开放权重 AI 之争：监管、版权、价值迁移与基础设施

All right, everybody. Welcome back. Episode 282 of the world's greatest podcast. It's your podcasters's favorite podcast. It's your mom's favorite podcast. It's the All-In podcast. With me again, David Sax up to you, David Freeberg. It was a big week. It was a big week. Uh the continuing number one story in the world is Kimmy K3. It's sparked a debate about banning Chinese open-source models here in the United States and it's gone all the way to the White House last Friday. 好了，各位，欢迎回来。这是世界上最棒的 podcast 第 282 集，是你最喜欢的 podcaster 最喜欢的 podcast，也是你妈妈最喜欢的 podcast——All-In Podcast。今天再次和我一起的是 David Sacks，还有你，David Friedberg。这是重要的一周，确实是重要的一周。世界上持续排名第一的新闻是 Kimi K3，它引发了一场争论：美国是否应该禁止中国的 open-source models；争论在上周五一路进入 White House。

We talked about it here. China's Moonshot AI released Kimmy K3 open source model. Obviously performance on par on par not 6 months behind not 12 months behind but now on par with models like Opus 4.8 and GPT 5.6 six, which in and of itself is extraordinary, but about 50% cheaper and uh this has created a bit of a panic similar to the Deep Seek moment that we had here back in early 2025. The White House, David Saxs, has gotten involved. 我们在节目里谈过：中国的 Moonshot AI 发布了 open-source model Kimi K3。它的 performance 明显已经和 Opus 4.8、GPT 5.6 这类 models 相当——不是落后六个月或十二个月，而是现在就相当。这本身已经很惊人，而且价格还便宜约 50%。这造成了一点恐慌，类似 2025 年初的 DeepSeek 时刻。 David Sacks，White House 已经介入。

Michael Katzio, friend of the show, said, quote, "We have information that Moonshot AI distilled anthropics fable for the development of its K3 model. Here's how the Trump administration has reacted so far. 节目朋友 Michael Kratsios 说：“我们掌握的信息显示，Moonshot AI 在开发 K3 model 时，对 Anthropic 的 Fable 进行了 distillation。 ”Trump administration 目前的反应如下。

Monday, Axios reported the White House was considering banning Chinese open source models. A couple of weeks ago, David, I I think it was three weeks ago, I I gave that to you as a hypothetical, and here we are. On Wednesday, Wired reported that Howard Letic, friend of the show, does not want to ban Chinese models. 周一 Axios 报道，White House 正考虑禁止中国 open-source models。 David，几周前——我想是三周前——我曾把这作为假设抛给你，如今真的走到了这里。周三 Wired 报道，节目朋友 Howard Lutnick 不希望禁止中国 models。

So apparently palace intrigue there might be different opinions inside Trump's white house and instead they want to incentivize more US frontier labs to develop better open source models. Poly market says 45% chance US government bans an open source model in 2026. Uh that was a brand new market started just it was at 22% a couple days ago. Saxs um you called it two months ago. Our first victory fap of the episode. 看来 Trump 的 White House 内部存在不同意见；他们可能不想禁，而是激励更多美国 frontier labs 开发更好的 open-source models。 Polymarket 认为，美国政府在 2026 年禁止某个 open-source model 的概率为 45%。这是刚开的新市场，几天前还只有 22%。 Sacks，你两个月前就预测到了。

I think where it's all leading to is an effort to ban opensource models. There's a lot of breadcrumbs leading here. If you look at a lot of the rhetoric around how models need to have guard rails and that with open source models, the guardrails can be removed and therefore they're dangerous. You see this rhetoric already in Anthropics blog posts. Any threat that they describe, they kind of go out of their way to take that shot at open source models. 这是本集第一次 victory lap。我认为所有事情最终都指向禁止 open-source models；有很多线索通向这里。看看关于 models需要 guardrails 的大量论述：open-source models 的 guardrails 可以移除，所以很危险。 Anthropic 的 blog posts 中已经有这种论调。无论描述哪种 threat，他们似乎都会刻意顺带攻击 open-source models。

I think again they're trying to create ideas or put predicate facts in the public record to justify an action later on. I think it's just a matter of time before they feel like 我仍然认为，他们在制造观点、把前提性事实写进公共记录，为以后采取行动提供 justification。我觉得只要时机成熟，

主持人 they're at a position where maybe they can push for that type of ban directly. 他们最终会直接推动这类 ban。

嘉宾 All right, there it is. Sachs, what's going on at the White House? What is the administration's position here? Why are we getting multiple? Is the White House testing and and probing to figure out what their position is here or is it just this is a super dynamic situation? What's going on? 好，预测已经摆在这里。Sacks，White House 里究竟发生了什么？administration 的立场是什么？为什么会听到多个版本？White House 是在试探、摸索自己的立场，还是因为局势变化太快？

主持人 Well, look, I mean, I have it on good authority that there is no decision by the White House to ban open- source models and I think they want that known. I think there's an ongoing conversation happening around what to do about Chinese distillation and we should talk about that. But no decision has been made and the president listens to a course of voices. He wants to get advice from as many people as possible. 嗯，据我从可靠渠道了解，White House 并没有作出。禁止 open-source models 的决定，我想他们也希望大家知道这一点。关于怎样处理中国 distillation，确实存在持续讨论，这值得谈。但目前没有决定；President 会听取各种声音，希望获得尽可能多人的建议。

And I'm confident that if everybody weighs in that the president will make the right decision as he always has with these tech issues. I think his instincts have been absolutely impeccable on this and he's always supported a let's say lighter regulation more open approach and that's why I think the US is winning the AI race. So I think that's kind of where things stand. Um 我相信，只要各方都充分表达，President 会像此前处理这些tech issues 一样作出正确决定。我觉得他在这方面的直觉非常好，始终支持较轻的 regulation 和更开放的路线；正因如此，我认为美国正在赢得 AI race。目前大致就是这种状态。

嘉宾 where do you stand? Where do you stand Sax? That's what everybody wants to know. 你的立场呢，Sacks？每个人都想知道。

主持人 Yeah, I think it's important for me to make my opinion known in the spirit of again contributing my voice so the president hears all perspectives and then can make the best decision. Look, I think it would be a tragic mistake if the government were to take action against the open source ecosystem. That would do nothing but hurt America's position in this AI race. It would backfire badly. 对，我认为应该公开自己的 opinion，为讨论贡献声音，让。 President 听到全部 perspectives，作出最佳决定。我认为政府如果对 open-source ecosystem 采取行动，会是悲剧性的错误。它只会损害美国在 AI race 中的位置，并严重反噬。

And I think that the key point here is that regardless of what you think about distillation, you cannot punish American developers for it. So, you know, you can't say that American companies and American developers can't use Chinese contributions to the public domain. That's just cutting off our nose to spite our face. I mean, obviously, 关键是：无论你怎样看 distillation，都不能因此惩罚美国 developers。不能说美国 companies 和 developers 不得使用中国对 public domain 的贡献；那是损己害人。

嘉宾 American companies have to be able to use everything that's in the public domain because the rest of the world will be using those things. And let me just say, I've said for a while that Anthropic is guilty of regulatory capture, of attempts to seek government protection. This is a company that is the fastest growing tech company at scale in history. They started the year at 10 billion of ARR. They're now over 70 billion of ARR. 显然，美国 companies 必须能够使用 public domain 中的一切，因为世界其他地方也会使用。再说一句：我一直认为 Anthropic 涉嫌 regulatory capture，试图寻求 government protection。这家公司是有史以来规模化增长最快的 tech company：年初 ARR 为 100 亿美元，现在超过 700 亿美元。

This is not a company that needs government protection. This is not a company that is under threat from competitors or or whether they're Chinese or otherwise. And yet they have been very successful at trying to panic everybody into thinking that they need some sort of government protection. 它不需要 government protection，也没有受到中国或其他 competitors 的生存威胁。但它非常成功地让所有人陷入恐慌，觉得它需要某种政府保护。

And the tell on this, the way that you know that this whole distillation thing is fake is because if stopping distillation was their primary objective, Anthropic would push to ban Chinese access to American models, not American access to Chinese models. 能够揭穿这一点、说明整个 distillation 说法站不住脚的迹象是：如果阻止 distillation 真是首要目标，Anthropic 应推动禁止中国访问美国 models，而不是禁止美国访问中国 models。

主持人 Yes, they could. And that is that is achievable. They could block it. So 是的，他们可以做到，技术上可行。

嘉宾 they're the ones in the best position to block it. If distillation, if industrial scale distillation is a national security threat, they're the ones who need to stop it because that is the place where distillation occurs. You have to stop it at the source. Once you allow Chinese companies to distill, the horse is out of the barn. 他们最有能力阻断它。如果 industrial-scale distillation 是 national security threat，就必须由他们在源头阻止，因为 distillation 正是在那里发生。一旦允许中国 companies 完成 distillation，就为时已晚。

主持人 Yeah. 对。

嘉宾 And the reality is that I think that what's happening here is that in their lust for growth, Anthropic has done a very poor job at stopping distillation. I mean they're saying that distillation is occurring at industrial scale. Okay, if it's industrial scale, it must be pretty obvious to see. So is waves of accounts being created by students rolled up and sold on the dark web, you know, in those kind of channels. 实际情况是，我认为 Anthropic 出于对增长的渴望，在阻止 distillation 方面做得很差。他们自己说 distillation正在 industrial scale 上发生。好，如果真是 industrial scale，应该很容易发现：大量 accounts 由学生创建，再被汇总到 dark web 渠道出售。

So you got people in Manila, in the Philippines, I understand, and India signing up for all those accounts and then sending them to the dark web and selling them using IP addresses from America. Yeah. So that that's how it occurs. But the more the more industrial scale it is, the more obvious it is to see. And Tamatha has been saying for a while, why don't you KYC your customers? Well, they know that if they KYC their customers, it'll slow their growth. 据我了解，Philippines 的 Manila、India 等地有人注册大量 accounts，随后通过 dark web 出售，并使用来自美国的 IP addresses。但规模越工业化，就越显眼。 Chamath 一直在问：为什么不对 customers 做 KYC？他们知道 KYC 会拖慢增长。

So instead, what they're saying is, hey, ban our competitors. Well, 于是他们不是解决自身问题，而是说：嘿，禁止我们的 competitors。

主持人 that's ridiculous. I mean, they're in the best position to stop the distillation. I think that they're negligent about doing that. or I mean if they really think it's that big a threat, they should use a few points of their 90% gross margins to do that. What you don't do is then say that American developers cannot use everything that's in the public domain. 这很荒唐。他们处于阻止 distillation 的最佳位置，我认为他们没有尽责；如果他们真的认为这是那么大的threat，就该从 90% gross margins 中拿出几个百分点处理。绝不能反过来说，美国 developers 不得使用 public domain 中的一切。

So it seems it seems to me that this debate is all backwards that the question should be on Anthropic to explain why it's doing such a bad job, not on the whole American open source ecosystem to be punished for Anthropic's failure. All right, Freberg,I have a really good question for you, but before we do that, Shimath, can you give me maybe a little bit of what you're hearing on your sales calls for 8090? You're talking to enterprises. 在我看来，这场 debate 完全倒置了：应该要求 Anthropic 解释为什么做得如此糟糕，而不是让整个美国 open-source ecosystem 为 Anthropic 的失败受罚。好，Friedberg，我有个很好的问题要问你，但先问 Chamath：能否讲讲你为 8090 做 enterprise sales calls 时听到的反馈？

They're hearing all these reports, whether it's you, Daario, this pod, other places talking about, hey, open source is ready. This is the moment. Get control, AI sovereignty, etc. They must be calling you up and saying, hey, okay, we're ready. Like, how do we get these things on prem? How do we do it? enterprise 听到你、Dario、本节目等不断说 open source 已经成熟，现在是获得 control、AI sovereignty 的时刻。它们一定在打电话问：好，我们准备好了，怎样部署 on-prem？

So what's the what's happening on those calls you're doing with the enterprise and then can you maybe give people an idea of what distillation is just and why it's so important here. 具体怎么做？所以这些enterprise calls 正在发生什么？另外，请给大家简单解释 distillation 是什么，为什么在这里如此重要。

嘉宾 Let's start with the second thing. Distillation is when you fire up a model and you ask it a question and you observe it and you take its output and you use that in training of your own model. Now multiply that behavior by tens of millions and what you exfiltrate is essentially trillions of questions and answers. And Sax is right. If you really care about distillation, you implement KYC. 先答第二个。 Distillation 就是启动一个 model，向它提问、观察 response，再把 output 用于训练自己的 model。把这个行为扩大数千万倍，实质上就会提取出 trillions 个 questions and answers。

You force people to make an account, not just with a username and a password, but with some form of identification, maybe with a bounded credit card. There's all kinds of steps that you can take that would frankly slow things down in terms of revenue traction, but would solve the distillation problem on its face. So, that isn't really a thing. It's a bit of a red herring. The other thing on distillation is everybody has at some point distilled. Sacks 说得对：如果真的在意 distillation，就实施 KYC；强制用户创建 account 时不只提供 username/password，还要提供某种identification，或绑定 credit card。 [吸气] 有很多措施会拖慢 revenue traction，却能从表面上解决 distillation 问题。所以，distillation 并不是真正的核心，多少是 red herring。另一个事实是：每个人在某个时候都做过 distillation，问题只是谁从谁那里 distill。

The question is who is distilling from whom? And it looks like that funny meme where there's like nine Spider-Man all pointing at each other. That's what this is because Anthropic has distilled from all of these publishers. They just pay a $ 1.5 billion fine. Apparently, Open AI distilled from the New York Times. There's still an ongoing lawsuit. the Chinese labs have distilled from anthropic. 它就像那张九个 Spider-Man 互相指着对方的 meme。 Anthropic 从大量 publishers 那里 distill，刚支付 15 亿美元 settlement；OpenAI 据称从 New York Times distill，lawsuit 仍在进行；中国 labs 又从 Anthropic distill。

主持人 It's wholesale stealing everywhere. Yeah. 到处都是 wholesale stealing。

嘉宾 Well, I don't want to call it stealing because it's not clear who actually owns the copyright in the first place. But here should be the important observation. These models are getting commoditized much faster than anybody thought. And how do we know this? Because there is no meaningful sustained advantage once a model publishes their performance criteria. 我不想称为 stealing，因为最初究竟谁拥有 copyright 并不明确。但重要观察是：models 的 commoditization 速度远超任何人预期。我们怎么知道？因为一旦某个 model 公布 performance criteria，就不存在有意义、可持续的 advantage。

What you see is literally within weeks other models some open some closed some open weight who are able to match and in some cases exceed the performance. 你会看到，短短几周内，其他 models——有 open、closed、open-weight——就能追平，有时甚至超过其 performance。

So I think what's happening here is a handful of American companies have realized whoa this value that we are seeing today may not be sustainable in a 5 and 10 year period and when you go and present a business model to Wall Street you need to have that certainty otherwise it impacts your valuation and so I think a lot of what's happening right now Jason is a valuation preservation game by the closed frontier labs because if you actually understood how commoditized these things are becoming and the velocity at which it's happening. 所以我认为，少数美国 companies 已经意识到：哇，今天看到的价值在五到十年后未必可持续。而向 Wall Street 展示 business model 时，需要这种确定性，否则 valuation 会受影响。因此 Jason，我认为现在很多行动都是 closed frontier labs 的 valuation-preservation game。

You see that the real business model is not in the foundational model anymore. It's at the application layer above and it's in the infrastructure below whether that's the cloud or whether that's chips. 只要真正理解 models 正在以多快速度 commoditize，就会看到：真正的 business model 已不在 foundation model，而在上方的 application layer，以及下方的 infrastructure，无论 cloud 还是 chips。

And so I think in the absence of regulatory intervention and in the absence of the United States government stepping in to put their thumb on the scale, what will happen is that as people learn about how value is changing, they're going to put more value in the application layer and more value in the infrastructure layer. That is bad for closed frontier labs, especially when they're mispriced 25 to 50x the open alternative. 如果没有 regulatory intervention，也没有美国政府人为改变竞争天平，随着人们理解价值如何变化，他们会把更多价值赋予 application layer 和 infrastructure layer。这对 closed frontier labs 不利，尤其当其定价比 open alternative 高 25 到50 倍。

And so this is an attempt to stop a competitor that is of the same quality but just much cheaper. Now there's another important thing here which is if the United States government intervenes it will tank the stock market. 所以这是阻止一个质量相同、但便宜得多的 competitor 的尝试。还有一点很重要：如果美国政府干预，会让 stock market 暴跌。

