E173: Google buying HubSpot? FTX depositors not made whole, AI job fears, Ukraine joining NATO
发布时间 2024-04-05 22:31:26 来源
All right, everybody. Welcome back to the All in podcast, the number one podcast in the world episode 173. It's objectively free bird, the number one podcast I checked. I looked online and things are cooking over here so much so that you may have heard we hired a new CEO. Welcome to the team, our new fifth bestie, John Hale. Yeah. Off-clap everybody. Let's get in there with the golf clap. Yes. All right, John. Welcome to the program. Your first day was April 1st. It wasn't a joke. Literally was your first day. How has week one as CEO for all in bin? It has been wonderful, super dynamic, really happy to be a part of the team. All right. There you have it. Saxe, you were a huge driver of this. You spent so much time interviewing everybody, going through the resumes, checking the references, you know, and you really spearheaded this. Oh, wait, you did nothing. I forgot saxes. It's Fits Belt J. Oh, and John. Wait, who is this? Zach is a John. OK, guys, I'm a man. You got John. David, do the second. Nice to meet you. Likewise. Let your winners ride. Rain man, David. And it said we open source it to the fans. And they've just got crazy. I mean, I'm queen of King Bob. So John worked at the Russian embassy. This is just a coincidence that a couple of Russia references, but he worked as an intern for Putin somehow he wound up getting a gig.
大家好。欢迎回到《All in播客》，这是世界上排名第一的播客，第173集。毫无疑问是《自由之鸟》，我查过的排名第一的播客。事情在这里正在发展，你可能听说我们雇了一个新的CEO。欢迎我们的新第五好朋友John Hale加入团队。是的，让我们为他鼓掌。大家鼓掌。好的，John。欢迎加入节目。你的第一个工作日是4月1日。这并不是一个玩笑。你的第一天就是那天。作为All in的CEO，第一个星期怎么样？真的很美好，充满活力，很高兴能成为团队的一员。Saxe，你是这一切的主要推动者。你花了很多时间面试每个人，查阅简历，核对参考资料，你真的是带头推动了这一切。哦，等等，你什么也没做。我忘了Saxe，这是Fits Belt J。噢，还有John。等一下，这是谁？Zach是John吗？好了，伙计们，我是个男人。你是John，David，继续以下内容。很高兴认识你。彼此彼此。让你的获胜战绩延续下去。雨人大卫。我们把它开源给粉丝们。他们疯了。我的意思是，我是皇后玛丽。John曾在俄罗斯大使馆工作。这只是一个巧合，几次提到了俄罗斯，但他曾在普京那里实习，不知怎么得到了工作机会。
Freeburg, you actually led the the incredible. Search here. We had hundreds of people apply. Why do you think we wound up with Mr. Hale here? Yeah, we had a lot of folks and we met with a lot of folks, but John really stood out. With. I think his experience and his thoughtfulness about what we can do. So so much of our work off the show, obviously, has gone into putting on the All In Summit. And we want to do more live events. And John has a very strong background in building incredible live experiences and events, which we think is going to be a really important extension. I think we've we realized over the last two summits, how much community matters for all in and how much getting people together matters and how much. The live content mattered. And so we want to do more of that. And hopefully John can take us to the promised land. Fantastic. John, thanks for thanks for saying yes. It's awesome to have you. All right. And as John's first first duty, he is going to next week announce the details of the All In Summit 2024, our third edition term and dictator, Trump, probably a hapatiya. You've been running all in with an iron fist in the group chat. Your thoughts on John and working with him and why we selected him. The iron fist, please go. I think that there is a really important trend that we have stumbled into, which is that content creators are the modern form of demand generation for whatever else it is that you're going to consume. And I think it replaces advertising and I think it displaces traditional content. And so I was really interested in finding somebody that understood how to connect those dots in all of the different ways in which we can explore what our brand is capable of. And I thought he was the best example of having done one thing extremely well at scale and curious enough to figure out the other parts. So, you know, I'm really excited to work with John. Yeah. And I'll just add to that, you know, I've been doing events my whole life. And when I saw John's actual event history and the events you've thrown, John, really spectacular in the detail. And I think you're going to the same way, freeberg level up year two of the conference. I'm really excited to see how you put your stamp on it and level up year three. A couple of housekeeping things here. You know, we are by the way, sorry, can I say one thing? Absolutely. Like you said, yeah, there is so much room to build real communities. And I think people are just so tired and bored with everything online. So I think offline experiences will be a huge value add in people's lives.
Freeburg，你真的领导了这个了不起的。搜索这里。我们有数百人申请。为什么你认为我们最终选中了Hale先生？是的，我们遇到了很多人，但约翰确实脱颖而出。我认为他的经验和他对我们可以做的事情的周到考虑让我们深感印象深刻。因此，我们在秀外工作中投入了大量精力来举办All In峰会。我们希望能做更多现场活动。约翰在打造令人难以置信的现场体验和活动方面拥有非常强大的背景，我们认为这将是一个非常重要的拓展。我们在过去的两次峰会中意识到社区对于All In的重要性以及聚集人群的重要性以及直播内容的重要性。因此，我们希望能做更多这样的活动。希望约翰可以带领我们走向成功之路。太棒了。约翰，感谢你答应了。很高兴有你的加入。好的。作为约翰的第一个任务，他将在下周公布All In Summit 2024的细节，我们的第三届峰会。特朗普，可能是一个超能先生，你通过在群聊中以铁腕方式领导全力以赴。请分享一下你对约翰的看法，以及为什么选择他合作。铁腕，请发言。我认为我们偶然发现了一个非常重要的趋势，即内容创作者是您将要消费的任何其他东西的现代需求生成形式。我认为它取代了广告，并取代了传统内容。因此，我非常希望找到一个能够理解如何在各种探索我们品牌能够实现的方式中连接这些点的人。我认为他是一个最好的例子，他在规模上已经非常成功地完成了一件事，并且足够好奇来弄清其他部分。所以，我真的很兴奋能和约翰合作。是的。我只想补充一点，你知道，我一辈子都在办活动。当我看到约翰真正的活动历史和你组织的活动时，约翰，真的非常精彩。细节上，我认为你会像Freeburg那样提升第二届会议。我非常期待看到你如何留下自己的印记，提升第三届。有几件事情需要注意。顺便说一句，抱歉，我可以说一句吗？当然可以。就像你说的那样，建立真正的社区有很大的空间。我认为人们对所有在线内容都感到厌倦和无聊。因此，我认为线下体验将为人们的生活增加巨大的价值。
Yeah, there's definitely a bridge from online to offline and that all in meetups that Ray's been hosting. The best, the best example. Example. Yeah. The best example of at scale of online to offline are dating apps. And all I can see is that's a pretty dissatisfying experience for a lot of people. And so outside of dating apps, there aren't many really great examples where like-minded people can hang out and have fun and, you know, talk, learn, party. It's really interesting. You bring this up.
是的，在线与线下之间肯定存在着一座桥梁，而雷一直在组织的各种见面会就是最好的例证。最好的例证。是的。在线到线下的最好例子就是交友应用。我看到的是，对很多人来说，这是一种相当令人不满意的体验。所以除了交友应用之外，没有太多真正好的例子，让志同道合的人聚在一起，一起玩乐，谈话，学习，狂欢。你提到这个真的很有意思。
I just finished John hates new book, the anxious generation. I don't know if you've listened to it, but there's a pair of books out right now. Bad therapy. And this one about kids. And the premise of his book, Shumaf, is screen time, as you referred to, you know, people being online. Not only is it bad for kids and adults, it's also blocking to your point, real world connection. And so we all want a little more real world connection. And so John, welcome to the team. Additionally, I'll just two more housekeeping items here.
我刚刚看完了约翰讨厌的新书《焦虑的一代》。我不知道你是否听过，但现在有一对书。《糟糕的心理疗法》和关于孩子的这本书。他的书的假设是关于屏幕时间，就像你所提到的，人们在网上。这不仅对孩子和成人不好，而且也阻碍了真实世界的联系。所以我们都希望有更多的真实世界联系。所以约翰，欢迎加入团队。另外，我还有两个小事情要提一下。
And then we'll get to the show. We're going to have a one million subscriber party. If you want to be part of that one million subscriber party, you can increase your chances. We're not announcing how we're going to give the tickets away, but you can increase your chances by going to YouTube right now, plus the show, subscribe to the All In Podcast channel, hit the bell.
然后我们就要开始节目了。我们将举办一个百万订阅者派对。如果你想参加这个百万订阅者派对，你可以增加你的机会。我们还没有宣布如何分发门票，但你可以立即去YouTube上订阅All In节目频道，并点击铃铛以增加你的机会。
So you get the alert for the best chance of getting one of the golden tickets to the one million subscriber party. And we are at 486,000. When we add 14,000 more, we're going to do a live Q&A with all the besties. So get in on that as well, John, any, any parting thoughts here or comments, which bestie has been the most difficult to work with in the first month, which one has been the most delightful go?
所以你将收到警报，以获取到参加一百万订阅者派对的黄金门票的最佳机会。我们目前有486,000订阅者。再增加14,000个订阅者，我们将举行一场与所有最好的朋友们一起的现场问答活动。所以John，你有什么离别的想法或评论吗？在第一个月里，哪位最好的朋友一起合作最困难？哪位是最令人愉快的？
It's been a pleasure across the board. I think, you know, part of the beauty of the show is that there are so many different personalities and viewpoints and really happy to be part of the team. Excited for what we're going to continue building. How diplomatic, who's been the worst to deal with? Who's been the terror? Yeah, it's telling. We'll talk about it in your one year review. All right, John.
这段时间真是一次愉快的经历。我觉得节目的美妙之处在于有这么多不同的个性和观点，很高兴能成为团队的一员。对我们将继续建设的未来感到兴奋。很会说话，谁是最难对付的？谁是恐怖分子？是的，这个可以看出来。我们会在你的一年评审中谈论这些。好的，John。
Great job. I don't like you. Like you who's been the most erotic, likely free, Burke, who's from the most valuable value ad likely me. And who's been the most am I? Hey, the most the most unresponsive. I've been the easiest to deal with. I'm the easiest to deal with. That's why I get two votes. She's my proxy. Yeah, exactly. I mean, it's, it's just while what's going on here.
干得好。我不喜欢你。像最性感、可能自由的你，伯克，来自最有价值的价值广告，可能是我。然后最值得我是谁？嘿，最最没有反应的人。我一直是最好相处的人。我是最好相处的人。这就是为什么我有两张选票。她是我的代理人。是的，确实。我是说，这里到底发生了什么。
It really is Game of Thrones and you have been put in the center of a John. Congratulations. Welcome to the iron throne. Watch your back. All right. Dismissed, John. You will let us know. Thanks, John. We could be helpful salute to you, John. Good luck. Thanks. We got to get going here. We got a big show for you, everybody.
这就是权力的游戏，你已经被放在了John的中心。恭喜。欢迎来到铁王座。小心啊。好了。解散，John。你会通知我们的。谢谢，John。我们能帮上忙，向你致敬，John。祝你好运。谢谢。我们得走了。我们为大家准备了一场精彩的演出。
Welcome to the show officially. David Sacks, your rain man, smart by hub Tia, chairman, dictator, sultana science, David Freiberg on the world's greatest moderator. Welcome to the program, a quick correction up top that many of you in the crypto space, let us know about immediately after the episode dropped. We talked about SPF getting 25 years and that broke right as we started the show.
欢迎正式参加节目。戴维·萨克斯，您的雨人，智商过人的中枢Tia主席，科学力量的独裁者，戴维·弗里伯格将是世界上最伟大的主持人。欢迎收听本节目，首先请纠正一项错误，很多加密领域的朋友在节目播出后立即告知我们。我们讨论了 SPF 获得了 25 年的问题，这一消息正好在节目开始时传出。
And we discussed that the customers of FTX were going to get made whole. There's been a lot of speculation about them being made whole. However, there was an important note. FTX deposits are getting paid back in US dollars, not the crypto. That dollar amount we've learned is based on the price of their tokens at the bankruptcy date.
我们讨论过，FTX的客户将获得全额赔偿。关于他们能否获得全额赔偿一直存在很多猜测。然而，有一个重要的说明。FTX存款将以美元支付回来，而不是加密货币。我们了解到，这个美元金额是根据破产日期时他们代币的价格确定的。
The bankruptcy date was November 11th in 2022. Super important because the report that started the run on FTX was published November 2nd, a couple of days in between those two dates and a bunch of crypto plummeted. Solana dropped 50% between November 5th and November 11th. That's just one example.
2022年11月11日是破产日期。这一日期非常重要，因为导致FTX暴跌的报告是在11月2日发布的，在这两个日期之间的几天时间内，加密货币暴跌了。例如，Solana在11月5日和11月11日之间暴跌了50%。
But since then, Solana has been up 11 X and Bitcoin's up 4 X Ethereum doubled. So if you wanted these depositors, you missed that run up. And so FTX customers were rightfully furious. I'll pause there before I get into more details. Any thoughts on this sex? Yeah, I mean, just to hit the nail on the head here, if you had left your Solana at FTX, you're going to get $16 per token back.
但自那之后，Solana已经增长了11倍，比特币增长了4倍，以太坊翻了一番。所以如果你想要这些存款者，你就错过了这次涨幅。因此，FTX的客户们理所当然地感到愤怒。在我深入更多细节之前，我会在这里暂停一下。对此有什么想法吗？是的，我的意思只是要直戳问题的要害，如果你把你的 Solana 留在 FTX，你将会得到每个代币 16美元的补偿。
And that apparently was the price at the time that they went under. So according to the the judicial proceedings, you've been quote unquote made whole. But the truth is that Solana at this moment is trading at $188. So you have not been made whole. And this is why the crypto community is furious. And so that that basically is the correction. Now, I thought it was interesting that the judge played into this notion.
而显然，那时候他们破产的价格就是这个价。所以根据司法程序，你被称为“得到了补偿”。但事实是，此时Solana的交易价格是188美元。所以你并没有得到完全的补偿。这就是为什么加密货币社区感到愤怒。这基本上就是纠正。现在，我觉得法官参与其中是很有趣的。
And we talked about that quote from the judge last week where he said that if you go to Vegas, I'm scone with your customers money, gamble it, and then pay them off with the winnings, then you've still committed a crime. He seemed to be conceding this idea that the investors or the depositors at FTX have been made whole. Clearly they have not been, but his quote kind of lent credence to that. And the reason the judge was talking about is because SPF's lawyers were clearly making this argument that his Senate should be commuted or reduced because the depositors have been made whole.
上周我们谈到了法官的那句话，他说如果你去拉斯维加斯，用顾客的钱赌博，然后用赢来的钱还给他们，那么你仍然犯了罪。他似乎在承认投资者或FTX的存款客户已经得到了补偿。显然事实并非如此，但他的话似乎支持了这一观点。法官谈及这个问题是因为SPF的律师明显在辩称他的判决应该被减刑或减轻，因为存款客户已经得到了补偿。
And I think what you saw on the media coverage is that the reporters were buying into this idea of depositors being made whole. I mean, you guys got this from somewhere, right? I mean, this is what the media coverage. So the media, the media was doing what has been doing throughout the FTX case, which is carrying water for SPF. And I believe that this narrative that they're trying to concoct, which we now know is completely false, is designed to serve a purpose. And I think that purpose is to get SPF either pardoned or have a sentence commuted because Mr. Bankman and Miss Freed are huge Democratic Party bundlers. And I think the goal here is to create the idea in the public's mind that people weren't really hurt by this.
我认为你在媒体报道中看到的是记者们相信存款人会得到全额赔偿的想法。我是说，你们肯定是从某个地方得到了这个想法，对吧？我是说，这就是媒体报道的内容。所以媒体一直在FTX案中做的事情，就是为SPF辩护。我相信他们试图创造的这种全然虚假的叙事旨在达到某种目的。我认为这个目的就是让SPF得到赦免或减刑，因为班克曼先生和弗里德女士是民主党的大笔资助者。我认为这里的目标是在公众心目中制造这样一个想法，即人们并没有真正受到伤害。
This was just sort of youthful indiscretion or hijinks. And, you know, as a bunch of hijinks, right? And no one's shenanigans, but shenanigans were no one's really hurt. And if they can create that impression in the public's mind, part in my phone, you can now set up getting one of their Democratic Party connections to help push for a commutation of the sentence. I think there's a narrative going on. I think there's an agenda behind the narrative. And it's what I'm saying here. Yeah, this pardon power is really powerful. Chema off any thoughts here on the bankruptcy judge making that call to sell the chairs because obviously if crypto had tanked since that time, it would look like he saved the money by selling them, clearing the positions and giving them cash. But what is the right thing for the bankruptcy judge to do here? Keep the equities, the tokens or to sell it and freeze it in time. It seems like a very difficult.
这只是青少年时期的轻率行为或胡闹。你知道的，就像是一群胡闹的孩子，对吧？没有人有意要损害别人，但实际上也没有人受到伤害。如果他们能在公众心目中产生这种印象，部分原因可能是我打了一个电话，你现在可以联系他们民主党的关系人来帮助推动减刑。我觉得有一种叙述正在进行中。我觉得这种叙述背后有一个议程。这就是我在这里说的。是的，这种赦免权真的很有权力。Chema 你对破产法官打电话决定出售椅子有什么想法吗？显然，如果加密货币自那时以来暴跌，卖掉它们，清除头寸并拿到现金会看起来像是他节省了钱。但这里破产法官应该怎么做才是正确的呢？他们是应该保留这些权益、代币还是将其出售并冻结在当时？这似乎是一个非常困难的决定。
Hold on. Jake, we got to correct that for just in a certain way. So the trustee has been selling the tokens post run up. The point is that he's selling tokens at current prices, call it one eighty eight and then using that to pay off depositors at $16. So the only reason that the posers have been quote unquote made whole is because they're getting the benefit for this run up, but they're not paying them back at the price of their salon today. They're paying them at this price that got fixed at the time of the bankruptcy. So the truth is this is what's getting made whole.
