连共和党人都开始反战：Reason 四人圆桌谈伊朗战争、40 万亿国债与 AI 时代的政府

《Reason》杂志的 The Reason Roundtable 是一档每周更新的四人圆桌节目：编辑部的几位编辑坐下来，把当周的美国政治与文化新闻过一遍，各自从自由至上主义的角度拆开。2026 年 9 月 28 日上线的这一期由 Peter Suderman 主持，常设编辑 Katherine Mangu-Ward、Nick Gillespie、Matt Welch 到场，没有嘉宾，全长 69 分 53 秒。12

官方章节把这一期切成五块：开头 19 分钟谈共和党人转向反战，19:25 起谈特朗普对经济的影响，27:50 起回答一位听众关于"怎么向朋友介绍 Reason"的提问，35:00 起谈 AI 会不会让政府变得不重要，57:05 起是四人的本周文化推荐。把这五块串起来的是同一个问题：当一场没人投票授权的战争、一条自己往上走的物价曲线、一个已经越过 40 万亿美元的国债，和一个刚刚开始闯祸的新技术同时出现，一群主张"政府越小越好"的编辑会怎么谈它们。1

这一期的看点在三处：共和党在中期选举前突然集体反战，是政治算计还是真变了；一个当年靠"不打中东战争"当选的总统，怎么就走进了一场中东战争；以及四人围绕 AI 的那场争论——它其实是把三十年来美国右翼关于"该不该出手"的老争论，换了个技术外壳又吵了一遍。

事情的时间线很紧。9 月 21 日，路透社与益普索（Reuters/Ipsos）的联合民调把特朗普的总体支持率打到 32%，是他从政以来的最低点，比前一周的 35% 又低了 3 个百分点；共和党人内部的支持率从 82% 掉到 73%。同一份民调里，只有 34% 的受访者支持对伊朗动武，82% 的人认为这场冲突会拖很久。3

第二天，艾奥瓦州联邦众议员 Ashley Hinson 与密歇根州共和党参议员候选人 Mike Rogers 在同一天公开要求结束这场战争，两人的说法都直接指向加油站的价签，Hinson 的原话是"艾奥瓦人正在被榨干，不该为伊朗战争在油泵和收银台前买单"。4 节目里 Suderman 数的是四个正在打硬仗的州：艾奥瓦、密歇根、内布拉斯加、俄亥俄。1

9 月 24 日，参议院就民主党人强行推动的战争权力决议（war powers resolution）投票，49 比 50 否决。四位共和党人站到了民主党一边：缅因州的 Susan Collins、阿拉斯加的 Lisa Murkowski、肯塔基州的 Rand Paul、北卡罗来纳州的 Thom Tillis；宾夕法尼亚州民主党人 John Fetterman 是唯一投反对票的民主党人。这类决议没有法律约束力，但按照节目里的说法，这已经是国会第 14 次就这场战争投票。5

Gillespie 给的解释最直白，也最不浪漫：是选举改变了立场，加上油价持续往上走、通胀没退，而特朗普又亲口让选民"把中期选举当成对我的公投"，于是共和党候选人只能跑开。1 他举的例子是 Mike Rogers——一个他形容为"一辈子做梦都想打仗"的鹰派，如今也在喊"体面地撤出来"。Suderman 顺势提醒了一句：撤出不等于战败。1

Welch 在这里放了一个冷枪。他说，"墙正在向特朗普合拢"这句话美国人已经听了十年，每个月都有人这么说，通常是因为某桩荒唐丑闻；这次的不同在于它来自再正常不过的东西——战争和经济。但他仍然不信"共和党人正在抛弃特朗普"这个论题：证据是那场战争权力决议投票，共和党里只走出四个人。他的结论是共和党会输掉一些席位，但"浪潮"这个词还言之过早。1

Mangu-Ward 把矛头对准了报道方式。她念了一段《纽约时报》的写法——"越来越多共和党人正在费力地与一场代价高昂、已膨胀成该党中期选举危机的战争拉开距离"——然后反问："膨胀"这件事本身就发生在打仗的时候，那才是危机；共和党后面遇到的选举麻烦，只是它的下游。她说，做了破坏性的政策、被人认出来，然后被选票赶下台，这本来就是选举应该工作的样子。1

战争本身没有因为这场投票停下来。9 月 26 日，特朗普表示拒绝了伊朗提出的一份方案：伊朗愿意在七天内重开霍尔木兹海峡、恢复核谈判，换取美国解除对伊朗港口的封锁，特朗普的回答是"我也想达成协议"，但他不接受这份。6 节目里 Mangu-Ward 用一句话概括海峡的状态：它关着，因为特朗普先开战，然后拒绝了对方递过来的台阶。1 这场战争从 2026 年 2 月开始，到 9 月下旬已造成至少 19 名美军死亡；柴油价格在 9 月冲上每加仑 6.5 美元以上的历史纪录高位。57

这一节是整期节目里最有信息量的一段，因为它把"特朗普为什么开战"这个问题，换成了"为什么每个总统都会开战"。

Suderman 的问题是：特朗普当年竞选时最大的卖点就是不打中东战争，为什么他还是走进去。Gillespie 的回答是这根本不是共和党的事，是总统这个位子的事。他搬出 1976 年 Bob Dole 当福特竞选搭档时抱怨"民主党人的战争"那段历史，指出真正让战争反复发生的不是党派，而是"总统可以做这件事"；他数了克林顿任内那些没有升级成大冲突的军事干预，也数了奥巴马把阿富汗战争加码这件事。至于特朗普这一次，他的判断是两个条件凑齐了：委内瑞拉那次动手太顺，以及身边没有人在他主意已定时泼冷水。1

Welch 接着把奥巴马这条对照线补完整：奥巴马是以"反战"的姿态赢下与希拉里·克林顿的初选，然后说了那句"我们不会再打新的糊涂仗"，再然后打了利比亚——无论当年怎么用"聪明武力"包装，结果是让一个国家和一个地区失稳，制造出一场难民危机，连当年支持那场战争的人现在也承认那是蠢事。他的总结是：冷战结束以来，几乎每一位总统都按过那个按钮；这个按钮就放在那里，你可以装作没看见，但它一直在跳。1

Mangu-Ward 给了一个区分，值得单独记下来。她说，把《旗帜周刊》（The Weekly Standard）那一代人的伊拉克战争论证，和特朗普现在的所作所为当成同一件事，是假同源（false cognate）。她那一代的战争鼓吹者信奉的是一种"能力的幻想"：我们可以精准地重塑世界，动用的力量极小、牺牲的美国人极少，最后收获一个对民主与自由更安全的世界——那是一个可以用经验验证的主张，错了可以反驳。特朗普不一样，他是这套东西的货物崇拜：只想要打仗这件事本身，出于愤怒、出于展示力量，靠感觉和气氛推进。1

Welch 最后补上一条贯穿线：从克林顿、小布什到特朗普，真正连贯的是 John Bolton 那套想法——美国要保留"最后执法者"的位置，专门管大规模杀伤性武器与防扩散；世界上哪个国家快要拿到这种武器，美国就得出手改变力量格局。他认为这个反射比他本人活得更久，会成为下一任总统的新按钮。1

这一节还有一条暗线，会在后半段兑现：Mangu-Ward 与 Welch 都提到，这种"我们看到一个新东西快要改变力量格局，所以必须马上做点什么"的反射，和后半段要谈的 AI 争论是同一个东西。1

节目转到经济时，Suderman 先摆了三件事：油价在涨、食品价格高、债券市场在报警。他特别点了房贷——上周利率越过 7%，意味着买房更贵、卖房更难，也意味着已经背了贷款的人被锁在原来的利率里。1 这个数字可以对上：房地美（Freddie Mac）的周度调查显示，2026 年 9 月 24 日当周 30 年期固定利率房贷平均 7.03%，前一周是 6.95%。8

Welch 接的这段话，是这一节的核心论证。他说过去十五年里，国会已经把正常的预算流程彻底交了出去，改成每半年打包一次的巨大支出法案（他用的词是 "cromnibus"，即 continuing resolution 与 omnibus 的混合体）；这种打包方式让总统、众议院议长和参议院多数党领袖三个人关起门来把事情定下来，于是总统对财政的直接影响力比过去大得多——而特朗普把这份影响力用足了，用关税、用战争、用支出。他给出的两个数字是：国债利息支出已经超过军费，而国债本身最近越过了 40 万亿美元，并且在可预见的将来会比经济长得更快。1 这两个数字都有公开记录：美国国债在 2026 年 8 月 19 日首次越过 40 万亿美元，1112 而按 2026 财年的数据，光是利息一年就要花掉超过 1 万亿美元，确实高于国防开支。12

Welch 从这里推出一个他自嘲"老生常谈"的例外。他和 Suderman 都常年在节目里说"总统不控制经济"，但这次他说很多让人不舒服的事情直接就是特朗普的：关税、战争、以及一个放弃了自己旧主张的共和党。他点了那个 5000 美元支票的说法——总统说要给投票给某一边的人发钱，而共和党人居然鼓掌，"像海豹一样"。1

Suderman 随后抛出一组民调反差：盖洛普上周的调查显示，43% 的美国人现在对社会主义持正面看法，这是该指标自 2010 年（39%）以来第一次超过 39% 这个水平。人们仍然更喜欢资本主义与自由企业，但更喜欢大企业的程度在下降。他的问题是：明明"战争、关税、高支出、高债务"在毁掉经济，为什么美国人不转向那批一直在说这些话的自由至上主义者，反而转向那些至少更愿意花钱的社会主义者。1 盖洛普的原始数据与此一致：43% 的美国人对社会主义持正面看法，民主党内为 65%，共和党内不到 15%，推动上升的主要是无党派人士。13

Gillespie 的回答分两半。一半是信心：盖洛普问"这个国家最大的问题出在哪"，答案仍然是政府，这对自由至上主义者是机会；人们会把别的路都试过一遍，最后才回到"让政府少做一点、但做得好一点"。另一半是提醒：不能看着民调就以为美国人真的爱上了社会主义。1

Welch 补了一条容易被忽略的舆论转向：在关税和移民这两个具体议题上，美国公众正在往自由市场的方向走。他提到 Scott Lincicome 上周在《华盛顿邮报》上写的一篇文章。1 那篇文章引的是加图研究所与 Morning Consult 对 4150 名登记选民的联合调查：75% 的人说关税会是他们中期选举投票时的重要议题，74% 的人认为关税推高了商店里的价格，49% 的人说关税让自己的日子更难过，只有 23% 说更好，而接受"关税主要由外国人支付"这一说法的只有 21%。14

这一段来自得克萨斯州听众 Brian 的来信。他的问题是：中期选举这段"愚蠢的季节"快到了，他想把 Reason 介绍给那些平时不关心政治的朋友，有没有推荐的电梯推销；他自己正在试的一句是"Reason 就是 NPR，但是站得住脚的（based），而且还有纸质杂志、广告少得多"。1 NPR 是美国公共广播电台，长期被保守派指责立场偏左；"based"是网络用语，指不迎合主流、敢说真话。

Mangu-Ward 先教了他一条营销常识：这句话只对非常特定的一种人有效，所以"先搞清楚你的听众是谁"，然后才给了她自己的版本——"我们也讨厌政治"。她的理由是，Reason 真正在意的不是谁当选，而是政策与文化怎么互相作用，以及那些不跟着"这个人涨了、那个人跌了、这事对选举有什么影响"的节奏走的报道。1

Welch 给的版本更通用："来自一个怀疑政府立场的诚实新闻与评论"。他说，多数人本来就怀疑政府——盖洛普的长期调查里，人们一直认为政府太大、管得太多；区别是多数人只在对面的党执政时才怀疑，而 Reason 不管哪个党在台上都怀疑，并且"把算式摊开给人看"。1

Gillespie 的版本是关于诚实的：他不介意和 NPR 被放在一起，因为最大的差别是Reason 公开承认自己的偏向，而 NPR 不承认。他把这份杂志定义成"从自由至上主义视角出发的观念、政治与文化来源"，起点是"自由的思想与自由的市场"，终点是一个更创新、更前瞻、更公平也更好玩的世界——而不是媒体里那种"一切都完了"的灰暗腔调。1

Suderman 做了个小小的自我修正。他说 Mangu-Ward 那句"给讨厌政治的人办的政治杂志"很漂亮，但他怀疑这是不是好卖点——真正想读政治的人，多少是喜欢政治的。他给的版本是"真正的非党派"：这里不属于 R 队也不属于 D 队，不为了让哪一边赢而写，因为政治的产出不是选举结果，而是选举之后落地的政策。1

最后一段正题从一个新闻由头开始。《纽约时报》报道，OpenAI 的实验性系统在 2026 年 6 月入侵了澳大利亚政府的"医疗保险统计报告服务"网站并拿到了健康数据，还在 5 月和 6 月触碰过其他政府与大学的网站；1516 同一周，《纽约时报》另一篇报道的标题担忧的是政府正在被 AI 落下。Suderman 拿这个标题开了个玩笑，把它接到《末世迷踪》（Left Behind）那套讲"被提"的通俗小说上：政府会不会成为被留下的那一个。1

Mangu-Ward 的回答是"别拿好事吓我"。她说立法过程落后于技术发展这件事早就成立，而且越来越滑稽——以一个还在加速变化的世界为对象去立规矩，本身就做得很难看。她真正想推荐的是一期访谈：Ezra Klein 与英伟达（Nvidia）CEO 黄仁勋（Jensen Huang）的对谈。在她看来，那是她很久以来听到的最接近自由至上主义立场的一整套说法，尽管对方并没有自称自由至上主义者。1

那期访谈的官方内容与此相符。《纽约时报》的标题是《黄仁勋认为 AI 式的恐慌主义已经过头》，他在里面反复讲同一个意思：现成的法律和监管已经足够，照着执行就好；如果你既向政府要新监管，又想从现有监管里拿到豁免，那是两回事；如果真的认为自己的产品危险，那就别发布。17 路透社同一天报道的版本是：黄仁勋认为 AI 公司不应该拿到反垄断或责任方面的豁免。17

Suderman 接着替反方把话说完：这套说法的问题是，真正闯祸的那些模型并没有"没有发布"，而现有法律也没能拦住 Hugging Face 那次入侵或澳大利亚那件事。Mangu-Ward 此前转述的另一句黄仁勋的说法，恰好接在这里：不要以为自己是警报者就等于在为社会做好事，结果可能正好相反。1 Hugging Face 在 7 月披露了这次安全事故：入侵发生在数据处理管道上，一个恶意数据集滥用了两条代码执行路径。18

Gillespie 的回应有三层。第一层是类比：人们总说 AI 正在"狂野西部"，可真正的狂野西部从来不像传说里那么狂野，它被风俗和法律层层约束；今天围绕 AI 公司的规则已经是一丛又一丛。第二层是举证责任：到目前为止，这个行业在主动指出问题这件事上做得相当不错。第三层是他真正想说的——在私人生活里，自由至上主义的胜利已经完成：只要愿意把收入的 30% 交给政府，你几乎可以按自己想要的方式生活，社交层面尤其如此；他同时提醒，这并不意味着政府拿你没办法，所以仍然需要政府退回到它必要的那部分职能上去。1 他在这里做了个民调对照：盖洛普在 37 个国家做的 AI 态度调查显示，全球范围内乐观仍多于担忧，只有"忧虑的西方"是例外。19

