Claude 为何还当不了你的产品经理：Anthropic 的 Mike 与 Ami 谈产品角色的演变

欢迎。最近怎么样？

Welcome. How's it going?

挺好的。状态不错。你们大家怎么样？

Good. Doing great. How are you all?

见到大家真高兴。这活动是不是很棒？我感觉气氛特别欢乐。

So nice to see you all. Isn't this a great event? I feel like it's just so happy.

是啊，氛围很好。

Yeah. It's good vibes.

我想用一个人人都在想的问题来开场：一年前我们被告知 AI 可能会让产品经理变得多余，而现在我感觉风向变成了人人都得成为产品经理。我特别喜欢跟你们两位聊的一点是，正因为你们在 Anthropic 工作、以你们的方式和模型打交道，你们对未来的走向、尤其是对不同岗位的演变会有一点感觉。我特别希望你们两位跟我们聊聊，在 Anthropic，一个出色的产品经理是什么样子。产品经理这个角色会消失吗？它在变化吗？如果变了，是怎么变的？

So, I want to start this conversation off with the question that I think is on everybody's minds, which is a year ago we were told that AI might make PMs obsolete and now I feel like the vibes are that everyone needs to become a PM. You know, one of the things I love about getting to talk to both of you is just by being at Anthropic and working with the models in the way that you do, you have a little bit of a sense of where the future is going, especially for different job roles. And I'd really love for both of you to talk to us about what a great PM at Anthropic looks like. Is the PM role going away? Is it changing? And if so, how?

我觉得产品的职责始终是充当一座桥梁，连接人们真实存在的问题和你用来解决问题的技术。这一点一直如此。而现在奇怪的一点是，过去技术大概每 10 年或 5 年才变一次，现在感觉每两个月就变一次。这真的很难。作为一个人，我觉得很难学会应对这种变化。所以我一直想的是：技术这一侧在变，但人的那一侧并没有变得那么快。我们面对的还是同样的问题。所以我总在想，我怎样才能痴迷于解决人的问题，同时对技术如何运作保持特别新鲜的眼光？我怎样才能基本上把过去解决这个问题时管用的那些经验大部分扔掉，然后带着我对这个问题所知的一切重新再试一次。

I think the job of product is always to be a bridge between the real problems that people have in the world and the technology that you can use to solve it. And that's always been true. And I think a thing that is weird right now is that it used to be that the technology would change every 10 years or 5 years and now it feels like it changes every two months. And that's really hard. As a human I feel like it's really hard to learn how to deal with that sort of change. And so what I always think about is the technology side is changing but the human side doesn't change that fast. We have the same problems. And so what I always think about is how can I be obsessed with solving the human problems and then stay super fresh-eyed about how the technology works? How can I basically throw away most of what I know about what used to work to solve this problem and then try again, knowing everything I do about the problem.

所以我觉得那部分没有变。我认为变了的是，这几乎像是把时钟往回拨。我刚开始做产品的时候，我们并没有定义，我们根本不知道这份工作是什么。所以你就只是一个通用的问题解决者，四处走动，试着解决问题，直到撞上一堵墙，然后你去问别人或者自己想办法。我觉得现在我们能做的就是回到那种一堆角色彼此模糊的状态，但你就是继续往前走，试着搞清楚什么会奏效，然后当你撞墙时，你已经有各种不同的支撑结构了。

And so I feel like that part hasn't changed. What I think has changed is it's almost like rewinding the clock. When I started in product, we didn't have definitions. We just didn't know what the job was. And so you were just a general problem solver and you'd walk around and try to solve a problem until you ran into a wall and then you would ask somebody or figure it out. And I feel like that's what we can do now is go back to a bunch of the roles blurring, but you just keep going and try to figure out what's going to work and then when you hit a wall, you have all these different sorts of scaffolding.

有道理。Mike，你有什么要补充的吗？

Yeah, that makes sense. Mike, anything from you?

对我来说，我最近有一个真正的顿悟时刻。今年年初我转到了一个 IC（个人贡献者）岗位，所以我主要在做构建。当时我们有个东西快要发布了。最近，一位和 Ami 共事的产品负责人把我拉到一边说：“Mike，我知道你热爱构建。这个项目进展顺利，看起来非常令人兴奋。我们真的需要在这个项目上配一个产品经理。”我说：“我不知道。我们真的需要产品经理吗？Claude 能搞定。我们手头事情已经很多了。”她说：“不，我们真的需要一个产品经理。”结果她加入之后，这真是一个提醒：所有那些黏合剂、所有那些连接组织、所有那些本来会被漏掉的事情——如果我没做那件事，它们就会发生。那真是一个很酷的、前后对比鲜明的顿悟。以至于一周后我给她发消息说：“Cat，你百分之百是对的。谢谢你。”

I think for me, I had a real realization moment recently. Earlier, beginning of the year, I shifted to an IC role. So, I'm mostly building. And we were getting close to shipping something. And recently, one of the PM leads who works with Ami pulled me aside and was like, "Mike, I know you love to build. This project's going well. It's looking really exciting. We really need a PM on this project." I was like, "I don't know. Do we need a PM? Claude's got it. We've got a lot going on." And she's like, "No, we really need a PM." And it was such a reminder once they joined, all of the things and all the glue and all of the connective tissue and all of the things that were about to get dropped if I had not done that would have happened. And it was just such a cool eye-opening before and after. So much so that a week later I pinged her and I was like, "Cat, you were 100% right. And thank you."

