Chris Dixon on Blockchains, AI, and the Future of the Internet (Ep. 240)

Thanks to a listener for sponsoring this transcript in dedication to their grandpa, Girsha Raikhelson.

感谢一位听众赞助这份文字记录，献给他们的祖父 Girsha Raikhelson。

The challenge with things like Spotify and YouTube and just generally the structure of the modern internet is that you’ve had these services pop up, which are very dominant.

Spotify 和 YouTube 等以及现代互联网结构所面临的挑战是这些服务的突然出现，它们占据了主导地位。

It’s very consolidated.

这是非常巩固的。

Ninety percent of the internet traffic runs through less than 10 services and companies.

百分之九十的互联网流量通过不到 10 个服务和公司。

They have very high, what we call take rates on the internet business.

他们在互联网业务上的佣金率非常高。

The take rate is the percentage of money flowing through the system taken by the network intermediary.

占用率是流经系统的资金被网络中介占用的百分比。

YouTube actually is the most generous of the social networks.

YouTube 实际上是最慷慨的社交网络。

They give roughly 50 percent to the creators and take 50 percent for themselves.

他们将大约 50% 给予创作者，并为自己拿走 50%。

Now, that’s actually a low take rate in the internet in any other area of the economy, as I’m sure you’d know.

现在，我相信您知道，在任何其他经济领域，互联网的使用率实际上都很低。

Fifty percent for an intermediary is generally a very high rate.

对于中介来说，百分之五十通常是一个非常高的比率。

Spotify is 30 percent, but then, of course, for musicians, there are many other layers of fees on top, including the music labels.

Spotify 占 30%，但当然，对于音乐家来说，还有许多其他层次的费用，包括音乐厂牌。

Spotify’s own statistics — it’s on their website.

Spotify 自己的统计数据 — 在他们的网站上。

I guess they’re glad about this.

我想他们对此很高兴。

They think it’s a good stat.

他们认为这是一个很好的统计数据。

It’s something like — I don’t remember the exact number — it’s like 8,000 of the 8 million artists make more than $50,000 a year, so a very, very small percentage make something like the average American living.

就像 —— 我不记得确切的数字了—— 800 万艺术家中有 8,000 人的年收入超过 50,000 美元，所以只有非常非常小的一部分人的收入与美国人的平均生活水平相当。

The question is, is that because people aren’t paying for music?

问题是，这是因为人们不为音乐付费吗？

People are paying for music.

人们正在为音乐付费。

Advertisers are spending a ton of money on YouTube.

广告商在 YouTube 上投入了大量资金。

Meta, and Google, and these companies are making a ton of money.

Meta、谷歌和这些公司赚了很多钱。

The problem is, in my mind, primarily economic.

在我看来，问题主要在于经济。

I go through this, by the way, in detail in the first part of my book.

顺便说一句，我在书的第一部分详细介绍了这一点。

I go through the history of the internet and how this happened.

我回顾了互联网的历史以及这是如何发生的。

Basically, why I got into the internet was, it was a very exciting vision.

基本上，我进入互联网的原因是，这是一个非常令人兴奋的愿景。

Of course, it came out of academia and government and things, but this vision that you’d have an internet that’s owned and operated by the people that use it, where, if you visualize a network, the money’s flowing to the edges of the network.

当然，它来自学术界、政府和其他方面，但这种愿景是，你将拥有一个由使用它的人拥有和运营的互联网，如果你想象一个网络，金钱就会流向网络的边缘。

There were all these great ideas, like there’s a famous blog post by Kevin Kelly called “1,000 True Fans.” The idea was — because you’re removing intermediaries — musicians and creative people can now make a living with only a thousand customers.

有很多很棒的想法，比如凯文·凯利 (Kevin Kelly) 有一篇著名的博客文章，名为“1,000 个忠实粉丝”。这个想法是 —— 因为你要消除中间人 —— 音乐家和创意人士现在只需依靠一千名顾客就可以谋生。

If you do the math, someone’s paying $10 a month, and you have a thousand of them, that’s 10 grand a month.

如果你算一下，有人每月支付 10 美元，而你有一千个人，那就是每月 10 格兰特。

That’s 120 grand a year.

一年就是120格兰特。

That’s a pretty good living for somebody doing something they love.

对于做自己喜欢的事情的人来说，这是一个相当不错的生活。

That was always the vision.

这始终是我们的愿景。

That’s what I got excited about.

这就是我感到兴奋的事情。

I got started in the internet in the ’90s, and the internet was like that in the ’90s, and it was like that in much of the 2000s, and then I go through this.

我在 90 年代开始接触互联网，90 年代的互联网就是这样，2000 年代的大部分时间都是这样，然后我经历了这个。

I think because of the incentives, of the way these services were set up, because of venture capital, because of a bunch of things, you essentially had a bunch of incentives to consolidate.

我认为，由于激励措施，由于这些服务的建立方式，由于风险投资，由于很多事情，你基本上有很多激励措施需要整合。

And network effects, of course — that these services get more valuable, the more people that are on it, which has a winner-take-all effect.

当然，还有网络效应——使用的人越多，这些服务就越有价值，这就产生了赢家通吃的效应。

You look around about 10 years ago, and we got to a place where there’re roughly 5 to 10 services that are dominating the internet, taking all the money, taking all the economics.

环顾四周，大约 10 年前，我们发现大约有 5 到 10 种服务主导着互联网，占据了所有的钱，占据了所有的经济。

And also have control — that’s a whole separate topic.

并且还有控制权——这是一个完全独立的话题。

This is going to this topic of de-platforming and rules.

这就是去平台化和规则的主题。

If you go on YouTube, there’re all these debates around demonetization.

如果你访问 YouTube，就会发现所有这些围绕废钞令的争论。

In the book, I go through this.

在书中，我经历了这一点。

It’s the history of the internet, how this happened, and then what are the effects.

这是互联网的历史，它是如何发生的，以及产生的影响。

There’re economic effects, there’re governance or control effects, and I think, more broadly, what it does is — for example, as you mentioned, YouTube and Spotify — it creates real challenges for creative people.

有经济效应，有治理或控制效应，我认为，更广泛地说，它的作用是 ——例如，正如你提到的，YouTube 和 Spotify ——它为创意人士带来了真正的挑战。

Now, throw in artificial intelligence, which I think is, obviously, an amazing technology and incredibly powerful, and I’m generally very excited about what it will do.

现在，加入人工智能，我认为这显然是一项令人惊叹的技术，而且非常强大，我通常对它的作用感到非常兴奋。

I think, left unchecked on its current trajectory, it will likely lead to even further consolidation and reward companies with large amounts of data and capital and things like this.

我认为，如果不按照目前的轨迹发展，它可能会导致进一步的整合，并奖励拥有大量数据和资本等的公司。

The reason that I’m involved with blockchains and crypto is, I see blockchains as a potential counterbalancing force to those consolidation trends.

我参与区块链和加密货币的原因是，我认为区块链是这些整合趋势的潜在平衡力量。

Actually, the case study I used in the book is RSS and the fall of RSS.

实际上，我在书中使用的案例研究是 RSS 和 RSS 的衰落。

RSS is still around but in a very niche way.

RSS 仍然存在，但方式非常小众。

At one point — it was, let’s call it 2008.

曾几何时，我们称其为 2008 年吧。

I was there; I was blogging about this at the time.

我当时就在那里；我当时正在写博客讨论这个问题。

It was a legitimate contender.

这是一个合法的竞争者。

You could’ve imagined a world where you were getting your YouTube and Twitter, and all these other services through a decentralized protocol.

你可以想象这样一个世界：你可以通过去中心化协议获得 YouTube 和 Twitter 以及所有其他服务。

Not RSS as you imagine it, just like a bad visual interface, but as the underlying structure, and then you build graphics and streaming and all these other things in it.

不是你想象的 RSS，就像一个糟糕的视觉界面，而是作为底层结构，然后你在其中构建图形和流媒体以及所有其他东西。

So, why didn’t that happen?

