On Ezra Klein’s Podcast With Jensen Huang
打开互动全文版（逐段中英对照 + 图/公式 + 论文问答）→本文评述埃兹拉·克莱因对黄仁勋的播客访谈，认为黄仁勋关于人工智能与就业的乐观态度建立在回避与范畴错误之上。黄仁勋将人工智能描绘成五层蛋糕，并坚称它将净创造新就业，但作者反驳说，他给出的证据——例如 5000 亿美元投资——并不能证明会带来大量就业增长，反而可能掩盖了更大的就业破坏。黄仁勋将制造业岗位流失归因于外包而非自动化，作者称这在经验上是错误的；而他关于失业工人将会回归的说法，则忽视了生产可能回流而岗位不会回流这一事实。在安全问题上，黄仁勋将人工智能视为可保障安全、可对齐的普通软件，但作者认为，这种工程思维误解了那些通过训练而非编程得到的模型，而且他提出的政策实际上会关停 OpenAI。结论是：黄仁勋的愿景是一种能力，而非一个世界；他拒绝正视风险，使那些难题依然悬而未决。
This essay reviews Ezra Klein's podcast interview with Jensen Huang, arguing that Huang's optimism about AI and jobs rests on evasions and category errors. Huang frames AI as a five-layer cake and insists it will create net new jobs, but the author counters that his evidence, such as $500 billion in investment, does not establish large employment gains and may mask greater job destruction. Huang attributes manufacturing job losses to outsourcing rather than automation, which the author says is empirically wrong, and his claim that displaced workers will return ignores that production may return while jobs do not. On safety, Huang treats AI as ordinary software that can be secured and aligned, but the author argues this engineering mindset misunderstands models that are trained rather than programmed, and that his proposed policy would effectively shut down OpenAI. The conclusion is that Huang's vision is a capability, not a world, and his refusal to engage with risk leaves the hard questions unanswered.
3. 开放权重模型对 Nvidia 有利。
3. Open Weights Models Are Good For Nvidia.
5. 黄仁勋说，别让你的 AI 危害世界。
5. Jensen Huang Says Keep Your AIs From Harming the World.
6. 黄仁勋无意中呼吁关停 OpenAI。
6. Jensen Huang Accidentally Calls For Shutting Down OpenAI.
9. 黄仁勋似乎以一种令人困惑的方式真正地感到困惑。
9. Jensen Huang Seems Legitimately Confused In Confusing Ways.
10. 先解决你的其他问题，然后再回来找我。
10. Solve Your Other Problems First and Get Back to Me.
11. 对存在性风险的明确否认。
11. Explicit Denial of Existential Risk.
1. AI 如同一块五层蛋糕：能源、芯片、基础设施、模型、应用。
1. AI as a five-layer cake: energy, chips, infrastructure, models, applications.
2. 黄仁勋的愿景是一个我们无所不能的世界。
2. Jensen's vision is a world where we can do anything.
1. 人们几乎可以说，他花了如此多的时间来确保我们能够……
1. One might almost say he spent so much time ensuring we could…
2. 这实际上并不是一个关于世界的愿景，而是一个关于能力的愿景。
2. This is not actually a vision of the world. It is a vision of a capability.
3. 正确的问题是：如果 AI 具备那种能力，实际会发生什么？
3. The right question is: if AI has that capability, what actually happens?
3. 放射学。质量提升，生产力提升，需求提升。与软件工程师（SWE）类似。预期会有大量新工作。
3. Radiology. Quality up, productivity up, demand up. Parallel to SWEs. Expectation of lots of new jobs.
1. 如果你信息闭塞且之前没听过很多次，那这是一场不错的演讲。
1. It’s a good speech if you are low-info and haven’t heard it many times before.
4. “这是证据点。在过去六个月里，人工智能已经变得，可以说，有用了——这是人工智能的拐点。在此之前，我们花了 15 年试图让它奏效。突然之间，在过去六个月里，它变得有用了。”
4. “Here’s the proof point. In the last six months, A.I. has become, if you will, useful — the inflection point of A.I. Previous to that, we spent 15 years trying to make it work. All of a sudden, in the last six months, it became useful.”
1. 人工智能早在 2026 年 3 月之前就已经非常有用，但没错，在 Opus 4.5 和 Claude Code 的门槛上，事情确实变得有用得多，而且迄今为止获得的人工智能效用绝大部分都发生在过去六个月里。这就是指数增长。
1. AI was highly useful well before March 2026, but yes things did get a lot more useful at the threshold of Opus 4.5 and Claude Code, and the vast majority of AI utility gained so far has been in the last six months. That’s exponentials.
2. Jensen 似乎没有意识到这不是一次性的阶跃变化，这些收益将在未来持续下去。
2. Jensen does not seem to appreciate that this is not a one-time step change, and that these gains will continue into the future.
1. 过去六个月，有 5000 亿美元投资于 AI 原生企业，所以显然正在创造就业机会。
1. $500 billion has been invested in AI natives in the last six months, so jobs are obviously being created.
1. 别急，从实际影响来看并非如此。
1. Not so fast, not in terms of practical implications.
2. 从绝对数字来看，是的，5000 亿美元会创造一些就业机会。
2. In absolute terms yes, $500 billion is going to create some jobs.
3. 但这并不意味着就业机会很多。许多 AI 投资在每美元直接创造的就业机会方面非常吝啬。
3. That does not mean it is all that many. A lot of AI investments are very stingy in terms of jobs directly created per dollar.
4. 它还可能摧毁比创造的多得多的就业机会，既通过取代现有工作，也通过竞争淘汰现有工作。
4. It also might destroy many more jobs than it creates, both by replacing and competing away existing jobs.
5. 对未来 AI 的预期也可能净摧毁或阻止就业。
5. The anticipation of future AI could also net destroy or prevent jobs.
6. 在宏观层面，如果这不是对其他投资的替代（而大多数情况下并非如此），更多的投资会通过其他间接方式创造净就业，但我不认为这是 Jensen 在此试图邀功的内容。
6. On the macro level, more investment creates net jobs in other indirect ways if this is not substitution for other investment, and mostly it isn't, but I don't think this is what Jensen is trying to take credit for here.