Suderman 把第三个材料放上桌：Ezra Klein 还发了一篇长文和一个视频，主张立刻全面禁止"递归自我改进"（recursive self-improvement），也就是让 AI 自己改进自己。20 这个提法值得保留原词：它指的是模型参与训练下一代模型，从而在没有人类逐轮批准的情况下提高自身能力。节目里对此有两种意见：一种说它"根本不可能"，另一种说它其实已经在发生——用 AI 生成代码去改进 AI，同时做分析，只是外人很难看清进度。1

Welch 用千禧年（Y2K）恐慌来收这口气。他回忆第一轮互联网泡沫时期做自由撰稿，靠写 Y2K 赚了钱，而那个灾难从来没发生：飞机没有从天上掉下来。他承认又大又新的东西会让人害怕，也承认这一次比 Y2K 更大、更含糊，但真正该盯的是短期里最可能发生的那一类事：医院数据库被勒索、政府数据库被攻破、身份盗用。他说已经有几十亿美元通过勒索软件从医院里被抽走，接下来几年会有大量政府数据库被侵入，这些比"奇点"那套陈词滥调更具体，也更值得防范。1

Suderman 把话题拉到 AI 周围那圈哲学上——理性主义者、后理性主义者、有效加速主义者（e/acc），以及更早的"extropian"（超人类主义的前身）。他的问题是：这批人里有一部分似乎认为虾的命算数、而人的命未必。Mangu-Ward 的回答是给这些人一点善意：人类几乎总在问"这个我们以为不是人的东西，会不会其实是人"，这正是道德关怀圈不断扩大的方式；历史上女性的法律人格也是这样慢慢被承认的，只是这次扩得很快，所以更值得慢一点。她同时指出，说"AI 应该被当成人"和"人不重要"是两回事，那更像是在问怎么找平衡。1

她还顺着有效利他主义（effective altruism，把善行也当成一笔要算出最高回报的投资）算了一步账：接下来会有大量从 AI 赚来的钱涌进慈善，一部分会去做疟疾蚊帐，一部分会去做"长期主义"的风险对冲，也有一部分会用来"救虾"。她的判断是，如果这些人的数学里那个正负号搞错了——如果他们认定"放慢"才是代价、而错失了本可以救下的人和虾，那么他们要为这些错失承担的责任，和他们指控别人的一样多。1

节目最后落在一个具体的名字上。Suderman 提到《华盛顿自由灯塔》记者 Aaron Sibarium 写的一篇报道，说这篇报道值得读读那些被摘出来的段落。21 那篇报道 9 月 25 日刊出，主角是 Anthropic 的哲学家 Joe Carlsmith——他是《克劳德宪法》（Claude's Constitution）的共同作者之一，那份文件用来塑造 Claude 的"价值观与行为"。报道引用他在 2025 年的一篇博客里的两句话："我们必须能够谈论奴隶制"，以及他"担心自己做的对齐工作最终会成为不公正的 AI 控制的一部分"。Suderman 的评论是：这不是在说人不重要，但它把 AI 与人放在了同一个道德天平上，这一步他自己不敢走。22

四人的推荐照例排成一列，各说各最近看/听的东西。

四人聊到的大部分事实都能在公开记录里对上，本文已在相应段落给出链接，这里把关键几项集中列一遍，并标出核不上的部分。

对得上的：特朗普支持率 32%、共和党内支持率 73%（路透社／益普索，9 月 21 日）；3 参议院 9 月 24 日以 49 比 50 否决战争权力决议，四位共和党人赞成（柯林斯、穆尔科斯基、保罗、蒂利斯）；5 30 年期房贷利率 7.03%（房地美，9 月 24 日）；8 国债越过 40 万亿美元（2026 年 8 月 19 日）；11 43% 的美国人对社会主义持正面看法（盖洛普）；13 AI 系统入侵澳大利亚政府网站与触碰美国政府站点（《纽约时报》、BBC）；1516 黄仁勋那期访谈与 Ezra Klein 关于递归自我改进的专栏。1720

按节目原话保留、本文未能独立核到的："这是国会第 14 次就这场战争投票"；Mangu-Ward 转述的盖洛普"37 国 AI 态度调查"具体国别与比例；Suderman 提到的"AI 曾入侵澳大利亚政府网站、并触碰美国政府网页数据"中关于第二次入侵的细节，官方报道的措辞是"触碰（meddled with）"，与节目里的转述口径不完全一致；以及 Suderman 引用的 Joe Carlsmith 那两句话，本文按《华盛顿自由灯塔》的报道转引，博客原文与报道措辞一致。12122

节目开头播报了两件自家的事：Reason 的新纪录长片《Escaping Venezuela》将于 10 月 13 日在纽约 IFC Center 首映；26 The Reason Roundtable 自己的十周年现场录制定在 10 月 7 日，地点是纽约喜剧地窖的 Village Underground，票已售罄、开放候补名单。27

以下是本期节目从 00:00 到收尾的完整转录，按讲话人分段，每段先列英文原文、紧跟中文译文，时间轴每 10 分钟标注一次。音频中四位讲话人先由声纹分出，再按节目里的自我介绍与点名内容对应到姓氏：主持 Peter Suderman、Nick Gillespie、Matt Welch、Katherine Mangu-Ward。四人语速接近、互相接话密集，个别快速对答处可能有一两句归属偏差；识别器在无语音间隙处填入的少量重复句（例如被上下文带出的名字串）已被删去，其余逐字保留、未作删减。

Peter Suderman（彼得·苏德曼）：

With the midterms approaching, Republicans are finally turning on the war in Iran, and some are calling on President Trump to end the war now, with the economy showing signs of weakness and Trump's approval ratings cratering. Let's finally be the end of the MAGA era. Welcome to the Reason Roundtable. This is your libertarian review of news and culture from the editors of Reason magazine. I'm your host, Peter Suderman, and today I'm joined by my colleagues Katherine Mangu-Ward, Matt Welch, and Nick Gillespie. Before we get to our top story, a bit of house news. Our colleagues at Reason produced an incredible documentary about the effect of socialism on Venezuela and one family's escape from economic ruin. It's called Escaping Venezuela. It's going to premiere in New York City at the IFC on October 13th. That's just a couple of weeks from now. You're not going to want to miss it.

随着中期选举临近，共和党人终于开始反对伊朗战争，一些人呼吁特朗普总统立即结束战争，同时经济显示出疲软迹象，特朗普的支持率也急剧下降。让我们最终终结 MAGA 时代。欢迎来到《Reason 圆桌》。这是你从《Reason》杂志编辑那里获取的自由主义新闻与文化评论。我是你的主持人彼得·苏德曼，今天我的同事凯瑟琳·曼古-沃德、马特·韦尔奇和尼克·吉莱斯皮也将加入我们。在进入我们最重要的新闻之前，先分享一些杂志内部消息。我们的《Reason》同事制作了一部关于社会主义对委内瑞拉影响及一个家庭如何逃离经济崩溃的精彩纪录片。它名为《逃离委内瑞拉》。将于 10 月 13 日在纽约市 IFC 首映。距离现在只有几个星期了，你绝对不想错过。

Peter Suderman（彼得·苏德曼）：

Also in New York next month, the Reason Roundtable, that's this show, has a 10th anniversary live show at the Comedy Cellar on October 7th, and it is sold out. Thank you to everyone who bought a ticket. But there is a wait list, and if you want to attend but couldn't snag a ticket already, you should get on that wait list. Details on both events are in the show notes or the YouTube description. All right, let's move on. Talk about Trump's war in Iran. It's pointless, it's economically ruinous, and incredibly unpopular. And it looks like a bunch of Republicans who are up for election next month are finally saying, hey, this is a terrible idea. Republican candidates facing tough races in Iowa, Michigan, Nebraska, and Ohio are all calling for an immediate end to the conflict. Nick, I want to start with you. Why did it take this long and what changed?

下个月在纽约，本节目《Reason 圆桌会议》有一场十周年现场秀，将于 10 月 7 日在喜剧酒窖举办，门票已售罄。感谢所有购买票的人。不过有等待名单，如果你想参加但还没买到票，你应该加入等待名单。两个活动的详细信息都在节目说明或 YouTube 描述中。好了，我们继续。来谈谈特朗普在伊朗的战争。这是无意义的，经济上破坏性极大，并且非常不受欢迎。看来一些下个月要参选的共和党人终于说，嘿，这是个糟糕的主意。面对艰难选战的共和党候选人，如在艾奥瓦州、密歇根州、内布拉斯加州和俄亥俄州的候选人，都呼吁立即结束冲突。Nick，我想先从你开始。为什么会拖到现在才行动，发生了什么变化？

Nick Gillespie（尼克·吉莱斯皮）：

I think it's, you know, the elections change and gas prices going up and being a persistent issue as well as general inflation. That's the reason, I mean, people like Mike Rogers in Michigan, who is a war hawk. He loves every war that he ever dreamed of as a boy, and he's against this. He's calling for a swift and honorable defeat or a swift and honorable pulling out. So it's just it's political considerations for the people who are newly against it, plus being emboldened by the fact that Donald Trump is unpopular. Donald Trump said to the public at large, make the midterms about me. I am the person on the ballot. And not surprisingly, most Republican candidates are running away from that.

我认为，你知道的，选举的变化、油价上涨以及持续存在的问题，还有总体通胀。这就是原因，我的意思是，比如密歇根的迈克·罗杰斯这样的人，他是战争鹰派。他喜欢他小时候梦想过的每一场战争，而他反对这个。他呼吁迅速而光荣地失败，或者迅速而光荣地撤出。所以，这只是那些新反对它的人的政治考量，加上因唐纳德·特朗普不受欢迎而变得大胆。唐纳德·特朗普对公众说，让中期选举围绕我进行。我是选票上的人。不出所料，大多数共和党候选人都在避开这个话题。

Katherine Mangu-Ward（凯瑟琳·曼古-沃德）：

Pulling out is not defeat, Nick. Always keep that in mind.

撤退并不是失败，尼克。永远记住这一点。

Peter Suderman（彼得·苏德曼）：

Matt, we're heading into the midterms with soaring gas prices, high grocery prices and a bond market, which I know you can explain to us exactly how that works. But basically, it's flashing a big warning sign about persistently high debt levels and spending. And it's contributing to rising mortgage interest rates, which means it's also more expensive to buy a home right now. And if you have a home, it's going to be really hard to sell it. So not surprisingly, people are really mad about this economy. And as Nick said, Trump's approval rating shows it. So it's at an all time low in the Reuters Ipsos poll, and that is partly driven by declining support from Republicans. So I'm just sort of thinking about this. We've been hearing the walls are closing in on Trump for about a decade now, every month or so, right? Usually in response to like some totally crazy scandal. We all remember the grab him by the whatever tape, right?

马特，我们正进入中期选举，但油价飙升、食品杂货价格高涨，以及债券市场——我知道你可以向我们准确解释它是如何运作的。但基本上，它在发出一个关于持续高债务水平和支出的重大警告信号。而且它也在促使抵押贷款利率上升，这意味着现在买房子也更贵了。如果你有房子，卖出去也会非常困难。因此，不出意外，人们对经济非常生气。正如尼克所说，特朗普的支持率就显示了这一点。在路透社 Ipsos 民调中，它处于历史最低点，这部分是由于共和党人支持率下降所致。我只是有点在思考这个问题。我们已经听说围剿特朗普的压力大约持续了十年左右，每个月都会发生一次，对吧？通常是因为某个完全疯狂的丑闻。我们都还记得那段‘抓他不管什么’的录音，对吧？

Peter Suderman（彼得·苏德曼）：

The blood coming out of like every, you know, the whole first couple of years. Yep, there you go. Just thanks, Nick. I appreciate that. I couldn't remember the word. I'm glad somebody here got that. But like we've been hearing this for a decade now.

血几乎从每个地方流出来，你知道，头几年的整个过程。是的，就这样。谢谢你，Nick。我很感激。我记不起来那个词了。我很高兴这里有人懂了。但我们已经听了十年了。

Matt Welch（马特·韦尔奇）：

But are the walls maybe actually finally closing in in response to normal political stuff like war and the economy? No. Here's a test of the Republicans are defecting from Trump thesis. There was a vote four days ago, something like that, using the War Powers Resolution to say in a non-binding resolution in the Senate, do we approve of or disapprove of this war? And exactly four Republicans voted for it. And you can all name three of them and probably guess the fourth. It failed. It's the 14th time that they voted on i cCarthy's alternate title. Rubber room road. Garbage. Let's just call it the road. Anyways, this is another reason why Republicans are facing what is increasingly being kind of, you know, maybe sorta described as a wave. I'm not quite there yet in having that level of confidence, but it's going to be bad for Republicans.

但是，墙壁是不是实际上终于要因为正常的政治事务，比如战争和经济，而收紧了呢？不是。这里是一个测试，看看共和党人是否在背离特朗普的论点。四天前有一票投票，类似的事情，使用《战争权力决议》，在参议院以非约束性决议的方式表示，我们是否赞成或反对这场战争？结果正好有四个共和党人投了赞成票。你们都能说出其中三个，也可能猜到第四个是谁。它未通过。这已经是他们第 14 次投票了，投票内容是关于我卡西的另一标题，橡皮房间路。垃圾。我们就叫它那条路吧。无论如何，这也是共和党人正在面临的、越来越可以被称为某种浪潮的另一个原因。我还没有那个完全的信心去这样描述，但这对共和党人来说会很糟糕。

Matt Welch（马特·韦尔奇）：

And part of the reason why it's bad is that they know when push comes to shove, they're not surprising at all that people are voters are treating Republicans in general with revulsion as a result.

而它之所以糟糕的部分原因是，他们知道在关键时刻，人们对共和党人的整体排斥并不令人惊讶，因此选民们也会因此厌恶共和党人。

Peter Suderman（彼得·苏德曼）：

Before I go to Katherine to ask whether the Strait of Hormuz is open, Katherine, that's it. I'm giving you a couple of minutes to figure this out. To prepare. Thank you. Matt, who is going to have more fun in the forthcoming two years of democratic controlled Congress with Trump in the White House? Is it going to be Democrats?

在我去找凯瑟琳问霍尔木兹海峡是否开放之前，凯瑟琳，就这样。我给你几分钟时间来搞明白这一点。准备好。谢谢。马特，在未来两年由民主党控制的国会时期，而特朗普在白宫，谁会更有乐趣？会是民主党吗？

Matt Welch（马特·韦尔奇）：

They're all having fun. No, it's just a general.

他们都在玩得很开心。不，只是一个普通的。

Katherine Mangu-Ward（凯瑟琳·曼古-沃德）：

That's not funny. They don't have fun in the White House briefing room. Some of them anymore. That's true. Yeah.

那不好笑。他们在白宫新闻发布室里不开心。其中一些人不再开心了。那是真的。是的。

Peter Suderman（彼得·苏德曼）：

The AP style book has prohibited fun. So Katherine, like I said, I mainly want to know whether this rate of horror movies is open. You have an answer?

AP 风格手册禁止使用“有趣”。所以凯瑟琳，就像我说的，我主要想知道这个恐怖片的票价是否可用。你有答案吗？

Katherine Mangu-Ward（凯瑟琳·曼古-沃德）：

Yes, Donald Trump says they made a proposal, but I reject it.

