欢迎与AI时代概述
Kristen Mer: 大家好,欢迎来到On Airfest 2026。非常感谢大家。我是今天的主持人Kristen Mer。如果你不认识我,我是一名播客主持人,一名王室观察员,一名文化评论员。过去一周我一直忙于一些你可能听说过的王室新闻。所以,你可能从这些方面认识我,但今天不是关于我。今天的主题是即将登上舞台和参加这个音乐节的杰出人才。让我们开始今天的第一次现场录制,Bloomberg的Odd Lots podcast。Odd Lots的主持人是Joe Weisenthal和Tracy Alloway。请欢迎他们和他们的特邀嘉宾Henry Blodget上台。非常感谢。欢迎上台。
Original English
Kristen Mer: Hello, hello, hello. Welcome to On Airfest 2026. Thank you so much. I'm Kristen Mer. I'm your MC for the day. And in case you don't know who I am, I'm a podcaster. I'm a Royal watcher. I'm a culture critic. I've been very busy over the last week with some royal news you may have heard of. So, um, you may know me from those things, but today is not about me. It is about the fantastic talent that is going to be on the stage and at this festival. Let's get to our first live taping of the day, Bloomberg's Odd Lots podcast. The hosts of OddLots are Joe Weisenthal and Tracy Aloway. Please welcome them to the stage along with their very special guest, Henry Blahett. Thank you so much. Welcome to the stage.
Joe Weisenthal: 非常感谢。大家好,欢迎收听Odd Lots podcast的现场节目。我是Joe Weisenthal。
Original English
Joe Weisenthal: Thank you so much. And uh hello and welcome to a live episode of the OddLotss podcast. I'm Joe Weisenthal.
Tracy Alloway: 我是Tracy Alloway。
Original English
Tracy Alloway: And I'm Tracy Aloway.
Joe Weisenthal: Tracy,我们肯定不会这样做,但现在几乎每一集播客似乎都可以围绕AI展开,对吧?它正在触及我们讨论的所有领域,慢慢地被这个话题所涵盖。我们不会这样做,但我们可能可以。不仅仅是每一集都可以关于AI,而是每一集现在都可以由AI制作,对吧?事实上,去年我们有几个人制作了AI生成的播客节目,效果还不错。我想,如果他们今天再做,会更好。
Original English
Joe Weisenthal: Tracy, we're definitely not going to do this, but it definitely feels like almost every episode could be about AI these days, right? Like it's just touching. So all the things we talk about are slowly getting subsumed into this topic that we're not going to do it, but we probably could. It's not just that every episode could be on AI. It's that every episode could probably be made by AI at this point, right? And in fact, we've had a few people last year, I remember there were a few people who made AI generated episodes of the podcast and they weren't that bad. And I have to think if they did it today, they would be even better.
Tracy Alloway: 它们肯定会更好。当然,不是比我们更好,但会比一年前更好。
Original English
Tracy Alloway: They would definitely be better anyway. Not better than us, but they would be better than they were a year.
Joe Weisenthal: 我不太确定。
Original English
Joe Weisenthal: I'm not so sure.
Tracy Alloway: 它们会比一年前更好。总之,我们必须谈论AI及其对市场、金融、经济等方面的影响。当然,我们也要谈谈它对我们媒体行业意味着什么。我非常高兴地说,我们请到了最合适的嘉宾。我们将与Regenerator的首席执行官Henry Blodget进行对话。他曾是我在Business Insider时的老板,在媒体和华尔街金融领域都有背景。所以,他是谈论所有这些不同维度的完美人选。
Original English
Tracy Alloway: They'd be better than they were a year ago. Anyway, so we have to talk about AI and what it's doing to the market, finance, economics, etc. And of course, we have to talk about what it means for us in the media industry. And I'm very excited to say we do have the perfect guest. We're going to be speaking here with Henry Blahett, the CEO of Regenerator. He used to be my boss when I was at uh Business Insider, someone who has a background in both media and of course uh Wall Street and finance. So, the perfect person to talk about all the different dimensions here.
Joe Weisenthal: 确实是最合适的嘉宾。好的,Henry,非常感谢你再次来到Odd Lots。
Original English
Joe Weisenthal: Truly the perfect guest. All right, Henry, thank you so much for coming back on OddLot.
Henry Blodget: 谢谢邀请。
Original English
Henry Blodget: Thank you for having me.
AI估值与市场情绪
Joe Weisenthal: 上次我们和你谈话是在去年五月,当时的主题是大家都在讨论AI公司的高估值,它们如何才能被证明是合理的?那是一次有趣的对话。现在感觉叙事已经完全反转了180度,变成了这些公司如此强大,它们将摧毁所有其他公司。自今年年初以来,所有软件公司和支付提供商等都一直在暴跌。你如何更新你的观点?你现在和五月时相比有什么不同?
Original English
Joe Weisenthal: So, uh, the last time we talked to you was in May of last year, and the theme then was everyone was talking about here are these huge valuations for AI companies. How could they possibly be justified? And that was an interesting conversation. And it feels like the narrative has now flipped 180 degrees where it's like these companies are so powerful, they're going to destroy every other company in their wake. And every software company and payments provider, etc., has been like plunging really since the start of the year. How have you like updated your views? Where are you now versus where you were in say May?
Henry Blodget: 我们正处于这个行业发展的早期阶段。这很像1990年代的互联网,对于那些还记得的人来说。基本上,当你早期遇到这样一个巨大的机会时,你可以对未来发生的事情做出各种合理的预测。而现在,我们有时会觉得是灾难,我们所有人都将失业,一切都将崩溃。另一些时候,又觉得,嘿,这只是一个高级的文字处理器,没什么好担心的,OpenAI的估值过高了。我要说的是,自从我们上次谈话以来,我相信我们当时对OpenAI 3000亿美元的AI估值感到震惊。我相信最新的估值是8000亿美元。所以,我们还在攀升。但还有其他公司的价值是它的许多倍。所以,如果有人认为AI将接管世界,并且OpenAI是AI时代的Google——我认为这个论点非常误导,我们可以深入探讨——那么人们可以想象一家公司的价值可能是现有某些公司的许多倍。
Original English
Henry Blodget: We are early in the development of the industry. This looks a lot like the internet in the 1990s for those of you who remember. Basically, when you have a huge opportunity like this early on, you can have a huge range of reasonable predictions about what is going to happen. And here we one day it's catastrophe. None of us are ever going to have a job again. Everything's going to crater. Other days, hey, it's just a fancy word processor. No worries. A open AI is way overvalued. I will say that since we talked last, I believe that we were a gasast at the Open AI 300 billion valuation. I believe the latest one is 800 billion. So, we are climbing. But there are other companies out there that are worth many times that. So if one does think that AI is going to take over the world and open AI is the Google of the AI era which is the thesis which I think is very misguided that we can get into then one can imagine that a company might be worth many multiples of some of the companies that are out there.
Joe Weisenthal: 所以,这周发生了一件疯狂的事情,说到AI和媒体,有一个人,我们请他上过节目,James Van Gilan,又名Catrini。他经营着一家对冲基金,也出版了一份投资通讯。他基本上写了一个2028年的末日情景,其中一切都变成了AI。因为一切都是AI,没有人有工作,经济中没有人真正购买任何东西。我们基本上陷入了经济和金融危机。当我读到那篇文章,然后看到市场对它的反应时,股票大幅下跌,人们将其归因于一份基本上是思想性的通讯。我觉得这有点疯狂,它说明了你刚才所说的,即当我们处于这个真正不确定的时期时,你可以非常非常快地从某种狂喜转向末日论。
Original English
Joe Weisenthal: So, one of the crazy things that happened this week, speaking of AI and media, is there's a guy, we've had him on the show, James Van Gilan, aka Catrini. He runs a hedge fund, also publishes an investment newsletter. He basically wrote a doomcase scenario of the year 2028 where everything had become AI. And because everything was AI, no one had any jobs, no one was actually buying anything in the economy. And we basically had an economic and financial crisis. when I read that piece and then saw the market reaction to it. So stocks fell pretty dramatically and people were attributing it to basically a newsletter that was a thought piece. I thought that was kind of insane and it speaks to what you just said which is when we're in this really uncertain time you can go from sort of euphoria to doomerism very very quickly.
Henry Blodget: 没错。因为这都是预测。我们都在展望模糊的未来,猜测它会变得多大?你的假设中的微小变化都会对当前价值产生巨大影响。我要说的是,那份研究报告既受到称赞也受到抨击。这正是你希望分析师做的事情。你希望他们展望未来,采取强硬立场,说出它可能是什么样子。我认为那是一份引人入胜的报告。我要指出的是,尽管你刚才将其描述为经济末日,但报告的第一句话之一是“10%的失业率”,这意味着90%的就业率。我们大多数人仍然有工作,是的,行业正在发生变化,但我们大多数人仍在工作。所以,在我听说它预示着灾难后,当我拿起它时,我感到惊讶。它就像,嗯,不,它预测的是一个巨大的技术变革,经济有时需要一段时间来消化,但不是末日。你认为它对现在的市场说了些什么?我的意思是,这有点像市场故事和媒体故事的互动,因为这是一篇Substack文章,它确实在周一很大程度上影响了市场,对吧?
Original English
Henry Blodget: Exactly. Because it's all predictions. We're all looking into the hazy future saying how big is it going to be? These small changes in your assumptions make a huge difference in the current value. I will say because that research report was both heralded and pillaried. This is exactly what you want analysts to do. You want them to look out and take a strong position and say here's what it can look like. And it I thought it was a fascinating report. I will point out that even though as you just characterized it that this is economic Armageddon, one of the first sentences of the report says 10% unemployment which means 90% employment. Most of us still have a job and yes there are changes in industries but most of us are still working. So I was surprised after hearing about it this predicts catastrophe that I picked it up. It's like, well, no, it predicts a big technology change that sometimes takes the economy a while to digest, but not Armageddon. What do you think though it says like about the market right now? I mean, and it's kind of an interaction of a market story and a media story because here's a Substack piece that really did seem to move the market quite a bit on Monday, right? Yeah.
