Coatue’s Laffont Brothers. AI, Public & VC Mkts, Macro, US Debt, Crypto, IPO's, & more | BG2
发布时间 2025-06-20 00:53:50 来源
Sometimes you make some venture bets and they don't work. And then you're like, sh**, I just invested in the wrong trend. And in fact, sometimes you invest in the wrong company, but it is the right trend. And those bad investment cloud your judgment. Bill, we're back. I think it's the 10th anniversary. Congratulations, Philippe and Thomas. Thank you. Of course, where at Co2Z East meets West down here in Los Angeles. I think it's an event that founders, I certainly know you and I look forward to every year. As I said to you both, it's hard to put together something. It has this much durability, this much impact. You do this incredible overview on public markets, on venture markets and technology. That I think you published today online that everybody should go out and download and take a look at. And so we've been at this now for a couple of decades. Having built something like this is really cool.
有时候你做了一些高风险的投资赌注，但它们失败了。然后你会觉得，糟了，我投资错了趋势。但实际上，有时你投资错了公司，但趋势是正确的。而这些不好的投资会模糊你的判断。比尔，我们又见面了。我想这应该是第十个年头了。祝贺你们，菲利普和托马斯。当然，这是在洛杉矶的Co2Z东西方交流活动。我想这已经成为创始人们每年都期待的一个活动。我跟你们说过，组织这样一个有持久性和影响力的活动是很不容易的。你们对公共市场、风险市场和技术的全面分析真是令人印象深刻。我想你们今天已经在网上发布了，大家都应该去下载看看。经过几十年的努力，能建立这样一个平台真是太酷了。
So I just wanted to say thank you and congratulations on the 10th anniversary. And Bill and I thought, why don't we just go through? You had this slide today. We got to sit through and listen to you guys commentate about some of these slides. We wanted to share it with everybody else. So we're also excited to make our debut as a podcast duo. The world premiere. We've done them individually, but not as a team. We're announcing our new pod. Yeah, exactly. We got BG2 and now we got. What is it? LB2, Lafone Brothers 2. Let's go. So we're squared squared. Yeah, but yeah. But anyway, I would just add, I think the conference is kind of a really amazing gift to the industry and for the founders to get to come. It harkens back to the. When I was really young in this industry, the agenda conference, everyone would stay for the whole thing.
我想对你们说声感谢，并祝贺你们的十周年纪念。Bill 和我觉得，为什么我们不直接来这里呢？你们今天有一个幻灯片展示，我们有机会坐下来听你们对这些幻灯片的解说。我们想把这些分享给其他人。我们也很兴奋首次以播客搭档的身份亮相，这是全球首播。我们各自单独做过播客，但这次是首次合作。我们要宣布我们的新播客。对，我们有 BG2，现在我们有 LB2，也就是 Lafone Brothers 2。我们加倍努力，势头正好。当然，我想补充一点，我觉得这个会议对行业来说是一个非常棒的礼物，创始人们能够来到这里参加。有点让我回忆起我年轻时候参加这个行业的会议，所有人都会参加完整个活动。
And so your opportunity to network is so much higher. And a lot of conferences today, people fly in and fly out. But here you've got some amazing people that are around for the entire thing. It's just incredible. Yeah, agreed. Well, let's dive in. You have a big budget for smoothies. Your smoothie budget really keeps people intact. And by the way, for people that are listening this deck, we're going to reference some of the slides. The Co2 team put it on their website just a few hours ago. And so if you want to download it and have that as we go through this, it might be helpful. Yeah, you should. I mean, Philippe, let's just start off. I mean, you and I, it seems like we spend most of our time talking when things get bad in the world.
所以，你的交流机会要高得多。如今很多会议，人们都是匆匆而来、匆匆而去。而在这个会议上，有一些精彩的人会全程参与，实在是太不可思议了。没错，我同意。那么，让我们开始吧。你有一个很大的果昔预算，这真的能让人们保持活力。顺便说一下，对于正在听这段文字的人，我们提到了一些幻灯片，Co2团队几小时前刚把它们放到他们的网站上。如果你愿意下载并在我们讨论的过程中参考，这可能会有帮助。是的，你应该这么做。菲利普，我觉得我们还是从头开始吧。似乎每当世界上发生不好的事情时，你我大部分时间都在谈论这些。
And yet, this is probably the most optimistic that I've heard you on this stage in the 10 years that you've been doing this, right? We talked. You talked us through this slide four, which is the AI Supercycle slide. And this slide, which I thought was incredible, slide six, which is when will AI reach 75% of total US market cap, which I think is incredibly provocative. How you compare that to industrials and transport, because everybody's saying it's so big already it can't get any bigger. So just kick us off contextualizing your level of optimism. And this slide, like, can it really be 75% of total cap? Yeah. So listen, every time I'm optimistic, I'm worried this is it, you know, this is the peak. And now the Thomas and I are doing this podcast together. We're guaranteed to be doomed.
这可能是我在你过去十年做这个活动时听到的你最乐观的一次，不是吗？我们讨论过。你带我们看了第四张幻灯片，也就是“AI超级周期”这一张。我觉得第六张幻灯片也非常令人惊讶，那张是关于“人工智能何时能占据美国总市值的75%”。我觉得这个观点非常具有挑战性。你将其与工业和运输行业进行比较，因为大家都说AI已经很大了，无法再变得更大。那么，请你从你乐观的角度为我们解释一下，这个幻灯片真的能显示AI占总市值的75%吗？每当我感到乐观时，我都担心这就是顶峰。而现在，Thomas和我一起做这个播客，我们似乎注定要失败。
But I think that at the end of the day, that's how everybody thinks, first of all. So it's never priced in. Everybody's worried that it's all the time the peak. And yet, despite that, things tend to work out. I think today we've learned from these founders and stuff like that, that AI is probably the defining and biggest tech trend that we're going to see. And I showed you the different waves. There's only been a few waves over the last 70 years or so, going back to main frames. And one person made the point that the networking, we needed the PCs, the internet, we did the network PCs. SAS, we needed what happened before. And AI is also built. And one of the reasons these trends get bigger, they're built on top of each other, exactly.
我认为最终大家都是这样思考的，首先，这绝不会被提前考虑进价格中。每个人总是担心这是顶峰。然而，尽管如此，事情往往会有好的发展。我觉得我们今天从这些创始人和其他方面了解到，人工智能可能是我们将见到的最重要、最大的科技趋势。我给你展示了不同的浪潮。在过去的 70 年里，从大型机开始，到现在这样的浪潮只有少数几次。有人指出，我们需要个人电脑来进行联网，需要互联网来联网PC。软件即服务(SaaS)的发展也是基于之前的技术发展。人工智能也是如此发展起来的，其中一个原因是这些趋势变得越来越大，它们正是建立在彼此之上的。
So I think that's one. Second part we've tried to do and Bill, you've been great at it and Brad, you've done two is, let's always try to look back at the past. I find that this concept that like, even though we're talking about new trends, they've been new trends, you know, since the canals and whale oil and things like that, right? And so you look at the 1800s and stuff, you know, we start having a real finance and real estate industry, then probably at some point, especially after the Second World War, we had a real manufacturing industry. And then we've had also market dominated by energy. And right now it's about 50% tech. But we had the CEO of the largest power plant sort of utility with us today. We had the CEO of the largest equipment maker for utilities today.
我认为这是一个方面。第二个方面是我们一直在努力做的，Bill，你在这方面表现得很出色，而Brad，你也同样出色，就是我们要时常回顾过去。我发现这种理念很有趣，即便我们在讨论新趋势，但其实这些新趋势自运河和鲸油时代就一直存在。比如说，19世纪时，我们开始有了真正的金融和房地产行业。在某个阶段，特别是二战后，我们有了真正的制造业。市场上也曾一度由能源主导。而如今，科技行业占据了约50%的市场。但今天我们有幸与最大的电厂公用事业公司的首席执行官，以及最大的公用设备制造商的首席执行官进行了交流。
You're sort of wondering, not just AI is going to become bigger, TNT is a more bigger. But there's some sectors that should we reclassify them as TNT or utilities now, like the next semi-cap, what's the difference between your nuclear energy plant and a semi-cap guy? They're both there at the beginning to help you create something that delivers a tech product. Yeah. You know, set another way, technology when we got started, Thomas, was 5% of global GDP. Today is 15% of global GDP. And when we're sitting here in 10 years, I think you're saying confidently, while there'll be a lot of noise and a lot of volatility, it's going to be more than 15% of global GDP.
你可能在想，不仅仅是人工智能会变得更重要，而且TNT（科技、媒体和电信）也会更重要。但是，有一些行业我们是否应该将其重新分类为TNT或公共事业，比如下一个半导体设备产业？你的核能发电厂和半导体设备公司之间有什么区别呢？它们都是在起初帮助你创造一个技术产品。换句话说，当我们刚开始的时候，技术占全球GDP的5%。现如今，它已占到全球GDP的15%。而在未来十年后，我们坐在这里时，我相信，即便有很多噪音和波动，这个比例也会超过15%。
You guys talk about, again, like what the new class of AI entrants are. So the Mag 7 has actually underperformed this year. But we have AI power, we have AI-related software, we have AI semis that are up on the year. You guys have diversified out, Philippe, into some of these other categories. You were just talking about it. Is that the case that everybody got crowded into Mag 7? And now you see all of these other companies accelerating this year that are starting to get some of the benefits. I think this one, maybe Thomas, you should take it and also contrast it to what's going on a bit in the private side if we can add that too, because there was a time when Mag 7 was a real excitement, and now it's changed a bit.
你们再次讨论了新一代AI参与者的情况。今年，"Mag 7"实际上表现不佳。但我们有AI技术实力，有AI相关软件，也有一些今年表现良好的AI半导体公司。Philippe，你们已经部分转向这些其他类别的发展。对此，你是这么说的。是不是因为太多人涌入了"Mag 7"，现在你看到了其他公司在今年加速发展并开始受益。我觉得这个问题也许应该由Thomas来回答，并对比一下私营领域的情况，因为曾经"Mag 7"是备受关注的热点，而现在情况有些变化。
Yeah. So it was interesting seeing that we think that on average, the Mag 7, it was basically flat year over year, and yet tremendous value accretion to the top AI companies, right, whether it's open AI or anthropic. Right. Or all kind of the following companies. To me, my other takeaway looking at this, and I was thinking about CoreWeave that recently went public, and you guys are big shareholders in. We are in big fans of the management team, and I think a lot of skepticism around that business and that business model. But at the end of the day, being in AI pure play, there's very few in the public market. Right. And so, I look at this list, there's amazing companies on this list, but a lot of them might have legacy businesses or other kind of, I think of a Google as an example. A lot of good AI, but also has some disruption threats.
是的，所以看到这一点很有趣：我们认为，平均来看，Mag 7的表现基本上是年复一年持平的，但顶尖的AI公司却实现了巨大的价值增长，无论是OpenAI还是Anthropic，或者是其他类似的公司。对我来说，另一点感受是，我在观察这件事时，也在想最近刚上市的CoreWeave，你们是其大股东。我们非常欣赏他们的管理团队，我认为很多人对这家企业及其商业模式持怀疑态度。但最终，专注于AI的公司在公开市场上是非常少见的。我看着这份名单，上面有很多出色的公司，但其中不少可能有传统业务或其他，比如谷歌，AI实力雄厚，但也面临一些颠覆性威胁。
So seeing new entrants like CoreWeave that are pure play on the trend, I think has been a really kind of positive development as well. Another thing, today's an appropriate day to talk about this, the stablecoin legislation past today, which is a major, we're going to want to talk about to SACs about this later. But a major step forward for the regulatory framework around U.S. finance. You were funny today, Philippe on stage talking about Bitcoin. It's this category that's broken out. You lose sleep over it every single night because you're still not invested from an institutional perspective in it, like a lot of us. And yet, you showed this slide 18 where you said, maybe the volatility of Bitcoin is coming down, which might put it more into an institutional asset class. Talk to us a little bit about how you guys think about crypto.