那么，为什么没有发生呢？

I think, to your point, it didn’t happen because it wasn’t good enough.

我认为，就你的观点而言，它没有发生是因为它不够好。

It didn’t offer the same user experience.

它没有提供相同的用户体验。

You’re absolutely right about that.

你说得完全正确。

These services won because they were better.

这些服务之所以获胜，是因为它们更好。

One of the big reasons they were better — and I have, again, a case study of this in the book — is subsidization.

它们变得更好的一个重要原因——我在书中再次对此进行了案例研究——是补贴。

YouTube, for a very long time, and to this day in some areas, is subsidizing video hosting costs, which is very expensive.

YouTube 在很长一段时间里，直到今天在某些地区，都在补贴视频托管费用，这是非常昂贵的。

Look, I’ve seen this from the other side.

看，我从另一面看到了这一点。

I work in venture capital.

我从事风险投资工作。

I’ve now worked in it for, I don’t know, I’ve been investing for almost 20 years.

我现在已经在这方面工作了，我不知道，我已经投资了近20年了。

These companies like YouTube and Twitter — they raise a lot of money.

这些公司如 YouTube 和 Twitter ——它们筹集了大量资金。

What do they spend that money on?

他们花这些钱做什么？

A lot of it is for subsidizing the hosting costs because the basic idea is, these are winner-take-all markets.

其中很大一部分是为了补贴托管成本，因为基本思想是，这些是赢家通吃的市场。

They have network effects, and so, what you do is you subsidize along the way.

它们具有网络效应，因此，您所做的就是一路提供补贴。

Let’s imagine the 2000s.

让我们想象一下2000年代。

YouTube came out in 2005.

YouTube 于 2005 年问世。

You’re sitting there in 2007.

2007 年，你正坐在那里。

You’re a video blogger, and you have two choices.

您是视频博主，您有两个选择。

You can set up RSS and pay hosting costs, or you can go to YouTube and do it for free.

您可以设置 RSS 并支付托管费用，也可以免费访问 YouTube。

That was one of the big value propositions of YouTube early on if you used it back then.

如果你当时使用 YouTube，这就是早期 YouTube 的一大价值主张。

I did.

我做到了。

That subsidization is something that those protocol networks — there’s no company behind it.

这种补贴是那些协议网络 ——背后没有公司支持的。

RSS couldn’t offer subsidies.

RSS 无法提供补贴。

It’s like there’s no —

就好像没有 ——

But blockchains are able to do some of the things you’re describing.

但区块链能够做你所描述的一些事情。

A blockchain can offer incentives.

区块链可以提供激励。

A blockchain can have a treasury, right?

区块链可以有一个金库，对吗？

This is the architecture of blockchain.

这就是区块链的架构。

They have a thing called smart contracts, and the smart contract is something that’s hard for people to get their heads around, but it’s not a company or a person.

他们有一个叫做智能合约的东西，智能合约是人们很难理解的东西，但它不是一个公司或一个人。

It’s literally a piece of code that owns tokens and money and can use that money to do things like the YouTube subsidization.

它实际上是一段拥有代币和金钱的代码，可以用这些钱来做 YouTube 补贴等事情。

My core argument is that protocol networks are better for society.

我的核心论点是协议网络对社会更有利。

Corporate networks — as I call them — like YouTube, have a lot of advantages, as you’re describing, like competitive advantages.

企业网络 ——我称之为 ——像 YouTube 一样，有很多优势，正如您所描述的，比如竞争优势。

Blockchain networks done right can ideally be the best of both worlds.

理想情况下，如果区块链网络做得好，可以两全其美。

They can have the societal benefits of protocol networks but the competitive advantages of these corporate networks.

他们不仅可以享受协议网络的社会效益，还可以享受这些企业网络的竞争优势。

Now, to your point, anything that’s decentralized — there are some coordination costs.

现在，就你的观点而言，任何去中心化的东西都会产生一些协调成本。

I think a good case study there would be Linux versus Windows, right?

我认为 Linux 与 Windows 的比较是一个很好的案例研究，对吧？

Linux is now — I don’t know what the percentages are, but I think it’s well above 90 percent of the operating systems are Linux.

Linux 现在 — 我不知道百分比是多少，但我认为 90% 以上的操作系统都是 Linux。

If you rewind to the ’90s when it was starting out, it was a mess.

如果你回到 20 世纪 90 年代刚开始的时候，那是一团糟。

It was on a listserv and a bunch of uncoordinated people.

它在一个列表服务器上，还有一群不协调的人。

Now, you did have a very important bully pulpit leader in Linux, but it was an uncoordinated mess.

现在，Linux 中确实有一位非常重要的讲坛领袖，但这是一个不协调的混乱局面。

And you’re right, there is overhead and coordination costs.

你是对的，存在管理费用和协调成本。

You don’t have a hierarchical management structure that can be very efficient.

您没有非常高效的分层管理结构。

The flip side, and why I think Linux won, is that open-source benefits from what’s known as composability.

另一方面，我认为 Linux 获胜的原因是开源受益于所谓的可组合性。

That’s the idea that anyone in the world can write a piece of software once, put it on GitHub as a public resource, and then anyone else can use that as a Lego brick to build another thing.

这个想法是，世界上任何人都可以编写一个软件一次，将其作为公共资源放在 GitHub 上，然后其他任何人都可以使用它作为乐高积木来构建另一个东西。

I say in the book that composability is to software as compounding interest is to finance.

我在书中说过，可组合性之于软件就像复利之于金融一样。

It’s this thing where, basically, one person builds something, and you never have to build it again, and you reuse it, and you build the Lego bricks up.

基本上，一个人建造了一些东西，你永远不需要再次建造它，你可以重复使用它，然后你可以建造乐高积木。

I think that’s one of the main reasons that open source has taken 90 percent plus market share.

我认为这是开源占据 90% 以上市场份额的主要原因之一。

AWS, every embedded device you have, every data center, Android devices, and so forth.

AWS、您拥有的每个嵌入式设备、每个数据中心、Android 设备等等。

So, you’re right, there’s a different set of trade-offs.

所以，你是对的，有一套不同的权衡。

It’s tougher to coordinate building a decentralized protocol or a blockchain protocol, but on the flip side, you have other benefits.

协调构建去中心化协议或区块链协议更加困难，但另一方面，您还有其他好处。

You have lower take rates.

您的接受率较低。

You can offer incentives through tokens.

您可以通过代币提供激励。

You can benefit from composability.

您可以从可组合性中受益。

Everything is open source and reusable.

一切都是开源且可重用的。

On stablecoins

关于稳定币

Stablecoins, for example — I think that the numbers are shockingly high.

例如，稳定币 — 我认为这个数字高得惊人。

If you Google Visa stablecoin dashboard, Visa is, I think, a pretty neutral party.

如果你谷歌 Visa 稳定币仪表板，我认为 Visa 是一个相当中立的政党。

They have a dashboard that tracks it.

他们有一个跟踪它的仪表板。

It’s $3.5 trillion in stablecoin transactions last month, and that’s been steadily going up.

上个月稳定币交易额为 3.5 万亿美元，并且一直在稳步增长。

It’s been going up.

它一直在上涨。

Stablecoin, just for your audience, is something like, it could be a dollar or euro, but it’s backed by an asset in the bank, so there’s Tether, USDC.

稳定币，对于你的受众来说，就像是，它可能是美元或欧元，但它有银行资产的支持，所以有 Tether、USDC。

There’s a bill that just passed the Senate Finance Committee and is going to be voted on in the House, hopefully in the next six weeks and hopefully passed.

有一项法案刚刚在参议院财务委员会获得通过，并将在众议院进行投票，希望在接下来的六周内获得通过。

That is congressional legislation to put full rules around stablecoins.

这是国会立法，对稳定币制定完整的规则。

All of this growth has been happening before there was that kind of clarity.

