白宫 AI 政策：与迈克尔·克拉齐奥斯的对话

Michael，欢迎来到 Y Combinator 创业学校。今天现场观众非常棒，今天也是精彩的一天。我很兴奋能聊聊 AI 政策以及你在白宫与特朗普总统共事的角色。但我想先向观众介绍一下你的背景。首先，Michael Kratsios 是白宫科技政策办公室主任，他是总统在科技领域的首席顾问，也是美国国家 AI 战略的关键设计者之一。他曾在特朗普总统第一任期担任国家首席技术官，领导了早期的联邦 AI 计划。在两次政府任职之间，他曾担任 Scale AI 的首席运营官。所以，他从高速增长的初创公司内部和白宫内部都看到了前沿。今天我们要聊的是华盛顿实际上如何看待 AI。所以我想进入正题——你知道，你从政府到私营部门，然后又回到政府，这其实并不常见，我认为这体现了你的品格，Michael，因为公共服务并不容易，而且是一种牺牲。你知道，你本可以出去赚更多的钱，做天知道什么事。以你的人脉和背景，你选择这些角色——你为什么选择做这份工作？

Michael, welcome to Y Combinator Startup School. This is an amazing crowd here. It's been an amazing day and I'm really excited to talk about AI policy and your role at the White House with President Trump. But I wanted to tell the audience a little bit about your background. First of all, Michael Kratsios is director of the White House's Office of Science and Technology Policy. He's the president's top advisor on science and technology and one of the key architects of America's national AI strategy. He previously served as the country's chief technology officer in the first term for President Trump, where he led the early federal AI initiatives. He was the chief operating officer of Scale AI in between government tours. So he's seen the frontier from both inside a hypergrowth startup and inside the White House. And so we're going to talk about how Washington actually thinks about AI. So I want to get into—you know, you've gone from the government to the private sector and you went back into the government, which is actually not a common thing, and I think it speaks to your character, Michael, because public service is not easy. And it is a sacrifice. You know, you could be out making a lot more money doing, you know, God knows what. Your choice of roles, given the level of connections you have, your background—why do you choose to do this work?

你知道吗，对我来说，我深信美国在这些新兴技术上的领导地位是我们这个时代最关键的问题之一。为了让美国人民享受到 AI 将带来的所有好处，我们必须确保有一个允许这一切成功的监管环境。而且，我觉得甚至有点自私地说，没有比美国政府更能处理大问题的地方了。即使在世界上最大的科技公司，你也永远不会处理这种规模的问题。所以能够从事这样的工作，我觉得非常有回报、非常充实。我深信我们必须找到继续赢的方法。而政府，你知道，要么能帮忙，要么不幸地搞砸事情。所以能在那里引导它走向正确的方向，是我每天乐于做的事情。

You know, to me, I fundamentally believe that American leadership in these emerging technologies is one of the most critical questions of our time. For the American people to have all these benefits that AI is going to offer, we have to make sure that we have a regulatory environment that allows that to succeed. And to me, I think even a little bit somewhat selfishly, there is no place where you can work on bigger problems than the US government. Even at the biggest tech companies in the world, you're never going to be dealing with problems of this scale. So being able to work on that is something that I find very rewarding and very fulfilling. And I just deeply believe that we have to find a way to keep winning. And the government, you know, can either help or they can unfortunately kind of screw things up. So being there to try to put it in the right direction is something that I enjoy doing every day.

让我们倒回时间。你是怎么走到这一步的？我真的很想知道，你人生中从什么时候开始意识到自己会对科学、技术、整个领域充满热情？比如，我不知道，14 岁甚至更早的 Michael Kratsios，一直到观众这个年纪，比如 20 出头，甚至十几岁。跟我讲讲你那段生活，以及你是如何被吸引到这类工作的。

Let's rewind the clock. How did you even find yourself in this place? I'm really actually curious, you know, at what point in your life did you know that you were going to be passionate about science, technology, this whole field? Like, I don't know, like 14-year-old or even earlier Michael Kratsios, and up until sort of the age of the audience, like early 20s, even late teens. Tell me about that part of your life and how you gravitated toward this type of work.

是的，我一直对技术有些痴迷或感兴趣。我每年都会痴迷地关注史蒂夫·乔布斯的所有主题演讲。我还记得大学时第一代 iPhone 发布的情景。我这是在暴露年龄，但那真是一个神奇的时刻。我们到处跑，跟朋友谈论它。对我来说，我在大学不是工程师。所以我一直不太确定如何把我对技术的极度热情转化为职业，但最终我去了旧金山，为彼得·蒂尔工作了将近 7 年。和他一起工作，和他投资的许多公司一起工作，那时一切都汇聚在一起了。在 2010 到 2017 年那段时间，当我们看越来越多的投资组合公司时，不断出现的是监管问题。无论你考虑的是 Lyft 在州和地方层面遇到的挑战，还是 SpaceX 在发射许可方面与 FAA 和商务部的挑战，无论你看哪个行业，都有政府角度，政府的政策行动可以解锁技术。所以当总统获胜，我有机会加入政府时，我的第一反应是：“我们如何审视我们所有的规则，让创新者更容易建设？我们如何让无人机用于商业运营？我们如何让自动驾驶汽车上路？我们如何实现无人机送货？”这些都是政府可以解锁的事情。

Yeah, I mean, I'd always been sort of obsessed or interested in technology. I would follow all the Steve Jobs keynotes every year obsessively. I still remember in college when the first iPhone came out. I'm dating myself here, but it was this amazing moment. We were running around and talking to our friends about it. To me, I was not an engineer in college. So I always wasn't quite sure how to manifest my extreme excitement for technology into something I could do as a career, but ultimately ended up in San Francisco and worked for Peter Thiel for almost 7 years. Working with him and working with a lot of the companies that he invested in, that's when it all kind of came together. Over the course of my time there between 2010 and 2017, as we were looking at more and more companies in the portfolio, what kept coming up was this question about regulation. Whether you were thinking about Lyft and the challenges they were having at the state and local level, SpaceX with the challenges they were having for launch permits and things with the FAA and the Department of Commerce, no matter what kind of industry you're looking at, there was this government angle where the government's policy actions could unlock technologies. So when the president won and I had the opportunity to join the administration, my first instinct was like, "How do we look across all the rules that we have and make it easier for innovators to build? How do we get drones flying for commercial drone operations? How do we get autonomous vehicles on the road? How do we get drone deliveries to happen?" And those are things that the government can unlock.

关于技术政策实际上是如何制定的，有什么会让在座所有人感到惊讶的事情？

What's something surprising about how technology policy actually gets made that would surprise everybody in this arena?

