AI与国家未来

ChatGPT becomes a monopoly. ChatGPT (生成式预训练变换模型: 一种人工智能聊天机器人)正成为一个垄断者。

It is transforming how everybody, every normal person basically does their work, funds their life. 它正在改变每个人、每个普通人基本的工作方式和生活资金来源。

The thesis of AI is too important to the future of nations to allow an American company to dominate in certain regions. AI (人工智能: 模拟人类智能的机器)的理论对国家的未来至关重要，不应允许一家美国公司在某些地区占据主导地位。

I think is going to prove to be true. 我认为这将被证明是正确的。

I actually believe you can probably cut 50% of the federal government. 我实际上认为，你可能可以裁减50%的联邦政府。

What does the commerce department actually do? 商务部到底做些什么？

People are like, "Where do you get your contrarian ideas?" I was like, "I read books." 人们会问：“你的这些反主流观点是从哪里来的？” 我会说：“我读书。”

Like all the greatest thinking of all time is available to anybody. 所有有史以来最伟大的思想都向所有人开放。

You just have to read.

你只需要阅读。

Host: Yeah.

Host: 是的。

Host: Keith, welcome to the podcast.

Host: 欢迎你，Keith，来到播客。

Keith: Pleasure to be with you.

Keith: 很高兴能和你们在一起。

Host: It's been a long time. Host: 已经很久了。

Excited to excited to have you back. 很高兴能再次邀请你。

It's an exciting day to do it. 今天是个令人兴奋的日子。

Big day for the Middle East. 对中东来说是重要的一天。

You This I feel like this is something you've been predicting for a while.

你……我感觉这事你已经预测了一段时间了。

中东和平进程与特朗普遗产

Keith: Well, if you read uh actually if you read uh 贾里德·库什纳 (Jared Kushner: 美国商人、投资者，前总统特朗普的女婿及高级顾问)'s autobiography.

Keith: 嗯，如果你读过贾里德·库什纳的自传。

Host: Yeah.

Host: 是的。

Keith: All you have to do is like quote he quotes, you know, the Saudi uh king says you're going to bring peace to the Middle East. Keith: 你只需要引用，他引用了沙特国王的话，说你将为中东带来和平。

And it turns out to be correct. 结果证明这是正确的。

Um, it was pretty obvious like this would happen. 嗯，这事会发生是相当明显的。

Um, if you went to visited Israel recently in the last 6-9 months, you could feel the Tatonic plates shifting. 嗯，如果你最近六到九个月去以色列访问过，你就能感受到地壳板块正在移动。

It was just a question what would be the trigger and everybody's looking forward to the new Middle East. 这只是一个触发点的问题，每个人都在期待着新的中东。

You're going to see lots of countries, you know, make peace explicitly with Israel, which is great. 你会看到很多国家，你知道的，公开与以色列达成和平协议，这很棒。

Um, whether they join the 亚伯拉罕协议 (Abraham Accords: 一系列由美国斡旋的阿拉伯国家与以色列关系正常化协议) directly or indirectly, it's all going to happen in the next six months. 嗯，无论它们是直接还是间接加入亚伯拉罕协议，所有这些都将在未来六个月内发生。

Host: Is is your view that Iran is neutralized that this leads to some sort of durable um non violent pack?

Host: 你的观点是伊朗已经被中立化，这将导致某种持久的非暴力协议吗？

Keith: Everybody off the record wanted Iran to be to you be neutralized and they were basically blocking any progress. Keith: 私下里，每个人都希望伊朗被中立化，他们基本上阻碍了任何进展。

People were scared, terrified and now that they've been neutralized. 人们曾经害怕，非常恐惧，而现在他们已经被中立化了。

I think the natural arc of human history is for there be basically progress, innovation, technology innovation actually in the Middle East driving piece AI data centers. 我认为人类历史的自然进程将是进步、创新，实际上是中东的技术创新推动着和平，AI数据中心。

you're going to see all of this. 你会看到所有这些。

Uh, it's it's really an interesting and fascinating future.

呃，这是一个真正有趣且引人入胜的未来。

Host: Yeah. Host: 是的。

Are are you bullish on sovereign AI sort of that these are you sort of you know think that you might invest in that type of

Host: 你对主权AI看好吗？就是你觉得你可能会投资这类

Keith: We have at KV we invested in a sovereign AI company in Japan called Scono. Keith: 我们在KV投资了一家日本的主权AI公司，名叫Scono。

The thesis of AI is too important to the future of nations to allow an American company to dominate in certain regions. AI的理论对国家的未来至关重要，不应允许一家美国公司在某些地区占据主导地位。

I think is going to prove to be true. 我认为这将证明是正确的。

I think you still need a marshall the hard part that's easy to say at a conceptual level to implement that though, you still need a marshall a critical density of talent of AI researchers and there's not that many world-class AI researchers across the globe. 我认为你仍然需要调集资源，这在概念层面很容易说，但要实施它，你仍然需要调集足够密度的AI研究人才，而全球顶尖的AI研究人员并不多。

I saw you know public presentation by 黄仁勋 (Jensen Huang: 英伟达联合创始人兼首席执行官) where he said there's 150 people on the planet who could actually build a foundational model. 我看到黄仁勋的一次公开演讲，他说全球只有150人能够真正构建一个基础模型。

He's probably more right than wrong. 他可能对的成分更多。

And so you still, if you're going to build one for Germany or Europe or Israel or wherever, you're still going to need a critical density of those 150 people to be able to compete at the cutting edge of frontier models. 所以，如果你要为德国、欧洲、以色列或其他任何地方构建一个模型，你仍然需要那150人中的关键密度，才能在前沿模型的尖端竞争。

But I think most countries are going to try.

但我认为大多数国家都会尝试。

Host: Yeah. Host: 是的。

Before we get to tech, just to close the the the politics front, do you think that this will end up defining Trump's legacy or what what do you think his second term will be remembered for?

Host: 在我们谈论科技之前，就政治方面，你认为这最终会定义特朗普的遗产吗？或者你认为他的第二个任期会被人们记住什么？

Keith: Well, you know, I was kind of thinking last night, you know, he's going to solve all the problems he inherited in the first two years. Keith: 嗯，你知道，我昨晚在想，他将在头两年解决他继承的所有问题。

Like if you think about it, immigration basically solved. 比如说，如果你想想，移民问题基本解决了。

Uh, if you think about the Middle East on its way to being solved, he'll get Russia and Ukraine solved. 呃，如果你想想中东问题正在解决的路上，他会解决俄罗斯和乌克兰的问题。

I'm pretty sure tariffs are bringing down the debt. 我很确定关税正在降低债务。

The growth rate is going to accelerate. 增长率将会加速。

We're going to have 4% or more growth all of next year. 明年全年我们将有4%或更高的增长。

That will make the debt irrelevant. 那将使债务变得无关紧要。

You can grow your way out of deficits. 你可以通过增长来摆脱赤字。

Um, interest rates still need to come down. 嗯，利率仍然需要下降。

Trying to fix the Federal The Federal Reserve has been obsessed. 试图修复联邦……美联储一直很着迷。

That'll eventually get fixed. 那最终会得到解决。

He will replace 杰罗姆·鲍威尔 (Jerome Powell: 美国联邦储备委员会主席) at some point. 他会在某个时候替换杰罗姆·鲍威尔。

Bess's going to continue to be outstanding. 贝斯的表现将继续出色。

So, I think after the next year, it's going to be all upside.

所以，我认为明年之后，一切都将是利好。

Host: And and why doesn't Powell want to reduce rates? Host: 那么，鲍威尔为什么不想降息呢？

What is the seal man for what?

他到底是为了什么？

Keith: Well, his argument Well, I don't know that he has a good argument. Keith: 嗯，他的论点……我不知道他是否有充分的论点。

I don't I think he has Trump derangement syndrome. 我不知道，我认为他有特朗普精神错乱综合症。

He just hates Trump. 他只是讨厌特朗普。

That's why he artificially lowered rates to try to get 卡玛拉·哈里斯 (Kamala Harris: 美国副总统) elected. 这就是他人为降低利率，试图让卡玛拉·哈里斯当选的原因。

It is indefensible cutting 50 basis points off in LA, you know, last fall. 去年秋天在洛杉矶降息50个基点是站不住脚的。

But he does see employment is running pretty hot. 但他确实看到就业市场非常火热。

But the the difference is with AI and productivity gains through technology. 但不同之处在于AI和通过技术带来的生产力提升。

Hot employment does not necessarily yield inflation. 就业火热不一定导致通货膨胀。

It's not a it's not just wage growth that's fueling GDP growth. 不仅仅是工资增长在推动GDP增长。

And so I think you're seeing some of the substitution where productivity gains can be made. 所以我认为你看到了一些替代效应，即生产力可以提高。

GDP can run four 5% without triggering inflation because it's not just you don't grow GDP just by paying humans more, which is the historical precedent.

GDP可以达到4-5%的增长而不会引发通货膨胀，因为它不仅仅是通过给人类支付更多工资来增长GDP，这与历史先例不同。

Host: And again before I segue what's sort of reflection post 狗狗币 (DOGE: 一种加密货币) like what did we learn from that experiment?

Host: 在我再次转入下一个话题之前，狗狗币事件后有什么反思？我们从那个实验中学到了什么？

Keith: Well actually the funny thing is I was watching some political polls and there's not that many pollsters that I find accurate, but there's a few and until this week Trump's height of his popularity was when DOGE was at his best. Keith: 嗯，实际上有趣的是，我当时在看一些政治民意调查，我发现准确的民意调查机构不多，但有几个。直到这周，特朗普人气最高的时候就是狗狗币表现最好的时候。

The American people really do want to cut the size and scope of the federal government. 美国人民确实希望削减联邦政府的规模和范围。

You can see like look at the government's officially shut down and Trump's fixing everything. 你可以看到，政府正式关门了，而特朗普正在解决一切问题。

It it does suggest like why do we need the rest of the government? 这确实表明，我们为什么需要政府的其他部分？

Like everything has been better the last two weeks. 就像过去两周一切都变得更好了。

Like can you name one thing in society across the globe that's got worse in the last two weeks with the government

你能说出过去两周里，政府关门导致全球社会上有什么事情变得更糟了吗？

Host: can't go public. Host: 不能上市。

This is the problem. 这是个问题。

Yes, I agree.

是的，我同意。

Keith: But yeah, other other than that, well, fortunately, my companies will be right good enough to go public whenever they want. Keith: 但是，除了那个，嗯，幸运的是，我的公司只要愿意，随时都可以上市。

It will be eventually but um, you know, ramp can be public whenever it wants. 它最终会上市，但是，你知道，Ramp公司可以随时上市。

It doesn't need like a timing uh, you know, uh, move and manipulation, but fundamentally that'll get fixed. 它不需要像那种时机上的操作和操控，但从根本上来说，那会得到解决。

But the government being shut down doesn't seem to be interfering with the rate of progress. 但政府关门似乎并没有影响到进展的速度。

And I think maybe Americans wake up one day and say like, "Wait, why do we need the you know this size federal government?" 我认为也许有一天美国人会醒悟过来，说：“等等，我们为什么需要这么大联邦政府？”

I pro I actually believe you could probably cut 50% of the federal government um, ex-military easily. 我……我实际上认为，你可以很容易地裁减联邦政府50%的非军事部门。

Like what does the commerce department actually do? 比如，商务部到底做些什么？

Like literally I mean 霍华德·卢特尼克 (Howard Lutnick: Cantor Fitzgerald公司董事长兼首席执行官) does a lot of work. 就像字面意义上，霍华德·卢特尼克做了很多工作。

He's at the forefront of everything like negotiating tariff deals.

