– Bilingual Lyrics Chinese/English

Lyrics & Translation

[English]

Hello everyone, welcome to the Don’t Understand Podcast. I am the host Yuan Li.

After DeepSeekk came out at the beginning of this year, the United States, especially Silicon Valley, was full of comments about how powerful China is.

Silicon Valley’s view of Chinese technology has shifted from simple disdain and wariness to envy and curiosity.

Many American technology leaders are asking how the United States missed China's technological progress and what happened to the United States.

In this episode, we invite Afra Wang to discuss what Silicon Valley’s envy of China shows.

Afra used to work in Silicon Valley and now writes a very interesting sub-stack newsletter called "Concurrent". We will put a link in the show notes.

Hello Efra, can you introduce yourself a little bit first?

After I graduated from graduate school, it means that my first job in life actually started in a small factory in Silicon Valley.

Then this company actually makes this AI news recommendation, which gathers tens of thousands of information sources on this news.

Then I actually play the role of this kind of information and news editor, and then negotiate with various algorithm engineers, product managers, etc.

Because I have felt since I was a child that my fascination with technology in Silicon Valley is actually a fascination with production,

rather than an fascination with how I can make a company bigger and stronger and earn hundreds of millions of dollars.

So I decided to start writing. After writing, I found that I had roughly found such a small niche.

I found that my article called "In-depth Translation of Chinese Technology" was very popular. I have been writing this for about six months.

Yes, your newsletter is in English, tell the audience,

Then you are saying that in-depth translation is to explain what is happening in China's technology industry,

and then use it in English to explain to American readers what is going on, right?

Yes, that's right, it is the name concurrent, and concurrent means to proceed simultaneously,

But in my opinion, I actually think that the culture of Silicon Valley, these innovations in Silicon Valley and China's innovations,

are actually like current, just like the water in a river. Sometimes they flow in parallel,

Sometimes they collide, and sometimes they burst into very big splashes,

Then I feel that this word is particularly suitable to describe the current hostility between Silicon Valley and China.

But there are many similarities and a very subtle relationship.

Well, yes, then how did you first realize that China Envy or China Envy began to appear in Silicon Valley?

I think the most obvious time point was actually after DeepSeek had a breakthrough,

I was actually in China in November and December, but I was scrolling through tweets every day,

Oh, last year, yes, last year, then I scrolled through tweets, and then I found out why I was paying attention to all this Silicon Valley stuff.

From technology tycoons to VCs, and then to ordinary programmers, everyone is talking about DeepSeek,

Especially Mark Andresen, who then directly named OpenAI and said you should change its name quickly,

It's because of DeepSeek that it deserves the name OpenAI, right? Because DeepSeek is open source,

But OpenAI is closed source, and OpenAI charges people,

Many people realized that it was China that made this big model,

This was a huge moment, and many people began to analyze the importance of DeepSeek,

And one of the more significant significance is that it actually broke through the moat of technology companies in the United States,

It was this Molt, and from that moment on, many discussions in Silicon Valley changed,

I think the most obvious one is the VCs and entrepreneurs in Silicon Valley,

Of course I think DeepSeek is just a tipping point,

And before, many entrepreneurs in Silicon Valley were actually paying attention to China's trams,

China's new energy, and then China's three new ones, right,

Then many of these VCs and entrepreneurs, they are actually trying to reverse engineer these technological innovations in China,

This is the development path of reverse engineer Silicon Valley,

For example, I was looking at A16Z recently. A16Z is basically the most famous investment company in the United States.

And in their report on American Dynamism,

American Dynamism is a direction for their investment, which is this kind of national destiny.

They invest in this kind of national destiny company. We will invest in whatever can make the United States stronger and bigger, right,

And then they invest in this American Dynamism company. In many reports and articles of Dynamism,

basically mention China at large,

and the latest article said that the United States will build its own BYD, and we will create America BYD.

Then we need to build our own complete electrical industry system, which is called Electronic Stack.

At the same time, I know some people in the AI field, and they said that we want to build DeepSeek in the United States.

We need to start promoting the launch of open source projects in the United States.

It is equivalent to copying China's AI and DeepSeek open source strategy.

Secondly, there is a writer called Noah Smith that various technology professionals and VCs in Silicon Valley particularly like to pay attention to.

He wrote an article, which means that the United States has been discussing re-industrialization, re-industrialization,

and the West has been discussing how we can continue to bring manufacturing back,

how can we make electric cars as powerful as China, etc.,

He said you should not discuss these details,

That is, as long as you see clearly the direction that China is suppressing now,

For example, batteries, electronic power, equipment, chips, and solar energy, you can just copy it,

And this is the original text of Noah Smith, that is, This is bloody obvious,

It means that this is simply too obvious, don't say what you are going to do,

It will be obvious to you, yes, it will be obvious to you, just copy it,

Then suddenly you will find that this previous model of China referring to Silicon Valley has quietly changed,

that is, China has suddenly become a certain frame of reference,

and I have heard of Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg before,

They have all said very loudly within the company that they are very envious of the super app model of WeChat,

And including Mark Zuckerberg, right, he is the rails on his Instagram,

He is actually directly plagiarizing this TikTok at the pixel level,

Then there is also a change in the voice of the mainstream media in Silicon Valley,

For example, people like Lex Fredman or Darkash Technology podcasts like Patel's are top-notch technology podcasts,

They used to invite scientists and engineers to talk about cutting-edge technologies and the development of AI,

But now they are starting to frequently invite scholars who study China,

Like Victor Shih, right, and then like Arthur Krueger,

And then there is another issue of Jin Keyu,

And then there are other mainstream media, not to mention the New York Times,

who often publish about China Century,

And then there are big media like Bloomberg,

This is the commentary page, the commentary page,

And then big media like Bloomberg are also publishing articles like why the United States lost to China in solar energy,

And then include another one that we will talk about, we will definitely talk about,

That is, Dan Wang’s latest book is called Break Neck,

And this should be the most out-of-the-box book about China in the past five years,

In fact, this book is not just about China,

It is more about Silicon Valley, about the United States,

About a stagnant United States,

So this book also triggered an unprecedented upsurge of ideas,

and then asked people to ask how we can transform a society dominated by lawyers like the United States into an engineering-driven country,

In this way, our taxpayers' money can be used to build high-speed rail,

Where is our high-speed rail,

This sentiment has reached a very, very high point recently.

You just mentioned that Mark Zuckerberg envied WeChat.

That was almost ten years ago, right?

When I was still writing about Chinese technology,

he was very envious.

Why was it just him who was envious at that time,

but not Silicon Valley as a whole,

or American society as a whole, truly envious of China's innovation model?

Why is this moment so different now?

Yes, I very much agree. It was when Mark Zuckerberg envied WeChat ten years ago,

In fact, what everyone didn't notice was that he went to Beijing at that time,

and then ran on Chang'an Street,

I don't know if you remember,

It was the Silicon Valley at that time,

That was earlier,

It was the Silicon Valley at that time,

How do I say it was about ten years ago,

He actually had a delusion that I could occupy the Chinese market,

Just like the Hundred Regiments War, when was that time,

And at that time Uber even had a place in China, right,

Then later these technology companies,

Then I remember in Kai-fu Lee's book,

Then Kai-fu Lee wrote,

Especially the founder of Uber,

This group of people all broke an arm in China,

the kind of tragic failure where a leg was broken,

They were overwhelmed by China's huge, very competitive, very strong,

and very strong localized technology innovators.

In fact, they were defeated.

Then they seemed to think that the Chinese market was a big pie,

but they couldn't bite it.

Then they returned to Silicon Valley with a lot of learning experience and resentment.

And I think the current Silicon Valley is different from 10 years ago.

No one in Silicon Valley now wants to say that we can use the Silicon Valley model to enter the Chinese market.

Everyone no longer thinks about this matter.

Instead, Silicon Valley has realized that China has explored its own path in many, many fields.

And China has a lot to learn from.

Then you can say that when American entrepreneurs or investors say they envy China,

What do they really envy?

I think there are probably three to four dimensions of envy,

I think the most enviable thing is the infrastructure,

the completeness of the infrastructure,

not just the high-speed rail or those shiny buildings in Shenzhen,

buildings or drone light shows, this kind of superficial things,

In fact, what they envy is a very complete industrial system and an infrastructure with basically no friction costs.

From the most intuitive example, what is the most important thing about AI?

The most important thing about AI is its own algorithm,

Then how is its large model algorithm trained?

You need to build a lot of data centers in the physical world,

Then what do these data centers need?

These data centers need electricity and water,

but the transmission of electricity and water actually requires very good infrastructure.

There was an example before when He Xiaopeng went to Mexico,

He went to inspect the construction of a factory,

Then he told him that if you build a factory here, you have to use electricity,

But if you give me some benefits, I will provide you with power,

If you don't give me any benefits, I'm sorry you don't have electricity here,

In fact, this kind of scene is hard to imagine in China,

Because China's electricity supply is basically as invisible as breathing,

It not only has electricity, but it is also very stable, large-capacity, relatively reasonably priced electricity,

I saw that Chad Math is all in the podcast before. Another host is an entrepreneur in the United States,

He posted a post on social media saying that China has more than 50,000 kilometers of ultra-high voltage transmission lines,

which can distribute energy across the country,

and the number in the United States is basically zero,

so you can imagine that in China you can just build a data center,

and then many of the most basic things will be available at once,

But in the United States, we are actually very accustomed to taking for Some of the things granted are not available,

including the deployment of the fiber optic network,

and the efficiency of the logistics system,

and even road and traffic planning, etc.,

China has invested a lot of resources in this area,

it is a very seamless system,

and the second is in addition to infrastructure,

I would also like to say that what Silicon Valley is very envious of is the depth and integrity of China's industrial ecology,

It has both breadth and depth,

For example, I have read an article before,

This article by Dan Wang and Arthur Krueger is called the real China model,

and it is mentioned in it that the biggest highlight and strongest core of the Chinese model is not government planning,

It's this kind of deep infrastructure,

Then for example, there are 70 million skilled workers,

There are a lot of things like assembling cables,

and then quickly building a data center in the physical world,

In fact, there are a large number of such professional teams,

There are a large number of such electricians and fiber optic workers,

Then the contractor will directly do this work for you,

But this is also very difficult in the United States,

Then there is China's manufacturing industry, which can actually build not only a small screw, but also wires, circuit boards, complex drones,

...

and even flying cars,

And by building this, I mean it is completed within a relatively close geographical range,

Wang Xinxin, the founder of Unitrade, gave an example,

She said that if I drive in Shenzhen for an hour,

I can buy all the parts for a drone,

But this thing cannot be done in the United States,

If you are iterating a piece of hardware or a robot in the United States,

You need weeks or even months,

But in China, the iteration speed is actually very fast.

Just drive for an hour or two and you can buy everything.

Your factory can iterate immediately,

I think the third possibility is the government's support for technological development,

and the broad social consensus that this so-called growth is the last word,

There is no need to question this consensus,

Because everyone in China feels that development is the first step to build roads,

That development is the hard truth,

It is a social consensus,

But in the United States or in Western society, development is the hard truth,

This matter has not been a social consensus for a long time,

This was challenged by many people in the 1970s,

Then there is a problem that continues to this day.

What you have observed is that American public opinion swings between China plagiarizing and China winning,

Why is this polarization trend so popular in the United States?

I think the United States as a society,

actually has a very deep-rooted protagonist mentality,

This is a very objective description,

because you have been the first for too long,

You will naturally form a set of these assumptions about how the world works,

right?

But when the assumptions here are defeated by China's innovation model,

In fact, many people's cognitive framework collapses,

After their cognitive framework collapses,

they can easily slip into a simpler explanation,

After this framework has failed,

You will find that for American elites,

the United States is not creating the future,

but other countries are creating the future.

This reality is difficult to accept.

There are many Silicon Valley technology elites,

They grew up reading this kind of golden age science fiction,

They think Apollo landed on the moon,

Then Silicon Valley rose,

Americans scaled the Internet,

In their perception,

They believe that the United States is a place to create the future,

The future is defined by Silicon Valley,

This is actually an identity issue,

But I think after China challenged this cognitive framework,

they didn’t know how to deal with it,

so a group of them fell into this refusal mentality,

which I refused to admit,

which is a very cognitive dissonance status quo,

for example, JD Vance,

is the Vice President of the United States,

He has cognitive dissonance,

He is the person who refuses to admit that China is great,

because all innovations in China are plagiarism,

And including serious American journalists who wrote a popular book called "Apple in China" at the beginning of this year,

...

he will fall into similar arguments,

This means that the Chinese government seduced Apple,

causing Apple to move its entire production chain,

to China,

Now the Chinese government can manipulate Apple,

but there is a group of people who actually fell into seduction in China,

China is plagiarizing,

Among the arguments that China has no innovation,

Then there is another argument that I think is the other extreme,

that China is obscene,

that the United States will never be able to surpass China,

and one of the representatives simply gave an example of Balaji,

Balaji was supposed to be the CTO of Coinbase,

and now he is an investor in Singapore,

He once wrote a book called "Network Nation",

He is the representative of this kind of Chinese obscenity,

The United States is already a declining country,

Then he often posts a lot on Twitter,

I feel that 50% of them are about China,

And the 50% of the content is basically about,

China has passed a so-called inflection point,

The United States has no chance, yes.

You described their two extreme narratives,

But why are their narratives more popular in the United States?

