Reid Hoffman Sees 50% Chance of Trump Retaliation Over Election Support

The Diary Of A CEO

Silicon Valley venture capitalist Reid Hoffman warns that Donald Trump will weaponize federal agencies against political donors while arguing that intense work schedules remain essential for startup survival.

AI-assisted summary of Reid Hoffman, LinkedIn Founder: It’s Time To Quit Your Job When You Feel This! Trump Will Punish Me! — original source. Check the original for full context.

Source published: 2024-12-16

Detailed notes

## Background This video was published on YouTube by The Diary Of A CEO on December 16, 2024. According to the page description, LinkedIn founder and tech investor Reid Hoffman sits down to discuss his entrepreneurial journey, insights from the 'PayPal Mafia', strategies for hiring and scaling, his political views, and his perspective on the future of AI.

## TL;DR Reid Hoffman shares deep tactical frameworks for startup success, explaining concepts like 'default dead' vs. 'default alive', the 'Marines, Army, Police' model of company growth, and ABZ planning. He reflects on his time building LinkedIn and PayPal, detailing how contrarian bets and high-velocity networks in Silicon Valley shape category-defining businesses. Hoffman also addresses political tensions surrounding Donald Trump, freedom of speech on digital platforms, and why he views AI as 'amplification intelligence' rather than a existential threat. Throughout the conversation, he balances high-stakes business mechanics with personal principles regarding marriage, happiness, and risk-taking.

## Atmosphere & style The episode carries an intellectually rigorous yet remarkably candid and grounded tone, balancing high-level Silicon Valley strategy with vulnerable personal reflections. Host Steven Bartlett and Reid Hoffman engage in a thoughtful, peer-to-peer dialogue that moves seamlessly from intense startup realities to philosophical discussions on AI and politics. Hoffman speaks with a calm, analytical pragmatism, injecting sharp wit and lived wisdom that gives listeners a realistic, unvarnished look into the mind of a billionaire operator.

## Key takeaways - [02:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=122s) Hoffman attributes his career success to an early interest in human behavior, science fiction, strategic games, and being raised near Silicon Valley's talent and capital networks. - [25:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=1533s) Startups should evaluate opportunities using a framework of 'Consensus vs. Contrarian' bets, targeting non-obvious ideas where experts disagree rather than listening to unknowledgeable critics. - [38:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=2334s) Early PayPal alumni formed the 'PayPal Mafia', reinvesting their capital and expertise into early Web 2.0 ventures during the post-dot-com crash when traditional VCs avoided consumer internet. - [42:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=2529s) Founders must prioritize hiring high-learning-curve talent ('A players') and spend up to a third of their time on recruitment, utilizing off-reference calls to uncover genuine weaknesses. - [59:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=3557s) Startups are inherently 'default dead', requiring extreme work intensity and long hours, making conventional work-life balance incompatible with competitive early-stage growth. - [01:08:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=4095s) Hoffman stepped down as LinkedIn's CEO after four years after recognizing his core strengths lay in zero-to-one company scaling rather than large-scale enterprise governance. - [01:13:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=4423s) Despite facing potential political retaliation or audits for supporting left-leaning candidates, Hoffman refuses to remain silent or leave the U.S., believing high-net-worth individuals have a responsibility to speak out. - [01:21:59](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=4919s) Social platforms must distinguish 'freedom of speech' from 'freedom of reach' to avoid algorithmically amplifying toxic and unverified claims across public networks. - [01:40:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=6025s) AI should be viewed as 'amplification intelligence' that enhances human cognitive abilities rather than replacing them, presenting a massive multi-decade technology shift. - [01:43:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=6238s) Voluntarily pausing or slowing down AI development in democratic nations risks handing geopolitical and strategic advantages to non-benevolent global actors. - [01:51:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=6668s) To effectively learn AI, individuals and founders should integrate AI models directly into specific, practical daily workflows and experiment with custom personas rather than trivial exercises. - [02:01:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=7267s) OpenAI's breakthrough was driven by early recognition that scaling compute capacity was the essential key to unlocking transformer-based AI systems. - [02:10:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=7816s) Career strategy should follow 'The Start-Up of You' principles, building soft assets (skills, knowledge, networks) and ABZ planning before taking high-risk passion bets. - [02:21:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=8468s) Blitzscaling trades operational efficiency for extreme speed to dominate winner-take-all global markets where market leadership secures the vast majority of category value. - [02:43:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=9782s) Maintaining deep personal relationships and co-founding companies with close friends requires proactive communication, radical transparency, and managing distinct work-life boundaries.

## Detailed walkthrough Here is a detailed walkthrough of this portion of the transcript:

### [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=0s) Intro The conversation opens on an intense, high-stakes political topic: direct threats made by Donald Trump toward individuals who supported Kamala Harris, with Reid Hoffman acknowledging the potential personal and political retaliation he might face. Despite the direct pressure, Hoffman confirms he has no plans to leave the United States.

The episode preview highlights Hoffman’s extraordinary background as the co-founder of LinkedIn and an essential member of the legendary "PayPal Mafia" alongside figures like Elon Musk and Peter Thiel. The host previews core topics covered in the interview, including: * The key factors of a winning entrepreneurial mindset * Knowing when to quit a job and navigating work-life balance * Practical advice for building wealth * The transformative power of AI—which Hoffman compares to electricity in its mix of essential utility and inherent risk * Strategies for average people to capitalize on emerging technological opportunities

---

### [02:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=122s) How Have You Managed to Be So Successful? Host Steven Bartlett asks how a single individual could play a pivotal role in so many world-changing companies (PayPal, LinkedIn, Airbnb, Facebook, OpenAI) and consistently foresee the future. Hoffman responds with modesty, noting he has never been asked that exact question before. He credits his trajectory to a lifelong passion for exploring human nature and societal direction—an interest sparked at a young age through science fiction literature like Isaac Asimov's *Foundation* series.

Hoffman explains how his upbringing intertwined with strategic thinking. Playing complex board games and tabletop role-playing games like *RuneQuest* from age 10 taught him to approach life, problem-solving, and team dynamics strategically. He recounts a vivid story from when he was 12 years old: knowing the tabletop publisher Chaosium was located near a friend's house, he walked into their offices and started hanging out. To get the kid out of his hair, the chief editor handed him a draft game supplement—specifically *Borderlands*—telling him to take it home. Hoffman obsessively redlined the manuscript over the weekend and returned it on Monday. Impressed by the thoroughness, the editor realized he wanted to use the work. Because copyright required a formal transfer, he wrote 12-year-old Hoffman a check for roughly $160—Hoffman's first official paycheck.

> "I still remember this look of vague irritation when I handed him this because he's like, 'Ah, this kid is handing me this thing... oh, $#*! I don't want to be a meany guy.' And then he started looking at it and went, 'Oh, this is actually good work.'"

* **First Paycheck:** Earned $160 at age 12 for editing Chaosium’s *RuneQuest* supplement, *Borderlands*. * **Parental Reaction:** His father initially opposed fantasy role-playing games, but changed his tune once Reid brought home a paycheck.

---

### [07:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=440s) What Did You Want to Be When You Were Growing Up? Reflecting on his childhood aspirations around ages 12 to 14, Hoffman admits he had no specific career path in mind other than knowing he did *not* want to be a lawyer, despite both of his parents being attorneys. He viewed lawyers as "modern Gladiators" paid to fight verbal battles for whoever signed their paycheck. Instead, Hoffman felt a deep pull toward building and creating things. Rather than adhering to a rigid 30-year plan, he developed a personal operational style of maintaining an iterative two-to-three-year plan that continually evolves.

---

### [08:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=512s) Why Was Being Born in Stanford Hospital So Relevant to Your Story? Hoffman explains that being born in Stanford Hospital placed him right at the epicenter of Silicon Valley—a unique geographical network that acts as a powerful generative engine. He stresses that cities and regions function as high-velocity networks combining talent, capital, knowledge, suppliers, and strategic vision. While many successful founders attribute their triumphs solely to "manifest destiny" or individual brilliance, Hoffman candidly acknowledges the role of pure luck in being immersed in Silicon Valley's environment.

When asked what advice he would give to aspiring entrepreneurs in places like Cape Town, Indonesia, Australia, or New Zealand, Hoffman highlights lessons from his first book, *The Start-up of You* (derived from a commencement speech he gave at his alma mater, The Putney School in Vermont). He cautions against the common advice to simply "follow your passion," noting that passion alone is useless without strategic advantage and market reality.

> "The bad advice you're usually given is 'just follow your passion.' And the problem is... your passion might be very passionate, but do you have a strategic advantage there?"

Hoffman uses global success stories like Daniel Ek (Spotify) and Tobi Lütke (Shopify) to demonstrate how founders outside Silicon Valley can win globally: * **Spotify:** Leveraged a regional footprint in Scandinavia to prove its model to record labels before expanding to the US, where capital and licensing hurdles would have killed it early on. * **Shopify:** Capitalized on Silicon Valley's consensus belief that e-commerce was "over" and entirely owned by Amazon, building a massive platform for small and medium businesses under the radar.

---

### [15:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=913s) Self-Awareness as an Entrepreneur The discussion turns to internal capabilities and market realities. Bartlett admits that as a young entrepreneur starting a social network from his bedroom, he lacked self-awareness regarding competition and geographic advantages. Hoffman emphasizes that while "irrational ambition" is necessary to drive big breakthroughs, high self-awareness and extreme competitive awareness are mandatory to survive. Being blind to your competitive landscape leaves your success entirely to blind luck.

[16:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=1004s) The Competitive Landscape and the Entrepreneurial Framework

While an individual can sometimes be competitively blind and still succeed, a founder or startup leader will almost certainly fail without acute competitive awareness. Silicon Valley investors routinely ask about competition—if an entrepreneur claims they have none, investors usually read it as blind arrogance and walk away.

