巅峰法庭的挑战与人类韧性及 AI 洞察
美国最高法院的讲台，一座由桃花心木制成的庄严讲台，曾见证过生命的终结。一位大法官在此辩论中风暴离世，另一位在此晕倒不久后去世。而我，就在这个地方实践我的法律生涯。这里是地球上最强大的法院，九位顶尖头脑随时准备发起攻击，而你，就站在离他们十英尺远的地方。这里没有预先准备好的演讲稿，取而代之的是在三十分钟内向你抛出五十个问题。我必须在实时做出数百个决定：每一个选择的论点、每一个词语、每一次停顿、每一个语调。没有重来的机会。一旦你退缩，大法官们就会抓住你的破绽。这就是我的法庭。但你们每个人都有类似的地方——一个言语至关重要之地。正确的言语能赢得一切，错误的言语则会造成巨大的差异。
五个月前，我站在这座讲台前，请求最高法院做出一个在其历史上从未有过的决定：宣布一项总统价值四万亿美元的标志性计划违宪。（掌声）而我，有一个秘密。
2025年4月2日，总统翻出了一项1977年的法律，对地球上几乎所有国家施加了关税。没有国会投票，没有任何类似程序——仅仅是总统的一句话。而在此刻，风险是巨大的：如果总统可以通过喊“紧急状态”来命令全球经济，那么他还有什么做不到的？制衡机制不仅会弯曲，更会彻底断裂。
我被聘请来推翻这项计划。法律学者、评论员以及我自己的同事都说这是不可能的。他们说，总统提名了庭上的三位大法官，另外三位是由共和党总统任命的。他们说，这些人不会反对自己的总统。我认为那是错的。但真正的问题在于，最高法院在其237年的历史上，从未宣布过总统的标志性计划违宪。我被聘来做一件237年来没有律师做到过的事情。我的第一个想法是：“没错！”（笑声）我的第二个想法是：“我到底怎么了？”有人在那座讲台前死去了，而我却要告诉世界上最有权势的人，他不能做他刚刚做的事情？我当时拥有的是一只扑向灭虫灯的飞蛾般的自我保护本能。（笑声）
因此，我花了数月时间准备我人生中的这场辩论。辩论前三周，我的一位队友决定试图扳倒我，以便他能来主张这个案子。他进行竞选，进行游说，进行联络。就在辩论前几天，大约两周前，《华盛顿邮报》刊登了一篇社论，我将逐字逐句地读给你们听：“战略性错误。”我吃早餐时读到了它。看，我并不责怪那个人。我是说，随便吧。（笑声）我还有更重要的事情要做，因为我并没有被替换。我走上那座桃花心木讲台，我赢了。总统的关税被宣布违宪。（掌声）
好的，我知道这听起来怎么样。律师赢得大案子，获得一次炫酷的 TED 演讲邀请，然后滔滔不绝地讲14分钟他有多么棒。我在晚宴上见过那种人——没人会留下来吃甜点。所以，这并不是那样的。这是关于四位帮助我建立连接的老师的幕后故事。而且，这也是关于一个我从未告诉过任何人的秘密，在我走出法庭的那一刻。
我首先需要的连接，是与我自己。我害怕搞砸这场官司。而那篇《华盛顿邮报》的社论更是雪上加霜。辩论前一个月，我遇到了 Ben。Ben 曾指导过 Andre Agassi、奥运选手等体育界传奇人物。他的核心理念是关于“比赛日”——那个你所有准备要么展现出来，要么就消失不见的时刻。Ben 问我的第一个问题是：“你害怕什么？”
现在看，在那时，我已经辩论过52起案件。我曾保住了《投票权法案》。我曾推翻了关塔那摩的军事法庭。但 Ben 迫使我承认了一个我一直对自己隐藏的真相。每次走进法庭，我都会看着墙上的那些肖像，然后想：他们看起来不像我，我不属于这里。冒名顶替综合征（Imposter Syndrome: 感觉自己不配拥有成功，害怕被揭穿的心理状态）不在乎你赢了多少案子，它只在乎你的怀疑。Ben 没有忽视这一点，他与之共事。他让我写下五个形容词，并在我们模拟法庭的每一次练习前，每天都进行可视化。
辩论前大约18小时，Ben 打来电话问：“你感觉怎么样？”我说：“老实说，我非常害怕。我必须做得非常出色。我必须记住500件事情。我必须为历史呈现一场辩论。” Ben 说：“你知道，改变那个元音，用‘e’代替‘o’。”他接着问：“你得到什么机会去做？”瞬间，这些话从我口中涌出：“我得到机会去捍卫美利坚合众国宪法。我得到机会，作为一个移民的儿子，提醒这个国家它究竟代表着什么。我得到机会去捍卫我父母对美国的愿景。”（欢呼和掌声）仅仅一个字母的改变。恐惧并没有消失，但它转化为了喜悦。
那么，Ben 是那个秘密吗？一位教人关于心态的精英体育教练？不是。但他让我做好了准备。
我需要的第二件事是信息规模上的连接。我组建了全国最不懈的法律团队。他们对每一个论点进行了压力测试，直到只有最好的论点得以幸存。但我需要更多。我需要一个绝对不懈的人。我找到了 Harvey。Harvey 阅读第200个关税案件，就像他阅读第一个案件一样。
该死。老实说，这是我第一次使用 PowerPoint。我做过几百场演讲——（笑声）我不想用它，但他们让我用。所以，总之——（笑声）图片没显示出来，但没关系。别担心。我们来看看。好吧，很好，不错，我们准备好了。你知道，辩论前一个月，Harvey 告诉我，我应该会收到来自 Barrett 法官关于许可证费用的问题。黄色部分是 Harvey 告诉我要预测的内容，蓝色部分是 Barrett 法官在辩论中实际说的话。几乎是逐字逐句的。所以 Harvey 教会了我周边视觉（Peripheral vision: 在广泛阅读和分析中发现模式并预测潜在问题的能力）：如果你阅读得够多，你就能看到模式，并想出对策，在攻击到来之前就预判其角度。
那么，这个秘密是一个从不睡觉、对一切进行压力测试的不懈律师团队吗？更接近了，但也不是。
Original English
There is a mahogany podium at the Supreme Court of the United States. One person died there, mid-argument, a stroke. Another collapsed there, dying soon thereafter. That's the podium. It also happens to be where I practice law. The most powerful court on earth. Nine minds ready to attack -- and you stand 10 feet away from them. There are no prepared speeches in this court. Instead, 50 questions thrown at you in 30 minutes. I'm making hundreds of decisions in real time. Every argument I choose to make or not make, every word, every pause, every tone. There are no rewinds. Flinch and the justices pounce. That's my courtroom. But each of you has something like that. A place in which words matter. The right words can win and the wrong words [make a] huge difference. Five months ago, I stood before that podium