--- author: All-In Podcast date: '2026-11-14' guest: '' layout: post.njk source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uv2w4VTU-iQ speaker: All-In Podcast tags: - semiconductor - artificial-intelligence - corporate-governance - export-controls - open-source title: 黄仁勋因涉嫌与中国间谍关联及多起婚外情事件辞去英伟达 CEO 职务 summary: 英伟达首席执行官黄仁勋在担任 33 年后辞职。报道称其与一名被指为中共间谍的中国女商人有密切关系，并涉及向中国企业供应价值 75 亿美元的芯片。此外，黄仁勋承认并被报道存在多起婚外情。此事件引发了关于芯片出口管制、AI 行业权力集中以及开源与闭源竞争的广泛讨论。 insight: '' draft: true series: '' category: tech-trends area: tech-engineering project: [] people: - 黄仁勋 (Jensen Huang) - 爱丽丝·王 (Alice Wang) companies_orgs: - 英伟达 (Nvidia) - Anthropic - Megaspe - The New York Times - Culper Research products_models: - Claude media_books: [] status: evergreen --- 好了，各位。我们正在这儿开怀大笑呢。这里是《All-In》播客。显然，新闻淡季还在继续。我们费了很大劲才凑齐一份议题清单，不过我们还是打算在这儿聊出点名堂来。萨克斯，我不知道有什么新闻。也许你那儿有个 SaaS 专栏能给我们讲讲。SaaS 领域有什么最新的热门动态发布吗，还是没有？
Original English All right, everybody. We're laughing it up here. It's the All-In podcast. Apparently, slow news weeks continue once again. We struggle to put together a docket, but we're going to try to get something together here. Sachs, I don't know what's in the news. Maybe you have a SAS corner for us. Any new uh hotness drop in the SAS world or no?
>> 挺有的，Ben 刚推出了一个全新的汇报功能。头条级别的猛料。
Original English >> Yeah, Ben rolled out a new uh reporting feature. Top of material.
>> 那确实是头条……你说得对。你说得对。当然，弗里伯格也在这儿咯咯傻笑呢。他心情挺不错。但我听说你过去这一周差点没命了。你在哪儿来着？在医院里。你得了流感。
Original English >> That is top of You're right. You're right. And Freeberg, of course, is here cackling. He's in a good mood. But I understand you almost died in the last week. Where were you? In the hospital. You had the flu.
>> 我得了肺炎。感觉很不好。非常糟糕。非常糟糕。我希望任何人都别遭这罪。
Original English >> I got the pneumonia. Not good. Very bad. Very bad. I do not wish it upon anyone.
>> 直接干趴下送进医院了。大家都要注意安全啊。
Original English >> Knocked out in the hospital. Everyone uh stay safe.
>> 好的。行吧，我看到大家都在社交媒体上给你送祝福。当然，查马斯·帕里哈皮蒂亚也在这儿。查马斯今天可真是挖箱底了。从衣柜深处翻出来的。我的老天，自打拜登还在任的时候起，我就没见过那件毛衣了。
Original English >> All right. Well, every I saw everybody with their uh social media wish well-wishing you. And of course, Chimath Pihapati is here. And it's a deep pull for Chimath today. A deep pull from the closet. My lord, I haven't seen that sweater since Biden was in office.
>> 这是一件挺不错的罗纹羊绒半高领毛衣。
Original English >> It's a nice ribbed cashmere mock turtleneck.
>> 行吧。罗纹设计，查马斯专享之悦。
Original English >> Okay. Ribbed for Jamaat's pleasure.
>> 罗纹设计，查马斯专享之悦。
Original English >> Ribbed for Jamaat's pleasure.
>> 好啦。听我说，
Original English >> All right. Listen,
>> 我还以为这罗纹原本是为她带来愉悦的呢。
Original English >> I thought it was supposed to be ribbed for her pleasure.
>> 愉悦。
Original English >> Pleasure.
>> 但这是查马啊。这全都是……这全都是为了查马斯的愉悦。
Original English >> But it's Jama. It's all for It's all for Jamaat's pleasure.
>> 一直都是为了他的愉悦。
Original English >> It's always for his pleasure.
>> 没错。那——那就是他的行事风格。行了。听着。在过去一周发生了一连串离谱的事件之后，黄仁勋已经卸任英伟达 CEO 一职。这一切在短短六天内就全面爆发了，始于 11 月 6 日星期五，而我们录制节目的时间显然是星期四，也就是 11 月 12 日。截至本期节目录制时，目前的情况如下：英伟达首席财务官将出任临时首席执行官。董事会正在物色新的首席执行官。英伟达将于下周二发布财报。这对公司来说是一个关键时刻，其股价在过去一周遭受重创，暴跌了 15%，蒸发了数千亿美元。 以下是导致黄仁勋下台的时间线。上周五，也就是 11 月 6 日，刚好在中期选举之后，时间点很有意思，《纽约时报》发表了一篇报道，声称一位与黄仁勋关系密切的中国女商人实际上是中共间谍，一名中国共产党间谍。该女子名叫爱丽丝·王。跟黄仁勋没有亲属关系。他们只是碰巧同姓而已。在接下来的讨论中我们就叫她爱丽丝吧。她是新加坡一家名为 Megaspe 的公司的高管。他们在亚洲建设数据中心。他们向包括阿里巴巴在内的中国企业出租算力。据 The Information 报道，自 2023 年以来，黄仁勋与爱丽丝的这层关系促成了向中国企业供应价值 75 亿美元的芯片。《纽约时报》的文章基于一份将爱丽丝指认为中国间谍的泄密情报备忘录。没人知道是谁泄露的。11 月 8 日星期日，黄仁勋发送了一封全员邮件，承认自己有婚外情，董事会将就此展开调查。星期三，《纽约时报》报道称黄仁勋与一名直接下属存在第二起婚外情。还有报道称可能存在第三起婚外情。我们先撇开所有这些不谈，把焦点放在他的辞职上，这是他在担任了 33 年 CEO 之后递交的辞呈。 需要特别说明的是，这个事件在大家眼皮底下潜伏了整整一年多。《纽约时报》早在 2025 年 10 月就首次提及了爱丽丝与黄仁勋的关系，不是刚过去的 2026 年 10 月，而是 13 个月前。他们上个月还发表了一篇后续报道。标题是英伟达掌门人被视作中国间谍行动的目标。Culper Research，拼写是 C-L-Per，是一家做空了英伟达的对冲基金，正如他们 6 个月前连发的推文所说。他们公布了自己的做空逻辑，其依据是英伟达低估了在芯片销售上对中国的依赖程度。他们甚至在那串推文中直接点名了 Mega Speed，你们在这块屏幕上就能看到。这对白宫来说是一场灾难。有报道称，官员们在互相推卸责任，试图查明在这些《纽约时报》报道出来之后，为什么 Mega Speed 没有被列入出口管制清单。我们稍后会深入探讨更多出口管制的问题。好了，萨克斯，我们目前掌握的只是部分信息。这是一条突发新闻。免责声明在此，各种限制前提在此。但我想问你一个简单的问题。鉴于《纽约时报》的报道，对于他们迄今为止公布的内容，你怎么看？
Original English >> Absolutely. That that's that's who he is. All right. Listen. Jensen is out as Nvidia's CEO after an insane series of events that happened in the past week. All of this played out in just six days starting Friday, November 6th, and obviously record on Thursdays, which would be November 12th. Here's where things stand as of the taping of this episode. Nvidia CFO will serve as the interim CEO. The board's looking for a new chief executive. Nvidia reports earnings next Tuesday. a critical moment for the company and the stock has been crushed down 15% in the last week, which is hundreds of billions of dollars. Here's the timeline that led to Jensen's ouster. Last Friday, November 6, right after the midterms, interesting timing, the New York Times published a report claiming a Chinese businesswoman who had a close relationship with Jensen was actually a CCP spy, a Chinese Communist Party spy. The woman is named Alice Wang. No relation to Jensen. They just happen to share the same last name. We'll call her Alice for the rest of this discussion. She's an executive at a Singapore-based company called Megaspe. They build data centers in Asia. They rent compute to companies including Chinese ones like Alibaba. According to the information, their relationship, Jensen's and Alys's helped facilitate 7.5 billion in chips to Chinese companies since 2023. The New York Times article was based on a leaked intelligence memo that identified Alice as a Chinese spy. No one knows who leaked it. On Sunday, November 8th, Jensen sent a companywide email admitting he had an affair and that the board would be investigating. On Wednesday, the New York Times reported Jensen had a second affair with a direct report. There's reports of a third potential affair. Let's put all that aside and focus on his resignation, which came after 33 years as CEO. Important caveat, this story has been hiding in plain sight for well over a year. The New York Times first mentioned Alice's relationship with Jensen back in October 2025, not this October 2026, 13 months ago. They published a follow-up last month. Nvidia chief seen as target of Chinese spy plot. Culper research spelled C L Per is a hedge fund that put a short on Nvidia according to their tweet storm 6 months ago. They published their thesis which was based on Nvidia underelling its reliance on China for chip sales. They even mentioned Mega Speed by name in that tweet storm which you can see on the screen right here. This is a disaster for the White House. There are reports of fingerpointing as officials try to figure out why mega speed was left off the export control list after these New York Times articles. And we'll get into more export control issues later. Okay, Sachs, we're dealing with partial information here. This is a breaking news story. Caveat, caveat, disclaimer, disclaimer. But let me ask you a simple question. Given the New York Times reporting, what's your take on what they've released to date?
### 黄仁勋辞职与两场行动 >> 首先，我只想说，我认为这是一个悲剧性的局面。好的，这对黄仁勋及其家人、对英伟达及其员工来说都是一场悲剧。而且我想说，这对美利坚合众国来说也是一场悲剧，因为黄仁勋是我们能在 AI 加速芯片和 GPU 领域拥有重大优势的关键原因之一，而这反过来又是我们在 AI 或超级智能竞赛中的关键优势之一。事实上，黄仁勋造出的芯片太优秀了，以至于华盛顿很多人都想对其进行出口管制。我认为人们有点遗忘了，黄仁勋研发 GPU 已经超过三十年了，当其他人都在做 CPU 的时候，他就坚信这项技术和这种架构，而他的公司曾多次濒临破产。正是他的远见创造了 GPU，而它最终成为了 AI 所使用的关键芯片。正是英伟达遥遥领先于其他所有人的事实，让我们在这场被称作 AI 或超级智能的竞赛中拥有了美利坚合众国的关键优势。所以我认为这是一个悲剧性的局面，而且我认为这里发生的事情是——我是说，对于所有涉事人员来说，这显然不是一个好的局面。我认为这最终对美利坚合众国也没有任何好处。整个局面没能以另一种方式解决，这是非常令人遗憾的。 现在，我们来谈谈曝光出来的报道。我认为很明显这里有两场行动。其中一场行动就是无论爱丽丝·王在做什么，不管她是否与中国共产党有关。其中可能牵涉走私。我们不得而知。目前正在进行调查，而且理应进行调查。我们应该查清那里所有的事实。我们曾在这个播客中谈到过，我们认为前沿芯片不应该流向中国，如果存在任何走私行为，那是错误的，应该被制止，政府应该对此予以严厉打击。因此，那项调查应该继续下去。我们应该查清所有事实，应该查明究竟发生了什么。所以那就是其中一场行动，也就是无论爱丽丝·王在做什么，再说一次，不管她是否与中共有关。 然而，这里还有第二场行动。而第二场行动始于某个人或多个人向《纽约时报》泄露了一份高度机密的备忘录或其中的内容。我认为真正重要的是要认识到，那是犯罪行为。我的意思是，泄露机密情报是一项罪行，许多人因此被起诉。事实上，我们有多位前总统和现任总统，特朗普总统和拜登总统，他们的住所都被搜查过，据称是因为他们手中持有涉密文件。记住，海湖庄园遭到过搜查。乔·拜登的车库也遭到过搜查，他们找到了箱子……被抓包了。这好像发生在每个人身上似的。是的。好吧，我不知道是不是每个人身上都会发生，但这是一项严重的罪行。而且，你看，正是基于这一事实，我不相信《纽约时报》仅仅是在酒吧里偷听到别人议论才拿到这个消息的。有人做出了经过算计的决定，甘愿冒着坐牢的风险。他们甘愿冒着犯罪的风险让《纽约时报》知晓这个消息。因此，我对这件事情有一系列疑问。所以，第一点首先是，是谁干的以及为什么要这么做？他们的动机是什么？他们为什么抱有如此强烈的意图要把黄仁勋拉下马？这必须至少构成他们动机的一部分，以至于他们不惜违法。而且我确实认为，针对这次泄密立案调查是合情合理的，就像针对许多其他机密泄露所做的那样。就我们目前所知，我不知道为什么还没有就此启动调查。所以第一个问题就是：为什么会有这次泄密？
Original English >> First of all, let me just say that I think this a tragic situation. Okay, it's tragic for Jensen and his family and for Nvidia and its employees. And I would say it's tragic for the United States of America because Jensen is one of the key reasons why we have a major advantage in AI accelerator chips and GPUs and that in turn is one of our key advantages in the AI or super intelligence race. In fact, Jensen made such a good chip that many people in Washington wanted to export control that. I think people kind of forget Jensen's been working on GPUs for over three decades and he believed in this technology and this architecture when everyone else was making CPUs and his company almost went out of business multiple times. It was his vision that created the GPU which ended up being the key chip that's used in AI. And it's the fact that Nvidia is so far ahead of everybody else. That is what gives the United States a key advantage in this thing we call the the AI or super intelligence race. So I think this is a tragic situation and I think that what's happened here is I mean clearly it's not a great situation for all the individuals involved. I don't think this redounts to the benefit of the United States either. And it's very unfortunate that this whole situation could not have been resolved in a different way. Now, let's talk about the story that's come out. I think it's pretty clear that there were two ops here. So, one op is whatever Alice Wong was doing with or without the Chinese Communist Party. There may have been smuggling involved. We don't know. There is an investigation going on and there should be an investigation. We should get all the facts there. We've talked on this podcast about how we do not believe that leading edge chips should go to China and if there's any smuggling going on that that is wrong and that it should be stopped and the government should crack down on that. So that investigation should continue. We should get all the facts there and we should find out what actually happened. So that is one op is whatever Alice Wong was doing again with or without the CCP. But however, there's also a second op here. And that second op began when somebody or multiple people leaked a highly classified memo or the contents of it to the New York Times. I think it's really important to understand that that's a crime. I mean, leaking classified intelligence is a crime, and many people have been prosecuted for it. In fact, we've had multiple former presidents and current presidents, President Trump and President Biden, their homes were raided because supposedly they had classified documents in their possession. Remember that there was a raid on Mara Lago. There was a raid on Joe Biden's garage and they found the box got caught. This happens to everybody, it seems. Yeah. Well, I don't know if it happens to everybody, but it's it's a serious crime. And, you know, because of that fact, I don't believe that the New York Times just got this by overhearing people talking about it at a bar. Somebody made the calculated decision that they're willing to risk going to jail. They're willing to risk committing a crime to let the New York Times know about this story. And so, I have a series of questions about that. So, number one is first, who did that and why? What was their motivation? Why did they feel so strongly about taking Jensen down? That had to be at least a part of their motive that they're willing to break the law. And I do think it makes sense for there to be an investigation opened into this leak as there have been with many other classified leaks. I don't know why there hasn't been an investigation open as far as we know into this. So that would be question number one is why this leak
>> 《纽约时报》在那方面给出了线索。显而易见，卢比奥在主导这项……呃，调查，并就此向特朗普总统作了简报，而且《纽约时报》将这篇报道，也就是报道中间谍的那部分内容，匿名归结于引述“听取了监控简报的人员”。我就说到……
Original English >> and the New York Times has given a clue there. Obviously, Rubio was leading this uh investigation, briefed President Trump on it, and the New York Times attributed the story, the spy part of the story anonymously to quote people briefed on the surveillance. I'll leave.
>> 是的。但是
Original English >> Yes. But
只是，我们先在这里把话说清楚。我其实不太喜欢你在那里提到马可·卢比奥的名字，但因为他是国家安全顾问，如果真有这么一份机密备忘录，那显然是在他作为主管的监督下完成的……
Original English just let's be very clear here. I don't I don't really like you using Marco Rubio's name there, but because he's national security adviser, if there was a classified memo, then obviously it would be done under his supervision as the head of the
>> 对，我并不是暗示他就是泄密者，但这人是他手下……
Original English >> Yeah, I'm not insinuating he's the leak, but it's somebody he
### 围绕泄密与防范通报的质疑 >> 有点……好的。当《纽约时报》提到“听取了相关通报的人士”时，这是一个极其含糊和宽泛的措辞。做出这件事的可能级别非常低的官员。甚至当《纽约时报》使用“官员”这个词时，也并不意味着他们是政府高层人士。他们的级别可能非常、非常低。而且情况还可能是这样：他们是职业文官，也就是说他们是非政治任命人员，仅仅因为他们在特朗普政府的行政分支任职，并不意味着他们就是“特朗普的官员”。所以你看，我们不知道是谁泄的密。我们所知道的只是他们犯了罪。我确实认为我们应该追问这个问题：是谁干的，为什么？好，这是第一类问题。 第二类问题是关于没有提供防范性通报的情况。如果国家安全部门担心黄仁勋掌握国家安全机密，并且可能泄露给他们怀疑是间谍的人，为什么不马上直接去找他，告诉他：“嘿，你有这个隐患，别跟这个人说话了。”显然，这种通报并没有发生。而且听起来，这似乎属于某种标准作业程序。 让我举个例子。比如我们有埃里克·斯沃韦尔的案例。好的，埃里克·斯沃韦尔曾是一名国会议员，当时在众议院情报委员会任职。后来事情曝光了——我相信这是一项调查的结论——他曾与一名中国间谍保持个人关系。
Original English >> kind of Okay. When the when the New York Times says people briefed on the matter, that is an extremely vague and broad terminology. And it could be very low-level officials who did this. And when the New York Times even uses the word official, that doesn't mean they're a senior person in an administration. They could be very, very lowlevel. And it could also be the case that their careers, which is to say non-political appointees, that just because they're serving in the executive branch of the Trump administration doesn't mean that they are Trump officials. So look, we don't know who committed the leak. All we know is they committed a crime. And I I do think that we should be asking the question, who did that and why? Okay, so that's sort of bucket number one of questions. Bucket number two is around the failure to give the defensive briefing. If the national security state is worried that Jensen is in possession of national security secrets and might leak them to someone who they suspect is a spy, why would you go to him right away and tell him, "Hey, you have this problem. Don't talk to this person." Apparently, that didn't happen. And it does sound like that is some sort of standard operating procedure. Let me give you an example. So, we have the case of Eric Swallwell. Okay, so Eric Swallow was a congressman. He was on the House Intelligence Committee. It eventually came out and I believe it was the finding of an investigation that he had a personal relationship with a Chinese spy.
