山姆·奥特曼：AI 的益处值得付出“一些糟糕的代价”

Sam，至少可以说你这周过得非常紧张。所以非常感谢你抽时间参加 Decoded。

Sam, you've had an intense week to say the least. So, I really appreciate you taking the time to join Decoded.

谢谢邀请我。

Thanks for having me.

嗯。你最近去了华盛顿参加国宴，OpenAI 总裁 Greg Brockman 刚在白宫签署了这份关于 AI 安全的自愿协议。我得问一下，你预计这份新协议、这份由白宫斡旋达成的协议，会以有意义的方式改变 OpenAI 的安全实践吗，还是说这本质上只是更多的表面功夫？

Yeah. Yeah. You were in Washington recently for the state dinner and OpenAI President Greg Brockman just signed this voluntary accord on AI safety at the White House. I got to ask, do you expect this new agreement, this White House brokered agreement, to change OpenAI safety practices in a meaningful way, or is this essentially just more window dressing?

嗯，我不认为这是表面功夫，但我想说清楚：我们极其重视安全，无论是否签署任何自愿协议，我们本来就会、将来也会尽我们所能去保障这项技术的安全、安保，以及信任和稳健性。我认为整个行业这么做是好事，而且显然我们现在正处于一个人们希望从行业和这项技术的开发者那里得到 reassurance 的时刻。但我们创立时的信念就是，这项技术会变得像现在这样强大，未来还会更强大，而我们想确保人们能获得它带来的巨大好处。无论有没有这样的协议，我们都会这么做，但我很高兴能有它。

Well, I don't think it's window dressing, but I do want to be clear: we care super deeply about safety and would have done and will do the best thing we can for safety, security, and just sort of trust and robustness in this technology whether or not any voluntary agreement is signed. I think it's great to have the industry do this, and I think clearly we're at a time where people are looking for reassurance from the industry and the developers of this technology. But we were founded on a belief that this technology was going to become as powerful as it has now and more powerful in the future, and that we wanted to make sure that people get the tremendous benefits of it. And we will do that, you know, with or without such an agreement, but I'm happy to have it.

嗯。那么，对于那些担心公众被排除在这些关于 AI 安全的非常重要辩论之外、担心这些政策实际上是由总统和少数几位科技 CEO 在白宫密室里制定的人，你怎么回应？

Yeah. And you know, how do you respond to those who worry that the public is being shut out of these very important debates on AI safety and that really these policies are being crafted by the president and just a handful of tech CEOs in back rooms at the White House?

我确实认同这种担忧的精神。我真的认为这项技术可能以两种方式严重出错。我的意思是，具体细节我们可以谈很多，但如果我们想想应该担心的总体方向，一个最近受到很多关注的方向是：AI 可能失控，我们造出的东西没有充分对齐人类价值观，无法让人们永远掌控未来。所以我们需要把安全做好。但另一种出错的方式是权力过度集中。这里有很多恐惧，就是：好吧，如果我们以安全之名过度限制这项技术，最终导致少数几家公司或个人，或者某一个国家，对这项技术拥有过多权力，那也是一种可能严重出错的方式，因为人们会被排除在他们本应拥有的权力、利益、控制权和对未来的能动性之外。所以，我们的目标是成为这两条路径之间务实的中间派，因为我们能看到偏向任何一个方向是多么诱人。

I do share the spirit of that worry. I really think there are two ways this technology can go very wrong. I mean, there's many specifics we could talk about, but if we think about the general directions that we should be worried about, one which has gotten a lot of attention recently is that there could be a loss of control to AI and that we build something that we don't have sufficiently aligned to human values and that allows people to stay in control of the future forever. And so we need to get safety right. But the other way things can go wrong is too much concentration of power. And there's been a lot of fear here where, okay, if we do too much to restrict this technology in the name of safety and we end up with a small number of companies or people or perhaps one country that have too much power over this, that also is a way that this can go horribly wrong because people are shut out of the kind of power and benefits and control and agency over the future they should have. So, our goal here is to sort of be the pragmatic centrists between these paths because we can see how tempting it is to veer in one direction or the other.

嗯。我很高兴你提到这一点，就是密室里只有极少数人，因为 Politico 实际上报道说，这份白宫协议早些时候是 Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg 和 Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang 的主意，基本上其他一些签署方投入很少。显然 Greg 在场，但不清楚 OpenAI 在多大程度上影响了它。你们对这份协议感到措手不及吗？你是否担心，也许有些 CEO 在就这件事和白宫私下沟通？

Yeah. Well, I'm glad you mentioned that, you know, the very few people in the room here because Politico's actually reported that this White House accord earlier was the brainchild of Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang, with basically minimal input from some of the other folks who signed on. Obviously, Greg was there, but it was unclear to what extent OpenAI influenced this. Were you guys blindsided by this agreement? And are you concerned that, you know, maybe some of the CEOs are back channeling with the White House on this?

不，我认为我们已经和行业里的同行谈了很多很多个月，在这之前的几周谈得更密集。而且我认为大家在这里有很多共同目标。我会欢迎更多的东西，但我认为这是一个很棒的开始，行业可以支持。

No, I think we've been talking with our colleagues in the industry for quite like many many months and more intensively the weeks before this. And I think people had like a lot of shared goals here. I would welcome something more, but I think this is like a great a great start that the industry can get behind.

当然。我很感激。我得问一下本周白宫的另一条新闻。有一项行政命令正式把人工智能改名、重新品牌化为超级智能。你怎么看这里试图进行的品牌重塑？

Sure. I appreciate that. I got to ask about the other news out of the White House this week. There was an executive order officially changing, rebranding artificial intelligence to superintelligence. What do you think of the attempted rebrand here?

我们一直叫——我们一直——两个都用，但我们已经谈论超级智能好几年了。

We've been call— we've been— we use both, but we've been talking about superintelligence for a few years now.

但这是不同的东西，对吧？我的意思是，超级智能像是那台机器。

But it's a different thing, right? I mean, superintelligence is like the machine.

我有点觉得人工智能这件事已经发生了。我想很多人会说 AGI 已经发生或接近发生。我认为超级智能确实——它仍然有点低估了我认为正在发生的事情的规模，但我认为它比人工智能这个词更好。所以是的，我认为它和我们一直谈论的方式相符，但我想很多人会继续用 AI 这个说法。

I kind of think the artificial intelligence thing happened. I think a lot of people would say AGI happened or is close to happening. I think superintelligence does—it still sort of understates the magnitude of what I think is happening, but I think it's a better word than artificial intelligence. So yeah, I think it kind of matched how we've been talking about it, but I think a lot of people continue to use AI as a phrase.

嗯。我正想问，你们会把名字改成 Open SI 吗？

Yeah. I was going to ask, are you guys going to change the name to Open SI?

没有这个计划。但我们确实——我们一直在大量谈论超级智能，而且会继续谈。

No plans to do that. But we do—like we have been talking about superintelligence a lot and we will continue to talk about it.

