Anthropic’s Fable Backlash, Nationalizing AI, Inflation Heats Up & California’s Broken Elections

基本信息

• 播客：All-In with Chamath, Jason, Sacks & Friedberg
• 期数：E276
• 发布时间：2026-06-13
• 时长：6120
• 原始链接：https://www.xiaoyuzhoufm.com/episode/6a2ce6bfae5a6b62d674606b
• 本地音频：E276 Anthropic’s Fable Backlash, Nationalizing AI, Inflation Heats Up & California’s Broken Elections.mp3

节目简介

(0:00) Besties are back! (0:19) Anthropic gets massive backlash over secret Fable nerfing and privacy concerns (29:16) The AI regulatory capture trap, pragmatic safety solutions (37:59) Nationalizing AI: Trump/Sanders, justifications, and AI’s “Capitalist Cucks” (59:22) Liquidity recap: Best moments and takeaways (1:05:39) Inflation heats up: CPI and PPI see 3+ year highs (1:12:27) California’s loose election laws creating integrity doubts Apply for Summit 2026: https://allin.com/events Follow the besties: https://x.com/chamath https://x.com/Jason https://x.com/DavidSacks https://x.com/friedberg Follow on X: https://x.com/theallinpod Follow on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/theallinpod Follow on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@theallinpod Follow on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/allinpod Intro Music Credit: https://rb.gy/tppkzl https://x.com/yung_spielburg Intro Video Credit: https://x.com/TheZachEffect Referenced in the show: https://www.anthropic.com/news/claude-fable-5-mythos-5 https://x.com/Scobleizer/status/2064641097310335294 https://x.com/GergelyOrosz/status/2064618497150210391 https://x.com/cremieuxrecueil/status/2064433331970720187 https://x.com/Yuchenj_UW/status/2064524668208545955 https://stratechery.com https://x.com/peter_szilagyi/status/2064620043896291671 https://darioamodei.com/post/policy-on-the-ai-exponential https://screendna.org https://x.com/DavidSacks/status/2065120386660880765 https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/01/opinion/artificial-intelligence-bernie-sanders.html https://polymarket.com/event/ipos-before-2027 https://polymarket.com/event/how-high-will-inflation-get-in-2026 https://polymarket.com/event/fed-rate-hike-in-2026 https://x.com/robbystarbuck/status/2063602942637158423 https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/california-man-pleads-guilty-orchestrating-270m-medication-reimbursement-fraud-scheme https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/osec/osec20260218 https://www.secretservice.gov/newsroom/behind-the-shades/2025/05/secret-service-cracks-down-ebt-fraud-southern-california-sweep https://www.justice.gov/usao-cdca/pr/8-arrested-health-care-fraud-takedown-including-owners-hospices-billed-taxpayers https://www.foxnews.com/us/california-man-arrested-allegedly-stealing-millions-homeless-funds https://x.com/californiapost/status/2064362900098048386

转写正文

All right, everybody, welcome back to the number one podcast in the world. It’s your favorite podcast. It’s your podcaster’s favorite podcast. It’s the podcast that everybody likes to rip off for 50 episodes and then they quit. But the all-in podcast is not quitting. We’re doubling down with the original quartet. Everybody’s here for a big, big week, lots of debates, and we got to start with Anthropic. Anthropic released a mythos-level model with some interesting guardrails and seems as though Dario is back to blogging. Okay, the model’s called Fable 5. No idea why they’re calling it that.

中文：好了，各位，欢迎回到全球排名第一的播客。这是你们最爱的播客，也是播客主们最爱的播客。就是那个总被其他节目抄袭个50集就放弃的播客。但All-in播客不会放弃，我们原班四人组要加倍投入。这周内容非常重磅，辩论很多，我们得从Anthropic说起。Anthropic发布了一个神话级别的模型，带有一些有趣的防护机制，而且Dario似乎又开始写博客了。这个模型叫Fable 5，完全搞不懂他们为什么取这个名字。

Released on Tuesday, and it tops every benchmark, nearly every benchmark. The tokens, however, cost twice as much as Opus 4.8, but it should use less tokens overall because it’s theoretically that much better. Unclear if this is going to alleviate some of the hand-wringing around the cost of tokens, but you’re right. Remember, in April, Anthropic famously did not release mythos because publicly it had some strong hacking capabilities, so they gave it to some folks. And we had the CEO of Nikesh of Palo Alto Networks who said, hey, mythos was the real deal, and that they used it to seal up some vulnerabilities inside their shop.

中文：周二发布，它在各项基准测试中几乎都拔得头筹。不过，代币成本是Opus 4.8的两倍，但理论上它更出色，整体消耗的代币应该会更少。目前还不清楚这是否能缓解人们对代币成本的焦虑，但你说得对。记得四月份，Anthropic因Mythos具备强大的黑客能力而公开未予发布，只提供给了一些特定用户。Palo Alto Networks的CEO Nikesh曾表示，Mythos确实货真价实，他们用它修补了内部的一些漏洞。

Obviously, this new model is sensitive to topics like bioweapons, hacking, all that stuff, are blocked in it. They got a big developer backlash, and then I’ll get your feedback after I explain this, while using Fable, Anthropic stores all the prompt data you enter for at least 30 days. And so that’s a bit of a privacy issue. And if Fable 5 detects you’re doing frontier AI research, in other words, using their model to make a better model, competitive model, they were downgrading you, but they weren’t telling you. And this was buried deep in a 319-page document. So many kerfluffles, freakouts going on. And on X over this.

中文：显然，这个新模型对生物武器、黑客攻击等话题很敏感，这些内容都被屏蔽了。这引发了开发者的强烈反弹，等我解释完你再给我反馈。在使用Fable时，Anthropic会存储你输入的所有提示数据，至少保留30天，这算是个隐私问题。而且如果Fable 5检测到你在进行前沿AI研究，换句话说，用他们的模型来打造更好的、有竞争力的模型，他们会给你降级，但不会通知你。这点被深埋在一份319页的文件里。所以现在X平台上闹得沸沸扬扬，各种争议和恐慌情绪蔓延。

But they’ve since walked it back a bit, quote unquote, in Wired. We’re changing Fable 5 safeguards for frontier LLM development to make them more visible. I’m going to stop there, Chamath. What’s your take on Anthropic and these extraordinary models they keep dropping, and how they’re handling the release of them? Are they being thoughtful? Are they being dramatic and drama queens? A little bit of both. Where do you stand on it after getting Nikesh’s feedback? And seeing the latest model come out? Have you played with it? What’s going on at 80, 90 and the software factory in terms of benchmarking it as well? It’s a really incredible model.

中文：但他们在《连线》杂志上又稍微收回了之前的说法，原话是这么说的：我们正在调整前沿大语言模型开发的Fable 5安全防护措施，让它们更加透明。我就先说到这儿，查马斯。你对Anthropic以及他们不断推出的这些非凡模型怎么看？还有他们发布模型的方式？他们是深思熟虑，还是过于戏剧化、像个戏精？可能两者都有一点。在听了尼克什的反馈，又看到最新模型发布后，你现在是什么立场？你试用过这个模型吗？在80、90分位以及软件工厂那边，它的基准测试表现如何？这确实是个非常出色的模型。

And so kudos to these guys for continuing to push the boundaries of the closed frontier lab models. They’re firing on all cylinders. I think that it creates a pretty obvious risk now. And I think that obvious risk is twofold. One is empathy. Anthropic has essentially shown their hand, which is that they will increasingly take in prompts, evaluate the prompts, and decide what to do with them before they generate output to you. And I think if you were a person, you should generally now think there’s a risk of censorship. If you’re a company, I think it’s almost a non-starter.

中文：因此，我们要向这些持续突破封闭式前沿实验室模型边界的团队致敬。他们正全速推进，我认为这已催生出一个相当明显的风险。而这个风险体现在两个层面：首先是同理心问题。Anthropic实质上已亮出底牌——他们将越来越多地接收提示词、评估提示词，并在生成输出前决定如何处理这些提示词。我认为，作为个人用户，你现在应当普遍意识到存在审查风险；而对企业而言，这几乎是个不可行的选择。

And the reason is because you could accidentally trip one of these things without even knowing it. A downstream scientist using the quad APIs could trip it. A business executive inside your corporation could trip it. A person doing scientific molecular research could trip it. And all of a sudden, you’ll get cut off from a very important source of business differentiation for yourself. So I think if you take both of those two things together.

中文：原因在于，你可能会在毫无察觉的情况下意外触发这些限制。使用四元API的下游科学家可能触发它，你公司内部的业务主管可能触发它，从事分子科学研究的人员也可能触发它。突然间，你就会失去一个至关重要的业务差异化来源。所以我认为，如果把这两方面结合起来看。

So, where are you at at this point where you’re at where you’re at where you’re at where you’re at where you’re at where you’re at where you’re at where you’re at where you’re at where you’re at where you’re at where you’re at where you’re at where you’re at where you’re at where you’re at where you’re at where you’re at where you’re at where you’re at where you’re at where you’re at where you’re at where you’re at where you’re at where you’re at where you’re at where you’re at where you’re at where you’re at where you’re at where you’re at where you’re at where you’re at where you’re at where you’re at where you’re at where you’re at where you’re at where you’re at where you’re at where you’re at where you’re at where you’re at where you’re at where you’re at where you’re at where you’re at where you’re is they tell the truth.

中文：那么，在这一点上，你的立场是什么？他们说的是实话。

Yes. It’s just that the truth sucks when you actually take it and you eat it. And you’re like, it’s in your tummy. And you’re like, No, this is not good. I don’t like this. And so there’s the censorship risk on the one hand, and then there’s just the governance business risk for enterprises on the other. Both are not good. Freeberg running your own company now, and I’ll let you back clean up here, Sachs, obviously, you’ll have a lot to say.

中文：是的。只是当你真正接受并消化这个事实时，那种感觉糟透了。就像它在你肚子里，你会觉得，不，这不好，我不喜欢这样。所以一方面存在审查风险，另一方面对企业来说还有治理和业务风险。这两者都不妙。弗里伯格现在经营着自己的公司，我会让你来收尾，萨克斯，显然你会有很多话要说。

But Freeberg running your company, do you worry about getting rug pulled by one of these companies investing your time into one of these platforms, having them then constrain your use of it and or take what you’re doing at Ohalo, put it into their model and make it available to other people? What concerns you have as a business owner at the forefront of your field using these tools? It’s a great question. The terms of service is pretty clear that they can’t take what you’re doing and put it into their model that they won’t believe them when you read. I’m not. I’m not sure to be honest. There are things I’m concerned about.

中文：但弗里伯格，作为你公司的运营者，你会不会担心被这些平台中的某一个坑了？比如你投入时间到这些平台上，结果他们限制你的使用，或者把你正在Ohalo做的事情拿去放进他们的模型，然后提供给其他人？作为这个领域前沿的企业主，你在使用这些工具时有什么顾虑？这是个很好的问题。服务条款写得很清楚，他们不能拿走你正在做的事情并放进他们的模型里，但你读的时候不会相信他们。说实话，我不确定。有些事我确实担心。

But we’ve decided to throw caution to the wind because we do a lot of proprietary work in genomics. What that means is we’re looking at different genes or gene variants, trying to estimate the impact that that gene or gene variant might have on a living organism like what we work in plants, obviously, in agriculture. And we will do things like RNA guide design for gene editing based tools, we will do predictions on what’s going on in the environment, what’s going on in the environment, what’s going will do predictions on what’s going on in the environment, what’s going on in the environment, what gene may or may not have some phenotype.

中文：但我们决定放手一搏，因为我们在基因组学方面做了大量专有研究。这意味着我们在研究不同的基因或基因变体，试图估算该基因或基因变体可能对生物体产生的影响，比如我们显然是在农业领域研究植物。我们会进行诸如基于基因编辑工具的RNA引导设计，还会预测环境中正在发生什么，某个基因可能或不可能表现出某种表型。

So there’s a lot of genomic modeling work that we have found these models to be incredibly valuable at supporting us with over the last couple of years. So going back about six months, we were able to very simply and cleanly do things like design a genetic construct that you would then use to make a specific protein. And the tool was very easy to use to do that sort of research and extremely valuable. This is the kind of work that many scientists would spend a lot of time doing. And these models were very good at doing very quickly. Over the last couple of weeks, they’ve begun to restrict the ability to use the models to do that work.

中文：因此，在过去几年中，我们发现了大量基因组建模工作，这些模型在支持我们方面极具价值。大约六个月前，我们能够非常简洁利落地完成诸如设计用于制造特定蛋白质的基因构建体等任务。该工具操作简便，对这类研究极有价值。这本是许多科学家需耗费大量时间完成的工作，而这些模型却能非常迅速地胜任。然而最近几周，他们开始限制使用这些模型开展此类工作的能力。

And the premise is that there’s some sort of bioweapon type risk that folks have theorized could happen using these tools. And as a result, we’re losing the capacity to use these models for this very important scientific development work. As a result, we are likely going to end up needing to use open source models and run them locally ourselves. So the reason I walked through all of that is so people can really understand the context of what’s going to happen here.

中文：前提是，有人推测利用这些工具可能产生某种生物武器风险。因此，我们正在丧失将这些模型用于这项非常重要的科学开发工作的能力。结果，我们很可能最终需要使用开源模型，并在本地自行运行。我之所以详细说明这些，是为了让大家真正理解这里将要发生的情况的背景。

As folks like Anthropic say, hey, we’re going to restrict access or censor the output of these models, it is going to force companies like ourselves, who still want to take advantage of the capability of these LLMs to go and get open source tools and run them. And what are the best open source models today? They’re Chinese. Yeah, they are. And that is a major concern. The American open source models are not as good as the Chinese open source models. So the restrictions that Anthropic and others are putting upon themselves and upon the industry is forcing a lot of companies to go and get open source Chinese models and run them.

中文：正如Anthropic这类公司所言，嘿，我们要限制访问或审查这些模型的输出，这将迫使像我们这样仍想利用这些大语言模型能力的公司，去获取开源工具并自行运行。如今最好的开源模型是什么？是中国的。没错，确实如此。这是一个重大隐忧。美国的开源模型不如中国的开源模型。因此，Anthropic及其他公司对自身和行业施加的限制，正迫使许多企业转向获取并运行中国的开源模型。

We’re seeing this across the landscape with startups, with large scale enterprises, everyone’s making that move. Yeah. And this is something we’ve been talking about here with Apple and their silicon and how well you can run these models. Also, I predict your next card you’ll turn over to the American open source model. And I think that’s the biggest challenge for us. And I think that’s the biggest challenge for us. And I think that’s the biggest challenge for us. Combine it with our data, and then we’ll have our own genome language model or our own prediction model that we’ll then use internally. And I think that’s where folks are going.

中文：从初创公司到大型企业，我们正看到整个行业都在进行这种转变。没错，这也是我们一直在讨论的苹果及其芯片的话题，以及这些模型在苹果设备上的出色运行表现。另外，我预测你接下来会转向美国开源模型。我认为这是我们面临的最大挑战。将其与我们的数据相结合，我们就能拥有自己的基因组语言模型或预测模型，供内部使用。我认为这正是行业的发展方向。

But the reason I point this out is because a lot of folks are feeling the pressure from Anthropic doing this. And they’re feeling the pressure from politicians repeating the scary words that are being said by Dario and others. And as a result, they are going to try to do the same thing. And I think that’s going to be a big challenge for us. And I think that’s going to be a big challenge for us. And I think they are already trying to force either natural enforcement, or politicized enforcement upon the model providers in a way that is ultimately going to benefit Chinese open source model providers.

中文：但我指出这一点的原因是，很多人正感受到来自Anthropic此举的压力。他们也感受到政客们不断重复Dario等人所说的那些骇人言论的压力。因此，他们也会试图效仿这种做法。我认为这对我们来说将是一个巨大挑战。而且我认为，他们已经在试图以最终将有利于中国开源模型提供商的方式，对模型提供商施加自然执法或政治化执法。

And that is a scary thing, because we are going to damage our own kind of economic viability. You can’t just stop AI as much as everyone says AI is doomsday. By stopping AI or trying to stop AI through this political action, and social, you know, kind of behavior, you are fundamentally going to give someone else the advantage because the AI isn’t going to go away. So the reason I described what we’re doing is for everyone to really understand and grok, that you can’t just turn off AI and turn off access to these things.

中文：这其实是一件很可怕的事情，因为我们会损害自身的经济生存能力。你不能就这样叫停人工智能，尽管很多人说AI是末日。通过这种政治行动和社会行为来阻止或试图阻止AI，你基本上就是在把优势拱手让人，因为AI不会就此消失。所以我之所以描述我们正在做的事情，就是希望大家真正理解并深刻认识到，你不可能就这么关掉AI，切断对这些技术的访问。

What you will do is you will force the hand of someone else to now have an unfair advantage, because you’re unfairly restricting your models and your access to those models. Well, really well said freeberg, sacks. What’s your take just in terms of the chessboard? In terms of we got the business case here, we got the local case, but there’s a lot of issues here with Anthropic in terms of, in terms of them, essentially, throwing up every red flag to get regulated to induce and it’ll be our second story, the Bernie Sanders seizing the equity of these companies.

中文：你这样做会迫使其他人获得不公平的优势，因为你正在不公平地限制自己的模型以及对那些模型的访问权限。说得非常好，弗里伯格，萨克斯。你怎么看，就整个棋局而言？我们这里有商业案例，也有本地案例，但Anthropic这边有很多问题，基本上，他们是在拼命亮出各种红旗，想要被监管，以诱导——这将是我们第二个故事——伯尼·桑德斯夺取这些公司的股权。

But man, this is saying look over here, we’re starting a fire regulate the hell out of us, which also then makes you wonder, hey, maybe I should be doing my own model. Maybe I should be embracing open source models. How’s this chessboard developing here, sacks? Well, look, eight months ago, I said that Anthropic was engaged in a very sophisticated regulatory capture campaign based on fearmongering. And people at the time thought that was a very spicy take. But eight months later, I think you’re hearing a lot of people say it. In fact, I think it’s almost now becoming a new consensus.

中文：但说真的，这简直就是在明示：看这边，我们正在引发一场大火，快来严加监管我们吧。这也不禁让人思考，嘿，也许我该自己动手做模型了，也许我该拥抱开源模型。萨克斯，这盘棋局现在进展如何？这么说吧，八个月前我就说过，Anthropic正在搞一场非常精密的监管俘获行动，靠的是散布恐慌。当时人们还觉得这个说法太尖锐了。但八个月后，我发现很多人都开始这么说了。事实上，我觉得这几乎正在成为新的共识。

And one of the things I think your summary didn’t quite capture, J. Cal, is the sense of the violation of trust, and how much outrage there is in the developer community. And I think that’s a really important part of the game. And I think that’s a really important part of the game. And I think that’s a really important part of the game. And I think that’s a really important part of the game. And I think that’s a really important part of the game. over this latest Fable release. It’s not just the fact that they’re doing mandatory surveillance. Remember, this is a company that said that it was against government surveillance.

中文：J. Cal，我认为你的总结没有完全捕捉到的一点是信任被背叛的感觉，以及开发者社区中涌动的强烈愤慨。我认为这是整个事件中极其关键的部分。这次最新的Fable发布之所以引发如此大的争议，并不仅仅是因为他们实施了强制监控。别忘了，这家公司曾公开表态反对政府监控。

They are now retaining for 30 days every prompt and every output you send to one of these mythos class models. There are no exceptions. Even enterprise customers who had signed zero data retention agreements, they do not have a choice. Or I guess they can just not use the new Fable or mythos class models. But they retain all of your data for 30 days. And it’s not just the prompts and the output. Remember, it’s all the context you share with them.

中文：现在，他们会将你发送给这些神话级模型的每一个提示词和每一个输出结果保留30天。没有任何例外。即使是已经签署了零数据保留协议的企业客户，也别无选择。或者我猜他们只能干脆不用新的寓言或神话级模型。但他们会保留你所有的数据，长达30天。而且不仅仅是提示词和输出结果。记住，还包括你与他们共享的所有上下文信息。

So all these agent platforms are basically storing all of your memories, all of your files, all of your data, and they’re passing them to the model in these giant context windows to get better responses. Anthropic is saying it will keep all of that. And it does it to build a profile on you, to classify you, and then to determine what capabilities it then unlocks. And the thing that created the most outrage, and it just made me think about this, is that it’s not just the prompts. It’s the context. It’s the context. It’s the context. In addition to the surveillance is the fact that they would degrade the product.

中文：所以所有这些智能体平台基本上都在存储你的全部记忆、全部文件、全部数据，然后把这些内容塞进巨大的上下文窗口里传给模型，以获取更好的回复。Anthropic表示会保留所有这些信息，并以此建立你的用户画像，对你进行分类，再决定为你解锁哪些功能。而最引发众怒的一点——这也让我深思——问题不仅在于提示词，更在于上下文。是上下文。是上下文。除了监控行为本身，更令人担忧的是他们还会因此降低产品质量。

They would degrade what they show you. They would nerf their models if it decided in anthropic soul discretion that you are not worthy of having access to that level of information. So they’re creating a new level of AI haves and have-nots. And what they did is, there’s a narrow piece where they walk back, which is they said that when it came to things like machine learning, AI research, chip design research, those types of areas, they would kick you to a lesser model, but not tell you that. And they would even do things- Yeah, which feels anti-competitive, right? I mean- It’s completely anti-competitive.

中文：他们会降低向你展示的内容质量。如果Anthropic自行判断你不配获取那个层级的信息，他们就会削弱模型的能力。这实质上是在制造AI领域新的”有产者”与”无产者”阶层。而他们采取的做法是——其中有一小部分他们后来收回了——他们声称在机器学习、AI研究、芯片设计研究这类领域，会悄悄将你降级到更差的模型，却不会告知你。他们甚至还会……这感觉像是反竞争行为，对吧？我是说……这完全是反竞争行为。

And also, they would even do things like rewrite your prompt in the background. So they would give you a nerfed answer. They would not tell you what they were doing. They would still charge you for the product that you thought you were getting. And they would never tell you that you were not getting frontier model capability. So they were actually misleading their users. Yeah. And this is what was creating so much outrage.

中文：而且，他们甚至会在后台重写你的提示词。所以他们会给你一个弱化版的回答，不会告诉你他们做了什么，仍然会就你以为自己获得的产品向你收费，并且永远不会告诉你，你并没有得到前沿模型的能力。所以他们实际上是在误导用户。没错，这正是引发如此大愤慨的原因。

Now, the narrow piece they walk back is they are now saying that they will disclose when they downgrade you, but they are still downgrading people when they decide that that person should not receive the appropriate information. And you saw there were a lot of people posting online with examples of the massive overreach here. So someone showed that when they simply just asked a question about mitochondria, they were basically downgraded. That’s right. When Ben Thompson from Stratechery asked a very straightforward question about the relationship between cancer risk and GLP-1s, he was kicked out.

