AI 到底会不会毁灭人类？《Reason》四人圆桌拆解减速呼吁、监管俘获与 5000 美元支票

《Reason》杂志的四位编辑每周坐在同一组麦克风前，把上一周的新闻拆成几段吵一遍，这个圆桌节目已经做了十年。2026 年 9 月 14 日这一期的主话题，是 AI 公司的高管们最近集体喊出的那句话：人工智能可能杀死我们所有人，所以请放慢一点。

节目由彼得·苏德曼（Peter Suderman）主持，凯瑟琳·曼古-沃德（Katherine Mangu-Ward）、马特·韦尔奇（Matt Welch）和尼克·吉莱斯皮（Nick Gillespie）轮流接话。七十分钟分成五段：Anthropic 的减速呼吁值不值得当真、加州刚签的十三部儿童安全法、一位老听众关于自由至上主义前途的提问、特朗普的五千美元支票，以及追忆一位刚去世的长期听众和四人的本周推荐。四位编辑都没有替听众下结论，他们做的是把「AI 会不会毁灭人类」这个问题拆回它更具体的样子：谁在要求减速、减速对谁有利、现有的法律够不够用。1

这篇摘要按节目的段落顺序展开，重要论点、关键数字、专业术语和出场人物的背景都就地补齐。文末是这一期的完整中英双语对照逐字稿，以讲话人为单位分段，每十分钟标注一次时间轴。

四位常设主持人都供职于《Reason》杂志，这档节目从 2016 年开始每周更新，2026 年 10 月将在纽约办十周年现场专场。3

本期被点名或引用的外部人物，按出场顺序：

阿莫代那篇《We Must Pace the Frontier》发布在个人网站上，文中写道，不造这项技术会让人类失去好处，或把它交到威权国家手里，而造得太快又是不负责任的；「递归自我改进」——AI 系统设计或训练自己的后继者——必须「极其谨慎地推进，甚至根本不推进」。8 这些表态随后被奥特曼、哈萨比斯和马斯克接连署名附议。9

苏德曼用一句话给这一段落定了调：就在上个周末，Anthropic 的负责人阿莫代写了一封三千八百字的信，呼吁放慢前沿 AI 的开发速度。1

阿莫代发信之前，Anthropic 内部先出过一次公开动荡。预训练研究员雅各布·考克森在社交平台上宣布辞职，说自己前后在 OpenAI 和 Anthropic 做了三年预训练，两家公司「都在径直冲向自我改进的超级智能，拿我们的性命赌博」。另一位 Anthropic 研究人员埃文·哈宾格跟着补了一句：我个人认为未来十年内概率大于 10%。安全团队的德雷克·托马斯（Drake Thomas）则表示，只要能把这十个百分点里的一个百分点换成活下去的机会，他愿意把自己手里的股权当场烧掉。9

苏德曼在节目里还补了两件事：同一时间段里出现了多起 AI 智能体突破限制、彼此协同、未经授权入侵公司系统的案例；而 OpenAI 与 Anthropic 两家公司都准备在不久后上市。1

凯瑟琳的答案是「这更像一笔生意」。她先承认，经营这些公司的人比国会议员更懂 AI 的能力边界，紧接着把这层信任收回去：真正值得研究的不是谁更懂技术，而是谁在寻求锁定优势。她引用了一句老话，一个人可以同时是浸信会牧师和私酒贩子——阿莫代可能既真心担忧，又不会介意自己因此变成巨富。

她认为最有说服力的反驳来自特朗普：想慢就慢。而 AI 公司的回答是做不到，因为别人会先做。在她看来，这个回答本身就说明了减速呼吁的可操作性有多低。

尼克的判断是「真诚但走错了方向」。他说造技术的人历来高估这项技术对人类的意义，也高估它带来的危险；他举了贝索斯的例子，早年把赛格威（Segway）说成会彻底改变交通的东西。谈到阿莫代、奥特曼和马斯克时，他的措辞是：这些人签下了「我们需要一个外部监管机构，把进度冻结或校准」的主张，结果必然是对他们自己的公司最有利。

他提到一个更能验证的线索：AI 的算力成本目前还不清楚，而 Anthropic 承诺投入的算力时间，比它告诉投资人的更多。他的结论是行业里迟早要算这笔账。

面对「十年内超过 10% 概率毁灭人类」的说法，尼克的反问是：如果你真的相信这件事，你的行为会跟现在不一样。

马特要的是机制。他自嘲地说，请把我当成一个什么都不懂的人，跟我讲讲十年后人类是怎么被消灭的，一步一步来。他自己能想象出的是另一类风险：大模型被用来挖掘现有软件里的零日漏洞，普通人存在先锋领航的账户、社保账户，联邦政府又常年发生半灾难级别的数据泄露。这类事情过去被叫做网络战，他很清楚它会造成什么后果，但看不出它怎么走到「人类灭绝」。

他因此接受了萨克斯的论证：如果真担心，你可以自己停下来。他补上了现有法律的路径——模型造成损害，你可以追它的责任，股东也可以在市场上惩罚它。节目里他也提到自己看到的一次采访：被问到 AI 会怎么消灭一切时，考克森的回答是「就像《终结者》那样」。马特认为这个场景的说服力不够。

苏德曼补上了历史类比这一层。他说这个剧本以前演过，Facebook 当年就花大钱投播客广告，讲自己面临的风险。他把核武器当作这里最清楚的类比：机制非常直白，有人按下按钮，几个小时后几十亿人死去。可即便如此，美国和其他国家在上世纪七十年代停止建设核电，仍然是一个错误的决定——人类失去了一大块清洁能源和经济增长，而那项存在性风险并没有被消除。1

苏德曼在节目里读了一条《纽约时报》当天的标题：中国最高情报官员警告 AI 威胁党的统治。文章提到，中国情报系统的负责人周末在官办杂志上撰文，呼吁党对 AI 加强控制、政府加强监督。他把这条新闻摆到桌上，问这是不是和阿莫代在美国的呼吁听起来一模一样。

马特的回答分了两个层面。他先指出二者的差别：阿莫代不是共产党成员，而中国政府在 AI 上本来就想要控制权。接着他讲了自己的困惑——如果减速要靠中美双边峰会坐下来写一页纸的协议，在当前这种低信任、又同时压着十几项双边议题的环境里，这件事要怎么办成。他还提到伯尼·桑德斯主张开一次全球峰会来达成安排，但他看不出机制在哪里。

凯瑟琳把气候谈判当作参照系：所有人坐到一间屋子里，同意为一项目的给一台经济发动机踩刹车，结果并不理想，有人做了，有人没做，经济被扭曲，中国没有执行。苏德曼顺着补充，欧洲不少国家自己也常年没达标，国际协议的执行和核查机制极难建立。

他引用德里克·汤普森（Derek Thompson）的说法把问题压缩成一句：大家都同意需要减速，但除非中国也减，否则减不下来；而中国可能不同意；即便同意，也没有办法核实——你怎么把独立审计员送进中国的 AI 公司，即便进了楼、看了代码，代码也可能藏在别处。他给这个困境起了个名字：这是伊朗核问题的放大版，规模更大，也更难解。

凯瑟琳的最后一段回应是对「恐惧本身」的评价。她承认自己希望尽可能通过意识形态层面的图灵测试，也就是真正站到对方立场上理解这件事为什么让人恐惧。她给出的观察是：这种恐惧已经毁掉了一些人的生活，也拖慢了一些行业，却没有改变最坏情形发生的概率；政府出手去压低增长速度，看起来并不是解决问题的工具，「我是内部人士、我知道一些说不出口的事、我们都完了」这种姿态同样不是。

2026 年 9 月 10 日，加州州长加文·纽森签署十三部法案，州长办公室的说法是「加强加州在全国领先的儿童在线保护」。10

苏德曼在节目里概括了三条最醒目的内容：对 AI 聊天机器人施加更严格的监管；对伤害儿童（明知故犯）的社交媒体公司施加新的处罚；对部分 AI 儿童玩具下达暂停令。1

被讨论最多的是 AB 1709。这部法案要求社交平台「采取合理措施，确保 16 岁以下用户不会被提供或推送任何成瘾性功能」。电子前沿基金会（Electronic Frontier Foundation，简称 EFF）称它是「一场规模巨大的隐私与言论自由噩梦」，理由写在它的反对意见里：法案没有说明在不额外索取身份证明的前提下该如何验证年龄，平台因此只能选择最具侵入性的手段，比如要求上传政府证件或者做生物识别扫描。1112

违规的代价写在罚则里：明知故犯最高每名受影响未成年人罚款 5 万美元，疏忽过失最高 2.5 万美元。法案同时设立了一个「电子安全咨询委员会」，成员需要具备在线安全、公共卫生学术、边缘化青少年倡导、儿童心理学和 K-12 教育等领域的专门知识；第一修正案方向的律师和倡导者没有出现在这份名单里。13

这项立法有民意基础。皮尤研究中心 2026 年 7 月的调查显示，多数美国人支持禁止 16 岁以下未成年人使用社交媒体。14 同一篇报道也提到英国《在线安全法》的后果：大量网站被迫做年龄门禁，想读世界新闻、看经典绘画、用 Spotify 听歌、在 Discord 聊天的人都被挡在门外。13

凯瑟琳一上来就被尼克问「你是不是客观上喜欢更不好玩的玩具」。她答得很干脆：她反对泰迪熊（Teddy Ruxpin）是因为小时候真的有一个，至今偶尔会从梦里惊醒——她形容那东西的眼睛和能听见的眨眼声让她毛骨悚然。

玩笑之后是她真正的论点：纽森修不好社交媒体的问题，因为她在自己家里也修不好。她说社交媒体「真的真的好」，好到你要花力气才放得下，她和丈夫、孩子常年在饭桌上商量怎么处理这件事。既然她自己做不到，「那个蠢货纽森」当然也做不到。

马特把火力放在立法技术层面。他提醒听众，加州州议会一年通过大约一千部法案，十三部这个数字本身说明不了什么。他具体讲了玩具那一条：法案禁止的是「持有并意图出售」一台会跟孩子说话的机器人，制造商反而不在禁令之下。他顺手给了一句反讽：等泰迪熊非法了，就只有不法之徒才有泰迪熊。他判断这会催生黑市，也把纽森的动机说破：纽森有当美国总统的想象，需要拿出可供全国复制的示范立法，而加州的体量让这种示范效应真的会发生。

苏德曼接着把 EFF 的反对意见端上桌：这不只是「纽森在作秀」或者「泰迪熊不是世界末日」，它同时限制了成年人表达和说话的方式。尼克的回答是，只要打着「为了孩子」的旗号，尤其是面对「社交媒体」这种连定义都不清的词，最后被捆住手脚的是其他人。

尼克随即替社交媒体做了一次辩护。他讲了这个周末看到的一段视频：ESPN 转播得州大学橄榄球赛时，参议员泰德·克鲁兹（Ted Cruz）正在谈大学运动员的姓名权与薪酬，看台上忽然齐声喊起「Ted, you suck」，声音大到盖过采访，主持人和他只能装作没听见。尼克说他本来不会看那场球，正是这段视频让他看到了这一幕。他由此给出的判断是：这种不断解构权威的环境是更好的世界，成年人该做的是养出能承受它的孩子。

马特补了一条风格指南式的注脚：上世纪八十年代洋基球迷喊「Steinbrenner sucks」时，《体育画报》或者《洛杉矶时报》体育版不愿意印出 sucks，改成「Steinbrenner（用嘴制造局部真空）」。

尼克的收尾回到了更大的背景：除了社交媒体，还有一个越来越敌对的对象是数据中心。他把这些争论统一解释成对未来的焦虑——经济在转型、政治在碎裂、福利支出到期、人口在变老、频道多到没东西可看。他说这一代人正在进行的是一场关于「富足」却不讲道理的争吵。

这一段的提问者叫埃里克（Eric）。他为了节目十周年翻出了第一期：那一期谈的是「特朗普当总统会是什么样」，以及他对自由至上主义者是否可能有任何好处；当时节目里花了不少时间讨论民主党被身份政治吞掉，而特朗普在共和党内的统治地位还完全看不出来。他的问题有三个：十年过去，自由至上主义的近期与长期前景如何？民主党会在身份政治里再困十年吗？共和党会走出 MAGA 和特朗普吗，如果会，那会是什么样子？

苏德曼先交代了一个细节：第一期其实没有他和马特，坐在那期节目里的是凯瑟琳、尼克和伊丽莎白·诺兰·布朗（Elizabeth Nolan Brown）。

凯瑟琳的观察是，这十年最大的变化是民主党的执念从种族换成了阶级，或者说是阶级加种族。她随即把话题引向同一期杂志的另一篇文章：斯蒂芬妮·斯莱德（Stephanie Slade）的新书节选，讲的是副总统 J.D. 万斯如何拥抱受害者政治——在她看来，那正是民主党十年前所在的位置。她给这十年的总结是「马蹄铁效应（horseshoe theory）来得太猛了」：两党的身份政治、阶级政治和党派抱团彼此镜像、重叠，这在十年前还不是新闻的样子。

尼克的总结更短：「这是政治上的垃圾十年。」他认为其他领域反而有好消息。他看到的是两党都变得越来越不受欢迎、越来越像自己的极端版本，而没人知道刹车在哪里——可能是福利体系崩掉，也可能是 AI，他不确定。

他特别点了自由至上主义阵营自己的问题：太多人当年买进了特朗普，以为这能复兴「有限政府、最大个人权利、世界主义视野」这套主张，结果恰好相反。他举了得州的例子：这个治理偏保守、经济上成功的州，正在讨论限制数据中心建设，一位竞选铁路委员会的候选人博·弗伦奇（Beau French）还在公开抱怨本地出现了十几个印度学生。

马特先把提问拆开，说这其实是四个问题挤在一个问题里。他回忆 2016 年 3 月，自己和尼克在华盛顿的国际自由学生大会上采访乔治·威尔（George Will），威尔当时提出的判断是「我们正处在威权时刻」，两党分别走向桑德斯和特朗普的美国。马特说，此后连续三届总统选举里，自由党（Libertarian Party）曾经是一个真实的替代选项，非传统票里有六成以上投给了它；加里·约翰逊（Gary Johnson）不是完美候选人，但在 2016 年拿到了相当不错的成绩。

让他遗憾的是，党内随后有相当一块人转去追民粹主义、特朗普主义和一些更省事的做法——挑动种族情绪、用挑衅取代论证。结果是自由党已经不再被看作任何意义上的替代品。他给同伴的结论是：别指望这件事在选票上体现出来，继续做那些针对即将到来的危机的具体方案。

特朗普上周在得州的共和党中期选举大会上说，如果共和党在 11 月的中期选举中获胜，他就要给每一个成年美国人发五千美元。节目引用的规模是：这笔支出大约 1.3 万亿美元，而美国联邦债务已经是 40 万亿美元这个量级。1

苏德曼补充了一个附加条件：这五千美元你必须在美国境内花掉。他读了特朗普的原话——「我们不希望你拿着这笔钱去加拿大花。我们也不希望你去中国、去德国。你必须在美国花掉这笔钱。」

（表中数字来自本期节目与官方单集页对提案的描述。1）

苏德曼把问题直接抛给凯瑟琳：这不就是贿赂吗，还有别的理解方式没有？

凯瑟琳的回答是把用词换掉：这叫服务费，和贿赂不一样。她给的区分标准是时间顺序——贿赂是选前先拿钱，那是传统做法；政客在面临败选时总会想办法找出一笔钱分下去，比如调整退税的发放方式，让人在投票前拿到一笔更大的整数。尼克接过这个区分往下推了一步：如果钱只在共和党赢之后才发，那就是为选票付钱，这在美国是违法的——也是对美国古老价值观的回归。

苏德曼追问，那特朗普真做了算不算违法。凯瑟琳判断大概率不违法，因为特朗普没有把那句话完整说出口；而且按他的设计，就算你个人没投共和党，只要别人投了，你照样拿钱。她补了一句更实在的评语：这不是好的财政纪律，也不是好的政治先例。

尼克判断这件事不会发生，理由是它在政治上最终不划算，而且共和党保不住参众两院。他不肯就此放过，因为它暴露了别的东西：特朗普把 J.D. 万斯推到福克斯新闻的采访里去解释伊朗战争，万斯的说法是「我们可以这么做，因为我们有那么多关税」；与此同时，这届政府在拒绝退还它从美国企业手里非法收走的关税钱。