Tracy Alloway: 是的。
Original English
Tracy Alloway: Yeah.
Joe Weisenthal: 这说明了什么样的市场/媒体环境?因为今年以来,软件股一直受到重创,我们的AI代理,也许我们会深入探讨,是否会以某种方式让我们不再需要购买常规的商业软件?我不太完全理解这一点,但这是今年以来的担忧。像这样一篇Substack文章能够如此病毒式传播并影响市场,这说明了什么样的市场/媒体环境?每个人都神经紧张。估值本来就很高。我们每天都在重新评估我们的观点,说:“我这样想是不是疯了?也许我疯了。我得有点恐慌。”所以,我们看到股票下跌。市盈率正在稍微压缩。再说一次,这离末日还很远,只是人们在说:“好吧,这里可能有一些变化。”正如你所说,现在最大的看跌理由是:“天哪,Claude的代码太好了。没有人会再购买软件了。你只需说,‘嘿,给我做个软件。’”
Original English
Joe Weisenthal: What does it say about the market environment that people because it's all year, right? the software the software stocks have been getting clobbered all year and our AI agents and maybe we'll get into that gonna somehow make it so we don't need to buy regular business software anymore. I don't totally understand that but this has been the fear all year. What does it sort of say about the market/ media environment that a Substack piece like this could just go absolutely mega viral like that and move the market? Everybody is twitchy. Valuations were high to begin with. We're all re-evaluating our views every day saying, "Am I crazy thinking it could be this? Maybe I'm crazy. I have to panic a little bit." So, we've seen stocks roll over. The multiples are compressing a little bit. Again, so far from Armageddon, it's people saying, "Okay, there may be some change here." And to your point, the big bare case now is that, "Oh my goodness, Claude code is so good. No one will ever buy software anymore. You'll just say, "Hey, make me the software."
Tracy Alloway: 是的。
Original English
Tracy Alloway: Yeah,
Joe Weisenthal: 我做过。
Original English
Joe Weisenthal: I've done that. Yeah, you have you're a big experimentter. Yeah.
Henry Blodget: 但我想说,你以前可能没有在企业软件上花费数十亿美元。
Original English
Henry Blodget: But I would say you were probably not spending billions of dollars on enterprise software before. And
Joe Weisenthal: 我不知道,我没有成千上万的员工,他们需要得到它,你知道吗?
Original English
Joe Weisenthal: I don't know like I don't have like thousands of people on my payroll who are like they need to get it at f you know
Henry Blodget: 没错,他们依赖这个。而拥有公司支持产品的好处之一是,你可以让他们对此负责。也许Claude代码无法按照你想要的方式制作你的企业软件。有人就拿不到报酬。所以,在我看来,这是一种歇斯底里。我不理解。软件公司不会消失。那些不从事软件业务的公司不会突然说:“哦,让我们找一个懂AI的初级人员为我们构建所有软件。”这不会发生。但总的来说,巨大的变化即将到来,会有很多颠覆。我们是否确定这会对这些公司的利润和经济变化产生什么影响?我们不确定。这被称为折现率升高。它让人感觉风险更高。在那一天,周一,每个人都突然感到厌恶风险。今天,我要指出,在我们录制的时候,每个人都在说:“没问题。再次全力以赴。”
Original English
Henry Blodget: exactly who depend on this. And one of the nice things about having a company standing behind a product is you actually can hold them accountable for it and maybe clawed code doesn't make your enterprise software the way you want. Somebody doesn't get paid. So as I hear that to me that is hysteria. I don't understand it. Software companies are not going away. Companies that are not in the software business are not going to suddenly say, "Oh, let's have a junior person who understands AI build all our software for us." It is not going to happen. But overall, big changes coming, lots of disruption. Do we know for sure what that's going to do to profits of these companies and change in the economy? We we do not. And that is called the discount rate getting higher. it feels riskier. And on that day, Monday, everybody was feeling suddenly riskaverse. Today, I'll point out as we tape, everyone's saying, "No problem. Off to the races again."
AI与就业:末日论与新机遇
Tracy Alloway: 你显然经历过并积极参与过上一次技术颠覆周期,并产生了深远影响。你认为人们,尤其是华尔街的人,在处理这次AI与互联网泡沫的对比时,有哪些地方理解错了?
Original English
Tracy Alloway: You've obviously lived and been very active and influential in a previous technological, I guess, cycle of disruption. What do you think people are getting wrong here, especially on Wall Street, when it comes to their approach on this particular one, AI versus.com?
Henry Blodget: 我认为这远远超出了华尔街。我认为仍然有一个很大的阵营,这种观点被提出,然后被压制,然后又更强烈地回来,认为人类真的会失业。对此我想说的是,我认为AI更大的风险实际上是有人发明了一个代理系统,它真的进入世界并造成了很大的损害。我认为这是一个更大的风险。如果你看看技术就业随时间的变化,比如200年前从农业到工业的巨大转变,我们93%的人在农场工作,现在只有2%。这是一个巨大的转变。然而,在整个过程中,就业岗位数量不断增长。电话接线员、蒸汽机等也是如此,你看任何一个部分,都有颠覆和痛苦。我并不是在轻视那些工作被改变或颠覆的人所承受的痛苦。但从历史上看,经济总体上创造了更多的就业机会。所以,当你看到那些“工作将被摧毁”的预测时,你通常不会看到另一面,那就是将创造多少新工作。
Original English
Henry Blodget: I I think this goes way beyond Wall Street. I I think there really is a big camp still and the case gets made and then it gets tamped down and then it comes back even more strongly that there really will be no jobs for humans anymore. And I what I would say to that is I think the bigger risk with AI is actually that somebody invents an agentic system that actually gets out in the world and does a lot of damage. I think that is a bigger risk. If you look at technology job transitions over time, like the big one, which is agriculture to industrial, 200 years ago, 93% of us worked on farms. Now it's 2%. That's a big transition. And yet all through that, the number of jobs grow grew. And same thing with things like telephone operators, with steam engines, you look at any piece of it, there is disruption and pain. And I'm not minimizing that for the people whose jobs are changed or disrupted by it. But the economy overall so far in history has gone on to create a lot more jobs. And so when you when you see the lay waste to jobs predictions, you don't also often get the other side, which is how many new jobs are going to be created.
Tracy Alloway: 嗯,这正是我要问你的,因为我们总是在技术进步周期中听到,新的工作会被创造出来。但我认为AI的难点在于,很难看到这些新工作会是什么。是的,比如我们比一台能在不到一分钟内编写程序或撰写文章的超级计算机强在哪里?
Tracy Alloway**: Well, this is exactly what I want to ask you because we hear that all the time during technological advancement cycles, new jobs are created. But I think the difficulty with **AI** is that it's hard to see what those new jobs are better going to be. Yeah. Like what are we better at than a supercomputer that can code a program or write an article in less than a minute
Joe Weisenthal: 或者模仿声音并制作播客?
Original English
Joe Weisenthal: or mimic a voice and do a podcast?
Henry Blodget: 好的。那么,我们现在已经三年了。这些工作末日预测在ChatGPT问世20分钟后就开始了。我们现在在哪里?也许在边缘地带有一点点变化,但也许这仍然是公司在COVID繁荣后过度招聘,现在正在进行规模调整。正如你所说,我可以进入大型语言模型,我可以去Google,我想是这样,输入一个主题,然后说:“把它变成一个很棒的OddLots podcast。”
Henry Blodget**: Okay. So, how how where are we three years in at this point? These job doom predictions started 20 minutes after **Chad GPT** came out. Where are we? Maybe a little bit at the margin. We're seeing something maybe, but maybe it's still that companies way overhired after the COVID boom and and are now sort of right sizing themselves. As you say, I can go into LLA. I can go to **Google**, I think it is, drop in a topic and say, make this into a great **OddLots podcast**.
Tracy Alloway: 是的。
Original English
Tracy Alloway: Yeah.
Henry Blodget: 有些人说Google的Notebook LM,它能从文档中创建播客。很多人说他们用Joe和Tracy训练了这个模型。这听起来像是一个Odd Lots。其他人也声称如此,但是的,他们可能做到了。我只是说你们还在继续成长。我听到越来越多的是:“哦,你得听OddLots,它在不断成长。”我不认为我们之前谈过你们彻底改变了制作节目的方式。我们仍然在这里录制。你没有只是排队使用大型语言模型。谁会急着去和Google做大采访?他们不会。他们会来和你们做,因为他们喜欢你们,你们的听众也喜欢你们。所以,我只是说,即使在那些看似很容易被摧毁的领域,你们也需要花钱。Bloomberg为什么要花钱?为什么要浪费钱,对吧?
Henry Blodget**: Some people have said that **Google** Multiple people think that **Google's notebook LM**, which does that creates a podcast out of a document. Multiple people have said they trained this on **Joe** and **Tracy**. Like this, this sounds like an odd. Other people are claiming that too, but yes, they could have. I'm just saying you guys continue to grow. All I hear more and more about is, "Oh, you got to listen to **OddLots** growing, growing, growing, growing, growing." And I don't think we were talking earlier that you've radically changed you made the way you make the show. We're still recording it here. You didn't just queue up LLMs. Who is going to rush to do the big interview with **Google**? They're not. they're going to come do it with you guys because they love you and your audience loves you. So, I'm just saying even in something that seemingly looks so ripe to be destroyed. You guys cost money. Why is **Bloomberg** spending it? Why? You're throwing it away, right?
