E129: Sam Altman plays chess with regulators, AI's "nuclear" potential, big pharma bundling & more
发布时间 2023-05-19 21:37:51 来源
I have a little surprise for my besties. Everybody's been getting incredible adulation. People have been getting incredible feedback on the podcast. It is a phenomenon as we know.
我有个小惊喜要送给我的好朋友们。大家一直受到了惊人的赞扬。人们对我们的播客给予了惊人的反馈。正如我们所知，这是一个现象。
I thought it was time for us to do performance reviews of each bestie. Now, I as executive producer, I'm not in a position to do your performance reviews. I too need to have a performance review.
我认为是时候我们评估一下彼此最亲密的人的表现了。现在，作为执行制片人，我不能对你们进行工作表现评价。我自己也需要进行表现评估。
So I thought I would let the audience do their performance reviews. So we went and we're debuting a new feature today. At this very moment, it's called Reddit performance reviews. Q some music here, some graphics. Reddit performance reviews.
所以我想让观众来做他们的表演评价。我们今天首次推出了一个新功能，它叫做 Reddit 表演评价。现在加一些音乐和图形，它就是 Reddit 表演评价。
And so we'll start off with you, David Friedberg. This proves why you haven't been successful in life so far. Haven't been successful.
那么我们就从您开始，David Friedberg。这证明了为什么您迄今为止在生活中还没有取得成功。还没有取得成功。
You're kidding me. I'm not trying to build a successful enterprise instead of keeping the judgment to yourself, which is what all elite performers do. Yes. You turned it over to a bunch of mids on Reddit. Yes. No, they were already doing it. They were already doing it. We just collected it.
你在开玩笑吧，我可不是试图建立一个成功的企业，而是保留自己的判断力，这也是所有优秀表现者所做的。是啊，你把这个交给了一群 Reddit 上的中层管理者。是的，他们已经在做了。我们只是收集了信息。
What elucidation were you going to get from Reddit? Yeah, really? Let's not ruin the bit. Do you think Elon does 360 performance reviews? Unread it. Unreadable thing. You know how many 360 performance reviews I've done in my life? Zero. Of course. And that's why this will be so entertaining.
你想从Reddit得到什么解释？是的，真的？让我们不要破坏这个点子。你认为埃隆会做360度的绩效评估吗？不要读它。这是一件无法理解的事情。你知道我一生中做了多少次360度绩效评估吗？是零。当然了。这就是为什么这会是如此有趣的原因。
Okay, go start off with me. Let's hear it. Okay. Okay. You are going to be presented with the candid feedback that you've gotten in the last 30 days on Reddit. But for the first time, and you have to read it out loud to the class. Freeberg, you'll go first. Here's your first piece of candid feedback in your 360 from the Reddit in cells. Go ahead, freeberg.
好的，和我一起开始吧。让我们听听。好的。好的。你将会被呈现出在过去30天里你在Reddit上得到的真实反馈。但是这是第一次，你必须大声向班级朗读出来。Freeberg，你先来。这是你从Reddit评论者那里得到的第一条真实反馈。请开始，Freeberg。
Read it out loud. David Friedberg deserves more hate. He and the others have made it their mission to convince us that reforming social securities the only way forward to survive. He hides behind this nerdy, apolitical persona and then goes hard right out of nowhere. It's that's fear mongered about the deficit as an excuse to restructure entitlement programs. We would see that as the partisan right wing take it is. When freeberg does it, we're supposed to act like he has no skin in this game. He's just the science guy. No. He's a rich guy who would rather work your grandparents to death than pay an extra 5% tax. All right.
大卫·弗里德伯格应该受到更多的谴责。他和其他人的使命是说服我们改革社会保障是唯一的生存之道。他藏在这个呆萌、与政治无关的形象后面，然后突然走向极右。他利用赤字来宣传恐惧，以借口重组福利计划。我们应该把这看作是党派右翼的立场。然而，当弗里德伯格这样做时，我们却应该假装他在这场游戏中没有利益关系。他只是科学家。不，他是一个富人，宁可剥夺你祖父母的生命，也不愿多交5%的税。
There's your review. Very good. I think you took it well. And you don't have to find out. I mean, don't be too anxious. just take it in. just account or briefly. I've highlighted multiple times. I think we're going to 70% tax rates, but hey, you know, reach their own. Everyone's got an opinion.
这是你的回顾。非常好。我认为你很好地接受了它。你不必去弄清楚。我的意思是，不要太焦虑。只是简单地记录或概述一下就好了。我已经多次强调过了。我认为我们将会有70%的税率，但是嘿，你知道的，不同人有不同看法。每个人都有自己的意见。
That won't generate more revenue. Yeah. History's any guide. Well, the audience has been waiting for this. David Sacks has never taken a piece of feedback and the feedback he has gotten, he hasn't taken well. So here we go, David.
那不会产生更多的收入。是的，历史就是这样。听众一直在等待着这一刻。David·Sacks从来没有接受过反馈，而且他得到的反馈也并不好。那么，David，我们开始了。
Here's your performance for you. Go ahead. I just read this. Go at the bit. Come on. It's a little feedback for you. Come on. All right. And I'm going to do this too. And I haven't seen mine. Oh, Nick pulled these. This is not a surprise.
这是你的表现结果。看看吧。我刚刚看了一下。加油吧。来吧。这是一个小小的反馈。加油啊。好的，我也要看我的。哦，Nick拿了这些。这不是什么惊喜。
This is a surprise. These are actual pieces of real feedback. Go ahead, Sacks. Take your **** fire. That's it. Get out of here. Go ahead, Sacks. Good. The thing about David Sacks, if he wasn't rich, everyone would dismiss him as being both stupid and boring. And the secret to his wealth is just follow Peter Tealorhouse since college. It's like if Turtle from Entraught pretended to be a public intellectual. It's great. Oh, it's good to work. Oh, I mean, okay.
这是一个惊喜。这些是真实反馈的实际片段。去吧，萨克斯。拿你的玩意儿。就是这样。滚出去。去吧，萨克斯。很好。关于大卫·萨克斯的事情是，如果他不富有的话，每个人都会认为他既愚蠢又无聊。而他财富的秘密只是从大学以来一直跟随彼得·泰勒海斯。这就像从Entraught来的海龟假装成公众知识分子一样。这很棒。噢，工作感觉不错。噢，我的意思是，还行。
So the dictator has never had a 360 review. He informs us. And I think his staff, you know, for all the people at social capital, you can get in on this by just posting to Reddit since he went to 360 reviews at social capital. Go ahead. Let's pull up your months. Feedback for the quarter.
这位独裁者从未接受360度评估，他让我们知道了这一点。我认为他的员工以及所有社交资本的人都可以通过在Reddit上发布来参与此项评估。来吧，让我们汇总你过去几个月的反馈意见。
Go ahead, Fitch. Here's your month. Here's your month. Here's your month. Here's your month. There's the biggest self-serving leech. As long as he can make a dollar trade on it, he will burn anything down to the ground. Fuck the consequences to society or anyone else. This was actually the good part. I don't know. It was a 360. This was the positive. Those were the pros. Yeah. That's not the truth. It is.
继续吧，菲奇。这是你的月份。这是你的月份。这是你的月份。那是最大的自私的寄生虫。只要他能从中赚钱交易，他会毁掉一切。他不管对社会或其他人造成的后果如何。这实际上是好的部分。我不知道。它经历了一次完全变化。这是积极的方面。那些都是优点。是啊。那并不是真相。但实际上是。
I got to read mine. I haven't seen this. I'm embracing for impact here. Oh, no. What's the critique exactly? What is the critique from all of these? I'm not going to approve from that. I mean, that's like, I can't really. Pretty accurate. Yeah.
我想要读我的那部分。我还没有看到过这个。我在这里做好了冲击准备。哦，不。到底是什么批评意见？这些批评意见是什么？我无法通过那个。我的意思是，我实在无法做出批复。相当准确。是的。
All right. Here we go. I got to read mine. Okay. I can't wait for AI to replace Jake Gal. Jake Gal is the least skilled knowledge worker on the show. I think he has about three shows left before AI replaces his hosting skills and ability to trick dentists into investing in hype. He puts. That's pretty good. That last part. I do have a lot of dentist friends in the funds. Okay.
好的，我们开始吧。我得读一下我的话。嗯，我迫不及待地想看到人工智能取代杰克·加尔了。在这个节目中，杰克·加尔是最缺乏技能的知识工作者。我觉得他只有三个演出的机会，然后人工智能就会取代他的主持技能，并且能够欺骗牙医投资炒作。他的表现不佳。这最后一部分说得很好。我有很多牙医朋友投资了这个基金。
I'm going to pay for a lot of kids dentists school. Great idea. Great idea, Jake Gal. What a great bet. There's one group one. There's one for the whole group. This is a group survey. This is our group 360. Vote to rename the podcast. The vote is binding and the podcast we're renamed. Whoa. Revealing years in Jake Gal, three kind of smart guys and Jake Gal. Three assholes and free. That's a pretty good survey. That was pretty good. Yeah. That's a good one. What are your winners? It's over. I'm going to. Yeah.
我要为很多孩子的牙医学校培训费付款。太好了，杰克·加尔（Jake Gal）有一个伟大的主意。这真是一个伟大的赌注。有一个小组的。这是一项小组调查。这是我们的小组360。投票重命名播客。投票是有约束力的，播客将被重新命名。哇，揭示了几年的杰克·加尔，三个聪明人和杰克·加尔。三个混蛋和免费的。这是一个相当不错的调查。那很不错。你们的赢家是什么？结束了，我要去了。
We open source into the hands and it's going to be easy with. We're still here, episode 129, all in Summit, 2023, general mission sold out. Too many people apply for scholarships, that's on pause. And there's a couple of VIP tickets left, get them while they're hot, just search for all in Summit, freeburg, anything to add.
我们把开源技术交到了大家手中，很容易上手。我们还在这里，第129集，全力以赴峰会将于2023年举行，普通任务已经售罄。由于申请奖学金的人太多，暂时停止接收申请。还有几张VIP票，抓紧时间购买，只需搜索全力以赴峰会，Freeburg，是否还有其他需要补充的内容？
We'll just get through the grift real quick here. I did, getting. No, it's good. Did I get it all right? That was it. Yeah. We looked for a bigger venue, couldn't find one. I think we're excited about Royce Hall. It's still, as you pointed out, two and a half times the size of last year. So we want to make sure it's a great quality event. But unfortunately, way too many folks want to go. So we have to kind of pause take it sales. What's my wine budget? $300 per person per night, $1,000 per VIP per event. Thank you. I will handle it from here. So there's $750 of them. So I think you have $750,000 in wine budget. Thank you. I mean, I just can't believe I just gave, I just bought $750,000. We got used to buy wine.
我们先快速处理一下这个骗局。我已经弄明白了。不，这很好。我做的没错吧？那就这样吧。我们找过更大的场地，但没找到。我觉得我们对罗伊斯礼堂很兴奋。正如你指出的那样，它的大小是去年的两倍半。所以我们想确保这是一个高质量的活动。但不幸的是，太多人想去了。所以我们不得不暂停销售。我的葡萄酒预算是多少？每位客人每晚300美元，每个贵宾每次1000美元。谢谢。我会自己处理。那么有750个他们，所以我想你有75万美元的葡萄酒预算。谢谢。我简直不敢相信我刚买了75万美元的葡萄酒。
Bye, guys. I'm going to curate an incredible wine here today, by the way. He's doing it. Oh, so many Hosh. Yes, so many Hosh. So many Hosh. So many Hosh. All right, let's get to work. Let's get to work.
大家再见。顺便说一下今天我要策划一款令人难以置信的美酒。他正在做这件事。啊，有那么多Hosh（可能是一种葡萄品种）。是的，有很多Hosh。那么多Hosh。那么多Hosh。好了，让我们开始工作。让我们开始工作。
Okay. The Senate had a hearing this week for AI. Sam Altman was there as well as Gary Marcus, a professor from NYU. Boston Overpriced College in New York City and Christina Montgomery, the Chief Privacy and Trust Officer from IBM, which had Watson before anybody else was in the AI business. And I think they deprecated it or they stopped working on it, which was quite paradoxical.
这周，参议院就人工智能问题进行了听证会。出席者包括萨姆·奥特曼（Sam Altman）和纽约大学教授加里·马库斯（Gary Marcus）。另外还有来自IBM的首席隐私和信任官克里斯蒂娜·蒙哥马利（Christina Montgomery），IBM是在人工智能领域中最早拥有沃森（Watson）的公司。然而值得注意的是，IBM最终放弃使用这个项目，这是非常矛盾的行为。
There were a couple of very interesting moments. Sam claimed the US should create a separate agency to oversee AI, I guess, is in the Chimouth Camp. He wants the agency to issue licenses to train and use AI models. A little regulatory capture there as we say in the biz. He also claims, and this was interesting, dovetailing with Elon's CMC interview with I think Dave Farber, which is very good, that he owns no equity in open AI whatsoever and was quote, doing it because he loves it.
有几个非常有趣的时刻。萨姆声称美国应该创建一个独立的机构来监督人工智能，我猜想是在Chimouth营地。他希望该机构发放许可证以培训和使用AI模型。我们称之为“规制独占”。此外，他还声称，这很有趣，与埃隆的CMC采访有交集，我想是与Dave Farber。他完全没有持有Open AI的股权，并且引用他的话说，他这么做是因为他热爱它。
Any thoughts, Chimouth, you did say that this would happen two months ago. And here we are two months later. And exactly what you said would happen is in the process of happening, regulation licensing and regulatory capture. Sam went a little further than I sketched out a few months ago, which is that he also said that it may make sense for us to issue licenses for these models to even be compiled. And for these models to actually do the learning. And I thought that that was really interesting because what it speaks to is a form of KYC, right? Know your customer. And again, when you look at markets that can be subject to things like fraud and manipulation, right, where you can have a lot of bad actors banking is the most obvious one.
亲爱的Chimouth，你曾在两个月前说过这种事情会发生。如今两个月过去了，正如你所说的那样，监管许可和监管控制正在发生。Sam进一步提出了一些我几个月前勾勒出来的想法，他还说，我们发行这些模型的许可证甚至编译这些模型进行学习可能是有意义的。我认为这很有趣的原因是它呈现出一种了解客户的形式，对吧？而当你看看那些容易受到欺诈和操纵影响的市场时，你会发现银行是最明显的一个。
We use things like KYC to make sure that money flows are happening appropriately and between parties that where the intention is legal. And so I think that that's actually probably the most important new bit of perspective that he is adding as somebody right in the middle of it, which is that you should apply to this agency to get a license to then allow you to compile a model. And I think that that was a really interesting thing.
我们使用KYC等工具来确保资金流动是合适的，并且在意图合法的各方之间进行。所以我认为，他作为其中一位关键人物所提供的观点，将申请机构获得许可以允许你编译模型，可能是最重要的新视角。我认为这是一个非常有趣的事情。
The other thing that I said, and I said this in a tweet just a couple days ago, is I'm really surprised actually where this is the first time in modern history that I can remember where we've invented something, we being Silicon Valley.
我说的另一件事情，就是我在几天前的推文中说到的，让我非常惊讶的是这是现代史上我所能记得的第一次发明，发明者是硅谷。
And the people in Silicon Valley are the ones that are more circumspect than the folks on Wall Street or other areas. And if you see, if you gauge the sentiment, the hedge funds and family offices right now are just giddy about AI.
硅谷的人比华尔街或其他地区的人更加谨慎。如果你观察情绪，你会发现目前对于人工智能，对冲基金和家族办公室感到非常兴奋。
And it turns out if you look at the 13 Fs, they're all long and video and AMD. But if you actually look at the other side of the coin, which is the folks in Silicon Valley that's actually making it, the rest of us are like, hey, let's crawl before we walk before we run. Yeah, let's think about guard rails. Let's be thoughtful here.
事实证明，如果你看看那13个F公司，它们都是长视频和AMD。但如果你实际上看看硅谷这个行业正在创造的东西，我们其他人都想走路之前先爬一爬。是的，让我们考虑护栏，要有思考的态度。
And so the big money people are saying, let's place bets and the people building in are saying, hey, let's be thoughtful, sack, which is opposite to what it's always been, I think. Right. We're like, hey, let's run with this. And Wall Street's like, prove it to me.
因此大笔投资者表示，让我们下注；而建筑业者则说，嘿，让我们谨慎一点，这和以往不同，我认为。对啊，我们像是在说，嘿，让我们往前冲。而华尔街则是，证明给我看。
Sacks, you are a less regulation guy. You are a free market monster. I've heard you've been called you don't believe that we should license this. What do you think about what you're seeing here? And there is some cynical, cynical thoughts about what we just saw happen in terms of people in the lead wanting to maintain their lead by creating red tape. What are your thoughts?
萨克斯，你是一个反对管制的家伙。你是自由市场的怪物。听说你被称为不信任我们应该许可这个行业的人。对于你在这里看到的情况，你有什么看法？同时，对于那些试图通过制定繁琐的规定来维持其领先地位的人们，我们刚刚看到的这些愤世嫉俗的想法，你有什么想法？
Yeah, of course. I think Sam just went straight for the end game here, which is regulatory capture. Normally, when a tech executive goes and testifies at these hearings, they're in the hot seat and they get grilled. And that didn't happen here because, you know, Sam Alman basically bought into the narrative of these senators.
当然了。我认为Sam直接进入了最终目标，即监管劫持。通常情况下，当科技高管前往参加这些听证会时，他们会处在热烈的讨论之中被严加审问。但这次并不是这样的，因为Sam Alman本质上认同了这些参议员的说法。
And he basically conceded all these risks associated with AI, talked about how chat GPT style models, if unregulated, could increase online misinformation, bolster cyber criminals, even threatened confidence in election systems. So he basically bought into the center's narrative and like you said, agreed to create a new agency that would license models and can take licenses away.
他基本上承认了人工智能所涉及的所有风险，谈到了聊天GPT风格的模型如果未受监管，可能会增加在线误导信息、增强网络犯罪分子，甚至威胁选举系统的信任度。所以他基本上认同了中心的说法，如你所说，同意创建一个新机构，授权模型并可以收回许可证。
He said that he would create safety standards, specific tests that Amal has to pass before. It can be deployed. He says you would require independent audits who can say the model is or is an incompliance. And by basically buying into their narrative and agreeing to everything they want, which is to create all these new regulations and a new agency, I think that Sam is pretty much guaranteeing that he'll be one of the people who gets to help shape the new agency and the rules they're going to operate under and what these independent audits are going to, how they're going to determine what's in compliance.