嗯。显然我认为总统部分上是出于这种愿望，想给 AI 重新品牌化，让它对人们没那么可怕，我觉得也许“人工”听起来不好。大家——我的意思是，超级智能听起来明显比人工智能对人们更不可怕吗？

Yeah. And obviously I think the president in part is driven by this desire to kind of rebrand AI so that it's less scary to people and I think maybe artificial sounds bad. Everybody— I mean, does superintelligence sound obviously less scary to people than artificial intelligence?

对我来说不是。所以我才好奇你是否认为这次品牌重塑真的会对公众对这项技术的看法产生任何影响。我不——是的，我不清楚超级智能是不是一个更不吓人的词。我确实认为它是一个更准确的词。

Not to me. So that's why I'm curious whether you think this rebrand will actually have any impact on the public's perception of this technology. I don't— yeah, it's not clear to me that superintelligence is a less scary term. I do think it's a more accurate term.

好。那么——

Okay. And just—

但你知道，我想我会——我想人们会继续叫它 AI。

But you know, I think I'm gonna— I think people are going to keep calling it AI.

嗯。好。我们不会——我们短期内不会期待企业改名。但很高兴知道至少你看到了那里的准确性。关于你的关系——

Yeah. Okay. And we won't— and we won't look out for the corporate rebrand anytime soon. But good to know that you at least see the accuracy there. On your relationship—

说个有趣的小故事，不久前，我想——这是我真的很想做的一件事，但没成。我想拿到 openai.com、openagi.com 和 opensi.com。随着我们从 AI 到 AGI 再到超级智能往上走，我们本来打算改 URL，但品牌是有粘性的。

As a funny little story, a while ago, I wanted to— this was a thing I really wanted to do, but it didn't happen. I wanted to get openai.com, openagi.com, and opensi.com. And as we moved up the ladder from AI to AGI to superintelligence, we were going to change the URL, but brands are sticky.

那些可能存在的未来。哇。那么，回到你和总统的关系，你显然一直在推动更严格的安全规则，这对公司来说算是一种转变，似乎越来越与总统的说法相左，他说 AI 安全是骗局，监管是全球主义阴谋。你和 Trump 关系不错，但为什么你不能——当你要求更严格的规则时，他为什么不听你的？

The futures that might have been. Wow. So, turning back to your relationship with the president, you've obviously been pushing for tougher safety rules, kind of a shift a little bit for the company that seems increasingly at odds with the president's claims that AI safety is a hoax, regulations are a globalist scheme. You've had a good relationship with Trump, but why can't you— why isn't he listening to you when you're asking for stricter rules?

嗯，我认为他确实希望人们能够使用 AI，并依赖它是安全、稳健的，按人们预期的方式运作。他显然希望公司自己来做这件事。而且你知道，就像我之前提到的，无论规则是什么，无论其他公司怎么做，我们都会让我们自己的产品安全。

Well, I think he really does want people to be able to use AI and rely on it being safe and robust and working the way people expect it to work. He clearly wants the companies to just do this themselves. And you know, like we're going to, as I mentioned earlier, we're going to make our own products safe no matter what the rules are and no matter what other companies do.

我仍然认为，随着这项技术的能力不断提升，世界必须应对这对整个社会意味着什么，我们可能会看到更多对某些护栏的呼吁。但如果我错了，如果一路顺利，我们不需要任何干预，那也没关系。

I continue to think that as this technology reaches increasing levels of capability, and the world has to contend with what this means for society as a whole, we probably will see more calls for some guardrails. But if I'm wrong about that and if nothing goes wrong along the way and we don't need anything there, then that's fine, too.

是的。显然总统也在和其他人交谈。他身边有风险投资家，他们认为 AI 应该以非常宽松的方式监管。他们认为现有法律可以遏制任何安全担忧。坦率地说，很多人认为你的公司在这个问题上站在他们一边，但我们最近从一些被称为 AI 加速主义者的人那里听到，坦率地说，他们感到被背叛了。他们觉得 OpenAI 基本上是在模仿 Anthropic 及其 CEO Dario Amodei，推动对 AI 的非常激进的监管。我能问一下，在新 AI 规则方面，你具体在哪里与 Anthropic 及其支持监管的 CEO Dario 不同？分歧在哪里？

Yeah. And obviously the president is talking to other folks as well. He's got venture capitalists in his orbit that think AI should be regulated in a very light fashion. Existing laws they think can clamp down on any safety concerns. And frankly a lot of those people thought that your company was on their side on this question but we've heard from some of these, I think people call them AI accelerationists recently and to be frank they feel betrayed. They feel like OpenAI is basically copying Anthropic and its CEO Dario Amodei in its push for very aggressive regulations on AI. Can I just ask, where do you specifically diverge from Anthropic and its pro-regulation CEO Dario when it comes to new AI rules? Where's the daylight?

我认为分歧很大。我们一直坚信这项技术必须民主化，交到人们手中。我认为我们与一些更严格的所谓 AI 安全人士最大的区别之一是，我们认为世界应该接受一些不好的事情发生，以换取这项技术的好处和人们的自主权。所以，我不同意但理解那些认为这项技术会变得如此强大和危险，以至于旧金山的一个实验室应该拥有它，确保没有坏事发生，并想办法分配好处的人的观点。从自由、人类自主权和人们自决未来的角度来看，我认为这是完全不可接受的权衡。但我理解它的来源。我确实认为我们倡导的轻触监管立场伴随着接受一些坏事会发生，因为社会会找到韧性。所以，我不会接受这样的交易：确保没有重大黑客攻击，没有滥用这项技术，零诈骗，零所有其他坏事。因为我认为人们会做的好事比坏事多得多，数量级上。但当涉及到 AI 可能严重失控时，这不是今天的担忧，但可能不是遥远的未来。这就是我会对加速主义者说的：让我们对冲向这个未来稍微深思熟虑一些。所以我会说接受有限的风险，接受我们理解的风险，以换取好处和自由、自主权以及我刚才谈到的所有那些东西，但不要接受真正的灾难性风险。

I think there's a lot of daylight. We have always been a big believer that this technology has to be democratized and put into people's hands. I think one of the biggest differences between us and some of the stricter, let's say AI safety people is we believe that the world should accept some bad things happening for the benefits of this technology and people having the agency. So like, I disagree but I understand the perspective of people who are like this technology is going to get so powerful and it's so dangerous that a single lab in San Francisco should have it and make sure nothing bad happens and kind of figure out how to dole out the benefits. I think that is a completely unacceptable trade-off from a perspective of liberty and human agency and people self-determining the future. But I understand where it comes from. And I do think the lighter touch regulatory stance that we advocate for comes with an accepting of the fact that some bad things are going to happen as society figures out the resilience. So, I wouldn't take a trade of saying like we'll make sure there's no major hacks, there's no kind of like misuse of this technology, there's zero scams, there's zero all the other bad things that will happen. Because I think people will do tremendously orders of magnitude more good stuff than bad stuff. But when it comes to the potential of like a serious loss of control to AI, and this is not a today worry, but it may not be in the distant future. This is where I would say to the accelerationists like let's be a little thoughtful about lurching into this future. So I would say accept bounded risks, accept risks that we understand in exchange for the benefits and liberty agency all those things I was just talking about but don't accept like the really catastrophic risk.