Not everyone should aspire to be an entrepreneur. Just as not everyone is cut out to be a professional athlete or a globally renowned actor, starting a company requires specific competitive advantages, disposition, and skill sets. A founder must comfortably embrace substantial risk while confronting the stark reality that, by default, a new venture is "default dead." The primary quest is transforming that business into one that is "default alive." Doing so requires initiating a self-reinforcing flywheel between capital, elite talent, and actual business realization—all while building a team from scratch in an environment devoid of the certainty that most workers crave.

- **Capital & Talent Flywheel:** Raising capital, recruiting talent, and achieving go-to-market validation feed directly into one another. - **Corporate vs. Startup Dynamics:** Large company experience often fails to teach founders how to navigate being "default dead," launching small-scale products from scratch, or managing uncertainty.

---

[21:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=1265s) The "Marines, Army, Police" Model and the Infinite Learner

To conceptualize the evolving stages of business strategy, Reid Hoffman uses a military metaphor: **Marines take the beach, the Army takes the country, and the Police govern the country.** In early-stage startups (Seed/Series A), founders act as Marines executing a targeted strategy to secure an initial foothold and basic product-market fit. Winning the entire market requires transitioning into the Army phase to reach massive scale. Finally, protecting and growing that established market position against aggressive late-coming competitors represents the Police phase.

``` [ Marines ] --> [ Army ] --> [ Police ] (Take the Beach) (Win the Country) (Govern & Defend) • Initial Product-Market Fit • Scale & Mass Adoption • Retain Market Share • Focused Foothold • Defeat Large Competitors • Protect Established Dominance ```

Because each stage demands a fundamentally different skill set, entrepreneurs must be "infinite learners." No founder enters on day one mastering sales, engineering, product development, and operations simultaneously. When evaluating founders, Hoffman looks for a balance between stubborn persistence and open-minded flexibility:

> "If they go 'Oh, you're right, I should totally change that,' you're like: okay, you have to have some grit... But on the other hand, if they're not like going 'Oh yeah, if our competitor started doing that, maybe we do this,' you want that combination."

- **Dual-Lensed Focus:** Successful founders navigate contradictory pressures—balancing immediate execution ("right now") with massive long-term vision ("shooting for the moon"). - **ABZ Planning:** Rather than relying solely on a fixed Plan A and Plan B, startups iterate through micro Plan Bs. Major pivots occur when the current iterated plan proves statistically worse than the original strategy. - **Pivot Example:** PayPal originated as an encryption service for cell phones before pivoting to digital payments.

---

[25:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=1533s) Assessing Ideas: Consensus vs. Contrarian Ventures

When founders worry that an idea has already been conceived by someone else, they fail to grasp basic global math. Out of eight billion people, thousands have likely had the same idea; the real differentiator is execution momentum and a willingness to take the risk. Startup ventures broadly fall into two main categories:

> "Even when I was starting LinkedIn... what I would tell the people is, 'Look, we have about a maximum of 20 to 25% chance of being successful... Anyone who's telling you it's 100% now, they're lying to themselves or they're lying to you.'"

---

[29:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=1762s) Real-World Contrarian Bets: LinkedIn and Airbnb

Hoffman illustrates the power of contrarian thinking using two historic examples:

In 2003, conventional wisdom held that LinkedIn would fail. Critics argued that corporate employees—who made up the vast majority of potential users—would never create a public profile because their employers would accuse them of disloyalty or job hunting. Despite unanimous pushback, Hoffman bet on how professional identities would evolve, ultimately transforming how the world networks.

Similarly, when Hoffman presented Airbnb as his first investment at Greylock, his partner David Sze openly challenged the decision at the partner table:

> "Every VC has to have a deal they're going to fail on—Airbnb can be yours."

Sze pointed out severe risks: transaction volume was tiny, staying in strangers' houses felt bizarre, safety risks were real, and hotel lobbies along with city regulators were bound to fight it. Six months later, as Airbnb entered its iconic "hockey stick" growth trajectory, Sze acknowledged Hoffman's foresight. Hoffman explained that while Sze's risk assessments were spot-on, venture capital relies on asymmetrical portfolio upside: an investment like Airbnb could easily go to zero, but if it succeeded, it would reinvent an entire industry.

[33:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=1998s) Embracing Contrarian Ideas and the Early Days of LinkedIn

Reid Hoffman emphasizes that the best ventures—whether as an entrepreneur or an investor—often lie in ideas that appear exceptionally risky to others. When Hoffman pitched his ideas for companies like LinkedIn or early investments like Airbnb, observers routinely saw immense obstacles. Rather than being discouraged, Hoffman viewed this widespread skepticism as a huge strategic advantage. Because others saw those risks and shied away, it gave his team years without competition to build the network and establish the marketplace before anyone else realized the opportunity. Hoffman notes that if everyone agrees a startup pitch is a "great idea," it usually indicates that the concept isn't actually a big idea, or that people are simply being polite.

Crucially, Hoffman looks for ideas where it isn't unknowledgeable people who doubt the concept, but rather *smart* people who believe it will fail. A truly contrarian strategy requires a well-reasoned theory as to why intelligent experts are wrong. When Hoffman was starting LinkedIn, he brought the idea to his brilliant friend John Lilly (who later became CEO of Mozilla). Lilly bluntly told Hoffman that the concept would never work because of a cold-start problem: the first users would find no value in an empty network, so it would fail to gain traction before reaching 500,000 or a million users.

Lilly's sharp critique identified the core challenge LinkedIn had to solve: reaching critical mass. Hoffman reasoned that while 900 out of 1,000 early sign-ups would share Lilly's reaction and bounce, a small subset (10 to 100 curious early adopters) would catch the vision and invite their colleagues. Through persistence and targeting these exploratory users, the platform could gradually build up to critical mass.

When LinkedIn launched in 2003, it was drastically different from modern social platforms. Instead of a fast-paced newsfeed, it operated primarily as a searchable directory of public CVs with messaging functionality. This structure was a deliberate feature rather than a bug; users did not need to stay active continuously for the platform to provide utility. Having a profile online meant users contributed value to the network even if they only returned once every few days via an email notification. This asymmetry allowed LinkedIn to slowly solve the network density puzzle without requiring the constant daily engagement typical of consumer social apps.

- **Contrarian Investment Thesis:** Look for ideas where *smart* people disagree, providing a window of zero competition to establish a market network. - **LinkedIn's Launch Window:** Founded in late 2002 and publicly launched in 2003. - **Cold-Start Strategy:** Counted on the 1% to 10% of curious early adopters to invite colleagues, slowly building density until network effects activated. - **Early Product Architecture:** Public CV directory + search + basic messaging, minimizing the immediate need for a high-frequency newsfeed.

---

[38:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=2334s) The PayPal Mafia and the Genesis of Web 2.0

Turning to his early career, Hoffman addresses the phenomenon of the "PayPal Mafia" (a term he humorously notes lacks charm because they weren't criminals, though he admits the name sounds cool). A strikingly high number of early PayPal team members went on to launch or lead iconic tech giants, including Tesla, YouTube, Reddit, SpaceX, and LinkedIn.

Hoffman attributes this rare concentration of success to three key factors:

1. **Talent Density & Risk Tolerance:** The early team consisted of unusually high-performing individuals who were comfortable taking extreme, contrarian risks against consensus wisdom. 2. **Timing & Liquidity:** PayPal went public in 2002 during a brutal "tech winter"—as one of only two tech companies to IPO that year—and was subsequently acquired by eBay. This provided a tightly knit group of young operators with substantial capital right when the rest of Silicon Valley was retreating. 3. **Contrarian Market Steering:** While traditional venture capitalists abandoned consumer internet investments to pursue clean tech and enterprise software, the PayPal alumni recognized that the early web was merely the initial wave of a massive consumer internet tsunami.

Because traditional VCs refused to take consumer internet meetings during the post-dot-com bust, the PayPal alumni funded each other's ideas. Hoffman coined the term "Internet 2.0" around this time (later popularized by Tim O'Reilly as "Web 2.0"). By talking to one another and bypassing the mainstream consensus, they launched and funded legendary platforms like YouTube and LinkedIn, capitalizing on a total lack of big-institutional competition.

> "These VCs don't get it... the consumer internet, that was just the first wave on the beach, the tsunami is still coming."

---

[42:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=2529s) The Art of Pitching and the "Fast Learning Curve" Hiring Strategy

Hoffman explains that every startup founder must excel at sales. In a startup context, "sales" goes beyond selling a product to customers; it encompasses pitching a vision to recruit top-tier employees, secure investors, and sign strategic partners.

When coaching entrepreneurs on pitching, Hoffman highlights several principles:

* **Avoid Distortion, Frame the Journey:** Do not rely on wild "reality distortion fields" or claim guaranteed success. Instead, present an insanely ambitious vision alongside an honest assessment of the execution risks, explaining clearly how you intend to navigate them. This transparency builds immediate credibility. * **Acknowledge the Competition:** Articulate the specific game being played. Most consumer internet markets function like *Glengarry Glen Ross* markets ("first prize is a Cadillac, second prize is steak knives, third prize is you're fired"), meaning founders must clearly justify why they can win first place. * **Start Conversations Early:** Do not wait until you urgently need capital or hires to reach out. Build relationships long before signing a contract or opening a formal job requisition.

When it comes to hiring, Hoffman shares a crucial lesson he learned from his first venture, SocialNet, and successfully applied at PayPal. At SocialNet, he attempted to follow traditional business school advice by hiring executives with 10+ years of domain experience. He realized this was a mistake for high-growth startups.

Instead, he recommends prioritizing candidates with **two years of experience combined with an "insane learning curve."** At PayPal, very few early employees had deep backgrounds in banking or financial payments. Instead, the company hired adaptable, fast-learning problem solvers who could figure out entirely new industries on the fly. Hoffman argues that founders must spend at least a third of their time actively recruiting this caliber of talent.

- **Glengarry Glen Ross Dynamics:** Winner-take-most markets require pitching why a company will land in first place, not just survive. - **Pitch Mechanics:** Pitching is a dialogue with smart people; explicitly addressing risks creates trust rather than undermining the vision. - **The Ideal Hire:** 2 years of relevant experience + an extreme capacity for rapid, self-directed learning > 10+ years of legacy industry experience. - **Founder Time Allocation:** A founder who is not spending at least **one-third (33%)** of their time on hiring is severely underdelivering.

[49:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=2985s) The Importance of Hiring "A Players" and Off-Balance Reference Calls

Starting out as a young entrepreneur, it is easy to fall into the trap of believing that success depends purely on your own work ethic and the quality of your ideas. Reid Hoffman reflects that when he was 18 or 19 years old, he held this exact view, only realizing the transformative power of exceptional talent when he accidentally hired a truly phenomenal employee. The shift in mindset is profound once a founder realizes the massive, compounding impact that an "A player" brings to an organization. Mark Zuckerberg framed this philosophy effectively by asserting that a founder should only hire people they would gladly work for themselves, as that acts as the ultimate benchmark for high talent.

While young founders often suffer from insecurity—fearing they cannot manage or afford elite talent— Hoffman insists that hiring people who are smarter and more capable than yourself is the fastest path to startup success. In fact, the ideal management strategy for top-tier talent is simply to give them context and "let them loose." When evaluating candidates, Hoffman views references as far more crucial than interviews. While articulate candidates can easily game standard interviews, and introverted technical masterminds might perform poorly in them, true track records reveal actual capability.

To extract truth from reference calls, Hoffman avoids the candidate’s pre-selected list of contacts and instead seeks out "off-balance" references. When speaking to a reference, he uses a specific, tactical prompt designed to strip away performative praise:

> "I believe every person is a combination of strengths and weaknesses, and if you don't give me a weakness, I will believe it's so bad that I should not hire this person."

This framing compels references to reveal genuine limitations rather than canned compliments like "perfectionist" or "works too hard." When a reference provides a subtle flaw, such as becoming disorganized under intense stress, Hoffman takes that feedback to the next reference call to dig deeper and build a complete picture of the candidate.

