Nate Silver on Risk-takers, Politicians, and Poker Players (Ep. 219)
Thank you to an anonymous listener for sponsoring this transcript.
感谢一位匿名听众赞助这份文字记录。
Hello, everyone, and welcome back to Conversations with Tyler.
大家好，欢迎回到《与泰勒对话》。
Today I’m in New York City, chatting with the great Nate Silver.
今天我在纽约，与伟大的内特·西尔弗聊天。
It is late July 2024, and Nate has recently risen in status, you might say.
现在是 2024 年 7 月下旬，你可能会说，内特最近地位上升了。
He has a new book out, which I thought was excellent, informative, fun on every page: On the Edge: The Art of Risking Everything.
他出了一本新书，我认为这本书非常棒，内容丰富，每一页都很有趣：《边缘：冒险一切的艺术》。
Nate, welcome.
内特，欢迎。
Thank you, Tyler.
谢谢你，泰勒。
Now, if we simulated the world a thousand times, in how many of those scenarios would you end up more or less where you are today?
现在，如果我们模拟世界一千次，在其中多少个场景中，您最终会或多或少地处于今天的境地？
It’s, of course, a question I asked Peter Thiel and other people in the book.
当然，这是我在书中问过彼得·蒂尔和其他人的问题。
Your father was a political scientist, presumably very smart.
你父亲是一位政治学家，想必非常聪明。
Got you connected to politics.
让你与政治产生了联系。
This is a hard question.
这是一个很难回答的问题。
I feel it’s unfair that you’re asking me this question that I asked other people, but I think I would have wound up somewhere in this vicinity 20 percent of the time, or maybe less than that.
我觉得你问我这个我问过其他人的问题是不公平的，但我想我在 20% 的情况下会在附近的某个地方结束，或者可能更少。
I don’t know, because I had this big breakthrough in the 2008 election, which really did involve a lot of happenstance in certain ways.
我不知道，因为我在2008年的选举中取得了这个重大突破，这在某些方面确实涉及到很多偶然因素。
I had been an online poker player, and basically, the US government shut down online poker.
我曾经是一名在线扑克玩家，基本上，美国政府关闭了在线扑克。
Technically, they shut down payment processing for online poker.
从技术上讲，他们关闭了在线扑克的支付处理。
That got me very interested in the 2006 midterms because I wanted the people who had passed that law to lose their seats in Congress.
这让我对 2006 年中期选举非常感兴趣，因为我希望通过该法律的人失去在国会的席位。
Meanwhile, I lost my source of livelihood.
与此同时，我也失去了生活来源。
I couldn’t play poker and press buttons for 24 hours — not 24 hours — for 40 hours a week.
我无法连续 24 小时玩扑克、按按钮——不是 24 小时——每周 40 小时。
So, I founded FiveThirtyEight just on a lark, and that changed everything.
所以，我只是一时兴起创立了 FiveThirtyEight，这改变了一切。
Yes, there’s a lot of circumstance and luck, and there are probably many ways that life could have unfolded where I was unhappy at some consulting job, or something tragic happened, or whatever else.
是的，有很多环境和运气，如果我对某些咨询工作不满意，或者发生了悲惨的事情，或者其他什么，生活可能会以多种方式展开。
Poker players — they’re ornery.
扑克玩家 ——他们脾气暴躁。
They’re individualistic.
他们很个人主义。
You don’t always want to hire them, and you’re one of them.
你并不总是想雇用他们，而你就是他们中的一员。
Isn’t it, if not inevitable, likely you would have ended up as some kind of independent?
如果不是不可避免的话，你是否有可能最终成为某种独立的人？
Everyone knows about sports.
每个人都知道运动。
Yes, because now I’m doing three or four different things, which in some ways makes it feel like I’m living out multiple versions of the simulation anyway.
是的，因为现在我正在做三到四件不同的事情，这在某种程度上让我感觉自己正在经历多个版本的模拟。
COWEN: All at once.
考恩：一下子就全部完成了。
Yes, because I’m diversified in different ways.
是的，因为我以不同的方式多元化。
There might be worlds where I had won a big poker tournament early on, or something like that, but yes, I get pretty unhappy when I’m bored.
可能在某些世界里，我很早就赢得了一场大型扑克锦标赛，或者类似的事情，但是，是的，当我感到无聊时，我会很不高兴。
I also can focus and work pretty hard, so I think I would have wound up in interesting places a lot, but I feel very blessed and lucky to have wound up in this particular place.
我也可以集中精力并努力工作，所以我想我会去很多有趣的地方，但我感到非常幸运和幸运能够来到这个特殊的地方。
What do you maximize?
你最大化什么？
I don’t know.
我不知道。
In the short run, some combination of .
从短期来看，一些组合。
.
。
.
。
Look, this year, it’s easier to answer that because you have a short or more medium-term .
看，今年这个问题更容易回答，因为你有一个短期或更中期的目标。
.
。
.
。
Right, everything’s thrown at you.
是的，一切都向你扔来。
You’ve got to get through the day, simply.
你必须简单地度过这一天。
Yes.
是的。
Look, I’m 46.
瞧，我46岁了。
There’s some extent to which I feel like this year is important as far as earning a fair amount of income — because it is very cyclical, with election cycles and other things like that — of having good options for the second half of my life, basically.
在某种程度上，我觉得今年对于赚取相当多的收入来说很重要——因为它具有很强的周期性，有选举周期和其他类似的事情——基本上我的后半生有很好的选择。
I found a lot of energy recently, this year.
今年，我最近发现了很多能量。
I probably work fewer hours than I once did but probably work much more efficiently, have a little bit more balance.
我的工作时间可能比以前少了，但工作效率可能更高，也更平衡。
But yes, I am trying to get as much productive work done as I can over the next four or five months until the election happens.
但是，是的，在接下来的四五个月内，直到选举发生之前，我正在努力完成尽可能多的富有成效的工作。
I’m trying to build the newsletter Silver Bulletin in the long term.
从长远来看，我正在努力打造时事通讯 Silver Bulletin。
I’ve matured a little bit.
我成熟了一些。
I tend not to work most evenings, for example.
例如，我大多数晚上都不工作。
We were talking about travel before, right?
我们之前讨论过旅行，对吧？
Yes.
是的。
I do my share of travel.
我做我的一部分旅行。
I have poker tournaments, which are fun and stressful but also a lot of hard work and are an escape in different ways.
我参加扑克锦标赛，这很有趣，也有压力，但也有很多艰苦的工作，是一种不同方式的逃避。
I want to get to a point where, for the rest of my life, I can do intellectually challenging and stimulating work and experience different things.
我希望在我的余生中，我可以从事智力上具有挑战性和刺激性的工作，并体验不同的事情。
But this year, there’s a little bit of hustle required to help ensure that in the long term.
但今年，需要一点努力来帮助确保长期实现这一目标。
On avoiding status quo bias in one’s life
关于避免生活中的现状偏见
There’s a Steve Levitt paper you cite in your book that indicates people make better decisions when they flip a coin to avoid status quo bias.
您在书中引用了一篇史蒂夫·莱维特的论文，该论文表明人们在掷硬币以避免现状偏见时会做出更好的决定。
(A) Do you believe that paper?
(A) 你相信那篇论文吗？
And (B) looking forward, will you be flipping any coins?
(B) 展望未来，你会抛硬币吗？
No, I literally will flip coins for like, “Do we want to go get Italian food or sushi tonight?”
不，我真的会掷硬币，比如“我们今晚想去吃意大利菜还是寿司？”
But a big decision.
但这是一个重大决定。
Bigger decision, even just, “Where should I go on my next vacation?” You could randomize that.
更大的决定，甚至只是“下一个假期我应该去哪里？”你可以随机化它。
Do you do it?
你做吗？
A vacation location might be up to the max of what I would randomize, I think.
我认为，度假地点可能达到了我随机选择的最大值。
Not something really important.
并不是什么真正重要的事情。
I tend to be pretty analytical about really important career and life-choice decisions, I think.
我认为，我倾向于对真正重要的职业和人生选择决策进行分析。
So, you don’t think you have that much status quo bias?
那么，您不认为自己有那么大的现状偏见吗？
I’m sure I do, but look, I’ve done a lot of different things, and I’ve bounced around quite a bit.
我确信我做到了，但是你看，我做了很多不同的事情，而且我也经历过很多次。
I’m inherently restless.
我本质上焦躁不安。
Some of the common personality flaws that .
一些常见的人格缺陷。
.
。
.
。
“Flaws” is a jaded, loaded word.
“缺陷”是一个令人厌烦、意味深长的词。
Some of the common personality traits a lot of people have, I think maybe poker players over-index a little bit toward the other way.
很多人都有一些共同的性格特征，我认为扑克玩家可能会过度关注另一种方式。
Poker players are pretty good at going with the flow.
扑克玩家非常善于随波逐流。
When you’re playing a poker tournament, everything is contingent because the tournament could last five more days or five more minutes.
当您参加扑克锦标赛时，一切都是偶然的，因为锦标赛可能会再持续五天或五分钟。
So, you’re like, “Yes, I’ll go to dinner with you, conditional on being knocked out of the tournament, and not entering this other tournament,” and x and y, and z.
所以，你会说，“是的，我会和你一起去吃晚饭，条件是被淘汰出锦标赛，并且不参加另一场锦标赛”，以及 x 和 y 和 z。
You’re very used to dealing with different stressors and contingencies and things like that.
您非常习惯于处理不同的压力源和突发事件等。
I think that’s somewhat unusual.
我认为这有点不寻常。
If you’re very restless, does that seem to you like a bias in your decisions that you want to counteract with nudges, or something you should double down on?
如果你非常焦躁不安，这对你来说是否像是你的决定中存在偏见，你想通过推动来抵消，或者你应该加倍努力？
I would say you should double down on it, but what’s your view?
我想说你应该加倍努力，但你的观点是什么？
I think closer to double down.
我认为更接近双倍下注。
Double down.
双倍下降。
Yes.
是的。
So, what’s your main bias when you make decisions?
那么，当你做决定时，你的主要偏见是什么？
I think I’m probably more emotional than people might think I am on the surface —
我想我可能比人们表面上认为的更情绪化 ——
I would think you’re pretty emotional.
我觉得你很感性。
Yes, that can come out on Twitter and things like that a little bit.
是的，这可以在 Twitter 和类似的事情上发布。
People who are very competitive — and I put myself in that category, I think — can sometimes be a little bit irrational about continuing to fight even after they’ve already won.
那些非常有竞争力的人——我把自己归入这一类，我认为——有时即使他们已经赢了，他们也会有些不理智地继续战斗。
In some ways, I think that can be a bias potentially in certain ways.
在某些方面，我认为这在某些方面可能是一种潜在的偏见。
Who was the first human to think probabilistically with a reasonable degree of consistency?
谁是第一个以合理程度的一致性进行概率思考的人？
Or have we seen one yet?
或者我们还见过一个吗？
I think people are actually more intuitive, probabilistic reasoners than maybe the conventional wisdom holds.
我认为人们实际上比传统智慧认为的更直觉、更概率推理。
If you’re thinking about some hunter-gatherer — they’re reading context clues about where might be the particular wild beasts they want to kill and want to avoid being killed by.
如果你想到某个狩猎采集者 ——他们正在阅读上下文线索，了解他们想要杀死并希望避免被杀死的特定野兽在哪里。
Gambling goes back very early in many cultures.
在许多文化中，赌博可以追溯到很早以前。
Apparently not quite universal, but probably very common in most cultures.
显然不是很普遍，但在大多数文化中可能很常见。
But that’s a sign they don’t think probabilistically because most gambling is negative sum, right?
但这表明他们没有从概率角度思考，因为大多数赌博都是负和，对吗？
At best, zero sum, so we should see very little of it.
充其量是零和，所以我们应该看到很少。
It’s originally from divination, literally.
从字面上看，它最初来自占卜。
Then it becomes gamified and commodified.
然后它变得游戏化和商品化。
It plays almost a spiritual role, I think, in ancient .
我认为，它在古代几乎扮演着精神角色。
.
。
.
。
I don’t know its anthropology super well.
我不太了解它的人类学。
I’ve read a couple of books on it, but it has almost a spiritual divination role.