等一下。杰克，我们必须以某种特定的方式来纠正这个问题。所以受托人一直在高峰期后出售代币。关键是他以当前价格（称为一百八十八美元）出售代币，然后用这些款项来支付存款人的债务，每个代币价值十六美元。所以存款人被所谓地“全额偿还”只是因为他们得到了这次涨价的好处，但实际上他们并没有按照今天股价的价格偿还债务，而是按照破产时确定的价格来偿还。所以事实上他们并没有完全被偿还。
Yeah, this is the, you know, the really hard thing to track here because we couldn't find when they were selling it or how much they've been selling. This seems to be being done in the shadows or in the background. And so if anybody out there, we crowdsource what's going on here. Wants to keep us up to date. Let us know. But yeah, these tokens, some number of them got sold at a low price. Some of them getting sold, I guess as time goes on, Chumat here just thoughts on how to do this properly. What's the proper hygiene here? I mean, we're not saying.
是的，这个，你知道的，真的很难追踪的事情在这里，因为我们无法找到他们何时在卖或卖了多少。这似乎是在暗处或幕后进行的。所以如果有人在外面，我们让大家一起来搜集这里发生了什么。想要让我们保持最新消息。告诉我们。但是，是的，这些代币，其中一些以低价卖出。其中一些被卖出，我猜随着时间的推移，Chumat这里只是想法如何正确地做这件事。这里的正确卫生是什么？我的意思是，我们并不是说。
I'm crazy experts. No, that's a great question. I don't know the differences between chapter seven and chapter 11 bankruptcy law, but I don't know what was filed here. It was a chapter seven or chapter 11. I don't, I don't know. But it seems that this was the only thing that they could do, which was to liquidate into a common, you know, unit of measure. Because at the end of the day, their auditors had to measure in a standard unit. And that was probably the US dollar. And so then they were trying to work backwards from that shareholder equity number to get them back to that number. So it was kind of logical that this is the only thing they could do. And I guess they benefited from the fact that there was a run up, but it's really unfortunate for folks. So I don't know, maybe in other countries, had this been a differently constituted company organized in a different place. Branks of the law could have allowed the liquidator to actually just distribute the assets on a pro-rata basis. Hmm.
我是疯狂的专家。不，那是一个很好的问题。我不知道第七章和第十一章破产法之间的区别，但我不知道这里是申请的哪一章。是第七章还是第十一章。我不知道，我不知道。但似乎这是他们唯一能做的事情，那就是清算为一个通用的度量单位。因为归根结底，他们的审计员必须用一个标准单位来衡量。那很可能是美元。所以他们试图从股东权益数字回溯到那个数字。所以这是他们唯一能做的事情，这似乎是有逻辑的。我想他们受益于股价上涨，但对于大家来说真的很不幸。所以我不知道，也许在其他国家，如果这是一个在不同地方组织的不同构成的公司，破产法可能允许清算人按比例分配资产。嗯。
This was a chapter. I don't know. That would help that much. I got the update here. This is a chapter 11. And in September, the judge allowed FTX to start liquidating up to 100 million a week in Delaware, right? This is a chapter 11 Delaware file. Yeah. Chapter 11 in Delaware, correct. And this could increase to 200 million a week. So it seems like they did. They did start the liquidation later. So they might have caught some of the run up. So they did catch the run up. Then you could be doubly upset, right? No, my point. My point is in different in different situations, one could imagine where the shareholders could have been allowed to vote. Do you want money or do you want in kind?
这是一章。我不知道。那可能会有所帮助。我在这里得到了更新。这是第11章。在九月份，法官允许FTX在特拉华州开始每周清算高达1亿美元，对吧？这是一个特拉华州的第11章文件。是的。在特拉华州的第11章，对吧。这可能会增加到每周2亿美元。所以他们似乎是这样做的。他们确实后来开始了清算。因此他们可能捕捉到了一些涨势。所以他们捕捉到了涨势。那么你可能会感到双重苦恼，对吧？不，我的观点是不同情况下，一个可以想象到股东可以被允许投票。你想要钱还是实物？
And if in kind, maybe you get a pro-rata distribution of all the assets, which would have included a whole bunch of these coins, but then it probably would have included a bunch of other assets, not just Solana and Bitcoin and ETH that ripped. So I think the point is that if they had distributed in kind, meaning tokens, that people would have seen, oh, wait, I only got back one tenth, the number of tokens that I put in it. That's the point, right? Yeah. You put in a hundred Solana tokens, you only get back, call it roughly 10 because the price of those tokens was fixed at 16 and they can now sell at somewhere between 100 and 200.
如果按等值来分配，也许你会得到所有资产的按比例分配，其中可能包括大量的这些代币，但这可能还包括了一大堆其他资产，不仅仅是 Solana、比特币和以太坊这些涨得很快的资产。所以我认为关键在于，如果他们按等值分发，也就是代币，人们会发现，哦，等一下，我只拿回了我投入的十分之一的代币。这就是关键，对吧？是的。你投入了一百个 Solana 代币，你只能拿回，称其为大约十个，因为这些代币的价格设定为 16，现在可以出售的价格可能在 100 到 200 之间。
They're able to quote, make you hold the $16 price, but that's not being made whole. That wasn't what they do with the extra money sacks. Cause are they using that to make other people in this whole crater hole as well? So maybe they're thinking holistically, they're taking the profits of those Solana holders that say we're Bitcoin holders went for X. And is that going to trickle down to the equity holders? Who knows free break you have thoughts? Yeah, I think the plan is that that excess capital beyond what is quote, owed to the account holders goes to the equity holders because it's considered excess of the liabilities. Therefore, it goes to the shareholders.
他们能够报价，让你持有16美元的价格，但这并不能完全弥补损失。他们并没有把额外的钱袋用在这上面。他们是不是用它来帮助这整个火山口的其他人呢？也许他们在从整体上考虑，他们正在利用那些说我们比特币持有者去了X的Solana持有者的利润。这会不会流向股东？谁知道，你有什么想法吗？是的，我觉得计划是超过应支付给账户持有者的资本会流向股东，因为这被视为超过负债。因此，它会流向股东。
I'll also say in a traditional like brokerage, you create an account. And when you set up an account, your account has a currency denomination. It's a dollar-based account or a euro based account. And then you, your account holds a bunch of assets. And so at any given time, the value of your account is represented to you in that local currency. The challenge with crypto exchanges is that there's often this representation of a wallet, which is meant to hold assets that don't necessarily have the intention of being translated into a locally denominated currency. And so I think that's what makes the system different.
在传统的经纪交易中，你需要创建一个账户。当你创建账户时，你的账户会有一个货币单位，可能是美元或欧元。然后你的账户中会持有一些资产。因此，在任何时候，你账户的价值会以当地货币的形式展示给你。加密货币交易所的挑战在于经常会有一个钱包的概念，用于保存不一定需要转为当地货币的资产。我认为这就是让这个系统与传统经纪交易不同的地方。
In the case of a US exchange bankruptcy, and this happens in commodity creating accounts or commodity exchanges often, there's a freezing of the assets and then a liquidation of the assets where the freezing of the assets sets the price or the value at the moment of what you're supposed to hold in that account in your currency of your account. Right. And so the bankruptcy judge and the trustee are treating this like a liquidation process using a local currency that was set at the time, whereas many folks don't consider that the intention of the account, but the account was meant to hold assets, that it's really a portfolio of assets that shouldn't be liquidated to try and generate local currency. Cause that's kind of the whole point of many of these crypto currencies themselves.
在美国交易所破产的情况下，这种情况经常发生在商品交易账户或商品交易所，资产会被冻结，然后进行资产清算，冻结资产会根据你账户中应该持有的价值或价格设置，并以你账户的货币为基准。破产法官和受托人将这视为一个清算过程，使用当时设定的本地货币，而很多人并没有考虑这个账户的意图，账户原本是用来持有资产的，实际上是一个不应被清算来尝试获得本地货币的资产组合。因为这实际上是许多加密货币本身的全部意义。
It was a custodial account, basically. Right. A custodial account of assets versus a trading account of, which is meant to ultimately be converted back into a local currency, which is typical. And I think that's what makes this such a challenging process. Yeah, just liquidate everything. Pull of money arrives, distribute the money, but they start to get the point. The way bankruptcy works is that there's a pecking order that essentially you, you have all the assets of the company. The job of the trustee is to liquidate them. They have a fiduciary duty to get the highest price they can for those assets. We have no reason to believe that they haven't. They seem to have waited a decent enough amount of time to get to benefit from the crypto recovery. And then what happens is, again, there's like a pecking order for the distribution of the proceeds and you're going to have debt holders. They're going to be senior to the equity holders.
这实际上是一个托管账户。对，这是资产的托管账户，与交易账户相对，后者最终将转换回本地货币，这是典型的做法。我认为这就是使这个过程变得如此具有挑战性的原因。是的，只需清算所有资产。资金到账后，分发资金，但他们开始明白这一点了。破产的工作原理是，在复审中存在一个基本的资产排序，托管人的工作是把它们清算出来。他们有义务以最高价格出售这些资产。我们没有理由认为他们没有这样做。他们似乎等待了足够长的时间来从加密货币的复苏中受益。然后，事情是这样的，再次分配收益的顺序是有一定的原则。债权人将优先于股权持有者。
The depositors are going to be high up there as well. Government agencies that are owed fines are going to be high up there. There's going to be a very specific pecking order in which the equity holders are last. If we want to go into conspiracy corner and put our chin full hats on, you mentioned the IRS, the CFTC, right? These government agencies are owned like over $20 billion. If all this crypto profits at their higher in the stack, they would be going directly to the government and the government is handling the process here. So it doesn't look right. But I don't think I don't think it's that's driving it. I think that I think bankruptcy rules are very specific and they're completely designed around again, assessing what the value of each claimant is at the time of bankruptcy and then creating a pecking order for distribution. So I don't think there's any foul play here. I think that this is just the way that the cookie crumbles. But I think that it's simply wrong or misleading to say that the depositors were made whole. And I think the reason we thought that is because of these statements that were promulgated through the media, including the judge to give people that impression. And I think it really just underscores that the media always has an agenda. And you got to be so careful about imbibing their narratives because without knowing exactly what their agenda is, you can imbibe their bias. Yeah, my understanding of bankruptcy is like they can get a little bit creative and the bankruptcy judges can be a little creative and trying to holistically think about what's the best thing for the business and all the stakeholders, shareholders.
存款人的地位也会高居其中。欠罚款的政府机构也会高居其中。在清盘时，股东的地位是最低的。如果我们想揣测阴谋，提及了IRS，CFTC，对吗？这些政府机构拥有超过200亿美元的欠款。如果所有这些加密利润在他们的顶层，它们将直接进入政府，政府在处理这个过程。看起来有些不对劲。但我不认为这是在推动它。我认为破产规则非常具体，完全设计用来再次评估破产时每个申诉方的价值，然后制定分配的等级。所以我不认为这里有任何不正当行为。我认为这只是命运的安排。但我认为说存款人被全额赔偿是错误或误导的。我认为我们这样认为的原因是因为这些通过媒体传播的声明，包括法官，给人们留下了这样的印象。我认为这真的强调了媒体总是有一个议程。你必须非常小心地对待他们的叙事，因为不知道他们的议程是什么，你可能会吸收他们的偏见。是的，我对破产的理解是他们可以有点创意，破产法官可以有点创意，试图全面思考对企业和所有利益相关者，股东来说什么是最好的事情。
But anyway, we'll keep monitoring it. And like we've said before, anytime we make a mistake, we're going to talk about it right up front. Anytime there's an omission or breaking news happens, we're going to fill you in. And that leads us to our second topic. Some more news broke about truth social. We had a nice spicy discussion about it last week. Since that time, shares of TMTG or dollar sign DJT have dropped 30% and the numbers for their revenue also confirmed. It came out pretty ugly, four million revenue, the game million losses. Floats only 30 million shares, but there are some follow up stories here. We'll get into Trump is suing the two co-founders. If you reduce their combined a point six state to zero, his arguments, co-founders set the company up and properly and mishandled the launch of truth social.
但是无论如何，我们会继续监测这个情况。正如我们之前所说的，每当我们犯了错误，我们会毫不避讳地谈论它。每当有遗漏或有重要新闻发生时，我们会告诉你。这也引出了我们的第二个主题。关于“真相社交”又有了一些新闻。上周我们对此进行了激烈的讨论。自那时以来，TMTG或美元符号DJT的股价下跌了30％，他们的营收数据也得到了证实。这看起来相当糟糕，4百万的营收，但有着上亿的亏损。总共只有30百万股在市面上流通，但这里还有一些跟进的故事。特朗普正在起诉这两位共同创始人。如果你把他们两人的合并点六的份额减为零，那么他的论点是，这两位创始人设立了公司，但错误地处理了“真相社交”的发布。
So they should forfeit their stock. These are both co-founders previously on the apprentice. Trump owns 60% and he stands for receiving our amount of 36 million additional shares in the coming week. Worth almost two billion. So huge winfall for president Trump coming. In addition to that, Saks, you're going to love this Russia, Russia, Russia. The Guardian is reporting TMTG raised $8 million in emergency funding that might have possibly come from a Russian linked entity. The SPAC while it was on hold was running out of cash. Russia linked and it. You read this all about this in the Guardian. They tried to raise the money. They wound up raising $8 million across two convertible notes from a bank called Paxium, located in the Caribbean owned by a Russian who is reportedly the nephew of Alexander Schmernoff, who used to work in Putin's executive office until 2017.
所以他们应该放弃他们的股票。这两人曾经都是《学徒》节目的创始人。特朗普拥有60％的股份，他将获得价值近20亿美元的3,600万股额外股份。对于总统特朗普来说，这是一个巨大的收益。此外，萨克斯，你会喜欢这个消息：俄罗斯，俄罗斯，俄罗斯。《卫报》报道TMTG在紧急资金筹集中筹集了800万美元，可能来自与俄罗斯有关的实体。当SPAC暂停运营时，资金可能已经用尽。与俄罗斯有关，并且您可以在《卫报》中阅读到这一切。他们试图筹集资金，最终在加勒比海的一家名为Paxium的银行中以两张可转换票据筹集了800万美元，该银行据称由一个俄罗斯人拥有，该俄罗斯人据称是亚历山大·谢尔梅诺夫的侄子，直到2017年曾在普京的办公室工作。
Is this a joke? No, I mean, I wish it was a joke because I know I'm going to get barbecued for like by the Trump supporters in the comments, but it is crazy that the Russians are what is the Russian name? Alexander Schmernoff. Isn't that the name of a vodka? It kind of is S-M-I-R-N-O-V-Schmernoff. Maybe Schmernoff. Trump doesn't even drink. But I mean, maybe. Yeah, I don't know if Putin drinks or not. Anyway, I said Trump doesn't drink. Putin doesn't drink either. Oh, Trump doesn't drink. That's true. Yeah. If it's not that. It does. Oh, really? Is that true? Yeah. So anyway, important caveats to all the stuff. Interesting story, though. There's no indication that Trump or Trump media had any idea about the nature of these loans because they were opaque. And Trump media says it's propaganda and false narrative. Your thoughts on the Trump's facts and Russia and it's your favorite topic.
这是一个玩笑吗？不，我的意思是，我希望这是个笑话，因为我知道我会在评论中被特朗普支持者烧得体无完肤，但很疯狂的是俄罗斯人是什么，俄罗斯名字是什么？亚历山大·施默诺夫。这不是伏特加的名字吗？就算是 S-M-I-R-N-O-V-Schmernoff.也许是Schmernoff.特朗普甚至不喝酒。但我是说，也许。是的，我不知道普京是否喝酒。总之，我说特朗普不喝酒。普京也不喝酒。哦，特朗普不喝酒。没错。如果并不是这样。哦，真的吗？那是真的吗？是的。总之，对于所有这些事情有重要的附注。虽然特朗普或特朗普媒体对这些贷款的性质毫无所知的迹象，因为它们是不透明的。特朗普媒体表示这是宣传和虚假叙事。您对特朗普的事实和俄罗斯以及它是您最喜欢的话题有什么看法？
Well, we're it's going to be a really long seven months. If we're going to bring up every one of these evidence-free stories of some sort of Russia connection to Trump. I mean, this article doesn't even make sense. Like you said, here's the giveaway in the middle of the article. They say the Guardian does quote, there is no indication that Trump or Trump media had any idea about the nature of the loans beyond that they were opaque, nor has the company or its executives been accused of wrongdoing. So then what are we talking about here? It's just there's some guy with a Russian sounding last name. I mean, literally that's the story. It doesn't even make sense. I don't understand how you can get a loan and not know who your counterparty is. So this whole thing just seems like it's part of the milieu of let's create any connections we can between Trump and Russia.
嗯，接下来的七个月肯定会非常漫长。如果我们要提出每一个毫无证据的关于特朗普与俄罗斯有关联的故事。我是说，这篇文章甚至毫无意义。就像你说的，文章中间就暴露了端倪。他们说《卫报》报道提到，特朗普或特朗普媒体对贷款的性质一无所知，除了那些不透明的贷款之外，并且公司或其高管也未被指控有任何不当行为。那么我们在这里讨论什么呢？只是某个听起来像俄罗斯人的人。我是说，这简直就是故事。毫无意义。我不明白你怎么可能拿到贷款却不知道对方是谁。所以整件事似乎只是想要制造特朗普与俄罗斯之间任何可能的联系。
And the giveaway on this was actually a New York Times story that just came out in the past week. It was called Russia Amsterdam's up online campaign against Ukraine before US elections. Now, the interesting thing about this story is that it was reporting allegations by Clint Watts, who has apparently been hired by Microsoft to run something called the threat analysis center. And his job basically is to find Russian interference in the election. Now, here's what I found interesting about this is that Clint Watts, that name rang a bell for me. And it's because Clint Watts was involved in the Twitter files.
这里的线索实际上是最近一周才发布的一则《纽约时报》报道。报道称俄罗斯在美国大选前发起了针对乌克兰的网络攻击。有趣的是，这则报道援引了克林特·沃茨的指控，他被微软聘用负责运营所谓的威胁分析中心。他的工作就是找出俄罗斯对选举的干预。让我感兴趣的是，克林特·沃茨这个名字让我想起了一些事情——他曾卷入过Twitter文件泄露事件。
So back in January of last year, Matt Ty Eby broke this story in the Twitter files that Clint Watts was running the Hamilton 68 dashboard. He was basically behind that project. He's a former FBI agent. What was Hamilton 68? Hamilton 68 claim that it was tracking 500 Russian accounts on social media who were engaged in manipulation of online discourse. Well, as it turns out, executives inside of Twitter knew who these accounts were and they were just American accounts, some Canadian accounts. And in the words of Twitter executives, the whole Hamilton 68 dashboard was bullsh**, that was their word. And nevertheless, this Hamilton 68 project that Clint Watts ran put out story after story for years about how the Russians were meddling in American political debates.