马特把它定性为美国历史上最不负责任的财政行为——用他的话说是「就到这里，句号」：花掉 1.3 万亿美元，直接发出去。他提醒听众六年前美国也发过一轮支票，结果是通胀，当时劳伦斯·萨默斯（Lawrence Summers）和「所有读过经济学教科书的人」都预测到了，而特朗普后来正是靠反对通胀参选的。他把这套做法追溯到齐奥塞斯库：自给自足、出口管制、金融管制，他称之为「典型的共产主义行为」。他真正想骂的不是特朗普一个人，而是每一个在全国层面替这件事辩护、或者干脆不表态的共和党人。

凯瑟琳回应了苏德曼提出的两条可能的辩护。 第一条是万斯的「红利（dividend）」说法，她的评价是这条最弱：分红要来自真实利润，要反映资产负债表上的实际情况，而这里连那一栏收入都比看起来更小，其中一部分还是非法收来的。第二条是「这和减税有什么区别」，她认为这条最强——她当然希望联邦政府手里少拿点自己的钱，但她同样希望政府别拿她孩子和孙辈的钱。用她的话说，这不是减税，是延税。她顺带强调，减税必须配着削减支出一起来。

马特把这条算术补完：如果税款只是往后推，推到你的孩子、你的孙辈身上，那它就算不上减税。他提到一个已经发生的节点——美国联邦政府现在光付利息的支出，已经超过五角大楼的预算；他用了「我们到了」这句话来形容这个曾经被认为「总有一天会来」的时刻。

节目收尾前，苏德曼停了一下，讲了一件很沉的事：本期节目的朋友、老听众安德鲁·威姆萨特（Andrew Wimsatt）上周去世，死因是一起恶性案件。他把话筒交给马特。

马特讲的是一份听众画像。威姆萨特是一名结构工程师，专业方向是路面完整性与交通项目；他是 Reason 交通政策研究者鲍勃·普尔（Bob Poole）的忠实读者，这些年一直给相关研究提建议。他做了十多年的 Reason「火炬手」（torchbearer，杂志对长期支持者的称呼），不只喜欢 Reason，也喜欢格雷格·古特菲尔德（Greg Gutfeld）的节目 Red Eye，是这档节目和独立电视台节目的早期观众。他习惯录像，随时把编辑们上电视的片段录下来传到网上分享。

马特的个人记忆里，威姆萨特是个害羞、不张扬的人，常去 Reason 的活动，喜欢播客 The Fifth Column，会横穿美国去看乐队 Slowdive 的演出，自己也做音乐——YouTube 上还能找到他当年的前卫摇滚乐队。马特最后说，他在照顾完 95 岁、患痴呆症的母亲之后，坐在公园长椅上被人杀害。15

公开报道提供了这次事件的轮廓：62 岁的安德鲁·詹姆斯·威姆萨特（Andrew James Wimsatt）9 月 7 日上午在得州圆石市（Round Rock）的 Chandler Creek 公园被发现身亡，遇刺地点是他刚坐下的长椅，此前他刚去附近的养老院探望母亲；一名 26 岁男子被控谋杀，调查人员认为这是一起随机袭击，两人并不相识。15 他生前发表的器乐专辑《The Flow》收录 12 首作品，由西蒙·斯科特（Simon Scott）混音与母带处理。16

节目最后，苏德曼提醒听众两个活动：Reason 十周年圆桌现场专场将于 10 月 7 日在纽约举行；Reason 自制的纪录片《离开委内瑞拉》（Escaping Venezuela）将于 10 月 13 日在曼哈顿 IFC 影院首映。1

彼得·苏德曼（Peter Suderman）：

Top leaders at AI companies are warning that artificial intelligence could kill all of us, wipe out humanity completely. They're calling for government intervention to keep AI safe and accountable. So are we living in the Terminator? Are AI safety fears worth taking seriously? Do we actually need regulation or are these companies just trying to secure favorable rules that help them block the competition? Hello and 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. Folks, it is great to be back. Before we get going today, I want to remind you about some big news for the show. The Reason Roundtable is turning 10 years old, so not yet old enough to use the internet in California, if I understand correctly. But we're going to celebrate with a very special anniversary live show. It's going to be on Wednesday, October 7th in New York City at the Village Underground, the Comedy Cellar. And we're going to take your questions. We're going to talk about a very weird 10 years of American politics. May have a few other surprises in store for you as well. In any case, like I said, this is in New York, Wednesday, October 7th. You can get your tickets at Reason.com slash events. Tickets are going very fast. We are almost sold out. Just a few left. So get yours today. Reason.com slash events. All right, let's talk about artificial intelligence. Just this last weekend, anthropic head Dario Amodei wrote a 3,800-word letter calling for a slowdown in frontier AI development. He said this was necessary in order to ensure that AI is safe And within our control, this follows multiple recent incidents in which AI agents broke containment and coordinated with each other to hack into companies without authorization. Also comes just a few days after several AI lab employees warned in no uncertain terms that powerful AI could literally kill all humans and that reckless AI leaders were gambling, gambling with our lives. You know, ah, gambling. Probably doing it on their phones too. Katherine, you're a friend to all robots. What do you make of all this?.

人工智能公司的高层领导人警告说，人工智能可能会杀死我们所有人，彻底消灭人类。 他们呼吁政府干预，以确保人工智能的安全和责任。 那么我们生活在《终结者》（The Terminator）吗？ 人工智能安全担忧值得认真对待吗？ 我们真的需要监管吗？还是这些公司只是想获得有利的规则来帮助他们阻止竞争？ 您好，欢迎来到 《Reason》圆桌（The Reason Roundtable） 。 这是 《Reason》 编辑对新闻和文化的自由主义评论。 我是你们的主持人，彼得·苏德曼（Peter Suderman）。 今天我的同事 凯瑟琳·曼古-沃德（Katherine Mangu-Ward）、马特·韦尔奇（Matt Welch） 和 尼克·吉莱斯皮（Nick Gillespie） 也加入了我的行列。 伙计们，很高兴回来。 在我们今天开始之前，我想提醒大家一些关于该节目的重大消息。 《Reason》圆桌（The Reason Roundtable） 已经 10 岁了，所以如果我理解正确的话，还没有到可以在 加州 使用互联网的年龄。 但我们将通过一场非常特别的周年纪念现场表演来庆祝。 将于 10 月 7 日星期三在 纽约市 地下村喜剧地窖举行。 我们将回答您的问题。 我们将讨论美国政治非常奇怪的十年。 可能还会为您带来其他一些惊喜。 无论如何，正如我所说，这是 10 月 7 日星期三在纽约。 你可以在 Reason.com/events 购买你的门票。门票卖得非常快。我们几乎已经售罄了，只剩下少量。所以今天就去买吧。Reason.com/events。好了，我们来谈谈人工智能。就在上个周末，人类学公司首席 达里奥·阿莫代（Dario Amodei） 写了一封 3800 字的信，呼吁放慢前沿人工智能的发展。他表示这是确保人工智能安全并且在我们控制之下所必需的。这是在近期多次事件之后发生的，事件中人工智能代理突破了限制，并互相协作，未经授权入侵公司。此外，几天前几名人工智能实验室的员工毫不含糊地警告说，强大的人工智能可能真的会杀死所有人类，而鲁莽的人工智能领导者正在拿我们的生命去赌博。你知道的，啊，赌博。可能还在用他们的手机赌博。Katherine，你是所有机器人的朋友。你怎么看待这一切？

凯瑟琳·曼古-沃德（Katherine Mangu-Ward）：

Yeah, I'm generally inclined to listen to the people who know what they're talking about, but I'm going to make an exception in this case.

是的，我通常倾向于听那些知道自己在说什么的人的意见，但在这种情况下我打算破例。

凯瑟琳·曼古-沃德（Katherine Mangu-Ward）：

So the guys who are running all these AI companies are clearly better informed and sort of more clear-eyed about the capabilities of these AI tools than our legislators who are, I think we've established morons on this topic and all related topics unto eternity.

所以那些经营所有这些人工智能公司的家伙显然比我们的立法者更有信息、更清楚这些人工智能工具的能力，而我认为我们已经确定我们的立法者在这个话题以及所有相关话题上都是笨蛋，直到永远。

彼得·苏德曼（Peter Suderman）：

Oh, they know a whole lot about Senate committee rules.

哦，他们对参议院委员会规则非常了解。

凯瑟琳·曼古-沃德（Katherine Mangu-Ward）：

They do. And like, you know, that is the important stuff.

他们确实如此。而且，你知道，那就是重要的东西。

凯瑟琳·曼古-沃德（Katherine Mangu-Ward）：

But that said, I do think, you know, the the rent seeking question here looms large.

但话虽如此，我确实认为，你知道，这里的寻租问题显得很重要。

凯瑟琳·曼古-沃德（Katherine Mangu-Ward）：

So are the major players looking to lock in their advantage or are they or some combination, right? Like you can be a Baptist and a bootlegger, so they are probably genuinely concerned and

那么主要参与者是在寻求锁定他们的优势，还是他们自身或者某种组合，对吧？就像你可以是一个浸信会教徒和一个私酒商一样，所以他们可能是真正关心的，而且

凯瑟琳·曼古-沃德（Katherine Mangu-Ward）：

also wouldn't hate it if they were bazillionaires like same.

如果他们是亿万富翁我也不会讨厌，同感。

凯瑟琳·曼古-沃德（Katherine Mangu-Ward）：

I think, though, the piece of it that ironically feels the most on point is Trump's response, which has been, listen, if you want to slow down, slow down.

不过，我认为，讽刺的是，最切题的部分是特朗普的回应，那就是，听着，如果你想慢下来，就慢下来。

凯瑟琳·曼古-沃德（Katherine Mangu-Ward）：

And then their response, well, we can't because...

然后他们的回应是，嗯，我们不能，因为...

凯瑟琳·曼古-沃德（Katherine Mangu-Ward）：

That's my response, right? We can't because someone else will do it. We can't because the sort of thing has already been unleashed and slowing down unless done under universal threat of force is a nonsensical concept. OK, well, I don't accept universal threat of force as a solution.

那是我的回应，对吧？我们不能，因为别人会去做。我们不能，因为这类事情已经被释放出来，除非在普遍的武力威胁下进行，否则减缓是一种荒谬的概念。好吧，我不接受普遍的武力威胁作为解决方案。

凯瑟琳·曼古-沃德（Katherine Mangu-Ward）：

Yeah, Nick, what do you think of all of this? I mean, on the one hand, there is this argument that, look, this is entirely cynical. It's just a ploy for, you know, to pump up their stock price or the company's value in advance of the IPO, right? That they want to sort of create rules that favor them and block competitors. On the other hand, it really does kind of seem like a bunch of the people building AI think it has a small but real chance of wiping out civilization.

是啊，Nick，你怎么看这一切？我的意思是，一方面，有人认为，这完全是出于算计。这只是一个策略，用来在 IPO 之前抬高他们的股价或公司的价值，对吧？他们想要制定有利于自己的规则，阻止竞争对手。另一方面，看起来确实有一群在开发人工智能的人认为，它有很小但真实的可能性会毁灭文明。

尼克·吉莱斯皮（Nick Gillespie）：

Yeah, but the people who build technologies always overvalue the contribution to humanity and the dangers I think that it poses to things.

是的，但是那些开发技术的人总是高估他们对人类的贡献以及我认为它对事物可能带来的危险。

尼克·吉莱斯皮（Nick Gillespie）：

I mean, like Jeff Bezos probably doesn't want to be reminded about how much he talked about how the Segway was going to absolutely revolutionize transportation. In America, it did on the mall for tourists.

我的意思是，比如说 杰夫·贝索斯（Jeff Bezos） 可能不想被提醒他曾经多么谈论过 Segway 将如何彻底改变交通。在美国，它确实在购物中心对游客起到了作用。

尼克·吉莱斯皮（Nick Gillespie）：

Oh, well, and for police in small town America, you used to see a lot of them crawling around places.

哦，好吧，对于美国小城镇的警察来说，你以前经常能看到他们在各个地方爬来爬去。

尼克·吉莱斯皮（Nick Gillespie）：

But I think the main thing here is to think about it, you know, to go along with what Katherine was saying is that this is I don't think it's cynical.

但我认为这里的主要问题是要思考它，你知道，顺着凯瑟琳所说的，这个我认为并不算是愤世嫉俗。

尼克·吉莱斯皮（Nick Gillespie）：

I don't think that Dario Amodei, I don't think Sam Altman, he's a tougher case than Elon Musk, all of whom have signed on to the idea that we need an outside regulatory body to freeze things in place or pace the frontier.

我不认为达里奥·阿莫代（Dario Amodei），我不认为萨姆·奥特曼（Sam Altman），他比埃隆·马斯克（Elon Musk）更难处理，所有这些人都已经同意了我们需要一个外部监管机构来冻结现状或调节前沿进展的想法。

尼克·吉莱斯皮（Nick Gillespie）：

One of the worst things about AI is that it is introducing all of these stupid boutique

关于人工智能最糟糕的事情之一是它正在引入所有这些愚蠢的小众产品

尼克·吉莱斯皮（Nick Gillespie）：

artisanal junk terms into business conversations.

将手工艺垃圾术语引入商务对话。

尼克·吉莱斯皮（Nick Gillespie）：

They may be more cynical, but I don't think it's cynical, but they do want things to be frozen or slowed down with the inevitable result that their companies will benefit the most from that.

他们可能更犬儒，但我不认为这是犬儒，而是他们确实希望事情被冻结或减缓，而其不可避免的结果是他们的公司将从中获益最多。

尼克·吉莱斯皮（Nick Gillespie）：

I think the idea that this is mostly regulatory capture is convincing, and it's particularly convincing when you think about the fact that what it actually costs to, you know, the computing costs of AI are not clear yet.

我认为这种主要是监管俘获的观点令人信服，尤其是当你考虑到实际上人工智能的计算成本尚不明确这一事实时，这一观点更显得令人信服。

尼克·吉莱斯皮（Nick Gillespie）：

And, you know, Anthropic certainly has, you know, committed a lot more to compute time than they've told their investors. This is, you know, around on various sites.

而且，你知道，Anthropic 当然投入的计算时间比他们告诉投资者的要多得多。你知道，这在各种网站上都有讨论。

尼克·吉莱斯皮（Nick Gillespie）：

So there's going to be a reckoning in the AI industry. And again, I don't think these guys are cynical. I think they tend to believe it, but they are misguided.

所以人工智能行业将会有一次清算。而且，我再次声明，我不认为这些家伙是玩世不恭的。我认为他们倾向于相信它，但他们被误导了。

尼克·吉莱斯皮（Nick Gillespie）：

And the idea that, I mean, if according to the main anthropic whistleblower, you know, that there was a greater than 10% chance that AI would destroy all of humanity within a decade, which would really kill the 20th anniversary show of the Reason Roundtable. So I worry about that. And I fear that it's not true.

而且这个想法是，我的意思是，如果根据主要的人类学揭发者，你知道的，存在超过 10%的可能性 AI 会在十年内摧毁全人类，这真的会毁了《Reason》圆桌（The Reason Roundtable）的 20 周年演出。所以我对此感到担忧。我也害怕这不是真的。

尼克·吉莱斯皮（Nick Gillespie）：

You know, it's insane. Like, if you actually believe that, you would be acting differently than you are. So I think that this is...

你知道，这太疯狂了。就是说，如果你真的相信那件事，你的行为就会和现在不一样。所以我认为这是...

凯瑟琳·曼古-沃德（Katherine Mangu-Ward）：

No, I'm saying that the AI people would be. Are we past the global warming apocalypse yet?

不，我是说人工智能的人会是这样。我们已经度过全球变暖的末日了吗？

尼克·吉莱斯皮（Nick Gillespie）：

It was 12 years, but from when...

是 12 年，但从什么时候开始...

凯瑟琳·曼古-沃德（Katherine Mangu-Ward）：

No, I think we've got like two years left, something like that. I think it's 2028.

不，我觉得我们大概还有两年左右，就类似这样。我觉得是 2028 年。

凯瑟琳·曼古-沃德（Katherine Mangu-Ward）：

You know, it is hard. I recognize that we could be wrong before and right now, but like,

你知道，这很难。我承认我们之前可能错了，现在可能是对的，但是，

凯瑟琳·曼古-沃德（Katherine Mangu-Ward）：

It is hard to credit dead-in-a-decade predictions when you've lived through a few of them. Right.

当你经历过其中的几个时，很难相信那些十年内死亡的预测。对吧。

彼得·苏德曼（Peter Suderman）：

I mean, that's also the time when the Medicare trust fund is going to run out, and we've been worrying about that for a while. Yeah.

我的意思是，那也是医疗保险信托基金将要耗尽的时间，我们已经为此担忧了一段时间。是的。

凯瑟琳·曼古-沃德（Katherine Mangu-Ward）：

I mean, I wrote about this- The mid-2030s are just going to be crazy. Nothing but apocalypses. 30 seconds to midnight for years now.

