Reid Hoffman on the Possibilities of AI (Ep. 183)

Hello, everyone, and welcome back to Conversations with Tyler.

大家好，欢迎回到《与泰勒对话》。

Today I am literally sitting here with Reid Hoffman at Greylock.

今天我真的和 Greylock 的 Reid Hoffman 坐在一起。

Reid needs no introduction, but most notably, recently, he has published a new book, Impromptu: Amplifying Our Humanity through AI, which has made the Wall Street Journal bestseller list, and the book is co-authored with GPT-4.

Reid 无需介绍，但最值得注意的是，最近他出版了一本新书《Impromptu: Amplifying Our Humanity through AI》，该书荣登《华尔街日报》畅销书排行榜，该书是与 GPT-4 合着的。

Reid, welcome.

里德，欢迎。

Always great to be here.

来到这里总是很棒。

Let’s try some GPT questions.

让我们尝试一些 GPT 问题。

Over a five-to-10-year time horizon, will the demand for lawyers go up or down in the US?

未来五到十年，美国对律师的需求会上升还是下降？

It’s interesting.

这很有趣。

I think it will go up.

我认为它会上涨。

Why up?

为什么涨？

I think it’ll go up because the questions around sorting out who owns what and so forth, and the degree of risk management and detailed legal contracts will actually go up because of the amplification that AI is, as amplification intelligence.

我认为它会上升，因为围绕整理谁拥有什么等等的问题，以及风险管理的程度和详细的法律合同实际上会上升，因为人工智能的放大作用，作为放大智能。

And there’s this whole new class of entities that will need legal treatment.

还有一类全新的实体需要法律处理。

Exactly.

确切地。

What’s the optimal liability regime for LLMs?

法学硕士的最佳责任制度是什么？

Right now, if I google “how to build a bomb,” I build a bomb, I kill people — no one can sue Google.

现在，如果我在谷歌上搜索“如何制造炸弹”，我就会制造炸弹，我就会杀人 ——没有人可以起诉谷歌。

It’s just my fault.

这只是我的错。

Yes.

是的。

How will it work?

它将如何运作？

How should it work for LLMs?

LLM 应该如何运作？

That’s an extremely good and precise question.

这是一个非常好的和精确的问题。

A classic Tyler.

经典的泰勒.

This is what the lawyers will be working on, right?

这就是律师们要做的事情，对吗？

Yes, exactly.

是的，完全正确。

I think that what you need to have is, the LLMs have a certain responsibility to a training set of safety.

我认为你需要的是，法学硕士对一套安全培训负有一定的责任。

Not infinite responsibility, but part of when you said, what should AI regulation ultimately be, is to say there’s a set of testing harnesses that it should be difficult to get an LLM to help you make a bomb.

不是无限的责任，但当你说人工智能监管最终应该是什么时，一部分是说有一套测试工具，应该很难让法学硕士来帮助你制造炸弹。

Will that mean no standard over time as jailbreaking knowledge spreads?

随着时间的推移，随着越狱知识的传播，这是否意味着没有标准？

I think jailbreaking knowledge will spread, but I think it’s just like cybersecurity and everything else: it’s an arms race.

我认为越狱知识将会传播，但我认为这就像网络安全和其他一切一样：这是一场军备竞赛。

Part of what we’ll do is, we’ll have AI hopefully more on the side of angels than on devils.

我们要做的一部分是，希望人工智能更多地站在天使一边，而不是站在魔鬼一边。

That’s part of the reason I’m an advocate for acceleration.

这就是我提倡加速的部分原因。

Move fast the future, do not pause, et cetera, because it’s part of being more safe there.

向未来快速前进，不要停下来等等，因为这是让那里更加安全的一部分。

Putting aside truly malicious acts like bomb-making, where else should there be liability on the LLM company?

抛开制造炸弹等真正的恶意行为，LLM公司还应该在哪些方面承担责任呢？

Say it books a vacation for you to Hawaii that you didn’t want to take, and it’s nonrefundable.

假设它为您预订了一个您不想去的夏威夷假期，并且不可退款。

Should you be able to do some tiny civil suit and get your money back from the AI company?

你是否可以提起一些小型民事诉讼并从人工智能公司那里拿回你的钱？

Look, I think there’s some degree of where we need to have some categorization or regime of where are you relying on it.

听着，我认为在某种程度上我们需要对你在哪里依赖它进行某种分类或制度。

I actually think that the provider of the LLM should be pretty reliable.

其实我觉得LLM的提供者应该是相当可靠的。

It doesn’t book the vacation without confirming with you.

未经您确认，它不会预订假期。

That kind of thing should be totally within their doable skillset, and so they should be accountable.

这类事情应该完全在他们可行的技能范围内，因此他们应该负责。

But say there’s some volatility to plug-ins because you want a fairly creative AI, and you don’t have enough money to afford a reliable AI to book your trips and then a creative AI to tell you bedtime stories, and you use one thing for whatever reason, or you get confused.

但是，假设插件存在一些波动性，因为你想要一个相当有创意的人工智能，而你没有足够的钱来负担​​一个可靠的人工智能来预订你的旅行，然后一个有创意的人工智能来给你讲睡前故事，而你出于某种原因使用一种东西，或者你会感到困惑。

If you’re confused just like you’re confused about hitting the submit button, then I think that’s your responsibility.

如果您感到困惑，就像您对点击提交按钮感到困惑一样，那么我认为这是您的责任。

But I do think that the developers of these and the things where they are much better at providing the safety for individuals than the individuals, then they should be liable.

但我确实认为，这些东西的开发商比个人更擅长为个人提供安全，那么他们应该承担责任。

That’s part of what will cause them to make sure that they’re doing that.

这也是他们确保这样做的部分原因。

Will there be autonomous AI, LLM, or bot agents that earn money?

是否会有可以赚钱的自主人工智能、法学硕士或机器人代理？

Depends on what you mean by autonomous.

取决于你所说的自主是什么意思。

No one owns them.

没有人拥有它们。

Maybe you created it, but you set it free into the wild.

也许你创造了它，但你把它释放到野外。

It’s a charitable gift.

这是一份慈善礼物。

It’ll do amazing proofreading for anyone, gratis.

它将为任何人提供令人惊叹的免费校对服务。

I think autonomy is one of the lines that we have to cross carefully.

我认为自主权是我们必须小心跨越的界限之一。

It’s possible that there will be such autonomous AIs, but it’s one of the areas like self-improving code, autonomy are areas that I pay a lot of attention to because right now, I’m — as you know — a huge advocate of its amplifying human capabilities and being a personal AI, being a copilot to the stuff that we’re doing.

可能会有这样的自主人工智能，但它是自我改进代码等领域之一，自主是我非常关注的领域，因为现在，我 ——正如你所知 —— 大力倡导人工智能增强人类能力，成为个人人工智能，成为我们正在做的事情的副驾驶。

I think that is amazing, and we should just do it.

我认为这太棒了，我们应该这样做。

When you make it autonomous, you have to be much more careful about what other implications might happen.

当你让它变得自治时，你必须更加小心可能发生的其他影响。

Let’s put aside destroying the world and killing people.

我们先把毁灭世界和杀人放在一边。

It’s a bot, it tells stories, it gives you comments on your papers, it does useful things.

它是一个机器人，它会讲故事，它会为你的论文提供评论，它会做有用的事情。

But someone could even sell it to a shell corporation.

但有人甚至可以将其出售给空壳公司。

The corporation goes under, and no one owns the bot.

公司破产了，没有人拥有这个机器人。

You can’t actually stop autonomy, it seems to me, so it will happen.

在我看来，你实际上无法阻止自治，所以它会发生。

I think to some degree, one of the earliest regulations we’ll see is that every AI has to, essentially, be provisionally owned and governed by some person, so there will be some accountability chain.

我认为在某种程度上，我们将看到的最早的法规之一是，从本质上讲，每个人工智能都必须由某人临时拥有和管理，因此将会有一些问责链。

Because if you’re using it for cyber hacking, and you say, “I didn’t use it.

因为如果你用它进行网络黑客攻击，你会说：“我没有使用它。

That bot was doing marketing, but that bot was doing cyber hacking, but that wasn’t me,” it’s like, “Well, but you were the person who was responsible for it.”

那个机器人正在做营销，但那个机器人正在做网络黑客，但那不是我，”这就像，“好吧，但你是对此负责的人。”

There’s always a thinly capitalized corporation.

总有一家资本薄弱的公司。

Again, I’m talking about positive, productive bots that will be autonomous.

再说一次，我谈论的是积极、高效的自主机器人。

For example, today, corporations have to have owners, have to have boards of directors.

例如，今天，公司必须有所有者，必须有董事会。

There is human accountability there.

那里有人类责任。

You die intestate.

你去世时没有留下遗嘱。

The company goes bankrupt, you give it away, it comes from Estonia, you can’t trace it, something’s encrypted.

公司破产了，你把它送给别人，它来自爱沙尼亚，你无法追踪它，有些东西被加密了。

It just seems to me there’ll be a lot of bots that’ll reproduce for Darwinian reasons, and we have to face questions about them, even if we’d like to ban them.

在我看来，会有很多机器人会因为达尔文主义的原因而繁殖，即使我们想禁止它们，我们也必须面对有关它们的问题。

I do think raising the question is good.

我确实认为提出这个问题很好。

I’m not trying to resist the question.

我并不是想反驳这个问题。

What I am saying is, I think that developers — look, you can hash it with Bitcoin — they can earn money, run things themselves.

我想说的是，我认为开发者 ——看，你可以用比特币进行哈希计算——他们可以赚钱，自己运营。

I think there are various ways that you could get a self-perpetuating bot process, even on today’s bots, which aren’t really creatures.

我认为有多种方法可以实现自我延续的机器人进程，即使是今天的机器人，它们并​​不是真正的生物。

They’re more tools.

它们更多的是工具。

You could set up the tool to do that.

您可以设置该工具来执行此操作。

Totally doable.

完全可行。

What we want is to tax their income.

我们想要的是对他们的收入征税。

Otherwise, they’re arbitraging against labor, which might pay 40 percent tax.

否则，他们就会针对劳动力进行套利，而劳动力可能要缴纳 40% 的税。

The bot pays nothing.

机器人不支付任何费用。

It’s not a legal entity.

