E147: TED goes woke, Canada's Nazi blunder, AI adds vision, plus: who owns OpenAI?
发布时间 2023-09-29 20:16:41 来源
Hey Coleman, how's it going? Hey Coleman, welcome to the show. Hey, how's it going? Pleasure. Have you ever heard of the show? Yeah, I have. I'm actually a fan. My girlfriend introduced me to the show like two years ago, and I've been a fan ever since. Great to meet you. Apparently, like many women, she has a legit concerning obsession with Saks, but also. Oh, don't say it. Oh my god. What? Oh, her and when I was a little bit tilted. No Saks fans are crazy. And the episode and the episode. Oh my god. Jesus, or where you go, Coleman. What? Right in here. All right, here we go. Let me write this. This is your cold open phone. I'm sorry. I need to just psychologically explore this before we get into the real substance of it. Well, why does she like him so much? I don't understand this. By the way, I think you guys missed the second half of my statement. I said Saks and Chamon. Oh shit. OK, great. OK, great. Let's get to that. Let's get to that. Let's get to that. Let's get to that. Thank you. Thank God. OK, here we go. Thank God. Three, two. Let your winner ride. Brain man, David Saks. We open source it to the fans and they've discovered crazy. I'll be with us. I see. Queena. I'm going all the way up.
嘿，Coleman，最近怎么样？嗨，Coleman，欢迎来到我们的节目。嘿，这么近如何？很高兴。你听说过这个节目吗？是的，我有。实际上我是个粉丝。我女朋友两年前介绍我听这个节目，从那时起我就一直是个粉丝。很高兴见到你。显然，像她那样的很多女性对Saks都有着合理的痴迷，还有...哦，别说了。天哪，什么？哦，她和我有点摇摆不定。没有Saks的粉丝是疯狂的。还有这一集，这一集。哦，我的上帝。耶稣，去吧，Coleman。什么？就在这里。好的，我们开始吧。让我写下这个。这是你的冷开场电话。对不起，我们需要在深入讨论之前心理探讨一下。她为什么那么喜欢他？我不明白。顺便说一句，我想你们可能错过了我话的后半部分。我说的是Saks和Chamon。哦，天哪。好极了，好极了。让我们来讨论这个。让我们来讨论这个。谢谢。太好了。好，我们开始吧。太好了。三，二。让你的胜利者骑行。天才，David Saks。我们把它开源给粉丝，他们发现了疯狂。我会一直陪你的。我看到了，Queena。我要一直向上冲。
All right, everybody. Welcome back to the All in Podcast. We have a very full docket today. I thought we'd start with something pretty crazy. There was a really weird moment last week, Ted, through one of its speakers under the bus. So we decided to have him on to talk about the experience. The second time they've done it, at least, they did to Sarah Silverman for doing comedy at Ted because people at Ted are a bunch of virtual signaling lunatics, including some of my friends who go. But Coleman Hughes, if you don't know him, is a writer and podcaster. He has a pretty popular podcast called Conversations with Coleman. He did a talk, which I encourage everybody to watch at Ted. It's titled A Case for Color Blindness.
好的，各位，欢迎回到“All in Podcast”节目中。今天我们有个非常庞大的议程。我想我们从一个非常疯狂的话题开始说起。上周发生了一个非常奇怪的时刻，泰德组织对一位演讲者背叛倒戈。所以我们决定邀请他过来讲述这次经历。这至少是他们第二次这样做了，他们也曾因为莎拉·西尔弗曼在泰德做喜剧而对她施加压力，因为在泰德的人都是一群热衷于虚拟信号的疯子，包括一些我认识的朋友。但是，如果你不了解科尔曼·休斯，他是一个作家和播客人。他有一个相当受欢迎的播客节目叫做《科尔曼的对话》。他在泰德做了一次演讲，我鼓励大家去看看。标题是《支持色盲论》。
We all watched it. It's a very powerful talk. Something weird happened, Coleman. Welcome to the program. Maybe you could just share with the audience how you wound up speaking at Ted, what the content of your talk was, briefly. And then the bizarre reaction when they try to ban and kill your talk post, you giving it.
我们都看过那个演讲。那是一个非常有力的讔论。但是，科尔曼，有些奇怪的事情发生了。欢迎来到我们的节目。也许你能和观众分享一下你是如何成为TED演讲嘉宾的，你的演讲内容大概是什么。然后是你发表演讲后，他们试图禁止和消除你的演讲帖子，那是一种多么诡异的反应。
Yeah, so first, really glad to be on, guys. I'm a fan of the pod. So I'll give the short version here. If you want the long version, you can go to the free press where I wrote a big summary of what happened there. Basically, what happened is Chris Anderson invited me to give a Ted talk. And I chose the subject of my upcoming book, which is coming out in February, called The End of Race Politics. And the argument is just essentially colorblindness. This is the idea that you want to treat people without regard to race, both in your personal lives and in our public policy. And wherever we have policies that are meant to collect and help the most disadvantaged, we should preferentially use class as a variable rather than race. And that's my talk in a nutshell.
嗯，首先，非常高兴能上来，伙计们。我是这个播客的粉丝。我这里先给你们一个简短版本。如果你想听长版本，可以去自由新闻，我在那里写了一篇详细总结了发生的事情。基本上，事情是这样的，Chris Anderson邀请我做了一个Ted演讲。我选择了我即将在2月份出版的新书的主题——《种族政治的终结》。主要论点就是要视而不见颜色。这意味着在您的个人生活中和我们的公共政策中，您都要无视人们的种族来对待他们。无论我们有何种旨在收集和帮助最弱势群体的政策，我们都应优先选择阶级作为变量，而非种族。简而言之，这就是我的演讲。
So I prepared the talk with the Ted team. I got their feedback, edited, curated, et cetera. Got up there in April, gave the talk. 95% of the people in the audience, it was quite well received. Whether or not they agreed with every point, it was well within the bounds of acceptable discourse. There was a very small minority on stage I could see that was physically upset by my talk. On stage. I could see this on stage yet in the moment. But I mean, I'm talking five people in a crowd of almost 2000. So I expected that because colorblindness is not in vogue today on the left amongst progressives. It's really the idea non-grata. And so I was expecting to field some pushback and I talked to some critics and so forth. But what happened is what began as just a few people upset began to spiral into a kind of internal staff meltdown at Ted.
所以我与Ted团队一起准备了这个演讲。我收到了他们的反馈，进行了编辑、策划等等。四月份，我上台演讲。观众中有95%的人对我的演讲反应相当热烈。无论他们是否赞同我每一个观点，这都在可以接受的讨论范围内。我可以看到舞台上有一小部分人对我的演讲感到非常不安。在舞台上，我能够在当时看到这种情况。但是我指的是几乎2000人的观众群中只有五个人。所以我预计会有这种情况，因为今天在左派进步人士中，色盲观念并不流行。这真的是不受欢迎的想法。所以我预计会受到一些反对，我也与一些批评者进行了交谈等等。但是发生的是，开始只有少数人不满，后来却演变成Ted团队内部员工的一种纷乱状态。
So this group called black at Ted asked to speak with me. I agreed. And then they said, actually, we don't want to talk to you. And they're an employee group at Ted. After the conference, Chris emailed me and said, look, I'm getting a lot of blowback here internally. There are people saying we shouldn't release your talk at all. And then over the course of the next month, they came up with a variety of sort of creative solutions about how to release my talk in a way that would appease the woke staffers that really didn't want it to be released at all. And at this point, I had to start kind of sticking up for myself. So first they wanted to attach like a debate to the end of my talk and release it as one video, which I felt would really send the wrong message. You would send the message that like this idea can't be heard without the opposing perspective. They tell you what was problematic about your talk.
所以这个叫做黑人俱乐部的团队要求和我谈谈，我同意了。然后他们说，实际上，我们不想和你交谈。他们是Ted的一支员工团队。 在会议结束后，克里斯给我发了一封电子邮件，说，看，我在这里内部受到了很大反弹。有人说我们根本就不应该发布你的演讲。然后在接下来的一个月中，他们在如何发布我演讲的问题上提出了各种创新的解决方案，以求安抚那些真的不希望它被发布的激进派员工。在这个时候，我必须要开始为我自己辩护。首先，他们想在我的演讲后面附加一个辩论，并将其作为一个视频发布，我觉得这真的会传递错误的信息。你会传达出这样的信息：这个观点不能不附带反对立场就被听到。他们指出了你的演讲中有问题的地方。
To use it in work term. Well, like what was the problem with the talk? Well, there are no factual problems. It passed the fact checking team. There were there were no substantive issues with the talk. The problem was that it was the opinion of the staff. It upset the staff. That was the language that was used. It upset certain people and the staff. Got. And those people are a black. Um, probably most were, you know, I, I, I tried to actually have face to face conversations with some of these folks. I only got to talk to one woman. So presumably many of them were black, but possibly not all.
在职业生涯中使用此情况。好吧，那么演讲有什么问题呢？实际上，没有任何事实上的问题。它通过了事实检查团队的审核。关于这次演讲，不存在任何实质性的问题。问题在于，这是员工的观点。这让员工感到不安。这就是他们用来表达情绪的语言。说明一些特定的人和员工感到不适。明白了。那些感到不适的人中，大多数人可能是黑人。我实际上试图与其中的一些人进行面对面的对话。我只有机会和一个女士交谈。所以可能他们中的大部分人都是黑人，但可能并不全是。
Okay. What was the, what do you perceive was the problem with your talk or what they perceive the problem with your talking? So the last day of the TED conference, they have a town hall. People from the audience come and give feedback. The town hall opened with two people denouncing my talk back to back. The first said that it was racist and dangerous and irresponsible. And the second guy who's actually a guy I knew. He said that I was willing to have a slide back into the days of separate, but equal, which was totally the opposite of my talk. And I, I implore anyone to just go online and watch it, go on YouTube, decide for yourself whether these criticisms bear any resemblance to reality. But that was the idea that the talk is racist, that, you know, I'm, I'm, I'm some kind of pro Jim Crow person is really, really deranged kind of criticisms. Your, your talk is up on Ted's website and on YouTube, right? But part of the controversy was that the number of views seem to be pretty suppressed. Was that discussed with Chris when you talk with him or do you have a point of view on the suppression of the promotion of the video, even though they put it out there and how that's affected, you know, how widespread the video has been made available to folks.
好的。那么你觉得你的演讲有什么问题，或者他们觉得你的演讲有什么问题呢？在TED会议的最后一天，他们会有一个市政厅，观众会过来提供反馈。市政厅的开场就是连着两个人公开批评我的演讲。第一个人说我的演讲种族主义、危险且不负责任。第二个人，实际上是我认识的一个人，他说我愿意滑向“分而等同”的日子，这完全与我的演讲背道而驰。我真的希望大家可以去网上看看，上YouTube看看，自己判断一下这些批评是否与现实情况有任何关系。但那就是对演讲的想法，认为有种族主义，我是一种支持吉姆·克劳法的人，这种批评真的非常激进。你的演讲已经在Ted的网站和YouTube上了，对吧？不过部分争议在于，观看人数似乎被压制得很严重。你和Chris讨论过这个问题吗，或者你对压制视频推广的观点有什么看法？即使他们发布了这个视频，但这对视频的广泛推广产生了怎样的影响？
Yeah. So in my final call with Chris, he sort of presented this idea about how to release it. And he sold it to me as a way to amplify my talk, which I think was kind of some spin. He was in a tough position caught between me and his employees. We ultimately decided they would release the talk. And then two weeks later, they'd release a debate between myself and this guy, Jim Elboui, who was in New York Times columnist. Um, so the talk came out on Ted's website. The debate came out and I kind of mentally, uh, had forgotten about the whole situation until Tim Urban, who was a popular blogger who's actually given the, yeah, he spoke on Simon Leshire. Oh, that's great. Yeah. Tim is great. He, he's also given the most viewed TED talk of all time on YouTube. Tim noticed that my talk just had a really absurdly low view count, like an implausibly low view count on, on Ted's website in mid-August, he tweeted this and that he believed they were intentionally under promoting my talks. They said that. Yeah. I checked and all of the, of the five talks surrounding mine, they all had between, you know, 450,000 views and 800,000 views. That was the full range. Mine had 73,000. Right. So 16% of the low end of the range of all the talks released around mine. So when that happened, I, I felt that Ted had kind of reneged on its end of our bargain. And that's when, um, Barry Weiss got wind of it and I, I went public.
是的。在我与克里斯的最后一次通话中，他提出了一个关于如何发布讲话的想法。他向我销售这个方法作为一个放大我讲话的途径，我认为这有点儿过于偏颇。他因为我和他的员工之间的问题陷入了困境。我们最后决定他们会发布这个讲话。然后两周后，他们会发布我和一位叫Jim Elboui的家伙之间的辩论，他是纽约时报的专栏作家。所以，我的讲话在TED网站上发布了。然后辩论也出来了，我在心理上已经忘记了这整个情况，直到Tim Urban（他是一位非常受欢迎的博主，事实上他也在Simon Leshire上发表了演讲）指出了这个问题。他是个棒极了的人。他还发布了YouTube上观看次数最多的TED演讲。蒂姆发现我的讲话在TED网站上的观看次数低得离谱，令人难以置信。他在八月中旬在Twitter上发表了他认为他们故意压低我的讲话的宣传。是的，他们是这么说的。我查看了一下，我的讲话周围的五个演讲，他们的观看量都在45万到80万之间。我只有7.3万。只有所有与我同时发布的讲话低端范围的16%。当这件事发生时，我认为TED没有兑现我们的协议。那时，Barry Weiss注意到了这件事，我选择公开了这件事。
Just, just to be clear, you're saying that the condition for releasing your, your TED talk, the bargain you struck with Chris was that you would do a debate with someone in a separate video and that you had to do the debate in order to have your TED talk released.
只是为了确认一下，你的意思是，你和Chris达成的协议，也就是发布你的TED演讲的条件是，你会和某人进行一场在另一个视频中的辩论。而你必须进行这场辩论，然后你的TED演讲才会被发布。
Yes. Wow. So yeah, that, that's what that was. That was the end of the negotiation. The beginning of the negotiation was trying to get me to release those things as one video and I said, hell no. And then next we're going to release them as separate videos on the same day. I said, hell no, cause that dilutes it. And then we agreed on a two week separation between the two. In your experience with Ted and your conversations around this matter, are you aware of other videos that Ted has refused to put out that were a live Ted talk at the Ted conference and they were deemed to be too controversial to be released publicly? Definitely not this year. I can't, I, you know, I don't know the whole history of Ted, but nothing like that this year for sure.
是的。哇。也就是说，那就是那个情况。那是谈判的结束。谈判的开始是他们试图让我把那些东西作为一个视频发布，我坚决反对。然后我们计划将它们在同一天作为单独的视频发布。我说，决不，因为这会使其变得稀释。然后我们就在这两者之间的两周间隔问题上达成了一致。从你与泰德的经验和关于这个问题的讨论来看，你知道泰德是否拒绝发布过其他视频，那些是在Ted大会上的现场Ted演讲，但被认为过于有争议而不适合公开发布？今年肯定没有。我并不了解Ted的全部历史，但我肯定今年没有那样的事情。
We can go one of two ways for this, Friedberg. Do you want to talk about the substance of the talk or maybe dig into the culture of Ted?
对于这件事，我们可以选择两种不同的途径，弗里德伯格。你想要讨论演讲的实质内容，还是可能深入挖掘一下Ted的文化呢？
I want to talk about the substance of the talk in a minute, but I think it's worth just sharing my experience with you. I started going to Ted as an attendee around, I believe 2007 and I went every year until 2019. I got a lot from the community. I got a lot from the conference every year. It was an incredible week of my life every year. It was a big deal for me. Um, in the early days, I would go there and I saw new perspectives on technology, on the environment, on, um, social change on all these, like topics that were not in my day to day, that I thought were really exciting and awe inspiring. And that really was kind of this ethos of Ted back in the day before Chris Anderson took it over was to kind of, you know, inspire people with new ideas.
我待会儿会谈论演讲的主题，但我想先和你们分享一下我的经历。我想我是在2007年开始作为参与者参加Ted的，并且每年都参加，一直到2019年。我从社区中得到了很多，我每年都从会议中汲取很多。这每年都是我生活中令人难以忘怀的一周，对我来说，这是一件非常重要的事。在早期，我会去那里，我看到了关于科技、环境、社会变革等等诸多我日常生活中没有接触到的话题的新视角，我认为那些都非常令人兴奋和畏惧。那就是Ted在Chris Anderson接手之前的精神所在，那就是用新的想法去激发人们。
Over the years that I attended Ted, I began to observe that many of the talks, and I spoke about this very briefly last week as part of my motivation and interest in doing the all in summit this year, but that over time, many of the talks began to take a bit of a social justice turn in the sense that there was almost a lecturing happening as curated by the editorial process at Ted. When Donald Trump was elected president in 2016, needless to say, most of the audience of Ted was not on that side of the voting block.
在我参加Ted的这些年里，我开始发现许多的演讲，我上周简要地在提到我对今年全员峰会的动机和兴趣时曾经谈到过，但随着时间的推移，很多的演讲开始向社会公正转向，就好像是Ted的编辑过程在进行一种讲课。当唐纳德·特朗普在2016年当选为总统，不言而喻，大多数Ted的听众并不在那个选票阵营里。
And what disturbed me the most was that in the three years after he was elected, every Ted conference had plenty of subjects, plenty of talks and plenty of conversations about why society is falling apart, why Donald Trump is a key root cause of that, why so much of him and what he stands for and the people behind him are unjust and evil in all these ways. There wasn't a single talk that provided a perspective of why anyone voted for him. There was no one that shared a point of view about why this person had come to gather more than half the votes or half the votes in the country. And I thought that was such an important topic to better understand that I was so shocked that it was never part of the discourse at Ted.