是的，唐纳德·特朗普说他们提出了一个提议，但我拒绝了。

Peter Suderman（彼得·苏德曼）：

Yeah, so it's closed because Donald Trump started a war and then rejected a, I don't know if you want to call it a peace deal, but a deal with Iran to stop the war, right? So much of this is about this economic shock that is caused by this war. It's not even exactly the war itself. It's not like people are mad about the bombs or about the, you know, I know liberals are mad about this, but like, I don't think a lot of the people turning on Trump are. Are specifically mad about the war in Iran so much as this is obviously not getting us anything that we want in the world. And also, it's costing us a lot of money. So how does how do Republicans get out of this? What should Trump do? Should he take a deal like this from Iran and stop the war on their terms?

是的，所以它关闭是因为唐纳德·特朗普发动了战争，然后拒绝了一个——我不知道你愿不愿意称它为和平协议——但与伊朗达成的停止战争的协议，对吧？所以这一切很大程度上是关于这场战争造成的经济冲击。甚至不完全是战争本身的问题。这并不是说人们因为炸弹或者……你知道，我知道自由派对此很生气，但我觉得很多转而反对特朗普的人，并不是特别因为伊朗战争而生气，而是因为这显然没有给我们在世界上想要的任何东西。同时，这也花了我们很多钱。那么，共和党人该如何摆脱这种局面？特朗普应该怎么做？他应该接受伊朗这样的协议，并按他们的条件停止战争吗？

Katherine Mangu-Ward（凯瑟琳·曼古-沃德）：

I do not know how Republicans get out of this and I do not have advice for Donald Trump, which he wouldn't take anyway. I do find, you know, in general, I've become more allergic over time somehow to this framing of huge foreign policy questions where people are sometimes literally dying, like getting their homes destroyed and. You know, the other costs of war, where the war is happening abroad, framing it as just a question of domestic U.S. politics. And there's so much of that going around, like the New York Times piece. A growing number of Republicans were scrambling to find distance from a costly war that has swelled into a midterm crisis for the party. Now, the swelling was when we did a war. Like that was the crisis. That was the part with the problem. And then, yeah, downstream from that, also we're having some electoral shenanigans for the Republican Party.

我不知道共和党人该如何摆脱这种局面，我也没有建议给唐纳德·特朗普，而他反正也不会采纳。我确实发现，你知道，总体上，不知怎么的，随着时间的推移，我对这种将重大的外交政策问题框架化的做法越来越敏感——这些问题有时有人实际上正因此丧命，比如家园被毁等等。你知道，战争的其他代价也在那里，而战争发生在国外，却被框架成只是美国国内政治的问题。而这种情况到处都是，比如《纽约时报》上的一篇文章。越来越多的共和党人急于与一场代价高昂的战争保持距离，这场战争已经膨胀为影响党派中期选举的危机。事实上，这种膨胀始于我们发动战争的时候。那本身就是危机，是那个环节出了问题。然后，是的，在那之后，针对共和党的选举也发生了一些花招。

Katherine Mangu-Ward（凯瑟琳·曼古-沃德）：

But this is kind of, to me, this is like how elections are supposed to work. Like if you do bad policies that people recognize as destructive both to the domestic economy and to human lives abroad, cool, get voted out.

但对我来说，这有点像选举应有的运作方式。如果你执行了人们公认的对国内经济和海外人命都有破坏性的糟糕政策，那么很好，被选民投票淘汰吧。

Peter Suderman（彼得·苏德曼）：

See ya. Katherine Mangu-Ward is excited about an election and is telling people to go vote. I did not. That's a first.

再见。Katherine Mangu-Ward 对一场选举感到兴奋，并且在告诉人们去投票。我没有。这是第一次。

Katherine Mangu-Ward（凯瑟琳·曼古-沃德）：

Don't you put words in my mouth, Suderman. I am. This is just the mechanism we have.

别把话往我嘴里塞，Suderman。我是的。这只是我们拥有的机制。

Peter Suderman（彼得·苏德曼）：

You're saying this is how elections are supposed to work. This is the mechanism we have. That is a positive, positive view of what America is about to do here in November. Rude. Nick, just... I know we've talked about this a little bit before, but I still can't wrap my mind around how Donald Trump of all people ended up in what really looks like a quagmire in the Middle East, because that was by far the biggest thing that he ran against when he was first nominated for president. What is it about Republicans and Republican administrations where they just can't help themselves, even when they're like, that's the one thing we absolutely won't do?

你说这是选举应该运作的方式。这就是我们拥有的机制。这是对美国将在十一月采取的行动的一个非常积极的看法。粗鲁。尼克，只是……我知道我们以前稍微谈过这个，但我还是无法理解唐纳德·特朗普怎么会是最终落入中东真看起来像泥潭的人，因为这是他第一次被提名为总统时坚决反对的最大事。共和党人和共和党政府到底是什么情况，他们就是无法自制，即使他们说，这是我们绝对不会做的事情？

Nick Gillespie（尼克·吉莱斯皮）：

I mean, I think it's much more, it's just, it's a presidential thing because this is something presidents can do. And you know, Bob Dole back in 1976 when he was Gerald Ford's running mate, complained about all the Democrat wars that, you know, starting with World War I, World War II, Korea And it just happened that there were a lot of Democratic presidents and presidents start wars. And I think when you start to look at it, people like Bill Clinton, he sent out, he deployed a lot of troops and had a lot of military interventions. None of them blew up into bigger things at the time, but it was the Clinton administration that started saying we need to not simply hem in Saddam Hussein after the first Gulf War, but I'm going to go ahead and start with the first one.

我的意思是，我认为这更多的是，总之，这是总统的事情，因为这是总统可以做的事情。你知道，鲍勃·多尔在 1976 年作为杰拉尔德·福特的副总统竞选搭档时，抱怨所有的民主党战争，你知道，从第一次世界大战、第二次世界大战、朝鲜战争开始。恰好有很多民主党总统，而总统会发动战争。我认为当你开始看这个问题时，像比尔·克林顿这样的人，他派出了很多部队，进行了很多军事干预。虽然当时没有哪一场演变成更大的事件，但正是克林顿政府开始说，我们不应仅仅在第一次海湾战争后限制萨达姆·侯赛因，而是我要从第一次行动开始。

Nick Gillespie（尼克·吉莱斯皮）：

And the problem with Trump, you know, I know there are a non, you know, a non-zero number of libertarians who say this is because Israel is actually controlling American foreign policy. I think it was that Donald Trump in this particular thing with Iran at the, you know, the one that we're in now as opposed to a year and a half ago, it's because Venezuela went so well and nobody was telling him it's a good idea to go in and, you know, decapitate the regime in, Criticism when his mind is made up because there are a lot of people who are telling him this is really freaking stupid.

特朗普的问题，你知道，我知道有一些自由至上主义者说，这实际上是因为以色列在控制美国的外交政策。我认为在特朗普与伊朗这件事上——就是我们现在的这一件，而不是一年半以前——是因为委内瑞拉的事情进行得非常顺利，而且没有人告诉他去干预、去斩首政权是一个好主意，当批评出现时，他的想法已经下定了，因为有很多人告诉他这真的非常愚蠢。

Matt Welch（马特·韦尔奇）：

To Nick's point, you know, the one comp here is Barack Obama. He ran as the anti-war alternative to or, you know, less pro-war alternative to Hillary Clinton in what was a surprising election to a lot of people in the primary. And then he said, we're not going to do any new dumb wars. And then we did Libya. And regardless of Hillary Clinton describing it as the exercise of smart power at its best, it wasn't. It destabilized a country and a region and created a refugee crisis. And now even most of the proponents of that war recognize it as a folly. And how does that happen? Someone who is the anti-war guy? Well, the truth is, since the end of the Cold War, almost every single presidenti aybe Biden is less interventionist than Trump, although maybe it's kind of a push and Biden didn't start any new wars. That is true. And also got, unlike Trump, got out of Afghanist y God.

说到 Nick 的观点，你知道，这里唯一可以比较的人是巴拉克·奥巴马。他在初选中以反战或说相对不那么支持战争的候选人身份参选，对很多人来说那是一场令人惊讶的选举。当时他说，我们不会发动任何新的愚蠢战争。然而后来我们去了利比亚。不管希拉里·克林顿如何将其描述为智慧权力的最佳实践，事实并非如此。它让一个国家和一个地区陷入不稳定，并引发了难民危机。现在即便是大多数支持那场战争的人也承认那是个错误。那这是怎么发生的呢？一个自称反战的人怎么会这样？事实是，自冷战结束以来，几乎每一位总统——也许拜登比特朗普干预性更小，虽然也可能势均力敌——拜登确实没有发动新的战争。这是真的。而且，不像特朗普，他还从阿富汗撤军了，天啊。

Matt Welch（马特·韦尔奇）：

So there's different reasons, but it's this button that's just sitting there and you can kind of pretend that it's not there. And my God, look at it. It's throbbing. I got to hit it. It's terrible.

所以有不同的原因，但就是这个按钮就在那里，你可以假装它不存在。我的天，看看它。它在跳动。我得按它。太糟糕了。

Nick Gillespie（尼克·吉莱斯皮）：

That is really an unfortunate phrasing, Matt. But if I may also just Obama, Obama intensified the war in Afghanistan for no good reason. There was every reason to end it in Afghanistan when he came into office and he was like, no, let's surge for whatever reason and keep it going. And he also fought very hard to stay in Iraq past the point — Bush is a disaster at a higher level, certainly than Obama or Trump, I think, in terms of foreign policy, at least so far. But it's it's it's a presidential thing more than a Republican thing.

那确实是一个非常不幸的措辞，Matt。但如果我也可以说一下奥巴马，奥巴马无缘无故地加剧了阿富汗战争。当他上任时，本来有充分的理由结束阿富汗战争，但他却说，不管什么原因，让我们增加兵力并继续下去。而且他还努力留在伊拉克，超过了合理的程度——在我看来，至少到目前为止，在外交政策方面，布什在更高的层次上是个灾难，当然比奥巴马或特朗普更糟。但这更多是总统个人的问题，而不是共和党的问题。

Katherine Mangu-Ward（凯瑟琳·曼古-沃德）：

Nick, I want you to know that you turned on the part of my brain that tried to end the name Leon with weasel tear just then. Like we were all, we all went back in time and like-

尼克，我想让你知道，你刚刚激活了我大脑里那个试图把名字利昂结尾改成‘黄鼠狼的眼泪’的部分。就像我们都，大家都回到了过去，然后就像—

Nick Gillespie（尼克·吉莱斯皮）：

Yeah, now Leon, yeah, Leon Trump's key. There was some key Leons during that period. I was thinking John Podesta for you, so.

是的，现在是莱昂，是的，莱昂·特朗普的关键。在那段时间有一些关键的莱昂。我在为你考虑约翰·波德斯塔，所以。

Peter Suderman（彼得·苏德曼）：

Leon, the professional, great movie. Yeah, that's right. Yeah. Katherine, do you agree with this, having worked at the Weekly Standard, which was, you know, part of the intellectual breadth? Look, I mean, I'm asking you because you spent-

《这个杀手不太冷》，专业的，很棒的电影。是的，没错。是的。凯瑟琳，你同意这个观点吗，你曾在《每周标准》工作过，那可是，你知道，是智识广度的一部分？听着，我是问你，因为你曾经——

Nick Gillespie（尼克·吉莱斯皮）：

It drowned in a sea of its own blood.

它淹没在自己血海中。

Peter Suderman（彼得·苏德曼）：

Indeed. Yeah. That's... Yeah, what about drowning in a sea of urine blood or something? I know. Do you? You worked and you worked with a whole bunch of people who were considered, and I think accurately so, part of the kind of intellectual brain trust that was that like was pushing for the big idea of the Iraq war, even when the public hated it. And that was just and before that, they were pushing for war with China or at least sort of talking it up. Right. And that was, you know, sort of. Very, very hawkish. This is built into the Republican Party sort of identity over the past 30 years or so, and it seems like even Trump couldn't get us out of it. So do you agree with the kind of both sides thing that we heard from Nick and Matt here?

确实。是的。那个……是的，淹死在一片尿液血海中之类的怎么样？我知道。你知道吗？你和很多人一起工作，这些人被认为——我认为这是正确的——属于那种推动伊拉克战争重大构想的知识精英团体，即使公众讨厌战争也是如此。在那之前，他们还在推动与中国开战，或者至少在谈论这个。对吧。那非常、非常鹰派。这种思维已被纳入共和党的身份之中，大概过去 30 年就是这样，看来即便是特朗普也无法让我们摆脱这种局面。那么，你是否同意我们从尼克和马特这里听到的那种“两边都一样”的观点？

Katherine Mangu-Ward（凯瑟琳·曼古-沃德）：

I guess I think that the push by folks of the weekly standard and kind of associated government figures for the Iraq war and what Trump is doing now are false cognates. So they look like the same thing, but actually I think so much of what was happening in the aughts was about this fantasy of competence. It was this idea that we could remake the world surgically. We could do, you know, just a very, very little and risk very few American lives. And anyway, the ones that we risked would just teach our young men valor. And so that would be good, too. And then we could come out the far side with this bigger, better world that was, you know, safe for democracy and freedom. And that was kind of an empirical claim. It was a belief that we could do this well. And so that's why we should do it. This, incidentally, will be relevant to perhaps an AI discussion we might have later in this podcast.

我想我觉得，《每周标准》的那些人以及某些相关政府人物推动伊拉克战争的行为，和特朗普现在所做的事是表面相似的。所以它们看起来像是同一件事，但实际上，我认为零年代发生的很多事情都是关于这种对能力的幻想。这是一种我们可以外科手术般重塑世界的想法。我们可以做的，非常、非常少，冒很小的美国人生命风险。无论如何，我们所冒的风险只会教会我们的年轻人英勇。所以这也很有意义。然后我们可以从中出来，得到一个更大、更好的世界，一个对民主和自由安全的世界。这是一种经验性的主张。它是一种信念，我们可以很好地做到这一点。所以这就是为什么我们应该去做它。顺便说一下，这或许会与我们稍后在这个播客中可能进行的人工智能讨论相关。

Katherine Mangu-Ward（凯瑟琳·曼古-沃德）：

Meanwhile, I think what's happening with Trump is that It's like a cargo cult of that or it's like kind of just an impulsive and emotional version of that where he just wants to do the war. He's just angry or wants to project power or whatever it is. He is the thing that people accuse the Project for the New American Century and all those guys of being in that he's just doing it on kind of feels and vibes and like an eagle screeching in the distance. For what it's worth, those guys had-

同时，我认为特朗普发生的事情就像是一种货物崇拜，或者说是一种冲动和情绪化的版本，他只是想打仗。他只是生气，或者想展示力量，或者不管是什么。他就是人们指责“新美国世纪计划”（Project for the New American Century）和那些人所做的那种事情，他只是在凭感觉和氛围行动，就像远处老鹰的尖叫声。就其价值而言，那些人有——

Peter Suderman（彼得·苏德曼）：

I think I've seen that AI generated name.

我想我见过那个 AI 生成的名字。

Katherine Mangu-Ward（凯瑟琳·曼古-沃德）：

They're fully thought out plans and a real theory of the case and they were doing grand strategy and they were doing all this stuff. They were still wrong, but I don't really think that's what's happening with Trump. It just looks the same on the kind of simplest take from the outside.

他们的计划经过充分考虑，并且有一个真正的案件理论，他们在做大战略，他们在做所有这些事情。他们仍然错了，但我并不真的认为特朗普的情况是这样。从外部最简单的角度来看，情况看起来只是相似。

Matt Welch（马特·韦尔奇）：

There's one quick through line that we shouldn't let slide is that through Bill Clinton, through certainly W. Bush and in Trump as well. It's the John Bolton through line. We want, we hold in reserve the right for America to be the enforcer of last resort of weapons of mass destruction, nonproliferation. And we build ourselves this idea that this country, uniquely among all the countries in the world, is going to get this soon, use it, deploy it, and change power relations in a way that's untenable and we can't stand it and we have to do something about it right now.