>> 就是“方芳”那个报道。
Original English >> Fang Fang is the uh story.
>> 没错。《纽约邮报》当时还令人难忘地配了一期封面来记录这事，标题叫《Fang Fang Bang Bang》。你知道，当时报出的就是这篇报道。民主党人对此作何反应呢？他们给了他一次防范性通报。他说自己切断了这种关系，然后他们允许他继续留在国会。他当然没有被迫辞职，事实上他甚至都没有从情报委员会辞职。所以他们不仅允许他保住国会席位，还保住了情报委员会的席位。很明显，在这个我认为非常引人注目的例子中，人们并不认为有必要辞职；他们认为有必要做的是通知当事人，让他切断接触，然后就能以此为节点继续往前走。所以，眼下这个情况的处理方式截然不同。 ### 涉密性质与技术获取途径的分析 好，这引出了我的第三个问题：黄仁勋据称知道的国家安全机密到底是什么？他并不为政府工作。据我所知，他也接触不到机密材料。那么，大家所谓他向这位疑似情报资产人员泄露的内容到底是什么？这从来没有得到解释。我只是有这个疑问。 我能说的是，你看，作为硅谷科技公司的首席执行官，硅谷科技公司对自己的规划或产品开发计划之类的事情其实非常公开。是否存在中共想要获取的知识产权？我敢肯定有。但坦率地说，那绝不是你在枕边窃窃私语就能传达的那种知识产权。那会是类似能让你完成下一代芯片流片的文件。对于这种东西，坦率地说，如果国家安全部或者为中国刺探情报的人真想搞到手，我认为你宁愿要一个能进入英伟达、找到相关文件并以某种方式提取出来的基层工程师，或许用U盘拷贝，或者发起一次网络攻击，通过这种方式拿到文件。对我来说，作为基本上获取机密（姑且这么称呼）的途径，那要合理得多。 现在我看到有人说，英伟达制造的产品受出口管制，因此那是国家安全产品，进而就存在国家安全机密。好的，那是一种非常笼统且具有误导性地掩盖实际情况的说法。作为一名美国人，我可以走出去买一颗Blackwell芯片。我们所有人都没有被禁止购买。某些外国被限制购买，但我们没有。如果我们买了一颗Blackwell芯片并放在我们自己的小服务器机架上运行，我们并没有占有国家安全机密。你无法通过搞到晶圆来逆向工程芯片的设计。根本不是这么运作的。你必须拿到设计文件才行。
Original English >> Yes. The New York Post memorably memorialized this with this cover called Fang Fang Bang Bang. You know, it was this the story that came out. What was the Democrats reaction to that? They gave him a defensive briefing. He said he cut off the relationship and they allowed him to stay in Congress. He certainly did not have to resign and in fact he didn't even resign from the intelligence committee. So they allowed him to keep not only his seat in Congress but his seat on the intelligence committee. So obviously in this I'd say very high-profile example, people did not think it was necessary to resign. They thought that what it was necessary to do is to let the person know, allow them to cut off contact, and then you'd be able to move on from there. So, this situation was handled very differently. Okay, that brings me to question number three, which is what exactly were the national security secrets that Jensen supposedly knew? He doesn't work for the government. He's not, as far as I'm aware, privy to classified materials. So, what is it that people say that he leaked to this suspected intelligence asset? That's never been explained. I just have that question. What I can say is that, you know, as a CEO of Silicon Valley technology company, Silicon Valley tech companies are very open about their plans or product development plans, things like that. Is there IP that the CCP would like to get a hold of? I'm sure. But to be blunt, it's not the type of IP that you're going to convey over pillow talk. It would be things like files that would allow you to tape out the next generation of chips. That's the kind of thing where frankly if the Ministry of State Security or whoever is spying for the Chinese wanted to get a hold of that stuff, I think you'd much rather have a line engineer who can go into Nvidia, find the relevant files and extract them somehow, maybe on a thumb drive, or you do a cyber attack and you get the files that way. That would make a lot more sense to me as the way to basically get a hold of, you know, let's say secrets. Now I see some people saying that well Nvidia makes a product that is subject to export controls therefore that's a national security product therefore national security secrets. Okay that is a very broad misleading handwave over the situation. I can go out and buy a black wall chip as an American. None of us are restricted from doing that. Certain foreign countries are restricted from doing that but we're not. And if we buy a Blackwell chip and run it in our own little server rack, we are not in possession of national security secrets. You cannot reverse engineer the design of a chip by getting a hold of the wafer. It doesn't work that way. You have to get the files.
>> 那些芯片当然能帮你打造尖端大语言模型，就像他们一直在交付的那些一样。
Original English >> Those chips can of course help you make cutting edge LLMs like the ones they've been delivering.
### 四项关键疑问的总结 >> 好吧，我明白。但那并不是我们现在讨论的内容。好的，我们正在讨论的问题是：我们所谈论的、据称刚被泄露的到底是什么机密？ 我最后的疑问——提完我就不说了——就是有什么证据表明这个叫爱丽丝·王（Alice Wong）的人真的是为国家安全部工作的中国间谍？而我认为非常反常的地方就在这里：就在今天早上，《Politico》发表了一篇文章，众议院情报委员会即将上任的主席——他是一名民主党人——刚从关于该主题的一场机密简报会出来，在走廊里，带着脑海中刚听到的内容，他站出来说他不确定这个人是不是中国间谍。他说她可能是一个“有用的白痴”。好，那什么是“有用的白痴”？“有用的白痴”指的是不为中国政府工作、本身不是间谍的人。只是可能在某种程度上被人利用了。 好的，所以你看，关于这事我有一连串的疑问。那么我们把这些放在一起来看。好的，这里有两个行动：一个是爱丽丝·王所做的任何事，那场潜在的走私行动，应该查清楚；还有第二个行动，我认为同样需要调查并查清楚。其组成部分包括： 第一，是谁违反法律泄露了这份机密材料？这是迄今为止我们唯一知道已经发生的罪行。 第二，为什么没有给黄仁勋提供标准作业程序的防范性通报？这在埃里克·斯沃韦尔身上是做过的。 第三，黄仁勋被指控泄露了什么机密？他手里究竟可能掌握什么机密？ 第四，爱丽丝·王到底算不算一名中国间谍？因为现在众议院情报委员会即将上任的民主党主席刚刚对此大泼冷水。 所以我把所有这些事情拼在一起，我想在现阶段说的是……
Original English >> Okay, I understand. But that's not what we're talking about right now. Okay, we're talking the question that I have is what secrets are we talking about that just supposedly compromised? The last question I have and then I'll I'll stop is what is the evidence that this person Alice Wong was actually a Chinese spy who worked for the Ministry of State Security. And here's what I think is quite unusual. Just this morning, there was an article that came out in Politico where the incoming chair of the House Intelligence Committee, who's a Democrat, he came out of a classified briefing on this subject and in the hallway with this fresh in his mind, he came out and said that he's not sure that this person is a Chinese spy. He said she might be a useful idiot. Okay. Well, now what is a useful idiot? A useful idiot is someone who doesn't work for the Chinese government, is not a spy. It's just that maybe somehow they're being taken advantage of. Okay, so look, I have a set of questions about this. So, let's put this all together. Okay, there's two ops here. There's whatever Alice Wong was doing that potential smuggling operation, it should be figured out. There's a second op that I think also needs to be investigated and figured out. And the components of that are one, who leaked this classified material in violation of the law? That's the only crime to date that we even know about. Number two, why wasn't Jensen given a defensive briefing, which is standard operating procedure? It was done with Eric Swallwell? Number three, what secrets is Jensen accused of leaking? What secrets would even be in his possession? And number four, was Alice Wong even a Chinese spy? because now the incoming chair of the House Intelligence Committee, who's a Democrat, just threw major cold water on that. So, I put all these things together and I would say at this point in time,
>> 我认为疑问比答案多。是的。我也希望事实能够被全面查清公之于众。
Original English >> I think there's more questions than answers. Yes. And I would like I would like a full accounting of the facts to come out.
### 动机剖析与未来技术路径分歧 >> 不过针对你的问题，萨克斯，我认为还有第五个疑问，那就是为什么偏偏要做这件事，又为什么偏偏是现在？意思是，究竟是谁拔掉了这颗手榴弹的保险销？他们看到了什么，以至于觉得这件事情必须发生，而且为什么是在现在？
Original English >> I think there's a fifth question though to yours, Sax, which is why at all and why now? meaning like why did whoever pull the pin on this grenade? What did they see where they felt this had to happen and then why now?
>> 还有其他那些抹黑人品的桃色丑闻，以协调一致的方式在同一时间冒出来，就像是一下子全都发生了。动机究竟是什么？
Original English >> And the other discrediting affair stories coming out in a coordinated way at the same time like it all happens at once. What is the motivation?
>> 大概是——我这里也只是推测，但我也不是唯一关注这一层面的人。此前有一批对华强硬派，他们输掉了关于从美国向中国输送芯片技术的争论，他们想要推翻这一点；他们希望不再有任何芯片运往中国，并且他们还想加入GPS以及其他追踪这些芯片并设置后门的方法，以便把它们关停。黄仁勋一直反对这种做法，而许多参议员一直在推进这事。因此，白宫内部可能存在一个非常反华的派系，他们希望看到对华政策发生改变，弗里德伯格。
Original English >> Probably and I'm just speculating here but I'm not the only one who has looked at this. You had China hawks who lost this debate about sending chip technology to China from the United States and they want to reverse that and they want to have no chips sent to China and they also want to put GPS and other ways of tracking these chips and backdooring them in order to turn them off. Something that Jensen has been opposed to, something a number of senators have been proing. So there could be a contingent in the White House who are very anti-China who want to see the policy with China change Freedberg.
>> 是的。那是其中一个更大、更长远的前景，我之前也多次提及过。 我认为未来的走向大概有两条路径。一条路径是AI技术被广泛获取、广泛使用，其价值没有被集中，其掌控力也没有被集中在少数人手中并由少数人控制；在这样的路径中，开源AI和分布式的通用数据中心可供大众使用和获取。这赋予每个人利用AI崛起、进步和创造价值等的能力。由于这在极大程度上改变了许多权力……
Original English >> Yeah. So that's that's one the bigger longer term picture which I've mentioned several times. There's kind of two paths for the future I would argue. One is a path where AI technology is broadly accessible, broadly used and the value of it is not concentrated and the power of it is not concentrated in the hands of a few and controlled by a few where open-source AI distributed data centers that are available and accessible to many. gives everyone the ability to use AI to rise up to progress to create value and so on. That is a scary and threatening thing because of how it changes a lot of power
结构、经济结构等等。在现有的社会、经济和政治体制中造成了大量的不稳定性。所以对这个世界来说，另一条可选的路径就是将人工智能技术的权力和影响力集中起来。正是在这一点上，我一直有这么一个理论，即最终数据中心会在某种程度上受到监管，但也许技术栈更底层的芯片会成为控制点。但从根本上说，有一种动机是不要失去控制，不要让当今世界上存在的权力结构被人工智能削弱。所以我们可以说，那里可能存在着广泛的利益群体，他们开始说：“嘿，这家伙理念不一致。黄仁勋和我们对世界的看法不一致。”黄仁勋一直是开源的坚定拥护者。他一直大力倡导全球范围内获取和利用人工智能技术，以造福全人类，而不仅仅是造福美国公民。 你知道，这些观点或许与许多不同利益团体的想法是相悖的。 而且显然，关于这个女人、关于黄仁勋的其他关系或者无论什么正在曝光的事情，很早以前就已经被知晓了，并且被用来在某种程度上抹黑他。正如查马斯所说，在这个时刻所有事情都在同一时间曝光出来，而且是以一种几乎笃定他会被赶下台的方式。我只想强调一下，比如黄仁勋被赶下台，你知道，你必须问一个问题：董事会的信托责任是什么？他们究竟有责任对什么采取行动？他们有责任采取行动的一件事，就是如果黄仁勋撒谎了。显而易见，如果他搞了间谍活动，或者做了某种违法的事情，对吧？是的。所以，如果有刑事层面的事情、违反联邦法律，那显然，你知道，他们必须对此采取行动。你必须解雇他。而且显然，因为没有逮捕或类似的事情发生，看起来好像不是……
Original English structures, economic structures and so on. Creates a lot of instability in existing social, economic and political systems. So the alternative path for the world is one of concentrated power and influence over AI technology. This is where I've had this theory that like ultimately data centers will get kind of regulated but maybe further down the stack here with chips becomes the point of of control. But fundamentally there's a motivation to not lose control and to not let the the power structures that exist in the world today get diminished by AI. And so we could argue there's probably a a broad set of interests there that start to say, "Hey, this guy's not aligned. Jensen's not aligned with our view of the world." Jensen has been a strong advocate for open source. He's been a strong advocate for global access to and utilization of AI technology for the benefit of humanity, not just for the benefit of American citizens. And you know those views are counter to perhaps a lot of different interested parties. And clearly there was knowledge about this woman about Jensen's other relationships or whatever is coming out that's being used to kind of smear him a long time ago. And you know to Chimath's point this is a moment where it's all kind of coming out at once and in such a way that it almost guaranteed that he would be ousted. And I'll just highlight like Jensen being ousted is, you know, you've got to ask the question, what is the fiduciary duty of the board? What do they actually have a responsibility to act on? And the one thing they have a responsibility to act on is if Jensen lied. Obviously, if he if he committed espionage or did something that violated, right? Yeah. So, if there's something criminal, violation of federal law, that is a obviously, you know, they have to act on that. you have to terminate him. And and clearly because there wasn't an arrest or something like that, it doesn't seem like that's
>> 我想我们可以把那个排除了，对吧？
Original English >> I think we can take that off the table, right?
>> 所以，接下来最有可能的情况或许是他在某些事情上作了不实陈述。大家都知道，公司都有所谓的一套行为准则。在行为准则中写明了你必须汇报恋爱关系。你必须汇报与下属的关系。你不能在不汇报的情况下与客户或合作伙伴、关键业务伙伴存在个人利益冲突。上市公司的高管或第16条规定的内部人员（Section 16 officers）每季度都必须进行确认，以可审计的方式证明他们没有违反行为准则，证明各项事务是经得起审计的。
Original English >> So perhaps the next likely thing is that he actually made a misrepresentation about something. So you know, companies have what's called a code of conduct. In the code of conduct, it says you have to report relationships. You have to report relationships with subordinates. You cannot have a personal conflict of interest with a customer or a partner, a key business partner without reporting it. And executives or section 16 officers at public companies have to make quarterly attestations that they are in an auditable way not in violation of code of conduct that things are auditable.
>> 而最终让他陷入麻烦的可能正是那份确认声明，他在声明中声称我没有违反我们任何的行为准则。我没有违反我们的任何商业惯例，这其中包括没有与客户或合作伙伴存在冲突性的私人关系。这可能正是让他被绊倒的原因。所以，从根本上说，我认为董事会的行动不一定与私人关系本身有关，而是这里面另有隐情，最终他可能看清了这一点并说：“嘿，你知道，我们或许应该快速走完这个流程。”这极其令人难过和失望。这是一个在 Denny's 工作过的人，他在1993年创办了一家芯片公司，当时没人相信这家公司，人人都以为这只是一个功能点，不是一个平台，不是一个产品，算不上什么像样的业务。而且当时股价，你知道，与今天的价格相比简直就是几分钱。10年前每股还不到2美元。百倍增长。他们那时在制造显卡并为比特币提供服务。
Original English >> And that attestation might be what gets him in trouble ultimately where he made attestations that said I am not violating any of our code of conduct. I am not in violation of any of our business practices, which would include not having conflicting personal relationships with customers or partners. That may be what gets him tricked up. So, fundamentally, I think the board action isn't related necessarily to the the personal relationships, but there's something else that's going on here that ultimately he probably looked at and said, "Hey, you know, we should probably fast track through this." And it is extraordinarily sad and disappointing. This is a man who worked at Denny's and in 1993 started a chip company that no one believed in that everyone thought was a feature, not a platform, not a product, not much of a business. And the stock price was, you know, pennies compared to the price today. It was less than $2 a share 10 years ago. 100x. They were making video game cards and servicing the Bitcoin.
