever platform you run on, you know, as a Congress person or as a president, you want to kind of live up to that promise when you get elected. And so a lot of these kind of positions that will persist over the next four years are going to be established now.
那么我们如何看待即将到来的选举对科技政策的影响呢？你可以先说一下。嗯，我认为有几个问题现在对人们进行教育真的非常重要，因为无论你以什么样的平台来参加国会议员或总统选举，当你当选后，你都希望能够信守承诺。因此，未来四年将会持续存在的许多立场将在现在确立。
I think in, you know, crypto in particular, you know, we've been very active on this because there's, you know, we have a big kind of donation to something called the fear shake pack, which is kind of work on this and just identifying for kind of citizens like, okay, which politicians are on what side of these issues? You know, who are the kind of just flat out anti crypto anti innovation anti blockchain anti decentralized technology candidates and like, let's at least know who they are so that we can tell them we don't like it. And then, you know, tell all the kind of people who agree with us that that we don't like it.
我认为，在加密货币方面，我们一直非常积极，因为我们向一个叫做“担忧摇摆包”的组织捐赠了一大笔款项，他们致力于识别哪些政治人物在这些问题上站在哪一边。我们想知道，究竟哪些政治人物是彻头彻尾反对加密货币、反对创新、反对区块链、反对去中心化技术的候选人，至少让我们知道他们是谁，这样我们就能告诉他们我们不喜欢这种立场。然后，告诉所有同意我们观点的人，我们不喜欢这样做。
And you know, a lot of it ends up being, you know, look, we want the right regulation for crypto. We've worked hard with policymakers to, you know, kind of help them formulate things that will you know, prevent scams, prevent nefarious uses of the technology for things like money laundering and so forth. And then enable the good companies, the companies that are, you know, pro consumer helping you own your own data and not have it owned by some monopoly corporation who can exploit it or just lose it, you know, like get broken into.
你知道的，其中很大一部分事情最终变成了，你知道的，我们想要为加密货币找到正确的监管。我们与决策者共同努力，帮助他们制定措施，防止欺诈行为，防止将技术用于洗钱等恶意用途。然后，使那些良好的公司能够发展壮大，这些公司服务于消费者，帮助你拥有自己的数据，而不是被某个垄断公司所控制，可以利用它或者仅仅丢失它，就像被入侵一样。
And so you now have identity problems and so forth, that can kind of help kind of a fair economy for creatives so that, you know, either it's not a 99% tech rate or take rate on, you know, things that you create on social media and these kinds of things. And so, you know, like, it's just important to kind of, I think, educate the populace on where every candidate stands on these issues. And so we're really, really focused on that. And I think, you know, same true for AI, same true for bio.
因此，你现在可能有身份问题等等，这可能有助于为创意人士建立一个比较公平的经济环境，这样，无论是社交媒体上创作的东西，不会有过高的技术费率或抽成。因此，我认为，向民众普及每位候选人在这些问题上的立场非常重要。我们真的非常关注这一点。我认为，AI和生物也是如此。
I don't also add, I don't talk a little bit more with election a moment, but I'd also add like, it's not actually the case that there's a single party in DC that's pro tech and a single party this anti tech. Definitely not. There's not and by the way, if that were the case, it would make might make life a lot easier. Yes. But but but it's not the case. And I'll just give, then I'll just give a thumbnail sketch of at least what I see when I'm in DC and see if you agree with this.
我不只是添加，我也不会在选举的时候多说一点，但我想补充的是，在华盛顿并不是有一个党是支持科技的，另一个党是反对科技的。绝对不是这样。事实并非如此，而且顺便说一句，如果是这样的话，生活可能会变得简单很多。是的。但是但是，情况并非如此。我只是简要描述一下我在华盛顿时看到的情况，看看你是否同意。
So, it was said, Democrats are sort of Democrats are much for fluent in tech. And I think that has to do with, you know, who their kind of elites are. It has to do with this kind of very long established revolving door. And I mean that in both a positive and pejorative sense between the tech companies and the Democratic Party, Democratic politicians, political offices, professional offices, White House offices. There's just a lot more integration.
因此，有人说，民主党人在技术方面非常流利。我认为这与他们的精英人物有关。这与科技公司和民主党之间建立的旋转门有关。我的意思是，科技公司和民主党、民主党政客、政治办公室、专业办公室、白宫办公室之间有着更多的融合。
You know, the big tech companies tend to be very Democratic, which you see in all the donation numbers and voting numbers. And so there's just like, there are just a lot more, I would say tech fluent tech aware Democrats, especially in powerful positions. You know, many of them have actually worked in tech companies. Just as an example, the current White House Chief of Staff is, you know, former board member at META, where I'm on the board. And so there's just, you know, there's a lot of sort of connective tissue between those.
你知道的，大型科技公司往往非常民主，这一点可以从捐款数额和投票数看出来。因此，在具有影响力的职位上，有很多更懂科技、更关注科技的民主党人。你知道，其中许多人实际上曾在科技公司工作过。举个例子，现任白宫幕僚长就曾在我所在董事会的META担任董事。因此，这些方面之间有许多联系。
You know, look, having said that, you know, the current Democratic Party, in particular, you know, certain of its more radical wings, you know, had become extremely anti-tech, you know, to the point of being arguably, you know, in some cases, you know, outright, you know, anti-antibisiness, anti-capitalism. And so, you know, there's there's there's a real kind of back and forth there. You know, Republicans, on the other hand, like, you know, in theory and the stereotype would have you believe, you know, Republicans are sort of inherently, you know, more pro-business and more pro-free markets and should therefore be more more pro-tech.
你知道，看，话虽如此，目前的民主党，特别是它某些更激进的派别，已经变得极端反对科技，甚至在某些情况下，可以说是直接反对商业和资本主义。所以，这里确实存在一种真正的来回。另一方面，共和党人，就理论和刻板印象而言，共和党人从根本上更加支持商业和自由市场，因此应该更加支持科技。
But I would say there again, it's a mixed bag because number one, a lot of Republicans just basically think of Silicon Valley, but it's all Democrats. And so Silicon Valley is all Democrats. If we're Republicans, that means they're de facto the enemy. They hate us. They're trying to defeat us. They're trying to defeat our policies. And so they must be the enemy. And so there's a lot of, you know, I would say some combination of distrust and fear and hate, you know, kind of on that front, you know, and then again, with much less connective tissue, you know, there are many fewer, you know, Republican, you know, executives at these companies, which means there are many fewer Republican officials or staffers who have tech experience. And so there's a lot of mistrust. And of course, you know, there have been flashpoint issues around this lately, like social media censorship that are really exacerbated this this conflict.
但是我想再次强调，这是一个复杂的情况，因为首先，很多共和党人只是简单地认为硅谷只有民主党人。而硅谷确实是民主党人居多。对于我们共和党人来说，这意味着他们实际上是敌人。他们憎恨我们，他们试图击败我们，他们试图击败我们的政策。因此，他们必须是敌人。所以在这方面有很多，我会说是某种程度上的不信任、恐惧和仇恨，而且再一次，与这方面联系极少，这些公司很少有共和党高管，这意味着很少有拥有科技经验的共和党官员或工作人员。因此存在着很多不信任。当然，最近在这方面出现了一些引发争议的问题，比如社交媒体审查，这加剧了这种冲突。
And then the other thing is, you know, they're very serious policy policy disagreements. And there again, there are at least wings of the modern Republican party that are actually quite, you know, sort of economically interventionist. And so, you know, the term of the moment is industrial policy. Yeah, right, which basically, you know, there are Republicans who are very much in favor of a much more interventionist government approach towards dealing with business and in particular dealing with tech. And so I guess, say like, there's real, there's real, like, this is not a, this is not an either or thing, like, there are real issues on both sides. The way we think about that is therefore, there's a real requirement to engage in both sides. There's a real requirement, Ben, to your point to educate on both sides. And there's a real, you know, if you're going to make any progress to tech issues, there's a real need to have a bipartisan approach here because you do have to actually work with both sides.
然后另一件事是，他们之间存在非常严重的政策分歧。现代共和党至少有派系实际上相当经济干预主义。所以，现在时下的说法是产业政策。是的，基本上，有共和党人强烈支持更多干预主义的政府手段来处理商业事务，特别是处理科技事务。所以我想说的是，真的，实际上，这不是一个非此即彼的问题，双方都存在真正的问题。因此，我们认为，真的需要参与双方。真的需要，本，你提到的，教育双方。真的，如果要在科技问题上取得任何进展，就有必要在这里采取一种跨党派的方法，因为你必须实际上与双方合作。
Yeah, and I think that's absolutely right. And just to kind of name names a little, if you like it like the Democratic side, you know, you've got people like Richie Torres out of the Bronx. And you know, like, by the way, a huge swath of the congressional black caucus that sees wow, crypto is a real opportunity to equal the financial system, which has historically been, you know, you know, documentedly racist against kind of a lot of their constituents. And then also, you know, the creatives, which they represent a lot to kind of get a fair shake. And then on the other hand, you have Elizabeth Warren, who has taken a very totalitarian view of the financial system and is moving to consolidate everything in the hands of, you know, a very small number of banks and basically control who can participate and who cannot in finance.
是的，我认为这完全正确。只是稍微指名道姓一下，如果你支持民主党一方，你就会像布朗克斯区的里奇·托雷斯这样的人。而且你知道，还有很多国会黑人团的人认为，加密货币是一个真正的机会，可以使金融系统实现平等，这在历史上一直对他们的选民存在种族主义。另外，他们也代表很多创意人士，希望获得公正对待。另一方面，伊丽莎白·沃伦持有对金融系统非常极端的观点，试图将一切都控制在很少的几家银行手中，基本上控制谁可以参与金融活动，谁不可以。
So, you know, these are just very, very different views out of the same party. And I think that, you know, we need to just make the specific issues really, really clear. Yeah, and the same thing we could, you know, spend a long time also naming names on the Republican side. So, yes, which we'll do later. But so, yeah, well, I should do it right now, just to make sure that we're fair on this, you know, there are Republican, you know, Republicans who are like full on pro free market, you know, you know, very much pro, you know, are very opposed to all current government efforts to, you know, intervene in markets like A.A. and crypto. By the way, many of those same Republicans are also very pro, are also very negative any antitrust action. They're very ideologically opposed to antitrust.
所以，你知道，这只是同一个政党内非常不同的观点。我认为，我们需要确保明确具体问题。是的，同样的事情，我们也可以花很长时间来列举共和党一方的人。所以，是的，我们待会会这么做。但是，嗯，我现在可以做一下，只是为了确保我们在这方面公平，你知道，有些共和党人是彻头彻尾的市场自由主义者，他们非常反对所有目前政府干预市场的努力，比如对A.A.和加密货币的干预。顺便说一下，许多这样的共和党人也对任何反垄断行动非常反感。他们在意识形态上极度反对反垄断。
And so, they would also be opposed to things like the Apple lawsuit that a lot of startup founders might actually like. And then on the other, on the flip side, you have folks like Josh Josh Holly, for example, that are, I would say quite vocally, to say, I rate it Silicon Valley and, you know, very in favor of much more government intervention and control. You know, I think a holy administration, just as an example would be extremely interventionist in Silicon Valley and would be very, you know, kind of very pro industrial policy, very much trying to, but both, you know, sort of set goals and sort of have government management of more attack, but also much more dramatic action against, you know, at least perceived a real real enemy.
因此，他们也会反对很多初创公司创始人可能喜欢的苹果诉讼等事情。 另一方面，像乔什·霍利这样的人，我可以说十分坚决地反对硅谷，非常支持政府更多地干预和控制。我认为，霍利的政府管理层会对硅谷进行极其干预，并且非常支持工业政策，试图设定目标并管理更多的行动，对至少被认为是真实的敌人进行更多的戏剧性行动。
So, same same kind of expect. So anyway, that I wanted to go through that though. This is kind of the long winding answer to the question of how will the upcoming election effect tech policy, which is, you know, look, there are, you know, there are real issues of the Biden administration, in particular with the agencies and with some of the affiliated senators has been just described. So, you know, there are certainly issues where, you know, the agencies, you know, under the Trump administration, the agencies would be headed by very different kinds of people. Having said that, it's not that, you know, it's not that a Trump presidency would necessarily be a clean win, you know, and there are many people and sort of that wing who might be hostile. And by the way, in different ways, or actually might be hostile in some cases in the same ways.
所以，基本上是期望一样的。无论如何，我想要详细解释一下。这是对未来选举将如何影响科技政策的问题的一个绕圈子的长答案，你知道，拜登政府确实存在着一些实际问题，特别是与一些相关议员有关。所以，你知道，拜登政府下的机构可能会有不同类型的人领导。尽管如此，并不是说，特朗普政府一定会获胜，你知道，有很多人可能会持敌意立场，而且不同的人可能以不同的方式敌对，甚至在某些情况下可能以相同的方式敌对。
Yeah, and by the way, you know, Trump has, himself has been quite the moving target on this. You know, he was very, he tried to ban TikTok and now he's very pro-Tiktok. You know, he has been, you know, negative on AI, who's originally negative on cryptos, not positive on crypto. So, you know, it's complex. And, you know, which is why I think the foundation of all of this is, you know, education and we, you know, why we're spending so much time in Washington and so forth is to make sure that, you know, we communicate all that we know about technology so that at least these decisions are highly informed that the politicians make. Good. Okay. So moving forward.
是的，顺便说一下，你知道，特朗普本人在这个问题上一直是一个移动靶子。他曾试图禁止TikTok，现在又非常支持TikTok。他曾对人工智能持负面态度，最初对加密货币持负面态度，现在对加密货币持积极态度。所以，你知道，情况很复杂。我认为所有这些的基础是教育，我们花了很多时间在华盛顿等地，确保我们传达关于技术的一切知识，这样至少政客们做出的决定是非常明智的。好的，那么我们继续前进。
So, three, three questions in one. So, Alex asks, as tech regulation becomes more and more popular within Congress, which is happening, do you anticipate a lowering in general of the rate of innovation within the industry? Number two, Tyler asks, what is a key policy initiative that have passed in the next decade could bolster the US for a century? And then Elliot Parker asks, what's one regulation that if removed would have the biggest positive impact in economic growth? Yeah. So I think that, it's a fancy if you disagree with this, I don't know that there's a single regulation or a single law or a single issue. You know, there are certainly, I mean, there are certainly individual laws or regulations that are important. But I think the somatic thing is a much bigger problem or much bigger. The somatic thing is the thing that matters. The things that are coming are much more serious on the things that have been, I think that's correct. Okay. We'll talk about that. Yeah, go ahead.
所以，三个问题合在一起。所以，亚历克斯问，随着科技监管在国会中变得越来越受欢迎，这种趋势会导致行业创新速度的降低吗？第二，泰勒问，未来十年内通过的一个重要政策举措可以让美国在未来一个世纪更强大？然后埃利奥特·帕克问，有一个法规，如果取消将对经济增长产生最大积极影响吗？嗯。所以我认为，如果您不同意这一点，我不知道是否有一个单一的规定或一项单一的法律或一项单一的问题。你知道，当然有，我认为正确的。好的，我们继续讨论吧。是的，你说吧。
Yeah. I mean, so, you know, if you look at the current state of regulation, you know, if it stayed here, there's not anything that like, we really feel like a burning desire to remove in the same way that things that are on the table could be extremely destructive. And basically, you know, look, if we ban large language or large models in general, or we, you know, force them to go through some kind of, you know, red government approval, or if we ban open source technology, yeah, that have just a devastating, it would basically take America out of the AI game and, you know, make us extremely vulnerable from military standpoint, make us extremely vulnerable from a technology standpoint in general. And so, you know, that's devastating. Similarly, you know, if we don't get kind of proper regulation around crypto, the trust in the system and the business model is going to fade, or is going to kind of be in jeopardy in that it's not going to be the best place in the world to build crypto companies and blockchain companies, which would be a real shame. You know, the kind of analog would be the kind of creation of the SEC, you know, after the Great Depression, which really helped put trust into the US capital markets. And I think that, you know, trust into the blockchain system as a way to kind of invest, participate, be a consumer, be an entrepreneur, really, really important and necessary and very important to get those right. Okay. And then speaking, okay, let's move straight into the specific issues then more so, expand on that.
