Marc Andreessen on AI and Dynamism (Ep. 206 - BONUS)
Special thanks to listener Derk Cullinan for sponsoring this transcript.
特别感谢听众 Derk Cullinan 赞助这份文字记录。
Hello, Marc.
你好，马克。
If your entrance music were to be Beethoven, which symphony and why?
如果您的入场音乐是贝多芬，您会选择哪首交响曲？为什么？
For those of you who do care and know who Tyler Cowen is, this is how his podcasts start.
对于那些关心并知道泰勒·考恩是谁的人来说，这就是他的播客的开始方式。
This is how he intimidates his guests into submission.
他就是这样恐吓客人屈服的。
First of all, I just wanted to say thank you, everybody, for being here with us today.
首先，我想说谢谢大家今天和我们在一起。
We’re really grateful that you were all able to spend time with us.
我们非常感谢你们能够与我们共度时光。
Hopefully, it’s been useful.
希望它有用。
Second is I’m going to get new business cards printed up that say, “You either know who I am, or you don’t care.” COWEN: Or both.
其次，我将印制新的名片，上面写着：“你要么知道我是谁，要么不在乎。”考恩：或者两者兼而有之。
Or both.
或者两者兼而有之。
Let’s see.
让我们来看看。
I guess we have to rule out Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony because that’s the official music of the European Union, is that right?
我想我们必须排除贝多芬的第九交响曲，因为那是欧盟的官方音乐，对吗？
That’s correct.
这是正确的。
That’s the official anthem of the European Union.
这是欧盟的官方国歌。
That’s right.
这是正确的。
Which is just such a terrible, mean thing for them to do to such a great piece of music like that.
对他们来说，对这样一首伟大的音乐做出这样的事情真是太可怕了，太卑鄙了。
We should lodge a formal diplomatic protest.
我们应该提出正式的外交抗议。
I guess probably Beethoven’s Fifth in retaliation.
我想这可能是贝多芬第五交响曲的报复。
I would peg you as the Fifth.
我会把你列为第五。
Yes.
是的。
Now, how will AI make our world different five years from now?
现在，五年后人工智能将如何改变我们的世界？
What’s the most surprising way in which it will be different?
最令人惊讶的不同之处是什么？
There’s a great breakdown on adoption of new technology that the science-fiction author Douglas Adams wrote about years ago.
科幻小说作家道格拉斯·亚当斯（Douglas Adams）多年前写过一篇关于新技术采用的详细分析。
He says any new technology is received differently by three different groups of people.
他说，任何新技术都会被三个不同群体所接受。
If you’re below the age of 15, it’s just the way things have always been.
如果你还不到 15 岁，事情就一直这样。
If you’re between the ages of 15 and 35, it’s really cool, and you might be able to get a job doing it.
如果你的年龄在 15 岁到 35 岁之间，那真的很酷，而且你也许能找到一份这样的工作。
If you’re above the age of 35, it’s unholy and against the order of society and will destroy everything.
如果你超过35岁，那是不神圣的，违背社会秩序的，会毁掉一切。
AI, I think, so far is living up to that framework.
我认为，到目前为止，人工智能正在履行这一框架。
What I would like to tell you is AI is going to be completely transformative for education.
我想告诉你的是，人工智能将彻底改变教育。
I believe that it will.
我相信会的。
Having said that, I did recently roll out ChatGPT to my eight-year-old.
话虽如此，我最近确实向我 8 岁的孩子推出了 ChatGPT。
I was very, very proud of myself because I was like, “Wow, this is just going to be such a great educational resource for him.” I felt like Prometheus bringing fire down from the mountain to my child.
我为自己感到非常非常自豪，因为我想，“哇，这对他来说将是一个很棒的教育资源。”我感觉就像普罗米修斯从山上把火种带到我的孩子身上。
I installed it on his laptop and said, “Son, this is the thing that you can talk to anytime, and it will answer any question you have.” He said, “Yes.” I said, “Well, no, this is a big deal.
我把它安装在他的笔记本电脑上，然后说：“儿子，这是你可以随时交谈的东西，它会回答你的任何问题。”他说：“是的。”我说：“好吧，不，这是一件大事。
It answers questions.” He’s like, “Well, what else would you use a computer for?” I was like, “Oh, God, I’m getting old.”
它回答了问题。”他说，“好吧，你还用电脑做什么？”我当时想，“天哪，我老了。”
I actually think there’s a pretty good prospect that kids are just going to pick this up and run with it.
事实上，我认为孩子们会拿起它并使用它，这是一个很好的前景。
I actually think that’s already happening, right?
我实际上认为这已经发生了，对吧？
ChatGPT is fully out, and Bard and Bing and all these other things.
ChatGPT 已完全退出，还有 Bard 和 Bing 以及所有其他东西。
I think kids are going to grow up with basically — you could use various terms, assistant, friend, coach, mentor, tutor, but kids are going to grow up in this amazing back-and-forth relationship with AI.
我认为孩子们基本上会在“你可以使用各种术语，助手、朋友、教练、导师、辅导员”的陪伴下长大，但孩子们将在与人工智能的这种令人惊奇的来回关系中成长。
Anytime a kid is interested in something, if there’s not a teacher who can help with something or if they don’t have a friend who’s interested in the same thing, they’ll be able to explore all kinds of ideas.
每当孩子对某件事感兴趣时，如果没有老师可以帮助做某件事，或者如果他们没有对同一件事感兴趣的朋友，他们就能够探索各种想法。
I think it’ll be great for that.
我认为这会很棒。
I think it’s obviously going to be totally transformative and feels like warfare, and you already see that.
我认为这显然会带来彻底的变革，感觉就像战争，你已经看到了这一点。
The concern, quite honestly — I actually wrote an essay a while ago on why AI won’t destroy all the jobs.
老实说，我的担忧是——我不久前写了一篇文章，讨论为什么人工智能不会摧毁所有工作岗位。
The short version of it is because it’s illegal to do that because so many jobs in the modern economy require licensing and are regulated.
简而言之，这样做是非法的，因为现代经济中的许多工作都需要许可并受到监管。
I think the concern would be that there’s just so much glue in the system now that prevents change.
我认为令人担忧的是，现在系统中有太多的粘合剂阻碍了变革。
It’ll be very easy to not have AI healthcare or AI education or whatever because, literally, some combination of doctor licensing, teacher unions, and so forth will basically outlaw it.
没有人工智能医疗保健或人工智能教育之类的东西是很容易的，因为从字面上看，医生执照、教师工会等的某种组合基本上会取缔它。
I think that’s the risk.