让我最感到困扰的是，在他当选后的三年里，每一届Ted大会都有很多的主题、演讲和对话在讨论社会为何崩溃，为何唐纳德·特朗普是导致这种情况的关键根源，为何他及其代表的大多数东西和支持他的人们在各种方面都是不公和邪恶的。然而，却没有一场演讲提供了为何有人会投票支持他的视角。也没有人共享关于为何这个人能够在国内赢得超过一半或半数的选票的观点。我认为这是一个非常重要的议题，需要我们更好地去理解，我对于这个议题在Ted大会上从未成为一部分的讨论感到非常震惊。
I'm not a Republican, I'm not a conservative, and I'm not against social justice issues. But I saw Ted over time get overtaken with this kind of very one-sided, almost bullying type of approach to this is the narrative we want to sell society on rather than have a true discourse about the matter. I sent a survey response in 2019 after I went to Ted and I said, I'm never coming back again. This year did it for me. I'm over it. And there was such a lack of diversity of points of view at this conference. And so much of this has veered away from inspiring topics and inspiring talks. And it became all about fear of technology. It became about social injustice caused by one side of the political spectrum. And it really angered and upset me that everyone had become so close minded at Ted. And I sent this note and Chris Anderson reached out to me and said, well, you have a conversation.
我不是共和党人，我不是保守派，我也不反对社会公正的问题。但我看到Ted随着时间的推移，被这种非常片面的，几乎是霸凌式的方式所侵蚀，这就是他们想给社会灌输的叙事，而不是真正对这个问题进行讨论。我在2019年出席了Ted后，我发回了一份调查问卷，我说我再也不会回去了。今年就是终结。我受够了。这个会议上缺乏多元化的观点，很多主题都偏离了以往的鼓舞人心的主题和报告。活动变得完全是关于对科技的恐惧，也是关于政治谱系一方引起的社会不公。让我非常生气和烦恼的是，Ted的所有人都变得非常的封闭。我发了这样一封邮件，Chris Anderson回复我说，我们可以来个谈话。
I went on a Zoom call with him and I spoke with him for an hour and I shared all of this. And I said, he's missing so much of what's happening. That's optimistic about the world. It's optimistic about technology. That's different ways of looking at things. And he's kind of created this very narrow-minded view on the topics that they want to address and how they want to address them. And that was it and I walked away. So when I saw what happened with your talk, to me, it's almost like the ultimate endgame of this process that I've been observing at Ted personally for the last 13 years. And I just wanted to, you know, last 15 years, I guess, share that story with you and speak publicly about it.
我和他进行了一次Zoom通话，我们聊了一个小时，我分享了这一切。我对他说，他错过了这个世界中那么多乐观积极的事物，对科技的积极态度，以及不同的观察事物的方式。他在一定程度上已经对他们想要解决的话题和解决方式形成了一种狭隘的视角。那就是全部，然后我就离开了。所以，当我看到你的演讲发生的事情时，我觉得这就像是我过去13年里在Ted personally 观察到的这个过程的最终结果。我只是想，你知道，过去的15年里，我想把这个故事分享给你，并公开谈论。
I very much respect the intention of the people at Ted. I respect Chris Anderson deeply. The Ted talks changed my life many times along the way over the decade plus that I went there. I have many great friends from Ted. I know plenty of people that have worked there. Everyone has the right intention. But I think it's such a microcosm and a reflection of what's broadly been going on, which is it's either my opinion or not. And everyone coalesces around people with the same opinion. And then you magnify it and you concentrate it and we have no discourse. And Ted used to be a place for discourse. And it's lost that as have so many other forums for conversation in the society and country today.
我非常尊重TED的人们的初衷，我深深尊重Chris Anderson。十多年来，TED的讲座多次改变了我的人生。我在TED上结识的很多好友。我知道有很多人在那里工作过。每个人都有正确的意图。但我认为，这只是一个缩影，反映了广泛的趋势，即人们只接受与自己观点相同的意见。然后，对这些意见进行放大和集中，而我们却没有任何对话。TED曾经是一个进行讨论的地方，但现在已经失去了这个功能。同样，今天的社会和国家，其他许多对话的论坛也逐渐失去了这种功能。
Call me what's your take on the Ted organization, you know, pre and post having had this experience. I'm curious. Yeah, what you just said, David, I've heard echoed from at least a dozen people that have gone to Ted or been in the Ted community for 10 years or more.
给我打个电话告诉我你对Ted组织在有无这种经历之前后的看法，我很好奇。你刚才说的那番话，David，我至少从十几个去过Ted或者在Ted社区待了十年以上的人那里听过相似的观点。
They've noticed the exact change that you noticed. The question is, what has driven that? Is it actually coming top down from the leadership? I'm not sure. I'm skeptical.
他们也注意到了你所注意到的那个确切的变化。问题是，是什么驱动了这个变化？是来自高层领导的自上而下吗？我不确定，我对此持怀疑态度。
Yeah, I see you shaking your head. I agree. Chris Anderson, I would say no. I agree.
是的，我看到你在摇头。我同意。对于克里斯·安德森，我会说不。我同意。
So like all my private communications with Chris suggests to me that he is just as alive to this problem of ideological capture of institutions as anyone. But when it comes to, you know, his own staff who have really strong feelings who are not pro free speech, who are not pro heterodox beliefs and open discourse who literally just don't share that value.
所以，根据我和克里斯的所有私人交流，他对机构被意识形态捕获的问题非常敏感，就像任何人一样。但是，当涉及到他自己的员工，他们有非常强烈的情感，他们并不支持言论自由，不支持异端信仰和开放的话语，他们真的不认同这个价值观。
You know, it's a very tricky thing with leadership. Sometimes you have to simply be the bad guy and say, I'm sorry, these are the values of the institution. And if you're not on board, this is not right for you. And my perception is that Ted has been captured kind of from the bottom up like many institutions, just from the seeping in of staff that don't share those values and the inability of the leadership to actually hold the line for those values.
你知道，领导力是一件非常微妙的事情。有时候，你必须硬起心肠，告诉他们：我很抱歉，这些是我们机构的价值观。如果你不能接受，那么这里可能就不适合你。在我看来，泰德（Ted）就像许多其他组织一样，从底层开始被那些不认同这些价值观的员工逐渐侵蚀，而领导层的无能为力又不能维护住这些价值观。
Did they tell you that you made them feel unsafe? Yes, actually. Actually, yes. Each people said they felt they were attacked in the audience. And I'm, you know, my my talk was again, just look it up on YouTube. It's quite mild. Can we actually talk about that? Yeah, let's go into the subject.
他们告诉你，你让他们感到不安全了吗？是的，确实如此。实际上，确实有每个人都说他们在观众中感到受到了攻击。而我的发言，你知道，你可以在YouTube上查看，其实非常温和。我们能否就这个话题进行深入讨论？好，让我们深入这个话题。
What was your take on it, you want to?
对此你有什么看法，你想要吗？
I'll just make a statement, which is I think that your talk was superb. And just to give you my journey as a kid that grew up as a refugee on welfare and then to get through every single sort of strata of society. I think when I look back, the biggest thing that I struggled with was always confusing. When I felt mistreated, I would always direct it at racism. It would be my sort of safety blanket. And I would always look at other people as doing that. And it was only until I met my wife and spending years and years talking about it, where I was able to disarm this and see that out of 100 interactions, a lot of the time, just people are having a bad day. Some other percentage of the time, people are actually just being very classist. Because racism, it turns out, is like a pretty severe perversion. And it's really crazy when you actually see it play out.
我先做个陈述，那就是我认为你的讲话非常出色。然后再谈谈我自己的经历，作为一个曾经在福利下长大的难民，我经历了生活各个阶层的磨研。回想起来，我最大的困扰总是困惑，每当我感到被不公正对待时，我总会把这归咎于种族主义，它像是我的安全毯。我总是把其他人看作是种族主义者。直到我遇见我的妻子，通过多年的谈话，我才能慢慢拆解这一观念，认识到在100次互动中，很多时候，人们的不当行为只是因为他们正在度过糟糕的一天。在某些时候，人们的行为实际上更多的是阶级歧视。因为种族主义，其实是一种相当严重的变态现象。当你真正看到它发生时，会感觉到极为震惊。
And for me, had I had a framework, if I had your talk when I was in my 20s and 30s, I would have spirit myself a lot of self-sabotage. Because what that does is when you feel these things and you don't have a framework to interpret it or to tolerate the anxiety, I would internalize that anxiety. And I was a less productive person. And so if the goal was for me on behalf of my family or on behalf of people like me to make it, I would have gotten there much faster had I not gotten in my own way. And when I watched your talk, it was incredibly validating for the work that I had done. And I had thought to myself, man, if I had had him, if he had made that for me when I was 20 years old, amazing, I would have, I could have done so much more. Because when I think about some of the mistakes I made, they were rooted in this specific issue that you touched. So I just want to say thank you. And I also want to say that to the extent other people are interested and feel like that, you should really listen to what you have to say. Because I thought it was eloquently addressed. I was a huge, huge, huge fan of what you had to say. And I thought it was extremely well done. And especially for someone as young as you, I thought it was just amazing.
如果在我二三十岁的时候，听到了你的讲话，有了一套理论框架，我就可以避免很多自我拖累的行为。因为当你感到困扰却没有一套理论框架来解读或者去容忍那种焦虑时，我会把那种焦虑内化，这让我变得不那么有效率。因此，如果我的目标是为了我和我的家庭，或者为了像我这样的人去成功，我本可以避免一些错误，进展得更快。当我看到你的讲话时，对我所做的一切工作起到了非常大的肯定作用。我想过，如果我二十岁时听到了你的讲话，那该多好，我本可以做得更多。因为我想到一些我犯下的错误，他们都源于你所讨论的这个特定问题。所以我只想说谢谢你。而且我也想说，如果其他人也觉得有同感，你们真的应该认真听听他的见解。因为我觉得他讲得非常有道理。我非常非常喜欢你的观点，我认为你做得非常好。尤其是对于像你这样年轻的人来说，我认为这太了不起了。
Coleman, let me ask you, what was the reaction from people of color, people who've experienced racism, perhaps to your talk? Because you must have gotten a tremendous amount. And I did look at the comments to Ted's credit, the comments are open. So what was the reaction to people like Chamath or yourself, people of color, who maybe who have experienced racism on some regular basis, and this idea of having color blindness when we're operating as a society in that goal, which I'll just point out when I listen to your talk seems to be exactly what Martin Luther King said. So go ahead.
科尔曼，我想问你，那些有色人种，那些可能经历过种族主义的人对你的讲话有什么反应？因为你肯定收到了大量的反馈。我看了一下TED的评论，他们给予了开放评论的机会。那么，像查马斯或者你这样的有色人种，可能经常遭受种族主义的侮辱，对于我们作为一个社会在目标上追求色盲的想法，他们有何反应？我只是想指出，当我听你的讲话时，似乎这正是马丁·路德·金所说的，你继续。
Yeah, it is. So there's the stereotype of the reaction is that white people like my talk and people of color don't. Yeah. So that's the stereotype that my critics would like to believe is the reality, because then they don't have to confront my arguments.
是的，就是这样。所以有一种刻板印象，就是白人会喜欢我的讲话，而有色人种则不会。对，这就是我的批评者希望相信的现实，因为这样他们就不必面对我所提出的论点。
The reality is that even at the Ted conference, which is a progressive space, many, many people of color, black people, South Asian people came up to me saying that was an excellent talk for this, that and the third reason. And I think probably for reasons similar to what you were saying, Chamath, I have found that oftentimes immigrants of color really resonate with my message. I have many, for instance, Jamaican friends that they view themselves as Jamaican, they come to America and our conversation about race doesn't make very much sense to them.
现实情况是，即使在进步的领域如泰德会议上，也有很多，很多的有色人种、黑人、南亚人向我表示对我讲话的各种各样的赞赏。而且我觉得，可能出于与你，Chamath，说的相似的原因，我发现我的信息往往能够引起有色移民的共鸣。比如说，我有很多牙买加朋友，他们自视为牙买加人，来到美国后，我们关于种族的讨论对他们来说并没有太多的意义。
Right? Why? It doesn't make sense, for instance, to strongly feel that your racial identity is an aspect of your core inner self that you ought to judge people on the basis of their racial identity that if you're a white person, that you don't have a valid perspective to bear on a conversation or you have to preface every belief by saying, well, I'm a dumb white guy. What do I know? This kind of routine that we've gotten into in spaces rather than just confronting each other as, hey, I'm Coleman, your Chamath, your David, et cetera. Let's all talk about this from the point of view of epistemic equals and have conversations.
对吧？为什么呢？例如，如果你强烈地感觉你的种族身份是你核心内在自我的一部分，你就应该根据他们的种族身份来判断人们，如果你是一个白人，那么你就没有合理的观点来参与对话，或者你每次发表观点都要先说，嗯，我是个愚蠢的白人，我知道什么呢？我们在空间里陷入了这样的套路，而不是直接面对彼此，比如，嘿，我是Coleman，你是Chamath，你是David，等等。我们都应该以认识论的平等观点来讨论这个问题并进行对话。
And yeah, you're going to know about stuff I haven't known because of your individual life story. I'm going to have experienced stuff that you haven't. We may have even experienced racial discrimination. We may have stories to tell, but we are starting out fundamentally from the framework of all being human beings that can talk to each other. And we don't have to play act these racial roles that have become increasingly in vogue in woke spaces.
是的，由于你们每个人的独特生活经历，你们会知道我不知道的事情。我也可能经历过你们没有经历过的事情。我们甚至可能都经历过种族歧视。我们可能有故事要讲，但我们的基础框架始终是我们都是能够彼此交谈的人类。我们不必在觉醒的空间中戏剧化地扮演这些日益流行的种族角色。
And a lot of people resonate with that. And what's more, you've gotten this thing on the left, you've gotten media institutions that have been taken in by this. So you see New York Times op-eds like one, I think five years ago, that's, can my children be friends with white people, right? You've got Robin D'Angelo and her book saying things like, a white person shouldn't cry around a black person because it triggers us. It's like, this is so the opposite of what it actually feels like to hang out with an interracial and tight knit group of friends. Your race, racial identity recedes an importance the more you get to know people. And I think people in interracial relationships know this, people with interracial kids know this.
很多人对这个观点产生了共鸣。更甚者，你看到左派和各大媒体机构都被这种思想所影响。比如，你可以看到《纽约时报》的一篇文章，我记得大概是五年前的，标题是“我的孩子能和白人做朋友吗？”。你还可以看到Robin D'Angelo在她的书中说类似“白人不应该在黑人面前哭泣，因为这会引发我们的情绪反应”。我觉得，这完全与实际在一个由不同种族组成、关系紧密的朋友群体中的感觉相反。越是了解一个人，他的种族身份在你心中的重要性就越会减少。我认为，那些处在跨种族关系中的人，或是有不同种族孩子的人，他们都明白这一点。
So my message actually resonates with people of all colors. That I think was one of the most poignant parts of it, Saks. You got to watch the talk as well, I believe. So your thoughts on maybe institutions rotting from the inside and maybe even one that's supposed to support ideas, ideas that matter. Clearly, this is an idea that matters. I'm curious.
我的信息实际上能触动所有人的心弦，无论他们是何种肤色。我认为这是其中最引人深思的部分，萨克斯。我相信你也看了这个讨论。那么，对于可能自内而外腐朽的机构，甚至可能是那些应该支持重要理念的机构，你有什么看法？显然，这是一个重要的理念。我很好奇。
Yeah, I just want to, I want to, I want to not use the term rotting because I think your point is that it's not good. I don't think that's necessarily the case because the point is there's institutional capture that's happened. And that institutional capture is almost like a democratic process that we're seeing at companies that we're seeing at government agencies and that we're seeing in private and nonprofit institutions that the individuals that are employed are capturing the organization's ideals. Obviously, that's what I mean from rotting. I mean, it was such a story institution in terms of it was a brave institution under Ricky Saul Warman. I get it, but I think rotting is such a derogatory term in the sense that some of these institutions evolved to be different. And that's the only thing I don't want to make it.
是的，我只是想说，我不想用“腐败”这个词，因为我认为你的观点是它不好。我不认为这一定是正确的，因为问题在于已经发生了机构化的占有。这种机构占有在一定程度上就像我们在公司、政府机构甚至私有和非营利机构中看到的民主过程，那里工作的个人正在接管组织的理念。显然，这就是我所说的“腐败”。我的意思是，它曾经在Ricky Saul Warman的领导下是个有勇气的机构。我明白，但我认为“腐败”在某种程度上是一个贬义词，因为其中一些机构已经进化成了不同的形式。这就是我唯一不想表达的。
Yeah, Saks, rotting, or is it being taken over from the inside out from the bottom up? What are your thoughts?
是的，Saks正在衰败，还是它正在被从内部和自下而上的方式接管呢？你有什么想法？
I think captured is a pretty good word to use. Freeber use that word. Let's remember Ted's original mission represented in their tagline was ideas were spreading. So there's supposed to be a forum for interesting, worthy ideas that they're going to spread. And here they're doing the opposite. They're basically sandbagging the views and they didn't want to publish it at all. And then when they did agree to publish it, they basically subjected that to a new requirement of putting a rebuttal right by it. So this is not living up to the original mission.