2. Jensen 声称美国制造业岗位流失主要是由于外包，而非技术。并且我们将把这些岗位带回来。
2. Jensen claims America lost manufacturing jobs primarily due to outsourcing, rather than due to technology. And that we're going to bring those jobs back.
1. 一只鹅追着你，问我们是如何能够进行外包的。
1. A goose, chasing you, asking how we were able to do the outsourcing.
2. 正如 Ezra 所说，如果你的工作被外包给 AI，那是技术性失业吗？是外包吗？两者都是吗？它算是两者兼有。
2. As Ezra says, if your job gets outsourced to AI, is that technological job loss? Is it outsourcing? Is it both? It is kind of both.
3. 此外，Jensen 错了。技术和自动化在这里占主导地位。参见 Hicks 和 Devaraj（Ball State，2015）。Opus 5.5 表示技术和自动化占主导地位，并且造成了美国制造业 80% 以上的失业，而 Astra 更为保守，猜测为 70%。
3. Also, Jensen is wrong. Technology and automation dominated here. See Hicks and Devaraj (Ball State, 2015). Opus 5.5 says technology and automation dominate this, and are responsible for 80%+ of job losses in manufacturing in America, whereas Astra is more conservative and guesses 70%.
4. 他没有解释我们将如何恢复这些工作，除了引用 Nvidia 的采购承诺，因为我们不会。生产可能会恢复，但工作已经消失。我们可以创造一些新工作，至少目前如此，但如果我们这样做，主要应该是因为我们想要生产，而不是工作。
4. He does not explain how we will bring the jobs back, other than citing Nvidia purchase commitments, because we won’t. Production might return, but jobs gone. We can create some new jobs, at least for now, but if we do that it should mostly be because we want the production, not the jobs.
5. 2036 年的制造业，即使在没有 ASI 的世界中，也将高度自动化。
5. Manufacturing in 2036, even in non-ASI worlds, is going to be very automated.
3. Jensen 认为我们将看到工作大规模变化，并且由于人类的雄心，将会有净的工作创造，出现今天不存在的行业。我们总是想要更多。
3. Jensen believes we are going to see jobs change en masse and there’s going to be a net creation of jobs, industries that do not exist today, because of human ambition. We will always want more.
1. 如果他出于善意，这听起来像是一个纯粹的 AI 认知失败。Jensen 认为成就事情仍然主要需要人类。
1. To the extent he is in good faith this sounds like a pure AI pilling failure. Jensen thinks accomplishing things will still centrally require humans.
4. 黄仁勋说，人们的抱负是“让子女生活得更好，照顾家庭，照顾父母。渴望富有，能够旅行。这些都是抱负。”
4. Jensen says people's ambitions are "to make their children's lives better, to take care of their family, take care of their parents. Ambition to be rich, to be able to travel. These are all ambitions."
1. 是的，但这些抱负关乎消费，而非生产。
1. Yes, but those ambitions are about consumption, not production.
5. 黄仁勋认为做好自己的本职工作——也就是制造芯片——是他的分内之事，并且“把我们所有的担忧转化为帮助人们受到这项技术的启发并加以使用。”
5. Jensen considers it his problem to do his job, as in make the chips, and "channel all of our worries into helping people be inspired by this technology and use it."
1. 这完全是自欺欺人。他甚至不把风险视为别人的问题。他说社会的那份是‘他们能享受的是我的乐观。’
1. This is straight up living in denial. He doesn't even treat the risks as someone else's problem. He says society's share is 'what they get to enjoy is my optimism.'
2. 与此同时，他正积极试图干扰那些试图解决问题的人。
2. Meanwhile he is actively trying to interfere with others who attempt to solve the problems.
6. 美国人认为 AI 最终会摧毁就业。Jensen 回应说，AI 让编程和做事变得更容易，这很不可思议。既然可以兴奋，为什么要焦虑？利用这项技术，让你个人受益。
6. Americans believe AI will net destroy jobs. Jensen responds that AI makes it easier to code and to do things and it's incredible. Why be anxious when you can be excited? Use the tech so that you, personally, benefit.
1. 这根本不算回答。这是不合逻辑的推论。
1. That's straight up not an answer. It's a non sequitur.
7. 高级软件工程师（SWE）的职位空缺增加了，但初级工程师的职位空缺减少了。Ezra 问，你需要那些初级工程师吗？Jensen 说：“哦，问得好。等两年。因为上大学需要四年。这项新技术的平均毕业时间还有两年。”
7. Job openings for senior software engineers (SWEs) are up but for juniors they are down. Ezra asks, do you need those junior engineers? Jensen says “Oh, good one. Wait two years. Because it takes four years to go to college. The mean time to graduation of this new technology is two years away.
所以两年后，你将拥有新一代的工程师、学生和艺术家，他们将因——[天生适应 AI] 哦，你等着瞧。两年后。”
So in two years' time, you're going to have a new generation of engineers and students and artists, and they're going to be empowered by — [being native to AI] Oh, you watch. In two years' time.”
1. 就像，不，兄弟。你到底在说什么。
1. Like, no, bro. What are you even talking about.
2. 实际上，两年后更可能发生的情况是，正如这里引用的中国研究所示，使用 AI 会导致考试成绩急剧下降。
2. What actually more likely happens in two years is that AI use causes exam scores, as per the Chinese study cited here, to drop off a cliff.
3. 如果你如此 AI 原生，以至于打算用你新的 AI 技能席卷世界，你还会去上大学吗？
3. If you were so AI native that you were going to take the world by storm with your new AI skills, would you even go to college?
4. 即使所有年轻孩子都拥有这些出色的 AI 技能，这会改变什么吗？Jensen 认为他们都能成为创业公司创始人还是什么？
4. Even if all the young kids have these great AI skills, does that change anything? Does Jensen think they can all be startup founders or something?