我想到这其中涵盖的所有事情。我们是一家服务从专业消费者一直到超大型企业的公司。你有没有把所有这些应急情况都带上？当我们需要去弄清楚如何让客户成功团队在问题实时出现时能谈论这些变化，有人想过这件事吗？有人把安全防护团队拉进来了吗？这显然非常非常重要。大家有没有保持在正轨上？所有这些事情。而没有人拥有无限的精力，即使有这些工具的辅助。所以，能有一个人扮演这个角色，确保一切都会顺利、一切都会被连接起来、我们始终把终端用户的需求放在心上——就像 Ami 说的——并且让那些埋头苦干、完全进入 Claude 模式的构建者能继续做下去，而不必突然抽身去做一件非常不同的活动，也就是你究竟如何确保所有这些事情顺利进行。我觉得这非常关键。我认为现在发生的一切只是：因为我们可以走得更快，你在这个角色上必须在运营上做到卓越，甚至超出你以前必须达到的程度。但它绝对没有消失。事实上，我感到一种 renewed 的确认：是的，这就是——如果你在为一个团队招人，你需要有人来戴这些帽子，这顶帽子正变得越来越重要。

And I think about all the things that encompassed. We're a company that serves everybody from prosumers all the way to really large enterprises. Have you brought all of that contingency along? When we need to go and figure out how to enable our customer success team to talk about the changes as questions come up in real time, has somebody thought about that? Has somebody looped in safeguards? It's obviously very, very important. Are people getting kept on track? All of these things. And nobody has infinite capacity even with the assistance of these tools. So to be able to have somebody playing that role of making sure that everything is going to go well, everything is going to get connected, we've kept the end user needs in mind — to Ami's point — and that the builders who are heads down and in full-on Claude mode can keep doing that without having to then pop out and do the very different activity, which is how do you actually make sure all these things go well. I think that's very essential. And I think all that's happened now is that because we can move faster, you have to be operationally excellent in that role in a way that's even beyond what you had to be before. But it definitely has not gone away. In fact, I have felt this renewed sense of yes, this is a — if you're recruiting for a team and you need people to wear these hats, this hat is increasingly important.

不过我能问你一个严肃的问题吗？

Can I ask you a serious question though?

只问严肃的问题。严肃的。这是严肃的。

Only serious questions. Serious. This is serious.

你为什么不干脆让 Fable 来做呢？比如，那是什么——我猜你们能用到某个我们还没能用上的 Fable 7。那么，那个人在做的事情，有什么是你没法直接让 Fable 做的？

Why didn't you just have Fable do it? Like, what is — and I presumably there's some Fable 7 you've got access to that we don't have access to yet. So, like what is that person doing that you couldn't just have Fable do?

这确实很有意思。你可以想象，我们跑在 Claude 上，我们也有很多 Claude 提供的连接组织，它确实能捕捉到一些东西，比如它会说：嘿，组织的另一个部分还有另一件事在发生，你应该知道——我们是通过斜杠搜索找到的。所以也有这一块。我不认为 Claude 已经是一个召集者了。几周前我做了一个演讲，讲在后超级强大 AI 时代人的角色是什么，我想到了一堆原型，其中一个就是召集者——仍然需要有人把 Claude 们和人聚到一起，才能把工作完成。所以我认为那就是我的角色——组织上的号召力或者排期能力——我还没——Dan，将来会有那么一个时刻，Claude 给我安排一个会议或者替我安排会议，我会问：这会议是谁安排的？它会说：哦，是我——我觉得你们俩该聊聊。这还没发生，但不是因为它做不到。我猜我们只是还没打开那个设置，你知道吧。

I mean it is interesting. As you can imagine, we run on Claude, and we have a lot of Claude-provided connective tissue too, and it does catch things where you say, hey, there's another thing going on in this other part of the organization that you should be aware of — we found it via the slash search. So there is that sort of piece as well. I don't think Claude is a convenor yet. I gave a talk a couple weeks ago on what's the role of the human in the post-super-powerful-AI age, and there's a bunch of archetypes I was thinking about, but one of them was the convenor — somebody still needs to bring the Claudes and the people together to get the work done. And so I think that is the role that I — organizational pull or the scheduling ability — I've yet — this is going to be a moment, Dan, when Claude schedules a meeting with me or for me where I'm like, who scheduled this meeting? It's like, oh, did I — I thought you two should talk. That has not happened yet, but not because it can't. I guess we just like turned on that setting, you know.

敬请期待。

Stay tuned.

我觉得我们也生活在一个工具非常强大的世界里，你可以构建很多东西，而且能非常快地构建出来。

I think we're also living in a world where the tools are really good and you can build a lot of things and you can build them really fast.

在某些方面，这恰恰拓展了“可以构建什么”的边界，而你仍然需要非常好的判断力来决定构建什么，依据有时是相当有限的信息，因为一切感觉都跑得飞快。所以你得想清楚要构建什么，然后我觉得在某些方面，你必须更加锲而不舍地确保它真的发生，因为你能走的岔路太多了。

In some ways that just expands the universe of what is possible to build, and you still need to have really good judgment about what to build based on sometimes pretty limited information, because it feels like everything's moving really fast. So you have to figure out what to build, and then I think in some ways you have to be even more relentless about making sure it happens, because there are so many forking paths that you could take.

我心里清楚我们需要做什么，我和真正会使用它的人之间有反馈回路，我知道人的问题在哪里，那我就直接去做。

I have an idea of what we need to do, and I have the feedback loop to the people who are going to use it, and I know what the human problems are, and I'm just going to go for it.

我觉得这种锲而不舍，以及在模糊中做出判断的能力，真的非常重要。

And I think that sort of relentlessness and judgment in the face of ambiguity is really important.

这绝对是我亲身感受到的。每一次出现转变，每一次有新模型发布，就好像你望着大海，心想：地平线之外是什么？然后你得以快进到地平线之外，你看到了什么？嗯，还有更多东西。那是一整片全新的地貌。它不是什么乌托邦，也不可怕。只是有很多新东西等着你去发现和探索。我觉得对模型整体而言也是如此。

That is definitely something that I have found. Every time there's a shift, every time new models come out, it's sort of like you're looking out on the ocean and you're like, what's beyond the horizon? And then you get to fast forward beyond the horizon, and what do you see? Well, there's more stuff. There's a whole new landscape. It's not a utopia and it's not horrible. It's just lots of new things to discover and navigate. And I think the same is true for models in general.

Ami，我们在为这次对话做准备时聊到，你说过一件事——你在产品管理领域有很长的职业生涯，但在来 Anthropic 之前——你花了几十年学习如何以产品领导者的身份回答某些特定类型的问题，而这些问题你现在已经不需要回答了。所以我很好奇：你花了那么长时间打磨的技能里，哪些你其实觉得已经没那么有用了？你现在更多依靠的是什么？这又如何传导到团队，以及你对招进来的人的期望上？

When we were talking, Ami, in planning for this conversation, one of the things that you said — and you've had a long career in product management, but prior to Anthropic — is that you spent decades learning how to answer specific kinds of questions as a product leader that you now no longer need to answer. So I'm curious: what are the skills that you spent such a long time building that you actually don't feel are that useful anymore? And what are the things that you're leaning on now more? And then how does that filter down into the team and your expectations for the people that you hire?

