Adam Mosseri：AI 时代，真实表达更有价值

What's something that the Instagram algorithm knows about human behavior that people may not realize?

Instagram 的算法知道哪些关于人类行为的事情，而人们可能还没有意识到？

I think people assume that there's a much more detailed semantic understanding of everybody's interests and preferences in the algorithm than there is.

我认为，人们以为算法对每个人的兴趣和偏好有着远比实际更细致的语义理解。

Is the rise of AI content a headwind or a tailwind for Instagram versus other platforms?

AI 内容的兴起，对 Instagram 相较于其他平台来说，是逆风还是顺风？

I think it's going to be a tailwind, but I think it's going to be a challenge. In a world where there's an abundance of synthetic content, I actually think people are going to seek out creativity and authenticity and people. I don't think we should filter out AI content. I think we should let you know if content is AI content or not. That's hard, by the way.

我认为这会是顺风，但我也认为这会是一项挑战。在一个合成内容极其丰富的世界里，我反而认为人们会主动寻找创造力、真实感和真实的人。我不认为我们应该过滤掉 AI 内容。我认为我们应该让你知道某个内容是不是 AI 内容。不过，顺便说一句，这很难。

Where do you think human brains will continue to be most valuable as AI continues to eat more and more of that product development life cycle?

随着 AI 不断吞噬产品开发生命周期中越来越多的环节，你认为人类的大脑在哪些方面仍将最有价值？

That's a great question, so-

这是个很好的问题，所以——

Thank you for having me. Excited to be here.

谢谢你邀请我。我很高兴来到这里。

You've been doing product for a long time. You get to see how a lot of teams operate across Meta, within Instagram. What does just the canonical product team look like in 2026? What's kind of most different today in how teams operate/should operate versus, say, a couple years ago?

你做产品已经很久了。你有机会看到 Meta 旗下以及 Instagram 内部许多团队是如何运作的。那么，到了 2026 年，一个典型的产品团队究竟是什么样的？与几年前相比，如今团队的运作方式，或者说应该如何运作，最不同的地方是什么？

It's changed a lot this year. So for the longest time at a big company like ours, the canonical team was something like two or three Android engineers, two or three iOS engineers, two or three server engineers, maybe a generalist, a PM, a designer, a data scientist, a researcher, if you were lucky, and maybe that's about it. So on the order of a Baker's dozen. And that is a function of you want to have, for anybody who's running code, someone who can review their code and who's familiar with that code base, and having these different functions that are more specialized. I think it's very different at a startup.

今年变化很大。在像我们这样的大公司里，长期以来，一个典型团队通常是两三个 Android 工程师、两三个 iOS 工程师、两三个服务器工程师，也许再加一个全栈工程师、一个 PM、一个设计师、一个数据科学家、一个研究员——如果你运气好的话——可能就这些了。总人数大约是十三个人。这是因为，对于任何编写代码的人，你都希望有另一个能够审查其代码、并且熟悉那套代码库的人；同时，你还需要这些更加专业化的不同职能。我认为这和创业公司非常不同。

But this year, it's changing. We've adopted what we call pods, which are just mini teams, where it's, call it, four to six engineers who are a bit more generalists. One, we call product staff, which is sort of an evolution of the PM, so a PM who can do some of what a designer does, and some of what a data scientist does, and some of what a research does, leveraging the latest tools that we have for them. And then whatever specialist they need. If they're doing something that requires a pricing strategy, you need a senior data scientist. If you're doing something that is really novel from an experience standpoint, you need a very senior product designer.

但今年情况正在改变。我们采用了一种叫作“小型团队”（pods）的模式，也就是迷你团队：大概四到六名相对更通才型的工程师，再加上一个我们称为 product staff（兼具产品、设计与数据能力的通才角色）的人。它算是 PM 的一种演变：这个 PM 能做一些设计师做的事，也能做一些数据科学家做的事，还能做一些研究员做的事，并利用我们为他们提供的最新工具。然后，再根据需要配备相应的专家。如果他们做的事情需要定价策略，就需要一位资深数据科学家；如果他们做的事情在体验层面非常新颖，就需要一位非常资深的产品设计师。

So we try to build a team based on the needs of the work a bit, but then end up with a much smaller core, which is more on the order of six or seven usually. And that is a very big shift that's just happening to us this year. But just by virtue of having less people to coordinate, they can often move faster and make better decisions, a little bit less designed by committee. So we talk a lot about AI adjusting and improving productivity, and that's part of it. But I think another part of it is just the small teams, I think, often are just more effective.

所以，我们会多少根据工作的需要来组建团队，但最后形成的核心团队会小得多，通常大约只有六七个人。这是我们今年正在经历的一次巨大转变。但仅仅因为需要协调的人更少，他们往往就能更快行动、做出更好的决策，也不那么像是由委员会设计出来的。所以我们经常谈到 AI 如何调整并提升生产力，这只是其中一部分。但我认为，另一部分原因只是小团队往往更有效率。

You just have less specialists, right? So you might not have any. You might be four engineers and a product staff, and there's no data scientist, there's no designer, there's no researcher, there's no content designer. The product staff is the generalist that supports all of those things.

你们只是拥有更少的专家，对吧？所以你可能一个专家都没有。团队可能是四名工程师和一名 product staff，没有数据科学家、没有设计师、没有研究员、没有内容设计师。product staff 就是支持所有这些职能的通才。

I mean, what's clearly happening is all of the functions are starting to bleed into each other, and the whole industry's wrestling with what that means. A lot of what a data scientist does at a big company, for instance, is relatively mechanical. And so there's stuff that they do that is really more like art and science and there's stuff that's really more like just pulling data, data management.

我的意思是，显然所有这些职能都开始相互渗透，整个行业都在努力应对这意味着什么。比如，在一家大公司里，数据科学家所做的很多工作其实相对机械。因此，他们做的事情中，有些确实更像艺术与科学的结合，而有些则更像单纯地提取数据、管理数据。

So some of the tools that we're building internally to understand ... For instance, a traditional data science question would be a waterfall. So if you wanted to look at people creating reels, you would look at all the steps and then how people fall off on each step, and try to figure out where there might be opportunities to improve things. That kind of basic waterfall analysis is much easier now to use some of our internal tools to just pull automatically, as opposed to having to have a data scientist do a bunch of bespoke work for that. So our product staff might be able to do that now, and they couldn't do that a year ago.

所以，我们正在内部构建一些工具来帮助理解……比如，一个传统的数据科学问题可能是漏斗分析。如果你想研究人们创建 Reels 的过程，你会查看所有步骤，以及人们在每一步是如何流失的，然后试着找出哪些地方可能有机会改进。这种基础的漏斗分析，现在可以借助我们的一些内部工具更容易地自动提取出来，而不必让数据科学家为此做大量定制工作。所以，我们的 product staff 现在可能就能完成这件事，而一年前他们还做不到。

So you just end up with these people who have more generalist shapes. And then when you need it, when you really need it, you have a more senior, ideally, or just more creative specialist. So a phenomenal product designer or just a genius data scientist or researcher.

所以最后，你会得到一群形态更加通才化的人。然后，在确实需要的时候，你再找一位更资深的——理想情况下是这样——或者只是更有创造力的专家。比如一位出色的产品设计师，或者一位天才数据科学家或研究员。

This is so interesting. It's exactly what I just heard. I had Fiona Fong, the head of engineering for Claude Code and co-work on the podcast. She's Boris Cherry's manager, and she described the people she hires now are, one, builders with great taste that can take an idea from end-to-end, and people with deep expertise in a very specific domain.

这太有意思了。这和我刚刚听到的完全一样。我之前在播客上邀请过 Fiona Fong，她是 Claude Code 和 co-work 的工程负责人。她是 Boris Cherry 的经理，她描述说，她现在招聘的人，一类是拥有出色审美判断力、能够端到端把一个想法落地的构建者，另一类是在某个非常具体的领域拥有深厚专业知识的人。

The taste thing matters a lot. I really agree with that. Boris used to work at Instagram.

审美判断力这一点非常重要。我完全同意。Boris 以前在 Instagram 工作过。

Oh, that's right.

哦，对，是这样。

Yeah, he was a senior IC at Instagram for a while. I love seeing him. He's all over Threads now. It's like he's sort of like the face of Claude Code, which is amazing. Yeah, he's crushing it.

是的，他曾经在 Instagram 做过一段时间的资深个人贡献者。我很喜欢看到他的动态。他现在到处都在 Threads 上出现。感觉他有点像 Claude Code 的代言人，这太棒了。是的，他做得非常出色。

He's killing it. He's a celebrity now.

他确实做得太出色了。他现在已经是名人了。

He really is. He's his own little ... Yeah, for sure. In a world that is on fire right now. No, I think taste matters a ton. So in a world where it's easier to build things, it's more important to make sure that your time is spent figuring out what you should be building in the first place.

确实如此。他有自己的小小……是的，肯定的。在这个当下正陷入火海的世界里。不，我认为审美判断力极其重要。所以，在一个更容易构建事物的世界里，更重要的是确保你把时间花在首先弄清楚自己到底应该构建什么上。

Actually, so a lot of designers right now are very anxious about their roles. You know, I've got these other generalists doing design, you've got engineers doing design, product staff doing design. But I'm actually pretty long on design or designers because they tend to have taste. And I think that is something that is much more difficult to imagine being automated away. And so there's other challenges with design sometimes, but I'm pretty long right now on designers.

其实，现在很多设计师都对自己的角色感到非常焦虑。你知道，我身边有其他通才在做设计，有工程师在做设计，也有 product staff 在做设计。但我其实非常看重设计和设计师，因为他们往往拥有审美判断力。而我认为，这是很难想象会被自动化彻底取代的东西。所以，设计有时确实还面临其他挑战，但我目前非常看好设计师。

I've always felt that too. As it is so easy to build and all the work that AI produces is so ... You can tell this was Claude designed. I know what you did here. This is Codex.

我一直也这么觉得。既然构建东西变得如此容易，而 AI 产出的所有工作又是如此……你一眼就能看出这是 Claude 设计的。我知道你在这里做了什么。这是 Codex。

Well, they all have their vibe. When you vibe code your apps, we call it vibe coding, and you're all like, "Oh, that's a Codex app," or, "Oh, that's a Claude app."

嗯，它们都有自己的风格。当你用“氛围编程”开发应用时，我们把它叫作 vibe coding，你会说：“哦，这是 Codex 应用”，或者：“哦，这是 Claude 应用。”

Right. And that's Replate, that's Lovable. You can predict these things. I've always though that too, that design should be thriving, or, you know, for some reason, it hasn't yet. If you look at jobs for designers, they're kind of flat lining. I feel like the missing piece is like the PME piece of deeply understanding the business, and what will grow it, and what success, you know, all that stuff. The business side of it versus the taste side of it.

对。这是 Replate，那是 Lovable。你可以预测出这些东西。我一直也这么认为，设计本应蓬勃发展，但不知为什么，它还没有。如果你看看设计师的职位数量，它们基本上是在停滞。我觉得缺失的部分，是 PME 这一块：深入理解业务、理解什么会推动业务增长、理解成功是什么样，以及所有这些东西。也就是业务层面，而不是审美层面。

Yeah. I think you're going to see ... We have a senior designer at Instagram called Nate, who just transferred into product staff. So I think some of what you'll see is it will be harder to talk about design roles and who's a good designer because they're not going to just stay in traditional design roles. If you're an amazing designer, you probably have strong opinions outside of just the interaction and visual design. You probably have strong opinions on product strategy, even on the business, on the go-to-market.

是的。我想你会看到……Instagram 有一位资深设计师，叫 Nate，他刚刚转去做 product staff。所以我认为，你会看到的一种情况是：人们会更难谈论设计岗位，以及谁是优秀的设计师，因为他们不会只是待在传统的设计岗位上。如果你是一名出色的设计师，那么除了交互设计和视觉设计之外，你可能还会对很多事情有强烈的看法。你可能会对产品战略，甚至对业务和市场进入策略，都有强烈的看法。

And so I actually think some of our strongest product staff are going to be converts from design and from data science who are just looking to expand their reach. And they were influential across functional boundaries before, but this world where those functional boundaries are just wildly blurred, just allow them just to jump in. And so sure, they'll be technically a generalist on paper, but they clearly have a uniquely strong ability in one type of craft. But they've got the ability and strong opinions to make informed decisions across other parts or other crafts.