我认为这就是风险。
If we think of AI and its impact in sociological terms, large language models, who will gain in status and who will decline in status?
如果我们用社会学术语、大型语言模型来思考人工智能及其影响，谁的地位会提高，谁的地位会下降？
How should this affect how we think about policy?
这应该如何影响我们对政策的看法？
First of all, it’s important to qualify exactly what’s going on with large language models, which is super interesting.
首先，准确地限定大型语言模型的情况非常重要，这非常有趣。
This thing has happened that you read about a lot in the press, which is, there was this general idea that there would be something called AI at some point, and then large language models appeared.
你在媒体上读到过很多这样的事情，那就是，有一个普遍的想法，即在某个时候会有一种叫做人工智能的东西，然后大型语言模型出现了。
And everybody said, “A-ha, that’s AI just like we thought it would be,” and then everybody extrapolates out.
每个人都说，“啊哈，这就是人工智能，就像我们想象的那样，”然后每个人都推断出来。
That’s true to a certain extent, but the success of large language models is very unexpected in the field.
在某种程度上确实如此，但大型语言模型的成功在该领域是非常出乎意料的。
Actually, the origin story of even ChatGPT is, this is not what OpenAI actually started to do.
事实上，即使是 ChatGPT 的起源故事也是如此，这并不是 OpenAI 真正开始做的事情。
They started to do something different.
他们开始做一些不同的事情。
There’s actually one guy.
确实有一个人。
Actually, his name is, I think, Alec Radford.
事实上，我想他的名字是亚历克·雷德福。
He literally was off in the corner at OpenAI working on this in 2018, 2019.
2018 年和 2019 年，他确实在 OpenAI 的角落里从事这项工作。
Then it basically was this revolution building on work that had been done at Google.
基本上，这场革命是建立在谷歌所做工作的基础上的。
It was this very surprising thing.
这是一件非常令人惊讶的事情。
Then it’s important to qualify how it works because it’s not just like some sort of robot brain.
然后确定它的工作原理很重要，因为它不仅仅是像某种机器人大脑。
What it is, is you basically feed essentially, ideally all known human-generated information into a machine, and then you let it basically build a giant matrix of numbers and basically correlate everything.
它的本质是，你基本上将所有已知的人类生成的信息基本上输入到机器中，然后你让它基本上构建一个巨大的数字矩阵，并基本上将所有内容关联起来。
In a nutshell, that’s what these things are.
简而言之，就是这些东西。
Then basically what happens is, when you ask it a question or if you ask it to make a drawing or something, it basically traverses.
然后基本上发生的事情是，当你问它一个问题或者你要求它画一幅画或其他东西时，它基本上会遍历。
It essentially does a search.
它本质上是进行搜索。
It does a search across basically all of these words and sentences and diagrams and books and photos and everything that human beings have created.
它基本上搜索所有这些单词、句子、图表、书籍、照片以及人类创造的一切。
It tries to find the optimal path through that.
它试图找到最佳路径。
That’s how it generates the answer that it gives you.
这就是它生成给您答案的方式。
Philosophically, it’s this really profound thing, I think, which is it’s basically staring.
从哲学上讲，我认为这是一件非常深刻的事情，它基本上就是凝视。
It’s like you as an individual using this machine to stare at the entirety of the creation of all human knowledge and then have it played back at you.
这就像你作为一个个体使用这台机器来凝视所有人类知识的全部创造，然后将其回放给你。
It harnesses the creativity of thousands of years of human authors and artists and then derives new kinds of answers or new kinds of images or whatever.
它利用了数千年来人类作家和艺术家的创造力，然后得出新的答案或新的图像或其他什么。
Fundamentally, you’re in interaction with our civilization in a very profound way.
从根本上说，你们正在以一种非常深刻的方式与我们的文明互动。
In terms of who gains and who loses status, there’s actually a very interesting thing happening in the research right now.
就谁获得地位和谁失去地位而言，目前的研究中实际上发生了一件非常有趣的事情。
There’s a very interesting research question for the impact on job scale, for example, for people who work with words or work with images and are starting to use these technologies in the workforce.
对于工作规模的影响，有一个非常有趣的研究问题，例如，对于那些使用文字或图像工作并开始在劳动力中使用这些技术的人。
The question is, who benefits more?
问题是，谁受益更多？
The high-skilled worker — and think lawyer, doctor, accountant, whatever, graphic designer — the high-skilled person who uses these tools to become an additional quantum leap high-skilled.
高技能工人——想想律师、医生、会计师等等，平面设计师——使用这些工具成为高技能的另一个飞跃的高技能人员。
That would be a theory of separation.
这将是一种分离理论。
The other scenario is the average or even low-skilled worker who gets upgraded.
另一种情况是普通甚至低技能工人获得升级。
Of course, just the nature of the economy there.
当然，这只是那里经济的本质。
There are more people in the middle.
中间还有更多人。
At least there’s been a series of research studies that have been coming back that it’s actually the uplift to average.
至少有一系列研究表明，这实际上是平均水平的提升。
It’s actually more significant than the uplift to the high skill level.
它实际上比提升到高技能水平更重要。
Actually, what seems to be happening right now is it’s actually a compression by lifting people up.
事实上，现在看起来发生的事情实际上是通过将人抬起来进行压缩。
Social questions are often a zero-sum game of who gains and who loses.
社会问题往往是一场谁赢谁输的零和游戏。
There may be something here where just a lot of people just get better at what they do.
也许在某些方面，很多人只是在他们所做的事情上做得更好。
Why is open-source AI in particular important for national security?
为什么开源人工智能对国家安全特别重要？
For a whole bunch of reasons.
出于一大堆原因。
One is, it is really hard to do security without open source.
一是，没有开源，安全真的很难做好。
There are actually two schools of thought on information security, computer security broadly, that have played out over the last 50 years.
实际上，在过去 50 年里，关于信息安全（广义的计算机安全）存在两种思想流派。
There was one school of security that says you want to basically hide the source code, and you want to hide the source code precisely.
有一个安全学派说你想要基本上隐藏源代码，并且你想要精确地隐藏源代码。
This seems intuitive because, presumably, you want to hide the source code so that bad guys can’t find the flaws in it, right?
这看起来很直观，因为大概您想隐藏源代码，以便坏人无法发现其中的缺陷，对吧？
Presumably, that would be the safe way to do things.
