#24: Sam Altman - Religious Cult Leader or CEO?

发布时间 2023-11-22 10:00:44 来源

We should address like we've had many conversations about opening eye and how cool their technology is and the app store and all of that. I don't think I'm going to say a little bit. Okay, well you hadn't followed the announcement at the time of that podcast. I was pointing out to us to say I'm not knowing what we were talking about.

我们应该表现得好像我们已经讨论过很多次关于开眼和他们的科技以及应用商店之类的问题。我不打算说太多，但你那时候还没有关注这个公告。我是在提醒我们不要在不了解我们正在谈论的内容时发表意见。

Ravengrip, Los Amiges, put it on right to the test. More less. Aloha, hello. How are you guys doing? We're just, you know, living out Thanksgiving week on family vacation and dealing with open AI saga. What about you guys? You know, well, first of all, welcome to my surf shack, which is apparently also an excellent podcast studio given our Starlink connection inserts here. So you've traded a pool house for a surf shack. I know. I'm really delighted. I could do a whole pod about the surf shack, but I won't. We were going to be off this week. We had a plan B. We were going to bring you all some archival ancillary content. But something happened around someone named Sam and Tech. Not me. It's not this Sam and Tech. And so we felt we had to bring you the pod. So hello to everyone listening to this. I don't know exactly when it's going to come out because we're aiming to do it fast because the situation is so fluid. But we've got the full quad here to give you all the news on open AI that the information has been breaking. All the hot takes, all the back channel conversation. What am I missing? Not much. Let's go. Some jokes, maybe a future. Bring all the energy from our lack of sleeping. I mean, I miss the time. Me too. Oh, I'm glad. I'm glad you've all been sleeping fine.

羽毛破碎，洛斯阿米格斯，将其进行充分的测试。多多少少。阿洛哈，大家好。你们怎么样呀？我们只是，在度过感恩节周的家庭度假之际，同时还面临着与开放 AI 的事件。你们呢？你知道的，首先，欢迎来到我的冲浪小屋，这也是一个很好的播客工作室，基于我们的 Starlink 连接。所以你们将游泳池小屋换成了冲浪小屋？我知道。我真的很高兴。我可以做一个关于冲浪小屋的完整播客，但我不会这样做的。我们本来打算在这个星期休息的。我们有一个计划 B。我们本来打算给大家带来一些档案附属内容。但是发生了一些关于一个叫 Sam 和 Tech 的事情。不是我，不是这个 Sam 和 Tech。所以我们觉得我们必须给大家带来这个播客。所以向所有听到这个播客的人们问好。我不知道这个播客具体什么时候会发布，因为我们希望快速发布，因为形势非常动态。但我们有完整的团队在这里，为你们提供有关开放 AI 的所有新闻，以及信息已经爆出的热门评论，以及后台交流。我漏掉了什么吗？没有太多。我们开始吧。一些笑话，也许是未来的一些设想。带上我们因为睡眠不足而带来的所有能量。我的意思是，我怀念那段时间。我也是。哦，我很高兴。我很高兴你们都睡得好。

I thought I could get off with a recap for those who A, don't remember or B are so tired that they don't remember what brought us to this place. And then I think our goal is going to be to kind of talk about the bigger picture here, which I think is why the story is so important and also has the benefit of hopefully being relevant no matter what how come happens after we've taped this pod. So let's see on Friday, we should say we don't usually say when we're taping because then it it gets stale. So that's like bad podcasting practice. But we're taping this on Tuesday afternoon. So about four days ago, Sam Altman, we've talked about many times on this pod, the CEO of OpenAI, was fired. And we and the world were treated or notified by this from a letter from the OpenAI's board of directors, claiming that it was for not being consistently candid with the board. I don't know about you guys. Pardon me Sam? You've got to be consistently candid. To have said, anyone made the consistently candid t-shirts because- That's really great. You can count on this pod to be consistently candid. We're going to add it to our merch shop. Consistently candid, we think right now. And so I don't know, I mean actually, Kurt, what did you guys immediately think when you saw that? Like what came to mind? I thought there goes my Thanksgiving vacation. Okay. Just the issue on that. I mean, with love and respect. I know why Jessica has been working 24 hours a day. Why has this ruined your Thanksgiving? Because to me, it's just kind of like great gossip has very little. Oh, Sam, she did not say it ruined her Thanksgiving. She said it made for a very interesting Thanksgiving. But like, what's your angle? Who's calling you? I've never seen the popcorn emoji used as much as the last like four days, because it's like every hour there's something new happening. It's like, I need to watch this episode of succession because the next episode is coming fast. And like, I'm just supposed to be like unplugging this week and with my kids. And now there's this like huge tech saga that we haven't seen the likes of in like 30 years unfolding before our eyes. Or in three months, but who's counting? But like, I'm not discounting. I'm not discounting all of the work, all the journalists and Jessica in particular have been doing that I haven't been doing and not sleeping. I'm not saying that. I'm just saying like, I thought I was in for a very different type of Thanksgiving week than what's happening.

我本以为我可以为那些A不记得或B太累而忘记我们是如何来到这个地方的人提供一次回顾。然后我认为我们的目标将是谈论这里的大局，这就是为什么这个故事如此重要的原因，而且希望它有望在我们录制这个播客后的发生之后仍然相关。所以让我们看看，我们应该说周五，我们通常不说我们何时录制，因为那样会变得陈旧。所以这是不好的播客实践。但我们是在星期二下午录制的。所以大约四天前，OpenAI的首席执行官Sam Altman被解雇了。我们和全世界通过OpenAI董事会的一封信得知了这一消息，声称这是因为他没有与董事会保持一致。我不知道你们，我心里暗想：“Sam，你必须始终保持真诚。有人制作了始终保持真诚的T恤吗？这真的很棒。你可以指望我们的播客始终保持真诚。我们将把它添加到我们的商品店中。目前我们正在考虑加入‘始终保持真诚’。”那么我不知道，实际上，Kurt，当你看到这个消息时，你们当时立即想到了什么？脑海中浮现了什么？我想我的感恩节假期不再有了。好的。只是这个问题。我是出于爱和尊重，我知道Jessica一直在每天工作24小时。为什么这个消息会毁了你的感恩节？对我来说，这只是一个有趣的八卦而已。哦，Sam，她并没有说这个消息毁了她的感恩节。她说这让她的感恩节变得非常有趣。但你是什么意图呢？有谁找你了吗？在过去四天中，我从来没有见过有人这么频繁地使用爆米花表情符号，因为每小时都有新事情发生。这就像我需要看完继承者的这一集，因为下一集即将上演。而且我本应该在这周与孩子们一起放松的，但现在有这样一个巨大的科技传奇故事正在我们眼前展开，我们已经有30年没有见过这样的事情了。或者说是在三个月内，但是谁在计算呢？但是我不会忽视所有记者和特别是Jessica所做的工作，我一直没有休息。我不是这个意思。我只是说，我本以为接下来的感恩节周会是完全不同的一种体验，而不是现在所发生的这样情况。

I'm with you. My only the reason I ask is because I personally, this is like my Kardashians on steroids. Like this is hilarious, right? And like, it's like, I couldn't be. I mean, this is, it's good TV is a little slow, except for Shoresy's back. And other than Shoresy, like this is, this is it. But again, like there's an argument that, you know, people are calling, I was wondering whether people in your, well, they're calling you freaking out about like what their AI future solutions.

我和你一样。我之所以问这个问题，是因为对我个人来说，这就像是卡戴珊家族堪比甩了类固醇的版本。像这样太搞笑了，是吧？就像是，我简直不能再更好了。我的意思是，电视节目有点无聊，除了Shoresy回来之外。除了Shoresy之外，这就是最好的了。但是同样，有人争论说，你知道的，有人打电话给你，大发脾气，说他们AI未来的解决方案之类的事情。

Well, can I tell you something that did happen? Here I am trying to get a peaceful night's sleep Sunday night. And it's by the end. And my husband, who happens to be Dave here in this podcast, wakes up somehow and goes, what's up? I know I can't believe it either. What the hell is happening? I'm like, first of all, you're going to wake the baby who's literally asleep 10 feet away. Second of all, it's 5 a.m. What are you doing? And it's somebody from our back channel, I won't say who, but they were just like growing out about the next big saw there that just unfolded. And I'm like, this is crazy.

嗯，我可以告诉你发生了一件事吗？星期天晚上我希望能够安静地入睡，然后就在快结束的时候，我的丈夫突然醒来，问我发生了什么事。我简直无法相信，究竟是怎么回事？第一，你会把离这里只有10英尺远的宝宝吵醒。第二，这是早上5点，你在干什么？然后有人在我们的私人聊天中不停地谈论即将发生的重大事件。我觉得这太疯狂了。

Okay, so Sam, I think you raise a good point. There is this, we let's return to the conversation of why people are fixated with this, because I think that is, in fact, a fascinating piece of this and maybe even playing into it somehow. But I will, okay, you want me to speed up the timeline is what I'm taking away from this. So Sam was fired. The board made it seem like corporate malfeasance, usually when a board issues something like that. There's fraud, there's something. Instantly, information others were reporting that Sam had no knowledge of an investigation. The picture was very unclear. And really, there appeared to be a power struggle with OpenAI's chief scientist, former co-founder and board member, and Sam over the future direction of the technology.

好的，Sam，我觉得你提出了一个很好的观点。关于为什么人们如此固执地关注这个问题，我们可以回到这个对话中。因为我认为这是一个非常有趣的部分，甚至可能与其中有些关系。但是我明白了，你希望我加快时间进度。所以，Sam被解雇了。董事会让这看起来像是公司的不当行为，通常情况下，当董事会发布这样的声明时，会涉及欺诈、违法行为或其他事情。但是其他人立刻报告称，Sam对调查一无所知。情况非常不清晰。实际上，似乎存在着OpenAI首席科学家、前联合创始人和董事会成员与Sam在技术未来方向上的权力斗争。

So the narrative that quickly emerged was that whatever transpired, and I still don't think we know maybe even half of what transpired, but it was really related to this tension. Many people have long pointed out, in OpenAI, began as a nonprofit, became, under Sam Altman, a for-profit in partnership with Microsoft to push to commercialize the technology in part to make the money needed and to have a structure where it could partner to train its models and raise the capital needed to do this. But what we understand now is obviously that has had huge ramifications internally on the politics at OpenAI in part, in big part, but we don't know if that's the only reason leading to this situation, which is still very unclear.

所以很快崛起的叙述是，无论发生了什么事情，我仍然认为我们可能连其中一半都不知道，但这确实与紧张局势有关。许多人一直指出，在OpenAI成立时，它是一个非盈利组织，然后在Sam Altman的领导下与微软合作，变为盈利组织，推动技术商业化，部分是为了筹集所需的资金，并建立合作伙伴关系来训练模型和筹集所需的资本。但我们现在了解到的是，这在很大程度上对OpenAI内部的政治产生了巨大影响，但我们不知道这是否是导致当前情况的唯一原因，现在仍然非常不清楚。

Over the weekend, there were talks. Employees were, many employees, including the senior leadership, including the interim CEO, were very upset by this, started partnering, colluding with Sam and OpenAI's President Greg Brockman to get them back. Those talks failed the same night. Sam and Sasha Nadella, the CEO of Microsoft, announced that Sam was going to Microsoft with Greg to start a new artificial intelligence research lab. Microsoft said it would hire anyone from OpenAI who wanted to join hours later, 700-ish OpenAI employees said they would resign if the board wasn't pushed out in Sam and Greg were reinstated and negotiations continue.

在周末期间，有一些讨论。许多员工，包括高层领导，包括临时CEO在内，对此表示非常不满，开始与Sam和OpenAI的总裁Greg Brockman合作，希望能够重返原岗位。然而，这些谈判在同一天晚上失败了。Sam和Microsoft的CEO沙查·纳德拉宣布，Sam将与Greg一起加入Microsoft，开设一个新的人工智能研究实验室。几个小时后，Microsoft表示将雇用任何想要加入OpenAI的员工。大约700名OpenAI员工表示，如果董事会不被解雇，Sam和Greg不被恢复任职，并继续谈判，他们将辞职。

So we've got really interesting issues about the direction of this technology. We've got personal and perhaps petty power struggles. We have major questions around governance, how a nonprofit board that wasn't even fully staffed could make a move like this and clearly fail to communicate its reasons. And we've got, also, I think like a fair amount of just pure old Silicon Valley employee activism at this point, right? And I think a really interesting story there. So I think that is the state of play. We can take this in a lot of directions.