主持人 Okay? 好？

嘉宾 Period. Not debatable. Now you can debate which companies get tanked and we can probably play that scenario out. 就是如此，没有争议。当然可以讨论哪些 companies 会跌，我们也可以推演。

But for example, if they said no more open source, American companies cannot use open source. Okay, let's just take at it from a stock perspective. Let's take an average normal company, Coca-Cola. Hey, Coca-Cola, you're trying to use AI to improve your business. You know what? You can only use these two options. And those things cost 50 to 100 times more than your other best alternative that you may use otherwise. 比如政府说不准再用 open source，美国 companies 不能使用。单从 stock 角度，拿 Coca-Cola 这种普通公司来说：你想用 AI 改善 business，但只能选两个 options，而且它们比原本最佳 alternative 贵 50 到 100 倍。

that will eventually show up in your costs because AI is supposed to be this incredible thing that just kind of solves every problem and does everything for you. And so this incredibly important input into your cost model is now orders of magnitude multiples greater than your competitors that are outside the United States simply because you're in the United States. So what would the capital markets do? They're going to say, "Wow, you have a crazy cost structure. 最终必然反映在 costs 中，因为 AI 被认为能解决所有问题、替你完成一切。现在这个极重要的 cost input 比美国以外 competitors 高出几个数量级，只因为你位于美国。 capital markets 会怎么做？会说：哇，你的cost structure 太疯狂、不合理；你被迫承担既不理性、也不是市场驱动的成本。

This doesn't make sense. you're forced to absorb costs that aren't rational nor market driven. So then Coca-Cola has to get rerated. But then you look at the people who are selling those tokens and this is where anthropic and open AAI need to understand. If the government comes in and actually tells you that there's no open source, their valuation will crater. Why? Because all of that revenue is artificially being propped up. 于是 Coca-Cola 必须被重新估值。再看出售 tokens 的公司——Anthropic 和 OpenAI 需要明白：如果政府消灭 open source，它们的 valuation 也会坍塌，因为所有 revenue 都被人为托高，

主持人 It's not being driven by market demand where you're being forced to compete. It's because of regulatory capture where you now get an artificial constraint, but it only works in one market. And so anyways, all roads lead to market chaos. 不是由真实 market demand 驱动。你不再被迫竞争，而是通过 regulatory capture 获得人为限制，而且只在一个 market 生效。总之，所有道路都通向 market chaos。

嘉宾 Love it. Yeah. 很好。

主持人 If anybody gets involved, so we should just not get involved. What it sounds like is you're saying that American enterprises will pay a token tax if the government gives anthropic and open AI a government enforced duopoly 所以任何人都不该介入。听起来你是说：如果政府给 Anthropic 和 OpenAI 一个政府强制的 duopoly，美国 enterprise 将支付 token tax，

嘉宾 and enterprises are no longer free to use open source like the rest of the world. Yes. Yeah. The markets with the cap. We will put ourselves on an island. Yeah. We'll be on an island of overly expensive AI. You can have CocaCola or Pepsi or Coca-Cola or Pepsi. Yeah. Well, it's not your beverage choices. You have two beverage choices, but they cost 50 times more than Coke outside of America. This is the point. We already have Coke everywhere. So, 而且不能像世界其他地方一样自由使用 open source。对。市场会有 cap。我们会把自己困在孤岛。成为 expensive AI 的孤岛。你可以选 Coca-Cola 或 Pepsi。但这不是普通饮料选择；你有两个选择，可价格是美国以外 Coke 的 50 倍。重点是，世界已经有便宜 Coke。

主持人 you can buy 50 cent coke or $50 Coke. Why would you buy $50 Coke when you can buy 50 cent coke? 你可以买 50 美分的 Coke，也可以买 50 美元的 Coke；为什么买后者？

嘉宾 Yeah. 对。

主持人 All right. Let's get Let me get free here. Yeah. 好，让 Friedberg 发言。

嘉宾 Okay. I was going to say just just just one thing on this. This goes back to my point of these proposals to ban open source that are coming from anthropic. They don't solve the distillation problem. If dissolation is a problem, you have to stop it at the source. In other words, if you want to ban open source in America, the rest of the world will still be using Chinese open models. 我只补充一点：Anthropic 提出的 open-source ban 并不能解决 distillation。若 distillation 是问题，必须从源头阻止。即使在美国禁 open source，世界其他地方仍会使用中国 open models。

We want to solve that problem. 我们想解决那个问题。

主持人 Yes. And that means they'll get the data and they'll get the reinforcement learning and then we lose the AI race guaranteed. Freedberg, let's take it from a Graham Allison and level up the discussion here. Would be quite provocative to ban the Chinese models. How does Xi Jinping respond to that? How does the CCP respond to that? This is a crazy chessboard. It would seem like a pretty escalatory and we'll be going up the ladder. Yeah, Freeberg. 对。否则它们会获得 data 和 reinforcement learning，我们将必输 AI race。Friedberg，让我们用 Graham Allison 的层次提升讨论。禁止中国 models 会非常 provocative；Xi Jinping 和 CCP 会怎样回应？这张棋盘很危险，像是一次 escalation。Friedberg。

嘉宾 Yeah, I look I don't I don't think it's as relevant that the open source model is published by China yet that there may be security risks, but those can be estimated and addressed. I think on the three things that are worth highlighting on this this issue, I'm I'm very much aligned with Sax and Chim and I think the three things are really around distillation. And I don't think distillation is just about AI. 我认为 open-source model 由中国发布并不是最相关的点。可能存在 security risks，但可以评估和处理。我和 Sacks、Chamath 基本一致，有三件事值得强调。第一是 distillation；它并不只属于 AI。

You know, distillation is a process whereby you look at the end product that someone else has produced in thinking about and learning about how to engineer your product. It is a common technique that is used across every product category in every industry. One car maker will look at how the other car maker's car operates and they will use that to help them design a better car. Distillation 是观察别人最终product，再从中思考和学习怎样 engineer 自己的 product。这是每个 industry、每类 product 都常用的 technique。一家 car maker 会研究另一家 car 的运行方式，用来设计更好的车。

You know, at Google in the early days, we would submit millions of search queries to Yahoo and Microsoft search engines to see what the result sets were and we would compare our results against their results as a way of improving our search engine rankings and our algorithm. It was a very common technique. It doesn't mean we were stealing their algorithm. We didn't go into their servers and steal their software. Google 早期会向 Yahoo 和 Microsoft search engines 提交数百万 search queries，观察 result sets，把对方结果与自己的对比，以改善 rankings 和 algorithm。这很常见，不代表偷走 algorithm；我们没有进入 servers 窃取 software，而是观察 output 来改进自己的 software。

We looked at the output of their software and use that to improve our software. It was called benchmarking, right? It was benchmark. You can call it there's been a million terms. Exactly. Right. And so I don't think that this matters as much. I think the question around copyright infringement or IP infringement 这叫 benchmarking，对吧？可以叫很多名字，没错。所以我认为这没有想象中重要。真正的问题是copyright 或 IP infringement。

主持人 Sax is right. There's a terms of service question here, but that's on the service providers to fix the terms of service blocking people from doing this if they so chose. Sacks 说得对，存在 Terms of Service 问题；service providers 若选择禁止，应自己修订并执行 terms。

嘉宾 But the copyright argument, the IP argument is really about did they steal the software? They didn't steal the software and they just looked at the output. 但 copyright/IP 争议真正要问的是：他们偷 software 了吗？没有，只观察 output。

主持人 That's not IP infringement. That's not copyright infringement in the classical sense. And so I do think from a distillation IP argument perspective,it's the output, not the process that matters. So the question is, are they taking copies of copyrighted software and using it or are they looking at the output? And so I think output not process of engineering is what you really need to assess here. 以传统意义说，这不是 IP 或 copyright infringement。因此从 distillation/IP 的角度，关键是 output，而不是 process。要判断他们是在复制 copyrighted software，还是观察 output。

嘉宾 Can I insert something free?

comment on it is I think a lot of people in the let's say policym community don't understand this distinction but I think everybody in tech does and I think it's a big part of why there's a disconnect on this is there's a huge difference between model weights and outputs right so the weights are the it's the file of numbers it's the numerical parameters in the software code that's the code that's the software that's the code and if Chinese companies were to steal weights proprietary weights from anthrop ropic or open AI that would be theft. 我补一句。我觉得 policy community 很多人不理解这个区别，但 tech 圈都懂，这正是双方脱节的重要原因：model weights 与 outputs 有巨大差异。 weights 是由数字组成的 file，是 software code 中的 numerical parameters；那才是 code，。是 software。如果中国 companies 窃取 Anthropic 或 OpenAI 的 proprietary weights，那会是 theft。

Okay, but that's not what we're talking about here because no one's accused that. What we're talking about here is taking model outputs and then trying to learn from them and 但现在讨论的不是这个，因为没有人这样指控。现在讨论的是取得 model outputs，再尝试从中学习，。

主持人 using other people's software to learn. 使用别人的 software 学习。

嘉宾 Yes. And it's exactly the situation you said with like the the Google searches or whatever. And here's the thing that's so hypocritical is that OpenAI and Anthropic have both argued that they are free to train on all the world's output regardless of whether the creator wants them to or not. 对，就像刚才 Google searches 的例子。最 hypocritical 的一点是，OpenAI 和 Anthropic 都主张：无论创作者是否同意，它们都有权在全世界的 output 上训练。

主持人 That's right. 对。

嘉宾 That is their current position. That's like Chimath mentioned the New York Times lawsuit. The New York Times is suing suing OpenAI right now 这正是 Chamath 提到的 New York。 Times lawsuit。New York Times 正起诉 OpenAI，

主持人 for going onto the New York Times website in violation of the New York Times terms of service, scraping all the information and training on it. 因为 OpenAI 违反该网站 Terms of Service，scrape 所有信息并训练。

嘉宾 And Open AI's argument is look, we're not stealing anything. We're taking the output of the New York Times and we are deriving our own model weights. And that is exactly what these Chinese models are doing is is they are taking the output of American models and then they're deriving their own weights. They're learning from it. OpenAI 的论点是：我们没有偷东西，只利用 New York Times 的 output 推导出自己的 model weights。而中国 models 所做的完全一样：取得美国 models 的 output，再推导自己的 weights，从中学习。

Yeah. And so the accusation though, just so we're clear here, is that there's ethical issues around the industrial scale covert breaking of terms of service. That's what the White House has been terms of service as well. So just so people understand like there is a bit of recognition of that. Look, let me let me be clear that I'm not defending China in this. In fact, you know, look at my my bonafides. I was the first administration official to even talk about distillation. 对。但明确一下，指控是 industrial-scale、covert 地违反 Terms of Service 存在 ethical issues。 White House 关注的是 Terms of Service，大家应理解这里并非完全没有问题。我不是在为中国辩护。看看我的资历：我是第一位公开谈 distillation 的 administration official。

I did it in January of 2025 when deep sea came out. I went on Laura Ingram and I think I was probably the first person in the government to even explain this concept publicly to people and moreover, you know, I was a co-author of the winning the AI race report in which the whole premise of it was that we want to win. We want to beat China. So, you know, I'm definitely not someone in this camp that doesn't want the US to win. I want the US to win. The question is how. 2025 年 1 月 DeepSeek 出现时，我上 Laura Ingraham 的节目，可能是政府里第一个公开向大家解释概念的人。我也是 Winning the AI Race report 的 co-author，整份报告前提就是美国要赢、要击败中国。所以我绝不是不希望美国获胜的人；我希望美国赢。

And if we shoot ourselves in the foot by banning open source, which is to say not letting all of our American companies take advantage of open source when the rest of the world is able to, then that is a huge problem. Now, I'm fine with Anthropic and Open AI enforcing their terms of service. They need to do a better job, stop the distillation from occurring in the first place. 问题在于怎样赢。如果通过禁止 open source 自伤，也就是不让美国 companies 利用世界其他地方都能用的 open source，那会是巨大问题。我支持 Anthropic、OpenAI 执行 Terms of Service；它们应该从一开始更好地阻止 distillation。

If there are things that the government can do to help them, okay, but I'm not sure what those things are. What needs to happen is those companies need to do a better job enforcing their terms of service. 如果政府可以提供帮助，可以，但我不确定具体是什么。最需要的是这些 companies 更好地执行 Terms of Service。

主持人 Yes. 对。

嘉宾 Okay. Now, Freeberg, you had you I think you said you had three points to make. I think you made one. I want to get the other two out of you. Friedberg，你说有三点，现在讲了第一点，请说另外两点。

主持人 Yeah. So, the other one was just on the free speech argument, which is look, what is an open-source model? And I think the audience needs to understand this if you're not from the software industry, but open source is a downloadable package of software. You can think about it as downloading a a text, a book. You just got all the code. Once you get the code, you've got it on your computer. You don't have to be connected to the internet. You can just run it and use it. 第二是 free speech。什么是 open-source model？非 software 行业的听众需要理解：open source 是可以下载的软件包，像下载一篇 text 或一本 book。你得到全部 code；一旦下载到 computer，就不必连接 internet，也能直接运行。

And I think part of the challenge that's going to be faced here, if there is any attempt at restricting open source, it's going to open a can of worms on how do you actually enforce restrictions on open source because you're basically telling people once they've downloaded and gotten a copy of this free publicly available software, they're not allowed to use it. And that becomes a real challenge. I don't think we have a lot of great precedent for that. 若试图限制 open source，会打开一罐复杂问题：怎样执行限制？这等于告诉人们，已经下载并拥有一份免费、公开的软件后，却不允许使用。我们几乎没有良好 precedent；阻止 open source 会非常难看。当然可能有copyright action，但应经过 legal due process，证明后再阻止发布。

It's going to be very ugly to try and stop open source.

I do think there's a question on like copyright action but if there is there's a legal due process to go through to make that case and stop that open source from being available and then my third point is just open source is better for the world to Chimath's point this is 100 times cheaper that is better for the industry for enterprise the beneficiaries are going to be the economy the consumer fundamentally if you look back on the internet in the early days Netscape made a proprietary browser and a proprietary server software, the Netscape software, and that they went public, and they were the first to do this, and it was super it was super valuable and profitable. 第三，正如 Chamath 所说，open source 对世界更好：便宜 100 倍，对 industry 和 enterprise 更好，最终 beneficiaries 是 economy 和 consumer。回看 internet 早期，Netscape 制作 proprietary browser 和 server software，并上市，最初价值和利润都极高，最终却被 open source 击败。

That company ended up getting crushed because of open- source. The Mozilla Foundation was formed to create an open-source web browser called Firefox, and then Google ended up hiring everyone and made it Chrome, but it was still open source. The Apache Foundation set up the first HTTP server as an open-source product. Mozilla Foundation 建立 Firefox；后来 Google 雇走许多人做 Chrome，但它仍是 open source。 Apache Foundation 则推出第一个 open-source HTTP server。

Rather than having to pay Netscape or Microsoft or Oracle for their server software, anyone with a computer could download the Apache software and make a web server and be on the internet and create a website. And what ended up happening is the value acrewed to the internet. It didn't acrue to the small number of software providers that controlled the gate and the portal of the internet. 人们不必向 Netscape、Microsoft 或 Oracle 购买 server software；任何有 computer 的人都能下载 Apache，建立 web server、接入 internet、创建 website。最终，价值归于 internet，而不是控制入口和门户的少数 software providers。

Basically, everything got open sourced and Google took off and eBay took off and Etsy and Amazon and all the millions of small websites and all the millions of small businesses and everyone that benefited from an openly accessible open-sourced internet. 几乎所有东西都 open source 后，Google、eBay、Etsy、Amazon 等得以爆发。数百万小网站、小企业，以及所有从开放可访问的 open-source internet 受益的人都出现了。

If the internet was closed and there was proprietary software gates and portals throughout the internet that everyone had to pay to get through, the internet would not have taken off and the economy wouldn't have grown and all these jobs would have been called AOL and Coffee Serve like and now now when we look at this analogy, the analogy here is if open-source AI takes off, then all the worries that Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren and all the socialists are harping and larking about are not going to be the case anymore because you're not going to see all the value of AI acrue to two or three or four companies and their small group of billionaire shareholders. 如果 internet 是封闭的，到处有 proprietary software gates 和 portals，所有人都必须付费通过，它不会起飞，economy 也不会增长，所有 jobs 可能只属于 AOL 和 CompuServe。把 analogy 放到今天：如果 open-source AI 普及，Bernie Sanders、Elizabeth Warren 和 socialists 不断担忧的情况就不会发生，因为 AI 的全部价值不会集中到两三四家公司及其少数 billionaire shareholders。

