第 91 期·中文精讀

傑克·多爾西:Square、加密貨幣與人工智慧

Jack Dorsey: Square, Cryptocurrency, and Artificial Intelligence

推特與 Square 創始人談支付創新、比特幣與去中心化,以及對人工智慧與平臺治理的看法。

官方音訊00:00 / --:--
中文精讀由 AI 基於原始訪談改寫,非官方翻譯,可能存在偏差或錯誤;表述以原音訊與官方文稿為準。說明

美國的小商戶想接受信用卡,得先過一道信用審查。FICO 分數不夠,生意就開不了張。金融業給這條通道設定的透過率是 30% 到 40%。Square 把它推到了 99%。

這組數字是傑克·多爾西(Jack Dorsey)在 Lex Fridman 播客第 91 期裡自己講的。他是 Twitter 的聯合創始人兼 CEO,也是 Square 的創始人和 CEO。兩家公司表面上做的是完全不同的生意,核心卻是同一件事:讓本來進不來的人進來。

這期播客錄製於疫情爆發之前。節目開頭 Lex 提到,多爾西后來把價值 10 億美元的 Square 股票,相當於他個人財富的 20%,轉去成立了一個 COVID-19 救助組織。有意思的是這個組織的運作方式:所有捐贈記錄都發在同一個 Google Doc 裡,誰都能開啟看。沒有公關稿,沒有季度報告,一個線上表格。

訪談的主體部分沒有圍繞 Twitter。Lex 把話題集中在 Square 的工程規模化、比特幣、人工智慧,以及一些更個人化的東西上。多爾西的回答密度很高,而且經常從一個具體的技術問題滑向更底層的思考方式。

他先把自己定義成駭客

Lex 開口就問:你造的是世界上最大的網路系統之一,每天處理幾萬億次互動,這種規模的工程是怎麼做成的?

多爾西的第一反應是撇清自己的工程師身份。

我是個駭客,不算正經的軟體工程師。(傑克·多爾西)

他給駭客下的定義是:想盡辦法先把東西做出來,能看見它、摸到它,再去學下一步該幹什麼。而下一步往往是同一個答案:把它帶給更多人。那就是規模化。

規模化靠的是一批有經驗或者學得極快的工程師,但他說 Square 受益最大的地方是開源社群。所有錯誤、所有成功、所有踩過的坑,全都攤在明面上。開源專案的推進很慢,但非常審慎。正因為慢,你才有機會看清一件事從零到有意義到底需要什麼。

Lex 追問:這屬於硬體問題、軟體問題,還是組建大團隊的社會問題?

他的回答是,每一個都得關注,而能不能同時關注,取決於你面對問題時能不能把它拆成可以逐個擊破的部分。他列舉了幾種最常見的失敗:一次想解決太多問題;問得不夠深;對自己找到的答案不夠挑剔;或者沒花時間形成一個能被檢驗、能看到結果的假設。

所有這些最後都落到同一個能力上。

如果我只想每天提升一項技能,那就是批判性思維和解決問題的能力。那是真正帶來學習的東西。(傑克·多爾西)

他說自己刻意抵抗"這裡屬於硬體問題""這裡屬於軟體問題"這類分類,去找底下讓所有東西運轉起來的系統。但這些系統只有在你有能力問出關鍵問題、並且有耐心往深處走的時候才會浮現。

Square 賣的是個小白方塊,撐起公司的是風險模型

Lex 問 Square 的使命,多爾西用一個詞概括:access,准入。

故事的起點很意外。Square 最初以為自己在造一塊硬體,插到手機上就能刷信用卡。但跟那些真正想收信用卡的人聊過之後,他們發現一個反覆出現的主題:很多人根本沒有資格受理信用卡。再深挖一層,原因是這些人去銀行或者收單機構時,等著他們的是信用審查和 FICO 分數。

這些人大多是小生意主,剛起步的創業者,正在承擔大量個人風險和財務風險。為了能收別人的錢,得先被查一遍個人信用,這事在他們看來荒謬。

繼續往下挖,多爾西發現金融業並非故意要刁難誰。信用分數是他們手裡唯一能用的工具,用來判斷真實性、意圖、以及未來行為的可預測性。

所以 Square 的第一步看起來是硬體,真正下功夫的地方是風險建模。第一年公司就建立起很強的資料科學紀律,因為他們明白自己做的不是硬體生意,是讓更多人進入系統。

真正的轉折發生在思維方式上。

金融業很多人的心態是不信任,不停尋找證據證明你不該進來。我們的心態是信任,然後驗證、驗證、驗證、驗證、驗證。(傑克·多爾西)

監控的顆粒度也變了。Square 不看商戶這一層,看交易這一層。你進來做幾筆,只要行為看著高誠信、可信、不像有問題,就繼續服務你。一旦某處出現異常,它會冒泡到人工稽核,去判斷背後有沒有惡意。真有問題,那時候才會請你離開。

Lex 對這個轉向的評價很高:先假定人本質是好的,再驗證,把壞的抓出來,跟假定所有人都是壞的,是完全兩種世界觀。

效果是數字上的。透過率從 30% 到 40% 變成 99%。

Lex 又問起機器學習在這中間的角色。多爾西說,這件事從一開始就在,只是那時候還叫資料科學;行業演進後,機器學習成了常規文化;再後來變得更復雜,有了深度學習;將來還會有別的名字。全在同一個脈絡裡。

問題是怎麼說服外部的巨頭。Square 需要跟銀行合作,需要跟 Visa、Mastercard 合作,需要證明自己把更多人帶進系統這件事是負責任的,不會拖累他們的系統。

他們的做法是有節奏地放量。先是一桶 500 個使用者,跑出結果,再 1000,再 10000,再 50000,然後限制解除了。

先把一個能摸得著的東西做出來,展示我們能做什麼,而不是談論它。這給我們很大壓力,也造出了問責的文化和一點透明度。(傑克·多爾西)

這句話本身挺值得琢磨:外部約束反過來塑造了內部文化。公司文化好並不是放量的原因,恰恰是必須放量,才逼出了那種不敢亂來的自覺。

Square 最大的對手其實是國界

Lex 把問題往前推:未來怎麼讓更多人進入經濟體系?物聯網、智慧裝置、個人資料貨幣化,這些都算。

多爾西說貨幣是答案的很大一塊。他有一個判斷:網際網路應該擁有、也需要一種原生貨幣。

理由是切身的。Square 現在最大的問題在於,它沒法像一家網際網路公司那樣行動。想開一個新市場,就得找當地銀行合作,就得處理那個國家不同的監管入駐環境。一家網際網路公司最擅長的事情是點一下就能全球上線,支付公司偏偏做不到。

比特幣這樣的數字貨幣把這件事拿掉一大半。如果所有市場都用同一種貨幣,監管和入駐的理解也趨於一致,理論上就能一次把產品釋出到全世界。速度會快很多,創新會多很多。

他把網際網路持續可及排在第一位,貨幣排第二位。然後補了一句:他希望在有生之年能看到這件事。

比特幣白皮書像詩

Lex 提到前一天剛和維塔利克·布特林(Vitalik Buterin)聊過,讓多爾西展開講講比特幣到底哪裡吸引他。

最美的地方在於,沒有一個人設定方向,也沒有一個人站在對面能把它停下。它在本質上是自然生長的,原始設計裡有很強的原則性。比特幣白皮書是過去二三十年裡最奠基性的電腦科學作品之一,它是詩。(傑克·多爾西)