我读过几本这方面的书，但它几乎具有精神占卜的作用。
The notion of gambling halls or casinos, I think, dates back to maybe 16th- or 17th-century Europe, roughly.
我认为，赌场或赌场的概念大约可以追溯到 16 世纪或 17 世纪的欧洲。
That’s potentially newer, but the notion of tempting one’s fate, which is still a romantic notion some gamblers have, like Erving Goffman, who I cite in the book.
这可能是较新的想法，但诱惑命运的想法仍然是一些赌徒的浪漫想法，比如我在书中引用的欧文·戈夫曼(Erving Goffman)。
This is someone who has ennui or whatever.
这是一个感到无聊或其他什么的人。
Maybe I’m using that term wrong, but they need to prove that they’re capable of taking a chance.
也许我用错了这个词，但他们需要证明他们有能力冒险。
It can be a little bit gendered.
它可能有点性别化。
I think he thinks of it more as a post-World War II American male who feels like he has fewer chances to demonstrate his bravery.
我认为他更多地将其视为二战后的美国男性，他觉得自己展示勇敢的机会越来越少。
That’s always been one conception of gambling — a simulation of actual risk.
这一直是赌博的一个概念——对实际风险的模拟。
On the psychology of betting
论博彩心理学
Why shouldn’t people gamble only in the positive sum game?
为什么人们不应该只在正和游戏中赌博？
Take the US stock market — that certainly seems to be one of them — and manufacture all the suspense you want.
以美国股市为例——“这似乎就是其中之一”——并制造你想要的所有悬念。
Learn about the companies, the CEO.
了解公司、首席执行官。
Get your thrill that way and don’t do any other gambling.
以这种方式获得刺激，不要进行任何其他赌博。
Why isn’t that just better for everyone?
为什么这不是对每个人都更好呢？
Look, I’m not necessarily a fan of gambling for gambling’s sake.
听着，我不一定喜欢为了赌博而赌博。
Twice a year, I’ll be in casinos and in Las Vegas a lot.
每年两次，我会经常去赌场和拉斯维加斯。
Twice a year, I’ll have a friend who is like, “Let’s just go play blackjack for an hour and have a couple of free drinks,” and things like that.
每年两次，我都会遇到一个朋友，他会说：“我们去玩一个小时的二十一点，然后喝几杯免费饮料吧”之类的事情。
But I like to make bets where I think, at least in principle, I have an edge, or at least can fool myself into thinking I have an edge.
但我喜欢在我认为至少原则上有优势的地方下注，或者至少可以欺骗自己认为我有优势。
Sometimes, with the sports stuff, you probably know deep down you’re roughly break-even or something like that.
有时，在体育方面，你可能内心深处知道自己大致处于收支平衡或类似的情况。
You’re doing some smart things, like looking at five different sites and finding a line that’s best, which wipes out some but not all of the house edge.
你正在做一些聪明的事情，比如查看五个不同的站点并找到一条最好的线，这会消除一些但不是全部的赌场优势。
But no, I’m not a huge fan of slot machines, certainly.
但不，我当然不是老虎机的忠实粉丝。
I think they are very gnarly and addictive in various ways.
我认为它们在各个方面都非常粗糙且令人上瘾。
They limit your sports betting, don’t they?
他们限制了你的体育博彩，不是吗？
Yes, I’ve been limited by six or seven of the nine New York retail sites.
是的，我受到了纽约九个零售网站中六七个的限制。
What’s the potential edge they think you might have?
他们认为你可能拥有什么潜在优势？
It’s just that.
就是这样。
If you’re betting $2,000 on the Wizards-Hornets game the moment the line comes out on DraftKings, you’re clearly not a recreational bettor.
如果您在 DraftKings 比赛一出线就在奇才队与黄蜂队的比赛上下注 2,000 美元，那么您显然不是一个休闲投注者。
Just the hallmarks of trying to be a winning player, meaning betting lines early because the line’s early and you don’t have price discovery yet.
这就是试图成为获胜玩家的标志，意味着尽早下注，因为下注线很早，而且您还没有价格发现。
The early lines are often very beatable.
早期的台词往往非常容易被击败。
Betting on obscure stuff like “Will this player get X number of rebounds?” or things like that.
押注于诸如“这名球员会得到 X 个篮板吗？”之类的晦涩内容。或类似的事情。
If you have a knack for — if DraftKings has a line at -3.5 and it’s -4 elsewhere, then it can be called steam chasing, where you bet before a line moves in other places.
如果你有窍门——如果DraftKings的赔率是-3.5，而其他地方的赔率是-4，那么这可以称为蒸汽追逐，即你在赔率移动到其他地方之前下注。
If you have injury information .
如果您有受伤信息。
.
。
.
。
It’s a very weird game.
这是一个非常奇怪的游戏。
One thing I hope people are more aware of is that a lot of the sites — and some are better than others — but they really don’t want winning players.
我希望人们更加意识到的一件事是，很多网站 ——有些比其他网站更好——但他们真的不想要获胜的玩家。
Their advertising has actually changed.
他们的广告实际上已经改变了。
It used to be, they would say for Daily Fantasy Sports, which was the predecessor, “Hey, you’re a smart guy” — the ads are very cynical — “You’re a smart guy in a cubicle.
他们曾经对前身《每日幻想体育》说，“嘿，你是个聪明人” —— 广告非常愤世嫉俗 —— “你是一个小隔间里的聪明人。
Why don’t you go do all your spreadsheet stuff and actually draft this team and make a lot of money, and literally, you’ll be sleeping with supermodels in two months.
你为什么不去做所有的电子表格工作，实际起草这个团队并赚很多钱，实际上，两个月后你就会和超级名模一起睡觉。
You win the million-dollar prize from DraftKings.”
你赢得了 DraftKings 的百万美元奖金。”
Now, they don’t even try to advertise it as a skill game anymore, which in some ways is a mistake because the appeal to the male ego is a huge way to get new customers for sports betting and things like that.
现在，他们甚至不再尝试将其宣传为技能游戏，这在某种程度上是一个错误，因为对男性自我的吸引力是为体育博彩等吸引新客户的重要方式。
Every sports fan thinks he has some proprietary edge or knowledge or insight.
每个体育迷都认为自己拥有一些专有优势、知识或洞察力。
+EV sports bettors are not a big lobbying group, or not a big cause, exactly.
+EV 体育博彩玩家并不是一个大的游说团体，或者说不是一个重要的事业。
I think there should be regulations on how much can you price-discriminate between your customers.
我认为应该制定法规来规定您可以在多大程度上对客户进行价格歧视。
Literally, they’ll take a million-dollar bet from somebody and wouldn’t take even a $50 bet from me on the same game, things like that, which also creates problems because money has a way to flow.
从字面上看，他们会从某人那里接受一百万美元的赌注，而不会接受我在同一场比赛中甚至是 50 美元的赌注，类似的事情，这也会产生问题，因为金钱有流动的方式。
Tyler, if you are able to bet a million dollars, and I’m able to bet $50, and I’m a winning bettor, then there are certain ways in which information will probably flow from me to you in an inefficient way, eventually.
泰勒，如果你能下注 100 万美元，而我能下注 50 美元，并且我是一个获胜的投注者，那么最终，信息可能会以某种低效的方式从我流向你。
Sure.
当然。
But no, the industry is very cynical in some ways.
但事实并非如此，这个行业在某些方面非常愤世嫉俗。
The old-school Vegas idea of “We’re going to post our line, and everybody gets a crack.
维加斯的老派理念是“我们要发布我们的台词，然后每个人都会受到影响。
You can bet X amount at a time.
您一次可以下注 X 金额。
When you make a bet, then we may change the line and you can bet again” — That attitude has been lost.
当你下注时，我们可能会改变路线，你可以再下注” — 那种态度已经消失了。
More of this European, UK style, where you’re doing lots and lots of customer segmentation and trying to maximize the amount of money you make from whales, which are bad degenerate gamblers, and not take much action at all from sharps.
更多的是这种欧洲、英国的风格，你要做很多很多的客户细分，并试图最大限度地从鲸鱼身上赚到钱，鲸鱼是糟糕的堕落赌徒，而对锐利者根本不采取太多行动。
Of course, you lose the price-discovery element of that.
当然，你会失去其中的价格发现要素。
It’s a pretty interesting industry economically.
从经济角度来看，这是一个非常有趣的行业。
What happens is, there are a few sharp sites that will say, “Hey, we will take $5,000 from anybody, and that helps us have better pricing and discover better lines.” Because by the time you get to kick-off or tip-off of a game, then you’re taking $50,000 bets or more.
实际情况是，有一些敏锐的网站会说：“嘿，我们会从任何人那里拿 5,000 美元，这有助于我们获得更好的定价并发现更好的线路。”因为当您开始比赛时，您的赌注将达到 50,000 美元或更多。
So, to have someone who’s willing to give someone a small +EV bet for a smaller amount because then you’ll get your retail customers later on — that was the old model.
因此，有人愿意以较小的金额向某人提供小额+EV 赌注，因为这样你以后就会得到你的零售客户——这就是旧模式。
Shouldn’t they just stop the betting on, say, how many rebounds a player pulls down?
难道他们不应该停止对某个球员抢下多少个篮板球的投注吗？
It encourages corruption.
它鼓励腐败。
It’s not actually a suspenseful act, whether it’s seven or eight rebounds, whereas who wins the Super Bowl presumably is a suspenseful, meaningful act for many people.
这实际上并不是一个悬念的行为，无论是七个还是八个篮板，而谁赢得了超级碗对很多人来说可能是一个悬疑的、有意义的行为。
That’s right.
这是正确的。
If you have a Jalen Brunson — I’m a Knicks fan — or someone who’s a major star, then it might make sense.
如果你有贾伦·布伦森（Jalen Brunson）——“我是尼克斯队球迷”——或者某个大明星，那么这可能是有意义的。
But no, these books have way too wide a menu of events, and the sharper books don’t.
但不，这些书的事件清单太广泛了，而更尖锐的书却没有。
The sharper books will pull a line down.
更锋利的书会拉低一条线。
If Steph Curry is questionable for the game, you can get a gigantic edge if you have any inside information about whether he’s going to play or not.
如果斯蒂芬·库里能否参加比赛，如果你有任何关于他是否会参加比赛的内部信息，你可以获得巨大的优势。
They will just not take that bet, or they won’t do the more esoteric player prop stuff.
他们只是不会接受这个赌注，或者他们不会做更深奥的玩家道具事情。
Or things like the NFL draft — if you are an NFL reporter for ESPN, then you could probably absolutely crush NFL draft bets.
或者诸如 NFL 选秀之类的事情——如果您是 ESPN 的 NFL 记者，那么您可能绝对会压垮 NFL 选秀投注。
You might get fired if someone finds out, but the retail books are like, “Yes, we can put bets up that a knowledgeable person could make money on because we won’t let the knowledgeable people bet in the first place.”
如果有人发现了，你可能会被解雇，但零售书籍会说，“是的，我们可以打赌，一个知识渊博的人可以赚钱，因为我们一开始就不会让知识渊博的人下注。”
Relatively, I guess it’s a sustainable equilibrium in the long run.
相对而言，我认为从长远来看这是一个可持续的平衡。
I’m not quite so sure.
我不太确定。
One thing that sites like DraftKings are relying upon is, they’re basically piggybacking off the sharp sites, because you can just set your line based on Pinnacle, for example, or Circa.
像 DraftKings 这样的网站所依赖的一件事是，它们基本上是利用尖锐的网站，因为你可以根据 Pinnacle 或 Circa 等设置你的线路。
These are books that are sharp, and they actually do take bets from winning customers.
这些书都很犀利，而且它们确实接受了赢得客户的赌注。
DraftKings piggybacks off them.
DraftKings 依靠他们。
If we could enforce just an outright ban, what’s the cost-benefit analysis on banning all sports gambling?
如果我们可以执行彻底的禁令，那么禁止所有体育博彩的成本效益分析是什么？
I’m more of a libertarian than a strict utilitarian, I think.
我认为，我更像是一个自由主义者，而不是一个严格的功利主义者。
Sure, but what’s the utilitarian price of being a libertarian?
当然，但是成为自由主义者的功利代价是多少？
Look, I think most of the studies on gambling say that it’s a good transaction in terms of people getting some degree of enjoyment and excitement out of it, but maybe you have 5 percent of the population that becomes very addicted, and that 5 percent can account for a large share of volume.