他在所有事情的最前沿，比如谈判关税协议。

Host: But like all the thousands of bureaucrats what department why do we have a department of agriculture? Host: 但像成千上万的官僚，为什么我们会有农业部呢？

This is actually an interesting question. 这实际上是一个有趣的问题。

Why do we actually have thousands of people probably I haven't looked at it recently, but probably 30,000 people work at the department of agriculture

为什么我们会有成千上万的人，我最近没查过，但大概有3万人为农业部工作？

Keith: what world does that make sense like even like the state department there's like three or 4 thousand uh economic officers over posted overseas this is like back in the day when you count the ships you know kind of an artifact of history where you count the ships showing up at a port and then report back to DC this economy is growing Poland's growing the UK is not where obviously you can just log into like a Bloomberg terminal and track that probably more accurately

Keith: 这在什么世界里说得通？就像甚至国务院，有三四千名经济官员被派驻海外，这就像过去你数船只的时候，你知道，是历史的遗物，你数停靠在港口的船只，然后向华盛顿汇报说这个经济正在增长，波兰在增长，英国却没有，而现在你显然可以直接登录彭博终端，可能更准确地追踪这些数据。

Host: but if Elon couldn't do it to some degree does it speak to the intractability of actually

Host: 但如果埃隆在某种程度上都做不到，这是否说明了实际操作的棘手性？

Keith: well you need political will but I think one of the things the last two weeks is showing Trump's going to be more popular than ever he's literally posting the highest popularity and approval rate of his career right now and the government shut down one of the reasons why there hasn't been political will is when you have sort of a diffuse benefit when and and concentrated aggravated people politicians elected officials are afraid so when you cut something. Keith: 嗯，你需要政治意愿，但我认为过去两周所表明的一件事是，特朗普将比以往任何时候都更受欢迎。他现在正处于职业生涯中最高的人气和支持率，而政府却关门了。之所以没有政治意愿，其中一个原因是当你有一个分散的利益，以及集中且被激怒的人群时，政客和民选官员就会害怕，所以当你削减某项开支时。

The people who like whatever that program is, they may only be 1% of the population, but they're very loud and annoying. 那些喜欢某个项目的人，他们可能只占人口的1%，但他们非常吵闹和烦人。

And the 99% of the people benefit are quiet typically. 而99%受益的人通常是沉默的。

But if you can convince people that, hey, we don't need all this stuff, and the 99% people are like, hey, why do we need all this stuff? 但是，如果你能说服人们，嘿，我们不需要所有这些东西，而99%的人也觉得，嘿，我们为什么需要所有这些东西？

Why am I paying all these taxes? 我为什么要交这么多税？

Then the 1% you can safely ignore. 那么那1%的人你就可以安全地忽略了。

And because the 1% have historically been channeling through the legacy media, which is no longer relevant, it they're going to need to find a new megaphone. 而且由于那1%的人历史上一直通过传统媒体发声，而传统媒体已经不再重要，他们将需要找到一个新的扩音器。

like whether you know New York Times or the Wall Street Journal writes some attack piece, nobody on the Republican side cares anymore. 比如，无论是《纽约时报》还是《华尔街日报》写了什么攻击性文章，共和党方面的人都不再关心了。

We've learned that that stuff is just garbage, it's fake and irrelevant. 我们已经知道那些东西不过是垃圾，是虚假且无关紧要的。

And so if you have the if you're on the right side of history with the right evidence and the right ideas, you can just ignore the legacy media. 所以，如果你站在历史的正确一边，拥有正确的证据和思想，你就可以直接忽略传统媒体。

So I think it's going to be a lot easier to cut things.

所以我认为削减开支会容易得多。

Host: Do you think uh Elon and Trump are going to make up in a material way or that Elon is going to support the Republican party and

Host: 你认为埃隆和特朗普会实质性地和解吗？或者埃隆会支持共和党并且

Keith: Oh yeah. Keith: 哦，是的。

Um, I think it's obvious. 嗯，我认为这很明显。

I mean, I think the 查理·柯克 (Charlie Kirk: 美国保守派活动家、电台主持人) funeral, you know, was like ceremonial.

我的意思是，我认为查理·柯克的葬礼，你知道，就像是仪式性的。

Host: He must get back into politics in a material.

Host: 他必须实质性地重返政坛。

Keith: I don't know if he'll get back into politics, but he's not going to fund non conservative parties. Keith: 我不知道他是否会重返政坛，但他不会资助非保守党派。

Like, I think that's dead. 我认为那已经死了。

I put a stake in the ground in it on the All-In podcast. 我在All-In播客上对此下了赌注。

I think after my comments, I think it was dead anyway. 我想在我发表评论之后，它反正也已经死了。

But I think now they've reconciled, which makes sense. 但我认为他们现在已经和解了，这很合理。

Like, ideologically, they mostly agree. 比如，在意识形态上，他们大体一致。

Yeah.

是的。

Host: Um, you know, I think the debate, the funny thing is the divorce was kind of weird in a sense of Elon's kind of a perfectionist of like, why can't you do this? Host: 嗯，你知道，我认为争论，有趣的是他们的“分手”有点奇怪，埃隆有点像个完美主义者，他会问：为什么你做不到这个？

Why can't you cut more faster? 为什么你不能更快地削减？

And Trump was like the political realist in that case where he's like, I just don't have the votes in the Senate to do this and you've got to give me some, you know, over time I'll get there, but you got to give me some rope and you got to give the Secretary of Treasury some rope. 而特朗普在这种情况下更像是个政治现实主义者，他说：我只是在参议院没有足够的票数来做这件事，你们得给我一些时间，你知道，假以时日我会做到的，但你们得给我一些余地，也得给财政部长一些余地。

And it was really a not a fight about the idea, but a fight about like the prioritization, sequencing, timing. 这实际上不是关于想法的争论，而是关于优先级、顺序和时机的争论。

And you know, Trump's a pretty astute politician, so I would trust his judgment on the timing. 而且你知道，特朗普是一个相当精明的政治家，所以我相信他对时机的判断。

He's pretty aggressive and assertive. 他相当积极和自信。

And if he doesn't think he can move that fast, he's probably more right than wrong.

如果他认为自己不能那么快行动，他可能对的成分更多。

Host: It also just feels like there's this question of do you grow your way out of something or cut your way out of something. Host: 这也让人觉得存在这样一个问题：你是通过增长来解决问题，还是通过削减来解决问题。

The greatest entrepreneur of all time and you can quintuple I mean, I'm making this up, but imagine you can quintuple GDP with AI and everything else versus, you know, cut us even more or whatever, right? 有史以来最伟大的企业家，你可以让GDP翻五倍——我是随便说的，但想象一下，你可以通过AI和其他一切让GDP翻五倍，而不是，你知道的，进一步削减我们或者其他什么，对吗？

Yeah. 是的。

You know, you the the growth mentality for the greatest entrepreneur of all time probably makes more sense. 你知道，对于有史以来最伟大的企业家来说，增长的心态可能更有意义。

But

但是

Keith: yeah, the grow the growth mentality is almost surely right. Keith: 是的，增长的心态几乎肯定是正确的。

The austerity mentality probably doesn't work. 紧缩的心态可能行不通。

Which is funny because ironic as you point out, the greatest entrepreneur of all time should understand the concept to lift. 这很有趣，因为正如你指出的那样，具有讽刺意味的是，有史以来最伟大的企业家应该理解“提升”的概念。

Growth and lift are basically the same thing. 增长和提升基本上是一回事。

And you need to create value and that growing GDP sustainably durably is the way to solve America's problems. 你需要创造价值，而可持续、持久地增长GDP是解决美国问题的方法。

Austerity is like a temporary hack. 紧缩就像一个临时的权宜之计。

You're kind of holding everything together and making life painful. 你只是勉强维持一切，让生活变得痛苦。

It's kind of like a startup trying to save its cash for the last 12 months, but you're not really achieving anything.

这有点像一家创业公司试图在最后12个月里节省现金，但你并没有真正取得任何成就。

AI对经济的影响

Host: By the way, Keith, what's your mental model prediction of what AI will do to GDP? Host: 顺便问一下，Keith，你对AI将如何影响GDP有什么心理模型预测？

Some people are, you know, Teran is more conservative and just expressing a mild, you know, step up. 有些人，你知道，Teran比较保守，只是表达了一种温和的提升。

Some people are saying, oh, if we actually have AGI (通用人工智能: 具备理解、学习或执行任何人类智力任务能力的人工智能), you know, should be 10% or like some

有些人则说，哦，如果我们真的拥有AGI，你知道，那应该增长10%或者类似

Keith: Well, I think you can run four to 6% durably without inflation, which is magic. Keith: 嗯，我认为你可以持续实现4%到6%的增长而不会引发通货膨胀，这简直是奇迹。

Like, so we used to do this like some sometimes I tweet about like 4% growth and people are like that's crazy. 就像我们过去常做的那样，有时我在推特上谈论4%的增长，人们会说这太疯狂了。

from 1950 to 2010 on average in a normal decade we had 4.6 years per decade of 4% growth or higher. 从1950年到2010年，在正常十年间，我们平均每十年有4.6年实现4%或更高的增长。

So we used to do this all the time and expect it and then we stop for a variety of reasons. 所以我们过去一直这样做并期望它，然后我们因为各种原因停止了。

And if you grow that fast a incomes real incomes grow but b if you have a debt if you have a deficit you can solve these problems without cutting essential services and you can probably expand the influence of America across the globe. 如果你增长得这么快，那么a) 实际收入会增长，b) 如果你有债务，如果你有赤字，你可以在不削减基本服务的情况下解决这些问题，而且你可能会扩大美国在全球的影响力。

what what you know what Howard Lutnik articulated to me is basically post World War II we sort of intentionally sabotaged our growth and harmonized it with let's say Europe people rebuilding and made an explicit tradeoff to do that and then just forgot that 50 60 70 80 90 years have gone by and that makes no sense. 你知道，霍华德·卢特尼克向我阐明的是，基本上在二战后，我们有点故意破坏了我们的增长，并将其与，比如说，欧洲人民的重建同步，并为此做出了明确的权衡，然后就忘记了50、60、70、80、90年过去了，这毫无意义。

America should be leading the world and we should be dominating in technology. 美国应该引领世界，我们应该在技术上占据主导地位。

we should be dominating in growth and that creates more and more influence. 我们应该在增长上占据主导地位，这会创造越来越多的影响力。

So it's it's it it's it's profound in every way.

所以它在各个方面都意义深远。

Host: Yeah. Host: 是的。

Let's get deeper just on the effects of AI in the economy. 让我们更深入地探讨AI对经济的影响。

If if scaling laws hold to to some degree, do you know will it show up in the productivity statistics directly? 如果规模法则在某种程度上成立，你知道它会直接体现在生产力统计数据中吗？

um, you know, what does it do to uh wages?

嗯，你知道，它对工资有什么影响？

Keith: But you do have the I do believe in the ball you know sort of the ball cost thing where like the limiting step is the most the most difficult most human things actually put a constraint on like uh AI growth or jobs going away. Keith: 但你确实有……我确实相信那种“球成本”效应，即限制性步骤是最困难、最人性化的事情，实际上对AI增长或工作岗位的消失构成了制约。

I think that is actually true. 我认为这确实是事实。

Like someone still needs to construct all these power plants or data centers and as long as there's manual electricians and as long as there's man maybe you don't need manual architects, but you probably need manual plumbing for a while manual electricians I don't think robots are building the next data center at least not right away and so that is going to be the constraint and so these jobs are not really going to go away. 比如，仍然需要有人建造所有这些发电厂或数据中心，只要有手工电工，只要有人……也许你不需要手工建筑师，但你可能需要一段时间的手工管道工和手工电工。我不认为机器人会立即建造下一个数据中心，所以那将是一个限制因素，因此这些工作实际上不会消失。

So some if you read the bomb, you know, curse of the bomb stuff, I think we're not going to see radical disruption. 所以，如果你读过那些关于“炸弹诅咒”之类的东西，我认为我们不会看到根本性的颠覆。

We're just going to see the golden age that Trump talked about in his inaugural address.