Lex 接了一句:這項技術本身很少被認真討論,大家聊的都是它帶來的金融影響和圍繞它的炒作,但它的底層在電腦科學視角下確實漂亮。

多爾西把話題引到釋出方式上。用化名釋出這件事,本身就構成了一個非常強的宣告。釋出的時間點也強,他說那是一個徹底的行動主義動作,以一種極其高貴的方式把世界往前推,而且讓每個人都能成為這個故事的一部分。

十年二十年後會怎樣?他說,了不起的地方正在於沒有人知道,它可以湧現。每個進入生態的人,不管是開發者還是使用者,都能以大大小小的方式改變它的方向。這就是它該有的樣子,因為網際網路已經證明了這種可能性存在。

他也承認複雜性。網際網路的很大一部分被少數公司擁有,被它們收窄;世界上也還沒有每個人都能平等接入。但這些問題是可見的,可見意味著可討論,可討論意味著有希望在不太長的時間裡解決。他提到衛星網際網路會移除一批物理約束,把場地拉平。

全球貨幣這個概念有多重,他很清醒。

我不認為這個星球上有任何一個人真正理解它的全部後果。有很多正面,也有一些負面,但我認為它是可能的。(傑克·多爾西)

Lex 追問得更直接:這種數字貨幣會不會重新定義貨幣的本質,成為世界主貨幣,取代各國法幣,真正推動貨幣控制權的去中心化?

多爾西說會。但他認為更大的影響在於它如何改變社會的運作方式。錢是基礎層,它能撬動的東西遠遠超出錢本身。

他講了一個具體的人。在衣索比亞,他遇到一位創業者,做的是衣索比亞版的 Lyft 或 Uber。她最大的問題之一,是乘客付錢給公司不容易,她付錢給司機也不容易。這兩件事直接卡住了增長。

她還得操心支付這件事,而不只是思考怎麼給乘客和司機最好的體驗,這很說明問題。(傑克·多爾西)

他在非洲待了一個月,見到的公司大部分是支付導向的。整個大陸要解決的第一個問題是支付:跨國轉賬、現有系統裡的腐敗、缺少便捷的付錢方式讓任何生意都很難起步。他的判斷是,一旦有一個更耐久、更有韌性、全球統一的標準,創新會在所有地方冒出來。醫療、可持續、交通,都是如此。

化名和匿名不是一回事

Lex 抓住"匿名釋出"這個點不放。背後的推論是:中本聰放棄了署名,放棄了所有能歸到自己名下的榮譽。

多爾西先糾正了一個措辭。

那不是一個匿名身份,是化名身份。匿名是隨手把東西丟下就走,沒打算圍繞它建立什麼。化名則是一個被建構出來的身份。(傑克·多爾西)

這個身份存在的時間視窗很短,但它的本意是要留下來的,是要被知道的。而且它確實被尊重著,社群裡關於如何紀念這個身份的各種討論就是一例。

他認為用化名而不是真實身份,也不是純粹的匿名,是聰明的。因為化名建立了一種可觸控性,還帶一點共情:你知道背後是一個人或者幾個人,你能在腦子裡想象出一個自然的形象。代價是放棄了自我,放棄了讓名字和成就繫結的機會。

Lex 順勢問了個尖銳的問題:如果名字不掛在你身上,你還會做現在這些事嗎?換句話說,你的自我,跟你的決策綁得有多深?

多爾西說他希望沒有。他會嘗試做同樣的事,只是不署名。但在一家公司裡,法律上很難這麼操作。如果是做開源專案,那完全沒問題,他不需要自己的真實身份跟它綁在一起。

做好一件事、能看見它、看見別人用它,那種滿足感是壓倒性的,比在頭條上看見自己的名字強得多。(傑克·多爾西)

能解釋為什麼,才叫通用智慧

話題轉到人工智慧。Lex 提到圖靈七十年前給出的那個測試,並把自然語言稱作智慧的經典問題。

多爾西沒有從哲學入手,他先講現狀。眼下以及未來至少幾年,機器學習模型能做的是快速把異常冒泡出來,然後配上人的判斷去處理嚴重性、深度、細微差別和意義。機器負責掃,人負責判,分工清楚。

他把通用智慧的那道坎定義得很具體:系統得能解釋為什麼。

跨過通用智慧這道鴻溝,必須能解釋為什麼,解釋決策背後的意義。(傑克·多爾西)

Lex 確認了一遍:可解釋性是關鍵,要用自然語言說清為什麼做出這個決策。

多爾西說這正是他眼裡 AI 未來最大的風險之一。我們正在造一大堆黑箱,它們沒法解釋自己為什麼這麼決定,用了什麼標準。而我們越來越信任它們,從放貸決策、內容推薦,到駕駛,到醫療。

他舉了個很日常的例子:很多人的手錶會提示你站起來。這件事的決策邏輯簡單得可笑,但你能想象這些系統會變多複雜。而把推薦背後的推理講清楚,看起來是不可或缺的一環,同時又是極難的問題。

難在哪?他說了句公道話。

有時候我們自己都解釋不清為什麼做某個決定。我們在這件事上對人工智慧系統有點不公平,因為人類自己也不擅長。(傑克·多爾西)

這句話值得停一下。可解釋性常被當成對機器提出的額外要求,但多爾西指出,這是人類自己都沒透過的考試。我們要求機器交代得比自己還清楚。

人會在機器身上找到意義,這不算壞事

Lex 承認接下來這個問題很浪漫:我們能不能造出《她》(Her)裡那種系統,你能真的愛上它?

多爾西反問:這事不是已經發生了嗎?日本不是有人跟自己的 AI 結婚了嗎?

Lex 說總會有個別人這麼做,但他說的是更大規模的關係,更深層的連線,不一定叫愛。

多爾西的回應把焦點從機器挪到了人身上。能不能建立深層連線,更多取決於這個人如何找到意義、在哪裡找到意義,而不是取決於 AI 本身。

Lex 追問:人類真的能從技術裡找到意義嗎?

多爾西說百分之百可以,而且他不覺得這必然是壞事。它只會繼續演化。意義這件事完全是主觀的,不會存在一個讓所有人愛上它的魔法演算法。

Lex 把這個問題接到更硬的一面:能不能分辨機器人和人?十年二十年後,我們還需不需要分辨?

多爾西的回答分了場景。在某些問題領域,能分辨當然有用;在另一些領域,可能沒那麼有用。他說今天要分辨是可能的,但真正有意思的是速度差。

創造這項技術的速度,比檢測這項技術的速度快得多。(傑克·多爾西)

他提到對抗性機器學習,大量系統專門用來騙過其他機器學習系統。他當然希望防禦技術能一直跟上,但 Lex 追問時,他承認那是一場賽跑,檢測技術必須領先創造技術兩步或者十步。

這場賽跑對金融業的衝擊尤其直接。Square 的風險模型建立在身份之上,支付最終歸結為身份。你可以設想,圍繞深度偽造(deep fake)的整場討論,下一步會落到駕照、護照、國家身份上。有人會構造身份,穿過像 Square 這樣的系統,開始收信用卡,或者進入 Cash App。

他的判斷不帶幻想:這些技術跑得非常快,我們檢測的能力目前大概是落後的。但只要投入足夠的關注,能追上去。這件事不會有一個完美的終點,跟安全一樣,永遠不會有完美的檢測系統,能做的是把迭代速度提上去,儘快拿到顯示對錯的訊號,把它喂進新模型或者自學習模型裡。