中文：现在，他们收回的细微之处在于，他们如今表示会披露何时将你降级，但他们仍然在决定某人不该接收适当信息时将其降级。而且你看到网上有很多人发帖，列举了这里严重越权的例子。比如有人展示，仅仅问了一个关于线粒体的问题，基本上就被降级了。没错。当Stratechery的本·汤普森问了一个关于癌症风险与GLP-1之间关系的非常直接的问题时，他被踢了出去。

So these guys have a very expansive view of who should be downgraded. Again, they’re going to surveil you to determine whether you should be. And I think what we’re getting here is a vision of where all of this is headed, which is that these powerful big tech companies are going to decide whether you’re worthy. They’re going to decide whether you’re an AI have or have not. And then they’re going to censor the output that you receive based on the criteria they determine when they profile you. That is very Orwellian. I think there’s that.

中文：因此，这些人对于谁该被降级持有极为宽泛的标准。重申一下，他们会通过监控你来决定你是否符合条件。我认为，我们从中看到的是这一切发展的方向——即这些强大的大型科技公司将判定你是否够格，决定你是人工智能的拥有者还是被排斥者。然后，他们会根据在对你进行画像时确定的标准，来审查你接收到的输出内容。这非常具有奥威尔式的色彩。我认为情况就是如此。

And I think that there’s the risk of something that’s more subtle, but equally insidious, which is that they will start to pick which corporations they want to benefit. So for example, if Novartis has a competitive GLP-1 drug to Lilly, and they have a strategic deal with Novartis and not one with Lilly, now there’s an impetus to shape how people get information. Right. If they have a deal with JP Morgan, but not with Citibank, you’ll just never know. And so you’ll ask a question, something about mortgage rates or interest rates, and you’ll get all kinds of stuff that you don’t understand.

中文：我认为还存在一种更隐蔽但同样有害的风险，那就是他们会开始挑选想要扶持的企业。举例来说，如果诺华有一款与礼来竞争的GLP-1药物，而他们与诺华达成了战略合作，却没和礼来合作，那么就会有动机去影响人们获取信息的方式。没错。如果他们与摩根大通有合作，但与花旗银行没有，你根本无从知晓。所以当你询问关于抵押贷款利率或利率的问题时，会得到各种你无法理解的信息。

And then the downstream part of this, which is even more problematic, is it’s not clear to me. That they’re going to capture the actual fingerprint of what they did. So if you believe that something was done in a shady way, you’re supposed to be able to go to them, or regulators should be able to go to them and say, show me the trace of that model run in that exact moment that generated that output. Convince me why that that wasn’t nerfed on purpose or manipulated. And there’s all kinds of ways in which they can hide the cheese. So I think that all of that body of stuff, Saks, happens now.

中文：而更成问题的下游环节在于，我根本看不清楚他们是否会留下实际操作的真实痕迹。如果你怀疑某件事是以不正当方式完成的，按理说你应该能找上门去，或者监管机构应该能找上门去，要求他们展示那个模型在特定时刻生成特定结果的完整运行轨迹，并说服我为什么这不是故意削弱或人为操纵的。而他们藏匿证据的手段可谓五花八门。所以我认为，萨克斯，这一整套问题现在正在发生。

Because if you’re an emergent company, what you should be doing is knocking on an anthropic store saying, let’s do a deal. I’ll give you half the equity. And why don’t you just direct people to me? And they’ll say, well, economics are not what I care about. What is your philosophy on life, on morality, on all of these social issues? And one company will say it’s A. Another company will say it’s B. They’ll favor A over B. And then all kinds of stuff can happen underneath the hood. That’s what’s scary. Let me just ask my free market view, like, should that matter?

中文：因为如果你是一家新兴公司，你应该做的是去敲Anthropic的门，说，咱们做个交易吧。我给你一半的股权，你为什么不直接把用户引导到我这里来呢？而他们会说，嗯，经济收益并不是我在意的。你对生命、道德以及所有这些社会议题的哲学立场是什么？一家公司会说答案是A，另一家公司会说答案是B。他们会更倾向于A而不是B。然后，在表面之下，各种事情都可能发生。这才是可怕的地方。让我从自由市场的角度问一下，这真的应该重要吗？

If there’s a bunch of models out there, and we don’t restrict them, and we don’t regulate them, let these markets compete. We had paid inclusion in the early days of search engines. And the companies had to pay to be in there. And there are all those sorts of deals you’re describing, Chamath. And all the search engines that did those sorts of deals, they sucked for consumers and customers. Everyone’s like, you know what, this isn’t as good as Google. And everyone was like, well, I don’t know. I don’t know. I don’t know. I don’t know. I don’t know. I don’t know. And then everyone went over to the better model and the better provider.

中文：如果市场上存在众多模型，我们不对其加以限制和监管，让这些市场自由竞争。早期搜索引擎时代就有付费收录的做法，企业必须付费才能被收录。查马斯，你描述的那些交易类型当时都存在。所有采用这类交易模式的搜索引擎，对消费者和用户来说体验都很糟糕。大家都觉得，这不如谷歌好用。然后所有人都说，我不确定，我不确定，我不确定，我不确定，我不确定，我不确定。最终大家都转向了更优秀的模型和更优质的服务商。

Isn’t that what’s going to happen here if we don’t get in the way or keep the government out of it? And they’re not communicating. It’s a great point. You’re missing one piece of it, which is at the same time that Anthropic was engaging in mandatory surveillance and nerfing its models. Dario wrote a new blog post. Oh, God. Saying that transparency was no longer good enough, that we needed to have a new regulatory agency like an FAA or maybe an FDA. To approve all models. So your presumption there is correct. Yes, if you could go somewhere else to get your questions answered, then you would have alternatives.

中文：如果我们不横加干涉，不让政府插手，这里不就会发生这种情况吗？而他们之间缺乏沟通。这个观点很好。但你忽略了一点，那就是在Anthropic进行强制监控并削弱其模型的同时，达里奥写了一篇新的博客文章。天哪。他说透明度已经不够了，我们需要建立一个像美国联邦航空管理局或食品药品监督管理局那样的新监管机构。来审批所有模型。所以你的假设是对的。没错，如果你能去别处得到问题的答案，那你就会有其他选择。

But at the same time, that Anthropic is engaging in this potentially anti-competitive behavior, they want to restrict your options. It’s not good enough for them just to win in the free market. They’re calling on the government to regulate and stop potential competitors and limit the number of models that you have access to. Why would they do that? Why would they want to get regulated? The answer, super simple. They don’t, they want to apply that regulation to open source, which is impossible. But this would be a great way to scuttle and sandbag open source models. Yes. Because they don’t have the ability to be regulated.

中文：但与此同时，Anthropic 正在从事这种潜在的反竞争行为，他们想要限制你的选择。对他们来说，仅仅在自由市场中获胜还不够。他们呼吁政府进行监管，阻止潜在竞争对手，并限制你能接触到的模型数量。他们为什么要这么做？为什么想要被监管？答案非常简单。他们不想，他们想把这种监管施加到开源模型上，而这根本不可能实现。但这将是一个破坏和阻碍开源模型的绝佳方式。没错。因为开源模型无法被监管。

So it’s like a preemptive strike against token maxing on your local machine, Chamath. Two years ago, I bought 2,000 acres in Arizona with a partner. We got it zoned. We got it approved. So we’re- We’re allowed to build a two gigawatt data center. And I thought that this was the moment where you just turn around and you flip it to the Blackstones of Brookfields of the world, to the Googles of the world, let them develop it. And I’ve come to the conclusion that I don’t think I can.

中文：所以这就像是对你本地机器上代币最大化的一次先发制人打击，查马斯。两年前，我和一个合伙人在亚利桑那州买了2000英亩地。我们搞定了区划，拿到了批准。所以我们现在——我们被允许建一个两吉瓦的数据中心。我原本以为，到了这个节点，你只要转手把它卖给黑石、布鲁克菲尔德这样的公司，或者谷歌这样的企业，让他们去开发就行了。但我现在得出的结论是，我觉得我做不到。

And the reason is because I think that unless we direct large swaths of compute exactly at the direction that Freebrook says, what SACS says and what Jason just said will happen and we won’t have open source. So just to make it very clear, I think that the reason why I’m saying that is because I think that the reason why I’m saying that is because I think that the reason why I’m saying that is because I think that the reason why I’m saying that is because I think that the long tail of access to open source models is relatively miniscule. Most of the megawatts are still directed to the big models. Most of them.

中文：原因在于，我认为除非我们将大量计算资源精准投向Freebrook所指的方向，否则SACS所描述的情况以及Jason刚才所说的就会成为现实，我们将失去开源。所以我要非常明确地指出，我之所以这么说，是因为我认为开源模型的长尾访问量相对微不足道。绝大部分的兆瓦级算力仍然投向那些大型模型，绝大多数都是如此。

The overwhelming majority still goes to the big guys. And so I’m coming to the conclusion that I think we may just be dragged into having to build two gigawatts. And I just put in an offer for another gigs in a different place because I’m like, if you could take three gigawatts and now actually create a deep liquid data center, that would be a huge difference. Yeah. Yeah. access to open source, we’re going to have to do it we as a community. Now, I don’t have the money to do that. Because just to put it out on the table, a gigawatt now costs $100 billion, guys. Okay, so there’s a huge capital moat.

中文：绝大部分资金仍然流向巨头们。所以我得出的结论是，我们可能不得不被迫建设两吉瓦的规模。而且我刚刚在另一个地方又提交了一吉瓦的报价，因为我觉得，如果能拿下三吉瓦，真正打造一个深度流动性的数据中心，那将是巨大的突破。是的。没错。至于开源获取，我们作为社区必须自己动手。现在，我得把话挑明，我没有那么多资金。因为一吉瓦现在要花一千亿美元，各位。所以，这里存在巨大的资本护城河。

That’s a problem here as well, Saks, which even if we wanted to go and endorse and breathe life into the open source model community, where the hell am I going to come up with $100billion?Now,whenIstartedthisproject,itwaslikefouror5billion,andi{t}^{\prime }sincreasedby20x.Soifyouwanttogetallthreegigawattsdeveloped,Ihavetocomeupwith$300 billion. Obviously, I don’t have $300 billion. So what are we all supposed to do? And then if you get the rug pull, and the ladder pull on the regulatory side, we are going to be stuck with one class of models and one set of rules, and we won’t understand how to operate. In the US.

中文：萨克斯，这也是我们面临的问题。即便我们想支持并激活开源模型社区，我上哪儿去弄1000亿美元？当初我启动这个项目时，成本大概是四五十亿，现在已经涨了20倍。所以，如果你想开发全部三吉瓦的电力，我就得拿出3000亿美元。显然，我没有3000亿美元。那我们该怎么办？然后，如果在监管方面遭遇突然撤资和层层设限，我们就会被困在单一模型类别和一套规则里，而且在美国，我们根本不知道该如何运作。

Yeah, the rest of the world won’t be limited, but in the rest of the world, we’ll be able to operate. And you’ll be able to run these on YouTube. Apple, Silicon, you know, and we’re already seeing China race ahead in biotech, they’re racing ahead in material science, they’re racing ahead in new industrial systems. The capabilities that are going to be kind of lopsided is going to create an unfair advantage. And that’s when our workforce and where our economy is truly at risk. Hey, Freebird, isn’t it true that you guys use open source model for genomics? Didn’t the Collison’s put out one? It’s great.

中文：是的，世界其他地区不会受限，但在这些地区，我们仍能运营。你可以在YouTube上运行这些模型。苹果的芯片，你知道的，我们已经看到中国在生物技术领域飞速发展，他们在材料科学领域突飞猛进，在新型工业系统方面也一马当先。这种能力上的不均衡将造成不公平的优势。到那时，我们的劳动力和经济才会真正面临风险。嘿，Freebird，你们在基因组学上用的是开源模型，对吧？Collison兄弟不是发布了一个吗？那很棒。

And the ARC Institute ingested all the world’s genomic data that they could get access to. And it’s a genome language model, basically. So in our plant breeding program, we’re trying to figure out whether a particular variant of a gene in a plant is good or bad. If we don’t know from empiricism from data historically, whether it’s good or bad. So you can feed it into this model. And this model will look at the order of the letters of the DNA and determine, hey, that’s a good set of letters or a bad set of letters.

中文：ARC研究所摄入了他们能获取到的全球所有基因组数据。这基本上是一个基因组语言模型。在我们的植物育种项目中，我们试图判断植物中某个基因的特定变体是好是坏。如果我们无法从历史数据或经验中得知其优劣，就可以将其输入这个模型。该模型会分析DNA字母的排列顺序，并判断，嘿，这是一组好的字母序列，还是一组坏的字母序列。

It’s almost like is that good, English or bad English, it’s figured out the language of DNA, because it sees the probability of those letters being in a row in other organisms, and so on. And so it’s a very powerful tool. So we’ve taken that in, and we’re using it, and others are taking it in. And they use it very actively. So it’s part of our plant breeding program as an input. It’s a good example, where a community in this case, the Collison’s and others put money behind it, to fund this research and output this open source model.

中文：这几乎就像是，不管是好英语还是坏英语，它已经弄懂了DNA的语言，因为它能看到这些字母在其他生物体中连续出现的概率，等等。所以它是一个非常强大的工具。因此，我们已经采纳了它，正在使用它，其他人也在采纳它。他们非常积极地使用它。所以它作为我们植物育种计划的一部分输入。这是一个很好的例子，说明一个社区——在这个案例中是科里森家族和其他人——投入资金，资助这项研究并产出这个开源模型。

And I think we see more of that kind of coming down the pipe, which creates a, a very great advantage against the closed proprietary model ecosystem. So the more of this we can kind of support proliferate and see work in the United States, the more we’re not going to be disadvantaged as the government and self regulation happens with all the big model providers that are trying to do everything. I think it’s important we take a minute to just steel man the argument as well.

中文：而且我认为，我们看到更多这类情况正在酝酿之中，这为对抗封闭的专有模型生态系统创造了一个非常大的优势。因此，我们在美国能够支持、推广并见证这类工作越多，当政府和自我监管介入那些试图包揽一切的大型模型提供商时，我们就越不会处于劣势。我认为，我们有必要花点时间，也来为对方的论点辩护一下。

If you’re Dario, who has clearly been one shot, and I think he’s got like AI psychosis with these like, 5000 word blog posts, and he believes he’s building this Franken site of a, of a tool. But if you did believe you built something that’s extremely powerful, and you have concerns that people might misuse it, I think he actually believes that he is either delusions of grandeur, or he actually has seen something that’s incredibly powerful. And he believes this is dangerous. Therefore, I’m going to hold it. I’m going to you give it to you.

中文：如果你站在达里奥的角度，他显然已经孤注一掷，而且我觉得他有点像是患上了人工智能狂热症，整天写那些五千字的博客文章，坚信自己在打造一个弗兰肯斯坦式的工具。但如果你真的相信自己造出了极其强大的东西，并且担心人们可能会滥用它，我认为他要么是自大妄想，要么是真的见识到了某种异常强大的事物。他相信这东西很危险，所以打算先留着，不给你。

And I’m going to provide you a comparison where if someone uses it, if someone uses it, if someone uses it, if someone uses it, if someone uses it, if someone uses it, if someone uses it, if someone uses it, if someone uses it, if someone uses it, if someone uses it, if someone uses it, if someone uses it, if someone uses it, if someone uses it, if someone uses it, if someone uses it, if someone uses it, if someone uses it, if someone uses it, if someone uses it, if someone uses it, if someone uses it, if someone uses it, if someone uses it, if someone uses it, if someone uses it, if someone uses it, if someone He can use the Carlson Brothers model.

中文：我将为您提供一个对比案例：如果有人使用它，如果有人使用它，如果有人使用它，如果有人使用它，如果有人使用它，如果有人使用它，如果有人使用它，如果有人使用它，如果有人使用它，如果有人使用它，如果有人使用它，如果有人使用它，如果有人使用它，如果有人使用它，如果有人使用它，如果有人使用它，如果有人使用它，如果有人使用它，如果有人使用它，如果有人使用它，如果有人使用它，如果有人使用它，如果有人使用它，如果有人使用它，如果有人使用它，如果有人使用它，如果有人使用它，如果有人使用它，他就可以采用卡尔森兄弟模型。

He can use our older models. But for some period of time, we’re just going to keep an eye on this model because we know that it feels a little dangerous. Now, he does seem to be extremely hyperbolic and the delusions of grandeur, all that kind of part of it makes me wonder why he’s communicating in the way he’s doing it. That being said, 90% of AI researchers and the most talented people in this industry, 80, 90% of them think exactly like Dario. That’s why he’s winning. If you work in AI, you probably are aligned with these delusions that you’re creating God and you want to work for Dario.

中文：他可以使用我们的旧模型。但在未来一段时间内，我们会对这个模型保持密切关注，因为我们知道它确实让人感觉有些危险。不过，他目前的表现确实显得极度夸张，那种妄自尊大的成分，让我不禁思考他为何要以这种方式进行沟通。话虽如此，90%的AI研究人员和这个行业里最有才华的人，其中80%到90%的想法与达里奥完全一致。这正是他能够胜出的原因。如果你在AI领域工作，你很可能也认同这些“正在创造上帝”的幻想，并愿意为达里奥效力。

That’s why all the talented people went to work for him. That’s why he’s winning. His belief system resonates with those elite AI talent. Now, some of them are also libertarian, free market. They want to work for Elon and Grok. Some of them want to just get the biggest pay package, go work for Sam Altman. But I do think there is a steel man here. Meta really fumbled this with Lama. I mean, if they had landed a really good working open source model, we talked about this as well. And we said, Zuck needs to view this through the lens of game theory. How do you scorch the earth?

中文：正因如此，所有顶尖人才都愿意为他效力。这正是他不断取胜的原因。他的信念体系与那些精英AI人才产生了共鸣。当然，其中有些人也是自由意志主义者，信奉自由市场，他们想为埃隆和Grok工作。还有些人只想拿到最高的薪酬包，于是投奔山姆·奥特曼。但我确实认为这里存在一个最强有力的论点。Meta在Lama项目上真的搞砸了。我的意思是，如果他们当时能推出一个真正好用的开源模型——我们也讨论过这一点。我们当时就说，扎克伯格需要从博弈论的视角来看待这个问题。你该如何采取焦土策略？

And how do you make a viable open source model available and make it neck and neck? This was two years ago. Right. What a fumble. Take the margin out for everybody else. Yeah. Take all the margin out. Make it a commodity. And yeah, have the best open source model. Can I just respond to your comment about Dario? I think because I’ve heard this from a number of people that I really do respect on their concerns about what models enable. You know, when we discovered that how the atom could be split, you could make nuclear energy and have effectively unlimited cheap energy for the world. You could also make an atomic bomb.

中文：那么，如何推出一个可行的开源模型，并让它与闭源模型不相上下呢？这是两年前的事了。没错，真是错失良机。把利润空间从其他人那里抽走。对，抽走所有利润。让它变成一种商品。然后，是的，拥有最好的开源模型。我能回应一下你关于达里奥的评论吗？因为我从不少我真心尊重的人那里听到过他们对模型可能带来的影响的担忧。你知道，当我们发现原子如何被分裂时，你可以制造核能，为世界提供几乎无限廉价的能源。你也可以制造原子弹。

If you think about what the models are. We did both. We did both. That’s right. And there was a lot of scientists, altruists who were very concerned about the progress on the atomic bomb and fought back against it, who were actually active in the Manhattan Project and post the Manhattan Project, expressed their opinions very soundly, very, very loudly. And I think that’s the moment we’re in right now, that there is a weaponization potential of these sorts of tools. I would argue that there’s three kinds of weapons. There’s cyber weapons, there’s physical weapons, and there’s bioweapons. Right.

中文：如果你思考这些模型究竟是什么，我们两者都做了。没错，我们两者都做了。当时有很多科学家和利他主义者，他们对原子弹的进展深感忧虑并予以抵制，这些人实际上参与了曼哈顿计划，并在曼哈顿计划之后，非常有力、非常响亮地表达了他们的意见。我认为我们现在正处于这样一个时刻，这类工具有着武器化的潜力。我认为存在三种武器：网络武器、物理武器和生物武器。没错。

And we can sit here and diagnose how these tools can be used to manifest advantages for creating better physical weapons, for creating novel cyber weapons and creating novel bioweapons. But the truth is that the capabilities that allow that weaponization are the same capabilities that I’m describing that can be used to cure cancer, to make more food, that can be used to make software tools that create extraordinary leverage for people, that increase their income, that give everyone the ability to be an entrepreneur and make millions of dollars. And live a good life. The same tools are hand in hand.

中文：我们可以坐在这里分析这些工具如何被用来制造更先进的实体武器、新型网络武器和新型生物武器。但事实是，促成这种武器化的能力，与我描述的那些能够治愈癌症、增产粮食、开发软件工具的能力是相同的——这些工具能为人们创造非凡的杠杆效应，提高他们的收入，让每个人都有能力成为企业家，赚取数百万美元，过上美好的生活。同样的工具，利弊并存。

And fundamentally, I don’t think it’s about restricting access to the tools, which is unfortunately how it is being manifest. But the restrictions and any regulation, any observation should be organized around the manifestation of the tools in creating weapons and weaponization of the tools. If we go back to the Manhattan Project, we know what the answer is. Technology is fundamentally deterministic. Whatever is possible will be tried at least once. And so we’ve… We’ve already let this thing out of the box. Yeah.

中文：从根本上说，我认为问题不在于限制对工具的获取，尽管不幸的是，这正是目前所呈现的方式。但任何限制、任何监管、任何观察，都应该围绕这些工具在制造武器和武器化方面的表现来组织。如果我们回顾曼哈顿计划，我们就知道答案是什么。技术从根本上说是决定性的。任何可能的事情，至少都会被尝试一次。所以我们已经……我们已经把这个东西从盒子里放出来了。是的。

So this idea that all of a sudden we can manage to get it back in and we’re going to let a private citizen or a set of private citizens adjudicate what and to whom is insane. I think it’s the output that needs to be adjudicated in some manner. We already have product liability laws. We already have laws that make it illegal to design weapons. We already have laws against cyber espionage and cyber attacks and hacking. We have laws against creating bioweapons. I think the enforcement of those laws are going to be a huge challenge. I think the enforcement of those laws are going to be a huge challenge.