据推测，这将是安全的做事方式。
Then over the course of the last 30 or 40 years, basically, what’s evolved is the realization in the field (and I think very broadly) that actually, that’s a mistake.
然后，在过去 30 或 40 年的过程中，基本上，该领域（我认为非常广泛）逐渐认识到，这实际上是一个错误。
In the software field, we call that “security through obscurity,” right?
在软件领域，我们称之为“通过默默无闻的安全”，对吗？
We hide the code.
我们隐藏代码。
People can’t exploit it.
人们无法利用它。
The problem, of course, is: okay, but that means the flaws are still in there, right?
当然，问题是：好吧，但这意味着缺陷仍然存在，对吧？
If anybody actually gets to the code, they just basically have a complete index of all the problems.
如果有人真正接触到代码，他们基本上就有了所有问题的完整索引。
There’s a whole bunch of ways for people to get the code.
人们可以通过多种方式获取代码。
They hack in.
他们侵入。
It’s actually very easy to steal software code from a company.
实际上，从公司窃取软件代码非常容易。
You hire the janitorial staff to stick a USB stick into a machine at 3:00 in the morning.
您雇用清洁人员在凌晨 3:00 将 U 盘插入机器。
Software companies are very easily penetrated.
软件公司很容易被渗透。
It turned out, security through obscurity was a very bad way to do it.
事实证明，通过默默无闻来实现安全是一种非常糟糕的方法。
The much more secure way to do it is actually open source.
更安全的方法实际上是开源。
Basically, put the code in public and then basically build the code in such a way that when it runs, it doesn’t matter whether somebody has access to the code.
基本上，将代码公开，然后基本上以这样的方式构建代码：当代码运行时，是否有人可以访问该代码并不重要。
It’s still fully secure, and then you just have a lot more eyes on the code to discover the problems.
它仍然是完全安全的，然后您只需更多地关注代码即可发现问题。
In general, open source has turned out to be much more secure.
总的来说，开源更加安全。
I would start there.
我会从那里开始。
If we want secure systems, I think this is what we have to do.
如果我们想要安全的系统，我认为这就是我们必须做的。
What’s the biggest adjustment problem governments will face as AI progresses?
随着人工智能的进步，政府将面临的最大的调整问题是什么？
For instance, if drug discovery goes up by 3X, all of a sudden, the FDA is overloaded.
例如，如果药物发现量突然增加 3 倍，FDA 就会超负荷。
If regulatory comments are open, AI can write great regulatory comments.
如果监管评论开放，人工智能可以写出很棒的监管评论。
What does government have to do to get by in this new world?
政府必须做什么才能在这个新世界中生存？
By the way, hopefully, at least the first of those two scenarios happens, maybe also the second.
顺便说一句，希望这两种情况至少会发生第一种，也许第二种也会发生。
For anything like this, what there should be is there should be a corresponding phenomenon happening on the other side, right?
这样的事情，对方应该也有相应的现象发生吧？
The government correspondingly then should be using AI to evaluate new drugs.
政府相应地应该使用人工智能来评估新药。
Company shows up in their drug design.
公司出现在他们的药物设计中。
There should be AI Assist to the FDA to help them evaluate new drugs.
FDA 应该有人工智能助手来帮助他们评估新药。
A regulatory agency that has public comments should have AI Assist for being able to be able to process all that information and be able to aggregate it and then be able to reply back to everybody.
拥有公众意见的监管机构应该拥有人工智能助手，以便能够处理所有这些信息并能够汇总这些信息，然后能够回复每个人。
This is kind of true.
这确实是事实。
This is a very interesting thing about AI.
这是人工智能的一个非常有趣的事情。
Every possible threat you can think of AI posing, basically, there is a corresponding defense that has to get built.
基本上，你能想到的人工智能构成的每一种可能的威胁，都必须建立相应的防御。
I’ll pick another one.
我会选择另一个。
Cybersecurity people are quite, I think, legitimately concerned that AI’s going to make it easier to actually create and launch cybersecurity attacks.
我认为，网络安全人员非常担心人工智能将使实际创建和发起网络安全攻击变得更加容易。
Correspondingly, there should be better defenses.
相应的，应该有更好的防御。
There should be AI-based cybersecurity defenses.
应该有基于人工智能的网络安全防御。
By the way, we see the exact same thing with drones.
顺便说一句，我们在无人机上看到了完全相同的情况。
Weaponized AI autonomous drones are clearly a threat, as we see in the world today, so we need AI defenses against drones.
正如我们在当今世界所看到的那样，武器化的人工智能自主无人机显然是一种威胁，因此我们需要针对无人机的人工智能防御。
The cynical view would be this is just a classic arms race — attack, defense, attack, defense — and does the world get any better if there’s just more threats and more defenses?
愤世嫉俗的观点是，这只是一场经典的军备竞赛 ——“攻击、防御、攻击、防御”——“如果有更多的威胁和更多的防御，世界会变得更好吗？”
I think the positive way of looking at it is, we probably need these defenses anyway, right?
我认为积极的看待它的方式是，无论如何我们可能都需要这些防御措施，对吗？
Even if we didn’t have AI drug discovery, I think we should be using AI to evaluate drugs.
即使我们没有人工智能药物发现，我认为我们也应该使用人工智能来评估药物。
Even if we didn’t have AI drones, we should still have defense against standard missiles and against enemy aircraft.
即使我们没有人工智能无人机，我们仍然应该防御标准导弹和敌机。
Even if we didn’t have AI-driven cyberattacks, we should have AI-driven cyber defenses.
即使我们没有人工智能驱动的网络攻击，我们也应该拥有人工智能驱动的网络防御。
I think this is an opportunity for the defenders to not only keep up but also build better systems for the present-day threat landscape also.
我认为这对于防御者来说是一个机会，不仅可以跟上，还可以为当今的威胁形势构建更好的系统。
The Biden AI directive, what’s the best thing about it?
拜登人工智能指令，它最好的一点是什么？
What’s the worst thing about it?
最糟糕的事情是什么？
The best thing about it is it didn’t overtly attempt to kill AI.
它最好的一点是它没有公然试图杀死人工智能。
That was good.
那很好。
You never know with these things, how much teeth they’re going to try to put into it.
你永远不知道这些东西，他们会尝试投入多少牙齿。
Then, of course, there’s always the question of whether it stands up in court.
当然，总有一个问题是它在法庭上是否站得住脚。
Look, there were things that were being discussed in the process that were much worse, and I think much more hostile to the technology, than ended up being in it.