所以，我其实认为，我们最强的一些 product staff，会来自设计和数据科学领域的转型者，他们只是想扩大自己的影响范围。他们过去已经能够跨越职能边界发挥影响力，而在这个职能边界被彻底模糊的世界里，他们可以直接加入进来。因此，当然，从纸面上看，他们会是一名通才，但他们显然在某一种技艺上拥有独特而强大的能力。同时，他们也具备能力和强烈的判断，能够在其他部分或其他技艺上做出有依据的决策。

And so I don't know that all the strongest designers I have will all be in design. They probably will be the majority, but I can imagine a bunch of really strong ones moving roles. But, I mean, I should also check my own bias here though, because I started as a designer at Facebook way back when, and I switched roles.

所以，我不知道我手下所有最强的设计师是否都会继续留在设计岗位上。他们可能大多数还是会留在那里，但我可以想象，其中有不少非常出色的人会转到其他岗位。不过，我也应该检查一下自己的偏见，因为我很久以前就是从 Facebook 的设计师做起的，后来也转过岗位。

No, designers are great. I'm a big fan. So this is really interesting. There's always been this GM model where different types of functions can become GMs. It's like this product staff role feels like a similar situation, where different functions can become product staff.

不，设计师很棒。我非常支持他们。所以这真的很有意思。一直以来都有这种 GM 模式，不同类型的职能都可以成为 GM。product staff 这个角色感觉就像类似的情况，不同职能的人都可以成为 product staff。

Yeah. Yeah. And that was true of PM before, but it's just so much more true now. And, I mean, in some ways, it's probably the age of the generalist, but I still think there's going to be a real important role for these really amazing specialists who are just ... They're all about going ... I wish I was like that. I always had this, like I romanticize the phenomenal machine learning engineer or AI researcher or shoemaker. I think that's the coolest thing in the world. But it's never been my shape. I've never been great at anything. I've always just had range. That's always been my strength.

是的，是的。以前 PM 也是如此，只是现在更加如此了。而且我的意思是，从某些角度看，这可能是通才的时代，但我仍然认为，那些真正出色的专家会扮演非常重要的角色，他们就是……他们会全身心投入……我真希望自己也是那样。我总是会把那些出色的机器学习工程师、AI 研究员或鞋匠想象得很浪漫。我觉得那是世界上最酷的事情。但那从来不是我的类型。我从来没有特别擅长过什么。我一直都只是涉猎广泛。那始终是我的优势。

Same. Okay. So this idea of product staff. So the idea is on these new pods ... So this is a new thing you guys are doing. So there's these pod teams, product staff, engineers, and maybe one specialist that's going deep on set pricing algorithm or something like that. So what this tells me is there's these adjacent roles that are maybe more in trouble over the years. Data science, for example, user research, for example. You talked about designers being anxious. Is there anything there of just like, "Oh, maybe folks in these groups should think about shifting to other roles."?

我也是。好。那么，关于 product staff 这个概念。也就是说，在这些新的小型团队里……这是你们正在做的一件新事情。团队由小型团队、product staff、工程师组成，可能再加一名专门深入研究定价算法之类问题的专家。所以，这让我想到，有一些相邻岗位可能会随着时间推移面临更大风险。比如数据科学，比如用户研究。你刚才提到设计师会感到焦虑。这里面有没有这样的可能：“也许这些群体中的人应该考虑转向其他岗位”？

I mean, there's anxiety everywhere. I mean, I've talked to a lot of people at a lot of other companies, and it just seems like this is a lot of concern right now about competition, about job displacement, about unintended or unforeseen consequences of all this technology and all this moving so quickly. So that's definitely happening.

我的意思是，到处都存在焦虑。我和很多其他公司的很多人聊过，感觉现在大家都非常担心竞争、担心岗位被取代，也担心所有这些技术以及如此迅速的变化会带来意想不到或无法预见的后果。所以，这种情况确实正在发生。

I think that you will see the functional lines continue to blur, but I still think there will be room for functions. They'll just be shaped differently. They won't all be senior ICs necessarily, but they'll all be either senior or on their way to being senior. You can't just have a bunch of super senior data scientists and no new ones, because then who's going to be the new super senior data scientists in the future? So you need to basically hire and mentor and grow talent. Maybe the team is smaller overall, and then that those who aren't on their way to being super senior move into more of a generalist role. I think that's a reasonable soft landing. But I do think you're going to want to make sure you're investing not only in today's senior talent for each specific function, but in tomorrow's. Otherwise, I think you're going to regret it in a couple years is my take.

我认为你会看到职能边界继续变得模糊，但我仍然认为职能岗位会有存在的空间。只是它们的形态会有所不同。它们不一定全都是资深 IC，但都会是资深员工，或者正在成为资深员工的路上。你不能只有一群超级资深的数据科学家，却没有新人，因为这样一来，未来谁会成为新的超级资深数据科学家？所以，基本上你需要招聘、指导并培养人才。也许团队整体规模会更小，而那些没有走向超级资深岗位的人，会转入更偏通才的角色。我认为这是一种合理的缓冲落点。但我确实认为，你需要确保自己投资的不仅是今天各个具体职能的资深人才，也包括明天的资深人才。否则，依我看，几年后你会后悔的。

That said, who knows what the world looks like in a couple of years? So my big thing is generally don't be overly confident in whatever your predictions are, because there's just too much flux right now.

话虽如此，谁知道几年后世界会是什么样？所以我的核心想法通常是：不要对自己的任何预测过度自信，因为现在变化实在太快、太多了。

Benedict Evans was on the podcast recently, said the same thing, "We don't want to know anything about what's going on."

Benedict Evans 最近上了这个播客，说了同样的话：“我们不想知道正在发生的一切。”

Yeah, yeah. I like him a lot. I'll make sure I listen to the pod.

对，对。我很喜欢他。我会确保自己听听这个播客。

Yeah. So you talked about taste. This makes me think about ... So you're interviewing a lot of people, hiring a lot of people. What are some traits that are trending up in things that you look for more and more now in this world? And what are some traits that are trending down, and maybe less important to you?

对。所以你刚才谈到了审美。这让我想到……你面试了很多人，也招聘了很多人。在这个世界里，有哪些你现在越来越看重、而且正变得越来越重要的特质？又有哪些特质正在变得不那么重要，或者对你来说没那么重要了？

I mean, there are some things that are the same. So for the longest time, almost no matter what the function, I always look for three things. Do you have sort of grit? You've got some drive, some fire in your belly. Are you a quick learner? And are you reasonably ideally very self-aware so that you can actually take feedback and know what you're good at and know you're not good? Because if you are those things, if you got fire in your belly, you learn quickly and you're self-aware, you can kind of get good at anything eventually. But if any of those things are missing, there's usually an issue, so that's the baseline.

我的意思是，有些东西是不变的。所以一直以来，几乎不管是什么职能，我总是会看三点。你有没有韧劲？你有没有驱动力，内心是否有热情和冲劲？你是不是学得快？还有，你是否有足够清醒的自我认知，这样你才能真正接受反馈，知道自己擅长什么，也知道自己不擅长什么？因为如果你具备这些特质——有热情和冲劲、学习快，而且有自我认知——你最终多少都能把任何事情做好。但如果其中任何一点缺失，通常都会出现问题，所以这就是基线。

Right now for hiring, but just for I think people who are going to be more successful over these next 5 or 10 years, as things change so significantly, I think two things that I'm continuing to encourage myself to do, are to stay curious and to put yourself out there. I just think you got to try things. To that point before where no one really knows what's going on, you have to be willing to try things. I don't know, do you speak another language?

现在如果说招聘，但我想这也适用于未来 5 到 10 年会更成功的人。随着事情发生如此巨大的变化，我一直在鼓励自己做两件事：保持好奇，并主动走出去。我只是觉得，你必须去尝试。回到刚才那个话题，没有人真正知道正在发生什么，所以你必须愿意去尝试。我不知道，你会说另一种语言吗？

Russian, yeah.

俄语，会。

Yeah. So when you learn another language, I think one of the most important things and one of the best predictors, this is my guess, I don't have any research on this, about are you going to get good at speaking, is are you willing to sound like an idiot? Are you willing just to say it and be corrected, and not be offended, and then just get better and better? You just have to put yourself out there.

对。所以当你学习另一种语言时，我认为最重要的事情之一，也是最好的预测指标之一——这是我的猜测，我没有相关研究依据——能不能把口语学好，取决于你是否愿意听起来像个傻瓜。你是否愿意直接说出来，接受纠正，不觉得被冒犯，然后不断变得越来越好？你必须主动走出去。

And with all of these new tools and models and technologies, I think you just have to be willing to try stuff. So if you're curious when you try stuff, I think that you'll learn, you'll adapt. But if you're not curious or you're not willing to make mistakes or try things, I think you're in a ton of trouble, or at least I think it's going to be a really difficult time. So those, I think, are premiums, not just for hiring at a company like Meta or a team like Instagram, but I just think across the industry, and multiple industries over the next 10 to 20 years.

面对所有这些新工具、新模型和新技术，我认为你必须愿意去尝试。所以，如果你在尝试时保持好奇，我认为你就会学习、适应。但如果你不好奇，或者不愿意犯错、不愿意尝试，我认为你会陷入巨大的麻烦，至少我觉得那会是一段非常艰难的时期。所以我认为，这些特质不仅是 Meta 这样的公司或 Instagram 这样的团队在招聘时看重的，也是在未来 10 到 20 年里，整个行业以及多个行业都会给予溢价的特质。

Is this something that maybe we're looking for less of? For some of these functions, I think that there's some that are still going to be very large teams, and so you need people who are really good at managing large organizations. Large organizational leadership is its own craft and skill. It's actually different than management. But I do think there'll be less of those roles. I think we'll have more smaller teams, and there'll be less people who manage thousands of people. And so that's not that job will go away, but that will be less of what I'm looking for in hires, because I'm going to have less roles like that.

有没有什么是我们可能会越来越少寻找的？对于其中一些职能，我认为仍然会有非常庞大的团队，因此你需要非常擅长管理大型组织的人。大型组织领导力本身就是一门独立的技艺和能力。它实际上不同于管理。但我确实认为，这类岗位会变少。我认为我们会有更多规模较小的团队，也会有更少的人管理数千名员工。所以，不是这类工作会消失，而是它会变成我招聘时较少关注的内容，因为这样的岗位会变少。

Something I'm hearing from a few folks is AI is almost kind of resetting people's impact and success, in terms of some people that were maybe low performers pre-AI can now do ... Like things they were bad at, AI now allows them to do. And now they're thriving, building all these things, helping other people. Do you see that at all? Just AI is just lifting other people up, maybe lowering some people down?

我从几个人那里听到的一件事是，AI 几乎正在重新定义人们的影响力和成功。比如，有些人在 AI 之前可能表现不佳，但现在却能做到……也就是他们原本不擅长的事情，AI 现在让他们能够完成。于是他们开始蓬勃发展，构建各种东西，帮助其他人。你有没有看到这种情况？AI 只是在把一些人托起来，同时可能把另一些人压下去？

Yeah, I mean the job is just different. Take engineering. Engineering used to be, maybe not majority, but a large percentage, 40%, 50%, 60% writing code. It's not now, especially if you talk to anybody at these labs. They're spending most of their time planning and reviewing code. That is a very different job. You might hate that, and you might have loved just writing code. Or you might love that, and you might not have been that fast at writing code. So who succeeds is a function of whose strengths are aligned with the tools' needs and the business' needs. And so this is definitely happening.

对，我的意思是，这份工作本身已经不一样了。以工程为例。过去，工程工作可能不是大多数，但很大一部分——40%、50%、60%——是在写代码。现在不是这样了，尤其是如果你去和这些实验室里的人聊聊。他们大部分时间都花在规划和审查代码上。这是一份非常不同的工作。你可能讨厌这样，而过去你可能很喜欢单纯写代码。或者你可能喜欢这样，而你过去可能并不擅长快速写代码。所以谁能成功，取决于谁的优势与工具的需求以及业务的需求相匹配。因此，这种变化确实正在发生。

Another thing is you've had people who had good ideas about how to contribute it to other functions, but didn't have the mechanical or technical skills to do so. And AI reduces the boundary to do that, and then all of a sudden they can.

还有一点是，有些人过去对如何为其他职能作出贡献有很好的想法，但没有相应的机械性或技术性技能去实现。AI 降低了实现这件事的门槛，于是他们突然就能做到了。

For me, it's kind of funny because when I got hired at Facebook, all the designers had to be able to program. I went through a technical loop. We gave up on that because it was too hard to hire people. But I now get to program again for the first time in maybe 10 years. And, you know, I am not a good engineer. I'm a mediocre engineer on a good day. But now, I can write code responsibly, which is just an amazing thing. You're seeing this across all sorts of levels in seniority and functions. Designers who are programming, engineers who are pulling data and doing strong analyses, data scientists who are putting together proposals for designs.