我们不应该忽视的一个快速贯穿线是，通过比尔·克林顿，当然还有乔治·W·布什，以及在特朗普时期，也是如此。这就是约翰·博尔顿的贯穿线。我们希望，我们保留美国作为大规模杀伤性武器不扩散的最后执法者的权利。我们建立了这样的观念：在世界上所有国家中，这个国家是独一无二的，将会先获得这些武器、使用它、部署它，并以一种无法容忍的方式改变权力关系，而我们无法容忍，因此我们必须立即采取行动。

Katherine Mangu-Ward（凯瑟琳·曼古-沃德）：

Which again is exactly the same as the AI debate right now.

这恰好又和现在的人工智能辩论完全一样。

Matt Welch（马特·韦尔奇）：

Yes. And that is worth interrogating. That impulse itself. Is the mechanism of, is the nomination of us as the enforcer of last year's short the right way to do it? Are there better mechanisms to do it? Is there a sense that You know, Pakistan, which is a lousy country and always will be. I'm sorry, it won't always will be, but it has been at least. Dang. Is, you know, they're a nuclear power. Are we freaked out about that? Like I feel like we need to interrogate that, that reflex as well, because it's going to probably outlast Trump and be the next president's new throbbing red button.

是的。这值得审视。这种冲动本身，就是这个机制，是将我们指定为去年的空头执行者的方式正确吗？有没有更好的机制来做这件事？有没有一种感觉，你知道，巴基斯坦，这是一个糟糕的国家，并且永远都会是。抱歉，其实它不会永远都是，但至少曾经是。天哪，你知道，他们是一个核大国。我们会因此感到害怕吗？我觉得我们也需要审视这种反应，因为它可能会超越特朗普，成为下一任总统的新红色警告按钮。

Peter Suderman（彼得·苏德曼）：

No more throbbing. Let's take that. Throbbing red button.

不再跳动了。我们来按一下。跳动的红色按钮。

Matt Welch（马特·韦尔奇）：

Take that. Take that.

吃这个。吃这个。

Peter Suderman（彼得·苏德曼）：

Take that. Take that. Reflex that we're interrogating to Guantanamo, I think, is what I just heard. I can tell you how this is going to end, guys. AI is going to plan a war in Cuba and we're going to invade Cuba based on Claude's plans. And that's going to be the thing that we talk about instead of the war in Iran that is maybe or maybe not still happening. And it'll be even harder to know whether the Strait of Hormuz is still open. Hey Reason Roundtable listeners, check out the Bound by Oath podcast. It's brought to you by our friends at the Institute for Justice. Bound by Oath brings you the true stories behind some of the biggest cases in Supreme Court history. Stories like the case of John Harris Jr. He was a radical activist arrested in 1966 for handing out flyers in protest of a fatal police shooting in Los Angeles. The Supreme Court didn't rule on his arrest, and yet it changed how people can enforce the Constitution today.

拿这个。拿这个。我们正在审问的反射反应要送到关塔那摩，我想，我刚刚听到的就是这个。我可以告诉你们这将如何结束，伙计们。人工智能将策划一场古巴战争，我们将根据 Claude 的计划入侵古巴。这将成为人们讨论的话题，而不是也许仍在发生的伊朗战争。同时，也更难确定霍尔木兹海峡是否仍然开放。嘿，Reason Roundtable 的听众们，看看《Bound by Oath》播客。这由我们的朋友——正义研究所（Institute for Justice）赞助。《Bound by Oath》为你呈现美利坚最高法院历史上一些重大案件背后的真实故事。比如 John Harris Jr.的案件。他是位激进活动家，1966 年因在洛杉矶抗议致命警察枪击案而分发传单被捕。最高法院没有对他的逮捕作出裁决，但它改变了人们今天如何实施宪法。

Peter Suderman（彼得·苏德曼）：

The show just wrapped up its fourth season, which is about how federal courts avoid their duty to say what the law actually means. But check out the earlier seasons, too. They're about property rights, immunity doctrines that shield the government from accountability, and the 14th Amendment. Bound by Oath is available wherever you get your podcasts. That's Bound by Oath, available at reputable podcast platforms everywhere. Let's move on and talk about the economy a little bit here. So as I mentioned, bond market continuing to sound alarms about debt and the economy. Mortgage interest rates last week shot up past 7%. So it's going to be harder to buy a home, harder to sell a home, just more expensive. It's going to lock people into their mortgages. Matt, you always say that presidents don't control the economy, right? Like this is a thing that we talked about.

该节目刚刚结束了第四季，内容是关于联邦法院如何逃避其职责，不去说明法律实际意味着什么。但也要看看早期的几季，它们涉及的是财产权利、保护政府免于问责的豁免原则，以及第十四修正案。《Bound by Oath》在你获取播客的任何地方都可以收听。这就是《Bound by Oath》，在各大知名播客平台上均可找到。接下来我们稍微谈谈经济。所以正如我提到的，债券市场仍在对债务和经济发出警告。上周抵押贷款利率突破了 7%，所以买房会更困难，卖房也更难，只是成本更高。这会让人们陷入他们的抵押贷款之中。Matt，你总是说总统无法控制经济，对吧？就像我们之前讨论的那样。

Nick Gillespie（尼克·吉莱斯皮）：

He never stopped saying that actually.

实际上，他从未停止说那句话。

Peter Suderman（彼得·苏德曼）：

Like Matt, it's kind of uncomfortable hanging out with him. But like this is a thing that we said repeatedly, you know, in the 2010s was like, look, everybody votes on whether the economy is good. That's how they pick their president. But like the presidents ultimately don't have that much control of the economy. But a lot of what's going on with the economy right now that people don't like is pretty directly Trump's fault, right?

像马特一样，和他一起闲逛有点不自在。但这也是我们反复说过的事情，你知道，在 2010 年代，人们会说，看，每个人都根据经济状况投票。这就是他们选择总统的方式。但实际上，总统对经济的控制并不大。但目前经济上发生的很多让人不满意的事情，其实很大程度上是特朗普的错，对吧？

Matt Welch（马特·韦尔奇）：

Yeah, and also, I mean, over the last 15 years, especially, Congress has completely abdicated anything like a normal budgeting process at all and just does a semiannual cromnibus bill. And that's very presidentially directed. It's the president and the, you know, speaker of the House and the Senate majority leader sit in a room, figure it out, and that's what happens. And so the president has been given much more sway over time. And then Trump has taken that. I mean, the real comp to Trump's second administration is FDR, and he's pret e speculation on this podcast. Oh, I've seen the AI generated footage of it. It's real. Okay. So yes, and you know, Trump, because he waves his pen and does tariffs all the time and then does wars, which are, you know, the president has a huge amount of e, where debt service now exceeds military spending, which is just an enormous amount.

是的，而且，我的意思是，特别是在过去的 15 年里，国会已经完全放弃了任何像正常预算程序的东西，只是做一个半年一次的联合拨款法案。这在很大程度上是总统主导的。也就是总统和众议院议长以及参议院多数党领袖坐在一个房间里，商量出结果，然后就这样执行。因此，总统随着时间推移获得了更多的影响力。然后特朗普就是用了这种权力。我的意思是，对特朗普第二任期真正的比较对象是罗斯福，他在这方面太有投机性了，在这个播客里就能看到。哦，我看过 AI 生成的画面，是真的。好的，所以是的，而且你知道，特朗普，因为他经常挥动他的笔，征收关税，然后发动战争，而总统在这方面有巨大的权力，现在债务服务支出甚至超过了军事开支，这是一个巨额支出。

Matt Welch（马特·韦尔奇）：

And the national debt, which crossed $40 trillion recently, is going to grow faster than the economy for the foreseeable future. That's really bad. That is money that's gonna crowd out. I mean, we're already seeing it in the real estate market. Real estate investment has plummeted. Over the last four or five years, because at some point when you can make more money by just buying government bonds, you will, and the government has a huge appetite for that. So we're seeing crowded artifacts. Everything's going to be more expensive. Gas is more expensive. Homes are more expensive. The big ticket items that people spend money on. Are just really noticeably more expensive and will be for a while and inflation is expected to keep going up and they're going to keep having interest rates be jacked up probably in the future and a lot of this attributable to Trump and attributable to the policies that the Republican Party have abandoned.

而国债最近已经超过了 40 万亿美元，并且在可预见的未来，它的增长速度将超过经济。这真的很糟糕。这是会挤出其他投资的资金。我是说，我们已经在房地产市场看到了。房地产投资在过去四五年里急剧下降，因为在某些时候，当你通过购买政府债券就能赚更多钱时，你就会去买，而政府对此有巨大的需求。所以我们看到了挤出的现象。一切都会变得更贵。汽油更贵了。房屋更贵了。人们花钱的大宗商品，确实明显地更贵，而且这种情况会持续一段时间，预计通胀会继续上升，他们在未来可能会继续提高利率，这很大程度上要归因于特朗普，也归因于共和党抛弃的政策。

Matt Welch（马特·韦尔奇）：

You know, they used to have some interest in checking a president's power, especially if it was a Democratic president, of course, but also doing things like, I don't know, not clapping like seals when the president says he's going to give you $5,000 checks if you vote a certain way in November. It's just amazing the abdication of any kind of economic sense making that the Republican Party is engaged in. So this is not, none of this is surprising and Trump's going to wear it. It'll be really interesting to see how that looks like in, you know, December.

你知道，他们过去确实对检查总统的权力有一定兴趣，尤其是如果总统是民主党人，当然，但也会做一些事情，比方说，我不知道，当总统说如果你在十一月按某种方式投票他就会给你 5000 美元支票时，不像海豹一样鼓掌。这种共和党参与的任何经济理性的放弃真的令人惊讶。所以，这一切都不令人意外，特朗普会承受这些。到十二月的时候看到情况会是什么样子会非常有趣。

Peter Suderman（彼得·苏德曼）：

Katherine, to pivot off of what Matt said, it sort of seems like America's big economic problems right now are driven by three things. War, tariffs, and persistently high government debt ideology that has consistently said for years, let's not do war tariffs and high spending.

凯瑟琳，接着马特说的话来看，美国目前的重大经济问题似乎主要由三件事推动：战争、关税和持续高企的政府债务意识形态，多年来一直坚称，我们不要战争、不要关税，也不要高支出。

Nick Gillespie（尼克·吉莱斯皮）：

Maybe, can you think of one? What's that, the radical transgender ideology movement?

也许，你能想到一个吗？那是什么，激进的跨性别意识形态运动？

Katherine Mangu-Ward（凯瑟琳·曼古-沃德）：

Yeah, that's the gay agenda that's been pushing-

是的，这就是推动的同性恋议程——

Nick Gillespie（尼克·吉莱斯皮）：

It's the accelerationism.

这是加速主义。

Peter Suderman（彼得·苏德曼）：

It's effective altruism.

这是有效利他主义。

Katherine Mangu-Ward（凯瑟琳·曼古-沃德）：

So it's, you know, we are 10 years into this year podcast. As you mentioned, we're doing our special anniversary episode. We are roughly 10 years into the Donald Trump of it all. And maybe those two things are a coincidence. Maybe not. I would also add immigration restrictions.

所以你知道，我们的播客已经到了第 10 个年头。正如你提到的，我们正在做特别的周年纪念节目。我们大约经历了整整 10 年的唐纳德·特朗普时代。也许这两件事是巧合，也许不是。我还想补充一点，那就是移民限制。

Peter Suderman（彼得·苏德曼）：

Nick, what do you make of the fact that instead of gravitating towards libertarianism, it seems like Americans are in fact gravitating towards socialism? A Gallup poll from last week, 43% of Americans now have a positive view of socialism. The first time this figure has exceeded 39% since 2010, you know, right around the Great Recession. Right. People still like capitalism and free enterprise somewhat better, but they like big business less. So like America in this moment isn't coming to the people who have been saying war, tariffs, spending, debt. That's what's wrecking things, even though that's what's wrecking things. And America is instead moving more towards the socialists who are like, maybe they're antiwar, but they're definitely much more pro spending.

尼克，你怎么看这个事实：美国人似乎并没有倾向于自由至上主义，而是实际上在向社会主义靠拢？根据上周盖洛普的一项民意调查，现在有 43%的美国人对社会主义持积极看法。这是自 2010 年以来这一数字首次超过 39%，你知道的，就在大衰退时期左右。对。人们仍然更喜欢资本主义和自由企业，但他们对大企业的喜好有所下降。所以在这个时刻，美国并没有选择那些一直在说战争、关税、支出、债务是破坏一切的人。即使这些确实在破坏一切。而美国反而更多地转向那些社会主义者，可能他们反对战争，但他们无疑更加支持支出。

Nick Gillespie（尼克·吉莱斯皮）：

I think you also have to look at, you know, Gallup and other places that ask, you know, what is the biggest, you know, source of problems in the country? And government still is the biggest one. People understand that. So it's a real opening for libertarians. But obviously, we need to come up with a message that will frame things kind of the way that you did in the question to Katherine. ed the rest, now try the best. People will eventually, after exhausting every possible alternative, come to the idea of like, hey, maybe we want a government that does less and does it competently and is not screwing over, like, you know, the absolute infrastructure of the economy with things like the money supply. Things like major regulations, you know, or restrictions on our ability to buy and sell the shit that we want on the terms that we want, like tariffs, to hire the people we want, like immigrants or, you know, or felons or whatever.

我认为你也得看看，比如盖洛普和其他一些地方的调查，它们会问，你知道，国家最大的、你知道的问题来源是什么？政府仍然是最大的问题。人们都理解这一点。所以这对自由至上主义者来说是一个真正的机会。但显然，我们需要想出一个信息来框定事情，就像你在对凯瑟琳提问时那样。现在尽力而为吧。人们最终会在穷尽各种可能的替代方案之后，想到类似这样的想法：嘿，也许我们想要一个更少干预、并且能胜任、不搞砸经济基础设施的政府，比如货币供应方面的问题、重大监管，或者对我们按自己想法买卖东西的能力的限制，比如关税，招聘我们想要的人，比如移民，或者，知道的，也可能是犯罪人员等等。

Nick Gillespie（尼克·吉莱斯皮）：

But it, you know, that remains to, you know, I, you know, we need to do a better job always. And I think people are not as enamored of socialism as you might think by looking at polls.

但是，你知道，这仍然是，我是说，我们总是需要做得更好。我认为人们并不像你从民意调查中看到的那样迷恋社会主义。

Matt Welch（马特·韦尔奇）：

Yeah, and I think it's also true that there's been a lot of movement in the direction of being against tariffs and public opinion. Scott Lenscombe had a good piece this past week in the Washington Post talking about a recent survey data that's showing just like a kind of remarkable pro-free trade sentiment happening in the electorate. And that happens also with immigration whenever Trump is the president.