是的。我的意思是，你知道，如果我们看看当前的监管状况，如果保持在这里，我们并没有真正感觉有什么迫切的需要去除的东西，就像桌上的那些可能会极具破坏性的东西一样。基本上，你知道，如果我们禁止大语言或大模型，或者迫使它们通过某种政府审批，或者禁止开源技术，那将是灾难性的，因为这基本上会让美国退出人工智能游戏，让我们在军事和技术层面变得极为脆弱。这是毁灭性的。同样，如果我们没有对加密货币进行适当的监管，系统和商业模式的信任将会消失，或者会处于危险之中，即建立加密货币和区块链公司的最佳地方将不再是世界上。这将是一个真正的遗憾。你知道，类似的情况可以类比于大萧条后创立证券交易委员会，它真正帮助恢复了对美国资本市场的信任。我认为，对区块链系统的信任，作为一种投资、参与、成为消费者、创业者的方式，是非常重要和必要的，非常重要的是把握好这些问题。好了。那么让我们直接进入具体问题，更深入地探讨一下吧。
So Lenny asks, what form do you think AI regulation will take over the next two administrations? A B. Sakandi asks, well, AI regulation result in a concentrated few companies or an explosion of startups in new innovation. E-Ray asks, how would you prevent the AI industry from being monopolized, centralized with just a few tech corpse? And then our friend, Befjizos, asks, how do you see the regulation of AI compute and open source models realistically playing out? Where can we apply pressure to make sure we maintain our freedom to build and own AI systems?
所以莱尼问，你认为未来两届政府AI监管将会采取什么形式？B·萨坎迪问，那么，AI监管会导致少数几家公司垄断，还是会出现新创企业的爆发性创新？E-雷问，你如何防止AI产业被垄断，只集中在少数几家科技公司手里？然后我们的朋友贝夫吉索斯问，你如何看待AI计算和开源模式的监管实际运作情况？我们在哪里可以施加压力，以确保我们保持自由构建和拥有AI系统的权利？
It's really interesting because there's like a regulatory um, dimension of that. And then there's the kind of technological kind of, you know, version of that. And they do intersect. So if you look at what Big Tech has been trying to do, they're trying, they're very worried about new competition to the point where they've taken upon themselves to go to Washington and try and outlaw their competitors. And, you know, if they succeed with that, then I think it is like super concentrated AI power, you know, making the kind of concentrated power of social media or search or so forth, what kind of really pale in comparison. I mean, it would be very dramatic if there were only three companies that were allowed to build AI. And that's only what they're pushing for. So I think in one regulatory world where Big Tech wins, then there's very few companies doing AI, probably, you know, Google Microsoft and Meta.
这真的很有趣，因为这里有一种监管的维度。然后还有一种技术的版本，你知道的。它们是相互交织的。所以如果你看一下大科技公司一直在努力做的事情，他们非常担心新的竞争对手，甚至已经开始自请去华盛顿试图禁止他们的竞争对手。你知道，如果他们成功了，我认为这将是超级集中的人工智能力量，而社交媒体或搜索等集中权力将显得相形见绌。我想如果只有三家公司被允许建设人工智能，那将会非常戏剧化。这正是他们正在推动的。所以我认为在一个大科技公司获胜的监管世界中，可能只有很少的公司在做人工智能，可能是谷歌、微软和Meta。
You know, Microsoft, you know, having, you know, basically full control of open AI is the kind of demonstrated. They have the source code. They have the way to, you know, such a win is for saying that. We own everything. And then they also kind of control who the CEO is since they demonstrated, you know, beautifully. So, you know, if you take that, it will all be owned by, you know, three, maybe four companies. If you just follow though, the technological dimension, I think what we're seeing play out has been super exciting in that, you know, we were all kind of wondering, would there be one model that ruled them all? And even within a company, I think we're finding that there's no current architecture that's going to gain, you know, on a single thing, a transformer model, a diffusion model and so forth, that's going to become so smart in itself that once you make it big enough, it's just going to know everything and that's going to be that.
你知道的，微软，你知道的，拥有，你知道的，基本上完全控制OpenAI是一种明显的。他们拥有源代码。他们有方法，你知道，这样的赢就是在说我们拥有一切。而且他们也在某种程度上控制谁是CEO，因为他们展示了，你知道的，非常漂亮。所以，你知道的，如果你采取这样的措施，所有权可能会被，你知道的，三个，也许四个公司所拥有。如果只是从技术维度来看，我认为我们所看到的正在发生的事情非常令人兴奋，我们都在想，会不会有一个模型统治它们所有？甚至在一个公司内部，我认为我们正在发现，目前没有一个架构可以获得，你知道的，在一个单一领域上的优势，一个转换模型，一个扩散模型等等，它们将变得如此聪明，以至于一旦扩大到足够大，它们就会知道一切，就是这样。
What we've seen is, you know, even the large companies are deploying a technique called the mixture of experts, which kind of implies, you know, you need different architectures for different things. You need to be integrated in a certain way and the system has to work. And that just opens the aperture for a lot of competition, because there's many, many ways to construct a mixture of experts to architect every piece of that. We've seen, you know, little companies like Mistral field models that are highly competitive with, you know, the larger models very quickly.
我们看到的是，甚至大公司也在使用一种叫做专家混合的技术，这意味着你需要为不同的事情使用不同的架构。你需要以某种方式整合，使系统正常运行。这就为许多竞争机会打开了大门，因为可以有许多种方式构建专家组合来设计每个部分。我们看到，像Mistral这样的小公司迅速与大型模型竞争力十足。
And, you know, and then there's other kind of factors like, latency, cost, etc, that factor into this. And then there's also good enough, like, when is a language model good enough, you know, when it speaks English, when it knows about what things, what are you using it for? And then there's domain specific data, you know, I've been doing whatever medical research for years, and I've got, you know, data around all these kinds of genetic patterns and diseases and so forth. You know, I can build a model against that data that's differentiated by the data and so on.
而且，你知道，还有其他因素，比如延迟、成本等等，这些因素也会影响这个问题。还有一个因素是足够好，就是，当一个语言模型足够好的时候，你知道它是否能够说英语，是否了解你用它做什么。还有领域特定的数据，你知道，我做了多年的医学研究，我收集了所有这些基因型和疾病等数据。我可以根据这些数据建立一个独特的模型等等。
So I think what we will, we're likely to see kind of a great kind of Cambrian explosion of innovation across all sectors, you know, big companies, small companies, and so forth, provided that the regulation doesn't outlaw the small companies. But that would be my prediction right now. Yeah, and I did add a bunch of things to this. So, so one is, even on the big model side, there's been this leapfrogging thing that's taking place. And so, you know, there's there's, you know, opening up, you know, GPT four was kind of, you know, the dominant model, not that long ago, and then it's been leapfrogging significant ways recently by both Google with their Gemini Pro, especially the one with the so-called long context window, where you can feed it 700,000 words, or an hour of full motion video as, you know, context for a question, which a huge advance.
所以我认为，我们很可能会看到各个行业发生一场创新的“寒武纪大爆发”，无论是大公司、小公司或其他公司，只要监管不禁止小公司。但这是我的预测。是的，我在这方面增加了很多内容。所以，就连在大模型方面，也发生了一种跃进的现象。你知道的，GPT-4曾经是主导模型，不过不久前，谷歌的Gemini Pro以及他们所谓的长上下文窗口，最近已经在很大程度上超越了它，你可以向它输入70万字或一个小时的全程视频作为问题的上下文，这是一个巨大的进步。
And then, you know, the anthropic, their big model clod is, you know, a lot of people now are finding that to be more advanced model than GPT four. And, you know, one assumes opening is going to come back and, you know, this leapfrogging will probably happen for a while. So, so, so even if the highest end, you know, at the moment, these companies are still competing with each other, you know, there, there's still this leapfrogging that's taking place. And then, you know, Ben, as you as you articulate it, you know, very well, you know, there, there is this, this giant explosion of models of all kinds of shapes and sizes are another, you know, our company Databricks, just released another, you know, another, but what looks like a big leapfrog on the smaller model side. It's the, it's, I think it's the best model now in the benchmarks.
然后，你知道，人格化的大模型现在被很多人认为比GPT四更先进。而且，人们预计将会有新的突破出现，这种超越现象可能会持续一段时间。所以，即使在目前最高端，这些公司仍在互相竞争，但仍然存在这种超越现象。而且，正如你所表述的那样，有各种形状和大小的模型爆发出来，我们的公司Databricks刚发布了另一个看起来是在小型模型领域迈出了重要一步的模型。据我认为，这现在是基准测试中最好的模型。
And it is, it actually, it's so efficient, it will run in a MacBook. Yeah, and they have the advantage of, you know, as, as an enterprise, you can connect it to a system that gives you not only like enterprise quality access control and all that kind of thing, but also, you know, it gives you the power to do SQL queries with it, gives you the power to basically create a catalog so that you can have a common understood definition of all the weird corporate words you have. Like, by the way, one of which is customer, like there's almost no two companies that define customer in the same way.
这个软件实际上非常高效，可以在MacBook上运行。作为企业，您可以将其连接到一个系统，不仅可以提供企业级质量的访问控制等功能，还可以让您使用SQL查询，基本上可以创建一个目录，让您能够对所有奇怪的企业术语有一个共同的理解。比如，其中之一就是客户，几乎没有两家公司对客户的定义相同。
And in most companies, there are several definitions of customer, you know, from the department at AT&T is that AT&T is that, you know, some, you know, division of AT&T, etc, etc. I think, I don't want to literally speak for them, but I think if you put the CEOs, the big companies under Truth Serum, I think what they would say is their big fear is that AI is actually not going to lead to a monopoly for them. It's going to lead to a commodity. It's going to lead to a sort of a race to the bottom on price. And you see that a little bit now, which is people who are using one of the big models, APIs are able to swap to another big model API from another company pretty easily.
在大多数公司中，对于客户的定义有几种，你知道，比如在AT&T，他们认为AT&T就是什么、AT&T的某个部门等等。我认为，我不想字面上替他们说话，但我认为如果让大公司的CEO们接受真相血清检测，他们可能会说他们最担心的是人工智能实际上不会让他们垄断市场，而是会导致商品化，导致价格竞争。现在已经有一些迹象表明这一点，那就是使用其中一个大型模型API的人很容易就能切换到另一个公司的另一个大型模型API。
And then, you know, these models, the business model, the main business model for these big models at least so far is an API, you know, basically paper token generated, or per answer. And so, like, if these companies really have to compete with each other, like, it may be that it actually is a hyper competitive market, it may be the opposite of like a search market, or like an operating system market, it may be a market where there's just like continuous competition and improvement and leapfrogging, and then, you know, constant price competition. And then of course, you know, the payoff from that is, you know, to everybody else in the world is like an enormously vibrant market where there's constant innovation happening, and then there's constant cost optimization happening, where and then as a customer, you know, downstream of this, the entire world is going to use AI is going to benefit from this kind of hyper competition that's going to, you know, could potentially run for decades.
然后，你知道，这些模型，商业模式，至少目前这些大模型的主要商业模式是 API，基本上是生成纸币令牌，或者每个答案生成。所以，就像，如果这些公司真的必须彼此竞争，可能实际上是一个超级竞争激烈的市场，可能与搜索市场相反，或者像操作系统市场一样，可能是一个不断竞争、改进、超越的市场，然后，你知道，不断的价格竞争。当然，从中获益的是世界上所有其他人，这是一个极其充满活力的市场，在这里不断发生创新，不断进行成本优化，而作为顾客，从这个过程的下游来看，整个世界将会使用人工智能，将受益于这种可能持续几十年的超级竞争。
And so, I think if you put the CEOs in a Truth Serum, what they would say is that's actually their nightmare. Like that. Well, that's why they're in Washington. That's why they're in Washington. So that's that that is what's actually happening. That is the scenario they're trying to prevent. They are actually trying to shuttle competition. And by the way, and then actually, I will tell you this, there is a funny thing. Tech is so ham, tech is so historically bad at politics, that I think, I think some of these folks think they're being very clever in how they go about this. And so, you know, because they show up in Washington with the kind of, you know, kind of public service narrative or end of the world narrative or whatever it is, and they're I think they think that they're going to very cleverly kind of trick everybody, trick people in Washington and giving them sort of cartel status.
因此，我认为如果你给CEO们注射真相药剂，他们会说其实这是他们的噩梦。就像这样。这就是为什么他们在华盛顿。这就是为什么他们在华盛顿。所以这就是实际发生的事情。这是他们想要阻止的情况。他们实际上正在试图操纵竞争。顺便说一下，我告诉你一个有趣的事情。科技在政治方面一直做得很糟糕，以至于我认为有些人认为自己在处理这个问题的方式非常聪明。因此，你知道，因为他们出现在华盛顿市，带着一种公共服务叙事或世界末日叙事之类的，我认为他们认为自己会非常聪明地愚弄每个人，愚弄华盛顿的人，使他们得到卡特尔地位。
And the people in Washington don't realize until it's too late. But it actually turns out people in Washington are actually quite cynical. They've been lobbied before. Exactly. And so there is this thing and they, you know, they won't they don't I get this from them off the record a lot, especially after a couple of drinks, which is basically if you've been in Washington for longer than two minutes, you have seen many industries come to Washington. Many big companies come to Washington and want monopoly or cartel kind of regulatory protection. And so you see you've seen this in if you're in Washington, you've seen this play out, you know, in some cases, the guys have been there for a long time, dozens or hundreds of times.
华盛顿的人直到为时已晚才意识到。但实际上华盛顿的人实际上相当愤世嫉俗。他们以前就受到过游说。确切地说，他们并不关心。他们不会的，我听到他们很多次私下说，尤其是在喝了几杯酒之后，基本上是，如果你在华盛顿呆的时间超过两分钟，你就会看到很多行业来到华盛顿。很多大公司来到华盛顿，希望得到垄断或卡特尔式的监管保护。所以如果你在华盛顿，你会看到这一切发生，有些情况下，这些家伙在那儿呆了很长时间，数十次或数百次。
And so my sense is like nine months ago or something, there was a moment where it seemed like the big tech companies could kind of get away with this. I think it's it's actually I think actually it's it's the edges. I'm still concerned and we're still working on it. But I think the edges come off a little bit because I think the cynicism of Washington, in this case is actually correct. And I think they're kind of onto these companies. And then, you know, look, if there's unifying issue, there's basically two unifying issues in Washington. One is they don't like China and the other is they don't like big tech. And so, you know, this is this is a winnable war. Like this is a winnable war on behalf of startups and open source and freedom and competition.