我们只会看到特朗普在他就职演说中提到的黄金时代。

Host: Yeah. Host: 是的。

The We just had 萨姆·奥尔特曼 (Sam Altman: OpenAI首席执行官) here last week on the podcast. 我们上周刚刚在播客上请来了萨姆·奥尔特曼。

We were Yeah. 我们是，是的。

both investors.

都是投资者。

Keith: I wore a much more subtle shirt.

Keith: 我穿了一件更低调的衬衫。

Host: Exactly. Host: 没错。

Um, what is your mental model of OpenAI as a company? 嗯，你对OpenAI这家公司的心理模型是什么？

What what what is it doing right now? 它现在在做什么？

What is Yeah. 它是什么，是的。

How do you sort of see it going forward? 你如何看待它的未来发展？

Well, I I think there's several things they're doing. 嗯，我认为他们正在做几件事。

Obviously, it's a phenomenal company. 显然，这是一家非凡的公司。

It's the most important company of the last decade. 它是过去十年最重要的公司。

I think ChatGPT becomes a monopoly. 我认为ChatGPT会成为一个垄断者。

It's the fastest growing consumer product of all time. 它是史上增长最快的消费产品。

It is transforming how everybody, every normal person basically does their work, runs their life. 它正在改变每个人、每个普通人基本的工作方式和生活管理方式。

And so that product alone is a several trillion dollar company. 所以仅凭这款产品，它就是一家价值数万亿美元的公司。

Then they do all these other things. 然后他们还做所有其他事情。

And some of them may pay commercial dividends, some may pay societal dividends, but ChatGPT alone there is no competition for. 其中一些可能会带来商业红利，一些可能会带来社会红利，但单单ChatGPT就没有竞争对手。

It's not like anthropic or all these other companies have any competition for that. 不像Anthropic或所有其他公司在那方面有任何竞争。

There are vertical applications where some foundational models or some geos where some foundational models may thrive and AI may be important enough that even having a vertical application like coding or having a vertical a geo application may be worth tens of billions of dollars. 存在一些垂直应用场景，某些基础模型或某些地理区域中的基础模型可能会蓬勃发展，AI可能足够重要，即使拥有像编码这样的垂直应用或地理应用，也可能价值数百亿美元。

But open AI is the few trillion dollar company.

但OpenAI是那几家万亿美元公司之一。

OpenAI与谷歌的竞争

Host: the what happens to Google?

Host: 那么谷歌会怎样？

Keith: Good question.

Keith: 好问题。

I know it doesn't show up in all their metrics. 我知道这并没有体现在他们所有的指标中。

I know they're good at spinning like, hey, it's not having effect on this and that. 我知道他们擅长诡辩，比如，嘿，这对这和那都没有影响。

But if you just survey, you know, walk outside your office and just ask 10 people like how how often you go to Google versus how often do you use ChatGPT? 但如果你只是调查一下，你知道，走出办公室，随便问10个人，他们使用谷歌的频率和使用ChatGPT的频率相比如何？

And yes, maybe you grow both for a while, but I don't use Google for anything. 是的，也许你会在一段时间内同时使用两者，但我已经不用谷歌做任何事情了。

Like I can't remember the last time I used Google versus ChatGPT. 我记不清上次使用谷歌而不是ChatGPT是什么时候了。

Like it's just so inferior.

它简直是太差劲了。

Host: Yeah. Host: 是的。

Uh, Alex, I know you've thought a lot about Google as well. 呃，Alex，我知道你对谷歌也有很多思考。

What

什么

Alex: I know their strategy. Alex: 我知道他们的策略。

So their strategy is going to be at some point they're going to try to take advantage of all this personal data from your Gmail, from your YouTube videos, you know, from all the different products they have and then therefore make a much better personalized experience. 所以他们的策略将是，在某个时候，他们会尝试利用你Gmail、YouTube视频以及他们所有不同产品中的个人数据，从而创造出更好得多的个性化体验。

And I think the tradition the company being a conservative institution and a legacy sort of institution, they've moved very slowly on that. 我认为这家公司作为一家保守机构和传统机构，在这方面行动非常缓慢。

But there is a lot of data there and you could create a power a very powerful personalized assistant sort of proactive product and that's what they should build. 但那里有大量数据，你可以创建一个非常强大的个性化助手，一种主动式产品，那正是他们应该构建的。

The question is, can you get can ChatGPT get enough of my prompts over enough period of time that they're creating an equivalent data set about me that allows them to compete on the personalization basis. 问题是，ChatGPT能否在足够长的时间内获取我足够的提示，从而创建一个关于我的等效数据集，使他们能够在个性化基础上竞争。

And the longer Google waits to ship something like this that's robust, the more time ChatGPT has to develop, you know, sort of my personalized prompt history, which can inform the future and then they can ship, you know, better products, personal assistants, devices. 谷歌越晚推出这样一款强大的产品，ChatGPT就有越多的时间来发展，你知道的，我的个性化提示历史，这可以为未来提供信息，然后他们就可以推出更好的产品、个人助手、设备。

There's also a question around devices. 还有一个关于设备的问题。

Does someone do you need a device? 有人需要设备吗？

Is AI driven by a new computing device and who's going to build that? AI是由新的计算设备驱动的吗？谁会建造它？

Obviously, OpenAI made an acquisition to try to get down that path. 显然，OpenAI进行了一次收购，试图沿着这条路走下去。

Google's been terrible at devices historically.

历史上谷歌在设备方面一直表现糟糕。

Keith: We'll see if they can get any better, but someone, you know, Apple is great at devices but bad at AI. Keith: 我们会看看他们能否有所改进，但总有人会……你知道，苹果在设备方面很出色，但在AI方面却很糟糕。

Someone is going to build a device. 总会有人建造一个设备。

Where are we going to be using, you know, your iPhone as your personal computing device 5 years out? 五年后，我们还会把你的iPhone作为个人计算设备使用吗？

Maybe 10 years out almost surely not.

十年后几乎肯定不会。

Host: Do you do you know what that device might be?

Host: 你知道那个设备可能会是什么吗？

AI时代的设备创新

Keith: I personally am a fan of putting something in your ear. Keith: 我个人倾向于把东西放在耳朵里。

Um, I think first of all, I believe in the science fiction movie adoption of like like Mission Impossible. 嗯，我认为首先，我相信科幻电影中的应用，比如《碟中谍》。

It's always in his ear. 它总是戴在他耳朵里。

The glasses have done reasonably well, but if you know I have 准分子激光原位角膜磨镶术 (LASIK: 一种常见的视力矫正手术), um, I think most people who wear glasses try to get LASIK at some point and so I think putting another device here all the time, the bar on the value proposition goes up versus put something in your ear, it might actually go down. 眼镜的表现还算不错，但如果你知道我做过LASIK，嗯，我想大多数戴眼镜的人在某个时候都会尝试做LASIK，所以我认为一直在这里放置另一个设备，其价值主张的门槛就提高了，而把东西放在耳朵里，门槛可能实际上会降低。

Um, there are people with like pendants and necklaces which have some value and you may have multiple instead of having a phone, maybe you have something in your ear and something here, something here. 嗯，有些人佩戴吊坠和项链，它们有一些价值，你可能拥有多个设备。而不是只带一部手机，你可能耳朵里有一个，这里有一个，那里还有一个。

Depends what the use case is, what the ideal form factor is. 这取决于用例是什么，理想的外形因素是什么。

There's issues around battery innovation, too. 电池创新也存在问题。

Like some of the stuff's really hard because you need power, constant power. 有些东西真的很难，因为你需要电力，持续的电力。

Depending on where something's located, it may be very difficult to power it or not. 根据设备的位置，为其供电可能会非常困难，也可能不困难。

So, I I don't know how to do it, but if I had a vote, if I was running a company that's doing hardware, I'd try the year first. 所以，我不知道怎么做，但如果我有投票权，如果我经营一家做硬件的公司，我首先会尝试耳朵里的设备。

Interesting.

有意思。

Host: Alex, any reaction to this either on the on the Google side or on the device side?

Host: Alex，对谷歌或设备方面有什么看法吗？

Alex: Yeah, I mean, I think on the Google side, I mean, you and I have talked about this a bunch. Alex: 是的，我的意思是，我认为在谷歌方面，你和我已经谈论过很多次了。

Um, I don't think Google's going to get hit for a long time on the monetization part, but I agree like all of the non-monetizing searches go away first. 嗯，我认为谷歌在盈利部分很长一段时间内都不会受到冲击，但我同意所有非盈利性搜索会首先消失。

It's like, you know, how do I get here? 就像，你知道，我怎么去这里？

What should I prepare for this interview? 我应该为这次面试准备什么？

Like all of these things that aren't commerce related, but like where do I buy a like I want to buy a tennis racket right now? 所有这些与商业无关的事情，但比如我现在想买一个网球拍，去哪里买？

Like that's Google until it isn't because

那在某种程度上是谷歌擅长的，直到它不再是，因为

Keith: So it isn't until you say show me the best five tennis rackets for me.

Keith: 所以直到你说“给我推荐五款最适合我的网球拍”之前，它都不是。

Alex: Oh yeah. Alex: 哦，是的。

Yeah. 是的。

cuz like if you try try that right now top 10 top five racket choices for me on ChatGPT versus Google search

因为如果你现在就尝试在ChatGPT上搜索“最适合我的前五名网球拍”和在谷歌上搜索

Keith: right

Keith: 对

Alex: I think even already now ChatGPT would be better

Alex: 我认为即使现在ChatGPT也会更好

Keith: well it's it's where it will really be better is um I kind of think it's like there's impulse buys which won't really be be hit by either because that's just like I'm looking at Instagram I see something that I shouldn't buy anyway and then there's highly highly considered purchases like buying a house we'll get to that later with the door and everything else but and then in the middle um this is something where I think AI eventually will do a phenomenal up, which is like, I want this skew, this tennis racket. Keith: 嗯，它真正会更好的地方是……我有点觉得，就像冲动购买，两者都不会真正受到影响，因为那就像我在看Instagram，看到一些我反正不该买的东西。然后还有高度深思熟虑的购买，比如买房，我们稍后会和OpenDoor以及其他事情一起讨论。但介于两者之间，我认为AI最终会做得非常出色，那就是，我想要这个型号的网球拍。

Buy it for me right now at the lowest price. 现在就以最低价给我买下来。

You're not going to go through Google and like look at coupons and like all that crap is going to go away. 你不会再通过谷歌去查看优惠券，所有那些垃圾都会消失。

You will just go to ChatGPT or to your point, like it's possible that the Empire Strikes Back, but like the like, all right, I I already have my calendar, my Gmail, everything else. 你只会去ChatGPT，或者按你说的，帝国可能反击，但就像，好吧，我已经有了我的日历、我的Gmail，所有其他东西。

That personalization potentially makes it better. 那种个性化可能会让它变得更好。

But the execute on this skew and buy it for me. 但执行这个型号并为我购买。

If ChatGPT get it gets that going, which I think is one of their top priorities, then like that's that's going to really steal the monetization engine by from Google because like that's where they make all their money.

如果ChatGPT能做到这一点，我认为这是他们的首要任务之一，那么那将真正从谷歌手中夺走盈利引擎，因为那是他们所有收入的来源。

Keith: I mean, but imagine a couple things. Keith: 我的意思是，但想象一下几件事。

So, first of all, like the example, if you have Gmail, you probably can figure out what tennis rackets I purchased previously. 所以，首先，就像这个例子，如果你有Gmail，你可能就能知道我以前买过什么网球拍。

I mean, if I bought in the real world, maybe not. 我的意思是，如果我在现实世界中购买，也许不行。

But if I bought them online in my receipts, you know, they're going to be in my Gmail. 但如果我在线购买，我的收据，你知道，它们会在我的Gmail里。

Um, but then the other hand on ChatGPT, you know, I could say I prompt like, you know, I'm this ranked tennis player, better at forehand than backhand, blah blah blah blah blah, you know, etc. 嗯，但另一方面，在ChatGPT上，我可以说我提示，你知道，我是这个排名的网球运动员，正手比反手好，等等等等。

Which racket's best for me. 哪个球拍最适合我。

And I can't even fathom like how to do a Google search that would be something like that.