- **Management Philosophy:** The best management technique for high-caliber talent is minimal intervention ("let them loose"). - **Interviews vs. References:** 10 out of 10 times, off-balance reference checks provide better signal on candidate performance than formal interviews. - **Self-Awareness in Roles:** Hoffman notes that while he excels at creative, strategic problem-solving, he would be "terrible" at running a operationally rigid business like a McDonald's restaurant.

---

[54:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=3285s) Founder Archetypes: Aneel Bhusri vs. Elon Musk's Mars Pitch

Examining the famed "PayPal Mafia" reveals that there is no singular template for an effective leader; entrepreneurs must play to their specific competitive edges. Hoffman contrasts two distinct founder archetypes: Workday co-founder Aneel Bhusri and SpaceX founder Elon Musk. Bhusri represents the highly professional, deliberate, and culture-focused founder. When building Workday, Bhusri personally conducted the final cultural interview for the first 500 employees to ensure total cultural alignment before scaling the company's enterprise HR cloud software.

Elon Musk operates on an entirely different wavelength driven by absolute, unshakeable conviction in monumental visions. Hoffman recalls being the second person Musk ever pitched on founding SpaceX, well before the company existed. Musk’s initial pitch involved sending a turtle to Mars to demonstrate life outside Earth, which later evolved into sending a gelatinous cube containing plant seeds. At the time, Hoffman thought Musk had "gone off his rocker," viewing the concept as an unviable business competing against national governments and heavily subsidized Russian rocket programs. Though Hoffman passed on the equity investment—admitting he was wrong about the venture's viability—Musk's willingness to go all-in against extreme odds showcases a distinct archetype of raw technological conviction.

While Musk pitches every single idea—from Mars colonization to boring tunnels, pneumatic hyperloops, and online banking—with the identical belief that he is "1,000% right," history shows his batting average on massive, transformative ideas is remarkably high, even if his timeline predictions are often mathematically impossible.

- **Aneel Bhusri’s Strategy:** Personally interviewed the first 500 Workday hires for cultural fit to build long-term organizational coherence. - **SpaceX Pitch Evolution:** Shifted from sending a turtle to Mars to launching a seed-bearing gelatinous cube to prove plants could grow on the Red Planet. - **conviction Bias:** Musk pitches every venture—whether Hyperloop, Neuralink, or SpaceX—with absolute, unwavering certainty.

---

[59:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=3557s) Differing Leadership Styles and the Reality of Startup Work-Life Balance

The long-term human footprint left by a founder's leadership style highlights fundamental tradeoffs in how entrepreneurs choose to build organizations. Musk’s high-intensity approach often leaves a wake of burnt-out employees who view him as treating people like "disposable parts." Former Musk employees generally report either that it was the best work experience of their lives but they would never work for him again, or that it was the worst experience of their lives and they would never work for him again. In contrast, Mark Zuckerberg's former executives frequently cite their tenure as the best experience of their lives and express eager willingness to work for him again.

Hoffman intentionally chose a relationship-driven model at LinkedIn, aiming to be referenceable by every founder, employee, and board member he has ever worked with—even those he had to fire. Rather than burning people out for immediate mission output, Hoffman prioritizes lifelong collaborative relationships with founders like Brian Chesky and Mark Pincus.

When discussing work-life balance, Hoffman directly addresses current debates around startup culture. He argues that startups are "by nature dead" unless everyone pushes relentlessly, meaning traditional work-life balance simply does not exist in a competitive venture. In the early days of LinkedIn, where a third of the founding team had families, they created a humane yet rigorous compromise: employees went home to eat dinner with their children, but then opened their laptops to resume work late into the night and on Saturday mornings.

> "The people who think it's toxic don't understand the startup game, and they're just wrong... The game is intense, and by the way, if you don't do that, then eventually you're out of a job."

According to Hoffman, achieving true work-life balance in a young company is impossible unless one of two rare conditions exists: the startup operates in a niche completely devoid of competition, or it possesses an unassailable competitive moat (such as exclusive enterprise contracts) that shields it from rival speed. Because competitors in high-value spaces will gladly work through the night and serve dinner in the office—a practice PayPal pioneered to keep teams co-located—startups that prioritize balance over speed will ultimately be outcompeted.

- **Elon Musk vs. Mark Zuckerberg:** Musk's approach often burns talent out by treating them as mission-bound components, whereas Zuckerberg retains deep multi-year loyalty among alumni. - **LinkedIn's Early Routine:** Employees took dinner breaks with their families before logging back on to work late nights and Saturday mornings. - **The PayPal Precedent:** PayPal was one of the earliest Silicon Valley startups to serve both catered lunches and dinners in the office to maximize working hours during intense competitive pushes.

Here is a detailed, faithful walkthrough of this section of the interview, preserving its concrete facts, nuance, tone, and specific exchanges.

---

[01:06:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=3979s) Startup Intensity vs. Work-Life Balance

The discussion opens with the intense work ethic expected at early-stage startups. Addressing critics who call extreme hours "toxic" or a product of greedy capitalism, Reid Hoffman pushes back with a grounded, choice-centric worldview. He argues that people have every right to choose how they want to live, and asking individuals to work long hours is not patronizing. However, founders and employees must clearly understand the "game" they are playing:

> "It's like, 'Well, I'd like to be a world-class Olympic athlete, but I really only want to swim two hours a day.' Well, that's nice—not gonna happen."

Hoffman notes that an Olympic swimmer trains 12 hours a day, 7 days a week. If someone doesn't want that intensity, that is completely fine, but they cannot expect high-stakes startup results. The key responsibility for founders is absolute transparency during recruitment.

During the early days of LinkedIn, the team set clear expectations with candidates: * **The Schedule:** Employees worked 6.5 days a week. * **The Daily Expectation:** While team members were encouraged to go home to eat dinner with their families, everyone—including Hoffman himself—was expected back online working after dinner. * **The Compensation:** Employees were compensated through equity rather than massive cash salaries.

Hoffman points out the ultimate outcome of this trade-off: the first few hundred employees at LinkedIn became financially independent to the point where they no longer needed to work again unless they chose to.

---

[01:08:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=4095s) Stepping Back as CEO of LinkedIn

Hoffman transitions to his decision to step down as CEO of LinkedIn after four years. He attributes this move to brutal self-awareness regarding his own strengths and limitations: * **0 to 150 Employees:** At this early scale, Hoffman considers himself as good as anyone in the CEO role. * **500 to 1,000+ Employees:** At this larger scale, the CEO role shifts heavily toward company governance, organizational architecture, and macro-level strategy.

He shares lessons learned from Jeff Weiner, who later succeeded him as CEO. At scale, a CEO must stop thinking of recruiting as an individual task for hiring managers and instead treat it as a programmatic company engine. This includes structured onboarding processes where new hires across engineering, sales, and operations join as a unified cohort.

Hoffman realized his true passions lay in technology strategy, product strategy, the "big idea," and working directly with top-tier talent like founders and CEOs—acting more as an active board member and sparring partner than an operational executive. Recognizing that LinkedIn had hit "breakout velocity," he decided to recruit a world-class CEO. To remain aligned during the transition, Hoffman kept his primary office directly next door to Jeff Weiner's throughout Weiner's entire tenure as CEO.

The host praises this as a "low-ego move" rarely seen in founders who cling to the CEO title for prestige, comparing Hoffman's humility to founders like Brian Chesky (Airbnb) or Ben Francis (Gymshark). Hoffman agrees that while everyone—himself included—has an ego, the key is anchoring it to the success of the company rather than personal title:

> "My ego is attached to LinkedIn succeeding."

---

[01:11:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=4315s) Life as a Multi-Billionaire

LinkedIn went public in 2011 with a $4.3 billion valuation and was later acquired by Microsoft for $26 billion. Holding roughly an 11% stake at the time, Hoffman became a multi-billionaire.

When asked how wealth changes a person's life, Hoffman admits he actively avoids defining his identity by his net worth. He deliberately refrains from reposting media articles that refer to him as a "billionaire," choosing instead to view himself as a technologist, public intellectual, creative strategist, and investor.

While he acknowledges the undeniable perks of high wealth—such as flying on private jets and owning properties in multiple locations—he consciously preserves habits from an upper-middle-class lifestyle: * **Daily Routines:** Before arriving at the studio for this interview, Hoffman hung out at a local Starbucks with his laptop, drinking coffee and working. * **Relationships:** He places high value on grounded human relationships with both world-famous figures and everyday, unheralded individuals.

---

[01:13:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=4423s) Political Stance and Threat of Retaliation

The conversation shifts to politics. Hoffman has long been associated with left-leaning politics, a background rooted in his upbringing. He recounts a childhood memory of sitting on his father's shoulders at a Vietnam War protest and getting pepper-sprayed.

Addressing the friction between being a billionaire and identifying with the political left (where billionaires are frequently criticized), Hoffman acknowledges that people on the left have called him "evil." He views those assessments as incorrect but understandable.

Hoffman explains why fewer Silicon Valley leaders were publicly vocal on the left during the 2024 election cycle: * **Fear of Retaliation:** President Trump made explicit threats regarding political and personal retaliation against his opponents. * **The "MiniMax" Calculus:** Many wealthy individuals stayed quiet, reasoning that if Kamala Harris won, she would not penalize them for staying neutral; but if Trump won, he would punish those who actively opposed him.

Hoffman estimates there is a **greater than 50% chance** that he will personally face political repercussions and undemocratic retaliation through the misuse of state institutions—such as targeted IRS audits or canceled government contracts (similar to Trump's past actions toward Jeff Bezos and the Washington Post).

Despite these risks, Hoffman refuses to leave the United States, pointing to his home outside Seattle and his trust in the US Constitution. He aligns himself with public figures like Mark Cuban, who stood their ground despite heavy public backlash:

> "Precisely when you feel fear, stand up—because that fear that you're feeling, that's you feeling as a powerful, wealthy person. And if you're not going to stand up, who is?"

---

[01:17:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=4677s) Trump's Potential Positives and Impact on Business

Despite his strong political opposition, Hoffman candidly identifies potential silver linings in a second Trump administration. He views Trump as a "wrecking ball" that could break up stagnant systems where disruption is genuinely needed: * **Regulatory Refactoring:** Overhauling cumbersome regulations across sectors. * **Energy Infrastructure:** Fast-tracking nuclear energy (both fission and fusion) to meet skyrocketing future energy demands.

Hoffman emphasizes that as an American, he wants the next four years to succeed for the country regardless of who holds power, arguing that citizens should always work to build the nation rather than break it.

Regarding the environment for entrepreneurs: * **Pros:** A sweeping reduction in regulations across the board will generally help founders launch businesses faster. * **Cons:** Severe cuts to environmental protections (such as selecting EPA leadership focused on oil drilling rather than conservation) will accelerate climate damage. * **Immigration Risks:** Stricter border control and immigration restrictions could harm American startups by limiting access to top global talent.

---

[01:21:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=4865s) Entrepreneurial Appointments in Government

The segment concludes with a discussion about Trump appointing prominent Silicon Valley figures and tech entrepreneurs to major administrative roles:

* **Elon Musk:** Highly accomplished, brilliant, and widely experienced across multiple deep-tech industries. * **David Sacks:** Appointed to oversee AI and cryptocurrency. Hoffman notes that while Sacks understands crypto deeply, he has no prominent track record or investment history as an AI founder or investor. However, Hoffman acknowledges Sacks's intelligence and expects him to attempt to get up to speed.

[01:21:59](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=4919s) Freedom of Speech vs. Freedom of Reach

Reid Hoffman continues his discussion on political discourse and AI regulation, pointing out that public figures often focus on fringe grievances rather than systemic challenges. For example, focusing heavily on anti-woke AI misses the top hundred critical issues needed to safely build, deploy, and navigate artificial intelligence. Moving to the evolution of online speech over the last two years—largely spurred by Elon Musk's acquisition of Twitter (now X)—the conversation examines the shifting norms around what is deemed acceptable online.

Hoffman references a lecture he delivered in London, the Sir Isaiah Berlin speech, to illustrate the tension between two competing virtues: the freedom of speech to state any opinion without constraint, and the freedom to participate in civil discourse without facing mob harassment or targeted abuse. He argues that online platforms must strike a deliberate balance between these two principles rather than defaulting to extremes.

