Peter Thiel this afternoon, one of the great legendary investors in Silicon Valley. He has been involved in just about everything that you touch and feel, including being the co-founder of PayPal, the co-founder of Palantir. He made his first outside investment, made the first outside investment, I should say, in Facebook. His firm Founders Fund is a big backer of Stripe and SpaceX. His firm backed numerous other startups through the Founders

彼得-蒂爾（Peter Thiel）是硅谷最偉大的傳奇投資人之一。他幾乎參與了你所接觸和感受到的一切，包括貝寶（PayPal）的聯合創始人、Palantir 的聯合創始人。他的第一筆外部投資，應該說是對 Facebook 的第一筆外部投資。他的公司 Founders Fund 是 Stripe 和 SpaceX 的大股東。他的公司還通過創始人基金支持了許多其他創業公司。

Fund and Thiel Capital. He also started the Thiel Fellowship, a two-year program that's an alternative to a college degree, which I want to get to at one point. And more importantly than all of it, he has touched some of the people and found the people who you read about in the headlines every day, from Mark Zuckerberg to Elon Musk to Sam Altman and so many others.

基金和泰爾資本。他還創辦了 "泰爾獎學金"（Thiel Fellowship），這是一個為期兩年的項目，是大學學位的替代選擇，我想在某個時候談一下這個項目。更重要的是，他接觸到了一些人，找到了你每天在頭條新聞上看到的那些人，從馬克-扎克伯格（Mark Zuckerberg）到埃隆-馬斯克（Elon Musk），再到薩姆-奧特曼（Sam Altman），還有很多其他人。

And it is great to have you here.

你能來這裡真是太好了。

Thanks for having me.

謝謝你邀請我。

We're also going to talk a little politics as well, along with maybe some of the issues and culture conversations that are happening in Silicon Valley. But here's where I want to start the conversation, because I want to start the conversation talking about people, because I think there's something actually extraordinary when you think about your track record over the years of involving yourself in investing, not just in companies, but ultimately in people. You wrote a book, which is coming on a 10-year anniversary. And by the way,

我們還將談談政治，以及硅谷正在發生的一些問題和文化對話。但我想從這裡開始對話，因為我想從 "人 "開始對話，因為我認為，當你回想一下你多年來參與投資的記錄，不僅是投資公司，而且最終是投資人時，就會發現一些非同尋常的東西。你寫了一本書，這本書即將出版 10 週年。順便說一句

I reread it, and it stands up in a very big way. It is called Zero to One. And you wrote the following about founders, the idea of founders. You wrote that the lesson for business is that we need founders. If anything, we should be more tolerant of founders who seem strange or extreme. We need unusual individuals to lead companies beyond mere incrementalism.

我重讀了這本書，它在很大程度上站得住腳。這本書叫做《從0到1》。你在書中提到了創始人，創始人的概念。你寫道，對企業的啟示是，我們需要創始人。如果有的話，我們應該對那些看似奇怪或極端的創始人更加寬容。我們需要不尋常的人來上司公司，超越單純的漸進主義。

And I mention that because I also just mentioned a number of individuals which we read about all the time. And some of those people would be described as unusual, perhaps, or even strange. And I'm curious about how you think over the years you have found these individuals, what it is that has made these individuals as successful as they have become.

我之所以提到這一點，是因為我剛才還提到了我們經常讀到的一些人。其中有些人也許會被形容為不尋常，甚至奇怪。我很好奇，多年來你是如何發現這些人的，是什麼讓這些人取得了如此大的成功？

Yes, it's obviously, if there was some simple magic formula, this is what a founder looks like, and you invest in this category of people who's a founder, it probably gets faked. It's like, I don't know, it's a 20-year-old with a T-shirt and jeans, or something like this, or you end up with all kinds of really fake ideas. But yeah, I think a lot of the great companies that have been built over the last two decades were, somehow, they were founded by people where it was somehow deeply connected to their identity, their life's life project.

是的，很明顯，如果有什麼簡單的魔法公式，創始人就是這個樣子，你投資的這類人就是創始人，那很可能會被偽造。這就像，我不知道，這是一個20歲的T恤衫和牛仔褲，或類似的東西，或者你最終與各種真正虛假的想法。是的，我認為在過去二十年裡，很多偉大的公司都是由這樣一些人創立的，他們的公司與他們的身份、他們一生的事業有著千絲萬縷的聯繫。

They had some kind of idiosyncratic, somewhat different vision of what they were doing.

