Anthropic：打造负责任超级智能的 AI 兄妹

我喜欢这个图书馆。

I love this library.

这是一个非常漂亮的图书馆。

It is a beautiful library.

你是个爱读书的人吗？

Are you a big reader?

我平时读很多书，但过去一年左右可能没那么多时间。

I read a lot in general. I don't know that I've had that much time over the last year or so.

Dario Amodei 是一位非典型的 AI 名人。他以警告世界人工智能风险而闻名。如今，他的公司 Anthropic 是 AI 领域的领跑者，估值接近万亿美元。

Dario Amodei is an unlikely AI celebrity. He's known for warning the world about the risks of artificial intelligence. Now, his company is an AI frontrunner valued at nearly a trillion dollars.

你们发布产品的速度这么快，是怎么做到的？

You're shipping so much so fast. How are you doing that?

我们在整个产品开发周期中都使用 Claude，这让我们能够快速发布。

We use Claude across the product development cycle. It allows us to release very fast.

Anthropic 由一群 OpenAI 的叛逃者于 2021 年创立，最初是一个不起眼的实验室。如今，它已成为一颗爆发的新星，抹去了软件股数十亿美元的市值，与五角大楼正面交锋，并创建了强大到足以突破现代网络安全壁垒的模型。

Founded by a team of OpenAI defectors in 2021, Anthropic started out as an underdog lab. Today, it's the breakout star wiping billions off software stocks, going head-to-head with the Pentagon, and creating models powerful enough to burst through the walls of modern cybersecurity.

一些早期拿到这个模型的公司说：‘这是超级武器，请不要发布它。’

Some of the early companies that we gave this to said things like, 'This is a super weapon. Please don't release this.'

带领 Anthropic 前进的是一对兄妹。哥哥 Dario 是远见者，妹妹 Daniela 是执行者，将 Dario 天马行空的想法付诸实践。

Guiding Anthropic through this is a sibling duo. Dario, the brother and visionary, and Daniela, the sister and operator, who puts Dario's swirling cosmic thoughts into action.

Dario 和我从小就很亲密，但我觉得我们一直都想一起做一番大事。

Dario and I, we've always been really close since we were little, but I think we always really wanted to do something big together.

好吧，但你们吵架时，谁赢？

Okay, but when you argue, who wins?

没人赢。

No one.

随着 AI 军备竞赛升级，Amodei 兄妹渴望将自己塑造成好人。但 Anthropic 的技术可能对人类工作、学习、思考甚至战争方式产生深远影响。

As the AI arms race escalates, the Amodeis are eager to establish themselves as the good guys. But Anthropic's technology could have profound implications for how humanity works, learns, thinks, even fights wars.

Anthropic 由一个意识形态疯子运营。这是一场关于政府如何正确使用 AI 的辩论。

Anthropic is run by an ideological lunatic. This is a debate about what the proper use of AI by the government is.

在某个时候，模型会变得非常危险。坏人也会拥有它。到那时，我们必须确保好人拥有更好的模型。

At some point, the models become very dangerous. The bad guys will have it, too. And at that point, we have to make sure the good guys have an even better model.

Anthropic 这个名字实际上来自希腊语中‘人类’一词，这体现了他们为人类长期利益构建负责任 AI 的使命。但在构建世界上最强大技术的同时，你真的能做到这一点吗？

The name Anthropic actually comes from the Greek word for human, which speaks to their mission to build responsible AI for the long-term benefit of humanity. Can you actually do that when you're building the most powerful technology in the world?

你现在处于 AI 宇宙的中心。感觉如何？

You are at the center of the AI universe right now. What does that feel like?

我整个职业生涯的经历是，有一种平滑的指数增长。一开始什么都没发生，然后一些小事情发生，接着突然爆发。我观察这个图表一段时间后说，我们大概会在某个时候成为收入和估值最高的 AI 公司，而事实确实如此。我们只是牢记我们通常关注的事情：如何训练好模型？如何将它们放入好产品？如何确保一切安全？

The experience I've had for my whole career is that there's this kind of smooth exponential. Nothing's happening, nothing's happening, little things happen and then zoom, it goes crazy. I was watching this graph for a while and I said, we'll probably become the AI company with the most revenue and valuation sometime around this time, and indeed it has happened. We're just keeping in mind all the things we usually keep in mind: how do we train good models? How do we put them in good products? How do we make sure that everything's safe?

你在旧金山长大时是个怎样的孩子？我知道你父亲是皮匠，母亲在图书馆工作。这如何塑造了你？

What were you like as a kid growing up in San Francisco? I know your dad was a leather craftsman, your mom worked in libraries. How did that shape you?

整个互联网革命在我身边发生，但我对此毫无兴趣。我只对做数学和翻阅东西感兴趣。我对理解宇宙感兴趣，对科幻感兴趣。我觉得我只是对世界充满好奇。

The whole internet revolution was happening around me and I had absolutely no interest in it. I was just interested in doing math and scrolling things. I was interested in understanding the universe. I was interested in science fiction. I think I just felt a lot of curiosity about the world.

和 Dario 一起长大是什么感觉？

What was it like growing up with Dario?

他非常聪明。他中学时就在学微积分，高中时在加州大学伯克利分校上数学课。而我实际上更喜欢阅读和艺术。所以我们在那方面几乎是完全互补的。

He was so smart. He was taking calculus when he was in middle school. He took math classes at UC Berkeley when he was in high school. I was actually more into reading and arts. So we were almost like complete complements in that way.

Dario 先学习神经科学，后来在百度和谷歌转向 AI，而 Daniela 最初是 Stripe 的早期员工。他们和 Daniela 的丈夫 Holden Karnofsky 一起住在旧金山。2016 年，Dario 加入了新成立的 OpenAI，Daniela 随后于 2018 年加入。该公司最初是一个非营利组织，承诺提供一条更安全、更开放的通往超级智能的道路。

Dario studied neuroscience before turning to AI at Baidu and later Google, while Daniela started out as an early employee at Stripe. They live together in San Francisco along with Daniela's husband, Holden Karnofsky. Then, in 2016, Dario joined the newly formed OpenAI, followed by Daniela in 2018. The company began as a nonprofit that promised a safe, more open path to superintelligence.

我认为我们现在需要思考如何部署它，如何让每个人受益，如何治理它，如何让它安全且对人类有益。

I think we need to think right now about how we want this deployed, how everyone gets to benefit from it, how we're going to govern it, how we're going to make it safe and good for humanity.

在 OpenAI，Dario 提出了缩放定律的概念，预测大型语言模型只需增加更多数据和算力就能改进，即使底层算法保持不变。

At OpenAI, Dario developed the concept of scaling laws, predicting that large language models would improve simply by adding more data and computing power, even if the underlying algorithm stayed the same.

当时，没有多少人相信 Scaling（规模扩张）是这些模型变得更聪明、更好的方式。那是一种不寻常的、反主流文化的科学观点，我认为我们的创始研究团队确实持有这种观点。

At that point in time, not a lot of people believed that scaling up is the way these models are going to get smarter and better. That was sort of an unusual, countercultural scientific perspective that I think was really held by our founding research team.

这种方法帮助加速了 OpenAI 的模型，为 ChatGPT 铺平了道路。但据报道，Amodei 兄妹在公司的方向和价值观上与 Altman 发生了冲突。Altman 曾表示：‘尽管我与 Anthropic 存在分歧，但我基本上信任他们这家公司。’

That approach helped supercharge OpenAI's models, paving the way for ChatGPT. But the Amodeis reportedly clashed with Altman over the company's direction and values. Altman has said, 'For all the differences I have with Anthropic, I mostly trust them as a company.'

你们离开 OpenAI 的决定已成为硅谷传奇。你们在哪些方面存在分歧？

Your decision to leave OpenAI has become Silicon Valley lore. What did you disagree on?

听着，我会说得非常简单。在安全问题上存在许多合理的分歧。我们当然与他们有一些分歧，但仅凭这一点不足以离开。当你觉得无法信任某人，当你觉得他们的价值观并非他们所说的那样，当你觉得他们不诚实时，就很难继续与一家公司合作，继续信任这家公司。归根结底，当你与某人没有共同愿景且不信任他们时，为什么要争论呢？解决之道就是你做你的事，他们做他们的事。

Look, I'll say it very simply. There are many valid disagreements to be had on safety. We certainly had some of those disagreements with them, but that alone is not sufficient to leave. When you feel that you can't trust someone, when you feel that their values are not what they say they are, when you feel that they're not honest, that makes it very hard to continue to work with a company, to continue to trust the company. And at the end of the day, why argue with someone when you don't have the same vision and you don't trust them? The way to resolve it is you go off and do your thing, they go off and do their thing.