我甚至无法想象如何进行一次像那样的谷歌搜索。

Alex: It's more of like Google has this like complete inventory, but I I think that advantage will not hold for long. Alex: 更像是谷歌拥有这种完整的库存，但我认为这种优势不会持续很久。

And I think the metrics that they're kind of faking right now is it's like what percentage of our users are using AI and that's not using Gemini as a DAOU. 我认为他们现在正在伪造的指标是，比如我们有多少用户在使用AI，而这并不是在使用Gemini作为DAOU。

I'm sure of that. 我对此很确定。

It's just like they had like an AI summary something something in there, but they're losing all of the free in the premium sense searches to ChatGPT.

就像他们里面有一个AI摘要之类的东西，但他们正在失去所有免费的、高级的搜索给ChatGPT。

Keith: So eventually that's going to catch up with them. Keith: 所以最终那会追上他们。

Well, also ChatGPT is uh fixing the first sin of the internet, which is they charge subscriptions. 嗯，ChatGPT还在纠正互联网的第一个原罪，那就是他们收取订阅费。

And so to some extent, you may not have to rebuild an advertising model if your subscription revenue is excellent. 因此在某种程度上，如果你的订阅收入非常可观，你可能不需要重建广告模式。

Consumers are basically learning that they should pay for things that create value, which has always been true offline. 消费者基本上正在学习他们应该为创造价值的事物付费，这在线下一直都是事实。

Like there's almost nothing you consume offline except oxygen that you don't pay for. 就像除了氧气，你在线下消费的几乎所有东西都是要付费的。

But online, the first generation of internet entrepreneurs assumed you had to make things free. 但在线上，第一代互联网企业家认为你必须免费提供东西。

They sort of equated the marginal cost reduction with the value reduction and it was just a massive mistake. 他们有点把边际成本的降低等同于价值的降低，这简直是一个巨大的错误。

And ChatGPT is now fixing that where people are going to pay for AI products directly whether it's $200 a month, $20 a month or even $2,000 a month.

而ChatGPT现在正在纠正这一点，人们将直接为AI产品付费，无论是每月200美元、20美元还是2000美元。

Host: And yet at the same time, merchants will still pay for traffic.

Host: 然而与此同时，商家仍然会为流量付费。

Keith: Yeah. Keith: 是的。

So you can do hybrid, but then you can offset some of Google's advantages if you're already monetizing users through subscriptions successfully.

所以你可以采取混合模式，但如果你已经通过订阅成功地实现了用户变现，那么你就可以抵消谷歌的一些优势。

Host: Yeah.

Host: 是的。

传统巨头的挑战：微软与Meta

Host: Let's let's talk more broadly about how incumbents are are going to be affected. Host: 让我们更广泛地谈谈现有企业将如何受到影响。

You we just talked about Google Keith. 我们刚才谈到了谷歌，Keith。

I'm curious to hear your thoughts when we look at the next 5 to 10 years like how d you know companies like Amazon, Meta, Microsoft, how do you think they're going to handle?

我很想听听你的想法，当我们展望未来5到10年，像亚马逊、Meta、微软这样的公司，你认为它们将如何应对？

Keith: It's a great question. Keith: 这是一个很好的问题。

I I don't know what Amazon's going to do. 我不知道亚马逊会做什么。

Um, it has the selection and the delivery. 嗯，它有商品选择和配送。

I mean still you're there's a fulfillment one way or the other's a fulfillment aspect which is never been Google's strength. 我的意思是，仍然存在一个履约方面，无论是哪种方式，这从来都不是谷歌的强项。

They've tried various initiatives none of them work. 他们尝试了各种举措，但都没有奏效。

uh never been it's not going to be ChatGPT actually fulfilling most likely

呃，从来没有，很可能也不会是ChatGPT实际履行大部分订单。

Alex: well most of their gross profit is AWS like that is the

Alex: 嗯，他们大部分的毛利都来自AWS，那才是

Keith: vast another issue too structurally like maybe they don't even care to some extent at some point but um I think the fulfillment's very real and Amazon is actually on fulfillment not that many people are although e-commerce fulfillment is somewhat distinct from traditional fulfillment so we'll see if there's room for innovation there but they could hold on for a long time of being the reliable delivery mechanism. Keith: 结构上还有一个大问题，也许在某种程度上他们甚至不在乎，但是我认为履约是非常真实的，亚马逊实际上在履约方面做得很好，虽然不是很多人都在做，尽管电子商务履约与传统履约有些不同，所以我们会看看那里是否有创新的空间，但他们可以长期保持作为可靠的配送机制。

Um, you get satisficing, you get a reasonable price and quality experience and that's good enough. 嗯，你得到的是满意，你得到合理的价格和质量体验，这就足够了。

So maybe that sustains them for a bit. 所以也许这能让他们维持一段时间。

Microsoft, I don't know. 微软，我不知道。

I think you know people gave them a lot of credit up front for their investing in AI, forging this relationship and partnership with OpenAI before it was obvious that OpenAI was going to transform all of our lives, society, industries, etc. 我认为，你知道，人们一开始就非常赞赏他们在AI方面的投资，以及在OpenAI会改变我们所有人的生活、社会、行业等变得显而易见之前，就与OpenAI建立了这种关系和伙伴关系。

But over the last two years, it's not clear that they have been able to preserve that advantage.

但在过去两年里，他们是否能够保持这种优势尚不明确。

Host: And now if you think about business applications,

Host: 那么现在，如果你考虑商业应用，

Host: do you really think that Microsoft has an advantage in business applications?

Host: 你真的认为微软在商业应用方面有优势吗？

Host: Not in LinkedIn, not in Word, probably not in Excel. Host: 不在LinkedIn，不在Word，可能也不在Excel。

They're holding on to Excel, but there's a lot of startups, you've probably funded a few around here, that are, you know, AI for Excel and things like that. 他们仍然掌握着Excel，但有很多初创公司，你可能在这里投资了一些，它们正在开发针对Excel的AI等产品。

Keynote or PowerPoint. Keynote或PowerPoint。

I doubt they can hold on to that,

我怀疑他们能否守住这些，

Host: you know, cloud revenue. Host: 你知道，云收入。

Sure, for the point about AWS or Google Cloud, um, but that's not really why Microsoft's valued the way they are. 当然，就AWS或Google Cloud而言，嗯，但这并不是微软获得现有估值的主要原因。

So, I don't know what their advantage that's going to sustain through the AI AI wave is going to be.

所以，我不知道他们通过AI浪潮能够持续的优势会是什么。

Keith: Well, historically, it's always been a distribution advantage where they've just crushed everybody and it's like you go back to Lotus 1-2-3 (一款经典的电子表格软件) or whatever. Keith: 嗯，从历史上看，它一直是一种分销优势，他们就是碾压所有人，就像你回到Lotus 1-2-3或其他什么。

pick your pick your company and it's like they just have this dominant browsers.

选择你选择的公司，他们就是拥有这些主导性的浏览器。

Alex: They will just they'll clone you, they'll crush you and then they'll distribute the heck out of their shittier product and then

Alex: 他们会克隆你，碾压你，然后疯狂分发他们更糟糕的产品，然后

Keith: Teams.

Keith: Teams。

Alex: Yeah, Teams is a perfect example. Alex: 是的，Teams就是一个完美的例子。

It's like Zoom had a higher market cap than Zoom. 就像Zoom的市场估值比Zoom还高。

Yeah.

是的。

Keith: Right. Keith: 对。

And then they like totally flipped after like COVID reversed and Teams is just but it's actually not because of Exxon, right? 然后他们就像COVID疫情逆转后完全翻盘，而Teams只是，但这实际上不是因为埃克森，对吗？

It's it's because of it's not even because of COVID restrictions or interest rates. 这是因为，甚至不是因为COVID限制或利率。

They're losing but they started with they started with an advantage in coding co-pilot etc. 他们正在输掉，但他们一开始在编码副驾驶等方面拥有优势。

they're losing that cur cursor or cognition and maybe others.

他们正在失去那个Cursor或Cognition以及其他可能的东西。

Host: But it feels like developers are much more attuned to like I want good software, whereas if you're like an 奥帕伦帕人 (Oompa Loompa: 电影《查理和巧克力工厂》中的小矮人角色，常用于比喻从事重复性劳动的人) at a big company and you're just like you're using Microsoft Office, it's just like you're using Microsoft Office whereas like developer like really really high-end developers like of course they're going to use Cursor over like Microsoft Copilot. Host: 但感觉开发者更倾向于“我想要好的软件”，而如果你在大公司里像个奥帕伦帕人一样，只是使用Microsoft Office，那就像你只是在使用Microsoft Office。然而，像真正高端的开发者，他们当然会选择Cursor而不是Microsoft Copilot。

But I wonder if office even has a future like this is where you know when people write stuff I mean obviously Microsoft Word was default way most humans have been writing stuff for like 20 years although I grew up with WordPerfect (一款经典的文字处理软件) but the point yeah

但我想知道Office是否还有未来，你知道，当人们写东西的时候，我的意思是，显然Microsoft Word在过去20年里是大多数人默认的写作方式，尽管我是用WordPerfect长大的，但重点是，是的。

Keith: um, but um, are people with the way you know AI writes ChatGPT writes for you and increasingly better and are there specialized versions of that do people draft documents in word in three four five years probably not well

Keith: 嗯，但是，人们会随着AI写作，你知道，ChatGPT为你写作，而且越来越好，有没有专门的版本？人们在三、四年、五年后还会用Word起草文档吗？可能不会那么好。

Alex: it's also like this classic disruption theory of like Microsoft Word has overshot the market, right? Alex: 这也像是经典的颠覆理论，比如Microsoft Word已经超出了市场需求，对吧？

It's like there are 9 million features in Microsoft Word that I never use. 就像Microsoft Word里有900万个我从没用过的功能。

Like do I need to make a table of content contents generator for my book? 比如我需要为我的书制作一个目录生成器吗？

Like no. 比如不需要。

And like to a certain extent like Google Docs like that was pillaried when it came out because it's like oh it doesn't do the table of contents generator or whatever. 在某种程度上，像Google Docs，它刚出来的时候被诟病，因为它没有目录生成器之类的功能。

But like Microsoft Word has overshot the market, but they do have the distribution which is which I think is the hardest. 但Microsoft Word已经超出了市场需求，不过他们确实拥有分发渠道，我认为这是最难的。

ChatGPT is going to be in every it's going to be on everybody's phone or device and like so for example, I was considering writing a book everybody's always like you should write a book so I was like ChatGPT write me a book

ChatGPT将会出现在每个人的手机或设备上，比如我曾经考虑写一本书，每个人都说你应该写一本书，所以我对ChatGPT说“给我写一本书”。

Keith: and it's a pretty good you know sort of first draft I'm not that book's not going to get written in Microsoft Word as far as I can tell

Keith: 而且它是一个相当不错的初稿，据我所知，那本书不会用Microsoft Word来写。

Alex: if it's ever written

Alex: 如果它真的写出来的话

Keith: it's crazy to think that for a day Sam Altman was conceivably going to join Microsoft or like

Keith: 想到萨姆·奥尔特曼有一天可能会加入微软，或者类似的事情，这真是太疯狂了。

Host: yeah for like 24 hours until 维诺德·科斯拉 (Vinod Khosla: 知名风险投资家，科斯拉创投创始人) and some other friends intervened a fair amount

Host: 是的，大概24小时，直到维诺德·科斯拉和其他一些朋友进行了相当多的干预。

Alex: I guess I asked to ask did Microsoft sort of drop the ball on their relationship with like could they have capitalized in a much bigger way or was it just

Alex: 我猜我想问的是，微软是否在与OpenAI的关系上失误了？他们本可以以更大的方式利用这种关系，还是说这只是

Keith: I don't know, you know, the talent there's a complexity around talent like, you know, individual people if there's only 150 people that could build research models successfully talent's going to have a lot of power and if the talent doesn't want to work for Microsoft Keith: 我不知道，你知道，人才方面很复杂，比如，如果只有150人能够成功构建研究模型，那么人才将拥有很大的权力，如果这些人才不想为微软工作

Keith: there there may not be economics there. Keith: 那里可能就没有经济效益。

I mean Meta's trying this of like, can you use economic leverage to force people to work there? 我的意思是，Meta正在尝试这种做法，比如，你能否利用经济杠杆迫使人们在那里工作？

Um, you know, and we'll see we'll see what the results are. 嗯，你知道，我们会看看结果如何。

It's not a bad idea. 这不是一个坏主意。

Like I actually think Mark's clever. 我实际上认为马克很聪明。

He mints more money than most. 他比大多数人赚更多的钱。

Take the money and use it. 拿钱去用。

It's like imagine you're competing in sports.

