Lex Friedman 访谈 Liv Boeree - 中英双语

2024-08-25 约 115750 字 预计阅读 232 分钟

格物參玄

Lex Friedman 访谈 Liv Boeree - 中英双语

Information!

Liv Boeree 是一位多才多艺的英国人，因其在扑克界的成功以及科学传播方面的贡献而广为人知。她出生于1984年，曾经是曼彻斯特大学的物理学和天文学专业的学生。毕业后，她进入扑克界，迅速崭露头角。她以极高的智商和数学背景在扑克桌上屡屡获胜，其中最著名的是2010年她赢得了欧洲扑克巡回赛（EPT）圣雷莫站的冠军，这一胜利让她成为历史上第三位赢得EPT冠军的女性。除了在扑克方面的成就，Boeree 还致力于推广科学知识，尤其是概率和博弈论在日常生活中的应用。她是“推测科学基金会”（Raising for Effective Giving, REG）的创始成员之一，这个基金会专注于通过扑克赛事筹集资金并将其捐赠给高效慈善机构。此外，Liv Boeree 还是一位活跃的演讲者和作家，她经常在TED等平台上分享她对理性思考、科学决策和慈善事业的见解。她的跨领域成就使她成为了一个备受推崇的公众人物，特别是在科学与流行文化的交汇点上。

Liv Boeree 访谈 20 个要点总结

运气与样本量: 在扑克和生活中，运气扮演重要角色，但随着时间推移，样本量越大，决策和策略的影响越重要，运气的影响越小。
扑克与数学: 扑克本质上是一个数学游戏，玩家可以通过学习和运用博弈论最优策略来降低损失、提高获胜概率。
纳什均衡: 纳什均衡是指在博弈中，任何一方改变策略都不会带来更多收益的状态。
直觉与 GTO: 顶级扑克玩家过去主要依靠直觉，但现在更倾向于结合博弈论最优 (GTO) 策略，并根据对手的非理性行为进行调整。
菲尔·赫尔姆斯: 赫尔姆斯是扑克界的传奇人物，他似乎不完全依赖 GTO 策略，却能在世界扑克系列赛中持续取得成功。
菲尔·艾维: 艾维以其强大的气场和令人难以捉摸的玩法著称，是公认的顶尖高手。
诈唬的艺术: 诈唬是扑克中至关重要的组成部分，是一种高风险的谎言形式，需要强大的心理素质和技巧。
生活的游戏化: 人们倾向于将生活中的许多方面游戏化，例如学习、约会、社交媒体互动等，并试图找到最优策略。
考试与学习: 考试和指标可能导致过度优化，而忽略了学习的真正目的和乐趣。
教科书的价值: 教科书仍然是深入学习一门学科的宝贵资源，它们提供了结构化的知识体系和练习题。
教授与学习: 教授一门学科是最好的学习方式之一，因为它需要对知识有深刻的理解。
摩洛神与不健康竞争: 摩洛神代表着不健康的竞争，人们为了短期利益而牺牲价值观，最终导致所有人陷入更糟糕的境地。
社交媒体与摩洛神: 社交媒体的算法和激励机制导致了注意力战争，加剧了文化战争和社会分裂，这是摩洛神力量的体现。
病毒式传播与摩洛神: 目前的社交媒体结构使病毒式传播倾向于负面内容和愤怒情绪，但这并非不可改变。
正和思维与双赢: 人们应该寻找双赢的解决方案，而不是陷入零和博弈，并努力创造一个更美好的世界。
美与复杂性: 真正的美在于无法用简单指标衡量的复杂性，例如一棵古树或一个人的内在。
理性与直觉: 在做出人生重大决策时，应该平衡理性分析和直觉感受，并意识到自身的认知偏差。
乌克兰战争与世界秩序: 乌克兰战争的走向将对未来世界秩序产生深远影响，我们需要警惕军工复合体的扩张，并努力避免更大规模的冲突。
生物风险与技术进步: 合成生物学的发展带来了巨大的潜在风险，我们需要谨慎对待技术进步带来的双刃剑效应。
人工智能与人类未来: 人工智能的发展既充满希望，也充满风险，我们需要确保其安全发展，并引导其朝着有利于人类的方向发展。

中英对照全文

Lex: Evolutionarily, we you know if we see a lion running at us, we didn’t have time to sort of calculate the lion’s kinetic energy and you know is it optimal to go this way or that way, you just reacted and physically our bodies are well attuned to actually make right decisions but when you’re playing a game like poker, this is not something that you ever you know evolved to do and yet you’re in that same flight or fight response. Um and so that’s a really important skill to be able to develop, to basically learn how to like meditate in the moment and calm yourself so that you can think clearly.

莱克斯: 从进化的角度来看，如果我们看到一只狮子向我们跑来，我们没有时间去计算狮子的动能，也没有时间去考虑往哪个方向跑才是最佳选择，我们只会本能地做出反应。从生理上来说，我们的身体已经适应了做出正确的决定。但是，当你玩扑克这样的游戏时，这不是你进化过程中所做的事情，然而你却处于同样的战斗或逃跑的反应中。因此，能够培养一种重要的技能，基本上就是学会如何在当下冥想和平静自己，这样你才能清晰地思考。

The following is a conversation with Liv Boeree, formerly one of the best poker players in the world trained as an astrophysicist and is now a philanthropist and an educator on topics of game theory physics complexity and life. This is the Lex Friedman Podcast. To support it please check out our sponsors in the description and now dear friends here’s Liv Boeree.

以下是与莉芙·博埃里的对话，她曾是世界上最好的扑克玩家之一，受过天体物理学家的训练，现在是一位慈善家，也是一位关于博弈论、物理学、复杂性和生活等主题的教育家。这是莱克斯·弗里德曼播客。为了支持它，请查看我们赞助商的描述，现在，亲爱的朋友们，以下是莉芙·博埃里。

Lex: What role do you think luck plays in poker and in life? You can pick whichever one you want, poker or life and or life.

莱克斯: 你认为运气在扑克和生活中扮演什么角色？你可以选择任何一个，扑克或生活，或者两者都选。

Liv: The longer you play the less influence luck has, you know, like with all things the bigger your sample size um the more the quality of your decisions or your strategies matter um so to answer that question, yeah. In poker it really depends if you and I sat and played 10 hands right now, I might only win 52 of the time, 53 maybe um but if we played 10,000 hands, then I’ll probably win like over 98, 99 of the time. So it’s a question of sample sizes and what are you figuring out over time.

莉芙: 玩的时间越长，运气的影响就越小，就像所有事情一样，你的样本量越大，你的决定或策略的质量就越重要。所以，要回答这个问题，是的。在扑克中，这真的取决于情况。如果我们现在坐下来玩 10 手牌，我可能只会在 52% 的时间里获胜，也许 53%。但如果我们玩 10,000 手牌，那么我可能会在 98%、99% 的时间里获胜。所以这是一个样本量的问题，以及你随着时间的推移会发现什么。

Lex: The betting strategy that this individual does or literally doesn’t matter against any individual over time?

莱克斯: 这个人使用的下注策略，或者说，随着时间的推移，它对任何人都无关紧要吗？

Liv: Against any individual over time the better player because they’re making better decisions. So what does that mean to make a better decision? Well, ah, to get into the real nitty-gritty already, um basically poker is a game of math. Um there are these strategies familiar with like Nash Equilibria?

莉芙: 随着时间的推移，对于任何对手来说，更好的玩家都会获胜，因为他们做出了更好的决定。那么，做出更好的决定意味着什么呢？嗯，要说到真正的细节，基本上扑克是一个数学游戏。嗯，你熟悉纳什均衡这样的策略吗？

Lex: That’s yes. Right. So there are these game theory optimal strategies that you can adopt um and the closer you play to them the less exploitable you are.

莱克斯: 是的，没错。所以，有一些博弈论的最优策略你可以采用，你越接近这些策略，你就越不容易被利用。

Liv: So because I’ve studied the game a bunch um although admittedly not for a few years but back in you know when I was playing all the time um I would study these game theory optimal solutions and try and then adopt those strategies when I go and play. So I’d play against you and I would do that and because the objective when you’re playing game theory optimal it’s actually it’s a loss minimization thing that you’re trying to do um your best bet is to try and play uh the sort of similar style, you also need to try and adopt this loss minimization um but because I’ve been playing much longer than you, I’ll be better at that. So, first of all, you’re not taking advantage of my mistakes but then on top of that I’ll be better at recognizing when you are playing sub-optimally and then deviating from this game theory optimal strategy to exploit your bad plays.

莉芙: 因为我研究过很多博弈论，虽然不可否认的是已经有好几年没有研究了，但是在我一直玩的时候，我会研究这些博弈论的最优解，然后尝试在我玩的时候采用这些策略。所以，我会和你玩，我会这样做，因为当你玩博弈论最优解的时候，你的目标实际上是尽量减少损失，你最好的选择是尝试玩类似的风格，你也需要尝试采用这种损失最小化的策略，但是因为我玩的时间比你长，我会比你更擅长。所以，首先，你不会利用我的错误，其次，我会更擅长识别你什么时候玩得不好，然后偏离这种博弈论的最优策略来利用你的糟糕玩法。

Lex: Can you define game theory and Nash Equilibria? Can we try to sneak up to it in a bunch of ways? Like, oh, what’s the game theory framework of analyzing poker, analyzing any kind of situation?

莱克斯: 你能定义博弈论和纳什均衡吗？我们可以尝试用多种方式来解释它吗？比如，哦，分析扑克，分析任何情况的博弈论框架是什么？

Liv: So game theory is just basically the study of decisions within a competitive situation. Um I mean, it’s stately a branch of economics um but it also applies to like wider decision theory. Um and you know usually when you see it, it’s these like little payoff matrices and so on, that’s how it’s depicted, but it’s essentially just like study of strategies under different competitive situations. Um and, as it happens, certain games, in fact many, many games, um have these things called Nash Equilibria. And what that means is, when you’re in a Nash Equilibrium, basically, uh it is not, there is no strategy that you can take that would be more beneficial than the one you’re currently taking, assuming your opponent is also doing the same thing. Um So it’d be a bad idea, you know, if we’re both playing a, in you know a game three optimal strategy, if either of us deviate from that, now the other, you know the, we’re putting ourselves at a disadvantage. Um rock paper scissors is actually a really great example of this. Like if we to were to start playing rock paper scissors, you know, you know nothing about me and we’re going to play for all our money, let’s play 10 rounds of it. What would your sort of optimal strategy be, do you think? What would you do?

莉芙: 所以博弈论基本上就是研究竞争情况下做出的决定的学科。嗯，我的意思是，它严格来说是经济学的一个分支，但它也适用于更广泛的决策理论。嗯，你知道，通常当你看到它的时候，它就像这些小的收益矩阵等等，这就是它的描述方式，但它本质上就像是在不同的竞争情况下研究策略。嗯，碰巧的是，某些游戏，事实上很多很多游戏，嗯，都有这些叫做纳什均衡的东西。这意味着，当你处于纳什均衡状态时，基本上，呃，它不是，你不可能采取任何比你目前采取的策略更有利的策略，假设你的对手也这样做。嗯，所以这将是一个坏主意，你知道，如果我们都在玩，你知道，在博弈论最优策略中，如果我们中的任何一个偏离了它，现在另一个，你知道，我们正在让自己处于不利地位。嗯，石头剪刀布实际上是一个很好的例子。比如，如果我们开始玩石头剪刀布，你知道，你对我一无所知，我们要赌上我们所有的钱，让我们玩 10 轮。你认为你的最佳策略是什么？你会怎么做？

Lex: Um, let’s see, I would probably try to be as random as possible.

莱克斯: 嗯，让我想想，我可能会尽量随机地出。

Liv: Exactly. You want to, because you don’t know anything about me you don’t want to give anything about away about yourself, so ideally you’d have like a little dice or somewhat you know perfect randomizer that makes you randomize 33 of the time, each of the three different things. And in response to that, um, well, actually I can kind of do anything but I would probably just randomize back too, but actually it wouldn’t matter because you’re, I know that you’re playing randomly. Um so that would be us in a Nash Equilibrium um where we’re both playing this like unexploitable strategy. However if after a while you then notice that I’m playing rock a little bit more often than I should.

莉芙: 没错。因为你对我一无所知，所以你不想暴露自己。因此，理想情况下，你会使用一个骰子或完美的随机器，使你三分之一的时间在三种不同的选项之间随机选择。而对于这一点，我可以随意应对，但我可能也会随机应对。不过这无关紧要，因为我知道你是在随机选择。这就是我们处于纳什均衡状态的表现，我们都在使用无法被利用的策略。然而，如果你注意到我在一段时间后出拳的频率比应该的更高。

Lex: Yeah, you’re the kind of person that would do that, wouldn’t you?

Liv: Sure. Yes. Yes. Yes.

Lex: I’m more of a scissors girl but anyway, you are, uh, no, I’m a, as I said, randomizer. Uh

莱克斯: 是的，你就是那种会这样做的人，不是吗？

莉芙: 当然。是的，是的，是的。

莱克斯: 我更喜欢出剪刀，但无论如何，你，呃，不，我，正如我所说，是一个随机者。呃…

Liv: So you notice I’m throwing rock too much or something like that, right? Now, you’d be making a mistake by continuing playing this game theory optimal strategy because, well, the previous one because you are now, there’s an, I’m making a mistake and you’re not deviating and exploiting my mistake. Um so you’d want to start throwing paper a bit more often um in whatever you figure is the right sort of percentage of the time that I’m throwing rock too often. So that’s basically an example of where, you know, what what game three optimal strategy is in terms of loss minimization but it’s not always, uh, the maximally profitable thing if your opponent is doing stupid, stupid stuff which you know, in that example. So that’s kind of then how it works in poker, but it’s a lot more complex um and the way poker players typically you know nowadays they study, the games change so much and I think we should talk about how it sort of evolved um but nowadays, like the top pros basically spend all their time in between sessions running these simulators uh using like software where they do basically Monte Carlo simulations. Sort of doing billions of fictitious self-play hands. You input a fictitious hand scenario, like, “Oh, what do I do with Jack nine suited on a king 10, four, two, two spade board? Um, uh, and and you know against this bet size?” So you’d input that, press play, it’ll run it’s, it’s uh, you know, it’s billions of fake hands and then it’ll converge upon what the game theory optimal strategies are. Um and then you want to try and memorize what these are, basically they’re like ratios of how often you know what types of hands, uh you want to bluff and what percentage of the time. So then there’s this additional layer of inbuilt randomization built in?

莉芙: 所以你注意到我出拳的次数太多了，对吧？现在，如果你继续玩这种博弈论最优策略，你就会犯错误，因为，嗯，之前的策略，因为你现在，有一个，我犯了一个错误，而你没有偏离并利用我的错误。嗯，所以你会想开始更频繁地出布，嗯，无论你认为我出拳太频繁的时间比例是多少。所以这基本上就是一个例子，你知道，什么是博弈论最优策略，就损失最小化而言，但它并不总是，呃，最有利可图的事情，如果你的对手在做愚蠢的，愚蠢的事情，你知道，在那个例子中。所以这就是它在扑克中的工作原理，但它要复杂得多，嗯，扑克玩家通常，你知道，现在他们学习的方式，游戏变化很大，我认为我们应该谈谈它是如何进化的，嗯，但现在，像顶级职业玩家基本上把他们所有的时间都花在运行这些模拟器上，嗯，使用像软件一样的东西，他们基本上做蒙特卡罗模拟。进行数十亿次虚构的自我对局。你输入一个虚构的牌局场景，比如，“哦，我在 K10422 黑桃牌面上拿着 J9 同花应该怎么做？嗯，呃，你知道，面对这个下注尺寸？”所以你会输入它，按下播放键，它会运行它，它，呃，你知道，它是数十亿的虚构牌局，然后它会收敛到博弈论的最优策略是什么。嗯，然后你想试着记住这些是什么，基本上它们就像你知道的比率，呃，你想诈唬什么样的牌，以及在什么时间百分比。那么，这里面就有一个额外的内置随机化层吗？

Lex: Yeah. Those those kind of simulations incorporate all the betting strategies and everything else like that. So they, so as opposed to some kind of very crude mathematical model of what’s the probability you went just based on the quality of the card, uh, it’s including everything else too. The the game theory of it.

莱克斯: 是的。这类模拟包含了所有的下注策略等等。所以，它们，所以与那种非常粗糙的数学模型相比，即仅仅根据牌的质量来计算你获胜的概率，呃，它也包含了其他所有东西。博弈论。

Liv: Yes. Essentially. And what’s interesting is that nowadays if you want to be a top pro and you go and play in these really like the super high stakes tournaments or tough cash games, if you don’t know this stuff you’re going to get eaten alive in the long run. Yeah, but of course you could get lucky over the short run and that’s where this like luck factor comes in because luck is both a blessing and a curse. If luck didn’t, you know, if there wasn’t this random element and there wasn’t the ability for worse players to win sometimes, then poker would fall apart. You know, the same reason people don’t play chess professionally for money against, you don’t see people going and hustling, uh chess like, not knowing, trying to make a living from it because you know there’s very little luck in chess, but there’s quite a lot of luck in poker.

莉芙: 是的，本质上是这样。有趣的是，现在如果你想成为一名顶级职业玩家，你去参加这些真正的超级高额锦标赛或艰难的现金游戏，如果你不知道这些东西，从长远来看，你将被吞噬。是的，但当然你可以在短期内走运，这就是运气因素的由来，因为运气既是祝福又是诅咒。如果运气没有，你知道，如果没有这种随机因素，而且没有让较差的玩家有时获胜的能力，那么扑克就会崩溃。你知道，同样的原因，人们不会为了钱而职业地玩国际象棋，你不会看到人们去下象棋，呃，不知道，试图以此为生，因为你知道国际象棋的运气成分很小，但扑克的运气成分却很大。

Lex: Have you seen, “A Beautiful Mind?” That movie, years ago. Well, what do you think about the game theoretic formulation of, uh, what is it, the hot blonde at the bar? Do you remember like, oh yeah, the way they illustrated it is, they’re trying to pick up a girl at a bar and there’s multiple girls, they’re like friends, it’s like a friend group, and you’re trying to approach, I don’t remember the details, but I remember, don’t you like then speak to her friends?

莱克斯: 你看过《美丽心灵》吗？那部电影，很多年前的。嗯，你如何看待博弈论对，呃，是什么，酒吧里的金发美女的表述？你还记得吗，哦，是的，他们描述的方式是，他们试图在酒吧里搭讪一个女孩，那里有很多女孩，她们是朋友，就像一个朋友圈，而你试图接近，我不记得细节了，但我记得，你不是喜欢和她的朋友说话吗？

Liv: Yeah. Yeah. Like that feigned disinterest. I mean, it’s classic pick-up artist stuff, right? You you want to, and they were trying to, uh, correlate that somehow, that being an optimal strategy a game theoretically. Why why what like, I don’t think I remember, don’t imagine that there, I mean there’s probably an optimal strategy, is it, does that mean that there’s an actual Nash Equilibrium of like picking up girls? Do you know the, uh, the marriage problem? It’s optimal stopping. Yes. So where it’s an optimal dating strategy where you, uh, do you remember?

莉芙: 是的，是的。就像那种假装不感兴趣的样子。我的意思是，这是典型的搭讪艺术家的东西，对吧？你，你想，他们在试图，呃，以某种方式把这与博弈论上的最优策略联系起来。为什么，为什么，什么，我不记得了，不要想象那里，我的意思是，可能有一个最优策略，是吗，这是否意味着有一个实际的纳什均衡，比如搭讪女孩？你知道，呃，婚姻问题吗？它是最优停止问题。是的。所以，它是一个最优的约会策略，你，呃，你还记得吗？

Lex: Yeah. I think it’s like something like you you, you know, you’ve got like a set of 100 people you’re going to look through, and after how many do you, now after that after going on this many dates out of a hundred, at what point do you then go, “Okay, the next best person I see is the right one?” And I think it’s like something like 37%, uh, it’s one over e, whatever that is, right? Which I think is, yeah, we’re gonna fact-check that. Um, yeah. So but it’s funny, under those strict constraints then yes, after that many people, as long as you have a fixed size pool, then you just pick the per the next person that is better than anyone you’ve seen before. Yeah, um, have you have you tried this? Have you incorporated it? I’m one of those people, I might, we’re and we’re going to discuss this. I and,

莱克斯: 是的。我想这就像，你知道，你有一组 100 个人要看，看完多少个人之后，现在看完一百个人之后，在什么时候你会说，“好吧，下一个我看到的最好的人就是合适的人？”我想大概是 37%，呃，它是 1/e，不管它是什么，对吧？我想是，是的，我们要核实一下。嗯，是的。所以，但有趣的是，在这些严格的限制条件下，是的，看完那么多人之后，只要你有一个固定大小的池子，那么你就选择下一个比你之前看到的任何人都好的人。是的，嗯，你试过吗？你把它纳入了吗？我是那种人，我可能会，我们，我们要讨论这个。我，和，

Liv: What do you mean, “Those people?”

莉芙: 你说“那种人”是什么意思？

Lex: I try not to optimize stuff. I try to uh listen to the heart. I don’t think um I like my mind immediately is attracted to optimizing everything and I think that if, if you really give in to that kind of addiction, that you lose the the joy of the small things, the minutia of life. I think I don’t know it says, I’m concerned about the addictive nature of my personality in that regard in some ways.

莱克斯: 我尽量不去优化东西。我尽量，呃，听从内心的声音。我不认为，嗯，我喜欢我的思想立即被吸引去优化一切，我认为，如果你真的屈服于这种上瘾，你就会失去对生活中的小事，对细节的乐趣。我想我不知道它说了什么，我担心我性格中在这方面的一些上瘾性质。

Liv: While I think the, on average, people under-try and quantify things or try, under-optimize um there are some people who you know it’s like, with all these things it’s a you know, it’s a balancing act. I’ve been on dating apps but I’ve never used them.

莉芙: 虽然我认为，平均而言，人们很少尝试量化事物或尝试，很少优化，嗯，有些人，你知道，这就像，所有这些事情都是一个，你知道，这是一个平衡的行为。我上过约会软件，但我从来没有用过它们。

Lex: I I’m sure they have data on this because they probably have the optimal stopping control problem because aren’t a lot of people that use social like dating apps are on there for a long time, so the, the, the interesting the interesting aspect is like, all right, how long before you stop looking before it actually starts affecting your mind negatively such that you see dating as a kind of um a game, a kind of game versus an actual, uh, process of finding somebody that’s going to make you happy for the rest of your life. That’s really interesting. Uh they have the data. I wish they would be able to release that data.

莱克斯: 我，我敢肯定他们有这方面的数据，因为他们可能遇到了最优停止控制问题，因为不是有很多使用社交软件，比如约会软件的人都在上面待了很长时间，所以，这，这，有趣的，有趣的方面是，好吧，在你停止寻找之前要多久，它才会真正开始负面地影响你的思想，以至于你把约会看成是一种，嗯，一种游戏，一种游戏，而不是一个真正的，呃，寻找一个能让你余生幸福的人的过程。这真的很有趣。呃，他们有数据。我希望他们能够公布这些数据。

Liv: And I do want to, it’s okay cupid, right? I think they ran a huge, huge study on all of their.

莉芙: 我确实想，是 okay cupid，对吧？我想他们在所有他们的数据上做了一个巨大的，巨大的研究。

Lex: Yeah. They’re more data-driven I think what folks are.

莱克斯: 是的。我想他们比其他人更注重数据驱动。

Liv: Yeah. I think there’s a lot of opportunity for dating apps in general, you know even bigger than dating apps, people connecting on the internet. I just hope they’re more data-driven and it doesn’t seem that way. I think like, uh, I’ve always want, I always thought that um good reads should be a dating app. Like, uh, I’ve never used it.

莉芙: 是的。我认为约会软件总体上有很多机会，你知道，甚至比约会软件更大，人们在互联网上联系。我只是希望他们更注重数据驱动，但看起来并非如此。我想，呃，我一直想，我一直认为，嗯，goodreads 应该成为一个约会软件。比如，呃，我从来没有用过它。

Lex: The goodreads is a good read.

莱克斯: goodreads 确实值得一读。

Liv: Just list like books that you’ve read, okay? And allows you to comment on the books you read and what books you’re currently reading. It’s a giant social network of people reading books. And that seems to be a much better database of like interests. Of course, to constrain you to the books you’re reading, but like that really reveals so much more about the person, allows you to discover shared interests because books are kind of window into the way you see the world. Also like the kind of places people you’re curious about, the kind of ideas you’re curious about, are you a romantic or are you cold calculating rationalist, are you are you into Ayn Rand, or are you into Bernie Sanders, are you into whatever right? And I feel like that reveals so much more than like a, a person trying to look hot from a certain angle and a Tinder profile. And it would also be a really great filter in the first place for people. It selects for people who read books and are willing to go and rate them and give feedback on them and so on. So that’s already a really strong filter probably the type of people you’d be looking for.

莉芙: 只要列出你读过的书，好吗？它允许你评论你读过的书和你正在读的书。这是一个由读书人组成的巨大的社交网络。这似乎是一个更好的兴趣数据库。当然，它把你限制在你读过的书上，但这确实揭示了更多关于这个人的信息，让你发现共同的兴趣，因为书籍是你看待世界的方式的窗口。还有，你好奇的是什么样的地方，你好奇的是什么样的想法，你是浪漫主义者还是冷酷的理性主义者，你是喜欢安·兰德，还是喜欢伯尼·桑德斯，你是喜欢什么，对吧？我觉得这比一个人试图在 Tinder 个人资料上从某个角度让自己看起来很性感要透露得多。而且它也是一个非常好的过滤器，首先对人进行筛选。它选择那些读书的人，愿意去评价它们并给出反馈等等。所以，这是一个非常强大的过滤器，可能是你正在寻找的那类人。

Lex: Well, at least be able to fake reading books. I mean, the thing about books you don’t really need to read it, you can just game.

莱克斯: 嗯，至少要能够假装读书。我的意思是，关于书的事情，你并不真的需要读它，你只需要玩弄它。

Liv: Yeah. Game the dating app by feigning intellectualism.

莉芙: 是的。通过假装知识分子来玩弄约会软件。

Lex: Can I admit something very horrible about myself?

莱克斯: 我可以承认一些关于我自己的非常可怕的事情吗？

Liv: Go on.

莉芙: 说吧。

Lex: The things that you know I don’t have many things in my closet, but this is one of them, I’ve never actually really read Shakespeare. I’ve only read Cliff Notes, and I got a five in the AP English, uh, exam. And I took uh the, which books have I read? Oh yeah. Which was the, the exam on which? Oh no, they, they include a lot of them, um, but Hamlet, uh, I don’t even know if you read, “Romeo and Juliet,” uh, Macbeth. I don’t remember, but I don’t understand it. It’s like really cryptic. It’s hard. It’s really I don’t and it’s not that pleasant to read. It’s like ancient speak. I don’t understand it. Anyway, maybe I was too dumb. I’m still too dumb. But uh, I did go to five, which is, yeah, yeah, I don’t know how the U.S grading system.

莱克斯: 你知道，我的壁橱里没有多少东西，但这是其中之一，我从来没有真正读过莎士比亚。我只读过 Cliff Notes，我在 AP 英语考试中得了 5 分。我参加了，呃，我读过哪些书？哦，是的。是哪本书的考试？哦，不，他们，他们包括了很多书，嗯，但《哈姆雷特》，呃，我甚至不知道你是否读过《罗密欧与朱丽叶》，呃，《麦克白》。我不记得了，但我看不懂。它真的很神秘。很难。真的，我不，而且读起来不那么愉快。它就像古代的语言。我看不懂。不管怎样，也许我太笨了。我现在还是太笨了。但，呃，我确实考了 5 分，也就是，是的，是的，我不知道美国的评分系统。

Liv: Oh no. So AP English is a, there’s kind of this advanced versions of courses in high school and you take a test that is like a broad test for that subject and includes a lot. It wasn’t obviously just Shakespeare. I think a lot of it was also writing uh written. You have like AP Physics, AP Computer Science, AP Biology, AP Chemistry, and then AP English or AP Literature, I forget what it was, but I think Shakespeare was a part of that but I and you,

莉芙: 哦，不。所以 AP 英语是，高中里有一些这种高级课程，你要参加一个考试，就像一个针对该科目的广泛考试，包括很多内容。显然不仅仅是莎士比亚。我想其中很多也是写作，呃，写作。你有 AP 物理、AP 计算机科学、AP 生物、AP 化学，然后是 AP 英语或 AP 文学，我忘了它是什么了，但我认为莎士比亚是其中的一部分，但我，和你，

Lex: And your gamer. The point is you gamified it.

莱克斯: 你是游戏玩家。关键是你把它游戏化了。

Liv: Well, entirely. I was into getting A’s. I saw it as a game. I don’t think any, I don’t think all the learning I’ve done has been outside of the, outside of school. The deepest learning I’ve done has been outside of school, with a few exceptions, especially in grad school like deep computer science courses, but that was still outside of school because it was outside of getting sight, it was outside of getting the A for the course. The best stuff I’ve ever done is when you read the chapter and you do many of the problems at the end of the chapter, which is usually not what’s required for the course, like the hardest stuff. In fact, textbooks are freaking incredible. If you go back now and you look at like a biology textbook or, or any of the computer science textbooks on algorithms and data structures, those things are incredible. They have the best summary of a subject plus they have practice problems of increasing difficulty that allows you to truly master the basic, like the fundamental ideas behind that. That was, I go through my entire physics degree with one textbook that was just really comprehensive, one that they told us at the beginning of the first year, “Buy this but you’re going to have to buy 15 other books for all your supplementary courses.” And I was like, every time I just checked to see whether this book covered it and it did. And I think I only bought like two or three extra and thank God because they’re so super expensive, textbooks. It’s a whole racket they’ve got going on.

莉芙: 嗯，完全是这样。我热衷于拿 A。我把这看作是一场游戏。我不认为，我不认为我所有的学习都是在学校之外进行的。最深刻的学习是在学校之外进行的，除了少数例外，特别是在研究生院，比如深入的计算机科学课程，但这仍然是在学校之外，因为是在获得视野之外，是在获得课程 A 之外。我做过的最好的事情是，当你读完一章，做完本章末尾的许多习题，这些习题通常不是课程要求的，比如最难的东西。事实上，教科书真是太不可思议了。如果你现在回去看看生物学教科书，或者任何关于算法和数据结构的计算机科学教科书，这些东西真是太不可思议了。它们对一个主题做了最好的总结，而且还有难度越来越大的练习题，让你真正掌握其背后的基本概念，比如基本思想。就是这样，我的整个物理学位只用了一本教科书，它真的很全面，是他们在第一年开始时告诉我们的，“买这本，但你必须为所有补充课程再买 15 本书。”我当时就想，每次我都只是看看这本书是否涵盖了它，它确实涵盖了。我想我只额外买了 2 或 3 本，感谢上帝，因为它们太贵了，教科书。这是一个他们正在进行的敲诈勒索。

Lex: Um, yeah. They are they could just, you get the right one, it’s just like a manual for, but what’s interesting though is this is the tyranny of of having exams and metrics. It’s the journey of exams and metrics.

莱克斯: 嗯，是的。它们是，它们可以，你只要找到合适的，它就像一本手册，但有趣的是，这就是考试和指标的暴政。这是考试和指标的旅程。

Liv: Yes. I loved them because I loved, I’m very competitive and I liked yes. I liked finding ways to gamify things and then like sort of dust off my shoulders afterwards when I get, get a good grade or be annoyed at myself when I didn’t um but yeah, you’re absolutely right. And that the actual you know how much of that physics knowledge I’ve retained? Like I’ve I learned how to cram and study and please an examiner, but did that give me the deep lasting knowledge that I needed? I mean, yes, yes and no. Um but really like nothing makes you learn a topic better than when you actually then have to teach it yourself. Um you know like I’m trying to wrap my teeth around this like game theory moloch stuff right now and there’s no exam at the end of it, uh that I can gamify, there’s no way to gamify and sort of like shortcut my way through it. I have to understand it so deeply from like deep foundational levels to them to build upon it and then try and explain it to other people and like you know you’re about to go and do some lectures, right? You you you can’t, you can’t sort of just like, you probably presumably can’t rely on the knowledge that you got through when you were studying for an exam to reteach that.

莉芙: 是的。我喜欢它们，因为我喜欢，我很有竞争力，我喜欢，是的。我喜欢找到方法把事情游戏化，然后在我得到，得到一个好成绩后，就拍拍肩膀，或者在我没有得到好成绩时，就生自己的气，嗯，但是是的，你完全正确。事实上，你知道我保留了多少物理知识吗？比如我，我学会了如何死记硬背和学习，以及如何取悦考官，但这是否给了我需要的深刻持久的知识？我的意思是，是的，有，也没有。嗯，但真的，没有什么比你真正需要自己教的时候更能让你学好一个主题。嗯，你知道，就像我现在正在努力理解博弈论的摩洛神之类的东西，而且它最后没有考试，呃，我可以游戏化，没有办法游戏化，以及，比如走捷径。我必须从，比如深刻的基础层面，深刻地理解它，以便在其基础上进行构建，然后尝试向其他人解释它，比如你知道你即将去做一些讲座，对吧？你，你，你不能，你不能，比如，你大概不能依靠你为考试学习时获得的知识来重新教授它。

Lex: Yeah. And especially high level lectures, especially the kind of stuff you do on YouTube, you’re not just regurgitating material, you have to think through what is the core idea here and when you do the lectures live, especially, you have to, there’s no second takes. That is a luxury you get if you’re recording a video for YouTube or something like that. But it definitely is a luxury you shouldn’t lean on. I’ve gotten to interact with a few YouTubers that lean on that too much and you realize, “Oh, you’re, you’ve gamified this system because you’re not really thinking deeply about stuff.” You’re through the edit, both written and, uh, spoken, you’re crafting an amazing video, but you yourself as a human being have not really deeply understood it. So live teaching or at least on recording video with very few takes is, is, uh, is a different beast, and I think it’s, it’s the most honest way of doing it, like as few takes as possible. That’s why I’m nervous about this.

莱克斯: 是的。特别是高水平的讲座，特别是你在 YouTube 上做的那些，你不仅仅是在反刍材料，你必须思考这里的核心思想是什么，当你做现场讲座时，特别是你必须，没有第二次机会。如果你为 YouTube 或类似的东西录制视频，你就可以享受这种奢侈。但这绝对是一种你不应该依赖的奢侈。我接触过一些过于依赖这种奢侈的 YouTuber，你意识到，“哦，你，你已经把这个系统游戏化了，因为你没有真正深入思考问题。”你通过编辑，无论是书面的，还是，呃，口头的，你正在制作一个很棒的视频，但你作为一个人的你并没有真正深入理解它。所以，现场教学，或者至少录制很少的视频，是，是，呃，是另一种野兽，我认为这是，这是最诚实的做法，比如尽可能少的录制次数。这就是我对此感到紧张的原因。

Liv: Don’t go back, ah, let’s do that, don’t this up, Liv. Uh, the tyranny of exams. I do think you know people talk about you know high school and college as a time to do drugs and drink and have fun and all this kind of stuff, but you know looking back, of course I did a lot of those things.

莉芙: 不要回去，啊，让我们这样做，不要搞砸了，莉芙。呃，考试的暴政。我确实认为，你知道，人们谈论，你知道，高中和大学是吸毒、喝酒和玩乐的时候，所有这些事情，但你知道，回顾过去，我当然做了很多这样的事情。

Lex: No. Uh yes, but it’s also a time when you get to like read textbooks or read books or learn with all the time in the world. Like you don’t have these responsibilities of like uh you know laundry and, uh, having to sort of uh pay for mortgage or all that kind of stuff, pay taxes, all this kind of stuff. Uh in most cases, there’s just so much time in the day for learning, and you don’t realize it at the time because at the time it seems like a chore, like, “Why the hell does, there’s so much homework?” But you never get a chance to do this kind of learning, this kind of homework ever again in life unless, later in life, you really make a big effort out of it. You get so like, you basically, your knowledge gets solidified. You don’t get, you don’t get to have fun and learn. Learning is really is really fulfilling and really fun if you’re that kind of person. Like some people like to, you know, like knowledge is not something that they think is fun, but if, if that’s a kind of thing that you think is fun, that’s the time to have fun and do the drugs and drinking, all that kind of stuff. But the learning, just going back to those textbooks, the hours spent with the textbooks is, uh, is really, really rewarding.

莱克斯: 不。呃，是的，但这也是一个你可以读书或阅读教科书或学习的时候，你有世界上所有的时间。比如你没有这些责任，比如，呃，你知道，洗衣服，呃，必须支付抵押贷款或所有这些事情，纳税，所有这些事情。呃，在大多数情况下，一天中有这么多时间可以学习，而你当时并没有意识到，因为当时它看起来像一件苦差事，比如，“为什么，为什么有这么多作业？”但你再也没有机会做这种学习，这种作业了，除非，在以后的生活中，你真的为此付出很大的努力。你变得如此，你基本上，你的知识得到了巩固。你没有，你没有得到乐趣和学习。如果你是一个这样的人，学习真的，真的很充实，真的很有趣。比如有些人喜欢，你知道，比如知识不是他们认为有趣的东西，但如果，如果你认为这种东西很有趣，那就是玩乐的时候，吸毒，喝酒，所有这些事情。但学习，回到那些教科书，花在教科书上的时间，呃，真的，真的很有收获。

Liv: Do people even use textbooks anymore?

莉芙: 人们现在还用教科书吗？

Lex: Yeah. Do you think, because there’s days with their well, well, not even that, but just like so much information, really high quality information, you know, is now in digital format online.

莱克斯: 是的。你认为，因为现在有很多信息，真正高质量的信息，你知道，现在都在网上以数字格式存在。

Liv: Um, yeah, but they’re not, they are using that but you know college is still very, there’s a curriculum. I mean, so much of school is about rigorous study of a subject and still on YouTube, that’s not there, right? YouTube has, um uh, Grant Sanderson talks about this. He’s the, this masterpiece, yeah, “Three Blue One Brown.” He says like, “I’m not a math teacher, I just take really cool concepts and I inspire people. But if you want to really learn calculus, if you want to really learn linear algebra, you just, you should do the textbook. You should do that.” You know and there’s still the uh the textbook industrial complex that that like charges like $200 for a textbook and somehow, I don’t know, this, it’s ridiculous.

莉芙: 嗯，是的，但他们不是，他们正在使用它，但你知道大学仍然非常，有一个课程。我的意思是，学校的很多内容都是关于对一门学科的严格学习，而且在 YouTube 上，这仍然没有，对吧？YouTube 有，嗯，呃，格兰特·桑德森谈到过这个。他是，这个杰作，是的，“三蓝一棕”。他说，“我不是数学老师，我只是接受非常酷的概念，并激励人们。但如果你想真正学习微积分，如果你想真正学习线性代数，你只需要，你应该看教科书。你应该这样做。”你知道，仍然有，呃，教科书工业联合体，比如收取 200 美元一本教科书，而且不知何故，我不知道，这，这太荒谬了。

Lex: Well, they’re like, “Oh, sorry, new edition, edition 14.6. Sorry, you can’t use 14.5 anymore.” It’s like, what’s different? We’ve got one paragraph different. So we mentioned offline Daniel Negreanu. Um I’m going to get a chance to talk to him on this podcast. And he’s somebody that I was, I found fascinating in terms of the way he thinks about poker, verbalizes the way he thinks about poker, the way he plays poker. So and he’s still pretty damn good. He’s been good for a long time. So you mentioned that people are running these kind of simulations, and the game of poker has changed. Do you think he’s adapting in this way? Do you like the top pros, do they have to adopt this way, or is there, is there still like, over years you basically develop this gut feeling about like you, you get to be like good the way like AlphaZero is good. You look at the board and somehow from the fog comes out the right answer. Like, “This is likely what they have. This is likely the best way to move.” And you don’t really, you can’t really put a finger on exactly why, but it just comes from your gut feeling, or no?

莱克斯: 嗯，他们就像，“哦，对不起，新版本，14.6 版。对不起，你不能再使用 14.5 版了。”这就像，有什么不同？我们有一段不同。所以我们线下提到了丹尼尔·内格雷亚努。嗯，我将有机会在这个播客上和他交谈。他是一个，我发现他很迷人，就他思考扑克的方式，表达他思考扑克的方式，他玩扑克的方式而言。所以，他仍然非常厉害。他很长时间以来一直都很厉害。所以你提到人们正在运行这种模拟，而扑克游戏已经改变了。你认为他是在以这种方式适应吗？你喜欢顶级职业玩家吗，他们必须采用这种方式吗，或者，是否仍然像，多年来你基本上培养了这种直觉，比如你，你变得像 AlphaZero 那样厉害。你看了一眼棋盘，不知何故，从迷雾中得到了正确的答案。比如，“这可能是他们拥有的。这可能是最好的行动方式。”而且你并不真正，你不能真正说出确切的原因，但它只是来自你的直觉，还是没有？

Liv: Yes and no. So gut feelings are definitely very important. Um you know, that we’ve got our two mo, you can distill it down to two modes of decision making, right? You’ve got your sort of logical linear voice in your head, system two as it’s often called, and your system on your, your gut intuition. Um and historically in poker the very best players were playing almost entirely by their gut. Um you know often they’d do some kind of inspired play and you’d ask them why they do it, and they wouldn’t really be able to explain it. Um and that’s not so much because their process was unintelligible, but it was more just because no one unders, no one had the language with which to describe what optimal strategies were because no one really understood how poker worked. This was before, you know, we had analysis software, you know, no one was writing, you know, if I guess some people would write down their hands in a little notebook, but there was no way to assimilate all this data and analyze it. But then you know with, when computers became cheaper and software started emerging, and then obviously online poker where it would like automatically save your hand histories, um now all of a sudden you kind of had this, this body of data that you could run analysis on. And so that’s when people started to see you know these mathematical solutions and um and so what that meant is the, the role of intuition essentially became smaller um and it it meant more into, as, as we talked before about you know this game theory optimal style but as, also as I said like game theory optimal is about, um, loss minimization and being unexploitable, but if you’re playing against people who aren’t because no one person, no human being, can play perfectly game three optimal in poker. Not even the best AI’s, they’re still like, they’re not you know, they’re 99.99 of the way there or whatever, but this it’s kind of like the speed of light, you can’t reach it perfectly. So there’s still a role for intuition.

莉芙: 是的，也不全是。所以直觉绝对非常重要。嗯，你知道，我们有两个模式，你可以把它提炼成两种决策模式，对吧？你脑海中有一种逻辑线性的声音，通常被称为系统二，以及你的系统，你的直觉。嗯，历史上在扑克中，最优秀的玩家几乎完全是凭直觉玩的。嗯，你知道，他们经常会做一些有灵感的玩法，你会问他们为什么这样做，而他们并不能真正解释清楚。嗯，这与其说是因为他们的过程难以理解，不如说是因为没有人理解，没有人有语言来描述什么是最佳策略，因为没有人真正理解扑克是如何运作的。这是在，你知道，我们有分析软件之前，你知道，没有人写，你知道，我猜有些人会把他们的牌局记在一个小笔记本上，但没有办法把所有这些数据整合起来进行分析。但后来你知道，随着，当计算机变得更便宜，软件开始出现，然后显然是在线扑克，它会自动保存你的牌局历史，嗯，现在你突然有了这个，这个你可以运行分析的数据体。所以这就是人们开始看到，你知道，这些数学解的时候，嗯，所以这意味着，直觉的作用本质上变小了，嗯，它意味着更多的是，正如，正如我们之前谈到的，你知道，这种博弈论的最优风格，但正如，我也说过，博弈论最优是关于，嗯，损失最小化和不被利用，但如果你和那些不是，因为没有一个人，没有一个人类，可以完美地玩博弈论最优策略在扑克中。即使是最好的 AI，他们仍然像，他们不是，你知道，他们已经达到了 99.99% 或什么的，但这就像光速，你不能完美地达到它。所以，直觉仍然有作用。

Lex: Yes. So when, yeah. When you’re playing this unexploitable style but when your opponents start doing, uh, something you know sub-optimal that you want to exploit, well, now that’s where not only your like logical brain will need to be thinking, “Well, okay, I know I have this, my, I’m in the sort of top end of my range here with this, with this hand. So that means I need to be calling x percent of the time. Um and I put them on this range, et cetera.” But then sometimes you’ll have this gut feeling that will tell you you know you know what, “This time, I know, I know mathematically I’m meant to call. Now, you know, I’ve got, I’m in the sort of top end of my range and um these, this is the odds I’m getting, so the math says I should call.” But there’s something in your gut saying, “They’ve got it this time. They’ve got it.” Like, uh, they’re beating you, maybe your hand is worse. Um So then, the, the real art, this is where the last remaining art in poker, the fuzziness, uh, is like, “Do you listen to your gut, how do you quantify the strength of it, or can you even quantify the strength of it?” Um and I think that’s what Daniel has. I mean, I I can’t speak for how much he’s studying with, with, with the simulators and that kind of thing. I think he has like, he must be to still be keeping up um but he has an incredible intuition for just, he’s seen so many hands of poker in the flesh, he’s seen so many people, the way they behave when the chips are, you know, when the money’s on the line. And you’ve got him staring you down in the eye, you know, he’s intimidating. He’s got this like kind of x factor vibe that he you know gives out and he talks a lot, which is an interactive element, which is he’s getting stuff from other people.

莱克斯: 是的。所以当，是的。当你玩这种不可利用的风格，但你的对手开始做，呃，你知道，你想利用的次优的事情，嗯，现在，这就是不仅你的逻辑大脑需要思考的地方，“嗯，好吧，我知道我有这个，我的，我在这手牌中处于我的范围的顶端。所以这意味着我需要在 x% 的时间里跟注。嗯，我把他放在这个范围内，等等。”但有时你会有一种直觉告诉你，你知道，你知道，“这次，我知道，我知道从数学上来说我应该跟注。现在，你知道，我得到了，我处于我的范围的顶端，嗯，这些，这就是我得到的赔率，所以数学上说我应该跟注。”但你内心深处有一种声音说，“他们这次赢了。他们赢了。”比如，呃，他们在打败你，也许你的牌更差。嗯，所以，真正的艺术，这就是扑克中最后剩下的艺术，模糊性，呃，就像，“你是否听从你的直觉，你如何量化它的强度，或者你甚至可以量化它的强度吗？”嗯，我认为这就是丹尼尔所拥有的。我的意思是，我，我不能说他用，用，用模拟器学习了多少，以及类似的事情。我认为他拥有，他必须拥有，才能跟上，嗯，但他有一种不可思议的直觉，只是，他亲眼见过这么多手扑克，他见过这么多人，他们在筹码，你知道，当金钱岌岌可危时的行为方式。你有他盯着你的眼睛，你知道，他很吓人。他有一种，比如，x 因素的氛围，你知道，他散发出来，而且他话很多，这是一个互动元素，也就是他从其他人那里得到东西。

Liv: Yes. Yeah. Just like the subtlety so he’s like, he’s probing constantly.

莉芙: 是的，是的。就像这种微妙，所以他就像，他一直在试探。

Lex: Yeah. He’s probing and he’s getting this extra layer of information that others can’t. Now that said though, he’s good online as well. You know, I don’t know how, again, would he be beating the top cash game players online? Probably not, no. Um but when he’s in, in person and he’s got that additional layer of information, he he can, not only extract it, but he knows what to do with it um still so well.