``` [ Competing Virtues on Digital Platforms ] ┌───────────────────────┐ ┌───────────────────────┐ │ Freedom of Speech │ │ Freedom of Reach │ │ Express any viewpoint │ vs│ Algorithmic blow-up │ │ without state censor │ │ & unmoderated spread │ └───────────────────────┘ └───────────────────────┘ │ ┌─────────┴─────────┐ │ Platform Policy │ │ Civility vs. │ │ Toxicity Balance │ └───────────────────┘ ```

The contrast between platform designs directly dictates user behavior. Hoffman characterizes the culture on X as increasingly toxic and virulent. He notes that even benign posts about entrepreneurship frequently trigger hostile personal attacks. By contrast, LinkedIn enforces real-identity profiles and strict civility guidelines; users who post abusive content receive warnings or lose posting privileges, which channels critical feedback into productive debate rather than vitriol.

- **Sir Isaiah Berlin Speech:** Referenced by Hoffman to frame negative vs. positive liberties in the context of digital discourse. - **Architectural Differences:** X relies heavily on anonymity and minimal content moderation, whereas LinkedIn ties accounts to real identities and moderates for professional civility. - **Freedom of Speech vs. Reach:** Distinguishes between allowing individuals to utter opinions legally and algorithmically amplifying those opinions to millions.

[01:24:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=5087s) Freedom of Speech on X vs. LinkedIn

Expanding on platform governance, host Steven Bartlett asks whether an environment allowing total anonymity and absolute free speech within legal boundaries holds net positive value. Hoffman acknowledges that while absolute freedom of expression is crucial, social platforms must draw a clear line between **freedom of speech** and **freedom of reach**. He argues that while individuals have the right to express fringe or mathematically flawed claims—such as anti-vaccine conspiracies—platforms should not amplify those statements through recommendations or viral algorithms.

Bartlett points out the danger of over-moderation, citing how early discussions around the COVID-19 lab-leak theory were initially suppressed or banned on platforms like YouTube before becoming widely debated by mainstream figures and officials. Hoffman agrees that contrarian ideas need space to exist and be heard, as scientific and societal progress relies on challenging orthodoxy.

To navigate this dilemma without resorting to outright deplatforming, Hoffman highlights Twitter’s pre-acquisition approach of adding context labels to disputed claims. By attaching factual notes from verified experts rather than removing posts, platforms can preserve individual expression while protecting public health and societal consensus.

- **Contextual Moderation:** Pre-Elon Twitter model of appending authoritative context boxes to dubious claims (e.g., vaccine safety data) while leaving the original post intact. - **The Role of Expertise:** Science and law rely on expert consensus (peer review, juries) to establish truth; platforms should integrate expert consensus into information distribution. - **Civility Baseline:** LinkedIn does not censor scientifically inaccurate posts (e.g., asserting the Earth is flat) provided the post remains civil and non-abusive.

[01:29:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=5383s) Historical Parallels and the Online Noise Problem

The discussion turns to historical precedents where consensus enforcement went wrong. Bartlett brings up the story of Galileo Galilei being persecuted by ecclesiastical authorities for asserting heliocentrism, illustrating how entrenched ideological institutions often attempt to silence inconvenient truths. Hoffman agrees, reiterating that suppressing non-credible dissent can inadvertently shut down legitimate breakthroughs, which is why fundamental rights to speech must be defended. However, he distinguishes between intellectual dissent and unbridled harassment.

Addressing the psychological toll of digital harassment, Bartlett reflects on his own experience transitioning into television roles like *Dragons' Den* and *Shark Tank*. The human brain did not evolve to process thousands of hostile strangers hurling insults at once. Hoffman acknowledges the mental strain this environment creates for entrepreneurs, creators, and public figures alike.

When debating whether the burden of managing online abuse falls on individual users to delete apps or on platform operators to enforce boundaries, Hoffman rejects the binary framing. Both parties bear responsibility. Users must practice digital hygiene, but platforms have a duty to curb incitement, threats of violence, and targeted harassment.

> "The classic thing that humans make in reasoning is they go 'A or B'... and your answer is 'both'." — **Reid Hoffman**

- **Historical Precedent:** The trial of Galileo demonstrates the danger of institutional overreach when enforcing dogma over contrarian inquiry. - **Psychological Burden:** Evolutionary limits leave the human mind ill-equipped for mass digital hostility and algorithmic outrage. - **Threats of Violence:** Explicit calls for harm or violent action (e.g., political figures threatening military personnel) represent a red line that platforms must actively moderate.

[01:32:49](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=5569s) The Future of Social Networking over the Next Decade

Bartlett shares a prediction he voiced years ago: social networking would fragment into smaller, interest-driven silos rather than remaining dominated by a single universal public square. The rise of platforms like Threads, Bluesky, Instagram, and Rumble validates this shift toward niche ecosystem communities with distinct rules and cultures.

