AI 作为新界面：全球科技领导力与国家力量

当 AI 成为一切事物的界面时，我们拥有的每一个工具、使用的每一项技术都将建立在这些模型之上。而模型并非客观，它们有观点，在历史、文化、价值观等问题上持有强烈观点，且这些观点因地域不同而差异巨大。

When AI becomes the interface for everything, every tool we have, every technology we use is going to be built on these models. And the models are not objective. They have opinions. They have strong opinions on things like history, on culture, on values. And those are very different depending where you are.

威慑不再仅仅取决于军队规模，而是取决于应对对手可能使用的廉价软件构建技术的创新速度——无论对手是国家、犯罪组织还是恐怖集团。而如今这些技术并非由政府开发，而是由私营部门打造。

Deterrence is no longer just the size of a military. It's the pace of innovation in reacting to cheap software-built tech that adversaries may be using whether they're a country, criminal, or a terrorist group. And those technologies today are not being built by governments. They're being built by the private sector.

产品和技术的传播速度超过了公司自身的扩张速度。过去，初创公司通常要到营收数亿美元才考虑国际化，而现在它们必须越来越早地走向国际。

Products and technology travel faster than companies can. So what happens is for startup companies, usually olden days, you didn't care about going international until you had a few hundred million in revenue. Now these companies have to go sooner and sooner internationally.

我们在访问不同国家时最常被问到的问题是：如何在本土复制硅谷？

The number one question we often get when we're visiting different countries is how do you recreate Silicon Valley locally?

不过，我认为这并不真实，那只是一厢情愿的空谈。

I don't think that's true, by the way. I think that's a happy talk.

今天我们在这里讨论国际化。公司发生了很多变化——过去我们完全集中在门洛帕克，甚至不想开设旧金山办公室，这对我们来说是一个巨大的转变。所以 Ben，请你介绍一下我们关于全球雄心的公告，以及全球事务、国际市场化、全球合作伙伴层面的 LP 关系等各部分如何协同运作。

We are here to talk international today. Lots of things going on at the firm for a firm that used to historically be all centered in Menlo Park and we didn't even want to open up a San Francisco office. This is a big change for us. So Ben, why don't you take us through this announcement around our global ambition and how all the pieces between global affairs, international go to market, LP relations on the global partnership level kind of fit in together.

是的。有趣的是，这一切其实始于美国。我们坚信，如果你把一个人放到世界上任何一个国家，他既没有当地文化，也没有资金和资本资源，只有一个让世界变得更美好的想法，那么他最好的机会在美国。这是非常特别的一点。所以我们公司的一大使命就是努力保护美国这种特殊性。这意味着美国必须成为领导者——经济上的领导者、文化上的领导者、军事上的领导者。要做到这一点，我们必须成为技术领导者。这就是我们在生态系统和世界中的角色：帮助美国成为领导者。随着我们推进这一使命，我们意识到需要把合作伙伴和盟友也纳入其中。这始于 Jen 你正在做的工作——来自世界各地的人们希望参与美国的技术机遇，于是我们开始吸引全球投资者。当我们去拜访这些投资者，询问如何成为更好的合作伙伴时，我们发现了一些有趣的事情。首先，每个国家不仅希望从技术中获得经济利益，还希望直接受益：你能把技术带给我们吗？我们能有机会使用它吗？其次，在更高层面的政府政策层面，人们想知道：我们如何能成为一个像你们一样善于采用技术、进行创新并推动国家走向未来的伟大国家？当我们思考如何抓住这个机会并成为好伙伴时，我们意识到，对于国家合作伙伴，我们需要在政府层面、投资者层面和采用层面建立关系——这就是三个组成部分。因此，我们设立了全球事务部门，由 An 领导，负责与沙特阿拉伯、日本、墨西哥等各国政府建立恰当的关系，我们与所有国家都进行了很好的对话。然后我们有投资团队，有时投资方是政府，有时是政府旗下的各种公司，有时是管理政府养老金的企业。最后，政府和商业机构都希望采用技术，这就是 Ragu 负责的市场化部分。

Yeah. Well, it really kind of starts with America, interestingly. And it's kind of been our belief, our strong belief that if you drop a person into any country in the world and they don't have the culture and they don't have money and capital resources yet, and they just have an idea of how to make the world a better place, their best shot is in America. And that's a very, very special thing. So a big mission of our firm is kind of trying to preserve that special thing that is America. And that means America has to be a leader. It has to be a leader economically. It has to be a leader culturally. It has to be a leader militarily. And to do that we have to be a leader technologically. We have to be a tech leader. And that's kind of really our role in the ecosystem and in the world is to help America be a leader. And then what we realized as we've gotten further along with this mission is that we need to bring in our partners, our allies into that mission. And it kind of started with the work that you're doing Jen with just people from around the world wanting to participate in the US technological opportunity and that meant we started getting investors from around the world. And as we went out to see those investors and we said look how can we be a better partner we found some interesting things. So one is every country wants to not only economically benefit from the technology but they'd like to actually directly benefit from the technology. Can you bring it to us? Can we get a chance to use it? And then at a higher level, at the government policy level people wanted to know how can we be a great country for adopting technology for innovating like you guys are and for helping push our country into the future. And as we looked at how do we step up and step into that opportunity and be a good partner we realized with our country partners we needed relationships at the government level, at the investor level, at the adoption level and that's what these three components become. So we've got global affairs which builds our relationships led by An which helps us have relationships in the right way with governments from Saudi Arabia to Japan to Mexico. And we've had great conversations with all of them. Then we have people who invest, sometimes those are the government, sometimes they're various companies in the government, sometimes they're companies who actually handle government money in the form of pensions. And then finally, both the government and the businesses want to adopt the technology and that's where Ragu's effort comes in where we have the go-to-market component.

我想请你谈谈。你加入 A6 和 Z 的决定在多大程度上是受这一使命以及责任感的驱动？就像 Ben 提到的，帮助其他国家思考如何采用 AI，避免在 AI 领域落后。

I'm going to get you involved here. How much of your decision to join A6 and Z was motivated by this mission and also the sense of duty and helping other countries think about the adoption of AI and not wanting to get left behind in AI like Ben was alluding to?

确实如此。我在情报委员会和白宫工作的那些年里看到，技术从外交和国家权力的工具，变成了一个竞技场——芯片供应链与其说是技术问题，不如说是基础经济和国家安全问题。药品成分的供应链也是如此。当一个国家用它来限制或影响另一个国家时，它就变成了国家权力的工具。

Very much so. You know what I saw happen in the years in the intelligence committee and then the White House is technology move from being a tool of diplomacy of national power to the arena of it where the supply chain for chips was not a technology issue as much as a foundational economic and national security issue. The supply chain for the components that go into drugs. When used by one country to constrain or have impact on another country, it becomes a tool of national power.

软件漏洞现在不再是 IT 问题。

A software vulnerability is now not an IT issue.

没错。

Yep.

