An inside look at X’s Community Notes | Keith Coleman & Jay Baxter
Lenny Rachitsky: The work that you guys do has had such a tremendous impact on the way the world works.
Lenny Rachitsky：你们所做的工作对世界的运作方式产生了巨大的影响。
I want to start with just giving people a brief understanding of what is Community Notes.
我想首先让人们简要了解什么是社区笔记。
Keith Coleman: Someone on X can see a post.
Keith Coleman：X 上的某人可以看到帖子。
If they think it's misleading, they can propose a note that they think other people might find informative.
如果他们认为这具有误导性，他们可以提出一条他们认为其他人可能会发现信息的注释。
Other people can then rate that note.
然后其他人可以对该笔记进行评分。
Jay Baxter: We actually look for agreement from people who have disagreed in the past.
杰伊·巴克斯特（Jay Baxter）：我们实际上寻求过去持不同意见的人的同意。
And what we see is when people actually have that sort of surprising agreement, that's what makes the notes so neutral and accurate and well- written, really, overall.
我们看到的是，当人们实际上达成了这种令人惊讶的一致意见时，这就是使笔记变得如此中立、准确且写得很好的原因，真的，总体而言。
Lenny Rachitsky: There's many people that are very polarized.
Lenny Rachitsky：很多人都非常两极分化。
How do you deal with people that are super anti-vax, super Jan 6?
你如何与超级反疫苗、超级 1 月 6 日的人打交道？
Keith Coleman: One philosophical thing that's important is that we want all of humanity to participate and sometimes people are surprised by that.
基思·科尔曼：一件重要的哲学事情是我们希望全人类参与其中，有时人们对此感到惊讶。
We have all of humanity.
我们拥有全人类。
We then have the data to understand what notes will be helpful to actual humanity.
然后我们就可以利用数据来了解哪些笔记对实际人类有帮助。
Every post is eligible for notes.
每个帖子都有资格做笔记。
We shouldn't exempt Elon.
我们不应该豁免埃隆。
We shouldn't exempt government figures.
我们不应该豁免政府数据。
We should be like everyone...
我们应该像大家一样...
Even advertisers can get notes.
甚至广告商也可以获得注释。
Jay Baxter: There have been external studies run by people totally independent of us who have found that if you take a post with or without a Community Note, that actually people's agreement with the core claims in the post does change if they see it with a note versus without.
Jay Baxter：完全独立于我们的人进行了一些外部研究，他们发现，无论您发表的帖子有或没有社区注释，实际上，如果人们看到有注释的帖子与没有注释的帖子，他们对帖子中核心主张的同意确实会发生变化。
Lenny Rachitsky: Is there anything else along the lines of just working for Elon within an org Elon runs that might surprise people?
Lenny Rachitsky：除了在 Elon 运营的组织中为 Elon 工作之外，还有什么可能会让人们感到惊讶的吗？
Keith Coleman: If I were to start a company in that company, it would be even leaner than I would've made it before.
Keith Coleman：如果我在那家公司创办一家公司，它会比我以前做的更精简。
I've been amazed with just how much the team is able to accomplish with a small group and I think because of a small group-
我对团队能够通过一个小团队完成如此多的工作感到惊讶，我认为因为一个小团队 -
Lenny Rachitsky: Today, my guests are Keith Coleman, Product Lead for Community Notes, and Jay Baxter, Founding ML Engineer and Researcher for Community Notes.
Lenny Rachitsky：今天，我的嘉宾是社区笔记产品负责人 Keith Coleman 和社区笔记创始 ML 工程师兼研究员 Jay Baxter。
This conversation may be my newest favorite podcast episode so far.
这段对话可能是迄今为止我最喜欢的播客剧集。
Community Notes is one of the most impactful and clever and, also, underappreciated products in the world right now.
社区笔记是目前世界上最有影响力、最聪明、但也最不受重视的产品之一。
Lenny Rachitsky: If you ever use X/Twitter and you see a note underneath a tweet correcting the misinformation in that tweet, that is Community Notes.
Lenny Rachitsky：如果您曾经使用过 X/Twitter，并且您在推文下方看到一条注释，纠正了该推文中的错误信息，那就是社区注释。
I've never heard a deep dive into the story behind the product and the team that built it and I'm excited to bring you just that.
我从未听说过深入了解该产品背后的故事以及构建它的团队，我很高兴能为您带来这些。
We get into the surprising origin story of the product, how the algorithm actually works, how the algorithm emerged out of an internal contest within Twitter, the principles behind Community Notes, and why staying true to them has been so key to its success.
我们深入了解该产品令人惊讶的起源故事、该算法的实际工作原理、该算法如何从 Twitter 内部竞赛中脱颖而出、社区注释背后的原则，以及为什么坚持这些原则对其成功如此关键。
Also, how it survived four different leaders, including Elon and Jack, and why it's now a big part of the solution to solving misinformation on the internet.
此外，它如何在包括埃隆和杰克在内的四位不同领导人的领导下幸存下来，以及为什么它现在成为解决互联网上错误信息的解决方案的重要组成部分。
Including recently being adopted by Meta as their main fact-checking tool.
包括最近被 Meta 采用作为他们的主要事实检查工具。
This is an incredibly special episode and I'm so excited to bring it to you.
这是一个非常特别的剧集，我很高兴能把它带给你们。
Lenny Rachitsky: If you enjoy this podcast, don't forget to subscribe and follow it in your favorite podcasting app or YouTube.
Lenny Rachitsky：如果您喜欢这个播客，请不要忘记订阅并在您最喜欢的播客应用程序或 YouTube 中关注它。
Also, if you become a subscriber of my newsletter, you now get a year free of Notion and Superhuman and Granola and Linear and Perplexity Pro.
另外，如果您成为我的时事通讯的订阅者，您现在可以免费获得一年的 Notion、Superhuman、Granola、Linear 和 Perplexity Pro。
Check that out at lennysnewsletter.com.
请访问 lennysnewsletter.com 进行查看。
Lenny Rachitsky: With that, I bring you Keith Coleman and Jay Baxter.
莱尼·拉奇茨基：接下来，我为您带来基思·科尔曼和杰伊·巴克斯特。
This episode is brought to you by WorkOS.
本集由 WorkOS 为您带来。
If you're building a SaaS app, at some point, your customers will start asking for enterprise features like SAML Authentication and SCIM Provisioning.
如果您正在构建 SaaS 应用程序，那么您的客户有时会开始要求提供 SAML 身份验证和 SCIM 配置等企业功能。
That's where WorkOS comes in, making it fast and painless to add enterprise features to your app.
这就是 WorkOS 的用武之地，它可以快速、轻松地将企业功能添加到您的应用程序中。
Their APIs are easy to understand so that you can ship quickly and get back to building other features.
他们的 API 易于理解，因此您可以快速交付并继续构建其他功能。
Lenny Rachitsky: Today, hundreds of companies are already powered by WorkOS.
Lenny Rachitsky：如今，已有数百家公司采用 WorkOS。
Including ones you probably know like Vercel, Webflow, and Loom.
包括您可能知道的 Vercel、Webflow 和 Loom。
WorkOS also recently acquired Warrant, the Fine Grain Authorization service.
WorkOS 最近还收购了 Warrant（细粒度授权服务）。
Warrant's product is based on a groundbreaking authorization system called Zanzibar, which was originally designed for Google to power Google Docs and YouTube.
Warrant 的产品基于名为 Zanzibar 的突破性授权系统，该系统最初是为 Google 设计的，旨在为 Google Docs 和 YouTube 提供支持。
This enables fast authorization checks at enormous scale while maintaining a flexible model that can be adapted to even the most complex use cases.
这可以实现大规模的快速授权检查，同时保持灵活的模型，甚至可以适应最复杂的用例。
Lenny Rachitsky: If you're currently looking to build role-based access control or other enterprise features like single sign-on, SCIM, or user management, you should consider WorkOS.
Lenny Rachitsky：如果您当前正在寻求构建基于角色的访问控制或其他企业功能（例如单点登录、SCIM 或用户管理），那么您应该考虑 WorkOS。
It's a drop-in replacement for Auth0 and supports up to 1 million monthly active users for free.
它是 Auth0 的直接替代品，免费支持多达 100 万月活跃用户。
Check it out at workos.com to learn more.
请访问 workos.com 以了解更多信息。
That's workos.com.
那是workos.com。
Lenny Rachitsky: This episode is brought to you by Productboard, the leading product management platform for the enterprise.
Lenny Rachitsky：本集由企业领先的产品管理平台 Productboard 为您带来。
For over 10 years, Productboard has helped customer-centric organizations like Zoom, Salesforce, and Autodesk build the right products faster.
十多年来，Productboard 帮助 Zoom、Salesforce 和 Autodesk 等以客户为中心的组织更快地构建合适的产品。
And as an end- to-end platform, Productboard seamlessly supports all stages of the product development lifecycle from gathering customer insights, to planning a roadmap, to aligning stakeholders, to earning customer buy-in, all with a single source of truth.
作为一个端到端平台，Productboard 无缝支持产品开发生命周期的所有阶段，从收集客户见解、规划路线图、协调利益相关者到赢得客户认可，所有这些都具有单一事实来源。
Lenny Rachitsky: And now, product leaders can get even more visibility into customer needs with Productboard Pulse, a new voice of customer solution.
Lenny Rachitsky：现在，产品领导者可以通过 Productboard Pulse（一种新的客户之声解决方案）更深入地了解客户需求。
Built-in intelligence helps you analyze trends across all of your feedback and then dive deeper by asking AI your follow-up questions.
内置智能可帮助您分析所有反馈的趋势，然后通过向人工智能询问您的后续问题来更深入地了解。
See how Productboard can help your team deliver higher-impact products that solve real customer needs and advance your business goals.
了解 Productboard 如何帮助您的团队交付更具影响力的产品，解决真正的客户需求并推进您的业务目标。
For a special offer and free 15-day trial, visit productboard.com/lenny.
如需特别优惠和 15 天免费试用，请访问productboard.com/lenny。
That's productboard.com/lenny.
这是productboard.com/lenny。
Lenny Rachitsky: Keith and Jay, thank you so much for being here.
Lenny Rachitsky：基思和杰伊，非常感谢你们来到这里。
Welcome to the podcast.
欢迎来到播客。
Lenny Rachitsky: It's so my pleasure.
Lenny Rachitsky：我很高兴。
I'm so thrilled to be having this conversation.
我很高兴能进行这次谈话。
The work that you guys do has had such a tremendous impact on the way the world works.
你们所做的工作对世界的运作方式产生了巨大的影响。
So many product teams are always talking about driving impact and want to drive impact.
许多产品团队总是在谈论推动影响并希望推动影响。
You guys have actually built things that have changed the world in meaningful ways and continue to do that.
你们实际上已经创造了一些东西，并以有意义的方式改变了世界，并将继续这样做。
And I've never really heard the backstory of how Community Notes came to be and how it works and all these things, so I'm really appreciative of you guys making time to chat.
我从来没有真正听说过社区笔记是如何产生的、它是如何运作的以及所有这些事情的背景故事，所以我非常感谢你们抽出时间来聊天。
Keith Coleman: Yeah.
基思·科尔曼：是的。
First, thanks for saying that.
首先，谢谢你这么说。
That's why we built this thing is to help people and it's great to hear it.
这就是我们建造这个东西的原因是为了帮助人们，很高兴听到这个消息。
It's great to see people enjoying it and finding it useful.
很高兴看到人们喜欢它并发现它很有用。
Lenny Rachitsky: I want to start with just giving people a brief understanding of what is Community Notes.
Lenny Rachitsky：我想首先让人们简要了解什么是社区笔记。
I think a lot of people kind of heard about it, kind of maybe see it on X.
我想很多人都听说过它，也许在 X 上看到过它。
As they scroll through, they see these notes but they're like, "I don't actually know what this is." So can you just briefly describe what is Community Notes?
当他们滚动浏览时，他们会看到这些注释，但他们会想，“我实际上不知道这是什么。”那么您能简单介绍一下什么是社区笔记吗？
Keith Coleman: Community Notes is a way for the people, like the public, to add context to posts that might be misleading.
Keith Coleman：社区注释是人们（例如公众）为可能具有误导性的帖子添加上下文的一种方式。
The basic way it works is that someone on X can see a post.
它的基本工作方式是 X 上的某人可以看到帖子。
If they think it's misleading, they can propose a note that they think other people might find informative.
如果他们认为这具有误导性，他们可以提出一条他们认为其他人可能会发现信息的注释。
Other people can then rate that note.
然后其他人可以对该笔记进行评分。
And if the note is found helpful by people who normally disagree with each other, indicating that it's probably accurate, it's probably really neutrally-worded, it's probably informative, then it will show to everyone on X.
如果那些通常意见不一致的人发现该注释有帮助，表明它可能是准确的，它可能是真正中立的措辞，它可能提供了信息，那么它将向 X 上的每个人展示。
The goal is just to get people more information about what they're seeing so they can make better decisions in their lives.
目标只是让人们更多地了解他们所看到的内容，以便他们在生活中做出更好的决定。
Lenny Rachitsky: Amazing, and I think hearing this, it's absurd that this works.
Lenny Rachitsky：太棒了，我觉得听到这个，这行得通是荒谬的。
I think when people originally heard this idea like, "No way this is going to work." And so, just to dive a little bit deeper, can you give us a deeper understanding of how it actually works?
我想当人们最初听到这个想法时，会说“这不可能行得通”。那么，为了更深入地研究，您能否让我们更深入地了解它的实际工作原理？
Because I think it's the algorithm that you guys designed that is so clever that allowed this to work.
因为我认为你们设计的算法非常聪明，才使得这个方法能够发挥作用。
So talk a little bit about that algorithm.
那么谈谈这个算法吧。
Jay Baxter: Yeah.
杰·巴克斯特：是的。
So I think a key misunderstanding a lot of people have if they haven't really dived into details, they just think that maybe someone can write a note and it appears immediately or we're just taking a majority rules vote of who thinks the note's good.
因此，我认为，如果很多人没有真正深入研究细节，他们就会犯一个关键的误解，他们只是认为也许有人可以写一张便条，它会立即出现，或者我们只是对认为该便条好的人进行多数规则投票。
I think both of those approaches would probably lead to biased or inaccurate notes.
我认为这两种方法都可能会导致有偏见或不准确的笔记。
I think the key thing, really, that we do is we actually look for agreement from people who have disagreed in the past.
我认为，我们所做的最关键的事情实际上是寻求过去持不同意见的人的同意。
Jay Baxter: And what we see is when people actually have that sort of surprising agreement, that's what makes the notes so neutral and accurate and well-written, really, overall.
杰伊·巴克斯特（Jay Baxter）：我们看到的是，当人们实际上达成了这种令人惊讶的一致意见时，这就是使笔记如此中立、准确且写得很好的原因，真的，总体而言。
It's just that people who are very polarized, overall, often can't find agreement when things aren't accurate, right?
只是总体而言，两极分化严重的人们在事情不准确时往往无法达成一致，对吧？
I think it also provides some good anti-manipulation properties.
我认为它还提供了一些良好的反操纵特性。
I think people are often...
我认为人们常常...
If you said...
如果你说...
I think back in 2020 before we started building anything here, whether this could work at all, I think a room of ML engineers would say, "Oh, you have to keep it closed source.
我回想起 2020 年，在我们开始在这里构建任何东西之前，无论这是否可行，我认为一屋子的 ML 工程师会说，“哦，你必须保持它闭源。
People are going to be manipulating this all the time.
人们将一直在操纵这一点。
You have to use ground truth labels from fact checkers.
您必须使用事实检查器的真实标签。
There's no way that you could bootstrap the system without external labels." But it turns out that you can do that with this kind of bridging-based agreement algorithm is what we call it.
如果没有外部标签，您就无法引导系统。”但事实证明，你可以使用我们所说的基于桥接的协议算法来做到这一点。
Lenny Rachitsky: Okay.
莱尼·拉奇茨基：好的。
So just to summarize and make it super clear.
所以只是总结一下并使其非常清楚。
It's basically people...
基本上都是人...
Someone writes a note.
有人写了一张纸条。
This information is fault...
此信息有误...
What's a good example, just as we talk about this, like a classic example?
就像我们谈论这个一样，什么是一个很好的例子，比如一个经典的例子？
Keith Coleman: A really classic example is an AI generated image or an out of context image like, "Look what's happening here." But it's actually from five years ago in a different country and a different topic or something-
Keith Coleman：一个非常经典的例子是人工智能生成的图像或脱离上下文的图像，例如“看看这里发生了什么”。但这实际上是五年前在另一个国家、不同的主题或其他什么的——
Lenny Rachitsky: Oh, man.
莱尼·拉奇茨基：哦，伙计。
I've seen this so many times where it's like, "Look what's happening in San Francisco," and I'm like, "No, this is a whole different city and that's not-"
我已经见过很多次这样的情况了，“看看旧金山发生了什么”，我说，“不，这是一个完全不同的城市，那不是——”
Lenny Rachitsky: Yeah.
莱尼·拉奇茨基：是的。
Okay.
好的。
So someone posts this AI image.
所以有人发布了这张人工智能图像。
Someone writes a note, "This is actually five years ago in a different city," and this algorithm helps understand if this note is true and it's just regular people doing this.
有人写了一张纸条，“这实际上是五年前在另一个城市”，这个算法有助于理解这张纸条是否真实，以及只是普通人在这样做。
Jay Baxter: Yep.
杰·巴克斯特：是的。
Regular people who have signed up to be Community Notes contributors.
已注册成为社区笔记贡献者的普通人。
So there are a few checks, like you do have to have a verified phone number for instance.
因此，需要进行一些检查，例如您必须拥有经过验证的电话号码。
But yeah, at the end of the day, these are regular people.
但是，是的，归根结底，这些都是普通人。
Not necessarily professional fact checkers or anything like that.
不一定是专业的事实检查员或类似的东西。
Keith Coleman: And yeah, that was really important to us too.
Keith Coleman：是的，这对我们也非常重要。
There was a question at the beginning, to the point Jay was making of like, "Did anyone think this was going to work?" Obviously, it was a crazy idea.
一开始有一个问题，杰伊说：“有人认为这会起作用吗？”显然，这是一个疯狂的想法。
We didn't know if regular people were going to be able to do this task and certainly people had concerns about whether they would do it effectively.
我们不知道普通人是否能够完成这项任务，当然人们也担心他们是否能有效地完成这项任务。
Keith Coleman: Initially, some people inside the company were suggesting like, "Hey, why don't you have journalists or some select group be the first participants?" But very specifically we were like, "No. We're trying to move away from the idea of curated editorial decisions being made around this.
Keith Coleman：最初，公司内部的一些人提出这样的建议：“嘿，为什么不让记者或一些选定的团体作为第一批参与者呢？”但具体来说，我们的反应是：“不。我们正试图摆脱围绕此做出策划编辑决策的想法。
This is supposed to be open to everyone." So we very intentionally try to allow all humans in.
这应该向所有人开放。”所以我们非常有意地尝试让所有人进入。
People are randomly selected and that's important to it feeling fair, feeling open, feeling trustable.
人们是随机选择的，这对于感觉公平、开放、值得信赖非常重要。
Lenny Rachitsky: Yeah.
莱尼·拉奇茨基：是的。
And again, it's just like this sounds like the holy grail of understanding what is true and it actually works.
再说一遍，这听起来像是理解真相的圣杯，而且它确实有效。
And works so well that Meta recently, as you all know, decided to adopt this exact system for them instead of having tens of thousands of fact checkers reviewing things.
而且效果非常好，以至于众所周知，Meta 最近决定为他们采用这个确切的系统，而不是让数以万计的事实检查员来审查事物。
Jay Baxter: One distinction that I would make, which maybe can come off as nitpicky but I think is important, is Community Notes adds additional context.
Jay Baxter：我要做出的一个区别（可能会显得挑剔，但我认为很重要）是社区注释添加了额外的上下文。
It's not fact-checking necessarily, right?
这不一定是事实核查，对吧？
So there are cases where the post could be true.
因此，在某些情况下，该帖子可能是真实的。
But maybe, it's just misleading because there there's no context or there's missing context.
但也许，这只是误导，因为没有上下文或缺少上下文。
We cover those cases and I think that's an important distinction.
我们涵盖这些案例，我认为这是一个重要的区别。
We just have the philosophy that users should be able to make up their own minds, right?
我们的理念是用户应该能够做出自己的决定，对吗？
Like, "Here's extra context, take it or leave it," right?
就像，“这是额外的背景信息，要么接受要么放弃”，对吧？
Lenny Rachitsky: Yeah.
莱尼·拉奇茨基：是的。
What I think about, you shared this with me, this example of a picture with a cat and somebody's Community Note was just, "That's a dog." Or is it the other way around or that's a-
我的想法是，你与我分享了这个，这个例子是一张有猫的照片，而某人的社区笔记只是，“那是一只狗。”或者是相反，或者是-
Jay Baxter: Yeah.
杰·巴克斯特：是的。
"A Palestinian boy shares his bread with a dog," was the post and it's a picture of this cat.
帖子中写道：“一名巴勒斯坦男孩与一只狗分享他的面包。”这是一只猫的照片。
So obviously, this particular note is not super necessary because it just says, "That's a cat," and links to a Wikipedia for cat.
显然，这个特殊的注释并不是非常必要，因为它只是说“那是一只猫”，并链接到猫的维基百科。
It's a good example that the system is...
这是一个很好的例子，系统...
This is not something a professional fact-checker or whatever or you think would need fact-checking.