他們對自己所做的事情有著某種特立獨行、與眾不同的看法。

They did something new, and then they built something extraordinarily big over the years.

他們做了一些新的事情，然後經過多年的努力，建立起了一個非同尋常的大家庭。

And of course, they have these sort of extreme personalities, often have a lot of blind spots, and there sort of are all these ways in which it's a feature, and there are ways in which it can be a little bit buggy. But it's sort of a package deal, and I net out to it being massively advantageous versus, let's say, a professional CEO being brought in.

當然，他們也有極端的個性，往往會有很多盲點，而且他們的工作方式有很多特點，也會有一些缺陷。但這是一個一攬子交易，我認為它比引入一個專業的首席執行官更有優勢。

The prehistory of this, I would say, would be in the 1990s. The Silicon Valley formula was you had various people found the company, and then you'd replace them as quickly as possible with professional CEOs, professional management. And there are variations of this that happened with Netscape, and Yahoo, and even Google, all these companies.

我想說的是，這種情況的前史應該是在 20 世紀 90 年代。硅谷的模式是，先讓不同的人創建公司，然後儘快用專業的首席執行官、專業的管理層來取代他們。網景、雅虎、甚至谷歌，所有這些公司都是如此。

The Gen X people founded them. The baby boomers came along and took over the companies and stole them from the Gen X founders in the 90s. In the 2000s, when the millennials founded the companies, they were given more of an opportunity, and it made a big difference.

X 代人創立了這些公司。90 年代，嬰兒潮一代出現，接管了公司，從 X 代創始人手中搶走了公司。到了 2000 年代，當千禧一代創辦公司時，他們獲得了更多的機會，從而產生了巨大的變化。

The Facebook story I always tell is, it was 2006, two years in, Zuckerberg was like 22 years old, and we got a $1 billion offer to sell the company to Yahoo. And we had a board meeting. There were three of us, and we thought we should at least talk about it.

我常說的 Facebook 故事是，2006 年，Facebook 成立兩年，扎克伯格 22 歲，我們收到了一份 10 億美元的報價，要把公司賣給雅虎。我們召開了董事會當時我們有三個人 我們覺得至少應該討論一下這個問題

It was a lot of money. Zuckerberg would make $250 million, and it was sort of an eight-hour-long discussion, and he didn't know what he'd do with the money. And he'd just start another social networking company. He kind of liked the one he had, and he didn't know what else he would do, and so he really didn't want to sell. And if you had a professional CEO, it would have just been, man, I can't believe they're offering us $1 billion, and I'm going to try not to be too eager, and we better take the money and run. And getting that one thing right makes a big difference.

那是一大筆錢扎克伯格會賺到2. 5億美元 這是個長達8小時的討論 他不知道該怎麼處理這筆錢他想再開一家社交網絡公司他有點喜歡他現在的公司 他不知道自己還能做什麼 所以他真的不想賣掉公司如果你有一個專業的首席執行官，你就會說："夥計，真不敢相信他們出價 10 億美元，我儘量不要太心急，我們最好拿了錢就跑。而做對了這一件事，情況就大不一樣了。

Let me ask you a different question. All of these individuals had a huge impact on society and have an enormous individual power. And I think one of the things that you've argued in this book and that you've argued over the years is that we need to give them that power.

讓我問你一個不同的問題。所有這些人都對社會產生了巨大影響，擁有巨大的個人力量。我認為，你在這本書中以及多年來一直主張的一點是，我們需要賦予他們這種力量。

We need to offer them a latitude that in many ways we don't offer others.

我們需要為他們提供一種寬鬆的環境，而在很多方面，我們並沒有為其他人提供這種環境。

Well, I think one of the frames I always have is that there are many ways in which the United

我認為，我始終認為，美國有許多方式可以

States, the developed countries, have been relatively stagnant for the last 50 years.

發達國家在過去 50 年中相對停滯不前。

Progress has slowed. We've had progress in computers, Internet software, and many other domains. Things have kind of stalled out, and it sort of manifests in low economic growth in the sense that the younger generation is going to have a tough time doing as well as their parents. And there is sort of this way that there has been this broad stagnation for 40, 50 years, and we need to find ways to do new things. I don't think tech startup companies are the only ways to do them. That is a vehicle for doing it. And yeah, if you don't allow these companies to have a certain latitude and flexibility to try to do new things, we shut it down right away. The stagnation will be worse than ever.

