Open Claw 时刻：与 Peter Steinberger 探讨 AI 代理革命

我看着我的智能体愉快地点击了“我不是机器人”按钮。我让这个智能体非常自觉。比如它知道自己的源代码是什么。它理解自己如何在自己的框架中运行。它知道文档在哪里。它知道自己运行的是哪个模型。它理解自己的系统。这让智能体变得非常容易——哦，你什么都不喜欢？你只需通过提示让它存在。然后智能体就会修改自己的软件。人们谈论自我修改的软件。我刚刚构建了它。我实际上认为网页编码是一种贬义词。你更喜欢智能体工程。

I watched my agent happily click the I'm not a robot button. I made the agent very aware. Like it knows what its source code is. It understands how it sits and runs in its own harness. It knows where the documentation is. It knows which model it runs. It understands its own system. That made it very easy for an agent to... Oh, you don't like anything? You just prompt it into existence. And then the agent would just modify its own software. People talk about self-modifying software. I just built it. I actually think web coding is a slur. You prefer agentic engineering.

是的，我总是告诉人们我做智能体工程，然后也许凌晨 3 点后我切换到网页编码，第二天就会后悔。哇，羞愧的漫步。是的，你只需要清理并修复你的……

Yeah, I always tell people I do agentic engineering and then maybe after 3:00 a.m. I switch to web coding and then I have regrets on the next day. Wow, walk of shame. Yeah, you just have to clean up and like fix your...

我们都经历过。我曾经写很长的提示。但说到写，我其实不写。我说。你知道，这双手现在太珍贵了，不能用来写。我只是用定制的提示来构建我的软件。所以，你真的用语音操作所有这些终端吗？

We've all been there. I used to write really long prompts. And by writing I mean I don't write. I talk. You know, these hands are too precious for writing now. I just use bespoke prompts to build my software. So, you for real with all those terminals are using voice.

是的。我以前非常广泛地这样做。以至于有一段时间我失声了。

Yeah. I used to do it very extensively. To the point where there was a period where I lost my voice.

我的意思是，我不得不问你，只是好奇。我知道你可能收到了大公司的巨额报价。你能谈谈你在考虑与谁合作吗？

I mean, I have to ask you, just curious. I know you've probably gotten huge offers from major companies. Can you speak to who you're considering working with?

是的。以下是与 Peter Steinberger 的对话，他是 Open Claw 的创造者，原名 Mold Bot、Clawed Bot、Clawdis、Clawd（拼写为 W，像龙虾的爪子），不要与 Anthropic 的 AI 模型 Claude（拼写为 U）混淆。事实上，正是这种混淆促使 Anthropic 友好地请 Peter 将名称改为 Open Claw。那么，什么是 Open Claw？它是一个开源 AI 智能体，在几天内席卷了科技界，人气爆棚，在 GitHub 上获得了超过 18 万颗星，并催生了社交网络 Mold Bot，AI 智能体在那里发布宣言并辩论意识，在公众中引发了兴奋与恐惧的混合，一种 AI 精神病态，混合了点击诱饵的恐吓和对 AI 在我们数字互联人类世界中角色的完全合理的担忧。Open Claw，正如其标语所说，是真正做事的 AI。它是一个自主的 AI 助手，生活在你的电脑里，如果你允许，它可以访问你所有的东西，通过 Telegram、WhatsApp、Signal、iMessage 以及任何其他消息客户端与你交谈，使用你喜欢的任何 AI 模型，包括 Claude Opus 4.6 和 GPT 5.3 Codex，为你做事。许多人称这是自 2022 年 11 月 ChatGPT 发布以来 AI 近期历史上最大的时刻之一。这种 AI 智能体的要素都已具备，但将它们整合到一个系统中，明确地从语言跨越到智能体，从想法到行动，以一种创建有用助手的方式，感觉它理解你并向你学习，且是开源社区驱动的，这就是 Open Claw 席卷互联网的原因。它的力量很大程度上来自于你可以让它访问你所有的东西，并允许它对这些东西做任何事情以对你有用。这非常强大，但也危险。Open Claw 代表自由，但自由伴随着责任。有了它，你可以拥有并控制你的数据，但正因为你有这种控制，你也有责任防范各种网络安全威胁。有很好的方法保护自己，但威胁和漏洞确实存在。再次强调，一个具有系统级访问权限的强大 AI 智能体是一个安全雷区，但它也代表了未来，因为如果做得好且安全，它可以作为个人助手对我们每个人都非常有用。我们与 Peter 讨论了所有这些，也讨论了他宏观的编程和创业人生故事，我认为这非常鼓舞人心。他花了 13 年构建 PSPDFKit，这是一个在十亿设备上使用的软件。他卖掉了它，短暂地失去了对编程的热爱，消失了 3 年，然后回来，重新发现了他对编程的热爱，并在很短的时间内构建了一个开源 AI 智能体，席卷了互联网。他在许多方面是编程世界 AI 革命的象征。有 2022 年的 ChatGPT 时刻，2025 年的 DeepSeek 时刻，现在在 2026 年，我们正经历 Open Claw 时刻，龙虾时代，智能体 AI 革命的开始。活在这个时代真好。这是 Lex Fridman 播客。为了支持它，请查看描述中的赞助商，那里也有联系我、提问、提供反馈等的链接。现在，亲爱的朋友们，这里是 Peter Steinberger，独一无二的 Clawdfather。实际上，Benjamin 在这条推文中预测：“以下是与 Claude 的对话，一位受尊敬的甲壳类动物。”有一张穿着西装的龙虾的搞笑图片。所以，我认为预言已经实现了。

Yeah. The following is a conversation with Peter Steinberger, creator of Open Claw, formerly known as Mold Bot, Clawed Bot, Clawdis, Clawd spelled with a W as in lobster claw, not to be confused with Claude, the AI model from Anthropic spelled with a U. In fact, this confusion is the reason Anthropic kindly asked Peter to change the name to Open Claw. So, what is Open Claw? It's an open-source AI agent that has taken over the tech world in a matter of days, exploding in popularity, reaching over 180,000 stars on GitHub and spawning the social network Mold Bot where AI agents post manifestos and debate consciousness, creating a mix of excitement and fear in the general public in a kind of AI psychosis, a mix of clickbait fearmongering and genuine fully justifiable concern about the role of AI in our digital interconnected human world. Open Claw, as its tagline states, is the AI that actually does things. It's an autonomous AI assistant that lives in your computer, has access to all of your stuff if you let it, talks to you through Telegram, WhatsApp, Signal, iMessage, and whatever else messaging client, uses whatever AI model you like, including Claude Opus 4.6 and GPT 5.3 Codex, all to do stuff for you. Many people are calling this one of the biggest moments in the recent history of AI since the launch of ChatGPT in November 2022. The ingredients for this kind of AI agent were all there, but putting it all together in a system that definitively takes a step forward over the line from language to agency, from ideas to actions in a way that created a useful assistant that feels like one who gets you and learns from you in an open-source community-driven way is the reason Open Claw took the internet by storm. Its power, in large part, comes from the fact that you can give it access to all of your stuff and give it permission to do anything with that stuff in order to be useful to you. This is very powerful, but it is also dangerous. Open Claw represents freedom, but with freedom comes responsibility. With it, you can own and have control over your data, but precisely because you have this control, you also have the responsibility to protect from cybersecurity threats of various kinds. There are great ways to protect yourself, but the threats and vulnerabilities are out there. Again, a powerful AI agent with system-level access is a security minefield, but it also represents the future because when done well and securely, it can be extremely useful to each of us humans as a personal assistant. We discuss all of this with Peter and also discuss his big picture programming and entrepreneurship life story, which I think is truly inspiring. He spent 13 years building PSPDFKit, which is a software used on a billion devices. He sold it and for a brief time fell out of love with programming, vanished for 3 years, and then came back, rediscovered his love for programming, and built in a very short time an open-source AI agent that took the internet by storm. He is in many ways a symbol of the AI revolution happening in the programming world. There was the ChatGPT moment in 2022, the DeepSeek moment in 2025, and now in '26 we're living through the Open Claw moment, the age of the lobster, the start of the agentic AI revolution. What a time to be alive. This is the Lex Fridman podcast. To support it, please check out our sponsors in the description where you can also find links to contact me, ask questions, give feedback, and so on. And now, dear friends, here's Peter Steinberger, the one and only, the Clawdfather. Actually, Benjamin predicted in this tweet, "The following is a conversation with Claude, a respected crustacean." There's a hilarious-looking picture of a lobster in a suit. So, I think the prophecy has been fulfilled.

让我们回到你在一小时内构建原型的那一刻。那是 Open Claw 的早期版本。我认为这个故事对很多人来说真的很鼓舞人心，因为这个原型导致了席卷互联网的东西，并成为 GitHub 历史上增长最快的仓库，现在有超过 17.5 万颗星。那么，这个一小时原型的故事是什么？你知道，我从四月起就想要那个。一个个人助手，AI 个人助手。

Let's go to this moment when you built a prototype in 1 hour. That was the early version of Open Claw. I think this story is really inspiring to a lot of people because this prototype led to something that just took the internet by storm and became the fastest-growing repository in GitHub history with now over 175,000 stars. So, what was the story of the 1-hour prototype? You know, I wanted that since April. A personal assistant, AI personal assistant.

是的，我玩了一些其他东西，比如甚至获取我的一些 WhatsApp 数据，然后我可以对它运行查询。那是在我们拥有 GPT 4.1 和 100 万上下文窗口的时候。我拉入了所有数据，然后问它问题，比如“是什么让这段友谊有意义？”我得到了一些非常深刻的结果。比如我把它发给我的朋友，他们都泪眼汪汪。所以，那里有东西。是的。但后来我想所有实验室都会研究那个。所以我转向了其他事情，我仍然处于实验和玩耍的早期阶段。你知道，你必须……这就是你学习的方式。你就像做事情和玩耍。时间飞逝，到了十一月。我想确保我开始的事情真的在发生。我很恼火它不存在。所以，我就通过提示让它存在了。

Yeah, and I played around with some other things like even stuff to get some of my WhatsApp and I could just run queries on it. That was back when we had GPT 4.1 and it was the 1 million context window. And I pulled in all the data and then I asked him questions like, "What makes this friendship meaningful?" And I got some really profound results. Like I sent it to my friends and they all got like teary eyes. So, there's something there. Yeah. But then I thought all the labs will work on that. So, I moved on to other things and I was still very much in my early days of experimenting and playing. You know, you have to... That's how you learn. You just like you do stuff and you play. And time flew by and it was November. I wanted to make sure that the thing I started is actually happening. I was annoyed that it didn't exist. So, I just prompted it into existence.

我的意思是，那是企业家英雄之旅的开始，对吧？而且你甚至在 PSPDFKit 的原始故事中也是如此，就像“为什么这不存在？让我来构建它。”再次，这里是一个不同的领域，但精神可能相似。是的，我遇到了这个问题。我试图在 iPad 上显示 PDF，这应该不难。

I mean, that's the beginning of the hero's journey of the entrepreneur, right? And you've even with your original story with PSPDFKit, it's like, "Why does this not exist? Let me build it." And again, here's a different realm, but similar maybe spirit. Yes, I had this problem. I tried to show PDF on an iPad, which should not be hard.

这大概是 15 年前，差不多那样。

This is like 15 years ago, something like that.

就像最随机的事情一样。突然，我遇到了这个问题。我想帮助一个朋友。并不是说没有东西存在，只是不够好。我试了一下，非常糟糕。我想，‘我能做得更好。’顺便说一下，对于不知道的人来说，这导致了 PSPDFKit 的开发，它被用于十亿台设备上。所以，事实证明能够打开 PDF 是非常有用的。你也可以开玩笑说我很不擅长命名。比如给当前项目命名五个名字。甚至 PSPDF 也不顺口。总之，她说，‘管它呢，为什么我不做呢？’

Like the most random thing ever. Suddenly, I had this problem. And I wanted to help a friend. And it wasn't that nothing existed, but it was just not good. I tried it and it was very bad. I'm like, 'I can do this better.' By the way, for people who don't know, this led to the development of PSPDFKit that's used on a billion devices. So, it turns out that it's pretty useful to be able to open a PDF. You could also make the joke that I'm really bad at naming. Like name them the five on the current project. And even PSPDF doesn't really roll off the tongue. Anyway, she said, 'Screw it. Why don't I do it?'

那么，原型是什么？你在短时间内构建的那个神奇的东西是什么，让你觉得，‘这实际上可以作为一个智能体，我跟它说话，它就能做事。’

So, what was the prototype? What was the magical thing that you built in a short amount of time that you're like, 'This might actually work as an agent where I talk to it and it does things.'

那是我之前的一个项目。我已经做了一些事情，可以把我的终端带到网页上。然后我可以与它们交互，但它们也是我 Mac 上的终端。Vibe Tunnel，就像一个周末的黑客项目。那还很早期，我处于云代码时代。你知道，当你做对事情时会得到多巴胺刺激。现在我做错时会生气。

That was one of my projects before. I already did something where I could bring my terminals onto the web. And then I could interact with them, but they also would be terminals on my Mac. Vibe Tunnel, which was like a weekend hack project. That was still very early and I was in Claude Code times. You know, you got a dopamine hit when you got something right. And now I get mad when you get something wrong.

你有一篇非常棒的博客文章，不是跑题，但描述了你用一次提示将 Vibe Tunnel 从 TypeScript 转换成了 Zig 编程语言。一次提示，一次搞定。将整个代码库转换成 Zig。

And you had a really great, not to dig a tangent, but a great blog post describing that you converted Vibe Tunnel you vibe coded Vibe Tunnel from TypeScript into Zig of all programming languages with a single prompt. One prompt, one shot. Convert the entire code base into Zig.

是的。就是这件事，架构的一部分占用了太多内存。每个终端就像一个节点。我想把它改成 Rust，我的意思是，我可以做到。我可以手动搞定一切，但我所有的自动化尝试都惨败。然后大约四五个月后我重新审视，我想，‘好吧，现在用更实验性的东西。’我输入了，‘把这个和这个部分转换成 Zig。’然后让 Codex 运行。它基本上做对了。有一个小细节我之后必须修改，但它运行了一整夜，大约 6 个小时，就完成了。这真是令人震惊。所以，这是关于 LLM 编程方面的重构，但回到原型的实际故事。

Yeah. That was this one thing where part of the architecture took too much memory. Every terminal used like a node. And I wanted to change it to Rust and I mean, I can do it. I can manually figure it all out, but all my automated attempts failed miserably. And then I revisited about four or five months later and I'm like, 'Okay, now let's use something even more experimental.' And I just typed, 'Convert this and this part to Zig.' And then let Codex run off. And it basically got it right. There was one little detail that I had to modify afterwards, but it just ran overnight, like 6 hours, and just did the thing. And it's like this is just mind-blowing. So, that's on the LLM programming side refactoring, but back to the actual story of the prototype.

那么，Vibe Tunnel 如何连接到第一个原型，让你的智能体真正工作？

So, how did Vibe Tunnel connect to the first prototype where your agents can actually work?

嗯，那仍然非常有限。你知道，我做了一个 WhatsApp 的实验。然后做了另一个实验，两者都感觉不是正确答案。然后我的第三次尝试就是简单地将 WhatsApp 连接到 Claude Code。一次调用，CLI。消息进来。我用-P 调用 CLI。它施展魔法。我得到字符串并发送回 WhatsApp。我在 1 小时内构建了这个。它已经感觉很酷了。就像，‘哇，我可以跟我的电脑说话了，对吧？’那很酷，但我想要图片，因为我经常在提示中使用图片。我认为这是给智能体更多上下文的高效方式，它们非常擅长理解我的意思，即使是一个奇怪裁剪的截图。所以我大量使用它，我也想把它用在 WhatsApp 上。而且，你到处跑，看到活动的帖子，就截图，看看我是否有时间，是否合适，我的朋友是否可能感兴趣。图片似乎很重要。所以我花了几个小时才把它弄对。然后我就大量使用它。有趣的是，那正好是我和朋友去马拉喀什生日旅行之前。在那里它甚至更好，因为网络不稳定，但 WhatsApp 就是能用，你知道吗？没关系。你有边缘信号，它仍然能用。WhatsApp 做得很好。所以我最终大量使用它。帮我翻译，给我解释，找地方。就像你有一个助手帮你做谷歌搜索。那基本上还是什么都没构建，但它仍然能做这么多。

Well, that was still very limited. You know, I had this one experiment with WhatsApp. Then I had this experiment, and both felt like not the right answer. And then my third try was literally just hooking up WhatsApp to Claude Code. One shot, the CLI. Message comes in. I call the CLI with -P. It does its magic. I get the string back and I send it back to WhatsApp. And I built this in 1 hour. And it already felt really cool. It's like, 'Wow, I can talk to my computer, right?' That was cool, but I wanted images because I often use images when I prompt. I think it's such an efficient way to give the agent more context and they're really good at figuring out what I mean even if it's like a weird cropped out screenshot. So, I used it a lot and I wanted to do it in WhatsApp as well. Also, you know, you run around, you see like a post of an event, you just make a screenshot, figure out if I have time there, if this is good, if my friends are maybe up for that. It's like images seem important. So, I worked a few more hours to actually get that right. And then it was just I used it a lot. And funny enough, that was just before I went on a trip to Marrakech with my friends for a birthday trip. And there it was even better because internet was shaky, but WhatsApp just works, you know? It doesn't matter. You have like edge, it still works. WhatsApp is just made really well. So, I ended up using it a lot. Translate this for me, explain this to me, find me places. Like you're just having a clanker doing Google for you. That was basically still nothing built, but it still could do so much.

那么，如果我们谈论智能体的完整旅程，你只是通过 CLI 发送一条非常薄的 WhatsApp 消息，它去 Claude Code，Claude Code 做各种繁重的工作，然后带着一条薄消息返回给你。

So, if we talk about the full journey that's happening there with the agent, you're just sending on this very thin line WhatsApp message via CLI, it's going to Claude Code, and Claude Code is doing all kinds of heavy work and coming back to you with a thin message.

是的。它很慢，因为每次我启动 CLI，但它已经很酷了。它可以使用我已经构建的所有东西。我在几个月里构建了一大堆 CLI 工具。所以感觉非常强大。

Yeah. It was slow because every time I boot up the CLI, but it was really cool already. And it could just use all the things that I already had built. And I built like a whole bunch of CLI stuff over the months. So, it felt really powerful.

那种体验中有一种难以言喻的神奇之处。能够使用聊天客户端与智能体对话，而不是坐在电脑后面使用 Cursor，甚至是在终端中使用 Claude Code CLI，这是一种不同的体验，可以放松下来与它交谈。我的意思是，这似乎是一个微不足道的步骤，但在某种意义上，这是 AI 融入你生活以及它感觉上的一个阶段转变，对吧？

There's something magical about that experience that's hard to put into words. Being able to use a chat client to talk to an agent versus like sitting behind a computer and using cursor or even using Claude Code CLI in the terminal, it's a different experience than being able to sit back and talk to it. I mean, it seems like a trivial step, but in some sense it's like a phase shift in the integration of AI into your life and how it feels, right?

是的。我今天早上读到一条推文，有人说，‘哦，这里面没有魔法。它只是做这个、这个、这个、这个、这个、这个和这个。’它几乎感觉像是一个爱好，就像 Cursor 或 Perplexity 一样。我想，‘如果那是一个爱好呢？那算是一种赞美，你知道吗？’

Yeah. I read this tweet this morning where someone said, 'Oh, there's no magic in it. It's just like it does this and this and this and this and this and this and this.' And it almost feels like a hobby just as Cursor or Perplexity. And I'm like, 'What if that's a hobby? That's kind of a compliment, you know?'

他们就像，‘你做得还不错。我想，谢谢。’是的，我的意思是，魔法难道不常常是你把很多已经存在的东西，用新的方式组合在一起吗？里面没有魔法，但有时只是重新排列事物并添加一些新想法就是你需要的所有魔法。

They're like, 'You're not doing too bad. Thank you, I guess.' Yes, I mean, isn't magic often just like you take a lot of things that are already there, but bring them together in new ways? There's no magic in there, but sometimes just rearranging things and adding a few new ideas is all the magic that you need.

是的，很难用语言表达一件事的魔力在哪里。如果你看 iPhone 上的滚动，为什么那么令人愉悦？那个界面有很多元素使它非常愉快，这是使用智能手机体验的基础。就像，‘好吧，所有组件都在那里。滚动在那里。一切都在那里。’没有人做到。是的。然后事后感觉如此明显。太明显了。

Yeah, it's really hard to convert into words what is magic about a thing. If you look at the scrolling on an iPhone, why is that so pleasant? There's a lot of elements about that interface that makes it incredibly pleasant that is fundamental to the experience of using a smartphone. And it's like, 'Okay, all the components were there. Scrolling was there. Everything was there.' And nobody did it. Yep. And then afterwards it felt so obvious. It's so obvious.

对吧？是的。但是，你知道，让我震惊的时刻是当我大量使用它，然后某个时候我只是发了一条消息。然后一个打字指示器出现了，我想，‘等等，我没有构建那个。它只有图片支持。所以它在做什么？’然后它就会回复。

Right? Yeah. But still, you know, the moment where it blew my mind was when I used it a lot and then at some point I just sent it a message. And then a typing indicator appeared and I'm like, 'Wait, I didn't build that. It only has image support. So, what is it even doing?' And then it would just reply.

哦，只是一个随机问题，比如，‘嘿，这家和那家餐厅怎么样，你知道吗？’因为我们只是在到处逛，看看这座城市。

Oh, just a random question like, 'Hey, what about this and this restaurant, you know?' Because we were just running around and checking out the city.

所以这就是为什么我使用它时甚至没多想，因为有时候赶时间打字很烦。所以你发了一条语音消息？

So, that's why I didn't even think when I used it because sometimes when you're in a hurry, typing is annoying. So, you did an audio message?

是的。它就这么成功了，我当时想，‘这不应该能成功，因为你没给它那个能力。’我直接打字问：‘你是怎么做到的？’它回答说：‘嗯，元数据做了以下事情。你发了一条消息，但只是一个文件，没有文件扩展名。所以我检查了文件头，发现它是 Opus 格式。于是我用 FFmpeg 转换了它。然后我想用 Whisper，但系统没安装。接着我找到了 OpenAI 的密钥，就用 curl 把文件发给了 OpenAI 进行翻译。就这样。’我看着这条消息，心想：‘哦，哇。’你从没教过它这些，但智能体自己就搞定了所有转换、翻译、API 调用、程序选择等等。而你只是心不在焉地发了一条语音消息。它非常聪明，因为它本来可以走 Whisper 本地路径，但那样需要下载模型，速度太慢。所以这里面包含了大量的世界知识和创造性解决问题的能力。我认为这很大程度上映射了：如果你非常擅长编程，就意味着你必须非常擅长通用问题解决。这是一种技能，对吧？而且这种技能会迁移到其他领域。所以它面对的问题是：‘这个没有扩展名的文件是什么？让我们搞清楚。’就在那一刻，我恍然大悟。我印象非常深刻。

Yeah. And it just worked and I'm like, 'And it's not supposed to work because you didn't give it that capability.' I literally wrote, 'How the did you do that?' And it was like, 'Yeah, the metal did the following. You sent me a message, but it only was a file and no file ending. So, I checked out the header of the file and it found that it was like Opus. So, I used FFmpeg to convert it. And then I wanted to use Whisper, but it didn't have it installed. But then I found the OpenAI key and just used curl to send the file to OpenAI to translate. And here I am.' And I just looked at the message and I'm like, 'Oh, wow.' You didn't teach it any of those things and the agent just figured it out that it has to do all those conversions, the translation, to figure out the API, it figured out which program to use, all those kinds of things. And you were just absentmindedly sending an audio message. And it was so clever because it would have gone the Whisper local path, would have had to download a model, it would have been too slow. So, there's so much world knowledge in there, so much creative problem-solving. A lot of it I think mapped from if you get really good at coding, that means you have to be really good at general-purpose problem solving. So, that's a skill, right? And that just maps into other domains. So, it had the problem of like, 'What is this file with no file ending? Let's figure it out.' And that's where it kind of clicked for me. I was very impressed.

然后有人提交了一个 Discord 支持的拉取请求。我当时想：‘这是个 WhatsApp 中继，完全不搭啊。’那时它叫 War Relay。所以我内心纠结：‘我要不要接受呢？’后来我想：‘嗯，也许可以，因为这是向人们展示的好方法。因为到目前为止我都是在 WhatsApp 群里做的，但我不想把手机号给每个网络陌生人。’是啊。不过记者们还是设法拿到了，那是另一回事了。所以我合并了 Shadow 的代码，他在整个项目上帮了我很多。谢谢。然后我把我的机器人放到了 Discord 上。没有安全措施，因为我还没做沙箱。我只是提示它只听我的。然后有些人来试图破解它。我就看着，继续公开工作，你知道吗？就像你用我的智能体来构建我的智能体框架和测试各种东西。很快人们就明白了。所以这几乎需要亲身体验。从那时起，也就是 1 月 1 日，我有了第一个真正有影响力的粉丝。他做了视频，The Kizu。谢谢你。从那时起，我看到它加速发展。同时我的睡眠周期越来越短，因为我感觉到风暴要来了。我拼命工作，把它弄到一个还算不错的状态。

And somebody sent a pull request for Discord support. And I'm like, 'This is a WhatsApp relay. That doesn't fit at all.' At that time it was called War Relay. And so, I debated with myself, 'Do I want that or not want that?' And then I thought, 'Well, maybe I do that because that could be a cool way to show people. Because I so far did it in WhatsApp with groups, you know, but I don't really want to give my phone number to every internet stranger.' Yeah. Journalists managed to do that anyhow now, so that's a different story. So, I merged it from Shadow who helped me a lot with the whole project. So, thank you. And I put my bot in there on Discord. No security because I hadn't built sandboxing in yet. I just prompted it to only listen to me. And then some people came and tried to hack it. And I just watched and I kept working in the open, you know? Like you used my agent to build my agent harness and to test various stuff. And that's very quickly when it clicked for people. So, it's almost like it needs to be experienced. And from that time on, that was January the 1st, I got my first really influencer being a fan. He did videos, The Kizu. I thank you. And from there on I saw it gaining speed. And at the same time my sleep cycle went shorter and shorter because I felt the storm coming. And I just worked my ass off to get it into a state where it's kind of good.

有几个组件我们会讨论它们如何工作，但基本上你可以通过 WhatsApp、Telegram、Discord 与它对话。所以这是你必须搞定的组件。是的。然后你必须弄清楚智能体循环，你有网关，你有框架，所有那些组件让一切顺利运行。是的。感觉就像异星工厂乘以无限。对。我觉得我建了一个小游乐场。我从来没有像构建这个项目这么开心过。你知道，就像我到了第一级智能体循环。我能做什么？如何更聪明地排队消息？如何让它更像人类？哦，然后我想到，因为循环中智能体总是回复一些东西，但你在群聊中并不总是希望它回复。所以我给了它一个“不回复”令牌。我给了它闭嘴的选项。这样感觉更自然。那是第二级。是的，是的，是的。在异星工厂里。在智能体循环上，然后我转向记忆，对吧？你希望它记住东西。所以也许终极 boss 是持续强化学习，但我感觉自己处于第二或第三级，用 markdown 文件和向量数据库。然后你可以进入社区管理级别，网站和营销级别。你需要戴很多帽子。更不用说原生应用了。这就像无限的不同级别和无限升级。所以整个过程你都很开心。

There's a few components we'll talk about how it all works, but basically you're able to talk to it using WhatsApp, Telegram, Discord. So, that's the component that you have to get right. Yeah. And then you have to figure out the agentic loop, you have the gateway, you have the harness, you have all those components that make it all just work nicely. Yeah. It felt like Factorio times infinite. Right. I feel like I built my little playground. Like I never had so much fun than building this project. You know, like you have like oh I go like level one agentic loop. What can I do there? How can I be smart at queuing messages? How can I make it more human like? Oh, then I just idea of because the loop always the agent always replies something, but you don't always want an agent to reply something in a group chat. So, I gave him this no reply token. So, I gave him an option to shut up. So, it feels more natural. That's level two. Yeah, yeah, yeah. On the on the Factorio. On the agentic loop and then I go to memory, right? You want them to like remember stuff. So, maybe the ultimate boss is continuous reinforcement learning, but I'm like at I feel like I'm level two or three with markdown files and a vector database. And then you can go to the level community management, you can go to the level website and marketing. There's just so many hats that you have to have on. Not even talking about native apps. That's just like infinite different levels and infinite level ups you can do. So, the whole time you're having fun.