谷歌比你更懂你的偏好,而你未必知道

Lex 問他對存在性風險的看法,埃隆·馬斯克等人擔心的是通用人工智慧帶來的生存威脅,更窄一些的擔憂是狹義 AI 的具體危害。

多爾西沒有直接回答,他講起赫拉利(Yuval Noah Harari)《21 世紀的 21 堂課》最後幾章。看標題你會以為在講冥想,實際那一章講的是另一件事。

赫拉利的判斷是:今天出生的孩子,谷歌對他們偏好的理解,比他們自己更清楚。

我能輕易想象,今天谷歌大概比我母親更瞭解我的偏好。(傑克·多爾西)

對一個人來說這可能只是玩笑,但對一個從小隻認識網際網路、只認識谷歌和 Facebook 和 Twitter 和 Square 能做什麼的人來說,情況不一樣。自我覺察正在被外包給其他系統,尤其是這些演算法。

赫拉利的擔憂是,我們因此失去了自我覺察,因為它現在在我們之外,而且它幫我們做決策做得比我們自己好太多。今天該站著還是該走一走,該選哪個醫生,該跟誰約會,這些事現在都演變得非常快。

所以他看冥想是一種工具,用來重建自我覺察,把注意力拉回到這些問題上:我為什麼做這個決定?我為什麼這樣反應?我為什麼冒出這個念頭?它從哪來的?

多爾西對這個答案做了一點修正。他說這通向覺察,不一定通向控制。覺察的意義在於,你能意識到自己正在把一個決定外包給一個你不完全理解、也無法告訴你為什麼的演算法。

他補了一句平衡的話:這不是說演算法就是壞的。推薦系統最好的形態,是幫你在學習新想法的旅程上走得更遠。它可以是很棒的東西。剩下只有一個問題:你知不知道自己正在這麼做?你知不知道自己在邀請它對你施加影響?

Lex 把這個擔憂總結成一句:邀請本身完全沒問題,重點落在你有沒有意識到自己發出過這個邀請。沒有覺察,人就只能隨波逐流。所以覺察是未來的關鍵。

插一句跑題的。兩人聊到皮克斯,Lex 說《機器人總動員》(WALL·E)是皮克斯最好的電影之一,僅次於《料理鼠王》(Ratatouille)。多爾西不同意,他覺得《料理鼠王》才是最好的。Lex 說這是他們今天第一次在創業故事上產生分歧,一部以老鼠為主角的創業故事,一部是太空科幻。兩人笑著把這一頁翻過去。

收銀員是下一個卡車司機

話題回到正題:自動化的崗位替代。Lex 提到安德魯·楊(Andrew Yang)在競選裡反覆講的那件事。

多爾西說他在幾乎每一個維度上都是百分百對的。他在 Square 的生意裡直接看得到這個過程。楊點出了卡車司機,多爾西是密蘇里人,他清楚那批人的焦慮每天都在發生,而且常常是看不見的、沒人談論的。

下一個是收銀員。這跟 Square 直接相關。越來越多銷售終端在往顧客手裡挪,變成手機和 App,變成提前下單;自助收銀機越來越多,Amazon Go 這樣的店越來越多。而零售業裡收銀員的數量極大,他們如何把技能轉換成別的工作,目前沒有真正的答案。

他認為這會產生大量負面後果。楊關於全民基本收入(UBI)的論點之所以重要,在於轉型一定會來,而給人配上新技能、新職業需要時間,在這段時間裡,人需要一個地板。

一千美元一個月就是這樣一個地板。它不足以讓你辭職,但足以讓你不用天天為活下去發愁,從而能去想:我現在該做什麼?我需要學什麼技能?(傑克·多爾西)

常見的反駁是:工業時代也有過一模一樣的恐慌,工廠流水線取代手工,最後一切都好。

多爾西說最大的不同是速度和集中度。讓這一切運轉起來的東西是資料和作用於資料的演算法,而它們高度集中。

他給出第二個擔憂,他認為這比崗位替代更可怕:誰擁有這些資料,誰能在上面運算,我們能不能分享從資料裡得出的洞見,好讓大家也能造出服務於自身需求的演算法?

所以他認為監管可以扮演強有力的正面角色。一是看向 AI 的基礎原語(primitives),看向我們用來構建這些服務的工具,因為這些服務最終會觸及人類經驗的每一個方面;二是看向資料歸誰所有、如何共享。

他承認這些問題目前沒有好答案,而且太集中在極少數非常大的公司手裡。

這些問題,作為社會、作為世界,我們需要比現在更好的答案。現在遠遠不夠。(傑克·多爾西)

他也順手為 UBI 說了句話:這個想法早該來了,馬丁·路德·金在更早就提過。具體是不是一千美元這個數字可能不對,但總得先邁出一步去試,試了才知道什麼有效。

一天一頓飯,一種最無聊的超能力

Lex 發現兩人在飲食上撞了:都做間歇性斷食。他說自己是俄羅斯人,本來就喜歡受苦,斷食讓人多少體會到作為人是什麼感覺。更重要的是,它幫他作為一個程式設計師和思考者,能坐著連續幾小時深度專注。

多爾西說他過去把這件事當作理所當然太久了。三頓飯加兩餐零食,這套結構他從來沒問過為什麼。

他現在一天只吃一頓,晚飯。Lex 說這在他看來是場革命,不吃早飯就已經像在造反。

多爾西說第一週你會有種超能力的感覺,然後你會意識到那不是超能力,你會意識到的是我們的頭腦多大程度上決定了我們以為的可能是什麼。有些圍繞我們的結構只是社會習俗,跟健康和身體的需要無關,一天三頓就是其中一例。

他從小就愛拿自己的身體做實驗,當過兩年素食者,到處亂試。理由很樸素:健康是我們擁有最珍貴的東西,而沒有人真正理解它,那麼能透過在自己身上做實驗來提問,本身就很有吸引力。他是在一檔播客裡聽到有人只吃一頓飯,第一反應是這聽著又難又難受,然後決定去做。

我學到最多的時候,是把自己逼到不舒服的時候。所有東西在那種時刻都會浮出來,你會真正看清自己是什麼、不是什麼。(傑克·多爾西)

他舉了童年的例子。他小時候說不了話,得去看語言治療師,因此變得極其害羞。後來有一天他意識到不能再這樣下去,就報名參加了演講俱樂部。分到一張卡片上的題目,五分鐘寫一篇演講,講的時候不能看卡片,要講滿五分鐘。那大概是他能想象的最不舒服的事。

但正是這件事給了他極多視角:關於溝通的力量,關於自己的缺陷,以及關於只要下定決心就真的能做到。它給了他很多自信。他把斷食放在同一個框架裡:有趣、有挑戰、不舒服,因此帶來了大量學習和收益,也會引向更多別的實驗。

他也承認,這偶爾確實像超能力,只不過是最無聊的那種。

死亡是一個日常工具

Lex 提了個他自己都標註為浪漫的問題:你會想到自己的死亡嗎?

多爾西說他不試圖去理解死亡這件事,但他每天都在想,一天好幾次。

怕不怕?他說不怕。他把它看作一次轉變,不知道會轉成什麼,但它同時是個工具,讓人感到每一個當下的分量。

我只有一個小時,我真的要把這個小時花在這件事上嗎?我還能看的日落和日出是有限的,我不會為此爬起來,不會確保自己一定去看。(傑克·多爾西)

所以他用死亡來排序。它不是他恐懼的東西,是一件每個人每天都能用的工具,因為它顯示生命有多珍貴。提醒每天都有:自己的身體、朋友、同事,或者新聞裡看到的什麼。

剩下的問題就變成:拿這個每日提醒做什麼。他的用法是問自己,我有沒有真的專注在重要的事情上。有時候是工作,有時候是友誼、家庭、關係。死亡意識是最終的那個澄清器。

Lex 接著問生命的意義,問什麼給他目的感、幸福感和意義。

多爾西說,光是意識到自己活著就很有意義。跟個體的連線有意義,不管是剛認識的人、長久的友誼,還是家人。看到別人在用自己參與建造的東西,對他而言非常有意義,非常有力量。

歸根到底是一種連線感,一種我是比自己更大的東西的一部分的感覺。不管它以什麼方式顯現,我能直接在小事或大事裡感覺到它。(傑克·多爾西)

我們是不是活在模擬裡

最後一個問題,Lex 問:你覺得我們活在模擬裡嗎?