Hoffman agrees that the social media landscape will continue to expand into specialized networks tailored to specific facets of life, just as LinkedIn established a dedicated space for professional identity separate from general social hubs like Friendster, MySpace, or Facebook. Looking toward the next decade, he expects networks to become increasingly multimodal and deeply integrated with AI agents.

``` [ Evolution of Social Media Ecosystems ] Monolithic Square (2000s-2010s) ──► Fragmented Networks (2020s+) ┌─────────────────────────────┐ ┌──────────────────────────────┐ │ Single dominant platforms │ │ Specialized spaces: │ │ (Facebook, early Twitter) │ │ • Professional (LinkedIn) │ │ │ │ • Niche text (Threads, X) │ │ │ │ • Video & Live (Rumble, IG) │ └─────────────────────────────┘ └──────────────────────────────┘ ```

From an investor's perspective, Hoffman evaluates social platforms by checking whether they treat both individual users and broader society as clients. While anonymity remains essential in oppressive regimes (such as Iran or Russia) to protect dissidents, platforms operating in democratic societies must carefully structure their algorithms so collective learning isn't derailed by rampant misinformation.

- **Niche Fragmentation:** Social spaces are splitting into focused verticals with tailored community standards. - **Dual-Client Framework:** Platforms must design for both user engagement and societal health. - **Net Impact Assessment:** Despite flaws and misinformation challenges on platforms like X, global networks like Facebook deliver substantial net value by connecting billions of families and friends daily.

[01:37:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=5859s) LinkedIn Ads and B2B Decision Making

Stephen Bartlett opens the segment with a sponsor message for LinkedIn Ads, highlighting a core friction point faced by founders and growth teams: reaching the true decision-makers in B2B environments. Unlike consumer sales where a single person makes a purchasing decision, corporate buying involves committees, cross-functional stakeholders, and executive consensus.

LinkedIn addresses this challenge through its professional network structure, granting marketers direct reach to over 1 billion members, including 130 million decision-makers and 10 million C-suite executives. This allows businesses to target campaigns precisely by job title, industry, and company size, yielding the highest return on investment among paid social platforms.

- **Audience reach:** 1+ billion members, 130 million decision-makers, and 10 million C-suite executives. - **Promotional offer:** A $100 credit for launching a campaign via `[linkedin.com/doac24](https://linkedin.com/doac24)`.

---

[01:38:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=5925s) The Philosophy of "Superagency" and AI as Amplification

Transitioning to artificial intelligence, Bartlett mentions his previous conversation with Inflection AI co-founder Mustafa Suleyman, noting Suleyman's transition to Microsoft while Inflection shifted its focus to B2B software sales. Asking Reid Hoffman how everyday workers and small entrepreneurs should frame AI, Hoffman explains his core philosophy: AI is not merely artificial intelligence; it is **amplification intelligence**.

Hoffman outlines the premise of his co-authored book *Impromptu* and his book *Superagency: What Could Possibly Go Right with Our AI Future*. He argues that AI provides cognitive superpowers that increase individual agency. Crucially, as general-purpose technologies diffuse across society—much like the printing press, electricity, automobiles, or mobile phones—the collective agency of society compounds. When a doctor gains access to AI or a car, their capacity to treat patients expands dramatically, which in turn enhances the agency and well-being of the patients they serve.

> "AI is not just artificial intelligence; it's amplification intelligence. It gives us superpowers."

- **Books referenced:** *Impromptu: Amplifying Our Humanity Through AI* (co-written with GPT-4) and *Superagency* (published January 2025). - **Historical technological parallels:** The printing press, electricity, automobiles, and mobile devices.

---

[01:40:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=6058s) Historical Transitions, Societal Fear, and Global Competition

Addressing the widespread societal anxiety surrounding AI, Hoffman acknowledges that fear is historically warranted whenever a new general-purpose technology emerges. When the printing press arrived, critics warned it would destroy human learning, empower bad actors, and undermine the existing custodians of knowledge—namely the priesthood. While the printing press ultimately enabled the Scientific Revolution, the societal transition also triggered nearly a century of intense religious conflict.

Hoffman emphasizes that human societies are inherently clumsy at managing major technological shifts. However, attempting to slow down development through heavy regulation or open letters calling for a pause is counterproductive. Because technology is developed competitively across sovereign nations with differing values, a voluntary pause by benevolent actors simply leaves the field open to bad actors or geopolitical rivals. The British Empire, for instance, set the global drumbeat for centuries because Europe embraced the Industrial Revolution early and aggressively.

> "If the people who care about Humanity all pause, and the people who don't care about Humanity don't pause, your letter—if you achieve your success—will cause a bad impact on Humanity."

- **Historical precedent:** The printing press was followed by nearly a century of religious warfare before stabilizing into the Scientific Revolution. - **Geopolitical dynamics:** Technological clock speeds are set globally by competing states, industries, and actors with differing theories of societal good.

---

[01:44:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=6242s) Cognitive Savants vs. Artificial General Intelligence

Bartlett presents a thought experiment, asking whether AI is akin to having a duplicate self with an IQ of 1,000 sitting alongside one with an IQ of 100. Hoffman responds that human beings struggle to predict future technologies because current AI systems operate more like **cognitive savants** or highly capable co-pilots rather than generalized sci-fi intelligences.

To illustrate this, Hoffman uses a three-part domain comparison: 1. **Mixture of Experts (MoE) Architecture:** Thousands of specialized engineers understand this machine learning technique. 2. **Modern Economic Game Theory:** Crossing MoE with game theory reduces the pool of knowledgeable human experts down to roughly 50 or 100 people worldwide. 3. **Modern Oceanography:** Intersecting all three domains drops the number of human experts on Earth to zero.

Yet, a frontier model like GPT-4, having ingested trillions of words of human knowledge, can synthesize nuanced comparisons across all three disparate fields instantly. Despite these incredible capabilities, Hoffman notes that these models are non-conscious informational tools ("GPS for the mind") rather than self-aware "Terminator" entities.

- **Current AI architecture characteristics:** Models function as specialized savants capable of multi-disciplinary synthesis across vast datasets. - **Misconceptions on consciousness:** Conversational fluency does not equate to inner experience or consciousness; today's models are non-sentient cognitive co-pilots.

---

[01:47:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=6424s) Defense, Malicious Use, and the Real Risks of AI

When discussing the tangible risks of AI, Bartlett and Hoffman agree that the immediate threat stems from malicious human actors leveraging agentic tools rather than autonomous rogue machines. Nation-states—including the U.S., China, Russia, and powers in the Middle East—are actively integrating AI into defense capabilities, physical robotics, and cyber weaponry to avoid falling behind adversaries.

Hoffman explains that every foundational technology carries intrinsic trade-offs; electricity is vital to modern civilization, yet it can electrocute people or be weaponized. What makes AI uniquely complex is its **agentic nature** (software agents taking autonomous actions online, such as purchasing items or navigating workflows) and its unprecedented speed of global deployment via existing mobile and internet infrastructure. A new software agent can be made available to a billion people overnight.

> "The fact that we're facing a new challenge is not itself a new challenge."

- **Key risk factors:** Cyber weapons, automated exploitation, and rogue deployment by criminals, terrorists, or hostile states. - **Deployment vector:** Unlike physical machinery, software AI propagates globally instantaneously through preexisting digital channels.

---

[01:51:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=6668s) Practical AI Adoption and Personal Experimentation

For everyday professionals—whether doctors, lawyers, or corporate workers—Hoffman offers direct tactical advice: actively integrate AI into your specific daily workflows. He recalls giving this exact recommendation to the governors of the Bank of England, stressing that using AI for trivial tasks like writing birthday poems or finding dinner recipes does not unlock its true utility.

Sharing a personal story from his venture capital work at Greylock, Hoffman recalls asking GPT-4 how he should invest in AI. The model generated a generic, textbook response about evaluating total addressable markets (TAM) and market research—an approach completely detached from how real-world venture capital works (which centers on finding extraordinary founders with counterintuitive ideas).

However, when Hoffman shifted tactics and pasted an actual startup business plan into the model to ask how to structure due diligence, GPT-4 produced a remarkably useful checklist. It highlighted points that saved him days of manual analytical work. Citing Wharton professor Ethan Mollick, Hoffman reminds users that the AI tools available today are the worst tools they will ever use for the rest of their lives.

> "The worst AI you're ever going to use in your life is the AI you're using today."

- **Personal workflow integration:** Test AI directly against specialized professional tasks to discover where it augments judgment and where it fails. - **Venture Capital due diligence example:** GPT-4 failed at high-level investment strategy, but accelerated business plan analysis and due diligence execution by days.

[01:53:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=6816s) Leveraging AI as a Thinking Partner

Reid Hoffman introduces a practical framework for how everyday people can start using AI immediately, explaining that AI's core strength lies in adopting specific personas or roles. Rather than using AI purely as a search engine or answers engine, users can paste an argument into a prompt and instruct the AI to act as a harsh critic to stress-test their logic. This exercise actively builds cognitive development and sharpens decision-making. Conversely, users can instruct the AI to build additional supporting arguments for a specific position or analyze a complex thesis through the specific lens of an expert—such as asking how a historian of technology would critique a claim about emerging tools.

This approach transforms AI from a passive utility into a flexible, dynamic thought partner. The depth and quality of the output are bound only by the user's creativity and the specific roles they choose to prompt.

* **Key AI Usage Strategy:** Direct the AI to assume distinct personas (e.g., adversary, advocate, or specialized domain expert) to evaluate arguments and reveal blind spots. * **Cognitive Utility:** Using AI to challenge personal assumptions enhances analytical reasoning and accelerates learning for non-technical users.

---

[01:55:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=6920s) The Current AI Boom as a Once-in-a-Generation Opportunity

When asked whether current 30-something entrepreneurs should drop what they are doing and move to Silicon Valley to join or build an AI startup, Reid Hoffman gives an emphatic "yes." Drawing a direct parallel to the dot-com boom and the rise of Web 2.0, he explains that general-purpose technologies create rare, massive expansions of entrepreneurial opportunity. Silicon Valley—originally named for physical silicon chips—evolved into "Software Valley" through successive waves of networking, the web, and mobile. AI represents the next major paradigm shift that sits atop that evolution.