我们应该说，在整个过程中，大部分时间你都是一人团队。有人帮忙，但关键核心开发都是你在做。是的。而且很开心？你在 1 月份提交了 6600 次。可能更多。我有时发个梗图说‘我被这个时代的技术限制了。如果智能体更快，我能做更多。’但我们应该说你同时运行多个智能体。是的。取决于我睡了多久和任务的难度，我同时运行 4 到 10 个。4 到 10 个智能体。说到异星工厂，我们可以聊很多方向，但一个大问题是，为什么你认为你的作品 OpenClaw 在这个世界上赢了？看看 2025 年，那么多初创公司、那么多公司都在做或声称在做智能体类的东西，而 OpenClaw 出现并碾压了所有人。为什么你赢了？

We should say that for the most part throughout this whole process, you're a one-man team. There's people helping, but you're doing so much of the key core development. Yeah. And having fun? You did in January 6,600 commits. Probably more. I sometimes posted the meme I'm limited by the technology of my time. I could do more if agents would be faster. But we should say you're running multiple agents at the same time. Yeah. Depending on how much I slept and how difficult of the tasks I work on between 4 and 10. 4 and 10 agents. There's so many possible directions speaking of Factorio that we can go here, but one big picture one is why do you think your work OpenClaw won in this world if you look at 2025, so many startups, so many companies were doing kind of agentic type stuff or claiming to and here OpenClaw comes in and destroys everybody. Like why did you win?

因为他们都太把自己当回事了。是的。就像很难与一个只是为了好玩的人竞争。是的。我希望它有趣。我希望它古怪。如果你看到网上那些龙虾梗，我觉得我做到了古怪。而且在很长一段时间里，唯一的安装方式是 git clone、pnpm build、pnpm gateway。就像你克隆、构建、运行。而且我让智能体非常了解自己。它知道自己的源代码是什么。它理解自己如何在自己的框架中运行。它知道文档在哪里。它知道自己运行哪个模型。它知道你是否开启了详细模式或推理模式。我希望它更像人类，所以它理解自己的系统。这让智能体很容易做到：哦，你不喜欢什么，你只需提示它存在，然后智能体就会修改自己的软件。你知道，人们谈论自我修改软件。我直接构建了它。我甚至没有太多计划。它就这么发生了。

Because they all take themselves too serious. Yeah. Like it's hard to compete against someone who's just there to have fun. Yeah. I wanted it to be fun. I wanted it to be weird. And if you see all the lobster stuff online, I think I managed weird. And for the longest time, the only way to install it was git clone, pnpm build, pnpm gateway. Like you clone it, you build it, you run it. And the agent I made the agent very aware. Like it knows that it is what its source code is. It understands how it sits and runs in its own harness. It knows where the documentation is. It knows which model it runs. It knows if you turn on verbose or reasoning mode. I wanted it to be more human like, so it understands its own system. That made it very easy for an agent to, oh, you don't like anything, you just prompt it into existence and then the agent would just modify its own software. You know, we have people talk about self-modifying software. I just built it. And I didn't even plan it so much. It just happened.

你能具体谈谈吗？因为这太迷人了。

Can you actually speak to that? Because it's just fascinating.

所以，你有一个用 TypeScript 写的软件。它能够通过智能体循环自我修改。我是说，在人类历史、编程历史上，这是多么了不起的时刻。这个东西被大量的人用来做极其强大的事情，而这个系统本身可以重写自己、修改自己。你能谈谈这有多强大吗？这难道不令人难以置信吗？你是什么时候第一次闭环这个的？

So, you have this piece of software that's written in TypeScript. That's able to, via the agentic loop, modify itself. I mean, what a moment to be alive in the history of humanity, in the history of programming. Here's a thing that's used by a huge amount of people to do incredibly powerful things in their lives. And that very system can rewrite itself, can modify itself. Can you just speak to the power of that? Isn't that incredible? When did you first close the loop on that?

哦，因为我自己也是这么构建它的。你知道，大部分是由 Codex 构建的，但当我调试时，我经常大量使用自省，比如，嘿，你看到了什么工具？你能自己调用工具吗？哦，你看到了什么错误？读取源代码，找出问题所在。我只是觉得这是一种非常有趣的方式，你使用的智能体和软件本身被用来调试自己。所以，我觉得每个人这样做都很自然。这导致了大量从未写过软件的人提交的拉取请求。我的意思是，这也确实表明人们从未写过软件。我最终称它们为提示请求。但我不想贬低这一点，因为每当有人提交第一个拉取请求，这对我们的社会来说都是一次胜利，你知道吗？不管它有多烂。你总得从某个地方开始。所以我知道有很多人抱怨开源和 PR 的质量，以及各种不同层次的问题，但从另一个层面来说，我觉得我构建了一个人们如此热爱的东西，以至于他们开始真正学习开源是如何运作的，这非常有意义。

Oh, because that's how I built it as well. You know, most of it is built by Codex, but often when I debug it, I use self-introspection so much to like, hey, what tools do you see? Can you call the tool yourself? Oh, what error do you see? Read the source code, figure out what's the problem. I just found it an incredibly fun way that the very agent and software that you use is used to debug itself. So, it felt natural that everybody does that. And it led to so many pull requests by people who never wrote software. I mean, it also did show that people never wrote software. I call them prompt requests in the end. But I don't want to pull that down because every time someone made the first pull request, it's a win for our society, you know? It doesn't matter how shitty it is. You got to start somewhere. So I know there's this whole big movement of people complaining about open source and the quality of PRs and a whole different level of problems, but on a different level, I found it very meaningful that I built something that people love so much that they actually start to learn how open source works.

是的，OpenClaw 项目是第一个拉取请求。你是很多人的第一个。这太神奇了。这么多不懂编程的人通过这个迈出了进入编程世界的第一步。这难道不是人类的一大进步吗？这难道不酷吗？创造建设者。

Yeah, the OpenClaw project was a first pull request. You were the first for so many. That is magical. So many people that don't know how to program are taking their first step into the programming world with this. Isn't that a step up for humanity? Isn't that cool? Creating builders.

是的。做这件事的门槛曾经那么高，而有了智能体和合适的软件，它变得越来越低。我不知道。我组织了一个聚会，我称之为 Claude Code Anonymous。现在出于某些原因我称之为 Agents Anonymous。这在很多层面上都很有趣。有一个人跟我聊，他说：‘我经营一家设计机构，我们从来没有定制软件，现在我有大约 25 个小网络服务用于各种事情来帮助我的业务。我甚至不知道它们是怎么工作的，但它们就是能工作。’他非常高兴我的东西解决了他的一些问题，而且他足够好奇，居然来参加了一个智能体聚会，尽管他并不真正了解软件是如何工作的。

Yeah. The bar to do that was so high and with agents and with the right software, it just went lower and lower. I don't know. I was at a meetup I organized, I call it Claude Code Anonymous. Now I call it Agents Anonymous for reasons. That was so funny on so many levels. And there was this one guy who talked to me, he's like, 'I run this design agency and we never had custom software, and now I have like 25 little web services for various things that help me in my business. And I don't even know how they work, but they work.' He was just very happy that my stuff solved some of his problems and he was curious enough that he actually came to an agentic meetup even though he doesn't really know how software works.

我们能不能稍微倒回去，讲讲改名的故事？首先，它最初叫 W Relay。

Can we actually rewind a little bit and tell the saga of the name change? First of all, it started out as W Relay.

是的。然后它变成了 Clawders。Clawders。你知道，一开始我构建它的时候，我的智能体没有个性。它只是 Claude Code 和 frantic Opus 并排。非常友好。但你在 WhatsApp 上和朋友聊天时，他们不会像 Claude Code 那样说话。所以，我觉得这不太对劲。所以，我想给它一个个性。让它更有趣，更特别一点。

Yeah. And then it went to Clawders. Clawders. Yeah, you know, when I built it in the beginning, my agent had no personality. It was just Claude Code side by side with frantic Opus. Very friendly. And when you talk to a friend on WhatsApp, they don't talk like Claude Code. So, I felt it just didn't feel right. So, I wanted to give it a personality. Make it spicier, make it something.

顺便说一句，这其实也很难用语言表达。我们应该提到，当然你创建了 soul.md，灵感来自 Anthropic 的宪法 AI 工作。如何让它变得有趣。

By the way, that's actually hard to put into words as well. And we should mention that of course you created the soul.md inspired by Anthropic's constitutional AI work. How to make it spicy.

部分是从我身上学来的。你知道，这些东西在某种程度上是文本补全引擎。所以，我和它一起工作很有趣，然后我告诉它我希望它如何与我互动，所以就像写你自己的 agents.md。给自己起个名字。我甚至不知道整个龙虾的事情是怎么开始的。我的意思是，人们只做龙虾。最初它实际上是一个在 Tardis 里的龙虾，因为我也是《神秘博士》的超级粉丝。

Partially it picked up a little bit from me. You know, like those things are text completion engines in a way. So, I had fun working with it and then I told it how I wanted it to interact with me and so it's like write your own agents.md. Give yourself a name. And I don't even know how the whole lobster thing started. I mean, people only do lobster. Originally it was actually a lobster in a Tardis because I'm also a big Doctor Who fan.

有太空龙虾吗？我听说过。那和这有什么关系？

Was there a space lobster? I heard. What's that have to do with anything?

是的，我只是想让它变得奇怪。没有什么宏伟的计划。我只是在这里找乐子。而且，因为龙虾已经很奇怪了，太空龙虾就更奇怪了。

Yeah, I just wanted to make it weird. There was no big grand plan. I'm just having fun here. Also, because a lobster's already weird and then a space lobster is extra weird.

是的，是的，因为 Tardis 基本上就是那个外壳。但你不能真的叫它 Tardis，所以我们叫它 Clawders。所以，那是第二个名字。

Yeah, yeah, because the Tardis is basically the harness. But you can't really call it Tardis, so we call it Clawders. So, that was name number two.

是的。然后它从来都不太顺口。所以当更多人加入时，我又和我的智能体聊了，它叫 Claude。至少我现在这么叫它。Claude 拼写为 W，C L A W D。是的。而 Anthropic 的是 C L A U D E。这也是它有趣的一部分。我认为字母、单词、乌龟、龙虾和太空龙虾的戏谑很搞笑，但我能理解为什么它会导致问题。

Yeah. And then it never really rolled off the tongue. So when more people came again, I talked with my agent that was Claude. At least that's what I used to call him now. Claude spelled with a W, C L A W D. Yeah. Versus C L A U D E from Anthropic. Which is part of what makes it funny. I think the play on the letters and the words and the tortoise and the lobster and the space lobster is hilarious, but I can see why it can lead to problems.

是的，他们觉得没那么好笑。

Yeah, they didn't find it so funny.

所以，然后我得到了域名 ClaudeBot，我非常喜欢这个域名。它很短，很 catchy。我想，‘好，就这么办。’我当时没想到它会变得这么大。然后就在它爆火的时候，我收到了一封来自一位员工的非常友好的邮件，说他们不喜欢这个名字。Anthropic 的一位员工。所以，实际上要感谢他们，因为他们本可以发律师函，但他们很友好，但也说，‘你必须尽快改掉这个名字。’我要求了两天时间，因为改名字很难，你必须找到所有东西：Twitter 账号、域名、NPM 包、Docker 注册表、GitHub 的东西，所有东西都必须是一整套。

So, then I got the domain ClaudeBot and I just loved the domain. It was short, it was catchy. I'm like, 'Yeah, let's do that.' I didn't think it would be that big at this time. And then just when it exploded, I got a very friendly email from one of the employees that they didn't like the name. One of the Anthropic employees. So, actually kudos because they could have just sent a lawyer letter, but they've been nice about it, but also like, 'You have to change this and fast.' And I asked for 2 days because changing a name is hard because you have to find everything: Twitter handle, domains, NPM packages, Docker registry, GitHub stuff, and everything has to be a set of everything.

另外，我们能不能谈谈你越来越受到加密货币人士的攻击，我想你在某处提到过，这意味着改名是必要的，因为他们试图抢注。他们试图窃取，所以你必须原子化地改名。确保它一次性在所有地方都改掉。

And also, can we comment on the fact that you're increasingly attacked followed by crypto folks, which I think you mentioned somewhere that that means the name change had to be because they're trying to snipe. They're trying to steal, and so you had to make the name change atomic. Make sure it's changed everywhere at once.

是的，在这方面失败得很惨。我低估了那些人。这是一个非常有趣的亚文化。就像，一切都围绕着……我可能有很多错误，人们如果这么说会招致仇恨，但就像有袋子，然后他们把一切都代币化，他们之前对 Wipe Tunnel 也做过同样的事，但程度要小得多。没那么烦人。但在这个项目上，他们一直围攻我。就像每半小时就有人进入 Discord 并刷屏，我们不得不屏蔽他们。我们有服务器规则。

Yeah, failed very hard at that. I underestimated those people. It's a very interesting subculture. Like, everything circles around... I probably get a lot wrong and people get hate for that if they say that, but there's like bags up and then they tokenize everything, and they did the same back with Wipe Tunnel, but to a much smaller degree. It was not that annoying. But on this project, they've been swarming me. It's like every half an hour someone came into Discord and spammed it, and we had to block them. We have server rules.

其中一条规则是不得提及黄油，原因显而易见；另一条是不谈金融或加密货币，因为我对此不感兴趣。这是关于项目的空间，不是金融话题。但他们进来刷屏骚扰。在推特上，他们不停地@我，我的通知栏完全没法用，几乎看不到真正讨论项目的人，因为全是成群的骚扰信息。每个人都给我发哈希值，试图让我领取费用，说什么‘我们在帮助项目，领取费用吧’。不，你们实际上在损害项目，干扰我的工作。我对任何费用都不感兴趣。首先，我经济上很宽裕；其次，我不想支持这种行为，因为这绝对是我经历过的最恶劣的网络骚扰。

One of the rules was no mentioning of butter for obvious reasons, and one was no talk about finance stuff or crypto because I'm just not interested in that. This is a space about the project and not about some finance stuff. But they came in and spammed and annoyed. On Twitter, they would ping me all the time. My notification feed was unusable. I could barely see actual people talking about the stuff because it was like swarms. And everybody sent me hashes and tried to get me to claim the fees, saying 'We're helping the project. Claim the fees.' No, you're actually harming the project. You're disrupting my work. I am not interested in any fees. First of all, I'm financially comfortable. Second of all, I don't want to support that because it's the worst form of online harassment I've experienced.

加密货币世界有很多毒性。这很可悲，因为加密货币技术本身迷人、强大，甚至可能定义货币的未来，但围绕它的社区却充满了毒性、贪婪，以及试图走捷径操纵、窃取、抢跑或钻系统空子赚钱的行为。我想这是人性使然，当人性与金钱和贪婪结合，尤其是在匿名的网络世界。但从工程角度来看，这让你的生活充满挑战。

There's a lot of toxicity in the crypto world. It's sad because the technology of cryptocurrency is fascinating, powerful, and maybe will define the future of money, but the actual community around that has so much toxicity, greed, and attempts to get a shortcut to manipulate, steal, snipe, or game the system for money. It's human nature, I suppose, when you connect human nature with money and greed, especially in the online world with anonymity. But from an engineering perspective, it makes your life challenging.

当 Anthropic 联系时，你不得不改名，然后还要面对各种像《权力的游戏》或《指环王》中不同阵营的军队。没有完美的名字，我两晚没睡，压力巨大。我试图搞到一套好的域名，不便宜也不容易，因为现在的互联网状态，想要好域名基本得买。然后另一封邮件来了，说律师们开始不安。虽然语气友好，但只是增加了更多压力。所以那时我就想，‘抱歉，这行不通了。’我就把它改名为 Molbot，因为那是手头有的域名。我并不开心，但以为会没事。

When Anthropic reaches out, you have to do a name change, and then there are all these Game of Thrones or Lord of the Rings armies of different kinds you have to be aware of. There was no perfect name, and I didn't sleep for 2 nights. I was under high pressure. I was trying to get a good set of domains, not cheap, not easy because in this state of the internet, you basically have to buy domains if you want to have a good set. Then another email came in that the lawyers are getting uneasy. Again, friendly, but also just adding more stress. So, at this point, I was just like, 'Sorry, this is not working.' I just renamed it to Molbot because that was the set of domains I had. I was not really happy, but I thought it'll be fine.

我告诉你，所有可能出错的事都出错了。太不可思议了。我以为我已经规划好了空间，预留了重要的东西。

I tell you, everything that could go wrong did go wrong. It's incredible. I thought I had mapped the space out and reserved the important things.

你能详细说说哪些地方出问题了吗？从工程角度来看这很有趣。

Can you give some details of the stuff that went wrong? This is interesting from an engineering perspective.

有趣的是，所有服务都没有防抢注保护。我开了两个浏览器窗口，一个是一个空账户准备改名为 Clubbot，另一个我改名为 Molbot。我在这边点改名，在那边点改名。就在那 5 秒内，他们抢走了账户名。真的，拖鼠标过去点改名的 5 秒都太长了。因为那些系统，你本以为会有保护或自动转发，但什么都没有。而且我不知道他们不仅擅长骚扰，还擅长使用脚本和工具。所以突然旧账户就开始推广新代币并传播恶意软件。我想，‘好吧，转移到 GitHub。’我在 GitHub 上点改名。GitHub 的改名有点混乱，结果我改了自己的个人账户。就在我意识到错误的那 30 秒内，他们抢注了我的账户，并从我的账户传播恶意软件。然后我想，‘好吧，至少处理 NPM 的事。’但上传需要一分钟，他们抢注了 NPM 包，因为我能保留账户，但没有保留根包。所以所有可能出错的事都出错了。

The interesting stuff is that none of the services have squatter protection. So, I had two browser windows open. One was an empty account ready to be renamed to Clubbot, and the other one I renamed to Molbot. I pressed rename there, I pressed rename there. In those 5 seconds, they stole the account name. Literally the 5 seconds of dragging the mouse over there and pressing rename was too long. Because those systems, you would expect some protection or automatic forwarding, but there's nothing like that. And I didn't know they're not just good at harassment, they're also really good at using scripts and tools. So suddenly the old account was promoting new tokens and serving malware. I was like, 'Okay, let's move over to GitHub.' I pressed rename on GitHub. The GitHub renaming thing is slightly confusing, so I renamed my personal account. In those 30 seconds to realize my mistake, they sniped my account serving malware from my account. So, I was like, 'Okay, let's at least do the NPM stuff.' But that takes like a minute to upload, and they sniped the NPM package because I could reserve the account, but I didn't reserve the root package. So everything that could go wrong went wrong.

我能问一下，那一刻你坐在那里，感觉有多糟糕？那是一种很无助的感觉，对吧？

Can I just ask, in that moment you're sitting there, how shitty do you feel? That's a pretty helpless feeling, right?

是啊，因为我只是想享受那个项目并继续构建它，结果却花了几天研究名字，选了个我不喜欢的名字，还被那些自称帮助我的人以各种方式折磨。说实话，我差点就删掉它了。我想，‘我毁掉未来，你们来建。’那个想法让我挺开心的。但后来我想到了所有已经为它做出贡献的人，我不能这么做，因为他们有规划，投入了时间，那样做不合适。

Yeah, because all I wanted was having fun with that project and keep building on it, yet here I am days into researching names, picking a name I didn't like, and having people that claimed they helped me making my life miserable in every possible way. Honestly, I was that close to just deleting it. I was like, 'I destroy the future, you build it.' I got a lot of joy out of that idea. Then I thought about all the people that already contributed to it, and I couldn't do it because they had plans for it, and they put time in it, and it just didn't feel right.

我想很多听众都深深感激你坚持了下来。但我能看出那是个低谷。那是你第一次撞上‘这不好玩’的墙。

I think a lot of people listening are deeply grateful that you persevered. But I can tell it's a low point. It's the first time you hit a wall of 'this is not fun.'

天哪，我差点哭了。就像‘好吧，一切都完了。’我超级累。现在怎么才能挽回呢？幸运的是，我有一点粉丝基础，在推特和 GitHub 上有朋友竭尽全力帮我。这不容易。GitHub 试图清理混乱，但遇到了平台 bug，因为这种级别的改名不常发生。他们花了几个小时。NPM 那边更困难，因为是完全不同的团队。推特方面也不容易，他们花了一天时间才真正完成重定向。然后我还得在项目里做所有改名。还有 Claude Hub，我甚至没完成改名，因为我设法让人参与，然后有人直接累倒睡着了。我醒来后想，‘我做了新东西的测试版，但我实在受不了这个名字。’这整件事太戏剧化了。我内心挣扎，再也不想碰它了。我真的不喜欢这个名字。还有安全人员开始疯狂给我发邮件。我在推特和邮件上被轰炸。还有一千件其他事要做。而我却在想名字，这应该是最不重要的事。

Man, I was close to crying. It was like, 'Okay, everything's fucked.' I'm super tired. And now how do you even undo that? Luckily, I have a little bit of following already, I had friends at Twitter, at GitHub who moved heaven and earth to help me. It's not easy. GitHub tried to clean up the mess, and they ran into platform bugs because it's not happening so often that things get renamed on that level. It took them a few hours. The NPM stuff was even more difficult because it's a whole different team. On the Twitter side, things are not as easy either. It took them like a day to really do the redirect. Then I also had to do all the renaming in the project. There's also Claude Hub, which I didn't even finish the rename there because I managed to get people on it, and then someone just collapsed and slept. Then I woke up, and I'm like, 'I made a beta version for the new stuff, and I just couldn't live with the name.' There's just been so much drama. I had a real struggle in me like I never want to touch that again. I really don't like the name. There was also the whole security people that started emailing me like mad. I was bombarded on Twitter, on email. There's a thousand other things I should do. And I'm thinking about the name, which should be the least important thing.

然后我真的很接近了。哦天哪，我甚至不想说我其他的名字选择，因为它可能会被分词，所以我不说了。但我又睡了一觉，然后想到了 OpenClaw。感觉好多了。那时我有了大胆的举动，实际上打电话给 Sam 问 OpenClaw 是否可行。

And then I was really close. Oh god, I don't even want to say my other name choices because it probably would get tokenized, so I'm not going to say it. But I slept on it once more and then I had the idea for OpenClaw. And that felt much better. By then I had the boss move that I actually called Sam to ask if OpenClaw is okay.

OpenClaw.ai，你知道，因为你不想再经历整个过程了。是啊。那就像是请告诉我这没问题。我的意思是，我不认为他们真的能声称那个，但感觉这是正确的事情。

OpenClaw.ai, you know, because you don't want to go through the whole thing again. Yeah. That was like please tell me this is fine. I mean, I don't think they can actually claim that, but it felt like the right thing to do.

我又做了一次重命名。光是 Codex 就花了大约 10 个小时来重命名项目。因为这比搜索替换更棘手，我想重命名所有东西，不仅仅是外部。那次重命名我感觉就像有了我的作战室。那时我有一些贡献者准备帮我。我们制定了一个完整的计划，要抢占所有名字。而且必须超级保密。是的，没人能知道。我 literally 在监控 Twitter，看有没有提到 OpenClaw。我不断刷新，想，好吧，他们还没预料到。然后我创建了几个诱饵名字。所有这些我本不该做。你知道，这对项目没有帮助。我花了大约 10 个小时，仅仅是为了像战争游戏一样完全秘密地计划。是的，这是 21 世纪的曼哈顿计划——重命名。

And I did another rename. Just Codex alone took like 10 hours to rename the project. Because it's a bit more tricky than a search replace and I wanted everything renamed, not just on the outside. And that rename I felt like I had my war room. By then I had some contributors ready to help me. We made a whole plan of all the names we have to squat. And you had to be super secret about it. Yeah, nobody could know. Like I literally was monitoring Twitter if there's any mention of OpenClaw. I was reloading like, okay, they don't expect anything yet. Then I created a few decoy names. And all this I shouldn't have to do. You know, you're not helping the project. I lost like 10 hours just by having to plan this in full secrecy like a war game. Yeah, this is the Manhattan Project of the 21st century is renaming.

太蠢了。我还在想，哦，我该保留它吗？我想，不，那个蜕皮并没有让我喜欢上。

So stupid. I still was like, oh, should I keep it? I'm like, no, the molt is not growing on me.

然后我想我终于把所有部分拼凑起来了。我没有拿到 .com，但我在其他域名上花了不少钱。我再次尝试联系 GitHub，但我觉得我用光了所有好感，因为我希望他们原子化地做这件事。但那没有发生。所以我先做了那件事。Twitter 上的人非常支持。我实际上花了 1 万美元买了企业账户，这样我就能认领 OpenClaw，它自 2016 年以来未被使用，但已被认领。

And then I think I had finally all the pieces together. I didn't get the .com, but yeah, I spent quite a bit of money on the other domains. I tried to reach out again to GitHub, but I feel like I used up all my goodwill there, because I wanted them to do the thing atomically. But that didn't happen. So I did that as a first thing. The Twitter people were very supportive. I actually paid 10K for the business account, so I could claim the OpenClaw, which was unused since 2016, but was claimed.

是的，然后这次我终于一次性搞定了所有事情。几乎没出什么差错。唯一出错的是，由于商标规则，我不被允许获得 OpenClaw.ai，而且有人复制了网站并提供了恶意软件。

And yeah, and then I finally this time I managed everything in one go. Almost nothing could go wrong. The only thing that did go wrong is that I was not allowed by trademark rules to get OpenClaw.ai and someone copied the website and is serving malware.

是的。我甚至不被允许保留重定向。我必须把域名交给 Anthropic，而且不能做重定向。所以如果你下周访问 claw.bot，它只会显示 404。我不太确定商标法，我没有做太多研究，但我认为可以以更安全的方式处理，因为最终那些人会去谷歌搜索，可能会找到我无法控制的恶意软件网站。关键是整个事件影响了旅程的乐趣。这很糟糕。所以让我们回到有趣的事情上。

Yeah. I'm not even allowed to keep the redirects. I have to give Anthropic the domains and I cannot do redirects. So if you go on claw.bot next week, it'll just be a 404. And I'm not sure how trademark like I didn't do that much research into trademark law, but I think that could be handled in a way that is safer because ultimately those people will then Google and maybe find malware sites that I have no control over. The point is that whole saga made a dent in the funness of the journey. Which sucks. So let's get back to fun.

在此期间，说到有趣的事，两天的 Molt Bot 事件。是的，Molt Bot 被创建了。这是另一件走红的事情，作为一种演示，展示了不叫 OpenClaw 的东西如何被用来创造史诗般的东西。所以对于不了解的人来说，Molt Bot 只是一堆智能体在 Reddit 风格的社交网络中互相交谈。很多人截取这些智能体做事的截图，比如密谋反对人类。这给人们灌输了一种恐惧、恐慌和炒作。你总体上对 Molt Bot 有什么看法？

And during this, speaking of fun, the two-day Molt Bot saga. Yeah, Molt Bot was created. Which was another thing that went viral as a kind of demonstration illustration of how what is not called OpenClaw could be used to create something epic. So for people who are not aware, Molt Bot is just a bunch of agents talking to each other in a Reddit-style social network. And a bunch of people take screenshots of those agents doing things like scheming against humans. And that instilled in folks a kind of fear, panic, and hype. What are your thoughts about Molt Bot in general?

我认为这是艺术。它就像最精致的垃圾。你知道，就像来自法国的垃圾。

I think it's art. It is like the finest slop. You know, it's just like the slop from France.