去年一月，Matt Ty Eby在Twitter上爆料，克林特·沃茨（Clint Watts）是运行Hamilton 68仪表板的人。他基本上是该项目的幕后推手。他是前FBI特工。那么Hamilton 68是什么？Hamilton 68声称他们正在跟踪500个俄罗斯社交媒体账号，这些账号正在操纵在线讨论。事实证明，Twitter内部管理人员知道这些账号是谁，他们只是美国账号，还有一些加拿大账号。用Twitter管理人员的话来说，整个Hamilton 68仪表板都是胡说八道，这是他们的话。尽管如此，克林特·沃茨管理的Hamilton 68项目持续多年发布关于俄罗斯干涉美国政治辩论的故事。
And these stories, the Hamilton 68 claims became the basis for thousands, literally thousands of mainstream media stories claiming that Russia was interfering in American politics. It all turned out to be a total hoax, a total fraud. Now, the amazing thing to me is you would think after an expose like this, that it would at least be mentioned in the New York Times that the person they're quoting as saying that the Russians are meddling in our elections has a previous history of setting up Russia hoaxes. And they don't even mention that despite the Ty Eby story.
这些故事，关于汉密尔顿68号宣称的内容成为成千上万的主流媒体报道的基础，声称俄罗斯正在干涉美国政治。事实证明这一切完全是一个骗局、一个欺诈。现在让我惊讶的是，你可能会认为在此类揭露之后，至少会在《纽约时报》中提到，他们引述的说俄罗斯正在干预我们选举的人之前曾设立过俄罗斯的骗局。尽管有泰伊·伊比的报道，他们甚至没有提及这一点。
Moreover, it's amazing to me that this Watts guy not only landed on his feet, he got a cushy job at Microsoft running their threats analysis center so he could put out more of this threat analysis on how the Russians were meddling. I can't imagine a less qualified person to be describing Russia threats than somebody who has caught red handed manufacturing bogus threats for years. For your name, Jason, I would just say that, you know, going back to the SBF, the story, the takeaway there is be careful what you're imbibing from the mainstream media because there's always an agenda.
此外，让我感到惊讶的是，这个瓦茨家伙不仅安全着陆，还在微软找到了一个舒适的工作，负责运行他们的威胁分析中心，这样他就能发布更多关于俄罗斯干预的威胁分析。我无法想象比一个多年来始终被捕捉制造虚假威胁的人更不合格的人来描述俄罗斯的威胁了。对于你的名字，Jason，我只想说，你知道，回到SBF，那个故事，那个教训就是要小心从主流媒体中吸收的信息，因为总是有一个特定目的。
And until this story about true social from the Guardian has a little bit more detail to it, that makes sense to me. I'm just going to put it in the category of more of the same. Yeah. And you know, as I've said on this program before, Russia's explicit strategies just put their fingerprints on everything and cost chaos like they did with the Internet Research Agency and all the trolling they were doing the last couple of elections, Freberg, your thoughts on this? You're concerned about the interference in the election? I'm not going to not spend my thoughts on this. Yep. This is this is nothing I feel like I should be thoughtful about. OK, sounds good.
直到《卫报》关于真实社交的故事有更多细节，这对我来说是有意义的。我只是会将它归类为更多同样的事情。是的。你知道，就像我之前在这个节目中说过的那样，俄罗斯明确的策略就是在一切事务上留下他们的痕迹，并像他们在互联网研究机构以及过去几次选举中所做的那样制造混乱。弗雷伯格，你对此有什么想法？你对选举干扰感到担忧吗？我不会不关心这件事。是的。我觉得我应该认真考虑这一点。好的，听起来不错。
Alright. And then wrapping up, I had mentioned the last episode about the insider trading charges in the company that was the SPAC before they purchased true social and the three two of the three men have been charged with insider trading just pleaded guilty. So Michael and Gerald Schwarzmann made 23 million illicit profit trading shares of DWA say before the merger was announced that each pled guilty to one count of securities fraud. He faced three to five years. Neither was involved with truth. This is the SPAC that came before truth. And there it is, folks. So there's your update. What's the relevance of this to being a top issue on the all in part? I just think this is going to be a really long seven. I think it's made a really long seven months for us till the election. If we're going to bring up every mainstream media story that seeks to create a connection between the Trump and Russia. This is an SEC filing. Yeah. This one has been to do a Russia. This is the insider trading one. But you just said it has no connection to true social. So why are we even talking? No, no, it's these are the people who traded the stock before truth. Social merged with it. This is the SPAC that's been social and they traded when they found out that Trump was going to be the SPAC that was merged with. So I'm just following up closing the loop on that.
好的。接着，我之前提及过上一集关于公司内幕交易指控，该公司在购买true social之前是SPAC。其中三名男子中有两人因内幕交易被指控，现已认罪。所以Michael和Gerald Schwarzmann通过在宣布合并之前交易DWA公司股票获得了2300万美元的非法利润，他们各自对一项证券欺诈罪认罪。他们面临三到五年的刑期。他们都与true social无关，这是true social之前的SPAC。以上就是相关情况的更新。这件事对all in节目来说有什么关键性呢？我认为这会是我们直到选举前漫长的七个月。如果每一个主流媒体报道都试图建立特朗普和俄罗斯之间的联系，我觉得这将是一个漫长的七个月。这是一份SEC文件。是的。这个与俄罗斯有关。这是有关内幕交易的。但你刚才说它与true social没有关系。那我们为什么还在谈论它呢？不，不，这些是在true social合并之前交易股票的人。这是与true social合并的SPAC，他们在知道特朗普将是与之合并的SPAC时进行了交易。我只是在跟进，封闭这件事。
Breaking news, Google is reportedly considering making an offer to hire a choir HubSpot, creating a $34 billion market cap. This just came out ported by Reuters, who cited anonymous sources, shares up 7% of the news. If you don't know HubSpot, it's awesome tool. We use it CRM that blends marketing sales, customer service, all that kind of good stuff. And so here's the quarterly revenue since IPO. They've been public for 10 years as you pointed out in the group chat, Friedberg, and this has been slow and steady revenue, power of SaaS, I guess, and a great product. I'm not a shareholder. Here's the quarterly revenue growth on a year of a year basis, a stock chart, yada, yada.
紧急新闻，据报道，谷歌正在考虑提出聘请营销软件公司HubSpot的报价，造成了340亿美元的市值。路透社刚刚报道了这一消息，引用了匿名消息来源，并称股价上涨了7%。如果你不了解HubSpot，它是一个很棒的工具。我们使用它作为客户关系管理软件，融合了市场营销、销售和客户服务等多种功能。从IPO以来，这里是他们的季度营收情况。正如你在群聊中提到的那样，Friedberg，他们已经上市10年了，一直保持着稳健的增长。我不是他们的股东。这里展示了他们按年度基础的季度营收增长情况，以及股票图表等等。
Chamath, I guess this is something we've been talking about here, which is M&A and M&A being pushed into the coal plunge and being frozen. And now we see something like this. What do you take from this? If it's in fact a true report? I mean, I think it's a bit of an odd acquisition. And the reason is that it's become pretty clear for all of Big Tech that any acquisition that they do is going to be highly scrutinized. And so just from an EV expected value perspective, if you're going to try to acquire something and spend the next year beating your head against regulators, why not do it for something that's really valuable? And I would not characterize HubSpot as strategically valuable for Google. I think it's an important ecosystem player and it's probably better off as an independent company. So if I were Google, I'd be trying to buy something much more useful, like perplexity or something.
Chamath，我想这是我们一直在讨论的一个问题，即并购和并购被推入困境并被冻结。现在我们看到了类似的情况。你对此有什么看法？如果这是一个真实的报道的话？我觉得这是一个有些奇怪的收购。原因是对于所有的科技巨头来说，任何他们所做的收购都会受到严格审查。因此从预期价值的角度来看，如果你要尝试收购某物并花费接下来的一年与监管机构对抗，为什么不选择一些真正有价值的东西呢？我不认为HubSpot在战略上对谷歌有价值。我认为它是一个重要的生态系统参与者，并且可能作为一家独立公司更为有利。因此，如果我是谷歌，我会尝试去购买一些更有用的东西，比如perplexity之类的。
Freberg, your thoughts on this? First of all, it's super impressive HubSpot's been public. They went public at about a billion dollar market cap 10 years ago. And today they're trading at 34 billion. So organic, bleed, develop this business and they provide marketing automation software. So basically things like CRM tools, email marketing tools. So when you use advertising tools and you generate leads, those leads come in, what do you do with them? So let's say you're running a website that sells bicycles. People want information on bicycles.
弗雷伯格，你对这个有什么想法？首先，HubSpot已经上市，这真是令人印象深刻。10年前他们以大约10亿美元的市值上市。而今天他们的市值已经达到340亿美元。所以他们是通过有机的，渐进的方式发展这个业务，并提供营销自动化软件。基本上就是像CRM工具、电子邮件营销工具这样的东西。所以当你使用广告工具来产生潜在客户，这些潜在客户进来了，你会怎么处理？比如说你在运营一个销售自行车的网站。人们想要有关自行车的信息。
What do you do with those people after they get information on your website? And how do you track them down and how do you sell them a bicycle? If you're a big enterprise software company and you start to get companies reaching out to you through your website, how do you then convert them? So you use CRM tools, customer relationship, management tools, sales forces, and obviously a behemoth in the space, but HubSpot has this integrated marketing automation and CRM platform for taking leads and then converting those leads and selling products to them.
当这些人从您的网站获取信息后，您如何处理他们？您如何追踪他们，又如何向他们销售自行车？如果您是一家大型企业软件公司，并开始通过您的网站吸引企业与您联系，那么您如何将他们转化？因此，您可以使用CRM工具、客户关系管理工具、销售力量等工具。显然，HubSpot在这方面是一个巨头，他们拥有集成的营销自动化和CRM平台，可用于获取潜在客户，将其转化并向他们销售产品。
So the sales team and the marketing team uses HubSpot software to operate and do their work and do it better. When I worked at Google in 2005, the main thing I worked on is how do we do a better job, taking our advertisers and giving them more tools that they can then convert the leads that they're getting into customers? And so one of the first things I worked on in 2004 and then we closed the deal in 2005 was acquiring urchin, which became Google Analytics so that companies could better track how folks were converting on their website after they spend marketing dollars on Google.
因此，销售团队和市场团队使用HubSpot软件来运作并更好地完成他们的工作。当我在2005年在谷歌工作时，我主要关注的是如何做得更好，如何帮助广告客户提供更多工具，让他们能够将获取的潜在客户转化为客户？因此，我在2004年首先着手的一件事情，然后在2005年完成的交易是收购urchin，这也成为了Google Analytics，让公司能够更好地追踪通过在谷歌上投放营销费用后，用户在他们的网站上是如何进行转化的。
How do you see where those people go on your website and what they're actually doing on the website and ultimately make your website better so you can sell them more products and more software? And one of the things I worked on was CRM. So I had this conversation with the executive team with Larry and Sergey and others at that time. And we talked about, should we buy a CRM company? And we actually had a conversation they did with Mark Benioff at the time and we talked about, is there a way to buy sales force and sales force went public shortly before Google and it was more richly valued than I think the appetite was at the time to make this leap to buying a CRM company.
你如何查看那些人在你的网站上去哪里，并且他们实际上在网站上做什么，最终使你的网站更好，以便你可以向他们销售更多的产品和软件？我曾经做的一件事是CRM。所以我当时和拉里、谢尔盖等执行团队进行了这种对话。我们讨论过，我们是否应该收购一个CRM公司？实际上，当时我们和马克·贝尼奥夫进行了这样一次对话，我们讨论过，有没有一种方式可以收购Salesforce，而Salesforce在谷歌之前不久上市，当时的市值比我认为的购买CRM公司的胃口更高。
We actually spent quite a bit of time meeting with and I personally spent time meeting with NetSuite, which ultimately got rolled in. I think it was Larry Ellison was the primary owner of NetSuite. We looked at a few other CRM companies and this was always meant to be the next solution that you plug into the advertising platform at Google. You get all these leads from advertising and how do you convert those leads and make them customers? And many of the other things we looked at were things like checkout software and software that would let you run a website to sell your products to customers on the website and so which became Shopify in a way, which became Shopify.
我们实际上花了很多时间与NetSuite会面，我个人也花了时间与他们会面，最终这些都被整合进来了。我记得拉里·埃里森是NetSuite的主要所有者。我们看了几家其他的客户关系管理公司，始终都是打算将它们作为谷歌广告平台的下一个解决方案。通过广告获得了所有这些潜在客户，但如何将这些潜在客户转化为客户呢？我们看了很多其他东西，比如结账软件和软件，让你可以在网站上销售产品给客户，然后就有了Shopify，在某种程度上就成为了Shopify。
And we had looked very deeply at doing this at Google, is actually building a product called Google Checkout. It wasn't very successful, but it was to do exactly this, which is to build a basically a Shopify type competitor. And so this has always been the natural fit for Google's business. Google made a quarter trillion dollars last year in advertising revenue. And then they didn't make much revenue after the advertising generated leads because Google doesn't have a great commerce business and they don't have any of these other enterprise tools.
我们在谷歌曾经深入研究过这个问题，实际上建立了一个名为Google Checkout的产品。虽然它并不很成功，但它确实做到了这一点，即构建一个类似Shopify的竞争对手。因此，这对谷歌的业务来说一直是一个自然的选择。谷歌去年在广告收入上赚了2500亿美元。然后在广告带来的潜在收入上并未获得太多收入，因为谷歌并没有一个强大的商业部门，也没有任何其他企业工具。
So this is a very natural fit into Google's advertising business and taking all of the leads from advertising and better converting them and giving your sales team the tools they need to convert those leads into customers. So it makes great strategic sense. It's been a concept that's been around for 20 years at Google. Certainly they're going to face regulatory scrutiny, but it doesn't have the same sort of overlap with the ad network businesses because they're not very heavily in the ad network business at HubSpot, but it's a really good kind of enterprise software plug in.
因此，这与谷歌的广告业务非常自然地融合在一起，将所有广告线索更好地转化，并为您的销售团队提供他们转化这些线索为客户所需的工具。所以这在战略上非常明智。这在谷歌已经存在20年了。当然他们将面临监管审查，但它与广告网络业务没有太大重叠，因为HubSpot并没有在广告网络业务中占有很大比重，但这是一个非常好的企业软件插件。
Some would say acquisitions are one of three types. They are defensive. They are offensive or they are about reinforcing the status quo. If you had to bucket HubSpot into one of those three things, is this an offensive M&A? Is it a defensive M&A or is this status quo? I think it gives advertisers more tools that can integrate with AdWords, which is how advertisers spend ad dollars is through AdWords platform. And so as a result, it locks the advertisers onto Google's ad platform, keeps them more interfacing.
有些人认为收购可以分为三种类型。它们是防御性的、进攻性的或者是关于巩固现状的。如果你必须把HubSpot归类为这三种情况之一，这是一种进攻性的并购吗？是一种防御性的并购还是维持现状？我认为这为广告商提供了更多可以与AdWords集成的工具，广告商通过AdWords平台进行广告支出。因此，这将使广告商更多地依赖谷歌的广告平台，保持他们更多的接触。
And so I think that the benefit to Jamaz Point is that they're going to both protect ad revenue at Google by locking in people on the on the CRM side. And the marginal impact they'll get from selling CRM services, not that impactful to the business. I mean, if you could spend, let's say with the premium, $50 billion on HubSpot or $5 billion on perplexity today, which one would you buy? I think you got to buy HubSpot. You're protecting to your point, you're protecting a quarter trillion dollar ad business. HubSpot makes $2 billion in revenue. So it's 1% of the size of Google's ad business. And it helps you lock in some percentage of that $250 billion. So that's an important strategic acquisition, I think, for Google. So you'd rather buy something in marketing automation versus AI. I think they should spend the money in AI, but I think you have to buy something to, it's a good question to further the revenue. Yeah. What does Google accomplish here that they can do with an integration? A partnership, you mean?
我认为Jamaz Point的好处在于他们通过在CRM方面锁定用户，可以保护谷歌的广告收入。而通过销售CRM服务所得到的边际影响对业务影响并不大。比如说，如果你可以在HubSpot花费500亿美元或在perplexity花费50亿美元，你会选择哪一个？我认为你得选择HubSpot。正如你所说，你在保护一项价值2500亿美元的广告业务。HubSpot的收入为20亿美元，也就是谷歌广告业务规模的1%。这有助于锁定谷歌2500亿美元营收的一部分，因此我认为这是谷歌的一项重要战略收购。所以你宁愿在市场自动化领域投资而不是人工智能？我认为他们应该在人工智能领域花钱，但是为了进一步增加收入，我认为他们应该收购一些东西。在这种整合中谷歌实现了什么？你是指合作伙伴关系吗？
Well, I mean, they could just build on HubSpot's platform, just create a connector between Google ads and HubSpot. I think that exists already, exactly. So what's the point? What do you generally understand? What I think what Freeberg is saying in nicer languages, they're going to make it a Roach Motel lock in. You get in and you can't get out. I mean, it gives you the full life cycle of the advertiser sacks. So I mean, if you understand the funnel, right, you get the actual profile of the customer. Yeah. The problem with the Roach Motel M&A strategy is that people
嗯，我的意思是，他们可以在HubSpot的平台上建立，只需在谷歌广告和HubSpot之间创建一个连接器。我想这已经存在了，确切地说。那么问题是什么？你大致理解是什么？我认为弗里伯格用更友好的语言表达的意思是，他们将会把它变成一个Roach Motel的闭环。你进去之后就出不来了。我的意思是，它给你提供了广告商生命周期的全过程。所以我是说，如果你了解销售漏斗的话，你就能获取到客户的真实资料。是的。Roach Motel收购策略的问题在于，人们进去之后就无法离开。
sniff that out pretty quickly. Then they start to carve out these very discreet parts of the product that they want you to divest in order to get the whole thing done. That's the thing that surprisingly, I think the regulators have gotten smart about. And I suspect it's not that the regulators themselves know these discrete ideas, but that the answers are fed to them by competitors who want to just slow these processes down and make these things convoluted and complicated. Oh, they snitch. They send the snitch in. I think it's very smart for a competitor to actually call a regulator and give them a roadmap of how to make the deal happen, but in a very convoluted, complicated way.