它不是一个法人实体。

You’d rather legalize it, tax it, regulate it.

你宁愿将其合法化，对其征税，对其进行监管。

Some government will do that, even if ours doesn’t.

有些政府会这样做，即使我们的政府不这样做。

Yes.

是的。

Also, even if you say, “Well, it’s a bankrupt company, but the bot’s earning money,” then the company’s earning money.

另外，即使你说，“嗯，这是一家破产的公司，但机器人正在赚钱”，那么公司也在赚钱。

We do have tax regimes for companies.

我们确实有针对公司的税收制度。

I think we would want to do that.

我想我们会想这么做。

Will bots rescue the demand for crypto?

机器人会拯救对加密货币的需求吗？

What else will they use for money, right?

他们除了钱还能用来做什么，对吗？

Yes.

是的。

One of the talks I gave on crypto 10 years ago was, even without these LLMs, I could set up a bot that could pay its server fees and everything else in crypto, and then write eulogies or praise to Reid Hoffman for all time, just as an entertaining autonomous bot.

10 年前我就加密货币进行的一次演讲是，即使没有这些法学硕士，我也可以建立一个机器人，可以支付其服务器费用和加密货币中的其他所有费用，然后永远为 Reid Hoffman 写悼词或赞扬，就像一个有趣的自主机器人一样。

Exactly who or what in government should regulate LLMs, new AI products?

政府到底应该由谁或什么人来监管法学硕士、新的人工智能产品？

People say “government regulation,” but where?

人们说“政府监管”，但政府监管在哪里？

Is it the FTC, Department of Commerce, national security establishment?

是联邦贸易委员会、商务部、国家安全机构吗？

Since AI is going to transform every agency, I think there will actually be needs in each of the departments.

由于人工智能将改变每个机构，我认为每个部门实际上都会有需求。

Right now, because I think Secretary Raimondo is a super smart, capable leader and understands the tech reasonably well, I would go with Commerce.

现在，因为我认为雷蒙多部长是一位超级聪明、有能力的领导者，并且对技术相当了解，所以我会选择商务部。

And there’s NIST and a bunch of other things.

还有 NIST 和其他一些东西。

I do think, also, some attention to national security à la Jake Sullivan — this is all U.S. context — I think is useful too.

我确实认为，杰克·沙利文（Jake Sullivan）对国家安全的一些关注——“这都是美国的背景”——我认为也很有用。

Will the new AI product strengthen the executive branch in the US government since there are national security issues?

由于存在国家安全问题，新的人工智能产品是否会加强美国政府的行政部门？

Again, even if you’re not a doomster, there are clearly issues, and it seems when national security issues come to the forefront, the executive branch has more power, whether one likes that or not.

再说一遍，即使你不是末日论者，也存在明显的问题，而且当国家安全问题成为首要问题时，行政部门似乎拥有更多权力，无论人们是否喜欢。

Look, there are reasons why we have an executive branch.

看，我们设立行政部门是有原因的。

There’s a reason why, in many countries, the executive function’s even stronger, even including parliamentary systems, because it elides the executive with the parliamentary branch.

在许多国家，行政职能更加强大，甚至包括议会制度，这是有原因的，因为它用议会部门消除了行政部门。

I do think that the general rise of technology should make the executive branch stronger in various ways.

我确实认为技术的普遍崛起应该使行政部门在各个方面变得更加强大。

Let’s say you have a coalition system — like on the continent — with proportional representation, and you have a governmental AI.

假设你有一个联盟体系 ——就像在非洲大陆一样 ——带有比例代表制，并且你有一个政府人工智能。

Does every party in the coalition have the ability to access it?

联盟中的每一方都有能力访问它吗？

I think that would be a good thing.

我认为那将是一件好事。

Part of the reason why I helped stand up OpenAI — I was on the board for a number of years — is, broadly provisioning safe AI to as much of humanity, as many businesses as possible, including as many political parties and all the rest, is, I think, a good thing.

我帮助创立 OpenAI 的部分原因是，我认为，向尽可能多的人类、尽可能多的企业，包括尽可能多的政党和其他各方广泛提供安全的人工智能，是一件好事。

Amplification —

放大 —

But you left some parts that won’t be open, right?

但你留下了一些不会开放的部分，对吗？

Yes, because you have to do safety.

是的，因为你必须保证安全。

Everyone’s going, “We thought open meant open source.” No, no. Open access with safety provisions.

每个人都会说，“我们认为开放意味着开源。”不，不。具有安全措施的开放通道。

Open source is actually not safe.

开源其实并不安全。

It’s less safe.

不太安全。

You’re a small party in Northern Ireland.

你们是北爱尔兰的一个小聚会。

You’re part of a coalition government in London.

你是伦敦联合政府的一部分。

You can just tap into the world’s strongest computational power.

您只需利用世界上最强大的计算能力即可。

No risk of Chinese bribing people in this small party.

在这个小聚会中，不存在中国人贿赂他人的风险。

Can you use the AI to run your campaign to be reelected in Northern Ireland?

你能使用人工智能来竞选北爱尔兰的连任吗？

Do you have to give access to the opposition party?

必须给反对党准入吗？

What, within government, rations access to the really powerful stuff that’s not just open to the public?

在政府内部，是什么让人们能够接触到那些不只向公众开放的真正强大的东西？

Which branch of government should do that?

哪个政府部门应该这样做？

Which standards?

哪些标准？

Clearly, the notion to reinforce one particular party — we try to make the parties as equally armed as possible for a democratic purpose.

显然，加强某一特定政党的理念——我们试图让各政党为了民主目的而尽可能平等地武装起来。

You would want to do that.

你会想这么做的。

You wouldn’t say, “You have unique access for doing this.” It’d have to be equally capable.

您不会说：“您拥有执行此操作的独特权限。”它必须具有同等的能力。

Whether or not it’s equally intelligently used is a different question, but equally capable across it.

它是否同样被明智地使用是一个不同的问题，但同样有能力跨越它。

What does the media ecosystem look like in this world?

这个世界上的媒体生态系统是什么样的？

Let’s say a lot of people, rather than reading the New York Times, are going to Twitter.

假设很多人不去读《纽约时报》，而是去推特。

They just ask their AI, “Read it for me; tell me what’s new.” It seems there’s another layer of disintermediation.

他们只是问人工智能，“给我读一下；告诉我有什么新内容。”似乎还有另一层去中介化。

Or is it like BuzzFeed, where people won’t want that?

还是像 BuzzFeed 一样，人们不希望这样？

It will just go under, and we’ll more or less be back to the universe we have now?

它会消失，我们或多或少会回到现在的宇宙？

I think the AI personal assistant for everything you do is upon us.

我认为人工智能私人助理可以帮助你做任何事情。

Sure.

当然。

It’s part of the reason why, as you know, with Mustafa Suleyman, I launched a product last week called Pi with Inflection, which is a personal AI for your life.

如您所知，这就是为什么我上周与 Mustafa Suleyman 一起推出了一款名为 Pi with Inflection 的产品，它是您生活中的个人人工智能。

I think that will cue for every professional activity.

我认为这将为每项专业活动提供线索。

I think processing information.

我认为处理信息。

When you say, well, AI can be used for cyberattacks, yeah, but AI can also be used for defense.

当你说，人工智能可以用于网络攻击，是的，但人工智能也可以用于防御。

Surely it can read my Twitter feed for me, right?

它肯定可以帮我读取我的 Twitter 信息，对吗？

Yes.

是的。

“Pull out the 20 best tweets.

“选出 20 条最佳推文。

Save me time.”

节省我的时间。”

I don’t know.

我不知道。

I think, ultimately, my guess would be it’s not, because to reflect back a point that I heard you make — but I now plagiarize you shamelessly — which is, look, we have these AIs that play chess better than human beings.

我想，最终，我的猜测是不是，因为回想一下我听到你提出的观点 —— 但我现在无耻地抄袭你 —— 也就是说，看，我们拥有这些比人类下棋更好的人工智能。

No one watches AIs playing chess, but we do watch, now more than ever, human beings playing chess.

没有人观看人工智能下棋，但我们现在比以往任何时候都更多地观看人类下棋。

I think there’s a little bit of the human beings tweeting thing, which, even though you’re getting a summary, people may still want to go tweet themselves, watch other people tweet.

我认为人类发推文有一点点，即使你得到了一个摘要，人们可能仍然想自己发推文，看其他人发推文。

I would guess, no, that it doesn’t get completely disintermediated, but —

我猜，不，它并没有完全去中介化，但是 ——

It might just send me the 10 best links.

它可能只会向我发送 10 个最佳链接。

I could email you a Twitter link, but if no one’s reading Twitter, no one’s seeing the ads.

我可以通过电子邮件给您发送 Twitter 链接，但如果没有人阅读 Twitter，就没有人看到广告。

Maybe there’s one bot that pays a fee to access Twitter, gets the blue check, and then just mails around links to others?

也许有一个机器人付费访问 Twitter，获得蓝色支票，然后将链接发送给其他人？

I don’t know.

我不知道。

It seems maybe not problematic, but it will be a big change of some kind.

看起来也许没有问题，但这将是某种巨大的变化。

I think changes — they are a-coming.

我认为变化即将到来。

They’re here, I would say, yes.

他们在这里，我想说，是的。

Let’s say, in this new world, I want to have influence through writing.

比方说，在这个新世界里，我想通过写作产生影响力。

It used to be, write a blog, write a Substack, write for New York Times.

过去是写博客、写子堆栈、为《纽约时报》写文章。

What’s the new thing you can do now — that you couldn’t do before — to have influence?

你现在可以做的新事是什么？以前做不到的新事是什么？才能产生影响力？

I think the creativity thing is the creativity ability amplifier with AI.

我认为创造力就是人工智能的创造力放大器。

For example, in Impromptu, I have things that are poems.

例如，在即兴曲中，我有一些诗的东西。

I have lightbulb jokes.

我有灯泡笑话。

I have a whole bunch of stuff that normally wouldn’t be within my quick skillset, but I can do that, so it amplifies me.

我有一大堆通常不会在我的快速技能范围内的东西，但我可以做到，所以它增强了我的能力。

There’s a whole bunch of amplification within the current things, like I can do things that I couldn’t do before.