看到像CoreWeave这样的新进入者，纯粹是跟随趋势，我认为这也是一种非常积极的发展。此外，今天正好是讨论这个话题的合适时机，因为今天通过了稳定币立法，这是围绕美国金融监管框架向前迈出的重要一步。回头我们要跟SACs详细讨论一下这件事。今天你在台上说比特币的话还挺有意思。它是一个新兴的类别，让人夜不能寐，因为很多人，包括你自己，从机构投资的角度来看，还没能真正投资进去。不过，你展示了第18张幻灯片，说比特币的波动性可能在减弱，这可能会让它更接近于一种机构资产类别。再跟我们聊聊你们是怎么看待加密货币的。
We all have post-traumatic stress from the 1920 period, I think, of venture investing in crypto. Is that changing? Is it now in the 1920? The 20-20. Yeah, yeah, yeah. 20, I like that. That was like, the first thing that was really early, the venture. I do think it's actually really interesting to think of Bitcoin as a company for the sake of our investing universe. We do think the relative market caps becomes really interesting. But as you see in some Vardec, especially at the end, first thing is awareness. We need to include the large ones as we think about how they're valued versus kind of other things.
我们都对1920年代的加密货币投资经历了一种创伤后压力，我认为。这种情况正在改变吗？是否已经进入了“20-20”年代？对，我喜欢这个说法。当时是风险投资的早期阶段。我确实认为，从投资视角来看，把比特币当作公司来思考很有趣。我们认为比较不同资产的市场价值是很有趣的。然而，如你在一些Vardec中看到的，特别是在最后阶段，首先是提高认知度。我们在考虑评价时需要把大公司包括进来，与其他事物进行对比。
Yeah. How do you think about valuing it? I mean, listen, but just touching back on the point. So we're looking at Bitcoin. It's like, all right, the market cap of the world, the net worth of the world is like $4.50, $500 trillion. Equities, I think, are like 120 or stuff. Real estate's probably another $100, $150. Then there's a value that people have in their homes. Gold is about $15 to $20 trillion above and under the ground. And then we're like Bitcoin at two. And I'm like, God, so Bitcoin represents, you know, two out of 500 of the net worth of the world, or 400, whatever. It moves a little bit. Could it be four? Could it be five?
好的，你觉得该如何估值呢？我是说，听我说，我们再回到这个话题。我们在看比特币。好吧，全球市场总价值，大概是450到500万亿美元。股票市值大概是120万亿美元左右。房地产可能有100到150万亿美元。人们在住房中的价值也得算上。黄金的市值大约是15到20万亿美元，包括地上和地下的储量。然后我们再来看比特币，是2万亿美元。我想，比特币占世界总财富的比例是500分之2，或者说400分之一，无论如何。这比例会有些变化，它可能会变成4，或者5。
And then we're like, well, the largest company, Microsoft today is like three and a half trillion. Let's say that Microsoft, I don't know, doubles in 10 years. It would only be growing at 7% per year. Microsoft will be a 7 trillion dollar company in 10 years. And could Bitcoin be five or six? So real asset class. Right. And then on top of that, it's very volatile. Then on top of that, there's a lot of retail people that own it. And it almost feels like sometimes, you know, the institutional investor is wrong and the retail investment, right? Sometimes it's the opposite. Retail gets caught in a little bit of a meme stock and it comes back down. And I don't think we can afford to ignore it anymore. So it doesn't mean like we don't really know exactly when and how to own it.
然后我们想，目前市值最大的公司是微软，大约三万五千亿美元。假设微软在未来十年翻一番，它的年增长率也只有7%。十年后微软的市值将达到七万亿美元。那么比特币能达到五、六万亿吗？这是一个真正的资产类别。对吧。而且，比特币的价格波动非常大。此外，很多普通投资者也持有比特币。有时候感觉，好像机构投资者是错的，而普通投资者是对的。有时情况正好相反，普通投资者可能会被一些“迷因股”套牢，股价随后下跌。我觉得现在我们不能再忽视它了。但这并不意味着我们确切知道何时以及如何持有它。
And then your other point that's really interesting is sometimes you make some venture bets and they don't work. And then you're like, I just invested in the wrong trend. And in fact, sometimes you invest in in the wrong company, but it is the right trend. And those bad investment cloud your judgment. And there's Bitcoin. There's stable coins, which we should talk about. They're growing incredibly right now. And then there's all these out coins. And you could say, okay, well, I don't like the out and the meme coins. I don't like necessarily the collectible aspects of things. But I like stable and Bitcoin.
然后，你提到的另一个非常有趣的观点是，有时候你做一些风险投资，但它们并没有成功。于是你会觉得投资了错误的趋势。事实上，有时你投错了公司，但所处趋势却是正确的。这些失败的投资会影响你的判断。还有比特币，还有我们应该讨论的稳定币，它们现在增长得非常快。除此之外，还有各种山寨币。你可能会说，我不喜欢山寨币和梗币，也不一定喜欢收藏属性的东西，但我喜欢稳定币和比特币。
And for us, it's more a process where we just need to become better, be willing to change our mind and stay open to the future. And those are a lot of the conferences that you don't have together. One thing I'm curious if you agree. One of my biggest lessons looking at private market investors versus public market investors is the appetite for institutions in the public market for assets that are perceived to have significant downside, i.e. like 70 or 80 percent, better market to market. I found it's just really low. Right. Investors on the public side just don't want to take that kind of risk.
对我们来说，这更像是一个需要不断提升、愿意改变想法并保持对未来开放的过程。而这些也是很多会议中你们并未共同探讨的内容。我很好奇你是否同意。我从私募市场投资者与公众市场投资者的对比中学到的最大一课之一是，公众市场的机构对于被认为有显著下行风险（即可能下跌70%或80%）的资产的兴趣真的很低。对吧，公众市场的投资者就是不愿承担这样的风险。
And so versus on the private side, you are because you may have 20 of those. They're not marked to market. And you're like, look, maybe five go to zero, but my other 10 go. So I do wonder how institutions versus retail may be willing to take that risk. I wonder how institutions will think about an asset like that. Let me kind of tell us go about for a second. And I want to get Bill's opinion on this as well. I think all of us, now a couple of decades into this, I think one of the most powerful things about this conversation is mental flexibility.
在私人领域中，你可能会拥有20个这样的资产。它们不会按市场价估值。你可能会觉得，也许其中五个会归零，但是其他十个资产表现不错。所以我很好奇机构与散户在承担这种风险时的态度。我想知道机构如何看待这样的资产。让我稍微讲一下这个问题，我也想听听 Bill 的看法。我认为我们所有人，在这个领域中沉浸了几十年后，这次对话中最有力的一个方面就是心态的灵活性。
Yeah, absolutely. And I think when you're maybe a little bit younger in the business, you're more dogmatic, you develop an opinion, you defend it to the hilt. And if you're wrong, it can be extraordinarily costly. And I think crypto was that way for a lot of people. They carved out these positions. They were like, this is a fad. And then they're proven right at a moment in time because they'll have a 50% drawdown.
是的，完全同意。我认为，当你在这个行业相对年轻的时候，你可能会更加固执己见，形成自己的观点，并且极力捍卫它。如果你的观点是错的，这可能会带来极大的损失。我认为，对于很多人来说，加密货币就是这样的情况。很多人坚持认为这是一阵风潮，然后在某个时刻他们被证明是对的，因为市场可能会经历50%的大跌。
And so rather than reevaluating their priors, they lock in to that position. Bill, how have you, because I find venture particularly tribal about this point. Well, you're locked in. You can't sell. So I think this is something that you guys develop more of an instinct for in the public markets than the private because you're in, you're in forever, like with the private companies. You can learn lessons along the way, but your windows are really long.
因此，他们并不重新评估自己的先前观点，而是固守那个立场。比尔，你是怎么做到的？因为我发现风险投资在这一点上尤其具有部落性。你被锁定了，所以你无法出售。我认为你们在公共市场中对此有更强的直觉，因为在私人公司的投资中，一旦进入，就像是永远进去了。你可以在过程中学到一些教训，但时间跨度会非常长。
Right. Whereas I think if you're in public stocks where you can, you know, change your mind and make a decision right away, that's very different. Yeah, I mean, you referenced Drock and Miller today. You said you think this may be the most valuable attribute of the great investors. I mean, listen, when he told me I've made 120% of my money on obvious ideas and I've lost 20% elsewhere. And then you start thinking of Bitcoin and a company being like the fifth largest company in the world.
好的。我认为如果你投资的是可以在公开市场中自由买卖的股票，你可以随时改变想法并立即做出决策，这与其他情况非常不同。是的，我的意思是，你提到今天的罗克和米勒时说，您认为这可能是伟大投资者最有价值的特质。听着，当他说他通过显而易见的点子赚到了120%的利润，而在其他地方亏损了20%，你就会开始想到比特币以及一家成为世界第五大公司的企业。
It's a little bit odd when I'm saying I recognize it because you could also say, well, should we consider gold as the largest company in the world because it's worth 20 trillion and not necessarily. But I do think like forcing yourself to think differently and at least being at peace, okay, I thought differently. I came to the same conclusion and being able to do that now as to us being flexible, the fact that you think that French people are highly flexible people.
当我说出这句话时，可能会觉得有些奇怪，因为你也可以说，我们是否应该认为黄金是世界上最大的公司，因为它价值20万亿美元？不一定。但是我确实认为，强迫自己换个角度思考，然后至少能够心平气和地说："好的，我换个角度思考了，并得出了同样的结论"，这种灵活性对我们有很大帮助，尤其是在我们认为法国人是非常灵活的群体时。
I'm very thankful of that. I'm not sure it's true, but we'll take it. Two things that are new about crypto that should lead anyone to reevaluate. The government's gone from being a kind of antagonistic towards support of that's a big shift because regulatory risk was a big question for all this stuff. And then the stablecoin, based on what people are talking about, this is a high utility use case for people that is companies are using it.
我对此非常感激。我不确定这是否属实，但我们会接受。关于加密货币有两件新的事情，任何人都应该重新评估一下。政府从一种反对立场转变为支持，这是一个重大变化，因为监管风险一直是这方面的一个大问题。另外，稳定币方面，根据人们的讨论，这是一个有很高效用的使用案例，目前很多公司都在使用它。
This is part of their workflow process. That's a new dimension as well. One additional thing just point on that that I think is interesting is when you talk about the US dollar, the view is always, well, what's the alternative? I'm not going to go, do I want to go into Europe? Probably not. It's kind of interesting. Well, what if actually the alternative is Bitcoin? Right. And so that's something I've kind of been spending time on. We talked a lot today about the dollar and interest rates and what's going to happen. So it'll be interesting to see whether that becomes a legitimate alternative to the overspending of governments.
这是一部分他们的工作流程。这也是一个新的维度。我觉得有趣的是，当你谈到美元时，人们总是会问，有什么替代选择？我不太可能选择欧洲。那么，有趣的是，替代选择是否可能是比特币呢？这是我一直在思考的问题。我们今天也谈到了很多关于美元、利率和未来走向的话题。所以，看比特币是否会成为应对政府过度支出的合法替代选择将会很有趣。
And when you have a stablecoin, right? How long is it before a new regulation goes through that allows a stablecoin to pay interest? Sort of odd. Stablecoins can offer rewards, but can't pay interest. And when you have a stablecoin with interest, how long is it before the government creates a one year stablecoin, a five year, ten year, a 30 year stablecoin, which will allow every single person around the world to invest in the USA. So the government is going to have an incentive to not have these bonds be sold through these like weird dealers and this and that. The government should go direct to the consumer, just like companies do.