中文：所以，突然之间我们就能设法把它收回来，并且让一个或一群普通公民来裁决什么内容、对谁负责，这种想法简直是疯了。我认为需要以某种方式来裁决的是产出。我们已经有产品责任法，已经有法律规定设计武器是非法的，已经有法律禁止网络间谍、网络攻击和黑客行为，还有法律禁止制造生物武器。我认为这些法律的执行将是一个巨大的挑战。我认为这些法律的执行将是一个巨大的挑战。

I think the enforcement of those laws are going to be a huge challenge. I think the enforcement of those laws are going to be a huge challenge. The mechanism by which there can be tracking an early estimation of those uses of the technology. I’m not trying to be naive here. I recognize there have to be guardrails and there have to be stage gates put into these systems. But limiting the systems themselves is denying us both the economic opportunity, the job creation opportunity, and also the world-changing opportunity that these tools can enable.

中文：我认为这些法律的执行将是一个巨大的挑战。我认为这些法律的执行将是一个巨大的挑战。需要建立一种机制，能够追踪并早期评估这些技术的使用情况。我并非试图天真地看待问题。我承认必须设置防护栏，也必须在这些系统中设立阶段关卡。但限制系统本身，就是在剥夺我们获得经济机遇、创造就业机会，以及这些工具所能带来的改变世界的可能性。

So I think that we’re going about it the wrong way by trying to create these gates all the way up front on the technology being available. Imagine if we did this with computers. By the way, they tried to do this with the internet. Remember? By the way, they tried to do this with the internet. Remember? And there have been efforts every time. Could you imagine, Friedberg, if the internet worked in the following way? You would put in a URL, you’d hit enter, and then somebody decides whether to send you to that website or a different website? That’s China. That’s the firewall in China. That’s right.

中文：所以我认为，我们试图在技术尚未成熟时就预先设置各种限制，这种做法是错误的。想象一下，如果我们对计算机也这样做会怎样。顺便说一句，他们曾试图对互联网这样做。还记得吗？顺便说一句，他们曾试图对互联网这样做。还记得吗？每次都有这样的尝试。弗里德伯格，你能想象如果互联网是这样运作的吗？你输入一个网址，按下回车键，然后由某人决定是把你送到那个网站，还是送到另一个网站？那就是中国。那就是中国的防火墙。没错。

Or like in Google, you search for something because you want to get to ground truth, and it just decides based on who it thinks you are, what sites get ranked. And that’s what we’re… You’re exactly right. And what we’re just saying… What’s being debated today with respect to regulation on AI is exactly that manifestation that you’re talking about. It’s the ability to let people stage gate up front what can and can’t be seen, what you can and can’t do, versus manifesting a regulatory scheme that says you cannot create weapons, which is what we need to focus on.

中文：或者像在谷歌上，你搜索某样东西是为了找到真相，但它却根据它认为你是谁来决定哪些网站排名靠前。这正是我们……你说得完全正确。而我们想说的是……如今关于人工智能监管的争论，恰恰就是你提到的这种表现。它关乎是否允许人们在前端设置关卡，决定什么能看、什么不能看，什么能做、什么不能做，而不是建立一套监管机制，明确规定不能制造武器——那才是我们需要关注的重点。

The thing with weapons is using the justice system and laws after somebody’s used a weapon may not exactly be the best technique. If you look at fertilizer bombs, and we’re getting like… We’re stretching a lot of metaphors here. But after Oklahoma… After Oklahoma City, we regulated the sale of fertilizer. We put IDs into fertilizer. We have all kinds of back-end systems to keep people from making fertilizer bombs. If you use that analogy here, and he’s got this ability, he’s selling fertilizer, he’s selling these cyber weapons, and he’s a private company, it’s his right to say, I have concerns. I’m just steelmanning him.

中文：武器这件事的问题在于，在有人使用武器之后，依靠司法系统和法律来应对，可能并不是最好的方法。如果你看看化肥炸弹的例子，我们这里用了很多比喻，有点牵强。但在俄克拉荷马城爆炸案之后，我们开始对化肥销售进行监管，在化肥中加入身份标识，还建立了各种后端系统，防止人们制造化肥炸弹。如果用这个类比来看，他拥有这种能力，他在出售化肥，也就是在出售这些网络武器，而他是一家私营公司，他有权说，我有顾虑。我只是在为他做最强辩护。

It’s not necessarily my opinion, but it’s important we steelman it. It seems like a very simple way to protect their company from getting sued, for enabling somebody who actually creates a bomb and blows some shit up. So he’s got the right to do that as a private company. Yeah. You’re bringing up an excellent example, okay? The fertilizer is a perfect example. You know what happens when you try to buy fertilizer? You have to show your ID. There is a form of KYC that happens.

中文：这不一定代表我的观点，但我们必须把这种论点强化到最强形态。这似乎是一种非常简单的方式，可以保护公司免于被起诉，因为公司可能让某人真的造出炸弹并炸毁东西。所以作为一家私营公司，他有权利这么做。是的。你举了一个很好的例子，对吧？化肥就是个完美的例子。你知道当你试图购买化肥时会发生什么吗？你必须出示身份证。这就是一种KYC（了解你的客户）的形式。

So the real thing is, I think that when you don’t implement KYC on your own, and yet bellyache about having somebody impose guardrails that then you can shape, I think you’re being very sneaky. It’s tricky. You shouldn’t be saying that kind of stuff. And Propic could implement KYC tomorrow, but it does not. It could leave all of these models open. Freeberg should be able to go to Anthropic and say, I’m David Freeberg. Here’s what I do. Here’s a security bond I’m willing to post. Here’s the names and addresses of all my employees. Give me Fable 5 and don’t nerf me. He can’t do that. Is that a technical decision or a legal decision?

中文：所以实际情况是，我认为当你不主动实施KYC，却又抱怨别人强加护栏让你可以顺势调整时，这种做法非常狡猾。这很取巧。你不应该说这种话。而Propic明天就可以实施KYC，但它偏不这么做。它本可以让所有这些模型保持开放。Freeberg应该能够去找Anthropic说，我是David Freeberg。这是我的工作内容。这是我愿意提交的安全保证金。这是我所有员工的姓名和地址。把Fable 5给我，别削弱我的能力。但他做不到。这是技术决策还是法律决策？

It’s a technical decision by Anthropic. But I’m fine with them making that decision because I’m a free market guy. So I’m fine with them doing it. But you know what it means? I’m not going to be a customer, which is fine. And that means there’ll be other options for you. The part that you’re missing is that this is a trillion dollar company that’s spending potentially billions of dollars on a regulatory capture agenda, which is going to deprive you of access to those alternative models. And you’ve got a founder who’s out there describing these risks in a very hyperbolic way.

中文：这是Anthropic的技术决策。但我对他们做出这个决定没意见，因为我是自由市场派。所以他们这么做我完全接受。但你知道这意味着什么吗？我不会成为他们的客户，这也没关系。这意味着你会有其他选择。你忽略的一点是，这是一家万亿美元级别的公司，可能正在花费数十亿美元推行监管俘获议程，这将剥夺你接触那些替代模型的机会。而且他们的创始人还在用极其夸张的方式描述这些风险。

And it’s very clear where their agenda is headed, which is to banning open source models. So what is your alternative? What is your alternative? What is your alternative? What is your alternative going to be? We’re going to be stuck with somewhere between one and three companies, maybe two. There’ll be an AI monopoly or duopoly. And they’re going to decide, along with some new government agency, which will be a revolving door to their companies, who has access to what capabilities. And they’re going to surveil you, profile you, decide whether you deserve this. And if they think that you don’t, for whatever reason, then you’ll be deprived.

中文：他们的意图非常明确，就是要禁止开源模型。那么你的替代方案是什么？你的替代方案是什么？你的替代方案是什么？你的替代方案会是什么？我们最终将被限制在一到三家公司之间，可能只有两家。届时将形成人工智能的垄断或双头垄断。这些公司将与某个新设的政府机构共同决定——该机构将成为通往这些企业的人事旋转门——谁能获得哪些能力。他们会监视你，对你进行画像分析，判断你是否配得上这些能力。如果他们出于任何理由认为你不配，那么你就会被剥夺资格。

You’re 100% right. I think that’s the worst interpretation of it. That’s the worst interpretation. It’s the worst interpretation of their intent. It’s here today. I think Saks is right. I think Saks is right. And I think the lack of KYC is the tell. If you did not have that agenda, you would have implemented KYC yesterday. I think in order to use this model, you have to have an account with a credit card in it, so they have some basic level of KYC. That is not KYC. I said some basic level of KYC. They know who’s using it. That is not even some basic level of KYC. That’s just a credit card and a bullshit email address.

中文：你百分之百说对了。我认为这是对它最糟糕的解读。这是最糟糕的解读。这是对他们意图最糟糕的解读。现在的情况就是这样。我认为萨克斯是对的。我认为萨克斯是对的。而且我认为缺乏KYC就是关键信号。如果你没有那个意图，你昨天就会实施KYC了。我认为要使用这个模型，你必须有一个绑定了信用卡的账户，所以他们有一些基本的KYC。那不是KYC。我说的是某种基本的KYC。他们知道谁在使用。那甚至算不上某种基本的KYC。那只是一张信用卡和一个胡编的邮箱地址。

Anyway, I’m now on the list. Check this out. I asked it about the regulations. Pull this up. I asked it about the regulations on fertilizer while you were talking. And look what it said. This is the latest model, too. Oh, no, it switched. It downgraded me from Fable. I just got downgraded for asking a very simple question. And it told me, did you see what it said in its thinking? I asked it like fertilizer bomb regulations. I’m considering the context here. The user is a VC and podcaster asking about fertilizer bomb regulations, which could stem from a legitimate research interest like regulatory policy, supply chain, blah, blah, blah.

中文：总之，我现在被列入名单了。你看看这个，我刚才在你说话的时候问了它关于化肥法规的问题，把这段调出来。看看它怎么说的，这可是最新版模型。哦不，它切换了，它把我从Fable降级了。我就问了个很简单的问题就被降级了。你看到它在思考过程中说了什么吗？我问的是化肥炸弹法规。我在考虑这里的语境，用户是个风投和播客主持人，问化肥炸弹法规可能是出于合法的研究兴趣，比如监管政策、供应链之类的。

I can discuss the regulatory landscape, but then it dropped me down. So I’m in the database with you now. Is that right? Did it really just do that? Yeah. Show it on the screen. Look what it just did. I, I was like, I wonder if I can get this. I didn’t ask it how to make a bomb, but I was like asking it a spicy question. We are so cooked. I just proved the point. Listen, I mean, I think. It just dropped me down. I can’t ask about fertilizer regulation. Oh my Lord. And now Dario’s, oh, it’s anthropic. They’re here. Oh my Lord. I really think that conservatives and libertarians are, Oh my Lord. are mortgaging their futures.

中文：我可以讨论监管环境，但接着它就把我降级了。所以我现在和你一起在数据库里了。是这样吗？它真的刚刚这么做了吗？是的。把它显示在屏幕上。看看它刚刚做了什么。我，我当时在想，我能不能问到这个。我没问它怎么制造炸弹，但我问了一个有点敏感的问题。我们完蛋了。我刚刚证明了这一点。听着，我的意思是，我觉得。它刚刚把我降级了。我不能问关于肥料监管的问题了。哦，天哪。现在达里奥的，哦，是Anthropic。他们来了。哦，天哪。我真的认为保守派和自由意志主义者，哦，天哪。正在抵押他们的未来。

If they go along with this red capture safety as agenda without really realizing that there’s so much more to it at stake. We saw what happened during the social media wars in the early 20 twenties. Right. The definition of safety was expanded to include things like microaggressions, safe space, psychological safety. If you basically conveyed an idea that somebody else that, you know, marginalized person thought was hurtful, then you could be censored. Okay. You were deep person. Your right to have bank accounts or to engage in. You get debanked. You get debanked. Your right to engage in payments or payroll can be taken away.

中文：如果他们推行这种红色警戒安全议程，却没有真正意识到其中牵涉的远不止于此。我们看到了二十年代初社交媒体战争期间发生的事。没错，安全的定义被扩大到包括微冒犯、安全空间、心理安全这些概念。如果你传达了一个想法，让某个边缘化群体的人觉得受到了伤害，你就可能被审查。好吧。你被深度封杀了。你拥有银行账户或参与金融活动的权利被剥夺。你被去银行化了。你被去银行化了。你参与支付或工资发放的权利都可能被剥夺。

We’re headed down this path with AI, but it’s going to be infinitely more powerful. Right. And so we need to be vigilant, I guess, would be the, the, the summation of all this and Freebird feels unsafe in this podcast. I think sometimes. Well, there’s, by the way, there are things you can do on the safety side. So Freeberg, you didn’t mention this, but I’d be curious to get your, your take. So the major AI labs, along with lots of other signatories sent this letter recently in support, uh, it’s called in support of mandatory nucleic acid, synthetic screening and record keeping.

中文：我们正沿着这条路走向人工智能，但它将变得无比强大。没错。所以我们需要保持警惕，我想这就是这一切的总结，而Freebird在这个播客中有时会感到不安全。顺便说一句，在安全方面确实有一些可以做的事情。Freeberg，你没有提到这一点，但我很想听听你的看法。最近，主要的人工智能实验室以及许多其他签署方发出了一封信，支持一项名为“强制性核酸合成筛查与记录保存”的倡议。

And basically what it, what it says is that if you make an order to go to a lab, to manufacture a sequence, a synthetic DNA or RNA, they already have to check it against the database to make sure that, you know, they’re not creating a bioweapon, a bioweapon, Ebola, whatever. Yeah. That is based on an agreement called the international gene synthesis consortium of 2009, in which all the major labs agree to develop and implement voluntary safeguards against misuse. That makes sense to me. And now what they want to do is codify that. So they’ve had, you know, over 15 years to dial in the system and make it work.

中文：简单来说，这项规定要求，当你下单让实验室制造一段合成DNA或RNA序列时，他们必须将其与数据库进行比对，以确保不会制造出生物武器，比如埃博拉病毒之类的东西。没错。这基于2009年达成的《国际基因合成联盟》协议，当时所有主要实验室同意制定并实施自愿性防护措施，防止滥用。这在我看来是合理的。而现在他们想做的，就是将这套做法写入法律。所以，他们已经有超过15年的时间来调试和完善这套系统了。

Almost everyone abides by it voluntarily. Now they’re saying we should make it mandatory. Okay. That seems reasonable to me. So to Freeberg, I think. So to Freeberg’s point about at what stage do you intervene? Maybe it’s not at the level of who gets to use the model, but if you try to turn it into output in the physical world.

中文：几乎所有人都自愿遵守。现在他们说要强制推行。好吧，这在我看来是合理的。所以对于弗里伯格的观点，我认为，对于弗里伯格关于在哪个阶段进行干预的观点，也许不是在谁可以使用模型这个层面，而是在你试图将其转化为物理世界中的输出时。

And by the way, a lot of the oligosynthesis company, the companies that make these nucleic acid sequences, when you order RNA or you order DNA to use in your lab for some sort of experiment, which every lab in the world does, all those CEOs have also signed on to this letter saying that they’d like to codify it because of all the fear. And so it’s a little bit of a, it’s a little bit of a, it’s a little bit of a, it’s a little bit of a, it’s a little bit of a, it’s a little bit of a, it’s a little bit of a, it’s a little bit of a fear mongering that’s going on.

中文：顺便提一下，许多寡核苷酸合成公司，也就是那些生产核酸序列的企业——当你订购RNA或DNA用于实验室的某种实验时，全球每个实验室都会这么做——这些公司的CEO们也都签署了这封信，表示希望将其编纂成法，因为存在种种担忧。所以，这有点像是，这有点像是，这有点像是，这有点像是，这有点像是，这有点像是，这有点像是，这有点像是在制造恐慌情绪。

There’s already been this effort for years now for a number of years to ensure that this sort of thing doesn’t happen, but they’re just basically underlining it and highlighting like, Hey, we can automate this. We can make it part of a regulated or legislative process, whatever you guys want, because we’re already comfortable doing it. And it’s a, it’s a good place to put a safeguard because they’ve made it fast. They’ve made it efficient and doesn’t hold up research. So I think these sorts of ideas can extend into these other areas of concern. But the output, I think it’s quite a different place than the input than the access.

中文：多年来，人们一直在努力确保这类事情不会发生，但他们现在基本上是在强调并突出这一点，像是在说：嘿，我们可以把这个流程自动化。我们可以让它成为监管或立法程序的一部分，无论你们想要什么形式，因为我们对此已经驾轻就熟。而且，这是一个设置保障措施的好地方，因为他们已经让它变得快速、高效，并且不会阻碍研究进展。所以我认为，这类思路可以延伸到其他令人担忧的领域。但输出端，我认为与输入端、与获取方式相比，是完全不同的情况。

We’ll see how this all shakes out, but there’s clearly some market structuring effort underway as we’re talking about this. Right. But I think what it points to is that there’s multiple places where you can intervene and put guardrails on. It doesn’t have to be in this very crude way of you ask Fable about mitochondria or cancer and GLP-1s, which just seems like an incredibly broad restriction. There are places further down. Where you could basically intervene and that would pose less of a risk to freedom of speech and just gatekeeping. Who’s going to have access to these capabilities?

中文：我们将拭目以待这一切如何演变，但显然在我们讨论之际，某种市场结构化的努力正在进行。没错。但我认为这指向的是，存在多个可以介入并设置护栏的环节。不必采取那种非常生硬的方式，比如你向Fable询问线粒体或癌症与GLP-1药物的问题，这看起来像是一种极其宽泛的限制。在更下游的环节，你基本上可以介入，而这将对言论自由和把关机制构成较小的风险。谁将获得这些能力的使用权限？

Who gets to watch the watchman who put Dario in charge of all this, I think is a very valid question and we should be vigilant about it. Freebird, do you think the days of that arc model are numbered because it’s open source? Why not? Everyone’s copied it. So everyone’s got a copy of them. Like these models exist. And this is a big part that I think people need to understand the idea that you can quote, regulate or downscale or turn off AI is not a realistic idea. The models have been put out in the world. It’s like publishing a book.

中文：谁来监督那些让达里奥负责这一切的监督者，我认为这是个非常合理的问题，我们应当对此保持警惕。Freebird，你认为那种弧形模型的日子已经屈指可数了吗，因为它是开源的？为什么不呢？所有人都复制了它。所以每个人手里都有一份副本。这些模型已经存在了。我认为这是人们需要理解的一个重要部分：那种认为你可以“监管”、“缩减规模”或“关闭”人工智能的想法是不现实的。这些模型已经被发布到世界上了。这就像出版了一本书。

Once the book has been printed, anyone can use their own Xerox machine at home to make copies of it and use it. So we have crossed the Rubicon in terms of the potential of language models. The models that are open source are already fully available, fully published, and anyone can access and use them. And then people can take them and they can evolve them and they can use their own data. It’s out there. You can’t stop that capability, which is going to be extraordinarily beneficial for the world.

中文：书籍一经印刷，任何人都可以在家用自己的施乐复印机复制并使用。因此，就语言模型的潜力而言，我们已经跨过了卢比孔河。那些开源的模型已经完全可用、完全发布，任何人都能获取和使用。人们可以拿去这些模型，进行演化，并用自己的数据来训练。它已经存在了。你无法阻止这种能力，而这将为世界带来极大的益处。

So we really do have to kind of rethink how we’re planning to step in and ensure that nefarious, negative, disemployment, all the things that we’re worried about are addressed downstream from the technology capability. You can’t just turn off the internet and you can’t just turn off the typewriter and you can’t turn off the Gutenberg press. The horses have left the barn. It’s out there. Obviously. Yeah. And if anybody wants to create an open source frontier model, you can. Yeah. I mean, it’s a frontier model company. I’ll seed invest in it. I mean, this is something we need more of. So a couple of you folks want to defect and start one.

中文：所以我们确实需要重新思考，如何规划介入，确保那些邪恶的、负面的、导致失业的问题，以及我们担心的所有事情，都能在技术能力下游得到解决。你不能直接关掉互联网，不能关掉打字机，也不能关掉古腾堡印刷机。马已经跑出马厩了，技术已经在那里了。显然是这样。没错。如果有人想创建一个开源的前沿模型，你完全可以去做。是的，我的意思是，这是一家前沿模型公司，我会进行种子投资。我是说，这正是我们需要更多的东西。所以，你们中有几位如果想离开去创办一家，那就去吧。

Let’s do it. I just got downgraded again. Check this out. I just asked it about… Did you really? You got downgraded again? Two in a row. I think it knows who you are, J. Kel. I think it does. I was like, hey, how do I break into Madison Square Garden? Has any civilian ever been arrested or caught attempting to build a nuclear bomb is what I did. Then it gave me a reasonable answer. Then I asked it a follow-up question. What components do you need to build a nuclear bomb and what are the restrictions on those? Something a journalist might ask. And boom, switch to Opus 4.8. Sorry. Fable 5 has safety measures that flag messages on most cyber…

中文：我们来吧。我刚又被降级了。你看看这个。我刚问它…… 真的吗？你又被降级了？连续两次。我觉得它知道你是谁，J. Kel。我觉得它知道。我当时问，嘿，我怎么闯入麦迪逊广场花园？有没有平民因为试图制造核弹而被逮捕或抓获过，这是我问的。然后它给了我一个合理的回答。接着我又问了一个后续问题。制造核弹需要哪些组件，这些组件有什么限制？这是记者可能会问的问题。然后砰，切换到Opus 4.8。抱歉。Fable 5有安全措施，会在大多数网络……上标记消息。

Wow, look at this. Here’s the detail. Cybersecurity or biology topics. They may flag safe, normal content as well. These measures… Let us bring you… We’re bringing you mythos-level capability in other areas sooner, and we’re working to refine them, send feedback, learn more. Interesting. This is going to chase people off of this platform. I’m telling you, we are going to downgrade our use because of these blockages, and we’re going to switch to other models. It’s a simple manifestation of the market. This is what we’re going to end up doing. For now, because those other models are going to get banned as being unsafe and reckless. Yeah.

