Introduction: The Palantir Phenomenon

Sometimes traditional stock analysis just lets you down. That's how I feel about the stock of Palantir. A billion dollars in quarterly revenue for the first time ever. The stock has just ripped. They have delivered here beyond the expectation, and the expectations were obviously remarkably high. Karp's the kind of guy who kicks you know what and then he gets in your face afterwards and he tells you that he just did that.

有时候，传统的股票分析就是会让你失望。我对Palantir（一家专注于大数据分析的美国软件公司）的股票就是这种感觉。季度收入首次达到十亿美元。股价一路飙升。他们的表现超出了预期，而之前的预期显然已经非常高了。卡普是那种会狠狠踢你一脚，然后凑到你面前告诉你他刚这么做了的人。

As usual, I've been cautioned to be a little modest about our bombastic numbers. If you work for Palantir, everyone knows you're good. And to all supporters of Palantir, merry Christmas and a happy New Year's. And to all people who hated on us, enjoy your cult.

像往常一样，有人告诫我对我们夸张的数字要谦虚一点。如果你在Palantir工作，所有人都知道你很优秀。致所有Palantir的支持者，圣诞快乐，新年快乐。致所有憎恨我们的人，享受你们的小圈子吧。

Supporters vs. Protestors

Host: Great to see you. Thanks for coming out. Hey, man. How are you? Awesome. Thanks for coming out. By the way, thank all of you guys. Great crowd. You have the best people. You have a lot of fans here.

主持人: 很高兴见到你。谢谢你来。嘿，你好吗？太棒了。谢谢你的到来。顺便说一句，也谢谢在座的各位。观众非常棒。你拥有最棒的粉丝。这里有很多你的支持者。

Host: Yesterday, we also had a number of protesters.

主持人: 昨天，我们这里也有一些抗议者。

Alex Karp: Hopefully enough.

亚历克斯·卡普: 希望足够多。

Host: What are they protesting? They're protesting Alex Karp being here. Categorize for me what's going on. Who are the protesters? Why do they protest? Who are the fans? Why do they love you?

主持人: 他们在抗议什么？他们抗议亚历克斯·卡普来到这里。帮我分析一下现在的情况。抗议者是些什么人？他们为什么抗议？粉丝又是谁？他们为什么爱你？

Alex Karp: Good taste. Well, there is an issue of taste, and I think you always have to try to steel man. So probably the people protesting me just have heard that they should protest me. But if you ask why they could have an argument, or why you should like me, love me in some cases, honestly some of you guys like and love me more than I like myself, which takes a little work. I think this audience as an example though is almost unfair because builders basically learn from watching highly, highly talented people. They basically put a discount rate on everything anyone says and measure accomplishment based on outperformance against that discount rate. And you'll find if you're managing future builders, a lot of people at Palantir are shaped that way, de facto you get street cred by outperforming against expectations where expectations are multiplied against a high discount rate.

亚历克斯·卡普: 品味不错。嗯，这确实是一个品味问题，我认为你总是要尝试去理解并强化对方的论点。所以，那些抗议我的人可能只是听说他们应该抗议我。但如果你问他们为什么会有一个论点，或者你为什么应该喜欢我，甚至在某些情况下爱我——老实说，你们有些人比我更喜欢和爱我自己，这需要点功夫。不过，我认为这个观众群体作为例子几乎是不公平的，因为建设者们基本上是通过观察极具才华的人来学习的。他们会对任何人说的话都打一个折扣，并根据超出那个折扣率的表现来衡量成就。你会发现，如果你在管理未来的建设者——Palantir的很多人都是这样塑造的——你实际上是通过超越预期来获得声望的，而这里的预期是已经乘以了一个很高的折扣率的。

So I think what you'd find in this audience is two things converging. One, the journey of Palantir is completely counterintuitive, and especially technical experts. The FDE thing was viewed as you weren't going to get a multiple. I was viewed as this magical wizard who could get the smartest people in the world to work on something that was de facto stupid. We were quote unquote terrible at public relations and we stood up for the US government even when it was really, really unpopular. And then there are a lot of people in the audience who agree with that. But I think as importantly, look at the results. Look at the fruits we bore. Look at the people we have on our side.

所以，我认为你会发现这个观众群体中有两件事正在融合。第一，Palantir的历程是完全反直觉的，尤其对技术专家而言。FDE（前线部署工程师：Palantir的职位，工程师直接与客户合作解决问题）这件事被认为不会带来高估值。我被看作是一个神奇的巫师，能让世界上最聪明的人去从事一件实际上很愚蠢的事情。我们被认为在公共关系方面“一塌糊涂”，而且我们支持美国政府，即使在它非常、非常不受欢迎的时候。现场有很多观众认同这一点。但我认为同样重要的是，看看结果。看看我们结出的果实。看看我们身边站着哪些人。

And then you get to the other side. And again, it would be easy just to dismiss the other side as, I don't know, stupid. They don't know what's going on. Let's just take the intellectually rigorous version of why you would be against what we're doing. There's a misconception that AI and tech is going to exclude everyone who's not in this room. And so a lot of people who are protesting, actually what they're protesting is there's no way to get in this room. And in fact, the way aptitude and the way the implementation of things has worked, they're just wrong. And because they've assumed that, they then go into what I would call super regressive non-working philosophical or empirical models where they assume the losers are noble. But actually what they're really assuming is they can't win.

然后你再看另一边。同样，简单地把另一边的人斥为愚蠢、不知道发生了什么是很容易的。让我们来探讨一下反对我们所做之事的更具智识严谨性的原因。有一种误解，认为人工智能和科技将把所有不在这里的人排除在外。所以很多抗议者，他们实际抗议的是没有办法进入这个房间。但事实上，从才能和项目实施的方式来看，他们是错的。因为他们抱持这种假设，他们就陷入了我称之为极度倒退、无效的哲学或经验模型中，在这些模型里，他们假定失败者是高尚的。但实际上，他们真正假定的是他们自己无法获胜。

Then you get to more subtle things. I do think there's an issue with our lead institutions that have taken the best and brightest and most valuable things you could teach someone and have turned it into some kind of Stalinistic crap that is anti-correlated with everything that that works in the West, which is like individual accomplishment. And if you had to say what is the central thing we do in America better than anyone else, it's allowing people to express their individual artistry in a way where you win, with no apologies. And then because they think they're on the loser side of this, they assume morality can't be against them. And then they are trained to believe that and to understand it. Of course, if you're a professor at Berkeley teaching about Heidegger, you think losing is good because you lost. That's of course the whole reason you think that. You think that because you are the noble loser. But again, where it gets super, super dangerous and where I do think we have to do a better job is you can't just assume there's no truth in what they believe, which is that we have not done an even adequate job of helping people at the bottom.