Joe Weisenthal: 我们要在舞台上为我们的薪水辩护吗?
Original English
Joe Weisenthal: Are we going to have to defend our salaries on stage?
Henry Blodget: 我只是说,更乐观一些。
Original English
Henry Blodget: You're I'm just saying more optimistic.
AI时代的网络效应与竞争格局
Tracy Alloway: 所以,我的意思是,我听到了两种说法,谢谢你这么说。另一方面,你知道,人们可能对处理索赔和保险的人没有同样的亲和力。他们并不真正关心是否需要人情味,或者技术支持。我想问一个相关的问题。这也与周一发布的那篇文章有关,它与OpenAI是否能成为下一代Google的问题有关。文章中提出的一个论点,我认为这与我观察到的情况相符,那就是AI似乎没有像以前那样的网络效应。所以,你可以几乎毫无问题地从ChatGPT切换到Claude,这不是问题。然而,我第一次在2000年使用Google之后,就再也没有使用过Yahoo了。那是我最后一次使用其他搜索引擎。这似乎是文章中的一个论点,即在AI时代,不会有像过去25年互联网时代那样的粘性和网络效应。所以,当你思考OpenAI与Google,这个时代与互联网泡沫时代时,这是否引起你的共鸣?
Tracy Alloway**: So, I mean, I hear both ways and thank you for saying that. On the other hand, you know, people might not have the same affinity for someone who does claims adjusted and insurance. They don't really care if they have the human touch for that or tech support. I want to ask a related question. It also relates to the piece that came out on Monday and it relates to this question of whether **OpenAI** is could be the **Google** of the next generation. One of the arguments that the piece stipulates and I think it sort of fits with what I have observed is that **AI** doesn't seem to have **network effects** in the same way. So it's like you could switch from **Chad GPT** to **clawed** with almost no issues and it's just not an issue. Whereas after the first time I used **Google** in 2000, I never used **Yahoo** again. That was the that was the last time I had ever used another search engine. This seems this is one of the arguments in the piece that there isn't going to be the same stickiness and **network effects** in the **AI** era in the way that defined the last 25 years of the internet. And so when you think about like **OpenAI** versus **Google** this era versus the dot era, does that resonate to you?
Henry Blodget: 我认为那些会说OpenAI是这个时代的Google的人会说,你会越来越多地把你的生活融入其中。它会了解你的一切。它会定制。所以,转换成本会越来越高。但到目前为止,还没有。我告诉你真正让我觉得他们有麻烦的事情,而且我仍然认为,考虑到估值和普遍认为他们已经赢了的共识,
Henry Blodget**: I think that what folks who would say that **OpenAI** is the **Google** of the era would say that more and more you're going to build more of your life into it. It's going to know everything about you. It's going to custom. So, it's going to be the **switching costs** are going to grow. But to this point, they have not. And I'll tell you the thing that really made me think they were in trouble and I still think that given the valuation and given the general consensus that they've already won,
Joe Weisenthal: 是当Google Gemini发布时,人们说:“哦,它更好了。”
Original English
Joe Weisenthal: was when Google Gemini came out and people said, "Oh, it's better."
Henry Blodget: 是的。他们超越了他们,所有的牛市论者都说:“哦,等着OpenAI的下一个版本出来吧。”我要说,如果你回到1990年代,Amazon非常有争议。很多人认为它会破产。它只是一家书店。Barnes & Noble一旦有了网站,或者Walmart什么的,就会把它挤垮。Walmart和Barnes & Noble从未接近过Amazon。Amazon总是遥遥领先,顺便说一句,它也差点破产。但没有人能接近它。而在这个案例中,产品发布不到两年,竞争对手就追赶上来了。
Henry Blodget**: Yeah. They passed them and everyone all the bulls said, "Oh, just wait till the next version of **OpenAI** comes out." I will say if you go back into the 1990s, **Amazon** was very controversial. A lot of people thought it would go bankrupt. It's just a bookstore. **Barnes & Noble** is going to put them out of business as soon as they have a website or **Walmart** or whatever. **Walmart** and **Barnes & Noble** never got anywhere near **Amazon**. **Amazon** was so far out ahead always and still almost went bankrupt, by the way. But nobody was ever close. And in this case, less than two years after the product comes out, the incumbent has caught up.
Joe Weisenthal: 对我来说,那就是我说:“哇,好吧,也许这真的会像互联网一样,”
Original English
Joe Weisenthal: To me, that's when I said like, whoa, okay, maybe this actually is going to be like the internet,
Henry Blodget: 也就是最初的五年,我们所有人,包括我,都在说:“哦,就买那些领导者吧。没问题。他们是会生存下来的。”你知道1990年代最初上市的500家公司中有多少家幸存下来了吗?只有一家在崩溃后真正为投资者赚了很多钱,那就是Amazon。我所知道的另外两家,Cisco在25年后终于回到了它的股价。eBay在一段时间内表现不错,然后有点后劲不足。这只是数百家公司中的少数。所以,我认为很有可能,是的,AI是巨大的。这是一个很棒的想法。我们都想要它,很快就会有人出现,对OpenAI做Google对Yahoo做的事情,顺便说一句,Yahoo曾是搜索引擎的大赢家,然后Google摧毁了它。所以我只是觉得现在说OpenAI是Google还为时过早。
Henry Blodget**: which is the first five years, all of us, including me, were saying like, oh, just buy the leaders. No problem. Like, they're the ones that are going to survive. You know how many survived of that first 500 companies that went public in the 1990s? One went on to actually make investors a lot of money after the crash. That was **Amazon**. Two others that I know of. **Cisco** after 25 years finally got back to its stock price. **eBay** did okay for a while and then kind of sputtered out a little bit. That's out of hundreds and hundreds of companies. So, I think it's very possible that yes, **AI** is huge. It's a great idea. we all want it and somebody is going to come along soon and do to **open AI** what **Google** did to **Yahoo** which by the way **Yahoo** was the big search engine winner and then **Google** destroyed it. So I just think it's way too early to say that we **open AI** is the **Google**.
OpenAI的商业模式困境
Joe Weisenthal: 我们一开始提到了OpenAI的估值,去年每个人都对此感到震惊。现在也许没那么多了。但即使你假设未来OpenAI或任何其他公司会颠覆每一个行业,有成千上万的员工和公司每月支付200美元或更多来访问新的大型语言模型(LLM),无论新模型是什么,OpenAI至少目前在每个付费用户身上仍然亏损。那么,这实际上如何转化为可行的商业模式呢?
Joe Weisenthal**: We started by mentioning the **open AI** valuation which everyone was a gasast at last year. Now maybe not so much. But even if you assume a future where **Open AI** or whoever comes in and disrupts every single industry and there are thousands of employees and companies that are paying $200 a month or whatever to access the new LLM, whatever the new model is, **OpenAI**, at least for right now, is still losing money on every customer that's like a powered user. So how does that actually translate into a working **business model**?
Henry Blodget: 这是一个好问题。我认为看涨者会说,他们所做事情的成本将大幅下降,所以盈亏平衡点很快就会到来,如果他们拥有整个市场,他们就会突然变得极其盈利。我们还没有到那个阶段。我认为我们上次谈话时,3000亿美元的估值让所有人都感到震惊,但如果你看看当时的预测,预测是三年后他们将实现1000亿美元的收入。如果你当时看着它说:“好吧,如果我相信这一点,那么就是收入的三倍。”经济状况可能会改变。它开始看起来更合理一些。现在我们是8000亿美元。所以这是一个更大的倍数,你必须有一个更大的收入流和利润。但这就是论点。我还没有看到它。我不得不说,他们目前的经济状况极其困难。
Henry Blodget**: I it's a good question. I think what the bulls would say is the cost of what they do is going to plummet and so the lines are going to cross here pretty soon and if they own the whole market suddenly they start to become incredibly profitable. We are not there yet and I think when we talked last time at a $300 billion valuation which everybody was horrified by at that point but if you looked at the projections the projections were three years from now they'll do a hundred billion of revenue. And if you at that point were looking at it saying, "Okay, if I believe that, then it's three times revenue." The economics will probably change. It starts to look a little more reasonable. Now we're at 800 billion. So it's a much bigger multiple and you've got to actually have a much bigger revenue stream and profits. But that's the argument. I don't see it yet. I got to say the economics are incredibly difficult for them right now.
Tracy Alloway: 它们看起来很残酷。还有另一个因素。显然,与Web 2.0时代廉价且充足的计算资源不同,这些公司的资本支出预算令人瞠目结舌。他们正在疯狂烧钱。还有另一个我认为有趣的因素,那就是至少在其中一些实验室里,创始人是真正的信徒。他们认为他们肩负着建造AGI的使命,这将改变一切。建造神,对吧?建造数字神。他们不会停止任何事情。他们不会说:“你知道吗,这已经很好了。让我们踩踩刹车。我们对这个模型的工作方式很满意。”你知道,我没有那种感觉。我认为他们真的
Tracy Alloway**: They seem brutal. And there's another element too. So obviously unlike during the uh the web 2.0 era where there was like cheap and plentiful compute obviously the **capital expenditure budgets** of these companies are just eye watering. They're spending like crazy. There's also this other element that I think is interesting which is at least at a few of these labs like the people who founded them are true believers. Like they think they're like they think they're on a mission to build **AGI** is going to change everything. Build God, right? Build the digital god. And it's like they're not gonna stop at anything. They're not gonna be like, you know what, it's pretty good. Let's tap the brakes. We're pretty happy with how this model works. You know, it I don't or at least I don't get that. I think they truly
Joe Weisenthal: 他们把它包装成一场生存竞赛。好像最终只会有一家公司占据主导地位。所以,为了成为那家公司,支出的上限是无限的。
Original English
Joe Weisenthal: they've couched it as this like existential race. Like there's only going to be one company that dominates in the end. So the upper limit on spending to become that company is infinity.