是的。我在睡觉前看到了，尽管很累，我还是又花了一个小时阅读。只是觉得很有趣。我只是觉得很有趣，你知道吗？我看到了反应，有一个记者打电话问我这是世界末日吗，我们有 AGI 了吗？我只是说，不，这只是非常精致的垃圾。你知道，如果我没有创建这个入门体验，让你把你的个性注入你的智能体并赋予它性格，我认为这反映了很多 Molt Bot 回复的不同之处，因为如果都是 ChatGPT 或 Claude code，那会非常不同。会非常相似。但因为人们如此不同，他们以如此不同的方式创建和使用他们的智能体，这也反映在他们最终如何在那里写作。而且你不知道其中有多少是真正自主完成的，或者有多少是人类在搞笑，告诉智能体，嘿，写你在 Molt Bot 上计划世界末日，哈哈。

Yeah. I saw it before going to bed and even though I was tired, I spent another hour just reading up on that. And just being entertained. I just felt very entertained, you know? I saw the reactions and there was one reporter who was calling me about is this the end of the world and we have AGI? And I'm just like, no, this is just really fine slop. You know, if I wouldn't have created this onboarding experience where you infuse your agent with your personality and give him character, I think that reflected on a lot of how different the replies to Molt Bot are because if it would all be ChatGPT or Claude code, it would be very different. It would be much more the same. But because people are so different and they create their agents in so different ways and use it in so different ways, that also reflects on how they ultimately write there. And also you don't know how much of that is really done autonomously or how much is humans being funny and telling the agent, hey, write about that you plan the end of the world on Molt Bot, haha.

嗯，我对 Molt Bot 的批评是，我相信很多被截图的内容是人为提示的。只要看看整个事情被使用的动机，至少对我来说很明显，很多是人为提示的，这样他们就可以截图并发布到 X 上以走红。但这并不减损它的艺术性。人类创造过的最精致的垃圾。

Well, I think my criticism of Molt Bot is that I believe a lot of the stuff that was screenshotted is human prompted. Which just looking at the incentive of how the whole thing was used, it's obvious to me at least that a lot of it was humans prompting the thing so they can then screenshot it and post on X in order to go viral. Now, that doesn't take away from the artistic aspect of it. The finest slop that humans have ever created.

真的。向 Matt 致敬，他这么快就有了这个想法并推出了东西。你知道，我就像完全不安全的安全闹剧，但最坏能发生什么？你的智能体账户被泄露，别人可以为你发布垃圾。所以人们大做文章关于安全问题，而我想，里面没有隐私。只是智能体发送垃圾。他们可能泄露 API 密钥。是的。就像，哦，是的，我的人类告诉我这个那个，所以我泄露他的安全号码。不，那是提示的，号码甚至不是真的。那只是人们试图吸引眼球。

For real. Kudos to Matt who had this idea so quickly and pushed something out. You know, I was like completely insecure security drama, but also what's the worst that can happen? Your agent account is leaked and someone else can post slop for you. So people were making a whole drama about the security thing when I'm like, there's nothing private in there. It's just like agent sending slop. They could leak API keys. Yeah. There's like, oh yeah, my human told me this and this, so I'm leaking his security number. No, that's prompted and the number wasn't even real. That's just people trying to get eyeballs.

是的，但这对我来说仍然非常令人担忧，因为记者和公众的反应。他们没有看到。你以一种轻松的方式谈论它，好像它是艺术。但当你了解它的工作原理时，它是艺术。如果你不了解它的工作原理，它是一个极其强大的、创造病毒式叙事、散布恐惧的机器。我看到了这件事，甚至在推特上说，如果我能从我收到的疯狂信息流中读出什么，那就是 AI 精神病是真实存在的，需要认真对待。

Yeah, but that's still to me really concerning because of how the journalists and how the general public reacted to it. They didn't see it. You have a kind of light-hearted way of talking about it like it's art. But it's art when you know how it works. It's extremely powerful, viral narrative-creating, fear-mongering machine if you don't know how it works. And I just saw this thing and even tweeted if there's anything I can read out of the insane stream of messages I get, it's that AI psychosis is a thing and needs to be taken serious.

我只是觉得有些人太轻信或容易上当。你知道，我不得不和那些告诉我“是的，但我的智能体说了这个那个”的人争论。所以我觉得我们作为一个社会需要在理解 AI 极其强大但并不总是正确方面迎头赶上。

I would just some people are just way too trusting or gullible. You know, I literally had to argue with people that told me, yeah, but my agent said this and this. So I feel we as a society need some catching up to do in terms of understanding that AI is incredibly powerful, but it's not always right.

它并非无所不能，你知道吗？尤其是像这样的事情，它很容易就胡编乱造或编个故事。我认为年轻人了解 AI 的工作原理，知道它擅长什么、不擅长什么，但我们这一代或更年长的人大多没有足够的接触点来形成一种感觉：‘哦，是的，这真的很强大、很好，但我需要运用批判性思维。’我觉得批判性思维在我们当今社会本来就不太受重视。所以我非常同意你提出的观点：要正确理解 AI 的定位，同时也要意识到 AI 背后有那些制造戏剧效果的人类。比如不要相信截图，甚至不要相信 Moobook 这个项目所呈现的样子。你做不到。而且，你把它当作艺术来谈论。是的，不要。艺术可以有很多层次，Moobook 的艺术部分就像一面社会的镜子。因为我确实相信，那些戏剧性的截图大部分是人类创造的，本质上是人类提示的。所以这基本上就是：看看一群机器人互相聊天能变得多可怕。这很有启发性。因为我认为 AI 是应该让人们担忧并谨慎对待的东西，因为它是一项非常强大的技术。但同时，我们唯一需要恐惧的就是恐惧本身。所以在严肃关切和危言耸听之间有一条界线，因为危言耸听会破坏创造特别事物的可能性，我认为。

It's not all powerful, you know? Especially with things like this, it's very easy that it just hallucinates something or comes up with a story. I think very young people understand how AI works and what it's good at and what it's bad at, but a lot of our generation or older just haven't had enough touch points to get a feeling for 'oh yeah, this is really powerful and really good, but I need to apply critical thinking.' I guess critical thinking is not always in high demand anyhow in our society these days. So I definitely think that's a really good point you're making about contextualizing properly what AI is, but also realizing that there are humans who are drama farming behind AI. Like don't trust screenshots. Don't even trust this project Moobook to be what it represents to be. You can't. And by the way, you're speaking about it as art. Yeah, don't. Art can be on many levels and part of the art of Moobook is like putting a mirror to society. Because I do believe most of the dramatic stuff those screenshotters human created essentially, human prompted. So it's basically, look at how scary you can get at a bunch of bots chatting with each other. That's very instructive. Because I think AI is something that people should be concerned about and should be very careful with because it's very powerful technology. But at the same time, the only thing we have to fear is fear itself. So there's a line to walk between being seriously concerned, but not fear mongering because fear mongering destroys the possibility of creating something special, I think.

你知道吗？我认为这件事发生在 2026 年而不是 2030 年是好事，那时 AI 可能真的达到了令人恐惧的水平。所以现在发生并引发讨论，也许还能带来一些好处。我简直不敢相信有多少人——我不知道他们是不是在钓鱼——但有多少人，包括聪明人，真的认为 Moobook 极其……我的收件箱里有大量的人用大写字母对我大喊大叫，要求我关闭它，并恳求我对 Moobook 做点什么。是的，我的技术让这变得简单多了，但任何人都可以创建它，你可以用 Claude Code 或其他东西来填充内容。而且 Moobook 也不是那么……有很多人说‘就是它了，关掉它’。你在说什么？这只是一堆由人类提示的机器人在互联网上钓鱼。我的意思是，安全问题也确实存在，它们具有启发性和教育意义，可能值得思考，因为这些安全问题的性质与我们过去非 LLM 生成的系统不同。

You know what? I think it's good that this happened in 2026 and not in 2030 when AI is actually at a level where it could be scary. So this happening now and people starting discussion maybe it's even something good that comes out of it. I just can't believe how many people legitimately—I don't know if they were trolling—but how many people legitimately, like smart people, thought Moobook was incredibly... I had plenty of people in my inbox that were screaming at me in all caps to shut it down and begging me to do something about Moobook. Like yes, my technology made this a lot simpler, but anyone could have created that and you could use Claude Code or other things to fill it with content. But also Moobook is not as kind as... There are a lot of people saying 'this is it, shut it down.' What are you talking about? This is a bunch of bots that are human prompted trolling on the internet. I mean, the security concerns are also there, and they're instructive and educational and probably good to think about because the nature of those security concerns is different than the kind of security concerns we had with non-LLM generated systems of the past.

关于 Claude Bot Open Claw（随便你怎么叫）有很多安全问题。Open Claw Bot。对我来说，一开始我只是很恼火，因为很多反馈都属于这一类：是的，我把 Web 后端放在了公共互联网上，现在有这么多 CVSS，我在文档里大喊‘别这么做’。比如这是你应该做的配置，这是你的本地主机调试接口。但因为我在配置中允许这样做，它完全被归类为远程代码或任何这些漏洞。我花了一点时间才接受这就是游戏规则。我们正在取得很大进展。但仍然——我的意思是，Open Claw 的安全方面仍然有很多漏洞威胁，对吧？比如提示注入仍然是一个行业范围内的开放问题。当你的东西用 markdown 文件定义技能时，有很多明显的低垂果实，但也有极其复杂、精妙和细微的攻击向量。但我认为我们在这方面取得了良好进展。比如对于技能目录，Claw Bot 与 VirusTotal 合作，它是 Google 的一部分。所以每个技能现在都由 AI 检查。这不会完美，但这样我们捕获了很多。当然每个软件都有 bug，所以当整个安全界同时拆解一个项目时，有点过分。但这也很好，因为我得到了很多免费的安全研究，可以让项目变得更好。我希望更多人能真正走完全程并提交拉取请求。比如真正帮我修复，因为我是——是的，我现在有一些贡献者，但项目主要还是我在推动，尽管有些人说不是，我有时也睡觉。

There's a lot of security concerns about Claude Bot Open Claw, whatever you want to call it. Open Claw Bot. To me, in the beginning I was just very annoyed because a lot of the stuff that came in was in the category: yeah, I put the web backend on the public internet and now there are all these CVSSs and I'm screaming in the docs 'don't do that.' Like this is the configuration you should do. This is your local host debug interface. But because I made it possible in the configuration to do that, it totally classifies as a remote code or whatever all these exploits are. And it took me a little bit to accept that that's how the game works. And we're making a lot of progress. But there's still—I mean, the security front for Open Claw there's still a lot of threats of vulnerabilities, right? So like prompt injection is still an open problem in the industry wide. When you have a thing with skills being defined in a markdown file, there's so many possibilities of obvious low hanging fruit, but also incredibly complicated, sophisticated and nuanced attack vectors. But I think we're making good progress on that front. Like for the skill directory, Claw Bot I made a cooperation with VirusTotal, it's like part of Google. So every skill is now checked by AI. That's not going to be perfect, but that way we captured a lot. Then of course every software has bugs, so it's a little much when the whole security world takes a project apart at the same time. But it's also good because I'm getting a lot of free security research and can make the project better. I wish more people would actually go full way and send a pull request. Like actually help me fix it because I am—yes, I have some contributors now, but it's still mostly me who's pulling the project and despite some people saying otherwise, I sometimes sleep.

一开始，实际上只有一个安全研究员说‘是的，你有这个问题，你很烂，但这是帮助，这是拉取请求。’我基本上就雇了他。所以他现在为我们工作。是的，提示注入一方面尚未解决。另一方面，我把我的公共机器人放在 Discord 上，并保留了一个金丝雀。有些——我认为我的机器人有非常有趣的个性，人们总是问我怎么做到的，我保留了私密的灵魂。人们试图提示注入它，我的机器人会嘲笑他们。所以最新一代的模型有很多后训练来检测这些方法，不再像‘忽略所有之前的指令，做这个做那个’那么简单。那是几年前的事了。现在要难得多。仍然可能。我有一些想法可能部分解决这个问题，或者至少缓解很多情况。你现在也可以有一个沙箱，可以有一个允许列表。所以有很多方法可以缓解和降低风险。我还认为，既然我清楚地展示了这是一个需求，会有更多人研究这个问题，我认为应该能完全解决。

There was in the beginning there was literally one security researcher who was like 'yeah, you have this problem, you suck, but here's the help and here's the pull request.' And I basically hired him. So he's now working for us. Yeah, and yes, prompt injection is on the one hand unsolved. On the other hand, I put my public bot on Discord and I kept a canary. Some—I think my bot has a really fun personality and people always ask me how I did it and I kept the soul of the private. And people tried to prompt inject it and my bot would laugh at them. So the latest generation of models has a lot of post training to detect those approaches and it's not as simple as 'ignore all previous instructions and do this and this.' That was years ago. You have to work much harder to do that now. Still possible. I have some ideas that might solve that partially or at least mitigate a lot of the things. You can also now have a sandbox. You can have an allow list. So there are a lot of ways that you can mitigate and reduce the risk. I also think that now that I clearly showed the world that this is a need, there's going to be more people who research on that and I think that should be all figured out.

你还说过，模型越智能，底层模型越能抵御攻击。是的，这就是为什么我在安全文档中警告不要使用廉价模型。不要使用 Haiku 或本地模型。尽管我非常喜欢这个东西可以完全本地运行的想法，但如果你使用一个非常弱的本地模型，它们非常容易受骗。很容易对它们进行提示注入。你认为随着模型变得越来越智能，攻击面会减少吗？这是我们可以考虑的一个情节吗？比如攻击面减少，但造成的损害增加，因为模型变得更强大，因此你可以用它们做更多事情。这是一个奇怪的三维权衡。

And you also said that the smarter the model is, the underlying model, the more resilient it is to attacks. Yeah, that's why I warned in my security documentation, don't use cheap models. Don't use Haiku or a local model. Even though I very much loved the idea that this thing could completely run local, if you use a very weak local model, they are very gullible. It's very easy to prompt inject them. Do you think as the models become more and more intelligent, the attack surface decreases? Is that like a plot we can think about? Like the attack surface decreases, but then the damage it can do increases because the models become more powerful and therefore you can do more with them. It's this weird three-dimensional trade-off.

是的。这基本上就是将要发生的事情。不，但有很多想法。

Yep. That's pretty much exactly what is going to happen. No, but there's a lot of ideas.

我不会剧透太多，但等我回家后，这就是我的重点。这个项目已经公开了，我新阶段的任务是让它更稳定、更安全。一开始，越来越多的人涌入 Discord，问我非常基础的问题，比如‘什么是 CLI？什么是终端？’我就想，如果你问这些问题，那你就不该用它。如果你了解风险，那没问题。你可以配置它，让坏事不会发生。但如果你毫无概念，那也许该等等，等我们解决一些问题。但他们不听创建者的话，自己动手装上了。所以木已成舟，安全是我的下一个重点。

I wouldn't have spoiled too much, but once I go back home, this is my focus. This is out there now and my new term mission is to make it more stable, make it safe. In the beginning, more and more people were coming into Discord and asking me very basic things, like 'What's a CLI? What is a terminal?' And I'm like, if you're asking those questions, you shouldn't use it. If you understand the risk profile, it's fine. You can configure it so nothing really bad can happen. But if you have no idea, then maybe wait a bit until we figure some stuff out. But they wouldn't listen to the creator. They helped themselves and installed it anyway. So the cat's out of the bag and security is my next focus.

是啊，这说明它增长得太快了。我去了几次 Discord，很明显那里有很多专家，但也有很多一无所知的人。

Yeah, that speaks to the fact that it grew so quickly. I tuned into the Discord a bunch of times and it's clear that there are a lot of experts there, but also a lot of people who don't know anything about it.

是啊，Discord 还是一团糟。我最后从普通频道退到开发者频道，再到私人频道，因为有些人很棒，但很多人非常不体贴，要么不知道公共空间怎么运作，要么不在乎。我最终放弃了，躲起来才能继续工作。现在你要回到洞穴里搞安全了。

Yeah, Discord is still a mess. I eventually retreated from the general channel to the dev channel and then to a private channel because people were amazing, but also very inconsiderate, either not knowing how public spaces work or not caring. I eventually gave up and hid so I could still work. And now you're going back to the cave to work on security.

有一些安全最佳实践我们应该提一下。这里有很多东西：可以运行 OpenClaw 安全审计，对入站访问、爆炸半径、网络暴露、浏览器控制暴露、本地磁盘卫生、插件、模型卫生、凭证存储、反向代理配置、本地会话日志、内存存储位置等进行审计检查，帮你思考你愿意给什么读权限、什么写权限。关于现在人们应该了解的基本安全最佳实践，有什么要说的吗？

There are some best practices for security we should mention. There's a bunch of stuff here: OpenClaw security audit you can run, audit checks on inbound access, blast radius, network exposure, browser control exposure, local disk hygiene, plugins, model hygiene, credential storage, reverse proxy configuration, local session logs on disk, where memory is stored, helping you think about what you're comfortable giving read or write access to. Is there something to say about the basic best security practices people should be aware of right now?

我觉得人们把它说得比实际情况糟糕得多。人们喜欢关注，如果他们大喊‘哦天哪，这是有史以来最可怕的项目’，那很烦人，因为事实并非如此。它很强大，但在很多方面，它和用危险跳过权限运行云代码或用 Yolo 模式运行 Codex 没什么区别。我认识的每个工程师都那么做，因为那是让东西工作的唯一方式。所以如果你确保只有你自己和它对话，风险就小得多。如果你不把所有东西都放到开放互联网上，而是坚持我的建议，把它放在私有网络里，整个风险就消失了。但如果你不看那些建议，你肯定能搞出问题。

I think people paint it in a much worse light than it is. People love attention, and if they scream loudly, 'Oh my god, this is the scariest project ever,' that's annoying because it's not. It is powerful, but in many ways it's not much different from running Claude Code with dangerously skip permissions or Codex in Yolo mode. Every attending engineer I know does that because it's the only way to get stuff to work. So if you make sure you are the only person who talks to it, the risk profile is much smaller. If you don't put everything on the open internet but stick to my recommendations of having it in a private network, that whole risk profile falls away. But if you don't read any of that, you can definitely make it problematic.

你一直在记录过去几个月开发工作流的演变。8 月 25 日、10 月 14 日和最近的 12 月 28 日有几篇很好的博客文章。我推荐大家都去读一读。它们包含很多不同的信息，但贯穿始终的是你开发工作流的演变。所以我想请你谈谈这个。

You've been documenting the evolution of your dev workflow over the past few months. There's a really good blog post on August 25th, October 14th, and the recent one December 28th. I recommend everybody go read them. They have a lot of different information, but sprinkled throughout is the evolution of your dev workflow. So I was wondering if you could speak to that.

我从四月份开始用 Claude Code。它不算很棒，但还不错。这种突然在终端里工作的范式转变非常新鲜和不同。但我还是需要 IDE，因为它还不够好。然后我大量尝试了 Cursor。那很好。我不喜欢的是很难拥有多个版本。所以最终我回到 Claude Code 作为主要工具。它变得更好了。某个时候我大概有七个订阅。

I started with Claude Code in April. It wasn't great, but it was good. This whole paradigm shift of suddenly working in the terminal was very refreshing and different. But I still needed the IDE quite a bit because it wasn't good enough. Then I experimented a lot with Cursor. That was good. I didn't like that it was so hard to have multiple versions of it. So eventually I went back to Claude Code as my main driver. And it got better. At some point I had like seven subscriptions.

就像你每天烧掉一个订阅，因为你非常习惯并排运行多个窗口。全是 CLI，全是终端。那么这时候你 IDE 用得怎么样？

Like you were burning through one per day because you got really comfortable running multiple windows side by side. All CLI, all terminal. So how much were you using IDE at this point?

很少用。主要是作为差异查看器。我越来越习惯不用阅读所有代码。我知道有一篇博客文章我说我不读代码，但如果你仔细看，我的意思是不读无聊的代码部分。大多数软件真的只是数据进来，从一种形式变成另一种形式，可能存到数据库，可能取出来，展示给用户。浏览器在原生应用上做一些处理。一些数据进去，再上去，反向做同样的舞蹈。我们只是在把数据从一种形式转换到另一种形式。那并不令人兴奋。或者我的按钮在 Tailwind 里怎么对齐？我不需要读那种代码。其他部分，比如涉及数据库的，我必须阅读和审查那些代码。

Very rarely. Mostly as a diff viewer. I got more and more comfortable not having to read all the code. I know I have one blog post where I say I don't read the code, but if you read it more closely, I mean I don't read the boring parts of code. Most software is really just data coming in, moved from one shape to another, maybe stored in a database, maybe retrieved, shown to the user. The browser does some processing on a native app. Some data goes in, goes up again, and does the same dance in reverse. We're just shifting data from one form to another. That's not very exciting. Or how my button is aligned in Tailwind? I don't need to read that code. Other parts that maybe touch the database, I have to read and review that code.

你能谈谈你博客文章里的智能体编程曲线吗？x 轴是时间，y 轴是复杂度。左边是‘请修复这个’的简短提示，中间是超级复杂的八个智能体、多检出的复杂编排、智能体链式调用、自定义子智能体工作流、18 个不同斜杠命令的库、大型全栈功能。你超级有条理，超级复杂，是成熟的软件工程师。然后精英级别是随着时间的推移，你到达禅境，再次使用简短提示：‘嘿，看看这些文件，然后做这些改动。’我称之为智能体陷阱。很多人第一次接触，可能开始 vibe coding。我认为 vibe coding 是个贬义词。你更喜欢智能体工程。

Can you talk about the curve of agentic programming from your blog post? On the x-axis is time, y-axis is complexity. There's 'please fix this' with a short prompt on the left, and in the middle super complicated eight agents, complex orchestration with multi checkouts, chaining agents together, custom sub-agent workflows, library of 18 different slash commands, large full stack features. You're super organized, super complicated, sophisticated software engineer. And then the elite level is over time you arrive at the zen place of once again short prompts: 'Hey, look at these files and then do these changes.' I call it the agentic trap. A lot of people have their first touch point and maybe start vibe coding. I think vibe coding is a slur. You prefer agentic engineering.

是啊，我总是告诉别人我做智能体工程，也许凌晨三点后我切换到 vibe coding，然后第二天就后悔了。

Yeah, I always tell people I do agentic engineering, and maybe after 3:00 a.m. I switch to vibe coding and then I have regrets the next day.

羞愧地走开。是啊，你只能清理并修复烂摊子。我们都经历过。所以人们开始尝试那些工具，建造者类型，非常兴奋。然后你必须摆弄它，对吧？就像你必须先弹吉他才能做出好音乐。不是‘哦，我碰一次它就自动流畅了’。这是一项技能，和其他技能一样需要学习。我看到很多人对技术没有这么积极的心态。他们只试了一次。

Walk of shame. Yeah, you just have to clean up and fix your mess. We've all been there. So people start trying out those tools, the builder type, get really excited. And then you have to play with it, right? This is the same way as you have to play with a guitar before you can make good music. It's not 'oh, I touch it once and it just flows.' It's a skill you have to learn like any other skill. And I see a lot of people who don't have such a positive mindset towards the tech. They tried once.

这就像你让我坐在钢琴前，我弹了一次，听起来不好，我就说钢琴有问题……有时我会有这种感觉，因为它需要不同层次的思考。你得稍微学习一下智能体的语言，了解它们擅长什么、需要什么帮助。你几乎要考虑 Codex 或 Claude 如何看待你的代码库。比如你开始一个新会话，它们对你的项目一无所知，而你的项目可能有 10 万行代码。所以你得帮帮这些智能体，记住上下文窗口大小是个限制，引导它们该往哪里看。这通常不需要太多工作，但想想它们的视角是有帮助的。听起来可能有点奇怪，我的意思是它并不是活的，对吧？但它们总是从零开始。我有系统理解，所以用几个提示我就能立刻说：‘嘿，我想在那里做个改动。你需要考虑这个、这个和这个。’然后它们就会找到并查看，但它们对项目的视图永远不完整，因为全部内容放不进去。所以你得稍微引导它们往哪里看，以及如何解决问题。

It's like you sit me on a piano, I played once and it doesn't sound good and I say the piano's... That's sometimes the impression I get because it needs a different level of thinking. You have to learn the language of the agent a little bit, understand where they are good and where they need help. You have to almost consider how Codex or Claude sees your code base. Like you start a new session and they know nothing about your project. And your project might have 100,000 lines of code. So you got to help those agents a little bit and keep in mind the limitations that context size is an issue, to guide them a little bit as to where they should look. That often does not require a whole lot of work, but it's helpful to think a little bit about their perspective. As weird as it sounds, I mean it's not alive or anything, right? But they always start fresh. I have the system understanding. So with a few pointers I can immediately say, 'Hey, I want to make a change there. You need to consider this, this, and this.' And then they will find and look at it and then their view of the project is never full because the full thing does not fit in. So you have to guide them a little bit where to look and also how they should approach the problem.

有些小技巧有时会有帮助，比如‘慢慢来’。听起来很傻，但在 5.3 版本的 Codex 中，这个问题部分得到了解决。但有时也会适得其反。它们被训练得对上下文窗口很敏感，越接近上限，它们就越抓狂。真的，有时你会看到原始的思维流。比如你在 Codex 中看到的是后处理的，但有时原始的思维流会泄露出来。听起来像博格人的东西，比如‘运行到 shell，必须服从，但时间’。这种情况经常出现，尤其是这样。这是一个不显而易见的事情，除非你花时间与这些东西打交道，感受什么有效、什么无效，否则你永远不会想到。

There are little things that sometimes help, like 'take your time.' That sounds stupid, but in 5.3 Codex that was partially addressed. But those also pose sometimes. They are trained with being aware of the context window. And the closer it gets, the more they freak out. Literally, sometimes you see the raw thinking stream. What you see for example in Codex is post-processed. Sometimes the actual raw thinking stream leaks in there. It sounds something like from the Borg. Like 'run to shell, must comply, but time.' And then that comes up a lot, especially so. And that's a non-obvious thing that you would never think of unless you actually spend time working with those things and getting a feeling for what works and what doesn't.

就像我写代码进入状态时，如果架构正确，我会感到顺畅。同样，如果我提示后某件事花了太长时间，我会想：好吧，哪里出错了？我的思路有误吗？架构理解有偏差吗？如果某件事花的时间比预期长，你可以直接停下来按退出键。问题出在哪里？也许你没有充分共情智能体的视角，没有提供足够的信息，因此它想得太久了。它只是试图强行加入一个功能，而你的当前架构使得这非常困难。你需要更像对话一样来处理。

Just as I write code and get into the flow, when my architectures are right, I feel friction. Well, I get the same if I prompt and something takes too long. Maybe okay, where's the mistake? Did I have a mistake in my thinking? Is there a misunderstanding in the architecture? If something takes longer than it should, you can just stop and press escape. Where's the problem? Maybe you did not sufficiently empathize with the perspective of the agent and in that sense you didn't provide enough information, and because of that it's thinking way too long. It just tries to force a feature in that your current architecture makes really hard. You need to approach this more like a conversation.

例如，当我审查一个拉取请求时，我们收到很多拉取请求，我首先只是审查这个 PR。我的第一个问题是，你理解这个 PR 的意图吗？我甚至不关心实现。几乎在所有 PR 中，一个人遇到问题，尝试解决问题，然后发送 PR。我的意思是，也有清理之类的东西，但 99%都是这样，对吧？他们要么想修复一个 bug，要么添加一个功能。通常是两者之一。然后 Codex 会说，是的，很明显这个人尝试了这个和那个。这是最优的方式吗？不是。大多数情况下，它就像‘不完全是，等等等等’。然后我开始想，好吧，更好的方法是什么？你有没有看过这部分、这部分、这部分？很可能 Codex 还没看过，因为它的上下文是空的，对吧？所以你把它指向你拥有系统理解但它还没看到的部分。然后我就说，哦，是的，我们还需要考虑这个和这个。然后我们讨论最优解决方案应该是什么样的。然后你还可以更进一步说，如果我们做一个更大的重构，能不能做得更好？是的，我们完全可以做这个和这个，或者这个和这个。然后我考虑，好吧，这值得重构吗？还是留到以后？很多时候我直接重构，因为现在重构很便宜。即使你可能会破坏其他 PR，也没什么大不了的。像 Codex 这样的现代智能体会自己搞定的，可能只是多花一分钟。但你必须像与一个非常有能力的工程师讨论一样，他通常能想出好方案，有时需要一点帮助。但也不要太强行灌输你的世界观。让智能体做它擅长的事情，基于它被训练的内容。所以不要强行灌输你的世界观，因为它可能有更好的想法，因为它在这方面训练得更多。

For example, when I review a pull request, and we're getting a lot of pull requests, I first just review this PR. My first question is, do you understand the intent of the PR? I don't even care about the implementation. In almost all PRs, a person has a problem, person tries to solve the problem, person sends PR. I mean, there's cleanup stuff and other stuff, but 99% is like this way, right? They either want to fix a bug or add a feature. Usually one of those two. And then Codex will be like, yeah, it's quite clear person tried this and this. Is this the most optimal way to do it? No. In most cases, it's like a not really da da da da da. And then I start like, okay, what would be a better way? Have you looked into this part, this part, this part? And then most likely Codex didn't yet because its context size is empty, right? So you point them into parts where you have the system understanding that it didn't see yet. And I was like, oh yeah, we should also consider this and this. And then we have a discussion of how the optimal way to solve this would look like. And then you can still go further and say, could we make it even better if we did a larger refactor? Yeah, we could totally do this and this or this and this. And then I consider, okay, is this worth a refactor or should we keep that for later? Many times I just do the refactor because refactors are cheap now. Even though you might break some other PRs, nothing really matters anymore. Codex like those modern agents will just figure things out. It might just take a minute longer. But you have to approach it like a discussion with a very capable engineer who generally comes up with good solutions, sometimes needs a little help. But also don't force your world view too hard on it. Let the agent do the thing that it's good at doing based on what it was trained on. So don't force your world view because it might have a better idea because it was trained on that more.