然后你会遇到更微妙的事情。我确实认为我们的顶尖机构存在问题，它们把那些可以教给别人的最好、最聪明、最有价值的东西，变成了一种斯大林式的垃圾，这与西方所有行之有效的东西——比如个人成就——都背道而驰。如果你非要说美国比其他任何国家做得更好的核心是什么，那就是允许人们以一种毫无歉意地去赢的方式来表达他们个人的才华。然后，因为他们认为自己是失败的一方，他们就假定道德不可能站在他们的对立面。他们被训练去相信和理解这一点。当然，如果你是伯克利大学教海德格尔的教授，你会认为失败是好事，因为你已经失败了。这当然是你这么想的全部原因。你这么想是因为你就是那个“高尚的失败者”。但同样，事情变得极其危险，并且我认为我们必须做得更好的地方在于，你不能简单地假设他们的信念中毫无道理，那就是我们确实在帮助底层民众方面做得甚至不够。

Host: Is some part of their criticism about the situation in Gaza?

主持人: 他们的批评中是否有一部分是关于加沙局势的？

Alex Karp: Oh, so that I'm getting now. Well, first of all, I get yelled at about, you know what I get yelled at most about is actually enforcing the border. That's number one. I've been yelled at for 20 years and protested primarily for supporting special operations in America. And you just got to imagine that I'm being protested for bringing soldiers home alive and killing our enemies. And these are people who serve our country and have been largely screwed by both parties. Like both parties have totally screwed them. So that's what I got yelled at about every single day. Then I got yelled at under Obama, Biden. And especially obviously if Trump's doing it, you're definitely getting yelled at for enforcing the border.

亚历克斯·卡普: 哦，现在我明白了。嗯，首先，我被人指责……你知道我被指责得最多的是什么吗？是执行边境管制。这是第一位的。我被骂了20年，主要被抗议的原因是支持美国的特种作战。你得想象一下，我因为让士兵活着回家并消灭我们的敌人而受到抗议。而这些士兵是为国家服务的人，却在很大程度上被两党辜负了。两党都完全把他们搞砸了。所以我每天都被骂。然后在奥巴马、拜登任内我也被骂。特别是，如果特朗普这样做，你肯定会因为执行边境管制而被骂。

Now, I want to say I don't understand how in the world of AI you cannot be for somewhat of a constrained border because we can make it work for every single person who's actually American and we can make laborers more valuable. We need extra labor that's either completely the most talented in the world like many people in this room or who are bringing skills. Also, we have enough transparency. You can't say you don't know who's in your country. It's complete BS. It's completely anti-correlated, by the way, with being progressive. I grew up in the most progressive family ever. And every Friday night at Shabbat, there was a lecture on how the Republicans are screwing our country by undermining the worker and bringing in cheap labor. So, I got yelled out about that. Then commercially I got yelled at about how could you have these FDEs, it is going to blow up your multiple. Now everybody wants to be an FDE. So now I'm getting yelled at primarily about ICE. What's going on? How's it going on? Is the treatment just?

现在，我想说的是，我不明白在人工智能的世界里，你怎么能不支持某种程度的边境管制，因为我们可以让它为每一个真正的美国人服务，我们可以让劳动者更有价值。我们需要额外的劳动力，要么是像这个房间里很多人一样是世界上最有才华的人，要么是带来技能的人。而且，我们有足够的透明度。你不能说你不知道谁在你的国家。这完全是胡说八道。顺便说一下，这与进步主义是完全背道而驰的。我在一个有史以来最进步的家庭中长大。每个周五的安息日晚餐，都会有一个讲座，内容是共和党人如何通过削弱工人和引进廉价劳动力来搞垮我们的国家。所以，我因为这个被骂。然后在商业上，我被骂怎么能有这些FDE，说这会毁掉你的估值倍数。现在所有人都想成为FDE。所以现在我主要因为ICE（美国移民及海关执法局）被骂。发生了什么？情况如何？待遇是否公正？

The one thing I would say is the obvious fact is if you care about not being surveilled illegally, if you care about the treatment of people who come into the country illegally but deserve adequate treatment, if you care about lives in Gaza, in Ukraine, and all over the world where Palantir is used, you're going to want the best software in the world because it's the only way you can reduce and more precisely target the people. And justifiably and actually the only way where you can say this person did this and they deserve to go. And so each one of these things has to be steel manned.

我想说的一件事是，一个明显的事实是，如果你关心不被非法监视，如果你关心那些非法进入国家但应得到适当对待的人的待遇，如果你关心加沙、乌克兰以及全世界所有使用Palantir的地方的生命，你就会想要世界上最好的软件。因为这是你减少伤亡并更精确地锁定目标的唯一方法。而且这是唯一能让你理直气壮地说“这个人做了这件事，他们罪有应得”的方式。所以，这些事情中的每一个都必须被认真地审视和论证。

The Border Control Controversy

Host: Let's do that for the second one, the border. Tucker said yesterday when he spoke to President Trump, there was no way to know if there are 30 million people here illegally, 40, 50, whatever it happens to be. You say you call BS on that. We could easily do it.

主持人: 那我们来谈谈第二个问题，边境。塔克昨天和特朗普总统交谈时说，没办法知道这里到底有3000万、4000万还是5000万非法移民。你说这是胡说八道。我们能轻易做到。

Alex Karp: No, I just say we could do it and I'm not calling BS on that. I'm actually saying it's a very, very hard problem. But in the world of AI and software, you can't say it can't be done.

亚历克斯·卡普: 不，我只是说我们能做到，我不是说他的话是胡扯。我其实是说这是一个非常、非常困难的问题。但在人工智能和软件的世界里，你不能说这事办不到。

Host: It could very easily be done if we put cameras everywhere and we just did facial recognition. But we don't want to live in that.

主持人: 如果我们到处安装摄像头，进行面部识别，这事很容易就能办到。但我们不想生活在那样的世界里。

Alex Karp: It could be very easily done if you eviscerate our civil liberties. Yeah. That's not being done. That's like I could grow your revenue at 400% but I'll lose money in perpetuity; it's not a business.

亚历克斯·卡普: 如果你摧毁我们的公民自由，这事确实很容易办到。是的。但我们不能那么做。这就像说，我能让你的收入增长400%，但我会永远亏钱；那不是一门生意。

Host: So let's talk about what the solution to that would be. The border issue is actually a bit overstated. You have 80-90% of the country believes the border should be orderly. That is actually something that most people...

主持人: 那我们来谈谈解决方案是什么。边境问题实际上有点被夸大了。全国有80%到90%的人认为边境应该是有序的。这其实是大多数人...

Host: 80-90% of people believing in it happening are completely disconnected.