進步已經放緩。我們在計算機、互聯網軟件和許多其他領域都取得了進步。但現在一切都停滯不前了，表現為經濟增長乏力，年輕一代很難像他們的父輩那樣取得好成績。40、50 年來，我們一直處於停滯不前的狀態，是以我們需要尋找新的方法。我不認為科技創業公司是唯一的途徑。這只是一種手段。是的，如果你不允許這些公司有一定的自由度和靈活性去嘗試做新的事情，我們就會立即關閉它。停滯不前的情況將比以往更加嚴重。

Okay, but here's a separate almost philosophical question. I'm going to read back something you said to The New Yorker. There was a piece about Sam Altman. This is right around actually when OpenAI began, 2016. And I think it actually might even be representative of how you might think about Mark Zuckerberg or Elon Musk or some of these other kinds of major players.

好吧，但這裡有一個單獨的哲學問題我念一段你對《紐約客》說的話有一篇關於薩姆-奧特曼（Sam Altman）的文章。這篇文章實際上是在2016年OpenAI開始的時候寫的。我認為這篇文章甚至可以代表你對馬克-扎克伯格（Mark Zuckerberg）、埃隆-馬斯克（Elon Musk）或其他一些大公司的看法。

This is what you said. You said, Sam's program for the world is anchored by ideas, not people.

你是這麼說的你說，山姆的世界計劃是以理念為基礎，而不是以人為基礎。

And that's what makes it powerful, because it doesn't immediately get derailed by questions of popularity. And I thought that that was actually very indicative of most of the people that you have invested in. It's really been about ideas, and in some ways, you could even argue is disconnected from people.

這就是它的強大之處，因為它不會馬上因為人氣問題而出軌。我認為，這實際上非常適合你投資的大多數人。它實際上是關於理念的，在某些方面，你甚至可以說是與人脫節的。

I think it is really about a whole wide... People, they're able to think about a wide spectrum of things. They're able to think about... Good founders have theories of how to hire people, how to manage them, how to build teams. They have theories about where the culture of the society's work going. They have technical things about the product, the design. They have ideas about how they should market their company. So they're sort of polymaths who are able to think about a lot of these things. But yeah, I'm biased towards a lot of the ones where it's more intellectual. But I think that quote has held up pretty well with Sam Altman. Maybe he needed to pay a little bit more attention to the board and things like that. There was probably a people dimension that he had ignored a little bit too much in November 2016.

我認為，這實際上是關於整個廣泛的...人們能夠思考各種各樣的事情他們能夠思考...優秀的創始人都有一套如何僱人、如何管理、如何組建團隊的理論。他們有關於社會工作文化走向的理論。他們有關於產品和設計的技術知識。他們有關於如何營銷公司的想法。是以，他們是多面手，能夠思考很多事情。不過，是的，我偏愛那些更注重知識的人。但我覺得這句話在薩姆-奧特曼身上得到了很好的詮釋。也許他需要更多關注董事會之類的事情。在 2016 年 11 月，他可能忽略了一些人的層面。

Since we're on the Sam Altman of it all, and since Sam was here yesterday, I'm so curious.

既然我們說到了山姆-奧特曼，而且山姆昨天也在這裡，我很好奇。

You were a mentor of his. What do you think of open AI? What do you think of AI more broadly right now? I mean, are we in a bubble? Is this the future? What is this?

你是他的導師。你如何看待開放式人工智能？你怎麼看現在更廣泛的人工智能？我的意思是，我們是否處於保麗龍之中？這是未來嗎？這是什麼？

That's a broad question. I think I'm always hesitant to talk about it because I feel there's so many things I would have said about AI where I would have been very wrong two, three years ago. So maybe I'll start by just saying a little bit about the history of what people thought was going to happen, and then the surprising thing that open AI achieved that did happen. If you had this debate in the 2010s, there was sort of one maybe frame in terms of two paradigms, two books. There was the Bostrom book, Superintelligence 2014, which is that AI was going to build this godlike superhuman intelligence. It was heading towards this godlike oracle. That was what AI was going to be. And then there was the Kai-Fu