多爾西說不知道。這事挺好玩的,如果真是的話,也挺瘋狂、隨機,充滿問題。

Lex 反問:你會希望它是別的樣子嗎?

他的回答繞回了整場訪談的主線。作為一個星球,我們花了太長時間才意識到大家是在一起的,我們在非常本質的層面是連線的。我們用自我把它藏得很好,用每天各種瑣事把它藏得很好。如果他能改變一件事,就是這件事。

他補了個玩笑:如果我們做不到這一點,那要怎麼跟其他的模擬連線上?下一步本來就是逃出這一個,跨越多個模擬,然後分享。

Lex 說,沒有比這更好的收尾方式了。

節目最後,Lex 引了保羅·格雷厄姆(Paul Graham)一段關於比特幣的話:比特幣讓他非常好奇,它具備所有正規化轉移的跡象,駭客們愛它,而它卻被描述成一個玩具,就像當年的微型計算機。

這期訪談裡真正可用的東西

把整場對話裡最鋒利的部分挑出來,有幾條可以直接拿走:

  • 把"信任然後驗證"當成預設設定,而不是"懷疑然後拒絕"。多爾西把信用卡受理透過率從 30% 到 40% 推到 99% 的做法,是把監控顆粒度從主體降到行為:不預先審判這個人,而是在他做事的過程中持續觀察。任何需要給陌生人開口子的業務,都值得重畫一遍這道界線。
  • 遇到複雜問題,先拆成能逐個聚焦的部分,再動。他的診斷是:一次想解決太多、問得不夠深、對答案不夠挑剔、沒形成可檢驗的假設。這四條裡任何一條犯上,規模化的努力都會空轉。
  • 說服強勢合作方,靠有節奏的實物展示,不靠論證。500 人、1000 人、1 萬人、5 萬人,每一檔跑出可驗證的結果再放開下一檔。這個方法本身會給團隊施加壓力,副作用是能長出問責文化和一點透明度。
  • 給自己要用的 AI 系統提一個硬性要求:它得能說清為什麼。你自己都解釋不清的判斷,不要交給一個更解釋不清的黑箱。手錶提醒你站起來無所謂,放貸、醫療、內容的判斷就不行。
  • 定期做一次外包審計。列出你最近完全交給演算法決定的幾件事,然後問自己:我知不知道我在把這些交出去。赫拉利擔心的是失去自我覺察,不是失去控制。覺察回來了,選擇權才回來。
  • 把不舒服當成實驗變數,不要當成需要消除的噪音。演講俱樂部和一天一頓飯在他那裡是同一類事:主動進入不適,換回大量關於自己的資訊。給自己每週安排一件明確不舒服、但可完成的小事。
  • 用有限性做優先順序排序。每天幾次想起自己會死,然後問:這一個小時真要花在這上面嗎。這個方法不需要任何工具,成本是零。

訪談裡最容易被忽略的一句,其實是他回答"你會不會做同樣的事如果名字不掛在你身上"時的那個停頓。他的答案是希望自己會,然後承認在一家公司裡法律上做不到。這份坦誠比任何關於去中心化的論述都更接近他整場在講的東西:把結構建得讓個人的自我沒那麼重要,然後接受你還沒完全做到。