看，在这个过程中讨论的一些事情比最终出现的情况要糟糕得多，而且我认为对这项技术的敌意要大得多。
I think that’s good news.
我认为这是个好消息。
I think it was quite benign in terms of its just flat-out directives, which is good.
我认为就其直接指令而言，这是相当良性的，这很好。
People have different opinions.
人们有不同的看法。
My opinion, the issue of it is, it green-lit essentially 15 different regulatory agencies to basically put AI under their purview in undefined ways.
我认为，问题在于，它基本上为 15 个不同的监管机构开了绿灯，基本上以不确定的方式将人工智能置于其职权范围内。
We will now have, I think, a relatively protracted process of many regulators or many agencies without explicit authority in the domain basically inserting themselves into the space.
我认为，我们现在将面临一个相对漫长的过程，许多监管机构或许多在该领域没有明确权力的机构基本上将自己插入该领域。
Then presumably, at some point, there will be a determination of who has purview over what, but it seems like we’re in for a period of quite a bit of confusion as a result.
然后大概在某个时候，将会确定谁拥有什么权限，但结果似乎我们正处于一段相当混乱的时期。
How much more green energy do we need to, in essence, fuel all of this AI, and where will it come from?
从本质上讲，我们还需要多少绿色能源来为所有这些人工智能提供燃料，这些能源将从哪里来？
What do you see the prospect is like for the next 20 years?
您认为未来20年的前景如何？
The good news of AI — and the good news also, by the way, with crypto because there’s always a lot of controversy around crypto and Web3 and blockchain around energy use.
人工智能的好消息——顺便说一句，加密货币也是个好消息，因为围绕能源使用的加密货币、Web3 和区块链总是存在很多争议。
The good thing with these technologies, the good news from energy is these systems lend themselves to centralization of data centers, right?
这些技术的好处，来自能源的好消息是这些系统适合数据中心的集中化，对吧？
If we need a million to go into 10 million go to 100 million to a billion AI chips, they could be distributed out all over the place, but they can also be highly centralized.
如果我们需要100万个、1000万个、1亿个、10亿个人工智能芯片，它们可以分布在各处，但也可以高度集中。
Because you can highly centralize them, you can think not just in terms of building a server.
因为您可以高度集中它们，所以您可以不仅仅考虑构建服务器。
You can think about building, basically, a data center that’s an integrated thing from the chip, basically, all the way to the building or to the complex of buildings.
基本上，你可以考虑构建一个数据中心，它是一个集成的东西，从芯片，基本上，一直到建筑物或建筑物综合体。
Then, the way those modern data centers are built by the leading-edge companies now is, they’re built on day one with an integrated strategy for energy and for cooling.
然后，现在领先的公司构建这些现代数据中心的方式是，它们在构建的第一天就采用了能源和冷却的综合策略。
Basically, any form of energy that you have that you could do in a very efficient way, in a very clean way, or new energy technologies, AI is a use case for developing and deploying that kind of power.
基本上，任何形式的能源都可以以非常有效、非常清洁的方式实现，或者新能源技术，人工智能都是开发和部署这种能源的一个用例。
Just building on what we’ve seen from internet data centers, that could be geothermal, that could be hydroelectric, that could be nuclear fission, that could be nuclear fusion, solar, wind, big battery packs, and so forth.
就我们从互联网数据中心看到的情况来看，这可能是地热、可能是水力发电、可能是核裂变、可能是核聚变、太阳能、风能、大型电池组等等。
I think the aspirational hope would be, this is another catalyst, a more advanced rollout of energy.
我认为理想的希望是，这是另一种催化剂，更先进的能源推广。
Even if there’s net energy increase, the motivation to get to higher levels of efficiency will be net good and helping us get to a better energy footprint.
即使能源净增加，达到更高效率水平的动力也将是净好处，并帮助我们实现更好的能源足迹。
Which of those energy sources in your view is most underrated?
您认为哪种能源最被低估？
Oh, nuclear fission, for sure, is the most underrated today.
哦，核裂变无疑是当今最被低估的。
Yes, wave a magic wand, we ought to be doing what Richard Nixon proposed in 1971, right?
是的，挥动魔杖，我们应该按照理查德·尼克松 1971 年提出的建议去做，对吗？
We ought to build what he called Project Independence, which built 1,000 new nuclear power plants in the US and then cut the entire US grid over to nuclear and electricity, go to all-electric cars, do everything else.
我们应该建立他所说的独立项目，在美国建造 1,000 座新核电站，然后将整个美国电网切换为核能和电力，转向全电动汽车，做其他一切。
Richard Nixon’s other great corresponding creation, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, of course, guarantees that won’t happen.
理查德·尼克松的另一个伟大的相应创造，核管理委员会，当然保证不会发生这种情况。
The plan exactly on track.
计划完全步入正轨。
But we could, either with existing nuclear-efficient technology or there’s actually a significant number now of new nuclear-efficient startups, as well as fusion startups working on new designs.
但我们可以，要么利用现有的核效率技术，要么现在实际上有大量新的核效率初创公司，以及致力于新设计的聚变初创公司。
And so this would certainly be a great use case for that.
因此，这肯定是一个很好的用例。
If the nations that will do well in the future are strong in AI and strong in energy, thinking about this in terms of geopolitics, which countries rise in importance, for better or worse?
如果未来表现良好的国家在人工智能和能源方面都很强，那么从地缘政治角度思考，哪些国家的重要性会上升，是好是坏？
Well, okay, different things.
好吧，好吧，不同的事情。
Add a couple more things to that, which is, which are in a position to best invent these new technologies?
再补充一点，即哪些人最有能力发明这些新技术？
Then there’s a somewhat separate question of who’s in the best position to deploy because it doesn’t help you that much to invent if you can’t deploy it.
然后还有一个稍微独立的问题，即谁最适合部署，因为如果您无法部署它，那么发明对您没有多大帮助。
I would put that in there.
我会把它放在那里。
Look, I would give the US very, very high marks on the invention side.
看，我会给美国在发明方面给予非常非常高的评价。
I think we’re the best.
我认为我们是最好的。
I think we have the best R&D innovation capability in the world in most fields — not all, but most.
我认为我们在大多数领域都拥有世界上最好的研发创新能力——不是全部，而是大多数。
I think that’s certainly true of AI.
我认为对于人工智能来说确实如此。
I think that’s, at least, potentially true in energy.
我认为至少在能源方面这可能是正确的。
I don’t know whether it actually is, but it could be.