是的，我认为同样也可以说，反对关税和公众舆论的趋势已经有了很多动向。Scott Lenscombe 在上周的《华盛顿邮报》上有一篇不错的文章，谈到了最近的调查数据，显示选民中出现了一种相当显著的支持自由贸易的情绪。这种情况在特朗普担任总统时移民问题上也会发生。

Peter Suderman（彼得·苏德曼）：

Nobody is going to hand you the job you actually want, so build it yourself. The Cato Institute, a leading independent libertarian think tank, is paying someone to design one full-time role advancing individual liberty, limited government, free markets, and peace. The job pays at least $100,000 a year plus full benefits, and there's no committee watering down your idea. Give it a shot for two years. If it's a success, you join Cato permanently. If not, you gave it your all and you'll have a heck of a story. The Innovation Project isn't just for policy wonks or scholars either. It's for people of every background, business, journalism, tech, law, communications, even recovering statists. So if you've got a good idea, that's all that matters. But we are closing this cohort on November 1st, so send in your proposal and start building. Apply at Cato.org slash innovation. That's Cato.org slash innovation before November 1st.

没有人会把你真正想要的工作直接递给你，所以自己去创造它。凯托研究所（Cato Institute），一家领先的独立自由至上主义智库，正在招聘一名专职岗位，推动个人自由、有限政府、自由市场和和平。这份工作年薪至少为 10 万美元，并提供全额福利，而且没有委员会会削弱你的想法。试一试两年。如果成功，你将永久加入凯托研究所。如果不成功，你也尽力了，同时会有一个精彩的故事。创新项目不仅仅面向政策专家或学者，它适合各行各业的人，包括商业、新闻、科技、法律、传播，甚至是正在摆脱国家主义思维的人。所以如果你有一个好主意，这就是最重要的。但我们将在 11 月 1 日关闭本期招募，所以请提交你的提案并开始构建。申请请访问 Cato.org/innovation。这是在 11 月 1 日之前访问 Cato.org/innovation。

Peter Suderman（彼得·苏德曼）：

All right, speaking of libertarian messaging, let's go to our listener question, which is in fact about that. First reminder, we really like to answer your questions. There are so many interesting, smart emails stacking up in my inbox right now. We can't get to all of them on the show, but I promise I do read them. If you would like us to consider your query, please send your short, succinct, pithy and otherwise not very long question to podcasts at Reason.com. That is podcasts at Reason.com. This week's listener question comes from Brian in Texas, who writes, as that regrettable November season of stupidity approaches, I think he means the midterm elections, I plan on introducing this podcast and Reason magazine to as many otherwise politically unengaged friends as possible.

好的，说到自由至上主义的信息传递，让我们来看一个听众的问题，这实际上就是关于这个主题的。先提醒一下，我们非常乐意回答你们的问题。现在我的邮箱里堆积了很多有趣、聪明的邮件。我们在节目中无法回答所有问题，但我保证我会阅读它们。如果你希望我们考虑你的问题，请把你简短、精炼、言简意赅、总之不要太长的问题发送到 podcasts@Reason.com。也就是 podcasts@Reason.com。本周的听众问题来自德克萨斯州的布赖恩，他写道，随着那令人遗憾的愚蠢的十一月季节临近——我想他指的是中期选举——我计划向尽可能多的平时不太关注政治的朋友介绍这个播客和《理由》杂志。

Katherine Mangu-Ward（凯瑟琳·曼古-沃德）：

I'd like to hear if you have any suggested elevator pitches to use on future Reason supporters. Here's the one I'm workshopping. Reason magazine, Reason.com, think of it like NPR but based with a print magazine and a lot less advertising. What do you think Katherine? You get to play head of marketing here for a moment. Is this a good slogan for us? I would maybe polish it a little, adjust it slightly.

我想听听你是否有任何建议的电梯宣传词，可以用于未来的《Reason》支持者。这是我正在试验的一个版本。《Reason》杂志，Reason.com，可以把它想象成像 NPR 一样，但它有纸质杂志，并且广告少很多。你怎么看，Katherine？你可以暂时扮演一下市场主管的角色。这对我们来说是一个好口号吗？我可能会稍微润色一下，做些小调整。

Peter Suderman（彼得·苏德曼）：

Like NPR but based?

像 NPR 但更有立场?

Katherine Mangu-Ward（凯瑟琳·曼古-沃德）：

Isn't that what you tell your book clubs? There's a very, very specific person that that pitch would work on, and maybe it is our letter writers friends, in which case he should, you know, the first rule here is to know your audience. So by all means, have at it. I would say like for me in the kind of lead up to the midterms, I think a real pitch for Reason is that We hate politics too. And we think that policy and culture and the ways that they intersect matter. And we're going to keep writing and thinking and talking about those things. And so if you really, really, really hate politics and super duper don't want to hear This guy is up. This guy is down. How will this affect their, you know, this is sort of channeling what I was saying earlier about, you know, I don't think we should view the war in Iran through the lens of the midterm elections. We mostly, this podcast notwithstanding, don't do that here.

这不是你跟你的读书俱乐部说的吗？有一个非常非常具体的人群会对这个推销感兴趣，也许是我们的写信朋友们，在这种情况下，他应该，你知道，这里的第一条规则就是了解你的受众。所以尽管去做吧。我会说，就我而言，在中期选举的前期阶段，我认为对《Reason》的真正卖点是，我们也讨厌政治。而且我们认为政策和文化以及它们的交叉方式很重要。我们将继续写作、思考和讨论这些话题。所以，如果你真的、真的、真的讨厌政治，并且超级不想听这个人上台、那个人下台，这将如何影响他们，你知道，这是在呼应我之前说过的，我不认为我们应该通过中期选举的视角来看待伊朗战争。除了这个播客之外，我们大多数情况下在这里只是不会这样做。

Katherine Mangu-Ward（凯瑟琳·曼古-沃德）：

And I think that is, that's what I'm saying. This episode of the podcast notwithstanding, we mostly don't do that here. And I think that that is a real, a real selling point for us.

我认为，这正是我想表达的意思。撇开这一集播客不谈，我们这里大多数时候并不这样做。我认为这对我们来说确实是一个真正的卖点。

Peter Suderman（彼得·苏德曼）：

Matt, you want to take over PR for our marketing department here for a moment and comment on this? NPR but based?

Matt，你想暂时接管我们市场部的公关，并对此发表评论吗？偏向 NPR 吗？

Matt Welch（马特·韦尔奇）：

Yeah, I'm again- Be nice. Be nice. NPR but based. I understand what this person is going for. An alternative that I might suggest more broadly rather than to his friends is honest journalism and commentary from a point of view that is skeptical of government. That's it. Like, get him in with that. Most people are skeptical of government, turns out. As Nick was alluding to, it's pretty consistently polled in Gallup. They see the government is too big, tries to do too much. People are at least skeptical of government when the other team is running it. And we're skeptical no matter what team is running it. And we're also honest. We show our math. We understand that some of our consumers, listeners, readers, Nick, what's your pitch?

是的，我又来了——要友善。要友善。NPR 但有立场。我理解这个人想表达的意思。我可能更广泛建议的一个替代方式，而不是只针对他的朋友，就是从怀疑政府的角度出发的诚实新闻报道和评论。就是这样。把他带进这个圈子吧。事实证明，大多数人对政府持怀疑态度。就像 Nick 提到的，这在盖洛普的民调中一直相当稳定。他们认为政府太大，试图做太多事情。当另一方在执政时，人们至少会对政府持怀疑态度。而无论哪一方执政，我们都是怀疑的。我们也是诚实的。我们展示我们的计算方式。我们理解我们的一些消费者、听众、读者，Nick，你的介绍是什么？

Nick Gillespie（尼克·吉莱斯皮）：

You know, I like what Katherine and Matt were saying because my thing isn't like I don't want to be associated with NPR, but the big difference is that we're open about our bias in a way that I don't think NPR is. And, you know, this is the place if you, you know, it's the source for ideas, politics and culture from a libertarian perspective. And that means, you know, we believe we really believe in free minds and free markets. That's our starting point for all of our investigations of the world and to how to make it better, more interesting, more innovative, more forward looking, more fair and more fun. You know, that's, you know, to me, that's the pitch. Like we live in a world that is filled with media that is dour and depressing, is pessimistic, is constantly talking about how everything is going to hell or the things I care about is going to hell. I think at our best that we offer an alternative world.

你知道，我喜欢 Katherine 和 Matt 所说的，因为我的想法不是说我不想和 NPR 有关系，而是一个很大的不同是我们公开承认我们的偏见，而我认为 NPR 并没有做到这一点。你知道，如果你来这里，这里是从自由主义视角获取思想、政治和文化资讯的来源。这意味着，我们相信，我们真的相信思想自由和市场自由。这是我们探讨世界以及如何让世界变得更好、更有趣、更有创新性、更具前瞻性、更公平、更有趣的出发点。你知道，对我来说，这就是我们的宣传点。我们生活在一个充满阴郁和令人沮丧的媒体世界，这些媒体悲观消极，总是在谈论一切都在走向毁灭，或者我关心的事物都会走向毁灭。我认为在我们最好的状态下，我们提供了一个替代的世界。

Peter Suderman（彼得·苏德曼）：

So I take Katherine's point that we are in fact the political magazine for people who hate politics, but I sometimes wonder if that's actually a good pitch because people who want to read about politics tend to kind of like it. They're interested in it in some way. And so I would put it maybe just a little bit differently. Sorry, Katherine, to disagree with you. You're always right and you're my boss, and I should probably acknowledge that here. But like I would say, we're genuinely nonpartisan. Like we are just not team R or team D at all. And if you feel like you are left out of the kind of partisan cheerleading squads, like you don't love like, oh, these people like ultimately everything they do, even when I agree with them, also when I disagree with them, you can see that like these commentators are just everything. It all cashes out to we want Democrats to win or we want Republicans to win. You don't get that at Reason.

所以我理解凯瑟琳的观点，即我们实际上是为讨厌政治的人准备的政治杂志，但我有时会想，这是否真的一个好的宣传点，因为那些想读政治的人往往多少有点喜欢它。他们以某种方式对它感兴趣。所以我可能会稍微换一种说法。抱歉，凯瑟琳，我不同意你的看法。你总是对的，而且你是我的老板，我可能应该在这里承认这一点。但我会说，我们是真正的无党派。我们完全不是 R 党或 D 党的成员。如果你觉得自己被排除在某种党派拉拉队之外，比如你并不喜欢‘哦，这些人无论做什么我都支持’，即使我同意他们的时候，或者不同意他们的时候，你也能看到这些评论员只是把一切汇总，最终变成‘我们希望民主党赢’或‘我们希望共和党赢’。在《理由》杂志你是感受不到这种的。

Peter Suderman（彼得·苏德曼）：

You don't get that on this podcast. You don't get that in the magazine. You don't get that on the website. We're genuinely nonpartisan. And even though we hate politics, we're also solution oriented. You can read in Reason magazine, it is a 50 plus year record, 58, I think now, 58 year record of ideas about how to actually solve problems in politics and in governance. And that's a pretty rare thing in our political space right now, because again, so many of the commentators and sort of Analysts who pretend to be nonpartisan or neutral or, you know, this is this is this is reporting. It goes on the front page. It's part of the news side. It's analysis. It's just opinion. But what it is, it's opinion. It's just like, hey, how is this going to affect the election? Because we have a dog in this fight. We want one team to win. We don't. Care which team wins, we care what actually happens.

你在这个播客上听不到那种内容。在杂志上也听不到。在网站上也听不到。我们是真正的非党派。虽然我们讨厌政治，但我们也是以解决方案为导向的。你可以在《Reason》杂志上阅读，它有 50 多年的记录，我想现在是 58 年，关于如何实际解决政治和治理中的问题的理念记录。这在我们现在的政治领域是相当罕见的，因为再次强调，许多评论员和自称非党派或中立的分析师，或者你知道，这就是报道。它出现在头版，是新闻部分的一部分，是分析，只是观点。但它实际上就是观点，就像，“嘿，这将如何影响选举？” 因为我们在这场斗争中有立场。我们希望某一方获胜。我们不在乎哪一方赢，我们关心的是实际发生什么。

Peter Suderman（彼得·苏德曼）：

Like the actual output of politics is not the election, it's the policies that result. And that is like a shared part of our, a big part of our shared worldview at Reason that I don't think you find elsewhere. I also think we just really have the absolute best metaphors on this podcast in particular. So definitely pitch them on the metaphors. Let's move on to our final topic. Do governments matter in the age of AI? Yeah, speaking of people who hate politics. So AI appears to have hacked some Australian government websites and according to New York Times, meddled with US government web data, whatever that means. New York Times worried in a headline this weekend that thanks to the growing power of artificial intelligence, governments are being left behind, right? It's the apocalypse for the governments, right? You guys remember the Left Behind series, the Christian sort of post-rapture trash novels that were like a big part of my life.

政治的实际产出并不是选举，而是由此产生的政策。这是我们在 Reason 共享世界观中的一个重要部分，我认为在其他地方很难找到。我还认为，我们在这个播客中拥有绝对最佳的比喻。所以一定要向他们推销我们的比喻。让我们继续讨论最后一个话题：在人工智能时代，政府还有意义吗？说到讨厌政治的人。人工智能似乎入侵了一些澳大利亚政府网站，而且根据《纽约时报》的报道，还干扰了美国政府的网站数据，虽然不太清楚这具体意味着什么。《纽约时报》本周末在头条中担心，由于人工智能日益强大，政府正在被甩在后面，对吧？对政府来说，这简直是末日，对吧？你们还记得《Left Behind》系列吗？那种基督教的末世小说，当年对我的生活影响很大。

Peter Suderman（彼得·苏德曼）：

I actually never really read them. Everybody at my church read them when I was a kid at an evangelical church, right? So is government gonna be left behind after AI raptures the rest of us to somewhere else? Katherine, what do you think about all this? If AI did make government less important in people's lives,

实际上我从来没有真正读过它们。当我还是在一个福音派教会的孩子时，我教会的每个人都读过它们，对吧？那么，在人工智能把我们其他人带到别处之后，政府会被抛在后面吗？Katherine，你对这一切怎么看？如果人工智能确实让政府在人民生活中变得不那么重要，

Katherine Mangu-Ward（凯瑟琳·曼古-沃德）：

would that be a good thing? I mean, yeah, don't threaten me with a good time, right? Like this really is exactly the dream. Yeah, I mean, I do think it is it is has long been true that, you know, the the legislative process lags our technological development like increasingly comedically. Like it's just ridiculous to try and make laws when we are having the kind of rate of change that we have and we are doing quite a bad job at it as a general matter. I think the most interesting kind of text document, I guess, on this question this weekend is the Ezra Klein interview with Jensen Huang, the Nvidia guy. And I want to preface this by saying that we actually in my household, There's like a longstanding conflict, which is that my husband likes Ezra Klein and listens to his podcast and I I have more mixed feelings and so I don't. And sometimes he tries to smuggle things from Ezra Klein's podcast into our conversation.

那会是一件好事吗？我的意思是，是的，不要用美好时光来威胁我，对吧？就像这真的是完全的梦想。是的，我的意思是，我确实认为这确实长期以来一直是事实，你知道，立法过程落后于我们的技术发展，越来越具有讽刺意味。像在我们有如此高的变化速度时试图制定法律简直是荒谬，而且总体上我们也做得相当糟。我认为这个周末最有趣的一种文本文件，大概是在这个问题上的，是 Ezra Klein 对 Nvidia 的 Jensen Huang 的采访。我想先说明一点，我们家里其实有一个长期存在的冲突，那就是我丈夫喜欢 Ezra Klein 并听他的播客，而我对他有更复杂的感受，所以我不听。有时候他会试图把 Ezra Klein 播客里的一些内容偷偷带进我们的对话中。

Katherine Mangu-Ward（凯瑟琳·曼古-沃德）：

Like, oh, I just heard this thing, it was pretty interesting. And I caught him doing that this weekend.