主持人: 80%到90%的人相信这一点，但这和现实完全脱节。

Alex Karp: Whatever the reason the Biden administration didn't do it, that's over and now we're here and it's closed. But what would your solution be to identifying the people who are...

亚历克斯·卡普: 不管拜登政府当初为什么没做，那都过去了，现在我们到了这个地步，边境关闭了。但你对于识别那些人的解决方案是什么...

Alex Karp: It happened. What's interesting about political parties in America is that they're anti-correlated with what they claim. Democrats claim to be progressive like me. Having a border is not progressive. President Trump is conservative. Having a border is progressive. And unfortunately until we change our polity so that the people actually get a say on the border. By the way, the single best example of this is in Europe. So how do you explain the complete dysfunction in Europe? You know, most Europeans, Germans, there are many Germans in the audience. How many of you guys are happy with the immigration situation you have in Germany? None. How many will talk about it publicly? How many will do anything? And then you get to these issues. The polity will frame the issue so that there is no solution. The only solution is to accept a solution no one wants. And that's what we had.

亚历克斯·卡普: 事情已经发生了。美国政党的有趣之处在于，他们的行为与他们的声称背道而驰。民主党人像我一样声称自己是进步的。拥有边境不是进步的。特朗普总统是保守的。拥有边境是进步的。不幸的是，除非我们改变我们的政治体制，让人民在边境问题上真正有发言权。顺便说一句，这方面最好的例子就是欧洲。你怎么解释欧洲的完全失能？你知道，大多数欧洲人，德国人——现场有很多德国观众。你们中有多少人对德国的移民状况感到满意？一个也没有。有多少人会公开谈论？有多少人会采取行动？然后你就遇到了这些问题。政治体制会以一种无解的方式来框定问题。唯一的解决方案就是接受一个谁都不想要的方案。这就是我们过去的情况。

And part of the problem, the reason the border is such an interesting thing is the reason you get an open border is politicians do not want to address the real problems of the society, which would mean the workers of today have more value tomorrow than they have today, because they have no earthly clue how to do that. They're like, "We'll just open the border and we'll get free labor and if you're on the left, we'll get people who will vote for us." The way in which if you kind of steel man your questions, Gaza, Ukraine border, you have to raise the moral standard. So it's not again the way you led this is like if we just put up a camera. Yes, you can stop terrorism or you can have civil liberties is a little bit like you can have growth without revenue or you can have revenue without growth. If you want to solve the problem, you have to increase civil liberties and stop people from being in your country illegally. And the reason it doesn't happen is because there's slippage in the execution, which is absolutely purposeful. And if we don't want this country to be what Europe is now, and I lived in Europe most of my life, you have to close the border. You have to make sure that people who have a right to be here get to stay. People who don't have a right to stay get treated fairly. By the way, both sides have to step up.

问题的部分原因，边境问题之所以如此有趣，是因为你之所以得到一个开放的边境，是因为政客们不想解决社会的真正问题，即如何让今天的工人明天比今天更有价值，因为他们对此一无所知。他们就像是，“我们就开放边境，获得免费劳动力，如果你是左派，我们还能得到会投票给我们的人。” 如果你认真审视你的问题，无论是加沙、乌克兰还是边境，你都必须提高道德标准。所以，你之前那种“只要装个摄像头就行”的说法是不对的。是的，你可以阻止恐怖主义，或者你可以拥有公民自由，这有点像你可以有增长但没有收入，或者有收入但没有增长。如果你想解决问题，你必须在加强公民自由的同时，阻止人们非法进入你的国家。而这之所以没有发生，是因为在执行过程中存在偏差，而这种偏差是绝对有意的。如果我们不想让这个国家变成现在的欧洲——我在欧洲生活了大半辈子——你就必须关闭边境。你必须确保有权留在这里的人能够留下。没有权利留下的人得到公平对待。顺便说一句，双方都必须加把劲。

Host: What's your personal solution for what to do with the 30 million people who are here illegally? What would you do?

主持人: 对于在这里的3000万非法移民，你个人的解决方案是什么？你会怎么做？

Alex Karp: Well, first of all, my personal solution would be you divide the pie. Everybody who's criminal, criminal-adjacent or has anything to do with crime is going to leave, and I'm going to make it so that they self-deport because I'm going to come tomorrow in a way you don't like it. That's number one.

亚历克斯·卡普: 嗯，首先，我个人的解决方案是区别对待。所有罪犯、与犯罪有关或有任何犯罪记录的人都必须离开，而且我会让他们自愿离境，因为我明天就会用一种他们不喜欢的方式来处理。这是第一点。

Host: No, that's easy to agree on. Nobody wants felons here. It's easy to agree on.

主持人: 这个很容易达成共识。没人想要重罪犯待在这里。这很容易同意。

Alex Karp: Yeah, but the paradigm is like it's easy because again you're like civil but in any case these things are much, much harder than they look as an example. How do you do that without eviscerating our civil liberties? How do we make sure the criminals, how do you know someone's criminal? What standard of practice to use to define if someone's criminal? Are all criminals the same? Because de facto, if you go broad brush, it's like yes, but being in the country illegally is a felony. Killing someone or potentially killing someone is a different kind. How do you deal with the people that are around them? How do you deal with law enforcement people databases that are not made public to you? How do you deal with imputed data? How do you do predictions?

亚历克斯·卡普: 是的，但模式是这样的，你说这很容易，因为你关注公民权利，但无论如何，这些事情远比看起来要困难得多。比如，如何在不侵犯我们公民自由的情况下做到这一点？我们如何确保是罪犯，你怎么知道某人是罪犯？用什么标准来定义某人是否是罪犯？所有的罪犯都一样吗？因为事实上，如果你一刀切，是的，非法居留是重罪，但杀人或可能杀人是另一种性质。你如何处理他们周围的人？你如何处理那些不对你公开的执法部门数据库？你如何处理推算数据？你如何做预测？

Host: But that's the question. So you're restating the question. I'm asking you to answer it.

主持人: 但这正是问题所在。你只是在重述问题。我是请你来回答它。

Alex Karp: I'm restating the question, so it's a question.

亚历克斯·卡普: 我重述这个问题，因为它本身就是一个复杂的问题。

Data, Surveillance, and Civil Liberties

Host: Let me flesh this out a bit. Everyone on the right at least agrees that we should have a strong border. One of the criticisms or concerns that I hear on the right or from civil libertarians is that Palantir has a large-scale data collection program on American citizens. So not foreign terrorists, not illegals, but American citizens. Can you just clear that up and say that either Palantir is not doing that or under what circumstances you do?