One phenomenon I have observed myself is the serious asymmetry of information,

That is to say, a large amount of information from Silicon Valley is transmitted to China at a high speed,

Then some entrepreneurs in China,

China's various technological elites are absorbing this knowledge at a high speed,

But there is no way for many things in China to flow to Silicon Valley.

The first thing we need to realize is that Silicon Valley has the same structure as the Western knowledge system.

It has always been a place where this kind of structural knowledge is exported.

That is, its output is not only one-way, but also overwhelming.

For example, this knowledge structure will define what knowledge is.

Or define what technology is,

On the contrary, China's scientific and technological methodology, China's narrative framework,

and even these Chinese memes, right,

All kinds of particularly unfunny memes about Chinese science and biology,

have not been translated or passed on to the same scale or depth.

I think this is actually a problem with the long-standing knowledge structure.

Another point is that many entrepreneurs in China are immersed in doing things.

He is actually not used to being such a responsible person who writes articles and expresses opinions every day.

They are more accustomed to learning rather than output,

and then more accustomed to execution, and then more accustomed to making this pie bigger and stronger,

instead of talking about how I can become an opinion leader on the podcast.

Some people may hear this, and they will say that China did plagiarize in the past, right?

You can say that China's Internet was innovative later,

But in the beginning, it was indeed copied from the United States,

Whether it is technology or the business model, this is indeed a fact,

Then later on, China itself did a good job in various aspects,

But when I used to write a column in the Wall Street Journal, I got the most comments from Americans,

that China is a copycat.

I just want to ask you, how do you view the issue of plagiarism in China?

What do you think of it yourself?

I think we should first talk about what technology is,

I think technology actually contains many levels,

The first level is of course a genius,

Then he suddenly shouted in his laboratory,

Ah, I discovered this thing,

In fact, the first one refers to a genius idea,

Such an idea is technology,

Then in fact, a very large aspect of the second technology is application,

which is deployment,

Then there is another level,

I think technology is also a level that we often ignore,

It is what we call tacit knowledge,

You can call it tacit knowledge,

or processing knowledge,

which is a bit similar to do how,

For example, if your grandma gives you a recipe that she has been making for decades,

this recipe can clearly indicate how many ingredients are used,

how to use this kitchen,

But can you really use a recipe and a state-of-the-art kitchen to recreate the dish your grandma made?

In fact, China has mastered a lot of invisible processing knowledge,

or tacit knowledge,

Then back to the first so-called innovative eureka moment,

In fact, there are some very important links among the three new products in China,

For example, lithium batteries or solar cells,

These are actually American innovations,

One was invented by Bell Labs in the 1960s,

And the other one I remember is lithium batteries,

If I remember correctly, he should have won the Nobel Prize,

These are actually American innovations,

But why hasn't the United States applied it?

That's why these innovations have only stayed in laboratories for decades.

Why haven't they been produced quickly?

And haven't been applied by more people?

In fact, this is what I think is so powerful about Chinese technology.

It can be applied very quickly.

For example, solar energy technology,

and then lithium batteries and so on,

are China's new industries or three new industries,

In fact, many technologies were invented by Americans,

but Americans are like carbons in Germany,

after they were invented, they did not scale,

they did not apply it,

and then it was really many enterprises and companies in China that applied it.

Yes, I observed that you should have also written about the fact that the United States is now envious of China,

or is disappointed with itself to a large extent because we invented these technologies,

But the last application was made by China,

and now that our manufacturing industry has been hollowed out for so many years, we do not have the ability to manufacture many applications of many of our technologies, right?

Yes, yes, I think it is the elites in the United States who have such a huge moment of psychological breakdown.

In fact, it is this deep loss.

It is because the United States is actually a very idealistic and futuristic country.

There are many such talented technicians and genius engineers.

They are actually imagining a very utopian world. In this future, energy will be plentiful, and human lifespan will be extended in the future.

This kind of utopian imagination is actually a cultural imprint that is engraved in the hearts of many people in Silicon Valley

But when it comes to these very technologies that seem very utopian

Its actual application is not in the United States. This is actually the most vulnerable point for many cultural operations in the United States

Well, you mentioned it just now and compared it in your article, that is, Silicon Valley's futuristic vision of AGI artificial general intelligence and ASI super artificial intelligence

and China's pragmatic direction that pays more attention to industrial implementation is particularly idealistic, right

The other is more pragmatic, which is how do you think the differences between the two countries affect the technologies and products created by both sides

Are the technologies and products finally produced different because of the difference between their idealism and pragmatism?

When I think about it, I think it is probably the consensus among everyone in the domestic technology community or in the United States

A consensus that many people know is that Silicon Valley particularly likes to do things from 0 to 1

And China is particularly good at doing things from 1 to 10

This is actually reflected in the cultural level. To put it simply, you can see that Silicon Valley has a lot of individualistic heroes

From Iranian Musk to Mark Segerberg and then to all kinds of people in Silicon Valley, he particularly advocates packaging a very powerful genius into a hero, then loving him, worshiping him, giving him resources, and then letting him lead us into the future. For example, Silicon Valley has many talented AI engineers

...

Just this kind of 10x engineer or stars star engineer, right

But looking at China, it is actually difficult to find this so-called star in China. Engineers or engineers like this

who post various comments on Twitter all day long and have a lot of followers

Then in China, he is more about myself in Shanghai and Beijing, and I have talked to many people, and many bosses themselves say

In fact, we need people who can do the work, which are many Chinese entrepreneurs. He believes that it is those

more average and good enough talents are the most important, so this leads to solidity.

Those who work hard should not be whimsical all day long

Yes, yes, I think it is because the entire VC industry in Silicon Valley is very path-dependent

It means that what kind of person I invested today and what characteristics he shows

He can become him

Then I will definitely look for such people next, but looking back at China, in fact, China's

is state-owned assets and so on, and their investment is also

They pay more attention to reality and more to the actual economic effect that this industry can bring in the future. How many jobs can be added, etc.

Overall, it is a bit similar to the feeling that Silicon Valley paints a pie for the world and then China makes the pie.

For example, before the flying car incident, Peter, the famous investor in Silicon Valley, tail He said

We once

wanted flying cars

But now we only got 140 characters, he was actually saying sarcastically

American innovation just stays on people's screens and does not really affect the actual physical world, but I think that is

What is ironic is that China seems to be building flying cars because Xiaopeng invested in this flying car company.

Then I saw a lot of videos of this kind of right and wrong, because I am a person who is very easy to be future pilled.

...

...

...

When I feel very sad, I break my guard

Then can you tell me that in the article on China AI’s Top Picture, you described an iceberg hidden under the water, which is China’s huge technical talent and engineering system

You actually said it before

If you can tell me, just say

Can Americans now see how big the iceberg is under the water?

Do you think they realize it?

I think the United States is slowly realizing it. He thinks that when I am industrializing, I can move the high-end manufacturing to the United States first

...

...

...

and then I will talk about the low-end slowly

But actually I think this is a misunderstanding

For me

Manufacturing is manufacturing, whether it is high-end or low-end

If you have it, you have it, if you don’t have it, it’s hard for you to have it. That is to say, the United States only makes chips

Manufacturing drones Make trams, but I don’t make wires and I don’t make screws

Because of the flow of people, the flow of knowledge and the mutual coordination and mutual promotion of low-end and high-end, it is actually a very huge whole

I think that the United States wants high-end manufacturing but not low-end manufacturing. This direction is misunderstood and wrong.

Then I think some people may hear this and they will say

In many countries, including China, some of the industrial chains have actually been moved to relatively low-income countries.

He is not saying that he has done everything. Isn't this a trend in the development of manufacturing industry? Then to the various types of wires, this is an industry like this. I think it is to produce

...

...

...

real innovation and produce the real emergence effect.

A necessary result. It's the hardware entrepreneurs who say that the advantage of Shenzhen is that you can get whatever you want quickly, right? And some of them have business models

...

...

...

...

and their business models are to pick them up

In the United States, there are also such hardware entrepreneurs in other places. Whatever components they need, they come to China to place orders, and China

sends them to them. And now

My feeling is that Americans have really seen this, right? There were some people who knew it before, but it has not formed a public opinion

Now, it has begun to form such a public opinion

Or an intention. Do you think it is accurate to say this? Yes

I think it is more accurate. The simplest way is that AI actually brings a lot of hope to the stagnation of innovation in the United States. It started from this GPT moment in 2022, right? GPT moment

Then a large number of technological accelerationists emerged in the United States. They hope

not just chat with ai on the mobile phone screen

They are actually more eager to really use ai in the physical world. Then at this time they found a huge

A gap is

I want to move ai

to the physical world, which proves that I have to build all kinds of For example, those gadgets that are worn on your body or in your eyes can control these gadgets in the physical world.

Or I have to produce more high-end robots, etc. That’s you. You have to build things. You have to make them.

And at the same time, if you want to build things, first of all, in addition to manufacturing, you also need to have a very large so-called this

The electric stack battle is electronic stack

When I read the acc article, why did it say that this person wants the United States to build an American BYD? Because BYD is a company that not only means a complete

tram industry chain, it also means that BYD has a very complete and systematic electronic stack. This electric stack battle

Because if you transfer artificial intelligence to the physical world, you cannot use an internal combustion engine like gasoline.

To combine power to make products, you need to have electricity. You need to make electricity cheaper and without any friction.

To run and call on a large scale. Then at this time, Americans discovered that the United States did not have a complete battle with this kind of electricity.

At this time, after the vacuum was created, they looked back at China and found that China already had it.

A very large-scale electronic stack, right? It starts from the production of electric energy, then to the deployment of electric power

, and then to the use of electric power to regenerate these robots and trams, and then to the production of batteries. China's entire industrial system is already very complete, and this thing is actually

...

Americans are gradually realizing it, and in my own opinion,

America's reindustrialization is more urgent. We need to go in the direction of creating these things

Yes, can you compare the difference between the AI ecosystem in the United States and China? I know a lot of things that I didn’t understand before

Guests such as teacher Xu Chenggang

and Li Houchen may feel that the influence of deepseek may not be as far-reaching as everyone imagines deepseek him

The possible influence is more on the business model and cost

I actually think that deepseek is not a technological miracle in the traditional sense. But in fact, deepseek actually

has completely turned China's AI ecosystem into an open source strategy. The ecological impact of deepseek's open source model

makes China's large models basically have open source as their first attribute

So whether it is Tongyi Qianwen, Mass Spectrometry or Dark Side of the Moon, this is China's artificial intelligence choice. In fact, they

are accelerating their open source process through open source. So in fact, deepseek has led to a strategic choice at this ecological level.

But if you look back at the United States at this time, you will find that this open source policy has made the United States very panic. Why? Because open source means that these models are free.

If these models are free, it proves that there are more artificial intelligence developers. These entrepreneurs have more artificial intelligence

They will migrate to this technology site in China. I was watching the all in podcast before. When I interviewed Google founder Eric Smith, he said why the United States is an open source

spiritual

creator. The United States is the creator of an open source model

We did not make AI open source. And now China has made AI open source? In the United States, whether it is the White House, the intellectual community, or the world's management, their worries are not about how advanced the deepseek algorithm is. In other words, how low is deepseek’s computing power cost

Of course, these are a bit worrying, but what they are actually worried about is that developers around the world

are using China’s open source model to develop and innovate, and then this kind of artificial intelligence will emerge at this time, and the focus of the entire ecosystem will shift to China

The White House issued the three artificial intelligence policy documents that Trump signed a presidential decree a while ago, which clearly stated that they need to let

the whole world use American artificial intelligence technology, right? From Nvidia's chips

to these large models in the United States and then to various other technical details

instead of letting China take the lead. But now it is obvious that deepseek and the Chinese open source models like Volkswagen, and these models are fast and good

In fact, it is something that many people are using. This is actually a real threat.

But I also heard from a well-known AI person in China. He told me that China’s open source is largely because China is a laggard and a catcher. What do you think of this statement?

...

...

Yes, yes. In fact, open source is a common strategy for the second place in the world's technology industry

. The first place often has its own moat.

The moat occupies a relatively monopolistic position. But

the second pursuer often chooses open source to obtain more

followers at a low cost, obtain more users, etc. This is not the beginning of AI, but many, many technology companies in China.

Open source has been around the world for a long time

It is a very important player in this community

So China's AI open source is actually a very rational choice

Another point of view from a human perspective is that there are many AI developers and AI researchers in China

He believes that open source can increase their own

The exposure and popularity in the international developer community is because there are many

researchers, especially those who pursue technical ideals, right? And many people actually hope that they can

really participate in their research results and be seen by others.

But if you are a company that does not participate in a Chinese open source model, it will be difficult for you to

have such an opportunity to let everyone see you. And then add

As we all know, what is China's corporate culture like? Many AI researchers are actually

not willing to be a public screw. Instead, they are willing to

let me participate in an open source community and contribute to open source.

Then they are willing to really invest in doing these things.

Yes, if open source is the second place,

is a more rational choice. For the United States, after all, it is still leading in all aspects of the big yuan model.

Then is it a more understandable approach for him to choose not to open source?

Yes, it is understandable. I have heard that even China's big open source projects like deep sea are also in the ecosystem.

They are doing some things, which is close. Source is inevitably doing some development

That is to say, the large models it releases to the outside world are one thing, but some of the things it is actually doing internally are another matter.