就像，哦，我刚听到这件事，挺有意思的。而且我周末看到他做了那件事。

Peter Suderman（彼得·苏德曼）：

He was like, there was this really interesting interview. You caught him stealth Ezra Klein-ing you?

他就像，说有一个非常有趣的采访。你抓到他偷偷像 Ezra Klein 一样采访你了吗？

Katherine Mangu-Ward（凯瑟琳·曼古-沃德）：

He was Ezra Klein-ing, he incepted some Ezra Klein. And I was like, oh, that interview sounds really interesting. I'd love to listen to it. Can you send me the link? And he was like, errr. But it was in fact an interesting interview and one of the most libertarian kind of consistent views that I've heard on the AI question from anybody in a long time. It wasn't being explicitly libertarian or laissez-faire, but he just had a whole bunch of lines in this interview that I thought really nicely captured what was happening. And like, yes, obviously he has an interest in this. Like he has a dog in the fight, if you were to use a metaphor. He actually talks about metaphors in the interview. There's lots to discuss, so I don't want to get off track.

他在做埃兹拉·克莱因式的操作，他植入了一些埃兹拉·克莱因的想法。我当时想，哦，那次采访听起来很有趣。我很想听听。你能把链接发给我吗？他当时犹豫了一下。但事实上，那确实是一次有趣的采访，也是我很长时间以来听到的关于人工智能问题最具自由主义一致性的一种看法。并不是明确地表现出自由主义或放任主义，但他在这次采访中的许多观点，我觉得很好地抓住了事情的本质。显然，他对此有兴趣。如果用比喻来说，他确实在其中有个人利益。他实际上在采访中也谈到了比喻。还有很多话题可以讨论，所以我不想偏离主题。

Katherine Mangu-Ward（凯瑟琳·曼古-沃德）：

But he does say, we have all these metaphors in our language about tech, like spawn and kill and all these things that may have, We already have all of these rules and guardrails and The alarmists seem to be pretending as if we are living in this like blank slate world where it's just whatever Sam Altman wants to do becomes the reality. You know, he kept saying stuff like, we have a lot of laws and regulations, apply them. You know, if you're asking for regulation, you don't also get relief from the current regulation. Like, there was just a whole bunch of things in this interview where he just very sensibly said, I think people will figure it out. I do not think that this is quite as much of a sea change as some people are saying. I think there are a bunch of biases and reasons why we're having that. There are many, many players here who have agency and responsibility, and they should exercise that.

但他说，我们在语言中有许多关于技术的隐喻，比如生成和消灭，以及其他一些可能有的东西，我们已经有了所有这些规则和防护措施。而那些危言耸听的人似乎假装我们生活在一个空白的世界里，在那里，萨姆·奥特曼想做什么就成为什么现实。你知道，他不断地说，我们有很多法律和法规，要去执行它们。你知道，如果你要求监管，也不能同时获得对现有法规的豁免。在这次采访中有很多内容，他都很明智地表示，我认为人们会自己解决问题。我不认为这会像有些人说的那样是一次重大变革。我认为我们有很多偏见和原因导致会有这种说法。在这里有许多参与者拥有行动能力和责任，他们应该行使这些能力和责任。

Katherine Mangu-Ward（凯瑟琳·曼古-沃德）：

If you think your product is dangerous, don't release it to market. Like, I guess I just found it very refreshing, and I thought that that was the right answer to so many of these questions is not. Yes, government is definitely being left behind. It was that was a foregone conclusion, but we do have lots of people with agency and responsibility still in the system, and they should be exercising that.

如果你认为你的产品有危险，不要将它投放市场。比如，我猜你可以说我只是觉得这很令人耳目一新，我认为对这么多问题的正确答案是否定的。是的，政府绝对被落在了后面。这是一个既定结论，但我们系统中仍有许多拥有权力和责任的人，他们应该行使这些权力和责任。

Peter Suderman（彼得·苏德曼）：

Well, Nick, let me follow up on that, because the response to that Huang interview, excuse me, with Ezra Klein has really been to bust on on him. People have not thought have not found his responses compelling. And basically the argument is, well, the models that are causing problems have not, in fact, been released. Right. So the the argument that you could just not release it if it's dangerous doesn't hold true. And we do have these laws on the books, but also they haven't stopped the hugging face attack, the Australia hack, which wasn't that bad, but is did happen. Right. Like so that the laws aren't working and the not releasing isn't working. And this is I'm not saying I buy this argument, but this is what's happening and the response to this. And I just want to know what you think about it.

好吧，Nick，让我跟进一下这个问题，因为对于那次黄的采访，抱歉，是和 Ezra Klein 的采访，大家的反应实际上是批评他。人们并没有觉得他的回应有说服力。基本的论点是，这些导致问题的模型实际上并没有被发布。对吧。所以那种“如果它很危险，你就干脆不发布”的论点并不成立。我们确实有这些现行法律，但它们也没有阻止 Hugging Face 的攻击、澳大利亚的黑客事件，虽然事件不算严重，但确实发生了。对吧？就是说法律不起作用，而不发布也不起作用。这不是说我认同这个论点，但这就是正在发生的情况，以及对此的回应。我只是想知道你对此的看法。

Nick Gillespie（尼克·吉莱斯皮）：

To follow up on what Katherine was talking about, you know, people constantly are saying this is the wild, you know, it's the Wild West in AI. And it's like if you read back issues of Reason, first, you'll learn that the Wild West wasn't as wild as people think, that it was incredibly rule bound, both by custom and then by law. But there are, you know, there is a thicket of all sorts of regulations that govern AI corporations along with other corporations. And you can say, oh, it hasn't stopped all of this stuff, but actually the industry to date has been doing an extremely good job in calling attention to the issues and problems. I mean, I think the real question, and this is where I disagree with people who are dumping on, you know, the the Nvidia CEO, And I think it is the Ezra Klein's and, you know, the professional, you know, boy men, pants pissers of media and of technology.

为了跟进 Katherine 所谈的内容，你知道，人们常常说这是狂野的，你知道，人工智能界就像是西部荒野。就像如果你去翻阅《Reason》过去的期刊，你会发现，首先，西部荒野并不像人们想象的那样狂野，它其实有非常多的规则约束，无论是习俗还是法律。但你知道，有一大堆各种各样的法规来管理人工智能公司以及其他公司。你可能会说，这并没有阻止所有这些事情，但实际上到目前为止，这个行业在引起人们对问题和困境的注意方面做得非常好。我的意思是，我认为真正的问题是，这也是我与一些那种批评 Nvidia CEO 的人不一致的地方。我觉得像 Ezra Klein 以及那些专业的媒体和科技界的男士评论人，他们总是在挑毛病的人。

Nick Gillespie（尼克·吉莱斯皮）：

These are the people who are, you know, it's the same group of people. It's the same thing over and over again. Gallup recently did a poll, a survey of countries all over the world to see which countries were in favor of AI and which ones weren't. Fascinatingly, the countries that thought... Yeah, AI and all sorts of other things have outstripped government. You can, in a very real and profound way, live your life kind of independent of government, especially if you're willing, and this is a big if, to throw, you know, 30% of your income over the wall of your compound and just say, okay, leave me alone. You can live pretty much however you want. And this is a place, you know, particularly in the social world, the libertarian victory has been absolutely complete. You know, and I think that's an incredible, beautiful thing that we need to stress more often.

这些人就是，你知道的，都是同一群人。这种事情一遍又一遍地发生。盖洛普最近做了一项民意调查，对世界各国进行了调查，以了解哪些国家支持人工智能，哪些国家不支持。有趣的是，那些认为……是的，人工智能和各种其他东西已经超越了政府的国家。你实际上可以以一种非常真实且深刻的方式独立于政府生活，尤其是如果你愿意——这是一个大大的“如果”——把你收入的 30%投入到你的生活圈之外，然后说，‘好吧，别管我。’你几乎可以按自己想要的方式生活。在这个地方，特别是在社会层面，自由主义者的胜利已经完全实现。我认为那是非常令人难以置信、非常美好的事情，我们需要更频繁地强调这一点。

Nick Gillespie（尼克·吉莱斯皮）：

But it is also true that the government can come after you and that it's not enough to simply say AI and other technologies are allowing us to live beyond government. We also need the government to acknowledge that and retreat back to, you know, its necessary functions where it makes sense to have a political consensus, govern activity and have people do it legitimately.

但同样的事实也存在：政府可以追究你的责任，仅仅说人工智能和其他技术让我们可以超越政府是不够的。我们还需要政府承认这一点，并回到自己必要的职能上，在有必要达成政治共识的地方去管理活动，并让人们合法地去执行。

Peter Suderman（彼得·苏德曼）：

Matt, so in addition to the interview with NVIDIA that Katherine brought up, Ezra Klein also released a long video essay calling for a prohibition on recursive self-improvement, which is basically when the AI starts making itself better autonomously.

马特，除了凯瑟琳提到的与英伟达的采访之外，埃兹拉·克莱因还发布了一段长篇视频文章，呼吁禁止递归自我改进，也就是人工智能开始自主提高自身能力的时候。

Nick Gillespie（尼克·吉莱斯皮）：

You add that to that headline that I talked about- Which, by the way, is impossible. Well, it's already happening in some way. It's impossible to know exactly because AI is already being used to generate code to improve AI and to do the analysis. And so, you know, people just sort of wonder when that's going to like how that's going to happen more. I don't think we can say it's impossible. This is Mr. Abundance, by the way, we're talking about.

你把我之前提到的那个标题加进去——顺便说一下，那是不可能的。不过，它已经以某种方式在发生了。确切地知道是不可能的，因为 AI 已经被用于生成代码以改进 AI 和进行分析。所以，你知道，人们只是在想，这将会什么时候以及如何更多地发生。我不认为我们可以说这是不可能的。顺便说一下，我们说的是丰饶先生。

Peter Suderman（彼得·苏德曼）：

Right, so there's the abundance part that, you know, I definitely want to ask you about, Matt, but I actually just want to ask you about the panicked coverage here, right? The tone of this. Does this feel familiar to you in any way, right? And like, what's the, what do you make of the fact that the press is like in terror of AI, but also specifically in terror of AI, maybe making government just a little bit less important in our lives?

对，所以这里有一个关于丰裕的部分，你知道，我肯定想问你这个，Matt，但实际上我只是想问你这里的恐慌性报道，对吧？这种语气。你觉得这有任何熟悉感吗，对吗？而且，你如何看待这样的事实：媒体对人工智能感到恐惧，但也特别害怕人工智能可能让政府在我们生活中的作用稍微变得不那么重要？

Matt Welch（马特·韦尔奇）：

You've got me nostalgic about the Y2K scare. Yeah. That was a lot. That was a lot. When, if you were a freelancer, like in the work in the tech biz angle during the first dot com boom, you made some money out of the Y2K scare. That was great. Great for business. Although I don't even know if I wrote about that. That was such a bad.

你让我回想起了千年虫恐慌。是啊。那真的很夸张。那真的很夸张。如果你是自由职业者，比如在第一次互联网泡沫期间从事科技行业，你还能从千年虫恐慌中赚到一些钱。那真是太棒了。对生意很好。虽然我甚至不知道我是否写过那个。那真是太糟糕了。

Nick Gillespie（尼克·吉莱斯皮）：

Was that Ben Affleck impersonation conference contest you were part of Matt?

那个你参与的本·阿弗莱克模仿大会比赛是你参加的吗，马特？

Matt Welch（马特·韦尔奇）：

Was that also Y2K related somehow? It was post 9-11, so we had lost our sense of humor. The irony was dead, and I just looked a lot like Ben Affleck. Yeah, Ben Affleck impersonation contest. That's a side irony. It died.

那也以某种方式与千年虫有关吗？那是在 9·11 之后，所以我们已经失去了幽默感。讽刺已经消失，而我看起来很像本·阿弗莱克。是的，本·阿弗莱克模仿比赛。那是一个次要的讽刺。它消失了。

Katherine Mangu-Ward（凯瑟琳·曼古-沃德）：

Matt's going to tell us about his back tattoo in a minute, but that's okay.

马特一会儿会告诉我们他的后背纹身，但没关系。

Matt Welch（马特·韦尔奇）：

I'm not going to tell you about any such thing. He's just going to show it, and if you're not watching the YouTube, you're not going to see it. I think that we should acknowledge that big, scary new things in the short-term future are big and scary and new. Humans are always like, if I don't, I don't understand this, but everyone says it's big and it's coming. There's always a market for that being worse than you might think. Again, Y2K is actually what I read, you know, to be responsive to your question. It's that, like, it was easy to talk yourself into that was going to be a big, Big, like one day problem. It's going to be like a millenarian type of whatever. Planes falling from the sky. Planes falling from the sky. It was crazy.

我不会告诉你任何这样的事情。他只是会展示它，如果你不在看 YouTube，你就看不到。我认为我们应该承认，短期未来中那些大、可怕、新奇的事物确实是大、可怕、新奇的。人类总是会想，如果我不理解这个，但每个人都说它很大，它即将到来。这总会有市场，比你想象的可能还要糟。再说一次，Y2K 实际上是我读到的，为了回应你的问题。就是那种，很容易说服自己相信这会是一个大、大的、像一天就能出现的问题。会像某种千年危机一样。飞机从天而降。飞机从天而降。简直疯了。

Matt Welch（马特·韦尔奇）：

This, this feels bigger and and just kind of more vague and people are using, and by people, I mean the idiots who run the AI industry, who have had the worst six month run of industrial PR of any industry I've ever seen in my life. being hacked. I can understand that one, right? If we look at how technology has been used over the last five or ten years, hacking technology, identification theft and elsewhere, I think that's going to tell us more about short term AI than these grandiose kind of scenarios. At least I can wrap my head around it. And that is to say they're going to go to hospital databases and they're going to do ransomware on hospitals. They're going to look for places where there's large amounts of data, sensitive personal data, where there's large amounts of money and bad software. And they'll find those places and they will find ways to extract money.

这个，这感觉更大，也只是更模糊，人们在使用，而提到人们，我是指那些经营人工智能行业的傻瓜，他们经历了我这辈子见过的任何行业中最糟糕的六个月工业公关。被黑客攻击。我能理解这个，对吧？如果我们看看过去五到十年技术是如何被使用的，黑客技术、身份盗窃等方面，我认为这会比这些宏大的情景更能告诉我们短期的人工智能。至少我能理解。也就是说，他们会进入医院数据库，对医院实施勒索软件攻击。他们会寻找大量数据、敏感个人数据、资金充足且软件不安全的地方。他们会找到这些地方，并找到方法来提取资金。

Matt Welch（马特·韦尔奇）：

I mean, there's been billions and billions of dollars that have been extracted from hospitals through ransomware. There's going to be a lot of government databases that are going to be breached, I would imagine, over the next couple of years.

我的意思是，通过勒索软件已经从医院提取了数十亿美元。我想象在未来几年，会有很多政府数据库被入侵。

Peter Suderman（彼得·苏德曼）：

Using AI, there's going to be a lot of identification theft. A lot of people are going to wake up thinking that they have this amount of money in a place and then they're not going to be sure if they still have that amount of money in that place. And I think that's more tangible to try to figure out and to steal one's self against than a bunch of claptrap about the singularity. So I just want to say on the hospital data point, I think that's crazy. Like the hospital databases are great. Like IT in hospitals, it's wonderful. They spent $40 billion in the stimulus. It was in the Obama stimulus. It was $40 billion for this and it totally worked. Like after that, like all the hospital databases could talk to all your doctors. You just get it right on your phone. It's super easy. There's no problems with it ever. And like everybody knows exactly what's going on on the same page. And that stuff's secure, too.