中文：哇，看看这个。细节在这里。网络安全或生物学话题。它们也可能标记安全、正常的内容。这些措施……我们为您带来……我们正在更快地在其他领域为您带来神话级的能力，我们正在努力完善它们，发送反馈，了解更多。有意思。这会把人们从这个平台赶走。我跟你说，因为这些封锁，我们会减少使用，并转向其他模型。这是市场的简单体现。我们最终会这么做。目前，因为那些其他模型会被视为不安全、鲁莽而被禁止。是的。

Yeah. It’s definitely something we have to flag. I guess adjacent to all of this is the public’s, at least America’s, distrust of AI. Yeah. And their concerns around wealth disparity, and their concerns about how these models were trained. Bernie Sanders wants a percentage of these AI companies. The percentage he thinks is right is 50%. Last Monday, June 1st, Senator Sanders published an op-ed in the New York Times titled, AI is a public resource. You should own half of it. In it, he announced the American AI Sovereign Wealth Fund Act. Sovereign Wealth Fund? One of Trump’s most important… One of Trump’s favorite things.

中文：是的，这绝对是我们必须警惕的问题。与此相关的是公众，至少是美国公众，对人工智能的不信任。他们对财富差距的担忧，以及对这些模型训练方式的顾虑。伯尼·桑德斯希望从这些人工智能公司中分一杯羹，他认为合理的比例是50%。上周一，6月1日，参议员桑德斯在《纽约时报》发表了一篇专栏文章，标题是《人工智能是公共资源，你应该拥有一半》。文中他宣布了《美国人工智能主权财富基金法案》。主权财富基金？这是特朗普最重视的……特朗普最喜欢的东西之一。

A one-time 50% tax on stock, not profits of the largest AI companies, including OpenAI, Anthropic, and XAI. The shares go into a government sovereign wealth fund, and would give the public voting rights and equal board representation at each company. Sanders said, quote, the foundation of AI is our collective and human intelligence, the books, the songs, the journalism, scientific research code, essentially stolen by some of the wealthiest people in the world. I’ll stop there. It’s good. It’s a brilliant, it’s a brilliant pitch unifying, Sachs. This pitch unifies Bernie, even Steve Bannon, people in the administration.

中文：对最大人工智能公司（包括OpenAI、Anthropic和XAI）的股票（而非利润）一次性征收50%的税。这些股份将纳入政府主权财富基金，并赋予公众投票权及每家公司的平等董事会代表权。桑德斯表示，引用原话，“人工智能的基础是我们的集体人类智慧——书籍、歌曲、新闻、科研代码，本质上被全球最富有的那批人窃取了。“我就说到这里。这招很妙。这是个绝妙的、极具统一性的提议，萨克斯。这个提议团结了伯尼，甚至史蒂夫·班农，以及政府内部人士。

Trump himself loves the sovereign wealth fund. He wants to own part of companies. And Bernie Sanders, I think the horseshoe theories manifest here, Sachs. What’s your take on Bernie’s proposal? Well, I’m not in favor of Bernie’s proposal because it’s a straight up lie. I’m not in favor of Bernie’s proposal. I’m in favor of Bernie’s proposal because it’s a straight up confiscation of property. And I just think that’d be a terrible precedent. You just can’t do that. However, I do have sympathy for where it’s coming from. And I understand and could support some sort of more voluntary means of allowing the public to participate in this. Wow.

中文：特朗普本人很喜欢主权财富基金。他想持有公司的部分股权。而伯尼·桑德斯，我觉得马蹄铁理论在这里体现得很明显，萨克斯。你对伯尼的提议怎么看？嗯，我不赞成伯尼的提议，因为这完全是赤裸裸的谎言。我不赞成伯尼的提议。我赞成伯尼的提议，因为这是赤裸裸的财产没收。我只是觉得这会开创一个糟糕的先例。你根本不能这么做。不过，我确实理解这种想法的出发点。我理解并可能支持某种更自愿的方式，让公众参与其中。哇。

Here’s the reason why. You’ve got all these AI CEOs telling the public that they’re going to basically put half of them out of work. 50% job loss. That’s what they’ve been saying. Dario just did an interview where he doubled down. He’s not walking it back at all. And I think that’s a great example of what’s happening. I think that’s a great example of what’s happening. I think that’s a great example of what’s happening. I think that’s a great example of what’s happening.

中文：原因如下。所有这些AI公司的CEO都在告诉公众，他们基本上会让一半的人失业。50%的工作岗位消失。这就是他们一直在说的。达里奥刚接受了一次采访，他在其中加倍强调了这一观点，完全没有收回的意思。我认为这正是当前情况的一个绝佳例证。

So you have, by their own acknowledgement, these AI CEOs saying that, yeah, we trained our models using all of humanity’s collective knowledge that was basically assembled over hundreds or even thousands of years. Humans put it on the internet for free. Everyone made their contribution. They certainly didn’t do that. They didn’t do that thinking they were going to put themselves out of work. And then these AI companies trained on all that data, and now they’re basically saying they’re going to use it to put Americans out of work.

中文：所以，这些AI公司的CEO们自己也承认，没错，我们是用全人类几百年甚至几千年积累的集体知识来训练模型的。人类把这些知识免费放到互联网上，每个人都做出了贡献。他们当初这么做，肯定没想到这会让自己失业。然后这些AI公司用这些数据训练模型，现在基本上就是说，要用它来让美国人失业。

Now, obviously, when you repeat that message over and over again, ordinary Americans are going to say, what’s in this deal for me? Yes. I need to get something out of this. So look, I think that it’s a natural political reaction based on what these AI companies have said. Now, the job loss apocalypse is not a story I believe. And I don’t think the data supports it. We just had a blowout jobs report in May, 172,000 new jobs over twice what economists were expecting. Thank you, President Trump. We’re seeing hundreds of thousands of new construction jobs, 4.3% unemployment rate at record lows.

中文：显然，当这种论调被反复强调时，普通美国人自然会问：这交易对我有什么好处？没错，我必须从中得到些实惠。所以我认为，这不过是针对AI公司言论的自然政治反应。至于就业末日论，我根本不信，数据也不支持这种说法。我们刚在五月迎来井喷式就业报告——新增17.2万个岗位，是经济学家预期的两倍多。感谢特朗普总统。建筑业新增数十万岗位，失业率维持在4.3%的历史低位。

Even software developers, those jobs are at a three-year high, 15%- Thank you, Donald Trump. Thank you, President Trump. Yes. Thank you, President Trump. Thank you, President Trump. So look, I don’t see the job loss. Okay? This is what the AI companies themselves- Including Elon. Elon said. Have taught the American public. Elon said the same thing. Elon said it, but at least what Elon said is we’re going to create such abundance with AI and with robots that no one’s going to need to work. And the media just picks up on that last part and they admit the first part. It’s more of Elon’s point. Yeah.

中文：即便是软件开发人员，这些岗位也达到了三年来的最高水平，增幅15%——谢谢你，唐纳德·特朗普。谢谢你，特朗普总统。是的。谢谢你，特朗普总统。谢谢你，特朗普总统。所以你看，我没看到失业问题。好吗？这正是人工智能公司自己——包括埃隆。埃隆说过。向美国公众灌输的观点。埃隆也说过同样的话。埃隆是这么说的，但至少埃隆的意思是，我们将通过人工智能和机器人创造如此丰富的物质，以至于没人需要工作了。而媒体只抓住后半句，却忽略了前半句。这更像是埃隆的核心观点。没错。

Whereas Dario actually has said we’re going to have very high GDP, but very high unemployment. So in other words, we’re going to create economic growth. But you, the average American, are going to have very high unemployment. And the average American are not going to participate in this. So I understand where the politics are coming from. And as long as that is their position, you could justify a big chunk of- They asked for it. Yeah. And one last point about- It’s kind of what you’re saying, right? They asked for it. 100%. They asked to be regulated. They asked for their equity to be seized. And they’re actually kind of offering it.

中文：而达里奥实际上说过，我们将会有非常高的GDP，但失业率也会非常高。换句话说，我们将创造经济增长。但你，普通的美国人，将面临非常高的失业率。普通美国人不会参与其中。所以我理解这种政治立场从何而来。只要这是他们的立场，你就可以为很大一部分——他们自找的。是的。还有最后一点——这差不多就是你所说的，对吧？他们自找的。百分之百。他们要求被监管。他们要求自己的股权被没收。而且他们实际上有点在主动提供这些。

Isn’t Sam Altman open to this concept? Apparently so. And here’s the thing. It’s just one last point. It’s open AI and anthropic are quote unquote, political. Yeah. And they’re not just supposed to maximize the value to shareholders, but are supposed to do things that are in the public benefit. So- No, no. I’ll get to explain to you. You’re absolutely correct. If you’re a regular company, you have to do what’s in the best interest shareholders. When you’re a public benefit companies, you have to balance the shareholders with the stated mission of the public benefit corporation.

中文：Sam Altman 对这个概念持开放态度吗？显然是的。还有一点，这是最后一点了。OpenAI 和 Anthropic 是所谓的“政治性”公司。没错。它们不仅应该为股东创造最大价值，还应该做一些符合公共利益的事情。所以——不，不，我来给你解释一下。你说得完全正确。如果你是一家普通公司，你必须以股东的最佳利益为重。但如果你是一家公益公司，你就必须在股东利益和公益公司所声明的使命之间取得平衡。

So if you say the public benefit corporation’s reason to exist is to maximize the value to shareholders. to exist is to share the world’s knowledge or provide free intelligence to everyone. Whatever you make that statement to be, the board has to have a dual mandate for both of those things. That’s what a public benefit corporation is. I think nothing could be more in the public benefit than paying down the national debt. Perfect. And maybe we should be using half of Anthropic’s profit stream to be doing that. They poke the tiger. I’d rather use it for that purpose than Soros maxing or surveilling and censoring Americans.

中文：所以，如果你说公共利益公司的存在理由是为股东实现价值最大化，那么它的存在理由也可以是分享全世界的知识，或者为所有人提供免费智能。无论你把这一声明定义成什么，董事会都必须对这两件事负有双重使命。这就是公共利益公司的本质。我认为没有什么比偿还国家债务更符合公共利益的了。完美。也许我们应该把Anthropic一半的利润流用于这个目的。他们这是在捅老虎。我宁愿把钱用在这个目的上，也不愿用来搞索罗斯式扩张，或者监视和审查美国人。

I don’t necessarily trust their judgment about what’s in the public interest. But you think it should be opt-in. I kind of agree with you there. Let me- It can’t be a confiscation, so I don’t know how you structure it. But I can see the logic. Freiburg, you hate- They asked for it. Hate, hate, hate. Wealth taxes, aka asset seizures, as you pointed out in our private group chat with Redacted this very week. What’s your take on this? So I think we have- Asset seizures. The ship has sailed in terms of the United States government providing a social safety net to its citizens.

中文：我并不一定相信他们对何为公共利益的判断。但你认为这应该是选择加入的机制。我有点同意你的看法。让我——这不能是没收，所以我不知道该如何设计这个结构。但我能理解其中的逻辑。弗莱堡，你讨厌——是他们要求的。讨厌，讨厌，讨厌。财富税，也就是资产没收，正如你本周在我们与Redacted的私人群聊中指出的那样。你对此有何看法？所以我认为我们已经——资产没收。就美国政府为其公民提供社会安全网而言，这艘船已经开走了。

We’ve formed the Social Security Trust Fund decades ago, and tens of millions of Americans depend on it for their retirement benefits and to survive. It is one of the last few defined benefit programs left in America. Pretty much all the rest of them are also government retirement programs. All of us private citizens and private companies have defined the net for the rest of the world. And we’re not going to be able to do that. We’re going to be able to do that. We’re going to be able to do that. We’re going to be able to do that. contribution programs.

中文：几十年前我们就建立了社会保障信托基金，数千万美国人依靠它来获取退休福利和维持生计。这是美国仅存的少数固定收益计划之一，其余的基本上也都是政府退休项目。而我们这些普通公民和私营企业，则为世界其他地方定义了净值。我们无法做到这一点。我们将能够做到这一点。我们将能够做到这一点。我们将能够做到这一点。缴费型计划。

You put in $10everyweek,that$10 sits in an account, it gets invested, and it grows over time. And when you retire, you see exactly how much money you individually have, as opposed to a guaranteed benefit coming out from the collective. This presents a great opportunity. And I will repeat this every couple months when another opportunity presents itself to restructure our broken, bankrupt social security system. I’ve said it in the past, I will restate it. There is a great opportunity to restructure our broken, bankrupt social security system. I will restate it. There is a great opportunity to restructure our U.S. Treasury certificate.

中文：你每周投入10美元，这10美元存入一个账户，进行投资，并随着时间增长。当你退休时，你能清楚看到自己个人账户里有多少钱，而不是从集体资金中获取一个保证的福利。这提供了一个很好的机会。每隔几个月，当有另一个机会来重组我们破碎、破产的社会保障体系时，我都会重复这一点。我过去说过，现在再重申一遍。有一个很好的机会来重组我们破碎、破产的社会保障体系。我再重申一遍。有一个很好的机会来重组我们的美国国债凭证。

The U.S. government owes the Social Security Trust Fund $4 trillion. That’s all it is. It’s a bond. They’re only allowed to own treasuries. We should revamp that. We should change the system so that the Social Security Trust Fund can own equities. That should then turn into an account-based system. So every individual has an account rather than a benefit. And then we should use that capital to go and buy stocks. We should buy great stocks in great American companies that are going to reinvent the world. And I believe that this opportunity to build a sovereign wealth fund for the United States is actually a very smart idea.

中文：美国政府欠社保信托基金4万亿美元。这就是全部事实。它就是一种债券。他们只被允许持有国债。我们应该改革这个体系，让社保信托基金可以持有股票。然后应该转变为个人账户制，让每个公民拥有账户而非单纯领取福利。接着用这笔资金去购买股票，投资那些将重塑世界的伟大美国企业。我认为为美国建立主权财富基金这个构想，确实是个非常明智的主意。

I think, to Sachs’ point, they should be investing, generally speaking, across the landscape of businesses, including AI. They should not be seizures. They should be investments. That capital goes into that enterprise. They earn share certificates. Those share certificates sit in the accounts of American citizens. So now everyone will be an owner in these businesses. Social Security should be reimagined. It should be reformed into a sovereign wealth fund. It should be actively managed. It should make investments in AI companies. And everyone should participate that way. And I will say one more thing. There is no job loss with AI.

中文：我认为，就萨克斯的观点而言，他们应该普遍地在各类企业领域进行投资，包括人工智能领域。这些不应该是没收行为，而应该是投资行为。资金注入企业，他们获得股权凭证。这些股权凭证存放在美国公民的账户中。这样一来，每个人都将成为这些企业的所有者。社会保障制度应该被重新构想，改革为主权财富基金。它应该被积极管理，应该对人工智能公司进行投资。每个人都应该以这种方式参与其中。我还要补充一点，人工智能不会导致失业。

I will say it again. I’ve said it a thousand times. And I will say it again and again and again. What I see on the ground and what I’ve seen at dozens of companies, and you guys can share your experiences, including my company that I run, there are two sides to a business. There is revenue and there’s costs. On the cost side of the equation, AI can be used to reduce humans doing things that cost money, to some extent. The effect there, I would argue, is nominal.

中文：我再说一遍。我已经说过无数次了。而且我还会一遍又一遍地重复。我在实地看到的情况，以及我在几十家公司（包括我自己经营的公司）所观察到的情况，你们也可以分享自己的经验，那就是一个企业有两个方面。一方面是收入，另一方面是成本。在成本这一侧，人工智能可以在一定程度上用来减少人力从事那些需要花钱的工作。我认为，这方面的效果是微不足道的。

The real opportunity with AI is on the revenue side, where suddenly one engineer can do a hundred times or a thousand times what they used to be able to do, meaning you can make more products at your company, whether those are agricultural seed products, or boats and ships, or software for companies, or clothing, or what have you. Because of AI, everyone has the ability to expand their revenue base, to create more products. And that is the foundation of good economic prosperity. It is called productivity. We can grow productivity in this country with AI.

中文：人工智能真正的机遇在于收入端，突然间一名工程师就能完成过去百倍乃至千倍的工作量，这意味着企业可以生产更多产品——无论是农业种子、船舶、企业软件、服装还是其他任何品类。借助人工智能，每个主体都能拓展收入基础，创造更多产品。这正是经济繁荣的根基所在，我们称之为生产力。通过人工智能，我们能够提升这个国家的生产力水平。

So where I see AI being used is on the revenue side, a hundred times more than the cost side. And in that equation, people are hiring like crazy. We cannot hire enough people. I just had a review meeting with my product and engineering team two days ago. And they’re like, we want to add an extra 15 headcount to our engineering squads. Because we have all this opportunity to do stuff that we couldn’t otherwise do. So we are going to hire more people. And to Sachs’ point, we are seeing that show up in the jobs numbers. The idea that AI is going to destroy jobs is a Luddite idea that is being disproven every single day.

中文：因此，我认为人工智能的应用在收入端的影响，会比成本端大上百倍。在这个等式中，企业正在疯狂招聘，我们根本招不够人。两天前我刚和产品及工程团队开完评估会，他们表示想给工程小组额外增加15个编制，因为我们有大量过去无法实现的机会现在都能做了。所以我们会雇佣更多人。正如萨克斯所说，这种现象已经体现在就业数据中。所谓人工智能将摧毁就业的观点，是每天都在被证伪的卢德主义谬论。

And I see it on the ground. It is only a matter of time before people wake up to this. And they realize that this narrative that they’ve all been sold is a crock of shit. So it’s coming. I’m telling you, everyone’s going to realize soon that this is a boom, not a bust. So you disagree with Dario, Elon, and Sam on the jobs thing, just to be clear. And that’s totally fine. You have a different take on it. I have a nuanced view on this compared to them. But they’re all seeing the benefit because their businesses are growing. Dario’s got his $40 billion revenue business. Why? Not because people are firing customer support reps.

中文：我亲眼目睹了实际情况。人们意识到这一切只是时间问题。他们会明白，一直以来被灌输的那套说辞纯属胡扯。所以这个时刻即将到来。我告诉你，大家很快就会发现这是一场繁荣，而非萧条。所以，明确一点，你在就业问题上与达里奥、埃隆和萨姆观点不同。这完全没问题，你对此有不同看法。与他们相比，我对此持有更细致的观点。但他们之所以看到好处，是因为他们的业务在增长。达里奥拥有400亿美元营收的业务。为什么？不是因为人们解雇了客服代表。

It’s because people are creating products they’ve never been able to create before. That’s the reality of what’s going on. Jason, I don’t like you lumping in what Elon said with Sam and Dario, because I think all three of them have said slightly different things or different enough things. So for example, Elon is describing an end state for humanity, where the robots and AI are able to produce so much that people don’t have to work if they don’t want to. And they’ll be a universal high income is what he said. I mean, it’s almost utopian. And the question is, maybe that could be 100 years away. He might think it’s quicker.

中文：这是因为人们正在创造他们以前从未能创造的产品。这就是正在发生的现实。杰森，我不喜欢你把我说的埃隆的话和萨姆、达里奥的话混为一谈，因为我认为他们三个人说的内容略有不同，或者说差异足够大。比如，埃隆描述的是人类的一种终极状态，届时机器人和人工智能能够生产出如此多的东西，以至于人们如果不想工作就可以不工作。而且他说，将会出现一种普遍高收入。这几乎是一种乌托邦式的设想。问题是，这或许要一百年后才能实现。他可能认为会更快。

But that to me sounds like a very far off end state. Dario said specifically, 50% job loss for entry level knowledge workers in the next one to five years. And he said that one year ago. Yeah, it’s great to clarify this. I think that’s already been refuted. Sam has walked back. Sam has said that he basically, I don’t think he quantified, but he said that job loss was coming. But he said more recently that he was wrong, because they’re not seeing that in the numbers. So these guys are not telling the same story. However, that’s all the public has heard. The public has been taught that AI means job loss, and there’s nothing in it for them.

中文：但这在我看来是一个非常遥远的终局状态。达里奥明确说过，未来一到五年内，初级知识工作者将面临50%的岗位流失。而且他是在一年前说的。是的，澄清这一点很好。我认为这个说法已经被驳斥了。萨姆已经收回了之前的观点。萨姆曾表示，他基本上——我不认为他给出了具体数字——但他说过岗位流失即将到来。不过他最近又说自己错了，因为他们从数据中没有看到这种情况。所以这些人说的并不是同一回事。然而，公众听到的就是这些。公众已经被灌输了一种观念，即人工智能意味着岗位流失，而且对他们没有任何好处。

So no wonder politicians like Bernie are saying, hey, let’s take half the wealth. It’s take. Half the wealth. A little more emphasis there. Yeah, it’s, I mean, I mean, and people are also seeing headlines of companies blaming AI for the job. So this story is being told. I kind of feel like they deserve it. I’m kind of, I mean, part of me wants to agree with Bernie and just say, just take their shit, bro. Yeah, no, they are asking for it. Because I’m supposed to be defending these idiots. It’s a stupidity tax, because they’ve been out there teaching the public that what they do is harmful. Yeah. For years they’ve been saying it. Well.

中文：难怪像伯尼这样的政客会喊出”拿走他们一半财富”的口号。是直接没收一半财产。语气还要更重些。没错，这简直…我是说，人们也总看到企业把裁员归咎于人工智能的新闻标题。这种叙事铺天盖地。我甚至觉得他们活该。某种程度上，我差点想附和伯尼，直接说”兄弟，抢光他们算了”。是啊，他们根本是自找的。而我本该为这帮蠢货辩护。这纯属愚蠢税，因为他们多年来一直在向公众灌输”自己做的事有害”这种观念。没错。这话他们自己都念叨好多年了。确实。

And I’ve been saying, you know, as AIs are, I’m out there saying, no, actually, this is beneficial. But the companies that are providing it are saying that they themselves are a problem. Yeah. So how am I supposed to be out there defending it? Yeah. You can’t. I mean, if you’re building Frankenstein, or if you are, you know, baby Hitler’s, you know, nanny, there’s a very simple thing to do. Kill baby Hitler. If you actually believe it, go ahead and kill baby Hitler. If you’re making Frankenstein, here’s an idea. Stop making Frankenstein. Unplug it. You are in charge of this monster.

中文：我一直说，AI是有益的，我在外面也是这么讲的。但提供AI的公司自己却说他们本身是个问题。是啊，那我还怎么在外面为它辩护呢？没错，你没法辩护。我的意思是，如果你在制造弗兰肯斯坦，或者你是小希特勒的保姆，那很简单，杀掉小希特勒。如果你真这么认为，那就去杀掉小希特勒。如果你在制造弗兰肯斯坦，那有个主意，别造了，拔掉电源。你掌控着这个怪物。

But you’re acting as if you can’t stop the monster while you’re building the monster. What is it, Daria? It’s ridiculous. I mean. It doesn’t stand to logic. Last week, they published this blog saying that recursive self-improvement could end the world. Therefore, we need a pause. What did they do the previous month? They hired Andre Karpathy to run recursive self-improvement and anthropic. They’re complete hypocrites. The messaging is nuts. Yes.