看，我认为大多数关于赌博的研究都说，就人们从中获得一定程度的享受和兴奋而言，这是一项很好的交易，但也许有 5% 的人变得非常上瘾，而这 5% 的人可能占很大一部分数量。
If it were me, if I were the gambling czar, I would probably ban slot machines and let everything else go, more or less.
如果是我，如果我是赌博沙皇，我可能会禁止老虎机，或多或少地放开其他一切。
The utilitarian part of me for slot machines is maybe enough to outweigh the libertarian part.
我对老虎机的功利主义部分可能足以超过自由主义部分。
They are deliberately designed to be addictive.
它们是故意设计成让人上瘾的。
It’s not very transparent what the odds actually are.
实际的可能性是多少并不是很透明。
You can’t actually go and it doesn’t say you have a -9 percent ROI at this particular slot machine.
你实际上不能去，也没有说你在这台特定的老虎机上有 -9% 的投资回报率。
If you look at the demographics of slot machines, it’s much lower income.
如果你看看老虎机的人口统计数据，就会发现收入要低得多。
Sports betting and poker, which are the two forms I participate in myself, are mostly done by fairly high-income people who can, I think, afford to lose, but slot machines are nasty things.
体育博彩和扑克是我自己参与的两种形式，主要是由相当高收入的人进行的，我认为他们可以承受输钱，但老虎机是令人讨厌的东西。
Speaking of scale, if we put you in a time machine, send you back to 1970, and you’re playing poker, why exactly is it that you would win so much?
说到规模，如果我们把你放进时光机，让你回到 1970 年，你正在玩扑克，为什么你会赢这么多？
One way to put it is that poker actually has been solved more or less with game theory, with big, complicated programs called solvers that calculate the Nash equilibrium for any situation, given certain inputs.
一种说法是，扑克实际上或多或少是通过博弈论来解决的，通过称为求解器的大型复杂程序，可以在给定某些输入的情况下计算任何情况下的纳什均衡。
But when you’re at the table, that’s of limited use to you, right?
但当你在牌桌上时，这对你来说用处有限，对吗？
No. If you think about the history of Texas hold ’em or poker, probably 99 percent of poker that’s ever been played, every hand that’s been played, counting online and things like that, has been played in the last 10 years.
不。如果你想一想德州扑克或扑克的历史，可能 99% 的扑克游戏、每一手牌、在线计数等等都是在过去 10 年里玩过的。
Poker’s not that old, the game.
扑克游戏并没有那么古老。
It goes back to the Mississippi riverboats.
这可以追溯到密西西比河的船只。
For many years, people weren’t really trying to use computers or anything to solve it.
多年来，人们并没有真正尝试使用计算机或任何东西来解决这个问题。
When Doyle Brunson played, he would literally, by hand, simulate hands by dealing out a deck hundreds of times to see, does a pair of twos beat ace-king off suit more often than not?
当多伊尔·布伦森（Doyle Brunson）玩牌时，他会用手模拟手牌，发牌数百次，看看一对二牌是否经常击败非同花的 A-K？
Why isn’t there evolution across temperaments?
为什么气质之间没有进化？
Say people back then — they don’t know to be aggressive enough because they didn’t study game theory.
说当时的人们 ——他们不知道要足够激进，因为他们没有研究博弈论。
But the ones who are aggressive enough naturally — they’re just going to win more money.
但那些足够激进的人自然会赢得更多的钱。
It’ll become somewhat obvious over time that’s the way to play.
随着时间的推移，这就是游戏的方式，这一点会变得有些明显。
You might be slightly better than the others in 1970 but not have a huge advantage.
1970 年你可能比其他人稍微好一些，但没有很大的优势。
Is the abstract knowledge that powerful compared to market evolution?
与市场演变相比，抽象知识有那么强大吗？
See, if I went back today —
你看，如果我今天回去的话 ——
Today.
今天。
Everything you know, time machine, you sit down, you’re going to do really well, right?
你所知道的一切，时间机器，你坐下来，你会做得很好，对吗？
— I would, I think, dominate the games.
— 我想，我会主宰比赛。
Yes, for sure.
是的，当然。
Anyone would.
任何人都会的。
It’s because you know game theory and they don’t.
这是因为你了解博弈论，而他们不懂。
Thomas Schelling was what, 1960; Von Neumann, Morgenstern just after World War II.
托马斯·谢林（Thomas Schelling），1960 年；冯·诺依曼，摩根斯坦，二战后不久。
Game theory is not that new.
博弈论并不是那么新鲜。
What exactly is it you know?
你到底知道什么？
To be a “Tight Aggressive” player with your strategy?
用你的策略成为一名“紧进攻型”球员？
None of them knew that?
他们都不知道吗？
I feel I saw that in a lot of old movies.
我感觉我在很多老电影里都看到过这样的场景。
“Tight Aggressive” is part of it.
“紧攻”是其中的一部分。
It’s very hard to maybe intuitively know what the right bluffing frequency is in a certain spot.
或许很难直观地知道在某个特定位置正确的诈唬频率是多少。
For many years, people would also give away lots and lots and lots of tells.
多年来，人们也会泄露很多很多很多的故事。
If you go back and watch footage of the 1987 World Series of Poker, there are incredibly obvious tells.
如果您回顾一下 1987 年世界扑克系列赛的录像，就会发现非常明显的线索。
I think it’s just like there’s pressure on the market to compress it into a diamond or — what am I even talking about?
我认为这就像市场上有压力将其压缩成钻石或者 - 我到底在说什么？
I think we were just very early in the life cycle of the competitive pressures on the game in poker.
我认为我们还处于扑克游戏竞争压力生命周期的早期阶段。
In some ways it’s a metaphor for other capitalistic ventures.
在某些方面，它是其他资本主义企业的隐喻。
I think you of all people may be underestimating the efficiency gains that are to be had when there are proper incentives and proper technology — basically, the combination and just the sheer volume of the number of nodes on the game tree that have been explored.
我认为，在所有人中，你们可能低估了当有适当的激励和适当的技术时所获得的效率增益——基本上，就是已探索的博弈树上节点数量的组合和绝对数量。
On poker players as employees
论扑克玩家作为员工
Let’s say you’re a poker champion, and you want to quit.
假设您是扑克冠军，并且您想退出。
You can prove you are a champion.
你可以证明你是冠军。
You’re still young.
你还年轻。
Who is it who wants to hire you in the actual world?
现实世界中谁想雇用你？
Where would you go?
你会去哪里？
A trading firm?
贸易公司？
Oh, hedge funds.
哦，对冲基金。
Some of them, like Susquehanna or Jane Street in particular, are known for hiring ex–poker players.
其中一些公司，尤其是萨斯奎哈纳 (Susquehanna) 或简街 (Jane Street)，以聘用前扑克玩家而闻名。
What’s the main flaw those individuals have as traders?
这些人作为交易者的主要缺陷是什么？
Whatever their virtues may be.
无论他们的美德是什么。
Chess players have flaws as traders, Math Olympiad types have flaws as traders.
国际象棋选手作为交易者有缺陷，数学奥林匹克运动员作为交易者也有缺陷。
What are the flaws of the poker players?
扑克玩家的缺点是什么？
I have done a little bit of consulting for financial firms.
我曾为金融公司做过一些咨询工作。
My experience doing that is that it’s actually very similar because if you’re working for a trading desk, and you’re being asked, “What’s your opinion of how event X will affect opportunity Y to trade in the market?” It’s very much a game of estimation, and it’s very much a game of incomplete information, and it’s making decisions quickly, which is very poker-like.
我的经验是，这实际上非常相似，因为如果你在交易台工作，你会被问到，“你对事件 X 将如何影响市场交易机会 Y 有何看法？”这在很大程度上是一种估计的游戏，也是一种不完全信息的游戏，而且它会很快做出决策，这非常像扑克。
There can be value in running a formal model and being more complete about something.
运行正式模型并使某些内容更加完整可能是有价值的。
That’s what I do for the election modeling-type stuff.
这就是我为选举建模类型所做的事情。
But the trading opportunities pass very quickly, and the premium on speed relative to .
但交易机会的流逝速度非常快，而且速度相对而言也更为宝贵。
.
。
.
。
journalism, actually, there’s a little bit of premium on speed too.
事实上，新闻业也对速度有一点重视。
But to negatively stereotype, academia would be the contrast to that, where there, you can have the perfect answer, but it takes you a year to publish a paper, whereas can you have a good answer in five minutes?
但在负面刻板印象中，学术界则与此相反，在那里你可以得到完美的答案，但发表论文需要一年的时间，而你能在五分钟内得到一个好的答案吗？
If you’re trading some commodity, and Joe Biden has a face-plant at this debate, you have to make a decision within a couple of minutes about that.
如果你正在交易某种商品，而乔·拜登在这场辩论中脸红，你必须在几分钟内做出决定。
Likewise in sports betting, you see some line that clearly doesn’t make sense, and you have to infer, “Is this a golden opportunity?
同样在体育博彩中，你看到一些显然没有意义的行，你必须推断，“这是一个黄金机会吗？
Or did Patrick Mahomes just get injured?” Or something like that.
还是帕特里克·马霍姆斯刚刚受伤了？”或者类似的东西。
You have to make inferences very, very quickly.
你必须非常非常快地做出推断。
I think the poker players probably do pretty well in that environment.
我认为扑克玩家在那种环境下可能表现得很好。
Now, you’ve run FiveThirtyEight.
现在，您已经运行 FiveThirtyEight。
Now your newsletter has evolved into being a true business.
现在，您的时事通讯已发展成为一项真正的业务。
Do you seek to hire top poker players, or you avoid them like the plague?
您是寻求聘请顶级扑克玩家，还是像躲避瘟疫一样避开他们？
Like, one is enough.
比如说，一个就够了。
“I’m enough.
“我够了。
We don’t need any more of that skill.
我们不再需要这种技能了。
Get lost, fellow.”
滚吧，伙计。”
I would, for sure.
我肯定会的。
Poker players are sometimes a little bit lacking in organization, and probably I’m a little bit lacking in organization.
扑克玩家有时有点缺乏组织性，可能我也有点缺乏组织性。
Poker players are people who are sometimes a little bit irreverent, which is a quality I like.
扑克玩家有时会有点不敬，这是我喜欢的品质。
The elections analyst I hired now — he’s great.
我现在聘请的选举分析师 ——他很棒。
Eli never failed to return a text message within 15 minutes or something like that.
Eli 从来没有在 15 分钟之内回复短信之类的。
I don’t know when he sleeps.
我不知道他什么时候睡觉。
I need somebody like that because I’m running all over the place, and I can run a little hot and cold and be a little bit moody.
我需要这样的人，因为我到处跑，有时忽冷忽热，有时情绪不稳定。
I think you want someone who’s a little bit more steady for the newsletter.
我认为你需要一个对时事通讯更加稳定的人。
I think also the writing skills are very important.
我认为写作技巧也非常重要。
I don’t know if this is becoming more important or less important in the world of ChatGPT, and so forth.
我不知道这在 ChatGPT 的世界中是否变得更重要或不那么重要，等等。
Working on the book and then the newsletter, just to write every day, I feel like you can get 2x or 3x faster at writing, literally, if you just get a lot of reps in and things like that.
写书，然后写时事通讯，只是每天写作，我觉得如果你得到很多代表之类的东西，你的写作速度可以提高 2 倍或 3 倍，从字面上看。
Sure.
当然。
It was the first time I’ve ever hired someone for this job, as opposed to at FiveThirtyEight.
这是我第一次雇用某人来从事这项工作，而不是在 FiveThirtyEight。
I was very excited by how many smart, mostly young people there were out there.
我对那里有这么多聪明的人（大多数是年轻人）感到非常兴奋。
Hopefully, I’ll find other ways to hire more of them in the future, but people who are a little bit more directed, I think, and organized.
希望我将来能找到其他方法来雇用更多的人，但我认为这些人更有指导性和组织性。
On running FiveThirtyEight
关于运行 FiveThirtyEight
Running FiveThirtyEight and now your current ventures, what have you learned about social science, economics, game theory that you didn’t know to begin with?
经营 FiveThirtyEight 以及现在您目前的企业，您在社会科学、经济学、博弈论方面学到了哪些您一开始不知道的知识？
I feel like I’ve learned more in the past three years.