所有这些增长都是在这种清晰度出现之前就发生的。

I think that could really accelerate it.

我认为这确实可以加速它。

The reason I’m saying this is that, look, it may just be me.

我这么说的原因是，看，这可能就是我。

I think there’re really interesting things you can do with blockchains and social networks, but the reality is, in 2025, it could just be that we have social networks.

我认为你可以利用区块链和社交网络做一些非常有趣的事情，但现实是，到 2025 年，我们可能只拥有社交网络。

The network effects are strong, and the areas to focus on when you have new architectures, like blockchains, may be other areas.

网络效应很强，当你有新的架构（比如区块链）时，需要关注的领域可能是其他领域。

In software, there’s a phrase, greenfield, brownfield.

在软件中，有一个短语，绿地，棕地。

Greenfield is, you have some breakthrough — AI or crypto or whatever — do you go after existing use cases and make them better or do you go after new use cases?

Greenfield 是，你有一些突破 ——人工智能或加密技术或其他什么—— 你会追求现有的用例并使其变得更好，还是会追求新的用例？

What you’re describing is more brownfield.

你所描述的更多的是棕地。

It may just be that some of the wars are fought, and they’re over.

可能只是有些战争已经打响，然后就结束了。

There’re 3 billion people using Facebook apps.

有 30 亿人使用 Facebook 应用程序。

At some point, the network effects are so strong that even if you come up with something that’s much better, it may just be a challenge.

在某些时候，网络效应是如此强大，即使你想出了更好的东西，它也可能只是一个挑战。

I’m sure some of your challenge on something like Mastodon is just that your friends aren’t there.

我确信你在乳齿象这样的游戏中面临的一些挑战只是因为你的朋友不在那里。

Network effects.

网络效应。

To your question, I’m very excited, obviously, about blockchains in this new architecture.

对于你的问题，显然，我对这种新架构中的区块链感到非常兴奋。

We make investments in a lot of different areas because we like to experiment and try a bunch of things, but I think right now, the most likely areas where we’re going to see increased adoption are in these areas where things are more broken.

我们在很多不同的领域进行投资，因为我们喜欢尝试和尝试很多事情，但我认为现在，我们最有可能看到更多采用的领域是那些事情更加破碎的领域。

I would say that’s in payments, financial services.

我想说的是支付、金融服务。

I think there’s a lot of interesting stuff happening also at the intersection of crypto, blockchains, and AI.

我认为在加密货币、区块链和人工智能的交叉领域也发生了很多有趣的事情。

My hope would be that the US does something here, and a lot of other countries follow that lead, and that becomes the norm, and that people want, and there’ll be rules.

我希望美国在这里做点什么，许多其他国家也能效仿，这会成为常态，人们想要的，也会有规则。

You can’t call something a stablecoin and get it on a registered exchange if it’s not.

如果不是稳定币，你就不能将其放在注册交易所上。

That would be my hope.

那将是我的希望。

Look, in crypto, there’s no question there are scams, and there are bad things, and I’m sure there will be in the future.

看，在加密货币领域，毫无疑问存在诈骗，也存在不好的事情，而且我确信将来还会有。

I think that the best solution to it is to have smart regulation that incentivizes or requires things to be built in the proper way, in a way that avoids things like bank runs.

我认为最好的解决方案是制定明智的监管，激励或要求以正确的方式建设事物，以避免银行挤兑等事情。

By the way, the bank run thing — just to be clear, there were a bunch of stablecoins in the past, like Terra Luna, which had a bank run and collapsed.

顺便说一句，银行挤兑事件——需要明确的是，过去有很多稳定币，比如 Terra Luna，它发生了银行挤兑并崩溃了。

That was not asset-backed by dollars.

那不是由美元支持的资产。

That was this circular thing that was backed by its own token, and it had a bank-run thing.

那就是这个由自己的代币支持的圆形东西，并且它有一个银行运行的东西。

That has happened, as you say.

正如你所说，这已经发生了。

The hope would be that these existing ones and the new ones and the regulations around them would require full one-to-one asset backed, and therefore make bank runs impossible.

希望这些现有的和新的以及围绕它们的法规将需要完全一对一的资产支持，从而使银行挤兑成为不可能。

Again, why don’t we just end up with these significant corners where the most profitable stablecoins are outside of what the US wants to do with them?

再说一次，为什么我们不最终陷入这些重要的角落，即最有利可图的稳定币不在美国想要用它们做的事情之外呢？

They’re using it for — I don’t know — I don’t have their financial statements on the thing, but as they describe it, they’re using it for things like treasury management.

他们将其用于 ——“我不知道”—— 我没有他们关于这件事的财务报表，但正如他们所描述的，他们将其用于财务管理等事情。

I believe the example they gave was SpaceX moving money from one jurisdiction to another.

我相信他们举的例子是 SpaceX 将资金从一个管辖区转移到另一个管辖区。

A very popular use case is international invoicing.

一个非常流行的用例是国际发票。

You’re an importer, and you have to send out 50 invoices to various countries.

您是进口商，必须向各个国家/地区发送 50 张发票。

You can now do it in a fully digital way with very low fees and very quickly.

现在，您可以以完全数字化的方式完成此操作，费用非常低且速度非常快。

The Stripe founders — one of the interesting things they said is, it’s not just the lower fees.

Stripe 创始人 ——他们所说的有趣的事情之一是，这不仅仅是较低的费用。

Just to give you a sense on the fees — this is as of a year and a half ago, basically, because the infrastructure in crypto has gotten better.

只是为了让您对费用有所了解 ——这基本上是一年半前的事情，因为加密货币的基础设施已经变得更好了。

You now, basically, on things like Base, which is an L2, and Solana — have hit what we’ve thought of for a long time as a target, which is one second-one penny to transfer things.

现在，基本上，像 Base（L2）和 Solana   这样的东西已经达到了我们长期以来一直认为的目标，即一秒一分钱地转移东西。

That’s where we are now technically.

从技术上来说，这就是我们现在的处境。

Your viewers — if they want to check me, they can go download the Coinbase Wallet and try it, and you can see it.

你的观众 —— 如果他们想查看我的话，他们可以去下载Coinbase钱包并尝试一下，你就可以看到。

One of the big benefits the Stripe founders talked about is the fact that you can now — because it’s fully digital end-to-end, like email — you can fully automate the whole thing.

Stripe 创始人谈到的一大好处是，您现在可以 — 因为它是完全数字化的端到端，就像电子邮件 — 您可以完全自动化整个过程。

A big problem, for example, with invoicing is invoice fraud.

例如，发票方面的一个大问题是发票欺诈。

People send you an invoice, and it’s a fake place to wire it to.

人们向您发送发票，而这是一个虚假的电汇地点。

Now, it’s fully digital.

现在，它已经完全数字化了。

Stripe has, effectively, what’s like a reputation network.

Stripe 实际上拥有一个声誉网络。

One computer sends a request to the other, and the other one checks it.

一台计算机向另一台计算机发送请求，另一台计算机检查该请求。

It checks it against Stripe’s database.

它会根据 Stripe 的数据库进行检查。

Is this a white-listed address?

这是白名单地址吗？

And it does the whole thing end-to-end, low fees, internationally.

它在国际范围内以低廉的费用完成整个端到端的工作。

To your question, will there be people at the fringes who want to maximize yield?

对于你的问题，是否会有处于边缘的人想要最大化产量？

Sure, there’s always that kind of behavior.

当然，这种行为总是存在的。

Probably, it’s the internet.

也许，这就是互联网。

The internet has edges.

互联网有边缘。

The question is, can we marginalize it?

问题是，我们能边缘化它吗？

And will these legitimate companies like Stripe .

像 Stripe 这样的合法公司会吗？

.

。

.

。

What I’m hoping — Stablecoin bill passes.

我所希望的 —— 稳定币法案能够通过。

I think Visa will enter, MasterCard will enter, PayPal will enter.