莱克斯: 是的。他在试探，而且他得到了别人无法得到的额外信息。不过，话虽如此，他在线上也很厉害。你知道，我不知道，再说一次，他能在线上打败顶级现金游戏玩家吗？可能不会，不会。嗯，但当他在，在现场，而且他得到了额外的信息，他，他可以，不仅提取它，而且他知道如何处理它，嗯，仍然做得很好。

Liv: There’s one player who I would say is the exception to all of this um and he’s one of my favorite people to talk about in terms of, I think he might have cracked the simulation, uh, is Phil Hellmuth. Uh, he in more ways than one, he’s a practice simulation I think. Yeah. He somehow to this day is still, and I love you Phil, don’t, I’m not in any way knocking you, um he’s still winning so much at the World Series of Poker specifically. Um he’s now on 16 bracelets. The next nearest person, I think, has won 10. Um and he is consistently, year in, year out, going deep or winning these huge field tournaments, you know, with like 2,000 people um which statistically he should not be doing. And, and yet you watch some of the plays he makes and they make no sense. Like, mathematically, they are so far from game theory optimal.

莉芙: 有一个玩家，我想说他是所有这些的例外，嗯，他是关于，我最喜欢谈论的人之一，我认为他可能破解了模拟，呃，是菲尔·赫尔姆斯。呃，他，在很多方面，我认为他是一个实践模拟。是的。不知何故，直到今天，他仍然，我爱你，菲尔，别，我绝不是在贬低你，嗯，他仍然在世界扑克系列赛中赢得了很多胜利，特别是在世界扑克系列赛中。嗯，他现在有 16 条金手链。我想，排在他后面的人赢得了 10 条。嗯，他始终如一地，年复一年地，在这些大型锦标赛中打得很深，或者赢得冠军，你知道，比如有 2000 人参加，嗯，从统计学上来说，他不应该这样做。而且，而且，你看他的一些玩法，它们毫无意义。比如，从数学上来说，它们离博弈论最优解太远了。

Lex: Yeah. And the thing is, if you went and stuck him in one of these like high stakes cash games with a bunch of like GTO people, he’s going to get ripped apart. But there’s something that he has that, when he’s in the halls of the World Series of Poker specifically, um, amongst sort of amateurish players he gets them to do crazy, like that. And, and

莱克斯: 是的。问题是，如果你把他塞进一个像这样的高额现金游戏，和一群像 GTO 玩家那样的人一起玩，他会被撕成碎片。但他拥有一些东西，当他在世界扑克系列赛的大厅里，嗯，在那些业余玩家中，他会让他们做出疯狂的，比如这样的事情。而且，而且

Liv: But my little pet theory is that, also, he just, the car, he, he’s, he’s like a wizard, and he gets the cards to do what he needs them to do because he, ex, he just expects to win. And he expects to rece, you know, to get flopper set with a frequency far beyond what this you know the the, the real percentages are. And I don’t even know if he knows what the real percentages are. He doesn’t need to because he gets there.

莉芙: 但我的小宠物理论是，还有，他只是，牌，他，他，他就像一个巫师，他让牌按照他需要的方式出现，因为他，前任，他只是期待着赢。而且他期待着收到，你知道，以远远超出这个，你知道，真正的百分比的频率得到翻牌三条。我甚至不知道他是否知道真正的百分比是多少。他不需要知道，因为他能做到。

Lex: I think he has found the cheat code because when I’ve seen him play, he seems to be like annoyed that the long shot thing didn’t happen.

莱克斯: 我认为他找到了作弊码，因为当我看到他玩的时候，他似乎对小概率事件没有发生感到恼火。

Liv: Yes.

莉芙: 是的。

Lex: He’s like annoyed and it’s almost like everybody else is stupid because he was obviously going to win with us if that silly thing hadn’t happened. And it’s like you understand the silly thing happens 99 of the time, and it’s a 1% not the other way around.

莱克斯: 他就像很恼火，而且几乎像其他人都是傻瓜，因为他显然会和我们一起赢，如果那件愚蠢的事情没有发生的话。这就像，你知道，愚蠢的事情在 99% 的时间里都会发生，而且它是 1% 的概率，而不是反过来。

Liv: But genuinely, for his lived experience at the, well only at the Monster, as a poker, it is like that. So I don’t blame him for feeling that way um but he does, he has this, he has this x factor. And the poker community has tried for years to rip him down, saying like you know, “He doesn’t, he’s no good.” But he’s clearly good because he’s still winning. Or there’s something going on, whether that’s, he’s figured out how to mess with the fabric of reality and how cards, are you know a randomly shuffled deck of cards come out, I don’t know what it is, but he’s doing, doing it right still.

莉芙: 但说真的，就他在，嗯，只在怪物赛，作为扑克玩家的亲身经历而言，它就是这样。所以我不会责怪他这样想，嗯，但他确实，他拥有这个，他拥有这种 x 因素。扑克界多年来一直试图把他拉下来，说，你知道，“他不会，他不好。”但他显然很厉害，因为他还在赢。或者发生了什么，不管那是什么，他已经 figured out 如何 messing with 现实结构，以及牌，你知道，一副随机洗牌的牌是如何出现的，我不知道那是什么，但他仍然在，正确地做这件事。

Lex: Who do you think is the greatest of all time? Would you put Hellmuth?

莱克斯: 你认为谁是有史以来最伟大的？你会把赫尔姆斯放在这个位置上吗？

Liv: No. No. He’s definitely, he seems like the kind of person would mention, he would actually watch this, so you might want to be careful. As I said, I love Phil and I and I’m, I’m, I have I would say this to his face. I’m not saying anything I don’t, he’s got, he truly, I mean, he is one of the greatest.

莉芙: 不。不。他绝对，他看起来像是那种会提到，他会真正看这个的人，所以你可能要小心。正如我所说，我爱菲尔，我，我，我，我会当着他的面说这些。我没有说任何我没有，他得到了，他真的，我的意思是，他是最伟大的人之一。

Lex: Yeah. I don’t know if he’s the greatest.

莱克斯: 是的。我不知道他是否是最伟大的。

Liv: He’s certainly the greatest at the World Series of Poker. And he is the greatest at, despite the game switching into a pure game, almost an entire game of math, he has managed to keep the magic alive and this, like just through sheer force of will, making the game work for him, and that is incredible. And I think it’s something that should be studied because it’s an example.

莉芙: 他无疑是世界扑克系列赛中最伟大的。而且，尽管游戏变成了一个纯粹的游戏，几乎完全是一个数学游戏，但他仍然是最大的，他设法让魔法继续存在，而且，就像仅仅通过纯粹的意志力，让游戏为他服务，这真是不可思议。我认为这是一件值得研究的事情，因为它是一个例子。

Lex: Yeah. There might be some actual game theoretic wisdom there. There might be something to be said about optimality from studying him.

莱克斯: 是的。那里可能有一些真正的博弈论智慧。从研究他身上，我们可能会对最优性有所了解。

Liv: Right.

莉芙: 对。

Lex: What do you mean by optimality? Meaning, uh, or rather game design perhaps, meaning if what he’s doing is working, maybe poker is more complicated than we’re currently modeling it as. So like, or there’s an extra layer. And I don’t mean to get too weird and wooy. But, or there’s an extra layer of ability to manipulate the things the way you want them to go that we don’t understand yet. Do you think Phil Hellmuth understands them? Is he just generally hashtag positivity?

莱克斯: 你说的最优性是什么意思？意思是，呃，或者更确切地说是游戏设计，意思是如果他所做的事情是有效的，也许扑克比我们目前建模的要复杂。所以，比如，或者有一个额外的层次。我不是想变得太奇怪，太神叨叨。但是，或者有一种我们还不了解的额外能力，可以操纵事物按照你想要的方式发展。你认为菲尔·赫尔姆斯理解它们吗？他只是一般来说，#积极向上？

Liv: He wrote a book on positivity, and he has.

莉芙: 他写了一本关于积极向上的书，而且他拥有。

Lex: Yes, he did. Positivity trolling books?

莱克斯: 是的，他写了。积极向上巨魔书籍？

Liv: No. A, wrote a book about positivity, yes. Okay, about, I think, and I think it’s about sort of manifesting what you want and getting the outcomes that you want by believing so much in yourself and in your ability to win. Like, eyes on the prize. Um and I mean, it’s working. The man’s delivered.

莉芙: 不。一本，写了一本关于积极向上的书，是的。好的，关于，我认为，我认为是关于某种表现你想要的东西，并通过如此相信自己和你的获胜能力来获得你想要的结果。比如，目光放在奖品上。嗯，我的意思是，它奏效了。这个男人做到了。

Lex: Where do you put like Phil Ivey and all those kinds of people?

莱克斯: 你把像菲尔·艾维和所有那些人放在什么位置？

Liv: Um I mean I’m too, I’ve been, to be honest, too much out of the scene for the last few years to really, I mean, Phil Ivey’s clearly got, again, he’s got that x factor. Um he’s so incredibly intimidating to play against. I’ve only played against him a couple of times, but when he like looks you in the eye and you’re trying to run a bluff on him, no one’s made me sweat harder than Phil Ivey just, um my, my bluff got through actually. That was actually one of the most thrilling moments I’ve ever had in poker was, it was in a Monte Carlo and a high roller, I can’t remember exactly what the hand was, but um I I, you know, I three bet, and then like just barreled all the way through and he just like put his laser eyes into me. And I felt like he was just scouring my soul. And I was just like, “Hold it together Liv, hold together. Weaker, you know, your hand,” a, it

莉芙: 嗯，我的意思是，我太，老实说，在过去的几年里，我已经远离这个圈子太久了，无法真正，我的意思是，菲尔·艾维显然拥有，再一次，他拥有那种 x 因素。嗯，和他对局太吓人了。我只和他对局过几次，但当他，比如，看着你的眼睛，而你试图对他诈唬时，没有人让我比菲尔·艾维更紧张，只是，嗯，我的，我的诈唬实际上成功了。那实际上是我在扑克中最激动人心的时刻之一，是在蒙特卡洛，一场高额桌，我不记得确切的牌是什么了，但，嗯，我，我，你知道，我三次下注，然后，比如，一路下注，他就像用他的激光眼看着我。我觉得他就像在审视我的灵魂。我就像，“坚持住，莉芙，坚持住。更弱，你知道，你的牌，”一个，它

Lex: Yeah. I mean I was bluffing. I I presume which you know there’s a chance I was bluffing with the best hand, but I’m pretty sure my hand was worse. Um and, uh, and he folded.

莱克斯: 是的。我的意思是，我在诈唬。我，我推测，你知道，我可能用最好的牌在诈唬，但我敢肯定我的牌更差。嗯，而且，呃，他弃牌了。

Liv: I was truly, one of my, one of the deep highlights of my career.

莉芙: 那真的是，我的，我职业生涯中的一个高光时刻。

Lex: Correct. Did you show the cards? Are you useful?

莱克斯: 对的。你亮牌了吗？你，有用吗？

Liv: What would you, you should never show in game like, because especially as I felt like I was one of the worst players at the table in that tournament, so giving that information, unless I had a really solid plan that I was now like advertising, “Oh, look, I’m capable of bluffing Phil Ivey.” But like, why? It’s much more valuable to take advantage of the impression that they have of me, which is like, “I’m a scared girl playing a high roller for the first time, keep that going,” you know?

莉芙: 你会怎么做，你永远不应该在游戏中亮牌，比如，因为特别是我感觉我是那场比赛中桌上最差的玩家之一，所以透露这些信息，除非我有一个非常周密的计划，我现在像是在宣传，“哦，看，我能对菲尔·艾维诈唬。”但，为什么？利用他们对我的印象更有价值，比如，“我是一个第一次玩高额桌的害怕的女孩，继续这样下去，”你知道吗？

Lex: Interesting, but isn’t there layers to this like psychological warfare that the scared girl might be way smart, and then like to to flip the tables, do you think about that kind of stuff?

莱克斯: 有趣，但这难道不是这场心理战的层次，这个害怕的女孩可能很聪明，然后，比如，为了扭转局势，你考虑过这种事情吗？

Liv: Definitely. I mean, not going to reveal information. I mean, generally speaking, you want to not reveal information. You know, the goal of poker is to be as deceptive as possible about your own strategies, while elucidating as much out of your opponent about their own. So giving them free information, particularly if they’re people who you consider very good players, any information I give them is going into their little database and being, I assume, it’s going to be calculated and used well. So I have to be really confident that my like meta gaming that I’m going to then do, or they’ve seen this. So therefore that I’m going to be on the right level. Um so it’s better just to keep that little secret to myself in a moment.

莉芙: 当然。我的意思是，不要透露信息。我的意思是，一般来说，你不想透露信息。你知道，扑克的目标是尽可能地对自己的策略进行欺骗，同时尽可能地从对手那里了解他们的策略。所以，给他们免费的信息，特别是如果他们是，你认为非常厉害的玩家，我给他们的任何信息都会进入他们的小数据库，而且，我假设，它会被计算并很好地利用。所以我必须非常自信，我，比如，元游戏，我接下来要做的，或者他们已经看到了这一点。因此，我将处于正确的水平。嗯，所以最好还是暂时保守这个小秘密。

Lex: So how much is bluffing part of the game?

莱克斯: 那么，诈唬在游戏中占多大比例？

Liv: Huge amount.

莉芙: 很大一部分。

Lex: So yeah. I mean, maybe actually let me ask like what did it feel like with the Ivey, or anyone else, when it’s a high stake, when it’s a big it’s a big bluff. Um so a lot of money on the table, and maybe, I mean what defines a big bluff? Maybe a lot of money on the table, but also some uncertainty in your mind and heart about like self-doubt. “Well, maybe I miscalculated what’s going on here, what the bet,” all that kind of stuff, like what does that feel like?

莱克斯: 所以，是的。我的意思是，也许让我问问，比如，和艾维，或者其他任何人，当它是高风险，当它是一个大，它是一个大诈唬时，是什么感觉。嗯，桌上有这么多钱，而且也许，我的意思是，什么定义了一个大诈唬？也许桌上有很多钱，但你心里和心里也有一些不确定性，比如自我怀疑。“嗯，也许我算错了这里发生的事情，算错了下注，”所有这些事情，比如，那是什么感觉？

Liv: I mean, it’s, I imagine comparable to you know running a, I mean any kind of big bluff where you have a lot of something that you care about on the line, you know, so if you’re bluffing in a courtroom, not that anyone should ever do that, or you know something equatable to that. It’s, it’s incr, you know, in that scenario, you know, I think it was the first time I’d ever played a 20, I’d won my way into this 25K tournament, so that was the buy in, €25,000, and I had satellited my way in because it was much bigger than, I would never ever normally play. And, you know, I hadn’t, I wasn’t that experienced at the time, and now I was sitting there against all the big boys, you know, the Negreanu’s, the Phil Ivey’s and so on, um, and then, uh, to like, you know, each time you put the bets out, you know, you put another bet out, your car, yeah, I was on a what’s called a semi-bluff. So there were some cards that could come that would make my hand very, very strong and therefore win, but most of the time those cards don’t come, so that, it’s the same above because you’re representing, what are you representing? That you already have something.

莉芙: 我的意思是，它，我想可以比作，你知道，运行一个，我的意思是，任何类型的大诈唬，你有很多你在乎的东西，你知道，所以如果你在法庭上诈唬，不是说任何人应该这样做，或者，你知道，与之相当的东西。它，它增加，你知道，在那种情况下，你知道，我想那是我第一次玩 20，我赢得了进入这个 25K 锦标赛的资格，所以那是买入费，25000 欧元，我通过卫星赛进入了比赛，因为它比，我通常永远不会玩的要大得多。而且，你知道，我没有，我当时没有那么有经验，现在我坐在那里，面对着所有的大人物，你知道，内格雷亚努，菲尔·艾维等等，嗯，然后，呃，比如，你知道，每次你下注，你知道，你又下了一个注，你的牌，是的，我处于一种叫做半诈唬的状态。所以有一些牌可能会出现，会让我的牌非常，非常强，因此会赢，但大多数时候，这些牌不会出现，所以，它和上面说的一样，因为你代表着，你代表着什么？你已经拥有一些东西。

Lex: So I think in this scenario you had a flush draw, two, two. So I had two clubs, two two clubs came out on the flop, and then I’m hoping that on the turn in the river one will come, so I have some future equity. I could hit a club, and then I’ll have the best hand, in which case great. Um and so I can keep betting, and I’ll want them to call, but I’m also got the other way of winning the hand, where if my card doesn’t come I can keep betting and get them to fold their hand. And I’m pretty sure that’s what the scenario was. Um so I had some future equity, but it’s still you know, most of the time, I don’t hit that club, and so I would rather him just fold because I’m, you know, the pot is now getting bigger and bigger. And in the end, like, I jam all, jam all in on the river. That’s my entire tournament on the line. As far as I’m aware, this might be the one time I ever get to play a big 25K you know, this is the first time I played once. So it was it felt like the most momentous thing.

莱克斯: 所以，我认为在这种情况下，你有一个同花听牌，两张，两张。所以我有两张梅花，两张梅花出现在翻牌圈，然后我希望在转牌圈和河牌圈会出现一张，这样我有一些未来的权益。我可能会击中一张梅花，然后我就会有最好的牌，在这种情况下，很好。嗯，所以我可以继续下注，我希望他们跟注，但我还有另一种赢得这手牌的方法，如果我的牌没有出现，我可以继续下注，让他们弃牌。我敢肯定情况就是这样。嗯，所以我有了一些未来的权益，但它仍然是，你知道，大多数时候，我没有击中那张梅花，所以我宁愿他弃牌，因为，你知道，底池现在越来越大。最后，比如，我在河牌圈全押，全押。这是我的整个锦标赛。据我所知，这可能是我唯一一次能玩 25K 的大游戏，你知道，这是我第一次玩。所以，它感觉是最重大的事情。

Liv: And this is also when I was trying to build myself up, you know, build my name, a name for myself, in, in poker. I wanted to get respect.

莉芙: 这也是我试图建立自己的时候，你知道，建立我的名字，一个我的名字，在，在扑克界。我想要得到尊重。

Lex: Destroy everything for you.

莱克斯: 为你摧毁一切。

Liv: It felt like it in the moment. Like, I mean, it literally does feel like a form of life and death, like your body physiologically is having that flight or fight response. What are you doing with your body? What are you doing with your face? Are you just like, what are you thinking about?

莉芙: 当时感觉就是这样。比如，我的意思是，它真的感觉像一种生死攸关的形式，比如你的身体在生理上正在做出战斗或逃跑的反应。你用你的身体在做什么？你用你的脸在做什么？你只是像，你在想什么？

Lex: A mixture of like, “Okay, what are the cards?” So in theory, I’m thinking about like, “Okay, what are cards that look, make my hand look stronger, which you know which cards hit my perceived range from his perspective, which cards don’t? Um what’s the right amount of bet size to, you know, maximize my fold equity in this situation?” You know, that’s the logical stuff that I should be thinking about, but I think in reality, because I was so scared, because there’s this, at least for me, there’s a certain threshold of like nervousness or stress beyond which the like logical brain shuts off and now it just gets into this, like, it’s just, like it feels like a game of wits basically. It’s like, of nerve, can you hold your hold your resolve um and it certainly got by that like, by the river, at this, I think by that point I was like, “I don’t even know if this is a good bluff anymore, but let’s do it.”

莱克斯: 一种混合，比如，“好吧，牌是什么？”所以在理论上，我在想，比如，“好吧，哪些牌看起来，让我的牌看起来更强，哪些牌符合他眼中的我的感知范围，哪些牌不符合？嗯，在这个情况下，多少下注量是合适的，你知道，最大化我的弃牌权益？”你知道，这是我应该思考的逻辑的东西，但我认为在现实中，因为我太害怕了，因为有这个，至少对我来说，有一个紧张或压力的阈值，超过这个阈值，逻辑大脑就会关闭，现在它只是进入这个，比如，它只是，比如，它感觉基本上像一场斗智斗勇的游戏。就像，神经，你能坚持住你的，坚持住你的决心吗？嗯，它当然通过了，比如，在河牌圈，在这个，我想在那一点上，我就像，“我甚至不知道这是否还是一个好的诈唬，但让我们去做吧。”

Lex: Your mind is almost numb from the intensity of that feeling. I call it the white noise. And and that’s this, and it happens in all kinds of decision making I think. Anything that’s really, really stressful, like I can imagine someone in like an important job interview, if it’s like a job they’ve always wanted, and they’re getting grilled, you know, like Bridgewater style, where they ask these very like really hard like mathematical questions, you know, that’s it’s a really learned skill to be able to like subdue your flight or fight response you know, what I think get from the sympathetic into the parasympathetic, so you can actually you know engage the that voice in your head and do those slow logical calculations, because evolutionarily, we you know if we see a lion running at us we didn’t have time to sort of calculate the line’s kinetic energy, and you know, “Is it optimal to go this way or that way?” You just reacted and physically our bodies are well attuned to actually make right decisions, but when you’re playing a game like poker, this is not something that you ever you know evolved to do and yet you’re in that same flight or fight response. Um and so that’s a really important skill to be able to develop, to basically learn how to like meditate in the moment and calm yourself so that you can think clearly. But as you were searching for a comparable thing, it’s interesting because I, you just made me realize that bluffing is like an incredibly high stakes form of lying. You’re, you’re, you’re lying, and I don’t think you’re telling a story. It’s not it’s straight up lying in, in the context of game.

莱克斯: 你的思想几乎被那种强烈的感觉麻痹了。我称之为白噪音。而且，这就是这个，我认为它发生在各种决策中。任何真正，真正有压力的事情，比如我可以想象有人在，比如，一个重要的工作面试中，如果它就像他们一直想要的工作，而且他们正在被拷问，你知道，像桥水风格，他们会问这些非常，真正困难的，比如，数学问题，你知道，那，那是一个真正需要学习的技能，能够，比如，抑制你的战斗或逃跑反应，你知道，我认为是从交感神经进入副交感神经，这样你才能真正，你知道，调动你脑海中的那个声音，并进行那些缓慢的逻辑计算，因为从进化的角度来看，我们，你知道，如果我们看到一只狮子向我们跑来，我们没有时间去计算狮子的动能，也没有时间去考虑，“往哪个方向跑才是最佳选择？”你只是做出了反应，而且从生理上来说，我们的身体已经适应了做出正确的决定。但是，当你玩扑克这样的游戏时，这不是你进化过程中所做的事情，然而你却处于同样的战斗或逃跑的反应中。嗯，所以，能够培养一种重要的技能，基本上就是学会如何在当下冥想和平静自己，这样你才能清晰地思考。但当你正在寻找一个可比较的东西时，这很有趣，因为我，你让我意识到，诈唬就像一种难以置信的高风险的谎言形式。你，你，你在撒谎，而且我不认为你在讲故事。它不是，它是在游戏的背景下直接撒谎。

Liv: It’s not a negative kind of lying, but it is.

莉芙: 它不是一种负面的谎言，但它确实是谎言。

Lex: Yeah. Exactly. You are, you’re, you’re representing something that you don’t have and I was thinking like, in how often in life do we have such high stakes of lying? Because I was thinking, um, certainly in high-level military strategy I was thinking, um, when Hitler was lying to Stalin about his plans to invade the Soviet Union. And so you’re, you’re, you’re talking to a person, like your friends and, uh, you’re fighting against the enemy, whatever the the, the formulation that enemy is, but meanwhile whole time you’re building up troops on the border.

莱克斯: 是的。没错。你，你，你代表着你没有的东西，我在想，比如，在生活中我们有多少次会撒这么高风险的谎？因为我在想，嗯，当然在高级军事战略中，我在想，嗯，当希特勒对斯大林撒谎，关于他入侵苏联的计划时。所以你，你，你正在和一个人说话，比如你的朋友，而且，呃，你正在和敌人作战，无论敌人是什么，是什么，是什么表述，但与此同时，你一直在边境集结军队。

Liv: Um, that’s extremely, wait so Hitler and Stalin were like pretending to be friends?

莉芙: 嗯，那太，等等，所以希特勒和斯大林就像在假装是朋友？

Lex: Yeah. My history knowledge is terrible.

莱克斯: 是的。我的历史知识很糟糕。

Liv: That’s crazy.

莉芙: 那太疯狂了。

Lex: Yeah. That they were, uh, yeah, man. Uh and it worked because Stalin until the troops crossed the border and invaded in Operation Barbarossa, where they, this storm of Nazi troops invaded large parts of the Soviet Union, and hence, one of the biggest wars in human history, uh, began. Stalin for sure was thought that this was, uh, never going to be, uh, that Hillary is not crazy enough to invade the Soviet Union, that they, it makes, geopolitically, makes total sense to be collaborators and ideologically, even though there’s a tension between communism and fascism, or, uh, national socialism however you formulate it, still feels like this is the right way to battle the West, right?

莱克斯: 是的。他们，呃，是的，伙计。呃，它奏效了，因为斯大林直到军队越过边境，并在巴巴罗萨行动中入侵，在那里，他们，这股纳粹军队风暴入侵了苏联的大部分地区，因此，人类历史上最大的战争之一，呃，开始了。斯大林肯定认为这是，呃，永远不会发生，呃，希拉里没有疯狂到入侵苏联，他们，它在，在地缘政治上，成为合作者是完全合理的，而且在意识形态上，尽管共产主义和法西斯主义之间存在紧张关系，或者，呃，不管你如何表述国家社会主义，仍然感觉这是与西方作战的正确方式，对吧？

Liv: They were more ideologically aligned. You know, they in theory had a common enemy which is the West, so made total sense. And in terms of negotiations and the way things were communicated it, um, it seemed to Stalin that for sure that they would remain, at least for a while, uh, peaceful collaborators and uh, that uh and everybody, everybody because of that, in the Soviet Union, believed that it was a huge shock when Kiev was invaded. And you hear echoes of that when I traveled to Ukraine, sort of the shock of the invasion. It’s not just the invasion on one particular border, but the invasion of the capital city and just like holy, especially at that time when you thought World War I you realized that that was the war that, to end all wars, you would never have this kind of war. And holy, this this person is mad enough to try to take on this monster in the Soviet Union. Uh so it’s not no longer going to be a war of hundreds of thousands dead, it’ll be a war of tens of millions dead and, um, yeah, but that, like you know that’s a very large scale kind of lie, but I’m sure there’s in politics and geopolitics that kind of lying happening all the time uh and a lot of people pay financially and with their lives for that kind of lying. But in our personal lives, I don’t know how often we, uh, maybe we I think people do, I mean like think of spouses cheating on their partners, right? And then like having to lie, like, “Where were you last night?” Stuff.

莉芙: 他们在意识形态上更一致。你知道，他们在理论上有一个共同的敌人，那就是西方，所以完全合理。而且，就谈判和事情的沟通方式而言，嗯，在斯大林看来，他们肯定会，至少在一段时间内，呃，保持和平的合作者，而且，呃，那，呃，每个人，每个人都因为这个，在苏联，相信当基辅被入侵时，这是一个巨大的冲击。而且，当我前往乌克兰时，你听到了这种冲击的回声，这种入侵的冲击。这不仅仅是对某个特定边境的入侵，而是对首都的入侵，而且，就像，天哪，特别是在那个时候，当你想到第一次世界大战时，你意识到那是结束所有战争的战争，你永远不会有这种战争。而且，天哪，这个，这个人疯狂到要挑战苏联的这个怪物。呃，所以，它不再是一场数十万人死亡的战争，而是一场数千万人死亡的战争，而且，嗯，是的，但那，就像，你知道，那是一个非常大规模的谎言，但我敢肯定，在政治和地缘政治中，这种谎言一直在发生，呃，很多人为这种谎言付出了金钱和生命的代价。但在我们的个人生活中，我不知道我们多久，呃，也许我们，我认为人们会，我的意思是，比如想想配偶对他们的伴侣不忠，对吧？然后，比如，不得不撒谎，比如，“你昨晚在哪里？”之类的事情。

Lex: That’s tough.

莱克斯: 那很难。

Liv: Yeah. Like, that’s, I think you know I mean, unfortunately, that stuff happens all the time, right? So, or having like multiple families that, one is great when, when each family doesn’t know the other, about the other one, and like maintaining that life, there’s probably a sense of excitement about that too, um, or it seems unnecessary.

莉芙: 是的。比如，那，我想，你知道，我的意思是，不幸的是，这种事情一直在发生，对吧？所以，或者，比如，有多个家庭，当，当每个家庭都不知道对方，关于对方，而且，比如，维持那种生活，可能也有一种兴奋感，嗯，或者它看起来没有必要。

Lex: Yeah. But why?

莱克斯: 是的。但为什么？

Liv: Well, just lying, like, like, you know the truth finds a way of coming out, you know?

莉芙: 嗯，只是撒谎，比如，比如，你知道，真相总有水落石出的一天，你知道吗？

Lex: Yes, but hence, that’s the thrill.

莱克斯: 是的，但因此，这就是刺激所在。

Liv: Yeah. Perhaps.

莉芙: 是的。也许吧。

Lex: Yeah. People, I mean and you know that’s that’s why I think actually like poker what, what’s so interesting about poker is most of the best players I know, they’re always exceptions you know they’re always bad eggs but actually poker players are very honest people I would say. They are more honest than the average, you know, if you just took random uh random population example. Um because, a you know I think you know humans like to have that, most people like to have some kind of you know mysterious you know an opportunity to do something, like a little edgy. So we get to sort of scratch that itch of being edgy at the poker table, where it’s like it’s part of the game, everyone knows, everyone knows what they’re in for, and that’s allowed, and you get to like really get that out of your system um and then also like poker players learned that, you know, I’ll, you know I would play in a huge game against some of my friends, even my partner Igor where we will be you know absolutely going at each other’s throats trying to draw blood in terms of winning each money off each other and like getting under each other’s skin, winding each other up um doing the craftiest moves we can, but then once the game’s done the you know the winners and the losers will go off and get a drink together and have a fun time and like talk about it in this like weird academic way afterwards. Because that, and that’s why games are so great because you get to like live out our, like this competitive urge that you know most people have. What’s it feel like to lose? Like, we talked about bluffing when it worked out, what about when you, when you go broke? So like in a game, I I’m you know unfortunately I’ve never gone broke, um um I know plenty of people who have, um, uh, and I don’t think Igor would mind me saying he went you know, he went broke once in poker ball, you know, early on when we were together.

莱克斯: 是的。人们，我的意思是，你知道，这就是，这就是为什么我认为实际上，比如，扑克，扑克的有趣之处在于，我认识的大多数顶级玩家，总有例外，你知道，总有坏人，但实际上，我想说，扑克玩家是非常诚实的人。他们比普通人更诚实，你知道，如果你只是随机，呃，随机抽取人口样本的话。嗯，因为，一个，你知道，我认为，你知道，人类喜欢那样，大多数人喜欢拥有一些，你知道，神秘的，你知道，一个做某事的机会，比如，有点前卫。所以，我们可以在扑克桌上，比如，挠挠痒痒，在那里，它就像，它是游戏的一部分，每个人都知道，每个人都知道他们在做什么，而且这是允许的，而且你可以，比如，真正地把它从你的系统中清除，嗯，然后，比如，扑克玩家也 learned，你知道，我，你知道，我会和我的朋友们玩一场大型游戏，甚至是我的搭档伊戈尔，在那里，我们会，你知道，绝对会拼个你死我活，试图在赢得对方的钱方面，比如，钻到对方的皮肤下，互相缠绕，嗯，尽我们所能，做出最狡猾的举动，但一旦游戏结束，你知道，赢家和输家会一起去喝一杯，玩得很开心，而且，比如，事后以这种，比如，奇怪的学术方式谈论它。因为那，这就是为什么游戏如此伟大，因为你可以，比如，活出我们的，比如，这种竞争的冲动，你知道，大多数人都有。输的感觉是什么？比如，我们谈到了诈唬成功的时候，当你，当你破产的时候呢？所以，比如，在一场游戏中，我，我，你知道，不幸的是，我从来没有破产过，嗯，嗯，我认识很多破产过的人，嗯，呃，我认为伊戈尔不会介意我说他，你知道，他在扑克球中破产过一次，你知道，在我们在一起的早期。

Lex: I feel like you haven’t lived unless you’ve gone broke.

莱克斯: 我觉得你除非破产过，否则你就没有活过。

Liv: Oh yeah. I I in some sense right? Well, I I I mean, I’m happy I, I’ve sort of lived through it vicariously through him when he did it at the time, but yeah.

莉芙: 哦，是的。我，我在某种意义上，对吧？嗯，我，我，我的意思是，我很高兴我，我，比如，通过他在当时做这件事时，间接地经历了它，但，是的。

Lex: What is it like to lose? Well, it depends, so it depends on the amount, it depends what percentage of your net worth you’ve just lost, um, it depends on your brain chemistry, it really you know varies from person to person.

莱克斯: 输的感觉是什么？嗯，这取决于，所以，这取决于金额，这取决于你刚刚损失的净资产的百分比，嗯，这取决于你的大脑化学，它真的，你知道，因人而异。

Liv: You have a very cold, calculating way of thinking about this. Uh so it depends what percentage.

莉芙: 你思考这个问题的方式很冷酷，很 calculating。呃，所以这取决于百分比。

Lex: Well, it really does right. Yes, but that’s I mean that’s another thing poker trains you to do. You see you, you see everything in percentages um or you see everything in like ROI or expected hourlies, or cost benefit, et cetera you know? So um that’s, I I one of the things I’ve tried to do is calibrate the strength of my emotional response to the, to the win or loss that I’ve received because it’s it’s no good if you like you know you have a huge emotional, dramatic response to a tiny loss, um or on the flip side you have a huge win and you’re so dead inside that you don’t even feel it. Well, that’s, you know, that’s a shame. I want my emotions to calibrate with reality as much as possible. Um so yeah. What’s it like to lose? I mean I’ve had times where I’ve lost, you know busted out of a tournament I thought I was going to win in is, you know, especially if I got really unlucky, or um, or I make a dumb play. Uh where I’ve gone away and like you know kicked kicked the wall, punched a wall, I like nearly broke my hand one time, like um, I’m a lot less competitive than I used to be like. I was like pathologically competitive in my like late teens, early 20s, I just had to win everything um and I think that’s sort of slowly waned as I’ve gotten older.

莱克斯: 嗯，它确实，对吧。是的，但那，我的意思是，那是扑克训练你做的另一件事。你看到你，你用百分比来看待一切，嗯，或者你用投资回报率或预期时薪，或成本效益等等来，你知道吗？所以，嗯，那是，我，我尝试做的一件事是校准我的情绪反应的强度，对，对我所收到的输赢，因为它，它不好，如果你，比如，你知道，你对一个小小的损失有巨大的情绪，戏剧性的反应，嗯，或者反过来说，你赢得了巨大的胜利，而你内心如此麻木，以至于你甚至没有感觉。嗯，那，你知道，那很可惜。我希望我的情绪尽可能地与现实相符。嗯，所以，是的。输的感觉是什么？我的意思是，我有过，你知道，输掉，从我认为我会赢的锦标赛中出局的时候，你知道，特别是我真的很不走运，或者，嗯，或者我犯了一个愚蠢的错误。呃，我已经离开了，而且，比如，你知道，踢，踢墙，打墙，我，比如，有一次差点打断了我的手，比如，嗯，我不像以前那么有竞争力了。我就像，在我，比如，十几岁后期，二十岁出头的时候，有病态的竞争力，我必须赢得一切，嗯，我认为这，比如，随着我年龄的增长，逐渐减弱了。

Lex: According to you. Yeah.

莱克斯: 根据你的说法。是的。

Liv: According to me, I, I don’t know if others would say the same right? Um, I feel like ultra competitive people like I’ve heard Joe Rogan say this to me, it’s like I think he’s a lot less competitive than he used to be. I don’t know about that.

莉芙: 根据我的说法，我，我不知道其他人是否会这么说，对吧？嗯，我觉得超级有竞争力的人，比如我听乔·罗根对我说过，这就像，我认为他不像以前那么有竞争力了。我不知道。

Lex: Oh, I believe it.

莱克斯: 哦，我相信。

Liv: No, I totally believe it like because as you get, you can still be like I care about winning, like when you know I play a game with my buddies online or you know whatever it is, Polytopia is my current obsession, like,

莉芙: 不，我完全相信，比如，因为当你得到，你仍然可以像，我在乎赢，比如，当，你知道，我和我的朋友们在线玩游戏，或者，你知道，不管是什么，Polytopia 是我目前的痴迷，比如，

Lex: Why not? Thank you for passing on your obsession to me. Are you playing now?

莱克斯: 为什么不呢？谢谢你把你的痴迷传染给我。你现在在玩吗？

Liv: Yeah. I’m playing now. We gotta have a game.

莉芙: 是的。我现在在玩。我们得玩一局。

Lex: But I’m terrible and I enjoy playing terribly. I don’t want to have a game because that’s going to pull me into your monster of, of like uh competitive play.

莱克斯: 但我很糟糕，而且我喜欢玩得很糟糕。我不想玩，因为那会把我拉进你的，比如，呃，竞技游戏的怪物。

Liv: It’s important, I’m enjoying playing on the I can’t,

莉芙: 这很重要，我喜欢在，我不能，

Lex: You just do that, you just do the points thing you know, against the bots.

莱克斯: 你就做那个，你就做积分的事情，你知道，对抗机器人。

Liv: Yeah. Against the bots and I can’t even do the uh, uh, there’s like a hard one and there’s a very crazy,

莉芙: 是的。对抗机器人，而且我甚至不能做，呃，呃，有一个困难的，还有一个非常疯狂的，

Lex: Yeah. That’s crazy.

莱克斯: 是的。那太疯狂了。

Liv: I can’t, I don’t even enjoy the hard one. The crazy I really don’t enjoy because it’s intense. You have to constantly try to win as opposed to enjoy building a little world and,

莉芙: 我不能，我甚至不喜欢困难的。疯狂的，我真的不喜欢，因为它太 intense 了。你必须不断地试图赢，而不是享受建造一个小世界，而且，

Lex: Yeah. No, no. There’s no time for exploration in Polytopia. You gotta get,

莱克斯: 是的。不，不。在 Polytopia 中没有时间探索。你必须得到，

Liv: Well, when once you graduate from the crazies, then you can come play.

莉芙: 嗯，当你从疯狂中毕业后，你就可以来玩了。

Lex: Graduate from the crazy, yeah.

莱克斯: 从疯狂中毕业，是的。

Liv: So in order to be able to play a decent game against like you know our group um you’ll need to be you’ll need to be consistently winning like 90 of games against 15 crazy bots, yeah, and you’ll be able to like there’ll be I could, I could teach you it within a day honestly, um how how to be the crazies, how to be the crazies, and then, and then you’ll be ready for the big leagues. Generalizes uh to more than just Polytopia, but okay.

莉芙: 所以，为了能够玩一场像样的比赛，比如，你知道，我们的团队，嗯，你需要，你需要持续赢得，比如，90% 对抗 15 个疯狂机器人的比赛，是的，而且你能够，比如，会有，我可以，我可以老实说，在一天内教会你，嗯，如何成为疯狂的人，如何成为疯狂的人，然后，然后你就可以为大联盟做好准备了。呃，推广到不仅仅是 Polytopia，但好吧。

Lex: Uh why were we talking about Polytopia?

莱克斯: 呃，我们为什么要谈论 Polytopia？

Liv: Losing hurts. Losing hers, oh yeah, yes, competitiveness over time.

莉芙: 输了很痛苦。输了她的，哦，是的，是的，随着时间的推移，竞争力。

Lex: Um, oh yeah.

莱克斯: 嗯，哦，是的。

Liv: I think it’s more that, at least for me, I still care about playing about winning when I choose to play something. It’s just that I don’t see the world as zero sum as I used to be you know um I think as you one gets older and wiser, you start to see the world more as a positive something, or at least you’re more aware of externalities of, of scenarios, of competitive interactions. Um and so yeah. I just like I’m more and I’m more aware of my own you know, like if I have a really strong emotional response to losing, and that makes me then feel shitty for the rest of the day, and then I beat myself up mentally for it, like I’m now more aware that that, that’s unnecessary negative externality. So I’m like, “Okay, I need to find a way to turn this down you know, dial this down a bit.”

莉芙: 我认为更多的是，至少对我来说，当我选择玩一些东西的时候，我仍然在乎玩，在乎赢。只是我不再像以前那样把世界看成是零和的，你知道，嗯，我认为当你变老，变得更聪明的时候，你会开始更多地把世界看成是一个积极的东西，或者至少你更 aware of 情景的外部性，竞争性互动的外部性。嗯，所以，是的。我只是喜欢我更多地，我更 aware of 我自己的，你知道，比如，如果我对输有非常强烈的情绪反应，而且那让我在接下来的一天里感到很糟糕，然后我为此在精神上折磨自己，比如我现在更 aware of 那，那是没有必要的负面外部性。所以，我就像，“好吧，我需要找到一种方法来降低它，你知道，把它调低一点。”

Lex: Was poker the thing that has, if you think back at your life and think about some of the lower points of your life, like the darker places you’ve gone in your mind, did it have to do something with poker? Like what did losing spark the um the descent into darkness? Or was it something else?

莱克斯: 是扑克，如果你回顾你的生活，想想你生活中的一些低谷，比如你脑海中去过的那些更黑暗的地方，它和扑克有关吗？比如，是什么让输引发了，嗯，堕入黑暗？还是其他的什么？

Liv: Um I think my darkest points in poker were when I was wanting to quit and move on to other things, but I felt like I hadn’t ticked all the boxes I wanted to tick.

莉芙: 嗯，我认为我在扑克中最黑暗的时刻是，当我想退出，去做其他事情的时候，但我感觉我还没有勾选所有我想勾选的框框。

Lex: Yeah. Like I wanted to be the most winningest female player, which is by itself a bad goal.

莱克斯: 是的。比如我想成为最会赢的女玩家，这本身就是一个糟糕的目标。

Liv: Um you know, that was one of my initial goals, and I was like, “Well, I haven’t,” you know, and I wanted to win a WPT event.

莉芙: 嗯，你知道，那是我最初的目标之一，我当时就像，“嗯，我还没有，”你知道，而且我想赢得 WPT 赛事。

Lex: I won one of these, I won one of these, but I want one of those as well, and that sort of again, like, it’s a drive of like over optimization to random metrics that I decided were important um without much wisdom at the time, but then like carried on, um that made me continue chasing it longer than I still actually had the passion to chase it for. And I don’t, I don’t have any regrets that you know I played for as long as I did because who knows you know, I wouldn’t be sitting here, I wouldn’t be living this incredible life that I’m living now.

莱克斯: 我赢得了其中一个，我赢得了其中一个，但我也想要其中一个，而且那，比如，又一次，它就像一种对随机指标的过度优化的驱动力，我当时认为这些指标很重要，嗯，没有多少智慧，但后来，比如，继续下去，嗯，那让我继续追逐它，比我真正还有激情追逐它的时间更长。而且我没有，我没有后悔，你知道，我玩了那么长时间，因为谁知道，你知道，我不会坐在这里，我不会过着我现在过着的这种不可思议的生活。

Lex: Um this is this is the height of your life right now, this is it experience, absolute pinnacle, here in your, in your robot land.

莱克斯: 嗯，这，这是你生命的顶峰，这就是它的体验，绝对的顶峰，在你，在你的机器人之地。

Liv: Yeah. Yeah.

莉芙: 是的。是的。

Lex: With your creepy light. No, it is, I mean, I I wouldn’t change a thing about my life right now and I feel very blessed to say that.

莱克斯: 还有你那令人毛骨悚然的光。不，它是，我的意思是，我，我不会改变我生命中的任何事情，而且我感到非常幸运能够说出这一点。

Liv: Um so but the dark times were in sort of like 2016 to 18, even sooner really, where I was like, I had stopped loving the game and I was going through the motions and I would that, and and then I was like, you know I would take the losses harder than I needed to. Yeah. Because I’m like, “Oh, it’s another one.” And it was, I was aware that like I felt like my life was ticking away and I was like, “Is this going to be what’s on my tombstone? Oh yeah, she played the game of you know this zero-sum game of poker, slightly more optimally than her next opponent, like cool, great legacy,” you know? So I just wanted, you know, there was something in me that knew I needed to be doing something more directly impactful um and just meaningful. It was like a search for meaning, and I think it’s a thing a lot of poker players, even a lot of, I imagine any games players who sort of love intellectual pursuits um you know, I think you should ask Magnus Carlsen this question.

莉芙: 嗯，所以，但黑暗的时期是，比如，2016 年到 2018 年，甚至更早，真的，在那里，我就像，我已经不再热爱游戏，我是在敷衍了事，我会那样，然后，然后我就像，你知道，我会比我需要承受的更难承受损失。是的。因为我就像，“哦，又是这样。”而且，我 aware of，比如，我感觉我的生命正在流逝，我就像，“这会是我的墓碑上的内容吗？哦，是的，她玩了这个，你知道，这个零和的扑克游戏，比她的下一个对手稍微优化了一点，比如，酷，伟大的遗产，”你知道吗？所以，我只是想，你知道，我内心深处有一种东西知道我需要做一些更直接有影响力的事情，嗯，只是有意义的事情。这就像是在寻找意义，而且我认为这是很多扑克玩家，甚至是很多，我想象中任何喜欢智力追求的游戏玩家，嗯，你知道，我认为你应该问马格努斯·卡尔森这个问题。

Lex: Yeah. Walking away from chess, right? Yeah. Like it must be so hard for him you know he’s been on the top for so long, and it’s like, “Well now what? He’s got this incredible brain, like what to put it to?” Um and yeah. It’s it’s this weird uh moment. Where I just spoken with people that won multiple gold medals at the Olympics and the depression hits hard after you win. Doesn’t mean crash because it’s a kind of a goodbye, saying goodbye to that person, to all the dreams you had, the thought you thought would give meaning to your life. But in fact, life is full of constant pursuits of meaning, it doesn’t, you don’t like arrive and figure it all out and there’s endless bliss now. It continues going on and on. You constantly have to figure out to rediscover yourself. And so for you, like that struggle to say goodbye to poker, you have to like find the next, there’s always a bigger game.

莱克斯: 是的。离开国际象棋，对吧？是的。比如，对他来说一定很难，你知道，他已经在顶峰待了这么长时间，而且，这就像，“嗯，现在怎么办？他拥有这个不可思议的大脑，比如，把它用在什么地方？”嗯，而且，是的。这，这是一个奇怪的，呃，时刻。我刚刚和在奥运会上赢得过多个金牌的人交谈过，在你赢了之后，抑郁症会猛烈地袭来。不是说崩溃，因为它是一种告别，与那个人告别，与你所有的梦想告别，与你认为会赋予你生命意义的想法告别。但事实上，生活充满了对意义的不断追求，它不会，你不会喜欢到达并弄清楚这一切，而且现在有无尽的幸福。它会一直持续下去。你必须不断地去重新发现自己。所以，对你来说，比如，那种与扑克告别的挣扎，你必须喜欢找到下一个，总会有一个更大的游戏。

Liv: That’s the thing that’s my like motto is like, “What’s the next game?” And more importantly, because obviously game usually implies zero sum, like, “What what’s the game which is like omni win?” Look what you win, how many went when why is so, so important? Because if everyone plays zero sum games, that’s a fast track to either completely stagnate as a civilization, but more actually, far more likely, to extinct ourselves.