What will happen is AI proliferates and a million AI integrated enterprises all over the world will benefit. Everyone will benefit. The economy will grow, jobs will be created and AI becomes a power for good for creating an open economy. So the I know that some people that are listening to this in the government and that are on the other side are going to say but but but Chinese open source versus American open source let it all proliferate. AI 会扩散，全球一百万家 AI-integrated enterprises 都将受益；每个人受益，economy 增长，jobs。被创造，AI 成为建立 open economy 的善的力量。政府里持反对意见的听众会说：但是中国 open source 和美国 open source 不一样。

And frankly if the Chinese are violating copyrights, stealing software, go after them for that. Put in place trade sanctions. Do all the you can do to stop that from happening. But fundamentally open- source AI will transform the global economy and it will ensure that the economic value of AI will diffuse to everyone and not be held captive by a small number. 我的回答是都让它们扩散。如果中国违反 copyright、偷 software，就针对行为追责、实施 trade sanctions，尽力阻止。但从根本上说，open-source AI 会改造 global economy，确保 AI economic value 扩散到所有人，不被少数人挟持。

Why the 1% that controls open source if they have it the oligarchs are going to get their clocks rung and we don't need to have a wealth tax. Chamathy we're going to add to this. 既然 open source 不由那 1% 控制，oligarchs 会受到打击，我们也不需要 wealth tax。 Chamath，你要补充。

嘉宾 We have to acknowledge that it's incredible how fast the value capture at this segment of the market has basically evaporated. I've never seen it in my 25 years in Silicon Valley where a sector of the economy can absorb hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars and then you think that there's going to be economic pricing power many decades into the future and it effectively evaporates in months. Months. 必须承认，这个 market segment 的 value capture 消失得如此快，令人难以置信。我在 Silicon Valley 25 年从未见过：一个 sector 吸收数千亿美元，大家以为它未来几十年都有 economic pricing power，结果几个月内就蒸发。是几个月。

主持人 It took off in months. Remember remember and it's evaporated in months. 它也是几个月内起飞，然后又几个月内蒸发。

嘉宾 No, I got this is an area where I disagree with you guys. 不，这一点我不同意。

主持人 Evaporate is strong term. It it does look like it could slow down or it could or or it could plateau. “蒸发”太强；看起来可能减速或进入 plateau。

嘉宾 Go ahead, Sax. Make your argument and I'll give you my argument. Sacks 先讲 argument，我再讲。

主持人 Yeah, but let me pull up the anthropic revenue chart before you go there, Saxs, because we can this will help mitigate it here and educate the audience. So, as you can see here, we got a little bit of a stall in anthropics revenue uh in the last couple of months. And it seems and and this is third party tracking. So it's it's not perfect data, but we do see that this is a a clear headwind. And then do you have the second chart I had? 先把 Anthropic revenue chart 放出来，帮助 audience 理解。这里能看到最近几个月 revenue 稍有停滞。这是 third-party tracking，不是完美 data，但确实显示 headwind。

Um I talked on the pod just uh it was last week or the week before when we're having the discussion about open source and like I think it was um Brad Gersonner uh from alimter was talking about hey tokens are still growing. Well there are routers that track open router. the better an open source model does and the easier it is to implement on your own servers and take it in-house etc. Those are dark tokens. 还有第二张 chart。上周或上上周节目讨论 open source 时，Altimeter 的 Brad Gerstner 说 tokens 仍在增长。确实有 OpenRouter 等 routers 做 tracking，但一个 open-source model 越好、越容易在自己 servers 部署、收回 in-house，那些使用量就是 dark tokens，不会在任何 revenue chart 中记录，因为它们基本免费，只需 servers 和 energy。

They're not recorded and you're not going to see them show up on a revenue chart anywhere because they're free essentially. You just need to have servers and energy to to do them. And here you see that now well over 50% and um a lot of these are coming from Chinese. 现在超过 50%，许多来自中国。

嘉宾 By the way, Sax, I want to be clear before you give the counter. I'm not saying that these companies won't make money. That's not what I'm saying. But what I am saying is that markets are very savvy in looking through current earnings and asking a very specific question which is what does this revenue look like 10 years from now? Does it go up? Does it go down? Is there more competition or is there less competition? Is it effectively monopolistic or is it more of a commodity? Sacks，在你反驳前先明确：我不是说这些 companies 不会。赚钱。我是说 markets 很擅长看穿当前 earnings，追问十年后的 revenue：上升还是下降？ competition 更多还是更少？接近 monopoly 还是 commodity？如果是 commodity，有多少人能定价？

If it's a commodity, how many people can price this good? At what price is the market clearing price of that good in 10 years? And all I'm saying is normally those variables get exposed. Those cards get turned over relatively slowly. And so you have 5 10 year cycles to transition from being an exclusive provider of a good to effectively a commodity provider of a good. 十年后的 market-clearing price 是多少？通常这些 variables 会很慢暴露，一家 exclusive provider 有五到十年转为 commodity provider。

And all I'm observing is it's so unique that only technology could create a market where that cycle could get compressed into a few years because it is very hard if you're an allocator of money to sit there and look at this data and not wonder to yourself why it's not a commodity in 5 to 7 to 10 years. And when when they get to that conclusion, which every capital allocator will because it'll be pretty negligent to not, it's very hard to assign huge future premiums. 我的观察只是：只有 technology 能创造这种 market，把周期压缩到几年。作为 capital allocator，看到这些 data 很难不问：五、七、十年后它为什么不会变成 commodity？所有 allocator 都会得出该结论，否则就是 negligent。那时就很难赋予巨大的 future premiums。

And where the real money is going, by the way, and we saw it in Google's earnings, which I'm sure we'll talk about, it's going to the cloud. It's going to the infrastructure. So, by the way, there's another cohort of people that don't want to see the end of open source because they want to serve the cheapest models possible because they know that's where all the margin capture is. 真正的 money 流向哪里？ Google earnings 已经显示：流向 cloud 和 infrastructure。还有一批人不希望 open source 消失，因为他们想提供尽可能便宜的 models，知道那里才有 margin capture。

主持人 What's your Where's this going, Sax? Is it both open? We're going to just see a proliferation. I mean as far as I'm concerned there is an unlimited appetite for ondemand intelligence and there's going to be I don't think there's an upper bound for how much intelligence you can tap as long as it's continues to get be better which then the thesis would be yeah it's a commodity and the prices keep going down but consumption keeps going up. Sacks，你觉得将走向哪里？ open 和 closed 都会扩散吗？在我看来，对 on-demand intelligence 的 appetite 没有限制，只要 intelligence 持续变好，就没有 consumption 上限。也就是说它成为 commodity，price 下降而 consumption 上升。

What's your thoughts on you have to assume that this is exactly the example that you guys used. It's a web browser and in a web browser it's a mechanism to get to a place and so the apps that are actually the places are where the value is captured and I think if you assume for a second that intelligence becomes completely ubiquitous. It's widely available. The marginal cost of it is effectively zero. 你的看法？你必须承认，它就是你们用的 web browser analogy。 browser 是到达目的地的 mechanism，真正作为目的地的 apps 才捕获 value。

The energy to generate it is effectively zero which I think is an accurate assumption. It's very hard to make the case of why this isn't like the browser 如果 intelligence 变得完全 ubiquitous、随处可得，marginal cost 和所需 energy 接近零——我认为这是准确 assumption——就很难说明它为什么不像 browser，

嘉宾 and it becomes just gets subsumed into the Amazon web services cloud businesses, Elon's web service, etc. Sax where do you think this is going? Then we're going to go to our second story which is the IP story. Third story is going to be the markets and Google specifically and Tesla and SpaceX. 最终被吸收到 Amazon Web Services、Elon 的 web service 等 cloud businesses 中。Sacks，你怎么看？之后进入第二个 story：IP；第三个是 markets、Google、Tesla 和 SpaceX。

主持人 Look, there's been a lot of violent agreement on this show so far. So, let me just make the counterargument. I think that both open source and closed source will be big winners in this. I think the market is huge and they each serve their purpose. 目前节目里大家 agree 得过于激烈，我来讲 counterargument。我认为 open source 和 closed source 都会成为大赢家；market 很大，各有用途。

What happened is with the introduction of committee K3, there was a little bit of a panic in which everybody said, "Oh my god, all the Chinese models have caught up and they're giving them away for free and they're going to destroy our leading American frontier labs and Anthropic and Open AI are running around saying, listen, we can't continue to invest billions of dollars if Chinese companies can just steal our weights." Right? Kimi K3 发布后有一点恐慌：大家说中国 models 追平了，而且免费提供，将摧毁美国领先 frontier labs；Anthropic、OpenAI 则到处说，如果中国 companies 随便偷 weights，我们无法继续投资 billions，对吧？

So that's the argument that they're making that government officials are responding to. The truth of the matter is that look when Kimmy K3 first launched I was concerned about it because I was like oh has China caught up are they now able to produce a much cheaper Frontier model. Then the details started coming out. So Ben Thompson on his blog went through some of the cost numbers and it turns out that Kimmy K3 is not that much cheaper to run. 这就是它们提出、government officials 回应的 argument。坦白说，Kimi K3 最初发布时我也担心：中国追上了吗？能以低得多的成本生产 frontier model 吗？后来 details 出来了。 Ben Thompson 在 blog 里分析 cost numbers，结果 Kimi K3 的运行成本没便宜多少，没有显著 cost advantage。

There's not a significant cost advantage to it. So that was that's point number one. Point number two is that China has not caught up. It's true that Kimmy K3 scored really well on the arena battleground for front-end coding for web development, but that's just one test. That's just one dimension. There are areas where it scores really well, but there's lots of other areas where it doesn't score that well. 这是第一点。第二，中国并未追上。 Kimi K3 在 Arena benchmark 的 front-end coding/web development 得分很好，但那只是一项 test、一个 dimension。

So, it is not a clear advance or a clear catch-up to the leading American models. Moreover, you still have stuff in the labs by Anthropic and Open AAI that is way ahead of this and the reports are that Sam is going to Washington over the next week to go talk about GPT 6.0 which is blowing the doors off. So, I don't believe that China has really caught up. I think there's 它有些领域表现好，也有很多领域一般，因此不代表全面 advance 或追平美国领先 models。而且 Anthropic、OpenAI labs 里尚未发布的东西仍远远领先。据报道，Sam 下周会去 Washington谈 GPT-6.0，据说表现惊人。所以我不相信中国真正追平。

嘉宾 Sam's going to go see daddy and what is he going to ask for? I think there's incredible unreleased models in the pipeline and we need to let our horses run here and not slow them down with a bunch of unnecessary hoops and if we do that I think we're going to be just fine. I don't believe that China has caught up. I still think we are 6 months ahead. Sam 要去见 daddy，准备要求什么？我认为 pipeline 中有极强的 unreleased models。应该让我们的 horses 自由奔跑，不要用不必要的 hoops 拖慢。这样我们会没事；我仍认为美国领先六个月。

And then just the final point on this if you look at revenue which is the test of real usage in the real world anthropic and open AI are blowing the doors off. They are by far the fastest growing tech companies at scale that we've ever seen. Jason, you showed this chart that supposedly shows a hiccup in anthropic. Listen, their internal forecast was to 10x this year from 10 to 100. We're in the middle of the year. They're already over 70 billion of ARR. 最后一点：看 revenue——real-world usage 的检验——Anthropic 和 OpenAI 增长惊人，是史上规模化增长最快的 tech companies。 Jason 展示的 chart 说 Anthropic 有 hiccup；但它们内部 forecast 是今年从 100 亿增长十倍到 1,000 亿 ARR。现在年中已超过 700 亿 ARR，

They're easily going to get to 100 billion. And we don't really know what this little blip is here. I think one thing it might be is that open AAI, if you superimpose the OpenAI chart on this, they have reacelerated over the past month. So I think that if you were to add Open AI, 很容易达到 1,000 亿。我们不知道这个小 blip 是什么；可能因为把 OpenAI chart 叠上去，会看到它过去一个月重新加速。

主持人 Codex is excellent. Codex is Codex 很棒。

嘉宾 Codex is excellent and I think they're taking a little bit of share and Sam is out there tweeting that we've got our mojo back and they're taking their forecast up. I think they were expecting to end the year at 60 billion of ARR and I think they're forecasting more like 75 billion of exit ARR. Codex 确实很棒，我认为 OpenAI 抢回一点 share；Sam 发帖说 mojo 回来了，而且提高。 forecast。原本预计年底 600 亿 ARR，现在像是 750 亿 exit ARR。

So my guess is that if you were to superimpose open AI and anthropic and looked at them together and you were basically just to say that you know let's call it the frontier model duopoly in the US you do not see any slowdown you don't see any blip they're taking their forecasts up and the reality is that if distillation is going on it's been a thing for you know again I pointed it out back in January of 2025 with deep seat so it's been a thing this entire time that they've been growing exponentially so I just don't believe that these guys are actually suffering in any way. 如果把 OpenAI 和 Anthropic 叠在一起，作为美国 frontier-model duopoly，就看不到 slowdown 或 blip；它们都上调 forecast。而 distillation 从2025 年 1 月 DeepSeek 时就存在，整个 exponential-growth 时期一直发生。

I don't think they need government protection. I think they're growing exponentially still. This is a little bit of a case of um you know what do you call it uh in basketball when a player flops you know that you did a foul flop or whatever. 因此我不相信它们正受伤，也不认为需要 government protection；它们仍指数增长。这有点像 basketball player flop，假装被犯规。

主持人 Yeah. It's a flop. Yeah. 对，就是 flop。

嘉宾 Well, or you you basically act super dramatic after a foul in order to draw the charge. You're foul baiting when you're trying to get a foul and then you're flopping which is just making like an exaggerated thing like LeBron does and that's exa Yes. It's a LeBron it's a flare flop, you know, whereop these guys are trying to they're trying to draw the foul. They're trying to get the government to intervene. Now, why are they doing this? 球员被犯规后夸张倒地，引诱 referee 判罚，就是 foul baiting 加 flopping，像 LeBron。没错，LeBron 式 flop。它们在 draw the foul，希望 government intervene。

Because they're in the middle of road shows right now. And Chamas, to your point, I do think they get the legitimate question about why won't you be commoditized over time by open source? And by far the best response to that would be that if they can lure the government into giving them a government protected duopoly, then that would be incredible. 为什么？因为正处于 road shows 中。 Chamath，正如你说的，投资者会合理追问：为什么未来不被 open source commoditize？最好的回答当然是把政府诱导成提供 protected duopoly。

主持人 The best answer is what you gave and anthropic and open AAI should own this because they're good at it, which is they're going to go up the stack to the application layer. 更好的答案其实是你说的，Anthropic、OpenAI 应承认自己的优势：它们会向 stack 上方的 application layer 移动。

嘉宾 Well, they already done 已经这么做了。

主持人 I know, but they've done it in this way which is a little ham-handed in some cases,but they're excellent at it. these enduser apps are really good and they should just own that. And that should be their answer to Wall Street, which is guys, we have the best model. We will eventually go up the stack. And if I were them, I'd actually practice the following answer. 我知道，但目前方式有点笨拙。但它们很擅长 end-user apps，应该坦然承认。对 Wall Street 的回答应是：我们有最好的 model，最终会向 stack 上游移动。

There may be a version of a model that I don't release and just keep for myself and I'll just use in my own applications. How about that? Yeah. Well, that would be that's the real answer. That's anti-competitive. This No, it's not. They're allowed to build a model and not release it and use it for themselves. Hold on. Hold on. Let me answer that. it would be anti-competitive in the eyes of their customers. 如果我是它们，会这样回答：也许某个 model 版本不对外 release，只留给自己 applications 使用，怎样？那会… …这才是真正答案。这是 anti-competitive。不，它们当然可以建立 model、不发布，只供自己使用。

It might not be in the governments, but if you are using them as a customer and you're lovable, which I talked to, and they're paying a ton of money or you're 11 Labs and you're paying them a ton of money and they say, "Hey, we got our latest and greatest. You can't use it cuz we're going to compete with your company." They would stop using it and they go to open source. I'll tell you why so I think you're wrong on this issue. I think open source is having its moment. 等等，我来回答。从 customers 眼里这会是 anti-competitive，即使政府不这么看。 Lovable、ElevenLabs 都付了很多钱；如果供应商说最新最强 model 不给你用，因为要和你的 company 竞争，它们会停止使用并转向 open source。所以我认为你错了；open source 的时刻已经到来。