我认为“被俘获”是一个很好的词汇选择。Freeber也使用了这个词汇。我们要记住Ted的原始使命，就是他们在标语中提出的目标——传播思想。所以这应该是一个有趣，有价值的理念的论坛，他们将对此进行推广。然而现在他们却做了完全相反的事情。他们实际上在阻止这些观点的传播，他们甚至不想公开发布这些观点。当他们终于同意发布这些观点时，他们基本上会提出新的要求，就是要在发布的文稿旁边加上反驳的观点。所以这不符合他们的原始使命。
Now, why did this happen? I want to go to Chris Anderson's response here. He wrote this long post on X, which is too long to read here. It's a really sort of weasily, mealy mouth defense of what they did. A lot of both sides type language. I think there's really only one or two sentences that are relevant in terms of explaining this whole thing. What he says is that many people have been genuinely hurt and offended by what they heard you say. So he's addressing this to Coleman. This is not what we dream of when we post our talk.
那么，为什么会发生这种情况呢？我想引用克里斯·安德森的回应。他在X上写了一篇很长的帖子，太长了我在这里无法全部读出。他的回应真是典型的含糊其词，并且为他们的行为辩护。使用了很多试图公平对待双方的话语。我认为真正能解释这整个事情的，可能只有一两句话。他说，很多人因为听到你（指科尔曼）的言论，真的感到受伤和被冒犯。这并非我们发布讲话时的初衷。
So I think this is really the key intellectual mistake that Chris Anderson's making is that he believes that people can be genuinely hurt by encountering well-reasoned ideas they disagree with. I think the way that the marketplace ideas are supposed to work is that when you encounter an idea you disagree with, you formulate an equally well thought out response. And you engage in intellectual discourse. Yeah, maybe get curious. Yeah, get curious. Exactly. But I think these words are really significant because he's saying not just that the objectors here were offended. He was saying that they were hurt, genuinely hurt.
所以我认为Chris Anderson真正的思维误区在于，他认为人们会因为遇到他们不同意的有理有据的观点而真正受到伤害。我认为，观点市场应该是这样运作的：当你遇到反对的观点时，你会思考出一个同样深思熟虑的回应，并进行知识性的对话。是的，可能会变得好奇。正是如此。但我觉得这些话真的很有意义，因为他不仅说这里的反对者感到被冒犯，他还说他们真的被伤害了。
So he's buying into this idea that hearing ideas you disagree with is somehow a threat to your silence. Yeah. And as soon as you do that, as soon as you concede that there can be some sort of physical harm from engaging with ideas, you give the equivalent of a heckler's veto to the people who don't like these ideas. It's almost like a cry baby's veto. So there's no way you can function as a marketplace of ideas and certainly a platform for ideas worth spreading if you're going to give a veto to people who can claim that their subjective emotional reaction to well thought ideas should trump the right of the speaker to put out that idea or the broader audience to hear it.
所以他正在接受一个观点，即听到你不同意的想法会对你的沉默产生威胁。是的，就在你这样做的时候，一旦你承认从接触思想中可以产生某种形式的物理伤害，你就把相当于一种嘲讽者的否决权交给了那些不喜欢这些思想的人。这几乎就像是一个爱哭鬼的否决权。因此，如果你要给那些声称他们对深思熟虑的思想的主观情绪反应应优于演讲者发表该思想或广大听众倾听该思想的权利的人一个否决权，那么你就无法作为一个思想市场，当然也无法成为一个宣传有价值思想的平台。
Right, exactly. And I think that's where we've ended up. Can I ask your point of view on institutional capture? Obviously, this is different than the topics you've spoken about. But as you've gone through this experience with Ted and as you think more broadly about what's going on, do you have a point of view on the capture of institutions from the bottom up that's happened and how that's affected some of these topics like free speech, sharing of ideas, open discourse, all these foundations that made kind of a free and open society work effectively for so long?
对，确切地说。我认为我们现在已经处于这个状态了。我能问问你对于机构捕获的看法吗？显然，这与你所讲述的话题不同。但是，当你经历与泰德的这次经历，以及你更广泛地思考现在的情况时，你对于从底部开始的机构捕获有何观点吗？这种情况已经发生，并且如何影响了一些诸如言论自由、观点分享、开放对话等这样的话题，这些是构建一个自由开放的社会并让其长期有效运行的基础呢？
Yeah, well, it's a very difficult problem because it's easy for me from the outside not being the leader of a major institution to say, well, this is just what you have to do. Obviously, it's more psychologically difficult to go to your own staff that you have to metaphorically live with every day and really shake things up. And many people aren't willing to do that. Someone like Barry Weiss, who used to be at the New York Times, her point of view on it is, look, you just got to start your own institutions. You have to start your own institutions with the right ethos from day one. And that's what she's tried to do with the free press, rather than try to reform institutions that have a lot of unhealthy inertia.
是的，这是个非常棘手的问题，因为作为一个来自外部、并不是主要机构的领导者的我，很容易说，好吧，这就是你必须要做的。显然，向你必须每天要"并肩作战"的员工传达这些更为心理压力大。而许多人并不愿意这么做。像巴里·韦斯这样的人，他曾在《纽约时报》工作，他的观点是，你只需要开创自己的机构就可以了。从一开始，你就需要以正确的精神风貌开始你自己的机构。这也是她试图通过自由新闻来做的，而不是试图改革那些有很多不健康惯性的机构。
But Chris could have stopped this very easily. I mean, this is a failure of leadership. What he needed to tell these employees is, look, our mission is to be a platform for spreading interesting ideas. And we can't treat this speech differently than any other speech, just because you disagree with it. That's all you have to do. And by the way, just because an idea may be offensive, does not mean that it should not be spread.
但是克里斯本可以轻易地阻止这一切的。我的意思是，这是领导力的失败。他需要告诉这些员工的是，看，我们的任务是为传播有趣的想法提供平台。我们不能仅仅因为你们不同意，就对这篇演讲进行区别对待。这就是需要做的全部事情。顺便说一句，仅仅因为一个想法可能会引起冒犯，并不意味着它就不应该被传播。
I think have you read Jonathan Hates book, Coddling of the American Mind? Absolutely. Yeah, great book. And I think that speaks. And that was the book I gave away in our gift bag at the All In Summit this year, because I thought it was such like an important and kind of prescient point of view on what's going on right now that we assume that if something is offensive by some some group could be a large group or a small group, it needs to be suppressed. And obviously, as you extend that concept to its extreme, you end up losing many ideas that challenge the current kind of main concept that everyone believes.
你读过Jonathan Hates的《美国心灵的娇惯》这本书吗？绝对的，这本书真的很不错。我认为这本书表达了很多观点。这就是我在今年的全员大会礼包中送出的那本书，因为我认为它对当前社会状况的观察极其重要且具有预见性。我们往往认为只要有一些团体，无论大或小，觉得某些事物令他们感到冒犯，那这个情况就应该被压制。但显然，如果你把这个观念推向极端，很多挑战当前主流观点的思想都将无从展现。
Here's what I don't understand. So Coleman, just maybe if you can just guess why when somebody watches this talk, could they feel genuinely hurt? Like if we had to steal man, then let's step in their shoes. What's the cycle that's going on there? That gets them to, oh my god, this is an intolerable point of view.
我有个地方我不懂。那么，科尔曼，如果你能猜测一下，当有人看了这个演讲，为什么他们会真的感到受伤呢？如果我们要尝试理解他们，那就站在他们的立场上。在他们这，是怎样一个循环使他们觉得，“哦天哪，这种观点实在无法接受”。
Yeah, I mean, I think there has to be something with, if you're a person that has staked your life or your career out on the concept of race-based diversity, equity, and inclusion, explicitly taking race into account in policies. And you're someone that's been working in that domain for 30 years. And you see someone like me come up there and just argue against that whole approach.
是的，我觉得，如果你是一个把自己的生命或者职业投入到以种族为基础的多样性、公平性和包容性概念中的人，而且你在该领域有30年的工作经验。当你看到像我这样的人站出来，对这整个方式进行反对，肯定会有所反应。
There may be some severe threat mechanism that comes on board where you actually don't have a rational argument that easily debunks what I'm saying, because what I'm saying is very reasonable. And so in the absence of a great rational argument, when the stakes are high, all the primal animal emotions come out, your whole limbic system, and you feel like you're in a fight or flight situation and you feel incredibly emotional. That's my only guess.
可能存在一种严重的威胁机制，你实际上无法轻易驳倒我所说的，因为我的话非常合理。因此，当没有强有力的理性辩论，当事情的关系重大时，所有的原始动物的情感都会涌出，你的整个边缘系统会被激发，你会感觉自己处于战争或逃跑的状况，你会感到非常情绪化。这只是我的猜测。
Yeah, they're hurt and it's scary to think, what if you win the argument? And if you win the argument, it means certain things might go away.
是的，他们受到了伤害，而且去想象，如果你赢得了这场争论会怎样，这让人感到害怕。而如果你赢得了争论，那就意味着某些事情可能会消失。
And I think the two examples they gave you, Chris Anderson, came on stage and said, oh, when conductors are looking for a new violinist, they put them behind a shade and they do colorblind selection process, a colorblind selection process. I think Malcolm Gladwell talked about that in Bling. And your response to end, then they said, well, wouldn't be better if we could have some representation in that group. So then we would inspire people to get to the group.
我认为他们给你的两个例子，Chris Anderson，上台说，哦，当指挥们寻找新的小提琴手时，他们会让他们在屏风后面，进行一种不看颜色的选择过程，一个不分肤色的选择过程。我想马尔科姆·格拉德威尔在《闪耀》中谈到了这个。然后你的回应是，接着他们说，如果我们能在那个团队中有一些代表性，那不是更好吗？这样我们就能激励人们加入这个团队。
Your response to that was, yeah, my response to that was, what you really want to do is if there are reasons why say black kids aren't getting access to violins at a young age, because schools are underfunded or band programs are horrible in inner cities, that's where you want to intervene. You don't want to intervene at the point at the meritocratic end line, racially rigging the very bar that you would use to measure progress on those deeper dimensions.
你的回应是，我的回应是，你真正想做的是，如果有原因导致黑人孩子在很小的时候就无法接触到小提琴，比如学校资金不足或者市区的乐队计划很糟糕，那么你需要在这个地方进行干预。你不应该在有关公平竞赛的尾声部分进行干预，人为地在你用来衡量那些更深层次问题进展的标准上做文章。
Have you read this book called Losing Ground by Charles Bering? Yes, I have. I mean, a very provocative book. I have always thought, and maybe I'll just leave this with you because if you were willing to do it, I for one would love to support you in any way that I could to do it. But we don't have a full accounting of what really happened starting in the late 1960s with LBJ's War on Poverty. And I think when you look at racism through the American lived experience, a lot of it goes back to a bunch of economic incentives that were set up to try to do what's theoretically seemed at the time the right thing.
你读过 Charles Bering 写的这本叫《失去的土地》的书吗？是的，我读过。我肯定它是一本非常有挑战性的书。我一直这么认为，也许我只是跟你提这个建议，因为如果你愿意去做，我会非常乐意以我能做到的方式支持你。但是我们对于20世纪60年代末期开始的 LBJ 的反贫困战争还没有一个完整的账目。我认为，当你通过美国的生活经验来看待种族主义时，很多都可以追溯到当时为了试图做一些在理论上看似正确的事情而设立的一系列经济激励机制。
We can debate whether that's where LBJ came from or not. But you compound and cascade a bunch of decisions forward and to your point now we're sort of trying to deal with the symptoms without really addressing the root cause.
我们可以争论LBJ是否就是从那里出来的。但是，你连续加剧并导致一系列决策向前推进，至于你所说的现在我们只是试图处理症状却没有真正解决根本原因。
And I think if America wants to really heal and deal with this, what we also need to do is give all those people that have that fight or flight response, a better toolkit to understand what kind of goddess here. Because right now we have a very charged way of viewing these things without actually looking at some of the practical quantifiable details. Thomas Sowell has talked about it, Charles Murray talks about it. But these are unfortunately such heterodox ideas that they just don't get enough mainstream discussion. And if you then compound that with this institutional capture, they get buried.
我认为，如果美国想真正的治愈并应对这个问题，我们还需要做的是，为所有那些有战斗或逃避反应的人提供一个更好的工具箱，帮助他们理解这里的种种问题。因为现在，我们对这些事情的看法充满了情绪，却没有实际去看待一些实际可量化的细节。托马斯·索维尔和查尔斯·默里都谈过这个问题。但不幸的是，这些观点已经颇具异端特性，因而并未得到足够的主流讨论。并且，如果你再把这个现象与机构的捕获现象结合起来看，这些异端观点就会被淹没。
And so the answer may actually be sitting right in front of our face, where it was the welfare reform system that we implemented in the late 1960s on down the line. Because those are structural ways where we can solve it, which ultimately will get to your point, which is great, fund more music in the schools in that example. And right now we're so caught up in all of the labels and the fear mongering that we never get to that.
所以答案可能就摆在我们面前，那就是我们在1960年代末实施的福利改革系统。因为这些都是我们可以解决问题的结构性方式，最终会实现你提到的目标，那就是在学校中增加音乐教育的资金，这很棒。而现在我们却被各种标签和恐吓战术所困扰，从未真正达到这个目标。
And so I just wanted to put that out there that I think that there needs to be smart, brilliant people like yourself, young people who can do a full accounting of like the last 50 or 60 years in a much more structural way that these gentlemen tried to do. But the ideas were just two heterodox at the time.
因此，我只是想说，我认为我们需要像你一样聪明机敏的年轻人来回顾、考察过去五、六十年发生的事情，而且他们的考察方式需要有更深层次的结构性。这些先生也试图这样去做，但是他们的思想在那个时代过于非主流。
But because of formats like podcasts and like the free press and other things, I think there's a chance that you can actually get these ideas out. And I think it's important because I think folks like me or the people that approached you, there's not enough of us that came from this background that are open minded or at a point where we can tolerate the anxiety to listen to your ideas. There's a lot of people that may just viscerally react. But the more that we can shift those people away from viscerally reacting to actually tolerating and then thinking and then evolving their point of view, you can do some enormous good in the world. Just why I just wanted to put that out there.
但是，由于有像播客和自由媒体等形式的存在，我认为有机会让这些想法传播出去。我觉得这很重要，因为像我这样的人，或者那些向你提出问题的人，我们中有这种背景的人、有开放思想、能够忍受听你的想法所带来的焦虑感的人是不够的。有很多人可能会本能地做出反应。但是，如果我们能让这些人从本能反应转变为实际忍受，然后去思考，然后改变他们的观点，你就能在世界上做出巨大的改变。这就是我想要说的。
Yeah. Yeah, no, I mean, that's a huge topic and an understudy topic. What was the effect of the welfare reforms of the 60s and 70s? I know my mother used to say she grew up in the South Bronx. I'm half Hispanic, half black American. And she used to say, she used to just have stories of when the welfare auditors would come around and people would hide their boyfriends, hide their husbands. Exactly. And the book Black Power by Stokely Carmichael, aka Klamay-Turei, which is the manifesto of the Black Power movement, hardly a right-wing source. They made the same point about welfare reform. So there definitely is something to be investigated there. It's not really my point of expertise. I know Glenn Lowry is someone who has really dug into that sort of research, but there's definitely a lot of room for study there.
是的。不，我是说，这是一个巨大的话题，也是一个被忽视的话题。60和70年代的福利改革产生了什么效果？我知道我母亲常说她在南布朗克斯长大。我是一半西班牙裔，一半非裔美国人。她曾说，当福利审计员来时，人们会隐藏他们的男朋友，隐藏他们的丈夫。确实如此。而斯托克利·卡迈克尔，也就是克拉马·图雷所写的《黑人权力》一书，该书是黑人权力运动的宣言，绝不是右翼资源。他们大书中也提到了福利改革的相同观点。所以，那里确实有一些东西值得被调查。这并不真正是我专长的领域。我知道格伦·洛里是一个真正深入研究这类问题的人，但那里确实有很多学习的空间。
Klamay, let me ask you a question about our industry. We've had a lot of hand-ringing and debates about diversity in funding of startups, capital allocators, venture capital firms. We have limited partners who have a mission to have more diverse general partners, the people at venture firms who invest in startups, invest in more female-led startups, etc., because the numbers, frankly, have not been very diverse historically in venture, far from it. We recently had a black female venture firm. I think it's called Fearless Founders Get Sued. I'm not sure if you're aware of that lawsuit. It's by the same person who sued Harvard. Should there be venture firms specifically designed to change the ratio? It's the language people use and should people with large endowments of capital be backing black venture capitalists to see more of them or female black venture capitalists, Hispanic, etc., or how would you look at that issue, which has been a pretty sticky issue and hasn't changed for a long time. Perscriptively, I don't want to say much because I don't like to tell people how to run their funds or run their businesses. If you're a Christian and you want to hire only Christian people, if you're a Muslim, you want to hire only Muslims, I think you should frankly be allowed to do that if those are your personal values. Now, personally, I will tell you, with respect to the people that I would hire to say work on my podcast, I want every single hire to know that I'm not hiring them as a result of their skin color or gender or any other contingent feature of their identity. I want them to know that I'm hiring them for what they really bring to the table. Now, I have a very small team. Maybe there's something about how the optics, certain optics are required for a larger firm. The problems begin when you sort of bless this idea that race is a super deep feature of who you are right from the start. When you bless that idea right from the start, it sends the signal that what people bring to the table is their racial identity, is their gender. Now, when you fast forward two years down the line when a company is having some meltdown over a race or a gender issue, you have to understand that it's possible you made this bed by signaling from the very beginning that what's important about the people you're bringing in is their race, is their gender, and that you are vulnerable to the kinds of appeals that can be made purely on the basis of what are ultimately superficial features of our identity. Yeah, that's what I'll say.