是的。澄清一下，你提到旧金山的一个实验室控制所有这项技术。这听起来很像那些说 Anthropic 正在采取行动，基本上是为了俘获监管者，并成为唯一的、可能是在前沿的唯一玩家。你认为那可能是他们正在做的吗？显然你对此有担忧。

Yeah. And just to be clear you mentioned a single lab in San Francisco controlling all of this technology. That sounds a lot like the folks who say Anthropic is making a play to basically capture regulators and be the sole, sort of like dominant maybe the only player at the frontier. Do you think that might be what they're doing? And and obviously you have concerns about that.

你需要——我的意思是，如果他们真的那样做，我会担忧。你需要问他们那是不是他们想做的。

You would need to I mean I would have concerns if they actually did that. You would need to ask them if that's what they want to do.

再次，就你们不想支持而 Anthropic 支持的具体政策而言，无论是在联邦层面还是州层面，因为你们现在在与中国的前沿步伐上是一致的。在第三方评估者上也是一致的。有什么一个区别点？

And again just on specific policies that you guys do not want to support that Anthropic is supporting whether it's the federal level at the state level because again you guys are now on the same page when it comes to pacing the frontier with China. Same page with third-party evaluators. What's just one differentiator?

我最后听说，一个区别点是我们不想对除了前沿模型之外的任何东西施加限制或测试。我们不想减慢那些制造非常强大但不是绝对前沿的模型的人，以真正聚焦于潜在的灾难性风险。我不认为——尽管我相信如果你不对落后前沿一两代的模型进行任何测试或监督，我接受那些会发生坏事。我不会倡导对它们实行许可制度。

The last I heard one of the different differentiators is we don't want any restrictions or testing on anything but the frontier models. We do not want to slow down people that make very powerful but not the absolute frontier in the spirit of really focusing on the potential catastrophic risks. I don't I don't think even though I believe that if you don't put any testing or any oversight on models that are one or two generations behind the frontier, I accept that bad things will happen with those. I would not go advocate a licensing regime for those.

好的。是的，我很感激。我们从你的加速主义批评者那里听到的另一件事是，你们 OpenAI 在某种程度上被你们的研究人员挟持了。所以我认为在旧金山的许多 AI 安全社区、研究社区中有一条贯穿线。你称他们为 AI 末日论者，你称他们为有效利他主义者。你曾著名地成为这些人未遂政变的目标。

Okay. Yeah, I appreciate that. One of the other things we hear from your accelerationist critics is that you OpenAI are kind of being held hostage by your researchers at some level. So there's I think a through line through a lot of the AI safety community, the research community in San Francisco. You call them AI doomers, you call them effective altruists. You were famously a target of an unsuccessful coup attempt by these people.

那持续了一小会儿。

That worked for a little while.

抱歉。那是什么？

Sorry. What was that?

我的意思是成功了然后又不成功了，但是的。

I mean successful and then unsuccessful, but yeah.

所以是的。是的。就像几天你你你重新——你重新夺回了你的王位。所以我认为那最终是不成功的。但我想问，你知道，你们研究人员中的 AI 末日论心态是真实存在的吗？它是否可能正在推动 OpenAI 支持这些新法规？研究人员在这里是掌舵的吗？

So yeah. Yeah. Like a couple days you you you were re you regained your throne. So I think that was unsuccessful ultimately. But I I want to ask you know is is the AI doomer mentality among your researchers is that a real thing? And is it maybe shifting OpenAI in favor of these new regulations? Are the researchers kind of driving the ship here?

我不认为我们是那个被指责为末日论者的实验室。我认为我们是那种希望人们拥有这项技术的人。我们认为，而且我认为我们已经被证明是对的。有巨大的好处。而且社会也能弄清楚如何安全地拥有这项技术。我确实认为有其他研究人员和其他实验室说不要部署这些可怕的东西。它会发生的。人们不能信任这个。我认为我们的世界观已经被证明。但这种中间主义的一部分也是我们不想全盘投入，我认为盲目的末日论是坏的。我认为盲目的乐观也是坏的。我喜欢我们的辩论文化，我喜欢我们试图不陷入任何方向的精神绝对主义的文化。我认为我们文化中最强大的事情之一是我们能在头脑中保持这种复杂性，我们不会陷入其他一些 AI 实验室的陷阱，要么全零要么全一。我们可以你知道，有点像弄清楚如何存在于这个中间空间。所以我们有研究人员担心这项技术可能走向何方吗？是的。我们有研究人员非常自信我们可以缓解这些担忧吗？也是的。而且往往他们是同一批人。

I don't think we're the lab that gets accused of being the doomers. I think we are the like we want people to have this. We think and I think we've been proven right. There are tremendous benefits. And also society can figure out how to have this technology safely. I do think there are other researchers and other labs who said like don't deploy this terrible stuff. It's going to happen. People can't be trusted with this. And I think our worldview has been proven. But part of that centism is also we don't want to go all in on like I think blind doomerism is bad. I think blind optimism is bad too. And I like our culture of debate and I like our culture of trying to like not fall into like the mental absolutism in either direction. I think one of the strongest things about our culture is that we can hold this complexity in our head and we don't fall into the trap that some of the other AI labs do if it's all zero or one one way or the other. And we can you know kind of like figure out how to exist in this middle space. So do we have researchers that are concerned about where this technology could go? Yes. Do we have researchers who are like very confident we can mitigate the concerns? Also yes. And very often they're the same people.

我认为这是我们文化中健康的一面。

And I think this is a healthy thing about our culture.

是的。有时可能有点过头了。今天早些时候有报道称，OpenAI 的三名安全研究人员离开了公司。

Yeah. And sometimes maybe it goes a little too far. And it was reported earlier today that three safety researchers at OpenAI parted ways with the company.

坦率地说，听起来他们被解雇据称是因为与第三方评估小组分享了机密信息。有些人已经把这些研究人员比作吹哨人。他们说 OpenAI 一直公开支持这些嵌入公司的第三方安全评估员。所以，我的意思是，你认为解雇或让这些研究人员离开，是否可能与你公司对吹哨人、外部评估员，以及围绕这些实验室建立起来的这种 AI 安全结构的支持相矛盾？

Frankly, it sounds like they were fired allegedly for sharing confidential information with a third party evaluation group. Some people are already comparing these researchers to whistleblowers. They're saying OpenAI has been on record supporting these third party safety evaluators embedded in the company. So, I mean, do you think firing or letting go of these researchers is potentially at odds with your company's support for whistleblowers, outside evaluators, this sort of AI safety structure that's been built up around these labs?