他表示要制定安全标准，并规定Amal必须通过特定测试才能被部署。他认为需要进行独立审计，以确定该模型是否符合标准。如果我们完全接受他们的说法并同意他们想要的一切，即制定所有这些新规定和新机构，我认为Sam几乎可以保证成为塑造新机构和规则的人之一，包括这些独立审计将如何确定是否符合标准。
So he is basically putting a big boat around his own incompatibility here. And so yes, it is a smart strategy for him. But the question is, do we really need any of this stuff? And what you heard at the hearing is that just like with just about every other tech issue, the centers on the judiciary committee didn't exhibit any real understanding of the technology.
他基本上是在自己的不兼容性周围搭建大船。所以，这对他来说是一种聪明的策略。但问题是，我们真的需要这些东西吗？在听证会上，你听到的是，就像几乎所有其他科技问题一样，司法委员会的中心并没有展示出任何对技术的真正理解。
And so they all generally talked about their own hobby horses. So you heard from Senator Blackburn, she wants to protect songwriters. Holly wants to stop anti conservative bias. Klobuchar was touting a couple of bills that have her name on them. One's called the JCPA journalism competition preservation. What does Bernie Sanders want to do? He wants to protect the one percent of the one percent. Durbin hates section 230, that was the hobby horse. He was riding and then Senator Blumenthal was obsessed.
所以，他们大多数人都谈论了自己的爱好和关注点。你从布莱克本参议员那里听到了，她想保护词曲作者。霍利想停止反保守主义的偏见。克洛布彻正在推销几个以她的名字命名的法案。其中一个被称为JCPA新闻竞赛保护法案。伯尼·桑德斯想做什么呢？他想保护那百分之一的百分之一。德宾憎恨第230节，那是他骑着的爱好。然后参议员布卢门撒尔痴迷于。
That someone had published deep fakes of himself. So all of these different senators had different theories of harm that they were promoting. They were all basically hammers looking for a nail. They all wanted to regulate this thing. And they didn't really pay much of any attention to the ways that existing laws could already be used to stop any of these things.
有人发布了自己的深伪作品。所以这些不同的参议员都有不同的伤害理论。他们都是找钉子的锤子。他们都想规范这件事。但他们并没有真正关注现有法律已经可以用来制止任何这些事情的方式。
If you commit a crime with AI, there are plenty of criminal laws. Every single thing they talked about could be handled through existing law. If they are not being harmed at all. But they want to jump right to creating a new agency and regulations. And Sam, I think did the, you know, expedient thing here, which is basically buy into it in order to make a game.
如果你利用人工智能犯罪，有很多刑法可以适用。他们讨论的每一件事都可以通过现有法律解决。如果他们没有受到任何伤害。但是他们想要直接创建新的机构和监管规定。萨姆在这里采取了方便的做法，基本上是为了制作游戏而采取这种做法。
This was a chess game. If this was a chess game, Sam got to the mid game. He traded all the pieces and went right to the end game. Let's just try to checkmate here. I've got the lead. I've got the 10 billion from Microsoft. Everybody else get a license and try to catch up.
这是一场象棋比赛。如果这是一场象棋比赛，Sam已经到了中盘。他把所有的棋子都换掉了，直接进入了后期比赛。现在让我们试着将对方赶进死角。我领先了，我得到了微软的 100 亿美元。其他人可以申请许可证并努力赶上。
Friedberg. We have Schemaq Pro regulation licensing, I think, or just being pretty thoughtful about it there. You got a sax being typically a free market monster. Let the laws be what they are. But these senators are going to do regulatory cap for. Where do you, as a Sultan of science stand on this very important issue?
弗里德伯格，我们有Schemaq Pro规章认证许可，我想，或者只是在这方面非常周到。你有一个萨克斯通常是一个自由市场怪物。让法律成为它们本来的样子。但这些参议员将进行监管上限。作为科学的苏丹，您对这个非常重要的问题站在哪里？
意思是：虽然Sax是一个自由市场的怪物，但是政府需要进行监管以保障公共利益。问对于这个问题，身为科学领域的专家，个人/专业立场是怎样的。
I think there's a more important kind of broader set of trends that are worth noting and that the folks doing these hearings and having these conversations are aware of, which implies why they might be saying the things that they're saying. That's not necessarily about regulatory capture.
我认为还有一些更重要的趋势值得注意，参与听证会和对话的人们也意识到了这一点，这就说明了他们为什么会说他们所说的话。这并不一定涉及到监管机构的控制。
And that is that a lot of these models can be developed and generated to be much smaller. We're seeing, you know, models that can effectively run on an iPhone. We're seeing a number of open-source models that are being published now. There's a group called Mosaic ML.
这就是很多这些模型可以被开发和生成得更小。我们看到，有一些模型可以有效地在iPhone上运行。我们看到现在有许多开源模型正在被发布。有一个名为Mosaic ML的团体。
Last week, they published what looks like a pretty good quality model that has, you know, a very large kind of token input, which means you can do a lot with it. And that model can be downloaded and used by anyone for free, you know, really good open-source license that they provided on that model.
上周，他们发表了一个看起来质量相当不错的模型，它具有非常大的标记输入，这意味着您可以做很多事情。这个模型可以免费下载和使用，他们提供了一个非常好的开源许可证。
And that's really just the tip of the iceberg on what's going on, which is that these models are very quickly becoming ubiquitous, commoditized, small, and effectively are able to move to and be run on the edge of the network.
这只是冰山一角，实际上这些模型正在迅速普及、市场化、变得更小，有效地能够移动到并在网络边缘运行。
As a result, that means that it's very hard to see who's using what models how behind the products and tools that they're building. And so if that's the trend, then it becomes very hard for a regulatory agency to go in and audit every server or every computer or every computer on a network and say, what model are you running?
因此，这意味着很难看到谁在使用哪些模型，以及他们正在构建的产品和工具背后的具体情况。因此，如果这是一个趋势，那么监管机构就很难进入并审核每台服务器、每台计算机或每个网络上的计算机，以了解它们正在运行哪个模型。
And a proof model is not an approved model. It's almost like having a regulatory agency that has to go in and audit and assess whether a Linux upgrade or some sort of open-source platform that's being run on some server is appropriately vetted and checked. And so it's almost like a fool's errand.
证明模型并不是经过批准的模型。这就像一个监管机构需要对运行在某个服务器上的Linux升级或某种开源平台进行审核和评估是否经过适当的审查和检查。这几乎是一项不可行的任务。
And so if I'm running one of these companies and I'm trying to, you know, get Congress off my butt and get all these regulators off my butt, I'm going to say, go ahead and regulate us. Because the truth is there really isn't a great or easy path or ability to do that.
因此，如果我经营着这些公司之一，我正在努力让国会和所有监管机构关注，那么我会说，继续监管我们吧。因为事实上，并没有一条伟大或容易的道路或能力去做到这一点。
And there certainly won't be in five or ten years. Once these models all move on to the edge of the network and they're all being turned around all the time every day and there's a great evolution underway.
在未来5年或10年内，肯定不会出现这种情况。一旦这些模型都移动到网络的边缘，每天都在不断地反复使用，并且正在进行巨大的演进。
So I actually take a point of view that it's not just that this is necessarily bad and there's cronyism going on. I think that the point of view is just that this is going to be a near impossible task to try and track and approve LLMs and audit servers and a running LLMs and audit apps and audit what's behind the tools that everyday people are using.
我认为这件事不仅仅是坏的，并且存在裙带关系。我的观点是，这将是一项非常困难的任务，因为我们需要跟踪和批准LMLs，并审计服务器、运行的LML应用程序以及每天人们使用的工具背后的内容。
And I wish everyone the best of luck in trying to do so. But that's kind of the joke of the whole thing. It's like, let's go ahead and paddle these Congress people on the shoulder and say, you got it. You're right.
我祝愿每个人在尝试做到这一点时都能好运。不过这就是整个事情的笑话所在。就像在划桨时去拍一下国会议员的肩膀，并说，“你做到了。你是对的。”
There you have it, folks. Wrong answer, schmothasax. Right answer, freeberg. If you were to look at hugging face, if you don't know what that is, it's a, basically an open-source repository of all of the LLMs.
大家听好了，答案是错的是schmothasax，对的是freeberg。如果你不知道什么是hugging face，它基本上是包含所有LLMs开源代码库的一个开源仓库。
The cat is out of the bag. The horses have left the barn. If you look at what I'm showing on the screen here, this is the open LLM leaderboard, kind of buried on hugging face. If you haven't been to hugging face, this is where developers show their work.
猫已经出笼了，马已经跑了。如果你看一下屏幕上我展示的内容，这是在Hugging Face上被埋藏的公开LLM排行榜。如果你还没有去过Hugging Face，这是开发人员展示他们的工作的地方。
They share their work. And they kind of compete with each other in a social network showing all their contributions. And what they do here is, and this is super fascinating, they have a series of tests that will take an LLM, the language model, and they will have it do science questions.
他们分享自己的工作，并在社交网络上展示彼此的贡献并进行一定的竞争。令人着迷的是，他们进行一系列测试，让一个语言模型（LLM）回答科学问题。
That would be for grade school. They'll do a test of mathematics, US history, computer science, etc. There's a deputy test, too. I don't know if it's on here, but the Jeopardy test is really good. It's like straight up Jeopardy trivia and see if it can answer any questions.
这是小学的考试内容，包括数学、美国历史、计算机科学等科目。还有一个副测试题。我不确定是否包含在这里，但是Jeopardy测试题非常好。就像是直接出自Jeopardy的知识问答，看看是否能回答所有问题。
Which actually, freeberg was actually his high school Jeopardy championship three years in a row. But anyway, on this leaderboard, you can see the language models are outpacing what Open AI did, I'm sorry, closed AI is what I call it now because they're closed source.
实际上，Freeberg曾经三年连续赢得高中Jeopardy冠军。但无论如何，在这个排行榜上，你可以看到语言模型正在超越Open AI所做的事情，我很抱歉，现在我称它为封闭AI，因为它们是闭源的。
意思是说，Freeberg曾经三年连续赢得高中Jeopardy冠军。此外，这个人在评论语言模型的排名时表示，语言模型正在跑在封闭AI之前，因为后者是闭源的。
Closed AI and BARD have admitted that internal person at BARD said the language models here are now outpacing what they're able to do with much more resources. Many hands make for Lightwork. The open source models are going to fit on your phone or the latest, you know, Apple Silicon, so I think the cat's out of the bag.
Closed AI和BARD已经承认，BARD内部的人说，这里的语言模型现在已经超越了他们使用更多资源所能做到的。众人拾柴火焰高。开源模型将适合于您的手机或最新的，您知道的苹果硅片，所以我想这个问题已经不是什么秘密了。
I don't know how they pull it out. There's nothing incompatible about that. What freeberg just said with what I said. In fact, freeberg's point bolsters my point.
我不知道他们是怎么做到的。但这与我的说法没有矛盾之处。实际上，Freeberg的观点支持了我的观点。
It's highly impractical to regulate open-source software in this way. Also, when you look at that list of things that people are doing on hugging face, there's nothing nefarious about it. And all the harms that were described are already illegal and can be prosecuted.
以这种方式管理开源软件是极不切实际的。此外，当您查看人们在拥抱面上所做的事情列表时，没有任何恶意。而且，已经描述的所有危害都是非法的，并且可以被起诉。
Exactly. You need some special agency, you know, giving it seal of approval. Again, this is going to replace permissionless innovation, which is what has defined the software industry and especially open source with the need to develop some connection or relationship and lobbying in Washington to go get your project approved. And there's no really good reason for this, except for the fact that the senators on the judiciary committee and all of Washington really wants more control so they can get more donations.
确实。你需要一些特殊机构，你知道的，给它批准的印章。再次强调，这将取代无需许可的创新，这是定义软件行业和特别是开源的要义，需要开展一些联系或关系，并在华盛顿游说，以获得您的项目批准。除了司法委员会的参议员和整个华盛顿想要更多的控制以获取更多捐款之外，没有真正的好理由。
Next I have a question, do you think that creating the DMV and requiring a driver's license limits the ability for people to learn how to drive? The DMV is like the classic example of how government doesn't work. I don't know why you'd want to make that your example. I mean, people have to spend all day waiting and long. He sends people to it. He's got a VIP per hour. You know, it's been a whole day waiting and long to get your photo taken and since saying. I mean, everyone has a miserable experience with it.
接下来我有一个问题，您认为创建车辆管理局并要求驾驶执照是否会限制人们学习如何开车的能力？车辆管理局就像政府不起作用的典型例子。我不知道您为什么想把它作为例子。我的意思是，人们不得不花一整天时间等待和排队。他一小时只能处理一个VIP。你知道，等待时间很长，拍照和签名需要一整天时间。我的意思是，每个人都对此有一种痛苦的经历。
No, but it's highly relevant because you're right. If you create an agency where people have to go get their permission, it's a licensing scheme. You're going to be waiting in some line of untold lengths. It won't be like a physical line at the DMV building. It's going to be a virtual line where you're in some queue where there's probably going to be some overwork regulator who doesn't even know how this was to approve your project. They're just going to be trying to cover their ass because if the project ends up being something nefarious, then they get blamed for it. So that's what's going to end up happening.
不，但这很相关，因为你说得没错。如果你创建一个需要人们去获得许可的机构，那就是一个许可方案。你将会排着无数人长队等待。这不会像在DMV建筑物的实际排队。这将会是一个虚拟排队，你会在其中等待，可能会有一些超负荷的监管人员，他们甚至不知道这个项目的批准该如何进行。他们只会试图掩盖自己，因为如果该项目最终成为不良行为，他们将为此受到指责。这就是最终会发生的情况。
Let me also highlight something that I think is maybe the guttening of it. A little bit misunderstood. But an AI model is an algorithm. So it's a piece of software that takes data in and spits data out. And we have algorithms that are written by humans. We have algorithms that have been written by machines. These are machine learn models, which is what a lot of what people are calling AI today is effectively an extension of and out of. And so the idea that a particular algorithm is differentiated from another algorithm is also what makes this very difficult because these are algorithms that are embedded and sit within products and applications that an end user and end customer ultimately uses.
让我强调一下，可能有一些被曲解的地方。AI模型本质上是一个算法，它是一种通过输入数据并输出数据的软件。我们有人工编写的算法，也有机器编写的算法。这些都是机器学习模型，而今天人们所谓的人工智能实际上是机器学习模型的延伸和发展。因此，一个特定的算法与另一个算法的区别也是使这个问题变得非常困难的原因，因为这些算法是嵌入在最终用户和客户使用的产品和应用程序中的。
And I just sent you guys a link to the EU has been working towards passing this AI out. Here we go. There are a couple of weeks ahead of these conversations in the US. But as you read through this AI act and the proposal that it's put forth, it almost becomes the kind of thing that you say, I just don't know if these folks really understand how the technology works because it's almost as if they're going to audit and have an assessment of the risk level of every software application out there.
我刚刚给你们发送了一个链接，展示了欧盟一直在推动通过这一人工智能法案。在美国，这些讨论还需要几周的时间。但是，当你阅读这个AI法案和提议时，你会发现他们似乎要审查和评估所有软件应用程序的风险水平，这让你对它们是否真正理解这项技术产生了疑问。
And that the tooling and the necessary infrastructure to be able to do that just makes no sense in the context of open source software in the context of an open internet in the context of how quickly software and applications and tools evolve and you make tweets to an algorithm and you got to resubmit it for authorization. Oh, really? Sure. Their number one job, Friedberg, is going to be to protect jobs. So anything there that in any way infringes on somebody's ability to be employed in a position whether it's an artist or a writer or a developer, they're going to say, you can't use these tools.
从开源软件、开放互联网及软件、应用和工具的快速发展的背景来看，实现这一切所需的工具和基础设施在这种情境下根本没有意义。你以算法方式发布推文，必须重新提交进行授权，真的吗？当然。弗里德伯格的首要工作将是保护就业，因此，如果有任何东西会侵犯某人在职业方面的能力，无论是艺术家、作家还是开发人员，他们会说你不能使用这些工具。
They're asking a question in a job of all three of you. Do you guys think this was Sam's way of pulling up the ladder behind him? Of course. No. Just like. Absolutely, and it's because you can prove it. He made OpenAI close AI by making it not open source. If you're Sam, you're smart enough to know how quickly the models are commoditizing and how many different models there are that can provide similar degrees of functionality as you just pointed out, J. Cal.
他们在问你们三个人的工作中的一个问题。你们认为这是Sam翘掉梯子的方式吗？当然是。不是。就像。绝对是，因为你可以证明它。他通过使OpenAI不开源而使AI关闭。如果你是Sam，你足够聪明会知道模型如何迅速实现商品化以及有多少不同的模型可以提供类似的功能程度，正如你刚才指出的，J. Cal。
So I don't think it's about trying to lock in your model. I think it's about recognizing the impracticality of creating some regulatory regime around model auditing. And so you're very, so that in that world, in that scenario where you have that vision, you have that foresight, do you go to Congress and tell them that they're dumb to regulate AI or do you go to Congress and you say, great, you should regulate AI. Knowing that it's like, hey, yeah, you should go ahead and stop the sun from shining. You know, like it's just, yeah, so basically he's telling him to do that because he knows they can't.
我认为这不是要试图固定你的模型。我认为这是要认识到创建某种模型审计的监管制度的不可行性。因此，在这种世界、这种情况下，如果你有这样的愿景、这样的远见，你会去向国会说他们对监管人工智能的行为是愚蠢的，还是会向国会说，很好，你应该监管人工智能。我们知道这就像是让他们停止太阳照耀一样困难。基本上他是告诉他这样做是因为他知道他们做不到。
Therefore he gets all the points, all the joy points, all the social credit, I don't want to say, virtual signaling, but he gets all the credit, relationship credit with Washington for saying what they want to hear and reflecting back to them. Even though he knows they can't be with Facebook's open model, which is number one. Yeah, there is historical precedent. Interesting. I do.