莉芙: 事情是这样的，我的座右铭是，“下一个游戏是什么？”更重要的是，因为显然游戏通常意味着零和，比如，“什么，什么游戏是，比如，全赢的？”看看你赢了什么，多少人去了，什么时候去了，为什么如此，如此重要？因为如果每个人都玩零和游戏，那将是一条快速通道，要么作为一个文明完全停滞不前，但实际上更，更有可能，让我们自己灭绝。

Lex: Um, you know like the playing field is finite.

莱克斯: 嗯，你知道，比如，游戏场地是有限的。

Liv: Yeah. You know nuclear powers are playing, uh, you know a game of poker with, uh, with, you know, but their chips are nuclear weapons right? And the stakes have gotten so large that if anyone makes a single bet, you know, fires some weapons, the, the playing field breaks. I made a video on this, like, you know, the the the fight, the playing field is finite and if we keep playing these adversarial zero-sum games uh thinking that we, you know in order for us to win someone else has to lose, or if we lose that you know someone else wins, that that will extinct us. It’s just a matter of when.

莉芙: 是的。你知道核大国正在玩，呃，你知道，一场扑克游戏，呃，呃，你知道，但他们的筹码是核武器，对吧？而且赌注已经变得如此之大，以至于如果任何人下注，你知道，发射一些武器，那，那，游戏场地就会崩溃。我制作了一个关于这个的视频，比如，你知道，那，那，那，战斗，游戏场地是有限的，如果我们继续玩这些对抗性的零和游戏，呃，认为我们，你知道，为了让我们赢，其他人必须输，或者如果我们输了，你知道，其他人赢了，那，那会让我们灭绝。这只是时间问题。

Lex: What do you think about that uh mutually sure destruction that very simple, almost to the point of caricaturing, game theory idea that does seem to be at the core of why we haven’t blown each other up yet with nuclear weapons. Do you think there’s some truth to that, this kind of stabilizing force of mutually sure destruction? And do you think that’s gonna hold up through the 21st century?

莱克斯: 你如何看待，呃，相互确保摧毁，那种非常简单，几乎到了漫画程度的博弈论思想，它似乎是我们还没有用核武器炸毁彼此的核心原因。你认为这其中有一些道理吗，这种相互确保摧毁的稳定力量？而且你认为它会在 21 世纪继续存在吗？

Liv: I mean, it’s, it has it has held yes. There’s there’s definitely truth to it that it was a, you know, it’s a Nash Equilibrium.

莉芙: 我的意思是，它，它，它确实存在，是的。这，这绝对有道理，它是一个，你知道，它是一个纳什均衡。

Lex: Are you surprised it held this long? Um isn’t it crazy?

莱克斯: 你惊讶它存在了这么长时间吗？嗯，它不疯狂吗？

Liv: It is crazy when you factor in all the like near-miss accidental firings yes. That’s,

莉芙: 当你把所有那些，比如，险些发生的意外发射都考虑进去的时候，它就很疯狂了，是的。那是，

Lex: Makes me wonder like, you know, you know they’re familiar with the like quantum suicide thought experiment where it’s basically like uh you have a you know like a Russian roulette type scenario uh hooked up to some kind of quantum event, you know particle splitting um or paraparticle splitting, and if it you know, if it goes a, then the gun doesn’t go off. And it goes b, then it does go off and it kills you. Because you can only ever be in the universe, know, assuming like the Everett branch you know multiverse theory, you will always only end up in the in the branch where you continually make, you know option a comes in. But you run that experiment enough times, it starts getting pretty damn, you know, out of the, the tree gets huge. There’s a million different scenarios in, but you’ll always find yourself in this in the one where it didn’t go off. And uh and so from that perspective you are essentially immortal, because someone and you will only find yourself in the set of observers that make it down that path.

莱克斯: 这让我想知道，比如，你知道，你知道，他们熟悉，比如，量子自杀思想实验，它基本上就像，呃，你有一个，你知道，比如，俄罗斯轮盘赌类型的场景，呃，连接到某种量子事件，你知道，粒子分裂，嗯，或准粒子分裂，而且如果它，你知道，如果它是 a，那么枪就不会响。而且如果它是 b，那么枪就会响，而且它会杀死你。因为你只能在宇宙中，知道，假设，比如，埃弗雷特分支，你知道，多重宇宙理论，你将永远只会在，在那个你不断地做出，你知道，选择 a 出现的分支中。但你运行这个实验足够多次，它开始变得非常，你知道，离开，树变得很大。其中有一百万种不同的场景，但你总是会发现自己在，在这个没有爆炸的场景中。而且，呃，所以，从这个角度来看，你基本上是不朽的，因为某个人，而且你只会发现自己在，在那条路上成功的观察者集合中。

Liv: Yeah. So it’s, it’s it’s, that doesn’t mean it doesn’t, it just doesn’t mean you’re you’re still not going to be at some point in your life.

莉芙: 是的。所以，它，它，它，那并不意味着它不会，它只是不意味着你，你在你生命的某个时刻仍然不会。

Lex: No, I’m not, I’m not advocating like that we’re all immortal because of this, it’s just like a fun thought experiment and the point is, it like raises this thing of like these things called uh observer selection effects, which Bostrom, Nick Bostrom talks about a lot and I think people should go read. Um, it’s really powerful, but I think it could be overextended that logic.

莱克斯: 不，我不是，我不是在提倡，比如，我们都因为这个而不朽，它只是一个有趣的思想实验，而且重点是，它，比如，提出了这些东西，比如，这些叫做，呃，观察者选择效应的东西，博斯特罗姆，尼克·博斯特罗姆经常谈论它，而且我认为人们应该去读一读。嗯，它真的很强大，但我认为这种逻辑可能被过度扩展了。

Liv: I’m not sure exactly how it can be, I just feel like you can get, you can um over-generalize that logic somehow.

莉芙: 我不确定它究竟是如何，我只是觉得你可以得到，你可以，嗯，以某种方式过度概括这种逻辑。

Lex: Well, no, I mean, it leads you into like solipsism, which is a very dangerous mindset. Again, if everyone like falls into solipsism of like, “Well, I’ll be fine,” that’s a great way of creating a very you know self-terminating environment um but my point is, is that with the nuclear weapons thing um there have been at least I think it’s 12 or 11 um near-misses were of like just stupid things like uh there was moon rise over Norway, and it made weird reflections off some glaciers in the mountains, which set off, I think, the alarms of NORAD, NORAD radar, and that put them on high alert, nearly ready to shoot. And it was only because um the head of the Russian military happened to be at the U.N in New York at the time, that they go, “Like, wait a second, why would, why would they fire now when their guy is there?” It was only that lucky happenstance which doesn’t happen very often, where they didn’t then escalate into firing. And there’s a bunch of these different ones. Stanislav Petrov, like, saved, the person who should be the most famous person on Earth because he’s probably, on expectation, saved the most human lives of anyone, like billions of people by ignoring Russian orders to fire because he felt in his gut that actually this was a false alarm, and it turned out to be you know, very hard thing to do. Um and there’s so many of those scenarios that I can’t help but wonder, at this point, that we aren’t having this kind of like selection effect thing going on because you look back and you’re like, “Geez, that’s a lot of near misses,” but of course, we don’t know the actual probabilities that they would have lent, each one would have ended up in nuclear war. Maybe they were not that likely, but still the point is, it’s a very dark stupid game that we’re playing. Um and it is an absolute moral imperative, if you ask me, to get as many people thinking about ways to make this, like very precarious because we’re in a Nash Equilibrium, but it’s not like we’re in the bottom of a pit, you know if you would like map it topographically. Um it’s not like a stable ball at the bottom of a thing, we’re not an Equilibrium because that we’re on the top of a hill with a ball balanced on top and just any little nudge could send it flying down, and you know nuclear war pops off and hellfire, and bad times.

莱克斯: 嗯，不，我的意思是，它会把你带入，比如，唯我论，这是一种非常危险的心态。再一次，如果每个人都陷入，比如，“嗯，我会没事的，”的唯我论，那将是一种创造一个非常，你知道，自我终结的环境的好方法，嗯，但我的观点是，关于核武器的事情，嗯，至少我认为有 12 或 11 次，嗯，险些发生的事情，就像，只是愚蠢的事情，比如，呃，挪威的月亮升起来了，而且它在山区的一些冰川上产生了奇怪的反射，这触发了，我认为，北美防空司令部的警报，北美防空司令部的雷达，而且那让他们处于高度戒备状态，几乎准备开火。只是因为，嗯，当时俄罗斯军队的首领碰巧在纽约的联合国，他们说，“比如，等等，为什么，为什么他们的人在那里的时候他们要开火？”只是因为那个幸运的巧合，它不经常发生，在那里，他们没有升级到开火。而且有很多这样的例子。斯坦尼斯拉夫·彼得罗夫，比如，拯救了，那个应该成为地球上最著名的人，因为他可能，在预期中，拯救了最多的人类生命，比如数十亿人，通过无视俄罗斯的开火命令，因为他凭直觉认为这实际上是一个错误警报，而且事实证明，你知道，这是一件很难做到的事情。嗯，有很多这样的场景，我不禁想知道，在这一点上，我们没有发生这种，比如，选择效应的事情，因为你回过头来看，你会说，“天哪，有很多险些发生的事情，”但当然，我们不知道他们会借出的实际概率，每一次都会以核战争告终。也许它们不是那么可能，但重点仍然是，我们正在玩一个非常黑暗，愚蠢的游戏。嗯，而且，如果你问我，一个绝对的道德 imperative 是，让尽可能多的人思考如何让它，比如，变得非常不稳定，因为我们处于纳什均衡状态，但它不像我们在一个坑的底部，你知道，如果你想在地形学上绘制它的话。嗯，它不像一个在东西底部的稳定的球，我们不是一个均衡，因为我们在一个山的顶部，一个球平衡在上面，而且任何轻微的推动都可能让它飞下来，而且，你知道，核战争爆发，地狱之火，而且糟糕的时代。

Liv: On the positive side, life on Earth will probably still continue, and another intelligent civilization might still pop up, maybe several, yeah,

莉芙: 从积极的方面来说，地球上的生命很可能还会继续，而且另一个智慧文明可能还会出现，也许会有几个，是的，

Lex: Depend, pick your x-risk, depends on the x-risk.

莱克斯: 取决于，选择你的生存风险，取决于生存风险。

Liv: Nuclear war, sure, that’s one of the perhaps less bad ones.

莉芙: 核战争，当然，那是，也许，不太糟糕的战争之一。

Lex: Uh, green goo through synthetic biology, very bad, will turn you know destroy all uh organic matter uh through, you know, it’s basically like a biological uh paperclip maximizer, also bad, or AI type, you know, mass extinction thing as well would also be,

莱克斯: 呃，通过合成生物学产生的绿色粘液，非常糟糕，会，你知道，摧毁所有，呃，有机物，呃，通过，你知道，它基本上就像一个生物，呃，回形针最大化器，也很糟糕，或者人工智能类型，你知道，大规模灭绝的事情，也会，

Liv: Shhh, they’re listening.

莉芙: 嘘，他们在听。

Lex: There’s a robot right behind you. Okay, wait uh so, well let me ask you about this from a game theory perspective. Do you think we’re living in a simulation? Do you think we’re listening living inside a video game created by somebody else?

莱克斯: 你身后有一个机器人。好的，等等，呃，所以，嗯，让我从博弈论的角度问你这个问题。你认为我们生活在一个模拟世界中吗？你认为我们正在听，生活在一个别人创造的电子游戏里吗？

Liv: Well, I think, well, so what was the second part of the question?

莉芙: 嗯，我认为，嗯，所以问题的第二部分是什么？

Lex: Do I think we’re living in a simulation and a simulation that is observed by somebody for purpose of entertainment? So like a video game? Are we listening? How we be, because there’s a cree, it’s like Phil Hellmuth type of situation right? Like, um, there’s a creepy level of, like this is kind of fun and interesting, like, there’s a lot of interesting stuff going on. I mean, that could be somehow integrated into the evolutionary process where in the way we perceive and, are you asking me if I believe in God?

莱克斯: 我认为我们生活在一个模拟世界中吗，而且是一个被某人出于娱乐目的观察的模拟世界？所以，就像一个电子游戏？我们在听吗？我们怎么会，因为有一个，它就像菲尔·赫尔姆斯类型的情况，对吧？比如，嗯，有一个令人毛骨悚然的程度，比如，这有点有趣，而且，比如，有很多有趣的事情正在发生。我的意思是，它可以以某种方式整合到进化过程中，在那里，我们感知的方式，以及，你在问我是否相信上帝吗？

Liv: Um, sounds like it kind of. But God seems to be not optimizing uh in the different formulations of God that we conceive, he doesn’t seem to be, or she, optimizing for, uh, like personal entertainment, or maybe the older gods did, but the the you know just like basically like a teenager in in their mom’s basement watching, “Create a fun” right, universe to observe, so what kind of crazy might happen. Okay. So to try and ask this, um, do I think there is some kind of ex extraneous intelligence to like our you know classic measurable universe that we you know can measure with convent, you know, through our current physics and, uh, uh, instruments, I think so yes. Um, partly because I’ve had just small little bits of evidence in my own ex, in my own life, which have made me question like, so I was a die-hard atheist um even five years ago uh, you know, I got into like the rationality community, big fan of less wrong, uh, continued to be, incredible, uh, resource um but I’ve just started to have too many little snippets of experience which don’t make sense with the current sort of purely materialistic um explanation of how reality works.

莉芙: 嗯，听起来有点像。但上帝似乎没有在优化，呃，在我们构想的不同的上帝的表述中，他似乎没有，或者她，没有在优化，呃，比如，个人娱乐，或者也许更古老的上帝做过，但，那，那，你知道，就像基本上就像一个青少年，在，在他妈妈的地下室里看着，“创造一个有趣的，”对吧，宇宙来观察，所以会发生什么样的疯狂的事情。好的。所以，为了尝试问这个问题，嗯，我认为有某种外部，外部的智慧，比如，我们的，你知道，经典的可测量宇宙，我们，你知道，可以用常规，你知道，通过我们目前的物理学，以及，呃，呃，仪器来测量，我认为，是的。嗯，部分原因是我只是在我自己的，在我自己的生活中，有了一点点证据，这让我质疑，比如，我是一个坚定的无神论者，嗯，甚至在五年前，呃，你知道，我进入了，比如，理性主义者社区，less wrong 的超级粉丝，呃，继续成为，令人难以置信的，呃，资源，嗯，但我只是开始有太多小的经验片段，这与目前那种纯粹的唯物主义，嗯，对现实如何运作的解释不符。

Lex: Um, isn’t that just like a humbling practical realization that we don’t know how reality works? Isn’t that just a reminder to yourself?

莱克斯: 嗯，这难道不像是一种令人谦卑的实际认识，我们不知道现实是如何运作的？这难道不是对你自己的提醒吗？

Liv: Yeah. No, it’s a reminder of epistemic humility because I fell too hard, you know? Same same as people like I think you know many people who are just like, “My religion is the way, this is the correct way, this is the work, this is the law um you are immoral if you don’t follow this,” blah, blah. I think they are lacking epistemic humility. They’re a little too, too much hubris there. But similarly I think the sort of the Richard Dawkins brand of atheism is too is too rigid as well and doesn’t you know there’s a way to try and navigate these questions, which still honors the scientific method, which I still think is our best sort of realm of like reasonable inquiry, you know? A method of inquiry. Um so an example um I’ve two kind of notable examples that like really rattled my my uh my cage. Uh the first one was actually in 2010, early on in um, uh, quite early on in my poker career, and I, the, the, the, uh, the, remember the Icelandic volcano that erupted that like shut down kind of all Atlantic airspace um and I meant I got stuck down in the South of France. I was there for something else, um, and I I couldn’t get home, and someone said, “Well, there’s a big poker tournament happening in Italy. Maybe, do you want to go?” I was like, “Oh, right, sure, like, let’s” you know, got a train across, found a way to get there. Um and the buy-in was €5,000 which was much bigger than my bankroll would normally allow. And so I uh played a feeder tournament, won my way in, kind of like I did with the Monte Carlo big one. Um, uh so then I won my you know, from €500 into €5,000 to play this thing. And on day one of them, the big tournament, which turned out to have it, was the biggest tournament ever held in Europe at the time, it got over like 1,200 people, absolutely huge. And I remember they dimmed the lights uh for before, you know, the normal, “Shuffle up and deal,” uh, to tell everyone to start playing. And they played uh Chemical Brothers, “Hey Boy, Hey Girl,” um which I don’t know why it’s notable, but it was just like a really, it was a song I always liked. It was like one of these like pump me up songs. And I was sitting there thinking, “Oh yeah, it’s exciting, I’m playing this really big tournament.” And out of nowhere just suddenly this voice in my head, just, it sounded like my own, sort of you know when you say you think in your mind, you hear a voice kind of, right? At least I do. Um and so it sounded like my own voice, and it said, “You were going to win this tournament.” And it was so powerful that I got this like wave of like you know sort of goosebumps down my body and I even, I remember looking around, being like, “Did anyone else hear that?” And obviously, people are in their phones, like no one else heard and I was like, “Okay.” Six days later I win the tournament out of 1,200 people. And I I, I don’t know how to explain it.

莉芙: 是的。不，它是一种对认知谦逊的提醒，因为我陷得太深了，你知道吗？就像人们一样，我想，你知道，很多人就像，“我的宗教就是道路，这是正确的道路，这是工作，这是法律，嗯，如果你不遵守，你就是不道德的，”等等。我认为他们缺乏认知谦逊。他们有点太，太自大了。但同样，我认为理查德·道金斯式的无神论也过于，过于僵化，而且没有，你知道，有一种方法可以尝试解决这些问题，它仍然尊重科学方法，我仍然认为这是我们最好的，比如，理性探究的领域，你知道吗？一种探究方法。嗯，所以，一个例子，嗯，我有两个值得注意的例子，比如，真的让我，我的，呃，我的牢笼震动了。呃，第一个实际上是在 2010 年，嗯，呃，在我的扑克生涯的早期，而且我，那，那，那，呃，那，记得那座喷发的冰岛火山，比如，关闭了所有的大西洋领空，嗯，而且我意思是，我被困在法国南部。我在那里是为了别的事情，嗯，而且我，我无法回家，而且有人说，“嗯，意大利有一场大型扑克锦标赛。也许，你想去吗？”我就像，“哦，对，当然，比如，让我们，”你知道，坐火车过去，找到了一种去那里的方法。嗯，而且买入费是 5000 欧元，这比我的资金通常允许的要大得多。所以，我，呃，参加了一场馈线赛，赢得了进入比赛的资格，有点像我在蒙特卡洛大赛中做的那样。嗯，呃，所以，然后我赢得了我的，你知道，从 500 欧元到 5000 欧元，来玩这个。而且，在他们的第一天，那场大型锦标赛，结果是，那是当时欧洲举办过的最大型的锦标赛，它有超过，比如，1200 人参加，绝对是巨大的。而且我记得他们在，你知道，通常的，“洗牌和发牌”之前，呃，调暗了灯光，呃，告诉每个人开始玩。而且他们播放了，呃，化学兄弟的，“嘿，男孩，嘿，女孩，”嗯，我不知道为什么它值得注意，但它就像一个真正的，它是我一直喜欢的歌。它就像其中一首，比如，让我兴奋的歌。而且我坐在那里想，“哦，是的，真令人兴奋，我正在参加这场真正的大型锦标赛。”而且，不知从哪里，突然，我脑海中出现了这个声音，只是，它听起来像我自己的声音，有点像，你知道，当你说你在心里想的时候，你听到了一种声音，对吧？至少我听到了。嗯，所以，它听起来像我自己的声音，而且它说，“你会赢得这场锦标赛。”而且它如此强大，以至于我得到了这种，比如，你知道，鸡皮疙瘩，遍布我的全身，而且我甚至，我记得我环顾四周，说，“还有其他人听到吗？”而且，显然，人们都在玩手机，比如，没有其他人听到，而且我就像，“好吧。”六天后，我从 1200 人中赢得了锦标赛。而且我，我，我不知道如何解释它。

Lex: Um, okay yes, but maybe I have that feeling before every time I play, and it’s just that I happen to you know, because I won the tournament, I retroactively remembered it, but or the, or the feeling gave you a kind of, now from the Phil Hellmuthian,

莱克斯: 嗯，好吧，是的，但也许我每次玩之前都有那种感觉，而且只是我碰巧，你知道，因为我赢得了比赛，我追溯性地记住了它，但是，或者，或者那种感觉给了你一种，现在，从菲尔·赫尔姆斯式的，

Liv: Well, exactly. Like it gave you a confident, a deep confidence, and it did, it definitely did like. I remember then feeling this like sort of, well although I remember then on day one I then went and lost half my stack quite early on and I remember thinking, like, “Well, that was you know what kind of premonition is this?”

莉芙: 嗯，没错。比如，它给了你一种自信，一种深刻的自信，而且它确实，它绝对，比如。我记得我当时感觉这种，比如，一种，嗯，虽然我记得在第一天，我然后去，而且很早就输掉了我一半的筹码，而且我记得我想，比如，“嗯，那，你知道，这是什么样的预兆？”

Lex: Yes. Thinking I’m out.

莱克斯: 是的。以为我出局了。

Liv: But you know, I managed to like keep it together and recover and then, and then just went like pretty perfectly from then on. And either way, it definitely instilled me with this confidence and I don’t want to put a, I don’t, I can’t put an explanation like you know, was it some you know huge extra, extra you know supernatural thing driving me, or was it just my own self-confidence in someone that just made me make the right decisions? I don’t know, and I don’t, I’m not going to put a frame on it.

莉芙: 但是，你知道，我设法，比如，控制住自己，并恢复过来，然后，然后，从那以后，就变得非常完美了。而且，不管怎样，它绝对给了我这种自信，而且我不想放一个，我不想，我不能放一个解释，比如，你知道，它是某个，你知道，巨大的，额外的，你知道，超自然的东西在驱使我，还是只是我自己的，对某人的自信，让我做出了正确的决定？我不知道，而且我不，我不会给它加一个框架。

Lex: And I I think I know a good explanation. So we’re a bunch of NPCs living in this world, created by in the simulation, and then people uh, uh, not people, creatures, from outside of the simulation uh sort of can tune in and play your character, and that feeling you got is somebody just like, they got to play a poker tournament through you.

莱克斯: 而且我，我认为我知道一个很好的解释。所以，我们是一群生活在这个世界上的 NPC，由模拟世界中的，创造的，然后人们，呃，呃，不是人，是生物，来自模拟世界之外的，呃，有点可以调入并扮演你的角色，而且你得到的那种感觉是某人，比如，他们通过你参加了一场扑克锦标赛。

Liv: Honestly, it felt like that. It did actually feel a little bit like that, but it’s been 12 years now, I’ve retold the story many times. Like, I don’t even know how much I can trust my memory.

莉芙: 老实说，感觉就是这样。它实际上确实有点像那样，但现在已经过去了 12 年，我已经把这个故事讲了很多遍。比如，我甚至不知道我还能相信我的记忆多少。

Lex: You’re just an NPC. We’re telling the same story, this, because they just played the tournament and left.

莱克斯: 你只是一个 NPC。我们正在讲述同一个故事，这个，因为他们只是参加了比赛就离开了。

Liv: Yeah. They’re like, “Oh, that was fun. Cool. Yeah. Cool. Next time.” Um and now you’re, for the rest of your life, left as a boring NPC retelling, this is greatness,

莉芙: 是的。他们就像，“哦，那很有趣。酷。是的。酷。下次见。”嗯，而且现在你，在你余生中，被留下来，作为一个无聊的 NPC，复述着，这是伟大的，

Lex: But it was, and what was interesting was that after that, then I didn’t obviously win a major tournament for quite a long time, and it left, that was, that was actually another sort of dark period because I had this incredible like, the highs of winning that you know, just on a like material level were insane. Winning the money, I was on the front page of newspapers because there was like this girl that came out of nowhere and won this big thing. Um and so again like sort of chasing that feeling was, was difficult um but then on top of that, there was this feeling of like almost being touched by something bigger that was like uh uh so maybe, did you have a sense that, “I might be somebody special” like, the this kind of?

莱克斯: 但它曾经是，而且有趣的是，在那之后，然后，我显然很长一段时间没有赢得过大型锦标赛，而且它留下了，那，那实际上是另一个黑暗时期，因为我有这种不可思议的，比如，胜利的巅峰，你知道，只是在，比如，物质层面上是疯狂的。赢得了钱，我上了报纸的头版，因为，比如，这个女孩不知从哪里冒出来，赢得了这个大奖。嗯，所以，比如，又一次，追逐那种感觉，很困难，嗯，但除此之外，还有这种，比如，几乎被更大的东西触碰到的感觉，比如，呃，呃，所以，也许，你有一种感觉，“我可能是一个特殊的人”，比如，这种？

Liv: I I think that’s the confidence thing that uh maybe you could do something special in this world after all, kind of feeling. I I definitely, I mean this is a thing I think everybody wrestles with to an extent right? We all, we are truly the protagonists in our own lives and so it’s a natural bias, human bias to feel to feel special. And I think and in some ways, we are special, every single person is special because that you are, that the universe does, the world literally does revolve around you. That’s the thing in in some respect but of course, if you then zoom out and take the amalgam of everyone’s experiences, then no, it doesn’t. So there is this shared sort of objective reality, but, sorry, this objective reality that is shared, but then there’s also this subject of reality which is truly unique to you. And I think both of those things coexist. And it’s not like one is correct and one isn’t. And again, anyone who’s like, “Uh, oh no, your lived experience is everything versus your lived experience is nothing.” No, it’s it’s a blend between these two things. They can exist concurrently. But there’s a certain kind of sense that at least I’ve had my whole life, and I think a lot of people have, this is like, “Well, I’m just like this little person, surely I can’t be one of those people that do the big thing right?” There’s all these big people doing big things, there’s big actors and actresses, big musicians, there’s big uh business owners, and all that kind of stuff, scientists and so on. I you know, I have my own subject experience that I enjoy and so on, but there’s like a different layer like, um, “Surely I can’t do those great things.” I mean, one of the things just having interacted with a lot of great people I realize, “No, they’re like just the same, the same, the same humans as me.” And that realization, I think, is really empowering and like for you to remind yourself, “Are they?” What what are they? Are they uh, well, depends on something.

莉芙: 我，我认为那是自信的事情，呃，也许你毕竟可以在这个世界做一些特别的事情，那种感觉。我，我绝对，我的意思是，我认为这是每个人都在某种程度上挣扎的事情，对吧？我们所有人，我们都是自己生活中的主角，所以，感觉，感觉自己很特别，是一种自然的偏见，人类的偏见。而且我认为，在某些方面，我们是特殊的，每个人都是特殊的，因为你，宇宙确实，世界确实围绕着你旋转。这就是，在某些方面，但当然，如果你然后缩小，并取每个人经历的混合物，那么，不，它没有。所以，有这种共享的，比如，客观现实，但，对不起，这种共享的客观现实，但还有这种现实的主体，它对你来说是真正独特的。而且我认为这两件事共存。而且它不像一个是正确的，一个是不正确的。而且，再一次，任何人说，“呃，哦，不，你的人生经历就是一切，而你的人生经历什么都不是。”不，它，它是这两件事的混合体。它们可以同时存在。但有一种感觉，至少我一生都有，而且我认为很多人都这样想，这就像，“嗯，我只是一个小人物，我当然不可能是那些做大事的人，对吧？”有很多大人物在做大事，有大演员和大女演员，大音乐家，有大，呃，企业家，以及所有这些东西，科学家等等。我，你知道，我有我自己的主题体验，我喜欢它，等等，但就像有一个不同的层次，比如，嗯，“我当然做不了那些伟大的事情。”我的意思是，其中一件事，只是与很多伟人互动后，我意识到，“不，他们就像，和我们一样，一样，一样的人类。”而且我认为这种认识，真的很有力量，而且，比如，提醒你自己，“他们是吗？”他们是什么？他们是，呃，嗯，取决于一些事情。

Lex: Yeah. They’re like a bag of insecurities and, yes. Um, peculiar sort of like their own little weirdnesses and so on.

莱克斯: 是的。他们就像一袋不安全感，而且，是的。嗯，奇怪的，比如，他们自己的一些小怪癖，等等。

Liv: Um I I should say also not, um, they have the capacity for brilliance, but they’re not generically brilliant, like, you know, we tend to say, “This person, or that person, is brilliant,” but really no. They’re just like sitting there and thinking through stuff just like the rest of us, right? I think they’re in the habit of thinking through stuff seriously and they’ve built up a habit of not allowing them their mind to get trapped in a bunch of and minutiae of day-to-day life, they really think big ideas. But those big ideas, it’s like allowing yourself the freedom to think big, to realize that you, you, you can be one that actually solved this particular big problem. First, identify a big problem that you care about, then like, “I can actually be the one that solves this problem.” And like allowing yourself to believe that, and I think sometimes you do need to have like that shock go through your body and a voice tells you, “You’re going to win this tournament.”

莉芙: 嗯，我，我还应该说，嗯，他们有才华，但他们不是一般意义上的天才，比如，你知道，我们倾向于说，“这个人，或者那个人，是天才，”但实际上不是。他们只是像坐在那里，认真思考问题，就像我们其他人一样，对吧？我认为他们养成了认真思考问题的习惯，而且他们已经养成了一个习惯，不允许他们，他们的思想陷入一堆，以及日常生活的琐事中，他们真的在思考大创意。但那些大创意，这就像允许你自己自由地思考大问题，意识到你，你，你可以成为真正解决这个特定的大问题的人。首先，确定一个你关心的重大问题，然后，比如，“我实际上可以成为解决这个问题的人。”而且，比如，允许你自己相信这一点，而且我认为有时你确实需要有，比如，那种冲击，穿过你的身体，而且一个声音告诉你，“你会赢得这场比赛。”

Lex: Well, exactly. And whether it was, it’s, it’s this idea of uh useful fictions. So again, like going through all like the rat, the classic rationalist training of less wrong where it’s like, “You want your map, you know the, the image you have of the world in your head to as accurately match up with how the world actually is.” Yeah. You want the map and the territory to perfectly align, as you know, you want it to be as an accurate representation as possible. I don’t know if I fully subscribe to that anymore, having now had these moments of like feeling of something either bigger, or just actually just being overconfident. Like, there is value in overconfidence sometimes I do. If you would you know take, you know, take Magnus Carlsen, right? If he, I’m sure from a young age he knew he was very talented, but I wouldn’t be surprised if he was also had something in him to, well, actually, maybe he’s a bad example because he truly is the world’s greatest. Um but someone who is unclear whether they were going to be the world’s greatest, but ended up doing extremely well because they had this innate deep self-confidence, this like even overblown uh idea of how good their relative skill level is, that gave them the confidence to then pursue this thing, and they’re like with the kind of focus and dedication that it requires to excel in whatever it is you’re trying to do, you know? And so there are these useful fictions and that’s where I think I diverge slightly with the classic, um, the classic sort of rationalist community. Um, because that’s a field that is worth studying, um, of like, “How the stories we tell, what the stories we tell to ourselves,” even if they are actually false, and even if we suspect they might be false, um, “How it’s better to sort of have that like little bit of faith.” Um like, “Value in faith,” I think actually, and that’s partly another thing that’s like now led me to explore, um, you know, the concept of God, whether you want to call it a simulator. The classic theological thing, I think we’re all like elucidating to the same thing now. I don’t know, I’m not saying you know, because obviously the Christian god is like you know, all benevolent um endless love, the simulation, one of at least one of the simulation hypotheses is like as you said like, “A teenager in his bedroom who doesn’t really care, doesn’t give a how about the individuals within there,” it just like wants to see how the thing plays out because it’s curious, and it can turn it off like that, you know? Where on the, you know, where on the sort of psychopathy to benevolent spectrum God is, I don’t know um but having having this, having a little bit of faith that there is something else out there that might be interested in our outcome is, I think, an essential thing actually for people to, to find, a, because it creates commonality between, it’s something we can all share and like it like, it is uniquely humbling of all of us to an extent. It’s like a, like a common objective um but b, it gives people that little bit of like reserve, you know, when things get really dark, and I do think things are going to get pretty dark over the next few years, um, but it gives that like to think that there’s something out there that actually wants our game to keep going. I keep calling it, “The game,” you know? Uh, it’s a thing, c and I like we call it, “The game.”

莱克斯: 嗯，没错。而且不管它是，它是，它是一种，呃，有益的虚构的想法。所以，再一次，比如，经历所有，比如，老鼠，less wrong 的经典理性主义者训练，在那里，这就像，“你想要你的地图，你知道，你脑海中的世界图像，尽可能准确地与世界实际的样子相匹配。”是的。你想要地图和领土完全一致，正如你所知，你想要它尽可能准确地表现出来。我不知道我是否还完全赞同这一点，现在，我已经有了这些，比如，感觉某个东西要么更大，要么实际上只是过于自信的时刻。比如，有时，过于自信是有价值的，我确实这么认为。如果你会，你知道，拿，你知道，拿马格努斯·卡尔森，对吧？如果他，我敢肯定，从很小的时候，他就知道他很有天赋，但我不会惊讶，如果他内心深处也有一些东西，嗯，实际上，也许他是一个糟糕的例子，因为他确实是世界上最伟大的。嗯，但有些人，不清楚他们是否会成为世界上最伟大的，但最终做得非常好，因为他们拥有这种与生俱来的深刻自信，这种，比如，甚至夸大了的，呃，关于他们的相对技能水平有多好的想法，这给了他们信心，然后去追求这件事，而且他们就像，以一种需要卓越的专注和奉献精神，无论你在做什么，你知道吗？所以，有这些有益的虚构，而且这就是我认为我与经典的，嗯，经典的理性主义者社区略有分歧的地方。嗯，因为那是一个值得研究的领域，嗯，比如，“我们讲述的故事，我们对自己讲述的故事，”即使它们实际上是假的，而且即使我们怀疑它们可能是假的，嗯，“如何，比如，拥有那种一点点信念，会更好。”嗯，比如，“信念的价值，”我实际上这么认为，而且，这部分也是，比如，现在引导我去探索，嗯，你知道，上帝的概念，无论你想称它为模拟器。经典的神学的东西，我认为我们现在都像在阐明同一件事。我不知道，我不是说，你知道，因为显然基督教的上帝就像，你知道，仁慈，嗯，无限的爱，模拟，至少其中一个模拟假设就像你说的，比如，“一个在他卧室里的青少年，他并不真正关心，不在乎那里的人，”它只是想看看这件事是如何发生的，因为它很好奇，而且它可以像那样关闭它，你知道吗？在哪里，你知道，在，比如，精神变态到仁慈的光谱上，上帝在哪里，我不知道，嗯，但拥有这个，拥有对外面可能对我们的结果感兴趣的东西的一点点信念，我认为，对人们来说，实际上是一件很重要的事情，去，去发现，一个，因为它创造了共同点，这是我们可以共享的东西，而且，比如，它，它在某种程度上，对我们所有人来说，都是一种独特的谦卑。它就像一个，比如，一个共同的目标，嗯，但 b，它给了人们一点点，比如，储备，你知道，当事情变得非常黑暗的时候，而且我确实认为事情在接下来的几年里会变得非常黑暗，嗯，但它给了那种，比如，认为外面有一些东西，实际上希望我们的游戏继续下去的想法。我一直称它为，“游戏，”你知道吗？呃，它是一件事，c，我，比如，我们称它为，“游戏”。

Liv: Um, you and c is aka Grimes, called, “What the game?”

莉芙: 嗯，你，和 c，也就是格莱姆斯，称之为，“什么游戏？”

Lex: Everything. The whole thing ever.

莱克斯: 一切。有史以来的所有事情。

Liv: Yeah. We joke about like, everything is a game.

莉芙: 是的。我们开玩笑说，比如，一切都是游戏。

Lex: No, well, the universe like what if what if it’s a game, and the goal of the game is to figure out like, well, either how to beat it, how to get out of it, you know? Maybe maybe that maybe this universe is an escape room, like a giant escape room, and the goal is to figure out all the pieces of the puzzle, figure out how it works in order to like unlock this like hyper-dimensional key, and get out beyond what it is that’s no, but but then so you’re saying it’s like different levels, and it’s like a cage within a cage within a cage, and never locate one cage at a time, you figure out how to describe that.

莱克斯: 不，嗯，宇宙，比如，如果，如果它是一个游戏，而且游戏的目标是弄清楚，比如，嗯，要么如何打败它，要么如何摆脱它，你知道吗？也许，也许，也许这个宇宙是一个密室逃脱，就像一个巨大的密室逃脱，而且目标是弄清楚拼图的所有部分，弄清楚它是如何运作的，以便，比如，解锁这个，比如，超维度的钥匙，而且从，它是什么，不，但是，但是，然后，所以你说它就像不同的层次，而且它就像一个笼子里的笼子里的笼子，而且永远不要一次找到一个笼子，你弄清楚如何描述它。

Liv: Um again, you level up, you know? Like us becoming multi-planetary would be a level up, or us you know figuring out how to upload our consciousnesses to the thing that would probably be a leveling up, or spiritually you know humanity becoming more combined and and less adversarial and and uh bloodthirsty, and us becoming a little bit more enlightened. That would be a leveling up, you know? There’s many different frames to it, whether it’s physical you know, digital, uh, or like metaphysical levels.

莉芙: 嗯，再一次，你升级了，你知道吗？比如，我们成为多行星物种将是一次升级，或者我们，你知道，弄清楚如何将我们的意识上传到，那可能是一次升级，或者，在精神上，你知道，人类变得更加团结，而且，更少对抗，而且，呃，嗜血，而且我们变得更开明一点。那将是一次升级，你知道吗？它有很多不同的框架，无论是物理的，你知道，数字的，呃，还是，比如，形而上学的层次。

Lex: I think, I think level one for Earth is probably the biological evolutionary process. It’s like going from single-cell organisms to, to early humans. And maybe level two is what, whatever is happening inside our minds and creating ideas, and creating technologies. That’s like evolutionary process of ideas. And then uh multi-planetary is interesting. Is that fundamentally different from what we’re doing here on Earth, probably, because it allows us to like exponentially scale it, it delays the Malthusian trap, right? It, it’s a way to keep the playing field, get lot to make the playing field get larger so that we can, it can accommodate more of our stuff, more of us um and that’s a good thing, but I don’t know if it like fully solves this issue um of uh well, this thing called Moloch, which we haven’t talked about yet, but um which is basically, I call it the god of unhealthy competition.

莱克斯: 我认为，我认为地球的第一层可能是生物进化过程。这就像从单细胞生物到，到早期人类。而且也许第二层是，无论是什么，正在我们的大脑中发生的事情，以及创造想法，以及创造技术。这就像想法的进化过程。然后，呃，多行星很有趣。它与我们在地球上做的事情有根本的不同吗，可能，因为它允许我们，比如，以指数方式扩展它，它延迟了马尔萨斯陷阱，对吧？它，它是一种保持游戏场地，得到很多，让游戏场地变大的方法，这样我们就可以，它就可以容纳更多我们的东西，更多我们的人，嗯，这是一件好事，但我不知道它是否，比如，完全解决了这个问题，嗯，呃，嗯，这个叫做摩洛神的东西，我们还没有谈论它，但，嗯，它基本上，我称它为不健康竞争之神。

Liv: Yeah, let’s go, let’s go to Moloch. What’s Moloch? You, you did uh a great video on Moloch. One aspect of it, the application of it to Instagram beauty filters, very niche uh I wanted to start off small. Um so uh Moloch was originally um coined as, well, so apparently, back in the like, uh, Canaanite times, it was to say, ancient Carthaginian. I can never say it. Carthage, in somewhere around like 300 BC, or 280. I don’t know. Um there was supposedly this death cult who would sacrifice their children to this awful demon god thing they called Moloch. Um in order to get power, to win wars, so really dark, horrible things. And it was literally like about child sacrifice, whether they actually existed or not, we don’t know, but in mythology they, they did and this god that they worshiped was this thing called Moloch. And then I don’t know, it seemed like it was kind of quiet throughout history, um in terms of mythology beyond that, until um this movie, “Metropolis,” uh, in 1927, talked about, um, this is, you, you see that there was this incredible futuristic city that everyone was living great in um but then the protagonist goes underground into the sewers and sees that the city is run by this machine. And this machine basically would just like kill the workers all the time because it was just so hard to keep it running, they were always dying, so there’s all this suffering that was required in order to keep the city going. And then the protagonist has this vision that this machine is actually this demon, Moloch. So again, it’s like this sort of like mechanistic consumption of of humans in order to get more power. Um and then, Alan Ginsberg wrote a poem in the ’60s, um which, incredible poem, called, “Howl,” about this thing, Moloch. Um and a lot of people sort of, quite understandably, take the the interpretation of that, he’s, that he’s talking about capitalism. Um but then the bet, like the sort of piece, the resistance that’s moved Moloch into this idea of game theory, uh was Scott Alexander of Slate Star Codex.

莉芙: 是的，让我们去，让我们去谈谈摩洛神。摩洛神是什么？你，你做了一个，呃，关于摩洛神的很棒的视频。其中一个方面，它在 Instagram 美颜滤镜中的应用，非常小众，呃，我想从小处着手。嗯，所以，呃，摩洛神最初，嗯，被创造为，嗯，所以，显然，回到，比如，呃，迦南人时代，也就是说，古代迦太基人。我永远也说不出来。迦太基，在某个地方，比如公元前 300 年，或者 280 年。我不知道。嗯，据说有一个死亡邪教，他们会把他们的孩子献祭给这个可怕的恶魔神，他们称之为摩洛神。嗯，为了获得力量，为了赢得战争，所以，真的很黑暗，很可怕的事情。而且它实际上就是关于献祭儿童，他们是否真的存在，我们不知道，但在神话中，他们，他们确实存在，而且他们崇拜的这个神，就是这个叫做摩洛神的东西。然后，我不知道，它似乎，比如，在整个历史上都很安静，嗯，就神话而言，除此之外，直到，嗯，这部电影，“大都会”，呃，在 1927 年，谈到了，嗯，这是，你，你看到，有一个不可思议的未来城市，每个人都生活在其中，嗯，但然后，主角进入地下，进入下水道，而且看到这个城市是由这台机器管理的。而且这台机器基本上就像一直在杀死工人，因为它太难运转了，他们一直在死亡，所以，为了让城市运转，需要所有这些苦难。然后，主角有这种幻觉，这台机器实际上是这个恶魔，摩洛神。所以，再一次，它就像这种，比如，对人类的机械式消耗，为了获得更多权力。嗯，然后，艾伦·金斯堡在 60 年代写了一首诗，嗯，那是一首，不可思议的诗，叫做，“嚎叫”，关于这个东西，摩洛神。嗯，很多人，比如，可以理解地，把，把那解释为，他，他是在谈论资本主义。嗯，但后来，打赌，比如，那篇文章，将摩洛神带入博弈论的抵抗，呃，是 Slate Star Codex 的斯科特·亚历山大。

Liv: Wrote this incredible, one, literally, I think it might be my favorite piece of writing of all time, it’s called, “Meditations on Moloch.”

莉芙: 写了这篇不可思议的，一篇，真的，我认为它可能是我有史以来最喜欢的文章，它叫做，“关于摩洛神的沉思”。

Lex: Everyone must go read it.

莱克斯: 每个人都必须去读一读。

Liv: Uh and I say Codex is a blog, it’s a blog.

莉芙: 呃，而且我说 Codex 是一个博客，它是一个博客。

Lex: Yes. We can link to it in the show notes, or something right?

莱克斯: 是的。我们可以把它链接到节目笔记中，或者其他什么，对吧？

Liv: Um no, don’t. I, yes, yes, but I I like how you do, how how you assume.

莉芙: 嗯，不，不要。我，是的，是的，但我，我喜欢你做的方式，你如何，如何假设。

Lex: Um I have a professional operation going on here. I I I shall try to remember.

莱克斯: 嗯，我在这里有一个专业的操作。我，我，我会尽力记住的。

Liv: You’re giving the impression of it.

莉芙: 你给人的印象是这样。

Lex: Yeah, yeah. I’ll, like please, if I, if I don’t, please somebody in the comments remind me. I’ll also you know, if you don’t know this blog, it’s one of the best blogs ever, probably you should probably be following it.

莱克斯: 是的，是的。我，比如，拜托，如果我，如果我没有，请评论里的人提醒我。我还会，你知道，如果你不知道这个博客，它是有史以来最好的博客之一，你可能应该关注它。

Liv: Yes. Our blog’s still a thing I think. They, it’s still a thing.

莉芙: 是的。我认为我们的博客仍然存在。他们，它仍然存在。

Lex: Yeah. He’s migrated onto Substack, but yeah. It’s still a blog.

莱克斯: 是的。他已经迁移到 Substack 了，但，是的。它仍然是一个博客。

Liv: Um anyway, just like better enough things up, but I have not. Yeah. I hope they don’t I hope they don’t turn Moloch-y, which will mean something to people when we continue when they stop interrupting for once.

莉芙: 嗯，不管怎样，只是喜欢把事情搞得更好，但我没有。是的。我希望他们不要，我希望他们不要变得摩洛神化，当我们继续，当他们终于停止打断的时候，这对人们来说意味着什么。

Lex: That’s good. Uh, so anyway. So he writes he writes this this piece, “Meditations on Moloch,” and basically he analyzes the poem, and he’s like, “Okay. So it seems to be something relating to where competition goes wrong.” And you know Moloch was historically this thing of like where people would sacrifice a thing that they care about, in this case, children, their own children, uh, in order to gain power, a, a competitive advantage. And if you look at almost everything that sort of goes wrong in our society, it’s that same process. Um so with the Instagram beauty filters thing, um, you know, if you’re trying to become a, a famous Instagram model, you are incentivized to post the hottest pictures of yourself that you can, you know? You’re trying to play that game, um there’s a lot of hot women on Instagram, how do you compete against them? You post really hot pictures and that’s how you get more likes. As technology gets better, um you know more makeup techniques come along um and then more recently these beauty filters where like at the touch of a button it makes your face look absolutely incredible um compared to your natural, natural, natural face. Uh, these, these technologies come along, it’s everyone is incentivized to that short-term strategy, um, but over, on, on net, it’s bad for everyone because now everyone is kind of like feeling like they have to use these things, and these things, like they make you, like the reason why I talked about them in this video is because I noticed it myself, you know, like I, I was trying to grow my Instagram for a while, I’ve given up on it now, but um yeah. And I noticed these filters, how good they made me look and I’m like, “Well, I know that everyone else is kind of doing this.”