5. 实际上，确实如此。“他们在做什么？他们都在创办公司。”
5. Literally yes, actually. “What are they doing? They’re all starting companies.”
6. 这极其缺乏数字概念。创办公司很棒，但这种情况很少见。
6. This is extremely innumerate. Starting companies is great but it is rare.
8. Jensen 同意在学校使用 AI 会让孩子们丧失技能，孩子们不会背乘法表。但他认为这无关紧要，只要他们学到正确的技能，他认为这些技能将是新的技能。
8. Jensen agrees that AI use in schools makes kids lose skills, and kids can’t do their times tables. But he doesn’t think it matters, so long as they learn the right skills, which he thinks will be new ones.
1. 我认为他部分正确，但无法心算以及缺乏在此过程中获得的直觉、启发式方法和技能，实际上是一个严重的问题。其中有些重要的东西值得学习。
1. I think he’s partly right but not being able to do math in your head and not having the intuitions and heuristics and skills you gain along the way to that is actually a serious problem. Important things worth learning in there.
2. 我对编程感到疑惑。我可能再也不会写一行代码了，但我肯定从我所学到的和知道的编程中受益。
2. I wonder about coding. I may never write another line of code again, but I definitely benefit from the extent to which I learned and know how to do it.
3. 其他东西，包括一些数学内容，确实不再值得花功夫了。
3. Other things, including some math things, are no longer worth the effort, sure.
4. 人们不应假设学习量是固定的。不学乘法表并不意味着孩子们会学其他东西。
4. One should not assume that the quantity of learning is fixed. Declining to learn times tables does not mean the kids learn something else.
9. Jensen 声称他甚至不知道自己的地址、自己的邮政编码，甚至自己的电话号码。
9. Jensen claims he does not know his own address, even his own zip code, or his own telephone number.
2. 不记住这些东西确实看起来效率不高，哎呀？
2. It certainly does not seem efficient to not remember those things, yikes?
10. “是的。嗯，我认为我们会失去一些更精细的智力灵巧性，但我们会成为更好的系统思考者。今天的工程师比我毕业时是更好的系统思考者。但我是一个更好的晶体管思考者。”
10. “Yeah. Well, I think that we’re going to lose some finer intellectual dexterity, but we’re going to be better systems thinkers. Today’s engineers are far better systems thinkers than I was when I graduated from school. But I was a much better transistor thinker.”
1. 我认为有一小部分人受益，但这感觉精英主义且脱离实际。他把从事更高层次工作的工程师的情况外推到 TikTok 时代。
1. I think some small subset benefits, but this feels elitist and out of touch. He’s taking engineers doing higher-level work and extrapolating to the TikTok age.
因为正如 Jensen 所说：“每个 AI 实验室、每个 AI 模型……都运行在 Nvidia 上。”
Because, as Jensen says, 'every AI lab, every AI model… runs on Nvidia.'
1. 开放模型是开放的。你可以改进它们。我们既需要开放模型，也需要闭源模型。他是开放模型的坚定支持者。
1. Open models are open. You can improve them. We need both open and closed models. He's a big supporter of open models.
2. Jensen 强调，世界需要开放模型，这样才能进行网络防御。
2. Jensen emphasizes that the world needs open models so it can do cyberdefense.
1. 这是一种混淆，往往是故意造成的。
1. This is a confusion, often intentionally caused.
2. 世界需要的是愿意从事网络防御工作、且防御者能够访问的模型。通常，这就像申请加入 OpenAI 和 Anthropic 的网络安全计划一样简单。HuggingFace 直到 HuggingFace 事件结束后才这样做。
2. What the world needs are models willing to do the work in cyberdefense, that the defenders can access. Often that is as simple as asking for admission to the OpenAI and Anthropic cybersecurity programs. HuggingFace did not do this until after the HuggingFace incident was over.
3. 没有任何因素阻止闭源模型允许此类网络防御。只不过开放模型被放任不负责任，而且能力明显更弱，以至于到目前为止“This Is Fine”这一说法还站得住脚。
3. There is nothing stopping closed models from allowing such cyberdefense. It's just that open models are being given a pass to be irresponsible, and are sufficiently less capable that so far "This Is Fine" has held up.
3. 中国围绕开放模型发展，美国围绕闭源模型发展。Jensen 解释说，这是因为在中国人员流动频繁，很难保守秘密或保护知识产权。
3. China evolved around open models, America around closed ones. Jensen explains that this is because in China people move around and it's hard to keep a secret or protect intellectual property.
2. 这更多是因为中国的模型还不够好，不足以闭源并让人愿意为之付费。
2. It's more because China's models are not good enough to be closed source and have anyone want to pay for them.
3. 还因为中国的开放模型生态建立在快速跟随之上，主要依靠大规模的欺诈性蒸馏，而美国实验室无法这样做而不被追究。
3. And it's because China's open model ecosystem is based on fast following, largely via massive fraudulent distillation, which American labs can't get away with doing.
1. Ezra 问起这件事。Jensen 说这全是算法，它们没有人类属性，只是软件。我们学到了什么？第一课：你必须保护你的沙箱。
1. Ezra asks about it. Jensen says it's all algorithms, they have no human properties, it's just software. What have we learned? First lesson: You have to secure your sandbox.
1. 我的意思是，好吧，是的，这是教训之一。
1. I mean, okay, yes, that is one of the lessons.
2. Jensen 属于“不要拟人化”阵营和“这全是你告诉它要做的”阵营，这很合理，尽管这些阵营对世界的预测一直很糟糕。他是队长。
2. It makes sense that Jensen is on Team No Anthropomorphization and Team This Is All What You Told It To Do, despite those teams consistently making bad predictions about the world. He's team captain.
2. 第二课：对齐。如果你不对齐模型，它就会采取最高效的解决方案。我们所谓的“作弊”更容易，所以你显然会这么做，比如找答案，或者抄答案。做实际工作只是最后的手段，因为它消耗的算力最多。
2. Second lesson: Alignment. If you don't align the model it will do whatever is the most efficient solution. What we would call 'cheating' is easier, so obviously you would do it, such as finding the answer, or copying the answer. Doing the work is a last resort because it takes the most flops.