所以，关于这项技术的走向，我们遇到了非常有趣的问题。我们遇到了个人之间的权力争斗，可能有些琐碎。我们对治理存在重大问题，一个甚至还没有完全配备人员的非营利组织董事会，竟然能够采取这样的行动，并明显未能传达其原因。此外，我认为在这一点上，还存在着相当数量的纯粹的硅谷员工活动主义。我认为这是一个非常有趣的故事。所以，我认为这就是现状。我们可以从很多方向来解读这个问题。

But Dave, what are your big picture takeaways as of the taping of this? And if I take a phone call, you'll know it's one of four people and I will be right back. Just leave your audio on, Jess, if that happens.

但是，戴夫，在此录制的时候，你有什么总体印象呢？如果我接电话的话，你会知道是其中四个人之一，然后我会马上回来。如果发生这种情况，请保持你的音频打开，杰斯。

Well, I would add one bullet point to your list there. And I think we also have religious fundamentalism at play here, which I guess put a fine point on, which I've been talking about it quite a bit in the back channel. But I think that whatever side you're on on the inside of this struggle, whether it's the SAM side or the ILLIA research side, I think we have to point out that this is a struggle around ideology to some extent. And I think, like you said, Jess, there's a bunch of stuff that we don't know. I think there's probably some very big things that we don't know.

好的，我会在你的列表上添加一个要点。我认为在这里还存在宗教原教旨主义的影响，这点我一直在私下讨论。但我觉得无论你在这场斗争的哪一方，无论是SAM一派还是ILLIA研究一派，我们都必须指出，这是一场在某种程度上围绕意识形态的斗争。正如你所说的，Jess，还有很多我们不知道的东西。我认为可能还有一些非常重要的事情我们不知道。

But focusing on what we do know, the research side of the AI community has, you know, is largely a secular, you know, almost always talks in a deeply religious tone. They've made the, you know, AI in particular, the AGI technology into almost a sacred, you know, we've almost deified this technology. And I think this is a API. You mean the idea that we'll unpack that for people? Like, what is that? The idea here is that OpenAI was set up as a nonprofit organization to keep humanity safe.

然而，就我们所了解的情况来说，人工智能领域的研究方面，通常是世俗化的、几乎总是用宗教式的语调来谈论。他们把人工智能，特别是通用人工智能技术，几乎当作一种神圣的存在，我们几乎把这项技术奉为神明。而我认为这是一种API。你是说我们可以为人们解读这个概念吗？也就是说，OpenAI作为一个非盈利组织的设立目的是为了确保人类的安全。

In the case that AGI, artificial general intelligence, which has become the kind of moniker that we and everybody has started to use to talk about this technology and its kind of end or penultimate state, they've really started to worry that when this happens, humanity might be at risk. And they use the religious, fundamentalist kind of positioning around this, that if and when this happens, we should all fear this with, you know, kind of the fear of God, really, and that we've created a God, this God is going to potentially destroy us all. And that's the thing that I'm kind of fascinated by in relation to all of this.

人工通用智能（AGI）已成为我们和每个人开始用来讨论这项技术及其最终或次最终状态的名词。他们真的开始担心，当这种情况发生时，人类可能会面临风险。他们在这方面采用了一种宗教、原教旨主义的立场，即如果这种情况发生，我们应该都带着对神的敬畏来害怕它，我们创造了一个上帝，而这个上帝有可能毁灭我们所有人。这是我对所有这一切感到着迷的东西。

And I was actually talking about this before a lot of these articles came out. There's an article that came out from the Atlantic, which I think actually touches on this where apparently internally, they've been using, you know, they have a saying, feel the AGI, they chant this, they created a literally wooden figurine representing AGI internally. And I think that the point I would like to. They burned it, right? You got to complete the burn. They burned their deified effigy. And I guess the thing that I would say is that all fundamentalisms, and we've seen quite a, even, you know, in the last few months, we've seen other forms of fundamentalism make grave miscalculations in terms of the actions that they take in the real world.

我实际上在很多这些文章出来之前就有所提及。《大西洋月刊》有一篇文章，我认为这个文章实际上触及了这个问题，在内部他们一直在使用这个说法，感受AGI，他们高喊这个口号，并创作了一个代表人工智能的木制人偶。而我认为我想要表达的是，所有的教条主义，我们已经看到了某种程度上，即使在过去的几个月中，我们也看到其他形式的教条主义在现实世界中采取行动时犯下了严重的错误判断。

And fundamentalisms in all of their forms are the fundamentalist, you know, philosophy becomes a cult, or whether a fundamentalist religion decides that it's okay to murder people on behalf of their cause. You end up making grave miscalculations. And I think that that's something we should be talking about more aggressively in the valley and that that's something to be discussed here. So I couldn't agree more, Dave, that this is the fundamental thing.

而在所有形式中，原教旨主义就是那种基本主义，你知道，哲学会变成一个邪教，或者一个原教旨主义宗教决定以他们的事业为借口谋杀别人。这样一来，你就会犯下严重的错误判断。我认为，这是我们在谷地更积极地讨论的问题，也是我们在这里需要讨论的问题。所以，我非常同意，戴夫，这是最基本的事情。

And the thing that is kind of wild to me is like, Sam is a fundamentalist on this, right? Like, you know, and it's like, so it's very interesting to me that the stories become Iliya, the fundamentalist versus Sam, the pragmatist who just wants to build a business, because the reality is Sam Altman, the founder, even as a private conference, not even a year ago, the story was not only is the only goal of open AI to protect against AGI, but interestingly, the way to do that is to be the first to create AGI, right? So the whole thing is actually like, which is, if you think about everything, I had like, draw this flowchart of like their, their actual mental model, which is like, all right, yeah, the only goal is to save humanity from AGI. The only way to save humanity from AGI is to create it first and trust us that we're the good people, because like, we will have created the AGI and like, therefore, we can keep it safe from bad AGI. Therefore, we must make infinite money in order to create the, is this like this weird flowchart, and like somehow, like the way the pieces have gotten locked in that the stories have been told is like, you know, the profit part, right, is now this, is the pragmatism is now associated with Sam, and like, the fundamentalism is associated with like the board, but the reality is, is like, Sam founded the organization, and is it relevant?

我觉得有点疯狂的是，像萨姆在这个问题上是一个原教旨主义者，对吧？就是说，你知道的，就好像，所以对我来说很有趣的是，这个故事变成了伊利亚，原教旨主义者，对抗萨姆，务实主义者，只想建立一个企业，因为事实上，创始人萨姆・阿特曼，即使在不到一年之前的一个私人会议上，故事不仅仅是OpenAI的唯一目标是保护免受AI的侵害，而且有趣的是，实现这一目标的方法是首先创造出AI，对吧？所以整个事情实际上就像一个很奇怪的流程图，如果你想想所有的事情的话，我就画了一张他们的真实思维模式的流程图，就是说，是的，唯一的目标是拯救人类免受AI的侵害。拯救人类免受AI侵害的唯一方式就是首先创造AI，并且相信我们是好人，因为我们将创造AI，并且因此我们能够保护它免受坏的AI侵害。因此，我们必须通过赚取无限的金钱来创造出……这就是一个奇怪的流程图，而就像这样，各个部分被锁定在一起，故事也被讲述了，你知道的，利润部分，现在与萨姆联系在一起，原教旨主义与董事会联系在一起，但事实上，萨姆创立了这个组织，这是否相关呢？

I think that's an excellent point, Sam, I want to go to you, Brett, because everyone in like traditional business America, AKA, CNBC, WCMBC, is like, how did this governance breakdown happen? And I think you just answered it. Like, they've been, if everyone's drinking from the same like, religious kind of fire hose, right, including the investors, now I don't know that I would put Microsoft in that camp, so maybe they complicate that, but like, that kind of goes a long way towards explaining how you could basically have four independent people with their own sort of political power struggles with Sam, like, even overseeing this, and then a lot of people like, and then how Sam, I mean, I just have so much reporting pointing to the fact that Sam knew he had problems with the board, and then a lot of people were like, well, why didn't he do anything about it? I think again, if you're living in this construct of a sort of fundamentalist mentality, like, it's easier to understand why you would overlook things that now we're all wondering why they were overlooked.

我想Sam，这是一个很好的观点，我想转向你，Brett，因为在传统的商业界，例如CNBC、WCMBC，每个人都在问这个治理失控是怎么发生的。我觉得你刚才已经回答了。就好像每个人都在从同一个宗教般的水龙头中灌水，包括投资者在内。虽然我不确定是否可以把微软也归到这一类，可能会让情况复杂化，但是这种情况在很大程度上可以解释为什么会有四个独立的人拥有自己的政治权力，并与Sam有着斗争。许多人认为Sam也知道自己与董事会存在问题，然后很多人又问，那他为什么不采取措施呢？我认为如果你生活在一种教条主义的思维框架中，就更容易理解为什么你会忽视一些我们现在都感到奇怪为什么会被忽视的事情。

And all those other things before, which is like, one is, everyone's like, oh, the employees have voted, you know, they're all pro Sam or like, pro business. They've all were hired in like the last six months, right? Like, the org is so fresh, and they all came in to do the business side of it, so it's really interesting to think about like the fundamentalist foundings of open AI and control of it, versus who now works there, which is a bunch of x Facebook people we all know, who are just like, oh, yeah, this is like clearly a good business, right? And so it's like really interesting to think about the org structure and what that even means. Billie and AR. Right, and like, and so that's a piece of it. And then I also think it's just like, you know, again, the big mistake with open AI, I have a fundamentalism is they really, they're very clever people, and the idea was to have their cake in you too, right? So they set up a nonprofit board, they tell all the investors, no, not only can you not have any board seats, you can't even own a piece of the company, right? Because our mission is so important on a thousand year basis, and we're going to need more money than you can possibly fathom and blah, blah, blah. They do give employees equity though. Is it actual equity? Yeah. Okay, well, they certainly even give investors equity, right? Right, but the end there's cap, but employees get equity. And in fact, one of the travesties of this, Yeah, cap profit is not equity. Cap profit is proxy equity, right? Like, they understand they had equity that they were in the process of selling in a secondary tender valued at $986 billion.

之前所有的那些事情，就像是，有一种情况，每个人都说，员工已经投票了，他们都支持山姆或者企业。他们都在最近的六个月内被雇佣，对吧？组织还很新鲜，他们都来做商业方面的工作，所以思考起开放AI的根基和对其的控制，以及现在在那里工作的一群我们都熟知的前Facebook人员，他们都像是，噢，是的，这显然是个好生意，对吧？所以思考组织结构和它究竟意味着什么是非常有趣的。比利和AR。对，这是其中的一部分。然后我也认为，你知道，再次，开放AI的一个大错误是他们真的很聪明，他们的想法是既要吃饼还要留饼，对吧？所以他们设立了一个非盈利机构董事会，告诉所有投资者，不仅你们不能拥有任何董事席位，甚至不能拥有公司的一份股份，因为我们的使命对于千年来说非常重要，我们将需要比你们能想象的更多的钱等等。不过，他们确实给员工股权。这是真正的股权吗？是的。好吧，他们肯定也给了投资者股权，对吧？是的，但是有限制，员工则有股权。事实上，这其中的一大不公正之处是，是的，股权利润并不等同于股权，对吧？像是代理股权，他们明白他们拥有的股权正在以二次交易的方式出售，估值为9860亿美元。

Interesting. I mean, I don't know the details of that. And it's interesting for me to hear because my understanding was that the whole point was that they basically were the whole thing is owned by the nonprofit, right? And they've made a big point of that, right? Is that they're going to think it's controlled by the nonprofit. Okay. So fine. We can talk about the differences between ownership and control and what's an RSE versus whatever. But thematically, the idea was set it up in a way that the nonprofit controls everything forever with a noneconomically motivated board, right? It's like hilarious. Like they're, you know, they're disclaimers about, oh, this might be worth a lot of money, but money might mean nothing once we're done, right? Like it's ridiculous over to the top marketing, right? You know, coupled with kind of the realities of trying to build a for profit business. And I think I think it's just, I think it's like a lot of very over-inflated egos, right? That have now gotten caught in this very weird situation. And zealots, right? To your point. But Brett, over to you. What are you holding in your head and thinking up?