我认为 Visa 会进入，MasterCard 会进入，PayPal 会进入。

Fidelity has already said they’re going to enter.

富达已经表示他们将进入。

Bank of America said they’re going to enter.

美国银行表示他们将进入。

I think you’re going to have every bank probably issuing, I hope, a stablecoin the way you have them issuing credit cards.

我认为，我希望每家银行都可能会像发行信用卡一样发行稳定币。

These all have users and customers.

这些都有用户和客户。

The banks will have a button that says, “Send a stablecoin.” What I’m hoping is that there’re enough legitimate actors around this who create a network effect that, to your point, yes, there will be that stuff, but it will be marginalized.

银行将有一个按钮，上面写着“发送稳定币”。我希望有足够多的合法参与者围绕这个问题创造网络效应，就你的观点而言，是的，会有这样的东西，但它将被边缘化。

I believe in the current draft of the bill, you can’t offer yield to the consumers.

我认为在当前的法案草案中，你无法为消费者提供收益。

I think that’s something the banks are fighting for.

我认为这是银行正在努力争取的目标。

Anyways, this is still a political thing going on, but they don’t want that because they think if you can offer essentially a treasury bill, like a yield, and the consumer gets the yield, that that will become more attractive than bank accounts.

无论如何，这仍然是一个政治问题，但他们不希望这样，因为他们认为，如果你可以本质上提供国库券，例如收益率，并且消费者获得收益，那么这将比银行账户更具吸引力。

I think this will also be a question: Is this optimized more around payments or more around savings use cases?

我认为这也是一个问题：这是更多围绕支付还是更多围绕储蓄用例进行优化？

I’ll have to defer to you.

我得听从你的安排。

I would also argue the other national security interest here — and you’ve had others write about this in various editorials — it’s another way to popularize a dollar, right?

我还想在这里争论其他国家安全利益 ——你已经让其他人在各种社论中写到了这一点—— 这是普及美元的另一种方式，对吗？

We’ve seen the demand for it, and if we legitimate it, it presumably will make, hopefully, the dollar more popular and increase its status or maintain its status as a reserve currency.

我们已经看到了对它的需求，如果我们将其合法化，它可能会让美元更受欢迎，并提高其地位或维持其作为储备货币的地位。

Fractional banking stuff, I probably have to defer to you on that, as I could speculate a little bit, but it’s from an amateur perspective.

部分银行业务，我可能不得不听从你的意见，因为我可以推测一下，但这是从业余角度来看的。

A lot of things with AI — there’s the technical side, but there’s also the legal side.

人工智能有很多事情——有技术方面，但也有法律方面。

How do you deal with KYC, AML, and liability, and all those kinds of things?

您如何处理 KYC、AML 和责任以及所有这些事情？

There’re a lot of questions that come up if you have an AI going out and doing stuff and spending money.

如果你让人工智能出去做事、花钱，就会出现很多问题。

That actually turns out to be a really interesting area of innovation.

这实际上是一个非常有趣的创新领域。

The person we just invested in is a veteran of that regulatory money world.

我们刚刚投资的人是监管货币世界的资深人士。

One of the knocks on Bitcoin as a payment system is the volatility.

比特币作为支付系统面临的挑战之一是其波动性。

You don’t want to have something that changes value a lot when you’re paying for something, but if it’s a machine and a machine, presumably they can do that in milliseconds or microseconds, and volatility becomes a moot issue.

当你支付某物时，你不希望拥有一些价值发生很大变化的东西，但如果它是一台机器和一台机器，想必它们可以在几毫秒或几微秒内做到这一点，那么波动性就成为一个没有实际意义的问题。

There’s a guy, David Marcus — he ran the Libra Project at Facebook and spun out, and we funded his start-up.

有一个人，大卫·马库斯（David Marcus）——他在 Facebook 运营 Libra 项目并分拆出来，我们资助了他的初创公司。

It’s called Lightspark.

它的名字叫“光火花”。

It’s doing exactly what you’re describing, which is a payment system built on top of Bitcoin.

它所做的正是你所描述的，这是一个建立在比特币之上的支付系统。

His argument is Bitcoin is preferable because it’s not the dollar, that a lot of countries will want some.

他的论点是，比特币更可取，因为它不是许多国家想要的美元。

It’s the only crypto asset that is credibly globally neutral, that no country sees as a US thing or some other country thing, and therefore should be the currency of the internet.

它是唯一可信的全球中立的加密资产，没有任何国家将其视为美国或其他国家的事物，因此应该成为互联网的货币。

I think that’s an interesting argument.

我认为这是一个有趣的论点。

On how AI will transform the web

人工智能将如何改变网络

It was pre-training, and now it looks like it’s reasoning.

本来是预训练，现在看来是推理了。

They’ll probably come up with some other method in a year that does that.

他们可能会在一年内想出其他方法来做到这一点。

We haven’t even begun to scratch the surface around humanoid robots and haven’t gone deep on video and other forms of media modalities.

我们甚至还没有开始触及人形机器人的表面，也没有深入研究视频和其他形式的媒体模式。

One thing I think a lot about, though, is the economics of the internet.

不过，我经常思考的一件事是互联网的经济学。

Specifically, I have a chapter in the book on this.

具体来说，我在书中有一章专门讨论这一点。

I think of the internet as having an implicit covenant right now.

我认为互联网现在有一个隐含的契约。

So you have these five to ten companies — Facebook, Google, Amazon, et cetera — who control 90 percent plus of the traffic and the money.

因此，有五到十家公司 ——Facebook、谷歌、亚马逊等—— 控制着 90% 以上的流量和资金。

Just to take Google as an example .

仅以 Google 为例。

.

。

.

。

Then there’s the rest of the internet, the long tail of the internet.

然后是互联网的其余部分，即互联网的长尾。

There’s my blog, your blog, a cooking site, a travel site, whatever it might be.

有我的博客，你的博客，烹饪网站，旅游网站，无论是什么。

For 25 years or so, there’s been this implicit covenant between the distribution centers like Google and the content providers like us.

大约 25 年以来，像 Google 这样的分发中心和像我们这样的内容提供商之间一直存在着这种隐含的契约。

That covenant is, “Hey, you let us fair use, you let us take a snippet of your content, index it, put it in our search results or let people share it on my social network or whatever it might be.

这个契约是，“嘿，你让我们合理使用，你让我们获取你的内容片段，将其编入索引，将其放入我们的搜索结果中，或者让人们在我的社交网络或其他任何内容上分享它。

The trade is, we’ll put a link there, and you’ll get some traffic back, and then you can have ads or subscriptions or make it free or whatever you choose to do.”

交易是，我们会在那里放一个链接，你会得到一些流量，然后你可以有广告或订阅或免费或任何你选择做的事情。”

That’s been the equilibrium state that evolved.

这就是演化出来的平衡状态。

It wasn’t as if people sat down and decided that, but it evolved into that, and it’s worked reasonably well.

这并不是人们坐下来决定的，但它演变成了这样，而且效果相当好。

I think it’s worked more to the favor of the distribution side, to the Googles of the world.

我认为这对发行方、对世界各地的谷歌来说更加有利。

We see that in Rupert Murdoch and Fox sued Google over it a bunch.

我们看到鲁珀特·默多克和福克斯因此多次起诉谷歌。

I think Facebook just removed news in Canada because they’re upset about it.

我认为 Facebook 刚刚删除了加拿大的新闻，因为他们对此感到不安。

It’s not that happy, but it sort of worked.

虽然不是那么高兴，但还是有效果的。

What happens in a world where you just get the answer and there’s no need for a link?

如果你只需要得到答案而不需要链接，会发生什么？

Which is the world we’re in now.

这就是我们现在所处的世界。

I don’t know about you, but I’m probably using Claude and ChatGPT and all these things more than I’m using Google.

我不了解你，但我可能使用 Claude 和 ChatGPT 以及所有这些东西比使用 Google 更多。

I use these on the weekends and stuff.