克拉马伊，我想问你一个关于我们行业的问题。在初创公司的融资、资本配置、风险投资公司等问题上，我们关于多元化的争论和纠结已经很多了。我们有一些有限的合伙人，他们的任务就是要有更多元化的普通合伙人，即投资风险公司的人，投资更多由女性领导的初创公司等，因为坦率地说，历史上风险投资方的数字并不多元化，远非如此。我们最近有一家由黑人女性领导的风险投资公司。我想它叫做无畏创始人。我不确定你是否知道那个诉讼。就是同一个人对哈佛提起的诉讼。应该有专门设计的风险投资公司来改变比例吗？这是人们使用的语言，大额资本的拥有者应该支持黑人风险投资家看到更多的他们或者黑人女性风险投资家、西班牙裔等等吗，或者你会如何看待这个问题，这一直是一个很棘手的问题，也没有改变很长时间。凭说明，我不想说太多，因为我不喜欢告诉人们如何管理自己的基金或者运营自己的企业。如果你是基督徒你就只想雇佣基督徒，如果你是穆斯林你就只想雇佣穆斯林，我觉得你应该被允许这样做，如果这是你的个人价值观。现在，就我个人来说，我要告诉你，对于我会雇佣的人，比如来做我的播客，我希望每个雇佣的人知道，我雇佣他们不是因为他们的肤色或性别，或者他们身份的任何其他可能的特征。我希望他们知道，我雇佣他们，是因为他们真正能带来什么。现在，我有一个非常小的团队，也许对于更大的公司来说，需要某种外观。问题开始的时候，你开始祝福这个观念，认为种族是你身份的一个非常深层次的特征。当你从一开始就祝福这个观念，它就会发出信号，人们带到桌子上的是他们的种族身份，是他们的性别。现在，当你快速向前两年，当一家公司因为种族或性别问题而出现问题时，你必须理解，你通过从一开始就发出的信号，可能已经铺好了这张床，即你引进的人的重要之处是他们的种族，他们的性别，你对于那些可以纯粹基于我们身份的表面特征提出的各种诉求是脆弱的。 是的，就是这样。
What would your advice be to institutional leaders that are past that point of no return? The CEOs of big companies and big institutions that are now captive by these ideologies, where they are effectively, as you say, ultra sensitive to issues around race and gender and other sort of superficial identities and are challenged often to make decisions or driven to make decisions that their employees and teams demand of them. Do you have advice on how they can rethink their roles as leaders and how to reframe this? I mean, in a word, no, because it's by that point, it's an intractable problem. I've talked to CEOs that asked this question to me over and over again. What do I do once I'm past the point where I have so many staff and the system is so sprawling that it's no longer under my control. I have so many people with values that I don't share that I frankly think privately are insane, but I cannot say so publicly because I have higher order commitments to the shareholders, to the board, to steer this ship, right, such as it is, and the ship cannot be changed at this point. I don't have good advice. I'm not going to pretend that I do.
你会对已经过了无法回头的地步的机构领导人，比如大公司和大机构的首席执行官们给出什么建议？他们现在被这些观念所控制，有效地，如你所说，对于种族、性别和其他这种表面的身份问题过度敏感，并且经常面临着需要要根据员工和团队的要求做出决定的挑战。你有关于他们如何重新思考作为领导者的角色以及如何重新定义这一问题的建议吗？我想说，答案是否定的，因为到了那个地步，这已经是一个棘手的问题。我已经和一些首席执行官们谈过，他们反复地向我提出了这个问题：当我有许多员工，系统如此庞大以至于我再也无法掌控时，我该怎么办。我有很多观念并不相同的员工，私下里，我认为他们的观念简直是疯狂的，但我不能公开这么说，因为我有更高层次的承诺：对股东负责，对董事会负责，需要驾驭这艘巨轮，尽管这艘船已经无法改变航向。对此我并无好的建议，我不会假装我有。
Do you think that same problem is inherent in political parties in the United States, states, state governments, and other larger kind of social systems that we use to organize ourselves and are now also captive and kind of a point of no return? I think definitely in the Democratic Party, there has been a problem with mistaking the Twitter commentary and the journalistic elite for real life. The truth is, the vast majority of even Democrat voters find my arguments around colorblindness totally uncontroversial, whether they may have some agreements or not. But if you ask the elite, there's a meltdown, right? There's this huge discrepancy. And it can never be hammered enough, the extent to which people in politics are operating in a bubble and believe mistaking the elite and the Twitter sphere for the wider population. I mean, this feels to me like why Donald Trump got elected, but that's another topic.
你认为这个问题在美国的政党，州，州政府，以及我们使用的其他更大的社会系统中是固有的吗？这些系统现在也被禁锢了，已经到了无法回头的地步吗？我认为在民主党中，肯定存在这样的问题，即把推特评论和新闻精英视为现实生活。事实上，即使是民主党的选民，他们中的大多数人对我提出的色盲主张完全无争议，无论他们是否有一些赞同的观点。但是如果你问那些精英们，他们就会大惊失色，对吧？存在着巨大的差异。并且永远不能过分强调，政治人物们多么地活在自己的泡沫中，把精英和推特圈当作了更广大的人群。我觉得这就是为什么唐纳德·特朗普会当选，但这又是另一个话题了。
This has been amazing. Everybody take a moment. Search for Coleman Hughes. Subscribe to his YouTube channel. Type Coleman Hughes. Ten Coleman, you do a podcast? Yeah, I do a podcast that conversations with Coleman. Actually, David Sachs has been on the podcast about a year ago. How did he do? How did he do? He did absolutely fantastic. Did he make you feel unsafe? He did, actually. Yes. Was it the talk about the Ukraine? Talk about Ukraine? Talk to him. Yes. Wait, can I be on your podcast? Oh, of course. I would be honored. Oh, great. I'd love to. Fantastic. There you go. I would be honored. Thank you. I saw you had the Dilbert guy on, and I thought that was pretty engaging, interesting conversation. Yes, Scott Adams, who is really controversial. I thought you handled that one really well, too. Yeah, thanks. He's an interesting one. He has a lot of brilliant things to say, but also he maybe thinks the CIA is going to kill him recently on Twitter. It's a mixed bag. It's mixed bag would be where I would go with it.
真的很棒。大家稍等一下。搜索一下Coleman Hughes。订阅他的YouTube频道。打开Coleman Hughes。蒂恩·科尔曼，你有自己的播客吗？对，我有一个播客，叫做《和科尔曼对话》。实际上，大约一年前，David Sachs就来参加过我的播客。他的表现如何呢？他的表现如何？他表现得绝对出色。他让你感到不安吗？实际上，的确让我有点不安。是关于乌克兰的讨论吗？关于乌克兰的讨论？跟他谈。对，是的。等等，我可以来你的播客节目吗？哦，当然。我会非常荣幸。太好了。我很愿意。很好。我会非常荣幸。谢谢你。我看到你的节目里邀请了Dilbert的创作者，我觉得那是一次很吸引人、有趣的对话。对，Scott Adams，他的言论很有争议。我认为你处理得很好。谢谢你。他是个很有趣的人。他说了很多有深度的想法，但又认为CIA可能会在Twitter上杀了他。他有点复杂。我会说他是个好坏参半的人。
All right, listen. This has been amazing. The TED Talk is extraordinary. Everybody should watch it. And yeah, ideas worth spreading unless maybe you don't agree with them. Go to the TED channel and watch it. Sorry. I mean, I don't want to give Ted too much more time, but they tried to get me to pay $50,000 a year, $25,000 a year for like a five year package to go to the event. And I was like, how much is Ted? How much is Ted? You regular tickets, 12 or 500. And then no, they used to be 7,500. Then I think they went up to 10k.
好的，听我说。这次体验太棒了。那个TED演讲非常出色。每个人都应该去看看。说起TED的理念，它就是值得传播的想法，除非你可能不同意他们。去TED频道看看吧。抱歉，我是说，我不想再给Ted多花更多的时间，但是他们试图让我支付50,000美元一年，或者花25,000美元买一个五年的套餐，去参加他们的活动。我就想，一个TED演讲要多少钱？你们普通的票价是多少？1,200或者500美元。不，他们的票价以前是7,500美元，然后我想他们把价格提高到了10，000美元。
And then you can do like donor tickets and you get different features and so on. Basically, they're sold back. Remember, it is set up as a nonprofit and there is philanthropic work that's done, and so the organization is, again, it's not a profit-tearing media company. It became a big media company because of the success of the efforts and the quality of the content that was produced over time. But as we talked about, a lot of media companies and a lot of institutions get captured and the original kind of mission.
然后你可以做类似的捐款门票，你会获得不同的特性等等。基本上，它们被卖回来了。记住，这是以非营利方式设立的，有慈善工作在做，所以这个组织，再次强调，它不是一个以利润为导向的媒体公司。由于努力的成功和随着时间的推移生产的内容质量，它成为了一个大媒体公司。但是我们谈到，很多媒体公司和许多机构被俘获，这就是最初的任务。
To paraphrase Bruce Willis and Pulp Fiction. Ted's dad, baby. Ted's dad. Ted's dad, baby. As soon as they allow the staff who have, let's say, highly niche elite views to veto or suppress talks they don't like, then it stops being a platform for ideas. It becomes another left-wing interest group. What other ideas, what other talks have been canned before they even got to the stage? You have to wonder. We don't know. We're just not inviting. You just know the tune. It's the top of the funnel, Jason, exactly. This also is all that we don't know. They're not invited. What about the person that's pro-cola? I wonder if the pro-cola person is allowed to present it to. I doubt it.
改编自布鲁斯·威利斯和《低俗小说》的话。那就是泰德的爸爸，宝贝。泰德的爸爸。泰德的爸爸，宝贝。一旦他们允许持有、比方说，高度小众精英观点的员工否决或打压他们不喜欢的讲座，那么它就不再是一个为思想提供平台的地方。它变成了另一个左翼利益集团。还有什么其他的思想，什么其他的讲话在它们甚至走上舞台之前就被罐头了？你不得不想知道。我们不知道。我们只是不去邀请。你只会唱那一首歌。这就是漏斗的顶部，杰森，没错。这也是我们所不知道的全部。他们没有被邀请。那支持可乐的人呢？我在想如果支持可乐的人是否也被允许来演讲。我怀疑。
They had Sarah Silverman and she did a comedy set, which was hilarious. The same people, so this is the thing I find so the hypocrisy is just so crazy with the Ted people, and it's a lot of my friends still go, is they had Sarah Silverman come. These people have left at Sarah Silverman a million times. They've watched Dave Chappelle. They've seen any number of comets make them laugh with edgy humor. But then when they're in that Ted audience and they're feeling super precious and that they're very important because they don't need $50 grand a year or whatever Friedberg gave them, I don't know, to get in there from the side door, then they were super offended. They're hypocrites. I don't know how to say it anymore clearly. Literally, you could pull up Chris Anderson apologizing. Not just for. Again, apologizing for a comedian.
他们请了萨拉·西尔弗曼进行一次喜剧表演，超级搞笑。然后就是，这些参加Ted演讲的人们让我觉得庸人自扰、假惺惺的情况真的太疯狂了。其中很多还是我朋友，他们也有请萨拉·西尔弗曼来。那些人曾经看着萨拉·西尔弗曼笑得如痴如醉。他们观看过戴夫·查普佩尔的节目，他们见过无数让他们笑出声的深度幽默喜剧表演。但是，当他们在那Ted演讲中，感到自己非常特别，感觉自己很重要，因为他们不需要一年得到5万美元或者更多，可能是弗莱德伯格给他们的，我也不清楚，从侧门进入演讲现场，然后他们就被深深地冒犯了。他们是伪君子。我不知道还能怎么说得更清楚了。你可以找出克里斯·安德森的道歉信。不仅是一次，而且每次都在为喜剧演员道歉。
I hope that this is a learning experience for everyone. I hope that this is a turning point for leadership and institutions like this to take a look at what happened, how it happened, and then hopefully to write the course because organizations like Ted, I thought were very important and should be in the world and should be successful. I hope that they return to the original values. I hope that this is a moment that there's a learning experience and that we don't just shit on them and say they're awful, they're failed. It's over. Hopefully something comes in this.
我希望这能成为每个人的一个学习经历。我希望这能成为领导力和像这样的机构的转折点，让他们看看发生了什么，怎么发生的，然后希望能够修正课程，因为我认为像TED这样的组织非常重要，应该存在于世界上，应该取得成功。我希望他们能够回归原始的价值。我希望这是一个让我们能学习的时刻，而不只是痛斥他们，说他们糟糕，他们失败，结束了。我希望这个过程能带来一些积极的改变。
I do think there is one other potential remedy here, which besides just starting a new Ted and the Barry Weiss point of view, which is just right, it often started over. Remember what Brian Armstrong did at Coinbase? He basically said, listen, we have a mission here. It's around crypto. We're going to focus on a percent on this mission. If you're not on board with this mission or want to capture this institution to promote other missions, this is not the place for you. Go do those missions somewhere else. New York Times wrote their obligatory hit piece.
我确实认为这里还有另一种可能的解决办法，除了从头开始新的Ted（可能指牵涉到的特定人物或项目）和Barry Weiss的角度来看之外，它也经常要从头开始。你还记得Brian Armstrong在Coinbase做的事情吗？他基本上说，听着，我们在这里有一个使命，那就是围绕加密货币。我们将百分之百专注于这个使命。如果你不支持这个使命，或者想利用这个机构推动其他使命，那么这个地方不适合你。你可以去其他地方实现那些使命。而《纽约时报》也写了他们必要的恶意攻击性文章。
If Chris was brave, he would just tell everybody. I'll know that's a thing that I would say if Chris has good mentors, as well as a good sounding board, that is the threshold question that should be debated right now is, do I walk in the door and do I just give this simple litmus test and have people sign up or not? It's quite easy because to your point, it's not like he's inventing something new. He's saying, this is where we started and this is where we're going to stay and this is what it means. If he doesn't do that, then he's spoken with his actions and it is what it is. What is meant to happen? Exactly. Exactly. Exactly. It's a moment for looking at the internal compass. It's a wholesale leadership reset moment opportunity. See if it happens or not. Or double down and keep going. I really appreciate your being public about all this and talking about it. It's been a great conversation. Thank you, Coleman. Everybody, thanks for having me on his head.
如果克里斯有勇气的话，他会告诉所有人，这是如果克里斯有好的导师和一个良好的“思考之墙”的话，我会说的事情。现在应该进行的阈值性问题就是，我是否走进门去并给出这个简单的分水岭测试，并让人们选择签署与否？这很简单，因为正如你所提到的，他并非在发明一些新的东西。他说，这是我们的起点，我们要坚守，这就是它的含义。如果他不这么做，那么他的行为就代表了他的意图，就是这么回事。那接下来应该发生什么呢？确实，确实，也就是这样。这是一个观察内部指南针的时刻。这是一个全盘领导力重置的时机。看看它是否发生。或者加倍努力，继续前进。我非常感谢你公开说出这一切并进行讨论。这是一次很棒的对话。谢谢你，科尔曼。大家，感谢你们让我上他的头。
All right. Thank you. We'll see you soon. Cheers now. See you man. Thanks.
好的，谢谢你。我们很快会再见的。再见啦。我们见吧，老兄。谢谢。
All right, listen, it's a new segment we have here when virtual signaling goes wrong. If you missed it, the Canadian Parliament gave a standing ovation to a Nazi, not like a new Nazi or a Nazi sympathizer. One of the few actual Nazis still alive. Here we see just the crowd going wilds.
好的，听我来讲，这是我们新开播的一个板块，主题是当虚拟信号传送错误的时候。如果你错过了的话，加拿大议会为一名纳粹热烈鼓掌，他不是新纳粹或者纳粹同情者。他是为数不多的还活着的真纳粹。在这里，我们可以看到群情激动。
Last Friday, Ukrainian's president, Zelensky, gave a speech at the Canadian House of Commons and the Canadian House Speaker Anthony Rota introduced a 98-year-old Yara Oslav Hunk as a Ukrainian war hero. Then the Canadian Parliament proceeded to give him a standing ovation. It turns out that this person first fought for the first Ukrainian division in World War II. That unit was also known as the Waffen SS, Galicia Division, if I'm pronouncing that correctly, which was a voluntary unit of under Nazi command. The Canadian Parliament apparently gave a standing ovation to Nazis. They have apologized for this and said it was a mistake.
上周五，乌克兰总统泽伦斯基在加拿大议会下院发表了演讲，加拿大议会议长安东尼·罗塔将一位98岁的亚拉·奥斯拉夫·洪克介绍为乌克兰战争英雄。然后加拿大议会起立为他鼓掌。事实证明，这个人首次为第二次世界大战中的乌克兰第一师战斗。这个单位也被称为装备精良的SS，加利西亚师，如果我发音正确的话，这是纳粹指挥下的志愿部队。显然，加拿大议会给了纳粹一个起立鼓掌。他们为此道歉并称这是一个错误。
Chemaf, I don't know if you got to see this, you're Canadian. Your thoughts on what we've seen here. I'll give you my feedback as somebody who, when I was in Canada, was a pretty ardent liberal. I grew up in a liberal household, my father canvassed religiously for the liberals. I think that at some point after I moved to the United States, they took Wokism, which I think looked at some level, was rooted in something very important, which was how do you get marginalized folks to be seen? But unfortunately, along the way, just got perverted by folks that just use it as a cudgel to censor people, to make other people feel guilty, to judge people. And so I think we all would agree that it's kind of become this virus. The thing that it masks are all of these other really bad things that come along with it.