我的感觉是大约九个月前，似乎大科技公司可以逃避这种局面。我认为实际上我认为实际上问题在于边缘。我仍然很担心，我们仍在努力解决这个问题。但我认为边缘有所收敛，因为我认为这种对华盛顿的犬儒主义实际上是正确的。我认为他们对这些公司有所觉察。另外，你知道，如果有一个统一的问题，华盛顿基本上有两个共同点。一个是他们不喜欢中国，另一个是他们不喜欢大科技公司。所以，你知道，这是一场可以赢得的战争。这是为初创公司、开源和自由以及竞争而进行的一场可以赢得的战争。
And so I'm actually, yeah, I'm worried, but I'm feeling much better about it than I was nine months ago. Yeah, well, like we had to show up. I mean, that's the other thing. I mean, it's taught me a real lesson, which is, you know, you can't expect people to know what's in your head. You know, you've got to go see them. You've got to put in the time. You've got to kind of say what you think. And then, you know, and if you don't, you don't have any right to like wring your hands with how like, you know, bad things are. Yeah.
所以我实际上很担心，但比九个月前好多了。是啊，我们必须出席。这教会了我一课，就是不能期望别人知道你心里在想什么。你得去见他们，花时间，说出你的想法。否则，你就没有权利抱怨事情有多糟糕。是的。
And then I just wanted to know one more one more thing just for says, you know, you can you kind of mentioned the big companies being Microsoft Google meta is worth noting, meta is on the open source side of this. And so meta is actually met is actually working quite hard. And then this is a big deal because it's very, you know, contrary to the image, I think people have a meta over, you know, prior and prior issues, you know, correctly. But on the open source, I topic and I'm free to innovate, at least for now, meta is I think very strongly on that side. Yeah.
然后我只想知道另外一件事，只是想说一下，你知道的，你提到了微软、谷歌、Meta这些大公司，值得注意的是，Meta在这方面是开源的。所以Meta实际上正在努力工作。这是一件大事，因为与人们对Meta的印象相反，他们可能会正确地看待一些之前的问题。但在开源方面，至少目前来看，Meta我认为是非常坚定的。是的。
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I think that's right. It's actually a very interesting point in kind of I think essential for people understand is that the way meta is thinking about this and the way that they're actually behaving and executing is very similar to how Google thought about Android, where, you know, their main concern was that Apple not have a monopoly on the smartphone, you know, not so much that they make money on the smartphone themselves. Because, you know, a monopoly on the smartphone on the smartphone for Apple would mean that, you know, Google's other business was in real jeopardy.
是的。 是的。 是的。 是的。我认为那是对的。实际上，这是一个非常有趣的观点，我认为对人们理解至关重要的是，元数据的思考方式和他们实际行为和执行的方式非常类似于谷歌对待安卓的方式，他们的主要担心是苹果不会垄断智能手机市场，而不是他们自己在智能手机上赚钱多少。因为，你知道，苹果在智能手机市场上的垄断意味着谷歌的其他业务面临真正的危险。
And so they ended up being kind of an actor for good. And, you know, Android's been an amazing thing for the world. I think, you know, including getting smartphones in the hands of people who won't be able to get them otherwise, you know, all over the world. And meta is doing kind of a very similar effort where, you know, in order to make sure that they have AI as a great ingredient in their products and services is willing to open source it and kind of gives their all of their very, very kind of large investment in AI to the world.
因此，他们最终成为了为善良而努力的演员。你知道，安卓对世界来说是一件了不起的事情。我认为，包括让那些本来无法获得智能手机的人们也能拥有它们，遍及全球。Meta正在做类似的努力，他们为了确保他们产品和服务中具有强大的人工智能成分，愿意开放源代码，并分享他们在人工智能领域的巨大投资给世界。
So that, you know, entrepreneurs and everybody can kind of keep them competitive, even though they don't plan to be in the business of AI in the same way that, you know, what Google is in the business of smart drones to some extent, but it's that they're kind of key business and, you know, meta doesn't have a plan to be in the AI business, maybe, you know, to some extent they will too but that's not the main goal.
因此，你知道，企业家和每个人都可以保持竞争力，即使他们不打算以与谷歌在智能无人机业务中所做的方式相同的方式进入人工智能领域。尽管，他们可能会在某种程度上也涉足人工智能业务，但这不是他们的主要目标。META公司也没有计划进入人工智能业务。
And then I would put one other company on the concerning side on this and I it's truly to tell but where they're going to shake out. But, you know, Amazon just announced they're investing a lot more money in the anthropic. So I think they're now basically Amazon is to anthropic what Microsoft just opened AI. You know, I think that's a lot of stuff. Yep. Yeah. And so like there's there's a, anthropic is very much in the group of kind of big tech, you know, kind of new incumbent big tech, you know, lobbying very aggressively for regulation of regulatory capture in DC.
然后我会把另一家公司放在关注的名单上，真的很难说他们会走向何方。但是，你知道亚马逊刚刚宣布他们将在人工智能上投入更多资金。所以我认为现在基本上亚马逊是人工智能的代名词，就像微软开发了人工智能一样。你知道，我觉得这是很重要的事情。是的。是的。人工智能非常多地处于大型科技公司的群体中，这些新兴的大型科技公司非常积极地游说华盛顿进行监管。
And so I think it's sort of an open question whether Amazon is going to pick up that agenda as open as as anthropic can see becomes effectively a subsidiary of Amazon. Yeah. Well, this is another place where we're on the side of Washington DC and the current regulatory motion where, you know, the big tech companies have done this thing, which we thought was illegal because we observed it occur at AOL and people went to jail.
因此，我认为一个悬而未决的问题是亚马逊是否会接纳这个议程，就像人类可以看到的那样，成为亚马逊的有效子公司。是的。嗯，这是另一个我们站在华盛顿特区和目前监管动向一边的地方，在那里，你知道，大型科技公司做了我们认为是违法的事情，因为我们在AOL观察到它发生并引发人们被监禁。
But what they've done is they invest in startups, you know, huge amounts of money, Microsoft and Amazon and Google are all doing it, you know, like billions of dollars. With the requirement with the explicit requirement that those companies then buy GPUs from them, like not the the discount that they ordinarily get, but a relatively high price. And then be in their clouds. So that kind of and then, you know, in the Microsoft case, even more aggressive, give me your source code, give me your weights, you know, which is like extremely aggressive.
但他们所做的是投资初创企业，投入巨额资金，微软、亚马逊和谷歌都在这样做，投入数十亿美元。在明确要求的情况下，这些公司必须从他们购买GPU，不是他们通常获得的折扣价，而是相对较高的价格。然后，加入他们的云端。这种做法，甚至在微软的情况下更为激进，要求提供源代码、神经网络权重参数，这是极端激进的做法。
So, you know, they're moving money from the balance sheet to their P and L. You know, in a way that at least from an accounting standpoint, it was our understanding was illegal and the FTC is, you know, looking at that now, but it'll be interesting to see how that plays out. Yeah. Well, the other is that's one area. Another issue that people should watch is, you know, that's one that's around tripping. The other one is just consolidation. You know, if you own, you know, half of a company and you get to appoint the management team, right? Is that, you know, is that a like, is that not a subsidiary?
所以，你知道，他们把资金从资产负债表转移到利润表。你知道，在会计方面，我们的理解是这是非法的，FTC正在调查，但很有趣的是看看将如何解决这个问题。嗯。另一个问题是大家应该注意的是，这是一个关于剥削的问题。另一个问题是整合。你知道，如果你拥有一家公司的一半股份并且可以任命管理团队，那么这算不算一个子公司呢？
You know, there are rules on that. Like at what point you're on the company equity, you are in the intellectual property of the company and you control the management team. Yeah, is that not your company? Yeah. And then at that point, if you're not consolidating it, like, is that legal? And so the SEC is going to weigh in on that. And then of course, you know, to the extent that some of these companies have non-profit components to them, there's, you know, tax implications to the conversion to for profit and the so forth. And so like there, there's a lot of, yeah, this, this, this, yeah, the stakes, the stakes in the legal, I would say the stakes in the legal regulatory and political game that's being played here, I think are quite quite high. Quite high.
你知道，在这方面是有规定的。比如说当你持有公司股权时，你就进入了公司的知识产权领域，掌控了管理团队。是的，那不是你的公司吗？是的。在那一点上，如果你不进行整合，那合法吗？所以美国证券交易委员会将会介入。当然，一些公司有非营利性成分，这就涉及到转为盈利性质所带来的税收影响等等。所以，这里涉及到的，我想说的是，这里在进行的法律、监管和政治游戏中的赌注是相当高的。相当高。
Yes. Yeah. Yeah. Stream. Ben and I, Ben and I, it's been mentioned, it's been an hour old enough where we do know a bunch of people who go on a jail. So some of these issues turn out to be serious. So Gabriel asks, what would happen if there was zero regulation of AI, the good, the bad, and the ugly? And this is, this is actually really important topic. So, you know, we're, we're vigorously arguing, you know, in DC that there should be, you know, basically anybody should be completely capable of building AI, deploying AI. Big companies should be allowed to do it. Small companies should be allowed to do it. Open source should be allowed to do it. And you know, look, a lot of the regulatory pushes we've been discussing that comes from the big companies and from the activists is to, is to prevent that from happening and put everything in the hands of the big companies. So, you know, we're definitely on the side of freedom and innovate. You know, having said that, you know, that's not the same as saying no regulations of anything ever. And so we're definitely not approaching this. It's kind of a hardcore libertarian lens.
是的。是的。是的。流。本和我，本和我，已经提到过，已经有一个小时的时间，我们认识一堆进监狱的人。所以一些问题可能是严重的。所以加布里埃尔问，如果人工智能没有任何监管，好的、坏的和丑陋的会发生什么？这实际上是一个非常重要的话题。所以，你知道，我们正在华盛顿DC激烈地争论，任何人都应该完全有能力建造人工智能，部署人工智能。大公司应该被允许这样做，小公司也应该被允许这样做。开源也应该被允许这样做。你知道，很多我们讨论的监管推动来自大公司和活动人士，是为了阻止发生这种情况，并把一切都掌握在大公司手中。所以，我们绝对站在自由和创新的一边。话虽如此，这并不意味着从来没有任何监管。所以我们绝对不是以一种极端的古典自由主义视角来对待这个问题。
The interesting thing about regulation of AI is that it turns out when you kind of go down the list of the things that I would say reasonable people kind of, you know, kind of, you know, kind of sort of thoughtful people considered to be concerns around AI on both sides of the aisle. Basically, the implications that they're worried about are less the technology itself and are more the use of the technology in practice, either for good or for bad. And so, you know, Ben, you brought up, for example, if AI is making decisions on things like granting credit or mortgages or insurance, then, you know, they're very serious policy issues around, you know, how those answers are derived at, which groups are affected in different ways. You know, the flip side is, you know, if AI is used to plan a crime, you know, or to, you know, plan a bank robbery or something like that or terrorist attack, you know, that's, you know, that's obviously something that people focused on national security law enforcement are very concerned about.
关于对人工智能的监管的有趣之处在于，当你列出理性人士普遍认为对人工智能存在的担忧时，你会发现问题其实并不在于技术本身，而更多地是关于技术在实践中的使用，无论是为了好还是为了坏。比如，如果人工智能用于决定信贷、抵押贷款或保险等事项，那么在这个过程中如何得出答案，哪些群体受到了不同方式的影响，都会引发严重的政策问题。相反，如果人工智能被用来策划犯罪，比如抢劫银行或恐怖袭击，那么国家安全执法部门显然会非常担心这种情况。
Look, our approach on this is actually very straightforward, which is, it seems like completely reasonable to regulate uses of AI, you know, in things that would be in things that would be dangerous. Now, the interesting thing about that is, as far as I can tell, and I've been talking to a lot of people and you see about this, starting to tell every single use of AI to do something bad is already illegal under current laws and regulations. And so it's already illegal to be discriminatory and lending. It's already illegal to redline in mortgages. It's already illegal to plan bank robberies. It's already illegal to plan terrorist attacks. Like these things are already illegal and there's, you know, decades or centuries of case law and regulation and, you know, law enforcement and intelligence capabilities around all of these.
看，我们对这个问题的方式实际上非常简单，就是，在使用人工智能方面，似乎完全合理进行监管，你知道，那些可能会带来危险的事情。现在，有趣的是，据我所知，我已经和很多人讨论过这个问题，开始告诉每一个利用人工智能做坏事就已经违法了现有的法律和法规。因此，歧视性贷款是违法的。在抵押贷款方面进行歧视也是违法的。计划银行抢劫是违法的。计划恐怖袭击也是违法的。这些事情已经是违法的，而且围绕这些问题已经有几十年甚至几个世纪的案例法律和法规以及执法和情报能力。
And so to be clear, like we think it's like completely appropriate that those authorities be used. And if there are new laws or regulations needed, you know, other bad uses that makes little sense. But that basically the issues that people are worried about can be contained and controlled the level of the use as opposed to somehow saying, you know, by the way, as some of the doomer activists, you know, we need to literally prevent people from, you know, doing linear algebra on their computers. Yeah. Well, I think that's important to point out, like, what is AI? And it turns out to be, you know, it's math and specifically kind of like a mathematical model. So you can think of it for those of you who study math in school, you know, in math, you can have an equation like, you know, y equals x squared plus b or something.
因此，明确一点，我们认为那些权威机构使用这些权力是完全恰当的。如果需要新的法律或法规，来应对其他无意义的恶意用途。但基本上，人们担心的问题可以通过控制和限制使用的程度来解决，而不是像一些悲观主义活动人士所说的，我们需要从根本上阻止人们在他们的计算机上进行线性代数计算。是的，我认为强调什么是人工智能很重要。结果表明，它其实是数学，具体来说是一种数学模型。所以你可以想象一下，对于那些在学校学习数学的人来说，在数学中你可以有一个方程式，比如y等于x平方加b之类的。
And that equation can kind of model the behavior of something in physics or, you know, something in the real world. And so that you can predict, you know, something happening, like the speed that an object will drop or so forth and so on. And then AI is kind of that, but with huge computer power applied so that you get a much bigger equations with, you know, instead of two or three or four variables, you could have, you know, 300 billion variables. And so if you get into the challenge with that, of course, is if you get into regulating math, and you say, well, math is okay up to a certain number of variables, but then at the, you know, two billionth and first variable, then it's dangerous.
这个方程可以模拟物理中的某种行为，或者说现实世界中的某种情况。这样你就可以预测某种事件发生，比如一个物体下落的速度之类的。而人工智能就是这样的，只不过应用了巨大的计算机算力，所以你可以得到一个更大的方程式，而不是只有两三四个变量，你可能有3000亿个变量。所以挑战就是，如果你试图控制数学，比如说，你说数学在一定数量的变量下没问题，但当达到第20亿个变量时，就变得危险了。
Then you're in a like a pretty bad place and that you're going to prevent everything good from the technology from happening as well as anything that you might think is bad. So you really do want to be in the business of regulating the kind of applications of the technology, not the math. In the same way that, you know, you want to want to like nuclear power is very potentially dangerous as nuclear weapons are extremely dangerous. You want want to kind of put parameters around what physics you could study in order to, you know, like literally in the abstract in order to kind of prevent somebody from getting a nuke, like you can no longer study physics in Iran, because then you might be able to build a nuke would be kind of the conclusion.
如果你认为科技可能带来的好处真的太少太不重要，你可能会认为你需要阻止一切好的事情发生，以及任何你认为不好的事情。因此，你确实希望从事对技术应用进行监管的业务，而不是数学。就像你知道的，核能非常危险，像核武器一样极其危险。你希望能够为物理学的研究设立一些限制，以便从一开始就阻止某人获得核武器，就像你不能在伊朗学习物理一样，因为这样你可能就能建造一枚核武器。
And that has been kind of what big tech has been pushing for not because they want safety, but because, you know, again, they want to monopoly. And so I think we have to be very, very careful not to do that. I do think there will probably be, you know, some cases that come up that are enabled by a new applications that do need to be regulated potentially. You know, for example, I don't know that there's a law that like if you recreate like something that sounds exactly like Drake, and then kind of put out a song that sounds like a Drake song like I don't know that that's illegal. Maybe that should be illegal.