当你有一个稳定币时，对吧？在一个新法规出台允许稳定币支付利息之前，要多久呢？这有点奇怪。稳定币可以提供奖励，但不能支付利息。而当你有一个带利息的稳定币时，又需要多久政府才会创造出一年期、五年期、十年期、三十年期的稳定币，使得全球每个人都可以投资美国。因此，政府有动机不通过那些奇怪的经销商来出售这些债券。政府应该像公司那样，直接面向消费者。
So I bet you that in the not too distant future, people will be able to automatically invest in bonds. And so that's yet another example on top of what you were saying, Tom, about the Bitcoin and stuff that I think it's anyway, we need to switch topic otherwise. And I really pulled the few hairs that you and I have left. Okay, back to back to AI. One of the topics you guys had an incredible audience here, Andy Jassy here, you know, talking at lunch, Kevin Wile from OpenAI. And one of the topics was consumer AI.
我敢打赌在不久的将来，人们将能够自动投资债券。这就是关于你刚才提到的比特币等内容的又一个例子。不过我们需要换个话题了，不然我们该头发不多了。好吧，回到人工智能的话题。你们的观众超级多，比如Andy Jassy来过，Kevin Wile从OpenAI来过。他们在午餐时演讲，其中一个主题就是消费者人工智能。
And I thought one of the most incredible pieces of data that you guys shared was looking at the impact of that chat GPT, which is now scaling to, you know, kind of a billion users is having on Google. And you did this by conjoining a couple pieces of data that you guys had. So Thomas, you want to talk to us a little bit. This is slides 22 and slides 24 and and and slides 26. I'll pass it to Philippe for this chart. Okay. But I think it, Bill and I were chatting about this earlier. And anecdotally, it certainly seems to be the case, right? The more people I talk to, the more I ask them, do you feel like your Google search has been impacted by chat GPT?
翻译成中文如下：
我认为你们分享的最令人惊叹的数据之一是关于 Chat GPT 的影响，它现在正在扩展，用户数量达到十亿。这对谷歌的影响很显著。你们通过结合一些数据来展示这一点。Thomas，你能给我们详细讲讲吗？这是第22、24和26张幻灯片。好的，我把这张图表交给Philippe来讲解。我与Bill之前也就此聊过。从个人经验来看，看来确实如此。无论和多少人交流，每次我问他们：“你觉得你的谷歌搜索体验是否因为 Chat GPT 而受到影响？”他们的回答都显示出了一些影响。
And resoundingly, I almost everybody at this point now agrees that that's the case, right? And we can argue whether the queries are commercial or not. I think the queries are getting more commercial. Yes. Every day. But without a doubt, it's having that impact. We could not prove it numerically. It felt intuitively true. Obviously, Google is telling you it isn't. So I think we went about seeing, is there, is there a numerical assumption that we can make that would kind of prove this out? And I think you should introduce the work.
当然，到现在几乎每个人都同意这种情况，对吧？我们可以讨论这些查询是否具有商业性质。我认为这些查询正变得越来越商业化。是的，每天都是如此。但毫无疑问，它确实产生了影响。虽然我们无法用数据来证明，但直觉上感觉这是真的。显然，谷歌告诉你情况并非如此。因此，我认为我们应该尝试看看是否可以做出某种数值假设来证明这一点。我觉得你应该介绍一下这方面的工作。
Yeah. And by the way, as we, you know, all these platforms have some businesses that get threatened and other businesses and Google could still be an amazing company by just saying listen, maybe search is on the thread. But YouTube is with all this new AI content going to explode and potentially threaten Netflix and maybe Waymo is going to also do incredibly well. So our judgment more is around what exactly happens. Well, we talked about the, I mean, the assets of the Android phone and the Gmail and the Google Docs and like that's a nice set of complimentary pieces.
好的。顺便说一下，就像我们看到的那样，所有这些平台的某些业务受到威胁，而其他业务则活得很好。谷歌仍然可能是一家很棒的公司，即使它承认搜索可能受到威胁，但YouTube随着新AI内容的涌现可能会爆发式增长，并有可能威胁到Netflix，而且Waymo也可能表现非常出色。因此，我们的判断更多是基于具体会发生什么。我们谈到了安卓手机、Gmail和Google Docs这些资产，这些都是不错的互补组合。
They have so many great assets. It'll be very interesting to see how it plays. You know, for me, if I were CEO of Google, that would be way above my page, no idea how to put it all together. But God, is it just fun to be alive and just see how what Amazon is going to do? What's Google going to do? What all these guys? So what we try to do here is as part of the data science that we do, we process probably a hundred million credit card receipts a day. So we have a very fine view of what the US consumer does.
他们有很多优秀的资源。看看事情怎么发展会非常有趣。你知道的，对我来说，如果我是谷歌的CEO，那绝对超出了我的能力范围，我不知道该如何把这些东西整合在一起。但是，天啊，能够活在这个时代，看亚马逊、谷歌这些公司将要做什么，真是太有意思了。因此，我们在这里做的一件事是，作为我们数据科学的一部分，我们每天大约处理一亿张信用卡收据。所以，我们对美国消费者的行为有非常细致的了解。
And we have another data set where we know all consumers do based on their email receipts and the drink was to try to join those two data sets. And in general, in data science, my only lessons learned is data is useless unless you can join data sets that don't speak to each other. That is the unlock. And so we did that in what you see on that chart is that absent chat G.P. chat G.P.T. maybe Google page use for particular user going 4% per year.
我们还有另一个数据集，通过用户的电子邮件收据，我们了解所有消费者的行为。这个项目是尝试将这两个数据集结合起来。一般来说，在数据科学领域，我唯一的经验教训就是数据如果不能与其他不相关的数据集连接起来，就没有任何用处。这就是关键所在。因此，我们完成了这个项目，并从图表上可以看到，如果没有ChatGPT，某个特定用户每年使用Google页面的频率可能只增加4%。
So we are consuming more Google. Then we get a subscription to chat G.P. which we chat, Jesus Christ, I can use G.P. and G.P.T. we get a subscription and now we're like, ah, this guy is paying 20 bucks a month. And then we track once he started paying the 20 bucks a month to open AI, what happens to the usage and you can see peak to trough down 8% year over year, peak to trough, it's a down 11. So clearly page views are going down and that's over almost two years, right? So it's not like it's immediate. It's not like it's an immediate giant threat. But one thing we've learned, Thomas and I repeat that to each other all the time is these major shifts, they just start one little step at a time. And that one little step becomes a gigantic move quickly so you can't underestimate these small moves.
所以我们使用Google的频率增加了。接着，我们订阅了Chat GPT。耶稣基督，我可以使用GPT。我们订阅了，然后就像，啊，这个人每月支付20美元。我们记录了他开始支付这20美元给OpenAI之后的使用情况，你可以看到，从高峰到低谷，同比下降了8%，从高峰到低谷下降了11%。很明显，页面浏览量正在下降，大约是两年时间内的情况。所以这并不是立刻发生的巨大威胁。但我们学到的一件事，我和托马斯时常提醒彼此的是，这些重大的转变，通常从一个小的步骤开始。但这个小步骤很快就会发展成一个巨大的变化，所以绝对不能低估这些小变化。
And I think this confirms something that we all know any totally as we were talking about. Well, and I think that's it, you know, even slide 24th, you know, when we were talking two years ago about chat G.P.T. we knew it was off to a good start. But the question was, what's going to happen when Meta, you know, gets its game going, what's going to happen when Google launches Gemini? What's going to happen when Elon launches G.P.? What's going to happen when, you know, Claude gets better? We all thought that when they got into the game that this line would start to flatten out. But the fact of the matter is, chat G.P.T. has been radically more resilient and the engagement has increased much faster than I think any of us would have thought with that level of competition.
我觉得这证实了一件我们都心知肚明的事情，就像我们之前讨论的那样。当我们两年前谈论Chat GPT时，我们知道它起步良好。但问题是，当Meta发力时会发生什么？当谷歌推出Gemini时会怎么样？当Elon推出新的GPT时会怎样？当Claude变得更强大时又会怎样？我们都以为当他们进入这个领域时，Chat GPT的增长会趋于平稳。然而事实是，Chat GPT的韧性远超我们的预期，用户参与度增加的速度比我们在这种竞争环境下预料的要快多了。
And Brad, what's interesting about that is that's true in the US. It's true internationally. It's true whether you look at it on downloads. It's true whether you look at it on engagement. It has blips here and there, the deep seek moment and others. But the resiliency, to me, Bill, it does remind me a little bit of when Uber got started, right? And they established that market share and, you know, it was just incredibly difficult to disrupt. Right. So listeners that don't have the slides were looking at chat G.P.T. adoption against Twitter, Instagram, Facebook and TikTok. And it's just, you know, straight up and way ahead.
布拉德，有趣的是，这种情况在美国是真的，在国际上也一样。无论是从下载量还是用户参与度来看，都是这样的。虽然其中有些小波动，比如深度搜索时刻等，但它的韧性让我想起了Uber刚起步时的状态。它们建立了市场份额，几乎没有人能撼动。没有看幻灯片的听众，我们讨论的是ChatGPT与Twitter、Instagram、Facebook和TikTok的用户增长对比，它的增长趋势直线上升，远远领先。
Yeah. And against, by the way, those apps had inherent fireality as you know, I mean, you're sort of that. This doesn't. Right. It has no virality to it. It's just value to the consumer. Correct. Driving a doc. Although I would say that we're starting to see network effects, right? On the data side, we're starting to see switching costs with permanent memory as you and I have talked. It is starting to see what's amazing is you have this level of adoption even before those things begin to kick in. And it confirms what we kind of know to be true. We saw this with Google, right? We saw this with Facebook.
好的。顺便说一下，这些应用程序本身就具有传播性，你知道，我的意思是，你对这种事情很了解。而这个就没有。对消费者来说，它只是有价值而已。但是，我会说，我们开始看到网络效应的出现，对吧？在数据方面，我们开始看到切换成本，尤其是在你我讨论过的永久记忆方面。令人惊奇的是，即使在这些因素开始起作用之前，它已经达到了这样的采用水平。这验证了我们有些明知为真的事情。我们在谷歌和Facebook上都见过这种情况。
Yeah. And now we're seeing it again with chat. Kevin, Kevin, who was on stage after you guys talked made an interesting comment. But I mean, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's still kind of resonating with me. He said, look, this is products going to get better. So you have all of this adoption with a product that's not the product's getting. Yeah. But even three years old, we could show the, or maybe we did show the, about also the usage in terms of minutes. Yeah. Right. Right. That more MAUs, more weekly users, more daily users and then more time per day, which is a lot, which is also consistent with all of our personal lives.
好的。现在我们又在聊天中看到了这一点。凯文，你们发表演讲后上台的凯文，发表了一个有趣的评论。我是说，它，它，它仍然在我脑海中回荡。他说，你看，这个产品会变得更好。所以，即使这个产品还不是很成熟，就已经被广泛采用了。是的。即便不到三年时间，我们可以展示，也许我们已经展示过它的使用时间。例如，更多的月活跃用户(MAU)，更多的周活跃用户，更多的日活跃用户，以及每天使用的时间更多，这与我们个人生活中的情况是一致的。
Yeah. Um, we're going to keep forging ahead here. We're going to get crunched on time. Slide 27 Bill is, I know a slide you wanted to talk about when we talk about these new hyper scalers. And what you did here is you were mapping up cloud revenue market share to the share of Nvidia GPU. So Bill, what are you doing? Yeah. And I'll just describe this so people that are listening can follow along. And then we'd ask you guys to talk about your takeaways from it. But they, they, the co-to team mapped out cloud revenue market share and you have Oracle 5% Amazon 44 because of the success of AWS Google 19 and Microsoft 30.