它可以成为施加影响力的筹码，尤其是当该漏洞存在于电力系统或供水系统的关键部分时。

It can be a source of leverage, particularly if that vulnerability is in key parts of your power systems or your water systems.

是的。所以我看到了这种转变：技术从 IT 问题或单纯工具，变成了经济增长和国家权力的核心竞技场。坦率地说，从威慑的角度——即国家之间用于阻止入侵、维持国际体系稳定的语言——威慑不再仅仅取决于军队规模。正如我们在霍尔木兹海峡或红海所见，它取决于应对对手可能使用的廉价软件构建技术的创新速度，无论对手是国家、犯罪组织还是恐怖集团。

Yeah. So I saw that shift happen from tech being either an IT issue or just a tool to the central arena of both economic growth and national power. And quite frankly from a deterrence perspective, which is the language we talk about between countries in terms of deterring an invasion of a country, maintaining an international system of stability. Deterrence is no longer just the size of a military. I think as we see in the Strait of Hormuz or we saw in the Red Sea, it's the pace of innovation in reacting to cheap software-built tech that adversaries may be using whether they're a country, criminal or a terrorist group.

没错。

Yep.

而如今这些技术并非由政府开发，而是由私营部门打造——无论是 AI 系统、自主系统还是网络防御系统，都在私营部门中诞生。因此，从美国的角度来看，确保政府与私营部门之间建立关系，以便利用这些技术促进自身经济增长，并在世界舞台上成为一股向善的力量，同时我们的盟友也能共同建设、共同战斗，确保我们共同享有这些优势，并且我们的技术也代表我们的价值观，这一点至关重要。

And those technologies today are not being built by governments. They're being built by the private sector. Whether that's AI systems, whether that's autonomous systems, whether that's cyber defense systems, they are being built in the private sector. So certainly from a US perspective ensuring that we have the relationships between government and private sector to leverage that for our own economic growth and as a force for good on the world stage but also that our allies as well we build together we fight together and to ensure that together we can both have the advantages of that and to the extent that our tech also represents our values.

世界必须运行在美国和西方技术之上，这一点很重要。

It's important that the world run on America and on western tech.

是的，关于价值观这一点说得很好，因为 Ben 你之前说过，没有哪个国家想在网络空间被殖民，对吧，尤其是因为 AI 现在就在旧金山六个街区的范围内被构建。请再多说一点。

Yeah, actually that's a great point on the values point because Ben you've said before no country wants to get colonized in cyberspace, right, particularly because AI is now just getting built in the six block radius in San Francisco. Say a little bit more about that.

嗯，你知道，当 AI 成为一切事物的界面时，我们拥有的每一个工具、使用的每一项技术、从汽车到冰箱到教育系统的每一种系统，都将建立在这些模型之上，而模型并非客观。它们有观点，并且在历史、文化、伦理和价值观等问题上有强烈的看法。而且，这些看法因地域不同而大相径庭。战争史、国家历史和法律，以及一个国家是好的行为者还是坏的行为者，都取决于你从哪里获取信息。所以，如果你像我一样相信，尽管我们有种种缺陷，但我们的基本价值观和关于从经济体系运作方式到法治的一切理念，已经为人类创造了世界上最好的机会，那么你希望这些价值观被投射到世界上，而不是成为其他价值观的接受者。那些价值观也许曾经很好，或者有一些优点，但总体上没有给人们真正的机会。

Well, you know, when AI becomes the interface for everything, so every tool we have, every technology we use, every kind of system we have from your car to your refrigerator to your education system is going to be built on these models, and the models are not objective. They have opinions, and they have strong opinions on things like history, on culture, on ethics, and on values. And by the way, those are very different depending where you are. The history of wars, the history of a country and laws, and whether that country was a good actor or a bad actor are all very different depending on where you're getting the information from. So if you believe, as I do, that for all our flaws, our fundamental values and ideas about everything from the way our economic system works to the rule of law have resulted in basically the best opportunities for humans in the world, then you want those values to be projected onto the world more so than to be the recipients of some other values. Which maybe were good at a time or have some merits but overall don't give people a real opportunity.

是的。给人们机会。这是我们今年早些时候基金公告的初衷及其重要性，尤其是将这个机会扩展到美国的盟友。Ragu，我也想请你谈谈这个问题，因为投资组合公司越来越早地走向国际化。它们在生命周期中更早地实现多国家、多渠道、多产品。这在多大程度上也因 AI 的发展以及即时推送软件更新的能力而加速？

Yeah. Giving people a chance. That was the premise of the original announcement we did for our fund announcement earlier this year and the importance of that, and then particularly extending that chance to the allies of America as well. Ragu, I want to get you involved on this as well because portfolio companies are increasingly going international way sooner. They're multi-country, multi-channel, multi-product way sooner in the life cycle. How much of this is also accelerated by what's happening in AI and just the ability to push out software updates right immediately?

是的。我的意思是，现实是产品和技术的传播速度比公司快，对吧？因为如果你有一个好产品，每个人都会很快、瞬间知道它。你可以通过 API 在世界任何地方访问它，并在此基础上进行构建。所以对于初创公司来说，在过去，你通常不会关心国际化，直到你有几亿美元的收入等等。现在这些公司必须越来越早地走向国际。因此，虽然产品更早地被国际发现，而且正如 Ben 之前所说，由于 AI，这些产品更容易适应本地市场。随着 AI 成为本地化和国际化这些产品的界面，事情变得容易得多。但为了大规模利用机会，事情并没有改变，对吧？我的意思是，你仍然需要进入该地区。你仍然需要了解你想运营的地区的市场结构。你必须了解合作伙伴关系，建立关系。很多其他国家拥有非常基于关系的经济，而不是基于交易的经济。所以这是一个有趣的混合体：技术发展非常快，但你的商业方式并没有那么快改变。

Yeah. I mean, the reality is that products and technology travel faster than companies can, right? Because if you have a great product, everybody learns about it very quickly, instantaneously. You can access it through APIs wherever in the world you are, you can build on top of those things. So what happens is for startup companies, usually in the olden days you didn't care about going international until you had a few hundred million dollars in revenue, etc. Now these companies have to go sooner and sooner internationally. So while the products are being discovered internationally sooner, also to Ben's earlier point, it's easier to adapt these products for local markets much more easily thanks to AI. As AI becomes the interface to localize and internationalize these products, it's so much easier. But in order to capitalize on the opportunity at scale, things don't change, right? I mean, you still have to be in region. You still have to understand the market structure of the region that you want to operate in. You have to understand partnerships, you have to build relationships. Lots of other countries have very relationship-based economies, not transaction-based economies. So it's this interesting blend where the technology moves really fast but the way you do business hasn't changed that fast.