文稿由本站用語音識別模型(基於官方釋出音訊)機器轉寫,可能有識別錯誤,人名與數字請以音訊為準。
[00:00:00] The following is a conversation with Jack Dorsey, co-founder and CEO of Twitter and founder and CEO of Square. Given the happenings at the time related to Twitter leadership and the very limited time we had, we decided to focus this conversation on Square and some broader philosophical topics and to save an in depth conversation on engineering the aiyah Twitter for second appearance in this podcast. This conversation was recorded before the outbreak of the pandemic for everyone feeling the medical, psychological and financial burden of this crisis. [00:00:33] I'm sending love your way. Stay strong. We're in this together. Will beat this thing. As an aside, let me mention that Jack moved one billion dollars square equity, which is 20 percent of his wealth, to form an organization that funds covid-19 relief. First, as Andrew Young tweeted, this is a spectacular commitment. And second, it is amazing that it operates transparently by posting all its donations to a single Google doc. To me, true transparency, simple. [00:01:06] And this is as simple as it gets. This is the artificial intelligence podcast, if you enjoy it, subscribe on YouTube, review five stars, an Apple podcast supported on page one or simply connect with me on Twitter. And Lex Friedman spelled F.R. Eyed Man as usual. I'll do a few minutes of ads now and never any ads in the middle that can break the flow of the conversation. I hope that works for you and doesn't hurt the listening experience. [00:01:32] The show presented by Masterclass sign up on Masterclass Dotcom Slash Leks to get a discount and to support this podcast. When I first heard about Masterclass, I thought it was too good to be true. For one hundred eighty dollars a year you get an all access pass to watch courses from the list. Some of my favorites, Chris Hadfield and Space Exploration, deGrasse Tyson and Scientific Thinking Communication will write creator of SIM City and Sims, both one of my favorite games and game design, Jane Goodall and conservation Carlos Santana on guitar, one of my favorite guitar players, Garry Kasparov on chess, on the ground, on poker and many, many more. [00:02:13] Chris Hadfield explaining how rockets work and the experience of being launched into space alone is worth the money. For me, the key is to not be overwhelmed by the abundance of choice. Pick three courses you want to complete, watch all the way through. It's not that long, but it's an experience that will stick with you for a long time. It's easily worth the money. You can watch it. And basically any device once again sign up on Masterclass. [00:02:39] Dotcom likes to get a discount and to support this podcast. And now here's my conversation with Jack Dorsey. [00:03:06] You've been on several podcasts, Joe Rogan, Sam Harris, Rachel, all others, excellent conversations, but I think there's several topics that you didn't talk about that I think are fascinating that I love to talk to you about sort of machine learning, artificial intelligence, both the natural kind and the general kind and engineering at scale. [00:03:26] So there's a lot of incredible engineering going on that you're part of crypto cryptocurrency, block chain. [00:03:33] You buy all kinds of philosophical questions. Maybe we'll get to about life and death and meaning and beauty. [00:03:39] So you're involved in building some of the biggest network systems in the world, sort of trillions and interactions a day. The cool thing about that is the infrastructure, the engineering at scale. [00:03:52] You started as a programmer with C Building. Yeah. So I'm a hacker. I'm not really an engineer, not not a legit software engineer. You're not a tracker at heart. But to achieve scale, you have to do some unfortunately legit large scale engineering. So how do you make that magic happen? [00:04:10] Hire people that I can learn from? No one. I mean, I'm a hacker in the sense that I you know, my approach has always been to do whatever it takes to make it work so that I can see and feel the thing and then learn what needs to come next. And oftentimes what needs to come next is a matter of being able to bring it to more people, which is scale. And there's a lot of great people out there that either have experience or are extremely fast learners. [00:04:45] That we've been lucky enough to to find an. Work with for four years, but I think a lot of it we benefit a ton from the open source community and just all the learnings there that are laid bare in the open, all the mistakes, all the success, all the problems, it's a very slow moving process, usually open source, but it's very deliberate. And you get to see because of the the pace, you get to see what it takes to really build something meaningful. [00:05:20] So I learned most most of everything I learned about hacking and programming and engineering has been due to open source and the the generosity that people have given to give up their time, sacrifice their time without any expectation in return other than being a part of something much larger than themselves. Yeah, I think it's great. [00:05:47] The Open Source movement is amazing, but if you just look at the scale like Square has to take care of, is this fundamentally a software problem or hardware problem? [00:05:57] You mentioned hiring a bunch of people, but the it's not maybe from my perspective, not often talked about how incredible that is to sort of have a system that doesn't go down often that secure is able to take care of all these transactions. [00:06:13] Like maybe I'm also a hacker at heart and it's incredible to me that that kind of scale could be achieved. Is there some insight, some lessons, some interesting tidbits that you can say about how to make that scale happen? [00:06:29] Is it the hardware fundamentally challenges that a software challenge? Is it like is it a social challenge of building large teams of engineers that work together, that kind of thing? [00:06:43] Like what's what's the interesting challenge? [00:06:45] Is there, by the way, you're the best dressed hacker I've I've met. [00:06:48] I think the thank you way, if the enumeration you just went through, I don't think there's one you have to kind of focus on all and the ability to focus on all that really comes down to how you face problems and whether you can break them down into parts that you can focus on. Because I think the biggest mistake is trying to solve or address too many at once or not going deep enough with the questions or not being critical of the answers you find or not for not taking the time to form a credible hypothesis that you can actually test and you can see the results of. [00:07:37] So all of those fall in the face of ultimately critical thinking skills, problem solving skills. And if there's one skill I want to improve every day, it's that that's that's what contributes to the learning. And the only way we can evolve any of these things is learning what it's currently doing and and how to take it to the next the next step and questioning assumptions. [00:08:03] The first principles kind of thinking seems like, if fundamental, this whole process. [00:08:08] Yeah, but if you get to over extended into well, this is a hardware issue. You miss all the software solutions and, you know, vice versa. If you focus too much on the software, there are hardware solutions that contain something. So I, I try to resist the categories of thinking and look for the underlying systems that make all these things work. But those only emerge when you have a skill around creative, creative thinking, problem solving and and, um, at being able to ask critical questions and having the patience to let go deep. [00:08:54] So one of the amazing things, if you look at the mission of Square is to increase people's access to the economy. Maybe maybe you can correct me if I'm wrong. [00:09:04] That's from my perspective, sort of from the perspective of merchants, peer to peer payments, even crypto cryptocurrency, digital cryptocurrency. [00:09:12] What do you see as the major ways our society can increase participation in the economy? So if we look at today, in the next ten years, next twenty years, you're going to Africa, maybe in Africa and all kinds of other places outside of the North America. [00:09:26] If there was one word that I think represents what we're trying to do at Square, it is that word access. [00:09:35] Um, one of the things we found is that we weren't expecting this at all when we started. We thought we were just building a piece of hardware to enable people to plug it into their phone and credit card. And then as we talked with people who actually try to accept credit cards in the past, we found a consistent theme, which many of them weren't even enabled and enabled, but allowed to process credit cards. And we dug a little bit deeper, again, asking that question, and we found that a lot of them would go to banks or these merchant acquirers and waiting for them was a credit check and looking at a FICO score. [00:10:20] And many of the businesses that we talked to and many small businesses, they don't have good credit or a credit history. They're entrepreneurs who are just getting started, taking a lot of personal risk, financial risk. And it just felt ridiculous to us that for for for the for the job of being able to accept money from people, you had to get your credit checked. And as we dug deeper, we realized that that wasn't the intention of the financial industry, but it's the only tool they had available to them to understand authenticity, intent, predictor of future behavior. [00:11:06] So that's the first thing we actually looked at. And that's where the you know, we built the hardware, but the software really came in terms of risk modeling. And that's when we started down the path that eventually leads to A.I. We started with a very strong data science discipline because we knew that our business was not necessarily about making hardware. It was more about enabling more people to come into the system. [00:11:36] So the fundamental challenge there is to enable more people to come into the system, you have to lower the barrier of checking that that person will be a legitimate vendor. Is that the fundamental problem here and a different mindset? [00:11:51] I think a lot of the financial industry had a mindset of kind of distrust and just constantly looking for opportunities to, uh, prove why people shouldn't get into the system, whereas we took on a mindset of trust and then verify, verify, verify, verify, verify. [00:12:16] So we moved, you know, when we when we entered the space, only about 30 to 40 percent of the people who applied to accept credit cards would actually get through the system. We took that number to ninety nine percent. And that's because we reframe the problem. We built credible models and we had this mindset of we're going to watch not at the merchant level, but we're going to watch the transaction level. So