好的，嗯，我们会继续努力向前推进。时间会有些紧张。第27页是比尔想要讨论的幻灯片，它涉及到新的超大规模计算服务提供商。你在这里做的是将云收入市场份额与Nvidia GPU的市场份额进行匹配。比尔，你是怎么做的？好的，我会描述一下，这样听的人可以跟随我们。然后，我们希望你们谈谈从中得到的收获。Co-to团队绘制了云收入市场份额，你可以看到Oracle占5%，亚马逊因为AWS的成功占44%，谷歌占19%，微软占30%。
And then you show right next to it the share of Nvidia GPU allocation, Microsoft and Google are about equivalent 30 and 20 to what they have in the, in the cloud revenue market share. Amazon notably 44% of cloud revenue market share, but only 20% of Nvidia GPU allocation. And then Oracle jumps from five to 19 and core. We've comes out of nowhere to be 11. So tell us why you guys put this together and what are your big takeaways. I mean, for me as a, I'll go ahead and then you go as a, as an, as an analyzer of companies, this might be my favorite slide because it shows like the competitive dynamics at work and whose strategy will win out, you know, I mean, I look at this and, and one obvious takeaway is that Amazon has half the share of GPUs and their share of AWS.
然后你可以看到紧接着展示了Nvidia GPU的分配份额，微软和谷歌在云收入市场份额上大约分别占据了30%和20%，相对而言是比较接近的。而亚马逊在云收入市场的份额显著地达到44%，但在Nvidia GPU分配中仅占20%。同样值得注意的是，甲骨文的份额从5%跃升至19%，而另一个核心公司突然以11%的份额进入市场。那么，告诉我们你们为什么这样组织这些信息，以及你们的主要收获是什么。对我来说，作为一个公司分析师，这可能是我最喜欢的幻灯片，因为它展示了竞争动态的运作方式以及谁的战略更具优势。从中我得到的一个明显结论是，亚马逊的GPU份额仅是其AWS份额的一半。
So that could mean one of two things either AWS is behind an AI that could be one or they're pursuing a different hardware strategy than its, than its competitor, right? Which Andy spoke specifically about. So that could be or a combination thereof, right? So that's one. And number two, it shows the reinvention of Oracle. Mm hmm. Right. Incredible. Right. I'm not incredible. Left for dead in the, left for dead in the SaaS era, left for dead in the AI era, now coming back. And then also I give Corey the tremendous amount of credit of just entering the market as a pure play had difficulty racing capitals. None of us ever believed there's no IP. You're just buying GPUs and re-solving them just by being in market and being focused, right?
这段英文可以翻译成如下中文，以表达相同的意思：
“这可能意味着两种情况之一，第一种是AWS有一个潜在的AI项目，或者他们正在追求不同于竞争对手的硬件策略，对吧？正如Andy特别提到的。这可能是其中一种，也可能是两者结合。第二，展示了Oracle的重生，不可思议。曾在SaaS时代、AI时代被认为已经过时，但现在却强势回归。同时，我也对Corey表示极大的赞赏，他在作为纯粹的软件市场角色进入市场时面临了融资困难。我们中没有人相信他会成功，因为他没有知识产权，仅仅通过进入市场并专注于买进和重新销售GPU就取得了成功。”
Started to build that relationship with Nvidia and now is punching way above its weight. So it's a, by the way, the third theory could just be that Nvidia would prefer not to have a dominant customer. Like they wouldn't want this to be the customer. So it hasn't seemed to impact a Microsoft and Google. I agree. I agree. Do you want to add anything? I would say the one thing on that chart is damn hard to get the numbers right. So there we have to explain the viewers. Like we could be off by, you know, five or six percent up or down. But I think where we're not off is the concept that some players are getting more GPU chips than others. And the question is are Nvidia GPUs a prediction of future cloud revenues? And I think the answer is like, and we haven't even included Stargate, which is going to start coming up here, right?
开始建立与Nvidia的关系后，现在的表现超乎预期。顺便说一句，还有第三种可能性，就是Nvidia可能不想拥有一个主导性的客户。他们可能不想让某个客户过于重要。这似乎没有影响到微软和谷歌。我同意。我同意。你想补充些什么吗？
我想说的是，图表上的数据确实很难准确获取。因此，我们需要向观众解释，数据可能会有五六个百分点的上下浮动。但我们比较确定的是，一些公司获得的GPU芯片比其他公司多。问题是，Nvidia的GPU是否能预测未来的云服务收入？我认为答案是肯定的。而且我们还没有包括即将推出的Stargate，对吧？
What if, what if anthropic also becomes its own hyperscaler? You could have a world with more like a dozen hyperscalers than like the two or three that we have. And it has the overseas. The sovereign. Then you're going to have the sovereigns for sure. You're going to some telecom operators, more traditional operators in Europe is that. So there'll be more, right? But I think what definitely is going on now is there's sort of a battle between people that want to standardize on Nvidia, pay the Nvidia rent and get the supply versus people who also think like, hey, I'm bringing a lot of software. I already have a lot of the data and I can afford a different strategy.
如果Anthropic自己也成为了一个超大规模计算公司呢？在这样的世界中，可能会有十来个超大规模计算公司，而不是我们现在所拥有的两三个。此外，还会有海外的、主权级的公司。那么肯定会有主权级公司的出现。同时，你会看到一些电信运营商，以及一些比较传统的欧洲运营商。因此，会有更多的公司参与进来。我认为现在确实发生的事情是，有一场竞争在进行：一方希望标准化使用英伟达，支付给英伟达费用来获取供应；而另一方则认为自己有大量的软件和数据，能够承受采取不同的策略。
In the internet era, almost every startup started with Oracle and Sun. And five years later, they weren't on it. So there is some precedent. There is. And I also think like the other one that surprised me, I even have a hard time believing that those are the numbers is I thought Google was more skewed to GPUs than Nvidia. So there's some people who are going exclusively with one chip. There's some people who are going to go in a hybrid way. Google bus has an in the end to you. I think Amazon is also choosing a path of like, hey, we're still making a ginormous bet on Nvidia, but we also would like to have you in our own bet.
在互联网时代，几乎每个初创公司都是从Oracle和Sun起步的。然而五年后，它们就不再依赖这些平台了。这就是一个先例。我认为还有另外一个让我感到惊讶的事情，我甚至很难相信那些数据，那就是我本以为谷歌比英伟达更加偏向使用GPU。因此，有些公司选择专注于使用一种芯片，而有些公司则选择采用混合方式。谷歌巴士最终选择了集成线路。我认为亚马逊也在采取一种路径：我们仍然在英伟达上做出巨大的投资，但我们也希望在我们自己的选择上押上一笔。
And I wouldn't be surprised if maybe someday an anthropic or maybe an open AI would say, maybe we should design our own chips. And then frankly, you might have some very expensive model with enormous reasoning that runs on Nvidia. And maybe a super cheap model just for some very local applications, maybe that could run on a custom chip. So I think a lot of it is going to morph and change over time. But at least what's fun here is let's go revisit this chart in like five or seven years and be like, okay, different people play chess the different ways. What's happening?
我不会感到惊讶的是，也许有一天，一个像人类般思考的系统或一个开放AI会建议，也许我们应该设计自己的芯片。说实话，你可能会有一个运行在Nvidia上的、昂贵而且具有很强推理能力的模型，同时也可能有一个为某些本地应用程序设计的超级廉价的模型，这个可以运行在定制芯片上。我认为，这一切都将在时间的推移中不断变化。不过有趣的是，我们可以在五到七年后重新看这张图表，然后说，不同的人以不同的方式下棋。发生了什么变化呢？
To me, the thing that stands out most about this slide again, slide 27, Microsoft, you talked about the explosion in terms of token production. We might be a hundred million tokens a month already out of Microsoft. Microsoft is open AI. So you got chat. 100 trillion. 100 trillion. I know you knew that. So it's so what's really driving inference and this token explosion like consumers first and foremost. And Google's got Gemini, right? Microsoft derivative Leah is supporting chat GBT as is Oracle and core weave on this slide. Amazon doesn't really have a big consumer application, right? So their need for those GPUs may also be a little bit lower. Correct.
对我来说，这张幻灯片中最引人注目的部分仍然是幻灯片27，微软提到了在生成标记方面的爆炸性增长。我们可能已经每月在微软生成一亿个标记。微软与OpenAI合作，因此你有聊天。100万亿。100万亿。我知道你明白。真正推动推理和标记爆炸的主要是消费者。谷歌有Gemini，对吧？微软的衍生产物也在支持ChatGPT，Oracle和CoreWeave也是如此，幻灯片中都有提到。亚马逊没有一个面向普通消费者的大型应用程序，对吧？因此他们对GPU的需求可能也会稍微低一些。对的。
And this line, very good. Well, one of the, I want to jump ahead a few, a few sections because I want to, I want to get to the private side, the venture side of this. I want to end the public side with the macro backdrop. Philippe, you're one of the best, you know, we've been at this a long time. We know that, you know, we invest in companies that are doing extraordinary well. We look at fundamentals, but you can't ignore the macros. Dan Loeb says, if you don't do macro, macro does you. We found that out the hard way too many times in our career. But if you obsess about it, it can also be your undoing.
这段话翻译成中文，表达意思且易于阅读：
这段非常好。我想跳过几节，直接谈论私募和风险投资部分。我想用宏观背景来结束公开部分。Philippe，你是我们中最优秀的。经过长时间的实践，我们知道我们投资于那些表现非常优秀的公司，我们关注基本面，但不能忽视宏观因素。Dan Loeb 说过，如果你不关注宏观，宏观就会左右你。我们在职业生涯中有太多次痛苦的教训。但如果过于关注，也可能让你失败。
One of the things I thought was so interesting. We're at this moment in time where we've heard from Elon and the guys on the all-in pod, David Friedberg and others who are saying, you know, we're in this debt spiral. There's no way out of the debt spiral, you know, and yet, if you look at the 10 year, the 10 year is still at 3, 434, right? Despite the calls that it was going to be at 6.5 or 7, we haven't got anywhere close. We've been in a band between 3.5 and basically 4.8 now for two years. You presented an argument on slide 45 about the productivity cycle that may come out of AI, right, that may drive faster growth in the economy, much like we saw in the 90s with the internet, that could in fact lead to lower inflation and lower rates on a permanent basis. It's kind of this backdrop that would bring the deficit to GDP below, you know, 4%. I know you guys work closely with Larry Summers, you know, and others.
我觉得有件事情非常有趣。我们现在正处在一个这样的时刻，像埃隆·马斯克和“All-In”播客上的人，以及大卫·弗里德伯格和其他人都在说，我们陷入了债务螺旋，无法逃脱。然而，如果你看看十年期国债的收益率，它仍然在3%到4.34%之间。尽管有人预测收益率会达到6.5%或7%，但我们还没有接近这个范围。过去两年里，收益率一直在3.5%到4.8%之间波动。你在幻灯片第45页中提出了一个关于人工智能可能带来的生产力周期的论点，这可能会像90年代互联网一样推动经济更快增长，事实上可能导致通胀和利率的永久性下降。这种背景下，政府赤字与GDP的比例可能会降低到4%以下。我知道你们和拉里·萨默斯等人有密切的合作。
So as you think, how important is believing this to be true in our overall kind of public investing today? So your original question, Philippe, should we be worried that we all think that AI is a big deal, right? The counter to that is to say, okay, well, what if we're right on the AI, but we're wrong on something else? And we actually analyze three things. We analyze our markets expensive and the answer is yes, but the markets were expensive, the nine is during the PC and the internet era and the market did well. So that's number one. Number two, we said, well, our tears are big deal and we said yes, they're important and maybe they haven't gone through inflation yet, but this doesn't feel to us like I like to say that token Trump tears, right? Basically.