因此，他得到了所有的积分，所有的快乐积分，所有的社交信用。我不想说，他得到了所有的虚拟信号，但他得到了所有的荣誉，所有的与华盛顿的关系信用，因为他说了他们想听的话，并将其反映回他们。尽管他知道他们不能采用Facebook的开放模式，这是第一位的。是的，有历史先例。很有趣，我很赞同。
For companies that are facing congressional scrutiny to go to Congress and say, go ahead and regulate us as a way of. For freedom relief. Yeah. That doesn't necessarily mean you're going to get regulated, but it's a way of kind of creating some relief and getting everyone to take a breather and a sigh of relief and be like, okay, the industry is with us. You know, they're.
一些面临国会审查的公司会向国会表示：请管制我们，为自由减负。这并不意味着它们一定会被管制，而是一种创造缓解和让所有人放松的方式，这样大家就会感到行业支持我们，他们和我们一起。
What do you think of the guard edge strategy? Yeah, the guard edge strategy he's pulling here. What's guard does? I think that's in chess when you are going to take the queen. What's like a, anyway, what do you think of his chess moves? I think there it to you. That's not a strategy in chess. So I think it is a chess move.
你觉得防守边缘策略怎么样？是啊，他在这里采取的是防守边缘策略。防守边缘有什么作用？我想在国际象棋中这是指当你想要吃掉对方的皇后。不管怎样，你觉得他的棋步怎么样？我觉得这个策略并不是国际象棋的策略，但这个棋步应该算是国际象棋棋步之一。
Nonetheless, is he pulling up the ladder sex or no? I don't think that's his number one goal, but I think it is the result. And so I think the goal here is, I think he's got two paths in front of him when you go to testify like this. You can either resist and they will put you in the hot scene and just grill you for a few hours or you can sort of concede and you buy into their narrative and then you kind of get through the hearing without being grilled.
然而，他是否在拉起楼梯式性行为呢？我不认为那是他的头号目标，但我认为那是结果。因此，我认为他的目标是，当你像这样作证时，他面前有两条道路。你可以抵抗，他们会让你在热门场景中接受审问几个小时，或者你可以妥协，接受他们的叙述，然后你可以在听证会上通过而不被审问。
And so I think on that level, it's preferable just to kind of play ball. And then the other thing is that by playing ball, you get to be part of the Insiders Club that's going to shape these regulations. And that will, I wouldn't say it's a ladder coming up. I think it's more of a moat where because it's not that the ladder comes up and nobody else can get in, but the regulations are going to be a pretty big moat around major incumbents who know they qualify for this because they're going to write these standards.
因此，我认为在这个层面上，最好的方法就是顺应形势。通过这种方式，你可以成为内部人士的一员，参与制定这些规定。这并不是说你可以靠这个得到什么，而是这些规定会成为一个非常大的壕沟，让那些符合标准的主要企业在其中站稳脚跟，而制定这些标准的人就是他们自己。
So at the end of the day, if you're someone in Sam's shoes, you're like, why resist and make myself a target? Or I'll just buy into the narrative and help shape the regulations and it's good for my business. I like the analysis, gentlemen. This is a perfect analysis.
最终， 如果你像Sam一样的人，为什么要抵抗并使自己成为目标呢？或者我只是接受这种说法并帮助制定规定来促进我的业务。先生们的分析很好，这是一种完美的分析。
Let me ask you a more quick question. To me, what is the commercial incentive from your point of view to ask for regulation and to be pro-regulation? Your pro-regulation, can you just highlight for me at least what you think, you know, the commercial reason is to do that. You know, how do you benefit from that? Like not you personally, but generally like, where does benefit arise?
让我快速问你一个问题。从你的角度来看，推崇监管和寻求监管的商业激励是什么？你赞成监管，你能简单地给我说明一下你认为的商业原因是什么吗？你知道，你从中受益吗？不是个人层面，而是一般情况下，哪里会产生好处？
I think that certain people in a sphere of influence and I would put us in that category, have to have the intellectual capacity to see beyond ourselves and ask what's for the greater good. I think Buffett is right two weeks ago, he equated AI to nuclear weapons, which is an incredibly powerful technology whose genie you can't put back in the bottle, whose 99.9% of use cases are generally quite societally positive, but the 0.1% of use cases destroys humanity.
我认为在某个影响力圈中的一些人，我把我们归入这个类别，必须具备超越个人利益的智力能力，并思考什么是更大的公益。我认为巴菲特两周前说的话是正确的，他把人工智能比喻成核武器，这是一项非常强大的技术，其魔灵已经难以收回，99.9%的使用案例通常在社会上非常积极，但是0.1%的使用案例会摧毁人类。
And so I think you guys are unbelievably naive on this topic and you're letting your ideology fight your common sense. The reality is that there are probably 95 billion trillion use cases that are incredibly positive, but the 1,000 negative use cases are so destructive and they're equally possible. And the reason they're equally possible, and this is where I think there's a lot of intellectual dishonesty here, is we don't even know how transformers work.
因此，我认为你们对这个话题非常幼稚，让你们的意识形态战胜了你们的常识。事实是，可能有9500亿亿个用例是非常积极的，但是1000个负面用例是非常破坏性的，它们同样可能发生。而这些负面用例同样可能发生的原因，在于我们甚至不知道变压器是如何工作的，这就是我认为在这里存在许多知识不诚实的地方。
The best thing that happened when Facebook open source Lama was also that somebody stealthily released all the model weights. Yeah. Okay, so I don't think that- I think a little bit for Nea, if I what we're talking about here. So there's the model and there's the weights. Think about it as it's a solution to a problem.
当Facebook开源Lama时最棒的事情之一是有人偷偷地发布了所有的模型权重。嗯，好的，我不认为-我认为对于Nea来说还需要再解释一下我们在这里谈论的是什么。所以有模型和有权重，可以将其看作是解决问题的方案。
The solution looks like a polynomial equation. Okay, let's take a very simple one. Let's take Pythagorean theorem, you know, x squared plus y squared equals z squared. Okay, so if you want to solve an answer to a problem, you have these weights, you have these variables and you have these weights associated with it. The slope of a line, y equals mx plus b. Okay, what a computer does with AI is it figures out what the variables are and it figures out what the weights are.
这个解决方案看起来像一个多项式方程。好的，我们来看个非常简单的例子，就拿勾股定理来说吧，你知道的，x平方加y平方等于z平方。好的，如果你想要解决一个问题，你就有一些权重、变量和与之关联的权重。一条线的斜率，y等于mx加b。好的，计算机用人工智能做的事情就是找出这些变量是什么，找出这些权重是什么。
The answer to identifying images flawlessly turns out to be 2x plus seven, where x equals this thing. Now take that example and multiply it by 500 billion parameters and 500 billion weights and that is what an AI model essentially gives us as an answer to a question. So even when Facebook released Lama, what they essentially gave us was the equation but not the weights. And then what this guy did, I think it was an intern apparently or somebody, he just looked the weights so that we immediately knew what the structure of the equation looked like.
识别图像无误的答案竟然是2x加7，其中x代表的是一种事物。现在，将这个例子乘以5000亿个参数和5000亿个权重，这就是一种AI模型对问题的答案。因此，即使Facebook推出了Lama，他们所提供的本质上是方程，而非权重。然后，有一个人，我想他是一个实习生或者是其他人，他只是查了一下权重，这样我们立即可以知道方程的结构。
So that's what we're basically solving against, but we don't know how these things work. We don't really know how transformers work. And so this is my point when I think you guys are right about the overwhelming majority of the use cases, but there will be people who can nefariously create havoc in chaos. And I think you got to slow the whole ship down to prevent those few folks from ruining it for everybody.
所以基本上我们要解决的问题就是这个，但我们不知道这些东西是如何工作的。我们真的不知道变压器是如何工作的。我认为你们对绝大多数用例是正确的，但仍然会有人可以恶意制造混乱。我认为你们需要放慢整个进程，以防止这些少数人破坏了所有人的利益。
Jamal, hold on. Hold on. Let me just talk with Jamal. Hold on. I haven't had a chance to chime in on my position. So I'd like to just make sure you find me. Nobody cares. Okay. Well, I do. I think actually I split the difference here a little bit. I don't think it needs to be an agency in licensing. I do think we have to have a commission and we do need to have people being thoughtful about those thousand use cases. Jamal, because they are going to cause societal harm or things that we cannot anticipate.
杰马尔，等等。 等等。 让我和杰马尔谈一会儿。 等等。 我还没有机会表达我的立场。因此，我想确保你了解我的看法。其实没有人看重。好吧，我看重。我认为实际上我在这里取得了一些平衡。 我不认为需要将其纳入机构许可，但是我认为我们必须有一个委员会，并且我们需要让人们思考这一千个用例，因为它们将会造成社会伤害或者无法预知的事情。
And then number two for the neo fight with the 1600 rating on chess.com sacks, guard as an announcement to the opponent that their queen is under direct attack, similar to the announcement of check. The warning was customary until the early 20th century. So since you do not know the history of check, now you've learned something until the early 20th century.
这是一个给在chess.com上有1600分等级的新手的第二个建议：通过牺牲巡洋舰来宣告对手的女王受到直接攻击，与宣告将军类似。这种警告一直沿袭至20世纪初期。所以，如果你不知道将军的历史，现在你已经学到了一些。
Okay. Well, since I've only played chess in the 20th and 21st centuries, I'm going to wear a foot. J. Cal and Frances Brown's Gar de Gar de play man, if he go ahead, free break tomorrow in the context of what we're talking about that models are becoming smaller and can be run on the edge. And there's obviously hundreds and thousands of variants of these open source models that have, you know, good effect and perhaps compete with some of these these models that you're mentioning that are closed source. How do you regulate that? How do you and then they sit behind an application?
好的，既然我只在20世纪和21世纪下棋，我需要请你解释一下“Gar de Gar de”的意思。如果它前进，自由破解明天的方式就是我们现在讨论的话题。我们现在看到的模型越来越小，可以在边缘上运行。这些开源模型有数百甚至数千种变体，它们有良好的效果，也许可以与你提到的那些闭源模型竞争。那么你将如何进行监管？另外，这些模型是通过应用程序来实现的。
I think in order for you to be able to compile that model to generate that initial instantiation, you're still running it in a cluster of thousands of GPUs. But let's say we're past that. You can't be past that. We're not past that yet. Okay. We don't have five million models. We don't have all kinds of things that solve all kinds of problems. We don't have an open source available simulation of every single molecule in the world, including all the toxic materials I could destroy humans. We don't have that yet. So before that is created and shrunk down to an iPhone, I think we need to put some stage gates up to slow people down.
我认为为了生成初始实例而编译模型，你仍需要在成千上万的GPU集群上运行它。但是，假设我们已经过了这个阶段，你还不能这么认为。我们现在还没有五百万个模型，也没有解决各种问题的所有种类的东西。我们没有一个开源的可用于模拟全球每一种分子，包括所有毁坏人类的有毒物质的模拟。在这之前，我们需要设置一些阶段性的门槛来减缓人们的步伐。
What do you mean by those stage gates? Yeah. I think you need some form of KYC. I think before you're allowed to run a massive cluster to generate the model that then you try to shrink. You need to be able to show people that you're not trying to do something absolutely chaotic or have it creating that. I don't think that could be as simple as putting your driver's license that in your social security number, just to get working on an instance in a cloud, right? It could be your putting your name on your work. It becomes slightly more nuanced in that.
你说的那些阶段门是什么意思？嗯，我认为你需要某种形式的KYC。在你被允许运行一个大规模集群生成模型并尝试改善它之前，你需要向人们展示你并不是在做一些绝对混乱的事情或让它变成混乱的情况。我认为这并不简单，仅仅是把你的驾驶执照和社会安全号放在云端实例上就能开始工作吧？你可能需要在你的工作上署名。这变得稍微复杂了一些。
It's like, I think that Jekyll, that's probably the simplest thing for AWS GCP and Azure to do, which is that if you want to run over a certain number of GPU clusters, you need to put in that information. I think you also need to put in your tax ID number. So I think if you want to run a real high scale model, that's still going to run you tens or hundreds of millions of dollars. I do think there aren't that many people running those things. And I do think it's easy to police those and say, what are you trying to do here?
这就像是，我认为对于 AWS GCP 和 Azure 来说，最简单的做法就是使用 Jekyll，如果你想运行一定数量的 GPU 群集，则需要提供这些信息。我认为你还需要提供你的税号。因此，如果你想运行一个真正的高规模模型，这仍然会花费你数亿或数千万美元。我认为运行这些模型的人并不多。因此，很容易对这些进行监管，并问一下你在这里尝试做什么。
So let me just push back on that because Mosaic ML published this model that is, let me, I can pull up the performance chart or Nick, maybe you can just find it on their website real quick, or the new model they published. Tomah, they trained this model on open source data that's publicly available. And they spent $200,000 on a cluster run to build this model and look at how it performs. Compared to some of the top models that are closed source.
那么，让我对此进行反驳，因为Mosaic ML刊登了这个模型，我可以呈现其性能图表，或者Nick，你可以快速在他们的网站上找到这个新模型。Tomah在公开可用的开源数据上训练了这个模型。他们花费200,000美元在一个集群运行上来构建这个模型，并且看看它的表现。与某些封闭源顶尖的模型相比较。
Just say it for the people who are listening. Yeah. So for people that are listening, basically this model is called MPT7B. That's the name of the AI model, the LLM model that was generated by this group called Mosaic ML. And they spent $200,000 creating this model from scratch. And the data that they trained it on is all listed here. It's all publicly available data that you can just download off the internet. Then they score how well it performs on its results against other big models out there, like LLM7B, PTE. I know, but I don't exactly know what the actual problems they're trying to ask it to compare.
对于正在听的人来说，就简单说出来吧。这个模型被称为MPT7B。这是一个由名为Mosaic ML的团队生成的AI模型，他们花费了20万美元从零开始创建这个模型。他们训练这个模型的数据都列在这里。这些数据都是公开可用的，可以从互联网上下载。然后他们通过对比其他大型模型(如LLM7B、PTE)来评估它的效果。但我不确定他们实际上想让模型比较哪些问题。
Right. So the point is that this model theoretically could then be applied to a different data set once it's been built. And this is, I just want to use your point earlier about toxic chemistry. Because models were generated and then other data was then used to find to you in those models. No, data delivered. And output. Hold on a second. Those answers were to specific kinds of questions.
好的。重点是这个模型理论上可以应用于不同的数据集上，一旦它被建立起来了。我想用你早先提到的有毒化学品做一个例子。因为模型是生成出来的，然后其他数据被用来找到在这些模型中的你的解答。不是提供数据。再说一遍。这些答案是针对特定类型的问题的。
If you wanted to all of a sudden ask, totally orthogonal thing of that model, that model would fail. You would have to go back and you'd have to retrain it. That training does cause some amount of money. So if you said to me, HMOP, I could build you a model trained on the universe of every single molecule in the world. And I could actually give you something that could generate the toxic list of all the molecules and how to make it for $200,000. I would be really scared. I don't think that that's possible today. So I don't understand these actual tests, but I don't think it's true that you could take this model and these model weights applied to a different set of data and get useful answers.
如果你突然想问一个完全无关的问题，那么这个模型会失败。你必须回到过去，重新训练。这种训练会花费一定的费用。所以如果你跟我说，HMOP，我可以为你建立一个训练于世界上每一个分子的宇宙的模型。并且我能够给你一个能够生成所有分子的毒性列表以及如何制作它的东西，只需200,000美元。我会很害怕。我认为现在还不可能做到这一点。因此，我不理解这些实际测试，但我不认为你可以使用这个模型和这些模型权重应用于不同的数据集并获得有用的答案。
But let's assume for a minute that you can, in fact, take $200,000 worth of GPU budget. But I don't want to assume it. Here's my point. I want to tell you what's happening right now, which is that's not possible. So we should stop so that then I don't have to have this argument with you in a year from now, which is like, hey, some jack jerk off just created this model. Now the cat's out of the bag. So let's not do it.
假设我们能够拥有200,000美元的GPU预算。但我不想假设。我的观点是告诉你现在正在发生的事情，即这是不可能的。因此，我们应该停止这个想法，这样我一年后就不必与你争论这个问题了，就像，“嘿，有个愚蠢的人刚刚创建了这个模型。”现在这个事情已经公之于众了。所以我们不要这么做。
Yeah. And then what's going to happen is like some chaotic seeking organization is going to print one of these materials and release it into the wild to prove it. But here's the point for the audience. We are at a moment in time where this is moving very quickly and you have very intelligent people here who are very knowledgeable talking about the degree to which this is going to manifest itself, not if it will manifest. You are absolutely 100% certain freeberg that somebody will do something very bad in terms of the chemical example as but one, if we're only determining here what level of hardware and what year that will happen to Mata saying.
是的。然后接下来会发生的是，某些混乱的寻求组织会印刷其中一种材料并将其发布到野外以证明其有效。但是观众要注意的是，我们正处于一个快速发展的时刻，这里有非常聪明、非常知识渊博的人们在谈论这种现象将会以何种程度显现，而不是是否会显现。你非常确定，Freeberg，总会有人会做出非常糟糕的事情，以化学为例，我们只是在确定这将在何种程度的硬件和哪一年发生，而Mata说的就是这个。
We know it's going to happen, whether it's two or ten or five years, let's be thoughtful about it. And I think this discussion we're having here, I think is super relevant. And I just think that on a spectrum, this is a unique moment where the most knowledgeable people across every single political spectrum, persuasion, for-profit, non-profit, Democrat Republican, right? Elon and Sam will just use those as the two canonical examples to demonstrate our pro-regulation. And then the further and further you get away, the less technically astute you are, the more anti-regulation and pro-market you are.
我们知道这件事情会发生，无论是两年、十年还是五年，让我们好好思考它。我认为这里我们正在讨论的是非常重要的。在这个光谱上，这是一个独特的时刻，每个政治派别、营利、非营利组织、民主党、共和党，都有最有知识的人士。以伊隆·马斯克和萨姆·阿尔希迪亚作为两个典型的例子来展示我们支持监管。离这个光谱越远，你就越不懂技术，越反对监管，越支持市场。
And all I'm saying is I think that should also be noted that that's a unique moment, that the only other time that that's happened was around nuclear weapons. And that's when Bertrand also went Einstein. I think it's politically incorrect to be anti-regulation right now. I think because of what you're saying, just give me a second.