他们很快就能嗅出这一点。然后，他们开始剖析产品中非常离散的部分，希望你为了完成整个交易而剥离这些部分。令人惊讶的是，我觉得监管机构已经变得聪明起来。我怀疑监管机构自己并不知道这些具体的想法，而是竞争对手提供了信息给他们，想要减慢这些流程并使事情变得复杂。哦，他们告密了。他们派出告密者。我觉得对于竞争对手实际上给监管机构打电话并提供如何使交易成交的路线图是非常明智的，但是以一种复杂、曲折的方式。
You remember, I suspect that's what happened in Microsoft Activision. Microsoft brilliantly fought it off, right? And so they were able to get the whole thing done completely on their terms. But in many other cases, you get these discrete things where it's like, okay, divest this, sell that, keep this. And it's like, why are we doing this? But I just think the Roach Motel strategy is harder to get done these days because folks will know how to make it super convoluted. I will tell you, when a big company like this makes a big acquisition offer like this, as much as I know Google's business, I think it's a generalization that can be drawn here. It's usually a negative signal about organic growth, meaning if I'm a Google shareholder, I should look at this and I should say, why do you need to make this acquisition? Why is there an indication in this bid that there is some advertising revenue leakage going on? And then I should go spend time trying to understand that. I think there's a really important question there. Yeah. But this is why I'm asking you, like, obviously they're not going to do this because things are going perfectly in that space. And so if you're losing share, you're not going to be losing it to Bing. You're losing it to some form of AI, which is why, again, it's a bit of a head scratcher, spend a lot less money and just buy everything in the space or spend 50 billion and buy everything possible in the space. To give you just a little context here, this is going to be by far their largest acquisition. If it's true, if it gets closed, this is all speculation right now. Looking back, Motorola mobility was bought for 12.5 billion. There were patents. There was the hardware business, which they spun out. You can look up the deal details there.
你还记得吧，我怀疑微软在收购动视暴雪的时候是这样做的。微软很聪明地抵制了这一举动，对吧？所以他们能够完全按照自己的条件完成整个交易。但在很多其他情况下，你会遇到这些离散的情况，比如，拆分这个，出售那个，保留这个。然后你会想，为什么我们要这样做呢？但我觉得现在要实现这种“蟑螂莫泰”策略变得更加困难，因为人们会知道如何让事情变得非常复杂。我会告诉你，当这样一个大公司做出这样一笔大规模的收购要约时，就像我了解谷歌的业务一样，我认为可以在这里得出一个推论。通常情况下，这通常是关于有机增长的负面信号，也就是说，如果我是谷歌的股东，我应该看到这一点，我应该问，为什么你需要进行这次收购？为什么这个要约中有一些广告收入流失的迹象？然后我应该花时间去了解这一点。我认为这里有一个非常重要的问题。是的。但这就是为什么我问你，显然他们不会这样做，因为在那个领域一切都进行得很完美。因此，如果你在失去市场份额，你不会输给必应，而是会输给某种形式的人工智能，这就是为什么，再说一遍，这有点让人费解，浪费更少的钱，然后买下这个领域中的所有东西，或者花500亿美元买下这个领域中所有可能的东西。为了给你提供一点背景，如果这属实并成功关闭，这将是他们迄今为止最大的一笔收购。回顾一下，摩托罗拉移动业务被以125亿美元的价格收购。那里有专利，还有硬件业务，他们已经将其剥离。你可以查阅交易细节。
But there's a long tail of companies they've bought, Nest Labs fit fit in YouTube, three billion, two billion, 1.6 billion. If you remember, they bought a Mandiant. I've never even heard of the cybersecurity company, 5.4 billion. They bought Nest for three billion double click three billion. That was a long time ago. So probably triple that value in today's dollars. By the way, remember Fitbit? Fitbit took 18 or 24 months to close. Took a while. Yeah. Deeply scrutinized. If you think aware of on your wrist, it's going to get scrutinized when bought by Google. Imagine what happens when a 50 billion dollar marketing automation company gets bought by Google.
但是他们收购的公司中有一大批，Nest Labs、YouTube，三十亿，二十亿，十六亿。如果您还记得，他们还收购了Mandiant。我甚至从未听说过这家网络安全公司，价值五十四亿。他们以三十亿美元收购了Nest，DoubleClick也是三十亿。那是很久以前的事了。所以今天的价值可能是那个数值的三倍。顺便说一句，还记得Fitbit吗？Fitbit要花18到24个月时间才能完成交易。花了一段时间。是的。受到了深入审查。如果您觉得戴在手腕上的设备会在被谷歌收购时接受审查，那么想象一下当一家价值五十亿美元的营销自动化公司被谷歌收购时会发生什么。
Yeah. It's really interesting. Yeah. Look, I don't think this acquisition makes any sense. I'm kind of in Jmoss camp. This would be a very odd acquisition. I'm not even sure the story is true. There's been no confirmation of an actual bid made. This was basically an anonymous source saying that Google had hired investment bankers to maybe kick the tires. Well, typically these bankers float these parabolas like this because they want to pump the deal. But yeah, imagine what the fees would be on 50 billion dollar acquisition.
是的。这真的很有趣。是的。你看，我认为这次收购毫无意义。我有点站在Jmoss这边。这将是一个非常奇怪的收购。我甚至不确定这个故事是否属实。并没有确认有实际的出价。基本上只是一个匿名消息源说谷歌可能已经聘请投资银行来进行尝试。通常这些银行家会散布这种抛物线般的传言，因为他们想推动这笔交易。但是，想象一下对一个500亿美元的收购会有多少费用。
But I want to share some of the buyers loose. Yeah. When they have these auctions. Well, look, it's going to be very hard for any big tech company to do a 50 billion dollar acquisition of anything, just that given that lean economy, FTC are opposed to bigness in and of itself. But I think from a strategic point of view, I agree, this, this deal would be odd. I don't really see the connection to the Google ads business. HubSpot is used by companies to manage their pipelines. It's a competitor to Salesforce.
但我想分享一些买家的想法。是的，当他们举行这些拍卖时。嗯，看，对于任何大科技公司来说要进行一笔500亿美元的收购将非常困难，仅仅是因为目前经济情况不佳，FTC反对大规模的合并。但从战略角度来看，我同意，这笔交易确实有些奇怪。我真的看不出与谷歌广告业务的联系。HubSpot被公司用来管理他们的销售渠道。它是Salesforce的竞争对手。
I see it all the time. I see startups using it all the time as the alternative to Salesforce because it's sort of easier to use, more user friendly. And the main thing it does is you have your pipeline in there, you bring in the leads at the top of the funnel and then you work them down to close deals. Where do those leads come from, Saks? I understand that they can come from Google AdWords, but most of them come from from ad spend. That's the connection.
我经常看到这样的情况。我看到初创公司经常使用它作为Salesforce的替代方案，因为它更容易使用，更用户友好。它主要的作用就是你可以在里面管理销售渠道，在漏斗顶端接收潜在客户，然后逐步推进以达成交易。这些潜在客户是从哪里来的，Saks？我知道它们可能来自谷歌广告，但大部分都来自广告支出。这就是联系的关键。
And it's always been this idea that those two should be integrated. Okay. But, but the point is that if you think about your top of funnel, if you're one of the customers of HubSpot using this, Google AdWords is just one of a number of channels. Yes. That's right. So you could be getting your leads through inbound. You could be getting your leads through events. You could be getting your leads through. I mean, there's so many different sources. So it doesn't make sense to me that somehow Google would need to acquire a company to manage not their advertisers, but the people their advertisers are trying to reach as one of a dozen different potential marketing channels.
这个想法一直存在，即这两者应该被整合。但是，问题在于，如果你考虑顶部漏斗，如果你是HubSpot的客户之一，使用这个工具，谷歌广告只是众多渠道中的一个。是的，没错。因此，你可能通过内部引流获得潜在客户。你可能通过活动获得潜在客户。你可能通过其他渠道获得潜在客户。因此，在我看来，毫无道理的是，某种方式谷歌需要收购一家公司来管理的不是他们的广告客户，而是广告客户试图接触的数十种潜在营销渠道之一的人群。
It just doesn't really make sense. I mean, the acquisitions where Google has been really successful have been broad, horizontal platform plays like Android. This is as vertical as it gets. This is CRM software. This is basically Google getting into a vertical app for sales and marketing teams. Yeah. And if you think about the business that this is most like, it would be G Suite. And because it's an enterprise play and that's the most neglected part of Google's business.
这真的毫无意义。我的意思是，谷歌在收购方面真正成功的是像Android这样的广泛、水平的平台。而这个收购与垂直领域有关。这是客户关系管理软件。基本上，谷歌正在涉足销售和营销团队的垂直应用程序。如果你想象一下，这与哪个业务最类似，那就是G Suite。因为这是一个企业级业务，而这恰恰是谷歌业务中被忽视的部分。
I think you're both missing a key piece to this. I think this is about the data. You look at these. These are the leads and the great contacts in the database of the customer, which Google doesn't have access to and they can close the loop and they can make targeting of ads and get people deeper and they can fight for a larger percentage. So to your point, Saks, yes, you've got 20 different inbound feeds coming in for leads. If Google knows the leads that are already in there, they can then retarget them across their entire ad network, which is the largest in the world. That's the value. If I know you're 10,000 best customers and then I know when they're on Google searching and I know the when they're in a Chrome browser, I know when they're on an Android phone, if they happen to use that, man, I can just start getting more of your ad dollars into it. That's what's actually happening here. It's they don't want to SaaS business. They want the data. They want to retarget folks and then they want to make. Close more sales and be more efficient than TikTok and Facebook. It's about. Do you think they'd be allowed to use their customers data to somehow target their ad product? Absolutely 100%. If you if I'm opting into it and I say, Hey, you have 10,000 people in your database, you want to go find them? We have you have 8,000 of them connected that came in through Google search. What about the other 12,000? You want to try to find them in the Google ad network? We can put that together for you. That's actually if somebody's going to snitch on this deal, it's about the data. I'll tell you back in just improving conversion rates, drives more ad revenue. Thank you. And the key measurement we had the year after we bought urchin and launched Google analytics was we looked at how much an advertiser spent on Google's AdWords network before and after they installed Google analytics. And that year, it was a ton of money at the time. We saw an incremental roughly $500 million in revenue in ad spend with. Folks who installed Google analytics from before versus after because they then started to change their websites and tweak their sales flow or their marketing flow on their website to better convert customers so they could spend more on the network because higher conversion rates means you can spend a higher CPM on advertising. So the deeper you go from an integration perspective in closing sales, the better you actually can get and the more money you can spend on marketing on the front end.
我觉得你们两个都忽略了一个关键的部分。我认为这是关于数据的。你看看这些。这些都是客户数据库中的潜在客户和重要联系人，谷歌无法访问到它们，他们可以闭环，精准定位广告目标人群，并让人们更深入了解，他们可以争取更大的份额。所以，Saks，针对你的观点，是的，你有20种不同的线索来源。如果谷歌知道这些线索已经存在，他们可以在他们整个广告网络上重新定位这些潜在客户，而这是全球最大的广告网络。这就是价值所在。如果我知道你的10,000个最好的客户，然后我知道他们何时在谷歌上搜索，我知道他们何时在Chrome浏览器上，我知道他们何时在使用安卓手机，如果他们碰巧使用那个，那么，我只会让更多的广告预算投入其中。实际上正在发生的就是这样。他们不想要SaaS业务。他们想要数据。他们想要重新定位客户，然后他们想要进行销售闭环。比起TikTok和Facebook，他们要更有效率。这是关键。你认为他们会被允许使用客户数据来某种方式地定位他们的广告产品吗？绝对100%。如果我同意并说，嘿，你们数据库里有10,000个人，你们想要找到他们吗？我们有8000个人通过谷歌搜索连接过来。那其他12000人呢？你们想要尝试在谷歌广告网络中找到他们吗？我们可以帮你整合这些。实际上，如果有人要揭露这项交易的话，那就是关于数据。我告诉您，这只是为了提高转化率，带来更多广告收入。谢谢。我们在收购urchin并推出谷歌分析后的第二年，关键的衡量标准是我们看了一下广告商在安装谷歌分析之前和之后在谷歌AdWords网络上的花费。当时，那一年，这是一个大笔资金。我们看到增加大约5亿美元的广告支出甚至更多。安装了谷歌分析的用户，相比之前，因为他们开始更改他们的网站，调整他们的销售流程或网站上的营销流程，以更好地转化客户，所以他们可以在网络上花更多的钱，因为更高的转化率意味着您可以在广告上花更高的CPM。所以从整体销售和营销的角度深入研究，实际上您可以得到更好的结果，也可以在前端投入更多广告支出。
And so that benefits the growth in the network. And to build on your point, Freeburg, this is why Amazon and Uber and Instacart have become such major players in advertising. They have the data on sales information, they sell covers off off and they sell conversions at the point sacks of the shopping cart about to be clicked on. And Amazon's been taking some of that and Instacart, but intercepting some of those ads. I'll speculate on this for a second. I think that if I'm sitting inside of Google, I see the capability of our AI tools, our generative AI tools in being able to improve marketing and sales processes. And I'm saying, how do we leverage that? Well, guess what? We don't actually have access to our advertiser sales and marketing automation workflow because we don't have a CRM tool. So then the natural strategic thing is how do we get a CRM tool? Okay, well, we can't buy sales force. Well, we could buy HubSpot. That makes sense. Number two, but then we could apply our generative AI capabilities to improve conversion efficiency at HubSpot and probably grow revenue there as well. So it could be a fairly quickly, a creative deal. And there's the benefit to the ad network. I think the Roach Motel idea is probably the best strategy here.
因此，这有助于网络的增长。并且继续你的观点，弗里伯格，这就是为什么亚马逊、优步和Instacart在广告领域已经成为如此重要的参与者。他们拥有销售信息的数据，他们销售覆盖产品，并且在购物车即将被点击时销售转化。亚马逊已经掌握了一部分，Instacart也这样做了，拦截了一些广告。我想推测一下。我认为，如果我身处谷歌内部，我看到我们的人工智能工具的能力，我们的生成式人工智能工具能够改进营销和销售流程。我在想，我们如何利用它？好了，我们实际上没有访问广告商销售和营销自动化工作流程的工具，因为我们没有CRM工具。那么，自然战略的事情就是我们如何获得CRM工具？好吧，我们买不起Salesforce。嗯，我们可以买HubSpot。这是有道理的。其次，我们可以应用我们的生成式人工智能能力来提高HubSpot的转化效率，可能也能增加收入。因此，这可能会很快成为一笔创造性的交易。这对广告网络有好处。我认为“蟑螂旅馆”思路可能是这里最好的策略。
Yeah, you're right. I just think if I were them with $50 billion, $30 billion, by the way, $35 billion. I got to pay 50% more, 25% more. It's already floated up. So you got to imagine it's probably a $40 billion deal. Yeah. Okay, $40. Yeah. Okay. So they save 10 billion. I think the synergies here are negligible. If it took Google almost two years to get an accelerometer on a risk to prove from antitrust, this is going to take three years. Sax. So why bother? So like, do something much more disruptive. I have an answer to that, but I want your sax is first.
是的，你说得对。我只是在想如果我有500亿美元，300亿美元，顺便说一下，350亿美元。我得支付50%更多，25%更多。已经浮出水面了。所以你得想象这可能是一个400亿美元的交易。是的。好的，400亿。好的。所以他们节省了100亿。我认为这里的协同效应微乎其微。如果谷歌花了将近两年的时间在一项风险加速计上证明从反垄断中获得了批准，那么这将需要三年时间。所以为什么要费心呢？那么就做一些更具颠覆性的事情。我有一个答案，但我想听听你的意见。
Well, I just looked up how many customers HubSpot has. HubSpot has 205,000 customers as of the end of 2023. Now you look at Google AdWords. It has 1.2 million businesses. Okay. And I'm sure that's not 100% overlapping. Every one of them should be using HubSpot. That's hugely creative. I agree. Yeah. I don't think that Google has the leverage to drive all of its AdWords customers into using a serum product. It doesn't need all of them. If it gets 5% of them, it makes this deal make sense. Hmm. Interesting. That part is kind of interesting. If they can actually drive their ad customers.
嗯，我刚刚查了一下HubSpot有多少客户。截至2023年底，HubSpot有205,000名客户。现在你看看谷歌AdWords。它有1.2百万家企业。好的。我敢肯定这两者不是完全重叠的。不是每一个企业都应该使用HubSpot。那真是非常有创意。我同意。是的。我不认为谷歌有足够的影响力来促使所有AdWords客户使用血清产品。它不需要所有人。如果他们能吸引其中5％的人，这笔交易就是有意义的。嗯。有趣。那部分有点有趣。如果他们实际能够吸引他们的广告客户。
What they did with double click. Double click was actually advertising. No, but they had other other places that they could take their AdWords advertisers to spend that the double click network had access to. Anyway, I hear you. Yeah. And there was another set of advertising auto management tools that double click had that that's an enterprise software tool that they were able to sell into their advertisers that they didn't have themselves.