所以，你认为在我们当前的公共投资中，相信这一点有多重要？菲利普，你最初的问题是，我们是否应该担心大家都认为人工智能是一个大事，对吧？反过来看，如果我们在人工智能上是对的，但在其他方面错了呢？我们实际上分析了三点。首先，我们分析了市场是否昂贵，答案是肯定的，但市场在个人电脑和互联网时代同样昂贵，而市场表现良好。这是第一点。第二点，我们讨论了泪水是否重要，我们认为是的，它们很重要，或许它们还没有经历过通胀，但这并不像我喜欢说的那样成为“眼泪特朗普”的做法。
And so we're basically left with this deficit. First thing I'd say is having those and having people like Elon say that we're spending too much, it's useful. And we should repeat that every day. It doesn't hurt. But what I was wondering is since it's so obvious that it seems that we need more doge, we need to spend less and stuff like that, who are the people who every day are buying bonds, 30 year bonds at 4.5% and I'm sure the listeners know that. But when your bond at 4.5% stays and gives you 4.5%, 30 year bond at 4.5% on its way to 6 or 7, you could lose 60 or 70% of your money.
所以，我们基本上面临着这个赤字。我首先要说的是，有那些意见和像埃隆这样的人指出我们花费太多，这是有用的。我们应该每天重复这个观点，这无妨。不过我想知道的是，既然显而易见我们需要更多节约，比如削减开支，那么每天购买30年期4.5%债券的人是谁呢？我相信听众们都知道，但是当你的4.5%债券只给你4.5%的收益，而30年期债券的利率上升到6%或7%时，你可能会损失60%或70%的投资。
You know, once you have a 30 year multiplier on a change in interest from 4.5 to 6, right? And our basic instinct was to analyze what happened in the internet and the PC days where we had exceptional productivity gains when the internet and PC really took off in the 90s and to say, hey, what would happen if we had similar exceptional productivity gains? And basically, the answer we were trying to solve is, in essence, today we're at 100% dead to GDP on our way to 140. And we said, what would it take for actually dead to GDP to stay at 100 or maybe even bend a curve and go down to 80?
你知道吗，当利率从4.5%变为6%时，这种变化会产生一个30年的乘数效应。我们的基本想法是回顾互联网和个人电脑兴盛时期的情况。在90年代，互联网和个人电脑的迅速发展带来了显著的生产力提升。于是我们思考，如果现在也能获得类似的生产力提升，结果会如何？我们试图解答的主要问题是，目前全球债务占国内生产总值（GDP）的比率已达到100%，并正向着140%迈进。于是我们讨论，要实现债务与GDP的比率维持在100%甚至下降到80%需要哪些条件。
And what's really surprising, I think if you just show maybe the next slide or so, I think if we move forward, yeah, just a little bit, you'll see that if productivity for the next decade or so was about 2.5 to 3.5% per year, we could achieve substantial reductions in this key ratio of dead to GDP. And I'm not saying we're there, but I'm saying that at least we've been able to bokehend what would productivity need to be to achieve an 80 or 100% instead of 140 dead to GDP? This is slide 51 just for the people following along, which is, again, an incredibly important point.
翻译成中文如下：
我认为真正令人惊讶的是，如果你接下来展示一下幻灯片，往前展示一点，你会发现，如果未来十年生产力每年增长2.5%到3.5%左右，我们就可以大幅降低债务与GDP的关键比率。我并不是说我们已经达到了这个目标，但至少我们能够推算出为实现80%或100%的债务与GDP比率，而不是140%，生产力需要达到什么水平。这是第51页幻灯片，对于正在跟进的朋友们来说，这一点非常重要。
We know there are people buying bonds every day at 4.5%. So the question is, why are they doing that? And one of the answers may be exactly what you're saying. What are they? Exactly. What are they? And we're wrong. And in fact, one funny part is in 1993, dead to GDP was supposed to go from 40 to or 60 to 80 by expert and it in fact went from 60 to 40. So experts can be wrong by a lot. And so I'm not good enough macro guy and if tech guys pretend to be good macro guys, you know, it's the beginning of the end, but at least we have a little bit of analytical thinking around what it would take and bail and Thomas, you guys are much better placed in me in terms of your discussions with all the privates, which I think we're leading to now.
我们知道每天都有一些人在以4.5%的利率购买债券。那么问题是，他们为什么要这么做？其中一个答案可能正是你所说的。是什么呢？究竟是什么呢？可能我们错了。而事实上，有一个有趣的例子是，1993年时，专家预测债务与GDP的比率会从40或60上升到80，但实际上却从60下降到40。所以，即便是专家也可能犯很大的错误。我对宏观经济的理解并不足够，而如果技术专家假装自己是宏观经济专家，那可能就意味着问题的开始。不过，我们至少还有一些关于需要什么条件的分析性思考。此外，贝尔和托马斯，在与所有私人投资者的交流中，你们比我更有优势，而我们的讨论似乎正朝这个方向进行。
And all these amazing new products and you're telling me that that's not going to create like massive productivity. I really think it is. And drawing from that, you would end up with GDP growth. More like the 5% plus maybe even 6, which by the way, that was the case for many of the years in the 90s, then sort of product, you know, and by way, the 6 would represent 4 in about real terms. Whereas in the past, you know, most recently, we've more be at like, you know, 2 or 3, which is more like the 1 in terms of real terms.
所有这些令人惊叹的新产品，你告诉我这不会带来巨大的生产力增长？我真的认为会带来的。从这个角度看，你会看到GDP的增长，可能是5%甚至6%以上。顺便提一下，在90年代的很多年里都是这种情况，而这个6%的增长在实际表现上相当于4%。而最近几年，我们的增长更多是在2%或3%左右，从实际表现看更像是1%。
So, you know, just to wrap up, your flight path for the public markets, I think it's fair to characterize as, you know, tariffs fairly much being under control. Multiples are, you know, pretty full, but like they were in the 90s, they can stay full. That the backdrop is okay. It's like the bond market and rates are still in the fours. And we have this AI super cycle. With that, on the public side, would you characterize your exposures to the public market fleet as in the top third, middle third, or bottom third of your, you know, kind of average exposures? You know, Brad, I knew you would ask me that. And you know, I'm not going to answer that. But nice try. Nice try. Okay, nice try.
好的，总结一下，你在公开市场的航线，我认为可以这样描述，关税基本上已经得到控制。估值倍数虽然很高，但就像90年代一样，它们可以持续保持高位。整体环境还算不错，比如债券市场和利率仍然保持在4%左右。我们还正处于AI超级周期。在这种情况下，就公开市场而言，你会把你在公开市场的风险敞口归类为高于平均水平的前三分之一，中间的三分之一，还是低于平均水平的后三分之一呢？布拉德，我猜到你会问这个问题，但我不会回答。不过，问得不错，问得不错。好吧，问得好。
Let's shoot over to private. I think one of the things that was a consistent theme, if you look at slide 60 and 61, is this idea that the private economy, Thomas, right? We've had three or four years of really nobody getting out of the shoots. These companies have all stayed private. The percentage of unicorns as a percentage of the public markets has gone up. But now we're starting to see an unlock here, both in terms of M&A and in terms of IPOs. So, talk us through the big themes from the slide 60 and 61 today about how, you know, AI has reignited this deployment and exits are starting to rebound.
让我们转到私营领域。我认为，如果你查看幻灯片60和61，一个持续的主题就是这个关于私营经济的观点，对吧，Thomas？在过去的三四年里，几乎没有公司走出困境，这些公司一直保持私营状态。独角兽在股票市场中的比例上升了。但是，现在我们开始看到一些解锁的迹象，无论是在并购方面还是在首次公开募股(IPO)方面。所以，请为我们讲解一下幻灯片60和61中的重要主题，比如人工智能如何重新点燃了这方面的应用，退出开始回升。
Yeah, I'm curious to get Bill's view here because he probably thinks about this as much as I do. And I'm curious whether he'll draw the same conclusion. I think by and large, we all agree that the environment of 2021 was incredibly unhealthy, both for companies and for LPs, too much capital going in, not enough coming out, a kind of a broken cycle, if you will. You could see that's in so many measures. amount of dollars going in, no money coming out, historically low IPOs, even worse than post-financial crisis, which is kind of incredible to think about.
是的，我很想听听比尔在这方面的看法，因为他可能和我一样对这个问题有深入的思考。我也很好奇他是否会得出相同的结论。我认为总体来说，我们都同意2021年的环境极其不健康，无论是对公司还是有限合伙人而言。投入的资本太多，而产出却不足，可以说是一个失衡的循环。从许多方面都可以看出这种情况：投入的资金量很大，但没有资金流出，首次公开募股（IPO）数量达到了历史低点，甚至比金融危机后的情况还要糟糕，这让人难以置信。
So, on almost any metric you looked at, we were kind of in the danger zone. And I would say more or less that's been true over the past two or three years. This is the first year and this is the crux of the view I'm curious if you share, where the signals are going from red to I would say yellow and potentially green. We're seeing, first of all, a rebound in IPOs. We're seeing IPOs perform better. We showed basically the performance of the cohorts and how they've improved substantially since 2021.
所以，从我们观察的几乎任何指标来看，我们都处于某种危险区域。我可以说，在过去两三年里，这种情况或多或少都是成立的。不过，今年是我们第一次看到信号从红色逐渐变为黄色，甚至可能变为绿色。我想知道你是否也有同样的看法。首先，我们看到IPO市场开始回暖，上市公司表现有所提升。我们展示了这些公司群组的表现，自2021年以来已经显著改善。
One of the data points that shocked me, relooking at this is that the 2021 cohort within one year of going IPO was down 40% and five years later is down 50%. I mean, didn't just pause on that for a second. That was a shocking slide. Here we are five years after those companies went public. And basically the market has gone vertical. But that's correct on the relative basis. This is why it's down 75% you're right. Slide 71. I think I didn't believe this. So, actually, I went to look at every single company on this. This is not includes SPACs.
让我把这段话翻译成中文并改写成易读形式：
一个让我非常震惊的数据点是：2021年上市的一批公司，在上市一年后股价下跌了40%，而五年后股价下跌了50%。稍微停下来想一下，这实在是一个令人震惊的结果。五年后，当所有这些公司上市后，市场基本上大幅上涨。但是相对来说，他们实际上下跌了75%，这在第71页的幻灯片中有提及。我刚开始不敢相信这个数据，因此专门查看了每一家涉及的公司。这些数据不包括特殊目的收购公司（SPACs）。
Which is even more extraordinary. This is just traditional IPOs. So, it's not dollar weighted. No, it's just down. Correct. So, there's a lot of scar tissue there. But I think we have signs to see things improving. So, we just talked about the IPO market. We've now seen some really strong IPOs that perform well. Core, we've circle. Hey, Thomas, remind me what does Zerb say? Sorry to ask such a dumb question. That what what Zerb interest rate. Oh, Zerb, yeah. That's not why I know. But we're also seeing companies like one of the things that really impressed me about Core, we've had a slide on this.