Yes, I think if it is the competition of AI

and China is slowly catching up, then it is very likely that there will be many large model companies of this kind in China in the future

Yes, let’s talk about it again. Mr. Xu Chenggang also said it in a program of the Ignorant Blog. He said that although China’s AI has technical highlights

, in the face of insufficient domestic demand

and the unemployment problem, automation cannot bring about fundamental growth.

As you mentioned before, Li Houcheng, Li Houcheng was also in a program of the Ignorance Blog.

He pointed out that the new three types are highly dependent on subsidies and have overcapacity.

Then I would like to ask whether the United States' imagination of China's technological development underestimates the contradiction between this technological breakthrough and the mismatch between overall demand.

Yes, especially when I was in China in August and September, one of my great feelings was

The United States was attracted by a person named Kevin Kelly who said that this is a cool China, which is a cool China. But

at the same time When you see Cool China, you will find that under the surface of

the huge Cool China, there is a real China, right? Then these real Chinas are actually you will see a boy paying for a 6 yuan Luckin Coffee.

Just go and deliver the goods. You will see that China has many, many problems ranging from housing to employment to real estate.

Well, this real China has not been seen, but in other words, although it is the people who pay most attention to it, it is the people

The motivation of daily life is our most real life. But the various problems experienced by this real China are actually many structural problems. Returning to this cool China is what cool China is

Can these shiny and powerful technologies be created

Can this real China be saved? I don’t think this is actually a very reasonable equation

In other words, just like the United States, right? The rapid development of AI in the United States cannot directly solve the inflation problem in the United States.

Infrastructure issues or political centralization issues. I actually wrote in May that there are two Chinas, and one is hopeful. China

is a promising China. One is gloomy China, which is a very sluggish China.

However, the need to use technology to solve China's development problems is not the opinion of these commentators, but an idea of the Communist Party of China itself.

Xi Jinping has always said that it is necessary to develop new productive forces. China's entire policy has such an intention.

...

...

And let me also say it. I think Americans say that when they

see China, they forget what the principles of economics are. For example, when they see the United States, they will say, "Oh, America has such and such problems.

But when they see China, they don't feel that

so many people in China are unemployed. The unemployment rate among young people is so high. The wealth of so many people has been reduced a lot in the bursting of the real estate bubble.

And consumption has been very bad. The news that came out yesterday is that China's manufacturing industry has not grown for six consecutive months.

If such a situation were placed in the United States, Americans would definitely think that the economy is too bad. He would not think that this country is

a very promising economy because of the development of AI.

So what? I was just curious and said

What do you think about this issue? Yes, that’s right. I think Americans don’t realize that they are Chinese.

What is the cost of creating the Hope for China or Cool China you mentioned? As you said, the Chinese local government is very keen to copy this so-called Hefei model.

Right, Hefei suddenly invested in one.

What kind of company has Future Auto invested in? It has made some very powerful investments and generated very generous returns.

At this time, the whole country wants to copy this Hefei model. Even the most remote

officials in the provinces with the least resources are saying, we need new productivity, we need trams, we need

solar energy, right? This is actually a misallocation of resources and an overall governmental structural problem

China has overcapacity. China's strong resource allocation

actually created a very huge bubble, right

But if you look at the United States, there are actually a lot of bubbles in the United States. I recently read a book called boom bubbles and the end of stagnation based on a friend's recommendation.

It means prosperity in translation.

The end of bubbles and stagnation. It is somewhat similar to the problem of overcapacity or the problem of bubbles. One of the core arguments in the book is

In a democratic and free market like the United States, in fact

the government does not have the ability to coordinate so many social resources.

Because the power in the United States is particularly decentralized, there are many obstacles in the implementation of the bottom-up application level. It is impossible to wave an arm like China.

Then everyone will engage in EV. Everyone will engage in it.

Solar energy, right? The way it is realized in the United States is actually through bubbles. For example, this bubble actually looks like a waste of capital and talent. In fact,

it can attract huge financial attention, talent and energy in a short period of time, and then finally do the right thing

For example, in Silicon Valley, there has been an Internet bubble in the past many years

The social media bubble appeared, the sharing economy bubble appeared, the cryptocurrency bubble appeared

And now what we see is the bubble of artificial intelligence, right? Everyone who starts a business in Silicon Valley knows that 99% of companies will die

Then 99% of people, isn’t that a bubble, right?

Each bubble causes a huge waste of capital, many companies fail, and many investors lose their money. The bubble also gave birth to a new economy

I agree with all of this. However, in the United States, it is a market economy with such an environment. In China, this kind of bubble is created by the

government, and this government is uncontrolled.

Yes, I agree. The bubble in the United States is borne by basically a lot of private companies and private capital, right? Just be a VC.

The startup company that I invested in failed, and it was this fund that suffered the loss.

The financier behind the entire fund

Right, it and its LP money, of course it has a social cost, such as unemployment, resource waste, etc. But it is actually borne by the private sector

But China's bubble, especially this kind of policy-driven bubble, is largely like what you said, public funds are borne by local government and state-owned enterprises

These are borne, so these are actually taxpayers' money in the end, which is equivalent to saying

China's bubbles are borne by ordinary people, but many times the bubbles in the United States are borne by these people who directly caused the bubbles, right I think this is very different

As you said, what do you think about Silicon Valley

I think Silicon Valley has a kind of envy of the Chinese government's ability to allocate resources. I think it is like this, it is the ability of the Chinese government to allocate resources

I think there is indeed a lot that the United States can learn from, for example myself

Personal bias. You can come and criticize me at any time. For example, building high-speed rail and infrastructure requires a strong government to complete.

I mentioned it in the book Abundance.

The simplest example is the notorious high-speed rail in California. It started in about 10 years.

It was said that it would be built, but until now, it has not been built.

It has only been built for about a few miles. Then they previously said that the opening time was to be opened in 2020, but now the opening time has been postponed to

between 30 and 33 years, and it is only for the central stock area and is not even connected

The Bay Area and Southern California are actually because there is no strong, even a strong local government. I think

but infrastructure projects like high-speed rail

You don't have a strong government

It just can't be done

This is a very cruel reality

But I think it is like many other industries

I think the United States is actually okay

It can rely on a free market

Some people will say

The ability of the Chinese government to deploy

has promoted the development of China's high-speed rail

But most of China's high-speed railways are losing money

And

that is to say, China's infrastructure construction

is all based on the local government selling land

Such income

and then building it

is actually excessive construction

right

Then you can say that it is on the one hand

It has the ability to allocate resources

But on the other hand

it is completely uncontrolled

Such a model of spending money

Why isn't Japan a better model?

Japan's infrastructure construction is also very good

Japan is the first in the world

to build this kind of high-speed rail

Such a network country

I am actually very fond of them

For this kind of China

The government's powerful

resource allocation capability

this kind of current affairs

I always feel that I can't understand it

That's right

I think this

First of all, I have to attribute it to

This is the liberal democracy of the United States

It is liberal democracy

The decline of this concept

has caused many people to

He actually has a

like coordinated reflex

A reactionary reaction

He thinks that high-speed rail must have a

more authoritarian

and a more centralized government

Or rather, China's very powerful

these buildings have very powerful infrastructure.

There must be a

like the Chinese government

Only then can the government be able to build it

I think this is actually a

diode-like rebound

It is because of the concept of

liberal democracy

on a global scale All are declining in all directions

Becoming less and less attractive

Becoming more and more unpopular

Right

So what should we do

Are we going to go to the opposite side of

liberal democracy

That is China, right

I think there are indeed many people in the United States now

There is such a conditioned reflex

So I mistakenly think that there are many

Such a

great thing like the high-speed rail

can only be built with a model like the Chinese government

...

This is actually a common misunderstanding of many people in the United States

...

It is that he treats the American elite

The entire U.S. government

And the

anger and resentment

of these resource owners are projected onto the

blind love and following of China

In fact, it’s because I hate you

so I have to like someone

who is completely different from you

That’s the feeling

Yes

This is a

particularly surprising

phenomenon to me

Then let’s talk about it again

You mentioned it before

Danwang’s book

is Breakneck, right

I don’t know how to translate

Yes

What he proposed is that

America is run by lawyers

The saying that China is run by engineers

This statement is very popular in the United States now

Many people think that

is very convincing in explaining the current

Sino-US competition situation

In what aspects do you think this statement

is enlightening

In what aspects may it be used

is to make Americans misunderstand

China’s actual operation

Right I think Dan is also a good friend

and is also a

writer who I respect very much

and have always wanted to learn to imitate

I think Danwang’s book

Breakneck proposed this

engineer society and lawyer society

In my opinion

he is using a very rational

and pragmatic way

to give everyone a new framework

The reason why he is

a rational and pragmatic person

This way of thinking is because

This framework is a very useful thing in the current United States

...

It is an effective framework

Just don’t tell me

The United States is liberal and democratic

China is authoritarian

This is the framework

The United States today

is an ideological framework

rather than a problem-solving framework

I think it was Danwang who proposed this framework in his book

...

In fact, it is a

Again, it is to use China

as an American diagnostic tool

Tell everyone what China does well

What China does poorly

Then use China's own experience

to reflect on America's own stagnation

Then inspire Americans

to support such a feeling

Then do you think his statement

is accurate

Is there a description of this

governance style between China and the United States?

I will say

Do you think the United States is indeed

governed by lawyers?

China is indeed governed by engineers

I think he raised a lot of

why the United States cannot build things

why the United States cannot build high-speed rail

This is consistent

But if

I as a scholar analyze

whether China is a

country run by engineers

then I may come to

a completely different conclusion

But I think he is

explaining why China can

Not only is he really an engineer

Some social engineering

But he is also a social engineer

Some engineering

I think this aspect is explained very well

Because it is in Dan Wang's book

He focuses on

this kind of engineering society

It is like a hand

There is a palm and the back of the hand

You have no choice but the good side

Without its bad side

You can't just have China's high-speed rail

With China's very impressive infrastructure

Without China's, for example,

one-child policy or COVID

This clearing strategy

This is a

King Dan said in the book

This is a thing with two sides.

In fact, the conclusion in his book is

It is not for the United States to copy the Chinese model

but he just tells the Americans that

The United States should not learn from China in this regard

Because you cannot afford to learn

Can you bear the one child policy in the United States?

...

America, do you want a

like zero COVID

terrible society

No, no, you don’t want it

Just don’t blindly envy China

But you have to really see

China’s social These

dark aspects of engineering

What would you say if an American entrepreneur asked you

What are three things from China's technology ecosystem

that I can learn

and implement tomorrow

On the contrary, I feel that now the United States'

worship of China

has reached, for example, Silicon Valley

Now many companies are starting 996

Such a thing

Today the New York Times published a report about the beginning of Silicon Valley 996

I think it is simply crazy

Isn’t it

Yes, yes, it is basically Silicon Valley now

Now it is the technology world

AI companies are the most serious

For AI companies, you have no option without 996

As long as you want to

participate in the construction of the best large models

You want to join

Open AI Anthropic, right

For a company like this

996 is a benchmark

People in Silicon Valley have never said that I am not 996

So I will tell them instead

Don’t learn bad things

The earliest bad things they learned

The worst things I don’t understand at all

What else

Do you think you saw

They have started to learn wrong things

Well, they learned wrong things

Or do you think they should think about

how to learn things

Well, I think if you want to learn

it means if you want to make hardware

Make a robot

Want to make these wearable things

Learn from China

Because now the entire industry

is already in a state where the United States must touch

China to cross the river

That is, if you

drop a brand new

Elon from the sky at this time Musk told me

I want to build a lithium battery factory from scratch

without learning from China's development experience

And then not learning the various standards of lithium batteries

not learning its industry's

these very detailed industrial results

Then I will wonder whether I will believe this person

Then what kind of policy response do you think

for the United States

It can enhance its own construction capabilities

without copying China's political model

The United States really needs a more restrained

and more effective doge

which is to cut some redundant government officials

and then cut some

very unnecessary policy aspects

and some regulatory controls

To be honest, the infrastructure construction in the United States needs to be accelerated

The infrastructure construction in the United States and many manufacturing industries in the United States

need to be accelerated

But the premise of acceleration is those blockers

Those who prevent the acceleration of infrastructure construction

These need to be cleared

Then these many roadblocks

are actually some bureaucracies in the United States

I actually have a problem

I have never thought it through

These are the people in Silicon Valley

They are actually libertarian

They are the group of people who least want the government to regulate them

But now they suddenly

On the one hand, they are fighting fiercely with the Trump administration

On the other hand,

they are so envious of China

This kind of centralized governance model

I especially can't understand

Just say how could it be like this

What you are actually talking about is the problem of Silicon Valley's right turn

This problem has actually been more obvious since

I think five or six years ago

In fact, first of all, I think

The first problem is the Democratic Party's

hostility to technology

And the arrogance of the Democratic Party

is actually equivalent to saying that the Democratic Party has lost the huge vote bank of

technology.

As for the entire technology industry, in fact

does not feel that it is seen by the so-called

leftist and more progressive

politicians.

Instead, there are successive tech clashes

Right, this kind of backlash in the technology world

Huge backlash

Then there is Trump

He is actually an accelerationist president in the technology world

And Trump actually

followed the right-turn phenomenon in Silicon Valley

In fact, it ignited a very powerful

A fire of technological nationalism

And at the same time, he will regard China

as the imaginary enemy in all aspects

So you will see that

whether it is China or the United States

you will find that now whether it is chip

AI or new energy

many narratives have been upgraded to one

The height of geopolitics and national destiny, right?