Henry Blodget: 是的。然而,金钱是有限的。当你看到人们筹集资金时,你会关注他们从哪里获得资金。当然,风险投资是资金池之一。然后是大型战略投资者,然后是那些第一次错过而感到非常尴尬的风险投资家,他们会高价买入。然后是关注所有这些的国际基金。是的。没错。所以,在某个时候,你会耗尽资金。我们谈论的是一家正在筹集数千亿美元的公司,仅仅是为了维持引擎运转,仅仅是为了跟上步伐。这是另一个问题。是的。Google、Facebook、Microsoft每年产生数百亿美元的自由现金流,他们可以用这些钱购买芯片。OpenAI必须在公开市场筹集资金。所以,如果这些经济状况不很快改变,他们就会耗尽资金。
Henry Blodget**: Yes. However, there is a limit to money. And when you look at when people are raising money, you watch where they're going for it. Sure, the the VCs, that's one pool of money. And then the big strategics, and then the VCs who missed the first time and are feeling so embarrassed about it, they'll pay up to get in. Then it is the **international funds** that are watching all this stuff. Yeah. Exactly. So, at some point, you run out of money. And we are talking about a company that is raising hundreds of billions of dollars just to keep the engine running and just to keep pace. This is the other problem. Yeah. **Google**, **Facebook**, **Microsoft** are generating tens of billions of dollars of **free cash flow** every year that they can use to buy chips. **Open AI** has to raise it in the open market. So, if those economics don't start to change soon, they're going to run out of money.
AI泡沫与私有市场股票
Joe Weisenthal: Joe和我上台前正在谈论这个,但最近发生的另一件事是,有一家卡拉OK机制造公司(笑声)宣布它现在是一家AI公司。当我看到这样的标题时,它让我想起了很多加密货币热潮,也让我想起了很多互联网泡沫。我们开始看到越来越多这样的例子。最近不是有一家马桶公司吗?
Joe Weisenthal**: **Joe** and I were talking about this before we came on stage, but another thing that happened recently was there was a karaoke machine making company [laughter] that announced it was now an **AI** company, which when I see headlines like that remind me a lot of the crypto boom, but also remind me a lot of the dot boom. And we are starting to see more and more of those. Wasn't there a toilet company recently?
Tracy Alloway: 是的。嗯,马桶那个是合法的。所以,显然,不,[笑声]不,是真的。所以你,它不是说“哦,我们是一家AI公司”。显然,这是一家日本马桶公司,他们有一些像瓷器之类的东西,对半导体非常重要。所以,每个人都说:“哦,别再做马桶生意了。你有这种材料的获取途径。”但是,那个,所以,那个是合法的。卡拉OK那个。
Tracy Alloway**: Yeah. Well, the toilet one is legit. So like apparently, no, [laughter] no, for real. So you it was not like, oh, we're an **AI** company. Apparently, it's this Japanese toilet company and they have some like porcelain or something like that is very important for like semiconductors or something. So, everyone's like, "Oh, get out of the toilet business. You have this access to this material." But the the So, that one was kind of legit. The karaoke one.
Joe Weisenthal: 好的。好的。所以,马桶那个,也许卡拉OK那个,当你看到这样的标题时,你觉得呢?你认为这是一种理性的转向蓬勃发展的市场,每个人都应该在目前尝试AI,还是你认为:“不,这太疯狂了。”
Joe Weisenthal**: Okay. Okay. So, the toilet one, maybe the karaoke one, when you see headlines like that, what do you think? Do you think like this is a rational pivot into a booming market and everyone should be experimenting with **AI** at the moment, or do you think like, "No, this is getting crazy."
Henry Blodget: 我认为我们正处于一个狂热的泡沫时期,我们刚刚发现了这个惊人的新事物。没有人知道未来会怎样。没有人知道什么会奏效。我们实际上正在创建一个巨大的研发实验室,那就是,嘿,你想做点什么吗?给你一些钱。去尝试吧。我希望你会成为赢家之一。50到100年前,所有这些事情都发生在像爱迪生实验室或贝尔实验室这样的大公司内部。你从未见过。现在一切都是初创公司。你看到了。它正在你面前发生。但毫无疑问,大多数公司都会失败。这种情况一遍又一遍地发生。我认为投资者看到这种情况时,他们会说,好吧,你知道,那是一个快速的翻转。就是,嘿,我会得到它。其他人,很多人喜欢AI。他们会在我之后购买,然后它会涨,然后我就会卖掉。
Henry Blodget**: I I think we are in a **euphoric bubble period** where we've just discovered this amazing new thing. Nobody knows what the future is. Nobody knows what's going to work. And we are effectively creating this enormous **R&D lab** which is hey want you can do something. Here's some money. Go out and experiment. I hope you'll be one of the winners. 50 to 100 years ago, all of that stuff happened in labs like **Edison's lab** or **Bell Labs** inside these big corporations. You never saw it. Now everything is a startup. You see it. It's happening in front of you. But there's no question that most of the companies are going to fail. Happens again and again and again. And I think what investors are saying when they see that is okay, you know, that is a quick flip. It's, hey, I'll get it. Other people, a lot of the people love **AI**. They'll buy it after I do and it'll go up and then I'll sell it.
Tracy Alloway: 我想问你一个关于资本市场的问题,以及它们与90年代末和互联网泡沫时期有何不同,因为现在发生的一件非常重要的事情是,是的,这些公司是私有的,但有很多股票在流通,而且有这些特殊目的载体 (SPV),它们会购买例如Anthropic的一大块股权,然后在二级市场上出售。人们正在尝试获得它们,它们比90年代末的私有公司更具流动性。我收到有人给我发消息,他们说:“你想买一点吗?”我说:“不,我不做那个。”但他们说:“你想以3500亿美元的估值买一点Anthropic吗?”你肯定收到过很多这类消息,我对你对这个世界的看法很好奇,因为另一件事是,这些私有公司没有财务报表。你根本不知道它们的损益情况。你对这些准流动性的私有市场股票有什么看法?
Tracy Alloway**: I want to ask you a question about capital markets and how they're different to the late 90s and the dotcom bubble because one really big thing that's happening these days is yes these companies are private but there is a lot of stock floating around and there are these **SPVS** that will buy acquire a chunk of say **anthropic** and sell them on a **secondary market** and people are trying to get they're much more liquid than a private company would have been in the late 90s. I get someone someone messaged me. They're like, "Do you want to buy a little?" I'm like, "No, I don't do that." But they're like, "Would you like to buy a little bit of **anthropic** at a $350 billion valuation, but you must get a bunch of those sort of messages from people?" And I'm curious about your perspective on this world because the other thing is like there's no financials. You have no idea like what their P&L is for these private company. What's your take on some of this quasi liquid private market stock?
Henry Blodget: 是的。我们只想说,当我们的电话响起时。
Henry Blodget**: Yeah. And let us just say that when our phones are ringing.
Tracy Alloway: 是的。我知道。就是这样。
Original English
Tracy Alloway: Yeah. I know. That's the thing.
Henry Blodget: 我们正处于[笑声]末期。这就是市场上的钱。
Henry Blodget**: WE ARE RIGHT AT [laughter] the end. This is the money out there.
Tracy Alloway: 就像如果有人联系我,那就不可能有那么多钱。
Original English
Tracy Alloway: It's like if someone is reaching out to me, it's like there can't be that much money.
Henry Blodget: 那边有很大的警示信号。所以,我认为与1990年代的互联网泡沫时期以及之前相比,发生变化的一件事是,公司以前很早就上市了,你可以在Amazon估值4亿美元的时候投资它。听起来很多。现在它价值数万亿美元。已经有了令人难以置信的升值。个人现在不能再那样做了。这有很好的理由。互联网泡沫破裂后,人们损失了很多钱。我们不喜欢那样。我们想保护所有人。所以现在公司上市的时间晚了很多,诉讼的威胁以及所有你必须遵守的不同法规。所以时间晚了,但令人沮丧的是,很多真正有风险承受能力的投资者无法接触到它们。所以,是的,你已经建立了一个新的业务,围绕着,好吧,让我们以某种方式获得那些私有股票。问题是,如果你选择对了,伟大的公司,它会奏效,但它周围包裹着更多的费用。它更多的是,你知道,那个给你打电话的中介必须得到报酬。所以那是另一个人。交易起来更困难。所以我认为这是市场试图解决的问题,那就是
Henry Blodget**: Big big warning signs going on over there. So I think one of the things that changed versus the dotcom boom in the 1990s and before that is companies used to go public very early before and you can invest in **Amazon** for example at a $400 million valuation. Sounds like a lot. It's worth trillions of dollars now. There's been incredible appreciation. Individuals can't do that anymore. And there's good reason for it. People lost a lot of money after the dotcom crash. We didn't like that. We want to protect everybody. So now companies go public a lot later, the threat of lawsuits and all the different regul regulation that you've got to do. So it's later, but the bummer about it is a lot of investors who actually do have the risk tolerance can't access them. And so yes, you've had a new business that has been built around okay, let's get that private stock somehow and get it. And the problem is again if you choose right great company it works but it's more fees packed around it. It's much more you know that that intermediary that called you has to get paid. So that's somebody else. It's more difficult to trade. So I think it is the market trying to solve the problem that
Joe Weisenthal: 在OpenAI估值8000亿美元或Anthropic估值3500亿美元时赚钱,比在种子轮估值几亿美元时赚钱要困难得多。所以有很多人争相进入,但问题是一样的。你甚至,事实上,当公司上市时,他们会发布很多信息,而这些人不会。
Joe Weisenthal**: it's much harder to make money in **open AI** at 800 billion or **anthropic** at 350 billion than it is in the seed round when it was a few hundred million. And so you've got a lot of people clamoring to get in, but it's the same problem. You don't even in fact less when companies go public, they do are they are releasing a lot of information whereas these guys are not.