come in, perform some transactions and as long as you're doing things that feel high, integrity credible and don't look suspicious, we'll continue to to serve you. [00:13:00] If we see any interestingness in how you use our system, there will be bubbled up to people to review, to figure out if there's something nefarious going on. And that's when we might ask you to leave. So the change in the mindset led to the technology that we needed to enable more people to get there and to enable more people to access the system. [00:13:26] What role does a machine learning play into that in that context of what he said? First of all, that's a beautiful shift. [00:13:35] Any time you shift your viewpoint into seeing that people are fundamentally good and then you just have to verify and catch the ones who are not, as opposed to assuming everybody's bad as it is a beautiful thing. [00:13:49] So what role does the to you throughout the history of the company? Has machine learning played in doing that verification? It was it was immediate. I mean, we weren't calling it machine learning, but it was data science. And then as the industry evolved, machine learning became more of the normal culture. And and as that evolved, it became more sophisticated with deep learning. And as I continues continues to evolve, it'll be it'll be another thing. But they're all in the same vein. [00:14:19] But we built that discipline up within the first year of the company because we also had you know, we have to we had to partner with a bank. [00:14:29] We had to partner with Visa, MasterCard, and we had to show that by bringing more people into the system that we could do so in a responsible way that would not compromise their systems and that they would trust us. [00:14:42] How do you convince this upstart company with some cool machine learning tricks is able. To deliver on the sort of a trustworthy set of merchants we staked out in tears, we had a bucket of, you know, 500 people using it, and then we showed results and then a thousand and then 10000 and 50000. And then the constraint was left, was lifted. So I guess it's kind of, you know, getting something tangible out there. I want to show what we can do rather than talk about it. [00:15:16] And that put a lot of pressure on us to do the right things. And it also created a culture of accountability, of a little bit more transparency and I think incentivized all of our early folks and the company in the right way. [00:15:35] So what does the future look like in terms of increasing people's access? Or if you look at Iot of things, there's more and more intelligent devices. You can see there some people even talking about our personal data as a thing that we could monetize more explicitly versus implicitly, sort of everything can become part of the economy. Do you see the what is the future a square look like in sort of giving people access in all kinds of ways to being part of the economy as merchants and as consumers? [00:16:06] I, I believe that the currency we use this is a huge part of the answer. And I believe that the Internet deserves and requires a native currency. And that's why I'm such a huge believer in in Bitcoin, because it just our biggest problem as a company right now is we cannot act like an Internet company, open a new market. [00:16:34] We have to have a partnership with a local bank. We have to pay attention to different regulatory onboarding environments. And a digital currency like Bitcoin takes on a bunch of that away where we can potentially launch a product in every single market around the world because they're all using the same currency. And we we have consistent understanding of regulation and onboarding and and and what that means. So I think, you know, the Internet continuing to be accessible to people is number one. [00:17:14] And then I think currency is is number two. And it will just allow for a lot more innovation, a lot more speed in terms of what we can build and others can build. And it's just it's just really exciting. So, I mean, I want to be able to see that and feel that in my lifetime. [00:17:33] So in this aspect and other aspects, you have a deep interest in cryptocurrency and distributed ledger tech in general. I talked to Italic Budarin yesterday on this podcast. He says, hi, by the way. Hey, this is a brilliant, brilliant person talking a lot about Bitcoin in theory, of course. [00:17:53] So can you maybe linger on this point? What what do you find appealing about Bitcoin, about digital currency? What do you see it going in the next 10, 20 years? [00:18:04] And what are some of the challenges with respect to Square, but also just bigger far, far globally for our world, for the way we we think about money? [00:18:16] I think the most beautiful thing about it is there's no one person setting the direction, um, and there's no one person on the other side that can stop it. So we have something that is pretty organic in nature and very principled in its original design. And I, I think the Bitcoin White Paper is one of the most seminal works of computer science in the last 20, 30 years. It's it's poetry. [00:18:47] I mean, it's a pretty cool technology that's not often talked about sort of there's so much sort of hype around digital currency about the financial impacts of it. But the actual technology is quite beautiful from a computer science perspective. [00:18:59] Yeah. And the underlying principles behind it that went into it, even to the point of releasing it under a pseudonym, I think that's a very, very powerful statement. The timing of when it was released was powerful. It was it was a total activist move. I mean, it's it's moving the world forward and in a way that I think is extremely noble and honorable and enables everyone to be part of the story, which is also really cool. So you asked a question around ten years and 20 years. [00:19:33] I mean, I think that the amazing thing is no one knows and it can emerge. And every person that comes into the ecosystem, whether they be a developer or someone who uses it. Can change its direction in small and large ways, and that's what I think it should be, because that's what the the Internet has shown is possible. Now, there's complications with that, of course, and there's certainly companies that own large parts of the Internet and contract it more than others. [00:20:03] And, uh, there's not equal access to every single person in the world just yet, but all those problems are visible enough to speak about them. And to me, that gives confidence that they're solvable in a relatively short time frame. I think the world changes a lot as we get these satellites projecting the Internet down on Earth because it just removes a bunch of the former constraints and and really levels the playing field. But a global currency, which is a native currency for the Internet, is a proxy for is a very powerful concept. [00:20:44] And I don't think any one person on this planet truly understands the ramifications of that. I think there's a lot of positives to it. There's some negatives as well, but I think it's possible. Sorry to interrupt. Do you think it's possible that this kind of digital currency would redefine the nature of money to become the main currency of the world as opposed to being tied to fiat currency of different nations and sort of really push the decentralization of control of money? [00:21:12] Definitely. [00:21:13] But I think the bigger ramification is how it affects how society works. And I think there are there are many positive ramifications outside of money, just outside of just money, money. Money is a foundational layer that enables so much more. I was meeting with an entrepreneur in Ethiopia and payments is probably the number one problem to solve across the continent, both in terms of moving money across borders between nations on the continent or the amount of corruption within the current system. [00:21:51] But the lack of easy ways to pay people makes starting anything really difficult. I met an entrepreneur who started the Lyft Uber of Ethiopia, and one of the biggest problems she has is that it's not easy for her riders to pay the company and it's not easy for her to pay the drivers. And that definitely has stunted her growth and made everything more challenging. So the fact that she's she even has to think about payments instead of thinking about the best writer experience in the bus driver. [00:22:28] Experience is is pretty telling. So I think as we get a more durable, resilient and global standard, we see a lot more innovation everywhere. And I think there's no better case study for this than the various countries within within Africa and their entrepreneurs who are trying to start things within health or sustainability or transportation or a lot of the companies that we've seen that we've seen here. So the majority of companies I met in November when I spent a month on the continent were payments oriented. [00:23:10] You mentioned there's a small change and you mentioned the anonymous launch of Bitcoin is a sort of profound philosophical statement. Surinamese, what's that even mean? This is a pseudonym. [00:23:21] First of all, there's an identity tied to it. It's not just anonymous, it's Nakamoto. So Nakamoto might represent one person or multiple people. But let me ask, are you Satoshi Nakamoto? Just checking. [00:23:35] Where what? I tell you, yes. But may I slip a pseudonym is a is is constructed identity. Anonymity is just kind of random, random, like drop something off and leave. There's no intention to build an identity around it. And while the identity being built was a short time window, it was meant to stick around, I think, and to be known. And it's being honored. And you know how the community thinks about building it, like the concept of the Tosches, for instance, is is one such example. [00:24:16] But I think it was smart not to do it, anonymous not to do it as a real identity, but to do it as a pseudonym, because I think it builds tangibility and a little bit of empathy that this was a human or a set of humans behind it. And there's there's this natural identity that I can imagine, but there is also sacrifice of ego. [00:24:40] That's a pretty powerful thing, which is beautiful. Yeah. Would you do sort of philosophically? To ask you the question, would you do all the same things you're doing now if your name wasn't attached to it? Sort of if if you had to sacrifice the ego, put it another way, is your ego deeply tied in the decisions you've been making? [00:25:02] I hope not. I mean, I, I believe I would certainly attempt to do the things without my name having to be attached with it. But, um, it's hard to do that in a corporation legally. That's the issue. Um, if I were to do more open source things, then absolutely. I don't I don't need my particular identity, my real identity associated with it. But I think, you know, the appreciation that comes from doing something good and being able to see it and