对我来说，这有点好笑，因为我刚被 Facebook 招聘时，所有设计师都必须会编程。我参加过技术面试流程。后来我们放弃了这个要求，因为太难招人了。但现在，我大概时隔 10 年，终于又能编程了。而且，你知道，我不是一个优秀的工程师。在状态好的时候，我也只是个平庸的工程师。但现在，我可以负责任地写代码，这真是件不可思议的事。你会在各种资历层级和职能中看到这种情况：设计师在编程，工程师在提取数据并进行深入分析，数据科学家在为设计整理提案。

The tools aren't all great, by the way. I think too often we have this really polarized binary outlook on the state of AI. Like, are you AI-pilled or are you anti-AI? It's like, people are binary. I said that to the team yesterday. And the state of the tools isn't binary either. They're amazing at some things and remarkably bad at others. And the people who I think are going to make the most of it are the ones who are clear-eyed about what AI is good at and what it's not good at, and also have an instinct or a nose for what it will be good at and not good at next month or in a couple months from now.

顺便说一句，这些工具并不全都很出色。我认为，我们太容易对 AI 的现状采取一种非常两极化的二元视角。比如，你是被 AI 彻底影响了，还是反 AI？这就好像人是二元的。我昨天还对团队说了这句话。而且工具的现状也不是二元的。它们在某些事情上非常出色，在另一些事情上却糟糕得出奇。我认为，最能从中获益的人，是那些清楚认识到 AI 擅长什么、不擅长什么，同时又能凭直觉或敏锐嗅觉判断 AI 下个月或几个月后会擅长什么、不擅长什么的人。

You mentioned that AI writes all our code now. Someone tweeted this idea that stuck with me for months now of just like, "Remember, we used to be able to just write code for free?"

你提到现在 AI 写了我们所有的代码。有人发了一条推文，这个想法几个月来一直萦绕在我脑中，大意是：“记住，我们以前是可以免费写代码的，对吧？”

I think you'll still be able to write code for free, it'll just be with a smaller model, but yes. That is [inaudible 00:19:58].

我认为你以后仍然可以免费写代码，只是会用更小的模型，但没错。那是[听不清 00:19:58]。

I guess that's true. There's a model that are close to free, but it's like, yeah, that's crazy. Now it's just like totally-

我想这确实是真的。有些模型已经接近免费了，但就像，没错，这太疯狂了。现在它就完全——

But just think about the cost, think about what you pay for a model now and what the level of intelligence you're getting from that model is. And then at that same price point a year ago, what were you getting? At some point, the incremental value won't matter. We're getting there I think with small projects and programming. I think the models will matter even beyond ... This week you've got Fable and, obviously, Mythos from Anthropic, but I spent a lot of time with that this week. For the first time, I'm like, "Oh, I'm just talking to a much more technical, much smarter engineer than I am." The next version, a year out, of that model, do I need to pay for frontier tokens for whatever Anthropic model 6.0 is? Or is Fable just fine for all of my side projects? Probably just fine. Probably pretty cheap by then too.

但想想成本，想想你现在为一个模型支付的费用，以及你从那个模型得到的智能水平。然后，在一年前同样的价格点上，你能得到什么？到了某个时候，增量价值就不再重要了。我认为，在小型项目和编程方面，我们已经快到那个阶段了。我认为，模型甚至会在更广泛的领域继续发挥作用……这周你有 Fable，当然还有 Anthropic 的 Mythos，但我这周花了很多时间使用它。第一次，我心想：“哦，我只是在和一个技术能力强得多、比我聪明得多的工程师交谈。”一年后这个模型的下一个版本，我还需要为所谓 Anthropic model 6.0 的 frontier tokens 付费吗？还是说 Fable 对我所有的副项目来说已经完全够用了？大概够用。到那时可能也会相当便宜。

Yeah. When Kevin Weil on the podcast when he was CPO at OpenAI, he famously said, "This is the worst the model will ever be." It's still hard to comprehend that. It's only going to get better. So on this point of tokens, spend, ROI, and things like that, Meta is famous for this leaderboard of token spend.

对。Kevin Weil 还是 OpenAI 的 CPO 时上这个播客，曾经有句名言：“这个模型现在已经是它最差的状态了。”这句话现在仍然很难理解。它只会越来越好。所以，回到 token、支出、ROI 以及类似问题上，Meta 因为这个 token 支出排行榜而闻名。

It's a terrible idea. No leaderboards for token spend.

这是个糟糕的主意。不要设 token 支出排行榜。

Okay. Okay. Talk about that, and just how do you think about just budgets for engineers and product teams at this point? Just spend as much as you want? Is it like there's a cap we have? Is there any sort of thing you've figured out that works well?

好，好。谈谈这个吧。你现在是怎么考虑工程师和产品团队预算的？想花多少就花多少？还是说我们有一个上限？你有没有找到什么效果不错的方法？

Right now, we've managed to get the costs reigned in a little bit by shutting down the silly things that we were doing. It's not that hard to build a token incinerator and that doesn't create a lot of value. And as soon as you actually look at the dollars in and value out, you might just be like, "Oh, that's just a bad idea." And so right now, we don't have token limits for our engineers. Actually, I think for anybody, really. I think that'll eventually have to happen, particularly if costs go up before they go down. I think they'll eventually go down for the reasons that we just talked about.

现在，我们通过关掉那些愚蠢的做法，已经设法把成本稍微控制住了一点。构建一个 token 焚烧炉并不难，而它也不会创造多少价值。你只要真正看看投入了多少美元、产出了多少价值，可能就会想：“哦，这就是个糟糕的主意。”所以现在，我们没有给工程师设置 token 上限。实际上，我想应该是任何人都没有。我认为最终还是必须这样做，尤其是如果成本在下降之前先上升的话。我认为，成本最终会下降，原因就是我们刚才谈到的那些。

But I think of it as any other resource, like I have to decide how to deploy capacity to my different teams, because I have a limited number of GPUs and CPUs and storage and RAM, et cetera. I have to decide how to deploy OPEX for labeling budgets across my teams. I have to decide how to deploy payroll for headcount across my teams. I think that you can imagine, at least in a year or two coming, that the burn rate of a strong engineer might be the same as their salary or their cost of employment. And in that world, you're going to probably need to put in some caps. The caps should probably be portional to the company's trust in your ability to use them in an ROA positive way. But I can imagine caps being healthy. Right now, we're not there.

但我把它看作任何其他资源：比如，我必须决定如何向不同团队配置产能，因为我的 GPU、CPU、存储、RAM 等资源数量有限。我必须决定如何在各个团队之间分配用于数据标注预算的 OPEX。我必须决定如何在各个团队之间分配用于人员编制的薪资预算。我认为你可以想象，至少在未来一两年内，一名优秀工程师的消耗率可能会与他的薪资或雇佣成本相同。在那种情况下，你可能就需要设置一些上限。这些上限可能应该与公司对你以 ROA 为正的方式使用这些资源的能力所抱有的信任成比例。但我可以想象，设置上限会是件有益的事。现在我们还没有到那个阶段。

I think costs will go up because we'll just be using more tokens, not because prices will necessarily go up. But then I think prices will come down because all of these frontier models are going to be in a bit of a pricing war. So we'll see. I think it'll be a bit of a rollercoaster.

我认为成本会上升，是因为我们会使用更多 token，而不一定是因为价格会上涨。但随后我认为价格会下降，因为所有这些 frontier models 都会陷入某种价格战。所以我们拭目以待。我认为这会有点像坐过山车。

So coming back to this idea that, as you said, we've evolved from, we used to write all our code, to now we're approaching all code will be written by AI. And it feels like now the transition is it's not just written by AI, but it's one-shotted by AI. Coding now is steering AI, and it's like how often you have to correct it is coding now. So it's like the software development lifecycle slowly being eaten by AI. It'll start helping us come up with ideas, I imagine, more and more. The question I like to ask people is, where do you think human brains will continue to be most valuable as AI continues to eat more and more of that product development lifecycle?

所以回到这个想法：正如你所说，我们已经从过去自己编写所有代码，发展到现在正接近所有代码都由 AI 编写。而现在的转变似乎是，它不只是由 AI 编写，而是由 AI 一次性生成。现在的编程就是引导 AI，而你需要多频繁地纠正它，这本身就是编程。就好像软件开发生命周期正在慢慢被 AI 吞噬。我想，AI 还会越来越多地开始帮助我们提出想法。我要问大家的一个问题是：随着 AI 继续吞噬越来越多的产品开发生命周期，你认为人类大脑在哪些方面仍然最有价值？

Taste, like we talked about. Judgment, particularly around strategy. You might get feedback from an AI on a strategy, but you're not asking an AI to come up with a strategy anytime soon. Or if you are, then it's within the context of bounds you set. So here's my goal, here's my vision, here are my constraints, here's my job, here's my budget.

审美，就像我们刚才谈到的。判断力，尤其是战略方面的判断力。你可以从 AI 那里获得关于战略的反馈，但你不会很快就让 AI 自己提出战略。或者如果你这么做了，那也是在你设定的边界范围内。所以，这是我的目标，这是我的愿景，这是我的约束，这是我的工作，这是我的预算。

I think that it looks more like management. You are trying to define what success looks like, decide how prescriptive you want to be about the path to success, and then giving feedback along the way. And that is its own craft. And it'll be interesting to see how if some of the same dynamics come up. I believe that if you are too prescriptive, as a leader with a team, you end up stifling good ideas. But if you're too open-ended, sometimes teams just waste time going in the wrong direction. And so that level of autonomy you give a team, maybe that applies to agents in the future, particularly when we're talking not just about building something, but deciding what you build in the first place.

我认为，这更像是管理。你要努力定义成功是什么样子，决定你希望对通往成功的路径规定得多么具体，然后在过程中不断提供反馈。这本身就是一门技艺。而且，看看其中是否会出现一些相同的动态，会很有意思。我相信，如果你作为领导者对团队规定得过于具体，最终会压制好的想法。但如果你过于开放，有时团队只会把时间浪费在错误的方向上。所以，你给予团队的自主程度，未来也许同样适用于智能体，尤其是当我们谈论的不只是构建某个东西，而是一开始就决定要构建什么的时候。

But I think of vision as an articulation of the world or the state of the product you want to get to. And I think of strategy as an opinionated path to achieve that vision. Strategy can't be like be the best or be amazing. It has to be controversial, that you have to be ... A reasonable person should be able to disagree with it, because otherwise you're probably just trying to compete on raw execution. And I think both vision and strategy I think are going to be where our brains are spreading more and more of our cycles, and I think less on execution.

但我认为，愿景是对你想要抵达的世界或产品状态的阐述。而我认为，战略是实现这一愿景的一条有明确立场的路径。战略不能只是“成为最好的”或“变得很棒”。它必须具有争议性，也就是说，你必须……一个理性的人应该能够不同意它，因为否则你可能只是在试图依靠纯粹的执行力来竞争。我认为，愿景和战略都会成为我们的大脑越来越多地投入时间的地方，而执行所占的时间会越来越少。

Something I have always though is AI should be incredibly good at strategy because you would think, here's the market, here's all the information on the market, our competitors, our metrics, our numbers, our growth, all these things. Help me figure out how to win. You think AI, knowing all that, would be really good at this.

我一直有个想法：AI 应该非常擅长战略，因为你会认为，市场在这里，关于市场、竞争对手、指标、数字、增长以及所有这些事情的信息都在这里。帮我想办法赢。你会觉得，AI 知道了这一切，应该会非常擅长这件事。

I think it could be. I have found it's not unless you steer it pretty aggressively. And I don't mean towards an answer, I mean based on the constraints. It turns out when you're trying to come up with a strategy, there's a lot of things to consider. You need to consider the state of the technology, personnel on the team and what's motivating them and what you can get. Sometimes coming up with an idea that is on the bubble, you know it's going to actually attract some of the best talent. And so the push then goes to the idea.

我认为它可以做到。我发现，如果你不相当积极地引导它，它就做不到。而且我不是说要把它引向某个答案，我是说要根据约束条件来引导。事实证明，当你试图提出一个战略时，有很多事情需要考虑。你需要考虑技术的现状、团队中的人员、他们的动机，以及你能获得什么。有时，提出一个处于临界点上的想法，你知道它实际上会吸引一些最优秀的人才。于是，推动力就会转向这个想法。

Obviously, the competitive landscape, the regulatory landscape for companies as large as ours and the compliance landscape, the identity and reason to exist for the brand, you have to consider all of these things. I think if you ask an AI just for a strategy lazily, you're not going to get something great. You're going to get something pretty predictable that probably the competition would expect you to do.

