特朗普联合国演讲威胁伊朗及AI监管博弈
This Isn’t Your Grandparents’ UN | Big Take
Bloomberg Audio Studios podcasts radio news. I think the two biggest issues have to be the two hot wars. The straight of her moose at the same time Zalinsky was here and going into that meeting the Financial Times had this reporting that when Zalinsky was on the phone with the president, the president just kept saying diesel, diesel, diesel. So it's not just the United States, the whole global economy is feeling the heat of rising energy costs.
彭博音频工作室播客、广播新闻。我认为最大的两个问题必须是两场热战。扎卢日内（Zelenskyy）同时在这里并进入那场会议时，《金融时报》报道称，当扎卢日内与总统通电话时，总统一直说着“柴油、柴油、柴油”。因此，不仅仅是美国，整个全球经济都在感受能源成本上升带来的压力。
That was definitely half of what everyone I think was focused on and the other half was artificial intelligence. I'm David Gera and this is the big take from Bloomberg News. Today on the show, a busy week on the world stage. Bloomberg's Anorie Hordern and Nick Watams join me to make sense of what the United Nations General Assembly and a meeting of Presidents Trump and she reveal about the changing world order. Nick and Emory were chatting on Thursday morning in the the middle of the UN General Assembly and this leader summit that's taking place in in Washington.
那绝对是我认为每个人所关注的一半内容，而另一半则是人工智能。我是大卫·格拉（David Gera），这是来自彭博新闻的《大观点》节目。今天节目中，世界舞台上一周忙碌的事件。彭博社的阿努里·霍登（Anorie Hordern）和尼克·瓦茨（Nick Watams）加入我，来解读联合国大会以及特朗普总统和她的会晤揭示了怎样的世界秩序变化。尼克和埃默里（Emory）在周四上午，即联合国大会和正在华盛顿举行的领导人峰会期间进行了交谈。
Nick, let's start with the UN, which has been around now for more than 80 years, founded with this objective of preventing global wars. Um, at this moment, how well equipped is the UN to do that? I I think what you really saw this week was that it is not at all equipped to deal with these crises. I mean Iran Trump goes to the podium and says he's going to annihilate Iran. I mean he's done that before with North Korea.
尼克，让我们从联合国开始，它已经存在80多年了，成立的目的是防止全球战争。嗯，此时此刻，联合国在应对这些危机方面准备得如何？我认为你本周真正看到的是，它完全不具备处理这些危机的能力。我的意思是，特朗普走上讲台说他将摧毁伊朗。我的意思是，他以前对朝鲜也这样做过。
He threatened fire and fury in his first term. So it's not exactly new for him to go and
他在第一任期内曾威胁要降下“火与怒”。所以，他去发表这种言论对他来说并不新鲜，而且
familiar rhetoric.
是熟悉的修辞手法。
Familiar rhetoric threatening civilizational eraser of another sovereign state from the podium of the UN was definitely a jarring moment. But what you see is an organization that is essentially helpless to play a role. And then I think also in the AI situation, I mean, Antonio Gutire, the outgoing secretary general, had really wanted to make regulating and and putting guard rails on AI as sort of centerpiece of his second 5-year term.
从联合国讲台上威胁要对另一个主权国家进行文明抹除，这确实是一个令人震惊的时刻。但你所看到的是，一个本质上无力发挥作用的组织。然后我认为在人工智能局势中，我的意思是，即将离任的秘书长安东尼奥·古特雷斯（Antonio Guterres）真的希望将监管人工智能并为人工智能设置护栏作为他第二个五年任期的核心重点。
That was really his big vision. And what you saw yesterday and have seen for years now is essentially the US saying, "We're not going to cooperate." You know, Trump said in his speech, you know, this is a globalist scheme. So, you really see the challenge there with Gutter. It essentially means I think that they're not going to be able to do anything on it.
那确实是他宏大的愿景。而你昨天看到的以及多年来看到的情况，本质上是美国表示：“我们不会合作。”你知道，特朗普在他的演讲中说，这是一个全球主义阴谋。所以，你确实看到了古特雷斯面临的挑战。这基本上意味着我认为他们在这方面什么都做不了。
Henry, let's dig into the speech that the president delivered and and let me start just by asking you about the rhetoric that he had toward the UN. He has Mike Waltz as his ambassador here in in New York. What is the level of engagement that the Trump administration has with with the US? How does it think about the body?