大型科技公司一直在推动这种做法，不是因为他们想要安全，而是因为他们想要垄断市场。因此，我认为我们必须非常谨慎不要这样做。我认为可能会出现一些由新应用程序实现的案例，这些案例可能需要进行监管。例如，我不知道是否有一项法律规定，如果你重新创作出像Drake一样的声音，然后发布一首听起来像Drake的歌曲，我不知道这是否合法。也许这应该是非法的。
I think those things need to be considered for sure. And you know, they're they're certainly danger in that. I also think many technological solutions, not just regulatory solutions for things like deep fakes, that kind of help us get to, you know, what's human what's not human. And interesting, a lot of those are kind of, you know, viable now based on kind of blockchain crypto technology. Yeah, so let's, you know, just own the voice thing real quick. Yeah, so it actually, I believe this to be the case, it is not currently possible to copyright a voice.
我认为这些事情肯定需要考虑。你知道，这里面确实存在危险。我也认为许多技术解决方案，不仅仅是针对深度伪造的法规解决方案，有助于我们区分什么是人类，什么不是人类。有趣的是，很多这些解决方案现在基于区块链加密技术是可行的。是的，所以让我们快速了解一下声音这件事。是的，我相信这是事实，目前无法对声音进行版权保护。
Yeah, right. You can copyright lyrics and you can copyright music and you can copyright tunes, right melodies and so forth, right copyright a voice. And yeah, that seems like a perfect example where that it seems like that probably is a good idea to have a law that lets you copyright your voice. Yeah, I feel that way. You know, particularly if people call their voice Drake squared or something, right? Like, you know, it could get very dodgy. Oh, yeah, again, you know, you get to get into just the details, you know
是的，你可以版权歌词，也可以版权音乐，还可以版权曲调、旋律等等，甚至可以版权声音。是的，这似乎就是一个很好的例子，似乎有必要有一项允许版权你的声音的法律。是的，我是这样认为的。特别是如果人们将他们的声音称为“Drake squared”之类的，你知道，可能会变得非常棘手。哦，是的，你又要陷入细节了，你懂的。
trademark, you can trademark your name. So you could probably prosecute on that. But by the way, having said that, look, this also gets to the complexity of these things that there is actually an issue around copyrighting a voice, which is okay, well, how close to that, how close to the voice of Drake does like, there are a lot of people have like a lot of voices in the world and like, how close do you have to get before you're violating copyright? And what if my natural voice actually sounds like Drake, like, am I now in trouble? Right.
商标，你可以注册你的名字商标。所以你可能可以根据这个来起诉。但是顺便说一句，看，这也涉及到了这些事情的复杂性，实际上有关于版权声音的问题，这就是，好吧，接近这个，接近Drake的声音有多近，世界上有很多人有很多声音，你必须有多接近才算侵犯版权呢？如果我的自然声音其实听起来像Drake，那我现在会有麻烦吗？
And do I have a like Jamie Foxx imitating Quincy Jones and that kind of thing, right? Exactly. So anyway, yeah, I mean, but I mean, look, I, you know, agreeing violently with you on this is like, that seems like a great topic that needs to be taken up and take you looked at seriously from a legal standpoint that is sort of is actually, you know, is obviously exact, you know, sort of an issue that's sort of elevated by AI, but is a general kind of concept of what you can't be able to copyright trademark things, which has a long history in US law.
我是否有像杰米·福克斯模仿昆西·琼斯那种的才能，对吧？没错。总之，是的，但是，我认同你对这个问题的激烈赞同感觉像是一个需要被认真对待的重要话题，从法律的角度来看，这显然是一个被AI提升的问题，但是却是一个长期存在于美国法律中的不能对事物进行版权或商标保护的概念。
Yeah, for sure. Yeah, so let's talk about the decentralization of the blockchain aspects of this. So, you know, I want to get into this. So goose asks, how important is the development of decentralized AI? And how can the private sector catalyze prudent pragmatic regulations to ensure US retains innovation leadership in this space? So yeah, let's, so let's, Ben, let's talk about, well, let's talk about decentralized AI. And then maybe I'll just, I'll highlight real quick, and then you can build on it. Decentralized AI, like, you know, the sort of default way that AI systems are being built today is with basically, you know, supercomputer clusters in a cloud. And so you'll have a single data center somewhere that's got, you know, 10,000 or 100,000 ships, and then a whole bunch of systems interconnect them and make them all work. And then you have a company, you know, that, you know, basically, you know, owns and controls that. And, you know, these companies, AI companies are raising a lot of money to do that now.
是的，当然。是的，让我们谈谈这个区块链方面的去中心化。所以，你知道，我想深入了解这个。Goose问，发展去中心化人工智能有多重要？私营部门如何推动谨慎实用的监管，以确保美国在这一领域保持创新领先地位？所以，让我们，所以，Ben，让我们谈谈，好，让我们谈谈去中心化人工智能。也许我简要概括一下，然后你可以进一步展开。去中心化人工智能，就像今天建造人工智能系统的默认方式，通常是使用云中的超级计算机集群。因此，你会在某个地方拥有一个单一数据中心，配有10,000或100,000个服务器，并由一系列系统互相连接并使它们一起运转。然后你有一家公司，基本上是拥有和控制这一切的。你知道，这些公司现在正在筹集大量资金来做这件事。
These are very large scale centralized, you know, kinds of operations. And, you know, to train us, you know, state of the art model, you're at $100 million plus, you know, to train a, you know, a big one to train a small one, like, like the Databricks model that just came out, it's like on the order of $10 million. And so that, you know, these are large centralized efforts. And by the way, we all think that the big models are going to end up costing a billion, you know, and up in the future. And so, so then this raises a question of like, is there an alternate way to do this? And the alternate way to do this is with we believe strongly is with a decentralized approach, in particular, with a blockchain-based approach. It's actually the kind of thing that the blockchain web three kind of methods, you know, seems like it would work with very well. And in fact, we are already blocking backing companies and startups that are doing this. And then I would say there's at least three kind of obvious layers that you could decentralize that seem like they're increasingly important.
这些是非常大规模的集中式操作，你知道，为了训练我们最先进的模型，需要超过1亿美元，训练一个大规模的模型或者训练一个小规模的模型，就像最近推出的Databricks模型，大约需要1000万美元。因此，这些都是大规模集中式的努力。顺便说一句，我们都认为大型模型最终会导致数十亿的成本。因此，这就引出了一个问题，是否有另一种方法来解决这个问题？我们强烈相信可以通过分散化的方法来解决这个问题，特别是使用基于区块链的方法。事实上，区块链网络三种方法似乎非常适合这样做。实际上，我们已经在支持正在进行这种方法的公司和初创企业。然后，我想至少有三个明显的层面是可以分散化的，而且似乎越来越重要。
So one is the training layer. Well, actually, let me say four, there's the training layer, which is, you know, building the model. There's the inference layer, which is the running the model to answer questions. There's the data layer, bend your point on opening up the black box of where the data is coming from, which is there should probably be a blockchain-based system where people who own can contribute it for training of AIs and then get paid for it, and where you track all that. And then there's a fourth that you alluded to, which is deep fakes. It seems obvious to us that the answer to deep fakes, and I should pause for a second and say, in my last three months of trips to DC, the number one issue politicians are focused on with AI is deep fakes. It's the one that directly affects them. And I think every politician right now who's thought about this has a nightmare scenario of, it's three days before their reelection campaign, three days before the vote, deep fakes goes out with them saying something absolutely horrible, and it's so good and the voters get confused, and then they lose the election on that. And I would say that's actually the thing that actually has the most potency right now.
有一个是培训层。实际上，让我说四个，有培训层，也就是构建模型。有推理层，运行模型来回答问题。有数据层，您提到了打开数据来源黑匣子的问题，可能应该有一个基于区块链的系统，让拥有数据的人可以为AI的培训做出贡献，并因此而获得报酬，并可以追踪所有这些。然后有第四个，您提到的是深度伪造。我们认为对深度伪造的答案是显而易见的，我要停顿一下说，在我最近三个月去华盛顿的访问中，政治家们关注的AI问题首要问题是深度伪造。这直接影响到他们。我认为现在每个考虑过这个问题的政治家都有一个噩梦般的场景，就是在他们竞选连任的三天前，深度伪造出了他们说了绝对可怕的话，这个深度伪造做得很好，选民感到困惑，然后他们在选举中败选。我会说，这实际上是目前最具有威力的问题。
And then what basically a lot of people say, including the politicians, is, so therefore, we need basically a way to detect deep fakes. And so either the AI systems need to watermark AI-generated content so that you can tell there's a deep fakes or you need these kind of scanners, like the scanners that are being used in some schools now to try to detect something as AI-generated. Our view, as you know, I would say both technologists and investors in the space, is that the methods of detecting AI generated content after the fact are basically not going to work. And they're not going to work because AI is already too good at doing this.
然后很多人，包括政客们，基本上都说，因此，我们基本上需要一种方法来检测深度伪造。因此，AI系统需要为AI生成的内容添加水印，这样你就可以看出这是深度伪造，或者你需要这种扫描仪，就像一些学校现在使用的扫描仪，用于检测AI生成的内容。我们的观点，如你所知，我会说，无论是技术人员还是这一领域的投资者，检测AI生成的内容的方法事实上不会起作用。它们不会起作用，因为AI已经在这方面做得太好了。
And by the way, for example, if you have kids in a school and they're running one of these scanner programs that is supposed to detect whether your kid is submitting an essay, or he was chat to you Peter, right? The essay, like, those really don't work in a reliable way. And there's a lot of both false positives and false negatives off of those that are very bad. So those are actually very bad ideas. And for the same reason, like, detection of AI-generated photos and videos and speech is not going to be possible. And so our view is you have to flip the problem, if you invert the problem, and what you have to do instead is basically have a system in which real people can certify that content about them is real.
顺便说一句，比如说，如果你的孩子在学校里正在运行一种扫描程序，目的是检测你的孩子是否提交了一篇文章，或者他在和你的彼得聊天，对吧？那样的文章，像那些，实际上并不可靠。这些程序会出现很多假阳性和假阴性，这是非常糟糕的。所以这些实际上是非常糟糕的想法。出于同样的原因，像检测人工智能生成的照片、视频和语音也是不可能的。所以我们的观点是，你必须转变问题的角度，如果你颠倒问题的角度，你必须做的是基本上建立一个系统，在这个系统中，真实的人可以证明关于他们自己的内容是真实的。
And where content has provenance as well, where you go ahead and describe how that would work. Yeah, so, you know, we have like, you know, one of the amazing things of crypto blockchain is it deploys something known as a public key infrastructure, which enables kind of every human to have a key that's unique to them, where they can sign. So like, if I was in a video, or in a photo, or I wrote something, I can certify that, yes, this is exactly what I wrote, and you cannot alter it to make it into something else. It is just exactly that. And then, you know, as that thing, you know, gets transferred to the world, let's say that it's something, you know, like a song that you sell and so forth, you can track just like with, you know, in a less precise way, but with the work of art, we track the provenance or with a house, who owned it before you and so forth. That's also like an easy application on the blockchain.
当内容有来源时，您可以继续描述它是如何运作的。是的，您知道，加密区块链的令人惊讶之处之一是它部署了一种称为公钥基础架构的东西，这使得每个人都可以拥有一个独一无二的密钥，他们可以用来签名。所以，比如说，如果我在视频中，或者在照片中，或者写了些什么，我可以证明，是的，这就是我写的，你不能把它修改成其他的东西。它就是这样。然后，你知道，当这个东西被传播到世界上，比如说一首歌曲，你卖了等等，你像追踪艺术品的来源或房子的归属权一样追踪它，这样就可以知道在你之前是谁拥有过它等等。这也是区块链的一个简单应用。
And so that, you know, kind of a combination of capabilities can make this whole kind of program much more viable in terms of like, okay, knowing what's real, what's fake, where it came from, where it started, where it's going, and so forth. You know, kind of going back, the data one, I think, is really, really important in that, you know, these systems, you know, one of the things that they've done, that's, I would say dodgy. And, you know, there have been like big pushback against it with, you know, Elon trying to lock down Twitter, and the New York Times suing OpenAI and so forth.
因此，你知道，各种能力的结合可以让这整个项目在识别真假、来源、起源以及未来方向等方面变得更加可行。回到数据这一点，我认为非常重要，这些系统，其中有些事情，我觉得有些可疑。有人对此提出了强烈抗议，比如Elon试图封锁Twitter，纽约时报起诉OpenAI等等。
You know, these systems have gone out and just slurped in data from all over the internet and all over kind of, you know, people's businesses and so forth and train their models on them. And, you know, I think that there's a question of whether the people who created that data should have any say in whether the models trained on that data. And, you know, blockchain is an unbelievably great system for this because you can permission people to use it, you can charge them a fee. It can be all automated in a way where you can say, sure, come train, you know, and I think training data ought to be of this nature where there's a data marketplace, and people can say, yes, take this data for free.
你知道，这些系统已经通过各种方式从互联网吸取数据，并训练他们的模型。我认为，有一个问题需要讨论，那就是创建数据的人是否应该在模型上训练数据方面有任何发言权。区块链是一个非常好的系统，因为你可以允许人们使用它，你可以向他们收取费用。这可以通过自动化实现，在这种情况下，你可以说，当然，来训练，我认为训练数据应该采用这种方式，即有一个数据市场，人们可以说，是的，可以免费使用这些数据。
I want the model to have this knowledge or no, you can't have it for free, but you can have it or no, you can't have it at all, rather than, you know, what's gone on, which is this very aggressive scraping. And, you know, like you have these very smart models where these companies are making enormous amounts of money taken from data that certainly didn't belong to them, you know, maybe it's in the public domain or what have you, but, you know, that ought to be an explicit relationship. And it's not today.
我希望模型拥有这些知识，或者不能免费获取，但可以获取，或者不能获得，而不是现在这种非常激进的抓取情况。你知道的，这些公司正在从并不属于他们的数据中赚取巨额利润，也许这些数据是公开的，但这应该是一种明确的关系。但现在并非如此。
And that's a very great blockchain solution. And part of the reason we need the correct regulation on blockchain, and we need the SEC's to stop harassing and terrorizing people trying to innovate in this category. And so that's kind of the second category. And then you have like training and inference. And I would say, you know, right now the push against kind of decentralized training and inference is, well, you know, you need this very fast interconnect and you need it to all be in one place technologically. But, and I think that's true for people who have more money than time, right? Which is like, you know, startups and big companies and so forth.
这是一个非常出色的区块链解决方案。我们需要对区块链进行正确的监管，需要证券交易委员会停止骚扰和恐吓那些试图在这个领域创新的人。我认为这是第二类问题。另外还有培训和推理。我想说的是，现在反对去中心化培训和推理的趋势是，你需要非常快的互联和技术上需要集中在一个地方。但是，我认为这对那些时间比金钱更重要的人来说是真的，比如初创公司和大公司等。
But for people in academia, we have more time than money, they're getting completely frozen out of research. You can't do it. And there's not enough money in all of academia to participate anymore in AI research. And so, you know, having a decentralized approach where you can share, you know, all the GPUs across your network. And hey, yeah, maybe it takes a lot longer to train your network or to serve it. But you know what, you still can do your research. You can still innovate, you know, create new ideas, do architectures, and test them out at large scale, which, you know, will be amazing if we can do it. And again, we need, you know, the SEC to stop, you know, kind of illegally terrorizing every crypto company and trying to block laws from being put in place that help us, you know, enable this.