主持人: 让我把这个问题具体化一点。至少所有右翼人士都同意我们应该有强大的边境。我从右翼或公民自由主义者那里听到的一个批评或担忧是，Palantir有一个针对美国公民的大规模数据收集项目。不是外国恐怖分子，不是非法移民，而是美国公民。你能否澄清一下，说明Palantir是否在这样做，或者在什么情况下会这样做？

Alex Karp: Yeah. So, first of all, I just want to say, Palantir... there's a technical version which I'm going to give you, but we had a Democratic administration come to us and basically ask us to do a Muslim database. Now, you would think given the way I'm kind of besmirched as some kind of, I don't know, it's like a Jewish conspiracy, that would be the first thing according to them I would do. We've never done anything like this. I've never done anything like this. To actually understand the answer, and I love these questions about the skeptic because I actually love skeptics. I tend to divide the world into you have Palantir derangement syndrome, which I don't spend a lot of time on and I think they're anti-builder, you have Palantir skeptics, and you have people who don't like Palantir. If you're a Palantir skeptic or you don't like us, I want to engage.

亚历克斯·卡普: 好的。首先，我想说，关于Palantir……有一个技术层面的解释，我会告诉你，但曾经有一个民主党政府找到我们，基本上要求我们建立一个穆斯林数据库。现在，鉴于我被抹黑成某种犹太阴谋论的一部分，你可能会认为根据他们的说法，这是我会做的第一件事。我们从未做过这样的事。我从未做过这样的事。为了真正理解答案，我喜欢这些关于怀疑者的问题，因为我真的很喜欢怀疑者。我倾向于把世界分为几类：一类是患有“Palantir错乱综合症”的人，我不会在他们身上花太多时间，我认为他们是反建设者的；一类是Palantir的怀疑者；还有一类是不喜欢Palantir的人。如果你是Palantir的怀疑者或者不喜欢我们，我愿意与你交流。

Any technology that works can be abused. We are the single worst technology to use to abuse civil liberties, which is by the way the reason why we could never get the NSA or the FBI to actually buy our product. And until recently, SIGINT institutions would never buy our product. You laugh because it's obvious. If you want to do data analytics in a way that eviscerates our civil liberties, you don't want logs, you don't want branching, you don't want pipelining. You don't want serialization and deserialization in your product. If you have serialization and deserialization of your product that's intelligible, you are basically creating a product that's going to be really, really hard to abuse. And the logs are immutable in Palantir. So, the single most civil liberties-heavy place in the world is hating on us every day. And you know what they're buying every day? Palantir. It's called Europe.

任何有效的技术都可能被滥用。而我们是用来侵犯公民自由最糟糕的技术，顺便说一句，这就是为什么我们永远无法让NSA（美国国家安全局）或FBI（美国联邦调查局）真正购买我们产品的原因。直到最近，SIGINT（信号情报）机构也绝不会购买我们的产品。你笑了，因为这很明显。如果你想以一种侵犯我们公民自由的方式进行数据分析，你不会想要日志、分支或流水线操作。你不会在你的产品中需要序列化和反序列化。如果你的产品中有可理解的序列化和反序列化，你基本上创造了一个非常、非常难以滥用的产品。而且在Palantir中，日志是不可篡改的。所以，世界上最注重公民自由的地方每天都在憎恨我们。但你知道他们每天在买什么吗？Palantir。那个地方叫欧洲。

Do not believe anything I'm saying. If you're online watching Nick Fuentes call me the Jewish Conspiracy, do yourself a favor and say, "Yeah, that could be really interesting." Spend 20 minutes looking at the product. 20 minutes looking at the product and say, "Is this not the hardest product to abuse in the world? Is it not built to be?" And by the way, that's made me very rich because the civil liberties protections we built into our government products are the same things that we use to orchestrate large language models, the same way we orchestrate internally, and the same things you will need to make any enterprise in the world work. Because every enterprise in the world, public or private, needs deserialization, logs, branching, some kind of scaffolding to make the LLMs work, which means the LLMs have an ability to do a taxonomy on your business, but without touching the business, that you can control where they're deployed, that they don't have access to your data, that you have immutable logs, and that you can measure the output against high-fidelity data sets that can be viewed in any permissible way, and that the permissions are enforced.

不要相信我说的任何话。如果你在网上看尼克·富恩特斯称我为“犹太阴谋”，帮自己一个忙，对自己说：“嗯，这可能真的很有趣。” 花20分钟看看我们的产品。花20分钟看看产品然后问自己：“这难道不是世界上最难被滥用的产品吗？它难道不是被设计成这样的吗？” 顺便说一句，这让我非常富有，因为我们为政府产品内置的公民自由保护措施，与我们用来编排大型语言模型的东西是相同的，与我们内部编排的方式相同，也是让世界上任何企业运作所需要的东西。因为世界上每个企业，无论是公共的还是私有的，都需要反序列化、日志、分支和某种脚手架来让LLM（大型语言模型）工作。这意味着LLM有能力对你的业务进行分类，但又不会触及业务本身，你可以控制它们的部署位置，它们无法访问你的数据，你有不可篡改的日志，并且你可以根据高保真数据集来衡量输出，这些数据集可以以任何允许的方式查看，并且权限是强制执行的。

So, hardest product in the world to abuse. I'm telling you, we've never done anything like this. Please verify. Do not trust me. Certainly, do not trust the people... by the way, as a rule, the one thing I would say critical on the outside, do not trust anyone who's never built anything. It's so easy to have all these opinions about how the world works, how data works, how businesses work, how we got off the ground. I'm a conspiracy. Somehow they gave it to me, but not you, even though I'd be the least likely person to sue the US government twice. We had to hire the most important engineers in the world and be laughed and shat upon by the whole world for 20 years before anyone took it seriously because we were a conspiracy. And you know why people believe it? Because they've never had a job. They've never built anything. And anyone who has knows that's just not the way the world works. For me to succeed, just like for you to succeed, you're going to have to be 10x better than anyone else in the room or you will fail. And that's true for me. That's true for you. That's true for every American. It's always been true.

所以，这是世界上最难滥用的产品。我告诉你，我们从未做过那样的事。请去核实。不要相信我。当然，也不要相信那些……顺便说一句，作为一条规则，我要对外界说一句批评的话：不要相信任何从未创造过任何东西的人。对世界如何运作、数据如何运作、商业如何运作、我们如何起步有各种各样的看法是如此容易。说我是个阴谋。好像他们把成功给了我，而不是你，尽管我可能是最不可能两次起诉美国政府的人。我们不得不雇佣世界上最重要的工程师，被全世界嘲笑和鄙视了20年，才有人开始认真对待我们，就因为我们是个“阴谋”。你知道为什么人们会相信吗？因为他们从未有过一份工作。他们从未创造过任何东西。任何有过这些经历的人都知道，世界不是那样运作的。我要想成功，就像你想要成功一样，你必须比房间里任何人都好上十倍，否则你就会失败。这对我适用，对你适用，对每个美国人都适用。这一直都是事实。

And anyone who tells you that's not true is... you are the mark. You are the mark. If you're being taught that, and that's what I would tell the protesters or the college students, you're the mark. They're telling you I'm succeeding because I just got it handed to me and somehow it's unfair. No. No one handed anything to anyone at Palantir. Our product is still the best product on the market. No one even tries to compete with Foundry. Go ahead. Go try to build it. Try to organize a team of people as good as Palantirians. Go ahead. Try to do it for 20 years. Try to build a vision and engagement.