这就像想象你在体育比赛中竞争。

Host: Yeah.

Host: 是的。

Keith: Mark doesn't really have a salary cap.

Keith: 马克并没有工资帽。

Host: Yeah.

Host: 是的。

Keith: So why not try to pay the highest salaries? Keith: 那为什么不尝试支付最高的薪水呢？

Now there are issues when you do that and he's running into some of those, but it's a relatively coherent strategy for Meta to try it.

现在这样做会遇到一些问题，他正在遇到其中一些，但对Meta来说，尝试这种策略是相对连贯的。

Alex: I just worry I I wonder I shouldn't even say I worry like the moral hazard of it's like I mean this is kind of what went wrong with like crypto 1.0. Alex: 我只是担心……我怀疑……我甚至不应该说我担心，这就像是道德风险，我的意思是，这有点像加密货币1.0出了问题。

Yeah. 是的。

where it's like I'm gonna give you tons of money upfront and normally the way that you build a startup is you build the startup, you work really hard and then at the end you get the Ferrari. 就像我预先给你一大笔钱，而通常你创建一家初创公司的方式是，你创建公司，你非常努力地工作，然后最终你得到一辆法拉利。

Keith: And if you get the Ferrari first, will you still build the hard start? Keith: 如果你先得到法拉利，你还会努力创业吗？

And like the people that are in it for the love of the game, they will.

而那些出于热爱而投身其中的人，他们会的。

Alex: They will. Alex: 他们会的。

But then can you tell the difference? 但你能分辨出区别吗？

Can you discern the difference? 你能辨别出差异吗？

In sports, it kind of works where you guarantee contracts in some sports. 在体育界，它有点行得通，你在某些运动中会保证合同。

Um, but maybe that's because there's such statistical measurements of people's performance. 嗯，但这也许是因为对人们的表现有如此多的统计测量。

Um, and a lot of people who are in sports are just so dedicated, love the game. 嗯，很多从事体育运动的人都非常投入，热爱这项运动。

whatever so passion about what they do they can't imagine doing anything else but I I think this could backfire but it is a coherent strategy for a company that was losing AI race to try something different leveraging that they make probably other you know the Apple could have done this but so culturally foreign Apple could have competed on dollars they made more money than anybody else like their profits are greater than like Google's revenues or something um something like that I haven't done the math recently but it's pretty comparable but culturally that just wouldn't work at Apple and so it became a non-starter but they're going to have to figure out something or they're going to be irrelevant at some point too, 无论他们对自己的工作有多么热情，他们都无法想象做其他事情，但我认为这可能会适得其反，但对于一家在AI竞赛中落后的公司来说，这是一种连贯的策略，可以尝试利用他们可能赚取其他收入的方式，你知道，苹果本可以这样做，但在文化上，苹果与这种做法格格不入。苹果本可以在资金上竞争，他们比任何人都赚更多的钱，比如他们的利润比谷歌的收入还要高，或者类似的情况，我最近没有计算过，但它们相当可比。但在文化上，这在苹果公司根本行不通，所以它就胎死腹中。但他们必须想出办法，否则在某个时候他们也会变得无关紧要。

Host: right? Host: 对吧？

Once the device question comes into play.

一旦设备问题出现。

Keith: Yes. Keith: 是的。

Well, that that's what's saving Apple right now is the combin the vertical integration required to build a device successfully is something that no other company at least in the West knows how to do because you do need software, you need hardware expertise. 嗯，现在拯救苹果的是垂直整合，成功制造设备所需的垂直整合是西方至少没有其他公司知道如何做的事情，因为你确实需要软件，你需要硬件专业知识。

You also need like the ability to compete on batteries and chips and like there's four or five different things you have to be pretty excellent at. 你还需要在电池和芯片等方面具备竞争力，大概有四五件不同的事情你必须非常擅长。

But someone will

但总会有人

Keith: figure out a solution at some point.

Keith: 迟早会找到解决方案。

Host: Well, it feels like they're looking at it like you know every Samsung phone when it comes out has a better camera for like you know a week or a year or whatever than Apple or like you know now the Samsung phone folds in half or it has all these advanced features that really aren't for the mainstream and Apple has always been like we're going to wait. Host: 嗯，感觉他们看待这个问题就像，你知道，每款三星手机发布时，相机都比苹果的好，无论是好一周还是一年，或者，你知道，现在三星手机可以对折，它有所有这些先进功能，但这些功能并非针对主流用户，而苹果一直都是“我们会等待”。

We're going to make it better, but like they're not the first.

我们会做得更好，但他们不是第一个。

Keith: Yeah. Keith: 是的。

And like AI strikes me as a little bit different than that because number one it's software. 而且AI给我的感觉有点不同，因为首先它是软件。

Um, so it's not like we have to go get the world's greatest AI right now and put it in in day zero. 嗯，所以不像我们必须现在就去获取世界上最棒的AI，并在第一天就把它投入使用。

And this whole we're going to wait three years. 而这种“我们要等三年”的说法。

I mean it's just such a lost opportunity. 我的意思是，这简直是错失良机。

I'm convinced that like traffic fatalities would go down in this country if Siri actually work. 我确信，如果Siri真的能用，这个国家的交通事故死亡率会下降。

Yeah.

是的。

Host: Right. Host: 对。

Like there's so many things where they could make it better, but they're treating it I mean at least from the outside in like oh this is like you know Samsung has a 400 megapixel camera or something. 就像他们有很多地方可以做得更好，但他们对待它的方式——至少从外部看——就像“哦，这就像三星有4亿像素的摄像头一样”。

We're going to wait on that one and not get it right. 我们会在那方面等待，而不是立即做好。

And like they just announced like you know why doesn't Siri work? 而且他们刚刚宣布，你知道，为什么Siri不能用？

It's an embarrassment in 2025 when ChatGPT is like AGI like I mean maybe not by like current researchers, but like 10 years ago we would have said this is AGI and like Siri is just as bad as it was in 2015. 在2025年，当ChatGPT已经像AGI一样时，Siri却仍然像2015年一样糟糕，这简直是耻辱。我的意思是，也许现在的研究人员不会这么说，但10年前我们会说这就是AGI。

It's just remarkable.

这真是令人惊叹。

Host: Yeah. Host: 是的。

Uh, just to close the loop on this Keith, what's your perspective on Meta's um, sort of durability or defensibility or strategy going forward?

Host: 是的。呃，Keith，为了结束这个话题，你对Meta未来的耐用性、防御性或策略有什么看法？

Keith: Well, as I mentioned, I think the approach is interesting because when you want any strategy, whether you're a venture capitalist or an entrepreneur, has to take advant you want to leverage the advantages you have and maximize those. Keith: 嗯，正如我所说的，我认为这种方法很有趣，因为任何策略，无论是作为风险投资家还是企业家，都必须利用你所拥有的优势并将其最大化。

And so cash is one that Meta has. 所以现金是Meta拥有的一个优势。

And so trying to leverage that smart, but they still need the ability to ship products. 所以试图聪明地利用这一点，但他们仍然需要发布产品的能力。

And so for Google's weakness has always been they just don't ship products. 而谷歌的弱点一直是他们不发布产品。

like they have ideas, they have researchers, they have lots of money flushing around, but when is the last time Google launched an interesting product?

他们有想法，有研究人员，有很多钱在流动，但谷歌上次推出有趣的产品是什么时候？

Alex: Gmail was pretty good.

Alex: Gmail很不错。

Keith: Yeah. Keith: 是的。

2008年。

Alex: 2004.

Alex: 2004年。

Keith: Before Yeah, actually that's right. Keith: 之前，是的，实际上没错。

So, um, yeah. 所以，嗯，是的。

Um, and then, you know, when did when did they do maps? 嗯，然后，你知道，他们什么时候做的地图？

Like 2005, something like that. 大概2005年左右。

Brett when did Brett do maps? Brett什么时候做的地图？

Like it was something like that. 大概就是那时候。

Um, and then, you know, they acquired some things like YouTube whatever, but like launched a coherent product. 嗯，然后，你知道，他们收购了一些东西，比如YouTube之类的，但要说推出一个连贯的产品。

No, actually Waymo (谷歌母公司Alphabet旗下的自动驾驶技术公司) would in some ways count, but it's it's actually won't help with this problem. 不，实际上Waymo在某些方面可以算，但它实际上对这个问题没有帮助。

Um, as far as I can tell. 嗯，据我所知。

Um, but like a a true sort of consumer product. 嗯，但像一个真正的消费产品。

I'm not sure they know how to do it,

我不确定他们知道怎么做。

Alex: right? Alex: 对吧？

That that's Google and the meta. 那是谷歌和Meta。

The question is how defensible is their the graph that they've built?

问题是他们构建的社交图谱有多大的防御性？

Keith: Well, I don't think the graph is defensible. Keith: 嗯，我认为社交图谱是无法防御的。

I think there are other assets that are. 我认为还有其他资产是可防御的。

I think the graph has kind of been weakened by like TikTok has kind of shown that on social products the graph may certainly isn't in is not indispensable to success and may even be a handicap. 我认为社交图谱已经有点被削弱了，比如TikTok已经表明，在社交产品上，社交图谱可能并非成功的不可或缺，甚至可能是一个障碍。

X (Twitter更名后的名称) is you've moved from a people you follow to a for you feed which is the default and probably how all of us engage with X has also made the graph fairly irrelevant. X是，你已经从关注的人变成了“为你推荐”的默认信息流，这可能也是我们所有人与X互动的方式，这也使得社交图谱变得相当无关紧要。

Well, there there's a question people are asking with Sora (OpenAI开发的一种文本到视频生成模型), which is, hey, if your friends can make as good content as, you know, professional content makers, which is a big if, but maybe you want to maybe you want the best of both worlds, which is you want the social and you want the highest quality stuff

嗯，人们对Sora提出了一个问题，那就是，如果你的朋友能制作出像专业内容创作者一样好的内容（这是一个很大的如果），但也许你想要两全其美，也就是说你想要社交，也想要最高质量的内容。

Alex: ideally, but also Reddit, like Reddit's a 42 billion or $40 billion market cap company. Alex: 理想情况下是这样，但Reddit也是，Reddit是一家市值420亿或400亿美元的公司。

No graph,

没有社交图谱。

Keith: right?

Keith: 对吗？

Alex: So, I I think the graph was very valuable to be clear.

Alex: 所以，我认为社交图谱非常宝贵，这一点很明确。

Host: Yeah.

Host: 是的。

Alex: I'm just not sure it's valuable in the future.

Alex: 我只是不确定它未来是否仍有价值。

房地产市场与OpenDoor

Host: Let's get into real estate. Host: 让我们谈谈房地产。

Let's get into OpenDoor (美国一家在线房地产交易平台). 让我们谈谈OpenDoor。

Um, a lot we recently had Cass on as well. 嗯，我们最近也请来了Cass。

Why did OpenDoor lose its way? OpenDoor为什么会迷失方向？

What were the mistakes that were made? 犯了哪些错误？

And let's talk about how we're going to fix.