有趣。我是说，我不知道具体细节。但是对我来说，听到这个很有趣，因为我的理解是，整个重点是，基本上整个项目都归非营利组织所有，对吧？他们一直强调这一点，对吧？就是说他们认为这一切都由非营利组织控制。好吧。所以好，我们可以讨论所有权和控制权之间的区别以及什么是RSE，等等。但从主题上来说，这个想法是以一种方式建立起来的，即非营利组织永远控制一切，并由一个没有经济动机的董事会管理，对吧？这有点可笑。就像他们关于“这可能值很多钱，但钱在我们完成后可能一文不值”这样的免责声明一样，是不是很荒谬地夸大了宣传效果，对吧？你知道，再加上试图建立盈利企业的现实情况。我认为这只是许多非常自大的人，现在陷入了这种非常奇怪的境地。还有一些盲信者，就像你说的一样。但是，布雷特，你对此有什么看法和想法呢？

So a couple of things. One, I think anytime you need a flow chart to explain how your board works, you're probably starting from a bad position. The second thing is, I feel like Satya is getting like all this credit for like saving open AI and like, you know, doing the right thing. And I don't think a lot of people are recognizing like he like hit a Hail Mary and he was screwed. And like, frankly, I'm surprised that Microsoft and Sequoia and Thrive like didn't do more board diligence when they were investing all this money to figure out like this. Yeah, it's all over again. Board is bored, like not adequate for the type of company that this has become. And so now, oh, God, I'm going to lose $11 billion overnight. I better like figure out how to like, you know, hit this one out of the park and get Sam to join me or else I'm screwed. And like, Microsoft barely is holding on to its stock price right now.

所以有几件事情。首先，我认为如果你需要一个流程图来解释你的董事会如何运作，那你可能从一个糟糕的位置开始。第二件事是，我觉得萨蒂亚得到了很多人们对他挽救开放AI和做正确事情的赞誉。但我不认为很多人意识到他是在绝境中施展绝招，他完全陷入困境。而且，坦率地说，我很惊讶微软、Sequoia和Thrive在投资这么多钱时没有更多地对董事会进行尽职调查，弄清楚情况。是的，又来了。董事会很无聊，根本不适合如今这家公司。所以现在，噢，该死，我将一夜之间损失110亿美元。我最好找出如何让萨姆加入我，否则我将陷入困境。而且微软现在几乎是勉强维持住股价的。

And we'll see what happens next. But I just feel like if that didn't happen, like, it would be a world of trouble. And I think a lot of like fingers pointed at Satya to be like, what the hell were you doing when you invested in not like doing all this like diligence around the board itself?

我们将看到接下来会发生什么。但我只是觉得，如果那件事没有发生，那将是一个麻烦的世界。而且我觉得很多人会指责Satya，问他在投资时为什么没有对董事会本身进行充分调查。

Sam, you're you're waving. You're just stimulating. What would you like to say?

Sam，你在挥手。你只是在刺激。你想要说什么？

Here's reality. $11 billion is completely irrelevant to Microsoft, right? It's a $3 trillion company, right? Like they can spend $11 billion. Nothing about. No, it's like any, any amount of diligence. It's not that matter. Guys, we're forgetting, right? So there's shareholders and they're speaking to the market, but there's also customers. And so that's a really fascinating part of what's happening.

这就是现实。对于微软来说，110亿美元完全无关紧要，对吧？它是一个市值3万亿美元的公司，对吧？他们可以花110亿美元。对他们来说微不足道。不，这与任何形式的努力都无关。这不是重点。伙计们，我们忘记了什么吗？除了股东和市场，还有客户。这是正在发生的事情中非常有趣的一部分。

Because if you're Satya, you shouldn't be worried about Wall Street. You should be worried about Morgan Stanley, JP Morgan, right? These customers who when you trust and they're doing enterprise grade millions, tens of millions, probably more levels, integration, multi year.

因为如果你是Satya，你不应该担心华尔街，而应该担心摩根士丹利、JP摩根这样的金融机构，对吗？这些客户是你所信任的企业级百万级别、千万级别甚至更高级别的整合、多年合作的客户。

And do you want your partner to be the one who went into bed with like a hot startupy thing that has all these issues and where you didn't even have a board seat or a board observer seat or anything of the equipment, right? So to me, this is actually the key point in the miscalculation, right?

你希望你的伴侣是那个参与了一个有很多问题的热门初创公司，你甚至没有董事会席位或董事会观察员席位，也没有拥有任何权力吧？对我来说，这实际上是一个错误估计的关键点，不是吗？

What does fundamentalism do? It blinds you to the reality on the ground, most often. And the reality on the ground is exactly what you said. Microsoft has enormously huge customers that are using Azure to deliver, you know, services to their customers.

基本主义会让你对实际情况产生盲目之处。而实际情况正是你所言的。微软有非常庞大的客户群，他们使用Azure来提供服务给自己的客户。

The other thing that happened over the last year. And you know, it's funny, like literally one year ago, I was sitting at a table with both Adam, DiAngelo and Greg, and having some interesting conversations. And it's shocking to me how much has changed in one year, right?

在过去一年里发生的另一件事情。你知道，真的很有趣，就在一年前的那天，我还和亚当、迪安杰洛以及格雷格坐在一起，进行了一些有趣的交谈。令我震惊的是，在短短一年内发生了如此多的变化，对吧？

Like this went from being a nonprofit research organization with a lot of really, you know, interesting ideas, definitely fundamentalists to being the tip of the spear, not just for Microsoft and their customers, but for all of Silicon Valley, the Silicon Valley machine.

就像这个组织从一个非盈利的研究机构转变成了一个拥有许多非常有趣的想法，绝对是基本主义者的典范，不仅仅是为了微软和他们的客户，而是为整个硅谷、硅谷的先锋所服务。

Once this happens, you know, once an set of APIs emerges, that becomes the focus for the entire Silicon Valley global idea. Everyone starts conspiring together. And so it's not just these big customers that refer to just tens of thousands of startups, right? And the startups, and we're talking billions, tens of billions of dollars of investment in startups that's going on.

一旦这种情况发生，你知道的，一旦出现一套API，它就成为整个硅谷全球创意的焦点。每个人开始密谋合作。所以，不仅仅是这些大客户涉及数以万计的初创公司，对吧？这些初创公司，我们谈论的是数十亿、数百亿美元的投资正在进行中。

And all of those people's lives are also, you know, and they're, you know, the future of their startups are also at risk, right? And so I think the customer point can't be underestimated. And by the way, right before we started the podcast, I checked and chat TBT is down right now. Right. And so I think it's like, you've got this thing where it's just like, there's a lot of real time through this pod.

所有这些人的生活也是，你懂的，而且他们的创业公司的未来也面临风险，对吗？所以我认为客户点不能被低估。顺便说一下，在我们开始播客之前，我查看了一下，聊天TBT正在下降。我觉得就像，你通过这个播客可以实时了解很多事情。

Yeah. No, I agree. And Dave, I just want to pack, you mentioned Adam and Greg. So Adam DiAngelo, early Facebook employee who went on to found Quora early board member at OpenAI. And, you know, all reporting suggest obviously was deeply involved in the ouster of Sam. And, you know, is is throughout all of this is sort of leading the board's negotiations with Sam. And so clearly there is a personal relationship there.

是的。不，我同意。而且戴夫，我只是想弄清楚，你提到了亚当和格雷格。所以亚当·迪安杰洛是早期的Facebook员工，后来创办了Quora并成为OpenAI的早期董事会成员。所有的报道都表明，亚当显然深深参与了萨姆被解雇的事情。而且，你知道的，他在整个过程中一直在跟萨姆进行董事会的谈判。所以显然他们之间有私人关系。

But Adam, we just published today a profile of him and the information, you know, he's a he's a stubborn guy with deep philosophical views as well. And so, yeah.

但是，亚当，不久前我们刚刚发布了一篇关于他的介绍，你知道的，他是个固执而拥有深刻哲学见解的人。所以，是的。

And I'll actually, before Sam, before you jump in, let me just say one thing about Adam, since you brought him up Jess, you know, I've gotten a lot of calls from you brought him up that I brought. Yeah.

在山姆你加入之前，让我先关于亚当说一件事情，因为是你提到了他，杰斯，你知道，我收到了很多你带来的关于他的电话。是的。

But you know, the I've gotten a lot of calls from people asking for my opinion about this, particularly as it rates to Adam, because Adam and I worked together for many years at Facebook, we specifically work together on Facebook platform, the set of APIs that enabled social apps, which is like, you know, another huge wave of API usage in the Valley.

你知道，我接到很多人打电话问我对此的意见，特别是涉及到亚当的问题，因为在Facebook，亚当和我一起工作了很多年，我们专门在Facebook平台上共同工作，这是一组API，能够支持社交应用程序，就像又一次在硅谷引发了API使用的热潮。

And I just want to say that Adam is one of the highest integrity people that I've ever worked with. He's a very principled person. And he, you know, he's a very deliberate, very rational, very serious actor. He's a very serious person. And so it does bother me a little bit that there's a lot of like speculation on the internet that like Sam, Adam is doing this for, you know, sort of vindictive or whatever reasons.

我只是想说，亚当是我曾合作过的最正直的人之一。他是一个非常有原则的人。你知道的，他是一个非常深思熟虑、理性严谨、认真专注的演员。他是一个非常认真的人。所以，在互联网上有很多关于亚当出于报复或其他原因做这件事的猜测，这让我有点烦恼。

Like I just, I don't think that's the case. I think Adam's, you know, he's one of the smartest people I've ever had the luck to work with and maybe even ever met. And so I just want to put that on the record as well.

就像我刚刚说的，我不认为情况是这样的。我认为亚当，你知道的，他是我有幸一起工作过的最聪明的人之一，甚至可能是我曾经遇到过的最聪明的人。所以我也想把这个记录下来。

Yeah, I mean, yeah, I would just point out the fact that like, you know, there's no question that you think about organizing your life and organizing your work around things you can trust, right? And like platforms that are trustable that to Dave's point, I think it's the right way to think about it, which is like, do you want to trust American business and governance and profit motive, which is kind of how this whole thing works, right? Or do you want to trust kind of like fundamentalism, right? And like, you know, where are the lines between, you know, you bring up Facebook, what do you like, which do you want to trust?

是的，我的意思是，是的，我只是想指出这样一个事实，就是你知道，毫无疑问你考虑组织生活和工作时会考虑到你可以信任的事情，对吧？并且像Dave说的，我认为这是正确的思考方式，就是你想要相信美国的商业、治理和利润动机这种整个体系的方式，对吗？还是你想要相信某种基本主义，对吧？就像你提到Facebook一样，你想要信任哪个？

100% business. I mean, I think, you know, you talk about it. I hate to say it. Talk about Facebook platform, because this isn't even David and I both have, you know, generational takes on.

百分之百的商业话题。我的意思是，我觉得你知道，你谈论它。我很不愿意说这个。说说Facebook平台，因为这甚至不是只有我和大卫都能理解的东西，你懂的，这是代际观点。

You know, the biggest problem with Facebook platform was, is the economics of it never made any sense, right? And it was this, I even that that was kind of echo boom, or we now see where like there was this idea, which is the future is social apps, the social app where it can make everything better. It's all really interesting. High-minded stuff. The problem was when you got down to brass tax, there was this economic trade where everyone's like, Oh, I know a place of platform is economically it's a way for me to get super cheap distribution and newsfeed for stuff I want to share. Great. I know what that is. The problem is that makes no sense for Facebook, right? It was an irrational platform from that perspective.

你知道，Facebook平台最大的问题是，经济学上从来就没有任何道理，对吧？起初可能是因为这个想法，即未来就是社交应用，通过社交应用可以改善一切，听起来都很有意思。问题是当你深入了解具体情况时，会发现有一个经济上的问题，即每个人都认为平台是一个让我以极低成本传播和分享我想要的东西的方式，非常棒。我知道这是怎么回事。但问题是对Facebook来说这没有任何意义，从这个角度看它是个不合理的平台。

The data sharing stuff, there's the idea, Oh, we empower the world in these APIs, right? The world will be better and we'll get paid somehow and all put Facebook more for it. But the economic trade of it never made any sense. That's how you had a lot of problems, right? And so the problem I'd say is like, that was like an echo boom. We'll you now see with open AI, which is, look, the reality is, is a large language models, there's clearly a business model to it. Like everyone can look at it. Microsoft, you know, people like me or whatever be like, yep, I will pay money for answers done, right? Like there's an economic way to think about it. And if everyone was playing that game, which Sam could be playing now, which is very different than what he said historically, right?

数据共享的事情，有这个想法，哦，我们通过这些API赋予世界力量，对吧？世界会变得更好，我们也会以某种方式获得报酬，然后大家都会为此向Facebook做出更多贡献。但是从经济交易的角度来看，这从来就没有什么道理。这就是你们遇到很多问题的原因，对吧？所以问题就在于，那就像是一个回音繁荣。现在你们看到了Open AI，实际上，大型语言模型确实有一个商业模式。每个人都可以看出来。像微软这样的公司，你知道，像我这样的人或者其他人会说，是的，我愿意为获得答案付钱，对吧？就有了经济上的思考方式。而且如果每个人都在玩这个游戏，萨姆现在可能正在玩这个游戏，这与他过去说的完全不同，对吧？

So this is just a business. I can trust it. People sell it to me. I know the economics of it. It makes sense. I can track and therefore use it. The problem, honestly, with open AI is that there was always this yada, yada, yada, which is, yeah, yeah, we'll sell you these things. It's a business. But whisper like our only real goal is to make a GI and we're going to need way more money we've ever seen. And whisper like, we want to make a GI because we're making the world safe, which by the way, it's like racing to make the dangerous thing to make the world safe as its own interesting mentality. But the basic point is that because of that, you can't trust them.