是的，我认为通常没有真正在这个领域工作过的人不会意识到，这些决策是极其联邦化的。白宫里不是只有一两个人决定某件事。我认为美国制度的一个好处是，没有一个专门的机构负责技术。我们有卫生机构，有国防部，但没有技术部。这意味着很多技术问题分散在多个机构中。所以你有国家安全问题、商业导向问题、核心科技研究问题等各种利益。要制定好的政策，白宫必须把所有机构聚集在一起。所以每当——比如无人机。如果你想确保规则允许商业无人机运营，你必须确保 FAA 有正确的规则，同时也要让负责核武器的人满意，这样无人机才不会飞越核设施。

Yeah, I think typically people who haven't really worked in this space don't realize that these decisions are extraordinarily federated. There isn't just one or two people in the White House who decide something. A blessing, I think, of the US system is that there isn't one agency that does technology. We have a health agency, we have a defense department, but there is no technology department. What that means is that a lot of these tech issues are spread out across multiple agencies. So you have equities from national security questions, commercial-oriented questions, to core science and technology research questions. And to make good policy, what the White House has to do is bring all of these agencies together. So whenever—take for example drones. If you want to make sure that the rule is right to allow for commercial drone operations, you have to make sure that the FAA has the right rules in place, but also that the people who oversee our nuclear weapons are happy so that drones aren't flying over nuclear sites.

带我们进入最近一周左右的情况。这周在 AI 政策上感觉真是喧嚣的一周。你看到了那封信，我想是周五早上从许多大公司发出的。Y Combinator 也签了名，而且 Y Combinator 还帮助组织了那封你作为收件人之一在周三晚上收到的信，那封信真正主张政府不要打压开放权重模型。而推动这一切的动力，背后的能量，是那种传言和猜测，很多推测性的担忧，认为白宫即将发布一项行政命令，限制或打压开源。

Help take us into like the last week or so. Really this week felt like a noisy week in AI policy. You saw the letter, I guess, that dropped Friday morning from a lot of the larger companies. Y Combinator had signed it, but also Y Combinator helped organize the letter that you were one of the recipients on Wednesday evening, that was really advocating for the government to not clamp down on open weight models. And the impetus for that, the energy behind it, was sort of this buzz and rumor, lots of kind of speculative worry that the White House was on the verge of doing an EO that would have restricted or clamped down on open source.

你能谈谈这个吗？比如，过去一周你在 Twitter 上看到的一些东西，和现实有多接近？然后，白宫的政策是什么？我昨晚在记者晚宴上确实和卢特尼克部长谈过，他说白宫强烈支持开源。所以，这是一个很好的场合，来澄清白宫在开源、开放权重上的立场。

Can you talk a little bit about that? Like how connected to reality is some of the stuff that you've seen on Twitter in the last week or so? And then, what is the White House's policy? I actually spoke with Secretary Lutnick last night at the Correspondents Dinner, and he said that the White House strongly supports open source. So this is a great audience to clarify what is the White House's position on open source, open weights.

这边的卢瑟已经变成一个小记者了。他 Twitter 上有很多人关注。但我要说的是，我认为部长昨天说的，和我们去年 7 月发布的 AI 行动计划第一页上的政策是一样的。对于那些不一定在关注这件事的人来说，美国的人工智能战略是在去年 7 月发布的。这是我和大卫·萨克斯、还有卢比奥部长共同撰写的。我们在第一章里谈到的第一件事，就是对开源的承诺。这个想法是，如果美国想在人工智能领域领先，我们必须有一个充满活力的封闭和开源生态系统，这是它们协同工作的唯一方式。所以，对我来说，我认为这是第一位的。但我认为，这周真正展示出来的，以及让我对自己正在做的工作感到兴奋的是，我们必须进行这些对话。如果华盛顿处于真空中，没有听到来自初创生态系统、甚至大型科技生态系统、甚至金融服务或所有这些不同行业的任何声音，我们就无法做出最好的决策。所以，对我来说，我觉得这很鼓舞人心，而且我觉得像这样的周在战术上和实际上都非常有帮助，因为它迫使很多社区站出来说，我们美国人相信什么？我们作为政策制定者可以内化这些，并确保我们为未来制定正确的政策。

So Luther over here has turned into a little mini reporter. He's got lots of people following his Twitter. But I will say, I think what the secretary said yesterday is the same policy that we had on page one of our AI action plan that was released last July. And for those of you who aren't necessarily tracking this, the US strategy for artificial intelligence was released in July of last year. It was something that I co-authored with David Sacks and Secretary Rubio. And one of the number one things, the first thing that we talk about in chapter one, is a commitment to open source. And this idea that if the US wants to lead in artificial intelligence, we have to have a vibrant closed and open source ecosystem, and that's the only way they can all work together. So, to me, I think that's number one. But I think what this week really showed, and what excites me about the job that I'm doing, is we have to have these conversations. And if DC is in a vacuum, isn't hearing anything from the startup ecosystem, or even from big tech ecosystem, or even from financial services, or all these different industries, we can't make the best decisions. So, to me, I find it inspiring, and I find it extraordinarily tactically and practically helpful for weeks like this to happen, because it sort of forces a lot of the community to come up and say, like, what do we as Americans believe in? And we as policy makers can internalize that and make sure that we're setting the right policy going forward.

我想，这就是民主进程在起作用。所以，这里的每一位创始人都在用 AI 构建。而你在华盛顿的位置上，你认为华盛顿看待 AI 的方式和这个房间里的人看待 AI 的方式之间，最大的差距是什么？

That's the democratic process in action, I guess. So, every founder here is building with AI. And where you sit in Washington, what do you think is the single biggest gap between how Washington sees AI and how this room sees it?

我认为在华盛顿，当人们想到 AI 时，它是一项包罗万象的技术，涵盖了从美国中产阶级的看法，他们对数据中心等事物的看法，到 AI 和医疗保健的问题，再到失业问题以及它将如何影响劳动力市场，然后还有关于它将如何影响新公司成长和我们科技生态系统生产力提升的讨论。所以，我认为华盛顿典型的不同之处在于，你不能把这些对话分开。很难不去想 AI 繁荣对劳动力的影响，或者不担心，你知道，一般来说美国人不喜欢数据中心。它们非常糟糕，他们不希望数据中心建在自己后院。但这个房间里的每个人都清楚，我们需要尽可能多的算力分布在全国各地。所以，对我们来说，我认为我们最终不得不平衡很多这些东西，这算是我们的工作，但我们不能，你知道，我们需要初创社区的意见，至少了解对话的那个部分，并确保我们把它做好。

I think in Washington, when people think about AI, it is a sweeping technology that covers everything from the perception of Middle America, their perception on things like data centers, to questions about AI and healthcare, to questions about job loss and how it's going to impact the labor market, and then also there's a conversation about how it's going to impact new company growth and productivity improvements across our tech ecosystem. So, I think what typically is different in Washington is you can't separate those conversations. It's very hard to not think about the labor implications of the AI boom, or not be worrying about how, you know, generally Americans don't really love data centers. They pull horribly, they don't want them in their backyard. But everyone in this room knows very well that we need as much compute as we possibly can spread across the country. So, for us, I think we end up having to balance a lot of this stuff, which is kind of our job, but we can't, you know, we need the input from the startup community to know at least that element of the conversation, and we make sure that gets done right.

而且政府通常监管的是已经成熟的行业。AI 似乎每 6 个月就在重塑自己。你如何为变化如此之快的东西制定规则？

And governments are usually regulating industries that have settled. AI seems to be kind of reinventing itself every 6 months. How do you write the rules for something that is moving so quickly?