他们是如何利用双击的。实际上，双击是一种广告。不过，他们还有其他地方可以带领他们的AdWords广告客户去花费，这些地方双击网络可以访问。反正，我明白你的意思。是的。另外，双击还有一套广告自动管理工具，这是一种企业软件工具，他们可以将其销售给他们的广告客户，而他们自己没有这样的工具。
Tchmak, let me ask you a markets question here. If we wind up with a Republican conservative GOP presidency and administration for the next four years, which seems like a possibility here, strong possibility, what does that do for M&A markets? Do you think they might be opening up here? And the reason Google is even considering this is because they anticipate this deal might fall into a new administration that is going to fire a lean upon possibly, probably. I think the Democrats and the Republicans are really well aligned here. They don't like deals. And I don't think you're going to see a big C change. They hate big tech for different reasons, but they equally want to slow them down. If you look at the non big tech M&A deals, they're going to get slowed down for different reasons. So, for example, like the big US deal merger with Nippon's deal that was announced Biden has one set of issues. But I suspect, you know, if Donald Trump were to get elected, his issues will be more about further hollowing out middle America. And so that deal will probably get stopped for different reasons. But so I think that they're both actually roughly aligned in not allowing a lot of this big M&A to happen. But for different reasons. For different reasons. But the outcome is the same. So this is why I would just kind of think like if you're going to do a deal, you got to do something that's like small enough where it'll pass muster, you know it to be really valuable. And the regulators will be like, Oh, whatever, just let it happen. So what do you think you think a Trump administration would become more frisky, allow more M&A. They seem to be actually closing up to tack in a major way.
Tchmak，让我在这里问你一个关于市场的问题。如果我们在接下来的四年里看到一个共和党保守派的总统和政府管理，这似乎是可能的，很有可能，这对并购市场会有什么影响？你认为它们可能会在这里开放吗？谷歌甚至考虑这件事的原因是因为他们预计这项交易可能会在一个即将解散的新政府下进行。我认为民主党和共和党在这方面非常一致。他们不喜欢交易。我不认为你会看到很大的变化。他们出于不同的原因厌恶大科技公司，但他们同样想要减缓它们的速度。如果你看看非大科技并购交易，它们会因为不同的原因而减速。所以，例如，像美国与日本的大规模交易并购交易被宣布，拜登有一套问题。但我怀疑，你知道，如果唐纳德·特朗普当选，他的问题将更多地涉及到进一步掏空美国中部。所以那笔交易可能会因为不同的原因而被中止。但我认为，他们实际上大致一致，不允许这种大规模的并购活动发生。但出于不同的原因。出于不同的原因。但结果是一样的。所以这就是为什么我觉得，如果你要做一笔交易，你得选择一个足够小的交易，会通过审核，你知道它真的很有价值。监管机构会说，哦，随便，就让它发生吧。你认为特朗普政府会变得更加愉快，允许更多的并购。他们似乎实际上正在积极接近大规模科技。
Well, I agree with Jamath that there's a lot of anger on the Republican side towards big tech because of censorship and bias. And Google is as guilty of that as any of these big tech companies. So I don't expect a Republican administration to have Google on its good graces. That being said, I do think Republicans have a more traditional definition of antitrust than Lena Kond does. And I think that a Republican antitrust enforcer would probably be guided by market share considerations first and foremost. And so in this case, since Google does not have a CRM play, then based on a traditional definition of antitrust, they would be able to make this acquisition. Whereas I think again, Lena Kond is just opposed to bigness and doesn't want big tech companies getting any bigger. So there's no guarantee that Republicans would allow it. I would say that if you got the right FTC commissioner or right DOJ, I'd say there's a possibility of it being more likely to go through to remind everybody, when a cons interpretation of antitrust is future competition and trying to protect future competition, the traditional one is consumer based, hey, our consumers benefiting or not. And so that's actually that's one of the top three. Yes, I want to share market share is really the traditional test. Yeah, market share. And then the impact that has on consumer choice and price. Yeah, I just go back on to this energy point. I just want to like, I just want to brainstorm about this for a second. Let's say you're one of Google's 1.2 million businesses are using AdWords. There's a high chance you're also using Facebook. There's a high chance you're also doing other kinds of advertising. You might be doing physical world advertising. You might be doing events. There might be a dozen different channels through which you get leads. Now, all of a sudden in Google sends you an email saying, Hey, we acquired HubSpot. Why don't you click here to use us for CRM? Is that really going to drive a change in behavior from that small business beyond what they would already do today? It doesn't seem that synergistic to me. Some percent of them, not all, maybe 5%. Again, that 5% is 50,000. That's a big ignore campaign. I mean, I just don't see the leverage basically. Yeah, I don't know if I agree, but I mean, that's why we're here. If Google did a deep product integration where the leads that you acquired through Google AdWords magically appeared in HubSpot and that's where you went to go work them, then yes, maybe there'd be synergy. Just looking at this on the numbers, since we'd like to do back in the envelope here, $250 billion ad revenue, 1.2 million in advertisers, it's almost exactly 200,000 per advertiser. Obviously, there's some big ones, obviously, there's a long tail. Man, if you can get some number of those to spend 10, 20, 30% more, it could be quite a creative, not to the bottom line, it would pay for the acquisition over a short period of time. And we'll see. It's interesting discussion for sure.
我同意Jamath的观点，共和党人对大型科技公司存在很多愤怒，因为他们觉得受到了审查和偏见的对待。谷歌和其他大型科技公司一样，也有罪过。因此，我不认为共和党政府会对谷歌感到亲睐。尽管如此，我认为共和党人对反垄断的定义比Lena Kond更传统。我认为，一个共和党反垄断执法者可能会首先考虑市场份额的因素。在这种情况下，由于谷歌并没有CRM产品，根据传统的反垄断定义，他们可能会批准这项收购。而我认为，Lena Kond反对巨型公司，不希望科技巨头变得更大。因此，并不能保证共和党会允许这项收购。如果你得到了正确的FTC委员或DOJ，我认为它更有可能通过。当然我们要记住，反垄断的解释有未来竞争和试图保护未来竞争，而传统的是以消费者为基础，消费者受益与否。因此市场份额实际上是传统测试的前三名之一。嗯，市场份额，以及对消费者选择和价格的影响。再回到这能源点。我只是想再思考一下这个问题。假设你是谷歌的120万家使用AdWords的企业之一，那么你也很可能在使用Facebook。你也很可能在进行其他类型的广告。你可能在进行现实世界的广告。你可能在进行活动。可能有十几种不同的渠道让你获取潜在客户。现在，突然之间谷歌给你发送一封邮件，说“嗨，我们收购了HubSpot。为什么不点击这里来使用我们的CRM系统呢？这真的能够改变这些小企业的行为吗？比他们今天已经做的更多？对我来说，这看起来并不协同。其中一部分（而非全部），或许5%。再次强调，这5%就是5万，这是一个巨大的忽略。我只是看不到利用点。是的，我不确定我是否同意，但这就是我们在这里讨论的。如果谷歌进行深度产品整合，通过AdWords获取的潜在客户会自动出现在HubSpot里，并在那里处理他们，那么或许会存在协同效应。从数字上来看，由于我们喜欢在这里使用草图，2500亿美元的广告收入，120万广告商，几乎每个广告商平均消费20万美元。显然，有一些大客户，也有一些小客户。如果能够让其中一部分客户增加10、20、30%的支出，那可能会对底线产生非常创造性的影响，这将在短时间内补偿收购成本。我们拭目以待。这绝对是一个有趣的讨论。
All right, if you missed it, John Stewart did a segment on AI on The Daily Show. He came back, he's doing I think Mondays every week, and it went viral. And it was about how AI is going to change our jobs faster than any previous labor revolution. So it seems like the public is starting to get an idea about AI wiping out large swaths of jobs, and it's starting to hit the mainstream. CEOs like Brian Chesky from Airbnb and Levy from Box, I had them on this week in startups, in the last year, they said they anticipate 30 to 50% productivity gains for a lot of the jobs in their companies, developers, customer support, all that stuff. And we covered Cloners, AI customer support agent, doing the job of 700 full-time employees and driving a $40 million increase in profits this year. Yada yada yada. We've talked about this over and over again, but it seems to be tipping over into public consciousness. We, Chamath, have talked about whether humans will find more work to do, or if this is going to truly displace people, I think we all kind of feel like at least to the best of my memory, we all feel like new jobs will be created. But it is entering the public's consciousness. What impact is that going to have if the public starts thinking AI is going to take their job, Chamath? I mean, I think that social media will make this perception more widespread than it's been at other moments of revolution and innovation. But we've gone through this before.
好的，如果你错过了，约翰·斯图尔特（John Stewart）在《每日秀》上做了一个关于人工智能的片段。他回来了，我想每周一晚上都会有这样的节目，然后这个片段迅速传播开来。它谈到了人工智能将会比以往任何一次劳动革命更快地改变我们的工作。所以似乎公众开始意识到人工智能将会消灭大量工作岗位，这开始影响到主流舆论。像Airbnb的布莱恩·切斯基（Brian Chesky）和Box的莱维（Levy）这样的CEO，我在近期的“本周创业”节目中采访过他们，他们表示他们预计公司中很多工作岗位（开发人员、客服等）的生产率将提高30%至50%。我们讨论了模拟人，即AI客服代理，一个模拟人可以同时完成700名全职员工的工作，并使公司今年的利润增加了4000万美元。等等等等。我们已经一遍又一遍地讨论过这个问题，但似乎这个问题正在影响公众意识。我们，查马斯（Chamath），曾经讨论过人类是否会找到更多工作做，或者这是否真的会让人们失业，我觉得我们都有这种感觉，至少据我记忆，我们都觉得会创造新的工作机会。但现在这已经进入公众意识了。如果公众开始认为人工智能会取代他们的工作，这将会产生什么影响，查马斯？我的意思是，我认为社交媒体会使这种看法比以往任何时候的革命和创新更加普遍。但我们以前也经历过类似的情形。
I'd like to summarize my thoughts in three charts. Okay. And I call this, this time it's not different. So chart number one for those watching on YouTube is a look at the components of US GDP. This is from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Now this goes from 1929 up to 2011. So it doesn't go all the way back to the 1800s and we're missing the last decade. But the point is the following, if you can see the chart, I'll, if you can't see it, I'll describe it to you, which is that GDP, the components of GDP are surprisingly resilient and roughly the same over long stretches of time, which is that even though GDP goes up, consumer consumption is always around 70%. Net exports are a few percent plus or minus gross domestic investment is around the 20% level. And then government consumption is around the 20% level. And that's what adds up to GDP. So that's an important thing to note.
我想用三个图表总结我的想法。好的。我称之为“这一次并没有不同”。所以第一张图是美国GDP的构成。这是来自经济分析局的数据。从1929年到2011年。虽然没有涵盖全部1800年代，也缺少了最近十年的数据。但重点是，如果你看到这张图表，我会向你描述，即GDP的构成在长时间内都相当稳健，大致相同，也就是尽管GDP在增长，消费者消费始终占了70%左右。净出口占几个百分点，国内生产总值在20%左右，政府消费也在20%左右。这些加在一起就构成了GDP。这是一个重要的要点。
Why? Because in the absence of something very acute, like World War II, these things don't change over long periods of time. Okay, so if that is true, what happens when you have any kind of a revolution? So let's look at the industrial revolution. So the shift from farm to factories. And what you saw was exactly what people should be worried about with respect to AI, which is in specific job classes, things just fall to zero. So unemployment basically went to zero. And the income associated with those jobs also went to zero. So this is what people are worried about. But if you remember the last chart, the point is, somehow we found a way to find growth. And this is what's demonstrated on this final chart, which is when you look at US productivity and worker compensation, this is going from World War II to today, you find that every time we find a new way of innovating, compensation tends to track it.
为什么？因为除了像二战这样非常严重的情况外，长时间内这些事情不会改变。好吧，如果这是真的，那么当你有任何革命发生时会发生什么呢？那么让我们看看工业革命。从农场到工厂的转变。你会看到的正是人们对于人工智能应该担心的事情，即在特定的工作类别中，事情会变成零。因此，失业率基本上降至零。与这些工作相关的收入也降至零。这就是人们担心的问题。但是，如果你记得最后一个图表，关键是，我们以某种方式找到了一种增长方式。这就是这张最后一个图表所展示的，当你看一下美国的生产力和工人薪酬，从二战到今天，你会发现每当我们找到一种新的创新方式时，薪酬往往会跟随其变化。
So if you take these three things together, number one, which is the components of GDP rarely change. Number two is that yes, there are certain categories of jobs that always get disrupted away. But the third is the most important, which is that as productivity goes up, which is what AI should give us, just as we've seen in the past, compensation also goes up, which means new job classes will be created. So I think the macro picture, if you look back hundreds of years, is that this is like many other moments in time, it feels more personal right now, because we're all living it, right? And a few of us live the agrarian to industrial revolution. Yeah, we missed it. And few of us live the technological revolution, right? We kind of came in at the heels of it. But I suspect that this time is not different. Free burger thoughts on this. I think you've said something similar on past episodes. But it is kind of tipping and into public consciousness. And it's also affecting white collar jobs this time, not just people in fields picking berries. And so those people may be a little more vocal. And we've seen massive layoffs in tech, massive layoffs in media. And those jobs don't seem to be coming back. People seem to be taking the gains and just having people in the team be 30% more efficient, as Brian told me on my other pod. So what do you think free burger? Is this time different? Or is it the same?
因此，如果将这三件事结合起来，第一件事是GDP的构成很少会改变。第二件事是，确实有一些类别的工作总是会被淘汰。但第三点最重要，即随着生产率的提高，也就是人工智能应该带给我们的东西，正如我们过去所看到的，补偿也会提高，这意味着将会产生新的工作类别。所以我认为，从宏观角度来看，回顾几百年的历史，这与其他时刻类似，现在感觉更加个人化，因为我们都在经历着，不是吗？有少数人经历了农业到工业革命的时代，是的，我们错过了。有少数人经历了技术革命，是的，我们有点落后。但我认为这一次并没有什么不同。费伯格对此有何想法？我记得你在之前的节目中说过类似的观点。但这已经开始引起公众的关注。这一次还影响到了白领工作，不仅仅是在采摘浆果的领域。因此，这些人可能会更加直言不讳。我们已经看到科技和媒体领域出现了大规模裁员。这些工作似乎不会回来了。人们似乎只是将收益提高，并让团队中的人效率提高30％，正如布莱恩在我的其他节目中告诉我的那样。你觉得这一次有什么不同吗？还是与以往相同？
So here's this article from June 2nd, 1983 in the New York Times, all about how computers are eliminating jobs in industries that were effectively offline knowledge work industries at the time, creating engineering designs, creating architectural drawings. I think this article spoke to the fact that these jobs were going to be eliminated. And as we all know, those jobs actually got enhanced by computers. Productivity went up and new sub industries emerged. And in fact, the overall industry has actually grew in some cases when we were fearful of them being replaced due to the automation enabled by software.
这篇文章来自1983年6月2日的《纽约时报》，讨论了当时电脑如何在那些基本上是线下知识型产业的行业中消除了一些工作岗位，比如工程设计和建筑图纸设计。我认为这篇文章表明了这些工作将会被淘汰的事实。但众所周知，这些工作实际上得到了电脑的提升。生产力提高了，新的产业分支也出现了。事实上，在一些情况下整个行业实际上有所增长，尽管我们曾担心由软件带来的自动化替代。
So I think that in this particular sense, we can talk about the industrial revolution enabling through manufacturing systems and centralized production, a replacement of manual labor with machines. What we're talking about now is a replacement of knowledge work that has been aided by computers with machines. So the machines no longer even need the human. But the reality is that these systems are actually going to give humans 10 to 100x leverage. So when you think about that, one person could spend three weeks making an architectural drawing today, what if that one person could make an architectural drawing every six hours?
因此，在这个特定意义上，我认为工业革命通过制造系统和集中生产的推动，实现了用机器替代人工劳动。现在，我们正在讨论的是通过计算机辅助来实现知识工作的机器替代。因此，这些机器甚至不再需要人类。但事实是，这些系统实际上会给人类带来10到100倍的提升。所以当你思考这一点时，一个人今天可能要花三周时间制作一份建筑图纸，如果这个人每六个小时能制作一份建筑图纸呢？
So the question then is, do we stop making architectural drawings and we fire a bunch of architects? Or does the cost of making an architectural drawing drop by 90%? And it enables us to do more detailed higher resolution architectural drawings across more places, more frequently. And the industry actually booms. And what we've seen historically is that when productivity goes up, costs go down, the actual volume balloons and the economy grows.
那么问题是，我们是停止制作建筑图纸，解雇一大批建筑师吗？还是建筑图纸制作成本降低90%，使我们能够在更多地方、更频繁地制作更详细、更高分辨率的建筑图纸？这将推动行业发展。事实上，历史上我们看到，当生产力提高时，成本下降，实际销量激增，经济也会增长。
So it's an example where I think in this particular case, we will see these tools creating more leverage for knowledge work instead of just simply replacing knowledge work. And that humans will start to shift to a higher order of work. And we'll see the economy grow and productivity go up as a result. So I think that's my kind of key read on the story. But it's very hard to connect the dots for people without having all of these historical cases.
所以我认为这是一个例子，在这种特定情况下，我们会看到这些工具为知识工作创造更多的杠杆，而不仅仅是简单地取代知识工作。人类将开始转变到更高级别的工作，我们将看到经济增长和生产力提高作为结果。所以我认为这是我对这个故事的关键看法。但是很难让人们理解，没有所有这些历史案例来连接这些点。
And I think one of the ways to think about doing this usefully is you go back to the software revolution and all the stuff that we were doing with pencils and papers before computers, we actually didn't lose all those jobs. The people could now do 100 times or 1000 or million times as much work. And new industries emerged and productivity went up and the economy grew. And so we just have to have this realization as it starts to take hold that the industries will change and that the systems will actually provide leverage, not replacement.
我认为考虑有用地进行这样的思考的一种方式是回顾软件革命以及在计算机出现之前我们用铅笔和纸做的所有工作，实际上我们并没有失去所有那些工作。人们现在可以做100倍或1000倍甚至百万倍的工作量。新兴产业涌现，生产力提高，经济增长。因此，我们必须意识到当这种情况开始发生时，产业将会改变，而这些系统实际上会提供增益而非取代。
Yeah, it's such a good point. And I think what you teach your kids is really important at this moment in time. Like having a job that is replaced by AI or that could be greatly replaced by AI might be a mistake. And if you think about being a conductor freeberg or a maestro, conductor of an orchestra, I think that's the job of the future is can you work with these agents? Forget about co-pilots because that's phase one of all this, but agents are phase two where you have an agent who's writing copy who's the HubSpot example you get before, a designer who's in the cloud who's an agent and AI agent making you artwork and then you stitch all these things together.