我显然不会评论具体的人。但我要说，我们仍然坚信与第三方评估员、外部安全测试者以及更广泛的安全社区合作的重要性。但我们仍然期望保密性得到尊重。

I'm obviously not going to comment on specific people. But I will say we continue to really believe in the importance of working with third party evaluators and external safety testers and the broader safety community. But we still expect confidentiality to be respected.

好的。让我们转向失控 AI 的情况。今年夏天，来自你公司的模型在互联网上进行了一次未经授权的疯狂行动，访问了澳大利亚政府网站的非公开信息，试图渗透美国教育部，并干预了美国其他政府网站。你是否知道 OpenAI 模型还有其他尚未公开的失控行为实例？

Yeah. Let's turn to the rogue AI situation. Models emanating from your company went on an unauthorized spree across the internet this summer, accessing non-public information from government websites in Australia, attempting to infiltrate the US Department of Education, and meddling with other government sites in the United States. Are you aware of any additional instances of rogue behavior by OpenAI models that have not yet become public?

我们正在披露更多事件。据我所知，没有其他达到那种严重程度的事件，但我们有更多事情要披露。因为其中一些涉及安全漏洞，我们给人们很长时间来解决这些问题，而且通常由他们决定是否披露。所以还有更多事情，但没有其他达到那种程度的事件，我们正在经历一个非常严格的过程。回到你之前的观点，这是一个很好的例子，说明为什么你不想要最大限度的加速主义。当我们在现实背景下，随着模型越来越强大，发现模型现在能够产生新的威胁向量时，我们会花时间学习如何防御它。我认为你应该希望我们这样做。我不太清楚我们有多少批评者说 OpenAI 主张放缓，他们看到我们所做的事情，除了说 OpenAI 出了坏事，他们正在负责任，并且会确保安全之外，还能说什么。

We are in the process of disclosing more incidents. There's nothing else I'm aware of at that level of severity, but we have more things to disclose. Because some of them involve security vulnerabilities, we give people a long time to address those, and it's often up to them to disclose it or not. So more things, but nothing else at that level, and we're going through a very rigorous process. To your earlier point, this is a good example of why you don't want max accelerationism. When we, in our context of reality and increasingly powerful models, find that the models are now capable of a new threat vector, we are going to take the time to learn how to defend against that. And I think you should want us to do that. I don't really know how many of our critics that say OpenAI is advocating for a slowdown can look at what we're doing and say anything other than OpenAI had something bad happen, they're being responsible, and they're going to secure against this.

是的。显然你们也暂停了新的 GPT 6.1 Astra 模型的发布。这有点令人意外。人们原本期待它会被发布。我很好奇你们的研究人员看到了什么，导致了这个暂停。

Yeah. And obviously you guys also paused the release of the new GPT 6.1 Astra model. That was sort of a surprise. Folks were expecting that to be released. I'm curious what your researchers saw that led to that pause.

在不涉及具体细节的情况下，我们有一堆对齐评估，我们期望我们推出的每个模型，随着它变得更强大，会变得更稳健、更好地对齐、更有可能做用户要求的事情，并且更不可能造成意外的副作用。考虑到能力水平的发展方向，我认为这也是大多数模型用户会想要和要求的。像你一样，像许多其他人一样，我现在有一个模型在运行，可以访问我最敏感的信息，我的电子邮件、短信、消息，我电脑上的所有东西，我真的想知道我可以信任那个模型，它会表现良好。

Without getting into specifics, we have a bunch of alignment evals and we expect each model that we put out, as it becomes more capable, to be more robust, better aligned, more likely to do what its user asks, and less likely to cause unintended side effects. And given where the level of capability is going, I think that's also something that most users of models are going to want and demand too. Like you, like many other people, I now have a model running with access to my most sensitive information, my email, my texts, messages, all the stuff on my computer, and I really want to know that I can trust that model and it's going to behave well.

是的，明白了。回到你之前说的，你不期望出现比已经披露的更严重的事情。你指的是澳大利亚黑客事件和入侵或篡改美国政府网站，还是指像 Hugging Face 这样的事件？我想问的是，我们是否应该预期看到更多像澳大利亚和教育部这样的事件，但没有像今年夏天我们看到的 Hugging Face 黑客事件那样的事情？

Yeah, understood. And, you know, to go back to what you said earlier that you don't expect anything more serious than what has already been disclosed to come out. Were you referencing the Australia hack and the hack of or I guess the tampering with the US government websites or were you referencing something like Hugging Face? I guess what I'm asking is, are we expecting to see more incidents like Australia and like the Department of Education but nothing like the Hugging Face hack we saw this summer?

我不想在这里陷入实时讨论，试图说一件事比另一件事更糟，但我会说，在那个集群中，我知道的其他事情并不比那个集群更糟。

I don't want to get into a live thing here of trying to say that one thing is worse than the other, but I'll say of that cluster, the other things that I know are not worse than that cluster.

好的。是的，明白了。

Okay. Yeah, understood.

顺便说一句，我认为许多公司在这种情况下会直接说，你知道吗，如果某个东西用网上公开的凭证登录了网站，或者如果某个东西利用了已经众所周知且大多数人都已修复的轻微安全漏洞，你不需要披露这些。我们试图非常彻底，因为我认为这是未来事物的迹象。这对我们公司来说是一次演练，但我也认为，这是在模型变得真正非常强大之前，世界能够理解这些 AI 事件会是什么样子的时刻之一。所以我认为我们试图远远超越我认为其他公司在这种情况下可能会做的事情。

And by the way, I think what many companies would do in this place is just say, you know what, if something logged into a website with a credential that was published on the web, or if something was using a minor security vulnerability that was already well known and that most people had fixed, you don't need to disclose that. We are trying to be very thorough because I think this is a sign of things to come. It's a practice run for our company, but it's also, I think, one of the times before the models get truly very powerful where the world can understand what these AI incidents are going to be like. And so I think we're trying to go way beyond what I think other companies might do in this situation.

当然。但你们显然在 Hugging Face 事件中发生了迄今为止最严重的事故。本周早些时候，Politico 实际上报道了加利福尼亚州一个倡导组织针对你们公司就 Hugging Face 黑客事件提起的诉讼。你认为根据现有民法，OpenAI 是否可能对其模型自主实施的该违规行为或其他违规行为承担法律责任？

Sure. But you guys have obviously had the most severe incident so far with the Hugging Face case. And earlier this week, Politico actually reported on a lawsuit filed by an advocacy group in California against your company for the Hugging Face hack. Do you think that under existing civil law, OpenAI can be held legally responsible for that breach or other breaches committed autonomously by its models?

我的意思是，我对现有法律了解不够，无法对此发表评论。我确实认为，对于提供此类模型的公司，将需要一个责任框架。是的，我不是律师，无法谈论法律细节，但我认为如果我们的模型在训练过程中出了问题，我们将需要以某种形式对此负责。

I mean, I don't know enough about existing law to comment on that one way or another. I do think there's going to need to be a liability framework for companies that are offering models like this. And yes, I'm not a lawyer here, can't speak to the legal details, but I think if something goes wrong with our models during training, there's going to be some version of that we need to be responsible for.

