Trump Goes Full Hoax on AI Existential Risk
打开互动全文版（逐段中英对照 + 图/公式 + 论文问答）→文章认为，特朗普总统将 AI 生存风险斥为骗局，作者将这一说法主要归因于黄仁勋（Nvidia CEO）和 David Sacks 等人的误导性简报，这些人的商业利益与淡化 AI 危险相一致。文章主张，特朗普的言论把对数据中心的担忧与对灾难性 AI 风险的警告混为一谈，而他反复变化的立场使局势悬而未决、仍有变数。作者坚持认为，AI 末日论者是真诚的，把他们的警告称为骗局在事实上是错误的，而像黄仁勋这样玩世不恭的行为者正积极把政策推向悬崖。文章呼吁读者不要以党派立场或个人攻击回应特朗普或共和党人，因为那样只会让结果更糟，而应提升跨政治光谱中有益的声音。结论是：局势并非已成定局，特朗普的立场可能再次转变，当务之急是避免让事情变得更糟，同时继续点名批评那些具体的恶意行为者。
The article argues that President Trump has dismissed AI existential risk as a hoax, a claim the author attributes largely to misleading briefings from figures such as Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang and David Sacks, whose commercial interests align with downplaying AI dangers. It contends that Trump's rhetoric conflates concerns about data centers with warnings about catastrophic AI risk, and that his shifting positions leave the situation unsettled and open to change. The author maintains that AI doomers are sincere, that calling their warnings a hoax is factually wrong, and that cynical actors like Huang are actively driving policy off a cliff. Readers are urged not to respond with partisan or personal attacks on Trump or Republicans, since doing so would only worsen the outcome, and instead to elevate helpful voices across the political spectrum. The conclusion is that the situation is not fixed, that Trump's stance could shift again, and that the priority is to avoid making things worse while continuing to call out specific bad-faith actors.
5. 总统先生，这无关数据中心。
5. This Is Not About Data Centers, Mr. President.
6. 我是打假者，我是打假者，我是海象。
6. I Am The Hoax Buster, I Am The Hoax Buster, I Am The Walrus.
7. Nvidia CEO 黄仁勋是个撒谎的骗子。
7. Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang Is a Lying Liar.
8. 特朗普悄然划出关键区分。
8. Trump Quietly Draws Key Distinction.
9. 呼吁放缓前沿模型发展对 AI 股价不利。
9. Calling For Pacing the Frontier Is Bad For AI Stock Prices.
10. 互联网上的人有时会说谎。
10. People on the Internet Sometimes Lie.
13. 麦卡锡主义派系攻击 METR。
13. The McCarthyist Faction Attacks METR.
15. 大卫·萨克斯不再表现得有建设性。
15. David Sacks Stops Being Plausibly Constructive.
16. 联邦贸易委员会选择危险。
16. Federal Trade Commission Chooses Danger.
21. 如果你如此想击败中国，你就应该拿出相应的行动。
21. If You Want to Beat China So Badly, You Should Act Like It.
随着事态发展，最重要的事情仍然是不要使情况变得更糟。
The most important thing, as this plays out, remains to not make things worse.
请不要让这件事比现在更加党派化或人身攻击化。请不要攻击共和党人或特朗普。那只会让事情变得更糟。要强调各方有益的声音。
Please do not make this any more partisan or personal than it already is. Please do not attack Republicans, or Trump. That will only make things worse. Emphasize helpful voices on all sides.
这并不意味着你不能指出错误帖子就是错误的，或者某些人确实居心不良或以特定方式撒谎。当然，你可以点名像詹森和萨克斯这样的老面孔，他们正在积极地把我们推向悬崖。
That does not mean you do not point out that Wrong Post is Wrong, or that particular people are in bad faith or are lying in particular ways. Certainly you can call out the Usual Suspects like Jensen and Sacks who are actively driving us off a cliff.
你不应该做的是把共和党人作为一个群体来攻击，或者以你们许多人会强烈想要的方式对特朗普进行人身攻击。
What you do not do is go after Republicans as a group, or attack Trump personally in all the ways many of you will be sorely tempted to do.
出于同样的原因，为了避免强化党派框架，我将避免引用民主党政治人物的相关言论。
For the same reason, to avoid reinforcing a partisan frame, I will refrain from including related statements from Democratic politicians.
在我们深入细节之前，我还要强调：这里没有任何事情是固定不变的。
Before we get into details, I also emphasize: Nothing here is fixed.
每个月都不同。特朗普的立场说变就变。在过去几个月里，他在 Anthropic 和 Dario Amodei 的问题上已经反复过好几次。如果再次发生重大 AI 事件，或者政治风向改变，又或者中期选举之后，一切皆有可能。
Every month is different. Trump changes positions on a dime. Trump has gone back and forth several times on Anthropic and Dario Amodei within the last few months. If there is another major AI incident or the politics changes, or after the midterms, anything is possible.
而且，这其中很多可能是在美中峰会前故作姿态，以显得强硬并摆出谈判立场，中国对这一切的反应也可能如此。
And a lot of this can be posturing in advance of the US-China summit, to look tough and stake out a negotiating position, as could be China's reactions to all this.
情况看起来不妙。这些表态可能已在某种程度上越过了卢比孔河，会让回头变得更加困难。但过去这并不总能拦住这个人，而且有明确迹象表明，特朗普并不理解当前局势。他很可能只听取了贝森特、卢特尼克和詹森中某几位组合的简报。
It does not look good. These statements could have somewhat crossed the Rubicon and will make it harder to double back. But that has not always stopped this man in the past, and there are clear signs that Trump does not understand the situation. He likely has only been briefed by some combination of Bessent, Lutnick and Jensen.