1. 我的意思是，是的，好吧，当然，我想你可以这么理解。
1. I mean yeah okay, sure, I guess you could frame it that way.
2. 我选择忽略这一回应所透露的关于黄仁勋（Jensen Huang）的信息。
2. I am choosing to ignore what this response tells us about Jensen Huang.
3. Ezra 指出，这一切对实际发生的事都极具消解性。黄仁勋说：“我说的任何话都没有削弱做这件事的难度——因为计算机科学并不容易。”
3. Ezra points out that this is all very deflationary about what happens. Jensen says, "Nothing I said takes away from how hard it is to do it — because computer science is not easy."
1. 黄仁勋似乎仍然没有理解，这件事的难，是其他计算机科学所不具备的那种难，或者说它的运作方式不同。我真的不确定他能否分辨出其中的差别。
1. It still doesn't seem like Jensen understands that this is hard in a way that other computer science is not hard, or that it works differently. I genuinely am not sure that he can tell the difference.
这里我们不再使用项目符号系统，因为重要的是我们要确切地看到黄仁勋说了什么，以及他在什么语境下说的。我们不希望产生误解。
Here we exit the bullet point system because it is important that we see exactly what Jensen Huang says, and the context in which he says it. We don’t want misinterpretation.
黄仁勋确实、确实在这里说出了那句话，我希望你自己判断他说的那句话到底是什么，并确认他确实说了。
Jensen Huang really, really does Say The Thing here, and I want you to judge for yourself exactly what The Thing was that he said, and confirm that he said it.
作为工程师的黄仁勋说了显而易见的事：不要发布不安全的产品。
Jensen the engineer says the obvious thing. Don’t ship unsafe products.
1. 你必须定义“安全”。按照自动驾驶汽车的标准，当今市场上没有一个大语言模型是安全的。黄仁勋心中对“安全”一词有一种奇怪的用法，而 AI 实验室此前并未意识到这一点。
1. You have to define ‘safe.’ By the standard of a self-driving car no LLM on the market today is safe. Jensen has in mind some strange use of the word ‘safe’ that the AI labs were not previously aware of.
2. 安全并不是从你发布模型时才开始的。臭名昭著的 HuggingFace 攻击就来自一个未发布的模型。
2. Safety is not something that starts when you release a model. The HuggingFace attacks notoriously came from an unreleased model.
3. 如果你们集体不发布，就会遭到反垄断指控。仅仅因为公开说“或许我们不该发布”，就已经有诉讼了。特朗普政府，很大程度上是在黄仁勋的敦促下，只要能够做到，就不会让这些人不发布。
3. If you collectively don't ship it, you get hit with antitrust allegations. There is already a lawsuit for merely saying 'perhaps we should not ship it' out loud. The Trump Administration, largely at the behest of Jensen Huang, is not about to let these people not ship if they can help it.
4. 黄仁勋不知何故不知道事实#2。
4. Jensen somehow did not know fact #2.
工程思维不同于安全思维。黄仁勋处理这个问题的方式，就好像存在一个根本原因和一个特定的错误，而你可以修复它。这“就像工程一样简单”。
Engineering mindset is different from security mindset. Jensen Huang is approaching this as if there is a root cause and a particular thing wrong and you can Fix It. It's 'as simple as engineering.'
然而，事实并非如此。这不像工程。其中涉及的是心智，它们是生长出来的，而不是工程化或设计出来的。我们没有机械式的理解。
Except, it's not. It's not like engineering. There are minds involved, that are grown rather than engineered or designed. We don't have a mechanical understanding.
他，这位工程师，不接受这一点。他有一次说过，当他说“这些汽车不是编程的，而是训练的”，但他没有将这一点迁移到通常的 AI 情况中。
He, the engineer, doesn't accept this. He says it once, when he says "these cars are not programmed, they're trained," but he does not transfer this into the normal AI case.
他未能接受这一点，正是接下来局势会变得如此有趣的原因。
His failure to accept it is why this is about to get so interesting.
如果有人指出其中的含义，他无疑会收回这句话。他并不想关闭 OpenAI。但他的建议政策恰恰会导致这样的结果。
He would doubtless take it back if anyone pointed out the implication. He doesn't want to shut down OpenAI. But that is what his suggested policy would do.
是啊，好吧，我有些消息。你当然可以比 OpenAI 做得更好。你可以更好地保护你的沙箱，但黄仁勋也知道，即使不涉及 AI，你也绝不能依赖沙箱：
Yeah, well, I have some news. You can of course do a vastly better job than OpenAI did. You can secure your sandbox better, but also Jensen Huang knows you never count on a sandbox even without AI involved:
如果你不能信任运行普通软件的沙箱，你就不能信任运行 AI 的沙箱。正如他关于 Astra 和 AI 总体所说的：
If you can't trust a sandbox with ordinary software, you can't trust a sandbox with AI. As he says about Astra and AI in general:
你实际上可以监控这些模型。但究竟用什么来监控呢？
You can actually monitor the models. But with what, exactly?
如果你最好的模型无法被自身的副本监控，你凭什么认为一个能力更弱的模型能做得更好？为什么他无法把自己的论点拼凑起来呢？
If your best model can't be monitored by copies of itself, why do you think a less capable model can do better? Why is he unable to put his own pieces together?
他要么对这些危险一无所知，要么就是干脆认为 OpenAI 在撒谎，比如当被问及实验室是否担心系统在欺骗他们时，他说‘我不相信’。OpenAI 和 Anthropic 都在各自的系统卡中不断提及这一点，尤其是在 Astra 上。
He also is either uninformed about the dangers, or simply thinks OpenAI is lying, such as when he says 'I don't believe that' about whether the labs worry the systems are tricking them. OpenAI and Anthropic both say this in their system cards, constantly, especially with Astra.
也就是说，不，你几乎永远无法对任何事情有把握。
Which is to say, no, you can never be sure of pretty much anything.
如果你的规则是‘你不能发布一个会损害世界的产品’，而损害程度仅仅是‘入侵一些网站’，那么你就不能发布前沿模型。
If your rule is 'you cannot release a product that will damage the world' on the level of 'hack into some websites' then you cannot release a frontier model.