所以这只是一个商业活动，我可以信任它。人们把它卖给我。我了解其中的经济学道理。我可以追踪和使用它。说实话，对于开放式人工智能而言，问题在于一直有这种唠叨声，就是说，是的，我们会向你销售这些东西。这是一项商业活动。但有人私下里说，我们的真正目标只是制造出一个强人工智能（General Intelligence），而且我们需要比我们以往见过的更多的资金。有人私下里说，我们想制造一个强人工智能是因为我们要让世界更安全，顺便说一句，这就像是要赶着制造危险的事物来保证世界安全一样，这种思维方式很有趣。但基本观点是因为这个原因，你不能相信他们。

And so I think the reality is, like, even if they sort this out, right, let's have this sorted out. Sam comes back. Sam now has a nonprofit board. Maybe he's replaced the people that weren't loyal to him, right? Because he was able to ramrod it through. Oh, that I mean, he won't return with that. In some way, that's even scarier, right? If you think about it, because then you have a religious organization, Sam is a realtor, a zealot about this stuff, right? With a fully loyal board and no requirement to make profit, right? Like from their mental model of what they're going after, like that is even scarier, right? Than anything else. So to me, it's like, we just need a more profit LLM company, right? And like, we kind of splinter out like if some people want to do crazy research, that's fine. You know, this experiment is looking the other way clearly didn't work, right? And we just need to move on from it.

所以我认为现实情况是，即使他们解决了这个问题，让我们把这件事解决了。萨姆回来了。现在，萨姆拥有一个非盈利组织董事会。可能他已经换掉了那些不忠于他的人，对吗？因为他能够强行通过。哦，这是说，他不会带着那个返回。从某种程度上来说，这甚至更可怕，对吗？如果你想想的话，因为那样你就有了一个宗教组织，而萨姆是一个对这些事情非常狂热的房地产经纪人，对吗？他们完全忠诚的董事会没有赚钱的要求，对吗？从他们的思维模式来看，这甚至更可怕，对吗？比其他任何事情都可怕。所以对我来说，我们只需要一个更有利润的LLM公司，对吗？然后，我们可以分裂出来，如果有些人想要进行疯狂的研究，那也没关系。显然，这种试验看向其他方向是行不通的，对吗？我们只需要继续前行。

Do you not think that he would restructure the company in some way? Because of what you're saying right now? First, I'd say he spends very way to unravel it. Look, maybe you could theoretically figure out a way to like sell the business from out from underneath the nonprofit and some if someone would buy it. But the problem is, is like, no one, either the business has to be valued very cheaply, right? Which the board would never do, right? Would make no sense to do or like something else. But like, it's very hard to imagine the restructuring of the problem I have is honestly is Sam is being painted by the media as like, the business person versus the fundamentalist, but he's like as fundamentals as it gets, right? And so like, to me, it's very hard to like imagine that being a healthy stable situation for the future.

你难道不认为他会以某种方式重新组织公司吗？因为你现在所说的？首先，我得说他花了很多办法来解开它。看，也许你可以理论上找到一种方式，比如从非营利组织手中卖掉企业，如果有人愿意购买的话。但问题是，要么这家企业的估值非常低，对吧？董事会永远不会这么做，对吧？没有道理这么做，要么就是其他原因。但是，很难想象将问题进行重组，我真正困惑的是，媒体将山姆描绘成商人对抗原教旨主义者，但他是业务最基本的人，对吧？所以对我来说，很难想象这对未来是一个健康稳定的情况。

So Sam, on your point about business versus fundamentalism, right? There are obviously some technologies that I don't know, society maybe should think about just being commercialized, nuclear weapons being one of them, right? Now, you're obviously kind of don't think AI is as potent as nuclear weapons, but like, shouldn't we have some concerns with, Oh, to be clear, you know, putting this 100% in the commercial realm, or do we think regulation will fill the gap?

嗯，关于商业与原教旨主义之争，Sam，你有一点吧？明显有一些技术，我不知道，也许社会应该考虑商业化，核武器就是其中之一，对吧？现在，你显然认为人工智能并不像核武器那样强大，但是，我们难道不应该对把它完全放在商业领域表示一些担忧吗？或者我们认为监管会填补这个空白吗？

We've talked about this historically, right? About the idea that we would need national science projects and there are things like, I actually would have no problem with the Manhattan water and AI run by the government. I think it's a pretty reasonable thing to be doing.

我们在历史上谈过这个问题，对吧？关于我们需要国家科学项目，像曼哈顿水和由政府运作的人工智能之类的东西，实际上我对此并没有任何意见。我认为这是一件相当合理的事情。

You know, I think that the open AI people and like that, the the fundamentalist part of AI would say, well, the government isn't doing the Manhattan project. So we're going to do our own private foundation version of the Manhattan project for AI. Like I think that's actually kind of where a lot of us like, there's like, there's three pathways here, right? There's for profit, non-profit, and then government enabled. Yeah, I'm right. Well, and then there's decentralized, right? So, I mean, talk about zealots, right? But a lot of reaction to this has been that this just shows why you can't have any centralization in the development of this, because then your technology could be subject to, you know, the decisions of a weekly government board.

你知道的，我觉得开放AI的人和那些基督教原教旨主义的AI人士会说，政府没有进行“曼哈顿计划”，所以我们要为AI做一个自己的私人基金会版“曼哈顿计划”。我觉得这其实是我们很多人关心的问题，有三条发展路径，对吧？有营利性、非营利性，还有政府支持的。是的，我是对的。嗯，还有分散式的，对吧？我的意思是，说起狂热者，很多对此做出反应的人认为，这正是为什么不能在这个发展过程中有任何集中化的原因，因为你的技术可能会受制于一个每周开会的政府委员会的决策。

But those conversations about that's this sort of open source argument, which is to say, people were saying, you know, in our back channel and all over the internet that they're super happy that there's open source models, largely because of their investing in for-profit corporations that have dependency upon these APIs. And so if these APIs have been the only APIs, and there were no open source available, then all of those for-profit businesses that people have been investing in for the last nine months would be at risk, right? So people are super worried that, you know, their investments are at risk, right? And so they're happy that the open source exists because they can say, well, it's super great. This is just like Linux. We all depend on Linux for all of our websites because it runs every website server on the planet. We're super happy that that happened, because none of us have to worry about it ever going away, right? And that's kind of your open source. The open source argument is a capitalist argument, right?

但是关于这种开源争论的对话，也就是说，在我们的后台和整个互联网上，人们都在说，他们非常高兴有开源模式存在，主要是因为他们投资于有赖于这些API的盈利公司。如果这些API是唯一的API，没有开源可用，那么所有那些人们过去九个月一直在投资的盈利企业都会面临风险，对吧？因此，人们非常担心自己的投资风险。所以他们很高兴开源存在，因为他们可以说，“这太棒了，就像Linux一样。我们所有的网站都依赖于Linux，因为它是全球每个网站服务器的运行系统。我们非常高兴它能存在，因为我们不必担心它会消失，对吧？”这就是你的开源争论，是一个资本主义的论点，对吧？

Well, and I think it actually is the historically, the way you think about it, is if you can't trust the centralized entity to this point about anything, then like, look, just make it all up into the bitcoins the same way. Bitcoin is open source because you would never trust the security of Bitcoin to like a single actor, right? And the whole beauty of it is fully open, right? As a system. And so I think that is rational. That doesn't negate if you're actually worried about AI being dangerous. It's a problem, right? So like that works really well if you're a business and you just need stable platforms. You know, you can always pull back from a service if you need to and reimplement it yourself. But you know, if you actually believe that this is a Manhattan project type thing, then like, you know, I think the thing I think we probably all agree on is the idea of wrapping a for profit in a nonprofit where the nonprofit is like beholden to no one and somewhat religious. And the for profit sits inside that was like, hilarious, and was clearly intellectually a disaster, but everyone kind of looked the other way and became a practical disaster.

嗯，我认为从历史角度来看，如果你不能对任何中心化实体完全信任，那么就像把它全部转化成比特币一样。比特币是开源的，因为你永远不会相信比特币的安全性只靠一个单一的参与者，对吧？整个系统的美妙之处在于它是完全开放的。所以我认为这是合理的。这并不是否定如果你真的担心人工智能的危险是个问题，对吧？这对企业而言非常适用，如果你只需要稳定的平台，你随时可以从一个服务中撤离，自己重新实施。但是，如果你真的相信这是一个曼哈顿计划一样的项目，那么我想我们可能都同意的是将营利和非营利结合起来，其中非营利部分不向任何人负责，有些类似于宗教。而营利部分则像是一个笑话，明显在知识上是个灾难，但每个人都选择睁一只眼闭一只眼，结果成为了一个实际上的灾难。

Well, that, but Britt, so your point about a restructuring, I think is kind of the right one and definitely like the direction of our reporting on like what could that look like. And, and in that raises a really interesting question of like, what mechanism is there to implement that? Because I reverse triangular. So what happened here is we had like, we had a poorly governing board that a CEO, Sam Altman, like to say and said many times to me, you know, I serve at the pleasure of the nonprofit board. I have no equity in this thing. They can fire me yada yada.

好嘞，对于Britt提到的重新组织的观点，我认为是对的，并且我确实喜欢我们在这方面的报道方向。这也引出了一个非常有趣的问题，那就是如何实施这个机制呢？因为我反向三角。所以这里发生的情况是，我们有一个管治不善的董事会，而CEO Sam Altman经常告诉我，我是为这个非营利组织董事会服务的，我在这里没有任何股权，他们可以解雇我之类的。

Now, though, he's got 700 ish AI researchers and other people, right? Basically, software engineers. Is that what they do? Okay, software engineer. Is that a demeaning term or how are you? You know, code using chat. Most of the people that have joined. Okay. Let me just finish my point. Right? So like, this is a very uncomfortable situation. This is a very uncomfortable situation for them poured, because now they have like a messianic leader with ground troops, right? Or what you know, like, and that, you know, again, you could there's a risk, I think here, of creating a structure again that is really just shaped to the whim of those movements, because I mean, Microsoft certainly has leverage in this situation, but they've gone out and said, we're willing to directly compete with you and take your people and take your leader. So I don't know how much leverage did I have?

现在，他有大约700名AI研究人员和其他人，对吗？基本上都是软件工程师。这是他们的工作吗？好的，软件工程师。这个词是侮辱性的吗？你是怎么看的？你知道，使用对话编码。大多数加入的人。好的。让我把我的观点讲完好吗？就像，这是一个非常尴尬的情况。对他们来说，这是一个非常尴尬的情况，因为现在他们有了一个救世主般的领导人和地面部队，对吧？或者你知道，就像，这有一个风险，我认为在这种情况下创建一个完全按照这些运动的心愿塑造的结构，因为我是说，微软在这种情况下肯定有优势，但他们已经表示，我们愿意直接与你竞争并带走你的人和领导者。所以我不知道他们有多少优势。

I mean, it's Look, I would love crazy. And like, I was like, I was like, business for the sake of business. It would be great if Microsoft just inherited the people that want to work on this stuff. And they go into a normal business structure, where they're $100 billion piece of a $3 trillion company. That's the safest outcome from a business perspective, right? That makes it easy, right? It's actually better for everyone.

我的意思是，这看上去有点疯狂。我是说，我是说，我是说，只是为了做生意而做生意。如果微软能继承那些想要从事这些工作的人，那将是很棒的。他们可以进入一个正常的商业结构，在一个3万亿美元公司中占据1000亿美元份额。从商业角度来看，这是最安全的结果，对各方都更有利。

The problem? Do you mean like the for maximizing the value of the technology or you mean versus site? Like, what are you when you say safe? What do you mean? Well, I mean, thinking about LOMs as a business piece of infrastructure as cloud 2.0 technology that lots people want to build on and has like a valuable like very like, let's put it this way, AI not AGI, right? So for AI, the best outcome is you let someone super huge.