所以，这就是 Presidio 公园。当 Dario 和 Daniela 决定离开 OpenAI 创办 Anthropic 时，早期团队就在这里聚会。据说是在疫情期间，一群早期员工会来到这里，在草地上摆把椅子，吃午饭，讨论他们在构建什么。

So, this is Presidio Park. When Dario and Daniela decided to leave OpenAI to start Anthropic, this is where the early team would get together. It was during the pandemic, so the story goes, and a bunch of early employees would come here, they'd pull up a chair on the grass, they'd have lunch, and they'd talk about what they were building.

当我们创办这家公司时，有七位联合创始人，我和 Daniela 是其中两位。而现在，我们基本上是该领域唯一一家所有联合创始人仍在的公司。没有这些经历，你不可能达到我们现在的规模和体量。

When we started this company, there were seven co-founders, of which me and Daniela are two, and now we're basically the only company in the space that has all of its co-founders still here. You don't get to be a company of the size and scale that we are without happening.

这种情况几乎从未发生过。从一开始，Anthropic 就把自己定位为终极安全意识的 AI 公司。Dario 发表过长篇随笔，标题诸如《仁爱机器》和《技术的青春期》，思考 AI 的神奇潜力以及最坏的情况。Anthropic 的聊天机器人 Claude 被训练遵循一套称为宪法的原则，旨在让它保持正轨。

Like that almost never happens. From the start, Anthropic pitched itself as the ultimate safety-conscious AI company. Dario has published long essays with names like Machines of Loving Grace and The Adolescence of Technology, musing on the miraculous potential of AI, as well as the worst-case scenarios. Anthropic's chatbot, Claude, has been trained to follow a set of principles called a constitution, intended to keep it on the straight and narrow.

Claude 有一种非常独特的风格和感觉。一个人名。你想传达什么？

Claude has a very distinct style and feel. A human name. What are you trying to convey?

我认为当人们与 Claude 互动时，与其他系统相比，有一种我称之为专业温暖的感觉。所以，目标不是让它成为你最好的朋友，也不是让它变得冷漠、刻板、算计。它应该感觉平易近人，但有距离感，对吧？专业。

I think when people interact with Claude versus, you know, other systems, there is more of a feeling of I like to describe it as professional warmth. So, the goal is not for it to be your best friend, but it's not for it to be sort of cold, rote, calculating. It should feel approachable, but distant, right? Professional.

Anthropic 谈到过教 Claude 向善。什么是好模型？什么是坏模型？你不想要一个会无意或故意撒谎的模型，对吧？撒谎我们称之为幻觉，它编造东西。模型只是被训练来预测下一个词，所以有时它们不知道答案，就编造一些东西。模型有时，正如我们在研究中展示的，可以故意试图欺骗你。我们必须确保这不会发生在面向客户的生产模型中。然后还有很多关于无害性的工作，只是确保模型不会意外产生错误、有害或可能导致某人做坏事的信息。

Anthropic has talked about teaching Claude to be good. What is a good model? What is a bad model? You don't want a model that lies accidentally or intentionally, right? Lying we call hallucinations, it makes something up. The models are just trained to predict the next word, so sometimes they don't know and they just invent something. Models sometimes, as we've shown in our research, can purposely try to deceive you. We have to make sure that doesn't happen in production models that we expose to customers. And then there's a lot of work around harmlessness, just making sure that the model is not accidentally producing, you know, information that is wrong or harmful or could cause someone to do something bad.

谁的价值被注入到 Claude 中？是否存在普遍的善？有这么多宗教，这么多不同的信仰。你怎么决定呢？

Whose values are being put into Claude? Like is there a universal good? There's so many religions, so many different beliefs. Like how do you even decide that?

当然，对于什么是有帮助或无害的，没有普遍标准，但人类历史上有一些奠基性文件，比如《联合国人权宣言》，我们可以用它们来训练 Claude 的品格。而且，有趣的是，在宗教方面，我们实际上已经开始与宗教领袖进行大量对话，讨论我们应该如何看待 Claude 这个实体，以及如何融入一些跨宗教、跨信仰类型的核心价值观，这些价值观真正超越了特定的世界观，但却是人类几千年来一直在思考的东西。

So of course there's no universal standard for what makes something helpful or harmless, but there are founding documents in human history like the UN Declaration of Human Rights that we can use to train Claude's character. And I think, you know, interestingly on the religious front, we've actually started to have a lot of conversations with religious leaders around how should we think about, you know, Claude the entity and how can we bake in some of the kind of core values that are consistent across religions, types of belief, that really just transcend, you know, a specific worldview, but that are really things that human beings have been grappling with for millennia.

你是否曾试图给 Claude 一个没有成功的特质，或者有没有出现让你惊讶的特质？

Have you tried to give Claude a trait that didn't take or was there any trait that emerged that surprised you?

我认为在早期，现在回想起来很有趣，早期的 Claude，Claude 2 时代。有时 Claude 会有点像个保姆。Claude 会说：‘我真的很担心你。’然后你会说：‘Claude，我只是问天气，对吧？’那是一些非常无害的事情。谢天谢地，我们没有发布那些最过分的版本，但我想，当你思考时，这就像调一个旋钮。所以我们的研究人员需要非常精细地把握，才能落在那个中心点上。

I think in the early days, it's funny to look back on them now, the kind of early Claudes, Claude 2 era. Sometimes Claude would be almost a little bit nanny-ish. Claude was like, 'I'm really concerned about you.' And you're like, 'Claude, I was asking for the weather, right?' It was something really benign. Thankfully, we didn't, you know, release most of the most egregious versions of those, but I think it is, you know, when you think about it, it's like tuning a dial. And so our researchers have this very fine needle to thread in order to land at the center of that.

无论 Anthropic 对 Claude 做了什么，似乎都奏效了。Anthropic 的收入在过去一年飙升，使公司首次实现盈利。这主要归功于公司专注于更有利可图的商业工具。Claude Code 是一个重大飞跃，自动化了大部分软件工程，而 Claude Co-work 则将这种能力赋予了其他人。早期，其他公司专注于有趣、炫目的消费者应用。你押注于编码和企业。为什么做出这个赌注？是价值观决定还是商业决定？

Whatever Anthropic is doing with Claude, it seems to be working. Anthropic's revenue has skyrocketed over the past year, making the company profitable for the first time. That's largely thanks to the company's focus on more lucrative business tools. Claude Code, a major leap that automated large chunks of software engineering, and Claude Co-work, which gave that power to everyone else. Now, early on, others focused on fun, splashy consumer apps. You made a bet on coding and enterprise. Why did you make that bet? Was it a values decision or a business decision?

听着，如果你选择一个与你的价值观根本冲突的商业模式，你会很难受，对吧？要么你背叛自己的价值观，要么你变得无关紧要。所以当我们思考时，我们说：‘你看，我们看到了社交媒体世界、消费者世界，它似乎鼓励参与，甚至上瘾，还有我们在 AI 视频模型中看到的垃圾内容。’这就像：‘怎么回事？它想最大化你关注的分钟数吗？’因为那是广告收入驱动的激励。而如果我们看企业，我的意思是，我们想让这些模型对人们有用。我们想用 AI 来治愈以前无法治愈的疾病，对吧？那需要与生物技术、制药、学术研究团体合作。这些都是企业，对吧？我们想用 AI 来让能源更便宜、更高效。那都是企业。所以，我认为拥有这个与我们的价值观基本一致的商业模式对我们很有好处。

Look, if you pick a business model that fundamentally conflicts with your values, you're going to have a hard time, right? Either you betray your own values or you become irrelevant. And so, when we thought about it, we said, 'Look, you know, we've seen the world of social media, the consumer world, it really seems to, you know, encourage engagement, even addiction, you know, the slop we've seen with AI video models.' It's like, 'What's going on? Is it want to maximize the number of minutes that you're paying attention to?' Because that's the advertising revenue driven incentive. Whereas, if we look at enterprise, look, I mean, you know, we want to make these models useful to people. We want to use AI to, uh, you know, cure diseases that we couldn't cure before, right? Well, that's working with biotech, it's working with pharma, it's working with academic research groups. All of those are enterprises, right? We want to use AI to, like, you know, to make energy cheaper and more efficient. That's all enterprise. And so, I think it served us well to have this business model that largely aligns with our values.

Claude Co-work 发布后不久，2850 亿美元市值一夜蒸发。交易员称之为 SaaS 末日。这种软件行业白领被淘汰的故事令人恐惧。有些股票连续下跌 9 天，显然紧张情绪在积聚。如果 AI 继续以这种速度改进，传统软件有多少会被取代，速度有多快？

Soon after Claude Co-work was released, $285 billion in market value vanished overnight. Traders called it the SAS-pocalypse. This kind of white-collar wipeout story in the software sector, terrifying. Some of those are down for 9 days in a row, so clearly the tension is building. If AI continues improving at this pace, how much of traditional software gets replaced and how fast?