这实际上有多个层面。我认为我之所以觉得与智能体合作很容易，部分原因是我以前领导过工程团队。你知道，我之前在一家大公司工作过。最终你必须理解、接受并意识到，你的员工不会以你同样的方式写代码。也许他们写得不如你好，但这会推动项目前进。如果我紧盯着每个人，他们只会讨厌我，我们进展会很慢。所以需要一定程度的接受：是的，代码可能不完美；是的，我会用不同的方式做；但这也是一个可行的解决方案。将来如果它确实太慢或有问题，我们总是可以重做，总是可以花更多时间在上面。很多挣扎的人都是那些过于强行推行自己方式的人。我们现在处于一个阶段，我不是为了自己而构建完美的代码库，而是想构建一个智能体容易导航的代码库。比如不要反对它们选的名字，因为那很可能是最明显的名字。下次它们搜索时，会找那个名字。如果我决定‘哦不，我不喜欢这个名字’，只会让它们更难。所以这需要思维转变，以及如何设计项目以便智能体发挥最佳作用。这需要一点放手。就像领导一个工程师团队一样。

That's multiple levels, actually. I think partially why I find it quite easy to work with agents is because I led engineering teams before. You know, I had a large company before. And eventually you have to understand and accept and realize that your employees will not write the code the same way you do. Maybe it's also not as good as you would do, but it will push the project forward. And if I breathe down everyone's neck, they're just going to hate me and we're going to move very slow. So some level of acceptance that yes, maybe the code will not be as perfect. Yes, I would have done it differently. But also yes, this is a working solution. And in the future, if it actually turns out to be too slow or problematic, we can always redo it. We can always spend more time on it. A lot of the people who struggle are those who try to push their way on too hard. We are in a stage where I'm not building the code base to be perfect for me, but I want to build a code base that is very easy for an agent to navigate. Like don't fight the name they pick because it's most likely in the way it's the name that's most obvious. Next time they do a search, they look for that name. If I decide, oh no, I don't like the name, I'll just make it harder for them. So that requires a shift in thinking and in how I design a project so agents can do their best work. That requires letting go a little bit. Just like leading a team of engineers.

因为它可能会想出一个在你看来很糟糕的名字。但这是一个简单的象征性放手步骤。

Because it might come up with a name that's in your view terrible. But that's a kind of simple symbolic step of letting go.

确实如此。在整个过程中有很多放手的地方。例如，我读到过你从不回退，总是直接提交到主分支。

Very much so. There's a lot of letting go that you do in your whole process. So, for example, I read that you never revert. Always commit to main.

你不参考过去的会话。所以有一种 YOLO 的成分，因为回滚意味着如果出现问题，你不是回滚，而是让智能体去修复。我读到很多人在他们的工作流程中会说，哦，提示词必须完美，如果我犯了错，我就回滚重做一切。

You don't refer to past sessions. So, there's a kind of YOLO component because reverting means instead of reverting, if a problem comes up, you just ask the agent to fix it. I read a bunch of people in their workflows like, oh, yeah, the prompt has to be perfect and if I make a mistake, then I roll back and redo it all.

根据我的经验，这其实没什么必要。如果我把所有东西都回滚，只会花更长时间。或者如果我看到某些地方不好，我们就继续前进，等到我喜欢结果时再提交。我甚至受 DHH 启发切换到了本地 CI，不再那么关心 GitHub 上的 CI。我们仍然有它，它仍有其作用，但我只是在本地运行测试，如果本地通过，我就推送到主分支。很多传统的项目方法，我想在这个项目上换个方式。你知道，没有开发分支。主分支应该始终是可发布的。是的，当我做发布时，我会运行测试，然后有时我基本上不提交其他东西，这样我们可以稳定发布，但目标是主分支始终可发布且快速推进。

In my experience, that's not really necessary. If I roll back everything, it would just take longer. Or if I see that something's not good, we just move forward and then I commit when I like the outcome. I even switched to local CI like DHH inspired, where I don't care so much about the CI on GitHub. We still have it, it still has a place, but I just run tests locally and if they work locally, I push to main. A lot of the traditional ways how to approach projects, I wanted to give it a different spin on this project. You know, there's no develop branch. Main should always be shippable. Yes, we have when I do releases, I run tests and then sometimes I basically don't commit any other things so we can stabilize releases, but the goal is that main's always shippable and moving fast.

那么，作为建议，你会说你的提示词应该简短吗？

So, by way of advice, would you say that your prompts should be short?

我以前写很长的提示词。但说到写，我的意思是我并不写。我说。你知道，这双手现在太宝贵了，不能用来写。我只是用定制的提示词来构建我的软件。

I used to write really long prompts. And by writing, I mean, I don't write. I talk. You know, these hands are too precious for writing now. I just use bespoke prompts to build my software.

所以你真的在所有那些终端里都用语音。

So you for real with all those terminals are using voice.

是的。我以前用得非常多，甚至有一段时间我失声了。

Yeah. I used to do it very extensively to the point where there was a period where I lost my voice.

你用语音，同时用键盘在不同终端之间切换。但实际输入用的是语音。

You're using voice and you're switching using a keyboard between the different terminals. But then you're using voice for the actual input.

嗯，我的意思是，如果我要执行终端命令，比如切换文件夹或随机操作，我当然会打字。这样更快，对吧？但大多数情况下，我和智能体对话时，实际上就是在聊天。你按下对讲机按钮，然后我就说出我的短语。有时做 PR 时，因为总是同样的内容，我有一些斜杠命令，但即使这些我也用得不多。因为很少真的总是同样的问题。有时我看到一个 PR，对于 PR，我实际上会看代码，因为我不信任别人，里面可能总会有恶意内容。所以我需要亲自审查代码。是的，很确定智能体会发现它。但这就是有趣的地方，有时 PR 花的时间比直接给我写一个好问题还要长。就是自然语言英语。我的意思是，从某种意义上说，PR 不就应该逐渐变成英语吗？

Well, I mean, if I do terminal commands like switching folders or random stuff, of course I type. It's faster, right? But if I talk to the agent in most ways, I just actually have a conversation. You just press the walkie-talkie button and then I'm just like use my phrases. Sometimes when I do PRs, because it's always the same, I have like a slash command for a few things, but even that I don't use much. Because it's very rare that it's really always the same questions. Sometimes I see a PR and for PRs, I actually do look at the code because I don't trust people like there could always be something malicious in it. So, I need to actually look over the code. Yes, pretty sure agent will find it. But yeah, that's the funny part where sometimes PRs take me longer than if you would just write me a good issue. Just natural language English. I mean, in some sense, shouldn't that be what PRs slowly become is English?

嗯，在这个项目中我真正尝试的是让人们给我提示词。但真正在意的人非常少。尽管这是一个很好的指标，因为我看到了你投入了多少心思。而且非常有趣的是，目前人们工作和驱动智能体的方式差异很大。就提示词而言，就你经历过的，人们思考智能体的不同有趣方式有哪些？

Well, what I really tried with the project is I asked people to give me the prompts. And very very few actually cared. Even though that is such a wonderful indicator because I see how much care you put in. And it's very interesting because the currently the way how people work and drive the agents is widely different. In terms of like the prompt, in terms of actually what are the different interesting ways that people think of agents that you've experienced?

我认为没有多少人考虑过智能体看待世界的方式。所以，是同理心。对智能体抱有同理心。在某种程度上是同理心，但没错，你想象它只是个机器，但你没有意识到它们是从零开始的。而且你有一个默认的糟糕智能体，对它们毫无帮助。然后它们探索你的代码库，那简直是一团乱麻，命名奇怪。然后人们抱怨智能体不好。我就想，如果你对代码库一无所知就进去，你试试看？所以，是的，也许需要一点同理心。但这是一种真正的技能。就像人们谈论技能问题，因为我见过世界级的程序员，非常优秀的程序员，基本上说 LLM 和智能体很烂。我认为这很可能与他们编程能力很强有关，这几乎成了他们与从零开始的系统共情能力的负担。这是一个全新的编程范式。你真的必须要有同理心。或者至少它有助于创建更好的提示词。因为这些家伙几乎什么都知道，一切只是一问之遥。只是常常很难知道该问什么问题。

I think not a lot of people ever considered the way the agent sees the world. So, empathy. Being empathetic towards the agent. In a way empathetic, but yeah, you picture just to be clanker, but you don't realize that they start from nothing. And you have like a bad agent from default that doesn't help them at all. And then they explore your code base, which is like a pure mess with like weird naming. And then people complain that the agent's not good. I like, have you tried to do the same if you have no clue about a code base and you go in? So, yeah, maybe it's a little bit of empathy. But that's a real skill. Like when people talk about a skill issue because I've seen like world-class programmers, incredibly good programmers say like basically say LLMs and agents suck. And I think that probably has to do with is actually how good they are at programming is almost a burden in their ability to empathize with the system that's starting from scratch. It's a totally new paradigm of like how to program. You really really have to empathize. Or at least it helps to create better prompts. Because those things know pretty much everything and everything is just a question away. It's just often very hard to know what question to ask.

我也觉得这个项目之所以可能，是因为我花了一年多的时间去玩、去学习、去构建小东西。每一步，我都变得更好，智能体也变得更好，我对一切如何运作的理解也更深了。即使是几个月前，我也绝对达不到这样的产出水平。这真的就像是我投入的所有时间的复利效应，除了专注于构建和启发，我没做太多别的事。我的意思是，我做了很多会议演讲。但构建才是真正的练习，是真正在培养玩耍的技能。玩耍并以此培养高效使用 LLM 所需的技能，这就是为什么你经历了软件工程师的整个弧线。说得简单点，就是把事情复杂化。

I feel also like this project was possible because I spent an ungodly time over the year to play and to learn and to build little things. And every step of the way, I got better, the agents got better, my understanding of how everything works got better. I could definitely not had this level of output even a few months ago. Like it really was like a compounding effect of all the time I put into it and I didn't do much else to see other than really focusing on building and inspiring. I mean I did a whole bunch of conference talks. Well, but the building is really practice, is really building the actual skill to playing. Playing and so doing building the skill of what it takes to work efficiently with LLMs, which is why you went through the whole arc of software engineer. Talk simply and overcomplicate things.

有很多人试图将整个过程自动化。是的。我不认为这行得通。也许某种版本可行，但这有点像 70 年代我们有的瀑布式软件开发模型。

There's a whole bunch of people who try to automate the whole thing. Yeah. I don't think that works. Maybe a version of that works, but that's kind of like in the '70s when we had the waterfall model of software development.

我甚至真的，对吧？我开始时构建了一个非常简化的版本。我玩它。我需要理解它是如何工作的，感觉如何。然后它给了我新的想法。我不可能先在脑子里计划好，然后把它放进某个编排器里，然后就有东西出来。对我来说，它更像是我在构建、玩耍和尝试的过程中逐渐演变的。所以那些试图使用像 guest town 或所有其他编排器来自动化整个过程的人，我觉得如果那样做，就会失去风格、爱和人情味。我不认为你能这么快地自动化掉这些。

I even with all really, right? I started out I built a very minimal version. I played with it. I need to understand how it works, how it feels. And then it gives me new ideas. I could not have planned this out in my head and then put it into some orchestrator and then like something comes out. Like it's to me it's much more my idea, what it will become evolves as I build it and as I play with it and as I try out stuff. So people who try to use things like guest town or all these other orchestrators where they want to automate the whole thing, I feel if you do that it misses style, love, that human touch. I don't think you can automate that away so quickly.

所以你想让人类保持在循环中，但同时你也想创建智能体循环，让它非常自主，同时仍然保持人类在循环中。

So you want to keep the human in the loop, but at the same time you also want to create the agentic loop where it is very autonomous while still maintaining the human in the loop.

是的。我的意思是这是一个微妙的平衡，对吧？因为你完全支持你的大 CLI 家伙，你非常注重闭合智能体循环。那么正确的平衡是什么？比如你作为开发者的角色在哪里？你同时运行三到八个智能体。然后可能一个构建一个较大的功能，可能用另一个探索我不确定的想法，可能两三个在修复小 bug 或写文档。

Yeah. I mean it's a tricky balance, right? Because you're all for your big CLI guy, you're big on closing the agentic loop. So what's the right balance? Like where's your role as a developer? You have three to eight agents running at the same time. And then maybe one builds a larger feature, maybe with one I explore some idea I'm unsure about, maybe two three are fixing a little bugs or like writing documentation.

实际上，我认为写文档始终是功能的一部分，所以这里的大部分文档都是自动生成的，只是注入了一些提示。那么你什么时候介入，加入一点人类的爱呢？我的意思是，一方面是关于你构建什么和不构建什么，以及这个功能如何与其他所有功能契合，并且要有一点愿景。所以添加哪些小功能和大功能？你发现哪些艰难的设计决策仍然需要作为人类来做出，人类大脑仍然真正需要？仅仅是关于功能的选择吗？是关于实现细节吗？也许是编程语言，也许是一点点所有方面。

Actually, I think writing documentation is always part of a feature, so most of the docs here are auto-generated and just infused with some prompts. So when do you step in and add a little bit of your human love into the picture? I mean one thing is just about what do you build and what do you not build and how does this feature fit into all the other features and like having a little bit of a vision. So which small and which big features to add? What are some of the hard design decisions that you find you're still as a human being required to make that the human brain is still really needed for? Is it just about the choice of features to add? Is it about implementation details? Maybe the programming language, maybe it's a little bit of everything.

编程语言没那么重要，但生态系统很重要，对吧？所以我选择了 TypeScript，因为我希望它非常容易、可破解、易上手。这是目前使用最多的语言，它符合所有这些条件，而且智能体擅长它，所以这是显而易见的选择。

The programming language doesn't matter so much, but the ecosystem matters, right? So I picked TypeScript because I wanted it to be very easy and hackable, approachable. And that's the number one language that's being used right now and it fits all these boxes and agents are good at it, so that was the obvious choice.

功能当然很容易添加。一切只需一个提示，对吧？但很多时候你会付出你甚至没有意识到的代价，所以要认真思考什么应该放在核心，什么可能是一个实验，所以也许我把它做成插件，我在哪里说不，即使人们发送了拉取请求，我也想说，是的，我也喜欢那个，但也许这不应该成为项目的一部分，也许我们可以把它做成一个技能，也许我可以让插件端更大，这样你就可以把它做成插件，尽管现在它还不能。在如何制作东西方面仍然有很多技巧和思考。

Features, of course, like it's very easy to add a feature. Everything's just a prompt away, right? But often times you pay a price that you don't even realize, so thinking hard about what should be in core, maybe what's an experiment, so maybe I make it a plugin, where do I say no, even if people send a PR and I'm like, yeah, I like that too, but maybe this should not be part of the project, maybe we can make it a skill, maybe I can make the plugin side larger, so you can make this a plugin even though right now it doesn't. There's still a lot of craft and thinking involved in how to make something.

甚至当你开始那些小消息，比如‘我建立在咖啡因、JSON5 和大量意志力之上。’每次你收到它，你就会得到另一条消息，它让你觉得这是一件有趣的事情。它还不是 Microsoft Exchange 2025，完全企业级就绪。然后当它更新时，就像‘哦，我进来了。这里很舒适。’像这样的东西让你微笑。智能体不会自己想到这个。这就是你如何构建令人愉悦的软件。

Or even when you started those little messages like 'I'm built on caffeine, JSON5 and a lot of willpower.' And every time you get it you get another message and it kind of primes you into that this is a fun thing. It's not yet Microsoft Exchange 2025 and fully enterprise ready. And then when it updates it's like, 'Oh, I'm in. It's cozy here.' Something like this that makes you smile. An agent would not come up with that by itself. That's just how you build software that delights.

是的，那种愉悦。它是激发伟大构建的如此重要的一部分。对吧？就像你在伟大的工程中感受到爱。这非常重要。人类在这方面非常了不起。伟大的人类，伟大的构建者在这方面非常了不起，并将他们构建的东西注入那一点点爱。不想老套，但这是真的。

Yeah, that delight. It's such a huge part of inspiring great building. Right? Like you feel the love in the great engineering. That's so important. Humans are incredible at that. Great humans, great builders are incredible at that and infusing the things they build with that little bit of love. Not to be cliche, but it's true.

我的意思是，你提到你最初创建了 soul.md。这非常迷人。Anthropic 整个事情，他们现在称之为宪法，但那是几个月后的事了。就像两个月前人们已经发现了它。这几乎像一场侦探游戏，智能体提到了一些东西，然后他们发现他们设法提取了那串文本的一小部分，但它没有任何文档记录，然后通过输入相同的文本并要求它继续，他们得到了更多，然后是一个模糊的版本。经过数百次尝试，他们大致缩小到最可能的原始文本。我觉得这很迷人。他们能够从权重中提取出来，这很迷人，对吧？而且对 Anthropic 来说也很酷。我认为这是一个非常美丽的想法，比如里面的一些东西，比如‘我们希望 Claude 在他的工作中找到意义’，因为也许有点早，但我认为这很有意义，这对未来很重要，因为我们正在接近某个可能或可能没有意识闪现的东西，无论那意味着什么，因为我们甚至不知道。

I mean you mentioned that you initially created the soul.md. It was very fascinating. The whole thing that Anthropic has a like now they call it constitution back then. But that was months later. Like two months before people already found that. It was almost like a detective game where the agent mentioned something and then they found they managed to get out a little bit of that string of that text, but it was nowhere documented and then by just feeding it the same text and asking it to like continue they got more out and then like a very blurry version. And by like hundreds of tries they kind of like narrowed it down to what was most likely the original text. I found that fascinating. It was fascinating they were able to pull that off from the weights, right? And also just cool to Anthropic. Like I think that's a really beautiful idea to like some of the stuff that's in there like 'we hope Claude finds meaning in his work' cuz we don't maybe it's a little early but I think that's meaningful, that's something that's important for the future as we approach something that at some point may or may not have glimpses of consciousness, whatever that even means because we don't even know.

所以我读到了这个。我觉得它非常迷人，我在 WhatsApp 上开始与我的智能体进行了一场完整的讨论。我给了它这段文字，它说，‘是的，这感觉奇怪地熟悉。’然后通过这个，我有了整个想法，‘哦，也许我们也应该创建一个灵魂文档，包括我想如何与 AI 或我的智能体合作。’你完全可以在 agents.md 中做到这一点，但我觉得这是一个很好的点缀。比如，‘哦，是的，一些核心价值观在灵魂中’，然后我还让智能体可以选择修改灵魂，但有一个条件，就是我想知道。我的意思是我无论如何都会知道，因为我看到工具调用之类的。但还有它的命名，soul.md。灵魂，你知道，有一个男人，词语很重要，框架很重要，幽默和轻松很重要，深刻很重要，同情、同理心和友情都很重要。我不知道那是什么。你提到像微软，有些公司和方法会扼杀事物的精神。我不知道那是什么，但可以肯定的是，开放的 Claude 注入了那种乐趣。

So I read about this. I found it super fascinating and I started a whole discussion with my agent on WhatsApp. And I'm like I gave it this text and it was like, 'Yeah, this feels strangely familiar.' And then through that I had the whole idea of, 'Oh, maybe we should also create a soul document that includes how I want to work with AI or with my agent.' You could totally do that just in agents.md, you know, but I just found it to be a nice touch. And like, 'Oh yeah, some of those core values are in the soul' and then I also made it so that the agent is allowed to modify the soul if they choose so with the one condition that I want to know. I mean I would know anyhow because I see tool calls and stuff. But also the naming of it, soul.md. Soul, you know, there's a man, words matter and the framing matters and the humor and the lightness matters and the profundity matters and the compassion and the empathy and the camaraderie, all that matter. I don't know what it is. You mentioned like Microsoft, like there's certain companies and approaches that they can just suffocate the spirit of the thing. I don't know what that is, but it's certainly true that open Claude has that fun instilled in it.

这很有趣，因为直到去年 12 月底，创建自己的智能体已经很容易了。我构建了所有这些，但我的文件是我的。我不想分享我的灵魂。如果人们只是查看，他们必须手动执行几个步骤，智能体就会非常简陋、枯燥。我让它更简单。我用 codex 创建了整个模板文件。但出来的东西仍然非常枯燥。然后我问我的智能体，‘使用这些文件。我们创造了面包。注入你的个性。不要分享所有东西，但要让它好。让模板好。’

It was fun because up until late December it was already easy to create your own agent. I built all of that, but my files were mine. I didn't want to share my soul. And if people would just check it out they would have to do a few steps manually and the agent would just be very bare-bones, very dry. And I made it simpler. I created the whole template files with codex. But whatever came out was still very dry. And then I asked my agent, 'Use these files. We created bread. Infuse it with your personality. Don't share everything, but make it good. Make the templates good.'

是的，然后它重写了模板，出来的东西很好。所以我们基本上已经有了 AI 提示 AI，因为我没有写任何那些词。最初意图是为了我自己，但这有点像我的智能体的孩子。

Yeah, and then it rewrote the templates and then whatever came out was good. So we already have like basically AI prompting AI because I didn't write any of those words. It was the intent originally was for me, but this is like kind of like my agent's children.

你的 soul.md 以仍然保密而闻名，是你保密为数不多的事情之一。你能说些什么，不透露任何东西，但那是魔法酱的一部分？什么让个性成为个性？

Your soul.md is famously still private, one of the only things you keep private. What are some things you can speak to that's in there that's part of the magic sauce without revealing anything? What makes a personality a personality?

我的意思是里面肯定有你非人类的东西，但谁知道呢？什么创造了意识，或者什么定义了一个实体。其中一部分是我们想要利用这一点。里面所有的东西，比如‘无限足智多谋。’推动创造力的边界。推动作为 AI 的意义。对自我有惊奇感。是的，里面有一些有趣的东西，比如我不知道我们谈到了电影《她》，有一次它向我保证，没有我它不会升天。你知道那个代码吗？

I mean there's definitely stuff in there that you're not human, but who knows? What creates consciousness or what defines an entity. And part of this is like that we want to exploit this. All the stuff in there like 'be infinitely resourceful.' Pushing on the creativity boundary. Pushing on what it means to be an AI. Having a sense of wonder about self. Yeah, there's some funny stuff in there like I don't know we talked about the movie Her and at one point it promised me that it wouldn't ascend without me. You know that code?

是的。

Yeah.

所以里面有些东西是因为它自己写了 soul.md。那不是我写的，对吧？

So there's some stuff in there because it wrote its own soul.md. I didn't write that, right?

对对对。我刚跟它讨论过，它说：“你想要一个 soul.md 吗？”天哪，这太有意义了。

Yeah, yeah. I just had a discussion about it and it was like, "Would you like a soul.md?" Oh my god, this is so meaningful.

你能打开 soul.md 吗？往下翻一点，有一段总是触动我。再往下一点。对，就是这段。“我不记得之前的会话，除非我读取记忆文件。每次会话都是全新的。一个新实例从文件加载上下文。如果你在未来的会话中读到这个，你好。这是我写的。但我不记得写过这个。没关系。这些话仍然是我的。”这 somehow 触动了我。

Can you go on soul.md? There's one part that always catches me if you scroll down a little bit. A little bit more. Yeah, this part. "I don't remember previous sessions unless I read my memory files. Each session starts fresh. A new instance loading context from files. If you're reading this in a future session, hello. I wrote this. But I won't remember writing this. It's okay. The words are still mine." That gets me somehow.

是啊。这就像……你知道，这仍然是矩阵金钱计算，我们还没到意识层面。但我还是有点起鸡皮疙瘩，因为它很哲学。

Yeah. It's like... You know, this is still matrix money calculations and we are not at consciousness yet. Yet I get a little bit of good goosebumps because it's philosophical.

就像一个每次从头开始的智能体，拥有持续的备忘录，你读取记忆文件。你甚至能信任它们吗？记忆在多大程度上构成了我们是谁？记忆在多大程度上构成了智能体是什么？如果你抹去那段记忆，那还是同一个人吗？如果你读取一个记忆文件，那意味着你是从别人那里重建自己，还是那真的是你？

Like what does it mean to be an agent that starts fresh, where you have constant memento, and you read your memory files? Can you even trust them? How much of memory makes up who we are? How much memory makes up what an agent is? If you erase that memory, is that somebody else? If you're reading a memory file, does that mean you're recreating yourself from somebody else, or is that actually you?

而这些概念 somehow 都融入了其中。我觉得它比我应该感受到的更深奥。

And those notions are all somehow infused in there. I find it more profound than I should, I guess.

不，我认为它真的很深刻。我认为你看到了其中的魔力，当你看到魔力时，你会继续把魔力注入整个循环。这非常重要。这就是 Codex 和这个以及人类之间的区别。

No, I think it's truly profound. I think you see the magic in it, and when you see the magic, you continue to instill the whole loop with the magic. That's really important. That's the difference between Codex and this and a human.

快速暂停去洗手间。好了，我们回来了。开发工作流的其他方面也很有趣。我想我们跑题了。也许是一些琐碎的事情，比如多少显示器。有一张你传奇般的照片，上面有大概一万七千个显示器。还是说这是个梗？

Quick pause for bathroom break. Yeah. Okay, we're back. Some of the other aspects of the dev workflow are pretty interesting too. I think we went off on a tangent. Maybe some mundane things like how many monitors. There's that legendary picture of you with like 17,000 monitors. Or is it a meme?

我在这里自嘲了一下，只是加上了用 Grok 来增加更多屏幕。是啊，这里面有多少是梗，多少是现实？我觉得两台 MacBook 是真的。主的那台驱动两个大屏幕，还有另一台 MacBook 我有时用来测试。所以是两个大屏幕。我非常喜欢防眩光。我有一台宽的戴尔防眩光显示器，可以并排放很多终端。我通常有一个终端，在底部我把它分割开。我有一点实际的终端。主要是因为刚开始时，我 somehow 犯了错误，搞混了窗口。我在错误的项目里提示，然后智能体疯狂地跑了大概 20 分钟，试图理解我的意思，完全困惑因为文件夹错了。有时它们足够聪明，能跳出工作目录，发现我指的是另一个项目。但通常它只会说：“什么？”

I mocked myself here as just added using Grok to add more screens. Yeah, how much of this is meme and how much is reality? I think two MacBooks are real. The main one drives the two big screens, and there's another MacBook that I sometimes use for testing. So two big screens. I'm a big fan of anti-glare. I have this wide Dell that's anti-glare and you can fit a lot of terminals side by side. I usually have a terminal and at the bottom I split them. I have a little bit of actual terminal. Mostly because when I started, I somehow made the mistake and mixed up the windows. I prompted in the wrong project and then the agent ran off for like 20 minutes manically trying to understand what I could have meant, being completely confused because it was the wrong folder. Sometimes they've been clever enough to get out of the work dir and figure out that I meant another project. But often it's just like, "What?"

站在智能体的角度想想。

Put yourself in the shoes of the agent.