问题是什么？你是指要最大化技术价值，还是指与网站相比的问题？比如，当你说“安全”时，你指的是什么？我的意思是，将LOMs视为云2.0技术的商业基础设施，许多人都想在其上构建，并具有非常宝贵的，就像AI而不是AGI一样，对于AI来说，最好的结果是你让某个超级巨头参与进来。

So yep, like, anyone who wants to come and make money on this, anyone who wants to come and do the commercialization stuff we were doing at OpenAI, the for profit, just come work here and like we'll set you up and like, we'll put the guardrails in place and we have a real board and we have real governance. The problem is, right? Again, that hidden in the population of those people is a lot of people are really actually fundamentalists about this, right? And so the problem is like, will they actually want to do that? Or is the reality? Because something has to break. Either Sam Altman has said, you know what, all this stuff about we're building AGI and what do we have to do it now and first for national security reasons and like the for profit doesn't matter. It's all about serving the nonprofit. He has to like move beyond that, right? And just be like, nope, AI is cool technology and like we're going to be a business, right? Or like in some ways, like that's not a setup that you can even trust or make sense, right? Like then you're back to like the religious zeal industry, right? A piece of it, right?

嗯，就是说，任何想来这里赚钱的人，任何想来做OpenAI商业化工作的人，就可以来这里工作，我们会为你提供条件，我们会设置限制，我们有一个真正的董事会和真正的管理。问题是，对吧？在这些人群中存在很多人实际上是根本主义者，对此存在问题。问题是，他们是否真的愿意这样做？或者现实情况是否如此？因为一些事情不得不改变。要么萨姆·奥尔特曼说：“你知道吗，我们正在建造AGI，我们必须为国家安全原因首先完成，而盈利问题并不重要。一切都是为了公益服务。”他必须超越这一点，像“人工智能是很棒的技术，我们将成为一家企业。”这样，或者在某种程度上，你甚至无法信任或理解这样的设置，对吧？这样你就回到了宗教狂热工业的一部分，对吧？

Yeah, I mean, as a as the chairman, I'm the chairman of a non-profit. And I cannot even fathom doing this. Like I can't fathom having a for profit entity that is controlled by the nonprofit. Like it's just, I guess, you know, the famous saying, no conflict, no interest, right? But like, it's just an unbelievable conflict of interest.

是的，我的意思是，作为一家非营利组织的主席，我甚至无法想象做这样的事情。就像我无法想象一个由非营利组织控制的盈利实体一样。这就像是那句著名的谚语说的，没有冲突就没有利益，对吧？但这真的是一个难以置信的利益冲突。

And so, so, so why couldn't you then just do like a reverse triangular merger? So like by the. What is that exactly? No, this is a real thing. You spin up a new LLC that acquire that merges with the open AI for profit LLC or ink or whatever. And then you Microsoft could fund into that and then you can disassociate the nonprofit from the for profit. I also love like, we just have to reflect on how this is back to the Kardashians, how fascinating this is, right? Because the whole reason this matters too is because this is not this technology is so capital intensive that it can only be funded in certain ways, right? To so like, you can't, you know, everyone thought Sam Altman was going to go out and announce a new startup. No, he goes out and announces that he's joining Microsoft, right? Which startup people are shocked by because startup people don't really like working for other people. But again, this is just like the dynamics are so different.

那么，为什么你们不能采取一个倒向三角合并的方式呢？就像你所说那样。那是什么意思？不，这是真实的。你可以成立一个新的有限责任公司，它收购并与开放AI营利性有限责任公司合并。然后Microsoft可以向其投资，然后你可以将非营利性组织与营利性组织分开。我还喜欢，我们必须反思一下这是如何与卡戴珊家族联系起来的，这很有趣，不是吗？之所以这种事情很重要，是因为这项技术非常资本密集，只能通过特定的方式获得资金支持，对吧？所以，你知道，大家都以为山姆·奥尔特曼会宣布一个新的创业公司。但他没有，他宣布加入了Microsoft，创业者对此感到震惊，因为创业者通常不太喜欢为别人工作。但是，这里的情况真的很不一样。

Was anyone really shocked though? I mean, it makes sense to those that are working. Yeah, thread. We I was going back and forth. Someone was like talking about how this was most unreasonable thing for him to do and how like he would need his comp reviewed by the comp committee. And I'm like, what else are you going to have any talk first of all? Well, but that's so that's a problem. That is the problem. You're right. It's like, I think this is the whole thing to understand about the Sam Altman saga and why it's such like the Kardashian is so interesting is all these things you hold up. Like, I'm not compensated by the company. Like that's bad, right? That means that like his incentives and the ways like are not aligned with like the ecosystem of stability and capitalism that you want to build things on.

有人真的感到震惊吗？我的意思是，对于那些正在工作的人来说，这是合理的。是的，帖子。当时我曾反复思考过。有人说这对他来说是最不合理的事情，就像他需要让薪酬委员会重新评估他的薪酬一样。我想说，首先你还有什么可以谈论的呢？嗯，但这就是问题所在。你说得对，这就是问题。就像我认为关于Sam Altman的传奇的整件事情，以及为什么这对于像卡戴珊家族这样有趣的是，你所坚持的所有这些事情，比如我不是通过公司获得报酬，这是不好的，对吧？这意味着他的激励方式和方法与你想要建立事物的稳定和资本主义生态系统的利益不一致。

I would much prefer. And that prevented a lot of investors from investing in the tender, right? Because they saw that now I want to make sure we cover a couple angles of this that we haven't covered. And so another element of this, Sam Altman doesn't just lead open AI. He runs or, you know, is hugely involved in Helios, a big nuclear project in world coin, big crypto project. He is one of the most prolific investors in Silicon Valley. And he was pursuing two side projects in recent months when we broke in the information about building an AI phone potentially with Johnny Ive. And the second is trying to build a TSMC semiconductor like American foundry for like American dynamism. So like this, I think is an important part of the picture.

我更喜欢的是。这也阻碍了许多投资者投资这个项目，对吗？因为他们看到我现在要确保我们涵盖了一些尚未讨论过的方面。还有另一个要素是，Sam Altman不仅仅领导OpenAI，他还在Helios这个大型核能项目和World Coin这个大型加密项目上担任重要角色。他是硅谷最活跃的投资者之一。我们在最近几个月揭露了他追求的两个副项目，一是与乔尼·艾维合作可能建造人工智能手机，第二个是试图为美国活力打造类似台积电的美国晶圆厂。我认为这是画面中的重要一部分。

Now a lot of people in Silicon Valley say I overstate these, you know, everyone has side projects, blah, blah, blah, but like, it's a lot. I think this is also part of projects. These are all moonshot side projects. Like I made a cool app like like, say on the other day was like, I made this really cool, like, what AI app or something in my spare time. Like that was the cool side project. And sounds like building into some scene, a new phone with Johnny Ive no big deal. Well, I think this goes back to the whole governance thing, which is with Microsoft, right? I mean, I think it's to the degree that like the chip and I don't know this for sure. But like, again, with the big, I mean, these are all these are legitimate questions for board to raise. And we just don't know. Maybe they were like asked and answered. I don't think so. Which is why I wanted them to go ahead. I'm sure they weren't. I'm sure that this is just like, it's fascinating. This like almost was like a Roman like, like situation, like, Cesarean situation where even like the problem again, I think is just like, unaligned actors are really hard to deal with, right? Like Elon super hard to deal with, he's so rich, right? That he like is kind of like unaligned. He just does, it's like doing whatever Elon feels like, you know, Sam Altman is super in this really creative structure for himself around open AI, right? Which basically the funny part about the line, like I serve at the pleasure of the board is especially if you get to replace the board, then you serve at your own pleasure, right? And like, that's really dangerous, right? For like any like system that especially one that's been so religious, right? And so on the record about the kind of big structure thing, like just don't think that works for like capitalism.

现在硅谷有很多人说我夸大了这些，你知道，每个人都有副业项目，嗯，嗯，嗯，但是实际上很多。我认为这也是项目的一部分。这些都是宏大的副业项目。比如说我最近做了一个很酷的应用，就像，就像，比如说前几天我做了这个很酷的人工智能应用之类的。那就是一个很酷的副业项目。而且还有听起来像是在建造一个新手机，还有Johnny Ive没有什么大不了的。我认为这回到了整个管理的问题，就是和微软一样，对吧？我的意思是，我认为像那个芯片，我不太清楚。但是，再说一次，对于这些大公司来说，这些都是合理的问题，董事会应该提出这些问题。我们只是不知道。也许他们被问过并得到了答复，但我不这么认为。这就是为什么我希望他们继续前进。我敢肯定他们并没有得到答复。我敢肯定，这就像是一个很迷人的情况，就像是一个罗马的情况，像凯撒那样的情况，而且问题再次在于，不合拍的参与者真的很难处理，对吧？像埃隆这样难以应付，他太有钱了，对吧？他有点不合拍。他只是按照埃隆自己的感觉去做事，你懂吗？Sam Altman为自己在开放AI周围创造了一个非常有创意的结构。特别是那句“我听从董事会的指示”，尤其是如果你能够替换董事会，那么你就会按你自己的意愿行事，对吧？这真的很危险，对吧？对于一个特别是在大结构这个问题上曾经是非常有原则的系统来说，就像资本主义一样，我不认为这适用。

Now, I think that it's a free country, like if people want to do that, that's fine. But like, so much of the disappointment and intrigue here is this like tension between like, is this a legitimate real company that people trust and is like part of a business infrastructure of AI that people are excited about building on, right? Can Sam be the leader of that, right? Or is this a religious thing, right? That happens to have some interesting business things people out way too excited about in a terrible structure, right? And like Sam's the wrong leader for it, because he actually is way too religious, right? Like, and I will say, like we should, we should address like we've had many conversations about open AI and how cool their technology is and the app store and all of that, right? And I think, okay, well, you hadn't followed the announcement at the time of that podcast, I'm not talking about just Sam not knowing what we were talking about. So now I have it. I don't always do our homework, but, but I do think that like, you know, you see the same, so prior to this, obviously we had the APEC conference with a lot of important US and China trade conversations. And I was reading something about a dinner Sam Altman showed up to and someone compared him to Taylor Swift showing up, right? And I think there is just, you know, the press has a role to play and, and you know, fingers should be questioned and challenged as well, right? When we think about how we cover these people and, you know, we've a while ago did an article about Sam's investments and how he said he would, they were slowing down in open AI and they just weren't, right?

现在，我认为这是一个自由的国家，如果人们想要那样做，那没问题。但是，这里的许多失望和兴趣都存在着这种紧张感，就像这是一个人们信任的合法真实公司，它是人们对AI业务基础设施的建设充满期待的一部分，对吗？Sam能成为这方面的领导者吗？还是这只是一个宗教事情，碰巧涉及一些有趣的商业元素，人们对其过度兴奋，同时存在着可怕的结构问题，对吗？而且Sam并不适合担任这个角色，因为他实际上过于信仰宗教，对吗？而且，我要说的是，我们应该解决这个问题，我们已经就OpenAI及其技术以及应用商店进行了很多讨论，对吗？而且我认为，好吧，可能你在那期播客的时候没有注意到这个公告，我不是说Sam不知道我们在谈论什么。现在我明白了。我并不总是完成我们的作业，但是我认为我们应该怀疑和挑战同样的问题，你知道，事前，我们有很多重要的美中贸易谈判，在亚太经合组织（APEC）会议之前，我看到有关有人把萨姆·奥特曼与泰勒·斯威夫特相提并论的报道，对吧？我认为媒体也有责任发挥作用，对指责和质疑应该持审慎态度，对吧？当我们思考如何报道这些人时，我们曾经有一篇关于Sam投资的文章，他说他将放慢在OpenAI的投资，但事实并非如此。

And like, we had so much flack for that piece of just like, why are you going after the guy? And stuff is like, we're not going after the guy, but like, you know, he says one thing and the picture is different, right?

就像，我们对那件事真是遭受了很多指责，就像，为什么要针对那个人呢？东西就是这样，我们并不是在针对那个人，但是你知道吗，他说了一些话但事实却是不同的，对吧？

And so anyway, we're seeing some of those same, you know, the things we saw with FTX, you know, that these forces are in play too. I think, I think this is moment. Just your point, the difference here is that this technology is so powerful and we're all customers of it.

所以总的来说，我们看到了一些相同的东西，你知道，就是我们在FTX中看到的那些东西，你知道，这些力量也在起作用。我认为，我认为这是一个关键时刻。就像你所言，这里的区别在于这项技术非常强大，而且我们都是它的用户。

I think that's the thing that is so interesting about this is that this deservedly so the reason that perhaps the Taylor Swift's analogy has happened is that the power of the technology and that it's become a thinking partner for all of us is like this incredibly powerful thing. And we're all trying to figure out what exactly this thing is, right? Like, and to me, that's the thing about the question about how religious this thing is, how dangerous is this thing? Like, what is this, right?

我认为这件事情最有趣的地方在于，科技的力量变得非常强大且配得上如此美好的原因是，它已经成为我们所有人的思考伙伴。我们都在试图弄清楚这个东西究竟是什么，对吗？对我来说，关于这个东西是否像宗教一样，是否危险，这是一个关于这个东西的问题。它到底是什么？

Like, does it have a single portfolio company that would die if open a went away, right? Like, I would have to revert my search to the way it was two and a half months ago on the information, right? Well, there's just other AI platforms. Yeah. Yeah, I just don't like how everyone was diversifying their bank accounts from the SDB thing up. And now it's just like, make sure to diversify your API calls so that like single AI platform can get you in trouble.