asking the Supreme Court to do something it had never done in its history: declare a president’s four-trillion-dollar signature initiative unconstitutional. (Applause) And I had a secret. April 2, 2025. The president dusts off a 1977 law and imposes tariffs on virtually every country on earth. No congressional vote -- nothing like that whatsoever -- just his word. And here’s what’s at stake: if the president can command the global economy by yelling emergency, what can't he do? Checks and balances don't just bend, they break. I was hired to kill it. Legal scholars, commentators [and] my own colleagues said it was impossible. They said the president has nominated three of the justices on the court, and three others were appointed by Republican presidents. They're not going to go against their president, they said. I thought that was wrong. But the real problem was that the Supreme Court never in its history, in 237 years, has declared a signature initiative of the president unconstitutional. I was hired to do what no lawyer had done in 237 years. My first thought? "Hell, yes." (Laughter) My second thought? “What in the world is wrong with me?” People have died at that podium, and I'm about to tell the world's most powerful man he can't do what he just did?" I had the self-preservation instincts of a moth near a bug zapper. (Laughter) So for months, I prepared for the argument of my life. Three weeks before that argument, one of my own teammates decided to try and take me down so that he could argue the case. He campaigned, he lobbied, he made calls. Just a few days before the argument, about two weeks, The Washington Post runs an editorial somehow, and I’m going to read this to you word for word: "Strategic mistake." I read it over breakfast. Look, I don't begrudge the guy. I mean, whatever. (Laughter) I had more important things to do because I wasn't replaced. Up I walked to that mahogany podium, and I won. The President's tariffs declared unconstitutional. (Applause) OK, look, I know how this sounds. Lawyer wins big case, gets a fancy TED talk invitation, talks for 14 minutes about how great he is. I’ve seen that guy at dinner parties -- nobody stays for dessert. So that's not what this is. This is the behind-the-scenes story of four teachers that helped me connect. And it's also about one secret that I've never told anyone about when I walked out of that courtroom. [The] first connection I needed was with myself. I was terrified of blowing the case. And that Washington Post editorial didn’t help matters. A month before the argument, I met Ben. Ben coaches sports legends, Andre Agassi, Olympians and the like. His whole thing is about “game day.” That moment when everything you’ve been preparing for either shows up, or it doesn't. Ben's first question to me: "What are you afraid of?" Now look, at that point, I’d argued 52 cases. I’d saved the Voting Rights Act. I’d struck down the Guantanamo military tribunals. But Ben forced me to admit a truth I'd buried from myself. Every time I walked into the court, I looked at those portraits on the walls and thought: they don’t look like me, I