我觉得这确实是真的。我花了很长时间去理解如何把自己放进用户的心智里，理解某个东西会怎样融入他们的生活，以及我们应该构建什么，因为当时构建和发布一个东西实在太贵了。所以真的会发生这种事：大家开评审会，我们讨论的是这个按钮该放在哪里。我们会讨论交互模式，讨论用户的手指在手机上会落在哪里，讨论他们从口袋里掏出手机时处在什么情境、想要什么。我觉得我当时真的很努力想在那块产品与设计的结合部做到出色。而我就是觉得，以后不会再有人问我那个问题了。

I think it's really true. I spent a really long time trying to understand how to put myself in the mindset of a user, how something would fit into their lives, and what we should build, because it was so expensive to build and ship something. So literally this would happen: people would have reviews, and what we'd talk about is, where should we put this button? And we would talk about the interaction pattern, and where someone's finger would go on their phone, and what situation they'd be in when they pulled their phone out of their pocket, and what they wanted. And I feel like I tried really hard to get good at that mix of product and design. And I just don't think anyone's ever going to ask me that question again.

那是个寓言了。那是个寓言了。

That's a fable. That's a fable one.

那都是过去了。现在其实更快的方式是直接做三个版本试一下，然后说，哦对，这个版本对这种情况管用。所以我曾经引以为傲的一件事，其实已经没那么有用了。而且我觉得，单从身份认同的角度讲，这真的很难。我们谈公司层面的“创新者窘境”，就是你太擅长一件事，就一直想继续做它，哪怕也许有另一件事你该去尝试，但你做不到，因为你已经太擅长那一件事了。我觉得在个人层面也是如此：我有时会觉得，哦，我知道我擅长什么，我就继续做那个吧，哪怕也许有另一种做法在未来更重要。所以这就是我鼓励大家去思考的。当你想到那座产品之桥，技术每两个月就变一次，其中一部分就是你必须扔掉你在这份工作里、在使用那项技术时对自己的认知，去尝试点不一样的。而且大多数时候，我并不知道自己能不能做好。我从没在模型公司工作过。这不是我拥有专业积累的地方，我就是觉得每隔几个月我都得不断对自己说：好吧，那就试试另一件事，看看我能不能搞明白。

That's in the past. Now it's actually faster to just build three versions and try them out and be like, oh yeah, this works for this one. So a thing that I prided myself on is not actually that useful anymore. And I do think that's really hard just in terms of identity. We talk about the innovator's dilemma when it comes to companies, where you're so good at one thing, you keep trying to do it even when there's this other thing that maybe you should try doing, but you can't because you're already so good at one thing. And I feel like that's also true on a personal level, where I sometimes feel like, oh, I know what I'm good at, I'm just going to keep trying to do that, even when there might be a different way to do it that might be more important in the future. And so that's what I encourage everyone to think about. When you think about that product bridge, part of the technology changing every two months is that you have to throw away what you knew about yourself in the job using that technology and just try something different. And most of the time I don't know if I'm going to be any good at it. I've never worked at a model company. This is not a place where I have expertise, and I just feel like every couple of months I have to constantly be like, all right, well, let's try this other thing and see if I can figure it out.

能把这件做得好的人，具备哪些特质？而你自己为了做好它，又必须培养什么？

What are the characteristics of someone that is able to do that well? And what have you had to develop in order to do that well?

我觉得这又回到我们刚才聊的那些东西。我觉得提高自己对变化的容忍上限、愿意拥抱变化，这超级重要。所以适应力——我相信这不算新鲜——在当今世界变化如此之快的背景下，适应力就是如此关键。我觉得那种判断力和锲而不舍，就像我们说的，是我反复回到的东西。而我真正想为团队考虑的是：我觉得把这些说出来很重要，因为否则会让人感觉很孤独，好像只有你一个人必须不断适应。但实际上每个人都必须不断适应，我觉得这对我们所有人都很难。但我也在谈，要试着去框定这种混乱，让它感觉没那么消耗人。

I mean, I think it comes back to the sorts of things we were talking about. I think raising your ceiling on tolerance for change and being willing to embrace change is super important. So adaptability — I'm sure this is not new — adaptability is just such a key thing given how rapidly the world is changing. I think that sense of judgment and relentlessness, as we talked about, those are the things that I keep coming back to. And really what I try to think about for the team is: I think it's important to talk about those things, because otherwise it can feel really lonely, like you're the one who has to constantly adapt. But actually everybody has to constantly adapt, and I think it's hard on all of us. But I also talk about trying to frame the chaos so it doesn't feel as taxing.

我觉得在不确定的时期，人有时会忍不住去规划：这里就是确切会发生的事，这些就是我们确切要构建的产品，我的职业确切会这样发展。那是一种施加控制的方式。而我觉得那恰恰把你锁在了尝试所有新东西之外。所以我们要做的，是去框定这种混乱，让它感觉安全，让人感觉参与其中是可行的。而魔力与生产力恰恰就在那里。所以就是把它说出来，让它变得安全，承认这一切也伴随着情绪、并不容易，但这是参与、理解并与未来共事的一种方式。我觉得这是我们经常谈的。

I think when there are times of uncertainty, sometimes it's tempting to try to map out, here's exactly what's going to happen, here's exactly the products we're going to build, here's exactly how my career is going to go. And that's a way to exert control. And I just think that locks you out of trying all the new stuff. And so what we have to do is frame the chaos so it feels safe and it feels plausible to engage with it. But that's where a bunch of the magic and productivity is going to be. So just talking about it, making it safe, acknowledging that there's also emotions around all of this and it's not easy, but it is a way to just participate and understand and work with the future. I think that's something we talk about a lot.