If it is China, it is

China's deep sick

Has China's national destiny come when the time comes?

The United States is actually discussing the same thing

now

For example, the right turn of the United States

A very obvious phenomenon is the rise of

Defense Tech

How should it be translated as Defense Tech?

It is defense technology.

The rise of defense technology.

Like Stanford

The best school in the United States, right

This kind of idealistic student 10 years ago

What I want to go to most is Google or Facebook

Such a big company

But now I read an article before

is also a good technology writer friend of mine

An article written by Jasmine

It is the company that their current graduates most want to go to

It is a company like Palantir

But Palantir is actually a

technology company that provides intelligence

surveillance and attack systems to the US military

It is China

When watching the Silicon Valley 101 podcast

Silicon Valley 101 calls Palantir's stock

an American national stock

And I think this word is used very well

It is now Defense Tech

These national stocks in the United States have become particularly powerful

This is actually a process of continued deep binding between the technology community and the Trump administration

...

And then there is another one

I think a more important point is that

In fact, for a long time, the technology industry has

had no political power

I remember Patrick Carlton

, the founder of Stripe, said something that

these technology geeks in Silicon Valley

He can imagine summoning a

AI God-like technology

But there is no way to imagine changing it

The Zoning Law of Silicon Valley

Zoning Law is actually a

bill of the government

It stipulates what can be built where

For example, only residential buildings can be built in residential areas

Yes, then Patrick Carlton thought this way

In fact, the irony of his sentence is that

Silicon Valley seems to have a lot of capital

Strong talent pool

But its actual political influence

is very, very small

I can understand why Silicon Valley turned right

But why did it turn around

I envy the Chinese government's model

This is something I can't quite understand

I think this kind of envy has some levels

There are some levels of envy

I think it's a bit similar to that

An ordinary person on TikTok

said that the United States is going to be finished

China is so awesome

It's this very superficial

Some envy on the emotional level

But I think it's the real

Like Mark Andreessen

Or Peter Thiel

If you tell him

today the US government will become

like the Chinese government

he will never say yes

I feel this kind of envy

It actually has a kind of

Want to spur your own government

This kind of addiction to words

Or just to vent your emotional envy

That's how the United States has described China's technological development for so many years

...

It often falls into the narrative framework of plagiarism

or surveillance state

...

If you can rewrite this narrative

Help American readers

To understand China more accurately

Where will you start

I think I will start from a

fundamental premise

That is to stop treating China

as an abstract concept

The first thing is how to normalize

those ordinary entrepreneurs and people in China

In fact, in the article I posted before

...

I interviewed a

named H

a big domestic technology company

who is doing AI open source

such a person in charge

My biggest feeling is that

except for the geographical location

it is actually the same as any in the world

you follow the leading one

Artificial Intelligence Engineer

There is no essential difference, right

He is the first

The first thing he does when he wakes up is to tweet

Then read the artificial intelligence discussion above

Then he goes to less wrong

to talk to some other artificial intelligence researchers

Debate various technical details

Or philosophical details, right

Then he drives the tram to work

And then does his work in English

Then writes the paper in English

Then he watches Westworld, right

Watching this kind of Hollywood

is very related to AI

These pop culture

is if you blindfold your eyes

Just listen to him.

Listen to him recount his lifestyle.

You will feel

In fact, this person lives and works in China

and works and lives in Silicon Valley

It's actually not that important

because he focuses on this kind of technical issues

His thinking framework

His way of working

His jokes, right

It's a global

open source artificial intelligence community

Some things shared

So that's what I think is the first thing

Shift some focus to the human level

Normalize people

Seeing people is a very important entry point

Then the second is

Under the premise of normal people

I think it needs to be de-contextualized

That is, contextualize

Something special

It is because China is indeed not a normal country on many levels

Its capital market

...

Its freedom of speech

Its censorship

Its regulation

The logic is very different

But these particularities

You need to describe it more accurately

rather than cartoonishly

Because now it is cartoonishly

There are too many narratives about China

That is to say, the relationship between China and private enterprises

The relationship between the Chinese government and these technology companies

It is not a simple control

but it is not simple market freedom

but a very strange combination

There is also a level that cannot be ignored

...

It’s China’s very unique history

Right? For example, one of my own feelings is

China's Centennial National Humiliation

This matter is very real and affects

many Chinese decision-makers

and many technology entrepreneurs. It is a historical

such trauma

It actually determines a lot of

the development direction of some Chinese technologies

But I have to say

I have to say that it is this Centennial National Humiliation

Where did this concept come from

Or where did this trauma come from

It is also a very debatable matter

I think if they are Americans,

they must treat the Chinese

as individuals

to normalize them

and treat them as normal people

They and Americans in Silicon Valley

actually have a lot of

common joys and sorrows, right

common pursuit

But on the other hand

China does have this kind of national fate

about this century-old national humiliation

about self-reliance

There is also a totalitarian government of the Communist Party

behind the scenes all these things he did

It is to ensure that one is in power, right?

For Americans,

it is relatively difficult for him to separate the two.

, right?

Yes, yes, that's right.

But I think it is

I think it is a very important matter to explain this complexity clearly.

...

It's like me

If I were a

12-year-old girl in China

then I can actually

hate the Trump administration

and continue to watch Hollywood movies

That's not contradictory

I think actually for the American people

this kind of imagination and love for China

is also like this

But because

again, I think

American egocentrism is too serious

In other words, America's

has always been in the one-way output of the West

Such a knowledge structure

So I think China is exactly the one

to clear their cognition a little

Then let them

put some complex narratives into their minds

as an opportunity

So I think this is

also a very interesting thing

I think it is to complicate China

It is a very important thing

But I don't mean to tell anyone an answer

Because I know I don't have the answer myself

But I think

to sort out many of its contexts

It is also a kind of intellectual happiness for me

...

Then I think it is very meaningful

We ask each guest to recommend three books

or film and television works

What do you recommend

This is my favorite link that I don’t know

I think there are three books

The first one is of course

I have just been discussing with Yuan Li

Breakneck book

I think it is Breakneck first

Not only is the framework in it very easy to use

But I think Dan

It is really, very, very

A thoughtful one

Thoughtful

A very good writer

Because the language in it

is the kind of very poetic

but restrained and beautiful language

Then the second book is called

"Chinese Typewriter"

This one is written by a Stanford

technology historian

named Tom Malaney

It should be a copy of CITIC

To be honest, this book is

enlightening

Because our understanding of technology is

It is a natural

inevitable development path

For example, the keyboard is like this

Computers are like this

because it is this design path

It actually relies on

a lot of trial and error

And among them, the book

"Chinese Typewriter"

actually tells the story of a

failure of

technical achievements

It is because Chinese needs to be integrated into a

The telegraph system needs to be typed

But Chinese has so many characters

How to use this Roman keyboard

How to use ABCDE to express Chinese

This process actually took decades of trial and error

It took decades of a

process to appear

I think this book is about language

About technology

About this human interaction

About user experience

And this book is very philosophical

This book made me realize that

That is to say, technology

never happens naturally

It is not the so-called universal

It is universal

every system technology

In fact, they all carry a lot of

the cultural prejudice of the birthplace

and this assumption

is the presupposition

I think if you want to understand China's technological development

In fact, this book is a good start

Then the third book is called

China in the Eyes of Europeans

This book can actually be found on WeChat Reading

The author teaches at a university in London

Professor Kerry Brown

He did an extremely important thing about this book

That is, he told us that

treat China as an alien

view China as a mirror

or like

or fear

or hate China

In fact, it is an 800-year tradition in the Western intellectual community

It did not suddenly appear out of thin air in 2025

Nor did Silicon Valley suddenly discover China in 2025

Because this book has selected 16

thinkers who have huge influence in the West

Then take out all their original texts

And these original texts are all about China

And what is particularly interesting about this book is

You will find that these

are considered such

orthodox classic thinkers in the Western intellectual community

Each has his or her own understanding of China

Take Leibniz for example

He is a very powerful French mathematician

He is a philosopher

He has been searching for God all his life

Then at this time he thought

Chinese is a sacred language of God

It was in the process of understanding the Bible

He thought it was the Tower of Babel

When it was being built

Because the metaphor of the Tower of Babel was

Humanity wanted to build a Tower of Babel reaching the sky

Then at this time people spoke a common language

Then finally God issued an order saying

You must speak different languages

At this time human languages began to differentiate

Then Leibniz believed that

it was God at that time

The language that people spoke was Chinese

Then he had a very romantic view of China

A very perfect imagination

I think this is a bit special

Many people in Silicon Valley today

The imagination of China

Good thank you

Thank you Efra

Thank you all for listening

See you in the next issue

[Chinese]

大家好,欢迎来到不明白播客,我是主持人袁莉。

今年年初DeepSeekk横空出世之后,美国特别是硅谷充满了关于中国如何厉害的言论。

硅谷对中国科技的看法从单纯的看不起和戒备,转向羡慕嫉妒加好奇。

许多美国科技领袖都在追问,美国是如何错过中国科技进步的,以及美国怎么了。

本期节目,我们邀请Afra Wang来讨论硅谷对中国的羡慕嫉妒说明了什么。

Afra曾在硅谷工作,现在写一个很有意思的sub-stack newsletter叫《Concurrent》,我们会在show notes里放链接。

Efra你好,能先稍微介绍一下你自己吗?

我是从研究生毕业之后就等于说我人生中第一份工作其实是从硅谷的一个小厂开始的。

然后这个公司它其实是做这个AI的新闻推荐,这个新闻上它聚集了上万个信息源,

然后我其实是作为一个这种信息和新闻编辑的一个角色,然后去跟各种算法工程师,产品经理等等去交涉。

因为自己从小就觉得我对于硅谷的对于科技的这种迷恋其实是一种制时上的迷恋,

而不是一个我怎么能把一个公司做大做强做到上亿越活这种迷恋。

所以我决定开始写作,写了之后我发现就是大概找到了自己一个这么一个小小的niche,

我发现我写一种叫做就是中国科技的深度转译的这种文章特别受欢迎,大概已经写了六个月这样子。

对,你的那个newsletter是英文的,跟听众朋友们说一下,

然后你是说深度转译就是把中国的科技业在发生什么,

然后把它用英文来给美国的读者来解释一下到底是怎么回事,是吧?

对,没错,就是concurrent这个名字,concurrent的意思就是说同步进行,

但是在我看来,其实我觉得硅谷的文化,硅谷的这些创新和中国的创新,

其实就像current,就像河流的里面的水流一样,它是有的时候是平行的在流淌,

有的时候在撞击,有的时候就是迸发出非常大的水花,

然后于是我就觉得这个词特别能够形容现在硅谷和中国之间的这种又敌对,

但是又有非常多相似之处的很微妙的这种关系。

嗯,对,那你最初是怎么意识到硅谷开始出现中国嫉妒或者是China Envy这个现象的呢?