周一，当特朗普发表了一些相当令人担忧的言论时，我提醒说媒体正在急于下结论，误读了特朗普的话。是的，特朗普对这一切的氛围感到不满，但他的不满是针对数据中心。
On Monday, as Trump made some rather concerning statements, I cautioned that the press was jumping to conclusions and misreading what Trump said. Yes, Trump was unhappy about the vibes from all this, but his beef was about the data centers.
我坚持我的立场：这可能有多种含义。事情最终的发展远未确定，而跳到最坏的结论只会让那种结局更可能发生。
I stand by my position that this could have meant any number of things. The way things ultimately went was far from determined, and jumping to the worst-case conclusion only made that ending more likely.
你当然不能把这解读为“美国将没有任何 AI 护栏”，因为特朗普已经建立了超级秘密的 AI 护栏，并出于安全考虑将顶级 AI 模型从市场上撤下了数周。我们现在也无限期地处在一个白宫任意决定谁可以访问 Claude Mythos 的世界中。
You certainly cannot read this as 'America will have zero AI guardrails' when Trump has already instituted super secret AI guardrails and yanked the top AI model from the market for weeks on safety concerns. We are also now indefinitely in a world where the White House arbitrarily decides who gets access to Claude Mythos.
这一切都与想要完全没有护栏不相容。
None of this is compatible with wanting no guardrails at all.
有些人说，我和 Roon 对媒体过早标题的质疑是各种版本的“疯狂自我安慰”，并指责我们天真或阅读理解能力差。
There were those who said that my and Roon's challenges of the media's premature headlines were various versions of 'insane cope' and accused us of being naive or having poor reading comprehension.
当然，鉴于所发生的情况，那些人赢得了一些贝叶斯分数，而我们输了；如果事情朝相反方向发展，我们本可以从他们那里赢得多少分数。事情就是这样运作的。我认输。
Certainly those people score some Bayes points given what happened, and we lose them, given how many we would have stood to win at their expense had this gone the other way. That's how it has to work. I take the L.
我仍然认为这次我‘本该输’，而且当时的解读是正确的。当时，我们没有足够的证据知道它会朝哪个方向发展。
I still think I was 'supposed to lose' this one, and that the read was correct. At the time, we had insufficient evidence to know which way it would land.
如果你认为特朗普的第一条评论应该让我们完全更新看法，而他后来的评论没有包含太多信息，我认为你错了。我仍然认为，在他发表第一条评论时，特朗普本人很可能不知道他打算在这里做什么。
If you think Trump's first comment should have updated us all the way, and his later comments did not contain much information, I think you are incorrect. I still think it is likely that, at the time of his first comments, Trump himself did not know what he intended to do here.
随后，某件事让他彻底走上了对抗之路。我猜是黄仁勋。
Then something got him fully on the warpath. I am guessing it was Jensen Huang.
听起来特朗普确实认为这些警告是针对数据中心的阴谋？尽管达里奥·阿莫代伊、萨姆·奥尔特曼和埃隆·马斯克是推动建设美国数据中心最积极的五个人中的三位，并且通过他们的公司积极资助了其中很大一部分。得有人告诉总统。
It sure sounds like Trump thinks these warnings are a plot against data centers? Despite the fact that Dario Amodei and Sam Altman and Elon Musk are three of the top five people most heavily pushing to build American data centers, and actively funding a large fraction of them via their companies. Someone tell the President.
人们可以看出这种压缩是如何形成的。不，这毫无道理，但生活就是这样。
One can see how that compression got made. No, it makes no sense, but such is life.
我不打算去争论哪些失误可能或不可能导致了事情如此发展。过去已经过去。这是我们的现在。
I am not going to try to litigate which missteps may or may not have contributed to this being the way it played out. The past is the past. This is our present.
然后事情就发展到了另一个层次。
And then things went, well, to another level.
我知道这是悲剧性的、可怕的，以及许多其他糟糕的事情。但是。
I know this is tragic, horrible and many other things. But.
如果你能把这些放在一边，它也非常好笑。这首歌还需要一些打磨，不幸的是 Grok 没法让他唱出来，但我告诉你，这里面有点东西。他是个独一无二的天才。我写不出那个。你也写不出那个。
If you can set those things aside it is also extremely funny. The song needs some work and unfortunately Grok can't make him sing, but I tell you, there's something there. He's a singular talent. I couldn't write that. You couldn't write that.
根据 Astra 的统计，这至少是第 20 个此类骗局，还包括夏洛茨维尔、俄罗斯、俄罗斯悬赏美国军人、机密文件案、纽约民事欺诈案、E. Jean Carroll 的指控、他与爱泼斯坦有联系、对 Brett Kavanaugh 的指控、负担能力危机、官方失业率、'傻瓜和失败者'的故事、'大屠杀'争议、Bubba Wallace 绞索事件、对他应对新冠的批评、气候变化、因乌克兰问题首次弹劾、第二次弹劾、1 月 6 日作为叛乱、拜登赢得 2020 年大选，以及现在 AI 具有生存风险。
By Astra's count this will be at least the 20th such Hoax, joining Charlottesville, Russia, Russian bounties on American troops, the classified documents case, the New York civil fraud case, the accusations by E. Jean Carroll, that he has connections to Epstein, the accusations against Brett Kavanaugh, the affordability crisis, the official unemployment rate, the 'suckers and losers' story, the 'bloodbath' controversy, the Bubba Wallace noose incident, criticism of his response to Covid, climate change, first impeachment over Ukraine, second impeachment, January 6 as an insurrection, Biden winning the 2020 election and now that AI has existential risks.
这就是现实。这就是地球。这是 2026 年。我们看到美国总统这样说话，我们都想'是啊，我们知道，就是这样。'
This is reality. This is Earth. This is 2026. We saw that the President of the United States talks this way and we all thought 'yeah, we know, that's just how it is.'
人们声称没有注意到他是一个不断撒谎的骗子，这显然是荒谬的。
It is patently absurd that people claim not to notice that he is a constantly lying liar.