是的。实际上，Ragu 所说的有一个很好的例子。我们最近在墨西哥时，会见了 TelevisaUnivision 的 CEO Alonso Angua，他是公司的好朋友，也是我们的全球合作伙伴之一。我们问他，你的困难是什么？他的一个挑战是，他面临着来自 Netflix 或 Disney 等全球流媒体巨头的激烈竞争，这些公司拥有非常强大的美国技术。但他拥有令人难以置信的西班牙语内容。然而，这些内容很难在全球范围内播放，因为它是西班牙语。而且是墨西哥西班牙语口音，这与阿根廷西班牙语或哥伦比亚西班牙语口音不同。他问，我们该如何解决这个问题？我们说，我们有一家很棒的公司，11 Labs，他们可以帮你。我们在几个月内让他们合作。他带着这项不可思议的技术去了法国、波兰和世界各地，这项技术让他的演员基本上以他们正常的方式表演，带着正确的语调、正确的笑声，但使用不同的语言。最近，基于这一成功，他与 Netflix 达成了一项大交易。所以在这里，我们可以让我们的合作伙伴拥有一个文化上本地化但非常有趣的产品，并通过不与盟友竞争而是与盟友合作，使其成为全球产品。我认为这正是这个项目的意义所在。

Yeah. Actually, so a really great example of what Ragu was talking about. So when we were in Mexico recently, we were meeting with the CEO of TelevisaUnivision, Alonso Angua, who is a great friend of the firm and one of our global partners, and we were asking about, gee, you know, what are your struggles? And one of his challenges is he really faces heavy competition from some of the global streamers like Netflix or Disney or so forth, who have this US technology that's very powerful. But he has this unbelievable Spanish-speaking content. But it was hard for him to get to play on a global basis because it's in Spanish. It's a Mexican Spanish accent, which is different than an Argentinian Spanish or Colombian Spanish accent. And he's like, how should we solve this? And we're like, well, we've got this great company, 11 Labs. They can help you with it. We put them together in a couple of months. He was in France and Poland and all over the world with this incredible technology that had his actors basically acting exactly as they normally do with their right kind of intonations, their right laugh, everything but in different languages. And he recently, based on that success, got a big deal with Netflix. And so here we have something where we can bring our partners who have a great product that's culturally local but really really interesting and make it a global product by not competing with their allies but partnering with their allies. And I think that's a lot of what the program is about.

我想把 Ben 所说的与价值观问题联系起来，因为人们经常问我们关于中国的开源模型，你们如何比较和对比？在那个案例中，他们不必担心当内容被配音成不同语言时，如果说话者说了关于天安门广场或中国政府的敏感内容，使用美国模型时，这些内容会在翻译过程中被改变，对吧？他们知道它会忠实于原话。这就是我们所说的美国价值观：不审查、不将政治意愿注入这些模型的运作方式，这与某些做法形成对比。现在，开源是我们非常重视的，因为归根结底，显然有各种各样的模型和各种各样的价格点。但这确实是一个很好的例子，说明了当我们说美国及西方价值观反映在我们围绕基础设施部署的模型中时，我们指的是什么。

And I want to tie what Ben said back to the values point because people often ask us about Chinese open source models, how do you compare and contrast? So in that case, they didn't have to worry that when the content was dubbed into different languages, if the speaker said something sensitive about Tiananmen Square or sensitive regarding the Chinese government, that using an American model that content would be translated and changed along the way, right? They knew it would be true to what was said. And that's what we mean when we talk about American values of not censoring, not injecting political will into how these models operate in the way that one would contrast. Now, open source is something we deeply value because at the end of the day, there are all different kinds of models and all different kinds of price points clearly. But that's really a good example of what we mean when we say American and western values reflected in the models that we deploy around our infrastructure.

当然，玉米卷已经够辣了。我不知道在故事线中是否一定要引入天安门广场，但谁知道边界穿越等等。

For sure, the tacos are spicy enough. I don't know how much the introduction of Tiananmen Square needs to be introduced necessarily in the storyline, but you never know the border crossings, etc.

说得好，他们很好地留住了观众。

Good point, they keep their audience well enough.

正是。正是。

Exactly. Exactly.

但这实际上是核心部分。今年早些时候 Py McCormack 写关于我们的文章时，称我们为权力掮客，权力是我们让创始人能够利用的 offering 的一部分。对于很多公司来说，例如在墨西哥开设办公室，可能不是第一、第二、第三，甚至不是前十的优先事项。但如果他们有一笔交易，我们能够介入并有效让他们在生命周期中更早地获得获胜机会，他们可能会优先考虑。所以，Raun、Ben，也许你们想就此展开，特别是这对创始人如何看待国际化有何改变，当他们能够以比从零摸索市场更熟练的方式直接接触买家时。

But this actually is a core part. When Py McCormack wrote the article about us earlier this year, he called us a power broker, power being part of an offering that we enable our founders to tap into. For a lot of companies, starting a Mexico office, for example, is probably not one, two, three, maybe even top 10 on their list. But if they have a deal that we're able to walk in and effectively enable them a shot at winning way earlier in the life cycle, they might prioritize that. So maybe if you want to riff on that, Raun, Ben, on particularly how that's changed for founders, they think about international when they have the benefit of being able to go right to the buyers in a much more adept way than figuring out a market from scratch.

是的。我的意思是，很多市场都是头重脚轻的，对吧？所以，拿任何成熟企业来说，你说有多少收入来自，比如英国这样的国家，很大一部分将来自英国最顶尖的公司，对吧？所以现实是，无论你看哪个国家，都是五到十家公司至关重要，当然政府也是一个巨大的影响者和买家。所以你举的墨西哥例子很好，对吧？我的意思是，墨西哥有几家像 Ben 提到的全球性公司，所以唯一的方式是，不值得设立一个老式办公室并服务于所有国家，对吧？但如果你能进入墨西哥前五的公司，那可能比在其他国家设立完整运营机构价值大得多。所以，正是这种头重脚轻和关系密集的特性帮助了我们的投资组合公司。

Yeah. I mean, a lot of markets are very top-heavy, right? So you take any mature business and you say how much of your revenue comes from even companies like, I mean countries like UK, a significant chunk is going to come from the very top companies in UK, right? So the reality is whichever country you look at, it's five or 10 companies that matter, and of course the government is a big influencer and buyer. So the example that you gave in Mexico is great, right? I mean, there are a few global companies in Mexico like the one that Ben talked about, and so the only way you could do it is not worthwhile setting up an old office and serving all of the countries, right? But if you could get into the top five companies in Mexico, that probably is worth a lot more than setting up a full operation in some other country. So it is the top-heavy nature and the relationship-heavy nature that helps our portfolio of companies.