当前的事情有很多放大，就像我可以做以前做不到的事情。

Put aside money income.

抛开金钱收入。

Let’s say someone comes to me.

假设有人来找我。

They say, “Tyler, spend a year talking to this AI, and then you grade it, and at the end of it all, there’ll be a Tyler Cowen bot.

他们说，“泰勒，花一年时间与这个人工智能交谈，然后你给它评分，最后，就会有一个泰勒·考恩机器人。

It’ll be excellent.” Should I do that?

会很棒的。”我应该这样做吗？

Yes.

是的。

How long should I spend doing that?

我应该花多长时间来做这件事？

I wouldn’t spend a huge amount of time right now because I think that technology will get a whole lot better for it over the next X years.

我现在不会花大量时间，因为我认为在未来 X 年内技术将会变得更好。

But I’d start playing with it now, and then I would start looking at where that’s useful.

但我现在就开始使用它，然后我会开始看看它在哪里有用。

I’ve thought about where would be the things, like we do podcasts.

我想过这些东西会在哪里，就像我们做播客一样。

It’d be fun to actually have a Reid bot that would be available on social media and everything else.

如果真的有一个可以在社交媒体和其他一切上使用的 Reid 机器人，那会很有趣。

People have a question about an amplification of some part of the discussion that you and I are having, and the Reid bot could answer.

人们对放大你和我正在进行的讨论的某些部分有疑问，里德机器人可以回答。

That’d be great.

那太好了。

So, at some point soon, investing in the Tyler bot, the Reid bot — that’s the new way to have influence.

因此，在不久的将来的某个时候，投资 Tyler 机器人、Reid 机器人——这就是产生影响力的新方式。

For sure.

一定。

What will replace homework in our schools?

什么将取代我们学校的家庭作业？

Oral exams, projects where you work with GPT, homework done in class?

口试、使用 GPT 进行的项目、课堂上完成的作业？

I think you’ll have all of those, but I think you’ll still have homework.

我想你会拥有所有这些，但我想你仍然会有作业。

We’re going to have a whole bunch of tools that help teachers, help grade, a bunch of other stuff.

我们将拥有一大堆工具来帮助教师、帮助评分以及其他一些东西。

Ten years from now, will people be worse writers?

十年后，人们会成为更糟糕的作家吗？

And which other ways might we be stupider?

还有哪些其他方面我们可能会变得更愚蠢？

Well, for example, I think people are probably, by default, worse spellers just because we had spelling things and we have —

嗯，举例来说，我认为人们在默认情况下可能拼写能力较差，只是因为我们会拼写一些东西，而且我们有 -

You learn correct spelling from the spellcheck, right?

您从拼写检查中学习了正确的拼写，对吧？

Yes.

是的。

If GPT can write for you as well as you can write, you may never learn to write from scratch, just as you and I both have done for many years.

如果 GPT 可以为你写作，就像你可以写作一样，那么你可能永远不会从头开始学习写作，就像你和我多年来所做的那样。

Well, okay.

好吧，好吧。

Yes, that’s probably a little harder.

是的，这可能有点困难。

I can’t handwrite essays now as well as I can type them because the handwriting is mostly signatures or brief notes.

我现在不能手写论文，也不能像打字一样，因为手写内容主要是签名或简短的注释。

But just as you were mentioning, the quality of my being able to understand what a great essay is and producing it and everything else, what a great writing is, goes up because of it.

但正如你所提到的，我能够理解什么是一篇伟大的文章并撰写它以及其他一切，什么是伟大的写作，因此而提高。

Even when I’m using it for “How do I write an email response to Tyler about his provocative comment about art?” maybe I’ll use GPT to help me do it, but then I get a much better understanding of what a higher level of quality in that discourse is.

即使我用它来“我如何写一封电子邮件回复泰勒，谈论他对艺术的挑衅性评论？”也许我会使用 GPT 来帮助我做到这一点，但随后我会更好地理解该话语中的更高质量水平是什么。

What percentage of the American population do you think will take an Amish kind of approach to GPT models and the new AI — 1 percent, 10 percent?

您认为有多少美国人会采用阿米什式的 GPT 模型和新 AI ——1%、10%？

Whether they should or not, but they just won’t do it, won’t let their kids do it.

不管他们应该或不应该这样做，但他们就是不会这样做，不会让他们的孩子这样做。

Well, it’ll probably start a little higher.

好吧，它的起点可能会更高一些。

It’ll probably start at 20 percent, 25 percent, and it’ll probably shrink to 5 percent.

一开始可能是 20%、25%，最后可能会缩减到 5%。

What’s the killer app for multimodal GPT?

多模式 GPT 的杀手级应用是什么？

What’s it going to actually do for people that they’ll be thrilled about, above and beyond what it’s doing now?

除了现在所做的事情之外，它实际上会给人们带来什么让他们感到兴奋的事情？

Well, I think the expression of creativity.

嗯，我认为是创造力的表达。

One of the things that, if you haven’t got, you will get, but I’m doing a chapter in Impromptu which is like a Star Trek plot involving the person.

其中一件事，如果你没有得到，你会得到的，但我正在即兴创作一章，就像涉及人物的星际迷航情节。

If we haven’t sent you the Tyler Cowen Star Trek plot yet, you’re going to get it.

如果我们还没有向您发送泰勒·考恩《星际迷航》情节，您将会收到。

As you know, there’s no sharing function in the main current LLMs [Note: ChatGPT introduced a sharing feature a couple weeks after this conversation was recorded].

如您所知，当前主要的法学硕士没有共享功能[注：ChatGPT 在录制此对话几周后引入了共享功能]。

Is this genius?

这是天才吗？

Is this, “Oh, there are just no product people in these companies”?

这是“哦，这些公司根本就没有产品人员”吗？

Does this mean, “Oh, Meta is going to own everything sooner or later because they know how to do sharing?” How do you think about that absence of a sharing function?

这是否意味着“哦，Meta 迟早会拥有一切，因为他们知道如何进行共享？”您如何看待共享功能的缺失？

I think it’s coming.

我想它即将到来。

You think it’s coming, and you think that will dominate the market?

您认为它即将到来，并且您认为它将主导市场吗？

Yes, but I think there will also be many providers of AI, just like I think there will be a number of different chatbot agents that play different character roles in your life, just like different people play roles in your life.

是的，但我认为人工智能的提供者也会有很多，就像我认为会有许多不同的聊天机器人代理在你的生活中扮演不同的角色，就像不同的人在你的生活中扮演不同的角色一样。

How will gaming evolve?

游戏将如何发展？

Well, it’s been funny that it’s evolved more slowly than I expected.

嗯，有趣的是它的进化速度比我预期的要慢。

Just like I was discussing the art, think about games that have virtual world, whether they’re exploration or combats or strategic games where the world is invented as you go in that format.

就像我讨论艺术一样，想想具有虚拟世界的游戏，无论是探索、战斗还是战略游戏，世界都是在这种格式下被发明的。

NPCs will be super interesting, even in multiplayer games, like where the game itself is a new frontier.

即使在多人游戏中，NPC 也会非常有趣，比如游戏本身就是一个新领域。

How many games will you yourself create using AI?

您自己将使用人工智能制作多少游戏？

I don’t believe that number is .

我不相信这个数字是。

.

。

.

。

Well, okay, I guess I’m making a prediction: at least a thousand.

好吧，好吧，我想我正在做一个预测：至少一千个。

Is the future open-source, or proprietary, or in what ratios?

未来是开源的，还是专有的，或者比例是多少？

I’m not sure about the ratios.

我不确定比率。

I think both will be amplified.

我认为两者都会被放大。

But what’s the right way to think about the division?

但思考这种划分的正确方法是什么？

Well, I think proprietary is a classic set of things.

嗯，我认为专有是一组经典的东西。

One is the safety issues we were talking about before, but also certain things will be access to very large compute, access to certain sorts of customers or business models.

一是我们之前讨论过的安全问题，但某些事情将涉及访问非常大的计算，访问某些类型的客户或业务模型。

Business position on those things will tend to lock in certain kind of proprietary things.

在这些事物上的商业地位往往会锁定某些专有事物。

On the other hand, I think there will be a bunch of open-access as well as open-source side of things.

另一方面，我认为将会有很多开放获取和开源方面的事情。

What’s the chance that we’re in a new AI winter?

我们面临新的人工智能冬天的可能性有多大？

The next 10 years we’ll just spend developing applications of what we have.

未来 10 年，我们将只用现有技术开发应用程序。

That will be amazing, but the sequel to GPT-4 won’t be that much better.

这将是令人惊奇的，但 GPT-4 的续集也不会好多少。

I think the chance that we won’t have at least five years of really interesting progress rounds to zero.

我认为我们至少五年内不会有真正有趣的进展为零的机会。

Even if the raw capabilities .

即使原始能力。

.

。

.

。

Say you are an oracle from the future, and you tell me that the real scale curve is limited at GPT-4, and there’s not much coming.

假设你是来自未来的预言机，你告诉我真实的规模曲线仅限于 GPT-4，而且不会有太多变化。

There’s still a bunch of tuning, there’s still a bunch of product specialization, there’s still a bunch of making it good for teachers and students, making it good for doctors, making it good for —

还有很多调整，还有很多产品专业化，还有很多让它对教师和学生有利，对医生有利，对 有利——

But that’s applications, right?

但这就是应用程序，对吧？

Like big breakthrough.

就像重大突破一样。

GPT-4 feels like witchcraft compared to 2.

与 2 相比，GPT-4 感觉就像巫术。

Yes.

是的。

And maybe we’ll just have 10 years where nothing feels like witchcraft compared to 4.

也许我们只有 10 年，与 4 年相比，没有什么感觉像巫术。

Oh, so what’s the chance that there’s no more astounding?

哦，那么有什么可能不再令人震惊呢？

Very low.

非常低。

Look at, for example, what AlphaFold did with protein folding.

例如，看看 AlphaFold 对蛋白质折叠的作用。

And I think that application of this stuff and tuning it within particular biological sciences and other things — I think there’s a line of sight to more things.

我认为这些东西的应用并在特定的生物科学和其他事物中对其进行调整 - 我认为有更多事物的视线。

What’s the most important binding constraint preventing us from being at that next stage right now?