Chemaf，我不知道你是否有机会看到这，毕竟你是加拿大人。我很想听听你对我们现在所看到的这种状况有什么看法。我会给你反馈一下我作为一个曾经在加拿大非常热衷于自由派政治的人的观点。我出生在一个自由派家庭，我的父亲以宣传自由派政治为己任。我认为在我搬到美国后的某个时点，他们采取了觉醒主义，我认为这在某种程度上是源自一件非常重要的事情，那就是如何让边缘化的群体被看见。但很遗憾，这个过程中，被一些人扭曲了，他们只是利用它作为棍子来审查人们，让其他人感到愧疚，对人们进行评判。因此，我认为我们大家都会同意，这已经成为了一种病毒。它所隐藏的是伴随其而来的所有其他真正糟糕的事情。
And one of them in Canada, which Justin Trudeau is case zero of, is also when nepotism goes bad. His father was an incredible exemplary prime minister in Canada. Set the benchmark on all dimensions was just incredible, cool, composed, moved the country forward, brought the country together. And then fast forward 25 or 30 years in a vacuum of leadership, what basically happened, we picked this guy who was up until that point a substitute teacher, and the other claim to fame was appearing twice in brownface. Okay, so making fun of people like me, and elected in prime minister. And what happened was he became the sort of like virtue signaler in chief of this very important GA country. And it was all kind of bumbling along. And in the absence of anybody else that was able to step up and offer an alternative, he got reelected barely, but he did. Then these things happened in the last year. And when you look through that prism is how you can see what happens if a country doesn't draw a line and finally take a stand.
在加拿大有一例，贾斯廷·特鲁多就是这个案例，当裙带关系发生负面效果的时候。他的父亲是一位杰出的加拿大总理，他在所有方面都设定了标准，令人难以置信地冷静、稳健，推动了国家的进步，团结了全国。然后快进25或30年，在领导空缺的情况下，我们基本上选择了这个曾经是代课老师的男人，他的另一个声名狼藉的事情就是两次涂了棕色面具。所以他嘲弄像我这样的人，然后被选为总理。结果是，他成为这个非常重要的G7国家的首要道德信号发出者。当没有别的人能够站出来提供替代选择的时候，他虽然勉强但确实再次当选。然后在过去一年发生了一些事情。从这个角度看，你可以看出如果一个国家不划定底线、不采取立场会发生什么。
So we had this guy who was ill qualified and way over his head, who shouldn't have been in this role as prime minister, get put in that position. When finally a group of people in Canada pushed back, in this case, the truckers, he and the entire government explicitly labeled them as Nazis, right? And said these people need to be put down and completely dismantled. It didn't seem like it was right. We call that out, we all talked about it, and we said this doesn't smell right on the surface. These are really seems like good earnest people that are just trying to make a point and are not being heard.
所以我们有个家伙，他的资格不够，也无法胜任，本不应该担任首相这个角色，但他却被放在了那个位置上。当最终加拿大的一群人，也就是卡车司机们开始反击时，他和整个政府明确地将他们标记为纳粹，是吧？并声称这些人需要被镇压和彻底拆解。这看起来似乎不太对劲。我们大家都在说这个问题，都说这件事在表面上看起来就很不对劲。这些人其实就是一些真诚地想要表达观点，却没有被听到的人。
Then you have this thing three weeks ago, two or three weeks ago, where he actually had a speech in front of the entire parliament where he accused the largest democracy in the world, India in this case, of coming into Canada, Canadian soil and assassinating a Canadian citizen, which is an enormous allegation to levy. And what was important to know about that allegation was that it was done without the explicit vocal support of either Britain or the United States, which would be the two most natural allies that Canada would present that information to. And instead of doing it behind a closed door to Modi, he did it on live stage, like it was like some theatrical performance. Then India follows up and says, this guy is kind of known to be a little bit of a drug addict, it was on a two day bender and the Indian drug dog smelled a bunch of cocaine on the plane. Then they have this thing for Vladimir Zelensky, where everybody was there to sort of like virtue signal this war, and then they actually invited a Nazi and then gave him a standing ovation.
然后你有这样一件事发生在三周前，或者两到三周前，他在整个议会前进行了一次演讲，在演讲中他指控世界上最大的民主国家——印度，进入加拿大领土并暗杀了一名加拿大公民，这是一个重大的指控。重要的是要知道，这个指控是在没有得到英国或美国明确的口头支持的情况下提出的，这两个国家是加拿大最可能将这些信息告知的盟友。并且他没有选择私下向莫迪提出这个问题，而是在直播的舞台上说出来，就像是在上演一出戏。然后，印度接着说，这个人众所周知有点嗑药成瘾，他在两天的疯玩过程中，印度的毒品犬在飞机上嗅到了大量的可卡因。然后他们为弗拉基米尔·泽连斯基举行了这样一次活动，所有人都在那里挥舞着道德的旗帜，然后他们实际上邀请了一名纳粹分子并给予了他热烈的掌声。
So when you put it all together, I think what it shows is just the lack of professionalism, which also belies just the lack of experience and capability. And so I think what it shows is just like, isn't this enough? Like, have we not seen enough of these examples where you can actually start to ask yourself, why can't we just get really good competent people to do these jobs? Why can't we actually embrace free speech and all of what it means and explore that? Why can't we have people that don't need to theatrically perform on stage? Because eventually, you're going to make these mistakes and you're going to embarrass your entire country. And then you're going to imperil relations with some really important allies. And I think this is a moment in time where all of those things need to be questioned and put on the table.
所以当你把所有的事情都考虑进去，我认为它表明的只是缺乏专业素质，这也反映出了经验和能力的缺乏。我认为它给人的感觉就像：难道这还不够吗？我们是否看到了足够多的例子让你开始问自己，为何我们不能找到真正擅长工作的人来做这些工作？为什么我们不能真正理解并尊重言论自由的全部含义并去探索它？为什么我们需要的人不需要在舞台上表演？因为最后，你会犯这些错误并使你的整个国家感到尴尬。然后你将危及与一些重要盟国的关系。我认为，这是一个需要质疑并向所有人表明这些问题的时刻。
You're clearly questioning his competence here because to not have the care to check who is going to speak in front of Parliament is crazy. And just to make it super clear, the speaker that invited Hunka, that was Anthony Rota resigned on Tuesday. And Trudeau says Rota, the person who invited the Nazi is solely responsible. Well, then he blamed Russian misinformation on top of that. But Jason, you don't you don't the Prime Minister who is the most important politician in the country doesn't show up someplace unless the office knows who else is going to be there. He knew that Zalenci who's going to be there. He would have known who the guest list was. Yeah, no, this was just going to cover it up. But but the bigger issue is just be clear. You're not saying that they invited a Nazi on purpose and cheered for a Nazi on purpose where nobody's saying that you're saying there's a lack of care here and it's it's a lack of competence. It's a lack of competence. Just so we're clear. Yeah.
你明显在此质疑他的能力，因为不去核查谁将在议会发言简直是疯狂的。为了让这个问题更加明确，那个邀请Hunka的演讲者，也就是安东尼·罗塔在周二辞职了。特鲁多说邀请纳粹分子的罗塔应该负全部责任。然后，他又另外指责了俄罗斯的错误信息。但杰森，你知道，作为国家最重要的政治家，首相不会出现在某个地方，除非他的办公室知道还会有谁在那里。他知道Zalenci会在那里。他应该知道谁是嘉宾。是的，没有，这只是为掩饰。但更大的问题需要明确，你并不是说他们故意邀请了一个纳粹并为纳粹欢呼，没人这么说。你是说这里存在疏忽，这是能力的不足，是能力的严重不足。只是为了弄清楚。是的。
Okay. So I agree with all of that. I think there's also two other dimensions to this backstory, if you will. I think first in terms of how does a mistake like this happen, I think it was Orwell who said that he who controls the present controls the past and he who controls the past controls the future. The present is Ukraine. It is the current thing everybody has to cheer for Ukraine and for the killing of Russians. The reason why Hunka was cheered with the standing ovation is because they said that he fought Russians. He was a war here who fought Russians. All you have to do is do a little bit of math to realize the guys 98 years old. When was there a war against Russia? Who could he possibly have been fighting for? But to extend people did that they sort of airbrushed it or whitewash history. So the present controls the past to ensure a vision of the future, which Trudeau laid out in this speech he gave recently, where he became so ardent in his support for Ukraine. He was almost yelling at the podium saying that Canada had to make all these economic sacrifices to win the war.
好的，我同意所有这些观点。我认为这个背景故事还有两个其他的维度。首先，关于这样的错误是如何发生的，我认为是奥威尔说过的那句话，控制现在的人就控制过去，控制过去的人就控制未来。现在的问题就是乌克兰，每个人都必须为乌克兰和杀死俄罗斯人欢呼。让人们起立鼓掌欢呼的原因是他们说胡卡曾经抵抗过俄罗斯人。他是一位对抗俄罗斯人的战争英雄。你只需要做一点数学计算就能意识到这个人已经98岁了。那么，他可能曾经为谁而战？然而，出于某种原因，人们对此进行了美化或洗白。因此，现在的情况控制了过去，为未来确立了一个视角，特鲁多在最近的一次演讲中也是这样表述的，他对乌克兰的支持如此热切，几乎是在演讲台上高呼，认为加拿大必须做出所有的经济牺牲以赢得这场战争。
So that's point number one is I think that the woke mind virus almost requires this whitewashing of the past, but it's done for a specific purpose, which is to control the future. But they're not whitewashing the past if it was a mistake that until actually doesn't make sense. No, what they did is what they're saying, if I'm understanding you correctly, the present is that we hate Russia so much that we're going to cheer for anybody who killed Russians. Okay, I understand your point, but you're agreeing that they did not knowingly put a Nazi on there. So it was a mistake. I don't think they knowingly did it. It was a huge debacle and embarrassing spectacle. I think that nobody asked any questions about the past because the president overrides it. The president need to support the current thing overrides like any sort of examination of what happened historically.
所以，这就是我要说的第一点，我认为所谓的 "醒识者" 心灵病毒几乎就是要求对过去进行洗白处理，但这都是为了一种特定的目的，即控制未来。但如果过往错误的情况下，他们并没对过去进行洗白，那实际上就说不通了。不，他们做的，如果我理解你的意思的话，他们说现在我们如此厌恶俄罗斯，以至于我们会为杀死俄罗斯人的任何人欢呼。好的，我理解你的观点，但你同意他们并没有有意把纳粹放上去。所以这是一个错误。我不认为他们有意这样做。这是一次巨大的灾难，一场尴尬的闹剧。我认为没有人会对过去进行任何质疑，因为总统的意愿背离了它。总统需要支持现在的事情，这比对历史发生过的事情进行任何检查都更重要。
There's one other way in which I think this wasn't an accident, Jason, is that if you look at US policy towards Ukraine, we have made common cause with a number of these far right ultra nationalist groups, frankly, neo-Nazi groups. And this occurred before the current war. So it's not just a marriage of convenience.
我认为这不仅仅是个意外，还有另一个原因，杰森。那就是，如果你看看美国对乌克兰的政策，我们已经与一些极右翼、极端民族主义甚至是纳粹主义团体有了共同的目标。而这种情况在现在的战争之前就已经存在。所以，这不仅仅是权宜之计。
First of all, if you go back to war two, the father of Ukrainian nationalism is a guy named Steppenbendera. And today in Ukraine, he is seen as some sort of hero. And there are streets named after him. And there's streets named after some of his co-conspirators who collaborated with Nazis.
首先，我们要回到二战时期，那时乌克兰民族主义的父亲是一个叫斯特潘·班德拉的人。在今天的乌克兰，他被视为某种形式的英雄。有一些街道以他的名字命名，还有一些街道是以他的一些与纳粹合谋的人的名字命名的。
If you fast forward to the more recent past to 2014, when we had this Maidan coup in Kiev that was backed by Victoria Newland, one of the key figures in that coup was a guy named Ola Tanibok, who is the founder of this Voboda party, which is the social nationalist party, which if you know what Nazi stands for, it's national socialist, they basically just flipped the name. And the original logo of the Voboda party was the Wolf's Angel, which was a Nazi insignia.
如果你回到更近的过去，2014年，我们在基辅发生了一场由维多利亚·纽兰支持的"自由广场"政变，政变的关键人物之一是一个名叫奥拉·塔尼博克的人，他是乌克兰社会民族党（Voboda Party）的创始人。如果你了解纳粹的含义，那就是国家社会主义，他们基本上只是把名字翻转过来。而且，乌克兰社会民族党的原始标志是狼的天使，这是纳粹的标志。
This was a far right party infused with the racial ideology of Steppenbendera, who was again a Nazi. And they brought this guy in, and his party as the muscle in this coup.
这是一个极端右翼政党，深受Steppenbendera的种族主义思想影响，而他本人又是纳粹。他们把这个人和他的政党引入到这场政变中，作为实力支持。
If you look at the Victorian Newland phone call, the infamous phone call, where she is picking the new Ukrainian government, the the Yatsazar guy phone call, she says that, Klitsch, meaning Klitschko and Tanibok need to remain on the outside, but Yats needs to be talking to Tanibok four times a week. Okay, he was part of the chess pieces that they were moving around after the coup, a civil war breaks out in the Donbas, because the ethnic Russians there are opposed to this new government and the fact that Yanukovych, who they voted for, was to pose an insurrection.
如果你看过那个颇有名气的维多利亚·纽兰的电话记录，她在里面挑选新的乌克兰政府，就知道了。她在与雅采纽克的电话通话中说克利奇科（Klitschko）和塔尼博克（Tanibok）需要保持在外部，但雅采纽克（Yats）需要每周与塔尼博克（Tanibok）谈话四次。好吧，他是他们在政变后摆弄的棋子之一。由于在那里的俄罗斯族群反对这个新政府，并且他们投票支持的亚努科维奇预计会发起起义，因此顿巴斯地区爆发了内战。
What happens then is a war breaks out, where far right paramilitary organizations like right sector, and like the infamous Azov battalion, start killing these ethnic Russian separatists. And a full blowing civil war breaks out thousands of people get killed.
接下来发生的就是战争爆发，像右翼部门这样的极右派准军事组织，还有像臭名昭著的Azov军团开始杀害这些俄罗斯族裔的分裂分子。并且爆发全面的内战，导致数千人死亡。
Does the Kiev government suppress these neo Nazi groups? No, they bring them under the formal command structure of the Ukrainian military. Azov battalion becomes a division of the Ukrainian military. It's shocking. And this goes on from 2014 through 2021.
基辅政府压制这些新纳粹团体吗？并非如此，他们反而将它们纳入乌克兰军队的正式指挥结构之中。例如，阿佐夫营成为乌克兰军队的一个师。这真是令人震惊。而且，这种状况从2014年一直持续到2021年。
The Ukraine army, just to be clear here has Nazis in it, Nazi supporters. There's no question about that. And there are many people who were concerned about this in the 2015 to 2020 timeframe. There were many articles written about it. The nation had an article about it. There were efforts in Congress at various points to try and ensure that the aid that we were giving to the Ukrainian government did not go to the Asian.
为了明确一点，乌克兰军队中确实有纳粹，有纳粹支持者，对此无可置疑。在2015-2020年间，有很多人对此感到担忧，而且有许多文章通过报道使这个问题公之于众。《国家》杂志上就曾经发表过一篇关于这个问题的文章。在某些时刻，国会也曾尝试确保我们给予乌克兰政府的援助不会流向这些亚洲人。【注意：原文中“the Asian”可能为误打，应指纳粹或纳粹支持者】
So let's go in and set. So let's go in and set. I think the important and Zelensky is a Nazi or Nazi. No, I don't think he's an Nazi and to be clear, I don't think most Ukrainians are Nazis. And I don't even think that most Ukrainian nationalists are Nazis.
那么，我们就进去设定好了。我认为至关重要的是，齐连斯基是纳粹或者说是纳粹主义者。不，我不认为他是纳粹，明确一点，我也不认为大多数乌克兰人是纳粹。我甚至不认为大多数乌克兰民族主义者是纳粹。
What I'm saying is that there is a Nazi element in Ukraine that white washed over. Well, here's the thing about it. I don't think it's a huge percentage, but I think they have outsized influence due to their willingness to use violence, due to their extremism. Yeah, and they're willingness to use.
我的意思是，乌克兰有一个被掩盖的纳粹因素。关于这个问题，我并不认为这是一个大比例的问题，但我认为由于他们愿意使用暴力，由于他们的极端主义，他们的影响力超过了他们的人数。是的，这也是他们愿意使用暴力的原因。
Different than the Nazi percentage in say, what, whatever you want to say, white supremacists in the United States or in Germany or anywhere else. I do. I think it's different in the sense that in the United States, for sure, we have neo-Nazi groups. They're not brought into the military. We don't have streets named after their patriarchs. Furthermore, we don't have members of our military with Nazi insignia on them.