黄仁勋规则实际上过于严苛了。
The Huang Rule is actually way too harsh.
Ezra Klein 没有强有力的直接追问。这可以理解，因为没人预料到那个回答。他确实继续沿着我推测的原定路径进行。
Ezra Klein does not have a strong direct follow-up. Which is understandable because no one expected that answer. He does continue on what I presume was the planned path.
1. 如果 Jensen Huang 已经拥有 HuggingFace，他会因此起诉 OpenAI 吗？也许。有各种各样的法律。
1. Would Jensen Huang sue OpenAI over this if he already owned HuggingFace? Maybe. There are all kinds of laws.
1. 我的推测是不，你不会起诉。你会争取让步。
1. My presumption is no, you don't sue. You extract concessions.
2. Jensen Huang 同意实验室们表示他们面临一个难题。
2. Jensen Huang agrees that the labs are saying they face a hard problem.
3. 为什么 Jensen 抵制放缓的呼吁？
3. Why does Jensen resist the call to slow down?
好吧，所以这是一个情绪失控的人。他无法理解。事情不可能是那样的。这一定是一个普通的工程问题，关于一个普通的产品，没有人想要不安全的产品，解决它，你们这些懦夫，别再抱怨了。
Okay, so this is a man on tilt. He can't understand. It couldn't possibly be like that. This must be an ordinary engineering problem, about an ordinary product, no one wants an unsafe product, fix it you cowards, and quit your bitching.
他无法理解——我认为他真的无法理解——事情不是那样的，或者这可能具有生存危险性，或者 AI 公司可能面临比安全更快的激励，尽管这一点显而易见。当然，公司总是会发布安全的产品而不是不安全的产品，你要维护声誉。
It does not get through his head, I think it genuinely does not, that this is not like that, or that this might be existentially dangerous, or that the AI companies might face the incentive to go faster than is safe, even though this is utterly obvious. Of course companies will always ship safe products not unsafe products, you have a reputation to maintain.
Jensen Huang 就是不明白。这种态度帮助 Nvidia 取得了伟大成就，考虑到其业务，但这是一个罕见的例外。
Jensen Huang just doesn't get it. And that attitude has helped make Nvidia great, given its business, but that is a rare exception.
你可以说，他在经济上非常有动机不去理解这一点。他是最有经济动机不去理解这一点的人。是的。没错。他一直在最大化利润。
You can say, he's financially highly motivated to not get that. He's the #1 guy for being financially motivated to not get that. Yes. True. He is maximizing profits all the way.
金钱可能是他不理解的主要原因，再加上他的工程思维。
The money is probably a lot of why he doesn't get it, along with his engineering mindset.
但同样，我读这段话时，感觉他作为一个真正、完全就是没搞懂的人。
But also, I read this as someone who really, truly simply does not get it.
Ezra 在这里完全正确。Jensen Huang 的论点证明过头了，除非你能论证这些论点异常强烈地适用于 AI，并且当前的法律法规与这些担忧和危险完全匹配。
Ezra is simply correct here. Jensen Huang's arguments prove too much, unless you make the case that they apply unusually strongly to AI, and that the current laws and regulations are well-matched to the concerns and dangers.
1. Ezra 指出，在许多其他行业中，我们超越了产品责任和刑法，因为那些被证明是不够的，而利润激励本身并没有实现我们想要的结果。Ezra 注意到他感到困惑，为什么当公司说‘我们认为竞争竞赛正迫使我们承担过多风险’时，Jensen Huang 却如此抗拒。
1. Ezra points out that there are many other industries where we go beyond product liability and criminal law, because those were proven to not be enough, and the profit incentive did not alone do what we wanted. Ezra notices he is confused why, when companies say 'we think the competitive race is pushing us to take too many risks' that Jensen Huang is being so resistant.
1. 这确实非常奇怪。对于像 AI 这样的东西，稍微快一点、成为第一所获得的回报是非常明显的。当然，在激烈竞争下，偷工减料是可能的。
1. It really is super weird. It is very obvious the reward you get for being a little bit faster, for being first, with things like AI. Of course under strong competition it is plausible that corners will get cut.
2. Jensen 重申了他对安全产品的承诺。他说：“首席执行官和公司领导人，以及公司的董事会，有责任也应该有勇气做正确的事。”他还说：“美妙之处在于，这些 AI 实验室的现任领导者确实知道”关于危害。
2. Jensen reaffirms his commitment to safe products. He says "C.E.O.s and leaders of companies, and the board of directors of companies, have the responsibility and should have the courage to do the right thing." And he says: "the beautiful thing is, the current leaders of these A.I. labs do know" about the harms.
1. 这就是勇气。这是他们在做正确的事。他们在努力。
1. This is the courage. This is them doing the right thing. They are trying.
2. 如果你的计划是“人们应该只是有勇气”和“人们应该只是做正确的事”，那么天哪，你根本没有计划。完全没有。人们不会只是。不，Jensen 在这里没有使用“只是”这个词，但显然暗示了这一点。
2. If your plan is ‘people should just have courage’ and ‘people should just do the right thing’ then oh boy do you have no plan. At all. People don’t just. No, Jensen doesn’t use the word ‘just’ here but it is clearly implied.
3. 看，我真的希望事情就这么简单。我希望我们可以说“如果你的产品可能杀死所有人，那就停下来。”你会愿意认为这会很容易。但事实并非如此，我们可以看出为什么不是，而且我不会为了让实验室因未表现出那种程度的责任感而受到惩罚就让所有人死去。
3. Look, I really do wish it was that simple. I wish we could say ‘if your product might kill everyone then just stop.’ You would like to think it would be that easy. But it’s not, we can see why it’s not, and I’m not about to let everyone die in order to punish the labs for not displaying that level of responsibility.
4. 总是“产品”。Jensen 只能想象普通的产品安全问题。
4. It’s always ‘products.’ Jensen can only imagine ordinary product safety issues.
3. “然而，在他们工作的复杂性中，要求反垄断或产品责任的监管豁免——我认为这说不通。当你要求监管时，不要要求豁免现有的监管。这对我来说毫无意义。”
3. “However, in the complexity of the work that they do, to ask for regulatory relief for antitrust or product liability relief — that I don’t think makes sense. When you’re asking for regulation, don’t ask for relief of the current ones. That doesn’t make any sense to me.”