AI对媒体行业的影响
Joe Weisenthal: 我们来谈谈媒体方面的事情吧?
Original English
Joe Weisenthal: Should we do some media stuff?
Tracy Alloway: 是的,那是我们的媒体。好吧,让媒体的自我反省开始吧。好的,我们一开始就说过,你知道,我们谈论了Catrini那篇文章,它病毒式传播了,但也引起了反弹。你自己在Substack上做了一个AI新闻编辑室实验通讯,也引起了一些反弹。你对此感到惊讶吗?
Tracy Alloway**: Yeah, that's our media. All right, let the media naval gazing begin. Okay, so we started out by saying that, you know, we were talking about the **Catrini** piece that got it went viral, but it also got a backlash. You did your own **AI** newsroom experiment newsletter on **Substack** that also got a bit of a backlash. Were you surprised at that one?
Henry Blodget: 是的,我感到惊讶。基本上,我离开了Business Insider。我创办了这个新事物,Regenerator,还有一个播客。尝试你的事业。这非常困难,但很有趣。这很好。谈谈这是播客最重要的方面。宣传播客。没错。是的。播客叫《Solutions》。
Henry Blodget**: I Yes, I was surprised. Basically, what I did, I left **Business Insider**. I started this new thing, **Regenerator**, and a podcast, too. Trying your business. It's very difficult, but fun. It's good. Talk about this is the most important aspect of podcasting. Plug the podcast. Exactly. Yes. Podcast called **Solutions** with
Joe Weisenthal: 看看吧。请看看这个。
Original English
Joe Weisenthal: Check it out. Check this please.
Henry Blodget: 所以我离开了,当时只有我一个人。所以我说:“好吧,太棒了。让我们看看它能做什么。”因为如果你作为一家公司的首席执行官尝试这样做,人们会理所当然地感到恐慌。天哪,他们会发现什么。我的工作受到威胁。我们所有人都担心自己的工作受到威胁,顺便说一句,我们还需要文章吗?还需要更多文章吗?我的意思是,天哪,每天都有很多很棒的文章被写出来。事实上,这是媒体的问题。内容太多了。让我们把这一点说清楚。总之,是的,我尝试了所有东西。我做的第一件事是,哦,如果我真的要创办一个出版物并组建一个团队,我会雇佣谁?嗯,我会雇佣五个人。我有一个主编,还有几名记者等等。所以,我问ChatGPT,你能帮我吗?ChatGPT说:“当然,我们来创建他们。”所以,在两个小时内,我们创建了他们。他们都有不同的个性。他们有头像等等。我把这些写了下来。我们有像Slack这样的平台,我们都在讨论故事,效果相当不错。不是特别出色,但相当不错。所以这很酷。所以我写了关于它的文章。是的。我还犯了一个错误,称赞了其中一个头像,并立即因此受到抨击,这实际上帮助我磨练了自己的AI道德观。
Henry Blodget**: So I left and it was just me. So I said, "Okay, great. Let's see what it can do." Because if you try that as a CEO of a company, people freak out justifiably. Oh my goodness, they're going to discover something. My job's threatened. We are all worried about our jobs being threatened, including, by the way, do we need articles? Any more articles? I mean, boy, are there a lot of great articles written every day. In fact, this is the problem in media. There's way too much of it. Let's just get that out there. Anyway, so yes, I experimented with everything. And the first thing that I did was, oh, if I were actually starting a publication and hiring a team, who would I hire? Well, I'd hire five people. I have a managing editor and I'd have a few reporters and so forth. So, I asked **Chad GPT**, can you help me? **Chat GPT** said, "Sure, let's make them." So, in two hours, we made them. They all had different personalities. They had head shot, etc. I wrote this up. We had like **Slack** going where we're all talking about stories and it was pretty good. Not spectacular, but pretty good. And so that was cool. So I wrote about it. Yes. I also made the mistake of complimenting one of the head shot and was immediately lambasted for that which actually helped me hone my own **AI morality**.
Tracy Alloway: 等等,我有一个关于这个的问题[笑声]。如果你当时有一位人类编辑来审阅那篇文章,你认为你会称赞你的AI生成的主编的外貌吗?
Tracy Alloway**: Wait, I have a question on [laughter] this. If you had had a human editor for that piece, do you think you would have complimented your **AI** generated managing editor on her appearance?
Henry Blodget: 那篇文章需要编辑。这就是问题所在。你独自一人,不再有优秀的编辑保护你。你让你的热情有点过于泛滥。你知道我现在找谁编辑我的东西吗?有时如果我觉得自己可能有点过于热情,ChatGPT或Claude都能很好地发现问题。
Henry Blodget**: The piece needed to be editing edited. This is the problem. You're out on your own. You don't have great editors protecting you anymore. You let your enthusiasm bubble over a little bit too much. You know who I have edit my stuff now. Sometimes if I feel like I'm maybe a little bit too enthusiastic, **Chad GBT** or **Claude** and very good spots it anyway.
Joe Weisenthal: 是的。请告诉我们新闻编辑室的动态,特别是,你知道,现在每个新闻编辑室的每个编辑都在努力找出一些东西,对吧?你不能疏远整个新闻编辑室,说:“哦,你们都必须做什么?”复制编码员。
Joe Weisenthal**: Yes. Talk to us about that newsroom dynamic particularly, you know, every editor at a news every newsroom right now is like trying to figure out something, right? And you can't like alienate the entire newsroom and say like, "Oh, you all have to be doing what?" Copy coders.
Tracy Alloway: 是的。那样行不通。新闻编辑室显然讨厌它。我想说,这可能是有充分理由的。但另一方面,每个人都必须想办法。新闻编辑室的高管,无论是主编还是其他什么人,他们应该如何思考解决这个问题?
Tracy Alloway**: Yeah. Like it that doesn't work. The newsroom obviously hates it. And I would say probably for good reason. But on the other hand, everyone has to be like figuring stuff out. what should newsroom executives, whether it's editors and chief or whatever, how should they be thinking about solving this problem?
Henry Blodget: 所以,我的意思是,回到另一件事,我从发布那篇文章中学到的另一件事是,焦虑有多大,尤其是在年轻一代中,关于那些长期存在但正在消失的工作的焦虑。这对我来说非常清楚,我本来会更加,是的,我理解。我的意思是,这很可怕。那么,新闻编辑室该怎么办?我认为让我们看看媒体行业正在发生什么。问题再次是媒体太多了。例如,每天都有如此多精彩的文章产生。当我打开《纽约时报》或《华尔街日报》或Bloomberg时,我想阅读几十篇文章。我可能只能读一两篇。
Henry Blodget**: So, I mean, so going back to the other thing, the other thing that I learned from publishing that was just how much anxiety there is, especially in the younger generation about jobs that have been there for a long time that are just disappearing. And that was extremely clear to me and I would have been even more Yeah, I understand it. I mean, it is scary. And so, what does a newsroom do? I think let's look at what's going on in media. The problem again is there's way too much media. There are so many amazing articles, for example, produced every day. When I open the **New York Times** or the **Wall Street Journal** or **Bloomberg**, I want to read dozens of articles. I might get to one or two.
Tracy Alloway: 是的。
Original English
Tracy Alloway: Yeah.
Henry Blodget: 而且发行方式也发生了根本性变化。五年前,Facebook、Google为许多不同的出版商带来了巨大的流量。现在这一切都在改变。我们正在回到1990年代的样子,那时你必须与你的订阅者建立直接订阅关系。这个行业面临着巨大的压力,既来自广告,也因为我们作为人类已经最大限度地利用了消费媒体的时间。这与20年前我们创办Business Insider时非常不同。你还记得1990年代媒体非常成熟。它真的
Henry Blodget**: And distribution has changed radically. 5 years ago, **Facebook**, **Google** were driving enormous distribution to lots of different publishers. That is all now changing. We are going back to something that looks like the 1990s where actually you have to have a **direct relationship with your subscriber**. The industry is under a ton of pressure both from advertising but also we have maximized the amount of time as humans that we can spend consuming media. This is very different from 20 years ago when we started **business insider**. You remember this like in the 1990s media was very mature. It was really
Joe Weisenthal: 顺便说一句,你说20年前,那已经是30年前了[笑声]。我不想去想那个事实。好的,但让我们回到更早的1990年代,媒体非常成熟,杂志完全成熟,很难创办一本。你需要5000万美元,你需要雇佣所有这些优秀的人,然后也许五年后,如果你幸运的话,你可能会盈利。非常困难,非常难以进入报纸和电视行业,甚至更糟,你长期以来都是奴隶,端咖啡等等,非常非常艰难。然后台式电脑出现了,并连接起来。所以突然间,人们每天在办公室坐12个小时。他们需要知道发生了什么。这是一个新的机会。然后手机出现了,这正是Business Insider早期发展的动力。我们站在那里。我们想知道发生了什么。没有其他人提供这种服务。所以这是一个巨大的机会。但随着时间的推移,行业中的所有人都赶了上来。《纽约时报》很棒,《华尔街日报》也很棒,Business Insider也很棒,Bloomberg也很棒。这些公司现在在这方面做得非常好。如果你看看,例如,政治报道,我们不需要一百名白宫记者。我们就是不需要。然而,那是每个人都感兴趣的事情。所以,当然,你会有一个记者专注于此。然而,产能过剩。另一件发生的事情,我很快就会说完,是互联网打破了1990年代媒体周围的保护性护城河。印刷和电视以前是完全分开的。现在它们是一样的。你以前不能让一家电视台拥有报纸。现在我们已经取消了这种限制。每个人都可以拥有所有东西。每个人都可以做所有事情。而且只需点击一下即可。所以竞争变得更加激烈。所以它从来都不是一个容易的行业,但我们又回到了一个竞争极其激烈的行业。我确实认为总的来说内容太多了。
Joe Weisenthal**: say it's 20 years ago by the way that's like 30 years [laughter] I don't like to think about that fact okay but let's go back to the 1990s even further media was very mature magazines totally mature very hard to start one you needed $50 million and you need to hire all these great people and then maybe five years down the road you might if you're lucky become profitable very hard very hard to get into newspapers television even worse you're slave for a long long time getting coffee so forth very very tough then desktops came along and got connected. So that was suddenly 12 hours a day that people are sitting in the office. They need to know what's going on. It's a new opportunity. Then phones came and that's the thing that really drove **Business Insider** in the early years. We're standing around. We want to know what's happening. Nobody else is serving that. So big big opportunity. But over time all the folks in the industry caught up. **New York Times** is terrific. So is **Wall Street Journal**. So is **Business Insider**. So is **Bloomberg**. These companies are really, really good at this now. And if you just look at, for example, political coverage, we don't need a hundred White House reporters. We just don't. And yet, that's the thing that everybody's interested in. So, of course, you're going to have a reporter focus on that. And yet, there's just too much capacity. And the other thing that happened, and I'll finish up very quickly, is the internet blew up the protective moat around all of the 1990s era media. Print and TV used to be completely separate. Now they're the same. You used to not have a television company be able to own a newspaper. Now we've done away with that. Everybody can own everything. Everybody can do everything. And it's all a click away. So it has become even more intensely competitive. And so it's never been an easy industry, but we are back to it being an incredibly intensely competitive industry. And I do think there's just in general too much of it.