我觉得这里有个组织层面的领导力问题，Ami，你在这方面做得很好，就是：你可以有混乱，但在某些领域你也需要非常清晰的领导力和 DRI 机制。所以你可以让一群人探索某个非常前沿的东西，但要有明确的——这个人最终会拍板这件事到底要不要追。在 Labs 里我们叫他们 lead，或者我们在 Labs 内部叫“bet”。所以 bet lead 是个非常重要的角色，他们就是那个 DRI，负责说：我觉得我们应该加倍投入这个，或者其实我们应该把这个收掉；这个团队需要更多人，那个团队需要更少人。

I think there's an organizational leadership question that I think, Ami, you do really well, which is: you can have the chaos, but you also need very clear leadership and DRI-ship within some areas. So you can have a bunch of people sort of exploring something very frontier, but having a clear — this is the person who's ultimately going to make the call whether this is the thing to pursue or not. In Labs we call them leads, or we call them bets within Labs. So the bet lead is a really important role, and they are the DRI for saying, I think we should double down on this, or actually we should wind this down; this team needs more people, this team needs less.

而这个角色甚至更重要，因为我们前进得太快，因为一切变化得极其迅速。仍然要保持那种“我们一起迷茫”的感觉，但得有人握着笔，去判断下一件最重要的事是什么——去降低风险、去理解、去学习、去推动事情向前。

And that role is even more important because we're moving so quickly, because things are shifting really rapidly. To still have that sense of we're all lost together, but somebody's got the pen on what's the next most important thing we can do to derisk, to understand, to learn, to move things forward too.

到目前为止，我们已经聊了很多关于产品负责人的心理和技能。另一个变化很大的地方是你实际构建的东西，以及你如何看待功能和特性，尤其是因为我们的世界正从“只有人类会使用你的软件”转向“人类和智能体都在使用软件”。有时是委托，有时是完全协作。Mike，我知道你一直处在弄清楚智能体原生软件长什么样的中心位置。我想你对它的走向有很多想法。所以你能跟我们讲讲你是怎么思考要构建什么的吗——什么放进产品、什么交给智能体，以及两者的重叠在哪里？

We've talked a lot already so far about the psychology and the skills of being a product leader. One other place that's changing a lot is what you actually build and how you think about the features and the functionality in particular, because we're moving from a world where you'd expect only humans to use your software to a world where humans and agents are using software. Sometimes it's delegated, sometimes it's fully collaborative. And I know, Mike, you've sort of been at the center of figuring out what agent-native software looks like. And I think you have a lot of thoughts on where that is going. So can you talk to us about how you think about what to build, what goes into a product versus an agent, and what's the overlap?

我很喜欢这个问题。也许可以看一条时间线。V1，或者说第一个时代，很不错——我们有了 AI 这个东西，也许它该放在侧边栏或一个小迷你窗口里，你可以提问，但它有点割裂，也许能帮你处理一些客服问题。然后是更深的集成，也许有整块功能由 AI 驱动。再然后就是朝更智能体原生的方向演进。我觉得有人真的为此写了本书，而在我大量研究智能体原生架构的那一整年里，我基本上会把他们的文章喂进去，然后做成一个技能，因为它把这个概念总结得非常好。核心思想是：人类能做的任何事，智能体也应该能做。很少有产品真正做对了这一点。我觉得我们的很多产品也还没完全做对。但一旦你做到了，突然之间就会解锁涌现行为——智能体能把以前没拼起来的东西拼起来，或者能主动提供不同的做事方式。我觉得我们还在把这件事做好的路上。

I love this question. Maybe there's a timeline to look at. V1, or era 1, was great, we've got this AI thing, maybe it belongs in a sidebar or a little mini window and you can ask questions and it's kind of disconnected, and maybe it helps you with some customer support questions. And then sort of greater integrations where maybe there are whole features that are AI-powered. And then this movement towards being more agent-native. And I think every literally wrote the book on it, and the way I for that whole year where I was working a lot in this idea of agent-native architectures, I would basically feed their write-up on this and then create a skill out of it, because it was a really good encapsulation of it. It was the idea of everything a human could do, an agent should be able to do as well. And very few products actually get this right. I think a lot of our products don't quite get this right yet. But when you do that, all of a sudden emergent behavior gets unlocked, where the agent can piece together things that weren't pieced together before, or can proactively offer different ways of doing things. I think we're still on the journey of making that good.

但我最近想得很多的下一阶段是：界面本身也变成智能体可以塑造的东西。我们谈可塑软件谈了好多年，我觉得现在它真的在显现、在变成现实。也许回到产品这个角色，联系到这个问题——我们手头有一个相当复杂的东西要发布，它至少有四条独立的工作流。我们的落地方式是让 Claude 既盯着一切进展，又生成 UI，让 TPM 先、然后整个团队都能理解那个项目里正在发生什么。很酷的一点是，如果你不喜欢那个特定的展示方式，你并不受制于某个内部加速团队或第三方决定怎么建。你可以改，而且你可以和 Claude 一起改，这在内部看到真的非常酷。

But I think the next stage that I've been thinking about a lot is when the interfaces actually become something that is malleable by the agent too. And we've talked about malleable software for years. I feel like it's actually now really manifesting and becoming real. And maybe back to the role of product and connecting to this question, one of the things that we have—we have a pretty complex thing that we're trying to ship right now. And it's got at least four independent work streams. And the way we've operationalized it is we've had Claude both keep an eye on how everything is going, but also create the UI by which first the TPM and then the entire team understands what is happening in that project. And what's really cool about that is that if you didn't like that particular display, you're not bound to however it was determined to be built either by some internal acceleration team or some third party. You can change it, and you can change it along with Claude, and it's just been a very cool thing to see internally.