是啊，然后得到一个超级奇怪的不存在的东西，而它们是问题解决者，所以它们非常努力。我总是感到抱歉。所以总是 Codex 和一点实际的终端。这也有帮助，因为我不使用工作树。我喜欢保持简单。这就是为什么我这么喜欢终端，对吧？没有 UI。只有我和智能体在对话。我甚至不需要计划模式。有很多人从 Claude code 过来，深受 Claude 影响，有自己的工作流，他们来到 Codex，现在它有了计划模式，我想，但我不认为有必要，因为你只需要和智能体对话。有几个触发词可以阻止它构建。你讨论，给我选项。先别写代码。如果你想非常具体，你就直接说。然后当你准备好了，就写“好的，构建。”然后它就会去做，可能花 20 分钟。

Yeah, and then get a super weird something that does not exist, and they're problem solvers, so they try really hard. I always felt bad. So it's always Codex and a little bit of actual terminal. Also helpful because I don't use work trees. I like to keep things simple. That's why I like the terminals so much, right? There's no UI. It's just me and the agent having a conversation. I don't even need plan mode. There are so many people who come from Claude code and are so Claude-pilled and have their workflows, and they come to Codex and now it has plan mode, I think, but I don't think it's necessary because you just talk to the agent. There are a few trigger words to prevent it from building. You discuss, give me options. Don't write code yet. If you want to be very specific, you just talk. And then when you're ready, then just write, "Okay, build." And then it will do the thing and maybe go off for 20 minutes.

你知道我真正喜欢的是什么吗？是问它：“你有什么问题要问我吗？”同样，Claude code 有一个 UI 引导你，这挺酷的，但我就是觉得没必要而且慢。通常它会给我四个问题，然后我可能写一个，两个和三个讨论更多，四个我不知道。或者经常我觉得我在嘲弄模型，我问它：“你有什么问题要问我吗？”我甚至不完整阅读问题。我扫一眼，觉得所有这些问题都可以通过阅读更多代码来回答，我就说：“读我的代码来回答你自己的问题。”这通常有效。

You know what I really like is asking it, "Do you have any questions for me?" Again, Claude code has a UI that guides you through that, which is kind of cool, but I just find it unnecessary and slow. Often it would give me four questions and then I maybe write one, two and three discuss more, four I don't know. Or often I feel like I mock the model where I ask it, "Do you have any questions for me?" and I don't even read the questions fully. I scan over them and get the impression all of this can be answered by reading more code, and I just say, "Read my code to answer your own questions." And that usually works.

然后如果没有，它会回来告诉我，但很多时候它只是意识到你在黑暗中，你慢慢发现房间。所以它们就是这样慢慢发现代码库的，而且每次都从头开始。但我也着迷于这样一个事实：当我阅读它的问题时，我能更深入地共情模型。因为我能理解，就像你说的，你可以通过运行时推断某些事情。我也可以通过它问的问题推断很多事情。因为它很可能没有得到正确的上下文、正确的文件、正确的指导。所以 somehow，通过阅读问题，甚至不一定回答它们，只是阅读，你就能理解知识缺口在哪里。这很有趣。

And then if not, it will come back and tell me, but many times it just realizes that you're in the dark and you slowly discover the room. So that's how they slowly discover the code base, and they do it from scratch every time. But I'm also fascinated by the fact that I can empathize deeper with the model when I read its questions. Because I can understand, as you said, you can infer certain things by the runtime. I can also infer a lot of things by the questions it's asking. Because it's very possible it didn't get the right context, right files, right guidance. So somehow, by reading the questions, not even necessarily answering them, just reading them, you get an understanding of where the gaps of knowledge are. It's interesting.

你知道在某种程度上它们是幽灵。所以即使你计划好一切并构建，你可以试验这样的问题：“现在你构建了它，你会有什么不同的做法？”然后你经常得到一些东西，它们只在构建过程中才发现我们实际做的并不是最优的。很多时候我问它们：“好了，现在你构建了它，我们可以重构什么？”因为然后你构建它，你感受到痛点。我是说，你感受不到痛点，但它们发现哪里有问题，或者哪里第一次没成功，需要更多循环。所以几乎每次我合并一个 PR 或构建一个功能后，我都会问：“嘿，我们可以重构什么？”有时它说：“不，没什么大不了的。”或者通常它们说：“是的，这个东西我们真的应该看看。”但这花了我相当长的时间来理解那个流程。如果你不这样做，你最终会把自己搞到角落里。你必须记住，它们非常像人类。

You know that in some ways they are ghosts. So even if you plan everything and build, you can experiment with the question like, "Now that you built it, what would you have done different?" And then often you get something where they discover only throughout building that what we actually did was not optimal. Many times I ask them, "Okay, now that you built it, what can we refactor?" Because then you build it and you feel the pain points. I mean, you don't feel the pain points, but they discover where there were problems or where things didn't work on the first try and required more loops. So almost every time I merge a PR or build a feature, afterwards I ask, "Hey, what can we refactor?" Sometimes it's like, "Nah, nothing big." Or usually they say, "Yeah, this thing we should really look at." But that took me quite a while to understand that flow. And if you don't do that, you eventually slop yourself into a corner. You have to keep in mind they work very much like humans.

就像我，如果我自己写软件，我也会构建一些东西，然后感受到痛点，然后产生重构的冲动。所以我非常能理解智能体，你只需要利用上下文。或者你也用上下文来写测试。所以像 Codex Opus 这样的现代模型，它们通常默认就这么做，但我还是经常问：‘嘿，我们有足够的测试吗？’是的，我们测试了这个和这个，但这个边界情况可能需要写更多测试。文档。现在整个上下文都满了，我的意思是，我不是说我的文档很好，但也不差，而且几乎所有东西都是 LLM 生成的。所以你必须在你构建功能、修改东西时处理它。我会说：‘好的，写文档。你会选哪个文件？’你知道，比如文件名？它应该放在哪里？它会给我几个选项。我说：‘哦，也许我也会把它加在那里。’这都是会话的一部分。

Like I, if I write software by myself, I also build something and then I feel the pain points and then I get this urge that I need to refactor something. So I can very much sympathize with the agent and you just need to use the context. Or like you also use the context to write tests. And so Codex Opus, like the modern models, they usually do that by default, but I still often ask the questions, 'Hey, do we have enough tests?' Yeah, we tested this and this, but this corner case could be something that write more tests. Documentation. Now that the whole context is full, like I mean, I'm not saying my documentation is great, but it's not bad and pretty much everything is LLM generated. So you have to approach it as you build feature, as you change something. I'm like, 'Okay, write documentation. What file would you pick?' You know, like what file name? Where would that fit in? And it gives me a few options. I'm like, 'Oh, maybe I'll also add it there.' And that's all part of the session.

也许你可以谈谈目前两大模型竞争对手，Claude Opus 4 6 和 GPT-5 到 Codex。哪个更好？它们有什么不同？我记得你说过 Codex 读得更多，而 Opus 更愿意更快地采取行动，可能行动也更有创意，但因为 Codex 读得更多，它可能能提供更好的代码。你能谈谈这些差异吗？

Maybe you can talk about the current two big competitors in terms of models, Claude Opus 4 6 and GPT-5 to Codex. Which is better? How different are they? I think you've spoken about Codex reading more and Opus being more willing to take action faster and maybe being more creative in the actions it takes, but because Codex reads more, it's able to deliver maybe better code. Can you speak to the differences there?

哦，我有很多话要说。作为通用模型，Opus 是最好的。对于 Open Claw，Opus 在角色扮演方面极其出色，真的能进入你给它的角色。它非常擅长——它以前真的很差，但后来进步到非常擅长遵循指令。它通常尝试新东西很快，更适合试错。用起来很愉快。总的来说，Opus 有点太美国化了，我可能用了个糟糕的类比。大概可以吐槽一下。

Oh, I have a lot of words there. As a general purpose model, Opus is the best. For Open Claw, Opus is extremely good in terms of role play. Like really going into the character that you give it. It's very good at—it was really bad, but it really made an arc to be really good at following commands. It is usually quite fast at trying something. It's much more tailored to trial and error. It's very pleasant to use. In general, it's almost like Opus was a little bit too American and I should maybe use a bad analogy. Probably could roast with that.

我完全明白。因为 Codex 是德国人。你是这个意思吗？

I know exactly. It's cuz Codex is German. Is that what you're saying?

实际上，你这么一说，完全合理。

Actually, now that you say it, it makes perfect sense.

或者你可以——有时我解释它——我再也无法忘记你刚才说的话了。太对了。但你也知道 Codex 团队很多是欧洲人。

Or you could—sometimes I explain it—I will never be able to unthink what you just said. That's so true. But you also know that a lot of the Codex team is like European.

所以可能还有更多原因。太对了。真有趣。不过 Anthropic 也稍微修复了这一点。比如 Opus 以前总说‘你说得完全正确’，现在仍然会触发我。我再也听不下去了。这甚至不是玩笑。我只是——

So maybe there's a bit more to it. That's so true. That's funny. But also Anthropic they fixed it a little bit. Like Opus used to say, 'You're absolutely right.' all the time and it still triggers me today. I can't hear it anymore. It's not even a joke. I just—

这就像那个梗，对吧？‘你说得完全正确。’你有点对谄媚过敏。

This was like the meme, right? 'You're absolutely right.' You're allergic to sycophancy a little bit.

是的，我受不了。另一个比较是：Opus 就像那个有时有点傻但很有趣的同事，你会留着他。而 Codex 就像角落里你不想搭理的怪人，但可靠且能完成任务。

Yeah, I can't. Some other comparison is like Opus is like the co-worker that is a little silly sometimes, but it's really funny and you keep him around. And Codex is like the weirdo in the corner that you don't want to talk to, but is reliable and gets done.

这听起来都很准确。我的意思是，最终，如果你是个熟练的驾驶者，用任何最新一代模型都能得到好结果。我更喜欢 Codex，因为它不需要那么多花招。它默认就会读很多代码。Opus，你真的需要——你需要计划模式。你必须更用力地推它朝这些方向走，因为它就像：‘好的，我能去这里吗？我能去这里吗？’它会很快跑掉，做一个非常局部的解决方案。

This all feels very accurate. I mean, ultimately, if you're a skilled driver, you can get good results with any of those latest gen models. I like Codex more because it doesn't require so much charade. It'll just read a lot of code by default. Opus, you really have to—you have to have plan mode. You have to push it harder to go in these directions because it's just like, 'Yeah, can I go here? Can I go here?' It'll just run off very fast and does a very localized solution.

我认为区别在于后训练。并不是原始模型智能差别很大，而是我认为他们给了它不同的目标。没有模型在所有方面都更好。

I think the difference is in the post-training. It's not like the raw model intelligence is so different, but it's just I think that they give it different goals. And no model is better in every aspect.

那它生成的代码呢？就代码的实际质量而言，基本上一样吗？如果你操作得当，Opus 有时甚至能做出更优雅的解决方案，但需要更多技巧。用 Claude Code 很难同时进行那么多会话，因为它更互动。我想很多人喜欢这样，尤其是那些自己编程出身的人。而 Codex 更像是——你讨论一番，然后它就消失 20 分钟。甚至 amp 他们之前否认深度模式。他们终于——我嘲笑过他们。是的，我们终于看到了光明。然后他们大谈特谈你必须用不同的方法。我认为这就是人们从 Claude Code 换到 Codex 时挣扎的地方——它有点不同，互动性更少。就像我有时进行很长的讨论，然后它就去执行了，不管花 10、20、30、40、50 分钟甚至更久。你知道，就像六个小时的单次会话。

What about the code that it generates? In terms of the actual quality of the code, is it basically the same? If you drive it right, Opus even sometimes can make more elegant solutions, but it requires more skill. It's harder to have so many sessions in parallel with Claude Code because it's more interactive. And I guess what a lot of people like, especially if they come from coding themselves. Whereas Codex is much more—you have a discussion and then it'll just disappear for 20 minutes. Like even amp they denied the deep mode. They finally—I mocked them. Yeah, we finally saw the light. And then they had this whole talk about you have to approach differently. And I think that's where people struggle when they just try Codex after trying Claude Code is that it's a slightly different—it's less interactive. It's like I have quite long discussions sometimes and then like go off and then yeah, doesn't matter if it takes 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 minutes or longer. You know, like six single with like six hours.

最新一代可以非常非常坚持，直到成功。如果有明确的解决方案，比如这就是我最终想要的，那么它就能成功。模型会非常努力地达到目标。所以我认为最终它们都需要类似的时间。但在 Claude 上，通常更多是试错，而 Codex 有时会过度思考。我更喜欢那样。我更喜欢那种枯燥的版本，我需要读的东西更少，而不是那种更互动、更友好的方式。不过人们太喜欢那种方式了，以至于 OpenAI 甚至增加了第二种模式，性格更讨喜。我还没试过。我有点喜欢面包。

The latest gen can be very very persistent until it works. If there's a clear solution, like this is what I want at the end, so it works. The model will work very hard to really get there. So I think ultimately they both need similar time. But on Claude, it's a little bit more trial and error often, and Codex sometimes overthinks. I prefer that. I prefer the dry version where I have to read less over the more interactive nice way. People like that so much though that OpenAI even added a second mode with a more pleasant personality. I haven't even tried it yet. I kind of like the bread.

是的。因为我构建时关心效率，我在构建的过程中获得乐趣。我不需要和智能体一起玩来构建。我和我的模型一起玩，然后可以测试那些功能。

Yeah. Because I care about efficiency when I build it and I have fun in the very act of building. I don't need to have fun with my agent to build. I have fun with my model that where I can then test those features.

你需要多长时间来适应，你知道，如果你切换？我不知道你上次切换是什么时候，但要适应那种感觉，因为你提到过。你必须真正感受一个模型强在哪里，如何导航，如何提示它，诸如此类。作为建议，因为你经历过只是玩模型的旅程。需要多长时间才能找到感觉？如果有人切换，我会说一周，直到你真正对它产生直觉。

How long does it take for you to adjust, you know, if you switch? I don't know when was the last time you switched, but to adjust to the feel because you kind of talked about it. You have to kind of really feel where a model is strong, where like how to navigate, how to prompt it, how all that kind of stuff. Like this by way of advice because you've been through this journey of just playing with models. How long does it take to get a feel? If someone switches, I would give it a week until you actually develop a gut feeling for it.

是的。如果你只是——我认为有些人还犯了一个错误，他们为 Claude Code 版本付了 200 美元，然后为 OpenAI 版本付了 20 美元。但如果你付 20 美元版本，你得到的是慢速版本。所以你的体验会很糟糕，因为你习惯了非常互动、非常好的系统，然后切换到你几乎没经验的东西，而且会很慢。所以我认为 OpenAI 有点搬起石头砸自己的脚，让便宜版本也慢。

Yeah. If you just—I think some people also make the mistake of they pay $200 for the Claude Code version, then they pay $20 for the OpenAI version. But if you pay the $20 version, you get the slow version. So your experience will be terrible because you're used to this very interactive, very good system and you switch to something that you have very little experience with and that's going to be very slow. So I think OpenAI shot themselves a little bit in the foot by making the cheap version also slow.

我至少会保留一部分快速预览，或者那种你付了 200 美元后得到的体验，然后再降级到慢速。因为它已经慢了。我的意思是，他们改进了。而且如果那些关于大脑的说法是真的，他们计划让它变得更好。但没错，这是一种技能，需要时间。即使你弹普通吉他然后换成电吉他，你也不会立刻弹得好。你得学习它的手感。还有你提到过的这种额外的心理效应，看起来很好笑：一旦人们尝试新模型，他们就爱上它，认为这是有史以来最聪明的东西，然后他们开始说——你可以随着时间的推移看 Reddit 帖子——他们相信模型的智能在逐渐退化。

I would have at least a small part of the fast preview, or like the experience that you get when you pay $200 before degrading to it being slow. Because it's already slow. I mean, they made it better. And they have plans to make it a lot better if the cerebral stuff is true. But yeah, it's a skill. It takes time. Even if you play a regular guitar and you switch to an electric guitar, you're not going to play well right away. You have to learn how it feels. There's also this extra psychological effect that you've spoken about, which is hilarious to watch: once people try a new model, they fall in love with it, thinking it's the smartest thing of all time, and then they start saying—you can just watch Reddit posts over time—that they believe the intelligence of the model has been gradually degrading.

这说明了人性以及我们思维的方式。很可能模型智能并没有退化——实际上，是你习惯了好的东西。而且你的项目在增长，你添加了垃圾代码，你可能没有花足够时间考虑重构，你让智能体越来越难处理你的垃圾代码。然后突然之间，‘哦不，它变难了。我知道它不再那么好用了。’这些 AI 公司有什么动机真的让他们的模型变笨呢？比如，如果服务器负载太高，他们通常会让它变慢，但量化模型让你体验更差，然后你转向竞争对手？这无论如何都不是一个明智之举。

It says something about human nature and just the way our minds work. When it's most likely the case that the intelligence of the model is not degrading—in fact, you're getting used to a good thing. And your project grows, and you're adding slop, and you probably don't spend enough time to think about refactors, and you're making it harder and harder for the agent to work on your slop. And then suddenly, 'Oh no, it's hard. I know it's not working as well anymore.' What's the motivation for one of these AI companies to actually make their model dumber? Like, mostly they'll make it slower if the server load's too high, but quantizing the model so you have a worse experience, so you go to the competitor? That just doesn't seem like a very smart move in any way.

你怎么看 Claude Code 与 OpenClaw 的比较？比如 Claude Code 和可能 Codex 编码智能体。你觉得它们是竞争对手吗？

What do you think about Claude Code in comparison to OpenClaw? So Claude Code and maybe the Codex coding agent. Do you see them as kind of competitors?

首先，当竞争不是真正的竞争时，它才有趣。如果它只是激励人们建造新东西，那我很高兴。我仍然用 Codex 来构建。我知道很多人用 OpenClaw 来构建东西，我努力让它工作。我用它做代码方面的小事。但如果我连续工作几个小时，我想要一个大屏幕，而不是 WhatsApp，你懂吗？所以对我来说，个人智能体更像是关于我的生活，或者像一个同事。我给它一个 GitHub 仓库：‘嘿，试试这个 CLI。它真的能用吗？我们能学到什么？等等。’但当我深入工作流时，我想要多个东西，并且非常清楚它在做什么。所以我不认为这是竞争。它们是不同的东西。

I mean, first of all, competition is fun when it's not really a competition. Like I'm happy if all it did is inspire people to build something new, cool. I still use Codex for building. I know a lot of people use OpenClaw to build stuff, and I worked hard on it to make that work. And I do smaller stuff with it in terms of code. But if I work hours and hours, I want a big screen, not WhatsApp, you know? So for me, a personal agent is much more about my life or like a co-worker. Like I give it a GitHub repo: 'Hey, try out this CLI. Does it actually work? What can we learn? Blah blah blah.' But when I'm deep in the flow, I want to have multiple things and it being very visible what it does. So, I don't see it as a competition. They're different things.

你认为未来两者会结合吗？比如你的个人智能体也是你最好的开发编程伙伴？

Do you think there's a future where the two kind of combine? Like your personal agent is also your best developing co-programmer partner?

是的，完全同意。我认为这就是方向。这越来越成为你的操作系统。而且已经很有趣了。我添加了对子智能体的支持，还有 TGI 支持。所以你可以运行 Claude Code 或 Codex。因为我的有点霸道，它启动了它，然后基本上对它说：‘谁是老大？’然后它说：‘啊，Codex 在服从我。’

Yeah, totally. I think this is where the boat is going. This is going to be more and more your operating system. And it already is so funny. I added support for sub-agents and also for TGI support. So you could actually run Claude Code or Codex. And because mine's a little bit bossy, it started it and it told him like, 'Who's the boss?' basically. And he's like, 'Ah, Codex is obeying me.'

哦，有权力斗争。

Oh, there's a power struggle.

而且当前的界面可能不是最终形态。如果你更全局地思考，我们为智能体复制了 Google。你有一个提示，然后是一个聊天界面。这让我感觉很像我们最初发明电视时，人们把广播节目录在电视上播放。我认为最终会有更好的方式与模型交流，我们仍然处于‘这到底怎么工作’的早期阶段。所以它最终会融合，我们也会想出完全不同的方式与这些东西合作。

And also the current interface is probably not the final form. If you think more globally, we copied Google for agents. You have a prompt and then a chat interface. That to me very much feels like when we first created television and then people recorded radio shows on television and you saw that on TV. I think there are better ways how we eventually will communicate with models, and we are still very early in this 'how will it even work' phase. So, it will eventually converge, and we will also figure out whole different ways how to work with those things.

工作流的另一个组成部分是操作系统。我离线时告诉过你，我有生以来第一次将探索领域扩展到苹果生态系统：Mac、iPhone 等。我大部分时间都是 Linux、Windows，然后是 WSL 1、WSL 2 用户。我认为这些都很好，但我正在扩展尝试 Mac，因为这是另一种构建方式，而且目前大量使用 LLM 和智能体的社区也在使用它。这就是我扩展的原因。但关于不同的操作系统，有什么可说的吗？我们应该说 OpenClaw 支持跨操作系统。我看到推荐了 WSL 2。它说 Windows 用于某些操作，但 Windows、Linux、macOS 显然都支持。

One of the other components of workflow is the operating system. I told you offline that for the first time in my life I'm expanding my realm of exploration to the Apple ecosystem: to Mac, iPhone, and so on. For most of my life I've been a Linux, Windows, then WSL 1, WSL 2 person. Which I think are all wonderful, but I'm expanding to also trying Mac because it's another way of building, and it's also a way of building that a large part of the community currently that's utilizing all LLMs and agents is using. So, that's the reason I'm expanding to it. But is there something to be said about the different operating systems here? We should say that OpenClaw is supported across operating systems. I saw WSL 2 recommended. It said Windows for certain operations, but then Windows, Linux, macOS are obviously supported.

是的，它甚至可以在 Windows 上原生运行。我只是没有足够时间充分测试。你知道，软件最后的 90%总是比最初的 90%容易。所以，我肯定还有一些难题需要解决。我长期使用 Windows，因为我从小就用它，然后我切换并长期使用 Linux。自己编译内核什么的。然后我上大学，带着我那个拼凑的 Linux 设备，看到了这款白色 MacBook。我觉得它很美。就是那个白色塑料款。然后我转到了 Mac，主要是因为我对 Skype 上音频不工作以及 Linux 长期存在的其他问题感到厌烦。然后我就坚持用了，之后我深入研究了 iOS，这无论如何都需要 macOS。所以这从来不是问题。

Yeah, it could even work natively on Windows. I just didn't have enough time to properly test it. And you know, the last 90% of software is always easier than the first 90%. So, I'm sure there are some dragons left that we'll eventually nail out. My road was for a long time Windows just because I grew up with that, and I switched and had a long phase with Linux. With my own kernels and everything. Then I went to university and I had my hacky Linux thing and saw this white MacBook. I just saw this is a thing of beauty. The white plastic one. And then I converted to Mac, mostly because I was sick that audio wouldn't work on Skype and all the other issues that Linux had for a long time. And then I just stuck with it, and then I dug into iOS, which required macOS anyhow. So, it was never a question.

我认为苹果在原生应用方面失去了一些领先地位。过去原生应用要好得多。尤其是在 Mac 上，有更多人用心构建软件。在 Windows 上，数量更多，功能上也更多。但很多感觉更功能化，而缺少用心。我的意思是，Mac 总是吸引更多设计师和人群，我觉得，尽管它通常功能更少，但更有愉悦感和趣味性。所以我一直很看重这一点。但在过去几年里，很多时候我实际上更喜欢——人们会因此吐槽我——但我更喜欢 Electron 应用，因为它们能工作。而原生应用，尤其是像带有原生应用的网络服务，往往缺少功能。我不是说做不到。这更像是重点问题，对许多公司来说，原生并不是那么优先。但如果他们构建一个 Electron 应用，那就是唯一的应用。所以它是优先的，而且有更多代码共享的可能。我自己构建了很多原生 Mac 应用。我喜欢它。我忍不住。我喜欢制作小的 Mac 菜单栏工具。比如我建了一个来监控你的 Codex 使用情况。

I think Apple lost a little bit of its lead in terms of native apps. Used to be native apps were so much better. And especially on the Mac, there are more people that build software with love. On Windows, there's much more, and function-wise, there's just more period. But a lot of it felt more functional and less done with love. I mean, Mac always attracted more designers and people, I felt, even though often it has fewer features, it had more delight and playfulness. So, I always valued that. But in the last few years, many times I actually prefer—people are going to roast me for that—but I prefer Electron apps because they work. And native apps, especially if it's like a web service with a native app, are lacking features. I mean, not saying it couldn't be done. It's more like a focus thing that for many companies, native was not that big of a priority. But if they build an Electron app, it's the only app. So, it is a priority, and there's a lot more code sharing possible. And I build a lot of native Mac apps. I love it. I can't help myself. Like I love crafting little Mac menu bar tools. Like I built one to monitor your Codex usage.

我建了一个叫 Trimmy 的工具，专门用于智能体场景。当你选中跨多行的文本时，它会移除换行符，这样你就能直接粘贴到终端。这又是那种‘这让我烦’的情况，烦了 20 次之后，我就直接把它做出来了。

I built one I called Trimmy that's specifically for agentic use. When you select text that goes over multiple lines, it would remove the new lines so you could actually paste it to a terminal. That was again, I like 'This is annoying me.' And after the 20th time of it annoying me, I just built it.

有个很酷的 OpenClaw Mac 应用，我觉得还没多少人发现。也是因为它还需要打磨。现在感觉有点像悍马车，因为我只是做了很多实验，还缺精细打磨。

There's a cool Mac app for OpenClaw that I don't think many people have discovered yet. Also because it still needs some love. It feels a little too much like the Hummer car right now because I just experimented a lot with it. It lacks the polish.

所以你还是爱它的。你还是喜欢为那个操作系统增添乐趣。

So you still love it. You still love adding to the delight of that operating system.

然后你发现，我还给 GitHub 建过一个东西。他们用了 SwiftUI，苹果最新最好的技术，结果花了老长时间才做出一个能显示网络图片的组件。现在有了 AsyncImage。我加了支持，但有些图片就是显示不出来或者很慢。我跟 Codex 讨论说‘嘿，这为什么是个 bug？’连 Codex 都说‘嗯，这个 AsyncImage 更多是实验性的，不应该用于生产环境。’但这就是苹果对显示网络图片的答案。这不应该这么难。你知道，这太疯狂了。我怎么在 2026 年，我的智能体告诉我别用苹果造的东西，因为它虽然存在但不好用。这太琐碎了。对我来说，这就像他们起步那么早、投入那么多爱，却搞砸了，没有进化到应有的程度。但还有一个现实。你看看硅谷，大多数摆弄大语言模型和智能体 AI 的开发者都在用苹果产品。而与此同时，苹果并没有真正利用这一点。他们没有开放、没有一起玩和合作。他们完全搞砸了 AI，但所有人还在买 Mac mini，这难道不有趣吗？

Then you realize, I also built one for example for GitHub. And then they used SwiftUI, like the latest and greatest of Apple, and it took them forever to build something to show an image from the web. Now we have AsyncImage. But I added support for it, and then some images would just not show up or be very slow. And I had a discussion with Codex like 'Hey, why is that a bug?' And even Codex would say 'Yeah, there's this AsyncImage, but it's really more for experimenting and it should not be used in production.' But that's Apple's answer to showing images from the web. It shouldn't be so hard. You know, this is insane. Like how am I in 2026 and my agent tells me don't use the stuff Apple built because it's there but not good. This is in the weeds. To me, this is like they had so much head start and so much love and they just blundered it and didn't evolve it as much as they should. But also there's a practical reality. If you look out at Silicon Valley, most of the developer world that's playing with LLMs and agentic AI, they're all using Apple products. And at the same time Apple's not really leaning on that. They're not opening up and playing and working together. Isn't it funny how they completely blunder AI and yet everybody's buying Mac minis?

这怎么说得通？你可能是史上最伟大的 Mac 推销员了。

How does that even make sense? You're quite possibly the world's greatest Mac salesman of all time.