我们来谈谈如何解决。

Keith: Well, there was two. Keith: 嗯，有两个原因。

One was predictable. 一个是可以预见的。

维诺德·科斯拉 (Vinod Khosla: 知名风险投资家，科斯拉创投创始人) actually warned Eric and me about this in 2015 that real estate has a cycl cyclical nature to it and you need to make sure that your cost structure will be acceptable when you hit the lows of that cycle. 维诺德·科斯拉实际上在2015年就警告过埃里克和我，房地产具有周期性，你需要确保在周期低谷时你的成本结构是可接受的。

So he's basically get as many variable costs built into your company culture and as low fixed costs as possible and then you don't care like so real estate residential real estate people's intuition on this is very very off the low market like when people think real estate's dead 4 million homes transact a year high in the market six so you have four to six million transactions a year you need to build your cost structure that you can be break even or not you know incredibly unprofitable at 4 million transactions a and Eric and me collectively did not do that from 2015 2019. 所以他基本上是说，在你的公司文化中尽可能多地纳入可变成本，并尽可能降低固定成本，这样你就不用担心了。就像房地产、住宅房地产，人们在这方面的直觉非常非常偏离低迷市场。比如当人们认为房地产已死时，每年仍有400万套房屋交易；而在市场高点时有600万套。所以你每年有400万到600万套交易，你需要建立你的成本结构，使得你在400万套交易时能够盈亏平衡或不至于巨额亏损。而埃里克和我在2015年至2019年间集体没有做到这一点。

So when the Fed started raising interest rates and it actually did raise interest rates six times in a very compressed period of time which is the fastest rate of interest rate uh hikes

所以当美联储开始加息时，它实际上在非常短的时间内加息了六次，这是最快的加息速度

Keith: the company then went from 5 a.5 million transactions a year as a market as a TAM (潜在市场总量: 某个产品或服务可能达到的最大市场规模) to four

Keith: 然后公司就从每年550万笔交易的市场（作为潜在市场总量）下降到400万笔。

Keith: and immediately started burning money. Keith: 并立即开始烧钱。

An extreme example of this that clarifies my point I think is what happened to 爱彼迎 (Airbnb: 全球知名的短期租房平台) co the first month Airbnb is a wonderful business one of the best network effect businesses maybe the best of all time 13% kind of margin take rate whatever and all of a sudden COVID happens and nobody's traveling anywhere companies had a very bloated cost structure too but nobody noticed because they're minting money nobody travels guess what all that gna is pure burn and they almost went bankrupt until they structured this very complicated deal with silver which saved the company. 我认为一个极端的例子可以阐明我的观点，那就是爱彼迎在疫情爆发的第一个月所发生的事情。爱彼迎是一个出色的业务，是最好的网络效应业务之一，也许是史上最佳，拥有13%的利润率和佣金率等等。突然间，COVID疫情爆发，没有人旅行。公司也有非常臃肿的成本结构，但没有人注意到，因为他们当时赚了很多钱。没有人旅行，你猜怎么着？所有那些G&A（管理费用）都是纯粹的烧钱，他们几乎破产，直到他们与Silverback Capital达成了一项非常复杂的交易，才拯救了公司。

OpenDoor had that problem but less excusable co is kind of these true black swans that you really don't have to typically build your business taking uh taking account for in real estate you should take account for the idea that this would happen so anyway basically that's what happened openor then secondly as Eric decided he didn't want to be CEO anymore the board for a variety of reasons promoted this completely mediocre CFO which is almost always a bad idea to be CEO and she went from mediocre to like the worst CEO on the planet. OpenDoor也有这个问题，但更不可原谅的是，疫情这类真正的黑天鹅事件，你通常不必在建立业务时考虑到。而在房地产领域，你应该考虑到这种情况会发生。所以，基本上这就是OpenDoor发生的事情。其次，当埃里克决定不再担任CEO时，董事会出于各种原因提拔了这位完全平庸的CFO，而让CFO担任CEO几乎总是一个坏主意，她从平庸变成了地球上最糟糕的CEO。

Um, so the company for 3 years did every possible thing you could do wrong. 嗯，所以这家公司在三年里做了所有可能做错的事情。

It still survived barely, but um, like literally the dumbest possible things, partnering with agents, shutting down innovation, hiring people overseas, adopting DEI (多元化、公平性和包容性: 旨在促进工作场所和组织内公平待遇和代表性的框架) writ large, every possible mistake, stupidass capital markets decisions, underinvesting in uh, what we call AVM (自动估价模型: 一种利用统计模型和公开数据估算房地产价值的工具), automated valuation, every possible mistake. 嗯，但它勉强活了下来，就像是字面意义上最愚蠢的事情：与代理商合作、扼杀创新、在海外招聘、大规模采纳DEI、所有可能的错误、愚蠢的资本市场决策、对我们所称的AVM（自动估价）投资不足，所有可能的错误。

So, the good news is you can get like 10x value just by unwinding those mistakes, which Cass is definitely doing. 所以，好消息是，你只要纠正这些错误，就能获得大约10倍的价值，Cass肯定正在这样做。

Um, you know, even his first month, I think he'll get half of those unwound, maybe even more, like just in one month because he, you know, faster. 嗯，你知道，即使他上任第一个月，我想他就能纠正一半，甚至更多，就像仅仅一个月内，因为他，你知道，动作更快。

Um, but, uh, it's just like literally the more you dig in, it's kind of like Biden. 嗯，但是，呃，这就像你挖得越深，就越像拜登。

Um, you know, Trump trying to cover Biden. 嗯，你知道，特朗普试图掩盖拜登的失误。

It's like if I just stopped doing every stupid thing that Biden did, like the world would be so much better. 这就像如果我停止做拜登做的所有愚蠢的事情，世界就会好得多。

And like I don't have to really do any innovation. 而且我不需要真正做任何创新。

I just have to stop doing stupid The immigration border is a perfect example. 我只需要停止做蠢事。移民边境就是一个完美的例子。

Like literally on day one, he's just we're going to stop like enticing people to come here and all of a sudden like border crossings go from like here to here like in 24 hours. 就像字面上说的，第一天，他只是说我们要停止诱惑人们来这里，然后突然间，边境越境人数在24小时内就从这里降到这里。

So like that's like OpenDoor. 所以这就像OpenDoor。

It's like basically border crossings like we had Biden running the company about about as competently.

这就像边境越境，我们让拜登以大致相同的能力经营公司。

Host: So what's your what's your wish? Host: 那么你的愿望是什么？

You know, uh, in our last episode with Cass Alex fleshed out kind of his Amazon for homes thesis why he got so excited about, you know, leading our investment in the company. 你知道，呃，在上一集与Cass的节目中，Alex详细阐述了他关于“房屋版亚马逊”的论点，解释了他为什么对领导我们对这家公司的投资如此兴奋。

What's your um where where are you excited? 你的……你对哪里感到兴奋？

Well, here's my I'll give you the top down thesis which I've shared publicly before is in 2017 I had dinner with Yuri and Max Lein and Yuri asked this question. 嗯，这是我的，我给你自上而下的论点，我之前也公开分享过。2017年我与Yuri和Max Lein共进晚餐，Yuri问了这个问题。

He's like what's the largest market cap company on the planet in residential real estate? 他问，全球住宅房地产领域市值最大的公司是哪家？

And I assume there must be something outside the United States and that's why he was asking the question. 我以为肯定有什么公司在美国之外，所以他才问这个问题。

Turns out the time the answer was Zillow at 18 bill and it's insane. 结果当时答案是Zillow，市值180亿美元，这简直是疯了。

the largest asset class period that of 30 we've basically been innovating a technology consumer technology call it 30 years like 1995 let's say to now 30 years that in the largest asset class in the world for consumers that the largest market cap company that would take advantage of any technology would be $18 billion makes absolutely no sense like that's like insane. 世界上最大的资产类别，我们基本上已经创新了30年的消费技术，比如从1995年到现在30年，在这个世界上最大的消费资产类别中，利用任何技术所能达到的最大市值的公司只有180亿美元，这完全说不通，简直是疯了。

Um, so our goal is to reinvent the process of buying and selling a home. 嗯，所以我们的目标是重塑房屋买卖过程。

And if you do that, you're going to be worth hundreds of billions of dollars. 如果你做到了，你将价值数千亿美元。

Now, it's difficult to do that successfully, completely reinventing the process of buying and selling a large asset. 现在，成功做到这一点，完全重塑大型资产的买卖过程是困难的。

But it's not impossible. 但并非不可能。

Um, things that, you know, eBay did back in 1995 to 2003 apply to homes. 嗯，你知道，eBay在1995年到2003年所做的事情也适用于房屋。

Carvana (美国在线二手车零售商) has mastered this applied to automotive which for a normal American there's actually sometimes people are like oh there's nothing like in common between autos and homes but that's often very wealthy people who have like a $40 million home in Palo Alto or Athetherton and they drive you know if they drive at all like a 100k car or something like that Tesla or something Carvana已经掌握了将此应用于汽车行业，对于普通美国人来说，有时人们会觉得汽车和房屋之间没有什么共同之处，但这通常是那些在帕洛阿尔托或阿瑟顿拥有4000万美元豪宅的非常富有的人，他们开的，你知道，如果他们开车的话，也就是一辆10万美元左右的特斯拉或类似的车。

Keith: most Americans have a 5 to10 ratio more like 10 now but like a reasonable ratio between the cost of the value of their car and their home. Keith: 大多数美国人拥有汽车和房屋价值之间5到10的比例，现在更接近10，但这在成本和价值之间是一个合理的比例。

So, you're only talking about an order magnitude difference. 所以，你谈论的只是一个数量级的差异。

And I think that we should be as valuable and some of the things we do are very comparable to what Carvana does. 我认为我们应该同样有价值，我们所做的一些事情与Carvana所做的非常相似。

We actually have less competition than Carvana. 我们实际上比Carvana的竞争更少。

Carvana actually has been incredibly successful given that there were very significant competitors that they were competing with, but it's a plus or minus a $40 billion company. Carvana实际上取得了令人难以置信的成功，考虑到他们当时面临着非常重要的创新竞争对手，但它是一家市值大约400亿美元的公司。

And if we just get the same multiples on what they do, we'll be worth tens of billions to 50 billion. 如果我们只得到他们所做业务相同的市盈率，我们的价值将达到数百亿到500亿美元。

That's like the base case.

那就像是基本情况。

金融科技的机遇与挑战

Host: I want I want to segue to 金融科技 (Fintech: 利用技术改进或自动化金融服务). Host: 我想转到金融科技。

You guys are among two of the best fintech investors and, you know, founders, operators, uh, in the world. 你们是世界上最优秀的两位金融科技投资者，也是，你知道，创始人、运营商之一。

What is the, you know, what is the state of fintech in terms of where are we actively looking for for for investments? 金融科技的现状如何？我们正在积极寻找哪些投资机会？

Um, and how we think about it. 嗯，以及我们如何看待它。

Keith, why don't you start?