但对于学术界的人来说，我们拥有的时间比金钱更多，他们完全被排除在研究之外。你做不到。学术界没有足够的资金参与人工智能研究。因此，采取一种分散的方法，可以在网络上共享所有的GPU是很重要的。也许训练您的网络或提供服务需要更长的时间，但你仍然可以进行研究。你仍然可以创新，提出新的想法，设计架构，并在大规模上测试它们，如果我们能做到这一点，将会是令人惊叹的。同时，我们需要证监会停止非法恐吓每家加密公司，并试图阻止制定有助于我们实现这一目标的法律。
Yeah, there's actually a really, and you alluded to it, the college thing actually really matters. So we have a friend, you know, who runs one of, you know, is very involved in one of the big computer science programs, one of the major American research universities. And of course, by the way, a lot of the technology we're talking about was developed at American research universities, right? And Canadian ones to Toronto, Canadian ones and European ones, exactly. You know, historically, as with every other wave of technology in the last, you know, whatever, 100 years, you know, the research, our research universities, you know, across these countries have been kind of the gems of the, you know, the well springs of a lot of the new technology that have been in a powering, you know, the economy and everything else around us. You know, we have a friend involved in running one of these. And this friend said a while ago that he said that the, you know, his concern was that his university would be unable to fund a competitive AI cluster, basically.
是的，实际上，你已经提到了这一点，大学确实非常重要。我们有一个朋友，你知道，他在一所大型计算机科学项目中非常活跃，这是一所美国主要的研究型大学之一。当然，顺便说一句，我们谈论的许多技术都是在美国研究型大学开发的，对吧？加拿大和欧洲的大学，确切地说。从历史上看，在过去的一百年里，和每一波科技发展一样，我们这些国家的研究型大学一直是创新科技的源泉，推动着经济和周边环境中的一切。我们有一个朋友参与管理其中之一。这位朋友不久前说过，他担心他的大学无法筹措一个具有竞争力的人工智能集群，基本上。
So, you know, a compute grid that would actually let students and professors at that university actually work in AI, because it's now getting to be too expensive and research-rink and universities are just not funded to do have CAPEX programs that big. And then he said his concern more recently has been all research universities together might not be able to afford to do that, which means all universities together might not be able to actually have, you know, basically cutting edge AI work happening on the university side. And then I happen to have a conversation in DC, I was in a bipartisan, you know, house meeting the other day with these topics.
所以你知道，一个能让大学的学生和教授们真正在人工智能领域工作的计算网格，因为现在要建立这样的系统成本太高，对研究来说风险太大，而大学并没有足够的资金来支持这么大规模的资本支出项目。然后他说，他最近更关注的是，所有研究型大学可能无法负担这样做，这意味着所有大学共同可能无法在大学端进行最前沿的人工智能研究。然后我碰巧在华盛顿DC进行了一次对话，在一场两党参与的议会会议中讨论了这些话题。
And actually one of the, in this case, democratic congress, congresswomen asked me, you know, the question which, you know, comes up, which is a very serious question, always right, which is how do you get kind of more, more members of unrepresented groups, underrepresented groups involved in tech. And, you know, I found myself giving the same answer that I always give on that, which is you need the most effective thing you need to do is you need to go upstream and you need to have more people coming out of the college with computer science degrees who are, you know, skilled and qualified and trained, right, and mentored in to be able to participate in industry. And you know, that's, you know, you and I then both came out of state schools, you know, with, you know, with computer science programs, you know, where we were able to then have the careers we've had. And so, you know, I find myself answering the question saying, well, we need, we need more computer science, you know, graduates from all, you know, from every, from every group. And then, but in the back of my head, I was like, and it's going to be impossible to do that, because none of these places are going to be able to afford to actually have the computer resources to be able to actually have AI programs in the future. And so like, you know, maybe the government can fix this by just dumping a ton of money on top of these universities.
实际上，在这种情况下，一名民主党国会议员问了我一个非常严肃的问题，那就是如何让更多未代表的群体、未被代表的群体参与科技领域。我发现自己给出了我一直在那方面的答案，那就是你需要做的最有效的事情是，你需要走向上游，需要让更多拥有计算机科学学位的人毕业，这些人有技能、有资格、有培训，可以参与行业。你我都是从州立学校毕业，拥有计算机科学专业，然后才有了我们现在的职业。所以，我觉得自己回答这个问题时说，我们需要更多来自各个群体的计算机科学毕业生。但是在我心里，我知道要做到这一点可能是不可能的，因为这些地方没有能力去提供未来需要的计算资源和人工智能技术。也许政府可以通过给这些大学投入大量资金来解决这个问题。
And maybe that's what will happen. And, you know, the current political environment seems like maybe it's not quite feasible for a variety of reasons. And then, and then the other approach would be a decentralized approach would be a blockchain, blockchain-based approach that everybody that everybody could participate in. You know, if they were something that the government were willing to support, which right now it's not. And so I think there's a really, really, really central important vital issue here that I think, you know, I think is being glossed over by a lot of people that I think should really be looked at. Yeah, no, I think it's absolutely critical. And this is, you know, again, kind of going back to our original thing, like it's so important to the country being what America being what America should be to get these issues right. And we're definitely in danger of that not happening, you know, because, you know, look, I think people are taking much too narrow view of some of these technologies and not understanding their full capabilities. And, you know, we get into, oh, the AI could, you know, say something racist, therefore we won't cure cancer. I mean, like, we're getting into that kind of dumb idea.
也许这就是将会发生的事情。你知道，当前的政治环境似乎由于各种原因可能并不太可行。另一种方法是去中心化的方式，采用基于区块链的方法，每个人都可以参与其中。你知道，如果政府愿意支持的话，但目前并不是这样。我认为这是一个非常重要的问题，我认为很多人都忽视了，我认为真的应该被重视。是的，我认为这绝对至关重要。正如我们最初讨论的那样，对于美国来说，这对国家变得更像美国应该是什么是非常重要的。我们很有可能面临这些问题得不到解决的危险，你知道，因为很多人对这些技术持有太狭隘的看法，没有理解它们的全部潜力。你知道，我们陷入了一种困境，比如说AI可能说出种族主义的言论，因此我们就不会治愈癌症。我觉得我们陷入了这种愚蠢的想法。
And, you know, we need to have a tech-forward kind of solution to some of these things. And then the right regulatory approach to kind of make the whole environment work. So, yeah, let's go to that next, the next phase of this now, which is the sort of global implications. So, I'm going to conjoin two different topics here, but I'm going to do it on purpose. So, Michael Frank Martin asks, what could the US do to position itself as the global leader of open source software? You see any specific legislation or regulatory constraints that are hampering the development of open source projects? Arda asks similar question, what would an ideal AI policy for open source software models looks like? And then Sarah Holmes asks the China question. Do you think we will end up with two AI tech stacks, the Western China, and ultimately companies will have to pick one side to stay on it?
你知道，对于一些事情，我们需要有一个面向技术的解决方案。然后，需要正确的监管方法来使整个环境运作起来。所以，是的，让我们继续前进到接下来的阶段，即全球影响。所以，我想结合两个不同的话题，但是我是有意为之的。迈克尔·弗兰克·马丁问道，美国应该如何定位自己为开源软件的全球领导者？您看到任何特定的立法或监管限制在阻碍开源项目的发展吗？阿尔达问了类似的问题，关于开源软件模型的理想AI政策是什么样的？然后，莎拉·霍姆斯提出了中国的问题。你认为我们最终会有两套AI技术堆栈，西方和中国的？公司最终将不得不选择一方留在其中吗？
And so, look, I would say that this is where you get to like the really, really big geopolitical long term issue, which is basically my understanding of things is sort of as follows, which is, you know, basically the for a variety of reasons technological development in the West is being centralized in the United States, you know, with, you know, some in Canada and some in Europe, although, you know, quite frankly, a lot of the best Canadian and, you know, European tech founders are coming to Silicon Valley, you know, yeah, I'm a good teacher. Yeah, and the good is, you know, a hero in France teaches at NYU and works at Meta, most of which are American institutions. And so they're sort of an American or let's say American plus European kind of, you know, kind of, kind of, you know, sort of tech Vanguard wedge in the world.
因此，我想说的是，在这里你会涉及到一个非常重要的地缘长期问题，我的理解是，基本上由于各种原因，西方的技术发展正集中在美国，一些在加拿大，一些在欧洲，虽然，坦率地说，很多最优秀的加拿大和欧洲科技创始人都来到了硅谷，是的，我是一名好老师。是的，一个在法国被尊敬的英雄，在纽约大学教学并在Meta工作，这些机构大多数是美国的。因此，在世界上存在着一个美国或者说美国加上欧洲的科技先锋楔形势力。
And then there's China. And really, it's actually quite a bipolar situation. You know, it would say, you know, the dreams of tech being fully democratized and spreading, you know, throughout the world have been realized for sure on the on the use side, but you know, not nearly as much on the entrepreneurship side or the invention side. And again, immigration immigration being a great virtue. But, you know, for the countries that are beneficial as immigration, the side of that is, you know, it makes you know, other countries are going to be less competitive because they're they're best and brightest, moving to the US. So, so anyway, so we are in a bipolar, we are in a bipolar tech world is primarily by polar tech world is primarily the US and China.
然后还有中国。实际上，情况是非常两极化的。你知道，科技被充分民主化并在世界各地传播的梦想在用户方面肯定已经实现了，但在创业方面或发明方面远远没有那么多。再次，移民是一种伟大的美德。但是，对于受益于移民的国家来说，另一面是，其他国家会变得更不具竞争力，因为它们最优秀的人才移民到美国。所以，总之，我们处于一个两极化的科技世界，主要由美国和中国主导。
You know, this is not the first time we have been in a bipolar world involving, you know, geopolitics and technology. You know, there the US and China have two very different systems. The Chinese system has all of the virtues and downsides of being centralized. The US system has all the virtues and downsides of being more decentralized. There is a very different set of views of the two systems on how society should be ordered and what freedom means and, you know, what people should be able to do and not do.
你知道，这并不是我们第一次处在一个涉及地缘政治和技术的双极世界中，你知道，中美两国拥有两种非常不同的体制。中国的体制具有集中管理的优缺点。美国的体制则具有更为分散的优缺点。对于这两种体制，关于社会应该如何组织、自由意味着什么以及人们应该能够做什么或者不能做什么存在着非常不同的观点。
And then look, both the US and China have visions of global supremacy and visions of basically care and agendas and programs, you know, to carry forward their points of view on the technology of AI and on the societal implications of AI, you know, throughout the world. And so, you know, there is this Cold War 2, and then the other thing is just in DC, it's just crystal clear that there's this now dynamic happening where Republicans and Democrats are trying to leapfrog each other every day on being more anti China. And so, you know, we're not our friend Neil Ferguson is using the term, I think Cold War 2.0 like we're it we're it whether we want to or not, like we're in Cold War 2.0 like we're we're in a dynamic similar to the one with the USSR, you know, 30, 40, 50 years ago.
然后看，美国和中国都有全球霸权的愿景，以及关心和议程和计划的愿景，你知道，他们要推动他们对人工智能技术和人工智能对社会的影响的观点在全世界传播。因此，你知道，这就是第二次冷战，另一件事就是在华盛顿特区，很明显的是，共和党和民主党每天都在互相竞相对中国更加反感。因此，你知道，我们的朋友尼尔·弗格森正在使用这个术语，我认为是冷战2.0，就好像我们在其中，无论我们是否想要，就像我们在冷战2.0中一样，我们处在类似于30年、40年、50年前与苏联时的一个动态中。
And to serve Holmes's question, it's 100% going to be the case. There are two AI tech stacks. And there are two AI governance models, and there are two AI, you know, deployment, you know, systems, and you know, there are two ways in which, you know, AI dovetails and everything from surveillance to smart cities to transportation, self-driving cars, drones, who controls what, who gets access to what, who sees what, the degree by the way to which AI is used as a method for population control. They're there, there are very different visions.
And these are national visions and global visions. And there's a very big competition developing. And, you know, it certainly looks to me like there's going to be a winner and a loser. I think it's overwhelmingly in, you know, our best interest for the US to be the winner for the US winner, we have to lean into our strengths. And, you know, our the downside of our system is that we are not as well organized and orchestrated top down as China is the upside of our system.
为了回答Holmes的问题，情况肯定是百分之百会发生的。有两种AI技术堆栈。有两种AI治理模式，还有两种AI部署系统，你知道的，从监视到智慧城市到交通运输和自动驾驶汽车，无人机，谁控制什么，谁获得对什么的访问权，谁看到什么， AI被用作人口控制方法的程度。它们存在，他们有非常不同的愿景。这些是国家愿景和全球愿景。正在形成一场激烈的竞争。你知道，看起来肯定会有胜者和失败者。我认为，让美国成为胜者绝对符合我们的最佳利益，为了让美国成为胜者，我们必须充分发挥我们的优势。我们系统的缺点是，我们没有像中国那样有组织、协调的向上管理，我们系统的优点。
At least, more likely is that we're able to benefit from decentralization, we're able to benefit from competition from a market economy from a private sector, right, where, you know, we're able to basically have a much larger number of smart people being, you know, making lots of small decisions to be able to get to good outcomes as opposed to, you know, having a having a dictatorial system in which there's a small number of people trying to make decisions. I mean, look, and this is how we won the cold war against Russia is our decentralized system just worked better economically, technologically, and ultimately militarily, than the, than the Soviet centralized system.
至少，更可能的是我们能够从分权制度中受益，我们能够从市场经济和私营部门的竞争中受益，对吧，你知道，我们能够基本上拥有更多聪明人在做很多小决策，从而达到良好结果，而不是像专制制度那样只有少数人在尝试做出决策。我是说，我们打赢了对抗俄罗斯的冷战就是因为我们的分权制度在经济、技术和最终的军事方面比苏联的集中制度表现得更好。
And so it just seems like fairly obvious to me that like we have to, we have to lean into our strengths, we better lean into our strengths. And if, because if we think we're just going to be like another version of a centralized system, but without all the advantages that China has with having a more centralized system, you know, that just seems like a bad formula. So yeah, let me pause there and Ben, see what you think.
所以对我来说，这似乎很明显，我们必须利用我们的优势，我们最好利用我们的优势。因为如果我们认为我们只是会成为另一种中央集权体制，但却没有中国拥有更集中化系统的所有优势，那看起来就像一种糟糕的方案。所以，让我在这里停下来，Ben，看看你的想法。
I know for sure. I think that'd be disastrous. And I think this is why it's so clear that if there's one, you know, to answer the question of there's one regulatory policy that we would enact that would ensure America's competitiveness, it would be open source. And the reason being that, as you said, this enables the largest number of participants to kind of contribute to AI to innovate to come up with novel solutions and so forth. And I think that you're right, China's, you know, what's going to happen in China is they're going to pick one, because they can. And they're going to kind of drive all their wood behind that arrow in a way that we could never do because we just don't work that way.
我可以确定这一点。我认为那将是灾难性的。我认为这就是为什么很明显，如果有一个监管政策可以确保美国的竞争力，那就是开放源代码。原因是，正如你所说的，这使得最多的参与者能够贡献AI、创新和提出新颖解决方案等。我认为你是对的，中国会选择一个方向，因为他们可以这样做。他们会把所有的资源集中在一个方向上，这是我们永远无法做到的，因为我们没有这样的工作方式。
And they're going to impose that on their society and try them to pose it on the world. And, you know, our best counter to that is to put it in the hands of all of our smart people. I have so many smart people from all over the world from, you know, like, as we like to say, diversity is our strength. We've got this tremendous different points of view, different, you know, kind of kinds of people in our country. And, you know, the more that we can enable them, the more likely we'll be competitive. And I'll give you a tremendous example of this is, you know, I think if you go back to 2017 and you read any, you know, foreign policy, magazine, etc., there wasn't a single one that didn't say China was a head in AI.