莱克斯: 那很好。呃，所以，不管怎样。所以他写了，他写了这，这篇文章，“关于摩洛神的沉思”，而且基本上，他分析了这首诗，而且他就像，“好的。所以，它似乎与竞争出错的地方有关。”而且，你知道，摩洛神在历史上是这样的，比如，人们会牺牲他们关心的东西，在这种情况下，是孩子，他们自己的孩子，呃，为了获得权力，一个，一个竞争优势。而且如果你看看我们社会中几乎所有出错的事情，都是同样的过程。嗯，所以，关于 Instagram 美颜滤镜的事情，嗯，你知道，如果你试图成为一个，一个著名的 Instagram 模特，你就会被激励去发布你最性感的照片，你知道吗？你试图玩那个游戏，嗯，Instagram 上有很多性感的女人，你如何与她们竞争？你发布非常性感的照片，这就是你如何获得更多赞的方式。随着技术变得更好，嗯，你知道，更多化妆技巧出现了，嗯，然后，最近，这些美颜滤镜，比如，只需按一下按钮，它就能让你的脸看起来绝对不可思议，嗯，与你的自然，自然，自然的脸相比。呃，这些，这些技术出现了，每个人都被激励去采用这种短期策略，嗯，但，总的来说，这对每个人都不好，因为现在每个人都感觉，比如，他们必须使用这些东西，而且这些东西，比如，它们让你，比如，我在这段视频中谈论它们的原因是因为我自己注意到了，你知道，比如我，我曾经试图发展我的 Instagram 一段时间，我现在已经放弃了，但，嗯，是的。而且我注意到了这些滤镜，它们让我看起来多好，而且我就像，“嗯，我知道其他人都在这样做。”

Lex: Subscribe. Who lives Instagram, please? Don’t have to use the filters, uh, post a bunch of yeah, make, make it blow up. Uh, so yeah. It’s you felt the pressure actually.

莱克斯: 订阅。谁住在 Instagram，拜托？不必使用滤镜，呃，发布一堆，是的，让，让它火起来。呃，所以，是的。它，你实际上感受到了压力。

Liv: Exactly. These short-term incentives to do this like, this thing that like either sacrifices your integrity or something else, um, in order to like stay competitive, um which on aggregate turns like, creates this like sort of race to the bottom spiral where everyone else ends up in a situation which is worse off than if they hadn’t start you know than it were before. Kind of like if um like a at a football stadium, uh like the system is so badly designed, a competitive system of like everyone’s sitting and having a view that if someone at the very front stands up to get an even better view, it forces everyone else behind to like adopt that same strategy, just to get to where they were before, but now everyone’s stuck standing up. Like so you need this like top-down, God’s-eye coordination to make it go back to the better state, but from within the system, you can’t actually do that. So that’s kind of what this Moloch thing is, it’s this thing that makes people sacrifice, uh, values in order to optimize for the winning the game in question, the short-term game.

莉芙: 没错。这些短期的激励，去做这个，比如，这个东西，比如，要么牺牲你的正直，要么牺牲其他的东西，嗯，为了，比如，保持竞争力，嗯，这，总的来说，就像，创造了这种，比如，向下螺旋式的竞争，在那里，每个人最终都处于一种比他们没有开始，你知道，比以前更糟糕的情况。有点像，如果，嗯，比如，在一个足球场，呃，比如，系统设计得如此糟糕，一个竞争性的系统，比如，每个人都坐着，而且有一个视野，如果最前面的人站起来，为了获得一个更好的视野，它会迫使后面的人，比如，采用同样的策略，只是为了回到他们以前的位置，但现在每个人都站着不动了。比如，所以，你需要这种，比如，自上而下，上帝视角的协调，让它回到更好的状态，但从系统内部，你实际上做不到这一点。所以，这就是摩洛神的东西，它，它是这个东西，让人们牺牲，呃，价值观，为了优化，为了赢得正在进行的游戏，短期游戏。

Lex: But this this Moloch, do you, can you attribute it to any one centralized source? Or is it an emergent phenomena from a large collection of people?

莱克斯: 但是，这个，这个摩洛神，你，你能把它归因于任何一个集中的来源吗？还是它是一种来自大量人群的涌现现象？

Liv: Exactly that, it’s it’s an emergent phenomena. It’s it’s a force of game theory. Um it’s a force of bad incentives on a multi-agent system where you’ve got more you know, Prisoner’s Dilemma is technically a kind of Moloch you know, system as well, but it’s just a two-player thing, but um another word for Moloch is multi-polar trap, where basically you just got a lot of different people all competing for some kind of prize um and it would be better if everyone didn’t do this one shitty strategy, but because that strategy gives you a short-term advantage, everyone’s incentivized to do it. And so everyone ends up doing it.

莉芙: 就是这样，它，它是一种涌现现象。它，它是博弈论的力量。嗯，它是一种在多智能体系统上的不良激励的力量，在那里，你得到了更多，你知道，囚徒困境在技术上也是一种摩洛神，你知道，系统，但它只是一个双人游戏，但，嗯，摩洛神的另一个说法是多极陷阱，在那里，基本上，你只是有很多不同的人都在争夺某种奖品，嗯，如果每个人都不做这一个糟糕的策略，那就更好了，但因为那个策略给了你一个短期优势，每个人都被激励去做它。所以，每个人最终都会去做它。

Lex: So the responsibility for, I mean, social media is a really nice place for a large number of people to play game theory. And so they also have the ability to then design the the rules of the game. And, uh, is it on them to try to anticipate what kind of, like to do the thing that poker players are doing to run simulation?

莱克斯: 所以，责任在于，我的意思是，社交媒体是一个非常适合大量人玩博弈论的地方。所以，他们也有能力去设计游戏的规则。而且，呃，他们是否有责任去尝试预测什么样的，比如，去做扑克玩家正在做的事情，去运行模拟？

Liv: Ideally, that would have been great if you know Mark Zuckerberg and Jack, and all that you know, the Twitter founders and everyone, if they had at least just run a few simulations of how their algorithms would you know, different types of algorithms would turn out for society, that would have been great. That’s really difficult to do, that kind of deep philosophical thinking about, thinking about humanity actually, so not not kind of this level of, “How do we optimize engagement? Or what brings people joy in the short term?” But, “How is this thing going to change the way people see the world? How is it going to get morphed, in iterative games played, into something that will change society forever?” That’s that requires some deep thinking.

莉芙: 理想情况下，如果，你知道，马克·扎克伯格和杰克，以及所有，你知道，Twitter 的创始人和每个人，如果他们至少运行一些关于他们的算法如何，你知道，不同类型的算法会对社会产生什么影响的模拟，那就太好了。那真的很难做到，那种深刻的哲学思考，关于，实际上，关于人类的思考，所以，不是这种程度的，“我们如何优化参与度？或者，什么能在短期内给人们带来快乐？”而是，“这件事将如何改变人们看待世界的方式？它将如何被变形，在迭代的游戏中，变成永远改变社会的东西？”那，那需要一些深刻的思考。

Lex: That’s, I hope there’s meetings like that inside companies, but there aren’t.

莱克斯: 那是，我希望公司内部有这样的会议，但没有。

Liv: That’s the problem. And, and it’s difficult because like, when you’re starting up a social media company, you know, you’re aware that you, you’ve got investors to please, there’s you, bills to pay, um you know, there’s only so much R&D you can afford to do, you’ve got all these like incredible pressures, it’s bad, you know, bad incentives to get on and just build your thing as quickly as possible, and start making money. And you know, I don’t think anyone intended when they built these social, social media platforms, and just to like preface it, so the reason why you know social media is relevant because it’s a very good example of like everyone these days is optimizing for you know clicks, um whether it’s the social media platforms themselves because you know every click gets more you know impressions and impressions pay for you know they get advertising dollars, or whether it’s individual influencers or you know whether it’s the New York Times or whoever, they’re trying to get their story to go viral. So everyone’s got this bad incentive of using you know, as you call it, the clickbait industrial complex. Um, that’s a very Moloch system, because everyone is now using worse and worse tactics in order to like try and win this attention game, um, and yeah. So ideally, these companies would have had enough slack in the beginning in order to run these experiments, to see, “Okay, what are the ways this could possibly go wrong for people? What are the ways that Moloch,” they should be aware of this concept of Moloch, and realize that it’s any, whenever you have a highly competitive multi-agent system, which social media is a classic example of, millions of agents all trying to compete for likes and so on, and you try and bring all this complexity down into like very small metrics, such as number of likes, number of retweets, whatever the algorithm optimizes for, that is a like guaranteed recipe for this stuff to go wrong, and become a race to the bottom.

莉芙: 这就是问题所在。而且，而且这很困难，因为，比如，当你创办一家社交媒体公司时，你知道，你 aware of 你，你必须取悦投资者，你有，账单要付，嗯，你知道，你能负担的研发只有这么多，你面临所有这些，比如，难以置信的压力，它是不好的，你知道，不良的激励，让你继续前进，而且尽快建立你的东西，而且开始赚钱。而且，你知道，我不认为任何人打算在他们建立这些社交，社交媒体平台时，而且只是为了，比如， preface它，所以，你知道，社交媒体相关的原因是因为它是一个非常好的例子，比如，现在每个人都在优化，你知道，点击，嗯，无论是社交媒体平台本身，因为，你知道，每次点击都会获得更多，你知道，印象，而且印象会带来，你知道，他们会获得广告收入，或者无论是个人网红，或者，你知道，无论是《纽约时报》，还是任何人，他们都在试图让他们的故事走红。所以，每个人都有这种不良的激励，去使用，你知道，正如你所说，点击诱饵工业联合体。嗯，那是一个非常摩洛神化的系统，因为现在每个人都在使用越来越糟糕的策略，为了，比如，试图赢得这场注意力游戏，嗯，而且，是的。所以，理想情况下，这些公司在一开始就应该有足够的松懈，以便运行这些实验，看看，“好的，这件事对人们来说，可能会以哪些方式出错？摩洛神以哪些方式，”他们应该 aware of 摩洛神的概念，而且意识到它，任何时候，当你有一个高度竞争的多智能体系统，社交媒体就是一个典型的例子，数百万个智能体都在试图争夺点赞等等，而且你试图把所有这些复杂性降低到，比如，非常小的指标，比如点赞数，转发数，无论算法优化什么，那就像一个保证会出错的配方，而且会变成一场向下竞争。

Lex: Yeah. I think there should be an honesty when founders, I think there’s a hunger for that kind of transparency of like, “We don’t know what the, we’re doing. This is a fascinating experiment we’re all running as a human civilization. Let’s try this out.” Yes. And like actually just be honest about this, that we’re all like these weird rats in a maze, not, none of us are controlling it. There’s this kind of sense like the founders, the CEO of Instagram, or whatever, Mark Zuckerberg, has a control and he’s like, like, with strings, playing people.

莱克斯: 是的。我认为创始人应该诚实，我认为人们渴望那种透明度，比如，“我们不知道我们，我们在做什么。这是我们作为一个人类文明正在进行的一场迷人的实验。让我们试试吧。”是的。而且，比如，实际上，只是诚实地说，我们都像这些奇怪的老鼠，在一个迷宫里，没有，我们没有人控制它。有这种感觉，比如，创始人，Instagram 的首席执行官，或者其他什么人，马克·扎克伯格，有控制权，而且他就像，就像，用绳子，玩弄人们。

Liv: No, they’re, he’s at the mercy of this like everyone else. He’s just like trying to do his best and like I think putting on a smile and doing over uh polished videos about how Instagram and Facebook are good for you, I think, is not the right way to uh to actually ask some of the deepest questions we get to ask as a society, “How do we design the game such that we build a better world?” I think a big part of this as well is people there’s this, there’s this philosophy, particularly in Silicon Valley, um, of well techno optimism. “Technology will solve all our issues.” And there’s a steel man argument to that, where yes, technology has solved a lot of problems and can potentially solve a lot, future ones, but it can also, it’s always a double-edged sword. And particularly as, you know, technology gets more and more powerful, and we’ve now got like big data, and we’re able to do all kinds of like psychological manipulation with it and so on, um, it’s, technology is not about values neutral thing. People think I used to always think this myself, it’s like this naive view that, “Oh, technology is completely neutral, it’s just, it’s the humans that either make it good or bad.” No, to the point we’re at now, the technology that we are creating, they are social technologies. They literally dictate how humans now form social groups and so on, beyond that, and beyond that, it also then that gives rise to like the memes that we then like coalesce around and that you know, if you have the stack that way, where it’s technology driving social interaction, which then drives like mimetic uh mimetic culture and like which ideas become popular, that’s Moloch. And the, we need the other way around, we need it. So we need to figure out what are the good memes, what are the good um values that we think are we, we need to optimize for the, like, “Makes people happy, and healthy, and like keeps society as robust, and safe as possible,” then figure out what the social structure around those should be, and only then do we figure out technology. But if we’re doing the other way around and you know like, as much as I love in many ways the culture of Silicon Valley and like you know, I do think that technology has you know, I don’t want to knock it, it’s done so many wonderful things for us, same with capitalism, um, there are, we have to like be honest with ourselves. We’re getting to a point where we are losing control of this very powerful machine that we have created.

莉芙: 不，他们，他受制于这个，就像其他人一样。他只是像在尽力而为，而且，比如，我认为面带微笑，而且制作，呃，经过润色的视频，关于 Instagram 和 Facebook 如何对你有益，我认为，这不是，呃，真正提出一些我们作为社会能够提出的最深刻的问题的正确方法，“我们如何设计游戏，以便我们建立一个更美好的世界？”我认为这其中很大一部分也是人们，有这个，有这种哲学，特别是在硅谷，嗯，嗯，技术乐观主义。“技术将解决我们所有的问题。”而且对此有一个钢铁侠式的论证，是的，技术已经解决了很多问题，而且有可能解决很多未来的问题，但它也可以，它总是一把双刃剑。而且，特别是在，你知道，技术变得越来越强大，而且我们现在拥有，比如，大数据，而且我们能够用它进行各种，比如，心理操纵，等等，嗯，它，技术不是关于价值观中立的东西。人们认为，我以前也总是这样想，这就像这种天真的观点，“哦，技术是完全中立的，只是，只是人类让它变好或变坏。”不，在我们现在所处的这一点上，我们正在创造的技术，它们是社会技术。它们实际上决定了人类现在如何形成社会群体，等等，除此之外，而且除此之外，它还导致了，比如，我们然后，比如，团结一致的模因，而且，你知道，如果你以那种方式拥有堆栈，在那里，是技术驱动着社会互动，然后驱动着，比如，模仿，呃，模仿文化，以及，比如，哪些想法变得流行，那就是摩洛神。而且，我们需要反过来，我们需要它。所以，我们需要弄清楚什么是好的模因，什么是好的，嗯，价值观，我们认为是，我们需要优化，比如，“让人们快乐，而且健康，而且，比如，让社会尽可能强大，而且安全，”然后弄清楚围绕这些价值观的社会结构应该是什么，而且只有到那时，我们才能弄清楚技术。但如果我们反过来做，而且，你知道，比如，我很喜欢硅谷的文化，在很多方面，而且，比如，你知道，我确实认为技术拥有，你知道，我不想批评它，它为我们做了很多很棒的事情，资本主义也是如此，嗯，有一些，我们必须，比如，对自己诚实。我们正在走向一个点，在那里，我们正在失去对我们创造的这台强大机器的控制。

Lex: Can you redesign the machine within the game? Can, can you just have, can you understand the game enough, “Okay, this is the game and this is how we start to re-emphasize the memes that matter, the the memes that bring out the best in us.” Uh you know like the way I try to be in real life, and the way I try to be online, is to be about kindness and love, and I feel like I’m sometimes get like criticized for being naive and all those kinds of things. But I feel like I’m just trying to live within this game, I’m trying to be authentic, yeah, but also like, hey, it’s kind of fun to do this like, “You guys should try this too,” you know? That and that’s like trying to redesign some aspects of the game within the game. Um, is that possible?

莱克斯: 你能在游戏中重新设计机器吗？你能，你能只是拥有，你能充分理解游戏吗，“好吧，这就是游戏，这就是我们如何开始重新强调重要的模因，那些能让我们展现出最好一面的模因。”呃，你知道，比如，我在现实生活中试图成为的样子，以及我在网上试图成为的样子，是关于善良和爱的，而且我觉得我，有时会，比如，因为天真而受到批评，以及所有这些事情。但我觉得我只是在试图生活在这个游戏中，我试图变得真实，是的，但也像，嘿，做这件事有点有趣，比如，“你们也应该试试，”你知道吗？那，那就像试图重新设计游戏中的某些方面。嗯，这可能吗？

Liv: I don’t know, but I think we should try. Uh I don’t think we have an option but to try.

莉芙: 我不知道，但我认为我们应该尝试。呃，我认为我们别无选择，只能尝试。

Lex: Well, the other option is to create new companies or to pressure companies uh that or anyone who has control of the rules of the game. I think we need to be doing all of the above. I think we need to be thinking hard about what are the kind of positive, healthy memes. Um uh you know as Elon said, “He who controls the memes controls the universe.” Um I think he did.

莱克斯: 嗯，另一种选择是创建新公司，或者向，呃，那些公司，或者任何控制游戏规则的人施加压力。我认为我们都需要做这些事情。我认为我们需要认真思考，什么是积极的，健康的模因。嗯，呃，你知道，正如埃隆所说，“控制模因的人控制着宇宙。”嗯，我想他确实说过。

Liv: Yeah. Um but there’s truth to that, it’s very there is wisdom in that because memes have driven history. You know, we are, we are a cultural species, that’s what sets us apart from chimpanzees and everything else. We have the ability to learn and evolve through culture, as opposed to biology or like you know classic physical constraints and that means culture is incredibly powerful and we can create and become victim to very bad memes, or very good ones um but we do have some agency over which means you know we we sub, but not only put out there, but we also like subscribe to. Um so I think we need to take that approach, we also need to you know, because I don’t want the the, the I’m making this video right now are called, “The Attention Wars,” which is about like how Moloch, like the media machine, is this Moloch machine uh well, is this is this kind of like blind, dumb thing that, where everyone is optimizing for engagement in order to win their share of the attention pie? Um and then if you zoom out, it’s really like Moloch that’s pulling the strings because the only thing that benefits from this, in the end, you know, like, “Oh, our information ecosystem is breaking down like we have.” You look at the state of the U.S, it’s in, we’re we’re in a civil war, it’s just not a physical war, it’s, it’s, it’s a it’s an information war, and people people are becoming more fractured in terms of what their actual shared reality is like. Truly, like an extreme left person, an extreme right person, like, they, they literally live in different worlds in their, in their in their minds at this point, and it’s getting more and more amplified. And this this force is like a like razor blade pushing through everything. It doesn’t matter how innocuous the topic is, it will find a way to split into this, you know, bifurcated culture war, and it’s terrifying, because that maximizes the tension, and that’s like an emergent Moloch type force, right? That takes any any topic and cuts through it so they it can split nicely into two groups, one, one that’s, well, it’s whatever. Yeah.

莉芙: 是的。嗯，但那是有道理的，它非常，那是有智慧的，因为模因推动了历史。你知道，我们，我们是一个文化物种，这就是我们与黑猩猩和所有其他生物的区别。我们有能力通过文化学习和进化，而不是通过生物学，或者，比如，你知道，经典的物理限制，而且这意味着文化非常强大，而且我们可以创造，而且成为非常糟糕的模因的受害者，或者非常好的模因，嗯，但我们确实对哪些模因，你知道，我们，我们订阅，但不仅是发布，而且我们也喜欢订阅，有一些 agency。嗯，所以，我认为我们需要采取这种方法，我们还需要，你知道，因为我不想，那，那，我正在制作的这段视频叫做，“注意力战争”，它是关于，比如，摩洛神，比如，媒体机器，就是这台摩洛神机器，呃，嗯，这，这是不是一种，比如，盲目的，愚蠢的东西，在那里，每个人都在优化参与度，为了赢得他们在那块注意力蛋糕中的份额？嗯，然后，如果你缩小，它真的就像摩洛神在幕后操纵，因为唯一从中受益的东西，最终，你知道，比如，“哦，我们的信息生态系统正在崩溃，就像我们一样。”你看看美国的状态，它在，我们，我们正处于一场内战中，它只是一场非物理的战争，它，它，它是一场，它是一场信息战，而且，人们，人们在他们实际共享的现实是什么样子的方面，变得更加分裂。真的，比如，一个极左的人，一个极右的人，比如，他们，他们实际上生活在不同的世界中，在他们的，在他们的，在他们的思想中，在这一点上，而且它正在变得越来越严重。而且，这，这股力量就像一把，比如，剃刀，穿透一切。无论话题多么无害，它都会找到一种方法，分裂成这种，你知道，两极分化的文化战争，而且它很可怕，因为它最大限度地提高了紧张局势，而且这就像一种涌现的摩洛神式力量，对吧？它会抓住任何，任何话题，而且穿透它，这样它们，它就可以很好地分裂成两组，一组，一组是，嗯，它是什么都行。是的。

Lex: All everyone is trying to do within the system is just maximize whatever gets them the most attention, because they’re just trying to make money so they can keep their thing going right? And the way the, the best emotion for getting attention in, well, because it’s not just about attention on the internet, it’s engagement, that’s the key thing, right? In order for something to go viral, you need people to actually engage with it, they need to like, comment or retweet, or whatever. Um and of all the emotions, the, uh, you know, there’s like seven classic shared emotions that studies have found that all humans, even from like un, un previously uncontacted tribes have. Um, some of those are negative, you know, like sadness, uh disgust, anger etc. Summer positive happiness, um, excitement and so on. The one that happens to be the most useful for the internet is anger, because anger is it’s such an active emotion if you want people to engage. If someone’s scared, and I’m not just like talking about my essay, there are studies here that looked into this um where it’s like if someone’s like disgusted, or fearful, they actually tend to then be like, “I don’t want to deal with this,” so they’re less likely to actually engage and share it and so on. They’re just going to be like, whereas if they’re enraged by a thing, well now that like, that triggers all the like the the old tribalism emotions. Um and so that’s how then things get sort of spread you know, much more easily, they out compete all the other memes in the ecosystem um and so this like, the attention economy, the the wheels that make it go around are, is rage. Um I did a you know, tweet, the the the, the problem with raising against the machine is that the machine has learned to feed off rage because it is feeding off our age. That’s the thing that’s now keeping it going. So the more we get angry, the worse it gets. Um so the Moloch and this attention in, in the war of attention, is constantly maximizing rage. What it is optimizing for is engagement, and it happens to be the engagement, um, is what propaganda, you know, is that, I mean, it just sounds like everything is, is putting is more and more things being put through this like propagandist lens of winning whatever the war is in question, whether it’s the culture war, or the Ukraine war.

莱克斯: 在系统中，每个人都在试图做的只是最大化任何能让他们获得最多关注的东西，因为他们只是在试图赚钱，这样他们才能让他们的东西继续下去，对吧？而且，获得关注的最佳情绪是，嗯，因为它不仅仅是关于互联网上的关注，而是参与度，那是关键，对吧？为了让某件事走红，你需要人们真正参与进来，他们需要点赞，评论或转发，或者其他什么。嗯，而且，在所有情绪中，呃，你知道，研究发现，所有人类，即使是，比如，未，以前未接触过的部落，都有七种经典的共同情绪。嗯，其中一些是负面的，你知道，比如，悲伤，呃，厌恶，愤怒，等等。一些是积极的，快乐，嗯，兴奋，等等。碰巧对互联网最有用的情绪是愤怒，因为愤怒是，它是一种如此积极的情绪，如果你想让人们参与进来的话。如果有人害怕，而且我不是，比如，只是在谈论我的文章，这里有一些研究过这个问题，嗯，在那里，这就像，如果有人，比如，感到厌恶，或恐惧，他们实际上倾向于，比如，“我不想处理这个问题，”所以他们实际上不太可能参与进来，并分享它，等等。他们只会像，而如果他们被某件事激怒了，嗯，现在，那，比如，那会触发所有，比如，那，那些古老的部落主义情绪。嗯，所以，这就是，然后，事情，比如，更容易传播的方式，你知道，它们在生态系统中胜过所有其他模因，嗯，所以，这个，比如，注意力经济，让它运转的轮子是，是愤怒。嗯，我发了一个，你知道，推文，那，那，那，与机器对抗的问题是，机器已经学会了以愤怒为食，因为它正在以我们的时代为食。那就是现在让它继续下去的东西。所以，我们越生气，事情就越糟糕。嗯，所以，摩洛神，以及这种注意力，在注意力战争中，不断地最大化愤怒。它正在优化的是参与度，而且碰巧的是，参与度，嗯，就是宣传，你知道，就是，我的意思是，它听起来就像一切都是，正在投入，越来越多的东西被投入到这种，比如，宣传的镜头中，为了赢得正在进行的任何战争，无论是文化战争，还是乌克兰战争。

Lex: Yeah. Well, I think the silver lining of this, do you think it’s possible that in the long arc of this process, you actually do arrive at greater wisdom and more progress? It’s just in the moment, it feels like people are tearing each other to shreds over ideas, but if you think about it, one of the magic things about democracy and so on is you have the blue versus red constantly fighting. It’s almost like they’re in discourse, creating devil’s advocate, making devils out of each other, and through that process discussing ideas, like, almost really embodying different ideas, just to yell at each other. And through the yelling, over the period of decades, maybe centuries, figuring out a better system, like in the moment it feels up right. But in the long arc, it actually is pretty productive.

莱克斯: 是的。嗯，我认为这件事的积极面是，你认为在这个过程的长弧中，你实际上有可能获得更大的智慧和更多的进步吗？只是在当下，感觉人们在为想法而互相撕扯，但如果你仔细想想，民主的魔力之一，等等，是你有蓝色对抗红色，不断地战斗。这几乎就像他们正在对话，创造魔鬼代言人，互相妖魔化，而且通过这个过程，讨论想法，比如，几乎真正地体现不同的想法，只是为了互相吼叫。而且通过吼叫，在几十年，也许几个世纪的时间里， figuring out 一个更好的制度，比如，在当下，它感觉是正确的。但在长弧中，它实际上是非常有成效的。

Liv: I hope so. Um, that said, we are now in the era of just as we have weapons of mass destruction with nuclear weapons you know, that can break the whole playing field, we now are developing weapons of informational mass destruction, information you know, WMDs, that basically can be used for propaganda or just manipulating people however they you know, is needed, whether that’s through dumb TikTok videos, or you know, there are significant resources being put in. Um I don’t mean to sound like you know, too doom and gloom, but there are bad actors out there. That’s the thing. There are plenty of good actors within the system who are just trying to stay afloat in the game, so we’re effectively doing Moloch-y things. But then on top of that, we have actual bad actors who are intentionally trying to like manipulate the other side into doing things and using, uh, so because of the digital space, they’re able to use, uh, artificial actors, meaning bots.

莉芙: 我希望如此。嗯，话虽如此，我们现在正处于一个时代，就像我们拥有大规模杀伤性武器，核武器，你知道，可以破坏整个游戏场地一样，我们现在正在开发信息大规模杀伤性武器，信息，你知道，大规模杀伤性武器，基本上可以用来进行宣传，或者只是操纵人们，无论他们，你知道，需要什么，无论是通过愚蠢的 TikTok 视频，或者，你知道，投入了大量资源。嗯，我不想听起来，你知道，太悲观，但外面有坏人。事情就是这样。系统中有很多人是好人，他们只是想在游戏中生存下去，所以，我们实际上是在做摩洛神化的事情。但除此之外，我们还有真正的坏人，他们故意试图，比如，操纵对方去做事情，而且使用，呃，所以，因为数字空间，他们能够使用，呃，人造演员，也就是机器人。

Lex: Exactly, botnets. You know and this is a whole new situation that we’ve never had before. It’s exciting.

莱克斯: 没错，僵尸网络。你知道，这是一个全新的情况，我们以前从未遇到过。这很令人兴奋。

Liv: You know what I want to do? You know what I want to do that um because there is you know people talking about boss manipulating, and, uh, like malicious bots that are basically spreading propaganda. I want to create like a bot army for like that, like, “Fights that”

莉芙: 你知道我想做什么吗？你知道我想做什么，嗯，因为有，你知道，人们谈论老板操纵，以及，呃，比如，恶意机器人，基本上是在传播宣传。我想创建，比如，一个机器人军队，比如，那样，“与之战斗”

Lex: Yeah, exactly. For love that fights though.

莱克斯: 是的，没错。为了爱而战斗。

Liv: That, I mean you know there’s there, I mean there’s truth to, “Fight fire with fire.” It’s like, but how, you always have to be careful whenever you create, again, like Moloch is very tricky.

莉芙: 那，我的意思是，你知道，有，那里，我的意思是，“以火攻火”是有道理的。这就像，但是，如何，你总是必须小心，无论何时你创造，再一次，比如，摩洛神非常棘手。

Lex: Yeah. Hitler was trying to spread the love too.

莱克斯: 是的。希特勒也在试图传播爱。

Liv: Well, yeah. So we thought. But, you know, I, I, I agree with you that like that is a thing that should be considered, but there is, again, everyone, “The road to hell is paved good intentions.” And this is there’s there’s always unforeseen circums you know outcomes, uh, externalities of you trying to adopt a thing, even if you do it in the very best of faith.

莉芙: 嗯，是的。我们是这样认为的。但是，你知道，我，我，我同意你的观点，比如，那是一件应该考虑的事情，但是，再一次，每个人，“通往地狱的路是用善意铺成的。”而且，这，这，总有一些不可预见的，你知道，结果，呃，你试图采用某件事的外部性，即使你以最好的信念去做它。

Lex: But you can learn lessons if you can run some sims on it first.

莱克斯: 但如果你能先运行一些模拟，你就能吸取教训。

Liv: Absolutely, but but also there’s certain aspects of a system, as we’ve learned through history, that do better than others. Like, for example, don’t have a dictator. So um like, if I were to create this bot army, it’s not good for me to have full control over it because, in the beginning, I might have a good understanding of what’s good and not, but over time that starts to get deviated because I’ll get annoyed at some, and I’ll think, “Okay, wouldn’t it be nice to get rid of those?” But then that power starts getting to your head, you become corrupted, that’s basic human nature.

莉芙: 当然，但，但也有系统的某些方面，正如我们从历史中学到的，比其他方面做得更好。比如，例如，不要有一个独裁者。所以，嗯，比如，如果我要创建这个机器人军队，对我来说，完全控制它并不好，因为，在一开始，我可能对什么是好的，什么是不好的，有一个很好的理解，但随着时间的推移，它开始偏离，因为我会对一些人感到恼火，而且我会想，“好吧，摆脱那些人不是很好吗？”但后来，那种权力开始进入你的大脑，你变得腐败，那是基本的人性。

Lex: So distribute the powers, we need, we need a a love botnet on a DAO.

莱克斯: 所以，分散权力，我们需要，我们需要一个，一个建立在 DAO 上的爱心僵尸网络。

Liv: A DAO love botnet?

莉芙: 一个 DAO 爱心僵尸网络？

Lex: Yeah. But and without a leader like, without,

莱克斯: 是的。但，而且没有领导者，比如，没有，

Liv: Exactly, distributed right.

莉芙: 没错，分布式，对吧。

Lex: Yeah, without any kind of centralized.

莱克斯: 是的，没有任何集中的。

Liv: Yeah, without even you know, basically, is the, the more control, the more you can decentralize the control of a thing uh to people you know, but the the, they don’t need the ability to coordinate, because that’s the issue when you, if something is too you know that’s really, to me, like the culture wars is, the bigger war we’re dealing with, is actually between the like the sort of, I don’t know what even the term is for it, but like centralization versus decentralization. That’s the tension we’re seeing. Power in control by a few versus completely distributed and the trouble is if you have a fully centralized thing, then you’re at risk of tyranny. You know, Stalin type things can happen uh or completely distributed. Uh now you’re at risk of complete anarchy and chaos, where you can’t even coordinate to like on, you know, when there’s like a pandemic or anything like that. So it’s like what is the right balance to strike between these two?

莉芙: 是的，甚至没有，你知道，基本上，是，你越能将一个东西的控制权分散，呃，给人们，你知道，但，那，他们不需要协调的能力，因为那是问题，当你，如果某件事太，你知道，那真的是，对我来说，就像文化战争，我们正在处理的更大的战争，实际上是在，比如，那种，我甚至不知道它的术语是什么，但就像集中化对抗分散化。那就是我们看到的紧张局势。少数人控制的权力，对抗完全分散的权力，而且问题是，如果你有一个完全集中化的东西，那么，你就有暴政的风险。你知道，斯大林式的事情可能会发生，呃，或者完全分散。呃，现在，你面临着完全无政府状态和混乱的风险，在那里，你甚至不能协调，比如，在，你知道，当有，比如，流行病或类似的事情发生时。所以，这就像，在这两者之间找到合适的平衡点是什么？

Lex: Well, structures can’t, Moloch really take hold in a fully decentralized system?

莱克斯: 嗯，结构不能，摩洛神真的会在一个完全分散的系统中占据主导地位吗？

Liv: That’s the one of the dangers too, yes. The, the very vulnerable, so the dictator can commit huge atrocities, but they can also make sure the the infrastructure works and, uh they have that God’s-eye view at least, they have the ability to create like laws and rules that like force coordination, which stops Moloch. But then you’re vulnerable to that dictator getting infected with like this, with some kind of psychopathy type thing.

莉芙: 那是危险之一，是的。那，那非常脆弱，所以，独裁者可以犯下巨大的暴行，但他们也可以确保，呃，基础设施运作，而且，呃，他们至少拥有那种上帝视角，他们有能力创造，比如，法律和规则，比如，强制协调，这可以阻止摩洛神。但后来，你就容易受到那个独裁者的感染，比如，这种，某种精神变态类型的东西。

Lex: What’s, uh what’s your verse Moloch?

莱克斯: 什么，呃，什么是你对抗摩洛神的诗句？

Liv: Sorry?

莉芙: 对不起？

Lex: Great question. So that’s where I’ve been working on this series, it’s been driving me insane for the last year and a half. Uh, I did the first one a year ago, I can’t believe it’s nearly been a year. Uh, the second one hopefully will be coming out in like a month um and my goal at the end of the series is to like present, because basically, I’m painting the picture of like what Moloch is, and how it’s affecting almost all these issues in our, in our society, and how it’s, you know, driving, it’s like kind of the generator function, as people describe it, of existential risk.

莱克斯: 好问题。所以，这就是我一直致力于这个系列的地方，它在过去的一年半里让我发疯。呃，我在一年前做了第一个，我不敢相信它已经快一年了。呃，第二个，希望会在，比如，一个月后发布，嗯，而且我在这个系列结束时的目标是，比如，呈现，因为，基本上，我正在描绘，比如，摩洛神是什么，以及它是如何影响我们，我们社会中几乎所有这些问题的，以及它是如何，你知道，驱动的，它就像，人们描述的，生存风险的生成函数。

Lex: And then at the end, wait, wait. The generator function of existential risk. So you’re saying Moloch is sort of the engine that creates a bunch, a bunch of x-risks?

莱克斯: 然后，在最后，等等，等等。生存风险的生成函数。所以，你说摩洛神有点像创造一堆，一堆生存风险的引擎？

Liv: Yes. Not all of them, like, like a, uh, you know, a um,

莉芙: 是的。不是所有，比如，比如一个，呃，你知道，一个，嗯，

Lex: It’s a cool phrase, “Generator function.”

莱克斯: “生成函数”这个短语很酷。

Liv: It’s not my phrase, it’s Daniel Schmachtenberger.

莉芙: 这不是我的短语，是丹尼尔·施马赫滕贝格尔的。

Lex: Oh, I got that from him. Of course. All things, it’s like all the roads lead back to Daniel Schmachtenberger.

莱克斯: 哦，我从他那里得到的。当然。所有的事情，这就像，条条大路通罗马，丹尼尔·施马赫滕贝格尔。

Liv: The dude is, the dude is brilliant.

莉芙: 这家伙，这家伙很聪明。

Lex: No, he’s not ready for that. It’s Mark Twain. Sorry.

莱克斯: 不，他还没有准备好。是马克·吐温。对不起。

Liv: Um totally rude interruptions from me.

莉芙: 嗯，我完全是粗鲁地打断了你。

Lex: No, it’s fine.

莱克斯: 不，没关系。

Liv: Uh, so not all likes risks. So like an asteroid technically isn’t because it’s um, you know, it’s just like this one big external thing, it’s not like a competition thing going on, but you know, synthetic biola, you know bio weapons. That’s one because everyone’s incentivized to build, even for defense you know bad, bad viruses you know just threaten someone else etc. Or AI, technically the race to AGI is kind of potentially a Moloch-y situation um but yeah. So if Moloch is this like generator function that’s driving all of these issues over the coming century that might wipe us out, what’s the inverse? And so far what I’ve gotten to is this character that I want to put out there called, “Win-Win” because Moloch is the god of lose-lose. Ultimately it masquerades as the god of win-lose, but in reality it’s lose-lose. Everyone ends up worse off. So I was like, “Well, what’s the opposite of that? It’s win-win.” And I was thinking for ages, like, “What’s a good name for this character?” And then the more I was like, “Okay well don’t try and you know think through it logically, what’s the vibe of win-win?” And to me, like in my mind Moloch is like, and I dress as it in the video, like it’s red and black. It’s kind of like very you know hyper-focused on, “It’s one goal, you must win.” Um so win-win is kind of actually like these colors. It’s like purple, turquoise um it’s, loves games too, it loves a little bit of healthy competition, but constrained. Like, kind of like before, like knows how to ring fence zero-sum competition into like just the right amount, uh, whereby its externalities can be controlled and kept positive. And then beyond that, it also loves cooperation, coordination, love, all these other things, um, but it’s also kind of like mischievous uh like you know, it will have a good time. It’s not like kind of like boring, you know, like, “Oh, God, it’s,” it’s, it knows how to have fun, it can get like, it can get down, um, but ultimately it’s like unbelievably wise and it just wants the game to keep going. Um and I call it, “Win-Win.”

莉芙: 呃，所以，并不是所有风险都喜欢。所以，比如，一颗小行星，严格来说，它不是，因为它，嗯，你知道，它只是一个巨大的外部事物，它不像正在发生的一场竞争，但，你知道，合成生物，你知道，生物武器。那是一个，因为每个人都被激励去建造，即使是为了防御，你知道，糟糕的，糟糕的病毒，你知道，只是威胁别人，等等。或者，人工智能，严格来说，通往通用人工智能的竞赛是一种潜在的摩洛神化的情况，嗯，但，是的。所以，如果摩洛神是这种，比如，驱动所有这些问题在未来一个世纪发生的生成函数，那可能会让我们灭绝，那么，反面是什么？而且到目前为止，我得到的，是我想提出的这个角色，叫做，“双赢”，因为摩洛神是双输之神。最终，它伪装成赢输之神，但在现实中，它是双输。每个人最终都会变得更糟。所以，我就像，“嗯，那，那的反面是什么？是双赢。”而且我想了很久，比如，“这个角色叫什么名字好呢？”然后，我越想越像，“好吧，嗯，不要试图，你知道，从逻辑上思考它，双赢的氛围是什么？”而且对我来说，比如，在我脑海中，摩洛神就像，而且我在视频中打扮成它，比如，它是红色和黑色的。它有点像非常，你知道，过度专注于，“这是一个目标，你必须赢。”嗯，所以，双赢实际上有点像这些颜色。它就像紫色，青绿色，嗯，它，也喜欢游戏，它喜欢一点点健康的竞争，但受到限制。比如，有点像以前，比如，知道如何将零和竞争限制在，比如，合适的数量，呃，这样它的外部性就可以得到控制，而且保持积极。然后，除此之外，它也喜欢合作，协调，爱，所有这些其他的东西，嗯，但它也有点像淘气的，呃，比如，你知道，它会玩得很开心。它不像那种无聊的，你知道，比如，“哦，上帝，它，”它，它知道如何玩乐，它可以变得，比如，它可以变得很酷，嗯，但最终，它就像难以置信的明智，而且它只是想让游戏继续下去。嗯，而且我称它为，“双赢”。

Lex: Um that’s a good like pet name.

莱克斯: 嗯，那是一个很好的，比如，昵称。

Liv: Yes.

莉芙: 是的。

Lex: The, I think the win, right? And I think it’s formal name when it has to do like official functions is, uh, Omnia.

莱克斯: 那，我认为是赢，对吧？而且我认为它的正式名称，当它必须做，比如，官方的功能时，是，呃，Omnia。

Liv: Omnia.

莉芙: Omnia。

Lex: Yeah. From like, um, omniscience.

莱克斯: 是的。来自，比如，嗯，全知。

Liv: Kind of what’s.

莉芙: 有点像。

Lex: Why Omnia?

莱克斯: 为什么是 Omnia？

Liv: You just like omnia, omni-win.

莉芙: 你只是喜欢 omnia，全赢。

Lex: But I’m open to suggestions, oh like you know and this is like, yeah.

莱克斯: 但我乐于接受建议，哦，比如，你知道，而且这就像，是的。

Liv: Yeah. Like that. But there’s an angelic kind of sense to Omnia though, so win-win is more fun, so it’s more, it’s more like, uh, it embraces the the, the fun aspect. I mean there is something about, sort of um, there’s some aspect to win-win interactions that requires embracing the chaos of the game, and enjoying the game itself. I don’t know, I don’t know what that is, that’s almost like a zen-like appreciation of, of the game itself, not optimizing for the consequences of the game, right?

莉芙: 是的。就像那样。但 Omnia 有一种天使般的感觉，所以，双赢更有趣，所以，它更，它更像，呃，它包含了，那，那，有趣的方面。我的意思是，有一些东西，比如，嗯，双赢互动的一些方面需要拥抱游戏的混乱，而且享受游戏本身。我不知道，我不知道那是什么，那几乎就像一种禅宗式的欣赏，对游戏本身的欣赏，而不是优化游戏的结果，对吧？

Lex: Well, it’s recognizing the value of competition, in of itself, about, it’s not like about winning, it’s about you enjoying the process of having a competition and not knowing whether you’re going to win or lose this little thing, but then also being aware that you know, “What’s the boundary, how big do I want competition to be?” Because one of the reasons why Moloch is doing so well now in our society, in our civilization, is because we haven’t been able to ring fence competition uh, you know, and so it’s just having all these negative externalities and we’ve completely lost control of it.

莱克斯: 嗯，它是在认识到竞争本身的价值，关于，它不像关于赢，而是关于你享受竞争的过程，而且不知道你是否会赢得或输掉这个小东西，但也要 aware of，你知道，“界限是什么，我想让竞争有多大？”因为摩洛神现在在我们社会中，在我们的文明中，做得如此好的原因之一是，我们还没有能够限制竞争，呃，你知道，所以，它只是拥有所有这些负面外部性，而且我们已经完全失去了对它的控制。

Liv: Um, you know, it’s, I think my guess is, and now we’re getting really like you know, metaphysical technically, but I I think we would be, we’ll be in a more interesting universe if we have one that has both pure cooperation, you know, lots of cooperation and some pockets of competition, then one that’s purely competition, cooperation entirely, like it’s good to have some little zero-sum-ness bits, um, but I don’t know that fully, and I’m not qualified as a philosopher to know that.

莉芙: 嗯，你知道，它是，我认为我的猜测是，而且现在我们变得非常，比如，你知道，在技术上，形而上学，但我，我认为我们会，如果我们拥有一个既有纯粹的合作，你知道，很多合作，又有一些竞争的宇宙，我们会生活在一个更有趣的宇宙中，而不是一个纯粹是竞争，完全是合作，比如，拥有一些小的零和部分是好的，嗯，但我不知道全部，而且我没有资格作为哲学家来知道这一点。

Lex: And that’s what reverse Moloch, so this kind of win-win creature, is in, uh, system is an antidote to the Moloch system?

莱克斯: 而且那就是反摩洛神，所以，这种双赢的生物，在，呃，系统中，是摩洛神系统的解药？

Liv: Yes.

莉芙: 是的。

Lex: And I don’t know how it’s going to do that, um, but it’s good to kind of try to start to formulate different ideas, different frameworks of how we think about that, exactly at the small scale of a collection of individuals, a large scale of a society.

莱克斯: 而且我不知道它将如何做到这一点，嗯，但尝试开始制定不同的想法，不同的框架，关于我们如何思考它，在个人集合的小规模上，在社会的大规模上，是好的。

Liv: Exactly. It’s a meme I think. It’s I think it’s an example of a good meme. And I’m open, I’d love to hear feedback from people if they think it’s you know they have a better idea or it’s not, you know, but it’s the direction of meme that we need to spread, this idea of, “Look for the win-wins in life.”

莉芙: 没错。我认为它是一个模因。它，我认为它是一个好的模因的例子。而且我很开放，我很乐意听到人们的反馈，如果他们认为它是，你知道，他们有一个更好的想法，或者它不是，你知道，但它是我们需要传播的模因的方向，这种想法，“在生活中寻找双赢”。

Lex: Well, on the topic of beauty filters. So in that particular context where uh Moloch creates uh negative consequences, what, do you know, Dostoevsky said, “Beauty will save the world.” What is beauty anyway? It would be nice to just try to discuss what kind of thing we would like to converge towards in our understanding of what is beautiful.

莱克斯: 嗯，关于美颜滤镜的话题。所以，在那个特定的背景下，呃，摩洛神创造了，呃，负面后果，什么，你知道，陀思妥耶夫斯基说过，“美将拯救世界。”美究竟是什么？只是尝试讨论一下，在我们对美的理解中，我们想趋同于什么样的东西，会很好。

Liv: So to me I think something is beautiful when it can’t be reduced down to easy metrics. Like, if you think of a tree, what is it about a tree, like a big, ancient, beautiful tree right? What is it about it that we find so beautiful? It’s not you know the, the you know what the sweetness of its fruit, or the value of its lumber, it’s, it’s this entirety of it that is, that there’s these immeasurable qualities, it’s like almost like a qualia of it um that’s both like it walks this fine line between pattern, well, it’s got lots of patternicity but it’s not overly predictable. Um, you know again, it walks this fine line between order and chaos. It’s a very highly complex system um in the, you know, you can’t, it’s evolving over time, you know? That the definition of a complex versus, and this is another Schmachtenberger thing, you know? A complex versus a complicated system. A complicated system can be sort of broken down into bits, understood, and then put back together. A complex system, it’s kind of like a black box, it does all this crazy stuff but if you take it apart you can’t put it back together again because it’s, there’s there’s all these intricacies and also very importantly, like there’s some of the parts, sorry, the sum of the whole is much greater than the sum of the parts and that’s where the beauty lies I think. And I think that extends to things like art as well like there’s something, there’s something immeasurable about it. There’s something we can’t break down to a narrow metric.

莉芙: 所以，对我来说，我认为当某件事不能被简化成简单的指标时，它是美丽的。比如，如果你想到一棵树，一棵树是什么，比如，一棵巨大的，古老的，美丽的树，对吧？是什么让它如此美丽？它不是，你知道，那，那，你知道，它的果实的甜度，或者它的木材的价值，它，它是它的整体，那是，那里有这些不可测量的品质，它几乎就像它的感受质，嗯，它既像，它走在模式之间的这条细线上，嗯，它有很多模式性，但它不是过度可预测的。嗯，你知道，再一次，它走在秩序和混乱之间的这条细线上。它是一个非常高度复杂的系统，嗯，在，你知道，你不能，它随着时间的推移而进化，你知道吗？复杂与，的定义，而且这是另一个施马赫滕贝格尔的东西，你知道吗？复杂与复杂系统的对比。复杂系统可以，比如，被分解成比特，被理解，然后重新组合在一起。复杂系统，它有点像一个黑盒子，它做所有这些疯狂的事情，但如果你把它拆开，你不能再把它组合在一起，因为它，那里，那里有所有这些错综复杂的东西，而且，非常重要的是，比如，有一些部分，对不起，整体之和远大于部分之和，而且我认为这就是美所在的地方。而且我认为这也延伸到艺术之类的东西，比如，有一些东西，有一些不可测量的東西。有一些东西，我们不能把它分解成一个狭隘的指标。

Lex: Does that extend to humans, you think?