這個問題很寬泛。我覺得我總是猶豫要不要談這個問題，因為我覺得有很多關於人工智能的事情，我在兩三年前就已經說錯了。所以，也許我可以先說說人們認為會發生的事情的歷史，然後說說開放式人工智能所取得的令人驚訝的成就。如果你在2010年代有這樣一場辯論，那麼可能有兩種範式、兩本書。博斯特羅姆的《超級智能》（Superintelligence 2014）一書認為，人工智能將構建出神一般的超人智能。它正朝著神諭的方向發展。這就是人工智能的未來。還有《開福

Lee rebuttal 2018, AI superpowers, which was sort of where the CCP rebuttal to Silicon

李開復反駁2018，人工智能超能力，這算是中共反駁硅

Valley that no, AI is not about godlike intelligence. That's a science fiction fantasy Silicon

谷，不，人工智能不是神一樣的智能。那是科幻小說中的幻想 硅谷

Valley has. AI is going to be about machine learning, data collection. It's not conscious.

谷有。人工智能的核心是機器學習和數據收集。它不是有意識的。

It's not any of these weird things. It's surveillance tech. And China is going to beat the US in the race for AI because we have no qualms about sort of this totalitarian, not the word he used, collection of data in our society. And that was sort of the way the AI debate got framed. And then the thing I always said was, man, it's just such a weird word. It means all these different things. It's annoyingly undefined. But then the sort of surprising and strangely unexpected thing that happened is that, in some sense, what open AI with chat GPT 3.54 achieved in late 22, early 23 was you passed the Turing test, which was not superintelligence. It's not godlike. It's not low tech surveillance. But that had been the Holy Grail of AI for 60 or 70 years. And it's a fuzzy line. The Turing test is you have a computer that can convince you that it's a human being. And it's a somewhat fuzzy line. But it pretty clearly hadn't been passed before. It pretty clearly is passed now. And that's a really extraordinary achievement. It raises all sorts of interesting, big picture questions. What does it mean to be a human being in 2024? The placeholder answer I would have been tempted to give a couple of years ago would be something like the Noam Chomsky idea that something very important about language, this is what sets humans apart from all the other animals. We talk to each other. And we have these rich semantic syntax things.

這不是什麼奇怪的東西。而是監控技術中國將在人工智能領域擊敗美國，因為我們對這種極權主義毫無保留，他用的不是這個詞，而是在我們的社會中收集數據。這就是人工智能辯論的框架。然後我總是說，夥計，這真是個奇怪的詞。它意味著所有這些不同的東西。令人討厭的定義不明但令人驚訝和意外的是，在某種意義上，在22年底23年初，用GPT3.54實現的開放人工智能，通過了圖靈測試，這不是超級智能。它不是神一樣的存在。也不是低技術監控。但六七十年來這一直是人工智能的聖盃這是一條模糊的界線圖靈測試是指電腦能讓你相信它是人類這是一條模

And so if a computer can replicate that, what does that mean for all of us in this room?

那麼，如果計算機可以複製這一切，這對在座的各位意味著什麼呢？

And so it's an extraordinary development. And it was also somehow, even though it had been the Holy Grail, some of the last decade before, it was not expected at all. And so there's something very significant about it and very underrated. And then, of course, you get all these questions about, is it going to, the econ one question, is it a compliment?

是以，這是一個非同尋常的發展。儘管在過去的十年裡，它一直是人們心目中的 "聖盃"，但在某種程度上，它卻完全不被人們所期待。是以，它有一些非常重要的意義，卻被低估了。然後，當然，你會得到所有這些問題，它是要，經濟一的問題，它是一個恭維？

Is it going to make people more productive? Or is it a substitute good where it's going to replace?

它能提高人們的工作效率嗎？或者說，它是一種可以替代的物品嗎？

What do you think of all of this and how bullish as an investor are you on this? And what do you think our society is? When you hear Sam Altman talk about this, you say he's right.

您對這一切怎麼看？作為投資者，您對此有多看好？你認為我們的社會會怎樣？當你聽到薩姆-奧特曼談論這些時，你會說他是對的。

That's what it's going to be. Do you think it's going to be something else? You lived through 1999. There's some people who say this is a hype cycle. Other people say this is the future.

就這麼定了。你覺得會是別的嗎？你經歷過1999年有人說這是一個炒作週期也有人說這就是未來

Well, I'm very anchored on the 99 history. And I somehow always like to say that 99 was both. It was, you know, the peak of the bubble was also, in a sense, the peak of clarity.