任何告诉你这不是事实的人……你就是被骗的目标。你就是那个目标。如果你被教导这些，这就是我会告诉那些抗议者或大学生的：你们是目标。他们告诉你我成功是因为有人白送给我的，这在某种程度上是不公平的。不。在Palantir，没有人白白得到任何东西。我们的产品仍然是市场上最好的。甚至没有人尝试与我们的Foundry（Palantir的商业数据集成平台）竞争。去吧，去尝试构建它。尝试组织一个像Palantir员工一样优秀的团队。去吧。尝试坚持20年。尝试建立一个愿景并让大家参与进来。

So to your questions, no, we are not surveilling US citizens. No, our data is not being used to aggregate and to create imputed data. You could say, do you do it directly? Do you do it indirectly? That's a fair question. No. Would I do this? Don't have to believe me, but I've never done it in 20 years. I've told every single important person... I do a lot of constructive engagement internally with countries because people know I'm kind of on their side in the West. I've told every single major leader that I would not do something and it's cost Palantir a lot of money. We never worked with China. We never worked with Russia. We never worked with adversaries. We got laughed out of the same room.

所以回到你的问题：不，我们没有监视美国公民。不，我们的数据没有被用来聚合和创建推算数据。你可能会问，你是直接做的吗？还是间接做的？这是个合理的问题。答案是不。我会这么做吗？你不必相信我，但20年来我从未这样做过。我告诉过每一位重要人物……我在内部与各国进行了大量建设性的接触，因为人们知道我在西方是站在他们这边的。我告诉过每一位主要领导人，我不会做某些事，这让Palantir付出了很多金钱代价。我们从不与中国合作。我们从不与俄罗斯合作。我们从不与对手合作。我们因此在同一个房间里被嘲笑。

The Conflict in Gaza and Modern Warfare

Host: This morning there was a report that there was some sort of an attack that Israel effected inside of Qatar against the terrorists of Hamas. I just want to give you a chance to talk about Israel, Gaza, that whole conflict. You've talked about it a lot. You have a lot of opinions. People have tried to obviously attack you and mischaracterize some of the things you said.

主持人: 今天早上有报道称，以色列在卡塔尔境内对哈马斯恐怖分子发动了某种袭击。我想给你一个机会谈谈以色列、加沙以及整个冲突。你已经谈论过很多次了。你有很多观点。显然，有人试图攻击你，并歪曲你的一些言论。

Alex Karp: Well, actually, they've often characterized what I've said correctly. Look, for me there are fundamental issues. Does Israel have a claim to the land? Yes. Does Israel have a right to defend itself? Yes. Has Israel done something America would not have done under the circumstances? I think America would have been a lot more brutal. And then you get to the humanitarian thing and I'll say abstracting from there, I believe progressives in this country are working day and night to hurt poor people in this country. I don't believe they're progressive. And I would say I do not, I am not in favor of Palestinian innocent people being killed. I am not in favor of that. And then the question is, are you allowed to fight a war? And then the other point is, if you want to minimize innocent human life being killed, you're going to have to use software. And this is going to have to be better in the future than it is now. It's true Israel's ratio of casualty, innocent to non-innocent, is better than anyone has ever had in the history of humanity. And it's going to have to be better in the future.

亚历克斯·卡普: 嗯，实际上，他们常常准确地描述了我的言论。听着，对我来说，这里有一些根本性问题。以色列对这片土地有主权要求吗？有。以色列有权自卫吗？有。以色列所做的事情，在同样情况下美国会不做吗？我认为美国会残酷得多。然后你谈到人道主义问题，从这里引申开来，我相信这个国家的进步主义者们日以继夜地在伤害这个国家的穷人。我不相信他们是进步的。而且我要说，我本人不赞成杀害无辜的巴勒斯坦人民。我不赞成那样做。那么问题就来了，你被允许打仗吗？另一点是，如果你想最大限度地减少无辜生命的损失，你就必须使用软件。而且未来这方面必须比现在做得更好。以色列的伤亡比例，即无辜者与非无辜者的比例，确实比人类历史上任何时候都要好。而且未来这个比例必须变得更好。

Host: Does your software help send aid to the refugees or can it?

主持人: 你们的软件能帮助向难民运送援助物资吗？或者可以吗？

Alex Karp: I have to be very careful. I can't go into exact... I'm not allowed to say where we're used, where we're not used. But then there's sometimes a trick people do is like, "Oh, I'm not used for this and I'm not used for that," when in fact you know we are used in Israel. And I would say as a generalization, where we are used in Israel, most people in this audience would be very supportive of, and it has been very precise and deadly, and I support that.

亚历克斯·卡普: 我必须非常小心。我不能透露具体细节……我不能说我们的软件在哪里被使用，在哪里没有。但有时候人们会玩一个花招，说：“哦，我没被用于这个，也没被用于那个，”而事实上，你知道我们在以色列被使用。总的来说，我们在以色列被使用的地方，这个房间里的大多数人都会非常支持，而且它的应用非常精确和致命，我支持这一点。

The Decline of the West

Host: Yesterday we had Tucker here and he made some references to opening borders, declining fertility rates, and actual programs for assisted suicide in Canada. All of which may speak to the West's intention of committing suicide. Do you think the West generally is committing suicide? If so, why? What gets us here?

主持人: 昨天塔克在这里，他提到开放边境、生育率下降以及加拿大实际存在的辅助自杀项目。所有这些可能都指向了西方意图自杀。你认为西方总体上在自杀吗？如果是，为什么？是什么让我们走到了这一步？

Alex Karp: I mean you have to disambiguate America. I walked around your audience. This is not an audience committing suicide. This is an audience fighting to win. And before I get to this question, the one thing I would tell you guys is you're going to have to fight to win because currently I'm one of the few people, other than people on stage, who speak up. You're going to have to speak up and explain to people why you have the right to win or it may be taken from you. And so you're going to have to fight. And by the way, here I don't mean left right here. Both parties need a little bit of a kick in the ass here. It's just, you know, we have a right to win. We need to win. And you have an individual right to fight to win in this country and it should not be taken away from you. And it could be if you don't stand up and tell people, no, your idea is ridiculous. And let me explain to you how this works.