他们将把这种理念强加给他们的社会，并试图将其强加给整个世界。你知道，我们对此最好的反击是将其交由我们所有聪明的人。我有来自世界各地的许多聪明人，就像我们常说的，多样性是我们的力量。我们在国家里拥有许多不同观点和不同类型的人。而且，我们能够让他们发挥作用的越多，我们就越有竞争力。我想给你一个很好的例子，如果你回顾一下2017年的任何一本外交政策杂志等，没有一本没有提到中国在人工智能领域领先。
They have more patents. They have more students going to universities, they're head in AI, they're head in AI, like we're behind AI. And then, you know, Chad, GPT comes out and goes, Oh, I guess we're not behind an AI, we're head in AI. And the truth of it was what China was ahead on was in integrating AI into the government, their one AI into their government in that way. And, you know, look, we're working on doing a better job with that with American dynamism. But we're never going to be good at that model. You know, where you know, that's the model that they're going to be great at. And we have to be great at our model. And if we start limiting that outlying startups and outlying anybody with the big companies from developing AI and all that kind of thing, we'll definitely shoot ourselves on the foot. I would say related or like another kind of important point, I think, in kind of the safety of the world is, you know, when you talk about two AIs, that's like two AI stacks, perhaps, but it's very important that countries that are in America that aren't China can align AI to their values.
他们拥有更多的专利。他们有更多的学生进入大学，他们在人工智能领域领先，他们在人工智能领域领先，就像我们在人工智能方面落后一样。然后，你知道，查德，GPT出现了，他说，哦，我猜我们并不落后于人工智能，我们在人工智能领域领先。事实上，中国在集成人工智能到政府中方面处于领先地位，他们在这方面抢先一步。我们正在努力提高美国的活力，但我们永远不会擅长那种模式。你知道，那是他们将擅长的模式。我们必须擅长我们自己的模式。如果我们开始限制那些创业公司和任何大公司发展人工智能等方面的能力，我们肯定会自掘坟墓。我想说的一个相关或者是另一个重要的观点是，我认为，在世界的安全方面，当你谈论两个人工智能时，这就像两个人工智能堆栈，也许是非常重要的，那就是那些不是中国的国家，如美国，能够将人工智能与他们的价值观保持一致。
And I'll just give you kind of one really important example, which, you know, like I've been spending a lot of time in the Middle East. And if you look at the kind of history of, you know, a country like Saudi Arabia, they're coming from a world of fundamentalism and, you know, a kind of set of values that they're, you know, they're trying to modernize, they, you know, they've done tremendous things with women's rights and so forth. But, you know, like, they're still the fact that they've got, you know, people who don't want to go to that future so fast, and they need to preserve some of their history in order to not have a revolution or extreme violence and so forth. And, yeah, we're seeing al-Qaeda re-spark up in Afghanistan and all these kinds of things, which are, by the way, al-Qaeda's real enemy of modern Saudi, just as much as they're America, an enemy of America.
我只是给一个非常重要的例子，就是我花了很多时间在中东。如果你看沙特阿拉伯这样一个国家的历史，他们来自一个基本主义的世界，有一套价值观，他们试图现代化，他们在妇女权利等方面取得了巨大成就。但是，仍然有一些人不希望这么快地走向未来，并且需要保留一些历史，以避免发生革命或极端暴力等事件。我们看到基地组织在阿富汗重新活跃起来，而这些事情，顺便说一下，基地组织真正的敌人不仅仅是现代的沙特阿拉伯，也是美国的敌人。
And so if Saudi can't align an AI to the current Saudi values, they could literally spark a revolution in their country. And so it's very important that as we have technology that we develop, that it not be totally proprietary, close source, that it'd be kind of modifiable by our allies who need to kind of progress at their pace to keep their kind of country safe and keep us safe in doing so. And so this has got great geopolitical ramifications, what we do here. Like, we got into the China model that Google and Microsoft are advocating for this Chinese model of only a few can control AI. We're going to be in big trouble.
因此，如果沙特不能将人工智能与当前的沙特价值观对齐，他们可能会在自己的国家引发一场革命。因此非常重要的是，随着我们开发技术，不要让它成为完全专有的、封闭的资源，应该让我们的盟友有能力对其进行修改，他们需要按照自己的步调发展，以保障自己国家的安全并确保我们在这个过程中也安全。因此，我们在这里所做的事情具有重大的地缘政治影响。如果我们遵循谷歌和微软推崇的中国模式，即只有少数人能够控制人工智能，那我们将遇到大麻烦。
Yeah, and then I just want to close in the open source point because it's so critical. So this is where I say I get extremely at the idea of closing down open source, which people and a number of these people are lobbying for very actively. By the way, I'm going to name one more name. We even have VCs lobbying to outlaw open source, which I find to just be completely staggering. A note? So, Vinod Kosla, who is it? This is just incredible to me. He's a founder of some ecosystems, which was in many ways a company built on open source, built on open source Unix out of Berkeley, and then itself built a lot of open source, critical open source.
是的，我只想说一下关于开源的问题，因为这个问题非常关键。我非常反对关闭开源的想法，一些人也在积极游说这一点。顺便说一句，我要再提一个名字。我们甚至有风险投资者在游说禁止开源，我觉得这简直令人震惊。你知道吗？所以，Vinod Kosla，这是谁？对我来说简直难以置信。他是一些生态系统的创始人，这些生态系统在很大程度上是依靠开源构建的，是建立在伯克利的开源Unix基础上的，并且本身建立了许多重要的开源项目。
And then of course, you know, was the dot and dot com, which of course, you know, the internet was all built on open source. And Vinod has been lobbying to ban open source AI. And by the way, he denies that he's been doing this, but I saw him with my own eyes when the US Congressional China Committee came to Stanford. I was in the meeting where he was with, you know, 30, 20 or 30 congressmen and lobbying actually for this. And so I've seen him do it myself. And you know, look, he's got a big stake in open AI, you know, maybe it's financial self-interest. By the way, maybe he's a true believer in the dangers. But in any of that, I think he proved on Twitter, he was not a true believer in the dangers. I'll get into that. I'll explain that. But yeah. Yeah. So, so, I mean, even within little tech, even within the startup world, we are not uniform in this. And I think that's extremely dangerous. Open look open source, like what is open source software? Like open source software is, you know, it is quite literally, you know, it's the technological technological equivalent of free speech, which means it's the technological equivalent of free thought. And it is the way that the software industry has developed to be able to build many of the most critical components of the modern technological world. And then Ben, as you said earlier, to be able to secure those and to be able to have those actually be safe and reliable.
然后，当然，你知道，点和点com，当然，你知道，互联网是建立在开源基础上的。Vinod一直在游说禁止开源人工智能。顺便说一句，他否认自己一直在这样做，但我亲眼看到他在美国国会中国委员会来斯坦福的会议上，他和30、20或30位国会议员一起游说这个问题。所以我亲眼见他这样做。你知道，他对开放人工智能有着很大的利益，也许是出于财务利益。顺便说一句，也许他是真正对危险感到担忧的信徒。无论如何，我认为他在Twitter上证明自己并不是对危险感到真正担忧的信徒。我会解释这一点。但是，即使在小科技领域，甚至在初创企业界内部，我们在这个问题上也并非一致。我认为这是极为危险的。开源软件，比如开源软件是什么？开源软件，从技术上讲，它是言论自由的技术等价物，这意味着它是自由思想的技术等价物。这是软件行业发展的方式，可以创建现代技术世界中许多最关键的组件。然后，正如你之前所说，能够确保这些组件的安全可靠。
And then to have the transparency, you know, that we've talked about so that you know how they work and how they're making decisions. And then to your last point also, so that you can customize AI in many different environments. So you don't end up with a world where you just have one or a couple AIs, but you actually have like a diversity of AIs with like lots of different points of view and lots of different capabilities. And so the open source fight is actually at the core of this. And of course, the reason why, you know, the sort of, you know, sort of people with an eye towards monopoly or cartel want to ban this is open source is a tremendous threat to monopoly or cartel. Like, you know, in many ways, is a guarantee that monopoly or cartel can't last. But it is absolutely 100% required for the, you know, for the furtherance of number one, a vibrant private sector, number two, a vibrant startup sector.
然后要有透明度，你知道，我们谈到过，这样你就知道它们是如何运作和做出决定的。还有最后一点，这样你就可以在许多不同的环境中定制人工智能。所以你不会陷入只有一个或几个人工智能的世界，而实际上你会有各种不同观点和各种不同能力的人工智能。所以开源的斗争实际上是这一切的核心。当然，导致那些眼光狭隘的垄断者或卡特尔想要禁止这一切的原因是开源对垄断或卡特尔构成了巨大的威胁。在很多方面，开源是一种保证，让垄断或卡特尔无法持续存在。但它绝对是创造一个充满活力的私营部门和创业部门的必要条件。
And then right back to the academia point, like without open source, then at that point, you know, university college kids are just not going to be able to learn how the technology works. They're just going to be like completely boxed out. And so a world where open source is banned is bad on so many fronts. It's just incredible. It means that anybody's advocating for it. But it needs to be, I think it needs to be recognized as the threat that it is. Yeah. And on the note, you know, it was such a funny dialogue between you and he. So like, I'll just give a quick summary of it. Basically, you know, he was arguing for closed source, he for open source, his core argument was, this is the Manhattan Project. And therefore, we can't let anybody know the secrets.
然后回到学术界的观点，如果没有开源，那么在那个时候，你知道，大学生就无法学习技术是如何运作的。他们只会被完全排斥在外。因此，禁止开源的世界在许多方面都是不好的。这简直令人难以置信。这意味着任何人都在支持它。但我认为需要认识到它是一种威胁。是的。关于这一点，你们之间的对话非常有趣。我会简要总结一下。基本上，他在为封闭源代码辩论，他说开源，他的核心论点是，这是曼哈顿计划。因此，我们不能让任何人知道这些秘密。
And you countered that by saying, well, this is in fact the Manhattan Project then is like, you know, as the open AI team, you know, locked in a remote location, do they screen all their like employees very, very carefully? Is it air locked? Are they, you know, as a super high security? Of course, none of that is close to true. In fact, quite sure they have Chinese nationals working there, probably some are spies for the Chinese government. There's no any kind of strong security at open AI or at Google or at any of these places, you know, anywhere near the Manhattan Project, which is where they built a whole city that nobody knew about.
你回击说，嗯，事实上，这就像曼哈顿计划一样，你知道，开放AI团队被锁定在一个偏远地点吗？他们是否非常谨慎地筛选所有员工？是否有空气锁定？他们的安全级别是否非常高？当然，这些都与事实相去甚远。事实上，他们很可能有中国国籍的员工在那里工作，其中可能有些是中国政府的间谍。开放AI，谷歌或任何这些地方都没有任何强有力的安全措施，远比不上曼哈顿计划，那是他们建造了一个没有人知道的整个城市。
So they couldn't get into it. And, you know, once you caught him in that, he said nothing. And then he says back, well, you know, it costs billions of dollars to train these models. You just want to give that away. Is that good, you know, is that good economics? Like that was just like final counterpoint to you. But basically, he said, I'm trying to preserve a monopoly here, like what are you doing? I'm an investor. And I think that's true for all these arguments. Well, the kicker, you know, the kicker band of that story, the kicker to that is three, three days later, the Justice Department indicted a Chinese national Google employee who stole Google's next generation AI chip designs, which is quite literally the family tools for an AI program.
所以他们无法进入。而且，你知道，一旦你抓住了他，他什么也不说。然后他回答说，你知道，培训这些模型需要花费数十亿美元。你难道就想白白放弃吗？这样做好吗，这是好的经济学吗？这就像对你的最后反驳。但基本上，他说，我正在努力保持垄断地位，你在做什么？我是一个投资者。我认为对所有这些论点都是正确的。而那个故事的关键点是，三天后，美国司法部起诉了一名窃取了谷歌下一代人工智能芯片设计的中国国籍员工，而这实际上是AI程序的家族工具。
It's, you know, it's the equivalent of stealing the, you know, if you stretch the metaphor, the equivalent of stealing the design for the bomb. And that Google employee took that just chip design, loaded them and took them to China. And by definition, you know, my definition that means strictly in the Chinese government, because there's no distinction in China between the private sector and the government. It's an integrated thing. The government owns and controls everything. And so, you know, 100% of 100% guaranteed that that went straight to the Chinese government, Chinese military. And Google, Google, which, you know, like, you know, Google has like a big information security team and all the rest of it. Google did not realize, according to the indictment, Google did not realize that that, that engineer had been in China for six months.
这就相当于偷窃，如果你拉长这个比喻的话，就相当于偷窃设计炸弹的图纸。那名谷歌员工拿走了这些芯片设计，并把它们带到了中国。就我理解，这意味着严格来说是交给了中国政府，因为在中国私营部门和政府之间没有区别。这是一个综合体制，政府拥有和控制一切。因此，可以百分百确定这些东西直接交到了中国政府、中国军方手中。而谷歌，你知道，谷歌的信息安全团队很强大等等。根据起诉书，谷歌并没有意识到那名工程师已经在中国呆了六个月。
Yeah, amazing. Well, hold on, it gets better. It gets better. This is the same Google with the same CEO who refused to sell Google proprietary AI technology to the US Department of Defense. So they're supplying China with AI and that's flying the US, which is just goes back to luck. If it's not open source, we're never going to compete like, yeah, we've lost the future of the world right here, which is why, you know, it's the single most important issue for sure. Yeah, and and you're not going to lock this stuff up, like, you're not going to lock it up. Nobody's locking it up. It's not locked up. These companies are security Swiss cheese. And like, you know, you're not going to, you know, and you would have a debate about the tactical relevance of chip embargers and so forth. But like, you're you're you're not the horses left to burn on this, not least because these companies are without a doubt riddled with with with with foreign assets. And they're very easy to penetrate. And so we just have to be like, I would say very realistic about the actual state of play here. And we have to we have to play in reality. And we have to we have to play reality.
是的，令人惊讶。等等，情况会变得更好。它会变得更好。这是同样的谷歌，同样的首席执行官拒绝将谷歌的专有人工智能技术出售给美国国防部。所以他们正在向中国提供人工智能，这对美国来说是件糟糕的事情，这只能归结为运气。如果不是开源的，我们永远无法竞争，是的，我们已经失去了世界的未来，这就是为什么，你知道，这绝对是最重要的问题。是的，你不会把这些东西封锁起来，就像，你不会锁起来。没有人会锁起来。这些公司的安全性就像瑞士奶酪一样脆弱。你知道，你不会，你不会对芯片禁运等战术相关性进行辩论。但是，你知道，至少因为这些公司毫无疑问都充斥着外国资产。它们很容易被渗透。所以我们必须非常现实地看待这里的实际局面。我们必须玩真实世界的游戏。
We have to win in reality. And as we need innovation, we need competition, we need free thought, we need free speech, we need we didn't embrace the virtues of our system. And and then not shut ourselves down in the face of in the face of the you know, the conflicts that are that are coming. Another one, why are Andreas asks, why are USB C so much more engaged in politics and policy than their global counterparts? And I really appreciate that question because it basically like it is if that's the question that it means that boy, VCs outside the US most not being engaged at all because usses are engaged. Yeah. And then what do you believe the impact of this is on both the VC ecosystem and society in general, and then related directly related question Vincent asked, are European AI companies becoming less interesting investment targets for us based VCs due to the strict and predictably regulatory landscape in Europe. Would you advise early stage European AI companies to consider relocating to the US as a result?