see people use it is pretty overwhelming and powerful, more so than maybe seeing your name in the in the headlines. [00:25:48] Let's talk about artificial intelligence a little bit, if we could. Seven years ago, Alan Turing formulated the Turing Test. To me, natural language is one of the most interesting spaces of problems that are tackled by artificial intelligence. It's the canonical problem of what it means to be intelligent. He formulators the Turing test. Me ask sort of the broad question, how hard do you think is it to pass the Turing test in the space of language? [00:26:16] Just from a very practical standpoint, I think where we are now and and for at least years out is one where the artificial intelligence machine learning and deep learning models can bubble up interestingness very, very quickly and pair that with human discretion around severity, around depth, around nuance and and meaning. I think for me, um, the chasm, the cross for general intelligence has to be able to explain why and the meaning behind something behind the decision. So being behind the decision or some other such sets of data. [00:27:06] So the explain ability part is kind of essential to be able to explain using natural language why the decisions were made, that kind of thing. [00:27:14] Yeah, I mean, I think that's one of our biggest risk and artificial intelligence going forward is we are building a lot of black boxes that can't necessarily explain why they made a decision or what criteria they use to make the decision. And we're trusting them more and more from lending decisions to content recommendation to driving to health. Um, like, you know, a lot of us have watches that tell us to understand how the deciding that I mean, that that one's pretty pretty simple, but you can imagine how complex they get. [00:27:45] And being able to explain the reasoning behind some of those recommendations seems to be an essential part, although it's a very hard problem, because sometimes even we can't explain why we make it. [00:27:57] So that's that's what I was I think we're being a sometimes a little bit unfair to artificial intelligence systems because we're not very good at these some of these things. [00:28:05] So do you think apologies for the ridiculous, romanticised question, but on that line of thought, do you think we'll ever be able to build a system like in the movie her that you could fall in love with? [00:28:20] So have that kind of deep connection with. [00:28:23] So hasn't that already happened? Hasn't someone in Japan fallen in love with his eye? [00:28:30] There's always going to be somebody that does that kind of thing. I mean, a much larger scale of actually building relationships, of being deeper connections. It doesn't have to be love, but it's just deeper connections with artificial intelligence systems, as you mentioned, explain it is less a function of the artificial intelligence and more a function of the individual and how they find meaning and where they find meaning. Do you think we humans can find meaning in technology in this kind of way? [00:28:55] Yeah, 100 percent. One percent. And I don't necessarily think it's a negative, but I you know, it's it's constantly going to evolve. So I don't know. But I, I mean, is is something that's entirely subjective. And I don't think it's going to be a function of finding the magic algorithm that enables everyone to love it, but maybe they don't know. [00:29:26] But that question really gets at the difference between human and machine that you had a little bit of an exchange with Elon Musk. [00:29:34] And basically, I mean, it's a trivial version of that. But I think there's a more fundamental question of is it possible to tell the difference between a bot and a human and do you think it. If we look into the future 10, 20 years out, do you think it will be possible or is it even necessary to tell the difference in the digital space between a human and a robot? [00:29:57] Can we have fulfilling relationships with each or do we need to tell the difference between them? [00:30:03] I think it's certainly useful and certain problem domains to be able to tell the difference. I think in others it might not be as useful. [00:30:13] I think it's possible for us today to tell the difference, the reverse, the matter of the Turing test. Well, what's interesting is I think the technology to create is moving much faster than the technology to detect. I think so. So if you look at like adversarial machine learning, there is a lot of systems that try to fool machine learning systems. And at least for me, the hope is that the technology to defend will always be right there. [00:30:45] At least your sense is that I don't know if they'll be right there. [00:30:49] I mean, it's it's a race, right? So the detection technologies have to be two or 10 steps ahead of the creation technologies. And this is a problem that I think the financial industry will face more and more, because a lot of our risk models, for instance, are built around identity payments, ultimately comes down to identity. And you can imagine a world where all this conversation around deep fakes goes towards the direction of a driver's license or passports or state identities. [00:31:23] And people construct identities in order to get through a system such as ours to start accepting credit cards or into the cash up. And those technologies seem to be moving very, very quickly. Our ability to detect them, I think, is probably lagging at this point, but certainly with more focus, we can get out of it. But is this going to touch everything? So I think it's it's like security and we're never going to be able to build a perfect detection system where we're only going to be able to you know, what we should be focused on is, is the speed of evolving it and being able to take signals that show correctness or errors as quickly as possible and move and to be able to to build that into our our newer models or the or the self-learning models. [00:32:23] Do you have other worries, like some people, like Elon and others have worries about existential threats of artificial intelligence, of artificial general intelligence, or if you think more narrowly about threats and concerns about more narrow artificial intelligence, like what are your thoughts in this domain? [00:32:41] Do you have concerns or are you more optimistic? I think you've all in his in his book, twenty one point one Lessons for the 21st Century, his last chapters around meditation. And you look at the title of the chapter and you're like, oh, it's kind of meditation. But the what was interesting about that chapter is he believes that, you know, kids being born today, growing up today, Google has a stronger sense of their preferences than they do, which you can easily imagine. [00:33:19] I can easily imagine today that Google probably knows my preferences more than my mother does. Um, maybe not me, per say, but for someone growing up, only knowing the Internet, only knowing what Google is capable of or Facebook or Twitter or square or any of these things, the self awareness is being offloaded to other systems and particularly these these algorithms. And his concern is that we lose that self-awareness because self-awareness is now outside of us and it's doing such a better job at helping us direct our decisions around. [00:34:02] Should I stand, should I walk today? What doctor should I choose? Who should I date? All these things we're now seeing play out very quickly. So he sees meditation as a tool to build self awareness and to bring the focus back on why do I make these decisions? Why do I react in this way? Why did I have this thought? Where did that come from? That's the way to regain control. It's awareness, maybe not control, but but awareness so that you can be aware that, yes, I am offloading this decision to this algorithm that I don't fully understand and can't tell me why it's doing the things it's doing because it's so complex. [00:34:44] That's not to say that the algorithm. Can't be a good thing to me, recommender systems, the best of what they can do is to help guide you on a journey of learning new ideas of of learning, period. [00:34:57] It can be a great thing. But do you know you're doing that? Are you aware that you're inviting it to do that to you? I think that's that's a risk he identifies. Right. Is that's perfectly OK. But are you aware that you have that invitation and it's it's being acted upon and that that's your that's a concern. You're kind of highlighting that without a lack of awareness, you can just be like floating at sea. So awareness is key in the future. [00:35:26] These artificial intelligence systems, the other movie, Wolly well, which I think is one of Pixar best movies besides predatory and to if you had mental attitude, OK, attitude is incredible. [00:35:43] All right. [00:35:44] We've come to the first point where we disagree on the entrepreneurial story in the form of a rat. [00:35:50] Hmm. [00:35:53] I just remember just the soundtrack was really good. [00:35:55] So excellent. [00:35:58] What are your thoughts sticking to artificial intelligence? A little bit about the displacement of jobs at another perspective that candidates like Andrew Yang talk about going forever Yangyang. [00:36:11] So he unfortunately, speaking of Yangyang, is recently dropped out. [00:36:15] I know it was very disappointing and depressing. Yeah. But on the positive side, he's, I think, launching a podcast. So really cool. Yeah. He just announced that. I'm sure he'll try to talk you into trying to come on to the podcast. [00:36:29] So about ready to. Yeah. [00:36:32] Maybe he'll be more welcoming of the added to the argument. What are your thoughts and his concerns that the displacement of jobs of automation's over the of course there's positive impacts that could come from automation in the AI, but it could also be negative impacts. And within that framework, what are your thoughts about universal basic income? So these interesting new ideas of how we can empower people in the economy? [00:36:57] I, I think he was 100 percent right on almost every dimension we see this in in squarest business. I mean, he identified truck drivers. I'm from Missouri and he certainly pointed to the concern and the issue that people from where I'm from feel every single day that is often invisible and not talked about enough. You know, the next big one is cashiers. This is where it pertains to squarest business. We are seeing more and more of the the point of sale move to the individual customers, hand in the form of their phone and apps and preorder and order ahead. [00:37:44] We're seeing more kiosks where we're seeing more things like Amazon go. And the number of workers in as a as a cashier and retail is immense. And, you know, there's there's no real answers on how they transform their skills and work and into something else. And I think that does lead to a lot of really negative ramifications. And the important point