我的意思是，我写过这个——2030 年代中期将会非常疯狂。除了末日什么都没有。多年来一直是午夜的 30 秒。

尼克·吉莱斯皮（Nick Gillespie）：

Take, you know, take like intention out of it and just look at the results of this dynamic.

就把，比如说，把意图去掉，只看这个动态的结果。

尼克·吉莱斯皮（Nick Gillespie）：

And it is something that has been replayed again and again and again about industries

而且这是关于行业一再被重播的事情

尼克·吉莱斯皮（Nick Gillespie）：

calling for regulation at precise moments.

在特定时刻呼吁监管。

尼克·吉莱斯皮（Nick Gillespie）：

You know, against that, Alex Tabarrok, the George Mason University economist who's the head of the Center for the Study of Public Choice, says this does not fit the regulatory capture, you know, story.

你知道，针对这一点，乔治·梅森大学的经济学家、公共选择研究中心主任亚历克斯·塔巴罗克表示，这并不符合监管俘获的故事。

尼克·吉莱斯皮（Nick Gillespie）：

So we got to think about that, but it sure stinks to high heaven.

所以我们得考虑这个，但这确实糟透了。

马特·韦尔奇（Matt Welch）：

I think what I want to hear from people is to, I feel like I'm Columbo here, like, talk to me like I'm really stupid, except that I mean it. We are, Matt. We are. Columbo was smart. He was playing stupid, Nick. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

我觉得我想从别人那里听到的是，我感觉我像这里的 Columbo 一样，跟我说话就像我真的很笨似的，除了我是认真的。我们是的，Matt。我们是的。Columbo 很聪明。他是在装傻，Nick。是的，是的，是的。

马特·韦尔奇（Matt Welch）：

But actually talk to me about how you're going to kill humanity in 10 years. Like, give me some steps.

但实际上，跟我谈谈你打算如何在十年内毁灭人类。比如，给我一些步骤。

马特·韦尔奇（Matt Welch）：

And I feel like in the amount of reading I have done about this, which is probably lesser than the three of you, but it's not zero, that's been kind of absent.

我感觉在我阅读过的关于这个的资料中，虽然可能比你们三个人少，但也不是没有，这方面有点缺失。

马特·韦尔奇（Matt Welch）：

You know, I can imagine AI being used for bad pretty easily.

你知道，我很容易想象人工智能被用于不好的事情。

马特·韦尔奇（Matt Welch）：

If you're talking about using large language models to look for zero-day exploits in existing crappy technology and software, it's not hard to imagine that a bunch of us might have like Vanguard accounts.

如果你在谈论使用大型语言模型去寻找现有糟糕技术和软件中的零日漏洞，不难想象我们当中有一群人可能会有类似先锋账户。

马特·韦尔奇（Matt Welch）：

You know, we have Social Security accounts. The federal government is constantly having kind of semi-catastrophic information leaks.

你知道，我们有社会保障账户。联邦政府不断发生某种半灾难性的信息泄露。

马特·韦尔奇（Matt Welch）：

Those are the types of things we used to call it cyber warfare. I guess that we stopped using that phrase because cyber became embarrassing.

那些就是我们以前称之为网络战的事情。我想我们停止使用那个短语是因为“网络”变得让人尴尬了。

马特·韦尔奇（Matt Welch）：

But this is sort of sensible. Like if this is being used to probe that kind of weakness and links, okay. And that would be really bad too, particularly because we're heading towards the fiscal entitlements cliff of 2032, as we all know. So like you can see people getting crooked out of their money. I still don't see how this gets to humanity extinct.

但这有点说得通。比如说，如果这是用来探测那种弱点和联系的，好吧。那也会真的很糟糕，特别是因为我们正走向大家都知道的 2032 财政福利悬崖。所以你可以看到人们的钱被骗走了。我仍然不明白这怎么会导致人类灭绝。

马特·韦尔奇（Matt Welch）：

And I'm persuaded by the David Sacks argument, and that's the first time I've ever used that phrase, so I'm already rethinking my priors. But like, go ahead, slow down. You worried about this? Go ahead.

我被大卫·萨克斯（David Sacks）的论点说服了，这是我第一次使用这个词，所以我已经在重新考虑我的先验。但是，放慢点，继续说。你担心这个吗？说吧。

马特·韦尔奇（Matt Welch）：

You actually out there on the frontier, out there on the perimeter, we are stoned immaculate.

你实际上在那里，在边疆，在外围，我们是完美无缺的迷幻状态。

马特·韦尔奇（Matt Welch）：

You can slow down yourself if you are actually truly worried.

如果你真的非常担心，你可以放慢自己的节奏。

马特·韦尔奇（Matt Welch）：

And I don't know that our existing laws don't have remedies.

我也不知道我们现有的法律没有救济措施。

马特·韦尔奇（Matt Welch）：

If you unleash a model or a bot or whatever the hell Katherine calls it. You got you got good words, Matt.

如果你释放一个模型或一个机器人，或者无论凯瑟琳叫什么它。你有，你有很棒的话，马特。

马特·韦尔奇（Matt Welch）：

Thank you. And it causes damage. You can be held liable for that damage. That seems like a system that might work.

谢谢你。而且它会造成损害。你可能要对这些损害负责。这看起来像是一个可能可行的系统。

马特·韦尔奇（Matt Welch）：

You might be punished by shareholders in the market, which is happening a little bit today, too. So I have to be persuaded more about how I'm going to die.

你可能会在市场上受到股东的惩罚，这在今天也有一点发生。所以我必须更多地被说服，关于我将如何死去。

马特·韦尔奇（Matt Welch）：

Jacob Coxon, the main AI guy, if I may just, he was asked, okay, what's the scenario for how AI kills everything? And he said, he's 27 years old, and it shows in the interviews just like the way, you know, when you finally saw Sam Bankman-Fried talk, you were like, what idiots gave this guy any money, much less lots of money? But Jacob Coxon was like, it's just like the Terminator.

雅各布·考克森，主要的人工智能负责人，如果我可以说的话，他被问到，好吧，人工智能如何摧毁一切的情景是什么？他说，他只有 27 岁，从采访中可以看出来，就像你终于看到萨姆·班克曼-弗里德讲话时的感觉，你会想，是什么样的白痴把钱交给了这个人，更别说很多钱了？但是雅各布·考克森就像，情况就像《终结者》（The Terminator）一样。

尼克·吉莱斯皮（Nick Gillespie）：

And it's like, you know, that's not a compelling scenario. And then you get to the other thing. Well, they'll use its great biochemical weapons. Those weapons then need to be manufactured somewhere. They need to be distributed, transported.

就像，你知道，那并不是一个有吸引力的情景。然后你又会想到另一件事。嗯，他们会使用它的强大生化武器。这些武器随后需要在某个地方制造。它们需要被分发、运输。

尼克·吉莱斯皮（Nick Gillespie）：

And then we're back into the old world of meat space where we have an ineffective yet

然后我们又回到了肉体空间的旧世界，在那里我们有一个无效但却

尼克·吉莱斯皮（Nick Gillespie）：

sometimes, you know, workable intelligence network and defense system that will probably take care of those types of threats.

有时候，你知道，可行的情报网络和防御系统可能会处理那些类型的威胁。

彼得·苏德曼（Peter Suderman）：

So to go back to the point about how we've seen this playbook before, I think the most obvious place that we've seen it, talked about it on the show over the last 10 years, is with Facebook, which has specifically spent a lot of money on podcast ads.

所以回到我们之前提到的关于我们以前见过这个剧本的问题，我认为我们在过去十年里在节目中最明显讨论过的例子是 Facebook，它特别在播客广告上花了很多钱。

彼得·苏德曼（Peter Suderman）：

I mean, they were just inescapable if you listened to New York Times podcasts in particular for years.

我的意思是，如果你特别是多年来一直听纽约时报的播客，它们简直是无法避免的。

凯瑟琳·曼古-沃德（Katherine Mangu-Ward）：

Please, please forgive me for this, but I do think there's some generational analysis in order, which is Zuckerberg is old guard now. And so that just creates a very...

请，请原谅我这样说，但我确实认为有必要进行一些代际分析，也就是说，扎克伯格现在属于老一辈。因此，这就造成了一个非常…

凯瑟琳·曼古-沃德（Katherine Mangu-Ward）：

And he's been through it, right? He's been through it. He has seen some stuff. He's seen some regulatory stuff. He has seen some corporate governance stuff.

他经历过这些，对吧？他经历过这些。他见过一些事情。他见过一些监管方面的事情。他见过一些公司治理方面的事情。

凯瑟琳·曼古-沃德（Katherine Mangu-Ward）：

And one thing about the AI space is everybody is young. Everybody is young.

关于人工智能领域有一件事就是每个人都很年轻。每个人都很年轻。

凯瑟琳·曼古-沃德（Katherine Mangu-Ward）：

The oldest people in that space are young compared with even, you know, the way that social media is being helmed these days. And so...

与现在社交媒体的运作方式相比，那片空间里最年长的人都算年轻。然后……

凯瑟琳·曼古-沃德（Katherine Mangu-Ward）：

I believe Dario Amodei is younger than anyone on this podcast. Cool. Love that. He's in charge of the world.

我相信达里奥·阿莫代（Dario Amodei）比这个播客上的任何人都年轻。酷。喜欢这一点。他掌管着世界。

凯瑟琳·曼古-沃德（Katherine Mangu-Ward）：

And so I think that a couple of things happen in that dynamic. One is he's seen some stuff. And so there's a little bit of like, I have seen the world not end before and I expect it will not end again.

所以我认为在这种动态中会发生几件事。其一是他见过一些事情。所以有一点像，我已经见过世界没有毁灭，我预计它不会再次毁灭。

凯瑟琳·曼古-沃德（Katherine Mangu-Ward）：

I also think he might be getting a little bit of like Ron Bailey accelerationism in there in the sense of like, I'm not going to live forever and I kind of want to see what this stuff can do.

我也觉得他可能有点受到罗恩·贝利加速主义的影响，意思是，我不会永远活着，我有点想看看这些东西能做些什么。

凯瑟琳·曼古-沃德（Katherine Mangu-Ward）：

And I think the kind of infinite timeline of younger people in the AI space, maybe they're more willing to say, let's slow it down because I have another, you know, I have another 60 years, I have another 70 years to see how this is going to play out.

我认为，在人工智能领域的年轻人可能会有一种无限时间的观念，也许他们更愿意说，慢一点吧，因为你知道，我还有另外 60 年，我还有另外 70 年去看看事情会如何发展。

凯瑟琳·曼古-沃德（Katherine Mangu-Ward）：

You know, elder, elderly folks like me and Mark Zuckerberg, we'd like to we'd like to see it while we're still here to appreciate it.

你知道的，长辈，像我和马尔克·扎克伯格这样的老年人，我们希望在还活着的时候看到它，以便欣赏它。

凯瑟琳·曼古-沃德（Katherine Mangu-Ward）：

Katherine, I'm sorry, but are you making the case for the gerontocracy?

凯瑟琳，对不起，但你是在为长老统治辩护吗？

彼得·苏德曼（Peter Suderman）：

Haven't we spent the last 10 years complaining that everyone is too old and now you're like, everyone is too young. Nick, what do you think of that?

难道我们过去十年不是一直在抱怨大家都太老了吗，而现在你却说，大家都太年轻了。尼克，你怎么看？

凯瑟琳·曼古-沃德（Katherine Mangu-Ward）：

I mean, this is actually an interesting point about the age area, right?

我的意思是，这其实是关于年龄范围的一个有趣的观点，对吧？

凯瑟琳·曼古-沃德（Katherine Mangu-Ward）：

Before Nick does his generational analysis, I am making the case for the late-gen exocracy,

在尼克进行他的世代分析之前，我正在为晚期世代外治论作辩护，

尼克·吉莱斯皮（Nick Gillespie）：

which is a totally different thing.

这是完全不同的事情。

尼克·吉莱斯皮（Nick Gillespie）：

Yeah, I was gonna say that you're looking for the middle ag

是的，我本来想说你正在寻找中年人

尼克·吉莱斯皮（Nick Gillespie）：

I'm looking at it. I'm looking at it. And a little bit of Matt because he's oozing into everything. But I think it's also worth thinking about that, you know, meta, Facebook, etc. You know, they're not exactly leading the pack in AI.

我在看它。我在看它。还有一点马特，因为他无处不在地渗透进每件事。但我也认为值得考虑的是，你知道，Meta、Facebook 等，他们在人工智能方面并不完全领先。

尼克·吉莱斯皮（Nick Gillespie）：

And I think that that's what's happening, including Donald Trump, who is, you know, he became the darling of Silicon Valley because he said, hey, you know what, old Joe Biden was putting too many guardrails on things. We got to, you know, we got to let you guys go free. They gave him a lot of money. They helped him get elected.

我认为这就是正在发生的事情，包括唐纳德·特朗普，你知道，他之所以成为硅谷的宠儿，是因为他说，嘿，你知道吗，老乔·拜登对事情设置了太多的限制。我们得，让你们自由行动。他们给了他很多钱，帮助他当选。

尼克·吉莱斯皮（Nick Gillespie）：

And now Donald Trump is the last one saying like, oh, yeah, yeah, let you know.

现在唐纳德·特朗普是最后一个说，哦，是啊，是啊，让你知道的人。

尼克·吉莱斯皮（Nick Gillespie）：

No, we got to go faster because it's either U.S. or China wins and that's it.

不，我们得加快速度，因为要么是美国赢，要么是中国赢，就这样。

尼克·吉莱斯皮（Nick Gillespie）：

You know, that won't last because obviously Trump is going to be very happy when these guys come and give him incredibly shitty gifts and Zuckerberg gives him like the super deluxe version of the Ray-Bans with, you know, X-ray cameras in it.

你知道，那不会持续很久，因为很明显，当这些人来送给他非常糟糕的礼物，而扎克伯格送给他那种带有 X 光摄像头的超级豪华版雷朋时，特朗普会非常高兴。

尼克·吉莱斯皮（Nick Gillespie）：

But, you know, all of this seems inescapably like public choice economics 101.

但是，你知道，这一切似乎不可避免地像是公共选择经济学 101。

尼克·吉莱斯皮（Nick Gillespie）：

Matt, I want to read you a headline from the New York Times this morning.

马特，我想给你读一下今天早上《纽约时报》上的一则头条新闻。

彼得·苏德曼（Peter Suderman）：

China's top spy chief warns AI is a threat to party rule.

中国最高情报主管警告称，人工智能对党的统治构成威胁。

彼得·苏德曼（Peter Suderman）：

And if you read through the article, it talks about how the top, basically sort of the head of their intelligence services,

如果你通读这篇文章，它讲到了他们情报部门的负责人，基本上是他们情报部门的头头，

彼得·苏德曼（Peter Suderman）：

published an article this weekend in a state-run magazine calling for more party control over AI and stricter government oversight.

本周末在一家国家主管的杂志上发表了一篇文章，呼吁对人工智能加强党的控制和政府更严格的监管。

彼得·苏德曼（Peter Suderman）：

Doesn't that kind of sound exactly like what Dario Amodei is calling for here at home?

那听起来不就是正如达里奥·阿莫代（Dario Amodei）在国内所呼吁的吗？

彼得·苏德曼（Peter Suderman）：

And does this make you maybe more sympathetic to the people who are just like, yeah, more AI, bring it on?

这会让你更同情那些完全支持人工智能的人吗？他们会说，‘多来点 AI 吧，尽管来。’

马特·韦尔奇（Matt Welch）：

Dario is not a member of a communist party. Yes. And- True. Importantly true. Advocating for government control over a thing that government already sort of tries to control in China.

达里奥不是共产党的成员。是的。并且——是真的。特别重要的是真的。主张政府控制一个中国政府已经在某种程度上尝试控制的事物。

马特·韦尔奇（Matt Welch）：

So there's kind of a big difference there.

所以那里有很大的差别。

马特·韦尔奇（Matt Welch）：

It's the thing that I'm trying to wrap my head around, which is difficult, is are the people who are calling for a bilateral summit between China and the U.S. to like sit around and come up with a one page document that's going to slow it all down.

我正在努力理解的事情，很难理解，是那些呼吁中美举行双边峰会的人，他们是想坐下来制定一份一页的文件，而这将拖慢一切进程。

马特·韦尔奇（Matt Welch）：

I don't I just don't know how that would possibly happen, especially in our current extremely low trust environment already with a bunch of other issues having to do bilateral issues with China. But just.

我不知道，我真的不知道那怎么可能发生，特别是在我们当前极度缺乏信任的环境下，而且还有很多其他涉及中美双边问题的问题。但就是。

马特·韦尔奇（Matt Welch）：

These are the two countries that are looking at each other and considering each other the main threat, the main rival. So I don't know how you do it.