我想说的是，我认为我们也应该注意到这是一个独特的时刻，只有在核武器时代出现过类似的情况，那时伯特兰也曾对爱因斯坦提出了同样的批评。我认为在现在对反监管持反对态度是政治不正确的。因为你所说的原因，给我一个机会。
I think because of what you're saying, everyone on the left and the right, it's become popular to be pro-regulation on AI and say that AI is going to doom the world. And it's unpopular and it's basically you on the right. No, I'm saying you on the right. Explain my point if you on Sam, Elon's different. But I think it's become politically incorrect to stand up and say, you know what, this is a transformative technology for humanity.
我认为由于您所说的原因，左派和右派的人们都开始流行支持对AI进行监管，并且认为AI会毁灭世界。唯独您在右派中持相反看法。如果您是Sam，那么我的观点肯定不一样，但我认为现在在政治上，公开支持这项对人类具有转换性意义的技术已经成为了不合时宜的做法。
I don't think that there's a real path to regulation. I think that there are totally just a lot of laws that are in place that can protect us in other ways with respect to privacy, with respect to fraud, with respect to biological warfare, and all the other things that we should worry about. Elon has said pretty clearly he doesn't give a shit about what it does to make money or not. He cares about what he thinks.
我认为现在没有真正能够管制的途径。我认为，我们现有的、能够保护我们隐私、防止欺诈、生物战争等问题的法律已经很多了，我们应该关注这些方面。埃隆明确表示，他不关心这个项目能否盈利，他关心的只是他自己的想法。
So all I'm saying is that's a guy that's not trying to be politically correct. Elon has a very specific concern, which is AGI. He's concerned that we're on a path to a digital superintelligence, it's a singularity, and if we create the wrong kind of artificial general intelligence that decides that it doesn't like humans, that is a real risk to the human species. That's the concern he's expressed.
我的意思只是说，埃隆并不试图在政治上正确。埃隆有一个非常特定的关注点，那就是人工通用智能（AGI）。他担心我们正在走向数字超级智能的道路，也就是所谓的奇点。如果我们创造了一种错误的人工通用智能，它决定不喜欢人类，那就会对人类种群造成真正的风险。这就是他表达的关注点。
But that's not what the hearing was really about, and it's not what any of these regulatory proposals are about. The reality is, none of these centers know what to do about that. Even the industry doesn't know what to do about the long-term risk of creating an AGI. Nobody knows. Nobody knows. Nobody knows. And so I actually disagree with this idea that Tom Arthur earlier said that there's a thousand use cases here that could destroy the human species. I think there's only one. There's only one species level risk, which is AGI.
但这不是听证会真正关注的问题，也不是任何这些监管提案的关注点。事实是，这些中心都不知道该怎么做。即使是产业也不知道如何应对创建AGI的长期风险。没有人知道。没有人知道。没有人知道。因此，我实际上不同意Tom Arthur之前提到的这个观点，即这里有一千个能毁灭人类的用例。我认为只有一个，那就是AGI，是一个物种级风险。
But that's a long-term risk. We don't know what to do about it yet. I agree we should have conversations. What we're talking about today is whether we create some new licensure regime in Washington so that politically connected insiders get to control and shape the software industry. That's a disaster. Let me give you another detail on this.
但这是一种长期的风险，我们还不知道该怎么处理。我同意我们应该进行交谈。今天我们讨论的是是否在华盛顿创建一种新的许可制度，以便与政治上有联系的内部人控制和塑造软件行业。这是一场灾难。让我再给你提供一个细节。
In one of the chat groups I'm in, there was somebody who just got back from Washington. I want to say who they are. It's not someone who's famous outside the industry, but they're kind of like a tech leader. What they said is they just got back from Capitol Hill and the White House. And I guess there's like a White House summit on A.I. You guys know about that. What this person said is that the White House meeting was super depressing.
在我所在的一个聊天群中，有一个人刚刚从华盛顿回来。我想说一下他们是谁。他们在行业外不是很有名，但他们有点像技术领袖。他们说他们刚刚从国会山和白宫回来。我猜这种情况下，有一个关于人工智能的白宫峰会。你们知道这个。这个人说白宫会议非常令人沮丧。
Some smart people were there to be sure. But the White House and VPs teams were rapidly negative, no real concern for the opportunity or economic impact, just super negative. Of course. Basically the mentality was that tech is bad. We hate social media. This is the new thing. We have to stop it.
当然，有一些聪明的人在那里。但是白宫和副总统的团队非常消极，没有真正关心机遇或经济影响，只是极其消极。基本上，这种心态是认为科技是不好的。我们讨厌社交媒体。这是一种新事物。我们必须阻止它。
Of course. That basically is their attitude. They don't understand the technology. Talk about the White House. Yeah. The White House. Yeah, and the VPs specifically because she's now the A.I. is R. To put Kamala Harris in charge of this makes no sense. Does she have any background in this?
当然。这基本上是他们的态度。他们不了解技术。谈论白宫。是的。白宫。是的，尤其是副总统，因为她现在是人工智能。让卡玛拉·哈里斯负责这件事没有任何意义。她有这方面的背景吗？
It just shows a complete utter lack of awareness. Where is the Megan Smith? Or somebody like a CTO to be put in charge of this? Remember Megan Smith was CTO under I guess Obama? You need somebody with a little more depth of experience here. Hopefully in the multi-decker points.
这只是完全缺乏认识的表现。 Megan Smith 在哪里呢？或者找一个像首席技术官那样的人来负责？还记得 Megan Smith 在奥巴马政府时期担任过CTO（首席技术官）吗？这里需要有更多经验和深度的人。希望在多层面能够有所提升。
I think you guys think saying your pro-regulation, depending on who's in charge? Well, I'm pro-thoffleness. I'm pro-thoffleness. I'm illustrating that really this whole new agency that's being discussed is just based on vibes. You're not down with the vibes. The vibes. The vibes. The vibes. The vibes.
我认为你们认为自己是支持监管的，取决于谁掌权？那么，我是支持自由贸易的。我是支持自由贸易的。我要说明的是，目前正在讨论的整个新机构仅仅是基于氛围而已。你们不能理解这种氛围。这种氛围。这种氛围。这种氛围。这种氛围。
The vibe is that a bunch of people watching don't understand technology and they're afraid of it. Yeah. So anything you're afraid of, you're going to want to have control. These are socialists, David. They're socialists. They hate progress. They are scared to death. That job's are going to collapse. They're socialists. They're union leaders.
感觉是很多人在观看时不了解科技，对它感到害怕。是啊，对于任何你害怕的事情，你都想要掌控。这些人是社会主义者，大卫。他们是社会主义者。他们厌恶进步，非常害怕失去工作。他们是工会领袖。
This is their worst nightmare because the actual truth of this technology is 30% more efficiency. And it's very mundane. This is the truth here. I think that representatives have. 30% more efficiency means Google, Facebook, and many other companies, finance, education. They do not add staff every year. They just get 30% more efficient every year. And then we see unemployment go way up. And Americans are going to have to take service jobs. And white collar jobs are going to be refined to like a very elite few people who actually do work in the world.
这是他们最大的噩梦，因为这项技术的实际真相是其效率要提高30%。而且这项技术非常平凡。这就是事实。我认为代表们都知道这一点。提高30%的效率意味着谷歌、Facebook和许多其他公司在财务、教育等方面每年不必再新增员工，只需每年提高30%的效率就可以了。然后我们会看到失业率大幅上升，美国人将不得不从事服务业工作。白领工作将被精细化，只有很少一部分人实际上在全球范围内从事这些工作。
There is absolutely no sort of new companies. If humans can become, if knowledge workers can become 30% more productive, there'll be a lot of new companies. Absolutely. And the biggest shortage in our economy is coders. Right. And we're going to have an unlimited number of them now. They're all going to go to cars. Yeah, I don't know if it's unlimited, but yes, it's a good thing if you give them superpowers. We've talked about this before. Yeah, yeah.
目前没有任何新型企业。如果人类能够进步，如果知识型劳动者能够提高30%的生产力，那么将会有很多新企业。毫无疑问。而我们经济最大的短缺是开发人员。没错。现在我们会有无限的开发人员。他们都会去开发汽车。是的，我不知道是否无限，但如果给他们超能力是件好事。我们之前谈过这个话题。
So I think it's too soon to be concluding that we need to stop job displacement. That hasn't even occurred yet. I'm not saying it's actually going to happen. I do agree. There'll be more startups. I'm seeing it already. I just think that's what they fear. That's their fear is, and that's the fear of the EU. The EU is going to be protectionist, unionist, protect pro workers, which is fine.
我认为现在下结论说我们需要停止失业都为时过早，因为这种情况甚至还没有发生。我并不是说它实际会发生。我同意，会有更多的初创企业出现，这已经开始出现了。我只是认为这是他们的担忧，这也是欧盟的担忧。欧盟将会保护主义，工会主义，保护劳工的权益，这很好。
Well, unions aren't going to be affected because these are not blue collar jobs or talking about these are not all of the workers. There's white collar unions out. All the media companies created unions. And look at them. They're all circling. All these media companies are circling the draining, going out business.
嗯，工会不会受到影响，因为这些并不是蓝领工作或者正在谈论的并不是所有的工人。还有白领工会。所有的媒体公司都建立了工会。看看它们，它们都在围绕着。所有这些媒体公司都在不断萎缩，走向破产。
Sure, but that's on the margins. I mean, that's not. There's trying to start tech unions. Sure, they're trying to start them. But when we think of unionized workers, you're thinking about factory workers and these people are not affected. Okay, listen, this has been an incredible debate. This is why you tune into the pod.
当然，但那只是在边缘上。我是说，那不是主要问题。他们在试图建立技术工会。当然，他们正在试图建立这些工会。但是当我们想到受工会影响的工人时，我们想到的是工厂工人，而这些人并没有受到影响。好吧，听着，这是一场极好的辩论。这也是你们为什么要收听这个播客的原因。
A lot of things can be true at the same time. I really think the analogy of the atom bomb is really interesting because what you want is scared about with general artificial intelligence is nuclear holocaust. The whole planet blows up. Between those two things, are things like Nagasaki and Hiroshima or a dirty bomb and many other possibilities with nuclear power, Fukushima, etc. So let's.
许多事情可以同时是真实的。我真的认为原子弹的比喻非常有趣，因为你对于强人工智能所担心的是核战争。整个星球都可能会被炸毁。在这两者之间，有像长崎和广岛、脏弹和许多其他核能源可能带来的后果，比如福岛等。所以，让我们静下心来。
Isn't there no Hiroshima? Not yet. Right. And the question is, is a three mile island? Is Fukushima Nagasaki. Are those things probable? And I think we are all looking at this saying, there will be something bad that will happen. There will be the equivalent.
难道广岛已经不存在了吗？还没有。对的。问题是，三英里岛怎么样？福岛是长崎吗？这些事情可能发生吗？我觉得我们都在考虑这个，都感到会发生一些糟糕的事情。会有同等的事情发生。
All right, listen, can you get this to that? The JGBT strings together and these large language models string together words in really interesting ways and they give computers the ability to have a natural language interface. That is so far from AGI. I think it's a component. Now, do auto. Do auto-JPT. Hold on, I think it's a.
好的，听着，你能把这个传到那个地方吗？JGBT连接在一起，这些大型语言模型以非常有趣的方式串联单词，它们使计算机具有自然语言接口的能力。这离AGI还差得很远。我认为这只是一个组成部分。现在，进行自动操作。进行自动JPT。等等，我想这是一个……
Obviously, the ability to understand language and communicate in a natural way is a component of a future AGI. But by itself, these are models for string together language. Now, do auto-JPT where these things go out and pursue things without any interference? I would be the first one to say that if you wanted to scope models to be able to just do human language back and forth on the broad open internet, you know, there's probably a form, David, where these chat-JPT products can exist.
显然，理解语言并以自然的方式进行沟通是未来人工通用智能的必要组成部分。但仅有这些模型只能够将语言串联起来。现在，我们可以进行自动JPT，让这些模型去无干扰地追寻事物吗？我想说，如果你想将模型的范围局限在广阔开放的互联网上进行人类语言的交流，那么可能会有一种方式，David，即这些聊天-JPT产品可以存在。
I don't. I think that those are quite benign. I agree with you. But I think what Jason is saying is that every week you're taking a leap forward and already with auto-JPT is you're talking about code that runs in the background. Without supervision. It's not a human interface that's like, hey, show me how to color my cookies green for St. Patty's Day. It's a slammer trip to Italy. Yeah, it's not doing that. So I just think that there's a place well beyond what you're talking about and I think you're minimizing the problem a little bit by just kind of saying the whole class of AI is just chat-JPT and asking kid asking it to help it with its home.
我不这么认为。我认为那些东西相当温和。我同意你的观点。但我认为Jason所说的是，每周你都在向前跨了一步，而且用自动JPT来说，你正在谈论在背景下运行的代码，没有监督。它不是一个人机界面，比如，“嘿，告诉我如何让我的曲奇变成St. Patty's Day绿色。”它更像是一趟意大利之旅。是的，不是那样的。所以我认为，你所谈论的远远超出这个范围，而且我认为你有点低估了问题，只是这个AI类别是聊天JPT，并要求它帮助解决家庭问题。
Just an example, I hate to say it out loud, but somebody could say, here is the history of financial crimes that were committed and other hacks. Please, with their own model on their own server, say, please come up with other ideas for hacks, be as creative as possible, and steal as much money as possible, and put that in an auto-JPT, David, and study all hacks that occur in the history of hacking. And it could just create super chaos around the world. And you can work.
这只是一个例子，我很不愿意大声说出来，但有人可能会说，这里有关于金融犯罪和其他黑客攻击历史。请用他们自己的模型放在自己的服务器上，提出其他黑客攻击的想法，尽可能地创造性地窃取尽可能多的钱，然后将其放入一个自动-JPT中，然后再研究黑客攻击的历史。这可能会在全球造成超级混乱。你可以动手实践。
The tech industry is going to regret buying into this narrative because the members of the Judiciary Committee are doing the same playbook they ran back in 2016 after that election. They ran all these hearings on disinformation, claiming that social networks have been used to hack the election. It was all a phony narrative. Hold on, that they got- What happened? That they got tech companies to buy into- The Russians hacked Biden. The Russians hacked who- Stop it, stop it. They got all these tech CEOs to buy into that phony narrative. Why? Because it's a lot easier for the tech CEOs to agree and tell the Seniors what they want to hear to get them off their backs. And then what did that lead to? A whole censorship industrial complex. So we're going to do the same thing here. We're going to buy into these phony narratives here- We could go up- To get the Seniors off our backs and that's going to create this giant AI industrial complex that's going to slow down real innovation and be a burden on entrepreneurs.
科技行业将会因为购买这个说法而感到后悔，因为司法委员会的成员在2016年选举后运行的是同样的策略。他们在虚假说法下进行了所有这些关于虚假信息的听证会，声称社交网络已被用于黑客攻击选举。这完全是一个虚假的故事。他们得到了什么？发生了什么？他们让科技企业相信了他们想要的-俄罗斯黑客攻击了拜登。俄罗斯黑客攻击了谁-停一下，停一下。他们让所有这些科技企业的首席执行官相信了这个虚假说法。为什么？因为科技企业的首席执行官认同并告诉高级政府官员他们想听到的来摆脱他们的麻烦。结果是什么？整个审查和審查的工业化复杂综合所。因此，我们在这里也要做同样的事情。我们要购买这些虚假说法，让政府官员不再纠缠我们，这将创建一个巨大的AI工业综合体，这将减缓真正的创新，并成为企业家的负担。
Okay, lightning round. Lightning round, we got to move on. Three more topics I want to hit. Let's keep going. If I were to become an evil- more evil- Yeah, what is it called an evil comic book character? A supervillain. A supervillain? If you wanted to be- And even more votes from supervillain continue. I would take every single virus patch that's been developed and publicized, learn on them, and then find the next zero-day exploit on a whole bunch of stuff. I mean, is it- Can we even publish that idea? Please don't- I mean, I'm worried about publishing that idea. That's not an intellectual leap. I mean, you have to be a dollar- No, it's obvious. Okay, let's move on.
好的，轮到闪电回合了。还有三个话题我们要谈，继续往下走吧。如果我要成为一个恶毒 - 更恶毒的话，我会变成一个什么样的邪恶漫画人物？超级恶棍。超级恶棍？如果你想成为一个 - 而且继续获得更多的超级恶棍的票数。我会拿走每一个已经被开发和公开的病毒补丁，学习它们，然后找到大量东西上的下一个零日漏洞。我的意思是，这个想法能够被发表吗？请不要 - 我是担心发表这个想法。这不是一个知识性的飞跃。我的意思是，你必须是一个美元 - 不，这是显而易见的。好了，我们继续吧。
Another great debate. Elon hired a CEO for Twitter, Linda Jacarino, I'm hoping pronouncing that correct, was the head of AdSells at NBC Universal. She's a legend in the advertising business. She worked a turn for 15 years before that. She is a workaholic as what she says. She's going to take over everything but product and CTO. Elon's going to stick with that. She seems to be very moderate and she follows people on the left or right.
又一场伟大的辩论。埃隆雇用了推特的首席执行官琳达·雅卡里诺，我希望我正确地发音了她的名字。她曾担任NBC环球的广告销售主管，是广告业中的传奇人物。在那之前，她在那里了工作了15年。她自称是个工作狂。除了产品和首席技术官，她将接管所有的职责。埃隆将继续负责这两个职位。她似乎很温和，追随左右两派的人。
People are starting the character assassination and trying to figure out her politics. That she was involved with the W.A. World Economic Forum which anybody in business basically does. But you're taking sacks on this choice for CTO and what this means just broadly for the next six months because we're sitting here at six months almost exactly since Elon took over. Obviously, you and I were involved in month one but not much after that. What do you think the next six months holds and what do you think her role is going to be? Obviously, this unprecedented for this with when at a specific.
人们开始进行人格攻击，并试图搞清楚她的政治观点。她曾参与过W.A世界经济论坛，而在商界中，这基本是家常便饭。但你对CTO的这个选择表示质疑，并对接下来的六个月的局面提出了问题，因为我们现在距埃隆接手已经将近六个月了。当然，你和我在头一个月中参与其中，但之后就不太了解了。你认为接下来的六个月会怎样，她的角色会是什么？显然，这在这个特定的情况下是前所未有的。
Listen, I think this choice makes sense on this level. Twitter's business model is advertising. Elon does not like selling advertising. She's really good at selling advertising. So he's chosen a CEO to work with whose highly complimentary to him in their skill sets and interests. I think that makes sense. I think there's a lot of logic in that. What Elon likes doing is the technology and product side of the business. He actually doesn't really like the, let's call it the standard business chores. And especially related to like we said, advertising and he loves to offer that stuff. He's also advertising his personal nightmare. Right.