that he brought up around universal basic income is given that the shift is going to come and given it's going to take time to set people up with new skills and new careers, they need to have a floor to be able to survive. [00:38:35] And this a thousand dollars a month is such a floor. It's not going to incentivize you to quit your job because it's not enough. But it will enable you to not have to worry as much about just getting on day to day so that you can focus on what what am I going to do now and what am I going to what skills do I need to acquire? And I think I think a lot of people point to the fact that, you know, during the industrial age, we we had the same concerns around automation factory lines and everything worked out OK. [00:39:16] But the the biggest change is just the the the velocity and the centralization of a lot of the things that make this work, which is the data and the algorithms that work on this on this data. I think that the second. Biggest scary thing is just how around a guy is just who actually owns the the data and who can operate on it and, um, are we able to share the insights from the data so that we can also build algorithms that help our needs or help our business or whatnot? [00:39:56] So that's why I think regulation could play a strong and positive part. First, looking at the primitives of A.I. and the tools we use to build these services that will ultimately touch every single aspect of the human experience and then how data where data is owned and how it's how it's shared. So those those are the answers that as a society, as a world, we need to have better answers around which we're currently not there, just way too centralized into a few very, very large companies. [00:40:37] But I think you're spot on with identifying the problem and proposing solutions that would actually work, at least that we'd learn from, that you could expand or evolve. But I mean, it's I think UBI as well. Well past its its do. I mean, it was certainly trumpeted by Martin Luther King and even even before him as well. [00:41:02] And like you said, you know, the exact thousand dollar mark might be might not be the correct one, but you should take the steps to try to to implement these solutions and see, see what works. So I think you and I eat similar diets. [00:41:17] At least I was the first time I've heard this. Yeah. [00:41:22] So I was doing it first time. Anyone has said that to me in this case anyway. [00:41:26] Yeah, but it is becoming more and more cool and what I was doing before was cool. So the intermittent fasting and fasting in general I really enjoy. I love food but I enjoy the, the, I also love suffering because I'm Russian. [00:41:40] So fasting kind of makes you appreciate the, um, uh, makes you appreciate what it is to be human somehow. [00:41:50] So but I have outside the philosophical stuff, I have a more specific question. [00:41:55] It also helps me as a programmer and a deep thinker, like I have been from the scientific perspective to sit there for many hours and focus deeply. [00:42:04] Maybe you were a hacker before you were CEO. [00:42:08] What have you learned about diet, lifestyle, mindset that helps you maximize mental performance to be able to focus for to think deeply in this world of distractions? I think I just took it for granted for too long. Um, which aspects? [00:42:27] Just a social structure of we eat three meals a day and there's snacks in between. And, um, I just never really asked the question why. [00:42:36] Oh, by the way, in case people don't know, I think a lot of people know you. At least you famously eat once a day. You still eat once a day. It I, I eat dinner. [00:42:47] By the way, what made you decide once a day like this? To me, that was a huge revolution that you don't have to breakfast. I was like I felt like I was a rebel, like I like abandoned my parents or something. [00:42:57] And it doesn't matter because when you, when you first like the first week you start doing it feels you kind of like have a superpower. Yeah. And you realize it's not really a superpower, but it I think you realize at least I realized just how much is how much our mind dictates what we're possible with. Um and and sometimes we have structures around us that incentivize, like, you know, three meals a day thing, which is purely social structure versus necessity for our health and for our bodies. [00:43:31] And, um, I did it just I started doing it because I played a lot with my diet when I was a kid and I was vegan for two years and just went all over the place just because I you know, health is the most precious thing we have and none of us really understand it. So being able to ask the question through experiments that I can perform on myself and learn about AI is compelling to me. And I heard this one guy on the podcast where half is famous for doing a spouse and holding his breath and all these things. [00:44:12] He said he only eats one meal a day. I'm like, wow, that sounds super challenging and uncomfortable. I'm going to do it. Um, so I, I just, I learn the most when I make myself, I want to say suffer, but when I make myself feel uncomfortable because everything comes to bear in those moments and and you really learn. What you're what you're about or what you're not. So I've been doing that my whole life, like when I was a kid I could not like I was I could not speak like I had to go to speech therapist and it made me extremely shy. [00:44:49] And then one day I realized I can't keep doing this. And I signed up for the for the speech club. And, you know, it was the most uncomfortable thing I could imagine doing, getting a topic on a note card, having five minutes to write a speech about whatever that topic is, not being able to use the note card while speaking and speaking for five minutes about that topic. So but it just it puts so much it gave me so much perspective around the power of communication, around my own deficiencies and around. [00:45:29] If I set my mind to do something, I'll do it. So it gave me a lot more confidence. So I see fasting in the same light. This is something that was interesting, challenging, uncomfortable, and has given me so much learning and benefit as a result. And it will lead to other things that I'll experiment with and play with. But yeah, it does feel a little bit like a superpower, sometimes the most boring superpower one can imagine. [00:46:00] Now it's quite incredible. The clarity of mind is it's pretty interesting. [00:46:05] Speaking of suffering, you kind of talk about facing difficult ideas. You meditate, you think about the broad context of life of our society. [00:46:18] Let me ask sort of apologize again for the romanticized question, but do you ponder your own mortality? Do you think about death, about the finiteness of human existence when you meditate, when you think about it? And if you do what? How do you make sense of it that this thing ends? [00:46:40] Well, I don't try to make sense of it. I do think about it every day. I mean, it's it's a daily multiple times a day. Are you afraid of death? No, I'm not afraid of it. Um, I think it's, um. It's a transformation that I don't know to what, but it's also a tool to feel the importance of every moment. So I just use as a reminder, like I have an hour, is this really what I'm going to spend the hour doing? [00:47:09] Like I only have so many more sunsets and sunrises to watch. [00:47:13] Like, I'm not going to get up for it. I'm not going to make sure that I that I that I try to see it. So it just puts a lot into perspective and it helps me prioritize. I think it's I don't I don't see it as something that's like, um, that I dread or is dreadful. It's a it's a tool that is available to every single person to use every day because it shows how precious life is. And there's reminders every single day whether it be your own health or a friend or a coworker or something you see in the news. [00:47:48] So to me, it's just a question of what we do with that daily reminder. And for me, it's, um, am I really focused on what matters? And sometimes I might be work, sometimes it might be friendships or family or relationships or whatnot, but that that's it's the ultimate clarifier in that sense. [00:48:08] So on the question of what matters, another ridiculously big question of once you try to make sense of it, what do you think is the meaning of it all, the meaning of life? What gives you purpose? Happiness. Meaning a lot does I mean I mean, just being able to, uh, be aware of the fact that I'm alive is pretty, pretty meaningful. Um, the connections I feel with individuals, whether the people I just meet or long lasting friendships or my family is meaningful. [00:48:47] Um, seeing people use something that I helped build is really meaningful and powerful to me. Um, uh, but but that sense of I mean, I think ultimately comes down to a sense of connection and just feeling like I am bigger, I am part of something that's bigger than myself. And like I can feel it directly in small ways or large ways. However, it manifests is probably, uh, is probably the last question. [00:49:18] Do you think we're living in a simulation? Uh, I don't know. [00:49:23] It's a pretty fun one if we are to um but also crazy and random and, uh, wrought with tons of problems. Um, but yeah. Would you have it any other way. [00:49:36] Yeah. [00:49:37] I mean I just think it's taken us way too long to as a as a planet to realize we're all in this together and we all are connected in in in very significant ways. Um, I think we we hide our connectivity very well through ego, through, you know, whatever whatever it is of the day. But, um, that is the one thing I would want to work towards changing, and that's how I would have it another way. Because if we can't do that, then how are we going to connect to all the other simulations? [00:50:13] Because that's the next step is like what's happening in the other simulation escaping this one. [00:50:17] And, yeah, spanning across the multiple simulations and, uh, sharing it and on the fun, I don't think there's a better way to end it. Jack, thank you so much for all the work you do. There's probably other ways that we've ended this and other simulations that may have been better. We'll have to wait and see. [00:50:36] Thanks so much for talking to. Thank you. Thanks for listening to this conversation with Jack Dorsey and thank you to our sponsor Masterclass. Please consider supporting this podcast by signing up to master class and master class Dotcom's neglects. If you enjoy this podcast, subscribe. I need to review the Five Stars and Apple podcast, support our patron or simply connect with me on Twitter. Allex Friedemann. And now let me leave you some words about Bitcoin from Paul Graham. [00:51:08] I'm very intrigued by Bitcoin. It has all the signs of a paradigm shift, hackers love it. Yet it is described as a toy, just like microcomputers. Thank you for listening and hope to see you next time.

本集資源與出處