我觉得最明显的一个时间点其实就是DeepSeek有突破以后,

我其实11月,12月份我当时在国内,但是我每天在刷推,

哦,去年,对,去年的时候,然后一刷推,然后我发现我为什么关注的所有这种硅谷的,

从科技的大佬到VC,然后再到普通程序员都在聊DeepSeek这件事情,

然后尤其是应该是Mark Andresen,然后他直接就点名说那个OpenAI你赶紧改名吧,

因为DeepSeek它才值得OpenAI这个名字,对吧,因为DeepSeek是开源的,

但是OpenAI是闭源的,而且OpenAI是向人收费的,

很多人就意识到说就是中国这个大模型做成了,

就这是一个巨大的一个时刻,很多人就开始分析说DeepSeek它的重要意义到底在哪,

然后其中一个比较重大的意义就是它其实突破了美国这个科技公司的护城河,

就是这个Molt,然后从那一刻开始,很多硅谷的讨论都发生了变化,

我觉得最最明显的就是硅谷的这个VC和创业者们,

就当然我觉得DeepSeek它只不过是一个引爆点,

然后之前其实硅谷的非常多创业者就在关注中国的电车,

中国的新能源,然后就是中国的新三样的,对吧,

然后很多这些VC和创业者,他们就其实在试图从中国的这些科技创新当中逆向工程,

就是reverse engineer硅谷的这个发展路径,

比方说我最近在看这个A16Z,A16Z就是美国基本上最著名的一个投资公司,

然后他们这个American Dynamism的这个报告当中,

就American Dynamism是一个他们投资的方向,就是这种国运,

他们就投这种国运公司,就是什么能够让美国更强更大,我们就投什么,对吧,

然后他们在这个American Dynamism的很多报告当中,很多文章当中,

基本上都会大篇幅地提到中国,

而且最新的一篇文章就说美国要打造自己的比亚迪,我们要创造America BYD,

然后要构建自己的这种完整的电工工业体系,就叫做Electronic Stack,

同时我认识的有一些AI界的人,然后他说我们要建设美国的DeepSeek,

我们要开始促进美国的这种开源项目启动,

等于说在复制中国这个AI,这个DeepSeek开源这种策略,

其次就是硅谷的各种科技人士和VC特别喜欢关注的一个writer叫Noah Smith,

他写了一篇文章,意思就是说美国一直在讨论再工业化,再工业化,

然后西方一直在讨论说我们怎么能够继续把制造业带回来,

我们怎么能够做出像中国一样厉害的电车等等呢,

他说你们不要讨论这些细节了,

就是你只要看清中国现在在压住的方向,

比方说电池,电子电力,设备,芯片,然后太阳能,你就直接抄就行了,

然后这是Noah Smith的原文,就是This is bloody obvious,

就是说这简直也太显而易见,你们别说到底要做什么,

你就显而易见了,对,你就显而易见,就照着抄就行了,

然后就突然你就会发现这种之前中国参照硅谷的模式已经悄悄改变,

就是中国突然变成某种参照系,

然后包括之前我也听说过Elon Musk和Mark Zuckerberg,

他们都曾经在公司的内部非常大声的说自己非常羡慕微信这种超级app这种模式,

然后包括Mark Zuckerberg对吧,他对就是他这个Instagram上这个rails,

他其实直接是像素级的抄袭这个TikTok,

然后还有就是硅谷的主流媒体的声音也发生了变化,

比方说像Lex Fredman或者是Darkash Patel这样子的科技播客,就是科技顶流吧,

他们之前邀请的是科学家,工程师谈一些前沿的技术,谈一些AI的发展,

但是他们现在开始频繁邀请研究中国的学者了,

像是Victor Shih对吧,然后像是Arthur Krueger,

然后包括还有一期是金克宇,

然后还有其他的这种主流媒体就不要说纽约时报,

就经常在发什么中国百年,China Century,

然后包括Bloomberg这些大媒体,

这是评论版,对评论版,

然后Bloomberg这些大媒体也有在发就类似于美国为什么在这个太阳能能源当中输给了中国这样子的文章,

然后包括另外一个我们会聊到的,肯定会聊到的,

也就是丹王最近的一本书叫做Break Neck,

然后这应该是近五年以来关于中国的一本就是最最出圈的一本书,

其实这本书它不仅仅是关于中国,

它更关于的是硅谷,关于的是美国,

关于一个停滞的美国,

所以这本书也引发了一个空前的思想的热潮,

然后让人们去追问说我们如何能够把美国这样子的律师主导的这种社会转型成为工程驱动的国家,

这样子我们纳税人的钱才能建高铁,

我们高铁在哪儿,

最近这种情绪达到了一个非常非常高的点。

你刚才提到这个Mark Zuckerberg他羡慕微信,

那是差不多十年前是吧,

我还在写中国科技的时候,

他就非常羡慕了,

为什么那个时候就是只是他在羡慕,

而没有形成一个硅谷的这么一个整体的,

或者美国社会这么一个整体的对中国的这个创新模式的真正的羡慕呢?

现在这个时刻为什么是一个挺不一样的一个时刻?

对,我非常同意就是十年前Mark Zuckerberg他羡慕微信的时候,

其实大家没有注意到就是他当时还去了一趟北京,

然后在长安街上跑步,

我不知道你记不记得,

就是那个时候的硅谷,

那是更早的,

就是那个时候的硅谷,

我怎么说就是大概是十年前的硅谷,

他其实还有一种我能够占据中国市场的一个妄想,

就百团大战啊什么时候那会儿,

然后当时Uber甚至在中国都有一席之地对吧,

然后后来这些科技公司,

然后我记得在李开复的那本书里面,

然后李开复就写了,

就尤其是这个Uber的创始人,

就这群人都是在中国断了一只胳膊,

断了条腿的那种惨败,

就是被中国这种巨大的非常有竞争力的很卷的,

而且本土化的这种科技创新者非常强的这些企业,

其实等于说是打倒了,

然后他们有点像是觉得中国市场中国这块饼很大,

但是无法啃下,

然后是带着很多学习的经验和怨恨回到硅谷的,

然后现在的硅谷我觉得和10年前不一样的是,

现在的硅谷没有人再去想说我们能够用硅谷模式去打进中国市场,

就这件事情大家已经不再想了,

而反而是硅谷意识到中国在非常非常多领域已经探索出来自己的路径,

然后中国是有非常多可以学习的地方,

那你就说一下就是当美国的创业者或者是投资人说他们羡慕中国的时候,

他们真正羡慕的是什么呢?

我觉得羡慕的大概我觉得有可能三到四个维度,

我觉得其中最羡慕的一点是更加直观的就是这种基础设施,

基建的这种完整性,

就不仅仅是高铁啊这些或者是深圳那些闪闪发亮的楼,

大楼或者是无人机灯光秀这种比较表面的东西,

它其实他们是羡慕的是一个非常完整的一个工业体系和基本上没有摩擦成本的这样的一个基础设施,

就从一个最直观的例子来讲就是说AI最重要的是什么呢?

AI最重要的是自己的算法,

然后那它这个大模型算法是怎么训练出来的呢?

你是需要在物理世界当中建非常多的数据中心,

然后那这些数据中心需要什么呢?

这些数据中心需要电需要水,

但是输送电输送水其实都是需要非常好的基建才能够完成的,

就是之前有一个例子就是何晓鹏当时去墨西哥,

他去考察建厂,

然后当年跟他说你要是在我们这建厂你得用电吧,

但是呢你要是给我点好处我就给你供电,

你要是不给我好处的话呢不好意思你这儿也没有电,

就是其实这种场景在中国来说是很难想象的,

因为中国的电力供应基本上是一个像是呼吸一样一个隐形的存在了,

它不仅有电而且是非常稳定的大容量的价格相对合理的电,

我之前看到那个Chad Math就是all in podcast的另外一个主持人是美国的一个创业家,

他在社交媒体上发过一个帖子就是说中国有超过5万公里的这种特高压输电线路,

能在全国的范围内调配能源,

而美国这个数字基本上是零,

所以你就可以想象说在中国你随随便便建一个数据中心,

然后很多的这种最最基础的东西就一下就都有了,

但是在美国其实我们非常就习以为常的就是taking for granted的一些东西是没有的,

然后包括这个光纤网络的部署,

然后物流系统的效率,

然后甚至是道路和交通的规划等等等等,

就是中国在这方面投入了非常大的资源,

是一个非常就是无缝衔接的这样一个系统,

然后其次就是除了基础设施之外,

我另外还想说就是我觉得硅谷非常羡慕嫉妒恨的是中国这种工业生态的深度和完整性,

就是深它既有广度也有深度,

就比方说我之前看过一篇文章,

就是丹王还有Arthur Krueger他们和谐的这个文章叫做真正的中国模式的real China model,

然后里边就提到就是说中国模式的这种最大的亮点最强的核心不是政府规划什么,

而是它的这种deep infrastructure,

然后就比方说有7000万的技术工人,

有非常多的就是包括就像是组装电缆,

然后快速建一个物理世界的一个data center这样子的事情,

其实有大量的这种专业团队,

有大量的这种电工光纤工人,

然后包工头就直接把这个活给你干了,

但是这个在美国也是很难的,

然后还有就是中国的这个制造业它其实是能够不仅是一个小螺丝,

然后再到电线,再到电路板,再到复杂的无人机,

甚至是飞行汽车什么都能造出来,

而且这个造出来我指的是在一个相对紧密的一个地理范围内完成的,

这个Unitrade的创始人王欣欣她举了一个例子,

她说如果我开着车就是在深圳开一个小时,

我就能够把一个装备无人机的所有的零件全都能买齐,

但是这个事情其实是在美国是做不了的,

你在美国如果说是迭代一个硬件,迭代一个机器人的话,

你是需要好几周甚至好几个月的时间的,

但是在中国其实这个迭代速度是非常快的,

就开车跑个一两个小时你什么都能买到,

你的工厂立刻可以迭代,

我觉得第三个可能是政府对于科技发展的支持,

以及社会上对于这种所谓的增长就是硬道理的这种广泛的,

不需要质疑的这种共识,

因为就是在中国所有人都觉得就是要发展先修路,

那个发展才是硬道理,

就是这是一个社会共识,

但是在美国或者在西方社会就是发展是硬道理,

这件事情早就不是社会共识,

这是一个70年代就被非常多人挑战,

然后一直延续到现在的一个问题。

那你观察到就是说美国舆论在中国抄袭和中国赢了之间,

摇摆为什么这种两极化的趋势在美国这么有市场呢?

我觉得美国作为一个社会,

它其实有一种非常根深蒂固的这种主角心态,

这是一个非常客观的描述,

因为就是你当第一名的时间太长了,

你就会自然而然形成一套关于世界运作的这些假设,

对吧?

但是当里面这边假设被中国的创新模式所打败的时候,

它其实有很多人他的认知框架就崩掉了,

他认知框架崩掉之后,

他很容易就滑进去一个更加简单的一个解释,

这个框架已经失效之后,

你会发现对于美国精英来说,

美国没有创造未来,

而是别的国家在创造未来这件事情,

这个现实是很难接受的。

非常多硅谷的科技精英,

他们是读这种黄金时代的科幻小说长大的,

他们觉得阿波罗登过月,

然后硅谷崛起,

美国人scale了互联网,

在他们认知里面,

他们认为美国是创造未来的一个地方,

未来是由硅谷而定义的地方,

这其实是一个身份认同问题,

但是我觉得中国把这个认知框架挑战了之后,

他们不知道该如何去应对,

所以其中有一群人就滑向了这个拒绝心态,

就是我拒绝承认,

就是一个非常认知失调的一个现状,

就是比方说JD Vance,

就是美国的副总统,

他就是认知失调,

就是我拒绝承认中国很厉害的,

因为中国的一切创新都是抄袭的这样一个人,

然后包括是今年年初一本比较火的书叫《Apple in China》,

这种严肃的美国的记者,

他都会陷入类似的论调,

意思就是说中国政府诱惑这个苹果公司,

使得苹果公司把自己全部的生产链,

全部搬到了中国,

现在中国政府可以拿捏苹果了,

就是有一群人他其实是陷入在中国是在诱惑,

中国是在抄袭,

中国没有创新的这样的一种论调当中,

然后另外一个论调我觉得是另外一个极端,

就是中国淫麻了,

就是美国永远没有办法超越中国了,

然后其中一个代表举例简单的就是Balaji,

Balaji他原来是应该是Coinbase的CTO,

然后现在是在新加坡的一个投资人,

他曾经写过一本书叫《网络国家》,

他就是这种中国淫麻了,

美国已经是一个衰退国家了这类叙事的代表,

然后他自己经常在推特上发特别多的帖,

感觉50%都是关于中国的,

然后这50%的内容基本上都是说,

中国已经越过了某个所谓的inflection point,

美国已经没有机会了,对。

你是描述了他们这两种极端的叙事,

但是他们为什么这种叙事在美国是比较有市场的呢?

我自己观察到一个现象就是信息的严重不对称,

也就是说硅谷的大量信息高速地传向中国,

然后中国的一些创业者们,

中国的各种各样的科技精英们在高速地去吸收这些知识,

但是中国的很多东西是没有办法流去硅谷的,

首先就是我们要意识到硅谷和它结构相同的这种西方知识体系,

它从来都是这种结构性知识输出的地方,

就是它这种输出不仅是单向的,而且是压倒性的,

就是比方说这种知识结构它会定义什么才是知识,

或者定义什么才是科技,

反而言之中国的科技方法论,中国的这些叙事框架,

甚至中国的这些memes,对吧,

各种各样的特别不好笑的这种中国理科生物的memes,

都没有被以同等的规模或者深度的被这个翻译或者是传递出去,

我觉得这其实是一个长久以来的这种知识结构的一个问题,

还有一点就是其实中国的很多创业者是埋头做事的,

他其实不太适应成为一个每天写文章,每天发表意见的这样一个责任王,

他们更加习惯于学习而不是输出,

然后更加习惯执行,然后更加习惯把这个饼做大做强,

而不是说我如何在播客上能够成为一个意见领袖。

可能会有人听了这段话,他们会说那中国确实以前都是抄袭的,对不对?

中国的互联网你可以说它后来是创新的,

但是刚开始都还是确实都是抄美国这边,

不管是技术上还是这个商业模式上面,这个也确实是事实,

那当后来中国自己在这个各种方面确实都做的也是不错的,

但是我以前在华尔街日报写专栏的时候得到最多的美国人的这个评论,

就是中国就是一个copycat,就是抄。

我就想问你一下,你怎么来看中国抄袭这个事情?

你自己是怎么看的呢?

我觉得首先要说到底什么是科技,

我觉得科技这个东西其实包含好多个层面,

第一个层面当然就是一个天才,

然后他在自己的实验室里面突然大喊一声,

啊,我发现了这个东西,

他其实是第一个是指的是一个天才一样的点子,

这样一个创意是科技,

然后其实第二个科技的非常大的一个层面是应用,

就是deployment,

然后还有一个层面,

我认为科技也就是我们经常忽视的一个层面,

就是我们所说的这种隐性知识,

你可以叫他叫tacit knowledge,

或者叫processing knowledge,

就是有点类似于do how,

就比方说你的奶奶给你一个她已经做了几十年的一个菜谱,

这个菜谱能够清清楚楚写用多少食材,

怎么用这个厨房,

但是你能够真的用一个菜谱和一个配置最顶尖的厨房去还原出来你奶奶做的这道菜吗,

就其实中国是掌握了非常多的这样子的隐形的processing knowledge,

或者tacit knowledge,

然后回到第一个这个所谓的创新的这种eureka moment,

其实现在中国的新三样当中非常重要的一些环节,

比方说锂电池或者是solar cell,

这些其实都是美国的创新,

一个是美国60年代的贝尔实验室所创新出来的,

然后另外一个是我记得是锂电池,

如果没有记错的话应该是拿过诺贝尔奖的,

就这些其实都是美国的创新,

但是为什么美国没有把它应用起来呢,

就是为什么这些创新它一直几十年的时间都只能呆在实验室里面呢,

为什么没有被快速地制造出来,

没有被更多的人应用呢,

其实这就是中国科技的我觉得强大所在,

就是它能够非常快地应用出来,

比方说太阳能科技,

然后以及这个锂电池等等等等,

就是中国这种新制产业或者是新三样,

其实很多科技都是美国人发明出来的,

但是美国人就像当年德国的Carbons一样,

它发明出来之后它并没有scale,

它并没有把它应用起来,

然后真正应用起来的是中国的非常多的企业和公司。

对,我自己观察你应该也写到了实际上美国现在的这种的对中国的羡慕,

或者是对自身的这个失望很大的程度上也是因为就说我们发明了这些技术,

但是呢最后的这个应用是中国做成了,

而现在我们的这么多年制造业的空心化完全都没有这个能力来制造很多的应用我们的很多的技术,是不是?