我對 99 的歷史非常熟悉。我總是想說，99年是兩者兼具的。你知道，保麗龍的頂峰在某種意義上也是清晰度的頂峰。

People had realized the new economy was going to replace the old economy. The Internet was going to be the most important thing in the 21st century. And people were right about that. And then the specific investments were incredibly hard to make. And even the no-brainer market leader. So, you know, if you said 1999, the no-brainer investment would have been

人們已經意識到，新經濟將取代舊經濟。互聯網將成為 21 世紀最重要的東西。人們的認識是正確的。但具體的投資卻難上加難。即使是市場領導者也不例外。所以，你知道，如果你說 1999 年，最簡單的投資應該是

Amazon stock. It's a leading e-commerce company. And they're going to scale and they'll get bigger.

亞馬遜股票。這是一家領先的電子商務公司。他們將不斷擴大規模，做大做強。

And it peaked in December 99 at $113 a share. It was $5.5 in October 2001, 22 months later.

它在 99 年 12 月達到頂峰，每股 113 美元。22 個月後，即 2001 年 10 月，它的價格為 5.5 美元。

You then had to wait until the end of 2009 to get back to the 99 highs. And then if you'd waited until today, you would have made 25 times your money from 99. You would have first lost – you would have gone down 95% and then made 500X. So even the no-brainer investment from 99 was wickedly tricky to pull off in retrospect.

然後，你必須等到 2009 年底才能回到 99 年的高點。如果你等到今天，你的收益將是 99 年的 25 倍。是以，即使是 99 年的無腦投資，回過頭來看也是非常棘手的。

And I sort of think that AI, the LLM form of AI –

我認為，人工智能、人工智能的法學碩士形式--

These are the large language models.

這些是大型語言模型。

Large language models.

大型語言模型。

Open AIs of the world.

開放的人工智能世界

Again, that's – passing the Turing test, I think it's roughly on the scale of the

再說一遍，這--通過圖靈測試，我認為大致相當於

Internet. And so it's an incredibly important thing. It's going to be very important socially, politically, philosophically, about all these questions about meaning. And then the financial investment question I find unbelievably hard and confusing. And yeah, it's probably quite tricky.

互聯網。是以，這是一件非常重要的事情。在社會、政治和哲學上，在所有這些關於意義的問題上，它都將非常重要。而金融投資的問題，我覺得難得讓人困惑。是的，這可能很棘手。

If I had to – if you had to sort of concretize it, one thing that's very strange about the – if you sort of just follow the money, at this point 80% to 85% of the money in AI is being made by one company. It's NVIDIA. And so it's all on this sort of very weird hardware layer, which Silicon Valley doesn't even know very much about anymore. We don't really do hardware – we don't do silicon chips in Silicon Valley anymore. I get pitched on these companies once every three or four years and it's always, I have no clue how to do this. It sounds like a pretty good idea, but man, I have no clue and we never invest.

如果非要我說--如果你非要把它具體化--有一件事非常奇怪--如果你跟著錢走，目前人工智能領域 80% 到 85% 的錢都被一家公司賺走了。那就是英偉達。是以，這一切都發生在這種非常奇怪的硬件層上，而硅谷甚至都不太瞭解這一點了。在硅谷，我們不再做硬件，不再做硅芯片。我每隔三四年就會被推薦給這些公司，但每次都是 "我不知道該怎麼做"。這聽起來是個不錯的主意，但我毫無頭緒，我們也從不投資。

And so – and then there's sort of this theory that the hardware piece makes the money initially, then gets more commodified over time and it'll shift to software. And the – I don't know, the multi-trillion dollar question, is that going to be true again this time or will NVIDIA sort of have this incredible monopoly position?

是以，有一種理論認為，硬件最初能賺錢，但隨著時間的推移，硬件會越來越商品化，然後轉向軟件。我不知道，這個價值數萬億美元的問題，這次會不會再次出現，或者英偉達公司會不會擁有令人難以置信的壟斷地位？

And what's your bet at the moment?

你目前的賭注是多少？

I suspect NVIDIA will – I think it will maintain its position for a while. I think the game theory on it is something like all the big tech companies are going to start to try to design their own AI chips so they don't have to do the 10x markup to NVIDIA.