莱克斯: 你认为这延伸到人类吗？

Liv: Yeah. Absolutely.

莉芙: 是的。当然。

Lex: So how can Instagram reveal that kind of beauty, the complexity of a human being?

莱克斯: 那么，Instagram 如何才能展现那种美，人类的复杂性？

Liv: Good question. Um this takes us back to uh dating sites and good reads, I think. Very good question. I mean well I know what it shouldn’t do. It shouldn’t try and like, right now you know one of the, I was talking to like a social media expert recently, because I was like, “Oh, I hate things,” the social media expert. Oh yeah, there are like agencies out there that you can like outsource, because I’m thinking about working with one to like, I said, I want to start a podcast,

莉芙: 好问题。嗯，我想，这让我们回到了，呃，约会网站和 goodreads。非常好的问题。我的意思是，嗯，我知道它不应该做什么。它不应该试图，比如，现在，你知道，其中一个，我最近和一个社交媒体专家谈过，因为我就像，“哦，我讨厌东西，”社交媒体专家。哦，是的，有一些，比如，代理机构，你可以，比如，外包，因为我正在考虑和其中一家合作，比如，我说，我想开始一个播客，

Lex: You should you should have done it a long time ago.

莱克斯: 你应该，你应该很久以前就做了。

Liv: Checking on it, going to be called, “Win-Win.” Um and it’s going to be about this like positive sum stuff uh and the thing that you know they they all come back and say it’s like, “Well, you need to like figure out what your thing is, you know? You need to narrow down what your thing is, and then just follow that, have like a sort of a formula, because that’s what people want, they want to know that they’re coming back to the same thing.” And that’s the advice on YouTube, Twitter, you name it, and that’s why and, and the trouble with that is that it’s, it’s a complexity reduction, and generally speaking, complex you know, complexity reduction is bad, it’s making things more, it’s an oversimplification. Not that simplification is always a bad thing, um, but when you’re trying to take you know, what is social media doing, is trying to like encapsulate the the human experience and put it into digital form and and commodify it to an extent that you. So you do that, you compress people down into these like narrow things and I, that’s why I think it’s, it’s kind of ultimately fundamentally incompatible with at least my definition of beauty.

莉芙: 正在检查，它将被称为，“双赢”。嗯，而且它将是关于这个，比如，正和的东西，呃，而且你知道，他们，他们都回来，而且说，这就像，“嗯，你需要，比如，弄清楚你的东西是什么，你知道吗？你需要缩小你的东西是什么，然后，只是跟随它，拥有，比如，一种公式，因为那是人们想要的，他们想知道他们正在回到同一件事。”而且那是 YouTube，Twitter 上的建议，你说得出的，而且那就是为什么，而且，而且，那的问题是，它，它是一种复杂性的降低，而且，一般来说，复杂，你知道，复杂性的降低是不好的，它让事情变得更，它是一种过度简化。不是说简化总是一件坏事，嗯，但当你试图接受，你知道，社交媒体在做什么，是在试图，比如，概括人类的体验，而且把它变成数字形式，而且，而且，在某种程度上，把它商品化，让你。所以，你这样做，你把人们压缩成这些，比如，狭隘的东西，而且我，这就是为什么我认为它，它有点，最终，从根本上，与至少我对美的定义不兼容。

Lex: It’s interesting because there is some sense in which a simplification, sort of in the in the Einstein kind of sense of a really complex idea, a simplification in a way that still captures some core power of an idea of a person, is also beautiful. And so maybe it’s possible for social media to do that, a presentation, a sort of a slither, a sl, a slice, a look into a person’s life that reveals something real about them, but in a simple way. In a way that can be displayed graphically or through words, some way. I mean in some way, Twitter can do that kind of thing. A very few set of words can reveal the intricacies of a person. Of course the the viral machine that spreads those words uh often results in people taking the thing out of context, not, people often don’t read tweets in the context of the human being that wrote them, the full, the full history of the tweets they’ve written, the education level, the humor level, the the world view they’re playing around with, all that context is forgotten, and people just see the different words. So that can lead to trouble. But in in a certain sense, if you do take it in context, it reveals some kind of quirky little beautiful idea, or a profound little idea from that particular person that shows something about that person. So in that sense, Twitter can be more successful if we talk about Moloch is driving a better kind of incentive.

莱克斯: 这很有趣，因为，在某种意义上，一种简化，有点像，在爱因斯坦式的，对一个真正复杂的想法，一种简化，以一种仍然捕捉到一个人想法的核心力量的方式，也是美丽的。所以，也许社交媒体可以做到这一点，一种呈现，一种，比如，滑行，一个，一个切片，一个对一个人生活的观察，揭示了他们的一些真实的东西，但以一种简单的方式。以一种可以用图形或文字，某种方式，展示的方式。我的意思是，在某种程度上，Twitter 可以做到这一点。很少的几组文字就可以揭示一个人的错综复杂。当然，那，那台传播这些文字的病毒式机器，呃，经常导致人们断章取义，不是，人们经常不阅读推文，在写这些推文的人的背景下，他们写过的推文的完整，完整历史，教育水平，幽默水平，那，那，他们正在玩弄的世界观，所有这些背景都被遗忘了，而且人们只是看到了不同的文字。所以，那会导致麻烦。但在，在某种意义上，如果你确实把它放在背景下，它会揭示某种古怪的，美丽的，小想法，或者来自那个特定的人的深刻的，小想法，它显示了那个人的一些东西。所以，在这个意义上，Twitter 可以更成功，如果我们谈论摩洛神正在驱动一种更好的激励。

Liv: Yeah. I mean how they can like if if we were to rewrite it, “Is there a way to rewrite the Twitter algorithm so that it stops being the like the fertile breeding ground of the culture wars?” Because that’s really what it is. It’s um, I mean maybe I’m giving it you know Twitter too much power you know power, but just the more I looked into it, and I had conversations with, uh, Tristan Harris uh from Center of Humane Technology, and he explained it as like, “Twitter is where you have this amalgam of human culture and then this terribly designed algorithm that amplifies the craziest people um and the the angriest, the angriest, most divisive takes and amplifies them, and then the media, the mainstream media, because all the journalists are also on Twitter, they then are informed by that, and so they draw out the stories they can from this already like very boiling lava of of of rage, and then spread that you know to their millions and millions of people who aren’t even on Twitter.” Um and so, honestly, I think if I could press a button and turn them off, I probably would at this point, because I just don’t see a way of being compatible with healthiness, but that’s not going to happen. Um and so at least one way to like stem the tide and make it less Moloch-y would be to um change at least if like it was on a subscription model, then it’s now not optimizing for in you know, uh, impressions, because basically what it wants is for people to keep coming back as often as possible. That’s how they get paid, right? Um every time an ad gets shown to someone, and the way is to get people constantly refreshing their feed, so you’re trying to encourage addictive behaviors. Whereas if someone, um if they moved on to at least a subscription model, then they’re getting the money either way, whether someone comes back to the site once a month, or 500 times a month, they get the same amount of money. So now that takes away that incentive you know to use technology, you know to build to design an algorithm that is maximally addictive um that would be one way, for example.

莉芙: 是的。我的意思是，他们如何可以，比如，如果，如果我们要重写它，“有没有一种方法可以重写 Twitter 算法，让它不再是，比如，文化战争的沃土？”因为，这就是它真正的样子。它，嗯，我的意思是，也许我给了它，你知道，Twitter 太多的权力，你知道，权力，但只是我越深入研究它，而且我和，呃，特里斯坦·哈里斯，呃，来自人道技术中心，交谈过，而且他把它解释为，比如，“Twitter 是一个你拥有这种人类文化混合物的地方，然后，这个设计糟糕的算法放大了最疯狂的人，嗯，以及，那，最愤怒的，最愤怒的，最具分裂性的观点，而且放大了它们，然后，媒体，主流媒体，因为所有记者也都在 Twitter 上，他们然后被它告知，所以，他们从这个已经像非常沸腾的熔岩一样的愤怒中，提取出他们可以提取的故事，然后，你知道，把它们传播给他们的数百万，数百万甚至不在 Twitter 上的人。”嗯，所以，老实说，我认为如果我可以按下一个按钮，而且关闭它们，在这一点上，我可能会这样做，因为我只是看不到一种与健康兼容的方式，但这不会发生。嗯，所以，至少有一种方法，比如，阻止这种趋势，而且让它不那么摩洛神化，那就是，嗯，改变，至少如果，比如，它采用订阅模式，那么，它现在就不会优化，在，你知道，呃，印象，因为，基本上，它想要的是让人们尽可能多地回来。这就是他们获得报酬的方式，对吧？嗯，每次广告展示给某人，而且方法是让人们不断刷新他们的信息流，所以，你试图鼓励成瘾行为。而如果有人，嗯，如果他们至少转向订阅模式，那么，他们无论如何都会得到钱，无论有人每月回到网站一次，还是每月 500 次，他们都会得到相同数量的钱。所以，现在，这消除了那种激励，你知道，使用技术，你知道，去构建，去设计一个最大限度地令人上瘾的算法，嗯，那将是一种方法，例如。

Lex: Yeah, but you still want people to,

莱克斯: 是的，但你仍然想让人们，

Liv: Yeah. I just feel like that just slows down, creates friction in the virality of things.

莉芙: 是的。我只是觉得那只是减慢了速度，在事物的病毒式传播中制造了摩擦。

Lex: But that’s good. We need to slow down.

莱克斯: 但那很好。我们需要放慢速度。

Liv: Good.

莉芙: 好。

Lex: It’s one way. Virality is Moloch, to be clear. So Moloch is always negative then?

莱克斯: 这是一种方法。病毒式传播就是摩洛神，说清楚一点。那么，摩洛神总是负面的吗？

Liv: Yes. By definition, yes.

莉芙: 是的。根据定义，是的。

Lex: But then I disagree with you. It’s not always negative. Competition is neutral. I disagree with you that all virality is negative then uh as Moloch then. Because I i, it’s a good intuition because we have a lot of data on virality being negative but I happen to believe that the core of human beings, so most human beings want to be good more than they want to be bad to each other, and so I think it’s possible, it might be just harder to engineer systems that enable virality, but it’s possible to engineer systems that are viral, that enable virality and the kind of stuff that rises to the top is things that are positive, and positive, not like la-la positive, it’s more like win-win meaning a lot of people need to be challenged.

莱克斯: 但我不同意你的观点。它并不总是负面的。竞争是中立的。我不同意你的观点，所有的病毒式传播都是负面的，呃，就像摩洛神一样。因为我，我，这是一个很好的直觉，因为我们有很多关于病毒式传播是负面的数据，但我碰巧相信人类的核心，所以，大多数人想做好事，而不是做坏事，所以，我认为这可能，设计能够实现病毒式传播的系统可能更难，但设计病毒式的系统是可能的，能够实现病毒式传播，而且，上升到顶端的东西是积极的，而且，积极的，不是那种啦啦队的积极，它更像双赢，意味着很多人需要被挑战。

Liv: Wise things.

莉芙: 明智的事情。

Lex: Yeah. You grow from it. It might challenge you, you might not like it, but you ultimately grow from it and ultimately bring people together as opposed to tear them apart.

莱克斯: 是的。你从中成长。它可能会挑战你，你可能不喜欢它，但你最终会从中成长，而且最终会把人们团结在一起，而不是把他们分开。

Liv: Yeah. I deeply want that to be true, and I very much agree with you that people at their core are on average good, as opposed to you know, care for each other as opposed to not, like, a, you know, I think it’s actually a very small percentage of people are truly like wanting to do just like destructive, malicious things. Most people are just trying to win their own little game, and they don’t mean to be you know they’re just stuck in this badly designed system um that said, the current structure, yes, is the current structure means that virality is optimized towards Moloch. That doesn’t mean there aren’t exceptions. You know, sometimes positive stories do go viral, and I think we should study them. I think there should be a whole field of study into understanding you know identifying memes that you know above a certain threshold of the population, agree, “Is a positive, happy, bringing people together meme,” the kind of thing that you know brings families together that would normally argue about cultural stuff at the table at the dinner table. Um identify those memes and figure out what it was, “What was the ingredient that made them spread that day?” Um and also like, uh, not just like happiness and connection between humans, but, uh, connection between humans in other ways that enables like productivity, like cooperation, solving difficult problems, and all those kinds of stuff um you know, this so it’s not just about, “Let’s, let’s be happy and have a fulfilling lives,” it’s also like, “Let’s build cool.”

莉芙: 是的。我非常希望那是真的，而且我非常同意你的观点，人们的内心，平均来说，是善良的，而不是，你知道，互相照顾，而不是不照顾，比如，一个，你知道，我认为实际上，只有一小部分人真正地，比如，想做，比如，破坏性的，恶意的事情。大多数人只是想赢得他们自己的小游戏，而且他们不想成为，你知道，他们只是被困在这个设计糟糕的系统中，嗯，话虽如此，目前的结构，是的，目前的结构意味着病毒式传播被优化 towards 摩洛神。那并不意味着没有例外。你知道，有时，积极的故事确实会走红，而且我认为我们应该研究它们。我认为应该有一个完整的领域，来研究理解，你知道，识别模因，你知道，超过一定的人口阈值，同意，“是一个积极的，快乐的，把人们团结在一起的模因，”那种，你知道，把家庭团结在一起的东西，这些家庭通常会在餐桌上，为文化问题争吵。嗯，识别那些模因，而且弄清楚它是什么，“是什么成分让它们在那天传播开来？”嗯，而且，比如，呃，不仅仅是人类之间的幸福和联系，而是，呃，以其他方式实现，比如，生产力，比如，合作，解决难题，以及所有这些东西，嗯，你知道，这，所以，它不仅仅是关于，“让我们，让我们快乐，而且过上充实的生活，”它也像，“让我们建造酷的东西。”

Lex: Yeah. Which is the spirit of collaboration, which is deeply anti-Moloch, right? That’s that’s uh it’s not using competition, it’s like you know, Moloch hates collaboration and coordination and people working together, and that’s you know again, like the internet started out as that, and it, and um it could have been that, but because of the way it was sort of structured um in terms of uh you know very lofty ideal, they wanted everything to be open source. So, open source and also free. And but they needed to find a way to pay the bills anyway because they were still building this on top of our old economic system um and so the way they did that was through a third-party ad advertisement. But that meant that things were very decoupled, you know? You’ve got this third-party interest, um which means that you’re then like people having to optimize for that, and that is the you know, the actual consumer is actually the product, not the not the, the the, the person you’re making the thing for. You’re, in in the end, you start making the thing for the advertiser and so that’s why it then like breaks down um yeah. Like, it’s, there’s no clean solution to this um and I i, it’s a really good suggestion by you actually to like um figure out how we can optimize virality for positive some topics.

莱克斯: 是的。那就是合作的精神，它是深深地反摩洛神的，对吧？那，那，呃，它不是在利用竞争，它就像，你知道，摩洛神讨厌合作和协调，以及人们一起工作，而且，你知道，再一次，比如，互联网一开始就是那样，而且它，而且，嗯，它本来可以是那样，但因为它的结构，嗯，在，呃，你知道，非常崇高的理想方面，他们希望一切都是开源的。所以，开源，而且也是免费的。但他们无论如何都需要找到一种支付账单的方法，因为他们仍然在我们的旧经济体系的基础上构建这个，嗯，所以，他们这样做的方法是通过第三方广告。但这意味着事情非常脱节，你知道吗？你有这种第三方利益，嗯，这意味着你然后就像人们必须为此优化，而且那就是，你知道，真正的消费者实际上是产品，而不是，不是，那，那，那，你为之制造东西的人。你，在，在最后，你开始为广告商制造东西，所以，这就是为什么它然后，比如，崩溃，嗯，是的。比如，它，对此没有干净的解决方案，嗯，而且我，我，这实际上是一个非常好的建议，比如，嗯，弄清楚我们如何能够为正和的一些话题优化病毒式传播。

Lex: I shall be the general of the love bot army um strip you did,

莱克斯: 我将成为爱心机器人军队，嗯，脱衣舞，你做的，

Liv: Distribute it. Distribute.

莉芙: 分散它。分散。

Lex: No, okay.

莱克斯: 不，好吧。

Liv: Yeah.

莉芙: 是的。

Lex: The power just even insane that the palm already went to my head.

莱克斯: 权力，只是，甚至，疯狂，掌声已经冲昏了我的头脑。

Liv: No, okay.

莉芙: 不，好吧。

Lex: You’ve talked about quantifying your thinking, we’ve been talking about this sort of game theoretic view on life, and putting probabilities behind estimates like if you think about different trajectories you can take through life, just actually analyzing life in a game theoretic way, like your own life, like personal life. You, I think you’ve given an example that you had an honest conversation with Igor about, like, “How long is this relationship going to last?” So similar to our sort of marriage problem kind of discussion, having an honest conversation about the probability of things that we sometimes are a little bit too shy, or scared, to think of in probabilistic terms. Can you speak to that kind of way of reasoning, uh, the good and the bad of that? Can you do this kind of thing with human relations?

莱克斯: 你谈到了量化你的思维，我们一直在谈论这种，比如，对生活的博弈论观点，而且把概率放在估计的背后，比如，如果你想想你可以在生活中走过的不同轨迹，只是，实际上，以博弈论的方式分析生活，比如你自己的生活，比如，个人生活。你，我认为你举了一个例子，你和伊戈尔进行了一次诚实的谈话，关于，比如，“这段关系会持续多久？”所以，类似于我们那种婚姻问题类型的讨论，对事物的概率进行诚实的谈话，我们有时会有点太害羞，或害怕，以概率的方式思考。你能谈谈那种推理方式吗，呃，它的好与坏？你能对人际关系做这种事吗？

Liv: Yeah. So the the scenario you’re talking about it was like yeah.

莉芙: 是的。所以，那，你正在谈论的场景，它就像，是的。

Lex: Tell me about that.

莱克斯: 告诉我。

Liv: Yeah. Uh, I think he was about a year into our relationship um and we were having a fairly heavy conversation because we were trying to figure out whether or not I was going to sell my apartment.

莉芙: 是的。呃，我想，我们交往了大约一年，嗯，而且我们正在进行一次相当沉重的谈话，因为我们试图弄清楚我是否要卖掉我的公寓。

Lex: Well, you guys are having that conversation, are you like drunk out of your mind on wine? Or is he sober, and you’re actually having a serious, like how do you get to that conversation because most people are kind of afraid to have that kind of serious conversation?

莱克斯: 嗯，你们正在进行那次谈话，你们，比如，喝醉了吗？或者，他是清醒的，而且你们实际上正在进行一次严肃的，比如，你们是如何进行那次谈话的，因为大多数人有点害怕进行那种严肃的谈话？

Liv: Well so you know, our relationship was very, well first of all we were good friends for a couple of years before we even you know got, you know, romantic. Um and when we did get romantic, it was very clear that this was a big deal. It wasn’t just like another, like you know, it wasn’t a random thing. Um and so the probability of it being a big deal was high, was already very high and then we’d been together for a year and it had been pretty golden and wonderful so you know, there was a lot of foundation already where we felt very comfortable having a lot of frank conversations, but Igor’s mo has always been much more than mine. He was always from the outset like just in a relationship, “Radical transparency and honesty is the way, because the truth is the truth, whether you want to hide it or not you know, but it will come out eventually and um if you aren’t able to accept difficult things yourself, then how could you possibly expect to be like the most integral version that,” you know? “You can’t, the relationship needs this bedrock of like honesty as a foundation more than anything.”

莉芙: 嗯，所以，你知道，我们的关系非常，嗯，首先，我们是好朋友，有好几年了，甚至在我们，你知道，变得，你知道，浪漫之前。嗯，而且当我们变得浪漫时，很明显，这是一件大事。它不像另一个，比如，你知道，它不是一件随机的事情。嗯，所以，它成为一件大事的概率很高，已经很高了，然后，我们在一起已经一年了，而且它非常美好，而且精彩，所以，你知道，已经有很多基础了，在那里，我们感觉非常 comfortable，可以进行很多坦诚的谈话，但伊戈尔的模式一直比我的多得多。他总是从一开始就喜欢，在一段关系中，“彻底的透明和诚实是方法，因为真相就是真相，无论你想不想隐藏它，你知道，但它最终会水落石出，而且，嗯，如果你自己不能接受困难的事情，那么，你怎么可能期望成为，比如，最完整的版本，那，”你知道吗？“你不能，这段关系最需要的是诚实作为基础。”

Lex: Yeah. That’s really interesting, but I would like to push against some of those ideas, but okay.

莱克斯: 是的。那真的很有趣，但我，比如，想反驳其中一些想法，但好吧。

Liv: All right.

莉芙: 好吧。

Lex: But that’s the, down the line, just throw them up, uh, I just rudely interrupt.

莱克斯: 但那是，在后面，只是把它们抛出来，呃，我只是粗鲁地打断了你。

Liv: Um and so, you know, we, we’ve been about together for a year, and things were good, and we were having this hard conversation and, and then he was like, “Well, okay, what’s the likelihood that we’re going to be together in three years then?” Because I think it was roughly a three-year time horizon and I was like, “Oh interesting and,”

莉芙: 嗯，所以，你知道，我们，我们在一起已经大约一年了，而且事情很好，而且我们正在进行这次艰难的谈话，而且，然后，他就像，“嗯，好吧，那么，我们三年后在一起的可能性有多大？”因为我认为它大致是一个三年的时间范围，而且我就像，“哦，有趣，而且，”

Lex: Everybody actually, wait. Don’t before you said out loud, “Let’s both write down our predictions formally,” um because we’d been like, we were just getting into like effective altruism and rationality at the time, which is all about making you know formal predictions as a means of, uh, measuring your own um, well, your, your own foresight essentially in a quantified way. So we like both wrote down our percentages, and we also did a one-year prediction and a 10-year one as well. So we got percentages for all three, and then we showed each other um and I remember like having this moment of like, “Oh,” because after the 10 year and I was like, “Oh, well, I mean I love them a lot but like a lot can happen in 10 years, you know? And um we’ve only been together for,” you know, so I was like, “I think it’s over 50, but it’s definitely not 90%.” And I remember like wrestling, I was like, “Oh, but I don’t want him to be hurt. I don’t want him to you know I don’t want to give a number lower than his.” And I remember thinking, “Ah, don’t game it, this is a exercise in radical honesty, so just give your real percentage.” And I think mine was like 75. And then we showed each other and luckily, we were fairly well aligned um and but, honestly, even if we weren’t 20, it definitely, it definitely would have I, if his had been consistently lower than mine, that would have rattled me for sure. Whereas if it had been the other way around, I think he would, he’s just kind of like a, “Water off the duck’s back,” type of guy. He’d be like, “Okay. Well, all right. We’ll figure this out.”

莱克斯: 实际上每个人，等等。在你大声说出来之前，不要，“让我们都正式写下我们的预测，”嗯，因为我们就像，我们当时只是在学习，比如，有效的利他主义和理性主义，它都是关于做出，你知道，正式的预测，作为一种，呃，测量你自己的，嗯，嗯，你自己的远见，基本上，以一种量化的方式。所以，我们喜欢，都写下了我们的百分比，而且我们也做了一个一年期的预测，以及一个十年期的预测。所以，我们得到了所有三者的百分比，然后，我们互相展示，嗯，而且我记得，比如，有这个时刻，比如，“哦，”因为，在十年之后，而且我就像，“哦，嗯，我的意思是，我非常爱他们，但，比如，十年里可能会发生很多事情，你知道吗？而且，嗯，我们才在一起，”你知道，所以，我就像，“我认为它超过了 50%，但它绝对不是 90%。”而且我记得，比如，挣扎，我就像，“哦，但我不想让他受伤。我不想让他，你知道，我不想给出一个比他低的数字。”而且我记得我想，“啊，不要玩弄它，这是一个彻底诚实的练习，所以，只是给出你真实的百分比。”而且我认为我的是，比如，75%。然后，我们互相展示，而且幸运的是，我们相当一致，嗯，但是，老实说，即使我们不是 20%，它绝对，它绝对会，我，如果他的一直比我的低，那肯定会让我不安。而如果反过来，我认为他会，他只是有点像一个，“水过鸭背，”类型的人。他会像，“好吧。嗯，好吧。我们会 figuring out 的。”

Liv: Well, did you guys provide error bars on the estimate?

莉芙: 嗯，你们在估计中提供了误差线吗？

Lex: Like, the level one they became built in, we didn’t give formal plus or minus error bars.

莱克斯: 比如，第一级，它们被内置了，我们没有给出正式的加减误差线。

Liv: I didn’t draw any or anything like that. I guess that’s the question I have is, did you feel informed enough to make such decisions? Because like I feel like if you were, if I were to do this kind of thing rigorously I would want some data. Uh I would want to say, one of the assumptions you have is, “You’re not that different from other relationships,” right? And so I want to I want to have some data about the base rates, yeah. And, and also actual trajectories of relationships. I would love to have um like time series data about the ways that relationships fall apart or prosper, how they collide with different life events, losses, job changes, moving, both partners find jobs, only one has a job, I want that kind of data and how often the different trajectories change in life, like how rep how informative is your past to your future? That’s the whole thing, like I can you look at my life and have a good prediction about in terms of my characteristics of my relationships, “What that’s going to look like in the future,” or not? I don’t even know the answer that question. I’ll be very ill-informed in terms of making the probability, I would be far.

莉芙: 我没有画任何东西，或者类似的东西。我想，我的问题是，你是否感觉你掌握了足够的信息来做出这样的决定？因为，比如，我觉得如果你，如果我要严格地做这种事，我会想要一些数据。呃，我想说，你的假设之一是，“你们和其他的关系没有那么不同，”对吧？所以，我想，我想拥有一些关于基准率的数据，是的。而且，而且，还有关系的实际轨迹。我，比如，想拥有一些关于关系如何破裂或繁荣的时间序列数据，它们如何与不同的人生事件，损失，工作变动，搬家，双方都找到工作，只有一方有工作，相冲突，我想拥有那种数据，以及在生活中，不同的轨迹变化的频率，比如，你的过去对你的未来有多大的信息量？这就是全部，比如，我，你能看看我的生活，而且对我的关系的特征做出一个好的预测吗，“它在未来会是什么样子，”还是不能？我甚至不知道那个问题的答案。我会非常缺乏信息，在做出概率方面，我会远远。

Liv: Yeah. I i just would be under-informed.

莉芙: 是的。我，我只是会缺乏信息。

Lex: I would be under-informed. I’ll be over biasing to my prior experiences, I think, right?

莱克斯: 我会缺乏信息。我认为，我会过度偏向于我以前的经验，对吧？

Liv: But as long as you’re aware of that and you’re honest with yourself, I still, and you’re honest with the other person, “Say, look, I have really wide error bars on this for the following reasons,” that’s okay. I still think it’s better than not trying to quantify it at all if you’re trying to make really major irreversible life decisions.

莉芙: 但只要你 aware of 这点，而且你对自己诚实，我仍然，而且你对另一个人诚实，“说，看，我在这方面有非常宽的误差线，因为以下原因，”那没关系。我仍然认为这比完全不尝试量化它要好，如果你试图做出真正重大的，不可逆转的人生决定的话。

Lex: And I feel also the romantic nature of that question, for me personally, I would, I try to live my life thinking it’s very close to 100%. Like allowing myself, actually, the this is this is the difficulty of this is allowing myself to think differently, I feel like, has a psychological consequence. That’s where, that’s what’s one of my pushbacks against radical honesty is, uh, this one one particular perspective.

莱克斯: 而且我也感觉到那个问题的浪漫性，对我个人来说，我会，我试图过我的生活，认为它非常接近 100%。比如，允许我自己，实际上，这，这是这个的困难之处，是允许我自己以不同的方式思考，我觉得，会产生心理上的后果。那就是，那就是我对彻底诚实的反对意见之一，呃，这一个，一个特定的观点。

Liv: So you’re saying you would, you would rather give a falsely high percentage to your partner going back to, uh,

莉芙: 所以，你说你会，你宁愿给你的伴侣一个虚假的高百分比，回到，呃，

Lex: In order to survive, the traditional optimism yes, of, “Fake it till you make it,” about the positive, the power of the positive.

莱克斯: 为了生存，传统的乐观主义，是的，“假装直到你成功，”关于积极的，积极的力量。

Liv: Well, so that and this comes back to this idea of useful fictions. Yeah. Right? And I I agree, I don’t think there’s a clear answer to this, and I think it’s actually quite subjective, some people this works better for than others. Um you know, to be clear, Igor and I weren’t doing this formal prediction in it, like we we did it with very much tongue-in-cheek. It wasn’t like we were going to make, I don’t think it even would have me drastically changed what we decided to do, even, we kind of just did it more as a fun exercise um but,

莉芙: 嗯，所以，那，而且这又回到了有益的虚构的想法。是的。对吧？而且我，我同意，我认为对此没有一个明确的答案，而且我认为它实际上非常主观，对有些人来说，它比对其他人更有效。嗯，你知道，说清楚一点，我和伊戈尔并没有在做这个正式的预测，比如，我们，我们做这件事时，非常 tongue-in-cheek。它不像我们要做，我认为它甚至不会让我彻底改变我们决定做的事情，即使，我们有点只是把它当作一个有趣的练习，嗯，但，

Lex: The consequence of that fun exercise you really actually kind of there was a deep honesty to it too.

莱克斯: 那个有趣练习的结果，你实际上有点，它也有深刻的诚实。

Liv: Exactly. It was a deep and it was it was just like this moment of reflection. I’m like, “Oh wow, I actually have to think like through this quite critically and so on.” And and it’s also what was interesting was like you know I got to like check in with what what my what my desires were. So there was one thing of like, “What my actual prediction is, but what are my desires, and could these desires be affecting my predictions?” And so on, and you know that’s a that’s a method of rationality. And I, personally, don’t think it loses anything in terms of, I didn’t take any of the magic away from our relationship, quite the opposite, like it brought us closer together because it was like we did this weird fun thing um that I appreciate a lot of people find quite strange um and I think it was somewhat you know unique in our relationship that both of us are very you know we both love numbers, we both love statistics, we’re both poker players um so this this was kind of like our safe space anyway. For others, you know, one part, one partner like really might not like that kind of stuff at all, in which cases it’s not a good exercise to do. You know, I don’t recommend it to everybody um but I do think there’s you know, it’s interesting sometimes to poke holes in the or you know probe at these things that we consider so sacred that we can’t try to quantify them but which is interesting because that’s intention with like the idea of what we just talked about with beauty and like what makes something beautiful, the fact that you can’t measure everything about it um and perhaps something shouldn’t be tried to make, you know? Maybe it’s wrong to completely try and value the utilitarian you know, put a utilitarian frame of measuring the the utility of a tree in in its entirety. I don’t know, maybe we should maybe we shouldn’t. I’m ambivalent on that, but overall, people have too many biases, people are overly biased against trying to do like a quantified cost-benefit analysis on really tough life decisions. Um you know, they’re like, “Oh, just go with your gut.” It’s like, “Well, sure, but guts are our intuitions are best suited for things that we’ve got tons of experience in then we can really you know trust on it, if it’s a decision we’ve made many times. But if it’s like, “Should I marry this person?” or “Should I buy this house over that house?” You only make those decisions a couple of times in your life, maybe.

莉芙: 没错。它很深刻，而且它，它就像这个反思的时刻。我就像，“哦，哇，我实际上必须，比如，非常批判地思考这个问题，等等。”而且，而且，有趣的是，比如，你知道，我得，比如，检查一下我的，我的，我的愿望是什么。所以，有一件事，比如，“我实际的预测是什么，但我的愿望是什么，而且这些愿望可能会影响我的预测吗？”等等，而且，你知道，那，那是一种理性主义的方法。而且我，个人认为，它在，方面没有失去任何东西，我没有带走我们关系中的任何魔力，恰恰相反，比如，它让我们更亲密，因为它就像，我们做了这件奇怪的，有趣的事情，嗯，我很欣赏很多人都觉得很奇怪，嗯，而且我认为它有点，你知道，在我们关系中很独特，我们两个人都非常，你知道，我们都喜欢数字，我们都喜欢统计学，我们都是扑克玩家，嗯，所以，这，这有点像我们的安全空间，不管怎样。对其他人来说，你知道，一个部分，一个伴侣，比如，可能根本不喜欢那种东西，在这种情况下，它不是一个好的练习。你知道，我不会向所有人推荐它，嗯，但我确实认为有，你知道，有时，在，中戳破漏洞，或者，你知道，探究这些我们认为如此神圣，以至于我们不能尝试量化它们的东西，是很有趣的，但这很有趣，因为那与我们刚刚谈到的关于美的想法，以及，比如，是什么让某件事变得美丽，你不能测量它的一切，是相冲突的，嗯，而且也许不应该尝试制造某些东西，你知道吗？也许完全尝试，而且评估功利主义，你知道，用功利主义的框架来衡量一棵树的效用，在，在它的整体中，是错误的。我不知道，也许我们应该，也许我们不应该。我对此很矛盾，但总的来说，人们有太多的偏见，人们过度偏向于不尝试，比如，对真正艰难的人生决定进行量化的成本效益分析。嗯，你知道，他们就像，“哦，只是跟随你的直觉。”这就像，“嗯，当然，但直觉，我们的直觉最适合于我们有很多经验的东西，然后，我们可以真正，你知道，信任它，如果它是一个我们已经做过很多次的决定。但如果它像，“我应该嫁给这个人吗？”或者，“我应该买这栋房子，而不是那栋房子吗？”你一生中只会做几次这样的决定，也许。”

Lex: Um well, I I would love to know, this there’s a balance that probably is a personal balance of strike, is the amount of rationality you, you apply to a question versus um the useful fiction, the, “Fake it till you make it,” for example. Just talking to soldiers in Ukraine, you ask them, “What’s the probability of you winning, Ukraine winning?” Um almost everybody I talk to is 100%.

莱克斯: 嗯，嗯，我很想知道，这，有一个平衡，可能是一个个人的平衡，需要把握，是你，你应用于一个问题的理性程度，对抗，嗯，有益的虚构，那，“假装直到你成功，”例如。只是与乌克兰的士兵交谈，你问他们，“你们获胜的概率，乌克兰获胜的概率是多少？”嗯，几乎我交谈过的每个人都是 100%。

Liv: Wow.

莉芙: 哇。

Lex: And you listen to the experts, right? They they say all kinds of stuff, right? They are, they, first of all, the morale there is higher than probably, and I’ve I’ve never been to a war zone before this, but I’ve read about many wars, and I think the morale in Ukraine is higher than almost anywhere I’ve read about. It’s every single person in the country is proud to fight for their country, everybody, not just soldiers, not everybody.

莱克斯: 而且你听专家的，对吧？他们，他们说各种各样的事情，对吧？他们，他们，首先，那里的士气可能比，而且我，我以前从未去过战区，但我读过很多关于战争的书，而且我认为乌克兰的士气比我读过的任何地方都要高。这个国家的每个人都为他们的国家感到自豪，每个人，不仅仅是士兵，不是每个人。

Liv: Why do you think that is, specifically more than you know in other words?

莉芙: 你为什么认为那是，特别比你知道的，换句话说？

Lex: Um I think because there’s, uh perhaps a dormant desire for the citizens of this country to find the identity of this country because it’s been going through this 30-year process of different factions and political bickering and they haven’t had, as they talk about, they haven’t had their independence war. They say all great nations have had an independence war. They had to fight for their independence for the discovery of the identity of the core of the ideals that unify us. And they haven’t had that. There’s constantly been factions, there’s been divisions, there’s been pressures from empires from the United States and from Russia, from NATO and Europe, everybody telling them what to do. Now they want to discover who they are, and there’s that kind of sense that, “We’re going to fight for the safety of our homeland, but we’re also going to fight for our identity.” And that on top of the fact that there’s just if you look at the history of Ukraine, and there’s certain other countries like this, there are certain cultures are feisty in their pride of being part of, being the citizens of that nation. Ukraine is that. Poland was that. There’s, you just look at history, in certain countries you do not want to occupy. Right?

莱克斯: 嗯，我认为是因为，呃，也许这个国家的公民有一种沉睡的愿望，想要找到这个国家的身份，因为它经历了这个 30 年的过程，不同的派系，以及政治争吵，而且他们没有，正如他们谈到的，他们没有经历过他们的独立战争。他们说，所有伟大的国家都经历过独立战争。他们必须为他们的独立而战，为了发现团结我们的核心理想的身份。而且他们没有经历过。一直有派系，有分裂，有来自帝国的压力，来自美国，以及来自俄罗斯，来自北约和欧洲，每个人都在告诉他们该怎么做。现在，他们想发现他们是谁，而且有那种感觉，“我们要为我们家园的安全而战，但我们也要为我们的身份而战。”而且，除此之外，还有，如果你看看乌克兰的历史，而且还有其他一些这样的国家，有一些文化，他们对成为，成为那个国家的公民感到自豪，而且很勇敢。乌克兰就是这样。波兰就是这样。有，你只要看看历史，在某些国家，你不想占领。对吧？

Liv: I mean both Stalin and Hitler talked about Poland in this way, they’re like, “This is this is a big problem. If we occupy this land for prolonged periods of time, they’re going to be a pain in their ass, like they’re not going to be, want to be occupied.” And certain other countries are like pragmatic. They’re like, “Well, you know leaders come and go, I guess this is good.” You know they’re, Ukraine just doesn’t have, Ukrainians don’t seem, throughout the 20th century, don’t seem to be the kind of people that just like sit calmly and let the, quote-unquote, occupiers, um, in, in uh impose their,

莉芙: 我的意思是，斯大林和希特勒都以这种方式谈论波兰，他们就像，“这，这是一个大问题。如果我们占领这片土地很长时间，他们会成为我们的眼中钉，比如，他们不会，想被占领。”而且其他一些国家，比如，很务实。他们就像，“嗯，你知道，领导人来来去去，我猜这是好事。”你知道，他们，乌克兰只是没有，乌克兰人似乎，在整个 20 世纪，似乎不是那种，比如，平静地坐着，而且让，引号，占领者，嗯，在，在，呃，强加他们的，

Lex: That’s interesting though because you said it’s you know, it’s always been under conflict, and leaders have come and gone, yeah. So you would expect them to actually be the opposite under that.

莱克斯: 但那很有趣，因为你说它，你知道，它一直处于冲突之中，而且领导人来来去去，是的。所以，你会期望他们实际上是相反的，在那之下。

Liv: Yeah. Because well because they’re, it’s a very fertile land. It’s great for agriculture, so a lot of people want to, I mean, I think they’ve developed this culture because they’ve constantly been occupied by different people, for different peoples. And so maybe there is something to that, where you’ve constantly had to feel like, within the blood of the generations, there’s the struggle for um against the man, against the imposition of rules, against oppression and all that kind of stuff, and that stays with them.

莉芙: 是的。因为，嗯，因为他们，它是一片非常肥沃的土地。它非常适合农业，所以，很多人想，我的意思是，我认为他们发展了这种文化，因为他们一直被不同的人，为了不同的人民，占领。所以，也许那其中有一些道理，在那里，你一直不得不感觉，比如，在一代又一代人的血液中，有一种为，嗯，对抗当权者，对抗规则的强加，对抗压迫，以及所有这些东西，的斗争，而且那一直伴随着他们。

Lex: So there’s a there’s a will there um but you know, a lot of other aspects are also part of that that has to do with the reverse Moloch kind of situation where social media has definitely played a part of it um also different charismatic individuals have had to play a part, the fact that, uh, the president of the nation, Zelensky, stayed in Kiev during the the invasion, uh, was is a huge inspiration to them because most leaders as you could imagine, when the capital of the nation is under attack, the wise thing, the smart thing, that the United States advised Zelensky to do, is to flee and to, to be the leader of the nation from a, from a distant place, right? He said that, “I’m staying put.” You know, everyone around him, there was a pressure to leave, and he didn’t. And that, that in, you know, those singular acts um really can unify a nation.

莱克斯: 所以，那里，那里有一种意志，嗯，但，你知道，还有很多其他的方面，也与反摩洛神类型的情况有关，在那里，社交媒体绝对发挥了作用，嗯，还有不同的有魅力的个人，也不得不发挥作用，事实上，呃，这个国家的总统，泽连斯基，在，在入侵期间，待在基辅，呃，是，是对他们的一种巨大的鼓舞，因为大多数领导人，你可以想象，当一个国家的首都遭到攻击时，明智的做法，聪明的做法，美国建议泽连斯基做的，是逃离，而且，从，从一个遥远的地方，成为这个国家的领导人，对吧？他说，“我留在这里。”你知道，他周围的每个人，都有离开的压力，但他没有。而且，那，那，在，你知道，那些单独的行为，嗯，真的可以团结一个国家。

Liv: There’s a lot of people that criticize the landscape within Ukraine uh before the war. He’s very unpopular, even still, but they put that aside for the for the, especially that singular act of staying in the capital.

莉芙: 很多人批评乌克兰国内的，呃，在战争之前的环境。他非常不受欢迎，即使是现在，但他们把那放在一边，为了，为了，特别是那个留在首都的单独行为。

Lex: Yeah.

莱克斯: 是的。

Liv: A lot of those kinds of things come together to, to to create something within people, these things always, of course though like the, you know, which, how zoomed out of a view do you want to take? Because, yeah, you describe it, it’s like an anti-Moloch thing happened within Ukraine because it brought the Ukrainian people together in order to fight a common enemy, maybe that’s a good thing, maybe that’s a bad thing. In the end, we don’t know how this is all going to play out, right? Um, but if you zoom it out from the level you know, on a global level, they’re coming together to you know fight that, that could you know that could make a conflict larger, you know what I mean? I, I don’t, I don’t know what the right answer is here.

莉芙: 很多这样的事情结合在一起，在人们内心创造了一些东西，这些东西总是，当然，比如，那，你知道，哪个，你想采取多么放大的视角？因为，是的，你描述它，这就像在乌克兰发生了一件反摩洛神的事情，因为它把乌克兰人民团结在一起，为了对抗一个共同的敌人，也许那是一件好事，也许那是一件坏事。最终，我们不知道这一切将如何发展，对吧？嗯，但如果你把它从，你知道，全球层面上放大，他们团结起来，你知道，对抗那，那，你知道，那可能会让冲突扩大，你知道我的意思吗？我，我，我，我不知道这里正确的答案是什么。

Lex: Um yeah. It seems like a good thing that they came together, I, but I like, we don’t know how this is all going to play out.

莱克斯: 嗯，是的。他们团结起来似乎是一件好事，我，但我喜欢，我们不知道这一切将如何发展。

Liv: If this all turns into nuclear war, we’ll be like, “Okay, that was the bad, that was the”

莉芙: 如果这一切都变成了核战争，我们会像，“好吧，那是坏的，那是”

Lex: Oh yeah. So I was describing the the reverse Moloch for the local level, exactly. Now this is where the experts come in and they say, “Well, if you, uh, channel most of the resources, the nation and the nations supporting Ukraine into the war effort, are you not beating the drums of war that is much bigger than Ukraine? In fact, even the Ukrainian leaders are speaking of it this way, “This is not a war between two nations, this is, this is the early days of a world war if we don’t play this correctly.” Yes. Uh and they, we need cool heads from our leaders. So you, from Ukraine’s perspective, “We need to win. Ukraine needs to win the war.” Because, what is winning the war mean? Is coming up, coming to peace, negotiations, an agreement that guarantees no more invasions, and then you make an agreement about what land belongs to who, right? And that, that’s, you stop that, and, and to sh, basically, from their perspective, is you want to demonstrate to the rest of the world, who’s watching carefully, including Russia and China and different players on the geopolitical stage, that this kind of conflict is not going to be productive, right? If you engage in it. So you want to teach everybody a lesson, “Let’s not do World War III. It’s not, it’s going to be bad for everybody. It’s a it’s a lose lose, deep lose-lose, doesn’t matter.” So but they you know, uh, but it, and I think that’s actually a correct uh, when I zoom out. I mean 99 of what I think about is just individual human beings, and human lives, and just that war is horrible. But when you zoom out and think from a geopolitics perspective, we should realize that it’s entirely possible that we will see a World War III in the 21st century. And this is like a dress rehearsal for that. And so the way we play this as a, as a human civilization will, will define whether we do or don’t have a World War III. Um, you know, um how we discuss war, how we discuss nuclear war, the kind of leaders we we elect, and uh prop up, the kind of memes we circulate because you have to be very careful when you’re being pro-Ukraine, for example. You have to realize that you’re being, you are also indirectly feeding the ever increasing military industrial complex.

莱克斯: 哦，是的。所以，我刚才描述的是地方层面的反摩洛神，没错。现在，这就是专家们介入的地方，他们说，“嗯，如果你，呃，将这个国家，以及支持乌克兰的国家的大部分资源，投入到战争努力中，你不是在敲响比乌克兰更大的战争的战鼓吗？事实上，即使是乌克兰领导人也在这样说，“这不是两个国家之间的战争，这是，这是世界大战的早期，如果我们不正确地玩这场游戏的话。”是的。呃，而且他们，我们需要我们领导人的冷静头脑。所以，你，从乌克兰的角度来看，“我们需要赢。乌克兰需要赢得战争。”因为，赢得战争意味着什么？是出现，走向和平，谈判，一项保证不再入侵的协议，然后，你达成一项关于哪些土地属于谁的协议，对吧？而且，那，那就是，你阻止它，而且，而且，基本上，从他们的角度来看，你想向世界其他国家，那些正在仔细观察的国家，包括俄罗斯和中国，以及地缘政治舞台上的不同参与者，表明，这种冲突不会有成效，对吧？如果你参与进来的话。所以，你想给每个人一个教训，“让我们不要发动第三次世界大战。它不是，它会对每个人都不好。它是一个，它是一个双输，深深的双输，无关紧要。”所以，但他们，你知道，呃，但它，而且我认为那实际上是一个正确的，呃，当我放大时。我的意思是，我所想的 99% 只是个体的人，以及人的生命，而且只是，战争是可怕的。但当你放大，而且从地缘政治的角度思考时，我们应该意识到，在 21 世纪，我们完全有可能看到第三次世界大战。而且这就像一场彩排。所以，我们作为，作为一个人类文明，玩这场游戏的方式，将，将决定我们是否会发动第三次世界大战。嗯，你知道，嗯，我们如何讨论战争，我们如何讨论核战争，我们，我们选举的领导人类型，以及，呃，支持，我们传播的模因类型，因为你必须非常小心，当你支持乌克兰时，例如。你必须意识到你正在，你也在间接地为不断增长的军工联合体提供资金。

Liv: So be extremely careful that when you say, “Pro-Ukraine,” or “Pro-” anybody, you’re you’re pro human beings, uh not pro the machine,

莉芙: 所以，要非常小心，当你说，“支持乌克兰，”或者“支持”任何人时，你，你是支持人类，呃，而不是支持机器，

Lex: Exactly. That, uh, that uh creates narratives that says, “It’s pro human beings,” but it’s actually, if you look at the raw use of uh funds and resources, it’s actually probe making weapons and shooting bullets and dropping bombs, right? The real, we have to just somehow get the meme into everyone’s heads that the real enemy is war itself. That’s the enemy we need to defeat. And that doesn’t mean to say that you know there isn’t justification for small local scenarios you know, adversarial adversarial conflicts, you know? If you have a a leader who is starting wars, you know, they’re on the side of Team War basically. It’s not that they’re on the side of Team Country, whatever that country is, it’s they’re on the side of Team War. So that needs to be stopped and put down, but you also have to find a ways that your corrective measure doesn’t actually then end up being co-opted by the war machine and creating greater war. Again, the playing field is finite, the scale of in conflict is now getting so big that you know, the weapons that can be used are so mass destructive um that we can’t afford another giant conflict, we just, we won’t make it.