我在周末之类的时候用这些。

I use Cursor.

我使用游标。

It’s an unbelievable product.

这是一个令人难以置信的产品。

You can type an English sentence and get code out of it, but it obviates the need to go to these websites.

您可以输入英文句子并从中获取代码，但它不需要访问这些网站。

The traffic is down.

交通量下降了。

My concern is Stack Overflow is the canary in the coal mine.

我担心 Stack Overflow 是煤矿里的金丝雀。

This is the first thing to go.

这是首先要做的事情。

On one hand, it’s great for people.

一方面，这对人们来说很棒。

I’m by no means anti-AI or technology, but I do think we need to think about — and I’m a little bit surprised more people aren’t thinking about — what kind of internet do we want, and are we creating the right incentive systems to maintain that?

我绝不反对人工智能或技术，但我确实认为我们需要考虑 —— 令我有点惊讶的是，更多的人没有考虑 —— 我们想要什么样的互联网，我们是否正在创建正确的激励系统来维持这一点？

By the way, more broadly, look at these.

顺便说一下，更广泛地看看这些。

Just today, the new ChatGPT, was it 4o Image thing came out, which looks amazing.

就在今天，新的ChatGPT，是4o Image的东西出来了，看起来很神奇。

Look, I agree with you, too.

听着，我也同意你的看法。

It’s easier to get that thing on Edward III.

在爱德华三世身上得到这个东西更容易。

On the other hand, do we want a shrinking book industry?

另一方面，我们是否希望图书业萎缩？

It’s already shrinking too much — in my opinion — the book industry.

它已经萎缩太多了————在我看来————图书行业。

Do we want that to go further?

我们想要更进一步吗？

I don’t know.

我不知道。

In fact, the two biggest winners of this era from a stock perspective were Amazon and LVMH, which is a private equity–style roll-up of those high-end brands.

事实上，从股票角度来看，这个时代的两个最大赢家是亚马逊和路威酩轩集团，后者是这些高端品牌的私募股权式集合。

Who lost?

谁输了？

It was the people in the middle.

原来是中间的那群人。

It was Kmart, Sears, all those companies that went bankrupt.

凯马特、西尔斯等公司都破产了。

Why does that happen?

为什么会发生这种情况？

Basically, Kmart and Sears were this artificial bundle, in a sense, of distribution merchandising.

基本上，从某种意义上说，凯马特和西尔斯是分销商品的人为捆绑。

You could bring this stuff to them, but not all the way to them the way Amazon does, and you had a little bit of service, and you had all this stuff in the middle.

你可以把这些东西带给他们，但不是像亚马逊那样一路带给他们，你有一点服务，而且你把所有这些东西都放在中间。

Once you had this new tech, you could unbundle this, and you can go all scale or all high touch.

一旦你拥有了这项新技术，你就可以将其分拆，并且你可以进行所有规模或所有高接触。

I think the same thing has happened in media.

我认为媒体也发生了同样的事情。

We’ve had a barbelling effect, and the winners have been either 30-second dopamine hits of TikTok and Instagram reels or three-hour podcasts or Severance and high-end long-form content.

我们产生了杠铃效应，获胜者要么是 30 秒多巴胺刺激的 TikTok 和 Instagram 视频，要么是三小时的播客，要么是《遣散费》和高端长篇内容。

What suffered generally has been the 30-minute sitcom, the middle, the 30-minute game show.

一般受到影响的是30分钟的情景喜剧、中间部分、30分钟的游戏节目。

That matches human needs.

这符合人类的需求。

You’re in line to buy something, and you want a couple of dopamine hits.

你正在排队买东西，你想要一些多巴胺的刺激。

You watch TikTok, and then you want to lean back and get something, and I think that surprised a lot of people, how popular three-hour podcasts are, like Joe Rogan and Lex Fridman.

你看 TikTok，然后你想靠在椅背上听点东西，我认为这让很多人感到惊讶，三小时播客如此受欢迎，比如乔·罗根 (Joe Rogan) 和莱克斯·弗里德曼 (Lex Fridman)。

It’s because that’s the other need.

因为那是另一个需求。

It’s turned out these 30-minute things were just there artificially because of the constraints of the medium of TV and things.

事实证明，这些30分钟的东西只是由于电视和事物媒介的限制而人为地存在的。

To your question, I don’t have deep thoughts on this, but I think that my default answer for media would be you’re going to have a barbelling effect.

对于你的问题，我对此没有深入的思考，但我认为我对媒体的默认答案是你会产生杠铃效应。

You’re going to have highly-automated, scaled-out, AI-driven content.

您将拥有高度自动化、横向扩展、人工智能驱动的内容。

Somebody comes up with a new Star Wars thing.

有人想出了一个新的星球大战的东西。

You have a whole Reddit community, and they’re all building these AI-created serial movies and things.

你有一个完整的 Reddit 社区，他们都在制作这些人工智能创建的连续电影和东西。

My expectation is, on the flip side, you’ll have rising demand for very bespoke human things.

我的期望是，另一方面，您对定制人类物品的需求将会不断增长。

We’ve seen this.

我们已经看到了这一点。

Live concerts have become more popular in an age of machine-created music.

在机器创作音乐的时代，现场音乐会变得更加流行。

fine art like —

美术如 —

The other really interesting thing with media that I think about is, when film came along, the first cameras and photography.

我认为媒体的另一个真正有趣的事情是，当电影出现时，第一台相机和摄影术出现了。

These famous essays, like The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction, by Benjamin — it was all this discussion of what is the future of art now that we can take a picture.

这些著名的文章，比如本杰明的《机械复制时代的艺术作品》，都是在讨论既然我们可以拍照，艺术的未来是什么。

What’s the role of the representational artist?

具象艺术家的角色是什么？

Of course, the rise of photography coincided with art becoming abstract and all those modern art movements.

当然，摄影的兴起与艺术变得抽象和所有这些现代艺术运动同时发生。

So, in some sense, the camera did replace the representational art.

所以，从某种意义上说，相机确实取代了具象艺术。

But another thing happened, which is a new medium was formed, which is, you take a photo and you take a series of photos and you make a film.

但另一件事发生了，一种新的媒介形成了，也就是说，你拍一张照片，拍一系列照片，然后拍一部电影。

So, you had two things happen when the camera developed.

所以，当相机开发时，发生了两件事。

You had the old medium get replaced.

您更换了旧介质。

Of course, high art then pivoted into abstract art, but then you had a brand-new medium that simply couldn’t exist before.

当然，高雅艺术随后转向抽象艺术，但随后你就拥有了一种以前根本不存在的全新媒介。

That was film, and a whole industry was created around it.

这就是电影，并且围绕它创建了整个产业。

One thing I like to think about when I think about media is, maybe AI will be the camera and it will replace illustration.

当我思考媒体时，我喜欢思考的一件事是，也许人工智能将成为相机，它将取代插图。

The role of the illustrator will go away, and AI will replace it.

插画家的角色将会消失，人工智能将取代它。

But on the flip side, maybe it will enable a new AI native form of media that couldn’t have existed before.

但另一方面，也许它将带来一种以前不可能存在的新的人工智能原生媒体形式。

On how AI will transform venture capital

人工智能将如何改变风险投资

There’s another aspect, and this is one of the smart things the founders of the firm, Ben and Marc , did is, there’s a very human aspect to what we do.

还有另一个方面，这是公司创始人 Ben 和 Marc 所做的明智之举之一，那就是我们所做的事情非常人性化。

There’s a high-touch human aspect.

有一个高度人性化的方面。

A lot of what we do and a lot of how we think we succeed is, we create a culture in a group of people where entrepreneurs decide they want to work with us.

我们所做的很多事情以及我们认为自己成功的很多方式都是在一群人中创造一种文化，让企业家决定与我们合作。

Again, we spend a lot of our fees that we make — instead of on our own salaries — on a set of people that help them.