我作为股东这么说。声称 Coxon 的说法“无视了行业的安全工作”，意味着黄仁勋在彻头彻尾地撒谎。这已经超出了胡扯的范畴。不要假装不是这样。
I say this as a shareholder. To claim that Coxon's claims are 'ignorant of the industry's safety work' means Huang is straight up lying. This has moved beyond mere bullshit. Do not pretend otherwise.
后来，在 All-In 峰会上，Jensen 会缓和这一说法。
Later, at the All-In Summit, Jensen would moderate that.
然后他又回去假装这一切都可以通过普通的产品责任和市场力量来解决。如果你的 AI 杀死了所有人，我们会起诉你，没人会再买你的产品，你会后悔莫及。
Then he goes back to pretending this is all solved by ordinary product liability and market forces. If your AI kills everyone then we will sue you, and no one will buy your product anymore, and boy will you be sorry.
想必你注意到了，不，我们不会起诉你，因为我们都死了。
Presumably you noticed that no, we won't sue you, on account of being dead and all.
黄仁勋是一个极度愤世嫉俗的商业和政治行为者，他唯一的目标就是把英伟达芯片卖给任何他能卖的人，尤其是中国。这一点再清楚不过了。
Jensen is a maximally cynical commercial and political actor whose one and only goal is to sell Nvidia chips to whoever he can, especially China. This could not be clearer.
黄仁勋关于 AI 生存风险或任何 AI 负面影响的言论，早已不再假装与现实有任何关联，除了对英伟达有利的部分。
Jensen's statements about AI existential risk, or any AI downsides, long ago stopped pretending to have any correlation with reality, other than what is good for Nvidia.
黄仁勋不在乎世界是否被毁灭，只要他能拥有一家伟大的公司。他本来就已经有了，但这样一来它会更伟大一点。又一次。
Jensen does not care if the world is destroyed, so long as he gets to have a great company. Which he already had, but this way it is slightly more great. Again.
在 All-In 科技峰会上（当然），黄仁勋上台阐述他的观点，并接听了特朗普大约五分钟的电话。
At the All-In Tech Summit (of course), Jensen Huang went onstage to make his case, and took an about five minute phone call from Trump.
不同文字记录之间对于这里的‘他们’指代谁存在争议。主持人提供了一份文字记录，将其归因于[末日论者]，我相信这就是这里的大致意图。
There is dispute between transcripts over who 'they' refers to here. The hosts offer a transcript that attributes this to [doomers] and I believe that was the broad intent here.
我确实从一些措辞细节中得到些许安慰。面对特朗普这样的混乱制造者，你细致的解读总会被事件所推翻，情况不断变化。我意识到这听起来像是在吹毛求疵。好吧。
I do take solace in some word details. With a chaos agent like Trump, your careful interpretations can always get overtaken by events, things change constantly. I realize this is going to sound like splitting hairs. Fine.
但请注意，他说那些‘末日论者’正‘正中他人下怀’。
But notice that he's saying the 'doomers' are 'playing right into the hands' of people.
这等于含蓄地承认，在特朗普看来，那些警告我们的‘末日论者’是真诚的。你不会‘正中’你的同谋或盟友的‘下怀’。这种语言是用来描述政治中所谓的‘有用的白痴’——即那些相信自己所说的话，却在客观上对他人有利的人。
That is an implicit admission that, in Trump's mind, the 'doomers' warning us are sincere. You do not 'play into the hands of' your co-conspirators or allies. This is the language you use to describe what in politics is called a Useful Idiot, someone who believes what they are saying in a way that acts to someone else's advantage.
特朗普称这是‘骗局’，是因为他信奉一种不妨称之为‘基于暗示的认识论’。从历史上看，这对他很管用。你可能不喜欢，但这正是‘峰值证据决策理论’的样子。
Trump is calling this a 'hoax' because he believes in, to attempt to coin a phrase, what one might call implication-based epistemology. Historically it has worked well for him. You may not like it, but this is what Peak Evidential Decision Theory looks like.
Zac Hill 是最新一位提醒我们的人：如果 AI 公司想向美国推销他们的新技术，他们几乎会做与他们正在做的事情相反的事。然而，产品仍然自我推销。
Zac Hill is the latest to remind us that if AI companies wanted to sell America on their new technology, they would do pretty much the opposite of what they are doing. Yet the product still sells itself.
这一切都显而易见，这就是为什么 Jensen 和 Trump 如此执着于称其为“骗局”。但许多人仍然持相反看法，所以让我们说得更明确些：
This is all utterly obvious, and is why Jensen and Trump are so bent on calling this a ‘hoax.’ But many people still think the opposite, so let us be even more explicit:
Michael Burry 已经从称 AI 为泡沫转向称其为卡特尔。根据 Tabarrok 解释的原因，以及 Jensen 和 Trump 的反应所证明的，这毫无道理。在他这种情况下，我不认为他在撒谎。我认为 Burry 只是陷得太深了。
Michael Burry has moved on from calling AI a bubble to calling it a cartel. For the reasons explained by Tabarrok, and demonstrated by the reactions of Jensen and Trump, this makes no sense. In his case I do not think he is lying. I think Burry is just in way too deep.
Matt Levine 不知怎地不同意。他认为 Dario Amodei 的呼吁完全真诚，并且通过扩大总可寻址市场和降低训练成本，也是极好的营销。Matt Levine 总是非常有趣，擅长由齿轮构成的金融基础设施，并且擅长为所有荒谬的主张——无论是反垄断违规、极好的营销还是经典的证券欺诈——构建钢人论证。是的，你可以想象这样的抱怨，事实上我见过。
Matt Levine somehow disagrees. He thinks that Dario Amodei’s call was entirely sincere and also great marketing by expanding the total addressable market and reducing training costs. Matt Levine is always very funny, and excellent with financial infrastructure made of gears, and is great for making a steelman of all utterly ridiculous claims that something is an antitrust violation, great marketing or classically securities fraud. Yes, you can imagine such complaints, indeed I have seen them.