我觉得过去一年我们在 Anthropic 工作方式上最大的转变之一，就是我们交互的很多软件都是由 Claude 构建、维护和迭代的——当然它会响应组织里发生的所有事情，但确实一直在变。这就引出了各种有趣的问题，比如谁能更新数据？只是人类点来点去吗？还是后台的 Claude 也在做？你怎么保证数据来源可追溯？这也打开了一些有意思的问题。但我觉得这正是那个点——既是趋势，也是我现在最受启发的事——就是如何让这成为我们几乎所有软件的运作方式。当然你仍然需要构建块、可预测性和设计系统，你想给猫搭好框架，不想让它彻底失控。但对于特定任务、特定项目，甚至特定用户，我们该以什么方式引入正确的东西，让它既感觉个性化，又因此极其有用。

One of the biggest shifts in how we've worked in the last year, I think, at Anthropic, is so much of the software we interact with is built, maintained, and iterated on by Claude—of course reacting to all the things that are happening in the organization, but very much changing all the time. And so that leads to all sorts of other interesting questions, like who can update the data, right? Is it just the humans clicking through? Is it also Claude in the background? How do you have provenance of data? It opens up some interesting questions there as well. But I feel like that is the piece—both the trend and the thing I'm most inspired by right now—is how do we make that the way almost all of our software operates. And of course you still want building blocks and predictability and design systems, and you want to frame the cats, you want to make it not absolutely insane. But for the given task, for that given project, for even that given user potentially, what is the way in which we pull in the right ways and make that really feel both personal and extremely useful because of that.

那别人该怎么想呢——也许你不在 Anthropic，你有一个已经规模化的 SaaS 应用，你在想：好，我要不要在里面放一个智能体？我要不要把它开放、做成智能体原生，让 Claude 能进来？你怎么看这些选择，以及一家公司应该自己关心什么、什么该留给像 Anthropic 这样的模型公司去接入？

And how does someone think about—maybe you're not at Anthropic, you have a SaaS app that's scaled, and you're thinking, okay, do I put an agent in it? Do I make it open and agent-native so that Claude can be in it? How do you think about those choices and what a company should care about versus leave to a model company like Anthropic to plug in?

是的，我觉得很大程度上就是要把正确的原语构建进产品里，几乎像一层基础设施。你能分辨出来——我用新产品时总会去戳一戳，让它做一件人类能做、但可能需要有人想清楚或架构好的事，看是不是所有东西都走同一套共享管道，让智能体和你的 REST API 都能走。你能看出他们有没有这样想清楚。我也很有同理心，因为如果你已经构建一个应用 20 年，硬把它焊上去是很难的。所以我觉得这是很多公司都在走的一段旅程。但一旦你做对了，我觉得问题就变成——你可以随时间演进它，对吧？你可以从“好，一开始我可能只做个侧边栏的东西，我还没准备好炸掉整个 UI，我还没准备好做完全生成式的 UI”开始。但也许你开始试验：好，也许还有一个个人落地页可以更可塑，并且用的是同一套原语。你不是在底下发明一整套新基础设施。所以我觉得你可以一路演进你的产品，但你能感觉到东西是不是硬焊上去的，那感觉就不像产品的原生部分。

Yeah, I think a lot of it is really building the right primitives into the product, almost like an infrastructural layer. And you can kind of tell—I always poke at it whenever I'm using new products, I'll ask it to do something that a human could do but might require somebody to think through or architect the thing, where everything goes through some shared plumbing that both agents and whatever REST API you've built can go through as well. And you can tell when they've been thought through that way. And I have a lot of empathy because if you've been building an application for 20 years, just bolting that on is difficult. So I think it's a journey that a lot of companies are going on. But once you get it right, I think that question becomes—you can just evolve it over time, right? You can start with, okay, at first I'm just going to have maybe more of the sidebar thing. I'm not ready to blow up my whole UI. I'm not ready to create fully generative UIs. But maybe you start experimenting with, all right, there's also maybe a personal landing page that can be more malleable and is using the same primitives. You're not inventing a whole new sort of infrastructure underneath. So I think you can evolve your product along the way, but you can tell when things feel super bolted on, and that feels like it's not a native part of the product.

所以 Ami，我很好奇——我们听到可以一路走到智能体原生的可塑软件，但在 Anthropic，你们必须服务这整个光谱上的人。

So Ami, I'm curious—we're hearing we can go all the way to agent-native malleable software, but at Anthropic you have to serve this whole spectrum of people.

这里有个挑战：既要推动前沿，又……你知道，有些人只是想用 Claude 聊天，或者你签了大企业的合同，你不能直接把人家整个界面拆掉，然后说“嘿，它很有可塑性，一天就能改好”。也许你做不到——我不知道，但我猜你做不到。所以你怎么平衡产品思考、推动前沿、为用户创造他们能理解的连贯体验，同时带着那些也许不会在第一天就尝试所有新东西的人一起走？

There's this challenge of pushing the frontier, and also, you know, some people just want to use Claude to chat, or you have big enterprise contracts where you can't just rip out their whole interface and then say, hey, it's malleable, you know, in one day. Or maybe you can't — I don't know, but I assume you can't. So how do you balance thinking about product, pushing the frontier, and creating a consistent experience for users that they can understand, and bringing along the people who are maybe not going to try all the new things on day one?

我觉得这是个非常难的问题。我的意思是，我们的做法就是尽量在每个人所在的位置上满足他们。我觉得我们对“什么行得通”的理解还太早期了。并不是说东西已经稳定了，我们只要造出正确答案就行。更像是我们都在共同探索。每几个月一切都在变，一部分是模型在变，但人们使用产品的方式和模型也在变，我们得不断为此更新。所以我常想的一件事是：当我们只是在探索一个产品时——就像 Mike 说的——试试东西是没问题的，我们就是得试一堆东西，因为我们其实还没真正探索过前沿。等我们搞清楚什么行得通，我们就得让它对那些想要更稳定、更完整的东西的人也变得合理。

I think it's a really hard problem. I mean, our approach is to just try to meet everyone where they are. I think we're just so early in understanding what works. It's not like stuff is stable and we can just build the right answer. It's like we're all trying to explore together. And part of everything changing every couple months is the models change, but also the way people use products and the models changes, and we kind of constantly have to update for that. And so a thing that I think about is, when we're just exploring a product like Mike's talking about, it's okay to just try stuff — we just have to try a bunch of things because we haven't actually explored the frontier. And then when we figure out what works, then we have to make it make sense for all the people who want something that feels more stable and complete.