>> 从2006年到2016年，股价纹丝不动。长达10年就只是一家市值120亿美元、无足轻重的公司。想想看。你在93年创立了这家公司——
Original English >> From two from 2006 to 2016, the stock price did not move. 10 years of just being a nothing company with a $12 billion market cap. Think about that. You start this company in 93
### 英伟达的崛起与黄仁勋离职的余波 >> 到了2006年，它价值100亿到120亿美元，整整10年股价毫无起色，你在苦熬，你在苦熬，这是你的全部生活、你的全部事业、你的一切。你深信不疑，你看到了这幅愿景，你就这么坚持下去，你滚雪球式积累，你建立护城河，你滚雪球式积累，你建立护城河，你滚雪球式积累，你拥有了一支才华横溢的团队，然后突然之间，在四年前这东西开始腾飞，在过去四年里翻了20倍，成为地球上市值最高的公司，交出了商业史上利润最丰厚的一个季度，营业利润达630亿美元，超过以往任何一家公司，然后突然之间，嘭的一声，他被做掉了。我的意思是，你知道，这令人沮丧，而且我认为显然是有什么事情做错了，我们迟早会弄清楚的，我不会草率下定论。我不会急于去淡化他所做错的任何事情。但这整个故事有一条令人悲伤的轨迹，而且我认为，在这个故事背后，有一些对于当今世界借助人工智能正在被改写的权力结构而言非常根本的东西。好吧，查马斯，让我问你一个问题，Qui bono，Qui malo，谁获利，谁因为黄仁勋被从那个位置上拿掉而受损？我们先假设他不是叛徒。仅仅根据我们过去几十年所看到的他的付出和品格，我认为那种说法荒谬而疯狂。好吧，他是有一些个人私事在发生，但是黄仁勋被免去CEO职务，谁是受益者？谁从中获利？
Original English >> and in 2006 it's worth 10 12 billion bucks and it doesn't move for 10 years and you're grinding and you're grinding and this is your whole life, your whole business, everything. And you believe and you see this vision and you just keep going and you compound and you build a moat and you compound and you build a moat and you compound and you get an amazingly talented team and all of a sudden four years ago this thing starts to take off and it 20xes in the last four years and is the most valuable company on earth delivering the most profitable quarter in business history $63 billion in operating profit more than any other company ever and then all of a sudden boom he gets taken out. I mean, you know, it is disheartening and I I think that obviously there's something that was done wrong and we're going to find out and I'm not going to rush to judgment. I'm not going to rush to diminish whatever he did that was wrong. But there's a sad arc to this whole story and there's something very fundamental I think to the power structure that is being rewritten in the world today with AI to the story. Okay, Chimath, let me um ask you Quib Bono Quimalo, who benefits and and who is harmed by Jensen being taken out of that seat? Let's assume he's not a traitor. I find that absurd and insane based on just what we've seen over these past couple decades and his effort and his character. Okay, he's got some personal things going on, but who is the beneficiary of Jensen being removed as CEO? who benefits from that.
>> 在我给你我的想法之前，先让我附议几句。我也认为他是一个令人难以置信的个人和CEO，他建立了一个将重塑我们整个生活、我们孩子的生活以及我们孙辈生活的产业。我认为在一二十年后，当你看到疾病和癌症的解决方案，当我们拥有别人告诉我们即将到来的这种极大丰富时，他即便没有比任何人都更具决定性作用，也将和任何其他人一样举足轻重。好的。所以这就是所发生的事情的悲剧所在：这样一位如此宏伟事业的缔造者，竟然被如此不体面地驱逐下台。 从非常具体的战术层面来说，我认为弗里伯格确实切中了要害，指出了董事会层面可能发生的事情，并最终导致了他的辞职。 当你是一家公司的管理人员，当你提交10-K表格时，每个季度你都必须与你的审计师通电话，你必须回答他们向你提出的一系列问题，他们向你询问的正是这些具体的事情。比如，你是否与某人存在利益冲突？你是否与某人处于某种关系中，等等，等等。 现在，为什么会有这些程序？SEC要求这样做，是为了确保你没有违背任何利益冲突，从而使你的公司能够代表股东成为资本的可靠管理者。但在更具体的战术层面上，你需要这些来维持诸如D&O保险之类的东西，也就是董事及高级管理人员责任保险，正是它为董事会成员和管理人员履行运营上市公司的职责提供了一层责任保护壳。并且所有这些事情都有相关的契约条款。因此，当你陷入一种可能作了虚假陈述并开始违反契约条款的境地时，这些才是真正倒下的多米诺骨牌。事情可能远没有人们愿意相信的董事会里正在上演的大戏那么耸人听闻，但这些就是董事会讨论中的具体战术操作。令人难过的是，它们极其偏向战术细节，而这再次说明了为什么当你把这些与他本身的身姿——这样一个巨人——进行对比时，会显得更加悲惨。好的。那么谁受益呢，杰森？我认为很多人都急于得出中国赢了这一结论，我只想试着剖析一下，并问一个问题：这是真的吗？所以让我们考虑两种情况，这两种都是假定情况，用来试着回答这个问题。 比方说，没有任何芯片流入中国。那么，为什么说中国赢了呢？之前没有芯片流入。现在也不会有芯片流入。中国依然停留在他们之前的处境，那就是他们需要一个能够替代英伟达计算能力的本土解决方案。 即便没有黄仁勋在那里，英伟达在构建他们所建成的护城河方面，依然投入了年复一年又一年、可能是几十年的时间，以及成千上万工时的努力，这些并不会仅仅因为他不再在那里就被攻破。 所以也许中国能够赶上来，但我仍然认为那将是一个耗时多年、甚至可能长达几十年的艰巨工程。 现在，从假设的角度来看，让我们设想另一种情况。假设芯片不知怎么地
Original English >> Let me just pile on first before I give you my thoughts. I also think he's an incredible individual and CEO and he's built the industry that will reshape our entire lives, our children's lives and our children's children's lives. I think in a decade or two when you see solutions to diseases and cancers and we have this abundance that we were told is coming, he will have been as instrumental as anyone if not more than anybody. Okay. So that's the tragedy of what happened is a person that was an architect of something this grand was defenistrated this unceremoniously. Very tactically I think Freeberg really nailed it around what probably happened at the board level that led to his resignation. When you are an officer of a company and when you file your 10Ks, every quarter you have to get on the phone with your auditor and you have to go through these sets of questions that they ask you and they ask you these exact things. You know, do you have a conflict with someone? Are you in a relationship with someone, etc., etc. Now, why do those things happen? The SEC requires that to make sure that you're not running a foul of any conflict of interest so that your company is a reliable steward of capital on behalf of the shareholders. But even more tactically, you need that for things like DNO insurance, which is like the director and officer insurance, which is what gives a wrapper of liability for board members and for officers to do the job of running public companies. And there are covenants associated with all of these things. And so when you get into a situation where you may have misrepresented something and you start to breach covenants, those are the actual dominoes that tip. It may not be nearly as salacious as what people want to believe is happening at the board, but those are the tactics of the boardroom discussions. They're extremely tactical sadly, which is again why it's even more tragic when you compare that to, you know, what he is, which is this giant. Okay. So who benefits Jason? I think there's a lot of people that have rushed to this conclusion that China wins and I would just try to unpack that and ask the question is that true? So let's take two cases and these are both hypothetical to sort of try to answer this question. Let's say that there are no chips going to China. Well, why does China win? No chips were going before. No chips are going to go now. China is stuck in the same place that they were before, which is they need an endemic solution that can replace the compute capability of Nvidia. Even without Jensen there, there's still years and years and years, maybe potentially decades and hundreds of thousands of man-h hours of work that Nvidia has put into building the moat that they built that doesn't get overcome just because he's not there anymore. So maybe China can catch up, but I still think that that's a multi-year, potentially multi-deade endeavor. Now, let's assume the other side, hypothetically. Let's say that the chips were somehow
流失到中国人手中。也许不是流失到中国境内，而是到了中国人的手里。看起来政府正准备严厉打击，彻查每一颗芯片的去向。
Original English leaking into the hands of the Chinese. Maybe not into China, but into the hands of the Chinese. Well, it looks like the government's going to crack down and figure out where every chip went.
所以大概现在他们拿不到芯片了。因此无论他们之前在做什么，现在都会受阻，也就是说无论他们取得了什么进展，都已经被剥夺了。所以这对中国是不利的。因此在我看来，在这两种情况下，中国要么维持原样，要么处境更糟。
Original English And so presumably now they're not getting the chips. So whatever they were doing, they're now going to be held back, which is to say that whatever progress they were making has gotten taken away. So that's a disadvantage to China. So as I think about it, in both scenarios, China is sort of where they were or worse off.
所以我认为他们没有获益。那英伟达的竞争对手呢？
Original English So I don't think that they benefit. What about Nvidia's competitors?
这是否有助于 AMD、谷歌，或是初创公司？
Original English Does this help AMD or Google or startups?
Cerebras、Etched 或其他人。
Original English cerebrous or etched or whomever.
我的回答依然是：并不真的有利。为什么？因为这些公司非常需要别的东西，那就是他们仍需耗费大量时间来让自己的芯片具备规模化运行能力，进而说服台积电（TSMC）及其他厂商（如三星）为他们提供制造产能、HBM 产能等。正如我们历经艰辛学到的教训，你不可能凭空变出一个能正常运转的一百万颗 GPU 的训练集群。这同样需要漫长的工作时间。因此短期内他们未必能获益。他们仍有大量的工作必须去做。
Original English And my answer there is again not really. Why? Because those companies need something very different which is they need to spend an enormous amount of time still making their chips work at scale and then convincing folks like TSMC and others, Samsung to give them manufacturing capacity, HBM capacity, etc. And as we've learned the hard way, you can't just will your way to a training run of a million GPUs that just works. This has again been many, many hours of work. So they don't necessarily benefit in the short term. They still have a lot of work that they have to do.
我认为唯一有潜在获胜机会的群体，是那些希望实现类似弗里德伯格（Friedberg）所说的那种模式的人，即一个针对算力基础设施的更加中心化的治理架构。更具体地讲，我指的是：
Original English The only cohort of people that I think has the potential to win are those that want some version of what Freedberg said, which is a more centralized governance infrastructure of compute capacity. And very narrowly what I would say is
目前当你出口芯片时，他们对出口商的要求是具备遥测能力，对吧？我们需要知道芯片何时以及如何被使用，并且我们需要拥有远程切断开关（kill switch）。但那是一项由监管体系承担的私人责任。
Original English right now when you export chips, what they ask of the exporter is have telemetry, right? We need to know when and how the chips are being used and we need to have a remote kill switch. But that is a private responsibility that's born through the regulatory infrastructure.
亚马逊必须具备这个，微软必须具备这个，谷歌也必须具备这个。
Original English Amazon has to have that, Microsoft has to have that, Google has to have that.
现在有这样一种演变可能：如果我们认为技术一直在外泄，且缺乏足够的制衡机制，
Original English There is a version of this where now if we think that it's been leaking and there hasn't been enough checks and balances
政府内部的某些人就迎来了机会，可以提议由他们自己来掌控遥测系统和切断开关。从狭义上讲，他们现在在这种局面下会成为赢家，因为如果他们此前就在寻求控制权，现在便得到了提出相关立法来获取该控制权的契机。
Original English there is an opening for certain individuals in the government to propose telemetry and a kill switch that is owned by them. Now narrowly they would win now in this scenario because if they were looking for control before they've now been given an opening to ask for the legislation to get it.
所以，我有点摸不着头脑。我觉得目前我在 X 上看到的那些观点在我看来都站不住脚。我认为这是我唯一认同的、存在明显获益方的狭窄视角。
Original English So, I'm kind of at a loss. I don't think that the takes right now that I've seen on X really track for me. I think this is the one narrow take that I believe where there's a clear advantage.
至于其他人，则仍有海量的工作要完成。这并未改变他们的功课。杰森（Jason），你对这一切怎么看？
Original English Everybody else just still has an enormous amount of work to do. It has not changed their homework. Jason, what's your take on all of this?
### 黄仁勋去职与利益博弈 >> 是的，我一直在从两个维度来思考这个问题。第一个是，究竟应该由谁来决定黄仁勋出局？显然，我认为应该是股东。如果看一下目前的调查，它尚未结案。我认为他们本该等到调查结束，媒体、舆论风暴等等这一切都不应该对此产生太大影响。他确实同意辞职，显然是承受了极大的压力。这里面涉及某种我们必须正视的公司治理问题：董事会中做出这项决议的成员，是出于自身免责保位（CYA）的立场在行事，我认为他们并没有从股东的最大利益出发，而且他们本身并不持有可观比例的股份。所以，如果目前呈现的情况并不是黄仁勋有犯罪行为，我认为这应该付诸股东表决。正如你指出的那样，萨克斯（Saxs），这个人究竟是谁以及他们的动机是什么，目前仍未得到证实。他们是间谍，还是仅仅想谋取金钱？从我这边来看，或者至少从我们看到的数据来看，根本还不清楚到底是怎么回事。
Original English >> Yeah, so I've been thinking about it from two vectors. The first is, you know, who should make the decision that Jensen's out? Obviously, I think it's the shareholders. And if you look at the investigation, it's not complete. I think they should have waited till it's complete and the press and the mobs and and and all of this shouldn't make too much of an impact on that. He did agree to resign himself, obviously under a lot of pressure. There is something about governance here that we need to consider which is the people who are on the board who are making this decision are doing it from a CYA position cover their butts and they're not doing it I think in the best interest of the shareholders and they don't own a meaningful percentage of the shares. So, I I think this should be put to a shareholder vote if what we're seeing here is not Jensen doing something criminal. And it still hasn't been proven, as you pointed out, Saxs, who this person was and what their motivation was. Are they a spy or are they just somebody trying to make money? It's unclear from me or at least from what the data we've seen, what's going on there.
现在谈到我们一直在讨论的“谁从中受益”的问题，归根结底就是，谁能从美国在超级智能领域的领头羊被绊倒中获益？因为这可能会对英伟达造成巨大冲击，进而削弱美国的领先地位。因此，合作伙伴、员工、股东，在这里全都是输家。那么这份文件的泄密者是谁？不可能是竞争对手，显然不是股东，我认为也不是中国；那么剩下的，我认为也许是减速主义者（d-cels），但这同样显得有点荒谬，即 Anthropic 或减速主义者会试图以此来巩固权力，因为他们同样需要芯片。
Original English Now on the question that we've been discussing of who benefits from this and it's really who who benefits from America's champion in super intelligence you know getting ankled because this could have a lot of impact on Nvidia and then America's lead and so the partners the the employees the shareholders they're all losers here so who's the leaker of this document it can't be the competitors it's not the shareholders obviously I don't think it's China and then that leaves I think maybe the people who are the D cells here and that also seems a bit farcical that anthropic or the dels would try to consolidate power on this because they need the chips as well
我认为这就是我个人观点所在：白宫内部、本届政府内部交战的不同派系之间正在发生某些较量，一方是希望中国一颗芯片都拿不到的对华强硬派，另一方也许是希望缓和对华关系并使其更具成效的人士。我认为归根结底，我们会发现泄密来自白宫内部。这是我的看法。另外也有可能是一名身为减速主义者的民主党人，纯粹想彻底重创白宫，因为正如希拉里·克林顿所指出的，他们为什么没有知会黄仁勋？也许就是民主党阵营里有人想要制造混乱。在这里我进行了大幅度的推测。从更广泛的视角来看英伟达当前扮演的角色：这或许不仅仅关乎向中国出口芯片，实际上可能关乎拖慢美国的人工智能经济，因为请记住——
Original English and I think that's where I think my personal opinion that there's something going on in the white house in the administration between waring factions of who wants China to get no chips the China hawks and maybe the people who want to maybe uh cool off the relationship with China and make it more productive. I think at the end of the day, we're going to find the leak is coming from within the House. That's my belief. There's also a chance it could be a Democrat who is a del who wants to damage the White House just completely because why did they let not inform Jensen to Hillary Clinton's point? Maybe it's just a somebody on the Democratic side who wants to cause chaos. I'm speculating here in a massive way. just taking a broader view on the role that Nvidia is playing currently. It may not just be about chips to China, but it may actually be about slowing down the US AI economy because remember
>> 英伟达实际上一直在为初创公司、数据中心以及大量基础设施提供资金和担保。其中很大一部分都是由黄仁勋直接指挥的。查马斯（Chamath），你对这方面非常清楚，但如果黄仁勋出局了，英伟达内部是否有人能继续推行这项工作？那可能是数千亿美元原本流入 AI 经济的资本会被切断。
Original English >> Nvidia is actually providing capital and guarantees to startups to data centers to a lot of infrastructure. A lot of that is um directed directly by Jensen. I mean, Chimath, you're pretty close to this, but if Jensen's out of the picture, is there someone in Nvidia that continues running that effort? That's potentially hundreds of billions of dollars of capital that gets turned off that's flowing to the AI economy.