与你所说的纳粹群体比例，比如在美国，或者德国，或者任何其他地方的白人至上主义者不同。我确实认为这是不同的，因为在美国，我们确实有新纳粹团体。但他们并未被纳入军队，我们也没有以他们的先祖命名的街道。更进一步说，我们的军队成员身上并没有纳粹标志。
There was a New York Times article just a few months ago talking about the fact that embarrassingly, a lot of these Ukrainian soldiers are being photographed with Nazi insignia on their uniforms. Now, the New York Times is framing this as a problem because it was a propaganda coup for Putin. And presumably it was. Definitely. It's a problem. But I think it's a problem because it's a problem, not because of just the PR optics of it.
几个月前，纽约时报发布了一篇文章，刺痛人心的是，许多乌克兰士兵的制服上被拍到了纳粹的标志。纽约时报将这视为一个问题，因为这给普京提供了宣传的大好机会。毋庸置疑，这确实是个问题。确实，这是个问题。但我认为这个问题之所以成为问题，不仅仅是因为其公关影响。
And at various points, I think this is the New York Times article as well, Western media has had to airbrush these photos to hide this fact. Oh, the New York Times has airbrushed photos of Nazi- I don't think New York Times has, but I don't think New York Times has, but I think they talk about this thorny problem of not wanting to show these photos with respect to the Zelensky being Jewish.
在不同的时候，我认为这也是《纽约时报》的文章所提到的，西方媒体不得不对这些照片进行"润饰"以掩盖这个事实。哦，《纽约时报》可能已经对纳粹的照片进行了"润饰"——我不认为《纽约时报》这样做了，但我认为他们讨论了这个棘手的问题，即不愿意展示与泽伦斯基是犹太人有关的照片。
So what I'd say about that is that Zelensky only came on the scene quite recently. He got elected in 2019. And again, I don't think the majority of people in Ukraine are Nazis. Okay, so I'm not saying that. But just because Zelensky came on the scene in 2019 and was elected president doesn't mean there's a long, and I would say disturbing history and association between Ukrainian ultra nationalism and neo-Nazi groups.
关于这个问题，我想说的是，泽连斯基其实在政坛上很新。他是在2019年当选为总统的。而且，我并不认为乌克兰的大多数人是纳粹。好吧，我并没有这么说。但只是因为泽连斯基在2019年进入政坛并当选为总统，并不意味着乌克兰的超级民族主义和新纳粹组织之间有着长久而且我认为令人不安的历史和关联。
And I think that part of the woke thing and part of this Orwellian desire where control of the president gives you the ability to rewrite the past is that there's been a deliberate effort to cover up this problem and to pretend it doesn't exist and to turn a blind eye to it.
我认为“觉醒主义”的一部分，以及这种奥威尔式的渴望-通过控制总统来得以重写过去，就是为了掩盖这个问题的存在，假装它不存在，并对它视而不见。这种掩盖是有预谋的行动。
Well, my point is that US policy has been to do this. In other words, the US government, yeah, okay, the US State Department and presumably CIA made common calls with these far right groups because we thought it was beneficial to be aligned with them. And so we did it in the Maidan coup in 2014 from 2015 to 2021.
嗯，我想说的是美国的政策就是如此。换句话说，美国政府，好吧，美国国务院和我们假定的中央情报局，因为我们认为与他们结盟有利，所以和这些极右派团体有共同的行动。就像我们在2014年的基辅政变中所做的那样，从2015年到2021年，我们一直这么做。
We could have gone along with efforts under the Minsk accords to resolve this conflict in the Donbass peacefully, but we never did that. We never gave it any support. And instead we gave support to the Kiev regime's attempt to violently suppress these Russian separatists. And again, the suppression was being done by these right wing groups.
我们原本可以配合明斯克协议的努力来和平解决顿巴斯地区的冲突，但我们从未这样做过。我们从未给予任何支持。相反，我们支持基辅政权企图暴力镇压这些俄罗斯分裂分子的行动。而再次，这种镇压是由这些右翼团体执行的。
Look, does that make our State Department Nazis? No, does that make the Canadian Parliament Nazis? No, what I'm saying is that in both cases, a blind eye was turned to this disturbing ideology and past and associations of these people, because it's politically in our interest to do business with them. And that's the problematic thing about it. So I don't think in that sense, this was just a sort of an accident. This is the backstory that explains like something like this can happen.
看，这就意味着我们的国务院是纳粹吗？不，那么加拿大议会是纳粹吗？不是的，我想说的是，在这两种情况下，都对这个令人不安的意识形态、这些人的过去和关联视而不见，因为与他们做生意在政治上符合我们的利益。这就是问题的所在。所以，我并不认为这只是一种意外。这就是解释为什么会发生这样的事情的背景故事。
Yeah. Okay, Jason, you have any reactions to Trudeau doing this and what it means? Or does it mean nothing? Does the backstory I provided give you context on how something like this can happen? That's not just like an accident.
好的。杰森，你对特鲁多这么做有什么看法？这是什么意思？或者，这其实什么都不表示？我提供的背景信息是否让你对这样的情况发生有了一些了解？这不仅仅是一个意外。
Well, I don't think any of us know exactly what happened here. And it's probably going to be some sort of investigation. But I don't think they knowingly put a Nazi up there. I think they are pro the war. And that probably could that have blinded them to do deeper research? Sure. People are political politicians most of all. And people probably take facts or any kind of anything they can use to make their case stronger. They'll take advantage of that. So yeah, sure. And that is true. Zelensky was pumping his fist and cheering. Don't you think he knew? He can't know the history. Yeah. He has to know. He has to know if he does, then somebody was fine. Good question. World War II. Good question. If he did. And then inside. If he did, then you would be saying, if he did know and he was pumping his fist, then you'd be saying that he was pro Nazi. He was cheering for a Nazi knowingly.
嗯，我不认为我们中的任何人确切地知道这里发生了什么。可能这会有某种调查。但我不认为他们是故意支持纳粹的。我认为他们支持战争。他们被这样的立场蒙蔽了视线，导致他们无法进行深入的研究？当然可能。政治人物，尤其是。人们会利用任何能使他们的立场更加坚定的事情。他们会利用这个。所以，是的。这确实是事实。泽连斯基挥舞着拳头，欢呼雀跃。你不认为他知道吗？他应该知道的，是历史。他需要知道。如果他不知道，那肯定有人在欺骗他。问得好。是关于二战的问题。很好的问题。如果他确实知道了。然后再深入了解。如果他知道，并且他正在挥拳欢呼，然后你会说他支持纳粹。他知道自己在为纳粹欢呼。
You know, what I'm saying is, look, the fact that you've got some Jewish ancestry is not, in my view, a get out jail free card for you making decisions. Are you saying he knowingly, are you saying he knowingly cheered for a Nazi? You know, one of the big backers of the Azov Italian is a Ukrainian, a luggar named Igor Kolomoski. Kolomoski is Jewish. I'm just saying, do you think he knowingly cheered for a Nazi? Is that what you're insinuating? I think he knowingly cheered knowing that this Ukrainian nationalist who fought in World War II must have been on the German side. Because there was only one side that was fighting for a Nazi.
你知道，我想说的是，你有犹太血统，并不意味着你可以逃避你所做决定的责任。你是在说他有意为一个纳粹喝彩吗？你知道，阿佐夫意大利阵线的大赞助者之一是一个名叫伊戈尔·科洛莫斯基的乌克兰人。科洛莫斯基是犹太人。我只是想问，你认为他有意为一个纳粹喝彩吗？你是在暗示这个吗？我认为他知道这个在二战中战斗的乌克兰民族主义者一定是站在德国一边。因为只有德国是站在纳粹一边的。
Okay. I'm just clarifying here. I don't actually have an opinion. Thanks for querying me, John. I'm not saying that he cheered for Nazism. What I'm saying is he cheered for Ukrainian nationalism. And he knows that Ukrainian nationalism is bound up and tied up with this disturbing history, which he is willing to ignore.
好的，我只是在这里做一个澄清。我实际上没有发表意见。感谢你向我询问，约翰。我并不是说他为纳粹主义欢呼。我要说的是他支持乌克兰的民族主义。他知道乌克兰的民族主义和这段令人不安的历史紧密相连，而他却愿意忽视这一点。
Do you guys do you guys? Let me finish my point about the Azov Italian. The Azov Italian is undeniably a neo Nazi group. It was funded by Igor Kolomoski, who's a Ukrainian oligarch who is Jewish, who lives in Israel. Why would Kolomoski do that? Because the Azov Italian believes that every interview crane, including Crimea and Dogbas, which has enormous energy reserves, belongs to Ukraine. So it served the business interests of the energy magnates in Ukraine to support these people. And that, look, politics makes for strange bedfellows.
你们让我完成我关于Azov Italian的论点。毫无疑问，Azov Italian是一个新纳粹团体。它是由住在以色列的犹太裔乌克兰富豪伊戈尔·科洛莫斯基资助的。科洛莫斯基为什么会这么做呢？因为Azov Italian坚信包括克里米亚和多戈巴斯在内的每一个乌克兰的领土，都应该属于乌克兰，而这些地方拥有大量的能源储备。所以，支持这些人符合乌克兰能源大亨的商业利益。看，政治常常使得陌生人成为奇特的伙伴。
Yeah.
是的。
So I'm not saying that Zelenski or Kolomoski or anybody else is a Nazi because they aligned with these people. I'm saying they found it politically expedient and useful to align with these groups, just like the US State Department did quite frankly. I don't think we should do that.
所以，我并不是说泽连斯基，科洛莫斯基或者其他人只因为和这些人结盟就是纳粹。我想说的是，他们发现与这些团体结盟在政治上是方便且有用的，就像美国国务院坦率地做的那样。我认为我们不应该这么做。
If you want to go around the world, Jason, saying that we're the champions of freedom and democracy and having this moralistic, almost virtue signaling foreign policy, I don't think we should be in business or aligned with these neo-Nazi groups, wherever the hell they are. I think it's when you say you, do you mean me or do you mean the United States? I'm saying if you want to have a highly moralistic foreign policy, let's say if one wants to have a pro. I would use the word for it. If you're going to be principled, you need to keep them. You need to not support Nazis.
杰森，如果你想要告诉全世界，我们是自由和民主的捍卫者，并采用这种道德态度强烈，几乎是显摆道德标准的外交政策，我并不认为我们应该与这些新纳粹组织有任何商业活动或结盟，无论他们在哪里。你说“你”的时候，是指我个人，还是指的是美国？我想说的是，如果你想有一个高度道德化的外交政策，假设有人希望有一个支持。我想用一个词来形容它。如果你要坚持原则，你需要保持他们。你不能支持纳粹。
We're in agreement. Jason and Freeber, what do you guys think of just the breadcrumbs in Canada? I'm just curious whether you guys care about this whole vein of just competent leadership, nepotism, if you have a view or it's like that is just what it is and whatever. I don't know enough about Canadian politics really, but Trudeau does not seem to be super qualified.
我们的看法是一致的。Jason和Freeber，你们对加拿大仅剩下的线索有什么看法？我只是好奇你们是否关心这种纯粹的领导能力、裙带关系的问题，你们有没有观点，或者你们觉得这就是事实，无所谓。我对加拿大的政治并不了解，但是特鲁多似乎并不够资格。
Yeah. But I don't know enough about it. So just in terms of the Canadian part of this, there's a writer named Jeet here who's a left-wing writer, but he posted something very interesting here where he explained that in the late 1940s, 1950s, Canada took in a large number of former Nazis, many of whom were SS veterans. So people like Honka because they were good anti-communists. And then these Nazis proceeded to terrorize anti-Nazi Ukrainian Canadians. There was this Ukrainian hall was bombed here in 1950. So Canada has a weird history of bringing in some of these people after World War II.
是的，但是我对此不太了解。就加拿大方面来说，这里有一位名叫Jeet的作家，他虽然是左翼作家，但他的一个观点确实很有趣。他解释说在20世纪40年代末到50年代，加拿大接收了大量前纳粹成员，其中许多人是SS的老兵。这样的人，像Honka这样的人，因为他们是反共主义者所以受到欢迎。然后这些纳粹分子开始恐吓反纳粹的乌克兰加拿大人。在1950年这里的一个乌克兰大厅遭到了炸弹袭击。所以，加拿大在二战后接收这些人的历史很奇特。
So the point is, yeah, exactly. Look, there's no way that any semi-intelligent person who knows the history of World War II, especially the Ukrainian involvement in World War II, wouldn't know that Ukraine was on the German side in World War II and Honka volunteered for the SS. He was a volunteer for the SS Galicia Division. So look, did the Speaker of the House know? Probably not. I think Wokness makes people stupid where they just think about the current thing and don't ask too many questions about the past. But there's a lot more to it than just like this innocent mistake. And this has been your update on this week in Ukraine and Wokness.
所以，重点就在这。任何对世界二战历史，特别是乌克兰在二战中的涉足有所了解的半程度智者都不会不清楚，在二战期间乌克兰是属于德国一方，并且Honka自愿加入了SS。他是加利西亚SS部队的一名志愿者。所以，国会议长知道这个吗？可能不知道。我认为"醒来"这种状态让人愚蠢到只关心现状而对过去不做过多质疑。但这个问题涉及的内容比一个无辜的错误要多得多。这就是这周你关于乌克兰和“醒来”现象的更新。
All right, there's a bunch of news about opening eye this week. Just very quickly, opening eye is in advanced talks according to the Financial Times with Johnny Ive of iPhone fame. Steve Jobs is a long-term collaborator and Masi Yoshisan of SoftBank to raise more than $1 billion to build the iPhone of AI. And so the idea would be Johnny Ives got a design firm called Love From, and they would help open eye design their first consumer device via the FT sources, Financial Times, that is. Altman and I have been having brainstorming sessions and I have San Francisco Studio about what a consumer product centered around opening eye would look like. It's very early stages. And Son has pitched a role for ARM in the development, his chip company that he recently took public. They also discussed Masi and Altman creating a company that would draw on talent and tech from their three groups with SoftBank putting in a billion dollars in seed. And then also opening eye is discussing a secondary share sale that would value the company in between $80 billion and $90 billion. This would be 3x, the most recent valuation. Reportedly though, to their credit, they are on track to generate $1 billion in revenue in 2023. I'm not sure how much of that is the $20 a month subscription. That would be pretty extraordinary if that was those personal subscriptions. This would be a massive gain on paper for Microsoft. Opening eye is 49% owned by Microsoft. And Sam Altman has personally stated multiple times now that he has no equity. So he would be getting $0 of this. And of course, we know that opening eye started as a non-profit before switching and our friend, Vinot Kosla, told us very clearly that those are just details. What happened there, Tremont? Those are just details.
好的，这周关于开放眼睛（Opening Eye）的新闻很多。简单快速的说，根据英国《金融时报》的报道，Opening Eye 正在与iPhone设计师乔尼·艾夫（Johnny Ive）进行积极的磋商。艾夫与史蒂夫·乔布斯（Steve Jobs）一直是长期的合作伙伴，他们正与日本软银集团的铃木政司进行对话，意图筹集超过10亿美元的资金，构建AI领域的iPhone。这其中的想法是，乔尼·艾夫创立了一个名为 Love From 的设计公司，他们将帮助 Opening Eye 设计他们的第一款消费者设备，根据 《金融时报》的消息来源称。同时，Altman 和我一直在头脑风暴，我在旧金山的工作室也在思考以 Opening Eye 为核心的消费者产品可能会是什么样子。这还处于非常早期的阶段。并且，孙正义参与提议让他最近上市的芯片公司 ARM 参与这个项目的开发。他们也讨论了 Masi 和 Altman 创建一个公司，这个公司将利用他们三个团队的人才和技术，而软银将投入10亿美元的种子基金。同时，Opening Eye 也在讨论进行次级股票销售，这将使该公司的估值在800亿到900亿美元之间。这将是他们最近的估值的三倍。然而，值得认可的是，他们在2023年预计将产生10亿美元的收入，我不确定其中有多少是来自每月20美元的订阅，如果是这样的个人订阅，那将是相当了不起的。对于微软来说，这将是纸面上的巨大收益，因为 Opening Eye 是由微软持有49%的股份。Sam Altman 在多次表示他没有股权，所以他将从中得到0美元。我们当然知道，Opening Eye 最初是以非盈利的方式开始的，然后进行了转型，而我们的朋友 Vinot Kosla 非常明确地告诉我们那只是细节。那么，Tremont，那里发生了什么事情呢？这就是细节。
But note is the goat. Sam is the closest thing that we have to an emergent mogul in tech. And the reason is because if everything sits on the substrate, you're going to need to get a license. You're going to want to get access to whatever developer program, whatever beta that opening eye has. And so as a result, he'll be in the capbird seat. So even if he doesn't have any equity in opening eye, he'll just put his money into the best startups that it's like Y Combinator on steroids. By the way, I have a take on that whole claim that Sam doesn't own any part of Open AI. All right, let's hear it. Go ahead, Colombo. Explain to us the details. It's one of the damn mammals. You said you don't own any shares in Open AI, but you started Open AI. Well, then who does? Yeah, that's the thing.
但注意，山姆是科技界新兴大亨的最接近者。原因是如果所有事情都建立在这个基础之上，你需要得到许可证，你会想要获取对开放AI任何开发程序，任何beta版本的访问。因此，他将处于有利的位置。所以，即使他在开放AI中没有任何股权，他也会把自己的钱投入最好的初创公司，就像Y Combinator的效果加强版。顺便说一句，我对山姆没有拥有开放AI的任何部分的说法有一些看法。好的，让我们来听听。好吧，科隆波，跟我们解释一下细节。就是其中的一种哺乳动物。你说你在开放AI中没有任何股份，但你创立了开放AI。那么，股份是谁的呢？对，那就是问题所在。
What I think is really interesting about what Open AI has done in its fundraising rounds is that each round has been a capter turned model. So, for example, to the 100x, 100x, right? I think some of the very early people got capped at 100x. I think maybe the $30 billion round was capped at 10x. So I think the $30 billion rounds capped at a $300 million valuation, meaning if you're an investor, your shares go up in value to the company, you hit the market cap, a $300 billion, and then basically you're effectively cashed out. It's like you bought a share, but sold a call back to the company as a $300 billion valuation. The movie industry works this way, right? You invest in a film, they tell you you can make three acts, and then it's over, right? Something like that. I've seen that in the independent film business. Yeah.