``` +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | EVOLUTION OF SILICON VALLEY | | | | [ Silicon Chips ] ──> [ Networking Equipment ] ──> [ Web / Software ] ──> [ AI ] | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ```

Major platform shifts unlock two distinct types of startup opportunities:

* **Greenfield Opportunities:** Brand-new business models that were previously impossible without the underlying infrastructure (analogous to how Airbnb required the internet and smartphones to exist). * **Transformative Overlay:** Upgrading and revolutionizing legacy products, services, and business models by injecting intelligence into their workflows.

For entrepreneurs, building in AI does not necessarily mean creating a $10 billion frontier foundation model from scratch—a capital-intensive task suited for giant tech firms. Instead, entrepreneurs can build specialized applications or leverage existing models. As an example, Reid points to Sierra, an AI customer service company founded by Bret Taylor that deploys a "best of breed" combination of third-party frontier models rather than training its own foundation model.

---

[01:59:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=7163s) Technical Competence, Co-Founders, and the Importance of Speed

When it comes to gaining speed in AI, Reid advises that waiting to go back to university or spending years trying to learn hard coding from scratch as a solo non-technical founder is far too slow. Speed is paramount in startups. For technical individuals, the best path is immediate, hands-on iteration: downloading open-source models like Meta's Llama or Mistral and building directly.

For non-technical founders with skills in marketing, team building, or content, the optimal strategy is to find a strong technical co-founder rather than operating alone. Reid emphasizes that single-founder successes are rare outliers that mask a fundamental reality: startup building is a team sport.

* **The Power of Co-Founding Teams:** Venture investors, including Greylock, overwhelmingly prefer funding teams of two to three complementary co-founders over solo founders because a team's execution weight and capabilities are vastly superior. * **Historical Precedent:** Major technological platforms were built by multi-founder teams (e.g., Mark Zuckerberg collaborating alongside Dustin Moskovitz, Adam D'Angelo, and Chris Hughes at Facebook).

---

[02:01:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=7267s) Early Bet on OpenAI: Scale Computing Learning Systems

Reflecting on his decision to back OpenAI nearly a decade before AI became mainstream, Reid details what set the founding team apart. Sam Altman, Greg Brockman, and Ilya Sutskever approached the space with a bold, razor-sharp thesis. While Google's research team had invented the attention-based Transformer architecture, OpenAI realized that the key to unlocking true capabilities was applying massive scale to the architecture.

> "The thing that people need to understand about AI is it's a transformation to scale computing learning systems."

Reid highlights that earlier AI waves stalled because systems relied on explicit, hand-crafted manual programming. True modern AI relies on training scaling computing systems that learn autonomously. This capability requires an entire stack: internet-scale data, the cloud, massive data centers, and specialized teams equipped to deploy that infrastructure.

---

[02:02:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=7351s) Strategic Networking and Unappreciated Founder Traits

Networking is almost always critical for an entrepreneur, but Reid refutes the common misconception that networking means spending seven days a week at parties handing out business cards. Effective networking is tactical and goal-oriented. Entrepreneurs must approach networking with a strategic framework: identify who to learn from, who can supply missing domain knowledge, and who can be recruited to join the effort.

When discussing underappreciated founder traits, Reid rejects the idea that surface-level politeness or rigid etiquette serve as competitive advantages. Instead, the true underappreciated asset is the ability to construct, retain, and inspire a world-class team.

``` +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | CULTURE TYPES IN STARTUPS | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------------------+ | Missionary Culture | Mercenary Culture | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------------------+ | Driven by a high-stakes vision | Driven primarily by short-term financial | | to transform an industry. | return and immediate monetization. | | | | | Highly effective at recruiting | Can scale in specific contexts, but struggles | | world-class, committed talent. | to maintain long-term alignment. | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------------------+ ```

Because humans are emotional creatures driven by narrative, the most enduring tech companies—such as LinkedIn, OpenAI, and Airbnb—build missionary cultures. While satirical portrayals like HBO's *Silicon Valley* lampoon startups claiming to "make the world a better place," an authentic, well-articulated mission remains essential to rally top-tier talent around a grand narrative.

---

[02:06:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=7603s) Assessing Mindset, Executive References, and Deep Resilience

When evaluating entrepreneurs for investment at Greylock, Reid searches for a specific blend of ambition, strategic clarity, and edge. He evaluates candidates using several core criteria:

* **Moonshot Ambition Combined with Real Mechanics:** The founder must aim for industry-wide transformation while maintaining a concrete, logical execution plan for acquiring capital, talent, and distribution. * **The "3 to 5 World-Class People" Test:** When interviewing executives, Reid asks for the names of three to five top-tier individuals who previously worked under them. He then reference-checks those team members to confirm whether the executive can attract elite talent. * **Polarizing Edge over Universal Likability:** Exceptional founders do not need to be universally liked. Being described by peers as "difficult" or "intensely hard-driving" is often a strong positive signal. * **Navigating the "Valley of the Shadow":** Virtually every startup hits moments of existential dread. Reid recalls receiving a one-line email during his early days at Socialnet from an Apple veteran: *"Welcome to where 15 minutes is the difference between exultation and terror."*

> "Welcome to where 15 minutes is the difference between exultation and terror."

Resilience cannot be measured through superficial self-confidence; founders who claim their idea carries zero risk are usually in denial. Instead, true resilience is demonstrated by a candidate's historical track record of taking real risks, enduring deep trauma or failure, and constructively converting those negative experiences into actionable lessons.

[02:10:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=7816s) Navigating Seasons of Life and the "Start-Up of You" Framework

When asked how an 18-year-old should map out their life trajectory from their 20s onward, Hoffman addresses common misconceptions in career advice. He wrote *The Start-Up of You* precisely to counter the conventional wisdom offered by universities, which often tells young adults to "follow your passion" immediately—such as going off to volunteer in Bhutan right after graduating. Hoffman describes this as "terrible advice" not because following one's passion is inherently bad, but because it gets the sequencing wrong.

Instead, young adults should focus early on establishing a solid foundation that gives them economic stability, leverage, and maneuverability later in life. That resilience might look like accumulating personal wealth so a salary is no longer required, or building a high-value network of contacts who eagerly want to hire them. Establishing this platform early on provides the security needed to take big risks later—whether that means embarking on a passion project in Bhutan or starting a new venture.

* **Establishing Platform First:** Focus on early career vigor to build economic security and a professional reputation before pursuing passion-only detours. * **Calculated Risk:** Taking big risks early in life is ideal; even for non-risky paths (like medical school), establishing credentialed competence first builds long-term resilience. * **The 5 Buckets Framework:** The host outlines five personal assets: *Knowledge*, *Skills*, *Network*, *Resources*, and *Reputation*. * **Soft Assets vs. Hard Assets:** Hoffman emphasizes that Knowledge, Skills, and Network are "soft assets" that compound massively over time. * **Salary Misconception:** Prioritizing a job offering a 5% or even 30% higher salary over soft-asset accumulation is a mistake; soft assets are what drive a 300% career return down the line.

---

[02:15:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=8102s) Evolving Life Stages, Marriage, and the Meaning of Happiness

As individuals move from their 20s into their 30s, the parameters of life evolve. In one's 20s, it is feasible to live on "beans and toast" with five roommates while working for little to no salary to maximize risk-taking. In one's 30s, priorities shift toward finding a life partner, securing independent housing, and potentially having children. Hoffman dryly notes that having kids is essentially "a complete startup," which inevitably makes running a business startup more challenging, though often worth it on balance.

> "Happiness for me is going through life with people I love and building great things... if I failed at everything I built and I was still going through life with people I loved, great."

Reflecting on his younger years, Hoffman admits he used to hold the flawed belief that being at the absolute top of the class was necessary. Over time, he realized that among eight billion people, no single person can be the best at everything. Obsessing over being number one in a single metric often comes at the cost of investing in relationships and personal growth. For Hoffman, personal fulfillment comes from contributing to others—balancing the "I" (self-improvement) with the "We" (community impact)—and maintaining strong ties with loved ones, including his long-term partner, Michelle.

* **Evolving Risk Tolerance:** The frugal, high-risk lifestyle of one's 20s naturally gives way to stability-focused goals in one's 30s. * **Character as an Investment Criteria:** When evaluating founders, Hoffman looks closely at how they treat people. He reveals he has repeatedly passed on investments guaranteed to make money because he did not want to spend ten years working with a toxic entrepreneur. * **Partner Dynamic:** Hoffman highlights how his relationship with his partner balances his worldview: while he focuses on "scale" (e.g., reaching a billion users on LinkedIn), she focuses on "anti-scale" through localized community volunteering and personal art.

---

[02:21:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=8468s) Blitzscaling: Global Competition and Market Dynamics

Hoffman addresses when and why companies should adopt "Blitzscaling"—the practice of prioritizing speed over efficiency to achieve scale ahead of rivals. He stresses that Blitzscaling is not a universal solution for every business; rather, it is a specific strategic response to global competition. It applies primarily in markets where network effects or first-mover advantages create a "Glengarry Glen Ross" dynamic: first prize gets the Cadillac, second prize gets a set of steak knives, and third prize gets fired.