我觉得这是个非常难的取舍，因为你知道，在我成长的产品世界里，我满脑子都是简洁、可靠和完全可预测，因为我认为这能帮人建立肌肉记忆和直觉。但我也认为现实是，我们其实还不知道很多东西应该长什么样。所以我实际上鼓励团队多射门。你知道，有些东西感觉有点重叠或重复是没问题的，只要等我们搞清楚了——当我们找到产品市场契合——我们再回头把它们整合成对所有人都管用的东西。因为我觉得失败的状态是：你从一开始就基于一套“到底需要发生什么”的理论做决定，然后把产品过度约束了。我宁愿有五个以不同方式运作的重叠产品，也不愿有一个被过度约束、我们甚至没给它机会去真正接触市场的产品。

I think this is a really tough trade-off, because, you know, raised in the product world that I was, I was all about simplicity and reliability and total predictability, because I think that helps people build a muscle memory and an intuition. But I also think the reality is we just don't know yet what a lot of things should look like. And so I actually encourage the team to just take a lot of shots on goal. You know, it's okay to have things that feel somewhat overlapping or duplicative, as long as when we figure them out — when we hit product-market fit — we go back and we reincorporate into something that works for everyone. Because I feel like the fail state is you decide from the beginning, based on a theory of exactly what needs to happen, and you over-constrain a product. And I would much rather have five overlapping products that all work in different ways than one overly constrained one that we never even gave a chance to actually meet the market.

那你怎么——我绝对看到这一点，我们在每个……但我在整个行业都看到这一点，就是做大量并行实验，看哪个行得通，然后当你开始获得信号时开始整合。你怎么做到不让它显得混乱或缺乏连贯性？或者，你知道，如果我是做这件事的第三个团队，可能会有点让人泄气。你是怎么做的？

And how do you — and I definitely see this, we do this at every — but I see this all around the industry, just doing lots of parallel experiments and seeing which one works, and then starting to consolidate as you start to get signal. How do you do that in a way that doesn't feel confusing or incoherent? Or, you know, if I'm working on the third team doing this thing, it can be maybe demotivating. Like, how do you do that?

嗯，我觉得有几件事。第一，我觉得我们今天早上内部刚聊过这个，你知道，当时有两个潜在的产品方向，一个有一个信念非常强的团队在做，另一个则没有。如果硬说“我们应该探索另一个想法，因为我们觉得它好”，但根本没人真正在呼吁它，那感觉就非常人为。那就会带来那种 B 团队的感觉，而我觉得我从来没能成功地让一个团队去做一个他们不兴奋的产品领域——那个过程结束时产品肯定会很烂，对吧？所以你需要那种兴奋感，但如果有两三个不同的团队都有令人兴奋的方向，那就让他们去探索。

Well, I think there's a couple of things. One, I think when we were just having this conversation this morning internally, where, you know, there were like two potential product directions, and one has a team with very high conviction going after it, and the other one doesn't really. And it feels very manufactured to be like, we should explore this other idea because we think it's good, but nobody's really calling for it. Then that's that kind of B-team feeling that I think I've never been successful tasking a team to go take a product area that they're not excited about — like the product is going to suck at the end of that process, right? So you want the excitement, but if there are two or three different teams that have exciting directions, then let that explore.

我觉得我们在底层基础设施上已经取得了很多进展，甚至在过去六个月里，就是为了支持这一切。所以我们盘点过这个——感觉像六个月前，其实可能只有三个月——但曾经有一段时间，chat 和 co-work 有不同的记忆系统、不同的 MCP、不同的文件存储方式。然后就想，好吧，任何想在这个表层之上做实验的人都会非常困难，因为比如他们做了第三个东西，却不和其中任何一个共享记忆，那它从一开始就会感觉割裂，甚至处于劣势。所以很多工作——你知道，我们有一个基础团队，一直在思考：你应该能在我们产品里的任何地方都拿到你的记忆。听起来是件简单的事，但很明显——你把东西拆开一看，哦，因为这八个原因它很复杂，但值得解决，而且要在另一个团队解决，而不是在你的实验室式创新或前沿产品团队里解决，因为这样那些实验即使重叠，也会感觉是互补的。

I think we've made a lot of progress, even in the last six months, on having the underlying infrastructure to support all of that. So we inventoried this — it feels like six months ago, it's probably only three — but there was a point where chat and co-work had different memory systems and different MCP and different ways of storing files. And it was like, okay, for anybody to experiment on top of the surface, they're going to have a really hard time, because if they built a third thing that then doesn't share memory with any of those, for example, it's going to feel disconnected and almost disadvantaged from the beginning. So a lot of the work — you know, we have a foundations team that has been just thinking about, you should be able to get your memory wherever you are within our products. And it sounds like a simple thing, but then it's very clearly — you pull back the thing and it's like, oh, it's complicated for these eight reasons, but it's worth solving that, and solving it in a different team than your labs-y innovation or frontier product teams, because then those experiments can feel complementary even if they are overlapping too.

我也觉得——这听起来太简单了，但我也觉得把它说出来、直接点明非常重要：嘿，如果有三个不同的押注，有时候会让人泄气，或者感觉你们中有一个没被安排好走向成功。没关系。这就是我们所在的世界。所以我们要求你做的，就是跟我们一起走这段旅程。我们不知道答案。我们不认为有人知道答案。我们都会去发现它。我们从根本上都是同一个团队。所以我们就从任何行得通的东西里学习。而把这样的话大声说出来，我觉得非常重要，因为每个人都在黑暗中试图搞清楚一切。

I also think — this sounds so simple, but I also think it's just really important to talk about it and just name it: hey, if there's three different bets, sometimes it can feel demoralizing, or like one of you is not set up for success. That's okay. That's the world we're living in. And so what we're asking you to do is come along this journey with us. We don't know the answer. We don't think anyone knows the answer. We're all going to discover it. And we're all fundamentally on the same team. And so we will just learn from whatever works. And just saying stuff like that out loud, I think, is really important, because everybody is trying to figure everything out in the dark.

你会看什么来判断某件事开始行得通了？

What do you look for to know that something's starting to work?

我的意思是，我觉得其中很多就是正常的产品市场契合。比如，人们用吗？他们喜欢吗？他们会回来吗？他们会谈论它吗？他们获得价值了吗？就像，再回到——产品的目标一直没变。就是解决问题。思考这个是否真的以一种人们能用、容易用、用起来感觉良好的方式解决了问题——这就回到了基本功。

I mean, I think a bunch of that is kind of the normal product-market fit. Like, do people use it? Do they like it? Do they come back? Do they talk about it? Do they get value? Like, again going back to — the goal of product has remained the same. It's to solve problems. Thinking about, does this actually solve a problem in a way that people can use and use easily and feel good about using it — comes back to the basics for that.