还有另外几个重要方面。一是，你说得对，墨西哥可能不是大多数公司首先进入的前十国家。顺便说一句，这非常遗憾，因为墨西哥是我们的邻国。从国家安全的角度来看，拥有一个紧密连接的西半球供应链生态系统会有多强大？所以我认为这对国家来说是不利的，它排第十。其次，作为公司进入一个国家是一项巨大的开支。你必须设立实体、招聘团队、本地化产品。根据国家和你的投入程度，可能轻松花费 500 万到 1000 万美元才能达成第一笔交易。所以这会推迟你生命周期中走向国际化的时间。但如果在设立实体或在该国起步之前，你有一个机会，一个大机会，一个 500 万或 1000 万美元的机会，让这笔投资更容易提前进行呢？因此，我们确实可以通过为这类事情铺平道路来赋能我们的公司和盟友。一个很好的例子是，没有人会首先去沙特阿拉伯。然而，沙特阿拉伯正在蓬勃发展，那里有巨大的机会，他们确实需要我们的帮助来发展国家。他们正在现代化，这对世界安全极其重要——沙特阿拉伯正从那种部落社会转变为现代、高度文明的现代世界参与者，并成为美国的完全盟友。这一转型的成功至关重要。所以我们能够带像 Adam Neumann 的公司 Flow 这样的公司去沙特阿拉伯，介绍他们给政府中合适的人、商业界合适的人、投资者中合适的人。如果你是一名移居利雅得的外籍人士，那里是理想的生活地点，有助于发展经济。而如果没有这样的努力，这几乎是不可能实现的。

And there's a couple of other aspects that are important. One is like you're right that Mexico probably isn't a top 10 thing that most companies go into first. And by the way, that's a terrible shame because Mexico is our neighbor. From a national security standpoint, how powerful would it be to have a Western Hemisphere supply chain ecosystem that was really well connected? So I think it's kind of bad for the country that it is number 10. Secondly, to open a country as a company is a very large expense. You have to set up an entity, you have to hire a team, you have to localize the product. And that's going to be, depending on the country and how committed you are, it could be easily $5 or $10 million just to get to your first deal. So that is going to delay in your life cycle when you can go international. But what if, before you ever put up an entity or got started in that country, you had an opportunity, a big opportunity, a $5 million opportunity, a $10 million opportunity that makes that investment much easier to do earlier? And so we can really enable both our companies and our allies by paving the way for that kind of thing. A great example is nobody's going to Saudi Arabia first. However, Saudi Arabia is booming and there are great opportunities there, and they really need our help in developing the country. They're modernizing, which is incredibly important to the security of the world that Saudi Arabia is going from this kind of tribal society to a modern, highly civilized player in the modern world and full ally of the United States. That transition is really important that it succeeds. So we're able to take a company like Flow, Adam Neumann's company, bring them to Saudi Arabia, introduce them to the right people in the government, introduce them to the right people in business, introduce them to the right investors. It's the optimal place to live if you're an expat moving to Riyadh, helping develop the economy. And it's something that just isn't really possible without an effort like this.

当然。当然。也许让我们谈谈我们优先考虑的地区，因为有几个：日本、韩国、中东、墨西哥、加拿大。在我们考虑不同国家时，有没有一些主题让某些国家比其他更合理？

For sure. For sure. Maybe let's talk about geos we're prioritizing because there's a handful. Japan, Korea, the Middle East, Mexico, Canada. Are there themes as we think about different countries that make more sense versus others?

是的，这很及时。Ragu 和我一直在争论这个。所以我想说，从我们的角度来看，当他们是美国的强大盟友时，这非常有力。我们与政府人员有关系，与商业人士有关系，与投资者有关系。因为这些不是分开的；它们相互影响。如果我们有这些，那么我们就可以真正加速他们和我们的机会。

Yeah, this is timely. Ragu and I have been debating this. So I would just say, from our standpoint, it's very powerful when they're a strong ally of the US. We've got a relationship with the people in government. We've got a relationship with the people in business. We've got a relationship with the investors. Because those things are not separate; they all interact with each other. And if we have that, then we can really accelerate the opportunities for them and for us.

我想就这一点补充一下，基于 Ben 的观点，然后我会交给 Ragu。变化如此之大的是，在全球舞台上，无论是在背景下还是通过供应链施压的背景下，世界上有些地区我们有密切盟友，但他们现在处于日益脆弱的地位。所以如果我们看印太地区，中国大幅增加了军力，大幅增加了核能力，使用了各种手段，其造船能力比美国高出几个数量级，而我们在该地区的盟友已经开始回应。日本改变了二战后神圣不可侵犯的政策，表示必须拥有有能力的军队。它想要建设能够打今天战争而不是昨天战争的军队。它不一定拥有军工基础。现在，这有利有弊。正如我们从美国军方采取的断断续续步骤所知，过去 20 年写的国防改革政策数量，它们都说了同样的话：更少数量的小型精良平台，更多更便宜、数量更多的平台，再加上针对特定用例的非常精良的平台。所以当日本考虑建设有能力的军队以威慑地区侵略时，它正在寻求与建造自主舰船、为集成战场构建 AI 的新公司合作，他们想与我们共同建设。他们不想只是购买，因为他们希望在自己的国家拥有自己的能力，保护自己的供应链。所以我认为一部分是考虑这些世界区域。我谈到了印太地区的一个，也包括澳大利亚。

I think what I would just say to that point, building on Ben's point and then I'll turn it over to Ragu, is what's changed so much is that on the global stage, whether in the context of or in the context of countries pressuring other countries via supply chains, there are parts of the world which we have close allies who are now in increasingly tenuous positions. So if we look at the Indopacific region, China has vastly increased its military, vastly increased the number of nuclear capabilities, uses various, their shipbuilding capability are orders of magnitude more than the United States, and our allies in the region have started responding. Japan has changed its really sacrosanct policy from the post-World War II period to say it must have a capable military. It wants to build the military to fight today's wars, not yesterday's wars. It doesn't necessarily have the military-industrial base. Now, that cuts both ways. As we know from the halting steps the United States military has taken, the number of defense reform policies written in the last 20 years, they all say the same thing: fewer small numbers of exquisite platforms, more cheaper, larger numbers of platforms in addition to very exquisite platforms for certain specific use cases. So as Japan thinks about building a capable military to deter aggression in the region, it is looking to partner with new firms building autonomous ships, building AI for an integrated battle space, and they want to build with us. They don't want to just buy because they have their own capabilities they want in their own country, their own supply chains to protect. So I think a part of that is thinking about those regions of the world. I talked about one in the Indopac region that covers Australia as well.

显然，中东长期以来一直是美国的利益区域。以色列是一个能力极强的盟友，拥有强大的军事和情报机构。阿联酋也是如此。沙特阿拉伯正在现代化，并思考如何通过 AI 基础设施构建创新和创业基础，以便在全球竞争。当然，当我们考虑拉丁美洲时，当芬太尼进入美国时，它是通过墨西哥进来的。因此，公共安全、国家安全，以及自主船只如何帮助墨西哥漫长的海岸线，不仅对我们的盟友和拉丁美洲的稳定很重要，对我们也很重要。所以我认为这是我们为美国活力或 AI 基础设施领域的一些合作伙伴关系带来的国家安全视角。

Obviously, certainly the Middle East has been an area of American interest for a long time. Israel is an incredible capable ally with capable military and intelligence community. The UAE is as well. Saudi Arabia is modernizing and thinking about AI infrastructure how it builds an innovation, entrepreneurial innovation base in order to compete globally. And then certainly when we think about Latin America, when we think about fentanyl coming into the United States, it comes in via Mexico. So public safety, national security, how autonomous ships can help a vast Mexican coastline are not only important to our ally and to the stability of Latin America, it's important to us as well. So I think that's at least the national security lens we bring to some of our partnerships in American dynamism or in the AI infrastructure space.