Tracy Alloway: 所以,当我们思考AI对媒体的影响时,我觉得人们在这里谈论两条路径。一条是,你知道,大型聊天平台基本上成为了互联网的首页,对吧?你输入任何查询,比如昨晚的国情咨文演讲怎么样了,然后它会吐出大量基于你没有付费阅读的文章的信息。然后我听到的另一件事是,在互联网垃圾、AI垃圾的时代,分发和质量将变得更加重要。所以人们会想去《纽约时报》或者希望去Bloomberg或者其他地方,获取他们对昨晚事件的看法。你对这种非常二元的结果持什么立场?你认为我们会走向哪条路?
Tracy Alloway**: So when we think about the impact of **AI** on media, it feels to me like people are talking about two paths here. And one is where you know the big chat platforms are basically they become the front page of the internet, right? And you type in whatever query you have today, how did the state of the union address go last night or something like that and it spits out a bunch of information that's based on a bunch of articles that you yourself are not paying for. And then the other thing that I hear is well actually in the age of internet slop, **AI** slop, that distribution and quality is going to become even more important. So people are going to want to go to the **New York Times** or hopefully to **Bloomberg** or wherever and get that take on last night's events. Where do you stand on that sort of, you know, it's a very binary outcome to me. Which way do you think we're going?
Henry Blodget: 我认为这对那些能生存下来的品牌来说是好事。再说一次,没有人有存在的权利。这将是一场战斗,但对于那些能生存下来的品牌来说,这是极好的。我信任Bloomberg。我读Bloomberg的文章。我知道记者知道他们在做什么,他们了解主题。我知道那里有编辑。偶尔会有错误,但那是一个诚实的错误,会很快得到纠正。将这与我在社交媒体上看到的情况进行比较,尤其是现在AI可以创建照片、视频以及其他一切。我不知道。我知道如果有什么事情正在发酵,比如某个显然是丑闻的视频,我们都必须看看,纽约时报会立即深入调查。我知道他们会为此努力。也许我们有时会达到他们可能被愚弄的地步。但现在还没有。所以我信任他们。你确实需要一个品牌和一个伟大的组织来做这件事。人们说:“哦,是的,但外面每个人,你知道,谁知道什么是真的等等。”这种情况一直存在。在印刷时代的巅峰时期,一百万人阅读《纽约时报》。仅此而已。其他人从朋友那里听到别人说的话,或者他们听到其他事情。他们甚至从未想过。所以,认为外面有一些东西是有些人相信的,这种想法一直存在。所以,我认为这对品牌来说是好事,但我确实认为这将是一场战斗。它永远不会是一个容易的行业。
Henry Blodget**: I I think this is great for the **brands** that make it. And again, nobody has a right to exist. It's going to be a fight, but for the **brands** that make it, it is terrific. I trust **Bloomberg**. I read a **Bloomberg** article. I know the reporter knows what they're doing and they know the subject. I know there is editing there. Occasionally, there's a mistake, but it is an honest mistake that will be fixed quickly. Compare that to what I see on social media, especially now where **AI** can create photos and videos and everything else. I don't know. I know the **New York Times** will immediately dive in if something is bubbling up. Some video that's apparently scandalous that we've all got to look at. I know they'll do work on it. Maybe we'll sometime get to the point where they can be fooled. Not yet. And so I trust them. And you actually need a **brand** and a great organization to do that. AND PEOPLE SAY, "OH, YES, BUT EVERYBODY out there, YOU KNOW, WHO KNOWS what's true and so forth." That has always been the case. At its peak in the inter in the print era, a million people read the **New York Times**. That's it. Everybody else heard what was said from their friends or they heard something else. They never even thought about it. And so the idea that yeah, there's stuff out there that some people believe, there has always been stuff out there that some people believe. So I think it's great for **brands**, but I do think it's going to be a fight. It's never going to be an easy industry.
Joe Weisenthal: 那么,让我们更多地谈谈这个问题,比如,好吧,每个,你知道,《纽约时报》和任何其他人一样,他们都必须解决这个问题,对吧?他们必须弄清楚他们能如何利用它——我正在做“吓唬人”的引号,因为我讨厌那个词,你知道,但那是每个人都用的词——它能以某种方式在传统新闻编辑室的背景下被利用吗?
Joe Weisenthal**: Talk to us more about this question though of like okay every you know **New York Times** like anyone else they have to figure this out right they have to figure out like what can they leverage it I'm doing scare quotes because I hate that word you know but that's like the word that everyone used can it be leveraged in some way in the context of the traditional newsroom
Tracy Alloway: AI。
Original English
Tracy Alloway: AI
Joe Weisenthal: 所以回到你的问题,我意识到我之前甚至没有回答[笑声],那么新闻应该怎么做?
Joe Weisenthal**: and so going back to your question which I realized I didn't even get to [laughter] before so what what should news
Tracy Alloway: 他们如何处理这个问题?因为每个人都听说,哦,你必须通过这个聊天机器人运行你的文本,或者训练AI来取代什么,或者他们感到非常合理的恐惧,任何人如何克服这一点?
Tracy Alloway**: and how do they handle that like because everyone hear oh you have to like run your run your text through this chatbot or train your train the **AI** that's going to replace what or they feel you know very reasonable fear how do you how can anyone overcome that
Henry Blodget: 所以我认为有机会实现大量的生产力提升。我们今天所拥有的,我们之前谈过,你们都用ChatGPT做研究,我也是,这很棒。这是一种非常不同的媒体使用方式,我正在寻找信息。以前我会搜索文章。现在我用Claude或ChatGPT来做。这比大多数媒体长期以来赖以生存的东西要小得多,那就是我不知道我对什么感兴趣。哇,那是一个有趣的故事。是的。
Henry Blodget**: so I think there there is the opportunity for there to be a lot of **productivity enhancements** in what we have today we were talking earlier you both use research **JTP** for research me too it's great that is a very different that is one use of media is me looking for information going out it used to be that I would search for articles Now I do it with **Claude** or **Chat DPT**. That is a smaller piece than what most media has lived on forever, which is I don't know what I'm interested in. Whoa, that's an interesting story. Yeah.
Joe Weisenthal: 那就是媒体的偶然消费。这就是为什么报纸头条一直都是这样。这就是为什么杂志封面很重要。我们不知道我们想要什么,直到我们看到它,然后我们得到了它。这就是为什么在我们的行业中,你需要许多不同的才能,你需要在业务中拥有非凡的才能。一个是报道、准确性、专业知识等等。你还必须知道人们关心什么,什么是一个好故事,以及它为什么重要。我认为这不会改变。那么,我们在行业中应该关注哪里呢?是的。研究,起草故事,为什么不呢?当人们对此感到震惊时,让我说,在报纸的印刷时代,尤其是一份日报,会发生什么呢?记者会在现场。他们会获取信息。他们会口头报告给改写台。他们没有任何东西可以写。他们只会说:“这些是事实。”改写者会写下来。而在过去的20年或30年里,我们这些受过写作训练并重视写作的人。我们去哥伦比亚新闻学院。我们把报道和写作混淆为新闻业。我认为现在有机会,写作的负担可能会因此减轻。我并不是说:“这是文章,直接发表。”我只是说,你知道,Perplexity在六秒钟内写出一篇信息丰富、来源可靠的故事相当不错。也许这实际上会加速你正在做的事情。然后也许你可以把你的部分添加到顶部,或者其他什么。所以我确实认为它也有用处。
Joe Weisenthal**: And that's the **serendipitous consumption** of media. That's why newspaper headlines have been like this forever. It's why magazine covers matter. We don't know what we want until we see it and then we get it. And it's why in in our business there are many different talents you need to be extraordinarily talented in the business. One is sure reporting, accuracy, expertise, so forth. You also have to know what people care about and what a good story is and why it matters. And I don't think that changes. And so where do we look around the industry? Yeah. Research, drafting stories, why not? And when people are a gasast at that, let me just say back in the print era for newspapers, especially a daily newspaper, what would happen is the reporters would be out in the field. They would get information. They would call it into the rewrite desk verbally. They didn't have anything to write it with. They just say, "Here are the facts." The rewriters would write it. And in the last 20 years or 30 years, we who have been trained in writing and we value it. And we go to **Columbia Journalism School**. We have compl conflated reporting and writing as journalism. And I do think there are opportunities now where okay the writing lift may be lightened by this. And I'm not saying say here's the article and just publish it. I'm just saying you know what **perplexity** is pretty good at writing a well-informed wellsourced story in six seconds. And maybe that actually accelerates what you're doing. and then maybe you can add your piece to the top or what have you. So I do think there are uses for it too.