我認為英偉達會--我認為它會在一段時間內保持自己的地位。我認為它的博弈論是，所有大型科技公司都會開始嘗試設計自己的人工智能芯片，這樣他們就不必向英偉達支付 10 倍的加價。

And then how hard is it for them to do it? How long will it take? If they all do it, then the chips become a commodity and nobody makes money in chips. And so then do you go into hardware and you should do it if nobody else is doing it. If everybody does it, you shouldn't do it. And then maybe – I'm not sure how that nets out, but probably people stay stuck for a while and NVIDIA goes from strength to strength for a while.

然後，他們做起來有多難？需要多長時間？如果他們都這麼做，那麼芯片就成了商品，沒人能靠芯片賺錢了。那麼，你是否要進入硬件領域，如果沒有人做，你就應該做。如果大家都做，你就不應該做。然後，也許--我不確定結果如何，但也許人們會堅持一段時間，英偉達也會在一段時間內不斷壯大。

I have a related but maybe personal question for you. You happen to have this very interesting relationship with Sam Altman and then also a very interesting relationship with Elon Musk.

我有一個相關但可能是私人的問題要問你。你恰好與薩姆-奧特曼（Sam Altman）有一段非常有趣的關係，同時與埃隆-馬斯克（Elon Musk）也有一段非常有趣的關係。

You both worked at PayPal. You famously were part of a coup effectively to push Elon Musk out of the company. You're now friends with him all over again and have a stake in SpaceX.

你們都曾在貝寶工作過。你曾參與了一場政變，將埃隆-馬斯克趕出了公司。現在你們又成了朋友，並持有 SpaceX 的股份。

You can maybe walk us through that friendship. We had some rough moments in 2000-2001.

你也許能帶我們回顧一下這段友誼。2000-2001 年，我們經歷了一些艱難的時刻。

We can get into that if you want, but where I was going to go with this actually is one of the things that's been fascinating and fascinating to the Valley and I think to the rest of the country has been the commentary we've heard from Elon Musk who helped build

如果你願意，我們可以討論這個問題，但我想說的是，對美國硅谷和全國其他地方來說，埃隆-馬斯克（Elon Musk）的評論是非常吸引人的。

OpenAI with Sam and the break actually between the two of them as creating this not-for-profit and what's happened to it. In fact, Elon Musk originally sued Sam earlier this year and then dropped the suit recently. But how do you think about this idea of a company that was started as a not-for-profit and all of the safety concerns and things that you hear from Elon on one side and Sam on the other?

OpenAI與薩姆的關係，以及他們兩人在創建這個非營利組織時的分歧和後來的發展。事實上，埃隆-馬斯克（Elon Musk）原本在今年早些時候起訴了薩姆，但最近又撤訴了。但你是如何看待這家以非營利形式創立的公司，以及你從埃隆和薩姆那裡聽到的所有安全問題和事情的？

Man, it's whichever person I talked to last I find the most convincing probably. So, you know, I talked to Elon about it and he made this argument. It's just completely illegal for a non-profit to become a for-profit company because otherwise everyone would set up companies as non-profits and take advantage of the tax laws and then you turn them into a for-profit and this is the most obvious arb and they just can't be allowed to do this. It's obviously just totally illegal what Sam's trying to do at OpenAI. And then like half an hour after the conversation was over, at the moment, it's like, oh, that's a really strong argument.

我覺得最後跟誰談的人最有說服力。所以，我和埃隆談過這個問題，他提出了這樣一個論點。非營利性公司變成營利性公司是完全不合法的，否則每個人都會成立非營利性公司，利用稅法的優勢，然後你再把它們變成營利性公司，這是最明顯的arb，不能允許他們這麼做。很明顯，山姆在OpenAI的所作所為是完全違法的。談話結束半小時後，此刻我的感覺是，哦，這真是個有力的論據。

And then half an hour later, it's like, but, you know, the whole history of OpenAI is that the biggest handicap they had was a non-profit and it led to all these crazy conflicting things culminating in this non-profit board that thought it was better to shut down the company or the whole venture, whatever you want to call it, rather than keep going. And nobody is ever going to take the lesson from OpenAI to start a non-profit and turn it into a for-profit later given what a total disaster that was. But yeah, whoever I listened to last I find the most compelling.