是的。我的意思是，这就是本和我一直在争论的原因，因为这件事有很多方面，你必须把它们整合在一起。

Yeah. I mean it's the reason Ben and I have been debating is there are so many sides to this that you got to bring it all together.

首先，关于安的观点，从美国利益的角度来看，这必须非常合理，对吧？而这些国家都充分具备这一点。这些政府非常拥抱 AI，并正在推行以现代化为中心的政策，无论是在国防还是整个经济领域。第三，它们都是头部集中的经济体。我的意思是，你去看看那些顶级公司，它们实际上具有全球影响力。例如，你提到的所有东北亚国家，我认为全球 2000 强中有 15-20% 分布在日本、韩国和台湾。

Firstly, to Ann's point, you got to be a lot it has to make a lot of sense from America's interest point of view, right? And that is abundantly existing in all these countries. These governments are very AI forward and they're putting in policies that are very modernization-centric whether it's in defense or across the economy. Thirdly, they are all top-heavy economies. I mean you go hit the top companies you are actually having global influence. For example all those North Asian countries that you talked about I think 15-20% of the global 2000 are across Japan, Korea, Taiwan.

对。

Right.

最后，对于我们的初创公司来说，这些国家的商业运作方式与英国或一些英语国家非常不同。因此，我们能为这些初创公司以及这些国家提供的附加值，远高于其他地方。

And then lastly for our startups it's the way business is done in these countries is very different than let's say UK or some English-speaking country right. So the value add that we can provide to these startups and the value add we can provide to these countries is so remarkably higher than in other places.

是的。

Yeah.

所以当你把所有这些因素加起来并评分时，这就是我们进入这些国家的原因。

So when you put it all up and score it out that's why we go into these countries.

是的。而且其中一些国家也在跨越式发展，它们不必处理旧技术。比如沙特，你通过签证入境只需 30 秒，简直不可思议。而你知道，在这里，你可能会因为各种原因不幸地排在越来越长的队伍后面。但这是思考如何将技术融入日常生活的不同方式，不过这种分布并不均匀。因此，我们如何在不同途径加速这一进程，也是许多国家视为巨大机遇的地方。

Yeah. And some of these countries are also leapfrogging too where they didn't have to deal with the prior technology like Saudi you go through the visa entry and it takes 30 seconds like way that snap wasn't good. 30 seconds to go through the visa entry which is like unbelievable and you know here you get stuck behind unfortunately a very long line increasingly for a number of different other reasons but you know it's a different kind of approach to how you think about incorporating technology in everyday life but it's not evenly distributed. So what are ways we can accelerate that in different avenues is also the opportunity that a lot of these countries are seeing as a huge leap.

然而，当我们考虑国际优先顺序时，与其他风投公司相比，这非常不同。因为典型的 VC 公司——你之前也谈到过——其他 VC 做国际业务的方式总是投资驱动，而不是真正考虑投资组合公司以及它们在国际上想做什么。所以也许可以多谈谈这种对比，坦率地说，为什么在公司成立的头 10 年里，我们很少做国际交易，不仅是在美国以外，甚至是在硅谷以外。

It's very different though when we think about international prioritization compared to maybe other VC firms because the typical VC firm was that you know then you've talked about this before like the typical way that other VC firms have done international have always been investment driven versus actually thinking about the portfolio companies and what they would like to do internationally. So maybe speak a little bit more about that contrast and quite frankly why for the first 10 years of the firm it was very rare we even did an international deal outside of not just the US but even outside of the Silicon Valley.

嗯，我认为我们一直从“我们能带来什么”的角度来看待投资。因此，如果你想想我们试图为一家公司做什么，我们真的试图帮助他们建立人脉，找到合适的人才、合适的客户、合适的专业知识，这在多个地区是非常困难的。即使在早期，在旧金山门洛帕克，我们也说，让我们先为这个做一个非常好的产品，然后再从那里扩张。而我认为其他 VC 更把产品看作钱。所以如果产品就是钱，那么国际战略就是：好吧，我们在英国找一个投资者团队，帮他们筹集资金，然后从他们的收益中抽取一部分作为帮他们获得产品的回报。你知道，在那个模型里这是有道理的。我认为这对我们来说没有意义，因为我们的全部重点是如何帮助你建立更好的公司？如何加速你的机会或增长等等。所以我们自身需要达到一定的规模和地位，才能让这在更多地区有意义。但现在我们已经达到了，这开始变得非常有意义。我认为在我们的投资角色中，我们不把它看作如何抢走瑞典、日本、沙特或阿联酋等地的机会。我们把它看作：你的生态系统在资本和专业知识方面缺少什么才能走向全球？我们是否有机会介入？所以我们不一定想取代他们的 A 轮和种子轮投资者。我们想说，如果你们有正在成为真正全球性公司的企业，那么那就是我们可以真正介入并提供帮助的地方。如果我们已经在该国，已经做了很多业务，已经了解了他们和他们的企业家，那么我们就处于很好的位置来做这件事。但我们会直接做。我们不会为不属于我们公司、我们的文化、我们的使命的人筹集资金，然后让他们去执行。那不是我们的风格。

Well I think we've always looked at investing through the lens of what do we bring to the table. So as a result, if you think about what we try to do for a company, we really try to help them network to the right talent, to the right customers, to the right expertise, and that is very hard to do in multiple geographies. Even like San Francisco Menlo Park in the early days we were like let's just have a really good product for this and then we'll expand from there. Whereas I think other VCs think of the product much more as the money. And so if the product is the money then the international strategy is okay we'll find a team of investors in say the UK and we'll help them raise money and then we'll take a percentage of their winnings for helping get them their product. And you know that makes sense in that model. I think it doesn't make sense for us because our whole thing is how do we help you build a better company? How do we accelerate your opportunity or growth and so forth. So we needed to get to a certain level of size and stature for that to make sense in more regions. But now that we are, it starts to make a lot of sense and I think in our role in investing we don't look at it as how do we snatch up the opportunities in Sweden or Japan or Saudi or UAE or that kind of thing. We look at it as what is your ecosystem missing in terms of capital and expertise to go global and is there an opportunity for us to plug in. So we don't want to displace their A-round and seed investors necessarily. We want to say okay if you've got companies that are emerging as real global companies then that's where we can really step in and help. And if we're already in the country and we're already doing a lot of business and we're already understanding them and their entrepreneurs, then we're in great position to do that. But we would do that directly. We're not raising money for somebody who's not part of our firm, our culture, our mission and having them go run a play. That's just not us.