听着，我认为这个决定在某种程度上是有道理的。Twitter的商业模式是广告推销，而埃隆不喜欢这样做。然而，他的新任CEO擅长于广告推销，这与埃隆的技能和兴趣高度搭配。我认为这样做很有道理，很有逻辑。埃隆喜欢专注于技术和产品方面，实际上并不喜欢来自标准的商业工作，尤其是广告相关的部分；这正是他个人的噩梦。
So I think the choice makes sense on that level. Now, instantly, you're right. Her hiring led to attacks on both the left and the right. The right, you know, pointed out her views on COVID and vaccines and her work with the W E F. And then on the left, I mean, the attack is that she's following Libs of TikTok, which you're just not allowed to do apparently. A follow is not an endorsement. Well, if you're just following Libs of TikTok, they want to say you're some crazy right-winger now. Well, she also follows David Sachs. So that does mean that she's pretty, that that is a signal. But the truth is, if you, Sachs, correct me if I'm wrong here or a trim off me, I'll send it to you. If you pick somebody that both sides just like or are trying to take apart, you probably picked the right person.
所以我认为这个选择在那个层面上是有意义的。立即而言，你是对的。她的雇用导致了左右两方面的攻击。右派指出了她对COVID和疫苗的观点以及她与W E F的合作。而在左派方面，攻击称她正在关注TikTok上的“自由派”，似乎你不能这样做。关注并不等于认同。但是，如果你只是关注了TikTok上的“自由派”，他们想说你现在是一位疯狂的右翼者。她也关注了大卫·萨克斯。这意味着她非常赞同萨克斯。但是事实是，如果你选择了一个被两方都喜欢或试图摧毁的人，你可能选择了正确的人。
Yeah. Yeah. Here's what I think. Okay, go ahead. We're not going to know how good she is for six to nine months. But here's what I took a lot of joy out of. Here's a guy who gets attacked for all kinds of things now, right? He's an anti-semite apparently. And then he had to be like, I'm very pro-semite. He's a guy that all of a sudden people think is a conspiracy theorist. He's a guy that people think is now on the raging right. All these things that are just like inaccuracies, basically fire bombs thrown by the left. But here's what I think is the most interesting thing for a guy that theoretically is supposed to be a troll and everything else. He has a female chairman at Tesla, a female CEO at Twitter, and a female president at SpaceX. Of course. It's a great insight. It's the same insight. I think a lot of these virtues signaling lunatics on the land, virtue signaling mids. They're own itchicks.
嗯。嗯。这是我认为的。好吧，你说。我们要六到九个月才能知道她有多棒。但这里有一件事让我感到非常高兴。这个人现在因为各种事情而受到攻击，对吧？他显然是一个反犹太主义者。然后他不得不说：“我非常支持犹太人。”他是一个人，忽然人们认为他是阴谋论者。人们现在认为他是右派。所有这些事情基本上都是左派投掷的火弹，根本就是不准确的。但这是我认为最有趣的事情，因为这个理论上应该是一个恶意评论者的人。他在特斯拉拥有一位女性主席，在推特拥有一位女性首席执行官，在太空探索技术公司拥有一位女性总裁。当然。这是一个很好的洞察力。我认为很多这些自以为是的疯子，就是在为自己服务的女人们进行虚伪的信号表达。
And you know what, like you have Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders giving the CEO of a Starbucks a hot time when he doubled the pay of the minimum wage, gave them a hot card. Freeberg, you love mid, right? That's a great term, isn't it? It's so funny. It's so funny. These fucking mids. And Kay paid for the college tuition. What gives you the right at Starbucks to pay for college tuition and double the minimum wage? That's hard. So, so mid. I don't know why it's so funny to me. Isn't it so great? Like, it's so funny. You can just pick as you can picture them. When I say that these are these mids, feverishly typing on their keyboards, their virtue signaling nonsense, sex wrapping it up.
你知道吗，伊丽莎白·沃伦和伯尼·桑德斯批评了星巴克的CEO，因为他加倍支付最低工资，给他们一张热卡。 Freeberg，你喜欢mid吗？这是个很好的术语，不是吗？太有趣了。这些该死的mid。Kay付了大学学费。星巴克有什么权利支付大学学费和加倍最低工资？那太难了，太强了。我不知道为什么这么有趣。是不是很棒？就像当我说这些mid疯狂地在键盘上打字时，你可以想象他们在虚荣地发出信号，把性交想象起来。
Yeah, look, like you said, Elon has worked extremely well with Winchall while he was a president of SpaceX for a long time. And I think that relationship shows the way to make it work here at Twitter, which is they have a very commoner skill set. I think my understanding is that Winfox is on the business side and the sales side of the operation. Elon focuses on product and technology. She lets Elon be Elon. I think if Linda tries to rain Elon in, tell him not to tweet or tries to metal in the free speech aspects of the business, which is the whole reason he bought Twitter, which is what he wanted. That is the beginning and end of it. Yeah, that's right. That's when it will fall apart.
听着，就像你说的那样，Elon在担任SpaceX总裁期间与Winchall合作非常成功。我认为这种关系可以指导我们在Twitter上如何让他们与我们合作，因为他们有一套非常共同的技能。我认为Winfox负责业务和销售方面的运营，而Elon则专注于产品和技术方面。她让Elon做他自己。如果Linda试图限制Elon，告诉他不要发推文，或试图干预业务中的言论自由方面，这正是他收购Twitter的原因，他想要的。那将是灾难的开始和结束。 对，没错，那时候一切都会崩溃。
So, my advice would be let Elon be Elon. You know, he bought this company to make it a free speech platform. Don't mess with that. And I think it could work great. And a free speech platform it is when you are saying anything about COVID, and I really don't even want to say it here because I don't want to even say the word COVID or vaccine means that this could get tagged by YouTube and BD, you know, the algorithm could D, I don't know what they call it, deprecate this and when we don't show up and people don't see us because we just said the word COVID. I mean, the censorship built into these algorithms is absurd.
所以，我的建议是让埃隆做埃隆。你知道，他购买这家公司是为了让它成为一个自由言论平台，不要干扰那个。我认为这个平台可以做得很好。当你说到COVID的任何事情时，它是一个自由言论平台，我甚至不想在这里说它，因为我不想说COVID或疫苗这个词，这可能会被YouTube和BD标记，你知道，算法可能会D，我不知道他们叫它什么，削弱这个视频，然后我们不会出现，人们就看不到我们，因为我们刚才说了COVID这个词。我的意思是，这些算法中内置的审查是荒谬的。
Speaking of absurd, Lena Khan, who has been the least effective FTC chair, I think started out pretty promising with some interesting ideas. She's now moved to block a major farm adieu and December Amgen agreed to acquire Dublin-based horizon therapeutic for 27.8 billion. This is the largest farm adieu announced in 2022. FTC has filed a law student federal court seeking in Junction that would prevent the deal from closing. The reasoning is the deal would allow Amgen to entrench the monopoly positions of horizons I and gout drugs. The agency said that those treatments don't face any competition today and that Amgen would have a strong incentive to prevent any potential drivers from introducing similar drugs.
说到荒谬，我认为一直表现最差的联邦贸易委员会主席莱娜·卡恩在初步的时候有一些有趣的想法，但现在却阻止了一项重要的农业交易，而在去年12月安进同意以278亿美元收购总部位于都柏林的Horizon治疗公司，这是2022年宣布的最大的农业交易。联邦贸易委员会已经向法院提起诉讼，寻求禁止该交易达成。理由是这笔交易将使安进巩固Horizon治疗公司在痛风药物领域的垄断地位。该机构称这些治疗方法目前没有任何竞争对手，而安进也有很强的动力防止任何潜在的对手引进类似的药物。
Chimoff, the pharmaceutical industry is a little bit different than the tech industry insanity. Explain why and then SACs will go to you on the gout stuff because I know that personally impacts you. Go ahead, Chimoff. I think that this is a little like scientifically illiterate to be honest. Unpack, the thing is that you want drugs that can get to market quickly, but at the same time you want drugs to be safe and you want drugs to be effective. And I think that the FDA has a pretty reasonable process. And one of the direct buy products of that process is that if you have a large indication that you're going after, say diabetes, you have to do an enormous amount of work. It has to be run on effectively thousands of people. You have to stratify it by age. You have to stratify it by gender. You have to stratify it by race. You have to do it across different geographies. The bar is high.
Chimoff 谈到，制药业与科技行业的疯狂有些不同。他解释了原因，然后 SACs 将向他请教关于痛风的事情，因为我知道这个问题会对他个人产生影响。请继续，Chimoff。我认为这有点科学盲目，说实话。意思是我们需要快速上市的药物，但同时需要这些药物是安全和有效的。我认为 FDA 有一个相当合理的审核过程。其中一个直接的后果是，如果你开发一个大病种药物，比如糖尿病，你必须做大量的研究。你需要在成千上万的人群中进行分层，按年龄、性别和种族进行分层，涵盖不同的地理区域。标准是很高的。
But the reason the bar is high is that if you do get approval, all of a sudden become these blockbuster 10, 20, 30 billion dollar drugs. And they improve people's lives and they allow people to live, et cetera, et cetera. What has happened in the last 10 or 15 years because of Wall Street's influence inside of the pharma companies is that what pharma has done a very good job of doing is actually pushing off a lot of this very risky R&D to young early stage biotech companies. And they typically do the first part of the work. They get through a phase one. They even may be able to sometimes go and start a phase to trial, to a trial. And then they typically can get sold to pharma. And these are like multi billion dollar transactions.
但是之所以门槛很高是因为如果药物获得批准，它们很快就会成为这些10、20、30亿美元的畅销药品。它们改善了人们的生活，使人们得以生存等等。过去10或15年，由于华尔街在制药公司内的影响，制药公司已经非常成功地将大量这种高风险的研发推给了年轻的早期生物技术公司。它们通常会先完成第一部分工作。他们通过了第一阶段，有时甚至能够开始第二阶段的试验。然后它们通常可以被售给制药公司。这些交易通常为数十亿美元。
And the reason is that the private markets just don't have the money to support the risk for these companies to be able to do all the way through a phase three clinical trial because it would cost, on some cases, $5,6, $7, $8 billion. You've never heard of a tech company raising that much money, except in a few rare cases. In biotech, it just doesn't happen. So you need the M&A machine to be able to incentivize these young companies to even get started in the first place. Otherwise, what literally happens is you have a whole host of diseases that just stagnate. And instead, what happens is a younger company can only raise money to go after smaller diseases, which have smaller populations, smaller revenue potential, smaller costs because the trial infrastructure is just less.
原因是私人市场没有足够的资金来支持这些公司冒险进行全面的第三阶段临床试验，因为它有时需要花费50亿、60亿、70亿或80亿美元。你从来没有听说过科技公司筹集那么多资金，除了一些罕见的例外情况。在生物科技领域，这种情况从未发生过。因此，你需要并购机制来激励这些年轻公司开始并进行开发。否则，事实上，你将会有一系列的疾病被束缚。相反，年轻公司只能筹集资金去攻克那些人口更少、收入潜力更小、成本更低的小型疾病，因为试验基础设施更少。
So if you don't want industry to be in this negative loop where you only work on the small diseases and you actually go and tackle the big ones, you need to allow these kinds of transactions happen. The last thing I'll say is that even when these big transactions happen, half the time, they turn out to still not work. There is still huge risk. So don't get caught up in the dollar size. You have to understand the phase that's in. And the best example of this is the biggest outcome in biotech private investing in Silicon Valley was this thing called stem centric. And that thing was a $10 billion dollar dud, right? But it allowed all these other companies to get started after stem centric Scott bought for 10 billion.
因此，如果您不想让行业陷入这种负面循环，只处理小疾病，而什么也不做，您需要允许这种交易的发生。最后我要说的是，即使发生了这样的大型交易，有一半的时间它们仍然无法起作用。仍然存在巨大的风险。因此，不要被交易金额所迷惑。您必须了解当前处于何种阶段。最好的例子是，硅谷生物科技私募投资的最大成果是名为干细胞中心的东西。它是一笔价值100亿美元的失败交易，对吧？但是，在干细胞中心被以100亿美元的价格购买后，却让其他所有公司得以开创。
Freeberg, I want to get your take on this, especially in light of maybe something people don't understand, which is the amount of time you get to actually exclusively monetize a drug. Because my understanding, you correct me if I'm wrong, you get a 20-year patent, it's from the date you file it. But then you're working towards getting this drug approved by the FDA. So by the time the FDA approves a drug, this 20-year patent window, how many years do you actually have exclusively to monetize that drug? And then your wider thoughts on this FDA.
Freeberg，我想听听你的意见，特别是针对人们可能不理解的一点，就是你实际上只有多少时间可以独家销售一种药物。因为我的理解是，你可以获得一个20年的专利，从你提交申请的日期开始算。但你还要努力使这种药物得到FDA的批准。因此当FDA批准了一种药物时，这个20年的专利期限，你实际上有多少年可以独家销售这种药物呢？然后请你就FDA给出你的更广泛思考。
Yeah, I'm not going to answer that question right now, because I do want to kind of push back on the point. I'm generally pretty negative on a lot of the comments, Lena Conte made, and her positioning. And obviously, as you guys know, we've talked about it on the show. But I read the FTC filing right in federal court.
嗯，我现在不会回答那个问题，因为我想反驳一下这个观点。我对Lena Conte的许多评论和她的立场持负面看法。显然，正如你们所知道的，我们在节目中已经讨论过这个问题。但我已经阅读了联邦法院的FTC文件。
And if you read the filing, let me just start. The company that Amgenz trying to buy is called Horizon Therapeutics, which is a company that's doing about $4 billion in revenue a year, about $1 billion to $1 billion and a half in EBITDA. So it's a business that's got a portfolio of orphan drugs, meaning drugs that treat orphan conditions that aren't very big blockbusters in the pharmaceutical drug context. And so it's a nice portfolio of cash generating drugs. Amgenz buying the business gives them real revenue, real EBITDA, and helps bolster a portfolio that is aging. And I think that's a big part of the strategic driver for Amgenz to make this massive $28 billion acquisition.
如果你阅读了提交的文件，让我先来解释一下。Amgenz试图收购的公司叫做Horizon Therapeutics，是一家每年约有40亿美元收入、EBITDA约为10亿到15亿美元的企业。它拥有一系列孤儿药物，也就是治疗孤儿疾病的药物，这些药物在制药业中不是非常赚钱。因此，这是一个产生现金的药物组合。Amgenz购买这个业务将为他们带来真正的收入、真正的EBITDA，并有助于加强一个老化的投资组合。我认为这是Amgenz进行这项280亿美元的巨额收购的主要战略驱动力。
The FTC's claim in the filing, which I actually read, and I was like, this is actually a pretty good claim, is that the way that Amgenz sets the prices for their pharmaceutical drugs, is they go to the insurance companies, the payers, and the health systems, and they negotiate drug pricing. And they often do both multi-product deals. So they'll say, hey, we'll give you access to this product at this price point, but we need you to pay this price point for this product.
FTC在文件中的主张是他们认为安进制药公司定价的方式不合法，据我实际阅读，我认为这个主张是相当好的。他们通过与保险公司，付款人和医疗系统谈判药品的价格，并经常达成多产品交易。因此，他们会说，“嘿，我们将以这个价格提供给你们这个产品的使用权，但我们需要你们为这个产品支付这个价格点。”
And over time, that drives price inflation, it drives costs up, and it also makes it difficult for new competitors to emerge, because they tell the insurance company, you have to pick our drug over other drugs in order to get this discounted price. And so it's a big part of their negotiating strategy that they do with insurance companies.
随着时间的推移，这推动了价格通货膨胀，使成本上涨，也使新的竞争对手难以涌现，因为他们告诉保险公司，为了获得折扣价，你必须选择我们的药品而不是其他药品。因此，这是他们与保险公司谈判策略的重要组成部分。
So the FTC's claim is that by giving Amgenz this large portfolio of drugs that they're buying from Horizon, it's gonna give them more negotiating leverage and the ability to do more of this drug blocking that they do with insurance companies and other payers in the drug system. So they're trying to prevent pharmaceutical drug price inflation, and they're trying to increase competition in their lawsuit. So I felt like it was a fairly kind of compelling case.
FTC（美国联邦贸易委员会）的主张是，通过购买Horizon的大量药品并授权给Amgen，将为其带来更多的谈判筹码，以及对保险公司和其他药品支付者进行更多的药品阻断。他们试图防止药品价格膨胀，并在诉讼中增加竞争。因此，我觉得这是一个相当有说服力的案例。
I'm the lawyer on anti-trust and monolithic practices in the Sherman Act, but this was not, sorry, let me just say, this was not an early stage biotech risky deal with they're trying to block. No, no, but it is. I'm a sure company with $4 billion in revenue and a billion and a half in EBITDA.
我是谢尔曼法案反托拉斯和垄断实践方面的律师，但这不是一个早期生物技术风险交易，他们试图阻止这个交易。不，不是的。我代表的是一家拥有40亿美元收入和15亿美元EBITDA的可靠公司。
I understand, I read it too, but two comments. It is because the people that traffic in these stocks are the same ones that fund these early stage biotech companies, and I talked to a bunch of them, and they're like, if these guys block this kind of deal, we're gonna get out of this game entirely. So just from the horse's mouth, what I'm telling you, is you're gonna see a poll come over the early stage venture financing landscape, because a lot of these guys that are crossover investors that own a lot of these public biotech stocks that also fund the private stocks, will change their risk posture if they can't make money.
我理解了，我也看到了，但是有两个评论。这是因为那些交易这些股票的人和那些资助这些早期生物技术公司的人是同一批，我和他们中的一群人交谈过，他们说如果这些家伙阻止这样的交易，我们就会完全退出这个游戏。所以从他们的话里，我告诉你，你会看到一个民意调查涵盖早期风险投资的领域，因为很多这些交叉投资者拥有很多这些公共生物技术股票，也资助了私有股票，如果他们不能赚钱，他们会改变他们的风险态度。
That's just the nature of capitalism. The second thing is Lena Khan did something really good about what you're talking about this week actually, which is she actually went after the PBMs, and if you really care about drug inflation and you follow the dollars, the real culprits around this are the pharmacy benefit managers, and she actually launched a big investigation into them.