再说一次，我们把自己赚来的大量费用（而不是自己的工资）花在了一群帮助他们的人身上。

Endowments are two things: invest the money and give away the money, and they’re very different.

捐赠是两件事：投资钱和捐钱，它们是非常不同的。

Invest the money — they wear suits, and give away the money — they don’t.

把钱投资——他们穿西装，把钱捐出去——他们不穿。

It’s just like two different organizations.

就像两个不同的组织一样。

The idea was, could we create a blockchain, an autonomous AI entity that is like an endowment?

我们的想法是，我们能否创建一个区块链，一个类似于捐赠基金的自主人工智能实体？

Half of it is investing, and you’re investing in tokens and this and that, and the other half is giving the money away, ala Fast Grants.

一半是投资，你投资代币等等，另一半则把钱捐出去，比如快速赠款。

That’s actually an idea.

这实际上是一个想法。

I think it’s pretty cool.

我觉得这很酷。

If someone did it, I’d be excited to help out.

如果有人这样做，我很乐意提供帮助。

I haven’t gotten around to it, but I do think that might be a future thing.

我还没有抽出时间，但我确实认为这可能是未来的事情。

What’s cool about an endowment is, if it invests well, it just snowballs and has more and more money, and then you use some portion of the returns every year to give that out.

捐赠基金的酷之处在于，如果投资得好，它就会像滚雪球一样越滚越大，资金越来越多，然后你每年都会用一部分回报来发放。

Hopefully, it just becomes this self-sustaining thing the way that the university endowments have.

希望它能像大学捐赠基金一样成为一种自我维持的东西。

On how AI will transform politics

人工智能将如何改变政治

I just went through this with crypto.

我刚刚通过加密经历了这个过程。

We just had four years of regulatory struggles in the courts, and now it’s going to probably be decided in Congress.

我们刚刚在法庭上进行了四年的监管斗争，现在可能会在国会做出决定。

I think ultimately the same thing will happen in AI because it’s just too important.

我认为人工智能最终也会发生同样的事情，因为它太重要了。

That’s one topic.

这是一个话题。

Another thing I think about is how many problems in the world are intelligence problems versus political or coordination or regulatory problems?

我想到的另一件事是，世界上有多少问题是情报问题与政治、协调或监管问题？

Building housing is a hot topic right now.

建设住房是当前的热门话题。

Does more intelligence help us build better housing?

更多的智能是否可以帮助我们建造更好的住房？

Look at the internet.

看看互联网。

How did the internet change politics?

互联网如何改变政治？

The internet changed politics by changing the way information flows, and I think we’re only beginning to see the effects of that.

互联网通过改变信息流动的方式改变了政治，我认为我们才刚刚开始看到其影响。

I think one way to think about the internet is social.

我认为思考互联网的一种方式是社交。

Technology always has first-order and second-order effects.

技术总是具有一阶效应和二阶效应。

The first-order effect of the automobile was, you can get from point A to point B faster.

汽车的一阶效应是，你可以更快地从 A 点到达 B 点。

The second-order effect was suburbs, trucking, highway systems, all the next 50 years.

第二阶效应是郊区、卡车运输、高速公路系统，以及接下来的 50 年。

The first order was go somewhere faster.

第一个命令是更快地去某个地方。

That’s 1900 to 1930 or something.

那是 1900 年到 1930 年什么的。

Then the next era was all of the second-order things.

那么接下来的时代，都是二阶的东西了。

I think with the internet, the first-order thing with social media — I can tell people I had a burrito for lunch or something like this.

我认为对于互联网来说，社交媒体的第一要务 —— 我可以告诉人们我午餐吃了墨西哥卷饼或类似的东西。

The second order is you suddenly have a whole different political dynamic.

第二个命令是你突然有了一种完全不同的政治动力。

You can have an insurgent political movement like Trump or Bernie Sanders, or something that bucks the system and counters the establishment.

你可以发起像特朗普或伯尼·桑德斯这样的叛乱政治运动，或者反抗体制、对抗建制派的运动。

You can have a whole narrative universe that counters.

你可以拥有一个完整的叙事宇宙来对抗。

You have COVID, and you have the establishments world, and then you have the podcasting version of it.

你有新冠病毒，你有机构世界，然后你有它的播客版本。

It restructured how information flows, and people obviously will debate whether that’s a good or bad thing, but it’s clearly had that, and I think we’re in the very beginning of that.

它重组了信息流动的方式，人们显然会争论这是好事还是坏事，但它显然已经做到了这一点，我认为我们正处于这一点的开始。

Really, the social media didn’t become a mainstream thing until smartphones, probably — mainstream in a sense of like three billion people — probably until 2012 or something.

事实上，直到智能手机出现，社交媒体才成为主流，可能 ——“在大约 30 亿人的意义上成为主流”——可能要到 2012 年左右。

We’re still relatively early in that development.

我们在这一发展方面还处于相对早期的阶段。

Now, with AI, I think a big question — it’s very possible in five years that people get all their news and political information from an AI.

现在，对于人工智能，我认为一个大问题是：五年后，人们很可能从人工智能中获取所有新闻和政治信息。

Who created that AI?

谁创造了那个人工智能？

Was it created by someone with a political agenda?

它是由有政治目的的人创建的吗？

Is it open source?

它是开源的吗？

If I can pick one issue that will make the AI future better, my own belief is that we have very strong open-source AI so that people can have a choice.

如果我能选出一个能让人工智能未来变得更好的问题，我自己的信念是，我们拥有非常强大的开源人工智能，这样人们就可以有选择。

It can be audited.

可以对其进行审核。

It can be open.

它可以打开。

Our kids will be top AI.

我们的孩子将成为顶级人工智能。

The news will be formed by AI.

新闻将由人工智能形成。

To your question on politics, politics is downstream of culture and information flows, and AI will reshape that.

对于你关于政治的问题，政治是文化和信息流的下游，人工智能将重塑这一点。

Who controls that reshaping, to me, seems like the key question.

对我来说，谁控制着这种重塑似乎是关键问题。

I think those countries will insist.

我认为这些国家会坚持。

I think that one of the reasons that open source will eventually be one of the two dominant models, competitive with proprietary AI, partly because of questions like this.

我认为开源最终成为与专有人工智能竞争的两种主导模式之一的原因之一，部分原因是这样的问题。

I think these governments and a lot of companies will demand open source.

我认为这些政府和很多公司都会要求开源。

I think that’s what makes the China move into DeepSeek thing very interesting.

我认为这就是中国进入 DeepSeek 的事情非常有趣的原因。

There’re a number of interesting things about that.

这有很多有趣的事情。

One is the fact that they are so competitive so quickly and with a relatively small team and all the other things.

一是他们的竞争力如此之快，而且团队规模相对较小，还有其他所有因素。

I guess we shouldn’t be surprised.

我想我们不应该感到惊讶。

There’re a lot of brilliant people there.

那里有很多才华横溢的人。

The second one is the strategy, taking this counter strategy of doing open source, and we’ll see if that lasts.

第二个是策略，采取开源的反策略，我们将看看这种策略是否能持续下去。

Look, we haven’t seen yet.

你看，我们还没见过呢。

I would expect India is going to have some interesting stuff, Russia, too.

我预计印度将会有一些有趣的东西，俄罗斯也是如此。

There’re a lot of smart people in the world, and the fact that DeepSeek was — what is it — like 150 people.

世界上有很多聪明人，事实上 DeepSeek 大约有 150 名员工。

I think there’s another thing which we may be trending towards, which is, AI is incredibly important, but it’s also just a commodity.

我认为我们可能会倾向于另一件事，那就是人工智能非常重要，但它也只是一种商品。

The foundation models — it doesn’t mean there won’t be businesses.

基础模型 ——这并不意味着不会有企业。

There’ll be businesses at the .

那里会有企业。

.

。

.