对对对,我觉得就是美国这些精英它有一个巨大的这样一个心理破防的时刻,

其实就是这种深深的失落,

就是因为美国它其实是一个非常理想主义和未来主义色彩浓厚的国家,

就是很多这种天才的技术人员,天才的这些工程师,

他其实在想象一个非常乌托邦的 的这种未来啊能源是充沛的然后啊以后就是人类寿命是可以延长的

就是这种乌托邦的想象其实是一个文化印记就印刻在很多矽谷在矽谷的人的心里

但是就是当这个非常就看似很乌托邦的这些科技

它的实际的应用的地方不在美国这个其实是让美国很多文化经营最破防的一个点

嗯对你刚才也提到了而且你的文章里面也比较过就是说矽谷充满未来主义的对AGI人工通用智能和ASI超级人工智能的这种愿景

和这个中国更注重产业落实的这种务实方向就是一个特别理想主义是吧

另一个是更务实的就是你觉得就是这两国之间的这种的差异是怎么来影响两边这种创造的技术和这个产品的

就最后生出来产出的这个技术和产品是因为他们的这种的理想主义和务实主义的差别而不同吗

我思考一下我觉得就是就大概大家在国内科技界或者是就是在美国

很多人知道的一个共识就是矽谷特别喜欢去做0到1的事情

然后中国又特别擅长去做1到10的事情

就这个其实也体现在文化层面上简单来说就是你能看到就是矽谷有非常多的个人主义英雄

从伊朗马斯克到马克赛格伯格然后到各种各样的人就是矽谷他特别崇尚就是把一个

很厉害的天才包装成英雄然后去爱护他崇拜他给他资源然后对然后让他带领我们进入未来比方说矽谷有非常多的天才AI工程师

就这种10x engineer或者是stars star engineer对吧

但是反观中国其实中国你很难找到这种所谓的star engineers或者就是这种

成天在推特上然后发表各种言论然后有大量的following的这样子的工程师

然后中国他更多的是就我自己在上海在北京然后也和很多人聊过很多老板自己就说是

我们其实就需要能干活的人就是很多中国的创业者他认为就是那些

更加average的这种good enough的这种人才是最重要的所以就这个就导致踏实的

踏实干活的不要整天是异想天开的

对对对我觉得就是其实回到这个就是因为硅谷他整个这个VC这个产业是非常路径复制的

就他非常非常路径依赖就是说我今天投了一个什么样的人他展示出什么特质

他能成他成了

那我接下来我就一定要去找这样的人但是反观中国的话其实中国的

就是国资什么的他们的投资也是

更加的注重实际更加的注重这个真正这个产业以后能够带来的经济效应能增加多少工作等等等等

就整体来说就有点类似于就是硅谷给世界画饼然后中国把这个饼做出来的感觉

比方说就飞行汽车这件事情之前那个硅谷的著名投资人peter tail他就说过说

我们曾经

想要飞行汽车

但是现在我们只得到了140个字符他其实在讽刺说

美国的创新只是停留在这个人们的屏幕上并没有去真正影响到实际的物理世界但是我觉得就是

比较讽刺的看到的就是中国反而把飞行汽车好像要做出来了就因为小鹏他投资了一家这个飞行汽车公司

然后我看到了很多这种是非的视频就是因为我自己是一个非常容易被future pill的人就是我特别

喜欢我特别想要而且急于的步入一个科幻般的未来我是这样一个人

所以就是当我看到这种飞行汽车的时候

我能想象到美国有多少人可能也会

感觉到非常的难过就非常的破防

那你能不能说一下就是你在这个中国ai的托普图那篇文章里面你描述了一个隐藏在水面下的冰山 也就是中国庞大的技术人才和工程体系

你前面其实说过

你能说一下就是说

美国人现在能看得到这水下面的这个冰山实际上有多大吗

你觉得他们意识到了吗

我觉得美国正在慢慢的意识到

比方说很多人他开始在聊这个reindustrialization就是在工业化的时候 他们其实就在思考说

在工业化应该从哪开始

对吧 我觉得就是美国这边他在工业化的一个巨大的误区 他就认为说我在工业化我可以把高端的这个制造业先搬到美国

然后低端的我慢慢再说

但是其实我认为这是一个误区

就对于我来说

制造业就是制造业 不管是高端还是低端

你有就是有 没有就是没有 你很难有 就是说我美国只制造芯片

制造无人机 制造电车 但是我不制造电线 我不制造螺丝

因为人员的这种流动 知识的流动和这种低端的高端的这种相互的协调和相互的促进 它其实是一个非常巨大的整体

我反而觉得就是美国他想要高端制造业不想要低端制造业的这个方向是有误区是错误的

那我想可能有人听到这他们会说

那很多国家就包括中国 它是其实产业链有一些也是其实都挪到了相对低收入的这样的一些国家

他也不是说他什么都做了呀 现在这不是一个制造业发展的一个趋势吗

我觉得就是对于比方说像是新三样或者像是手机制造业或者等等 我觉得一个

更加健全的一个能够从芯片再到无人机的一些轴承

再到各种各样型号的电线 就是这样子的一个产业 我觉得是产生

真正的创新 产生真正的这种涌现效应

一个必要的一个结果

对 必要的条件 就挺有意思听你说这些 说句实话 其实类似的谈话 我觉得我在十年前或者七八年前的时候

深圳的一些创业者

就是硬件的这个创业者 他们说的这个深圳的优势

就在于这 是吧 你可以随便的 他想要什么东西就很快就可以都拿到 而且他们有的人的business model

他们的商业模式就是来接

在美国呀 还有别的一些地方的这种硬件创业者 他们需要什么样子的元件 他们就来中国下单 然后中国就

给他发了过去 然后现在呢

我的感觉是美国人真的是看到了这一点 是吧 就以前是有 有一些人他们知道 但是呢并没有形成一种舆论

现在呢 是开始形成了这么一种舆论

或者一种意向 我这么说你觉得准确吗 对

我觉得比较准确 最简单的来说就是ai其实给美国的这种创新停滞带来非常多的希望 就是从2022年的这个GPT moment对吧 GPT时刻开始

然后美国产生了一大批这种科技加速主义者 他们希望

不仅仅在手机屏幕上

跟ai聊天 他其实更加急切的把ai真正的用于物理世界 然后这个时候他们发现一个巨大的

一个鸿沟就是

我想要把ai

搬到物理世界 证明我得造各种各样的 比方说带在自己身上的 带在眼睛上的 能够在物理世界操纵这些小玩意儿

或者我得去生产更加高端的机器人等等的 就是你 你得造东西 你得造出来

然后同时你要造东西的话 你首先除了制造业之外 你还有一个你需要有一个非常大的一个所谓的这种

电力的堆战就是electronic stack

就我当时看acc那篇文章为什么说这个人要想要美国去做一个美国的比亚迪 是因为比亚迪这个公司它不仅是意味着一个完整的

电车的产业链 它还意味着它是比亚迪是有一个非常完整非常系统的这种electronic stack这种电力的堆战

因为你人工智能转移到物理世界 你是不能够通过汽油这样子的内燃机这样子的

动力去结合去做产品 你得需要有电 你得需要让电就是更加低成本的 没有任何摩擦的

去大规模的去运行去调用 然后这个时候美国人发现美国是没有一个完整这种电力的对战

这个时候就是当这个真空产生之后 然后再回头去看中国 发现中国已经有了

一个极具规模的这种electronic stack对吧 就是从电能的生产 再到电力的这种部署

再到电力去给这些

造出来的机器人也好 电车也好去复能 然后再到这个电池的生产 就是中国整个这套产业体系已经很完整了 然后这个东西其实是

美国人正在渐渐的意识到 而且我自己看来是

美国的再工业化是一个更加急切的 需要去把这些东西造出来的一方向

对 那你能对比一下就是美国和中国的这个AI生态有什么不同吗 我知道很多就是之前上不明白的一些

嘉宾就比方说许成钢老师

还有李侯辰 他可能都会觉得说 deepseek的影响力可能没有大家想象的这么深远 deepseek他

可能的影响力更加在商业模式和成本上面

我其实觉得deepseek他确实不是这种传统意义上的技术奇迹 但是其实deepseek他其实

他完全让中国的AI生态变成了一个开源策略为先的这样一个生态影响 deepseek的这个开源模式

使得中国的这种大模型基本上的第一个属性就是开源

所以就是不管是通易千问 质谱还是月之暗面 这种中国的人工智能选择 他其实

都在以开源的方式加速他们这个开源进程 所以其实deepseek他带动了一个这种生态级别的一个战略选择

但是这个时候你在回看美国的话 你会发现这个开源政策让美国非常恐慌 因为什么呢 因为开源就意味着这些模型是免费的

这些模型是免费的话就证明有更多的人工智能的开发者们 有更多的人工智能的这些创业者们

他们会向中国的这个技术站去迁移 之前我在看那个all in podcast 在采访谷歌创始人Eric Smith的时候 他就说为什么美国作为一个开源

精神的

缔造者 美国作为一个开源模型的创造者

我们没有让AI开源 然后反而现在中国把AI开源了呢 美国从白宫也好 到知识界的和这个世界经营也好 他们担忧不是说担忧deepseek算法有多么先进 或者说deepseek他的这个算力成本有