这就是资本主义的本质。第二件事是莱娜·汗本周实际上做了一件非常好的事情，就是她真正地针对PBM们采取行动，如果你真的关心药品通货膨胀并追踪资金，真正的罪魁祸首是药房效益管理师，她实际上对他们展开了大规模的调查。
But this is what speaks to the two different approaches. It seems that unfortunately for the FTC, every merger just gets contested for the sake of it being contested. Because I think that if you wanted to actually stop price inflation, there are totally different mechanisms because why didn't you just sue all the PBMs? Well, there's no merger to be done, but you can investigate and then you could regulate. And I think that that's probably a more effective way, and the fact that you targeted the PBM says that somebody in there actually understands where the price inflation is coming from.
然而，这正是两种不同方法的区别所在。很遗憾的是，对于联邦贸易委员会来说，每个合并案都只是为了争辩而争辩。我认为，如果你真的想停止价格膨胀，完全可以采用不同的机制，为什么不起诉所有药品管理公司呢？虽然没有任何合并，但你可以进行调查，然后规范行业。我认为这可能是一种更有效的方法，而你针对药品管理公司的调查也表明其中有人真正理解价格膨胀的根源。
But I don't think something like an AMGEN horizon, because what I think will happen is all the folks will then just basically say, well, man, if these kinds of things can't get bought, then why am I funding these other younger things? Yeah, but you know, we're just not seeing a lot of the younger stuff get blocked. I don't think we've seen any attempts at blocking speculative portfolio acquisitions or speculative company acquisitions. So I think these guys are getting cut up in the dollar number. You know, so I think the problem is they see $28 billion, they're like, we need to stop it.
但我不认为会有像安进医药的收购事件发生，因为我认为的情况是，所有人都会说，如果这些事情不能被收购，那我为什么要为其他年轻公司提供资金呢？但是，我们并没有看到很多年轻的公司被阻止被收购。我不认为我们看到过任何试图阻止投机性组合收购或投机性公司收购的尝试。所以我认为这些公司被切割成了金钱数目。你知道的，所以我的问题是，他们看到了280亿美元，他们就觉得需要阻止它。
You know, it's amazing. I'll just wrap on this, because it's a good discussion, but I think we gotta keep moving here. Is I took the PDF that you shared, and I put it into chat GPT now. And you don't need to upload the PDF anymore. You could just say, summarize this and put the link, and it did it instantly. And it did. Are you using the browsing plugin or. I just used chat GPT.
你知道吗，这真是太神奇了。这里的讨论很好，但我想我们必须继续前进。我把你分享的PDF转化为Chat GPT，现在你不需要再上传PDF了。你只需要说出摘要，并附上链接，它会立即完成。你用的是浏览插件吗？我只是用了Chat GPT。
No, it's not the browser plugin. I just did, this is the. You gave it the link. I just gave it the link. I did it pulled the link in the GPT 3.5 model. Does that make you know we could do that? That's new. They must have had browsing in the background. Yeah, we're just pulling a file, by the way. Whoa. They did it today. They did it today, yeah. Well, remember last week we said that they had to build browsing into the actual product like Bard, right? Otherwise it could be a hard.
不，这不是浏览器插件。我刚刚做了这件事，它是那个链接。你给了它链接，我只是把它拖入了GPT 3.5模型。这意味着我们可以做到这一点，你知道吗？这很新颖。他们一定在背后进行了浏览。是的，我们只是在获取文件。哇。他们今天刚刚做到了这一点。他们今天刚刚做到这了，是的。好吧，记得上周我们说过他们必须将浏览器集成到实际产品中，就像Bard一样，否则这可能很难。
I gotta say, I closed the eye. Close the eye is on the top of their game. The app is available in the app, so now, right? Does it today? No. They had a test app. I was on the test flight. No, no, no. They just launched the app today. They did? Oh, that's game over, man. This thing is an app form. That's going to 10X the number of users, and it's going to 10X the amount of users. By the way, I just did the same thing for Bard. We should compare the two, but Bard is pretty good as well.
我得说，我闭上了眼睛。闭上眼睛是他们最擅长的事情。这个应用程序现在可以在应用商店下载，对吧？今天可以吗？不，他们先测试应用程序。我参加了测试飞行。不，不，不。他们刚刚在今天发布了应用程序。他们发布了？哦，这下可玩翻了，这个应用井喷了。这将使用户数量增加10倍，应用受欢迎程度也将增加10倍。顺便说一下，我为巴德做了同样的事情。我们应该将两个应用进行比较，但巴德也很好。
Yeah. Yeah, wow. Can you ask Bard to actually compare its summary with chat GPT summary? So, can I tell us which one's better? Right. This is some interesting news here. You know, we. Speaking of platform shifts. Do I get to get my view on the Lena Com thing? Oh. Well, yes.
是的，是的，哇。你能让巴德实际比较一下它的总结和聊天GPT的总结吗？这样，我就可以告诉我们哪一个更好了。好的。这是一个有趣的新闻。说到平台转变。我可以表达我的观点关于Lena Com事情吗？哦，好的，是的。
But first start with, I don't. I didn't want to. This was getting a little. Well, it was getting a little personal here, David, and I didn't want to trigger you. I know you've been struggling with the gout because of your lifestyle choices, the alcohol, the flaw grá, everything, but. No, you've lost a lot of weight. I give you a lot of credit. Tell us, what do you think about the bundling we're seeing here?
首先说，我没有这个意思。我不想那样做。这有点太私人了，David。我不想触发你。我知道你因为生活方式选择，酒精、弗洛格拉等，一直在与痛风作斗争。但是，你已经减轻了很多体重。我很佩服你。告诉我们，你对这里看到的捆绑有什么看法？
Does it seem Microsoft has with the operating system? Yeah, it's very similar. And what I said in the context of tech is that we should focus on the anti-competitive tactics and stop those rather than blocking all mergers. And I think the same thing is happening now in the form of space. If bundling is the problem, focus on bundling.
微软的操作系统是不是看起来很相似呀？是的，它们非常相似。在技术领域，我曾经说过我们应该专注于防止反竞争策略，而不是阻止所有的合并。现在，在太空领域也正在发生同样的事情。如果捆绑销售是问题，就要专注于捆绑销售。
The problem when you just block M&A is that you deny early investors one of the biggest ways that they can make a positive outcome. And what's the downstream effect of that? Yeah, exactly. Look, it is hard enough to make money as either a farmer investor or as a VC that there's only two good outcomes, right? There's IPOs, there's M&A. Preach of the L's basically goes, everything else is as zero goes bankrupt. So if you take M&A off the table, you really suppress the already challenged returns of venture capital.
当你仅仅阻止并购时，问题在于你否认了早期投资者获得积极结果的最大方式之一。而这的下游影响是什么呢？是的，正是如此。看，在成为投资者或风投公司赚钱这件事上本就很难，因为只有两个好结果，对吗？一是IPO，二是并购。错过了这两个好结果，其它的就都是零，那就是破产了。所以如果你把并购从谈判桌上拿掉，你实际上压制了本就挑战性的创业投资回报。
Yeah, well said, well said. And you mentioned earlier that we were willing to give Lena Connitchance. We thought that some of our ideas were really interesting because I think there are these huge tech companies that do need to be regulated. These big tech monopolies, basically that you have the mobile operating system do happily with Apple and Google and you've got Amazon, you've got Microsoft. And there is a huge risk of those companies preferring their own applications over downstream applications or using these bundling tactics.
太对了，太对了。你之前提到我们愿意给予Lena Connitchance 。我们认为我们的一些想法非常有趣，因为我认为有一些巨大的科技公司需要被监管。这些大型科技垄断企业，其实你拥有移动操作系统会与苹果和谷歌愉快地合作，你还有亚马逊，你还有微软。这些公司存在着巨大的风险，因为他们更喜欢自己的应用程序而不是下游应用程序，或者使用这些绑定策略。
If you don't put some limits around that, that creates, I think, an unhealthy tech ecosystem. This is the insight. And I think it's exactly correct, Zach. For Lena Connitchance, listen to the pod, Helena, you want to go after tactics, not acquisitions. So if somebody buys something and they lower prices and increases consumer choice, that's great. If it encourages more people to invest more money into innovation, that's great. But if the tactics are, we're going to bundle these drugs together to keep some number of them artificially high or reduced choice.
如果你不对此设定一些限制，我认为这会创造一个不健康的科技生态系统。这是一个洞察。而且，我认为这是完全正确的，扎克。对于Lena Connitchance 来说，如果你想去追求策略而不是收购，那就听这个播客吧。如果有人购买某个东西，降低价格，并增加消费者选择，那是很好的。如果它鼓励更多的人投资更多的资金到创新中，那也很好。但如果策略是，我们将这些药物捆绑在一起，以保持其中一些药物人为高价或减少选择，那就不好了。
Where if we're going to bundle features into the suite of products and we do anti-competitive stuff, you have to look at the tactics on the field or people cheating. And are they using the monopoly power to force you to use their app store? Just make Apple have a second app store. That's all we're asking you to do. There should be an app store on iOS that doesn't charge any fees or charges, 1% fees. Break the monopoly on the app store.
如果我们要将多种产品功能捆绑成一套产品，同时又做出反竞争的事情，那么你必须看看场上的策略或者人们是否作弊。他们是否利用垄断权力强迫你使用他们的应用商店？只需要让苹果公司有第二个应用商店即可。我们所请求的是，在iOS上应该有一个应用商店，它不收取任何费用或1%的费用。打破应用商店的垄断。
Zach is so right. Perfectly said. She actually did issue compulsory orders to the PBMs. So to your point, Zach, the FTC has been worried that what Freeberg said is been happening. But the real middlemen manipulator in this market are the pharmacy benefit managers. And so this week, she actually issued compulsory orders to the PBMs and said, turn over all your business records to me. I'm going to look into them.
Zach说得非常对。说得太好了。她实际上对药品管理机构发布了强制性命令。所以，就像你说的，Zach，联邦贸易委员会一直担心Freeberg所说的事情正在发生。但是，这个市场中真正的中间人操纵者是药品福利管理机构。因此，本周她实际上向PBMs发布了强制性命令，并要求他们提交所有业务记录给我。我将调查他们的记录。
That makes it on a sense. But then on the same hand, it's like you see merger and you're like, no, it can't happen. It just doesn't speak to a knowledge of the market. We should have Lena on. Well, hey, Lena, I know you listened to the pod. I've heard the back channel. Just come on the pod. You could guess right? We would have a good conversation. I think Lena, I'm hoping to invite Nikki Helley's coming on the pod. By the way, you have homework to do for the summit, which is to see if you can get Donald Trump to come on to the summit. Okay. Huge love, Jake, love all in great part. Okay. Cutray, nice. Okay. Not as good as the practice book class. Okay. Great. As your mannerisms are unbelievable. Did you practice it? I did. I did a little bit. Only because I like to troll people and trigger them. I'm going to really dial in my Trump in the coming weeks.
这个意思是明白的。但是，同样地，当你看到合并时，你可能会觉得不行。这表明你对市场了解得不足。我们应该请莉娜来。嘿，莉娜，我知道你在听播客。我听说了消息，快来做客吧，我们可以有一个好的对话。我想邀请莉娜来，我希望能邀请尼基·海莉来参加播客。顺便说一句，你有一个峰会的作业要完成，那就是看看能否请特朗普来参加峰会。好的，热爱你们，杰克，全力以赴。好的，Cutray，不错。不像练习册里的课程那么好。好的，真的很棒。你练习了吗？我练习了一点。只是因为我喜欢逗人开心，激怒他们。我在未来的几周里将会投入更多时间和精力来扮演特朗普。
All right. Here we go. Apple's long anticipated AR headset. That stands for augmented reality, which means VR. You can't see the real world. You're just in a virtual world AR that you put digital assets on the real world. So you can see what's happening in the real world, but you can put graphics all around. That's expected to be revealed as early as June. The projected cost is going to be around $3,000. So when we ship into the fall, this is a break from Apple's typical way of releasing products, which is to wait till it's perfect and to wait until all consumers can afford it. This is a different approach. They're going to give this out to developers early. And Tim Cook is supposedly pushing this. There was another group of people inside of Apple who did not want to release a Chimoff. But there's some sort of external battery pack.
好的，我们开始吧。苹果公司期待已久的增强现实头戴设备即将亮相。增强现实是指虚拟现实技术，您无法看到真实世界，而是进入虚拟世界，将数字资产放置在现实世界中。因此，您可以看到真实世界中发生的事情，但您可以在周围放置图形。预计这将在6月早些时候揭晓，成本约为3000美元。这是苹果发布产品的一种不同方式，通常会等到产品一切完善，并等到所有消费者都负担得起。他们将提前将其提供给开发人员。据称，提姆·库克正在推动此计划。苹果公司内部还有一群人不想发布。但是有一种外部电池包。
It seems like a bit of a Franken product, Frankencyte kind of project here that, you know, perhaps Steve Jobs wouldn't have wanted to release, but he needs to get it out. I think because Oculus is making so much progress to Killer app, supposedly is a FaceTime like live chat experience. That seems interesting. But they look like ski goggles. You're other words, Chimoff on this as the next compute platform, if they can get it, you know, to work. Would you wear these? Would they have to be Prada? What's the story here? No, no. Does this seem like a weird conversation because none of us fucking know. None of us have seen this product and none of us have used it. So like, this is just a popular lucky friend of the Bob Pommel. Lucky says it's incredible. So what? That's just like commenting on one guy's five letter, five word tweet.
这个产品看起来有点像弗兰肯斯坦(指由不同部分组合而成的怪物)一样，可能是一个弗兰肯半神的项目，也许史蒂夫·乔布斯不想发布，但他需要把它发布出来。我认为这是因为Oculus正在制作一个FaceTime一样的直播聊天体验，因此进展很大。 这看起来很有趣。但是他们看起来像滑雪护目镜。 换句话说，如果他们可以让它发挥作用，那么Chimoff认为这将成为下一个计算平台。 你会戴这些吗？它们是否必须是普拉达？这里的故事是什么？不，没有。这似乎是一个奇怪的谈话，因为我们都不知道这个产品，也没有使用过。因此，这只是Bob Pommel的一个幸运朋友的普及性建议。Lucky说这很棒。那又怎样？这就像评论一个人的五个字的推文一样。
Let's just talk. Pomer knows. I mean, Palmer invented Oculus. Great. But what are we talking about? We have nothing to say to that. Well, no, I'll, I'll, I'll, I'll form a really good question here. Do you believe this is going to be a meaningful compute platform in the coming years because Apple is so good at product? How do we know until we see it? We got to see it. I think it's Facebook. Of course, they're, of course, they're good at product. Let's, let's see the product though. Like, all right. Max, what are your thoughts? I think it's a good thing that they're launching this. Like you said, it is a deviation for what they've normally done.
让我们来谈谈。Pomer知道。我的意思是，Palmer发明了Oculus。很好。但我们在谈什么？我们没有任何东西可供讨论。好吧，我会提出一个非常好的问题。你认为这将成为未来几年的有意义的计算平台，因为苹果在产品方面非常出色吗？我们怎么知道呢，直到我们看到它呢？我们必须看到它。我认为这是Facebook的事情。当然，他们在产品上很出色。但让我们看看产品吧。好的。Max，你有什么想法吗？我认为他们推出这个是件好事。就像你所说的，这是他们平常做的事情的偏离。
They normally don't release a product unless they believe the entire world can use it. So their approach has been only to release mass, mass market products. And I have a very small portfolio of those products. But when those products work, they're, you know, billion user home runs. This obviously can't be at a $3,000 price point. And it also seems like it's a little bit of an early prototype where the batteries are like in a fanny pack around your waist. And there's a ways to go around on this. But I give them credit for launching what is probably going to be more of an early prototype so they could start iterating on it.
通常情况下，他们不会发布产品，除非他们相信全世界都能使用它。因此，他们的方法是只发布大众市场产品，而我只有很少的这些产品的投资组合。但是，当这些产品可行时，它们就是数十亿用户的命中注定。这显然不能以3,000美元的价格点来实现。而且它似乎还是一个早期原型，电池在你腰间像腰包一样。还有一些需要改进的地方。但我要给他们肯定，他们推出的可能更多只是一个早期原型，以便开始迭代。
I mean, the reality is the Apple Watch, the first version kind of sucked. And the first five versions. Yeah. Now they're on one that's pretty good, I think. So look, I think this is a cool new platform. They get knocked on for not innovating enough. I think, good. Let them try something new. I think this will be good for metting to have some competition. Yeah. It's great. You made your players in the race. Maybe it actually speeds up the innovation. I mean, we get somewhere.
我的意思是，事实上，第一代苹果手表有点差。前五个版本也是如此。现在他们有了一个相当不错的版本，我认为。所以，我认为这是一个很酷的新平台。人们批评他们不够创新。我认为不错。让他们尝试一些新的东西。我认为这对Metting来说是个好事，可以有一些竞争。非常好。你让你的球员参与比赛。也许这实际上会加速创新。我的意思是，我们会走向某个方向。
Do you want to say anything about here? I mean, I think they should have done something in cars. I don't know what they should be doing cars. If you were going to talk about the car, what would it be? Tell me what you think would be the right approach.
你想对这里说点什么吗？我的意思是，我认为他们应该在汽车上做些什么。我不知道他们应该在汽车上做什么。如果你要谈论汽车，你会谈论什么？告诉我你认为正确的方法是什么。
You were going to do the Facebook phone. That could have changed the entire destiny of Facebook. They should have bought Tesla and they could have had the chance for $4 or $5 billion. They could have bought it for $10 billion, $20 billion. It's only when it got to $50, $60 that it got out of reach. What do you think the car should have? No, they could have bought it at $100 billion. They could have bought $100 billion. Tim Cook famously wouldn't take the meeting. Elon said it. He wouldn't. He wouldn't. He was our. Maybe they missed an opportunity there.