我们必须在现实中取得胜利。因为我们需要创新，需要竞争，需要自由思想，需要言论自由，我们需要我们没有拥抱我们体系的优点。然后，不要在面对即将发生的冲突时把自己封闭起来。另一项问题是，为什么安德烈亚斯问，为什么美国的风险投资者在政治和政策方面比他们的全球同行更为积极参与？我非常感谢这个问题，因为这基本上意味着，如果这是问题，那么意味着美国以外的风险投资者几乎没有参与，因为美国的风险投资者参与了。是的。你认为这对风险投资生态系统和社会的影响是什么，然后直接相关的问题文森特问，欧洲人工智能公司是否因为欧洲严格而可预见的监管环境而变得不再是美国风险投资者感兴趣的投资目标。您会建议早期欧洲人工智能公司考虑由于这个原因搬到美国吗？
Great question. Well, look, I think that it kind of goes back to a little of what you said earlier, which is, you know, in startup world, like there's, you know, in the West, there's the United States and then there's everywhere else to the United States is kind of bigger than everywhere else combined. And, you know, so it's natural and like, you know, in these kind of political things, it kind of starts with the leader and, you know, US as the leader in VC, we feel like we're the leaders in US VCs, so we need to go go to Washington until we go, you know, nobody's going. And so that's a lot of the reason why we started things. I'm on, well, in European regulatory policy, like it's, I think, I think generally regulatory policy is going to, is likely to dictate where you can build these companies. We've seen some interesting things. You know, France turns out to be leading a revolution in Europe on a regulatory, where they're basically telling the EU to pound sand, you know, and a large reason because they have a company there, Mistral, and you know, they it's a national national jewel for the country and they don't want to give it up because, you know, the EU has some crazy safety as some, you know, thing going on there. Yeah, and also, you know, France also, of course, is playing the same role with nuclear policy in Europe. Yeah. They're the one country.
这是一个很好的问题。嗯，我觉得这有点回到你之前说的一些事情，就是在初创公司的世界里，就像在西方，有美国，然后其他地方。美国比其他地方加起来还要大。所以，这是自然而然的，在这些政治方面，它开始于领导者，你知道，美国作为风险投资的领导者，我们觉得我们是美国的领导者，所以我们需要去华盛顿，直到我们去了，没有人会去。这就是我们开始事情的原因，而且在欧洲监管政策方面，我认为，一般来说，监管政策可能会决定你能在哪里建立这些公司。我们看到一些有趣的事情，你知道，法国似乎在欧洲监管上领先一场革命，他们基本上在告诉欧盟滚蛋，一个很大的原因是因为他们在那里有一家公司，米斯特拉，对于这个国家来说是一个国家的珍宝，他们不想放手，因为欧盟有一些疯狂的安全问题在那里进行着。此外，你知道，法国在欧洲核政策方面也扮演着同样的角色。是一个国家。
They're the cleanest country, you know, probably one of cleanest countries in the world as a result. Right. But it's been staunchly pro-nuclear and trying to hold off, I think in a lot of ways, sort of, it attempts throughout the rest of Europe and especially from Germany to basically bad nuclear, civilian nuclear power.
他们是最干净的国家，你知道，可能是世界上最干净的国家之一。对的。但它一直坚定支持核能，并试图阻止，我认为在很多方面，类似于其他欧洲国家，特别是德国对民用核能的批评。
Yeah. Yeah. In the UK, the UK has sort of been flip-clapping on AI policy and we'll see where they come out. And, yeah, Brussels has been ridiculous as they've been on almost everything. Yeah.
是的，是的。在英国，英国在人工智能政策方面有点摇摆不定，我们会看他们最终会做出什么决定。嗯，布鲁塞尔在几乎所有事情上都显得有些荒谬。是的。
The big thing I think I note here is there's a really big philosophical distinction. I think it's rooted, actually, the difference between the traditionally it's been called, I think, the sort of Anglo-American kind of approach to law and then the continental European approach. And I forget these. It's like, I forget the terms for it, but the legal system. There's like common law and then, yeah, civil law.
我认为我在这里要注意的一件重要事情是存在一个非常重要的哲学区别。我认为实际上这个区别根源于传统上被称为英美法律和欧洲大陆法律的不同方法。我忘记这些术语了。就像，我忘记了对它的称呼，但是法律系统。有一种是普通法，然后是民法。
So, basically, the difference, basically, is that which is not outlawed is legal or that which is specifically legal is legal. And anything that's not explicitly legal is outlawed. In other words, by default, you have freedom and then you impose the law to have constraints or by default, do you have nobility do anything and then the law enables you to do things.
所以，基本上，不同之处就是未被禁止的就是合法的，或者特别被规定为合法的就是合法的。而任何没有明确规定为合法的就是违法的。换句话说，你默认拥有自由，然后通过法律来限制，或者你默认可以做任何事情，然后法律让你可以做这些事情。
And these are sort of, this is like a fundamental philosophical legal, political distinction. And then this shows up in a lot of these policy issues with this idea called the precautionary principle, which is sort of the rewarding of the sort of traditional European approach, which is basically the precautionary principle says new technologies should not be allowed to be fielded until they are proven to be harmless.
这些是一种基本的哲学、法律、政治区别。这在很多政策问题中都体现出来，其中有一种叫做“预防原则”的概念，它奖励了传统欧洲的做法，基本上是指新技术在被证明无害之前不应该投入使用。
And of course, the precautionary principle very specifically is sort of a hallmark of the European approach regulation and increasingly by the US approach. And specifically, it's origin. It was actually described in that way and given that name actually by the German Greens in the 1970s, as a means to ban civilian nuclear power, with, by the way, which is catastrophic results. And we could spend a lot of time on that.
当然，谨慎原则在欧洲法规的制定中具有非常特殊的地位，越来越多地被美国采纳。具体来说，它的起源是在1970年代由德国绿党提出的，作为禁止民用核能的手段，并且带来了灾难性的结果。我们可以花很多时间讨论这个问题。
But I think everybody at this point agrees, including the Germans increasingly agreed that that was a big mistake. Among other things, has led to basically your funding Russia's invasion of Ukraine through the need for important energy because they keep shutting down their nuclear plants.
但我认为目前所有人都同意，包括德国人在内，都认为那是一个巨大的错误。除其他事情外，这导致了基本上你们通过对重要能源需求的俄罗斯入侵乌克兰进行资助，因为他们不断关闭他们的核电站。
And so just like a sort of a catastrophic decision, but the precautionary principle has become, like I would say, extremely trendy, like it's one of these things like it sounds great, right? It's like, well, why would you possibly, why would you want anything to be released in the world of us not to be harmless? Like, how can you possibly be in support of anything that's going to cause harm?
就像一种灾难性的决定一样，但是预防原则已经变得极为流行，就好像我会说，像是极其时髦的一样，听起来很不错对吧？就像，为什么你可能想要释放任何对我们世界有害的东西呢？你怎么可能支持会造成伤害的任何事物呢？
But the obvious problem with that is with that principle, you could have never deployed technology such as fire, electric power, internal combustion engines, cars, airplanes, the computer, right? Like every single piece of technology we have, the power is modern day civilization, has some way in which it can be used to hurt people, every, every single one is technology, technologies are double edged swords.
但显而易见的问题是，按照这个原则，你可能永远无法使用像火、电力、内燃机、汽车、飞机、电脑等技术。就像我们现代文明中每一种技术都具有能够伤害人的方式，每一种技术都是双刃剑。
There are things, you know, you can use fire to protect your village or to attack the neighboring village. Like, you know, these things can be used in both different ways. And so basically, if we had applied the precautionary principle historically, we would have, you know, we would still be living in mud huts. We would be just like absolutely miserable.
有些事情，你知道的，你可以用火来保护你的村庄或者进攻邻近的村庄。就像，你知道的，这些事情可以用不同的方式来利用。所以基本上，如果我们历史上采用了预防原则，我们会，你知道的，我们仍然生活在泥屋里。我们会过得非常悲惨。
And so the idea of imposing the precautionary principle today, if you're coming from like an Anglo, you know, American kind of, you know, perspective or from a freedom to innovate, you know, perspective, that's just like, it's just like incredibly horrifying. The, you know, should basically guarantee to stall on progress.
因此，如果你是从英式或美国式的角度或者从鼓励创新的角度来看，现在强制执行预防原则的想法就像是非常可怕的事情。这种做法基本上会导致进步停滞不前。
You know, this is very much the mentality of the EU bureaucrats in particular. And this is the mentality behind a lot of their recent legislation on technology issues. France is, it does seem to be the main counterweight against this in the in Europe, you know, bend your point, like UK has been a counterweight in some areas.
你知道，欧盟官员特别是他们的思维方式非常符合这种情况。这也是他们最近在技术问题上立法的许多背后思维。法国似乎是欧洲主要的对抗力量，你知道，就像英国在某些领域是一个对抗力量一样。
But K also has like, I would say they've received a full dose of this programming. Yeah. They have that tendency. Yeah. And they've been in AI in particular, I think they've been on the wrong side of that, which hopefully they'll reconsider.
但是K也有，我想他们已经接受了这种编程的全部剂量。是的，他们有这种倾向。是的。尤其是在人工智能领域，我认为他们站在了错误的一边，希望他们会重新考虑这个问题。
So again, this is one of these things like this, this is a really, really important issue. And just the surface level thing of like, okay, this, this technology might be able to be used for some harmful purpose. Like that, if that is allowed to be the end of the discussion, like we are never going to, nothing new is ever going to happen in the world like that, that will cause us ultimately to stall out completely. And then, you know, if we stall out that, that will over timely to regression and, like literally, you'll allow me, this is happening, like the power is going out, like, you know, German society, German, German, German industrial companies are shutting down because they can't afford the power that's resulted from this, this, you know, kind of the imposition of this policy in the energy sector. And so this is a very, very, very important thing. I think that you, who bureaucracy is lost on this, and so I think it's going to be up to the individual countries to directly confront this if they want to. Anyway, so I really applaud what France has done, and I hope more European countries join them in kind of being on the right side of this. Yeah, no, it always is funny to me to hear the EU and like the economists and these kinds of things say, oh, the EU may not be the leader in innovation, but we're the leaders in regulation, and I'm like, well, you realize those go together there? Like one is a function of the other. Okay, good.
所以，这又是像这样的事情，这是一个非常非常重要的问题。只是表面上的事情，比如说，这种技术可能被用于一些有害目的。如果允许这成为讨论的终点，那么我们永远不会有任何新的进展，最终导致我们完全停滞不前。然后你知道，如果我们停滞不前，最终会导致倒退，就像字面意义上所发生的，电力出现问题，德国社会和工业公司因为无法负担由于能源部门政策强加的电力成本而关闭。所以这是一个非常非常重要的事情。我认为官僚主义在这一点上已经迷失了方向，所以我认为应该由各个国家直接面对这个问题。总之，我非常赞赏法国所做的事情，希望更多欧洲国家加入他们，站在正确的一边。是的，我总觉得有趣的是听到欧盟和经济学家之类的人说，欧盟可能不是创新的领导者，但我们是监管的领导者，我想说，你意识到这两者是相互关联的吗？一个是另一个的功能。好的。
So, and then let's do one more global question. L'aip Gong Leong asks, are there any other countries that could be receptive to technical optimism? For example, could Britain, Argentina, or Japan be ideal targets for our message and mission? Yes. So, will you all work for work on that in Britain? And look, we've got some pretty good reception from the UK government. There's a lot of very, very smart people there. We're working with them, you know, tightly on their AI and crypto efforts, and we're hoping that's the case.
好吧，接下来让我们再提一个全球性的问题。莱普·贡·利昂问，还有哪些其他国家可能会接受技术乐观主义呢？例如，英国、阿根廷或日本是否是我们信息和使命的理想目标？是的。那么，你们会在英国努力工作吗？看，我们已经得到了英国政府的很好的接待。那里有很多非常聪明的人。我们正在与他们紧密合作，他们的人工智能和加密努力，我们希望能取得成功。
You know, Japan is having spent a lot of time there is, you know, they've obviously shown that capability, you know, over time. And then, you know, there's a lot about the way Japanese society works that holds them back from that at times as well. You know, without getting into all the specifics, there is, you know, they have a very, I would just say, unusual and unique culture that has a great difference for the old way of doing things, which sometimes makes it hard to kind of promote the new way of doing things. I also think, you know, around the world, you know, the Middle East is very, very kind of subject and kind of on board with techno optimism on the UAE, Saudi, Israel, of course, you know, many countries out there are very excited about, you know, these kinds of ideas and taking the world forward and like, you know, just creating a better world through technology, which I think that look with our population growth, if we don't have a better world through technology, we're going to have a worse world without technology. I think that's like very obvious. So it's a very compelling message. And oh, by the way, South America, I should say also, there are a lot of countries who are really embracing techno optimism now in South America, and that's, you know, and some great new leadership there that, you know, that's pushing that. Yeah, I would also say if you look at the polling on this, what I think you find is what you could describe as the younger countries are more enthusiastic about technology. And I don't mean younger here literally of like when they were formed, but I mean two things. One is how recently they've kind of emerged into what we would consider to be modernity. And so, you know, for example, to embrace, you know, concepts like democracy or free market capitalism or, you know, innovation generally, you know, or global trade and so forth. And then the other is just quite simply the number of the demographics, the, you know, the countries with a large number of people. And those are often about the same countries, right? They have a they have the reverse demographic pyramid we have where they actually have a lot of young people. And young people are both, you know, but young people both need economic opportunity and are very fired up about new ideas.
你知道，日本花了很长时间，他们显然展示了在过去的时间里的能力。而且，有很多关于日本社会运作方式的事情有时会阻碍他们。不过，不去谈具体细节的情况下，他们有着一种非常独特的文化，这种文化与过去的做事方式有很大的不同，有时使得推广新的做事方式变得困难。我也认为，在全球范围内，中东地区非常看好技术乐观主义，阿联酋、沙特和以色列显然对这些想法充满激情，许多国家都对用技术推动世界向前发展、创造更美好的世界很是兴奋，我认为随着人口的增长，如果我们不能通过技术创造更美好的世界，我们将会有一个没有技术的更糟糕的世界。这是一个非常有说服力的观点。而且，南美洲也是如此，有很多国家现在非常接纳技术乐观主义，那里有一些推动这一点的优秀领导。如果你看一下此事的民意调查，你会发现年轻国家更加热衷于技术。我不是指这些国家确实成立的时间是比较短的，而是指两个方面。一是他们最近才进入我们认为的现代化。因此，例如，接受民主、自由市场资本主义、创新、全球贸易等概念。另一个方面就是简单的人口构成，那些拥有大量人口的国家。这些国家通常拥有与我们相反的人口金字塔，实际上这些国家有很多年轻人。而年轻人既需要经济机会又对新思想充满激情。
Yeah, by the way, this is true in Africa as well. In many African countries, you know, Nigeria, Rwanda, Ghana, they were their techno optimism, I think, is taking hold in a real way, you know, maybe they need some of the governance improvements, but they definitely also have young populations. Saudi 70% of the population is under 30. So, you know, just to your point, that the very, very, very hopeful in those areas. Ben, Gultra asks, do you think the lobbying efforts by good faith American crypto firms will be able to move the needle politically in the next few years? What areas make you optimistic as it relates to American crypto regulation? Crypto blockchain web three. Yeah, so I think that I have hope I'm as hopeful as I've ever been. So there's a there's a bunch of things that have been really positive. First of all, you know, the SEC has lost, you think, five cases in a row. So, you know, like some of their like arbitrary enforcement of things that are in laws is not working. Secondly, you know, there was a bill that passed through the house or the house financial services committee, which is a very good bill on crypto regulation. And you know, hopefully that will eventually pass the house in the Senate.