是的，我的意思是，答案真的是你不想在沙地上划下非常坚定的红线，因为它们最终不会起作用。我认为目前世界上最好的例子就是欧盟的 AI 法案。所以，当我们在第一届特朗普政府时，欧盟大张旗鼓地花了很多年制定了这个欧盟 AI 法案。然而，这个规则，本质上就像欧洲的监管，在 ChatGPT 被发明之前就已经通过并最终确定了。所以现在，所有的大型语言模型，以及自 2021 年 11 月 ChatGPT 出现以来发生的一切，你知道，都必须遵守这个在 LLM 出现之前就写好的规则。这显示了如果你一开始就把线划得太死，情况会有多棘手。我认为我们自己的政府也面临过这个挑战。拜登政府设定了一个具体的硬性算力阈值，如果你做的任何事超过某个阈值，你就必须向政府做大量披露。你知道，随着时间的推移，这些坚定的红线阈值，它们经不起时间的考验，而我们做的很多工作就是确保任何类型的行动都能跟上前沿。而且政府已经非常清楚地证明了，一旦设定，就很难重置。所以，我们在试图设定这些硬性阈值时非常谨慎。

Yeah, I mean the answer to that really is you don't want to set very firm red lines in the sand because they ultimately don't work. And I think the best example of that in the world right now is the EU AI Act. So, when we were in the first Trump administration, the EU went through a lot of fanfare and spent many years putting together this EU AI Act. And yet this rule, essentially like regulation for Europe, was passed and finalized before ChatGPT was ever invented. So now going forward, all of these large language models and everything that's happened since November of '21 when ChatGPT came out, you know, have to abide by this rule that was written before LLMs were even a thing. And that shows how challenging the situation is if you try to set the line too firm to begin with. And I think our own administration has been challenged with this. The Biden administration set a specific hard cap compute threshold, so if you do anything above a certain threshold, then you have to do a bunch of disclosures to the government. You know, over time, having these sort of firm red line thresholds, they do not stand the test of time, and a lot of what we do is to make sure that any type of action can move along with the frontier. And what's been proven very much so by the government is that once it sets, it's very hard to reset it. So, we are very cautious in trying to set these hard thresholds.

似乎很多围绕 AI 的政策讨论都与安全和风险有关。你认为什么是构建者低估的 AI 风险，什么又是你可能认为被夸大的风险？

It seems like a lot of the policy conversation around AI has to do with safety and risk. What do you think is an AI risk that builders underrate, and one that you think is probably overblown?

嗯，我认为当下的风险，至少今天，有两个主要的。我认为第一个显然是 Mythos 时刻带来的网络风险。最终，实验室在发布 Fable 时必须做的分析，关于设置什么样的护栏，以确保 Mythos 更精致、更强大、所谓的危险能力在发布时得到适当限制。但同样，很多这类具备网络能力的模型面临的挑战是，能够做某些邪恶事情的同一个模型，在加固现有系统方面也可能非常有价值。所以，这里存在这些固有的权衡。我认为第二个总是出现的风险，我们认为正在地平线上出现的，是生物风险问题。我的意思是，我的感觉是，目前，而且多年来一直如此，它有点被夸大了。我认为人们在 21 年、22 年就在大喊生物问题。3 年来一直没有问题。但我认为我们绝对需要建立正确的基础设施，在模型越过前沿时，对它们运行正确的测试和评估流程。

Um, I think the risk of the day, at least today, there's two main ones. I think the first one is obviously the cyber risk presented by the Mythos moment. And ultimately, the analysis that the labs had to do when they were putting out Fable, on what kind of guardrails are put in place to make sure that the more exquisite, powerful, quote-unquote dangerous capabilities of Mythos were appropriately limited for the release. But again, the challenge with a lot of these cyber capable models is that the same model that is able to sort of do something nefarious is the same model that can be very valuable in hardening an existing system. So there's these inherent tradeoffs that happen. And I think the second risk that always kind of comes up, that we think is sort of coming over the horizon, is the biological risk question. I mean, I think my sense is that at the moment, and it has been for many years, it's a bit overblown. I think people were sort of shouting about the bio problem back in '21, '22. Hasn't been an issue for 3 years. But I think we definitely need to build the right infrastructure to run the right test and eval processes on models as they creep past the frontier.

明白了。很多科技政策讨论最终都被五大科技公司主导。我得说，这也是为什么几周前 Y Combinator 和其他几家公司一起帮助成立了一个名为“小科技协会”的行业协会。

Got it. Um, a lot of tech policy conversations end up dominated by the five biggest tech companies. And I should say this is one of the reasons that Y Combinator, with a handful of other companies a couple weeks ago, helped spin up a trade association called the Little Tech Association.

因为有时候——你知道，我住在华盛顿特区，你显然也住在那里，毕竟我们今早 8 点还同乘一班飞机——我觉得在华盛顿，有时候就像 Google、Apple、Facebook、Amazon 的《楚门的世界》。你读到的每一份立场文件、听到的每一场演讲，都会想，天哪，这背后有大科技的影响。如果这些大公司在制定规则，一个两人公司怎么可能有胜算？白宫如何确保像这个房间里这样的公司能被听到？

Um, because it seems like sometimes—you know, I live in Washington D.C., and you do as well, obviously, since we were on the flight this morning at 8:00 together—I think it feels like kind of Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon, a Truman Show sometimes in Washington. Like every position paper you read or speech you hear, you think, gosh, that has some big tech influence behind it. How does a two-person company even have a fighting chance if those large companies are writing the rules? How does the White House make sure that the kind of company sitting in this room gets heard?

嗯，我最重要的职责就是尽可能多地和你交流。但我认为现实是，有大量机构在帮助支持小科技并为其发声。我认为政府普遍相当清楚每个行业里大型参与者的影响力。而且这种情况不仅发生在科技领域，从能源到医疗保健，各行各业都是如此。我们非常努力地做的是，利用各种机制来获取广泛人群的意见。比如传统的提案请求或信息请求流程，任何人都可以提交评论。对我们来说，我认为这实际上很有效。如果你想想总统本人在去年 7 月我们发布战略时发表的演讲中提到的主要优先事项之一，那就是关于 AI 领域州法律优先适用的问题。其基本论点是，如果你创造或允许形成零散的法规——比如加州有一套 AI 法规，马里兰有另一套，得克萨斯还有一套——大科技公司能应付得了。Google 可以雇佣一支律师大军，他们会搞定一切，没问题。但对于在座的各位来说，这根本行不通。总统站出来说：“不，我们必须有一个统一的 AI 国家标准，这样任何想创办 AI 公司的人都能轻松知道一套规则，并以此建立公司。”所以我认为这是我们真正铭记于心的一个例子。

Well, the most important thing that I do is talk to you as often as I possibly can. But I think the reality is there are a great number of institutions that help support and stand up for little tech. And I think generally government is quite cognizant of the influence of a lot of large players in every industry. And this isn't a situation that is only occurring in tech. It happens in everything from energy to health care to whatever it may be. And what we try to do very hard is use lots of mechanisms where you can get input from a wide variety of folks. So, the traditional request for proposals or request for information process, where you can get anyone to submit comments. And for us, I think it's actually working. If you think about one of the major priorities that the president himself spoke about in the speech he gave when our strategy was released in July of last year, it was this question about preemption of state laws around AI. The fundamental thesis there is that if you create or allow for the creation of a patchwork of regulations—meaning there's one set of regulations for AI in California, another one in Maryland, another one in Texas—the big tech guys can deal with that. Google can hire an army of lawyers and they'll figure it out and they'll be fine. But for all of you out here, that's just not going to work. And the president stood up and said, "No, we have to have one national standard for AI so we can make it easy for anyone who wants to build an AI company to know what the one set of rules is and build their company that way." So I think that's an example of us really taking that to heart.