这不是专业的事实核查人员或其他任何人或您认为需要事实核查的事情。
But it's proof that the system is really run by the users at the end of the day and adds some comic relief, I guess.
但我想，这证明了该系统最终确实是由用户运行的，并且增加了一些喜剧效果。
And the note is correct.
并且注释是正确的。
Lenny Rachitsky: When does a post get triggered to even be considered for Community Note?
Lenny Rachitsky：什么时候帖子会被触发并被考虑纳入社区注释？
Is there a threshold or is it just you can write a Community Note on anything and people decide what they would vote on?
是否有一个门槛，或者只是你可以就任何事情写一篇社区说明，然后人们决定他们会投票什么？
How does that work?
这是如何运作的？
Keith Coleman: So every post is eligible for notes and that was, again, another really important principle.
Keith Coleman：所以每个帖子都有资格做笔记，这又是另一个非常重要的原则。
It's like, "We shouldn't exempt Elon.
就像是，“我们不应该豁免埃隆。
We shouldn't exempt government figures.
我们不应该豁免政府数据。
We should..." Everyone, even advertisers, can get notes.
我们应该……”每个人，甚至广告商，都可以得到笔记。
So any posts on the platform can get a note.
所以平台上的任何帖子都可以得到注释。
And if you look in practice, you'll see notes appearing on world leaders, on Elon, on ads, on media organizations, and on, obviously, just regular people using social media.
如果你仔细观察实践，你会发现注释出现在世界领导人、埃隆、广告、媒体组织以及使用社交媒体的普通人身上。
But yeah, the idea is really that it's an even playing field.
但是，是的，我们的想法确实是一个公平的竞争环境。
For a note to be proposed, the person proposing it has to have earned the ability to write notes.
对于要提出的笔记，提出笔记的人必须具备写笔记的能力。
So there is that aspect where you have to earn in to be able to do this.
所以在这个方面你必须赚钱才能做到这一点。
And the way you earn that ability is through your ratings by demonstrating the ability to help identify notes that are found helpful to a broad range of people.
您获得这种能力的方式是通过您的评级，展示您帮助识别对广泛人群有帮助的笔记的能力。
So basically, if you have an ability to see and know, recognize what's helpful with a lot of people, then you have the ability to start proposing notes.
所以基本上，如果你有能力看到和了解，认识到什么对很多人有帮助，那么你就有能力开始提出笔记。
Lenny Rachitsky: I actually signed up to be on...
Lenny Rachitsky：我实际上报名参加了……
What do you call these people?
你怎么称呼这些人？
Note take-
注意事项——
Lenny Rachitsky: Okay.
莱尼·拉奇茨基：好的。
Contributors.
贡献者。
Yeah.
是的。
So I've been rating.
所以我一直在评价。
I haven't achieved-
我还没有达到——
Keith Coleman: Yeah.
基思·科尔曼：是的。
It's not super easy.
这并不容易。
It takes some effort.
这需要一些努力。
Lenny Rachitsky: Are there stats you can share about the scale of Community Notes at this point, especially things that might surprise people?
Lenny Rachitsky：关于目前社区笔记的规模，您是否可以分享一些统计数据，尤其是那些可能会让人们感到惊讶的事情？
Keith Coleman: Yeah.
基思·科尔曼：是的。
I mean, the service is growing rapidly, so there are hundreds of notes per day.
我的意思是，该服务正在快速增长，因此每天都会有数百条笔记。
And to put that into context, I saw some stats recently from someone at UC Berkeley saying there was something like 10 traditional fact checks a day.
为了将这一点放在上下文中，我最近看到加州大学伯克利分校某人的一些统计数据，称每天有大约 10 次传统事实检查。
So in contrast, there's hundreds of notes a day that are getting shown.
相比之下，每天会显示数百条笔记。
They span a huge range of topics from, obviously, politics, news, out to entertainment, sports, gaming.
它们涵盖了广泛的主题，从政治、新闻到娱乐、体育、游戏。
Just whatever is going on that day.
不管那天发生什么。
Keith Coleman: In addition to there being hundreds of these individual notes, they can also be matched to multiple posts.
Keith Coleman：除了数百个单独的注释之外，它们还可以与多个帖子相匹配。
So if someone writes a note on an image or a video, like let's say it's AI generated or something like that, that note will automatically be matched to all posts that contain the same image.
因此，如果有人在图像或视频上写下注释，比如它是人工智能生成的或类似的东西，那么该注释将自动与包含相同图像的所有帖子相匹配。
So you can have a single note matching to thousands of posts.
因此，您可以用一个注释来匹配数千个帖子。
And over let's say the last year, 2024, we had something like 95,000 notes that were seen about 30 billion times.
假设去年，即 2024 年，我们有大约 95,000 条笔记，浏览量约为 300 亿次。
That's more than double the prior year.
这是前一年的两倍多。
Prior year was something like 37K notes seen 14 billion times.
去年大约有 37K 纸币被浏览了 140 亿次。
So that rate is increasing dramatically when you think about 30 billion views, that's a lot of information that is getting out there that might not have been out there otherwise, which is pretty cool.
因此，当你想到 300 亿次浏览时，这个比率正在急剧增加，这是大量原本可能不会出现的信息，这非常酷。
And part of the reason it is expanding like that is the contributor base is expanding.
它如此扩大的部分原因是贡献者基础正在扩大。
There's something like 950,000 contributors around the world.
全球约有 950,000 名贡献者。
That's nearing a million people making this happen which is amazing.
近百万人实现了这一目标，这真是太棒了。
Lenny Rachitsky: Wow.
莱尼·拉奇茨基：哇。
And I'm one of those, right?
而我就是其中之一，对吧？
I count as a contributor?
我算是贡献者吗？
Keith Coleman: Yeah.
基思·科尔曼：是的。
Yep.
是的。
No. If you're signed up as a contributor, you count.
不会。如果您注册为贡献者，您就算数。
Jay Baxter: Then, there's more people on the waitlist too.
杰·巴克斯特：然后，候补名单上的人也更多了。
So there's plenty of headroom for more growth.
因此，还有足够的增长空间。
Regarding the matching on media and URLs, I think that's a huge way to get extra coverage.
关于媒体和 URL 的匹配，我认为这是获得额外报道的好方法。
Also, I do think we've been very careful to make sure that those matches are precise.
另外，我确实认为我们非常小心地确保这些匹配是精确的。
Because I think one thing that people love about Community Notes compared to other types of fact checking is that, actually, the notes are custom written for the particular claim you're seeing, right?
因为我认为与其他类型的事实检查相比，人们喜欢社区注释的一件事是，实际上，这些注释是针对您所看到的特定声明定制的，对吧？
So often, a fact check warning would just say something like, "Get the facts here." And then, there's a link to some generic page about voting information, which is so not helpful to have the information behind a click.
通常，事实检查警告只会说“在这里获取事实”。然后，有一个指向一些有关投票信息的通用页面的链接，这对于单击背后的信息没有帮助。
So pulling the context up so that you have zero clicks that you need to make and keeping it specific is so important.
因此，拉动上下文以便您需要进行零点击并保持其具体性非常重要。
Lenny Rachitsky: One feature I love that I imagine you guys thought deeply about is if I liked the post in the past, I get notified later if a community note shows up, so that I'm not remembering this false information.
Lenny Rachitsky：我喜欢的一个功能是，我想你们会深入思考，如果我过去喜欢该帖子，那么如果出现社区说明，我会在稍后收到通知，这样我就不会记住这些虚假信息。
Keith Coleman: Yeah.
基思·科尔曼：是的。
I mean, we try to make notes as fast as we can, so we want them to appear instantly if possible.
我的意思是，我们尝试尽可能快地做笔记，所以如果可能的话，我们希望它们立即出现。
But inevitably, there's going to be a time gap between when a post goes live and when people figure out what's going on and when they get the note out there.
但不可避免的是，从帖子发布到人们弄清楚发生了什么，再到他们把纸条发布出去，之间会有一个时间间隔。
And so, we send those notifications to try to close that gap.
因此，我们发送这些通知来尝试缩小这一差距。
And yeah, we get a lot of love for that.
是的，我们对此深受喜爱。
We see people take screenshots and share them.
我们看到人们截取屏幕截图并分享。
They're excited about it.
他们对此感到兴奋。
And it's also a pretty cool example of something you can do on the internet, in the social media world that was difficult in a print or standard news world where you would see maybe a correction the next day in a corner of a paper that was hard to read.
这也是一个非常酷的例子，说明你可以在互联网、社交媒体世界中做一些事情，而这在印刷品或标准新闻世界中很难做到，第二天你可能会在难以阅读的报纸的一角看到更正。
Here, you're getting a ping about it if you've engaged with a post and note shows up.
在这里，如果您参与了某个帖子并显示了注释，您就会收到有关此信息的 ping 消息。
Lenny Rachitsky: One user feedback point is I'd love the push to just tell me, "Here's what you got wrong." Because I find that I actually have to go into it and read it and I feel like the push could just be like, "Here's more context to this thing." You're like-
Lenny Rachitsky：一个用户反馈点是，我希望有人告诉我，“这就是你做错的地方。”因为我发现我实际上必须深入研究并阅读它，而且我觉得推动可能就像是，“这里有更多关于这件事的背景。”你就像——
Lenny Rachitsky: There we go.
莱尼·拉奇茨基：我们开始吧。
Live user feedback.
实时用户反馈。
Lenny Rachitsky: Okay.
莱尼·拉奇茨基：好的。
I want to get into the origin story of this whole thing.
我想了解整个事情的起源故事。
But two more questions, because we're on this thread.
但还有两个问题，因为我们正在讨论这个话题。
One is what's the the threshold for a note to show up on a note?
一是注释出现在注释上的阈值是多少？
Is that information you can share, just how does that work?
您可以分享这些信息吗？它是如何运作的？
Jay Baxter: So just because of the details of the way the algorithm works, it uses this machine learning algorithm called Matrix factorization where we fit it with Gradient Descent and whatnot.
Jay Baxter：由于该算法工作方式的细节，它使用了一种称为矩阵分解的机器学习算法，我们将其与梯度下降等相结合。
The threshold is it's 0.4 on this made up scale-
阈值是这个编造的量表上的 0.4 -
Jay Baxter: Yeah.
杰·巴克斯特：是的。
I mean, in practice, what it means is basically a majority of people...
我的意思是，在实践中，这基本上意味着大多数人......
If there is a polarized divide relevant to the notes.
是否存在与音符相关的两极分化。
Obviously, some notes are not about politics or something polarizing.
显然，有些笔记与政治或两极分化无关。
But if there is, then a sizable majority of people on both sides would generally need to find the note helpful.
但如果有的话，那么双方的绝大多数人通常都会觉得这张纸条有帮助。
And then, there are other rules that come into play beyond that main one.
然后，除了主要规则之外，还有其他规则发挥作用。
So even if it's above that threshold, it might get filtered out if...
因此，即使它高于该阈值，它也可能会被过滤掉，如果......
There's a separate algorithm that's looking at agreement between people's incorrect tags.
有一个单独的算法可以检查人们的错误标签之间的一致性。
So like maybe people found the note helpful but incorrect, right?
也许人们发现该注释有帮助但不正确，对吧？
It happens.
它发生了。
And in those cases, it doesn't matter if it's above the helpfulness threshold.
在这些情况下，是否高于有用阈值并不重要。
Lenny Rachitsky: This is probably the wrong way to think about it, but is it 40% of people that normally disagree, agree-
Lenny Rachitsky：这可能是错误的思考方式，但通常有 40% 的人不同意、同意——
Jay Baxter: It means nothing like that.
杰·巴克斯特：没有那样的意思。
It's just like on some arbitrary scale-
就像在某种任意尺度上一样——
Keith Coleman: Yeah.
基思·科尔曼：是的。
If we change random other things about the algorithm, that number would also have to change to an equally seemingly arbitrary number.
如果我们随机更改算法的其他内容，该数字也必须更改为同样看似任意的数字。
We arrived at some numbers like that by gauging user feedback.
我们通过衡量用户反馈得出了一些类似的数字。
So we could share a lot of notes with people, get feedback on which ones are helpful, and just a line emerged about indicating where things go from questionable to pretty clearly helpful.
因此，我们可以与人们分享大量笔记，获得有关哪些笔记有帮助的反馈，然后只出现一条线，表明事情从有问题到明显有帮助的方向。
Jay Baxter: Yeah.
杰·巴克斯特：是的。
And it is set right now, by the way, to be really conservative, I think.
顺便说一句，我认为现在的情况确实非常保守。
We just are pretty particular about quality and we really want note quality to be really high.
我们只是非常注重质量，我们真的希望纸币质量非常高。
I think Keith and I both believe that we live or die based on the quality of the notes at the end of the day.
我认为基思和我都相信我们的生死取决于一天结束时笔记的质量。
So we'd rather not show a note that maybe good, but we didn't have enough signal on than the other way around.
因此，我们宁愿不显示可能不错的注释，但我们没有足够的信号，而不是相反。
Lenny Rachitsky: That makes so much sense.
Lenny Rachitsky：这很有道理。
I've never seen a Community Note that is wrong and breaking that promise is a big deal.
我从未见过有错误的社区说明，违背承诺是一件大事。
So I completely get why you guys are super conservative there.
所以我完全理解为什么你们在那里超级保守。
Okay.
好的。
Two more questions because I'm just curious.
还有两个问题，因为我只是好奇。
These weren't on my list of questions to ask, but I feel like people wonder this.
这些不在我要问的问题清单上，但我觉得人们想知道这一点。
How many notes are written versus end up showing up and triggering on a-
写了多少音符与最终出现并触发了-
Keith Coleman: We probably show about 8% of notes that get proposed.
Keith Coleman：我们可能会展示大约 8% 的建议笔记。
It's been between, let's say, 7% and 10% or 11%, something like that over time.
比如说，随着时间的推移，这个比例一直在 7% 到 10% 或 11% 之间。
The number can vary a little bit.
数量可能会略有不同。
And as Jay said, there are undoubtedly...
正如杰伊所说，毫无疑问……
And you can see it, there's clearly more good notes than we show, but the goal is to hold a really high bar.
你可以看到，显然有比我们展示的更多的好音符，但我们的目标是保持一个非常高的标准。
We want to show a note when it's going to be helpful, when it's not going to appear biased and undermine trust in the system.
我们希望在有用的时候、不会显得有偏见、不会破坏对系统的信任时显示一条注释。
We want these to be neutral, informative, helpful.
我们希望这些内容是中立的、信息丰富的、有帮助的。
And as Jay was saying, we view the worst possible mistake as showing a bad note because that's going to undermine trust and the trust is why people like the product.
正如杰伊所说，我们认为最糟糕的错误就是显示出错误的信息，因为这会破坏信任，而信任正是人们喜欢该产品的原因。
Keith Coleman: So yeah, the bar is there.
Keith Coleman：是的，酒吧就在那里。
And like I said, there's clearly some in that remaining, let's call it 90%, that are good.
就像我说的，剩下的显然有一些，我们称之为 90%，是好的。
And then, there's a lot that are just not that great and there's some that are bad.
然后，有很多东西不是那么好，也有一些很糟糕。
And if you write one of these ones that are bad which bad being defined as people who normally disagree find the note not helpful, so it's like the inverse of the ones we show.
如果你写了其中一个不好的内容，那么不好的内容被定义为通常不同意的人会发现该注释没有帮助，所以这就像我们展示的内容相反。
If you write one that people normally disagree, find not helpful, you actually will ultimately lose your ability to write and have to earn it back.
如果你写的一篇人们通常不同意的文章，认为没有帮助，你实际上最终会失去写作的能力，并且必须重新获得它。
That other 90% is a mix.
另外 90% 是混合体。
Sometimes people look at the number, they're like, "Oh, why don't you show more?" It's like, "Well, you probably actually don't really want us showing most of those." The gold here is that the system is able to filter out the good ones.
有时人们看着这个数字，他们会想，“哦，你为什么不展示更多呢？”就像，“好吧，你可能实际上并不希望我们展示其中的大部分内容。”这里的黄金之处在于系统能够过滤掉好的内容。
Lenny Rachitsky: That makes sense.
莱尼·拉奇茨基：这是有道理的。
Okay.
好的。
One other question is there's many people that are very polarized, like very disagreeable with a lot of things.
另一个问题是，有很多人非常两极分化，对很多事情都非常不同意。
How do they filter into this algorithm?
他们如何过滤到这个算法中？
How do you deal with people that are super anti-vax, super Jan 6, like all these very extreme potential views?
你如何对待那些超级反疫苗、超级 1 月 6 日、像所有这些非常极端的潜在观点的人？
Jay Baxter: If people really are so polarized that there isn't agreement among people that typically disagree, it's possible that this is one of those notes that might be correct, but it wouldn't be helpful to show as context.
杰伊·巴克斯特：如果人们真的如此两极分化，以至于通常不同意的人之间无法达成一致，那么这可能是那些可能正确的注释之一，但作为上下文显示没有帮助。
Maybe it's about a claim that people have really entrenched opinions about and they've read hundreds of things about it already.
也许这是一个人们对此有着根深蒂固观点的主张，并且他们已经阅读了数百篇有关它的文章。
Jay Baxter: Probably this is just not going to improve people's understanding.
Jay Baxter：这可能不会增进人们的理解。
It's just not going to be a helpful user experience.
这不会带来有用的用户体验。
So it might not be the worst thing in those cases to not show the note.
因此，在这种情况下，不出示纸条可能并不是最糟糕的事情。
People, a few years ago, were pretty pessimistic that maybe fact-checking never changes people's understandings about what's true.
几年前，人们非常悲观，认为事实核查可能永远不会改变人们对真相的理解。
Actually, there have been external studies run by people totally independent of us who have found that if you take a community note or posts with or without a community note...
实际上，完全独立于我们的人进行了一些外部研究，他们发现，如果您发表社区笔记或带有或不带有社区笔记的帖子......
That actually, people's agreement with the core claims in the post does change if they see it with the note versus without.
事实上，如果人们看到带有注释的内容与没有看到注释的内容，他们对帖子中核心主张的认同确实会发生变化。
So we are having an impact on this thing that people previously thought was maybe not so easy to do.
所以我们正在对人们以前认为可能不那么容易做到的事情产生影响。
Jay Baxter: And so, it's nice to focus on the cases where there is the bridging agreement.
杰伊·巴克斯特：因此，最好关注有过渡协议的案例。
I would also say there is this reputation component to the algorithm as well.
我还想说，该算法也有这种声誉成分。
So if you consistently rate notes in a way that is counter to the bridging-based consensus, then we will stop counting your ratings.
因此，如果您始终以与基于桥接的共识相反的方式对笔记进行评分，那么我们将停止计算您的评分。
So if you're the kind of person who constantly rates bad notes as helpful, we do filter you out.
因此，如果您是那种经常将不好的笔记视为有用的人，我们确实会将您过滤掉。
So there's a difference between those types of people versus the good but polarized ones.
因此，这些类型的人与善良但两极分化的人之间存在差异。
Keith Coleman: Yeah.
基思·科尔曼：是的。
I think one philosophical thing that's important is that we want all of humanity to participate.
我认为一件重要的哲学问题是我们希望全人类参与其中。
And sometimes, people are surprised by that.
有时，人们对此感到惊讶。
They'll be like, "Oh, aren't there people who shouldn't be doing this?", or like, "Their thinking is so extreme or something, maybe they shouldn't participate." But our view is it's actually we want to have all of humanity here.
他们会说，“哦，不是有人不应该这样做吗？”，或者是，“他们的想法太极端了，也许他们不应该参与。”但我们的观点是，我们实际上希望全人类都在这里。
Because if we have all of humanity, we then have the data to understand what notes will be helpful to actual humanity.
因为如果我们拥有全人类，那么我们就有数据来了解哪些笔记对实际人类有帮助。
We can better model that better or better understand and better show those notes.
我们可以更好地建模，更好地或更好地理解并更好地显示这些注释。
Keith Coleman: So it's advantageous to have people who have all sorts of points of views and we don't expect that every note will be loved by every single person.
Keith Coleman：因此，拥有各种观点的人是有利的，我们并不期望每个音符都会受到每个人的喜爱。
That's an impossible bar.
那是一个不可能的酒吧。
But we do intend to show the notes that 80% of people are going to read and say, "Wow.
但我们确实打算展示这些笔记，让 80% 的人阅读后会说：“哇。
I'm glad I knew that." And so, in that sense, it doesn't matter how maybe extreme someone views a person's views as.
我很高兴我知道这一点。”因此，从这个意义上说，一个人如何极端地看待一个人的观点并不重要。
It's still great to have them in the program.
让他们加入这个计划还是很棒的。
So no matter what your views are, please sign up and participate.
因此，无论您的观点如何，请报名并参与。
It helps identify what's really helpful.
它有助于识别什么是真正有用的。
Lenny Rachitsky: Cool.
莱尼·拉奇茨基：酷。
And we'll link to people if they want to actually sign up, so they know how to do this.
如果人们想要实际注册，我们将链接到他们，这样他们就知道如何执行此操作。
Something we didn't actually specify, these are all volunteers.
我们实际上没有具体说明，这些都是志愿者。
No one's getting paid to be doing these notes and voting, right?
没有人会因为做这些笔记和投票而获得报酬，对吧？
Keith Coleman: Yeah.
基思·科尔曼：是的。
It's totally based on intrinsic motivation and we think that's a great reason to be doing it.
这完全基于内在动机，我们认为这是这样做的一个很好的理由。
When you talk to the most active contributors, a lot of them, they want to have better information out in the world and that's a great motivation.