这真是非同寻常。这只是指传统的IPO（首次公开募股），并不是按美元加权的。不是的，它就是下降了。对的，所以这里有很多创伤。不过，我认为我们已经看到了一些改善的迹象。我们刚刚谈到IPO市场，现在已经看到一些表现良好的强劲IPO。核心方面，我们圈了。嗨，Thomas，提醒我Zerb说了什么？抱歉问这样一个愚蠢的问题。那个Zerb的利率是多少。哦，Zerb，对。我不是因为这个而知道。但我们也看到一些公司，例如Core的一些让我印象深刻的事情，我们对此有一个展示幻灯片。
I can't remember what the what the number is. But like people are starting to understand how public market thinks. And I do think they executed incredibly well on the timetable in terms of how they released information, how they explained the business model. This is kind of slide 75 for people at home. So, we have better IPOs that are being rewarded. And another thing that struck me is we looked at the cohort of IPOs, right? And by and large, you can see, unsurprisingly, that growth and profitability yielding a rule of 40 was kind of the average of the cohorts.
我记不清那个数字了。不过，现在人们开始理解公众市场是怎么运作的。我确实认为，他们在时间安排上执行得非常出色，比如信息发布和商业模式的解释。如果是在家里看的话，这大概是第75页的内容。所以，我们现在有表现更好的IPO，并且得到了应有的回报。另外，让我感到惊讶的一点是，我们观察了这些IPO群体，整体上不出意料地发现，增长和盈利能力达到40法则是这些群体的平均水平。
So, I thought that was bullish for the ecosystem. And then finally, you've talked about this on the pod before, but the M&A environment coming back, different types of structures, Zux bold move to pay 100% of a company to only get 100% of the price, 49% of the company by the team. Urgency is now I need you tomorrow, Alex, to help me fix my business, right? I thought that that was the best description of the scale deal that I've heard. And maybe just click on that again for a second.
所以，我认为这对生态系统是积极的。最后，你之前在播客中讨论过并购环境的回归，不同类型的结构，比如Zux大胆地支付整个公司的100%，却只获得公司49%的股份。现在的紧迫感是说“我明天就需要你，Alex，帮我解决我的生意问题，对吧？” 我觉得这是我听过的对规模交易最好的描述。我们能再深入讨论一下这个吗？
So, you know, as you know, for the audience, most people know that, you know, Meta has done this interesting structured deal. They're buying 49% of the company. They're paying a $30 billion valuation. So, they're paying effectively 15 billion. They're avoiding regulatory scrutiny. The CEO of scale is going to help lead efforts at Meta. And all the customers of the left. Right. And so, they're leaving kind of a shell company behind. Also, we don't know if that avoids regulatory scrutiny. Exactly. We're going to find out.
所以，你知道，正如你所知，对观众来说，大多数人都知道，Meta进行了一个有趣的结构性交易。他们购买了这家公司49%的股份，并且公司估值为300亿美元，因此他们实际上支付了150亿美元。他们这样做是为了避免受到监管机构的审查。Scale的首席执行官将协助领导Meta的相关工作。而那些客户都已经离开。这样，他们留下了一个空壳公司。不过，我们还不确定这种方式是否真的可以避免监管审查，我们将拭目以待。
We're going to find out. Right. Right. So, I don't know what the, if there's a breakup fear, not it'd be interesting to see. Yeah. I don't know that either. But I mean, I think one of the things it shines a light on is the speed at which everything is moving. Right. Here we are. And we can all say that Zuckerberg's in beast mode met as one of the greatest companies, you know, on the planet. He's extraordinarily focused on getting AI talent.
我们要找出答案。对，对。所以，我不清楚是否存在分手的恐惧，但这会很有趣。是的，我对此也不确定。不过，我认为这件事揭示了一个问题，那就是一切变化的速度非常快。我们可以说，扎克伯格正处于全力以赴的状态，Meta是全球最优秀的公司之一。他非常专注于获取人工智能人才。
But why do you think he was willing to pay 100% of the value of a company and only get 49%? Is it that the imperative to have talent today is so important because two years from now, you may be so far behind given the rate at which AI is moving? I tend to think it's related to two factors. Right. One is the size of the prize. Yeah. So, I think he clearly sees that this is the biggest prize in tech, right, in the world, frankly.
但你为什么认为他愿意支付公司全部价值，却只得到49%的股份呢？是不是因为现在获得人才非常重要，因为在人工智能快速发展的情况下，两年后你可能会落后太多？我倾向于认为这与两个因素有关。首先，是这个“奖品”的规模。我认为，他显然看到这是科技界乃至全球最大的“奖品”。
And so, I think relative to his, while 15 billion to all of us is a massive number, probably in the scale of the multi trillion opportunity that he sees. He might just think it's a bet I would make all day long. Yeah. Look at it as a percentage of your market cap. And you say, it's like a 1% right? Right. Right. So, he, so I think that's number one, scale of the opportunity, no pun intended.
我认为，相对于他来说，虽然对我们所有人来说，150亿是一个巨大的数字，但在他眼中，这可能只是他所看到的数万亿机会中的一小部分。他可能认为这是一个他愿意一直押注的赌注。是的，如果你将其视为市值的一个百分比，你会发现这只占1%左右，对吧？对，所以我认为这是第一点，机会的规模，不是说笑。
And I think number two is how quickly the ecosystem is moving. And for some data point, I mean, people had this view already that that Lama wasn't quite at the top. But this is somewhat confirmatory of that, that he's fixing a problem. Right. We've seen Anthropic. We have data in here that I think it took him about a year to get to their first billion in revenue. It took him three months to get to the next billion.
我认为第二个要点是生态系统发展的速度。举个例子，人们已经认为Lama不是最顶尖的。这段信息在某种程度上证实了这个观点，就是他正在解决一个问题。我们看到Anthropic，他们的数据表明，第一亿美元的收入用了大概一年的时间，而接下来的第二亿美元只花了三个月。
And then it took him two months to get to the one, the next billion after that, right. So, he's probably seeing how quickly Chad G. P. T is growing social users, how quickly Anthropic is growing business users through their API and thinking, I don't have two years to wait in European regulatory purgatory.
然后，他花了两个月才达到下一个十亿，对吧。所以，他可能看到Chad G.P.T在社交用户上的快速增长，以及Anthropic通过他们的API在商业用户上的快速增长，心里想着，他没有两年的时间在欧洲的监管困境中等待。
I have a question for you. Tell us on the IPO. So, so simultaneous with seeing more IPOs, which is awesome. There has been a trend for companies to stay private longer. I think the Collison's used to hint maybe, and now they're more kind of maybe never. And some investors in the ecosystem are encouraging that behavior. What do you think is different about the people that choose to go out now that windows quote open?
我有个问题想问你。谈谈关于首次公开募股（IPO）的情况吧。现在有越来越多的IPO出现，这很棒。不过，与此同时，也有一种趋势是公司选择更长时间地保持私营状态。我记得Collison兄弟以前只是在暗示这种可能性，现在他们则更倾向于这种可能性永远不变。而生态系统中的一些投资者也在鼓励这种行为。你认为选择在"窗口开放"时上市的人，与那些仍然选择保持私营状态的人，有什么不同之处吗？
I think, I mean, they each have different reasons. Some may have just viewed from a financing opportunity, the ability to tap the public market both on the equity and the debt side to be simpler, right. As a public company, I think that's the big piece of it. Second, look, it could be a brand defining event for a company, right, for your product, for your employees, giving the level of transparency to your customers, that you're well funded, that you have a fortress balance sheet, you know, all of that you can withstand the regulatory scrutiny that comes.
我认为，每家公司都有不同的理由。 有些可能只是把它看作是一个融资机会，公开市场在股票和债务方面的获取能力更加简单。 作为一家上市公司，我想这是主要的一点。 其次，这可能是一个能定义公司品牌的重要事件，不管是对你的产品还是员工来说，它都能向客户展示出你的透明度，让他们知道你资金雄厚，财务状况稳健，并且有能力应对各种监管考验。
And even just the scrutiny from investors, right, that you have the discipline and with everything that comes, public people looking at your numbers, so all of those things, right. I happen to believe that all these companies should go public. I also think, by the way, there's a democratic element to it where I think the wealth creation belongs to the public market.
即使是投资者的审查，对吧，你必须有纪律性，因为一旦公司公开发布信息，公众就会关注你的财务数据等等。所有这些因素，我个人认为所有公司都应该上市。此外，我还认为这里有一个民主的因素，我认为财富的创造应该属于公开市场。
I think you attract different types of investors, not just frankly a public market versus a private market, but also the retail investor. What can you learn from the retail investor, either positive or negative about your business, right? I mean, I think it's such an important point. And I made this case to everybody at OpenAI. I think they're the most important company of the era. I think it's hugely important from a regulatory scrutiny and from the democratization of finance. It needs to be a public company. The idea that we're going to have trillion dollar companies and the only people who get to participate are the people sitting around this table, right. I just think it's unhealthy for our capital markets.
我认为你吸引了不同类型的投资者，不仅仅是公开市场与私人市场之间的投资者，还有个人投资者。你能从个人投资者那里学到什么—不论是关于你的业务的积极方面还是消极方面？我认为这是一个非常重要的观点。我向OpenAI的所有人提出了这个观点，我认为他们是这个时代最重要的公司。从监管审查和金融民主化的角度来看，这是至关重要的，它需要成为一家公众公司。想象一下，我们有万亿美元市值的公司，而唯一能参与的人只是坐在这里的人，我认为这对我们的资本市场是不健康的。
And the fact of the matter is, you know, we call these companies venture-back companies, but we all know there's a whole new market that's evolved here that I call quasi-public. These are companies over five or $10 billion in value. They would have all been public 10 or 15 years ago. Why? Because the private markets just didn't have the depth of capital to serve these companies and their voracious capital needs. And this is happening as we speak in private equity. Right. Some private equity companies just go from a private equity owner to another. Then you have continuation funds. You have big second transaction. This is happening in the private credit market where now you have a huge private credit as a class.
其实，我们称这些公司为创投支持公司，但我们都知道，这里已经发展出了一个全新的市场，我称之为“准公开”市场。这些公司的估值超过了50亿或100亿美元。十或十五年前，这些公司本来会公开上市。为什么呢？因为当时的私募市场没有足够的资金深度来满足这些公司及其庞大的资本需求。而这种情况正在私募股权领域发生着。有些私募股权公司的所有权只是从一个私募股权持有人转移到另一个持有人。接着你会看到延续基金出现，还有大型的二次交易。这种情况也在私募信贷市场发生，现在你会发现私募信贷已经成为一个庞大的资产类别。
Exactly. Not just so this sort of healthy tension between public and private is important. I just think that these super, super large private companies, if you're not willing to submit yourself to sort of the sunshine and the ray of light of the public markets, you're going to get it through a regulatory agency. So pick your poison and be careful that if you think you can live in the public market purely to sort of live in the shadows, that's not going to work as you become a large company. You'll be regulated. And so that's why maybe even more. Correct. That's why I really hope that these companies will choose to go public. You make the democrat, you know, retail investors should have access to these companies.
确实如此，这种公共和私营之间的健康紧张关系非常重要。我认为，那些超级大规模的私营公司，如果你不愿意接受公众市场的透明监督，那么你将会通过监管机构受到约束。因此，要小心选择，如果你认为可以躲在阴影里而不融入公众市场，那当你成为一个大公司时，这种做法是行不通的。你将会受到监管。因此，这就是为什么我更希望这些公司能够选择上市。这样做可以让普通投资者也有机会参与这些公司的发展。
But I just think in general, the concept of market market is not perfect and there's increased volatility. But every day we learn something and every day we know it's the price you can get today. Today, by the way, I thought one of our best speakers made this great point of just because I'm public doesn't mean I need to change how I run my business. Well, maybe we talk about Apple. On slides 91 and 92, 91 has Microsoft reach peak employees and 92 was about how Apple oven has gone AI first and had massive, you know, margin expansion or revenue per employee. I tweeted about this the other day. I called a game, the golden age of margin expansion. Right. If you look at the mag seven over the last three or four years, they've grown over 20% compounded.