嗯，我要说，我赞赏白宫继续推进——实际上始于特朗普第一个任期——针对大科技的两党反垄断项目。美国诉 Google 案是在特朗普第一个任期内启动的。美国诉 Apple 案正在继续。希望关于它即将和解的报道是不实的。还有 FTC 诉 Facebook、FTC 诉 Amazon——这些案件都是特朗普的司法部和联邦贸易委员会在继续推进的。而且我认为，再加上总统本人使用“小科技”这个说法并支持小科技公司——我想我们多年前见面时，我就说过我们只需要确保小科技在谈判桌上有一席之地。所以当你回到华盛顿时，确保我们尽一切努力让小科技在谈判桌上有一席之地。

Well, I will say I commend the White House for continuing—and really it started with the first Trump term—the bipartisan antitrust project with respect to Big Tech. US v. Google was started under the first Trump administration. US v. Apple is being continued. Hopefully the reports that it might settle imminently are incorrect. And FTC v. Facebook, FTC v. Amazon—these are cases that the Trump DOJ and FTC have continued. And I think that, coupled with the president's own usage of the phrase "Little Tech" and championing Little Tech companies—I think when we met years ago, I said we just have to make sure that Little Tech has a seat at the table. So as you go back to Washington, just making sure that we're doing everything we can to ensure that Little Tech has a seat at the table.

这对我很重要。我的意思是，我 20 多岁的大部分时间都在旧金山的一家风险投资公司工作。我理解创办这些公司有多难。而且我认为美国的特别之处在于，世界上没有比美国更适合创业的地方了。在这里更容易，机会也令人难以置信。所以，作为公职人员，我每天思考的是如何保护这个生态系统？如何让它更容易？如何为你们所有人创造机会去创办伟大的公司并取得成功？全世界的人都渴望来美国创办公司。这里有一些我们必须保留的非常特别的东西。

It's important to me. I mean, I spent most of my 20s here in San Francisco working at a venture firm. I understand how challenging it is to build these companies. And I think what makes the US so special is that there is no place in the world that is better to do a startup than America. It is easier here, and the opportunities are just unbelievable. So, as a public servant, what I think about every day is how do we protect that ecosystem? How do we make it even easier? How do we create all the opportunities for all of you to create great companies and succeed? Everyone in the world is clamoring to come to America to build companies. There's something very special about here that we must preserve.

是否存在一种 AI 监管版本，既能保护消费者，又不会给现有企业提供护城河？具体来说是什么样的？

Is there a version of AI regulation that protects consumers, but it doesn't hand the incumbents a moat? And what does that look like concretely?

我想回到我之前说的统一国家框架。我认为关键在于为各种规模的公司提供监管的清晰度和便利性。如果我们能与国会合作实现这一点，我认为那将是对初创企业最大的福音。

I think back to what I was saying about the one national framework. I think it's all about having regulatory clarity and ease for all sizes of companies. And if we can work with Congress to do something like that, I think that would be the biggest boon for startups.

美国的优势一直在于任何人都可以创业。

The United States' advantage has always been that anybody can start something.

嗯。

Mhm.

正如你所说。我的意思是，我们在这一点上很独特。这是世界上创办公司最好的地方。你会对这里一位担心合规成本在起步前就把他们挡在门外的创始人说些什么？

To your point. I mean, we are unique in that respect. This is the greatest place in the world to build a company. What would you tell a founder here who is worrying about compliance costs locking them out before they even start?

你知道，我会告诉他们，历史上可能没有哪个政府比现任政府更致力于减少监管。我们的管理和预算办公室负责监管流程，负责人叫 Russ Vought，他的人生使命就是尽可能消除监管。这是我们每天思考的事情。对我来说，从科技角度看，当我们谈论监管时，最大的问题是如何消除创新的障碍？我之前稍微提到过这一点。思考监管和科技世界有两种方式。华盛顿很多人经常讨论这个。有些技术要么生而自由，要么生而被囚禁。对于每一类技术，你需要考虑不同的监管。生而自由的技术是指那些没有现成监管的技术，比如刚出现的互联网。这些是你必须保护的技术类型。你必须非常非常谨慎地考虑是否要在这个领域引入新监管，因为人们可以在这些领域自由构建并蓬勃发展。

You know, I would tell them that there's probably no administration in history more committed to reducing regulations than the current one. Our Office of Management and Budget, which runs our regulatory process—the guy running it is called Russ Vought, and his life's mission has been to eliminate as many regulations as possible. That is what we think about every day. To me, from a tech standpoint, when we talk about regs, the biggest question is how do we remove barriers to innovation? I talked a little bit about this. There are kind of two ways to think about the world of regs and technologies. Sometimes a lot of people talk about this in Washington. There are technologies that are either born free or born in captivity. For each of those categories, you have a different set of regs to look at. Born free technologies are ones where there aren't regulations on the books—things like the internet when it just started. Those are the types of technologies you have to preserve. You have to be very, very thoughtful about whether you're going to introduce new regulations into that domain, because people can build anything and strive in those areas.

所以那些天生自由的技术，你想要保留它们。而天生受困的技术，是指你在构建某些东西，但除非获得某种政府批准，否则无法商业化或推向市场。想想商业无人机运营吧。你们可以在后院造一架很棒的无人机。你可以编写最棒的软件，把供应商和客户连接起来，并全部设置好。但要合法完成交易并让无人机飞行，除非获得 FAA 的豁免，否则你做不到。所以对于这类技术，我们会不懈地思考如何移除这些监管障碍，或者让它们更容易实现。

So those born free technologies you want to preserve. And then the born in captivity technologies are technologies where you're building something but you can't commercialize it or you can't take it out to market unless you get some sort of government approval. So think about commercial drone operations. You guys could go build an amazing drone in your backyard. You could build the most amazing software to connect a vendor to a customer and set it all up. But to actually close that transaction legally and have the drone fly, you can't do that unless you get a waiver from the FAA. So those are the types of technologies that we will relentlessly think about how to remove those regulatory barriers or make it much easier to do so.