。

I think, actually, the emerging consensus — at least the people I talk to — is that you’re going to have cloud providers like AWS and such, and you’re going to have, of course, end-user applications like Cursor and whatever.

我认为，实际上，正在出现的共识 ——至少与我交谈过的人 —— 是，你将拥有像 AWS 之类的云提供商，当然，你还将拥有像 Cursor 之类的最终用户应用程序。

Some lawyer will have their law firm thing, and every vertical will have their product.

一些律师会有他们的律师事务所的东西，每个垂直领域都会有他们的产品。

It may just be the foundation models end up being like PyTorch or whatever, like math libraries.

它可能只是基础模型最终变得像 PyTorch 或其他什么，比如数学库。

Essentially, it’s large-scale statistics.

本质上，这是大规模的统计数据。

It requires heavy engineering, of course, to do the training, but the tricks and secrets end up propagating, and a bunch of people know them.

当然，它需要繁重的工程来进行训练，但技巧和秘密最终会传播开来，并且很多人都知道它们。

It becomes very large-scale statistical analysis of data source sets, and just a lot of people have it.

它变成了对数据源集进行非常大规模的统计分析，而且只有很多人拥有它。

It may be.

可能是的。

With mobile, on the flip side, something like 90 percent — I haven’t done an exact study — went to incumbents.

另一方面，在移动领域，大约 90% 的东西——我还没有做过精确的研究——都流向了现任者。

The biggest pure mobile start-up was probably Uber.

最大的纯移动初创公司可能是 Uber。

I think it’s — whatever it is — $150 billion?

我认为是 — 不管它是什么 — 1500 亿美元？

There was Snapchat.

有 Snapchat。

Instagram got bought for a billion, but the vast majority of market-cap value actually went to incumbents.

Instagram 被斥资 10 亿美元收购，但绝大多数市值实际上都流向了现有企业。

If you look over that, what it did for Apple, Google, Facebook, and all the others, Amazon — they all did fine in that era.

如果你仔细观察一下，它对苹果、谷歌、Facebook 和所有其他公司的影响，亚马逊 ——他们在那个时代都做得很好。

They created mobile apps They leaned into it, and their user base went from whatever desktop was at the time — home desktop — let’s call it, 400 million to 4 billion, so 10x.

他们创建了移动应用程序，他们倾向于它，他们的用户群从当时的任何桌面 — 家庭桌面 — 我们称之为，4 亿到 40 亿，所以 10 倍。

By the way, it’s very hard.

顺便说一下，这很难。

Almost no venture firms over the 2010s beat the strategy of buying Apple stock in 2010.

2010 年代几乎没有一家风险投资公司能比 2010 年购买苹果股票的策略更胜一筹。

How is somebody going to create a competitor to Facebook?

有人将如何创造 Facebook 的竞争对手？

Llama’s already great, and they’ll pump it through all their channels, and so will Google, and they have more data and so forth.

Llama 已经很棒了，他们会通过所有渠道传播它，谷歌也会如此，他们有更多的数据等等。

That would be the — I don’t know — the degenerate outcome from the venture capitalist perspective.

从风险资本家的角度来看，这将是“我不知道”的堕落结果。

It could be great for the world though.

不过，这对世界来说可能是一件好事。

I think a lot of this will be consumer benefit, consumer surplus.

我认为这很大程度上将是消费者利益、消费者剩余。

That’s good, and I’m happy about that.

这很好，我对此很高兴。

There’ll always be some vertical thing or some other thing for VCs to invest in.

总会有一些垂直的事物或其他事物可供风险投资人投资。

I think that might actually be a really good societal outcome.

我认为这实际上可能是一个非常好的社会成果。

On NFTs

关于 NFT

Do blockchains have a future?

区块链有未来吗？

Of course, I believe, yes.

当然，我相信，是的。

Then, on those blockchains, will you have some assets that are fungible and some that are not?

那么，在这些区块链上，你会拥有一些可替代的资产和一些不可替代的资产吗？

I think, definitely.

我想，绝对是。

When people think NFTs, they think of people buying JPEGs.

当人们想到 NFT 时，他们就会想到购买 JPEG 的人。

That may or may not come back.

这可能会也可能不会回来。

The idea that people will have digital assets that, for example, could represent a movie ticket .

人们将拥有可以代表电影票的数字资产。

.

。

.

。

An NFT can represent a physical object.

NFT 可以代表一个物理对象。

A lot of people are doing this now, where they represent a pair of tennis shoes or a piece of fine art or a housing deed or some other .

现在很多人都在这样做，他们代表一双网球鞋、一件艺术品、一份住房契约或其他一些东西。

.

。

.

。

If we have a future — which I hope for, and I’m pushing for — of people transacting with digital assets on blockchains, I think very much that some of those will be nonfungible.

如果我们有这样一个未来——“这是我所希望的，也是我正在推动的”——人们在区块链上进行数字资产交易，我非常认为其中一些将是不可替代的。

I think some of them will also be purely digital.

我认为其中一些也将是纯数字化的。

We’re seeing a bunch of these people make video games, and you have a sword or a gun you can buy, and it’s an NFT, and you can resell it and do other things.

我们看到很多人制作视频游戏，你可以购买一把剑或一把枪，这是一种 NFT，你可以转售它并做其他事情。

As the digital world becomes more and more important, you’ll have virtual worlds, you’ll have metaverses, you’ll have these worlds like Roblox and many more variations of things like that.

随着数字世界变得越来越重要，你将拥有虚拟世界，你将拥有虚拟世界，你将拥有像 Roblox 这样的世界以及更多类似的变体。

You will have, I think, digital assets in those worlds, and you can have those either locked inside of the game owned by the game maker, or you can have them on a blockchain, where the user can move them around and control them.

我认为，你将在这些世界中拥有数字资产，你可以将这些资产锁定在游戏制造商拥有的游戏中，也可以将它们放在区块链上，用户可以在区块链上移动它们并控制它们。

I think that’s a better architecture.

我认为这是一个更好的架构。

So, the answer is, yes, but in the true sense of NFT, not in the caricature sense that people think about associating with the 2021 bull market.

所以，答案是肯定的，但是是真正意义上的 NFT，而不是人们认为与 2021 年牛市联系在一起的漫画意义上的 NFT。

One way to think about the internet today is, imagine the offline world where you could never own something, and every time you go to a new venue, you have to change clothes and use all their stuff, and you can’t take it anywhere else.

思考当今互联网的一种方式是，想象一下线下世界，在那里你永远无法拥有任何东西，每次你去一个新的场所，你都必须换衣服并使用他们所有的东西，而且你不能把它带到其他地方。

It’s this weird structure on the internet.

这是互联网上这种奇怪的结构。

Now, you go to Twitter, and you gain followers, and yet, they own your followers, and you can’t take them with you.

现在，你访问 Twitter，你获得了关注者，然而，他们拥有你的关注者，而你却无法带走他们。

You go to play a game, and everything’s stuck inside that game.

你去玩一个游戏，一切都被困在游戏里。

One of the ideas in the blockchain world is we can shift that power back, and the user can actually have this persistent inventory of things that they own and control.

区块链世界的想法之一是我们可以将这种权力转移回来，并且用户实际上可以拥有他们拥有和控制的事物的持久库存。

That’s what a crypto wallet is, and you can take that to different services, and you unbundle the ownership of the data from the provision of the service.

这就是加密钱包，您可以将其用于不同的服务，并将数据的所有权与服务的提供分开。

On philosophy

论哲学

Now I’m trying to finally understand continental philosophy.

现在我正试图最终理解欧陆哲学。

I never understood it.

我一直不明白。

I’ve actually spent the last three months in a philosophy phase.

实际上，过去三个月我一直处于哲学阶段。

I’ve been watching a lot of videos.

我看了很多视频。

Highly recommend this.

强烈推荐这个。

Do you know Bryan Magee?

你认识布莱恩·马吉吗？

Actually, last night I was with a group of people.