莱克斯: 没错。那，呃，那，呃，创造了叙事，说，“它是支持人类的，”但它实际上，如果你看看，呃，资金和资源的原始用途，它实际上是在探测制造武器，而且发射子弹，而且投掷炸弹，对吧？真正的，我们必须以某种方式让每个人都明白，真正的敌人是战争本身。那是我们需要打败的敌人。而且那并不是说，你知道，没有理由进行小型的地方性，你知道，对抗性的，对抗性的冲突，你知道吗？如果你有一个，一个正在发动战争的领导人，你知道，他们基本上站在战争团队一边。这不是说他们站在国家团队一边，无论那个国家是什么，而是他们站在战争团队一边。所以，那需要被阻止，而且被镇压，但你也必须找到一种方法，让你的纠正措施实际上不会被战争机器收编，而且制造更大的战争。再一次，游戏场地是有限的，在，冲突的规模现在变得如此之大，以至于，你知道，可以使用的武器具有如此大的破坏性，嗯，我们无法承受另一场巨大的冲突，我们只是，我们无法承受。

Lex: What existential threat, in terms of us not making it, are you most worried about? What existential threat to human civilization? We got, like a dark path, huh?

莱克斯: 在我们无法承受的方面，你最担心什么生存威胁？对人类文明的生存威胁是什么？我们走上了一条黑暗的道路，嗯？

Liv: This is good.

莉芙: 这很好。

Lex: But no. Well, no, it’s a dark, no, it’s like, while we’re in the summer place, we might as well, uh, some of my best friends are dark paths. Um uh, what what worries you the most? Well, mentioned uh asteroids. We’ll mention AGI, uh nuclear weapons,

莱克斯: 但不。嗯，不，它很黑暗，不，它就像，既然我们在夏天的地方，我们不妨，呃，我的一些最好的朋友是黑暗的道路。嗯，呃，什么，什么让你最担心？嗯，提到了，呃，小行星。我们会提到通用人工智能，呃，核武器，

Liv: The one that’s on my mind the most, mostly because I think it’s the one where we have actually a real chance to move the needle on in a positive direction, or more specifically, stop some really bad things from happening, really dumb, avoidable things, is uh bio, bio risks um so what, in what, what kind of violence?

莉芙: 我最担心的，主要是因为我认为那是我们真正有机会朝着积极的方向前进的，或者更具体地说，阻止一些真正糟糕的事情发生，真正愚蠢的，可以避免的事情，是，呃，生物，生物风险，嗯，所以，什么，在什么，什么样的暴力？

Lex: And so many fun options.

莱克斯: 而且有很多有趣的选择。

Liv: So many. So of course like we have natural risks from natural pandemics, you know? Naturally occurring viruses or pathogens. And then also, as time and technology goes on, and technology becomes more and more democratized, and you know into the hands of more people, the risk of synthetic pathogens, um, you know, and whether or not you fall into the camp of COVID was you know, gain-of-function, accidental lab leak, or whether it was purely naturally occurring, either way, we are facing a future where synthetic pathogens, or like art, human, human meddled with pathogens, um either accidentally get out or get into the hands of bad actors who you know, whether they’re omnicidal maniacs you know, um, either way, and so that means we need more robustness for that. And you would think that us having this nice little dry run, which is what, as awful as COVID was, um, you know, and all those poor people that died, it was still like, like, child’s play compared to what a future one could be in terms of fatality rate. Um and so you’d think that we would then becoming, we’d be much more robust in our pandemic preparedness um and meanwhile the budget uh, in the last two years for the U.S, um, sorry, they just did this uh, I can’t remember the name of what the actual budget was, but it was like a multi-trillion dollar budget that the U.S just set aside and originally in that you know, considering that COVID cost multiple trillions to the economy right? The original allocation in this this new budget for future pandemic preparedness was $60 billion. So, tiny proportion of it, that proceeded to get whittled down to like $30 billion to $15 billion, all the way down to $2 billion, out of multiple trillions for a thing that has just cost us multiple trillions. We’ve just finished, we barely even we’re not even really out of it, it basically got whittled down to nothing because for some reason, people think that, “All right. We’ve got the pandemic out the way. That was that one.” And the reason for that is that people are, and and I say this with all due respect to a lot of the science community, but they are, there’s an immense amount of naivety about they, they they think that nature is the main risk moving forward, and it really isn’t. Um and I think nothing demonstrates this more than this, uh, this project that I was just reading about that’s sort of being proposed right now called, um, Deep VZN. And the idea is to go out into the wilds, and we’re not talking about it’s like, you know, within cities like deep into like caves that people don’t go to, deep into the arctic, wherever, scour the Earth for whatever the most dangerous possible pathogens could be, that they can find. And then not only do you know try and find these, bring samples of them back to laboratories, and again, whether you think COVID with a lab leak or not, I’m not going to get into that, but we have historically had so many, as a civilization, we’ve had so many lab leaks from even like the highest level security things, like it it just, it people should go and just read it. It’s like, it’s like a comedy show of just how many they are, how leaky these these labs are, even when they do their best efforts, um, so bring these things then back to civilization. That’s step one of the badness. The the next plan, the next step would be to then categorize them, do experiments on them, and categorize them by their level of potential pandemic lethality. And then the pièce de résistance on this plan is to then publish that information freely on the internet, about all these pathogens, including their genome, which is literally like the building instructions of how to do them on the internet. And this is something that genuinely, a pocket of the like bio of the scientific community thinks is a good idea. And I think on expectation like the and their argument is, is that, “Oh, this is good because you know it might buy us some time to buy to development, vaccines,” which, okay, sure, maybe would have made sense prior to mRNA technology. But you know, like, they, mRNA, we can bank, we can develop a vaccine now when we find a new, uh, pathogen within a couple of days now. Then there’s all the trials and so on, but those trials would have to happen anyway in the case of a brand new thing. So you’re saving maybe a couple of days, so that’s the upside. Meanwhile the downside is you’re not only giving, you’re bringing the risk of these pathogens of like getting leaked, but you’re literally handing it out to every bad actor on Earth who would be doing cartwheels, and I’m talking about like Kim Jong-un, ISIS, people who like want, they think the rest of the world is their enemy um and in some cases they think that killing it themselves is is is like a noble cause. And you’re literally giving them the building blocks of how to do this. It’s the most batshit I’d ever heard. Like on expectation, it’s probably like minus EV of like multiple billions of lives if they actually succeeded in doing this. Certainly, certainly in the tens or hundreds of millions. So the cost benefit is so unbelievably, it makes no sense and I was like trying to wrap my head around like, “Why? Why like what’s going wrong in people’s minds to think that this is a good idea?” And it’s not that it’s malice, or anything like that, it’s, I think, it’s that people don’t, you know, the proponents, they don’t it, they’re actually overly naive about the interactions of humanity, and, well, like that, that there are bad actors who will use this for bad things. Because not only will it um, if you publish this information, even if a bad actor couldn’t physically make it themselves, which, given you know, in 10 years time, like the technologies are getting cheaper and easier, uh, to use, but even if they couldn’t make it, they could now bluff it. Like, what would you do if there’s like some deadly new virus that, um, we were published on the internet in terms of its building blocks, Kim Jong-un could be like, “Hey, if you don’t you know let me build my nuclear weapons, I’m going to release this. I’ve managed to build it.” Well, now he’s actually got incredible bluff, we don’t know, you know? And so that’s it’s just like handing the keys, sending weapons of mass destruction to people though makes no sense.

莉芙: 有这么多。所以，当然，比如，我们有来自自然流行病的自然风险，你知道吗？自然发生的病毒或病原体。然后，还有，随着时间和技术的推移，以及技术变得越来越民主化，而且，你知道，进入更多人的手中，合成病原体的风险，嗯，你知道，无论你是否属于新冠是，你知道，功能获得，意外实验室泄漏，还是它纯粹是自然发生的阵营，无论如何，我们都面临着一个未来，合成病原体，或者，比如，艺术，人类，人类干预的病原体，嗯，要么意外泄露，要么落入坏人手中，你知道，无论他们是否是杀人狂，你知道，嗯，无论如何，所以，这意味着我们需要对此更加稳健。而且你会认为，我们进行了这次很好的小型演习，也就是，尽管新冠很可怕，嗯，你知道，所有那些死去的不幸的人，它仍然像，像，与未来可能发生的，在死亡率方面，相比，是小巫见大巫。嗯，所以，你会认为我们会然后变得，我们会对流行病的防范更加稳健，嗯，与此同时，预算，呃，在过去两年，美国的，嗯，对不起，他们只是做了这个，呃，我不记得实际预算的名字了，但它就像一个数万亿美元的预算，美国只是拨款，而且最初，在那，你知道，考虑到新冠对经济造成了数万亿美元的损失，对吧？在这个，这个新的预算中，最初为未来流行病防范拨款 600 亿美元。所以，它的比例很小，然后，它被削减到，比如，300 亿美元，到 150 亿美元，一直到 20 亿美元，在数万亿美元中，为一件刚刚让我们损失了数万亿美元的事情。我们刚刚结束，我们甚至几乎，我们甚至还没有真正摆脱它，它基本上被削减到一无所有，因为出于某种原因，人们认为，“好吧。我们已经摆脱了流行病。那是那一个。”而且，原因是人们，而且，而且我这样说，是对很多科学界人士的尊重，但他们，他们，他们对，他们，他们认为自然界是未来主要风险，存在着巨大的天真，而它实际上不是。嗯，而且我认为没有什么比这，呃，这个我刚刚读到的项目，它有点像现在正在被提议，叫做，嗯，Deep VZN，更能证明这一点。而且，想法是进入野外，而且我们不是在谈论，比如，你知道，在城市里，比如，深入到，比如，人们不去的洞穴中，深入到北极，无论哪里，在地球上搜寻，寻找他们能找到的，任何最危险的病原体。然后，不仅是你知道，尝试，而且找到这些，把它们的样本带回实验室，而且，再一次，无论你认为新冠是实验室泄漏，还是不是，我不会讨论这个问题，但我们在历史上，作为一个文明，我们有这么多，即使是，比如，最高级别的安全的东西，也有这么多实验室泄漏，比如，它，它只是，它，人们应该去，而且只是读一读。这就像，这就像一出喜剧，关于它们有多少，这些，这些实验室有多么容易泄漏，即使他们尽了最大的努力，嗯，所以，然后把这些东西带回文明世界。那是糟糕的第一步。那，那，下一个计划，下一步将是然后对它们进行分类，对它们进行实验，而且根据它们潜在的流行病致死率对它们进行分类。然后，这个计划的重头戏是，然后在互联网上免费发布这些信息，关于所有这些病原体，包括它们的基因组，它实际上就像在互联网上制造它们的说明书。而且，这是一件，说真的，像生物，科学界中的一部分人认为是好主意的事情。而且我认为，在预期中，比如，而且他们的论点是，“哦，这很好，因为，你知道，它可能会给我们一些时间，来购买，来开发，疫苗，”那，好吧，当然，也许在 mRNA 技术之前，这是有道理的。但，你知道，比如，他们，mRNA，我们可以储存，我们现在可以在我们发现一个新的，呃，病原体时，在几天内开发出疫苗。然后，还有所有试验，等等，但这些试验无论如何都必须进行，在出现全新事物的情况下。所以，你节省了也许几天的时间，所以，那是好处。与此同时，坏处是，你不仅在给予，你带来了这些病原体，比如，泄漏的风险，而且你实际上是在把它交给地球上的每一个坏人，他们会欣喜若狂，而且我指的是，比如，金正恩，ISIS，那些，比如，想要，他们认为世界其他国家是他们的敌人，嗯，而且在某些情况下，他们认为杀死它本身就是，就是，就像一项崇高的事业。而且，你实际上是在给他们提供如何做到这一点的基石。这是我听过的最疯狂的事情。比如，在预期中，它可能就像负的 EV，比如，数十亿条生命，如果他们真的成功地做到了这一点。当然，当然，在数千万或数亿人中。所以，成本效益是如此难以置信，它毫无意义，而且我就像在试图理解，比如，“为什么？为什么，比如，人们的脑海中出了什么问题，会认为这是一个好主意？”而且，这不是因为它是恶意的，或者类似的东西，它，我认为，是因为人们没有，你知道，支持者，他们没有它，他们实际上对人类的互动过于天真，而且，嗯，比如，那，那，有坏人会把它用于坏事。因为它不仅会，嗯，如果你发布这些信息，即使一个坏人不能亲自制造它，那，考虑到，你知道，在 10 年内，比如，技术变得更便宜，而且更容易，呃，使用，但即使他们不能制造它，他们现在也可以诈唬。比如，你会怎么做，如果，比如，有一些致命的新病毒，嗯，我们在互联网上发布了它的基石，金正恩可能会说，“嘿，如果你不，你知道，让我制造我的核武器，我就会释放它。我已经设法制造出来了。”嗯，现在，他实际上拥有了难以置信的诈唬，我们不知道，你知道吗？所以，那，这就像交出钥匙，把大规模杀伤性武器送给人们，尽管这毫无意义。

Lex: The possible, I agree with you, but the possible world in which you might make sense is if the um, the good guys, which is a whole another problem, defining who the good guys are, but the good guys are like an order of magnitude higher competence and so they can stay ahead of the bad actors by just being very good at the defense. By very good, not meaning like a little bit better, but an order of magnitude better, but of course, the question is, in each of those individual disciplines, is that feasible? Can you, can the bad actors, even if they don’t have the competence, leap frog to the place where uh the good guys are?

莱克斯: 可能的，我同意你的观点，但可能的世界，在那里，你可能有道理，是，如果，嗯，好人，这是一个完全不同的问题，定义谁是好人，但好人就像能力高出一个数量级，所以，他们可以通过非常擅长防御，来领先于坏人。非常擅长，不是指，比如，好一点，而是好一个数量级，但当然，问题是，在每个单独的学科中，这可行吗？你，坏人，即使他们没有能力，也能跳到，呃，好人的地方吗？

Liv: Yeah. I mean I would agree in principle, um, with pertaining to this like particular plan of like that, you know, with the thing I described, this Deep VZN thing, where at least then that would maybe make sense for steps one and step two, of like getting the information. But then why would you release it, the information, to your literal enemies? You know, that’s, that makes that, that doesn’t fit at all in that perspective of like trying to be ahead of them. You’re literally handing them the weapon.

莉芙: 是的。我的意思是，我原则上同意，嗯，关于这个，比如，特定的计划，比如，那，你知道，关于我描述的东西，这个 Deep VZN 的东西，在那里，至少，然后，那可能对第一步和第二步有意义，比如，获取信息。但后来，你为什么要把它，信息，释放给你的，字面上的敌人？你知道，那，那让那，那完全不符合，比如，试图领先于他们的观点。你实际上是在把武器交给他们。

Lex: But there’s different levels of release, right? So uh there’s the kind of secrecy where you don’t give it to anybody, but there’s a release where you incrementally give it to like major labs. So it’s not public release, but it’s like you’re giving it to,

莱克斯: 但有不同的发布级别，对吧？所以，呃，有一种保密，在那里，你不会把它给任何人，但有一种发布，在那里，你逐渐把它给，比如，主要的实验室。所以，它不是公开发布，但它就像你把它给，

Liv: Yeah. There’s different layers of reasonability, but but the problem there is, it’s going to, if if you go anywhere beyond like complete secrecy, it’s going to leak. That’s the thing. It’s very hard to keep secrets and so that’s, the information is so you might as well release it to the public, it’s that argument. So you either go complete secrecy or you release it to the public.

莉芙: 是的。有不同的合理性级别，但，但问题是，它会，如果，如果你超越了，比如，完全保密，它就会泄露。事情就是这样。保守秘密非常困难，所以，那，信息是如此，你不如把它公开，就是那种论点。所以，你要么完全保密，要么把它公开。

Lex: So which is essentially the same thing, it’s going to leak anyway if you don’t do complete secrecy right?

莱克斯: 所以，这基本上是同一件事，如果你不完全保密，它无论如何都会泄露，对吧？

Liv: Which is why you shouldn’t get the information in the first place.

莉芙: 这就是为什么你一开始就不应该获取信息的原因。

Lex: Yeah. I mean, what, in that I think well that’s a solution.

莱克斯: 是的。我的意思是，什么，在那，我认为，嗯，那是一个解决方案。

Liv: Yeah.

莉芙: 是的。

Lex: The solution is either don’t get the information in the first place, or be keep, keep it incredibly, incredibly contained.

莱克斯: 解决方案是，要么一开始就不要获取信息，要么，保持，保持它难以置信地，难以置信地被控制。

Liv: See, I think, I think it really matters which discipline we’re talking about. So in the case of biology, I do think you’re a very right, we shouldn’t even be, it should be forbidden to even like think about that. Meaning don’t coll, don’t just even collect information, but like, “Don’t do,” I mean, gain-of-function research is a really iffy area, like you start, I mean it’s all about cost benefits, right? There are some scenarios where I could imagine the cost benefit of a gain-of-function research is very, very clear where you’ve evaluated all the potential risks, factored in the probability that things can go wrong, and like you know not only known unknowns, but unknown unknowns as well, tried to quantify that. And then even then, it’s like orders of magnitude better to do that, I’m behind that argument, but the point is, is that there’s this like naivety that’s preventing people from even doing the cost benefit properly on a lot of the things because you know the site this, I, I get it, the science community there, again, I don’t want to bucket the science community, but like some people within the science community just think that everyone’s, everyone’s good, and everyone just cares about getting knowledge and doing the best for the world, and unfortunately that’s not the case. I wish we lived in that world, but we don’t.

莉芙: 看，我认为，我认为，我们正在谈论哪个学科真的很重要。所以，在生物学的情况下，我确实认为你非常正确，我们甚至不应该，甚至，比如，思考它都应该被禁止。意思是，不要收集，甚至不要收集信息，但，比如，“不要做，”我的意思是，功能获得研究是一个非常不确定的领域，比如你开始，我的意思是，它都是关于成本效益的，对吧？有一些场景，我可以想象，功能获得研究的成本效益非常，非常清楚，在那里，你已经评估了所有潜在的风险，把事情可能出错的概率考虑进去，而且，比如，你知道，不仅是已知的未知，还有未知的未知，尝试量化它。然后，即使那样，它就像，做那件事好几个数量级，我支持那种论点，但重点是，是，存在这种，比如，天真，它阻止人们甚至在很多事情上正确地进行成本效益分析，因为，你知道，这个网站，我，我明白了，那里的科学界，再一次，我不想把科学界一概而论，但，比如，科学界中的一些人只是认为每个人，每个人都是好的，而且每个人都只关心获取知识，而且为世界做最好的事情，而且不幸的是，事实并非如此。我希望我们生活在那个世界里，但我们没有。

Lex: Yeah. I mean there’s a, lie listen, I’ve been criticizing the science community broadly quite a bit. There’s so many brilliant people that brilliance is somehow hindering sometimes because it has a bunch of blind spots. And then you start to look at a history of science, how easily has been used by dictators to any conclusion they want, and it’s, it’s, it’s dark how you can use brilliant people that like playing the little game of science, because it is a fun game you know? You’re building, you’re going to conferences, you’re building on top of each other’s ideas as breakthroughs. “Hi, I think I’ve realized how this particular molecule works, and I could do this kind of experiment.” And everyone else is impressed, “Ooh, cool. No, I think you’re wrong, let me show you why you’re wrong.” And that little game, everyone gets really excited, and they get excited, or, “I came up with a pill that solves this problem, and it’s going to help a bunch of people, and I came up with a giant study that shows the exact probability it’s going to help or not,” and you get lost in this game, and you forget to realize, “This game, just like Moloch, it can have like unintended,” yeah, unintended consequences that might destroy human civilization. Right? Uh or or divide human civilization, or have a geopolitical consequences. I mean, the the effects of, I mean it’s just so, the most destructive effects of COVID have nothing to do with the, with the biology of the virus it seems like. Uh, it’s I mean, I could just list them forever, but like one of them is the complete distrust of public institutions. Uh the other one is because of that public distrust, I feel like if a much worse pandemic came along, we as a world have not cried wolf. And when if an actual wolf now comes, people will be like, “Masks? Vaccines?” It, yeah, everything. And they, they won’t be, they’ll distrust every single thing that any major institution is going to tell them and because that’s the thing like that, there were certain actions made by certain you know health public figures where they told, they very knowingly told, it was a white lie. It was intended in the best possible ways, such as you know early on when there were, there was clearly a shortage of masks, and so they said to the public, “Oh, don’t get masks, they don’t, there’s no evidence that they work.” There, or the you know, “Don’t get them, they don’t work, in fact, it might even make it worse. You might even spread it more.” Like that that was a real like stinker uh yeah.

莱克斯: 是的。我的意思是，有一个，谎言，听着，我一直在批评整个科学界。有很多才华横溢的人，才华横溢，不知何故，有时会成为阻碍，因为它有很多盲点。然后，你开始回顾科学史，独裁者是多么容易地利用它来达到他们想要的任何结论，而且，它，它，它很黑暗，你如何能够利用那些喜欢玩科学小游戏的天才，因为，你知道，它是一个有趣的游戏？你正在建设，你正在参加会议，你正在彼此的想法的基础上建设，作为突破。“嗨，我认为我已经意识到了这个特定的分子是如何工作的，而且我可以做这种实验。”而且其他人都印象深刻，“哦，酷。不，我认为你错了，让我告诉你为什么你错了。”而且那个小游戏，每个人都变得非常兴奋，而且他们变得兴奋，或者，“我想出了一种药丸，它可以解决这个问题，而且它会帮助很多人，而且我想出了一个大型研究，它显示了它是否会起作用的确切概率，”而且你迷失在这个游戏中，而且你忘记了意识到，“这个游戏，就像摩洛神一样，它可以有，比如，意想不到的，”是的，意想不到的后果，可能会毁灭人类文明。对吧？呃，或者，或者分裂人类文明，或者产生地缘政治后果。我的意思是，那，那，影响，我的意思是，它只是如此，新冠最具破坏性的影响似乎与，与病毒的生物学无关。呃，它，我的意思是，我可以永远列举下去，但，比如，其中一个是完全不信任公共机构。呃，另一个是，因为那种公众的不信任，我觉得如果一场更严重的流行病来袭，我们作为一个世界，还没有发出警告。而且，当如果一头真正的狼现在来了，人们会说，“口罩？疫苗？”它，是的，一切。而且他们，他们不会，他们会不信任任何主要机构告诉他们的每一件事，而且因为事情就是这样，比如，某些，你知道，健康公众人物采取了某些行动，在那里，他们告诉，他们非常清楚地告诉，这是一个善意的谎言。它的目的是以尽可能好的方式，比如，你知道，在早期，当有，显然缺少口罩时，所以，他们对公众说，“哦，不要戴口罩，它们没有，没有证据表明它们有效。”那里，或者，你知道，“不要戴它们，它们没有用，事实上，它甚至可能会让情况更糟。你甚至可能会传播得更多。”比如，那，那真的很糟糕，呃，是的。

Liv: No, no. “There’s a, unless you know how to do it properly, you’re going to make that, you’re going to get sicker, or you’re more likely to get the to catch the virus,” which is just absolute crap. And they put that out there, and it’s pretty clear the reason why they did that was because there was actually a shortage of masks, and they really needed it for health workers, which makes sense like I agree, like it, you know, but the cost of lying to the popul, to the to the public when that then comes out, people aren’t as stupid as they think they are as a, you know? And that’s that’s I think where this distrust of ex experts has largely come from, a, they’ve lied to people overtly, but b, people have been treated like idiots. Now, that’s not to say that there aren’t a lot of stupid people who have a lot of wacky ideas around COVID and all sorts of things, but if you treat the general public like children they’re going to see that, they’re going to notice that, and that is going to just dis like, absolutely decimate the trust in the public institutions that we depend upon. And, honestly, the best thing that could happen, I wish like if like, faulty or you know, and these other like leaders who, I mean, God I would, I can’t imagine how nightmare his job has been over the last few years, hell on earth like. So you know I, I, you know, I have I have a lot of sort of sympathy for the position he’s been in, but like if he could just come out and be like, “Okay, look, guys. Hands up, we didn’t handle this as well as we could have. These are all the things I would have done differently in hindsight. I apologize for this, and this, and this, and this,” that would go so far, and maybe I’m being naive, who knows, maybe this would backfire, but I don’t think it would. Like to someone like me, even, because I’ve like, I’ve lost trust in a lot of these things. I’m unfortunate that at least no people who I can go to who I think are good, like, have good epistemics on this stuff um but, you know, if they if they could sort of put their hands on my, “Okay, these are the spots where we screwed up. This this, this, um, this was our reasons. Yeah. We actually told a little white lie here, we did it for this reason, we’re really sorry.” But they just did the radical honesty thing, the radical transparency thing, that would go so far to build, rebuilding public trust, and I think that’s what needs to happen.

莉芙: 不，不。“有一个，除非你知道如何正确地做，否则你会让那，你会变得更严重，或者你更有可能得到，感染病毒，”那完全是胡说八道。而且他们把它发布出去，而且，他们这样做的原因很明显，是因为实际上缺少口罩，而且他们真的需要它给医护人员，这很有道理，比如，我同意，比如，它，你知道，但，当真相大白时，对公众，对公众撒谎的代价，人们不像他们认为的那样愚蠢，作为一个，你知道吗？而且，那，那就是我认为这种对，专家的不信任，主要来自的地方，一个，他们公然对人们撒谎，但，二，人们被当作白痴对待。现在，那并不是说没有很多愚蠢的人，他们对新冠有很多古怪的想法，以及各种各样的事情，但如果你把普通大众当作孩子对待，他们会看到，他们会注意到，而且那只会，比如，绝对摧毁我们所依赖的公共机构的信任。而且，老实说，可能发生的最好的事情，我希望，比如，如果，比如，错误的，或者，你知道，以及这些其他的，比如，领导人，我的意思是，上帝，我会，我无法想象他的工作在过去几年里是多么噩梦，人间地狱，比如。所以，你知道，我，我，你知道，我对他的处境有很多，比如，同情，但，比如，如果他能够站出来，而且说，“好吧，听着，伙计们。举起手来，我们没有尽我们所能地处理好这件事。这些都是事后诸葛亮，我会以不同的方式做的事情。我为这件事，以及这件事，以及这件事，以及这件事道歉，”那会走得很远，而且也许我很天真，谁知道呢，也许这会适得其反，但我认为不会。比如，对像我这样的人来说，即使，因为我，比如，我已经对很多这样的事情失去了信任。我很不幸，至少，没有我可以求助的人，我认为他们是好的，比如，在这方面有良好的认知论，嗯，但，你知道，如果他们，如果他们能够，比如，把手放在我的，“好吧，这些是我们搞砸的地方。这，这，这，嗯，这是我们的理由。是的。我们实际上在这里撒了一个善意的谎言，我们这样做的原因是，我们真的很抱歉。”但他们只是做了彻底诚实的事情，彻底透明的事情，那会对建立，重建公众信任，走得很远，而且我认为那是需要发生的事情。

Lex: Yeah. No, I totally agree with you. Unfortunately, yeah, his job was very tough, and all those kinds of things, but um, I see arrogance, and arrogance prevented him from being honest in that way previously, and I think arrogance will prevent him from being honest in that way now.

莱克斯: 是的。不，我完全同意你的观点。不幸的是，是的，他的工作非常艰难，以及所有这些事情，但，嗯，我看到了傲慢，而且傲慢阻止了他以前以那种方式诚实，而且我认为傲慢会阻止他现在以那种方式诚实。

Liv: We need leaders, and I think young people are seeing that that kind of talking down to people from a position of power I’m I hope is, is the way of the past. People really like authenticity, and they, they like leaders that are like a man and a woman of the people. And I, I think that just, I mean, he still has a chance to do that.

莉芙: 我们需要领导人，而且我认为年轻人正在看到，那种从权力位置上对人说话的方式，我，我希望，已经成为过去。人们真的喜欢真实性，而且他们，他们喜欢那些像人民的男人和女人的领导人。而且我，我认为那只是，我的意思是，他仍然有机会做到这一点。

Lex: I think I mean yeah. Sure. You know, I, I, I don’t think, you know, if I, I doubt he’s listening, but if he is, like, hey, I I I think he you know, I don’t think he’s irredeemable by any means. I think there’s you know, um, I don’t know. I don’t have an opinion whether there was arrogance or there or not. Um, just know that I think like coming clean on the, you know, it’s understandable to have, up during this pandemic. Like I won’t expect any government to handle it well because it was so difficult, like so many moving pieces, so much like lack of information and so on um but the step to rebuilding trust is to go, “Okay, look, we’re doing a scrutiny of where we went wrong, and I, and for my part, I did this wrong in this part,” and that would be huge. All of us can do that. I mean, I was struggling for a while whether I want to talk to to him or not, I talked to his boss, Francis Collins, um, another person that’s screwed up in terms of trust. Um, lost a little bit of my respect to, there seems to have been a kind of dishonesty in the, in the back rooms, in that p, they didn’t trust people to be intelligent. Like, “We need to tell them what’s good for them, we know what’s good for them,” that kind of idea.

莱克斯: 我认为，我的意思是，是的。当然。你知道，我，我，我不认为，你知道，如果我，我怀疑他是否在听，但如果他在听，比如，嘿，我，我，我认为他，你知道，我认为他无论如何都不是不可救药的。我认为有，你知道，嗯，我不知道。我没有关于是否有傲慢的意见。嗯，只是知道我认为，比如，坦白，你知道，这是可以理解的，在这次流行病期间。比如，我不会期望任何政府都能很好地处理它，因为它太难了，比如，有这么多变动的部分，如此缺乏信息，等等，嗯，但重建信任的步骤是，说，“好吧，听着，我们正在仔细审查我们哪里做错了，而且我，而且就我而言，我在这部分做错了，”而且那将是巨大的。我们所有人都可以做到这一点。我的意思是，我曾经挣扎了一段时间，是否想和他交谈，我与他的老板，弗朗西斯·柯林斯，嗯，另一个在信任方面搞砸的人，交谈过。嗯，对他失去了一点尊重，在那，在那，在密室里，似乎有一种不诚实，他们不相信人们是聪明的。比如，“我们需要告诉他们什么对他们有益，我们知道什么对他们有益，”那种想法。

Liv: To be fair, the the thing that’s, what’s it called? I heard the phrase today, uh, nut picking. Social media does that. So you’ve got like nitpicking. Nut picking is where the the, the craziest, stupidest you know if you have a group of people let’s call, you know let’s say people who are vaccine, I don’t like the term, “Anti-vaccine,” people who are vaccine hesitant, vaccine speculative. You know what social media did, or the media, or anyone you know their opponents would do, is pick the craziest example. So, the ones who are like you know, “I think I need to inject myself with like motor oil at my ass,” or something. Yeah, you know, select the craziest ones, and then have that beamed to, you know, so from like someone like Fauci or Francis’ perspective, that’s what they get because they’re getting the same social media stuff as us, they’re getting the same media reports. I mean they might get some more information, but they’re they too are going to get these, the nuts, portrayed to them. So they probably have a misrepresentation of what the actual public’s intelligence is.

莉芙: 公平地说，那件事，它叫什么？我今天听到了这个词，呃，挑刺儿。社交媒体就是这么做的。所以，你有，比如，吹毛求疵。挑刺儿是，那，那，最疯狂的，最愚蠢的，你知道，如果你有一群人，让我们称之为，你知道，让我们说那些接种疫苗的人，我不喜欢“反疫苗”这个词，那些对疫苗犹豫不决的人，对疫苗持怀疑态度的人。你知道社交媒体做了什么，或者媒体，或者任何，你知道，他们的对手会做什么，就是挑出最疯狂的例子。所以，那些，比如，你知道，“我认为我需要在我的屁股上注射，比如，机油，”或者其他什么的人。是的，你知道，选出最疯狂的人，然后，让它传播到，你知道，所以，从，比如，福奇或弗朗西斯这样的人的角度来看，这就是他们得到的，因为他们得到了和我们一样的社交媒体内容，他们得到了同样的媒体报道。我的意思是，他们可能会得到更多信息，但他们，他们也会得到这些，那些疯子，被描绘给他们。所以，他们可能对公众的实际智力水平有误解。

Lex: Well, that’s that’s just, yes. And that just means they’re not social media savvy. So one of the skills of being on social media is to be able to filter that in your own mind. Like to understand to put into proper context, realize that what you are seeing social media is not anywhere near an accurate representation of humanity,

莱克斯: 嗯，那，那只是，是的。而且那只是意味着他们不精通社交媒体。所以，在社交媒体上的技能之一是能够在你的脑海中过滤它。比如，理解，把它放在适当的背景下，意识到你在社交媒体上看到的东西，远不是对人类的准确描述，

Liv: Not picking, a leather, and there’s nothing, uh, wrong with putting, uh, motor oil up your ass. It’s just one, it’s one of them I, I do this every weekend, okay?

莉芙: 不挑剔，一个皮革，而且，呃，把，呃，机油塞进你的屁股里，没有什么，呃，错。它只是一个，它是其中一个我，我每个周末都这样做，好吗？

Lex: Uh, how did that analogy come from in my mind? Like, what, I don’t know. I think we need to, there’s some Freudian thing you would need to deeply investigate with a therapist, okay? What about AI? Are you worried about AGI, superintelligence systems, or paperclip maximizer type of, type of situation?

莱克斯: 呃，那个比喻是怎么从我的脑海中冒出来的？比如，什么，我不知道。我认为我们需要，有一些弗洛伊德的东西，你需要和治疗师深入研究，好吗？那么人工智能呢？你担心通用人工智能，超级智能系统，或者回形针最大化器类型，类型的情况吗？

Liv: Yes. I’m definitely worried about it, but I feel kind of bipolar in the, some days I wake up and,

莉芙: 是的。我绝对担心它，但我感觉有点两极分化，在，有些日子，我醒来，而且，

Lex: You’re excited about the future.

莱克斯: 你对未来感到兴奋。

Liv: Well, exactly. I’m like, “Wow, we can unlock the mysteries of the universe you know, escape the game, um, and this this you know if,” because I spend all my time thinking about these Moloch problems, that you know what what is the solution to them? Well you know, in some ways you need this like omni-benevolent, omniscient, omni-wise coordination mechanism that can like make us all not do the the Moloch-y thing, uh, or like provide the infrastructure would redesign the system so that it’s not vulnerable to this Moloch process. Um and in some ways, you know, that’s, that’s the strongest argument to me for like the race to build AGI is that, maybe, you know, we can’t survive without it. But the flip side to that is the the, the, the, the, unfortunately, now that there’s multiple actors trying to build AI, AGI, you know? This is this was fine 10 years ago when it was just DeepMind but then other companies started up and now it created a race dynamic. Now it’s like, that’s the whole thing, is it the same, it’s got the same problem. It’s like whichever company is the one that like optimizes for speed, at the cost of safety, will get the competitive advantage and so it will be the more likely the ones to build the AGI, you know? And, and that’s the same cycle that you’re in and there’s no clear solution to that because you can’t just go like um slapping you know, if you go and try and like stop all the different companies then it will, you know, the good ones will stop because they’re the ones you know within you know within the West’s reach, but then that leaves all the other ones to continue, and then they’re even more likely. So it’s like it’s a very difficult problem with no clean solution um and you know, at the same time you know, I i, know the at least some of the folks at DeepMind, and they’re incredible, and they’re thinking about this, they’re very aware of this problem and they’re like, you know,

莉芙: 嗯，没错。我就像，“哇，我们可以解开宇宙的奥秘，你知道，逃离游戏，嗯，而且，这，这，你知道，如果，”因为我所有的时间都在思考这些摩洛神问题，你知道，什么，什么才是它们的解决方案？嗯，你知道，在某些方面，你需要这种，比如，全善的，全知的，全智的协调机制，它可以，比如，让我们所有人都不要做，那，摩洛神化的事情，呃，或者，比如，提供基础设施，会重新设计系统，这样它就不会容易受到摩洛神过程的影响。嗯，而且，在某些方面，你知道，那，那对我来说，是，比如，建造通用人工智能竞赛的最有力论据，那就是，也许，你知道，没有它，我们就无法生存。但它的另一面是，那，那，那，那，那，不幸的是，现在有多个参与者试图建造人工智能，通用人工智能，你知道吗？这，这在 10 年前还好，当时只有 DeepMind，但后来，其他公司开始出现，而且现在，它创造了一种竞赛动态。现在，它就像，这就是全部，它一样吗，它有同样的问题。这就像，任何一家，比如，以安全为代价，优化速度的公司，都会获得竞争优势，所以，你知道，它将更有可能建造通用人工智能。而且，而且，那是你所处的同样的循环，而且对此没有明确的解决方案，因为你不能只是，比如，拍打，你知道，如果你去，而且试图，比如，阻止所有不同的公司，那么，它会，你知道，好的公司会停止，因为他们是那些，你知道，在，你知道，西方能够控制的范围内，但后来，那就让所有其他的公司继续下去，然后，他们甚至更有可能。所以，这就像，这是一个非常困难的问题，没有干净的解决方案，嗯，而且，你知道，与此同时，你知道，我，我，至少认识 DeepMind 的一些人，而且他们很不可思议，而且他们正在思考这个问题，他们非常 aware of 这个问题，而且他们就像，你知道，

Lex: I think some of the smartest people on Earth,

莱克斯: 我认为地球上一些最聪明的人，

Liv: Yeah. The the culture is important there because they are thinking about that, and they’re some of the best machine learning engineers. So it’s possible to have a a company, or a community of people that are both great engineers and are thinking about the philosophical topics.

莉芙: 是的。那，那里的文化很重要，因为他们正在思考这个问题，而且他们是一些最好的机器学习工程师。所以，有可能拥有一家，一家公司，或者一个社区，里面的人既是伟大的工程师，又在思考哲学问题。

Lex: Exactly, and importantly, they’re also game theorists, you know? And because this is ultimately a game theory problem. The thing this, this Moloch mechanism and like you know what, this ra, how do we voice, arms race scenarios, um, you need people who aren’t naive to be thinking about this, and again, like luckily, there’s a lot of smart, non-naive game theorists within, within that group.

莱克斯: 没错，而且重要的是，他们也是博弈论专家，你知道吗？而且因为这最终是一个博弈论问题。这件事，这个，这个摩洛神机制，而且，比如，你知道，这个，这个，我们如何表达，军备竞赛场景，嗯，你需要那些不天真的人来思考这个问题，而且，再一次，比如，幸运的是，在，在那群人中，有很多聪明，不天真的博弈论专家。

Lex: Yes, I’m concerned about it and I, i, think it’s again a thing that we need people to be thinking about um in terms of like, “How do we create, how do we mitigate the arms race dynamics and how do we solve the thing?” It’s got, Bostrom calls it the orthogonality problem, whereby because obviously there’s a chance you know that the belief, the hope is, is that you build something that’s super intelligent and by definition of being super intelligent, it will also become super wise, and have the wisdom to know what the right goals are, and hopefully, those goals include keeping humanity alive, right? Um but Bostrom says that actually those two things, you know um super intelligence and super wisdom, aren’t necessarily correlated. They’re actually kind of orthogonal things and, “How do we make it so that they are correlated? How do we guarantee it because we need it to be guaranteed, really, to know that we’re doing the thing safely.” But I think that like um merging of intelligence and wisdom, at least my hope is that this whole process happens sufficiently slowly that we’re constantly having these kinds of debates, that we have enough time to um to figure out how to modify each version of the system as it becomes more and more intelligent.

莱克斯: 是的，我担心它，而且我，我，我认为，再一次，这是一件我们需要人们思考的事情，嗯，在，比如，“我们如何创造，我们如何减轻军备竞赛的动态，以及我们如何解决这件事？”它有，博斯特罗姆称之为正交性问题，因此，因为显然有机会，你知道，信念，希望是，是你建造一个超级智能的东西，而且根据超级智能的定义，它也会变得超级明智，而且拥有知道什么是正确目标的智慧，而且，希望，那些目标包括让人类活着，对吧？嗯，但博斯特罗姆说，实际上，那两件事，你知道，嗯，超级智能和超级智慧，不一定相关。它们实际上是正交的东西，而且，“我们如何让它们相关？我们如何保证它，因为我们真的需要保证它，才能知道我们正在安全地做这件事。”但我认为，比如，嗯，智能和智慧的融合，至少我的希望是，整个过程发生得足够慢，以至于我们一直在进行这种辩论，我们有足够的时间，嗯，去 figuring out 如何修改系统的每个版本，因为它变得越来越智能。

Liv: Yes. Buying time is is a good thing definitely. Anything that slows everything down, we just, everyone needs to chill out. We’ve got millennia to figure this out.

莉芙: 是的。争取时间绝对是一件好事。任何能让一切都慢下来的东西，我们只是，每个人都需要冷静下来。我们有几千年的时间来 figuring out 这件事。

Lex: Yeah, um, or at least at least, um, well, it depends again. It’s some people think that you know we can’t even make it through the next few decades without having some kind of omni-wise coordination mechanism um and there’s also an argument to that.

莱克斯: 是的，嗯，或者至少，至少，嗯，嗯，这又取决于。它，有些人认为，你知道，我们甚至无法在没有某种全智协调机制的情况下，度过接下来的几十年，嗯，而且对此也有一个论点。

Liv: Yeah. I don’t know.

莉芙: 是的。我不知道。

Lex: Well, there is uh, I’m suspicious of that kind of thinking because it seems like the entirety of human history is, has people in it that are like predicting doom uh, or, “Just around the corner,” there’s something about us that is strangely attracted to that thought. It’s almost like fun to think about the destruction of everything just objectively speaking. I’ve talked and listened to a bunch of people, and they are gravitating towards that. It’s almost, I think it’s the same thing that people love about conspiracy theories, is they love to be the person that kind of figured out some deep fundamental thing about the that’s going to be it’s going to mark something extremely important about the history of human civilization because then I will be important, right? When in reality, most of us will be forgotten and and and life will, will go on.

莱克斯: 嗯，有，呃，我怀疑那种想法，因为它看起来就像整个人类历史，都有那些，比如，预测厄运，呃，或者，“就在眼前，”的人，我们身上有一些东西，奇怪地被那种想法所吸引。只是客观地说，思考一切的毁灭，几乎就像很有趣。我和很多人交谈过，而且听过他们的谈话，而且他们正在被它吸引。它几乎，我认为这和人们喜欢阴谋论的原因是一样的，是他们喜欢成为那种，比如，figured out 一些关于，那将是，它将标志着人类文明历史上极其重要的事情的深刻的基本原理的人，因为，然后，我就会变得重要，对吧？而实际上，我们大多数人都会被遗忘，而且，而且，而且，生命会，会继续下去。

Liv: I mean one of the sad things about whenever anything traumatic happens to you, whenever you lose loved ones, or just tragedy happens, you realize, “Life goes on.” Even after a nuclear war that will wipe out some large percentage of the population and will torture people for years to come because of the sort of, I mean, the effects of a nuclear winter, people will still survive, life will still go on.

莉芙: 我的意思是，每当任何创伤性的事情发生在你身上时，每当你失去亲人，或者只是发生悲剧时，你会意识到，“生活还在继续。”即使在核战争之后，它将消灭很大一部分人口，而且会因为那种，我的意思是，核冬天的影响，在未来几年里折磨人们，人们仍然会生存下来，生命仍然会继续下去。

Lex: I mean, it depends on the kind of nuclear war.

莱克斯: 我的意思是，这取决于核战争的类型。

Liv: But in in case in, Yoko world, it will still go on. That’s one of the amazing things about life, it finds a way. And so in that sense I just, I feel like the doom and gloom thing is um well what we don’t,

莉芙: 但，在，在，洋子世界的情况下，它仍然会继续下去。那是生命最神奇的事情之一，它总能找到办法。所以，在这个意义上，我只是，我觉得那种悲观的事情，嗯，嗯，我们没有，

Lex: Yeah, we don’t want a self-fulfilling prophecy.

莱克斯: 是的，我们不想要一个自我实现的预言。

Liv: Yes. That’s exactly yes. And I very much agree with that, and I you know, even I have a slight like feeling, from the amount of time we spent in this conversation talking about this, because it’s like you know is this even a net positive? If it’s like making everyone feel, “Oh.”

莉芙: 是的。那完全正确，是的。而且我非常同意这一点，而且我，你知道，即使我有一种轻微的，比如，感觉，从我们在这次谈话中花在这件事上的时间来看，因为它就像，你知道，这甚至是一个净积极的吗？如果它像让每个人都感觉，“哦。”

Lex: In some ways, like making people imagine these bad scenarios can be a self-fulfilling prophecy but at the same time that’s how that’s weighed off with, at least, making people aware of the problem and gets them thinking.

莱克斯: 在某些方面，比如，让人们想象这些糟糕的场景，可能是一个自我实现的预言，但与此同时，那，那是如何权衡的，至少，让人们 aware of 这个问题，而且让他们思考。

Liv: And I think particularly you know the reason why I want to talk about this to your audience is that, on average, they’re the type of people who gravitate towards these kind of topics because they, they’re intellectually curious and, and they can sort of sense that there’s trouble brewing.

莉芙: 而且我认为，特别，你知道，我想和你的观众谈论这件事的原因是，平均来说，他们是那种被这类话题吸引的人，因为他们，他们有求知欲，而且，而且，他们能够，比如，感觉到麻烦正在酝酿。

Lex: Yeah, they can smell that there’s, you know, I think there’s a reason people are thinking about this stuff a lot, is because the probability, the probability, you know, it’s increased in probability over, certainly over the last few years. Um trajectories have not gone favorably, let’s put it, in you know, since 2010. So um, it’s right I think for people to be thinking about it, but that’s where, they’re like I think, whether it’s a useful fiction, or whether it’s actually true, or whatever you want to call it, I think having this faith, this is where faith is valuable because it gives you, at least, this like anchor of hope and and I, and I’m not just saying it to like trick myself, like I do truly, I do think there’s something out there that wants us to win.

莱克斯: 是的，他们能闻到，有，你知道，我认为人们思考这些东西的原因是，概率，概率，你知道，它在概率上增加了，当然是在过去几年里。嗯，轨迹并没有朝着有利的方向发展，让我们这么说，在，你知道，自 2010 年以来。所以，嗯，我认为人们思考它是正确的，但那就是，他们就像，我认为，无论它是一个有益的虚构，还是它实际上是真的，或者你想称它为什么，我认为拥有这种信念，这就是信念有价值的地方，因为它至少给了你，这个，比如，希望的锚，而且我，而且我不是只是说它来，比如，欺骗自己，比如，我真的，我确实认为外面有一些东西希望我们赢。

Lex: Yeah. I think there’s something that really wants us to win. And it just, you just have to be like just like okay, now I sound really crazy, but like, open your heart to it a little bit.