我想早些时候，你们有些人可能听过 Boom Supersonic 创始人的发言。你知道，我多年来一直痴迷于超音速飞行。我认为这是技术停滞最明显、最直观的例子。多年前我们就有协和式飞机在飞。今天我们飞得比那时还慢。绝对的悲剧。所以在这种情况下，除非规则设定为例如在美国上空有噪音限制而不是速度限制，否则他无法让他的超音速飞机飞行。所以对于这类天生受困的技术，我们不懈地试图弄清楚：如何移除这些障碍，让这些技术更容易运作。

I think earlier some of you may have heard from the founder of Boom Supersonic. You know, I've been obsessed with supersonic flight for years. I think it's the most obvious, in-your-face example of technological stagnation. We had the Concorde flying years ago. We're flying slower than we were back then today. Absolute tragedy. So in that situation, he can't get his supersonic plane to fly unless the rules are set such that there is a noise limit instead of a speed limit over the United States, for example. So in those kind of born in captivity technologies, that's what we relentlessly try to figure out: how do you remove those barriers and make it easier for these technologies to work?

我想回到一个我一开始忘了问的问题，关于你日常的职责。你不仅是科学技术政策办公室主任，而且可能在你回答时也谈一下，你还是总统的特别顾问。那么，我是说，可能没有典型的一天，但如果要平均一下，典型的一天是什么样的？你几点上班？很多人没有意识到白宫是一个庞大的建筑群。显然有椭圆形办公室，但还有所谓的 EEOB，即艾森豪威尔行政办公大楼。你的团队有多大？

I want to go back to a question that I forgot to ask at the beginning, which is about your day-in, day-out role. You're not only the director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, and maybe you can talk a little bit about this when you answer, but also a special advisor to the president. So what is—I mean, there's probably not a typical day, but if you had to average the days across, what does a typical day look like? What time do you show up to work? A lot of people don't realize that the White House is a sprawling complex. There's the Oval Office obviously, but then there's something called the EEOB, the Eisenhower Executive Office Building. How big is your team?

嗯。

Yeah.

你能帮我们想象一下在白宫工作是什么样子，以及你的日常工作实际是怎样的吗？还有，OSTP 主任的角色是否总是总统的特别顾问？我认为那是你额外承担的角色。所以稍微谈谈这个。

Can you help us visualize what it's like working at the White House and what your job is actually like day-to-day? And is the role of a director of the OSTP always a special advisor to the president? I think that's an additional role you take on. So talk about that a little bit.

嗯，所以我觉得最抽象的理解方式可能是——我之前也稍微提到过——联邦政府由所有这些机构组成。有负责医疗的 HHS，有负责国防的国防部，有负责能源和国家实验室的能源部。而做任何类型的政策，你基本上都必须获得共识，或者在这些不同机构之间进行某种对话。全世界只有一栋建筑能让所有这些机构聚在一起进行对话并达成某种解决方案，那就是白宫。

Um, so I think maybe the most abstract way to think about it is—and I mentioned this a little bit earlier—the federal government is made up of all these agencies. You have HHS which does health care, you have Department of Defense which does defense, you have Department of Energy that runs energy and our national labs. And for any type of policy that you do, you essentially have to get concurrence or have some sort of conversation among all of these different agencies. And there's only one building in the whole world that can get all these agencies to come together and have that conversation and bring some resolution, and that's the White House.

一般来说，白宫要处理四类政策。有国家安全，由一个委员会负责那个流程。有国内政策，类似医疗和移民这类事务，由另一个委员会负责。有经济政策，处理税收和其他经济政策，然后就是我们，负责科学技术。所以基本上有四个政策委员会和四个政策负责人，我们每个人都负责处理手头议题的政策流程。

And generally there are sort of four categories of policy that get sorted out in the White House. There's national security, and there's a council that runs that process. There's domestic policy that's sort of like health care and immigration type stuff, and there's another council that runs that. There's economic policy that does sort of like tax and other econ policy, and then there's us that does science and technology. So essentially there are sort of four policy councils and four policy leads, and each of us kind of run policy processes on the topics at hand.

所以在我们的职责范围内，显然有我们谈了很多的 AI，但我们还处理量子、民用核能、生物技术、太空等事务。在我的团队中，每个职责领域都有一两个人帮助管理。所以我的太空团队大约有三个人，他们协调整个政府的太空政策。他们让 NASA 参与，让拥有大量国家安全卫星的战争部参与，然后他们坐在一起，理清政策。

So in our portfolio, we obviously have AI that we talked about a lot, but we do things like quantum, civil nuclear energy, biotech, space. And for each of those portfolios on my team, I have one or two people that help run that portfolio. So I have a space team of about three guys, and they coordinate space policy across the government. So they bring NASA in, they bring the Department of War that has a bunch of satellites for national security purposes, and they all sit together and kind of sort out the policy.

所以我会说，在典型的一天里，你通常做的事情之一是利益相关者会议。比如 Luther 过来说：“哦，嘿，伙计们，你们得关注小科技，等等等等。”然后我听着。

So I would say on a typical day, the general things that you do are, one, stakeholder meetings. So Luther comes and says, "Oh, hey guys, you know, you got to look out for little tech, da da da da da." And I listen to him.

别和解苹果案。

Don't settle the Apple case.

所以有利益相关者的事情。第二类工作就是做政策的基础工作。就像总统说过的那样，比如我们必须确保商业无人机飞行正在发生。所以让我们想办法实现。让我们推动 FAA 改变这条规则，诸如此类。把各机构聚在一起，做那类工作。

So there's the stakeholder stuff. And the second category of work is just the blocking and tackling of doing policy. It's like work the president has said, like we have to make sure that commercial drone flight is happening. So let's figure out how to do it. Let's push FAA to change this rule, that kind of stuff. Bring the agencies together and do that kind of work.

嗯，所以这些是两大块工作。第三类是做像这样的事，比如分享总统的信息，与全国各地的人交谈，了解他们的挑战，并试图看看我们能如何提供帮助。

Um, so those are kind of the two big buckets of stuff. And then the third is doing things like this, like sharing the president's message and talking to people around the country, understanding what their challenges are and trying to see how we can be helpful.

关于你提到的主任与总统助理的区别，在白宫内部，有一类人被称为委任官员，他们大致有三个级别。有总统助理，他们是总统最资深的顾问。大约有 20 人左右，我拥有这个头衔，但幕僚长和其他人也有。然后是副助理，然后是特别助理。有这样一个层级结构，我们都向上流动以支持总统。

To your point on the director versus the assistant to the president, within the White House there are folks called commissioned officers, and they sort of have three ranks. There's an assistant to the president, which are sort of the most senior advisors to the president. There's about 20 or so of those people, and that's the title that I have, but that's one that the chief of staff has and others. And then there's deputies, and then there's specials. There's kind of this hierarchy where we all kind of flow up to support the president.

那么实际上，这意味着什么？你能随时走进椭圆形办公室吗？你多久与总统互动一次？它是如何运作的？因为我认为人们不一定意识到白宫有多少人工作。

So practically, what does that mean? Can you just wander into the Oval Office whenever you want? How often are you interacting with the president? And how does it function? Because I think people don't necessarily appreciate how many people work at the White House.