Keith，你先开始吧？

Keith: Well, I think there's lots of promising fintech companies. Keith: 嗯，我认为有很多有前途的金融科技公司。

It's always been difficult. 它一直都很困难。

Like the reality is I personally have a view that to be successful as a fintech innovation you want an underwriting advantage and a distribution advantage. 就像现实是，我个人认为，要作为金融科技创新取得成功，你需要有承保优势和分销优势。

If you have both then you can build a really epic company. 如果你两者兼备，那么你就能建立一家真正史诗级的公司。

If you have one you might be able to build a pretty solid company. 如果你有一个，你可能可以建立一家相当稳固的公司。

Affirm (一家提供“先买后付”服务的金融科技公司) which we were both involved in um had both underwriting mispric certain kinds of people were mispriced. 我们都参与过的Affirm公司，在承保方面存在定价错误，某些类型的人被错误定价了。

We're going to figure out a different way to underwrite based upon other things and a distribution a very clever distribution hack that other people have now copied but basically was very innovative at the time. 我们将根据其他因素找出一种不同的承保方式，并且在分销方面有一个非常巧妙的分销技巧，现在其他人已经复制了，但基本上在当时是非常创新的。

And that's why firms, you know, $25 billion company with still upside. 这就是为什么公司，你知道，是一家价值250亿美元的公司，并且仍然有上涨空间。

Um, but I think those are rare to find. 嗯，但我认为这种公司很难找到。

Um, if you find them, the world's still open for innovation. 嗯，如果你找到了它们，世界仍然对创新开放。

It's not like the world's incredibly efficient around financial services. 金融服务领域并非效率极高。

Uh, we have some very successful ones that have been built over the last 5 years that now need to infuse more AI, but they're not they're not predicated on AI. 呃，我们在过去5年里建立了一些非常成功的公司，它们现在需要注入更多的AI，但它们并非以AI为基础。

And I actually kind of like that because you could argue there's an AI overinvestment sort of cycle going on. 我实际上有点喜欢这样，因为你可以说现在正在发生一种AI过度投资的周期。

And arguably one way to kind of create uh a portfolio that's not as sensitive to AI valuations is financial services innovation which still requires distribution and innovation around underwriting. 可以说，创建一种对AI估值不那么敏感的投资组合的一种方式是金融服务创新，这仍然需要分销和围绕承保的创新。

There's also this kind of question of like there's bits and atoms like you mentioned vomals cost disease right it's like you know plumbing healthcare like all of these things that are so atomcentric that will be atomcentric for a long time until we have sentient robots or something whereas every financial services product that I know of except for like the delivery of physical gold ingots like it's all bits so there probably is a fair amount of upside for for AI but you still have to get the distribution which is really hard like consumer fintech products are so hard because like all of the I mean right now all of the the economic rent goes to Google or wherever you fund it from. 还有这样一种问题，就像你提到的“原子和比特”，以及巴莫尔成本病，对吧？就像管道、医疗保健，所有这些以原子为中心的事物，在很长一段时间内都会以原子为中心，直到我们拥有有感知力的机器人或其他什么。而我所知道的每一个金融服务产品，除了像实物金条的交付，都是比特。所以AI可能有很多上涨空间，但你仍然必须获得分销渠道，这真的很难。消费者金融科技产品之所以如此困难，是因为所有，我的意思是，现在所有的经济租金都流向了谷歌或你从中获取资金的任何地方。

Alex: Um, but for the ones that unlock distribution, it's like number one, you could bring down the variable costs that you were talking about with AI. Alex: 嗯，但对于那些能够打开分销渠道的公司来说，首先，你可以用AI降低你之前提到的可变成本。

And then number two, it's like there are I think there are so many things right now in the world, this is kind of my view on AI where it's like cost is here just for any any object, any delivery of service and value is here. 其次，我认为现在世界上有很多事情，这是我对AI的看法，就像任何物体、任何服务交付的成本都在这里，而价值在这里。

So if you just keep value here, like you're not trying to change the value equation, but you can bring the cost down. 所以如果你只是把价值保持在这里，就像你没有试图改变价值等式，但你可以降低成本。

Now you've unlocked a new market that just didn't exist before.

现在你已经解锁了一个以前根本不存在的新市场。

Keith: Yeah.

Keith: 是的。

Alex: Um, and it's almost hard to articulate what those are until you see them. Alex: 嗯，而且在看到它们之前，几乎很难清楚地表达它们是什么。

But like it's like oh yeah like people wanted that. 但就像，哦，是的，人们想要那个。

It's like um, you know

就像，嗯，你知道

Keith: well Square (一家提供移动支付和商业解决方案的金融科技公司) was a quintessential example that everybody thought there was no market for Square like including very smart pe like lots of very smart people that we both know

Keith: 嗯，Square就是一个典型的例子，所有人都认为Square没有市场，包括我们都认识的很多非常聪明的人。

Alex: because you couldn't really prove that everybody really wanted to accept like credit pay credit card based payments until you actually gave them real people the option to do it. Alex: 因为你无法真正证明每个人都真正想接受信用卡支付，直到你真正给他们提供了这样做的选择。

It made it so simple, easy, intuitive that they didn't have to think about it. 它使得操作如此简单、容易、直观，以至于他们无需思考。

And then it's massive market, right?

然后它就成了巨大的市场，对吧？

Keith: Or like it's I'm on the board of a company called Wise and Wise has shown that like the market this kind of makes sense in retrospect, but like the market for real-time delivery of cash is just so much bigger than the market for like you get it two days later.

Keith: 或者说，我是一家名为Wise的公司的董事会成员，Wise已经表明，实时现金交付的市场比那种两天后才能收到钱的市场要大得多，这在事后看来有点道理。

Alex: Yeah. Alex: 是的。

Cash Well, Cash App, this is this is the monetization strategy beyond Cash App. 现金，嗯，Cash App，这是超越Cash App的变现策略。

Cash App makes money now. Cash App现在赚钱了。

The reason why is people will pay for instant quote unquote delivery. 原因是人们会为“即时”交付付费。

This has always been true in financial services. 这在金融服务领域一直都是事实。

By the way, this is the magic behind PayPal (全球知名的在线支付平台)'s revenue model. 顺便说一下，这是PayPal收入模式背后的魔力。

We basically created an instant debit, effectively an instant debit or a product back before people knew those that language and then we just charge the fee for the instant receipt of the availability of the capital. 我们基本上创造了一种即时借记，实际上是一种即时借记产品，在人们知道这种语言之前，然后我们只是收取即时获得可用资金的费用。

It's like 联邦快递 (FedEx: 全球领先的快递运输公司) time FedEx financial services, right? 这就像联邦快递的时效性，联邦快递金融服务，对吧？

This is like, you know, Frederick Smith proved this with FedEx. 这就像，你知道，弗雷德里克·史密斯用联邦快递证明了这一点。

It's like

就像

Keith: UPS. Keith: UPS。

You pay 32 cents versus $10 overnight. 你支付32美分，而不是10美元隔夜送达。

It's like some people need it before TED AO some and like it turns out that's true for like a large like countably infinite number of things. 就像有些人需要在TED AO之前得到它，结果发现这对于像大量可数无限的事物都是如此。

So, but I think just in general for like fintech um there probably are going to be a lot of other service like the banks I I love something that you tweeted. 所以，但我认为总的来说，对于金融科技，嗯，可能还会有很多其他服务，就像银行一样，我喜欢你发的一条推文。

I think it was your pin tweet for a long time. 我想那长期是你的置顶推文。

It's like how to disrupt a market.

它说的是如何颠覆一个市场。

Alex: Yeah.

Alex: 是的。

Keith: Right. Keith: 对。

Like pick something with very low NPS (净推荐值: 衡量客户忠诚度的指标) and like you don't get better by delivering one particular service of that. 就像选择一个NPS很低的东西，然后你通过提供其中某一项特定服务并不能变得更好。

Right. 对。

It's like oh here's a camera that attaches to your phone. 这就像“哦，这是一个可以连接到你手机的摄像头”。

No, that that nobody wants that. 不，没人想要那个。

you want like the better fully integrated service so you vertically integrate and this was OpenDoor right you could just say here's a better AVM automated valuation model okay like if you really want to get the whole value I mean like would you rather be like at the at the the heart of it is like would you rather be Amazon which has a very low gross margin on products that they actually you know store and sell or would you rather be eBay which has amazing high gross margins but is the shittiest service in the world nobody wants to buy from eBay because you don't know if you're going to get the product on cloud you don't know if Eric Torber is going to ship it to me like you want to buy from Amazon and Amazon is worth $2 trillion and eBay is worth like $40 billion. 你想要的是更好的全面整合服务，所以你进行垂直整合，这就是OpenDoor，对吧？你可以说这里有一个更好的AVM自动估价模型，好的，如果你真的想获得全部价值，我的意思是，你更愿意成为亚马逊，它销售和储存的产品的毛利率非常低，还是更愿意成为eBay，它拥有惊人的高毛利率，却是世界上最糟糕的服务，没有人愿意从eBay购买，因为你不知道你是否会在云端收到产品，你不知道Eric Torber是否会把它寄给我。你想要从亚马逊购买，亚马逊价值2万亿美元，而eBay价值约400亿美元。

So like obviously Amazon is better but you would misjudge that based on the gross margin classification like oh VC is only like doing high margin things and like I I think that's one of the things that I really respect about you. 所以很明显亚马逊更好，但你会根据毛利率分类来误判，比如“哦，VC只做高利润的事情”，而我认为这是我非常尊重你的一点。

It's like do something really hard. 就是做一些真正困难的事情。

It doesn't matter what the gross margin profile is. 毛利率情况如何并不重要。

It it matters like how much gross profit are you generating.

重要的是你产生了多少毛利润。

Alex: This is the worst thing. Alex: 这是最糟糕的事情。

There's lots of bad things you learn as a NBA like it's like in list. 有很多你在NBA学到的坏东西，就像在名单里一样。

This is the worst one is like the gross margin especially percentage. 这是最糟糕的一点，就是毛利率，特别是百分比。

It's one of the reason why a Amazon is successful. 这是亚马逊成功的原因之一。

Stripe (一家提供在线支付处理服务的科技公司) actually back in the day took this model and back before more people understood this and said we only care about the sliver of contribution dollars not like the percentages. Stripe实际上在过去采用了这种模式，在更多人理解之前，他们说我们只关心贡献的美元份额，而不是百分比。

And everybody else was like oh you got to worry about this margin or that margin percentage. 其他人都在说，哦，你得担心这个利润率或那个利润率百分比。

It's just like are we adding incremental layers of dollars actual cash? 这就像我们是否增加了实际现金的增量层？

And that actually works really well.

那实际上效果非常好。

Host: Yeah. Host: 是的。

And so to the extent that VCs have soured on the or not been not as excited about the category in the in

Host: 所以，在风险投资家对这个类别感到厌倦或不再那么兴奋的程度上

Keith: perfect just send them all to us.

Keith: 完美，把它们都寄给我们。

Alex: Keep being soured. Alex: 继续厌倦吧。

Financial service terrible innovation.

金融服务创新糟透了。

Keith: It's a very small market. Keith: 这是一个非常小的市场。

Nobody cares.

没人关心。

Alex: Nobody likes it.

Alex: 没人喜欢它。

Keith: Well, this is the point that I was getting to. Keith: 嗯，这就是我刚才想说的重点。

It's like how many people like their bank and like a lot of these the a lot of these companies actually work because of regulatory capture. 就像有多少人喜欢他们的银行，而这些公司中的很多实际上是因为监管俘获而得以运作的。

Alex: Yeah.

Alex: 是的。

Keith: Right. Keith: 对。

Like if it was very easy for Keith and I to start a bank tomorrow. 就像如果我和Keith明天很容易就能开一家银行。

Yes. 是的。

Distribution is very hard, right? 分销非常困难，对吧？

And underwriting is very hard. 而且承保非常困难。

I'm pretty confident um at least in your ability and to a lesser extent mine like we would be able to get we could build a very valuable company but it's so hard like the regulatory overlay on these things is so high and that's part of what makes it challenging because nobody likes Chase.