而且很多时候，当你考虑这些创业生态系统时，它们经常缺少的是增长资本。它们在早期阶段实际上有很好的人才基础，但缺少真正走向全球的那部分，于是它们成为本地化的成功，而不是真正考虑全球雄心。也许这实际上借鉴了你在 VMware 关于公司建设演变的经验。随着时间的推移，本地公司成为全球公司的雄心是如何特别变化的？

And also so much of the time when you think about these entrepreneurial ecosystems, what they're oftentimes missing is growth capital. They actually have a great talent base on the early stage side, but they're kind of missing that component to actually go global and they become a localized success versus you actually thinking about global ambitions. Maybe that actually drawing from your experience at VMware regarding the evolution of company building. How's that kind of particularly changed in the ambition for local companies to become global over time?

这大大增加了，对吧？

That's dramatically increased, right?

是的。

Yeah.

以前，就像我之前说的，你甚至不会梦想走向全球，直到你非常成熟。而现在，因为你的产品可以具有如此普遍的吸引力。如果你有一个好产品，无论是 B2B 还是 B2C 产品，它都有普遍的吸引力，所以你更早地走向全球是明智的。

Previously, like I said earlier, you would not even dream of going global until you're really well advanced and now because your product can be there is such a universal appeal for you. If you've got a great product, it's such a universal appeal whether it's B2B or a B2C product, it behooves you to go earlier.

缺少的是支持生态系统，对吧？

What is missing is the supporting ecosystem, right?

以及找到一种方式融入一个新国家，对吧？而这正是我们新产品的重点。所以，它确实帮助他们在这些地区快速起步。

And being a finding a way to plug into a new country, right? And that's where our new offering really focuses on, right? So, it's really help them get the fast start in these regions.

为此，你需要身处当地，建立关系、积累信任、打造信誉。这些事情都不是一蹴而就的，而这正是我们可以提供的价值。

And for that you need to be in the region to have the relationships, to build the trust, to build the credibility. All of those things don't happen overnight, and that's where we can provide that.

是的。没错。而且通过在当地花时间，我们能够了解当地的生态系统，发现那些地区的优秀创业者，然后在合理的情况下实际投资他们，并利用我们的网络帮助他们走向国际。

Yeah. Yep. And then by spending time locally as well, we get to know the local ecosystem and then see the great entrepreneurs from those regions and then to the extent to which it makes sense actually fund those and then help them go international leveraging our network as well.

所以这些国家的企业更像是一个集体生态系统，而不是单个公司进入并主导某个领域。

So businesses in these countries are so much a collective ecosystem rather than an individual company going in and dominating something there.

当然。当然。嗯，或许可以再多谈谈之前的技术采用周期，特别是 AI 方面。Ann，这个问题很适合你。围绕安全性和开闭源的争论有很多细微之处，以至于需要考虑是否有可能在不触犯苹果规则的情况下构建，考虑到安全细节，开源允许什么。请再多谈谈你对此的看法，以及如何就这种微妙的平衡向公司提供建议。

For sure. For sure. Um, maybe speak a little bit more about the prior tech cycles of adoption and particularly with AI. Ann, this is a great question for you. There's so many nuances around security and even the debate between open versus closed that there are considerations of whether that's even viable to build without upsetting the Apple card on what is allowed with open source given the security nuances. Maybe speak a little bit more about how you've been thinking about that and advising companies on that delicate balance.

所以，这是当前的热门话题。如你所知，这是全球性的热门话题，因为从根本上说，和许多技术一样，AI 是双重用途的，对吧？那么第一步，以网络安全为例。第一步，无论你是攻击者还是防御者，都是发现系统中的漏洞。然后如果你是防御者，你就修补它们；如果你是攻击者，你就利用它们。

So, it's a hot topic right now. As you know, it's a hot topic around the world because fundamentally, as many technologies are, AI is dual use, right? So the first step, let's use cyber as an example. The first step, whether you are an attacker or a defender, is finding vulnerabilities in systems. And then if you're a defender, you patch them; if you're an attacker, you exploit them.

是的。

Yep.

所以模型让发现代码漏洞这一步变得容易得多。而且坦率地说，它也让后续的利用或防御步骤变得更容易。网络防御的经济性在最新 AI 模型出现之前就已经被打破了。我在白宫看到过，我的噩梦是针对美国乡村医院的勒索软件攻击。那里没有两个街区外的另一家医院。所以实际美国人获得医疗保健的机会被中断了，有时是被半个地球之外的国家庇护的犯罪团伙。对吧？所以基础设施非常脆弱，而现实是模型对双方都有帮助。我个人认为，我暂时专注于网络安全，它们对防御的帮助要大得多，因为防御要困难得多。你必须防御广阔的范围，而攻击者只需要找到一条路。因此，我认为我们此刻处于一个困难的境地，因为攻击面如此广泛，有太多系统是脆弱的。但我认为我们将看到实现更安全空间的机会。

So models make the step of finding vulnerabilities in code far easier. And quite frankly, it makes the next steps, exploit or defend, easier as well. The economics of cyber defense were broken well before the latest AI models came out. I saw that in the White House where my nightmare was the ransomware attacks against rural hospitals in America. There wasn't another hospital two blocks down. So actual Americans' opportunity to access health care was disrupted by, in some cases, state-harbored criminal groups halfway around the world. Right? So infrastructure is very fragile, and the reality is that the models help both. I personally believe, I'm focused on cybersecurity for a moment, that they help far more in defense because defense is far harder. You have to be defending a broad expanse, and an attacker has to find one way in. So as a result, I think we are in a difficult space at this moment because there's such a broad attack surface, there's so many systems that are vulnerable. But I think we will see the opportunity for much more secure space.

正如你所说，你知道，当我与世界各国政府或公司交谈时，所有人都在努力解决这个问题。我将从政府角度谈谈，因为我们知道它既能帮助防御也能帮助攻击。大多数国家都有两个使命，对吧？保卫国家以及维护海外利益。鉴于这两点，我们如何确保这些强大的能力不会落入对手手中，不会落入犯罪分子手中被用于那个目的？我认为，你知道，在传统的网络工具领域，我们一直在努力解决这个问题，对吧？当一种能力放在 U 盘上时，出口管制就是个笑话。你实际上无法那样控制它。而且，正如我们之前讨论的，世界运行在可信模型上具有真正的力量。当人们使用美国模型时，他们不必担心存在故意的后门。正如我们之前所说，他们不必担心聊天机器人的回答会被审查以迎合某个威权政府的特定政治叙事。所以现在的问题是，我们如何在模型中构建足够的安全程度，使它们能够在需要这种安全的环境中使用，而由于主要模型是美国的，我们处于一个特殊的位置来思考和构建这一点。我认为这不是政府单独能完成的，也不是私营部门单独能完成的；真正需要的是来自私营部门最了解模型的人与政府方面的人坐在一起，思考如何既促进创新又控制这些风险，并制定一套正确的政府政策，以支持模型的使用以及理解如何防范随之而来的风险。