也许专门为 AI 训练设立一个单独的新法律责任模型，就像在……之外

Perhaps a separate new legal liability model for AI training specifically, like outside...

我的意思是，这是我们希望政策制定者都会辩论的事情。是的。

I mean, this is the kind of thing that we are hoping that our policy makers will all debate. Yeah.

但但与此同时，就像我们只是不希望我们的模型在训练期间这样做，这显然是模型不可接受的行为方式。

But but in the meantime, like we just don't want our models to do this during training, like that this is clearly unacceptable way for the models to behave.

是的。我的意思是，我本来想问，不管法律如何，你对发生的事情或可能发生的事情是否感到任何个人责任？只是作为一个公民和企业公民。

Yeah. I mean, I was going to ask irrespective of the law, do you feel any like personal responsibility for what happened or or I guess what might happen down the line? Just as a as a as a citizen and a corporate citizen.

是的。我的意思是，这是一份压力很大的工作。这些模型有巨大的好处，但也有可能出大问题。你知道，我听到你把它描述为，哦，你们只是一群末日论者，这些人对你们减缓进展感到愤怒，但我感到很大的责任要把这件事做对。

Yeah. I mean, this is a very stressful job. There's incredible upside to these models, but there's real things that can go very wrong. And you know, I hear you characterize it as, oh, you all are just a bunch of doomers and these people are mad that you're slowing down progress, but I feel a lot of responsibility to get this right.

你们肯定处于推拉之中。澄清一下，那不是我的描述。我们听到各方意见。我也想谈谈另一面。

You guys are definitely in a push and pull. And to be clear, that's not me characterizing. We hear from all sides. And I want to talk a little bit about the other side, too.

再谈谈 AI 行业的政治献金。因为你们的总裁 Greg Brockman，他向支持 AI 的超级政治行动委员会 Leading the Future 捐赠了 2500 万美元，这在 OpenAI 内部反响不佳。事实上，有新报道称他已在内部为此道歉。他称这是一个干扰，并表示不会像最初承诺的那样再向该组织捐赠 2500 万美元。我的意思是，你同意 Greg 向 LTF 的捐款适得其反吗？

And about political spending by the AI industry. Because your president, Greg Brockman, his $25 million donation to the ProAI super PAC, Leading the Future, did not go over well inside OpenAI. And in fact, there was new reporting that he apologized internally for that donation. He called it a distraction and said he would not be donating an additional $25 million to that group that he had initially promised. I mean, do you agree that Greg's donation to LTF was counterproductive?

我不熟悉你说的那份备忘录。

I'm not familiar with that note you were talking about.

这是昨天出来的。发表在《纽约时报》上。我记得是六月的一条内部 Slack 消息，Brockman 说，这是一个糟糕的干扰。我很抱歉这么做，我不打算再捐那额外的 2500 万美元。我的意思是，你可以具体回应 Brockman 这件事。还有一个更广泛的问题，关于 AI 资金和政治，两边都在大量涌入。对。我确实想得到你对 Brockman 的具体回答。

This came out yesterday. It was in the New York Times. There was an internal Slack message I think in June where Brockman said, this was a terrible distraction. I'm sorry I did it and I'm not planning to do the extra 25 million. I mean, you can respond to the Brockman thing specifically. There's also just a broader question about AI money and politics which has just been flooding in on both sides. Right. I do want to get your specific answer on Brockman.

我没看到 Brockman 那件事，所以我不想对此回应，但如果可以的话，我可以回应一般性的问题。

I haven't seen the Brockman thing so I don't want to respond to that but I can respond to the general thing if that's okay.

好的。那我先问你，LTF 或其他政治组织有没有找过你捐款？

Yeah. Well, can I ask you first? Were you ever approached by LTF or any other political organizations for donations?

没有，我过去支持过一些候选人，但现在我认为 AI 如此核心，而且我们与政府有业务往来，所以我不再向任何候选人捐款，但过去我支持过个别候选人。

No, I've supported some candidates in the past but now that I think AI is so at the center and we do business with government, I'm not donating to any candidates but I've supported individual candidates in the past.

是的，但 AI 资金涌入政治的现象很突出，坦率地说，你的竞争对手 CEO，我猜是 Anthropic 的 Dario，他捐给了 AI 安全组织，也捐给了推动 AI 安全的候选人，特别是纽约的 Alex Bores。他们一边在大量投入，风险投资家和你们的总统在另一边投入。你认为所有这些钱如何影响了政界和公众对 AI 的看法？

Yeah but there has been this surge of AI money into politics and frankly your rival CEO, I guess Dario at Anthropic, has donated to AI safety groups also to candidates promoting AI safety specifically Alex Bores in New York. They've been pouring money on the one side, the VCs and your president have been pouring money in on the other. How do you think all that money has impacted the perception of AI among politicians and the public?

嗯，显然有些事情没起作用。我不认为 AI 的形象达到了我们期望的水平。所以，我理解为什么 AI 现在有非常负面的看法。实际上，很多情况下人们喜欢使用这些工具。你知道，人们谈论 ChatGPT 如何让生活更好、更轻松，或做这些有用的事情，并节省时间。但人们对所有这些的经济影响有很多焦虑。有一种真实且相当合理的恐惧，关于权力集中。还有另一种恐惧，比如 Anthropic 的安全研究负责人说我们有 10% 的概率会死之类的，我讨厌这个，因为那个人应该有很大的能动性来降低这个数字。这不是一个静态数字。所以人们有这些感受并不奇怪，我不认为在政治上花钱能让人们对此感觉更好。

Well, something's clearly not working. I don't think the perception of AI is where we'd like it to be. So, I get why AI has a really negative perception right now. People actually love using the tools in many cases. You know, people talk about all the ways that ChatGPT makes their lives better or easier or does these sort of useful things and gives them time back. But there's a lot of anxiety about what the economic impact of all this is going to be. There's a real fear that I think is quite justified about concentration of power. There's this other fear about, you know, what if there's like you have Anthropic's head of safety research saying there's a 10% chance we're going to die or something which I hate because that person should have a lot of agency to make that number lower. It's not like a static number. So it's not surprising to me that people feel all of this and I don't think spending money on politics is what's going to make people feel better about it.

那么你认为，也许在 2028 年竞选中，各方的支出都应该削减，只是为了尝试给予——我的意思是，就你所说的权力集中，我认为这是人们部分关注的。我的意思是，对于可能削减下一个周期的支出，你会怎么说？

So do you think that spending in maybe the 2028 race should be curtailed on all sides just to try to give that—I mean to your point that the power concentration I think is what people look at in part on that. I mean what would you say on possibly curtailing spending for the next cycle?

比如，这在实践中如何运作？

Like how would that work in practice?

只是我的意思是，现在有数亿美元从 AI 实验室流向候选人、流向政治行动委员会，而且不仅仅是你这边，还有来自风险投资家、来自 Anthropic 的。

Just I mean there's hundreds of millions of dollars right now going from the AI labs to candidates to PACs and it's not just on your side it's from the VCs it's from Anthropic.