I work with startups. They are all moving off of these and they're using open source and they're using it at much cheaper rates because a lot of the jobs don't need the latest models. They can use these uh the last generations models and people are moving them local. They're hosting them themselves. This is I think a nonzero chance that this is going to derail anthropic and open eyes uh IPOs and they're going to they're going to be fine. 我和 startups 合作，它们都在离开 closed models，以便宜得多的价格用 open source。许多 jobs 不需要最新 model，用上一代即可；很多人移到 local、自行 hosting。我认为这甚至有非零概率扰乱 Anthropic 和 OpenAI 的 IPO。

They're going to be fine as long as No, hold on. Let me finish guys. I'm making my point. Shut the up for 30 seconds. I believe that this is going to derail their IPOs. I'm taking it from the top. It's going to derail their IPOs. It's going to be headwinds against it because I think that they're going to have massive margin compression. I believe they're spending so much money that I think they're going to get caught in a trap. I think this could be a trap for them. 它们会没事。只要… …不，先让我讲完。都闭嘴 30 秒。我认为这会扰乱 IPO，形成 headwinds，因为会有 massive margin compression。它们花钱太多，可能掉进 trap：overspend、profitability 不够，账算不通。

They overspend. They don't have the same profitability and it doesn't pencil out. And startups are the future. The startups are what eventually the enterprise copies. I think you're wrong, Sax. Go ahead. [screaming] 而 startups 是未来，enterprise 最终会复制它们。 Sacks，我觉得你错了，继续。 [尖叫][笑]

嘉宾 Well, I'll come back, but let your mouth respond. Raise your hand. 我稍后回来，让 Chamath 回应。举手。

主持人 You're wrong. You're totally wrong. 你错了，完全错。

嘉宾 I think you're wrong. I think they have caught up for 95% of the jobs. This is a crazy head. I'm not saying that the IPOs are off, but I think that their market caps and the headwinds are coming. There's a non-zero chance that they're going to get slowed down. 我觉得它们在 95% jobs 上已经追平。这是巨大的 headwind。我不是说 IPO 取消，但 market caps 会面临压力，增长有非零概率减速。

主持人 I think the answer is slightly different. It's not that 95% of the bleeding edge tasks can be done by everybody. It's that 95% of the tasks can be done by many different models. That's the actual answer. And that's okay. And by the way, 准确答案略有不同：不是所有人能完成 95% bleeding-edge tasks，而是许多 models 能完成 95% 的普通 tasks。这没问题。

嘉宾 that's exactly right, Chimath. I agree. 完全正确，我同意。

主持人 It's also okay for Anthropic to say, you know what, I have this next generation class of model. I'm going to instantiate, I don't know, a life sciences program, a cyber security business. That's where they can capture as Saxs was saying before over time trillions and trillions of enterprise value because I do think they have excellent models and they have excellent engineers and they have momentum. Anthropic 也可以说：我有 next-generation model，要建立 life。 sciences program 或 cybersecurity business。正如 Sacks 所说，那里长远可捕获 trillions enterprise value；它们有优秀 models、engineers 和 momentum。

But if you're going to build a business model that tries to ascribe this layer as having a lot of terminal value, I think that that is a mathematical mistake. That's it. You can't do it. 但如果 business model 试图为基础 model layer 赋予大量 terminal value，那是 mathematical mistake，做不到。

Open source is going to be a spec a headwind to these companies specifically because all of their best customers and I talked to them whether it's lovable or 11 labs or the startups that were spending hundreds of thousands of dollars with them every quarter just last you know six months ago they have all moved on mass GLM52 making their own models the cat's out of the bag they are going to start losing a lot of customers to open source and Google and AWS and Elon Web Services are going to host them. Open source 会成为 headwind，因为它们最好的 customers——Lovable、ElevenLabs，以及六个月前每季度花数十万美元的 startups——已经大批转向 GLM-5.2 或自建 models。秘密已经公开，它们会开始失去大量customers；Google、AWS、Elon Web Services 会 hosting。

And how do I know this? Every time I do a job, I'm using Plexity Computer. Not not a paid partnership or anything. It just happens to be the best harness that I found. And I start with Grock, Neotron, GLM52, and I also put it into Claude and the results are as good or better. I in other words, I can't even tell the difference between these. 我怎么知道？我每次做任务都用 Perplexity Computer——不是付费合作，只是我找到的最好 harness。我从 Grok、Nemotron、GLM-5.2 开始，也放入 Claude；结果相当或更好，我甚至分不出差别。

嘉宾 Let's superimpose the the OpenAI numbers on top of the anthropic numbers because I think it supports the the point I'm trying to make. 把 OpenAI numbers 叠在 Anthropic 上，这支持我的观点。

主持人 These are estimates, by the way. This is not like literally from the companies. Just want to make sure people know. 顺便说，这些都是 estimates，不是 companies 官方数字。

嘉宾 So according to this company that I mean look, who knows how they derive this. We don't know that they're totally true. They're basically showing that OpenAI's run rate, which is ARR. It rose from 33 billion in May to 41.3 billion in July. 这家 tracking company 显示 OpenAI run rate/ARR 从 5 月 330 亿上升到 7 月 413 亿。

So they're seeing acceleration. Like I said, I mean Sam is out there saying they got their mojo back. They're going to have their best 12 months forward looking ever. And look, Anthropic is still growing really fast. We've talked about this on a previous show. It's not physically possible to grow 10x year over year forever. You'll run out of compute. You'll run out of energy. You'll run out of everything. There's just no Yeah. There's just no way to do things. 所以它们在加速。 Sam 说 mojo 回来了，未来 12 个月将是最好的一年。 Anthropic 仍快速增长；没有任何公司能永远同比增长十倍，compute、energy 等都会耗尽，物理上不可能。

But anthropic, I mean, look, if any if anybody had if anybody had said Anthropic would be at over 70 billion in the midpoint of the year back in January and they're at 10 billion, 但 Anthropic，如果有人在。 1 月、ARR 100 亿时预测年中超过 700 亿，。

主持人 nobody would have said it. 没人会相信。

嘉宾 You would have said this is the fastest growing tech company of all time. The idea that they're at risk of getting their entire franchise destroyed, it's not in the data yet is what I'm trying to say. And moreover, Jamas, to your point, it's not only about the model. It's also about the harness. It's about the connectors. It's about the enterprise agreements. There's a lot of things here that you need in order to grow a business like this. 大家会说这是史上增长最快 tech company。它的 franchise 正被毁掉，至少 data 中还看不出来。而且 Chamath 说得对，价值不只 model，还包括 harness、connectors、enterprise agreements，建立这种 business 需要很多东西。

And you know, this idea that they need to race to get government protection because of a competitive risk that might happen in the future, I think is just kind of unseammly and gross. I mean, this is literally the most successful tech company of all time and they're racing to the government to basically say, "You need to protect us against our competitors." Great argument. 因为未来可能出现 competitive risk 就急着寻求 government protection，我觉得既难看又恶心。这明明是史上最成功 tech company，却跑去政府说：你们得保护我们免受 competitors 伤害。好论点。

主持人 Not just our Chinese competitors, our American competitors, our potential future competitors. They should hire Lena Khan. Okay. And frankly, it's gross. And just let me give a couple of examples cuz I know people don't have a lot of sympathy for Chinese companies. That's fine. I'm not defending Chinese companies. I'm defending American developers who need to be able to use everything in the public domain. And let me give you an example. 而且不只是中国 competitors，连美国和未来潜在 competitors 都包括。它们该聘 Lina Khan。坦白说，这很恶心。举两个例子；我知道大家不太同情中国 companies，我也不是为它们辩护。我是在保护美国 developers 使用 public domain 一切内容的权利。 Mira Murati 的 Thinking Machines 现在拥有最佳美国 open-source model。

Ma Maratti, her new model,thinking machines. They currently have the best American open-source model. You know how it was trained? It was bootstrapped. It was distilled off a Chinese model, Kim K 2.5. Now, if you say that Chinese model is based on IP theft, what is thinky? It's a derivative work off a model that anthropic is trying to taint as being IP. By the way, there's been no evidence of this. There's no evidentiary process. 它怎样训练？它从中国 model Kimi K2.5 distill、bootstrap 而来。如果说中国 model 基于 IP theft，那么 Thinking Machines 的 model 就是 Anthropic 试图污染为 IP theft 的 derivative work。

They are simply trying to paint with a very broad brush here and say that now that model is tainted. Let me give you another example. So cursor rolled out its new product composer 2. They were able to post-train that model using Kimik 2.5 on their own proprietary coding data. Okay, so think about this. They started with a Chinese open- source model and then they used their own data and they came up with a new derivative product. This is the way that open source works. 顺便说，没有公开 evidence，也没有 evidentiary process；它们只是用非常宽泛的brush 把整个 model 标成 tainted。另一个例子：Cursor 发布 Composer 2，使用 Kimi K2.5 配合自己的 proprietary coding data 做 post-training。它从中国 open-source model 出发，加入自身 data，形成新 derivative product。

You take things that are in the public domain, you fork them, you make them your own. And by the way, once it's in the public domain, it's not a Chinese model anymore. It is open weights that are freely available to anyone. It's a file, okay? And you take that, you fork it, you run it on your own hardware in an American data center. No packets are going back to China. No data is going back to China. Nothing's going back to China. 这正是 open source 的运作方式：拿public domain 中的东西，fork，再变成自己的。一旦进入 public domain，它就不再是“中国 model”，而是一份人人可得的 open weights file。你 fork，在美国 data center 的 hardware 上运行，没有 packets、data 或任何东西回到中国。

An American company has taken open- source contributions in the public domain, made it their own, and then developed their own model. And if you say that American companies can't do that or that somehow it's tainted with IP theft, you are basically going to put a dagger through the heart of the entire American open source ecosystem. And that is exactly what Anthropic wants because they do not want to have the competition. 美国 company 使用 public domain 的 open-source contributions，改成自己的 model。如果禁止美国 companies 这样做，或把它污名为 IP theft，就等于刺穿整个美国 open-source ecosystem 的心脏。

主持人 Freeberg, maybe you can uh close this out here and then I'll put my I'll just zoom out for a second and I'll say it. Think about the strategy as well for China. If you think about the global economy of the last 50 years, the US has acrewed so much value by being at the core of the knowledge economy and effectively a services economy. 而这正是 Anthropic 想要的，因为它不想面对 competition。 Friedberg，你来收尾。我先拉远一点。也想想中国的 strategy。过去 50 年 global economy 中，美国作为 knowledge economy、services economy 核心，积累了巨大 value；通过开发 IP/knowledge，再把一个 bit 转换成另一个 bit，创造 trillions GDP。

And in that sense through the development of intellectual property of IP of knowledge and then the conversion of one bit to another bit we've been able to derive trillions of dollars in GDP. Meanwhile we outsourced manufacturing and created a sleeping giant in China where they have this incredible manufacturing capacity. 同时我们 outsource manufacturing，造就了中国这个 sleeping giant，拥有惊人 manufacturing capacity。

And at the end of the day, if you think about the course of like human technology evolution and human prosperity, it's largely driven by our capacity to convert molecules from one form to another and use the least amount of energy possible to do that. That's that all of technology ultimately leads to that simple equation. Molecule conversion. Making that beautiful couch behind you at the lowest cost possible. Making materials, making semiconductors, making all this stuff. 归根结底，人类 technology evolution 和 prosperity 主要由把 molecules 从一种形态转换为另一种、并尽可能少用 energy 的能力驱动。所有 technology 最终归结为这个简单 equation：molecule conversion——以最低成本制造你背后的漂亮 couch、materials、semiconductors 等。

Everything in our world is driven by molecule conversion. So at the end of the day, if the knowledge economy and the services economy gets compressed, much like AI and open source AI in particular, effectively flattens that value because all of that value is now open source. It's free and it's simply a function of turning on a switch and running it. The value of the US and the western economy has been largely degraded. 世界一切由 molecule conversion 驱动。如果 knowledge/services economy 被压缩，尤其 open-source AI 让其 value 扁平化，因为价值变成 open source、免费，只需打开 switch 运行，那么美国和 western economy 的价值会显著下降。

And what's left is the value of the molecule economy. the ability to convert molecules and use energy to do that. When you look at the juxtaposition of China versus the United States today, we have one terowatt of electricity production capacity in the US and they're on their way to having eight. We have about 10 billion square ft of manufacturing capacity. They have 200 billion square ft of manufacturing capacity. 剩下的是 molecule economy：转化 molecules 并用 energy 驱动。对比中美：美国有约 1 terawatt electricity production capacity，中国正走向 8 terawatts。美国约有 100 亿 square feet manufacturing capacity，中国约 2,000 亿，是 20 倍；electricity production 是 8 倍，另有其他 energy sources。

So they have 20x the manufacturing capacity, 8x the electricity production plus all of their other sources of energy. And I think that's the the long game for China over a decade, two, three decade process is by compressing the knowledge economy and the services economy, commoditizing it completely, they are left holding all the value in the global economy because they can make stuff and they can make it cheaper than anyone because they have the most electricity production. 我认为中国十年、二十年、三十年的 long game，就是压缩 knowledge economy 和services economy，将其彻底 commoditize；这样它掌握 global economy 的主要 value，因为能制造东西，而且凭最大 electricity production 以最低成本制造。

That's a very simple rubric for kind of how I look at the the long game that they're trying to play here. You believe they're trying to commoditize this very important space just like they did for global cars,global knowledge and global services. 这是我理解其 long game 的简单 rubric。你认为他们想像在 global cars 上那样，把这个重要领域 commoditize？ global knowledge 和 services。

The creation and movement of bits gets commoditized and what's left over is the creation of electricity and the creation of molecules both of which they have this very difficult to surmount advantage that's going to make them the core dependency for the world. That's what I think is kind of the long game here. bits 的创建和移动被 commoditize，剩下 electricity 和 molecules 的创造；中国在二者上有难以超越的 advantage，会成为世界核心 dependency。我认为这就是 long game。

嘉宾 And just so you know, this data comes from reports in places like the information or other sources or leak numbers and they try to just make charts based on it. 顺便说明，这些 data 来自 The Information 等媒体 reports、其他 sources 或 leaks。它们根据数字制作 charts。

主持人 Yeah. And by the way, I you know, I have my own sources too. I've talked to investors in these companies and I'm just telling you that both Anthropic and Open AI are taking their estimates up right now, their forecasts up. 对。我也有自己的 sources，和这些 companies 的 investors 谈过；Anthropic 和 OpenAI 目前都在上调 estimates 和 forecasts。

So I mean look I think in the future it may be the case that open source takes share fine it's because the market's so big and there is always a market for open because open is more controllable it's more customizable you can own it you get the data sovereignty you get the sovereignty but it's also more work so there are different use cases there's different parts of the market 未来 open source 也许会获得 share，没问题。 market 很大，而且 open 始终有市场：它更 controllable、customizable，可自行拥有，并获得 data sovereignty。但它也需要更多 work，所以 use cases 和 market segments 不同。

嘉宾 that's actually very interesting the the more work part there Sachs is super interesting like 3 to 6 months ago it was so much work to stand these up and Now there's so many intermediaries building the harnesses that default to it that that is getting worked out. But that has always been the issue with open source for sure is the amount of work it takes to implement. Sacks，“更多 work”这点很有意思。三到六个月前部署确实很麻烦；现在大量 intermediaries 在构建默认支持 open source 的 harnesses，问题正在解决。不过 implementation 工作量确实一直是 open source 的问题。

Uh if you do want to implement this inside of your organization, please make a call to 8090 and try the software factory. Use the promo code JAL to get a free consultation at 8090. All right. Can they get a free consultation? 如果想在 organization 内实现，请联系 8090，试用 Software Factory；promo code JAL 可获得免费 consultation。 [笑] 真的有免费 consultation 吗？

主持人 Everyone's talking their books. Everyone's talking their books actually including I'd say the anthropic and uh open AAI investors. It's amazing how many of these 每个人都在 talk their book，包括 Anthropic、OpenAI investors。令人惊讶的是这些人……

嘉宾 Brad was on the show two weeks ago when you on the episode Brad was LIKE LET ME TELL YOU WHY this is going to he's holding on he's holding on to this actually he's like I actually give Brad a lot of credit because I do think that he's objective about public policy or as objective as you can be given that he does own all these companies. But look, let me just tell you that you know I see a lot of folks who are suddenly China hawks and saying we need to stop China. Brad 两周前来节目时就说，让我告诉你为什么这会… …他在努力坚持。我其实很认可 Brad，因为即使拥有这些 companies，我仍认为他对 public policy 尽可能客观。但很多人突然成了 China hawks，喊着必须阻止中国，之前却人人都想向它们卖 chips。

WE STOP LIKE THEY'RE CHINA HOGS. EVERYBODY WANTED TO SELL THEIR CHIPS.