don't belong here. Imposter syndrome doesn't care about how many cases you won. It cares about only your doubts. Ben didn’t dismiss this. He worked with it. He had me write down five adjectives and visualize them every day before our pretend court. About 18 hours before the argument, Ben calls and says, “How are you feeling?” And I say, "Honestly, I'm terrified. I've got to do a great job. I've got to remember 500 things. I've got to deliver an argument for history." Ben says, “You know, change the vowel, use an ‘e’ instead of an ‘o.’” He says, "What do you get to do?" And instantly it pours out of me: "I get to defend the Constitution of the United States. I get to, the son of immigrants, remind the country of what it's about. I get to defend my parents' vision of America." (Cheers and applause) One letter. The terror didn't disappear, but it transformed into joy. So was Ben the secret, an elite sports coach, who teaches people about mindset? No. But he got me ready. The second thing I needed was connection to information at scale. I assembled the most relentless legal team in the country. They stress-tested every argument until only the best ones survived. But I needed more. I needed someone who was absolutely relentless. I found Harvey. Harvey reads the 200th tariff case the same way as he reads the first. Shoot. Honestly, this is my first time using PowerPoint. I've given hundreds of speeches -- (Laughter) I didn't want to use it, but they told me to. So anyway -- (Laughter) The picture's not coming up, but that's fine. Don't worry about it. So let's see. OK, fine, good, we're good. You know, a month before the argument, Harvey told me that I should expect a question from Justice Barrett about license fees. And the yellow is what Harvey told me to predict, and blue is what Justice Barrett actually said at the argument. It's almost verbatim. So Harvey taught me peripheral vision: the idea [that] if you read a lot, you can see patterns and come up with stuff and anticipate the angles of attack before it arrived. So was this secret a team of relentless lawyers who never slept, who pressure-tested everything? Closer, but that's not it either. The third thing I needed was the hardest. And it’s something we’ve been talking about today: connection. Here, I needed to connect with nine very skeptical legal minds and to do so in real time. Enter Liz, my improv coach. What does improv have to do with the Supreme Court of the United States? Everything. Liz's secret: “Neal, you need to actually listen. Actually listen.” She taught me to quiet my own thoughts and to trust myself to come up with the words after the other person had spoken. That’s the essence of “yes, and.” Absorb the question and then build on it. When the justices attacked, I validated their concerns and then bridged back. The interrogation became a dialogue. The room's energy flipped. (Audio) NKK: This power, as Justice Gorsuch said, as Justice Barrett said, is going to be stuck with us forever. Justice Alito, I think you've said many times, the purpose isn't what you look at, you look to actually what the government is