``` BLITZSCALED COMPETITOR (Company B) VS. STANDARD COMPETITOR (Company A) +--------------------------------------+ +----------------------------------+ | - Hyper-speed over efficiency | | - Controlled, linear growth | | - Rapid capital deployment | | - Optimized operational costs | | - High risk of failure, but chance | | - Near-guaranteed failure in a | | to capture winner-take-all market | | winner-take-all global market | +--------------------------------------+ +----------------------------------+ ```

Using Uber as a case study, Hoffman explains extreme Blitzscaling tactics: Uber would interview a strong job candidate, extend an offer, and immediately ask for the names of the three best people the candidate had worked with—sending job offers to those three individuals without even interviewing them. If an entrepreneur operates in a hyper-competitive, global software market against rivals who use these techniques, attempting to grow at a standard pace guarantees failure.

* **When to Blitzscale:** Necessary in winner-take-all or global software markets with intense international competition (such as Silicon Valley or China). * **When NOT to Blitzscale:** Local brick-and-mortar businesses or non-global consumer products shouldn't Blitzscale unless direct competitors begin doing so to capture market share rapidly. * **The UK & European AI Landscape:** Hoffman notes that regions like the UK and Europe must develop strategies to contend with global Blitzscaling competitors, advising companies to either adopt Blitzscaling mechanisms or purposefully operate in niches where hyper-speed is not required. * **Physical Products Example:** Discussing a fast-growing UK matcha company doing £30 million, Hoffman clarifies that Blitzscaling physical products depends entirely on whether competitors are using rapid capital to lock up supply chains and global market share.

Here is a detailed, faithful walkthrough of this portion of the conversation:

[02:26:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=8768s) The Strategic Mechanics of Blitzscaling and UK AI Ambitions

When an entrepreneur decides to blitzscale, they incur massive operational risks—frantic hiring, huge capital expenditure, and simultaneous market launches, such as Uber expanding into 20 cities at once. Reid Hoffman clarifies that blitzscaling is not an end in itself, but a deliberate set of strategic techniques in response to market conditions and fierce competition. In "Glengarry Glen Ross" winner-take-all markets—where first prize is a Cadillac and second prize is a set of steak knives—investors willingly throw capital at high valuations because securing the dominant market position is everything. Furthermore, if a competitor decides to blitzscale, a founder often has no choice but to follow suit.

Beyond competition, blitzscaling is driven by the need to reach critical mass in scale-sensitive industries. Reflecting on his early days at PayPal, Hoffman notes that online payment platforms were essentially dead on arrival unless they reached at least $1 billion in annual transactional volume (a threshold that today is easily $10 billion or more). Getting through the initial, highly unprofitable phase as fast as possible is a matter of survival.

The conversation shifts to the global AI landscape and the host's fear that the United States and China will monopolize the massive productivity gains of artificial intelligence, leaving the UK behind. Hoffman reassures the host by sharing that 10 Downing Street is acutely focused on this issue. During his meetings in London that very week, government officials were actively consulting tech leaders and preparing announcements to better capitalize UK startups with necessary growth capital.

- Blitzscaling trades higher short-term operational risk for the essential advantage of outscaling competitors in winner-take-all markets. - In 2002, PayPal established that $1 billion in annual transaction volume was the minimum threshold for a payments business to remain viable. - UK leadership at 10 Downing Street is actively formulating capital strategies to ensure the country remains competitive against the US and China in AI.

---

[02:29:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=8971s) Reframing Risk as Opportunity and ABZ Planning

Addresssing crucial advice for founders, Hoffman emphasizes that a low probability of success should never prevent someone from taking action. When launching LinkedIn, Hoffman calculated that the company had at most a 20% to 25% chance of succeeding. However, when the market perceives a project as having a 0% chance of success while a founder identifies a clear 20% path, that gap represents the risk window—and the ultimate opportunity. In LinkedIn's case, the non-obvious insight was how to keep early users engaged before the network reached its critical threshold of one million members. Smart risk-taking means leaning into non-consensus ideas where you possess a distinct insight that others lack.

To survive these smart risks, founders must employ flexible risk management rather than treating every venture as a blind, all-in gamble. Hoffman details his "ABZ Planning" framework (originally introduced in his book *The Start-up of You*). Plan A is your current strategy, Plan B represents the pivots and adjustments you make when tracking metrics show you are off course, and Plan Z is your safety net—the soft landing that allows you to regroup if everything falls apart. While founders must carry a unique level of duty and stay with a business until it is a stable going concern, employees operate on a "Tour of Duty" framework, agreeing to make a transformative impact for a defined period before moving on to new opportunities.

Hoffman illustrates this with a personal story about Matt Kohler, whom he originally recruited from McKinsey to join LinkedIn. Three years in, Kohler was offered a position at Facebook. Despite loving their working relationship, Hoffman advised Kohler to take the job because it was the best move for his career, exemplifying the belief that leaders should help their people find their highest-potential opportunities.

- **Risk as Opportunity:** A founder’s opportunity lies in the variance between a market's perceived 0% success rate and their own calculated 20–25% path. - **ABZ Planning:** - **Plan A:** The primary, evolving hypothesis. - **Plan B:** The tactical pivots made when measuring performance against core milestones. - **Plan Z:** The fallback option or soft landing if the venture fails. - **Tour of Duty:** The mutual agreement between an employer and an employee to achieve a specific mission without expecting lifetime tenure.

---

[02:35:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=9310s) Inside LinkedIn’s 2004 Series B Deck and Modern Use Cases

Holding LinkedIn’s actual Series B pitch deck from August 20, 2004—which was designed by Matt Kohler for Greylock—the host highlights how remarkably consistent the company's core vision has remained over two decades. The deck opened with the thesis: "Find and contact the people you need through the people you already trust." Unlike many tech giants that radically shifted their product identity (such as pivoting from a hot-or-not clone to a general social network), LinkedIn executed on the same fundamental mission from day one because Hoffman leveraged lessons from his earlier ventures, Socialnet and PayPal, on balancing long-term vision with short-term execution.

Hoffman explains that building a enduring company requires answering a fundamental question at the outset: "If we successfully land on the beach, how do we transform the way millions of people live, work, or conduct business?" While Hoffman anticipated that LinkedIn would eventually become a hub for personal branding, users have continuously found surprising, emergent uses for the network. For instance, third parties have attempted to build professional dating services on top of LinkedIn data for people specifically seeking partners with strong career credentials—a direction Hoffman humorously notes LinkedIn will never pursue natively.

He shares a memorable early story from just months after raising the Greylock round: a Silicon Valley software engineer wanted to move to Denver but didn't know which companies were worth applying to. The engineer searched LinkedIn for professionals with matching skill sets living in Denver, looked at where those individuals worked, and targeted those specific companies. It was an ingenious use case for talent discovery that the founding team had never explicitly planned for.

- The August 20, 2004 Series B deck raised capital from Greylock based on the core thesis of trust-based networking. - Building a long-term enterprise requires establishing how the product will permanently alter industry workflows once the initial market beachhead is secured. - Creative user adoption, from geographic job mapping to niche external dating tools, proved the flexibility of LinkedIn's underlying professional graph.

---

[02:38:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=9506s) Life After CEO, Legacy, and the Unwritten Book on Friendship

When asked if he would ever serve as a tech CEO again, Hoffman expresses contentment with his current phase of life. Having co-founded the AI company Inflection alongside CEO Mustafa Suleyman, Hoffman prefers partnering as an active co-founder and advisor rather than managing daily operations as CEO. The host resonates with this, noting that as he has grown older, he prioritizes freedom and personal happiness over the grueling strain of the chief executive role. Hoffman agrees that building a high-level network allows experienced founders to support exceptional CEOs while keeping their own operational freedom.

Regarding legacy, Hoffman clarifies that he does not make decisions based on vanity or public praise, though appreciation feels good. Instead, he cares deeply about the actual substance of his impact—whether his work has positively moved the needle for the ongoing story of humanity. On a personal level, he and his wife made a deliberate joint decision not to have children, enjoying their roles as godparents to several children (including three in London) where they can meaningfully participate in their lives without the full-time duties of parenting.

To conclude, Hoffman reveals his ultimate unchecked box: writing a book on friendship. Ever since his undergraduate days, he has been taking notes on the topic for over 30 years. He points out a curious void in modern culture and bookstores—while entire sections are dedicated to romantic relationships, self-help, and family dynamics, virtually no comprehensive books exist exploring the profound nature and mechanics of human friendship.

- **Founding vs. Managing:** Hoffman intentionally co-founded Inflection with Mustafa Suleyman as CEO, allowing him to drive strategy without taking on daily operational execution. - **Substance over Legacy:** Hoffman measures his life choices by tangible human impact rather than public acclaim or personal ego. - **The 30-Year Project:** Hoffman has accumulated notes for three decades to write a book dedicated entirely to the overlooked dynamics of friendship.

[02:41:59](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=9719s) Working with Friends and Political Disagreements

Reid Hoffman emphasizes that personal connection is a central driver in his life and work. Contrary to standard business advice, he strongly advocates for hiring and building companies with friends. Because building startups requires an intense investment of time, Hoffman believes people should spend those high-stakes hours with people they truly care about. While working with friends introduces added emotional complexities, the trade-off of sharing major life experiences with loved ones makes it worth the effort.

This dynamic extends to long-standing relationships with people who hold polar opposite views. When asked about his friendship with PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel, Hoffman confirms they remain close friends despite having intense political disagreements. They first met as undergraduates at Stanford, where Thiel was already staunchly on the right and Hoffman was on the left. Over the decades, Hoffman became much more business-oriented while Thiel grew increasingly libertarian, but Hoffman views healthy debate as a positive force rather than a dealbreaker.