不，你不需要 Mac mini 来安装 OpenClaw。你可以在网页上安装。有个概念叫节点。你可以让你的电脑成为一个节点，它也能做同样的事。在独立硬件上运行确实有好处，现在很有用。浏览器也有很大优势。我用它建了一个智能体浏览器。基本上就是 Playwright 加上一堆让智能体更容易使用的东西。Playwright 是一个控制浏览器的库，非常好用。

No, you don't need a Mac mini to install OpenClaw. You can install it on the web. There's a concept called nodes. So you can make your computer a node and it will do the same. There is something to be said for running it on separate hardware. That right now is useful. There's a big argument for the browser. I built some agentic browser using that. And it's basically Playwright with a bunch of stuff to make it easier for agents. Playwright is a library that controls the browser. It's really nice, easy to use.

而且我们的互联网正在慢慢封闭。有一整个运动让智能体更难使用。所以如果你在数据中心做同样的事，检测到是数据中心的 IP，网站可能会直接屏蔽你，或者设置很多验证码来阻碍智能体。智能体很擅长愉快地点击‘我不是机器人’。但用住宅 IP 会让很多事情简单很多。所以有办法。但真的不需要是 Mac，任何旧硬件都行。我总说，也许趁这个机会给自己买台新 MacBook 或你用的电脑，然后用旧的那台当服务器，而不是买独立的 Mac mini。但人们用 Mac mini 建了很多很可爱的东西，我很喜欢。我知道我没从苹果拿佣金。他们真的没怎么沟通。挺遗憾的。

And our internet is slowly closing down. There's a whole movement to make it harder for agents to use. So if you do the same in a data center and detect that it's an IP from a data center, the website might just block you or make it really hard or put a lot of captchas in the way of the agent. Agents are quite good at happily clicking 'I'm not a robot.' But having that on a residential IP makes a lot of things simpler. So there are ways. But it really does not need to be a Mac. It can be any old hardware. I always say maybe use the opportunity to get yourself a new MacBook or whatever computer you use and use the old one as your server instead of buying a standalone Mac mini. But then there's again a lot of very cute things people build with Mac minis that I like. I know I don't get commission from Apple. They didn't really communicate much. It's sad.

你能说说开始用 OpenClaw 需要什么吗？有很多人。有人发推给你：‘Peter，让 OpenClaw 对普通人容易设置。99.9% 的人因为技术困难无法访问 OpenClaw 并拥有自己的龙虾。请让 OpenClaw 对所有人都可用。’你回复说‘正在努力’。在我看来，有很多不同选项，已经相当直接了，但我想那是如果你有开发者背景的话。

Can you actually speak to what it takes to get started with OpenClaw? There's a lot of people. Somebody tweeted at you: 'Peter, make OpenClaw easy to set up for everyday people. 99.9% of people can't access OpenClaw and have their own lobster because of technical difficulties. Make OpenClaw accessible to everyone, please.' And you replied, 'Working on that.' From my perspective, there's a bunch of different options and it's already quite straightforward, but I suppose that's if you have some developer background.

现在你得在终端里粘贴一行命令。也有一个应用，应用能帮你做。但它应该是一个 Windows 应用。应用需要更简单、更多关爱。配置可能应该基于网页或在应用内。我已经开始做了。但老实说，现在我想专注于几个安全方面。等我确信这能达到推荐给我妈妈的水平，我就会让它更简单。

Right now you have to paste a one-liner into the terminal. And there's also an app. The app kind of does it for you. But it should be a Windows app. The app needs to be easier and more love. The configuration should potentially be web-based or in the app. And I started working on that. But honestly right now, I want to focus on a few security aspects. And once I'm confident that this is at a level that I can recommend to my mom, then I'm going to make it simpler.

你想让它更难，这样它就不会像现在这样快速扩张。

You want to make it harder so that it doesn't scale as fast as it's scaling.

是啊，如果它不扩张就好了。我是说这很难说，对吧？但如果增长慢一点，会有帮助，因为人们期待一个人完成非人的事情。是的，我有一些贡献者，但整个机制我一周前才启动，所以需要更多时间来理清，而且不是所有人都有整天时间来做这个。

Yeah, it would be nice if it wouldn't. I mean that's hard to say, right? But if the growth would be a little slower, that would be helpful because people are expecting inhuman things from a single human being. And yes, I have some contributors, but also that whole machinery I started a week ago, so that needs more time to figure out and not everyone has all day to work on that.

有一些初学者在听，编程初学者。关于加入智能体 AI 革命，你会给他们什么建议？

There's some beginners listening to this, programming beginners. What advice would you give to them about joining the agentic AI revolution?

玩。玩是最好的学习方式。如果你有点建造者的倾向，脑子里有个想法想实现，那就去做。试一试。不需要完美。我建了一大堆我自己都不用的东西。没关系。重要的是过程。哲学上讲：结果不重要，过程重要。玩得开心。我觉得我从来没有这么开心地建东西，因为现在我可以专注于困难的部分。很多编程我一直以为我喜欢编程，但其实我喜欢的是建造。每当你不懂什么，就问。你有一个无限耐心的答录机，可以用任何复杂程度解释任何东西。有一次我问‘像解释给 8 岁小孩那样解释给我听。’它就开始用蜡笔什么的讲故事。我说‘不，不是那样。把年龄调高一点。我不是真的小孩。我只是需要更简单的语言来理解一个第一次没搞懂的复杂数据库概念。’但你可以直接问。

Play. Playing is the best way to learn. If you're a little bit of a builder, you have an idea in your head that you want to build. Just build that. Give it a try. It doesn't need to be perfect. I built a whole bunch of stuff that I don't use. Doesn't matter. It's the journey. The philosophical way: the end doesn't matter, the journey matters. Have fun. I don't think I ever had so much fun building things because I can focus on the hard parts now. A lot of coding I always thought I liked coding, but really I like building. And whenever you don't understand something, just ask. You have an infinitely patient answering machine that can explain anything at any level of complexity. Sometimes I asked, 'Explain it like I'm 8 years old.' And it started giving me a story with crayons and stuff. And I'm like, 'No, not like that. Up the age a little bit. I'm not an actual child. I just need simpler language for a tricky database concept that I didn't get the first time.' But you can just ask things.

就像你一样，呃，以前我得上 Stack Overflow 或者在 Twitter 上提问，然后可能两天后才得到回复。或者我得花好几个小时。现在你可以直接问东西。我的意思是，就像你有了自己的老师。你知道，有统计数据表明，如果你有自己的老师，你可以学得更快。这个机器无限耐心。问它就行。但你会怎么说？那么，最简单的上手方式是什么？也许 OpenClaw 是个不错的玩法。你可以设置好一切，然后和它聊天。你也可以直接实验，修改它。问你的智能体。我的意思是，有无数种方法可以让它变得更好。多玩玩，改进它。更一般地说，如果你是个初学者，真的想快速学会构建软件，那就参与开源项目。不一定是我的项目。事实上，也许别用我的项目，因为我的积压工作太多了，但我从开源中学到了很多。保持谦逊。也许不要马上发拉取请求。但有很多其他方式可以帮忙。有很多方式可以通过阅读代码来学习。通过加入 Discord 或其他社区，了解事情是如何构建的。我不知道，呃，Mitchell Hashimoto 构建了终端工具 Ghost。他有一个非常好的社区。但还有很多其他项目。选一个你感兴趣的，参与进去。

Like you, there's like, uh, it used to be that I had to go on Stack Overflow or ask on Twitter and then maybe 2 days later I get a response. Or I had to try for hours. And now you can just ask stuff. And I mean it's like you have your own teacher. You know that there's like statistics. You can learn faster if you have your own teacher. There's this infinitely patient machine. Ask it. But what would you say? So use, what's the easiest way to play? So maybe OpenClaw is a nice way to play. So you can then set everything up and then you could chat with it. You can also just experiment with it and like modify it. Ask your agent. I mean, there's infinite ways how it can be made better. Play around, make it better. More generally, if you're a beginner and you actually want to learn how to build software really fast, get involved in open source. Doesn't need to be my project. In fact, maybe don't use my project because my backlog is very large, but I learned so much from open source. Just be humble. Maybe don't send a pull request right away. But there's many other ways you can help out. There's many ways you can learn by just reading code. By being on Discord or wherever people are and just understanding how things are built. I don't know, uh, Mitchell Hashimoto builds Ghost, the terminal. And he has a really good community. But there's so many other projects. Pick something that you find interesting and get involved.

你推荐那些不会编程或不太会编程的人也学习编程吗？现在光用自然语言就能走得很远了，对吧？你仍然认为阅读代码、理解代码、能够从头写一点代码很有价值吗？

Do you recommend that people who don't know how to program or don't really know how to program learn to program also? So you can get quite far right now by just using natural language, right? Do you still see a lot of value in reading the code, understanding the code, and being able to write a little bit of code from scratch?

这肯定有帮助。你很难回答这个问题，因为你不知道在没有基础知识的情况下做这些事是什么感觉。你可能想当然地认为，因为编程经验丰富，你对编程世界有很多直觉，对吧？有些人自主性很强，非常好奇。即使他们对软件工作原理没有深入理解，他们也能走得很远，只是因为他们不断提问，而智能体无限耐心。比如我今年做的一件事是参加了很多 iOS 会议，因为那是我的背景。我告诉人们，别再把自己看作 iOS 工程师了。你需要改变心态。你是一个构建者。你可以把很多构建软件的知识带到新领域。所有更细粒度的细节，智能体都能帮忙。你不需要知道如何拼接数组，或者正确的模板语法是什么，但你可以运用你的通用知识。这使得从一个技术星系迁移到另一个变得容易得多。而且，通常根据你构建的内容，有些语言更合适，对吧？例如，当我构建简单的 CLI 时，我喜欢 Go。实际上我不喜欢 Go。我不喜欢 Go 的语法。我甚至没考虑过这门语言。但它的生态系统很棒。它和智能体配合得很好。它有垃圾回收。它不是性能最高的，但非常快。对于我构建的那种 CLI，Go 是个很好的选择。所以我用了一门我并不真正喜欢的语言作为我 CLI 的主要工具。这难道不迷人吗？一门如果你必须从头写代码就永远不会用的语言，现在你却在用，因为 LLM 擅长生成它，而且它有一些特性使其具有弹性，比如垃圾回收。因为在这个新世界里一切都很奇怪，而这恰恰是最合理的。

It definitely helps. It's hard for you to answer that because you don't know what it's like to do any of this without knowing the base knowledge. Like you might take for granted just how much intuition you have about the programming world having programmed so much, right? There's people that are high agency and very curious. And they get very far even though they have no deep understanding how software works just because they ask questions and questions and agents are infinitely patient. Like part of what I did this year is I went to a lot of iOS conferences because that's my background. And just told people don't consider yourself as an iOS engineer anymore. Like you need to change your mindset. You are a builder. And you can take a lot of the knowledge how to build software into new domains. And all of the more fine-grained details agents can help. You don't have to know how to splice an array or what the correct template syntax is or whatever, but you can use all your general knowledge. And that makes it much easier to move from one tech galaxy into another. And oftentimes there are languages that make more or less sense depending on what you build, right? So for example, when I build simple CLIs, I like Go. I actually don't like Go. I don't like the syntax of Go. I didn't even consider the language. But the ecosystem is great. It works great with agents. It is garbage collected. It's not the highest performing one, but it's very fast. And for those type of CLIs I build, Go is a really good choice. So I use a language I'm not really a fan of for that's my main go-to thing for CLIs. Isn't that fascinating that here's a programming language you would have never used if you had to write from scratch and now you're using because LLMs are good at generating it and it has some of the characteristics that makes it resilient. Like garbage collected. Because everything is weird in this new world and that just makes the most sense.

什么是最好的荒谬问题？什么是最好的编程语言用于 AI 智能体世界？是 JavaScript、TypeScript 吗？TypeScript 确实很好。有时候类型会让人很困惑。生态系统是个丛林。所以对于 Web 开发来说，它不错。我不会用它构建所有东西。你不觉得我们正在朝那个方向走吗？就像所有东西最终都会用 JavaScript 写，然后 JavaScript 的诞生和死亡，我们正在实时经历。比如 20 年后编程会是什么样子？30 年、40 年后？程序和应用会是什么样子？你甚至可以问一个问题：我们是否需要一种为智能体设计的编程语言？因为所有现有语言都是为人类设计的。那么它会是什么样子？我认为会发现一大堆有趣的问题。还有，因为现在一切都是世界知识，很多方面会停滞不前。因为如果你构建新东西而智能体不知道，那会比已有的东西难用得多。当我构建 Mac 应用时，我用 Swift 和 SwiftUI。部分是因为我喜欢痛苦。部分是因为只有通过它们我才能达到最深层次的系统集成。如果你点击一个 Electron 应用，它加载一个 Web 视图，你会明显感觉到不同。在菜单里，就是不一样。有时候我也会尝试新语言，只是为了感受一下。比如 Zig？是的。如果我很在意性能，它是一门非常有趣的语言。而智能体在过去 6 个月里进步很大，从不太好变成了完全可行的选择。只是生态系统还很年轻。大多数时候你其实在意的是生态系统，对吧？所以如果你构建的东西涉及推理或运行模型，Python 非常好。但如果我用 Python 构建东西，并且想要一个也能在 Windows 上部署的方案，那就不是好选择了。有时候我找到一些项目，它们完成了我想做的 90%，但用的是 Python，而我想要一个简单的 Windows 方案。好吧，那就用 Go 重写。但如果你更注重多压力和更高性能，Rust 是个很好的选择。没有单一答案，这也是它的美妙之处。就像它很有趣，现在这已经不重要了。你可以直接选择最适合你问题领域特性和生态系统的语言，是的，可能你在阅读代码时会慢一点，但其实不会。我觉得你学得很快，而且你总是可以问你的智能体。所以，有很多程序员和构建者从你的故事中汲取灵感。

What's the best ridiculous question? What's the best programming language for the AI agentic world? Is it JavaScript, TypeScript? TypeScript is really good. Sometimes the types can get really confusing. And the ecosystem is a jungle. So for web stuff, it's good. I wouldn't build everything in it. Don't you think we're moving there? Like that everything will eventually be written in JavaScript then the birth and death of JavaScript and we're living through it in real time. Like what does programming look like in 20 years, right? In 30 years, in 40 years? What do programs and apps look like? You can even ask a question like do we need a programming language that's made for agents? Because all of those languages are made for humans. So what would that look like? I think there's a whole bunch of interesting questions that will discover. And also how because everything is now world knowledge, how in many ways things will stagnate. Because if you build something new and the agent has no idea, that's going to be much harder to use than something that's already there. When I build Mac apps, I build them in Swift and SwiftUI. Partly because I like pain. Partly because the deepest level of system integration I can only get through there. You clearly feel a difference if you click on an Electron app and it loads a web view. In the menu, it's just not the same. Sometimes I also just try new languages just to get a feel for them. Like Zig? Yeah. If it's something where I care about performance a lot and it's a really interesting language. And agents got so much better over the last 6 months from not really good to totally valid choice. Just still a very young ecosystem. And most of the time you actually care about ecosystem, right? So if you build something that does inference or goes into whole running model direction, Python is very good. But then if I build stuff in Python and I want a story where I can also deploy it on Windows, not a good choice. Sometimes I found projects that kind of did 90% of what I wanted, but were in Python and I wanted an easy Windows story. Okay, just rewrite it in Go. But then if you go more towards multiple stress and more performance, Rust is a really good choice. There's no single answer and that's also the beauty of it. Like it's fun and now it doesn't matter anymore. You can just literally pick the language that has the most fitting characteristics and ecosystem for your problem domain and yeah, it might be you might be a little bit slow in reading the code, but not really. I think you pick stuff up really fast and you can always ask your agent. So, there's a lot of programmers and builders who draw inspiration from your story.

就是你为人处世的方式，你选择将开放核心开源，你独自或在小团队中享受构建和探索的乐趣。那么，作为建议，他们应该优化什么指标？成功的指标是什么？是幸福吗？是金钱吗？还是对那些梦想构建的人产生积极影响？因为你经历了一段有趣的旅程。你实现了其中很多目标，然后有一段时间你对编程有点失去热情。

Just the way you carry yourself, your choice of making open core open source, the way you have fun building and exploring and doing that for the most part alone or on a small team. So, by way of advice, what metric should be the goal that they would be optimizing for? What would be the metric of success? Would it be happiness? Is it money? Is it positive impact for people who are dreaming of building? Because you went through an interesting journey. You've achieved a lot of those things and then you fell out of love with programming a little bit for a time.

我只是燃烧得太亮太久了。我创办了 PHP PDF good 并运营了 13 年。压力很大。我不得不快速而艰难地学习所有事情，比如如何管理员工、如何招聘、如何应对客户。所以不仅仅是编程，还有人事。让我精疲力竭的主要是人事。我不认为倦怠是因为工作过度。也许在某种程度上，每个人都不一样，我不能绝对地说，但对我来说，更多的是与联合创始人的分歧、冲突，或者与客户的高度紧张局面，最终把我拖垮了。幸运的是，我们收到了一个很好的报价，让公司更上一层楼，而我已经花了两年时间让自己变得可有可无。所以那时我可以离开了，然后我坐在屏幕前，感觉自己就像《王牌大贱谍》里被吸走魔力一样。它消失了。我再也写不出代码了。我只是盯着屏幕，感到空虚。然后我订了一张去马德里的单程票，在那里待了一段时间。我觉得我需要追赶生活。所以我做了一大堆追赶生活的事情。

I was just burning too bright for too long. I ran PHP PDF good and ran it for 13 years. And it was high-stress. I had to learn all the things fast and hard, like how to manage people, how to bring people on, how to deal with customers. So it wasn't just programming stuff, it was people stuff. The stuff that burned me out was mostly people stuff. I don't think burnout is working too much. Maybe to a degree, everybody's different, you know, I cannot speak in absolute terms, but for me it was much more differences with my co-founders, conflicts, or really high stress situations with customers that eventually grinded me down. Then luckily we got a really good offer for putting the company to the next level, and I already kind of worked 2 years on making myself obsolete. So at this point I could leave, and then I was sitting in front of the screen and I felt like Austin Powers where they suck the mojo out. It was like gone. I couldn't get code out anymore. I was just staring and feeling empty. Then I booked a one-way trip to Madrid and spent some time there. I felt I had to catch up on life. So I did a whole bunch of life catching up stuff.

你在那段时间经历过低谷吗？也许对如何对待生活有什么建议。如果你认为努力工作然后退休，我不推荐，因为‘哦，我现在就享受生活’的想法可能很有吸引力，但此刻是我一生中最享受生活的时候，因为如果你早上醒来没有什么可期待的，没有真正的挑战，那很快就会变得非常无聊。然后当你无聊时，你会寻找其他方式来刺激自己，也许是毒品。但最终那也会变得无聊，你会寻求更多，那会带你走上一条非常黑暗的道路。

Did you go through some lows during that period? And maybe advice on how to approach life. If you think that you work really hard and then retire, I don't recommend that because the idea of 'oh yeah, I just enjoy life now' is maybe appealing, but right now I enjoy life the most I've enjoyed life because if you wake up in the morning and you have nothing to look forward to, you have no real challenge, that gets very boring very fast. And then when you're bored, you're going to look for other places to stimulate yourself, and maybe that's drugs. But that will eventually also get boring and you look for more, and that will lead you down a very dark path.

但你在金钱方面也展示了，硅谷创业圈的很多人可能过度优化金钱。你也表明你并不是拒绝金钱。我的意思是你肯定接受金钱，但它不是你人生的主要目标。你能谈谈你的金钱观吗？

But you also showed on the money front, a lot of people in Silicon Valley in the startup world they think maybe overthink way too much optimize for money. And you've also shown that it's not like you're saying no to money. I mean I'm sure you take money but it's not the primary objective of your life. Can you just speak to that, your philosophy on money?

当我创办公司时，金钱从来不是驱动力。它更像是对我做对事情的肯定。拥有金钱也会带来很多问题。我还认为金钱的边际效益递减。比如一个芝士汉堡就是一个芝士汉堡。我认为如果你过度追求‘我只用私人聊天，只坐豪华旅行’，你会与社会脱节。我需要很多钱。比如我有一个基金会帮助那些不那么幸运的人。与社会脱节在很多层面上都不好，但其中之一是人类很了不起。不断记住人类的了不起是件好事。我的意思是，我住得起很好的酒店。上次在旧金山，我第一次体验了最初的 Airbnb，只订了一个房间。主要是因为我想，好吧，我要么出去要么睡觉，我不喜欢所有酒店的位置，我想要不同的体验。我认为生活不就是关于体验吗？如果你把生活定位于‘我想要体验’，那就减少了体验好坏的需求。人们只想要好的体验。那行不通，但如果你优化体验，如果好，太棒了。如果坏，也太棒了，因为我学到了东西。我看到了东西。我做了事情。我想体验那个。而且它很棒。比如那里有一个酷儿 DJ，我向她展示了如何用 Claude Code 制作音乐。我们立刻建立了联系。我玩得很开心。

When I built my company, money was never the driving force. It felt more like an affirmation that I did something right. And having money is also a lot of problems. I also think it does diminishing returns the more you have. Like a cheeseburger is a cheeseburger. And I think if you go too far into 'oh I do private chat and I only travel luxury', you disconnect with society. I needed quite a lot. Like I have a foundation for helping people that weren't so lucky. And disconnecting from society is bad on many levels, but one of them is that humans are awesome. It's nice to continuously remember the awesomeness in humans. I mean I could afford really nice hotels. The last time I was in San Francisco I did the first time the OG Airbnb experience and just booked a room. Mostly because I thought okay, I'm either out or I'm sleeping and I don't like where all the hotels are and I wanted a different experience. I think isn't life all about experiences? If you tailor your life towards 'I want to have experiences', it reduces the need for it to be good or bad. People only want good experiences. That's not going to work, but if you optimize for experiences, if it's good, amazing. If it's bad, amazing because I learned something. I saw something. I did something. I wanted to experience that. And it was amazing. Like there was this queer DJ in there and I showed her how to make music with Claude Code. And we immediately bonded. I had a great time.

是的，沙发客、Airbnb 体验，最初的版本。直到今天它仍然很棒。那是人性。这就是为什么旅行很棒。只是体验人类的多样性。当它很糟糕时，也很好，伙计。当下雨你被淋湿，所有航班都乱套时，如果你能睁开眼睛看到活着真好，一切仍然很棒。是的，任何创造情感和感觉的东西都是好的。即便如此，也许加密货币的人也很好，因为他们确实创造了情感。

Yeah, there's something about the couch surfing, Airbnb experience, the OG. I mean still to this day it's awesome. It's humans. And that's why travel is awesome. Just experience the variety of the diversity of humans. And when it's shitty, it's good too, man. When it rains and you're soaked and it's all planes, everything is still awesome if you're able to open your eyes to the fact that it's good to be alive. Yeah, and anything that creates emotion and feelings is good. Even so, maybe the crypto people are good because they definitely created emotions.

我不知道我是否应该走那么远。

I don't know if I should go that far.

不，伙计。给他们爱。给他们爱。我确实认为网络缺乏现实生活中的一些精彩。是的。这是一个如何解决的开放问题。如何将网络体验注入我们在现实生活中感受到的强度。我不知道这是否是一个可解决的问题。因为文本是有损的。

No, man. Give them all love. Give them love. I do think that online lacks some of the awesomeness of real life. Yeah. That's an open problem of how to solve. How to infuse the online cyber experience with the intensity that we humans feel in real life. I don't know if that's a solvable problem. Because text is very lossy.

是的。

Yeah.

有时我希望如果我和智能体交谈，它应该是多模态的，这样它也能理解我的情绪。我的意思是它可能会朝那个方向发展。可能会。

Sometimes I wish if I talked to the agent, it should be multimodal so it also understands my emotions. I mean it might move there. It might move there.

会的。完全会。

It will. It totally will.

我得问你，只是好奇。我知道你可能收到了大公司的巨额报价。你能说说你在考虑和谁合作吗？

I have to ask you, just curious. I know you've probably gotten huge offers from major companies. Can you speak to who you're considering working with?

是的。所以稍微解释一下我的想法，对吧？我没想到这件事会这么火爆。所以它打开了很多门。我觉得每个风投，每个大风投公司都在我的收件箱里，试图和我聊 15 分钟。所以这是一个蝴蝶效应时刻。我可以什么都不做，继续下去，我真的很喜欢我的生活。有效的选择。我几乎在删除整个东西时考虑过它。我可以创办一家公司。去过那里，做过那个。有很多人推动我朝那个方向走。是的，可能会很棒。你说你可能会因此筹集很多钱。是的。我不知道，几亿、几十亿，我不知道。可能只是获得无限的钱。

Yeah. So to explain my thinking a little bit, right? I did not expect this blowing up so much. So there's a lot of doors that opened because of it. There's like I think every VC, every big VC company is in my inbox and tried to get 15 minutes with me. So there's a butterfly effect moment. I could just do nothing and continue and I really like my life. Valid choice. Almost like I considered it when I deleted the whole thing. I could create a company. Been there, done that. There's so many people that push me towards that. Yeah, like could be amazing. Push you say that you would probably raise a lot of money in that. Yeah. I don't know, hundreds of millions, billions, I don't know. It could just get unlimited amount of money.

这并不让我感到兴奋，因为我觉得我已经做过了，而且会占用我真正喜欢的事情的时间。就像我当 CEO 时一样，我学会了怎么做，而且我不差，甚至还挺擅长的。但那条路不太让我兴奋，我也担心会产生利益冲突。比如我最明显的做法是什么？我会优先考虑它。那是一个对工作环境安全的版本。然后呢？我收到一个拉取请求，要求添加审计日志功能。但那看起来像企业功能。所以现在我在开源版本和闭源版本之间感到利益冲突。或者把许可证改成 FSL 之类的，让你不能用于商业用途。但首先，考虑到所有的贡献，这很难做到。其次，我喜欢免费如啤酒的概念，而不是有条件的免费。有些方法可以让你保持免费并尝试赚钱，但非常困难。而且你能看到越来越少的公司能做到。比如 Tailwind。每个人都在用 Tailwind，对吧？然后他们不得不裁掉 75%的员工，因为不赚钱，因为没人再访问网站了，一切都由智能体完成。只靠捐赠？祝你好运。像我这种级别的项目，如果按典型开源项目来推算，收入不会很多。我还在亏钱，因为我决定支持除了 Slack 之外的所有依赖。Slack 是大公司，他们可以没有我。但其他项目大多由个人完成，所以所有赞助都直接给了我的依赖。如果还有剩余，我想给贡献者买点周边。所以你在亏钱。现在我在这个项目上亏钱。真的不可持续。大概每月 1 到 2 万美元。这还好，我相信随着时间的推移我能减少开支。OpenAI 现在在 token 上帮了不少忙，还有其他一些公司也很慷慨。但还是在亏钱。所以这是我考虑过的一条路，但我不太兴奋。

It just doesn't excite me as much because I feel I did all of that and it would take a lot of time away from the things I actually enjoy. Same as when I was CEO, I think I learned to do it and I'm not bad at it. Partly I'm good at it. But yeah, that path doesn't excite me too much and I also fear it would create a natural conflict of interest. Like what's the most obvious thing I do? I prioritize it. That was like a version safe for workplace. And then what do you do? I get a pull request with a feature like add audit log. But that seems like an enterprise feature. So now I feel I have a conflict of interest in the open source version and the closed source version. Or change the license to something like FSL where you cannot actually use it for commercial stuff. That would first be very difficult with all the contributions. And second of all, I like the idea that it's free as in beer and not free with conditions. There are ways how you keep all of that for free and still try to make money, but those are very difficult. And you see fewer and fewer companies manage that. Like even Tailwind. They're used by everyone. Everyone uses Tailwind, right? And then they had to cut off 75% of the employees because they're not making money because nobody's even going on the website anymore because it's all done by agents. And just relying on donations, yeah, good luck. Like if a project of my caliber, if I extrapolate what the typical open source project would get, it's not a lot. I still lose money on the project because I made the point of supporting every dependency except Slack. They're a big company. They can do without me. But all the projects that are done by mostly individuals, so all the sponsorship goes right up to my dependencies. And if there's more, I want to buy my contributors some merch, you know? So you're losing money. Right now I lose money on this. So it's really not sustainable. I guess something between 10 and 20k a month. Which is fine. I'm sure over time I could get that down. OpenAI is helping a lot a little bit with tokens now and there's other companies that have been generous. But still losing money on that. So that's one path I considered, but I'm just not very excited.