亨利，让我们深入探讨总统发表的演讲。首先我想问你关于他对联合国的修辞态度。他任命迈克·沃尔兹为驻纽约的美国大使。特朗普政府与联合国之间的互动程度如何？他们如何看待这个机构？
Well, I think Ambassador Waltz has talked about how they don't want to step away from it, but they want it to function better. They've obviously have held up some funding when it comes to the United Nations. I would also say the president's speech. I think we need to take the president's trip to the UN also in entirety.
嗯，我认为沃尔兹大使曾谈到，他们不希望脱离联合国，但希望其运作得更好。显然，在涉及联合国资金的问题上，他们暂停了一些拨款。我还要补充一点，关于总统的演讲，我认为我们需要将总统访问联合国的整体情况一并考量。
Yes, the rhetoric was incredibly hot about Iran talking about annihilating Iran. At the same time, he did offer, which he normally does, another path. He said potentially we can get to a deal. And at the same time, his mediators met with the Iranians while they were here. So, I think a lot of people were clinging to the fact that it's a lot of bark, but potentially he wants to still have a deal in the end because why would he allow his his own mediator sit down with him?
是的，关于伊朗的言辞非常激烈，提到了要摧毁伊朗。与此同时，他也像往常一样提出了另一条路径。他说有可能达成一项协议。同时，他的调解人在伊朗代表出席期间与他们进行了会面。所以，我认为许多人紧紧抓住的一点是：虽然声势浩大，但他最终可能仍希望达成协议，因为否则他为何会让自己的调解人与对方坐下来谈判呢？
And I think he said the conversations were good, at least to start.
我认为他说这些对话至少从一开始是良好的。
He said they were productive. To me, there are a lot of ways to read those meetings because on the one hand, you could argue essentially president wants this thing sewn up
他说这些对话富有成效。在我看来，对这些会议有多种解读方式，因为一方面，你可以认为总统本质上希望尽快促成此事
ASAP and um he's using the UN and the sort of the fact that everybody's descended on the UN to basically try to shake something loose. It's
尽快（ASAP），并且他利用联合国以及各方纷纷聚集于联合国这一事实，基本上试图推动某些事情取得突破。这
like a forcing mechanism.
就像一种强制机制。
Correct. The challenge there though was that once we got a little bit more detail about what actually happened, it seems like this was basically talks about talks which puts us back in where we've been for months essentially since the ceasefire collapsed. Let's talk a bit more about AI. So it came up in the secretary general's speech that there was this moment on Wednesday when you had the the CEOs of OpenAI Anthropic testifying before the the security council.
正确。然而，其中的挑战在于，一旦我们获得更多关于实际发生情况的细节，似乎这基本上只是‘会谈中的会谈’，使我们回到了自停火破裂以来数月来的状态。让我们再多谈谈人工智能。因此，秘书长在演讲中提到，周三出现了一个时刻，OpenAI和Anthropic的首席执行官们在安理会作证。
Um what are they asking for broadly? How extraordinary was it to have them here in New York doing that?
嗯，他们总体上在要求什么？让他们在纽约进行这样的作证有多么不寻常？
I think it's pretty extraordinary in the sense that they are really trying to make their case, but I also think we should look at it a little bit from a lens of these are also companies that are going to be going public. And at the same time, we learned this week from the Australian government how there was an open AI agent that hacked one of their websites. So, they need to make their case to the public. I think that they understand the risks.
我认为这在某种意义上非常非凡，因为他们确实在努力阐述自己的立场；但我也认为我们应该从另一个角度看待：这些公司即将上市。与此同时，我们本周从澳大利亚政府获悉，有一个开放的 AI 智能体入侵了他们的一个网站。因此，他们需要向公众证明其合理性。我认为他们明白其中的风险。
Now, is that good policy? Because they're about to debut on the market because we've seen in poll after poll there's been a lot of backlash. I also think it was a little bit jarring to me that one of the executives that was making this case decided to zoom in. If you're going to make the case to the international community about potentially how dangerous and the risks of all this are, I feel like you should show up in person. was having them there articulating this need to pace or slow down uh in front of all of these countries was that was that a constructive move?