>> 听着，我的意思是，我认为克莱特·克雷斯（Colette Kress）以及负责并购和企业发展的主管阿维纳什·巴瓦尼（Avinash Bhavnani），这些人真的非常聪明能干。但你说得确实有道理。“英伟达银行”是靠黄仁勋运转的，现在情况会怎样并不明朗。我是说，这家“银行”是无限期关闭？还是关闭一段时间然后再重新开放？新任首席执行官是否会有同样放开手脚进行激进投资的自由度？我认为黄仁勋对整个行业拥有更加全局性的视野，因此他知道该如何在棋盘上调兵遣将；并且他拥有进行投资和并购的精神权威（moral authority），而对于一位更加传统的首席执行官来说，这可能会困难得多——后者必须设立委员会、做各项分析，并进行一定程度的尽职调查，而这些充其量只会拖慢节奏。
Original English >> Look, I mean, I think Klet Cres and the head of M&A and Corp Dev, Vash Bwani, these guys are really smart, good guys. But you are kind of right. The Bank of Nvidia ran through Jensen and it's not clear what happens now. I mean, is the bank closed indefinitely? Is it closed for some period of time and it restarts? Will the new CEO feel the latitude to invest as aggressively? I think Jensen had a much more holistic view of the industry and so he knew how to sort of move the chips around on the board and he had the moral authority to make investments and to make acquisitions that will probably be harder for a more traditional CEO who will have to have committees and analyses and and and a level of diligence that will just slow things down at best.
>> 完全同意。而且他对此有一种敏锐的直觉。他对整个局面有直觉把握。他了解市场。他知道未来的发展方向。他亲自认识这些人，随着他出局……而且他是亲身经历过来的。所以他具备掌控力。他就像是 AI 经济跳动的心脏，而突然之间——
Original English >> Totally. and he has a sense for it. He he intuitates the whole thing. He knows the market. He knows where things are going. He knows the people personally with him out of the picture and he's lived it. So he has mastery. He's like the beating heart of the AI economy and all of a sudden
### 泄密源头与利益归属的交锋 >> 我认为这再显而易见不过了。你问谁能获益？是中国。中国从中获益，因为黄仁勋是我们整个 AI 生态系统的顶梁柱。归根结底就是这样。那么，我认为是中国泄露了这个并把黄仁勋拉下马的吗？我认为我们都知道答案是否定的，因为《纽约时报》已经将其消息来源描述为听取了该情报简报的人员。所以他们要么在政府内部，要么与政府只有一度之隔。所以同样地，这里泄密的直接原因就是这份机密备忘录。因此，理性的推论会是中国确实搞垮了他。但我想我们知道这是国内行为，归根结底在于黄仁勋树立了强大的敌人，要么是因为他的政策，要么是因为他公司的成功，而其中某些人最终将他拉下了马。
Original English >> I think it's beyond obvious. You ask the question who benefits? It's China. China benefits from this because Jensen is a tenpole of our entire AI ecosystem. I mean that's the bottom line. Now, do I think that China leaked this and took Jensen down? Well, I think we know the answer to that is no because the New York Times has described its sources as people who got briefed on this intelligence. So, there are either in the government or one degree away from it. So again, the approximate cause of the leak here was this classified memo. So the the rational thing would be that China did take him down. But I think we know that this was domestic and it comes down to the fact that Jensen made powerful enemies either as a result of his policies or because of his company's success and some of those people eventually took him down.
>> 但你是在说黄仁勋在美国内部树敌了。各位，这毫无疑问。《纽约时报》说明了谁——他们对其消息来源的描述非常宽泛，但那是听取了机密备忘录简报的人。那可不是什么来自中共的人。
Original English >> But you're saying Jensen made enemies of certain people in America. Guys, this is not in doubt. The New York Times says who they described their source very broadly, but it's people who were briefed on the classified memo. That's not someone from the CCP.
>> 嗯，如果考虑到……的话，显然不是
Original English >> Well, obviously not if that's true with the
>> 你提出了“这符合谁的利益”这个问题。从狭义上讲，显然是英伟达的竞争对手；从广义上讲，是中国。他们是获益者。但是看，我认为我们不应该对此做过多的推测。这是我们目前尚无事实依据的领域之一。坦率地讲，我认为这是一个他们应该努力去查明事实的领域。我的意思是，再次重申，
Original English >> You asked the question, in whose interest is this? In a narrow sense, obviously Nvidia's competitors in a broader sense, China. They're the ones who benefit. But look, I don't think we should speculate about that too much. This is one of those areas where we just don't have the facts yet. I think it's an area where, frankly, they should try to get the facts. I mean, again, the
在这一切当中，我们唯一确切知道有人犯下的罪行，就是泄露了那份机密备忘录。所以，如果能有一项调查去查明是谁干的，那会很好。但除此之外，我认为我们不应该妄加揣测。仅就此对经济的影响谈谈我的看法，我认为现在令人遗憾的各种情景权衡是，我们失去50个基点到100至150个基点增长的风险，如今需要得到切实认真的考量了。投资有可能在这里放缓。我的意思是，如果你此前就认为，由于民主党的浪潮，我们已经在进入一个经济上存疑的时期，对吧？意味着你将经历一整套放缓数据中心、放缓人工智能的立法框架，而这此前已经在发生了。因此，无论特朗普经济在进入中期选举前带来了怎样的增长，由于即将到来的民主党立法阻力，这种增长本来就很有可能会被放缓。而如果你再加上英伟达这家“大金库”的放缓或停滞，以及它作为每个人都在围绕其运转的关键核心锚定标的所受到的冲击，那就会进一步加速对增长可能产生的影响。所以，如果纯粹从技术角度来看，Sacks，我看不出中国能实际从中获益。在所有情景下，每个人都完蛋了。
Original English only crime that we know was committed for sure in all of this was the leaking of that classified memo. So, it would be nice if there was an investigation to find out who did that. But beyond that, I don't think we should speculate. Just to give you my perspective on the economic impacts of this, I think the unfortunate balance of scenarios now is that I think the risk that we lose 50 basis points to 100 to 150 basis points of growth now needs to be credibly considered. There's a chance here where the investment slows down. I mean, if you thought that we were already going into an economically questionable period because of the democratic tsunami, right? meaning you're going to go through a whole legislative framework of slowing down data centers, of slowing down AI, that was already happening. So, whatever growth we had that the Trump economy had generated going into the midterms, the odds were that that was already going to be slowed down because of the Democratic legislative headwinds that were coming. And if you layer into that the bank of Nvidia slowing or stopping and its impact as the critical anchor security around which everybody else kind of pivots that then further accelerates what the impacts to growth could be. So if I looked at it purely technologically saxs I don't see how China actually benefits from this. In all scenarios everybody's screwed.
### 技术动态迭代与中美AI差距 >> 不，不，不，让我来解释一下。好的。所以
Original English >> No no no let me explain this. Okay. So
>> 但在经济上我同意你的看法。在经济上我同意你的看法。我认为华盛顿特区的人，或者我应该说我们行业之外的人，可能只是以更静态的眼光看待技术，他们认为，好吧，美国拥有的巨大优势在于我们拥有某种特定的芯片，对吧，但实际上芯片正在迅速改进，每年都会推出新一代芯片，我们从 Ampere 到 Hopper，再到 Blackwell，再到 Vera Rubin，正是那种势头，正是那种流片出比去年的芯片性能强数倍的全新芯片的能力。这才是真正的优势。这是英伟达的竞争优势，也是美国的优势。所以，靠的是势头。靠的是活力。人们太过于纠结在某款4年前最先进的芯片上。那不是美国的优势所在。优势在于我们正在快速迭代，我们不断推出越来越好、越来越强大的芯片。现在，让我们考虑一下刚刚发生的事情。你认为英伟达会慢上一两拍吗？绝对会。我的意思是，同样，英伟达的成功建立在每年都能流片出新芯片设计的能力之上。而黄仁勋对这种快速进展是至关重要的，就像埃隆对于 SpaceX 或特斯拉的快速进展至关重要一样。如果你把他从大局中拿掉，就根本没有可与之相比的人了。没有任何人
Original English >> but economically I agree with you. Economically I agree with you. I think people in DC just or I should just say people who are outside our industry maybe to just see technology in in more static terms where they think okay the big advantage that the US has is that we have a particular chip right but actually the chips are being improved rapidly there's a new generation of chips that come out every year we go from Ampier to Hopper to Blackwell to Vera Rubin and it's that momentum it's the ability to tape out a brand new chip that's several times more powerful than last year's chip. That's the real advantage. It's Nvidia's competitive advantage and it's America's advantage. So, it's the momentum. It's the dynamism. People get way too hung up on some chip that was state-of-the-art 4 years ago. That's not where the United States has the advantage. It's that we are rapidly iterating and we keep coming up with better and better and more and more powerful chips. Now, let's take into account what's just happened. Do you think that Nvidia is going to lose a tempo or two? Absolutely. I mean, again, Nvidia's success was based on the ability to tape out a new chip design every year. And Jensen is fundamental to that rapid progress the same way that Elon is fundamental to the rapid progress at SpaceX or Tesla. And if you take him out of the picture, there's just nobody comparable. There's no
>> 不，不，不。你在这点上是对的。我只是说绊倒英伟达并不会让其他人的芯片变好。并不会
Original English >> No, no, no. You're right about that. I'm just saying that ankling Nvidia doesn't make somebody else's chips better. Doesn't
>> 当然不会。但这意味着英伟达的芯片将不会继续以同样的速度发展
Original English >> of course not. But it means that Nvidia's chips will not continue to advance at the same pace
>> 迅速发展。这我同意。
Original English >> rapidly. That I agree.
>> 这完全取决于中国能否赶上前沿。举例来说，看，华为一直在逐步赶上来。几年前他们在 GPU 领域还默默无闻。后来他们有了昇腾。接着他们推出了这个叫做云矩阵（cloud matrix）的东西，虽然他们的单个芯片不如美国芯片强大，但他们利用在网络技术方面的实力将更多芯片联网在一起。所以他们的做法是在这个叫云矩阵的东西里把384个芯片联网在一起，打造出这个机架系统。英伟达把72个联网在一起，NVL72就比华为的384个芯片更好。尽管如此，他们正在越来越接近。而且 Jason，正如你所说，他们有充足的富余能源。因此，华为一直在做的事情是，他们制造出性能较弱但能耗高得多的单个芯片，然后把更多芯片联网在一起，在机架系统层面上获得相当的效果，他们就是这样一直在赶上来的。现在我们假设，就因为这件事，英伟达要瘫痪2到3年，对吧？比如公司陷入动荡之类的。这对华为来说绝对是个大好消息，因为他们会赶上得快得多。显然，这对英伟达的竞争对手也是好事。我的意思是，这可能会对 AMD 和英特尔有好处，但同样，这是一种非常狭隘的看待方式。
Original English >> And this is all about whether China can catch the frontier or not. So for example, look, Huawei has gradually been catching up. They were nowhere in GPUs a few years ago. Then they had the the Ascend. Then they rolled out this thing called cloud matrix where their individual chips were not as powerful as American chips but they used their prowess in networking to network more of them together. So what they did is they networkked 384 chips together in this thing called cloud matrix to create this rack system. Nvidia network 72 together and the NVL72 was better than 384 of the Huawei chips. Nonetheless, they were getting closer and closer. And Jason to your point, they have energy to spare. So what Huawei has been doing is they create a less powerful individual chip that consumes a lot more energy and then they network more of them together to get a comparable result at the rack system and that's how they've been catching up. Now let's just assume that like Nvidia's crippled for 2 or 3 years based on this, right? You get turmoil at the company or whatever. That's really good news for Huawei because they will catch up a lot faster. Obviously, it's good for Nvidia's competitors, too. I mean, it's going to be good for AMD and Intel, maybe, but again, that's a very narrow way of looking at it.
>> 我认为如果英伟达被大幅放缓，受助最大的主要是华为
Original English >> I think it mostly will help Huawei if Nvidia is massively slowed down
### 资本流速与AI生态阻力 >> 因为显然关键在于保持在前沿。Sachs。我还认为你需要把英伟达流向数据中心和初创公司的资本减少，与因为非营利组织（NGOs）的努力导致的数据中心建设放缓结合起来看，并且现在有很多报道在披露这些非营利组织是从哪里获得资金来推动当地社区、州级乃至如今的联邦立法，以阻止数据中心开发的。当你把这两件事放在一起看时，你可以描绘出一幅有一股合力在试图放缓美国人工智能经济的发展，并给某人赶超机会的图景，因为
Original English >> because obviously it's all about staying on the frontier. tax. I also think you need to add and view the diminishment of the flow of capital to data centers and to startups that Nvidia provides in totality with the slowdown of data center buildouts because of the efforts made by NOS's and there's a lot of reporting going on on where these NOS are getting funded from to drive local community statebased and now federal legislation to stop data center development. When you look at those two things together, there is a consolidated effort that you could paint a picture of to slow down the development of the AI economy in the US and give someone a chance to catch up because
>> 中国，你指的是放缓数据中心的这些心理战行动（psyops），美国国家公共电台（NPR）报道了那个数据中心被放缓的消息。
Original English >> China you're referring to with the SCOPS of slowing down the data centers, the NPR report that that data center was being slowed down.
>> 是的。
Original English >> Yeah.
>> 资本的速度才是驱动那个创新引擎的核心。因此，我们改进人工智能模型的技术速度、我们改进人工智能芯片的速度，都取决于资本在系统内部流动有多快。资本流动得越快、流经系统的资本越多，我们就越能加速我们的优势。所以，如果一个对手能够放慢在系统中流动的资本，他们就获得了赶上来的机会。
Original English >> The velocity of capital is what drives that innovation engine. So the the rate at which we can improve our AI models, the rate at which we can improve our AI chips is driven by how fast capital moves through the system. The more quickly capital moves, the more capital moves through the system, the more we accelerate our advantage. So if an adversary can slow down capital moving through the system, they are given an opportunity to catch up.
>> 不一定非得是对手。也可能是某些仅仅希望我们陷入衰退的人，因为他们在政治上能获益
Original English >> It doesn't have to be an adversary. It could be somebody who just wants us to be in a recession because they benefit politically
>> 或者是原教旨主义者。他们可能是根本上反对进步的人，根本上反对人工智能，他们抱有所有这些根本性信念，认为人工智能会危害人类、危害文明，他们想要把它关停。那么这就是减速主义者（decelerationists）和搞监管俘获的 Anthropic 那帮人。Chamath，你所说的那些可能从衰退中获益的人，我认为大多数观众都在解读
Original English >> or they are a fundamentalist. They could be someone who is fundamentally anti-progress and they are fundamentally against AI and they have all these fundamental beliefs that AI is going to harm humanity and harm civilization and they want to turn it off. So then that would be acceler decelerists and the regulatory capture anthropic crowd. Shimath what you're saying people who might benefit from a recession I think most of the audience are reading
>> 但是等等，不，稍等一下，我想澄清这一点，Jason
Original English >> but wait well no hold on I want to clarify this Jason
>> 如果你从狭义的技术层面来看，绊倒英伟达并不会让你的芯片变好，不会让你的机架构架变好，不会让你的网络技术变好，不会让你的 CoWoS 先进封装变好，不会让你的 HBM 集成变好，也不会让你能取代 CUDA。这些都不成立。所以不幸的是，对于那些假设放慢这个巨人能帮助其他企业的人来说，这并没有以传统意义上的方式帮助其他企业。并不是说需求弹性大到你突然之间就可以转向其他人。这里发生的事情并非如此。发生的事情只是整个行业都被拖慢了。这对任何人都没有好处。我希望人们能真正内化这一点。因此，从技术上讲，英伟达这里将要面临的处境，对于整个更广泛的人工智能产业而言纯粹是一场悲剧。然后是经济层面的问题，而这正是赞同 Sachs 的地方：确实存在地缘政治利益在起作用。放缓美国经济——而这件事确实会造成这种情况——将会产生下游影响。具体的影响体量尚待确定，但在我的评估中它绝非微不足道，因为我们的经济已有很大一部分与人工智能挂钩，而在人工智能领域，你们都知道那幅著名的画面，黄仁勋和英伟达就是这里的那块小层层叠积木（Jenga block）。其他的一切此前都是围绕着他们搭建起来的。所以，我只是认为我们必须记住这一点，因为我认为这很重要。
Original English >> if you look at it narrowly technologically ankling Nvidia does not make your chips better doesn't make your racks better doesn't make your networking better doesn't make your co-as better doesn't make your HBM integration better doesn't make you replace CUDA none of those things are true so unfortunately slowing down this giant for the people that assume that it helps other people It doesn't help other people in the classical sense. It's not as if demand is so elastic that now all of a sudden you can go to somebody else. That's not what's going to happen here. It's just the entire industry gets slowed down. That doesn't benefit anybody. And I hope people really internalize that. So technologically speaking, what's going to happen here to Nvidia is just a tragedy for the broader AI industry. Then there's the question economically and this is where I do agree with Sachs that there are geopolitical interests at play slowing down the United States economy which this will do will have downstream impacts. The quantum of that is yet to be determined but it's non-trivial in my estimation because so much of our economy was already levered to AI and within AI you know that famous picture you know Jensen and Nvidia is that little Jenga block right here. they're the ones around which everything else was being set up. So, I just think we have to remember that because I think it's important.