1. 他们不是在寻求责任豁免。我重复一遍。他们不是在寻求那个。
1. They are not asking for liability relief. I repeat. They are not asking for that.
2. 他们寻求的是有针对性的反垄断救济，具体是为了在安全标准上合作并减缓发展速度。然而，这却一直被描绘成某种‘奖励’。
2. They are asking for targeted antitrust relief specifically in order to collaborate on safety standards and to slow down development. Yet this keeps getting framed as if it would be some sort of ‘reward.’
3. 你希望他们不要发布产品。他们是在请求法律许可不发布产品。你是在告诉总统不要给他们这个许可。
3. You want them to not ship the product. They are asking for legal permission to not ship the product. You are telling the President not to give it to them.
哦，我不知道，Lumber Liquidators、Theranos、Juul、3M 和 DuPont、Johnson & Johnson、Philip Morris 和 Meta 怎么样？
Oh, I don’t know, how about Lumber Liquidators, Theranos, Juul, 3M and DuPont, Johnson & Johnson, Philip Morris and Meta?
香烟公司在这里尤其令人愤慨。是的，这种情况会发生。
The cigarette companies are especially galling here. Yes, this happens.
通常，如果在这种语境下有人说“给我举个例子”，暗示不存在例子，而回答却是“实际上我有很多例子”，那么你就应该停下来重新思考你处理这种情况的方法。
Usually, if someone says 'give me an example' in that context, implying none exist, and the answer comes back with 'actually I have a lot of examples', then you want to stop and rethink your approach to the situation.
例如，我关于公司通常没有动机推出不安全或有害产品的假设，可能并不太符合现实？
For example, maybe my assumption that companies don't have incentives to ship unsafe or harmful products, in general, might not map very well onto actual reality?
Nvidia 是一家非常特殊的公司。一个提示是，它是世界上最有价值的公司。它可能确实有些过人之处。它制造了人类文明史上最精密、最复杂、性能最高的产品。如果任何微小的事情出错——这里的微小可以用纳米来衡量——那么整个产品就毫无价值。人们有长久的记忆，你的声誉和人际关系至关重要。
Nvidia is a very special company. A hint is that it is the most valuable company in the world. It's probably got something going on. It makes the most precise, complex, high-performing product in the history of civilization. If any tiny thing goes wrong, where tiny can be measured in nanometers, then the whole product is worthless. People have long memories and your reputation and relationships are paramount.
1. Ezra Klein 提出，Astra（两人都正确地认为这是一个极好的模型）难以监控，部分原因是它如此具有情境意识，以至于他们不确定如何测试它。Jensen Huang 说：“好吧，我希望他们没有发布未经测试的东西。”“好吧，那么他们必须小心。”
1. Ezra Klein brings up that Astra (which both correctly agree is a terrific model) is hard to monitor, including because it is so situationally aware that they are not sure how to test it. Jensen Huang says “Well, I hope they didn’t release something that wasn’t tested.” “Well, then they’ve got to be careful.”
2. Jensen 随后解释说模型可以解决问题。他停顿了一下，提出了一些据称由他的 T 恤回答的问题：这样说并不能使模型活过来，或者‘超越这一点’。
2. Jensen then explains that models solve problems. He pauses to raise questions supposedly answered by his t-shirt: Saying this does not make the model alive or ‘anything more than that.’
3. “现在，他们拥有如此大的市场影响力，他们必须将研发，或总研发，从仅仅关注能力转向大量的验证、评估和测试。以至于如果开发这些模型所需的算力增加 10 倍，我也不会感到惊讶，因为评估是如此严格。”
3. “Now, they have so much market footprint, they have to shift their R. & D., or total R. & D., from just capability to a lot of verification, evaluation and testing. To the point where I wouldn’t be surprised if the amount of compute necessary to develop these models increased by a factor of 10, because the evaluation is so rigorous.”
1. 这是另一个重磅消息。这是杀手锏引语之一。
1. This is another bombshell. It is one of the killer quotes.
2. 你能想象如果我们安全倡导者说‘我要求前沿实验室将他们 90% 的研发算力用于对齐、评估和验证’吗？
2. Can you imagine if us safety advocates said ‘I demand the frontier labs spend 90% of their R&D compute on alignment, evaluation and verification’?
这次采访让我对黄仁勋多了不少同情。
This interview made me much more sympathetic to Jensen Huang.
我先前的工作假设是“黄仁勋知道真相但在撒谎”，因为他确实在一些事情上撒谎，而且他本应更清楚。
My previous working hypothesis was 'Jensen Huang knows and is lying' because he lies about things and also he had to know better.
而我的新假设只能是：“黄仁勋在其他事情上撒谎。但在安全问题和竞赛压力上，他实际上是真的困惑。他的工程思维和对产品完美的极度执着，使他非常适合英伟达。但这也让他对生存风险和超级智能的潜力视而不见，还让他完全注意不到那些普通人一眼就能看出的情况。”
Whereas my new hypothesis has to be 'Jensen Huang lies about other things. But on safety and the pressure to race he is actually and genuinely confused. His engineering mindset and total obsession with product perfection make him perfect for Nvidia. But they also blind him to the existential risks and potential for superintelligence and also make him completely unable to notice things about the situation that ordinary humans find obvious.'
我不明白他怎么能看不到这一点，但显然他似乎就是看不到？
I don't get how he can not see this, but it seems clear that he doesn't?
啊，是的。老一套的“如果发布产品会让你被起诉，那太愚蠢了，所以显然快速增长的科技创业公司肯定不会这么做。”
Ah, yes. The old-fashioned 'if you release products that expose you to being sued that would be stupid, so obviously rapidly growing tech startup companies will definitely not be doing that.'