Matt Levine 从未真正感兴趣的是，他构建的荒谬钢人论证是否有任何价值，或者是否有人能真诚地说出它。那不是他的部门。他在这里是为了沉思。我尊重这一点。
What Matt Levine has never been that interested in is whether the ludicrous steelman he constructs has any merit, or whether anyone could actually say it in good faith. That’s not his department. He is here to muse. I respect that.
永远不要改变，Matt Levine：弄臣也能向国王直言真相。
Never change, Matt Levine: the jester can speak truth to the king.
众所周知，人身攻击几乎是最低层次的讨论方式，但实际上还有一个更低的层次：既进行人身攻击，又恰好与事实完全相反。
Ad hominem is famously almost the lowest level of discourse, but actually there is an additional lower level: ad hominem attacks that are also exactly the opposite of true.
事实恰恰相反。那些担忧 AI 的人一直绝大多数都支持核能，而且我们知道气候变化是真实的，但这类人几乎从不是‘气候末日论者’，多年来一直主张把注意力放在别处。这纯粹是在撒谎。要么是 Erick 在撒谎，要么是他被人骗了，而且根本懒得去核实。
The opposite is true. Those worried about AI have always overwhelmingly favored nuclear power, and we know climate change is real, but such folks are almost never 'climate doomers' and have argued for years to focus elsewhere. This is straight lying. Either Erick is lying, or he has been lied to and did not care to check, at all.
很多人说 AI 可能会杀死所有人。他们中的许多人处于能够了解真相的位置。
A lot of people say that AI might kill everyone. A lot of them are in a position to know.
有些人无法理解“他们相信这一点”作为一种解释。为什么？
There are those for whom ‘they believe it’ does not compute as an explanation. Why?
我认为这是认为所有人都在撒谎的三个主要真实理由中的两个，我将其总结为：
I think those are two of the three main true reasons for believing that everyone is lying about this, which I would summarize as:
1. 或者：所有掌权者都撒谎，或者所有人都撒谎，或者所有人总是为自己的利益和私心说话。
1. Alternatively: Everyone with power lies, or everyone lies, or everyone always talks their own book and their own self-interest.
2. 那听起来很怪，因此它不是真的。
2. That sounds weird, therefore it is not real.
3. 那将非常糟糕，因此它不是真的。
3. That would be very bad, therefore it is not true.
那么，在所有三种情况下：因此，他们在撒谎，证毕。
Then, in all three cases: Therefore, they are lying, QED.
David Shor 向我们推荐了一篇 2018 年的论文，题为《犬儒天才幻觉：探索与驳斥关于犬儒主义与能力的世俗信念》，作为这种思维方式的例证。银河级大脑们正倾巢而出。
David Shor links us to a paper from 2018 called The Cynical Genius Illusion: Exploring and Debunking Lay Beliefs About Cynicism and Competence, as illustrative of this style of thinking. The galaxy brains are out in force.
人们说，这既是一种推高估值的犬儒伎俩，也是一种在估值下跌时预设借口的犬儒伎俩。
This is both, people say, a cynical ploy to pump up valuations, and a cynical ploy to set up excuses if valuations go down.
绝对不要因为‘有效利他主义者’被点名而恐慌。
Definitely do not panic about ‘Effective Altruists’ being called out by name.
这场替罪羊运动早就开始了，由 Marc Andreessen 带头。
This scapegoat campaign started long ago, spearheaded by Marc Andreessen.
我的意思是，别误会，a16z 一直在尝试，他们在某些方面，尤其是在政治上，让它成了一个贬义词。但这种盲目的愤怒，如果有的话，反而应该受到欢迎。
I mean, don’t get me wrong, a16z has been trying, and they have in some ways made it a dirty word in politics in particular. But this kind of blind rage should if anything be welcomed.
对于那些认为如果 AI 失控，我们都会集体合作应对的人，好吧，美国战争部已经失控了，似乎没有人倾向于做任何事，也许是因为它如此明显地无效。
For those who think that if an AI went rogue we would all collectively work together to deal with it, well, the US Department of War has gone rogue and no one seems inclined to do anything about it, perhaps because it is so obviously ineffective.
首先他们忽视你，然后他们嘲笑你，然后他们与你为敌，然后你赢了。
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
这也会引发斯特赖桑德效应。基本上没有人知道有效利他主义是什么，也不知道大多数关于 AI 存在风险的想法。如果你开始猛烈抨击 EA，尤其是在一个高度两极化的环境中，你认为会发生什么？
This also invokes the Streisand Effect. Essentially no one knows what Effective Altruism is, or most of the ideas around AI existential risk. If you start railing against EA, especially in a highly polarized environment, what do you think happens?
试图发起一场新的麦卡锡主义不仅不会奏效，还会让所有人都说‘嘿，看看他们想搞麦卡锡主义的这个东西。’
Attempting to launch a new McCarthyism not only will not work, it will cause everyone to go ‘hey check out this thing they’re trying to do a McCarthyism on.’
然后他们发现，这不过是关于试图通过慈善来做最大的善事。
And then they find out it’s about trying to do the most good via charity.
这是一个合乎逻辑的首个目标。也许我应该更担心，但主要是我觉得这适得其反，更重要的是，这很滑稽。
This is a logical first target. Maybe I should be more concerned, but mostly I find it counterproductive and, more importantly, hilarious.
这是《纽约邮报》真实的头版，将这件事与过去那些‘无头尸体在无上装酒吧’之类的获奖标题并列供奉：
This is the actual, real-life front page of the New York Post, enshrining this story alongside past winners like 'Headless Body in Topless Bar':
谁不想成为‘AI 巫师’呢？
Who wouldn't want to be the 'Wizards of AI'?