显然，你还必须考虑竞争格局、像我们这么大的公司所面临的监管环境和合规环境，以及品牌存在的身份和理由。所有这些事情都必须考虑。如果你只是懒洋洋地让 AI 给出一个战略，你不会得到什么很棒的东西。你会得到一个相当可预测的东西，竞争对手大概也会预料到你会这么做。

I think if you want a really more effective one, you need to think long and hard about what are all of the different inputs that need to be considered, make sure you steer the AI in a way that it's considering those as well. And then it needs to be a conversation in the back and forth. But I think if you're willing to put in the work and the time, it can definitely be helpful and definitely be clarifying, particularly if you tell it to be critical. Different models have very different vibes, though, on how willing they are to be pushed back, so I recommend picking one that likes pushing back.

我认为，如果你想要一个真正更有效的战略，就需要认真、深入地思考所有需要考虑的不同输入，确保你以一种让 AI 也会考虑这些因素的方式去引导它。然后，这还需要通过来回交流来完成。但我认为，如果你愿意投入精力和时间，它绝对会有所帮助，也绝对能让事情更清晰，尤其是当你告诉它要保持批判性时。不过，不同模型在接受反驳的意愿上有非常不同的风格，所以我建议选择一个喜欢反驳你的模型。

Yeah. Mythos has gotten really good at being like, "I can't do this. Let's move on." There's all these limitations.

对。Mythos 已经非常擅长说：“我做不到这个。我们继续往下走。”它有各种各样的限制。

Claude has always been a little bit of a jerk in a way that I actually appreciate. I appreciate it, I really do, because I don't want one that's just like, "Oh, you're so right. I'm so sorry I said that." It's like, no, no, hold on. I want the real intelligence. I don't want the pleaser.

Claude 一直有点混蛋，这一点我其实很欣赏。我确实欣赏这一点，因为我不想要那种只会说：“哦，你说得太对了。很抱歉我刚才那么说。”的东西。不是，不是，等等。我想要真正的智能。我不想要只会讨好人的。

This point you made about people being excited about the strategy is such an interesting one. There's this idea that I read, I think Cory Doctorow wrote this. There's this kind of concept of a centaur and a reverse centaur. So centaur is a human body horse ... This is going somewhere, I promise. Human body horse ... Sorry, human upper part, horse, lower part.

你刚才提到人们会因为策略而兴奋，这一点非常有意思。我读到过一个观点，我想是 Cory Doctorow 写的。这里有一个半人马和逆半人马的概念。半人马就是人的身体、马……这马上就讲得通了，我保证。人的身体、马……抱歉，是人的上半身，马的下半身。

Horse body. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

马的身体。对，对，对。

Horse body, where the human is in charge. And we prefer that we want to be in charge. Reverse centaur, which is what we want to avoid with AI, is where the AI is controlling us, and we're just doing its bidding.

马的身体，而且由人来掌控。我们更喜欢这样，我们希望由自己掌控。逆半人马则是我们想要避免的 AI 状态：AI 控制着我们，而我们只是在执行它的命令。

So it's a horse head on a human body.

所以就是人的身体上顶着一个马头。

Yeah, exactly.

对，完全正确。

It's terrifying.

太可怕了。

So in a sense, Uber drivers and DoorDash people, this is their life, which is not great. And this is the danger, I think, for a lot of people is if it's giving us the strategy and telling us, "Here's what we're building" No one's going to want to do that. So that's a really interesting counterpoint to, we don't want AI to be telling us the strategy, almost.

所以从某种意义上说，Uber 司机和 DoorDash 配送员过的就是这种生活，这不太妙。我觉得这对很多人来说都是一种危险：如果 AI 给我们制定策略，告诉我们“我们要做什么”，没人会想做那件事。所以这正好构成了一个非常有意思的反面观点：我们几乎不希望 AI 告诉我们策略是什么。

Yeah, no, I think there's a lot of things to be careful about right now. And I would certainly not just assume that because you might be able to outsource some workflow to AI, that you should. There are certain ones where I think it's really just a win-win and there are certain ones where I think the risk outweighs the benefits.

对，我觉得现在有很多事情需要谨慎。我当然不会仅仅因为你可能可以把某些工作流程外包给 AI，就想当然地认为你应该这么做。有些情况下，我觉得这确实是双赢；但也有些情况下，我觉得风险大于收益。

Yeah. I mean, you do sometimes find amazing product leaders who are just idea machines, just prolific idea machines. But I do think a lot of the best have taste, have something about them that really makes really strong talent want to work with them, but end up sort of being curators, curators of people, curators of ideas, curators of technologies, curators of strategies. Because I don't really care if I'm hiring a strong lead for an area, if the strategy comes from them or comes from somebody else. I just care that there is an amazing strategy, and everyone has bought into it, and that we're executing against that strategy well.

对。我的意思是，有时你确实会遇到非常出色的产品领导者，他们简直就是点子机器，源源不断地产生想法。但我确实认为，很多最优秀的人都有审美，有某种特质，能让真正优秀的人才非常愿意和他们一起工作；但他们最终往往会成为策展人：人的策展人、想法的策展人、技术的策展人、策略的策展人。因为如果我在某个领域招了一位很强的负责人，我其实不在乎策略是由他提出的，还是由别人提出的。我只在乎有没有一个出色的策略，大家是否都认同它，以及我们是否很好地围绕这个策略执行。

And so I think that some of the best product leaders, yes, have ideas, it's hard to be a great curator if you don't have some of your own ideas, but embrace the reality that they can't come up with everything themselves, and so they need to create an environment in which great ideas bubble up and are chosen or decided upon. And so I think it's not just about curating ideas, but it's sometimes about curating teams and people.

所以我认为，一些最优秀的产品领导者确实有想法——如果你没有自己的想法，很难成为优秀的策展人——但他们也接受一个现实：他们不可能什么都靠自己想出来，因此需要营造一种环境，让优秀的想法不断涌现，并被选中或作出决策。所以我认为，这不只是策划想法，有时也是在策划团队和人才。

I love that. I so agree. I feel like everyone's always joining a team, and they just want to do vision strategy, just not actually hands-on work. "No AI's coming in here, let me do the strategy."

我喜欢这一点。我非常赞同。我感觉大家总是在加入一个团队，然后只想做愿景和策略，而不是真正动手做事。“AI 要进来了，快让我来做策略。”

Yeah, exactly.

对，完全正确。

And I love this point that there's so much power and value, and people underestimate just the need for just a really good curator of the team's ideas.

而且我喜欢你说的这一点：一位真正优秀的团队想法策展人，所能带来的力量和价值非常大，只是人们低估了这件事的必要性。

Yeah. Sometimes it's not just who's good or what idea's good. It's also what is going to work given the broader context. So for instance, on team building, a huge thing that I'm always considering is not just like, is this person a really strong candidate for this role? It is how does this person fit into their leadership team? So for an area like trust and safety, I have an engineering lead, I have a product staff lead, I have a data science lead, I have a design lead, I have a research lead. I need to make sure that those five compliment each other. And that's about what skills each one has, what weaknesses each one might have.

对。有时关键不只是看谁优秀，或者哪个想法好；还要看在更广泛的背景下，什么才会奏效。比如在组建团队时，我一直重点考虑的不只是：这个人是不是这个职位的优秀候选人？还要考虑：这个人如何融入他们的领导团队？比如在信任与安全这个领域，我有一位工程负责人、一位 product staff lead、一位数据科学负责人、一位设计负责人和一位研究负责人。我需要确保这五个人能够互相补足。这涉及每个人拥有怎样的技能，以及每个人可能有哪些弱点。

I also need to make sure that this is more art than science, have a good vibe. You need trust and rapport. A leadership team with strong trust and rapport can work through most anything. A leadership team without trust or rapport, anything can become an issue. And so that chemistry bit is, like I said, much more art than science. But that also matters. And so I think some of the best leaders and product leaders specifically also either do that instinctively or consciously, but they have a nose for building teams that are going to have good energy and good collaboration.

我还需要确保团队的整体氛围良好——这更像是一门艺术，而不是一门科学。你需要信任和默契。一个拥有强大信任和默契的领导团队，几乎可以解决任何问题。一个缺乏信任或默契的领导团队，任何事情都可能变成问题。所以，正如我所说，这种化学反应更像是一门艺术，而不是一门科学。但它同样重要。因此我认为，一些最优秀的领导者，尤其是产品领导者，要么凭直觉，要么有意识地做到这一点；他们对如何组建一支拥有良好能量和良好协作的团队很有感觉。

Warm and fuzzy stuff.

温暖又令人感觉良好的东西。

Yeah. Well, the flip side is also true. I've had many times in my career where I've had two people who I think are amazing, and I even adore them and love them, and they just can't get along. And you're like, "This isn't a competency issue. This is just a personality issue," and you just have to just sometimes call it, and split them.

对。不过反过来也一样。我职业生涯中有很多次，遇到两个我认为非常优秀的人，我甚至很喜欢、很欣赏他们，但他们就是无法相处。你会想：“这不是能力问题，只是性格问题。”而有时你就只能接受现实，把他们分开。

I want to transition to talk about Instagram, the product, the platform, things you guys have learned there. Let me start with this question. What's something that the Instagram algorithm knows about human behavior that people may not realize?

我想把话题转到 Instagram，聊聊这个产品、这个平台，以及你们在那里学到的东西。先从这个问题开始：Instagram 算法知道哪些关于人类行为的事情，而人们可能没有意识到？

One of the most common misconceptions is actually in the opposite direction. I think people assume that there's a much more detailed semantic understanding of everybody's interests and preferences in the algorithm than there is. Most of what's really driven the progress in the world of recommenders over the last 5, 10 years have been these large embedding models and these other techniques that basically produce artifacts that cannot be read by people. They're not legible. They're giant vectors. It's like, sure, I can show you the vector, but it's just going to be a bunch of numbers in a seven-dimensional space. And so when we talk about, does the algorithm know something? Usually we think in these more semantic terms, it knows I like surfing. And it's like, "Eh." It doesn't. It just has this big-ass number that happens to correlate with surfing.

最常见的误解之一，其实恰恰是相反的。我认为，人们以为算法对每个人的兴趣和偏好都有更加详细的语义理解，但事实并非如此。过去 5 到 10 年里，推荐系统领域真正推动进步的大部分东西，都是这些大型嵌入模型和其他技术。它们基本上会生成人类无法读取的产物。它们不可读，是巨大的向量。就好比：当然，我可以把这个向量展示给你，但它只会是七维空间里的一串数字。所以当我们说“算法知道某些事情吗？”时，我们通常会用更具语义性的方式来想象：它知道我喜欢冲浪。实际上，它会说：“呃。”它并不知道。它只是有一个巨大得离谱的数字，而这个数字碰巧与冲浪相关。

That said, I think that is starting to change. I think that one of the things that LLMs are enabling is they can describe in words, English or whatever language you prefer, what some of those previously-illegible artifacts are at least proximate to, if not mean directly. So this is like ... The thing I haven't really ... I posted about this this week, this thing called Your Algorithm. Basically the idea is we take a look at all of the stuff that you've interacted with, and then all of that is in an embedding space. You can think of embedding space as a map. You map a bunch of videos into the same map, and so videos that are close or similar. And now, we can just have an LLM just be like, describe that part of the map. And it can be like, "Oh, that is deep pour over coffee snobbery." And that's kind of amazing.

话虽如此，我觉得情况正在开始改变。我认为，大语言模型正在带来的一项能力是：它们可以用文字——英语，或者你偏好的任何语言——描述那些过去无法读取的产物至少接近于什么，即便还不能直接说明它们意味着什么。所以这就像……我其实还没有完全……我这周发过一篇关于这个的帖子，叫作 Your Algorithm。基本思路是，我们查看你互动过的所有内容，然后把这些内容都放进一个嵌入空间。你可以把嵌入空间想象成一张地图。你把一堆视频映射到同一张地图上，因此彼此接近的视频就是相似的视频。现在，我们可以让一个大语言模型直接描述地图的某个区域。它可能会说：“哦，那是对深度滤泡咖啡的极度讲究。”这就相当惊人了。

That is so cool. You can ask the LLM to look at these numbers, and extrapolate here's the topic that you're interested in. That's awesome.

这太酷了。你可以让大语言模型查看这些数字，然后推断出你感兴趣的主题。太棒了。

Yeah. Or look at the videos.

对。或者查看这些视频。

And the videos.

还有这些视频。

And so the way you ... Both. You can also embed concepts into that same space. And so I mean, embeddings are really the underlying technology underneath LLMs. That's how all the whole thing works.