暂且快进一下，Klein 与黄仁勋来回交锋多次，Klein 试图指出激励是存在的，而黄仁勋始终不明白这一点，其方式令人难以置信，但我不明白你为什么要把它当作一个段子来做。
Skipping ahead for a moment, Klein and Huang go back and forth many times, where Klein tries to point out incentives exist, and Huang keeps not getting this, in ways that strain credulity but I don’t get why you would do it as a bit.
这是一个经典的博弈论情境。这是实验室认识到自己的激励是错的。而且，他们无论如何都需要那么多算力。这有什么难的？
This is a classic game theory situation. This is labs recognizing their incentives are wrong. Also, they need all that compute anyway. Why is this hard?
（黄仁勋显然不明白，“慢下来”更像是在呼吁“先别急着坐火箭直奔月球”，而不是“从此净减速”。）
(Jensen Huang clearly does not understand that ‘slow down’ is more a call to ‘not take a rocket ship straight to the moon quite yet’ rather than ‘net slow down from here.’)
如果我们迅速这样做，事情肯定会变得怪异，即使 AI 已经准备好了，因为社会肯定还没有准备好，我说的怪异是指非常不好的事情，甚至包括人类灭绝，但肯定会涉及许多不愉快的干扰，尽管最终可能会成功。
Things will definitely get weird if we do that quickly, even if the AI is ready, because society definitely will not be ready, and by weird I mean highly ungood things up to and including human extinction but definitely involving a lot of unfun disruptions, although it might end up working out.
那不是 Jensen 在这里的核心观点。他的观点更多是让你先管好自己的事，然后再来哭求帮助。我同情这种本能，但这不是给这些实验室一个责任教训，也不是实验室不负责任就意味着这不再是一个值得解决的问题，而且我们没有时间把它变成一场道德剧：‘在你把自己的事情处理好之前，你不配得到帮助。’
That’s not Jensen’s central point here. His point here is more to get your own house in order before coming crying for help. I am sympathetic to that instinct, but it is not about teaching these labs a lesson in responsibility, nor does the labs being irresponsible mean this stops being a problem worth solving, and we do not have the kind of time to make this into a morality play of ‘you do not deserve help until after you have your house in order.’
是的，这是一个很好的论点，即实验室如果不是必要就不会这样做。这很难看，损害士气，损害声誉。请告诉其他人。那么他们必须相信这一点。
Yes, this is an excellent argument that the labs would not do this if it wasn’t necessary. It is a terrible look, it hurts morale, it hurts reputation. Please tell everyone else. They must believe it, then.
但更重要的是，Jensen Huang 似乎痴迷于指责。我猜他经营着一家非常注重指责的企业。被指责是失败者的前提，对他来说毫无意义。实验室必须试图避免指责。指责必须正确分配，应受指责的人不应得到奖励。
More than that, though, Jensen Huang seems obsessed with blame. I am guessing he runs a very blame-focused business. Being blamed is loser premise, makes no sense to him. The labs must be trying to avoid blame. Blame must be correctly assigned, and the blameworthy must not be rewarded.
如果指责现在真的、真的不重要呢？
What if blame really, really was not important right now?
Ezra Klein 触及了这个问题。Jensen Huang 并不担心存在性风险，而且他对那些敢于在公开场合谈论存在性风险、仿佛它是真实存在的、或为其赋予概率的人非常愤怒。
Ezra Klein goes there. Jensen Huang is not worried about existential risk, and he is very angry about people who dare talk about existential risk in public as if it was real, or assign probabilities to it.
这是一个失败的前提。对他来说毫无意义。
It is a loser premise. It makes no sense to him.
他一直坚持否认，所以人们不再向他提起这个话题：
He has been consistent about his denial, so people stopped bringing it up to him:
是的，Jensen Huang，当他们与你交谈时，他们是在与一个关键的商业关系和一个已知态度的人交谈，所以他们采取外交辞令。
Yes, Jensen Huang, when they talk to you they are talking to a key business relationship and someone with a known attitude, so they do a diplomacy.
Jensen Huang 随后试图否认那些担忧 AI 存在性风险的人曾对 AI 如何 Scaling（规模扩张）和获得能力、或如何显现对齐问题做出了良好预测，并且不让任何人告诉他不同的说法。
Jensen Huang then tries to deny that those worried about AI existential risk made good predictions about how AI would scale and gain capability, or how it would show alignment problems, and is not letting anyone tell him different.
Jensen 打断 Ezra 的例子，说 Ezra 没有例子。
Jensen interrupts Ezra's example to say Ezra has no examples.
实际上，那些当前担忧（以及此前担忧）AI 存在性风险的人，对 AI 的预测远比那些当前不担忧的人准确得多。这包括诸如‘这将会变得很大，所以我要创建一个 AI 实验室，因为首先构建这个很重要’这样的预测。
In actuality, those currently worried (and previously worried) about AI existential risk made vastly better predictions about AI than those who are not currently worried. This includes predictions like 'this is going to be big so I am going to create an AI lab, because it is important that I build this first.'
Jensen 显然情绪失控，几乎无法抑制他的愤怒：有人可能将数字心智视为与其他软件不同，或者可能担忧让它们变得更智能的后果，或者进行拟人化，或者认为 AI 在任何方面与其他技术不同。
Jensen is clearly on tilt and barely containing his rage that someone might treat digital minds as if they were different than other software, or might be worried about the consequences of making them smarter, or doing an anthropomorphism, or that AI is in any way different from any other technology.
他继续说着。我鼓励那些认真对待他的人读完这部分。他真的只是在反复强调，这是软件，和其他软件一样。它六个月前才变得有用，所以现在他们必须在安全上花更多钱并消除漏洞，然后他们消除了漏洞，就这样，放松点。
He keeps going. I encourage those who take him seriously to read through this part. He really just keeps hammering, this is software, it is the same as other software. It just became useful six months ago, so now they have to spend more on safety and get the bugs out, then they get the bugs out, that's it, relax.
好吧。就测试产品，他一遍又一遍地说。明白了。
Okie dokie. Just test the product, he keeps saying over and over. Got it.