如果有一个新版本的 Pangram，用 AI 来检测‘敷衍了事的攻击文章腔调’，你根本不需要它，因为这太经典了。你看，[A] 声称独立于 [B]，但 [A] 的根源可以追溯到 [C]，而 [C] 曾与 [D] 有关联，[D] 是个坏透了的人，他曾与 [B] 有关联，所以将死 [外群体]，我们已经发现了你们的阴谋。
If there was a new version of Pangram that used AI to detect Hack Job Hit Piece Voice, you would not need it, because this is so classic. You see, [A] claims to be independent of [B], but [A] traces its roots back to [C], which was once associated with [D], and [D] was a bad, bad person, who once was associated with [B], so checkmate [outgroup], we have discovered your conspiracy.
全文都延续这种风格。你看，METR 里竟然有（倒吸一口凉气）有效利他主义者，而且一些投资了 Anthropic 的人也资助了 METR，比如 Jaan Tallinn，这一定是什么大阴谋。诸如此类。零新事实，甚至没有任何关注此事的人不知道的内容。
It continues in this vein throughout. You see, there are (gasp) Effective Altruists at METR, and some of the same people who invested in Anthropic also helped fund METR, like Jaan Tallinn, it must be some grand conspiracy. And so on. There are zero new facts, or even anything that is not common knowledge among those paying attention.
“完全是个笑话”这句话来自 Perry Metzger，他四处发帖，在包括我本人在内的各种 Twitter 帖子下发表疯狂谩骂，并且是行业反监管组织“未来联盟”的主席。这让人对 Barrabi 那篇攻击性文章的来源有所猜测。
The 'complete joke' line was obtained from Perry Metzger, who goes around posting unhinged rants in reply to various Twitter posts including my own, and is chairman of the industry anti-regulation group Alliance for the Future. That offers a guess as to the origins of Barrabi's hit piece.
这一点也是如此，它要么表明白宫内部存在深度混淆——众所周知他们常做此类混为一谈之事——要么表明消息来源在编造事实。
So does this, which could be either a deep confusion at the White House, where they have been known to make such conflations, or the source making things up.
“觉醒”这个标签纯粹是他们硬塞进标题和第一句话里的，一如既往，既无任何事实依据，也未提供任何证据。METR 在任何意义上都绝非“觉醒”。
The 'woke' label is purely something they threw in the headline and first sentence, with neither any actual truth to it nor any evidence provided, as per usual. METR is not, in any sense whatsoever, 'woke.'
标题中的“全球主义者”标签完全是不相干的推论。惯用套路。
The 'globalist' label in the headline is a complete non-sequitur. Usual playbook.
另一个隐含论点是：看看这些大幅照片，这么多杰出的 METR 员工，与 Dario Amodei 不同，他们上镜且好看。
The other implicit argument is, look at these large photos of so many prominent METR employees who, unlike Dario Amodei, photograph well and look good.
这并不是说潜在的利益冲突没有问题。是的，我们当然也希望有能带来额外视角的审计员，与 METR 在 Anthropic 和其他地方并肩工作。如果你想要那种‘公平竞争’的外部视角攻击文章，请看 SE Gyges。
That is not to say that there are no issues with potential conflicts of interest. Yes, of course we also will want auditors that bring additional perspectives, to work alongside METR, both at Anthropic and elsewhere. If you want the 'fair play' outside view hit piece, see SE Gyges.
这里真正的问题是众所周知的、已被承认的，并且是不可避免的。你需要前实验室员工和那些背景与实验室有关联的人，因为没有其他人具备完成这项工作的技术专长。而且你需要给审计员足够的报酬以吸引优秀人才，并且不向他们收费，这意味着你需要向关心此类问题的慈善家寻求资助。大多数行业都有某种形式的确切问题。
The issues that are real here are well known, acknowledged, and were not avoidable. You need former lab employees and those whose backgrounds have links to the labs, because no one else has the technical expertise to do the job. And you need auditors to get paid enough to attract strong talent and not charge for their services, which means you need to hit up the philanthropists who care about such issues. Most industries have some form of exactly this problem.
如果你能创建自己的外部视角、高度可信且技术能力强的监督组织来在这个领域竞争，那将真的很棒，你完全能打败那些自由派。天哪，我希望没有人这样做，我们绝对不需要更多这样的努力。那将真是遗憾。
It would be really great, you would totally own the libs, if you were to spin up your own outside view highly credible and technically competent monitoring organizations to compete in this space. My lord, I hope no one does that, we definitely don't need a lot more such efforts. Would be a real shame.
如果你说为了对 Anthropic 进行真正的制衡，你需要审计和评估人员是普遍的、强制性的并受法律保护，并且以其他方式赋予更多权力以成为‘真正的制衡’，那对 Anthropic 和 METR 来说会更糟。
It would be even worse for Anthropic and METR if you were to say that in order to generate a real check on Anthropic you need the audits and evaluators to be universal, mandatory and protected by law, and otherwise given more teeth to be a 'real check.'
为了增加趣味性，这是该记者之前的黑客攻击文章，有人说甚至更有趣，但不幸的是未能登上头版：
For additional fun color, this was the reporter's previous hack hit job effort, which some say was even funnier but was tragically denied the front page:
解释一下：这是一篇针对 Dean Ball 的明显无稽之谈的攻击文章，充满了明显的虚假信息，而且插入的图片本应是 Dean Ball，却不知为何换成了 Caleb Watney。完整报道见 AI #181。
To explain: This was an obvious nonsense hit piece against Dean Ball full of clear untruths, and also the inserted picture that was supposed to be Dean Ball was for some reason instead Caleb Watney. See here for my full coverage from AI #181.