主持人 How about disclosing first whether you're on the cap table of anthropic? Okay. 能否先披露你是否在 Anthropic cap table？

嘉宾 Absolutely. Are you guys on any of these cap tables? 当然。你们在这些 cap tables 上吗？

主持人 No, I'm not. 没有。

嘉宾 Not directly. 没有直接持有。

主持人 No, not directly. Yeah, that's indirectly. Maybe got a little access. You know what it's like, Chimat? It's like when you you got that great flush or straight and you're like, "Please don't pair the board." Brad's like, "DON'T PAIR THE BOARD. PLEASE don't pair the board." 没有直接持有，说明可能间接有一点。Chamath，这就像拿到好 flush 或 straight，祈祷 board 不要 pair。Brad 就在喊：千万别 pair。[笑]

All right. Here we go. 好了。

嘉宾 I love open source. I love I love this open source AI stuff. 我爱 open source，也爱 open-source AI。

主持人 I think it's so awesome. 太棒了。

嘉宾 The value punk rock. 它有种 punk-rock value。

主持人 It's it's just like there's so much to be done with it. It's just exciting and awesome and yeah, Chimoff's point is exactly right. Most of the models can do 95% of the tasks. And if that's the case, then it's not like everyone needs to scramble to get the best open source model. You just need open source to do 95% of what you want to do with AI. And then the other 5% you get specialized or high value or you pay a premium. 能做的事太多，令人兴奋。 Chamath 完全正确：多数 models 能完成 95% tasks。如果如此，不必人人争抢最好的 open-source model；只需让 open source 完成你想用 AI 做的 95%。剩下 5% 再使用 specialized/high-value model 或支付 premium。

And by the way, if you're a big enterprise and you need to have rappers and support and all these other tools for your employees, buy Anthropic or OpenAI or Gro tools or Gemini, like just make sure you have a good partner, 如果是 big enterprise，需要 wrappers、support 和员工 tools，就购买 Anthropic、OpenAI、Grok 或 Gemini，确保有好 partner。

嘉宾 use the promo code Jal. You get a Zoom call with your mom. Okay. A Zoom call with A ZOOM CALL WITH YOUR take a selfie with him on Zoom. 使用 promo code JAL，能和你妈妈 Zoom。[笑] 或在 Zoom 和他自拍。

主持人 I'm sorry. 抱歉。

嘉宾 Anyone's going to sign a $10 million contract with 8090, you get to have uh three of the four of us for a fiveminute Zoom call. 签 1,000 万美元 8090 contract，就可以……[笑]。让我们四人中的三人参加五分钟 Zoom。

主持人 Absolutely. You get to call 10 million. You get to GUESS WHO'S ON THE POD. 当然。1,000 万就能猜谁来节目。

嘉宾 And anyone ready to make a pre- purchase on a million dollars of potato seed, you also get to have 预购 100 万美元 potato seed 也可以。[笑]

主持人 use the promo code Sax Poo. Yes. And if you'd like to guest host, the first person to put a $25 million check into Launch Fund 5 gets to guest moderate an episode with your boy J Cal. All right. 使用 promo code SACKSPOO。若想 guest host，第一个向 Launch Fund 5 投 2,500 万美元的人，可以和 J Cal 一起主持一集。

Uh Promo City this week. All right. Anthropic Copyrights. Here we go. Anthropic has settled their AI copyright lawsuit for 1.5 billion billy on Monday. Largest copyright settlement Freedberg in the history of the United States of America. First major AI training lawsuit to settle. There are many more in the pipeline. Anthropic downloaded 7 million books from pirated websites to train Claude. And that alone it may or may not be a crime. 这周真是 Promo City。好，Anthropic copyright。周一 Anthropic 以 15 亿美元和解 AI copyright lawsuit，是美国历史最大 copyright settlement，也是第一个和解的重大 AI-training lawsuit，后面还有许多。 Anthropic 从 pirated websites 下载了 700 万本books 用于训练 Claude。

This has been adjudicated a little bit in the courts. They had ruled previously that AI on copyrighted books is legal under fair use, but there's going to be some future cases. So, this is a settlement. They didn't go to the bat. Lawyers getting 101 million. Authors get 3,000 a book. 500,000 books were covered in it. Thus far, 91% of the covered authors have claimed their share. Tons of other ones are on the way. And here's your second victory p fap of the episode. 单是这个行为是否构成 crime 尚不确定，courts 已有部分 adjudication。此前裁定，在 copyrighted books 上训练 AI 可属于 fair use，但未来仍有 cases。这次是 settlement，没有打到底。 lawyers 获得 1.01 亿美元，authors 每本 3,000 美元，覆盖 50 万本书；目前 91% covered authors 已 claim share，还有许多 cases 在路上。

Content providers as a group need to get together and fight for their rights in unison. New York Times Met for the right to party. 这是本集第二次 victory lap：content providers 应联合起来、共同争取 rights。 New York Times… …为 party 的权利？

嘉宾 No. Fight for the right to get paid and to survive. TBT and say as a group either give us these terms or don't index us. They are interfering with their ability to leverage their own content. is profoundly unfair and those magazines and newspapers need to what's that? You're going to get steamrolled. It's possible. YouTube is a great example. That's what's going to happen here. 不，为获得报酬和生存的权利。 [笑] 作为 group 向 LLM providers 表示：要么接受这些 terms，要么别 index。它们干扰创作者利用自己 content，极不公平。那些 magazines/newspapers 需要… …你们会被碾过。也许。 YouTube 是很好例子。

There'll be a settlement where they are going to be able to claim their I will bet any amount against your your premonition here Jal. This is like I am going to go with for my biggest winner for training data owners like the New York Times, Reddit X, Twitter, YouTube etc. 我认为最后会达成 settlement，创作者能够 claim… …我愿以任何金额赌你的预言不会成真，J Cal。这就像… …我认为最大赢家会是 training-data owners，例如 New York Times、Reddit、X/Twitter、YouTube 等。

I think what we learned in 2023 was that the language models are starting to hit parody very quickly and that the real value is going to be in and it may even become commodities and open source may win the day. So then I think the winner is folks who have the training data. You know the best thing about this is watching Jason's reaction to Jason. Did you do a picture and picture of me just be like go Jac did we make a bet here? Did we make a bet? I don't know. He's gone. 2023 年我们已经看到 language models 很快接近 parity，甚至可能 commoditize，由 open source 胜出；那么真正 value 会在拥有 training data 的人。这件事最好笑的是。看 Jason 对 Jason 的反应。能不能画中画显示我喊“加油 J Cal”？我们赌了吗？他不见了。

主持人 Well, actually, this I'm this settlement I don't think quite proves exactly what you want it to prove. Jal, 其实这个 settlement 并没有完全证明你想证明的东西，J Cal。

嘉宾 go ahead. 解释一下。

主持人 Explain. Can I can I make a nuance here? 我补充 nuance。

嘉宾 Of course. Of course. 当然。

主持人 So, okay. Look, and you know, obviously I'm not a huge fan of anthropics. I think they're potentially destroying the whole ecosystem for their own purposes of regulatory capture. But let's just be very clear about what Let's just be very clear about show anytime, Daria. Yeah. Let's just be very clear about what this judgment was and was not. So, okay, what Anthropic did is they pirated all these books from LibGen and they trained on them. 我显然不是 Anthropic 粉丝，。认为它可能为 regulatory capture 破坏整个 ecosystem。但必须准确说明 judgment 是什么、不是什么。 Anthropic 从 LibGen pirate 了这些 books 并训练；它出问题的原因是直接拿 stolen books，一本都没买。

And the reason why they got in trouble is cuz they basically took stolen books. They didn't even pay for one copy of them. But if they had paid for just one copy of each book, they could not have been nailed for piracy. they would have been potentially under fair use, which I understand Jal is still being litigated in the courts, but that would have been their defense. So, the reason why they got nailed with this $ 1.5 billion judgment is they wouldn't even buy one copy. 如果每本只买一份，就不会因 piracy 被抓，可能主张 fair use。 J Cal 说得对，这仍在 courts litigate，但会是它们的 defense。之所以遭 15 亿美元 judgment，是因为连一份都没买。 Anthropic 和 OpenAI 仍主张：只要买一份，就应能依据 fair use 在所有 books 上训练。

It is still Anthropic's position and it's OpenAI's position that they should be able to train on all these books under fair use if they buy one copy. And that issue has not been resolved yet. Now you should be able to see the total hypocrisy of their point of view relative to the previous issue which is they believe they should be able to train on every creator's output in the world. 这个问题尚未解决。但把它和前一话题对照，就能看出完全 hypocrisy：它们认为可以在全世界 creator output 上训练，只要买一份，哪怕违背 creators 意愿，无论 creators 是否喜欢。

You know as long as I guess they bought one copy of it against the will of those creators whether those creators like it or not. They believe it is fair use to train their models and derive their own weights based on fair use. However, they say that the one type of content that you should never be able to train on is their output. That is currently their position. It's completely hypocritical. 它们认为依据 fair use 训练并推导自己 weights 合法；但又说唯一绝不能训练的 content 是它们自己的 output。这就是当前立场，完全 hypocritical。回看 Anthropic 2 月 blog post，它第一次定义并创造“industrial-scale distillation attacks”这个概念。

And actually, if you go back to anthropics blog post in February where they defined this concept of industrial scale dissolation attacks for the first time, they coined that expression. And this is, you know, I worry that people in the government policy makers don't understand that this is all part of a anthropic op. No one used the terms distillation and attack together until Anthropic wrote that blog post. Distillation was simply an industry standard practice. 我担心 government policy makers 不理解这是 Anthropic 的一套 operation。在那篇 post 之前，没人把 distillation 与 attack 连用；distillation 只是 industry-standard practice。

But then Anthropic coined this idea of industrial scale dissolation attacks. In any event, if you go to that blog post, search for the words IP theft. It's not in there. Anthropic 却创造了 industrial-scale distillation attacks。去该 blog 搜 “IP theft”，根本没有。

Anthropic did not claim even though they were trying to coin this new concept and brand this idea of industrial scale dissolation attacks. They did not have the hutzbah to claim that it was IP theft. Anthropic 虽想包装这个新概念，也没有胆量声称它是 IP theft。

嘉宾 The coahjones the hypocrisy the kutzbah to claim that it was IP theft. Why? Because they maintain that it is their right to train their models on all the world's output even if the creators don't want them to. IP for we but not for thee. Exactly. So, so Jal, I don't even want to get into whether you're right or not on the fair use question. Maybe you are right. I don't know. 没有这种厚脸皮去说。为什么？因为它们坚持自己有权在全世界 output 上训练，哪怕 creators 不愿意。 IP 是“我们可以，你们不行”。没错。 J Cal，我不想争论你在 fair use 上是否正确，也许你对，我不知道。重点是 hypocrisy；它们从未声称中国 companies 的行为是 IP theft。

Okay. But my point is about the hypocrisy and they themselves never claimed that this was IP theft by the Chinese companies. What they tried to claim was that it was a national security threat because what would happen is these Chinese companies would distill off them, create their own models, and those models would not have guard rails. So they were making a different kind of of argument. 它们尝试说这是 national security threat：这些中国 companies 会从它们 distill，生成没有 guardrails 的 models。它们提出的是另一种 argument。

That argument never that argument though never found purchase with policy makers because I think that they could see that yeah look guardrails are important but you know it never really found purchase until anthropic started claiming oh this is IP theft but they have not been willing to make that argument publicly because they know that it would poison all of their fur use lawsuits that are happening. 但它一直没有得到 policy makers 支持；大家认为 guardrails 重要，却不接受推论。后来 Anthropic 开始暗示这是 IP theft，却不愿公开论证，因为知道那会毒害自己所有 fair-use lawsuits。

And Jimoth, like you mentioned, the New York Times is currently suing Open AI for basically a industrial scale distillation attack. I mean, Open AAI went on the New York Times website, used scrapers, slurped up all of their information at a scale that no human could achieve, and then they used that as training data and reverse engineered the model weights effectively. Chamath，正如你提到，New York Times 正起诉 OpenAI，实质上也是 industrial-scale distillation attack：OpenAI 用 scrapers 访问网站，以任何 human 都做不到的 scale 抽走信息，用作 training data，实质上 reverse-engineer model weights。

So my point is that even Anthropic and Open AAI won't publicly admit that what China is doing is IP theft because they are doing it themselves. It's totally hypocritical and I don't think policy makers should be making arguments that these companies themselves won't make because they know that they will lose all these court cases. 所以我的观点是，Anthropic、OpenAI 不会公开承认中国行为是 IP theft，因为它们自己也在做。完全 hypocritical。 policy makers 不应提出连 companies 自己都不敢提的 argument，因为它们知道会输掉 court cases。

主持人 Freeberg, any thoughts here on um and obviously this is still being litigated as we've discussed. It's 150 major cases. New York Times is one of the music industry. Friedberg，有什么看法？当然这仍在 litigate；据说有 150 个 major cases，包括 New York Times 和 music industry。

嘉宾 So you write this book. Okay. Harper Collins and you opt to not submit it to AI because there's a restrict. You keep it closed. No one can read your book. We did for Google search. You can't be on Google. No one can read your book. 假设你写一本书。 HarperCollins。你选择不提交给 AI，保持 closed。没人能读？ Google Search 时代也是这样，不上 Google。

You're not letting anyone read your book. you want to pay for your book if you want to read it 10 bucks and someone pays $30 for Genule the great American novel and they read it and then they write a review and they publish their review on the internet now on the internet the reviewer talks about your book and describes your book gets webcrolled by an AI engine and the AI engine learns from that learns about your book and now there's some commentary made about your book when someone asks a question about your book in the AI engine do you feel like your copyright was violated in that sense Um, 不是不让读，而是想读就付 10 美元。有人花 30 美元买下这本伟大的 American novel，读完写 review，[笑] 发布到 internet。现在网上的reviewer 谈论并描述你的书，内容被 AI web-crawl，AI 从中了解你的书。用户问书时，engine 生成 commentary；你觉得 copyright 被侵犯了吗？

主持人 so the book the AI never ingested your book. It ingested metadata about your book. It ingested reviews about your book. It ingested third party analysis about your book. All of which was on the open internet. And it didn't just copy that stuff, but it used it to learn about your book. So you're saying these 1500 reviews for Angel, how to invest in technology stars, timeless advice from an angel investor turned 100,000 into 100 million. AI 从未 ingest 原书，只 ingest metadata、reviews 和 third-party analysis，全部来自 open internet。它没有直接复制，而是用它们学习你的书。你是说关于《Angel》的 1,500 条 reviews——副标题是如何投资 technology stars、angel investor 的 timeless advice、把 10 万变 1 亿——[笑] 会成为 AI 的 basis。

These reviews would then be the basis of the AI. So I guess I would have to be okay. But this like, you know, this eloquently brash blueprint for angel investing, that verified uh review. Yes, I would be fine with that fivestar review being in there. Really? 那我大概得接受。比如这条 verified review 说它是“措辞漂亮又大胆的 angel-investing blueprint”，我当然接受五星。真的吗？

嘉宾 You now have no knowledge. You now have no knowledge of the above 1498 reviews did you not write? Three. Uh, actually, I'll tell you the secret. When you guys actually get asked to write a book or any of you have the capability of completing a book. Yeah, because I because I'm 97 years old living in the What AI agent did have you used to what bot what bot did you use in 2017? Now we know where he pointed that stupid open source AI slop cannon that he's built. 你完全不知道其他 1,498 条 reviews。你自己写了几条？三条。告诉你 secret：等你们有人真正被邀请写 book，或者有能力完成时… …因为我是住在… …的 97 岁老人。 2017 年你用了什么 AI agent、什么 bot？现在知道他那门愚蠢的。 open-source AI slop cannon 对准哪里了。

I verified the purchase too. Freeberg, you make a great point. You make a Oh, there it is. Jennifer, great American novel. Practical wisdom for mastering ambition, building resilience and winning at life work and innovation. Master virtue signaling master virtue signaling. Incredible. Incredible. That's beautiful. That is beautiful. But JL, I mean, this is my point. Knowledge can't be contained. It's diffuse. And so the form of copyright is very clear. [笑]我还 verified purchase。 Friedberg，你说得很好。看，《Jennifer, Great American Novel》：掌握 ambition、building resilience，以及在 life、work、innovation 中获胜的 practical wisdom。精通 virtue signaling。