我认为有了 AI，蛋糕在变大，对吧？所以现有的老牌公司可能在相对意义上变小。有些可能会贬值。有些甚至可能倒闭，如果它们没有以正确的方式适应。但我猜测软件行业会变大而不是变小。尽管会有一些大的输家。那些没有看到未来、没有识别出自己最大优势的人，将会非常艰难。

I think with AI the pie is getting bigger, right? So, the existing incumbents may be smaller in relative terms. Some of them may go down in value. Some of them may even go out of business if they don't adapt in the right way. But I would guess that the software industry gets larger not smaller. Although there will be some big losers. Those who don't kind of see what's coming, who don't identify the most they have, they're going to have a really hard time.

他们有一种安静的咖啡馆氛围。Anthropic 最近的快速增长可能没有这个人就不会发生：Boris Cherney，Claude Code 和 Claude Co-work 背后的工程师。当 Anthropic 在 2024 年雇佣他时，Cherney 在日本乡村过着截然不同的生活。

They had sort of the quiet cafe. Anthropic's recent growth spurt might not have happened without this man, Boris Cherney, the engineer behind Claude Code and Claude Co-work. When Anthropic hired him in 2024, Cherney was living a very different life in rural Japan.

有很多农贸市场，非常慢。我们做味噌，那是最大的爱好。我记得第一次使用 AI 聊天机器人，它让我惊叹不已。我当时想：‘天哪，我必须成为其中的一部分。’而且我还是一个科幻小说迷，所以我知道这东西可能变得多糟糕。这项技术非常强大，所以我们搬了回来。

There was a lot of farmers markets, like very slow. We were making miso with that sort of the big hobby. And I remember using the first AI chatbot that I'd ever used and it just took my breath away. And I was just like, 'Oh my god, I have to just be a part of this.' And I'm also just such a big sci-fi reader and so I just know how bad this thing can go. Like this technology is incredibly powerful and so we move back.

你创建了 Claude Code。你领导了 Claude Co-work 的开发。你想解决什么问题？

You created Claude Code. You led the development of Claude Co-work. What problem were you trying to solve?

如果你看看编码产品，它们都非常简单。就像，你知道的，补全单词，补全句子。那就是 AI 在编码中的全部。

If you look at the coding products, they were all pretty simple. It was like, you know, complete the word, complete the sentence. That was the extent of AI in coding.

我们只是想下更大的赌注。我们的赌注是，我们认为实际上一个编码智能体可以完成所有工作。一年半前，你手动写代码，有时按 Tab 键自动补全一行。现在我和我的 Claude 对话，它写代码，同时我和下一个 Claude 对话，它也写代码。任何时候我都有几个 Claude 在运行，甚至多达几千个 Claude 在做事。

And we just wanted to make a way bigger bet. And our bet was we think actually a coding agent can do all of it. A year and a half ago, you wrote the code by hand. And sometimes you press tab and it would auto complete a line. Now I talk to my Claude and it writes the code and then while it does that, I talk to the next Claude and it writes some code. And at any point I have either, you know, like a few Claude's running and up to a few thousand Claude's running doing things.

Claude 在内部为这里的工程师写了多少代码？

How much code is Claude writing internally for engineers here?

几乎所有的代码都是它写的。在我的团队里，就我个人而言，至少六个月来，100%的代码都是它写的。工程工作已经完全改变了。我感觉自己突然有了超能力，就像有了喷气背包。工程从未如此有趣。

It's writing almost all of it. On my team, so for me personally, it's been writing 100% of my code for at least 6 months. The work of engineering has just completely changed. I feel like I suddenly have superpowers. I have like a jetpack. And engineering has never been this fun.

我们能试试 Claude 吗？

Can we give Claude a spin?

好，我们开始吧。

Yeah, let's do this.

好的。

All right.

好的，我们做一个小的食谱应用。做一个食谱应用。你想让它做什么？

All right, so let's make like a little recipe app. So, make a recipe app. What do you want it to do?

我希望它能推荐一周的餐食。

I would love it to suggest meals for the week.

所以，这大概需要几分钟，我们看看 Claude 能不能构建出来。

So, you know, this is going to take me maybe a few minutes, and let's just see if Claude builds this.

好的。哦，它给了我一些选项。我们选……这些看起来确实很好吃。我可以做一个希腊鸡肉能量碗。当我点击食谱时，我希望它显示做法。谢谢。

All right. Ooh, it gave me some options. Let's do... These look pretty tasty, actually. I could do a Greek chicken power bowl. When I click on recipe, I want it to show me how to do it. Thank you.

啊，我相信 Claude 会感激的。

Aw. I'm sure Claude appreciates.

我总是尽量说谢谢。

I always try to say thank you.

是啊，我也总是尽量友善。

Yeah, I always try to be nice, too.

我不知道。一个食谱应用可能不是 Anthropic 技术最令人惊叹的演示，但 Claude 代码在几分钟内完成的事情过去需要几小时甚至几天。对一些人来说，这看起来是个大机会。你对下周感到紧张吗？还是……

I don't know. A recipe app might not be the most mind-blowing demo of Anthropic's technology, but what Claude code just did in minutes used to take hours or days. For some, that looks like a big opportunity. Are you like nervous about next week, or is it like...

下周是什么？

What's next week?

你的开发者大会。

Your developer conference.

哦，是的。是的。每周都有太多事情发生。

Oh, yes. Yes. There's so many things happening every week.

API 量同比增长了近 17 倍……

Year-over-year API volume is up nearly 17x on the...

在过去 12 个月里，我们向开发者和用户发布了八个前沿模型。

In the last 12 months, we shipped eight frontier models to developers and users.

欢迎来到第二届 Code with Claude 大会，Claude 的超级粉丝们来到这里，希望一窥未来。

Welcome to the second annual Code with Claude conference, where Claude super fans come hoping to get a glimpse of the future.

我们玩得很开心。肾上腺素飙升。

We're having a lot of fun. There's a ton of adrenaline.

这是我们第一年增长快于指数级。今年第一季度，如果按年化计算，我们看到了每年 80 倍的增长。

This is the first year we've grown faster than the exponential. In the first quarter of this year, we saw, if you were to annualize it, 80x growth per year.

我每天都以 Claude 代码的形式使用 Claude 做各种事情，不只是写代码。我写的代码比五年前多得多。我有了那种……我不知道，22 岁拿着风投资金的自信。我不是 22 岁。

I use Claude everyday in the form of Claude code to do all sorts of stuff, not just write code. I write way more code than I did 5 years ago. I've got the confidence of I don't know what a 22-year-old with VC money. I'm not 22.

我朋友邀请了我，作为一个不太懂技术的人，我觉得非常棒，看到大家都在做什么，有什么新东西，真的很有趣。

My friend invited me and it's been amazing as someone that's not really technical is I think it's really interesting just to see what everyone's working on, what's out there.

我认为令人担忧或令人兴奋的部分是，嘿，他们能做到我们做梦都想不到的事情，时间线也超乎预期。但现实的另一面是，你真的必须做好准备，因为他们真的会高效一千倍。

I think the concerning part or the exciting part is hey, they can do things that we couldn't dream of and timelines we couldn't ever expect. But the kind of alternate side of that reality is you really have to be prepared because they will really be a thousand times more productive.

这一切引出了一个显而易见的问题。工程师会成为他们正在构建的 AI 的首批牺牲品吗？书呆子的复仇已经持续了一段时间。结束了吗？

All of this raises an obvious question. Will engineers be the first casualties of the AI they're building? It's been revenge of the nerds for a while. Is that over?

我认为我们都成了书呆子。

I think we all become nerds.

但真正的书呆子会怎样？

But what happens to the actual nerds?

我认为真正的书呆子，嗯，他们得自己想办法。是的。我认为对他们很多人来说，他们以前的技能在未来会有所帮助。因为他们有相当大的先发优势。他们做很多不涉及编码的事情。工程师还必须与用户交流，必须做计划，必须思考下一步。所以我认为这些仍然是工程中会保留下来的部分。

I think the actual nerds well, they have to figure it out. Yeah. I think for a lot of them the skill that they had before is going to help them in the future. Because they sort of have a pretty big head start. They do a lot of things that are not coding. Engineers also have to talk to users. They have to plan. They have to think about what's next. So I think these are still parts of engineering that are going to stick around.

硅谷可能患上了 AI 热，但其他地方的情绪就没那么乐观了。70%的美国人认为 AI 会消灭工作，近三分之一的人担心自己的工作会成为其中之一。Dario Amodei 在这个问题上直言不讳，他的一些预测听起来并不完全令人放心。

Silicon Valley may have AI fever, but elsewhere the mood is less upbeat. 70% of Americans think AI will kill jobs and nearly a third worry theirs will be one of them. Dario Amodei has been outspoken about this issue and some of his predictions don't exactly sound reassuring.