莱克斯: 是的。我认为有一些东西真的希望我们赢。而且它只是，你只需要像，就像，好吧，现在我听起来真的很疯狂，但，比如，稍微敞开你的心扉。

Liv: Yeah, and it will give you the like the sort of breathing room with which to marinate on the solutions. We are the ones who have to come up with solutions, but we can use that there’s like this hashtag positivity. There’s value in that.

莉芙: 是的，而且它会给你，比如，那种喘息的空间，让你思考解决方案。我们是必须想出解决方案的人，但我们可以利用，有这种，# 积极向上。那是有价值的。

Lex: Yeah, you have to kind of imagine all the destructive trajectories that lay in our future, and then believe in the possibility of avoiding those trajectories, all while, he’s an audience, all while sitting back which is majorly, the two people that listen to this are probably sitting in a beach smoking some weed um that’s a beautiful sunset, or they’re looking at just the waves going in and out, and ultimately, there’s a kind of deep belief there, and um the the momentum of humanity, to figure it all out, I think, we’ll make it. But we’ve got a lot of work to do, which is which what makes this whole simulation, this video game kind of fun, this battle of Polytopia.

莱克斯: 是的，你必须，比如，想象所有那些存在于我们未来的破坏性轨迹，然后，相信避免那些轨迹的可能性，所有这一切，他是一个观众，所有这一切，都坐在后面，这主要是，听这个的两个人可能正坐在海滩上抽着大麻，嗯，那是一个美丽的日落，或者他们只是看着海浪进进出出，而且，最终，那里有一种深刻的信念，而且，嗯，那，那，人类的势头，来 figuring out 所有这一切，我认为，我们会成功的。但我们有很多工作要做，这是，是什么让整个模拟，这场电子游戏变得有趣，这场 Polytopia 之战。

Liv: I still man, I love those games so much, so good, and that, that one for people who don’t know, but uh, Battle Polytopia is a, it’s a big, it’s like a really radical sim, simplification of a civilization type of game. It still has a lot of the skill tree development, a lot of the strategy, um, but it’s easy enough to play in a phone.

莉芙: 我仍然，伙计，我非常喜欢那些游戏，非常好，而且，那，那个，对那些不知道的人来说，但，呃，Battle Polytopia 是一个，它是一个大的，它就像一个真正激进的模拟，对文明类型游戏的简化。它仍然有很多技能树发展，很多策略，嗯，但它很容易在手机上玩。

Lex: Yeah, it’s kind of interesting. They’ve really they’ve really figured it out. It’s it’s one of the most elegantly designed games I’ve ever seen. It’s incredibly complex and yet being again, it walks that line between complexity and simplicity in this really, really great way um and they use pretty colors that hack the dopamine reward circuits in our brains very well.

莱克斯: 是的，它有点有趣。他们真的，他们真的 figured out 了。它，它是我见过的设计最优雅的游戏之一。它极其复杂，然而，再一次，它以这种非常，非常棒的方式，走在复杂性和简单性之间的界限上，嗯，而且他们使用了漂亮的颜色，很好地入侵了我们大脑中的多巴胺奖励回路。

Liv: Yeah. It’s fun.

莉芙: 是的。它很有趣。

Lex: Video games are so fun.

莱克斯: 电子游戏太有趣了。

Liv: Yeah.

莉芙: 是的。

Lex: Most of this life is just about fun, escaping all the suffering to find the fun, uh what’s energy healing? I have in my notes, “Energy healing, question mark,” what’s that about?

莱克斯: 生活的大部分只是为了乐趣，逃避所有的痛苦，去寻找乐趣，呃，什么是能量疗愈？我的笔记里写着，“能量疗愈，问号，”那是什么？

Liv: Uh, oh, man, um God, your audience are going to think I’m mad. Uh, so the two crazy things that happened to me, the one was the voice in the head that said, “You’re going to win this tournament,” and then I won the tournament. The other craziest thing uh that’s happened to me was in 2018 um I started getting uh this like weird problem in my ear where it was kind of like low-frequency sound distortion. Uh where voices, particularly men’s voices, became incredibly unpleasant to listen to um it would, it would like create this, it would be falsely amplified or something, and it was almost like a physical sensation in my ear, which was really unpleasant and I it would like last for a few hours and then go away, and then come back for a few hours and go away, and I went and got hearing tests and they found that like the bottom end, I was losing the, the hearing in that ear um and I also, in the end I got the doctor said they think it was this thing called Ménière’s disease um which is this very unpleasant disease where people basically end up losing their hearing, but they get this like, um, it often comes with like dizzy spells, and other things, because it’s like the inner ear gets all messed up. Um now, I don’t know if that’s actually what I had, um but that’s what at least a couple of one doctor said to me, um but anyway. So I had three months of this stuff this going on. It was really getting me down, I was and I was at Burning Man, um, of all places. I don’t mean to be that person talking about Burning Man um but I was there, and again, I’d had it, and I was unable to listen to music, which is not what you want, because Burning Man is a very loud, intense place, and I was just having a really rough time, and on the final night I get talking to this, uh, girl who’s like a friend of a friend and I mentioned, I was like, “Oh, I’m really down in the dumps about this,” and she’s like, “Oh, well, I’ve done a little bit of energy healing. Would you like me to have a look?” Sure. Now, this is again, deep, I was, you know no time in my life for this. I didn’t believe in any of this stuff, I was just like it’s all it’s all woo, nonsense um I was like, “Sure. Have a go.” And she starts like with her hand and she says, “Oh, there’s something there,” and then she leans in and she starts like sucking over my ear. Not actually touching me, but like close to it, like with her mouth. And it was really unpleasant, I was like, “Bro, can you stop?” She’s like, “No, no, there’s something there, I need to get it.” I was like, “No, no, I really don’t like it, please. This is really loud.” She’s like, “I need to just bear with me.” And she does it. I don’t know how long, for a few minutes, and then she eventually collapses on the ground, like freezing cold, crying. Not you know, and I’m just like, “I don’t know what the hell is going on.” Like, I’m like thoroughly freaked out, as there’s everyone else watching just like, “What the hell?” Me like warm her up, and she was like she was really shaken up and she’s like, “I don’t know what that, she said it was something very unpleasant and dark. Don’t worry, it’s gone, I think you’ll be fine in a couple, you’ll have the physical symptoms for a couple of weeks and you’ll be fine.” But you know, she was like that you know, so I was, I was so rattled, a, because the potential that actually I had something bad in me that made someone feel bad and and and that she was scared. That was what you know, I was like, “Wait. I thought you you do this? This is the thing, and now you’re terrified, like you pulled like some kind of an exorcism or something?” Yeah. What the is going on? Yeah, um, so it like, just the most insane experience, um, and frankly, it took me like a few months to sort of emotionally recover from it um but my ear problem went away about a couple of weeks later and, touch wood, I’ve not had any issues since. So,

莉芙: 呃，哦，伙计，嗯，上帝，你的听众会认为我疯了。呃，所以，发生在我身上的两件疯狂的事情，一件是脑海中的声音说，“你会赢得这场比赛，”然后，我赢得了比赛。另一件最疯狂的事情，呃，发生在我身上是在 2018 年，嗯，我开始，呃，在耳朵里出现，比如，奇怪的问题，它有点像低频声音失真。呃，在那里，声音，特别是男人的声音，变得非常难听，嗯，它会，它会像创造这个，它会被错误地放大，或者其他什么，而且它几乎就像我耳朵里的一种物理感觉，它真的很不舒服，而且我，它会像持续几个小时，然后消失，然后，回来几个小时，然后消失，而且我去做了听力测试，而且他们发现，比如，低端，我正在失去，那只耳朵的听力，嗯，而且我，最后，我找到了医生，他说，他们认为这是这种叫做梅尼埃病的东西，嗯，这是一种非常不舒服的疾病，在那里，人们基本上最终会失去听力，但他们会得到这种，比如，嗯，它经常伴随着，比如，头晕，以及其他东西，因为它就像内耳都乱了。嗯，现在，我不知道那是否是我真正拥有的，嗯，但那至少是几个医生告诉我的，嗯，但不管怎样。所以，我，有三个月，这东西，一直在发生。它真的让我很沮丧，我，而且我当时在火人节，嗯，所有地方中。我不想成为那个谈论火人节的人，嗯，但我在那里，而且，再一次，我经历过它，而且我无法听音乐，这不是你想要的，因为火人节是一个非常吵闹，intense的地方，而且我当时真的很糟糕，而且在最后一晚，我开始和这个，呃，女孩说话，她就像一个朋友的朋友，而且我提到，我就像，“哦，我真的很沮丧，关于这个，”而且她就像，“哦，嗯，我做过一点能量疗愈。你想让我看看吗？”当然。现在，这，再一次，很深，我，你知道，我的生活中没有时间做这个。我不相信任何这样的东西，我只是觉得它，它都是胡说八道，嗯，我就像，“当然。试一试。”而且她开始，比如，用手，而且她说，“哦，那里有一些东西，”然后，她 leaned in，而且开始，比如，吸我的耳朵。实际上没有 touching 我，但，比如，靠近它，比如，用她的嘴。而且它真的很不舒服，我就像，“兄弟，你能停下来吗？”她就像，“不，不，那里有一些东西，我需要把它弄出来。”我就像，“不，不，我真的不喜欢它，拜托。这真的很吵。”她就像，“我需要你，只是，忍耐一下。”而且她做到了。我不知道多长时间，几分钟，然后，她最终倒在地上，像，冻僵了，哭了。不是，你知道，而且我只是像，“我不知道到底发生了什么。”比如，我就像，彻底吓坏了，因为其他所有人都在看着，就像，“到底发生了什么？”我，比如，让她暖和起来，而且她就像，她真的很震惊，而且她就像，“我不知道那，她说那是非常不愉快，而且黑暗的东西。别担心，它已经消失了，我认为你会在几个，你会在几周内，有身体症状，而且你会没事的。”但，你知道，她就像那样，你知道，所以，我，我非常震惊，一个，因为，实际上，我体内有一些不好的东西，让某人感觉不好，而且，而且，她很害怕。那就是，你知道，我就像，“等等。我以为你，你做这个？这是那件事，而且现在，你很害怕，比如，你像做某种驱魔仪式，或者其他什么？”是的。到底发生了什么？是的，嗯，所以，它，比如，只是最疯狂的体验，嗯，而且，坦白说，它，比如，花了我几个月的时间，才从情感上恢复过来，嗯，但我的耳朵问题在大约几周后消失了，而且，敲木头，从那以后，我就没有再出现过任何问题。所以，

Lex: That gives you, uh, like hints that maybe there’s something out there?

莱克斯: 那给了你，呃，比如，暗示，也许那里有一些东西？

Liv: I mean I i, again, I don’t have an explanation for this. The most probable explanation was, uh, you know, I was a Burning Man, I was in a very open state, let’s just leave it at that, um, and, you know placebo is an incredibly powerful thing, and a very not understood thing. So almost assigning the word, “Placebo,” to it reduces it down to a way that it doesn’t deserve to be reduced down. Maybe there’s a whole science of what we call placebo. Maybe there’s a,

莉芙: 我的意思是，我，我，再一次，我对这件事没有解释。最可能的解释是，呃，你知道，我是一个火人，我处于一种非常开放的状态，让我们就这样吧，嗯，而且，你知道，安慰剂是一种难以置信的强大的东西，而且是一件非常不为人知的东西。所以，几乎，给它贴上“安慰剂”这个词，会把它简化到一种它不应该被简化到的程度。也许有一个关于我们所说的安慰剂的完整的科学。也许有一个，

Lex: Placebo is a door, self-healing.

莱克斯: 安慰剂是一扇门，自我疗愈。

Liv: Yeah. You know, and I mean, I don’t know what the problem was like, I was told it was Ménière’s, I don’t want to say I definitely had that because I don’t want people to think that, “Oh, that’s how,” you know, if they do have that, because it’s terrible disease, and if they have that, that this is going to be a guaranteed way for it to fix it for them. I don’t know, um, and I also don’t, I don’t,

莉芙: 是的。你知道，而且我的意思是，我不知道问题是什么，我被告知是梅尼埃病，我不想说我肯定有，因为我不想让人们认为，“哦，那就是如何，”你知道，如果他们确实有，因为它是一种可怕的疾病，而且如果他们有，那这将是一个保证能为他们解决它的方法。我不知道，嗯，而且我也不，我不，

Lex: You’re absolutely right to say, like, using even the word placebo is like, it comes with this like baggage of, of like frame, and I don’t want to reduce it down, all I can do is describe the experience and what happened. I cannot put an ontological framework around it. I can’t say why it happened, what the mechanism was, what the problem even was in the first place. Um, I just know that something crazy happened, and it was while I was in an open state and, fortunately, for me, it made the problem go away, but what I took away from it again, it was part of this you know this took me on this journey of becoming more humble about what I think I know because, as I said before, I was like, I was in the like Richard Dawkins train of atheism, in terms of, “There is no God. There’s,” and everything like that is, “We know everything we know. You know, the only way we can get through uh, we know how medicine works and it’s molecules and and chemical interactions and that kind of stuff.” And now it’s like okay, well there’s there’s clearly more for us to understand, um, and that doesn’t mean that it’s a scientific as well because you know the beauty of the scientific method is that it still, it still can apply to this situation, like I don’t see why you know I would like to try and test this experimentally, um I haven’t really you know, I don’t know how we would go about doing that, we’d have to find other people with the same condition I guess and like try and repeat repeat the experiment um but it doesn’t just because something happens that’s sort of out of the realms of our current understanding, it doesn’t mean that it’s, the scientific method can’t be used for it.

莱克斯: 你说，比如，即使使用安慰剂这个词，也是绝对正确的，比如，它伴随着这种，比如，框架的包袱，而且我不想把它简化，我所能做的只是描述经历，以及发生了什么。我无法给它加一个本体论框架。我无法说出它为什么发生，机制是什么，甚至，一开始，问题是什么。嗯，我只知道发生了一些疯狂的事情，而且它发生在我处于一种开放状态的时候，而且，幸运的是，对我来说，它让问题消失了，但我再次从中得到的，是这个，你知道，这让我踏上了这条变得更谦逊的旅程，关于我认为我知道的东西，因为，正如我之前所说，我就像，我处于，比如，理查德·道金斯式的无神论的火车上，在，“没有上帝。有，”以及所有类似的东西方面，是，“我们知道我们所知道的一切。你知道，我们能够度过，呃，的唯一方法，我们知道药物是如何工作的，而且它是分子，以及，化学相互作用，以及类似的东西。”而且现在，它就像，好吧，嗯，那里，那里显然有更多的东西需要我们去理解，嗯，而且那并不意味着它也是科学的，因为，你知道，科学方法的美妙之处在于它仍然，它仍然可以适用于这种情况，比如，我不知道为什么，你知道，我想尝试，而且用实验来测试它，嗯，我没有真正，你知道，我不知道我们该如何去做，我猜我们必须找到其他有同样情况的人，而且，比如，尝试，而且重复，重复实验，嗯，但它不，只是因为发生了一些，比如，超出我们目前理解范围的事情，并不意味着它，科学方法不能用于它。

Lex: Yeah, I think the scientific method sits on a foundation of those kinds of experiences as a scientific method is a process to, um, carve away at the mystery all around us, and experiences like this is just a reminder that uh we’re mostly shrouded in mysteries though.

莱克斯: 是的，我认为科学方法建立在那种经验的基础上，因为科学方法是一个过程，嗯，去揭开我们周围的所有奥秘，而且像这样的经验，只是提醒我们，呃，我们大部分都被奥秘所笼罩。

Liv: That’s it. It’s just like a humility like we haven’t really figured this whole thing out, but at the same time we have found ways to act, you know? We’re clearly doing something right, because think of the technological scientific advancements, the knowledge that we have that was would blow people’s minds, even from 100 years ago.

莉芙: 就是这样。它就像一种谦卑，比如，我们还没有真正 figuring out 这一切，但与此同时，我们已经找到了行动的方法，你知道吗？我们显然正在做一些正确的事情，因为想想科技的进步，我们拥有的知识，那会让人们大吃一惊，即使是 100 年前的人。

Lex: Yeah. And you know we’ve even allegedly gone out to space and landed on the Moon, although I still haven’t, I have not seen evidence of of the Earth being round, but I’m still, I’m keeping an open mind, uh speaking of which, uh you studied physics and astrophysics. Uh, would, when just just to go to that, and we jump, just to jump around through the fascinating life you’ve had, when did you, how did that come to be? Like when did you fall in love with astronomy and space and things like this?

莱克斯: 是的。而且，你知道，我们甚至据称已经进入太空，而且登上了月球，尽管我仍然没有，我没有看到地球是圆的证据，但我仍然，我保持着开放的心态，呃，说到这个，呃，你学过物理学和天体物理学。呃，会，什么时候，只是，只是为了谈谈那个，而且我们跳跃，只是，为了跳跃到你所拥有的迷人生活中，你是什么时候，那是怎么发生的？比如，你是什么时候爱上天文学和太空，以及类似的东西的？

Liv: As early as I can remember. Um, I was very lucky that my my Mum and my Dad, but particularly my Mum. My Mum is like the most nature, she is Mother Earth. It’s the only way to describe her. Just, she’s like Doctor Dolittle, animals flock to her and just like sit and look at her adoringly as she sings. Yeah. She’s just, she just is Mother Earth, and she has always been fascinated by you know, she doesn’t have any, you know, she ever went to university, or anything like that. She’s actually phobic of maths, if I try and get her to like, you know, I was trying to teach her poker, and she hated it. Um but she’s so deeply curious um and that just got instilled in me, when you know we would sleep out under the stars whenever it was you know the two nights a year when it was warm enough in the UK to do that, um and we’ll just lie out there until until we fell asleep looking at, looking for satellites, looking for shooting stars, and, and I was just always, I don’t know whether it was from that, but I’ve always naturally gravitated to like the biggest, the biggest questions, and also, the like the most layers of abstraction. I love just like, “What’s the meta question? What’s the meta question?” And so on um so I think it just came from that really and it, and and then on top of that like physics you know, it also made logical sense, and that it was a, it was, it was the degree, it was a degree that was a subject that ticked the box of being, you know, answering these really big picture questions, but it’s also extremely useful. It like has a very high utility um in terms of, I didn’t know necessarily, I thought I was going to become like a research scientist. I, my original plan was, “I want to be a professional astronomer.” So it’s not just like a philosophy degree that asks the big questions, and it’s not, uh, like biology in the path to be going to medical school or something like that, which is all overly pragmatic. Not overly is um this is very pragmatic.

莉芙: 从我能记事起。嗯，我非常幸运，我的，我的妈妈和爸爸，但特别是我的妈妈。我的妈妈就像是最自然的，她是地球母亲。这是描述她的唯一方式。只是，她就像杜立德医生，动物们成群结队地来到她身边，而且，就像，坐着，崇拜地看着她唱歌。是的。她只是，她只是地球母亲，而且她一直着迷于，你知道，她没有任何，你知道，她上过大学，或者类似的东西。她实际上很害怕数学，如果我试图让她，比如，你知道，我曾经试图教她玩扑克，而且她讨厌它。嗯，但她非常好奇，嗯，而且那只是被灌输到我身上，当，你知道，我们会在星空下睡觉，无论何时，你知道，一年中的两个晚上，当英国足够温暖，可以这样做时，嗯，而且我们会只是躺在那里，直到，直到我们睡着，看着，寻找卫星，寻找流星，而且，而且，我只是总是，我不知道它是否来自那，但我总是自然地被，比如，最大的，最大的问题所吸引，而且，还有，比如，最多的抽象层次。我只是喜欢，比如，“元问题是什么？元问题是什么？”等等，嗯，所以，我认为它真的只是来自那，而且它，而且，然后，除此之外，比如，物理学，你知道，它也符合逻辑，而且它是一个，它，它是那个学位，它是一个学位，它是一个科目，它勾选了，你知道，回答这些真正的大局问题的框，但它也非常有用。它，比如，在，方面，具有很高的效用，我不一定知道，我以为我会成为，比如，一名研究科学家。我，我最初的计划是，“我想成为一名专业的天文学家。”所以，它不像一个哲学学位，它问的是大问题，而且它不是，呃，比如，生物学，通往医学院的道路，或者类似的东西，那都是过于务实的。不是过于，嗯，这非常务实。

Lex: Yeah, physics is a good combination of the two.

莱克斯: 是的，物理学是两者的良好结合。

Liv: Yeah, at least for me it made sense and I was good at it, I liked it, um, yeah, I mean i it wasn’t like I did an immense amount of soul-searching to choose it or anything. It just was like this, it made the most sense.

莉芙: 是的，至少对我来说，它很有道理，而且我擅长它，我喜欢它，嗯，是的，我的意思是，我，它不像我做了大量的反省来选择它，或者其他什么。它只是，比如，这样，它最合理。

Lex: I mean, you have to make this decision in the UK age 17 which is crazy um because you know in US you go the first year, you do a bunch of stuff, right? And then you choose your major, um,

莱克斯: 我的意思是，你必须在英国 17 岁的时候做出这个决定，这太疯狂了，嗯，因为，你知道，在美国，你在第一年，你做很多事情，对吧？然后，你选择你的专业，嗯，

Liv: Yeah. I think the first few years of college you focus on the drugs, and only as you get closer to the end do you start to think, “Oh, this wasn’t about that, and I’m, uh, I owe the government a lot of money.”

莉芙: 是的。我认为大学的前几年，你专注于毒品，而且只有当你快毕业的时候，你才开始想，“哦，这不是关于那个的，而且我，呃，我欠政府很多钱。”

Lex: Um, how many alien civilizations are out there? When you, when you looked up at the stars with your Mum and you were counting them, what’s your Mum think about a number of alien civilizations?

莱克斯: 嗯，外面有多少外星文明？当你，当你和你的妈妈一起抬头看星星，而且你在数它们的时候，你的妈妈对多少外星文明有什么想法？

Liv: I actually don’t know, I would imagine she would take the viewpoint of, you know, she’s pretty humble, and she knows how many you know there’s a huge number of potential spawn sites out there.

莉芙: 我实际上不知道，我想她会采取，你知道，她很谦虚的观点，而且她知道有多少，你知道，外面有大量的潜在的产卵点。

Lex: So she would sponsor spawn sites?

莱克斯: 所以，她会赞助产卵点？

Liv: Yeah. You know, this is our sport, we have spawn sites in Polytopia, we spawned on Earth you know? It’s, hmm, yeah, spawn sights.

莉芙: 是的。你知道，这是我们的运动，我们在 Polytopia 中有产卵点，我们在你知道的地球上产卵？它是，嗯，是的，产卵点。

Lex: Why does that feel weird to say, “Spawn?”

莱克斯: 为什么说“产卵”感觉怪怪的？

Liv: Because it makes me feel like it’s um there’s only one source of life and it’s spawning in different locations. That’s why the word spawn because like it feels like life that originated on Earth really originated here, right? It is, it is a unique to this particular,

莉芙: 因为它让我觉得，它，嗯，只有一个生命来源，而且它在不同的地点产卵。这就是为什么，产卵这个词，因为，比如，它感觉就像起源于地球的生命真的起源于这里，对吧？它是，它是这个特定的，

Lex: Yeah, I mean, but I don’t, in my mind, it doesn’t exclude, you know, the completely different forms of life and different biochemical soups, can’t also spawn, but,

莱克斯: 是的，我的意思是，但我不，在我看来，它不排除，你知道，完全不同的生命形式，以及不同的生化汤，也不能产卵，但，

Liv: I guess it implies that there’s some spark that is,

莉芙: 我猜它意味着有一些火花，是，

Lex: Yeah, which I kind of like the idea of it.

莱克斯: 是的，我有点喜欢这个想法。

Liv: Yeah. And then I, i, get to think about respawning like after it dies. Like what happens if life on Earth ends, is it is it going to restart again? Probably not, it depends. Maybe Earth is, depends on the type of you know what what’s the thing that kills it kills it off, right? If it’s a paperclip maximizer, not that you know for the for the example, but you know some kind of very self-replicating, you know, high on the capabilities, very low on the wisdom, type thing. So whether that’s you know gray goo, green goo, you know, like nano bots or just a shitty misaligned AI that thinks it needs to turn everything into paper clips. Um you know, if it’s something like that then it’s going to be very hard for life, you know, complex life, because, by definition, you know, a paperclip maximizer is the ultimate instantiation of Moloch. Deeply low complexity over-optimization on a single thing, sacrificing everything else, turning the whole world into, i,

莉芙: 是的。然后，我，我，开始思考，比如，它死后重生。比如，如果地球上的生命结束了，它，它会重新开始吗？可能不会，这取决于。也许地球是，取决于，你知道，什么，是什么东西杀死了它，杀死了它，对吧？如果它是一个回形针最大化器，不是，你知道，为了，为了那个例子，但，你知道，某种非常自我复制的，你知道，能力很强，智慧很低，类型的东西。所以，无论那是，你知道，灰雾，绿雾，你知道，比如，纳米机器人，还是只是一个糟糕的，未对齐的人工智能，它认为它需要把一切都变成回形针。嗯，你知道，如果它是那样的话，那么，生命，你知道，复杂生命，将很难生存，因为，根据定义，你知道，回形针最大化器是摩洛神的终极实例化。对单个事物进行深度低复杂度的过度优化，牺牲其他一切，把整个世界变成，我，

Lex: Although something tells me like if we actually take a paperclip maximizer, it destroys everything, it’s a really dumb system that just, and envelops the whole of Earth and that diverse beyond,

莱克斯: 虽然有些东西告诉我，比如，如果我们真的采用一个回形针最大化器，它会摧毁一切，它是一个非常愚蠢的系统，只是，而且包围了整个地球，而且，在，之外，

Liv: Yeah.

莉芙: 是的。

Lex: I didn’t I didn’t know that part, but okay. Great. That’s what it takes. It becomes a multi-planetary paperclip maximizer.

莱克斯: 我没有，我不知道那部分，但，好吧。很好。这就是它需要的。它变成了一个多行星的回形针最大化器。

Liv: Well, it just it just propagates. I mean, it, it depends whether it figures out how to jump the vacuum gap, um, but again, I mean this is all silly because it’s a hypothetical thought experiment which I think doesn’t actually have much practical application to the AI safety problem, but it’s just a fun thing to play around with. But yeah. If, by definition, it is maximally intelligent, which means it is maximally good at navigating the environment around it in order to achieve its goal but extremely bad at choosing goals in the first place. So again, we’re talking about this orthogonality thing, right? It’s very low on wisdom, but very high on capability, um, then it will figure out how to jump the vacuum gap between planets and stars, and so on, and thus just turn every atom it gets its hand on into paper clips.

莉芙: 嗯，它只是，它只是传播。我的意思是，它，这取决于它是否 figured out 如何跳跃真空间隙，嗯，但，再一次，我的意思是，这都是愚蠢的，因为它是一个假设的思想实验，我认为它实际上对人工智能安全问题没有多少实际应用，但它只是一件有趣的事情，可以玩一玩。但，是的。如果，根据定义，它是最大限度地智能的，这意味着它最大限度地擅长导航它周围的环境，为了实现它的目标，但极度不擅长选择目标，首先。所以，再一次，我们正在谈论这个正交性问题，对吧？它非常缺乏智慧，但能力非常强，嗯，然后，它会 figured out 如何跳跃行星和恒星之间的真空间隙，等等，因此，只是把它的每一个原子，变成回形针。

Lex: Yeah. Uh by the way, for for people who which is maximum virality by the way. That’s what virality is but does not mean that morality is necessarily all about maximizing paper clips, in that case it is. So for people who don’t know, this is just a thought experiment, example of an AI system that’s very that has a goal and is willing to do anything to accomplish that goal, including destroying all life on Earth and all human life and all of consciousness in the universe, you know, for the goal of producing a maximum number of paper clips, okay? Uh or whatever its optimization function was, that it was set up, but don’t you think, could be making, recreating Lexus?

莱克斯: 是的。呃，顺便说一句，对于那些，顺便说一句，那是最大的病毒式传播。那就是病毒式传播，但这并不意味着道德必然都是关于最大化回形针，在那种情况下，它是。所以，对于那些不知道的人来说，这只是一个思想实验，一个非常，拥有一个目标，而且愿意做任何事情来实现那个目标的人工智能系统的例子，包括摧毁地球上的所有生命，以及所有人类生命，以及宇宙中的所有意识，你知道，为了生产最大数量的回形针，好吗？呃，或者，无论它的优化函数是什么，它被设置成什么，但你不认为，可能是制造，重新创造莱克斯？

Liv: Maybe it’ll tile the universe in Lex, uh,

莉芙: 也许它会用莱克斯，呃，铺满宇宙，

Lex: Go on. I like this idea. Now I’m scared. That’s better. That’s that’s more interesting than paperclip. That could be infinitely optimal, if I were to say,

莱克斯: 继续说。我喜欢这个想法。现在我害怕了。那更好。那，那比回形针更有趣。如果我要说的话，那可能是无限最优的，

Liv: So it’s still a bad thing because it’s permanently capping what the universe could ever be. It’s like, that’s, that’s its end.

莉芙: 所以，它仍然是一件坏事，因为它永久地限制了宇宙可能成为的样子。这就像，那是，那是它的终点。

Lex: Or achieving the optimal that the universe could ever achieve. But that’s up to, different people have different perspectives, uh, but don’t you think within the paperclip world that would emerge just like in the zeros and ones that make up a computer that would emerge, beautiful complexities like it, it won’t suppress you know, as you scale to multiple planets and throughout, there’ll emerge these little worlds that uh, on top of the fabric of maximizing paper clips there will be,

莱克斯: 或者实现宇宙可能实现的最优状态。但这取决于，不同的人有不同的观点，呃，但你不认为在回形针世界中，会出现，就像在构成计算机的零和一中，会出现，美丽的复杂性，比如它，它不会抑制，你知道，当你扩展到多个行星，而且在整个过程中，会出现这些小世界，呃，在最大化回形针的结构之上，会有，

Liv: That that would emerge like little societies of, of, a paper clip?

莉芙: 那，那会出现，比如，小的，回形针的社会？

Lex: Well, then we’re not with them, we’re not describing a paperclip maximizer anymore. Because, by the, like if you think of what a paperclip is, it is literally just a piece of bent iron.

莱克斯: 嗯，那么，我们就不再和他们在一起了，我们不再是在描述一个回形针最大化器了。因为，根据，比如，如果你想想回形针是什么，它实际上只是一块弯曲的铁。

Liv: Yes. Right.

莉芙: 是的。没错。

Lex: So if it’s maximizing that throughout the universe, it’s taking every atom it gets its hand on into, somehow, turning it into iron or steel and then bending it into that shape and then done. And on, by definition, like paperclips, there is no, there is no way for, well okay, so you’re saying that paperclips somehow will just emerge and create, through gravity or something,

莱克斯: 所以，如果它在整个宇宙中最大化它，它会把它的每一个原子，以某种方式，变成铁或钢，然后把它弯成那个形状，然后就完成了。而且，根据定义，比如，回形针，没有，没有办法，嗯，好吧，所以，你说回形针会以某种方式，只是出现，而且创造，通过重力，或者其他什么，

Liv: No, no, no, no. Because there’s there’s a dynamic element to the whole system. It’s not just, it’s creating those paper clips and the act of creating there’s going to be a process, and that process will have a dance to it because it’s not like sequential thing, there’s a whole complex three-dimensional system of paperclips, uh, you know, like, you know people like string theory right? It’s supposed to be strings that are interacting in fascinating ways. I’m sure paperclips are very string-like, they can be interacting very interesting ways as you scale exponentially through three-dimensional, I mean, I’m sure the paperclip maximizer has to come up with the theory of everything, it has to create like wormholes right? It has to break, uh like it has to understand quantum mechanics.

莉芙: 不，不，不，不。因为，整个系统中有一个动态元素。它不只是，它在创造那些回形针，而且创造的行为，会有一个过程，而且那个过程会有一种舞蹈，因为它不像顺序的东西，有一个完整的，复杂的，三维的回形针系统，呃，你知道，比如，你知道人们喜欢弦理论，对吧？它应该是以迷人的方式相互作用的弦。我敢肯定，回形针非常像弦，当你以指数方式扩展到三维时，它们可以以非常有趣的方式相互作用，我的意思是，我敢肯定，回形针最大化器必须想出万物理论，它必须创造，比如，虫洞，对吧？它必须打破，呃，比如，它必须理解量子力学。

Lex: I love you. I love your optimism. This is where I’d say this, we’re going into the realm of pathological optimism whereby it’s um I’m sure there will be a, I I think there’s an intelligence that emerges from that system.

莱克斯: 我爱你。我爱你的乐观。这就是我会说，我们正在进入病态乐观主义的领域，在那里，它，嗯，我敢肯定会有一个，我，我认为，从那个系统中会出现一种智慧。

Liv: So you’re saying that basically intelligence is inherent in the fabric of reality and will find a way, kind of like Goldblum says, “Life will find a way.” You think life will find a way even out of this perfectly homogeneous, dead soup?

莉芙: 所以，你是在说，基本上，智慧是现实结构中固有的，而且会找到办法，有点像戈德布鲁姆说的，“生命会找到办法。”你认为即使在这种完全同质的，死的汤中，生命也会找到办法？

Lex: It’s not perfectly homogeneous. It has to, it’s perfectly maximal in the production,

莱克斯: 它不是完全同质的。它必须，它在生产中是完全最大化的，

Liv: I don’t know why people keep thinking it’s harmonic. It’s it maximizes the number of paper clips. That’s the only thing. It’s not trying to be homogeneous. It’s trying,

莉芙: 我不知道为什么人们一直认为它是和谐的。它，它最大化回形针的数量。那是唯一的事情。它不是在试图变得同质。它在试图，

Lex: True. It’s true. Maximize paper clips. So you’re saying, you’re saying that because, it, because you know kind of like in the Big Bang, or you know, it seems like you know things, there were clusters, there was more stuff here than there, that was enough of the pathonicity that kick-started the evolutionary process, the little weirdnesses, that will make it even out of.

莱克斯: 没错。没错。最大化回形针。所以，你是在说，你是在说，因为，它，因为，你知道，有点像在大爆炸中，或者，你知道，它看起来像，你知道，事情，有星团，这里的东西比那里多，那足以启动进化过程，那些小怪癖，那会让它甚至从，中出来。

Liv: Yeah. So yeah, emerges interesting, okay. Well, so how does that line up then with the the whole heat death of the universe, right? Because that’s, that’s another sort of instantiation of this. It’s like everything becomes so far apart, and so cold, and so perfectly mixed, that it’s like homogenous grayness. Do you think that even out of that homogenous greatness where there’s no you know, negative entropy, that you know there’s no uh free energy that we understand, even from that,

莉芙: 是的。所以，是的，出现有趣的，好的。嗯，那么，那如何与，宇宙的整个热寂，相一致呢，对吧？因为，那是，那是它的另一种，比如，实例化。这就像，一切都变得如此遥远，而且，如此寒冷，而且，如此完美地混合在一起，以至于它就像同质的灰色。你认为，即使在那同质的伟大中，那里没有，你知道，负熵，你知道，那里没有，呃，我们理解的自由能，即使从那，

Lex: New.

莱克斯: 新的。

Liv: Yeah. The paperclip maximizer, or any other intelligent systems, will figure out ways to travel to other universes, to create Big Bangs within those universes, or through black holes to create whole other worlds to break the, what we consider, the limitations of physics. The paperclip maximizer will find a way, if a way exists, and we’re, we should be humble to realize that we’ve been yet but,

莉芙: 是的。回形针最大化器，或者任何其他智能系统，会 figuring out 到其他宇宙旅行的方法，在那些宇宙中创造大爆炸，或者通过黑洞创造全新的世界，来打破，我们认为的，物理学的限制。回形针最大化器会找到办法，如果办法存在的话，而且我们，我们应该谦虚地意识到，我们还没有，但，

Lex: Because it just wants to make more paper clips.

莱克斯: 因为它只是想制造更多回形针。

Liv: Yeah. So it’s going to go into those universes, and turn them into paper clips. Yeah, but we, humans, not humans, but complex systems exist on top of that. We’re not interfering with it.

莉芙: 是的。所以，它会进入那些宇宙，而且把它们变成回形针。是的，但我们，人类，不是人类，但复杂系统存在于那之上。我们没有干预它。

Lex: This complexity emerges from this simple base state. The simple basis whether it’s, yeah, whether it’s you know Planck lengths, or paper clips, is the base unit.

莱克斯: 这种复杂性从这种简单的基本状态中涌现出来。简单的基础，无论是，是的，无论是，你知道，普朗克长度，还是回形针，都是基本单位。

Liv: Yeah. You can think of like the universe as a paperclip maximizer because it’s doing some dumb stuff, like physics seems to be pretty dumb. It has like, I don’t know if you can summarize it.

莉芙: 是的。你可以把宇宙想象成一个回形针最大化器，因为它在做一些愚蠢的事情，比如，物理学似乎很愚蠢。它有，比如，我不知道你是否可以总结它。

Lex: Yeah. Yeah. The the laws are fairly basic and yet, out of them, amazing complexity emerges and its goals seem to be pretty basic and dumb if you can summarize as goals. I mean, I don’t I don’t know what’s a nice way. Maybe um maybe laws of thermodynamics could be, I don’t know if you can assign goals to physics, but if you formulate in the science, in the sense of goals, it’s very similar to paperclip maximizing, in in the dumbness of the goals. But the the pockets of complexity has emerged is where beauty emerges, that’s where life emerges, that’s where intelligence, that’s where humans emerge and I i, think we’re being very down on this whole paperclip maximizer thing now.

莱克斯: 是的。是的。那，那些定律相当基本，然而，从它们中，涌现出惊人的复杂性，而且，如果你可以总结为目标的话，它的目标似乎相当基本，而且愚蠢。我的意思是，我不，我不知道什么是一种好的方式。也许，嗯，也许热力学定律可以，我不知道你是否可以给物理学设定目标，但如果你用科学，用目标的意义来表述，它非常类似于回形针最大化，在，在目标的愚蠢性方面。但，已经涌现的复杂性的口袋，是美涌现的地方，那是生命涌现的地方，那是智慧涌现的地方，那是人类涌现的地方，而且我，我，我认为我们现在对整个回形针最大化器的事情，非常悲观。

Liv: The reason we hate it I think.

莉芙: 我认为，那是我们讨厌它的原因。

Lex: Yeah. Because what you’re saying is that you think that the force of emergence itself is another, like unwritten, unwritten but like another fake, to in, law of the, of of reality.

莱克斯: 是的。因为，你所说的是，你认为，涌现的力量本身是另一个，比如，不成文的，不成文的，但，比如，另一个假的，在，现实的，的，定律。

Liv: Yeah, and, and you you’re trusting that emergence will find a way to even, out of seemingly the most Moloch-y, awful out, you know, plain outcome, emergence will still find a way.

莉芙: 是的，而且，而且，你，你相信，涌现会找到办法，即使，从表面上看，最摩洛神化的，可怕的，你知道，平淡的结果中，涌现仍然会找到办法。

Lex: I love that as a philosophy. I think it’s very nice.

莱克斯: 我喜欢这个哲学。我认为它非常好。

Liv: I would wield it carefully because there’s large error bars on, on that, and the certainty of that.

莉芙: 我会谨慎地使用它，因为，关于那，以及它的确定性，有很大的误差线。

Lex: Yeah. Um and while we build the paperclip maximizer and find out, classic.

莱克斯: 是的。嗯，而且，在我们建造回形针最大化器，而且弄清楚之前，经典。

Liv: Yeah. Moloch is doing cartwheels, man.

莉芙: 是的。摩洛神在做侧手翻，伙计。

Lex: Yeah. But the thing is, it will destroy humans in the process, which is the thing, which is the reason we really don’t like it. We, we seem to be really holding on to this whole, “Human civilization thing.” Would you, would that make you said if AI systems that are beautiful, that are conscious, that are interesting and complex and intelligent, ultimately lead to the death of humans, that make you sad?

莱克斯: 是的。但问题是，它会在过程中摧毁人类，这就是那件事，那就是我们真正不喜欢它的原因。我们，我们似乎真的在坚持整个，“人类文明的事情。”你会，如果人工智能系统是美丽的，是有意识的，是有趣的，而且是复杂的，而且是智能的，最终导致人类的死亡，那会让你难过吗？

Liv: If humans led to the death of humans.

莉芙: 如果人类导致人类的死亡。

Lex: Sorry, like, if they would supersede humans.

莱克斯: 对不起，比如，如果他们会取代人类。

Liv: Oh, if some AI yeah. AI would uh would end humans. I mean that’s that’s that’s the reason why I’m like in some ways, and less emotionally concerned about AI risk as then say bio, you know, bio risk, because at least with AI there’s a chance you know, if, if we’re in this hypothetical where it wipes out humans but it does it for some like higher purpose, it needs our atoms to an energy to do something, at least now there’s, the universe is going on to do something interesting um whereas if it wipes everything, you know, bio, like, just kills everything on Earth and that’s it, and there’s no more, you know, Earth cannot spawn anything more meaningful in the in the few hundred million years it has less left because it doesn’t have much time left. Um then, uh, yeah, I I don’t know. So one of my favorite books I’ve ever read is uh, “Novacene,” by James Lovelock who, sadly, just died. Um he wrote it when he was like 99. He died aged 102, so it’s a fairly new book um and he sort of talks about that, that he thinks it’s you know, so building off this Gaia theory, where like Earth is like living, some form of intelligence itself and that this is the next like step, right? Is this this whatever, this new intelligence that is maybe silicon-based as opposed to carbon-based, goes on to do, um, and it’s really sort of in some ways an optimistic but rudely fatalistic book um and I don’t know if I fully subscribe to it, but it’s a beautiful piece to read anyway.

莉芙: 哦，如果一些人工智能，是的。人工智能会，呃，会终结人类。我的意思是，那，那，那就是为什么我，比如，在某些方面，而且对人工智能风险的情感关注，比，比如，生物，你知道，生物风险要少，因为至少在人工智能方面，有机会，你知道，如果，如果我们处于这个假设中，它消灭了人类，但它这样做的目的是为了某种，比如，更高的目的，它需要我们的原子，和能量，来做某事，至少现在，有，宇宙正在做一些有趣的事情，嗯，而如果它消灭了一切，你知道，生物，比如，只是杀死了地球上的所有东西，而且就是这样，而且，没有更多，你知道，地球无法在，在它剩下的几亿年里，孕育出任何更有意义的东西，因为它没有多少时间了。嗯，然后，呃，是的，我，我不知道。所以，我最喜欢的书之一是，呃，“新星世”，作者是詹姆斯·洛夫洛克，他，可悲的是，刚刚去世。嗯，他在 99 岁的时候写了它。他死于 102 岁，所以，它是一本相当新的书，嗯，而且他有点谈到了那个，他认为它是，你知道，所以，建立在这个盖亚理论的基础上，比如，地球就像活着的，某种形式的智慧本身，而且这是下一个，比如，步骤，对吧？是，这个，这个，无论什么，这个新的智慧，它可能是基于硅的，而不是基于碳的，它继续做，嗯，而且它实际上有点，在某些方面，是一本乐观的，但粗鲁的宿命论的书，嗯，而且我不知道我是否完全赞同它，但不管怎样，它是一本美丽的书，值得一读。

Lex: So, am I sad by that idea? I think so, yes. And actually, yeah, this is the reason why I’m sad by the idea because if something is truly brilliant, and wise, and smart, and truly super intelligent, it should be able to figure out abundance. So if it figures out abundance, it shouldn’t need to kill us off, it should be able to find a way for us, it should be there’s plenty, the universe is huge, there should be plenty of space for it to go out and do all the things it wants to do and like give us a little pocket where we can continue doing our things and we can continue to do things and so on. Um, and again, if it’s so supremely wise, it shouldn’t even be worried about the game theoretic considerations that by leaving us alive, we’ll then go and create another, like super intelligent agent that it then has to compete against, because it should be omni-wise, and smart enough to not have to concern itself with that,

莱克斯: 那么，我为那个想法感到难过吗？我想是的，是的。而且，实际上，是的，这就是我为那个想法感到难过的原因，因为如果某件事是真正聪明的，而且明智的，而且聪明的，而且真正超级智能的，它应该能够 figuring out 丰富。所以，如果它 figured out 丰富，它就不应该需要杀死我们，它应该能够为我们找到一种方法，它应该是，有很多，宇宙是巨大的，它应该有足够的空间出去做它想做的所有事情，而且，比如，给我们一个小小的空间，在那里，我们可以继续做我们的事情，而且我们可以继续做事情，等等。嗯，而且，再一次，如果它是如此超级明智，它甚至不应该担心博弈论的考虑，即，通过让我们活着，我们然后会去，而且创造另一个，比如，超级智能的代理，它然后必须与之竞争，因为它应该是全知的，而且足够聪明，不必担心那，

Liv: Unless, unless it deems humans to be kind of like, uh, like the humans are a source of none of, a lose-lose kind of dynamics.

莉芙: 除非，除非它认为人类有点像，呃，比如，人类是一种，双输，类型的动态的来源。

Lex: Well, yes and no,

莱克斯: 嗯，是的，也不全是，

Liv: We’re not Moloch, that’s why I think it’s important to say,

莉芙: 我们不是摩洛神，这就是为什么我认为，说，很重要，

Lex: Well, maybe humans are the source of Moloch.

莱克斯: 嗯，也许人类是摩洛神的来源。

Liv: No. I mean I think game theory is the source of Moloch, and you know, because Moloch exists in in non-human systems as well. It happens within like agents within a game, in terms of like, you know, uh, it applies to agents, but it, like, it can apply to you know, uh, a species that’s on an island, of animals, you know? Rats outcompeting the ones that like massively consume all the resources, are the ones that are going to win out, over the more like chill socialized ones. And so you know, creates this Malthusian trap, like, Moloch exists in little pockets in nature as well.

莉芙: 不。我的意思是，我认为博弈论是摩洛神的来源，而且，你知道，因为摩洛神也存在于非人类系统中。它发生在，比如，游戏中的代理人之间，在，比如，你知道，呃，它适用于代理人，但它，比如，它可以适用于，你知道，呃，一个在岛上的物种，动物，你知道吗？老鼠胜过那些，比如，大量消耗所有资源的，是那些会胜出的，胜过那些更像，冷静的，社交化的。所以，你知道，这创造了这种马尔萨斯陷阱，比如，摩洛神也存在于自然界的小角落里。

Lex: Well, so it’s not a strictly human, I wonder if it’s actually a result, the consequences of the invention of predator and prey dynamics.

莱克斯: 嗯，所以，它不是严格意义上的人类，我想知道它是否实际上是一个结果，捕食者和猎物动态的发明的后果。

Liv: Maybe it needs to, AI will have to kill off every organism that,

莉芙: 也许它需要，人工智能必须杀死每一个，

Lex: You’re talking about killing off competition.

莱克斯: 你是在说杀死竞争。

Liv: Not competition, but just um, like the way it’s like, uh, like the weeds or whatever, in, in a beautiful flower garden.

莉芙: 不是竞争，但只是，嗯，比如，它的方式就像，呃，比如，杂草，或者其他什么，在，在一个美丽的花园里。

Lex: The parasites, yeah.