亚历克斯·卡普: 我的意思是，你必须把美国区分开来。我在你们的观众中走了一圈。这不是一个在自杀的群体。这是一个为胜利而战的群体。在回答这个问题之前，我想告诉你们一件事：你们将不得不为胜利而战，因为目前除了台上的几位，我是少数几个敢于发声的人之一。你们必须站出来，向人们解释为什么你们有权获胜，否则这个权利可能会被夺走。所以你们必须战斗。顺便说一句，我这里不是指左派或右派。两党在这里都需要被踢一脚屁股。就是，你知道，我们有权获胜。我们需要获胜。在这个国家，你拥有为胜利而战的个人权利，这不应该被剥夺。但如果你不站出来告诉人们，“不，你的想法很荒谬”，并向他们解释事情是如何运作的，这个权利就可能被剥夺。

The country... for those of you who don't know, I spent half my life in Europe. I wrote this PhD in Germany. It's a country I know reasonably well. When I'm talking about Europe, Europe is obviously not homogeneous. You have East and West Europe, and Eastern European countries are very, very different than Western European countries. Denmark's very different and the Nordics are very different. But generally when people in this country are talking about committing suicide, they're really thinking in their mind's eye Germany. It's like you have a country with, arguably, pre-software/AI, the best industrial base in the world, the best schools in the world. They have vocational schools so Germany, unlike others, never neglected their working class. You have two different kinds of vocational schools in Germany. You have for lower level and high level vocational training. In Germany, it puts you on the factory floor doing important things and you earn a real salary with real benefits your whole life and have rights. It has the best healthcare, best life. And for those of you who embrace a lascivious lifestyle, by far the best. And the highest level of data protection, highest level of integrity. Best position to win. And suddenly, they basically blew up the energy market. They blew up immigration and they blew up essentially their tech scene. It's like and now it's very hard to answer the question, what is the future?

这个国家……对于那些不知道的人，我有一半的人生是在欧洲度过的。我在德国完成了我的博士学位。那是一个我相当了解的国家。当我说欧洲时，欧洲显然不是同质的。有东欧和西欧，东欧国家与西欧国家非常、非常不同。丹麦非常不同，北欧国家也非常不同。但通常当这个国家的人谈论“自杀”时，他们脑海里想的其实是德国。你有一个国家，可以说，在软件和人工智能时代之前，拥有世界上最好的工业基础，最好的学校。他们有职业学校，所以德国不像其他国家那样忽视工人阶级。德国有两种不同的职业学校，一种是初级的，一种是高级的。在德国，职业培训让你进入工厂车间做重要的事情，并且你一生都能挣到有真正福利的真实工资，并拥有权利。它有最好的医疗保健，最好的生活。对于那些喜欢放纵生活方式的人来说，那里是最好的。还有最高级别的数据保护，最高级别的诚信。处于最佳的获胜位置。然后突然间，他们基本上摧毁了能源市场。他们搞砸了移民问题，也基本上毁了他们的科技产业。现在很难回答这个问题：未来是什么？

The way you commit suicide in the West is you stop believing that your particular culture has something superior in it. Like yes, Germany screwed up a lot of stuff in World War II, but to believe that there's nothing special, unique, and uniquely valuable about German culture is insanity. It's complete insanity. And there's nothing wrong with saying you're proud to be German. In Germany, you're literally far right of center if you say, "I'm proud to be German." One of the crazy things about Palantir is how German we are. We take every question to the nth degree and then re-catenate the thing before we make a decision.

在西方，你自杀的方式就是不再相信你自己的特定文化中有任何优越之处。比如，是的，德国在二战中搞砸了很多事，但相信德国文化中没有任何特别、独特和具有独特价值的东西是疯狂的。是彻头彻尾的疯狂。说你为自己是德国人而自豪并没有错。但在德国，如果你说“我为自己是德国人而自豪”，你就会被直接划为极右翼。关于Palantir的一件疯狂的事情就是我们有多么“德国化”。我们把每个问题都推敲到极致，然后在做决定前重新梳理一遍。

Host: I get that Germany has this problem to some degree with being able to look in the mirror, but what about France and Britain, right? They won World War II. Why are they pursuing the same policies? The policy we're talking about, just to be clear, is just allowing an extreme amount of immigration.

主持人: 我明白德国在某种程度上存在这种无法正视自己的问题，但法国和英国呢？他们赢了二战。为什么他们也在推行同样的政策？需要明确的是，我们谈论的政策就是允许极大量的移民涌入。

On Meritocracy and Cultural Identity

Alex Karp: For very different and very non-connected reasons, they all decided there was nothing special about their culture, right? And like again, France would be an even better example because they have a much better narrative. They actually had a resistance. It wasn't as big as people say, but it existed. The crazy thing about LLMs is it should have been built and the whole center of gravity should be in France. The two best math cultures in the world are Russia and France, and we hire ad nauseam from France. But in France, they gave up on two things, and France actually might even be the better example.

亚历克斯·卡普: 出于非常不同且互不相干的原因，他们都认定自己的文化没有什么特别之处，对吧？再说一次，法国可能是一个更好的例子，因为他们有一个好得多的叙事。他们确实有过抵抗运动。虽然规模不像人们说的那么大，但它确实存在。关于大型语言模型的疯狂之处在于，它本应在法国被创造出来，整个重心也应该在法国。世界上数学文化最强的两个国家是俄罗斯和法国，我们从法国招聘了无数人才。但在法国，他们放弃了两样东西，所以法国甚至可能是个更好的例子。

In France, for those of you who aren't French, France is religiously focused on meritocracy. So they have this one school you have to get into. It's all about math. And the reason it's about math is the socialists in France decided that having high verbal IQ was a class-based thing. And so they are religiously into meritocracy and the whole definition of it is mathematical aptitude. France is complicated. You have far right, far left, and in between somehow, it's very hard to articulate in France why you think French culture is better than any other culture in Europe from a French perspective. And then for example, concretely, if you want to build a product in France, it should be absolutely mathematical and aesthetic. If you build it in Germany, it's going to have to be conceptual and manufacturing-based. You're going to have a different tech scene, a different way of organizing it.