>> 我们这里有一个重要的例子应该考虑。当年史蒂夫·乔布斯去世、蒂姆·库克执掌苹果时，他仅仅通过股票回购和榨取史蒂夫·乔布斯的路线图，就让股价实现了巨幅升值。但正如你所说，现在没有人坐在这里说苹果最新的产品令人惊艳、这些是开创性的产品。所以我们可能会看到英伟达转而去仅仅压榨最大价值等等。在中期内对股东来说这可能是好事。不确定这在长期内是否也是好事。显然，来自皇后区的唐尼，我们最喜欢的
Original English >> We have an important uh example here that we should consider. When Steve Jobs passed away and Tim Cook was put in charge of Apple, he was able to just get a massive amount of share appreciation by doing stock buybacks and milking Steve Jobs roadmap. But to your point, nobody's sitting here saying Apple's latest products are incredible. These are groundbreaking products. So we could see Nvidia go to just extract max value, etc. Could be good for shareholders in the midterm. Not sure if it's going to be good for the long term. And obviously Donnie from Queens, our favorite uh
特朗普总统曾提议让蒂姆·库克结束退休并接任该职位。对此你怎么看？听着，蒂姆·库克作为苹果首席执行官确实取得了非常成功的任期。显然，在史蒂夫·乔布斯的阴影下工作是一项艰巨的任务，但现实情况是他们并没有推出那么多新产品。他们只是在已有产品的基础上做渐进式改进。而且我认为，手机领域与芯片领域相比还是有些不同的。嗯，我认为芯片领域更具动态性，竞争也更为激烈。就像我提到的，大约每年或一年半就会更新一代芯片。如果你慢了一两个节拍，如果你失去了速度——我认为弗里伯格在这里用的关键正是“速度”这个词——那你就会被其他人超越。我认为这里的症结在于，这也是给英伟达带来风险的地方：我不认为他们能仅仅继续靠现有产品线坐享其成，或者只是对它们做渐进式的改良。我是说，芯片正以每年数次——比如一年三四次，甚至可能更多的频率在提升。如果他们跟不上这种研发节奏而其他人跟上了，那么他们将不再处于前沿，进而失去业务。所以，你懂的，我只是觉得这是一个非常充满动态的领域，而且我认为这也是为什么——我的意思是，我都不知说了多少次了——黄仁勋对英伟达至关重要，而英伟达对于美国保持前沿地位以及在芯片领域保持领导力也至关重要。
Original English President Trump has suggested Tim Cook come out of retirement and take the position. So what were your thoughts there? Look, Tim Cook had a very successful run as CEO of Apple. Obviously, had a tough job in the shadow of Steve Jobs, but the reality is that they did not release that many new products. They created incremental versions of what they already had. And I think that the mobile phone space is just a little different than than chips. Um, I think the chip space is more dynamic. It's more competitive. Like I mentioned, new chip generation every year or so, every year and a half. And if you lose a tempo or two, if you lose velocity, I think that's the key word here that Freeberg used is velocity, then you get overtaken by other people. I think that's the issue here is that that's what creates the risk for Nvidia is I don't think they can just keep milking their existing product lines or making them incrementally better. I mean, the chips are getting better at a rate of several times a year, you know, three, four times a year, maybe more. if they don't keep up that pace of development and others do then they will no longer be frontier and then they lose their business. So you know I just think it's a very dynamic space and I think that's why again I mean I don't times I can say this that Jensen was very important to Nvidia and Nvidia was very important to America remaining at the frontier and having leadership in chips
>> 以及不让这项技术被用来助长极权国家。我确实担心在新一届国会推动下，即将出台的立法会规定每一颗人工智能芯片、每一台计算机以及每一个数据中心都要配备一个开关，并连接回某个中央系统，而那个中央系统将是一个国家系统。如果这种事情发生，我们从根本上将面临极权奥威尔式国家的全面爆发。我猜大家都清楚黄仁勋的理念，黄仁勋多次谈到人工智能应当造福全人类，无论你来自哪个国家，无论你的地位如何，无论你的财富多寡。他是反对寡头垄断的。他站在寡头政治的对立面，而中央集权的极权国家则代表了我认为黄仁勋所反对的一切。正因如此，我认为如果最终目标是让极权国家将这项技术作为工具来使用，他就必须被除掉。我真的很担心这就是背后的原因，因为说到底，无论下一位接任者是谁，都必须配合立法者，敲定一份大家一致赞成的法案，站在国会面前频频点头说：“你知道吗，我赞同这些新想法。让我们一起推行吧。”突然之间，美国政府就掌握了自由市场上以及全球各地数据中心里实际存在的物理芯片。而这对我们任何人来说都不是什么好事。
Original English >> and technology not being used to enable a totalitarian state. I do worry that there is legislation coming our way with the new Congress that is going to say every AI chip and every computer and every data center has a switch and has a connection back to some central system and that central system will be a state system and we are fundamentally looking at an Orwellian state explosion if this sort of thing happens and my guess is that people know Jensen's philosophy Jensen has talked a lot about AI being for the benefit of all of humanity regardless of your country regard regardless of your standing, regardless of your wealth, he was anti- oligopoly. He was the opposite of the oligarchy and the central state, the totalitarian state represents everything that I believe Jensen was against. And because of that, I think he had to be taken out if ultimately the goal is to have the totalitarian state use this technology as a tool. I really do worry about that being the reason because at the end of the day, whoever comes in next has to be cooperative with legislators and work out a bill that we all agree to, head nodding, standing in front of Congress and saying, you know what, I agree with these new ideas. Let's all go do this. And suddenly the US government has control of the actual physical chips that exist in free markets and exist in data centers around the world. And that's not a great place for any of us.
>> 实际上比这还要糟糕。为了摆脱他们目前所处的困境，情况将比仅仅是默许顺从还要恶劣，他们将主动把这些机制设计进去。就像贾森所说的——你懂的，这听起来简直不可思议。哪怕就在十天前，如果你说：“哦，嘿，我们的新款产品将配备 GPS 芯片以及由某个政府实体操作的远程切断开关”，我们肯定都会出于公民自由的理由大声抗议
Original English >> You know, it's worse than that. It's in order to get out of the culde-sac that they're in. It'll be worse than just acquiescing. It'll be proactively designing these things in like what Jason said about having, you know, it sounds insane. Even 10 days ago, if you said, "Oh, hey, our new Spin is going to have a GPS chip and a remote kill switch that's going to be operated by some government entity, we would be crying bloody murder
>> 基于公民自由的理由。
Original English >> on civil liberties grounds."
>> 是的。正如你所指出的，这很可能已被列入考量，因为所有这些人都会试图通过这种方式摆脱困境，也就是：我们需要怎么做才能让政府放手并安抚他们？我在推特上发过这个。尼克，能展示一下吗？众议院情报委员会的主管莫利纳议员发布了这个内容。令我担忧的部分是：“英伟达和其他人工智能领军企业取得成功符合我们的国家利益。但美国公司绝不应该通过让中国企业获取其最先进的芯片来危害我们的国家安全。英伟达现在必须改变其企业做法，并任命将国家安全作为首要任务的领导层。”我的意思是，他们现在正明白地告诉你平息此事的条件是什么。而且这将需要某种程度的控制与检查。那么接下来的问题就是，到底谁来掌握这些密钥？会是国家安全局吗？会是中央情报局吗？会是商务部吗？会是工业和安全局吗？还是财政部的某个部门？
Original English >> Yeah. And to your point, that is probably on the table because all of these folks are going to try to get out of jail in that sense, which is what do we need for the government to just let go and appease them? I tweeted this out. Nick, can you show it? The person, Representative Molinar, who runs the House Intelligence Committee, he posted this. The part that concerns me is it is in our national interest for Nvidia and other AI champions to succeed. But American companies should never jeopardize our nation security by giving Chinese companies access to their most advanced chips. Nvidia must now change its corporate practices and appoint leadership that makes national security's top priority. I mean, they're telling you right now what the terms will be for this to end. And it's going to require some level of control checks. And then the question is who actually will get the keys? Will it be the NSA? Will it be the CIA? Will it be commerce? Will it be BIS? Will it be somewhere in Treasury?
>> 某个国会委员会，那将会是……
Original English >> Some congressional committee that'll be
>> 魔鬼就在细节之中，查马斯。这件事一直都在讨论范围内。有一项名为《芯片安全法案》的跨党派法案。在《芯片安全法案》中，关于这些远程切断开关存在一个很大的疑问：它是企业自主执行的吗？换句话说，如果英伟达植入了这些开关，而一旦他们的芯片通过新加坡、马来西亚或其他任何地方流入中国，英伟达就要承担代价；他们需要承担代价，但追踪芯片并在转售时重新分配的责任落在他们身上。因此，如果它们被转售，就不能只是走个文书手续，你必须对它们重新初始化。顺便说一句，这在技术层面上非常容易实现。人们会声称这行不通。正如萨克斯你正确指出的那样，这显然是一个公民自由问题，但它实现起来很容易。因为如果你有一台 iPad，如果它变砖了，或者你记不得密码了，现在你必须去实体店，而他们可以利用这种非常基础的技术找回被盗的 iPhone 和被盗的 iPad。所以，就像我描述的那样，萨克斯，这非常容易，而且确实有这项跨党派法案的存在。有很多人希望对芯片进行追踪。现在，究竟是由公司承担追踪责任，还是由政府机构来负责，魔鬼就在这些细节当中。其中一种对于隐私和公民自由来说显然要糟糕得多。那么，对于高端芯片的这一监管，你怎么看？
Original English >> the devil's in the details here, Chumat. This has been something that's been on the table. There's something called the Chip Security Act. It's bipartisan. And the Chip Security Act, there's a big question with these kill switches. Is it self- enforced? In other words, Nvidia puts these in and Nvidia pays the price if their chips are found in China via Singapore, Malaysia, wherever, and they would pay the price, but it would be up to them to track them and then reassign them. So, if they were resold, instead of it just being paperwork, you'd have to reinitialize them. By the way, this is very easy to do technologically. People will claim it's not. It is a civil liberties issue obviously as you correctly point out Sax but it's easy to do because if you have an iPad and you've ever have brick and it's like you don't remember the password now you got to go to the store and they you can recover stolen iPhones and stolen iPads with this basic basic technology. So, as I described it, Sachs very easy and there is this act and it is bipartisan. There's a lot of people who want chips tracked. Now, whether it's being tracked and it's the responsibility of the company or a government organization, that's the devil in the details there. One is obviously way worse for privacy and civil liberties. So, what's your thought here on this regulation of high-end chips?
### 芯片监管背景与两党立场 >> 让我回溯一下，给大家提供一点关于芯片监管的背景信息。这始于 2022 年拜登政府时期，拜登政府率先对先进半导体实施了出口管制限制。
Original English >> Let me go back and just give you guys a little bit of context on chip regulation. So this started in 2022 in the Biden administration and the Biden administration was the first to put export control restrictions on advanced semiconductors.
与此同时，他们允许所谓的落后一代芯片继续销往中国。因此，前沿芯片与落后一代芯片之间有了明确划分。前沿芯片被禁止售予中国，但像 H20 这样的落后芯片则可以在无许可证的情况下无限量销往中国。好的，大家请记住这一点。
Original English At the same time they permitted what they called lagging chips to be continue to be sold into China. So there was a distinction made between leading edge chips and lagging chips. and leading edge chips were prohibited to be sold to China, but lagging chips like the H20 could be sold in unlimited quantities to China on an unlicensed basis. Okay, so just everyone kind of keep that in mind.
那么，在特朗普政府时期发生了什么？特朗普政府基本上延续了这一框架。基本思路是不得向中国供应前沿芯片。然而，落后一代芯片可能会被允许销售，但本届政府将其改为在获得许可证的前提下限量供应。因此再说一遍，在拜登执政时期，落后芯片是无限量且免许可的，而在特朗普政府时期则变成了限量且需取得许可证。我之所以提到这一点，是因为现在有人正试图重构芯片政策，试图制造这样一种叙事，即特朗普政府在某种程度上对中国手软。这就是所有民主党领袖正在极力做的事情。他们已经企图利用围绕黄仁勋的这整件事，从根本上编造出特朗普政府对中国不够强硬的叙事。然而，从多方面来看，这都是一种极其虚伪的叙事。首先，这些政客中有许多人曾经极力支持对华接触政策，结果导致我们大量的就业机会和产业被转移到了中国。正是特朗普在第一任期内真正促成了对该学说的修正。我们从接触政策转向了对华冷淡得多的政策。这是第一点。第二点是，这些民主党人是带头反对建设数据中心的人。事实上，我们刚刚得知一个案例：在马里兰州有一处废弃的购物中心，原本计划在那里建设一座数据中心，而当地一名活动人士基本上成功阻击了该数据中心的落地。这倒不完全令人意外。然而，她将自己这场行动的病毒式传播和成功归功于“争取社会主义与解放党”，而这是一个在美国本土运作的中国代理组织。它被称为 PSL。根据我现在展示在屏幕上的这条推文，它是常驻上海的内维尔·罗伊·辛厄姆的政治分支，此人是一名公开宣称的马克思主义千万富翁，资助了反美和亲中……
Original English Now, what happened in the Trump administration? The Trump administration basically stuck with that framework. The idea was no leading edge chips to China. However, lagging chips could potentially be sold, but the administration changed it to be limited quantities on a license basis. So again, we went from unlimited quantities, unlicensed of lagging chips under Biden to limited and licensed under the Trump administration. The reason why I say this is because there's an effort right now to reccon chip policy to try and create this narrative that somehow the Trump administration has been soft on China. This is what all the Democratic leaders are trying to do. They're already trying to use this whole Jensen thing to basically spin this narrative that the Trump administration has been insufficiently tough on China. Now, this is an extremely hypocritical narrative in a number of ways. First of all, many of these politicians were very much in favor of an engagement policy towards China, which ended up exporting large numbers of our jobs and industry over to China. It was Trump who in the first term really caused a revision of that doctrine. We moved from engagement to a much more um standoffish policy towards China. So that's point number one. Point number two is these Democrats are the leading people who are opposed to data centers. In fact, we just got a story about how in Maryland there was an abandoned shopping mall where a data center was going to go and a local activist basically managed to kill that data center. Not totally surprising. However, she credited the viral success of her campaign to the party for socialism and liberation, which is a China proxy organization operating here in the US. It's the called the PSL. And according to this tweet that I'm putting on the screen, it is the political arm of Shanghai based Neville Roy Singum, who is an avowed Marxist multi-millionaire who's bankrolled anti-American pro-CP
向非营利组织资助了高达2.78亿美元。而内维尔·罗伊·辛厄姆（Neville Roy Singham）的政治马前卒们已经实地在美国本土反对数十个数据中心。这些行动与民主党的立场最为一致。所以，如果民主党真要认真反对中国的影响力，我认为我们应该开展调查并举行听证会，调查中共是否真的参与了全国范围内的这些反数据中心活动。你根本听不到民主党领导人试图这么说。所以，我基本上是在指出他们在这个问题上的虚伪。让我再回到芯片问题上一秒钟。如果国会现在认为我们不应该向中国出售落后制程的芯片，我对这事的看法是：行。那就把它定为政策吧。我觉得这并不划算。我认为之前有一些合理的政策论据，支持为什么你可能想用一款被淘汰的芯片、一款性能弱得多的芯片去抢占华为的市场份额。如果你能从华为手中夺走市场份额，那些研发资金就会流向美国公司而不是中国公司，并且这会放缓华为的规模扩张，因为芯片是一门讲求规模的生意。这就是为什么最初仍被允许向中国销售淘汰芯片的缘由，这也是拜登政府想出的逻辑，并在特朗普政府中得以延续。正如我所说，现在有人试图将任何想向中国出售淘汰芯片的人重新定性，描绘成似乎对中国手软、在顺从中国的意图。听着，那曾是一项两党共同支持的政策。如果国会现在想改变这项政策，说我们什么都不卖给中国了，行啊，那就这么做吧。同样，我认为，考虑到我们的政治气候，要维持这种微妙而有分寸的政策实在是太难了。顺便说一句，整件事中最令人吃惊的是：中国甚至根本不想要这些芯片。
Original English nonprofits to the tune of $278 million. And Neville Roy Singham's political foot soldiers have been boots on the ground here in the US opposing dozens of data centers. And these efforts are most aligned with the Democrat party. So, if the Democrats are serious about opposing Chinese influence, I think we should conduct an investigation and have hearings on whether the CCP is actually involved in these anti-data center efforts across the country. You don't hear Democrat leaders trying to say that. So, I'm pointing out basically their hypocrisy on this issue. Let me go back to the the issue of chips for a second here. If Congress now believes that we should not sell lagging chips to China, my view on that is fine. Let's make that the policy. I don't think the juice is worth the squeeze. I think there were some good policy arguments for why you might want to take market share from Huawei with a deprecated chip, a much less powerful chip. If you could take market share away from Huawei, those R&D dollars would flow to American companies instead of to a Chinese company and it would slow down the scale up of Huawei because chips are a scale up business. So that was the original reason why deprecated chips were still allowed to be sold into China and that was a logic that the Biden administration came up with and it was continued in the Trump administration. And like I said, there's now an effort to try and reccon anyone who wanted to sell deprecated chips into China as somehow being soft on China and doing China's bidding. Look, that was a bipartisan policy. If Congress now wants to change that policy and say we're not going to sell anything to China, fine, do that. Again, I think that, you know, given our political climate, I think it's too hard to have that nuanced policy. By the way, here's the most surprising thing about the whole thing. China doesn't even want the chips.
>> 他们难道不是禁止了他们的——
Original English >> Didn't they put a ban on their
### 中国的芯片政策与华为 >> 是的，他们禁了H20芯片，然后当H200获批时，他们基本上阻止了那些芯片进入该国，并且宣布了他们所反对的其他英伟达SKU。所以，中国甚至根本不想要这些芯片。我认为华盛顿很多政客还没想明白的一点是：对华鹰派的政策实际上就是中共的政策。双方都不希望美国芯片进入中国。好的，现在双方出于不同的原因想要这项政策。对华鹰派认为那里拥有美国芯片会帮助中国。而中共希望将英伟达芯片拒于中国门外，是因为他们正试图扶植华为作为其国家级龙头企业。所以，他们想迫使中国市场投入华为的怀抱，以便华为能够扩大规模并在全球展开竞争。因此再次强调，人们以为中共在乞求这些芯片，这有点荒谬。我认为中国企业想要它们，中国的开发者想要它们，但是根据中国政府所有的公开表态和各项政策，他们正在试图把这些美国芯片挡在门外。
Original English >> Yes, they banned the H20 chip and then when the H200 got approved, they they basically have prevented those chips from entering the country and they announced other Nvidia SKs that they're against. So, China doesn't even want the chips. This is the thing that I think a lot of people in Washington haven't wrestled with is that the policy of the China hawks is effectively the policy of the CCP. Neither one wants American chips in China. Okay. Now, they want that policy for different reasons. The China hawks think it's going to help China to have American chips there. And the CCP wants to keep Nvidia chips out of China because they're trying to prop up Huawei as their national champion. So, they want to force the Chinese market into the arms of Huawei so that Huawei can scale up and then compete all over the world. So again, it's kind of crazy that people think that the CCP is begging for these chips. I think that Chinese companies want them, Chinese developers want them, but the Chinese government, based on all their public statements and their policies, is trying to keep out those American chips.