doing. Thank you, Justice Kavanaugh. So, five answers on the Nixon precedent. Tariffs are constitutionally special because our Founders feared revenue raising, unlike embargoes. There was no Boston Embargo Party, but there was certainly a Boston Tea Party. Justice Sotomayor, I wish I had an hour to talk about this with you, because this argument by the government is wrong every which way. Justice Alito: I wonder if you ever thought that your legacy as a constitutional advocate would be "the man who revived the non-delegation argument?" NKK: Heck, yes, Justice Alito. So was the secret an improv coach who taught a lawyer to “yes, and” the justices? That would be a hell of a TED talk. But no, that's not it either. (Laughter) Liz taught me the power of connection. And the fourth teacher, the fourth teacher, the one who taught me the most important thing. The thing we forget: to connect with yourself. Enter Bob, my meditation coach. Now I am just about the last person to meditate. I thought meditation was for people who own crystals. I do not own crystals. (Laughter) But -- (Laughter) Way before, way before the tariffs argument, I started working with Bob, and he had me, 20 minutes a day, focus on a single word. He didn't send an app. He actually rented an apartment a block from the court. And we worked together every day, focusing on that word. Bob didn't just give me a mantra, he gave me a weapon. When I walked into court that day, the static was cleared. I was calm. I was dangerous. Was Bob the secret, the crystal-free meditation coach? No. But close. Because Bob, like Ben, like Liz, are human. That fourth teacher is not. Harvey is an AI. A bespoke system I'd been building with a legal AI company for the last year. And I trained it on every question asked by a Supreme Court justice in the last 25 years and everything they've written, every opinion, every concurrence, every dissent, every separate opinion. And in that, patterns emerged. It predicted the contours of the very argument I would face. It knew that Justice Gorsuch would ask me about the taxing power. It knew Justice Kavanaugh was going to grill me on tariffs versus embargoes. It nailed Justice Barrett's worry about tariff refunds. And the Chief Justice? It didn’t just predict his question, it predicted a possible escape route. How the Chief Justice could vote for us and at the same time protect the institution he had spent his entire career defending. Harvey glimpsed that narrow door, I held the door open, the Chief Justice walked through it, riding a six-to-three opinion, striking down the tariffs. Harvey even predicted Justice Gorsuch's separate opinion, striking down the tariffs, almost verbatim. Now I want to be precise about something. I'm a lawyer, precision really matters. What we were doing was not some trick. We weren't pulling some fast one over on the court when we predicted these things. Because predictability is what we want, especially in courts. A justice who returns to the same principles case after case, year after year, is a justice with character. Predictability is just consistency made visible. It is, in every