所以你……两者都可以。你还可以把概念嵌入同一个空间里。所以我的意思是，嵌入其实就是大语言模型底层的技术。这一整套东西就是这样运作的。

And so what we do now is we let you "see your algorithm." You can see what topics we think you're interested in and you can adjust it, you can add and remove things. But the idea here, giving people some agency back in a world where these social media apps are getting taken over by recommendations. But we can't do a lot of other things yet, but we will be able to do. There's things that aren't topical that you might ask for, "I want more fun content. I want to see my friends more. I don't want to see my high school's friends' kids' photos." I don't know, we can come up with a ... "I don't want to see seven photos in a row, but I'm happy to see six photos in a row." Whatever your mind can come up with.

所以我们现在做的，是让你“看见自己的算法”。你可以看到我们认为你感兴趣的主题，也可以调整它，添加或删除内容。但这里的想法是，在这些社交媒体应用正被推荐系统接管的世界里，把一些自主权还给用户。不过，我们现在还不能做很多其他事情，但将来可以。有些事情并不是主题性的，你可能会提出这样的要求：“我想看更多有趣的内容。我想多看一些朋友的内容。我不想看到高中同学的朋友的孩子们的照片。”我不知道，我们可以想出很多……“我不想连续看到七张照片，但连续看到六张照片没问题。”只要是你能想到的都可以。

So we have a lot of work to do, and so I'm excited about that. But I think a misconception historically is, until recently, we don't really know as much about you as you think. We're just like, "Oh, you liked these photos. These people also like those same photos, and they like these other photos, so you might like those other photos." I'm oversimplifying, but that's Kind of how it worked. Now, only now, are we actually getting as sophisticated as I think people have assumed we've been for many years.

所以我们还有很多工作要做，我对此感到兴奋。但我认为，历史上的一个误解是：直到最近，我们其实并没有像你以为的那样了解你。我们只是：“哦，你喜欢这些照片。还有一些人也喜欢同样的照片，而且他们还喜欢这些其他照片，所以你可能也会喜欢那些其他照片。”我是在过度简化，但大概就是这样运作的。直到现在，我们才真正变得像我认为人们多年来一直以为我们已经达到的那样复杂。

That is really interesting. One that comes to mind is this transition everyone eventually goes through to this algorithmic, broad global feed. It always feels, like people think, "I just want to see chronologically everyone I know and follow, and that's going to be my favorite feed," and it continues to be proven wrong. No, you actually engage a lot more when it's this algorithmic feed of things we think you will love.

这真的很有意思。我想到的一个例子，是每个人最终都会经历的这种转变：从关注算法驱动的、广泛的全球信息流。它总让人觉得——人们会想：“我只想按时间顺序看到我认识和关注的每一个人，那一定会是我最喜欢的信息流。”但事实不断证明这不对。不是的，当信息流由算法挑选出我们认为你会喜欢的内容时，你实际参与互动的程度会高得多。

Yeah, it's tough because ... I mean, I posted this week this thing about agency, and I just got destroyed in the comments, which is just part of the job. I get it. But there are a couple issues with the chronological feed. So one is ... And some of this is the tension between an individual's interests and what works when you scale it up. So if you do a pure chronological feed, the incentive for everybody is to just post as much as possible, because it will always be at the top of everyone who follows you's feed as soon as you post. So what ends up happening is that the feed gets overwhelmed with professional content, with usually large company content and publishers. The New York Times can pump out 50 things a day. Your best friend won't. You might get one thing a week from them. And so, your feed just gets taken over.

对，这很难，因为……我的意思是，我这周发了一篇关于自主权的帖子，然后在评论区被骂得很惨，这只是工作的一部分。我理解。但时间顺序信息流有几个问题。一个是……其中一部分，其实是个人兴趣与规模化之后什么才有效之间的矛盾。如果你采用纯时间顺序的信息流，对所有人的激励就是尽可能多发内容，因为你一发布，它就会一直出现在所有关注你的人的信息流顶部。结果就是，信息流会被专业内容、通常是大公司内容和出版商的内容淹没。《纽约时报》一天可以发布 50 条内容，而你最好的朋友不会。他们可能一周只发一条。所以，你的信息流就会被这些内容占据。

So part of it is the incentives that emerge, because when you design these systems, it's almost like designing a city. You need to think about, "Okay, here's how the mechanics work. What are the incentives that arise? How are people going to act within those incentives? And then what happens?" And the other thing is sometimes the most interesting thing was just not the most recent thing. Recency is an important input into relevance, but it's not the only one. My sister got engaged last night, and she's in Germany.

所以，其中一部分原因在于系统设计后产生的激励，因为设计这些系统几乎就像设计一座城市。你需要思考：“好，机制是这样运作的。会产生什么激励？人们会在这些激励下如何行动？然后会发生什么？”另一件事是，有时最有趣的内容恰恰不是最新的内容。新近程度是相关性的重要输入，但不是唯一因素。我妹妹昨晚订婚了，而她人在德国。

Congratulations.

恭喜。

No, she didn't. If she did. She's married. She got married last year. That's why it was top of mind.

不，她没有。如果她订婚了的话。她已经结婚了。她去年结的婚。这就是为什么这件事刚才一直在我脑海里。

All right.

好吧。

But if she got engaged and I missed it because she lives in Europe and we're different time differences, do I really want to see a picture of my brother's po'boy sandwich, or do I want to see my sister's things first?

但如果她真的订婚了，而我因为她住在欧洲、我们有时差所以错过了这件事，我真的想先看我哥哥的 po'boy 三明治照片吗？还是想先看我妹妹的动态？

So it's tough. It's tough. I'd love to figure out a way to find the right balance. I want to give people agency over the experience, but I think it needs to be in a way that creates a system that makes sense. Not just for us as a business, which matters. I'm not pretending that's not an issue, but also for the overall community, because we've done chronological by default, or you can make a default, and you see not only does usage go down, overall sentiment goes down. The individual who made that choice might be happy at the moment, but when you just get pummeled with stuff you're less interested in over the course of months, we ask, we run surveys and massive scales. We just se people start to become less and less satisfied with Instagram.

所以这很难。确实很难。我很想找到一种办法，取得合适的平衡。我希望让人们能够掌控自己的体验，但我认为方式应该是建立一个讲得通的系统。不只是为了我们作为一家企业的利益——这当然很重要。我并不是假装这不是一个问题，但也要考虑整个社区，因为我们默认采用按时间顺序排列的方式，或者你可以设置一个默认选项，而你会发现，不仅使用量下降了，整体情绪也变差了。做出这个选择的个人当下可能会很开心，但如果连续几个月不断被大量自己不太感兴趣的内容轰炸，我们会发起调查，也会进行大规模测量。我们只看到，人们开始对 Instagram 越来越不满意。

Kind of along these lines, everybody asks you about this these days, AI and content and how that all impacts everything that's going on. I want to ask you something I haven't seen someone ask you. Is the rise of AI content a headwind or a tailwind for Instagram versus other platforms? Do you think this helps or hurts you guys?

沿着这个话题说，现在大家总会问你 AI、内容，以及这一切如何影响正在发生的事情。我想问你一个我还没见别人问过的问题。AI 内容的兴起，相比其他平台，对 Instagram 来说是逆风还是顺风？你觉得这对你们有帮助还是有害？

I think it's going to be a tailwind, but I think it's going to be a challenge. And not just because it's more content. Obviously, we're an attention-driven business. We're an advertising business. More content means potentially more attention. That's not for free, though. I don't think we're very good at ranking AI content yet. There's great AI content, this crap AI content. You should just see the stuff you're interested in and not any of the stuff you're not interested in.

我认为这会是顺风，但我也认为这会是一个挑战。而且不只是因为内容变多了。显然，我们是一家由注意力驱动的企业。我们是一家广告公司。更多内容意味着潜在的更多注意力。但这并不是免费的。我认为我们目前还不太擅长给 AI 内容排序。有很棒的 AI 内容，也有垃圾 AI 内容。你应该只看到自己感兴趣的内容，而不是那些自己不感兴趣的内容。

But I do think that in a world where ... Or for years now, and I've said this many times, power shifting from institutions to individuals across industries. The easiest example of sports, where players are more relevant than teams now, and that was not the case when I was a kid. In that world, I think it behooves us to invest in individuals and to invest in, specifically, for Instagram and creators. And I mean creators broadly. I don't just mean influencers who are promoting branded content and making native-only videos. I mean, anybody who's using platforms like Instagram to help do what they do. You could be a journalist, you could be an artist, you could be selling scarves you sew. But you're out there, as yourself, creating and sharing content that helps you achieve whatever it is you're trying to do.

但我确实认为，在这样一个世界里……或者说，多年以来，我已经说过很多次了：在各个行业，权力正在从机构转移到个人。体育是最容易理解的例子，现在运动员比球队更重要，而我小时候并不是这样。在这样的世界里，我认为对我们来说，投资个人很有好处，具体到 Instagram，就是投资创作者。而且我说的创作者是广义上的创作者。我不只是指那些推广品牌内容、制作纯原生视频的网红。我指的是任何使用 Instagram 这样的平台来帮助自己完成工作的人。你可以是记者，可以是艺术家，也可以是销售自己缝制的围巾。但你以自己的身份在那里创作并分享内容，帮助自己实现正在努力实现的目标。

So we've been leaning in that direction for many years now. That's been one of our two or three most important audiences for as long as I've been on Instagram. In a world where there's an abundance of synthetic content, I actually think people are going to seek out creativity and authenticity and people more, not less. And I think that will help us. That doesn't mean that we won't have AI content on our platform. There's going to be bad and good AI content, and we're going to try and handle that the way we normally handle content. So unsafe goes away. Interesting versus not interesting is based on ranking and personalization.

所以，多年来我们一直在朝这个方向倾斜。自从我加入 Instagram 以来，这一直是我们最重要的两三个受众群体之一。在一个合成内容泛滥的世界里，我其实认为人们会更多地、而不是更少地寻找创造力、真实感和具体的人。我认为这会帮助我们。这并不意味着我们的平台上不会有 AI 内容。AI 内容会有好有坏，我们会尝试按照平时处理内容的方式来处理它。所以，不安全的内容会被移除。有趣还是无趣，则取决于排序和个性化。

But I think people are going to really seek out other points of view, because Instagram was never just about the content. It was always about, to a certain degree, the person behind the content, the point of view, the reason they're sharing it, their perspective. And I think that's going to become more important, not less. And I think given that we are not the best at a lot of things, but we are the largest creator platform. If you look at how we define creators and how many creators use us versus other platforms, I think it'll be a tailwind for us, because I think people are going to seek out people.

但我认为，人们会真正去寻找其他人的观点，因为 Instagram 从来不只是关于内容。它一直在某种程度上关乎内容背后的人、他们的观点、他们分享内容的原因，以及他们的视角。我认为这些会变得更加重要，而不是不那么重要。而且，鉴于我们在很多事情上都不是最优秀的，但我们是最大的创作者平台。如果你看看我们如何定义创作者，以及有多少创作者在使用我们、相比之下有多少人在使用其他平台，我认为这对我们来说会是顺风，因为我认为人们会去寻找具体的人。

And this connects to your earlier point that companies like, say, New York Times can pump out a bunch of AI content versus a creator. And so you're saying you kind of want to protect against that too, allow individuals to continue to perform well in spite of just all this AI content.

这也联系到你前面说的那一点：像《纽约时报》这样的公司可以批量产出大量 AI 内容，而创作者则不同。所以你的意思是，你们也希望防范这种情况，让个人即使面对铺天盖地的 AI 内容，也能继续取得良好表现。

If you just love AI content, great. You should be able to have a feed that's just AI town. And if you don't, then you shouldn't have it in your feed. To me, it's like ... I don't think we should ... I understand why people are. I'm not oblivious to the overall paradigm shift and sort of revolution that we're sitting in. But I don't think we should judge content based on the tool that made it. I think we should judge it based on the content, the point of view, the person behind the content. I don't think we should filter out AI content. I think we should let you know if content is AI content or not. I think we should let you know more about the person who posted anything, so that you can make informed decisions about whether or not to believe or trust them based on knowing who they are, or where they are, or how many times they've changed their profile, or if their profile's three days old or three years old. But I don't think we should be making value judgements based on what tool you used.