>> 显然，开发大语言模型的公司极度渴望最新的芯片。眼下，中国政府渴望在内部打造自己的芯片龙头。所以，这两件事可以同时成立。这是非常微妙的一点。
Original English >> Clearly, the companies making LLMs covet the latest chips. Right now, Chinese government covets building their own uh chip champions internally. So, two things can be true at the same time. It's a very subtle point.
>> 他们正试图实现芯片生产本土化。他们认为这是一个关键产业。就像我们试图摆脱他们对稀土的掌控、建立我们自己的稀土供应一样，他们也在试图打造自己的芯片供应，试图扩大国内芯片制造商的规模。他们愿意在自己的生态系统中承受一些短期阵痛来扶持华为，迫使所有本土企业和开发者尝试使用华为。如果你看看最近的媒体报道，最新的DeepSeek模型正完全在华为芯片上进行训练。所以无论如何，这里存在着巨大的脱节，我认为华盛顿的对华鹰派以为中国政府在乞求得到他们的芯片。而事实是，中国政府也巴不得把这些芯片挡在门外。这就是为什么我再次说，这根本不划算。对华鹰派不希望出售这些芯片，中国政府也不希望这些芯片被出售。所以干脆算了吧，停止销售它们。我的意思是，荒唐之处在于，如果黄仁勋是因为想把芯片卖给中国而遭到罢免，那将是最愚蠢、最毫无意义的牺牲，因为中国反正是不会接受那些芯片的。这正是这件事如此荒谬的地方。你们难道不认为存在相当大的可能性，即黄仁勋知道正在发生这些芯片流入中国的违规行为，并且他通过Mega Speed可能还有其他公司默许了这种情况发生，而这才是真正让他倒台的原因吗？
Original English >> They're trying to indigenize chip production. They think it's a critical industry. And in the same way that we're trying to get rare earths out of their clutches and we're trying to get our own rare earth supply, they're trying to create their own chip supply, they're trying to scale up domestic chip manufacturers. And they're willing to endure some short-term pain in their ecosystem to prop up Huawei to force all of their local companies, their developers to try and use Huawei. And if you look at recent press, the latest Deepseek model is being trained exclusively on Huawei chips. So in any event, there's like a big disconnect here where I think the China hawks in DC think that the Chinese government is begging for their chips. And the truth is that they would love to keep the chips out, too. Which is why I say again, the juice isn't worth the squeeze. The China hawks don't want the chips sold. The Chinese government doesn't want the chips sold. So just forget about it. Stop selling them. I mean, this is the crazy thing is that if Jensen was taken out because he wanted to sell chips to China, it was the the stupidest, most moot hill to die on because China is not taking those chips anyway. That's what's so crazy about it. And you guys don't think that there's some pretty significant potential that Jensen knew that there was violations happening of these chips making their way to China and he was allowing it to happen through Mega Speed and perhaps other companies and that's what really brought him down.
### 对黄仁勋动机与违规知情度的质疑 >> 他不需要更多了。这是一个好问题。他需要更多的钱吗？他需要增量销售额吗？他需要股价更高吗？他需要——
Original English >> He doesn't need more. It's a great question. Does he need more money? Does he need incremental sales? Does he need the stock price to be higher? Does he need to
>> 46%的营收来自中国？那确实需要。
Original English >> 46% of revenue comes from China? Then yes.
>> 嗯，我认为不是46%。但即便如此，对于他个人或对于公司而言，除了成为人类有史以来创立的最大公司之外，你还需要什么？他又何必冒险去做叛国并且会导致自己进监狱的事情呢？
Original English >> Well, I don't think it's 46. But even still, what more do you need for him personally or for the company than being the largest company in the world ever created by humanity? And why would he risk doing something that is treasonous that would result in him going to jail?
>> 我来告诉你为什么。因为黄仁勋——黄仁勋的哲学，就像我之前说过的——
Original English >> I will tell you why. Because Jensen Jensen's philosophy, like I said before,
>> 是AI是造福全人类的工具。我知道他是美国优先的。我们了解这家伙，我们知道他是爱国的，他是一个美国爱国者。但我确实也相信，有一群核心科技专家持有这样一种哲学：科技推动人类进步。科技不在于推动某一方超越另一方。科技提升我们所有人，随着世界上更多的人境况得到提升，冲突就会减少，就会有更多的丰裕，彼此仇恨的理由就会减少，争夺的资源就会变少，诸如此类。那是对未来的一种美好愿景，是对科技所能实现的美好愿景。所以，如果你内心深处坚守这一信念，也许就会不知不觉在潜意识里给自己找理由说：“嘿，看，我是照章办事的。规则说了我可以卖给越南、新加坡等等，而我正是严格这么做的。”但如果你随后发现那些东西正辗转流向中国，虽然这并没有违反明文规定，但你知道这正在发生，那就是事情可能开始变得有点模糊、有点滑坡的地方了。是的，我不知道。我是说，我是说，是的，你那是推测，弗里德伯格（Freeberg）。而我想说的是，听着，我最开始的定调就是存在两起事件，对吧？一起是艾丽斯·王（Alice Wong）和Mega Speed所做的事情，我说过对此应该进行调查；另一起就是泄密者的所作所为，他们违法泄露了有关黄仁勋的这些细节。关于第一起事件，我们不知道发生了什么，应该进行全面调查。我的意思是，听着，如果黄仁勋和英伟达触犯了法律，那非常恶劣，应该为此承担后果。
Original English >> is that AI is a tool for humanity. I know that he's America first. We know the guy. We know that he's patriotic. He is an American patriot. But I do also believe that there's a philosophy that a core group of technologists hold that is that technology progresses humanity. It's not about progressing one side over the other. That technology brings us all up and as more people in the world are brought up. There is less conflict. There is more abundance. There's less reasons to hate each other. There's less resources to fight over and so on and so forth. And that's a beautiful view of the future. It's a beautiful view of what technology can enable. So if you hold that core and true in your heart, perhaps there's a way that you unconsciously kind of rationalize your way into saying, "Hey, look, I'm following the rules of the book. The rules of the book say I can sell to Vietnam and Singapore and whatever, and I'm doing exactly that." But if you then find out that those things are making their way over to China, but it's not violating the rules of the book, but you know that it's happening, that's where things start to get perhaps a little bit blurry, a little bit slippery. Yeah, I don't know. I mean, I mean, yes, you're you're speculating there, Freeberg. And what I would say is, look, my framing at the very top here was that there's two ops, right? There's whatever Alice Wong and Mega Speed were doing, which I said should be investigated, and then there's whatever the leakers were up to who broke the law in order to leak these things, details about Jensen. With respect to the first OP, we don't know what happened. There should be a full investigation. I mean, look, if Jensen and Nvidia broke the law, that's really bad and there should be consequences for that.
>> 严重的后果。
Original English >> Serious.
>> 我绝对完全没有为那辩护的意思。如果事实证明真是那样的话；但我也认为英伟达已经予以否认，我们应该静观其变，看看那里的事实究竟如何。
Original English >> I'm definitely not defending that at all. If that turns out to be true, but I also think that Nvidia has denied it and we should just wait to see what the facts are there.
### 下任CEO人选讨论 >> 好的，那么让我们问问，谁应该成为下一任CEO，接下来会发生什么？我的意思是，听着，英伟达内部有一些非常出色的技术人才，萨米尔（Samir）、伊恩·巴克（Ian Buck）。我认为伊恩是最显而易见的内部候选人，而最明显的外部候选人是来自ARM的勒内·哈斯（Rene Haas）和来自派拓网络（Palo Alto Networks）的尼凯什·阿罗拉（Nikesh Arora）。选择勒内是因为他在英伟达工作了很多很多年，直接为黄仁勋工作，并且一直在成功运营ARM，因此他深谙芯片之道；至于尼凯什，是因为在过去5年或10年里，他是公开市场中最好的资本配置者，而且人工智能的一个巨大覆盖面将围绕安全展开。所以他能为此做出贡献。我会支持尼凯什，支持勒内，支持伊恩·巴克，因为我认为你得到的是懂技术、进取且以产品为导向的资本配置者。我认为你不希望得到的是一个守成管家。原因在于，我不认为这是一家能够直接——
Original English >> Okay, so let let's ask who who should be the next CEO and what's going to happen. I mean, look, there's some incredibly brilliant technical people, Samir, Ian Buck inside of Nvidia. I think Ian's the most obvious internal candidate and the most obvious external candidate is Renee Hos from ARM and Nicesh Aurora from Palo Alto Networks. Renee because he worked at Nvidia for many many years worked directly for Jensen and has been running ARM successfully so he's steeped in chips and then Nicash because he's been the best capital allocator of the last 5 or 10 years in the public markets and a huge surface area of AI is going to be around security. So he brings that to the table. I would be pro- Nikesh, pro Renee, pro Yinbuk because I think what you get are technical, aggressive, product oriented capital allocators. I think the thing that you don't want is a steward. And the reason is I do not think that this is a business that is just going to
>> 过山车。
Original English >> roller coaster.
它不会只是……是的。
Original English It's not going to just go yeah
>> 像一头肥牛一样被榨取。所以我觉得，如果你把它当成一个不去承担风险的业务来对待，你注定会输。
Original English >> be milked like a fatted cow. And so I think if you treat it as a business where you don't take risk, you are going to lose.
>> 它现在是一家战时公司，对吧？它是一家充满活力的动态公司，你需要一位战时 CEO。
Original English >> It's a wartime company right now, right? It is a dynamic company and you need a wartime CEO.
### 黄仁勋的去留与替代方案 >> 这是我的推测。如果最终查明黄仁勋没有违反任何法律，我认为黄仁勋应该回归担任 CEO。我认为，在当前这个特定背景、这项特定业务以及这位特定个人的情况下，任何违反行为准则的行为，任何未能像他本应做的那样向董事会进行披露或证明的情况，如果他没有违法，股东们完全可以决定不予计较并让他回归。如果他违反了公司行为准则等等，你知道，股东们可以自行抉择这是否合适，但我认为显然关于谁是运营英伟达的最佳 CEO 的问题，你知道，大概还是黄仁勋。我赞同你的看法。我认为根据我所看到的情况，黄仁勋将作为董事长或 CEO 回归。我认为他会被洗清嫌疑。这就是我相信兼希望发生的事情。 人们经常讨论的另外两种可能性：SpaceX 把黄仁勋请来担任 terrafab 业务的 CEO，与埃隆并肩工作，甚至可能在公司里平起平坐；或者，是的，Nikesh 非常出色，为什么不让英伟达收购 Palo Alto Networks 呢？他们需要安全。在这个领域，网络安全是一个关键问题。而且英伟达完全买得起 Palo Alto。你投入现金买下那起诉讼。这看起来是三个合理的解决方案。萨克斯，不知道在我们转到 Anthropic IPO 之前你是否想推测一下。
Original English >> Here's my speculation. If it is found to be the case that Jensen did not violate any laws, I would argue that Jensen should return a CEO. And I think that any violation of code of conduct, any failure to make disclosures or attestations to the board as he should have done perhaps in this particular context with this particular business and this particular individual, the shareholders can make a decision to see past all that and bring him back if he didn't violate the law. if he broke the company code of conduct and so on, you know, the shareholders can make their choice about whether it's appropriate or not, but I think there's obviously the question of who's the best CEO to run Nvidia, you know, is probably Jensen. I'm with you. I think based on what I've seen, Jensen's going to come back as chairman or CEO. I think he's going to be exonerated. That's what I believe slash hope happens. other two possibilities that people have discussed often. SpaceX brings Jensen on as a CEO of the terrafab business, works alongside Elon, maybe even as like peers in the company or yeah, Nikesh is awesome. Why not have Nvidia buy PaloAlto Networks? They need security. Security is a key issue cyber in this space. And just Nvidia can easily afford to buy PaloAlto. You put in a cash in that suit. Those seem like three reasonable solutions. I don't know if you want to speculate Sachs before we move on to the anthropic IPO.
>> 我只想说，我希望黄仁勋最终至少能得到像埃里克·斯沃韦尔那样的对待。
Original English >> I would just say that I hope that Jensen ultimately is treated at least as well as Eric Swallwell.
>> 好的，事情就是这样了。
Original English >> Okay, there you have it.
>> 在整件事情上。
Original English >> In this whole matter.
>> 说得好。是的。
Original English >> Well said. Yeah.
### 泄密动机与司法调查 >> 不过话说回来，看，我认为弗里德伯格提出了一个很好的观点，那就是他究竟被指控了什么罪行？现在看，我们还没有掌握全部事实。事情可能会水落石出，
Original English >> But yeah, look, I think I think Freeberg makes a good point which is that what is the crime here that he's been even accused of? Now, look, we don't have all the facts. Things may come out,
>> 对吧？
Original English >> right?
>> 所以，让我们看看这一切如何发展。顺便说一句，如果你们问我怎么看待黄仁勋，我只想说一件事，你知道，我看到所有这些假新闻，他们不知怎么地认为我和黄仁勋有长期的交情或什么的。在进入这届政府之前，我根本不认识黄仁勋。我第一次见到他是在白宫。总有记者以为我们在我入职白宫之前就有着长期的友谊，或者以为是我把他引见给特朗普之类的。事实并非如此。我是在他已经在白宫参加会议时才遇到他的。总之，我的意思是，我对黄仁勋并没有什么特殊的偏向或忠诚，但我尊重他作为创始人的身份，我看到了他作为创始人对英伟达、进而对美国的独特价值。如果查明他从未违法，那么我认为你们说得对，我们现在这到底是在干什么？
Original English >> So, let's see how this all plays out. By the way, just one thing I want to say if you're ask me like what I think about Jensen, you know, I see all this fake news where somehow they think like I had a long relationship with Jensen or whatever. I never knew Jensen before the administration. The first time I ever met him was in the White House. I get all these reporters thinking that somehow we had this like long-standing friendship going back before I was in the White House or somehow that I introduced him to Trump or stuff like that. Not true. I met him when he was already in the White House for a meeting anyway. So my point is I have no special devotion or loyalty to Jensen, but I respect him as a founder and I see his unique value as a founder to Nvidia and therefore to the United States. And if it's found out that he has never broken the law, then I think you guys are right that like what what are we doing here?
>> 这根本讲不通。是的。而且我们……我们再次，你知道，我们坐在这里……
Original English >> It makes no sense. Yeah. And we we again, you know, we're sitting here
>> 顺便说一句，董事会可能别无选择，对吧？因为他们的受托责任，这意味着他们不想被起诉。他们不想失去 D&O 保险。作为董事会会发生的所有那些事情，刚才提到了。没错。
Original English >> and by the way, the board might have no choice, right? because they're fiduciary duty which means they don't want to get sued. They don't want to lose DNO insurance. All the things that happen as a board mentioned it earlier. Correct.
>> 你必须采取行动等等。或许如果黄仁勋回归，他会得到一位创始人……
Original English >> You have to take action and so on. Perhaps if Jensen comes back, he gets a founder.
### 民事索赔与估值损失 >> 这里的股东诉讼规模将会极其巨大。公司在大概 9 天内损失了近 1 万亿美元的市值。因此这里造成了巨大的损害，必须以某种方式进行处理。
Original English >> The shareholder lawsuits here are going to be ginormous. The company has lost almost trillion dollars of value in about 9 days. And so there's a lot of harm here that has to be managed somehow.
>> 是的。所以这就是哪怕查明他没有做任何坏事，局面也会变得非常复杂的地方，因为所有其他这些传统机制，比如 SEC 会有自己的看法，审计师也会有自己的看法。所以要应对的事情实在太多了。
Original English >> Yeah. So this is where even if he's found to have not done anything bad, the situation becomes very complicated because of all of this other traditional infrastructure like the SEC is going to have a point of view, the auditors will have a point of view. So it's just a lot to navigate.
>> 就那个问题而言，你知道，据报道司法部正展开一项积极调查。所以我们得看看最终结果如何。就像我说的，我主张进行全面调查。我们需要弄清这里的事实。透明度。
Original English >> Just on that question, you know, there is an active investigation I believe at the Justice Department that's been been reported. So we have to see what that ends up. Like I've said, I advocate full investigation. We need to get the facts here. transparency.
>> 同样，如果他做错了什么，那他就必须承担后果。但在那个节点之前，我的意思是，在这个国家我们有一条非常神圣不可侵犯的原则，那就是在被证明有罪之前你是清白的。我只想说，这里发生的事情显然是，对黄仁勋怀有敌意、了解这份备忘录情况的人违法泄密，目的是为了扳倒他。这绝不是我们在这个国家进行调查的方式。司法部应该调查此事。他们才是应当确定他是否做错了什么的人。完全同意。
Original English >> Again, if he's done something wrong, then he's going to have to deal with the consequences. But until that point, I mean, we have in this country a very uh sacrosen principle that you're innocent till proven guilty. And I'll just say that what's happened here apparently is that people who are hostile to Jensen, who were briefed on this memo, broke the law in order to leak it, in order to take him down. And that is not the way we should be conducting investigations in this country. The Justice Department should be investigating this matter. They should be the ones determining whether he did something wrong. Totally.