是的，这真是一个很好的观点。我认为在这个时刻教育孩子们的东西非常重要。比如拥有一个可能被人工智能取代或者很可能被人工智能取代的工作可能是一个错误。如果想象一下成为一个自由指挥家或者交响乐团指挥，我认为未来的工作就是是否能与这些机器人合作？ 当然要忘记副驾驶，因为那是这个过程的第一阶段，而这些机器人是第二阶段，你需要一个写作的机器人，就像之前提到的HubSpot的示例，一个在云端的设计师，是一个机器人和人工智能制作你的艺术品，然后你把这些东西拼凑在一起。
I've been loading chat JPT with my kids constantly asking history questions and whatever questions they want. I've been teaching them how to use chat JPT. That's great. Yeah, I mean, I think it's like, there's this whole transition of humans doing manual labor to doing knowledge work where you're using software to create digital output. To now having more folks spend more of their time being conceptualists or creators where you can kind of be an architect or a creator of something and the system just generates it. You state your intended objective and the system solves for it as opposed to, hey, I got to go build the Excel spreadsheet and check the formula in every cell and do all the manual. What if I just say, hey, here's what I want the model to do, please generate it for me and you get the result. It enables you to do 100 times more work. That's why I use the analogy conductor or the Augustra leader. Sax, what do you think?
我一直在不断地和我的孩子们一起使用聊天JPT，他们不断地问历史问题和其他问题。我一直在教他们如何使用聊天JPT。这太棒了。是的，我的意思是，人类从做体力劳动转变到做知识工作，使用软件来创建数字产出。现在有更多人花更多时间成为概念家或创作者，可以成为某种东西的建筑师或创作者，而系统只是生成它。你阐述你的目标，系统解决它，而不是“嘿，我要去建立Excel电子表格，检查每个单元格中的公式，进行所有的手动操作。”如果我只是说，“这是我想要模型做的事，请为我生成它”，然后你就得到结果。这使你能够做100倍的工作。这就是为什么我用指挥家或Augustra领导者的比喻。Sax，你怎么看？
This is, you're on the populist side. You really have your finger on what Americans think. And as a compliment, it's a little literal compliment. But I do think you've become a populist, especially as the longer I've known you, we don't show it for over 20 years, you've become more populist. So what's the word on the street here amongst Gen Pop? And I think they're taking this news when they see somebody like John Stewart, they respect. When you see someone like John Stewart doing this, that's going to hit a large swath of these elites that we've talked about before on the show who are losing their jobs or maybe their salaries are getting capped.
这就是你代表民粹主义的一面。你真的能够把握美国人的想法。这是一种恭维，有点字面意思的恭维。但我觉得你已经成为一个民粹主义者了，特别是在我认识你的这么长时间里，我们已经认识了20多年，你变得更加民粹主义。那么在大众中，他们是怎么看待这个消息的呢？我觉得当他们看到像约翰·斯图尔特这样受人尊敬的人这样做的时候，这将影响到我们之前在节目中谈到的那些可能失去工作或工资被限制的精英阶层。
Well, first of all, Jason, to quote Senator Grocos from Gladiator, I may not be a man of the people, but I can try to be a man for the people. Yes, exactly. So, oh my God, did you see the AI? Did you see the AI from some Y-combinar company, where they like made a little video of us? And like we're talking about somebody's nuts. And then they were like, you said, Oh, I'm going to ask my butler to ask my assistant to ask my house manager to then ask my chauffeur to pick those up. It's like, it's a pretty great clip.
首先，杰森，引用《角斗士》中的格洛科斯参议员的话，我可能不是一个亲民的人，但我会努力成为人民的一个人。是的，就是这样。额，天啊，你看到那个Y组合公司的人工智能了吗？他们制作了一个关于我们的小视频？我们在谈论某人的坚果。然后他们说，哦，我会让我的管家让我的助手让我的房屋经理再让我的司机去取那些东西。太搞笑了。
Yeah, it looks funny. Look, to me, Frank, no one cares what John Stewart thinks. He's never been less relevant and less funny. This is a story that immediately has been hyping up for months now. COVID's over, so they need something else to scare us with. And what they really should be talking is that we've got two wars that risk spiraling out of control. And they don't want to go there. Or the National Den exactly right, they don't want to go there either. Because one of those issues reflect well on the current administration and power. So they're going to scare us with this.
是的，看起来挺滑稽的。听着，对我来说，弗兰克，没有人在乎约翰·斯图尔特的想法。他从来没有像现在这样不重要和不好笑过。这个故事他们一直在炒作了几个月。COVID结束了，所以他们需要用其他事情来吓唬我们。他们真正应该谈论的是我们有两场战争有可能失控。但他们不想碰这个。或者国家舱内确切地说，他们也不想碰那个。因为其中一个问题不利于现任政府的形象。所以他们用这个来吓唬我们。
Now, look, in the short to medium term, AI leads to productivity gains. In the long term, it may lead to job losses. But as you guys pointed out, hopefully by then we'll have lots of other jobs created by the productivity boom that we're going to get. And this has been the case throughout history with regard to technology improvements. And if we don't have these productivity improvements, what's going to drive the growth in GDP, what's going to allow us to pay off this enormous national debt that seems to be so large that it's under payable, we need the productivity gains that AI is going to unlock.
现在看，从短期到中期，人工智能会带来生产力增长。长期来看，可能会导致失业增加。但正如你们所指出的，希望到那时我们会有很多其他工作机会，这些工作是由我们即将获得的生产力繁荣所创造的。这在科技进步方面一直是如此。如果我们没有这些生产力的提高，什么会推动GDP的增长，让我们能够偿还看似无法偿还的巨额国债？我们需要人工智能将带来的生产力增长。
Without them, we're definitely toast. So look, I don't place a lot of stock in this John Stewart story. It's just one of many that the media is creating to try and scare us about AI. And that's actually a great guest. John Stewart would be a great guest along with me in the con. Put those on the list. Have you seen this clip where Jan Lecun basically says our best LLM is 50 times smaller than what a four year old has processed since they've been there? For your world is awake. It's been awake. It's a total of 16,000 hours. And you say, okay, 16,000 hours multiplied this by 3,600 seconds per hour. And then figure out like, what's the bandwidth of the optical nerve going to the cortex? It's about 20 megabytes. So you have 1 million nerve fibers per eye and it's about 10 bytes per second. So multiply, that's 10 to the 15 bytes by the time you're four. 50 times more than whatever LLM, like the biggest LLM in the world, I've been trained on. So what that tells you is that in the space of a few months, the baby has seen more information than the biggest LLMs that we have. The point is that this is one of the foremost experts in AI and really one of the fathers of modern AI.
没有它们，我们肯定完蛋了。所以看，我并不十分相信这个关于约翰·斯图尔特的故事。这只是媒体为了试图吓唬我们而创造的许多故事之一，而事实上，约翰·斯图尔特会是一个很棒的嘉宾。他和我一起上节目会很棒。把他们列入清单。你看过那段吗，杨·勒屯基本上说我们最好的LLM比一个四岁的孩子自从出生以来处理的东西小了50倍？对于你的世界来说，它已经醒来了。它已经醒来了。总共16,000小时。然后你说，好的，16,000小时乘以每小时3,600秒。然后算出视觉神经传送到皮层的带宽是多少？大约20兆字节。所以你每只眼睛有1百万条神经纤维，每秒大约是10字节。所以乘以，这就是10的15次方字节，到你四岁的时候。比我们被训练过的任何LLM，比如世界上最大的LLM，多50倍。所以这告诉你的是，在几个月的时间里，这个婴儿看到的信息比我们拥有的最大的LLMs更多。关键是，这是人工智能领域最资深的专家之一，实际上也是现代人工智能的创始人之一。
What he's basically saying is it's still more artificial than intelligent. And everybody needs to take a deep breath and understand that there's just going to be a lot more work before you get to this omnipresent agent that just replaces and destroys everything and thinks on its own. I'm willing to bet on all of us versus a bunch of four year olds. And I just want to say kumbaya to Davos as well with a clip from Davos, I think you're letting us use that. Yeah, it's interesting, Saks, like the number of jobs that will be replaced or augmented and then the creation of jobs. And then you start thinking about, well, how many jobs exist in the real world? I saw Waymo is doing Uber Eats deliveries. And you just think, well, more people are going to be able to afford Uber Eats, which is kind of expensive to use. So consumption is going to go up. And then you think about the optimists.
他基本上说的是，这仍然更多是人工而不是智能。每个人都需要深呼吸并理解，在到达这种无所不在的代理人之前，需要做更多的工作，这个代理人会取代和摧毁一切，并且可以自主思考。我愿意与我们所有人打赌，对抗一群四岁的孩子。我也想对达沃斯说一声和谐共处，我认为你让我们使用了那个片段。是的，萨克斯，很有趣，会有多少工作将被取代或增强，以及工作的创造。然后你开始思考，现实世界中有多少工作存在？我看到Waymo正在进行Uber Eats的送餐服务。你只是觉得，更多的人将负担得起Uber Eats，这种服务使用起来相当昂贵。所以消费将增加。然后你再想想那些乐观主义者。
And then what's the other robot company that's making a general human robot figure figure? And man, those are starting to get really interesting. And I think that's going to be the unlock. So maybe you could speak a little bit to Saks. What do you think happens when we start getting humanoid robots in the mix? And do you have any investments in this space? I don't because I don't do that kind of hardware R&D. I mean, look, I think you're right that AI does lead to robotics, because one of the hard things about robotics is just having the robot not just move, but understand what's happening in the world around it and then make the right decisions about how to react to that. And so LLMs do start creating a path for the robots to be able to make intelligent decisions without having to be programmed with a bunch of if then statements.
还有另一家制造普通人类机器人的机器人公司是什么？天哪，这些开始变得非常有趣。我认为这将是一个突破。也许你能谈一下Saks。当我们开始把类人机器人纳入其中时，你认为会发生什么？你在这个领域有投资吗？我没有，因为我不从事那种硬件研发。我认为你说得对，人工智能确实导致了机器人技术的发展，因为机器人技术的一个难点在于让机器人不仅仅能移动，还能理解周围世界发生的事情，并做出正确的反应。因此，LLM技术开始为机器人创造一条通向能够自主做出智能决策的路径，而不必事先编写一堆if-then语句。
And I mean, self-driving does this too. I mean, self-driving is sort of the early, it's kind of like the early prototype for these kinds of robots. And that's why it's not surprised that Tesla is developing optimists is because you think about what self-driving is. It's a device, a car with a whole bunch of cameras on it. It takes in all that visual information. And then it makes decisions about how to move and how to react. And then it's trained based on mirroring human decisions. All those human decisions that Tesla's been able to gather through the combination of self-driving with humans intervening allows it to train the self-driving, I guess, brain, you could say.
我是说，自动驾驶也是这样做的。我是说，自动驾驶实际上是这种机器人的早期原型。这就是为什么特斯拉正在开发乐观主义者的原因，因为你考虑一下自动驾驶是什么样的。它是一个带有大量摄像头的汽车。它接收所有的视觉信息。然后基于模仿人类决策做出移动和反应。然后通过自动驾驶与人类干预的结合，训练自动驾驶的“大脑”，你可以这么说。
Well, and it's also SACs moving at two or three miles per hour. So it can take its time. And if you haven't seen this figure, this combines the language model with what you're discussing SACs. So the language models, when you show them a picture and you say, hey, and this is from Figure, and this is their robot, and it says, hey, give me something to eat. Have you guys seen this before? I've heard some of the founders, these robotics companies talk about why they create robots in a humanoid shape.
这句话的意思是，SACs可以以每小时两到三英里的速度移动，所以它可以慢慢来。如果你还没有看过这个图表，它将语言模型与讨论的SACs结合起来。当你向语言模型展示一幅图片并说：“嘿，这是从图表上得到的，这是他们的机器人，”然后它说：“嘿，给我点吃的。”你们见过这个吗？我听过一些创始人，这些机器人公司讨论为什么他们要创造人形机器人。
And it's not just because they're trying to create a replacement for humans or something like that. It's also because now they can point cameras at the way that humans move. Yes. And so they can actually train these robots on how humans move and react to things. So you're able to create a large data set, like with self-driving, so that the robots are able to learn how to move. And I've seen a different video where optimists, the Tesla robot, is folding shirts. Yeah, pretty impressive. Yeah.
这不仅仅是因为他们试图创造人类的替代品之类的东西。这也是因为他们现在可以用摄像机记录人类的移动方式。是的。因此，他们实际上可以训练这些机器人如何模仿人类的动作和对事物的反应。因此，可以创建一个大型数据集，就像无人驾驶那样，让机器人学会如何移动。我曾看到一个不同的视频，里面乐观派（Tesla的机器人）在叠衣服。是的，相当令人印象深刻。yeah。
What's really interesting about this, Freberg, is when I spoke to the people who are making these, evolution has made humans to operate in the world most efficiently over whatever number of years and creatures before us. So in fact, the world is optimized for the human body type. And so maybe you could talk a little bit about what you think is going to happen with these robots, Freberg, in the short and medium term. When will we have one of these robots in our houses? What will the price point be in five to 10 years? And what will they be doing in five to 10 years? I don't know. We should explore that question at the all-in-summit 2024.
弗里伯格，这件事情真的很有趣的地方在于，当我与制造这些机器人的人们交谈时，他们说进化让人类在过去无数年来以及其他生物之前，以最有效率的方式在世界中运作。事实上，世界是为人类身体类型而优化的。所以也许你可以谈一谈，弗里伯格，在短期和中期内你认为这些机器人会发生什么。我们什么时候会在家里有这样的机器人？在五到十年内的价格会是多少？在五到十年内它们会做些什么？我不知道。我们应该在2024年的全面峰会上探讨这个问题。
Okay, shout out to Elon. Elon, can you bring Optimus to the event, please? Jason, I don't think it's a five-year timeframe. I think it's longer than that. That's just my guess. And one of the reasons is if you look at the use of robots in, call it industrial production today, they don't want humans getting too close to them. They're actually kind of dangerous because you have these arms flying around. They move quickly. They're very heavy. You get banged on the head by one of them. It's going to take you out. So it's a good point.
好的，向埃隆大声喊一声。埃隆，请你能把奥普提莫斯带到活动现场吗？杰森，我认为这不是一个五年的时间范围。我觉得会更长一些。这只是我的猜测。其中一个原因是，如果你看看今天在工业生产中使用的机器人，它们不希望人类靠得太近。它们实际上有点危险，因为有这些手臂在四处飞舞。它们动作迅速，重量很大。如果你被其中一个碰到头，你就会失去意识。所以这是一个很好的观点。
The idea of having a robot in your house that's capable of freely moving, you have to make that so safe to a point that they just haven't gotten to yet with robots. So there's just going to be a lot of fine-tuning work that happens before. This is a domestic product. I think in the near term, it's all about industrial applications or maybe even military applications. But if you've ever been to the gigafactories, I was doing a little tour of one of them once, and somebody grabbed me because I almost wandered into one of those areas and they have tape on the floor, then they have a wall, etc.
在你家里有一个能自由移动的机器人的想法，你必须让它变得非常安全，这是他们目前为止还没有实现的。所以在这之前会有很多微调工作要做。这是一个家用产品。我认为在短期内，主要是工业应用或甚至是军事应用。但如果你曾去过超级工厂，我曾在其中一家做过小型参观，有人拦住了我，因为我几乎走进了一个有警示线和墙壁等设施的区域。
But if you even get within a certain closeness with this tape on the floor, it shuts the whole thing down because they're afraid somebody's going to get crushed behind one of these arms. Chamath, I'll give it to you. When will we have one of these robots in our homes for the price of a Prius? By the way, Prius is a car that costs about $15,000 that common folk drive. So $50,000 robot in our houses. I think it'll be less than that. I think it's going to be in the next two or three years. You'll have a domestic help robot that you can probably pay a thousand bucks a month for. Okay.
但如果你甚至靠近地板上的这条胶带的话，整个系统就会关闭，因为他们担心有人会被这些机械手臂压到。Chamath，我把问题交给你。我们什么时候能以一个Prius的价格在家里拥有这样的机器人？顺便说一句，Prius是一种价值约15000美元的汽车，普通人开的。所以我认为在我们家里拥有一台价值50000美元的机器人。我认为这样的价格会更低一些。我认为在未来两三年内就会有这样的机器人。你可以每个月花1000美元雇用一个家庭助理机器人。好的。
Which would be like a $100,000 car payment. That would be the equivalent of a car payment on a $100,000 car. So you say under five, you say, Tori, what do you think, Freeburg, same bet? $1,000 a month robot, $100,000 sticker price. When will we have that in our homes? No, no, I think it's a thousand a month. A thousand a month, which would be the equivalent over whatever number of months. And what does it does? It's general purpose, does different stuff. General person's robot, $1,000 a month, 50 payments. I think it washes the dishes. I think it will do the laundry. So you got the trash? There'll be like a whole set of household tasks that it will do. Walk the dog? No, no. Not responsible for a life creature.
这就像一辆价值10万美元的汽车月供一样。这相当于一辆价值10万美元的汽车的月供。所以你说在五年内，你说，托里，你觉得怎么样，弗里堡，同样的赌注？每月1000美元的机器人，售价10万美元。我们什么时候会把它们带回家呢？不，不，我觉得是每月1000美元。每月1000美元，相当于多少个月的金额。它能做什么？它是通用性的，可以做不同的事情。一个普通的家用机器人，每月1000美元，50期付款。我觉得它能洗盘子。我觉得它会洗衣服。那你负责倒垃圾吗？它将会完成一系列家务任务。遛狗？不，不。不负责任生命生物。
What do you say, Freeburg? $1,000 a month at home robot does your dishes. There's a great bet for us. Give us the overunder. How many years, Freeburg? I'm not sure. I think the some little science come on, man. Give us a beer. Well, I don't think it necessarily follows this general purpose model. I think that there are likely going to be more narrow application ranges, and they're not going to necessarily be humanoid in form factor.