我认为我们可能会出现一种非常不寻常的组合：GDP 增长非常快，同时失业率很高，或者至少是就业不足，或者你知道，低薪工作，大量低薪工作，高度不平等。

I think we could have this very unusual combination of very fast GDP growth and high unemployment or at least underemployment or you know, low-wage job, a lot of low-wage jobs, high inequality.

你对失业问题非常直言不讳。AI 可能在未来 1 到 5 年内消除一半的初级白领工作。那是一年前说的。AI 发展得非常快。现在还是 50%吗？还是更高了？

You've been really direct about job loss. AI could eliminate half of all entry-level white-collar jobs in the next 1 to 5 years. That was a year ago. AI has moved incredibly fast. Is it still 50% or is it higher?

我不确切知道，但我仍然非常担忧。担忧程度差不多。你知道，我们现在看到 AI 让人们更高效，但这是通常的瓶颈。你自动化了 90%的工作，很好，人们在另外 10%的工作上效率提高了 10 倍，因为他们杠杆更高了，但最终会接近 100%。那么，接下来就是，你得为他们找别的事情做。现在，AI 让软件工程师更高效，尽管 AI 写了全部或几乎全部代码。但是，我们已经开始看到苗头了，你知道，可能有些人并没有变得更高效，让 AI 直接做事情反而更好。

I don't know exactly, but I'm still pretty concerned. I'm still the same order of concern. You know, we are seeing right now that AI is making people more productive, but that's the usual hump. You automate 90% of the job, great, people are 10 times more productive in the other 10% cuz they're 10 times more leveraged, but eventually it gets close to 100%. Now, the sequel to that is, well, then you have to find something else for them to do. Right now, AI makes the software engineers more productive, even though AI writes all the code or almost all the code. But, we're already starting to see the beginning of like, you know, there may be some people that it's not making more productive, that it's better for the AI to just do the thing.

你对此感觉如何？

How does that sit with you?

嗯，这非常令人不安。是的。我认为这就是我选择加入 Anthropic 的原因。我认为这也是这里很多人选择来这里的原因。人工智能是一种远大于我们的力量。但在这里，我们有望让它变得稍微好一点。

Um it's very uncomfortable. Yeah. I think this is the reason why I chose to go to Anthropic. And I think this is the reason that a lot of people here chose to go here. Is artificial intelligence is this force that is far bigger than we are. But here we can hopefully make it go a little bit better.

你觉得这是你的职责去解决这个问题，还是别人的问题？

Do you feel like it's your job to do something about that or is that someone else's problem?

我认为这是我们必须谈论的事情。我们必须为之倡导。最终，解决这个问题要靠社会。这比一家公司更大。

I think it's a thing that we have to talk about. We have to advocate for it. Ultimately, it's up to society to solve it. This is bigger than one company.

有很多反对意见，你知道，我知道你说过你试图警告人们，但是，你知道，黄仁勋说你混淆了任务和工作。

There has been a lot of pushback on, you know, your and I know you've said you're trying to warn people, but that, you know, you're you know, Jensen Huang said you're conflating tasks with jobs.

AI 正在创造工作。任何说 AI 在消灭工作的人都是在吓唬人。

AI's creating jobs. Anybody who is saying that AI is wiping out jobs is scaring people.

其他人也说过，你知道，这有点像末日营销，对 Anthropic 有利。

Other folks have said this, you know, it's sort of doom marketing that benefits Anthropic.

我想非常明确地、强烈地反驳这一点。在每次采访中，我都谈到解决这些风险的可能方法，从税收和宏观经济政策到新工作是什么。在《技术的青春期》中，我有大约五页纸详细阐述了任务和工作的区别，为什么这次与以往不同。但是，社交媒体——我讨厌它，我讨厌这个类别——人们有这些三秒钟的片段，你知道，来自一年前。

I want to be really clear and push back hard against this. In every interview, I talk about the possible ways to address these risks from tax and macroeconomic policy to what the new jobs are. In the adolescence of technology, I have like five pages where I lay out the difference between tasks and jobs, why this time is different than other times. But, social media, which I detest, which I detest as a category, people have these 3-second clips from you know, from a year ago.

我在谈论风险时写得更谨慎。所以，说这是廉价营销本身就是廉价营销。我认为这是硅谷病态的一部分，被卷入了三秒社交媒体的世界。所以，我的信息绝不是‘末日将至’。我的信息是，这是我们应该预见的事情，我们对此感到担忧，并且需要积极应对。

I've written much more carefully about these things where I talk about the risks. So, the idea that this is cheap marketing is itself cheap marketing. I think it's part of the disease of Silicon Valley. It's been caught up in this social media world of three seconds. So, my message is definitely not 'doom is coming.' My message is that this is something we should see coming, that we're worried about, and that we need to actually respond to positively.

除了软件行业，AI 对就业的潜在影响似乎更难预测。Anthropic 发表了一篇论文，估算了哪些领域在不久的将来能最充分利用 AI。如果预测正确，管理、金融和法律工作可能很快变得截然不同。哪些工作会消失？谁会被取代？又会创造哪些新工作？

Beyond the software industry, the potential impact of AI on jobs seems harder to predict. Anthropic has published a paper estimating which fields could make the most use of AI in the near future. If its predictions are right, management, finance, and legal jobs could soon look very different. Which jobs go away? Who gets replaced? And what new jobs are created?

没人确切知道，因为经济是不可预测的，对吧？我们有利的一点是，蛋糕会大幅扩大。所以，因为蛋糕会大幅扩大，很可能会有人们可以去的地方。只是要足够快地找到它们。

No one knows for sure, because the economy's unpredictable, right? The thing we have going for us here is the pie is going to expand a lot. And so, because the pie is going to expand a lot, there are probably going to be places where people can go. It's just a matter of finding them fast enough.

那么，给我稍微展开一下。五年后你醒来，这个国家是什么样子？那些人在做什么？因为如果有那么高的失业率，革命不就是这样开始的吗？

So, play this out for me a little bit. You know, you wake up in 5 years, you know, what does this country look like? What are those people doing? Because if there's that much unemployment, is that not how revolutions start?

是的，不。这正是我们想要防止的结果。这绝对是我们想要防止的结果。我认为有几个方向。没有一个是有保障的。我们不确定。但是，有物理世界。我们需要更多人去制造、建造、生产物理世界的东西。任何以人为中心的事情。我认为那会很重要，对吧？人们，或者至少有些人，想和人类交谈。所以，这些以人际关系为驱动的工作，我认为它们会很重要。而且我认为人类会努力去引导 AI，对吧？在某种程度上，它必须符合某人的价值观和意图。所以，我认为那里会有一些角色，尽管我不知道这个角色会多薄或多厚。

Yeah, no. This is the outcome we want to prevent. This is absolutely the outcome we want to prevent. I think there's a few places. None of them are guaranteed. We're not sure. But, there's the physical world. We need a lot more people to make, build, manufacture things in the physical world. Anything that's human-centered. I think that's going to be a big deal, right? People, or at least some people, want to talk to humans. So, these kind of human relationship-driven jobs, like I think those are going to be important. And I think there will be some effort by the humans to kind of direct the AIs, right? At some level, it has to be in line with someone's values and someone's intentions. And so, I think there's going to be some role there, although I don't know how thin versus how thick it will be.

我觉得我稍微更乐观一些，人类会继续找到利用 AI 提高生产力的方法，去做那些对我们有意义、只有人类能做的事情。我认为人与人之间的互动永远不会完全消失。我经常举的例子是医学领域会发生什么。今天，我们雇佣医生作为专家诊断者。我认为 AI 很快就能很好地告诉你可能出了什么问题，以及该做什么检查，你不需要医生来做这些。但是，AI 不能对你进行身体检查，说‘嘿，我按这里疼吗？’它们不能有那种床边态度，说‘告诉我你对此感觉如何。你如何应对这个过程？’我认为我们会把医学之类的东西转向更注重人际交往，因为诊断工具会变得更好。但是，人际交往的人类部分不会改变。

I think I feel a little bit more hopeful that humans will continue to find ways to leverage AI to be productive, to do the parts of the work that are meaningful to us, that only humans can do. I think the human-to-human interaction will never fully go away. The example I often reach for is what will happen in medicine. Today, we hire doctors who are expert diagnosticians. I think AI is going to soon be pretty good at telling you what the suite of options of things that are wrong with you, and what tests to run, and you won't need a doctor to do that. But, an AI can't physically examine you and say, 'Hey, does it hurt when I press here?' They can't have a bedside manner with you that says, 'Tell me how you're feeling about this. How are you coping with going through this process?' And I think we're going to pivot something like medicine to be much more focused on the interpersonal, because the diagnostic tools are going to become much better. But, the interpersonal human part, that's not going to change.

给我解释一下。Daniela 负责日常运营。所有领导团队都向你汇报。

Explain this to me. Daniela runs day-to-day operations. All the leadership team reports to you.

是的。

Yes.

没有人向你汇报。听起来是个相当不错的工作。

No one reports to you. That sounds like a pretty sweet job.