在法国，对于那些不是法国人的人来说，法国对精英政治（Meritocracy：一种基于个人才能和成就而非财富或社会阶层来选拔人才的制度）有着宗教般的执着。他们有一所你必须考上的学校，一切都关乎数学。之所以关乎数学，是因为法国的社会主义者认为，拥有高的语言智商是基于阶级的。所以他们对精英政治非常痴迷，而其整个定义就是数学才能。法国很复杂。你有极右翼、极左翼，以及介于两者之间的某种状态，在法国，你很难从法国人的角度阐明为什么你认为法国文化比欧洲任何其他文化都好。举个具体的例子，如果你想在法国开发一个产品，它必须是绝对数学化和美学的。如果你在德国开发，它就必须是概念性和基于制造业的。你会有一个不同的科技场景，一种不同的组织方式。

And then last not least, and this is the thing we have to fight for the most, they become anti-meritocratic. So like if you're in Germany or France and you're the best of the best of the best, you're going to wait 30 years before you have a real job.

最后但同样重要的是，这也是我们最需要为之奋斗的事情——他们变得反精英政治。所以，如果你在德国或法国，并且你是精英中的精英，你得等上30年才能得到一份真正的工作。

Host: Why have they become anti-meritocratic?

主持人: 他们为什么会变得反精英政治？

Alex Karp: Well, the people out there protesting or the faculty members at Berkeley have taught them to protest. They equate morally losing with losing in the real world with winning morally. And it seems like a crazy way to think because in the end everyone...

亚历克斯·卡普: 嗯，那些在外面抗议的人，或者伯克利的教职员工，教会了他们去抗议。他们把道德上的失败等同于在现实世界中的失败，并认为这在道德上是胜利。这似乎是一种疯狂的思维方式，因为最终每个人……

Host: Is that a Christian value? I ask this because I heard someone have a talk about this where the moral spectrum used to be strong and weak. You know, cavemen, the strongest would survive and the weakest would die. And that was how we measured what was right and what was wrong. And then what became right and wrong was this notion of good and evil, turn the other cheek, compassion, etc.

主持人: 这是一种基督教价值观吗？我这么问是因为我听过一个相关的讨论，说道德光谱过去是强与弱。你知道，洞穴人时代，强者生存，弱者死亡。那就是我们衡量对错的方式。后来，对错变成了善与恶的概念，要“转过另一边脸”、要有同情心等等。

Alex Karp: There are many different schools of Christianity. So like even in this case, Lutheran Christianity and Catholic French Christianity are basically not correlated. They're both Christian. What's special about America was Calvinism (新教加尔文主义：强调上帝的绝对主权和预定论，认为世俗的成功是上帝拣选的标志). We are the most Calvinist culture in the world and actually the protesters are anti-Calvinist. What does Calvinism mean? Calvinism celebrates success. De facto almost everybody in America, whether you're Jewish, Muslim, Christian, the underlying backdrop of America is this Calvinist view. And the anti-Calvinist cultures of Europe, Lutheranism, other kinds of cultures, they do equate, "behind every great success is a great crime" is a famous Voltairean classic. And we don't have this in this country. If this slips, you basically end up in a situation where everybody who is succeeding or is perceived to be in a group that is disproportionately succeeding ends up on the firing wall. And what does that do to the whole society?

亚历克斯·卡普: 基督教有很多不同的流派。所以即使在这个案例中，路德宗的基督教和天主教的法国基督教基本上是不相关的。它们都是基督教。美国的特别之处在于加尔文主义。我们是世界上最具加尔文主义色彩的文化，而那些抗议者实际上是反加尔文主义的。加尔文主义意味着什么？加尔文主义颂扬成功。事实上，几乎每个美国人，无论你是犹太人、穆斯林还是基督徒，美国的潜在背景都是这种加尔文主义观点。而欧洲的反加尔文主义文化，比如路德宗和其他文化，它们确实认为——“每一个巨大成功的背后都有一桩巨大的罪行”，这是伏尔泰的著名经典。我们国家没有这种思想。如果这个思想滑坡，你最终会陷入一种境地：每个成功的人，或者被认为属于一个不成比例地成功的群体的人，最终都会被送上火刑柱。这对整个社会会造成什么影响？

The classic liberal view is inputs have to be really, really fair, as fair as we can make them, and outputs are never going to be fair.

经典的自由主义观点是，投入必须非常、非常公平，尽我们所能地公平，而产出永远不会是公平的。

China and Geopolitical Strategy

Host: Can I ask you about China for one second? We talked with Tulsi yesterday and one of the things, you know, just to connect the dots, we were able to designate these cartels as terrorist organizations. There's all this drugs flowing in. We're trying to shut that down. The precursors are still coming in very aggressively from China. And so, I'm just curious, what is the geopolitical frame that we need to think about China in? How much are they facilitating everything that's happening at the southern border? How responsible may they be for the fentanyl epidemic in the United States? What should we do about it?

主持人: 我能问一个关于中国的问题吗？我们昨天和图尔西谈过，其中一件事，你知道，为了把线索联系起来，我们能够将这些贩毒集团指定为恐怖组织。有大量的毒品流入。我们正试图阻止。但前体化学品仍然非常猖獗地从中国运来。所以，我很好奇，我们应该用什么样的地缘政治框架来思考中国？他们在多大程度上助长了南部边境发生的一切？他们对美国的芬太尼泛滥负有多大责任？我们应该怎么办？

Alex Karp: It's funny, obviously Palantir and I are wildly skeptical of the CCP, but you know, I think I'm the highest ranked Tai Chi practitioner in corporate life in the world. And in Tai Chi, the way the kind of part of the culture that I admire works is you put pressure on all parts of the system to expose the weak part of the system internally of your adversary. And that is just the way Chinese, at least Tai Chi (太极：一种中国武术，也用于健身和哲学实践，强调以柔克刚) martial arts works. It's not useful for fighting but it is very useful for thinking. So if you want to engage, the way an engagement with China works is you make your... in Tai Chi terms, if you want to engage with China, you better make sure the internal dynamics of this country are very strong. It's magically the external dynamics over there will shift.

亚历克斯·卡普: 这很有趣，显然Palantir和我都对CCP（中国共产党）持极度怀疑态度，但你知道，我认为我是全世界企业界里段位最高的太极拳练习者。在太极中，我所欣赏的那部分文化的运作方式是，你对系统的所有部分施加压力，从而暴露对手系统内部的薄弱环节。这就是中国武术，至少是太极拳的运作方式。它不适合打斗，但对于思考非常有帮助。所以如果你想交手，与中国交手的方式就是……用太极的术语来说，如果你想与中国交手，你最好确保这个国家内部的动力非常强大。然后，那边外部的动力就会神奇地改变。

Host: They're trying to destabilize our country with fentanyl, with TikTok, and you have concerns about...

主持人: 他们正试图用芬太尼、用TikTok来动摇我们的国家，而你担心的是……

Alex Karp: Obviously. But again, I'll tell you what. They're obviously... my version always of this is it's their job to destabilize us. It's our job to be stable. And like, you know, it's like when you're... most people here are running successful businesses. It's our job to be stable. The Tai Chi version of like, you're not going to have to enter the fight if you're strong. There is no fight. If there's a fight, the famous martial arts thing is like if you're in a fight, you're not a martial artist. And this is the same thing in business. Like when you get to the point where you're competing with someone, you've really screwed something up.