我相当有信心，至少凭借你的能力，以及在较小程度上我的能力，我们能够建立一家非常有价值的公司，但它太难了，因为这些事物的监管覆盖非常高，这也是它具有挑战性的部分原因，因为没有人喜欢大通银行。

Alex: Yeah. Alex: 是的。

Um, and there there's a saying that I love which you've heard me use a lot which is the best companies have hostages not customers and like all the financial services comp all the the incumbent financial services companies they have hostages they don't have customers and it just it turns out it's very even if you build a better product a 10 times better product it's still like the distribution is very very challenging but this is what the killer entrepreneurs can do it's like you find and this is why like you know Nubank (巴西一家数字银行，拉丁美洲最大的金融科技公司之一) did this for Brazil like in many cases it's geo by geo just because the regulatory overlay is so high versus you build a software for a product like Microsoft Excel is Microsoft Excel for the world. 嗯，我有一个很喜欢的说法，你听我用过很多次，就是最好的公司拥有的是“人质”而不是客户。而所有金融服务公司，所有现有的金融服务公司，他们拥有的是人质，而不是客户。结果是，即使你构建了一个更好的产品，一个好10倍的产品，分销仍然非常非常具有挑战性。但这就是杀手级企业家能做到的：你发现，这就是为什么像Nubank为巴西做的那样，在很多情况下，它是按地理区域划分的，仅仅因为监管覆盖非常高。相比之下，你为像Microsoft Excel这样的产品构建软件，Microsoft Excel是全球通用的。

There's no like Portuguese version of Microsoft Excel that only is sold in Brazil and Portugal.

没有那种只在巴西和葡萄牙销售的葡萄牙语版Microsoft Excel。

Keith: This is a it's a great opportunity. Keith: 这是一个很好的机会。

It's one of the best investments I've ever made is a company in Europe uh called Trade Republic (欧洲一家零佣金在线券商). 我做过的最好的投资之一是一家欧洲公司，叫做Trade Republic。

It's actually better than Nubank on any metric actually. 它实际上在任何指标上都比Nubank更好。

Um, and but it could only be done in Europe. 嗯，但它只能在欧洲实现。

It it it's not easy to translate what they do and why it's successful here. 他们所做的事情以及为什么在这里成功，并不容易转化。

There's Robinhood (美国一家零佣金股票交易平台)'s a poor comparison here, but like is the closest, but so you have to kind of arbitrage the geo too um because and it's because of the law and regulation. Robinhood在这里是一个糟糕的比较对象，但它是最接近的，所以你必须在某种程度上进行地理套利，嗯，因为法律和法规的原因。

There's things that are easier actually to do in Europe. 有些事情在欧洲实际上更容易做。

There's a reason why Trade Republic's better than Robinhood because in Europe actually it's more permissive certain things and then there's things that are much easier to do here. Trade Republic比Robinhood更好的原因在于，在欧洲，某些事情实际上更具包容性，而有些事情在这里做起来容易得多。

And so you need someone who understands like how to do the pro how to create a product and value prop given the constraints and where are their gray zones and like how does it translate to customer value and so that's very difficult but there's a lot there's a modern generation of financial service innovation it's a little under the radar I mean people definitely are paying attention to Ramp (一家提供公司支出管理和企业信用卡的金融科技公司)

所以你需要有人了解如何在现有约束下创建产品和价值主张，灰区在哪里，以及如何将其转化为客户价值。所以这非常困难，但新一代的金融服务创新有很多，它有点不为人知。我的意思是，人们肯定都在关注Ramp。

Alex: y

Alex: 是的

Keith: so you know like high-profile company, but even a company in our portfolio that I've invested in many times called Affirm (一家提供“先买后付”服务的金融科技公司) most people still don't really know about

Keith: 所以你知道像这样引人注目的公司，但即使是我们投资组合中我多次投资的一家公司，Affirm，大多数人仍然不太了解。

Alex: it's a great company

Alex: 这是一家很棒的公司

Keith: another company is called Imprint (一家提供品牌定制信用卡的金融科技公司) great still fairly under the radar, competes with two public companies. Keith: 另一家公司叫Imprint，也很棒，但仍然相当低调，与两家上市公司竞争。

Um, actually we sort of helped seed fund it back in Affirm um back when they were starting the company. 嗯，实际上我们在Affirm公司刚起步的时候，曾帮助它进行种子轮融资。

Affirm did a corporate, you know, sort of investment.

Affirm做了一笔公司性质的投资。

Host: Cool.

Host: 酷。

Alex: Well, and that's the thing. Alex: 嗯，就是这样。

It's like, you know, software like I'm very confident that all of the banks cannot build software, will not be able to build software, will not build software.

这就像，你知道，软件，我非常确信所有的银行都无法开发软件，将无法开发软件，也不会开发软件。

Keith: We're going to use Devin (Cognition AI公司开发的全球首个AI软件工程师). Keith: 我们将使用Devin。

So, that's their best shot.

所以，那是他们最好的机会。

Alex: That's their best shot. Alex: 那是他们最好的机会。

But they can't really like if if it turns out that software is at the core of everything. 但他们真的不能，如果软件最终成为一切的核心。

software is going to eat the world. 软件将吞噬世界。

Like why hasn't it eaten financial services? 就像为什么它还没有吞噬金融服务？

It has around the margin. 它在边缘领域已经做到了。

It's like the cool thing for Ramp is like it's like a net new market where it was kind of like there was a shitty version of some corporate card something something but it's like that wasn't the software that was a financial product.

Ramp的酷之处在于，它就像是一个全新的市场，以前可能有一些糟糕版本的企业信用卡之类的产品，但那不是软件，那是一个金融产品。

Keith: Once you marry it to a software product it's 10 times better. Keith: 一旦你把它与软件产品结合，它就会好10倍。

Like you have vertically integrated that

就像你已经垂直整合了它

Alex: and the incumbents can't do this. Alex: 而现有企业做不到这一点。

They they're still like literally in COBOL (通用商业语言: 一种用于商业、行政和金融系统的计算机编程语言) often and their ability to attract talent is just like zero.

他们仍然，就像字面意义上，经常在使用COBOL，而且他们吸引人才的能力几乎为零。

Keith: Yeah. Keith: 是的。

That's why Devin is actually arguably over time a save for them because they won't need to attract talent. 是的，这就是为什么Devin实际上可以说随着时间的推移对他们来说是一种拯救，因为他们不需要吸引人才。

They can use software to compete with software

他们可以用软件来与软件竞争

Alex: and the software can write COBOL.

Alex: 而且软件可以编写COBOL。

Keith: Yep. Keith: 对。

Yeah. 是的。

Exactly.

没错。

专家与颠覆式创新

Host: We'll take the conversation full circle. Host: 我们将把谈话回到起点。

We were talking about real estate. 我们刚才在谈论房地产。

Uh, a real estate expert solved the Middle East. 呃，一位房地产专家解决了中东问题。

What does it say about the nature of expertise that uh, you know, uh, a guy who was a tycoon in real estate and private equity but didn't have a ton of, you know, foreign policy expertise. 这说明了专业知识的本质是什么？一个在房地产和私募股权领域是巨头，但并没有大量外交政策专业知识的人。

you know, initially or a trained background in it could be more effective than you know, trained experts.

你知道，最初或有受过训练的背景，可能比那些受过训练的专家更有效。

Keith: Well, at KV, you know, from 维诺德·科斯拉 (Vinod Khosla: 知名风险投资家，科斯拉创投创始人) on down we don't believe in experts. Keith: 嗯，在KV，你知道，从维诺德·科斯拉开始，我们就不相信专家。

You know Vinod has a whole speech about how no expert has ever created fundamental disruption in any field. 你知道，维诺德有一个完整的演讲，关于没有专家在任何领域创造过根本性颠覆。

You could argue that maybe in the last 90 years there's one or two exceptions, but the fact that you have to argue about the one or two exceptions suggests he's right. 你可能会争辩说，在过去90年里可能有一两个例外，但你必须争辩那一两个例外这一事实表明他是对的。

So like for example, I don't like experts like hiring domain experts in the companies I work with is pretty much a non-starter. 所以，例如，我不喜欢专家，在我合作的公司里招聘领域专家几乎是不可能的。

At PayPal (全球知名的在线支付平台), we had of the 254 employees we had in Mountain View uh when we went public,

在PayPal，我们在山景城拥有的254名员工中，在我们上市时，

Keith: two maybe three had any expertise in financial services. Keith: 可能只有两三个人在金融服务方面有任何专业知识。

At Square (一家提供移动支付和商业解决方案的金融科技公司), if you included me, which is I'm certainly not a prototypical financial services guy. 在Square，如果你算上我，我肯定不是一个典型的金融服务从业者。

Of the first 300 employees, maybe two had any financial services experience. 在前300名员工中，也许只有两名有金融服务经验。

So, it's a pretty common formulation. 所以，这是一个相当普遍的模式。

爱彼迎 (Airbnb: 全球知名的短期租房平台), I'm pretty sure 布莱恩·切斯基 (Brian Chesky), 内森·布莱沙奇克 (Nathan Blecharczyk) 和 乔·格比亚 (Joe Gebbia) did not have any hospitality experience. 爱彼迎，我很确定布莱恩·切斯基、内森·布莱沙奇克和乔·格比亚没有任何酒店业经验。

So I think if you're going to reinvent industry, you don't want experts. 所以我认为如果你要重塑行业，你不需要专家。

So the same thing is true in politics. 政治也是如此。

If you want to solve a problem that's been intractable,

如果你想解决一个棘手的问题，

Alex: at least since World War II, arguably for hundreds of years, but at least the modern era been intractable, you probably don't want anybody who's got expertise in the Middle East. Alex: 至少从二战以来，可以说几百年来，但至少在现代，这个问题一直难以解决，你可能不希望有任何在中东问题上有专业知识的人。

You know, as 贾里德·库什纳 (Jared Kushner: 美国商人、投资者，前总统特朗普的女婿及高级顾问), you know, was maligned for, he just read books, which is a great idea. 你知道，贾里德·库什纳曾因此受到诋毁，他只是读书，这是一个很棒的想法。

Actually, I talk about this all the time. 实际上，我一直在谈论这个。

Like people are like, where do you get your contrarian ideas? 就像人们会问，你的反主流观点是从哪里来的？

I was like, I read books. 我就会说，我读书。

Like there's actually all the greatest thinking of all time is available to anybody.

所有有史以来最伟大的思想都向所有人开放。

Keith: You just have to read. Keith: 你只需要阅读。

Um, and the more you read, the sharper you are because what it what Jared talks about and I think is the common formulation and we definitely apply this at KV specifically and explicitly is asking the right questions. 嗯，你读得越多，你的思维就越敏锐，因为贾里德谈论的，我认为是普遍的说法，我们在KV也明确地应用了这一点，那就是提出正确的问题。

Yeah. 是的。

So what books prepare you to do is to ask questions. 所以书本让你准备好的就是提问。

So when Jared went to the Middle East and got dispatched the first time, he actually asked the people who were influential and important in the Middle East like what do you care about and why? 所以当贾里德第一次被派往中东时，他实际上问了中东那些有影响力和重要的人物：“你关心什么？为什么？”

Once you understand that, you can navigate and find solutions. 一旦你理解了这一点，你就能找到方向并找到解决方案。

And that's the same thing we teach all of our investments at KV is if you ask the right questions, you'll make the right investment decisions. 这和我们在KV教给所有被投公司的一样：如果你提出正确的问题，你就会做出正确的投资决策。

So when people join the team at KV, we don't actually look at their output like are the companies great. 所以当人们加入KV团队时，我们实际上并不看他们的产出，比如公司是否优秀。

We look at the quality of their questions. 我们看他们问题的质量。

维诺德·科斯拉 (Vinod Khosla: 知名风险投资家，科斯拉创投创始人) is adamant about this, been adamant about this for like 40 years. 维诺德·科斯拉对此非常坚持，坚持了大约40年。

Yeah.

是的。

Alex: Just the quality of questions tells you everything you need to know.

Alex: 仅仅是问题的质量就能告诉你所有你需要知道的事情。

Host: That's a good place to wrap. Host: 在这里结束很不错。

You can just do things. 你可以只做事情。

You can just read books. 你可以只读书。

Uh, Keith, thanks so I'll give you book recommendations next time.

呃，Keith，谢谢，下次我给你推荐书。

Keith: Amazing. Keith: 太棒了。

Perfect. 完美。

Love

喜欢

Host: Thanks for having me.

Host: 谢谢邀请我。