我不知道是否真的如此，但可能是。
We should be able to forge ahead on that.
我们应该能够在这方面取得进展。
China is clearly the other country with critical mass in all of this.
中国显然是另一个在这方面拥有足够规模的国家。
You could quibble about the level of invention versus fast follow and talk about IP acquisition, things like that.
你可以争论发明的水平与快速跟进的水平，并谈论知识产权的获取，诸如此类的事情。
Nevertheless, whatever your view is, they’re moving very quickly and aggressively and have critical mass, big internal domestic market, and a huge number of researchers and a lot of state support.
然而，无论你的观点是什么，他们的行动都非常迅速和积极，并且拥有临界质量、巨大的国内市场、大量的研究人员和大量的国家支持。
I think, by and large, for sure on AI, and then I think probably also in energy, we’re probably looking at primarily a bipolar world for quite a while and then spheres of influence going out.
我认为，总的来说，在人工智能方面是肯定的，然后我认为在能源方面也可能如此，我们可能在相当长一段时间内主要关注的是两极世界，然后势力范围就会消失。
I would say Europe is a dark horse in a strange way, in that the EU seems absolutely determined to ban everything, to put a blanket ban on capitalism and, within that, ban AI and ban energy.
我想说欧洲是一匹奇怪的黑马，因为欧盟似乎绝对决心禁止一切，全面禁止资本主义，并在其中禁止人工智能和能源。
On the other hand, we have this incredible AI company called Mistral in France, which is the leading open-source AI company right now and one of the best AI companies in the world.
另一方面，我们在法国有一家名为 Mistral 的令人难以置信的人工智能公司，它是目前领先的开源人工智能公司，也是世界上最好的人工智能公司之一。
The French government has actually really been stepping up to help the ecosystem in Europe.
法国政府实际上一直在加紧帮助欧洲的生态系统。
I would actually like to see a tripolar world.
我其实很想看到一个三极世界。
I’d like to see the EU fully punch in, but I’m not sure how realistic that is.
我希望看到欧盟全力介入，但我不确定这有多现实。
Let’s say you’re in charge of speeding up deployment in the United States.
假设您负责加快在美国的部署。
What is it you do?
你是做什么的？
State level, local level, feds, what should we all be doing?
州级、地方级、联邦政府，我们都应该做什么？
Of AI specifically?
具体是人工智能吗？
Everything.
一切。
Of everything?
一切的？
Because it’s all increasingly interrelated, right?
因为这一切都越来越相互关联，对吗？
Yes, it is.
是的。
AI, energy, biomedicine, everything.
人工智能、能源、生物医学，应有尽有。
Yes, and AI takes you straight to chips, which takes you straight to the CHIPS Act, which —
是的，人工智能会直接带你接触芯片，这会带你直接接触《芯片法案》，该法案 ——
Exactly.
正是如此。
— has not yet resulted in the creation of any chip plants, although it might someday.
- 尚未建立任何芯片工厂，尽管有一天可能会建立。
Look, the most basic observation is maybe the most banal, which is: Stagnation is a choice.
看，最基本的观察也许是最平庸的，那就是：停滞是一种选择。
Decline is a choice.
下降是一种选择。
As Tyler has written at great length, the US economy downshifted its rate of technological change basically since the 1960s.
正如泰勒用长篇大论所写的那样，自 20 世纪 60 年代以来，美国经济基本上降低了技术变革的速度。
Technological change is measured by productivity.
技术变革是通过生产力来衡量的。
Growth in the economy was much faster prior to the last 50 years than the most recent 50 years.
过去 50 年之前的经济增长速度比最近 50 年要快得多。
You have a big argument as to exactly what caused that, but a lot of it is just an imposition of just blankets and blankets and blankets of regulation and restrictions and controls and processes and procedures and all the rest of it.
对于到底是什么造成了这种情况，你有一个很大的争论，但其中很多只是强加的一揽子监管、限制、控制、流程和程序以及所有其他内容。
Then you could start by saying, step one is do no harm.
然后你可以首先说，第一步是不要造成伤害。
This is our approach on AI regulation, which is, don’t regulate the technology.
这就是我们对人工智能监管的做法，即不监管技术。
Don’t regulate AI as a technology any more than you regulated microchips or software or anything like operating systems or databases.
不要将人工智能作为一种技术来监管，就像监管微芯片、软件或操作系统或数据库之类的东西一样。
Instead, regulate the use cases.
相反，规范用例。
The use cases are generally regulated anyway.
无论如何，用例通常都会受到监管。
It’s no more legal to field a new AI-designed drug without FDA approval than it is a standard-designed drug.
未经 FDA 批准，开发人工智能设计的新药物并不比标准设计的药物更合法。
Apply the existing regulations as opposed to hamstringing the technology.
应用现有法规，而不是限制技术。
That’s one.
这是一个。
Energy exploitation — again, the energy is just pure choice.
能源开发——再次强调，能源只是纯粹的选择。
We could be building the 1,000 nuclear plants tomorrow.
明天我们可能会建造 1,000 座核电站。
My favorite idea there, which always gets me in trouble and so I can’t resist, is the Democratic administration should give Koch Industries the contract to build 1,000 nuclear reactors.
我最喜欢的想法是民主党政府应该给科赫工业公司建造 1,000 座核反应堆的合同，这总是给我带来麻烦，所以我无法抗拒。
Everybody gets revenge at everybody else.
每个人都会报复其他人。
The Democrats get Charles Koch to fix climate change, and then Charles gets all the money for the contracts.
民主党让查尔斯·科赫解决气候变化问题，然后查尔斯获得了合同的所有资金。
Everybody ends up happy.
每个人最终都会幸福。
Nobody yet has bit on that idea when I pitched it, but maybe I’m not talking to the right people.
当我提出这个想法时，还没有人接受这个想法，但也许我没有和正确的人交谈。
Look, we could be doing that.
看，我们可以这样做。
We’ll see if we choose to.
我们会看看是否选择这样做。
The chips plant thing is going to be fascinating to watch.
芯片厂的事情将会很有趣。
We passed the CHIPS Act.
我们通过了 CHIPS 法案。
In theory, the funding is available.
理论上，资金是可用的。
The American chip companies are generally pretty aggressive, and I think trying pretty hard to build new capacity in the US.
美国芯片公司总体上相当激进，我认为他们正在努力在美国建设新产能。
There was this actually very outstanding article in the New York Times some months back by Ezra Klein, where he goes through and he says, “Okay, even suppose the money’s available to build chip plants, is it actually possible to build chip plants in the US?” He talks about all of the different regulatory and legal requirements and obligations that get layered on top.