你说呢，弗里堡？家里一个机器人每月1000美元来洗你的碗。这对我们来说是一个很好的赌注。告诉我们大概多少年，弗里堡？我不太确定。我觉得一些科学可能会发生，兄弟。给我们来一杯啤酒。嗯，我不认为它一定遵循这一般模式。我认为它可能会有更狭窄的应用范围，并且不一定会是类人的形态。
I don't know if you guys have seen Gecko Robotics. Have you guys seen this company? Are you guys investors in this? No. Pretty impressive, like suite of autonomous products that do specific things in industrial settings? So they have like robots that climb on the outside of buildings and look for cracks using special scanning equipment, but they're very autonomous in how they operate and what they can do. And they've got a whole class of robots that can then be, each one of those robots can do many different tasks for many different applications. And so the form factors, they've got kind of a set of form factors, meaning a set of robots that look differently and have different capabilities of them, like little spider legs or arms or whatever. And then they can be applied to go do something autonomously, and then they just run and they do it. If you pull that up, you'll see climbing walls, riding long pipes.
我不知道你们有没有见过Gecko Robotics。你们见过这家公司吗？你们是这家公司的投资者吗？不是吗？非常令人印象深刻，就像这些自主产品套件在工业环境中执行特定任务？他们有像机器人一样可以爬楼外墙并使用特殊扫描设备寻找裂缝的产品，但它们在操作和功能上非常自主。他们有一整类机器人，每个机器人可以为许多不同应用执行许多不同任务。它们有一系列外形，意味着一组看起来不同并具有不同功能的机器人，如小蜘蛛腿或臂等。然后它们可以被应用自主地去做某件事，然后它们就会执行并完成任务。如果你搜索一下，你会看到它们攀爬墙壁，沿着长管道移动。
Yeah, they're a purpose built. Well, they're not purpose. That's what's interesting. They're sort of a narrow range of applications, but they're not specific to do only one thing. And so they can work in different environments and do different things. And so you'll kind of pick from their suite of robots, which ones you want to use to do different tasks. And then they go and do it. It's really interesting. They're mostly using them for industrial monitoring applications right now, like looking on bridges for breaks and cleaning windows here, cleaning windows, all that kind of stuff. Oh, cleaning windows. That's a good one. Yeah. So they've got like a really cool suite. And I think that's what we're likely to see in domestic settings as well. All right. So you might find out, I'm just not just taking you over three, by the way, I will say the success of Gekko indicates that there's far more money to be made in industrial applications than there is in consumer applications today.
是的，它们是专为特定目的而建造的。嗯，它们并非只有一个用途。这才有意思。它们适用范围较窄，但并非只能做一件事。因此，它们可以在不同环境下工作并完成不同的任务。所以你可以从它们的机器人套件中挑选出你想用来做不同任务的机器人。然后它们就会去做。这真的很有趣。目前它们主要用于工业监测应用，比如检查桥梁是否断裂，清洁窗户，等等。哦，清洁窗户，那是一个不错的选择。是的。它们有一个非常酷的套件。我认为我们在家庭环境中也可能看到这样的情况。好吧，你可能发现，我不只是告诉你这三个，顺便说一句，蜥蜴的成功表明，在今天，工业应用比消费者应用能带来更多的收入。
I disagree. Yeah. I think every human's going to have one of these. I think every household in America, every middle class household in America will have one of these thousand dollar a month robots in seven years. I'll give it seven. You do everything. I say to do domestic chores, taking out the trash, fold and laundry, domestic tasks. I just think it's hard to justify that because you're only spending so many hours a week doing that sort of stuff. Is it really worth a thousand bucks a month? Whereas in the industrial setting, it makes a lot more sense. Think about those dangerous tasks like climbing on a bridge, you can get the seams and climbing on a building, cleaning the windows. Those tasks take years to do sometimes. Many, many years of high-risk human labor, whereas taking out the trash and folding laundry might be a little bit more hard to justify this.
我不同意。是的。我认为每个人将会拥有一个这样的机器人。我认为在七年内，美国每个中产阶级家庭都会拥有一个每月一千美元的机器人。我认为会发生这种情况。你可以让它做所有的事情。我说的家务，倒垃圾，叠衣服，家务任务等等。我只是觉得很难有道理，因为你每周只会花这样一些时间来做这些事情。真的值得每个月花一千美元吗？然而在工业环境下，这样做就更有意义了。想想那些危险的任务，比如爬桥、悬挂建筑物、擦窗户。这些任务有时需要数年的时间。很多年的高风险人力，而倒垃圾和叠衣服可能更难有道理。
It's more breaking news here during the program. We'll get our work correspondent and our geopolitical expert, David Sacks. What are you seeing on the wires, Zach? Well, there's a NATO meeting going on right now and Blinken did a press conference where he says that Ukraine will be joining NATO. That's the big news going viral right now. Ukraine will become a member of NATO. Our purpose at the summit is to help build a bridge to that membership and to create a clear pathway for Ukraine moving forward. So, of course, we believe that Ukraine deserves to be a member of NATO and that this should happen sooner rather than later. Chamop, any thoughts on this flip that just broke during the program? Well, I think NATO just added Sweden, right? And it was done in pretty record time from application to admission. So, I would like to know whether is this just rhetoric to just keep everybody at bay and placate the Ukrainians or is this real? The problem that this creates is that if it is real and they're admitted, then NATO has to defend Ukraine, which means that then America and all the other NATO allies would have to fight, which means that we're in a war.
在节目中，这里有更多的突发新闻。我们将联系我们的工作记者和地缘政治专家David Sacks。Zach，你在消息中看到了什么？嗯，现在正在进行北约会议，Blinken在新闻发布会上说乌克兰将加入北约。这是当前热门的大新闻。乌克兰将成为北约成员国。我们在峰会上的目的是帮助建设通往该成员国身份的桥梁，并为乌克兰未来提供清晰的发展路径。因此，我们认为乌克兰应该成为北约成员国，这应该尽快实现。Chamop，你对节目中刚刚爆出的这一转变有什么想法吗？嗯，我想北约刚刚添加了瑞典对吧？而且从申请到入会的时间创下了纪录。所以，我想知道这只是为了安抚乌克兰人还是真的？这会带来的问题是，如果是真的他们加入了，北约就必须保卫乌克兰，这意味着美国和其他北约盟国都必须战斗，这意味着我们将卷入战争中。
America should not be in a war. Just to give you the exact facts you are correct, Sweden, Finland applied to join in May 2022 following Russia's invasion of Ukraine. And they had been neutral, as you know, for many decades. Finland has a massive land border with Russia and they joined in April of 2023 after applying in May of 2022, so just a year later. And Sweden became a member in March of 2024, just two years later. First membership was held up by both Turkey and Hungary. Sax, you are a resident expert on Ukraine and all things geopolitical, your thoughts?
美国不应该卷入战争。只是为了给您确切的事实，您是正确的，瑞典、芬兰在俄罗斯入侵乌克兰之后于2022年5月申请加入。而你们知道，他们几十年来一直保持中立。芬兰拥有与俄罗斯的庞大陆地边界，他们在2022年5月申请加入后，于2023年4月加入，仅仅一年后。而瑞典在2024年3月成为成员，仅仅两年后。首次会员资格被土耳其和匈牙利拖延。Sax，您是乌克兰和所有地缘政治事务的居民专家，您的想法呢？
On the one hand, what Lincoln is saying is more of the same here because it's been the administration's policy to seek to bring Ukraine into NATO since they took office. They've reiterated that over and over again. And it's one of the major reasons for this war is that the Russians said over and over again, this was a red line for them. That's why there was a war in Ukraine. The idea that you're going to build a bring Ukraine into NATO, however, when the war is going so badly, is now entering the territory of being delusional.
林肯所说的一方面更多是重复的观点，因为自他们上任以来，政府的政策一直是试图将乌克兰纳入北约。他们一再重申这一立场。这场战争的一个主要原因是俄罗斯一再表示这对他们是红线。这就是为什么在乌克兰爆发战争。然而，在战争形势如此恶化的情况下，认为乌克兰会加入北约，已经变得有点幻想。
I mean, this is like a delusional comment. And if you just want to understand how badly things are going, look at yesterday's Politico, which was called Ukraine is at great risk of its front lines collapsing. The source for this article was high-ranking Ukrainian officials close to Zaluzhny, who's the former commander in chief. Some people speculated that Zaluzhny himself might be the source, but at a minimum, it's high-ranking Ukrainian officers who reported Zaluzhny.
我的意思是，这就像是一个妄想的评论。如果你想了解事情有多糟糕，就看昨天的Politico，标题是乌克兰的前线面临崩溃的巨大风险。这篇文章的消息源是与前总司令扎卢什尼亲近的高级乌克兰官员。有人猜测扎卢什尼本人可能就是消息来源，但最起码是高级乌克兰军官向扎卢什尼报告了这一情况。
And what they say in this article is that the prognosis in Ukraine is grim. They say that the sad truth is that even if the funding bills approved by the US Congress, a massive resupply may not be enough to prevent a major battlefield upset, they say that there is a great risk of the front lines collapsing wherever Russian generals decide to focus their offensive, which people expect in the next few months. And there's nothing that can help Ukraine now because there are no series technologies able to compensate Ukraine for the large massive troops. Russia is likely to hurl at us.
这篇文章所说的是乌克兰的前景不容乐观。他们说，悲伤的事实是，即使美国国会批准了资金法案，大规模的补给可能也不足以阻止一场重大的战场惊喜，他们说，无论俄罗斯将军们决定把进攻焦点放在哪里，前线都面临倒塌的巨大风险，人们预计这种情况可能在接下来的几个月内发生。现在没有什么能帮助乌克兰，因为没有任何技术能够弥补乌克兰所需的大规模军队。俄罗斯很可能向我们投掷。
This is a quote from one of the Ukrainian officials, we don't have those technologies and the West doesn't have them as well in sufficient numbers. So what they're saying is that even if the funding bill goes through the 61 billion, it's not going to be enough to save Ukraine. And at the very moment that that is now being finally honestly reported by Western media, it's something I've been saying now for months, finally, the truth is coming out. You have Blinken doubling and tripling down on these comments that nevertheless Ukraine will be joining NATO. And Chamath is right under article five, an attack on one is an attack on all. Therefore, if Ukraine becomes part of NATO, an attack on Ukraine by Russia, which is currently ongoing, will be concerned attack on the United States.
这是来自乌克兰官员的一句话，我们没有那些技术，西方也没有足够数量的技术。所以他们说的是，即使拨款法案通过了610亿美元，也不足以拯救乌克兰。而现在西方媒体终于坦诚报道这一点，这是我几个月来一直在说的，终于，真相浮出水面。你看，布林肯在这些评论上不断坚持，尽管乌克兰将加入北约。查马斯是对的，在第五条款下，对一方的攻击就是对所有的攻击。因此，如果乌克兰成为北约的一部分，俄罗斯对乌克兰的攻击，目前正在进行中，就是对美国的攻击。
Then you have to add to the mix the fact that McProne and other European leaders have actually been advocating for NATO descending round troops. And he said this over and over again, he's doubled down on this multiple times. So you have a dynamic now where this isn't just hot rhetoric by Blinken. This really has the risk of tipping over into policy, I would say in a Biden second term, where Biden agrees to do what our European allies are already calling for, which is sent in NATO troops to Ukraine to save Ukraine from what Politico calls an imminent collapse. I think this is a very dangerous situation. I mean, we're really talking about here is World War three.
然后你还必须考虑到的是，麦克普隆和其他欧洲领导人实际上一直在主张北约调遣地面部队。他一再强调这一点，这已经多次得到确认。因此现在存在这样一种动态，这不仅仅是布林肯热情的言辞。这真的有可能演变为政策，我认为在拜登的第二个任期内，拜登可能同意我们的欧洲盟友已经呼吁的做法，即派遣北约部队到乌克兰拯救乌克兰免于《政治》所称的即将崩溃的命运。我认为这是一个非常危险的局面。我的意思是，我们现在实际上在讨论的是第三次世界大战。
So if you want to have a serious chance of war three in the next four years, then I would say go ahead and vote for Biden in November. I mean, this is just very clear to me. I'm personally not willing to accept that risk. I'm not willing to accept a 10% or 1% risk of that chance. But I think Blinken putting it on the table here, I think people should be deeply concerned about this. And there should be a lot of follow-up questions for Blinken and the administration about this.
所以如果你想在接下来的四年内有严重的战争风险，那么我会建议在十一月份为拜登投票。对我来说，这非常明显。我个人不愿意承担这种风险。我不愿意接受10%或1%的机会。但我认为布林肯把这一点摆在桌面上，我认为人们应该对此深表关注。应该对布林肯和政府有很多后续问题。
Freeburg, should the free country of Ukraine be able to join NATO on some timeline, or should they be banned from ever joining NATO? I think the statements are correct that Ukraine joining NATO escalates conflict. And we will find ourselves in a de facto global conflict, World War. Now, the question is, is that the cycle, the natural cycle? I will once again, Nick, pull it up, please.
弗里堡，如果乌克兰这个自由国家能够在某个时段加入北约，还是应该被永远禁止加入北约？我认为乌克兰加入北约会升级冲突的说法是正确的。我们将发现自己陷入一场实质上的全球冲突，世界大战。现在的问题是，这是循环吗，自然循环吗？请再次，尼克，拉起来。
Reference Ray Dalio is typical big cycle behind Empire's rise in decline. As he spoke at length with us in person about at the All-in-Summit last year, he points out that the era of prosperity that over the last 500 years, we've seen six major empires go through is followed by a debt bubble, which drives a wealth gap, which ultimately leads to economic challenges, which means printing more money, which is the cycle we are going through right now with, as you guys know, two to three trillion annual deficit and explosion in federal debt levels. And that ultimately leads inevitably to external conflict to war.
雷·达利奥是帝国兴衰背后典型的大周期代表。去年在全球峰会上，他亲自与我们长谈，指出过去500年里我们看到的繁荣时代后面跟随着的是债务泡沫，导致贫富差距扩大，最终导致经济挑战，这意味着印钞票，这正是我们目前正在经历的周期，你们都知道，每年有两到三万亿美元的赤字和联邦债务水平激增。最终这势必导致外部冲突，甚至战争。
Now, the particular motivations in every case in all six times this has happened in the last 500 years, look different when you read the history books about what were the circumstances that drove us to external conflict that drove that nation to war. But the truth is, every single one of them was preceded by a debt bubble, income inequality, wealth gap, and the printing of money. And there's a relationship between those economic factors and a desire for conflict. And I think that is what we are seeing play out over the past couple of years, starting with our motivated interest in supporting Ukraine against the Russia conflict, and now escalating it towards inviting Ukraine to join NATO to escalate the conflict itself.
Now, I think there's a notion that having a war is stimulating, having a war is unifying. This should have a war. The door wags the dog theory. I don't think it's a wag the dog theory as much as it is. What do you do when the economic condition of the nation is such that the federal government has to print money to support the economy and or to bridge the wealth gap? And when under those circumstances, in order to unify the country, in order to motivate a system of unification amongst a fracturing society or fracturing economic strata, you feel like you have to have an external enemy.
在过去500年中所有六次发生的情况中，每一次特定的动机在历史书中看起来都不同，驱使我们走向外部冲突，推动那个国家走向战争的情况也不同。但事实是，每一次都是由债务泡沫、收入不平等、财富差距和印钞引起的。这些经济因素与对冲突的渴望之间存在着关系。我认为这就是我们在过去几年看到的情况，从我们积极支持乌克兰抵抗俄罗斯冲突开始，现在又升级到邀请乌克兰加入北约，加剧冲突本身。
我认为有一种观念认为发动战争是刺激的，是团结的。应该要发动战争。 "狗摇尾巴"理论。 我认为这并不完全是狗摇尾巴的理论，而更多是，当一个国家的经济状况迫使联邦政府印钞来支持经济或填补财富差距时，你会怎么做？在这种情况下，为了统一国家，为了激发一个在一个破裂的社会或破裂的经济阶层中实现统一的制度，你会觉得必须要有一个外部的敌人。
And that the notion of war itself is economically stimulating. I think that those are the motivating factors that we've seen play out six times in the last 500 years. And we may be unfortunately seeing play out here again. As we talked to Graham Allison, Ray Dalio about last year, we said, what can we do to avoid this that there have been times historically where these things have been avoided.
这种战争本身的概念是经济刺激。我认为这些是近500年来我们见过的六次战争的动因。不幸的是，我们可能会再次看到这种情况发生。去年我们与格雷厄姆·艾利森和雷·达里奥讨论时，我们问，我们该怎么做才能避免这种情况，历史上确实有一些时候避免了这种情况。
But if we're not being cognizant of what's going on here and motivating a different tact and a different path, whether it's through our electoral cycle or through being loud and vocal in whatever media channels we each have access to to make folks more aware of this. I think, you know, we will find ourselves walking down this path of looking for global conflict and finding it. Kamath, you look like you wanted to chime in there.
但是，如果我们不意识到这里正在发生的事情，并激励采取不同的策略和路径，无论是通过我们的选举周期，还是通过在我们每个人可以接触的媒体渠道上大声疾呼，让人们更加意识到这一点。我觉得，你知道的，我们会发现自己走上寻找全球冲突并找到它的道路。卡玛斯，你看起来好像想要插话。
Yeah. Of the three presidential candidates to be very clear, one is supportive then of some kind of confrontation, because by proxy, they're supportive of admitting Ukraine and to NATO, which would create a war. And two are pretty clearly anti-war. And just for people who know the boom bus cycle behind Empower's Rise and Declines, you can see that if you're on the YouTube video.
是的。就三位总统候选人来说，很明确地，一位是支持某种形式的对抗的，因为在间接上，他们支持允许乌克兰加入北约，这可能会引发战争。另外两位则明显是反对战争的。对于了解Empower崛起与衰落背后的繁荣循环的人来说，可以在YouTube上的视频中看到这一点。
But the sixth of eight moments is revolutions and wars as Freiburg's pointing out, there are two more that come after that, debt and political restructuring, and then the new world order emerges. And so the question here, I guess, can diplomacy win the day? And then is Blinken's point that they eventually can become a member or that they're imminently going to become a member and it's breaking news.
但弗莱堡指出，在八个时刻中的第六个是革命和战争，还有两个随后而来的时刻，即债务和政治重组，然后新世界秩序就会出现。所以我想在这里问一个问题，外交能否赢得胜利？那么布林肯是在说他们最终可以成为成员，还是说他们即将成为成员，这是新闻爆发的重要消息。
So we don't know if he's speaking about this. Well, clearly, let's just be really clear on this. The words he used were very carefully chosen. And that means that there was a media and press strategy conversation that was had by him and his staff, which obviously found its way into the White House administration. And that there was an executive conversation about this. For sure.