所以我认为，不过多深入细节和机制，但正如我提到的，有这些政策流程，你把所有机构聚在一起，开始处理一个问题。你可以想象那是金字塔的底部，他们试图解决问题。如果他们解决了，那就太好了。

So I think, not getting too much into the weeds and mechanics, but as I mentioned, there are these policy processes where you bring all the agencies together and you start working on a problem. And you can imagine that is kind of the bottom of the pyramid, and they try to sort out the problem. And if they sort it out, then it's great.

然后政策就结束了，开始执行。如果有分歧，比如有人说“不不不，这是编造的”，像国防部某个人说“我不喜欢这个无人机政策，因为我希望无人机远离军事基地，必须更严格”。如果他们无法达成一致，就会上报到下一级。然后你可以想象，各机构更高级别的人会进行讨论。如果他们还是无法达成一致，就会再往上报。如果还是不行，最终会提交给总统做决定。你要做的是限制提交给总统的决策数量，因为他时间有限，应该专注于对国家最重要、最符合国家优先事项的事情。所以对我们来说，当某些高风险的 AI 或技术问题需要总统参与时，我们会提交给他。我们进行对话，他做出最终决定。

Then policy is over and it gets executed. If there is disagreement and someone's like no, no, no, no, like this is made up, like some guy at the Department of War is like no, I don't like this drone policy because I don't want drones anywhere near military sites. That has to be way more stringent. So if they can't agree, then it kicks up to the next level. So then you can imagine more senior people at all the agencies kind of chat. And if they can't agree, then it gets up even higher. And then if they can't agree, then it ultimately goes up to the president for a decision. So what you try to do is limit the decisions that get to the president because he has limited amount of time and he should be focused on the things that are most important to the country and to the national priority. So for us, when there are certain high-stakes AI or technology issues that the president needs to weigh in on, we bring them to him. We have a conversation and he weighs in and makes the ultimate decision.

嗯，我问这个问题的部分原因，也是我想展开说明的，是希望台下的观众能理解迈克尔有多忙。

Well, part of the reason I ask this and I wanted to unpack that is I wanted people in this audience to appreciate how busy Michael is.

因为我的意思是，我们真的欠他一份感激，感谢他大量的公共服务，以及我们今天能和他共度一些时间。因为在处理所有这些繁忙事务的同时，你刚刚发布了一份大约 150 页的报告。我想谈谈科学和新黄金时代。这份报告这周发布了。

Because I mean, truly we owe a debt of gratitude to just the amount of public service and the fact that we got some time with him today. Because sometime in managing all of that flurry of activity, you've just released a like 150-page report. I want to talk about science and new golden age. This came out this week.

是的。

Yep.

那给我们讲讲吧。

So tell us about it.

嗯，也许我们可以从一点历史开始，因为我认为这正是启发我们写这份报告的原因。1945 年，罗斯福总统给他的科学顾问写了一封信。当时担任我这个职位的人叫万尼瓦尔·布什。在那封信中，他基本上问科学顾问，二战后我们应该怎么做，如何对待科学生态系统？你可以想象，二战期间，联邦政府投入科学和技术生态系统的很多精力都集中在让国家为战争做好准备。所以大量资金花在了曼哈顿计划和其他项目上。万尼瓦尔·布什给罗斯福回了一封著名的报告，叫《科学：无尽的前沿》，他在报告中基本上说，政府在资助科学和技术方面扮演着非常重要的角色，要符合国家利益，特别是资助早期基础研究。他提出，有些事情只有政府会做，因为私营部门没有动力去做。那份报告基本上奠定了我们国家过去 70 年做科学的方式。但时代已经发生了巨大变化。那时，大约 1950 年，几乎 70% 的研发资金来自联邦政府，所以他们对资金流向几乎有垄断权，私营部门只承担了大约 30% 或更少。随着时间的推移，这种情况完全反转了。现在私营部门加上慈善机构承担了大约 70% 的研发，政府只承担大约 30%。而且如果你想想纯粹的基础研究，比如你在大学里看到的那种，现在联邦政府和私营部门几乎持平。所以这个系统已经从根本上改变了，系统中的参与者也有了巨大变化。你们所有人都存在。你们作为初创公司创始人，在做着令人难以置信的工作。你们有这些叫 FRO 的组织，即焦点研究组织，它们独立于大学之外，自己做研究。正因为系统变了，我们作为政府认为，必须重新审视这个国家做科学和技术的方式，以最大化其成果。当我被参议院确认担任这个职位时，特朗普总统给我写了一封信，和罗斯福的方式非常相似，问了我几个问题，关于我们如何振兴和重新激发科学生态系统。我们花了一年时间写了一份报告回复他，关于我们能做什么。其中有几个主要主题我们可以深入探讨，但核心论点，我认为适用于你们，其中一个主要支柱，就是基于这个基本信念：人工智能将改变这个国家科学发现的方式。如果你在研究材料科学、制药、化学，你在两三年后，甚至今天，作为科学家的角色都会因为人工智能而发生巨大变化。而我们作为政府，每年花费近 2000 亿美元资助研发，需要意识到这一点并优先考虑，以确保我们的生态系统能产出世界上最好的研究。

Well, maybe we can start with just a little bit of history because I think that's what sort of inspired us to write this report. In 1945, FDR wrote a letter to his science advisor. The person who had my role was called Vannevar Bush. In that letter he essentially asked the science advisor what should we do and how do we approach the science ecosystem after World War II? If you can imagine during World War II, a lot of the energy that the federal government put into the science and tech ecosystem was around getting the nation ready for the war. So a lot of money was spent in launching the Manhattan Project and all this other stuff. And Vannevar Bush replied back to FDR with a famous report called Science: The Endless Frontier, where he essentially said the government has a very important role to play in funding science and technology in the national interest, and particularly in funding early-stage basic research. And he made the point that there is stuff that only the government is going to do because the private sector isn't incentivized to do. And essentially that report laid out how we've been doing science as a country for the last 70 years. But times have changed pretty dramatically. Back then, around 1950, almost 70% of all R&D was being funded by the federal government. So they kind of had a monopoly over where the money was going to go, and only about 30% or less was done by the private sector. Over time, that has sort of inverted completely. The private sector plus philanthropy now do about 70% of R&D, and the government only does about 30%. And just if you think of pure basic research, the kind of stuff that you see at universities, there's almost parity between the federal government and private sector now. So the system has fundamentally changed, and the actors within the system have changed dramatically. All of you guys exist. You guys are doing incredible work as startup founders. You have these organizations called FROs, which are focused research organizations that sit outside of universities and do their own research. And because that system has changed, we as an administration believe that we have to re-look at the way science and technology is done in this country to get the most out of it. And when I was confirmed by the Senate for my role, President Trump wrote me a letter, very similar to the way FDR did, and asked me a couple of questions around how can we revitalize and re-energize the science ecosystem. And we spent the last year writing a report back to him on what we can do. And there are a couple of main themes that we can get into around that, but the core sort of thesis that I think applies to you, one of the main pillars, is around this fundamental belief that artificial intelligence is going to transform the way scientific discovery is done in this country. If you are working on material science, pharmaceuticals, chemistry, you in two or three years, or even today, are doing your role as a scientist dramatically different because of artificial intelligence. And we as a government that spend almost 200 billion dollars a year on funding R&D need to be aware of that and prioritize that so we can make sure that our ecosystem is putting out the best possible research in the world.