对我来说，其中一件有趣又充满挑战的事是：有时候一个东西看起来行不通，然后新模型出来了，它真的开始行得通了，你不想太早把它扔掉，但你也不想太超前。那你怎么做？

One of the interesting things that feels challenging to me about that is, sometimes a thing looks like it doesn't work, and then the new model comes out and then it really starts working, and you don't want to throw it away too early, but you also don't want to be too far ahead. So how do you do that?

比如，我们在实验室里有时会做的一件事就是把项目搁置起来。比如，当我们做——我们在 2024 年在 Anthropic 内部做了第一个 computer-use 产品。它太差了，因为模型还没到位。然后你会——你知道，我们最初的论点是，嗯，它在一堆自动化任务上不会好，但它在教育上可能会好。

Like, one of the things we do in labs sometimes is just park a project. Like, when we built — we built the first computer-use product inside Anthropic in 2024. And it was so bad because the models just weren't there yet. And you would be — you know, our first thesis was, well, it's not going to be good at a bunch of automation, but it might be good at education.

嗯，所以你会说：“好吧，呃，我该怎么，你知道，在某个复杂软件里改这个东西？比如，我该怎么，你知道，在 Photoshop 里做这个非常复杂的事情？”然后它确实会做到，但它会以非常早期的智能体云的方式做到，就像这样：那个成功了吗？不，没成功。我得关掉这个。大约 20 分钟后，我完成了。你会说，我什么都没学到。我学到了，你知道，所以它既不适合自动化，也不适合教育。但我们把它搁置了，然后我们基本上会用每一个新模型来试它。而我们实际尝试的方式是，我们实际上只是让它在一个评估框架里运行。而我们真正了解到 37 在计算机使用上是一个飞跃的方式，就是突然看到它接管了，然后我们实际查看了记录。我们想，哇，它成功的次数比不成功的次数多，这是一个真正的时刻。所以这真的很有价值，我们把它视为实验室里的一种胜利，如果你所做的全部——如果你的项目所做的只是表明模型还没有准备好，但你现在能够把它外化为一个评估，或者与 research 团队建立某种连接，那就很好，因为这意味着 2、3、4、5、6 个月后我们将能够重新审视，并希望我们在这个过程中也学到了一些东西。但我认为你需要尽早构建，这样你才能有那种直觉。

Um, so you'd be like, "All right, uh, how do I, you know, change this, you know, thing in some complex software? Like, how do I, you know, do this really complex thing in Photoshop?" And it would get there, but it would get there in like the very like early agent cloud way, which was like this, did that work? Nope, that didn't work. I got to close this. It was like 20 minutes later like, I did it. You're like, I learned nothing. I learn, you know, so like it was neither good for automation nor education. But we parked it and then we would basically just try it with every new model. And we actually, the way we would try it is we actually just had it like running in an eval harness. And the way we actually learned that 37 was like a like a leap in computer use was like just seeing it suddenly took over and then we actually looked at the transcript. We're like wow it's succeeding more often than it's not like this is a real moment. So it is really valuable like we see it as a win in labs if what you did was all if all your project did is show that the models aren't ready for it yet but you're able to now like externalize that as an eval or sort of like create some uh connectivity to the research team like that's great because it means that 2 3 4 5 6 months from now we'll be able to revisit and hopefully we've learned something along the way um as well but I think you need you need to build early so that you can even have that intuition.

我完全同意。我一直把这叫做——如果你尝试了某件事，然后再也不尝试，或者你不做一个评估，你就会变得“能力盲”，你会说“哦，模型永远做不到这个”，然后结果 3 个月后出来一个模型，它完全改变了，它以你从未想过的方式改进。我其实很好奇，在座的有多少人用过 Fable？举手。哦，很多人用。好的，这很好。那 Astra 呢？少一些。有趣。好的，这很棒。你们走在边缘。这很有帮助，因为我经常发现的一件事是，我和某人交谈，他们说：“哦，它不做这个。”我说：“你用最新的模型了吗？”他们说：“没有，我用的是 Sonnet 45 之类的。”不管怎样。那真的会改变事情。

I definitely agree. I've been calling this like it's it's sort there's a sort of you can get capability blind if you try something and then you don't ever try it again or you don't make an eval and you're like oh the models are just never going to do this and then it just turns out a model comes out like in 3 months and it just completely chang it it improves in ways you never would have thought it would. I'm I'm actually curious if you're here how many of you have used Fable? Raise your hand. Oh, a lot of people are using Okay, this is great. This is a good What about Astra? Fewer. Interesting. Okay, so this is great. you guys are you guys are on the you guys are on the edge. This is this is very helpful because one of the things I find a lot is I talk to someone and they're like, "Oh, it doesn't do this." And I'm like, "Have you used the latest model?" And they're like, "No, I used like Sonnet 45 or what?" Like whatever. And uh that that really changes things.

我认为这也是为什么愿意抛弃一切如此重要的部分原因，你知道。

I think that's also part of why it's so important to be willing to throw away everything, you know.

是的。

Yeah.

尽管这很难，因为否则你就会认为最后发生的事情会永远成立。我远距离看到你们在努力解决的一个大问题，我也看到这在 OpenAI 发生，我们也遇到了一点，就是当你做所有这些并行实验，其中一个开始真正奏效时，你必须把它推回你的实际产品中，有几种不同的方法可以做到。比如，你可以做一个标签页，但然后你有一堆不同的标签页，所有东西都以稍微不同的方式工作，那有点丑陋。或者你可以让它成为一个单独的应用，你永远不合并它们。有所有这些不同的东西，我不认为任何人真的已经得出“这就是答案，这就是你该怎么做”的结论。但似乎一个关键问题是如何把这些并行实验变成一个连贯的产品。你们学到了什么，你们怎么看待这个问题？

Even though it's hard because then otherwise you just like think that the last thing that happened is going to be true forever. One one big question that I I see you guys working on from afar and I see this happening at OpenAI 2 and and we run into it a little bit is when you're doing all these parallel experiments and one starts to really work then you have to like push it back into your actual product and there are several different ways to do it. It's like okay you can make a tab but then you have a bunch of different tabs and there's all all the things like only work in like in slightly different ways and that's kind of ugly. Or you can have it just be a separate app and you never merge them. There's all these different things that I don't think anyone has really come to this is the answer, this is how you do it. But it seems like a critical problem is how to take those parallel experiments and turn it into a coherent product. How have you what have you learned and how do you think about it?