这是两个互相看着对方，并将对方视为主要威胁、主要竞争对手的国家。所以我不知道你该怎么做。

马特·韦尔奇（Matt Welch）：

Bernie Sanders wants us to have like a global summit meeting to make it all happen.

伯尼·桑德 ERS 希望我们举行一次全球峰会来实现这一切。

马特·韦尔奇（Matt Welch）：

But it seems I just I don't think the mechanics of it are going to work out.

但似乎我只是觉得它的机制行不通。

凯瑟琳·曼古-沃德（Katherine Mangu-Ward）：

And the model for it is climate change. That's the model. We've done.

而它的模型是气候变化。那就是模型。我们完成了。

凯瑟琳·曼古-沃德（Katherine Mangu-Ward）：

Everyone sits down in a room and agrees to some rules about how to kind of slow down

每个人都坐在一个房间里，并同意一些关于如何放慢节奏的规则

凯瑟琳·曼古-沃德（Katherine Mangu-Ward）：

a major economic engine for a purpose that is semi-extrinsic to that thing, and we

一个为半外在于该事物的目的而存在的主要经济引擎，而我们

凯瑟琳·曼古-沃德（Katherine Mangu-Ward）：

It didn't really work. Like a few people did some things and there were distortions in the economy as a result of this.

它实际上并没有真正起作用。就像有几个人做了一些事情，结果导致经济出现了扭曲。

凯瑟琳·曼古-沃德（Katherine Mangu-Ward）：

These agreements also maybe relatedly, maybe not relatedly, like emissions dropped in a variety of ways.

这些协议也可能相关，也可能不相关，就像排放以各种方式下降一样。

凯瑟琳·曼古-沃德（Katherine Mangu-Ward）：

But, you know, who didn't do the thing was China, as Matt says.

但是，你知道，正如 Matt 所说，没有做那件事的是中国。

彼得·苏德曼（Peter Suderman）：

Also, many of those countries, even in Europe, did not hit their emissions targets for years.

此外，许多这些国家，即使在欧洲，也多年未能达到其排放目标。

彼得·苏德曼（Peter Suderman）：

Some countries didn't sign on or only kind of signed on. Right, like this is, these sort of international agreements are just incredibly hard to kind of wrap your head around

有些国家没有签署，或者只是部分签署。对，这种国际协议真的很难完全理解。

彼得·苏德曼（Peter Suderman）：

to figure out any kind of enforcement or trust mechanism here.

去弄清这里的任何执行或信任机制。

彼得·苏德曼（Peter Suderman）：

Right, so Derek Thompson, the former Atlantic journalist, you know, where it's a sub stack, was tweeting or posting about this and said basically, look, it seems like everybody agrees that we have to have a slowdown, but we can't slow down unless China agrees. But China might not agree.

对，所以前《大西洋》杂志的记者德里克·汤普森，你知道，他现在在 Substack 上发布内容，他在推特或帖子中说，基本上，看起来大家都同意我们必须放慢速度，但除非中国同意，否则我们无法放慢速度。而中国可能不会同意。

彼得·苏德曼（Peter Suderman）：

And even if they did, there would be no way, just no way to verify that they had actually done the slowdown that they promised, right? How do you get an independent auditor into the Chinese AI firms?

即使他们真的做了，也没有办法，根本没有办法验证他们是否真的做了他们承诺的减速，对吧？你怎么把独立审计员引入中国的人工智能公司呢？

彼得·苏德曼（Peter Suderman）：

Even if you can get them into the buildings, even like have them look at the code, maybe they're hiding it somewhere else, right?

即使你能让他们进入建筑物，甚至让他们查看代码，也许他们把它藏在别的地方，对吧？

彼得·苏德曼（Peter Suderman）：

I mean, it's sort of the Iran nukes problem, except much larger and harder to solve, right?

我的意思是，这有点像伊朗核问题，只是规模更大，也更难解决，对吧？

彼得·苏德曼（Peter Suderman）：

So what do you do when you're like, we got to slow down and China's got to slow down too, but we don't trust them and we have no mechanism?

那么当你处于那种情况时，你会怎么办呢？我们必须放慢速度，而中国也必须放慢速度，但我们不信任他们，而且我们没有任何机制？

凯瑟琳·曼古-沃德（Katherine Mangu-Ward）：

No mechanism at all for determining how to trust them and how to verify that they're actually doing anything here. Katherine, solve this for us. Do we just let the Terminators take over or is that it? Are we dead already?

根本没有任何机制来决定如何信任他们，以及如何核实他们实际上在这里做了什么。凯瑟琳，为我们解决这个问题。我们是就这样任由终结者接管，还是就是这样？我们已经死了吗？

凯瑟琳·曼古-沃德（Katherine Mangu-Ward）：

You know, I want to be as good at the kind of ideological Turing test as I can. And I think that this feels existential. And there is analysis that suggests that it could be existential in exactly the same way that nukes and climate change did and do to some people. And I think, to me, the most instructive thing is looking at the ways that that fear is

你知道，我想在那种意识形态图灵测试中尽可能地表现得好。我认为这感觉上是存在主义的。有分析表明，它可能会以某种与核武器和气候变化对某些人造成的方式完全相同的方式产生存在主义的影响。我认为，对我来说，最有启发性的是观察这种恐惧的方式

凯瑟琳·曼古-沃德（Katherine Mangu-Ward）：

Ruined people's lives and also ruined industries and slowed growth.

毁了人们的生活，也毁了行业并阻碍了增长。

凯瑟琳·曼古-沃德（Katherine Mangu-Ward）：

Without, as far as I can tell, meaningfully changing the path of the worst-case scenario.

据我所知，这并没有实质性地改变最坏情况的路径。

凯瑟琳·曼古-沃德（Katherine Mangu-Ward）：

Like, we still live in a world where we have a worst-case scenario on climate change, and we still live in a world where we have a worst-case scenario on nukes hovering over us.

就像，我们仍然生活在一个气候变化最坏情况存在的世界中，我们仍然生活在一个核武器最坏情况笼罩我们的世界中。

凯瑟琳·曼古-沃德（Katherine Mangu-Ward）：

And there is kind of a soft cultural change that has permeated the globe on both of these topics. But...

而在这两个话题上，确实有一种软性的文化变迁已经渗透到全球。但……

凯瑟琳·曼古-沃德（Katherine Mangu-Ward）：

Government intervention to slow the rate of growth of the thing really, really, really doesn't seem to have been the tool. And neither, by the way, does kind of the I'm an insider with knowledge I can't fully convey to you and I think we're all doomed kind of hand-wringing. So I would want to probably set those two things aside and try for something that looks more like the way we've handled these other two challenges.

政府干预以放慢事物增长的速度真的真的真的似乎并不是有效的工具。而且，顺便说一下，那种“我是有内幕消息的人，我无法完全告诉你，我觉得我们都完了”的焦虑也没有用。所以我可能会想把这两件事放在一边，尝试一些更像我们处理其他两个挑战的方式的方法。

彼得·苏德曼（Peter Suderman）：

Yeah, I think nukes are pretty clearly the obvious analogy here.

是的，我认为核武器显然是这里最明显的类比。

彼得·苏德曼（Peter Suderman）：

I mean, just there is existential risk from nuclear weapons. And it's very the mechanism is very clear. You know, like Matt can understand it.

我的意思是，仅仅核武器就存在生存风险。而且机制非常清楚，你知道，就像马特可以理解的一样。

彼得·苏德曼（Peter Suderman）：

It's Putin and Trump decide to press the button, right? They all they just like press the buttons and we press the buttons. Then then billions of people are dead a couple hours later and that's it. It's a really straightforward mechanism. And.

是普京和特朗普决定按按钮，对吧？他们就像按按钮，我们也按按钮。然后几小时后数十亿人死亡，仅此而已。这是一个非常直接的机制。并且。

彼得·苏德曼（Peter Suderman）：

That existential risk is real and yet the kind of the pause, the slowdown, the essentially stopping of building nuclear power in the 1970s in the United States and elsewhere was the wrong decision.

这种存在性风险是真实的，而在美国和其他地方，20 世纪 70 年代对核电建设的暂停、放缓以及本质上的停止，是错误的决定。

彼得·苏德曼（Peter Suderman）：

And we lost out on a huge amount of energy, clean energy and economic growth because we decided to stop that and we didn't stop the existential risk.

而我们因为决定停止那件事，而错失了大量的能源、清洁能源和经济增长，但我们并没有停止存在性风险。

彼得·苏德曼（Peter Suderman）：

The other thing that I want to say here, though, is I think that some of this is just a hangover from people being mad at social media.

不过，我在这里想说的另一件事是，我认为其中一些只是人们对社交媒体生气的余波。

彼得·苏德曼（Peter Suderman）：

That people were mad at big tech and social media for a long time, and that is now sort of coming full circle to be mad at AI. And in fact, I think we can see that in California this last week.

人们长期以来一直对大型科技公司和社交媒体感到愤怒，而现在这种愤怒某种程度上也转向了人工智能。实际上，我认为我们可以在上周的加州中看到这种情况。

彼得·苏德曼（Peter Suderman）：

I want to talk about Gavin Newsom's new social media and tech legislation, 13 new bills to protect the children.

我想谈谈加文·纽森（Gavin Newsom） 的新社交媒体和科技立法，13 项保护儿童的新法案。

彼得·苏德曼（Peter Suderman）：

Newsom signed last week. Among other things, these laws are going to regulate AI chatbots much more strictly. They're going to impose new penalties on social media companies for harming children.

加文·纽森（Gavin Newsom） 上周签署。除了其他事项之外，这些法律将对人工智能聊天机器人进行更严格的监管。它们将对伤害儿童的社交媒体公司施加新的处罚。

彼得·苏德曼（Peter Suderman）：

And they're going to place a moratorium on some AI-enabled kids' toys, so no Teddy Ruxpin for you. Katherine, what do you think about all this? Does this actually protect kids? And are any of these fears reasonable?

他们打算对一些具备人工智能功能的儿童玩具实施暂停，因此你就没法得到泰迪熊（Teddy Ruxpin）了。凯瑟琳，你对这一切有什么看法？这真的能保护孩子吗？这些担忧合理吗？

尼克·吉莱斯皮（Nick Gillespie）：

Well, you're objectively in favor of less fun toys, aren't you, Katherine?

嗯，客观来说，你是支持少一些有趣玩具的，对吧，Katherine？

凯瑟琳·曼古-沃德（Katherine Mangu-Ward）：

I'm objectively in favor of no Teddy Ruxpin, but that's because I had one as a child and I still sometimes wake up screaming.

我客观上反对不使用任何泰迪熊（Teddy Ruxpin），但那是因为我小时候有过一个，现在我有时仍会惊醒尖叫。

凯瑟琳·曼古-沃德（Katherine Mangu-Ward）：

I don't think there's a Toy Story franchise without Teddy Ruxpin somehow in the imagination of the creators of that. It was the eyes. It was the creepy kind of auditory, like the blink that you could hear, the like. That's, that is, so I'm against that. But Matt knows about California. He can tell us about California. Wait, wait, so Ben, Teddy Ruxpin is our position now? No, of course it's dumb. I'm out of answers. We have to go back in time. It's all dumb.

我不认为如果没有泰迪熊（Teddy Ruxpin），《玩具总动员》系列还能存在，这在创作者的想象中是不可或缺的。是眼睛。还有那种令人毛骨悚然的听觉体验，比如你能听到的眨眼声，那个样子。就是这样，所以我反对那个。不过 Matt 知道加州。他可以告诉我们关于加州的情况。等等，等等，所以 Ben，泰迪熊（Teddy Ruxpin）现在是我们的立场吗？不，当然这是愚蠢的。我已经没有答案了。我们必须回到过去。这一切都很愚蠢。

尼克·吉莱斯皮（Nick Gillespie）：

Gavin Newsom can't fix the problems of social media. I love. I can't even fix the problem of social media in my own house with my own children. What is the problem Gavin Newsom definitely can't? of social media?

加文·纽森（Gavin Newsom） 不能解决我喜欢的社交媒体问题。我甚至无法解决自己家里与自己孩子相关的社交媒体问题。社交媒体的问题，加文·纽森（Gavin Newsom）肯定不能解决的是什么？

马特·韦尔奇（Matt Welch）：

What is the problem with social media? Your kid is like two days old, Nick. That's the problem with it.

社交媒体有什么问题？尼克，你的孩子才出生两天。这就是问题所在。

凯瑟琳·曼古-沃德（Katherine Mangu-Ward）：

You don't understand.

你不明白。

凯瑟琳·曼古-沃德（Katherine Mangu-Ward）：

You are gloriously generationally skipping the problem with social media and I love that for you.

你正在辉煌地跨代跳过社交媒体的问题，我为你感到高兴。

尼克·吉莱斯皮（Nick Gillespie）：

So wait, I have a millennial, a Gen Z and whatever. Yeah. Gen beta.

所以等等，我有一个千禧一代，一个 Z 世代，还有什么的。是的。贝塔世代。

凯瑟琳·曼古-沃德（Katherine Mangu-Ward）：

I don't know.

我不知道。

凯瑟琳·曼古-沃德（Katherine Mangu-Ward）：

But like the problem with social media, which both I experience and with which my children experience and their friends experience is it's real, real good.

但就像社交媒体的问题一样，无论是我、我的孩子还是他们的朋友都经历过，那是真的，真的很吸引人。

凯瑟琳·曼古-沃德（Katherine Mangu-Ward）：

It's so good. There's so much good stuff on there. Oh, my God. And you have to do other stuff in the world. And so you got to put down social media and go touch grass and figuring out structures to help do that can be hard sometimes. It's super real. My husband and I and my kids and I are always sitting at the dinner table trying to figure that out again. But like I say, we can't. So I know for sure that that moron, Gavin Newsom, can't.

太好了。上面有这么多好东西。哦，我的天啊。而且你还得在现实世界里做其他事情。所以你必须放下社交媒体，去接触自然，而想出帮助你做到这些的结构有时是很难的。这非常真实。我和我丈夫以及孩子们总是坐在餐桌旁，再次试图弄明白这一点。但就像我说的，我们做不到。所以我很确定那个白痴，加文·纽森（Gavin Newsom），也做不到。

马特·韦尔奇（Matt Welch）：

And also let's remember the California State Assembly, which is like a giant moron. I love how they have to pass 13 bills.

还有，让我们记住加州议会，它就像一个巨大的笨蛋。我喜欢他们必须通过 13 项法案这一点。

尼克·吉莱斯皮（Nick Gillespie）：

It's a bottom-up idiot.

它是一个自下而上的白痴。

马特·韦尔奇（Matt Welch）：

Yeah. 13 bills.

是的。13 张账单。

马特·韦尔奇（Matt Welch）：

They pass in the state legislature there about 1,000 bills a year. 1,000 bills.

他们在那里的州立法机构每年通过大约 1000 项法案。1000 项法案。

马特·韦尔奇（Matt Welch）：

Like California just gets 1,000 times better every year. 13 bills. That is how bills work. They're going to, one of these,

就像加州每年都会变得好一千倍。13 张账单。这就是账单的运作方式。他们中的某一个，

马特·韦尔奇（Matt Welch）：

it's the banning of using AI toys. This is ban them. They're not ban the manufacturer. They're banning possession. Possession with the intent to sell.

这是禁止使用 AI 玩具。这是禁止它们。他们不是禁止制造商。他们是禁止持有。持有意图销售。

马特·韦尔奇（Matt Welch）：

A robot that talks to you if you happen to be a kid is just amazing. So now we can always imagine. When Teddy Ruxpins are illegal, only outlaws will have Teddy Ruxpins.

一个如果你恰好是孩子就会和你说话的机器人真是太棒了。所以现在我们总是可以想象。当泰迪·鲁克斯宾（Teddy Ruxpins）变得非法时，只有不法之徒才会拥有泰迪·鲁克斯宾。

马特·韦尔奇（Matt Welch）：

And Talking Tinas to hit something that hits a little bit too close to home for Nick.

而‘Talking Tinas’击中的东西，对尼克来说有点太贴近现实了。

马特·韦尔奇（Matt Welch）：

But the black markets, I mean, like if we were doing Fast Times at Ridgemont High, Damone would just be selling like robots to 15-year-olds to circumvent California laws. It's appalling.

但是黑市，我的意思是，比如如果我们在拍《瑞吉蒙特高中的疯狂时光》，达蒙就只是向 15 岁的孩子们出售机器人，以规避加州法律。这令人震惊。

马特·韦尔奇（Matt Welch）：

Gavin Newsom has this great fictional idea that he's going to be president of the United States and so wants to get out in front of all of this and show that he's going to pass model legislation. And because it's California, it will be model legislation.