我觉得这三年我学到了更多。
Formally, I’ve been away from FiveThirtyEight for a year and change now.
正式来说，我已经离开 FiveThirtyEight 一年了，现在发生了变化。
Informally, there was a lame-duck period where I was allowed, under my contract with Disney, to write a book.
非正式地，有一个跛脚鸭时期，根据我与迪士尼的合同，我被允许写一本书。
It’s probably focused —
大概是集中了 ——
That’s this book.
这就是这本书。
That’s this book.
这就是这本书。
On the Edge, to repeat.
在边缘，重复一遍。
Yes.
是的。
It took three years.
花了三年时间。
If you take three years and just talk to 200 really smart people, that’s an amazing thing to do.
如果你花三年时间与 200 位真正聪明的人交谈，那将是一件了不起的事情。
It’s what you do, but I wish I spent more of that time in my whole life.
这就是你所做的，但我希望我一生能花更多的时间。
At FiveThirtyEight, the constant frustration was that we were brought in during a peacetime period for ESPN before we went to ABC News, where they felt like they had the world’s best business and could just print money, and we could be like a loss leader for them.
在 FiveThirtyEight，持续的挫败感在于，我们是在和平时期加入 ESPN，然后才加入 ABC 新闻频道的，他们觉得他们拥有世界上最好的业务，可以印钞票，而我们对他们来说可能就像一个亏本的人。
So, you never actually had any incentives in place to run an actual business.
所以，你实际上从来没有任何激励措施来经营实际的业务。
No one was going to lose their job because FiveThirtyEight lost X amount of money every year when you have a company that’s making hundreds of millions of dollars a year.
没有人会失去工作，因为 FiveThirtyEight 每年都会损失 X 笔钱，而当你拥有一家每年赚取数亿美元的公司时。
Until you face headwinds, and cable TV and theme parks and all these things, all of a sudden, become very challenging businesses in a lot of ways.
直到你面临逆风，有线电视和主题公园以及所有这些东西突然在很多方面变得非常具有挑战性。
The movie industry during COVID and things like that.
新冠疫情期间的电影业等等。
It’s a shame because, based on the early growth of the newsletter, I think FiveThirtyEight could have been a very good subscriber business.
这是一种耻辱，因为根据时事通讯的早期增长，我认为 FiveThirtyEight 本来可以成为一项非常好的订户业务。
No one was going to lose their job because FiveThirtyEight lost X amount of money every year when you have a company that’s making hundreds of millions of dollars a year.
没有人会失去工作，因为 FiveThirtyEight 每年都会损失 X 笔钱，而当你拥有一家每年赚取数亿美元的公司时。
Until you face headwinds, and cable TV and theme parks and all these things, all of a sudden, become very challenging businesses in a lot of ways.
直到你面临逆风，有线电视和主题公园以及所有这些东西突然在很多方面变得非常具有挑战性。
The movie industry during COVID and things like that.
新冠疫情期间的电影业等等。
It’s a shame because, based on the early growth of the newsletter, I think FiveThirtyEight could have been a very good subscriber business.
这是一种耻辱，因为根据时事通讯的早期增长，我认为 FiveThirtyEight 本来可以成为一项非常好的订户业务。
We tried to push that internally, but at a big company, the logic doesn’t make sense.
我们试图在内部推动这一点，但在一家大公司，这种逻辑是没有意义的。
They’re like, “Well, we have Hulu Plus launching, and therefore we can’t have another subscriber business that would distract from Hulu Plus.” It’s just very strange.
他们会说，“好吧，我们推出了 Hulu Plus，因此我们不能再有其他订阅业务来分散 Hulu Plus 的注意力。”这很奇怪。
I’m not sure how much of that is a result of being at Disney in particular, because they’re all about gigantic scale.
我不确定其中有多少是迪士尼的结果，因为它们的规模都很大。
It is theme parks.
这是主题公园。
It is NBA and NFL contracts for hundreds of millions of dollars over a period of time.
这是NBA和NFL在一段时间内价值数亿美元的合同。
It’s being in every household in America, every movie theater.
它存在于美国的每个家庭、每个电影院。
I don’t think they saw the value of a small to medium-sized business that could still be a good business, a prestigious business, and profitable on its own merits, and that was frustrating.
我认为他们没有看到中小型企业的价值，因为它们仍然可以成为一家好企业、一家享有盛誉的企业，并且能够凭借自身优势实现盈利，这令人沮丧。
Given that I tend to be pretty incentive-driven, to have spent 10 years at a company — we basically had no incentive to work hard.
鉴于我往往非常受激励驱动，在一家公司工作了 10 年 ——我们基本上没有动力去努力工作。
Probably for the first eight years of that, I worked my ass off anyway.
大概在最初的八年里，我无论如何都拼命工作。
But it’s just so nice to actually own your own work product.
但真正拥有自己的工作产品真是太好了。
With subscriber newsletters in particular, the incentives are pretty linear.
特别是对于订户时事通讯，激励措施是相当线性的。
If you post more, you tend to get more signups in the long run, make more revenue.
如果您发布更多内容，从长远来看，您往往会获得更多注册人数，从而获得更多收入。
That’s a very nice change of pace and very motivating.
这是一个非常好的节奏变化，非常激励人心。
On declining heterogeneity in sports
论体育运动中异质性的下降
Do you think that sports analytics has made sports too homogenized and more boring?
您是否认为体育分析让体育运动变得过于同质化、更加无聊？
Right now, for instance, the New York Knicks — they’re, in a way, trying to copy the Celtics.
例如，现在纽约尼克斯队——在某种程度上，他们正试图复制凯尔特人队。
“Well, everyone should be a good shooter, and everyone should be a good defender.” In the 1980s or ’90s, teams were more different.
“嗯，每个人都应该是一名优秀的射手，每个人都应该是一名优秀的防守者。”在 20 世纪 80 年代或 90 年代，球队更加不同。
Should I be happy about this?
我应该为此感到高兴吗？
I think it’s the better version of the critique.
我认为这是批评的更好版本。
I think the average NBA style is fairly attractive now.
我觉得现在NBA的平均风格还是蛮有吸引力的。
There are too many three-point shots, I would say.
我想说，三分球太多了。
Maybe a little bit, but if you go watch footage of a game from the ’90s or something, this is more aesthetically appealing.
也许有一点，但如果你去看 90 年代或其他年代的比赛片段，这在美学上更有吸引力。
It shows off some of the athleticism, I think, but the fact that you have less variety — this is true in poker too, by the way.
我认为，它展示了一些运动能力，但事实上，你的多样性较少——顺便说一句，这在扑克中也是如此。
There are fewer different varieties of loose-aggressive versus “Tight Aggressive” poker players.
松攻击型扑克玩家与“紧攻击型”扑克玩家的不同种类较少。
You can’t get away as much with having a flawed, eccentric strategy and then making up for it in other ways, which is a shame.
你不能因为有一个有缺陷的、古怪的策略而侥幸逃脱，然后用其他方式弥补它，这是一种耻辱。
Maybe in the long run it means we’re not exploring different branches of the tree as well, and that can be problematic.
也许从长远来看，这意味着我们没有同时探索树的不同分支，这可能会出现问题。
But it’s a bad time — when things get hyper-efficient, then maybe the quirky players .
但这是一个糟糕的时期——当事情变得超级高效时，也许就会出现古怪的玩家。
.
。
.
。
I saw a video yesterday about Major League Baseball batting stances, and there used to be guys that had very, very funky batting stances and things like that.
我昨天看了一个关于美国职业棒球大联盟击球姿势的视频，过去有些人的击球姿势非常非常时髦，诸如此类。
Those have largely disappeared.
这些基本上已经消失了。
If it cost you two-hundredths of a point of batting average — so you hit .289 instead of .291 — then there’s enough money on the line, and enough resources and training, and enough sports science where that’ll probably get beat out of you, potentially.
如果你的击球率降低了百分之二点——所以你击中了 0.289 而不是 0.291——那么就有足够的钱、足够的资源和训练以及足够的体育科学，这些可能会打败你。
On underrated NBA players
关于被低估的 NBA 球员
Will Joel Embiid ever win a title?
乔尔·恩比德会赢得总冠军吗？
I know Daryl Morey pretty well.
我很了解达里尔·莫雷。
I think he’s probably a fan of yours.
我想他可能是你的粉丝。
I’d say yes, I think.
我想我会说是的。
You think Paul George was a good idea?
你认为保罗·乔治是个好主意吗？
I think it was a bad idea.
我认为这是一个坏主意。
He’s 34.
他34岁了。
He’s had a history of being flaky.
他有古怪的历史。
He’s a very talented player, but he doesn’t seem like the kind of guy to put you over the edge, and they need more of a glue guy.
他是一位非常有天赋的球员，但他看起来并不是那种让你陷入困境的人，他们需要更多的粘合剂。
Daryl Morey is very good at finding the league-average players that can provide the glue guy.
达里尔·莫雷非常擅长寻找联盟平均水平的球员来提供粘合剂。
No, I think it’s a good move.
不，我认为这是一个很好的举措。
Look, Daryl understands the importance of swinging for the fences.
看，达里尔明白冲向栅栏的重要性。
If healthy, that’s a very big three, and then he’ll find ways to acquire the minimum of salary guys or whatever loopholes there are on salary cap to get the $10-million-a-year guys.
如果健康的话，那是一个非常大的三人组，然后他会想方设法获得最低工资的球员，或者利用工资帽上的任何漏洞来获得年薪1000万美元的球员。
If healthy, that’s a team that can challenge the Celtics, I think.
如果健康的话，我认为这是一支可以挑战凯尔特人队的球队。
What’s the condition of probability in all three of their big three being healthy?
他们三巨头都健康的概率条件是什么？
Probably below 50 percent, frankly, but you don’t want the average outcome.
坦率地说，可能低于 50%，但你不想要平均结果。
Also, the incentives in the NBA — and if you try to model out what the true discount rate is for sports general managers, they have some absurdly high discount rate, like 30 percent or something like that, or 50 percent, because their jobs last for five years on average.
另外，NBA 的激励措施——如果你尝试计算出体育总经理的真实折扣率是多少，他们的折扣率高得离谱，比如 30% 或类似的，或者 50%，因为他们的工作平均持续五年。
Yes, sure.
是的，当然。
So, I think it’s a fairly smart play to swing for the fences.
所以，我认为这是一个相当明智的做法。
Luka — overrated or underrated?
卢卡 — 被高估还是低估？
I lost a fair bit of money trying to bet against the Mavericks in the playoffs, so I can’t call him overrated, I guess.
我在季后赛中尝试对阵小牛队时损失了相当多的钱，所以我想我不能说他被高估了。
I think Luka is properly rated.
我认为卢卡的评价是正确的。
Properly rated?
评级正确吗？
Yes.
是的。
Who’s the most underrated player in the NBA, 2024 for our listeners?
对于我们的听众来说，2024 年 NBA 最被低估的球员是谁？
Let me think.
让我想想。
I think Jalen Brunson in some ways.
我认为贾伦·布伦森在某些方面是这样的。
Now, that’s a Knicks fan coming out, although he was, I think, fifth or sixth in the MVP voting potentially this year.
现在，这是一名尼克斯队球迷的出柜，尽管我认为他在今年的 MVP 投票中可能排名第五或第六。
Yes, he was pretty high.
是的，他的水平相当高。
As a Knicks fan, that’s one that comes to mind a little bit.
作为一名尼克斯队球迷，这个问题一定会浮现在脑海中。
Some of the Celtics — Derrick White, I think, is a very underrated player.
凯尔特人队的一些球员——我认为德里克·怀特是一位被严重低估的球员。
I like Jayson Tatum and Jaylen Brown, but I think they are maybe respected as the 7th or 8th and the 23rd best player in the league, and they were a great historic team.
我喜欢杰森·塔图姆和杰伦·布朗，但我认为他们可能被尊为联盟中第7、第8和第23位最佳球员，他们是一支伟大的历史球队。
I think the Holidays and the Derrick Whites and players like that are maybe top 30 NBA players — really, really good.
我认为霍勒迪斯队和德里克·怀特队以及像他们这样的球员可能是 NBA 前 30 名球员 —— 真的非常非常优秀。
I think I’d say Jokić, who, to me, is the greatest offensive player ever.