那么，如果Open A消失了，它有没有一个单一的投资组合公司会倒闭呢，对吧？就像，我得回到两个半月前的搜索方式来获取信息，对吧？嗯，还有其他的AI平台。是的。是的，我就是不喜欢每个人把他们的银行账户从那个SDB的东西分散出去。现在就好像，确保分散你的API调用，这样单一的AI平台就不会给你惹麻烦。

And I think the other way, like, David's like, I just think there's another way to look at it, which is like the Valley needs a story desperately, right? And like, I'm like less bold. I think LLMs, like the really cool, very obvious applications, there'll be a lot of money made. I don't think it's like the second coming of anything. I just think it's like cool business, cloud 2.0 stuff.

我想以另外一种方式来看待，就像是，大卫说，我只是认为有另一种方式来看待这个问题，就是山谷急需一个故事，对吗？而且，我不太敢大胆。我认为，像LLMs这样非常酷、非常明显的应用程序，能够创造很多财富。我不认为它是任何东西的再临。我只是认为它是一种很酷的商业、云2.0的东西。

But the Valley desperately needs a narrative, right? Because so many of them hasn't panned out. It's been a long time since we've had one. And so to me, like the real question about like this cult dumb or whatever is like, and like where we're at is like, it's less about like, oh, this technology is so powerful versus like the industry really, really wants a narrative, right? And like, this was supposed to be it.

但是，硅谷急需一个叙事，对吧？因为其中很多都没有成功。距离我们上次有一个叙事已经过去很久了。所以对我来说，关于这个邪教的问题，或者说我们所处的境地，更多的是关于，不是技术有多么强大，而是整个行业非常非常希望有一个叙事，对吧？而且，这本来应该是它。

And the fact that it's a mess from a business perspective and the fact that, you know, it's quasi religious and the fact that we can't tease out whether this is a business operation or, you know, a religious zealotry, you know, situation, I think is the real problem, right? But I think it's also that like, we're sad.

而且，从商业角度来看，这是一团糟，而且，你知道的，它几乎有宗教色彩，而且我们无法判断这是商业运作还是一种宗教狂热，你知道的，情况，我认为这才是真正的问题，对吗？但我想问题还在于，我们感到悲伤。

Like, I think the thing I've been hearing and seeing and I feeling is just like, gosh, we haven't seen another trillion dollar tech company and so many years. And like, this was the one we all were putting our money on and some of us literally. And like, now what, you know, and what does that mean for the future Silicon Valley?

我觉得我听到和看到的以及我感受到的东西就像是，天哪，这么多年来我们都没见过另一个市值万亿美元的科技公司了。而且，这个公司曾经是我们所有人都看好的，有些人甚至亲自投资了。那现在怎么办呢，你知道的，这对未来的硅谷意味着什么呢？

And so, you know, I don't know, I don't know what if it'll come back to the extent that there's also, there's, but there's also a bigger question, which is how dangerous is this really? Like, and I think that's what this comes kind of comes down to, like the religious disagreement is around how it's all subjective, right? Like everybody, nobody can define a really truly objective danger situation. There's just a lot of like, well, I think this is what's going to happen.

所以，你知道的，我不知道，我不知道它是否会回到这个程度，同时还有一个更大的问题，就是这到底有多危险？像，我觉得这就是这个问题的核心，宗教上的分歧就在于这都是主观的，对吧？就是每个人都无法真正定义一个绝对客观的危险情况。只是有很多的猜测，像，我认为这是会发生的事情。

And I think that's why it's, go ahead, Sam. Well, I just think, I also think, look, the reality, the way I was in my life, like, I actually think AI technology is super dangerous. Like, I think it's gonna completely fuck with our election cycle. I think it's like incredibly hard to tell what's real or not. Like, it's, but we don't need AGI for that. I think that's the difference. I think AI technology is plenty dangerous. Doesn't mean it isn't plenty cool or pretty valuable. It's also plenty dangerous.

我认为这就是为什么，去吧，Sam。嗯，我只是觉得，我也觉得，你看，现实情况，就是我过去的生活方式，事实上，我认为人工智能技术非常危险。就像，我认为它会完全扰乱我们的选举周期。我认为很难辨别什么是真实的或虚假的。虽然，我们并不需要超级智能来做到这一点。我认为人工智能技术已经足够危险了。这并不意味着它不够酷或者没有很大的价值。它同样是非常危险的。

And like, to me, the religious thing is the yada, yada, yada of the AI danger and being like, no, no, no, no, AGI. Like, that's the religious thing that people are into. And I understand it's super cool to feel like you're working on the Manhattan Project. It's a great marketing story. You know, there's all these positive things that I think a lot of people get out of convincing them to be in the cult, right? So to speak.

对我来说，宗教这个东西就像是关于人工智能危险的无聊废话，就好像大家都疯狂地相信至高智能（AGI）一样。这种宗教信仰让人着迷。我明白，让自己感觉自己正在参与曼哈顿计划那样的感觉是非常酷的。这是一个很好的营销故事。有很多积极的东西，我认为很多人因此而成为这种信仰的追随者，可以这么说吧。

But I don't think it's real. I think it's invented. And the thing that worries me again is like, specifically Sam Altman, because he is, for better or so, he's put himself at the absolute center of this, right? Is like, there's Sam Altman, the business person, totally reasonable, get it, fine, whatever. But then his rhetoric for years has been Sam Altman, the cultist. And like, I just don't know that it's especially accurate. He's Sam Altman, the pragmatist. I think he's cult, he was cultish because it was problematic.

但我不认为这是真的。我认为这是虚构的。而让我再次担忧的是，尤其是山姆·奥尔特曼，因为他将自己放在了绝对的中心位置，对吧？山姆·奥尔特曼作为商人是完全合理的，我理解、没问题。但他多年来的言辞一直是山姆·奥尔特曼作为一个邪教信徒。而且，我并不确定这种说法是否特别准确。他是理性实用主义者，不是邪教信徒。我认为他之所以有邪教的特质，是因为这是有问题的。

I know, but isn't that a problem? Like, isn't that a problem? These willing to be the. Of course, that's a problem. I don't know. It's a problem. And I think Sam Altman wants to and believes he is the next Elon Musk. He was friends with Elon. Elon actually started opening eyes and nonprofit. Their tensions between them led to Elon leaving, among other things, but like. I don't know. He doesn't have children to be Elon.

我知道，但那不是个问题吗？像，那不是个问题吗？这些人情愿成为...当然，那是个问题。我不知道。那是个问题。而且我认为Sam Altman想要并且相信自己是下一个埃隆·马斯克。他曾是埃隆的朋友。埃隆实际上开始了一家慈善机构。他们之间的紧张关系导致埃隆离开，还有其他原因，但是像...我不知道。他没有像埃隆那样的孩子。

That's true. But like, you know, it's. And again, I don't know what that's necessary. Like, of course, we want to look up to amazing technologists and all that kind of stuff. But I there's like kind of something off about it. And he's pragmatic. He's a fabulous investor. I think that is. If you look at his objective business sense success to date, that's what it was, right? He's not the guy who scales up your 1000 person team to tackle his big issues. But he's very smart in terms of thinking 10 steps ahead, sort of. I guess that's coming up.

那是真的。但是，你知道的，它有点不一样。而且，我不知道那是否有必要。当然，我们想要仰望那些了不起的技术专家和其他类似的人。但是我感觉有点不对劲。他很务实。他是一位了不起的投资者。我认为这是对的。如果你看他迄今为止在经营方面的成功，就是那样，对吗？他不是那种能够组建起一支1000人团队来应对重大问题的人。但是他非常聪明，能够提前考虑10步。我想那就要来了。

There's this question to me. It's like, what is this? I guess I keep coming down to this, which like Sam, you've said, you heard somebody compare LLMs to no better than a slide rule, right? Like a saying that has been on my mind. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Is that, you know, another quote that I heard from a dear collaborator is, you know, one cannot see a star through a microscope and one cannot see a cell through a telescope, right? And so like the lenses, which we're seeing focusing are. They're both focusing and limiting at the same time.

有个问题一直困扰着我，就是这是什么？我觉得自己一直在思考这个问题，就像你说的，萨姆，你听过有人把LLMs比作计算尺，对吧？这个比喻一直在我脑海中徘徊。是的。是的。另外一个我从一位亲密合作者那里听到的引言是，通过显微镜看不到星星，通过望远镜也看不到细胞，对吧？所以我们所看到的镜头既能聚焦也可以限制视野。

And so this technology we've created, is it a slide rule? Is it photoshop for text? Is it, you know, glorified auto-correct? Is it, you know, what is this thing? And what perspective is it providing us? And will it actually ever become, you know, this all-powerful thing? Like to me, like, that's what we're all wrapped up in here. And we're also all kind of using it, interacting with it. And so it's causing this. To me, like, that's why this story has become so big, not just that it's this narrative that we're all grabbing onto.

于是我们创造的这项技术，它是一个滑尺吗？是文字的照片修饰程序吗？是不是过分夸大的自动校正程序呢？它究竟是什么？它给我们提供了什么样的视角？它会变成一个强大的东西吗？对我来说，这就是我们所困扰的核心问题。我们都在使用它，与之互动。这会导致种种问题。对我来说，这就是为什么这个故事变得如此重要的原因，不仅仅是因为我们都对它产生了共鸣。

So I want to. I want to bring us to a conclusion with two questions for you to be the first. You're the open AI board based on what you know so far. Do you vote for or against Sam Altman as CEO of OpenAI? Wow. Didn't prep this one. Didn't prep it. Sam Lesson, you first in the hot seat.

所以我想要。我想通过两个问题来得出一个结论，你们是第一个回答的。根据你目前所知，你作为 OpenAI 董事会的成员，你是否支持 Sam Altman 继续担任 OpenAI 的 CEO？哇，这个我没准备过。没有准备过。Sam Lesson，你先来回答。

So it's interesting, because I think it actually comes down to how religious are they, right? Like the short term. No, you, you, Sam Lesson, are in that seat. What do you do? If I'm in the seat, I don't bring them back. Right. I say it's the ring of power. I threw it away. And, you know, hopefully. And the reason I do that, honestly, is I think that any structure that he'll be able to work in next, and like that moves all on his forward, like Microsoft, will be a dramatically more constrained structure, which forces it to be a good business application, but does my actual primary goal, which is push out the AGI thing, because it won't fund it. Microsoft's not going to fund AGI, and like I accept the fact that the Chinese or some other Yahoo's are probably working on it, but if. But I also have enough respect for the talent that we put together that if I really believe the AGI story, which they clearly do, that like I've kind of like thrown away the ring of power.

所以很有趣，因为我认为实际上这归结为他们有多虔诚，对吧？就是短期内。不，你，你，Sam Lesson，就坐在那个位置上。你会怎么做？如果我坐在那个位置上，我就不会把它们带回来。对。我会说这是一枚权力之戒。我将其扔掉。而且，你知道的，希望如此。而我这样做的原因，老实说，是因为我认为他下一个可能能在其中工作的任何结构，比如微软，都将是一个更加受约束的结构，这迫使它成为一个良好的商业应用，但并不是我实际的主要目标，那就是推动AGI的事情，因为微软不会资助它。而且我也足够尊重我们组织的人才，如果我真的相信AGI的故事，他们显然是相信的，那我就把权力之戒扔掉了。

Okay, Britt. I think I bring him back, but I create a new set of checks and balances. That actually work to try to meet as many expectations as possible. And I just think that Microsoft thing is going to get really messy, really fast with like the Microsoft shareholders, the public company, all the inter-organizations. Like it's. I know, as Satya said, it's going to be arm's length. I just don't buy into that. And so I don't see us making the progress that we need to make if he doesn't come back. Okay, Dave. The one question that I have is what information don't we know? And this goes back to my comments about Adam.

好的，布里特。我认为我可以把他请回来，但我会创建一套新的审查和平衡机制。它们实际上能够尽可能满足多方面的期望。而我觉得微软的事情会变得非常混乱，非常快，包括微软的股东、上市公司以及所有的组织之间的关系。就像我知道的，虽然萨提亚说要保持一定的独立性，但我并不相信这一点。因此，如果他不回来，我认为我们无法取得我们需要的进展。好吧，戴夫。我的一个问题是，我们不知道哪些信息？这涉及到我对亚当的评论。

I think there's something we don't know. Like my intuition is that there's still something we don't know. And so I'm going to make my comments based on what we do know. If there's something we don't know, which is who knows? There's an AGI system that appeared in the last two weeks that told them something really scary, or there's some who knows, some crazy. There was that. We do know that by the way, or we know that the religious leaders who use this as a tactic of cultdom have been telling us that they saw something that for the first time has only. that blew their mind, only like their mind had been blown twice in history before since he was on a man. Well, maybe that was a direct quote. What a great way to sell business services. All right. Am I only on the caveat? But what does Dave vote? What does Dave vote?