那么，这是良好的政策吗？因为他们即将在股市亮相，而我们看到多项民调显示存在强烈的反弹情绪。此外，其中一位正在为此辩护的高管选择通过 Zoom 参会，这让我感到有些突兀。如果你要向国际社会说明这一切潜在的危险和风险，我觉得你应该亲自到场。让这些代表在所有国家面前阐述需要放缓或减速的必要性，这是否是一个建设性的举动？
I guess it depends on which side of the ledger you're on. I mean, on the one hand, you could say it underscores just how severe and terrifying this moment is that you have the CEOs of these major AI companies coming to the UN and basically saying like help us keep from hurting the world like save us from ourselves basically. And so you'd think like okay that's that's pretty crazy but then it does feel a lot like a PR move.
我想这取决于你站在哪一边。一方面，你可以说这凸显了这一时刻的严重性和恐怖程度——这些主要 AI 公司的首席执行官来到联合国，基本上是在说：请帮助我们避免伤害世界，或者说，请救我们从自身手中。所以你会想，好吧，这听起来有点疯狂，但它确实感觉很像一次公关操作。
I mean, these are the guys who have created the AI systems that we are now also worried about. So, are we expecting that they're just suddenly going to step back? And then, I mean, listen, I I started covering the UN, I'm embarrassed to say, in 2004. So, I've seen a lot of these meetings and it's a crazy situation where whether it's about AI or the role of children in armed conflict or uh North Korea's nuclear program, you have all these countries, the diplomats come around the table.
我的意思是，正是这些人创造了我们现在也感到担忧的 AI 系统。那么，我们是否期望他们会突然退后一步？另外，听着，我不好意思地说，我从 2004 年开始报道联合国会议。所以我见过很多这类会议，这是一个荒谬的局面：无论是关于人工智能、儿童在武装冲突中的作用，还是朝鲜的核计划，所有这些国家的外交官都围坐在桌旁。
They all talk about what a terrible threat it is, how how terrifying this moment is, and then everybody kind of breaks and goes home and nothing gets done. So, what comes of it? I mean, right now it does. I'm feeling pretty pessimistic as you can probably tell, but um it was at least a sort of clarion call. They had never done this at the UN before to this degree and um it felt like a moment at least
他们都谈论这是一个多么可怕的威胁，这一刻有多么令人恐惧，然后大家各自散去回家，什么也没做成。那么结果如何呢？我的意思是，目前看来确实如此。正如你可能察觉到的，我感到相当悲观，但至少这是一次警钟。他们以前从未在联合国以这种程度做过此类事情，至少感觉那是一个关键时刻。
and I think a lot of leaders besides the United States and China were welcoming of it because I spoke to the Finnish president Alexander Soup and he was saying how I think most countries want to see China and the United States have some sort of framework and the fact that they have a dialogue on a AI is important but I'm not sure with these executives here to Nick's point they give these speeches and then nothing really comes of it.
而且我认为，除了美国和中国的许多领导人对此持欢迎态度，因为我曾与芬兰总统亚历山大·斯托布（Alexander Stubb）交谈过，他表示我认为大多数国家都希望看到中美之间建立某种框架，并且两国就人工智能进行对话这一点很重要。但我不确定在座的这些高管是否像尼克所指出的那样，他们发表演讲后却没有任何实质性的成果。
I think that your point is a really good one. There were foreign ministers and world leaders around this table and the anthropic CEO was doesn't even have the time to hop on a plane. Maybe he had better things to do.
我认为你的观点非常好。在座的有外交部长和世界领导人，而 Anthropic 的首席执行官甚至没有时间来坐一趟飞机。也许他有更重要的事情要做。
No, that's my point. What could be better if you're concerned? And it was his employees that went on Twitter and said there's a
不，这正是我的观点。如果你感到担忧，还有什么比这更糟糕的呢？是他的员工在 Twitter 上发帖说存在一种……
um 10% chance that this can wipe out humanity. And then another employee from Anthropic double down and said actually I agree with you but it's more than 10% and you can't come address world leaders in public in person.
嗯，有 10% 的概率这会毁灭人类。然后另一位来自 Anthropic 的员工进一步强调说，实际上我同意你的观点，但这个概率超过 10%，而且你不能亲自公开向世界各国领导人发表讲话。
It was it was a symbolic moment at the very least.
这至少是一个象征性的时刻。
More for my conversation with Anie and Nick after the break. Let's pull our focus from New York to
稍后我们将继续与安妮和尼克的对话。让我们把焦点从纽约转移到
更进一步：量化金融体系
看懂新闻只是起点——沿量化金融路径，把它变成能交付的工程能力