Tracy Alloway: 所以我实际上同意这个观点。我认为在AI时代,社交技能和调查技能将变得更加重要。然而,你总是听到的是,你需要,你需要发布独家新闻,对吧?你必须找到模型尚不知道的东西,那将是新闻业的宝贵方面。但问题似乎是,这些独家新闻被商品化得太快了,我不确定这是否真的能为新闻机构带来多少价值。
Tracy Alloway**: So I actually I agree with that argument. I think like social skills and investigative skills are going to become more important in the age of **AI**. However, what you always hear is well you're going to need you're going to need to produce scoops, right? You're going to have to find the stuff that the models don't already know about and that's going to be the valuable aspect of journalism. But the problem seems to be that those scoops get commodified so freaking quickly that I'm not sure that actually generates much value for the news organization.
Henry Blodget: 很难保护新闻。你做不到。但那些一直生产新闻的组织将拥有巨大的优势,因为订阅它们是值得的。这就是《纽约时报》、《华尔街日报》和Bloomberg的收入来源。Bloomberg是一个有趣的例子,因为它服务于一个相对较小但高度忠诚的群体,Bloomberg的记者一直在发布独家新闻,让人们赚钱或亏钱。他们会关心,他们会拥有那个终端,而ChatGPT做不到这一点。所以你所说的部分是,等等,它必须是差异化的。是的,它确实如此。实际上,有人说了一些有趣的事情,让我们以一种聪明的方式写下来,再做一点工作,然后传给其他人,这比以前的价值要小得多。出于你描述的原因,它不再那么有用了。但那些公司如果想相互竞争,而他们现在正在使用ChatGPT和Claude,他们将不得不为这些信息付费,而这正是Bloomberg处于有利地位的地方。再说一件事,不仅仅是大型综合性媒体,还有像你们这样在特定领域做得非常出色,人们真正关心的利基供应商,他们会生存下来。
Henry Blodget**: It is very hard to **protect news**. You can't. But the organizations that produce it all the time are going to have a huge advantage because it is going to be worth subscribing to them. And that's where the that's where the **New York Times**, the **Wall Street Journal**, and **Bloomberg**, that's where it's coming from. And **Bloomberg's** an interesting one because you really serve a a somewhat small but highly committed base where you know **Bloomberg** reporters are breaking stuff all the time that allow people to make or lose money. They're going to care and they're going to have that terminal and **CHTB** is not doing that. So part of what I hear you say is wait a minute it has to be differentiated. Yeah it does. Actually there's a lot less value than there used to be in somebody said something interesting. let's write it in an intelligent way, do a little more work and get it to somebody else. That is not as useful anymore for the reason that you describe. But those companies if they want to compete with each other and they do **chat GPT** and **claude** right now they are going to have to pay for that information and that's where a **Bloomberg** is in great position and say another thing it's not just the big generalists it is the **niche providers** who are experts like you guys and do an amazing job in a particular area that people really care about those are going to those are going to survive and I'll say one more thing which is **Jeff Bezos** was an investor in business was incredibly helpful to talk to him, very smart. I realize now he's become kind of not applauded in the journalism industry. But one of the things that he liked to say is everybody wants to know what's changing and what it means. It's actually more useful to step back and say what is going to stay the same. What is going to stay the same in media is that we are always want to we're always going to want to know what's happening and what it means and we're always going to want to be entertained. And that's what media does. It's tough, but until actually there are no more humans, we are gonna want media to deliver that.
Tracy Alloway: 我同意这一点。你知道,顺便说一句,有一些非常好的故事,关于像《纽约邮报》和《每日新闻》的犯罪记者在现场报道,然后他们会打电话给改写台,然后他们会把它翻译成小报的语言,那会是一个很酷很酷的故事。
Tracy Alloway**: I agree with that. You know, there's some really good stories, by the way, about the like the **New York Post** and **Daily News** like report like the crime reporters out in the fields and then they would call the rewrite desk and then they would like translate it into like tabloid speak is a that's a cool that'd be a cool cool
Joe Weisenthal: 我记得在2000年代早期用黑莓发笔记,然后新闻编辑室里有人会把它翻译成可读的文字。
Joe Weisenthal**: I remember sending notes on a **Blackberry** in like the early 2000s and then someone in the newsroom would translate it into readable words.
CEO的务实主义与媒体的未来
Tracy Alloway: 剩下几分钟,我想谈谈你提到的Jeff Bezos。我想谈谈现在的商业环境。当特朗普总统获胜时,有很多关于这些首席执行官的头条新闻,他们会说:“好吧,现在我们有言论自由了,现在我们可以畅所欲言了,你知道,没有这些觉醒的东西,我们不必小心我们说什么。”我得到的印象是,情况恰恰相反,首席执行官们从未如此害怕。他们从未如此胆怯,他们对他很恭敬,他们会进行这些大型朝圣等等。与此同时,我们知道他们讨厌关税。我们知道他们讨厌所有正在发生的事情。你对此有何看法?因为他甚至不再那么受欢迎了。他实际上可以说是历史上最不受欢迎的总统之一。然而,我并没有得到首席执行官和富豪们在畅所欲言方面有太大改变的印象。
Tracy Alloway**: With our few minutes left, I want to talk about you mentioned um **Jeff Bezos**. I want to talk about the business environment right now. When **President Trump** won, there was a lot of headlines about, you know, these CEOs. They'd be like, "Well, now we free speech and now we can speak our minds and, you know, none of this woke stuff where we have to like be careful about what we speak." And like I get the impression that it's literally the exact opposite and that CEOs have never been more scared. They're never been more timid and they like areious to him and they like do these big pilgrimages and stuff. And meanwhile, we know they hate the tariffs. We know they hate all the stuff going on. What do you like make of that? Because he he's not even that popular anymore. He's actually like arguably like one of the least popular presidents ever. And yet I don't get the impression that there's been much of a change in the sort of like world of CEOs and rich guys and billionaires about speaking their mind.
Henry Blodget: 是的。整个言论自由的事情一直都是我想要更多我相信的言论,这样我就可以说任何我想说的话。你不能说你想说的话。所以这有点荒谬。我认为总的来说,大公司和首席执行官们,特别是由于特朗普总统赢得了上次选举,明确表示,好吧,我相信民主,我将务实地照顾我的团队和我的公司,而且对于大多数上市公司首席执行官来说,他们很容易被罢免,他们知道这一点,你的工作是真正照顾你的公司和股东。而不是成为一个言论自由的十字军,为你的个人信仰而站出来。所以我认为有很多务实主义。我认为这可能开始改变。我觉得过去几个月发生了一些事情。我们可能开始看到变化,但我认为这主要是务实主义。你可以从外部看待这一点,说这很离谱,但我认为他们是在为他们的公司、团队和股东着想。
Henry Blodget**: Yes. The whole **free speech** thing was always I want more speech that I believe in so I can say whatever I want. You can't say what you want. So it was kind of ludicrous. I think that in general the big companies and CEOs especially because **President Trump** won the last election clearly said okay I believe in democracy I'm going to be pragmatic and take care of my team and my company and also for most public company CEOs they are easily removed and they know that and your job is to actually take care of your company and shareholders. it is not to be a **free speech crusader** and stand up for your personal thing that you believe in. And so I think there was a lot of **pragmatism**. I think that may start to change here. I I think I feel like things have happened in the last few months. We may be starting to see a change, but I think it was is mainly pragmatism. And you can look at that from the outside and say that's outrageous, but I think they were looking out for their companies and their teams and their shareholders.
Joe Weisenthal: 我想回到媒体的自我反省,因为我还有更多问题,我实际上犹豫要不要问这个问题,因为我担心你的回答会让我们Joe和我再次为自己的薪水辩护。
Joe Weisenthal**: I want to go back to media naval raising because I've got more questions and I actually hesitate to ask this one because I fear that your response is going to get back to asking **Joe** and I to justify our own salaries.
Henry Blodget: 我没有,我只是告诉你为什么你不会被Notebook LM取代。
Original English
Henry Blodget: I'm not I'm telling you why you're not going to be replaced by Notebook LM.
Tracy Alloway: 好的。我要请你为一份特定的薪水辩护,有点像。好的。当你把Business Insider卖给Axel Springer时,那是哪一年?
Tracy Alloway**: Okay. I'm going to ask you to justify a particular paycheck kind of. Okay. When you sold **Business Insider** to **Axel Springer**, what year was that?
Henry Blodget: 2015年。
Original English
Henry Blodget: 2015.
Tracy Alloway: 2015年。好的。如果你现在把Business Insider卖给Axel Springer,你在2026年对他们的推销会和2015年有多大不同?
Tracy Alloway**: 2015. Okay. If you were selling **Business Insider** to **Axel Springer** now, how different would your pitch to them be in 2026 versus 2015?