当你与最活跃的贡献者交谈时，他们中的很多人都希望获得世界上更好的信息，这是一个很大的动力。
So yeah, that's why they...
所以是的，这就是为什么他们...
If you think about, like for these people, the impact they can have is nuts.
如果你想想，就像这些人一样，他们所能产生的影响是疯狂的。
So when we first launched US-wide, this was like in 2022, a note appeared on a White House tweet and the White House deleted the tweet and reissued an updated statement.
因此，当我们首次在美国范围内推出时，就像 2022 年一样，白宫推文上出现了一条注释，白宫删除了该推文并重新发布了更新的声明。
Keith Coleman: Imagine being the person who wrote that.
基思·科尔曼：想象一下，你是写这篇文章的人。
You probably have 12 followers.
您可能有 12 个关注者。
Your posts probably get a couple likes.
您的帖子可能会得到一些赞。
And here, you just put a note on the White House and they changed their public talking points based on what you did.
在这里，你只需在白宫上留言，他们就会根据你所做的事情改变他们的公开谈话要点。
That is an incredible amount of impact.
这是一个令人难以置信的影响力。
So you could see why people are motivated to do it when they care about what's going on in the world.
所以你可以明白为什么当人们关心世界上正在发生的事情时他们就会有动力去做这件事。
You don't have to be a big, well-known person to shape the discourse and information flow in a way that's helpful.
你不必是一个大人物、知名人士才能以有益的方式塑造话语和信息流。
Lenny Rachitsky: It's insane.
莱尼·拉奇茨基：这太疯狂了。
There's so much to love about this.
这有太多值得喜爱的地方。
One is just the meritocracy of this whole operation of just anybody that is true and correct can participate and have impact.
一是整个运作的精英管理，任何真实正确的人都可以参与并产生影响。
Also, it just shows you how much information we get that is just wrong.
此外，它只是向您显示我们获得的信息有多少是错误的。
We had no idea how often we see things that are wrong and now we do.
我们以前不知道我们多久会看到错误的事情，而现在我们看到了。
Keith Coleman: Working on this product has made me realize just how many things I used to trust by default, that now I look at more skeptically.
Keith Coleman：开发这个产品让我意识到我过去默认信任的东西有多少，现在我更加怀疑了。
Lenny Rachitsky: Definitely mean these days.
Lenny Rachitsky：现在确实很刻薄。
Okay.
好的。
Before we get to the origin story, is there anything else along those lines you guys think might be really important to share, that are really interesting?
在我们开始讨论起源故事之前，你们认为还有什么其他事情可能非常重要、非常有趣吗？
Jay Baxter: Sure.
杰·巴克斯特：当然。
I guess one other thing is that although we don't actually use the fact that a post was noted in the core ranking algorithm, which we think is a nice property.
我想另一件事是，尽管我们实际上并没有使用核心排名算法中注意到帖子这一事实，但我们认为这是一个很好的属性。
There is a really big impact just organically, meaning not from the algorithm but just from user behavior, where people will like and re-share or quote posts way less when-
有机地产生了巨大的影响，这不是来自算法，而是来自用户行为，当人们喜欢、重新分享或引用帖子时，会更少——
Jay Baxter: Quote.
杰·巴克斯特：引用。
Posts way less when notes are applied.
当应用注释时，帖子会少得多。
I don't know, for people out there who typically run A-B tests on big platforms, you may already be familiar with this, but 1% is typically an awesome effect size for any algorithm change.
我不知道，对于那些通常在大型平台上运行 A-B 测试的人来说，您可能已经熟悉这一点，但 1% 对于任何算法更改来说通常都是一个很棒的效果大小。
We saw more like 30 to 40% engagement rate drops for likes and reposts in A-B tests we were ran when showing a post with or without a note, which is just crazy big.
在我们进行的 A-B 测试中，当展示带有或不带有注释的帖子时，我们看到点赞和转发的参与率下降了 30% 到 40%，这真是太疯狂了。
That's just an A-B test on the engagement rate, so that's not the network effect.
这只是对参与率的 A-B 测试，所以这不是网络效应。
If you capture the overall network effect of how post spread less by that person's repost, basically if you look top line with a difference in differences approach, multiple different external research groups have both found consistently that there's a 50 or 60% drop in total reposts, which is just nuts after a note is applied.
如果你捕捉到帖子传播量因该人的转发而减少的整体网络效应，基本上，如果你用差异化方法来观察顶线，多个不同的外部研究小组都一致发现，总转发量下降了 50% 或 60%，这在应用注释后简直是疯了。
It's having a really big impact on spread actually, too.
实际上，它对传播也产生了很大的影响。
Lenny Rachitsky: That's so great to hear.
Lenny Rachitsky：很高兴听到这个消息。
It's what I would want to see and it's incredible impact.
这就是我想看到的，它的影响令人难以置信。
Basically, an AI image of something false would just go crazy on Twitter, and did before Community Notes came out, and now what you're saying is just adding that context, not actually...
基本上，虚假的人工智能图像会在 Twitter 上变得疯狂，并且在社区笔记发布之前就已经发生了，现在你所说的只是添加上下文，而不是实际上......
Like you're saying, the algorithm doesn't demote it.
就像你说的，算法不会降级。
If there's something incorrect, it's just people are like, "Okay, this is false, why would I want to retweet this?" That makes sense.
如果有什么不正确的地方，人们就会说，“好吧，这是假的，我为什么要转发这个？”这是有道理的。
Keith Coleman: Yeah, the notes just totally take the wind out these stories.
基思·科尔曼：是的，这些笔记完全消除了这些故事的风气。
The thing will be going viral, note appears, resharing drops 50 to 60%, and that's it.
值得注意的是，这件事将会像病毒一样传播开来，转发率会下降 50% 到 60%，仅此而已。
At 50 to 60% per generation, the virality quickly goes to zero.
每代传播率达到 50% 到 60% 时，病毒式传播很快就会降至零。
Jay Baxter: By the way, I have very mixed feelings about this next one, but authors become 80% more likely to decrease, sorry, to delete their post after they get noted, which okay, that's great, because less misinfo out there, but I'm pan about, because those are usually the best notes.
Jay Baxter：顺便说一句，我对下一篇文章的感受非常复杂，但是作者在受到关注后删除帖子的可能性增加了 80%，抱歉，这很好，因为那里的错误信息更少，但我对此持平淡态度，因为这些通常是最好的注释。
If the note was so just good that you had no other option but to delete your post, those notes don't get seen by other people, right?
如果该注释非常好以至于您别无选择只能删除您的帖子，那么其他人就不会看到这些注释，对吗？
Because-
因为——
Jay Baxter: There's an argument, by the way, that seeing...
杰伊·巴克斯特：顺便说一下，有一个争论认为看到......
Just because you might see the same misleading claim elsewhere off X, or somewhere else on X, it might be good to actually show...
仅仅因为您可能会在 X 之外的其他地方或 X 上的其他地方看到相同的误导性声明，那么实际展示一下可能会更好......
Better to have seen the post with the note than not see it at all.
看到带有注释的帖子总比根本没有看到要好。
Lenny Rachitsky: Yeah, I'd be so sad if I was that community note writer and just...
Lenny Rachitsky：是的，如果我是那个社区笔记作者并且只是......
Man, it's so good.
伙计，这太好了。
They just can't even keep the post up.
他们甚至无法保持这个职位。
Okay.
好的。
Coming back from today's world, where this small amount of code is changing the way people understand the world and what they believe, and making the White House rescind their announcements, zooming back to the beginning of how this whole project started, what I heard just briefly is, Keith, you were just tired of managing PMs, you wanted to just work on something yourself, you wanted to work on something impactful away from corporate BS, and you basically just started looking for something that was impactful, important, and you found this.
从今天的世界回来，这一少量的代码正在改变人们理解世界和他们信仰的方式，并让白宫撤销他们的公告，回到整个项目的开始，我简单地听到的是，基思，你只是厌倦了管理产品经理，你只想自己做一些事情，你想做一些有影响力的事情，远离公司的废话，你基本上只是开始寻找一些有影响力的、重要的东西，然后你发现了这个。
Talk about just how it all came to be at the beginnings of the story.
谈谈故事开始时这一切是如何发生的。
Keith Coleman: Yeah.
基思·科尔曼：是的。
I mean, for me, the beginnings actually go back to why I joined, it was then, Twitter in 2016.
我的意思是，对我来说，一切的开始实际上可以追溯到我在 2016 年加入 Twitter 的原因。
I had a startup and we'd had some acquisition offers, and one of them was from this company, Twitter.
我有一家初创公司，我们收到了一些收购要约，其中之一来自 Twitter 公司。
It was 2016, it was the middle of the election between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, and there were something like three televised debates, but every day, there was a debate happening on Twitter, and it was very clear, this is where people are talking about these things that matter, where information is being shared, where ideas are being formed.
那是 2016 年，当时正值唐纳德·特朗普和希拉里·克林顿的选举中期，大约有三场电视辩论，但推特上每天都有一场辩论，很明显，这是人们谈论这些重要事情的地方，在这里分享信息，在这里形成想法。
As a user, it was obvious that I could get good information there, but it was also obvious that there was questionable information floating around.
作为一名用户，很明显我可以在那里获得好的信息，但也很明显存在有问题的信息。
I remember just looking, as an outsider, thinking like, "Wow, this is a really hard problem and it also seems really important," so we ended up going to Twitter and the company was in a turnaround at that point.
我记得作为一个局外人，我只是看着，心里想，“哇，这是一个非常困难的问题，而且看起来也非常重要”，所以我们最终去了 Twitter，公司当时正处于转变之中。
Keith Coleman: My first three years was just helping to get the company growing again, working on everything that was the consumer product, getting user growth going back and people wanting to work there again, et cetera, but a few years in, I was reflecting on what we had done.
基思·科尔曼：我的前三年只是帮助公司再次增长，致力于消费产品的所有方面，让用户增长回升，让人们想再次在那里工作，等等，但几年后，我开始反思我们所做的事情。
I think we had done a lot of good work getting momentum going, and people in the us and in the industry had tried things to deal with misleading information, but nothing was really working.
我认为我们做了很多很好的工作来推动势头，美国和业内人士也尝试过一些方法来处理误导性信息，但没有任何效果。
It was obvious nothing was working.
很明显什么都不起作用。
Nothing could handle the scale of the problem, nothing could handle the speed, and a lot of people just didn't trust the existing approaches.
没有什么可以处理问题的规模，没有什么可以处理速度，而且很多人只是不相信现有的方法。
The existing approaches were either fact-checkers or internal trust and safety teams making decisions about what was or was not misleading.
现有的方法要么是事实核查人员，要么是内部信任和安全团队，决定哪些内容具有误导性，哪些不具有误导性。
A lot of people just didn't want or trust that to be the way this was decided, which is very reasonable.
很多人只是不希望或不相信这是决定的方式，这是非常合理的。
Keith Coleman: I'm looking at that, I was still managing a large PM team.
Keith Coleman：我正在考虑这一点，我仍在管理一个大型 PM 团队。
That's a whole story in itself.
这本身就是一个完整的故事。
That job required a lot of energy in, and I didn't feel like I always saw the output that I wanted to see from it.
那份工作需要投入大量的精力，而且我觉得我并不总能看到我想从中看到的产出。
I didn't see the change in the product I wanted to see and I was contemplating, "Should I go start a company?
我没有看到我想要看到的产品的变化，我在想，“我应该去创办一家公司吗？
Should I do something else?" And I kept coming back to this problem.
我应该做点别的事吗？”我不断地回到这个问题上。
I'm like, "Man, how is the world going to deal with this information quality issue of what we get on social media?" Wherever get it.
我想，“伙计，世界将如何处理我们在社交媒体上获得的信息质量问题？”无论在哪里得到它。
I'm at this company where you can make a difference on this problem, why not go and try some crazy ideas and see if one of them might work?
我在这家公司，你可以在这个问题上做出改变，为什么不去尝试一些疯狂的想法，看看其中一个是否可行呢？
I had a kid, I came back from paternity leave, I went to my boss, Kayvon.
我有了一个孩子，我休完陪产假回来，我去找我的老板凯文。
I was like, "Hey, Kayvon.
我当时想，“嘿，凯文。
How about I just stop doing my job and I go work on this instead?
我干脆停止做我的工作，然后去做这件事怎么样？
'This' being trying some crazy ideas to see if we can deal with misleading info."
‘这’正在尝试一些疯狂的想法，看看我们是否可以处理误导性信息。”
Keith Coleman: He was stoked, so I went off and started working on that.
基思·科尔曼：他很兴奋，所以我就开始做这件事。
It started with just reading any research I could on the problem and existing solutions.
首先阅读我能找到的有关该问题和现有解决方案的所有研究。
What was or was not working, what were the issues, and then into prototyping.
什么有效或无效，存在什么问题，然后进行原型设计。
Then it ultimately led to us building and piloting this idea that became Community Notes.
然后，它最终导致我们构建并试点了这个想法，最终成为社区笔记。
Lenny Rachitsky: Amazing.
莱尼·拉奇茨基：太棒了。
I have so many questions and we're going to keep going through the story, but when you joined Twitter, what was the...
我有很多问题，我们将继续讲这个故事，但是当你加入 Twitter 时，是什么......
It was called Twitter.
它被称为推特。
At this point, I'm going to try to call it X now, which I know is important to your boss.
现在，我将尝试将其称为 X，我知道这对您的老板很重要。
What era of Twitter was it at that point?
那时 Twitter 处于什么时代？
It was Kayvon joined and who was the CEO?
Kayvon 加入了，首席执行官是谁？
Because there's been many.
因为已经有很多了。
Keith Coleman: Okay, yeah.
基思·科尔曼：好的，是的。
I came in December 2016, so Jack had relatively recently come back as CEO to turn the company around, and just to give you a sense of the state of the company, something like a third of employees were leaving every year.
我是 2016 年 12 月来的，所以杰克最近才回来担任首席执行官，以扭转公司的局面，只是为了让你了解公司的状况，每年都有大约三分之一的员工离开。
Just imagine a third of your team gone every year.
想象一下你的团队每年都有三分之一的人离开。
The stock was in the toilet, the product was not really growing, so Jack was working on a turnaround and Kayvon was there already.
库存已经在厕所里了，产品并没有真正增长，所以杰克正在努力扭亏为盈，而凯文已经在那里了。
Kayvon was running Periscope with a bunch of video stuff, and that group continued to...
Kayvon 正在运行 Periscope 并播放大量视频内容，该小组继续......
Jack was there up through the start of the Community Notes, then Birdwatch Project, and...
杰克一直在社区笔记的开始，然后是观鸟项目，然后……
Yeah.
是的。
Lenny Rachitsky: Okay, and it was called Birdwatch.
Lenny Rachitsky：好的，它的名字叫《观鸟》。
I don't think we've used that term yet, but that's an important point.
我认为我们还没有使用过这个术语，但这是很重要的一点。
It was called Birdwatch initially.
它最初被称为 Birdwatch。
Keith Coleman: Yeah.
基思·科尔曼：是的。
It was originally called Birdwatch when we started the project, but obviously, somewhat famously the name changed along the way.
当我们开始这个项目时，它最初被称为 Birdwatch，但显然，这个名字在某种程度上改变了。
Lenny Rachitsky: Yeah, maybe let's just tell that story real quick, and I know we're zooming it forward, but just...
Lenny Rachitsky：是的，也许让我们快速地讲述这个故事，我知道我们正在把它向前推进，但只是......
I have this Twitter thread that I saw between Jack and Elon when they're debating what to call it, and Elon's like, "Birdwatch sounds creepy, I want to change it".
我在 Twitter 上看到了 Jack 和 Elon 讨论如何称呼它时看到的帖子，Elon 说，“Birdwatch 听起来很令人毛骨悚然，我想改变它”。
Is there anything there you can share?
有什么可以分享的吗？
Keith Coleman: Yeah, the story there...
基思·科尔曼：是的，那里的故事......
The story, that's funny.
这个故事，很有趣。
Elon came in, acquired the company, and we had just launched the product relatively recently in the US.
埃隆进来收购了这家公司，而我们最近刚刚在美国推出了该产品。
It had been in pilot for a year, but we had just made it available US-wide, and I guess he'd been seeing the notes.
它已经试运行了一年，但我们刚刚在美国范围内推出，我猜他已经看到了这些注释。
Soon after the exhibition, he DM'd me and he was like, "Hey, this Community Notes thing is awesome," and I was like, "I'm glad you like it, let's talk," so we talked the next day and he kept referring to it as "This Community Notes thing." I was like, "It's interesting you keep calling it that, because that's actually the very first thing that I called it." The very first figma mockup I made depicting this thing was called "Community Notes." I don't know why, it just felt really natural, so that's the first prototype we had tested.
展览结束后不久，他给我发了私信，他说，“嘿，这个社区笔记的东西太棒了，”我说，“我很高兴你喜欢它，让我们谈谈吧，”所以我们第二天聊了，他一直把它称为“这个社区笔记的东西”。我当时想，“有趣的是你一直这么称呼它，因为这实际上是我第一次这么称呼它。”我制作的第一个描绘这个东西的 Figma 模型被称为“社区笔记”。我不知道为什么，感觉很自然，所以这是我们测试的第一个原型。
Keith Coleman: Later, the project changed the same to Birdwatch, but Elon was like, "Hey, let's just call it that." The next day, we just changed the name.
基思·科尔曼：后来，该项目又改为《观鸟》，但埃隆说，“嘿，我们就这么称呼它吧。”第二天，我们就改了名字。
It's always notable for the team when you change the name, but really, the team was excited about it.
当你更改名称时，团队总是值得注意的，但实际上，团队对此感到兴奋。
I think it is a much more understandable name.
我认为这是一个更容易理解的名字。
Jack has made fun of it, calling it "The ultimate Facebook name," or something like that.
杰克曾取笑它，称其为“终极 Facebook 名称”或类似名称。
Jay Baxter: The most boring Facebook name .
Jay Baxter：最无聊的 Facebook 名字。
Keith Coleman: Boring name, which is funny, because they're now launching Community Notes.
Keith Coleman：这个名字很无聊，但很有趣，因为他们现在正在推出社区笔记。
I think it is a very understandable, intuitive name, and I think it has served the product really well.
我认为这是一个非常容易理解、直观的名称，而且我认为它非常适合该产品。
There's a reason it was the name in the very first mockup.
在第一个模型中使用它是有原因的。
Lenny Rachitsky: Yeah, I think descriptive names just makes sense.
Lenny Rachitsky：是的，我认为描述性名称很有意义。
This connection with Elon, and I want to talk later about just how you've dealt with so many strong personalities over and kept this alive throughout so many changes, but before we get to that, you did something that I think a lot of product leaders, angel leaders, just people that have managed people dream of give up all this power, in air quotes, and career trajectory and influence and just, "Forget all that.
与埃隆的联系，我想稍后谈谈你是如何与如此多的强势人物打交道，并在如此多的变化中保持这种活力，但在我们开始之前，你做了一些我认为很多产品领导者、天使领导者、管理人员梦想放弃所有这些权力、空中引言、职业轨迹和影响力的事情，然后只是说，“忘掉这一切吧。
I'm going to go back to just building something awesome, small team." Is there any advice there that you could share from that experience that you think might be helpful for other leaders to share or to hear to help them maybe do that same jump?
我将回去建立一个很棒的小团队。”您是否可以从这次经历中分享一些您认为可能有助于其他领导者分享或听到的建议，以帮助他们进行同样的跳跃？
Because that's really difficult in practice.
因为这在实践中确实很难。
Easy to talk about, hard to do.
说起来容易，做起来难。
Keith Coleman: Yeah, I think it is a difficult jump.
基思·科尔曼：是的，我认为这是一个困难的跳跃。
I've done it a bunch of times in my career and I've always been very happy with it, where I started with a small team, that it grew into something bigger, and then I was like, "We're dealing with a lot of big production stuff, team's really big.
在我的职业生涯中我已经做过很多次了，我一直对此非常满意，我从一个小团队开始，后来发展成为更大的团队，然后我就想，“我们正在处理很多大型制作内容，团队真的很大。
I want to go back to doing something like crazy and new with a small team again." I've done that sawtooth leap a bunch of times, but it can be hard, because certainly, the natural...
我想再次和一个小团队一起做一些疯狂的、新的事情。”我已经做过很多次锯齿形跳跃，但这可能很难，因为当然，自然的......
The classic career path is, I don't know, rewards or running a large organization or being a manager, or things like that, but I think, at the end of the day, you got to work on stuff you love, you got to be having fun, and I think people want to be having impact.
我不知道，经典的职业道路是奖励或经营一个大型组织或成为一名经理，或类似的事情，但我认为，归根结底，你必须从事你喜欢的事情，你必须享受乐趣，而且我认为人们希望产生影响。
Keith Coleman: I think there's one myth that can get in people's ways.
Keith Coleman：我认为有一个神话可能会妨碍人们。
The idea that the more people you manage or the larger your scope is, the more impact you have.
您管理的人越多或您的范围越大，您的影响力就越大。
I definitely do not think that is true.
我绝对不认为这是真的。
I mean, look at Community Notes for example.
我的意思是，例如查看社区注释。
If I had stayed running a large consumer PM team, what would I have produced?
如果我继续管理一个大型消费者 PM 团队，我会产出什么？
16 more pages of OKRs?
还有 16 页 OKR？
I don't know, a bunch of documents?
不知道，一堆文件？
I think building Community Notes has had way bigger impact on the world.
我认为构建社区笔记对世界产生了更大的影响。
It's become the industry standard for how to deal with this now, which is super cool.