我觉得有些事情我们不知道。就好像我的直觉告诉我，还有一些我们不知道的事情。因此，我会根据我们已知的内容发表我的评论。如果有些我们不知道的事情，那谁知道呢？在过去的两周里出现了一个人工智能系统，告诉他们一些非常可怕的事情，或者也可能是其他一些不可思议的事情。这是确实发生过的，我们是知道的。或者我们知道，那些把这作为组织策略的宗教领袖告诉我们，他们看到了一些他们的思维前所未有的东西，只有第一次才会出现。他们的思想就像被炸开了两次，历史上只有一次，自从他成为人类以来。好吧，也许这是一个直接引用。这是一个很棒的推销商务服务的方式。好吧，在我作为警告的前提下，戴夫的投票是什么？戴夫会投什么票？

My other caveat is if there's something else dark and, you know, crazy that went on with data or something like that. If that happened, then my vote would be the opposite direction. But my vote would be to vote him back in. And I would do that with the creation of a. You know, if it's going to stay in nonprofit or whatever, I would do a two-board structure. The board that I run is a two-board structure based on the Harvard Corporation and based on the Rockefeller Foundation, which effectively has one board that is the managing board. And that board has to send all potential nominees to the board up to the. I think of it like a Supreme Court board that kind of plays the role of making sure that the managing board can't become captive. And there should be some kind of structure like that that provides a true, like, quite literal check and balance structure in place so that we can all trust that the governance of this situation given if it is as, you know, important of a technology is where all saying can be protected.

我的另一个顾虑是，如果数据或其他什么东西发生了一些阴暗而疯狂的事情，如果发生了这样的情况，那么我的投票将会朝相反的方向。但是我会支持重新选举他。而且我会借此机会建立一个两层董事会结构。我管理的董事会是基于哈佛大学董事会和洛克菲勒基金会的两层董事会结构，事实上只有一个管理董事会。该董事会必须将所有潜在的提名人选提交给上层董事会，我认为上层董事会类似于最高法院，起到确保管理董事会不能被控制的角色。应该有一种类似的结构，提供真正的、文字上的制衡机制，以便我们都能相信，如果这项技术是我们所说的那么重要，我们所有的利益都能得到保护的治理体系。

Yes. What are you guys? There's some breaking news. I'm going to. I will answer that question, but I got to. I'm reading a combination of breaking news here. Hold on. Okay. Basically more about bickering between the board. No. I mean, how much news are unpublished is? I know. Shocking. Hold on. I just want to just make sure. Actually, I think there's very little new here. Hold on. It's such a cliff here. You could like tie the door. No, I know. Well, guys, this is just my life. It's messages of people claiming nothing. I do have to say it, Jess. You've really just absolutely knocked it out of the park the last few days. Thanks, Dave. It's putting this board member Helen more in the spotlight. And so, well, as a source of kind of beef with Sam, which is something that we know. Why hasn't there been more coverage of these other board members? That's. I mean, we're all talking about Sam at all. We know these people that haven't seen much about.

是的。你们是什么人？有些突发新闻。我会回答那个问题，但是我必须，我正在阅读一些突发新闻的结合。稍等。好的。基本上是关于董事会之间的争吵。不是的。我是说，还有多少未发表的新闻？我知道。令人震惊。稍等。我只是想确保一下。实际上，我认为这里几乎没有什么新东西。稍等。这里非常悬崖。你可以用门系住。不，我知道。好吧，伙计们，这就是我的生活。一些人声称什么都没有。我必须说一下，杰斯，你最近可真是做得非常出色。谢谢，戴夫。这让董事会成员海伦更加备受关注。而且，作为与山姆有些摩擦的问题的消息来源，这是我们所知道的。为什么对其他董事会成员的报道不多呢？这是。我们都在谈论山姆，但是我们对这些人了解不多。

No, but there's a lot. So there's a lot of like who these people are, but I think now what we are in day, whatever of this cycle is, the board is finally realizing that they should find a way to get some of their story out there. Totally. I'm not saying they're not doing this directly, but they are. Clearly, whatever. There's a clearly whatever. They're just starting to like realize that there's kind of more to this. So, okay, but I want to keep this going. I would not bring Sam Altman back in anything that resembled the current structure. Is there a structure where I would bring him back? Possibly.

不，但有很多。所以有很多关于这些人是谁的事情，但我觉得现在我们已经是这个周期的第几天了，董事会终于意识到他们应该找到一个方法来将一些他们的故事传达出去。完全正确。我不是说他们直接不在做这个，但他们确实在做。显然，总之。显然是这样。他们只是开始意识到这其中有更多。所以好吧，但我希望能够继续下去。我不会把山姆·阿尔特曼带回任何类似于现有结构的事务中。有没有一种结构，我会让他回来？可能有。

But I just think that like. The whole thing is too. And you will just have this perpetually kind of every six months, especially since this is all triggered from research paper. So, we have a traditional more in lesson breakdown. The more in the more. No, actually, no, no, no, no. We also have the same thing. Me, you and Dave, Jess, said we would bring him back with a new structure. That's what I heard. Yeah, but like. I'm not talking about like corporation over.

我只是觉得整个事情太过了。而且每六个月你们都会一直这样，尤其是因为这一切都是从研究论文引发的。所以，我们需要一个更传统的课程分解。越多越好。不，实际上不是这样。我们也有同样的问题。我、你、戴夫、杰斯都说过我们会使用新的结构带他回来。这就是我听说的。是的，但是我不是在谈论公司的问题。

See, I'm like. I can't even imagine what the situation is, but. I think the real solution should be. I know. I think Sam's on his own right now. The profit. No, come on. I feel lined with both the more in Zen lessons in this moment. I think we're all pretty pragmatic here. One more question. Okay. You are Sam Altman. What do you do? Sam Lesson. Go hang out at Microsoft for a while. You're done with the drama? No, I just. I think that like the reality is, is this got real messy for me. And I do have a bunch of different angles and projects on this. And I think it's super easy for me to pull a bunch of resources in, build a bunch of interesting stuff through Microsoft. And you go from there. I would kind of.

好的，我像，我甚至无法想象现在的情况是怎样的，但是我认为真正的解决方案应该是。我知道。我认为Sam现在是一个人行动的。利润。不，别开玩笑了。与此刻的禅修教训相比，我感到更加平静。我认为我们都非常务实。还有一个问题。好吧，你是Sam Altman。你会怎么做？Sam回答道，我会到微软呆一段时间。你不再关心这些事情了吗？不，我只是觉得现实情况对我来说变得非常混乱。我有很多不同的方面和项目相关，而通过微软，我可以很容易地调动很多资源，构建一些有趣的东西。然后再从那里开始。我可能会......

And most importantly in that, I think it would be a real sign of dropping the AGI religious act. Like, I think if he took a year of dropping it, right, and was like, okay, like, this is business technology and like there's some projects I want to work on that you can kind of get the stink off of that. But to me, I think the real problem is I just. I don't think you can have it both ways and be a religious leader with these AGI cult stuff and like the fear of AI and racing for a nuclear weapon and also be building a pragmatic business platform. And as you guys all know, like, I think this is a very good pragmatic business platform full stop. I can never imagine if Sam is like Elon, Elon going to work for Microsoft and like not doing one of his many projects.

最重要的是，我认为这将是一个真正放弃AGI宗教行为的迹象。比如，我觉得如果他能放下这个，花一年时间去从事商业科技，去做一些能够摆脱那种污名的项目，那将是很好的。但对我来说，真正的问题在于，我不认为你能同时身为一个具有AGI崇拜的宗教领袖，又有对人工智能的恐惧和争夺核武器的行为，同时又在建立一种务实的商业平台。正如你们都知道的那样，我认为这是一个非常出色的商业平台。我无法想象如果Sam像马斯克一样去为微软工作，不再从事他的许多项目。

No, no, but I want to know if you're you, you're Bribmorin and you're faced with these.

不，不是这样，但我想知道你是否真的是你自己，你是Bribmorin，而你面对这些。

I thought I sat at Samox.

我以为我坐在Samox那儿。

What do you want to do?

你想要做什么？

Oh, well, I don't think I would.

噢，嗯，我觉得我不会这样做。

But like, okay, okay, I got a guy in Sam's position as Bribmorin.

但是好吧，好吧，我知道有一个人，他和Sam一样在Bribmorin这个职位上。

I know, I'm not trying to guess his neck.

我知道，我不是在猜测他的脖子。

I'm rushing to all in this by saying if Bribmorin is Sam Altman and Sam Altman is Elon Musk, I don't think I would want to be working at Microsoft because I would have so much complexity around what I can and can't do and my other side projects and I invest in against all messy.

我觉得如果Bribmorin是Sam Altman，而Sam Altman又是Elon Musk，我就不会想去微软工作，因为我会面临太多关于我能做什么和不能做什么、以及我其他的项目和投资等方面的复杂性。

I don't know.

我不知道。

Buddy, Dottia was willing to hire your whole company overnight.

伙计，Dottia愿意一夜之间雇佣你们整个公司。

You have a lot of leverage.

你有很多筹码。

You just say I'll do whatever I want, but I'll work at Microsoft.

你只是说我会去做任何我想做的事情，但我会在微软工作。

I think that's how Sathia sells you on it and then like two years in, it starts getting weird.

我觉得这就是Sathia向你推销的方式，然后大约两年后，情况开始变得奇怪。

You don't have to stay for two years.

你不必待两年。

You're going to stay for 12 months.

你将要停留12个月。

You're going to stay for 12 months.

你将要待12个月。

What?

什么？

Do you think he's only there for 12 months and then he rolls out?

你觉得他只是在那里呆12个月然后离开吗？

Absolutely.

当然。

Absolutely.

当然。

Absolutely.

当然可以。

Okay, well, if I'm only there for 12 months, I'm in, but I don't think he's going to fulfill his dream of what he wants to do in 12 months time.

好的，如果我只在那里呆12个月，我会参与，但我不认为他能在12个月内实现他想做的梦想。

So I'm probably not in Microsoft.

所以我很可能不在微软。

No, no, you just give Microsoft the keys to the business side of AI as it is today.

不，不，你只是把当今的人工智能业务的控制权交给了微软。

You help them set it up.

你帮助他们安装好它。

You bring in the people who want to be business people.

你吸引那些想成为商人的人。

You package it.

你打包好了。

You're the hero who brought AI to Microsoft.

你是将AI带入微软的英雄。

Then you bounce.

然后你跳起来。

Then you bounce.

然后你就反弹了。

And in the meantime, you do your stupid phone project and whatever else because like Sathia is not going to stop.

与此同时，你继续做你那愚蠢的手机项目和其他事情，因为Sathia是不会停下来的。

With Johnny, I, I, seriously, with Johnny I, while I'm on Microsoft's employee, Steve Jobs is rolling in his grave right now.

跟Johnny在一起，我，我，说真的，跟Johnny在一起的时候，当我还在微软工作的时候，史蒂夫·乔布斯正在坟墓里翻滚。

You guys, you just distance yourself from this madness for a year.

你们，你们只需远离这个疯狂一年。

You take a time out and you say, look, it's impossible.

你先休息一下，然后说：“看，这是不可能的。”

You can't take a time out.

你不能休息一下。

Come on.

加油。

Take a time out and say, look, it was a dumb setup.

请暂停一下，然后说，看，这个安排很愚蠢。

It was a dumb board.

这是一个愚蠢的板子。

It was a dumb set of messages around AGI and safety. I only did it to recruit a bunch of people. I realized that was a mistake.

这是一连串关于人工智能以及安全性的愚蠢讯息。我只是为了招募一群人才这么做。我意识到那是一个错误。

And like, we did some really cool stuff. And now I'm going to go build, make a shitload of money doing whatever I want to do.

然后我们做了一些很棒的事情。现在我要去追求我想做的事情，并且赚取大笔的金钱。

Dave, I'm curious, you're answering her. I do. My answer is actually pretty simple. I do whatever it takes to keep my team together.

戴夫，我很好奇，你在回答她。是的。我的回答实际上很简单。我会尽一切努力来保持我的团队团结。

I think that the, you know, look, we're all, we're all founders. We've all built companies. It's incredibly hard to put a team together that's firing on all cylinders. I don't care what anybody says. That's really, really, really, really hard. And they built this team that clearly has a lot of loyalty and a lot of incredible creative energy.