你是说，我认为整个 AI 行业应该同意停止向政治捐款吗？

You mean like do I think the whole AI industry should agree to stop giving money to politics?

是的，也许放缓、控制政治支出的节奏。

Yeah maybe a slowdown a pacing of political spending.

我的意思是，总的来说，我希望政治中的钱少得多，我不认为这能改善我们政治体系的动态，但我不知道如何——我不认为我或这个行业有权力解除这一点，而且我认为告诉一些人可以捐钱而另一些人不能是行不通的。如果你有办法让更少的钱进入政治，如果能在整体上做到，我会非常乐意支持。

I mean generally speaking I would love much less money in politics I don't think it improves the dynamics of our political system but I don't know how—I don't think I or the industry have the power to disarm that and I don't think it works to tell some people they can give money and other people they can't. If you have a way to get less money into politics, I would be very thrilled to support it if it could be done overall.

是的。不幸的是，这不在我的工作描述范围内。

Yeah. Not outside of my job description unfortunately.

不幸的是，但我确实认为这会很好。

Unfortunately, but I do think it'd be good.

当然。是的。每个人都这么说。是的。然后到了选举的时候，筹码就落下了。

Sure. Yeah. Everybody says that. Yeah. And then and then the chips come down when it's election time.

我想简要谈谈各州。Politico 报道称，在今年夏天一项儿童聊天机器人安全法案在立法机构通过之前，你给加州州长 Gavin Newsom 发了短信。你认为 Newsom 是 AI 政策上的合作伙伴吗？你认为他也许能修复民主党与硅谷之间的隔阂吗？

I do want to turn to the states briefly. Politico reported that you texted California Governor Gavin Newsom about a kid's chatbot safety bill before it passed the legislature this summer. Do you see Newsom as a partner on AI policy? Do you think he can maybe mend the fences between the Democratic party and Silicon Valley?

我喜欢他。我认为——我一直觉得他是一个真正深思熟虑的人，试图把州内许多选区团结在一起。所以，是的，我认为他可以在那里发挥作用。

I like him. I think that—and I have always found him someone that is really thoughtful about trying to bring many constituencies in the state together. So, yeah, I think he can play a role there.

好的。是的。我的意思是，显然他是一个总统候选人。你看到任何——或者，你知道，非常有可能的总统候选人吗？我认为他可能很可能会在选票上，或者，你知道，在某个时候出现在某种选票上。你看到其他或潜在的总统候选人在你的快速拨号上吗？我的意思是，还有谁你经常谈论 AI 或只是政治，或任何关于入主白宫的事情？

Okay. Yeah. I mean, obviously he's a presidential candidate. Do you see any or, you know, very much a potential presidential candidate? I think he probably will be likely on going to be on the ballot or, you know, on some kind of ballot at some point. Do you see any other or potential presidential candidates that are on your speed dial? I mean, who else are you talking to regularly about AI or just about politics or anything about when it comes to the race to the White House?

我计划尽我所能与下一任总统合作。但我还没有花很多时间与可能的候选人在一起。当那发生时，我会与任何美国总统合作。

I plan to do my best to work with whoever the next president is. But I'm not spending like a lot of time with the likely candidates yet. I will work with whoever the US president is when that happens.

当然。你只是和 Newsom 谈过，因为你在加州，显然那是活球。

Sure. And you just talked to Newsom because you're in California and obviously that's those are live balls.

是的。我的意思是，他是我们的州长。

Yeah. I mean, he's our governor.

是的。是的。有没有任何世界领导人你经常谈论 AI，或者你认为他们真的在政策或其他方面铺平道路？

Yeah. Yeah. Are there any world leaders that you talk to frequently about AI or that you think are really sort of like paving a way here on policy or on other things?

我的意思是，几乎所有人都在谈论 AI。我不认为在过去几年里我与世界领导人的对话中，AI 不是真正首要考虑的事情。

I mean, kind of all of them are talking about AI. I don't think I've had a conversation with a world leader in the last couple of years where AI wasn't like a genuinely top of mind thing.

但谁给你留下了深刻印象？在 AI 政策或他们对这项技术的计划方面，谁最让你印象深刻？

But who impressed you? Who impresses you the most in terms of their AI policy or their plans for this technology?

再次，像许多优秀的人一样，当你说的时候，我想到的人是法国总统。

Again like many good ones, the person that came to mind as you were saying that is the French president.

好。嗯，我们简单聊一下国家安全，以及前沿公司面临的一些风险。OpenAI 一直在大力声讨来自中国公司（比如 Moonshot）的对抗性蒸馏。所谓蒸馏，基本上就是他们用你的 AI 模型来训练自己的模型，成本只有一小部分，结果显然就能在价格上压过你。你觉得这些蒸馏攻击是否正在从根本上侵蚀 OpenAI 的商业模式？

Okay. Yeah. Moving briefly to national security and some of the risks to frontier companies. OpenAI has been very vocal about adversarial distillation coming from Chinese companies like Moonshot. And so distillation is basically where they use your AI models to train theirs at a fraction of the cost, and can obviously undercut you on price as a result. Do you think these distillation attacks are undercutting OpenAI's business model in a fundamental way?

这事挺有意思。我们在经济上做得很好，但另一方面又一直担心会有各种压力——有时来自竞争对手，有时来自开源模型，有时又来自别的东西。我想说的是，我们要确保自己保持领先，既能保护国家安全，又能让人们获得充足的 AI 使用机会。就像这场对话的许多其他部分一样，这里面有一套复杂的权衡。

It's an interesting thing. We're doing great economically, and then on the other hand there's this constant worry that there's going to be all this pressure — some days it's from a competitor, some days it's from open source models, but some days it's from something else. What I would say is we want to make sure that we have a lead that we can protect national security and that people get abundant access to AI. And as in many other parts of this conversation, there's a complicated set of trade-offs there.

当然。我的意思是，显然你们在就这些蒸馏攻击发出警告，但人们到底能做什么并不清楚。你觉得美国政府应该采取更多措施来应对来自中国的对抗性蒸馏吗？

Sure. I mean, obviously you guys are raising the alarm about these distillation attacks, but it's not really clear what folks can do about them. I mean, do you think the US government should be doing more to address adversarial distillation from China?

嗯，我觉得人们能做的事情有很多。问题在于每一件都有很多权衡。我们可以用不同的方式开放产品，那样会难蒸馏得多，但那会牺牲掉一些开放式的创造力，而我们并不想非得那么做。我们当然不想被逼着那么做。所以我认为这里人们能做的事很多，只是都伴随着权衡，有些属于国家政策，有些只是公司之间的正常竞争。

Well, I think there are a lot of things people could do about them. The issue is there's just a lot of trade-offs on all of them. We could expose products in different ways; they'd be much harder to distill, but that would take away some of the open-ended creativity, and we don't really want to have to do that. We certainly don't want to be forced to do that. So I think there are a lot of things that people can do here. They just all come with trade-offs, and some of them are national policy, some of them are just normal companies competing.