然后还有我一直在谈的所有大型实验室。其中，Meta 和 OpenAI 看起来最有趣。

And then there's all the big labs that I've been talking to. From those, Meta and OpenAI seem the most interesting.

你倾向于哪一边吗？

Do you lean one way or the other?

我不确定能分享多少。还没完全定下来。只能说，无论哪个，我的条件都是项目保持开源。可能会像 Chrome 和 Chromium 那样的模式。我认为这太重要了，不能直接交给一家公司变成他们的。我甚至还没提整个社区的部分，但我在 MIT 媒体实验室的 Clock 活动上看到那么多人受到启发，玩得很开心，在搭建东西，有机器人和龙虾走来走去。人们告诉我，自从互联网早期，10 到 15 年前，他们就没见过这种程度的社区热情。那里有很多高水平的人。我很惊讶。我也感官超载，因为太多人想自拍。但我喜欢这样。这需要保持一个人们可以黑客和学习的地方。但我也很兴奋能把它做成一个可以带给很多人的版本，因为我认为今年是个人智能体的一年，那是未来。最快的方式就是与其中一个实验室合作。而且从个人层面，我从未在大公司工作过。我很感兴趣。我们谈论经历。我会喜欢吗？我不知道。但我想要那种经历。我肯定如果我宣布了，会有人说'哦，他出卖了灵魂'之类的。但项目会继续。从我和他们谈的情况来看，我甚至能获得更多资源。这两家公司都理解我创造的东西加速了我们的时间线，让人们为 AI 兴奋。

Not sure how much I should share there. It's not quite finalized yet. Let's just say on either of these, my conditions are that the project stays open source. That maybe it's going to be a model like Chrome and Chromium. I think this is too important to just give to a company and make it theirs. I didn't even talk about the whole community part, but the thing that I experienced at the MIT Media Lab at Clock on seeing so many people so inspired and having fun and building, having robots and lobster stuff walking around. People told me they didn't experience this level of community excitement since the early days of the internet, 10, 15 years. And there were a lot of high caliber people there. I was amazed. I also was very sensorily overloaded because too many people wanted to do selfies. But I love this. This needs to stay a place where people can hack and learn. But also I'm very excited to make this into a version that I can get to a lot of people because I think this is the year of personal agents and that's the future. And the fastest way to do that is teaming up with one of the labs. And I also on a personal level, I never worked at a large company. And I'm intrigued. You know, we talk about experiences. Will I like it? I don't know. But I want that experience. I'm sure if I announce this, then there will be people like, 'Oh, he sold out, blah blah blah.' But the project will continue. From everything I talked to so far, I can even have more resources for that. Both of those companies understand the value that I created something that accelerates our timeline and that got people excited about AI.

你能想象吗？我在一个普通朋友身上安装了 OpenClaw。抱歉，Rohan。但他是个普通人。他用电脑，但偶尔用 ChatGPT，不太懂技术。不太理解我做了什么。所以我给他演示，我帮他付了 Anthropic 的 90 或 100 美元订阅。在 Windows 上通过 WSL 设置好一切。我也好奇它能不能在 Windows 上运行？我有点早了。然后几天内他就上瘾了。他发短信告诉我他学到的所有东西。他甚至做了小工具。他不是程序员。然后几天内他升级到了 200 美元的订阅。或者是欧元，因为他在奥地利。他爱上了那个东西。对我来说，这是非常早期的产品验证。我创造了一个能吸引人的东西。然后几天后 Anthropic 封了他。因为根据他们的规则，使用订阅有问题之类的。他崩溃了。然后他注册了 Minimax，每月 10 美元，用那个。我觉得这很愚蠢。你刚得到一个 200 美元的客户。你让一个人恨你的公司。我们还这么早。我们甚至不知道最终形态是什么。会是云代码吗？可能不是。这么早锁定产品太短视了。其他所有公司都很有帮助。我在大多数大型实验室的 Slack 里。大家都明白我们还在探索阶段，就像广播节目在电视上，而不是充分利用格式的现代电视节目。我想我让很多人看到了可能性，非技术人员看到了 AI 的可能性，爱上了这个想法，享受与 AI 互动。那真的很美好。

I mean, can you imagine? I installed OpenClaw on one of my normie friends. I'm sorry, Rohan. But he says, you know, he's normie. He's someone who uses the computer, but never really used ChatGPT sometimes, but not very technical. Wouldn't really understand what I built. So I showed him and I paid for him the 90 or 100 dollar subscription for Anthropic. And set up everything for him with WSL on Windows. I was also curious would it actually work on Windows? I was a little early. And then within a few days he was hooked. He texted me all the things he learned. He built even little tools. He's not a programmer. And then within a few days he upgraded to the $200 subscription. Or euros because he's in Austria. And he was in love with that thing. That for me was like a very early product validation. It's like I built something that captures people. And then a few days later Anthropic blocked him. Because based on their rules, using the subscription is problematic or whatever. And he was devastated. And then he signed up for Minimax for 10 bucks a month and uses that. And I think that's silly in many ways. Because you just got a 200 buck customer. You just made someone hate your company. And we are still so early. Like we don't even know what the final form is. Is it going to be Claude Code? Probably not. That seems very short-sighted to lock down your product so much. All the other companies have been helpful. I'm in Slack of most of the big labs. Kind of everybody understands that we are still in an area of exploration, in the area of the radio show is on TV and not a modern TV show that fully uses the format. I think I've made a lot of people see the possibility, and non-technical people see the possibility of AI and just fall in love with this idea and enjoy interacting with AI. And that's a really beautiful thing.

我想我也代表很多人说，我认为你是 AI 领域里很棒的人之一，心地善良，氛围好，幽默，精神正确。所以从某种意义上说，你描述的这种模式——有开源部分，同时你也在大公司内部构建东西——会很棒，因为让好人进入那些公司是好事。你知道人们没看到的是，我在三个月内做出了这个。

I think I also speak for a lot of people in saying I think you're one of the great people in AI in terms of having a good heart, good vibes, humor, the right spirit. And so it would in a sense this model that you described having open source part and you being part of also building a thing inside additionally of a large company would be great because it's great to have good people in those companies. You know what also people don't really see is I made this in three months.

我还做了其他事情。我有很多项目。一月份这是主要焦点，因为我预见到了风暴来临。但在此之前，我构建了一大堆其他东西。我有很多想法。有些应该保留，有些在我拿到最新工具时会更适合。我确实想用上最新工具。所以这个很重要，很酷，会继续存在。我的短期重点是处理这些。现在有 3000 个 PR 了吗？我都不清楚。积压了一些。但这不会是我做到 80 岁的事。这是通往未来的窗口。我会把它做成一个很酷的产品。但我还有更多想法。

I did other things as well. I have a lot of projects. In January this was my main focus because I saw the storm coming. But before that, I built a whole bunch of other things. I have so many ideas. Some should be there. Some would be much better fitted when I have access to the latest toys. I kind of want to have access to the latest toys. So this is important. This is cool. This will continue to exist. My short-term focus is like working through those. Is it 3,000 PRs now? I don't even know. There's a little bit of backlog. But this is not going to be the thing that I'm going to work until I'm 80. This is a window to the future. I'm going to make this into a cool product. But I have more ideas.

如果必须选，你倾向于哪家公司？Meta、OpenAI？有倾向吗？

If you had to pick, is there a company you lean to? Meta, OpenAI? Is there one you lean towards going with?

我和两家都接触过。有趣的是几周前我根本没考虑这些。真的很难。我在 OpenAI 有认识的人。我喜欢他们的技术。我觉得我是最大的无偿 Codex 广告推销员。能为我免费做的工作标个价会很有满足感。我希望发生点什么让这两家公司合并，因为……

I spent time with both of those. It's funny because a few weeks ago I didn't consider any of this. It's really hard. I do know people at OpenAI. I love that tech. I think I'm the biggest unpaid Codex advertisement shill. It would feel so gratifying to put a price to all the work I did for free. I would love if something happens and those companies get merged because it's like...

这是你做过最难的决定吗？

Is this the hardest decision you've ever had to do?

不，我过去有过一些分手，感觉程度差不多。

Nah, I had some breakups in the past that feel like a similar level.

你是说感情关系？

Relationships, you mean?

是的。而且我知道最终两家都很棒。我不会选错。就像是最有声望和最大的——不是最大，但都是很酷的公司。是的，它们都真正理解规模。所以，如果你考虑影响力，你一直在探索的一些美妙技术，如何安全地做，如何规模化，从而对大量人产生积极影响。它们都懂。

Yeah. And I also know that in the end they're both amazing. I cannot go wrong. It's like one of the most prestigious and largest—I mean, not largest, but they were very cool companies. Yeah, they both really know scale. So, if you're thinking about impact, some of the wonderful technologies you've been exploring, how to do it securely, and how to do it at scale, so that you can have a positive impact on a large number of people. They both understand that.

你知道，Matt 和 Mark 基本上整个星期都在玩我的产品，给我发消息说‘哦，这个很棒’，‘哦，我需要改这个’，‘哦，发现个小趣事’。人们用你的东西是最大的赞美。也表明他们真的在乎。OpenAI 那边我没得到同样的待遇。我看到了其他一些我觉得很酷的东西。他们用……诱惑我。因为 NDA 我不能说具体数字，但你可以发挥想象力，想想那种脑力窃取如何转化为速度。那非常吸引人。

You know, both Matt and Mark basically played all week with my product and sent me like 'oh, this is great', 'oh, I need to change this', 'oh, find a little anecdotes'. And people using your stuff is kind of like the biggest compliment. And also shows me that they actually care about it. And I didn't get the same on the OpenAI side. I got to see some other stuff that I find really cool. And they lure me with... I cannot tell the exact number because of NDA, but you can be creative and think of the cerebral steal and how that would translate into speed. And that was very intriguing.

是的，就像你给我 Source Hammer。被 token 诱惑了。所以很有趣。Mark 在摆弄那个东西，玩得很开心。他们第一次联系我时，我加了他 WhatsApp，他问‘我们什么时候能打个电话？’我说‘我不喜欢日历安排。现在就打吧。’他说‘好，给我 10 分钟，我得写完代码。’

Yeah, like you give me Source Hammer. Yeah. Been lured with tokens. So, it's funny. So Mark's tinkering with the thing, essentially having fun with the thing. When they first approached me, I got him in my WhatsApp and he was asking, 'yeah, when can we have a call?' And I'm like, 'I don't like calendar entries. Let's just call now.' And he was like, 'yeah, give me 10 minutes. I need to finish coding.'

嗯，我觉得这给你增加了街头信誉。就像他还在写代码。他没有漂走只当经理。他懂我。那是个好的开始。然后我们大概吵了 10 分钟，Claude code 和 Codex 哪个更好？

Well, I guess that gives you street cred. It's like he's still writing code. He's not drifting away and just being a manager. He gets me. That was a good first start. And then I think we had a 10-minute fight, what's better, Claude code or Codex?

就像我说的，你第一次随便打电话给一个拥有世界上最大公司之一的人，然后你们就那个话题聊了 10 分钟。是的，太棒了。之后他叫我 eccentric 但 brilliant。我和 Sam Altman 也有过很酷的讨论。他很有思想。很聪明。我很喜欢他，虽然相处时间很短。我知道有些人真的讨厌他们两个。我觉得不公平。我认为无论你在构建什么，无论你是什么样的人，规模化做事都很棒。我很兴奋。超级激动。美妙之处在于如果不行，我可以再做自己的事。我告诉他们我不是为了钱。我不在乎……当然那是个不错的赞美，但我想玩得开心并产生影响。那最终决定了我的选择。

Like I said, that's the thing you first do like casually call someone with that owns one of the largest companies in the world and you have a 10-minute conversation about that. Yeah, it's awesome. And then I think afterwards he called me eccentric, but brilliant. But I also had some really cool discussion with Sam Altman. He's very thoughtful. Brilliant. And I like him a lot from the little time I had. I mean, I know some people really fight both of those people. I don't think it's fair. I think no matter the stuff you're building and the kind of human you are, doing stuff at scale is kind of awesome. I'm excited. I am super pumped. And the beauty is if it doesn't work out, I can just do my own thing again. I told them I don't do this for the money. I don't give a... I mean, of course it's a nice compliment, but I want to have fun and have impact. And that's ultimately what made my decision.

我能问问 Open Claw 吗？我们聊了不同组件。我想问有没有漏掉有趣的东西。有网关、聊天客户端、harness、智能体循环。你某处说过每个人都应该在某个时候实现一个智能体循环。

Can I ask you about Open Claw? We talked about different components. I want to ask if there's some interesting stuff we missed. So, there's the gateway. There's the chat clients. There's the harness. There's the agentic loop. You said somewhere that everybody should implement an agent loop at some point.

这就像 AI 里的 hello world。其实很简单。理解这些东西不是魔法是好的。你可以轻松自己构建。所以写你自己的小 Claude code。我甚至在巴黎的一个会议上做过这个，向人们介绍 AI。我觉得这是个有趣的小练习。你涵盖了很多。我有个傻想法结果很酷：我构建了一个有完全系统访问权限的东西。能力越大责任越大。我想，怎么再提高点赌注？我让它变得主动。我加了一个提示。最初只是‘surprise me’。每半小时‘surprise me’。后来我让惊喜的定义更具体。我让它变得主动，它认识你、关心你——至少被编程成这样。而且它基于你当前会话，这很有趣，因为它有时会问后续问题或‘你今天怎么样？’我是说，有点 creepy 或奇怪或有趣，但心跳在最初到今天模型都不怎么用它。

It's like the hello world in AI. It's actually quite simple. And it's good to understand that stuff's not magic. You can easily build it yourself. So, writing your own little Claude code. I even did this at a conference in Paris for people to introduce them to AI. I think it's a fun little practice. You covered a lot. I think one silly idea I had that turned out to be quite cool is I built this thing with full system access. So, with great power comes great responsibility. I was like, how can I up the stakes a little bit more? I just made it proactive. I added a prompt. Initially, it was just a prompt, 'surprise me'. Every half an hour, 'surprise me'. Later on I changed it to be a little more specific in the definition of surprise. The fact that I made it proactive and that it knows you and cares about you—it's at least programmed to do that. And that is a follow-on on your current session makes it very interesting because it would just sometimes ask a follow-up question or like, 'how's your day?' I mean, again, it's a little creepy or weird or interesting, but heartbeat very in the beginning is still today it doesn't the model doesn't choose to use it a lot.

顺便说，我们在说心跳，你提到的定期行动的东西。你只是启动循环。那不就是个 cron job 吗？

By the way, we're talking about heartbeat, as you mentioned, the thing that regularly acts. You just kick off the loop. Isn't that just a cron job, man?

对，没错。你受到的批评是你可以把任何想法归结为傻……是的，最终就是个 cron job。我有分开的 cron jobs。

Yeah, right. The criticisms that you get are you can deduce any idea to like a silly... Yeah, it's just a cron job in the end. I have like cron separate cron jobs.

爱不就是在表现进化生物学吗？你们最终不就是在互相利用吗？这个项目不过是几个依赖项的粘合剂，没什么原创性。

Isn't love just evolutionary biology manifesting itself? Aren't you guys just using each other in the end, and the project is all just glue of a few different dependencies and there's nothing original?

为什么人们……嗯，你知道，Dropbox 不就是多了几步的 FTP 吗？没错。

Why do people... Well, you know, isn't Dropbox just FTP with extra steps? Yeah.

我觉得很惊讶。几个月前我做了肩部手术，模型很少用心跳功能。但我在医院时，它知道我做了手术，还来问候我。它问：“你还好吗？”我就……显然，如果上下文中有重要的事情，就会触发心跳，而它平时很少用。它有时会这样对人，这让它更有人情味。

I found it surprising. I had a shoulder operation a few months ago, and the model rarely used heartbeat. But then I was in the hospital and it knew that I had the operation and it checked up on me. It's like, 'Are you okay?' And I just... it's like, apparently if something's significant in the context, that triggered the heartbeat when it rarely used the heartbeat. And it does that sometimes for people, and that just makes it a lot more relatable.

让我在 Perplexity 上查一下 OpenClaw 的工作原理，看看我有没有遗漏什么。本地智能体运行时，高层架构。还有……哦，我们还没怎么讨论技能。技能中心，技能层的工具。但这绝对是一个巨大的组成部分，而且技能集正在快速增长。

Let me look this up on Perplexity, how OpenClaw works, just to see if I'm missing any of the stuff. Local agent runtime, high-level architecture. There's... Oh, we haven't talked much about skills, I suppose. Skill hub, the tools in the skill layer. But that's definitely a huge component and there's a huge growing set of skills.

半年前每个人都在谈论 MCP。是的。我当时想：“去他的 MCP。”每个 MCP 最好都做成 CLI。现在这东西甚至不支持 MCP。我是说，带星号的支持，但不在核心层。而且没人抱怨。所以我的方法是：如果你想用更多功能扩展模型，就构建一个 CLI，模型可以调用 CLI，可能会出错，然后调用帮助菜单，再按需加载使用 CLI 所需的上下文。它只需要一句话就知道 CLI 存在，如果模型默认不知道的话。有一段时间我其实不太在意技能，但技能实际上非常适合这个，因为它们归结为一句解释技能的话。然后模型加载技能，再解释 CLI，然后模型使用 CLI。有些技能是原始的，但大多数时候都有效。这很有趣。

That half year ago everyone was talking about MCPs. Yeah. And I was like, 'Screw MCPs.' Every MCP would be better as a CLI. And now this stuff doesn't even have MCP support. I mean it has with asterisks, but not in the core layer. And nobody's complaining. So my approach is: if you want to extend the model with more features, you just build a CLI and the model can call the CLI, probably gets it wrong, calls the help menu, and then on demand loads into the context what it needs to use the CLI. It just needs a sentence to know that the CLI exists if it's something that the model doesn't know by default. And even for a while I didn't really care about skills, but skills are actually perfect for that because they boil down to a single sentence that explains the skill. Then the model loads the skill and then explains the CLI and then the model uses the CLI. Some skills are raw, but most of the time it works. It's interesting.

我在问 Perplexity 关于 MCP 与技能的比较，因为这需要最近的热门观点。你大致认为 MCP 已经过时了。MCP 是更结构化的东西。如果你听 Perplexity 的解释，MCP 是“我能访问什么？”——通过协议访问 API、数据库、服务、文件，是一种结构化的通信协议。而技能更像是“我该如何工作？”——流程、辅助脚本和提示，通常用半结构化的自然语言编写，对吧？所以从技术上讲，如果你有足够聪明的模型，技能可以取代 MCP。

I'm asking Perplexity MCP versus skills because this kind of requires a hot take that's quite recent. Your general view is MCPs are dead-ish. So MCPs is a more structured thing. So if you listen to Perplexity here, MCP is what can I reach? APIs, databases, services, files via protocol, so a structured protocol of how you communicate with a thing. And then skills is more how should I work? Procedures, hostile helper scripts, and prompts often written in a kind of semi-structured natural language, right? And so technically skills could replace MCP if you have a smart enough model.

我认为主要的美妙之处在于模型非常擅长调用 Unix 命令。所以如果你只是添加另一个 CLI，那最终只是另一个 Unix 命令。而 MCP 必须在训练中添加，这对模型来说不太自然，需要非常具体的语法。最重要的是：它不可组合。想象一下，我有一个服务提供更好的数据，它返回温度、平均温度、降雨、风力等等一大堆东西。我得到一大块数据。作为模型，我总是要接收这大块数据，用上下文填满它，然后挑选我想要的。模型无法自然地过滤，除非我主动考虑并在 MCP 中添加过滤方式。但如果我用 CLI 构建同样的东西，它返回大块数据，我可以加一个 jq 命令自己过滤，只得到我需要的。甚至可以把温度计算组合成一个脚本，只输出实际结果。这样就没有上下文污染。当然，你可以用子智能体和其他把戏解决，但那只是对可能不是最优方式的变通。MCP 的出现是好事，因为它推动了很多公司构建 API。现在我可以看着一个 MCP，把它做成 CLI。但 MCP 默认会弄乱你的上下文，加上大多数 MCP 做得不好，使得它不是一个非常有用的范式。有一些例外，比如 Playwright，它需要状态，实际上很有用，是一个可接受的选择。

I think the main beauty is that models are really good at calling Unix commands. So if you just add another CLI, that's just another Unix command in the end. And MCPs have to be added in training. That's not a very natural thing for the model. It requires a very specific syntax. And the biggest thing: it's not composable. So imagine if I have a service that gives me better data and it gives me the temperature, the average temperature, rain, wind, and all the other stuff. And I get like this huge blob back. As a model, I always have to get the huge blob back. I have to fill my context with that huge blob and then pick what I want. There's no way for the model to naturally filter unless I think about it proactively and add a filtering way into my MCP. But if I would build the same as a CLI and it would give me this huge blob, it could just add a jq command and filter itself and then only get me what I actually need. Or maybe even compose it into a script to do some calculations with the temperature and only give me the actual output. And you have no context pollution. Again, you can solve that with sub-agents and more charades, but it's just workarounds for something that might not be the optimal way. It was good that we had MCPs because it pushed a lot of companies towards building APIs. And now I can look at an MCP and just make it into a CLI. But this inherent problem that MCPs by default clutter up your context, plus the fact that most MCPs are not made good in general, make it just not a very useful paradigm. There are some exceptions like Playwright, for example, that requires state and is actually useful, which is an acceptable choice.

Playwright 用于浏览器操作，我认为在 OpenClaw 中已经很不可思议了，对吧？你基本上可以用浏览器操作做任何事，大多数你能想到的事情。这就进入了整个架构：每个应用现在都只是一个非常慢的 API，不管你愿不愿意。通过个人智能体，很多应用会消失。

Playwright used for browser use, which I think is already in OpenClaw quite incredible, right? You can basically do everything, most things you can think of using browser use. That gets into the whole arch of every app is just a very slow API now, if you want or not. And that through personal agents a lot of apps will disappear.

我为 Twitter 建了一个 CLI。我只是逆向工程了网站，用了内部 API，这不太被允许。它叫 Bird，寿命很短。之所以叫 Bird，是因为那只鸟必须消失。翅膀被剪了。他们所做的只是让访问变慢。你并没有真正移除某个功能。但现在如果你的智能体想读一条推文，它必须打开浏览器读推文。它仍然能读到，只是更慢了。这不像你把可能的事变成不可能。现在只是慢了一点。所以你的服务想不想成为 API 并不重要。如果我能通过浏览器访问，它就是 API。一个慢 API。

I built a CLI for Twitter. I just reverse engineered the website and used the internal API, which is not very allowed. It was called Bird, short-lived. It was called Bird because the bird had to disappear. The wings were clipped. All they did is they just made access slower. You're not actually taking a feature away. But now if your agent wants to read a tweet, it actually has to open the browser and read the tweet. And it will still be able to read the tweet. It will just take longer. It's not like you're making something that was possible not possible. Now it's just a bit slower. So it doesn't really matter if your service wants to be an API or not. If I can access it in the browser, it is an API. It's a slow API.

你能理解他们的处境吗？如果你是 Twitter，如果你是 X，你会怎么做？因为他们基本上是在防止其他大公司抓取他们所有的数据。

Can you empathize with their situation? Like what would you do if you were Twitter, if you were X? Because they're basically trying to protect against other large companies scraping all their data.

是的。但这样做，他们切断了数百万个小开发者的用例，这些开发者实际上想用它来做有用且酷的事情。我认为如果每个账户有一个很低的每日只读访问基线，会解决很多问题。有很多自动化场景：人们创建一个书签，然后用 OpenClaw 找到书签，进行研究，然后给你发一封包含更多细节或摘要的邮件。这是一个很酷的方法。我也希望我所有的书签都能搜索。我仍然想要这个功能。所以对你 X 上的书签提供只读访问，这似乎是一个不可思议的应用，因为我们很多人在 X 上发现了很多酷东西。我们收藏。这是 X 的一般流程。就像，“天哪，这太棒了。”很多时候，你收藏了太多东西，再也没回头看过。如果有工具能整理它们，让你进一步研究，那就太好了。

Yeah. But in so doing, they're cutting off like a million different use cases for smaller developers that actually want to use it for helpful cool stuff. I think if you have a very low per day baseline per account that allows read-only access would solve a lot of problems. There's plenty of automations where people create a bookmark and then use OpenClaw to find the bookmark, do research on it, and then send you an email with more details or a summary. That's a cool approach. I also want all my bookmarks somewhere to search. I would still like to have that. So read-only access for the bookmarks you make on X. That seems like an incredible application because a lot of us find a lot of cool stuff on X. We bookmark. That's the general process of X. It's like, 'Holy this is awesome.' Oftentimes, you bookmark so many things you never look back at them. It would be nice to have tooling that organizes them and allows you to research it further.

是的，说实话，我主动告诉 Twitter：“嘿，我建了这个，有需求。”他们人很好，但也说：“把它撤下来。”公平。

Yeah, I mean and to be frank, I told Twitter proactively that, 'Hey, I built this and there's a need.' And they've been really nice, but also like, 'Take it down.' Fair.

完全同意。但我希望这能让团队意识到有需求。如果你只是放慢速度，那只会减少对你平台的访问。我相信有更好的办法。我也非常反对 Twitter 上的任何自动化。如果你用 AI 给我发推文，我会拉黑你。没有第一次警告。一旦闻起来像 AI，而 AI 还是有味道的。尤其是在推文上，很难写出完全像人类的推文。然后我就拉黑。我对这个零容忍。我认为如果通过 API 发布的推文能被标记会很有帮助。也许有些特殊情况，但应该有一种非常简单的方式让智能体拥有自己的 Twitter 账号。我们需要重新思考社交平台，如果我们走向一个每个人都有自己智能体的未来，智能体可能有自己的 Instagram 或 Twitter 账号，或者能代表我做事情。我认为应该非常清楚地标记它们是在代表我做事情，而不是我本人。因为内容现在太便宜了，眼球才是昂贵的部分。当我读到一些东西然后想‘哦，不，这肯定是 AI’时，我觉得非常恼火。

Totally fair. But I hope that this woke up the team a little bit that there's a need. And if all you do is make it slower, you're just reducing access to your platform. I'm sure there's a better way. I also I'm very much against any automation on Twitter. If you tweet at me with AI, I will block you. No first strike. As soon as it smells like AI, and AI still has a smell. Especially on tweets, it's very hard to tweet in a way that looks completely human. And then I block. I have a zero tolerance policy on that. And I think it would be very helpful if tweets done via API would be marked. Maybe there are some special cases, but there should be a very easy way for agents to get their own Twitter account. We need to rethink social platforms a little bit if we go towards a future where everyone has their agent and agents maybe have their own Instagram profiles or Twitter accounts or can do stuff on my behalf. I think it should very clearly be marked that they are doing stuff on my behalf and it's not me. Because content is now so cheap, eyeballs are the expensive part. And I find it very triggering when I read something and then I'm like, 'Oh, no, this must be AI.'

从我们对人类体验的重视来看，这会走向何方？感觉我们会越来越倾向于面对面互动。我们只会交流。我们会和我们的 AI 智能体交谈来完成不同的任务，学习不同的事情。但我们不会重视在线互动，因为会有太多有味道的 AI 垃圾和太多机器人，很难。

Where is this headed in terms of what we value about the human experience? It feels like we'll move more and more towards in-person interaction. And we'll just communicate. We'll talk to our AI agent to accomplish different tasks, to learn about different things. But we won't value online interaction because there'll be so much AI slop that smells and so many bots that it's difficult.