你原本打算开发Facebook手机，这本可以改变Facebook的全部命运。他们本该购买Tesla，并有机会花费40亿或50亿美元购买。他们本可以以100亿美元的价格购买，但只有当价格飙升到50亿或60亿美元时才让人觉得不切实际。你认为汽车应该有什么特点？不，他们本可以以1000亿美元购买它。著名的Tim Cook拒绝了会谈，这是Elon说的。他不会。他没抓住这个机会。
But I do think the end game with the AR headset or glasses, right? Yes. Where you get the screens and you get the Terminator mode. And is that what is that? These are just glasses that are in my mirror glasses. Oh, okay. They were like fancy technologies. This size glasses is what you're talking about. Yeah. You can have a little camera built in and a game just junction with AI. Then it gets really interesting. So that's the end game here, I think.
我认为AR头戴设备或眼镜的终极目标就是如此吧？是的。你可以得到屏幕和终结者模式。那是指什么？这些只是我的镜子眼镜里的高级技术眼镜。哦，好的。你指的是这个尺寸的眼镜。是的。你可以内置一个小相机，然后再与AI相连接一个游戏，这样就变得非常有趣了。所以我认为这就是终极目标。
Give the audience an example of what this combination of AI plus AR could do. When you're walking around, it could layer on intelligence about the world. You meet with somebody and it can remind you of their name and the last time you met with them and give you a summary of what you talked about, what action items there are. You could be walking in a city and it could tell you it knows you're like peeking dock. It could show you, hey, there's a peeking dock place over here or some reviews of it. It just knows you and it's customized in the world.
给观众举个例子，展示人工智能加增强现实结合的作用。当你四处走动时，它可以向你展示关于世界的智能信息。当你遇到某人时，它可以提醒你他们的名字和你们上次见面的时间，并为你总结你们之间的谈话内容和待完成的任务。当你在城市里行走时，它可以告诉你它知道你喜欢北京烤鸭。它会显示给你一个北京烤鸭餐馆的位置或一些评论。它了解你，能够根据你的兴趣定制世界的信息。
What about for people that do the same routine, 99% of the time? How does it can help you then? It could tell you your steps every day. It could tell you incoming messages. So you don't have to take your phone out. Are you going to spend $3,000 on that? No, but you would spend people spend $1200. People spend $1200. People spend $1200 to get your notifications on your wrist. Why do you want it on your eyes for $3,000? I would love this. Maybe I just do like a lot of meetings or event events where people are coming up to me and I've met them like once a year before. Like it would be really helpful to kind of have the term. Well, let's be honest though, the terminated mode for you to be able to be present with your family and friends, but be playing chess with Peter Tiel on those glasses. That's your dream come true. You and Peter in AR playing chess all day long. Throw up the picture of SACs beating Peter Tiel. I watched the clip from the early end, all in episodes when we discussed you beating Peter Tiel. What a great moment it was for you.
那对于那些大多数时间都做同样例行工作的人呢？这会有什么帮助呢？它可以每天告诉你你的步数，你可以得到即将到来的信息，这样你就不用拿出手机了。你会花3000美元去买它吗？不会，但人们会花1200美元去买手上的提醒。为什么你要花3000美元把它放在你的眼睛上？我会喜欢它。也许我有很多会议或活动，人们会每年来参加一次。这将非常有帮助。老实说，对于你来说，终止模式可以使你在与家人和朋友在一起时，与彼得·蒂尔（Peter Tiel）一起下棋成为现实。这是你的梦想成真。你和Peter在AR上整天下棋。放下SACs击败Peter Tiel的照片。我看了早期所有节目中有关于你击败Peter Tiel的片段，那真是一次伟大的时刻。
All right, listen, let's wrap up with this Gallup survey. The number of Americans who say it's a good time to buy a house has never been lower. 21% say it's a good time to buy a house down 9% from the prior low of a year ago, prior to 2022. 50% are more consistently though, it was a good time to buy. Significantly, significantly fewer expect local housing prices to increase in the year.
好的，听我说，让我们来总结一下这份盖洛普调查。有关美国人声称现在是买房好时机的比例从未如此之低，只有21%的人认为现在是一个好的购房时机，比去年前九个月的最低点下降了9%。50%的人则一直认为现在是买房的好时机。值得注意的是，预计未来一年当地房价上涨的人数明显减少。
Hey, SACs, is this like a predictive of a bottom and pure capitulation? Then that means maybe it is in fact a good time. How would you read this data? I don't see it as a bottom necessarily. The way I read the data is that the spike in interest rates have made it very unaffordable to buy a house right now. You've got the mortgages are what, like, 7% interest rate is even slightly higher. So people just can't afford the same level of house that they did before. I mean, mortgages were at 3, 3, and a half percent, like four and a half ago.
嘿，SACs，这是一个底部预测和纯粹的投降吗？那意味着现在可能是一个好时机。你怎么看待这份数据？我不认为这是底部。我看这份数据是，利率的飙升使得现在购买房屋变得非常难以负担。你们看，抵押贷款的利率是多少？7%甚至更高。所以人们就买不起之前那样等级的房子了。我的意思是，在四年半以前，抵押贷款的利率只有3%、3.5%左右。
I think what's kind of interesting is that even in the 1980s, the early 1980s, when interest rates were at like 15%, you still had 50% thought it was an okay time to buy a house or an attractive time to buy a house. So for the number to be this low tells me that is not just about interest rates, I think consumer confidence is also plummeting and people are feeling more insecure. So I think it's another economic indicator that things are looking really shaky right now.
我认为有趣的是，即使在1980年代初，当利率高达15%时，仍有50%的人认为现在是购买房屋的好时机或有吸引力的时机。因此，现在这个数字如此之低，这告诉我不仅仅是关于利率的问题，我认为消费者信心也在下降，人们感到更加不安全。因此，我认为这是另一个经济指标，表明现在的局势非常不稳定。
And I'll tell you one of the knock on effects of this is going to be that people can't move because in order to move, you have to sell your current house and then buy a new one. And you're not going to want to sell your current house when prices are going down. And then for the new one, you're going to lose your 3% mortgage enough to get a new one at 7%. So you're not going to buy anything like the house. So if you freeze the market, it freezes mobility. I think over the last few years during COVID, you sought tremendous movement between states. I think that's going to slow down a lot now because people just can't afford to trade houses. So as a result of that, I think discontent is going to rise because I think one of the ways that you create a pressure valve is when people aren't happy in a state, they just move somewhere else. Well now they're not going to do that.
我告诉你这个现象的一个负面影响就是人们无法搬家，因为为了搬家，你必须先卖掉目前的房子再买新的。而当房价下跌时，你不会想卖掉目前的房子。对于新房子，你也会失去原来只有3%的抵押贷款利率，需要以7%的利率重新贷款购买。所以你不会买像房子那样的东西。因此，如果市场冻结，移动性就被冻结了。我认为在过去的几年中，在 COVID 疫情期间，州际之间的移动非常频繁。但是现在人们无法负担交换房屋的费用，这种现象会大大减缓。因此，我认为不满情绪会增加，因为当人们不喜欢一个州时，他们搬到另一个地方是缓解不满情绪的一种方式。但现在他们不会这样做了。
Well, you can also move to a better opportunity for you and your family, whether that school's taxes, a job, lifestyle. So yeah, you're going to reduce joy in the country. And it also, it screws with price discovery, doesn't it, Jamal? If you don't have a fluid market here, then how does anybody know what their house is worth? And this just, again, creates more.
嗯，你也可以为你和家人寻找更好的机会，不论是关于学校税收、工作还是生活方式。所以是的，你将减少国家的繁荣。而且，这也会影响价格的确定，是吧，贾迈勒？如果这里没有流动的市场，那么任何人怎么知道他们的房子值多少钱呢？这只会创造更多的困难。
I think. I think Friedberg has said this a couple times, Friedberg, you can correct me if I'm wrong. But like the home is like the disproportionate majority of most Americans wealth, right? It's all there well. All there well, yeah. So I mean, there's that factoid. And then what does that do for other big attention savings or whatever? Yeah, it's okay. You got, you got, what's going on? They're bringing you lunch? No, I was looking at, I was looking at, uh, really, I'm just, I mentioned that's for sale. Like, like $175 million, but they just got the price to 140. So I'm just taking a little again. I mean, there's a lot of distress in the market soon. I'm predicting a lot of distress.
我认为弗里德伯格已经多次说过这个问题，弗里德伯格，如果我说错了，请指出来。但是像家庭这样的不动产在大多数美国人的财富中比例很大，对吧？这个事实是成立的。那么这对其他的储蓄或者关注点有什么影响呢？嗯，这没什么关系。你在干嘛？他们给你送午餐？不，我在看一个房子，目前售价1.75亿美元，但是他们把价格降到了1.4亿美元。所以我在研究一下。我觉得市场很困难，即将出现很多困难。
Actually, can we shift to the commercial side for a second? I just passed away. And that's the way. Yeah. Sam's Elb has the way today. Oh, wow. Rest in peace, yeah. Rest in peace. Yeah. Shakago, um, yeah. Crazy. But speaking of.
实际上，我们可以把话题转到商业方面吗？我刚刚走了。就是这样。是的，萨姆的艾尔布今天走了路。哇，安息吧。安息吧。是的，夏加哥，嗯，很疯狂。不过谈到商业…
Fantastic, interesting guy. Yeah, but speaking of the real estate market, so I want to give an update on San Francisco CRE. I was talking to a broker the other day. And so here, here are the stats that they gave me. So it was a local broker than someone from Blackstone. And their fans of the pod and just came up to me and we started talking about what's happening in San Francisco. So shout out, shout out to them. Didn't take a photo, but. But any event, their fans of the pod was, so we started talking about what was happening in San Francisco, real estate.
这位人非常了不起、有趣。但说到房地产市场，我想给大家更新一下旧金山商用房地产的情况。前不久我和一位经纪人交流过。他给了我以下数据。这是一位本地经纪人而非来自Blackstone的人。他们是节目的粉丝，遇到我后跟我开始谈论旧金山的房地产情况。向他们致以敬意。我没有拍照，但他们是我们的粉丝，我们开始谈论旧金山的房地产情况。
So the SF office market is just a level set is 90 million square feet. They said the vacancy rate is now 35%. So that's over 30 million square feet vacant. And vacancy is still growing as Lisa's end and company shed space because some of that space that they're not using is not for sub-lease. Everyone says, what about AI? Is AI going to be the savior? The problem is that AI companies are only. That's only about a million square feet of demand. So one million out of 30 million is going to be absorbed by AI. And maybe that number grows over time over the next 5, 10 years as we create some really big AI companies, but it's just not going to bail out San Francisco right now. The other thing is that VC's back startups are very demanding in terms of their tenant improvements. And landlords don't really have the cap or I know to put that into the buildings. And startups just are not the kind of credit worthy tenants that landlords really want.
这里说的是旧金山的办公市场规模为9000万平方英尺，目前空置率为35%，超过3000万平方英尺的房间是空着的。由于Lisa公司等公司正在减少使用部分场地，所以空置率还在不断上升。很多人问AI能不能拯救市场，但实际上，AI公司只需要100万平方英尺的办公面积，相比3000万平方英尺，几乎不起作用。也许未来5到10年会有更多巨型AI公司的出现，但现在并不能拯救旧金山办公市场。此外，风险投资(Venture Capital)支持的创业公司对办公改善的要求很高，而房东没有足够的资金去进行改善。创业公司本身也不是房东理想的有信用度租户。
So this is not going to bail anybody out. They said there are a ton of zombie office towers, especially in Soma. And all these office towers are eventually going to be owned by the banks, which are going to have to liquidate them. And then we're going to find out that these loans that they made are going to be written off because the collateral that they thought was blue chip that was backing up those loans is not so blue chip anymore. So I think we've got not just a huge commercial real estate problem, but it's going to be a big banking problem as basically people stop pretending.
这不会帮任何人摆脱问题。他们说有很多僵尸写字楼，尤其是在Soma区。这些写字楼最终都将归银行所有，银行将不得不将它们清算。然后我们将发现，他们所做的贷款将被写下，因为他们认为支持这些贷款的担保物不再是蓝筹股。所以我认为我们不仅面临着巨大的商业房地产问题，而且这将成为一个大的银行问题，因为人们将停止假装。
You know, right now they're trying to restructure loans. It's called pretending to extend. You reduce the rate on the loan, but add term to it. But that only works for so long. If this keeps going, if the market keeps looking like this, I think you're going to have a real problem. And that will be a problem in the banking system. Now services go as the worst of the worst, but they said that New York is similar and all these other big cities with empty office towers are directionally.
你知道，现在他们正在尝试重组贷款。它被称为“假装延期”。你会减少贷款利率，但是增加贷款期限。但这只能持续那么长时间。如果这种情况持续下去，如果市场继续像这样，我认为你会遇到真正的问题。这将是银行系统的一个问题。现在服务行业是最糟糕的，但他们说纽约和所有这些有空置写字楼的大城市是相似的方向。
I'm in New York right now for this side connections conference and it is packed. The city is packed getting anywhere. There's gridlock. You can't walk down the street. You got to walk around people every restaurant. It is dynamic. And then I talked to people about offices and they said people are staying in their houses and they're tiny little New York apartments. Instead of going three train stops to their office, they go to the office one or two days a week, unless you're like JP Morgan or some other places that drop the boom. But there's a lot of people still working from home. The finance people have all gone back. Media people are starting to go back. So there are three to five days here and the city is booming.
我现在在纽约参加这个边缘连接会议，场面十分热闹。到处都是人，城市非常拥挤。交通堵塞，走在街上也会被人挤来挤去。每家餐馆都热闹非凡。我与人们谈论办公室的情况，他们说人们现在在家工作，住在微小的纽约公寓里，而不是去乘坐三个地铁站到办公室，一周只去一两天办公，除非像JP摩根这样的机构，他们已经恢复正常工作。但是还有很多人在家工作。金融人员已经全部返回，媒体人员也开始回去了。这里的人们工作三到五天，城市正在繁荣发展。
Contrast that is spent the last two weeks in San Francisco walking from Soma to the Embarcadero back dead, nobody in the city, like literally a ghost town. It's a real shame. It's a real real shame. And I wonder if these, this is the question I have for you, Saks, can they cut a deal? Can they go to like months to month, rents, sublets, you know, Lucy, Goosey, just give people any dollar amount to convince them to come back? Is there any dollar amount?
在旧金山过去两周，从Soma走到Embarcadero，发现整座城市已经荒无人烟了，像是灵异小镇一样。这真的很遗憾，非常非常遗憾。我在想，这是我想问你的问题，萨克斯，他们能否达成协议？能否按照月租，转租的方式灵活处理，无论如何都要向人们提供足够的费用吸引他们回来吗？这个费用的数额是否存在？
Because I'm looking for a space for the incubator in San Mateo. I've been getting a ton of inbound. But the prices are still really high. And I'm like, how do I cut a deal here? Because shouldn't people be lowering the prices dramatically or are they just pretending or will I get a lower? Rits are definitely coming down big time, especially for space that sort of commodity and not that desirable. But what's happening is, according to the people I talk to, is that the demand, the people who are actually looking for new space, they only want to be in the best areas and they want to be in the newest buildings that have the best amenities. And so that sort of commodity office tower, where there's barely anybody ever there, like no one wants that. So I think people would rather pay a higher rent. I mean, the rent will still be much lower, probably half the price of what it used to be. But they'd rather pay a little bit more for that than get like a zombie office tower.
因为我正在寻找圣马特奥的孵化器空间。我收到了大量询问，但价格仍然非常高。所以我在想，我该如何谈判呢？因为人们难道不应该大幅降低价格吗？还是他们在假装？或者我该寻求更低的价格？现在市场确实正在大量下跌，特别是对于那些不那么受欢迎的普通空间。但根据我所听到的信息，实际上正在寻找新空间的人只想在最佳区域的最新建筑中找到最好的设施。那种几乎没有人去的普通写字楼，没有人想要。因此，我认为人们宁愿支付更高的租金。尽管租金仍将低于原来的一半，但他们宁愿为此支付更多的费用，而不是得到像僵尸一样的办公楼。
We can't talk about all this without talking about two cases. So, tragically, a shop lifter, a criminal who was stealing from a drug store in San Francisco, I got shot. And the video was released. I'm sure you've seen it, Sachs. And then here in New York, everybody's talking about this one instance of a marine trying to subdue a violent, homeless person with two other people. And it's on everybody's minds here. And Brook Jenkins is not prosecuting in San Francisco, the shooter. They look like a clean shoot, as they would say, in the police business, an appropriate and it's tragic to say it is.
我们不能谈论这一切而不提到这两个案件。可悲的是，一个小偷，在旧金山一家药店偷窃时被枪击。这段视频已经发布了，我相信你已经看过了，Sachs。然后在纽约，在这里每个人都在谈论一位海军试图制服一名有暴力倾向的流浪汉与另外两个人。这件事情在每个人的脑海中都很重要。而布鲁克·詹金斯没有在旧金山对枪手进行起诉，因为这看起来像是一次干净的枪击，正是警务工作中所说的合适之举，但是这很悲惨。
But the person did charge the security guard, the security guard did fear for their life and shot him. So Brook Jenkins is not going to pursue anything. But in New York City, they're pursuing manslaughter for the person who did seem a bit excessive from the video. It's hard to tell what the reality is in these situations. He thoughts on it, David, these two cases and two cities, tell it to sit. Yeah, look, I mean, the only time you can get a Soros DA excited about prosecuting someone is when they act in self-defense or defensive others.
但那个人确实向保安冲过去，保安害怕自己的生命安全，于是射了他。因此，布鲁克·詹金斯不会采取任何行动。但在纽约市，他们正在追究那个在视频中看起来过度的人的过失杀人罪。在这些情况下很难说出现实情况是什么。关于这两个城市发生的这两个案件，大卫的看法是什么？我的想法是，唯一可以激起一个索罗斯检察官起诉某人的时候，就是当人们在自卫或保护他人的时候。
I mean, this marine, I guess Daniel Penny is his name. He was acting in defensive others. The person who he stopped was someone with an extensive criminal record who had just recently engaged in an attempted kidnapping who had punched elderly people had dozens of arrests.
我的意思是，这位海军士兵，我猜他叫丹尼尔·彭尼。他在保护他人方面表现得非常积极。他阻止的人是一位有着大量犯罪记录、最近刚刚参与了一起绑架未遂案、还曾殴打老年人并有数十次逮捕记录的人。
In fact, people on Reddit were talking about how dangerous this person was. Apparently, a dozen years ago or so, he was seen as more of like a quirky Michael Jackson impersonator. Street performer. Street performer. But something happened, this is according to a Reddit post that I saw where something happened and there was some sort of psychological break.