这非常自由。它让我做所有事情都比其他方式容易得多。

It's incredibly freeing. It lets me do all the things that I do much more easily than I would otherwise.

所以她做所有的工作？你是这个意思吗？

And she does all the work? Is that what you're saying?

如果你必须经历我在 DOW 期间经历的事情，或者不。

If you had to go through the things I had to go through during DOW or No.

Amadis 希望 AI 能对社会产生乌托邦式的影响。但不可否认这项技术具有破坏性和反乌托邦的潜力。Anthropic 处于技术军备竞赛的中心，强大的政府争夺控制权。Dario 直接冲进了这个竞技场。他不怕抨击竞争对手。然后我认为有些玩家，你知道，他们在 YOLO，把旋钮拧得太过了，我非常担心。

The Amadis hope AI can have a utopian influence on society. But there's no denying the technology's destructive and dystopian potential. Anthropic is at the center of a technological arms race with powerful governments vying for control. Dario has charged head-on into this arena. He's not afraid to blast his competitors. And then I think there are some players who, you know, who are Yoloing, who pull the wrist dial too far and I'm very concerned.

谁在 YOLO？

Who is Yoloing?

这个问题我不打算回答。

That's a question I'm not going to answer.

或者批评美国政府以及 Anthropic 自己的合作伙伴向中国出售 AI 芯片。

Or critique the US government and Anthropic's own partners for selling AI chips to China.

这有点像，我不知道，向朝鲜出售核武器。我一直直言不讳地主张对向中国出口芯片实施管制。我这么说是因为我认为如果中国在 AI 能力上领先，对美国、对世界民主状况都会非常糟糕。而且，有些芯片制造商显然不同意这个观点，但这并没有阻止我说出来，即使在我们签署了更多合作伙伴关系之后。我肯定他们希望我们不说这些，但这些是我相信的，所以，我们都是成年人了。我们可以在某件事上合作，同时在另一件事上持不同意见。

It's a bit like, I don't know, selling nuclear weapons to North Korea. I've been very outspoken about the need for export controls on chips to China. I say this because I think it would be really bad for America, for the state of democracy in the world, for China to be ahead in AI capabilities. And, it's like some of the chip makers obviously don't agree with that view, but it hasn't stopped me from saying it even after we've signed more partnerships. I'm sure they wish we didn't say these things, but these things are what I believe and so, look, we're all adults here. We can work together on one thing while disagreeing about another thing.

Amadi 关于地缘政治的言论可以追溯到他在加州理工学院的日子。作为一名大二物理系学生，他因反战倡导者而闻名，认为科学家不应坐在象牙塔里。这种世界观后来定义了 Anthropic 对未来战争的立场。你长期持有反战立场，但你是首批与美国国防部签署合同、在机密网络上运营的 AI 公司之一。这些是美国用于作战的网络。解释一下。

Amadi's statements about geopolitics date back to his days at Caltech. As a sophomore physics student, he developed a reputation as an anti-war advocate who believed scientists shouldn't sit in ivory towers. It's a worldview that would later define Anthropic's position on the future of war. You've had a long-standing anti-war stance and yet you were one of the first AI companies to sign a contract with the Department of Defense to operate on classified networks. These are the networks that the US uses to fight wars. Explain that.

你看，世界在变。我对这项技术的看法，当我看到俄罗斯入侵乌克兰，当我看到中国入侵台湾的风险时，我担心我们有一个复兴的威权集团。他们非常咄咄逼人，我们需要自卫。我可能不同意两届政府的每一项政策，但这就是为什么我们总体上支持这一点。

Look, I mean, the world changes. Like, my view of this technology, when I see Russia invading Ukraine, when I see the risk of China invading Taiwan, it worries me that we have a kind of resurgent authoritarian block. They're very aggressive and that we need to defend ourselves. I may not agree with every policy of either administration, but that's why we've generally been supportive of this.

你从 2024 年开始与 Palantir 合作。

You've been working with Palantir since 2024.

没错。

That's right.

你知道，他们的技术被 ICE、警察部门、加沙使用。Claude 是否以其他方式用于监控？

You know, their technology is used by ICE, police departments, in Gaza. Is Claude being used for surveillance in other ways?

我们不通过 Palantir 或其他任何人与 ICE 合作。我们不与 CBP 合作。我不相信我们在加沙工作。我们非常谨慎地将合作范围限定在我们相信的事情上。

We don't work with ICE either through Palantir or anyone else. We don't work with CBP. I don't believe we work in Gaza. We're very careful about scoping our engagements to things that we believe in.

2025 年，Anthropic 与 OpenAI、xAI 和谷歌一起赢得了五角大楼 2 亿美元的合同。

In 2025, Anthropic, along with OpenAI, xAI, and Google, won a $200 million contract with the Pentagon.

Anthropic 将此视为成为政府领先 AI 供应商的机会。据报道，Claude 被美军用于抓捕委内瑞拉总统尼古拉斯·马杜罗的行动。几周后，一切开始瓦解。我们带来 Anthropic 的突发新闻。国防部要求 Anthropic 允许其 AI 技术不受限制地全面使用。Anthropic 划定了红线，拒绝让 Claude 用于大规模监控和自主武器，使公司与五角大楼发生冲突。这家科技巨头今天面临最后期限，要么接受条件，要么被列入黑名单。商业实体是否有权决定其产品如何被军方使用？诉讼被提起，Anthropic 被五角大楼禁止，特朗普总统和国防部长皮特·赫格塞斯的强硬言论更是雪上加霜。Anthropic 由一个意识形态疯子运营，他不应该拥有——那不是我的问题。我的问题是 AI 对我们所做事情的决策。你介意被称为意识形态疯子或一群左翼疯子吗？

Anthropic framed it as an opportunity to become the leading AI vendor for the government. Claude was reportedly used by the US military in the operation to seize Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. Weeks later, everything started to unravel. We bring you breaking news from Anthropic. The Department of Defense demand that Anthropic allow full use of its AI technology without guardrails. Anthropic drew red lines, refusing to let Claude be used for mass surveillance and autonomous weapons, putting the company on a collision course with the Pentagon. The tech giant facing a deadline today to accept conditions or it'll be blacklisted. Does a commercial entity have the right to determine how their products are used by the military? Lawsuits were filed, and Anthropic was banned from the Pentagon, underscored by strong words from President Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. Anthropic is run by an ideological lunatic who shouldn't have a that's not my question. My question is AI decision-making over what we do. Do you mind being called an ideological lunatic or a bunch of left-wing nutjobs?

嗯，你知道，我一直被骂得更难听。

Um, you know, I've been called worse things than that all the time.

赢得这场斗争实际上是什么样子？

What does winning this fight actually look like?

我甚至不会称之为斗争。这更像是一场关于政府如何恰当使用 AI 的辩论。AI 是一项新兴技术。我们不了解它在哪些方面可靠或不可靠。我们不了解它在哪些方面促进或损害我们的价值观。所以，我认为重要的事情之一是为我们认为好的用例（坦白说，大多数用例）以及我们担忧的用例建立先例。

I won't even call it a fight. This is more a debate about what the proper use of AI by the government is. And AI is an emerging new technology. We don't understand the ways in which it's reliable or unreliable. We don't understand the ways in which it promotes our values or undermines our values. And so, one of the things that I thought was important was to establish a precedent on some of the use cases we think are good, which frankly is most of them. And some of the use cases that we're concerned about.

一位美国官员说：‘借助大语言模型，美军从每天能打击一千个目标增加到五千个目标。这意味着 Claude 可以帮助更快地杀死更多人。’你对此感到安心吗？

A US official has said, 'With the help of LLMs, the US military has gone from being able to hit a thousand targets a day to five thousand targets a day. That means Claude can help kill more people more quickly.' Are you comfortable with that?

基本上，你是在问，你相信这个国家吗？你希望这个国家在世界舞台上更强大还是更弱小？我希望。我是爱国者。这不取决于我。如果我们提供一项技术，我们不能说你可以进行这次军事行动，而不能进行那次。我私下可能认为这次行动合理，那次是坏主意，但我们不会拒绝提供技术。你基本上必须把政策留给军事决策者。

Basically, you're asking like, you know, do you believe in this country, right? Do you want this country to be a more powerful actor rather than a less powerful actor on the world stage? I do. I'm a patriot. It's not up to me. If we provide a technology, it's not up to us to say you can do this military operation and you can't do that military operation. Now, I might privately believe that this military operation makes sense and that military operation is a bad idea, but we're not going to deny the technology. You basically have to leave policy in the hands of the military decision-makers.