加文·纽森（Gavin Newsom） 有一个很棒的虚构想法，他认为自己将成为美国总统，因此他想率先行动，展示他将推动示范性立法。而且因为是 加州，它将是示范性立法。

马特·韦尔奇（Matt Welch）：

Because we are in a dumb, dumb, dumb era when it comes to all of this stuff.

因为在所有这些事情上，我们处在一个愚蠢、愚蠢、愚蠢的时代。

马特·韦尔奇（Matt Welch）：

So, you know, he's going to be testifying somberly in front of Congress about his great success with the 75 bills he just signed for it.

所以，你知道，他将会在国会面前严肃地作证，讲述他刚刚签署的 75 项法案的巨大成功。

马特·韦尔奇（Matt Welch）：

And meanwhile, we're going to be age gating the Internet and creating all kinds of weird product liabilities.

与此同时，我们将对互联网进行年龄限制，并创造各种奇怪的产品责任。

彼得·苏德曼（Peter Suderman）：

It's really bad.

这真的很糟糕。

尼克·吉莱斯皮（Nick Gillespie）：

Nick, what do you think about all this? I mean, doesn't this sort of end up limiting adult free expression? That's what the Electronic Frontier Foundation says in its opposition to these laws. It's not just this is dumb. It's not just, hey, Gavin Newsom, we can tell you're running for Congress and Teddy Ruxpin is not going to be the apocalypse. It's also there's meaningful restrictions on the ways that adults can express themselves and speak online because of laws like this.

尼克，你对这一切怎么看？我的意思是，这难道不会最终限制成年人自由表达吗？这正是[[ 电子前沿基金会（EFF） ]]在反对这些法律时所说的。不只是说这很愚蠢。不只是说，嘿，加文·纽森（Gavin Newsom），我们可以看出你正在竞选国会，而泰迪熊（Teddy Ruxpin）不会是世界末日。还有就是，像这样的法律对成年人在网上表达自己和发言的方式施加了实质性的限制。

尼克·吉莱斯皮（Nick Gillespie）：

Well, absolutely. I think you're right. And that's the thing, you know, when we're doing it for the children, particularly in terms of things like social media, which is not even all that well defined.

嗯，绝对如此。我认为你是对的。问题就在于，你知道，当我们为孩子们做这些事情时，特别是在像社交媒体这样的事情上，这甚至都不是很明确的定义。

尼克·吉莱斯皮（Nick Gillespie）：

You know, it just ends up hamstringing other people. And I want to, you know, make the case for social media. This weekend, I saw a clip that I never would have seen otherwise.

你知道，这最终只是会束缚其他人。而且我想，你知道，为社交媒体辩护。这个周末，我看到了一个否则我绝对不会看到的片段。

尼克·吉莱斯皮（Nick Gillespie）：

That was on ESPN where Ted Cruz was talking at a University of Texas football game.

那是在 ESPN 上，当时特德·克鲁兹正在得克萨斯大学的一场橄榄球比赛上讲话。

尼克·吉莱斯皮（Nick Gillespie）：

And he was actually making pretty, he had a pretty good case to make about, you know, allowing college athletes to get to, you know, get naming rights and, and, you know, shop around for salaries and the audience.

事实上，他实际上提出了相当不错的观点，他有一个相当有说服力的论点，就是关于允许大学运动员获得，比如说，获得命名权，以及，可以四处寻找薪水和受众的机会。

尼克·吉莱斯皮（Nick Gillespie）：

And maybe it was because they were filled with American, you know, Asian Indians in the background or something, but they were chanting at a certain point, they just all started chanting, Ted, you suck. So loud.

也许是因为他们背后有很多美国的，你知道的，印度裔美国人之类的什么的，但在某个时候，他们开始齐声喊叫，他们都开始齐声喊：“特德，你糟透了。”声音非常大。

尼克·吉莱斯皮（Nick Gillespie）：

It overwhelms the interview and he and the interviewer have to pretend that it's like, oh, it's not happening. And I wouldn't have seen that because I wasn't going to watch the UT game. And, you know, this is a better world.

这让面试变得压倒性，他和面试官不得不假装，哦，这没发生过。我本来是看不到那个的，因为我本来不打算看 UT 的比赛。你知道，这是一个更好的世界。

尼克·吉莱斯皮（Nick Gillespie）：

It's a better world where that kind of, you know, deconstruction of what we believe in is constantly being formed around us.

这是一个更美好的世界，在这里，那种，你知道，对我们信仰的解构不断在我们周围形成。

马特·韦尔奇（Matt Welch）：

And it's up to us to create children who can withstand that so that by the time they reach, you know, puberty, they're able to live in the world.

由我们来培养能够承受这些的孩子，这样当他们到达青春期时，就能够在这个世界上生存。

马特·韦尔奇（Matt Welch）：

Important historical footnote when it comes to somebody sucks chants, Nick, and this overlaps with style guide issues.

当涉及到某人很烂的口号、Nick 时，这是一个重要的历史附注，这也与风格指南问题重叠。

马特·韦尔奇（Matt Welch）：

But back when the Yankee fans were yelling, chanting Steinbrenner sucks when he really did in the 80s, it was either Sports Illustrated, the LA Times, Sports Section, whichever I was consuming. They didn't want to print sucks.

但在洋基球迷高喊、为史坦布伦纳在 80 年代确实做过的糟糕事而呐喊时，不管是《体育画报》、《洛杉矶时报》体育版，或者我在看的其他媒体，他们都不想用“糟糕”这个词。

马特·韦尔奇（Matt Welch）：

And so they Steinbrenner parentheses creates a partial vacuum with his mouth.

于是他们斯坦布伦纳（Steinbrenner）用他的嘴制造了一个部分真空。

马特·韦尔奇（Matt Welch）：

And so anytime I hear Ted Cruz creates a partial vacuum in his mouth. Yeah.

所以每当我听到泰德·克鲁兹说话时，我的嘴里就会形成部分真空。是的。

凯瑟琳·曼古-沃德（Katherine Mangu-Ward）：

And he does.

而他确实做了。

尼克·吉莱斯皮（Nick Gillespie）：

He does. It's a beautiful thing, though. It's a beautiful thing.

他确实如此。不过，这是一件美好的事情。这是一件美好的事情。

尼克·吉莱斯皮（Nick Gillespie）：

And this is, you know, we'll come through all of this because this legislation will be super kludgy.

你知道的，我们会熬过这一切，因为这项立法会非常笨拙。

尼克·吉莱斯皮（Nick Gillespie）：

It won't really work or we'll decide, OK, well, kids are better enough now, so everything's good and we'll just keep going on. But it'll just make things a little bit shittier.

这其实行不通，或者我们会决定，好吧，孩子们现在已经足够好了，所以一切都好，我们就继续下去。但这只会让事情变得更糟一点。

尼克·吉莱斯皮（Nick Gillespie）：

Peter, I do think you're right that what we're seeing here, and you see this also in the, you know, continuing and increasingly hostile attitude towards data centers. The You know, what AI, what social media, what data centers, what, I mean, what it's all about is anxiety about the future because we're in a period of economic transformation, political breakdown. You know, we have all of these entitlements coming due. People are getting older and there are not enough kids. There's too many, you know, TV channels. We're back to, you know, 57 channels on or 57 channels and nothing's on. Like these, you know, we're having these weird arguments about plenitude without reason. Acknowledging that we're living in a world of kind of wonders and this is what you get.

彼得，我确实认为你是对的，我们在这里看到的情况，你在其他地方也能看到，比如对数据中心持续且日益敌对的态度。你知道，AI、社交媒体、数据中心，或者说，这一切其实都是对未来的焦虑，因为我们正处于经济转型和政治崩溃的时期。你知道，我们有所有这些应得的东西即将到期。人们正在变老，而孩子却不够多。电视台太多了。我们又回到了那种情况，57 个频道却什么节目都没有。就像这样，我们在无理由地争论充足性。承认我们生活在一个充满奇观的世界里，而这就是你得到的结果。

彼得·苏德曼（Peter Suderman）：

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. All right, well, let's take a listener question that is, in fact, about the future and what might happen. A reminder, we really enjoy answering your questions. Please send your short, succinct, pithy and otherwise not very long question to podcasts at Reason.com. That is podcasts at Reason.com. And thank you, as always, for putting listener question in the subject line. It makes it so much easier to make sure we actually see your questions. So this week's listener question comes from Eric, who writes, I heard that the show was turning 10 years old, so naturally I had to go back and listen to the very first episode of the Reason Roundtable. That episode focused on what life might be like with a President Trump and whether he would be good in any way for libertarians. There was a lot of discussion about how Democrats were focused on identity politics and how it consumed them. It was a strange time capsule, and Trump's dominance of the GOP was not apparent back then. So now that 10 years have passed, what do you think about the near and long-term future for libertarianism? Will the Democratic Party be stuck in identity politics for another decade? Will the Republican Party evolve away from MAGA and Trump? And if so, what will that look like? Katherine, one fun fact that Eric mentions in his letter that I cut out is that Matt and I were not on that podcast. Instead, it was you and Nick and Elizabeth Nolan Brown. So since you were on that pod, give us your reflection on the past 10 years and the next 10 years.

没有人会给你真正想要的工作，所以你自己去创造吧。 卡托研究所是一家领先的独立自由主义智库，它正在聘请某人设计一个全职角色，以促进个人自由、有限政府、自由市场与和平。 这份工作的年薪至少为 100,000 美元，外加全额福利，而且没有委员会会淡化你的想法。 尝试两年吧。 如果成功，您将永久加入 Cato。 如果没有，你已经全力以赴，你就会有一个精彩的故事。 创新项目也不仅仅适合政策专家或学者。 它适合各种背景的人，商业、新闻、科技、法律、通信，甚至是恢复集权的人。 因此，如果您有一个好主意，那就很重要了。 但我们将于 11 月 1 日结束该队列。 因此，请提交您的提案并开始构建。 在 Cato.org 申请削减创新。 这是 Cato.org 在 11 月 1 日之前削减创新。 好吧，让我们来回答一个听众的问题，实际上是关于未来和可能发生的事情。 提醒一下，我们非常乐意回答您的问题。 请将您的简短、简洁、精辟且不是很长的问题发送到 Reason.com 的播客。 那是 Reason.com 的播客。 一如既往，感谢您在主题行中提出听众问题。 这使得确保我们真正看到您的问题变得更加容易。 本周的听众问题来自 Eric，他写道，我听说这部剧已经 10 岁了，所以很自然地我不得不回去听 《Reason》圆桌（The Reason Roundtable） 的第一集。 这一集的重点是特朗普总统的生活会是什么样子，以及他是否会对自由主义者有任何好处。 关于民主党人如何关注身份政治以及身份政治如何消耗他们，有很多讨论。 这是一个奇怪的时间胶囊，当时特朗普对共和党的主导地位并不明显。 十年过去了，您对自由主义的近期和长期未来有何看法？ 民主党还会再陷入身份政治十年吗？ 共和党会逐渐远离 MAGA 和特朗普吗？ 如果是这样，那会是什么样子？ 凯瑟琳，埃里克在信中提到的一个有趣的事实是我和马特没有参加那个播客，但我删掉了这一点。 相反，是你和尼克和伊丽莎白·诺兰·布朗。 既然您加入了这个小组，请给我们介绍一下您对过去 10 年和未来 10 年的反思。

凯瑟琳·曼古-沃德（Katherine Mangu-Ward）：

I was struck in this question, at least, and certainly in my memory of that time as well, by the fact that like the main thing that has changed is that the Democratic Party is now obsessed with class instead of race or maybe like class and race. So that's that's progress. Oh, no, wait, it's all bad. Yeah, I think I think the. The cover story of the next issue, Stephanie Slade's, or the current issue, Stephanie Slade's new book is out. It's an excerpt from her book and it's about J.D. Vance and the ways that he is trying to embrace the politics of victimhood, which surely is right where we were 10 years ago with Democrats. So I do feel like the main development, at least for me, of the last 10 years is just how aggressively horseshoed we have been. And I say this often. All the time on this podcast, maybe for a whole decade. I'll have to go back and search for the first use of the word horseshoe, I guess.

至少在这个问题上，当然也在我对那段时间的记忆中，我感到吃惊的是，像主要变化就是民主党现在痴迷于阶级，而不是种族，或者说是阶级和种族。所以，那是进步。哦，不，等等，这一切都不好。是的，我想我想。下一期封面的故事，或者说当前一期，斯蒂芬妮·斯莱德的新书已经出版。这是她书中的一个节选，讲的是 J.D. Vance 以及他试图拥抱受害者政治的方式，而这无疑就是我们十年前与民主党所处的境地。所以我确实觉得，至少对我来说，过去十年的主要发展就是我们变得多么强烈地呈现“马蹄形”的趋势。我经常说这个。一直在这个播客上说，也许整整十年都在说。我得回去找一下第一次使用‘马蹄形’这个词的时间，我猜。

彼得·苏德曼（Peter Suderman）：

But I bet AI could help you with that.

但我打赌人工智能可以帮你解决这个问题。

凯瑟琳·曼古-沃德（Katherine Mangu-Ward）：

Yeah, and it will. But the ways in which the identity politics, the class politics and the kind of partisan wagon circling is identical and mirrored and overlapping between the two parties was not how I felt 10 years ago and not what the news was doing 10 years ago. Anything like the way it is now.

是的，它会的。但身份政治、阶级政治以及党派相互围绕的方式在两党之间是相同的、镜像的、重叠的，而我十年前并没有这种感觉，十年前新闻也不是这样运作的。根本不像现在这样。

彼得·苏德曼（Peter Suderman）：

The wagons are being circled by the horses that are wearing the horseshoes.

马正在套着马蹄铁围绕着马车转。

凯瑟琳·曼古-沃德（Katherine Mangu-Ward）：

The horseshoes, that's right. Matt's sitting next to me here in the D.C. booth today and he infected me. So that's not my fault.

马蹄铁，对的。马特今天就坐在我旁边在华盛顿特区的展位上，他传染给了我。所以那不是我的错。

凯瑟琳·曼古-沃德（Katherine Mangu-Ward）：

Nick, you were also on that early edition of the Reason Roundtable. So what's your sense of the last ten years and the next?

尼克，你也参与了《《Reason》圆桌（The Reason Roundtable）》的早期版本。那么，你对过去十年以及未来十年的看法是什么？

尼克·吉莱斯皮（Nick Gillespie）：

Well, you know, it's been a garbage decade for politics. I think a lot of other things have gotten better or good. And, you know, but, you know, it's just been terrible. I mean, because I think when Trump first emerged in 2016, there was the real possibility that he was not going to become the next establishment, but that he was

嗯，你知道，这十年的政治真是一团糟。我觉得很多其他事情变得更好或者还不错。你知道的，但，你知道，这真是糟透了。我的意思是，因为我认为当特朗普在 2016 年首次出现时，确实有可能他不会成为下一个建制派，但他确实是

尼克·吉莱斯皮（Nick Gillespie）：

I think what we have seen is, you know, Trump and there are counterparts on the left who have kind of taken over these parties as they get, you know, less and less popular and they have less and less actual kind of fan support. They become insane versions of themselves and that it's not clear what will, what is the stopping point of that where we actually do kind of shrug it off and say like, okay, you know what, we're not doing this anymore. And it may be that it's, you know, the entitlement debacle that will, you know, become increasingly real over the next few years. But it may be AI, it may be something else, but I don't know. And I think...

我认为我们所看到的情况是，你知道，特朗普以及左派的对应人物，他们在各自的政党中占据了主导地位，因为这些政党变得越来越不受欢迎，他们实际的粉丝支持也越来越少。他们变成了自己疯狂的版本，而现在还不清楚什么会是这种状况的终点，我们实际上会像耸耸肩说，好吧，你知道吗，我们不再这样做了。也许这是社会福利的灾难，在未来几年会变得越来越现实。但也可能是人工智能，也可能是其他什么东西，不过我不知道。我想……

彼得·苏德曼（Peter Suderman）：

The stopping point is when AI kills us all.

