Name: 科技巨頭瘋AI，對我們消費者意味著什麼？ (What does Big Tech's AI obsession mean for consumers?)
Uploaded: 2026-01-14T17:10:24.000Z
Duration: 29 min 7 s

要嘛就做大事，不然就回家吧。

程度副詞

Right now in Silicon Valley, big tech is getting, well, even bigger.

現在在矽谷，大型科技公司正變得，嗯，更加龐大。

The race to dominate the artificial intelligence boom is an expensive one, and

這場爭奪人工智慧熱潮主導權的競賽，代價高昂，而且

it's spawning all sorts of investment deals and takeovers.

催生了各種投資協議和併購案。

大型科技公司是不是已經太大了？

And if so, what, if anything, can be done about it?

如果真是如此，我們能做些什麼嗎？

I'm Carmel Crimmins, and this is Reuters Econ World.

我是 Carmel Crimmins，這裡是 Reuters Econ World。

Every week, we go deep on the economic principles and ideas driving the biggest news around the world.

每週我們都會深入探討驅動全球重大新聞的經濟原則與想法。

本週節目，聚焦大型科技公司。

大型科技公司之所以被點名，是有原因的。

Just a handful of US Companies dominate our everyday lives.

只有少數幾家美國公司主宰了我們的日常生活。

They feed us information and products, keep us connected and entertained.

牠們提供我們資訊和產品，讓我們保持聯繫並獲得娛樂。

They also account for much of the US Stock market and are an increasingly important driver of US Economic growth.

牠們也佔了美國股市很大一部分，並且是美國經濟成長越來越重要的驅動力。

My guest today describes them as digital platforms, and

我今天的來賓將牠們描述為數位平臺，並且

he warns that they are extracting wealth and deepening inequality.

他警告說，牠們正在掠奪財富並加劇不平等。

Tim Wu is a leading scholar on tech regulation and a professor at Columbia Law School.

Tim Wu 是科技監管領域的頂尖學者，也是哥倫比亞大學法學院的教授。

He helped the Biden administration craft its antitrust policies, and

他曾協助拜登政府制定其反壟斷政策，並且

he's also the author of a new book called the Age of Extraction.

他也是一本新書《掠奪的時代》的作者。

Thanks so much for joining us on the show today.

非常謝謝你今天來我們的節目。

It's economics 101 that monopolies are bad.

經濟學入門就知道，壟斷是壞事。

I mean, I think the presumption is they're a bad thing.

我的意思是，我認為一般人認為它們是壞事。

I can think of small exceptions where that might be different.

我能想到一些小例外，情況可能不太一樣。

In a town, it's hard to imagine having three different providers.

在一個城鎮裡，很難想像會有三個不同的供應商。

But, yeah, generally I think the presumption is if you have one company with no discipline on them, they tend to drift towards stagnation and bad things.

但，沒錯，一般來說，我認為大家都會預設，如果一家公司沒有受到約束，他們就容易走向停滯和壞事。

And over extraction, how do you define a monopoly?

而過度開採，你該怎麼定義壟斷？

I think I have a traditional definition, which is a dominant firm, that I think the essence is that they don't face significant discipline.

我認為我有一個傳統的定義，就是一家獨大的公司，我認為它的本質是它們沒有面臨嚴峻的約束。

So in other words, they can price the way they want, they can bully people around.

所以換句話說，它們可以隨心所欲地定價，它們可以欺凌別人。

They don't really face significant challenges from others.

它們沒有真正面臨來自別人的嚴峻挑戰。

I think that is the essence of it, is a lack of discipline.

我認為這就是它的本質，就是缺乏約束。

I mean, Pierre Thiel famously said that competition is for losers, right?

我的意思是，Pierre Thiel 曾說過，競爭是給輸家的，對吧？

You're such a draw that you're the only player in town.

你太有吸引力了，所以你是鎮上唯一的玩家。

Kind of like Facebook was back in the day.

I mean, I can understand why businesses would want to do that.

我的意思是，我明白為什麼企業會想這麼做。

The question is whether that's the world you want to live in.

問題是，這是你想要生活的世界嗎？

His manual made a lot of sense I guess in the same way you might say every politician should aim to be a dictator, you could see why that would be good for them.

他的 manual 聽起來很有道理，就像你可能會說每個政治人物都應該以成為獨裁者為目標，你可以理解為什麼這對他們有好處。

I mean, who wants to be bothered with voters and things like that?

我的意思是，誰想被選民之類的事情煩擾？

But similarly, it's just not good for the country or for the world to be dominated by monopolists.

但同樣地，國家或世界被壟斷者主宰，這對大家來說都不是好事。

Does big tech, as it stands now, does it fit the bill of a monopoly?

以現況來看，大型科技公司符合壟斷的定義嗎？

I think most many of the big tech firms do in their segments.

我覺得大部分大型科技公司在各自的領域都是這樣。

You know, Google has obviously dominated search for a long time and has few challenges.

你知道，Google 長期以來明顯主導了搜尋領域，幾乎沒有什麼挑戰。

Facebook has family and friends marketing at the edges.

Facebook 在社群媒體領域佔據了家人朋友的市場。

And we're probably going to talk about AI at some point, but

I think on the classic economic definition, they each have at least one market that they dominate.

但我認為以經典的經濟學定義來看，他們各自至少有一個主導的市場。

Yeah, I mean, sitting here in Europe, you know, we often think that actually over in, you know, we're always told Silicon Valley, America, it's a very dynamic place.

是啊，我在歐洲這裡，你知道，我們常覺得，你知道，我們總是聽說矽谷、美國，是個充滿活力的地方。

It is a very dynamic economy, particularly when you compare it to Western Europe.