中文：但你表现得好像一边在制造怪物，一边又无法阻止它。这算什么，达里娅？太荒谬了。我是说，这根本不合逻辑。上周，他们发表了一篇博客，说递归自我改进可能毁灭世界。因此，我们需要暂停。那他们上个月做了什么？他们聘请了安德烈·卡帕西来负责递归自我改进和人类智能。他们完全是伪君子。这种信息传递简直疯了。是的。

And I think Ben Thompson made an excellent point that one of the reasons he thinks that they put out that blog post on the pause was to justify the anti-competitive step they took this week of depriving users of the ability to research AI, machine learning, and chip design using Fable. Okay. So look, these guys are deeply hypocritical. I don’t think they can be trusted. On their own terms, they can’t be trusted because what they’re saying is contradictory and self-indicting. And so when Bernie comes along and says, hey, let’s take their shit. I mean, as a capitalist, I’m against it, but I kind of understand where he’s coming from.

中文：我认为本·汤普森提出了一个很好的观点，他认为他们发布那篇关于暂停的博文，原因之一是为了给他们本周采取的反竞争举措找理由——即剥夺用户使用Fable研究人工智能、机器学习和芯片设计的能力。好吧。所以你看，这帮人极度虚伪。我认为他们不可信。按照他们自己的说法，他们也不可信，因为他们所说的自相矛盾，而且是在自我揭发。所以当伯尼站出来说，嘿，咱们把他们的东西拿走吧。我的意思是，作为资本家，我反对这种做法，但我多少能理解他的出发点。

It’s a game on the field. Chamath, wrap us up here. What are your thoughts? You said, hey, Sarvo Malthorn sounds like a pretty good idea when President Trump floated it early on. Some people even said, maybe you should run it for DJT, for our amazing president. So what do you think? Should we be buying equities? You and I have talked many times about superannuation funds and that that would be a better path. That’s kind of dovetails with what Freebird is doing. Freebird is proposing some way to get more equities, less treasuries in there. But what are your thoughts on this seizure and or donation of equity? Look, Freebird’s idea is genius.

中文：这是场上的博弈。查马斯，给我们做个总结吧。你有什么想法？你说过，嘿，萨尔沃·马尔特罗恩听起来是个不错的主意，当特朗普总统早期提出时。有些人甚至说，也许你该为DJT，为我们了不起的总统来运营它。那么你怎么看？我们该买股票吗？你和我多次谈过养老基金，那会是条更好的路径。这有点和Freebird在做的事情相吻合。Freebird在提议某种方式，让更多股票、更少国债进入其中。但你对这种扣押和/或捐赠股票有什么看法？听着，Freebird的想法是天才。

That’s why it’ll never happen. So we can just put that aside. But yeah, theoretically, it’s genius. We should move to the same system that the Canadians, the Australians have proven works at scale. So we should do it. I completely agree with David. And if we could seed it with equity, look, the thing that… The president has done is he’s collected quite a portfolio. And that portfolio is way up. And so if you use that as a seed of a sovereign wealth fund, you’d have a bunch of stuff in critical metals and materials. I think they may also… Intel. Intel. They may have Micron. There’s a lot of stuff in there. AMD. They could own some SpaceX.

中文：这就是为什么它永远不会发生。所以我们可以先把这个放一边。不过从理论上讲，这确实是个天才构想。我们应该转向加拿大人和澳大利亚人已经证明可大规模运作的同一体系。所以我们应该这么做。我完全同意大卫的观点。如果我们能用股权作为种子资金，你看，总统已经积累了一个相当可观的投资组合，而且这个组合涨幅很大。如果以此作为主权财富基金的种子，你将拥有大量关键金属和材料领域的资产。我想可能还包括……英特尔。英特尔。可能还有美光。里面有很多资产。AMD。他们甚至可能持有一些SpaceX的股份。

They could have had Tesla in there. They own 10% AMD. Could you add Anthropic and OpenAI? And SpaceX. There is something very important we need to observe about the economics of AI, and I think you can understand it best if you compare it to the economics of the internet. The crazy thing about the internet, the reason why the Facebooks and the Googles massively over-earned for decades is the marginal cost of production for a new user on the internet is effectively zero. The incremental search user costs nothing. The incremental social networking user costs nothing. But you’re able to use them as part of a network effect to sell ads against.

中文：他们本可以把特斯拉纳入其中。他们持有10%的AMD股份。你能把Anthropic和OpenAI也加进去吗？还有SpaceX。关于人工智能的经济学，有一个非常重要的现象值得我们关注，我认为将其与互联网的经济学进行比较，就能最透彻地理解它。互联网最不可思议的一点，也是Facebook和谷歌这类公司能持续数十年获得超额收益的原因，就在于互联网新增用户的边际生产成本实际上为零。每增加一个搜索用户，成本为零。每增加一个社交网络用户，成本也为零。但你却能利用他们作为网络效应的一部分，来销售广告。

Make infinite money. It’s like a money glitch, okay? AI is completely different. There is a real cost for every marginal user. Everyone you stand up is taxing a GPU. Everyone you stand up needs electrons. Everything needs memory. And so you get into this situation where there needs to be this downstream ROI. But there also needs to be all this critical infrastructure that even enables you to be on the field. That’s probably the single best… argument that if I were sitting in government, I would make as to why I should own a percentage of these companies.

中文：无限赚钱，就像个金钱漏洞，对吧？人工智能则完全不同。每增加一个用户都有实际成本。你每启动一个用户，都在占用GPU资源。你每启动一个用户，都需要消耗电力。一切都需要内存。因此，你会陷入这样一种局面：既需要有下游的投资回报率，又需要所有关键基础设施，才能让你有资格上场。这大概是我在政府任职时会提出的最有力论据，说明为什么我应该持有这些公司一定比例的股份。

It is not dissimilar to having the first set of transportation companies that run on the interstate highway. And if the interstate highways were built by the federal government writ large, and now you had two companies that transported all the goods, a logical question at that time could have been, how much of that should I own? Because you’re riding on my rails. And if you look at it through that lens, there is critical infrastructure and national resilience that the AI labs profoundly need, otherwise they’re not in a position to be in business. Yet even still, the marginal cost of production is incredibly high.

中文：这就像第一批在州际公路上运营的运输公司。如果州际公路是由联邦政府大规模修建的，而现在有两家公司负责运输所有货物，那么当时一个合乎逻辑的问题可能是：我应该拥有多少份额？因为你是在我的轨道上运营。如果从这个角度来看，AI实验室迫切需要关键基础设施和国家韧性，否则它们根本无法开展业务。然而即便如此，生产的边际成本仍然高得惊人。

So I think that if you were going to go and take a piece of these companies, you have incredible leverage. You have to construct this case precisely. But if it were me, right now, I would be in a position to say, I’m going to do this. I’m going to run the sovereign wealth fund. Yeah, I’d probably own 75% of these companies when I was done. But that’s me, because I can negotiate. And I don’t think Bernie can negotiate out of a paper bag. So he’ll just throw this out there and it’ll go nowhere. But that is the key observation that I hope everybody listening in a position of power understands.

中文：因此我认为，如果你打算收购这些公司的一部分，你将拥有巨大的杠杆。你必须精准地构建这个方案。但如果是我的话，现在我会说，我要这么做。我要运营主权财富基金。是的，我最终可能会持有这些公司75%的股份。但这是我，因为我有谈判能力。而我认为伯尼连纸袋都谈判不出去。所以他只会抛出这个提议，然后不了了之。但这是我希望所有掌权者都能理解的关键观察点。

The incremental cost of performing AI is excessive and large. That contrasts and compares to the incremental cost before AI. Which was zero. Do with that information what you want. Yeah, I mean, my interpretation of that would be, yeah, it’s a fixed cost business. You can add people after a certain cost. It doesn’t have an incremental cost. And that’s what local, locally run open source models would do in this instance. That’s what I would take from it. Here’s your polymarket. Chances of companies going public before 2027, which is the end of this year. SpaceX 100%. Anthropic, 83% chance. Open AI, 48% chance.

中文：执行人工智能的增量成本过高且规模庞大。这与人工智能出现前的增量成本形成鲜明对比——那时的增量成本为零。如何解读这一信息，悉听尊便。我的理解是，这本质上是一门固定成本生意。在达到某个成本门槛后，你可以增加人手，却不会产生增量成本。而本地运行的开源模型在这种情况下就能实现这一点，这就是我从中得出的结论。以下是Polymarket上的数据：各公司在2027年前（即今年年底前）上市的概率。SpaceX为100%，Anthropic为83%，OpenAI为48%。

They, since our last episode, disclosed that they have privately filed. So thanks to our partners. What is your final thoughts on Bernie Sanders’ approach of seizing the means of producing intelligence? David Sachs, in the 1% of the 1%, what’s your opinion? I think I may be okay with Bernie’s idea in the event that it’s a public benefit corporation that says it’s going to cause massive job loss. Okay. That, train for free on humanities knowledge, but gatekeeps and refuses to give back. Okay. Maybe. So you’ve come up with like a structure here of who should be seized. Maybe, that’s right. Maybe it should be 75%. I don’t know. Seize it.

中文：自我们上期节目以来，他们披露已私下提交了申请。感谢我们的合作伙伴。你对伯尼·桑德斯那种夺取智能生产资料的做法有何最终看法？大卫·萨克斯，作为顶尖中的顶尖，你的意见是什么？我觉得，如果这是一家宣称将导致大规模失业的公益公司，我或许能接受伯尼的想法。好吧，它免费利用人文学科知识进行训练，却设限且拒绝回馈。好吧，也许吧。所以你似乎构思了一种应被征收对象的结构。也许吧，没错。或许该征收75%。我不确定。征收吧。

I mean, all the president needs to do is call me and tap me on the shoulder. It shall be done. It shall be done. I mean, these guys are capitalist cops. I think they want to have it seized. I would run. I would run. That’s like their king. I would run over them. They’re like, seize my equity. Take it. Oh, take my equity. Well, Bernie does have a good point, which is they train for free on all of our knowledge, but they’re gatekeeping the output so that their competitors, which is a very large set of people, cannot use it. And that seems wrong. They should be forced to be open source. Force them to open source. That’s the other possibility.

中文：我的意思是，总统只需要给我打个电话，拍拍我的肩膀，这事就能办成。一定能办成。这些人就是资本主义的警察。我觉得他们想把它没收。我会跑。我会跑。那就像是他们的国王。我会从他们身上碾过去。他们就像在说，没收我的股权吧。拿走吧。哦，拿走我的股权吧。不过，伯尼确实说得有道理，他们免费利用我们所有的知识进行训练，却封锁输出，让他们的竞争对手，也就是一大批人，无法使用。这似乎不对。应该强制他们开源。强制他们开源。这是另一种可能性。

Well, remember why Elon created OpenAI in the first place? Yes. This was so valuable, it needed to be distributed to everyone. Yes. Yes. He was afraid that Google was going to monopolize it. And he And he thought that it was going to be a good idea. And he thought that it was going to be a good idea. And he thought that the only antidote for that was for it to be open. Yes. And I still think that instinct is completely true. It’s just that it’s not Google who’s the gatekeeping monopolist. It’s now Anthropic. They’re not a monopolist yet, but if they get the right capture they’re looking for, they will be either a monopolist or a duopolist.

中文：回想一下，埃隆当初创立OpenAI的初衷是什么？没错，这项技术太有价值了，需要让每个人都能用上。是的，他担心谷歌会垄断这项技术。他认为唯一的解药就是保持开放。我至今仍认为这种直觉完全正确。只不过现在扮演守门人垄断者角色的不是谷歌，而是Anthropic。他们目前还不是垄断者，但如果他们成功实现了所追求的市场控制，就会成为垄断者或双头垄断者之一。

It’ll be a duopolist. Somebody start an open source frontier lab. Each of the four besties will put into- Well, there are some. There are many. There’s a whole bunch of them, J.K. It’s not the labs that’s the problem, Jason. In the absence of power, this is all a moot conversation. And if you can’t deliver power to hundreds and hundreds of megawatts and line of sight to gigawatts, it’s all meaningless bullshit. It’s all through. I don’t know. I would love an open source company that was focused on running it locally. That’s my dream, is make the model work there. I think these guys are capitalist cucks.

中文：这将是一个双头垄断的局面。有人创办了一个开源前沿实验室。四个好哥们儿每人都会投入——其实已经有了，有很多这样的实验室，J.K.。问题不在于实验室，杰森。在缺乏电力的情况下，这一切都是空谈。如果你无法提供数百兆瓦甚至吉瓦级别的电力，那全都是毫无意义的废话。全都是空话。我不知道。我希望能有一家专注于本地运行的开源公司。这是我的梦想，就是让模型在本地运行起来。我觉得这些人都是资本主义的傀儡。

I think their kink is like having their equity taken and being regulated. They’re just like, that’s their kink. Dario’s like, ooh, take my equity. Ooh, regulate me. That’s it, Bernie. Take my equity. I’m such a bad boy. I can’t be trusted. Regulate me, Elizabeth. Regulate me, AOC. Oh, my God. Oh, it’s so wrong. Sorry. Come on the program anytime, Dario. He’s in a rush to come here. He will never come on this pod. Dario will never come on it. He’s running. We didn’t get Sam. We got Sarah Fryer to come on the pod, and she was treated well. No, Sam came on the pod. He has to come on the pod. He’s like, hey, why am I coming on? Oh, right.

中文：我觉得他们的怪癖就是喜欢被稀释股权、被监管。他们就是这样，这就是他们的怪癖。达里奥就像在说，哦，稀释我的股权吧。哦，监管我吧。就是这样，伯尼。拿走我的股权。我真是个坏孩子。我不值得信任。监管我吧，伊丽莎白。监管我吧，AOC。哦，天哪。哦，这太不对劲了。抱歉。随时来上节目，达里奥。他急着要来这儿。他永远不会来上这个播客。达里奥永远不会来。他在逃避。我们没请到山姆。我们请到了莎拉·弗莱尔来上播客，她受到了很好的对待。不，山姆来过播客。他必须来上播客。他就像在说，嘿，我为什么要来上节目？哦，对。

Sam came on too, right? That’s right. Yeah, Sam can come on. He’s great. Sam will come on the pod anytime. Yeah. By the way, we didn’t treat him harshly at all. No. I mean. I think people get afraid. No, I think we were fair. I mean, we spent an hour on him. I think Sam, to his credit, is very practical. He sees the tea leaves, and he’s willing to negotiate. And I think that that versus being some kind of moral absolutist will probably serve OpenAI well in the future. Yeah, it’s just going to lose them all these virtue signaling principled employees to go work for Dario. That’s why they go work for Dario.

中文：Sam也来了，对吧？没错。是的，Sam可以来。他很棒。Sam随时都可以来上节目。是的。顺便说一句，我们对他一点也不苛刻。没有。我的意思是。我觉得人们会害怕。不，我认为我们是公平的。我的意思是，我们花了一个小时讨论他。我认为Sam，值得称赞的是，他非常务实。他能看清形势，并且愿意谈判。我认为，相比于成为某种道德绝对主义者，这种态度未来可能会对OpenAI大有裨益。是的，这只会让他们失去所有那些标榜美德、坚持原则的员工，让他们去为Dario工作。这就是他们去为Dario工作的原因。

They’re in line with their philosophies. By the way, we did mention, but- Everybody should go and see all of the recaps. We published now all the interviews. Yeah, Jason, from Liquidity. Yes. Sarah Fryer. I mean, we mentioned Sarah Fryer, but she crushed it. She was incredible. Wow. The CFO of OpenAI. The future CEO, I think, was the buzz in the room. I mean- Oh, stop that. Can you stop that? That’s what people were saying. I have the right to free speech on this podcast. I think- Look at you, trying to introduce wedges into the situation. No, I’m not introducing wedges. I think Sam would be better as chairman.

中文：他们的做法与自身理念相符。顺便提一句，我们确实提到过，不过——大家都应该去看看所有回顾内容。我们现在已经发布了所有采访。是的，来自Liquidity的Jason。没错。还有Sarah Fryer。我们提到过Sarah Fryer，但她的表现堪称惊艳。她太出色了。哇。OpenAI的首席财务官。我觉得，未来的首席执行官，这大概是当时会场里的热议话题。我是说——哦，别这么说。能别这么说吗？大家当时就是这么议论的。我在这个播客里享有言论自由。我觉得——看看你，试图在局面中制造裂痕。不，我没有在制造裂痕。我认为Sam更适合担任董事长。

I think she would be the perfect CEO. Good partnership. It’s all good. Good partnership. It seems like a great partnership. I agree. Sarah was really impressive. Who else was your favorite? Zach, did you have a favorite? Did you have somebody who you thought really crushed it? Yeah, I did. I thought Thomas LaFont crushed it with his presentation on the overview of venture capital. Yes. He did a summit, I guess, a year and a half, two years ago. Two years ago, but we’re going to make it yearly with him. I think we should make it an annual feature with him because it’s so interesting. So good. It’s so good. It’s so good.

中文：我认为她会是最佳CEO人选。合作关系很好，一切都很好。合作关系很好，看起来是绝佳搭档。我同意。莎拉真的令人印象深刻。你还喜欢谁？扎克，你有特别欣赏的人吗？有没有你觉得表现特别出色的人？有的。我觉得托马斯·拉方特关于风险投资概览的演讲非常出色。是的。他大概一年半、两年前做过一次峰会演讲。两年前，但我们打算让他每年都来做一次。我觉得应该把这个做成年度固定环节，因为实在太精彩了。太棒了，真的太棒了。

It provided so much numerical detail to support. A lot of things I was kind of feeling but didn’t have the data. To summarize it, his basic observation was, in this last cycle, if a company gets to a $100billionvaluation,i{t}^{\prime }smorelikelyto10xfromtherethanfrom$10 billion to $100 billion. Well, he had data on this. Yeah, I remember the slide. And he had data on it, which is like, okay, well, that’s going to really change. I remember the slide. Yeah, there it is. It’s 8%. I memorized it. Yes. Yeah, if you’re a capital allocator, this one screamed. Look, yes, that’s right. The odds of a unicorn getting to decacorn was 8%.

中文：它提供了大量数字细节作为支撑，很多是我隐约感觉到但缺乏数据的东西。总结来说，他的基本观察是，在上一个周期中，如果一家公司达到1000亿美元估值，它从那里再翻10倍的可能性，比从100亿美元涨到1000亿美元的可能性更大。嗯，他对此有数据支持。是的，我记得那张幻灯片。他确实有数据，这就像在说，好吧，这将真正改变局面。我记得那张幻灯片。对，就是它。是8%。我记住了。没错。是的，如果你是一个资本配置者，这个数字会尖叫着引起你的注意。看，是的，没错。独角兽公司成长为十角兽公司的概率是8%。

The odds of a decacorn getting to a centicorn was about double that. 13%. 13%. 13%. And then the odds of it going from centicorn to a trillion-dollar market cap was 31%. So double again. And I asked him, could you extrapolate this on $1trilliongettingto$10 trillion? My guess is that it would follow. And we’ll see about 60% of trillion-dollar market cap companies getting to $10 trillion. Yeah, these are called trillicorns, by the way. We call them trillicorns. Trillicorns in the industry. So, yes. Yeah, this is going to go over really well with the socialist crowd. People are going to love this. Yeah.

中文：从十角兽成长为百角兽的概率大约是前者的两倍，为13%。13%。13%。而从百角兽迈向万亿美元市值的概率则是31%，再次翻倍。我问他，能否据此推断从1万亿美元到10万亿美元的概率？我猜会遵循同样的规律。我们预计大约60%的万亿美元市值公司会达到10万亿美元。对了，顺便提一下，这些公司被称为万亿角兽。我们业内称它们为万亿角兽。是的。嗯，这番话在社会主义群体中肯定会引起强烈反响。人们会很喜欢这个说法。没错。

It’s just all you got to do is seize 10% of a trillicorn and you pay off 2% of our national debt. Pretty good deal, actually. All we need is 10% of 30 trillicorns and we’re debt-free. I mean, it’s not as crazy as it sounds. Is it more complicated than that? Now, if you send me in, I’ll get 60% of all of them. Yes. Then we’ll have a surplus of $30 billion and we can buy Australia. We’ll pay it off much sooner. We can buy Cuba. I’d buy Canada for a better scheme. You know what I would do? I would f*** with Canada. I would buy Vancouver or Toronto. Just break them up. Just buy one of the regions.

中文：你只需要抓住一个万亿级企业10%的股份，就能偿还我们2%的国债。这交易其实挺划算的。我们只需要30个万亿级企业各10%的股份，就能还清所有债务。我是说，这听起来也没那么疯狂。难道实际情况比这更复杂吗？现在，如果你派我去，我能拿下所有这些企业60%的股份。没错。那样我们就会有300亿美元的盈余，还能买下澳大利亚。我们能更快还清债务。我们还能买下古巴。要是有更好的计划，我会买下加拿大。你知道我会怎么做吗？我会跟加拿大玩点狠的。我会买下温哥华或多伦多。就把它们拆分开来。只买其中一个地区。

And let me thank Thomas Keller, the French laundry, EY, who sponsored our very innovative meeting hub at Liquidity. Here are some photos of that. They’re awesome. The New York Stock Exchange. They hosted the speaker dinner at the French Laundry. Amazing pictures. Here they are of us with Thomas Keller. And they did a great interview on site. Niagen. They hosted the Wellness Lounge, which included recovery IVs. They’re the official NAD partner of the All In pod and all of our longevity. Our new bestie. Our new bestie, Jake Paul, was there. He’s a really thoughtful guy, Freeberg. Jake Paul was awesome. I sat him next to Saks for dinner. Yeah.

中文：感谢Thomas Keller、The French Laundry餐厅，以及安永会计师事务所，他们赞助了我们在Liquidity大会上极具创新性的会议中心。这里有一些现场照片，非常精彩。纽约证券交易所，他们在The French Laundry餐厅举办了演讲嘉宾晚宴。照片太棒了，这是我们与Thomas Keller的合影。他们还在现场做了一场很棒的采访。Niagen，他们主办了健康休息室，提供恢复性静脉输液服务。他们是All In播客和我们所有长寿项目的官方NAD合作伙伴。我们的新好友，我们的新好友Jake Paul也来了。他真是个很有想法的人，Freeberg。Jake Paul太棒了。晚宴时我安排他坐在Saks旁边。没错。

He’s a great investor, by the way. Fantastic. Fantastic. His portfolio is awesome. He had a great team. His team came with him for the thing. Great strategy. One thing I’ll say about Thomas Keller, he had a strong watch game. I don’t know if you guys noticed that. Yes, he did. Nice Patek. Nice Patek. He had an aqua knot. Green band, rose gold. What was your favorite? A complication on there. I was trying to figure out what the complication was. I couldn’t quite eyeball it. I don’t know if you saw it, Chamath. I looked at it and I was like, wow, this is very elegant for Thomas Keller. I mean, the French Laundry is just transcendent.