Henry Blodget: 我会说,我认为Business Insider的优势之一,Joe在其中扮演了重要角色,就是我们没有试图捍卫印刷和电视时代传统新闻的旧方式。我们试图将严谨的新闻带入一个新的媒介,人们在那里想要不同的东西,发行方式也非常不同。所以我们是实验者和创新者,对于每一个成功的主意,我们都有25个愚蠢且失败的主意。我为所有这些负责。那是唯一能找出什么奏效的方法。我们相对较早地注意到的一件事是,嘿,我们可以找出人们喜欢什么,我们想为他们服务,我们在这方面做得很好。我认为那是让Business Insider成功的原因。我认为现在对于所有公司来说,把头埋在沙子里,希望AI消失并不是一个好策略。那么我们能做什么呢?再说一次,随着Google、Facebook和社交媒体作为分发来源完全枯竭,我们又回到了这个直接订阅者的世界,就像以前的杂志和报纸一样。所以那是服务你的订阅者。这就是你们正在做的事情。你们拥有如此热情的受众。他们了解你们。他们每周都想听到你们的声音。所以这就是媒体公司需要做的事情。所以我想说的是,我们一如既往地专注于服务我们的读者、观众和爱我们的人。所以你现在从事的是以订阅者为导向的媒体,你有一个通讯,你有一个播客等等。除了意识到编辑是好的等等之外,你还学到了什么?或者你个人进入基于订阅的媒体的旅程有什么值得注意的?什么让你感到惊讶?
Henry Blodget**: I would say that I think one of businesses advantages and **Joe** was a big part of this was we were not trying to defend the old way that journalism was done in print and television. We were trying to bring rigorous journalism to a new medium where people wanted different things where distribution was very different. So we were experimenters and innovators and for every idea that worked we had 25 ideas that were dumb and didn't work. I take responsibility for all of them. That was the only way to figure out what worked. And one of the things we noticed relatively early is hey we can figure out what people like and we want to serve them and we did a good job at that. And I think that was the that was the thing that made business successful. I think now for all companies stuffing [snorts] your head in the sand and wishing **AI** would go away is not a great strategy. So what would be what can we do? And again, one of the things that's changed as **Google** and **Facebook** and social have d has have totally dried up as sources of distribution is we are back in this **direct subscriber** world just like magazines and newspapers way back in the world. So that is serving your subscribers. This is what you guys do. You have this incredibly passionate audience. They know you. They want to hear from you every week. And so that's what media companies need to do. So that's what I would say is we are as focused as we have ever been on serving our readers, viewers, people who love us. So you are now in subscri sub subscriber oriented media, you have a newsletter, you have a podcast etc. Other than realizing like actually you know editors are good and so forth. What else have you learned or what's been notable about your own personal journey into subscriber-based media? What has surprised you?
Henry Blodget: 嗯,我给你讲个小事。过去一两年我一直在做的事情是写小说。这是我一直想做的事情。就像,好吧,现在是时候了。我跟我一个以前是编剧的朋友聊了聊。我向他坦白了这件事。他就像,
Henry Blodget**: Well, so I'll give you a little thing. So, a lot of what I've been doing the last year or two is writing novels. This is something I wanted to do forever. It's like, okay, now's the time. And I talked to another friend of mine who used to be a screenwriter. And I confess that to him. He's like,
Joe Weisenthal: “老兄,那太疯狂了。直接去找Claude,告诉Claude你想要什么,Claude就会吐出325页,而且会相当不错。”我相信。而且只需要20分钟。所以从商业角度来看,我觉得自己是世界上最大的傻瓜。另一方面,我确实想做这件事。我很高兴我做了。这真的很有趣。
Joe Weisenthal**: "Dude, that is crazy. Just go to **Claude**, tell **Claude** what you want, and **Claude** will spit out 325 pages and it'll be pretty good." And I don't I believe it. and it'll take 20 minutes and so I feel like the world's biggest idiot from a business perspective. On the other hand, I did want to do it. I'm glad I did it. It's been really fun.
Tracy Alloway: 故事是什么?告诉我们关于下个月即将出版的《升级》的故事。它讲述了一个科技亿万富翁想用AI接管世界的故事。
Tracy Alloway**: What's the story? What's Tell us about coming out next month. It's called **The Upgrade**. It's about a tech billionaire who wants to use **AI** to take over the world.
Joe Weisenthal: 这听起来不像小说。
Original English
Joe Weisenthal: That doesn't sound like fiction.
Henry Blodget: 它是非虚构的,但它会发布。它将以测试版发布。这是一种新的书籍形式。它就像一个试镜。是的。它已经测试了一段时间了。很多人都读过。这是一本不同的书。
Henry Blodget**: It's non-fiction, but it'll be out. I It's going to be out in beta. It's a new form of books. It's like a screen test. Yes. It's been in alpha for a while. A lot of people have read it. It's a different book.
Tracy Alloway: 不,它是一本书。一本书,但会有一段时间,我会邀请你阅读它。如果你能把你的想法发给我,我会很感激,然后当我真正出版它时,它可能会受益于你的阅读。
Tracy Alloway**: No, it's a book. book, but there's going to be a period where I invite you to read it. Thank you if you would send me what you think and then when I publish it for real, it may will have benefited from your reading.
Henry Blodget: 总之,我觉得自己做这件事完全是个傻瓜。但我要说的是,对我这个分析师、作家和演讲者来说,过程的乐趣是其中一部分。是的。
Henry Blodget**: Anyway, so I feel like a complete idiot for doing it. But what I will say is for me as an analyst and writer and speaker, part of the **joy is the process**. Yeah.
Joe Weisenthal: 我学到了很多,这就是我不理解研究将如何进行的地方。我记得关于AI的一件事是,“嘿,给我写一份关于X的研究报告。”六分钟后,它就回来了。它比我作为一个年轻分析师,什么都不知道的时候写的报告要好。而且只花了六分钟。所以,我说,“好吧,我不会再写任何研究报告了。”但是当我25岁的时候,花了一个月的时间做这件事,我通过那个过程学到了很多。所以现在,我不知道除了阅读报告之外,你如何学习,我不知道,这就是我真正挣扎的地方。但我要说的是,对我来说,这个过程很有趣。我希望你喜欢这本书。如果你喜欢,也许我会再写一本。那会很棒。但我想说的是,关于人类将做什么的整个事情?你是一个国际象棋玩家。我们的手机在国际象棋上击败我们已经有40年了。国际象棋比以往任何时候都更受欢迎。在现实生活中也是如此。所以我的希望是,我们让AI研究和撰写我们不真正想做的事情,我们把写作、演讲和其他一切留给我们真正充满热情的事情。
Joe Weisenthal**: And I learn so much and this is what I don't understand about how research is going to be conducted. One of the things I remember with **AI** was, "Hey, write me a research report about X." Six minutes later, it comes back. It was better than a research report that I would have written as an as a young analyst when I didn't know anything. And it took six minutes. So, I said, "Okay, I'm not going to write any research reports anymore." But when it took me a month to do that as a 25-year-old, I learned a lot through that process. And so now, I don't know how you learn other reading the report like I don't that's the thing I'm really struggling with. But I will say so for me the process has been interesting. I hope you like the book. If you like it, maybe I'll do another one. That would be great. But what I would say is on this whole thing for what are humans going to do? You're a chess player. It has been 40 years since our phones could clobber us in chess. Chess is bigger than it has ever been. True in person. So my hope is we have **AI** research and write stuff that we don't really want to do and we save our writing and orating and everything else for the stuff that we are really passionate about.
Tracy Alloway: Henry Blodget,非常感谢你,也感谢你来到Airfest。非常有趣。
Tracy Alloway**: **Henry Blahett**, thank you so much and uh thanks for joining us here on **Airfest**. It was a lot of fun.
Henry Blodget: 非常感谢。
Original English
Henry Blodget: Thank you so much.
Tracy Alloway: 这是Odd Thoughts podcast的又一集。我是Tracy Alloway。你可以在Tracy Alloway关注我。
Tracy Alloway**: This has been another episode of the **Odd Thoughts podcast**. I'm **Tracy Aloway**. You can follow me at Tracy Aloway.
Joe Weisenthal: 我是Joe Weisenthal。你可以在the stalwart关注我。关注我们的制作人,Carmen Rodriguez在Carmen Arman,Dash O Bennett在Dashbot,以及Kale Brooks在Kalebrooks。更多OddLots内容,请访问Bloomberg.com/odlaws。我们有每日通讯和所有节目。你可以在我们的Discord,discord.gg/odlots,24小时7天讨论所有这些事情。
Joe Weisenthal**: And I'm **Joe Weisenthal**. You can follow me at the stalwart. Follow our producers, **Carmen Rodriguez** at Carmen Arman, **Dash O Bennett** at Dashbot, and **Kale Brooks** at Kalebrooks. And for more **OddLots** content, go to **Bloomberg.com/odlaws**. We have a daily newsletter and all of our episodes. And you can chat about all of these things 247 in our **Discord**, **discord.gg/odlots**.
Tracy Alloway: 如果你喜欢OddLots,请在你最喜欢的播客平台给我们留下好评。请记住,如果你是Bloomberg订阅者,你可以完全免费收听我们所有的节目。你只需要在Apple Podcast上找到Bloomberg频道并按照说明操作即可。感谢收听。
Tracy Alloway**: And if you enjoy **OddLots**, then please leave us a positive review on your favorite podcast platform. And remember, if you are a **Bloomberg** subscriber, you can listen to all of our episodes absolutely [music] adree. All you need to do is find the **Bloomberg** channel on **Apple Podcast** and follow the instructions [music] there. Thanks for listening.
📌 文中提及的人物和组织
公司/组织: OpenAI, Google, Anthropic, Bloomberg, Business Insider, Regenerator, Axel Springer
产品/模型: ChatGPT, Claude, Google Gemini, Notebook LM
媒体/书籍: The Upgrade