我想我会说约基奇，对我来说，他是有史以来最伟大的进攻球员。
Not necessarily recognized as such.
不一定被认为是这样的。
Certainly, has a very high reputation, but maybe not as high as it should be.
当然，拥有很高的声誉，但也许没有应有的那么高。
Even this year, you saw people were willing to turn on him a little bit.
即使是今年，你也看到人们愿意对他发起一点攻击。
I think the consensus, now, of smart NBA nerds is that he’s the best player in the league.
我认为现在聪明的 NBA 书呆子们一致认为他是联盟中最好的球员。
I think people might not realize that this is one of the highest peaks of any player in NBA history.
我想人们可能没有意识到这是NBA历史上所有球员的最高峰之一。
Exactly, ever.
完全正确，曾经。
I don’t think that’s widely recognized.
我认为这没有得到广泛认可。
How will AI improve sports analytics?
人工智能将如何改进体育分析？
I think it will improve things in areas like computer vision things and classifying plays and things like that.
我认为它将改善计算机视觉、戏剧分类等领域的事情。
I think it will help a fair bit.
我认为这会有一定帮助。
Sports is weird because it’s in this medium data environment where it’s not quite a big data problem, although —
体育运动很奇怪，因为它处于中等数据环境中，这并不是一个大数据问题，尽管 -
But you could have more data if you put money into it, right?
但如果你投入资金，你可以获得更多数据，对吗？
Yes.
是的。
I think it’ll help more in the sports where they’re less linear.
我认为这对于线性程度较低的运动会有更大帮助。
I think things like classifying strategies in soccer and football, where you have a lot of things happening at once, and you can’t have your nice little regression model, as compared to, say, baseball, where baseball’s very easy to represent with classical statistics.
我认为像足球和足球中的策略分类这样的事情，你会同时发生很多事情，并且你无法拥有漂亮的小回归模型，与棒球相比，棒球很容易用经典统计数据来表示。
I think probably there’ll also be ways where it enhances the sports viewing experience in different ways.
我认为它可能还会以不同的方式增强体育观看体验。
I think it’ll help sports video games a lot.
我认为这会对体育视频游戏有很大帮助。
Are hockey and combat sports going to use more analytics in the future?
曲棍球和格斗运动将来会使用更多的分析吗？
One of my friends, named Sunny Mehta, is an analyst for the Florida Panthers and assistant GM, and he’s an analytics guy, former poker player, former jazz musician, and just won the Stanley Cup in Florida.
我的一个朋友，名叫桑尼·梅塔（Sunny Mehta），是佛罗里达黑豹队的分析师和助理总经理，他是一名分析人员，前扑克玩家，前爵士音乐家，刚刚赢得了佛罗里达州的斯坦利杯。
It’s transitioning in all the sports, I think.
我认为所有运动项目都在发生转变。
Hockey probably, of the big four in the US, is considered the most old-school.
在美国四大运动中，曲棍球可能被认为是最古老的运动。
Look, the market’s fairly efficient, and we’re long past the old boys’ network in most of the sports, probably in hockey.
看，市场相当有效，而且我们在大多数运动项目（可能是曲棍球运动）中早已超越了老男孩的网络。
If you talked to Sunny, he’d say maybe two-thirds of the teams are fairly smart, and one-third of them are still dumb.
如果你和 Sunny 交谈，他会说也许三分之二的团队相当聪明，而其中三分之一仍然很愚蠢。
I think we’ve probably passed the low-hanging fruit from Moneyball gains stage.
我认为我们可能已经通过了《点球成金》收益阶段的唾手可得的成果。
Here’s a question I was asked during a Jane Street talk once.
这是我在一次简街演讲中被问到的一个问题。
What is the most underrated basketball statistic for judging a player?
用于评判球员的最被低估的篮球统计数据是什么？
It’s contextual because I think we’ve gotten to the point now where offensive rebounding has gotten underrated, actually.
这是有背景的，因为我认为我们现在已经到了进攻篮板实际上被低估的地步。
If you try to tease out the effect of rebounding in statistical models, then there are various things where different variables are correlated.
如果你试图在统计模型中梳理出反弹的影响，那么不同的变量之间存在着多种相关性。
Basically, I think if you look carefully, then offensive rebounding is actually quite valuable.
基本上，我认为如果你仔细观察的话，那么进攻篮板实际上是相当有价值的。
You regain a whole possession.
你重新获得了全部财产。
That’s worth a lot.
这很有价值。
Whereas defensive rebounding — rarely is an individual player doing something right to get a defensive rebound.
而防守篮板 ——很少有球员通过正确的行为来获得防守篮板。
Whereas an offensive rebound requires a lot more skill and provides a lot more value because the expectation is 75 percent chance that you lose the ball.
而进攻篮板需要更多的技巧并提供更多的价值，因为预计你有 75% 的机会丢球。
If you get an offensive rebound, then it’s like adding seven-tenths or eight-tenths of a point, basically.
如果你得到一个进攻篮板，那么基本上就相当于增加了十分之七或十分之八的分数。
You get a whole possession back.
您将获得全部财产。
My answer was team wins, at least if you’ve been on more than one team.
我的答案是团队胜利，至少如果你曾效力过多个团队的话。
Like, does a good team want you?
比如，一个好的团队想要你吗？
That’s picking up your intangibles.
这就是你的无形资产。
Yes, uniquely in basketball, because it’s five players in a lineup at any given time, and a good player can control half the offense or more, literally — a Luka-type player or a Steph Curry-type player.
是的，这在篮球运动中是独一无二的，因为在任何特定时间，阵容中都有五名球员，而一名优秀的球员可以控制一半或更多的进攻，从字面上看——卢卡型球员或斯蒂芬·库里型球员。
I think it’s a more adequate test in basketball than other sports, or maybe for an NFL quarterback.
我认为对于篮球来说，这是一个比其他运动更充分的测试，或者对于 NFL 四分卫来说也是如此。
Baseball was my favorite sport for a long time, and there, it’s more individual, and there I was always fighting against the team-wins argument.
很长一段时间以来，棒球是我最喜欢的运动，在那里，它更加个人化，而且我总是反对团队获胜的争论。
I think it’s not a major indictment of Mike Trout that the Angels haven’t been very good, for example.
例如，我认为天使队表现不佳并不是对迈克·特劳特的主要控诉。
But it’s not just you causing possible wins.
但并非只有您才能带来可能的胜利。
Even before you’ve played for the team, the fact that they want you says something good about you.
甚至在你为球队效力之前，他们想要你的事实就说明了你的一些优点。
KCP has been wanted by good teams.
KCP一直受到优秀球队的青睐。
His stats are good but not awesome, but that is a good sign about his quality.
他的数据不错，但算不上出色，但这是他素质的一个好兆头。
I think so, although we start to get into circularities when people become aware of that kind of thing.
我认为是的，尽管当人们意识到这种事情时我们就开始陷入循环。
I feel this way a little bit with prediction markets, too.
我对预测市场也有这样的感觉。
I consult now for Polymarket, so I’m officially a champion of prediction markets.
我现在为 Polymarket 提供咨询，因此我正式成为预测市场的冠军。
When people believe, “Oh, the traders must be doing something really smart.
当人们相信，“哦，交易者一定在做一些非常聪明的事情。
Therefore, it’s trustworthy,” it can become circular logic sometimes, where you can make yourself vulnerable to thinking you have blind spots and having a bystander problem, basically.
因此，它是值得信赖的，”有时它会变成循环逻辑，你可能会让自己很容易认为自己有盲点，基本上有旁观者问题。
Someone actually has to have alpha they’re providing, value-added they’re providing, and then other people can draft off that.
实际上，有人必须拥有他们提供的阿尔法，他们提供的增值，然后其他人就可以利用这些。
But now and then, someone thinks that everyone else has vouched for somebody.
但有时，有人会认为其他人都为某人提供了担保。
It’s like the story of Sam Bankman-Fried in the book a little bit.
这有点像书中萨姆·班克曼-弗里德的故事。
Everyone assumed that because he has such prestigious coattails, that he’s hanging out with Anna Wintour and hanging out with Bill Clinton and Tony Blair, and he has his name up on a basketball arena in Miami, and he’s getting his praises sung by everybody in Sequoia Capital, and things like that.
每个人都认为，因为他拥有如此著名的附庸，他与安娜·温图尔、比尔·克林顿和托尼·布莱尔一起出去玩，他的名字出现在迈阿密的篮球场上，他得到了红杉资本每个人的赞扬，诸如此类。
At the heart of it, it was a big fraud.
从本质上讲，这是一个大骗局。
That’s a term I’m choosing intentionally.
这是我有意选择的一个术语。
On Sam Bankman-Fried and the community of the river
关于萨姆·班克曼-弗里德和河流社区
What’s your model of his risk-taking behavior?
你对他的冒险行为有何模型？
Like interviews with you.
比如对你的采访。
I think he is quite insane, irresponsible and insane, but I think he was very literal about being willing to take the St. Petersburg paradox bet, where if he could improve his version of utility by 2.00001x, he would literally say, “Hey, I’m a strict utilitarian.
我认为他非常疯狂、不负责任和疯狂，但我认为他非常愿意接受圣彼得堡悖论的赌注，如果他能将他的效用版本提高 2.00001 倍，他会毫不夸张地说，“嘿，我是一个严格的功利主义者。
I’m willing to take that gamble.” In his interviews with me, he was almost proud of the high risk of ruin that he was taking.
我愿意赌一把。”在接受我的采访时，他几乎为自己所冒的毁灭性的高风险感到自豪。
He would say things like, “If you’re not willing to actually, literally ruin yourself, where you’re literally a laughingstock, then you’re doing something wrong.”
他会说，“如果你不愿意真正地毁掉自己，让自己成为笑柄，那么你就做错了。”
Is asking whether he might have been a sociopath a substitute for a risk analysis of his behavior, or is it a way of getting at the proper risk analysis of his behavior?
询问他是否可能是反社会者是对其行为风险分析的替代，还是对其行为进行适当风险分析的一种方式？
No, I think that term is properly used because he also engaged with other people in running a giant company that people have deposited millions of dollars with and invested hundreds of millions of dollars in.
不，我认为这个词的使用是正确的，因为他还与其他人一起经营一家巨大的公司，人们向这家公司存入了数百万美元，并投资了数亿美元。
I think that’s a proper frame.
我认为这是一个合适的框架。
The book’s all about people who have this — I was going to say risk-taking gene.
这本书讲述的都是拥有这种基因的人——我想说的是冒险基因。
I realize it’s a little bit imprecise.
我意识到这有点不精确。
I think it probably is genetic in part, but how is that paired with other different qualities?
我认为这可能部分是遗传的，但这与其他不同的品质是如何搭配的呢？
The most common pairing in the book is being really risk taking with really analytical, which is a very powerful, I think, pairing.
书中最常见的配对是真正的冒险和真正的分析，我认为这是一个非常强大的配对。
You use this phrase — those people are in the river, on the river — what is it called?
你用这句话 —— 那些人在河里，在河上 —— 那叫什么？
I called it the community of the river.
我称之为河流社区。
The river is the virtual community of like-minded people, but that includes everything from poker to Silicon Valley.
河流是志趣相投的人的虚拟社区，但它包括从扑克到硅谷的一切。
If you go further upstream, as I call it, even things like effective altruism and rationalism.
如果你进一步向上游走，正如我所说，甚至是有效的利他主义和理性主义之类的东西。
One thing that I found in the book is, I had this outline of “Here are all these areas that are interesting to me,” and literally started out .
我在书中发现的一件事是，我有这样一个大纲：“这里是我感兴趣的所有这些领域”，然后就开始了。
.
。
.
。
The first act I took for the book was, I flew to Florida — my first trip on a plane after the pandemic — and went to a giant casino in Hollywood, Florida, and played a poker tournament, and I branched out from there.
我为这本书采取的第一个行动是，我飞往佛罗里达州——“大流行后我第一次乘飞机旅行”——然后去了佛罗里达州好莱坞的一家大型赌场，玩了一场扑克锦标赛，然后我就从那里开始拓展业务。
But the commonality you have between how all the different analytical nerds think, how the effective altruists and the hedge funders and the poker players and the VCs .