如果你就是喜欢 AI 内容，那很好。你应该能够拥有一个全是 AI 小镇的信息流。如果你不喜欢，那它就不应该出现在你的信息流里。对我来说，这就像……我不认为我们应该……我理解人们为什么会这么做。我并没有忽视我们正处于一场整体范式转变和某种革命之中。但我不认为我们应该根据制作内容所使用的工具来评判内容。我认为我们应该根据内容本身、观点，以及内容背后的人来评判它。我不认为我们应该过滤掉 AI 内容。我认为我们应该让你知道某条内容是不是 AI 内容。我认为我们还应该让你更多地了解发布任何内容的人，这样你就能根据对他们是谁、他们在哪里、他们改过多少次个人资料、他们的个人资料是三天前创建的还是三年前创建的这些信息，做出是否相信或信任他们的明智决定。但我不认为我们应该根据你使用了什么工具来做价值判断。

Is there an AI content creator you love that you're just like, "This is so good. I love watching these AI videos."

有没有哪个 AI 内容创作者是你特别喜欢的，会让你觉得：“这太棒了。我喜欢看这些 AI 视频。”

Yeah. What is she called? Plastic Dream Sequence. Is that what it is?

有。她叫什么来着？Plastic Dream Sequence。是这个名字吗？

Cool. [inaudible 00:45:12] check it out.

酷。[听不清 00:45:12] 去看看。

Check it out, yeah. Plastic Dream Sequence. I have it on my phone. I'll double check. It's these sort of dolls, Barbies, but they're singing songs in these little tiny silhouettes and snippets. And it's just amazing. It's a little weird, but also kind of amazing. And it's very clearly AI, it's not pretending not to be, but it has a very clear creative and aesthetic point of view. And every time I come by one, I'm like, "Yep, we're doing this now." I'm going to watch this for 30 seconds.

去看看，是的。Plastic Dream Sequence。我手机里有。我再确认一下。里面是一些类似玩偶、芭比娃娃的东西，但它们在这些很小的剪影和片段里唱歌。真的很惊艳。有一点怪，但也非常惊艳。而且很明显是 AI 做的，并没有假装不是 AI，但它有非常明确的创意和审美视角。每次我刷到其中一个时，都会想：“好，我们现在开始做这个了。”我要看 30 秒。

I have it pulled up here, and I want to watch it, but I'm not going to. That's awesome.

我已经在这里打开了，很想看，但我不会看的。太棒了。

Ifonly.ai, that's another one. He's in France. I think he's in Paris. He uses multiple different tools and models, but he kind of tries to create these dreamscapes and animate them. So he uses one model to create the image, another one to create the video, music, et cetera. He's very clearly got his own aesthetic. And you could think of him as a painter, but this is his tool.

Ifonly.ai，这是另一个。他在法国。我想他在巴黎。他使用多种不同的工具和模型，但他会尝试创造这些梦境般的景观，并让它们动起来。所以他用一个模型来生成图像，另一个模型来生成视频、音乐等等。他显然有自己的审美。你可以把他看成一个画家，只不过这就是他的工具。

Is there a vision of AI versus human in the feed? Do you think it'll... You said you maybe want to mark it. How do you think about people? Are they going to be like AI account, not AI count? How do you think about it, or is that still kind of a work in progress?

信息流里会不会出现 AI 与人类的区分？你觉得它会……你说过你可能想给它做标记。你怎么看待人们？他们会不会被标记为 AI 账号，而不是 AI count？你是怎么想的，还是说这仍然在探索中？

Maybe we'll end up in the same place, but there's a difference between marking content and marking accounts, and they're both useful and interesting. So if content was created with AI, I think you should be able to know that. That's hard, by the way, because we can detect that right now, but as these models get better, we might lose the ability to detect that. So we should also be very careful to be honest with you about how confident we are in our own sort of assessment.

也许最后我们会走到同一个地方，但给内容做标记和给账号做标记是两回事，而且两者都很有用、很有意思。如果内容是用 AI 创作的，我认为你应该能够知道这一点。不过这很难，顺便说一句，因为我们现在还能检测出来，但随着这些模型越来越强，我们可能会失去检测能力。所以我们也应该非常谨慎，诚实地告诉你，我们对自己的这种评估有多大把握。

But I think you should be able to just ask, be like, "Hey, is this AI?" And we should be able to tell you who we think it probably is, or we're not sure, or it's definitely not, or it definitely is. I actually think we might be more practical to label camera captured content, basically non-AI content as opposed to labeling AI content long-term for a couple of reasons.

但我认为，你应该能够直接问：“嘿，这是 AI 吗？”然后我们应该能够告诉你，我们认为它可能是 AI、我们不确定、它肯定不是，或者它肯定是。实际上，从长期来看，我们也许更适合给相机拍摄的内容，也就是非 AI 内容做标记，而不是给 AI 内容做标记，原因有几个。

But then at the account level, I think it also matters. There's definitely a new spam vector, which is these fake accounts. Which by the way, an AI creator, that's fine. There's nothing wrong with that necessarily. But there are these spam vectors which are trying to abuse that, and they're selling bogus supplements, and it's like an AI monk, and it doesn't present it, and it's not obvious that it's an AI, and it's just trying to take advantage of a certain aesthetic or a certain sort of stereotype. We need to figure out how to crack down on that. And so I do think we should be making sure that you know. Basically you just need to know, and then you can make your own informed decision. Is the account a real person or not? Is the content a real piece of content or not?

但在账号层面，我认为这同样重要。确实出现了一种新的垃圾信息路径，就是这些虚假账号。顺便说一句，AI 创作者本身没问题，未必有什么不对。但现在有一些垃圾信息路径在试图滥用这一点：它们销售虚假的补充剂，账号看起来像一个 AI 僧侣，却不说明这一点，也明显看不出它是 AI，只是试图利用某种审美或某种刻板印象。我们需要想办法打击这种行为。所以我确实认为，我们应该确保你知道这些信息。基本上，你只需要知道，然后就可以自行做出明智决定。这个账号是真人还是不是？这条内容是真实内容还是不是？

When you think about other platforms in the space, social content platforms, are there any features or ways of approaching stuff that they do well, that you're kind of jealous of or really impressed by?

当你想到这个领域里的其他平台、社交内容平台时，有没有哪些功能或做法是它们做得很好，让你有点羡慕或非常佩服的？

Yeah, there's a bunch. So many people do so much. I mean, for me, one of the things that we are finally catching up with, but I've been always very impressed with is TikTok and their recommenders' ability to break small talent. In the world of ranking and recommenders, you can talk about exploitation-based ranking. That sounds terrible, but it just means using the data you have. And then you can talk about exploration-based ranking, going and trying to figure out what someone might be interested in, that they might even not know they're interested in yet. And it is much easier to move engagement by showing people stuff that you know they'll probably like because lots of people like it. It's much harder to go and figure out how to essentially test content so that we can see, "Hey, sure you like Bieber, but you might also like Afropunk. And so we're just going to show you some Afropunk and see what happens."

有，很多。很多人做了很多事情。对我来说，其中一件我们终于开始追上的事情，也是我一直非常佩服的，就是 TikTok 及其推荐系统挖掘小众人才的能力。在排序和推荐系统的世界里，你可以谈基于利用的排序。听起来很糟糕，但它只是意味着使用你已有的数据。然后你也可以谈基于探索的排序：去尝试弄清楚某个人可能会对什么感兴趣，甚至是他们自己还不知道会感兴趣的东西。而通过展示你知道人们可能会喜欢的内容来推动互动要容易得多，因为很多人已经喜欢它。真正去弄清楚如何测试内容则要难得多，这样我们才能看到：“嘿，你当然喜欢 Bieber，但你可能也会喜欢 Afropunk。所以我们就给你展示一些 Afropunk，看看会发生什么。”

If you do the latter, this exploration-based ranking, I think it's really good for niche creators and small creators, because you give them a chance to find an audience that either wasn't going to see on them before or didn't even know that they were interested before. So we've invested a lot over the last couple of years in ranking, not just increasing engagement, but increasing originality, increasing the number of pieces of content that break out, increasing recency to stay culturally relevant. And so a lot of that has been inspired by TikTok and ByteDance.

如果你采用后者，也就是基于探索的排序，我认为这对小众创作者和小型创作者非常有好处，因为你给了他们一个机会，让他们找到原本不会看到他们的受众，或者让那些甚至不知道自己会感兴趣的人发现他们。所以过去几年里，我们在排序方面投入了很多，不只是提高互动，还包括提高原创性、增加能够脱颖而出的内容数量，以及提高新鲜度，从而保持文化相关性。所以，其中很多工作都受到了 TikTok 和 ByteDance 的启发。

I think we're catching up. There's actually a couple of those areas where we, I think, by best we can tell, we're ahead of them. There's a couple where we're still behind. But we have line of sight to, I think, being the best-in-class at recommendations for the first time during my tenure. So I think they get a lot of credit for inspiring a lot of that work.

我认为我们正在追上来。实际上，据我们目前所能判断的情况，在其中几个领域我们已经领先于他们。有几个领域我们仍然落后。但我们已经看得到，在我任职期间，我们第一次有望成为推荐领域的行业最佳。所以我认为，他们应该获得很多赞誉，因为他们启发了我们开展大量这类工作。

Nice job.

干得漂亮。

Well, we'll see. Not there yet. They call me disappointed dad. My team is always like, "Can you ease up on the disappointed dad vibe?" So I'm trying to be a little bit more generous about giving people their flowers.

嗯，我们走着瞧。还没到那个程度。他们叫我“失望的爸爸”。我的团队总是说：“你能不能收一收那种失望爸爸的气场？”所以我在努力更慷慨一点，学会给别人送上鲜花。

Like you say that, but that's an interesting common thread across really successful leaders, is just never being satisfied. Always feeling-

就像你说的，这其实是那些真正成功的领导者之间一个很有意思的共同点：永远不会满足。总是觉得——

Yeah, it's a blessing and a curse.

是的，这既是祝福，也是诅咒。

... here's all the problem. It is. Yeah.

……这里面全是问题。确实。是啊。

On this creator piece, I think that's also ... People complain about this global algorithm not showing them all their friends, but I feel like this is a benefit of what happens when you do this, now that you can break new creators into a wide audience if you have this kind of global algorithmic feed, which is really great for a lot of people.

说到创作者这件事，我认为这也是……人们会抱怨这个全球算法没有把他们所有朋友的内容都展示出来，但我觉得这正是采用这种做法的一个好处：现在，如果你有这样一个全球性的算法信息流，就能把新的创作者推送给广泛的受众，这对很多人来说真的很棒。

I mean, I'm out there talking about a lot of these contentious issues, and I get beat up a lot in the comments, which is fine. My main thing here is just to try to communicate that there's almost always trade-offs. You can't just have all of the things, unfortunately. You want to never see something you're not interested in, then you're also just going to see the most basic, general, lowest-common denominator stuff all the time. You want to discover new and interesting things? You're occasionally going to see stuff that was just a miss. But this isn't just true about ranking. All these major debates have trade-offs. Privacy and safety. Those two things are in contention. Do you want a company scanning your messages or not? There's some really significant trade-offs on both sides of that debate.

我的意思是，我一直在公开谈论很多有争议的问题，也经常在评论区被围攻，这没关系。我在这里最主要想传达的就是，几乎所有事情都存在取舍。很遗憾，你不可能把所有东西都同时拥有。你想永远看不到自己不感兴趣的内容，那你也会一直只看到最基础、最普遍、最符合最低共同标准的东西。你想发现新鲜有趣的事物？那你偶尔就会看到一些完全没对上的内容。但这不只是排序的问题。所有这些重大争论都存在取舍。隐私和安全，这两者彼此冲突。你希望一家公司扫描你的消息，还是不希望？这场争论的双方都存在非常重大的取舍。

And so generally speaking, when I argue and engage in debate with people who feel really strongly about things, I'm not usually trying to convince them. Their mind is usually made up. I'm just trying to enumerate all of the different puts and takes for the rest of the people watching the conversation.

所以一般来说，当我和那些对某些事情有强烈看法的人争论、参与辩论时，我通常不是想说服他们。他们通常早已下定决心。我只是想为那些旁观这场对话的其他人，列举出所有不同的利弊和取舍。

Speaking of getting torn apart in the comments, you are so in the middle and thick of all of these really hairy situations, changing the feed, you were in the Cambridge Analytica lawsuit, all this. You're in the center of so much controversy. Is that ... You're like, "Yep." Oh, man. Is that just like you, "I will lean into this. This is the thing I need to do." Or is it Zuck being like, "Adam, you got to be the front face of all the stuff, and get in there." Where does that come from?

说到在评论区被撕得粉碎，你一直身处这些非常棘手的情况之中，改变信息流，你还参与了 Cambridge Analytica 诉讼，所有这些。你处在如此多争议的中心。这是……你就像是在说：“没错。”天啊。这只是因为你觉得：“我就要迎难而上。这是我需要做的事。”还是 Zuck 对你说：“Adam，你得站到所有这些事情的最前面，亲自参与进去。”这到底是怎么来的？

It started on newsfeed. So I used to run newsfeed on Facebook, and my take was that the debate was going to happen with or without us, so we might as well participate. And so I started being really active on Twitter specifically, because that's where journalists really lived at the time, and I thought it would show some humility to show up on their turf, so to speak. My Twitter ended up being the darkest place in my life because I just followed all of our biggest critics. That's not a dig on Twitter. That was just what I did. And that's where it started, and it kind of slowly built from there.