有多么低 当然这些有点担心 但是他其实他们担心的是全世界的开发者

都在用中国的开源模型进行开发进行创新 然后这个时候就会产生这种人工智能整个生态的这种重心就向中国转移

前一阵子白宫发表的就是川普签总统令的那三个人工智能政策文件里面明确就说了他们需要让

全世界都用美国的人工智能技术站对吧 从英伟达的芯片

再到美国的这些大模型 然后再到其他各种各样的技术细节

而不是让中国去占了这个先机 但是现在就是显然就是说deepseek和以大众的这种中国开源的这些模型 然后以及就是又快又好这些模型

其实是很多人都在用的一个事情 这个其实是真正的一个威胁

但是我也听中国的一个很有名的做AI的人 他跟我说就是中国开源也是很大程度上是因为中国是一个落后者 是一个追赶者

所以呢 它是开源的

那美国他们走在比较前面的 他们是就当然就是不愿意开源的 你怎么看这样的说法呢

对对对 其实开源它在全世界科技界

都是这个第二名的惯用策略 就是第一名它往往都是有自己的这个

护城河占一个相对垄断的一个地步 但是

第二者这个追赶者他往往选择开源去低成本的获取更多的

追随者 获取更多的用户等等 这个并不是AI才开始的 而是中国的非常非常多科技公司就是

很早之前就已经在全世界的这个开源的

这个community里面是一个很重要的玩家

所以中国的AI开源它其实是一个非常理性的选择

还有一个从人这个角度来说 就是很多中国的这个AI的开发者和AI的研究者

他认为开源能够增加自己在

国际开发者社群里面的曝光度和知名度 就因为很多的这种尤其是有技术理想追求的这些

researchers对吧 然后很多人他其实是希望能够

自己能够真正的去参与自己的研究成果能被人看到的

但是如果你就是你不参加一个中国的开源模型的公司的话 你是很难

去有这样的一个机会去让大家看到你的 然后再加上

就大家也知道就中国企业文化是怎么样 就是很多AI的研究者他其实

不愿意成为一个公色螺丝钉 反而是他愿意去

把这一种我去参加到一个开源的这种集体的这种community当中 我去给开源添砖加瓦

然后他才愿意真正的去投入去做这些事情

对 那如果开源是一个第二名的一个

比较理性的一个选择 那对于美国来说 他现在毕竟在大元模型各方面 他还是领先的一个

位置 那他选择不开源是不是也是一个比较能够理解的一个做法呢

对 是能够理解的 就我自己听说就算是中国这些开源的大项目像deep sea什么 他们自己也生态内部也都在

进行在做着一些就是close source在必然的一些开发

就是说他向外释放的这些大模型是一回事 但是他其实内部在做的一些事情是另外一回事情

对 我觉得如果说就是这个AI的这个竞赛

中国在慢慢的赶超的话 那很有可能中国未来会出现很多这种AI必然的这种大模型公司

对 那我们再说一下 就说许成钢老师他在那个不明白博客的一期节目里面也说过 就说中国的AI虽然有技术亮点

但面对内需不足

和这个失业问题 自动化并不能带来根本的增长

就你前面也说的李厚诚 李厚诚也在不明白博客的一期节目里面

就指出来说新三样高度依赖补贴 并且产能过剩

那我想问就是说美国对中国科技发展的想象是不是低估了这种技术突破与整体需求错配的这么一种矛盾呢

对 尤其是我这次八月份九月份在国内的时候 我的一个巨大的感受就是

美国被一个就是凯文凯利说这是一个有一个酷China所吸引 就是酷中国所吸引 但是

与此同时 你在看到酷中国的同时 你会发现在

巨大的酷中国的这个表面之下有一个真实的中国 real China 对吧 然后这些真实的中国其实是你会看到一个小哥会为一个6元的瑞幸咖啡

直接就是去送货 你会看到中国非常非常多的就是从住房到就业再到房地产就各种各样的问题

嗯 就是这个real China其实是没有被看到 但是话说回来就是这个real China虽然是老百姓最关注 是老百姓

每天的生活的激励是我们最真实的生活 但是这个real China所体验的种种问题其实是很多的结构性的问题 回到这个酷中国就是酷中国所

造出来这些闪闪发亮的这些厉害的科技

能不能救这个真实的中国 我觉得这其实不是一个非常合理的等式

就是说就像美国一样 对吧 美国的AI的高速发展也不能直接解决美国的通货膨胀问题

基建问题或者政治集化的问题 我其实5月份就写过就是两个中国 一个是hopeful China

就是有希望的中国 一个是gloomy China 就是这个一个非常低迷的中国

但是呢 要用科技来解决中国发展问题 这个不是这些评论的人来说的 而是中国共产党自己的一个想法

这个习近平又一直说这个要发展新制生产力

是吧 如果他不认为这个是可以解决中国现在的经济低迷的这种状况 他不会把资源全都放到这上面

中国的整个的政策是有这样子一个意图

而且呢 我也说一下 我自己觉得美国人就说他在

看到中国的时候呢 他就忘了经济学原理是怎么回事 比如说他们看到美国 他们就会说 哎呦 美国有这样这样的问题

但是呢 他看到中国的时候 他就不觉得说

中国那么多人失业 年轻人失业率这么高 这么多人的这个财富都在这个房地产泡沫的破灭中 一下子就减少了很多

还有消费一直都很不好 这个昨天也出来的消息是中国的这个制造业连续六个月都没有什么增长

这样的一些情况如果放在美国的话 美国人一定觉得这个经济太糟糕了 他不会觉得这个国家因为有AI的发展 而这个国家是

非常有希望的一个经济体

所以呢 我就比较好奇就说

你自己怎么看这样子的一个问题 对 没错 我觉得其实美国人没有意识到就是中国人

造出来就像你说的这个Hope for China或者酷中国的代价到底是什么 就像是你说的这个中国地方政府非常热衷于复制这个所谓的合肥模式

对吧 就合肥突然投资了一个

未来汽车还是投资了一个什么样的公司 做了一些非常厉害的一些投资 产生了非常丰厚的回报

这个时候全国都想要去复制这种合肥模式 然后就算是最偏远的

最没有资源的省份的这些官员都在说啊 我们要新制生产力 我们要电车 我们要

太阳能对吧 就是这其实是一个资源错配和整体的一个政府性的结构性的问题

中国产能过剩 中国的这些强力的资源调配其实

产生了非常巨大的泡沫对吧

但是你反观美国 其实美国有非常多泡沫 我最近根据朋友推荐读了一本书叫做boom bubbles and the end of stagnation

就是翻译过来就是繁荣

泡沫与停滞的终结 有点类似于产能过剩这个问题 或者说泡沫这个问题 就书里面的一个核心论点就是

在美国这样子的民主和自由的市场当中 它其实

政府是没有能力去协调这么多社会资源的

因为美国的权力特别分散 所以那个自下而上的这种真正的应用层面执行层面有很多的障碍 就不可能像中国一样振臂一挥

然后大家都去搞EV了 大家都去搞

太阳能对吧 就是美国它实现的路径其实就是通过泡沫 比方说这个泡沫它其实表面上看起来是一个浪费资本和人才的这样一个现状 它其实

能够在短时间内吸引巨大的资金注意力 人才和能量 然后最后去做出来真正正确的事情

比方说硅谷过去很多年 它出现了互联网的泡沫

出现了社交媒体泡沫 出现了这种共享经济的泡沫 出现了加密货币的泡沫

然后现在我们看到的是人工智能的泡沫 对吧 就是每一个在硅谷创业的人都知道就99%的公司会死的

那99%的人那不就是泡沫吗 对吧

每个泡沫都造成巨大的资本浪费 很多的公司倒闭 很多投资人血本无归 对泡沫也催生了新的经济

这些我都同意 就但是美国呢 它是一个市场经济的一个这样子的环境 中国呢是这种

政府的催生的这种泡沫 而这个政府呢 它是不受管控的

对 我同意 美国的泡沫 它是由基本上是很多是私人企业私人资本去承担的 对吧 就当一个VC的

投资的创业公司失败了 那亏的是这个基金

整个这个基金背后的金主

对吧 它以及它这个LP的钱 当然它有一个社会成本 比方说失业啊 资源浪费等等 但是它其实是由私人来承担的

但中国的泡沫 尤其是这种政策驱动的泡沫 很大程度上就像你说的是公共资金承担的是地方政府国有企业

这些所承担的 所以就这些其实最终都是纳税人的钱 就等于说

中国的泡沫是老百姓在承担 但是很多时候美国的泡沫是直接造成泡沫这些人承担的 对 我觉得这个是非常不一样的

就像你说的 那你怎么看就硅谷

我觉得硅谷有一种羡慕中国政府强力资源调配的这样子的一种能力 我觉得是这样的 就是中国政府调配资源的能力

我觉得是确实是有美国有非常多值得借鉴的 比方说我自己

个人的偏见哈 大家可以随时来喷我 就是比方说在修建高铁 修建基建这样的事情 它就是需要有个强有力的政府才能完成的

我在看Abundance这本书里面就提到说

最简单的例子就是加州的这条臭名昭著的高铁就是从大概是10年开始

就说要建设 然后但是直到现在还没有 就

只修建了大概几个mile 然后之前他们说通车时间是要2020年通车 但是现在通车时间已经推迟到了

30年到33年之间 并且只是针对中央股的地段 甚至都没有连通

湾区和南加州 其实就是因为没有一个强有力的 哪怕是一个强力的地方政府 我觉得

但是高铁这样的基建项目

你没有一个强力的政府

它就是完不成

这是一个非常残酷的现实

但是我觉得像是很多其他的一些产业

我觉得是美国其实是还可以

是可以依赖一个自由市场

有人就会说

中国政府的调配的这种能力

是促进了中国的高铁的发展

但是中国的高铁绝大部分都是亏钱的

而且呢

就是说中国的基础建设

都是这个地方政府是靠卖地的

这样子的一些收入

然后去建的

其实是过度的建设

对吧

那你可以说它是在一方面

它有这个资源调配的这种能力

但是另一方面

它是完全不受控制的一种的

花钱的这样一种模式

为什么不是日本是一个更好的模式呢

日本的基础设施建设也非常好

日本是世界上最早的

建成了这种的高铁的

这样的一个网络的国家

我其实是非常对他们

对于中国的这种的

政府的这种强有力的

这种资源调配能力

这种现务

我总是觉得特别的不能够理解

没错

我觉得这点

首要我其实得归结于

就是美国这种自由民主

就是liberal democracy

这个理念的衰落

就是导致很多人

他其实对于这个有一个

像是协调反射一样

这个reactionary的一个反应

他就以为高铁必须得是有一个

更加authoritarian的

更加集权的政府才能建出来的

或者说中国这些非常厉害的

这些建筑非常厉害的基建

一定是得有一个

像中国政府这样的一个

政府才有能力能建出来

我觉得其实这是一个

一种二极管式的反跳

就是因为在全球范围内

liberal democracy这个概念

都在全方位的衰退

都变得越来越没有吸引力

变得越来越不得人心

对吧

那么我们怎么办呢

我们是不是要跑去

liberal democracy的反面呢

那就是中国对吧

我觉得现在美国确实很多人

有这样一种条件反射

所以就误以为很多

就这种像高铁这样子

非常棒的东西

只有中国政府这样的模式

才能修建出来

这其实也是美国很多人的

一个民众很大的一个误区

就是他把对于美国精英

美国整个这个政府

以及这些资源掌握者的

愤怒和怨恨

投射到了对于中国的

盲目的喜爱和追随上面

其实就是因为我讨厌你

所以我就要喜欢一个

和你完全不一样的人

就那种感觉

对

这个是我真的是觉得

特别的吃惊的一个

一个现象

那我们再说一下

就是你前面也提到了

这个丹旺他的这本书

就是Breakneck是吧

我不知道应该怎么翻译

对

他提出来的就是

美国是由律师治国

中国是由工程师治国的这个说法

这个说法现在在美国很流行

就是很多人认为就是说

对于解释目前的

中美竞争态势很有说服力

你觉得这个说法

在哪些方面是有启发性的

又可能在哪些方面

是让美国人会误解

中国的实际的运作方式

对 我觉得丹他也是一个好朋友

然后同时也是一个

我非常尊敬

一直想要学习模仿的作家

我觉得丹旺他的这本书

Breakneck他提出来这种

工程师社会和律师社会

在我看来

他是在用一种非常理性

和实用主义的方式

去给大家一个新的框架

就是之所以他是

一个理性和实用主义的

这种思考方式是因为

这个框架在当下的美国来说

它是一个非常有用的一个东西

它是一个有效的框架

就是你不要告诉我说

美国是自由民主的

中国是独裁的

就是这样子的框架

摆到今天的美国

是一个意识形态框架

而非一个解决问题的框架

我觉得就是丹旺他在书中

提出这个框架

其实是一个

again就是把中国

当成美国诊断工具

告诉大家中国哪方面做得好

中国哪方面做得不好

然后用中国的自身的经验

去反照美国自身的停滞

然后激励美国人

去支棱起来的这样的一个感觉

那你觉得他的这个说法

是一个准确的

对于中美两国的这种的

治理方式的一个描述吗

就是我就说

你认为就是美国确实是

由这个律师治国的

中国确实是由工程师治国的吗

我觉得他里面提出了非常多

为什么美国东西建不起来

为什么美国高铁修不起来的问题

这个是吻合的

但是就是如果说

我作为一个学者去分析

中国到底是不是一个

工程师治国的国家

那我可能会得出来

一个完全不同的结论

但是我觉得他在

阐释中国为什么能够

不仅是真正的是engineer

一些社会工程

而且还是social engineer

一些工程

我觉得这方面阐释的非常好

因为就是丹王他这本书里面

他就着重说就是

这种engineering society

它像是手一样

有手心手背一样

你没有办法只有好的一面

没有它坏的一面

你不能只有中国的高铁

有中国这些非常令人impressed的基建

而没有中国的比方说

一胎政策或者是COVID

这种清零策略

就是这是一个

丹王他在书中说

这是一个一体两面的一个东西

就是他其实书中的结论是

不是让美国去照搬中国模式

而是他恰恰告诉美国人说

美国不要去在这方面去学中国

因为你学不起

美国你能承受得了

就one child policy吗

美国你想要一个

像是zero COVID这样一个

可怕的社会吗

不不你不想要

就是你不要去盲目的去羡慕中国

而是你要真正看到

中国这些social engineering的这些

黑暗的这个面向

那如果有美国创业者问你说

从中国的科技生态中

有哪三件事是我明天就可以学到

并实现了你会怎么说呢

我反而觉得现在美国

对于中国的这种崇拜

已经到了一个比方说就是硅谷

现在很多公司在开始996

这样的一个事情

今天纽时发了一个硅谷开始996

我觉得简直是神经病啊

是不是

对对对就是现在硅谷基本上

现在就是科技界

AI公司是最严重的

就是AI公司你是没有没有996的选项的

就你只要是想要去

参加最好的大模型的建设

你想要去加入

Open AI Anthropic对吧

这样子的公司

996是一个基准

硅谷人已经没有说我不996的

所以我反而会告诉他们说

坏的东西不要学

对他们最早就学到坏的东西

最坏的东西我完全不懂

还有什么呢

你觉得你看到了

他们已经开始学歪了的东西

嗯学歪了的

或者你觉得他们应该想着

怎么学的东西

嗯我觉得如果说要学习

就是如果要去做硬件

要做机器人

要去做这些什么穿戴式的东西

向中国取经吧

因为现在就整个这些行业

已经是对美国必须要摸着

中国过河的一个状态了

就是如果你这个时候

凭空从天而降一个崭新的

Elon Musk告诉我说

我要从头开始建一个锂电池工厂

而不去学习中国的发展经验

然后不去学习锂电池的各种标准

不去学习它的产业的

这些非常精细的一些产业成果

那我会觉得我会不会相信这个人的

那你觉得对美国而言

什么样的政策回应

既能增强自身的建设能力

又不至于照搬中国的政治模式

美国确实需要一个更加克制

和更加有效的一个doge

就是削减一些冗余的这种政府官员

然后以及去削减一些