我觉得Open AI在募资轮次中所做的非常有趣的一点是，每一轮都采用了封顶模式。例如，早期的人可能会在100倍处封顶。我猜想可能是300亿美元的轮次设置了10倍的封顶。因此，我认为300亿美元的轮次可能在30亿美元的估值时就被封顶，意思是如果你是投资者，你的股份对应的公司市值达到了3000亿美元，那么你就相当于直接套现了。就像你买了股份，但又以3000亿美元的估值向公司卖出认购权。电影行业就是这样运作的，投资一部电影，他们告诉你可以赚三倍，然后就结束了。在独立电影业界，我见过这种情况。是的。
So, in any event, I think people who invested the $2 billion valuation were capped at 100 billion. I heard that employees who were getting stock options are capped at 100 billion, or they were way back when they started granting these things. So my point is that if Open AI turns into one of these companies like a Google ends up in the trillion-dollar club, then nobody's going to own anything because they will have already long ago. They'll keep selling you interest. The new interest will end up being 8% percent. No, because what will happen at the end is the new people that buy in at that higher price that buy out the early investors, they're getting effectively things like 8% return. It turns into debt eventually. It turns into some. I think what's really going on here is somebody has to own the residual value of the company, call it the far out of the money, call option. That's how they get around the IRS problem of it being non-equity. That's how they say that it's not equity in a private corporation.
那么，在任何情况下，我认为那些以20亿美元估值投资的人最高不能超过1000亿美元。我听说正在获得股权期权的员工的资本上限也是1000亿美元，或者在他们开始发放这些期权时就已经是这样了。所以我的观点是，如果Open AI变成了像Google这样的公司，最后进入万亿美元俱乐部，那么没人会真正拥有任何东西，因为他们早就已经拥有了。他们会一直卖你的利益。新的利益将会变成8%。不，因为最后会发生的是，那些以更高价格买入的新人，他们买走了早期投资者，他们实际上获得的像8%这样的回报。它最终会变成债务的一部分。我认为真正发生的是，必须有人拥有公司的剩余价值，我们将其称为深度虚值期权。这就是他们规避IRS（美国国税局）问题，因为它是非股权的原因。这就是他们说它不是私有公司里的股权的原因。
Yeah, but I think there's always a company. I think what's so brilliant about it is, okay, so look, Sam set up this foundation. It's a nonprofit, but he controls that effectively, right? So, yes, he technically is not an owner of the shares. The foundation is, but what can't you do with the foundation that you could do with personal ownership other than maybe buying a personal residence? I mean, you can buy a plane, I think. Look at the church of Scientology. They own a lot of real estate. So, my point is, not only do I think that Sam really owns OpenAI through the Fig. Leaf this foundation, I think he owns 100% of it in the event that the call option is struck, meaning it ends being a trillion dollar company. Are you saying Sam is out on Hubbard in this example? Let's not speculate too much. Oh, it's just details, right? As Renaud said, those are just details. I am speculating, but I think it's informed speculation.
是的，但我认为总会有一个公司。我觉得这件事真正精彩的地方在于，好吧，看看吧，Sam建立了这个基金会。这是一个非营利机构，但实际上他对此具有控制权，对吧？所以，是的，他在技术上并不拥有股份。基金会拥有，但你有什么不能用基金会做，而只能用个人所有权做的呢？除了可能购买私人住宅？我想，你可以买飞机。看看山达基教会，他们拥有很多房地产。所以，我的观点是，我不仅认为Sam真的通过这个基金会拥有OpenAI，我认为如果购买期权被行使的话，也就是说如果它最终成为一个万亿美元的公司，他将全权拥有。你是在说Sam在这个例子里仿佛是Hubbard吗？我们不要过多的猜测。哦，这只是细节，对吧？就像Renaud说的，这些都只是细节。我是在猜测，但我认为这是有根据的猜测。
If you wanted to become the world's first trillionaire and you were extremely commetitated about it, clever and premeditated about it. What would you do? Number one, you would want to choose a moonshot type area that was a world changing technology. AI certainly qualifies. So it's called fusion. Maybe crypto does, as I understand that Sam has bets in all three of those areas. Number two, you would want to figure out a way to own as much of it as you could, really 100% if you could. That's a very hard thing to do when you're running a capital intensive startup, but investors tend to underestimate the power law and the value of the far out of the money call option. So maybe you can get them to sell that back to you really cheaply.
如果你想成为世界上第一个万亿富翁，并且对此非常热衷，精明且深思熟虑。你会做什么呢？首先，你会想选择一个具有改变世界的技术的雄心壮志的领域。AI（人工智能）无疑是其中之一，融合（fusion）也是，也许加密货币也可能如此，据我了解，Sam在这三个领域都有投注。其次，你会想办法尽可能多地占用这个领域，实际上如果可能，你真想100%地占有它。但是，当你在经营一个资本密集型的创业公司时，这是非常难做到的，但投资者往往低估了幂律（power law）和远离货币执行价格的期权（far out of the money call option）的价值。所以，也许你可以让他们以非常低的价格把它卖回给你。
Third, if you're really far-sighted, you would want to insulate yourself against populist anger from being the world's first trillionaire. So you would basically put your shares in a nonprofit foundation where you're not really sacrificing that much of control or the ability to control the asset. But it gives you tremendous defense.
第三，如果你真的有远见，你会希望自己免受成为全球首位亿万富翁引发的民粹主义愤怒。因此，你会将自己的股份投入一个非营利基金会，这样你实际上并没有太大的牺牲控制权或控制资产的能力。但这为你提供了巨大的防御。
I love this conspiracy theory. Where did you come up with this? Is this like this is genius? This is genius. Did you and Peter Teal talk about this over a chance or something? How did you construct this? And you're saying this is in full- I love financial conspiracy corner. I think it's a great science corner. Let's get the tin foil hats out. It's really freaking Friedberg out that we're even doing this. Diametrically opposite to science corner.
我太喜欢这个阴谋论了。你是从哪里想出来的？是不是觉得这思路绝了？的确很高明。你和Peter Teal是不是在某个偶然的机会中讨论过这个？你是如何构思的？你说这个完全是-我喜欢金融阴谋论角。我认为这是个很棒的科学角。让我们戴上锡纸帽。这个讨论甚至让Friedberg都感到恐慌。与科学角反方向。
Is it a conspiracy or is it just reality? I think if you are even 1% right, the combination of lawyers and accountants that would leak this and the number of people that were part of the origination of the foundation that would want to sue will be very high. That's just the natural state of things in these kinds of things. That seems like a lot easier way. But what have I said other than the fact that it was sort of premeditated, which that's not the right word that premeditated sounds too nefarious?
这是阴谋还是现实呢？我认为，如果你有1%的正确，那么在这件事中会有很多律师和会计师会泄露这个信息，也会有很多参与基金会创始的人会想要起诉。这只是这类事情中的自然状态。这似乎是一个更简单的方式。但除了事先预谋，我还说了什么呢？这个词听起来又太像阴谋论了。
No, no, no. I'm just saying whenever money is made at this quantum and at that scale, everybody wants a piece because they know that that's their one shot. So I just think that it'll amplify the pressure for actors inside of those organizations to take their shot. And that's just going to be financially the right thing to do for a lot of people, if what you're saying is true. We know the investments have been made under a cap-return model. I think that's fact. That's fact, yes. We know the nonprofit foundation owns the shares. That's fact. And then just to put the 800 pound gorilla on the table, what's Elon thinking? Because he was the one that really got this thing off the ground. Because that critical investment made the whole thing come to life. He could have done this on his own. Yeah, how much does he own? Zero. That's a zero. I mean, but after a lawsuit, how much does he own? I don't know. I'm just speculating.
不，不，不。我只是说，每当有这样量级和规模的钱被赚到的时候，每个人都想要分一杯羹，因为他们知道这可能是他们唯一的机会。因此，我觉得这将加大那些组织内部的人们去争取他们的机会的压力。这对很多人来说，如果你所说的是真的，那么从财务上来说，这就是正确的选择。我们知道投资在一个上限回报模型下进行。这是事实。这是事实，没错。我们知道非盈利基金会拥有这些股份。这也是事实。然后，就让我们把800磅的大猩猩放在桌面上，埃隆·马斯克在想什么？因为他是真正启动这个事情的那个人。因为那笔关键的投资让整个事情实现。他本可以自己做这个事情的。他拥有多少股份呢？零。就是零。但是在一场诉讼后，他拥有多少股份呢？我不知道，我只是在猜测。
So can we talk about the technical? Yes, I'll tee it up here. Here we go. So opening, I released some new chat, GPT features. The key point here is they're doing what's called multi-modal. Multimodal is the big innovation. What does that mean? That means the input could be voice, the input could be code, the input could be data. It could be a picture. Here's a picture. If you're watching along on the YouTube channel, do a search for all in podcast on YouTube. Hit subscribe, hit the bell. And it's a classic picture of one of those no parking signs where there's four different ones. You take a picture of that. That's the input. And you say, it's Wednesday at 4 p.m. Can I park in the spot right now? Tell me in one line. It comes back and says, yes, you can park for up to one hour starting at 4 p.m. What this means is the output or the input could be in any of those modalities. Modality is a fancy word for an image, a video, etc. So you're going to be able to say, hey, give me the poster for the all in conference of Bestie Runner. And I want it to be these things. And here are the pictures of the boys and then make it and go back and forth and back and forth. And this is really groundbreaking at the same time.
那么我们可以讨论一下技术问题吗？好的，我在这儿给你开个头。你准备好了就开始吧。我最近推出了一些新的GPT聊天功能。这里的关键点是它们正在进行所谓的多模态。多模态是主要的创新点。那是什么意思呢？这意味着输入可以是语音，可以是代码，可以是数据。它还可以是一张图片。这有一张图片。如果你在YouTube频道连线观看，你可以在YouTube上搜索全部播客。记得点赞，订阅。这是一张典型的四种不同的禁止停车标志的图片。你拍下那个作为输入。然后你可以问，现在是星期三下午4点，我现在可以在这个位置停车吗？一句话告诉我。它回答你，是的，你可以从下午4点开始停车，最多可以停一个小时。所以这意味着输出或输入可以用任何这些形式。形式这个花哨的词可以用于形容图像，视频等。所以你将能够说，嘿，给我个全部会议的最佳宣传海报。而且我希望它是这样的东西。然后这是女孩们的照片，然后做出来，不停地来回交流。这个确实在同一时间具有开创性。
Last week, Google Bard and Sendeep Madra and I played with us on this week in startups. You now have Google flights, Google Docs, Gmail, and a number of the other core Google services are now in Bard. So that's not multi-modal exactly. But you could do things like ask Google flights, hey, what is the best nonstop between New York City and Dubai or from an East Coast destination that has lay down flat seats, etc. And it really does. It's starting to work.
上周，我和Google Bard以及Sendeep Madra在一起加入了“本周初创公司”的活动。你现在可以使用的Google服务已经包括了Google航班、Google文档、Gmail，还有一系列其他的核心Google服务都已经集成到Bard。这并不完全是多模式的。但你可以做一些事情，比如，向Google航班询问，纽约市与迪拜之间最好的直飞航班是什么，或者从设有卧铺座位的东海岸出发地去哪个目的地等等。而且，这真的已经开始起作用了。
So this idea that Google is going to be displaced or they're moving slow, that might be antiquated information. So those are the two big, big monumental announcements just in the last 10 days.
所以这个观点，认为谷歌会被取而代之或者他们的进步缓慢，可能是陈旧的信息了。因此，这两个重大的，非常具有里程碑意义的公告，仅在过去的10天内就发生了。
Freeburg, when you look at these two, which one is the more important announcement? And what do you think about the pace? Because here we are. We're about to hit the one year anniversary of Chad JPT 3.5. I've been using a lot of different tools the last couple of months. And I'm kind of getting to the point that I feel that much of what's happening is underhyped rather than overhyped. There's some really incredible potential emerging. I'll give a couple of examples. And then I'll talk about the mobile phone.
弗里伯格，当你看这两个通知时，哪一个更重要？你对目前的进展速度有什么看法？立刻我们就要迎来查德JPT 3.5发布一周年的纪念日了。在过去的几个月中，我一直在使用很多不同的工具。我开始感觉到，比起被过度炒作，现在发生的很多事情反而被低估了。正在出现一些真正引人入胜的潜力。我会举几个例子，然后再谈谈手机。
First is Andre Carpapi, as you guys see in the tweet that I just posted in the chat, made a point today that LLMs are emerging not just as a chat bot, but as a kernel process, meaning a new type of operating system that can do input and output across different modalities, can interpret code, can access the internet and information, and then can render things in a visual way or in an audio way that the user wants to consume it. So as a result, LLMs become the core driver to a new type of computing interface.
首先是Andre Carpapi，正如你们在我刚在聊天中发的推文里看到的，他今天指出，LLMs不仅仅是以聊天机器人的形式出现，而且作为一个核心进程出现，意味着它是一种新型的操作系统，可以跨越不同模式进行输入和输出，能理解代码，可以访问互联网和信息，然后可以以视觉或音频的方式展现内容，用户想如何消费都可以。因此，LLMs成为新型计算接口的核心驱动器。
There was a paper published and I'll share the link to this paper here as well. We can put it in the notes. It's not worth pulling up on the screen. That showed that using LLMs in autonomous driving can actually significantly improve the performance of the neural nets that the autonomous cars are trained on. So the autonomous car is typically trained on a bunch of sensor data that comes in, and then that sensor data determines what sort of action to take with the car. And what this team showed is that if you actually put in a communication layer that thinks and talks like a human in between the sensor data and the action data, it can do really wide-ranging interpretations of the data that otherwise would not be apparent from the data set it was trained on. So for example, you can see a person down the road and ask it, what do you think that person's going to do next? And the LLM, because it's trained on a much larger corpus of data than just sensor data from cars, it can make a really good human-like interpretation of that, feed that decision back into the control system of the car, and have the car do something more intelligently that it otherwise would have been able to do.
有一篇论文发表了，我会在这里分享这篇论文的链接，我们可以把它放在笔记里。没必要在屏幕上显示这篇文章。这篇论文表明，使用LLMs（大型语言模型）进行自动驾驶实际上可以显著提高自动驾驶车辆的神经网络性能。因此，自动驾驶车通常会根据传感器收集的数据进行训练，然后这些传感器数据决定车辆采取何种行动。而这个团队发现，如果你在传感器数据和行动数据之间添加一个能像人一样思考和交流的通信层，它可以进行非常广泛的数据解释，这在训练数据集中并不明显。例如，你可以看到路上的一个人，问它，你认为那个人接下来会做什么？这个LLM，因为它接受的训练数据比汽车传感器数据要丰富得多，所以它能进行非常出色的类人解释，将这个决定反馈给汽车的控制系统，使得汽车能做出更加智能的动作，这些都是它以前不能做到的。
So these LLMs are becoming a lot more like a software operating system. And you can kind of extend that into mobile phones. Mobile phones originally were just voice, and then they were single lines of text in the form of SMS, then you were able to browse the web, and then the app revolution came about where all of this information emerged through apps. What LLMs now allow, perhaps, is that the entire operating system of the phone can run and render any sort of application or any sort of service or product you might want to use on the fly in-screen. So the input to the phone can be voice, it can be visual, it can be video, and the output can be rendered by perhaps a bunch of what might otherwise be called apps, but call it third-party developers that build in-stream into that chat that no longer looks like a chat interface like we see on chat GPT, but can be rendered visually, can be rendered with audio, can be rendered a bunch of different ways.
所以这些LLM（Language Log Model，语言日志模型）正变得越来越像软件操作系统，这种现象甚至可以扩展到手机领域。手机最初只有语音功能，后来增加了以短信形式出现的单行文本功能，然后你可以浏览网络，然后又出现了app革命，所有这些信息都通过app呈现。现在，LLM可能能做到的是，整个手机的操作系统都能运行并渲染出任何你可能想要使用的应用程序，产品或服务，而且是实时进行，就在屏幕里。所以，手机的输入可以是语音，也可以是视觉，也可以是视频，输出可能是由一群也许可以称为应用的第三方开发者来渲染，他们在聊天中构建流式交互，再也不像我们在chat GPT上看到的那种聊天界面，而可以通过视觉渲染，通过音频渲染，也可以采用其他不同的渲染方式。
So if mobile really is the dominant hardware platform that humans are using for computing today, LLMs and these sorts of tools can become the dominant operating system on that hardware, and you can totally rethink the modality of how you use computing through applications today. We have an app store and we download apps and use them, and that all becomes in-stream in an LLM or chat type interface that can be accessed in a bunch of different ways.