现在它已经成为如何处理这个问题的行业标准，这太酷了。
People love it, it's the first thing that is plausibly dealing with the internet-scale issue of information quality.
人们喜欢它，它是解决互联网规模的信息质量问题的第一件事。
I think it's unquestionably a bigger impact than I would've had if I were just doing whatever, doing some standard management track thing like I was doing before.
我认为，毫无疑问，如果我只是做任何事情，像我以前做的那样做一些标准管理轨道的事情，那么这无疑会产生更大的影响。
I think that's true of so many other small companies and startups.
我认为许多其他小公司和初创公司也是如此。
Someone screenshotted I think it's Blake Scholl's LinkedIn the other day.
有人截图了，我想是前几天 Blake Scholl 的 LinkedIn。
He went from director of coupons or something to building the first supersonic-
他从优惠券总监什么的变成了建造第一架超音速-
Keith Coleman: Those stories are everywhere when you look, so I definitely have found that, for me, I love building hands-on, I love trying crazy new ideas.
Keith Coleman：当你看时，这些故事无处不在，所以我肯定发现，对我来说，我喜欢亲自动手建造，我喜欢尝试疯狂的新想法。
I love the zero-to-one experience.
我喜欢从零到一的体验。
It's fun to scale things up too, and it can be fun to operate at scale, but this team is a good example of one that operates at a very large scale, but that is still very small.
扩大规模也很有趣，大规模运营也很有趣，但这个团队是大规模运营的一个很好的例子，但规模仍然很小。
Lenny Rachitsky: Yeah, I think the way you guys operate is what more and more companies are trying to do, remove middle management layers, create small teams that just execute and build impact, just like Ics.
Lenny Rachitsky：是的，我认为你们的运作方式是越来越多的公司正在尝试做的，取消中层管理层，创建只执行和建立影响力的小团队，就像 Ics 一样。
Whenever I say IC, I have a comment on YouTube, where like, "What is IC?" I'm just going to explain, individual contributor, non-manager is when I say the word IC.
每当我说到 IC 时，我都会在 YouTube 上发表评论，比如“IC 是什么？”我只是要解释一下，当我说 IC 这个词时，个人贡献者、非经理是指。
Let me follow this thread, and when I asked people about how you set up the team to operate effectively and protect it initially, there's this term, "Thermal," that came up a lot.
让我继续这个话题，当我询问人们如何建立团队以有效运作并最初保护它时，“热”这个术语出现了很多。
It was like a thermal team, if that's how you describe it.
如果你这么描述的话，它就像一支热力团队。
Keith Coleman: Yeah, so anyone who's worked in a larger company probably knows that things can get bureaucratic or bogged-down, decision-making can be slow.
基思·科尔曼：是的，所以任何在大公司工作过的人都可能知道事情可能会变得官僚主义或陷入困境，决策可能会很缓慢。
There's these large planning cycles, people can try to take someone from one team, move them to another at random arbitrary times that can disrupt a project, all sorts of things like that.
有这些大型的计划周期，人们可以尝试将某个团队中的某人随机地调到另一个团队，这可能会扰乱项目，诸如此类的事情。
Our company, this is a number of years ago when we started this project, we had a lot of founders in the company.
我们公司，这是很多年前我们开始这个项目的时候，我们公司有很多创始人。
Kayvon is an example of founder who is helping to run the company, and he had this idea, "Hey, why don't we create this program, call it Thermal, where we could have teams that were somewhat isolated from that." They could run through their own process, they would have one clear owner.
Kayvon 是帮助运营公司的创始人的一个例子，他有这样的想法，“嘿，我们为什么不创建这个程序，称之为 Thermal，在那里我们可以拥有与此有些隔离的团队。”他们可以运行自己的流程，他们会有一个明确的所有者。
The team would be entirely dedicated to that project and we would just repeatedly make funding decisions as to whether to continue the effort.
该团队将完全致力于该项目，我们只会反复做出是否继续努力的资金决定。
Lenny Rachitsky: Why was it called Thermal, by the way?
Lenny Rachitsky：顺便问一下，为什么它被称为 Thermal？
What was the idea there?
那里的想法是什么？
Keith Coleman: I think it was an old bird analogy of thermals lifting the bird on their wings.
基思·科尔曼：我认为这是一个古老的鸟类比，热气流将鸟举起翅膀。
Twitter 1.0 obviously had a lot of bird analogies, bless its heart, so that was one of them.
Twitter 1.0 显然有很多鸟的比喻，上帝保佑它的心，所以这就是其中之一。
I loved the idea, as someone who liked the startup environment, so when we were starting this project, I was like, "Hey, Kayvon.
我喜欢这个想法，作为一个喜欢启动环境的人，所以当我们开始这个项目时，我就像，“嘿，Kayvon。
Why don't we make this the first Thermal project?" And he was like, "Yeah, let's do it," so we started with that way of operating and it gave us, from day one, a lot of freedom and autonomy that I think was really important to make the product work.
我们为什么不将其作为第一个热力项目呢？”他说，“是的，让我们开始吧”，所以我们从这种运营方式开始，从第一天起，它就给了我们很大的自由和自主权，我认为这对于让产品发挥作用非常重要。
Lenny Rachitsky: Just be very specific about it.
Lenny Rachitsky：具体一点就可以了。
What makes it a Thermal project?
是什么使它成为一个热能项目？
How do you set that up?
你如何设置呢？
This is asking from perspective, if a company wants to build their own something like this, what does that look like?
这是从一个角度问的，如果一家公司想要建立自己的这样的东西，那会是什么样子？
Keith Coleman: Yeah, I think there's a bunch of key attributes.
Keith Coleman：是的，我认为有很多关键属性。
One key attribute is there's one clear driver of the project, who's effectively a founder.
一个关键属性是该项目有一个明确的推动者，他实际上是一位创始人。
I guess maybe you could have two or something, but really clear, there's driver of the project and also there's one clear decision-maker that they go to.
我想也许你可以有两个或其他什么，但非常清楚的是，有项目的驱动者，也有一个明确的决策者。
Keith Coleman: Outside of the team.
Keith Coleman：在团队之外。
That was true back when we started and it is true now.
在我们开始时是这样，现在也是如此。
If we need something or have a question about something, I talk to Elon.
如果我们需要某些东西或对某些东西有疑问，我会与埃隆交谈。
It was like that from the beginning, it's like that now, and I think that's a big reason we're able to make decisions effectively, quickly, in a simple way.
从一开始就是这样，现在也是这样，我认为这是我们能够以简单的方式有效、快速地做出决策的一个重要原因。
Lenny Rachitsky: It probably has to be someone very senior, not manager.
Lenny Rachitsky：可能必须是非常资深的人，而不是经理。
Keith Coleman: Someone senior who can make the decisions you need made, whatever they are.
Keith Coleman：一位资深人士，可以做出你需要做出的决定，无论是什么。
I think that's really important, that clear decision-making structure.
我认为清晰的决策结构非常重要。
Another was 100% focus, so everyone on the project is expected to be totally focused on it.
另一个是 100% 专注，因此项目中的每个人都应该完全专注于它。
A lot of companies, it can be easy to have people's attention spread across a bunch of things, and it makes it hard to get stuff done.
在很多公司中，人们的注意力很容易分散在一堆事情上，这使得完成工作变得很困难。
You'll talk to whoever that person is, you'll ask them for help on something, and they'll be like, "Yeah, I'll help you.
无论那个人是谁，你都会和他们交谈，你会向他们寻求一些帮助，他们会说：“是的，我会帮助你。
I got to finish this thing, and it'll take me a week or two and then I'll get to it." A week or two delay totally changes the momentum of a project.
我必须完成这件事，这需要我一两周的时间，然后我就会开始做。”一两周的延迟完全改变了项目的势头。
When we were 100% focused, we talk in the morning, it's like, "Hey, Jay.
当我们 100% 专注时，我们早上聊天时，就像是，“嘿，杰伊。
Why don't we try this thing in the algorithm?" He's like, "Yeah." Then that afternoon or the next day, we're looking at results.
我们为什么不在算法中尝试一下这个东西呢？”他说：“是的。”然后那天下午或第二天，我们就会查看结果。
Keith Coleman: Because of that total focus, the rate of iteration goes way up.
Keith Coleman：由于全神贯注，迭代速度大大提高。
Then beyond that, there was also just the ability to use whatever our own decision-making process was.
除此之外，我们还能够使用我们自己的决策过程。
We didn't need to write OKRs or...
我们不需要编写 OKR 或...
For others standard practices.
对于其他标准做法。
Obviously, we had to make sure we were responsibly building the product and everything, but we didn't need to use the standard practices.
显然，我们必须确保我们负责任地构建产品和一切，但我们不需要使用标准实践。
I think that's another great example, OKRs, I understand why they can be helpful, but they can also be not necessarily the right cadence at which to set goals.
我认为这是另一个很好的例子，OKR，我理解为什么它们会有所帮助，但它们也不一定是设定目标的正确节奏。
I think it's really unclear that quarterly or annual goals are actually the right pace.
我认为目前还不清楚季度或年度目标实际上是否正确。
We would set the goal for the next milestone that mattered, and we would work on that.
我们将为下一个重要的里程碑设定目标，并为此努力。
We reached that milestone, we would have an idea of what was coming after, and then when we hit that, we'd set the next milestone.
我们达到了那个里程碑，我们就会知道接下来会发生什么，然后当我们达到那个里程碑时，我们就会设定下一个里程碑。
Whether that was two weeks, a month, three months, whatever it was.
无论是两周、一个月、三个月，无论是什么。
We set our own pace and goals at that pace, and that just I think is a lot more natural for the development of something.
我们以此节奏设定自己的节奏和目标，我认为这对于某些事物的发展来说更加自然。
Jay Baxter: The whole OKR determination and planning process took longer than it would take us to pick a goal and then execute on it and finish it.
Jay Baxter：整个 OKR 确定和规划过程花费的时间比我们选择目标然后执行并完成它所需的时间还要长。
Lenny Rachitsky: How big was the team early on that you set up?
Lenny Rachitsky：您早期组建的团队有多大？
How many engineers?
有多少工程师？
Keith Coleman: It started with just me and then, when we decided to build the thing, we figured we needed about five.
Keith Coleman：一开始只有我一个人，然后，当我们决定建造这个东西时，我们认为我们需要大约五个。
We wanted it to be as small as we possibly could.
我们希望它尽可能小。
It was clear we needed someone on ML doing scoring, it was clear we needed someone to do some client engineering work, someone to do backend engineering work.
很明显，我们需要有人在机器学习方面进行评分，很明显我们需要有人来做一些客户端工程工作，有人来做后端工程工作。
There may have been one or two other.
可能还有其他一两个。
We needed a designer and a researcher to help us understand the customer base and make sure we were building the thing in a way that was actually going to resonate with people.
我们需要一名设计师和一名研究人员来帮助我们了解客户群，并确保我们以一种真正能引起人们共鸣的方式构建产品。
I think it was backend, frontend, ML, design research.
我认为是后端、前端、机器学习、设计研究。
That was the original team, from what I remember.
据我所知，那是最初的团队。
Lenny Rachitsky: Amazing.
莱尼·拉奇茨基：太棒了。
Basically, one of each function.
基本上，每个功能之一。
A question I have for Jay, actually, is there's all this talk of small teams and moving fast, but sometimes you just need more engineers to build the thing.
实际上，我要问 Jay 的一个问题是，大家都在谈论小团队和快速行动，但有时你只是需要更多的工程师来构建这个东西。
Is there anything you've learned about just how to keep a team small while moving as fast as you are, and not need or need to hire more engineers?
您是否学到了如何在保持团队规模较小的同时快速发展，并且不需要或不需要雇用更多工程师？
Jay Baxter: I think, in the beginning when we were iterating on what should even the requirements be, it was definitely good to just have one ML engineer, but I think, at some point, we got clear on what the goals of the algorithm should really be and we tried...
Jay Baxter：我认为，一开始，当我们迭代需求时，只有一名 ML 工程师绝对是件好事，但我认为，在某些时候，我们清楚了算法的真正目标是什么，并且我们尝试过......
I think, at the very beginning, it wasn't clear that we needed to build this bridging-based algorithm.
我认为，一开始并不清楚我们是否需要构建这种基于桥接的算法。
The actual first algorithm that I put into production was very focused on anti-manipulation.
我投入生产的第一个算法实际上非常注重反操纵。
It was this page rank variant, but it didn't solve the problem of bias, basically.
这是页面排名变体，但基本上没有解决偏差问题。
If there are more users on one side, a page rank type graph algorithm can actually amplify those biases.
如果一侧有更多用户，页面排名类型的图形算法实际上可以放大这些偏差。
I think, after building that prototype and getting data from that, it was clear that the bridging-based algorithm was going to be the way that we needed to solve it, and at that point, basically I set up a bake-off.
我认为，在构建原型并从中获取数据之后，很明显基于桥接的算法将成为我们解决该问题所需的方式，在这一点上，我基本上设置了一个烘焙。
Kind of a Kaggle competition or something.
有点像 Kaggle 竞赛之类的。
That was the key time where it was really important to pull in other engineers.
那是关键时刻，吸引其他工程师非常重要。
Lenny Rachitsky: That is such a cool story.
Lenny Rachitsky：这是一个很酷的故事。
I want to follow that thread.
我想追踪该线索。
Before we do that, you just mentioned you guys yell "Thermal." What does that mean?
在我们这样做之前，你刚刚提到你们大喊“热”。这意味着什么？
Is that YOLO, like a version of...
是 YOLO，就像...的一个版本吗？
Okay.
好的。
Keith Coleman: We're just going to ship, because we're thermal project.
Keith Coleman：我们只是要发货，因为我们是热项目。
Lenny Rachitsky: Okay.
莱尼·拉奇茨基：好的。
Marketers, I know that you love , so let me get right to the point.
营销人员，我知道你们喜欢，所以让我开门见山。
Wix Studio gives you everything you need to cater to any client at any scale, all in one place.
Wix Studio 为您提供满足任何规模的任何客户所需的一切，一切都在一个地方。
Here's how your workflow could look.
您的工作流程如下所示。
Scale content with dynamic pages and reusable assets effortlessly, fast-track projects with built-in marketing integrations like Meta, CAPI, Zapier, Google Ads, and more.
通过动态页面和可重用资产轻松扩展内容，通过 Meta、CAPI、Zapier、Google Ads 等内置营销集成快速跟踪项目。
A-B test landing pages in days, not weeks, with intuitive design tools, connected tracking, and analytics tools, like Google Analytics and Semrush.
使用直观的设计工具、连接的跟踪和分析工具（例如 Google Analytics 和 Semrush），在几天而不是几周内对登陆页面进行 A-B 测试。
Encapture key business events without the hassle of manual setup, manage all your client's social media and communications from a unified dashboard, then create, schedule, and post content across all their channels.
无需手动设置的麻烦即可捕获关键业务事件，通过统一的仪表板管理所有客户的社交媒体和通信，然后跨所有渠道创建、安排和发布内容。
If you're working on content-rich sites, Wix Studio's No-Code CMS lets you build and manage without touching the design.
如果您正在开发内容丰富的网站，Wix Studio 的无代码 CMS 可以让您在不触及设计的情况下进行构建和管理。
When you're ready for more, Wix Studio grows with you.
当您准备好接受更多时，Wix Studio 会与您一起成长。
Add your own code, create custom integrations with Wix-made APIs, or leverage robust native business solutions.
添加您自己的代码，创建与 Wix 制造的 API 的自定义集成，或利用强大的本机业务解决方案。
Drive real client growth with Wix Studio.
通过 Wix Studio 推动真正的客户增长。
Go to Wixstudio.com.
访问 Wixstudio.com。
Lenny Rachitsky: Okay, so coming back to this algorithm, this is actually really interesting, because I've never heard any of this.
Lenny Rachitsky：好的，回到这个算法，这实际上非常有趣，因为我从未听说过这些。
I was going to ask just what inspired this actual algorithm, and you basically did an internal competition amongst ML engineers to see who had the most successful algorithm.
我想问这个实际算法的灵感来源是什么，你基本上在机器学习工程师之间进行了内部竞赛，看看谁拥有最成功的算法。
Netflix-contest style, Kaggle style.
Netflix 竞赛风格、Kaggle 风格。
Jay Baxter: Yeah, yeah.
杰·巴克斯特：是的，是的。
This particular idea of finding content that is liked by people on opposite sides of a polarized divider who typically disagree, this was not an idea out of thin air.
这种寻找两极分化的对立双方通常不同意的人喜欢的内容的特殊想法并不是凭空产生的。
I think Keith had found some of Chris Bale's work, he had made this list of accounts that were often liked by people who were on both sides politically.
我认为基思已经找到了克里斯·贝尔的一些作品，他列出了这份经常受到政治上双方人士喜欢的账户清单。
There is other projects, like polls out there that look for agreement among people who typically disagree, but I think that it wasn't obvious that our project definitely needed to use that from the very beginning.
还有其他项目，例如民意调查，旨在寻求通常不同意的人之间的一致意见，但我认为我们的项目从一开始就肯定需要使用它，这一点并不明显。
When you implement it and compare it against these other type...
当您实现它并将其与其他类型进行比较时......
PageRank seems, obviously, it's designed to be manipulation-resistant.
显然，PageRank 的设计就是为了防止操纵。
Naturally, if you just have a voting ring of people who all vote themselves up, then PageRank can filter that out very well, but that just wasn't the main attack vector, I guess.
当然，如果你有一个投票圈，所有的人都投票支持自己，那么 PageRank 可以很好地过滤掉它，但我猜这并不是主要的攻击媒介。
Jay Baxter: We had to get some real data from the pilot to realize that, "Okay, the real thing going on here is people are polarized," so it was only once we got that, the real data from the pilot, that I think it was clear that the bridging-based algorithm was the direction we really needed to go.
Jay Baxter：我们必须从飞行员那里获得一些真实数据才能意识到，“好吧，这里发生的真实情况是人们是两极分化的”，所以只有当我们从飞行员那里得到真实数据时，我认为基于桥接的算法显然是我们真正需要走的方向。
Lenny Rachitsky: I want to come back to the way you operate the team.
Lenny Rachitsky：我想回到你管理团队的方式。
I hear that you run the whole team off a single Google Doc that's like a four-year-old doc that you just keep adding goals to, bullet points.
我听说你通过一个 Google 文档来管理整个团队，它就像一个四年前的文档，你只是不断地向其中添加目标和要点。
Is that true?
这是真的吗？
Keith Coleman: There is a very long-running doc that has had to be chopped and purged, because it was breaking Google Docs in Chrome at various points in time.
Keith Coleman：有一个运行时间非常长的文档必须被删除和清除，因为它在不同的时间点破坏了 Chrome 中的 Google 文档。
It's like a note-taking doc.
这就像一个记笔记的文档。
It's really where we coordinate what we're doing.
这确实是我们协调我们正在做的事情的地方。
The team meets on a daily basis, we spend whatever amount of time we need to get on the same page about what we're building.
团队每天都会开会，我们会花费尽可能多的时间来就我们正在构建的内容达成一致。
We might talk about anything from what's most important right now to, "What should we work on next?" To, "What are we trying to launch right now, and why is it not launched?
我们可以讨论任何事情，从现在最重要的事情到“我们下一步应该做什么？” “我们现在想推出什么，为什么还没有推出？
What's in the way of launching it?" We might review new modeling or scoring algorithm update and try to understand what's working in it, what's not.
启动它有何困难？”我们可能会审查新的建模或评分算法更新，并尝试了解其中哪些有效，哪些无效。
We'll just cover whatever we want or whatever feels most important.
我们只会涵盖我们想要的任何内容或感觉最重要的内容。
As you said, we set our goals very dynamically, so whatever seems like the most important thing for us to work on now and next is what we spend our time on.
正如您所说，我们非常动态地设定目标，因此对我们现在和下一步来说最重要的事情就是我们花时间做的事情。
I think that's served the project really well versus feeling attached to some quarterly goals, or something.
我认为这对项目非常有帮助，而不是执着于某些季度目标或其他什么。
We'll look at, "What is going to help people the most?" Or, "What's the biggest problem right now?" What are either one of those?
我们会看看“什么对人们最有帮助？”或者，“现在最大的问题是什么？”其中之一是什么？
And we will go tackle it.
我们将去解决它。
We might change our roadmap multiple times in two weeks based on what we see.
根据我们所看到的情况，我们可能会在两周内多次更改路线图。
Lenny Rachitsky: I'm hearing no Jira, no Asana, no Monday.com.
Lenny Rachitsky：我没有听到 Jira、Asana、Monday.com。
Keith Coleman: Yeah, I mean, we have to use Jira to coordinate with some other teams.
Keith Coleman：是的，我的意思是，我们必须使用 Jira 与其他一些团队进行协调。
Sometimes when we file a request, we have to make a Jira ticket.
有时，当我们提交请求时，我们必须制作 Jira 票证。
But no, I am not a fan of heavyweight task management.
但不，我不喜欢重量级任务管理。
I love being on the same page, being able to keep most things in my head, and having a really light way to write down the things that the team can't keep in its head.
我喜欢保持一致，能够将大部分事情记在脑子里，并以一种非常轻松的方式写下团队无法记在脑子里的事情。
Jay Baxter: We did use Asana briefly, but my memory of it is that you spent more time in the meeting grooming a backlog of irrelevant stuff than actually talking about the proper priorities.