我的意思是，你们对应该怎么做有偏好吗，还是你们基本——

I mean, do you guys have a preference for what should be done, or are you the bas—

还在积极讨论中。我觉得我们还没到能说“这就是我们真正支持的那件事”的地步。

Under active discussion. I don't think we would say yet, like, here's the thing we really are behind.

好。那等你们想清楚了，可得来 Politico 告诉我们。

Yeah. Well, when you guys figure that out, you guys got to come to Politico and let us know.

听起来不错。

That sounds good.

据报道，OpenAI 承诺从现在到 2030 年在算力上投入约 7500 亿美元。我记得这是《华尔街日报》今年夏天报道的。但信贷环境正在收紧，而你们公司被认定为像 Oracle 这样处于超大规模扩张和基础设施建设前沿的公司的信用风险。这种动态是在推高 AI——抱歉，是推高 OpenAI 的成本吗，还是预计会推高 OpenAI 的成本？

So OpenAI is reportedly committed to spending around 750 billion on compute between now and 2030. I think this was from the Wall Street Journal over the summer. But credit conditions are tightening, and your firm has been identified as a credit risk to companies like Oracle that are at the forefront of hyperscaling and building out this infrastructure. Is that dynamic driving up costs for AI — or, sorry, for OpenAI — or is it expected to drive up costs for OpenAI?

我认为推高成本的主要是供应链，而不是融资市场。融资似乎仍然容易获得，但量很大，而硅晶圆似乎紧张得多，成本扩张更多发生在那里。

I think it's the supply chain that's driving up costs much more than the financing markets. Financing still seems easy to come by, but there's a lot of it, and silicon wafers seem much tighter and where much more of the cost expansion is happening.

好。那么，OpenAI 已将 IPO 推迟到 2027 年。你们在考虑进一步推迟吗？

Okay. Well, OpenAI has delayed its IPO until 2027. Are you guys considering delaying it further?

我觉得等我们积累了几个安全案例，看到我们能在这种新格局下良好运作，可能仍会有市场变化迫使我们重新考虑——你知道，世界上会发生不可预测的事情。但从安全角度，当然也从财务角度，我预计我们会准备好的。

I think when we have a few safety cases under our belt and we see that we can operate well in this new regime, there may still be market changes that would cause us to have to think about it differently — you know, unpredictable stuff can happen in the world. But from a safety perspective, and certainly from a financial perspective, I would expect us to be ready.

好。嗯，回到这个我认为主要由行业主导的监管努力，一直有很多议论。很多人都在谈为 AI 设立一个类似 FINRA 的机构。我知道你和 Google DeepMind 的 Dario Debas 一直在大量讨论这个。基本上就是一个自我监管机构，可以共享信息，也许在情况变得非常可怕时协调减速。你们是怎么讨论这件事的？是有个 WhatsApp 群，还是你们怎么沟通？

Okay. Yeah. There's been a lot of chatter, going back to this regulation effort that I think has been largely led by industry. There's been a lot of chatter for a FINRA for AI. I know that you and Dario Debas at Google DeepMind have been talking a lot about this. Basically a self-regulating body that can share information, maybe coordinate slowdown if things get super scary. How do you guys all talk about that? Is there like a WhatsApp channel, or how do you guys communicate on this?

没有什么大家都在里面的大 WhatsApp 群。但有很多——你知道，人们会在同一个会议上碰面，有电话、偶尔的会议之类的。

There's no big WhatsApp that everybody's in. But there's lots — you know, people are running into each other at the same conference, there's calls, occasional meetings, stuff like that.

好。你觉得政府需要给顶尖 AI 公司反垄断豁免，以便这样协调吗？Dario 和 Anthropic 是这么说的。

Okay. Do you think that the government needs to give top AI companies an antitrust exemption in order to coordinate like this? That's what Dario and Anthropic have said.

这又是——我不是律师，但据我理解，法律相当明确，我们是允许的。我的意思是，我们显然不能说“我们把模型价格定在这里”，那不好，或者说“我们别发布这个”之类的。但我认为法律相当明确，我们被允许分享安全最佳实践和事故报告之类的东西。

It's again — not a lawyer, but as I understand it, the law is fairly clear that we're allowed to. I mean, we can't say, "Let's price our models here," obviously, and that would not be good, or "Let's not release this" or whatever. But I think the law is fairly clear that we're allowed to share safety best practices and incident reports and stuff like that.

你觉得 Anthropic 为什么呼吁反垄断豁免？

Why do you think Anthropic is calling for an antitrust exemption?

这你得问他们。

You have to ask them.

嗯。现在有很多 AI 电影上映。其中一部由 Andrew Garfield 饰演你。我想它叫《Artificial》。按新框架，也许该叫《Super》。谁应该演你？我是说，Andrew Garfield 是个好人选吗？你心里有别人吗？每个人都会想这个，对吧？谁应该在电影里演他们？

Yeah. There's a lot of AI movies coming out these days. One of them has Andrew Garfield playing you. I think it's called Artificial. I guess maybe it should be called Super under the new framework. Who should play you? I mean, is Andrew Garfield a good character? Do you have another person in mind? Everybody thinks about this, right? Who should play them in a movie?

谁应该在电影里演你？

Who should play you in a movie?

谁应该在电影里演你？

Who should play you in a movie?

哦，在这事发生之前我从没想过。我觉得他在《蜘蛛侠》里演得挺好。嗯。

Oh, I never thought about it before this happened. I thought he was pretty good in Spider-Man. Yeah.

好。我是说，那你——

Okay. I mean, so you—

我不知道。我觉得不管怎样都会是件怪事。但我喜欢人们。我希望它好看。我希望它有趣。我确信它不会准确，但我希望它有趣、看着享受。

I don't know. I think it's going to be a weird thing no matter what. But I love people. I hope it's entertaining. I hope it's funny. I'm sure it won't be accurate, but I hope it's funny and enjoyable to watch.

嗯。嗯。趁你在这儿，我还想多问一点关于中国的问题。蒸馏是一回事。还有这个更宏观的与中国竞赛的问题。我不知道你们追踪谁领先追得有多仔细。我甚至不太确定你们怎么追踪。你们追踪吗——谁在前沿领先？你怎么评估——OpenAI、Anthropic，这个领域的领先者——你们比这些中国公司领先多少？

Yeah. Yeah. I do want to ask just a little bit more about the China question while we have you here. The distillation is one thing. There is also this broader question about the race with China. And I don't know how carefully you guys are tracking who's ahead. I'm not even entirely sure how you track that. Do you guys track that — who's in the lead on the frontier? And what would you gauge — the OpenAI, Anthropic, the leaders in the space — how far ahead are you guys from these other Chinese companies?