但所有不同的分析狂的思维方式、高效的利他主义者、对冲基金投资者、扑克玩家和风险投资人的思维方式之间存在共性。
.
。
.
。
It’s not exactly, exactly identical —
不完全一样 ——
Those are very different groups, though.
不过，这些是非常不同的群体。
Don’t some subsets of those groups get fooled to an especially high degree?
这些群体中的某些子集难道不会被愚弄到特别严重的程度吗？
Maybe not the hedge fund people — they face very strict discipline — but the effective altruists, the rationalists.
也许不是对冲基金人士——“他们面临非常严格的纪律”——而是有效的利他主义者、理性主义者。
There’s something to me a bit clueless about them, maybe systemically.
我对它们有些无能为力，也许是系统性的。
Yes.
是的。
The book has a very long discussion of EA, and in the spirit of EA, I am sure it’ll get reviewed on these different forums, and I hope it’s a fair —
这本书对 EA 有很长的讨论，本着 EA 的精神，我相信它会在这些不同的论坛上得到评论，我希望这是一个公平的 ——
I mostly like EA, to be clear —
澄清一下，我最喜欢 EA——
I mostly like them too.
我也最喜欢他们。
— but there’s still some epistemic defect in the people that I observe regularly.
——但是我经常观察的人仍然存在一些认知缺陷。
I think they’re a little bit too trusting, is one thing.
我认为他们有点过于信任，是一回事。
I think there is a lot to be said for having — skin in the game is a term that I didn’t invent.
我认为关于“游戏中的皮肤”这个词有很多话要说，这并不是我发明的。
I think poker players — one of their best qualities is they have really good BS detectors.
我认为扑克玩家 ——他们最好的品质之一是他们拥有非常好的 BS 探测器。
They’ve seen lots of smart SBF-like nerds who go on a winning streak, win a couple of tournaments, but are bullshitters and aren’t all they’re cracked up to be.
他们见过很多像SBF一样聪明的书呆子，他们取得了连胜，赢得了几场比赛，但他们都是胡说八道，并不像他们吹嘘的那样。
I think EAs maybe lack that BS-detecting ability.
我认为 EA 可能缺乏这种 BS 检测能力。
I think effective altruists are little bit too trusting, is one thing.
我认为有效的利他主义者有点过于信任他人，这是一回事。
I think there is a lot to be said for having — skin in the game is a term that I didn’t invent.
我认为关于“游戏中的皮肤”这个词有很多话要说，这并不是我发明的。
I think poker players — one of their best qualities is they have really good BS detectors.
我认为扑克玩家 ——他们最好的品质之一是他们拥有非常好的 BS 探测器。
They’ve seen lots of smart SBF-like nerds who go on a winning streak, win a couple of tournaments, but are bullshitters and aren’t all they’re cracked up to be.
他们见过很多像SBF一样聪明的书呆子，他们取得了连胜，赢得了几场比赛，但他们都是胡说八道，并不像他们吹嘘的那样。
I think EAs maybe lack that BS-detecting ability.
我认为 EA 可能缺乏这种 BS 检测能力。
Do you ever see that old YouTube video when Ali G presents to Donald Trump — pre-presidential Trump — and Trump just dismisses him immediately and walks away?
你是否看过 YouTube 上那个老视频，当时 Ali G 向唐纳德·特朗普（Donald Trump）——“前总统特朗普”——展示了内容，而特朗普却立即解雇了他并走开？
Trump has the BS detection ability.
特朗普有BS检测能力。
How does that fit with your model of the river people?
这与你的河人模型相符吗？
Isn’t he, in other ways, almost the opposite of the analytical river people?
从其他方面来说，他难道不是与分析型河流人几乎相反吗？
I will say, if you take the EAs and put them in a separate camp, they are unusual because they have this analytical skillset, but they are less competitive.
我想说的是，如果你把 EA 放在一个单独的阵营中，他们会很不寻常，因为他们拥有这种分析技能，但他们的竞争力较差。
But then the movement gets usurped by this guy, Sam Bankman-Fried, who’s extremely competitive, and I think runs circles around them in some ways, even though he’s lying about things in other ways.
但后来这场运动被萨姆·班克曼-弗里德这个人篡夺了，他非常有竞争力，我认为他在某些方面绕着他们转，尽管他在其他方面撒了谎。
Maybe competitiveness is good.
也许竞争力是好的。
The book is also against the Peter Singer form of selfless utilitarianism.
这本书还反对彼得·辛格形式的无私功利主义。
I worry that people aren’t .
我担心人们不是。
.
。
.
。
Some of this comes from your critiques, I think, but people that aren’t a little bit partial — I worry that everything just falls apart on some level.
我认为，其中一些来自于你的批评，但那些不偏不倚的人 ——我担心一切都会在某种程度上分崩离析。
Yes, there’s no incentive compatibility without some partiality.
是的，没有偏见就没有激励相容。
There’s no incentive compatibility.
不存在激励兼容性。
It’s interesting.
这很有趣。
I think Peter Singer, too, talks a little bit about how he almost thinks people that are somewhere on the spectrum are actually better moral reasoners in some ways.
我认为彼得·辛格（Peter Singer）也谈到了他如何认为处于这个谱系中的人实际上在某些方面是更好的道德推理者。
There’s evidence for this in some papers, in fact.
事实上，一些论文中有证据证明这一点。
They have less status quo bias.
他们对现状的偏见较少。
They’re more impartial in some ways.
他们在某些方面更加公正。
Yes.
是的。
I think there might be something to that, and there are lots of people in the book that probably would be classified as being on the spectrum or would classify themselves that way.
我认为这可能是有道理的，书中有很多人可能会被归类为自闭症谱系，或者以这种方式对自己进行分类。
Poker uniquely, I think, involves some combination of analytical skills and street smarts.
我认为，扑克的独特之处在于它涉及分析技巧和街头智慧的结合。
If you totally lack the street smarts, then it’s still pretty hard to get ahead in a competitive world.
如果你完全缺乏街头智慧，那么在竞争激烈的世界中想要取得成功仍然是相当困难的。
You’re too likely to be taken advantage of.
你太有可能被利用。
Now, your father was an academic.
现在，你的父亲是一位学者。
Did you get your street smarts from him or from somewhere else?
你的街头智慧是从他那里还是从其他地方学到的？
Probably not.
可能不会。
My dad is a sharp guy, and he would do things that were difficult problems.
我爸爸是个很聪明的人，他会做一些困难的事情。
He was a Sovietologist back in the day and would try to interpret from rigged Soviet data what the real vital statistics were — how many births, deaths, abortions.
他当时是一名苏联问题专家，试图从苏联的被操纵数据中解释出真正的生命统计数据是什么——有多少出生、死亡和堕胎。
So, he’s like you.
所以，他就像你一样。
Yes.
是的。
Things have become more like criminology all the time in US politics.
在美国政治中，事情一直变得更像犯罪学。
Yes.
是的。
That involves making inferences from incomplete data.
这涉及从不完整的数据中做出推论。
At one point he was offered to be part of a team to figure out how many deaths there had actually been in the Holocaust.
有一次，他被邀请加入一个团队，以查明大屠杀中实际有多少人死亡。
Thankfully, he turned that down because that would be a thankless task for sure.
值得庆幸的是，他拒绝了，因为这肯定是一项吃力不讨好的任务。
He was starting out by working with data that was imperfect, inadequate, sometimes fabricated, and trying to find the real inferences from there.
他首先使用不完美、不充分、有时是捏造的数据，并试图从中找到真正的推论。
A lot of it comes from being very competitive, being on a debate team and things like that in high school, playing poker for many years now, having a fair amount of life experience.
其中很大一部分来自于非常有竞争力，在高中时参加过辩论队之类的事情，现在已经玩了很多年扑克，拥有相当多的生活经验。
We talked before about how I’m a little bit rambunctious and easily dissatisfied, and at this point, I think I’ve traveled — not like you, but been to a lot of different places and talked to a lot of people.
我们之前谈到过我有点脾气暴躁，很容易不满意，在这一点上，我想我已经旅行过 —— 不像你，但去过很多不同的地方，和很多人交谈过。
On taking stupid risks
关于冒愚蠢的风险
What’s the stupidest risk you’re willing to take?
您愿意冒的最愚蠢的风险是什么？
It could be, “Oh, I’d go in a submersible with a billionaire.” Or “I’d take a helicopter ride every week.” What’s your stupidest risk?
它可能是，“哦，我会和亿万富翁一起乘坐潜水器。”或者“我每周都会乘坐直升机。”你最愚蠢的风险是什么？
I’ve tried to become more healthy over time.
随着时间的推移，我努力变得更加健康。
This is a boring answer.
这是一个无聊的答案。
I think I still probably have too much of a short-term bias in terms of not doing enough things to help extend my lifespan.
我认为我可能仍然有太多的短期偏见，没有做足够的事情来帮助延长我的寿命。
I don’t know.
我不知道。
One time when I was 10 or 11 years old at sleepaway camp, one of the instructors dared me to go walk around this pond with only a flashlight at midnight.
有一次，当我 10 或 11 岁的时候，在过夜营，一位教练鼓励我在半夜只带手电筒绕着这个池塘散步。
For some reason, I did it.
出于某种原因，我这么做了。
I don’t know why.
我不知道为什么。
I think they got fired.
我认为他们被解雇了。
It was a big scandal or something.
这是一个大丑闻什么的。
That doesn’t sound risky if you’re walking around the pond.
如果你在池塘边散步，这听起来并不危险。
You’re not walking on the winter ice, right?
你不是在冬天的冰面上行走，对吧？
No. To be fair, you’re 11 years old and you’re by yourself and you have only a flashlight.
不。公平地说，你已经 11 岁了，你一个人，而且只有一个手电筒。
It’s probably not the smartest thing in the world.
这可能不是世界上最聪明的事情。
I think my stupidest risks might just be road trips in places where the drivers are bad.
我认为我最愚蠢的风险可能就是在司机不好的地方进行公路旅行。
Oh, for sure.
哦，当然。
Yes.
是的。
I should do less of that.
我应该少做一些。
I went to Costa Rica a couple of years ago.
几年前我去了哥斯达黎加。
It’s very rainy there, obviously, at least the part of Costa Rica that I was in.
显然，那里雨很大，至少我所在的哥斯达黎加部分地区是这样。
You’re probably doing things like going swimming.
您可能正在做诸如游泳之类的事情。
The waves in Costa Rica are really something.
哥斯达黎加的海浪确实很厉害。
It’s probably, objectively, pretty dangerous to be in the Pacific Ocean without a lifeguard nearby.
客观地说，在太平洋上没有救生员在身边可能是相当危险的。
It’s probably fairly dangerous.
这可能相当危险。
Or going up some gravel road in the middle of a rainstorm.
或者在暴雨中走上碎石路。
You wouldn’t want to take that risk constantly, but I think you have to live a little bit.
你不想一直冒这样的风险，但我认为你必须活一点。
What’s the way you would describe or think about what it adds to your life?
您会如何描述或思考它给您的生活带来的好处？
I do know people who don’t do any of that.
我确实认识一些不这样做的人。
Maybe they’re missing something, but what is it exactly?
也许他们遗漏了一些东西，但到底是什么？
I think probably it is genetic in part.
我认为这可能部分是遗传的。
There is some “thrill-seeking gene.” I like spicy food, for example.
有一些“寻求刺激的基因”。例如，我喜欢辛辣的食物。
I like travel.
我喜欢旅行。
I like experiences that are more visceral.
我喜欢更发自内心的体验。
I think there has to be some innate component.
我认为必须有一些与生俱来的成分。
People I’ve talked to in the book — it’s mostly quants and things like that.
我在书中交谈过的人 ——主要是宽客之类的人。
It’s hedge fund people and poker players.
他们是对冲基金人士和扑克玩家。
There is one section of people who are physical risk-takers, people who are literally explorers.
有一部分人是身体上的冒险家，是名副其实的探险家。
I talked to an astronaut, for example.
例如，我和一位宇航员交谈过。
If you talk to the people who were mountain climbing, scaling the seven summits, where you’re up 28,000 feet and you actually have some risk of dying — their community thinks there’s something genetic about it.
如果你和那些正在爬山、攀登七座山峰的人交谈，在海拔 28,000 英尺的地方，你实际上有一定的死亡风险 ——他们的社区认为这与遗传有关。
They think it’s related to a certain type of stoicism, almost.