杰伊·巴克斯特：我们确实短暂地使用了体式，但我记得你在会议上花了更多的时间整理积压的不相关的东西，而不是真正谈论正确的优先事项。
I think it's nice in the Google Doc that, if something becomes irrelevant, it can just fall off without needing explicit backlog grooming.
我认为 Google 文档中的这一点很好，如果某些内容变得无关紧要，它可以直接消失，而不需要明确的待办事项整理。
Lenny Rachitsky: Just to maybe summarize a little bit of how you guys operate that might inspire other companies to set teams up like this, so I'm going to go through a few things you shared.
Lenny Rachitsky：只是为了总结一下你们的运作方式，这可能会激励其他公司建立这样的团队，所以我将回顾一下你们分享的一些事情。
One is one person in charge of the team, like the founder almost.
一位是团队的一名负责人，几乎就像创始人一样。
They're basically the founder of the team.
他们基本上是团队的创始人。
They have one very senior, essentially, sponsor/decision-maker that they interface with.
他们有一位非常资深的发起人/决策者来与他们打交道。
In your case, Elon, no big deal.
就你而言，埃隆，没什么大不了的。
In other cases, it could be the CTO, CPO, someone like that.
在其他情况下，可能是 CTO、CPO 之类的人。
The team is focused 100% on its product and goal.
该团队 100% 专注于其产品和目标。
You keep the team very small, so you start with one person of each function.
你的团队规模非常小，所以一开始每个职能只有一个人。
One front-end engineer, back-end, ML person, designer, researcher, PM, and then Google Docs is almost basically for your project management.
一名前端工程师、后端、ML 人员、设计师、研究员、PM，然后 Google Docs 几乎就可以用于您的项目管理。
Yeah, it's basically run with Google Docs, stop, don't use big, complicated products.
是的，它基本上是用 Google Docs 运行的，停下来，不要使用大而复杂的产品。
Keith Coleman: I think that's a pretty good recipe.
基思·科尔曼：我认为这是一个非常好的食谱。
On the Google Docs, people can do what they want.
在 Google 文档上，人们可以做他们想做的事情。
If they want to use thumbnails, go for it.
如果他们想使用缩略图，那就用吧。
I think those first ingredients, really, are key structurally.
我认为这些首要成分确实是结构上的关键。
Then beyond that, it's a matter of having an ambitious goal that gets-
除此之外，还有一个雄心勃勃的目标，那就是——
Keith Coleman: And then beyond that, it's a matter of having an ambitious goal that gets people fired up to go do great work.
基思·科尔曼：除此之外，还有一个问题是要有一个雄心勃勃的目标，让人们有动力去做伟大的工作。
Lenny Rachitsky: Yeah.
莱尼·拉奇茨基：是的。
Awesome.
惊人的。
I think there's a lot there that a lot of people think they should do when they set these teams up, but they don't actually do, and it feels like each of these is just a really key ingredient to it to actually succeeding.
我认为很多人认为在组建这些团队时应该做很多事情，但他们实际上并没有这样做，而且感觉每一个都是真正成功的关键因素。
Keith Coleman: It definitely really helped us succeed.
Keith Coleman：这确实帮助我们取得了成功。
I don't know that the project would be here if it was not for some of those elements.
我不知道如果没有其中一些元素，这个项目还会在这里。
Lenny Rachitsky: That's a powerful statement.
Lenny Rachitsky：这是一个强有力的声明。
This thing that has changed the way the world understands what is true would not have existed if you didn't set it up in this specific way.
如果你没有以这种特定的方式设置它，那么这个改变了世界理解真相的方式的东西就不会存在。
Keith Coleman: Yeah.
基思·科尔曼：是的。
I don't know if I would've begun the project had I not known.
如果我不知道的话，我不知道我是否会开始这个项目。
We had that structure, that ability to make decisions, the autonomy, the speed, the ability to go fast.
我们有那种结构、那种决策能力、自主权、速度、快速行动的能力。
We started with that in 1.0 and it's been continued and if anything, furthered in X.
我们从 1.0 开始，一直延续到 X 中。
X as a whole company operates with a lot of those attributes, and I think it's one of the reasons the product is successful.
X 作为一个整体公司，在运作时具有很多这样的属性，我认为这是该产品成功的原因之一。
I think those are big reasons why at least, Jay can speak for himself, I have so much fun working on this.
我认为这些是至少杰伊可以为自己说话的重要原因，我在这方面的工作非常有趣。
I love working on it.
我喜欢从事这方面的工作。
It's great to wake up every day and solve these problems.
每天醒来并解决这些问题真是太好了。
We get to do them efficiently, make decisions quickly, build stuff that helps a lot of people.
我们可以高效地完成这些任务，快速做出决策，构建可以帮助很多人的东西。
It's awesome.
太棒了。
Jay Baxter: This whether thermal or Elon way of operating is definitely more fun and the fact that...
Jay Baxter：无论是热操作还是埃隆操作方式，这绝对更有趣，而且事实是......
That combined with the awesome mission is super important for internal recruiting.
这与令人敬畏的使命相结合对于内部招聘来说非常重要。
I remember when I was first chatting to Keith about this back in early 2020, I had another project.
我记得 2020 年初，当我第一次与 Keith 谈论这个问题时，我还有另一个项目。
I worked on a few, but one was like personalize the number of push notifications that we send, and it drove a lot of DAU without losing opt-outs significantly.
我做了一些工作，但其中一个是个性化我们发送的推送通知的数量，它在没有显着失去选择退出的情况下增加了大量的 DAU。
So that was setting me on track, or if I had kept working on that, I could have probably gotten a promotion from that with low risk, or I could take this huge career...
所以这让我走上了正轨，或者如果我继续努力，我可能会以低风险获得晋升，或者我可以接受这个巨大的职业……
It's not as big at a career risk as joining or founding an actual external startup, but there is still career risk, I guess, in joining a team like this.
它的职业风险不像加入或创建一个实际的外部初创公司那么大，但我想，加入这样的团队仍然存在职业风险。
I think all of the same aspects of recruiting that apply to external startups and apply internally, and if you can have an exciting vision, that is key.
我认为招聘的所有相同方面适用于外部初创公司和内部，如果你能有一个令人兴奋的愿景，那就是关键。
Keith Coleman: Related to that and your list, Lenny, one thing we missed that's super important is that on this project, and I think of successful projects like it in startups, is that people are self-selecting to join.
Keith Coleman：与此和您的列表相关，Lenny，我们错过的一件非常重要的事情是，在这个项目中，我认为在初创公司中类似的成功项目，人们是自我选择加入的。
We did not assign anyone to this project.
我们没有为这个项目分配任何人。
People reached out to join or they applied to join the job.
人们主动联系或申请加入这项工作。
I and the team interviewed every single person that joined the team and we were like, "We want that person on the team.
我和团队采访了加入团队的每一个人，我们的想法是：“我们希望那个人加入团队。
They want to be on the team." And so people are totally bought in to the goal, mission, the way the team works, the other people they're going to be working with.
他们想加入团队。”因此，人们完全认同目标、使命、团队的工作方式以及将要合作的其他人。
And that makes a huge difference.
这产生了巨大的差异。
Keith Coleman: So a great time to do that is at the start of one of these things.
Keith Coleman：因此，在其中一件事开始时就是这样做的好时机。
If you're going to try something crazy, it's going to be tough if you're just assigning random people to it.
如果你要尝试一些疯狂的事情，如果你只是随机分配人员，那就会很困难。
But if you let people opt in and self-select much more likely to be successful.
但如果你让人们选择并自我选择，成功的可能性就会更大。
And one thing that I have observed at X, which really surprised me was that this is also possible at a large scale.
我在 X 观察到的一件事让我感到非常惊讶，那就是这在大规模上也是可能的。
One of the things that Elon did when he bought the company was he basically asked people to self-select to stay.
埃隆购买公司时所做的一件事就是他基本上要求人们自行选择留下来。
You had to click the button.
你必须点击按钮。
And he sent an email out that was like, "Hey, Twitter 2.0."
他发送了一封电子邮件，内容类似于“嘿，Twitter 2.0”。
Keith Coleman: Fork in the road.
基思·科尔曼：岔路口。
Fork in the road.
岔路口。
Exactly.
确切地。
He's like, "Twitter 2.0, now X, it's going to be hardcore.
他说，“Twitter 2.0，现在 X，它将变得硬核。
We're going to do ambitious things.
我们要做雄心勃勃的事情。
You're going to work your butt off." And you had to click on the form and say, "Yes, I want to join." And I think that was really important for the company because you want people to opt into that.
你要拼命工作。”你必须点击表格并说：“是的，我想加入。”我认为这对公司来说非常重要，因为你希望人们选择这样做。
You want the people to be saying, "Yeah, that's what I want to do," and the company's going to be a lot more successful.
你希望人们说：“是的，这就是我想做的事”，那么公司就会更加成功。
If people aren't sure, it's better for them probably to go do something else and where they're naturally more aligned and happier.
如果人们不确定，他们最好去做其他事情，这样他们自然会更加一致和快乐。
And I thought that was a great approach to taking a large company and getting it down to people who are really excited about working together on a mission.
我认为这是一个很好的方法，可以让一家大公司把它交给那些真正热衷于共同完成一项使命的人们。
So for us, we did it from day one, which I think is an easy way to do it, but it's possible to do it later as well.
所以对我们来说，我们从第一天就这样做了，我认为这是一种简单的方法，但以后也可以这样做。
Lenny Rachitsky: I love that you described it as fun and I think a lot of people when they see Elon laying off a bunch of people, being very hardcore himself, people don't imagine it as a fun place to work.
Lenny Rachitsky：我喜欢你把它描述为有趣，我想很多人当他们看到埃隆解雇了一群人，自己非常顽固时，人们并不认为这是一个有趣的工作场所。
And it's clear how much you guys love working on this, how fun it is and how interesting it is.
很明显，你们有多么喜欢从事这项工作，它是多么有趣，它是多么有趣。
And it's interesting to hear that 'cause I think a lot of people don't feel that externally.
听到这个消息很有趣，因为我认为很多人在外部并没有这种感觉。
Is there anything else along the lines of just working for Elon within an org Elon runs that might surprise people about just the way of working that's interesting or surprising or you think other companies might want to think about adopting?
在 Elon 运营的组织中为 Elon 工作，是否还有其他事情可能会让人们对这种有趣或令人惊讶的工作方式感到惊讶，或者你认为其他公司可能会考虑采用？
Keith Coleman: I've always liked lean teams, but my experience at X has made me change the way I would think about running a future org-...
Keith Coleman：我一直喜欢精益团队，但我在 X 的经历让我改变了我对运营未来组织的思考方式——...
If I were to start a company and had to change the way I think about starting that company, I would be even leaner than I would've made it before.
如果我要创办一家公司并且必须改变我对创办该公司的看法，我会比以前更精简。
I've been amazed with just how much the team is able to accomplish with a small group.
我对这个团队能够通过一个小团队完成如此多的工作感到惊讶。
And I think because of a small group, shortly after the acquisition, we had this product called Spaces.
我认为，由于一个小群体，在收购后不久，我们就有了这个名为 Spaces 的产品。
It had been in the product before, but it was pretty small scale, and Elon wanted to run these large spaces.
它以前已经出现在产品中，但规模相当小，而埃隆想经营这些大空间。
I forget who the first people he was going to bring on were, but he was going to be there.
我忘记他要带的第一批人是谁，但他会在那里。
Ultimately, these things have gone on to host politicians and things like that, and he's like, "Guys, we got to scale this up." I forget the numbers.
最终，这些事情继续接待了政客和类似的事情，他说，“伙计们，我们必须扩大规模。”我忘记了数字。
Keith Coleman: He's like, "We need to be able to scale a million people," or something like that.
Keith Coleman：他说，“我们需要能够扩大到 100 万人”，或者类似的话。
I'm getting the numbers wrong.
我把数字弄错了。
"You need to be able to scale way up." This is the kind of thing at 1.0 That would've taken a year if it had ever happened, and the team did it in two or three weeks.
“你需要能够扩大规模。”这是 1.0 中的事情，如果发生的话需要一年的时间，而团队在两三周内就完成了。
And it was really exciting and inspiring to see.
看到这真是令人兴奋和鼓舞。
I didn't work on that, but I watched it from the outside.
我没有参与其中，但我从外面观看了它。
I'm like, "Wow, with this tiny team motivated behind a big goal that was like, 'Hey, guys, it's not like, are we going to do this?' It's, 'We are going to do this.'" They got it done in two or three weeks.
我想，“哇，这个小团队背后有一个大目标，就像，‘嘿，伙计们，这不是说，我们要这样做吗？’就是，‘我们要做这件事。’”他们在两三周内就完成了。
That must've felt amazing for them.
这对他们来说一定感觉很棒。
It was certainly exciting to see.
看到这确实令人兴奋。
But I've definitely come to appreciate just how lean something can be and not just get by but actually thrive because it's that lean.
但我确实开始欣赏一些东西可以多么精益，不仅能勉强度日，还能真正蓬勃发展，因为它就是那么精益。
Lenny Rachitsky: I think the point you made about people opting into that is important, 'cause I think a lot of people hearing that would be like, "I would never want to be asked to build something like that in two weeks." And I think a lot of people do, and we love that kind of experience, especially working with the Elon, especially shipping something at that scale.
Lenny Rachitsky：我认为你关于人们选择这样做的观点很重要，因为我认为很多人听到这句话都会说，“我永远不想被要求在两周内建造这样的东西。”我认为很多人都这样做，我们喜欢这种体验，尤其是与 Elon 合作，尤其是运送如此规模的东西。
But I think there's an important element there of just like, "Okay, I don't want to do that.
但我认为其中有一个重要的因素，“好吧，我不想那样做。
I have other things to do in my life other than ship spaces." So I think that's a key point you've raised of just there's an opt-in step.
除了船舶空间之外，我的生活中还有其他事情要做。”所以我认为这是您提出的一个关键点，只是有一个选择加入的步骤。
Keith Coleman: Totally.
基思·科尔曼：完全可以。
I think the opt in is important, and it may even be that you want to opt in at one point in your life, and maybe at another point in your life something else is better.
我认为选择加入很重要，甚至可能你想在生命中的某个时刻选择加入，而也许在你生命中的另一个时刻有其他更好的东西。
I think whatever it is you're choosing to do, it's nice to be opting in to feel like it's aligned with how you want to spend your time.
我认为无论你选择做什么，选择加入感觉与你想要如何度过时间是一致的，这很好。
Lenny Rachitsky: Something on my mind, and I don't know if you guys want to go here, but it's something I think a lot of people think about is when Elon came in, he let go of 80% of folks.
Lenny Rachitsky：我心里有件事，我不知道你们是否想去这里，但我想很多人都在想，当埃隆进来时，他解雇了 80% 的人。
And everyone's just like, "Twitter is dead.
每个人都说，“推特已经死了。
It's all going to fall apart.
一切都会崩溃。
There's no way they can run this thing with that small of a staff," and clearly they were wrong.
他们不可能用这么少的员工来管理这件事，”显然他们错了。
Clearly, it's working great.
显然，它运作良好。
It's becoming a massive deal in the world and continues to grow.
它正在成为世界上的一件大事，并且还在继续增长。
Is there anything about that that you were surprised by or anything about just how it continues to operate so well in spite of that big shift?
有没有什么事情让您感到惊讶，或者尽管发生了如此大的转变，但它如何继续运作得如此良好？
Keith Coleman: I think the leaner team, the reduced process in bureaucracy is a big reason it does move as fast as it does.
Keith Coleman：我认为更精简的团队、官僚主义流程的减少是其行动速度如此之快的一个重要原因。
It's easier to get stuff done faster here.
在这里更容易更快地完成工作。
Yeah.
是的。
I think that shrinking is actually a big reason for the increased pace of launches, the increased pace of experimentation.
我认为缩小实际上是加快发布速度、加快实验速度的一个重要原因。
One thing that I noticed a result of that is the people who are here, they seem to all really feel like owners.
我注意到的一件事是这里的人，他们似乎都真的感觉自己是主人。
They take the sense of responsibility that an owner takes in the product.
他们承担着所有者对产品的责任感。
They'll try to track down what's wrong, fix whatever is needed, jump in to help build or fix, improve any system that needs help, even if it's outside of their space.
他们会尽力找出问题所在，修复需要的任何问题，介入帮助构建或修复、改进任何需要帮助的系统，即使它超出了他们的范围。
And there's the flip side of that too.
这也有另一面。
For people who've worked at big companies, they may have experienced this thing where there's like ano-...
对于在大公司工作过的人来说，他们可能经历过这样的事情，就像...
You want to change something in some other system or product, and so you reach out to that team.
您想要更改其他系统或产品中的某些内容，因此您联系了该团队。
And maybe they're a little resistant, they'll maybe be like, "Oh, we'll get to that next quarter or so-
也许他们有点抗拒，他们可能会说，“哦，我们会在下个季度左右做到这一点——
Lenny Rachitsky: They have their own goals to hit.
Lenny Rachitsky：他们有自己的目标要实现。
Yeah.
是的。
Keith Coleman: Yeah.
基思·科尔曼：是的。
Exactly.
正是如此。
They don't really necessarily want to help you or they're busy.
他们不一定真的想帮助你或者他们很忙。
Here, you're like, "Hey, guys, we need to do this thing with that other system you work on." And they're like, "Great!
在这里，你会说，“嘿，伙计们，我们需要用你工作的其他系统来做这件事。”他们就像，“太棒了！
Here's the code.
这是代码。
Here are the docs.
这是文档。
Send us the fab if you have any questions, and we'll get it in." And it's just the thing, you can just jump in and get it done.
如果您有任何疑问，请将晶圆厂发送给我们，我们会帮您解决。”就是这样，您可以直接参与并完成它。
And that kind of collaborative effort, like the sense of shared ownership, I think from my experience came from or was a result of the shrinking of the team down to people who wanted to be there and work together to build this thing.
这种协作努力，就像共享所有权的感觉一样，我认为根据我的经验，来自或者是团队缩小到那些想要在那里并共同努力构建这个东西的人的结果。
So I think that's been a really positive impact.
所以我认为这是一个非常积极的影响。
It's not always easy.
这并不总是那么容易。
Certainly, a lot of people have a lot of responsibilities, but they're here because they're up for it.
当然，很多人都有很多责任，但他们来到这里是因为他们愿意承担责任。
Jay Baxter: Yeah.
杰·巴克斯特：是的。
I think one other thing that's key is when you are forced to have such a small team, well, this is important anyways, but deleting code is more important than writing it a lot of the time.
我认为另一件关键的事情是，当你被迫拥有这么小的团队时，无论如何，这很重要，但删除代码比很多时候编写代码更重要。
So I think so often maybe due to promotion incentives or just regular human tendency, engineers have a tendency to add these little incremental wins that actually add more of a long-term maintenance cost than is clear, because you just run a little one month A-B test, you see this significant win and you don't realize the maintenance burden you just added to your team for the rest of eternity until you turn the thing off.
所以我认为，也许由于晋升激励或只是普通的人类倾向，工程师往往倾向于添加这些小的增量胜利，这实际上增加了比显而易见的更多的长期维护成本，因为你只进行了一个月的 A-B 测试，你看到了这一重大胜利，并且你没有意识到你刚刚给你的团队带来的永恒的维护负担，直到你关闭它。
So I think there's a lot to be gained and you get forced to do this, by the way, when you have such a small team.
所以我认为有很多收获，顺便说一句，当你的团队如此之小时，你被迫这样做。
It's just auditing parts of your system and deleting the things where the maintenance cost is worse than the gains.
它只是审核系统的某些部分，并删除维护成本比收益更差的部分。
So I think we did have to do this across the company after the big layoffs, and systems are leaner now and they can be worked on by fewer numbers of people.
因此，我认为在大规模裁员之后，我们确实必须在整个公司范围内这样做，而且系统现在更加精简，并且可以由更少的人员来处理。
Lenny Rachitsky: That's an amazing point.
Lenny Rachitsky：这是一个令人惊奇的观点。
I remember Elon's being like, "Here, we have to throw away the whole thing.
我记得埃隆说，“在这里，我们必须扔掉整个东西。
We have to re-architect everything.
我们必须重新架构一切。
It's stupid the way it's built." And it sounds like that actually worked.
它的构建方式很愚蠢。”听起来这确实有效。
Jay Baxter: You don't have to rewrite everything from scratch.
Jay Baxter：您不必从头开始重写所有内容。
Some things are good, I guess, to rewrite.
我想有些东西重写是好的。
But just even deleting the unnecessary cruft and keeping the rest of the core system, that's awesome.
但即使删除不必要的东西并保留核心系统的其余部分，这也很棒。
Lenny Rachitsky: I love that we're creating a formula to run these sorts of companies and teams.
Lenny Rachitsky：我喜欢我们正在创建一个运营此类公司和团队的公式。
There's so much here.
这里有这么多。
I want to go back to the building of the original product.
我想回到最初产品的构建。
I took us on a long tangent and an amazing tangent, but I heard a story of when you launched Birdwatch at that point.
我给我们带来了一个很长的切线和一个惊人的切线，但我听到了一个关于你当时推出 Birdwatch 的故事。
You specifically wanted to keep expectations very low and there was a GIF in the thing, and it just looked like clearly this is not ready for prime time.
你特别想把期望保持在很低的水平，而且里面有一个 GIF，而且看起来显然还没有准备好迎接黄金时段。
Talk about just how you did that, how you launched it in a way where people weren't like, "It's never going to work."
谈谈你是如何做到的，如何以一种人们不会说“这永远不会成功”的方式推出它。
Keith Coleman: We were very disciplined, I guess you could say, about having the product prove itself at every given point.