几个月前，埃兹拉·克莱因（Ezra Klein）在《纽约时报》上发表了一篇非常出色的文章，他在文章中说道：“好吧，即使假设有钱可以建造芯片工厂，实际上有可能在美国建造芯片工厂吗？”他谈到了所有不同的监管和法律要求以及顶层的义务。
It was speculating as to whether any of these plants will actually get built.
人们猜测这些工厂是否真的会建成。
Again, I think here we have just a level of fundamental choices to society, which is, do we want to build new things?
再说一次，我认为我们对社会只有一个基本的选择，那就是，我们想创造新事物吗？
I can’t say, at least on the West Coast, how exciting it’s been for Las Vegas to get the Sphere because it’s now impossible to visit Las Vegas without — everybody is always complaining, “The Egyptians built the pyramids.
我不能说，至少在西海岸，拉斯维加斯获得球体是多么令人兴奋，因为现在不可能访问拉斯维加斯而不 - 每个人总是抱怨，“埃及人建造了金字塔。
Where are our pyramids?” It’s like, “Ah, we have a Sphere.”
我们的金字塔在哪里？”就像，“啊，我们有一个球体。”
Just like flying into Vegas just gets your juices flowing, gets you all fired up because this thing is amazing.
就像飞往维加斯会让你的果汁流动一样，让你兴奋起来，因为这件事太棒了。
By the way, I’m just talking about the view from the outside.
顺便说一句，我只是说从外面看到的景色。
I understand that the thing on the inside is also amazing.
我明白里面的东西也很奇妙。
We clearly can do that, at least in Vegas.
我们显然可以做到这一点，至少在维加斯。
Where Ben lives now, in London, I think they just gave up on building the Sphere, so that’s the other side of it.
本现在住在伦敦，我认为他们刚刚放弃了建造球体，所以这是事情的另一面。
We do have to decide whether we want these things to happen.
我们必须决定是否希望这些事情发生。
It was a little bit dispiriting to see the liquid natural gas decision that just came down.
看到刚刚做出的液化天然气决定有点令人沮丧。
Are the roots of this stasis quite general and quite cultural?
这种停滞的根源是否相当普遍且相当文化？
Because parents coddle their children much more, there are higher rates of mental illness amongst the young, young people — it seems — have less sex, along a lot of cultural variables — the percent of old music people listen to compared to new music.
由于父母更加溺爱孩子，年轻人患精神疾病的比例更高，年轻人 ——“似乎”——“性行为较少，还有很多文化变量”——“人们听旧音乐与新音乐的比例。”
There seems to be a more general stagnation.
似乎出现了更普遍的停滞。
How would you pinpoint our loss of self-confidence or dynamism?
您如何确定我们失去自信或活力的情况？
Where’s that coming from?
那是从哪里来的？
Well, first of all, to be clear, we’re very much in favor of young people not dating because that’s very distracting from their work at our startups.
好吧，首先要明确的是，我们非常支持年轻人不约会，因为这会分散他们在我们初创公司工作的注意力。
That works out fine.
效果很好。
Unfortunately, in our industry, we have a long experience with not having dating lives when we’re young, so that works out well.
不幸的是，在我们这个行业，我们有很长的经验，年轻时没有过约会生活，所以效果很好。
It’s not all bad.
这并不全是坏事。
It is really interesting.
这真的很有趣。
Look, Silicon Valley has all kinds of problems, and we’re a case study for a lot of it.
看，硅谷有各种各样的问题，我们是其中很多问题的案例研究。
Look, it’s not like you can build anything in Silicon Valley, right?
听着，你不可能在硅谷建造任何东西，对吧？
Our politicians absolutely hate us.
我们的政客绝对讨厌我们。
They don’t let us do anything if they can avoid it.
如果他们能避免的话，他们不会让我们做任何事情。
We have our issues.
我们有我们的问题。
The view from the Valley is, yes, a lot of kids are being brought up and trained to basically adopt a fundamentally pessimistic or, how to put it, stagnation-oriented, inert, have very low expectations.
硅谷的观点是，是的，很多孩子在成长和训练中基本上采取了悲观的态度，或者怎么说，停滞导向的、惰性的、期望很低的态度。
Basically, a lot of what passes for education now is teaching people how to complain, which they’re very good at.
基本上，现在很多所谓的教育都是教人们如何抱怨，而他们非常擅长这一点。
The complaining has reached operatic levels lately.
最近，抱怨已经达到了手术的程度。
There is a lot of that.
这样的事有很多。
Having said that, look, I’m also actually really optimistic.
话虽如此，你看，我实际上也非常乐观。
In particular, I’m actually quite optimistic about the new generation coming up.
特别是，我对即将到来的新一代非常乐观。
I think Gen Z, and then I think it’s Gen Alpha, and then it’s whatever an eight-year-old is.
我认为是 Z 世代，然后是 Alpha 世代，然后就是八岁的孩子。
We’re seeing more and more kids that are coming up, and they’re being exposed to a full load of basically cultural programming education, programming that says you should be depressed about everything.
我们看到越来越多的孩子正在成长，他们正在接受大量的基本文化编程教育，编程告诉你应该对一切感到沮丧。
You should be upset about everything.
你应该对一切感到不安。
You should have low ambitions.
你应该有较低的野心。
You shouldn’t try to do these things.
你不应该尝试做这些事情。
They’re coming out with a very radical hard shove in the other direction.
他们正在向另一个方向猛烈推进。
They’re coming up with tremendous energy and tremendous enthusiasm to actually do things, which is very natural because kids rebel.
他们拿出巨大的能量和巨大的热情去实际做事，这是很自然的，因为孩子们会叛逆。
If the system is teaching stagnation, then at least some kids will come up the other way and decide they really want to do things in the world.
如果系统教导的是停滞，那么至少有一些孩子会采取相反的方式并决定他们真的想在世界上做一些事情。
I think entrepreneurs in their 20s now are a lot better than certainly my generation.
我认为现在20多岁的企业家比我们这一代人要好得多。
They’re frankly more aggressive than the generation that preceded them, and they’re more ambitious.
坦率地说，他们比他们的前一代人更加激进，也更加雄心勃勃。
Now, we’re dealing with a minority, not a majority, but I think there’s quite a bit — every hour I get that I can spend at 20-year-olds is actually very encouraging.