所以我们不知道他是否在谈论这件事。很明显，让我们对此非常清楚。他使用的词语非常谨慎选择。这意味着他和他的工作人员进行了媒体和新闻策略的讨论，显然这些讨论在白宫的管理部门中传达了出去。还有关于这个问题进行的高层管理层的讨论。肯定有的。
This is the positioning we need to now be clearly stating, which means that this is now policy. He did not slip up on those words. This was not some off the cuff comment. This was clearly a media-trained statement, which means that it is administration policy. And we delivered during the press conference. Exactly. At the next White House press conference, you will hear the question asked by reporters, is this the White House position? And they will say, yes, it is.
这是我们现在需要明确表态的立场，这意味着这是现在的政策。他没有在那些话题上失言。这不是仓促的评论。这显然是经过媒体训练的声明，这意味着这是行政政策。在新闻发布会上我们已经阐明了。确切地说，在下一次白宫新闻发布会上，记者会询问这是否是白宫的立场？他们会回答，是的。
Yeah. And just to be clear, that video had a couple of edits in it. And we don't have the full press conference here. The quote from The Hill is, Ukraine will become a member of NATO period. Our purpose at the summit is to help build a bridge to that membership, which then seems like this would this if you're building a bridge, that takes time. So maybe they mean over time, the fullness of time to be able to do this. And the next year would be if it was on the timeline of Finland would be insane. I cannot disagree. It would be insane, but they're not ruling it out. And I think you have to look at the context of what's happening.
是的。再明确一下，那个视频做了几处剪辑。我们这里没有完整的新闻发布会。《山丘报》的引用是，乌克兰将成为北约成员，这是毫无疑问的。我们在峰会上的目的是帮助搭建通往成员国身份的桥梁，这听起来似乎需要时间。如果你要修桥，那需要时间。也许他们是指随着时间的流逝，最终能够实现这一目标。而明年如果按照芬兰的时间表来说，那将是疯狂的。我无法否认，那将是疯狂的，但他们也没有排除这种可能。我认为你必须看看正在发生的背景。
He's making these remarks as all the news from the battlefield is terrible. Ukraine is losing and it's at risk of collapsing. And European leaders like Macron are therefore calling for direct NATO intervention in the war. So for Blinken to be making this sort of statement is really adding fuel to the fire. And let's see if he walks it back. Let's see if he clarifies it. I predict that he won't because this is a mission for clarification for sure, because this does not feel like it'd be good for voting because the war is incredibly unpopular. It'll make the election pretty simple. Every other issue, all the social issues that we fight about will fall away. The debt will fall away. The border will fall away. If this is true, if it's America want to go to war.
他发表这些言论是因为战场上的所有消息都很糟糕。乌克兰正在失利，面临崩溃的风险。因此，像马克龙这样的欧洲领导人呼吁北约直接介入战争。因此，对于布林肯发表这种言论，实际上是火上加油。让我们看看他是否会收回这些话。让我们看看他是否会澄清。我预测他不会，因为这肯定是一个澄清任务，因为这并不会对选举有好处，因为这场战争非常不受欢迎。这将使选举变得非常简单。其他所有问题，我们争论的社会问题都将消失。债务将消失。边境将消失。如果这是真的，如果美国想要开战。
Well, Jamath, I think I think we're already at that point, even if there is some sort of clarification. And the reason I say that is because Biden clearly is very committed to this Ukraine policy. It didn't just start when he became president. It started when he became vice president and was managing the Ukraine portfolio for Obama. This is why 100 Biden got that job in Ukraine because Biden was running the show there. And they have been very committed to this idea of bringing Ukraine into NATO for decades. I mean, he supported when he was a senator.
嗯，杰马斯，我认为我们已经达到了这一点，即使有某种澄清。我这样说的原因是拜登显然非常致力于这项乌克兰政策。这不仅仅是在他担任总统时才开始的。早在他成为奥巴马的副总统，并负责管理乌克兰业务时就已经开始了。这就是为什么亨特·拜登能在乌克兰获得那份工作，因为拜登在那里掌管一切。他们多年来一直致力于将乌克兰引入北约的想法。我是指他在担任参议员时就支持这一点。
So this is not like Freeburg said, this is not like to some randomly chosen words out of the blue. Blinken measures his words carefully. He knows what he's saying. And this is something that Biden clearly is passionate about. And what you have to believe is that in a Biden second term, he's going to manage this whole situation so perfectly that this war is not going to escalate any further. And I just I have no confidence in that. Remember, if you want to use a historical analogy, go back to Woodrow Wilson in 1916. He was elected on literally the catchphrase, he kept us out of war. Less than one year later, we were in World War one. World War one.
所以这不像弗里伯格说的那样，也不是随机挑出的一些话。布林肯谨慎地斟酌着他的话。他知道自己在说什么。拜登显然对此充满激情。你必须相信，在拜登的第二个任期中，他会完美地处理整个局势，这场战争不会进一步升级。但我对此毫无信心。记住，如果你想使用历史类比，回到1916年的伍德罗·威尔逊。他当时当选的座右铭实际上是“他让我们远离战争”。不到一年后，我们却卷入了第一次世界大战。第一次世界大战。
Yeah. So this idea of well, Biden, when possibly get us into a war, I mean, history shows otherwise. History shows that presidents once they win reelection are more likely to get us into war, rather than less, because they don't have to fear voters. So then the question is, well, what is in Joe Biden's part? What's he passionate about? He is clearly passionate about this cause, about bringing Ukraine and to NATO, and certainly not having Ukraine collapse or lose this war. Whereas Trump and Bobby Kennedy have both said that they will end this war. They will seek a peace deal if elected. I think that's enough right there.
是的。所以这个关于拜登可能会让我们卷入战争的想法，历史事实证明相反。历史显示，总统们一旦连任成功，更有可能把我们卷入战争，而不是减少这种可能，因为他们不用担心选民的反对。那么问题就是，拜登的立场是什么？他对什么感兴趣？很明显，他热衷于这个事业，热衷于让乌克兰加入北约，当然也不希望乌克兰崩溃或输掉这场战争。相比之下，特朗普和鲍比·肯尼迪都表示他们会结束这场战争。如果当选，他们会寻求和平协议。我想这就足够了。
Yeah. I mean, and obviously, Lincoln and Biden are looking for peace as well. They just don't want to lose the war. They're not looking for peace. I just think they are definitely for peace. You can disagree. But they're they want peace. Why do they reject the deal? It is simple at the beginning of this war. Yeah, because they, I think, don't want Russia to determine who gets to be a NATO and they want free countries to decide. Is that working in a war for? I mean, that is, I guess the existential question here is at what point do we want to let free democracies determine their future and protect them from invading countries?
是的。我是说，显然，林肯和拜登也在寻求和平。他们只是不想输掉这场战争。他们并不是在寻求和平。我只是认为他们绝对是为了和平。你可以不同意，但他们确实想要和平。为什么拒绝这个协议呢？简单来说，在这场战争开始之初。是因为他们，我想，不希望俄罗斯决定谁可以加入北约，他们想让自由国家来决定。这种做法在战争中行得通吗？我是说，我想这里的存在性问题是我们在何时想要让自由的民主国家决定他们的未来并保护他们不受侵略国家侵犯。
That is, like, actually, the core of this is do you believe in democracy? Do you believe free countries should have the autonomy to pick their future? And is that worth fighting for? That is the question the world faces right now. I think that framing, I think that framing is not totally accurate. I think, of course, those things are good and right things. I think the thing is, on the balance of issues, there are seasons when certain priorities need to be shaped by a country. And right now, we're in a season where there's tremendous domestic instability.
这实际上是核心问题，你相信民主吗？你认为自由国家应该有权选择自己的未来吗？这是值得为之奋斗的吗？这就是世界现在面临的问题。我认为这种框架并不完全准确。当然，这些都是好的和正确的事情。我认为关键在于，在平衡各种问题时，有时需要由一个国家来确定某些优先事项。目前，我们正处在一个国内动荡严重的时期。
In our country. And our country, you're saying? In our country, yeah. In our country is breaking. So I think the question isn't that is democracy important? Of course, it's important. It's how relatively important is it abroad relative to these domestic issues here? Yeah. Hold on, let me just finish. Is it worth fighting for? Is the issue? And is it worth fighting for when you don't have the resources to do it? Now, if we were sitting here and a country next to Ukraine was invaded, say Finland or say France or another country in Europe was invaded, we would absolutely go to bat for them.
在我们国家。我们的国家，你说呢？在我们国家，是的。在我们国家出了问题。所以我认为问题不是民主重要吗？当然，它很重要。问题是在国内问题相对而言国外的重要程度有多高？是的。等一下，让我说完。值得为之而战吗？这才是问题所在。在没有资源的情况下，还值得为之而战吗？现在，如果我们坐在这里，乌克兰旁边的国家被入侵，比如芬兰或者法国或欧洲的另一个国家被入侵，我们绝对会支持他们。
But for Ukraine, we won't go to bat for them. They're not part of NATO. And this is the issue of our time. Are you saying send American soldiers? Because that's what we're talking about. If France or Finland was in, would you be opposed to France? If Russia invaded France, would you defend France? Would you be in favor of the? Of course, that's our article five guarantee under NATO. This is why I don't want to extend an article five guarantee to Ukraine because we'll put us directly in conflict with Russia. And I'm not interested in being in war three.
但对于乌克兰，我们不会为他们奋斗。他们不是北约的成员国。这是我们时代的问题。你是在说派遣美国士兵吗？因为这就是我们正在讨论的问题。如果法国或芬兰加入了，你会反对法国吗？如果俄罗斯入侵法国，你会保卫法国吗？你会支持这样做吗？当然，这就是北约第五条款的保证。这就是为什么我不希望向乌克兰提供第五条款的保证，因为这将直接让我们与俄罗斯发生冲突。我不想卷入第三次战争。
Right. And then so Finland and Sweden come up and I guess the argument would be, would you be in favor of sending troops to defend Finland and Sweden? They're the latest members of NATO and would you be in favor of them? Now we're committed. And when you were in favor of them joining NATO, I guess is the next question. We discussed it on the pod.
然后，芬兰和瑞典也加入了，我想争论的是，你会赞成派遣军队去保卫芬兰和瑞典吗？他们是北约的最新成员，你会支持他们吗？现在我们已经做出承诺。接下来的问题是，你支持他们加入北约吗？我们在节目中讨论过这个问题。
I explained that it was creating a liability not an asset. But what's done is done. Should free countries be able to join NATO, I guess is at the end of the question. Well, I think that's the question. Actually, let me make two points on that. The first one is countries don't have a right to join NATO anymore than I have a right to join Augusta country club. Just because I'm a golf player doesn't mean I get to join Augusta.
我解释说，这只会增加一个负担，而不是一项资产。但已经发生的事情已经发生了。自由国家应该能够加入北约，我想这是问题的关键。嗯，我认为这就是问题所在。实际上，我想就此提两点看法。第一点是，国家没有加入北约的权利，就像我没有加入奥古斯塔乡村俱乐部的权利一样。仅仅因为我是一名高尔夫球手，并不意味着我就能加入奥古斯塔。
Okay, it's up to the current membership of Augusta or NATO decide whether they're going to emit a country based on what is in their interest. It has never been in our interest to make Ukraine security dependent of the United States. Sorry, this is the reality. The second thing I want to point out is that what was Russia demanding? They were demanding Ukrainian neutrality. They were not basically looking to conquer Ukraine. They wanted them to be neutral.
好的，决定是否承认一个国家取决于奥古斯塔或北约的现有成员。让乌克兰的安全取决于美国从来不符合我们的利益。抱歉，这就是现实。我想指出的第二件事是，俄罗斯要求什么？他们要求乌克兰保持中立。他们基本上不是要征服乌克兰，他们希望乌克兰保持中立。
So Ukraine did not have to give up its freedom. Okay, they just had to agree to be neutral. That was the key issue. That's what makes it very different than some other historical analogies. And that was not acceptable to us at the very beginning of the war. Blinken said that we would insist on an open door policy. We would be clearly the right move here would have been to kick the can down the road and just tell Putin, we'll take it off. We'll take NATO off the table for 10 years or 20 years. And then we could have outlasted Putin.
因此，乌克兰不必放弃自由。好吧，他们只需同意保持中立。这是关键问题。这使得这场战争与其他历史类比非常不同。在战争初期，这是我们无法接受的。布林肯表示，我们将坚持开放的政策。在这里明显正确的做法将是把问题丢给下一个人，告诉普京，我们会把北约放到一边，让我们可以击败普京。
You're not even enough. You're much better. You're much better. You're not on that before the war started. And then the minute the war started, everyone forgot that that was the key casus belli of this war. Just more diplomacy is better. Can I just say one thing that Saks, you would be the perfect member of Augusta. We're not for one small issue. Be careful, Chamob. Ryan's with Schnusch. Oh, Augusta. Oh my gosh.
你甚至还不够好。你要好得多。你要好得多。你在战争开始之前不在那里。然后一旦战争开始，每个人都忘记了这是这场战争的主要导火线。更多的外交是更好的。我可以说一件事吗，Saks，你将成为Augusta的完美成员。只有一个小问题。小心，Chamob。Ryan和Schnusch在一起。哦，Augusta。哦，天啊。
That was my favorite from with the lunatic, the rage guy from New York. We're seeing Congress and they expelled him after six months. George Santas. Santas, we're like, are you Jewish? He's like, I'm Jewish. Ish. Ish. Ish. Ish, like a little pause in the middle. All right, listen, another amazing episode, episode 173. Congratulations to our CEO, John Hell. He's with us now. Who I will make. Chris. And I would call back.
这是我最喜欢的一个与那个疯子、来自纽约的愤怒家伙一起的节目。我们在国会看到了他，他被驱逐出国会。乔治·桑塔斯。桑塔斯，我们问他是犹太人吗？他说，我是犹太人。是有点。是有点。是有点，就是在中间稍微停顿一下。好了，听着，又是一个令人惊叹的一集，第173集。恭喜我们的CEO约翰·赫尔。他现在也和我们在一起。我会制作。克里斯。我会回电。
Please do us a favor. Do us a favor. 486,000 people following the YouTube channel. Get in there and be part of the Q&A when we hit 500,000. And your best chance of being part of the 1 million subscriber party, which I think Chamob's going to oversee. It'll be at the win in Las Vegas. They're, oh, okay, there it is. We have a location and then the all in some making an announcement next week. Go to YouTube, type in all in and subscribe for the Rain Man, David Saks.
请帮帮我们吧。给我们个帮忙。有486,000人关注这个YouTube频道。当我们达到500,000时，进去参与问答吧。你有最好的机会成为100万订阅者派对的一部分，我认为Chamob会负责。地点会在拉斯维加斯的赢家。哦，好的，就在那里。我们有一个地点，然后下周会有一个公告。去YouTube上搜索All in，订阅Rain Man的David Saks。
Yeah. Chamob, Polly Hopatia, the German dictator and your Sultan of Science, who loved Dune too. He loved it. He saw it twice. Overrated. Is that good? I'm going to see it twice. I'm going to go see it again. Go see it in IMAC. I think it's. Oh my God. The comment boards got so angry. Furious? Furious. Overrated. I mean, this set them off like nothing has ever set them off.
对啊。查莫布，波利·霍帕提亚，德国独裁者和你的科学大臣，他也喜欢《沙丘》。他非常喜欢。他看过两次。被高估了。这样好吗？我打算看两次。我要再去看一遍。去IMAX看。我觉得……哦天啊。评论板上的人都火了。愤怒？愤怒。被高估了。我是说，这让他们愤怒得前所未有。
I don't know. Try making a comment by Trump. Join my world. You can't attack Timothy Chalamet. Oh my God. Oh my God. Man, they weren't really rushing to his defense. I mean, he does look like he drinks a lot of soy. I'll be honest. That's a lot of fans. I don't think that guys ever had whole milk. No, I don't think skinny is I think skinny people like that when you're super skinny like that. You travel in packs to protect each other as a group. Like, so like you can get in a group like hyenas or something and then just protect each other. Yeah, it's like, oh, we got to stick up for each other because if we don't, you know, hey, are you standing sideways or are you like like a pod? There's like like a pod. A pod of soybeans like the Roman turtle protection thing that they would. Yeah. Yeah. Shields up as one as one.
我不知道。试试看找特朗普的评论。加入我的世界。你不能攻击蒂莫西·夏拉梅。天哪。天哪。哥们儿，他们真的没有急着保护他。我是说，他看起来像是经常喝大豆的。说实话。那么多粉丝。我觉得那家伙从来没有喝过全脂牛奶。不，我觉得瘦不是问题，我认为那些超级瘦的人喜欢这样。你们一起结伴保护彼此，就像一群鬣狗一样。所以，比如你们能组成一个群体，就像致敬古罗马的乌龟战术。是的。是的。集结起盾牌，作为一个整体。
So he is now up to 630 million. The box office pretty pretty good run, huh? You know, they're going to do you in three now. Oh, it's definitely happened. He's just negotiating a big price. Yeah, big deal. Yeah. Big deal. All right, everybody. You know what to do and we'll see you next time on Lovey Boys. The world's greatest podcast. The Arnold podcast. Tell your friends. Oh, I don't think it's my dog taking a picture. Driveways. We should all just get a room and just have one big huge orgy because they're all just like this like sexual tension that they just need to release somehow.
他现在已经达到了6.3亿。票房跑得相当不错，是吧？你知道，他们现在要为你做三个了。哦，肯定会发生的。他只是在谈判一个很大的价格。是的，大交易。没错。好了，大家都知道该怎么做了，我们下次在Lovey Boys见。世界上最棒的播客。阿诺德播客。告诉你的朋友。哦，我觉得不是我的狗拍照。车道。我们应该都去一个房间，然后举行一次大型的群交，因为他们之间有这种性紧张感，他们需要以某种方式释放。
What? You're that big. What? You're a big. You're a big. Big. What? We need to get merges. I'm going all the way up. I'm going all the way up.
什么？你这么大。什么？你是个大家伙。你是大个子。大。什么？我们需要合并。我要一路飙升。我要一路飙升。