这件事始于新闻推送。过去我负责 Facebook 的新闻推送，我的看法是，无论有没有我们，这场争论都会发生，所以我们不如参与其中。因此我开始特别活跃地使用 Twitter，因为那时候记者们主要都活跃在那里，而且我认为，出现在他们的地盘上，可以表现出某种谦逊。结果 Twitter 成了我一生中最黑暗的地方，因为我关注的全是我们最大的批评者。这不是在挖苦 Twitter。那只是我当时的做法。事情就是从那里开始的，然后慢慢发展成了现在这样。

For better or for worse, we've become a really important part of daily life for a lot of people. We touch a lot of people, we have a lot of responsibility, and there's a lot of change. And with change means there's going to be anxiety and stress and scrutiny. We've made great decisions, we've made mistakes. We've been criticized for things that I think ... We've been criticized unfairly, we've been criticized fairly. And so we just need to accept that this debate is going to happen broadly. So I just think it's better for us to talk about it, and just be clear about what we're doing, why we're doing it, what the trade-offs are. If people disagree, that's okay. We're not necessarily winning over friends when we talk about what we do. But I think over the long run, people are fundamentally more afraid of things that they don't understand and about things where people are more secretive and less accessible.

不管是好是坏，对于很多人来说，我们已经成为日常生活中非常重要的一部分。我们触及了很多人，也承担着很多责任，而变化也很多。变化意味着焦虑、压力和审视都会随之而来。我们做出过很棒的决定，也犯过错误。我认为，我们曾因一些事情受到批评……有些批评并不公平，有些批评则很公平。所以我们只需要接受，这场辩论会广泛发生。我只是觉得，对我们来说，谈论这些会更好，并且清楚说明我们在做什么、为什么这么做，以及其中有哪些取舍。如果人们不同意，没关系。当我们谈论自己的所作所为时，不一定能赢得朋友。但我认为，从长远来看，人们从根本上更害怕自己不了解的事物，也更害怕那些更加神秘、更难接触的人或事。

And so I've tried to show up in an accessible and authentic way, and I've made mistakes, and I have enjoyed it at times, and hated it at other times. But that's kind of how it started. There was also a fun debate in Mark's senior leadership team a long time ago, where we were just talking about how we're a social media company, but we had a very sort of conventional approach to communication and press releases, and say, "Why don't we just use our platform?" So I was not in that debate, but I stuck myself into that debate trying to mediate it. But that was also a reason why I ended up getting sucked in because Mark was like, "All right, well, let's see. Why don't you try and see how it goes?"

所以我一直努力以一种容易接近且有真实感的方式出现。我犯过错误，有时我很享受这个过程，有时又很讨厌。但事情大概就是这样开始的。很久以前，Mark 的高级领导团队里还发生过一次有趣的争论。当时我们只是在讨论：我们是一家社交媒体公司，但在沟通和新闻稿方面却采取着一种非常传统的方式，于是有人说：“我们为什么不直接使用自己的平台？”我当时并不在那场争论里，但我主动加入进去，试图从中调解。不过这也是我最终被卷进去的原因之一，因为 Mark 说：“好吧，那我们看看。你为什么不试试看，看看效果如何？”

What's something that helps you deal with the hate that flows at you every time you say something that people disagree with?

每次你说出一些人们不同意的话，都会有仇恨向你涌来。有什么能帮助你应对这些仇恨吗？

You try to put it in perspective. So it started with ... I did the redesign of newsfeed in 2009. We launched it March of 2009 for Facebook. I was a designer, I was an IC designer, front entry-level designer. And the first comment that came in was something pretty derogatory. I think it was homophobic and antisemitic. Literally, we're all sitting there. We launched this thing, and we're just looking at the stream of comments, and it's the first one. And it was specifically about ... They don't know me, but it was like, "What exploitive expletive censor censor designed this shit?" And I was like, "Oh, it was me."

你会试着把这件事放到更大的背景里看。所以事情是从……开始的。我在 2009 年重新设计了动态消息。我们在 2009 年 3 月为 Facebook 上线了它。那时我是设计师，是一名 IC 设计师，前端的初级设计师。进来的第一条评论就相当刻薄。我觉得那条评论既恐同又反犹。真的，当时我们全都坐在那里。我们上线了这个东西，正盯着评论流看，而它就是第一条。具体来说，它是在说……他们不认识我，但大概是：“哪个该死的脏话屏蔽词屏蔽词设计了这坨屎？”我当时想：“哦，是我。”

And I was devastated. I was like a 25-year-old kid. And, I don't know, I thought about it, and I came to this idea that if you spent 30, 40, 50 minutes a day at your desk, and you organized your photos there, and you wrote letters to your friends there, and you read there, and then I just came, and I rearranged your desk, and I didn't tell you, I didn't warn you, I didn't even explain why, you would be pissed, and that would be reasonable. And that was what was happening just with millions of people.

我当时心都碎了。那时我才 25 岁，还是个年轻人。我不知道，我想了想，得出了这样一个想法：如果你每天坐在书桌前 30、40、50 分钟，在那里整理照片、给朋友写信、阅读，然后我突然出现，把你的书桌重新摆了一遍，事先没告诉你、没警告你，甚至没解释为什么，你肯定会很生气，而且这是合理的。数百万人当时经历的就是这种感觉。

So I tried to put things in perspective, and then I tried to step away from it, get time with my kids, get time outside. There are months where it's really not hard at all and there are months where it really, really grinds on me.

所以我试着把事情放到更大的背景里看，然后试着暂时抽离，陪陪孩子，去户外待一会儿。有些月份真的一点都不难熬，但有些月份确实让我非常非常痛苦。

Along those lines, there was a famous kind of reversal when you redesigned the feed into this kind of video scroll-y experience. There's this whole protest. The world protested.

说到这个，当你把信息流重新设计成这种视频滚动式体验时，曾经出现过一次很出名的反转。那简直是一场大抗议。全世界都在抗议。

Yeah, that was pretty rough.

是的，那段时间确实挺难熬。

What was kind of like, "Okay, wow, we're actually not right, and we should go back."? What helped you decide, "Okay, let's change course."?

什么让你产生了这样的想法：“好吧，天哪，我们确实做错了，应该回去？”是什么帮助你决定：“好吧，我们换个方向吧？”

So actually that one, three or four things got conflated. We had to redesign a feed that went to the video viewer. That was a test to 4% of users on iOS. It was not going to roll out. It was just an early test to get us some sense and feedback on the idea. We were also leaning into Reels a lot. We were also leaning into recommendations, so posts from accounts you don't follow, a lot. And there were also creators who were upset about the fact that their reach was going down, and they were blaming ranking changes on that.

其实那次是三四件事混在了一起。我们当时要重新设计一个会进入视频观看器的信息流。那只是针对 iOS 上 4% 用户的一次测试，并不会全面推出。那只是早期测试，想让我们对这个想法有一些感受和反馈。与此同时，我们也在大力发展 Reels，也在大力推进推荐功能，也就是大量展示来自你未关注账户的帖子。还有一些创作者对自己的触达率下降感到不满，他们把这归咎于排名机制的变化。

Those four things got all conflated. We had some pretty big-name creators publicly slap us. Then the press covered that creator sort of backlash, which then got more creators doing it. So we ended up with this little bit of like a multiplier effect or echo between the creator community and the press back and forth. But we were never going to launch that. That was an early test. We knew it needed to work. We actually have continued to grow video, and invest in creative tools, and invest in ranking, and invest in recommendations, and that's driven most of our growth in the years since.

这四件事全都混在了一起。一些知名度很高的创作者公开批评我们。随后媒体报道了创作者的这波反弹，进而引来更多创作者参与。于是，创作者社区和媒体之间来回形成了一点类似乘数效应或回声效应的东西。但我们从来没打算推出那个版本。那只是一次早期测试。我们知道它需要真正奏效。事实上，后来我们一直在发展视频业务、投资创作工具、投资排名机制、投资推荐功能，而这些在此后的几年里推动了我们大部分的增长。

Showed them.

给他们看了。

I think we were pushing ... Well, I don't know. It doesn't feel like ... I think my real takeaway wasn't that we should have not tested that design necessarily. I think we could have done a bunch of things better to explain, and maybe move a little slower. I think we were just pushing things a little bit too fast. And when you are responsible for a platform like Instagram, you need to be reasonable and realistic about how much you can evolve it.

我觉得我们当时在推动……好吧，我也不知道。这并不意味着……我真正的结论并不是说我们不应该测试那个设计。我觉得我们本可以在解释方面做得更好，也许推进得慢一点。我觉得我们当时只是把事情推进得有点太快了。当你负责 Instagram 这样的平台时，就需要合理、现实地判断它能以多快的速度演进。

Now, I would much rather have backlashes like that every couple years, but continue to evolve and continue to stay relevant than the alternative, which would've been like we didn't have video, we didn't have DMs, we didn't have Stories, we didn't have ranking. And we wouldn't be having this podcast right now. But the cost of leaning in is that you're going to occasionally make a mistake and you're going to definitely pay for it.

现在，我宁愿每隔几年就经历一次那样的反弹，但继续演进、继续保持相关性，也不愿选择另一种结果：没有视频、没有私信、没有 Stories、没有排名机制。那样的话，我们现在也不会有这个播客了。但积极投入的代价是，你偶尔会犯错，而且一定会为此付出代价。

It's interesting how running experiments now is very risky for companies at your scale. One person spots it, and I go, "Shit."

有意思的是，如今对你们这种规模的公司来说，进行实验风险很高。一个人发现了它，我就会想：“糟了。”

Kind of need to have a ... You don't need to be proactive about communicating it, but you need to have a comm strategy. For any design change or any test that could be controversial, we talk about it beforehand and be like, "Okay, not if it leaks, when it leaks, what are we saying? Should we talk about it proactively? Should we talk about it reactively? Either way, what's the message?" Because you can't launch something to three billion people and not test it first, but you can't test something at our scale and not expect people to cover it. And so you have to be ready to talk about it before you even know you want to launch it. So it makes the development cycle more complicated than it used to be.

某种程度上，你需要有一个……你不必主动去沟通它，但你需要有一套沟通策略。对于任何可能引发争议的设计改动或测试，我们都会提前讨论，像这样：“好吧，不是如果它泄露，而是当它泄露时，我们要说什么？我们应该主动谈起它，还是等别人问了再回应？无论哪种方式，信息是什么？”因为你不可能把一个东西直接上线给 30 亿人而不先测试，但以我们的规模，你也不可能测试某个东西却不期待人们报道它。所以，在你甚至还不知道自己是否想推出它之前，就必须准备好怎么谈论它。这让开发周期变得比过去复杂了。

Yeah. The head of growth at Anthropic launched an experiment with pricing, and it just went crazy on Twitter. He's like, "It's rolled out to 1% of people. We're just [inaudible 01:00:02]." They're like, "No, Anthropic. Come on."

是的。Anthropic 的增长负责人做了一个定价实验，结果在 Twitter 上彻底炸开了。他说：“它只向 1% 的用户推出了。我们只是[听不清 01:00:02]。”他们却说：“不，Anthropic，拜托。”

Pricing particularly, that one is a real ... You got to be real careful with that one. We've all learned these lessons. We should all share notes more, that's what I think.

尤其是定价，这个确实……对定价一定要非常小心。我们都从这些事情中吸取了教训。我觉得我们都应该更多地交流经验。

"Here's not what to do." How to avoid the internet hating you for the day.

“这就是不要做什么。”如何避免让整个互联网恨你一天。

Yeah. I'm happy to talk to that [inaudible 01:00:18] in Anthropic.

是的，我很乐意和 Anthropic 的那位[听不清 01:00:18]聊聊这件事。

I think he's all right. He's all right.

我觉得他没事。他没事。

Okay, I'm going to take us to two recurring corners on the podcast, Fail Corner and Hot Seat Corner. Fail Corner, what's something that you worked on that was just a huge failure that helped you become better?

好，我要带你进入播客里两个固定环节：失败角和拷问席。先说失败角：你做过的、彻底失败但帮助你变得更好的事情是什么？

Oh, a bunch.

哦，有很多。

So many.