因此，如果移动设备真的是现今人们用于计算的主导硬件平台，那么LLMs和这类工具可以在这类硬件上成为主导的操作系统，你就能彻底重新思考你现在通过应用程序使用计算的方式。我们有应用商店，我们下载并使用应用程序，而这一切都可以在LLM或者聊天类型的界面中串联起来，可以通过很多不同的方式获取。
So for me, there's a really bigger thing that's happening that's not just about making smarter tools and increasing productivity, but a real revolution in computing itself that seems to be emergent. And I think Carpati's tweaked this morning, some of the stuff I've been playing with, some of the papers I've been reading, and some of the speculation around a mobile hardware start to support that thesis, and I think it's going to be really significant. It's a wholesale rewriting of computing, computing interfaces, human-computer interaction, that's going to rethink everything. And it seems to be pretty substantial, and just using a bunch of tools myself, I'm blown away every single time with what you can do.
对我来说，正在发生的不仅仅是制造更智能的工具和提高生产力，而是计算本身似乎正在出现的一场真正的革命。今早，我认为Carpati对我一直在研究的东西，我一直在阅读的论文，以及关于移动硬件开始支持这个论点的一些猜测，进行了整理，我认为这将是非常重要的。这是对计算、计算接口、人机交互的彻底重写，将重新思考一切。这似乎非常重大，我自己使用了一堆工具，每次都会被你能做到的事情震惊。
Yeah, I mean, right now I would agree with you, strongly agree, because this was some, this was magic links, vision for the future, which is you would talk to agents, as they call them. This was a company that existed in the 90s before smartphones existed. It was a physical device, Sony made the device, and the operating system, the concept was you would say, I'm looking for a flight to go to this place. The agent would go out, it would do a bunch of work, and then come back to you with the options. So not just a Google search coming back with 10 blue links, but actually just solving your problem.
是的，我想说，我现在非常同意你的观点，因为这是某种形式的，可以说是神奇链路，对未来的设想，你会与他们称之为代理的东西对话。这家公司在智能手机出现之前的90年代就存在了。那是一种物理设备，由索尼制造，这个操作系统的概念是你可以说，我想找一趟飞往某地的航班。然后代理就会出去，做一堆工作，然后回来给你提供选项。所以不只是谷歌搜索回来的10个蓝色链接，而是真正解决你的问题。
And if the interface is. From general magic, right? General magic, right. Yeah, right. And there is a movie, general magic, the movie, you can look at the Wikipedia company, but this was a lot of like the early work in this area. And I think this is going to become the interface, and LM's talking to each other.
如果说这个接口来自于General Magic公司，对吧？对，是General Magic公司。没错。还有一部电影叫《General Magic》，你可以去维基百科上看看这家公司的信息，这部电影讲述了这个领域的一些早期工作。我认为这将成为接口，以及LM语言模型相互交谈。
Then the question becomes, who owns this? How many of these are there? Are they verticalized? So what do you think the game on the field is here, SAC?
那么问题就转变成，这个东西的所有者是谁？这样的东西有多少？它们是独立运作的吗？那么SAC，你觉得这里的实际情况是怎样的？
Well, I think this is super interesting. I don't know if this qualifies as a science corner, but this is the most interesting science corner you've ever done. At a minimum, it's a nerd corner. Yeah, it's a nerd corner. I'm trying to find a science corner into an intersecting realm so we can all be involved. I don't know how we crowbar an Uranus joke into this, but let's keep our eyes wide open here.
嗯，我认为这非常有趣。我不确定这是否可以被归类为科技小角落，但这绝对是你做过的最有趣的科技小角落。至少，这是属于书呆子的角落。是的，这就是书呆子的角落。我试图找一个科技小角落，通过这种交叉领域，我们所有人都可以参与进来。我不知道我们该如何把关于天王星的笑话硬塞进来，但我们需要以更开放的眼光看待这件事。
Okay, so on the phone, I think what's interesting there, just to boil it down, is you're talking about replacing the main interface, which is currently a wall of apps. And you tap an app to go into the app, and then you interact with it. You're talking about replacing all that with basically voice. So imagine a series or visual, if you connect like glasses to it or something. So rather than double click on an app, the app developers, as they're called today, are basically building in-screen utilities that are part of the chat interface that is the phone itself. And that's what's going to be so compelling. We used to write websites, then we wrote apps, and now we're going to write these kind of in-streamed services, these plugins.
好的，所以在电话里，我认为有趣的是，简单来说，你正在谈论替换主界面，现在的主界面就是一堆应用程序。你点击一个应用进入，然后与之互动。你在谈论的是用语音来基本上取代所有这些。所以想象一种连续的系列，或者视觉，如果你连接了眼镜或者什么的。所以不是双击一个应用，现在被称为应用开发者的人，基本上在构建屏幕内的工具，它们是电话自身的聊天界面的一部分。而且这将是非常吸引人的东西。我们曾经写过网站，然后我们写了应用，现在我们要写这些嵌入流服务，这些插件。
Alexa was going to do this. Well, Alexa or Siri got a drink. It kind of sucks. It just doesn't work that well. But imagine if the phone perfectly understood what you were saying, then you would just say, call me an Uber, order me food, whatever, and you would just instruct it. It's like in that movie, was it her? The Joaquin Phoenix movie? God, that should have been my background today. What am I thinking? Do you've disappointed all the science-coner fans? I think it's a Spike Jones movie. He did a really good job with that, man. That movie's looking more and more like it's going to happen. We got to do a rewatchable on that. Yeah, we should rewatch it.
亚历克萨本来要做这件事。好吧，实际上是亚历克萨或者Siri去拿饮料。这真的有点糟糕。它就是工作得不好。但是想象一下，如果手机能完全理解你的话，那你只需要说，请给我叫一个Uber，帮我点餐，无论什么，你只需对它发指令。就像在电影中，是不是那部电影，电影叫她？那部华金·菲尼克斯主演的电影？天啊，我今天应该弄那个背景的。我在想我是怎么了？你让所有的科学角落的粉丝们失望了。我觉得那是斯派克·琼斯的一部电影。他对那部电影做得真好。那部电影看来越来越可能会变成现实。我们应该再看一遍它。是的，我们应该再看一遍。
You won't even really need the pane of glass if you can just talk to it within earpiece. Now, I think you're right that the phone needs to know what you're looking at, or it can do so much more if it has all those senses. That's part of the multimodal demo that opened the eye show this week, because it has video and it has camera integration. Remember, in human-computer interaction, it's often a lot easier for a human to interact with a visual representation of stuff on a screen than to hear stuff in audio. We will still need some sort of visual display, whether it's a screen or an eyeglass or something that shows us a bunch of information in a way.
如果你能与耳机中的音频进行对话，你甚至真的不需要这块玻璃面板。我认为你说得对，手机需要知道你在看什么，或者如果它拥有所有的感应器，那么它能做的就更多。这就是本周眼界秀开场的多模式演示的一部分，因为它具有视频和相机集成功能。请记住，在人机交互中，人们往往很容易通过屏幕上的视觉表示与信息进行互动，而不是听音频中的内容。我们仍然需要某种类型的视觉显示，无论是屏幕、眼镜还是其他能以某种方式向我们展示大量信息的设备。
Sam apparently talked about the ecosystem he's trying to create. Sam apparently invested in a company that was hardware plus software for like journaling, like you would hang like a necklace around your neck, a camera-type device. Wearable. Wearable. Okay. And it would record everything and it would be like your memory backup and you'd be able to query it. So. That was William Gibson's plot line in one of his books, where he had a little Zeppelin that would follow people around and record everything. And then you'd have a DVR of your entire life and that would be completely indexed. The AI would know your entire life and be able to advise you.
显然，Sam谈到了他试图创造的生态系统。Sam投资了一家公司，这家公司的产品是硬件与软件相结合的琐事记载装置，就像是围绕在你脖子周围的一条链子，一个相机类型的设备。这是一种可以穿戴的设备。并且它可以记录所有事情，就像你的记忆备份，你能够查询它。这就像是威廉·吉布森在他的一本书中的情节，他设想有个小型飞船跟随人们四处记录所有事情。然后你就可以有你的整个生命的DVR，那会被完全索引。人工智能会知道你的全部生活，并能给出建议。
Do you guys use the feature on your AirPods where if you leave them in, it will read you the messages from your signal or your incoming notifications where it reads them to you? Obviously you don't. So there's a new feature in the AirPods. You leave them in. And if you're working, you're walking around the house, you're walking around Manhattan like I am these last couple of days, it will stop the podcast I'm listening to and just say, you know, oh, poker group says this. Oh, you know, your wife just texted you this and it reads it to you. And then you can say reply. So eventually if Siri works and then you have those Apple goggles on, I think that that is going to be the eventual interface, which is you'll hear certain things, you'll see certain things. Some things will be better visually, other things will be better. Didn't Facebook announce a new pair of glasses today? Those are like their spectacle kind of things. These are the light AR glasses where you could take pictures. Just meant to say everything's converging a lot faster than we all. Yeah, it is.
你们有没有使用过AirPods上的这个功能，就是当你戴着它们的时候，AirPods会读给你听从你的信号或者是收到的通知里的消息？很明显，你们没有。所以在AirPods中有一个新的功能。你戴着它们，如果你正在工作，或者走在房子里，或者像我最近几天那样在曼哈顿里走动，它会暂停我正在听的播客，然后说，你知道，扑克群说了这个，或者，你知道，你的妻子发了这个消息给你，它会读给你听。然后你可以说回复。如果Siri可以工作，然后你戴上那些Apple眼镜，我想那将是最终的交互方式，即你会听到某些事情，看到某些事情。有些事情在视觉上更好，有些事情在听觉上更好。Facebook今天是不是宣布了一款新的眼镜？那些就像他们的观景镜一样。那些是你可以拍照的轻型AR眼镜。我只是想说，所有的这些都比我们所有人想象的要融合得快。是的，确实如此。
So I started using a new note taking app called Reflect. Do you guys heard of this? It's reflecting on things? Whoa, this is progress. I'm just starting to play with it. But what it does is you keep like a daily log of who you've met with and what meetings were about. So it's basically a note taking app and it does backlinks so that it starts to link together the people on concepts or whatever.
所以我开始使用一个叫做Reflect的新的记笔记应用。你们听说过它吗？它可以帮助你反思事物？哇塞，这真是进步。我刚开始试用它。但是它的功能是，你可以每天记录你见过谁，会议都讲了什么。所以，它基本上是一个记笔记的应用，还可以进行反向链接，以便开始连接人和概念等等。
And so like the use case that I think it's quite useful for once you've been using it for a while is, okay, I mean with this person, once last time I saw them, what do we talk about then? So it gives you like content. Yeah. Yeah, that's awesome. I really like this. It's external memory, right? Because like I'm like, I'm deluge with so much stuff now. I can't even I forget people's names sometimes if I've only met them once or twice. So his name is Fortwork David. Not you guys, but no, it's also getting old. You're sure. I mean, it's a function of how much input is coming at you. There's just so much coming at us. Right.
所以像我觉得这个用例在你使用了一段时间之后非常有用的场景是，好的，我和这个人在一起，我上次见到他们是什么时候，我们那时候谈论了什么？所以它给你提供了像内容一样的东西。是的，这真的很棒，我真的很喜欢这个。这就像是外部记忆对吧？因为现在的我，我被如此多的事情淹没，我甚至有时忘记了我只见过一两次的人们的名字。他的名字叫做Fortwork David，不是你们，但是没错，这也与年纪有关。你可以肯定的说，这是因为有太多的信息正在扑面而来。我们面临着太多的信息。对吧。
But just but it's having a short log of who I've met with and briefly what the meeting was about. So I can go back and check it. And at some point in the future, I've searched against it. But the only problem with it is I do have to like take the time to enter all this stuff. And it's kind of pain. It'll authenticate with automatically. It will. It will. It will. External hard drive to my brain. Then that would be very powerful. It'll authenticate with Slack and Gmail and do that automatically. And then you'll, it'll be otherworldly. It already connects with Google. I don't want my Slack in my reflect.
但这只是一个简短的记录，记载我见过谁，会议主要讨论了什么，以方便我回顾查看。将来的某个时候，我可能会对它进行搜索。但唯一的问题是我需要花时间去输入所有这些信息，这有点麻烦。如果能与我的大脑自动连接，如同外接硬盘一样，那就非常强大了。它可以自动与Slack和Gmail进行验证，然后将会给你带来超凡的体验。它已经可以连接Google了，不过我不想让我的Slack出现在我的reflect中。
What I want is my meetings, which they do they integrate with Google Calendar. Great. And really, that's it. Like the main thing I want is if I could just know everyone I talk to and I don't need a transcript, I just need the log line. Just so I can remember. I just need the prompt. Six months from now, I just need a prompt that I met with this person. And here is the topic. That's it.
我想要的是能和Google日历集成的会议。这很好。其实，我想要的主要就是这个。我只希望能知道我和谁交谈过，我并不需要详细的记录，只需要一条简单的记录就够了。仅仅是为了我能回忆起来。我只需要一个提示。六个月后，我只需要一个提示告诉我我曾经和这个人见过面，然后略知一二我们曾经讨论过的话题。这就够了。
So have you gone to the, have you built Clinton eyes your greetings now? It's great to see you. That's the great. That's the great thing. It's great to see you so that you know you preserve optionality for the people you have. Same thing. It's great to see you. We've never met, but I get great to see. I always say great to see you. It's such a big.
所以你去过那个地方了吗？你现在已经建立了你的克林顿式问候了吗？很高兴见到你。这就是那个好。这就是那个伟大的事情。很高兴见到你，这样你知道你已经为你拥有的人们保留了选择性。同样的事情。很高兴见到你。我们从未见过，但我觉得很高兴见到你。我总是说很高兴见到你。这是如此重要。
I'm sorry. When I met Clinton, I was at a Hillary Clinton fundraiser when she was a senator here in New York. And they sent you up an elevator to this fundraiser and you get off the elevator and Bill Clinton is standing there. And he walks up to me like three steps. Oh, Jacob, it's great to see you and he grabs your elbow. He's shaking. I am so happy for what you did to help Hillary win. And you know, Jason, we're so appreciative. And then, you know, you walk into the room and I'm like, Oh my God, Bill Clinton knows my name. Then I look behind me and I see the next person. I see a woman come out with a clipboard, whispering his ear, the next person's name coming out of the elevator. He's waiting. That person disappears. Oh, David Sacks. It's so great to meet you. I really appreciate everything you've done for Hillary. You know, that role of whispering the name of a person in the politician's ear goes all the way back to Roman times. It was called the nomenclature. The nomenclature. Nomen is the Latin word for name. It's a often I call the name. It's a question. How often do you think about the Roman Empire? Just broadly speaking? How is that a gratuitous reference? I thought that was pretty great. It's pretty great. I'm just glad that the rest of the world is catching up to our obsession with gladiator.
我很抱歉，我是在希拉里•克林顿担任纽约州参议员时，在她的筹款活动上遇见克林顿的。他们让你乘电梯来参加这个筹款活动，而当你走出电梯时，比尔•克林顿就站在那里。他向我走过来三步，抓住我的手肘，热烈地握手，说道：“哦，雅各，很高兴见到你。非常感谢你帮助希拉里赢得选举。你知道的，杰森，我们非常感激你。”然后，你走进房间，我就在想：“我的天哪，比尔•克林顿知道我的名字。”然后我向身后看去，看见了下一个人。我看见一个女人拿着笔记板，悄悄地在他耳边说出从电梯出来的下一个人的名字。然后他就等待着，那个人消失了。他说：“哦，大卫•萨克斯，非常高兴见到你。非常感谢你为希拉里所做的一切。”你知道，把一个人的名字悄悄告诉政治家的这种角色可以追溯到古罗马时代。这被称为nomenclature。Nomen是拉丁语中“名字”的意思。我经常用叫名字来问问题。你经常想到罗马帝国吗？只是广义上的说。这怎么能是无关的引用呢？我觉得这很棒。真的很棒。我很高兴看到世界其他地方也开始迷恋斗士了。
Or listen, this has been an amazing episode for the dictator himself, Chamath PolyHoppitya and Rain Man. Yeah, definitely burn baby David Sacks and the Sultan of Science, the Queen of Kinwa, the Prince of Panic attacks and the heir to the Ted throne, the creator of the world's greatest conference, David Freiberg. I am the world's greatest moderator. See you next time. Love you, boys. All in. Bye bye. Bye bye. Love you Ted's dad. Ted's dad. Ted's dad, baby. Ted's dad, baby. That's my dog taking a picture of it. I wish you a driveway. Thanks. We're gonna know. Oh man. My eyes are really leaky. I put it in the house. We should all just get a room and just have one big huge orgy because they're all just like this like sexual tension that they just need to release somehow. What? You're that big. What? You're a big. You're a big. Big. What? We need to get merges. I'm going all this. I'm going all this.
或者听着，这对独裁者本人，Chamath PolyHoppitya 和 Rain Man来说，这是一集精彩的节目。没错，一定要燃烧起来，小宝贝 David Sacks 以及科学之王，藜麦之后，恐慌症之子和 Ted 王位的继承者，世界上最伟大的会议的创造者，David Freiberg。我是世界上最棒的主持人。下次再见。我爱你们，伙计们。全力以赴。再见。再见。我爱你，Ted's的爸爸。Ted's的爸爸。Ted's的爸爸，小宝贝。Ted's的爸爸，小宝贝。这是我狗狗拍的照片。我祝你有个漂亮的车道。谢谢。我们会知道的。哦，天啊。我的眼睛真的很湿润。我把它放在房子里。我们应该都待在一个房间里，然后开一个大派对，因为他们之间都有一种性紧张感，需要以某种方式释放出来。什么？你是那么大。什么？你是个大东西。你是个大东西。大东西。什么？我们需要得到合并。我全力以赴。我全力以赴。