The case law and copyright's very clear. I cannot lift text out of your book, reprint it, and claim it as my own. That is a violation of copyright. But my reading of your book, my reading of the reviews of your book, the diffusion of the knowledge that arises from your book, that is ultimately going to lead to some abstract transformation of knowledge into a new output that someone might read. [笑]太棒了，很美。不过J Cal，这正是我的观点：knowledge 无法被封住，它会 diffuse。 copyright 的形式和 case law 很清楚：我不能摘录你书中文字、重新印刷并声称是自己的，那是 violation。

And I think it is very unlikely that we will find ourselves in a place where the idea that knowledge transferred digitally, processed digitally, and turned into other content is going to end up violating copyright in I understand your position. There are workarounds. Obviously, we've always had cliff notes, right? So, if a book became good enough, somebody could write the cliff notes of it. You can't stop that. There's a four-part test for this. 但我阅读你的书、阅读 reviews，以及由书产生的 knowledge diffusion，最终会把 knowledge 抽象转换成别人可能阅读的新 output。我认为，数字传递、数字处理 knowledge 并转成其他 content，最终被判定侵权的可能性很低。我理解你的立场，也一直有 workaround，例如 CliffNotes。

We we've talked about this for three years here on the pod. What I'd say is American companies should take 10% of their revenue, if they're building these models, and do splashy cashy and do settlements. And that's exactly what's happening. If you're a copyright owner, you should study what the music industry does. 一本书足够好，就有人写摘要，你无法阻止。这里有 four-part test，我们在节目谈了三年。我的建议是，美国 model companies 拿 revenue 的 10% 做大额 settlements。

They are raid dogs and they will fight tooth and nail and keep you in the courts until you submit and make a settlement and agree that you're licensing it and then that gives them that case law and that settlement to go to the next person and the next person and the next person and that's why they've been able to successfully defend it and then if you're competing with me that becomes the issue. 这正发生。 copyright owner 应学习 music industry；它们像 rabid dogs，会拼命诉讼，直到对方屈服、settle 并承认 licensing。之后用这个 case law/settlement 追下一家公司，再下一家。这就是它们成功保卫权利的方式。若你直接和我竞争，问题更明显。

So if you said hey what's his book about and what do people think about it what are the best parts of it and that comes from the reviews okay fine fair enough. The problem is and I and I'll I'll share with you there's been some other lawsuits here that are making the way through courts. What's going to be the problem is the application level layer that you talked about Shimoth as they go into the application layer and they use this. There's a there's a big court case here. 问一本书讲什么、大家怎么看、最好部分是什么，来自 reviews 没问题。但还有其他 lawsuits 正穿过 courts；真正问题会在 Chamath 说的 application layer 出现，当 companies 进入application layer 使用这些内容。这里有大 court case，还有 music、New York Times 等 cases。

Obviously you know about some of these but there are now other cases. There are music cases. There's a New York Times case. The one that's kind of interesting is Thompson Reuters versus Ross. This is a uh final judgment on AI uh training copyright. There's a company called Weslaw. They're like Lexus Nexus and people have been trying to claim that they can train on the outputs of something like uh Westlaw. 值得注意的是 Thomson Reuters v. Ross，这是 AI training copyright 的 final judgment。 Westlaw 类似 LexisNexis，有人试图声称可以在 Westlaw outputs 上训练。

And when you're in the same business as me that has a special place in copyright law because I have you're you're infringing on my ability to use my copyright. And your argument I think Fraber holds up that it wouldn't be it wouldn't stop somebody from buying the book. But the second you are actually competing with me like directly that's when these things have problems. And that's why I think the music industry is going to win and and some other places are going to win. 当你和版权方处于同一 business，会在 copyright law 中产生特殊问题，因为你侵害了其利用 copyright 的能力。 Friedberg 的 argument——不阻止人买 book——或许成立；但一旦直接与原作者竞争，问题就出现。所以我认为 music industry 和一些领域会赢。

But listen, this is brand new territory. These lawsuits are brand new territory and IP law does not actually have the nuance yet. So we're going to as a society have to make a decision here on what is fair. 但这是 brand-new territory，lawsuits 也很新，IP law 还没有足够 nuance。

I suggest just like the self-regulatory group that we talked about last week, all the AI companies should get together, take 10% of your revenue, put it in a pool, and keep paying the people and getting permission from them so you can get updates on the content so you get the next book so you get the next New York Times story, the next Reuters story. 社会必须决定什么公平。我建议像上周谈的 self-regulatory group：所有 AI companies 联合，把 10% revenue 放进 pool，持续向 creators 付费并获得permission，从而能获得下一本 book、下一篇 New York Times 或 Reuters story 的更新。

主持人 10% is not going to satisfy the rabbit dogs, let me tell you. They're going to go for 100%. Now, JK, let me here's a question I want to ask you. Yes. Given that the fair use doctrine is not a decided matter yet, given that anthropic and open AI are embroiled in huge lawsuits against very well financed content creators and those communities and the outcome is indeterminate and there's billions of dollars at stake, maybe even their entire product at stake. 10% 满足不了 rabid dogs，它们会要 100%。 J Cal，我问你：fair-use doctrine 尚未确定；Anthropic、OpenAI 与资金充足的 content creators 和 communities 卷入巨大 lawsuits，结果不明，有 billions 甚至整个 product 风险。

Do you think that they have potentially made a fatal mistake by arguing that distilling content against the wishes of its creator is IP theft? 你认为它们声称违背 creator 意愿 distill content 就是 IP theft，是否可能犯下 fatal mistake？

嘉宾 Do you see what I'm saying? 你明白我的意思吗？

主持人 Yes. 明白。

嘉宾 Like, is this potentially a fatal mistake? See, here's what they could have done. 这是 fatal mistake 吗？它们本可以采用另一种做法。

主持人 Well, you would bring that to the Supreme Court and you say, "Hey, listen." 可以把问题带到 Supreme Court，说：听着。

嘉宾 But here's what they could have done. What Anthropic could have done is they could have said, "Listen, we have these Chinese companies are creating fake accounts and they're using proxies to basically use our product in violation of our terms of service." Now,using those model outputs is not IP theft because it's fair use. However, it's a deceptive business practice for these guys to lie about who they are when they set up accounts at scale. Anthropic 本可以说： “中国 companies 创建 fake accounts，用 proxies 违反 Terms of Service 使用我们的 product。使用 model outputs 不是 IP theft，因为属于 fair use；但大规模设账号时隐瞒身份是 deceptive business practice。

And so, they're engaged in a deceptive business practice. and we're going to do everything we can to stop that, but we'd like the government's help in stopping that, too. However, we not we're not saying anything about IP theft. Yeah. Wouldn't that be the more nuanced approach? Of course, because I think that they're on the verge of being hoisted on their own petard here. Yeah. I mean, it's a cell I think that kids call it a cell phone, right? 我们会尽力阻止，也希望 government 帮助阻止这种行为。 ” “但我们不主张 IP theft。 ”对。这不是更 nuanced 吗？当然，因为它们正接近被自己的论点反噬。对，这叫 self-own。大多数 cases 最终 settlement。

Like you basically it's just a classic cell phone. And you know, in most of these cases, settlements happen. So again, if you just look at the music industry, the newspapers, the magazines, and some of those folks and book authors, they've tend to be very meek. music industry、newspapers、magazines、book authors 过去往往比较软弱，但现在出现新趋势。许多 content providers 对 Google 说：把我们移出 index。

There's a new trend happening now, Friedberg, they're a lot of content providers are saying to Google, take us out of the index because Google has one bot and that bot does the Google crawl and that bot also does the AI crawl. And what the industry is saying is, hey, split that up. I want to be in Google, but I don't want to be indexed in AI. So people are now saying, hey, we'll take you out of the index. which Rupert Murdo got right. 因为 Google 用同一个 bot 做 search crawl 和 AI crawl；industry 要求拆开：我想出现在 Google Search，但不想被 AI index。 Google 回应可以把你整个移出 index。

If all the newspapers said collectively, "Do not index us, Google. We're no indexed, that would have made Google come to the table and give them a royalty and give them some money for being indexed." I did that, dude. There was a there was a deal that happened, but it didn't it go the way you're describing. Well, cuz they didn't have a united front. Now, I think these guys wanted they wanted Google's user base. Rupert Murdoch 当初判断正确：如果所有newspapers 集体说“Google，不要 index 我们”，Google 就必须坐上谈判桌，支付 royalty。实际做过，确实有 deal，但不是你描述的方式。因为没有 united front。

So, they ended up doing a deal where they had this like payw wall like exclusion rule whereas like you could show a certain number of free articles. There was a whole negotiated settlement. Well, I'm talking even long before that when the first index happened. But here's I you know I I I think we are on the cusp of a some type of a settlement getting done here. publishers 想要 Google user base，最终达成 paywall exclusion rule，可展示一定数量 free articles，是 negotiated settlement。我说的是更早、最初 index 时。

Uh and I think that would be good for America to take a leadership position in that because you do want to keep getting that. But all of these content companies, they should be meeting with each other, the music industry, the New York Times, all of them to stop their content from getting used without their permission and from competing with them. 我认为现在接近某种 settlement；美国取得 leadership 是好事，也能持续获得 content。所有 content companies——music industry、New York Times 等——都应该合作，阻止内容未经 permission 被使用，并与自身竞争。

That's my point. You know, you you only get a settlement when both sides can agree. And it seems to me that if you're one of these content creator lobbies and you see that Anthropic has just told the government that training on a creator's output without their consent is IP theft. 只有双方 agree 才能 settlement。如果 content-creator lobbies 看到 Anthropic 已告诉 government：未经 consent 在 creator output 上训练就是 IP theft，

主持人 Yeah. 对，

嘉宾 They have now basically confessed to their entire product being stolen. And it seems to me that why wouldn't the content creators now assert that they're entitled to own 100% of anthropics revenue? It seems to me that this could be a bridge too far that you know that they're so good at regulatory capture. They're so good at making these arguments and getting the government involved to create new regulations to protect them. But I wonder if this was just a little bit too cute. 那 Anthropic 等于承认整个 product 都是 stolen。为什么content creators 不会主张有权获得 Anthropic 100% revenue？这可能走得太远。它们太擅长 regulatory capture，善于让 government 建新 regulations 保护自己；但这次也许玩得过头。

And again, if they just positioned it slightly differently, if they said, "Look, these Chinese companies are creating fake accounts. That's a deceptive business practice. We're not saying this is IP theft, right? But instead they said IP theft and now the whole startup community is activated. You saw that you know Gary Tan and 200 startups wrote that letter. 如果只稍微换个定位，说中国 companies 建 fake accounts，是 deceptive business practice，而不是 IP theft，就不会这样。但它们用了 IP theft，现在整个 startup community 被激活；Gary Tan 和 200 家 startups 联名写信。

Why? Because they know that if this IP theft thing sticks that all derivative works of Chinese models are tainted now too. So that means the whole startup ecosystem is now at risk. 因为如果 IP-theft 说法成立，所有基于中国 models 的 derivative works 也被 taint，整个 startup ecosystem 都面临风险。

主持人 Yeah. 对。

嘉宾 So I just wonder if these guys have just gone it's just all a bridge too far. I mean, if you go to Washington, 所以我怀疑它们是否已经。走得太远。去 Washington 与 dogs 同床，就别惊讶醒来带着 fleas；它们选择参与这套游戏，也许戳醒了 tiger。

主持人 Yeah. and you lay down with the dogs, don't be surprised if you wake up with the fleas. Like, you they decided to engage in this, you know. So, they they may have poked the tiger. Um I think I think it's pretty accurate. Oh, by the way, uh the publishing schedule for uh 2027 was released. We have some new books coming. You heard mine, Jen, you flecting coming to you now. Ferrari on my wrist. How to win at life and afford a $250,000 watch from David Sax. 我觉得很准确。顺便，2027 publishing schedule 发布了新 books。你听过我的；Jennifer，你也有。接着是 Sacks 的《Ferrari on My Wrist: How to Win at Life and Afford a $250,000 Watch》。

嘉宾 Oh my god. 天哪。

主持人 This is Pompic Sachs. 这是 Pompous Sacks。[笑]

嘉宾 We're going to get need to get that done. Here it is. The fight to save America: Destroying Socialism, Shrinking the Debt, and Winning AI by David. 得把书做出来。还有 David 的《The Fight to Save America: Destroying Socialism, Shrinking the Debt, and Winning AI》。

主持人 Yeah, it's a pretty good one. I think this is our new all-in uh here it is. Chama polyatina, a sexual Italian summer. It's a romance novel. This is the only person who decided to do fiction. This is fiction. It's fiction. It's fictional. Chimat,I got Traumat's uh non-fiction novel also. Oh, you have his non-fiction as well. Here it is. Here it is. Enterprise sales. Chimat dystopia. How my software startup affects my Italian summer. There you go. It's great. This is great. 挺不错。再来 Chamath Palihapitiya 的《A Sexual Italian Summer》，romance novel，唯一选择fiction 的人。是 fiction，虚构。我也有 Chamath 的 nonfiction：《Enterprise Sales: Chamath Dystopia——How My Software Startup Affects My Italian Summer》。

Oh my god. Wow. That's coming from the allin the IT guy in Milan. Absolutely. This is This is coming from Allin uh books. It's our new publishing label coming in 2027. We'll also have the Brad Gersonner, Bill Gurley, Elon Musk, and other titles coming. So, we'll have those on future episodes. More more titles coming. Breaking topic here. Google and Tesla shared their results today. Had a lot of talk about capital expenditures. Google blew the doors off of their um 很棒。 Milan 的 IT guy。这些来自All-In Books，我们 2027 年推出的新 publishing label。之后还有 Brad Gerstner、Bill Gurley、Elon Musk 等 titles，未来节目继续介绍。现在 breaking topic：Google 和 Tesla 今天公布 results，capital expenditures 引发大量讨论。 Google 的表现极佳。

嘉宾 blew the doors off. I mean, 简直超出预期。

主持人 it was insane and outrageous. And they were down like 7 to 10%. Google Cloud growing because of their cash% year-over-year. Yeah, because of the cash flow numbers. And now is on a hundred billion dollar run rate. That's but one business. Tesla's capex surged 140% year-over-year and they expect 25 billion in capex. Google's capex forecast from 195 to 205 billion this year. So next year will be even higher. Tesla down 14, Google down 7% of taping. 表现疯狂、惊人，但 stocks 下跌约 7% 到 10%。 Google Cloud 同比高速增长，股价却因 cash-flow numbers 下跌。现在单个业务 run rate 就达 1,000 亿美元。 Tesla capex 同比飙升 140%，预计 250 亿；Google 今年 capex forecast 为 1,950 亿到 2,050 亿，明年更高。

Who knows? Um but both reported negative free cash flow. In other words, the amount of cash in the bank went down instead of up. And for Google, that was the first time ever. IPO update, uh SpaceX down 30% from its day one closing price, now trading 1.5 trillion. A lot of pressure on the stock. We'll talk about that as well. Obviously, they went public at 2 trillion. Tesla 下跌 14%，Google 录制时下跌 7%，谁知道。但二者都报告 negative free cash flow，即银行 cash 不增反降；Google 是史上第一次。

Got a big pop, uh the Elon pop, and um there could be uh more downward pressure or it could have found a bottom. You know, you never know with these things. This is unprecedented territory. We've never had an IPO this big, but some lockups. Here's the chart. Bunch of lockups are are happening at different staged intervals. So, let's um Chimath talk a little bit. Here's your SpaceX. IPO update：SpaceX 较首日 closing price 下跌 30%，当前交易 valuation 1.5 trillion，stock 压力大。它以 2 trillion 上市。先因 Elon pop 大涨，未来也许继续下压或已触底，无法知道。这是 unprecedented territory，从未有这么大的 IPO，而且有多批 lockups 分阶段到期。

I guess capex chimoff is being built out obviously for AI and there is the case of open AI spending on capex in order to provide their service but then there's also Google which is making these capex investments to resell it as part of Google cloud incredible product and then on the other side they're using it for their own obviously infrastructure and their business is just growing like crazy whether it's YouTube or Google cloud or even search is still growing So I looked at this and I said, "Well, this seems like a really good use of capital instead of just giving dividends like building out this infrastructure to me sounds like an investment in the future." Seems like a buy signal to me, but the market is obviously disappointed. 看 chart。 Chamath，来谈 SpaceX。 AI 显然推动 capex buildout。 OpenAI 花 capex 提供 service；Google 则投资后通过很棒的 Google Cloud product 转售，同时用于自身 infrastructure。其 YouTube、Google Cloud 甚至 Search 都在疯狂增长。我看了觉得，这是很好的 capital use；比发 dividends 更好，建设 infrastructure 是对未来的 investment，像 buy signal。