现在，我们面对的是少数人，而不是大多数人，但我认为有很多 —— 我能花在20岁的人身上的每一个小时实际上都非常令人鼓舞。
One emotional sense I get from your walk-on music, Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony, is just that the stakes are remarkably high.
我从你的走秀音乐《贝多芬第五交响曲》中得到的一种情感感觉就是赌注非常高。
Now, if we’re looking for indicators to keep track of whether, in essence, things are going your way — greater dynamism, freedom to build, willingness to build, American dynamism — what should we track?
现在，如果我们正在寻找指标来跟踪事情本质上是否按照您的方式发展 ——“更大的活力、建设自由、建设意愿、美国活力”——“我们应该跟踪什么？”
What should we look at?
我们应该看什么？
How do we know if things are going well?
我们如何知道事情是否进展顺利？
Look, I do not come here and do not come to the world with comprehensive answers.
看，我来到这里，也不是带着全面的答案来到这个世界。
The overall answer is, productivity growth in the economy is a great starting point.
总体答案是，经济生产率的增长是一个很好的起点。
Economic growth is a great starting point.
经济增长是一个很好的起点。
The overall questions are there.
总体问题就在那里。
Most of our economy is dominated by incumbent institutions that have no intention, I don’t think, of changing or evolving unless they’re forced to.
我们的经济大部分由现有机构主导，我认为这些机构无意改变或发展，除非被迫。
Certainly, most of the business world now is one form of oligopoly or another that has various markets locked up.
当然，现在大多数商业世界都是一种寡头垄断或另一种形式，锁定了各个市场。
I don’t think there’s some magic bullet to hugely accelerate things.
我不认为有什么灵丹妙药可以极大地加速事情的发展。
Having said that, I think attacking from the edges is the thing that can be done, which is basically what we do, what Silicon Valley does.
话虽如此，我认为从边缘发起攻击是可以做的事情，这基本上就是我们、硅谷所做的事情。
Then when you attack from the edges the way that our entrepreneurs do, a lot of the times, they don’t succeed.
然后，当你像我们的企业家那样从边缘发起攻击时，很多时候他们不会成功。
It’s a high-risk occupation with a lot of risk of failure.
这是一个高风险职业，有很大的失败风险。
When they succeed, they can succeed spectacularly well.
当他们成功时，他们可以取得惊人的成功。
We have companies in American economy that were venture-backed in the 1970s and, actually, even some that were venture-backed in the 1990s and 2000s that are now bigger than most national economies, right?
美国经济中有一些公司在 20 世纪 70 年代得到了风险投资，实际上，甚至有一些公司在 1990 年代和 2000 年代得到了风险投资，现在它们的规模比大多数国民经济体还要大，对吗？
Was it Apple?
是苹果公司吗？
I think Apple’s market cap is bigger than the entire market cap of the German stock market.
我认为苹果的市值比德国股市的总市值还要大。
I think that’s right.
我认为这是对的。
Just one company.
只有一家公司。
Apple was a venture-backed startup.
苹果是一家风险投资支持的初创公司。
Two kids in a garage in 1976, not that long ago.
1976 年，不久前，两个孩子在车库里。
It’s bigger than the entire German industrial public market.
它比整个德国工业公共市场还要大。
Attacking from the edges, sometimes you can get really, really big results.
从边缘进攻，有时你可以获得非常非常大的结果。
Sometimes you just prod the system.
有时你只是刺激系统。
Sometimes you just spark people into reacting, and that pushes everything forward.
有时你只是激发人们做出反应，从而推动一切向前发展。
Then the other question always is just like, from our standpoint, what are the tools that startups have to try to really change things?
那么另一个问题总是，从我们的角度来看，初创公司必须尝试真正改变事物的工具是什么？
There’s a bunch of such tools, but there’s always two that really dominate.
这样的工具有很多，但总有两个真正占主导地位。
One is just, what’s the magnitude of the technological change in the air that can be harnessed?
一是，可以利用的空气技术变革有多大？
We’re always looking for the next super cycle, the next breakthrough technology, which you can imagine 1,000 companies doing many different things, all punching into incumbent markets.
我们一直在寻找下一个超级周期、下一个突破性技术，你可以想象 1,000 家公司正在做许多不同的事情，全部进军现有市场。
AI certainly seems like one of those.
人工智能似乎就是其中之一。
Then, yes, the other is just the sheer animalistic ambition, energy, animal spirits of the entrepreneurs and of the teams that get built.
然后，是的，另一个就是企业家和所建立的团队的纯粹的兽性野心、能量和动物精神。
Like I said, I think the best of the startups today are more aggressive, more ambitious, more capable.
就像我说的，我认为当今最好的初创公司更加积极进取，更加雄心勃勃，更有能力。
The people are better.
人们更好了。
They execute better than at least I’ve ever seen.
他们的执行效果至少比我见过的要好。
I think that’s also quite positive.
我认为这也是非常积极的。
Who’s a social thinker who helps you make sense of these trends?
谁是可以帮助您理解这些趋势的社会思想家？
Oh, yes, my favorite is James Burnham.
哦，是的，我最喜欢的是詹姆斯·伯纳姆。
He’s my favorite.
他是我最喜欢的。
Why Burnham?
为什么是伯纳姆？
Why Burnham?
为什么是伯纳姆？
Burnham is not famous, but he should be famous.
伯纳姆不出名，但他应该出名。
Burnham has a fascinating story.
伯纳姆有一个引人入胜的故事。
He’s a thinker in the 20th century who talked a lot about these issues.
他是20世纪的一位思想家，对这些问题谈了很多。
He started out life, as a lot of people do in the 1920s and ’30s, as a dedicated Trotskyite, full-on communist.
正如许多 20 世纪 20 年代和 30 年代的人一样，他一开始就是一名忠诚的托洛茨基分子、彻底的共产主义者。
He’s a very special guy.
他是一个非常特别的人。
Burnham was a very brilliant guy.
伯纳姆是一个非常聪明的人。
He was such a dedicated communist that he was close personal friends with Leon Trotsky, which is how you really know how you’ve made it when you’re a communist.
他是一位如此忠诚的共产主义者，以至于他与列夫·托洛茨基（Leon Trotsky）是亲密的私人朋友，这就是当你成为一名共产主义者时你真正知道自己是如何取得成功的。
He would have these huge arguments with Trotsky, which is not the safest thing in the world to do.
他会与托洛茨基进行这些激烈的争论，这不是世界上最安全的事情。
Apparently, he got away with it.