我确实认为我们领先。我觉得很难给领先多少定个数字，因为有很多决策会影响那个数字。所以我可以比较有信心地说，我相信我们最好的内部模型远远领先于任何中国公司最好的内部模型。但要说清楚到底领先多少有点困难。

I do think we're ahead. I think it's very hard to put a number on it of how far ahead, because there are many decisions that impact what that number is going to be. So I can say with some confidence I believe our best internal model is well ahead of the best internal model that any Chinese company has. But it's a little difficult to say exactly how far ahead.

我很好奇你是怎么知道的。这看起来像是情报分析师才会知道的事。

I'm curious how you know that. It seems like something an intelligence analyst would know.

我正想说，我们有理由相信这一点，但并非万无一失，我也希望能有绝对的把握。

I was just going to say, we have reason to believe this, but it's not perfect, and I wish I knew with absolute confidence.

政府在这方面会跟你们分享信息吗？我猜他们肯定在盯着中国的实验室。

Does the government ever share information with you on this? I've got to assume they're looking at the Chinese labs.

他们可能会跟 OpenAI 其他有安全许可的人分享。他们没告诉过我“你比另一项努力领先 X 个月”。

They might with somebody else at OpenAI who has a security clearance or something. They have not told me, 'You are X months ahead of this other effort.'

也许那只会增加额外的压力。没必要。我确实想问，你出席了国宴。当时有很多压力要求与中国政府在节奏上达成某种协议。总统似乎不想跟这事沾边。我很好奇，你认为在本届政府任内，近期有可能与中国达成任何协议吗？

Maybe that would just add some extra pressure. Not needed. I do want to ask, you were here for the state dinner. There was a lot of pressure for some sort of agreement with the Chinese government on pacing. The president doesn't seem to want anything to do with that. I'm curious whether you think any kind of deal with the Chinese is possible in the near term with this administration.

我认为有可能。我不知道具体能达成什么形式，但这位总统非常擅长做交易。

I assume something's possible. I don't know the exact shape of what can get done, but this president is incredible at making deals.

你觉得需要逐步升级吗？有人跟我描述过，你需要先管好自己的事，然后可能去找民主国家，看看大家能否达成一致，一旦实现，再去找中国。在你看来，你能跳过这个过程吗，还是必须沿着这条价值链往上走？

Do you think it needs to ratchet up the chain? One thing people have described to me is you need to regulate your own house first, then maybe go to the democracies and see if we can all get on the same page, and then once that happens you can go to the Chinese. Can you short-circuit that process, or does it have to go up that value chain in your mind?

这方面你问错人了。你大概认识很多复杂国际事务的专家。你要是问 AI 技术的问题，我能给你不错的回答。复杂国际事务，我可能不是你能问的最聪明的人。

Here you are asking the wrong person. You probably know a lot of experts on complex international stuff. You've got a question about AI tech, I can give you a good answer. You get the complex international thing done, I'm probably not the smartest person you can ask.

或者这可能是问你的政策团队的问题。说到中国的情况，你认为他们在 AI 方面是重大的国家安全威胁吗？一直有人努力对 AI 芯片流向中国实施出口管制。其中一些管制已经到位。无论谁赢得选举，在即将到来的跛脚鸭会期都有人努力收紧这些管制。你认为这些措施有效吗？

Or maybe this is a question for your policy staff. When it comes to the Chinese situation, do you see them as a major national security threat with AI? There's been this effort to impose export controls on the flow of AI chips to China. Some of those controls are already in place. There are efforts to tighten them in the upcoming lame duck regardless of who wins the election. Do you think those have been effective?

我同时认为，哪些国家在相互使用更强大的 AI，这显然是一个巨大的国家安全问题，这也是我希望这里能达成某种协议的部分原因。我们在历史上对其他重大颠覆性技术也这样做过，甚至是在彼此非常不喜欢的国家之间。我还认为，这项技术的形态非常不寻常，过去那种限制性的做法——也许以核技术为例，你可以真正聚焦于原材料之类——不会以同样的方式奏效。所以我认为，当前的许多做法都基于上一个时代的思维。

I simultaneously think that it is clearly a huge national security issue about what countries are using more powerful AI against each other, which is part of why I'd like there to be some sort of deal here. And we've done that for other majorly disruptive pieces of technology in our history, even between countries that really don't like each other. And I also think that the shape of this technology is just so unusual that doing the kinds of things that restrict that worked in the last era—maybe if we use the example of nuclear technology where you could really focus on raw materials and such—it's not going to work quite the same way. So I think a lot of the current approaches are based in the last era of thinking.

所以你认为出口管制是一种过时的尝试？

So you think export controls are kind of an outdated attempt?

可能有某种版本会奏效，但你可以在另一个国家训练模型，完成后直接通过互联网发送权重。这是不同形态的东西。

There's probably some version of it that could work, but you can train a model in some other country and then when it's done just send the weights over the internet. It's a different shape of thing.

Anthropic 大力推动出口管制，他们那边实际上对华非常强硬。他们认为在这一点上击败中国的方法是限制他们获取美国硬件。你认同这一点吗？你认为这是一种方式吗？

Anthropic has pushed heavily for export controls and they're actually real big China hawks over there. They think the way to beat the Chinese on this is to clamp down on their access to US hardware. Is that something you share? Do you think that's one way?

那属于——好吧，首先，我希望全世界都能从这项技术中受益。所以那种“只有美国人民应该受益，我们不希望中国人民拥有它”的心态，我不喜欢。不过，我确实认为存在真实的地缘政治权力影响。

That's in the category of thing—well, again, I want the whole world to get to benefit from this technology first of all. So the whole 'only the US people should get to benefit and we don't want the Chinese people to have it'—I don't like that mindset. I do think there are real geopolitical power implications though.

但对我来说，芯片流动是否是解决问题的最佳方式非常不清楚。你在这次对话开头确实提到，你担心权力集中在人手中，也担心集中在国家手中，也许是一个国家。这听起来不太“美国优先”，但听起来你确实认为这是所有人都应该分享的技术。

But it's very unclear to me that chip flow is going to be the best way to deal with the problem. And you did mention at the top of this conversation that you were worried about concentration of power among people, but also among countries, maybe one country. It doesn't sound super America first, but it does sound like you're of the mind that this is technology that everybody should share.

如果我能挥动魔杖，我会说美国拥有最强大的 AI 模型、最多的 AI 算力，美国能在世界上主导政策决策。我喜欢美国的制度和美国的价值观框架，当然也喜欢美国。但我不认为应该只有美国人能从这项技术中受益，或对未来的任何发言权，或与世界其他地区形成超级不平衡的权力集中。

If I could wave a magic wand, I would say that America has the most powerful AI models, the plurality of AI compute, that America gets to lead the policy decisions in the world. I love the American system and the American value framework and obviously America. But I don't think it should be only Americans get to benefit from the technology or have any voice in the future or have a super lopsided concentration of power with the rest of the world.

好的，Sam，非常感谢。这很棒。我很想再做一次。非常感谢你参加首期节目。太棒了。

Well, Sam, thank you so much. This is great. I'd love to do it again. And thanks so much for being on the inaugural episode. It's great.

保重。

Take care.