Keith Coleman：我想你可以说，我们非常自律，让产品在每个特定点证明自己。
When we built the first mockups, these were just pictures of depicting what community notes might look like.
当我们构建第一个模型时，这些只是描绘社区笔记可能是什么样子的图片。
We showed those to people across the political spectrum.
我们向各个政治派别的人们展示了这些内容。
We saw, hey, people really like these.
我们看到，嘿，人们真的很喜欢这些。
Whether they're on the right or left, they seem very open to reading these community notes even when they're critical to people of their own side.
无论他们是右翼还是左翼，他们似乎都非常愿意阅读这些社区笔记，即使它们对自己一方的人持批评态度。
So we're like, "All right.
所以我们就像，“好吧。
That gives us confidence that if we can build this, if we can actually make this as a reality, it's going to work." Then there's a question of can we make it a reality?
这让我们有信心，如果我们能够实现这一点，如果我们真的能够将其变为现实，那么它就会发挥作用。”那么我们能否使其成为现实呢？
Will people in the real world be able to write notes that are of this quality?
现实世界中的人们能够写出这种质量的笔记吗？
Keith Coleman: And so we had an internal pilot test version of this where you could write notes.
Keith Coleman：所以我们有一个内部试点测试版本，您可以在其中写笔记。
And we first basically ran this through an Amazon MTurk type of participant test just to see if you just put some normal people in there, will they be able to write these notes?
我们首先基本上通过 Amazon MTurk 类型的参与者测试来运行这个测试，只是为了看看如果你把一些普通人放在那里，他们能够写这些笔记吗？
All those notes weren't good, but it was clear that there were people out there who could write good notes.
所有这些笔记都不好，但很明显有人可以写出好的笔记。
So then like, "Okay, this is possible.
然后就像，“好吧，这是可能的。
What will happen if we actually do this out in the real world?
如果我们真的在现实世界中这样做会发生什么？
And let's run a pilot and find out." And so we took that pilot that we'd run the MTurk of test on, and we released it to at first 1000 people, totally out in public, and we didn't know what was going to show up.
让我们进行一个试点并找出答案。”因此，我们采用了在 MTurk 上进行测试的试点，我们向最初的 1000 人发布了它，完全公开，我们不知道会出现什么。
You could imagine the notes could have been terrible.
你可以想象这些笔记可能会很糟糕。
Keith Coleman: And so we were talking, "Well, what do we do?
基思·科尔曼：所以我们在讨论，“那么，我们该怎么办？
We're going to put this out there.
我们要把它放在那里。
Everyone's going to have all these questions.
每个人都会有这些问题。
They're probably going to be really skeptical, and we know it might be a total dumpster fire.
他们可能会非常怀疑，而且我们知道这可能是一场彻底的垃圾箱火灾。
And so what do we do to set expectations appropriately?" We felt like we could probably get there in the end, but we just didn't know what was going to happen at first.
那么我们该怎么做才能适当地设定期望呢？”我们觉得我们最终可能会实现这一目标，但我们一开始并不知道会发生什么。
We wanted to set expectations, and so we're like, "Well, why don't we just stick..." There's the page where you see a post in the notes below.
我们想设定期望，所以我们想，“好吧，我们为什么不坚持......”在这个页面上，您可以在下面的注释中看到一篇文章。
We're like, "Why don't we just stick a dumpster fire GIF on that page?" And you go there, you're like, "Hey, anything you see below here might just be a total dumpster fire.
我们会想，“为什么我们不在该页面上贴一张垃圾箱着火的 GIF 动图呢？”当你走到那里时，你会说，“嘿，你在下面看到的任何东西都可能只是垃圾箱着火了。
At least it would show we were aware of that as a possible risk." In the end, we did not do that.
至少这表明我们意识到这是一种可能的风险。”最终，我们没有这样做。
It cracked me up, but we thought it was like-
这让我很开心，但我们认为这就像——
Lenny Rachitsky: Oh, you didn't actually launch.
Lenny Rachitsky：哦，你实际上并没有发射。
Okay.
好的。
That was just a concept.
那只是一个概念。
Okay.
好的。
Keith Coleman: We had mockups of it, and every time I looked at the mockup, I laughed, but ultimately we had so much to explain on that page, like, what is this thing and how does it work?
Keith Coleman：我们有它的模型，每次我看到模型时，我都会笑，但最终我们在该页面上有很多东西要解释，比如，这是什么东西以及它是如何工作的？
Ultimately, we're like, "Okay, this is probably going to distract from the point." So we pulled it.
最终，我们会说，“好吧，这可能会分散我们的注意力。”所以我们把它拉了。
I wish maybe it had seen the light of day at one point, but yeah, ultimately we kept it simple and we focused that page on explaining what was going on here.
我希望它可能曾经出现过，但是，是的，最终我们保持了简单，我们将该页面的重点放在解释这里发生的事情上。
But again, as has happened many times with the project, we put the pilot out there and the notes were good.
但同样，正如该项目多次发生的那样，我们将试点放在那里并且注释很好。
Keith Coleman: They weren't all good.
基思·科尔曼：他们并不都很好。
It was a mixed bag, but there was gold in there.
这是一个混合袋，但里面有金子。
And from the very early days with just 1000 contributors, it was obvious that people could write notes that were informative, that were neutral, that spoke to controversial challenging topics, and that if we could just identify those from the rest, this was going to work.
从早期只有 1000 名贡献者开始，很明显人们可以写出内容丰富、中立、涉及有争议的挑战性主题的笔记，如果我们能够从其他人中识别出这些主题，那么这就会起作用。
It was going to work as well as the very first mockups we had made.
它将会和我们制作的第一个模型一样有效。
So that became the focus that is, how do we sift out the gold from the rest?
那么如何从剩下的黄金中筛选出黄金呢？
Lenny Rachitsky: I think you may have shared with this with me, when someone noticed you guys were testing this and they took screenshots and tweeted it, and I think Elon replied, "This is cool."
Lenny Rachitsky：我想你可能已经与我分享了这一点，当时有人注意到你们正在测试这个，他们截取了屏幕截图并发布了推文，我认为埃隆回答说，“这很酷。”
Keith Coleman: Yeah.
基思·科尔曼：是的。
Yeah.
是的。
So in the very early days when it was just a Figma prototype, we were running these usertesting.com on moderated studies.
因此，在早期，当它只是 Figma 原型时，我们就在 usertesting.com 上运行这些研究。
I guess one of the participants sent one to an NBC reporter who wrote a bunch of stories on it.
我猜其中一位参与者将其中一个发送给了 NBC 记者，后者在上面写了一堆故事。
Anyway, that day, there was a lot of chatter about it on the service, and Elon...
不管怎样，那天，服务上有很多关于这件事的讨论，埃隆……
To put this back in time perspective, this is, I think, 2020, so two years before any acquisition stuff happened, Elon is just a Twitter user building rockets and electric cars and other cool stuff and stumbles on this thing that depicts the prototype that we've been testing.
从时间的角度来看，我认为现在是 2020 年，所以在任何收购事件发生的两年前，埃隆只是一个 Twitter 用户，正在建造火箭、电动汽车和其他很酷的东西，并偶然发现了这个描述我们一直在测试的原型的东西。
And he writes back, "Definitely worth trying, IMO." And I remember thinking that was cool back then and it's interesting to see, he's obviously had a very consistent point on it.
他回信说：“在我看来，绝对值得一试。”我记得当时觉得这很酷，很有趣的是，他显然在这方面有一个非常一致的观点。
I think the idea was appealing and he has obviously been a big fan of it in the product and had been a big supporter proponent.
我认为这个想法很有吸引力，而且他显然是该产品的忠实粉丝，并且一直是大力支持者。
So yeah, it was cool that it came from...
所以是的，它来自……真是太酷了。
that support has been from the very early days before he was ever involved in the company.
这种支持从他加入公司之前就已经开始了。
Lenny Rachitsky: I love that moment.
莱尼·拉奇茨基：我喜欢那一刻。
That must have felt really wild for Elon to be commenting on this Figma prototype retesting.
对于 Elon 来说，对 Figma 原型重新测试进行评论一定感觉非常疯狂。
Lenny Rachitsky: Oh, man.
莱尼·拉奇茨基：哦，伙计。
So when we were preparing for this interview, I asked you guys what's the main thing you want to make sure people get and understand about why community notes has been so effective?
因此，当我们准备这次采访时，我问你们最想确保人们了解并理解为什么社区笔记如此有效的事情是什么？
And Keith, you specifically said that it was the principles behind how you wanted to approach this and how you continue to stick to this throughout.
基思，你特别说过，这是你想要如何处理这个问题以及你如何继续坚持这个问题背后的原则。
And we'll talk about how you kept it alive throughout all these different CO changes in leaders.
我们将讨论您如何在领导者的所有这些不同的 CO 变化中保持它的活力。
But just talk about these principles, what the actual principles are and why that was so key to it working out.
但只要谈谈这些原则，真正的原则是什么，以及为什么这对它的实现如此关键。
Keith Coleman: There are a number of principles that I think when we first shared them with people at the company seemed maybe a little bit crazy.
Keith Coleman：我认为，当我们第一次与公司人员分享时，我认为有一些原则可能有点疯狂。
But I think they are the reason the product works, and I think they've been very important, and we do.
但我认为它们是产品发挥作用的原因，而且我认为它们非常重要，我们也确实如此。
We come back to them regularly, today, all the time.
我们今天、每时每刻都会定期回到他们身边。
Probably the craziest one is just that this thing is going to be the voice of the people.
也许最疯狂的就是这件事将成为人民的声音。
It's going to represent the voice of people.
它将代表人们的声音。
It's not going to represent the company's voice.
它不会代表公司的声音。
So it is not a tech company deciding what shows.
因此，决定展示内容的并不是一家科技公司。
It is the people deciding what shows, and that had a lot of implications on the design.
人们决定展示什么，这对设计有很多影响。
First of all, we don't have a button that will change the status of a note.
首先，我们没有可以更改注释状态的按钮。
So if a note is showing because the people have rated it and found it helpful, it is going to show.
因此，如果一条注释显示是因为人们对其进行了评分并发现它有帮助，那么它就会显示。
We can't change that.
我们无法改变这一点。
Keith Coleman: And that is the kind of thing that when we first propose this, that's unsettling to people.
基思·科尔曼：当我们第一次提出这个建议时，人们会感到不安。
They're like, "Wait, so something can go up and the company can't take it down, or can't change its status, get it to stop showing." And we're like, "Yeah, and it has to work that well.
他们会说，“等等，这样某些东西可能会上升，而公司无法将其删除，或者无法改变其状态，使其停止显示。”我们会说，“是的，而且它必须运作得很好。
If it doesn't work well enough to do that, then it doesn't work." This is one of our key principles was, if there's a problem with a note that's so bad, you want to do something about it's a problem with the system.
如果它不能很好地做到这一点，那么它就不起作用。”这是我们的关键原则之一，如果一张纸条出现问题，而且非常糟糕，那么你需要采取一些措施来解决它，这是系统的问题。
We need to redesign the system to be showing good notes.
我们需要重新设计系统以显示好的笔记。
And so yeah, we had to get everyone comfortable with the idea that there was no button to change the status of a note.
所以，是的，我们必须让每个人都接受这样一个想法：没有按钮可以更改注释的状态。
Similarly, as we talked about earlier, we wanted this to represent all of humanity.
同样，正如我们之前谈到的，我们希望它代表全人类。
Keith Coleman: And so we didn't want to be arbiters of who can come in and be a contributor and who can't.
Keith Coleman：所以我们不想成为谁可以参与贡献者、谁不能参与的仲裁者。
So we open it to everyone.
所以我们向所有人开放。
You just have to meet a really basic objective criteria.
您只需要满足一个非常基本的客观标准即可。
You have to have a verified phone to help reduce the likelihood of having bots or things like that participating.
您必须拥有经过验证的手机，以帮助减少机器人或类似事物参与的可能性。
But beyond that, it's random selection and it still is that way today.
但除此之外，它是随机选择的，直到今天仍然如此。
And again, that people took some time to get people comfortable with it.
再说一遍，人们花了一些时间才让人们适应它。
But I think that the fact that this is the voice of the people and reflects their output through an open and transparent process is so key to both why it is good, why it works, but also why it's trusted.
但我认为，这是人民的声音，并通过公开透明的过程反映了他们的成果，这一事实对于它为何良好、为何有效以及为何值得信赖至关重要。
So that's number one and I think will forever be the heart of the product.
所以这是第一位的，我认为这将永远是产品的核心。
Another one that people thought was crazy was transparency.
人们认为疯狂的另一个问题是透明度。
Keith Coleman: The previous approaches to dealing with misleading info, it felt to a lot of people, like black box tech companies or media companies or leads or whatever making decisions.
基思·科尔曼：以前处理误导性信息的方法，对很多人来说都是如此，比如黑匣子科技公司或媒体公司或线索或任何决策。
We're like, "People need to get comfortable with this.
我们说，“人们需要对此感到舒服。
They need to trust this.
他们需要相信这一点。
So the whole thing has to be out in the open." The code that decides what notes share has to be out in the open.
因此，整个事情必须公开。”决定共享哪些笔记的代码必须公开。
All of the data and ratings that make it happen have to be out in the open.
实现这一目标的所有数据和评级都必须公开。
People should be able to take the code and data and replicate the whole service and that we have done exactly what we've said we've done.
人们应该能够获取代码和数据并复制整个服务，并且我们已经完全按照我们所说的做了。
And they should be able to audit it.
他们应该能够对其进行审核。
They should be able to go and look and say, "Hey, I think this part could be better."
他们应该能够去看并说：“嘿，我认为这部分可以做得更好。”
Keith Coleman: Or if they think we're biased, they should be able to work with the data and point it out.
Keith Coleman：或者，如果他们认为我们有偏见，他们应该能够利用数据并指出这一点。
And if people have good observations, that should factor back into the code.
如果人们有良好的观察结果，那应该将其纳入代码中。
And this is, again, something that's difficult to get people comfortable with, that everything is out there, you can't cover anything up.
这又是一件很难让人们感到舒服的事情，一切都在那里，你无法掩盖任何东西。
But I think that's so essential to people trusting it.
但我认为这对于信任它的人们来说非常重要。
Yeah, we set these out on day one.
是的，我们在第一天就制定了这些。
We go back to them constantly because we're always evolving the product, and we're always like got to make sure every new change is open.
我们不断地回到他们身边，因为我们一直在改进产品，并且我们总是希望确保每一个新的变化都是开放的。
Whenever we update the scoring system, there's an update in GitHub when the data is published daily so you can download it.
每当我们更新评分系统时，每天都会发布数据，GitHub 上就会有更新，以便您下载。
And so yeah, I think those have been really essential to the thing working.
所以，是的，我认为这些对于事情的运作非常重要。
Jay Baxter: And by the way, these do not come without a cost.
Jay Baxter：顺便说一句，这些并不是没有代价的。
It's actually really hard from an end perspective to actually open source the actual algorithm that's running on the actual data.
从最终角度来看，真正开源在实际数据上运行的实际算法实际上非常困难。
Because the way large-scale services like this are usually architected does not naturally lend itself to being run as a script by someone who's downloaded a TSV.
因为像这样的大规模服务通常的架构方式并不自然适合由下载了 TSV 的人作为脚本运行。
So we actually have to take weird architectural decisions to make this possible in a way that probably wouldn't have been if we didn't start with this assumption from scratch.
因此，我们实际上必须采取奇怪的架构决策来使这成为可能，如果我们不从头开始这个假设，那么这种情况可能不会发生。
We would've had to maybe rewrite the system to make it like this.
我们可能不得不重写系统才能使其成为这样。
Jay Baxter: For instance, there's a matrix factorization that we train.
Jay Baxter：例如，我们训练一个矩阵分解。
Usually, you would train a matrix factor...
通常，你会训练一个矩阵因子......
train your ML model once and then serve it, I guess with a separate service.
训练你的机器学习模型一次，然后提供它，我想是通过单独的服务。
But we didn't want to have people externally spinning up services to be able to replicate the system that we had.
但我们不想让人们在外部启动服务来复制我们拥有的系统。
So basically, I don't think it would've been actually very cool if we had open sourced the code in a way that wasn't actually runnable, I guess, by someone just...
所以基本上，我认为如果我们以一种实际上无法运行的方式开源代码，我认为，实际上不会很酷，我想，只是有人......
At this point, you can download Python code and run a script.
此时，您可以下载Python代码并运行脚本。
You do need a lot of RAM right now, but you can do it on one machine.
您现在确实需要大量 RAM，但您可以在一台机器上完成。
Lenny Rachitsky: Okay.
莱尼·拉奇茨基：好的。
How much RAM are we talking about?
我们谈论的是多少内存？
Lenny Rachitsky: Okay.
莱尼·拉奇茨基：好的。
Okay.
好的。
That's reasonable.
这是合理的。
Jay Baxter: It'll take a day if you don't do anything special to speed it up.
Jay Baxter：如果你不做任何特别的事情来加快速度，那么需要一天的时间。
Good to know, but yeah.
很高兴知道，但是是的。
Jay Baxter: Possible is the key thing, and people have done it.
Jay Baxter：可能性是关键，人们已经做到了。
Vitalik Buterin had a blog post where he talks about his explorations, making sure the algorithm really does what it says it does.
Vitalik Buterin 发表了一篇博文，讲述了他的探索，以确保算法确实做到了它所说的那样。
And I think just the fact that a handful of people have done this, there's enough people who have done it that there's someone you'd probably trust who's verified it.
我认为事实是，只有少数人做到了这一点，而且有足够多的人做到了这一点，以至于你可能信任的人已经验证了这一点。
Lenny Rachitsky: And that's rolling out to Meta.
Lenny Rachitsky：这正在向 Meta 推出。
No big deal.
没什么大不了的。
I love just as you described these principles, just I could imagine a PM at a company being like, "Okay, guys.
我喜欢你所描述的这些原则，我可以想象公司的 PM 会说：“好吧，伙计们。
Here, I want to do this project." There's so much idealism to it that rarely works in real life; going to be open source.
在这里，我想做这个项目。”它有太多的理想主义，但在现实生活中很少起作用；它将是开源的。
You're going to give it to everyone.
你要把它给每个人。
We don't have actual control over what it's going to do, don't worry about it.
我们无法实际控制它会做什么，不用担心。
It's going to just change the way people see this thing that we've been very careful about and then it works.
它只会改变人们看待我们一直非常小心的事情的方式，然后它就会发挥作用。
And I think that's very rare and it's really impressive.
我认为这是非常罕见的，而且确实令人印象深刻。
And what I'm hearing partly is that sticking to those principles was actually really fundamental to it working and not bending over when someone's like, "No, no, no, we can't do this.
我所听到的部分原因是，坚持这些原则实际上是其运作的基础，而不是当有人说“不，不，不，我们不能这样做”时，不要屈服。
What if we change this part?"
如果我们改变这部分怎么办？”
Keith Coleman: I think if we had broken with any of those principles, if there was anything black box, if there was whatever, the product would be a lot harder to trust.
Keith Coleman：我认为，如果我们违反了任何这些原则，如果有任何黑匣子，如果有什么东西，产品就会更难信任。
And so I think it's because we've just stuck to them so cleanly simply that people can trust it.
所以我认为这是因为我们如此彻底地坚持了它们，以至于人们可以信任它。
Lenny Rachitsky: You've talked about a few moments when it was like, wow, the White House changed their announcement because of the community note.
Lenny Rachitsky：您谈到过一些时刻，哇，白宫因为社区说明而改变了他们的公告。
We talked about the dog is a cat.
我们谈到狗是猫。
Are there any other moments that after you launched of, "Holy shit, this is working?
在你启动之后，是否还有其他时刻，“天哪，这有效吗？
This is going to actually work."
这确实会起作用。”
Keith Coleman: All along, we saw it working.
Keith Coleman：一直以来，我们都看到它在起作用。
We wanted to be confident whenever we expanded it to new audiences or new countries or whatever, we wanted to be confident it was going to work.
每当我们将其扩展到新的受众或新的国家或其他任何地方时，我们都希望充满信心，我们希望相信它会发挥作用。
So maybe held our breath a little bit just to see that it would do what we expected, but we always expected that.
因此，也许我们屏住呼吸只是为了看看它会达到我们的预期，但我们总是期待这一点。
But that said, there were definitely stress cases.
但话虽如此，肯定存在压力情况。
The one that comes to mind is the start of the Israel Hamas conflict in 2023 in October.
我想到的是2023年10月以色列哈马斯冲突的开始。
That was probably the largest deluge of misleading information I've ever seen shared on the internet at one time.
这可能是我在互联网上见过的最大规模的误导性信息。
It was overwhelming.
这是压倒性的。
A number of photos and videos and whatever coming out related to that, it was insane.
许多照片和视频以及与之相关的任何内容，这都太疯狂了。
And just to give you an example, I think it was first three days or something of that conflict, we had 500 notes covering all sorts of different...
举个例子，我认为在冲突的前三天或某段时间，我们有 500 个笔记，涵盖各种不同的......
out of context imagery.
脱离上下文的图像。
Keith Coleman: Someone would say, "Hey, this is happening here." It's actually from 2013 in Syria.
基思·科尔曼：有人会说，“嘿，这就是发生在这里。”这实际上是2013年在叙利亚发生的事情。
There were people making fake battle footage in the video game simulator Arma 3.
有人在视频游戏模拟器 Arma 3 中制作虚假的战斗片段。
So there were notes explaining, this stuff looked realistic.