事实上，Reddit上的人们谈论着这个人的危险性。显然，大约十几年前，他更像是一个古怪的迈克尔·杰克逊模仿者。他是一名街头艺人。但有些事情发生了，我在Reddit上看到有一个帖子说他发生了某种心理崩溃。
And then since then, he's had dozens and dozens of crimes and they just keep letting him loose through this revolving door of justice system we have. And now look, no one likes to see him basically dying. And yes, too bad. It's horrible that that happened.
从那之后，他已经犯下了数十起罪行，但我们的司法体系一直让他逍遥法外。现在看看，没有人喜欢看到他基本上快死了。是的，太糟糕了，这件事很可怕。
Project. I don't know though that if you're trying to stop someone, I don't know how easy it is to precisely control whether you use too much force or not. So I think Daniel Penny has a strong case that he was acting in self-defense and defensive others. And there were two other people by the way who were holding this person down. There are three of them restraining him.
项目。我不知道如果你想阻止某人，我不知道你是否很容易精确地控制是否使用过多的力量。因此，我认为丹尼尔•彭尼有一个强有力的理由，他是在自卫和保护他人。顺便说一下，还有另外两个人抓住了这个人。他们有三个人阻止他。
And what universally New Yorker said to me of all different backgrounds was this is not a race issue. The other, I think one or two of the other people were people of color. It was not a race issue and they're trying to make it into a race issue in both these cases. And it's this is literally what happens.
来自不同背景的纽约人都对我说过一句话，那就是这不是一种种族问题。其中有一两个人是有色人种。这不是一种种族问题，但他们试图将其变成一种种族问题。这确实是会发生的事情。
And just having been through this in New York in the 70s and 80s when you do not. Who's they? Who's they when you say trying to make a race issue? There are a bunch of protests on the street both in San Francisco and New York people protesting these as justice issues.
在70年代和80年代的纽约经历过这种情况的人就知道，如果你不这样做，会发生什么。谁是“他们”？当你提到试图把种族问题放大时，“他们”是谁？既在旧金山又在纽约有很多人在抗议街头，声称这是正义问题。
The fact is if you do not, if you allow lawlessness for too long a period of time, you get a Bernie Gets situation. And Bernie Gets people can look it up in the 80s. I was a kid when it happened. But they tried to mug somebody, he had a gun, he shot him. And like this is what happens if you allow lawlessness for extended periods of time, it's just you're basically gambling.
事实是，如果你不去维护法律秩序，如果你让违法行为持续时间太长，就会出现“伯尼·盖茨事件”。人们可以在80年代的资料中了解伯尼·盖茨事件。当时我还是个孩子。但他们试图抢劫某人，他拿出了枪，然后开了枪。这就是如果你持续让违法行为存在，会发生的情况，你基本上就是在赌博。
And what happened to Bernie Gets? He got the case. He got not guilty. But I think he had an illegal gun. So he was guilty of that. The Bernie Gets thing was really crazy because at the time the climate in New York and this 1984 shooting, he.
那么Bernie Gets发生了什么？ 他获得了该案件。他被判无罪。但我认为他有一支非法的枪支。所以他因此有罪。Bernie Gets的事情真的很疯狂，因为当时纽约的气氛和1984年的枪击事件。
There was a portion of people who, I don't want to say they made him a hero, but they made it a sea. This is what happens if you allow us to be assaulted forever. We're going to fight back at some point. That was the vibe in New York when I was a child. That was 14, 15 years old when this happened. He was charged with attempted murder assault.
有一部分人，我不想说他们把他塑造成英雄，但他们把他变成了一座海。如果我们被攻击而不断地容忍，就会发生这种情况。我们在某个时候会反击。当我还是个孩子的时候，纽约就是这种氛围。我大约14、15岁时这件事发生了。他被指控企图谋杀和攻击。
Jason, what was the name of that vigilante group that used to walk the streets? The something angels? That was the something angels, right? Guardians. So it was so bad in the 80s. And I actually almost signed up for the guardian angels. I went to their headquarters because I was practicing martial arts and I thought I would check it out. And they had their office in house kitchen. I didn't mind of joining.
杰森，那个在街上巡逻的私刑团体叫什么名字？是“某某天使”吗？那就是“卫士天使”吧？当时在80年代很糟糕。我当时差点加入了卫士天使。我去了他们的总部，因为我练习武术，所以想尝试一下。他们的办公室实际上是一间厨房。我没想过要加入。
But what they would do is they would just ride the subway that would wear a certain type of hat and wear a guardian angel shirt. And all they did was just ride the subways, a red beret and they would just ride the subways and you felt like martial arts. Were you taking take one though? I was in take one though. Yeah. This is before a mixed martial arts, but they just rode the subways. And honestly, I've been on the subways with them many times. You felt safe. And it wasn't vigilantes. They were guardian angels that used that term.
他们的做法就是穿着某种帽子和守护天使的衬衫坐地铁。他们只是坐地铁, 戴着红色的贝雷帽,让人感觉像是在学习武术。你参加过“第一式”吗？我加入 在第一式之前。这是在综合格斗之前，但他们只是坐地铁。说实话，我和他们在地铁上坐过很多次，感觉很安全。他们不是义警，他们使用“守护天使”这个术语。
And many times they would do exactly what this marine did, which is try to subdue somebody who was committing crime. I was, I had two distinct instances where people tried to mug me, you know, riding the subways in New York in the 80s. Two distinct times. And one was a group of people and one was one person. Like it was pretty scary. Both times I navigated it, but it was, yeah, not pleasant in the 80s in New York.
很多时候，他们会像这位海军陆战队员一样，试图制服那些犯罪的人。我有两次明显的经历，就是在80年代坐地铁时有人试图抢劫我。一次是一群人，一次是一个人。非常可怕。虽然我两次都躲过了，但在80年代的纽约，这种经历并不愉快。
I was going to say one more thing about this. Daniel Penny, Jordan Neely case. So look, at the end of the day, this is going to be litigated. I don't know all the details. They're going to have to litigate whether Daniel Penny's use of force was excessive or not.
我还想说一件事，关于丹尼尔·彭尼和乔丹·尼利的案件。所以看，说到底，这件事情将会得以解决。我不知道所有的细节。他们将不得不解决丹尼尔·彭尼是否过度使用武力的问题。
But here's the thing is that the media has been falsely representing Jordan Neely by only posting 10 year old, photos him and leaving out crucial information. This was a press report. So again, this is why I mentioned the whole Michael Jackson impersonator thing is that the media keeps portraying Neely as this innocent, harmless guy who is this like the lightful Michael Jackson impersonator.
然而问题在于媒体误导性地描绘了乔丹·尼利，只发布了10年前的照片，并遗漏了重要信息。这是一项新闻报道。这就是为什么我提到迈克尔·杰克逊模仿者的事情，因为媒体一直将尼利描绘为无辜、无害的家伙，就像是个令人愉快的迈克尔·杰克逊模仿者。
In truth, he hasn't done that in more than a decade because again, he had some sort of mental break. And since then, he's been arrested over 40 times, including for attempting to kidnap a seven year old child. And so the media is not portraying this case, I think, in an accurate way.
实际上，他十多年来并没有那样做，因为他曾经出现了某种心理问题。自那以后，他已经被逮捕了40多次，包括试图绑架一个七岁的孩子。因此，我认为媒体没有准确地描述这个案件。
And I think as a result of that, it leads to pressure on the DA to prosecute someone who has, I think, a strong self-defense plane, or maybe the DA just wants to do this anyway. And it gives the DA cover to do this.
我认为，这导致对检方施加了压力，他们需要起诉某人，即便我认为这个人有很强的自卫理由，或者检方本来就想这么做。这为检方提供了隐蔽的保护。
What is Soros's, I mean, I know that we had this back and forth with us. But why is CNN being inaccurate, do you think sex? They're basically cooperating with Alvin Bragg's interpretation of the case.
索罗斯的意思是什么？我知道我们之间有过来来回回。但你认为CNN为什么不准确，可能是性别问题吗？他们基本上正在与阿尔文·布拉格对该案件的解释进行合作。
意思是，提到了索罗斯，但并没有具体说明他的观点。询问对方是否认为CNN不准确，是否和性别有关，以及他们是否与阿尔文·布拉格合作来解释这个案件。
They're trying to make the case against Penny, look as damning as possible. Why don't they just take it straight down the middle? It's a tragedy. We have a screwed up situation here. We got a mental health crisis. And it's a tragedy for everybody involved on the Bernie Getz stuff.
他们正在试图尽可能让对Penny的指控看起来更加糟糕。为什么不直接公正处理呢？这真是一场悲剧。我们现在面临着一种扭曲的局面。我们有一个心理健康危机。而对于与伯尼·葛茨有关的所有人来说，这都是一场悲剧。
He served eight of a 12-month sentence for the firearm charge, and he had a massive $43 million civil judgment against him in 1996, decade later. It's just. This is a little different than the Getz thing, because pulling out a gun and shooting somebody. Well, that's deadly intent. Yeah, that's a huge celebration here. That's completely different than that.
他因持枪罪被判12个月，已服刑8个月，并于十年后被判付4300万的民事赔偿。这是公正的。这和Getz事件有些不同，因为拔出枪并开枪射击某人是有致命意图的。嗯，在这里这是一个巨大的庆祝活动。这与那完全不同。
Penny, he's a train marine, right? He's trying to mobilize him. He has to believe that he's just trying to subdue, nearly. And so he's trying to use a chokehold to kill him. That's an unfortunate consequence of what happened, but he was trying to restrain the guy. As far as we know, right? As far as we know.
Penny是一位训练有素的海军人员，对吗？他试图使他动起来。他必须相信他只是试图制服他。因此他试图使用双手勒喉来杀死他。这是发生的不幸后果，但他是试图制住那个人。就我们所知，对吗？就我们所知。
Yeah, I mean, tragedies all around. We gotta have law and order. I tweeted, I don't know why we still have the post office. Maybe we can make that like once a week and redo all of that space and allow every American who's suffering from mental illness to check in to what used to be the post office.
是的，我是说，到处都是悲剧。我们必须有法律和秩序。我发了推特，我不知道为什么我们还需要邮局。也许我们可以把邮局变成每周一次，重新利用所有的空间，让每个患有精神疾病的美国人都可以来检查，这就是原来的邮局。
You know, maybe like once a week and obviously you can give those people very gentle landings. But I don't think we need postal service more than once or twice a week. And then let's reallocate some money towards mental health in this country where anybody who's sick who feels like they're violent or feels like they're suicidal can just go into a publicly provided facility and say, I'm a sick person, please help me.
你知道，也许每周一次，显然你可以给那些人非常温和的降落。但我认为我们不需要邮政服务超过一两次一周。然后，让我们将一些钱重新分配给这个国家的心理健康，在这里，任何感觉暴力或自杀的病人可以进入一个公共提供的设施，说：“我是一个病人，请帮助我。”
This would solve a lot of problems in society. We've got a mental health crisis. We should provide mental health services to all Americans. And it's obviously easy thing for us to afford to do. And if we had done that, then that's never what happened.
这将会解决许多社会问题。我们正面临心理健康危机，我们应该为所有美国人提供心理健康服务。这显然是我们易于承受的事情。如果我们这样做了，那么就不会再发生这种事情。
Exactly. I mean, literally you have sacks who wants to balance the budget saying, hey, this is something we're spending on. We can all agree on this. Compared to the impact on society, I don't think it would be a huge expense.
确实如此。我的意思是，有一些想要平衡预算的人，他们认为我们正在花费资金的某些方面是可以达成共识的。与对社会的影响相比，我认为这并不是一个巨大的开支。
We would save money. We'd save money because a city like San Francisco could become quite livable or New York. And then you've got for these terrible school shootings. If you avoid even one of them, it's 30 people's lives or 10 people's lives. So it's a very good way to convert post offices.
我们将会省下很多钱。这是因为像旧金山或纽约这样的城市变得很宜居。此外，我们还可以避免这些可怕的校园枪击案。即使只能避免其中一起，也能挽救30个人或10个人的生命。因此，将邮局改造成学校是一个非常好的选择。
What we need to do is stand up scaled shelters and it doesn't need to be done on the most expensive land in a given city. Do it outside of cities. Yes. Yes. There is no expectation in Europe for like Paris or London to be affordable or Hong Kong to be affordable.
我们需要做的是建立规模化的临时住所，而且它不需要在城市中最昂贵的土地上建造。在城市外面建设。是的。是的。在欧洲，没有像巴黎或伦敦或香港这样的城市是经济实惠的。
There are affordable places, 30 minutes outside of those places where you could put these facilities. I just want to ask one question to sacks because I don't know. I know sacks is a little bit deeper into the Sun.
有些地方价格实惠，距离这些地方约30分钟的车程，你可以在那里建设这些设施。我只想问sacks一个问题，因为我不确定。我知道sacks离太阳有些更深远。
What is George Soros' motivation for putting in these lawless insane DAs? I understand that he was able to buy them. They're low cost. There's not a lot of money in them. Okay, I understand that. That's table stakes.
乔治·索罗斯为什么要支持这些不守法律和疯狂的地方检察官呢？我知道他能够买通他们，他们价格实惠，所以他买下他们也花不了太多钱。好的，我理解了这些，但这只是表面的原因。
But what is his actual motivation for causing chaos in cities? Listen, we can't know exactly what his motivation is. But what he did is he went into cities where he doesn't live and flooded the zone with money to get his preferred candidate elected as DA.
但他制造城市混乱的真正动机是什么呢？听着，我们不能确定他的动机是什么。但他做的是，他去了不居住的城市，用钱把他偏爱的候选人选举为检察官。
Now the reason he did that was to change the law and the way that he changed the law was not through legislatures the way you're supposed to operate, but rather by abusing prosecutorial discretion.
他这样做的原因是想改变法律，而他改变法律的方式并不是通过立法机关应该遵循的方式，而是通过滥用检察官的自由裁量权来实现。
So in other words, once he gets his Soros DA elected, they can change the law by deciding what to prosecute and what not to prosecute. Right. And that's why there is so much lawless in these cities. But there's a better path you're saying.
换句话说，一旦他当选了他的索罗斯检察官，他们可以通过决定什么可以起诉和什么不能起诉来改变法律。是的。这就是为什么这些城市有那么多违法行为。但你说有更好的方法。
Yeah, better path. It's not the only way that Soros has, I'd say, imposed his values on cities that he doesn't even live in. Where does he live? I think he's a New York guy, but I'm not sure. But he's gone far beyond that, obviously, in these elections.
是的，更好的途径。我不得不说，索罗斯并不只是在他甚至没有居住的城市强加他的价值观的唯一方式。他住在哪里？我想他是个纽约人，但我不确定。但他在这些选举中显然远远超出了这个范畴。
But also he's done this across the world. Soros has this thing called the Open Society Foundation, which sounds like it's spreading democracy and liberal values. But in fact, is fermenting regime change all over the world. And he's been sponsoring and funding color revolutions all over the world.
索罗斯在全球范围内进行了这项工作。索罗斯有一个名为“开放社会基金会”的机构，听起来像是在传播民主和自由价值观。但实际上，它推动了全世界的政权更迭。他一直在全球范围内赞助和资助彩色革命。
Now, if you like some of the values he's spreading, then maybe you think that's a good thing. But I can tell you that the way this is perceived by all these countries all over the world is it creates tremendous dissension and conflict. And then they look at America and they basically say, this American billionaire is coming into our country and he's funding regime change. And it makes America look bad.
现在，如果你喜欢他传播的某些价值观，那么你可能认为这是件好事。但我可以告诉你的是，全世界各国对此的看法是，这会引起极大的分歧和冲突。他们看着美国，基本上可以说，这位美国亿万富翁正在进入我们的国家，并资助政权更迭。这让美国看起来很糟糕。
Now he's doing this, I think, with the cooperation of our State Department in a lot of cases. And maybe the CIA, I don't know. But this is why America, frankly, has hated all over the world. As we go running around meddling in the internal affairs of all these countries.
我认为，他现在经常与我们国务院合作做这件事。也许还有中央情报局，我不确定。但这就是为什么美国在世界各地都受到憎恨的原因。因为我们到处干涉各国的内政。
And he's right. And he's right. And he's right. He's this guy all there. Like that was the other thing I heard is that he's not all there. And the people around him are doing these kind of things in his organizations.
他是正确的。他是正确的。他是正确的。他确实是个正常人。我听说有人说他不正常，但他周围的人在他的组织中进行这些事情。
I heard something similar is that it's the idiot son Alexander who's really now pulling the strings on the fourth comment.
我听说类似的事情，就是那个傻瓜儿子亚历山大现在真的在掌控第四条评论。意思是指亚历山大是真正掌握第四条评论的人。
Would you allow Soros to speak at all in summit? Would you interfere? Yeah, let's have Soros or his son and they could explain themselves. If they're so proud.
您会允许索罗斯在峰会上发言吗？您会干涉吗？是的，让索罗斯或他的儿子来解释他们自己。如果他们这么自豪的话。
Well, apparently there is an article that Alexander Soros has visited the White House like two dozen times during the Biden presidency. This is an extremely powerful and connected person. I mean, I'm sure he listens to the party.
显然，有一篇文章称亚历山大·索罗斯在拜登总统任期内已经访问白宫约二十多次。他是一个极其强大和有人脉的人。我的意思是，我相信他会听从党的指示。
Okay, we'll see you all next time. This is episode one, two, nine of all in. We'll see you in episode one, thirty. Bye bye. I love you. Bye bye.
好的，我们下次再见。这是《All In》第129期节目。我们会在第130期再见。拜拜，我爱你们。再见。
We'll let your winners ride. We should all just get a room and just have one big huge or two because they're all just like this like sexual tension that we just need to release some of that.
我们会让你们的赢家继续跑。我们最好都找个房间，然后一起大床一起睡，因为我们都有这种性紧张感，需要释放一些。
What? You're the big what? You're the beer of beef. You're beer of beef. I'm doing all it.
什么？你是什么大家伙？你是啤酒牛肉。你是啤酒牛肉。我来做这一切。
（该段话为意义不明碎语，并无实际含义，只能按字面翻译，没有实际背景情境）