他们认为这几乎与某种类型的斯多葛主义有关。
What’s the richness they get added to their lives that maybe I would not?
他们的生活有哪些丰富的东西是我可能不会的？
I’m somewhat risky with travel, but I’m not at all risky with physical activities.
我旅行有一定风险，但体育活动一点也不危险。
I think the notion of cheating death has to be thrilling.
我认为欺骗死亡的想法一定是令人兴奋的。
I think some of them are maybe a little bit depressed in some ways.
我认为他们中的一些人在某些方面可能有点沮丧。
It’s not quite self-destructive or suicidal but adjacent to that.
它并不完全是自我毁灭或自杀，但与之接近。
Maybe you figure, “Well, I’m a little depressed, and so I can have a lot of fun and cheat death, or if I die, then maybe it’s not that bad.” I know it’s going to a dark place.
也许你会想，“好吧，我有点沮丧，所以我可以享受很多乐趣并欺骗死亡，或者如果我死了，那么也许事情并没有那么糟糕。”我知道它会走向一个黑暗的地方。
Some of Sam Bankman-Fried’s confidants, who are I think are in a very different category than these mountain climbers — they would say things like, “Well, he was miserable anyway, so he wouldn’t necessarily mind going to jail because in his day-to-day life, he was depressed and unhappy, so therefore .
我认为萨姆·班克曼-弗里德的一些知己与这些登山者属于非常不同的类别，他们会说这样的话：“好吧，无论如何，他很痛苦，所以他不一定介意进监狱，因为在他的日常生活中，他很沮丧和不快乐，所以因此。
.
。
.” That’s probably a pretty bad reason to be massively risk-taking, but I think there might be some element of that.
”。这可能是一个非常糟糕的理由去冒险，但我认为可能有一些因素。
It’s going in a slightly dark place.
它会在一个稍微黑暗的地方进行。
But an Anthony Bourdain type — there’s someone who you would think of as being very risk-taking and probably liked traveling to places where it’s objectively pretty dangerous.
但是安东尼·波登（Anthony Bourdain）类型的人——你会认为他非常敢于冒险，并且可能喜欢去客观上相当危险的地方旅行。
I’m sure he had a very adequate crew with him and things like that.
我确信他身边有足够的工作人员以及诸如此类的事情。
He never struck me as a risk taker.
我从来没有觉得他是一个敢于冒险的人。
He was always going to places that look dangerous and aren’t, would be my sense of what he did.
我对他所做的事情的感觉是，他总是去看似危险但其实并不危险的地方。
Maybe I’m revisiting now in light of his suicide.
也许鉴于他的自杀，我现在正在重新审视。
That’s a personality type.
这是一种人格类型。
He liked to drink and do drugs and eat spicy food and things like that.
他喜欢喝酒、吸毒、吃辛辣的食物等等。
He had, obviously, a penchant to travel.
显然，他有旅行的爱好。
I think you see a cluster of personality traits there.
我认为你在那里看到了一系列的人格特质。
On how politics has been shaped by drugs
关于毒品如何塑造政治
Do you ever think much about how the broader world history of politics and political leaders may have been shaped by drugs and alcohol?
您是否仔细思考过毒品和酒精如何影响了更广泛的世界政治历史和政治领导人？
There’s a book about how many of the Nazi commanders were high on different kinds of speed.
有一本关于有多少纳粹指挥官在不同速度上表现出色的书。
I don’t know how true that is.
我不知道这有多真实。
There’s a book about the Soviet Union.
有一本关于苏联的书。
It’s called Vodka Politics.
这就是所谓的“伏特加政治”。
Sam Bankman-Fried — there are various allegations about what he was taking.
萨姆·班克曼-弗里德（Sam Bankman-Fried）——对于他所采取的措施有多种指控。
You see the photo of whatever on his desk.
你会看到他桌子上任何东西的照片。
How important are drugs in all of this?
毒品在这一切中有多重要？
I’m not a historian of drug culture or things like that.
我不是毒品文化或类似事物的历史学家。
But you’ve talked to all these people.
但你已经和所有这些人谈过了。
You’ve thought about it, right?
你已经想过了，对吧？
Yes.
是的。
I think, in the case of SBF, that drugs are maybe less a part of it than some things.
我认为，就 SBF 而言，药物可能比某些东西更重要。
I think in general that history is often quite contingent on very flawed human beings.
我认为总的来说，历史往往取决于有缺陷的人类。
There’s a good Matt Yglesias post about this in the context of decisions about whether people run for president or not, from Joe Biden deciding to step down to Teddy Roosevelt and things like that.
马特·伊格莱西亚斯（Matt Yglesias）在关于人们是否竞选总统的决定的背景下发表了一篇很好的文章，从乔·拜登决定下台到泰迪·罗斯福等等。
When you do have some access to really smart people in the halls of power, people are often winging it.
当你确实能够接触到权力殿堂中真正聪明的人时，人们往往会即兴发挥。
You know what I mean?
你知道我的意思？
Of course, usually.
当然，通常情况下。
Yes.
是的。
How can you not?
你怎么能不呢？
Big decisions with limited information.
信息有限的重大决策。
And no second chances, really.
真的，没有第二次机会。
Often, no second chances.
通常，没有第二次机会。
I do think that people who are risk-taking tend to prevail for various reasons because they’re the people on the right tail of the graph.
我确实认为，由于各种原因，敢于冒险的人往往会占上风，因为他们是图表右尾的人。
I think financial risk-taking probably has some positive correlation with risk-taking as far as substance use.
我认为就药物使用而言，金融风险承担可能与风险承担存在某种正相关关系。
Not that high, but maybe 0.2 or 0.3 or something like that.
没那么高，但可能是 0.2 或 0.3 或类似的值。
So, it wouldn’t surprise me if more important decisions than we think in the history of the world are made in various states of intoxication.
因此，如果世界历史上比我们想象的更重要的决定是在不同的醉酒状态下做出的，我不会感到惊讶。
If there’s status quo bias, should political leaders take drugs more?
如果存在现状偏见，政治领导人是否应该更多地吸毒？
Before Joe Biden dropped out, it would’ve been a funny scandal.
在乔·拜登退出之前，这将是一个有趣的丑闻。
Maybe Joe Biden should have slept with a porn star and taken some shrooms.
也许乔·拜登应该和一个色情明星上床并拿一些蘑菇。
It would’ve changed his evaluation or the way people viewed him a fair amount.
这会在很大程度上改变他的评价或人们看待他的方式。
We’ve had a couple of teetotaling presidents, twice in a row, which is interesting.
我们有几位连续两次滴酒不沾的总统，这很有趣。
Trump is one of them.
特朗普就是其中之一。
Yes.
是的。
I’ll probably give the standard centrist left-of-center answer, which is, psychedelics are probably for some people pretty good, probably pretty dangerous for other people.
我可能会给出标准的中间派偏左答案，即迷幻药对某些人来说可能非常好，对其他人来说可能相当危险。
Otherwise, I don’t know.
否则，我不知道。
I think some people are able to simulate different states of consciousness in different ways naturally.
我认为有些人能够自然地以不同的方式模拟不同的意识状态。
If drugs are one way to get to role-play a different person a little bit, then I think that probably is helpful for a fair number of people.
如果毒品是一种稍微扮演不同人的方式，那么我认为这可能对相当多的人有帮助。
Is the US presidency now in an age of what you might call parity in NBA terms?
美国总统任期现在是否正处于 NBA 所谓的平等时代？
A series of one-term presidents, one after the other, just like the NBA champions keep on turning over and there’s no dynasty.
一系列的一届总统，一个接一个，就像NBA冠军不断更替一样，没有王朝。
We had this long era of dynasty — Bush, Clinton, my goodness, whatever else.
我们经历了这个漫长的王朝时代——布什、克林顿，我的天啊，不管是什么。
Now it’s over and there aren’t going to be repeats.
现在已经结束了，不会再有重复的事情了。
Or what’s that going to look like?
或者那会是什么样子？
I think part of it is a result .
我认为部分原因是结果。
.
。
.
。
And yes, if Trump wins again, then he’ll be limited to one term.
是的，如果特朗普再次获胜，那么他的任期将被限制。
You would therefore have three one-term presidents in a row for the first time since, I think, 1892-ish.
因此，我认为自 1892 年左右以来，这是第一次连续担任三任总统。
I was trying to look that up the other day.
前几天我正想查一下。
I think one thing that happened is that the canon slogan .
我认为发生的一件事就是佳能的口号。
.
。
.
。
I’m 46, so Carter was president when I was born.
我今年 46 岁，所以我出生时卡特是总统。
The canon that you emerge into when you’re first covering politics is post–World War II politics, 1946 through Bill Clinton, 1996 or whenever.
当你第一次报道政治时，你会遇到的经典是二战后的政治，1946 年到比尔·克林顿，1996 年或任何时候。
That was a period of historically very low polarization in the United States.
那是美国历史上两极分化程度非常低的时期。
You have lots of things going on.
你有很多事情发生。
You have this de facto three-party system with Northern Democrats and Republicans and Southern Democrats, but you had relatively low partisanship, a lot of bipartisanship.
事实上，有北方民主党、共和党和南方民主党的三党制度，但党派之争相对较低，两党合作较多。
Yes.
是的。
A lot of things are going well.
很多事情进展顺利。
Things are going pretty well.
事情进展顺利。
It’s a good time for the US.
这对美国来说是个好时机。
Incumbent presidents get re-elected by landslide margins.
现任总统以压倒性优势再次当选。
Very often there’s a lot of goodwill.
很多时候有很多善意。
If you go back, though, to the turn of the previous century — the Grover Cleveland years — every year, the election is separated by two points, and you bounce back and forth quite rapidly.
不过，如果你回到上世纪之交——“格罗弗·克利夫兰时代”——“每年，选举都会相隔两点，你的来回反弹速度相当快。”
That’s an era of high polarization and more like the era that we’re in right now.
这是一个高度两极分化的时代，更像是我们现在所处的时代。
So, even before Biden’s age and other problems, the incumbency effect, if you tease it out carefully, has really dissipated.
因此，即使在拜登出现年龄和其他问题之前，如果你仔细梳理的话，在职效应确实已经消失了。
In elections for Congress, we have a fairly large sample size.
在国会选举中，我们有相当大的样本量。
In the presidency, you may not have two incumbent presidents in a row who are voted out of office.
在总统任期内，不可能有连续两位现任总统被投票下台。
Technically, it’ll probably be Kamala now, but yes, so there is precedent for it.
从技术上讲，现在可能是卡马拉，但是是的，所以这是有先例的。
This era of comity, this post–World War II era of comity that we all think of as being normal is actually more of the outlier in some ways.
这个礼让时代，这个我们都认为正常的二战后礼让时代，实际上在某些方面更加异常。
How long will it be before we have AIs who are better predictors than you are?
我们需要多长时间才能拥有比你更好的预测能力的人工智能？
Let’s say it’s a Centaur model.
假设这是一个半人马模型。
The AI sits down and says, “Nate, please talk to me for half an hour.
AI 坐下来说道：“Nate，请跟我聊半个小时。
Tell me your thoughts.
告诉我你的想法。
Tell me what you know.” You give it your best half-an-hour worth of consulting on, say, the next presidential election, and then we just get rid of you.
告诉我你知道什么。”你给它最好的半个小时的咨询时间，比如说，下一次总统选举，然后我们就把你解雇了。
We send you off to pasture, and the AI does the work.
我们把你送到牧场，然后由人工智能来完成这项工作。
You’re paid a small fee, and it does the actual prediction.
您只需支付少量费用，它就会进行实际的预测。
How far away is that?
那有多远？
I think election forecasting is an oddly hard problem, where the mathematical structure of it is fairly complex.
我认为选举预测是一个奇怪的难题，其数学结构相当复杂。
The data is quite sparse, and you often have to make judgment calls based on incomplete information.
数据非常稀疏，您经常必须根据不完整的信息做出判断。
That might be one of the relatively more robust areas.
这可能是相对更强劲的领域之一。
It gets half an hour of your time.
它占用了你半个小时的时间。
It could pay for more if need be.
如果需要的话，它可以支付更多费用。
Then where’s the line between me using an AI .