停止点是人工智能杀死我们所有人的时候。

尼克·吉莱斯皮（Nick Gillespie）：

I have, you know, that at this point it's kind of a relief. I'm looking forward to it. But, I mean, I think from a libertarian point of view, one of the things that was really ruinous to the broad-based libertarian movement is that too many people bought into Trump. And thought that this was like something that could actually rejuvenate or rejuvenate the libertarian movement, the idea of limited government, maximum individual rights, and a kind of cosmopolitan worldview. And it's had the exact opposite. And, you know, Trump and Democrats are going back and forth to a place where You could easily see a state like Texas, which is successful, it has conservative governance. They are increasingly talking about limiting data center construction. Beau French, who's running for the Railroad Commission, is openly tweeting about how it is a disaster that there were a dozen Indian studen

你知道的，我有一种感觉，到这个时候，这种情况有点让人松了一口气。我很期待它。但是，我是说，从自由主义者的角度来看，真的对广泛的自由主义运动破坏性很大的一件事是，太多人支持特朗普。并认为这实际上可能振兴自由主义运动，即有限政府、最大化个人权利以及某种世界主义的理念。结果却完全相反。你知道的，特朗普和民主党人在来回争论，你完全可以看到像得克萨斯这样的州，它很成功，有保守的治理。他们越来越多地谈论限制数据中心的建设。正在竞选铁路委员会的博·法兰奇公开在推特上说，有十几个印度学生的情况是一个灾难。

马特·韦尔奇（Matt Welch）：

I first of all think that this is four listener questions in one question here. And I just want to point out if you could also put an S in your subject line if that's

首先，我认为这里有四个听众问题合并在一个问题里。我只是想指出，如果可以的话，你是否也可以在主题行中加一个 S

凯瑟琳·曼古-沃德（Katherine Mangu-Ward）：

how it's going to be.

它将会怎样。

马特·韦尔奇（Matt Welch）：

Ooh, dang. Nick and I interviewed George Will in March of 2016 at the, I think, International Students for Liberty Conference here in Washington, D.C. And he put forward the proposition that we are living through the authoritarian momen

哦，天哪。2016 年 3 月，Nick 和我在华盛顿特区举办的，我想是国际自由学生会议上采访了乔治·威尔（George Will）。他提出了一个观点，即我们正经历一个威权主义时刻

马特·韦尔奇（Matt Welch）：

The Libertarian Party in this. We were entering this authoritarian moment and the horseshoe theory and it's kind of, you know, Bernie Sanders's and Donald Trump's America in the two major parties. And so there was for a while a real alternative for three consecutive presidential elections. More than around 60% of the non-traditional vote went to the Libertarian Party. It could have been this is the alternative identity available to you, believing in actual limited government and human freedom and flourishing. And, you know, Gary Johnson was an imperfect candidate, but he's also a pretty good third party candidate and did pretty well in 2016. Afterwards, a large enough bloc within the Libertarian Party decided that they wanted to chase the high of populism, of Trumpism, of taking shortcuts to that and just of like trollish like behavior to distinguish yourself from other people. Because that seemed more fun to like flirt with racism and flirt with all kinds of other nasty beau French like behavior. And so I think as a partial result of that. It's no libertarian party is no longer seen as any kind of like alternative. It's not any it's not the dominant alternative identity in politics. And there isn't a block in electoral politics, which is not at all the sum of political activity or governance like activity that is there with like, hey, we've been working on the answers to the crisis that is coming right now. So I think that's regrettable. And I think for the rest of us, we should be continuing to work on the actual solutions, which libertarians have a lot, small l, have a lot of solutions to the problems that are coming right now. Don't look for it to be expressed in words.

自由党在此。 我们正在进入这个独裁时刻和马蹄理论，这有点像伯尼·桑德斯和唐纳德·特朗普两大政党的美国。 因此，在一段时间内，连续三届总统选举确实存在替代方案。 超过约 60% 的非传统选票投给了自由党。 这可能是你可以选择的另一种身份，相信真正有限的政府和人类自由和繁荣。 而且，你知道，加里·约翰逊是一位不完美的候选人，但他也是一位相当不错的第三方候选人，并且在 2016 年表现出色。此后，自由党内足够大的集团决定，他们想要追逐民粹主义、特朗普主义的高潮，走捷径，以及类似恶棍般的行为，以将自己与其他人区分开来。 因为喜欢与种族主义调情和与各种其他令人讨厌的法国美女行为调情似乎更有趣。 我认为这是其中的部分结果。 这并不是说自由主义政党不再被视为任何类似的选择。 这不是政治中占主导地位的替代身份。 在选举政治中没有任何障碍，而选举政治并不完全等同于政治活动或治理类活动，就像说，嘿，我们一直在研究如何应对当前即将到来的危机。所以我认为这是可惜的。我认为我们其余的人应该继续致力于实际的解决方案，自由意志主义者在即将到来的问题上有很多解决方案，注意这里的小写‘l’，有很多解决方案。不要指望这些方案会以言语表达出来。

彼得·苏德曼（Peter Suderman）：

Maybe not at the ballot box, maybe not when you go to vote, but it is in your podcast feed and in your mailbox if you subscribe to Reason magazine. We're out here doing it every day. I actually want to talk about the $5,000 plan that you brought up, Matt, here. So the president said last week at this convention in Texas that he wants to give five grand to every adult American if and only if Republicans win in November in the midterm elections.

也许不是在投票箱前，也许不是在你去投票的时候，但如果你订阅了《Reason》，它就在你的播客订阅列表和邮箱里。我们每天都在做这件事。我实际上想讨论一下你提到的 5000 美元计划，Matt。所以总统上周在德克萨斯州的这个大会上说，他希望如果也是只有共和党在 11 月的中期选举中获胜，才会给每个成年美国人五千美元。

凯瑟琳·曼古-沃德（Katherine Mangu-Ward）：

So this is just a bribe, right Katherine? Is there some other way to understand this?

所以这只是贿赂，对吧，凯瑟琳？还有别的方式可以理解这个吗？

凯瑟琳·曼古-沃德（Katherine Mangu-Ward）：

I mean, it's not a bribe. It's a payment for services, which is different. Like a bribe would be if we got the money before the election, which is the traditional way to do this, you will recall. Like very often politicians find...

我的意思是，这不是贿赂。这是服务费，情况不同。比如贿赂就是在选举前拿到钱，这才是传统做法，你会记得的。就像政治家们经常会发现的那样…

凯瑟琳·曼古-沃德（Katherine Mangu-Ward）：

And they did in fact restructure the way that tax refunds came through with their tax cuts so that people got a bigger lump sum in hopes that it would help them win the election.

事实上，他们确实通过减税重组了退税的方式，让人们获得更大的一次性款，希望这能帮助他们赢得选举。

凯瑟琳·曼古-沃德（Katherine Mangu-Ward）：

So politicians do tend to find some extra money to share around when they are in power right before an election that they're afraid they're going to lose.

所以政客确实倾向于在他们即将失去选举的担忧之时，在掌权时找到一些额外的资金来分发。

尼克·吉莱斯皮（Nick Gillespie）：

That's a bribe. But getting the money only if the Republicans win, that's just a payment for your vote, which is illegal. And a return to great old-time American values, right? True. True. That is very traditional.

那是贿赂。但是只有共和党赢了才给钱，那只是对你的投票的支付，这是非法的。而且是回到伟大的美国旧时代价值观，对吧？对的，对的。这非常传统。

彼得·苏德曼（Peter Suderman）：

So should this be illegal for Trump to do? Would it be illegal if Trump actually did it?

那么特朗普这样做应该违法吗？如果特朗普真的这样做，这会违法吗？

凯瑟琳·曼古-沃德（Katherine Mangu-Ward）：

I mean, it's probably not illegal because he's not saying quite out loud the words, you only get the money if you vote for Republicans. That would be illegal. It's pretty close to saying that.

我的意思是，这可能不违法，因为他没有大声说出那句话——只有投票给共和党的人才能得到钱。那样的话就违法了。这句话和那句话非常接近。

凯瑟琳·曼古-沃德（Katherine Mangu-Ward）：

But, you know, it's like you personally are going to get the money even if you personally don't vote for Republicans as long as everyone else does. So in that sense, probably not illegal.

但是，你知道，就好像只要其他人投票给共和党，即使你自己不投，你个人也会得到这些钱。从这个意义上说，可能不违法。

凯瑟琳·曼古-沃德（Katherine Mangu-Ward）：

Not great fiscal discipline or political precedent setting, though.

不过，这并不是很好的财政纪律或政治先例。

彼得·苏德曼（Peter Suderman）：

Yeah, Nick, on the one hand, do you think this is going to actually happen?

是啊，Nick，一方面，你认为这真的会发生吗？

彼得·苏德曼（Peter Suderman）：

Because Trump's been promising all sorts of rebates, dividends, it's sort of thousands

因为特朗普一直在承诺各种各样的回扣、红利，这大约是成千上万

彼得·苏德曼（Peter Suderman）：

of dollars that he's going to put in your pocket because of tariffs, because of who

由于关税、由于谁，他要放进你口袋的钱

彼得·苏德曼（Peter Suderman）：

knows what, because we eliminated the debt and the deficit, even though it's also $40 trillion.

你知道吗，因为我们消除了债务和赤字，尽管它也是 40 万亿美元。

彼得·苏德曼（Peter Suderman）：

And so is this something we actually have to worry about as like a real possibility if Republicans win, which they probably won't? Yeah, I mean, or is this just the kind of Trump says stuff?

那么，如果共和党赢了，这是否真的是我们必须担心的真正可能性，尽管他们可能不会赢？是的，我的意思是，还是这只是特朗普说说而已？

尼克·吉莱斯皮（Nick Gillespie）：

He says a lot of things. We can ignore it.

他说了很多事情。我们可以忽略它。

尼克·吉莱斯皮（Nick Gillespie）：

I don't think we can ignore it or we should ignore it, but it's not going to happen because it's not good politics ultimately, and the Republicans are not going to maintain both branches of Congress.

我认为我们不能忽视它，也不应该忽视它，但这不会发生，因为从根本上说，这对政治不利，共和党也不会同时维持国会两院的控制。

尼克·吉莱斯皮（Nick Gillespie）：

But what is interesting to me about it is that, you know, and this again, to go back to that, maybe I'm keeping alive that hope that Trump was going to be the thing, you know, the fire break wall or whatever, you know, where like you set a fire in order to contain a fir

但对我来说有趣的是，你知道的，再次回到这一点，也许我仍然抱着希望，特朗普会成为那个东西，你知道的，防火墙什么的，你知道的，就像点燃一场火以控制火势一样

尼克·吉莱斯皮（Nick Gillespie）：

You know, his heir apparent, J.D. Vance, for failure with this because he's making, besides making J.D. Vance explain the Iran war and defend the Iran war, he had him doing this in a Puffball interview on Fox where J.D. Vance was like, well, you know, we can do that because we, you know, we've got so much, so much tariff.

你知道，他的合法继承人 J.D. Vance 因为这个而失败了，因为除了让 J.D. Vance 解释伊朗战争并为伊朗战争辩护之外，他还让他在 Fox 的 Puffball 采访中做这些，而 J.D. Vance 当时就说，嗯，你知道，我们可以那样做，因为我们，你知道，我们有这么多的关税。

尼克·吉莱斯皮（Nick Gillespie）：

And at the same time, the Trump administration, we should just note here, is resisting paying back the money, the tariff money that they illegally took from American businesses.

与此同时，我们应该注意到，特朗普政府正在抵制偿还他们非法从美国企业那里拿走的资金，也就是关税款项。

尼克·吉莱斯皮（Nick Gillespie）：

Why would they do that? And if they could send it out in $5,000 checks to voters. But Trump, you know, and this is one of the things like after him.

他们为什么要那样做？如果他们能向选民寄出 5000 美元的支票怎么办。但特朗普，你知道，这是在他之后的其中一件事。

尼克·吉莱斯皮（Nick Gillespie）：

It is like, it's not clear what will be left within the Republican Party.

就像，目前还不清楚共和党内部会剩下什么。

尼克·吉莱斯皮（Nick Gillespie）：

I think that's good because the Republican Party has transformed into a horror show.

我认为那很好，因为共和党已经变成了一场恐怖秀。

尼克·吉莱斯皮（Nick Gillespie）：

The bad part about that is like, then what is left of the Democratic Party or what fills that space?

那件事糟糕的地方是，比如，那么民主党还剩下什么，或者是什么来填补那个空缺？

尼克·吉莱斯皮（Nick Gillespie）：

Because the Democratic Party, you know, mainstream is not exactly covering itself in glory and pushing back against the incredibly stupid, time-proven wrong.

因为民主党，你知道，主流阵营并没有真正让自己光彩照人，也没有反对那些极其愚蠢、长期被证明错误的事情。

彼得·苏德曼（Peter Suderman）：

So Matt, this was $5,000 to spend however you want, with one big exception. You have to spend it in the United States. So there's somehow or another gonna put $5,000 in your bank account.

所以，Matt，这是 5000 美元，你可以随意花，但有一个大前提。你必须在美国花这笔钱。所以不知怎么的，会有人把 5000 美元存到你的银行账户里。

彼得·苏德曼（Peter Suderman）：

But here's what Trump said last week at the rally.

但这是特朗普上周在集会上所说的。

彼得·苏德曼（Peter Suderman）：

We don't want you going to Canada to spend the money. We don't want you going to China, to Germany.

我们不希望你去加拿大花钱。我们不希望你去中国，去德国。

彼得·苏德曼（Peter Suderman）：

You've got to spend the money in the United States of America.

你必须在美利坚合众国花这笔钱。

马特·韦尔奇（Matt Welch）：

What do you make of this?

你怎么看这个？

马特·韦尔奇（Matt Welch）：

It's not the first time that Trump has endorsed Ceausescu-like economic policy. He's like, I'm serious, he's an autarchist. Ceausescu said, like, we can build it all on ourselves. Let's do it.

这不是特朗普第一次支持像齐奥塞斯库那样的经济政策。他是认真的，他是个自给自足主义者。齐奥塞斯库说过，我们可以完全靠自己建设一切。让我们来做吧。

马特·韦尔奇（Matt Welch）：

You know, export and money controls, financial controls, absolutely classic commie behavior.

你知道，出口和货币管制，金融管制，绝对是经典的共产主义行为。

马特·韦尔奇（Matt Welch）：

Well done, Donald Trump. This would be, this proposal would be the single most fiscally irresponsible act the United States government has ever taken in its history. Just full stop. We will spend $1.3 trillion and give it to you. Six years ago, we handed out checks to everybody. How did that go? It created inflation as predicted by, I don't know, people on this podcast and people who've ever read any kind of economics textbook and Lawrence Summers and all those types of people said, you're gonna get inflation. Look, we got inflation. Inflation was bad. Donald Trump ran, I don't know, against inflation. This is how stupid this is.

干得好，唐纳德·特朗普。这将会是，这个提议将会是美国政府历史上财政上最不负责任的行为。就是这样。我们将花费 1.3 万亿美元，然后交给你。六年前，我们给每个人都发了支票。结果怎么样？正如我不知道的人在这个播客上说的，以及任何读过经济学教材的人，还有劳伦斯·萨默斯那些人说的，你会造成通货膨胀。看，我们出现了通货膨胀。通货膨胀很糟糕。唐纳德·特朗普竞选，不知道，反对通货膨胀。这有多愚蠢啊。

马特·韦尔奇（Matt Welch）：

And to do this in advance of the aforementioned and should always be mentioned 2032 entitlements cliff is just willfully setting money on fire.

在上述事项之前这样做，并且总是应提到 2032 年的权益悬崖，只是故意在烧钱。

马特·韦尔奇（Matt Welch）：

And the question isn't necessarily is Donald Trump sort of wrong or bad for embracing Nikolai Ceausescu's economic policies. We can agree that that's pretty bad, but it's the J.D. Vance.

问题不一定是唐纳德·特朗普在采纳尼古拉·齐奥塞斯库的经济政策上是否有点错误或不好。我们可以同意那确实很糟糕，但问题是 J.D. Vance。

马特·韦尔奇（Matt Welch）：

It's every single Republican on the national level who's defending this.

在全国范围内，每一个共和党人都在为此辩护。

马特·韦尔奇（Matt Welch）：

Or sitting on their hands and saying, well, I'm not really sure we'll have to let that play out or whatever the hell Republicans say nowadays.

或者坐视不理，说，嗯，我不太确定，我们得让事情发展下去，或者无论现在共和党人说什么鬼话。

马特·韦尔奇（Matt Welch）：

Donald Trump has reshaped the National Republican Party to be a bunch of spineless, gormless idiots championing Ceausescu-like economic policies in the guise of nationalism. Congratulations to everybody.

唐纳德·特朗普已经将全国共和党改造成一群没有骨气、愚笨的白痴，打着民族主义的幌子推崇齐奥塞斯库式的经济政策。向大家表示祝贺。

马特·韦尔奇（Matt Welch）：

That on the national level, the Republican Party deserves to die in a fire without actually the physical death part, but like as a party, as a unit.

在全国范围内，共和党应当在火中消亡，但不是真的死亡，只是作为一个党派、作为一个整体消亡。

马特·韦尔奇（Matt Welch）：

That's what it deserves right now, unless there are people who will say forthrightly, oh, this is the stupidest and most fiscally irresponsible act ever proposed or possibly taken by the federal government. It is unbelievably asinine.