目前阻止我们进入下一阶段的最重要的约束性约束是什么？

Is it quality of data, degree of data, the system itself, just raw horsepower?

是数据质量、数据程度、系统本身还是原始马力？

What is it?

它是什么？

I think it’s compute, then talent, then data.

我认为首先是计算，然后是人才，然后是数据。

When you say compute, you mean we just need to buy more GPUs and spend more money, and it may or may not be worth it for companies to do that?

当你说计算时，你的意思是我们只需要购买更多的 GPU 并花更多的钱，而公司这样做可能值得也可能不值得？

Also, how you organize the compute.

另外，你如何组织计算。

There’s a whole thing about when you’re in the lead, you know how to build the computers.

当你处于领先地位时，你就知道如何建造计算机。

You know which configurations are working or not, how to run them, what the training runs are.

您知道哪些配置有效或无效、如何运行它们以及训练运行是什么。

Ten years from now, how important will the price of electricity be?

十年后，电价有多重要？

Well, I think the price of electricity is always important.

嗯，我认为电价始终很重要。

If we get fusion, and I think it is good to be working on especially carbon —

如果我们实现聚变，我认为特别是在碳方面进行研究是件好事——

But fusion will be slow, even if you’re optimistic, right?

但即使你很乐观，融合也会很慢，对吧？

Yes, 100 percent.

是的，100%。

Which is one of the reasons why, I think, along with you, I’m a huge advocate of nuclear fission as well.

我想，这就是为什么我和你一样，也是核裂变的大力倡导者的原因之一。

Right.

正确的。

I think, obviously, we should be doing everything possible on solar and a bunch of others, but electricity — the AI revolution is the cognitive industrial revolution powered by electricity, and so, super important.

我认为，显然，我们应该在太阳能和其他许多方面尽一切可能，但电力 ——人工智能革命是由电力驱动的认知工业革命，因此非常重要。

It’s like the Dune world with spice, but now it’s electricity.

这就像充满香料的沙丘世界，但现在是电力。

Yes.

是的。

The electricity is part of what both creates and helps you see the future, just like spice.

电力是创造未来并帮助您预见未来的一部分，就像香料一样。

What did you think of the Dune movie, by the way?

顺便问一下，你觉得《沙丘》电影怎么样？

You must have seen it.

你一定见过它。

Spectacular.

壮观。

Almost like a painting.

几乎就像一幅画。

One of the scenes made me think of Caravaggio.

其中一个场景让我想起了卡拉瓦乔。

I think you know exactly which scene, given the art, and I’m impatient for the November 23 release of Part Two.

考虑到艺术效果，我想你已经清楚知道哪个场景了，而且我对 11 月 23 日发布的第二部分已经迫不及待了。

Given GPT models, which philosopher has most risen in importance in your eyes?

考虑到 GPT 模型，哪位哲学家在您眼中的重要性上升最快？

Some people say Wittgenstein.

有人说维特根斯坦。

I don’t think it’s obvious.

我认为这并不明显。

I think I said Wittgenstein earlier.

我想我之前说过维特根斯坦。

In Fireside Chatbots, I brought in Wittgenstein in language games.

在《炉边聊天机器人》中，我在语言游戏中引入了维特根斯坦。

Peirce maybe.

也许是皮尔斯。

Who else?

还有谁？

Peirce is good.

皮尔斯很好。

Now I happen to have read Wittgenstein at Oxford, so I can comment in some depth.

现在我碰巧在牛津读过维特根斯坦的书，所以我可以进行一些深入的评论。

The question about language and language games and forms of life and how these large language models might mirror human forms of life because they’re trained on human language is a super interesting question, like Wittgenstein.

关于语言、语言游戏和生命形式的问题，以及这些大型语言模型如何反映人类的生命形式，因为它们接受了人类语言的训练，这是一个非常有趣的问题，就像维特根斯坦一样。

What in science fiction do you feel has risen the most in status for you?

您认为科幻小说中的哪些内容对您来说地位提升最大？

Oh, for me.

哦，对我来说。

Not in the world.

不在世上。

We don’t know yet.

我们还不知道。

Yes.

是的。

We don’t know yet.

我们还不知道。

You think, “Oh, this was really important.” Vernor Vinge or .

你会想，“哦，这真的很重要。”弗诺·文奇或。

.

。

.

。

Well, this is going to seem maybe like a strange answer to you, but I’ve been rereading David Brin’s Uplift series very carefully because the theory of, “How should we create other kinds of intelligences, and what should that theory be, and what should be our shepherding and governance function and symbiosis?” is a question that we have to think about over time.

好吧，这对你来说可能是一个奇怪的答案，但我一直在非常仔细地重读大卫·布林的提升系列，因为这个理论是“我们应该如何创造其他类型的智能，这个理论应该是什么，我们的牧养和治理功能和共生应该是什么？”是我们必须长期思考的问题。

He went straight at this in a biological sense, but it’s the same thing, just a different substrate with the Uplift series.

他从生物学意义上直截了当地谈到了这一点，但这是同一件事，只是与 Uplift 系列的基材不同。

I’ve recently reread the entire Uplift series.

我最近重读了整个提升系列。

When you can talk to a dolphin, what will you want to ask it?

当你可以和海豚交谈时，你想问它什么？

One of the things I love is these words that are in some languages and not others.

我喜欢的事情之一是这些单词在某些语言中而不是在其他语言中。

Whether it’s Komorebi or Ubuntu, all these different things because it’s these different lenses of human experiences.

无论是 Komorebi 还是 Ubuntu，所有这些都是不同的，因为它们是人类体验的不同视角。

It would almost be like, “What are the words in dolphin that aren’t in our language?

几乎就像是，“海豚中有哪些单词是我们语言中没有的？

Can you try, through an ocean darkly, try to share what it is, that concept that you’re gesturing at, to learn it?” That would be the question I would most be interested in the answer.

你能尝试穿过黑暗的海洋，尝试分享它是什么，你所指的那个概念，并学习它吗？”这将是我最想知道答案的问题。

Which will be the easiest animal for us to learn how to talk to, in essence?

从本质上讲，哪种动物是我们最容易学会如何与之交谈的动物？

Will it be dolphins?

会是海豚吗？

Chimpanzees?

黑猩猩？

Chimps.

黑猩猩。

Chimps.

黑猩猩。

We share not just a bunch of biology, but a world that we’re navigating.

我们不仅拥有共同的生物学知识，还拥有共同的世界。

But we sort of talk to them already, gorillas.

但我们已经和它们交谈过了，大猩猩。

But dolphins: “Rrrrrr, what are you saying?” You could actually tape the dolphins, apply an LLM to it, right?

但是海豚：“呃呃呃，你在说什么？”你实际上可以把海豚绑起来，然后申请法学硕士学位，对吧？

That should work.

那应该有效。

Well, that’s what Earth Species Project is working on.

嗯，这就是地球物种项目正在致力于的事情。

What do you think that costs?

你认为这要花多少钱？

We don’t know.

我们不知道。

We’re trying to get the taping, and we’re trying to see.

我们正在尝试获取录音，并且正在尝试查看。

What have you learned about friendship from working with LLMs?

您从与法学硕士的工作中学到了什么关于友谊的知识？

I would say I haven’t learned anything particular about friendship yet, although the way that I got to Impromptu was — as you know, I’ve been working for decades on one or more books about friendship.

我想说，我还没有学到任何关于友谊的特别知识，尽管我进入即兴创作的方式是——正如你所知，几十年来我一直在写一本或多本关于友谊的书。

I started using GPT-4 as a personal assistant, a research assistant on this, which is, I think, one good thing that everyone should use these things on, an in-depth of doing it.

我开始使用 GPT-4 作为个人助理，这方面的研究助理，我认为这是一件好事，每个人都应该使用这些东西，深入地去做。

I started asking it questions that I’ve always been wanting to do research on, like how would you compare and contrast a Chinese conception of friendship with a Western conception of friendship?

我开始问它一些我一直想研究的问题，比如你如何比较和对比中国的友谊观和西方的友谊观？

What have you most learned about yourself working with LLMs?

在与法学硕士一起工作的过程中，您最了解的是什么？

Well, I think this is one of the things we always learn.

嗯，我认为这是我们经常学习的事情之一。

For example, five, ten years ago, we were beating the drum on the Turing Test, and now we’ve sailed past the Turing Test, and almost no one’s really talked about it.

例如，五年、十年前，我们在图灵测试上大肆宣传，现在我们已经顺利通过了图灵测试，几乎没有人真正谈论它。

We learn, “Oh, actually, in fact, what was unique is not the Turing Test.

我们了解到，“哦，实际上，事实上，独特的不是图灵测试。

It’s these other things.”

就是这些其他的事情。”

No, I didn’t.

不，我没有。

Absolutely did not.

绝对没有。

But for most guests, I do.

但对于大多数客人来说，我愿意。

But the GPT-4 suggestions are kind of vanilla.

但 GPT-4 的建议有点普通。

They’re just not that interesting.

他们只是没那么有趣。

It’s like, “Ask Tyler about economics and what’s going to happen in macroeconomics in the next decade.” Eh, not an interesting question.

就像，“向泰勒询问经济学以及未来十年宏观经济学会发生什么。”呃，这不是一个有趣的问题。

The Wittgenstein question — that’s an interesting question.

维特根斯坦问题 ——这是一个有趣的问题。

I don’t think there’s anything structurally it doesn’t, but I tried to get it to generate a whole bunch of questions — complete failure.

我不认为它在结构上有任何问题，但我试图让它产生一大堆问题 —— 彻底失败。

I think you get better questions from it if you don’t ask it, “What should I ask Tyler?

我认为如果你不问“我应该问泰勒什么？

What should I ask Reid?” If you come up with, “What’s the weirdest question you can imagine concerning both science fiction novels and LLMs?” I think you’ll get a better question.

我该问里德什么？”如果你提出“关于科幻小说和法学硕士，你能想象到的最奇怪的问题是什么？”我想你会得到一个更好的问题。

Well, we’ll try it.

好吧，我们会尝试一下。

My guess is it still won’t be as interesting as the question you or I could generate in a minute or two on the same prompt.

我的猜测是，它仍然不会像你或我在同一提示下在一两分钟内生成的问题那么有趣。

How will human aspiration change due to LLMs?