确实有种种迹象表明，这是一场针对 METR 的协同抹黑行动，目的是让他们在右翼回音室中显得糟糕。接下来几周，对 METR 的人来说，很可能在很多方面都会很难熬，尤其是当一些相当恶毒的人四处挖掘哪怕一丁点真实的黑料时。我不认为这能得逞，事实上，我预计它会因斯特赖桑德效应而适得其反。
There are indeed all the signs of a coordinated smear campaign against METR to make them sound bad to right-wing echo chambers. The next few weeks are likely to suck in many ways for the METR folks, especially as some rather vicious people dig around for the tiniest bit of actual dirt. I do not expect this to work; indeed, I expect it to backfire via the Streisand Effect.
尽量一笑置之。保持坚强。把它挂进卢浮宫。
Laugh it off as best you can. Stay strong. Hang it in the Louvre.
也有许多共和党人，其主流派系由罗恩·德桑蒂斯领导，但越来越多其他人也逐渐理解其中的利害关系，或只是理解政治。
There are also many Republicans, with the mainstream arm of that led by Ron DeSantis but also increasingly many others, who increasingly understand the stakes or simply understand the politics.
惯常的嫌疑人们可能让特朗普目前谈论一场骗局，但这仍是一个两党时刻，许多人不会随波逐流。即使现在，这个问题往往仍显著地保持两党共识，而不仅是在你看到史蒂夫·班农与伯尼·桑德斯同台时。
The Usual Suspects may have Trump currently talking about a hoax, but this remains a bipartisan moment, and many are not going to fall in line. Even now the issue often remains remarkably bipartisan, and not only when you see Steve Bannon on stage with Bernie Sanders.
Axios 的帖子主要关于对 HuggingFace 攻击的两党调查，其中参议员霍利牵头，但也包括更近期的担忧。
Axios's post is largely about the bipartisan investigation of the HuggingFace attacks where Senator Hawley is taking point, but it also includes the more recent concerns.
众议院议长迈克·约翰逊继续理智行事，而这继续被奇怪地报道。首先 Politico 试图让它听起来像约翰逊想完全把责任推给公司，现在彭博社称他因其非常温和的声明而‘冒着特朗普的怒火’：
House Speaker Mike Johnson continues to act sanely and this continues to be reported strangely. First Politico tried to make it sound like Johnson wanted to fully pass the buck to the companies, and now Bloomberg says he 'risks Trump's wrath' over his very milquetoast statements:
确实，约翰逊周一表示，最迟下周初，在中国峰会之前，将与 AI 高管举行白宫会议。
Indeed, Johnson said Monday that there will be a White House meeting with AI executives by early next week at the latest, prior to the China summit.
即使现在，特朗普也正被误解。特朗普当然支持设置护栏的必要性。特朗普周日空军一号上对记者说，‘我们可以设置护栏。’特朗普的意思是，不必担心，因为他是一位如此伟大的总统，会确保设置正确的护栏，而不是说我们根本不需要任何护栏。
Even now, Trump is being misinterpreted. Of course Trump endorses the need for guardrails. Trump said on Sunday on Air Force One, to reporters, that ‘we can put guardrails.’ Trump is saying that there is no need to worry because he is such a great President that will ensure the right guardrails, not that we don’t need any at all.
再次强调，他已经有一套超级秘密的事前限制测试制度在运行，而且他的政府惊慌失措地将 Fable 5 从市场撤下。这里没有‘愤怒’。
Again, he has a super secret prior restraint testing regime already in place and his administration yanked Fable 5 from the market in a panic. There is no ‘wrath’ here.
共和党参议员里克·斯科特表示，AI 公司自己都说他们正在建造的东西可能杀死人类，所以很明显，他们需要放慢脚步，整顿内部，以便我们能够安全前进，让美国领路，否则中国就会领先，那将造成伤害，尤其是对我们的孩子，我们的优秀企业公民必须在线保护他们的安全。
Republican Senator Rick Scott says the AI companies have said what they are building could kill mankind, so pretty obvious they need to slow down and get their house in order so we can move forward safely, with America leading the way or else China will lead, which will hurt, especially for our kids, whose safety our good corporate citizens must protect online.
我读了三遍，仍然无法确定他对局势的理解到了什么程度。这越来越让人觉得好笑。
I’ve read this three times and I still can’t figure out to what extent he understands the situation. Which is progressively making it funnier.
罗恩·德桑蒂斯继续呼吁引导我们的技术创新，而不是让 AI 实验室为所欲为。
Ron DeSantis continues to call for channeling our technological innovations rather than letting the AI labs do whatever they want.
犹他州共和党州长斯宾塞·考克斯（Spencer Cox）呼吁国会为 AI 建立一套一致的国家框架，要求进行事件报告、保护举报人、确保独立评估，并实施严格的出口管制。
Republican Utah Governor Spencer Cox calls for Congress to establish a consistent national framework for AI, requiring incident reporting, protecting whistleblowers, ensuring independent evaluation and imposing strict export controls.
（这条推文由 AI 生成，但完整声明由人类撰写。）
(The tweet is by AI, but the full statement is human-written.)
JD Vance 觉得整件事“有点奇怪”——公司主动要求监管，他说这“在我看来有点像特洛伊木马”。
JD Vance finds the whole thing 'a little weird' with companies asking for regulation, saying it feels 'a little bit to me like a Trojan horse.'
David Sacks 起初持敌意，但尚有可能保持建设性。如今他已退回到与其他“老面孔”为伍的立场，比如他的联合主持人 Jason，并且一如既往地又开始就所请求的内容彻底撒谎。你可以说“我们只对前沿模型施加限制”，而那些“老面孔”会一口咬定你说的是相反的意思，一次又一次，每次都是如此，无论你说什么。
David Sacks was initially hostile but in a potentially constructive way. He has now retreated to joining the other Usual Suspects like his co-host Jason and is back to fully lying about what is being requested, as per usual. You can say 'let's impose restrictions on only the frontier' and the Usual Suspects will flat out claim you said the opposite, over and over, every time, no matter what.