总体来说，我认为市场这个概念并不完美，波动性也在增加。但每天我们都能学到新的东西，每天我们都知道今天可以获得的价格。顺便说一下，今天我们有一个非常优秀的演讲者，他指出了一个很好的观点：公开上市并不意味着我需要改变我经营业务的方式。也许我们可以谈谈苹果。在幻灯片的第91页和92页，91页讨论了微软是否达到员工数量的顶峰，而92页则展示了苹果如何将人工智能作为首要任务，并实现了巨大的利润增长或人均收入。我前几天在推特上提到这一点，称其为利润增长的黄金时代。如果你看看过去三四年中那几个科技巨头，它们的增长率超过了20%的复合增长率。
But the number of employees their op X is growing at 2%. We've never seen this in the history of technology that we've covered. So why don't you talk a little bit about it? You know, well, I loved this chart on 91. And previously, what we had is we just had the chart without the blue lines, right? Which basically this chart for those listening tracks Microsoft employee count. What we realized when we after we did this chart is we realized, wow, there's actually three distinct chapters that are kind of being told here. Chapter one is the Zerp era. It's COVID, software is everywhere. The only way these companies think they can grow is by hiring more people. So reflex big opportunity. I got it by the way, it made sense because if you grow by producing more code, you need more people for more code.
员工数量增长了2%。在我们所关注的技术历史中，从未见过这样的情况。你可以稍微谈谈这个吗？我很喜欢第91页的这张图表。之前我们有的图表是没有蓝色线条的。对于收听的观众来说，这张图基本上是展示了微软员工数量的变化。通过制作这张图表后，我们意识到，这里其实有三个不同的阶段。第一阶段是零利率时期，正值COVID大流行，软件无处不在。这些公司认为增长的唯一途径就是招聘更多的人。所以他们看到了巨大的机会。我理解这背后的逻辑，因为如果你通过生产更多的代码来增长，就需要更多的人来产出这些代码。
So I think it was completely logical. We got higher more. Okay. So that's the Zerp era. Then ironically, just as GitHub co-pilot comes in, Brad, familiar with the term the get fit era. This is like, wait, hold on. We need to get fit. We've gotten too big, right? And then you can see stabilization of headcount down in a lot of other companies. Now we're entering the AI era. And I do think it's kind of a provocative question, which is that has Microsoft reached the peak employee and well, they never crossed that threshold ever again. Right. I had conversation with the CFO of a major company recently and they said, thought experiment. What if our headcount was down 50% in three years?
所以我觉得这是完全合乎逻辑的。我们的员工数量增加了更多。好，这就是Zerp时代。具有讽刺意味的是，就在GitHub Copilot出现的同时，布拉德，你应该听说过“瘦身时代”这个说法。这就像是“等等，我们需要瘦身，我们已经变得太大了，不是吗？”然后你会看到很多公司的人数稳定下来了。现在我们进入了AI时代。我确实认为这是一个引人深思的问题，那就是微软是否已经达到员工数量的顶峰，并且可能再也不会超过这个高峰。我最近和一家大公司的首席财务官聊过，他们做了一个假设：如果我们的员工数量在三年内减少50%怎么办？
Right? Those questions have never been asked for companies that are growing in thriving. And I do think what I get excited about from as a public market investor, fully, it's not just that we're seeing a re-acceleration and top line growth for all these companies. Every one of these companies, literally from Uber, they're growing their top line without growing their headcount all the way to the largest of the Mag 7. But Apple oven is done as good a job. Tell everyone about this slide you put.
是这样吗？对于那些正在蓬勃发展的公司，这些问题从未被提出过。而作为一个公开市场的投资者，我为此感到兴奋，不仅仅是因为我们看到所有这些公司的营收再次加速增长。这些公司中的每一个，从 Uber 到 Mag 7 中最大的公司，他们的收入都在增长，而员工人数并没有增加。苹果在这方面也做得非常好。跟大家讲讲你做的这个幻灯片。
Yeah. So this is another one of my favorites, right? And what this slide does is it will track app loving a public company run by a brilliant, in my opinion, generational entrepreneur. And it basically looks at two things. One, it looks at the revenue of the company and your lies since Q2 2021. So that's the blue line. And second, the employee count over that same period, right? And basically 2021, big opportunity to got higher tons of employees to kind of try and capture it. What else can I do? Right? Then realizes, oh my god, my company's gone too big.
是的，这是我最喜欢的其中一个案例，对吧？这个幻灯片的作用是追踪App Lovin，一家由我认为极具才华的跨时代企业家经营的上市公司。它主要关注两点：第一，是自2021年第二季度以来公司的收入情况，这是用蓝色线表示的；第二，是同期的员工人数。基本上，2021年是一个很大的机会，公司雇佣了大量员工以期捕捉这个机遇。然后，意识到，天哪，我的公司规模变得太大了。
I've lost control of my culture. We're not innovating fast enough to what too many layers of bureaucracy. We're not set up to capture the opportunity. Right? Size is the workforce. At the same time as AI comes in, now the company's lean and mean, innovates, out competes, companies like Google and Meta, doubles the size of the company as the employee count is down over 35%. Right. Think about this. We just showed the slide of chat, GPT going parabolic. Google losing, right, page views. Google has 187,000 employees, open AI, 2700.
我对我们的企业文化失去了控制。我们创新的速度不够快，存在太多的官僚层级，导致我们无法抓住机遇。我们需要调整员工规模。当人工智能进入公司的同时，我们需要精简而有效地运作，才能超越像谷歌和Meta这样的公司，在员工数量减少35%的情况下，使公司规模翻倍。我们刚刚展示了一张关于ChatGPT快速发展的幻灯片，而谷歌的点击量正在下降。谷歌有187,000名员工，而OpenAI只有2700名。
We're not going to be a company of 20,000 employees. He didn't say we're not going to be a company of 187,000 employees, right? He's saying we're going to leverage our models, our agents, our capabilities, which is exactly what Jensen Huang said to us last year. He said, Brad, I'm going to 3X the company and our head count may not grow or only grow a little bit. I said, how? He said, because I'm going to have agents who are reporting to me. I'm not going to have employees who are who are.
我们不会成为一个拥有两万名员工的公司。他并没有说我们不会成为一个有十八万七千名员工的公司，对吧？他的意思是，我们将充分利用我们的模型、代理和能力，这正是黄仁勋去年对我们说的。他对我说，布拉德，我要把公司规模扩大三倍，而员工数量可能不会增加，或者仅仅增加一点点。我问他怎么做到的，他说，因为我会有代理为我工作，而不是传统意义上的员工。
I'll tell you what this made me think of. So back to the app love and slide. So in five years or four years, they doubled the revenue per employee. And now, you know, a company with a high growth rate that's profitable, that's thriving, is lowering head count. Because of AI, it really struck me that there's a level of confidence in a company's use of AI if they're willing to actually reduce head count.
我来告诉你这让我想到了什么。回到那个名为“爱与滑动”的应用。在四五年的时间里，他们的人均收入翻了一番。现在，这家公司尽管增长迅速且盈利，但正在减少员工数量。之所以如此是因为人工智能的发展，这让我更深刻地意识到：如果一个公司愿意减少员工，那说明他们对使用人工智能充满信心。
And a lot of companies give lip service to their using AI, but a willingness to reduce head count is a different level. And by the way, one point Adam would make if he was here, and I think it's important to state, he's not doing this because he's a masochist that loves to fire people, right? The reason he did this is he believed that that's the shape the company needed to be in to win and out compete. So I think that's really important.
很多公司都宣称自己在使用人工智能，但愿意减少员工人数则完全是另一个层次。顺便提一句，如果亚当在这里，他会指出一个很重要的观点——他这样做并不是因为他是个喜欢解雇员工的自虐狂。他之所以这么做，是因为他相信公司需要这种状态才能赢得竞争并脱颖而出。我认为这个非常重要。
It's not like, oh my gosh, all of a sudden, I want to be much more efficient. And I think that, you know, I can create so much more value. It's, I believe this is what the company needs to look like so I can win this market. We need to make decisions faster. We need fewer layers. Right. I think the motivation is really important. And this is just kind of an output of that.
这并不是说，天哪，我突然之间想变得更高效。我认为，我能创造更多的价值。而是，我相信公司需要这样的架构来赢得市场。我们需要更快地做出决策，需要精简层级。我觉得动机是非常重要的，而这些只是动机的具体表现。
The final thing I would say about this, Philippe, the thing that should give us confidence about this productivity explosion in the economy is at the end of the day, our economic productivity is just a combination of all these companies. If a lot of companies are doing this and you pile them all together, right, you're going to get more output for a fixed amount of labor and capital, right? That's going to drive the economic productivity.
我最后想说的是，菲利普，让我们对经济中的生产力爆炸有信心的是，归根结底，我们的经济生产力是所有公司综合作用的结果。如果有很多公司都在这么做，并且你把它们的成果都结合在一起，那么在固定的劳动力和资本投入下就会产生更多的产出。这正是推动经济生产力的关键。
The last thing to say on that, which is really important is someone is going to then say, my god, what's going to happen to employment? Yes. If we have all these companies that become so efficient, right? And I think today someone brought up the concept of Javan's paradox. Yes. And I'm going to actually use my chat GPT to study a little bit more over the next week or so. But it is the concept that sometimes as you have less employees and the cost of employment goes down, actually the unemployment rate will go down, not up.
最后要说的一点非常重要，那就是有人会问：“天哪，未来就业会怎样？”是的，如果所有公司都变得如此高效，会发生什么呢？今天有人提到了“杰文斯悖论”这个概念。是的，我准备在接下来的一周里用ChatGPT多研究一下。这个概念是说，有时候随着雇员数量减少和用人成本的降低，失业率实际上会下降，而不是上升。
And I'm really summarizing it in terrible terms. But I think it's really important to say that it's possible that companies need less employment, but more companies get created because it's much easier to create a company, smaller companies, vibrant companies get created. Jobs become more interesting. And so I think there's going to be a big debate around, okay, all they say, yeah, is it going to increase or reduce unemployment?
我用很简单的方式来总结这个观点。不过，我觉得很重要的一点是，企业可能需要的员工更少了，但因为现在创建公司的过程更简单了，越来越多的小型且充满活力的公司会出现。工作变得更有趣。因此，我认为会有很大的争议，人们会讨论这到底是会增加还是减少失业率。
And I'm not 100% sure, what's going to happen? But if you force me into an answer, I have faith that it might actually create more jobs, more interesting jobs with more responsibility versus the other way around.
我不能百分之百确定会发生什么。但如果你要我给个答案，我相信这可能会创造更多的工作，更多有趣且富有责任感的工作，而不是相反。
Yeah, we have two more slides we want to cover that I think maybe we're going to end with the best because you guys had a couple powerful things. The first was slide 98, right? After all of this, covering what's happening in public and what's happening in adventure. Thomas, I think you summed it up well, which is, okay, so what does this mean for me? If I'm a founder, if I'm a CEO, what does this mean for me or my company?
好的，我们还有两个幻灯片想要讲，我觉得可能是放在最后讲，因为里面有一些很有力的信息。首先是第98页，对吧？在这一切之后，我们讨论了公众领域和冒险领域的情况。托马斯，我觉得你总结得很好，就是说，好吧，那这对我来说意味着什么呢？如果我是创始人，或者我是CEO，这对我或者我的公司意味着什么？
So let me describe what Thomas did and Thomas, you can do the analysis from it, but he created a quadrant. And on one axis, he has growth rate above 25% or below 25%. And on this axis, you have profitability, either your cash flow positive or you're not. And so walk us through kind of your recommendation for companies that find themselves in each of these four quadrants.