所以有注释解释，这些东西看起来很现实。
And unless you saw the note, you wouldn't really know.
除非你看到这张纸条，否则你不会真正知道。
There are all sorts of claims about what was going on in the ground, and that was definitely...
关于地下发生的事情有各种各样的说法，而那绝对是……
The product was still pretty new at that point.
那时该产品还很新。
We'd expanded in the U.
我们在美国扩张了。
S.
S。
less than a year before that.
在此之前不到一年。
We had been rolling out throughout the world that year and then this large event happened.
那年我们一直在全世界范围内推广，然后发生了这个大事件。
And I felt like we were just enough prepared at the right time for the system to be able to handle that.
我觉得我们在正确的时间做好了足够的准备，让系统能够处理这个问题。
Keith Coleman: Probably one of the most important things we did right before that was launch the ability to write notes on images and videos and have those matched to other posts.
Keith Coleman：可能我们之前做的最重要的事情之一就是推出在图像和视频上写笔记并将其与其他帖子相匹配的功能。
I remember at that time thinking, "Wow, I'm glad we launched that feature a few months ago versus still had it on the shelf," because it was really important in that conflict.
我记得当时我想，“哇，我很高兴我们在几个月前推出了该功能，而不是仍然在架子上，”因为它在那场冲突中非常重要。
And I think even it was just a few weeks before we had launched a major speed up in notes too.
我认为即使是在几周前，我们也开始大幅加快笔记速度。
When we first built the product, the number one focus was always quality.
当我们第一次开发产品时，质量始终是第一位的。
We knew that the product would live and die by the quality of the notes.
我们知道产品的生死取决于纸币的质量。
That was the thing we could never give up on.
这是我们永远不能放弃的事情。
We also knew it needed to deliver speed and scale, but we're like, "We will get the quality in the right place, and we can speed it up and scale-
我们也知道它需要提供速度和规模，但我们想，“我们将在正确的地方获得质量，我们可以加快速度并扩大规模-
Keith Coleman: Get the quality in the right place and we can speed it up and scale it out over time.
Keith Coleman：在正确的位置提供质量，我们可以加快速度并随着时间的推移进行扩展。
And we had actually just launched a speed-up that took three hours off the time it needed to go live, and it was I think a matter of weeks before that conflict happened, so again, super glad that was out there.
事实上，我们刚刚启动了一项加速，比上线所需的时间节省了三个小时，我认为冲突发生前几周，所以再次，非常高兴它在那里。
In the first few days of the conflict the median time from a post going live to a note showing up was five hours, which is like crazy fast.
在冲突的最初几天，从帖子上线到注释显示的平均时间为五个小时，这速度快得要命。
Typical fact checking is like two to four, at least it's really common to see it take two to four days.
典型的事实检查大约需要两到四天，至少需要两到四天的时间是很常见的。
These notes were showing up in five hours and we're like, we are so glad we got those things out before this happened, it made the service a lot more helpful.
这些笔记在五个小时内就出现了，我们很高兴我们在这件事发生之前把这些东西拿出来，这让服务变得更有帮助。
Jay Baxter: One other thing that was, I think, nice to see working then was, one criticism of Community Notes some people bring up is, well if you always need agreement from people who typically disagree, then in these super polarized settings, that conflict being probably number one, then you wouldn't see any notes.
杰伊·巴克斯特（Jay Baxter）：我认为，很高兴看到当时工作的另一件事是，一些人提出的对社区笔记的批评是，如果你总是需要那些通常不同意的人的同意，那么在这些超级两极分化的环境中，冲突可能是第一位的，那么你就不会看到任何笔记。
But actually the reality was there were tons of notes about that conflict.
但事实上，有大量关于这场冲突的注释。
So I think there was this kind of nice property where actually, and maybe this is a surprising fact, that there's more agreement out there across polarized divides than maybe conventional wisdom says, and the places where people agreed were really objectively true and verifiable.
所以我认为有这样一个很好的属性，实际上，也许这是一个令人惊讶的事实，跨越两极分化的分歧存在比传统智慧所说的更多的共识，而且人们达成共识的地方确实是客观真实和可验证的。
I guess maybe this is more true the more polarized the setting is, but where the agreement actually lends you, and basically notes that are very neutrally written, very focused on the facts and easy to verify information.
我想，情况越两极分化，情况可能就更真实，但协议实际上借给了你，并且基本上注释是非常中立的，非常注重事实并且易于验证信息。
Lenny Rachitsky: There's this talk for a while of just there's no more facts, nobody believes there is a single true fact anymore, everything is subjective, and I think Community Notes proves the opposite.
Lenny Rachitsky：有一段时间人们一直在谈论没有更多的事实，没有人相信有一个单一的真实事实，一切都是主观的，我认为社区笔记证明了相反的情况。
Facts matter, there are facts that we can all agree with even on the most controversial topics.
事实很重要，即使在最具争议的话题上，有些事实我们都可以同意。
Keith Coleman: Yeah, we saw this really from day one, when we would show those prototypes to people just depicting the idea, it was really obvious that people cared more about, or they cared a lot about understanding reality and what was going on and they were willing to disagree with their side, so to speak, to recognize that.
基思·科尔曼：是的，我们从第一天起就看到了这一点，当我们向人们展示这些原型只是描述这个想法时，很明显人们更关心，或者他们非常关心理解现实和正在发生的事情，并且他们愿意不同意自己的观点，可以这么说，承认这一点。
And I think that's not always that obvious to people.
我认为这对人们来说并不总是那么明显。
The world does feel really polarized, but people definitely are willing to cross partisan boundaries to get to accurate information and that's why the product works.
世界确实感觉两极分化，但人们肯定愿意跨越党派界限来获取准确的信息，这就是该产品有效的原因。
Lenny Rachitsky: It feels like as we rely more and more on what we know and understand about the world is becoming social media online and moving this quickly, it's like I'm so thankful this exists because otherwise it'd just be, what do we trust anymore?
Lenny Rachitsky：感觉就像我们越来越依赖我们对世界的了解和理解，社交媒体正在成为在线社交媒体，并且发展得如此之快，我很庆幸它的存在，否则就会变成这样，我们还信任什么？
This being out aligns with we need this thing to exist at the same time.
这与我们需要这个东西同时存在是一致的。
And it feels like at the same time there's also people I just don't trust.
感觉同时也有我不信任的人。
I think people have shifted from I trust what I read to, okay, I shouldn't just believe everything I'm reading.
我认为人们已经从“我相信我读到的内容”转变为“好吧，我不应该只相信我读到的一切”。
Is there anything there you're noticing about just how people think about news they see and their shift of just like, I'm not going to believe everything.
你有没有注意到人们如何看待他们所看到的新闻以及他们的转变，就像我不会相信一切。
Is there anything that you've noticed about just human behavior or just the way we've shifted understanding what is true?
关于人类行为或者我们改变对真相的理解的方式，您有什么注意到的吗？
Keith Coleman: We haven't done any research to look broadly at how people's perceptions are changing there, but I certainly have found myself that particularly seeing notes, I am more skeptical about what I read at first, and I think that's been helpful.
基思·科尔曼：我们还没有做过任何研究来广泛地了解人们的看法是如何变化的，但我确实发现自己，特别是看到笔记，我对我最初读到的内容更加持怀疑态度，我认为这很有帮助。
And we hear that from people, that they think about things a bit more, and I think that's a good secondary effect and benefit of something like this, which is the more you see the patterns of how what you're reading can be wrong, the more you can thoughtfully question it and try to get a better understanding of what's really going on.
我们从人们那里听到，他们对事情的思考更多一些，我认为这是一个很好的次要效应和好处，你越能看到你所读到的内容可能是错误的模式，你就越能深思熟虑地质疑它，并试图更好地理解到底发生了什么。
So historically I think this was called media literacy, but basic idea of can you understand the ways in which things can go wrong and try to cut them yourself.
所以从历史上看，我认为这被称为媒体素养，但基本思想是你能否理解事情可能出错的方式并尝试自己解决它们。
Jay Baxter: Another aspect I think we help with that is discovery of the Community Notes.
Jay Baxter：我认为我们提供帮助的另一个方面是发现社区注释。
I think often before Community Notes you could have just been living in a little news filter bubble, or maybe there were fact checks out there that you should have been reading but you weren't discovering them.
我认为在《社区笔记》出现之前，你可能一直生活在一个小小的新闻过滤泡沫中，或者可能有一些你应该阅读的事实核查，但你没有发现它们。
So the fact that the note applies, it is directly attached to the post and visible by anyone who sees the post helps cross those filter bubbles and can kind of...
因此，该注释适用的事实是，它直接附加到帖子上，并且任何看到该帖子的人都可以看到，这有助于跨越这些过滤气泡，并且可以有点......
I think for some people it's the first time they've actually seen counter arguments to claims made in their own little echo chamber.
我认为对于某些人来说，这是他们第一次真正看到与他们自己的小回声室中提出的主张相反的论点。
Lenny Rachitsky: That's incredible, yeah.
Lenny Rachitsky：这太不可思议了，是的。
I love the point you're making about how it actually teaches people to be a little more skeptical of the things they read.
我喜欢你所提出的观点，即它实际上如何教导人们对他们所阅读的内容更加怀疑。
It's an education system more than just, here, this one thing is wrong.
这不仅仅是一个教育系统，在这里，有一件事是错误的。
I love that.
我喜欢那个。
Lenny Rachitsky: Okay, just a few more questions.
Lenny Rachitsky：好的，还有几个问题。
There was an audience question asked on Twitter, we all asked on Twitter, "What do people want to know about Community Notes?" one was actually why you guys switched to anonymous contributors, what was the decision behind that?
Twitter 上有一个观众提问，我们都在 Twitter 上问，“人们想了解社区笔记的哪些内容？”其中之一实际上是你们转向匿名贡献者的原因，这背后的决定是什么？
Keith Coleman: Yeah, we had this pilot where we were testing with a small number of contributors, a few thousand contributors, and we learned a lot through that pilot.
Keith Coleman：是的，我们进行了这个试点，我们与少数贡献者（几千名贡献者）进行测试，通过该试点我们学到了很多东西。
Probably the biggest thing we learned was related to anonymity or pseudonymity of contributors.
我们学到的最重要的事情可能与贡献者的匿名或假名有关。
We had originally assumed that it was important that people contribute under their real handle, or their real name, or whatever it was.
我们最初认为，人们以真实身份、真实姓名或其他任何方式做出贡献是很重要的。
The first prototypes depicted that, we kind of thought that would be important for people trusting the note, and actually it was totally wrong.
第一个原型描绘了这一点，我们认为这对于信任这张纸条的人来说很重要，但实际上这是完全错误的。
The best option was actually opposite of what we first tried.
最好的选择实际上与我们最初尝试的相反。
Keith Coleman: We found a few things.
基思·科尔曼：我们发现了一些事情。
One, people were hesitant to write a note on a controversial topic because they didn't want to get attacked or harassed online.
第一，人们不愿意就有争议的话题写一篇笔记，因为他们不想在网上受到攻击或骚扰。
And so some people were comfortable doing this but others were not, and so it meant there was more potential good notes to be written than were getting written, and this was very clear feedback from the pilot.
所以有些人很乐意这样做，但其他人则不然，这意味着有更多潜在的好笔记要写，而不是被写下来，这是来自试点的非常明确的反馈。
Keith Coleman: Two, and this is super interesting, people are actually more willing to cross partisan boundaries when they are anonymous or pseudonymous than when they are under their real name, and it intuitively makes a lot of sense.
基思·科尔曼：两个，这非常有趣，人们在匿名或化名时实际上比使用真名时更愿意跨越党派界限，直观上这很有意义。
If you publicly are using your name, you feel are affiliated with one side versus the other, you might hesitate to be perceived as breaking with that side.
如果您公开使用您的名字，您会觉得自己属于某一方而不是另一方，您可能会犹豫是否会被视为与该方决裂。
But you may actually, for example, find a note helpful that's critical of that side, and there's a bunch of studies that show when people are anonymous, they're much more willing to cross partisan boundaries and work with the other side, agree with the other side, and we saw that too.
但实际上，例如，你可能会发现一条批评该方的有用注释，并且有大量研究表明，当人们匿名时，他们更愿意跨越党派界限并与另一方合作，同意另一方，我们也看到了这一点。
And so by allowing people to be pseudonymous, you actually get more honest answers about what they really think and it helps find disagreement that really-
因此，通过允许人们使用假名，你实际上可以得到关于他们真实想法的更诚实的答案，这有助于发现真正的分歧——
Lenny Rachitsky: You never hear the opposite always, and it's so interesting it's the opposite.
Lenny Rachitsky：你永远不会听到相反的声音，相反的情况很有趣。
Jay Baxter: I think the same principle applies to making the likes private.
Jay Baxter：我认为同样的原则也适用于将点赞设为私密。
Lenny Rachitsky: Yeah, I like a lot more stuff that's a little, definitely, I wouldn't have liked, yeah.
Lenny Rachitsky：是的，我喜欢更多的东西，但我绝对不会喜欢，是的。
Keith Coleman: It allows freedom for honesty, which is pretty great.
Keith Coleman：它允许诚实的自由，这非常棒。
And one of the criticisms of pseudonymity is it can generate, maybe people have reached the quality threshold that they put out there, but we have so many quality mechanisms in the system that that wasn't an issue, so we could keep quality high while opening up for that honesty.
对假名的批评之一是它可能会产生，也许人们已经达到了他们提出的质量阈值，但我们系统中有如此多的质量机制，这不是问题，所以我们可以在保持高质量的同时开放诚实。
Lenny Rachitsky: Another question, you touched on this a little bit, which is around navigating the existing trust and safety apparatus of Twitter, which as you described, basically, previously, it was like we make decisions on what is true and not, and every company works this way, you guys basically upended that like, here's a completely different way, you have no control over what we say is true or not.
Lenny Rachitsky：另一个问题，你稍微提到了这一点，这是围绕着 Twitter 现有的信任和安全机制进行的，正如你所描述的，基本上，以前，就像我们对什么是真的、什么是假的做出决定，每家公司都是这样运作的，你们基本上颠覆了这一点，就像，这是一种完全不同的方式，你无法控制我们所说的是否真实。
Talk about just that experience of overcoming that, I imagine, very difficult hurdle of like, okay, forget all that, we're going to do it totally different.
我想谈谈克服这个非常困难的障碍的经历，比如，好吧，忘记这一切，我们会采取完全不同的方式。
Keith Coleman: Yeah, it was definitely, what we were proposing was very different.
基思·科尔曼：是的，这绝对是，我们的提议非常不同。
I will say that I think people were sort of open-minded to it, generally speaking, and I think everyone had a sense that what was being done at the time wasn't really working that well or solving the problem, and people were open to new ideas, so that's a good foundation.
我想说的是，我认为人们对此持开放态度，一般来说，我认为每个人都有一种感觉，当时所做的事情并没有真正发挥作用或解决问题，而且人们对新想法持开放态度，所以这是一个很好的基础。
Keith Coleman: But I think one thing we did that was probably very helpful in that is we wanted the product to prove itself at any point.
Keith Coleman：但我认为我们所做的一件事可能非常有帮助，因为我们希望产品在任何时候都能证明自己。
First it had to prove that people could possibly find notes helpful, then it had to prove that people could possibly write these notes that would be good quality.
首先它必须证明人们可能会发现笔记有帮助，然后它必须证明人们可能写出这些高质量的笔记。
And so anytime that we were proposing doing something with the product, like running some research test, or running the pilot, or expanding the pilot, we always had the data that had convinced us that that was a good decision, like we were stepping into the next phase of expansion that made sense.
因此，每当我们提议对产品做一些事情时，比如进行一些研究测试，或运行试点，或扩大试点，我们总是有数据让我们相信这是一个好的决定，就像我们正在进入有意义的下一阶段的扩张一样。
And so I think we probably rarely proposed anything that seemed unwise, because we were holding such a high bar for quality ourselves, and I suspect that went a long way.
因此，我认为我们可能很少提出任何看起来不明智的建议，因为我们对自己的质量要求很高，而且我怀疑这走了很长一段路。
Lenny Rachitsky: So it's partly, what I'm hearing is, take it step by step to prove this is actually working, and partly be confident it is working to yourself before you try to convince the trust and safety team this is the way to go.
Lenny Rachitsky：所以，我听到的是，一步一步地证明这确实有效，并且在你试图说服信任和安全团队这是正确的方法之前，要相信它对你自己有效。
Lenny Rachitsky: Was there a moment along that journey it shifted from no way this is a thing to okay, wow, let's actually consider this?
Lenny Rachitsky：在这段旅程中，有没有一个时刻，它从“这绝对不是一件事情”转变为“好吧，哇，让我们真正考虑一下这个”？
Or was it this very gradual process?
或者这是一个非常渐进的过程？
Keith Coleman: Whether other people were saying no way to wow, let's actually-
Keith Coleman：无论其他人是否说没办法惊叹，让我们实际上-
Lenny Rachitsky: Yeah, just internally of just like, okay, we're going to actually stop this trust and safety way of operating and instead rely on Community Notes, was there a moment of like, okay, let's actually make that switch, or was that Elon actually, is that the big switch?
Lenny Rachitsky：是的，就在内部，好吧，我们实际上将停止这种信任和安全的操作方式，转而依赖社区注释，是否有那么一刻，好吧，让我们真正做出这样的转变，或者埃隆实际上是，这是一个重大转变？
Keith Coleman: The biggest change there happened in X, the biggest changes prior to that were just the decision to put this out there and have it be operating in public at first US wide scale.
Keith Coleman：最大的变化发生在 X 中，在此之前最大的变化只是决定将其推出并首先在美国范围内公开运营。
But yeah, then the bigger switches came in the X period.
但是，是的，更大的转变出现在 X 时期。
Jay Baxter: I think even though there was original research before Birdwatch had even started, or Community Notes had even started, from external researchers showing that crowdsourced fact-checkers, laypeople can do about as well as fact-checkers and actually the agreement rates were kind of similar between the groups.
Jay Baxter：我认为，尽管在 Birdwatch 甚至社区笔记开始之前就已经有原始研究，但外部研究人员表明，众包事实检查员，外行也可以做得和事实检查员一样好，而且实际上，各组之间的一致率有点相似。
I think even though that research was out there, I think there were definitely a lot of people who didn't really believe it could work until it already worked.
我认为即使这项研究已经存在，但我认为肯定有很多人在它已经发挥作用之前并不真正相信它可以发挥作用。
Lenny Rachitsky: Basically prove it, prove that it works.
Lenny Rachitsky：基本上证明它，证明它有效。
Yeah, that makes sense, versus just a bunch of docs and strategy and thinking, it's just like, look, it's actually working, you can see for yourself.
是的，这是有道理的，与一堆文档、策略和思考相比，它就像，看，它实际上在起作用，你可以亲眼看到。
Lenny Rachitsky: Makes sense.
莱尼·拉奇茨基：有道理。
Okay, possibly last question, we'll see which fractals of questions you guys bring up here.
好吧，可能是最后一个问题，我们将看看你们在这里提出了哪些问题。
I referenced this a couple times, this incredible achievement of keeping a project alive through Jack and then, I have this note, and Kayvon running the show then, and then Parag running Twitter, and then Elon, and then Linda taking over as CEO, quite rare, especially something this visible, this impactful to everything that X is.
我多次提到过这一点，这是通过 Jack 保持项目活力的令人难以置信的成就，然后，我有这张纸条，然后 Kayvon 负责这个节目，然后 Parag 负责 Twitter，然后 Elon，然后 Linda 接任首席执行官，这是相当罕见的，尤其是这种可见的东西，对 X 的一切都有影响力。
Any lessons or keys to that actually working, of this project surviving throughout so many work changes and leaders?
这个项目在如此多的工作变化和领导者中生存下来，有什么实际运作的经验教训或关键吗？
Keith Coleman: It definitely has been a crazy time to be building something.
Keith Coleman：对于构建某些东西来说，这绝对是一个疯狂的时期。
It's been fun.
这很有趣。
The craziness has been entertaining.
这种疯狂很有趣。
I think one reason perhaps the product has done so well and survived is the nature of the product itself.
我认为该产品表现如此出色并生存下来的原因之一可能是产品本身的性质。
It is designed to produce information that is found helpful by people who normally disagree.
它的目的是提供那些通常不同意的人认为有帮助的信息。
And so even if you have CEOs or leaders who might disagree, there's a good chance actually they'll find it helpful, they'll be like, wow, this thing does produce pretty useful output.
因此，即使你的首席执行官或领导者可能不同意，但实际上他们很有可能会发现它很有帮助，他们会说，哇，这件事确实产生了非常有用的输出。
So I think there's something in the nature of the product itself, that when people see it, whatever side they're on, left, up, down, they're likely to find it pretty helpful, so I do think that helps.
所以我认为产品本身的本质是，当人们看到它时，无论他们在哪一边，左、上、下，他们都可能会发现它非常有帮助，所以我认为这确实有帮助。
Keith Coleman: I also think the team executed really well.
Keith Coleman：我也认为团队执行得非常好。
We had ambitious goals that were exciting, they solved a real problem.
我们有令人兴奋的雄心勃勃的目标，它们解决了一个真正的问题。
This is a real problem that matters in the world.
这是世界上一个重要的现实问题。
At every step, as we talked about, the product needed to prove itself, and we would make sure it proved itself and we would bring the results that convinced us and we'd share those with people.
正如我们所谈到的，在每一步中，产品都需要证明自己，我们将确保它证明自己，我们将带来令我们信服的结果，并与人们分享这些结果。
And so they would say, oh yeah, I agree, it kind of proved itself, let's take the next leap.