我不会假装 Andrew Ferguson 真的认为，领先的 AI 实验室在 AI 安全上开展合作是可疑的，或者听起来像是在挖护城河。
I am not going to pretend Andrew Ferguson actually thinks that leading AI labs working together on AI safety is suspicious or sounds like moat digging.
这种看法在现实层面说不通。整个举动显然对商业不利。这就是老板不喜欢它的原因。另一种可能是，老板认为这是一张谈判筹码，他应该从中得到回报。这倒也说得过去。
That view does not make physical sense. This whole move is obviously bad for business. That is why the boss does not like it. Alternatively, the boss thinks it is a bargaining chip and he should get something in return. Fair enough.
OpenAI 在某些方面确实在付诸行动，但它的政策团队呢？
OpenAI is walking the walk in some ways, but what about its policy team?
Alex Bores 声称——这与我的观察和报道一致——a16z、Chris Lehane 和 Leading the Future 至少直到最近，一直遵循着标准的行业游说套路。你先试图扼杀所有法案，如果杀不掉，就声称支持该法案，然后试图削弱它，或把自己的条款塞进去，最后转身说自己一直支持该法案。他们现在正试图在联邦层面这么做。
Alex Bores claims, consistent with my observations and reporting, that a16z, Chris Lehane and Leading the Future have, at least until recently, consistently followed the standard industry lobbyist playbook. You try to kill all the bills, then if you cannot kill the bill you claim to support the bill, and try to weaken the bill or shove your provisions into the bill, then turn around and say you supported the bill all along. Which they are now trying at the federal level.
如果 OpenAI、Greg Brockman 和 Chris Lehane 集体撤回对 Leading the Future 的支持和资助，并与其活动划清界限，那将是表明这次转向安全的新立场完全正当的绝佳方式。Leading the Future 也可以完全转向数据中心方面的关切。
If OpenAI and Greg Brockman and Chris Lehane were to all collectively pull their support and funding from Leading the Future, and disavow its activities, that would be an excellent way to show that this new pivot to safety is fully legit. Leading the Future could also fully pivot to data center concerns.
Matthew Yglesias 从政治角度出发，认为如果你是 OpenAI 的员工，想要集体行动，第一步就是要求 OpenAI 在此事上停止并终止相关行为，并且你应该威胁在这个问题上辞职。
Matthew Yglesias takes the political perspective, where if you are an OpenAI employee who wants collective action your first step is to demand that OpenAI cease and desist here, and you should threaten to quit on this issue.
考虑到 OpenAI 正在发生的其他事情，我不认为这会是我的首要任务，但这很重要。我确实认为，在 Meta 这会是一个首要任务，因为 Mark Zuckerberg 一直在最高层积极阻挠行动，所以有理由说，先决条件是：你必须停手，我才会为你工作，无论报酬多高。
I don't think that would be my top priority at OpenAI, given what else is happening, but it matters. I do think that it would be a top priority at Meta, where Mark Zuckerberg has been actively blocking action all the way at the top, and it makes sense to say first things first you have to stop before I will work for you, at any price.
好消息是，也许这个问题正在得到解决。Chris Lehane 可能正在经历一次立场转变。
The good news is that perhaps this is being addressed. Chris Lehane may be in a Heel Face Turn.
据 Bloomberg 报道，Lehane 宣布 OpenAI 支持各项立法倡议，“只要能通过就行”。如果他当真，这调门转变得可真够大的。
Lehane announced, per Bloomberg, OpenAI's support for various legislative initiatives, 'whatever we can get through.' Quite the change of tune, if he means it.
更实质性地，Lehane 宣布 Google、OpenAI 和 Anthropic 正在安全方面展开合作，并且 OpenAI 认为无需反垄断豁免即可开始这样做。
More substantively, Lehane is announcing that Google, OpenAI and Anthropic are working together on safety, and that OpenAI sees no need for an antitrust exemption to start doing so.
这非常令人欣慰。一如既往，这意味着工作才刚刚开始，而非结束，但这是一个起点。
This is very good to see. As usual, it means the work begins, not ends, but it is a start.
OpenAI 还在探索协调行业减速的合法性。担忧在于，这可能与反垄断法产生更强烈的冲突，甚至可能使“同意不冒灭绝全人类的风险”成为非法行为。
OpenAI is also exploring the legality of a coordinated industry slowdown. The worry is that this might conflict rather more forcefully with antitrust law, potentially making it illegal to agree to not risk killing everyone.
我一直属于认为这相当愚蠢的阵营，认为这在实践中永远不会成为障碍。但正式解决这个问题仍然非常有益，我很高兴 OpenAI 正在着手处理，尤其是联邦贸易委员会现在表示不倾向于让这件事变得容易。
I have always been in the camp that felt this was rather silly, this would never actually be a barrier in practice. It would still be very helpful to formally put this to bed and I am glad OpenAI is working on that, especially with the Federal Trade Commission now saying it is not inclined to make this easy.
中国对此的回应，仿佛呼吁放缓 Anthropic 和 OpenAI 是一种旨在‘拖慢中国’并以某种方式实施反竞争行为的阴谋。这与其一贯的修辞立场相符。
China is responding as if calls to slow down Anthropic and OpenAI are a plot to ‘slow China down’ and be anti-competitive in some way. This is consistent with their standard rhetorical position.
Dario 的文章中有大量关于中国的警告，并呼吁通过芯片出口管制来拖慢中国。但如果我们真想实施反竞争行为，我们只需施加管制，然后尽可能快地继续构建更好的 AI。
There were a lot of warnings about China in Dario’s essay, and calls to slow them down via chip export controls. But if we wanted to actually be anti-competitive, we would just impose the controls and then keep building better AIs as fast as possible.
所谓这主要关乎中国且属于反竞争行为的说法，实际上并不合理。这是政治，所以合理性可有可无。
The story that this is primarily about China and being anti-competitive does not actually make sense. This is politics, so making sense is optional.
所有这一切中的一个关键问题是：与中国达成的协议会是什么样子？
A key question in all this is: What would a deal with China look like?