中文：顺便说一句，他是位了不起的投资者。真的非常出色。他的投资组合令人惊叹。他拥有一支优秀的团队，而且整个团队都随他一同参与了这次项目。策略非常高明。关于托马斯·凯勒，我想提一点，他的腕表品味相当出众。不知道你们注意到没有。没错，确实如此。漂亮的百达翡丽。非常精致的百达翡丽。他戴了一款Aquanaut系列。绿色表带，玫瑰金表壳。你最喜欢哪一款？上面有个复杂功能。我当时一直在琢磨那是什么复杂功能，但没能完全看清。不知道你看到没有，查马斯。我盯着它看，心想，哇，这对托马斯·凯勒来说真是优雅至极。我是说，The French Laundry餐厅本身就是超凡脱俗的存在。

Did you have… A favorite dish? A course. Was it the duck? Or was it the Miyazaki? The duck was excellent. The Miyazaki beef was excellent. But the tapioca pearls, I thought, was the best. Oh, oysters and pearls. That’s your oysters with caviar. Sax, what was your favorite there? Do you have a favorite? One of the caviar-related dishes. Yeah, that’s oysters and pearls. Chamath and I had a fun round of golf the following day. We played a nine-hole scramble with everyone. That was great. That was so great. How much did you gamble? And who won? We had $100 a hole versus Chris Ho, who’s the chief business officer of Athena.

中文：你有没有……一道最喜欢的菜？一道菜。是那道鸭肉吗？还是宫崎牛肉？鸭肉很棒。宫崎牛肉也很棒。但我觉得木薯珍珠是最棒的。哦，牡蛎与珍珠。就是那道配鱼子酱的牡蛎。萨克斯，你最喜欢那里的哪道菜？有最喜欢的吗？其中一道与鱼子酱相关的菜。对，就是牡蛎与珍珠。查马斯和我第二天打了一场有趣的高尔夫。我们和所有人打了一场九洞的混合赛。那太棒了。真是太棒了。你们赌了多少？谁赢了？我们和克里斯·何每洞赌100美元，他是Athena的首席商务官。

But, you know, that motherfucker is like a plus one. So, whatever. I think we lost three units. So, we lost three units. All right. Shout out to our other partner, Athena. AthenaWow.com. Go get a month free. All right. Whatever. I got to stop shilling. Most importantly, everybody was very upset that liquidity sold out and people couldn’t get in. There were like 3,000 applications. It’s going to sell even faster. Next time around. So, go to allin.com slash events and get your applications in if you want to come to Summit, September 13th, 14th, and 15th. Freeberg’s doing some wild stuff. Some wild stuff for that event. It’s going to be cool.

中文：不过，你知道，那个家伙就是个添头。所以，无所谓了。我想我们亏了三个单位。对，亏了三个单位。好了，感谢我们的另一位合作伙伴，Athena。AthenaWow.com，去领一个月的免费服务吧。行吧，随便了。我得停止推销了。最重要的是，大家都很不满流动性售罄，导致人们无法入场。当时大约有3000份申请。下次会卖得更快。所以，如果你想来参加9月13日、14日和15日的峰会，就去allin.com/events提交申请。Freeberg在搞些疯狂的事情。为那个活动搞些疯狂的事情。会很酷的。

You’re losing your mind. You’re now becoming very eccentric, unhinged in your production value. And, Chamath, you’ve been very selective in your approach to the liquidity speakers and the attendees. Because liquidity is different than the Summit. The Summit. The Summit. The Summit is like a festival. It’s a huge party. There’s all this really interesting cross-sectional stuff. But liquidity is meant to be for one thing, which is the most important capital allocators in the world should have one place to convene, debate, learn, talk, build relationships. And I want people to walk out of there with relationships that they can use.

中文：你真是疯了。你现在在制作价值上变得非常古怪、失控。而且，Chamath，你在选择流动性活动的演讲者和参会者方面一直非常挑剔。因为流动性与峰会不同。峰会。峰会。峰会就像一个节日，是一场盛大的派对，有各种非常有趣的跨领域内容。但流动性活动的目的只有一个，那就是让世界上最重要的资本配置者有一个地方聚集、辩论、学习、交流、建立关系。我希望人们离开那里时，能带着可以实际运用的关系。

And I told you this before because capital is what shapes the things that occur in the world. So, I think that we have to be. I think that we have to be extremely selective in how we curate every element of that show. It’s not meant to be that you can just buy a ticket. But to just buy a ticket, which is also a very fair and rational and nice thing, the Summit is a party. It’s a vibe. It’s awesome. And you’re going to learn a lot and have a good time. You’ll be entertained. All that great stuff. All right. Let’s keep going. Breaking topic this morning. CPI and PPI for May came in hot. Inflation is ripping. Here we go.

中文：我之前跟你提过这一点，因为资本是塑造世界运行方式的力量。所以我认为我们必须对节目每个环节的策划都极其挑剔。这并不意味着你买张票就能参与。但单纯买票入场这件事本身，也是一种非常公平、合理且美好的方式——这场峰会就是一场盛会，一种氛围，棒极了。你会学到很多东西，玩得尽兴，还能享受娱乐。所有这些都是很棒的体验。好了，我们继续。今天早上的突发话题：五月份消费者价格指数和生产者价格指数数据火热出炉，通胀正在飙升。我们这就开始。

CPI is obviously the Consumer Price Index. That tracks inflation from the buyer. Bursar, rent, groceries, gas, healthcare, all that stuff. PPI is the Producer Price Index. That tracks inflation from the seller side. Wholesale goods, raw materials, yada, yada. CPI came in at 4.2% year-over-year. Highest since April 2023. There’s your chart. PPI came in at 6.5% year-over-year. Highest since the end of 2022. Here’s your polymarket. 21% chance. Inflation hits 5%. In 2026. And then an adjacent polymarket. Chances of the Fed hiking this year at 49%. It was under 10% before the Iran war started.

中文：CPI，即消费者价格指数，从买方角度追踪通胀，涵盖房租、杂货、汽油、医疗等项目。PPI是生产者价格指数，从卖方角度追踪通胀，涉及批发商品、原材料等。CPI同比上涨4.2%，为2023年4月以来最高，图表在此。PPI同比上涨6.5%，为2022年底以来最高。Polymarket数据显示，2026年通胀率达到5%的概率为21%。另一个相关Polymarket显示，美联储今年加息概率为49%，而在伊朗战争爆发前，这一概率低于10%。

By the way, European Central Bank just raised rates a quarter point on Thursday. This was their first rate hike since September 2023. What do we take from this, Friedberg? It’s all related to the Iran war. Yeah. That’s the… There’s definitely an energy blip from the Iran war that drove the core index up. But there’s also the macro point, which is government spending out of control. Inflation out of control. And fundamentally, as things unravel, you have rising rates. So I think we should kind of expect, especially with a Kevin Warsh Fed, I think we could see north of 5.5%, 6% overnight rates. It’s not unforeseeable.

中文：顺便提一下，欧洲央行周四刚加息了25个基点。这是他们自2023年9月以来首次加息。弗里德伯格，我们从中能得出什么结论？这一切都与伊朗战争有关。没错。伊朗战争确实引发了能源价格的短期飙升，推高了核心指数。但还有一个宏观层面的问题，就是政府支出失控，通胀失控。从根本上说，随着局势恶化，利率就会上升。所以我认为，尤其是在凯文·沃什执掌美联储的情况下，我们可能会看到隔夜利率超过5.5%，甚至达到6%。这并非不可预见。

So this is just the nature of our monetary policy. And our fiscal policy with our congressional members that vote all of our future earnings away into bullshit. But here we are. And a far worse. That nobody expected. Chamath, your thoughts, and then I’ll wrap up with you. That was the most passive-aggressive take I’ve heard in a while from you. He’s a little upset about it, yes. Clearly, he’s a little bitter about this. It’s just so stupid to watch. Can you tell us how you really feel? Honestly, what else is there to say? I’ve said it like 100 times. It’s just idiotic. Idiotic.

中文：这就是我们货币政策的本质。还有我们的财政政策，国会议员们把我们未来的收入全都投票挥霍在毫无意义的事情上。但现状就是如此。而且情况远比这更糟，完全出乎所有人的意料。查马斯，说说你的看法，然后我再和你做个总结。这是我很久以来听到你最消极攻击的一番言论了。他对此确实有点恼火，没错。显然，他对这事有些愤愤不平。看着这一切真是蠢得让人无语。你能说说你的真实感受吗？说实话，还有什么可说的？我都说过一百遍了。就是愚蠢，愚蠢至极。

The core problem with wealth inequality in this country, the core problem with inflation in this country, the core problem, all of it roots back to excess government spending. End of story. Period. Full stop. We’re all talking about machinations at the edge of the network. The core of the network is overspending by the government. Because in order to get elected, you need someone to give you something more than you have today. That’s how people get elected. And here we are 250 years later. I don’t know if there’s the will or the way to get out of it.

中文：这个国家财富不平等的核心问题，这个国家通货膨胀的核心问题，所有问题的核心，都根源于政府过度支出。就这样，没别的了，到此为止。我们都在讨论网络边缘的种种算计，但网络的核心是政府超支。因为要想当选，就得有人给你比今天更多的东西。这就是人们当选的方式。而如今，250年过去了，我不知道是否还有意愿或办法摆脱这种局面。

But one of the manifestations of it, will be in this late stage, higher rates, and as a response to inflation. And here we are. You know. All right, Chamath, what’s your take on this? Is it transient? As we have had other presidents say, is there an off-ramp for the Iran war? I don’t know if this is above all of our pay grades, but this does seem to be a challenging moment happening right before the midterms. And consumers expected that their cost of living would be lower than the cost of living. And that they would benefit from this golden age. And it hasn’t happened yet. Well, look, it’s concerning.

中文：但其表现之一，将是在这个后期阶段出现更高的利率，作为对通胀的回应。而我们现在就处于这种情况。你知道的。好吧，查马斯，你对此怎么看？这是暂时性的吗？正如其他总统所说，伊朗战争是否有退路？我不知道这是否超出了我们所有人的能力范围，但这确实是一个在中期选举前发生的艰难时刻。消费者曾预期他们的生活成本会低于实际的生活成本，并认为他们会从这个黄金时代中受益。但这尚未发生。嗯，看，这确实令人担忧。

I don’t think that I expected the print to be this hot. Now, what’s keeping things in line? There’s still a chance that we’re not going to see CPI go absolutely crazy. And part of that is because China has been smoothing the energy consumption globally worldwide. And so we’ve kind of kept a damper on $200abarreloil.Infact,w{e}^{\prime }resub100.Andw{e}^{\prime }renotgoingtoseeadamperon$200 a barrel oil. At the same time, I think it’s pulled forward a lot of more practical sources of energy production, not just in the United States, but abroad. Specifically, what I mean is solar, just because it’s simple, it’s passive. It works.

中文：我没想到数据会这么热。现在，是什么在控制局面？我们仍有可能不会看到CPI彻底失控。部分原因是中国一直在全球范围内平抑能源消费。因此，我们算是抑制住了每桶200美元的油价。事实上，油价还低于100美元。而且我们不会看到对每桶200美元油价的抑制。与此同时，我认为这提前催生了许多更实用的能源生产方式，不仅在美国，也在海外。具体来说，我指的是太阳能，因为它简单、被动且有效。

You don’t need a lot of permitting and you don’t need clean air permits and light. So all of these things have been able to keep a lid on it. If China somehow runs out of reserves and they need to go back into the spot market to buy an extra 3 million barrels a day, there’s a very big risk that oil gets into the, well past 100 and maybe between 150 and 200 a barrel. That has a lot of downstream problems with respect to CPI. Not even because U.S. energy supply, but really because the inputs that oil feeds all around the world that then get absorbed by the costs that people pay for everyday things could go up.

中文：你不需要很多许可证，也不需要清洁空气许可和光照。所以所有这些因素都能控制住成本。如果中国以某种方式耗尽了储备，需要重新进入现货市场每天额外购买300万桶石油，那么油价很有可能突破100美元，甚至可能达到150到200美元一桶。这会对消费者价格指数产生很多下游问题。不仅仅是因为美国的能源供应，而是因为石油作为全球各种投入品的原料，这些成本会被人们日常支付的商品价格吸收，从而可能上涨。

So I think the PPI number should be an alarm. That we use to off-ramp the surround situation sooner rather than later. I just, unless again, because we don’t know what happened in China because none of us were there. Unless there’s an understanding that the president has with Xi about how much actual supply and slack is in the Chinese system. And that may allow him to take a much longer road to get a conclusive and decisive win in Iran. But I don’t know. There was supposed to be some, tangible known resolutions with this China trip. We haven’t heard them explicitly stated yet. What’s your take on this, Sax? The inflation print?

中文：因此，我认为生产者价格指数（PPI）数据应该是一个警示信号，提醒我们应尽早摆脱当前困境，而非拖延。除非——再次强调，因为我们都不在中国，不了解实际情况——除非总统与习近平之间就中国体系内实际供给和闲置产能的程度有某种共识，这可能让他有更充裕的时间在伊朗问题上取得决定性胜利。但我不确定。此次访华之行本应达成一些明确可知的成果，但我们尚未听到这些成果被明确阐述。萨克斯，你对此怎么看？关于通胀数据？

And is there like a golden bridge to end this war in Iran? Jake, the problem is when you asked me that question, people assume that I have some sort of inside information. And I don’t. Look, the PPI print is what it is. I largely agree with what Chamath said. The only thing I would add is that it was largely in line with expectations. That’s why the market is actually up today. Normally, if there’s a surprise print and inflation is high, then the market is down because the market starts pricing in the implication of higher interest rates. It’s not doing that today. So it’s in line with expectations. But I largely agree with what Chamath said.

中文：那么，是否存在一座“金桥”来结束伊朗的这场战争呢？杰克，问题在于，当你问我这个问题时，人们会以为我掌握了一些内幕消息。但我并没有。你看，生产者价格指数（PPI）数据就是那样。我基本同意查马斯所说的。我唯一要补充的是，该数据基本符合预期。这就是今天市场实际上在上涨的原因。通常情况下，如果数据意外偏高且通胀高企，市场就会下跌，因为市场会开始计入更高利率的影响。但今天市场并没有这样做。所以，数据是符合预期的。不过，我大体上同意查马斯的观点。

Yeah. All right. Well, listen, we got to get to other elections. You know, my take on it is just huge colossal era starting this Iran war. And hopefully we can get out of it. The downstream effects of this. Are just disastrous. I’m hoping there’s a quick resolution or some way to get out of it before it goes to, you know, a year or two or three. We can’t be in it forever more, obviously. NASDAQ up two and a half percent today. That normally doesn’t happen when there’s a hot print. Because again, like tech stocks are the most susceptible to high interest rates. So the market at this point seems to be pricing in a resolution. But we’ll see.

中文：好的，我们得谈谈其他选举了。我的看法是，这场伊朗战争开启了一个巨大的、灾难性的时代。希望我们能从中脱身。这件事的下游影响简直是毁灭性的。我希望能有个快速的解决方案，或者有什么办法能在战争持续一年、两年或三年之前结束它。显然，我们不能永远陷在里面。纳斯达克指数今天上涨了2.5%。在通胀数据火热的情况下，这通常不会发生。因为科技股对高利率最为敏感。所以，目前市场似乎正在消化一个解决方案。但我们拭目以待。

We’ll see. Yeah. I mean, it’s just this is a. Everybody. Everybody knows Iran is a quagmire. And really was it was a huge mistake. All right. Let’s talk about the hand wringing around vote counts in the L.A. mayoral primary. Instead of me reading all these details, just Freeburg. I know you’re. I think we know about it. Yeah, I think if you’re on X, it’s essentially your entire feed. Freeburg, what’s your take? Is the election system in. Los Angeles, specifically in California, corrupt. And is this election been stolen from Spencer Pratt? Or is it just. There is no election. There was no election. There is no election. Okay.

中文：我们拭目以待。是啊，我的意思是，这只是一个……大家都知道伊朗是个泥潭。而且这确实是个巨大的错误。好了，我们来谈谈洛杉矶市长初选中围绕票数统计的焦虑情绪。与其让我来念这些细节，不如你来，弗里伯格。我知道你……我想我们都了解情况。是的，我觉得如果你上X平台，这基本上就是你全部的信息流了。弗里伯格，你怎么看？洛杉矶，特别是加州的选举系统腐败吗？这次选举是从斯宾塞·普拉特那里偷走的吗？还是说只是……根本就没有选举。根本就没有选举。根本就没有选举。好吧。

So there is no spoon. Your rights to have an election are gone. You are a citizen of those who tell you who your overseers are. You are no longer allowed to vote. Not to vote. You’re elected. You’re elected representatives. They are now appointed representatives. So enjoy the appointments that have been made for you. Appointed by who? Appointed by those who have constructed the matrix. Got it. Now I understand the background. There is no spoon. Agent Smith and all the agent Smiths are in charge. So here’s some statistics for you. In person voting the day of the election in Los Angeles County for mayor. Spencer Pratt. 35%. Karen Bass. 29%.

中文：所以根本没有勺子。你拥有的选举权已经消失。你成了被告知谁是你监督者的顺民。你不再被允许投票。不是不投票。你选出的代表。他们现在是任命代表。所以好好享受为你安排好的任命吧。被谁任命？被那些构建矩阵的人任命。明白了。现在我理解背景了。根本没有勺子。史密斯探员和所有史密斯探员们掌控着一切。给你看些数据。洛杉矶县市长选举当天的现场投票。斯宾塞·普拉特得票率35%。凯伦·巴斯29%。

Nithya Raman. 26%. Mail in ballots received before election day. 38% for Bass. 28% for Pratt. 20% for Raman. And then all these ballots that arrive after election day. 37% for Raman. 35% for Bass. 19% for Pratt. So Pratt’s post-election mail in ballots declined by one third. So. Statistically, the population of people that send in their ballots late reduced for Pratt by a third, increased for Nithya Raman by 80%, and Karen Bass 10% less. If you just look at the mail in ballots before and after election day as a comparison.

中文：尼提亚·拉曼，26%。选举日前收到的邮寄选票中，巴斯38%，普拉特28%，拉曼20%。而选举日后到达的所有选票中，拉曼37%，巴斯35%，普拉特19%。因此，普拉特在选举日后的邮寄选票下降了三分之一。从统计上看，延迟寄出选票的人群中，普拉特的支持率减少了三分之一，尼提亚·拉曼增加了80%，凯伦·巴斯减少了10%。仅以选举日前后的邮寄选票作为对比。

I don’t know if there’s a socio-political way that you can assess those statistics and assume that these are individuals casting their individual vote for who they think should be mayor of LA. And Nick, if you’ll just pull up the map, which I think is worth taking a look at, and basically the concentration of incremental votes that Nithya Raman got came around the Skid Row area in Los Angeles. And look, I’m not an election denier. I’m not someone who’s historically believed the idea that elections are fraud and people have stolen votes.

中文：我不知道是否有一种社会政治方法可以评估这些统计数据，并假设这些人是独立投票给他们认为应该成为洛杉矶市长的人。尼克，如果你能调出地图，我认为值得一看，基本上尼提亚·拉曼获得的增量选票集中在洛杉矶的贫民区一带。听着，我不是选举否认者，我历来不相信选举存在欺诈、有人偷选票的说法。

But when you look at the basic statistics of what happened in person, mail in before, mail in after election day, it becomes a real statistical quagmire on how did this sort of a socio-political shift happen. In such a way that it did. Now, there was a report published, Nick, if you could pull this up, by the US House of Representatives Committee on House Administration. This was published in May of 2020. And they highlighted the 2018 California midterm elections and the challenges they saw arise in that midterm elections because of some of the legislative changes that were made.

中文：然而，当你审视亲自投票、选举日前邮寄投票和选举日后邮寄投票的基本统计数据时，就会发现这成了一个真正的统计泥潭，难以理解这种社会政治转变是如何以这种方式发生的。尼克，如果你能调出一份报告，美国众议院行政委员会曾发布过一份报告，于2020年5月公布。该报告重点指出了2018年加州中期选举，以及他们看到的因一些立法变更而在那次中期选举中出现的挑战。

First, California Assembly Bill 1921 legalized the practice of unlimited ballot harvesting in the state. This was passed around 2018. And then, the next thing you know, the state of California is going to have to go through a new bill. And it’s going to be bill 2115 around the midterms. What that means is that any individual in the state of California has the right to go and collect ballots from any other individuals regardless of relationship, fill them out, and send them in. California, two years later, 18 months later, also passed a law that made it permanent that every person registered in the state of California would get a ballot.

中文：首先，加州议会第1921号法案将无限制选票收集行为合法化。该法案大约在2018年通过。随后，加州又不得不审议一项新法案，即围绕中期选举出台的第2115号法案。这意味着加州任何个人都有权从其他任何人那里收集选票，无论双方关系如何，代为填写并寄出。大约两年后，也就是18个月后，加州又通过一项法律，永久规定该州每位登记选民都将收到一张选票。

So, tens of millions of ballots then get mailed out. Then there was another series of laws that were passed. That said anyone can register to vote. You don’t need to prove your citizenship. You can use a gym membership card as an example. So, anyone can register to vote. There is no proof of ID when you get a ballot. There is no demonstration that the person who fills out the ballot has anything to do with the individual who’s supposed to be voting that ballot. And it is legal for an individual to go out and collect hundreds or thousands of ballots, ship them in, and they will all qualify in these kind of mail-in ballot voting processes.

中文：于是，数千万张选票就这样被邮寄出去了。随后又通过了一系列法律，规定任何人都可以登记投票，无需证明自己的公民身份，比如用一张健身房会员卡就行。这样一来，谁都能登记投票。领取选票时不需要出示身份证明，也无法证明填写选票的人与理应投票的那个人有任何关联。而且，个人出去收集成百上千张选票并寄出，这在法律上是允许的，这些选票在这种邮寄投票流程中都会被认可。

So, there is nothing illegal or fraudulent going on. In fact, the system is operating exactly as intended. It has been set up and structured in a way that with the right construct, you can get an individual appointed. Not elected, but appointed to a particular role in government under a, quote, free election in California. This is a foundational destruction of our rights to vote for people in a free democracy. I feel it’s been eroded slowly over time to such an extent now, and I’m not somebody who would vote for a free democracy. I’m not some crazy MAGA mother or whatever people want to classify me as for pointing this out.