sense, a compliment. What Harvey found in these justices was not weakness. It was integrity. But if I had just parroted Harvey's output, I would have lost the case 10-zero, and there aren’t even 10 justices. (Laughter) Because AI has a shadow side. When a tool is powerful, when a tool is powerful, you've all seen it, people stop thinking. "The computer says so." Four words, human judgment ends, then people just fold like a cheap lawn chair. The machine thinks, the human just nods, and in that nod somewhere, we disappear. My legal team never nodded. Harvey was not some god, it was our sparring partner -- brilliant, tireless, occasionally insufferable -- but not a god. Harvey asked the questions, we found the answer[s]. Now this is bigger than just law. It's about all of us. For centuries, the expert was the person who read the most, who remembered the most, who'd seen the most, the seasoned doctor, the experienced lawyer. Their edge was accumulated knowledge. AI is making that edge nearly worthless. Not because humans no longer matter, but because that particular advantage, pattern recognition across vast data and breadth of knowledge, is now available to anyone. AI can analyze, AI can predict. But the one thing AI can't do is the thing that actually won that argument. Connect. That's the last irreplaceable human skill. Persuade one person to change their mind by appealing to something beneath the surface. Adjust not just the argument, but the delivery, the pause, the tone, the look that says, "I hear you. And here is my answer." You know, at one moment in the argument, Justice Barrett asked a question that Harvey hadn't predicted. And I remember it felt like she and I were the only two people in that marble and mahogany room. And in the half-second before I answered, I did something no algorithm can do. I looked at her. I really looked. I wanted to understand her worry. And I answered the worry. That lesson is true for all of us. You don't just got to do it, you get to do it, in an interview, in a negotiation, in a conversation that could save a marriage or end one. Any place in which you need to reach another human and actually connect. The question AI poses to every one of us is not will you be replaced? The question is, what is the irreducibly human thing that you do? Go deeper into it. Not to "survive AI," but to come home to yourself. That's where your edge lives. So Ben taught me to reframe, Harvey gave me foresight, Liz taught me to listen and Bob taught me stillness. Four teachers, four connections, one argument. An argument that some have called the most important decision the Supreme Court has made in a century. When I walked into the court that day, I never felt more like I was exactly where I was meant to be. I brought to the podium no mountain of legal notes, just an email from Liz about the power of connection. And on the top of that, in my own handwriting, scrawled my parents' names, my children's names, my wife's name. The people I was fighting for. My father was my first audience. He didn't get to live to see this argument, but as I walked out of the courtroom afterwards, past those marble walls, past the portraits of people who didn't look like me, I got a text on my phone, an email from Ben. "So happy for you, Neal! I think your dad was watching over you too." The newest technology, the oldest human wisdom, the most powerful court. I get to do that. (Applause and cheers)我需要的第三件事是最困难的。