部分问题在于：中国希望从这样的协议中得到什么？当中国并不在意那种意义上的安全，并且乐于看到美国推进得更快以便自己能够快速跟随——就像他们在其他所有领域所做的那样——他们为什么会在意‘美国在安全上投入更多’？他们的计划是蒸馏、让模型更小、更快、更便宜，赢得市场，扩散技术，销售产品并改善世界，但他们并不试图实现超级智能。
Part of that is asking: What would China want as part of that deal? Why would China care about 'America invests more in safety' when they don't care about safety in that sense, and they are happy to have America push forward faster so they can fast follow, the way they do everywhere else? Where their plan is distill, make it smaller, faster and cheaper, win the market, diffuse the tech, sell products and improve the world, but they're not trying to get to superintelligence.
我意识到，如果这最终是习近平想要的，那么你就不需要与中国达成协议，就像我们不需要与德国达成协议一样。
What I realized was, if that's what Xi turns out to want, then you don't need a deal with China, any more than we need a deal with Germany.
在那个世界里，即使我们放慢速度，中国也不会投入足以在大型前沿模型上真正赶上并超越美国顶尖实验室的资金。这里的敌人不是中国，而是‘输给中国’——这个推动所有人前进的怪物。
In that world, China is not going to be investing the sums it would take to actually catch and surpass the top American labs on big frontier models, even if we slow down. The enemy here is not China, it is 'lose to China,' the boogeyman pushing everyone forward.
在那个世界里，我们对中国的要求只是一定程度的良好管理。我们需要他们不允许发布会摧毁互联网或引发瘟疫的模型。好吧，我有个好消息：中华人民共和国真的很喜欢互联网，而且它不喜欢瘟疫。
All we need from China in that world is some amount of good stewardship. We need them not to allow model releases that would destroy the internet or cause a plague. Well, I have some good news, the PRC really likes the internet, and it does not like plagues.
与此同时，中国发布了其《人工智能安全治理框架》3.0 版。以下是一些翻译过来的引文，内容虽然平淡无奇，但他们确实在关注：
Meanwhile, China has released version 3.0 of its AI Safety Governance Framework. Here are some translated quotes; this is prosaic stuff, but they do pay attention:
要看手，而不是看嘴，诸如此类。
Watch the hands, not the mouth, and so on.
正如 Roge Karma 在《大西洋月刊》中指出的那样，我们当前的人工智能政策是自相矛盾的。
As Roge Karma points out in The Atlantic, our current AI policy is contradictory.
如果我们与中国正处于一场关乎存亡的竞赛中，在这场竞赛里“谁赢得 AI 谁就赢了一切！”其他任何事都无法与之相提并论，那么美国就需要拿出与之相称的行动。
If we are in an existential race with China, where 'whoever AI wins!' and nothing else can compare in importance, then the United States needs to act like it.
最起码，这要从对芯片实施强有力的出口管制开始，同时也要在其他方面阻止中国利用美国的算力来训练前沿模型。
At a bare minimum, that starts with enforcing strong export controls on chips, and also on other ways for China to use American compute for training frontier models.
如果一个人是真正严肃对待这件事，他还会采取诸如让中国最优秀的 AI 工程师人才外流变得容易之类的措施。如果一个人是真正完全严肃对待，那就会有大力推动各种形式的电力和能源，推动诸如建造更多住房——尤其是在旧金山——以及放松 FDA 等机构对 AI 扩散设置的监管壁垒，等等。这些是我会强烈支持的事情。
If one were fully serious, one would also do things like make it easy to brain drain China of its best AI engineers. If one were really fully serious, there would be a major push for all forms of electrical power and energy, and for things like building more housing especially in San Francisco, and for deregulating barriers to AI diffusion in places like the FDA, and so on. These are things I would strongly support.
然而，令人恼火的是，实际情况却是：当谈论到我们可能全部死亡的风险时，与中国在 AI 上的竞争就变成了唯一重要的事情，而在其他情境下，我们却耸耸肩，一切照旧。
What instead maddeningly happens is that when talking about the risk we might all die, competition with China on AI in particular becomes the only thing that matters, and then in other contexts we shrug and it is business as usual.
特朗普彻底走向了骗局。除了那些惯常的怀疑者、那些在 Twitter 上时刻想要全面加速主义的氛围斗士，以及那些听命于老板的人之外，他孤身一人，身处一座不受欢迎且不稳定的孤岛。议长约翰逊、斯科特、考克斯和德桑蒂斯远非仅有的几位打破党派立场的共和党人。
Trump went full hoax. Other than the usual suspects and their Twitter vibe warriors who want full accelerationism at all times, and those who take orders from the boss, he is alone on an unpopular and unstable island. Speaker Johnson, Scott, Cox and DeSantis are far from the only Republicans to break ranks.
即便局势目前暂时稳定下来，并且很可能撑到中国峰会，下一次 AI 事件也正在到来。特朗普对具体威胁的反应与对假设性威胁的反应截然不同。而亚马逊那个导致 Fable 被撤下的‘越狱演示’表明，事情可以在没有任何人先受到伤害的情况下，就进入‘具体威胁’的范畴。
Even if the situation stabilizes for now, and will likely make it as far as the China summit, the next AI incident is coming. Trump responds very differently to concrete threats than to hypotheticals. And the 'jailbreak demo' from Amazon, that got Fable yanked, shows us that things can move into the 'concrete threat' basket without anyone having to get hurt first.
与此同时，实验室员工继续惶恐不安并发出自己的声音，而各实验室也开始自行展开合作。
Meanwhile, the lab employees are continuing to freak out and make their voices heard, and the labs are starting to collaborate on their own.
不要轻易放弃。不要让党派冲突加剧或成为故事主线。我们仍然可以扭转局面。
Do not write things off. Do not let the partisan conflict intensify or become the story. We can still turn this around.