半小時後，人們就會說，但是，你知道，OpenAI的整個歷史就是，他們最大的障礙就是是一個非營利組織，這導致了所有這些瘋狂的衝突，最終導致這個非營利組織的董事會認為，與其繼續下去，還不如關閉公司或整個企業，不管你怎麼稱呼它。鑑於 OpenAI 的徹底失敗，沒有人會從 OpenAI 中吸取教訓，將其從非營利性公司轉型為營利性公司。不過，無論我最後聽誰的演講，我都覺得他最有說服力。

Let me ask you a different question. You left Silicon Valley. You have now moved to Los

讓我問你一個不同的問題。你離開了硅谷。你現在搬到了洛杉磯

Angeles. That's your home.

安吉拉那是你的家

We left San Francisco specifically. Yeah.

我們特別離開了舊金山是啊

San Francisco specifically.

特別是舊金山。

It was, it just felt it was time to get out.

它只是覺得是時候離開了。

So tell us why it was time to get out because I think a lot of the issues that actually we read about whether around OpenAI and some of the culture issues at a lot of these companies are the reason you decided you didn't want to live there anymore.

所以，請告訴我們為什麼是時候離開了，因為我認為，我們讀到的很多關於 OpenAI 的問題，以及很多公司的文化問題，都是你決定不想再在那裡生活下去的原因。

It was, man, it's hard to, it's a bunch of things that came together, but it was, there was a sense that it was sort of the ground zero of the most unhinged place in the country.

這是，男人，這是很難的， 這是一堆事情走到了一起， 但它是，有一種感覺， 這是排序的地面零 在全國最不正常的地方。

It was, you had this catastrophic homeless problem, which maybe is not the most important problem, but sort of, and it was never getting better. You had, it was by 2018 when we moved to LA, it felt like it had become extraordinarily self-hating where everybody who was not in tech hated the tech industry. This would be, this is very odd. It would be like the people in Houston hating oil or people in Detroit hating cars, you know, people in New York hating finance. And so it had this unhinged, self-hating character in the city itself.

你有一個災難性的無家可歸者問題，這也許不是最重要的問題，但也算是吧，而且一直沒有好轉。到了2018年，我們搬到洛杉磯後，感覺這裡變得格外自我憎恨，所有非科技行業的人都憎恨科技行業。這很奇怪。就像休斯頓的人討厭石油 底特律的人討厭汽車 紐約的人討厭金融業一樣就像休斯頓的人憎恨石油 底特律的人憎恨汽車 紐約的人憎恨金融業

And there were all these things that seemed extraordinarily unhealthy. And if you asked me in 2021, you know, I would have said, man, they are finally, you know, yes, they're sitting on the biggest, you know, they created all this wealth and yet they are going to succeed in committing suicide. Three years later, you know, I think the jury is a little bit more out because maybe the AI revolution is big enough that it will save even the most, you know, I don't know, the most ridiculously mismanaged city in the country.

所有這些都顯得格外不健康。如果你在2021年問我，你知道，我會說，夥計，他們終於，你知道，是的，他們坐在最大的，你知道，他們創造了所有這些財富，但他們將成功地自殺。三年後，你知道，我認為陪審團的意見會更多一些，因為也許人工智能革命已經足夠大，它甚至可以拯救這個國家最，你知道，我不知道，最可笑的管理不善的城市。

It seemed to me, I thought that part of the issue that you had with San Francisco was the politics of it. And not just the politics of it, but how politics had seeped into the culture of so many of the companies and feeling, I think that you thought that it had moved in a very progressive way.

在我看來，我認為你對舊金山的部分看法是它的政治性。不僅僅是政治，而是政治是如何滲入到許多公司的文化和感覺中的，我想你認為它是以一種非常進步的方式發展的。

Yeah, that's always a very clear dimension of it. But, and that's sort of the tip of the iceberg. That's the part that's above the surface that people always focus on. And then the part that's below the surface is just the deep corruption, the mismanagement of the schools, the buses, all the public services, the way things don't work, the way the zoning is the most absurd in the country. You know, there was, I don't know, there was a house I was looking to buy where you couldn't build access into the garage. And Gavin Newsom, who was the Lieutenant Governor of California at the time, said he'd help me get a garage access permit. Again, it's not clear that's what the Lieutenant Governor of the fifth largest economy in the world should be doing. But he said he knew how to do this in San