To your point, you know, when I talk with governments around the world or companies around the world, all are grappling with that question. I'll talk about the government side given we know it can both help. Most countries have two missions, right? Defending the country as well as maintaining its interest overseas. Given both, how do we ensure that these powerful capabilities don't fall into our adversaries' hands, don't fall into criminals' hands to be used for that purpose? And I think, you know, in the traditional cyber tools arena, we always grappled with this, right? When a capability is on a thumb drive, export controls are a joke. You can't actually control it in that way. And there is real power, as we talked about earlier, in the models that the world runs on being run on trusted models. When people are using an American model, they don't have to worry there's an intentional backdoor. As we talked about earlier, they don't have to worry that a chatbot's answers will be framed by censoring to fit a particular political story of an authoritarian government. So the question for now is to say how do we build in the degree of safety in models so that they can be used in environments that need that safety, and that is somewhere where because the main models are American, we're in a particular position to think through and build that out. And I think this is not done by government, it's not done by the private sector; what it really needs is people who really understand the models best from the private sector at the table with folks on the government side who are thinking about how do we both promote innovation and control for these risks, and building out the right set of government policies to enable both the use as well as the understanding of how do you protect against the risks that come with it with the models as well.

是的。正如我们的合伙人 Mark 常说的，技术是追上了公交车的狗。我们从未见过各国如此狂热地要求最新版本的模型，因为他们认识到这对他们的经济、人民和利益有多么大的竞争力。而现在，这正在解锁各种新的范式，我们思考全球化的方式与仅仅在国际上销售产品截然不同，对吧？这希望也是我们许多创始人的机会。

Yeah. As our partner Mark often says, technology is the dog that caught the bus. And we've never seen before that countries are feverishly demanding the latest versions of the model because they recognize how competitive it is to their economy, to their people, to their interests. And this now is unlocking all sorts of new paradigms as we think about globalization in a way that feels categorically different than just selling product internationally, right? And this is hopefully then an opportunity for many of our founders as well.

毫无疑问。尽管这很复杂。比如，从政府的角度，你可能会说，好吧，不要发布具有网络黑客能力的模型。但如果你这样做了，举个例子，你想找到自己代码中的漏洞并修补它们，你无法在不启用网络攻击的情况下做到这一点，因为一旦它能找到漏洞，你猜怎么着？所以你就陷入了这样一种情况：如果你封锁了那种能力，封锁了理解漏洞的能力，那么唯一能够理解漏洞的人就是那些越狱系统的坏家伙。所以我们在这方面处于一个非常有趣的世界。

No doubt. Although it is complicated. Like, for example, from a government standpoint, you'd like to say, okay, don't release your model with cyber hacking capabilities. But if you do, as an example, and you want to find the vulnerabilities in your own code and patch them, you can't do that without also enabling cyber attacks because as soon as it can find the vulnerabilities, guess what? And so you're kind of in this situation where it's like, well, if you lock that up, lock that capability to understand vulnerabilities, then the only people who will be able to understand vulnerabilities are the bad actors who jailbreak the system. And so we're in a very interesting world on that.

是的。我认为关于这一点，我们将聚焦网络方面，因为随着 Anthropic 的 mythos 模型等，这受到了很多关注。我认为 AI 模型本质上所做的，正如 Ben 所说，是你希望成为第一个入侵自己系统的人，因为，你知道，我们经常用数字门把手的比喻。现在它允许攻击者持续且大规模地转动每一个门把手。所以你对网络的希望是首先使用这些模型来发现你脆弱的地方，然后坦率地说能够修复它，而这在以前是一个难以处理的问题。我认为现在模型能帮助你，特别是对于公开的代码库，特别是如果你依赖第三方代码或开源代码，而这是一些最大的风险领域，或者存在对无人维护的代码的依赖。

Yeah. And I think to that point, we'll focus on the cyber aspect because that's gotten so much attention with Anthropic's mythos model, etc. I think what AI models essentially do, to Ben's point, is you want to be the first to hack your systems because, you know, we often use the expression of digital doorknobs. It now allows attackers to jiggle every doorknob continuously and at scale. So your hope for your network is using those models first to find where you're vulnerable and frankly then be able to fix it, and that wasn't a tractable problem before. And I think now the models help you, particularly for code bases that were public, particularly if you're relying on third-party code or open source code, and that's some of the biggest areas of risk or where there is dependencies on code that nobody was really maintaining.

所以我认为我们现在看到公司们开始共同为此负责，因为现在不处理不安全代码的成本上升了，而处理它的成本下降了。

So I think we're now seeing companies coming together taking responsibility for that because now the cost of not addressing insecure code has gone up and the cost of addressing it has gone down.

是的。

Yeah.

这相比以前是一个好的转变。

Which is a good shift from where we were before.

我们终于可能构建安全的系统了。

We may finally build secure systems.

正是。老天保佑。更重要的是，构建新代码的过程也可以融入这些。

Exactly. Please God. And more importantly, the process for building new code can incorporate these as well.

从行业角度来看，这非常棘手，因为最初网络黑客是破坏行为，对吧？比如，我要搞乱你的电脑。然后，随着互联网的出现，它变成了盗窃，现在则是战争。我认为这种演变是悄悄发生的。我们看到，当它从破坏变成盗窃时，破坏公司微软创造了所有盗窃机会，他们把 Windows 放到互联网上，而它当时还没准备好上网，因为它不是为那种想法构建的。还有 ActiveX 和所有这些技术，让人们进入互联网直接访问你的机器。我认为我们正处于类似时期，我们拥有所有在 AI 前时代构建的技术，这些技术对于 AI 世界来说远远不够安全。我们将不得不进行这种转变。

And it's kind of very tricky from an industry standpoint because originally cyber hacking was vandalism, right? Like, okay, I'm going to mess up your PC. Then, with the internet, it became theft and now it's war. And that evolution kind of, I think, snuck up on people. And so, we've seen, I mean, the great thing when it went from vandalism to theft, the vandalism company, Microsoft, is one who created all the theft opportunities by putting Windows on the internet when it wasn't ready to be on the internet because it wasn't built for that kind of idea. And with ActiveX and all these kinds of technologies that let people come into the internet and get right to your machine. And I think that we're kind of in a period like that where we've got all this technology that was built in the pre-AI era that's not nearly secure enough for the AI world. And we're going to have to make that transition.

是的。有 20 年的遗留代码需要处理。

Yeah. There's a 20 year legacy of code that has to be tackled.

是的。

Yeah.

不。

Nope.

AI 正在带来很多机会。是的。很多机会。是的。

That AI is increasingly many opportunities. Yes. Many opportunities. Yeah.

很多很多。

Many many.