让我描述一下托马斯所做的事情，你可以从中进行分析。他创建了一个象限图。在一个轴上，他标记了增长率是高于25%还是低于25%。在另一个轴上，他标记了盈利状况，即是否有正现金流。请为我们讲解一下，如果公司处于这四种象限中的任意一种状态，你有什么建议。
Yeah, I'm Philippe Chiming too. Look, we were very proud of the work that we put in this deck, but we also want to be mindful that it's a lot of data. And we thought about how do we crystallize everything that we see in the market from all the data, all the smart people that we talked to in terms of generating useful advice for entrepreneurs, right?
好的，我是Philippe Chiming。听我说，我们为这份展示材料所投入的努力感到非常自豪，但我们也意识到里面包含了大量的数据。于是我们思考，如何将市场上的各种信息、数据以及我们与许多智慧的人交流后获得的见解，提炼成对企业家有用的建议呢？
And so we kind of came up with this matrix. If you look at the left side, which is basically growing, companies growing in excess of 25%, right? And you might argue this is kind of the easiest bucket, you're growing 25%, but we do think the delta is kind of different. And by the way, one thing we skipped over, you guys had two or three slides on the fact that growth has become more scarce in the public market.
于是我们就想出了这个矩阵。如果你看左侧，基本上是指那些增长超过25%的公司，对吧？你可能会认为这是最简单的类别，增长25%，但我们认为这里的差异还是存在的。顺便说一下，我们刚才忘了提到，你们有两三页幻灯片是关于增长在公共市场变得更加稀缺的事实。
And there's a big delta now in revenue multiple for growth. And for, you know, and obviously diminishing multiples for people. Correct. So we have seen in the public market now growth be re-rewarded post 2021. So our advice being to entrepreneurs that if you are growing over 25%, you are profitable, time to think about whether you should be public.
现在，增长带来的收入倍数出现了很大的差异。显然，对人们而言，倍数在减少。因此，我们观察到，在公开市场上，自2021年以来，增长再次受到奖励。因此，我们给创业者的建议是，如果你的增长率超过25%并且盈利，那么就该考虑是否要上市了。
But that doesn't necessarily mean going public. As you well know, there's a difference between being IPO ready and going IPO. But we think certainly putting all the steps into place kind of starts to make sense. If you're burning, then now might be the time to build a fortress balance sheet. We just saw OpenAI raise 40 billion, right? These companies are accumulating massive war chests.
但这并不一定意味着要上市。你很清楚，做好上市准备和真正上市是有区别的。但我们认为，把一切步骤都准备好确实是有意义的。如果你正在亏损，那么现在可能是时候建立一个坚固的资产负债表了。我们刚看到OpenAI筹集了400亿，对吧？这些公司正在积累大量的资金储备。
So you don't want to lose out, time to really kind of build up your strengths. I think where I think you're going, Bill, and what we, you and I spent also a lot of time thinking about is what about the companies that aren't going 25%? And, you know, for Philippe and myself, we take the responsibility of having invested in companies really seriously.
所以你不想错失机会，现在是时候真正打造你的优势了。我觉得你要走的方向是这样的，比尔，我们花了很多时间考虑那些增长率没有达到25%的公司。对于菲利普和我来说，我们非常认真地对待在这些公司上的投资责任。
We're on the boards of many of the companies that we are invested in. And we don't bail on entrepreneurs, you know, when we make those commitments. So what do we do kind of in those companies, right? I think each bucket is interesting. The, okay, I'm growing less than 25%, but I'm profitable is kind of an interesting case study because that's where you might be complacent.
我们在许多我们投资的公司担任董事。当我们做出承诺时，我们不会对企业家撤资。那么，我们在这些公司中具体做些什么呢？我认为每个类别都很有趣。对于那些增长率低于25%但仍然盈利的公司，这是一个有趣的案例研究，因为这可能是容易自满的地方。
You might have said, look, I got fit post 21. You told me to cut my burn. I'm profitable now. And the reason I think a lot of companies ended up in these low growth situations is they had a ton of capital. We had that mini correction in 2021. Everybody said, get to cash rubric even. They all ran that way. But that meant cutting headcount, cutting programs that they might have been doing.
你可能会说，看，我在21岁之后变得健康了。你让我削减消耗，现在我已经盈利了。我认为很多公司陷入低增长状况的原因是他们拥有大量资金。在2021年我们经历了一次小型修正，大家都说要达到现金打平点。他们都朝那个方向努力了。但这意味着要削减员工数量和他们可能正在进行的项目。
And you end up in a low growth situation. Yeah. So we thought that actually this bucket now we're in a potentially generational transformation and architecture shift because of AI. Time to maybe look at and say, okay, what can AI do for your business? Is there a new way that you can invest? Is there an M&A opportunity or something interesting?
你最终会陷入一个低增长的局面。是的。所以我们认为，现在我们可能正处于一个由人工智能引发的影响几代人的转型和架构变革时期。也许是时候审视一下，看看人工智能能为你的业务做些什么？有没有新的投资方式？或者是否有并购机会或其他有趣的事情可以考虑？
So we think now you can afford to be a little bit more on your forward foot, right? You've gone the business healthy. You've shown you can be profitable. We have a generational architecture shift time to kind of see how we can play offense. Would that even include maybe becoming unprofitable? Potentially. Yeah. If you have the science and you really start to see the growth we accelerate because of it, potentially absolutely. Yeah. Right. A lot of AI companies are not profitable right now. So if you think you can win and you can benefit, I think that makes sense.
所以，我们现在认为你可以更加积极主动一些。你已经把业务打理得很好，并证明了自己可以盈利。现在是技术架构发生代际变革的时机，我们可以试着采取一些进攻策略。这甚至可能包括暂时不追求盈利？可能是的。如果你有足够的技术支持并且看到其带来的加速增长，那也许是绝对可能的。很多人工智能公司现在并不盈利。所以，如果你认为自己能够赢得市场并从中获益，我觉得这是合理的。
Yeah. This is probably the one I had the most debate about both myself with with with with others is what to do if you're growing less than 25 and you'll you're still burning capital. And look, obviously no one chooses to be in this position, right? Circumstances of the business, whether it's competitive dynamics or others have put you in this position and now the question is what to do. And I went through a lot of different iterations here and the best word I could come up with is it's time to reinvent and reinvent could mean a lot of different things.
好的。关于这个问题我可能讨论最多，无论是和自己还是和别人。这个问题就是：如果你的增长率低于25%，而且你还在消耗资本，该怎么办？显然，没有人会选择处于这样的境地。公司所处的环境，不管是竞争态势还是其他因素，把你逼到了这种地步。现在问题是，下一步该怎么做。我想了很多种解决方案，最终得出的结论是，现在是时候"重新创造"了。而"重新创造"可能意味着很多不同的方向。
So let me pause it that you might have two businesses. Let's say you were 50 million in revenue and you might have your 40 million core business not really growing the unit economics are tough. But maybe you think and maybe it's an on-premise product and now you've incubated a new SaaS cloud product that's maybe only one or two million in AR, but it's really growing quickly. It's putting the company back on offense. The team's really excited might be time to say, hey, let's go all in on this new product even though it's much smaller. Right. That's one reinvention.
假设你有两个业务。假设你有5000万的收入，其中核心业务是4000万，这个业务的单位经济效益不佳，增长缓慢。也许这个业务是一个本地部署的产品。然而，你新孵化了一个新的SaaS云产品，年经常性收入可能只有一两百万，但它正在快速增长，为公司带来了新的活力。团队对此非常兴奋，可能是时候全力投入到这个新产品上，即使它目前规模较小。这就是一种业务重塑。
So it might be you have a gem of an asset. It might be trying to open source something that previously you didn't, right? That's kind of what I mean by reinventing. It's the opportunity of looking at this moment and thinking, what can I do and also realizing that you as an entrepreneur have an opportunity cost them not to do another things. So the best word I could come up with is reinfin. It's going to mean different things to different people, but we thought now was the time to kind of think about that.
所以，可能你有一个宝贵的资产。也可能是尝试将之前没有开源的东西开源，对吧？这就是我所说的“重新发明”的意思。这个时刻提供了一个机会，让你可以思考：“我能做些什么？”同时也意识到，作为一个企业家，你有放弃其他事情的机会成本。我能想到的最好的词就是“重新发明”。对不同的人来说，这个词可能有不同的含义，但我们认为现在是考虑这个的时候了。
I thought this was amazing and I will tell you that I think one of the biggest challenges that these companies in this quadrant, and I think there's a lot of them. There may be a thousand of these out there. One of the big things problems I think they have is having survived to this point and having succeeded. Let's say they have revenue of 50 to 100 million dollars, they feel like they need to protect something and it puts them on the back foot, not the front foot, it makes them conservative.
我觉得这太令人惊讶了，我告诉你，我认为这些处于这个象限的公司面临的最大挑战之一是它们已经走到了这一步并取得了一定的成功。我认为这样的公司有很多，也许有上千家。它们面临的问题之一是，在实现5000万到1亿美元的收入后，它们觉得需要保护一些东西，这让它们变得保守，处于防守状态，而不是积极进取的状态。
And I like your word reinvent. They need to increase risk. They actually, because I think one of the problems is they don't, they don't internalize the fact that if they stay low growth at this size, their multiple could go from five to three to one, right, times revenue. And they're protecting something that doesn't exist. So I'll leave you with this last thought. Brad, you and I have talked about this. There's an amazing element of the venture community.
我喜欢你用“重塑”这个词。他们需要增加风险。实际上，我认为他们的一个问题是没能意识到，如果在这种规模下仍然保持低增长，他们的市盈率可能会从五倍降到三倍甚至一倍，对应收入来说。而他们一直在保护一些并不存在的东西。最后，我想留给你一个思考。布拉德，你和我曾经讨论过这个。风险投资界有一种令人惊叹的元素。
They too tend to be tribal. And I think there's a lot of benefits to that. But I also think there's a lot of benefits to what I'll call more mercenary thinking, right, which is more reinventing from the ground up. And I think that ultimately the combination of both of those, right, which tends to be more of a public mindset, again, because we do have the ability to sell and venture, don't, to us bringing those two kind of strains together in the board room, you know, can yield hopefully some good outcomes.
他们也倾向于具备部落性思维。我认为这样做有很多好处。但我也认为，具有一种我称之为“雇佣军式”的思维方式也有很多好处，这种思维方式更多是从头开始进行重新创造。我认为最终将这两种思维方式结合在一起，也就是说一种较为公众化的思维方式，因为我们确实有能力进行销售和风险投资；在会议室里结合这两种思路，希望能够带来一些好的结果。
Thomas, thank you for being with us. Thank you for having us at the event. It's really incredible. The amount of thought that went into this is extraordinary. And I would just say on behalf of all the founders, those people who partner with you like Altimeter and benchmark, what I love about this ecosystem, most people think that we compete like dogs. And but the truth of the matter is, you're one of the first people I call or leap when we're having when we're trying to figure something out.
托马斯，谢谢你和我们在一起。也感谢你邀请我们参加这次活动。真是太棒了！为了这次活动所付出的心思真的非常了不起。我想代表所有的创始人，以及像Altimeter和Benchmark这样与你合作的人说几句，我最喜欢这个生态系统的一点是，大多数人认为我们之间竞争激烈。但事实是，每当我们需要解决问题时，你是我第一个想到的人之一。
And you guys to us. And that's why Bill and I do this pod because we actually just want to be smarter and get to the right answer. And so appreciate you having us and an awesome job again. Thank you so much. As a reminder to everybody, just our opinions, not investment advice.
你们对我们来说也是如此。这就是为什么比尔和我做这个播客，因为我们实际上只是想变得更聪明，并找到正确的答案。所以非常感谢你邀请我们，做得很棒，再次感谢大家。提醒一下大家，这只是我们的观点，不是投资建议。