法学硕士将如何改变人类的愿望？

Hopefully, get greatly amplified.

希望能得到极大的放大。

Our aspirations should be very ambitious, and I think LLMs and AI should, if anything, increase them.

我们的愿望应该非常雄心勃勃，我认为法学硕士和人工智能应该（如果有的话）增加我们的愿望。

One thing I’ve learned is, I never get sick of watching the magic.

我学到的一件事是，我永远不会厌倦观看魔术。

At first, I thought, “Well, for how long will I still get kicks from this?” But it’s still running.

起初，我想：“好吧，我还能因此受到刺激多久？”但它仍在运行。

Hasn’t asymptoted for me.

对我来说还没有渐近。

Yes, exactly.

是的，完全正确。

What will happen to social trust as a result of LLMs?

获得法学硕士学位后，社会信任会发生什么变化？

Go up, go down?

往上走，往下走？

How will it change?

它将如何改变？

Well, unfortunately, probably initially it’ll go down in everything from deep fakes and a bunch of uncertainty, because humans trusting humans is another issue that we have.

好吧，不幸的是，最初它可能会因深度造假和一系列不确定性而下降，因为人类信任人类是我们面临的另一个问题。

I’m hopeful that maybe we can begin to figure out some ways to have shared discourse, shared discovery of truth, and I would love to have LLM work helping and amplifying that.

我希望我们可以开始找到一些方法来共同讨论、共同发现真理，我希望法学硕士能够帮助和扩大这一点。

That’s part of what I’m doing at Stanford with human-centered AI and other places because it’s really important to solve.

这是我在斯坦福大学和其他地方所做的以人为中心的人工智能工作的一部分，因为解决这个问题非常重要。

Thinking globally, which group or groups in the world will be the biggest gainers?

放眼全球，世界上哪个或哪些群体将成为最大的受益者？

Well, I think access and use of AI stuff will be amplifying, and so, therefore, people who are using it will be gaining.

嗯，我认为人工智能产品的访问和使用将会扩大，因此，使用它的人将会受益。

The access to it and the amplification, I think, will really matter.

我认为，获得它并扩大影响力确实很重要。

Say I gained from it, but I’m doing fine.

说我从中得到了好处，但我做得很好。

I just can’t gain that much, no matter how good it is.

我就是无法获得那么多，无论它有多好。

My theory is people, say, in Kenya, where there’s a lot of internet access that’s good enough — they’ll have some cheaper open-source model.

我的理论是，比如说，肯尼亚的人们，那里有很多足够好的互联网接入——他们将拥有一些更便宜的开源模型。

The young Kenyans who are very smart and ambitious will gain enormous amounts, and the AI itself will send to a trusted intermediary information about their ability.

非常聪明和雄心勃勃的肯尼亚年轻人将获得巨大的财富，而人工智能本身将向值得信赖的中介发送有关他们能力的信息。

They will, in fact, get phenomenal job offers from other places, and they will gain the most.

事实上，他们会从其他地方获得惊人的工作机会，而且他们会获益最多。

Now, that might be wrong, but that would be my answer.

现在，这可能是错误的，但这就是我的答案。

I think that’s true, although I think that’s because the more that we have a good global connectivity, the more we have a rise of talent from everywhere.

我认为这是事实，尽管我认为这是因为我们越拥有良好的全球连通性，我们就越有来自世界各地的人才崛起。

AI, added to that connectivity, will exactly amplify that.

添加到这种连接性中的人工智能将准确地放大这种连接性。

I do think that the notion of human application — the people who are best amplified or best connected into our global ecosystem — and I think we all benefit from it.

我确实认为人类应用的概念——“最能放大或最好地融入我们的全球生态系统的人”——我认为我们都从中受益。

One of the things that you and I share about the joy of amplifying talent from everywhere is that, in fact, amplifying talent benefits all of us.

你和我分享的关于扩大各地人才的乐趣之一是，事实上，扩大人才对我们所有人都有好处。

Are the mediocre wordcels the biggest losers?

平庸的wordcels是最大的输家吗？

Will Marc Andreessen go away happy, so to speak?

可以这么说，马克·安德森会幸福地离开吗？

HOFFMAN: Funny.

霍夫曼：有趣。

I’d say the losers are people who are uncurious, who want to live in the past, who don’t care about learning the future at a broad base.

我想说，失败者是那些缺乏好奇心、只想活在过去、不关心广泛了解未来的人。

We have a term for this: Luddites.

我们对此有一个术语：卢德分子。

Steve Jobs said that computers are the bicycles of the mind.

史蒂夫·乔布斯说，计算机是心灵的自行车。

We now have, with AI, the steam engines of the mind.

现在，有了人工智能，我们就拥有了心灵的蒸汽机。

Should a co-authored book with an LLM have First Amendment protections?

与法学硕士合着的书是否应该受到第一修正案的保护？

Again, you have such a book: Impromptu.

再说一遍，你有这样一本书：即兴创作。

I’d say the LLM shouldn’t have First Amendment, but I think co-authors — I can own the First Amendment protection.

我想说法学硕士不应该有第一修正案，但我认为合著者 - 我可以拥有第一修正案的保护。

It’s what I say.

这就是我说的。

But it can always hire a co-author for some nominal sum, where the co-author adds a few words.

但它总是可以以象征性的价格聘请一位合著者，其中合著者会添加一些文字。

It’s a co-authored output.

这是共同创作的输出。

Once you allow the co-authored work through the door, anything can be co-authored, and who knows who did how much of the work.

一旦你允许共同创作的作品通过，任何东西都可以共同创作，而且谁知道谁做了多少工作。

You’re granting First Amendment rights to LLMs, which maybe I’m fine with, but is that an implication?

你们授予法学硕士第一修正案的权利，也许我对此没什么意见，但这是否是一种暗示？

Well, I don’t think you have to grant the rights to them.

好吧，我认为你不必授予他们权利。

You have to have a person who is saying, “This is me.

你必须有一个人说：“这就是我。

I own this.”

我拥有这个。”

Oh, but there’ll be a company that hires such people known for their obedience to go along with what the LLM wants.

哦，但是会有一家公司雇佣这种以服从而闻名的人来配合法学硕士的要求。

They’ll pay the person a quarter; the person will add three words to the thing.

他们会付给这个人四分之一的钱；这个人会在事物上添加三个词。

Look, can you today buy someone’s First Amendment right of free speech?

瞧，今天你能购买某人的第一修正案言论自由权吗？

Yes, because you can pay them and give them the thing to say.

是的，因为你可以付钱给他们并让他们有话可说。

That’s just the thing.

就是这样。

That doesn’t necessarily mean the LLMs themselves have those rights.

这并不一定意味着法学硕士本身就拥有这些权利。

Your background with LinkedIn — which features of LLMs do you feel that’s given you a better or deeper appreciation for?

您在 LinkedIn 的背景 — 您认为法学硕士的哪些特点让您有更好或更深入的欣赏？

With LinkedIn?

使用领英？

Well, you’re bringing a different conceptual matrix to everything, including LLMs.

好吧，你正在为一切事物带来不同的概念矩阵，包括法学硕士。

You’ve done LinkedIn for quite a while.

您使用 LinkedIn 已经有一段时间了。

Obviously, a key role in its creation.

显然，在其创建过程中发挥了关键作用。

How does that make you see LLMs differently?

这对您对法学硕士有何不同的看法？

I have my own hypothesis, but I want to hear yours.

我有我自己的假设，但我想听听你的。

One of the things that I did when I was doing this is, we’ve kicked off a product — which is, I believe, live now at LinkedIn — called Bizpedia, which is trying to provide an in-depth Wikipedia for all of the information that professionals might need.

我在做这件事时所做的一件事是，我们启动了一个名为 Bizpedia 的产品 ——我相信它现在在 LinkedIn 上运行—— 它试图为专业人士可能需要的所有信息提供一个深入的维基百科。

Anything like, what are the different career paths?

类似的，有哪些不同的职业道路？

What are the job skills?

工作技能有哪些？

How would I do this particular job better?

我怎样才能更好地完成这项工作？

How do I learn it if I wanted to transition and get into it?

如果我想转型并进入其中，我该如何学习？

It’s, again, that human amplification.

这又是人类的放大效应。

My answer would be this.

我的回答是这样的。

There were uses of LinkedIn that might appear anodyne to a lot of snobby outside observers but are super useful to people who do them, and I think LLMs will be the same.

对于很多势利的外部观察者来说，LinkedIn 的某些用途可能显得平淡无奇，但对于从事这些工作的人来说却非常有用，我认为法学硕士也会有同样的情况。

People in poorer countries — they want it to write a business plan for them.

较贫穷国家的人们 ——他们希望它为他们编写商业计划。

The business plan will sound too McKinsey-like to please a lot of people who think they’re better than that, but in fact, it will be super useful.

该商业计划听起来太像麦肯锡，无法取悦许多自认为比这更好的人，但事实上，它将非常有用。

Ah, yes, I think that’s true.

啊，是的，我认为确实如此。

And again, in the human amplification, I think it’s like, “Oh, look, it’ll write the business plan.

再一次，在人类放大中，我认为这就像，“哦，看，它会写商业计划。

I don’t need it to.” But you adding to it will make it a lot better.

我不需要它。”但你添加它会让它变得更好。

Yes, but I think also your LinkedIn background — it makes you more sympathetic to a partial subscription model, which maybe is the future for LLMs.

是的，但我认为你的 LinkedIn 背景也让你更倾向于部分订阅模式，这可能是法学硕士的未来。

It’s definitely a future, for sure, and what percentage?

这绝对是未来，当然，比例是多少？

I don’t know.

我不知道。

Could be 20, could be 80.

可能是20，也可能是80。

Do you think subscription is the economic future of LLMs for the next 10 years?

您认为订阅是法学硕士未来 10 年的经济未来吗？

I think it’s definitely a future, but by the way, LLMs, as has already been announced, will be used to generate advertising.

我认为这绝对是一个未来，但顺便说一句，正如已经宣布的那样，法学硕士将用于生成广告。

You’re allowed to use hindsight here, but as a talent scout yourself, how do you think of the strengths of Sam Altman in doing what he’s done?

你可以在这里使用事后诸葛亮，但作为一名星探，你如何看待萨姆·奥尔特曼所做的事情的优势？

I think this is an amazing gift to the world by Sam and the entire team.