显然，他侥幸逃脱了惩罚。
Very enthusiastic communist revolutionary through the ’30s.
20世纪30年代非常热情的共产主义革命者。
Then in the ’40s, he’s a very smart guy and he started to figure out that was a bad path.
然后在 40 年代，他是一个非常聪明的人，他开始发现这是一条糟糕的道路。
He went through this process of rethinking everything.
他经历了这个重新思考一切的过程。
By the 1950s, he was so far to the right that he was actually a co-founder of National Review magazine with William Buckley, who always said he was the intellectual leading light at National Review.
到了 20 世纪 50 年代，他已经变得非常右倾，实际上他与威廉·巴克利 (William Buckley) 共同创办了《国家评论》杂志，而威廉·巴克利总是说他是《国家评论》的知识分子领袖。
He’s got works that he wrote that will accommodate the full spectrum of politics.
他写的作品涵盖了各个政治领域。
In his middle period where he was trying to figure out — this is like in the 1940s — he was trying to figure out where things are going.
在他的中期，他试图弄清楚——“就像 20 世纪 40 年代一样——”他试图弄清楚事情的发展方向。
There were enormous questions in the 1940s because it was viewed as a three-way war for the future between communism on the far left, fascism on the far right, and then liberal democracy floating around there somewhere.
20 世纪 40 年代存在着巨大的问题，因为它被视为极左翼共产主义、极右翼法西斯主义和四处流传的自由民主之间的一场三方战争。
His best, most well-known book is called The Managerial Revolution, which talks a lot about the issues we’ve been discussing, and it was written in 1941.
他最好、最著名的书是《管理革命》，该书写于 1941 年，其中大量讨论了我们一直在讨论的问题。
It’s fascinating for many reasons, part of which is, he was still mad about communism.
这令人着迷的原因有很多，其中一部分是他仍然对共产主义感到愤怒。
He debunks communism in it.
他在其中揭穿了共产主义。
Also, they didn’t know who was going to win World War II.
此外，他们不知道谁将赢得第二次世界大战。
It talks about this battle of ideologies as if it were still an open topic, which is super interesting.
它谈论这场意识形态之战，就好像它仍然是一个开放的话题，这非常有趣。
He did this very Marxian analysis of capitalism.
他对资本主义进行了非常马克思主义的分析。
He made the observation that I see every day, which is there are fundamentally two types of capitalism.
他提出了我每天都会看到的观察结果，即资本主义从根本上有两种类型。
There’s the original model of capitalism, which he calls bourgeois capitalism, which you could think like Henry Ford is the archetype of that.
这是资本主义的原始模式，他称之为资产阶级资本主义，你可以像亨利·福特一样认为它是资产阶级资本主义的原型。
A capitalist starts a company, runs the company, name on the door, ownership of the company, control the company, dictator of the company, complete alignment of a company with an individual.
资本家创办公司，经营公司，门上有名字，公司所有权，控制公司，公司独裁者，公司与个人完全一致。
Then he talks about this other emerging form of capitalism at that time called managerial capitalism.
然后他谈到了当时另一种新兴的资本主义形式，称为管理资本主义。
In managerial capitalism, you think about today’s modern public companies.
在管理资本主义中，你会想到今天的现代上市公司。
Think about Walmart or whatever, any public company where, in theory, there are shareholders.
想想沃尔玛或其他任何一家理论上有股东的上市公司。
Really, what there are is, there are millions and millions of shareholders that are incredibly dispersed.
确实，有数以百万计的股东，而且极其分散。
Everybody in this room owns some three shares of Walmart stock in a mutual fund somewhere.
这个房间里的每个人都在某个共同基金中拥有大约三股沃尔玛股票。
You don’t wake up in the morning wondering what’s happening to Walmart.
你早上醒来时不会想知道沃尔玛发生了什么。
It doesn’t even occur to you to think about yourself as an owner.
您甚至没有想到将自己视为所有者。
What you get instead is this managerial class of actually both investors like fund managers and then also executives and CEOs who actually run these companies.
相反，你得到的是这个管理阶层，实际上既包括基金经理等投资者，也包括实际经营这些公司的高管和首席执行官。
They have control, but without ultimate responsibility, without ultimate ownership.
他们拥有控制权，但没有最终责任，没有最终所有权。
The interesting thing he said about that is, he said, “Look, managerialism is, basically, it’s not that it’s good or bad.
他对此所说的有趣之处在于，“看，管理主义基本上没有好坏之分。
It just is necessary because companies and institutions and governments and all the rest of it get to the point where they’re just too big and too complicated for one person to run everything.
这是必要的，因为公司、机构、政府以及所有其他机构都已经到了太大、太复杂的地步，以至于一个人无法管理所有事情。
You’re going to have the emergence of this managerial class who’s going to run things.”
你将会看到这个管理阶层的出现，他们将管理一切。”
There’s a flip side of it, which is, the people who are qualified to be managers of large organizations are not themselves the kind of people who become bourgeois capitalists.
还有一个反面，就是那些有资格担任大型组织管理者的人本身并不是成为资产阶级资本家的人。
They’re the other kind of person.
他们是另一种人。
They’re often good at running things, but they generally don’t do new things.
他们通常擅长管理事物，但通常不做新事物。
They generally don’t seek to disrupt or seek to create or seek to invent.
他们通常不会寻求颠覆、创造或发明。
One way of thinking about what’s happened in our system is, capitalism used to be bourgeois capitalism.
思考我们的体系中发生的事情的一种方式是，资本主义曾经是资产阶级资本主义。
It got replaced by managerial capitalism without actually changing the name.
它被管理资本主义所取代，但名称并未实际改变。
That will necessarily lead to stagnation.
这必然会导致停滞。
By the way, that may be necessary that that happens because the systems are too complicated, but that will necessarily lead to stagnation.
顺便说一句，这种情况的发生可能是必要的，因为系统太复杂了，但这必然会导致停滞。
Then what you need is, basically, the resumption of bourgeois capitalism to come back in and, at the very least, poke and prod everybody into action.
那么基本上你需要的是资产阶级资本主义的恢复，至少要促使每个人采取行动。
That, aspirationally, is what we do and what our startups do.
我们希望这就是我们以及我们的初创公司所做的事情。
Marc Andreessen, thank you very much.
马克·安德森，非常感谢你。
Good.
好的。
Great.
伟大的。
Thank you, everybody.
谢谢大家。
Photo Credits: Yassine El Mansouri/elman studio, llc.
图片来源：Yassine El Mansouri/elman studio, llc。