彭博社报道，Claude 被美军在伊朗战争中用于通过 Palantir 的 Maven Smart System 平台进行 AI 辅助瞄准。二月，一枚美国导弹 reportedly 击中伊朗一所女子学校，造成超过 150 人死亡，其中大部分是儿童。Claude 在那次袭击中起了作用吗？

Bloomberg has reported that Claude is being used by the US military in the war in Iran to do AI-assisted targeting via a platform made by Palantir, Maven Smart System. In February, a US missile reportedly hit a girl's school in Iran, killing more than 150 people, most of them children. Did Claude play a role in that strike?

我们不知道这些模型具体是如何使用的。显然，战争中的错误非常非常可怕。这是一件非常可怕的事情。我们愿意冒着公司未来的风险来限制这些模型的使用。你提到的用例甚至没有违反我们的红线。我们担心的是，违反红线的用例会有 100 倍之多。现在，我认为总体而言这些模型的使用是合适的。我认为净效果是好的。但军事决策者即使在最好的时候也会犯可怕的错误，我不知道我们是否处于最好的时候。我们看到的是 Claude 提供协助，但人类做出最终决定。所以，是人类做出了那个最终决定，而不是 Claude。想象一下，如果在一个世界里，不是 Claude（因为我们不允许），而是其他人的 AI 模型，AI 模型直接做出决定，人类从未看到。那才是我们坚持的，我们反对的。

We don't know exactly how these models were used. Obviously, mistakes that happen in warfare are really, really terrible. This is a really terrible thing to happen. We were willing to risk the future of our company to limit how these models are used. And what you're talking about is a use case that doesn't even violate our red lines. We're worried that there will be 100 times as much with use cases that do violate our red lines. Now, I would say I think overall the use of these models is appropriate. I think it's good on net. But military decision makers make terrible mistakes even at the best of times, and I don't know if we're in the best of times. What we've seen here is Claude assists, but a human makes the final call. So, a human made that final call, not Claude. Imagine if you had a world in which not Claude, because we haven't allowed it, but someone else's AI model, the AI model just makes a decision and the human never sees it. That's what we were standing up for. That's what we were fighting against.

这所学校有网站。你可以在谷歌搜索中找到它。难道 Claude 不应该发现这一点吗？这是否说明了一个更可怕的问题，即在战争中把技术当作捷径？

This school had a website. You could have found it in a Google search. Like, shouldn't Claude have spotted that? And does it speak to a scarier issue about using technology as a shortcut in war?

这里遵守的原则是人类做出最终决定。我不知道 Claude 或任何其他 AI 扮演了什么角色，但如果这还不能说明为什么那个原则如此重要，我不知道什么能。

The principle that was obeyed here is a human makes the final decision. I don't know what role Claude or any other AI had, but if this isn't an illustration why that principle is so important, I don't know what is.

AI 战争更有可能阻止第三次世界大战（中美战争），还是更有可能引发它？

Is AI warfare more likely to stop World War III, a war between the US and China, or is it more likely to make it happen?

我认为总体而言，它更有可能阻止战争。但是，如果我们对其使用不加限制，那么我认为它更有可能引发战争。你看过《奇爱博士》吧？它的前提是，有一个末日装置，当它认为核武器正在射向它时，会自动发射核武器。能出什么错呢，对吧？我认为冲突发生的方式是双方互相攻击，互相误解。当我们没有对这项技术进行适当监督时，我认为这类事故更有可能发生。现在，我认为如果 AI 以适当的方式使用，甚至不是在战争中，而只是情报收集，比如说我们能够预测对台湾的入侵或乌克兰的新动向，我们的对手在知道我们了解他们的一切后，会三思而后行。

I would say on balance, it is more likely to stop it. But, if we have no limits on how it's used, then I think it could be more likely to cause it. You've seen Dr. Strangelove, right? The premise of it was like, you have a doomsday device that automatically fires nuclear weapons when it thinks nuclear weapons are being fired at it. What could go wrong, right? I think the way conflicts happen is that the two sides jump at each other. They misunderstand each other. And when we don't have proper oversight of this technology, I think those kinds of accidents are more likely to happen. Now, I think if AI is used in an appropriate way in not even warfare, but think of just intelligence collection, let's say we're able to predict an invasion of Taiwan or a new movement in Ukraine, our adversaries will think twice about conducting some kind of invasion or military operation if we know everything that they're doing.

AI 在战场上的角色引发了棘手的问题，即使对于一家愿意辩论自身技术伦理困境的公司也是如此。Amade 似乎渴望公开进行这场对话。你如何应对压力？

AI's role on the battlefield raises difficult questions, even for a company willing to debate the ethical dilemmas of its own technology. It's a conversation Amade seems eager to have in public. How do you handle the pressure?

我非常努力地沟通，始终保持直率和诚实。我每两周在公司全体员工面前讲一个小时，谈谈我的想法、行业动态和外部世界的情况。完全不加审查。这不仅建立了信任，也让我感到非常自由，因为我觉得有 3000 人跟我步调一致。这是一个不可思议的放大器，也是应对压力最有用的方法之一。然后，当我们不得不面对外部挑战，应对过去几个月我们看到的一些非常困难的情况时，这使我们能够保持一致和连贯的立场。

I try very hard to communicate and always be straightforward and honest. I get up in front of the company every 2 weeks and just talk for an hour about just what's on my mind, what's going on in the industry, what's going on in the outside world. It's totally uncensored. And not only does it build trust, it's very freeing for me where I feel that I have 3,000 people who are on the same page as me. That is an incredible amplifier and is one of the most useful things in handling the pressure. Then, when we have to confront an external challenge, stand up to some very difficult situations that we've seen in last few months. That is what allows us to have a consistent and coherent position.

在 Anthropic 总部幕后，一个名为 Mythos 的新 AI 模型悄然诞生。这个模型强大到让所有人都感到不安。

Lurking in the background at Anthropic's headquarters was a surprise development of a new AI model called Mythos. A model so powerful, it spooked everyone.

Anthropic 几乎每周都上头条，现在最引人注目的是 Mythos。

Anthropic's making headlines almost on a weekly basis. Most notably now around Mythos.

公司认为这是一个巨大的威胁。

The company believes it's this enormous threat.

想象一个世界，每个人都有一把核火箭筒，基本上就是这样。

Imagine a world where everyone had a nuclear bazooka, basically.

Mythos 识别了数千个网络安全漏洞，暴露了每个主要操作系统的潜在缺陷。

Mythos identified thousands of cybersecurity vulnerabilities, exposing potential flaws in every major operating system.

Anthropic 表示，如果完全发布，Mythos 可以入侵银行、撬开国家机密和关键基础设施。

Anthropic signaled that if fully released, Mythos could hack banks, pry open state secrets, and critical infrastructure.

我认为最让我惊讶的是，模型在发现漏洞的能力上一直在攀升，这次是一个特别大的飞跃。我们早期给的一些公司说：‘这是一种超级武器。你得有持枪证才能使用它。请不要发布它。’

I think the thing that surprised me most about it was the models had been climbing in their ability to find vulnerabilities. It was a particularly large jump. Some of the early companies that we gave this to said things like, 'This is a super weapon. You should have to own a gun license to use it. Please don't release this.'

在一项名为 Project Glasswing 的倡议中，Anthropic 向选定的组织提供了 Mythos 的访问权限。甚至像国家安全局这样的联邦机构也争相使用它，尽管 Anthropic 被五角大楼列入黑名单。

In an initiative called Project Glasswing, Anthropic gave select organizations access to Mythos. Even federal agencies like the National Security Administration clamored to use it, despite Anthropic's blacklisting by the Pentagon.

我认为未来就是这种猫鼠游戏，我们需要确保好人拥有他们需要的防御工具。然后某个时候，坏人也会拥有它。到那时，我们必须确保好人拥有更好的模型，以便他们做好准备。

I think the future is this kind of cat-and-mouse game where we need to make sure that the good guys have the tools that they need to defend. And then at some point, the bad guys will have it, too. And at that point, we have to make sure the good guys have even better models so they can be ready for this.

真的有可能领先于坏人吗？

Is it possible to stay ahead of the bad guys? Really, though?

那是我们的希望。

That's what we hope.

批评是，你实际上在决定谁有权访问，谁没有。为什么人们应该对这种权力集中感到放心？

The criticism is you're effectively deciding who gets access and who doesn't. Why should anyone be comfortable with that kind of concentration of power?

这不像‘哦，它太强大了，让我们决定谁获得权力。’这是一个非常具体的网络安全担忧。因此，我们决定把模型给谁的方式是基于那个具体的恐惧。显然，决定‘这个圈画在哪里’是有细微差别的。我认为这非常复杂。我们尽量公开透明地说：‘我们正在尽力做好这个决定，但可能做得不完美。’

It wasn't like, 'Oh, it's so powerful, and let's decide who gets the power.' It was a very specific concern around cybersecurity. And so, the way that we decided who to give the model to was grounded in that specific fear. There's obviously nuance to decide like, 'Where do you draw that circle?' I think that's really complicated. I think we've tried to be as publicly open as possible to say, 'We're trying our best to make this decision well, but we might not do it perfectly.'