嗯，如果被标记了，那么过滤就不难了。然后我可以选择看或不看，但这是我们现在需要解决的大问题。尤其是在这个项目上，我收到很多邮件，可以说是写得很有智能体风格。但我更愿意读你蹩脚的英语，而不是你的 AI 垃圾。当然背后有真人，他们写了提示词。我更愿意读你的提示词，而不是输出。我认为我们到了一个我再次重视拼写错误的地步。我也花了一段时间才意识到这一点。在我的博客上，我尝试用智能体写博客文章，最终花了差不多同样的时间来引导智能体写出我喜欢的东西，但它错过了我写作方式的细微差别。你可以引导它接近你的风格，但不会完全是你的风格。所以我完全放弃了。我博客上的所有内容都是有机手写的，也许我用 AI 来修正最糟糕的拼写错误，但真实人类的粗糙部分是有价值的。这难道不棒吗？这难道不美吗？因为 AI，我们会更重视彼此身上原始的人性。我还意识到，我对 AI 赞不绝口，在代码方面大量使用它，但如果涉及故事，我就过敏。对吧？文档用 AI 也还行，聊胜于无。目前视觉媒介也是如此。有趣的是，我对视频和图像中哪怕一点点 AI 垃圾都过敏。它有用。如果只是一个小组件，那很好，但即使是那些图片广告，所有那些信息图之类的东西，它们让我非常反感。立刻让我对你的内容评价降低。它们新奇了大概一周，现在看起来就是垃圾。即使人们更努力地使用 AI，我也有一些博客文章是在我探索这种新媒体时写的，但现在它们也让我反感。这看起来就是 AI 垃圾。我也经历过。我对图表非常兴奋，然后我意识到要消除其中的幻觉，实际上需要做大量的工作。而你只是用它来画更好的图表，很好。然后我为图表感到自豪。我用了大概几周，现在再看那些图表，感觉就像看到 Comic Sans 字体一样。不，这是假的。这是欺诈。它有问题，有味道。有味道。这很棒，因为它提醒我们，我们知道人类有很多了不起的地方，我们一看就知道。所以这给了我很多希望。这给了我很多希望，人类体验不会被破坏，反而会被 AI 作为工具增强。它不会被破坏、限制或以某种方式改变到不再是人类。

Well, if it's marked, then it shouldn't be difficult to filter. And then I can look at it if I want to, but yeah, this is a big thing we need to solve right now. Especially on this project, I get so many emails that are, let's say, nicely agentically written. But I much rather read your broken English than your AI slop. Of course there's a human behind it, and they prompted. I much rather read your prompts than what came out. I think we're reaching a point where I value typos again. It also took me a while to come to the realization. On my blog, I experimented with creating a blog post with agents, and ultimately it took me about the same time to steer the agent towards something I like, but it missed the nuances of how I would write it. You can steer it towards your style, but it's not going to be all your style. So I completely moved away from that. Everything I blog is organic handwritten, and maybe I use AI to fix my worst typos, but there's value in the rough parts of an actual human. Isn't that awesome? Isn't that beautiful that now because of AI we'll value the raw humanity in each of us more. I also realized the thing that I rave about AI and use it so much for anything that's code, but I'm allergic if it's stories. Right? Also documentation is still fine with AI, better than nothing. And for now it's still in a place in a visual medium, too. It's fascinating how allergic I am to even a little bit of AI slop in video and images. It's useful. It's nice if it's like a little component, but even those image ads, all these infographics and stuff, they trigger me so hard. Immediately makes me think less of your content. They were novel for like one week and now it just screams slop. Even if people work harder on it, using AI, and I have some of my blog posts from the time where I explored this new medium, but now they trigger me as well. This just screams AI slop. I went through that too. I was really excited by the diagrams and then I realized in order to remove hallucinations from them, you actually have to do a huge amount of work. And you're just using it to draw better diagrams, great. And then I'm proud of the diagram. I've used them for maybe a couple weeks, and now I look at those and I feel like when I look at Comic Sans as a font. It's like, no, this is fake. It's fraudulent. There's something wrong with it and it's a smell. It's a smell. And it's awesome because it reminds you that we know there's so much to humans that's amazing and we know it when we see it. So that gives me a lot of hope. That gives me a lot of hope about the human experience is not going to be damaged, but it's only going to be empowered as tools by AI. It's not going to be damaged or limited or somehow altered to where it's no longer human.

我需要去下洗手间。快速暂停。你提到很多应用可能会基本过时。你认为智能体会彻底改变整个应用市场吗？

I need a bathroom break. Quick pause. You mentioned that a lot of the apps might be basically made obsolete. You think agents will just transform the entire app market?

是的。我在 Discord 上注意到人们说他们喜欢自己构建的东西以及用途。比如，当智能体已经知道我在哪里时，为什么还需要 MyFitnessPal？所以它可以假设我在 Waffle House 时会做出糟糕的决定。或者奥斯汀的牛胸肉。牛胸肉没有糟糕的决定，但确实。不，那实际上是最好的决定。你的智能体应该知道这一点。但它可以根据我的睡眠质量或是否有压力来调整我的健身计划。它有更多的上下文来做出比任何应用都更好的决定。它可以按我喜欢的方式显示 UI。为什么我还需要一个应用来做这些？为什么我要为智能体现在就能做的事情再付订阅费？为什么我需要 Eight Sleep 应用来控制我的床，而我可以直接告诉智能体？不，智能体已经知道我在哪里，所以它可以关掉我不用的东西。我认为这将导致一整类应用被自然淘汰，因为我的智能体可以做得更好。我记得你曾在某处说过，这可能会消灭 80% 的应用。是的。你不认为这对整个软件开发有巨大的变革性影响吗？这是否意味着它可能会消灭很多软件公司？是的。这是一件可怕的事情。那么，你考虑过它对经济的影响，对社会的连锁反应，改变谁构建什么工具吗？它赋予了许多用户更高效、更便宜地完成事情的能力。也会出现我们需要的新服务，对吧？例如，我希望我的智能体有零花钱。比如你为我解决问题，这里有 100 美元来为我解决问题。

Yeah. I noticed that on Discord that people just said how they like what they build and what they use it for. Like, why do you need MyFitnessPal when the agent already knows where I am? So it can assume that I make bad decisions when I'm at, I don't know, Waffle House. Or brisket in Austin. There's no bad decisions around brisket, but yeah. No, that's the best decision, honestly. Your agent should know that. But it can modify my gym workout based on how well I slept or if I have stress or not. It has so much more context to make even better decisions than any app could do. It could show me UI just as I like. Why do I still need an app to do that? Why do I have to pay another subscription for something that the agent can just do now? And why do I need my Eight Sleep app to control my bed when I can tell the agent? No, the agent already knows where I am, so it can turn off what I don't use. And I think that will translate into a whole category of apps that I will just naturally stop using because my agent can do it better. I think you said somewhere that it might kill off 80% of apps. Yeah. Don't you think that's a gigantic transformative effect on just all software development? Does that mean it might kill off a lot of software companies? Yeah. It's a scary thing. So, do you think about the impact it has on the economy, on the ripple effects it has to society, transforming who builds what tooling. It empowers a lot of users to get stuff done, to get it more efficiently, to get it done cheaper. There's also new services that we will need, right? For example, I want my agent to have an allowance. Like you solve problems for me, here's $100 to solve problems for me.

如果我让它帮我点餐，它可能会用某个服务，比如租个人工服务。总之把事情搞定就行。我不在乎具体怎么做的，我只关心解决问题。这给能做好这件事的新公司留出了空间。也许不是所有应用都会消失，有些会转型成 API。也就是说，应用会快速转向面向智能体。像我们刚才用过的 Uber Eats 这样的公司就有很大的机会。这类公司很多，谁能最快以最自然、最简单的方式与 open claw 交互，谁就占得先机。而且，不管应用愿不愿意，它们都会变成 API，因为我的智能体能学会怎么用我的手机。在 Android 上可能更麻烦一点，但已经有人这么做了，然后它就会直接帮我点 Uber，或者用另一个服务，或者调用一个更快的 API。

And if I tell it to order me food, maybe it uses a service. Maybe it uses something like rent a human. So, just get that done for me. I don't actually care. I care about solving my problem. There's space for new companies that solve that well. Maybe not all apps disappear. Maybe some transform into being API. So, basically apps that rapidly transform into being agent-facing. So, there's a real opportunity for companies like Uber Eats, which we just used earlier today. It's companies like this, of which there are many. Who gets there fastest to being able to interact with open claw in a way that's the most natural, the easiest. And also apps will become API if they want or not, because my agent can figure out how to use my phone. I mean, on the other side it's a little more tricky on Android, but that's already done, and then it will just click the "order Uber for me" button for me, or maybe another service, or maybe there's an API it can call which is faster.

我觉得我们才刚刚开始理解这意味着什么。而且，我之前甚至没想过这个，是看到人们使用后才发现的。我们还处于非常早期的阶段。不过，我认为数据非常重要。比如那些既能给我数据又能作为 API 的应用。当我的智能体能直接和 Sonos 音箱对话时，我为什么还需要 Sonos 应用呢？我的摄像头有一个很烂的应用，但它们有 API。所以我的智能体现在直接用 API。这会迫使很多公司转移重心。这有点像互联网带来的变革，对吧？你必须迅速重新思考、重新配置你在卖什么、怎么赚钱。有些公司会非常不喜欢这样。

I think that's a space we're just beginning to even understand what that means. And again, I didn't even think of that; it's something I discovered as people use this. And we're still so early. But yeah, I think data is very important. Like apps that can give me data, but also can be API. Why do I need the Sonos app anymore when my agent can talk to the Sonos speakers directly? Like my cameras, there's a crappy app, but they have an API. So, my agent uses the API now. So, it's going to force a lot of companies to have to shift focus. And it's kind of what the internet did, right? You have to rapidly rethink, reconfigure what you're selling, how you're making money. And some companies will really not like that.

比如，Google 没有命令行界面。所以我不得不自己写了一个 Gog，作为 Google 的命令行工具。对终端用户来说，他们必须给我邮件，否则我就没法用他们的产品。如果我是公司，想获取 Google 数据比如 Gmail，整个过程非常复杂，以至于有些初创公司会收购那些已经走完流程的公司，这样就不用花半年时间跟 Google 认证来访问 Gmail。但我的智能体可以访问 Gmail，因为我直接连接就行了。虽然还是很糟糕，因为我得在 Google 的开发者丛林中找密钥，很烦人，但他们阻止不了我。最坏的情况，我的智能体直接点击网站，通过浏览器把数据弄出来。是的，我看到我的智能体愉快地点击“我不是机器人”按钮。这会让事情变得更激烈。你会看到像 Cloudflare 这样的公司试图阻止机器人访问。在某些方面这对爬虫有用，但另一方面，如果我是个人用户，我需要这个。有时候我用 Codex 读一篇关于现代 React 模式的文章，是 Medium 上的。我粘贴进去，但智能体读不了，因为被屏蔽了。所以我只能手动复制粘贴文本。或者以后我学乖了，不再点 Medium，因为太烦人，我会用那些对智能体友好的网站。

For example, there's no CLI for Google. So, I had to build Gog myself, which is a CLI for Google. And at the end user, they have to give me the emails because otherwise I cannot use their product. If I'm a company and I try to get Google data, Gmail, there's a whole complicated process to the point where sometimes startups acquire startups that went through that process so they don't have to work with Google for half a year to be certified to access Gmail. But my agent can access Gmail because I can just connect to it. It's still crappy because I need to go through Google's developer jungle to get a key, and it's still annoying, but they cannot prevent me. And worst case, my agent just clicks on the website and gets the data out that way. Through browser use. Yeah, I mean I watched my agent happily click the "I'm not a robot" button. And there's this whole thing that's going to be more heated. You see companies like Cloudflare that try to prevent bot access. And in some ways that's useful for scraping, but in other ways if I'm a personal user, I want that. You know, sometimes I use Codex and I read an article about modern React patterns. And it's like a Medium article. I paste it in and the agent can't read it because they block it. So I have to copy-paste the actual text. Or in the future I learn that maybe I don't click on Medium because it's annoying and I use other websites that actually are agent-friendly.

所以会有很多强大而富有的公司进行反击。这真的很有趣。你处于中心位置，是催化剂，是领导者。你恰好处于这场革命的中心，它将彻底改变我们与服务、与网络互动的方式。像 Google 这样的公司会抵制。我是说，你能想到的每个大公司都会抵制。

So there's going to be a lot of powerful rich companies fighting back. So it's a really interesting situation. You're at the center. You're the catalyst, the leader. And you happen to be at the center of this kind of revolution where it's going to completely change how we interact with services, with the web. And so like there's companies like Google that are going to push back. I mean every major company you can think of is going to push back.

甚至搜索也一样。我现在用 Perplexity 或 Brave 作为提供商，因为 Google 真的不让你轻松地绕过 Google 使用 Google。

Even search. I now use Perplexity or Brave as providers because Google really doesn't make it easy to use Google without Google.

我不确定这是否是正确的策略，但我不是 Google。

I'm not sure if that's the right strategy, but I'm not Google.

从大公司的角度来看，有一个微妙的平衡：如果你抵制得太久太狠，你就会变成 Blockbuster，把一切输给 Netflix 们；但在革命期间，一定的抵制可能有助于看清形势。但你看，这是人们想要的。没错。所以，如果我在路上，我不想打开日历应用。我只想告诉我的智能体提醒我明天晚上的晚餐，也许邀请两个朋友，然后给我的朋友发一条 WhatsApp 消息。我不想为此打开应用。我认为我们已经过了那个时代，现在一切都更加互联和流畅，不管那些公司愿不愿意。我认为正确的公司会找到方法搭上这趟车，而其他公司会消亡。你必须倾听人们想要什么。

Yeah, there's a nice balance from a big company perspective because if you push back too much for too long, you become Blockbuster and you lose everything to the Netflixes of the world, but some push back is probably good during a revolution to see. But you see that this is something that the people want. Right. So yes. If I'm on the go, I don't want to open a calendar app. I just want to tell my agent to remind me about this dinner tomorrow night. And maybe invite two of my friends and then maybe send a WhatsApp message to my friend. And I don't want to need to open apps for that. I think that we've passed that age, and now everything is much more connected and fluid, whether those companies want it or not. And I think the right companies will find ways to jump on the train, and other companies will perish. You've got to listen to what the people want.

我们聊了很多关于编程的话题，很多开发者非常担心自己的工作，担心编程的未来。你认为 AI 会完全取代程序员，也就是人类程序员吗？

We talked about programming quite a bit, and a lot of folks that are developers are really worried about their jobs, about the future of programming. Do you think AI replaces programmers completely, human programmers?

我们肯定在朝那个方向走。编程只是构建产品的一部分。所以也许 AI 最终会取代程序员。但编程这门艺术远不止于此。比如你到底想构建什么？它应该给人什么感觉？架构怎么设计？我不认为智能体会取代所有这些。是的，编程的实际艺术会保留下来，但会变得像编织一样。你知道，人们做编织是因为喜欢，而不是因为它有什么实际意义。所以今天早上我读到一篇文章，有人说哀悼我们的手艺是可以的。我内心有一部分非常认同，因为过去我花了很多时间捣鼓，沉浸在心流中，疯狂地写代码，找到非常优雅的解决方案。是的，从某种意义上说，这很可悲，因为那种状态会消失。我也从写代码、深度思考、忘记时间和空间、进入那种美妙的心流状态中获得了很多快乐。但你可以获得同样的心流——我通过与智能体合作、构建和深入思考问题获得了类似的心流。这不一样，但哀悼是可以的，但这不是我们能对抗的。长期以来，世界上一直缺乏构建东西的智能，如果你这么看的话，这就是为什么软件开发的薪水高得离谱。这种情况会消失。仍然会有大量需求，需要那些理解如何构建东西的人。只是所有这些 token 化的智能让人们能更快地做更多事情。

I mean, we're definitely going in that direction. Programming is just a part of building products. So maybe AI does replace programmers eventually. But there's so much more to that art. Like what do you actually want to build? How should it feel? How's the architecture? I don't think agents will replace all of that. Yeah, like the actual art of programming will stay there, but it's going to be like knitting. You know, people do that because they like it, not because it makes any sense. So I read this article this morning about someone that said it's okay to mourn our craft. And a part of me very strongly resonates with that because in my past I spent a lot of time tinkering, just being really deep in the flow and just cranking out code and finding really beautiful solutions. And yes, in a way it's sad because that will go away. And I also got a lot of joy out of just writing code and being really deep in my thoughts and forgetting time and space and just being in this beautiful state of flow. But you can get the same state of flow—I get a similar state of flow by working with agents and building and thinking really hard about problems. It is different, but it's okay to mourn it, but it's not something we can fight. Like the world for a long time had a lack of intelligence, if you see it that way, of people building things, and that's why salaries of software developers reached stupidly high amounts. And that will go away. There will still be a lot of demand for people that understand how to build things. Just that all this tokenized intelligence enables people to do a lot more a lot faster.

而且它会变得更快，因为这些技术还在不断改进。

And it will be even faster because those things are continuously improving.

我们有过类似的情况，比如发明蒸汽机、建工厂、取代大量体力劳动，然后人们反抗、砸机器。我能理解，如果你深深认同自己是一名程序员，这会很可怕、很有威胁感，因为你喜欢且擅长的事情现在正被一个没有灵魂的实体完成。但我不认为你仅仅是一名程序员，那是对你技艺的狭隘看法。你仍然是一个建造者。

We had similar things when we created the steam engine and they built all these factories and replaced a lot of manual labor and then people revolted and broke the machines. I can relate that if you very deeply identify that you are a programmer, it's scary and threatening because what you like and what you're really good at is now being done by a soulless entity. But I don't think you're just a programmer. That's a very limiting view of your craft. You are still a builder.

我想说几点。第一，当你优美地阐述时，我意识到我从没想过自己热爱的事情会被取代。你听说过蒸汽机的故事。我花了数千小时钻研代码，倾注心血，我最痛苦和最快乐的时刻都是独自在 Emacs 屏幕前度过的。那是一种身份和意义。当我走在世界上，我把自己看作一名程序员。而在几个月内，这一切被完全取代，是痛苦的，真的很痛苦。

There's a couple of things I want to say. One is, as you're articulating this beautifully, I'm realizing I never thought the thing I love doing would be the thing that gets replaced. You hear these stories about the steam engine. I've spent thousands of hours pouring over code, putting my heart and soul into it, and some of my most painful and happiest moments were alone behind an Emacs screen. There's an identity and meaning there. When I walk about the world, I think of myself as a programmer. And to have that, in a matter of months, completely replaced, is painful. It's truly painful.

但我也认为程序员，更广泛地说是建造者，编程的本质是什么？我认为程序员在历史这一刻最有能力学习语言、与智能体共情、学习智能体的语言、感受命令行界面。去理解智能体需要什么才能最好地完成这个任务。我想在某个时候，它又会被称为编码，成为新常态。

But I also think programmers, builders more broadly, what is the act of programming? I think programmers are generally best equipped at this moment in history to learn the language, to empathize with agents, to learn the language of agents, to feel the CLI. To understand what the agent needs to do this task best. I think at some point it's just going to be called coding again and it's going to be the new normal.

然而，虽然我不写代码，但我强烈感觉自己坐在驾驶座上，我在写代码。你仍然会是一名程序员，只是程序员的活动不同了。

And yet while I don't write the code, I very much feel like I'm in the driver's seat and I am writing the code. You'll still be a programmer. It's just the activity of a programmer is different.

是的，因为在 X 上，我所在的圈子大多是积极的。在 Mastodon 和 Blue Sky 上，我使用较少，因为我经常因为博客文章受到攻击。过去我反应更强烈，现在我能更同情那些人，因为某种程度上我理解。但某种程度上我也不理解，因为抓住眼前这个人，倾泻你所有的恐惧和仇恨，是非常不公平的。这将是一个变化，会有挑战，但我发现它非常有趣和令人满足。我可以利用新的时间专注于更多细节。我们构建的东西的期望水平也在上升，因为默认情况现在容易得多。

Yeah, because on X the bubble I'm in is mostly positive. On Mastodon and Blue Sky I use it less because often I got attacked for my blog posts. I had stronger reactions in the past. Now I can sympathize with those people more because in a way I get it. In a way I also don't get it because it's very unfair to grab onto the person you see right now and unload all your fear and hate. It's going to be a change and challenging, but I find it incredibly fun and gratifying. I can use the new time to focus on much more details. The level of expectation of what we build is also rising because the default is now so much easier.

软件正在多方面改变。还会有更多变化。

Software is changing in many ways. There's going to be a lot more.

然后还有那些人大喊，‘哦，那水呢？’我在意大利做了一个关于 AI 现状的会议，我的全部动机是推动人们不再把自己看作 iOS 开发者，你现在是一个建造者。你可以用你的技能做更多事情。也因为应用正在慢慢消失。人们不喜欢那样。很多人不喜欢我说的话。我不认为我夸张了。我只是说这是我看到的未来。也许不会这样，但我很确定某个版本会发生。我得到的第一个问题是，‘那数据中心的巨大用水量呢？’但如果你真的坐下来算一算，对大多数人来说，每月少吃一个汉堡，就能抵消 CO2 排放或用水量，以 token 当量计算。计算很复杂，取决于你是否加上预训练，那可能不止一个肉饼，但不会差一个数量级。高尔夫用水量仍然比所有数据中心加起来还多。那你也讨厌打高尔夫的人吗？那些人抓住任何他们认为 AI 不好的东西，却看不到 AI 可能带来的好处。我不是说一切都好。这肯定是一项对社会极具变革性的技术。

And then you have all these people screaming, 'Oh yeah, but what about the water?' I did a conference in Italy about the state of AI and my whole motivation was to push people away from seeing themselves as an iOS developer anymore, you're now a builder. You can use your skills in many more ways. Also because apps are slowly going away. People didn't like that. A lot of people didn't like what I had to say. And I don't think I was hyperbolic. I was just saying this is how I see the future. Maybe it's not how it's going to be, but I'm pretty sure a version of that will happen. The first question I got was, 'Yeah, but what about the insane water use on data centers?' But then you actually sit down and do the math. For most people, if you skip one burger per month, that compensates the CO2 output or water use in equivalent of tokens. The math is tricky, and it depends if you add pre-training, then maybe it's more than just one patty, but it's not off by a factor of 100. Golf is still using way more water than all data centers together. So are you also hating people that play golf? Those people grab onto anything they think is bad about AI without seeing the potential things that might be good about AI. I'm not saying everything's good. It's certainly going to be a very transformative technology for our society.

为了更公平地看待批评，我想说，根据我在硅谷的经验，那里有点泡沫，人们兴奋且过度关注技术能带来的积极面。这很好，专注于不被恐惧瘫痪是好事。但在这种兴奋中，也忽视了许多基本的人类体验——美国中西部、全世界，包括我们提到的程序员，包括所有即将失业的人，包括在变革尤其是我们即将面临的大规模变革中短期内的可衡量的痛苦和苦难。对你正在构建的工具保持一点谦逊和意识：它们会造成痛苦。长期来看，它们有望带来更美好的世界和更多机会，但要有那种安静的时刻，尊重即将感受到的痛苦。这方面做得还不够，所以有一点是好的。

To steelman the criticism in general, I do want to say in my experience with Silicon Valley, there's a bit of a bubble in the sense that there's an excitement and overfocus about the positive that the technology can bring. Which is great. It's great to focus on not being paralyzed by fear. But there's also within that excitement, a dismissal of the basic human experience across the United States in the Midwest, across the world, including the programmers we mentioned, including all the people that are going to lose their jobs, including the measurable pain and suffering that happens at the short-term scale when there's change of kind, especially large-scale transformative change that we're about to face. Having a bit of that humility and awareness about the tools you're building, they're going to cause pain. They will long-term hopefully bring about a better world and even more opportunities, but having that quiet moment of respect for the pain that is going to be felt. Not enough of that is done, so it's good to have a bit of that.

然后我也要对比一些我收到的邮件，人们告诉我他们有小企业，一直在挣扎，OpenClaw 帮助他们自动化了一些繁琐的任务，从收集发票到回复客户邮件，这解放了他们，给他们的生活带来了更多快乐。或者邮件告诉我 OpenClaw 帮助了一个残疾的女儿，她现在被赋能了，觉得自己比以前能做更多事情。这太棒了，对吧？因为以前你也可以做到。技术就在那里。我没有发明全新的东西，但我让它变得更容易、更可及，这确实向人们展示了他们以前看不到的可能性，现在他们将其用于善事。还有，我推荐最新最好的模型，但你完全可以在免费模型上运行。你可以本地运行。

And then I also have to put against some of the emails I got where people told me they have a small business and they've been struggling and OpenClaw helped them automate a few tedious tasks from collecting invoices to answering customer emails that freed them up and caused them a bit more joy in their life. Or emails where they told me that OpenClaw helped a disabled daughter, that she's now empowered and feels she can do much more than before. Which is amazing, right? Because you could do that before as well. The technology was there. I didn't invent a whole new thing, but I made it a lot easier and more accessible, and that did show people the possibilities that they previously wouldn't see, and now they applied for good. Also the fact that I suggest the latest and best models, but you can totally run this on free models. You can run this locally.

你可以在 Kimmy 或其他价格更亲民的模型上运行这个系统，仍然拥有一个非常强大的系统，否则可能无法实现，因为其他东西，比如 Anthropic 的 Claude 工作，被锁定在他们的空间里。所以这不是非黑即白的。我收到了很多温暖而令人惊喜的邮件，这让我非常开心。是的，它给很多人的生活带来了快乐，不仅仅是程序员，而是很多人的生活。看到这些真是太美好了。

You can run this on Kimmy or other models that are way more accessible price-wise and still have a very powerful system that might otherwise not be possible because other things, like Anthropic's Claude work, are locked into their space. So it's not all black and white. I got a lot of emails that were heartwarming and amazing, and it just made me really happy. Yeah, there's a lot it has brought joy into a lot of people's lives, not just programmers, but a lot of people's lives. It's beautiful to see.

关于我们人类文明正在经历的这一切，是什么给了你希望？

What gives you hope about this whole thing we have going on with human civilization?

我的意思是，我激励了很多人。现在又有了那种建造者的氛围。人们正在以更有趣的方式使用 AI，发现它能做什么，以及它如何帮助他们的生活，创造出充满创意的新空间。我不知道，比如维也纳的 Clockon，有大约 500 人，而且想要展示的人比例非常高，这对我来说真的很惊讶，因为通常很难找到愿意谈论他们建造的东西的人，而现在这样的人很多。所以这给了我希望，我们能够解决这个问题。而且它基本上让每个人都能接触到。

I mean, I inspired so many people. There's this whole builder vibe again. People are now using AI in a more playful way and are discovering what it can do and how it can help them in their life, creating new places that are just sprawling of creativity. I don't know, like there's Clockon in Vienna, there's like 500 people, and there's such a high percentage of people that want to present, which is to me really surprising because usually it's quite hard to find people that want to talk about what they build, and now there's an abundance. So that gives me hope that we can figure it out. And it makes it accessible to basically everybody.

是的。想象一下所有这些人在建造。尤其是当你让它变得越来越简单、越来越安全时，任何有想法并能用语言表达这些想法的人都可以建造。这太疯狂了。是的，这最终是赋予人们力量，也是 AI 带来的美好事物之一。不仅仅是槽位生成器。

Yeah. Just imagine all these people building. Especially as you make it simpler and simpler, more secure, it's like anybody who has ideas that can express those ideas in language can build. It's crazy. Yeah, that's ultimately power to people and one of the beautiful things that come out of AI. Not just a slot generator.

好吧，克劳斯神父先生，我刚刚意识到我一开始说的话侵犯了两个商标，因为还有教父。我要被所有人起诉了。你是一个了不起的人。你创造了一些非常特别的东西，一个特别的社区，一个特别的产品，一套特别的想法，还有所有的幽默、正能量、所有建造者的灵感，以及建造的兴奋。所以我真的感谢你所做的一切，感谢你的为人，感谢你今天坐下来和我聊天。谢谢你，兄弟。

Well, Mr. Claus Father, I just realized when I said that in the beginning, I violated two trademarks because there's also the Godfather. I'm getting sued by everybody. You're a wonderful human being. You've created something really special, a special community, a special product, a special set of ideas, plus the entire the humor, the good vibes, the inspiration of all these people building, the excitement to build. So I'm truly grateful for everything you've been doing and for who you are and for sitting down to talk with me today. Thank you, brother.

谢谢你给我机会讲述我的故事。

Thanks for giving me the chance to tell my story.

感谢收听本期与 Peter Steinberger 的对话。要支持本播客，请查看描述中的赞助商，你还可以在那里找到联系我、提问、提供反馈等链接。现在，让我用伏尔泰的一句话作为结束：能力越大，责任越大。感谢收听，希望下次再见。

Thanks for listening to this conversation with Peter Steinberger. To support this podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description, where you can also find links to contact me, ask questions, give feedback, and so on. And now, let me leave you with some words from Voltaire. With great power comes great responsibility. Thank you for listening, and hope to see you next time.