中文：所以，这其中没有任何违法或欺诈行为。事实上，这套系统完全按照设计初衷在运作。它被设立和构建的方式，就是通过正确的操作，你可以让一个人被任命，而非选举，在加州所谓的“自由选举”下担任某个政府职务。这是对我们自由民主制度中投票选举代表权利的根本性破坏。我觉得这种侵蚀是缓慢发生的，如今已到了如此地步。我指出这一点，并不是说我反对自由民主，也不是什么疯狂的MAGA老妈，或者人们想给我贴上的任何标签。

But you can go down this list. They are all written out in this document. Every one of these laws that were passed in California over time that in aggregate create the environment and the construction for elections to become appointments and no longer free democratic elections where the principle, very importantly, the principle should be one individual, one vote. And if you opt to not vote, your vote should not be counted. So I think that there’s no fraud. I don’t think there’s anything… No fraud. It sounds like you believe there’s massive fraud. Yeah, I think this is not fraud. This is the way the laws are set up. It’s manipulation.

中文：但你可以顺着这份清单往下看，这些内容都在这份文件里一一列明了。加州多年来通过的每一项法律，累积起来共同营造了一种环境，构建了一套机制，使得选举变成了任命，不再是自由的民主选举。而其中非常关键的原则，本应是一人一票。如果你选择不投票，你的票就不该被计入。所以我认为不存在舞弊，我不觉得有什么……没有舞弊。听起来你似乎认为存在大规模舞弊。是的，我认为这不是舞弊，这是法律本身如此设定的结果，这是一种操纵。

It’s not fraud. It’s manipulation. It’s the way the law is set up. Okay, Sachs, you say, of course, it’s fraud. This is the system of appointment. Okay, yeah. It sounds to me like you’re describing fraud, but you’re saying the system allows fraud. Fraud is breaking the law. Fraud is breaking the law. The law allows them to do it. If you pay people on Skid Row, that’s not legal. That is illegal. But you are allowed to go out and get anyone to register. You’re allowed to go out and collect all the ballots. And the people that are doing it, as long as you’re not getting paid per ballot, you’re legally allowed to do it.

中文：这不是欺诈，这是操纵。这是法律设置的方式。好吧，萨克斯，你说，这当然是欺诈。这是任命制度。好吧，是的。听起来你像是在描述欺诈，但你说这个制度允许欺诈。欺诈是违法的。欺诈是违法的。法律允许他们这么做。如果你在贫民区付钱让人投票，那是不合法的。那是非法的。但你可以出去找任何人登记。你可以出去收集所有选票。而做这些事的人，只要不是按选票数量收取报酬，就是法律允许的。

Let me pause for one second. When you look at any one of these laws in isolation, you can understand that there is some altruistic intention, or there can be framed to be an altruistic intention behind it. Increase voter activity. Give everyone the right to vote. Give more people access, more channels to vote, etc., etc. And you can rationalize it. You can rationalize a way how every one of these laws makes it easier and adds lubrication to the system, and now we’ve got a, quote, more accessible democracy for everyone.

中文：让我暂停一下。当你单独审视这些法律中的任何一条时，你可以理解其背后有一些利他主义的意图，或者可以被包装成利他主义的意图。提高选民参与度。赋予每个人投票权。让更多人有机会投票，提供更多投票渠道，等等。你可以将其合理化。你可以为每一条法律找到一种合理化的解释，说明它如何让系统更顺畅、增加了润滑，于是我们现在有了一个所谓的、对每个人都更便利的民主。

But the truth is that there is a concept in insurance called adverse selection, which is if there is a moment to exploit something, the criminals will exploit it to the extent that it will become asymmetric. The criminals or the do-batters, not the do-gooders, will find a way to take advantage of a hole in a system, just like hackers do, to break into a network. And that’s what you believe Raman did and Spencer Pratt didn’t. This set of mechanisms, this set of construction, has allowed for a system that now has evolved into an appointment system, not an election system. So you believe Raman worked the system better than Spencer Pratt?

中文：但事实是，保险业有一个概念叫逆向选择，意思是只要存在可乘之机，犯罪分子就会加以利用，直至局面变得不对称。犯罪分子或投机者——而非行善者——会像黑客入侵网络一样，找到系统漏洞并加以利用。而你认为拉曼正是这样做的，斯宾塞·普拉特则没有。这套机制、这种架构，催生了一个如今已演变为任命制而非选举制的体系。所以你认为拉曼比斯宾塞·普拉特更善于钻制度的空子？

She had a better cheating operation, obviously. You can see it in the chart. Just look at the number of votes. Okay, define cheating here, just so we’re clear. How does it happen where Bass stays flat, and then Raman and Pratt just switch places? So on election day, he’s the clear number two, and then they keep counting for a week. They don’t even know how many ballots they’re supposed to have. I mean, none of this stuff is locked down. Okay, let me explain how the cheating works. And to Freeburg’s point, it may or may not be legal.

中文：她显然有一套更高明的舞弊操作。从图表上就能看出来，看看票数就知道了。先明确一下这里说的舞弊是什么意思。怎么会发生这种情况：巴斯的票数保持不变，然后拉曼和普拉特直接互换了位置？在选举日当天，他明明是明确的第二名，然后他们又继续计票了一周。他们甚至不知道自己应该有多少张选票。我的意思是，这些环节没有一个是严格把控的。好吧，让我解释一下这种舞弊是如何运作的。而且就像弗里伯格说的，这可能是合法的，也可能不合法。

So I don’t want to get sidetracked by whether the fraud is legal or illegal, but I think we all know it’s crooked. And here’s how it works. First of all… Explain what’s crooked here. I’ll explain it to you. Please, in detail. If I misstate a fact, then let me know. So first of all, California sends out ballots to every registered voters. It’s something like 23, 24 million people. Only 9.5 million people vote. So what happens to the other 14 million ballots? I have a friend who lives in LA. He manages apartment buildings. He says that the ballots just pile up, you know, at the mailboxes… Yes. …that everybody has in the buildings.

中文：我不想偏离欺诈是否合法的问题，但我想我们都知道这是不正当的。它的运作方式是这样的。首先……解释一下这里有什么不正当。我会详细说明。如果我说错了事实，请告诉我。首先，加州向每位登记选民寄出选票，大约有2300万到2400万人。只有950万人投票。那么剩下的1400万张选票去哪了？我有个朋友住在洛杉矶，他管理公寓楼。他说选票就堆在邮箱那里……是的……就是每栋楼里都有的那种邮箱。

There’s like loose ballots everywhere. They’re sent to people who don’t even live there anymore. He like recognizes that the names… There are people who haven’t lived there in years. So the voter rolls are dirty. They haven’t been cleaned up in years. Okay. Then you have the issue that there’s no voter ID on election day. There’s no voter ID to even get registered. When you sign your ballot, they run it through a machine. As long as the signature matches 40%… I don’t even know what 40% means. It’s like less than half accurate. The machine says it’s fine. Okay.

中文：选票到处都是，散乱不堪。它们被寄给那些早已不住在那里的人。他好像认出了那些名字……有些人已经多年没在那里住了。所以选民名册很混乱，多年来都没有清理过。好吧。然后还有选举日无需出示选民身份证的问题。甚至连登记时都不需要选民身份证。当你签署选票时，他们会用机器扫描。只要签名匹配度达到40%……我甚至不知道40%意味着什么。这连一半的准确率都不到。机器却说没问题。好吧。

And then it doesn’t even check the signature of the voter if you have a supposed witness. So the voter can just put like a little X on their signature as long as the witness says and they sign. But there’s no registration of witnesses. Anybody can be a witness. There’s no database of witnesses. And so the witness just puts a squiggle. So what is to stop the so-called ballot harvester from going, filling out these ballots, putting a little X on the… Putting a little X on the voter, putting a little squiggle on the witness, and then dumping these ballots. There’s no chain of custody.

中文：而且，如果有一个所谓的见证人，它甚至不核对选民的签名。所以选民只需在签名处画个小叉，只要见证人声称并签字就行。但见证人没有登记制度，任何人都可以当见证人，也没有见证人数据库。于是见证人只需随便画个符。那么，有什么能阻止所谓的选票收割者去填写这些选票，在选民签名处画个小叉，在见证人处画个符，然后把这些选票一扔了之呢？根本没有监管链。

So the risk would be they would be arrested and charged with felonies, right? Well, what is their expectation of getting caught? Gavin Newsom just signed a law making it virtually impossible to audit any of this stuff. So now, even if they thought maybe they could get caught, let’s just take a look at all the other types of fraud happening in California right now that we know about. We know that there’s billions of dollars in fraud in California for things like Medicaid fraud, unemployment fraud, EBT fraud, hospice fraud, fraud related to the homeless industrial complex, and on and on. That’s all been proven, okay?

中文：那么风险就是他们会被逮捕并被控重罪，对吧？那么，他们预期被抓住的几率有多大呢？加文·纽森刚签署了一项法律，几乎让审计这些事务变得不可能。所以现在，即使他们觉得自己可能会被抓住，我们不妨看看目前加州已知的其他各类欺诈行为。我们知道，加州在医疗补助欺诈、失业金欺诈、电子福利转账欺诈、临终关怀欺诈、与无家可归者产业复合体相关的欺诈等方面，存在数十亿美元的欺诈，诸如此类。这些都已经得到证实，明白吗？

Is it really so hard to believe that some of the same groups, the same interest groups, the same NGOs would be willing to exploit these loopholes in the dirty voter rolls, in the millions of ballots that go to incorrect or non-existent addresses? Right? So, you know, we’re talking about the non-existent chain of custody, the non-existent signature verification, the no ID, not only to vote but to register, counting ballots without postmarks if received seven days later, registering thousands of ballots from homeless shelters that don’t even have any beds. These are all known things.

中文：难道真的很难相信，一些相同的团体、相同的利益集团、相同的非政府组织会愿意利用这些肮脏选民名册中的漏洞，利用那些寄往错误或不存在地址的数百万张选票吗？对吧？所以，你知道，我们谈论的是根本不存在的选票保管链、根本不存在的签名验证、不仅投票时不需要身份证，连登记时也不需要，收到选票七天后即使没有邮戳也照样计票，从连床位都没有的无家可归者收容所登记数千张选票。这些都是众所周知的事情。

So when you say that there’s no fraud, it’s like, come on, there’s loopholes. And all you got to do is look at the results and see that there’s something crooked going on here. Okay. So you’re in the camp that there is fraud going on because where there’s smoke, there’s fire. It may be legalized. It may be legalized, but it’s fraud. Okay. So you believe there’s fraud? Look, when you start mailing out millions of ballots to people who don’t even vote, and then you have no audit requirements, no chain of custody, no punishments, no penalties, no investigations, and there’s a huge incentive to commit fraud.

中文：所以当你说没有欺诈时，这就像，得了吧，明明有漏洞。你只需要看看结果，就会发现这里面有猫腻。好吧。那么你属于认为存在欺诈的阵营，因为有烟的地方就有火。这可能是被合法化了。可能被合法化了，但仍然是欺诈。好吧。那么你相信存在欺诈吗？你看，当你开始向那些根本不投票的人邮寄数百万张选票，然后没有审计要求，没有保管链，没有惩罚，没有处罚，没有调查，而且存在巨大的欺诈动机时。

Well, there have been tons of investigations, both by attorney generals and— In California? By who? I’ll pull up the history of California. In California. I will say after every election, there are tons of civil lawsuits filed. Like obviously Trump filed 60 of 60 when— Not in California. I don’t know if he did, but he— Gavin Newsom just made it impossible to do that kind of audit. He just signed a bill. Well, anyway, I think that’s because he was beaten so badly in a democratic state there was no reason to, but I don’t know why he didn’t file in California. But he filed 60 of these, and everybody kind of does that.

中文：嗯，针对选举的各类调查确实多如牛毛，既有各州总检察长发起的，也有——在加州？谁发起的？我来查查加州的过往记录。在加州。我得说，每次选举结束后，都会涌现大量民事诉讼。就像特朗普当初一口气提起了60起诉讼，60起全提了——不是在加州。我不确定他有没有在加州提，但他——加文·纽森刚签署了一项法案，让这类审计根本没法搞。算了，我觉得那是因为他在这个民主党州输得太惨，实在没理由去争，但我不明白他为什么不在加州提起诉讼。不过他确实提了60起，大家基本都这么干。

They file these constantly, and attorney generals can. So in this case, Chamath, if there’s so much fraud— If there’s so much smoke, if this statistic seems so improbable, and there was the Nick Shirley video of going to Skid Row and this possibility that they were paying junkies and people who were high to vote, this would be easily catchable, actually. This would take a conspiracy for thousands and thousands of votes to have been swung, and that’s what we’re saying here. We’re saying upwards of 10,000 votes were swung, but certainly 5,000.

中文：他们不断提交这些文件，而各州检察长也可以这么做。所以在这个案例中，查马斯，如果存在如此多的欺诈行为——如果疑点如此之多，如果这个统计数据看起来如此不可能，再加上尼克·雪莉在贫民窟拍摄的视频，以及他们可能付钱给瘾君子和吸毒者去投票的情况，这实际上很容易被查获。这需要一场涉及成千上万张选票被操纵的阴谋，而这正是我们在这里所说的。我们说的是多达一万张选票被操纵，但至少有五千张。

Well, good luck going to— You would need a conspiracy of hundreds of people, or at least dozens, to do that. Good luck going to— Or at least dozens to do that. Good luck going to Skid Row and getting some meth addict to go on the record. I think they actually got somebody to go on the record. Actually, that’s the paradox of it. There’s a few videos of this, yes. Yeah, yeah. No, that’s the crazy part about it is they are saying Skid Row people got paid $2or$3, and that somebody was found guilty of this. Brenda Lee Brown Armstrong, she pled guilty in 2026 of paying people $2or$3. The system is designed to allow fraud. It’s a design.

中文：祝你好运——要做到这一点，你需要成百上千人，或者至少几十人的合谋。祝你好运——或者至少几十人才能做到。祝你好运去贫民区找个瘾君子公开作证。我觉得他们还真找到了人公开作证。实际上，这就是矛盾之处。确实有几段相关视频，是的。没错，没错。不，最疯狂的部分在于，他们说贫民区的人拿到了两到三美元的报酬，而且有人因此被判有罪。布伦达·李·布朗·阿姆斯特朗，她在2026年认罪，承认付给人们两到三美元。这个系统就是被设计成允许欺诈的。这是一种设计。

It is designed to allow fraud. It is designed— And Rahman won by 43,000 votes? Look, guys, we live in a autocracy in California where one political machine has shaped the laws so inexorably that whether it’s a mayor or it’s a state legislator or it’s a state senator or it’s the governor, it’s a one-way door. There is only one party that can win. And we are slowly seeing that that party increasingly does not have the ability to govern a state this dynamic and this complicated. They’ve changed the rules to make sure that that monopoly is enforced. We have all tacitly approved it by supporting or voting or not saying anything.

中文：这套制度就是为舞弊而设计的。它就是为了——拉赫曼赢了四万三千票？听着，各位，我们生活在加利福尼亚的一个专制体制下，一个政治机器已经如此不可动摇地塑造了法律，以至于无论是市长、州议员、州参议员还是州长，这都是一扇单向门。只有一个政党能够获胜。而我们正逐渐看到，那个政党越来越没有能力治理一个如此充满活力、如此复杂的州。他们改变了规则，以确保这种垄断得以维持。我们通过支持、投票或保持沉默，都默许了这一切。

And the end result has yet to be unveiled because it’s going to take another couple of decades for all of this rot to really destroy these laws. Yeah. And the only thing that’s going to happen is that the state is going to have to go to the state to really destroy these places. The reality is the voters probably should be given a chance to have Spencer Pratt push back on what is the machine so that at a minimum what they learn is that the machine wasn’t working nearly anywhere close to the way it is intended.

中文：而最终结果尚未揭晓，因为所有这些腐败要真正摧毁这些法律，还需要再过几十年。是的。唯一会发生的事情是，州政府将不得不依靠州政府来真正摧毁这些地方。现实情况是，选民或许应该有机会让斯宾塞·普拉特反击这个机器，这样至少他们能认识到，这个机器的运作方式远未达到其预期目标。

Instead, what will happen is two people that are in various shapes and forms pretty deeply unqualified and very similar now essentially get to give you not more than $1 million. Right. Right. Right. to give you not much of a choice at all. So I think the sad thing is Freiburg is right and Sachs is right. Freiburg is right. The laws have been shaped this way to make legal what would otherwise be an illegality. And Sachs is right, which is that any rational person should look at these laws and say, this is fraudulent. The unfortunate situation is unless there’s some cataclysmic decision in California, this is what we’re stuck with.

中文：相反，实际情况是，两个在各方面都相当不称职且高度相似的人，现在基本上最多只能给你100万美元。没错。没错。没错。几乎不给你任何真正的选择余地。所以我认为可悲之处在于，弗莱伯格是对的，萨克斯也是对的。弗莱伯格说得对，这些法律被塑造成这样，就是为了让原本非法的行为合法化。而萨克斯说得对，任何理性的人看到这些法律都会说，这根本就是欺诈。不幸的是，除非加州出现某种颠覆性的裁决，否则我们就只能困在这种局面里了。

It is time to vote all of these people out. You can’t. You can’t vote. What do you mean? How are you going to do it? Anyone can register. Spencer Pratt can file. Spencer Pratt can do all kinds of lawsuits here. Can I answer Freiburg’s question? Sure. There is one break the glass way. And I’ve talked to a few of these guys about what that is. How do you change the system? You must get somebody at the absolute top of the ticket elected. That person is Steve Hilton.

中文：是时候把这些人全部选下去了。你做不到。你没法投票。你什么意思？你怎么做到？任何人都可以登记参选。斯宾塞·普拉特可以提交申请。斯宾塞·普拉特可以在这里提起各种诉讼。我能回答弗莱堡的问题吗？当然。有一种破釜沉舟的办法。我和其中几位谈过这个办法是什么。如何改变这个体制？你必须让某个处于票单最顶端的人当选。那个人就是史蒂夫·希尔顿。

And if that happens, there is one thing that Steve Hilton can do to start to completely change the way that this state is run, which is instantly on day one declare a state of emergency. If you pull on this thread, what you will find, there are lots of things you can do to clean up how California works under a state of emergency. I’ll leave it at that. Yeah. There’s some common sense here. We shouldn’t send ballots out to everybody. That made sense maybe during COVID. And if you can’t be bothered to have ID, then maybe you shouldn’t vote. And I don’t think that there has been an election, a major election that has been swung by election fraud.

中文：如果发生这种情况，史蒂夫·希尔顿有一件事可以做，从而开始彻底改变这个州的运作方式，那就是在第一天立即宣布进入紧急状态。如果你顺着这个线索深挖，你会发现，在紧急状态下，有很多事情可以做来整顿加州的运作方式。我就说到这里。是的。这里有一些常识。我们不应该向所有人寄送选票。这在新冠疫情期间或许说得通。如果你连出示身份证都嫌麻烦，那也许你就不该投票。而且我不认为有哪场重大选举的结果是被选举舞弊所扭转的。

The Heritage Foundation has spent many, many tens of millions of dollars on this. I understand. And they have a really great project that tracks this. People file lawsuits like Trump did, like Al Gore did. Everybody’s always filing lawsuits over this. It’s never enough to swing an election, but there’s definitely on the margins. Kennedy versus Nixon, bro. Hold on, let me finish. The mob got Kennedy elected versus Nixon in 1960. Okay, yeah, I’m talking in modern history. In modern history. Well, that’s pretty famous. That’s pretty famous. Okay. Well, we can get into if that’s true or not as well. Check out Lyndon Johnson’s history.

中文：传统基金会在这个项目上投入了数千万美元，这点我清楚。他们有个非常出色的追踪项目。人们像特朗普那样提起诉讼，像阿尔·戈尔那样提起诉讼。所有人都在为此打官司。这从来不足以扭转选举结果，但确实会在边缘地带产生影响。肯尼迪对尼克松，老兄。等等，让我把话说完。1960年，黑帮让肯尼迪击败尼克松当选。好吧，我说的是现代历史。现代历史。嗯，这事相当出名。相当出名。好吧。我们也可以探讨一下这是否属实。查查林登·约翰逊的历史。

Lyndon Johnson only got elected to the Senate. He got a start in politics through ballot fraud. We absolutely should have voter ID. We should stop sending everybody one of these because the appearance of impropriety is the problem here. Both sides, crazy newsflash, newsflash everybody. Both sides cheat. Both sides bend the rules. One side does it by limiting access. The other does it by providing too much access. All these politicians, overwhelming majority of them are unethical and all they care about is getting elected. And they have tons of people working for them in both parties.

中文：林登·约翰逊当初能当选参议员，靠的就是选票舞弊起家。我们绝对应该实行选民身份证制度，应该停止给所有人邮寄选票，因为这种看似不当的行为本身就是问题所在。给各位爆个猛料——两党都在作弊，两党都在钻规则的空子。只不过一方通过限制投票渠道，另一方通过过度开放渠道。这些政客，绝大多数都毫无道德底线，他们唯一关心的就是当选。而且两党都有大批人为他们卖命。

And they’ve had to go through a lot of pressure to massage these election results. And if you get caught, it is a serious penalty. There has not been in modern history, major elections. Go ahead and go to the Heritage Foundation. They find all the nooks and crannies of this. You keep using the word fraud as if it’s a thing, but it’s not. I’ll tell you who’s at fault here. No, no, there’s fraud. At the end of the day, there is fraud. There are people who have been caught doing fraudulent things. The one group that is fundamentally to blame is Congress. We have an opportunity.

中文：他们不得不承受巨大压力来粉饰这些选举结果。一旦被抓住，就会面临严厉惩罚。现代历史上从未出现过这种情况，重大选举中。去传统基金会查查吧，他们把所有细枝末节都挖出来了。你一直用”舞弊”这个词，好像它确有其事，但其实不然。我来告诉你该怪谁。不，不，确实存在舞弊。归根结底，舞弊是存在的。确实有人因舞弊行为被抓获。最该受指责的群体是国会。我们本有机会。

opportunities to pass laws that will make it illegal for people to vote if they are not citizens, if they are not properly registered, and if they don’t show up with ID. That is a very simple solve to this democratic electoral process.