我认为这是 Sam 和整个团队给世界的一份了不起的礼物。

Sam, I think, assembles great people and helps them with high ambition.

我认为山姆聚集了优秀的人才并帮助他们实现远大的抱负。

That’s one of the things that is under-described about Sam.

这是关于山姆的未被充分描述的事情之一。

I think that he also doesn’t try to take for himself the hero role.

我认为他也没有试图为自己扮演英雄角色。

He catalyzes other people.

他催化其他人。

OpenAI — right now, I think they have about 375 employees.

OpenAI ——目前，我认为他们大约有 375 名员工。

During the critical breakthrough period, of course, they had even fewer.

当然，在关键突破时期，他们的数量就更少了。

Is that a new model of some kind?

这是某种新模型吗？

Or is it the old model, but it’s the alliance with Microsoft that makes everything work?

或者是旧模式，但与微软的联盟让一切都运转起来？

Midjourney, I’ve heard, is 11 or 12 employees, which is crazy, right?

我听说中途有 11 或 12 名员工，这太疯狂了，对吧？

Yes.

是的。

Look, Instagram, when Greylock funded it, was 13 employees.

看，当 Greylock 资助 Instagram 时，它有 13 名员工。

It is an amplification of the general software model, where you can have very small teams that produce things that are Archimedean levers that move the world.

它是通用软件模型的放大，您可以拥有非常小的团队来生产推动世界的阿基米德杠杆。

Now, you do need, in all of those cases, massive compute infrastructure, like AWS existed for Instagram, and so forth.

现在，在所有这些情况下，您确实需要大规模的计算基础设施，例如 Instagram 的 AWS 等。

You need that in order to make it happen, but a small team of software people can create amazing things.

为了实现这一目标，您需要这一点，但是一小群软件人员可以创造出令人惊叹的东西。

How is higher education going to change?

高等教育将如何改变？

And exactly who or what will do it?

到底是谁或什么会做这件事？

As you know, higher education is very resistant to change.

如您所知，高等教育非常抵制变革。

It actually is, believe it or not.

不管你信不信，事实确实如此。

Yes, and yet, it should be changing.

是的，但是，它应该改变。

It should be reconceptualizing its way that it amplifies young people and launches them into the world.

它应该重新构想它的方式，以扩大年轻人并将他们推向世界。

It should be providing LLMs that are tutors and helpful.

它应该提供作为导师和有帮助的法学硕士。

It should be having LLMs that are helping professors do research and communicate with each other, like AI, and doing all this stuff.

应该让法学硕士帮助教授们进行研究和相互交流，比如人工智能，并做所有这些事情。

It should be embracing all of that with full force.

它应该全力拥抱这一切。

And yet, most of it is, I think, ignoring what’s currently happening.

然而，我认为，大多数人都忽略了当前正在发生的事情。

Sure, but what actually breaks in the system because of that?

当然可以，但是到底是什么导致了系统的崩溃呢？

Who rebels?

谁造反？

Well, it’s easy to read the tea leaves of the future in the past.

嗯，从过去解读未来的茶叶很容易。

Michael Crow at ASU doing amazing work.

亚利桑那州立大学的迈克尔·克劳（Michael Crow）做了令人惊叹的工作。

I think he will trailblaze.

我认为他会开创先河。

Ben Nelson at Minerva.

密涅瓦的本·尼尔森。

We had him on our Possible podcast.

我们的Possible 播客上邀请了他。

I think these folks will eventually get other people to say, “This is where the world’s going, and it’s really good.”

我认为这些人最终会让其他人说：“这就是世界的发展方向，而且真的很好。”

So students will switch to the institutions that are doing a better job, and you think that the network effects are not too strong to stop that?

所以学生会转向做得更好的院校，你认为网络效应不会太强来阻止这种情况吗？

No.

不。

Here’s a general question, quite removed from the world of AI.

这是一个与人工智能世界完全无关的普遍问题。

I’ve discussed this with Patrick Collison a fair amount.

我和帕特里克·科里森（Patrick Collison）对此进行了大量讨论。

It seems to me that after World War II, most of the Western world, maybe all of it — we simply stopped building beautiful neighborhoods.

在我看来，二战后，西方世界的大部分地区，也许是全部——我们只是停止建设美丽的社区。

There are plenty of beautiful individual buildings, artworks, music, whatever, but actual complete neighborhoods as a whole — they’re now basically boring and mediocre, even if they’re very pleasant to live in.

这里有很多美丽的独立建筑、艺术品、音乐等等，但作为一个整体，它们实际上是完整的社区——它们现在基本上是无聊和平庸的，即使它们居住起来非常愉快。

Why did that change?

为什么会发生这样的变化？

You can challenge the premise if you want.

如果你愿意，你可以挑战这个前提。

I don’t know.

我不知道。

If I have to speculate, it’s because it’s the general kind of industrialization that makes it, “Hey, figure out what is the thing that is closest to what most people want and produce a lot more of that.” Maybe it’s that.

如果我必须推测的话，那是因为这是一种普遍的工业化，“嘿，找出最接近大多数人想要的东西，然后生产更多这样的东西。”也许就是这样。

Medieval towns in Europe — they’re beautiful.

欧洲的中世纪城镇 ——它们很美丽。

There’s a certain sameness to them, but we admire the beauty all the more.

它们有一定的相似之处，但我们更加欣赏它们的美丽。

It doesn’t seem that it’s sameness per se that’s lowering the aesthetic quality.

看起来雷同本身并不降低审美品质。

Yes.

是的。

It could be production costs, and that’s part of the industrialization.

这可能是生产成本，这是工业化的一部分。

Like now, how do we produce each one at a lower marginal cost?

就像现在一样，我们如何以较低的边际成本生产每一种产品？

I would hope that what we will see .

我希望我们能看到什么。

.

。

.

。

What is it about our current culture in America — putting aside politics, but culture — that concerns you most?

您最关心的美国当前文化——“抛开政治，但文化”是什么？

Culture.

文化。

I would say it obviously ties to politics a little bit, but I think a culture that says we should have civil discourse to get to reasoned arguments and information — which obviously includes science — about what should be is the thing that is like what kicked us off from the Enlightenment and from the Renaissance.

我想说，这显然与政治有一点联系，但我认为，一种文化说我们应该通过公民话语来获得合理的论据和信息——这显然包括科学——关于应该是什么的文化，就像是让我们脱离启蒙运动和文艺复兴的东西一样。

It’s important to keep that in our fundamental bones and genetics, and we are straying from it in very, very dangerous ways.

将这一点保留在我们的基本骨骼和遗传学中非常重要，但我们正在以非常非常危险的方式偏离它。

It seems that a lot of mental health indicators have become worse in this country, maybe all the more so for young people.

这个国家的很多心理健康指标似乎都变得更糟，对于年轻人来说尤其如此。

Why is that?

这是为什么？

I don’t fully know.

我不完全知道。

I do think that we’ve certainly seen the indicators get worse.

我确实认为我们确实看到指标变得更糟。

Is it because kids are always connected to a little bit more Lord of the Flies, and they’re always connected to other kids?

是因为孩子们总是与蝇王有更多的联系，并且他们总是与其他孩子有联系吗？

Is it because they have the insecurities of being amplified, like cyberbullying following you into the home?

是因为他们有被放大的不安全感，比如网络欺凌跟着你进家吗？

Is it because the technology is not built the right way to try to reinforce mental health?

是因为该技术没有以正确的方式构建来加强心理健康吗？

I think we can do that.

我认为我们可以做到。

Now, we’re sitting here in the suburbs in Menlo Park, but will AI save the San Francisco tech scene?

现在，我们坐在门洛帕克的郊区，但人工智能会拯救旧金山的科技界吗？

Or is that just going to vanish because of poor governance?

或者说，这种情况会因为治理不善而消失吗？

I think in many ways, San Francisco is doing everything it can to self-immolate on the tech scene.

我认为，从很多方面来说，旧金山正在尽一切努力在科技领域自焚。

But there are some major triumphs as of late, right?

但最近取得了一些重大胜利，对吗？

They’re in the city itself.

他们就在城市里。

They’re not on Sand Hill Road.

他们不在沙山路。

Yes, but it’s throughout the entire Valley.

是的，但它遍布整个山谷。

Yes, OpenAI is amazing.

是的，OpenAI 太棒了。

I do think that there are network effects throughout all of Silicon Valley.

我确实认为整个硅谷都存在网络效应。

My advice to San Francisco, just as my advice to many other things, is try to channel the stuff that’s going on here to help all the rest.

我对旧金山的建议，就像我对许多其他事情的建议一样，是尝试引导这里发生的事情来帮助其他所有人。

Ten or fifteen years ago, it seems we had so many tech CEOs — either in their 20s or possibly even teenagers — seeing considerable success.

十年或十五年前，我们似乎有很多科技公司的首席执行官 ——“要么是 20 多岁，甚至可能是青少年”——取得了相当大的成功。

It doesn’t seem we have people in that age range anymore.

看来我们已经没有那个年龄段的人了。

Like Sam Altman — he’s, I think, 38, maybe 37.

就像 Sam Altman 一样——我想他 38 岁，也许 37 岁。

Why are CEOs older now, the more important ones?

为什么现在的CEO越来越老了，而且越来越重要了？

What’s changed?

发生了什么变化？

I think we will see some new additional young folks, and look, the history of the current status quo is, CEOs tend to be older.

我认为我们会看到一些新的年轻人，而且从目前的历史来看，首席执行官往往年龄更大。

I think it’s the younger CEOs that tend to be the new struggling companies.

我认为年轻的首席执行官往往会成为陷入困境的新公司。

Remember, there’s not just Sam Altman.

请记住，不仅仅是山姆·奥尔特曼。

There’s also Patrick Collison, there’s also Brian Chesky, there are also those sorts of folks.

还有帕特里克·科里森（Patrick Collison），还有布莱恩·切斯基（Brian Chesky），还有这类人。

They were CEOs when they were younger, and there will be a new crop, there.

他们年轻时曾担任首席执行官，那里将会出现新的一批人。

I am confident there will be a new crop of them before too long.