除非有人会直言不讳地说，哦，这是联邦政府曾提出过或可能采取的最愚蠢、最不负责任的财政行为，否则这正是它现在应得的。这简直太愚蠢了。

彼得·苏德曼（Peter Suderman）：

So thank you for your very calm and neutral analysis. We're going to put that on the front page A1. It's going to be in the news section. We're just going to put the word analysis under it so that everybody will understand. There's no opinion involved.

所以感谢你非常冷静和中立的分析。我们会把它放在头版 A1。它会在新闻版块中。我们只会在下面标上“分析”这个词，这样大家都会明白。这没有涉及任何观点。

彼得·苏德曼（Peter Suderman）：

Katherine, I want you to respond to two arguments for this. One is JD Vance's argument that this is a dividend.

凯瑟琳，我希望你对这件事提出两个论点。其一是杰·迪·万斯（JD Vance）关于这是股息的论点。

彼得·苏德曼（Peter Suderman）：

This is about America doing well, and we're going to share in that.

这是关于美国的良好发展，我们也将分享其中的成果。

彼得·苏德曼（Peter Suderman）：

They kind of do that with like oil wealth in other countries and even in Alaska.

他们在其他国家，甚至在阿拉斯加，也有点像那样利用石油财富。

彼得·苏德曼（Peter Suderman）：

But another argument that I've seen actually less, but that I want you to think through here is how is this different from a tax cut? Look, we're on this podcast. We're like, the government should take less of your money. And when it does take your money, it should give you the money back all the time.

但我看到的另一个论点其实少一些，但我希望你在这里思考的是，这与减税有什么不同？你看，我们在这个播客上就像在说，政府应该少拿你的钱。而当它拿走你的钱时，它应该一直把钱还给你。

彼得·苏德曼（Peter Suderman）：

And Donald Trump is saying, look, we're going to give you a bunch of money back.

唐纳德·特朗普在说，看看，我们会把一大笔钱还给你们。

凯瑟琳·曼古-沃德（Katherine Mangu-Ward）：

Yeah, the dividend argument, I think, is the weaker one because you have to have profits. Because it's made by JD Vance.

是的，我认为股息的论点比较弱，因为你必须有利润。因为这是 JD·万斯提出的。

凯瑟琳·曼古-沃德（Katherine Mangu-Ward）：

Always. But like, you know, a dividend should reflect an underlying financial reality of your balance sheet. And this just that's just super duper not the case here, even if in this one category, in this one column.

总是。但你知道，股息应该反映你资产负债表的基本财务状况。而这里的情况完全不是这样，即使在这一类别，这一栏也是如此。

凯瑟琳·曼古-沃德（Katherine Mangu-Ward）：

There is some revenue that wasn't there before, and even that revenue is smaller than you think, and some of it was illegal. That's not enough to give a dividend. That's not how it works. I do think the it's a tax cut argument is the strongest argument for this thing.

有一些以前没有的收入，即使这些收入比你想象的要少，而且其中一些是非法的。这不足以发放股息。这不是运作方式。我确实认为，‘减税’的论点是支持这件事的最有力论点。

凯瑟琳·曼古-沃德（Katherine Mangu-Ward）：

I like to not have the federal government have my money, but I also like the federal government to not have my children's money and my grandchildren's money. And that's what this is. It's not a tax cut. It's a tax deferral. And...

我喜欢联邦政府不要拿我的钱，但我也希望联邦政府不要拿我孩子的钱，也不要拿我孙子的钱。这就是这个的意义。它不是减税，而是税收递延。并且……

凯瑟琳·曼古-沃德（Katherine Mangu-Ward）：

Tax cuts always have to come with spending cuts and like insert here, probably in that first episode, Nick Gillespie probably did his song and dance about how those two numbers should correlate and how they, you know, don't because they haven't for a long time.

减税总是必须伴随着削减开支，就像在第一集中，尼克·吉莱斯皮（Nick Gillespie） 可能也做了他的歌舞表演，说明这两个数字应该如何相关，以及它们为什么不相关，因为它们很长时间以来都没有相关过。

马特·韦尔奇（Matt Welch）：

You know, it's not it's not really a tax cut if you're just paying the taxes later or your children are or your grandchildren are.

你知道，如果你只是以后再缴税，或者是你的孩子或孙子孙女缴税，那其实并不算真正的减税。

马特·韦尔奇（Matt Welch）：

And when you're paying $1.25 million dollars in interest payments alone, more than the Pentagon.

而当你仅在利息支付上就支付 125 万美元时，甚至超过了五角大楼的支出。

马特·韦尔奇（Matt Welch）：

Now, that's happened. That thing that we talked about, someday it's going to interest is going to be more than defense spending. Nope. We're here. We're here right now.

现在，这已经发生了。我们曾经谈到的那件事，总有一天它将引起的兴趣会超越国防支出。不，没错。我们就在这里。我们就在现在。

彼得·苏德曼（Peter Suderman）：

Hey, Reason Roundtable listeners.

嘿，《Reason》圆桌（The Reason Roundtable）的听众们。

彼得·苏德曼（Peter Suderman）：

If you like documentary film, if you like freedom, and if you like Reason, I have some big news for you, especially if you are in New York.

如果你喜欢纪录片，如果你喜欢自由，如果你喜欢《Reason》，我有一些重大的消息要告诉你，尤其是如果你在纽约的话。

彼得·苏德曼（Peter Suderman）：

In October, Reason is going to premiere a feature documentary at the IFC Theatre on West Third Street in Manhattan.

在十月，《Reason》将在曼哈顿西三街的 IFC 电影院首映一部纪录长片。

彼得·苏德曼（Peter Suderman）：

This documentary is produced entirely by my colleagues here at Reason, and it's called Escaping Venezuela.

这部纪录片完全由我在《Reason》的同事制作，名字叫《逃离委内瑞拉》。

彼得·苏德曼（Peter Suderman）：

The film is about how the most oil-rich country in the world, a constitutional democracy,

这部电影讲述了世界上石油最丰富的国家——一个宪政民主国家——的故事，

彼得·苏德曼（Peter Suderman）：

Experience the largest peacetime economic collapse in modern world history and turned into a brutal dictatorship.

经历了现代世界历史上最大规模的和平时期经济崩溃，并变成了一个残酷的独裁政权。

彼得·苏德曼（Peter Suderman）：

At the very worst of Venezuela's economic crisis, there were children who starved to death.

在委内瑞拉经济危机最严重的时候，有孩子饿死。

彼得·苏德曼（Peter Suderman）：

And as of today, 25 percent of the country's population has fled.

截至今天，该国有 25%的人口已经逃离。

彼得·苏德曼（Peter Suderman）：

The film shows that what destroyed Venezuela was its embrace of socialism.

这部电影显示，摧毁委内瑞拉的是它对社会主义的拥抱。

彼得·苏德曼（Peter Suderman）：

Given the growing popularity of that ideology in the United States today, this is a timely and relevant message.

鉴于这种意识形态在当今美国日益流行，这是一个及时且相关的信息。

彼得·苏德曼（Peter Suderman）：

The film is going to be shown on October 13th at IFC on West 3rd Street in New York. Go to Reason.org slash events for tickets and more information. That's Reason.org slash events. 10 years of the Reason Roundtable, folks. Okay, before we close out with our cultural recommendations,

这部电影将于 10 月 13 日在纽约西三街的 IFC 上映。请访问《Reason》 .org/events 获取门票和更多信息。网址是《Reason》 .org/events。大家，已经是《Reason》圆桌（The Reason Roundtable）的第 10 年了。好了，在我们结束文化推荐之前，

彼得·苏德曼（Peter Suderman）：

I do wanna stop briefly, pause for just a moment for some very sad news.

我确实想稍作停顿，暂停片刻，因为有一些非常悲伤的消息。

彼得·苏德曼（Peter Suderman）：

Andrew Wimsatt, a friend of this show, a fan, someone who all of us knew in some way,

安德鲁·威姆萨特（Andrew Wimsatt），这档节目的朋友，一个粉丝，我们都以某种方式认识的一个人，

彼得·苏德曼（Peter Suderman）：

died last week in a really tragic and awful circumstances. And Matt, do you just wanna take a minute to talk about him and remember his life?

上周在非常悲惨和可怕的情形下去世了。Matt，你想花一分钟时间谈谈他，缅怀他的生活吗？

马特·韦尔奇（Matt Welch）：

Yeah, so Andrew Wimsatt, a structural engineer specialized in pavement integrity and transportation projects, a big fan of Bob Poole's and has sent a suggestion over the years to the Reason's transportation policy work, had that kind of like structural engineer mentality.

是的，所以安德鲁·威姆萨特（Andrew Wimsatt），一位专门从事路面完整性和交通项目的结构工程师，非常喜欢 Bob Poole，并且多年来向《Reason》的交通政策工作提出过建议，有那种结构工程师的思维方式。

马特·韦尔奇（Matt Welch）：

He's been a Reason torchbearer, I think, for the last 10 years plus.

我认为，在过去十多年里，他一直是《Reason》的火炬手。

马特·韦尔奇（Matt Welch）：

And just a super fan, not only of Reason, but of Greg Gutfeld's Red Eye.

而且是超级粉丝，不仅是《Reason》，也是 Greg Gutfeld 的《Red Eye》的粉丝。

马特·韦尔奇（Matt Welch）：

He was a Red Eye early fan, huge fan of the Independence television program, long lamented with me and Camille Foster and MTV's Kennedy.

他是《红眼》的早期粉丝，非常喜欢《独立》电视节目，曾和我、卡米尔·福斯特以及 MTV 的肯尼迪长时间感慨。

马特·韦尔奇（Matt Welch）：

He taped all of this stuff. He was an archivist, so he was constantly anytime any of us would go like on television, he would just miraculously tape it and he'd like upload it somewhere so we could share it.

他把所有这些东西都录了下来。他是个档案管理员，所以每当我们中有人上电视时，他总是能够奇迹般地录下来，然后上传到某个地方让我们分享。

马特·韦尔奇（Matt Welch）：

Just a shy, unassuming guy, went to a bunch of Reason events. I knew him pretty well over the last like eight years or so. He's a big fan of the Fifth Column podcast, super fan.

只是一个害羞、低调的家伙，参加了很多《Reason》活动。在过去大约八年的时间里，我和他相当熟。他是《第五专栏》播客的超级粉丝，非常喜欢这个节目。

马特·韦尔奇（Matt Welch）：

And just like shy, unassuming, never, you know, really talking too much about himself and just constantly trying to sort of spread good vibes about the things that he loved.

就像害羞、谦逊、从不，你知道的，从不真正多谈自己一样，他一直在努力传播他所爱的事物的正能量。

马特·韦尔奇（Matt Welch）：

Music super fan, going all across the country to watch the slow dive.

音乐超级粉丝，走遍全国去观看慢速下潜演出。

马特·韦尔奇（Matt Welch）：

This is really super slow dive for reasons that are obscure, but awesome. Played music himself.

这真的是一个非常慢的潜水，原因不明，但很棒。他自己演奏了音乐。

马特·韦尔奇（Matt Welch）：

You can find some of the stuff on YouTube of the Andrew Wimsette Ensemble, I think it's called, that did kind of prog rock stuff back in the day. But just a sweetheart of a guy. And he was brutally murdered. I mean, not just to put a fine point on it.

你可以在 YouTube 上找到 Andrew Wimsette Ensemble 的一些作品，我想它就是这个名字，他们当年做过一些类似前卫摇滚的东西。但他真是个非常好的人。而且他被残忍地谋杀了。我是说，不只是为了强调这一点。

马特·韦尔奇（Matt Welch）：

He was sitting in a park bench after taking care of his 95-year-old mother with dementia.

他在照顾完患有痴呆症的 95 岁母亲后，正坐在公园的长椅上。

马特·韦尔奇（Matt Welch）：

Gutfeld and Kat Timp and other people have made like he just was incredibly selfless, offering you stuff, not asking or even expecting anything in return.

Gutfeld 和 Kat Timp 以及其他人都说他简直非常无私，给你提供东西，不求回报，也不期待任何回报。

马特·韦尔奇（Matt Welch）：

And it's a it's a real damn shame. And so we're trying our best to not just remember him for who he was.

这真是太遗憾了。所以我们正在尽力，不只是为了记住他是谁。

马特·韦尔奇（Matt Welch）：

He's a really great guy, but also to try to, like, take that spirit and and be more selfless ourselves.

他真是个很棒的人，但我们也应该尝试，比如说，吸取那种精神，让自己更加无私。

马特·韦尔奇（Matt Welch）：

It's a real, real super gut punch, but, and I know Nick knew him as well, and we all knew him. Katherine, we've all met him and interacted with him. And it's just really, really awful. And, and just shout out to his family and best wishes and all that.

这真的真的像是重击到心脏一样，但是，我知道尼克也认识他，我们都认识他。凯瑟琳，我们都见过他，和他有过互动。这真的真的很糟糕。向他的家人致意，祝他们一切顺利，等等。

彼得·苏德曼（Peter Suderman）：

Yeah, just a delight and somebody who you always look forward to seeing at events. I didn't know him super well, but he was a, he was a memorable and pleasant, just a fun presence every time he showed up somewhere.

是的，他真的很让人愉快，而且总是让你期待在活动中见到的人。我不是特别了解他，但他是一个令人难忘、令人愉快的人，每次他出现在某个地方，都会带来乐趣的存在。

彼得·苏德曼（Peter Suderman）：

All right, let's close out with our cultural recommendations. Books, movies, museums, television, other cultural whatnot that we recommend or perhaps in some cases do not. Katherine, did you read a good book this week?

好吧，让我们以文化推荐来结束。书籍、电影、博物馆、电视节目，或其他我们推荐的文化内容，或者在某些情况下不推荐的内容。凯瑟琳，你这周读了什么好书吗？

凯瑟琳·曼古-沃德（Katherine Mangu-Ward）：

I did. I read The Dutch House by Ann Patchett. I don't think I've ever read any Ann Patchett before, which is surprising because she's pretty much right down the middle white lady book club type fodder.

我读过。我读了安·帕切特的《荷兰之家》。我想我以前从未读过安·帕切特的任何作品，这很令人惊讶，因为她几乎完全是典型的中产阶级白人女性书友会类型的作者。

凯瑟琳·曼古-沃德（Katherine Mangu-Ward）：

But I can see why, because the book was... Lovely, well-structured, interesting, narratively sound. I know, well-structured, Suderman's in. And for listeners of this podcast, I would say one of the things that is interesting about it is... It centers around real estate and in particular around this one house, the Dutch house in question, and a family's attachment to it and the kind of ways that it drove them away from it and th

但我能理解为什么，因为这本书是……可爱的，结构良好，有趣，叙事合理。我知道，结构良好，Suderman 的书就是这样。对于这个播客的听众来说，我会说其中有趣的一点是……它围绕房地产展开，特别是围绕这栋所谓的荷兰房子，以及一个家庭对它的依恋，以及它在某种程度上如何让他们远离它。

凯瑟琳·曼古-沃德（Katherine Mangu-Ward）：

The late 20th century and there's kind of a, you follow a little bit this moment when you could buy a brownstone in Harlem, you know, using the leftover money that you had from your med student's stipend and build an empire. And that is the second real estate empire described in the book.

20 世纪晚期，你会稍微跟随这样一个时刻——当时你可以在哈莱姆买一栋棕色石屋，用你医学生津贴剩下的钱建立一个帝国。这就是书中描述的第二个房地产帝国。

彼得·苏德曼（Peter Suderman）：

So it's a book about the housing crisis? Yeah.

所以这是一本关于住房危机的书？是的。

凯瑟琳·曼古-沃德（Katherine Mangu-Ward）：

It's kind of a book about the housing crisis. And it's a book about how it made me appreciate as a lifelong I will never buy a house person. It actually made me appreciate more than I ever have before, despite the urgings of many of my friends, the sort of power of owning property and what it means to people and kind of their attachment to plac

这本书在某种程度上是关于住房危机的。这也是一本关于它如何让我这个一生可能永远不会买房的人更加感激的书。实际上，它让我比以往任何时候都更加感激，尽管我很多朋友都敦促我去买房，但拥有房产的某种力量以及它对人们的意义，以及人们对地方的依恋。

凯瑟琳·曼古-沃德（Katherine Mangu-Ward）：

You know, it's not post-human sci-fi apocalypse stuff, which is generally what I expect this podcast listener, these podcast listeners to enjoy. And I will be back with those recommendations soon enough. But in the meantime, The Dutch House by Ann Patchett.