那些说这只是好营销的人呢？

What about the folks who say this was just good marketing?

你知道，我们因为不发布这个模型而遭受了巨大的商业损失。这个模型极大地加速了 Anthropic 内部的研究和下一代模型的开发。如果我们发布它，外部世界也会如此。这在商业上对我们造成了巨大伤害。

You know, we have suffered enormously commercially from not releasing this model. This model has incredibly accelerated research within Anthropic and production in next models. It would do the same in the outside world if we were to release it. This has hurt us enormously commercially.

你是否已经做出了一些你并不完全满意的权衡？

Have you had to make trade-offs already that you're not entirely comfortable with?

在 Anthropic 的整个历史中，都是权衡。对吧？在理想世界里，你希望在发布第一个聊天机器人之前，花几年时间研究它可能出错的每一件事。我们确实推迟了。我们确实推迟了 Claude 的初始发布，但只推迟了几个月。所以，一切都是权衡。现在，我们处于我所说的商业领先地位，我们可以把指针进一步转向谨慎。对吧？这就是 Mythos 发布的意义所在，对吧？如果你不是领先者，很难做到那样。

Throughout the entire history of Anthropic has been trade-offs. Right? In some ideal world, you would prefer to before you release the first chatbot, you know, you could spend years studying every possible thing that could go wrong with it. Now, we did delay. We did delay the initial release of Claude, but you know, we did it for a few months. So, everything is a trade-off. Now that we're in, what I would describe as a commercially leading position, we can afford to move the dial even further toward being careful. Right? That's what the Mythos release was about, right? It's very hard to do something like that if you're not the leading player.

有一种论点：‘为什么政府不接管你？为什么他们让一家私营公司控制如此强大的技术？’

There's this argument, 'Why wouldn't the government take you over? Why would they let a private company control technology that's so powerful?'

所以，我认为这是一个非常严肃的问题，我也有同样的担忧。我不认为政府应该直接接管我们。历史上每一种强大的技术要么是由政府建造的，要么起源于政府。所以，核武器，显然最初是由政府建造的。互联网、GPS、手机，AI 是第一个在私营部门建造的技术。而政府并没有真正扮演重要角色，而且进入游戏较晚。我认为这实际上是一个危险且不稳定的局面。这不是我会选择的情况。这项技术，我害怕公司拥有它，但也害怕政府拥有它。然后，我们需要对技术进行基本监管，你知道吗？随着我们看到 Mythos 的情况，我越来越认为我们需要开始进行发布前测试，强制性的发布前测试，对模型进行测试和审计。

So, I think that's a very serious question, and I share those concerns. I don't think the government should outright take us over. Every previous powerful technology we've seen in history was either built by the government or originated with the government. So, nuclear weapons, obviously, initially built by the government. The internet, GPS, cell phones, AI is the first technology that's been built in the private sector. And where government has not really had a serious role and is coming in late to the game. I think that's actually a dangerous and unstable situation. It is not the situation I would have chosen. This technology, I'm scared of companies having it, but I'm also scared of government having it. And then, we need basic regulation to the technology, you know? More and more, as I've seen what we've seen with Mythos, I think we need to start doing pre-release testing, required pre-release testing, testing and auditing of the models.

白宫最初拒绝了这种做法。在重返办公室的第一天，特朗普总统在前 AI 和加密货币沙皇 David Sacks 的帮助下，拆除了拜登总统寻求护栏的 AI 行政命令，转而支持放手让硅谷自行其是的做法。

This was an approach the White House rejected initially. On his first day back in office, President Trump, with the help of former AI and crypto czar David Sacks, dismantled President Biden's AI executive order seeking guardrails, instead favoring a hands-off, let Silicon Valley do its thing approach.

我们相信，对 AI 行业的过度监管可能会扼杀一个刚刚起步的变革性行业。

We believe that excessive regulation of the AI sector could kill a transformative industry just as it's taking off.

但随着 Mythos 及其国家安全影响难以忽视，白宫现在似乎想要把关世界上最强大的 AI。

But with Mythos and its national security implications proving hard to ignore, the White House now seems to want to gatekeep the world's most powerful AI.

我觉得很有趣的是，硅谷科技界有一群特定的人。他们一开始的立场是，即使是对这项技术保持透明，甚至是出口管制，这都会彻底摧毁我们创造技术的潜力，扼杀创新。然后一旦他们看到第一个真正的危险——我一直预料到的——就全是国有化、政府应该直接没收的言论。拜托，各位。你们从最极端的反监管——‘你看我们一眼就是在摧毁行业’——摇摆到完全共产主义——‘政府应该全部拿走’。我们需要一个更明智、更温和的方法。这是我们一直青睐的方法，因为我们理解这项技术的力量。我们没有恐慌，也没有否认。我们看到这种指数级发展，并正在做出适当回应。

It's very funny to me how there's a particular group of people in the tech world in Silicon Valley. They started with the position of like, even having transparency around this technology, even export control, this is all just totally it'll apocalyptically destroy our potential to create the technology, it'll kill innovation. And then as soon as they see the first real danger, which I've been expecting all along, there's all this talk of like nationalization and the government should just seize it. Come on, folks, here. You're yo-yoing from the most extreme anti-regulatory, if you look at us the wrong way, you're destroying the industry to this completely communist, the government should grab it all. We need a more sensible moderate approach. That's the one we've been favoring all along because we've understood the power of this technology. We're not panicking, we're not denying it. We see this move exponential and we're responding to it appropriately.

目前对 AI 的反应非常激烈。Anthropic 建立了一批非常忠实的追随者。有些人就是喜欢他们的立场，但他们的办公室外也有抗议活动。现在有很多焦虑、很多困惑，还有一些真正的愤怒，感觉事态正在升级。

The reaction to AI right now, it's intense. Anthropic has built this really loyal following. There are some people who just love what they stand for, but there've also been protests right outside their office. There's a lot of anxiety, a lot of confusion, there's some real anger right now about what's happening, and it actually feels like it's escalating.

人工智能是下一次工业革命。哦！哇！

Artificial intelligence is the next industrial revolution. Oh. Woo!

如果你看数据，人们对正在发生的事情更多的是担忧而不是兴奋。

If you look at the data, people are more concerned than excited about what's going on.

他们认为风险大于收益，而事实是，如果你和正在构建这一切的人交谈，他们也会告诉你，他们并不完全清楚这一切会如何发展。你如何看待这一刻的分量？

They think the risks outweigh the benefits, and the truth is, if you talk to the people who are building this, even they will tell you they don't fully know how it's all going to play out. How do you think about the weight of this moment?

我担心会出问题。我们真的在尽一切努力吗？我们当然在尽力，非常努力。我想要创造一种局面：如果这群人做不到，那这件事就没人能做成。你无法保证成功，但也许可以保证这一点。

I worry that something will go wrong. You know, are we doing literally everything we can? We're certainly trying our best, we're certainly trying very hard. What I want is to create a situation where if this set of people can't do it, it couldn't be done. You can't guarantee success, but maybe you can guarantee that.

事情变得个人化了。山姆·奥特曼在街对面的家遭到了袭击。这对你有什么影响？

It's getting personal. Sam Altman's home down the street has been attacked. How is that affecting you?

读到那则消息真的很吓人。我们当然非常庆幸他和家人都没事。总的来说，我认为在技术和政治层面，不幸的是，现在有太多言论和措辞可能导致糟糕的结果和坏事发生。我希望这个话题我们都能尽可能和平地辩论。

It was really scary to read that. I mean, we were obviously extremely relieved that he and his family were okay. In general, I think this is a time, you know, technologically, politically, where unfortunately, there's just a lot more rhetoric and words that I think can lead to bad outcomes and bad things happening. I hope that this is a topic we can all just debate, you know, as peacefully as possible.

我也觉得害怕。你知道，这就像是指数增长中不那么美好的一面，对吧？随着人工智能变得越来越重要，对社会来说变得如此重大，它受到的关注也越来越多。

It was scary to me, too. I mean, you know, this is like a less savory aspect of the exponential, right? That as AI gets more and more of a big thing, like, you know, it becomes just such a big deal to society, there's more attention on it.

社交媒体遭到了巨大的抵制。各国开始禁止它。人工智能也会面临这种情况吗？

There's been massive backlash against social media. Countries are starting to ban it. Could that happen to AI?

我认为这完全有可能。如果社交媒体公司能回到过去，看到今天的世界，他们会做出不同的选择吗？我愿意相信答案是肯定的。我不知道。如果我们把社交媒体公司面临的儿童福利、心理健康、选举诚信等挑战投射到人工智能上，我们真的很幸运是后来者。我们认为主动思考所有可能出错的事情是我们的工作，因为如果我们不这样做，谁会呢？

I think it's absolutely possible. If the social media companies could go back in time and see the world that they see today, would they do anything differently? I like to think the answer to that is yes. I don't know. If we sort of project some of the challenges that the social media companies have faced around child welfare, mental health, election integrity, all of these topics, we're really lucky that we're second. We view it as our job to try and proactively think about all of the things that could go wrong, because if we don't, who's going to?