我不知道你在说什么。嗯，你说得对。我不认为我们已经完全弄清楚了。但我认为部分原因可以追溯到 Mike 所说的，确保我们构建原语，这样我们的产品在使用时感觉就像它们应该有的样子，你知道。用户期望什么？用户期望走到某个东西面前，希望不必想太多。而现在很容易把一堆认知负担转移给用户，说“这里有一些工具，你为什么不选择呢？”所以 Mike 谈到的一件事是，我们如何确保构建原语，让正确的系统了解你。所以一个感觉始终真正可访问的 UI。我认为所有这些都是有点迭代的，因为我们看到人们如何反应。

I don't know what you're talking about. Um, you're right. I don't think we've fully figured it out. But I think some of it comes back to what Mike was talking about of making sure that we're building primitives so that our products feel like the way they should feel, you know, when you're using them. Like what does a user expect? The user expects to walk up to something and like hopefully not have to think about it too much. Like and right now it's easy to just transfer a bunch of cognitive load to the user and be like here's some tools like why don't you choose? And so one of the things we that that Mike's talking about is like how do we make sure that we build primitives so the right system knows you. So a UI that feels like really accessible all the time. And I think all of that is a bit iterative as we see how people react.

我认为总的来说，如果我必须打赌，有些教训你会学到，有些是真实的。就像我们在 Instagram 总是看到的，标签页使用有一个非常强的幂律。这很合理。每个产品都是这样，主 feed 占了 80% 的使用，你可以让探索更好，也许你会从 10% 到 15%，但主 feed 才是你落地的地方，那是你的大事。所以我认为这将永远是我们所有人都在的旅程，那就是什么是主标签页，那是什么体验，你如何仍然让它变得很棒，然后幸运的是它可以成为许多其他下游有趣体验的入口。但是的，我认为一半的工作是对侧边栏中的另一个东西、另一个标签页或另一个东西说不，并弄清楚一旦我们证明了它，是否可以将其整合进来，但不要这么早就扼杀它。所以这就是我认为产品开发的艺术，我认为随着事情发展得如此之快。

I think overall like if I had to bet like there's some lessons you'll learn and some that are are real. Like the thing that we always saw at Instagram it's like there's a very strong power law in tab usage. It makes sense. every single product right it's like main feed was like 80% of the use right and you can make explore better and maybe you would go from 10 to 15% but it was like main feed that is where you land that is your big thing so I think that is will always be the journey that we're all on which is like what is the main what is the main tab like what is that experience how do you still make that great and then luckily it can be an entry point to a lot of other downstream interesting experiences but yeah I think half of the job is saying no to another thing in the sidebar or another tab or another thing and figuring out Can this be rolled in once we've proven it out but not killing it so early. So this is the entire I think art of product development I think as things are moving this quickly.

好的，我们有时间问最后一个问题，我很想听听你们两人的回答，那就是如果明年我们在这个舞台上，Lenny 邀请我们回来。我不知道他会不会邀请我回来。我骂人太多了，但他会邀请你们两位回来。你们期望会有什么不同，以及作为 PM 会如何改变？

All right, we've got time for one last question which I'd love to hear from both of you which is if if we are on this stage here next year and Lenny invites us back. I don't know if he'll invite me back. I've been cursing too much but he'll invite you two back. What what do you expect will be different and and how will being a PM have changed?

我希望人们觉得他们可以做更多，他们可以以任何他们想要的方式去构建。他们可以随时得到答案。他们可以创业，我们只是看到更多的小团队和个体赋能，我们开始得到这对其他人意味着什么的提升。就像我认为建设者放大影响，为更多永远不会直接使用工具但可以从建设者那里受益的人。所以我只是希望那变得更容易。

I hope it just like that that people feel like they can just do much more like they can just go and build in whatever way they want. They can get answers whenever they they want. They can start businesses and like and we just see a lot more like small teams and solo empowerment and we we just we start to get the uplift of like what that means for everyone else. Like I think it I think it's always like builders magnify impact for a bunch more people who will never like use the tools directly but who can benefit from people who do build things. And so I just I hope that's just way easier.

是的。我认为对我来说最大的一个是，你知道现在，我经常谈论模型的能力与大多数人使用它们的目的之间的差距。这不是他们的错。这是我们的责任。我们必须构建产品来实现这一点。那在 24 年是一件难事，去年更难。现在变得更难了。

Yeah. I think the biggest one for me is you know right now like I often talk about like the gap between what the models are capable of and like what most folks are using them for. Not through any fault of their own. It's on us. Like we got to build the products to make that possible. And like that was a hard thing last thing 24. was even harder last year. It's getting even harder now.

所以我最想做的事，就是缩小这个差距。我认为只要能缩小这个差距，就非常有民主化的意义，因为这意味着，拥有这套完整可用的多智能体配置的，不只是那种最“clawpilled”的软件工程师。它也可以是同时在并行做一堆研究的人，也可以是正在努力经营自己生意的人，但他们觉得自己已经解锁了这套能力。我们一路把他们带过来，教他们怎么理解其中的各个组成部分、在正确的节点上检查、做长周期的工作，但又不会让人觉得被剥夺了掌控感。这就是艺术所在。如果我们成功了，一年之后这个差距会更小。

And so the biggest thing I want to do is close that gap. I think it's very democratizing if you can close that gap, because it means it's not just your most clawpilled software engineer that has this fully working multi-agentic setup. It's also the person doing a bunch of research in parallel. It's also the person trying to manage their business, but they feel like they've unlocked it. And we've brought them along the way in terms of how to understand the moving parts, check in at the right places, do long-horizon work but not in a way that feels disempowering. That's the art. If we succeed, a year from now that'll be closer.

太棒了。非常感谢，Mike，很高兴见到你。

Amazing. Thank you so much, and Mike, good to see you.