亚历克斯·卡普: 显然是这样。但同样，我告诉你。他们显然……我对此的看法一直是，动摇我们是他们的工作。保持稳定是我们的工作。就像，你知道，当……这里大多数人都在经营成功的企业。保持稳定是我们的工作。太极的说法是，如果你足够强大，你就不必进入战斗。根本就没有战斗。如果发生了战斗，著名的武术说法是，如果你陷入了战斗，你就不是一个武术家。这在商业中也是一样的。当你到了和别人竞争的地步，你肯定是把什么事搞砸了。

Host: Let me give you a precise question here about these cartels who are bringing fentanyl into the country. They're killing 100,000 Americans a year. 9/11, we lost 3,000 people tragically. If they're not terrorists, then how would you define them? And should we be using the same test as to our engagement with them and should we be eliminating them as terrorists with prejudice?

主持人: 让我问一个关于这些将芬太尼带入我国的贩毒集团的精确问题。他们每年杀死10万美国人。9/11事件，我们悲惨地失去了3000人。如果他们不是恐怖分子，那你如何定义他们？我们是否应该用同样的标准来与他们交战，是否应该毫不留情地将他们作为恐怖分子予以消灭？

Alex Karp: I obviously agree with that. I think honestly the problem is they even think they can get away with this. Like one of the more interesting things is when you read people who are against America taking out these narco-terrorists, it's always something like, we've got to use a reified, meaning overly deterministic form of law to the point where America has to die. Due process for al Qaeda makes no sense. The interesting thing here actually with a point of agreement is if you allow... okay to just take an obvious example of like fraud, Human Rights Watch. So they'll take a standard, they'll move the standard, and then the downstream consequence of it is that we've got to disappear and die. And then even worse than that, they're actually paving the way for a fascism because Americans and no one else are going to tolerate that level of dysfunction. These guys are killing 50-100,000 of our people. The fact that they think they can get away with this is a real problem.

亚历克斯·卡普: 我显然同意这一点。老实说，我认为问题在于他们竟然认为自己能逃脱惩罚。更有趣的事情之一是，当你读到那些反对美国消灭这些毒品恐怖分子的人的言论时，总是类似这样的说法：我们必须使用一种僵化的，也就是过度确定性的法律形式，以至于美国必须为此灭亡。对基地组织讲正当程序是毫无意义的。这里有趣的一点，也是一个共识点，就是如果你允许……好吧，就拿一个人权观察组织这种明显的欺诈例子来说。他们会设定一个标准，然后移动这个标准，其下游后果就是我们必须消失和死亡。然后比这更糟糕的是，他们实际上在为法西斯主义铺路，因为美国人和其他任何人都不会容忍那种程度的功能失调。这些家伙正在杀害我们5万到10万的人民。他们认为自己能逃脱惩罚这个事实本身就是一个真正的问题。

Critiquing Western Foreign Policy

Host: Alex, I think you've developed a little bit of a reputation as a defender of the West, and you've talked about that here. I'm wondering can you criticize any aspect of western foreign policy? Like for example, during the war on terror, was it a good idea to occupy Afghanistan?

主持人: 亚历克斯，我认为你已经树立了一个西方捍卫者的声誉，你在这里也谈到了这一点。我想知道，你是否能批评西方外交政策的任何方面？比如，在反恐战争期间，占领阿富汗是个好主意吗？

Alex Karp: I've never been a neocon. I actually don't think that's the pro-western superiority thing is we do what we do really well. Why are we trying to make people us? I've never understood this. By the way, the neocon thing, the pro-migration people and the pro-occupation people abroad, it's the same philosophy. I don't actually think migration is working in the West because people don't want to change. I don't think like, why are we teaching the Arab Middle East how to live better? The countries that I won't go into names that seem to love and revere me and Palantir, they're doing really well. Like they have a way of living their life. It works really well. It largely involves different ways of living than we would. There's no first amendment. There's really not a fourth amendment. And I'm not that interested in that. And so I don't... and by the way, I think that destabilizes everyone. So I am completely against... I am very in favor of using force where it's needed. But force where it's needed and doing occupation are completely different things. And you will see across the world people who want to convince Afghani villagers to be pro-feminist will also explain to you that the people that end up coming here are going to be pro-western in their values three generations out.

亚历克斯·卡普: 我从来都不是新保守主义者（Neocon：一种政治思想，主张通过强硬的外交政策和军事干预来推广民主和美国价值观）。我实际上不认为这是亲西方的。亲西方的优越性在于我们把我们擅长的事情做得非常好。为什么我们要试图让别人变成我们？我从未理解过这一点。顺便说一句，新保守主义、支持移民的人和支持海外占领的人，是同一种哲学。我实际上不认为移民在西方行得通，因为人们不想改变。我不认为……我们为什么要教阿拉伯中东如何更好地生活？那些（我不会点名）似乎喜爱和尊敬我和Palantir的国家，他们做得非常好。他们有自己的生活方式。而且运作得非常好。这在很大程度上涉及到与我们不同的生活方式。没有第一修正案。也真的没有第四修正案。我对那些不感兴趣。所以我不……顺便说一句，我认为那会动摇所有人。所以我完全反对……我非常赞成在需要时使用武力。但在需要时使用武力与进行占领是完全不同的事情。你会在世界各地看到，那些想说服阿富汗村民支持女权主义的人，也会向你解释，最终来到这里的人，他们的价值观在三代之后也会变得亲西方。

Host: I want to thank you for being on our side and I want to thank my wife for buying your stock at $20. Alex, we deeply appreciate you being here and I think that your voice is one of the most important voices in the world today and I thought this was such an important voice to bring forward. I don't see you do a lot of long form. I don't see a lot of your long form get public. I think this is so important for everyone to hear, to swallow, to digest, and hopefully to evolve and grow from it. And I really appreciate you. Thank you so much for being here today. Please join me in thanking Alex Karp.

主持人: 我想感谢你站在我们这边，也想感谢我的妻子在20美元时买了你的股票。亚历克斯，我们非常感谢你来到这里，我认为你的声音是当今世界最重要的声音之一，我认为把这个声音带给大家非常重要。我没看到你做很多长篇访谈。也没看到你的很多长篇内容公之于众。我认为这对于每个人来说都非常重要，去聆听、去吸收、去消化，并希望从中进化和成长。我真的非常感谢你。非常感谢你今天来到这里。请大家和我一起感谢亚历克斯·卡普。