所以这份报告的最后一章描绘了一个几乎科幻的画面。是的，你谈到 AI 智能体为实验发布赏金，承包机器人云实验室，在账本上结算结果，然后预算备忘录变得非常具体。快速资助在一个月内决定。奖项设计为三比一的私人杠杆。每个主要机构在 90 天内提交行动计划。你在报告中写道，政府的工作是塑造竞技场，而不是直接指导发现。

So the last chapter of this report sketches this kind of almost sci-fi picture. And yeah, you're talking about AI agents posting bounties for experiments, contracting robotic cloud labs, settling results on a ledger, and then the budget memo gets really concrete. Fast grants decided in under a month. Prizes built for three-to-one private leverage. Every major agency filing an action plan within 90 days. And you write in this report that the government's job is to shape the arena, not direct discovery.

是的。

Yep.

那么，对于我们在座的上千人，你希望一些 20 多岁的年轻人去构建这个愿景中的哪一部分，因为政府不能或不应该做？

So, for the thousands of people we have assembled here, what is the piece of that vision you're hoping a couple of 20-year-olds build because the government cannot or should not?

对我来说，我认为支持美国科学生态系统的基础设施将在未来几年发生根本性变化。你可以拥有自主云实验室，循环运行实验，无需人工干预，测试假设，运行实验，查看结果，创建新假设，测试并运行，最终得出结论，这个想法就在眼前。但要让这一切运作起来，还有很多事情需要做。我们必须完善机器人技术，才能创建这些实验室。你必须创建正确的软件生态系统，以便能够思考下一个假设并创建下一个假设。所以，对我来说，我认为要创建这个自主实验的世界，有几乎无限的工作可以做，我们所有跨领域的科学家都将利用它来做出这些发现。

To me, I think the infrastructure that is going to support the scientific ecosystem in the United States is going to fundamentally change over the next few years. The idea that you can have autonomous cloud labs running experiments on a loop without human intervention, testing hypotheses, running the experiments, seeing the results, creating a new hypothesis, testing it and running it, and ultimately getting to a conclusion, that is in our sights. But for all of that to work, there are lots of things that still need to be done. We have to get robotics perfected so that you can create these labs. You have to create the right software ecosystem to be able to think through the next hypothesis and create the next hypothesis. So, to me, I think there's almost an infinite category of work that can be done to create this world of autonomous experimentation that all of our scientists across so many domains are going to be leveraging to make these discoveries.

我的意思是，你提到了我认为你正在展望未来的一些事情。但除了 AI 之外，你认为五年后华盛顿会非常关注、而今天却很少讨论的技术是什么？

I mean, you alluded to some of the things that I think you're looking out toward into the future. But beyond AI, what technology do you think that Washington will care enormously about in 5 years that it barely discusses today?

嗯，我们讨论得很多，但我认为它没有得到应有的关注，那就是量子信息科学技术或量子计算。对我来说，在特朗普第一届政府时期，也就是 2017、2018 年左右，我当时担任美国首席技术官。在那个职位上，我记得我经常在白宫西翼跑来跑去，试图说服人们人工智能是一件重要的事情。也许每隔几个月，就会有记者好心写一篇关于 AI 以及政府正在做什么的文章。

Well, we discuss it a lot, but I don't think it gets as much airtime as it should, and that would be quantum information science technology or quantum computing. To me, back in the first Trump administration, in the 2017, 2018 era, I was Chief Technology Officer of the United States. In that role, I remember constantly running around the West Wing trying to convince people that artificial intelligence was an important thing. And maybe once every couple months some journalist would be nice enough to write an article about AI and what the government was doing.

这大概是 2017、2018 年的事。

This is like 2017, 2018.

2018 年。我非常感谢特朗普总统。他站出来说：“我将签署美国历史上第一份优先发展人工智能的行政命令”，那是在 2019 年 2 月。这基本上确立了历史上第一个国家 AI 战略。通过这个，我们创建了第一套关于各机构应如何考虑 AI 技术的监管思路。但时代真的变了。我认为我们当时所做的努力，基本上是将预算中投入 AI 的研发资金翻了一番——你快速推进四年，就有了 ChatGPT，现在一切都爆发了。显然，我们在政府里所做的并不一定是 ChatGPT 发生的原因，但我认为我们花了很多工作来优先考虑和准备科技生态系统，以便为那个时刻做好准备，我认为它确实准备好了。如果我们把这一点与今天相类比，我认为同样的时刻正在量子领域发生。确实还有一些基本的科学问题需要回答，关于量子如何应用于计算和传感等领域，这项工作正在进行中。而且总统刚刚签署了一项关于量子信息科学的行政命令，我们将在未来几年做大量工作来优先考虑它。他为能源部设定了一个相当雄心勃勃的目标，即到 2028 年建造一台具有科学相关性的量子计算机。我的感觉是，我们将在三、四、五年后醒来，看到我们取得的进展。

2018. And I give President Trump an incredible amount of credit. He stood up and said, "I'm going to sign the first executive order in the history of the United States prioritizing artificial intelligence" in February of 2019. That essentially set out the first national strategy in history on AI. And through that, we created the first kind of regulatory thinking around how our agencies should be contemplating AI technologies. But times have really changed. And I think the effort we put in there to essentially double the amount of R&D that we were putting into AI in our budgets then—you fast forward through 4 years and we have ChatGPT and everything's exploded now. Obviously, what we did in the administration wasn't necessarily the reason why ChatGPT happened, but I think we spent a lot of work trying to prioritize and prime the S&T ecosystem to be ready for the moment, and I think it was. And if we parallelize that to today, I think that same moment is happening with quantum. There are truly some basic fundamental scientific questions that still need to be answered on how quantum can be applied to things like computing and sensing, and that work goes on. And the president just signed an executive order on quantum information science, and we're going to do a ton of work over the next few years to prioritize it. He set a pretty ambitious goal for the Department of Energy to build a scientifically relevant quantum computer by 2028. My sense is we're going to wake up in 3, 4, 5 years and see the progress we've made.

我们谈了很多关于行政部门及其权力、行政命令被用来塑造 AI 政策的问题。你认为国会在这些问题上可以做得更好的是什么？因为似乎我们经常读到关于 AI 的行政命令，这一事实可能意味着我们的立法部门可以做得更好。

We've talked a lot about the executive branch and its authority, executive orders being used to shape AI policy. What do you think Congress could be doing better on these issues? Because it seems like the mere fact that we read so often about executive orders in AI might imply that our legislative branch could be doing a better job.