非常没有必要的一些政策方面

和监管方面的一些管制

说实话就是美国的基建需要加速

美国的基建和美国的很多制造业

就需要加速

但是加速的前提是那些blockers

那些阻止这些基建加速的

这些要被清除掉

然后这些很多路障

其实就是美国的一些官僚主义

我其实有一个问题

我一直都没有想清楚

就是硅谷的这些人

他们其实是libertarian

就是最不想要政府来管的这么一帮人

但是现在他们一下子就

一方面就是和川普政府打得火热

另一方面呢

他们又是那么羡慕中国的

这种的集权的这样子的一种的治理模式

我特别不能够理解

就说怎么会成这样子的呢

你其实说到的是硅谷右转的问题

这个问题其实从

我觉得五六年前就已经比较明显了

其实首先我觉得

第一个问题就是民主党这边

对科技的敌意

以及民主党的这种傲慢

其实是等于说民主党丢掉了

科技这个巨大的票仓

就整个科技界其实

并没有觉得自己被这种所谓的

左派的更加这种进步主义的

这些政客所看到

反而是接二连三的这种tech clash

对吧就是科技界的这种backlash

巨大的反弹

然后其次就是他川普

他其实是一个科技界的加速主义总统

然后另外川普他其实

跟着硅谷这些这个右转的现象

其实点燃了一个非常强大的

一个科技民族主义的一把火

然后同时他会把中国

作为各个方面的假想敌

所以你会看到就是

不管是中国也好还是美国也好

你会发现现在不管是芯片

AI还是新能源

很多叙事都已经被升到了一个

地缘政治和国运的高度对吧

就是中国的话就是

中国的这个deep sick

时刻到了中国的国运是不是来了

就美国现在也其实在

讨论一样的事情

比方说美国的右转

一个非常明显的现象就是

这个Defense Tech的崛起

叫做Defense Tech应该是怎么翻译

就是国防科技

对国防科技的崛起

像是斯坦福这样子

美国最好的学校对吧

10年前的这种理想主义的学生

最想去的是Google啊Facebook

这样子的大厂

但是现在我之前读到的一篇文章

也是我一个很好的科技作者朋友

Jasmine写的一篇文章

就是他们现在毕业生最想去的公司

是Palantir这样子的公司

但是Palantir其实它就是一个

给美国军方提供情报

监控和打击系统的这样一个科技公司

它就是一个中国

在看硅谷101这个播客的时候

硅谷101把Palantir的股票

叫做美国国运股

然后我觉得这个词用的特别好

就是现在就是Defense Tech

美国这些国运科技变得特别强盛

这其实就是一个科技界和川普政府

一个继续深度绑定的一个过程

然后另外还有一个

我觉得一个比较重要的一点就是

长久以来其实科技界是

没有政治力量的

我记得Stripe的创始人Patrick Carlton

说过一句话说是

硅谷的这些技术狂人

他能够想象就是召唤一个

AI上帝一样的科技

但是没有办法想象去改变

这个硅谷的Zoning Law

Zoning Law其实就是一个

政府的一个法案

就是规定什么地方能建什么东西

比方住宅区只能建住宅

对 然后Patrick Carlton就是这样想

他其实这句话讽刺的点就在于说

硅谷它看似有大量的资本

雄厚的人才储备

但是它其实政治的影响力

非常非常的小

我能够知道硅谷为什么右转

但是它为什么会转过来

羡慕中国政府的这种模式呢

这个是我不太能够理解的

我觉得这种羡慕有一些层面

就其中有一些层面的羡慕是

我觉得有点类似于那种

TikTok上一个普通老百姓

说美国要完蛋

中国真厉害

就这种非常浅层的这种

情绪上面的一些羡慕

但是我觉得就是真正

像是Mark Andreessen

或者是Peter Thiel

你告诉他说

今天美国政府就要变成

中国政府这个模样

他是绝对不会说yes的

就我觉得这种羡慕

它其实还是有一种

想要鞭策自己的政府

对过嘴瘾的这种

或者是就是发泄情绪式的羡慕

那就是这么多年以来

就是美国对中国科技发展的描述

常常落在抄袭

或者是监控国家

这样子的叙事框架里面

就是如果可以重写这个叙事

帮助美国的读者

更准确的了解中国

你会从哪个地方开始呢

我觉得我会从一个

根本性的前提开始吧

就是停止把中国

当成一个抽象的概念

首先就是怎么去正常化

那些中国的普通的创业者和人

其实我之前就是在

之前发的那篇文章里面

就是我采访了一个

叫做H的一个

国内一个大科技公司

做AI开源的一个

这样的一个负责人

我最大的感受就是

就是除了地理的位置不同以外

它其实和全世界任何一个

你跟紧前沿的一个

人工智能工程师

没有本质上的区别对吧

他第一

他醒来第一件事是刷推

然后看上面的人工智能讨论

然后他在less wrong上

去跟其他的一些人工智能研究者

去辩论各种各样的技术细节

或者是哲学细节对吧

然后他开着电车去上班

然后用英语去做他的工作

然后英语去写论文

然后他看西部世界对吧

看这种好莱坞的

就是跟AI非常相关的

这些流行文化

就是如果你蒙住眼睛

你就听他讲话

听他去复述自己的生活方式的话

你会觉得

就其实这个人他在中国生活工作

和在硅谷工作生活

其实不太重要的

因为他关注的这种技术问题

他的思考框架

他的工作方式

他那些梗对吧

是一个全球的

开源人工智能社区

共享的一些东西

所以就是我觉得就是首先就是

把一些关注点转移到人的层面

正常化人

看到人是一个很重要的一个切入点

然后其次就是

正常人的这个前提之下

我觉得需要去情境化

就是contextualize

一些比较特殊的东西

就是因为中国确实在很多层面上

它不是一个正常国家

它的资本市场

它的言论自由

它的这个审查

它的这个监管

逻辑都是非常不同的

然后但是这些特殊性

你需要去更加准确的被描述

而不是卡通化

因为现在就是卡通化

对中国的叙述实在是太多了

就是说中国的和私企的关系

中国政府和这些科技公司的关系

它并不是简单的这种控制

但是也不是简单的市场自由

而是一种非常奇怪的一种合体

还有就是

不能忽视的一个层面

就是中国非常独特的历史

对吧 比方说我自己的一个感觉就是

中国的百年国耻

这个事情是非常非常真实的影响着

很多的中国的决策者

和很多的科技创业者的一个历史的

一个这种创伤

它是其实是决定了非常多

中国的一些科技的发展方向的

但是我要说

我不得不说就是这个百年国耻

这个概念是怎么来的

或者说这种创伤是怎么来的

也是非常值得商榷的一个事情

我想如果是美国人他们听了

那一方面要把中国人

当作一个个个体来看待

要正常化

把他们当成正常的人

他们和硅谷的和美国人

其实有很多的

共同的这种喜怒哀乐是吧

共同的追求

但是另一方面呢

中国又确实有这样子的关于国运

关于这个百年国耻

关于自力更生

还有一个共产党的极权政府

在背后他所做的这些所有的东西

就是要确保自己的掌权对不对

对于美国人来说

他把这两个分开

也是一个相对难的一个事情对不对

嗯没错没错

但是我觉得就是

我觉得就把这种复杂度讲清楚

本身就是一个非常重要的事情

就像是我

我现在如果我是一个

在中国12岁的一个女生

那么我其实可以

既讨厌川普政府

也可以继续看着好莱坞电影

就是这些是不矛盾的

我觉得其实对于美国民众来说

对于中国的这种畅想和喜爱

也是这样子的

就是但是又因为就是

again就是我觉得

美国自我中心主义也太严重

或者说美国的

一直处于这种西方的这种单向输出

这样的一个知识结构当中

所以我觉得中国恰恰是一个

让他们的认知稍微清零

然后让他们去

把他们的脑子中

稍微灌注一些复杂叙事的一个契机

所以我觉得这是

也是一个很有意思的事情

我觉得就是把中国复杂化

是一个很重要的事情

就是我并不是说要告诉谁一个答案

因为我知道我自己没有答案

但是我觉得

去梳理清楚很多它的脉络

就是对于我来说

也是一种知识上的快乐吧

然后我觉得这是很有意义的

我们请每位嘉宾推荐三部书

或者影视作品

你有什么推荐

这是我不明白最最喜欢的一个环节

我觉得有三本书吧

第一本就当然就是

刚刚跟袁莉一直在探讨的

Breakneck这本书

我觉得就是Breakneck它首先

不仅是里面这个框架非常的好用

但是我觉得丹

它真的是一个非常非常

thoughtful的一个

深思熟虑的

很好的一个作家

因为它这里面的语言

是那种很有诗意

但是又克制又优美的语言

然后第二本书叫做

《中文打字机》

这个是一个斯坦福的

技术历史学家

叫Tom Malaney写的

就是应该是中信有一本

就是这本书说实话就是

醍醐灌顶

因为我们对于技术的认知就是

它是一个很自然的

不可避免的这样的一个发展路径

比方说键盘是这样的

计算机就是这样的

是因为就是这种设计路径

它其实是依赖了

非常非常多的试错

然后其中这个

《中文打字机》这本书

它其实就讲了是一个

失败的这样的一个

技术成果的故事

就是因为中文要融入到一个

电报系统需要打出来

但是中文有那么多的字符

就是如何用这个罗马的这个键盘

如何用ABCDE去表示中文呢

这个过程其实经过了几十年的试错

经过了几十年的一个

一个过程才出现的

我觉得这本书是关于语言

关于技术

关于这个人际交互

关于用户体验

而且这本书是非常非常的哲学

这本书让我意识到是

就是说技术这个东西

从来都不是自然而然发生的

也不是所谓的universal的

就是全球通用的

每一个系统技术

其实都携带着大量的

诞生地的这种文化偏见

和这种assumption

就是预设

我觉得如果要理解中国的科技发展

其实这本书是一个很好的开始

然后第三本书叫做

欧洲人眼中的中国

这本书其实在微信读书上也可以搜到

作者是在伦敦某个大学教书的

叫Kerry Brown教授

就这本书做了一个极其重要的事情

就是他告诉我们说

把中国看成异类

把中国看成镜像

或者喜欢

或者敬畏

或者讨厌中国这件事情

其实是西方知识界800年来的传统

就不是2025年突然凭空出现的

也不是2025年矽谷突然发现中国的

因为这本书它选择了16个

在西方有巨大影响力的思想家

然后把他们的这个原文全部拿出来

然后这些原文都是关于中国的

而这本书特别有意思的就是

你会发现就是这些

在西方知识界算是这种

正统经典的这些思想家

对中国各有各的理解

就比方说这个莱布尼茨

他是一个很厉害的法国数学家

是一个哲学家

他一辈子都在寻找上帝

然后这个时候他就认为

中文是一个神圣的上帝的语言

就是他在理解圣经的过程当中

他认为就是这个巴别塔

在建造的时候

因为当时巴别塔这个隐喻就是

人类要建造一个通天的巴别塔

然后这个时候人们说的是通用的语言

然后最后上帝一下令说

你们要说不同的语言

这个时候人类的语言才开始分化

然后莱布尼茨就认为

就是当时上帝

让人们说的语言就是中文

然后他有一种对于中国非常浪漫化

非常完美化的想象

我觉得这有点特别像是

今天的硅谷的很多人

对于中国的想象

好 谢谢

谢谢Efra

也谢谢大家收听

我们下期再见

Key Vocabulary

Vocabulary	Meanings
innovation /ˌɪn.əˈveɪ.ʃən/ B2	noun - a new idea, method, or device
envy /ˈɛn.vi/ B1	noun - a feeling of wanting something that someone else has
infrastructure /ˈɪn.frəˌstrʌk.tʃər/ C1	noun - the basic physical and organizational structures needed for the operation of a society or enterprise
ecosystem /ˈiː.koʊˌsɪs.təm/ C1	noun - a network of interactions among organisms and their environment
reverse engineer /rɪˈvɜːrs ˌɛn.dʒɪˈnɪr/ C2	verb - to examine a product to understand its design and manufacture, often to replicate it
narrative /ˈnær.ə.tɪv/ B2	noun - a way of presenting or understanding a situation or series of events
accelerate /əkˈsɛl.ə.reɪt/ B2	verb - to increase the speed of something
iterative /ˈɪt.ər.ə.tɪv/ C1	adjective - involving repetition and refinement of a process
logistics /ləˈdʒɪs.tɪks/ B2	noun - the process of planning and coordinating the movement of goods and services
incentivize /ɪnˈsɛn.tɪ.vaɪz/ C1	verb - to motivate someone by offering rewards
geopolitical /ˌdʒiː.oʊ.pəˈlɪt.ɪ.kəl/ C1	adjective - relating to the political relationships between countries
disrupt /dɪsˈrʌpt/ B2	verb - to interrupt or disturb the normal course of something
paradigm /ˈpær.ə.daɪm/ C1	noun - a typical example or pattern of something
synergy /ˈsɪn.ər.dʒi/ C1	noun - the interaction of elements that when combined produce a total effect greater than the sum of their individual effects
trajectory /trəˈdʒɛk.tə.ri/ C1	noun - the path followed by an object moving through space
catalyze /ˈkæt.əl.aɪz/ C2	verb - to cause or accelerate a chemical reaction
resilience /rɪˈzɪl.i.əns/ C1	noun - the ability to recover from difficulties
sustainability /səˌsteɪ.nəˈbɪl.ɪ.ti/ C1	noun - the ability to be maintained at a certain rate or level
proliferate /prəˈlɪf.ə.reɪt/ C2	verb - to increase rapidly in number
interdisciplinary /ˌɪn.tər.dɪˈsɪ.plɪ.nə.ri/ C2	adjective - involving two or more academic disciplines