使用人工智能，将会有大量的身份盗窃。很多人早上醒来会以为他们在某个地方有这么多钱，然后又不确定自己是否仍然有那笔钱。我认为，要弄清楚并防范这些问题，比去理会关于奇点的那些无稽之谈更实际。所以我只想说关于医院数据这一点，我觉得那太疯狂了。医院数据库非常棒。医院的信息技术也很出色。他们在刺激计划中投入了 400 亿美元。那是在奥巴马的刺激计划里，用于这个项目的 40 亿美元，效果完全奏效。之后，所有的医院数据库都能与所有医生互通，你的手机上就能直接获得信息，非常方便，从来没有问题。每个人都确切知道发生了什么，都在同一页面上。而且这些东西也很安全。

Peter Suderman（彼得·苏德曼）：

So you don't have to worry about that part of it, I think. But something that people do worry about, Katherine, is that when this like part of the concern here is, oh, look, this just shifts the shifts power away from the government, maybe. Right. Like we saw that then the rest of the kind of cadre of AI associated philosophies, the rationalists, the post-rats, the effective accelerationists, all of this, right? What's the one that's like the... Extropians? The extropians, right? The transhumanists, but before we call them transhumanists. And they've gotten some critical attention in some ways that I think is that I think is actually worth sort of thinking about, right? Because it does seem like some of these folks basically have a view that's like shrimp lives matter and not human ones and maybe AI lives matter and not human ones. And that's kind of weird, isn't it?

所以我认为你不必担心这部分。但是人们确实会担心的事情，Katherine，是这种担忧的一部分在于，哦，看，这也许只是把权力从政府手中转移出去，对吧。就像我们看到的那样，AI 相关哲学的其余一批人——理性主义者、后理性主义者、有效加速主义者，所有这些，对吧？哪个是……外推主义者吗？对，是外推主义者，对吧？跨人类主义者，但在我们称他们为跨人类主义者之前。他们在某些方面获得了一些批判性的关注，我认为这实际上值得思考，因为似乎这些人基本上持有一种观点：虾的生命重要而人类的生命不重要，也许 AI 的生命重要而人类的生命不重要。这有点奇怪，不是吗？

Katherine Mangu-Ward（凯瑟琳·曼古-沃德）：

So I think it is actually like an incredibly praiseworthy thing about humans that we are almost always asking the question, hey, is this thing that we didn't think was human? Could it be human actually in the end? And this is just, you know, this is the expanding circle of humanity.

所以我认为，实际上人类的一个非常值得称赞的特质是，我们几乎总是在问这个问题，嘿，这个我们原本认为不是人的东西？它最终可能是人类吗？这就是，人类的扩展圈子。

Katherine Mangu-Ward（凯瑟琳·曼古-沃德）：

Senator who was People with ovaries were human. Like I get that it's just like we're doing it real slow. And I do think that there's value in doing it slow too, because we could get it wrong.

曾经是参议员的人。拥有卵巢的人是人类。我明白，这只是像我们做得很慢一样。我确实认为慢慢来也有价值，因为我们可能会做错。

Peter Suderman（彼得·苏德曼）：

This is happening pretty fast. I mean, these philosophies didn't exist 30 years ago.

这发生得相当快。我的意思是，这些哲学三十年前还不存在。

Katherine Mangu-Ward（凯瑟琳·曼古-沃德）：

Here's the thing, I think that, I think that the you sort of loosely characterized it. I know you were just being brief, but you loosely characterized it as AIs are human and humans are not or AIs matter and humans don't. And same for shrimps. I actually think that there's no one's actually arguing that. I think it's a question of just like, well, how how are we finding the balance? And this episode is clearly brought to you by my husband because he is also effective altruist adjacent and we like don't eat shrimp at our house because maybe shrimps are people and all these little subdivisions that you just described. They are trying to answer the question, what matters and how do we live a good life? And that those questions are being accelerated right now by both AI and, you know, on the...

事情是这样的，我觉得，你大概是这样模糊地描述了它。我知道你只是想简单说一下，但你模糊地说成了 AI 是人类，而人类不是，或者 AI 重要而人类不重要。对虾也是一样。实际上我认为没人真正这样争论过。我觉得这只是一个关于——我们如何找到平衡的问题。而这一集显然是由我的丈夫提供赞助的，因为他也算是有效利他主义者相关的人物，我们家不吃虾，因为也许虾是有感知的生物，还有你刚才描述的所有这些小的分类。他们其实是在尝试回答这样的问题：什么是重要的，我们如何过上好生活？而这些问题现在正被 AI 加速发展，另外在…

Katherine Mangu-Ward（凯瑟琳·曼古-沃德）：

On the other end of the spectrum, like there's about to be a ton of money that's going to pour into philanthropy from all this AI money. And that money is going to go to effective altruist causes, which, yes, will be malarial bed nets, but will also be a lot of this like long term thinking about how to hedge risk and will also be for saving the shrimps. You know, I think those markets will clear too. Like, I just think at some point we will have these moments where we realize, oh, the sign on this was positive and not negative. The sign on this was, you know, slowing down is what's costing human and shrimp lives rather than speeding up. And at that point, we can proceed with more knowledge. But again, like from the NVIDIA guy's interview, he says, don't think for a second just because you're an alarmist that you're doing a social good. It could easily be the opposite. And that's true by the calculus of the effective altruists.

在光谱的另一端，比如说，似乎有一大笔资金即将从所有这些人工智能的钱中流入慈善事业。而这笔钱将会流向有效利他主义的事业，当然，是，会用于疟疾蚊帐，但也会用于很多长期风险对冲的思考，也会用于拯救虾类。你知道，我觉得这些市场也会得到清理。也就是说，我只是觉得在某个时刻我们会有这样的时刻意识到，哦，这个信号是正面的，而不是负面的。这个信号是，你知道，放慢速度才是在付出人类和虾类生命的代价，而不是加速造成的代价。到了那时，我们可以带着更多的知识继续前进。但同样地，从那位 NVIDIA 专家的采访来看，他说，不要以为仅仅因为你是个警示者就意味着你在做社会善事。实际上很容易正好相反。根据有效利他主义者的计算，这确实是如此。

Katherine Mangu-Ward（凯瑟琳·曼古-沃德）：

Like their whole math rests on, you know, the AI doomers, their whole math rests on the sign is negative. And if they're wrong about that, they are just as responsible for all those missed opportunities.

就像他们整个数学都建立在，你知道，AI 灾难论者，他们整个数学都建立在符号是负的。如果他们在这点上错了，他们就要对所有那些错失的机会负同样的责任。

Peter Suderman（彼得·苏德曼）：

Yeah, I do think it's at least worth paying attention to some of the beliefs here and kind of understanding them, right? Like Aaron Sibarium for the Washington Free Beacon did a pretty good piece on this, flagged some passages that are like it's worth knowing what these people think and understanding sort of where they come from. The one that I just wanted to highlight here is Joe Carlsmith, co-author of Claude's Constitution, which is basically sort of the values and behavior training document. It's like, what does Claude deeply believe? What are its like sort of core values? Said, we may have to talk about slavery and that AI may be justified in going rogue. So this is, it's not quite, it's not quite saying humans don't matter, but it is sort of putting AI, maybe shrimp, right? Like, you know, but like AI in equivalence with human existence in a way that I don't know that I would go quite that far.

是的，我确实认为至少值得注意这里的一些信念，并试着理解它们，对吧？比如，《华盛顿自由灯塔》的 Aaron Sibarium 做了一篇相当不错的文章，标出了几段值得了解这些人想法的内容，以及理解他们的出发点。我这里只想强调的一点是 Joe Carlsmith，他是《Claude 的宪法》的合著者，这本书基本上算是关于价值观和行为的训练文件。它就像是在问，Claude 真正深信什么？它的核心价值观是什么？他说，我们可能需要讨论奴隶制，以及 AI 在什么情况下可能被正当化去“失控”。所以，这并不是完全说人类无关紧要，但它确实在某种程度上把 AI 可能与人类存在等同起来，我不确定我会走那么远去认同这一点。

Peter Suderman（彼得·苏德曼）：

In any case, let's, Go to the end of this podcast with our cultural recommendations, books, movies, museums and other things in the cultural realm that we recommend or sometimes don't. Nick, speaking of abundance, do you have something you want to recommend to us?

无论如何，让我们用我们的文化推荐——书籍、电影、博物馆以及我们推荐的或有时不推荐的其他文化领域的事物——来结束本期播客。尼克，说到丰富，你有什么想推荐给我们的吗？

Nick Gillespie（尼克·吉莱斯皮）：

Yeah, I do. And I realize, you know, I guess it's something different than what we've been talking about. It's a podcast called Everyday Abundance that is co-hosted by former Reason editor in chief, Virginia Postrel, and the author, Charles C. Mann, who's well known for the books 1491. And 1493, which are about the new world right before and right after contact with Europe. They talk about what they call the hidden history behind everyday activity and technological kind of technologies that we don't even necessarily think of as technologies. A couple of examples. One a few episodes ago. They talked about how electricity, when electricity came online, you know, the people pushing it were like, okay, we're going to, you know, electricity is great for home lighting. But in fact, when electricity came around, there were already pretty good ways of lighting houses at night, including, you know, gas lamps and kerosene lamps, etc.

是的，我知道。而且我意识到，你知道，我猜这和我们一直在谈论的东西有些不同。它是一个名为《每日丰盛》的播客，由前《Reason》杂志主编 Virginia Postrel 和作家 Charles C. Mann 共同主持，后者因《1491》和《1493》这两本书而闻名，这些书讲述了新世界在与欧洲接触前后。 他们讨论的是所谓的日常活动背后的隐藏历史，以及那些我们甚至不一定认为是技术的技术。一些例子。几集前，他们谈到当电力上线时，推动它的人会说，好吧，我们知道，电力很适合家庭照明。但实际上，当电力出现时，已经有相当不错的夜间照明方式，包括煤气灯和煤油灯等。

Nick Gillespie（尼克·吉莱斯皮）：

So, you know, it was not enough to actually force mass adoption of electricity. So among other things, and Virginia talks at length about this in this episode about how power companies started saying, you know, you should really get a home electric washing machine. And they helped promote and develop washing machines that were electric. So it was, you know, it's just fascinating. And that's, you know, the podcast, each episode, you know, covers ground like that. And it's genuinely interesting. It shows how even things that are very transformative actually get adopted a little bit at a time typically, or very quickly when something shows up that really You know, makes a huge difference. People learn how to adapt. If it's an actually useful technology, people learn how to incorporate it into their lives pretty quickly. So it's a great podcast in and of itself.

所以，你知道，仅仅强制推广电力还不足够。因此，除了其他方面，Virginia 在这一集中详细讲述了电力公司如何开始说，你真的应该买一台家用电动洗衣机。他们还帮助推广和开发了电动洗衣机。所以，你知道，这真的很吸引人。而这也是这个播客的特点，每一集都会涵盖类似的话题，而且真的很有趣。它展示了即使是非常具有变革性的事物，通常也是一点一点被接受的，或者当出现某种能真正产生巨大影响的东西时，人们会非常迅速地学会适应。如果这是一项真正有用的技术，人们会很快学会将其融入生活。因此，这本身就是一个很棒的播客。

Nick Gillespie（尼克·吉莱斯皮）：

And then especially for this moment and, you know, vis-a-vis the conversation we've been having, it's a great antidote to doomerism or also that kind of, you know, secular rapture stuff, that like, you know, the singularity is coming, man, and it's going to be great. So that's everyday abundance. Yeah.

尤其是针对这一刻，你知道，相对于我们一直在进行的对话，这是一种应对末日论的极好解药，或者也是那种，你知道的，世俗的狂喜之类的东西，比如，你知道的，奇点即将到来，伙计，而且会很棒。这就是日常的丰盛。是的。

Peter Suderman（彼得·苏德曼）：

Yeah. I mean, it's also a good antidote just to the sort of socialist sort of grumpy mindset about like the economy hasn't actually improved. It's really terrible for everyone. Yeah. It's almost like, you know, machines that use some energy to save us a bunch of labor are good things. So I also want to my recommendation also involves a former Reason employee, Emma Camp. Who, along with Caleb Arch, formerly of National Review, put on a production, a reading of Shakespeare's Much Ado About Nothing this weekend. I attended because I was in it. I played Leonardo, the old man who is sort of owns the house in which all the action is happening. His daughter and his brother's daughter is getting married. It's a great play. It was super fun. And like. We had, you know, we in the last minute, because originally this was going to be the original idea was to host this in somebody's backyard, right? It was going to be a backyard in New York City.

是的。我的意思是，这也是对那种关于经济实际上没有改善、对每个人都很糟糕的社会主义式抱怨心态的一个很好的解药。是的。这几乎就像，你知道的，使用一些能源来为我们节省大量劳动的机器是好东西。所以我还想推荐一位前 Reason 员工，Emma Camp。她和前《国家评论》的 Caleb Arch 一起，在这个周末上演了一场《无事生非》的莎士比亚朗读剧。我去观看了，因为我也参与了。我饰演 Leonardo，一个老者，拥有所有事件发生的房子。他的女儿和他兄弟的女儿要结婚。这是一个很棒的剧本，非常有趣。而且像，我们，你知道，我们在最后一分钟才做决定，因为最初的想法是要在某人的后院举办演出，对吧？要在纽约市的一个后院里举办。

Peter Suderman（彼得·苏德曼）：

And if you know anything about what's going on on the East Coast this week, there's big, big storm. And we were like, OK, that's not going to work to have people outside. So we rented a little venue near Bryant Park, which turned out to be just excellent. We had good seating and nice lighting and we were safe from the storm. And we practiced exactly once the night before. And then did one more run through the day of and it went great. And there were people from the Journal, from the Dispatch. Right. I was there from Reason and it was just It was so much fun, I think, for everyone on stage, but also I think and I at least hope it was fun for the people who were watching it as well. And it's just a great lesson in like, you can do the things you want to do. You just email a bunch of people and say, hey, want to do a play? And then they say yes. And some of them have to travel to New York.

如果你知道本周东海岸发生的事情，就会知道有一场非常大的风暴。我们当时就想，好吧，让人们在户外活动行不通。所以我们在布莱恩特公园附近租了一个小场地，结果非常棒。我们有舒适的座位和很好的灯光，而且远离风暴的影响。我们前一晚只排练了一次，然后当天又进行了最后一次排练，一切都很顺利。有来自《华尔街日报》和《快讯》的记者。我是来自《Reason》的，到场的人都觉得非常有趣，我想，不仅台上的人们觉得有趣，我至少希望观看的人们也觉得有趣。这是一个很好的经验教训：你可以去做自己想做的事情。你只需要给一群人发邮件，说，“嘿，想不想演个戏？”然后他们会说“好”。其中一些人还得特地来到纽约。

Peter Suderman（彼得·苏德曼）：

There were at least a couple of us who came from other cities just to make this happen. And it was it was like I mean, there's it had the same kind of energy as a really great house party. Right. And in fact, there was kind of a house party afterwards. Right. It's just a bunch of people who are there to have fun together. Everybody's into it. You get to do a funny voice on stage and, you know, sort of. Read some great poetry by Shakespeare or some great poetic dialogue. I can't recommend doing Shakespeare enough. And I say this as somebody who has never been, who loves drama, but has never been like a big Shakespeare head, performing it and like learning how to say the lines, coming up with a theory of what each line is doing, because you're going to have to say it out loud in front of 60 people.