是的，我认为国会的事情在 AI 方面有点棘手。挑战在于我们之前谈到过的，你不一定想太早制定规则，最终伤害行业而不是支持它。关于行政命令，有个小秘密，就是当政府更迭时，你可以直接撤销行政命令，然后重新开始。但当某件事成为法律时，你不能这样做。这是国家的法律。所以我们非常努力地寻找可以与国会合作的地方，制定真正有利于创新并帮助国家的规则。白宫今年早些时候向国会提出了一套立法建议，其中涉及我们认为如果写入法规会带来很多好处的几个领域。但我再说一遍，我们敦促国会通过某种关于优先权的法律，这样我们就不会出现各州在 AI 上各行其是的疯狂拼凑局面。我认为另一个很多美国人希望国会加强的领域是 AI 如何与知识产权以及某些美国人的姓名、形象和肖像权互动。我认为有很多创作者担心 AI 会如何影响他们的工作。我认为我们所有人，我们都有某种技艺。有些人是歌手，有些人是作家，所以你们所有人都是了不起的编码员。你们都有技能和才华，围绕这一点有一些保护和认知是相当重要的，这也是我们一直在讨论的事情。

Yeah, I think that the congressional stuff is a little tricky with AI. The challenge is what we spoke about a little earlier, where you don't necessarily want to set rules of the road too early that end up hurting the industry rather than supporting it. The thing about executive orders, which is a little secret, is when administration changes, you can just revoke the executive order and start from scratch again. When something is a law, you can't do that. It's the law of the land. So we work very hard to try to find places where we can collaborate with Congress to set rules that are actually pro-innovation and help the country. And the White House put out a set of legislative proposals to Congress earlier this year that walk through a couple areas where we think a lot of benefit could happen if it was in statute. But I'll say it again, we would urge Congress to pass some sort of law around preemption so we don't have this crazy patchwork of all these different states doing all these different things on AI. I think another area that a lot of Americans want to see Congress step up on is how AI interacts with intellectual property and with name, image, and likeness of certain Americans. I think there's a lot of creators out there that are worried about how AI is going to impact what they do. And I think all of us, we all have a craft of some kind. Some people are singers, some people are writers, so all of you are unbelievable coders. All of you have skills and talents, and having some protections and knowing around that is kind of important and something we've been talking about.

是的，你认为白宫在这方面的立场是什么？如果你有一根魔杖，可以解决知识产权问题，那会是什么样子？因为我觉得我和传统媒体行业的人谈过，他们正在对 AI 公司左右提起诉讼。而在另一个极端，我和纯粹主义者谈过，他们说甚至不应该允许你选择退出被爬取用于训练。你能稍微谈谈解开这个问题吗？

Yeah, where do you think—what is the sort of the White House line on that? If you had a magic wand and you could sort of solve the IP issue, how would it be described? Because I feel like I've spoken with people from the traditional media industry that are just filing lawsuits against AI companies left and right. And on the other end of the spectrum, I've talked to pure maxis that say you should not even be able to opt out of being crawled for the purposes of training. Could you talk a little bit about unpacking that issue?

是的，我认为我一直明确的一个领域是模型输出。如果你创建一个输出米老鼠的模型——

Yeah, I think the one area that I've been clear on is the model outputs. And if you create a model that is outputting Mickey Mouse—

是的。

Yeah.

——你知道，那不行。不能那样做。

—you know, not cool. Can't do that.

等等。

Wait.

什么？那是华特迪士尼，他们不应该允许人们输出那个。所以我认为在法规中更明确这一点非常重要。我认为行业还可以在某种程度上自我协调，为创作者寻找有趣的收入分成模式。有很多创作者愿意将自己的个人知识产权授权给公司，这些公司可以用它做各种事情，无论是音乐家还是其他任何人。

What? That's Walt Disney, and they shouldn't be allowing people to output that. So I think making that more clear in statute is very important. I think there's also a lot of things that the industry can self-coordinate on a little bit, on finding interesting revenue-sharing models for creators. There's a lot of creators out there that would love to license their own personal IP to companies that can do all sorts of stuff with it, whether they're musicians or anything else.

我今天早上刚读到我的老东家 Yelp 与 ChatGPT 做了一笔交易，我想他们正在输出一些评论——所以，是的，你开始看到更多这样的情况。

I actually just read this morning my old company Yelp did a deal with ChatGPT where I guess they're outputting some of the reviews for—so, yeah, you're starting to see a lot more of that.

完全正确。而且，看，这还早。

Exactly. And look, it's early.

我认为随着时间的推移，这个市场会成熟，这也许是一个你不想太快立法的领域。你得让市场自行调整。但我确实认为这很重要，因为美国人普遍关心这件事。

I think over time that market is going to mature, and that's maybe a category of places where you probably don't want to legislate too fast. You've got to let the market sort itself out. But I do think it's important because Americans generally care.

好的，最后收尾，问最后一个问题：你是这个职位上最年轻的人之一。对在座关心科技及其如何塑造国家的 20 多岁的年轻人来说，他们中是否应该有人将来去政府工作？他们在那里会有什么发现？

Well, to close us out, one final question: you were one of the youngest people ever in your role. To the 20-year-olds in this room who care about technology and how it shapes the country, should some of them work in government someday? And what would they find there?

我向你们所有人推荐：如果在你的职业生涯或人生中有机会在政府任职，我保证你永远不会再遇到比这更充实、更有回报的时刻。这可能会很艰难，可能充满官僚作风，也可能很痛苦，但当结果真正实现、你交付成果时，没有哪个地方能让你对这个国家产生更大的影响。你们所有人在这里都是为了创办公司，热衷于创造新事物、雇佣更多美国人、开发能触及众多同胞生活的科技。政府中也有类似的方面——创造能让初创企业蓬勃发展、让新公司得以建立的环境。我相信这其中有非常充实和有意义的东西，而且以服务美国同胞的方式去做，是我鼓励你们所有人去尝试的。如果你们中有人想在白宫科技政策办公室工作，尽管来找我们，因为我们一直在寻找优秀人才。

I would recommend to all of you: if there's a moment in your career or your life where you can take a role in government, I guarantee you will never have a moment that is more fulfilling and rewarding. It can be a slog, it can be bureaucratic, it can be painful, but when the outcome actually happens and you deliver the result, there is no place where you can have a bigger impact on this country. All of you are here to build companies, excited about building new things, hiring more Americans, building technologies that will touch the lives of so many of our fellow citizens. There's some flavor of that in government—creating the environment that can allow startups to thrive, allow new companies to be built. I believe there's something very fulfilling and rewarding about that, and doing it in the service of your fellow Americans is something I'd encourage all of you to do. If any of you want to work in the White House Science and Technology Office, just look us up—we're always looking for good people.

好的，Kratsios 主任，作为 Y Combinator 驻华盛顿的公共政策负责人，我真的很感谢你的办公室和政府的开放态度，以及在这些问题上的深思熟虑。我也非常感谢你今天来 Y Combinator AI 创业学校演讲。让我们为 Kratsios 主任鼓掌。谢谢。

Well, Director Kratsios, I just have to say, as Y Combinator's head of public policy based in Washington, I really appreciate the accessibility of your office and the administration, and the thoughtfulness on these issues. I also really appreciate you coming out and speaking to Y Combinator AI Startup School today. Let's give it up for Director Kratsios. Thank you.

谢谢。

Thank you.