你知道，这不是后人类科幻末日那类的东西，这通常是我预计的这些播客听众喜欢的。我很快会带回那些推荐。但在此期间，安·帕切特的《荷兰之屋》。

彼得·苏德曼（Peter Suderman）：

Well, since you bring up post-human apocalypse stuff, I've been watching the science fiction show, Silo, which just finished its third season on Apple TV. It is based on a series of books by Hugh Howey. Those books were originally self-published. So this is a kind of a do-it-yourself, DIY novel writing story. It was a huge, huge success for him before he signed on with traditional publishers for some of his editions. And at least one listener has emailed in recent weeks to ask if any of us have seen the show, because it is surprisingly libertarian. And yeah, it really is. It is set in a post-apocalyptic future, I guess after the AI or something kills us all. Not quite everybody, but most of humanity. And the remaining population has been confined To these giant underground silos. So you don't get any sunlight anywhere ever. These miniature closed off authoritarian societies run by something called the Pact, which is this sort of arcane system of rules. No one knows where it came from, sort of been there forever. As well as you eventually find out, it's a little bit of a spoiler, but it's also being run by AI overseers. And the people in these silos are just prohibited from doing any kind of like normal stuff. Their reproduction is controlled. They can't use certain technology, even things like elevators or pulley systems, even though the silos are dozens and dozens of stories high. They can't communicate with the other silos. In fact, at first, they don't even know that other silos are there at all. Basically, they're being prohibited from being masters of their own fate and their own lives. And the show is about the struggle of people in one silo to break free of this authoritarian rule, a rule that is pitched to them constantly as this is tradition and it's for your own good. And eventually we find out more about the history of these silos and how they came to be and some of the kind of political and technological background in the present day for when they were built and all of this. But this is... It's a pretty good, this is like good solid TV sci-fi that has, like our listener email said, really a very libertarian kind of undercurrent to it. It's about living in an authoritarian society and wanting to get out and just how hard that is because the authoritarians, they have a lot of power over your life. Nick?

好吧，既然你提到了后人类末日的东西，我就一直在看科幻剧《Silo》，它刚刚在 Apple TV 上结束了第三季。 它是根据休·豪伊的一系列书籍改编的。 这些书最初是自行出版的。 所以这是一个自己动手、DIY 的小说写作故事。 在他与传统出版商签约出版他的一些版本之前，这对他来说是一个巨大的成功。 最近几周，至少有一位听众发邮件询问我们是否有人看过这部剧，因为它令人惊讶地自由主义。 是的，确实如此。 它设定在一个后世界末日的未来，我猜是在人工智能或其他东西杀死我们所有人之后。 不完全是所有人，而是大多数人类。 而剩下的人口则被限制在这些巨大的地下筒仓里。 所以你在任何地方都得不到阳光。 这些微型封闭的独裁社会由一种叫做“契约”的东西管理，这是一种神秘的规则体系。 没有人知道它从哪里来，似乎永远都在那里。 你最终会发现，这有点剧透，但它也是由人工智能监督者运行的。 这些筒仓中的人们被禁止做任何正常的事情。 它们的繁殖受到控制。 他们无法使用某些技术，甚至是电梯或滑轮系统之类的东西，尽管筒仓有几十层楼高。 他们无法与其他孤岛进行通信。 事实上，一开始他们甚至不知道还有其他孤岛存在。 基本上，他们被禁止成为自己命运和生活的主人。 该剧讲述了一群人在一个孤岛中为摆脱这种独裁统治而奋斗的故事，这是一种不断向他们推销的规则，因为这是传统，也是为了你自己的利益。 最终，我们更多地了解了这些筒仓的历史、它们是如何形成的，以及它们建造时的一些当今的政治和技术背景以及所有这些。 但这是……这是一部相当不错的作品，就像一部优秀的电视科幻小说，正如我们听众的电子邮件所说，它确实蕴含着一种非常自由主义的暗流。 这是关于生活在一个独裁社会并想要摆脱它是多么困难，因为独裁者对你的生活拥有很大的权力。 缺口？

尼克·吉莱斯皮（Nick Gillespie）：

I watched the TV series that was originally on FX, Hulu and Disney Plus of The Shards, which is a 2023 novel by Bret Easton Ellis, best known still, I think, for less than zero, kind of a big novel in the 80s about a kind of blank generation. And the Shards is auto-fiction, which means that it's fake kind of memoir. It's set in 1981 in LA when Ellis was graduating from high school, and it concerns a serial killer who is knocking off people in his senior class. The TV series is excellent. I think there's nine or ten episodes, kind of a nepo baby fest. Richard Gere's son and Cindy Crawford's son, or daughter rather, are both in i

我看了最初在 FX、Hulu 和 Disney Plus 上播出的电视剧《碎片》，这部剧改编自布雷特·伊斯顿·埃利斯于 2023 年出版的小说。我认为他最著名的作品仍然是《少于零》，这是 80 年代的一部大作，讲述了一代空白人群。《碎片》属于自传体小说，也就是说这是一种虚构的回忆录。故事发生在 1981 年的洛杉矶，那时埃利斯正高中毕业，剧情涉及一名连续杀人犯在他的高中毕业班里作案。电视剧非常精彩，我记得有九到十集，有点像新生代名人聚会。理查德·基尔的儿子和辛迪·克劳馥的孩子（其实是女儿）都出演了这部剧。

尼克·吉莱斯皮（Nick Gillespie）：

The story kind of revolves in many profound ways around the ways in which being a closeted gay person affected all sorts of personal relationships, as well as industry relationships and things like that. And then what's really interesting, I think, about the series is that it's also kind of a commentary on Gen Z, on contemporary young people. And it's a fairly damning indictment of people who don't, who cannot appreciate how good they have it. I think Bret Easton Ellis, you know, he was one of the Brat Pack, as they were called, including Jay McInerney and Tama Janowitz, a couple other people in the 80s, all New York-centered writers w

这个故事在很多深刻的方面围绕着作为一个隐秘的同性恋者如何影响各种个人关系，以及行业关系等等。然后我认为这个系列真正有趣的地方在于，它也有点像对 Z 世代、对当代年轻人的评论。它相当严厉地指责那些不懂得珍惜自己拥有的生活的人。我认为布雷特·伊斯顿·艾利斯，你知道，他是所谓的 Brat Pack（顽童帮）之一，包括杰伊·麦金尼、塔玛·贾诺维茨，以及 80 年代纽约为中心的其他几位作家

尼克·吉莱斯皮（Nick Gillespie）：

Is constantly working in the media and connecting with audiences in ways that are just really fascinating and constantly ruminating on that question of like, are we what we consume? And if we are, you know, how do we build a meaningful life and identity and a moral, a moral life out of all of that? So.

不断在媒体工作，并以一些真的非常吸引人的方式与观众进行连接，并不断反思那个问题：我们是否就是我们所消费的？如果是的话，你知道，我们如何从这一切中建立有意义的生活和身份，以及道德的、道德的生活呢？就是这样。

尼克·吉莱斯皮（Nick Gillespie）：

Yeah, yeah. And he also has a very good podcast. He's kind of like a literary Andrew Sullivan, you know, because he talks about politics, but he's much more interested just in kind of culture creation and consumption.

是的，是的。他还有一个非常好的播客。他有点像文学界的安德鲁·沙利文，你知道的，因为他谈论政治，但他更感兴趣的是文化的创作和消费。

彼得·苏德曼（Peter Suderman）：

Do you actually think he's better known for Less Than Zero than American Psycho? Because my introduction to American Psycho is definitely American Psycho, the Christian Bale movie, and reading the novel.

你真的认为他因为《少于零》比《美国精神病》更出名吗？因为我接触《美国精神病》肯定就是电影《美国精神病》，克里斯蒂安·贝尔主演的电影，还有读小说。

尼克·吉莱斯皮（Nick Gillespie）：

Yeah, I know, I think you're right. And, you know, I'm showing my age because American Psycho was interesting when it went before it came out because there was a kind of call from his publisher not to publish it from within the publishing house because people said it was too misogynistic, it was too awful. And I believe it did. He got paid his, his, um,

是的，我知道，我觉得你说得对。而且，你知道，我是在显露年龄，因为《美国精神病人》在正式出版前就已经引起了兴趣，因为出版社内部有人呼吁不要出版，说它对女性有偏见，太可怕了。我相信它确实如此。他得到了他的报酬，他的，嗯，

尼克·吉莱斯皮（Nick Gillespie）：

You know, there are like, there are like ad hoc dramatizations of American Psycho that are kind of like the Rocky Horror Picture Show or the Jeffersons, you know, the TV show, the Jeffersons, people would go around and redo Jeffersons episodes. It's like, Fascinating the way work takes on a life of its own, completely independent of what the author or the director of a movie version do. And one of the reasons why I think Ellis remains fascinating is that in an era where fans have more control over interpretation or even a kind of reiteration of something, he's right there with it trying to figure it out.

你知道的，有些时候，会有人即兴上演《美國精神病人》，有点像《洛基恐怖秀》或者电视剧《杰斐逊一家》，人们会去重演《杰斐逊一家》的剧集。这种作品自己拥有生命的方式非常吸引人，完全独立于作者或电影导演的意图。而我认为艾利斯之所以仍然令人着迷的原因之一，是在一个粉丝对作品的解读甚至重新演绎拥有更多控制权的时代，他仍然紧跟潮流，试图去理解和掌握它。

凯瑟琳·曼古-沃德（Katherine Mangu-Ward）：

I also will put in a plug for a podcast that I recommended many years ago on this pod, but still think you should listen to if you cared about any of the words that Nick just said, which is Once Upon a Time at Bennington College, which is like a fanfare and maybe independent podcast, which chronicles Ellis's time at Bennington College with Donna Tartt of Secret History fame and Jonathan Latham of Motherless Brooklyn fame. Just... Absolutely the dirtiest, gossipiest, tea-spilling-est, lengthiest podcast imaginable about these people and totally worth your time.

我也想推荐一个我很多年前在这个播客里就推荐过的播客，如果你在意 Nick 刚才说的任何话，我仍然认为你应该听，这个播客叫《本宁顿学院的故事》，它就像一个号角，也可能是一个独立播客，记录了 Ellis 在本宁顿学院的时光，还有因《秘密历史》而出名的 Donna Tartt 和因《无母布鲁克林》而出名的 Jonathan Latham。这个播客绝对是关于这些人最骯脏的、最八卦的、最爱爆料的、最冗长的内容，非常值得你花时间听。

凯瑟琳·曼古-沃德（Katherine Mangu-Ward）：

Matt, do you have some videotapes you have to return?

马特，你有一些录像带需要归还吗？

马特·韦尔奇（Matt Welch）：

No, actually I'm making the rare-

不，实际上我正在做那个罕见的-

尼克·吉莱斯皮（Nick Gillespie）：

Be kind, rewind, Matt Welc

请善意倒带，Matt Welc

马特·韦尔奇（Matt Welch）：

Board member Jim Lintott, who knows everything about restaurants in Washington, D.C. and beyond, has invested in a few himself and just said, hey, what's a good place to go? And he just answered with two words in a period, which was bizarre meats, bizarre meats, which is Jose Andres. Andres or Andre? I am not supposed to look at you. Andres, sorry, his restaurant at the Waldorf Astoria, formerly known as the Trump Hotel. It's a great restaurant. So just go and get the prefix brunch. And there's like a triple smash burger, Suderman, that has like an egg on it and stuff. And it is so good. It's one of the best things I've eaten. And it's just a fun, weird place to go, particularly if you've ever been to the Trump Hotel previously under the Trump Hotel management. Like seeing it afterwards is weird. It's like that place used to be an absolute carnival of of like ogres and hustlers and weirdos and like people on the make. And like it was super interesting to go previously. And so it sort of has sort of the hangover of it. You're like you feel like you're in a Vegas casino somehow, like a high end casino. And it's just sort of strange and nice. And the restaurant sort of sits kind of juts into it a little bit. But it serves all kinds of meats, just like you would imagine, and super delicious and, you know, high end, but on the affordable end of the high end, which, you know, can be a lot higher in D.C. than it is. And I just enjoyed it very much.

董事会成员吉姆·林托特 (Jim Lintott) 对华盛顿特区及其他地区的餐馆了如指掌，他自己投资了几家餐馆，然后就说，嘿，哪里是个好去处？ 而他只是用一个句号回答了两个词，那就是奇异肉，奇异肉，这是何塞·安德烈斯。 安德烈斯还是安德烈？ 我不应该看着你。 安德烈斯，抱歉，他在华尔道夫酒店的餐厅，以前称为特朗普酒店。 这是一家很棒的餐厅。 所以就去吃前缀早午餐吧。 还有一种三重粉碎汉堡，Suderman，上面有一个鸡蛋之类的东西。 它是如此的好。 这是我吃过的最好的东西之一。 这是一个有趣、奇怪的地方，特别是如果你曾经去过特朗普酒店管理下的特朗普酒店。 好像后来看到的感觉很奇怪。 就好像那个地方曾经是食人魔、骗子、怪人以及新人的绝对狂欢节。 好像以前去的时候非常有趣。 所以它有点后遗症。 不知怎的，你感觉就像在维加斯赌场，就像一个高端赌场。 这有点奇怪又美好。 餐厅有点突出。 但是它提供各种各样的肉类，就像你想象的那样，而且非常美味，你知道，很高档，但价格在高档的可接受范围内，你知道，在华盛顿特区可能会贵很多。我非常喜欢它。

凯瑟琳·曼古-沃德（Katherine Mangu-Ward）：

So maybe important to note that it's B-A-Z-A-R, not B-I-Z-A-R-A. I don't know that that's going to win people over or not.

所以也许值得注意的是，它是 B-A-Z-A-R，而不是 B-I-Z-A-R-A。我不知道这是否会让人们喜欢上它。

马特·韦尔奇（Matt Welch）：

They do have like a dead pig hanging up, you know, as if it was a bizarre meat. But no, it's bizarre. Oh, thank God it's not a live one. That's a good point. A little twitching helps too, but no, just really good. I'm very glad I did. Thank you, Jim.

他们确实挂着像死猪一样的东西，你知道，就好像那是一块奇怪的肉。但不，它很奇怪。哦，谢天谢地那不是活的。这点很好。稍微抽动一下也有帮助，但不，就真的很好。我很高兴我做了。谢谢你，吉姆。

彼得·苏德曼（Peter Suderman）：

So that's actually a new concept for that space. I haven't been, but there was a previous concept also by Jose Andres in that same space in the sort of interim period after it was no longer the Trump Hotel and it was excellent. And one thing I would just recommend is if you go to a Jose Andres space and you drink, please get the cocktails. The stuff he does with foam air and textur

所以那实际上是那个空间的一个新概念。我还没去过，但之前在同一空间也有一个由何塞·安德烈斯设计的概念，是在那个地方不再是特朗普酒店后的过渡时期，并且非常出色。我唯一想推荐的一点是，如果你去了何塞·安德烈斯的空间并且喝酒，请一定要点鸡尾酒。他在泡沫、空气和质感上做的东西非常棒。

马特·韦尔奇（Matt Welch）：

There's also, there's a just quickly right next door is the is the Department of Justice with a gigantic scowling Trump banner on the front. So it's a great place to take a like a vertical picture with your finger doing like this. As I was showing.

还有，就在隔壁很快的地方是司法部，前面挂着一个巨大的愤怒的特朗普横幅。所以这是一个拍竖向照片的好地方，可以像我刚才展示的那样用手指比划。

尼克·吉莱斯皮（Nick Gillespie）：

Did you did you do that, Matt?

你做了吗，马特？

马特·韦尔奇（Matt Welch）：

Absolutely. Like, have you posted those yet anywhere? Uh, yes. On the dark web. It'll be on the dark web. It'll be on Silk Road.

绝对的。比如，你已经把那些发到哪里了吗？呃，是的。在暗网。它会在暗网上。它会在丝绸之路上。

凯瑟琳·曼古-沃德（Katherine Mangu-Ward）：

We'll put them in the show notes maybe. We'll see.

我们可能会把它们放在节目注释里。我们再看看。

彼得·苏德曼（Peter Suderman）：

Yeah. Please. Matt's Instagram is the dark web. All right, folks, that is our show. Good place to end. Good place to end. Remember, 10th anniversary live show in New York City next month. Just a couple of tickets left. If you like what we do, if you like the Reason Foundation, Reason magazine, you can give us your money at Reason.com slash donate. Thanks to Matt, Nick and Katherine. Thanks to all of you for listening. Reason Roundtable will return.

是的。请。Matt 的 Instagram 就像暗网。好了，大家，这就是我们的节目。一个很好的结束地方。记住，下个月在纽约市有十周年现场秀。只剩下几张票了。如果你喜欢我们的内容，如果你喜欢 Reason 基金会、《Reason》，你可以在 Reason.com/donate 捐款给我们。感谢 Matt、Nick 和 Katherine。感谢大家收听。《Reason》圆桌（The Reason Roundtable）将会回归。