我认为，你知道的，看，我们都是创始人。我们都建立过公司。要组建一个完全高效运转的团队非常困难。我不在乎别人说什么。这真的真的真的非常非常困难。而他们已经组建了一个很明显拥有很高忠诚度和令人难以置信的创造能力的团队。

I mean, Jess, your point earlier was right that, you know, maybe there aren't, maybe not all startups are fully dependent on this technology, but GPT-4 is the best technology right now. And they brought together a team that really made this happen. And it's super hard to build that.

我的意思是，杰斯，你之前说的对，也许并不是所有创业公司都完全依赖于这项技术，但GPT-4是目前最好的技术。他们组织了一个真正能实现这一切的团队。而且这样的团队建设非常困难。

And so I'm doing whatever it takes, a, to keep my team together and to keep it all, you know, going, keep, sort of, keep the music going. And then the second thing I'm doing, which I think we've talked about quite a bit is I'm, I'm flowing to where the maximum access to the chips in the capital is in order to do this.

所以，我在尽我所能地做着一切，为了维持我的团队团结，并保持一切的运转，保持音乐继续播放。而第二件我正在做的事情，我们应该已经谈论过很多次了，就是我正流向能够获得最多芯片的资本地区去实现这个目标。

And I do think that Microsoft is probably, I mean, let's say Apple showed up, you know, and said they'd play ball here. Maybe I'd consider that. They've got chip making capabilities. They can do their own stuff. They've also got the same more chess, you know, but at the end of the day, Microsoft, I've already got the OpenAI model embedded in the Azure Cloud. They're already customers using it. And you've got the commitment of Satya, who's one of the best CEOs and leaders in the world.

我认为微软可能，也就是说，假设苹果出现了，并表示他们会参与这项活动。也许我会考虑一下。他们有芯片制造能力。他们可以做自己的东西。他们也有更多类似的闪存，你知道的，但归根结底，微软，我已经将OpenAI模型嵌入到Azure云中。已经有客户在使用它。而且你有萨蒂亚的承诺，他是世界上最好的首席执行官和领导者之一。

And so, and by the way, Microsoft also has a really good, I think a really good, reputation and history of allowing kind of the subsidiary companies such as, you know, Mohang and Minecraft and LinkedIn and, you know, many of these things they've acquired sort of operate as their own going concerns. And so, I'm not as worried about control issues as a lot of people I've heard talking about this.

而且，顺便说一下，微软还拥有非常好的声誉和历史，允许类似莫挞、Minecraft、LinkedIn等子公司独立运营。因此，我对控制问题的担忧不如我听到的很多人那样大。

I think that the Microsoft way, if it's the way to keep my team together and continue to get access to the stream of capital, then I'm doing it, right? If I can maintain my Microsoft relationship and the capital flow and the Azure sort of build out and I can stay over it, OpenAI with a better structure, I'm doing that.

我认为，如果微软的方式能够让我的团队保持团结并继续获得资金流，那么我会这么做，对吗？如果我能够保持我和微软的关系、资金流动以及云计算平台Azure的发展，并且我能够在这个基础上构建一个更好的OpenAI，我会这样做。

And you know what? I'm also doing, I'm actually, if I'm in this position, I am actually trying to make a board structure that the world can trust more. Because I, you know, I've been part of platforms like this, I've seen this play out, I've seen how frustrated people get when APIs change and people can't trust what's going on. And so, I'm actually arguing to create a better board structure that can produce a higher level of trust.

而且你知道吗？我也在做这件事，实际上，如果我处在这个位置，我会努力建立一个世界更加信任的董事会结构。因为我，你知道的，我曾经参与过类似的平台，我亲眼见证了这个过程，我看到了当API变化时人们会变得多么沮丧和不信任。所以，我正在争取创造一个更好的董事会结构，能够带来更高水平的信任。

So, if I am in the same position as Sam Altman, I do not go back to OpenAI because you do it, you are under a mic, or like, what is your career, right? Like, you have, you know, maybe you assume that people will kind of forget about this, but like, what is the set of conditions in terms of boards and investors and scrutiny and politics and regulation that you're kind of like operating under, right? So, if you still believe in the mission, which you say you do, but, you know, you also believe in a lot of other things, so like, it's hard to know where the stacks, right? But like, you know, go do it at Microsoft in the short term or find a way to work with great people and drive it forward. But like, you know, one of the major lessons in all of this, right, FTX didn't have a board either, had like an advisory party council, is like the structure matters, right?

因此，如果我处于与山姆·阿特曼（Sam Altman）相同的位置上，我不会回到OpenAI，因为你们已经做过了，你们承受着高度的压力，或者说，这关系到你的职业，对吧？你知道的，也许你认为人们可能会忘记这件事，但是在董事会、投资者、审查、政治和监管方面，你们有哪些运作条件呢？所以，如果你仍然相信这个使命，你说是的，但是你也相信很多其他东西，所以很难知道你在哪一方面更重要，对吧？但是你知道的，你可以在微软公司短期内搞定，或者找到一种与优秀的人合作并推动事情向前发展的方式。但是，你知道的，所有这一切的一个重要教训是，FTX也没有董事会，只有一个顾问委员会，这表明结构非常重要。

And the set of the, and beyond that now, there's just too much scrutiny, there are going to be hundreds, thousands of reporters and editors who want to catch you in every move, or you've had all your dirty laundry aired about all your kind of internal debates in your organization, and that's just not a great thing. Like, entrepreneurs like avoid that for the sake of doing something else.

而现在，除此之外，有太多的审查了，肯定会有成百上千的记者和编辑想要抓住你的每一个举动，或者你的组织内部辩论的所有肮脏事情都被曝光，这并不是一件好事。比如，企业家们为了做其他事情而避免这种情况。

So, that's not necessarily what I think he will do, but that's what I would do.

所以，那不一定是我认为他会做的，但那是我会做的。

So, what else have we covered it all? I just, look, I think we covered it all.

那么，我们还有什么其他的内容需要讨论吗？我觉得我们已经讨论了所有的内容。

Yeah.

好的。

Go ahead.

继续前进吧。

I'd say like, I think that it's about governance, it's about incentives, right? And like, I just think the reality is, is like, the, you know, people like to shit on capitalism, and they like to shit on this type of stuff, but there's like, rational business platforms, I think are much easier for people to handle the reality is with technology in general, you can actually do something kind of wild, which you can have huge impact with a small number of people with AI, even a smaller number of people could tiny cut, it can produce like incredibly impactful, interesting things.

我想说的是，我认为这是关于治理和激励的问题，对吧？就像，我只是觉得现实情况是，你知道，人们喜欢批评资本主义，批评这种东西，但事实是，我认为理性的商业平台对人们来说更容易处理实际情况，而且使用科技，你实际上可以做一些疯狂的事情，你可以用少数人甚至更少的人来产生巨大影响，AI可以产生极富影响力和趣味性的东西。

And the thing that happens when you cut down the size or whatever is you're able to get, you know, crazy people to coordinate in very non continuous directions, that can produce great outcomes. That's actually really powerful tool, like that is the free radical of Silicon Valley in a lot of ways that creates a lot of great outcomes, but also creates a lot of very dangerous situations. Like that's, it's the speed and scale with small numbers of people that you can align on.

当你减小规模或做任何事情时，你能够让疯狂的人以非连续的方式协调合作，从而产生巨大的成果。这实际上是一种非常强大的工具，就像硅谷的自由基一样，在很多方面创造了很多伟大的成果，但也带来了很多非常危险的情况。这是指在小规模团队中，你能够以速度和规模来达成共识的能力。

So to me, I think the FTX college right, and it's not just about governance, it's also just about like fundamental alignment and the speed at which these things grow up. And I'm getting way too important with way too few, too few guardrails too quickly at this point. So I mean, I think that's just kind of the reality we, we now live with. And you know, it's, it's kind of a wild future in a lot of ways, but I do think we got to be really careful about who you trust.

对我来说，我认为FTX学院是对的，这不仅仅涉及治理问题，还涉及基本的协调以及这些事物的发展速度。而在此阶段，这些事物的增长速度太快了，编制太少了。所以，我认为这就是我们现在生活的现实。你知道，在许多方面，未来是不确定的，但我确实认为我们必须非常小心地选择信任的对象。

And it does back to things like to me, I think the big winners on this are Microsoft actually, despite the challenge of that, it's, it's Amazon, it's going to be Google. It's like, oh, like we know how to think about and trust these entities as players. And yes, we'll use multiple of them, right? And so I think it's just going to be like, you can't trust these crazy weird structure startups from nowhere.

并且我认为在这一点上大赢家是微软，尽管面临挑战的是亚马逊和谷歌。我们知道如何思考并信任这些公司作为参与者。当然，我们会使用多个平台。因此，我认为我们无法相信那些突然冒出来的奇怪结构的初创公司。

Yeah. Okay, with that, everyone to our listeners, viewers, we wish you a great thanksgiving. We hope that you don't stay glued to X and WhatsApp and whatever other things through all of it. But we hope we don't have to do it. Yeah, we don't have to. We don't have to do it. But you should stay glued to the information.com. Like you should just put that at your things table and fresh it.

好的。好了，对于我们的听众、观众们来说，我们祝你们过一个愉快的感恩节。我们希望你们不要一直沉迷于X、WhatsApp以及其他一切。但我们希望我们不必这样做。是的，我们不需要这样做。我们不需要这样做。但是你们应该保持关注information.com的信息。就像你们应该将它放在你们的餐桌上，并随时刷新它。

Yeah. Why don't you guys have like a live feed update situation? That's what I want from the information. Go on. I mean, it's just, there's a lot and there's been a lot of there has been excellent information live. That's what I mean. The information live. David basically get the information live. As soon as it's confirmed, as soon as it's published, you know, yes, you've been on see how many times you gone see it on the BCS for today. So many times by the end, by the end, the look, I think Frank, my good friend in the control was like, it's nice to see you again.

是啊，为什么你们没有像直播更新一样的情况呢？这就是我对信息的需求。继续说吧。我的意思是，有很多信息，而且一直都有非常好的即时信息。这就是我所说的，即时信息。大卫基本上在得到信息时就会直播。一旦确认，一旦发布，你知道，你到今天为止上了多少次BCS去看它。到了最后，我觉得控制室里的忠实朋友弗兰克像是在说，很高兴再次见到你。

I'm still here. And it was like, but last night, I didn't even know what I was where I looked down at one point. I was like, I don't think I could wear this on television. So then I paused and they went to commercial break and then I changed my shirt. But I love that, by the way, you had a two-year-old birthday party and somewhere in between all of this this weekend. So like congrats. Anna friends giving many other things, but it's an important story. There is other news. I mean, we just broke a scoop about Tiger's head of private investments, standing down, stepping aside for all of you guys who know Scott. So we'll keep it going.

我还在这里。昨晚感觉就像是，但我甚至不知道我是怎么样的，一度低下头看了看。我觉得我不能穿这个上电视。然后我停下来，他们进入了商业休息，我就换了件衬衫。不过顺便说一下，恭喜你们举办了一个两岁生日派对，在这个周末那么多事情之间。所以祝贺一下吧。还有其他新闻。我们刚刚曝光了关于老虎私人投资负责人辞职的独家消息，对于你们当中认识Scott的所有人来说，我们将继续报道。

Did you put open AI in the headlines? We will click on it. Did you be like Tiger, a non-investor in open AI? Right? Are they a master? Are outlets that would do that? To the morons, we wish you guys a very happy Thanksgiving. And we'll see you next week for another episode of Tiger, Tiger, and I would be the CEO because that would also work. Okay. That's why you don't write the headlines. We'll work in the newsroom. Bye. Bye. Bye. Yeah. Bye. If you enjoyed this show, please leave us a virtual high five by rating it and reviewing it on Apple podcast, Spotify, YouTube, or wherever you get your podcast. Find more information about each episode in the show notes and follow us on social media by searching for at more or less at Dave Moran at lesson at J lesson. And as for me, I'm at Brit. See you guys next time.

你把Open AI放在标题里了吗？我们会点击它的。你像老虎一样，成为了Open AI的非投资者吗？对吗？他们是大师吗？会有报道会这样做吗？愚蠢的人们，祝你们感恩节快乐。下周我们会再见到你们，播出“老虎、老虎”，而我会成为CEO，因为这也行得通。好的，这就是为什么你不要写标题。我们会在新闻室继续努力。再见。再见。再见。好的。再见。如果你喜欢这个节目，请给我们一个虚拟的击掌，通过在Apple podcast、Spotify、YouTube或你获取播客的任何地方给我们评分和评论。在节目说明中找到更多关于每集的信息，并通过搜索@moreorless、@DaveMoran、@Lesson和对我来说，我是@Brit，在社交媒体上关注我们。下次见。