Why is the market disappointed? Is it a buy signal for you? Is it make you more uh excited about management and what Sundar and Sergey are doing over there? Or does it make you concerned? Yeah, 但 market 显然失望。为什么？对你是 buy signal 吗？ Sundar、Sergey 的 management 让你更兴奋，还是担忧？

嘉宾 I'm more bullish. Do you know what Google's 25y year average return on invested capital has been since going public? Take a guess. 17%. No. 21%. No. 23%. No. 29%. Prices, right? 35%. 32%. Jesus. 我更 bullish。知道 Google 上市以来 25 年 average return on invested capital 吗？猜。 17%。不。21？23？29？35？ 32%。天哪。

主持人 Okay. This is when you are a machine and a group of people and a business model that compounds money at 32% over 20 year average. You give these guys the benefit of the doubt. These are not people that are flying fast and loose. They are methodically investing in their edge. And this is I go back to the first conversation. They are going to get massively rewarded. 一个 machine、一群人和一套 business model，20 多年平均以 32% compound money，应给予 benefit of doubt。他们不是随意冒险，而是在 methodically 投资 edge。回到第一段讨论，他们会得到巨大回报。

You know, there was a lot of Twitter chatter or ex chatter about Gemini usage and was it real or was it not real and is their revenue growth really coming from AI enabled workflows? It's all malarkey. Google has an incredible search experience. They've seem to be navigating this transition to use AI. It's been done very well. They have an incredible cloud business and they have an incredible silicon business. X/Twitter 上有很多讨论，质疑 Gemini usage 是否真实、revenue growth 是否来自 AI workflows。我觉得都是 malarkey。 Google 有优秀 Search experience，似乎很好地度过 AI transition；有强大的 cloud 和 silicon business。

The best thing that can happen to them is 500 different models proliferate and they support all of them because they will make so much money at the silicon layer. They'll make so much money as the cloud provider and they'll find a bunch of apps including YouTube and other things to make money from because you use the AI to target ads better or to help make better content etc etc. 最有利的是 500种 models 全部扩散，而 Google 全部支持，因为它能在 silicon 和 cloud-provider layer 赚巨款，还能在 YouTube 等 apps 上利用 AI 改善 ad targeting、content 等。

嘉宾 Fragmentation's good for them. Fragmentation 对它有利。

主持人 Oh, it's great for them. It's a compounding machine. I think the reaction, by the way, is because Jason,I saw a tweet from Ryan Peterson. I don't know if it's true, but he said Google will be spending 20% of this year's military budget in capex. So maybe what people are reacting to is just the scale of the investment they haven't seen. They're free cash flow negative for the first time since going public. 极其有利，它是 compounding machine。市场反应可能因为，Jason，Ryan Petersen 发帖说 Google capex 将相当于今年美国 military budget 的 20%，不知真假。

So that obviously takes people by surprise, but they're in a huge investment period. And I think it'll pay off dividends even if they, as Freeberg's first guess was half the number. So even if they did half the number, they'd still be overachieving. Yeah. I mean, Freeberg, if you look at Apple, I think they bought back half their stock. They've given hundreds of billions of dollars back in profits. 人们也许只是震惊于 investment scale；上市后首次 free-cash-flow negative。但它处于巨大 investment period，我认为会回报丰厚。即使最终 return 只有 Friedberg 最初猜的一半，也仍超额完成。 Friedberg，Apple 好像 buy back 了近半 stock，向股东返还数千亿美元 profits。

And gosh, it seems to me giving all this money back, buying back in the form of buying back your shares, you know, or or giving tons of dividends. I think it's great that tech companies are now saying, wait, we have something to invest in. 与其通过 share buybacks 或 dividends 返还，我很高兴 tech companies 现在说：等等，有值得投资的东西。

The next big thing is ondemand intelligence and there is no upper bound for intelligence or I don't think anybody I certainly don't see you know anytime in the next 10 years people saying I got enough intelligence I've got it I've solved all the problems in the world I think they're going to keep wanting it so what do you think about this incredible change and you know basically a hundred billion $200 billion you know depending on the company just going into capex uh this seems like a savvy move right this is all of us think this is a good I mean, if you want to bet against Google's deployment of capital into infrastructure because you'd rather have them give you cash for your shares today, you shouldn't own the stock and someone else will buy it. 下一个大事是 on-demand intelligence，而且intelligence 没有上限。未来十年不会有人说：我拥有足够 intelligence、已经解决世界全部问题。需求会继续。你怎么看这种巨大变化？每家公司拿 1,000 亿到 2,000 亿投 capex，似乎很 savvy，对吧？如果你反对 Google 把 capital 投入 infrastructure，更愿意今天拿 cash，就不该持有 stock，会有别人买。

I think Google wins in a lot of different ways. There's just so much to Google. There's the consumer business, which is a lot of stuff. There's also YouTube. There's also GCP. There's also this portfolio of other bets, which by the way includes 10% of SpaceX. and a good chunk of Anthropic that they own and so on. Whimo worth took a hundred billion dollar write up on Anthropic in the quarter. 我认为 Google 多方面获胜：consumer business、YouTube、GCP，以及 other-bets portfolio。它还包括 SpaceX 约 10% stake 和相当一部分 Anthropic。 Waymo；本季度 Anthropic mark-to-market 增加 1,000 亿美元。

So they had a hundred billion dollar mark to market on Anthropic just in one quarter and they own a piece of all these businesses. So there's a lot to like about Google, but just on GCP, I think that there's probably no better suited enterprise layer than GCP to take advantage of capturing value with AI for that enterprise setting. Google 拥有这些 businesses，吸引点很多。只看 GCP，我认为没有比它更适合在 enterprise setting 捕获 AI value 的 layer。

I think I think you're just so much better because you have so much of your enterprise data, all your email, your drive, a lot of information that you would want to have AI have knowledge of and have AI have access to to improve workplace productivity. And then they're model agnostic. I mean, you can run any model you want and you can run any workflow you want and you don't have to be tied in. A lot of other cloud service providers, cloud SAS, they're kind of model dependent. enterprise data、email、Drive 等都在 Google，正是 AI 改善 workplace productivity 所需 knowledge。它还 model agnostic，可以运行任何 model、任何 workflow，不必被锁定。其他 cloud/SaaS providers 很多依赖特定 model；Google 可按需要 tune system。

It's run in a certain way. With Google, you can better tune your system how you want to tune it. And what's the worst worst worst case scenario? The worst worst worst case scenario is they have the lowest cost infrastructure in the world to run other people's models as a service like Elon did with Grock with the Colossus 最坏场景是什么？即使只是拥有世界最低成本 infrastructure，像 Elon 用 Colossus 运行 Grok 那样替别人提供 models-as-a-service，

嘉宾 Elon Web Services seems to be doing pretty great. Elon Web Services 看起来也很成功。

主持人 And look at the return Elon's making on the Colossus install. So I think if Google in the worst case scenario, none of their application layer stuff works, none of their network effects work and they don't have any good models, they're still going to have the world's best infrastructure they can print cash on for years if you believe in AI. So if you want to bet AI, I think the best public market stock to own is Google. 看 Elon 从Colossus installation 获得的 return。最坏情况下，Google 所有 application-layer、network effects、models 都失败，仍拥有全球最佳 infrastructure，可多年 print cash。

And by the way, you also get YouTube, you also get the consumer, you also get everything else. The multiple is kind of ridiculous right now. 如果看好 AI，我认为 public market 最佳 stock 是 Google；还附送 YouTube、consumer 等一切，现在 multiple 很荒唐。

嘉宾 We talked about this on a previous issue.

I I think Chimath and you and I were talking about like what Apple should do next and I I think we both came to the conclusion it's like why not have Apple web services they have such great relationships with developers they have the app store they have this deep developer it's not so easy because you have to build a cloud service provider you have to build some critical infrastructure it's taken Amazon call it 17 years to perfect it it's taken Google call it 12 or 13 years to mostly catch up. 我们之前谈过。 Apple 下一步应该做什么，Chamath 和我们都想到：为何不建立 Apple Web Services？它有 developer relationships、App Store 和深厚 ecosystem。但建立 cloud provider 并不容易，要造 critical infrastructure；Amazon 用了约 17 年完善，Google 用了12、13 年才大致追上。

But the minute that you sign up to be a web provider, Jason, and a cloud service provider, what you're really signing up for is 59s of reliability and uptime. And that is just extremely expensive. Getting to the first two nines, you know, 99% uptime. If you're hosting something for a pharma company or a defense company, you can probably do it for relatively cheaply. Getting to the third nine, 99.9 probably cost you in the billions. 成为 web/cloud provider 真正承诺的是 five nines reliability。成本极高。前两个 nines，即 99% uptime，服务 pharma 或 defense 也许相对便宜；达到第三个 nine/99.9% 可能花 billions，第四个 tens of billions，第五个 hundreds of billions。

Getting to the fourth nine costs the tens of billions, but getting to that fifth nine costs hundreds of billions. And that takes a real investment and real technical skill, and there's only three games in town. 需要真正 investment 和 technical skill，目前只有三家。

主持人 Yeah, I think Tim Cook's not the guy to do it, but this new CEO might be uh since he's an engineer, but they've returned in the last decade. Tim Cook 可能不是合适的人，但新 CEO 是 engineer，也许可以。Apple 过去十年返还了

嘉宾 They could buy 900 billion, 755 in buybacks and 140 billion sachs in dividends. Just let that sink in. 900 billion if they had invested that in Anthropic and SpaceX and other things. They just could have found some good uses for that money. But Sax, any thoughts here on what's happen? 约 9,000 亿美元，其中 7,550 亿 buybacks、1,400 亿 dividends。想想，如果投在 Anthropic、SpaceX 等，可能找到更好用途。Sacks？

主持人 Who's to say? Sorry, but who's to say that the investors that got that money didn't find a good use for it? 谁说收到钱的 investors 没有找到好用途？

嘉宾 Oh, yeah. So, on society level, but I just think Apple could have been more ambitious if they just spent half that money instead of on buybacks and dividends on creating new products and actually releasing their car, maybe buying some interesting companies. I think they 从 society level 是，但我认为 Apple 若把一半。资金用于新 products、真正发布 car 或收购 interesting companies，可以更 ambitious。

主持人 I think it was very much a do no harm capital allocation strategy which worked for the stock. 这是 do-no-harm capital-allocation strategy，对 stock 有效。

嘉宾 It's going to be really interesting to see if John Turners flips the script. 看 John Ternus 是否翻转。

主持人 I think he does. I think he's going to be like engineer guy and yeah. All right, enough on the markets. The markets are going to do what markets do. We will talk about Iran and other stuff like that when there's more news for venture capitalists to comment on. Right now, it's just on on I know everybody keeps asking. I I don't think there's much for us to say on it. 我认为会，他是 engineer。好，markets 就到这里，markets 会按自己的方式运行。有更多消息时再谈 Iran 等。现在没太多可供 venture capitalists 评论，尽管大家一直问。

I do think there's a lot for us to say uh in socialism corner our new reoccurring uh theme here Freedberg every week there's more news coming out of socialism corner uh producer 但 Socialism Corner 有很多可说；这是新 recurring theme。 Friedberg，每周都有更多 socialism news。

嘉宾 you can show my uh my videos on socialism going back six years producer 可以展示我六年前起关于 socialism 的 videos。

主持人 let's add to the Freeberg socialism rants earlier this month city dictator mayor Zohan Mani 继续增加 Friedberg socialism rants。本月早些时候，所谓 city dictator、mayor Zohran Mamdani……

嘉宾 don't don't misuse that term please come on 别滥用 dictator 这个词。

主持人 a rental ripoff hearing at New York City's Tenement Museum. After the hearing, he introduced a rental ripoff report. If passed, bars landlords from charging applications for credit checks. It's going to let landlords require a credit check or the 40x rent income standard, but not both. Legally recognizes tenant unions and more. He's obviously frozen the rent for a year. At the hearing, an activist uh wore a COVID mask and referred to evictions as the violence of evictions. 在 New York City Tenement Museum 举办 rental-ripoff hearing，之后提出 Rental Ripoff Report。若通过，将禁止 landlords 收 application/credit-check fees；允许要求 credit check 或 40 倍 rent-income standard，但不能同时要求；还会 legally recognize tenant unions 等。他显然冻结 rent 一年。

Here's your 22nd clip. The Mandani administration is emboldening us so that we no longer tolerate the violence of evictions as a matter of business as usual. hearing 上，一名戴 COVID mask 的 activist 把 eviction 称为“驱逐的暴力”：“Mamdani administration 赋予我们力量，让我们不再容忍把 eviction violence 当作 business as usual。 ”[笑]

嘉宾 What the What were we just watching? Is that the sax? Do you remember the guy from Fat Albert who had the hat like that? Can we pull that guy up FROM YOU REMEMBER THE GUY FROM FAT ALBERT who had the hat? What's his name? Oh my god. Is CO still happening? I thought CO was over. No, no, she just got a That was like a super duper mask. That was a super duper mask. That just wasn't like a little cloth one. That was one of these those big ones. 我们刚看了什么？ Sacks，你还记得那个家伙吗？ 《Fat Albert》里那个戴类似帽子的角色？ [笑] 能调出图吗？叫什么？天哪。 COVID 还在流行？我以为结束了。那是 super-duper mask，不是小布口罩，是那种大号的。

I mean, combined with the hat, it was uh that was pretty There it is. I remember that guy from uh What is going on? 加上帽子，确实… …很特别。 [笑] 图来了。发生什么？

主持人 Wait, let's we're going to give Freeberg a chance to do a rant because I mean I could do I could do a rant on this. 给 Friedberg 机会 rant；我也能 rant。

嘉宾 No, no. Let's give Freeberg his This is Freeberg rare meat. Freeberg in 1787. In 1787, John Quincy Adams, 不，这是 Friedberg 最喜欢的题材。1787 年，John Quincy Adams，

主持人 there he goes, 开始了，

嘉宾 published a work called a defense of the constitutions of governments of the United States of America. And in that work, he had a comment. The moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. And then in 1791 he made the statement publicly, "Property must be secured or liberty cannot exist in an essay series." 出版《A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America》。其中说：当 society 接受 property 不像 God 的 laws 那样神圣，且没有 law 和 public justice 保护它时，anarchy 与 tyranny 就开始。1791 年他又公开说：“Property must be secured or liberty cannot exist。”

主持人 Can you unpack it and explain why he said that? Do you think fundamental to the foundation of the United States of America was this idea of private property rights? Because if you think about where everyone that came to America was coming from, there were these tyrannical governments, monarchies or whatever, where some overlord or some cabal could decide at any point to take the things that you have. You had no private property rights as an individual. 能解释为什么吗？ private property rights 是美国 founding 的基础。来美国的人逃离 tyrannical governments、monarchies；overlord 或 cabal 随时能夺走财产，individual 没有 private property rights。

They could come in, they're like, "That farm is my farm. You're actually a surf. I'm the lord. That thing is my thing. You have a right to use it because I vest you that right to use it. I am the all powerful. I am the tyrannical overseer of these lands. And it was that stasis that drove so many to come to the United States and say we want a place where individuals, one person can say, I own something and no one can take it from me. 他们说：农场是我的，你只是serf，我是 lord；你能使用只是因为我赋权，我是土地的全能 overseer。正是这种 stasis 驱使人们来到美国，希望 individual 能说“我拥有某物，没有人能夺走”。 Private property rights 是美国 liberty 的 foundation。

Private property rights are the foundations of liberty in America.

this idea that you can then claim acts of violence, that you can then claim circumstances of of extraordinary, extravagant wealth and say to that individual, I now have a right, the government now has a right to take your private property ultimately leads to this tyrannical form. And it starts out as being an anarchctic because, and remember, anarchy is a temporary state. It's always in between one state and another. All anarchies end up in tyranny. 如果以 violence 或极端 wealth 为由说 government 有权夺取 individual 的 private property，最终会通向 tyranny。它起初表现为 anarchy；anarchy 只是两个 states 之间的 temporary state，最终都会变成tyranny。