它確實是個充滿活力的經濟體，尤其跟西歐相比。

In a way, isn't that kind of drive to be the monopoly power, to be that great success, to have no competitors?

某種程度上，那種想成為獨佔者、想獲得巨大成功、沒有競爭對手的動力，不就是這樣嗎？

Isn't that what in a way drives innovation in Silicon Valley?

這不就是某種程度上驅動矽谷創新的動力嗎？

So I think Silicon Valley in the 80s and 90s was a different place than it is today.

所以我覺得 80 年代和 90 年代的矽谷，跟現在是個不同的地方。

Silicon Valley in the 80s and 90s was a kind of outsider place.

80 年代和 90 年代的矽谷，有點像是個局外人的地方。

I think the aspiration was to build great companies, good companies.

我覺得當時的目標是建立偉大的公司、好的公司。

But monopoly wasn't necessarily the primary motive.

但獨佔並非必然是主要的動機。

It was supposed to be more about tech than about becoming a billionaire.

那應該更關乎科技本身，而不是成為億萬富翁。

They were supposed to distrust government as opposed to wanting to be government contractors like they all do today.

他們應該是懷疑政府，而不是像現在這樣想成為政府的承包商。

I think the older version, let's say intel era, or let's say sun or Apple era was, hey, we want to build a really cool machine.

我覺得舊時代，像是 Intel 時代，或是 Sun、Apple 時代，他們的目標是「嘿，我們要打造很棒的機器」。

Not we want to dominate our industry, become billionaires and bully other people.

而不是「我們要稱霸產業、成為億萬富翁、欺負別人」。

It has sort of undergone this almost Nietzsche like transformation where they're all trying to become the ubermensch when in the 70s they were trying to build cool companies.

這經歷了一種尼采式的轉變，他們都想成為超人，但在七〇年代，他們只是想建立很棒的公司。

And so I think Silicon Valley was more dynamic in the 70s and 80s, built more important software, at least for humanity, even if it created less individual wishes.

所以我覺得七〇、八〇年代的矽谷更有活力，開發出對人類更重要的軟體，即使個人財富沒那麼多。

And I guess I'm sticking on this, but the motivation was different.

我想我還是糾結在這一點，但當時的動機不同。

It wasn't just about, okay, I'm going to become a monopoly and dominate everyone.

那不只是關於「好，我要成為獨佔者，稱霸所有人」。

It's like I'm going to invent something really cool and that I will be remembered for that.

而是「我要發明很酷的東西，讓大家記住我」。

Why did that mentality change, do you think?

你覺得為什麼這種心態會改變？

I mean, basically, this is what I chronicle in the book is I think there has been a profound ideological transformation in Silicon Valley that really, I guess, turned with the rise of the platform and the ideology of monopoly.

我的意思是，基本上，這就是我在書裡記錄的，我覺得矽谷經歷了一場深刻的意識形態轉變，這真的，我想，隨著平臺和壟斷意識形態的興起而轉變。

I guess I'd say that Silicon Valley is no longer an outsider, rebellious kind of place, like the famous Steve Jobs rebellion against the IBM monopoly, and

我想我會說，矽谷不再是個局外人、反叛的場所，就像賈伯斯當年反抗 IBM 壟斷一樣，

became more of a place obsessed with money and power, just like everybody else.

而是變得跟其他人一樣，沉迷於金錢和權力。

rockefeller's Standard Oil controlled around 90% of American oil refineries and according to some estimates, would have been worth over $1 trillion in today's money.

洛克斐勒的標準石油公司控制了美國約 90% 的煉油廠，根據一些估計，這家公司在今天的價值可能超過 1 兆美元。

In a landmark ruling in 1911, the Supreme Court ordered that the company be dissolved and divided into 39 different entities.

在 1911 年的一項里程碑判決中，最高法院下令將該公司解散，並分割成 39 個不同的實體。

So which of the following companies was born out of Standard Oil's breakup?

那麼，下列哪家公司是從標準石油公司解體後誕生的呢？

Is it A, Chevron, B, ExxonMobil or C, ConocoPhillips?

是 A、Chevron，B、ExxonMobil，還是 C、ConocoPhillips？

I'll have the answer for you at the end of the show.

Up next, as Silicon Valley firms became so big.

接下來，隨著矽谷的公司變得如此龐大。

Tim, can you explain what you mean by platform power?

Tim，你能解釋一下什麼是平臺力量嗎？

It's at the heart of your thesis, isn't it, about the power of big tech?

這正是你論文的核心，關於大型科技公司的力量，對吧？

So when we think about economic power and you think about monopoly, I think the traditional vision people have is like a company that has, say, monopolized the sale of footwear or something, or ball bearings.

所以當我們想到經濟力量，以及壟斷時，我認為大家傳統的想像是一家公司，像是壟斷了鞋子或滾珠軸承的銷售。

The ascendant form of power in the 21st century is platform power.

21世紀最崛起的權力形式就是平臺力量。

And that is the power that comes from being the host to and the connector of very large groups, both of citizens, individuals, consumers, and

而這份力量來自於同時作為非常龐大群體的「主辦者」和「連結者」，這些群體包含公民、個人、消費者，以及

sellers, or I guess, commercial entities on the other side.

另一邊的賣家，或者說，商業實體。

And somewhere in the 90s, early 20th century, more and more people started to realize that the platform is where the real power lies in the economy.

在 90 年代初，越來越多人開始意識到，平臺才是經濟中真正權力所在的地方。

I give Bill Gates a lot of credit for being the one, in some sense, to discover this.

我認為比爾·蓋茲在某種程度上發現了這一點，這點功勞很大。