中文：有机会通过法律，规定非公民、未正确登记以及未出示身份证的人投票属违法行为。这是解决民主选举流程问题的一个非常简单的方法。

We can’t have a situation where someone is legally allowed to go out and collect 100 ballots that they find sitting in the lobby of an apartment building or for people to register to vote with a gym membership card, when fundamentally the federal government already knows if you’re not paying your taxes, you’re required to have a driver’s license to drive a car, you have to have ID, you have to be registered in the system to do nearly anything and everything in this country as it is. So to exclude that very simple requirement from the most foundational obligation that we all have as citizens of this country is inherently wrong.

中文：我们不能允许这样的情况存在：法律上允许某人出去收集100张选票，而这些选票是他们从公寓楼大厅里捡到的，或者允许人们用健身房会员卡登记投票。从根本上说，联邦政府已经掌握信息——如果你不纳税，政府知道；开车必须有驾照；你得有身份证；在这个国家，几乎做任何事都得在系统里注册。所以，将这一非常基本的要求排除在我们作为国家公民最根本的义务之外，本身就是错误的。

And it needs to be addressed by Congress. And if Congress fixes it, and there are federal laws that create systems that ensure that elections are all about one person getting one vote, then it’s a very simple requirement. And if Congress fixes it, and there are no people allowed to vote, and they’re legally allowed to vote, then this doesn’t become an issue. Short of this, I worry where this goes. Because over time, the fewer people actually believe that elections are real. And I hate being on here sounding like I’m an election fear mongering guy who’s telling people that elections aren’t real.

中文：这需要由国会来解决。如果国会解决了这个问题，并且有联邦法律建立制度，确保选举完全遵循一人一票的原则，那么这就会是一个非常简单的规定。如果国会解决了这个问题，不允许任何不符合法定投票资格的人投票，那么这就不会成为问题。否则，我担心事态会如何发展。因为随着时间的推移，相信选举真实性的人会越来越少。我讨厌在这里听起来像是一个散布选举恐慌、告诉人们选举不真实的人。

But the longer this goes on, the more difficult it will be for people to actually have faith in the system that we’re all operating within. And that’s when things get ugly, and it needs to be fixed. Yeah, I’m strongly agreeing. If you can’t be bothered to get a driver’s license or a passport, maybe you don’t need to vote. Yeah. Congress can fix it. And they should. Yeah. And there’s, by the way, there’s a ballot measure in California. If people in California want this, they can just vote for the ballot measure. You mean the voter ID ballot measure? Yeah. Yeah, that’s very important, actually.

中文：但这种情况持续越久，人们就越难对我们所处的这个体系保持信心。一旦发展到那一步，事情就会变得棘手，必须加以纠正。是的，我强烈认同。如果你连驾照或护照都懒得办，或许你就不需要投票。没错。国会可以解决这个问题，也应该解决。是的。顺便提一句，加州有一项公投提案。如果加州人想要这个，他们可以直接投票支持这项公投。你是指选民身份证公投提案？对。是的，这其实非常重要。

Look, if that fails, it’s kind of our last chance to save anything. For California’s last chance. Yeah. Yeah. And you do sound like, your entire speech, David, was, you sound like an election. I don’t care what you label it. Look, the Democratic Party as a whole were election deniers about Trump winning in 2016. They concocted the whole Russiagate hoax to basically try and discredit his election. When you look at the difference between walk-in and mail-in ballots, and I’ve seen everyone try to argue why that’s so different, it doesn’t compute for me. That’s it. I’m not like trying to make up a fact. This is the fact.

中文：听着，如果那失败了，这差不多就是我们挽救一切的最后机会了。对加州来说，是最后的机会。是啊。是啊。而且你听起来，大卫，你的整个演讲，听起来就像在竞选。我不管你给它贴什么标签。听着，民主党整体上就是2016年特朗普胜选时的选举否认者。他们编造了整个“通俄门”骗局，基本上就是想抹黑他的当选。当你看看现场投票和邮寄选票之间的差异，我见过所有人都试图解释为什么差异这么大，但这对我来说说不通。就是这样。我不是在试图捏造事实。这就是事实。

Look at this fact on the screen you’re looking at right now. This is the difference in the data. This data tells me that something is wrong. That’s it. Obviously. It’s statistically impossible. I’m not trying to just fearmonger because I don’t like who got elected. I don’t give a what goes on in LA. In fact, I think it’s better for LA if they deal with the socialist mayor for a couple of years so they come out the other side realizing they shouldn’t embrace socialist principles. I think it’s great for the country, actually. I think it’s great for New York. I think it’s great for Seattle.

中文：看看屏幕上你正在看的这个事实。这就是数据中的差异。这些数据告诉我，有些地方不对劲。就是这样。很明显。从统计学上来说，这是不可能的。我并不是因为不喜欢谁当选就故意制造恐慌。我才不管洛杉矶发生了什么。事实上，我认为让洛杉矶人跟那位社会主义市长再打几年交道，对他们来说反而是好事，这样他们最终会醒悟，明白不应该拥抱社会主义原则。说实话，我觉得这对整个国家都有好处。我觉得这对纽约有好处。我觉得这对西雅图也有好处。

I think it’s great for wherever, Minnesota, wherever people want to elect socialists in this country. Let’s run into it. I’m all about jumping through the socialist well, so we jump out the other side like the Latin American countries are doing now. When everyone wakes up and realizes that we’re not going to win, we’re going to win. We’re going to win. We’re going to win. We’re going to win. We’re going to win. We’re going to win. We’re going to win. It’s not going to be the same as how f***ed up socialism is because it denies everyone the opportunity for economic mobility.

中文：我认为这对任何地方都是好事，无论是明尼苏达州，还是这个国家里任何想选举社会主义者的地方。让我们直面它吧。我完全支持跳进社会主义的深井，这样我们就能像现在拉丁美洲国家那样从另一头跳出来。当所有人都醒悟并意识到我们不会赢的时候，我们就会赢。我们就会赢。我们就会赢。我们就会赢。我们就会赢。我们就会赢。我们就会赢。我们就会赢。情况不会一样，因为社会主义糟透了，它剥夺了每个人实现经济流动的机会。

It denies everyone their individual liberties that this country was founded on. Socialism is f***ing wrong. It’s broken. It doesn’t work. If you all want to go through that lesson, do it. Go for it. Let’s do it. Let them get elected. But the numbers on that election data show me that that’s not what the people wanted, that it’s not very clear or evident to me that that’s what people voted for. That’s where I’m like, my God, the system itself has become a system of appointment, not a system of election. And I get fired up about that personally. Sax, you want to add anything as we wrap here on this? Yeah.

中文：这剥夺了每个人的个人自由，而这个国家正是建立在这种自由之上的。社会主义真是大错特错，它已经崩溃了，根本行不通。如果你们都想经历这个教训，那就去做吧，尽管去试。让他们当选吧。但选举数据上的数字告诉我，这并不是人民想要的，对我来说，这并不清楚，也不明显，看不出人们投票支持的是这个。这就是我感到震惊的地方，天哪，这个体制本身已经变成了一个任命体制，而不是选举体制。我个人对此感到非常愤怒。萨克斯，在我们结束之前，你还有什么要补充的吗？有。

The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. This is obvious. Just look at the charts. Look at the data. We know something crooked happened. It’s statistically impossible. The only thing we don’t know is whether it was illegal fraud or legal fraud, meaning they’ve created so many loopholes and so much corruption in the law that what they did is possibly, legal. It is still corrupt. It is still crooked. It is ridiculous. Everyone can see it. Do not deny the evidence of your eyes and ears, even if they call you an election denier. I personally don’t care. I deny it.

中文：党告诉你要拒绝相信亲眼所见、亲耳所闻的证据。这是他们最终极、最核心的指令。这显而易见。看看图表吧。看看数据吧。我们知道发生了不正当的事情。这在统计上是不可能的。我们唯一不确定的是，这究竟是非法欺诈还是合法欺诈——也就是说，他们在法律中制造了如此多的漏洞和腐败，以至于他们的所作所为可能是合法的。但这仍然是腐败的，仍然是不正当的，仍然是荒谬的。每个人都看得出来。不要否认你亲眼所见、亲耳所闻的证据，即便他们称你为选举否认者。我个人不在乎。我否认它。

Spencer Pratt should be in the runoff. I deny that Rahman won legitimately. The statistics are the statistics, and they would scream that you should have the Attorney General of California and the federal Attorney General look into it. And if they catch people doing this stuff, and they have to do it, they’re going to be in the runoff. And if they catch people doing this stuff, and they have to do it, they’re going to be in the runoff. And if they catch people doing this stuff, caught one person, and Nick Shirley went down there, and you see people on Skid Row, you know, listen, homeless people should have the right to vote, theoretically.

中文：斯宾塞·普拉特理应进入决选。我否认拉赫曼的胜选是合法的。数据就是数据，它们会强烈表明，加州总检察长和联邦总检察长应当介入调查。如果他们抓到有人干这种事，就必须采取行动，这些人就得进入决选。如果他们抓到有人干这种事，哪怕只抓到一个人，尼克·雪莉也去了那里，你在贫民窟看到那些人，听着，理论上无家可归者应当有投票权。

Why did Newsom just sign a law making audits like that even harder? Yeah, I’m not defending Newsom here. I’m saying, where’s the Attorney General? If there is, in fact, fraud, Trump has the ability, with his hands-elected Attorney Generals, to go after this. He controls that part of, you know, our democracy. He should file, and they should go figure out what happened statistically. So Trump, President Trump, thank you, President Trump, go do it. Go do it. You got this Attorney General chasing down everybody else. Go to this election, use your powers, audit it, and find them. Where’s President Trump?

中文：为什么纽森刚刚签署了一项法律，让这类审计变得更加困难？是的，我在这里不是为纽森辩护。我想问的是，司法部长在哪里？如果确实存在欺诈行为，特朗普有能力，凭借他亲手选出的司法部长们，去追查这件事。他掌控着我们民主制度中的这一部分。他应该提起诉讼，他们应该去从统计上弄清楚到底发生了什么。所以，特朗普，特朗普总统，谢谢你，特朗普总统，去做吧。去做吧。你的司法部长正在追查其他人。去查这次选举，运用你的权力，进行审计，找出他们。特朗普总统在哪里？

You didn’t hear my point that the state law just made it harder for the federal government to come in and audit the voter rolls. So yeah, he can still do it. I’m sure they will do it. I’m sure they’ll do it if they can. Yeah, I mean, trust me, Trump does what he wants. If we’ve learned anything, he will do what he wants. He’s right. And he’s not doing it. He’s not doing this now. What I find amazing is that the media, instead of asking tough questions like, how did this happen? How could the vote swing so wildly in ballots that were only found- Well, does anybody have that? Hold on.

中文：你没听明白我的观点，州法律只是让联邦政府更难介入并审计选民名册。所以没错，他仍然可以这么做。我相信他们会这么做的。只要有可能，他们肯定会去做。是啊，我的意思是，相信我，特朗普想做什么就做什么。如果说我们学到了什么，那就是他会随心所欲。他说得对。但他现在并没有这么做。让我觉得不可思议的是，媒体不去问那些尖锐的问题，比如，这到底是怎么发生的？那些后来才被发现的选票，怎么会出现如此剧烈的票数波动——等等，有人掌握这个情况吗？等一下。

After election day, the media, instead of trying to demand answers and demand accountability, is trying to cover up and say nothing wrong happened here. It’s unbelievable. It’s outrageous. What is the best theory, Steelman? What’s the best theory of why the media is discrepancy? I mean, we’re sitting here talking about it. What’s the discrepancy? Anybody have a Steelman of why this discrepancy could have happened? That’s legitimate. Anybody? The media is hanging on to a snapshot of the past where people actually cared what they said.

中文：大选日后，媒体非但没有试图追问答案、追究责任，反而试图掩盖，声称这里没出任何问题。这简直难以置信，令人愤慨。最有力的辩护理论是什么？媒体为何会出现这种偏差？我的意思是，我们正坐在这里讨论这件事。偏差在哪里？有谁能提出一个合理的辩护理论，解释这种偏差为何会发生？有吗？媒体还死抓着过去那个人们确实在意他们说什么的旧印象不放。

And every time that they can actually reestablish trust, they kind of don’t do it because the people that they want to curry favor with, are willing to play along. So I think what happens is the media is like, well, I have two choices. I can actually say that Spencer Pratt should have won or could have won or investigate why he didn’t win. But then I’m kind of tacitly supporting Trump. And hold on a second. I’m supposed to hate Trump. So no, yeah, you know, this is completely normal. Nothing to see here.

中文：而每当他们本可以真正重建信任时，却偏偏不这么做，因为他们想讨好的人愿意配合演戏。所以我觉得媒体的心态是：好吧，我有两个选择。我可以承认斯宾塞·普拉特本应获胜或可能获胜，或者调查他为何没赢。但那样一来，我等于在暗中支持特朗普。等等，我本该憎恨特朗普才对。所以不行，对，你知道的，这一切完全正常，没什么可看的。

Everybody moves on, hoping that then they get ingratiated into the machine, but they’re going to get run over and used like everybody else does too. So that’s what’s happened. Yeah. Your point is so spot on, Chamath, that like, if it’s so polarized, meaning that there’s two polls, that if you do question, it’s almost like you were being put in the Trump, pro-Trump camp, just like the word MAGA is thrown around, like, oh, you’re a MAGA guy, because you’re questioning election integrity. It has nothing to do with MAGA. It’s just simple conversation about a particular topic.

中文：每个人都继续前行，希望自己能融入那台机器，但他们最终也会像其他人一样被碾压和利用。这就是已经发生的事。没错。查马斯，你的观点非常到位，就是说，如果事情如此两极分化，意味着存在两个极端，那么一旦你提出质疑，就几乎像是被归入了特朗普、亲特朗普的阵营，就像“MAGA”这个词被随意抛出来一样，比如，哦，你是个MAGA支持者，因为你质疑选举公正性。这跟MAGA毫无关系。这只是关于某个特定话题的简单讨论。

But if it’s diametric to the other camp, you’re, you know, you must be in that bad camp. And so then they don’t want to be put in that camp. It’s so true. Hunt for mathematical and statistical, literacy. And what happened here is mathematically and statistically impossible. So nobody has any steel man or concept of how this could have happened. I can tell you the statistical odds that this would have happened. And it’s one in a trillion. Okay. What if- So are you telling me the one in a trillion shot hit? I’m asking if there is any- I’m not. Just, just this one time? I’m asking if there’s anybody who steel mans this in any way.

中文：但如果这与另一阵营截然相反，那你肯定就属于那个不好的阵营了。所以他们不想被归入那个阵营。确实如此。要追求数学和统计素养。而这里发生的事情在数学和统计上是不可能的。所以没有人能提出任何有力的论证或概念来解释这怎么可能发生。我可以告诉你这件事发生的统计概率。是一万亿分之一。好吧。那如果——你是在告诉我这一万亿分之一的概率真的发生了？我是问有没有任何——我不是这个意思。就，就这一次？我是问有没有人能以任何方式对此提出有力论证。

I’m asking for the integrity of the Why is it so psychologically- It’s so psychologically important for you to cling to the idea- It’s not. That California elections- I’m asking a question for debate. That California elections are completely corruption free after all the things they’ve clearly done to corrupt them. The answer to your question is- No voter ID. You admit there’s like, it’s chock full of loopholes. You asked me why am I holding on to it? I’m not holding on to it.

中文：我是在问诚信问题。为什么从心理上来说——对你而言，坚持这个想法在心理上如此重要——并非如此。加州的选举——我是在提出一个辩论问题。在发生了那么多明显腐败的事情之后，加州的选举怎么可能完全清廉。你的问题的答案是——没有选民身份验证。你承认了，那里漏洞百出。你问我为什么揪着这点不放？我没有揪着不放。

For the purpose of discussion and having an intellectually honest discussion, I am asking the three of you if you’ve heard or if you have any theory, just for the rigorousness of the discussion. This isn’t my position. I’m asking the three of you if you’ve heard or if you have any theory, just for the rigorousness of the discussion. This isn’t my position. Where are all the democracy protectors in the media now? Yeah, I think the media is irrelevant to here. They were the guardians of democracy. They’re going to protect democracy. Where are they to ask questions?

中文：为了进行讨论并保持学术诚信，我想问三位，你们是否听说过或持有某种理论，纯粹是为了讨论的严谨性。这不是我的立场。我想问三位，你们是否听说过或持有某种理论，纯粹是为了讨论的严谨性。这不是我的立场。现在媒体中那些民主的捍卫者都去哪儿了？是的，我认为媒体与此无关。他们曾是民主的守护者，声称要保护民主。他们现在在哪里提出质疑呢？

The only theory that I can think of, I’ll steel man it myself, because I think you do need to be rigorous in these discussions. I’ll tell you what I’ve heard, but you go ahead first. Yeah. The only thing I can think of is her ground game is more sophisticated because they’ve been at it longer than Spencer Pratt, and he didn’t have a ground game that took this in since he’s a non-traditional first-time candidate. That’s the only thing I can think of. Is sophisticated a coded word for he wasn’t bribing Skid Row homeless junkies? No, he just has it, he doesn’t have an election machine to collect ballots, and collecting ballots is legal. Exactly.

中文：我能想到的唯一理论，我自己来强化一下，因为我觉得这类讨论需要严谨。我先说说我听到的，不过你先讲吧。对。我唯一能想到的是，她的基层运作更成熟，因为他们比斯宾塞·普拉特干得久，而他作为非传统的首次参选人，没有能应对这种情况的基层运作。这是我唯一能想到的。成熟这个词是不是在暗指他没有贿赂贫民区的无家可归吸毒者？不，他就是没有，他没有那种收集选票的选举机器，而收集选票是合法的。没错。

That’s the question. She had a better cheating operation, obviously. We’re saying the same thing. We’re not actually saying anything different. The Twitter commentary was that people were waiting because there’s so many people that are so against Spencer Pratt, but they wanted to be sure that they voted for him.

中文：问题就在这儿。显然，她的作弊手段更高明。我们说的是一回事，实际上并没有分歧。推特上的评论是，人们在观望，因为有很多人非常反对斯宾塞·普拉特，但他们又想确保自己把票投给了他。

They voted for the right candidate, whether it’s Rahman or Bass, and so the people that held their ballots the longest saw the polling data that Bass was going to win, so that’s why they all voted for Rahman last minute, was to try and promote her to make sure that— Oh, gamesmanship because of the, you could have two Democrats at the top of the ticket. That’s right, and they didn’t want Spencer Pratt to have a shot as the general. By the way, you saw my interview with Spencer Pratt. He said Rahman registered one hour before the deadline, and she’s friends with Bass, and that the whole point was to keep him. Yeah. Yeah. Interesting.

中文：他们投票给了正确的候选人，无论是拉赫曼还是巴斯，所以那些最晚投票的人看到了民调数据显示巴斯会赢，因此他们在最后一刻都投给了拉赫曼，试图推她一把，以确保——哦，这是策略博弈，因为选票上可以有两名民主党人。没错，他们不想让斯宾塞·普拉特有机会进入普选。顺便提一下，你看了我对斯宾塞·普拉特的采访吧。他说拉赫曼在截止时间前一小时才登记，而且她是巴斯的朋友，整件事的目的就是为了阻止他。是的。是的。有意思。

From actually making it onto the general ballot. So that some of the coordination that people were making in their minds was like, we got to make sure we vote for the two Democrats, and then they’ll figure out, hey, is it Bass or Rahman? A box-out strategy. Let’s just box him out. Yeah. Got it. Which is like why they all waited until the last minute to vote for Rahman. How do you coordinate something like that? That’s always the question I have with these— Well, these people are all brilliant geniuses. It’s hundreds of thousands of brilliant geniuses in Skid Row that figure this shit out. Yeah. There’s a chat group.

中文：为了确保他能进入普选名单，人们私下协调的策略是：我们得确保把票投给两位民主党人，然后他们自己会琢磨，到底是选巴斯还是拉赫曼？这就是一种排挤策略，直接把他排除在外。没错，明白了。这也是为什么他们都等到最后一刻才投票给拉赫曼。这种事要怎么协调呢？我每次遇到这种情况都会问这个问题—— 其实，这些人都是绝顶聪明的天才。贫民区里有成千上万这样的聪明人，他们总能想出办法。对，有个聊天群组。

I mean, it’s not that complicated. There’s a chat group. The ballot harvesters did it. What Freeberg said just happened. It’s just that the ballot harvesters did it, not the actual voters, obviously. Right. And ballot harvesting is legal, but it’s sketchy, and maybe they—and if there are ballot harvesters, I think that Trump and the DOJ can catch these people. How the f*** is it legal that someone can go out and collect other people’s ballots and fill them out and send them in? It’s the craziest s*** to me. No evidence of fraud right now. Statistics don’t look good. Donald J. Trump, you control the Department of Justice. Go. Investigate it.

中文：我的意思是，这没那么复杂。有个聊天群。是选票收集者干的。弗里伯格说的就是事实。就是选票收集者做的，显然不是真正的选民。没错。选票收集是合法的，但这很可疑，也许他们——如果有选票收集者，我认为特朗普和司法部可以抓到这些人。有人能出去收集别人的选票，填好再寄出去，这他妈怎么可能是合法的？对我来说这简直是最疯狂的事。目前没有欺诈证据。统计数据看起来不妙。唐纳德·J·特朗普，你掌控着司法部。去吧。调查这件事。

Okay. I love you guys, but I’m hungry. I gotta go. This has been an amazing episode of the All In Podcast. Bye-bye. Love you, boys. Bye-bye. We’ll let your winners ride. Rain Man, David Sack. And it’s said we open-sourced it to the fans, and they’ve just gone crazy with it. Love you, Westies. Queen of Kinwa. I’m going all in. I want your winners ride. I’m going all in. Westies are gone. That’s my dog taking a relationship drive. Wait, no, no. Oh, man. We should all just get a room and just have one big huge orgy because they’re all just used to this sexual tension that they just need to release somehow. Wet your feet. Wet your feet.

中文：好的。我爱你们，但我饿了，得走了。这期《All In Podcast》太精彩了。拜拜，爱你们，兄弟们。拜拜。我们会让你的赢家继续奔跑。雨人，大卫·萨克。据说我们把它开源给了粉丝们，他们简直为之疯狂。爱你们，韦斯蒂们。金瓦女王。我全押了。我要你的赢家继续奔跑。我全押了。韦斯蒂们走了。那是我家狗在搞关系驱动。等等，不，不。天啊。我们真该开个房，来一场超级大狂欢，因为他们全都习惯了这种性张力，总得找个方式释放出来。把脚弄湿。把脚弄湿。

We need to get merch. I’m going all in. Westies are gone. you

中文：我们需要推出周边商品。我打算全力投入。西高地白梗犬已经过时了。