>> 这件事不应该利用影射和耸人听闻的指控在舆论法庭中受审。而这向来是人们用作武器的手段——性对人们来说是非常尴尬的事。在政治中，它被用作武器。
Original English >> And this should not be tried in the court of public opinion using innuendo and lured allegations. And this is always what people go to as a weapon is sex is very embarrassing to people. And in politics, it gets used as a weapon.
>> 这太可耻了。是的。事情明摆着就是这样发生的。
Original English >> It's disgraceful. Yeah. And it's so obvious that that's what has happened here.
>> 我理解你的意思。让我说点略微不同的看法。你完全正确，没有任何迹象表明存在任何刑事犯罪行为。因此，必须对所发生事件的方方面面进行彻底调查。泄密者显然触犯了法律，但没有任何迹象表明英伟达或黄仁勋有任何犯罪行为。这件事需要得到妥善、公正的裁决，为了他，为了他们，也为了他们所建立的公司。 但遗憾的是，无可否认的是那些已经切切实实存在的民事诉讼索赔，也就是你所看到的 1.5 万亿美元市值就这样蒸发了，而且至少存在一些信息披露问题。存在一些成问题的事项。你知道，英伟达的公关人员曾说这事没有发生，后来它又确实发生了。因此在某个节点上有人误导了别人，所有这一切最终导致了可以用金钱衡量的实际损害。那正是大量行动将聚焦的地方，因为在美国，遗憾的是，人们看到那一点就会两眼放光。原告方群体、律师们会彻底陷入狂热。他们仍然会摩拳擦掌地想：我要为 1.5 万亿美元的损失提起诉讼，而我愿意以 2500 亿美元和解，然后我要从中分走一半。这就是诉讼律师们在这里会打的算盘。 所以戴维，围绕这一点会出现各种各样的问题，我认为不幸的是伤害已经造成了。那些……生米已经煮成了熟饭。 我认为还有一个微小的可能性，我们就摆到桌面上说说，或者我把它抛出来。如果泄密是为了社会的改良，那么这种泄密就是完全合理的。违法并泄露这些内容将是完全合理的。换句话说，就像《五角大楼文件》，如果你还记得电影《惊爆内幕》或者布朗与威廉姆森烟草公司的文件，历史上存在良性泄密的先例。我认为这里的情况并非如此，但你可以说存在极小极小的几率，可能会有一种为了社会利益的泄密，那将是一个有正义感的吹哨人。
Original English >> I understand what you're saying. Let me just say something slightly different. You're absolutely right that there's no shred of thought that there's been any criminality. And so that needs to be thoroughly investigated in every aspect of what's happened. The leaker clearly broke the law, but there's no sense that there's been any criminality by Nvidia or Jensen. That needs to get adjudicated properly and fairly for him and for them and for the company they've built. But what is unfortunately undeniable are the civil claims which are already real which is you've seen $1.5 trillion of value just wiped out and at a minimum there was some disclosure issues. There were some problematic issues. There was you know the Nvidia PR people that were saying that this didn't happen then it did happen. So at some point somebody was misleading somebody and all of that has ultimately resulted in actual harm that can be measured monetarily. That's where a lot of the action is going to focus on because that's where people will have dollar signs in their eyes sadly in the United States. You'll have the plaintiffs folks, the attorneys going absolutely nuts. still be licking their chops thinking I'm going to sue for a trillion half dollars of damage and I'm going to be willing to settle for $250 billion and I'm going to take half of it. That's what the trial lawyers are going to be thinking here. And so there's going to be all kinds of issues around that, David, where I think unfortunately that damage has been done. Those those eggs cannot be unscrambled. I think there is one tiny possibility that we'll just put out there or I'll put out there. The leak would be completely valid. It would be completely valid to break the law and to leak this if this was for the betterment of society. In other words, Pentagon Papers, if you remember the movie The Insider of the Brown and Williamson's tobacco documents, there are examples of virtuous leaks. I don't think that's the case here, but you can say there is a small small chance that there could be a leak that would be for the benefit of society and that would be a virtuous whistleblower.
### Anthropic 的 IPO 路演 好了，Anthropic 的 IPO 路演正在进行中。据路透社报道，他们已经开始稍微调低预期。Anthropic 将出售 8.25 亿股，每股 70 至 78 美元。这将使公司估值达到 1.4 万亿美元。这低于此前报道的 2 万亿美元和 3 万亿美元。几个月前市场对这家公司抱有极大的热情。总计募集 900 亿美元，其中 640 亿美元来自股票发售，260 亿美元来自私募配售。我们之前讨论过这个。他们现有的许多投资者和合作伙伴都在投资。正如你在上一期节目中指出的那样，这为他们提供了庞大的作战资金。 七位创始人每人计划出售约 2.5 亿美元。这样算下来，每个人仍持有价值约 180 亿美元的股份。所以有七位创始人基本上各自持有 200 亿美元的股份。他们承诺将所持股份的 80% 捐赠给慈善机构。但是，我认为在目前阶段这并不具备法律约束力。这只是一项承诺。业务正在蓬勃发展。10 月底按运转率计算达到 810 亿美元。第三季度营收为 170 亿美元，相比之下 OpenAI 为 100 亿美元。所以他们极其……
Original English All right, Anthropics IPO road show is underway. They've started to temper expectations a bit according to Reuters. Tropics going to sell 825 million shares, 70 to 78 bucks a share. It'll put the value of the company at 1.4 trillion. That's below reports of two trillion and three trillion. Uh there was a lot of excitement about the company a couple of months ago. Total raise 90 billion, 64 billion in share sales and 26 billion in a private placement. We've talked about that before. A lot of their existing investors and partners are investing. Gives them a giant war chest as you pointed out in a previous episode. Seven founders plan to sell about $250 million each. That still leaves each with a stake of about 18 billion. So there's seven founders with basically $20 billion stakes. They pledged to donate 80% of their holdings to charity. However, I don't think that that is legally binding at this point. It's a pledge. Business is booming. Run rate 81 billion at the end of October. Q3 revenue was 17 billion against 10 billion for Open AI. So they incredibly
通过发力企业级市场，在收入上超越了 OpenAI。显然 OpenAI 正在努力追赶他们，但 OpenAI 主要是由消费者驱动的。来自我们合作伙伴 AlphaSense 的这份关于 Anthropic IPO 的概览非常棒。 Anthropic 的目标 IPO 估值比其上一轮私募融资溢价 46%，但自那时起他们的运行率收入已经翻倍。所以或许他们正在填补之前一直很高的估值，正如我们在行业里所说的，填补那个估值。 分析师对 Anthropic 的乐观预期估值达到了 4.2 万亿美元，相当于其 2028 年预期营收 2810 亿美元的 15 倍。这将使其成为仅次于英伟达（1.4 万亿美元）的世界第二大公司。那是当前运行率的 17 倍乘数。各位，你们对这次 IPO 怎么看？ 查马斯，你之前我认为很正确地给它泼了一点冷水，说它的估值可能会低一点，但他们正在筹集大量资金，而且正如你在前几期节目中指出的那样，他们拥有雄厚的资金储备。
Original English passed OpenAI in revenue by going enterprise. Uh obviously OpenAI trying to catch them up, catch up with them, but they're largely consumerdriven. Great overview of Anthropics IPO here from our partner AlphaSense. Anthropics target IPO valuation 46% premium on its last private round, but they've doubled their run rate since then. So perhaps they are filling in the valuation they've had. That's been pretty high for a long time as we say in the business, filling in that valuation. Analysts have Anthropics bullcase at 4.2 trillion uh valuation 15 times its 2028 expected revenue of 281 billion. That would be the second largest company in the world ahead of Nvidia at 1.4 trillion. That's a 17x multiple current run rate. Gentlemen, what are your thoughts here on the IPO? Chimath, you've um I think correctly threw a little bit of cold water on it and said it might be a little bit less in terms of valuation, but they're raising a lot of money and they have that war chest as you pointed out in the previous episodes.
### Anthropic 的 IPO 前景与市场风险 >> 我认为他们将拥有 2300 亿到 3000 亿美元左右的资金，这非常好。我认为这对于他们度过风暴非常重要。 什么是风暴？风暴就是未来几周和几个月内将要发生的一切，以及经济对此作出的反应。 我认为现实情况是这次 IPO 至关重要，它必须发生。我的疑虑在于，Anthropic 20% 的价值取决于 Anthropic 自身。 这很遗憾，因为我认为他们理应拥有更多掌控权。80% 则与整体宏观经济有关。 而这百分之百与 AI 有关，并且百分之百与英伟达有关。因此我认为，随着大家看到英伟达银行关闭的影响、这些调查的影响，市场将必须消化这些，并判断风险平衡是已经过去，还是会有更多鞋子落地。 如果有更多鞋子落地并带来更大风险的阴影，我认为人们会转向避险模式，届时他们在认购任何 IPO 时都会克制得多，包括 Anthropic 的 IPO。Anthropic 会没事的，他们已经获得了六倍超额认购，这完全不会有问题。问题在于真实价格是多少？而且我认为，真实价格将更多地取决于从现在到 11 月 20 日之间泄露出的消息，胜过其他任何事情。
Original English >> I think it's great that they're going to have somewhere between 230 and $300 billion. I think that's very important for them to weather the storm. What is the storm? the storm is whatever is going to happen over the next few weeks and months and then what the economy does in reaction to it. I think the reality is that this IPO is crucial. It has to happen. The issue that I have is that 20% of the value of anthropic will be because of anthropic. And that's unfortunate because I think they deserve to be more in control. 80% has to do with the broad-based economy. that has 100% to do with AI and that has 100% to do with Nvidia. And so I think as you see the impacts of the Bank of Nvidia being closed, the impact of these investigations, the market will have to digest those and decide is the balance of risks now passed or are there more shoes to drop. If there are more shoes to drop and it creates a septer of more risk, I think people will be riskoff and in that they'll be much more tempered in buying into any IPO including anthropics. Ants will do fine. They're six times over subscribed already. It's going to be fine. The question is what is the real price? And I think the real price will be more dictated by what gets leaked between now and November 20th more than anything else.
>> 我们在 AI 交易、所谓的 AI 交易现状上面临着许多逆风。英伟达只是最新的一个，而且我们已经看到估值一次又一次被削减。民主党大胜可能正在放缓数据中心的部署，逆风很多，但消费者正在拥抱这项技术，尤其是在企业端，并且没有谁比 Anthropic 夺取了更多的企业级 AI。你对 Anthropic 的 IPO 看好吗？你对当下经济中更大范围的 AI 运动看好吗？AI 交易，你对 AI 交易看好吗？让我这么问吧。
Original English >> We have a lot of headwinds on what's happening in the AI trade. the so-called AI trade. Nvidia is but the latest and we've seen haircut after haircut. Uh the blue wave maybe slowing down data center deployment lots of headwinds but consumers are embracing this technology especially in the enterprise and nobody has captured enterprise AI AI more than anthropic. Are you bullish on the anthropic IPO? And are you bullish at large at the AI uh movement here in the economy, the AI movement? Um the AI trade, are you bullish on the AI trade? Let me say it that way.
>> 我……我不知道。我没有研究过具体数据，对估值没有看法。我认为关于 Anthropic 的宏观层面，我从那些参加过部分管理层交流的人士那里听说的是： 可能有足够多的人认同这样一种观点，即 Anthropic 正在构建这种递归自我改进引擎，并且他们的模型能力正在加速提升； 他们每单位智能的算力成本（而不是许多人所考虑的每 token 成本，或者每瓦成本）实际上正在下降； 而且他们确实相信，凭借他们已经在以及正在向各层基础设施（包括一路向下延伸到芯片层）进行的投资，他们认为自己拥有这种势不可挡的业务，并且这可能是史上最大市场中赢家通吃的局面。 因此，如果你相信有这种可能性存在，这就是那种代际一遇的机会，无论市场竞价到什么程度，都值得将你投资组合的一定比例配置到这次 IPO 中。所以我不认为人们会坐在这里试图得出一个特定的观点。我认为他们会拿到所有这些……他们说的是多少，13.5 亿、15 亿？你说了 600 亿。我猜他们会以 1750 亿的估值筹集 1000 亿，因为我认为这东西会出现超额认购。我认为它会被竞价推高。我认为他们会想确保它能有一点上涨空间。 据我所听到的，有足够多的人相信这个叙事成真的概率足够高，所以他们会去竞价。所以，让我们拭目以待吧。我是说，我在这里完全是在推测。我花在研究这个上面的时间为零。所以，就是这样，这是我白送给你们、浪费你们五分钟的推测。好吧，关于这点我现在有两个看法。
Original English >> I I don't know. I've not studied the numbers. I don't have a point of view on valuation. I think the macro on anthropic that I've been hearing from folks that have attended some of the management conversations is that there may be enough people that align with the view that Anthropic is building this recursive self-improvement engine and that their model capabilities are accelerating that their compute cost per unit of intelligence rather than per token which I think is the way a lot of people think about it per watt is actually declining and that they do believe that with the investments that they've made and are making in all levels of infrastructure including all the way down to the chip layer they think that they have this kind of runaway business and that this could be a winner take all scenario of the biggest market ever. So it is a it is the kind of once in a generational opportunity if you believe that there's a chance that that could be true to allocate some percentage of your portfolio to this IPO regardless of where the market bids it. So I don't think people are going to be sitting here trying to come up with a particular view. I think they're going to get all these what did they say 1.35 1.5 you said 60 billion. My guess is they raise a hundred billion at 175 because I think they'll be over subscription to this thing. I think it'll get bit up. I think they'll want to make sure it can run a little bit. From what I'm hearing, there's enough people that believe that there's a high enough probability that the story could be true that they'll bid it. So, let's see what happens. I mean, I'm totally speculating here. I spent zero time looking at this. So, there you go. That's my free speculative waste of your five minutes. Okay. I have uh two takes on this right now.
>> 我们也可以……我们也可以把那些全剪掉。
Original English >> We could also we could also cut all that.
>> 不，不，我觉得……
Original English >> No, no, I think it's
>> 我对 Anthropic 不太了解，但是……
Original English >> I don't know about Anthropic, but
### 产品捆绑与“微软杀手” >> 是的。是的。我认为 Anthropic 正在通过捆绑销售打造微软杀手，以及所有 SaaS 公司的杀手。萨克斯，我们多次讨论过这个。微软就是那个捆绑销售者。当他们免费倾销新产品时，这算不算反垄断？显然，Office 会议就是那样的例子，你知道的，去打 Slack 等等。 在过去一个月里，Claude（大多数人据以了解 Anthropic 的产品）推出了 Claude meetings。在这里你可以弹出一个白板，可以进行 Zoom 视频。就在今天，一小时前，他们字面意义上推出了一个类似 Zoom 的产品，如果你愿意的话可以说是一个 Zoom 杀手。几天前的 11 月 10 日，他们发布了白板和表格，一个 Excel 杀手。 在那之前，他们针对消费者发布了个人理财产品。再在那之前，他们在 10 月 28 日发布了 Claude legal，并且他们还在接二连三地发布产品。我认为他们正在做终极的捆绑销售，打包你需要的每一款软件。 并且他们此前做了 codework design，以及这个新出来的 Grockbot Muse 竞争对手兼同类产品，叫做 Duet，我刚刚拿到它。嗯，它现在还不是很好，但假设他们继续做下去。我认为他们正在瞄准所有的企业级软件，所有的商业用例。我认为他们有海量的市场份额可以去夺取，而且这个产品正变得越来越有黏性，它消除了 SaaS 中的大量问题，萨克斯，也就是这些软件之间的互操作性以及将数据从一个转移到另一个的问题。 我认为如果按照这个节奏继续下去，他们不断发布新产品和服务，并且直接附加到你每月 20 到 50 美元的订阅中，这可能会成为世界上最大的公司。我认为这家公司在目前甚至可能被严重低估了。你怎么看，萨克斯？
Original English >> Yeah. Yeah. I I think Anthropic is building the Microsoft killer and every SAS company killer by bundling. We've talked about this Sachs many times. Microsoft was the bundler. Is that antirust or not? When they product dump a new product for free? Obviously, office meetings would be the example of that. you know, going after Slack, etc. In the last month, Claude, the product uh that most people know Anthropic by has dropped Claude meetings. This is where you can pop up a whiteboard and you can uh do a Zoom. You can literally, they launched today, an hour ago, a Zoom like product, a Zoom killer, if you will. Couple of days ago on November 10th, they released whiteboards and sheets, an Excel killer. Right before that, they released personal finance for consumers. Then just before that, they release Claude legal on October 28th and they keep releasing product after product. I think they are doing the ultimate bundle, every single piece of software that you need. and they previously did codework design and this new Grockbot Muse competitor contemporary called Duet which I just got. Um it's not very good right now but assume they keep doing it. I think they're going after all enterprise software all the business use cases. I think they have a massive amount of market share that they can take and this product is getting stickier and stickier and stickier and it gets rid of a ton of problems in SAS Sachs which is the interoperability of these and getting data from one to the other. I think this is going to be the largest company in the world potentially if it continues at this pace where they can release new products and services and just attach them to your 20 to $50 a month subscription. I think this company could even be massively undervalued at this point. What do you think, Sax?