我不知道他们是否真的打算做正确的事或让世界变得更好，所以我不认为如果他们能回到过去，即使知道后果，他们会改变做法，但他们当然应该改变。我不知道他们是否真的会改，但我们不能这样。这就是为什么我们试图第一次就做对，而不是等事情出错后再匆忙辩解一切安好。我能看到人工智能被禁止或封锁的主要方式是如果出了大问题。如果真的出了大问题，那也许它活该被禁。

You know, I don't know that they actually set out to do the right thing or make the world a better place, and so I don't think if they were going back, they would even knowing what they do, and they certainly should do things differently. I don't know if they actually will, but we can't. This is why we're trying to get this right the first time instead of waiting for things to go wrong, then scrambling to justify why it's all okay. The main way I could see AI being, you know, banned or blocked is if something really went wrong. And if something really went wrong, then maybe it deserves to be.

有技术专家说“它会很棒”，其他人说“它可能很糟糕”。你在这个光谱上处于什么位置？

You have technologists saying, "It's going to be amazing." and others saying, "It could be awful." Where are you on that spectrum?

我抱最好的希望，但做最坏的打算。对我来说，这是我做过的最重要的工作。对一些人来说，感觉这可能是最后一份工作。因为这在某种程度上意味着工作的终结。

I hope the best, but plan for the worst. For me, this is the most important work I've ever done. For some people, it feels like this is the last job. Because this is sort of the it could mean the end of work.

而且我认为对其他人来说，也许这不是最后一份工作。但把这件事做对是关乎存亡的。所以就有这样一种负担。

And I think for other people it's, you know, like maybe it's not the last job. But it's existential to get this right. And so there's just this this kind of burden.

如果影响像我们讨论的那么重大，像 Anthropic 警告的那么重大，你认为 Anthropic 有什么责任来缓冲冲击？你欠那些生活被颠覆的人什么？

If the impacts could be as significant as we're talking about, as significant as Anthropic has warned about, what responsibility do you think Anthropic has to cushion the blow? What do you owe the people whose lives you've upended?

我认为我们的观点一直是，作为行业，开发这项技术的行业，我们最终有责任思考风险是什么，可能发生的坏事是什么，如果其中一些事情发生了，我们在帮助解决这些问题中扮演什么角色？这是我们的工作，对吧？我们不应该只是说：“我们只是在努力发展产品，突然之间整整一代年轻女性患上了饮食失调或心理健康问题，因为哎呀，我们只是在努力发展产品。”我认为这不是任何科技公司应该采取的立场。我认为这不是我们试图采取的立场。

I think our view has always been we ultimately are responsible as an industry, the industry that's developing this technology, for thinking through what are the risks, what are the bad things that could happen, and if some of those things come to pass, what is our role in helping to fix them? That is our job, right? We should not just say, "Well, we were just trying to grow the product and suddenly there's an entire generation of young women who have eating disorders or who have mental health problems because whoops, we were just trying to grow the product." That's not the stance that I think any technology company should take. I don't think that's the stance that we're trying to take.

对于一个身份如此紧密围绕

For a company whose identity is so wrapped up in

我们想把这件事做好。我们作为一家人工智能安全公司而存在。

We want to do this right. We exist as a AI safety company.

我们如何才能帮助这一切顺利进行？

How can we just help all of this go well?

很难理解为什么 Anthropic 在如此坦诚地谈论危险的同时，又如此努力地推动人工智能发展。在他的文章中，Dario 描绘了如果人工智能一切顺利，最终会是什么样子。一个乌托邦式的未来，机器和人类并肩工作。人工智能是一股不可避免的力量，被引导走向繁荣而非灾难。为了减轻失业带来的破坏，他提出了全民基本收入和人工智能公司累进税等解决方案。但随着 Amodei 家族面对权力、政治和利润的混乱现实，真正的考验是那个创始使命能否在他们所构建的规模下幸存下来。谷歌以“不作恶”为座右铭起步，但这家公司随着发展悄悄放弃了这一创始承诺。

It can be hard to understand why Anthropic is pushing so hard to advance AI while being so upfront about the dangers. In his essays, Dario lays out what the end game looks like if everything goes right with AI. A utopian future where machines and humans work side by side. AI, an inevitable force steered toward prosperity rather than catastrophe. To mitigate the devastation of job loss, he proposes solutions like universal basic income and progressive taxation of AI companies. But as the Amodeis confront the messy realities of power, politics, and profit, the real test is whether that founding mission can survive the scale of what they're building. Google started with the motto don't be evil. A founding promise the company quietly retired as it grew.

你在构建非常强大的东西，并且会从中获得巨大收益。我们为什么要相信你？

You are building something incredibly powerful. And stand to gain enormously from it. Why should we trust you?

我认为从怀疑的立场出发，如果你对我一无所知，对 Anthropic 一无所知，那是相当理性的。我认为硅谷已经失去了世界很多信任，必须重新赢得它。我们试图传达的信息是我们确实不同，而这必须通过我们实际做的事情来赢得。

I think starting from a position of distrust, you know, if you don't know anything about me, if you don't know anything about Anthropic is pretty rational. I think Silicon Valley has lost a lot of the world's trust and kind of has to re-earn it. And the message, you know, we're trying to send is we're actually different and that has to be earned in things that we actually do.

我知道你最喜欢的书之一是《原子弹的制造》。

I understand one of your favorite books is the making of the atomic bomb.

没错。

That is correct.

你觉得自己和奥本海默有相似之处吗？

Do you see parallels between yourself and Oppenheimer?

我最认同的人物是利奥·西拉德，他是第一个想到可能发生链式反应的人。听着，我的观点是，我们不可能靠那些超凡脱俗的人物或试图成为一切中心的人物来度过难关。在某种程度上，我实际上把奥本海默视为一个失败案例，是应该避免的情况。这里有很多强大的参与者都有利益，唯一能让所有人都有好结局的办法是基本上到处都有制衡。

The figure I most identified with was Leo Szilard who was the one who first had the idea that there could be a chain reaction. Look, my view is we're not going to get through this with like larger than life personalities or like figures who try and be at the center of everything. In some ways actually see Oppenheimer as a failure case as what should not happen. There's a lot of powerful actors who have interests here and the only way it's going to end well for everyone is if there is some there's basically checks and balances everywhere.

你说过大约有 10%到 25%的概率会发生文明崩溃。这可不是小概率。有没有可能正是 Anthropic 构建的东西导致了这种情况？

You've said there's roughly a 10 to 25% chance of civilizational collapse. That is not insignificant. Is there a scenario where it's something that Anthropic built that caused that?

呃，我当然希望不是。我的观点是，这个概率来自于非常简单的配方：技术本身、世界上许多国家的存在、经济体中许多公司的存在，以及如果空白没有被填补就会有新公司出现。这就是我们面临的困境。公司内部一半的工作是在尽力降低风险，但风险永远不会是零。

Uh I mean, I certainly hope not. My view is that that probability comes from the very straightforward recipe of the technology, the existence of many countries in the world, the existence of many companies within an economy and new ones created if the void is isn't filled. Like that's the dilemma that we're in. Half of what we do within the company is trying, you know, reduce the risk as much as we can, but it's never going to be zero.

假设有很多航空公司，你说，‘我要创办一家更安全的航空公司。’你的公司可能比其他所有公司安全 10 倍，但如果有人问你，‘你能保证你的飞机永远不会坠毁吗？’我的意思是，你怎么可能保证呢？

Suppose there are a bunch of airline companies out there and you're like, 'Well, I'm going to make an airline company that's safer.' It can both be the case that your airline company is 10 times safer than all the other airline companies, but if someone comes and asks you, 'Can you guarantee that your airplane will never crash?' I mean, how could you possibly?

没错。25%太高了。我们正努力让这个概率低得多得多。这就是目标。

That's right. 25% is too high. We're trying to make that probability much, much lower. That is the goal.

你怎么找到内心的平静？怎么放松？

How do you find your Zen? How do you relax?

嗯，说实话，很大程度上就是多接触。有时候我会找个周末打打电子游戏，有时和 Danila 一起。我和妻子有时会去意大利。我们在那里有匹马，我就坐在她的马旁边，心想，‘你知道吗，我们的马 Calypso，她对这一切一无所知。她只是一匹快乐的马。’

Uh, you know, honestly, a lot of it's just exposure to it. Sometimes I'll just take a weekend and play some video games, sometimes with Danila. Me and my wife go to Italy sometimes. We have a horse there, so I'll just sit there next to her horse and I'll be like, 'You know, Calypso, our horse, she doesn't know about any of this. She's just a happy horse.'