事实上，昨晚我和一群人在一起。

I got a lecture on philosophy, and it was great because he went through Hume, Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche.

我听了一场哲学讲座，非常棒，因为他讲了休谟、康德、黑格尔、尼采。

I don’t want to go too much into that, but I’ve always struggled with Kant.

我不想过多讨论这个问题，但我一直在与康德斗争。

Then he went into Hegel and explained that Hegel struggled with Kant in the same way that I did, and then improved on it.

然后他进入黑格尔并解释说，黑格尔和我一样与康德进行斗争，然后加以改进。

I’m not trying to go into details of this; it’s too much.

我不想详细说明这一点；太多了。

The point is, for me, a lot of it has to be taken in as a dialogue between thinkers over multiple periods.

对我来说，重点是，其中很多内容必须被视为多个时期思想家之间的对话。

What I struggle with, and I understand him as a theory of psychology, I think of describing the experience of the Dasein and being-in-the-world.

我所挣扎的，我把他理解为一种心理学理论，我想到的是描述此在和在世的体验。

To me, it’s an interesting theory of psychology.

对我来说，这是一个有趣的心理学理论。

You’re thrown into the world.

你被扔进了这个世界。

This whole idea is very appealing to me.

这整个想法对我来说非常有吸引力。

Just that whole story he tells — you’re thrown into the world, ready at hand versus present at hand.

正如他所讲述的整个故事一样——你被抛入这个世界，准备好与临在。

I think this idea of knowing how versus knowing that, different kinds of knowledge is a very interesting idea.

我认为知道如何与知道不同种类的知识的想法是一个非常有趣的想法。

Do you watch John Vervaeke?

你看约翰·维瓦克吗？

He’s very sophisticated in the philosophy stuff.

他在哲学方面非常精通。

He goes through the 50 parts.

他浏览了 50 个部分。

It’s like Aristotle, Plato, Buddha, Jesus.

就像亚里士多德、柏拉图、佛陀、耶稣。

It’s literally every great thinker, and how they think about how you find meaning in life.

这实际上是每一位伟大的思想家，以及他们如何思考如何找到生活的意义。

Very interesting.

非常有趣。

A big part of his thinking is, there’re many different ways of knowing.

他的一个重要思想是，认识的方式有很多种。

One of the things that we’ve done in the modern world is we’ve forgotten that there’s more than just propositional knowledge, more than just knowing that.

我们在现代世界所做的事情之一是我们忘记了不仅仅是命题知识，不仅仅是知道这一点。

There’s knowing how.

有知道如何做的。

Religious traditions are very good at embracing multiple kinds of knowledge.

宗教传统非常善于包容多种知识。

It’s the mistake that the redditor makes about analyzing Christianity.

这是这位 Reddit 用户在分析基督教时所犯的错误。

They look at it as a set of propositions when, in fact, it’s a form of life.

他们将其视为一组命题，而事实上，它是一种生活方式。

It’s about a community, a community co-development and meaning, rituals.

它是关于一个社区、一个社区的共同发展和意义、仪式。

I think the Heidegger stuff is very interesting on those topics of different kinds of knowledge.

我认为海德格尔的东西在不同知识的主题上非常有趣。

We all, you and I, I’m sure, have this default naturalistic, physicalist, scientific worldview.

我确信，我们所有人，你和我，都有这种默认的自然主义、物理主义、科学世界观。

I’m interested in sophisticated thinkers who have a different worldview and trying to understand it.

我对拥有不同世界观并试图理解它的复杂思想家感兴趣。

John von Neumann had this great phrase.

约翰·冯·诺依曼有这句伟大的话。

Someone asked him about set theory.

有人问他关于集合论的问题。

He said, “You never understand set theory.

他说：“你永远无法理解集合论。

You just get used to it.”

你只要习惯就好。”

I think that’s true of a lot of these other alternative philosophies.

我认为许多其他另类哲学也是如此。

It’s not like it’s going to be one argument you’re going to read in Heidegger, and you’re going to be like, “Oh, my God, my worldview changed.” You just have to submerge yourself in it.

这不像是你在海德格尔书中读到的一个论点，你会说，“哦，天哪，我的世界观改变了。”你只需要让自己沉浸其中。

That’s what I’m trying to do.

这就是我正在努力做的事情。

You just keep seeing it from different angles, and then hopefully, you eventually get a Gestalt switch, and you start to see the world maybe through a different lens.

你只是不断地从不同的角度看待它，然后希望你最终会得到格式塔转换，你可能会开始通过不同的镜头来看待世界。

Then there’re empirical matters of fact.

然后是事实的经验问题。

That’s things we go out and see in the world.

这就是我们走出去在世界上看到的东西。

Hume asked the famous skeptical question: Okay, if that’s the case, where does something like induction fit in?

休谟提出了著名的怀疑论问题：好吧，如果是这样的话，归纳法之类的东西适合在哪里呢？

Where does causality fit in?

因果关系适合在哪里？

Where does time and space fit in?

时间和空间在哪里合适？

Because they’re neither purely true based on the relations of ideas, and it would be circular if we learned induction through induction.

因为它们都不是纯粹基于思想关系的真实，如果我们通过归纳来学习归纳法，那就是循环。

How do we know that the sun will rise tomorrow?

我们怎么知道明天太阳会升起？

Well, it’s always risen in the past.

好吧，它总是在过去上升。

How do we know that futures will be like future past?

我们怎么知道未来会像过去的未来一样？

It goes through the whole skeptical argument.

它贯穿了整个怀疑论。

Then Kant comes along and says, okay, that’s right, but what that means is, there are other preconditions for knowledge, which is a really interesting move, because what he’s saying is — this is what a transcendental argument is — is you’re not going from premises to conclusion.

然后康德走过来说，好吧，没错，但这意味着知识还有其他先决条件，这是一个非常有趣的举动，因为他所说的是“——这就是先验论证”——“你不会从前提到结论。”

You’re going from premises to preconditions to those premises.

你将从前提条件转到前提条件，再到这些前提条件。

I’m just giving you an example.

我只是给你举个例子。

That move, that plasticity of thought — when I first saw that, I was like, “Can you do that?

那个动作，那个思想的可塑性 ——当我第一次看到这个的时候，我就想，“你能做到吗？

You can go and — ?” He says, “Look, you can’t fit — ”

你可以走了，然后 —— ？”他说，“听着，你无法适应 —— ”

I feel like I learned when I did, at least in grad school, just this freedom.

我觉得我至少在读研究生时就学到了这种自由。

I use plasticity.

我用的是可塑性。

You learn how to do these moves and meta-moves intellectually that I find really interesting, and it just forces you to really think.

你学习如何明智地进行这些动作和元动作，我觉得这非常有趣，而且它只会迫使你真正思考。

You can just sit there.

你可以坐在那里。

I’ve spent an hour just sitting there and trying to understand these ideas, and sometimes I feel like I don’t.

我花了一个小时坐在那里试图理解这些想法，有时我觉得我不明白。

It really forces intellectual honesty on you.

它确实迫使你保持理智上的诚实。

I don’t know.

我不知道。

It’s almost like meta.

这几乎就像元一样。

Honestly, I’ve read philosophy for years, and I don’t know if I’ve ever actually gotten any conclusions out of it.

老实说，我读哲学很多年了，但我不知道我是否真正从中得到了任何结论。

You can see both sides, and I feel like I could argue both sides.

你可以看到双方，我觉得我可以争论双方。

I feel like that about a lot of things in politics, too, and things I feel like I can argue, I can give a pretty good argument for a bunch of different things.

我对政治上的很多事情也有这样的感觉，我觉得我可以争论，我可以为很多不同的事情提供一个很好的论据。

I think you get better at analyzing and understanding all these things, and philosophy helps you with that.

我认为你可以更好地分析和理解所有这些事情，而哲学可以帮助你做到这一点。

I don’t know if you actually get answers.

我不知道你是否真的得到了答案。