嗯，太棒了。好吧，也许在结束时，Ben，我知道我们访问不同国家时经常被问到的头号问题是如何在当地复制硅谷，对吧？他们想要成功的要素。有一些成功的组成部分成就了硅谷，但也有一种说法：如果互联网本身就是硅谷，或者实际的硅谷只是分布式的呢？所以，是的。

Um, awesome. Well, maybe in closing, so Ben, I know the number one question we often get when we're visiting different countries is how do you recreate Silicon Valley locally, right? That's like they want the ingredients to it. And there are a few components to success that have enabled Silicon Valley, but there's also the proposition, what if the internet is actually Silicon Valley or this the actual Silicon Valley just distributed. So yeah.

是的。

Yeah.

顺便说一句，我不认为那是真的。他们觉得那是乐观的空谈。如果你去不同国家，你会学到一件事：它们非常不同。法律不同，政策不同，治理不同。这就是为什么美国一直很特别。我们拥有互联网已经很长时间了，但情况绝对不是那样。

I don't think that's true, by the way. And like they think that's a happy talk. If you, you know, one thing you learn when you go to different countries is they're very different. Like the laws are different, the policies are different, the governance are different. And that's why America has continued to be special. We've had the internet now for quite a long time and like that's absolutely not the case.

呃，那么到底是怎么回事？顺便说一句，我希望我们能带一些我们自己的政策制定者去那些旅行，这样他们就能听到人们说“我们想要硅谷”，然后他们就不会继续试图破坏我们。我们的政策制定者中很多都很出色，但有些人确实不喜欢我们有科技产业。嗯，所以我认为，随着我们旅行，有一种成分的组合，正是这种组合让硅谷特别，也让美国本身特别。首先，你确实需要人才，而人才最容易体现在是否有一所优秀的理工大学，培养出知道如何构建东西的毕业生。这是基本要素。顺便说一句，很多国家都有这样的大学，却没有硅谷。嗯，他们缺少什么？他们缺少另外两个成分。第二，你是否有一套法律和政策，促进创业，本质上对商业有利？比如，你能轻松创办公司吗？你能轻松雇佣人吗？嗯，你能轻松解雇人吗？有没有不繁重的税收激励结构？你能拥有——这是最近的一个大问题，加州正在反对——你能拥有一个有价值的非流动性资产吗？还是会被没收？所以我认为挪威引入了未实现资本利得税，这实际上终结了那里的科技生态系统。我认为，你知道，这类政策超级重要。如果它们不对，没有人会承担极端的个人和财务风险去创办公司，如果环境不利于创业的话。然后第三个，我认为在某种程度上是前两者的结合，就是文化：最优秀的年轻人，愿意做出最大贡献的年轻人，他们是否获得社会地位奖励？创办或加入一家新公司是否很酷？几乎没有几个国家有这种文化。我要说，在美国这非常好。顺便说一句，在中国显然也很好，尽管他们做了一些事情搞砸了。但在大多数国家，在很多方面，成功是被人看不起的。

Uh so like so what is going on? And by the way, I wish we could bring some of our own policy makers on those trips so they could hear people say we want Silicon Valley before they keep trying to wreck us. Not all of many of our policy makers are outstanding, but some really don't like the fact that we have a technology industry. Um, so I think that like as we've traveled around there's a kind of a combination of ingredients and they are a little bit the combination that makes Silicon Valley special and then America itself special. So the first is you do need the talent and talent is kind of easily most easily seen in like is there a great technical university that graduates people who know how to build things. That's kind of like an essential thing. And like by the way many countries have that that don't have a Silicon Valley. Um and what are they missing? They're missing the other two components. The second is do you have a set of laws and policies that facilitate entrepreneurship are essentially good for business? Like can you create a company easily? Can you hire people easily? Um can you fire people easily? Is there a tax incentive structure that's not onerous? Can you own and this is a big one lately which California is kind of moving against but can you own an illiquid asset that has value? Or will it get seized? And so I think Norway introduced an unrealized capital gains tax and that kind of effectively ended the tech ecosystem there. And I think that, you know, so those kinds of policies are super important. If they're not right, nobody is going to take the extreme risk both personal and financial starting a company if it's not an environment that's conducive to that. And then the third one which is I think kind of a combination of everything in a way is the culture such that young people the most capable young people willing to make the biggest contribution is do they get status social status reward is it cool to either start or join a new company and almost no very few countries have that. I would say that it's really really good in the US. It's clearly good in China by the way. Although they've done a few things to mess it up, but in most countries you know like in a lot of ways like success is frowned upon.

就像，哦，你知道，在很多政治言论中你经常听到这种话。哦，赚十亿美元的唯一方法就是当小偷，这完全荒谬。嗯，你知道，看看那些人，几乎没有人是小偷。你不可能偷到十亿美元，这是事实。但这只是一种有效的说辞，因为如果你——你知道，这就像酸葡萄心理，对吧？比如，他怎么得到那么多钱？哦，他是小偷。好吧，我不是小偷，所以我现在感觉好多了。但这就是问题所在，这是很难复制、很难建立、却很容易摧毁的东西。嗯，所以我认为我们必须意识到这有多么特别和独特，然后我们可以尝试帮助其他人做到这一点，但我们也必须同样努力不自己毁掉它。

It's like oh you know and in a lot of you hear a lot of this in the political rhetoric. Oh the only way you could make a billion dollars is if you're a thief which is completely absurd. Um you know you just look at the people almost none of them are thieves. like you can't steal a billion dollars is a real truth. But like that's just like it's a rhetoric that works because if you're you know if you're like how it's a great sour grapes idea, right? Like it's like how how did he get all that money? Oh, he's a thief. Okay, I go I'm not a thief. So like I feel much better about myself now. But but that's the you that's a lot of the thing and that's the thing that's so hard to replicate and it's so hard to build and it's so easy to destroy. Uh so it's you know something that I think we have to just be aware of how special that is and unique in the world and then we can try and help other people do it but we also have to try equally hard not to wreck it ourselves.

是的，当然。现在是世界杯赛季，有一条很棒的推文，有人说：“我认为美国认为他们有可能赢得世界杯。”也许他们能，也许不能，但美国认为他们能这个事实是一个特点，而不是缺陷。是的，雄心壮志很棒是有原因的。我们给孩子读的书是有原因的。你知道那是什么吗？小红火车头。“我想我能。我想我能。我想我能。”这就是美国。你可以相信你能。

Yeah, for sure. It's World Cup season and there was a great tweet where someone was like, "I think America thinks they could potentially win the World Cup." And like it's like maybe they can, maybe they can't, but like the fact that America thinks they can is a feature, not a bug. Yes, there's a reason ambition is fantastic. There's a reason we all read our kids. You know that what is it? The little red jing. I think I can. I think I can. I think I can. That's in America. You can believe you can.

没错。没错。太棒了。这是一个很好的结束语。谢谢大家。

That's right. That's right. Amazing. That's a good note to end on. Thank you all.