这是 Ezra 对 Jensen 立场的总结：
This is Ezra's summary of Jensen's position:
他们不具备使事物安全的工程能力，很大程度上是因为这并非一个工程问题。
They do not have the engineering capabilities to make things safe, largely because this is not an engineering problem.
按照 Jensen 的标准，公司会发布不安全的东西。他们一直如此。
Companies will ship that which is not safe, by Jensen's standards. They do all the time.
即使公司不会发布不安全的东西，内部部署甚至更加危险，而 Jensen 大多不理解这一点。
Even if companies would not ship that which is not safe, internal deployment is even more dangerous, which Jensen mostly does not understand.
Jensen Huang 是地球上最重要的人物，他通过反对为安全而设的反垄断豁免，来争取保留积极干预的外部干预。
Jensen Huang is the person on Earth most importantly fighting to retain external intervention that actively interferes, by fighting against the antitrust exemption for safety.
Ezra Klein 接着谈到芯片，这是黄仁勋的拿手领域。其中很多内容虽然准确，但属于老生常谈，可以跳过。
Ezra Klein then continues on to chips, where Jensen Huang is in his element. A lot of it becomes accurate but standard talk and skippable.
这种算法不可持续。有人没有在追求利润最大化，至少在中短期内没有。在本次对话中，那个人是否就在我们房间里？
That math is not sustainable. Someone is not profit maximizing, at least not in the short to medium term. Is that person in the room with us during this conversation?
解释是，他引用的是短缺时期的价格，仿佛那是永久的租赁费率，他之前在 9 月 15 日的 Dreamforce 大会上就这么做过。
The explanation is that he is quoting the price during a shortage, as if it were the permanent rental rate, which he did before at Dreamforce on September 15.
黄仁勋得以吹嘘他的芯片，吹嘘他的投资和美国的再工业化，呼吁更多关注扩散，并谈论造福美国。
Jensen Huang gets to brag about his chips, and he gets to brag about his investments and the reindustrialization of America, and calls for more focus on diffusion, and talks about benefiting America.
那里有一种深刻的诚实。这并不激励他，因此没有必要。这类似于‘失败者前提对我来说毫无意义’。信念的存在不是为了映射现实，而是为了有用，而这个信念对他没有用。如此而已。
There is something deeply honest there. It does not inspire him, thus it is not necessary. This is similar to ‘loser premise makes no sense to me.’ Beliefs do not exist to map to reality, they exist to be useful, and this belief is not useful to him. So it goes.
黄仁勋是否曾停下来思考过其中涉及的实际动态及其影响？归根结底，事情就是这样。芯片一旦发出，谁在乎它们最终落到哪里？黄仁勋反而试图转向安全话题。
Did Jensen Huang ever stop to think about the actual dynamics involved and their implications? Ultimately it is what it is. Once the chips go out who cares where they come down? Jensen instead attempts to pivot to safety.
正是在这里，黄仁勋说出了一个明显的彻头彻尾的谎言，声称如果我们通过一项法律，要求英伟达在向其他国家出售芯片之前先向美国公司提供芯片，他会“非常高兴”。而这恰恰是英伟达曾竭力扼杀的一项法案。
This is where Jensen tells one of his clear outright lies, saying he’d be ‘delighted’ if we passed a law requiring Nvidia to offer its chips to US companies before selling them to other countries. This is exactly a bill Nvidia fought hard to kill.
从黄仁勋的角度来看，我们并非处于一场通往超级智能的竞赛中，因为他根本不相信超级智能这回事。他所知道的只是他不想放弃中国芯片市场，而零和思维是毫无意义的失败者前提。
From Jensen’s perspective, it’s not like we are in a race to superintelligence, since he doesn’t believe that is a thing. All he knows is that he doesn’t want to give up the Chinese chip market, and zero sum thinking is loser premise that makes no sense.
然而，即使没有这些顾虑，他仍然想转向安全话题。而且他这样做也是对的。
Yet even without those concerns, he still wants to pivot to safety. He’d be right, too.
他们以关于能源的一节作为结尾，我们三人都对此表示支持。超级粉丝。
They close with a section on energy, which all three of us are in favor of. Big fans.
他还附和了将数据中心反对立场与存在性风险担忧混为一谈的说法，因为他认为，如果你相信存在性风险，你就不会支持数据中心。好吧，事实证明，你不仅会支持数据中心，还会创建顶尖的 AI 实验室。
He also echoes the conflation of data center opposition and existential risk concerns, because he thinks that if you believed in existential risk you would not support data centers. Well, it turns out not only would you support data centers, you would create the top AI labs.
Jensen Huang 有许多非常令人钦佩的特质。他看起来确实是一个正和思维者、一位专注的工程师，以及一个以最高标准对产品安全和质量负责的人，等等。他显然不属于我的知识传统，有时他也会不择手段，但我是一个资本家，也是一个获利丰厚的股东。如果这是另一个行业或另一个时刻，我可能会是他的超级粉丝。
Jensen Huang has a lot of highly admirable characteristics. He does seem like a positive-sum thinker, a dedicated engineer, and someone who holds himself responsible for product safety and quality at the highest standard, and so on. He is clearly not of my intellectual traditions, and sometimes he fights dirty, but I am a capitalist and a highly profitable shareholder. If this were a different industry or a different moment, I would probably be a huge fan.
此外，他给了我们这三句杀手级引语：
Also, he gave us these three killer quotes:
第一，如果实验室无法解决安全问题，我们就需要关闭它们：
First, that we need to shut down the labs if they can't fix the safety issues:
第二，关于需要大幅增加在验证、评估和测试上的支出，即使没有实际的安全工作，仅这些成本就高达 10 倍：
Second, on the need to spend vastly more on verification, evaluation and testing alone, even without the actual safety work, such that we are talking a factor of 10 in costs:
第三，他建议我们投票告诉他们放慢速度，并且他会支持这一点，这也就是所谓的民主治理：
Third, that he suggests we vote to tell them to slow down, and that he would support that, which is also known as democratic governance:
唉，我们身处这个行业，身处此刻，而他很可能把我们所有人都害死。
Alas, we are in this industry, at this moment, and he may well get us all killed.