是的，顺便说一句，这在非洲也是真实的。在许多非洲国家，比如尼日利亚、卢旺达、加纳，他们对技术的乐观态度正在真正生根发芽，也许他们需要一些治理改进，但他们绝对也拥有年轻的人口。沙特阿拉伯有70%的人口年龄在30岁以下。所以，正如你所说，这些地区充满了希望。本，古尔特拉问道，您是否认为善意美国加密公司的游说工作将能够在未来几年在政治上产生影响？在美国加密法规方面，哪些领域让您感到乐观？加密、区块链、Web3。是的，我认为我比以往任何时候都更有希望。有一些事情是真正积极的。首先，你知道，SEC已经连续输掉了五起案件。所以，他们对法律中的一些不合理执法并不奏效。其次，参议院财政服务委员会通过了一项非常良好的加密法规法案，希望最终能够在众议院和参议院通过。
There's, you know, we've seen Wyoming, I think, adopt really good new laws around DOWs. And so there's some progress there. And then, you know, there's been, you know, we've been working really, really hard to educate members of Congress and the administration on kind of the value of the technology. There are strong opponents to it. You know, as I mentioned earlier, and you know, that's, you know, that continues to be worrisome. But, but I, I think we're making great progress. And the fair shakeback has done just a tremendous job of, you know, kind of backing pro crypto candidates and with great success, there were six different races on Super Tuesday that they backed and all six ones. So, you know, another good sign.
在关于数字货币的法律方面，我们看到怀俄明采纳了一些非常好的新法律。在这方面取得了一些进展。此外，我们一直致力于教育国会议员和政府高级官员关于这种技术的价值。有一些强有力的反对者。正如我之前提到的，这仍然令人担忧。但是我认为我们在取得很好的进展。公平竞选委员会已经非常成功地支持了一些亲数字货币的候选人，只在超级星期二就支持了六场不同的竞选，而全部六场都获得了胜利。这是另一个好的迹象。
Good. Fantastic. I hit a couple other topics here quickly to get into the wire. So, Father Time asks, can you give us your thoughts in the recent TikTok legislation if passed, what does this mean for big tech going forward? And so I'll just, let me give a quick swing at that. So the TikTok legislation being proposed by the U.S. Congress and currently being taken up in the Senate, which by the way, the President Biden has already said he'll sign it if it, if the Senate in the House pass it. This is legislation that would require a require a divestment of TikTok from its Chinese parent company, Bightness. And so TikTok would have to be purely American company or would have to be owned by a purely American company. And then failing that, it would be a ban of TikTok in the U.S.
好的。太棒了。我在这里快速地涉及了几个其他话题，以便深入讨论这个问题。所以，时间父亲问道，如果通过了最近的TikTok立法，对大科技公司未来意味着什么？让我尝试简单地回答一下。 美国国会目前提议的TikTok立法正被参议院审议，顺便提一句，拜登总统已经表示如果参议院和众议院通过了，他会签署这项法案。这项法案要求TikTok必须和其中国母公司Bightness分离。因此，TikTok必须成为一个纯粹的美国公司，或者必须被一个纯粹的美国公司所有。如果这个条件不能实现，那么TikTok将在美国被禁止。
This bill is a great example of the sort of bipartisan dynamic in D.C. right now on the topic of China, which is this bill is being enthusiastically supported by the majority of politicians on both sides of the aisle. I think it passed out of its committee like 50 to zero, which, you know, is basically like it's impossible to get anybody in D.C. to agree on anything right now, except basically, basically this. So this is like Super bipartisan. And then it's, you know, the head of that committee is a Republican, Mike Gallagher, and, you know, he immediately, and he worked in a bipartisan way with his committee members, but, you know, the Democratic White House immediately endorsed his bill.
这项法案是华盛顿目前关于中国议题中的一种很好的两党合作动态的例子，这项法案得到了两党大多数政客的热情支持。我想它在委员会里以50比零的比分通过了，这实际上就像在华盛顿不可能让任何人就任何事达成一致，除了基本上就是这个。所以这是非常两党合作的。而且，你知道，那个委员会的主席是共和党人迈克·加拉格尔，他立即与委员会成员以两党方式合作，但是，民主党的白宫立即支持了他的法案。
So, so like, you know, this bill has like serious momentum. The Senate is taking up right now. They're gonna, they're likely to modify it in some way, but it seems, you know, reasonably like reasonably likely to pass based on what we can see. You know, I would say, like I said, overwhelmingly by partisan support, I mean, look, the argument for the ban is I would say a couple different way or not the investment of the ban. Number one is just like, you know, an app on every on Americans and the phones of ever, you know, of a large percent of Americans with surveillance and potential propaganda kind of aspects of that, you know, certainly has people in Washington concerned. And then quite frankly, there's an underlying industrial, you know, dynamic, which is, you know, the, you know, the US, the US Internet companies can't operate in China. So there's, you know, there's, there's a sort of an unfair symmetry underneath this that really undercuts, you know, I think a lot of the arguments for Biden dance, it has been striking to see that there are actually opponents of this bill who have emerged and I would describe on sort of the further to the right and further to the left in their respective parties. And, you know, they, you know, those folks, and I won't go through detail, but those folks make a variety of, a variety of arguments. One of the, and I may characterize the surface level, I think on the, on the further on the left, I think that there are people who think that it's especially kind of further left Congress people who feel like TikTok is actually a really important and vital messaging system for them to be able to use of their constituents who tend to be younger, they're very internet centric. And so, so there's that which, you know, is interesting. But then on the, on the further on the right, there is a lot, and our friend David sex, for example, maybe an example of this, there are a fair number of people who are very worried that the US government is so prone to abuse irregularity capability with respect to tech, and especially with respect to censorship that basically if you hand the US government any new regulatory authority or legal authority at all to come down on tech, it will inevitably be used not just against the Chinese company, but it will also then be used against the American companies. And so, you know, it's kind of, it's either, you know, some drama that's surfacing around this and, you know, we'll see whether the opponents can, you know, can kind of pull it through. You know, look, quite frankly, I, you know, I, you know, without coming down, particularly on, like, I think there's one of those cases where there's actually like, excellent arguments like on all three sides. Like, I think they're like very legitimate questions here. And so, you know, I think it's great to see issues being confronted, but I think it's also great. That's a, you know, the arguments that surfaced and that we're going to, you know, hopefully figure out the right thing to do.
这个法案有着严肃的动力，参议院正在对此进行讨论。他们可能会做出一些修改，但根据我们所看到的情况，似乎有相当大的可能性通过。我想说，绝大多数议员一致支持这项禁令，我是说，看，禁令的理由有几种不同的方式，或者说不仅仅是针对禁令。首先，就像你知道的，美国人每个人的手机上都有一个应用程序，对于其中的监视和潜在的宣传等方面，华盛顿的人们显然感到担忧。而且，说实话，还有一种潜在的产业动态，也就是，美国互联网公司无法在中国运营。因此，在这背后有一种不公平的对称，这实际上削弱了许多支持这项禁令的论点。令人惊讶的是，已经出现了反对这项法案的人，我会将他们描述为各自党派中更偏左或更偏右的人。这些人提出了各种各样的论点。另外，在更左派的人中，我认为有一些人认为TikTok实际上是他们重要的传播系统，让年轻一些的选民能够使用，并且这些选民非常互联网中心。而在更右派的人中，有很多人担心美国政府对技术的滥用和审查的能力，如果你交给美国政府任何新的监管权限或法律权限来打击科技公司，它不仅会被用来对付中国公司，而且最终也会被用来对付美国公司。总的来说，周围围绕着这件事发生了一些戏剧性的情况，我们将会看到反对者是否能够挫败这个法案。坦率地说，我不会特别支持任何一方，我认为这是一个在三方面都有非常合理的论点的情况。因此，我认为现在面对这些问题是很好的，我相信所出现的论点，我们会找到正确的做法。
Couple closing things. Close on, let's see, hopefully, a semi-optimistic note. So John Potter asks, how do you most effectively find common ground with groups and interests that you benefit from working with, but with which you are usually opposed ideologically or otherwise? I mean, I think this is, you know, there's this term in Washington, common ground. And I think that, you know, you always want to start by finding the common ground because I'll tell you something in politics generally is most people have the same intention, you know, like in Washington, in fact, people want life to be fair. You know, they want, they don't want people to go hungry. They want, you know, citizens to be safe, but have plenty of opportunity. So like, there's a lot of common ground that the differences lie not in the intent, but how you get there, like, what is the right policy to achieve the goal? And, you know, so I think it's always important to start with the goal and then kind of work our way through, you know, why we think our policy position is correct. You know, like, we don't really have a lot of disagreements on stated intent at least. I mean, I think there are some intentions that are very difficult in Washington, you know, like the, you know, the intention to kind of control the financial system is, you know, from the government or nationalize the banks are kind of achieved the equivalent of nationalizing the banks is, you know, when you have that intent, that's tough. But like, if you start with, you know, most intentions are, I think, you know, shared between, you know, us and policymakers on both sides.
在结束之前，让我们以一种半乐观的态度来看待。John Potter问道，如何有效地与你通常在意识形态或其他方面存在分歧的团体和利益相关方达成共识？我认为在华盛顿有一个术语叫做共识。我认为，你总是希望从找到共同点开始，因为我告诉你，在政治上，大多数人都有相同的意图，你知道，在华盛顿，事实上，人们希望生活是公平的。他们不希望人们挨饿。他们希望公民安全，但又有充分的机会。因此，有很多共同点，差异并不在于意图，而是在于如何实现目标，比如，实现目标的正确政策是什么？我认为，始终重要的是从目标开始，然后逐步找出我们为什么认为我们的政策立场是正确的原因。至少在表述意图方面，我们并没有太多分歧。我认为在华盛顿有一些非常困难的意图，比如，控制金融系统或国有化银行等意图是艰难的。但是，如果你从大多数意图开始，我认为我们和两派政策制定者之间的意图是共享的。
And then we'll close on this great question. Zach asks, would either of you ever consider running for office and for fun? What would be your platform? Um, so I want to just because, like, you know, I think being a politician requires a certain kind of skill set and attitude and energy from certain things that I don't possess, unfortunately. Do you have a platform you'd run on if you did, Russ? Yeah. Yeah. I do that. Okay. Yeah. Let's hear your platform. The American dream. So I won't do it now, but I like to put up this chart that shows the change in prices in different sectors of the economy over time. And what you basically see is the price of like television sets and software and video games are like crashing hard, right? In a way that's like great for consumers. You know, like, yeah, I saw a 75 inch flat screen ultra high depth TVs now are down below $500. Like, you know, it's great. It's amazing. Like when technology is allowed to work, it's magic, like prices crash in a way that's just great for consumers. And it's equivalent of a giant basically, you know, when prices drop, it's equivalent of a raise.
然后我们就来谈谈这个很棒的问题。扎克问，你们两个有没有考虑过竞选公职并且只是为了乐趣？你们会选择什么平台？嗯，我想只是因为，你知道，我觉得做政治家需要一定的技能和态度，还有一些我不具备的能量，不幸的是。如果你参选，你会有一个平台吗，Russ？是的。我有。好的。那就告诉我们你的平台吧。美国梦。所以我现在不会这么做，但是我想展示一个图表，显示不同行业的价格随着时间的变化。基本上你会看到电视机、软件和视频游戏的价格正在大幅下跌，对消费者来说是很好的事情。你知道，我看到现在75英寸的平板超高清电视价格已经低于500美元了。这很棒。当技术被允许正常运作时，奇迹就会发生，价格会以对消费者有利的方式坠落。这相当于一个巨大的提升，价格下跌就相当于加薪。
Um, um, so it makes makes human welfare a lot better. The three elements of the economy that are central to the American dream are healthcare, education and housing, right? And so if you think about what does it mean to have the American dream, it means to be able to buy an owner home, it means being able to send your kids to great schools, get great education to have a great life. Uh, and then it means, you know, great healthcare to be able to take care of yourself and your family. The prices on those are skyrocketing. They're just like straight to the moon. Don't. Uh, and of course, those are the sectors that are the most controlled by the government. They're where there's the most, uh, uh, uh, subsidies for demand from the government. There's the most restrictions on supply from the government. And there is the most interference with the ability to field, uh, technology and startups. Um, and the result is we have an entire generation of kids, um, who basically, I think are quite rational and looking forward and basically saying, I'm never going to be able to achieve the American dream. I'm never going to be able to own a home. I'm never going to be able to get a good education or send my kids to good education.
嗯，所以这让人类福利变得更好了很多。经济中对美国梦至关重要的三个要素是医疗保健、教育和住房，对吧？所以，想想有美国梦意味着什么，意味着能够购买自己的房屋，意味着能够送孩子去好学校，获得优质教育，过上美好的生活。嗯，还意味着拥有优质医疗保健，以便照顾自己和家人。这些价格直线上涨，简直就像直冲月球一样。当然，这些领域受到政府控制最多。政府对需求提供最多补贴，对供给实施最多限制，并且干扰科技和初创企业发展的能力最多。结果是我们有整整一代孩子，我觉得他们非常理性地展望未来，基本上在说，我永远无法实现美国梦。我永远无法拥有自己的房屋，我永远无法接受良好的教育，或者送孩子接受良好的教育。
I'm not going to be able to get good healthcare. Basically, I'm, I'm, I'm not going to be able to live the life that my parents live or my grandparents live. And I'm not going to be, I'm not going to be able to fundamentally form a family provide for my kids. And I think that's the, I think that's, I, my opinion, that's the underlying theme to kind of what has gone wrong. Um, sort of socially, politically, um, psychologically, uh, in the country, that's what's led to this sort of intense level of pessimism. That's what's led to sort of the subtraction, you know, kind of very zero some, uh, politics to, uh, you know, recrimination over, over, over optimism and building. Um, and so I would, I would, I would, I would confront that absolutely directly. Um, and then of course, I would, I know that I, I don't think anybody in Washington is doing that right now. So.
我将无法获得良好的医疗保健。基本上，我，我，我将无法过上我的父母或祖父母过的生活。我也不能基本上组建一个家庭并为我的孩子提供。我认为这是出现问题的根本原因。在社会上，在政治上，在心理上，这导致了这种激烈的悲观情绪。这导致了一种零和政治，以及对乐观主义和建设的指责。因此，我会绝对直接地面对这一问题。当然，我知道目前华盛顿没有人在做这件事。
And maybe either I would either I would win because I'm the only one saying it out loud or I would lose because nobody cares. But I, I think it would, uh, I've always wondered whether that actually would, whether both on the substance and on the, and on the message, whether that would be a, uh, the right platform. Yeah. Now it would certainly be the thing to do as a thing. It's very complex in that, um, you know, healthcare policy is largely national, but education policy and housing policy is also got a very large local components. It would be a complex, got a complex set of policies that you have to enforce.
也许我会赢，因为我是唯一一个大声说出来的人，或者我会输，因为没有人在乎。但是，我认为，我一直在思考的是，无论从内容还是信息上来看，这是否会是一个正确的平台。是的。现在这肯定是要做的事情。这很复杂，因为医疗政策在很大程度上是国家层面的，但教育政策和住房政策也有很大的地方组成部分。这将是一套复杂的政策，你必须执行。
Yeah. Uh, we still have a ton of questions that we may do part two. And this is some point where we really appreciate your time and attention and we will see you soon. Okay. Thank you.
是的。我们仍然有很多问题，也许会有第二部分。在这一点上，我们非常感谢您的时间和关注，很快我们会再见。好的，谢谢。