我相信不久之后就会有新的一批。

But what if it’s the case, there’s less low-hanging fruit, the abilities you need are more synthetic, social networks are more important?

但如果是这样的话，唾手可得的成果越来越少，你需要的能力更加综合，社交网络更加重要，该怎么办？

This will favor the 35-year-olds rather than the 19-year-olds.

这将有利于 35 岁的人，而不是 19 岁的人。

Could that possibly be true?

这可能是真的吗？

It’s possibly true.

这可能是真的。

There are definitely industrial cycles where you have to spend more time building up your position to get the capital credit to be entrepreneurial, bold, in charge, et cetera.

肯定有一些产业周期，你必须花更多的时间来建立自己的地位，以获得资本信用，以实现创业、大胆、负责等等。

There’ve definitely been cycles of that in history.

历史上肯定有过这样的循环。

I don’t think it’s impossible, but I do think it’s a little bit like you were gesturing, with small groups doing stuff with software.

我不认为这是不可能的，但我确实认为这有点像你在打手势，小组用软件做事。

Because you can have small groups doing stuff with software, you’ll still have young CEOs, young founders.

因为你可以让小组用软件来做事，所以你仍然会有年轻的首席执行官、年轻的创始人。

She or he will still be new blazing entrants into the world change leaders.

她或他仍将是世界变革领导者中的新晋者。

The Bay Area as a whole — do you think that will remain as important as it’s been?

湾区作为一个整体 — 您认为这还会像以前一样重要吗？

Categorically, yes.

绝对地，是的。

If there’s a tech start-up scene that is currently underrated — in the world or in the US — where would that be?

如果有一个目前被低估的科技初创企业——“在世界上或在美国”——“那会是哪里？

I’ll say something mildly provocative just because it’s entertaining — not Miami, since there’s this whole crew that’s like, “Miami is the future.” I think network effects of talent and everything else is much more here and other places.

我会说一些温和的挑衅性的话，只是因为它很有趣——而不是迈阿密，因为整个工作人员都在说，“迈阿密就是未来。”我认为人才和其他一切的网络效应在这里和其他地方更加明显。

I think Austin is doing really interesting things.

我认为奥斯汀正在做非常有趣的事情。

I think New York is doing interesting things.

我认为纽约正在做一些有趣的事情。

I think London’s doing interesting things.

我认为伦敦正在做一些有趣的事情。

Surprisingly, I think there are interesting things in Paris and Berlin.

令人惊讶的是，我认为巴黎和柏林有一些有趣的事情。

Sweden — yes or no?

瑞典 — 是还是不是？

Sweden, yes.

瑞典，是的。

Obviously, Spotify and a bunch of other stuff.

显然，Spotify 和其他一些东西。

They punch way above their population weight, but since they’re a small population, they don’t tend to have a lot of immigration.

他们的影响力远高于其人口比重，但由于他们人口较少，因此往往不会有大量移民。

I tend to think you need those to really get the flywheels going.

我倾向于认为你需要这些才能真正让飞轮运转起来。

Any hope for Poland plus Ukraine?

波兰和乌克兰还有希望吗？

Or you don’t see it yet?

或者你还没有看到它？

I hope for it.

我希望如此。

I don’t see it yet.

我还没看到。

Obviously, there are other difficulties that are impeding right now.

显然，目前还存在其他困难。

But if, say, it’s centered in Poland.

但如果说它以波兰为中心。

People from Russia and Ukraine — they go to Poland.

来自俄罗斯和乌克兰的人——他们去了波兰。

Poland becomes a new center with talent, basically, from three nations where —

波兰成为一个新的人才中心，基本上来自三个国家：

Yes, totally possible.

是的，完全有可能。

How much do you worry about low and declining fertility as a social problem for the West, for East Asia?

对于西方和东亚来说，低生育率和生育率下降是一个社会问题，您对此有多担心？

One thing that I thought about writing an essay on — maybe I’ll still do it — is, it isn’t, “Oh, God, the robots are coming for our jobs.” It’s, “Oh, God, can the robots get here soon enough?” Our whole system has been based upon the fact that we have a growing population so that the growing population can take care of the elderly.

我在写一篇关于“也许我仍然会这样做”的文章时想到的一件事是，它不是“哦，上帝，机器人来抢我们的工作了。”这是，“哦，上帝，机器人能尽快到达这里吗？”我们的整个制度是建立在人口不断增长的基础上的，以便不断增长的人口能够照顾老年人。

If you don’t have that, you have a serious reorientation of our entire society.

如果做不到这一点，我们整个社会就会面临严重的重新定位。

China is going to run into that in a huge way, and so forth.

中国将在很大程度上遇到这个问题，等等。

Let’s say we can afford it because of something like robots or AI.

假设我们因为机器人或人工智能之类的东西而负担得起。

Doesn’t that, in a sense, make the problem worse?

从某种意义上说，这不是让问题变得更糟吗？

We feel less of an emergency.

我们感觉不太紧急。

South Korea — they’re at 0.8.

韩国 ——他们的得分为 0.8。

Just keep the clock on ticking.

只要保持时钟滴答作响即可。

Eventually, they basically don’t have people left.

最终，他们基本上已经没有人了。

How can that work out well for us?

这对我们来说怎样才能有好的结果呢？

And the fact that someone pays the bill for our collective extinguishing of the human condition doesn’t reassure me.

有人为我们集体消灭人类状况买单这一事实并不能让我放心。

Obviously, you can do the math and go to diminishing zero.

显然，你可以进行数学计算并进行减零。

I think we’ll do various forms of incentive stimulus.

我认为我们会采取各种形式的激励措施。

I think we can get it back to at least a replacement rate.

我认为我们至少可以恢复到替代率。

Among other things, we might say, “Look, actually, being a parent is a paid job.” Just because we think that that’s an important thing as a society, and we can afford that from the productivity increases we’re getting from AI and robotics.

除其他外，我们可能会说，“看，实际上，成为父母是一份有报酬的工作。”只是因为我们认为这对于一个社会来说是一件重要的事情，并且我们可以从人工智能和机器人技术带来的生产力提高中负担得起。

So, we use the robot surplus, in essence, to pay families for that to be the second or third job in the family.

因此，本质上，我们利用机器人剩余来支付家庭的第二或第三份工作的费用。

Yes, exactly.

是的，完全正确。

Politically, you think that will be super popular, people hate it, or — ?

从政治上来说，你认为这会非常受欢迎，人们讨厌它，或者 —— ？

I think we could get to a place where it would be popular.

我认为我们可以到达一个受欢迎的地方。

Right now, it’d be considered science fiction and strange.

现在，这会被认为是科幻小说，而且很奇怪。

But if our replacement rate keeps going down, then I think people will say, “Oh, no, that makes sense.”

但如果我们的替代率继续下降，那么我认为人们会说，“哦，不，这是有道理的。”

A lot of science fiction has come through.

很多科幻小说都已经出现了。

Yes.

是的。

This was the reason that you and I both love science fiction and trade recommendations on a regular basis.

这就是你我都喜欢科幻小说和定期交易推荐的原因。

Asimov’s Three Laws — how good were they?

阿西莫夫三定律——它们有多好？

I think they were really good, although they were out of conceptualization for a target.

我认为它们确实很好，尽管它们还没有达到目标的概念化。

If I were to update them, and it’s a little bit like — to reveal my nerdishness — Giskard’s zeroth law.

如果我要更新它们，那就有点像 —— 暴露我的书呆子 —— 吉斯卡德第零定律。

I think that what you really want in it is to parallel almost a Buddhist sense of the importance of life and sentience.

我认为你真正想要的是与佛教对生命和知觉重要性的认识相平行。

That’s the kind of thing that you want if you’re creating really autonomous intelligences.

如果你要创造真正自主的智能，这就是你想要的东西。

I think the kind of Uncle Tom, if it really is a totally autonomous being — hence being careful about going into it — a new form of robot slaves is perhaps not ultimately where humanity would want to be.

我认为汤姆叔叔的那种，如果它真的是一个完全自主的存在——因此要小心进入它——一种新形式的机器人奴隶也许并不是人类最终想要的。

There’s not enough stress in them, I think, in what the robots are obliged to believe.

我认为，他们对机器人必须相信的事情没有足够的压力。

A robot is free to believe something crazy and then act on it.

机器人可以自由地相信一些疯狂的事情，然后采取行动。

That seems to me the biggest weakness of the law, at least what you see in the stories.

在我看来，这似乎是法律最大的弱点，至少你在故事中看到的是这样。

Hence the alignment with human interests around, how do you amplify the quality and value of life, is, I think, a very good thing.

因此，我认为，与人类利益相一致，如何提高生活质量和价值，是一件非常好的事情。

What’s an underrated science fiction novel that maybe our listeners, readers don’t know about?

有哪些被我们的听众、读者所不知道的被低估的科幻小说？

There are lots.

有很多。

Another one that I’ve been rereading recently — because I think it’s good fun but also raises good questions in a simple, fun format — is Martha Wells’s Murderbot series.

我最近重读的另一本书是玛莎·威尔斯的谋杀机器人系列，因为我认为它很有趣，而且以简单有趣的形式提出了很好的问题。

I think it, in itself, does not really address those questions very directly, but it raises them in good ways, like persons and being a thing versus a person and so forth, within a kind of a classic sci-fi romp.

我认为它本身并没有非常直接地解决这些问题，但它以一种很好的方式提出了这些问题，比如人、物与人等等，在一种经典的科幻欢闹中。

I’ve been rereading Ursula Le Guin, The Dispossessed.

我一直在重读乌苏拉·勒吉恩的《被剥夺者》。

I’m amazed how anti-utopian and almost right-wing it is.

我很惊讶它是多么反乌托邦，而且几乎是右翼的。

Utopian society is a kind of nightmare.

乌托邦社会是一种噩梦。

Yes.

是的。

It’s partially because we need to have diversity in the human species.

部分原因是我们需要人类物种的多样性。

It’s part of how do we enable as much diversity while not allowing .

这是我们如何在不允许的情况下实现尽可能多的多样性的一部分。

.

。

.

。

It’s that the diverse creative expression part of freedom of speech, and why it is valuable, is that diversity of craziness that also creates genius.

多元化的创造性表达是言论自由的一部分，它之所以有价值，是因为疯狂的多样性也创造了天才。

What’s a game you’ve been playing more of late, and why?