所以他们会说，哦，是的，我同意，这已经证明了自己，让我们迈出下一步。
And we've done that all along the way and we continue to operate that way, and I think that focus on the outcome and goal that matters, and executing against it, really helped.
我们一直这样做，并且继续以这种方式运作，我认为专注于重要的结果和目标，并针对它执行，确实很有帮助。
Keith Coleman: The team did not get distracted by much all through the period during which the acquisition happened.
Keith Coleman：在收购发生的整个过程中，团队并没有受到太多干扰。
There was a lot of opportunity for distraction.
有很多分散注意力的机会。
This team was shipping every week, we were super focused on the goal, let's make this thing work, let's get these notes out there, and I think people saw that execution and were excited to support it.
这个团队每周都会发货，我们非常专注于目标，让我们让这件事发挥作用，让我们把这些笔记放在那里，我认为人们看到了这种执行，并很高兴支持它。
Lenny Rachitsky: Yeah, like it's working, why would we mess with that?
Lenny Rachitsky：是的，就像它有效一样，我们为什么要搞乱它呢？
And it's important, and it keeps us from having to hire tens of thousands of people to fact check.
这很重要，它使我们不必雇用数万人来进行事实核查。
Keith Coleman: The interesting thing about that is no one ever asked us or brought up or seemed to care about anything related to cost savings in this process.
Keith Coleman：有趣的是，没有人问过我们、提出过或似乎关心与此过程中节省成本相关的任何事情。
And I think that's an assumption people have outside the company, that this must have been a reason there was interest in it.
我认为这是公司外部人们的一个假设，这一定是人们对此感兴趣的原因。
But that was never a goal, it was not at all why the project was started, it was not why people were excited about the project.
但这从来都不是一个目标，这根本不是该项目启动的原因，也不是人们对该项目感到兴奋的原因。
And I think that's also, for people outside who maybe don't see the conversations, it's kind of a heartening thing to know, is that the focus was always on solving the problem.
我认为，对于那些可能看不到对话的外部人员来说，知道重点始终是解决问题是一件令人振奋的事情。
The other approach is even if you had 10,000 people doing it, the real issue is that they don't work that well because they're not trusted or they don't scale or they're too slow.
另一种方法是，即使有 10,000 人这样做，真正的问题是他们工作得不好，因为他们不被信任，或者他们无法扩展，或者他们太慢。
And so the goal was really always just help people stay informed at scale.
因此，我们的目标实际上始终只是帮助人们大规模地了解情况。
Let's build an internet scale solution to an internet scale problem that people like.
让我们为人们喜欢的互联网规模问题构建一个互联网规模的解决方案。
Lenny Rachitsky: Something I heard about you, Keith, when I was asking people about how this worked and why this worked so well is that they describe you with having a very low ego, and that allowed you to give up this whole team and power and influence and just the name, forget it, whatever you want, we'll call it Community Notes, great.
Lenny Rachitsky：基思，当我向人们询问这是如何运作以及为何如此有效时，我听说你的事情是，他们描述你的自我意识非常低，这让你可以放弃整个团队、权力和影响力，只放弃名字，忘了它，无论你想要什么，我们都会称之为社区笔记，太棒了。
Is there anything in there you can share of just how you think about that and how important that is as a product leader to have a low ego?
您可以在其中分享一下您对此的看法以及作为产品领导者保持低自尊有多重要吗？
Keith Coleman: For me, this project, I feel like I get to do community service with this project.
Keith Coleman：对于我来说，这个项目，我觉得我可以通过这个项目进行社区服务。
I see my work as in service of the people and the community, and that's what motivates me.
我认为我的工作是为人民和社区服务，这就是我的动力。
The only thing that I care about is delivering the outcome that the world finds helpful.
我唯一关心的是提供世界认为有帮助的结果。
And so in some ways the project has not been about ego, it's about truth-seeking, let's find...
因此，在某些方面，该项目并不是关于自我，而是关于寻求真相，让我们发现......
Not truth in the sense of what information is true, but let's find out what's actually going to make this work.
这不是信息真实意义上的真相，但让我们找出真正能让这项工作发挥作用的因素。
How does it need to be structured, what should it be called?
它需要如何构建，应该被称为什么？
Whatever is going to produce the best outcome is what we should do.
凡是能够产生最好结果的事情都是我们应该做的。
So I think I feel more attached to the product being helpful than to anything else, and so to whatever degree it might seem like low ego is probably more a result of wanting to actually solve the problem.
所以我认为我更喜欢产品的帮助而不是其他任何东西，因此无论在何种程度上，它看起来低自我可能更多是因为想要真正解决问题。
Lenny Rachitsky: And I think partly what I'm hearing is just if you win and succeed, good things will happen, so focus on that.
Lenny Rachitsky：我认为我所听到的部分内容是，如果你获胜并成功，好事就会发生，所以要关注这一点。
Keith Coleman: Certainly satisfying things will happen, it's very satisfying to have people appreciate it.
Keith Coleman：令人满意的事情肯定会发生，让人们欣赏它是非常令人满意的。
It's satisfying that people on the left and right love it.
左派和右派的人都喜欢它，这很令人满意。
It's satisfying that even people who receive notes, love notes, and reach out to them and post them, that's amazing, it feels so good to have helped give people that, and yeah, it's very motivating.
令人满足的是，即使是那些收到便条、情书、联系他们并发布它们的人，这也太棒了，帮助人们传递这些信息的感觉真好，是的，这非常激励人心。
It's a great reason to wake up in the morning.
这是早上起床的一个很好的理由。
Lenny Rachitsky: It's absurd this has worked, but it's also like of course this would work, of course something like this should work.
Lenny Rachitsky：这已经奏效了，这很荒谬，但也好像这当然会奏效，当然像这样的东西应该会奏效。
It's like such interesting-
好像很有趣——
Keith Coleman: It's the internet, it's of the internet, that's why it works.
基思·科尔曼：这就是互联网，这就是互联网，这就是它运作的原因。
Lenny Rachitsky: Oh man.
莱尼·拉奇茨基：天啊。
Where's Community Notes going from here?
社区笔记将何去何从？
What's happening, where's it going, what's the future?
正在发生什么，将走向何方，未来是什么？
Keith Coleman: We're always working on basically more better notes faster.
Keith Coleman：我们一直致力于更快地制作更多更好的音符。
So there's clearly an opportunity to get more notes out there, we want them to stay as good or better than they are, we want to get them there faster, so we're always working on core product changes to help deliver that.
因此，显然有机会获得更多笔记，我们希望它们保持不变或更好，我们希望更快地实现它们，因此我们始终致力于核心产品变更以帮助实现这一目标。
Recently, for example, we just released an update to what we call the Community Notes bat signal, or the ability to request a Community Note.
例如，最近，我们刚刚发布了“社区注释蝙蝠信号”的更新，或者请求社区注释的功能。
So anyone on X can say, "Hey, I think this post needs a Community Note," and now they can even add a source explaining why so that when a prospective writer sees that it's much easier for them to write a note.
因此，X 上的任何人都可以说，“嘿，我认为这篇文章需要社区注释”，现在他们甚至可以添加一个来源来解释原因，这样当潜在的作家看到他们写注释时就容易多了。
So we're always working on core things like that, core algorithm improvements.
因此，我们一直致力于核心算法的改进等核心问题。
Keith Coleman: I think there are also new frontiers that show a lot of potential, AI and LLMs are one.
Keith Coleman：我认为还有一些显示出巨大潜力的新领域，人工智能和法学硕士就是其中之一。
It's easy to imagine a lot of ways that AI could assist the people in this task they're doing of trying to get information out there quickly.
很容易想象人工智能可以通过多种方式帮助人们完成快速获取信息的任务。
And maybe Jay should talk about the Supernotes work that we've done with some folks outside the company.
也许 Jay 应该谈谈我们与公司外部的一些人所做的 Supernotes 工作。
Jay Baxter: Yeah, so one cool thing about having public data and code is that external researchers can collaborate with you, and in this case Supernotes had this idea that we can basically take existing notes as input, existing proposed notes that maybe they have some problem, maybe they have part of the story, maybe they're worded in kind of a biased way.
Jay Baxter：是的，拥有公共数据和代码的一件很酷的事情是，外部研究人员可以与你合作，在这种情况下，Supernotes 的想法是，我们基本上可以将现有的笔记作为输入，现有的拟议笔记可能有一些问题，也许他们有故事的一部分，也许他们的措辞有某种偏见。
Basically take all these in, have an LLM generate a ton of different variants, and then basically make the simulated jury to basically get a representative group of contributors for community notes who would be rating the note and try to predict based on their past ratings how they would rate these LLM generated notes.
基本上考虑所有这些，让法学硕士生成大量不同的变体，然后基本上让模拟陪审团基本上得到社区笔记贡献者的代表小组，他们将对笔记进行评级，并尝试根据他们过去的评级来预测他们将如何评估这些法学硕士生成的笔记。
And so this way you can actually, rather than just having an LLM write a note from scratch and hoping it's good, you can simulate the entire community notes rating process and explicitly create notes that are likely to be rated helpful by people.
因此，实际上，您可以模拟整个社区笔记评级过程，并明确创建可能被人们评为有帮助的笔记，而不是让法学硕士从头开始写一条笔记并希望它是好的。
Jay Baxter: So I think ideas like that are very promising for the future, and it's a nice way that LLMs and humans can work together.
Jay Baxter：所以我认为这样的想法在未来非常有前途，这是法学硕士和人类合作的好方法。
Obviously agents can browse the web too, and that's one way that you could imagine agents assisting humans is maybe checking whether a note is actually supported by the source.
显然，代理也可以浏览网络，这是您可以想象代理协助人类的一种方式，可能是检查一条注释是否确实得到了来源的支持。
Although then you get into things like, well, are people going to actually be as diligent?
不过，你会遇到这样的问题：人们真的会那么勤奋吗？
Right now I think raters are very diligent because they know just some Community Notes contributor wrote this like, I better check this before I rate it helpful.
现在我认为评估者非常勤奋，因为他们知道只是一些社区笔记贡献者写了这样的内容，我最好在评估它有帮助之前先检查一下。
But hopefully we can design things in a way such that people don't trust the output and actually verify it themselves before issuing a helpful rating.
但希望我们能够以一种让人们不信任输出的方式设计事物，并在发布有用的评级之前亲自验证它。
Lenny Rachitsky: Yeah, that is such an interesting area to explore where you want to avoid AI hallucinating slop versus make it easier and scale it even further.
Lenny Rachitsky：是的，这是一个非常有趣的领域，值得探索，你想避免人工智能的幻觉，而不是让它变得更容易并进一步扩展。
What an interesting challenge.
多么有趣的挑战啊。
Keith Coleman: What's cool about this project, in addition to the AI element, is that it's being done outside the company.
Keith Coleman：除了人工智能元素之外，这个项目的优点还在于它是在公司外部完成的。
We talked earlier about the open source transparency.
我们之前讨论过开源透明度。
The key reason we made this all open source was so people could see how it worked, but the dream is actually that, it's not just that the contributions to the notes and ratings are from the people, but the dream is actually the product is built by the people.
我们将其全部开源的关键原因是让人们可以看到它是如何工作的，但梦想实际上是，不仅仅是对注释和评级的贡献来自人们，而且梦想实际上是产品是由人们构建的。
What if the scoring algorithm were significantly or entirely written by the public?
如果评分算法大部分或完全由公众编写怎么办？
That would be incredible.
那将是令人难以置信的。
And Supernotes is probably the first very substantial potential change in the algorithm of the way it works, that was kind of coming from the outside and plausibly could be part of the core, so we'd love to see the product go in that direction as well.
Supernotes 可能是其工作方式的算法中第一个非常重大的潜在变化，这有点来自外部，并且有可能成为核心的一部分，所以我们很高兴看到该产品也朝这个方向发展。
Lenny Rachitsky: Sweet, go Supernotes.
Lenny Rachitsky：亲爱的，去 Supernotes 吧。
Well guys, the work you're doing is tremendous.
好吧，伙计们，你们所做的工作是巨大的。
This is every product person's dream, I think to work, on something like this.
我认为这是每个产品人员的梦想，致力于从事这样的事情。
Small team, lots of support, lots of impact, just innately interesting, and so I think this is going to inspire a lot of people.
小团队，大量支持，大量影响，天生有趣，所以我认为这会激励很多人。
Lenny Rachitsky: So let me just ask you, is there anything else you wanted to share?
Lenny Rachitsky：那么让我问你，你还有什么想分享的吗？
Anything else you think might be helpful for folks to leave them with?
您认为还有什么其他东西可能对人们留下有帮助吗？
Jay Baxter: Sure, I guess one thing that just I thought was interesting over the course of working on this product is just there's...
Jay Baxter：当然，我想在开发这个产品的过程中我认为有趣的一件事就是......
I think in a similar way to how retweets originally were not something Jack came up with, I think users just started doing it and then it became a core part of the product.
我认为，就像转发最初不是杰克想出的那样，我认为用户刚刚开始这样做，然后它就成为了产品的核心部分。
There's a huge way already in which there's just a lot of surprising things that people wanted to use Community Notes for that I don't think we really expected, and it's kind of cool to see those user desires emerge.
人们已经在很大程度上希望使用社区注释来完成很多令人惊讶的事情，但我认为我们并没有真正预料到这些事情，看到这些用户的愿望出现真是太酷了。
Jay Baxter: I think one example, I guess we had always been imagining political type of misinformation, but for whatever reason there's a lot of people who love debating whether Messi or Ronaldo got more goals.
杰伊·巴克斯特：我举一个例子，我想我们一直在想象政治类型的错误信息，但无论出于何种原因，有很多人喜欢争论梅西或罗纳尔多是否获得了更多进球。
I guess it's kind of a funny one.
我想这有点有趣。
There's a community moderation aspect, so I think we also thought that this would be specifically for adding context to misleading or potentially misleading information, but what you can see is that there are some notes that go beyond that towards calling out content that they think is spammy or something.
有一个社区审核方面，所以我认为我们也认为这将专门用于为误导性或潜在误导性信息添加上下文，但您可以看到，有一些注释超出了这些注释，以指出他们认为是垃圾内容或其他内容。
So I think that's just another dimension in which commuted notes is a product that's driven by the people.
所以我认为这只是另一个维度，其中交换笔记是由人们驱动的产品。
Lenny Rachitsky: That's so beautiful, basically they're trying to keep Twitter/X healthy and they're just like, no, this should be taken down, this tweet of spam.
Lenny Rachitsky：这太棒了，基本上他们是在努力保持 Twitter/X 的健康，但他们的反应是，不，这条垃圾邮件推文应该被删除。
Lenny Rachitsky: I love that.
莱尼·拉奇茨基：我喜欢这个。
Is there an answer on the Messi versus, who is the other soccer player?
关于梅西与另一位足球运动员是谁的问题有答案吗？
Lenny Rachitsky: Ronaldo, okay.
莱尼·拉奇茨基：罗纳尔多，好的。
Is there a definitive fact there or is that just unknowable?
是否有明确的事实或者只是不可知的？
Jay Baxter: Yeah, I guess that's an interesting one because it's a case where raters are actually very polarized.
杰伊·巴克斯特：是的，我想这是一个有趣的事情，因为这是一个评估者实际上非常两极分化的情况。
I guess it actually kind of fits into the core algorithm where there's some people who are just diehard Messi fans or Ronaldo fans, just like they could be on politics, so we actually specifically modeled that topic, as well as some other topics, so we can estimate people's opinion on that particular debate.
我想这实际上符合核心算法，其中有些人只是顽固的梅西粉丝或罗纳尔多粉丝，就像他们可能关注政治一样，所以我们实际上专门对该主题以及其他一些主题进行了建模，因此我们可以估计人们对特定辩论的看法。
It's kind of funny that something like that would emerge.
类似这样的事情会出现，这有点有趣。
Lenny Rachitsky: You're saying that's the most controversial topic on X, Ronaldo versus Messi.
莱尼·拉奇茨基：你是说这是 X 上最具争议的话题，罗纳尔多与梅西。
Lenny Rachitsky: Oh wow, who knew?
莱尼·拉奇茨基：哦，哇，谁知道呢？
Okay.
好的。
Keith, is there anything you wanted to add?
基思，你还有什么要补充的吗？
Keith Coleman: Yeah, community Notes is cool itself, but I think what it points to about society is actually even bigger.
Keith Coleman：是的，社区笔记本身很酷，但我认为它对社会的意义实际上更大。
Society often feels really polarized, you hear people talk about it all the time, no one can ever agree on anything, but actually Community Note shows you people really can agree on quite a lot.
社会常常给人一种两极分化的感觉，你总是听到人们谈论它，没有人能在任何事情上达成一致，但实际上社区笔记表明人们确实可以在很多事情上达成一致。
Even on super controversial topics related to politics and everything, there's a lot of agreement, that's why notes work.
即使是在与政治和其他一切相关的超级有争议的话题上，也有很多共识，这就是笔记起作用的原因。
Keith Coleman: And I think that's a really big reason for optimism about the world, is that while it might feel polarized, there's probably like an 80% set of people that agree on quite a lot of things.
基思·科尔曼：我认为这是对世界持乐观态度的一个重要原因，虽然它可能会让人感觉两极分化，但可能有 80% 的人在很多事情上达成共识。
And imagine if we could use the same kind of approaches we use with notes, but to find agreement on legislation, or policies, or things like that that people want the government or the world to do, possibly we could get a lot more momentum behind these ideas that the people really want and everyone would be a lot happier.
想象一下，如果我们可以使用与笔记相同的方法，但在立法、政策或人们希望政府或世界做的事情上达成一致，也许我们可以在这些人们真正想要的想法背后获得更多动力，每个人都会更快乐。
Maybe 10% of the people on the edges wouldn't be happy, but I bet there's a lot of agreement that we are not identifying, and if we did it, we'd all be pretty happy.
也许有 10% 处于边缘的人不会高兴，但我敢打赌，有很多我们尚未确定的共识，如果我们做到了，我们都会非常高兴。
So I don't know, I think it's easy for people to feel pessimistic about the world, but I think this product is a good reason to be optimistic about the future.
所以我不知道，我认为人们很容易对世界感到悲观，但我认为这个产品是对未来持乐观态度的一个很好的理由。
Lenny Rachitsky: What an incredible way to end it.
Lenny Rachitsky：这是多么令人难以置信的结束方式啊。
I can also see, Keith, why people want to join you and work with you and work on this team.
基思，我也明白为什么人们想加入你并与你一起工作并在这个团队中工作。
Keith Coleman: Appreciate it.
基思·科尔曼：很欣赏。
If you do want to join, we are hiring an ML engineer.
如果您确实想加入，我们正在招聘一名机器学习工程师。
You get to work on these amazing problems with us and have a lot of fun, so we're accepting applications at x.com/communitynotes.
您可以与我们一起解决这些令人惊奇的问题，并享受很多乐趣，因此我们在 x.com/communitynotes 上接受申请。
Lenny Rachitsky: Okay, great, I'm glad you gave the URL.
Lenny Rachitsky：好的，太好了，我很高兴您提供了 URL。
Oh man, you're about to get flooded.
天啊，你快要被淹了。
Lenny Rachitsky: Guys, thank you so much for doing this.
Lenny Rachitsky：伙计们，非常感谢你们所做的事情。
Is there anywhere other than that place to go off, join the team as an ML engineer, is there any other place you want to point people to, either your socials or anything else?
除了作为 ML 工程师加入团队之外，还有其他地方可以去吗？还有其他地方可以引导人们去吗，无论是社交还是其他什么地方？
Keith Coleman: I'm KeithColeman on X, please reach out if you have any feedback or want to help us out, whether you may want to work here or want to do something from the outside, we would love to talk.
Keith Coleman：我是 X 的 KeithColeman，如果您有任何反馈或想要帮助我们，请联系我们，无论您想在这里工作还是想从外部做点什么，我们都很乐意与您交谈。
Jay Baxter: Yeah, I'm @ _JayBaxter_ at X.
Jay Baxter：是的，我是 X 的@_JayBaxter_。
Yeah, I think in particular, besides just using Community Notes, it would be great to get more substantial contributions, pull requests, collaborate on projects like Supernotes, I think that's the most exciting type of stuff if people do want to contribute.
是的，我特别认为，除了使用社区笔记之外，获得更多实质性贡献、拉取请求、在 Supernotes 等项目上进行协作也是很棒的，我认为如果人们确实想做出贡献，这是最令人兴奋的事情。
Lenny Rachitsky: Ship some code guys.
Lenny Rachitsky：运送一些代码人员。
Amazing.
惊人的。
Guys, thank you so much for doing this.
伙计们，非常感谢你们所做的事情。
Lenny Rachitsky: It's my pleasure.
莱尼·拉奇茨基：这是我的荣幸。
Bye everyone.
再见大家。
Thank you so much for listening.
非常感谢您的聆听。
If you found this valuable, you can subscribe to the show on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or your favorite podcast app.
如果您发现这很有价值，您可以在 Apple Podcasts、Spotify 或您最喜欢的播客应用程序上订阅该节目。
Also, please consider giving us a rating or leaving a review as that really helps other listeners find the podcast.
另外，请考虑给我们评分或留下评论，因为这确实有助于其他听众找到播客。
You can find all past episodes or learn more about the show at LennysPodcast.com.
您可以在 LennysPodcast.com 上找到所有过去的剧集或了解有关该节目的更多信息。
See you in the next episode.
下一集见。