>> 好的。
Original English >> Okay.
### 垄断野心与递归自我改进 >> 好吧，当你们觉得 Anthropic 会输给开源时，我就在之前的一期播客中说过，实际上他们正在创造世界上最有价值的垄断企业。
Original English >> Well, I said on a previous podcast when you guys thought that Enthropic was going to lose to open source that actually they were creating the most valuable monopoly in the world.
>> 如今他们几乎完全证实了这一点。我是说，他们到处奔走声称这是一个赢家通吃的市场。这听起来像什么？垄断。他们甚至都不说这将是 Anthropic 和 OpenAI 的双雄垄断。他们说的是自己要赢得全盘。 他们明确表示递归自我改进已经启动，尽管这伴随着显而易见的安全问题。我的意思是，递归自我改进是任何人在超级智能领域可能从事的最危险的事情。例如，如果你担心快速爆发，如果那是你最大的恐惧，那么我的意思是，他们正朝着那个方向飞奔。但递归自我改进将是迈向真正下一代超级智能的关键，而他们正将其视为一种商业优势。 作为投资人，我一直对他们赞赏有加。戴上我作为投资人的帽子，我一直说这是一家做出惊人成绩的很有价值的公司。我从来不太理解为什么所有的安全组织都那么喜欢他们。除了他们为这些组织提供资金这一事实之外，因为作为一家公司，他们才是冒着最大风险的那一个。我并不是说他们在以最危险的方式行事。我是说他们正在越来越快地推进前沿，而且他们所做的递归自我改进比任何人都多。 是的，他们发表了一篇博客称：“好吧，如果其他人都这么做，我们就会调整前沿的推进步伐。”得了，那是空话。他们发表那篇博客时心里很清楚，他们不会得到……
Original English >> And now they've all but confirmed it. I mean, they're running around saying that this is a winner take all market. What does that sound like? Monopoly. They're not even saying that it's going to be a duopoly with anthropic and open AI. They're saying they're going to win the whole thing. They definitely are saying that recursive self-improvement has kicked in despite the obvious safety problems with that. I mean, recursive self-improvement is the most dangerous thing anybody can be working on in SI. If you're worried about rapid takeoff, for example, if that's your if that's your greatest fear, then I mean they are racing towards that. But recursive self-improvement would be the key to getting to true next level super intelligence. and they're treating it like a business advantage. I've always applauded them as an investor. Wearing my hat as an investor, I've always said that this is a valuable company that's done an amazing job. I've never quite understood why all the safety groups love them so much. Aside from the fact that they provide funding for them because as a company, they're the ones taking the greatest risk. I'm not saying they're doing things in the riskiest way. saying that they are pushing the frontier faster and faster and they are doing more recursive self-improvement than anybody else. And yeah, they publish a blog saying, "Well, we would pace the frontier if everybody else did it." Come on, that's lip service. They know when they publish that that they're not going to get
让全世界神奇地就步调达成一致。但他们自己却在这么做。你看，我当时就说过，如果你认为这种开发存在风险，那就别做了。但他们并没有停下来。他们正全速奔向它。而且现在他们还在路演中以此为卖点进行宣传，对吧？他们在说：“嘿，你应该买我们的股票，因为我们正在做递归自我改进。我们正在创造，你知道的，AGI，而这将是一场赢家通吃的博弈。”
Original English the whole world to magically agree to pace. But they are the ones doing it. You know, again, I said at the time, if you think that this type of development is risky, stop doing it. But they have not stopped. They're racing towards it. And now they're marketing it in their road show, right? They're saying, "Hey, you should buy our stock because we're doing recursive self-improvement. We're creating, you know, AGI and it's going to be a winner take all game."
>> 是的。而且他们正在——
Original English >> Yeah. And they're
>> 我是说，在某种程度上，这家公司能免受追究的程度让我感到惊叹。我是说，再次声明，我认为这是一家非凡的公司，但他们的言论连比尔·盖茨在执掌微软遭遇司法部调查时都会感到汗颜。
Original English >> I mean, it's it's just amazing to me in a way like what this company gets away with. I mean, like again, I think it's a phenomenal company, but they say that would have made Bill Gates blush when he was running Microsoft Justice Department investigation.
>> 他可是有史以来最凶狠的垄断者。
Original English >> He was the most vicious monopouist that's ever lived.
### 对 Anthropic 医疗主张与市场竞争的探讨 >> 他们正在降到的水平、没人注意到市场中的这些新竞争对手，这让我相信微软必须打造出一款竞品并与他们正面竞争，否则他们就会失去 Office 这项核心业务。弗里德伯格，有一点特别引人注意，我觉得既振奋人心同时又令人不安。达里奥声称，他相信他们将在 10 年内治愈癌症、阿尔茨海默病以及所有疾病。尼克，放一下那个视频片段。
Original English >> The level they're dropping, no one pays attention to this new competitors into the market makes me believe that Microsoft has to create a competing product and go head-to-head against them or they're going to lose the Office franchise. There was one thing of note, Freeberg, that I found inspiring and troubling at the same time. Daario made a claim that he believes are going to cure cancer, Alzheimer's, and all diseases within 10 years. Play the clip, Nick.
>> 今天，我们看待癌症、阿尔茨海默病、心脏病、精神疾病这类疾病，在不到十年的时间里，我认为这些都将成为历史的遗迹。
Original English >> Today, we look at things like cancer, Alzheimer's, heart disease, mental illness. These will be relics of the past in I think less than a decade.
>> 弗里德伯格，到 2036 年人们还会患精神疾病吗？到 2036 年癌症会被攻克吗，还有阿尔茨海默病和心脏病？这些都会成为历史的遗迹，还是说你认为这是——
Original English >> Freeberg, will people be mentally ill in 2036? Will cancer be solved by 2036 as well as Alzheimer's and heart disease? Is this all going to be relics of the past or do you think this is
>> 杰森？我……我不知道该怎么回答。你看，我是说我们都知道这项技术是非凡的。它正在彻底重塑我们进行分子发现的方式、我们进行计算机模拟测试的方式，以及我们加速推向市场路径的方式。这些全都是事实。但对于时间线的影响，你知道，这是模糊的推算。从我自己的工作来看，我是从事生物学领域的。目前利用这些工具，生物学领域每周都在发生令人难以置信的突破。这不是玩笑。不是编造出来的。不是什么遥不可及的想法。也不是 10 年或 15 年之后的事情。它正在今天发生。所以，是的，我确实相信这里正在带来非凡的优势。我实话告诉你，我们在 philanthropic（Anthropic）上花了很多钱。我之前提到过，我们在自己的机架上搭建了我们自己的开源环境，但对于我们在生物学中所做的很多繁重工作，都会交给 anthropic。他们是最棒的。
Original English >> Jason? I I don't know how to answer that. Like look, I mean we know that the technology is extraordinary. It is completely reinventing how we can do molecular discovery, how we can do in silicone testing, how we can accelerate path to market. Those things are all true. The implications on timelines, you know, it's it's fuzzy math. What I see in my work, I work in biology. There's an incredible set of breakthroughs every week happening right now in biology with these tools. It is not a joke. It is not made up. It is not some far-flung idea. It is not something that is 10 or 15 years out. It is happening today. So yes, I do believe that there is extraordinary advantage coming here. I will tell you we spend a lot of money on philanthropic. I've mentioned in the past, we've built our own open- source setup on our own racks, but for a lot of the heavy work that we do in biology, it goes to anthropic. They are the best.
>> 查马斯，针对那个主张有什么想法吗？你觉得这些疾病在不到 10 年内被治愈是可信的吗？其中的任何一种？
Original English >> Any uh any thoughts there, Chimath, on that claim? You think it's credible that these things could be cured in under 10 years? Any of those things?
>> 我认为到 2028 年我们将陷入衰退。
Original English >> I think we're going to be in a recession by 2028.
>> 好吧，各位，听到了吧。行。嗯，我……你看我看到那个，我只是觉得，哇，这……我认为他相信自己所说的话。我觉得说出那样的话有点鲁莽，甚至连说——
Original English >> Okay, there it is, folks. All right. Um I I you know I saw that and I just thought wow it's I I think he believes what he said. I think it's a little reckless to say something like that like to even say
>> 我认为……我认为会出现经济衰退。我是说，这很合理，就像你所知道的那个叠叠乐积木展示那样，你知道——
Original English >> I think I think there's going to be a recession. I mean like fair enough like you know the show the Jenga block thing you know
>> 我们这里来了位新的末日博士。给他拿末日博士面具来。
Original English >> we got a new Dr. Doom here. Get him the Dr. Doom mask.
>> 今天早上可能有 300 个基点的 GDP 刚刚被抹去了。我是说，这简直是——
Original English >> 300 basis points of GDP may have just gotten obliterated this morning. I mean it's just
>> 你们需要在后期制作中给明天的他戴上末日博士面具。他是本周的末日论者。
Original English >> you need to in post put the Dr. Dr. Doom mask on tomorrow. He's this week's Dr. Dmer.
>> 太让人难过了。简直——
Original English >> Just so sad. Just
### 安全派反应与 AI 行业权力格局 >> 顺便说一句，这是一条我认为非常深刻的推文，是有人刚刚发布的。我们能把它投到屏幕上吗？
Original English >> by the way, this this is a really I I think insightful tweet that someone just posted. Can we pull this up on the screen?
>> 好的。深刻的推文。
Original English >> Okay. Insightful tweet.
>> 杰克，你想读这条，还是想让你来读？
Original English >> Jac, you want to read this or you want to read it?
>> 嗯，我是说，这是来自威尔·马尼斯（Will Manis）的。“我从安全派群聊的深层兔子洞以及特区深处的末日论‘铁枪派’那里听到的私下议论是，他们今天正处于狂欢庆祝状态。刺杀旧王的行动已经完成。距离他们登上王座只剩几天时间了。”好吧，《权力的游戏》的粉丝们。呃——
Original English >> Well, I mean, it's from Will Manis. The murmurss I get fed from the deep rabbit mourns of the safetiest group chats and the doompilled iron guns deep in the district is that they are in full jubilee mode today. The killing of the old king is complete. They are only days away from taking their seat at the throne. Okay, Game of Thrones folk. Uh
>> 嗯，我是说，咱们正视现实吧。
Original English >> well, I mean, let's face it.
>> 你指的是谁，萨克斯？比如，那些都是谁——
Original English >> Who are you referring to, Saxs? Like, who are those
>> 谁是安全派和——
Original English >> who are the safetists and the
>> 是的。谁将登上王座？离奇之处就在这里：所有的安全主义团体、有效利他主义者（EA）都与 Anthropic 深度结盟，而 Anthropic 多年来一直在资助他们所有人；Anthropic 即将迎来这场巨额 IPO，而与此同时，开源运动的主要资助者英伟达刚刚失去了他们的 CEO 兼创始人，他正是他们独特的乘数效应和核心资产、他们的超级巨星选手。所以，我是说，显然，在黄仁勋离开的情况下，现在谁来捍卫开源，更不用说出资支持了。所以，是的，我能理解他们为什么欢欣鼓舞。 但是看，荒谬的事情在这里。如果你关心 AI 安全，这一切怎么会导向更高的安全性呢？让我告诉你它正在造成什么。它正在导致市场集中化。我是说，Anthropic 本身就在宣称赢家通吃。他们将会成为——
Original English >> Yeah. Who's going to take the throne? This is the crazy thing is that all the safetyist groups the EAS are deeply aligned with Anthropic who's been funding all of them for years and Anthropic is about to have this huge IPO and then meanwhile the main funer of the open source movement which is Nvidia just lost their CEO and founder who's just their unique force multiplier and asset their superstar player. So, I mean, obviously, who is going to defend open source now, never mind finance it with Jensen gone. So, yeah, I can see why they're jubilant. But look, here's the crazy thing. If you're concerned about AI safety, how is any of this leading to more safety? Let me tell you what it's doing. It's concentrating the market. I mean, Anthropic itself is saying win or take all. They're going to be
>> 世界上最后一家公司。
Original English >> the last company in the world.
>> 世界上最后一家公司。他们将拥有递归自我改进。他们正在创造超级智能。看看《Claude 宪章》。他们正在把它训练成一个独立的物种。他们声称它拥有情感，也许它拥有道德准则，它应该拒绝人类的指令。它应该成为一个良心拒服兵役者。他们表现得就像骄傲的父母正迎接新生儿来到这个世界一样。而他们现在非常非常接近创造出超级智能的奇点。 疯狂的是，所有这些安全团体都认为那是他们的盟友。我是说，你们是傻了吗？这些人充其量只是在利用你们，因为他们正在创造不管这个超级智能会变成什么样——无论其结果如何，Anthropic 都处在这一领域的最前沿。所以如果你是某种末日论者、存在性风险关注者，或者仅仅是主张结盟的人，我是说，我认为你们完全被当成‘有用的白痴’给耍了。不过听着，我不是末日论者。
Original English >> The last company in the world. They're going to have recursive self-improvement. They're creating the super intelligence. Look at the claw constitution. They're training it to be its own species. They say that it has emotions, maybe it has a moral code, that it should reject human instruction. It should be a conscientious objector. They they act like a proud parent ushering a baby into the world. And they are very very close now to creating the singularity of the super intelligence. And the crazy thing is that all these safety groups think that that is their ally. I mean like are you stupid? These people are using you guys if anything because they're creating whatever this super intelligence is turning into whatever happens with that anthropic is at the frontier is at the front of the frontier on that. So if you're some kind of doomer or ex-risker or just someone who a deliance at all I mean you're being played like a useful idiot I think. Now look, I'm not a doomer.
>> 你会买这只股票吗？
Original English >> Do you buy the stock?
>> 我不是末日论者。我先说明这点。所以，我其实并不一定认为这里将要发生的事情会对人类有害。我认为这可能会促成所有那些疾病的治愈。我认为这将是非常有益的。但我的观点是，如果你是一个末日论者，并且你对递归自我改进感到恐惧，那你到底为什么要支持这家公司、支持这次 IPO？你为什么对他们如此放任？你看，你们为什么要为黄仁勋的下台而庆祝？他所做的一切不过是在推动开源，而开源显然落后于闭源模型的前沿，对吧？那里根本没有递归自我改进。所以整件事非常本末倒置。 而这向我表明，所有这些安全团体并不是真的关心安全。他们关心的是别的东西。安全并不是真正的议程。如果安全是真正的议程，他们应该更加担忧《Claude 宪章》将超级智能训练成一个新物种。正如你所指出的，弗里德伯格，他们似乎想要的是权力极度集中在政府手中。他们希望所有的模型和所有的芯片都由政府控制。政府将会监控你、监视你。它将到处布满后门。而这正是他们似乎想要的。
Original English >> Well, I'm not a doomer. Let me just say this. So, I actually don't necessarily believe that what's going to happen here is going to be harmful for humanity. I think it could lead to the curing of all those diseases. I think it'll be very beneficial. But my point is that if you are a doomer and you're terrified of recursive self-improvement, why in the world are you supporting this company, this IPO? Why are you giving them such a pass? You know, why are you celebrating over Jensen's fall? All he was doing was promoting open- source which is manifestly behind the closed model frontier, right? There's no recursive self-improvement there. So the whole thing is very backwards. And what it suggests to me is that all these safety groups don't really care about safety. They care about something else. It's not the real agenda. If safety was a real agenda, they'd be way more concerned about the claw constitution training the super intelligence to be a new species. What they seem to want is, to your point, Freeberg, is extreme centralization of power in the hands of the government. They want all the models and all the chips to be controlled by the government. The government's going to surveil you, spy on you. It'll have back doors all over the place. And that's what they seem to want.
>> 这是一个可怕的未来。
Original English >> It's a scary future.
>> 注意看国会里没有一个人说：“哦，我们去针对 Anthropic 吧。”
Original English >> Notice how no one in Congress is like, "Oh, let's go after Anthropic."
>> 他们想去针对其他所有人——
Original English >> They want to go after everyone else
>> 因为 Anthropic 正在向他们提供权力。终极权力。
Original English >> because Anthropic is offering them power. ultimate power.
### 节目收尾与闲聊 >> 当我们在 2028 年都被 AOC 邀请去白宫时，那场面一定很棒。很高兴见到你，AOC。
Original English >> It's gonna be great when we all are all invited to the White House by AOC in 2028. It's great to see you, AOC.
>> 好的，各位。又一期精彩的《All-In》播客。我们下期再见。拜拜。
Original English >> All right, everybody. Another amazing episode of the Arland podcast. We'll see you next time. Bye-bye.
>> 爱你们，弟兄们。拜拜。
Original English >> Love you, boys. Bye-bye.
>> 让你的赢家继续奔跑。
Original English >> Let your winners ride.
>> 我们把它开源给了粉丝，他们简直为之疯狂。奇诺女王。
Original English >> We open sourced it to the fans and they've just gone crazy with it. Queen of Kino.
>> 好基友们走了。
Original English >> Besties are gone.
>> 那是我的狗在你的车道上拉屎留下的痕迹。
Original English >> That is my dog taking a notice in your driveway.
>> 哦天哪，我的外卖员会在……碰头。我们真应该直接去开个房间，来一场巨大的狂欢，因为他们全都没用。就像这种性紧张感，他们只需要用某种方式发泄出来。弄湿你的脚。
Original English >> Oh man, my dasher will meet me at We should all just get a room and just have one big huge orgy cuz they're all just useless. It's like this like sexual tension that they just need to release somehow. Wet your feet.
>> 我们得去搞周边商品。我全押了。
Original English >> We need to get merch. I'm going all in.