您最近玩得比较多的游戏是什么？为什么？

I haven’t really had time to play games because the AI stuff is occupying a total amount of time.

我真的没有时间玩游戏，因为人工智能的东西占据了我的全部时间。

I have a stack of games, without their shrink wrap taken off, that I’m hoping to get to.

我有一堆游戏，但没有拆掉它们的保鲜膜，我希望能玩到它们。

I find the AI stuff — it’s totally wrecked my calendar.

我发现人工智能的东西 ——它完全毁了我的日历。

I had a year planned out that I could just do a whole bunch of other things.

我计划了一年可以做很多其他事情。

Now, every day you have to keep up with AI, you have to learn.

现在，你每天都必须跟上人工智能的步伐，你必须学习。

It’s like, “This doesn’t work anymore.” Throw up my hands, and I feel a bit behind on everything.

就像，“这不再起作用了。”举起双手，我感觉一切都有点落后了。

Yes, although by the way, there will be a chatbot for that.

是的，不过顺便说一句，会有一个聊天机器人。

That’s good.

那挺好的。

What’s a nonobvious problem we should be worrying about more?

我们更应该担心的不明显的问题是什么？

I think because so much of the discourse in the press is around the macro things.

我认为因为媒体上的很多讨论都是围绕宏观事物展开的。

Is AI in the hands of bad human actors?

人工智能是否掌握在不良人类演员手中？

There are a range of bad human actors, so I think that’s really important.

有很多坏的人类演员，所以我认为这非常重要。

Let’s say you’re advising a small but tech-advanced nation.

假设您正在为一个技术先进的小国提供咨询。

Singapore, Israel would be two options.

新加坡和以色列是两个选择。

Would you tell them they should build their own LLMs?

您会告诉他们应该建立自己的法学硕士吗？

It will cost them a lot per capita, but they’ll have their own LLMs.

他们的人均花费会很高，但他们会有自己的法学硕士。

I don’t think they need to, but I think they should get involved and perhaps work with the providers of LLMs to make sure that there are LLMs that fit their needs.

我认为他们不需要，但我认为他们应该参与其中，或许与法学硕士提供者合作，以确保有适合他们需求的法学硕士。

That doesn’t necessarily need to be that they build their own.

这并不一定需要他们自己构建。

They say, “Hey, we need to make sure that we have LLM provisioning for our companies and our industry and our citizens.

他们说：“嘿，我们需要确保为我们的公司、我们的行业和我们的公民提供法学硕士课程。

Okay, let’s make sure that happens, whether it’s, we spend billions of dollars to build one ourselves.” They could do that.

好吧，让我们确保这种情况发生，不管是不是，我们自己花费数十亿美元建造一个。”他们可以做到这一点。

Certainly nothing bad in doing that, but they should make sure that their industries and their citizens are provisioned.

这样做当然没有什么坏处，但他们应该确保他们的行业和公民得到保障。

We have a strategic petroleum reserve, for better or worse.

无论好坏，我们都有战略石油储备。

Should Israel have a strategic GPU reserve?

以色列是否应该拥有战略GPU储备？

Don’t nations such as the US get too much leverage over Israel if they’re dependent on us for models?

如果像美国这样的国家依赖我们的模型，他们是否会对以色列拥有太多影响力？

Right now, OpenAI’s open, but OpenAI can’t control how our government might regulate it.

目前，OpenAI 是开放的，但 OpenAI 无法控制我们政府如何监管它。

Our government might decide to use it as a foreign policy tool.

我们的政府可能决定将其用作外交政策工具。

Hand it out to countries that cooperate, deny it to countries that don’t.

把它交给合作的国家，拒绝给不合作的国家。

I think it’s an important gesture, the dependency.

我认为这是一个重要的姿态，即依赖。

But by the way, once you have the LLM, as it were, on the soil, governed by your laws, the ability of the US to do that is much less.

但顺便说一句，一旦你在你的土地上获得了法学硕士学位，并受你的法律管辖，那么美国这样做的能力就会小得多。

That’s the reason why some people will say, “We need to build the computers.” I do think depth of compute is a strategic advantage.

这就是为什么有些人会说“我们需要建造计算机”。我确实认为计算深度是一种战略优势。

It’s an important thing to take a look at, and you may want to say, “Hey, we want to make sure there’s a certain amount of compute that’s onshore, that is then aligned with the interests of our country, our society, our industries, et cetera.”

这是一件值得关注的重要事情，您可能想说，“嘿，我们希望确保有一定数量的计算在岸上，然后与我们国家、我们的社会、我们的行业等的利益保持一致。”

As you know, in EU law, there’s a right to be forgotten, but that is arguably inconsistent with current LLMs.

如您所知，在欧盟法律中，有被遗忘的权利，但这可能与当前的法学硕士不一致。

You can force a new training run by saying, “You’ve got to take me out of the current system.” But a new training run costs a lot of money.

你可以通过说“你必须让我脱离当前的系统”来强制进行新的培训。但新的训练需要花费很多钱。

To have lone individuals raising their hands and saying, “Oh, the model has to forget me.” That’s just not going to work.

让孤独的人举手说：“哦，模特必须忘记我。”那是行不通的。

Yes.

是的。

So, legally, where do you think the EU will end up on all this?

那么，从法律上来说，您认为欧盟最终会在这一切上得到什么结果呢？

There’s smart EU, dumb EU, and which one is up to them.

有聪明的欧盟，也有愚蠢的欧盟，哪一个取决于他们。

Smart EU is to say, “What we need to do is, we need to be dealing with the function of what is the culture in society.” So, we say, “We want to make sure that these AI tools have the right judiciousness in being asked about individuals.

聪明的欧盟会说，“我们需要做的是，我们需要处理文化在社会中的功能。”因此，我们说，“我们希望确保这些人工智能工具在询问个人信息时具有正确的明智性。

That’s our particular culture.” So, we say, “Okay, you have to at least have a MetaBot that could interrupt the query in some way.” That’s what that would be if that was our expression of culture and being tech-forward in how you do it.

这就是我们独特的文化。”所以，我们说，“好吧，你至少必须有一个可以以某种方式中断查询的 MetaBot。”如果这是我们文化的表达以及技术领先的做法，那就会是这样。

You’re not sure which of those will happen.

您不确定会发生哪一个。

I hope they pick the smart one.

我希望他们能选择聪明的那个。

I try as much as I can.

我尽我所能。

I think European values and insights in the future are something I learn from and value.

我认为欧洲的价值观和对未来的见解是我学习和看重的。

I want them to contribute that positively into the future.

我希望他们为未来做出积极贡献。

Will ChatGPT through VPNs just dominate China, at least for some number of years?

通过 VPN 的 ChatGPT 是否会在中国占据主导地位，至少在未来几年内如此？

Or will they somehow force people away from doing that?

或者他们会以某种方式迫使人们放弃这样做吗？

Because you’re getting Western Anglosphere information all the time, right?

因为你一直在获取西方英语圈的信息，对吧？

Including about Tiananmen, China, everything else.

包括天安门、中国、其他一切。

They have demonstrated with what they call the Golden Shield that they are committed to creating an alternative internet and an alternative series.

他们用他们所谓的“金盾”证明了他们致力于创建另类互联网和另类系列。

I think they will be able to do that, and they even have it on the control through VPNs.

我认为他们能够做到这一点，他们甚至可以通过 VPN 进行控制。

We, as Westerners, go to China, and we say, “Oh, it works just fine with VPNs.” That’s because they’re allowing our VPNs through, whereas local VPNs — they squash them.

作为西方人，我们去中国后会说：“哦，VPN 运行得很好。”那是因为他们允许我们的 VPN 通过，而本地 VPN ——他们会压制它们。

But I’ve seen some numbers.

但我看到了一些数字。

Maybe they’re not reliable, but they seem to indicate there are more ChatGPT users in China than in the US.

也许它们不可靠，但它们似乎表明中国的 ChatGPT 用户比美国还多。

Now, they have a larger population, but still, that’s a major effect that probably is happening now.

现在，他们的人口更多了，但这仍然是现在可能正在发生的重大影响。

Do they just tolerate that and let everyone query it about “Taiwan is a country” or whatever?

难道他们就这么容忍，让大家质疑“台湾是一个国家”之类的吗？

In my view, they should, but I don’t think they will.

在我看来，他们应该这样做，但我认为他们不会。

It should, but what will they do?

应该如此，但是他们会做什么呢？

What’s more is, I think because these models have less ability to put controls in them, I think that will cause problems, even in onshore development.

更重要的是，我认为因为这些模型的控制能力较差，我认为这会导致问题，即使在陆上开发中也是如此。

And there’ll be open source in China, right?

中国也会有开源，对吗？

Yes.

是的。

Once that’s more of a thing.

一旦这更重要了。

So, they’ll just lose their attempt to censor their own society?

那么，他们审查自己社会的尝试就会失败吗？

Or you think they’ll somehow triumph over everything?

或者你认为他们会以某种方式战胜一切？

They’re very smart, and they’re very committed to the censorship, so I think it’ll create additional problems for them in so doing, but I think they’ll figure out how to do it.

他们非常聪明，而且非常致力于审查制度，所以我认为这样做会给他们带来额外的问题，但我认为他们会弄清楚如何去做。

Before my last question, just to repeat, Reid’s new book, co-authored with GPT-4, is Impromptu: Amplifying Our Humanity through AI, a Wall Street Journal bestseller.

在我的最后一个问题之前，重复一下，里德与 GPT-4 合着的新书是《即兴：通过人工智能增强我们的人性》，这是《华尔街日报》的畅销书。

Finally, last question, Reid: what will you do next, other than talk to dolphins?

最后，最后一个问题，里德：除了与海豚交谈之外，你接下来会做什么？

AI is going so fast.

人工智能发展得太快了。

There’s a bunch of things that we didn’t cover in Impromptu, so I actually think we will do another book and set a content around AI, possibly within this calendar year, which will be pretty amazing.

有很多事情我们在即兴创作中没有涵盖，所以我实际上认为我们会写另一本书并围绕人工智能设置内容，可能在今年内，这将是相当惊人的。

Reid Hoffman, thank you very much.

里德霍夫曼，非常感谢你。

Thank you.

谢谢。