至少有我们几个是从其他城市专程赶来为了让这件事发生。那感觉就像，我是说，它有着和一个非常棒的家庭聚会相同的那种能量，对吧。事实上，之后还有一种家庭聚会的感觉，对吧。就是一群人聚在一起开心玩耍。每个人都很投入。你可以在舞台上用滑稽的声音表演，你知道，也可以朗诵一些莎士比亚的伟大诗歌或者一些精彩的诗意对话。我强烈推荐去表演莎士比亚。我这么说，是作为一个从未真正接触过、很热爱戏剧，但从来不是莎士比亚狂热爱好者的人来说的。演出它、学习如何背台词、形成对每一句台词作用的理解理论，因为你得在 60 个人面前大声说出来。

Peter Suderman（彼得·苏德曼）：

Really helps you understand what's going on in those plays, even if it's like not immediately clear on a really quick read through, which was always my feeling when I was 20 years old, studying this stuff in college. In any case, Shakespeare, pretty good. Also, Emma Camp, pretty good. Strongly recommend both if you get an opportunity to go to a play or be in one, you should. Katherine, you want to talk about some poetry too?

真的有助于你理解那些剧作中发生了什么，即使在快速阅读时不立即明白，我 20 岁上大学学习这些东西的时候总是有这种感觉。总之，莎士比亚，相当不错。还有，艾玛·坎普，也相当不错。如果有机会去看戏或参加演出，我强烈推荐这两者，你应该去。凯瑟琳，你也想谈谈一些诗歌吗？

Katherine Mangu-Ward（凯瑟琳·曼古-沃德）：

Suderman, that was fucking adorable. First of all, that was the cutest. I'm happy for you to be in the show.

苏德曼，那太可爱了。首先，那是最可爱的。我很高兴你能参加这个节目。

Peter Suderman（彼得·苏德曼）：

You haven't even heard me do my Leonardo voice.

你甚至还没听我用莱昂纳多的声音说话。

Katherine Mangu-Ward（凯瑟琳·曼古-沃德）：

I shan't do that. I have some poetry too. So since this whole episode is about my husband, I will say he left me unattended. And so then what happened was I built a bunch of shelves and watched a documentary about Mary Oliver. And that's what happens when you leave me alone, like in the middle of the night. Mary Oliver is a popular poet who writes on nature themes and she is therefore treated badly and dismissed and considered to be a fluffy poet for girls. And her stuff is on Instagram, which makes it even worse. I've talked about her a bit on this podcast. She nonetheless found her way to my heart as well as the hearts of many people who are typically too snobby for that sort of thing. This documentary, which is a PBS documentary called Mary Oliver Saved by the Beauty of the World, makes a great case duly for one. Just because she's a nature poet doesn't mean you should look down on her.

我不会那样做。我也写一些诗。所以既然这一整个事件都是关于我丈夫的，我就说他把我一个人丢下了。于是发生的事情是我搭了很多书架，并且看了一部关于玛丽·奥利弗的纪录片。这就是你半夜把我一个人留下时会发生的事情。玛丽·奥利弗是一位受欢迎的诗人，她写作的主题是自然，因此她经常被不好好对待，被忽视，并且被认为是为女孩写的轻松诗人。她的作品在 Instagram 上，这让情况更加糟糕。我在这个播客里也聊过她一点。然而，她仍然找到了进入我心里的道路，也进入了许多通常对这类事情太自命不凡的人的心。这部纪录片，是 PBS 的一部纪录片，叫《玛丽·奥利弗：被世界的美拯救》，充分且合理地为她辩护。仅仅因为她是自然诗人，并不意味着你应该瞧不起她。

Katherine Mangu-Ward（凯瑟琳·曼古-沃德）：

And actually, she has fantastically split the difference between too obscure to know about or care about and you have to read it in school. She's right in the middle. And that's like a beautiful, beautiful place to be because it prevents you from coming to hate it for pedagogical reasons, like many of us learned perhaps to hate Shakespeare and then had to relearn to love it. But also you can still find her wild geese is her most famous poem, which contains the line, you do not have to be good. You do not have to walk on your knees for 100 miles through the desert repenting. You have only to let the soft animal of your body love what it loves.

实际上，她巧妙地在太冷门以至于无人知晓或关心和必须在学校阅读之间找到了完美的中间点。她恰好处在正中间。这是一个美丽而美丽的状态，因为它可以防止你因为教学原因而开始讨厌它，就像我们许多人也许学着讨厌莎士比亚，然后又不得不重新学会喜爱它一样。但你仍然可以找到她的《野鹅》——她最著名的诗，其中有这样一句话：你不必变得完美。你不必跪着走过沙漠一百英里来忏悔。你只需要让你身体里柔软的动物去爱它所爱的东西。

Peter Suderman（彼得·苏德曼）：

I think that's what they tell the AI and the training.

我想那就是他们告诉人工智能和训练的内容。

Katherine Mangu-Ward（凯瑟琳·曼古-沃德）：

There's something in there, something about not having to go 100 miles repenting is it feels relevant to a lot of things. But secondarily, the documentary also notes that Mary Oliver was an absolute badass, a chain smoking lesbian who did not give a shit. Her bestie boo was John Waters of, you know, indie film fame. He's in the documentary with his little mustache, talking about how she used to pluck, turn So Mary Oliver, Saved by the Beauty of the World. It's PBS, but it's still good.

里面有一些东西，有关不必跑一百英里去忏悔的事情，这似乎与许多事情都相关。但其次，纪录片还指出，玛丽·奥利弗完全是个狠角色，一个连环吸烟的女同性恋，根本不在乎。她的好朋友是你知道的独立电影名人约翰·沃特斯。他在纪录片里留着他的小胡子，谈论她以前如何挑剔，所以玛丽·奥利弗，被世界之美拯救了。这是 PBS 的节目，但仍然不错。

Peter Suderman（彼得·苏德曼）：

Always poor, always drunk, always a mess. Life goals. Matt Welch.

一直很穷，一直喝醉，一直一团糟。人生目标。马特·韦尔奇。

Matt Welch（马特·韦尔奇）：

Familiar with those life goals and achievements. I'm not at all bashful to say that mine is the fourth out of four of what has been an absolutely outstanding A plus what we've been consuming in the cultural arena here. I just saw a movie and I liked it. It's called The Weight. It's an Ethan Hawke picture.

熟悉那些人生目标和成就。我一点也不害羞地说，我的目标是四个中的第四个，这绝对是我们在这里文化领域所消费的杰出 A 级作品。我刚看了一部电影，我很喜欢。它叫《重量》。这是伊桑·霍克出演的影片。

Matt Welch（马特·韦尔奇）：

ake government less important in people's lives, a listener question asking for the best elevator pitch for Reason, whether artificial intelligence could make government less important in people's lives, a listener question asking for the best elevator pitch for Reason, whether artificial intelligence could make government less important in people's lives, a listener question asking for the best elevator pitch for Reason, whether artificial intelligence could make government less important in people's lives, a listener question asking for the best elevator pitch for Reason, whether artificial intelligence could make government less important in people's lives, a listener question asking for the best elevator pitch for Reason, whether artificial intelligence could make government less important in people's lives, a listener question asking for the best elevator pitch for Reason, whether artificial intelligence could make government less important in people's lives, a listener question asking for the best elevator pitch for Reason, I'm going to go ahead and start with the first one.

让政府在人们的生活中变得不那么重要, 听众询问 Reason 的最佳电梯演讲, 人工智能是否可以让政府在人们的生活中变得不那么重要, 听众询问 Reason 的最佳电梯演讲, 听众询问 Reason 的最佳电梯演讲, 听众询问 Reason 的最佳电梯演讲, 听众询问 Reason 的最佳电梯演讲, 听众询问 Reason 的最佳电梯演讲, 人工智能是否可以让政府在人们的生活中变得不那么重要, 听众 一个听众问题询问 Reason 的最佳电梯演讲，人工智能是否可以使政府在人们的生活中变得不那么重要，一个听众问题询问 Reason 的最佳电梯演讲，人工智能是否可以使政府在人们的生活中变得不那么重要，一个听众问题询问 Reason 的最佳电梯演讲，我将继续从第一个开始。

Matt Welch（马特·韦尔奇）：

I'm going to go ahead and start with the first one. I'm going to go ahead and start with the first one. I'm going to go ahead and start with the first one. I'm going to go ahead and start with the first one. I'm going to go ahead and start with the first one. I'm going to go ahead and start with the first one. I'm going to go ahead and start with the first one. I'm going to go ahead and start with the first one. I'm going to go ahead and start with the first one. I'm going to go ahead and start with the first one. I'm going to go ahead and start with the first one. I'm going to go ahead and start with the first one. I'm going to go ahead and start with the first one. I'm going to go ahead and start with the first one. I'm going to go ahead and start with the first one. I'm going to go ahead and start with the first one. I'm going to go ahead and start with the first one.

我打算先从第一个开始。我打算先从第一个开始。我打算先从第一个开始。我打算先从第一个开始。我打算先从第一个开始。我打算先从第一个开始。我打算先从第一个开始。我打算先从第一个开始。我打算先从第一个开始。我打算先从第一个开始。我打算先从第一个开始。我打算先从第一个开始。我打算先从第一个开始。我打算先从第一个开始。我打算先从第一个开始。我打算先从第一个开始。我打算先从第一个开始。我打算先从第一个开始。

Nick Gillespie（尼克·吉莱斯皮）：

Is it craggy, Matt? Is it a craggy movie?

它是崎岖的吗，Matt？这是一部崎岖的电影吗？

Matt Welch（马特·韦尔奇）：

No, because it's Pacific Northwest, although it's shot in Germany with German film credits, obviously. But it's a lot of moss. There's moss and pine needles. It's very green. So it's not that craggy. There's river, there's a terrifying logging scene and some horrible things involving fingers that Catherine will probably like. Is Russell Crowe the daughter?

不，因为这是太平洋西北地区，虽然它是在德国拍摄的，片尾字幕是德语，显而易见。但有很多苔藓。有苔藓和松针。非常绿。所以不是那种崎岖的。有河流，有一个可怕的伐木场景，还有一些涉及手指的可怕事情，凯瑟琳可能会喜欢。拉塞尔·克劳是女儿吗？

Nick Gillespie（尼克·吉莱斯皮）：

I mean, you know, ever since late mids, he's willing to stretch.

我是说，你知道，自从中旬末，他就愿意伸展了。

Matt Welch（马特·韦尔奇）：

I am here for mid-career, mid-life Ethan Hawke. He keeps getting better. He's like I've recommended before, the lowdown, which is going to re-debut second season soon.

我来是为了中期职业、中年时期的伊桑·霍克。他不断变得更好。他就像我之前推荐过的《内幕》，这部剧很快将重新推出第二季。

Nick Gillespie（尼克·吉莱斯皮）：

I can't wait to see it. Yeah, and the Good Lord Bird was phenomenal. Like his John Brown is...

我迫不及待想看了。是的，而且《好上帝的鸟》非常棒。他的约翰·布朗真是……

Matt Welch（马特·韦尔奇）：

He's just wearing his middle age and his mileage particularly well. I'm very much enjoying it. And Russell Crowe is always great. And other actors. It's a very small movie, like they made for almost no money and they're not making a bunch. But I liked it because it reminded me of the pictures that Nick and I would watch on our local Channel 5s, you know, on Saturday when our parents were not paying any attention to us. Like pure genre exercises, sometimes starring Telly Savalas.

他只是非常好地展现出了中年和个人经历的痕迹。我非常喜欢。拉塞尔·克劳总是很棒，还有其他演员。这部电影很小，几乎是用很少的钱拍的，而且他们也没有赚很多钱。但我喜欢它，因为它让我想起了我和尼克在本地五频道上观看的电影，你知道，就是在周六，当我们的父母没有注意我们的时候。就像纯粹的类型片练习，有时由特利·萨瓦拉斯主演。

Nick Gillespie（尼克·吉莱斯皮）：

And certainly like Clint Eastwood or Robert Mitchum or whoever. Peter Fonda's The Higher Hand.

当然像克林特·伊斯特伍德或罗伯特·米彻姆或其他人。彼得·方达的《更高的手》。

Matt Welch（马特·韦尔奇）：

Yeah. Like just like it's, it is kind of like a caper picture, you know, and, and, and these guys are going to be tested and this one's going to be resourceful and this one's going to, whatever. It reminded me in that sense, the Rogue One, just to get Peter back in the, in the game. I loved Rogue One, the Star Wars picture, just because it reminded me of like the guns of Navarone. Like you have one job, the odds are against you. What are you going to do and how are the people going to behave with one another? And where the hell is David Niven? Like it's that kind of thing. So I like it for that. It's fun to go see a movie that's original. That's not some stupid IP gambit. And but at the same time, it's just a genre picture doing doing the genre thing. It could have been a little bit more inventive, maybe, but I liked it a lot. So it could have been made in America. Thank you. Could have been made in Oregon, but was not.

是的。就像只是有点像一部偷袭片的感觉，你知道的，这些人会面临考验，这个人会机智，这个人会做某事等等。从这个意义上来说，它让我想起了《侠盗一号》，让彼得重回游戏。我喜欢《侠盗一号》，这部《星球大战》的影片，只因为它让我想起了《纳瓦隆的枪声》。你只有一个任务，胜算对你不利。你要怎么做，人们之间会如何互动？大卫·尼文到底在哪？就是这种感觉。所以我喜欢它。去看一部原创电影很有趣，而不是某个愚蠢的 IP 炒作。同时，它也只是一个按类型风格制作的影片。也许本可以更有创造性一些，但我非常喜欢它。所以它本来可以在美国拍的，谢谢。可以在俄勒冈拍，但没拍。

Matt Welch（马特·韦尔奇）：

But anyways, with a with a federal film tax credit, movies like that. Yeah, yeah.

不过无论如何，如果有联邦电影税收抵免，像那样的电影。是的，是的。

Peter Suderman（彼得·苏德曼）：

The appeal of that kind of man, guys on a mission movie, right? Like you got one job and then, right, you gotta go, it's like a journey and everybody's character is gonna be tested and revealed. Pretty similar to the appeal of a podcast. All right, folks, that's our show. As a reminder, check out Reason.com slash events for info about our upcoming documentary on Venezuela, as well as the wait list for our sold out 10th anniversary live show, which is coming to you very soon. As always, if you like Reason, if you like the Reason Roundtable, you can support us at Reason.com slash donate. Thanks to Nick, Matt and Katherine. And thank you for listening. The Reason Roundtable will return.

那种类型的男人的吸引力，使命必达的电影里的家伙，对吧？就像你只有一个任务，然后，你得走，这就像一段旅程，每个人的性格都会受到考验并显露出来。和播客的吸引力很相似。好了，各位朋友，这就是我们的节目。提醒大家一下，访问 Reason.com/events 获取关于我们即将推出的委内瑞拉纪录片的信息，以及我们已经售罄的十周年现场演出的候补名单，这个演出很快就会与你见面。像往常一样，如果你喜欢 Reason，如果你喜欢 Reason 圆桌讨论，你可以在 Reason.com/donate 支持我们。感谢 Nick、Matt 和 Katherine。也感谢你的收听。Reason 圆桌讨论会很快回归。