那么我与使用人工智能之间的界限在哪里呢？
.
。
.
。
In a very limited way, the book is AI-enhanced in different ways, right?
这本书以非常有限的方式以不同的方式进行了人工智能增强，对吗？
Yes.
是的。
I am not convinced necessarily that we’re going to achieve superintelligence.
我不一定相信我们会实现超级智能。
I think it’s plausible-ish that it plateaus at very smart generalist human capabilities and is very good in certain areas, but I’ve become a little bit less convinced just in the last six months — since I had to send the book in to the printer, basically — of the inevitability of achieving superintelligence.
我认为这似乎是合理的，它在非常聪明的通才人类能力上达到了稳定水平，并且在某些领域非常出色，但就在过去的六个月里，我变得有点不那么相信了——自从我不得不把书送到印刷厂，基本上——实现超级智能是不可避免的。
Maybe it’s not super, but let’s say until an AI is as good as one of Phil Tetlock’s superforecasters.
也许它不是超级的，但我们可以说，直到人工智能像菲尔·泰洛克（Phil Tetlock）的超级预测者之一一样出色。
I would say that’s three to four years away, would be my guess.
我猜这还需要三到四年的时间。
Closer to three, maybe even two.
接近三个，甚至两个。
What would you say?
你会说什么？
I would take the over, I think, on that.
我想，我会接管这件事。
Over as in 200?
超过200？
Or over as in, “Oh, it’s five years away”?
或者就像“哦，还有五年”？
15 or 20.
15 或 20。
15 or 20.
15 或 20。
That’s a long time.
那是很长一段时间了。
So, GPT-5 is not going to wow you?
那么，GPT-5 不会让您惊叹吗？
It wows me in certain way.
它在某种程度上让我惊叹不已。
As somebody who’s fascinated with language, I’m fascinated with the way languages are mathematized in different ways.
作为一个对语言着迷的人，我对语言以不同方式进行数学化的方式着迷。
In the book, there is a lot on AI, including reasons to be optimistic or pessimistic about P(doom).
书中有很多关于人工智能的内容，包括对 P(doom) 持乐观或悲观态度的理由。
Your readers probably know what P(doom) is, I assume?
我猜你的读者可能知道 P(doom) 是什么？
Of course, yes.
当然，是的。
If they don’t know, they deserve P(doom), right?
如果他们不知道，他们就应该受到 P（厄运），对吗？
It does seem plausible to me that large language models reveal more about the mathematical structure of language than about just the intelligence of AI.
在我看来，大型语言模型更多地揭示了语言的数学结构，而不仅仅是人工智能的智能，这似乎是合理的。
They can now do Math Olympiad problems.
他们现在可以做奥林匹克数学题了。
There’s one forecast by someone working on this that, within a year, they’ll win Math Olympiads.
研究人员预测，一年之内，他们将赢得数学奥林匹克竞赛。
It could be wrong, but when you say that it’s only a year away, I would take that pretty seriously.
这可能是错误的，但当你说只剩下一年的时间时，我会非常认真地对待。
I think prediction is actually a pretty hard skill that probably life experience helps.
我认为预测实际上是一项相当困难的技能，生活经验可能会有所帮助。
Some types of prediction — if you have a phone book of millions of records, and you’re trying to predict what’s the likelihood that this spam email will be responded to and result in additional sale, I’m sure AI is already better than humans at that.
某些类型的预测 ——如果你有一本包含数百万条记录的电话簿，并且你试图预测这封垃圾邮件得到回复并导致额外销售的可能性有多大，我相信人工智能在这方面已经比人类做得更好了。
But things that are less structured, I think, are harder for AIs and hard for humans.
但我认为，结构化程度较低的事情对于人工智能来说更困难，对于人类来说也更困难。
On predictions
关于预测
Why do businesses not seem to care that much about most predictions?
为什么企业似乎不太关心大多数预测？
Surely this has puzzled you.
这肯定让你感到困惑。
For 20 years, I’ve been waiting for prediction markets to take off.
20 年来，我一直在等待预测市场的腾飞。
Obviously in politics, sports, it’s more than up and running, but in most areas, they’re pretty weak.
显然，在政治、体育方面，他们不仅仅是在运行，但在大多数领域，他们都相当薄弱。
What’s the actual problem on the demand side?
需求方的实际问题是什么？
I think this may be changing.
我认为这可能正在改变。
One of the things I did in trying to figure out my next steps after FiveThirtyEight/Disney is, I talked to different financial firms and hedge funds and Wall Street firms about different types of consulting arrangements.
为了弄清楚 FiveThirtyEight/迪士尼之后的下一步，我所做的一件事是，我与不同的金融公司、对冲基金和华尔街公司讨论了不同类型的咨询安排。
Clearly, there are players in the market who are thinking carefully about political risk and other types of risks that you can price adequately by prediction markets.
显然，市场上有些参与者正在仔细考虑政治风险和其他类型的风险，您可以通过预测市场对这些风险进行充分定价。
I think there probably is some notion of critical mass when you have enough liquidity and enough volume to have relatively efficient pricing.
我认为，当你有足够的流动性和足够的交易量来实现相对有效的定价时，可能存在一些临界质量的概念。
I think we may now be at that threshold, but we weren’t four years ago or something like that.
我认为我们现在可能已经达到了这个门槛，但四年前或类似的情况还没有达到。
Take a truly important commercial question, like will China invade Taiwan, or when will they invade?
就一个真正重要的商业问题来说，比如中国会入侵台湾，或者什么时候入侵？
I’ve looked at different markets or pretend markets on that.
我研究过不同的市场或假装市场。
I just don’t take those seriously.
我只是不认真对待这些。
It’s not that I feel I have a better estimate, but they don’t cause much updating for me.
并不是说我觉得我有更好的估计，但它们并没有给我带来太多更新。
I think that the time horizons might be too long to be actionable necessarily.
我认为时间跨度可能太长而不一定可行。
In the same way in sports betting, you can probably make money on futures bets.
就像体育博彩一样，您可能可以通过期货投注赚钱。
If I were to bet right now on who will win the NBA title in 2024 or ’25, there are probably some +EV bets there on the surface.
如果我现在打赌谁将在 2024 年或 25 年赢得 NBA 总冠军，表面上可能会有一些 +EV 投注。
However, that means I would have to tie up my capital for a year.
然而，这意味着我必须冻结我的资金一年。
There might also be some risk that the site I bet on goes belly-up or that I die or something.
也可能存在一些风险，比如我所投注的网站崩溃或者我死亡等等。
These long-term bets I think are —
我认为这些长期赌注是 ——
But that’s not very long term.
但这不是很长期。
That’s less than a year away.
距离这还有不到一年的时间。
T-bill rates — they’re higher than they were, but they’re not that high.
国库券利率 — 比以前要高，但也没有那么高。
You have some marginal funds in things like T-bills.
你有一些边际资金，比如国库券。
You’re in good enough health.
你的健康状况良好。
You don’t want to do the submersible with the billionaire.
你不想和亿万富翁一起潜水。
But oftentimes, your edge in sports betting is two or three points, right?
但通常情况下，您在体育博彩中的优势是两到三分，对吧？
Yes.
是的。
2 percent or 3 percent as an ROI.
2% 或 3% 的投资回报率。
If you can put it in the S&P 500 and make 8 percent, then it becomes a negative EV bet.
如果你可以将其放入标准普尔 500 指数并赚取 8%，那么它就成为负 EV 押注。
But that gets back to my point.
但这又回到了我的观点。
People should only bet, in essence, on US equities and nothing else.
从本质上讲，人们应该只押注于美国股市，而不是其他任何东西。
They’re fooling themselves in these other areas.
他们在其他方面都是在自欺欺人。
If they want to spend their money that way, I’m libertarian enough, but I’m not that enthusiastic about it, and I don’t bet myself at all, really, on anything other than buy and hold and diversify.
如果他们想这样花钱，我就够自由主义者了，但我对此并没有那么热衷，而且我根本不会把自己的赌注押在除了购买、持有和多元化以外的任何事情上。
It is fun.
这很有趣。
COWEN: It’s not fun for me somehow.
COWEN：这对我来说一点也不有趣。
I’m a person who has never bet.
我是一个从来没有赌过的人。
I go to Las Vegas and I’m not even tempted.
我去了拉斯维加斯，但我什至没有受到诱惑。
I don’t bet on any games.
我不赌任何比赛。
I don’t do slot machines.
我不玩老虎机。
What’s wrong with me from your point of view?
从你的角度来看我有什么问题吗？
No, it’s probably rational in various robust and narrow senses of the term.
不，从各种强有力和狭义的意义上来说，这可能是理性的。
Again, I’m not somebody who’s that big in casino gambling, but look, it’s the intensely competitive nature of things.
再说一次，我不是一个热衷于赌场赌博的人，但你看，这就是事物激烈竞争的本质。
There’s something called Enneagram.
有一种东西叫九型人格。
Do you know this, one of the different personality —
你知道吗，不同性格之一 ——
Yes.
是的。
The two rarest Enneagram types are the type that’s really analytical, basically, and the type that’s really competitive.
两种最罕见的九型人格类型基本上是真正具有分析性的类型，以及真正具有竞争力的类型。
If I take my Enneagram chart, those are two where I have the highest scores.
如果我看一下我的九型人格图表，那是我得分最高的两个。
Typically, you think, “Oh, who’s someone who’s analytical?” Maybe they’re an actuary type.
通常，您会想：“哦，谁是善于分析的人？”也许他们是精算师类型。
They’re calculating.
他们正在计算。
Maybe they’re somewhat risk averse.
也许他们有点厌恶风险。
Maybe they’re on the verge of being a little bit neurotic.
也许他们正处于有点神经质的边缘。
That’s the stereotype.
这就是刻板印象。
The people in the book are not that.
书里的人不是这样的。
They’re analytical, but they want to .
他们善于分析，但他们想要这样做。
.
。
.
。
A lot of times they had things in their childhood.
很多时候他们都有童年的事情。
A lot of people — like Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos, for example — they had childhood trauma but not so traumatic, and they had enough privilege in different ways that they were able to still have people take their phone calls and things like that.
很多人——比如埃隆·马斯克或杰夫·贝佐斯——他们有童年创伤，但没有那么严重，而且他们以不同的方式拥有足够的特权，以至于他们仍然能够让人们接听他们的电话之类的事情。
But it’s often people where something, I think, went a little bit haywire, and they’re not necessarily strictly rational in some sense.
但我认为，往往是人们的某些事情有点失控，从某种意义上说，他们不一定是严格理性的。
Last two questions.
最后两个问题。
First, where do you want to travel next?
首先，你接下来想去哪里旅行？
I have a good friend who’s Korean American.
我有一个好朋友，他是韩裔美国人。
We’re hoping to go to Korea in December.
我们预计12月去韩国。
That is cold.
那很冷。
I’ve done that in fact.
事实上我已经这么做了。
I love Korea, but I don’t know about December.
我喜欢韩国，但我不知道12月怎么样。
I’ve been very little to the Middle East.
我很少去过中东。
I’d like to go there more.
我还想去那里多走走。
We were talking about Israel a little bit before.
我们之前谈论过以色列。
Last question.
最后一个问题。
What is it you want to learn about next?
接下来你想了解什么？
One of the problems with writing a book where you take all the things that you really love is that you use a lot of your ideas.
写一本包含所有你真正喜欢的东西的书的问题之一是你使用了很多你的想法。
I’ll give you a dumb answer.
我会给你一个愚蠢的答案。
I’d like to learn more about Pot-Limit Omaha, which is a form of poker that I haven’t played very much yet.
我想更多地了解底池限注奥马哈，这是一种我还没玩过的扑克形式。
I have this list of things.
我有这个清单。
I want to learn more about European soccer, Pot Limit Omaha, and wine, basically.
基本上，我想更多地了解欧洲足球、底池限注奥马哈和葡萄酒。
Those are all things that I think I would like very much, but I’ve never quite explored fully.
这些都是我认为我非常喜欢的东西，但我从未完全探索过。
Again, to repeat, Nate’s book, On the Edge: The Art of Risking Everything.
再次重复一下内特的书《边缘：冒着一切风险的艺术》。
Nate Silver, thank you very much.
内特·西尔弗，非常感谢你。
Thank you, Tyler.
谢谢你，泰勒。