莱克斯: 寄生虫，是的。

Liv: On on the whole system. Now of course it will, it will, it won’t do that completely, it’ll put them in a zoo, like we do with parasites.

莉芙: 在，在整个系统上。现在，当然，它会，它会，它不会完全这样做，它会把它们放在动物园里，就像我们对待寄生虫一样。

Lex: It’ll ring fence, yeah. And there’ll be somebody doing a Ph.D on like, they’ll prod humans with a stick and see what they do. But, uh, I mean, in terms of letting us run wild, outside of the, uh, uh you know, a geographically constrained region that might be, uh, that you might have, uh, decided against that.

莱克斯: 它会圈起来，是的。而且会有人在做博士学位，比如，他们会用棍子戳人类，而且看看他们会做什么。但，呃，我的意思是，就让我们在，呃，呃，你知道，一个地理上受限的区域之外，狂奔而言，那可能，呃，你可能，呃，已经决定反对了。

Liv: No, I think there’s obviously the capacity for beauty and kindness and, non-uh non-Moloch behavior amidst humans. So I’m pretty sure AI will preserve us uh let me you, I don’t know if you answered the the aliens question you,

莉芙: 不，我认为，显然，人类中有美和善良，以及，非，呃，非摩洛神行为的能力。所以，我很确定人工智能会保护我们，呃，让我，你，我不知道你是否回答了，那，那个外星人的问题，你，

Lex: No, I didn’t.

莱克斯: 不，我没有。

Liv: You had a good conversation with Toby, uh,

莉芙: 你和托比进行了一次很好的谈话，呃，

Lex: Toby.

莱克斯: 托比。

Liv: Yes, about various sides of the universe, I think, did, did he say, no, I’m forgetting, but I think he said it’s a good chance we’re alone.

莉芙: 是的，关于宇宙的各个方面，我想，他，他说过吗，不，我忘记了，但我认为他说过，我们很可能是孤独的。

Lex: So the the, the classic you know Fermi Paradox question is um there are so many spawn points and yet you know, it didn’t take us that long to go from harnessing fire to sending out radio signals into space. So surely, given the vastness of space, we should be, and you know even if only a tiny fraction of those create life and other civilizations too, we should be, the universe should be very noisy, there should be evidence of Dyson Spheres, or whatever, you know? Like at least radio signals and so on, but seemingly, things are very silent out there. Um now, of course it depends on who you speak to. Some people say that they’re getting signals all the time, and so on, and like I don’t want to make an epistemic statement on that, but um, it seems like there’s a lot of silence, and so that raises this paradox. And then they, the, the, you know, the Drake Equation, so the Drake Equation is like, uh, basically just a simple thing of like trying to estimate the number of possible, uh, civilizations within the galaxy by multiplying the number of, uh, stars created per year by the number of stars that have planets, planets that are habitable, blah, blah, blah. So all these like different factors, um, and then you plug in numbers into that, and you you know, depending on like the range of you know your lower bound and your upper bound, point, point estimates that you put in, you get out a number at the end, for the number of civilizations. But what Toby and his crew did, um, differently, was, Toby, this is a researcher at the Future Humanity Institute, uh, they, instead of, they realize that it’s like basically a statistical quirk that if you put in point sources, even if you think you’re putting in conservative point sources, because on some of these variables the, the uncertainty is so large, it spans like maybe even like a couple of hundred orders of magnitude, um, by putting in point sources it’s always going to lead to um, overestimates. Um and so they, by putting stuff on a log scale, actually they did it on like a log-log scale on some of them, um, and then, like, ran the simulation across the whole um, bucket of uncertainty across all those orders of magnitude. When you do that, then, actually, the number comes out much, much smaller, and that’s the more statistically rigorous, you know, mathematically correct way of doing the calculation. It’s still a lot of hand waving, as science goes. It’s it’s like definitely, you know, just waving, I don’t know what an analogy is, but it’s hand wavy. Um and, uh anyway, when they did this and then they did a Bayesian update on it as well, to like factor in the fact that there is no evidence that we’re picking up, because you know, “No evidence is actually a form of evidence,” right? Um and the long and short of it comes out that the we’re roughly around 70 to be the only, uh, intelligent civilization in our galaxy thus far, and around 50/50 in the entire observable universe, which sounds so crazily counter-intuitive, but their math is legit.

莱克斯: 所以，那，那，经典的，你知道，费米悖论问题是，嗯，有这么多产卵点，然而，你知道，我们从掌握火到向太空发射无线电信号，并没有花那么长时间。所以，当然，考虑到太空的浩瀚，我们应该，而且，你知道，即使只有一小部分创造了生命，以及其他文明，我们也应该，宇宙应该非常嘈杂，应该有戴森球的证据，或者其他什么，你知道吗？比如，至少有无线电信号，等等，但表面上看，那里非常安静。嗯，现在，当然，这取决于你和谁交谈。有些人说，他们一直在收到信号，等等，而且，比如，我不想对此发表任何认知论的声明，但，嗯，看起来，有很多沉默，所以，这引发了这个悖论。然后，他们，那，那，你知道，德雷克方程，所以，德雷克方程就像，呃，基本上只是一个简单的东西，比如，试图估计星系中可能的，呃，文明的数量，通过将，呃，每年产生的恒星数量，乘以拥有行星的恒星数量，宜居行星，等等，等等。所以，所有这些，比如，不同的因素，嗯，然后，你把数字代入其中，而且你，你知道，取决于，比如，你知道的，你的下限和上限的范围，点，你代入的点估计，你最终会得到一个数字，代表文明的数量。但托比和他的团队，嗯，不同的是，托比，他是未来人类研究所的一名研究员，呃，他们，而不是，他们意识到，它，比如，基本上是一个统计上的怪癖，如果你代入点源，即使你认为你代入的是保守的点源，因为在这些变量中，一些变量，不确定性如此之大，它跨越了，比如，甚至，比如，几百个数量级，嗯，通过代入点源，它总是会导致，嗯，高估。嗯，所以，他们，通过把东西放在对数刻度上，实际上，他们在其中一些，嗯，上，比如，做了对数对数刻度，嗯，然后，比如，在整个，嗯，不确定性范围内，运行模拟，跨越所有那些数量级。当你这样做时，然后，实际上，得到的数字，会小得多，得多，而且那是更严格的统计，你知道，数学上正确的计算方法。就科学而言，它仍然有很多手势。它，它就像，当然，你知道，只是挥舞着，我不知道什么是比喻，但它是手势。嗯，而且，呃，不管怎样，当他们这样做时，然后，他们也对它进行了一次贝叶斯更新，比如，把没有我们正在接收的证据的事实，考虑进去，因为，你知道，“没有证据实际上是一种证据，”对吧？嗯，而且，长话短说，我们大约有 70% 的可能性，是迄今为止，我们星系中唯一的，呃，智慧文明，而且在整个可观测宇宙中，大约有 50/50 的可能性，这听起来非常违反直觉，但他们的数学是合法的。

Lex: Well, yeah, the math around this particular equation, which equation is ridiculous on many levels, but uh the the the, the powerful thing about the equation is, there’s the different things, different components that can be estimated, and the error bars on which can be reduced with science and enhanced throughout, since the equation came out, the error box have been coming out on different atoms.

莱克斯: 嗯，是的，围绕这个特定方程的数学，这个方程在很多层面上都很荒谬，但，呃，那，那，那，这个方程的强大之处在于，有不同的东西，不同的组成部分，可以估计，而且，误差线，可以通过科学，以及在整个过程中，来减少，自方程问世以来，误差框一直在出现在不同的原子上。

Liv: Yeah. That’s right.

莉芙: 是的。没错。

Lex: Aspects, and so that it almost kind of says, uh, what like this gives you a mission to reduce the error bars on these estimates now over a period of time, and once you do, you can better and better understand, like, in the process of redoing the error bars, you’ll get to understand actually, “What is the right way to find out where the aliens are, how many of them there are,” and all those kinds of things. So I don’t, I think it’s good to use that for an estimation. I think you do have to think from like more like from first principles, just looking at what life is on Earth. Like and trying to understand the very physics-based, biologic, chemistry, biology-based question of, “What is life? Maybe computation based, what the is this thing?” Right? And that like, “How difficult is it to create this thing?” Right? It’s one way to say like, “How many planets like this are out there?” All that kind of stuff, but it feels like from our very limited knowledge perspective, the right ways to think, “How, how does, what is this thing, and how does it originate from, from very simple non-life things? How does complex life like things emerge from from a rock to a bacteria, protein, and these like weird systems that encode information and pass information from, self-replicate, and then also, select each other and mutate in interesting ways, such that they can adapt and evolve and build increasingly more complex systems?” Right?

莱克斯: 方面，所以，它几乎有点像在说，呃，什么，比如，这给了你一个任务，现在，在一段时间内，减少这些估计上的误差线，而且一旦你做到了，你就能越来越好地理解，比如，在重做误差线的过程中，你实际上会理解，“找到外星人所在位置的正确方法是什么，它们有多少，”以及所有这些事情。所以，我不，我认为用它来进行估计是好的。我认为你确实必须从，比如，更像从第一性原理来思考，只是看看地球上的生命是什么。比如，而且试图理解那个非常基于物理的，生物的，化学的，生物学的问题，“生命是什么？也许是基于计算的，这东西到底是什么？”对吧？而且，那，比如，“创造这东西有多难？”对吧？这是一种说法，比如，“外面有多少这样的行星？”所有那些东西，但从我们非常有限的知识角度来看，感觉，思考的正确方法是，“如何，如何，这东西是什么，而且它是如何从，从非常简单的，非生命的东西中起源的？像这样的复杂生命，是如何从岩石到细菌，蛋白质，以及这些，比如，奇怪的系统中涌现出来的，这些系统编码信息，而且传递信息，自我复制，然后，还有，互相选择，而且以有趣的方式变异，这样它们就可以适应，而且进化，而且构建越来越复杂的系统？”对吧？

Liv: Well, it’s a form of information processing.

莉芙: 嗯，它是一种信息处理的形式。

Lex: Yeah. Right, right? Whereas information transfer, but then also an energy processing which then results in,

莱克斯: 是的。没错，没错？然而，信息传递，但，然后，还有能量处理，它然后导致，

Liv: If I guess information processing maybe, I’m getting buggered.

莉芙: 如果我猜，也许是信息处理，我被 buggered 了。

Lex: Well, it’s doing some modification and yeah, the input is some energy, right? It’s able to extract, yeah, extract resources uh from its environment in order to achieve a goal, but the goal doesn’t seem to be clear, right?

莱克斯: 嗯，它正在做一些修改，而且，是的，输入是一些能量，对吧？它能够提取，是的，从它的环境中提取资源，呃，为了实现一个目标，但目标似乎并不清楚，对吧？

Liv: The the goal is, well, the goal is to make more of itself.

莉芙: 那，目标是，嗯，目标是让自己变得更多。

Lex: Yeah, but in a way that uh increases, I mean, I don’t know if evolution is a fundamental law of the universe, but it seems to want to replicate itself in a way that maximizes the chance of its survival.

莱克斯: 是的，但以一种，呃，增加的方式，我的意思是，我不知道进化是否是宇宙的基本定律，但它似乎想以一种最大化其生存机会的方式，复制自己。

Liv: Individual agents within,

莉芙: 个体代理在，

Lex: Yeah. An ecosystem do,

莱克斯: 是的。一个生态系统，

Liv: Yes. Yes. Evolution itself doesn’t give a, right? It’s a very it,

莉芙: 是的。是的。进化本身并不，对吧？它非常，它，

Lex: Don’t care.

莱克斯: 不在乎。

Liv: It’s just like, “Oh, you optimize it?” Well, at least it’s certainly um,

莉芙: 它就像，“哦，你优化它？”嗯，至少它肯定是，嗯，

Lex: Yeah, it doesn’t care about the the welfare of the individual agents within it, but it does seem to, I don’t know. I i think it’s, I think the mistake is that we’re anthropomorphizing and to even try to you know give evolution a mindset. Um because it is, there’s a really great post by Eliezer uh, Yudkowsky, on um uh LessWrong, which is um, “An Alien God.” And he talks about like the mistake we make when we try and like put our mind, think through things from an evolutionary perspective, as though like giving evolution like some kind of agency and, “What it wants.” Um yeah, worth reading, but yeah.

莱克斯: 是的，它不在乎，那，其中个体代理的福祉，但它确实似乎，我不知道。我，我认为，我认为错误是，我们在拟人化，而且甚至试图，你知道，给进化一个思维模式。嗯，因为它，有一篇非常棒的文章，作者是埃利泽，呃，尤德考斯基，在，嗯，呃，LessWrong 上，它是，嗯，“一个外星神”。而且他谈到了，比如，我们犯的错误，当我们试图，比如，把我们的思想，从进化的角度思考问题时，就好像，比如，给进化某种 agency，以及，“它想要什么。”嗯，是的，值得一读，但，是的。

Liv: I i would like to say that having interacted with a lot of really smart people that say that anthropomorphization is a mistake, I would like to say that saying that anthropomorphization is a mistake, is a mistake.

莉芙: 我，我，我想说，在与很多真正聪明的人互动后，他们说拟人化是一个错误，我想说，说拟人化是一个错误，是一个错误。

Lex: I think there’s a lot of power in anthropomorphization, if I can only say that word correctly one time. I, i, i think that’s actually a really powerful way to reason through things and I think people, especially people on robotics, seem to run away from it as fast as possible and, uh, I i, just,

莱克斯: 我认为拟人化有很多力量，如果我能一次正确地说出那个词的话。我，我，我认为那实际上是一种非常强大的推理方式，而且我认为人们，特别是机器人领域的人，似乎尽可能快地逃避它，而且，呃，我，我，只是，

Liv: Can you give an example of like how it helps in robotics?

莉芙: 你能举一个，比如，它如何在机器人领域有所帮助的例子吗？

Lex: Oh, in, uh, that our world is a world of humans. And to see robots as fundamentally just tools runs away from the fact that we live in a world of, a dynamic world of humans, that like these all these game theory systems we’ve we’ve talked about that a robot that ever has to interact with humans and I don’t mean like intimate friendship interaction, I mean in a factory setting, where it has to deal with the uncertainty of humans, all that kind of stuff, you have to acknowledge that the robot’s behavior has an effect on the human just as much as the human has an effect on the robot, and there’s a dance there, and you have to realize that this entity, when a human sees a robot, this is obvious in a physical manifestation of a robot, they feel a certain way, they have a fear, they have uncertainty, they um they, they have their own personal life projections, we have pets and dogs and the thing looks like a dog, they have their own memories of what a dog is like, they have certain feelings, and that’s going to be useful in a safety setting, safety critical setting, which is one of the most trivial settings for a robot in terms of how to avoid any kind of dangerous situations. And a robot should really con consider that in navigating its environment, and we humans are right to reason about how a robot should consider navigating its environment through anthropomorphization. I, i, I also think our brains are designed to think in, in, in human um human terms. Like, game theory, I think, is um is is best applied in the space of human decisions, and so uh right, you’re dealing, I mean with things like AI, AI’s, they are, you know, we can somewhat, like, I don’t think it’s, the reason I, I say anthropomorphization, “We need to be careful with,” is because there is a danger of overly applying, overly wrongly assuming, that, that this artificial intelligence is going to operate in any similar way to us because it is operating on a fundamentally different substrate. Like, even dogs, or even mice, or whatever, in some ways like anthropomorphizing them is less of a mistake I think than an AI, even though it’s an AI we built and so on, because at least we know that they’re running from the same substrate, and they’ve and they’ve also evolved from the same, out of the same evolutionary process, you know? They’ve followed this evolution of like needing to compete for resources and needing to find a mate and that kind of stuff. Whereas an AI that has just popped into an existence somewhere on a, like, a cloud server, let’s say, you know, or whatever, however it runs and whatever, whether, I don’t know whether they have an internal experience, I don’t think they necessarily do, in fact, I don’t think they do, but the point is, is that to try and apply any kind of modeling of like, see, thinking through problems and decisions in the same way that we do, has to be done extremely carefully because they are like they’re so alien, their method of, whatever, their form of thinking is, it’s just so different because they’ve never had to evolve, you know, in the same way.

莱克斯: 哦，在，呃，我们的世界是人类的世界。而且把机器人仅仅看作是工具， fundamentally，就偏离了我们生活在一个，一个充满活力的人类世界的事实，比如，所有这些我们，我们谈论过的博弈论系统，一个必须与人类互动的机器人，我的意思不是，比如，亲密的友谊互动，我的意思是，在工厂环境中，在那里，它必须处理人类的不确定性，所有这些东西，你必须承认机器人的行为对人类的影响，与人类对机器人的影响一样大，而且那里有一种舞蹈，而且你必须意识到这个实体，当一个人看到一个机器人时，这在机器人的物理表现中很明显，他们会有一种感觉，他们有一种恐惧，他们有不确定性，他们，嗯，他们，他们有他们自己的人生投射，我们有宠物和狗，而且那东西看起来像一只狗，他们有他们自己关于狗是什么样子的记忆，他们有某些感觉，而且那将在安全环境中，安全关键环境中，非常有用，那对机器人来说，是最微不足道的环境之一，就如何避免任何类型的危险情况而言。而且，机器人应该真正，考虑在导航其环境时，考虑这一点，而且我们人类，有理由，通过拟人化，来推理机器人应该如何考虑导航其环境。我，我，我还认为我们的大脑被设计成以，以，以人类，嗯，人类的方式思考。比如，博弈论，我认为，嗯，是，是，最好应用于人类决策领域，所以，呃，没错，你正在处理，我的意思是，像人工智能，人工智能之类的东西，它们，你知道，我们可以有点，比如，我不认为，我，我说拟人化，“我们需要小心，”的原因是，存在过度应用，过度错误地假设，那，那个人工智能会以任何类似于我们的方式运作的危险，因为它是在一个 fundamentally 不同的基质上运作的。比如，即使是狗，或者甚至是老鼠，或者其他什么，在某些方面，比如，把它们拟人化，我认为，比人工智能，要少犯错误，即使它是我们建造的人工智能，等等，因为至少我们知道它们运行在同一个基质上，而且它们，而且它们也从同一个，从同一个进化过程中进化而来，你知道吗？它们遵循了这种进化，比如，需要竞争资源，而且需要找到配偶，以及类似的东西。而一个人工智能，它只是突然出现在某个地方，比如，一个云服务器上，让我们这么说，你知道，或者其他什么，无论它如何运行，以及其他什么，无论，我不知道它们是否有内部体验，我不认为它们一定有，事实上，我不认为它们有，但重点是，是，试图应用任何类型的建模，比如，看，以我们同样的方式，思考问题，而且做出决定，必须非常小心地进行，因为它们就像，它们是如此陌生，它们的方法，无论什么，它们的思维方式，它只是如此不同，因为它们从来没有，你知道，以同样的方式进化过。

Lex: Yeah. I was beautifully put. I was just playing devil’s advocate. I do think in certain contexts, anthropomorphization is not going to hurt you.

莱克斯: 是的。你说得太好了。我只是在扮演魔鬼代言人。我确实认为在某些情况下，拟人化不会伤害你。

Liv: Yes.

莉芙: 是的。

Lex: Engineers run away from it too fast for the most point.

莱克斯: 工程师们在大多数情况下，都太快地逃避它了。

Liv: You’re right.

莉芙: 你是对的。

Lex: Uh, do you have advice for young people today? Like the the 17-year-old that you were of, uh, how to live life you can be proud of? How to have a career you can be proud of in this world full of Moloch?

莱克斯: 呃，你对今天的年轻人有什么建议吗？比如，你 17 岁时的，呃，如何过上让你感到自豪的生活？在这个充满摩洛神的世界上，如何拥有一份让你感到自豪的职业？

Liv: Think about the win-wins, look for win-win situations and be careful not to you know, overly use your smarts to convince yourself that something is win-win when it’s not. So that’s difficult, and I don’t know how to advise you know, people on that, because it’s something I’m still figuring out myself um but have that as a sort of default mo uh don’t see things, everything, as a zero-sum game, try to find the positive-sum-ness, and like find waste, if it if there isn’t seem to be one, “Consider playing a different game.” So that I would suggest that. Um, do not become a professional poker player, because people always ask, they’re like, “Oh, she’s a pro, I want to do that too.” Fine, you could have done it if you were, you know, when I started out it was a very different situation back then, poker is you know, uh, a great game to learn in order to understand the way, ways to think and I recommend people learn it, but don’t try to make a living from it these days, it’s almost, it’s very, very difficult to the point of being impossible. Um and then really, really be aware of how much time you spend on your phone, and on social media and really try and keep it to a minimum. Be aware that basically every moment that you spend on it is bad for you, so it doesn’t mean to say you can never do it, but just have that running in the background, “This I’m doing a bad thing for myself right now.” Um I think that’s the general rule of thumb.

莉芙: 思考双赢，寻找双赢的情况，而且小心不要，你知道，过度使用你的聪明才智，让自己相信某件事是双赢的，而它实际上不是。所以，这很困难，而且我不知道如何建议，你知道，人们关于那，因为，这是我仍然在 figuring out 的事情，嗯，但把它作为一种默认的模式，呃，不要把事情，所有事情，都看作是一场零和游戏，试着找到正和，而且，比如，找到浪费，如果它，如果它看起来没有，就“考虑玩一场不同的游戏”。所以，我会建议那样。嗯，不要成为一名职业扑克玩家，因为人们总是问，他们就像，“哦，她是一名职业玩家，我也想那样。”好吧，如果你，你知道，在我刚开始的时候，那是一个非常不同的情况，扑克，你知道，呃，是一个很好的游戏，可以学习，为了理解，思考的方式，而且我建议人们学习它，但不要试图在现在以此为生，它几乎，它非常，非常困难，以至于不可能。嗯，然后，真的，真的要 aware of 你在手机上，以及在社交媒体上花了多少时间，而且真的要尽量把它控制在最低限度。要知道，基本上，你花在它上面的每一刻，都对你有害，所以，这并不是说你永远不能做它，但只是让它在后台运行，“我现在正在为自己做一件坏事。”嗯，我认为这是一般的经验法则。

Lex: Of course, about becoming a professional poker player, if there is a thing in your life that, uh, that’s like that, and nobody can convince you otherwise, just do it. Um don’t listen to anyone’s advice,

莱克斯: 当然，关于成为一名职业扑克玩家，如果你的生活中有一件事，呃，是那样的，而且没有人能说服你，那就去做吧。嗯，不要听任何人的建议，

Liv: Find a thing that you can’t be talked out of too. That’s that’s,

莉芙: 找到一件你也不能被说服的事情。那，那是，

Lex: I like that. Yeah. Uh you you were uh a lead guitarist in the metal band.

莱克斯: 我喜欢那句话。是的。呃，你，你曾经，呃，是金属乐队的首席吉他手。

Liv: Oh, did I write that down for something?

莉芙: 哦，我把它写下来是为了什么吗？

Lex: Uh, what, that, did you, uh, what would you do it for? The the the the performing? Was it the the pure the the music of it? Was it just being a rockstar? Why’d you do it?

莱克斯: 呃，什么，那，你，呃，你为什么这样做？那，那，那，那，表演？它是，那，那，纯粹的，那，音乐？只是为了成为摇滚明星？你为什么这样做？

Liv: Um so, we only ever played two gigs. We, we didn’t last you know, it wasn’t a very, we weren’t famous or anything like that, um, but I I was very into metal like, it was my entire identity sort of from the age of 16 to 23.

莉芙: 嗯，所以，我们只演奏过两次。我们，我们没有持续，你知道，它不是一个非常，我们不是名人，或者类似的东西，嗯，但我，我非常喜欢金属，比如，它有点像我的全部身份，从 16 岁到 23 岁。

Lex: The best metal band of all time?

莱克斯: 有史以来最好的金属乐队？

Liv: Ah, don’t ask me that. It’s so hard to answer. Uh, ah, so I know I had a long argument with, um, I’m a guitarist, more like a classic rock guitarist, so you know I’ve had friends who are very big Pantera fans, and so there was often arguments about what’s the better metal band: Metallica versus Pantera? This is a more kind of ’90s maybe discussion. But I was always on the side of Metallica, both musically and in terms of performance, and the the depth of war, and lyrics, and and so on. So um, but they were, basically everybody was against me, because if you’re a true metal fan I guess the idea goes is, “You can’t possibly be a Metallica fan.” I think Metallica’s pop. It’s just like, it’s, they sold out.

莉芙: 啊，别问我那个。那太难回答了。呃，啊，所以，我知道我曾经和，嗯，我是一名吉他手，更像是一名经典摇滚吉他手，所以，你知道，我有一些朋友，他们是潘多拉的超级粉丝，所以，经常有关于哪个金属乐队更好的争论：金属乐队对抗潘多拉？这是一个更像是 90 年代的讨论，也许。但我总是站在金属乐队一边，无论是在音乐上，还是在表演方面，以及，那，战争的深度，以及歌词，等等。所以，嗯，但他们，基本上，每个人都反对我，因为如果你是一个真正的金属乐迷，我猜，想法是，“你不可能是金属乐队的粉丝。”我认为金属乐队是流行音乐。这就像，它，他们背叛了。

Lex: Metallica are metal, like they they were the, I mean, again, you can’t say, “Who was the godfather of metal,” blah, blah, but like they were so groundbreaking and so brilliant.

莱克斯: 金属乐队是金属，比如，他们，他们是，我的意思是，再一次，你不能说，“谁是金属乐之父，”等等，但，比如，他们是如此具有开创性，而且如此出色。

Liv: Um I i you’ve named literally two of my favorite bands. Like that’s that, when you ask that question, “Who are my favorites?” Like, those were two that came up. A third one is Children of Bodom, um, who I just think, they just take all the boxes for me. Um yeah, I don’t know, it’s nowadays like I kind of sort of feel like a repulsion to the, I mean I was that myself, like I’d be like, “Who do you prefer more? Come on, who’s,” like, “No, you have to rank them.” But it’s like this false zero-sum-ness that’s like, why? They’re so additive, like there’s no conflict there.

莉芙: 嗯，我，你实际上说出了我喜欢的两个乐队。比如，那，那，当你问那个问题，“谁是我最喜欢的？”比如，那是出现的两个。第三个是博多之子，嗯，我只是认为，他们符合我的所有标准。嗯，是的，我不知道，现在，比如，我有点感觉，比如，对，的排斥，我的意思是，我自己也是那样，比如，我会说，“你更喜欢谁？来吧，谁是，”比如，“不，你必须给他们排名。”但这就像这种虚假的零和，这就像，为什么？它们是如此相加，比如，那里没有冲突。

Lex: When people ask that kind of question about anything: movies, I feel like it’s hard work and it’s unfair but it’s, it’s, “You should pick one.”

莱克斯: 当人们问那种关于任何事情的问题时：电影，我觉得这很辛苦，而且不公平，但它，它是，“你应该选择一个。”

Liv: Yeah. Like, and I, that’s actually, you know, the same kind of, it’s like a fear of a commitment. People ask me, “What’s your favorite band?” It’s like, but I, you know, it’s good to pick.

莉芙: 是的。比如，而且我，那实际上，你知道，是同一类型的，它就像对承诺的恐惧。人们问我，“你最喜欢的乐队是什么？”这就像，但我，你知道，选择是好的。

Lex: Exactly, and thank you for, yeah, thank you for the tough question.

莱克斯: 没错，而且谢谢你，是的，谢谢你提出这个难题。

Liv: Yeah.

莉芙: 是的。

Lex: Uh, well maybe not, no, I don’t know when a lot of people are listening. Um can I just like, what, what is it, uh, no, it does it, it’s, are you still into metal?

莱克斯: 呃，嗯，也许不是，不，我不知道什么时候很多人在听。嗯，我可以，比如，什么，它是什么，呃，不，它，它，你仍然喜欢金属吗？

Liv: Uh funny enough, I was listening to a bunch before I came over here.

莉芙: 呃，有趣的是，在我来这里之前，我听了很多。

Lex: Oh, like you do you use it for like motivation,

莱克斯: 哦，比如，你，你用它来，比如，激励，

Liv: Yeah.

莉芙: 是的。

Lex: Or, get you in a certain way?

莱克斯: 或者，让你以某种方式？

Liv: Yeah. I was weirdly listening to ’80s hair metal before I came.

莉芙: 是的。我来之前，奇怪地听了一些 80 年代的华丽金属。

Lex: Does that count as metal?

莱克斯: 那算金属吗？

Liv: I think I think so. It’s it’s like proto-metal, and it’s happy. It’s optimistic.

莉芙: 我想，我想是的。它，它就像原始金属，而且它很快乐。它很乐观。

Lex: Happy proto-metal. Um, yeah. I mean, these things you know, all these genres bleed into each other, um but, yeah, sorry. To answer your question about guitar playing, my relationship with it was kind of weird, and that I was deeply uncreative. My objective would be to hear some really hard technical solo, and then learn it, memorize it, and then play it perfectly, but I was incapable of trying to write my own music, like, the idea was just absolutely terrifying. Um, uh, but I was also just thinking I was like, “It’d be kind of cool to actually try starting a band again and getting back into it.” And right, but, it’s scary, that’s scary. I mean, I I put out some guitar playing, just other people’s covers, like I play, “Comfortably Numb,” on on the internet.

莱克斯: 快乐的原始金属。嗯，是的。我的意思是，这些东西，你知道，所有这些类型都互相渗透，嗯，但，是的，对不起。为了回答你关于弹吉他的问题，我和它的关系有点奇怪，而且我非常缺乏创造力。我的目标是听到一些非常难的技术独奏，然后学习它，记住它，然后完美地演奏它，但我无法尝试写我自己的音乐，比如，这个想法绝对是可怕的。嗯，呃，但我只是在想，我就像，“实际上，尝试再次组建一支乐队，而且重新开始，会很酷。”而且，没错，但，那很可怕，那很可怕。我的意思是，我，我在网上发布了一些吉他演奏，只是别人的翻唱，比如，我演奏，“安逸地麻木”。

Liv: Nice. It’s scary too. It’s scary putting stuff out there uh, and I had this similar kind of fascination with technical playing, both on piano and guitar. You know, uh, one of the first um one of the reasons I started learning guitar is the, from Ozzy Osbourne, “Mr. Crowley,” solo. And one of the first solos I learned is that um and it’s, there’s a beauty to it, there’s a lot of beauty,

莉芙: 不错。那也很可怕。把东西发布出去很可怕，呃，而且我对技术演奏，在钢琴和吉他上，都有类似的迷恋。你知道，呃，其中一个，嗯，我开始学习吉他的原因之一是，来自奥兹·奥斯本，“克劳利先生”，独奏。而且我学到的第一个独奏是那个，嗯，而且，它，它有一种美，有很多美，

Lex: Right?

莱克斯: 对吧？

Liv: Yeah. Is there some tapping, but it’s, it’s just really fast.

莉芙: 是的。有一些点弦，但它，它只是非常快。

Lex: It’s beautiful, like arpeggios.

莱克斯: 它很美，就像琶音。

Liv: Yes, arpeggios, yeah, and but there’s a melody that you can hear through it, but there’s also build-up. It’s a beautiful solo, but it’s also technically, just visually, the way it looks when a person is watched, you feel like a rockstar player. But it ultimately has to do with technical you, you’re not developing the part of your brain that I think requires you to generate beautiful music, it is ultimately technical in nature. And so that took me a long time to let go of that and just be able to write music myself, and, and that’s a different, that’s a different journey, I think. I think that journey is a little bit more inspired in the blues world, for example, or improvisation is more valued, obviously in jazz, and so on, but, um, I i think ultimately, it’s a more rewarding journey because you get to, your relationship with the guitar then becomes a kind of escape from the world, where you can create, create. I mean, creating stuff is, uh, and it’s something you work with. Because my relationship with my guitar was like, it was something to tame and defeat.

莉芙: 是的，琶音，是的，而且，但有一种旋律，你可以通过它听到，但也有积累。它是一个美丽的独奏，但它也是技术性的，只是视觉上，当一个人被观看时，它的样子，你感觉就像一个摇滚明星演奏者。但它最终与技术有关，你，你没有发展你大脑中的那部分，我认为它需要你产生美丽的音乐，它最终是技术性的。所以，我花了很长时间才放弃它，而且只是能够自己写音乐，而且，而且，那是一个不同的，那是一个不同的旅程，我认为。我认为那段旅程，比如，在蓝调世界中，更受启发，或者，即兴创作更受重视，显然，在爵士乐中，等等，但，嗯，我，我认为，最终，这是一个更有回报的旅程，因为你，你与吉他的关系，然后变成了一种逃离世界的方式，在那里，你可以创造，创造。我的意思是，创造东西是，呃，而且它是你可以合作的东西。因为我与吉他的关系就像，它是一件需要驯服和战胜的东西。

Liv: Yeah. Which was kind of what my whole personality was back then. Like, I was just very like you know, as I said like very competitive, very just like, “Must bend this thing to my will.” Whereas writing music is, you were, it’s like a dance, you work with it. But I think, because of the competitive aspect, for me at least, that’s still there, which creates anxiety about uh playing publicly or all that kind of stuff. I think there’s just like a harsh self-criticism within the whole thing. It’s really, really, it’s, it’s really tough to hear some of your stuff I mean that there is, there’s certain things that feel really personal and and on top of that, as we talked about poker offline, there are certain things that you get to certain height in your life, and that doesn’t have to be very high, but you get to a certain height and then you put it aside for a bit, and it’s hard to return to it because you remember being good, and it’s hard to, um like you being at a very high level in poker, it might be hard for you to return to poker every once in a while and you enjoy it, knowing that you’re just not as sharp as it used to be because you’re not doing it every single day.

莉芙: 是的。那有点像我当时整个人格的样子。比如，我只是非常，比如，你知道，正如我所说，比如，非常有竞争力，非常，比如，“必须让这件事服从我的意志。”而写音乐是，你，它就像一场舞蹈，你与它合作。但我认为，因为竞争的方面，至少对我来说，那仍然存在，这让我对，呃，公开演奏，或者所有这些东西，感到焦虑。我认为，在整个事情中，有一种严厉的自我批评。它真的，真的，它，它真的很难听到你的一些东西，我的意思是，那里，有一些东西，感觉真的很私人，而且，除此之外，正如我们线下谈到的扑克，有一些东西，你在你的生活中达到了一定的高度，而且那不必很高，但你达到了一定的高度，然后，你把它放在一边一段时间，而且很难回到它，因为你记得自己曾经很好，而且很难，嗯，比如，你处于扑克的非常高的水平，对你来说，可能很难偶尔回到扑克，而且你享受它，知道你只是没有以前那么厉害了，因为你没有每天都在做它。

Lex: Uh, that, that’s something I always wonder with, I mean even just like in chess with Kasparov, some of these greats just returning to it, it’s just, it’s almost painful.

莱克斯: 呃，那，那是我一直想知道的事情，我的意思是，即使，比如，在国际象棋中，卡斯帕罗夫，一些伟大的棋手只是回到它，它只是，它几乎是痛苦的。

Liv: Yes. Yeah, and I feel that way with guitar too, you know? Because I used to play like every day, a lot. So returning to it is painful, because like it’s like accepting the fact that this whole ride is finite and the, you have, you have a prime. There’s a time when you’re really good, and now it’s over, and now we’re on a different chapter of life.

莉芙: 是的。是的，而且我也对吉他有这种感觉，你知道吗？因为我过去，比如，每天都弹，很多。所以，回到它很痛苦，因为，比如，它就像接受这样一个事实，整个旅程是有限的，而且，你，你有一个巅峰时期。有一段时间，你真的很棒，而且现在，它结束了，而且现在，我们正处于人生的不同篇章。

Lex: I was like, but you can still, you can still discover joy within that process. It’s been tough, especially with some level of, like as people get to know you, there’s a, and people film stuff, you you don’t have the privacy of just sharing something with a few people around you.

莱克斯: 我就像，但你仍然可以，你仍然可以在那个过程中发现快乐。这很艰难，特别是当人们对你有一定的了解时，比如，而且人们拍摄东西，你，你没有只是与你周围的几个人分享东西的隐私。

Liv: Yeah.

莉芙: 是的。

Lex: That’s a beautiful privacy that, that’s the point, well, the internet is disappearing.

莱克斯: 那是一种美丽的隐私，那，那就是重点，嗯，互联网正在消失。

Liv: Yeah. That’s a really good point, yeah. But all those pressures aside, if you really, you can step up and still enjoy the out of uh a good musical performance. Um, what what do you think is the meaning of this whole thing? What’s the meaning of life?

莉芙: 是的。那是一个非常好的观点，是的。但撇开所有这些压力，如果你真的，你可以站出来，而且仍然享受，呃，一场好的音乐表演。嗯，什么，什么，你认为这一切的意义是什么？生命的意义是什么？

Liv: Wow.

莉芙: 哇。

Lex: It’s in your name. As we talked about, you have to have to live up, do you feel the requirement to have to live up to your name? Because, “Live,” yeah.

莱克斯: 它就在你的名字里。正如我们谈到的，你必须，必须不辜负，你是否觉得有必要不辜负你的名字？因为，“莉芙，”是的。

Liv: No, because I don’t see it, I mean my, well again, it’s kind of like, no, I don’t know because my full name is Olivia, yeah? So I can retreat in that and be like, “Oh, Olivia, what does that even mean?”

莉芙: 不，因为我没有把它看作，我的意思是，我的，嗯，再一次，它有点像，不，我不知道，因为我的全名是奥利维亚，是的？所以，我可以退回到那个，而且说，“哦，奥利维亚，那到底是什么意思？”

Lex: Um live up to live.

莱克斯: 嗯，不辜负莉芙。

Liv: Uh, no, I i can’t say I I do because I’ve never thought of it that way.

莉芙: 呃，不，我，我不能说我，我这样做，因为我从来没有那样想过。

Lex: Okay. And then your name backwards is evil, that’s what I also talked about.

莱克斯: 好的。然后，你的名字倒过来是邪恶，那也是我谈到的。

Liv: Um, there’s, there’s like layers, I mean I i, feel the urge to, to live up to that, to be to be the inverse of evil, yeah? Um or even better, because I don’t think you know is the inverse of evil, good? Or is good something completely separate to that? I think my intuition says it’s the latter, but I don’t know, anyway. Again, getting in the weeds, um, what is the meaning of all this, uh, of life?

莉芙: 嗯，有，有，比如，层次，我的意思是，我，我，感觉到，必须不辜负那，成为，成为邪恶的反面，是的？嗯，或者，更好，因为我不认为，你知道，邪恶的反面，是善良吗？还是善良是完全独立于那的东西？我认为我的直觉告诉我，是后者，但，我不知道，不管怎样。再一次，钻牛角尖，嗯，所有这些，呃，生命的意义是什么？

Lex: Um why are we here?

莱克斯: 嗯，我们为什么在这里？

Liv: I think to explore, have fun, and understand. Um, and make more of here and to keep the game going over here. More more of, more of this, whatever this is, more of experience, just to have more of experience, and ideally, positive experience. Um, and more complex you know, to, I guess, try and put it into a sort of vaguely scientific term, um, make it so that the program required, the length of code required to describe the universe, is as long as possible, uh, and you know highly complex and therefore interesting because again like I know you know we bang the the the metaphor to death, but like tiled with, x you know, told with uh paper clips, doesn’t require that much of a code to describe, um, obviously, maybe something emerges from it, but at that steady state, assuming a steady state, it’s not very interesting whereas it seems like our universe is, over time, becoming more and more complex and interesting. There’s so much richness and beauty and diversity on this Earth, and I want that to continue and get more. I want more more, more diversity and I, in the very best sense of that word. Um, is, i, to me the the the, the goal of all this uh, yeah, yeah.

莉芙: 我认为是为了探索，玩乐，而且理解。嗯，而且创造更多这里，而且让游戏在这里继续下去。更多，更多这个，无论这是什么，更多体验，只是为了拥有更多体验，而且，理想情况下，是积极的体验。嗯，而且更复杂，你知道，为了，我猜，试图把它变成一个，比如，模糊的科学术语，嗯，让它，使得程序需要，描述宇宙所需的代码长度，尽可能长，呃，而且，你知道，高度复杂，因此，有趣，因为，再一次，比如，我知道，你知道，我们把，那，那，比喻，用死了，但，比如，用，x，你知道，用，呃，回形针铺成，不需要那么多代码来描述，嗯，显然，也许有些东西会从它中涌现出来，但在那个稳态，假设是一个稳态，它不是很有趣，而我们的宇宙似乎，随着时间的推移，变得越来越复杂，而且有趣。地球上有如此多的丰富性，美，以及多样性，而且我希望那能够继续下去，而且变得更多。我希望更多，更多，更多多样性，而且我，以那个词最好的意义。嗯，是，我，对我来说，所有这一切的，那，那，目标，呃，是的，是的。

Lex: And somehow, have fun in the process.

莱克斯: 而且，以某种方式，在这个过程中玩得开心。

Liv: Yes.

莉芙: 是的。

Lex: Because we do create a lot of fun things along in, instead of, in this creative force and all the beautiful things we create. Somehow there’s like a fun-ness to it. And perhaps that has to do with the finiteness of life, the finiteness of all these experiences, which is what makes them kind of unique, like the the fact that they end, there’s this, uh, whatever it is, falling in love, or, um, creating a piece of art, or creating a bridge or creating a rocket, or creating a I don’t know, just the the businesses that do that that that build something, or solve something, the fact that it is born and it dies um somehow uh embeds it with fun with joy for the people involved. I don’t know what that is, the finiteness of it it can do, some people struggle with the, you know, I mean, a big thing I think that one has to learn is, is being okay with things coming to an end. And uh, in terms of like some projects and so on, right? People cling on to things beyond what they’re meant to be doing, you know, beyond what make is reasonable. And I’m going to have to come to terms with this podcast coming to an end.

莱克斯: 因为我们确实创造了很多有趣的东西，在，而不是，在这股创造力中，以及我们创造的所有美丽的东西中。不知何故，它有一种乐趣。而且也许那与生命的有限性，所有这些体验的有限性有关，这就是它们有点独特的原因，比如，那，它们结束的事实，有这个，呃，无论它是什么，坠入爱河，或者，嗯，创造一件艺术品，或者创造一座桥，或者创造一枚火箭，或者创造一个，我不知道，只是，那些，那些，建造一些东西，或者解决一些问题的企业，它诞生，而且它死亡的事实，嗯，不知何故，呃，给参与其中的人们，嵌入了乐趣，快乐。我不知道那是什么，它的有限性，它可以做，有些人挣扎于，你知道，我的意思是，我认为，一个人必须学习的一件大事是，是，接受事情的结束。而且，呃，就，比如，一些项目，等等而言，对吧？人们 clinging on 到超过他们应该做的东西，你知道，超过合理的东西。而且我将不得不接受这个播客即将结束的事实。

Liv: I really enjoy talking to you.

莉芙: 我真的很喜欢和你聊天。

Lex: I, i, think it’s obvious, as we’ve talked about many times, you should be doing a podcast, you should, you’re already doing a lot, a lot of stuff publicly to the world, which is awesome, and you’re a great educator, you’re a great mind, you’re a great intellect, but it’s also this whole medium of just talking about it, it’s good, it’s a fun one, it it really is good, and it’s it’s just, it’s nothing but like, “Oh, it’s just so much fun,” and you can just get into so many,

莱克斯: 我，我，我认为这很明显，正如我们已经谈论过很多次，你应该做一个播客，你应该，你已经做了很多，很多事情，公开地向世界展示，这很棒，而且你是一个很棒的教育家，你有一个很棒的头脑，你是一个很棒的智者，但，它也是整个媒体，只是谈论它，它很好，它是一个有趣的东西，它，它真的很好，而且它，它只是，它什么都不是，只是，比如，“哦，它太有趣了，”而且你可以进入那么多，

Liv: Yeah, there’s this space to just explore and, and see what comes, and emerges, and yeah.

莉芙: 是的，有这个空间，可以探索，而且，而且看看会发生什么，而且出现，而且，是的。

Lex: Yeah. To understand yourself better, and if you’re talking to others, to understand them better.

莱克斯: 是的。为了更好地了解你自己，而且如果你在和别人交谈，为了更好地了解他们。

Liv: Yeah, and together with them. I mean I, you should do your, you should do your own podcast, but you should also do a podcast with c, as you talked about. The two of you have such, uh, different minds that like melt together in just hilarious ways, fascinating ways. Just uh the tension of ideas there is really powerful. But, in general, I think you, you got a beautiful voice, so thank you.

莉芙: 是的，而且和他们一起。我的意思是，我，你应该做你的，你应该做你自己的播客，但你也应该和 c 一起做一个播客，正如你谈到的。你们两个人有如此，呃，不同的思想，比如，以滑稽的方式，迷人的方式，融合在一起。只是，呃，那里思想的张力真的很强大。但，总的来说，我认为你，你有一个优美的声音，所以，谢谢你。

Lex: Thank you so much for talking today. Thank you for being a friend. Thank you for honoring me with this conversation with your valuable time.

莱克斯: 非常感谢你今天来交谈。谢谢你成为朋友。谢谢你用你宝贵的时间，来参加这次谈话，让我感到荣幸。

Liv: Thanks, Lex.

莉芙: 谢谢，莱克斯。

Lex: Thank you. Thanks for listening to this conversation with Liv Boeree. To support this podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, let me leave you with some words from Richard Feynman:

莱克斯: 谢谢。感谢收听与莉芙·博埃里的对话。为了支持这个播客，请在描述中查看我们的赞助商。现在，让我用理查德·费曼的一些话，来结束今天的节目：

“I think it’s much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong. I have approximate answers and possible beliefs and different degrees of uncertainty about different things, but I’m not absolutely sure of anything, and there are many things I don’t know anything about, such as whether it means anything to ask why we’re here. I don’t have to know the answer. I don’t feel frightened not knowing things, by being lost in a mysterious universe without any purpose, which is the way it really is, as far as I can tell.”

“我认为，在不知道的情况下生活，比拥有可能是错误的答案，要有趣得多。我对不同的事情，有近似的答案，以及可能的信念，以及不同程度的不确定性，但我对任何事情都没有绝对的把握，而且有很多事情我完全不知道，比如，问我们为什么在这里，是否有意义。我不必知道答案。我不害怕不知道事情，不害怕迷失在一个没有目的的神秘宇宙中，据我所知，这就是它的真实面目。”

备注

此翻译由youtube字幕下载器下载英文字幕，由Gemini 1.5 Pro整理翻译，仅供参考

Tags: YouTube

Jesse Lau

網名遁去的一，簡稱遁一。2012年定居新西蘭至今，自由職業者。
本文采用知識共享署名 4.0 國際許可協議進行許可。簡而言之，可隨意轉發轉載，轉載請注明出處。

❮ Lex Friedman 访谈 Chris Lattner - 中英双语关于内容创作、商业与人生的思考 - Lex Fridman与MrBeast的对话翻译 ❯

遁一的博客空間

Lex Friedman 访谈 Liv Boeree - 中英双语

Lex Friedman 访谈 Liv Boeree - 中英双语

Information!

Liv Boeree 访谈 20 个要点总结

中英对照全文

备注

相关文章:

Jesse Lau

文章目录

Lex Friedman 访谈 Liv Boeree - 中英双语

Information!

Liv Boeree 访谈 20 个要点总结

中英对照全文

备注

相关文章:

Jesse Lau