Groups of people fight each other. They're all stealing from each other. Everyone just goes and takes and gets what they want. And eventually people coales. They form groups. And those groups become the more powerful groups. And the powerful groups end up winning and they become the tyranny over the mass. And that is why all anarchies eventually evolve into tyranny. So anarchy and tyranny are one and the same. 群体彼此争斗、互相掠夺；之后 people coalesce，组成 groups，最强 group 获胜并统治大众。所以 anarchy 与 tyranny 是一体两面。

And fundamentally what's going on with these socialist principles is that we are taking your private property and you no longer have rights on your private property. Whether you are a landlord or whether you are a wealthy person that we've deemed to have too much wealth, we now will have the rights to come in and take your property and control it and take it from you. And it always starts with this framing of moralistic intent. socialist principles 本质是在说：我们拿走 private property，你不再拥有权利。无论 landlord 还是被认为过度富有的人，government 都有权控制、拿走其 property。

We are good. You are bad for the following reasons. You have committed violence against the people that live in your building. You have taken too much wealth and none of us have wealth. We have a right to go and take your wealth from you. It has always started from this point of view that you are bad. 这总以 moralistic intent 开始：我们是好人，你因为以下原因是坏人；你对 building residents 施加 violence，你财富太多而我们没有，因此我们有权拿走。

So the first framing is that the private property owner is evil and that the private property owner has committed an act of injustice against those who don't have the private property and that is the justification for taking away their private property rights and it is the beginning of this transition towards a tyrannical system which will ultimately be what I call this kind of great American polit or whatever socialist framework gets set up by the the cabal of the socialists and and what they're trying to put together. 最初 framing 总是 property owner 邪恶、对无产者犯下 injustice，因此剥夺其 rights 合理。这是向 tyrannical system 转变的开端，最终形成某种 socialist cabal 建立的框架。

So all of these little acts while seeming ridiculous and insane and inappropriate in aggregate are the same thing. They're a transition away from private property rights which is the foundation of the United States of America. That's why I think we should all be so shocked. And to John Quincy Adams point we need to vehemently defend those rights. 所有这些小 acts 单看荒唐，合起来却都在远离美国 foundation——private property rights。所以应震惊，并像 John Quincy Adams 所说强烈捍卫。

As soon as those rights start to slip away even in the tiniest way it is a cascading effect and everything will become tyrannical and it will be very ugly in the United States of America. Saxs, uh, what are your thoughts here on um, Comrade Mandami? 哪怕最微小滑坡都会 cascading，最终变得 tyrannical，在美国造成丑陋结果。 Sacks，你怎么看 Comrade Mamdani？

嘉宾 Yeah, I just want to add a layer to this idea. You know, the these DSA socialists say that evictions are are violence and they basically want to stop them. I think Freeberg's making the point that this deprivives the landlord of their property, and that's true, but I think we also have to stop and consider what this means for the other residents in these buildings. DSA socialists 说 evictions 是 violence，想阻止。 Friedberg 说这剥夺 landlord property，没错；但也要考虑 building 里其他residents。

I mean, first of all, if the landlords aren't making income because they got a bunch of delinquent tenants in the building, they can't now pay for upkeep and maintenance. And so, these buildings become more dilapidated, and that affects the the other tenants. But also, I have a friend who manages these apartment buildings, and he makes the point that it's often these squatters, these delinquent tenants who should be evicted but can't, who make the worst neighbors. 如果 landlords 因 delinquent tenants 没有 income，就无法支付 upkeep/maintenance，buildings 更破败，影响其他 tenants。我有管理 apartment buildings 的朋友说，往往正是该 eviction 却无法赶走的 squatters/delinquent tenants，成为最糟neighbors：夜间噪音、大声 music、砸墙、恶臭、滥用 common areas、醉酒滋事。

So, when you think about the problems in a in an apartment complex where you've got people creating noise at night, maybe they're playing loud music or you have people punching walls or there's disgusting smells coming from apartments or they're misusing common areas or you have drunken and disorderly behavior. I mean, this is all the kind of stuff that happens in these rent controlled apartment buildings. 这些都会发生在 rent-controlled apartment buildings。长期 residents、许多 old people 买不起新住处，依赖 rent control。

And you have to remember that there's long-standing residents, a lot of old people who can't afford to find a new place. They depend on the rent control. And when you can't evict that unruly tenant, yes, it it affects the landlord, but it affects the neighbors even more because now they're stuck in a downward spiral. 无法 evict unruly tenant，受影响的不只是 landlord，neighbors 更严重，被困在 downward spiral。

And I think this is a problem with the progressive mindset across the board is that these DSA types are always these like highly educated and often affluent types and they can afford to have luxury beliefs about public spaces because they never use them, right? They don't use the bus or the subway or parks. And so when they get taken over by homeless drug addicts, they always defend the addicts as opposed to the middle class. 这是 progressive mindset 的普遍问题：DSA 类型常是受高等教育、富裕的人，能对 public spaces 抱 luxury beliefs，因为自己不用 bus、subway 或 parks。空间被 homeless drug addicts 占据时，他们总为 addicts 辩护，而非 middle class。

主持人 An easy thing to do if you don't live in the tenderloin. 如果不住 Tenderloin，说起来很容易。

嘉宾 Right. Exactly. And it falls the hardest on the working class because they actually need these amenities. They need the parks for their kids or they need to use a subway, right? And it's really a problem when you get people shooting up or doing drugs or, you know, defecating in a subway. 对，代价落在 working class，因为他们真正需要这些 amenities。他们的 kids 需要 parks，也要乘 subway。有人注射 drugs 或在 subway 排泄，问题很严重。

主持人 You're walking your kids to school like the person in Maring County who has these luxury beliefs or on the upper east side, they just don't they're abstracted from this. They don't need to deal with it, right? Marin County 或 Upper East Side 抱 luxury beliefs 的人不必面对。

嘉宾 We talked about this. 我们谈过。

主持人 And it's it's no different with these rent control departments. I think that's the important point here is that if over a period of several years you can't evict anyone no matter how problematic they are, you effectively turn these apartment buildings into the equivalent of housing projects. And you know that really affects decent people of modest income who have nowhere else to go and their quality of life suffers. rent-control apartments 也一样。若多年不能 evict 任何人，无论多 problematic，apartment buildings 会变成 housing projects。

And look, you know, the private equity wives in their gated communities will still feel good about themselves because, you know, they prevented these evictions, but it's the people in the building who are going to suffer the most. And well, these and they're Shimat, these people are not just thinking from first principles. 收入普通、无处可去的 decent people 的 quality of life 受损；gated communities 里的 private-equity wives 仍因阻止 eviction 感觉良好，但 building 里的人最受苦。

If you want to solve the housing problem, anybody with any basic understanding of economics would just say, well, increase the supply and the price will go down. And it actually doesn't matter which supply you add. It doesn't matter if it's luxury units or multif family or single family. As long as there's more uh housing and there's transportation to get to it and to move people in and out, it'll be fine. Chamath，这些人没有从 first principles 思考。解决 housing problem，basic economics 会说增加 supply，price 会下降。增加 luxury、multifamily 或 single-family 都可以，只要 housing 更多，且有 transportation连接，就没问题。

As we've as I like I'm sitting here in Tokyo, like they figured this out a long time ago. Just build up and put more units in. They figured it out in Texas, Florida, Nevada. The only people who can't seem to figure this out, you know, is like New York, LA, and San Francisco just happens to be liberal elite enclaves. And it's not hard on a conceptual basis. Just allow people to build some more units and different types of units and then the price will go down. 我在 Tokyo，他们很早就懂：向上建、增加 units。 Texas、Florida、Nevada 也懂；只有 New York、LA、San Francisco 这些 liberal-elite enclaves 不懂。

Chimath, any any thoughts here? The data from Austin says once you relax the permitting constraint, you'll get more units built. And for every unit that comes online, it literally drives down the rent. So if you want low rent, you need to have more units. If you want more units, you need to permit more aggressively. That's it. So, it's just a decision. 概念不难，只要允许人们建更多、不同类型 units，price 就会下降。 Chamath？ Austin data 显示，放松 permitting constraint 会增加 units；每新增一套都直接压低 rent。

The same political will that it would take Mandani to pass this law, he could actually pass some permitting reform and it would do a lot more good. The thing on private property, the reason I asked Freebrook to explain it is I really believe what he's saying is really important. It's like funny to me this idea that at the limit, let's just say you're driving your car and all of a sudden somebody jumps in it and they're like, "Well, you know, now I'm here. 所以低 rent 需要更多 units，更多 units 需要更积极 permitting，就是这样。这只是 decision。 Mamdani 推此 law 所需的 political will，也能用于 permitting reform，效果更好。让我请 Friedberg 解释 private property，是因为很重要。

You can't kick me out." or you know, you go outside, you leave your door open to go get a FedEx package or Amazon box and somebody runs in and sits on your couch and now all of a sudden they can't you can't kick them out. And it sounds so ludicrously dumb. If you force the owners of physical property to not be able to credit check and differentiate who they rent their apartments to, what's going to happen is rents will go up even more. 极端想象：你开 car，某人跳进来说我在这里了，你不能赶；或你出门拿 FedEx/Amazon package，door 没关，有人跑进去坐上 couch，突然不能赶走。听起来荒唐。如果 physical-property owners 不能 credit-check、不能区分 tenants，rents 会更高。

So, I suspect that what they should do is they should pass this law and they should observe what the outcome is and then you can do a pretty scientific AB comparison between New York City and Austin and you'll know what works and what doesn't work. 我甚至怀疑应让他们通过 law，观察 outcome，再科学 A/B 比较 New York City 与 Austin，看什么有效。

嘉宾 Yeah. 对。

主持人 I mean, here's the problem is is the socialists never learn. I mean, we already have 问题是 socialists 从不学习。

嘉宾 got rid of rent control in Argentina. Rents went down. Argentina 取消 rent control 后 rents 下降。

主持人 Yeah. Yeah, I mean this is the problem with Jimoth is that look, if the socialists ever learned from their failed experiments, you wouldn't have Chicago, you know, it's just you like we don't need New York to go down the tubes to know this isn't going to work cuz it's happened in so many other places already. But somehow it just never seems to stop. They never seem to learn. So they should run the experiment and learn. 对。如果 socialists 会从 failed experiments 学习，就不会有Chicago。我们不需要 New York 走向崩坏才知道无效，许多地方已经发生。但它永不停止。他们不学习，所以应该实验并学习。

I mean what's crazy is you'll be learning and it'll be a failure on the grandest stage possible. You're talking about the biggest, most complicated New York City. My gosh. I mean, and and Sachs, what happens if a landlord cannot raise the rent reasonably? Well, they have no incentive to invest in new units. They have no incentive to upgrade new units. And there's this trap in New York City specifically. 可怕的是，失败会发生在最宏大舞台——最大、最复杂的 New York City。 Sacks，如果landlord 不能合理涨 rent？就没有 incentive 投资或升级 units。

They have made this regulations for apartments such that if you do a renovation, it has to hit certain codes. And there are a ton of codes. Okay. So that means it's incredibly expensive. So now they have you have ghost apartments. New York City 特别有 trap：renovation 必须符合大量 codes，成本极高。因此他们会得到 ghost apartments。

嘉宾 Yes. So now the housing stock becomes dilapidated. And look, they're doing something even worse now, I think, which is they are banning landlords from doing credit and background checks on potential tenants. And they they say that you can't look at their income, so you can't vet whether they can actually pay the rent. So they're banning 对，housing stock 逐渐 dilapidated。更糟的是，据说现在禁止 landlords 对 potential tenants 做 credit/background checks，也不准看 income，不能验证是否能付 rent。

主持人 landlord. No more landlord. 禁止 landlord，世界不再需要 landlord。

嘉宾 They're they're banning eviction. And then they're and then they're preventing you from doing the diligence to see if this is even a tenant who will pay the rent. 它们禁止 eviction，又阻止 diligence。

主持人 We've lost the script. 我们已经偏离现实。

嘉宾 So what are you supposed to do? The interesting question is if you were forced to live under these rules, the landlord, what would you do? And the obvious answer is you'd start rent three or four times higher and you force people to sign up to a multi-month prepayment and you'd slowly ease those conditions until you find a market clearing price. That's the only way to do it. So rents will not go down. Rents will go up. 那该怎么办？若 landlord 被迫遵守这些 rules，显然会把初始 rent 提高三四倍，要求 multi-month prepayment，再慢慢放松条件，直到找到 market-clearing price。只有这种办法。所以 rents 不会下降，而会上涨。

So run the experiment and let's just observe what happens. 让实验运行，看 outcome。

主持人 That's a really good point, Jimoth. Like let's say that you know X percent of tenants are going to become delinquent, right? Because and by the way, what's their incentive to pay when they know they can't be evicted? Zero. Zero. So like actually a pretty significant percentage of people could just decide I'm going to make rent optional. And so now the landlord has to absorb those losses. Exactly. And that means they have to pass on a higher rent to everybody else. 说得很好。若知道 X% tenants 会 delinquent，而且不能被 evict，他们支付 incentive 是什么？零。相当一部分人可能把 rent 当 optional，landlord 承担 losses，。没错，再把更高 rent 转嫁给所有人。

You're going to set the rent 3x higher and you're going to slowly meander it down. 起初定三倍，再慢慢往下调。

And like I said, you're going to have to wire in the first full year of rent. 还要提前 wire 第一整年 rent。

嘉宾 Well, good luck. How is that affordable? 那怎么 affordable？

主持人 It's even worse, Sax. Not only do the landlords keep the dilapitated apartments in some cases, it's better for them to just leave apartments, housing stock, empty. So, somebody leaves, they are forced to renovate it and it costs more, you know,hundreds of thousands in uh renovations. So, they say, "You know what? I'll just leave it empty for now." And so, you have 50,000 ghost apartments according to reports in New York City. 更糟的是，landlords 不仅可能保留 dilapidated apartments，有时干脆留空。tenant 搬走后若被迫 renovation，成本可能数十万美元，于是说先空着。reports 称 New York City 有 50,000 个 ghost apartments。

嘉宾 Well, that's an Airbnb problem. That's like a 那是 Airbnb 问题吧？

主持人 No, they banned Airbnb in New York. You cannot get an Airbnb. New York 禁了 Airbnb，根本订不到。

嘉宾 Oh, really? 真的吗？

主持人 Yes. So, now it's like 对。

嘉宾 That's really interesting. Yeah. Look, if you're if you're a landlord, okay, I mean, I guess one thing you would do is just sell and go to another jurisdiction. Another thing you could do is just wait this out because it's not profitable to run an apartment building. You can't raise your rents. You can't evict people. You can't diligence the tenants. So, maybe you just leave the building empty and you wait this out. 很有意思。 landlord 可能卖掉去别的 jurisdiction；也可以等待政策过去，因为 apartment building 无利可图：不能涨 rent、不能 evict、不能 diligence tenants。若 debt 不高，就把 building 留空等待。 ghost apartments。

I mean, that's assuming you don't have too much debt on it, right? Or ghost apartments. Yeah. And then you have ghost apartments. Yeah. All right. Listen, you've been thinking about coming to the All-In Summit. This is your year. speakers are world class. The events, the parties, the networking, 80% of the people there,founders, investors or high level operators this year. Greater focus on network,the musical performances. 对。好了，如果一直想来 All-In Summit，今年就是机会。 speakers 世界级，events、parties、networking，80% attendees 是founders、investors 或 high-level operators，今年更注重 networking。还有 musical performances。

Oh yes. I mean, in the past, we've had the food, the drink,Grimes,Diplo,Diplo. We've had so many incredible people. Go to the all-inssummit.com. All right, everybody. It's another amazing alltime legendary episode of the All-In podcast. Love you boys. Bye. Byebye. 当然。过去有 food、drink、Grimes、Diplo 等精彩嘉宾。访问 all-insummit.com。好了，各位，又是一集传奇 All-In Podcast。爱你们，再见。

主持人 Let your winners ride. And it said we open sourced it to the fans and they've just gone crazy with it. Love you. Besties are gone. That is my dog taking an driveway. [音乐]让赢家继续奔跑。[音乐]它说……我们把它 open source 给 fans，他们玩疯了。[音乐] 爱你。[音乐] Besties 离开了。那是我的狗……[音乐] driveway。

嘉宾 Oh man, my habitasher will meet me up. We should all just get a room and just have one big huge orgy cuz they're all just It's like this like sexual tension that we just need to release somehow. We need to get mercy. I'm going all in. 天哪，我的……会来接我。[音乐]我们都该开个房间，来一次巨大的 orgy，因为这一切都是 sexual tension，[音乐] 总得释放。[笑]我们需要 mercy。[音乐] [音乐] I'm all in。