太多了。

So I'll give you two maybe. So before Instagram, my first project as a PM was on a project called Facebook Home, which was a sort of fork of Android at the operating system level-

那我也许讲两个。Instagram 之前，我作为产品经理做的第一个项目，是一个叫 Facebook Home 的项目。它算是在操作系统层面对 Android 做的一个分支——

I remember that.

我记得那个。

... and a piece of hardware with HTC. It was a spectacular failure. I learned way more in that year, year and a half than I did in any year, I think, probably in my career, because I was just a design manager before that. I declared myself a PM because the PM on the project quit, and I just threw myself headfirst in understanding carriers and OEMs and certification, as well as Android and operating systems, and just learned a ton. And I'm happy I brought that project to an end, because it had been going on for a long time. And sometimes, the best thing you can do is execute an idea that doesn't have market fit well, just to decide whether or not the idea was a good idea in the first place.

……以及和 HTC 合作打造的一款硬件。这是一次彻底的失败。在那一年、一年半里，我学到的东西比我职业生涯中的任何一年都多，我觉得大概是这样，因为在那之前我只是一个设计经理。项目上的产品经理辞职后，我就宣布自己是产品经理，然后一头扎进运营商、OEM 厂商和认证流程的学习中，同时学习 Android 和操作系统，学到了海量东西。我很庆幸自己让那个项目走到了终点，因为它已经持续了很长时间。有时候，你能做的最好一件事，就是把一个明显没有市场契合度的想法执行出来，好决定这个想法一开始到底是不是个好想法。

Another big mistake I made during my Instagram tenure was the first version of Reels was built on top of Stories. Stories had a ton of momentum. This was, I think, 2019, and we were trying to build Reels into Stories because we were trying to build in the thing that was growing the fastest. But it was not a strong foundation. The read-through rate on stories is relatively low. There's way more stories than most people have time to consume.

我在 Instagram 任职期间犯的另一个大错误，是 Reels 的第一个版本建立在 Stories 之上。Stories 当时势头很猛。那应该是 2019 年，我们试图把 Reels 构建在 Stories 里，因为我们想依托增长最快的那个东西。但它并不是一个坚实的基础。Stories 的阅读完成率相对较低。Stories 的数量远远超过大多数人有时间消费的量。

So most of the Reels were never seen, and then they disappeared. And if we had the version of Reels that we launched in, I think it was the summer of 2020, in the summer of 2019 ... I think TikTok is still big and important, but I don't think it's as big as it is now, because when they really took off was when the pandemic hit, and a bunch of people had a lot of time at home, and we're looking for a little bit of joy, and we're totally fine with our phone having sound on.

所以大多数 Reels 根本没人看到，之后就消失了。如果我们在 2019 年夏天就拥有了后来推出的 Reels 版本——我记得那是在 2020 年夏天推出的——我觉得 TikTok 仍然会很大、很重要，但我不认为它会像现在这么大，因为它真正腾飞是在疫情来袭之后，那时很多人有大量时间待在家里，想找一点快乐，而且完全不介意把手机声音打开。

And so if you look at the numbers, 2020 is when they exploded, and we were out of position. And on one hand, I'm a designer, I'm trying to not add new things to the product. I'm trying to extend existing primitives, and that was the idea. On the other hand, I was wrong. And it's a pretty big fork on the road if you just look at the overall business over the last eight years.

所以如果你看数据，2020 年就是他们爆发的一年，而我们当时错失了位置。一方面，我是设计师，努力不往产品里添加新东西。我想扩展已有的基础组件，这就是当时的想法。另一方面，我错了。如果只看过去八年的整体业务，这确实是一个相当大的岔路口。

You created a lot of economic opportunity in the world, allowing TikTok to grow.

你创造了大量经济机会，让 TikTok 得以发展壮大。

Yeah, it's good. I'm glad they exist.

是的，这挺好的。我很高兴它存在。

Okay, final question. I'm curious just about your screen time policy with your kids. I know you have three kids. There's a lot of concern these days about Instagram not being great for people, not for kids. A lot of tech executives don't let their kids use devices while they're building the product. As head of Instagram, how do you think about screen time with your kids?

好，最后一个问题。我只是好奇，你对孩子的屏幕使用时间有什么规定。我知道你有三个孩子。如今很多人担心 Instagram 对人们、尤其是孩子来说不太好。很多科技高管在打造产品时，不让自己的孩子使用设备。作为 Instagram 的负责人，你怎么看待孩子的屏幕使用时间？

The key thing for me is boundaries. It's also about education and having conversations with them. But my kids are too young to use social media. They're 10, 8, and 6. But they each have an iPad. They have to earn their time. So they have different ways they earn their time. It's usually about sitting down to do your homework. Three times for half an hour each gets you a total of 90 minutes on the weekend, and then they can use that time on the weekend. But you kind of have to set that boundary, where it can't just be they ask for it, and you give it to them. I think that matters a lot. And then I'm pretty opinionated about what they do on it. I approve what apps that they have. I think parents should be approving what apps kids specifically are downloading onto their devices. We've been advocating for this at a policy level for a long time at Meta. I think those things help a lot.

对我来说，关键是边界。这也关乎教育，以及和他们进行交流。但我的孩子还太小，不能使用社交媒体。他们分别是 10 岁、8 岁和 6 岁。不过他们每个人都有一台 iPad。他们必须通过努力来赢得使用时间。他们有不同的方式来赚取时间。通常就是坐下来做作业。每次半小时，一共三次，这样周末就能获得总计 90 分钟，然后他们可以在周末使用这段时间。但你得设定这样的边界：不能只是他们提出要求，你就把设备给他们。我觉得这一点非常重要。而且他们在设备上做什么，我有相当明确的看法。他们能使用哪些应用，要经过我的批准。我认为，孩子具体要下载到设备上的应用，父母应该进行审核。很长时间以来，我们在 Meta 的政策层面一直倡导这一点。我觉得这些做法帮助很大。

There are some exceptions. One is planes. It's just about surviving. I don't know if you've ever ... For those of you who are parents-

也有一些例外。其中一个是坐飞机。那纯粹是为了活下来。我不知道你有没有经历过……对于那些当父母的人来说——

I'm going to be, yeah.

我以后会的，是的。

Yeah, that's just like, "All right." It's a 10-hour flight or 8-hour flight. It's like, yeah, you just need to get through it.

是的，那时候就是：“好吧。”这是 10 个小时或 8 个小时的航班。你会想，是的，你只需要熬过去。

The other one that I'm starting to experiment with my 10-year-old with is ... So schools are interesting because I think I'm pretty supportive of a no phone in classrooms that's happening more and more. I think that's just probably good for education. And I do also know, in the world of AI, that there's concern about kids using AI and not learning critical thinking skills, and I think that's a valid concern. But I also am worried about kids not learning how to leverage AI and then being sort of at a disadvantage. So that's a balance. I think you need both.

另一个我开始和我 10 岁的孩子尝试的事情是……学校是个有意思的话题，因为我相当支持越来越多学校正在实施的课堂禁用手机政策。我觉得这对教育大概是有好处的。而且我也知道，在 AI 的世界里，人们担心孩子使用 AI 后就不学习批判性思维技能，我认为这种担忧是合理的。但我也担心孩子不学习如何利用 AI，之后会处于某种劣势。所以这是一种平衡。我认为两者都需要。

So with my eldest, we started vibe coding recently together. He just loves video games. So I was like, "All right, let's make a video game." And so he's made this 19-level platformer game that kind of looks like an eight bit version of Super Mario from when I was a kid. But each level has its own theme, its own types of monsters. There's a store where you can buy different skins or weapons. And it's unbelievable what a 10-year-old who still types with three fingers can do with just a couple hours of sitting together. But that is more of a, "I want you to learn how to make things. I want you to be thinking, not just playing games. And I'm going to sit with you, and we're going to do this together."

所以，最近我开始和我的大儿子一起进行氛围编程。他特别喜欢电子游戏。所以我就说：“好吧，我们来做一款电子游戏。”于是他做出了这款有 19 个关卡的平台跳跃游戏，看起来有点像我小时候玩的《超级马里奥》的 8 位版本。但每个关卡都有自己的主题，也有自己类型的怪物。游戏里还有一家商店，你可以在那里购买不同的皮肤或武器。一个还在用三根手指打字的 10 岁孩子，只要和他一起坐上几个小时，就能做出这样的东西，简直不可思议。但这更多是在表达：“我想让你学会如何创造东西。我想让你动脑思考，而不只是玩游戏。我要和你一起坐下来，我们一起完成这件事。”

So to me, these are the things that matter, boundaries, scoping it down to the activities you think are healthy for your kid. Every kid is different. But I do think you want your kids to be digitally literate, AI literate, because I think if they're not, they're going to be at a disadvantage. But you also don't want it to be a free for all.

所以对我来说，重要的是这些事情：设定边界，把范围限定在你认为对孩子健康的活动上。每个孩子都不一样。但我确实认为，你希望自己的孩子具备数字素养和 AI 素养，因为我觉得如果他们没有这些素养，就会处于劣势。但你也不希望这变成完全不受约束的自由活动。

This is selfishly useful for me as ... I have a three-year-old, and I'm trying to figure all this stuff out, so this is useful for me to figure out a strategy.

这对我来说也有点自私地实用……我有一个三岁的孩子，正在努力弄明白这一切，所以这对我制定策略很有帮助。

It's a thing. And you're not that far off. You're really just not that far off. It's going to happen in a couple years.

这确实会发生。而且你离那一步并不远。真的，一点都不远。再过几年就会发生。

Vibe coding next year, let's do it.

明年就来做氛围编程吧。

I couldn't believe. I tried to do it six months ago and it just totally didn't work. And then now, with newer models, it's been amazing.

我简直不敢相信。我六个月前试过，当时完全不行。但现在有了更新的模型，效果太惊艳了。

What's their platform of choice? Are they a Claude Code person?

他们选择的平台是什么？他们是 Claude Code 用户吗？

Yeah, my 10-year-old is using Claude Code right now.

是的，我那个 10 岁的孩子现在就在用 Claude Code。

Amazing. Okay.

太棒了。好吧。

But we will see. We'll see how that goes.

不过我们拭目以待吧。看看结果如何。

Adam, I'm going to let you go. Thank you so much for being here. You're just like such a gem of a person. It's just so obvious how clear-

Adam，我要让你先走了。非常感谢你今天来这里。你真是一个非常难得的人。你显然是如此清晰-

Thank you. I appreciate that.

谢谢。我很感激。

... like how authentic you are, and just how deeply you think about everything. So I really appreciate you being here.

……比如说，你是多么真实，还有你对一切事物的思考是多么深入。所以我真的非常感谢你来这里。

Yeah, I appreciate you bringing me on. Been a fan for a long time. It's nice to finally get to have a conversation.

是的，感谢你邀请我来。我已经是你的粉丝很久了。终于有机会和你聊一聊，感觉真不错。

I really appreciate that. I really appreciate that. Let me just ask you this final question I ask everyone, what's a way that listeners can be useful to you?

我真的非常感谢。我真的非常感谢。让我问你最后一个我会问每个人的问题：听众可以怎样帮助你？

I just think ... You don't even have to tell this to other people, but just remember that this world and technology is complicated, and there are almost always trade-offs. And you can totally disagree with the decisions I or we make, but just remember that we are people here trying to make these decisions, just trying to do the best we can. And I actually do invite the criticism and the critique and the feedback. But know that none of these contentious debates are nearly as simple as most people pretend to make them out to be.

我只是觉得……你甚至不必把这件事告诉其他人，但请记住，这个世界和技术都很复杂，而且几乎总是存在取舍。你完全可以不同意我或我们所做的决定，但请记住，我们也是在这里努力做出这些决定的人，只是在尽力做到最好。而且，我确实欢迎批评、质疑和反馈。但要知道，这些有争议的讨论，远没有大多数人装作的那么简单。

Wise words. Adam, thank you so much for being here.

睿智的话。Adam，非常感谢你来这里。

Pleasure. Thank you, Lenny.

我的荣幸。谢谢你，Lenny。

Bye, everyone.

大家再见。

Thank you so much for listening. If you found this valuable, you can subscribe to the show on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or your favorite podcast app. Also, please consider giving us a rating or leaving a review, as that really helps other listeners find the podcast. You can find all past episodes or learn more about the show at lennyspodcast.com. See you in the next episode.

非常感谢你的收听。如果你觉得这个节目有价值，可以在 Apple Podcasts、Spotify 或你最喜欢的播客应用上订阅我们的节目。另外，也请考虑给我们评分或留下评论，因为这真的能帮助其他听众找到这个播客。你可以在 lennyspodcast.com 找到往期所有节目，或进一步了解本节目。我们下一期再见。