也是我们今天一直在谈论的：连接。在这里，我需要与九位非常怀疑的法律头脑建立联系，并实时做到这一点。这时，我的即兴表演教练 Liz 登场了。即兴表演与美国最高法院有什么关系？一切。Liz 的秘诀是：“Neal，你必须真正地倾听。真正地倾听。”她教我静化自己的思绪，并在对方说话后相信自己能够找到合适的词语。这正是“是的，而且……”（yes, and...）的精髓。吸收问题，然后在此基础上构建。当大法官们发起攻击时，我验证了他们的担忧，然后将话题桥接回去。审讯变成了对话。房间里的能量发生了转变。（音频）NKK：这种权力，正如 Gorsuch 法官所说，正如 Barrett 法官所说，将永远伴随着我们。Alito 法官，我想你曾多次说过，目的不在于你看什么，而在于你实际看到政府在做什么。谢谢你，Kavanaugh 法官。所以，关于尼克松先例的五个回答。关税在宪法上是特殊的，因为我们的国父们惧怕的是征收收入，而非禁运。没有“波士顿禁运派对”，但绝对有“波士顿茶叶派对”。Sotomayor 法官，我真希望有时间能和你好好谈谈这个，因为政府的这个论点在各个方面都是错误的。Alito 法官：我不知道你是否曾想过，你作为宪法倡导者的遗产会是“那个复兴了非委任原则论证”（Non-delegation argument: 关于行政部门权力是否被不当授予的法律论点）的人？NKK：当然了，Alito 法官。
那么，秘密是一位即兴表演教练，教一位律师如何对大法官们“是的，而且……”吗？那将是一场精彩绝伦的 TED 演讲。但不是，也不是。（笑声）Liz 教会了我连接的力量。
第四位老师，第四位老师，也是教给我最重要事情的那位。我们常常忘记的事情：与自己连接。这时，Bob，我的冥想教练登场了。现在，我差不多是最后一个会冥想的人了。我曾以为冥想是给那些拥有水晶的人准备的。我不拥有水晶。（笑声）但是——（笑声）很久以前，很久很久以前，在关税辩论之前，我开始和 Bob 一起工作，他让我每天花20分钟专注于一个词。他没有给我发一个应用程序。他实际上在法院附近租了一套公寓。我们每天一起工作，专注于那个词。Bob 不仅仅给了我一个口号，他给了我一把武器。当我那天走进法庭时，杂念被清除了。我平静而危险。
Bob 是那个秘密吗？那位不带水晶的冥想教练？不是。但很接近了。因为 Bob，就像 Ben 一样，就像 Liz 一样，他们是人类。而第四位老师，不是。Harvey 是一个 AI。一个我在过去一年里与一家法律 AI 公司共同构建的定制系统（Bespoke system: 根据特定需求量身定制的系统）。我用它训练了过去25年来最高法院大法官提出的每一个问题，以及他们写过的所有内容——每一份判决、每一份附议、每一份异议、每一份独立意见。从中，模式浮现出来。它预测了我将面临的辩论的轮廓。它知道 Gorsuch 法官会问我关于税收权的问题。它知道 Kavanaugh 法官会就关税与禁运的问题严厉质询我。它精准预测了 Barrett 法官对关税退款的担忧。至于首席大法官？它不仅预测了他的问题，还预测了一个可能的脱身路线。首席大法官如何能投票支持我们，同时又能保护他整个职业生涯都在捍卫的机构。Harvey 瞥见了那扇狭窄的门，我推开了门，首席大法官走了进去，以一个六比三的判决，推翻了关税。Harvey 甚至几乎逐字逐句地预测了 Gorsuch 法官的独立意见，同样是推翻关税。
现在我想精确说明一点。我是一名律师，精确度非常重要。我们所做的不是某种诡计。当我们预测这些事情时，我们并没有对法院耍什么花招。因为可预测性正是我们想要的，尤其是在法院里。一位大法官年复一年、案件接一个案件地回归相同的原则，是一位有品格的大法官。可预测性只是显现出来的连贯性。它在任何意义上都是一种赞美。Harvey 在这些大法官身上发现的不是弱点，而是正直。
但是，如果我只是鹦鹉学舌地复述 Harvey 的输出，我将以十比零输掉官司，而法庭上甚至没有十位大法官。（笑声）因为 AI 有其阴暗面。当一个工具强大时，当一个工具强大时，你们都见过，人们会停止思考。“电脑说了算。”这四个字，人类的判断就结束了，然后人们就会像廉价折叠椅一样垮掉。机器思考，人类只是点头，而在那个点头中，我们消失了。我的法律团队从未点头。Harvey 不是什么神，它是我们的陪练伙伴——聪明、不知疲倦、偶尔令人难以忍受——但不是神。Harvey 提出问题，我们找到答案。
现在，这比法律本身更宏大。这关乎我们所有人。几个世纪以来，专家是那个读得最多、记得最多、见识最多的人——经验丰富的医生，资深的律师。他们的优势是积累的知识。AI 正在使这种优势几乎变得毫无价值。不是因为人类不再重要，而是因为那种特定的优势——跨越海量数据进行模式识别和广博的知识——现在对任何人来说都是可获得的。AI 可以分析，AI 可以预测。但 AI 唯一做不到的，正是那件真正赢得那场辩论的事情：连接。
这是最后一种不可替代的人类技能。通过诉诸表面之下的某种东西，说服一个人改变主意。调整的不仅是论点，还有表达方式、停顿、语调，以及那个说“我听到了你。这是我的答案”的眼神。你知道，在辩论的某个时刻，Barrett 法官问了一个 Harvey 没有预测到的问题。我记得那一刻，感觉就像她和我一样，是那个大理石和桃花心木房间里仅有的两个人。在回答之前的半秒钟，我做了一件任何算法都做不到的事情。我看着她。我真的看着她。我想理解她的担忧。然后我回应了她的担忧。
这个教训对我们所有人都是真实的。你不仅仅是“必须”去做，而是“有幸”去做，无论是在面试中，在谈判中，在可能挽救一段婚姻或结束一段对话中。任何你需要触及另一个人类并真正建立联系的地方。AI 向我们每个人提出的问题不是：你会被取代吗？问题是：你所做的、不可简化的、真正属于人的事情是什么？深入挖掘它。不是为了“在 AI 时代生存”，而是为了回归你自己。那才是你的优势所在。
所以 Ben 教我重新构架，Harvey 给了我远见，Liz 教我倾听，Bob 教我平静。四位老师，四种连接，一场辩论。一场被一些人称为本世纪最高法院最重要的决定。当我那天走进法庭时，我从未感觉自己如此确信，我正是我该去的地方。我带到讲台上的不是堆积如山的法律笔记，只是一封 Liz 关于连接力量的电子邮件。在那之上，用我自己的笔迹，潦草地写着我父母的名字、我孩子的名字、我妻子的名字。那些我为之奋斗的人。我的父亲是我的第一个听众。他未能活到看到这场辩论，但当我之后走出法庭，走过那些大理石墙壁，走过那些不似我的人的肖像时，我收到了手机上的短信，一封来自 Ben 的邮件。“为你感到高兴，Neal！我想你父亲也在保佑着你。”最新的技术，最古老的人类智慧，最强大的法院。我得到了这样的机会。