- **On hiring friends:** Believes startups are so time-intensive that it is better to spend those hours with friends, despite the added emotional difficulties. - **On Peter Thiel:** Maintains a strong friendship with him despite fierce political disagreements, having known him since their undergraduate days at Stanford.

---

[02:43:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=9782s) The Last Guest's Question: Relationships and Marriage

The conversation transitions to the podcast's closing tradition, where the previous guest leaves a question without knowing who will answer it. The question asks: *"What are the two things you want your life partner to know about you that they do not know or do not understand about you yet?"* Hoffman finds the premise amusingly flawed, noting that if someone has an immediate answer to that, it implies they aren't being a particularly good life partner. Because he strives to be a good partner to his wife, Michelle, he doesn't hold back hidden truths from her.

Hoffman shares that he and Michelle actively invest energy into understanding one another, which includes seeing marriage counselors together—not because they are fighting, but to proactively improve their communication through a neutral third party. Host Steven Bartlett agrees, sharing that he does the exact same thing with his own partner. Hoffman notes that whenever he discovers a shift in priorities or a potential misunderstanding—such as realizing a decade ago how deeply important local community is to Michelle—he brings it up right away over dinner rather than letting it sit.

- **Marriage counseling philosophy:** Attends proactive counseling sessions with his wife, Michelle, as a tool for understanding each other better, not to resolve active fights. - **Proactive communication:** Uses regular dinner conversations to voice new thoughts and ensure no unspoken misunderstandings build up over time.

---

[02:45:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=9909s) Navigating Relationships During the Startup Grind

Addressing a common struggle for founders, Hoffman offers practical advice on balancing romantic relationships with the intense demands of building a company. He recommends that founders identify their own challenging tendencies early and disclose them upfront. When Hoffman was building LinkedIn, he and Michelle were planning a small, simple wedding. Early in the company's growth, a critical issue arose, forcing Hoffman to ask Michelle if they could delay the wedding by a couple of weeks. Because he had been transparent about the brutal reality of the startup journey from the beginning, Michelle responded with grace and helped adjust the plans.

When work stress causes a founder to become mentally absent at home, Hoffman stresses the importance of recognizing the signal when a partner says, "I think you're not being fully present." Rather than gaslighting a partner by claiming "I'm doing this for us," a founder must consciously push work distractions off the table to focus on their partner, or candidly apologize and ask if they can reconnect the following day. Long-term relationship success ultimately requires mutual belief in each other's pursuits and honest communication.

- **Startup sacrifices:** Delayed his own wedding to Michelle by a couple of weeks during the early days of LinkedIn due to urgent company priorities. - **Navigating distraction:** Identifies "you're not being fully present" as a key phrase between him and Michelle that triggers an immediate pivot to focus on family. - **Foundational alignment:** Emphasizes that both partners must truly believe in each other and their respective missions to survive startup stress.

---

[02:48:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=10105s) Optimism and AI: Superagency

The discussion pivots to Hoffman's book, *Superagency: What Could Possibly Go Right with Our AI Future*, co-written with Greg Beato and scheduled for release at the end of January. Hoffman explains that the book presents a intentionally optimistic vision for artificial intelligence. He argues that humanity cannot achieve a desirable future simply by obsessing over risk mitigation or fear; true progress requires actively envisioning a positive future and steering toward it.

Hoffman shares a quote from historian Yuval Noah Harari, who provided a blurb for the book stating: *"This is a brilliant positive vision of the future. I disagree with some of its main arguments, and everyone should read it."* Hoffman appreciates the candid back-and-forth, highlighting it as a refreshing model for intellectual disagreement. Bartlett recommends Hoffman's broader body of work, including his books *The Start-up of You* and *Blitzscaling*, as well as his popular podcast *Masters of Scale*.

- **Upcoming book:** *Superagency: What Could Possibly Go Right with Our AI Future*, co-authored with Greg Beato. - **Core thesis:** Reaching a great future requires actively building toward a positive vision rather than merely trying to avoid AI risks. - **Yuval Noah Harari blurb:** Praised the book's positive vision while openly disagreeing with its main arguments, recommending that everyone read it. - **Media recommendations:** Highlights Hoffman's influential podcast *Masters of Scale* and his career-building books.

---

[02:50:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=10208s) Concluding Remarks and Final Thoughts

As the interview wraps up, Bartlett thanks Hoffman for his willingness to hold contrarian, deeply considered opinions regardless of prevailing public trends or political narratives. Hoffman credits his perspective to decades of hands-on experience paired with good intentions. In a lighthearted closing moment, Bartlett expresses his gratitude for the creation of LinkedIn, revealing that the company actually sponsored the podcast episode—a detail Hoffman was delighted to learn on the spot.

- **LinkedIn sponsorship:** Bartlett mentions that LinkedIn sponsored the podcast episode, surprising Hoffman. - **Closing tradition:** Bartlett invites listeners to check out the updated version of *The Diary Of A CEO Conversation Cards*, featuring questions from past podcast guests.

## Notable quotes > [08:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=512s) The bad advice you're usually given is 'just follow your passion.' And the problem is... your passion might be very passionate, but do you have a strategic advantage there? — Reid Hoffman

> [25:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=1533s) Even when I was starting LinkedIn... what I would tell the people is, 'Look, we have about a maximum of 20 to 25% chance of being successful... Anyone who's telling you it's 100% now, they're lying to themselves or they're lying to you.' — Reid Hoffman

> [29:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=1762s) Every VC has to have a deal they're going to fail on—Airbnb can be yours. — David Sze

> [38:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=2334s) These VCs don't get it... the consumer internet, that was just the first wave on the beach, the tsunami is still coming. — Reid Hoffman

> [49:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=2985s) I believe every person is a combination of strengths and weaknesses, and if you don't give me a weakness, I will believe it's so bad that I should not hire this person. — Reid Hoffman

> [59:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=3557s) The people who think it's toxic don't understand the startup game, and they're just wrong... The game is intense, and by the way, if you don't do that, then eventually you're out of a job. — Reid Hoffman

> [01:06:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=3979s) It's like, 'Well, I'd like to be a world-class Olympic athlete, but I really only want to swim two hours a day.' Well, that's nice—not gonna happen. — Reid Hoffman

> [01:13:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=4423s) Precisely when you feel fear, stand up—because that fear that you're feeling, that's you feeling as a powerful, wealthy person. And if you're not going to stand up, who is? — Reid Hoffman

> [01:38:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=5925s) AI is not just artificial intelligence; it's amplification intelligence. It gives us superpowers. — Reid Hoffman

> [01:51:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=6668s) The worst AI you're ever going to use in your life is the AI you're using today. — Reid Hoffman

> [02:01:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=7267s) The thing that people need to understand about AI is it's a transformation to scale computing learning systems. — Reid Hoffman

> [02:15:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=8102s) Happiness for me is going through life with people I love and building great things... if I failed at everything I built and I was still going through life with people I loved, great. — Reid Hoffman

> [02:35:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=9310s) Find and contact the people you need through the people you already trust. — Reid Hoffman

> [02:48:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=10105s) This is a brilliant positive vision of the future. I disagree with some of its main arguments, and everyone should read it. — Yuval Noah Harari

## Mentioned 10 Downing Street, Adam D'Angelo, Airbnb, Aneel Bhusri, Apple, Bank of England, Ben Francis, Bluesky, Borderlands, Bret Taylor, Brian Chesky, Chaosium, Chris Hughes, Daniel Ek, David Sacks, David Sze, Donald Trump, Dragons' Den, Dustin Moskovitz, Elon Musk, EPA, Ethan Mollick, Facebook, Friendster, Galileo Galilei, Glengarry Glen Ross, Google, Greg Beato, Greg Brockman, Greylock, Ilya Sutskever, Impression AI, Impromptu: Amplifying Our Humanity Through AI, Inflection AI, Instagram, IRS, Isaac Asimov, Jeff Bezos, Jeff Weiner, John Lilly, Kamala Harris, LinkedIn, Llama, Mark Cuban, Mark Pincus, Mark Zuckerberg, Matt Kohler, McDonald's, McKinsey, Meta, Microsoft, Michelle, Mistral, Mozilla, Mustafa Suleyman, MySpace, Neuralink, OpenAI, PayPal, PayPal Mafia, Peter Thiel, Reddit, Reid Hoffman, Rumble, RuneQuest, Sam Altman, Shark Tank, Shopify, Sierra, SocialNet, SpaceX, Spotify, Starbucks, Sir Isaiah Berlin, Steven Bartlett, Superagency: What Could Possibly Go Right with Our AI Future, Tesla, The Diary Of A CEO, The Putney School, The Start-up of You, Threads, Tim O'Reilly, Tobi Lütke, Uber, Washington Post, Wharton, Workday, X, YouTube, Yuval Noah Harari

[Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk)

中文简报

里德·霍夫曼：特朗普因大选支持实施报复的概率达50% 硅谷风险投资家里德·霍夫曼警告称，唐纳德·特朗普将把联邦机构武器化以针对政治捐赠者，同时他也认为高强度的工作节奏对初创公司的生存依然至关重要。里德·霍夫曼深入分享了初创企业成功的策略框架，解析了“默认死亡”与“默认存活”、企业成长的“陆战队、陆军、警察”模式以及ABZ规划等概念。他回顾了创立LinkedIn和建设PayPal的历程，详述了逆向押注与硅谷高效流动网络如何孕育出开创行业先河的领军企业。霍夫曼还探讨了围绕唐纳德·特朗普的政治紧张局势、数字平台上的言论自由，以及他为何将人工智能视为“增强智能”而非生存威胁。在整场对话中，他兼顾了高风险的商业运作机制与关于婚姻、幸福感及冒险的个人原则。霍夫曼将其职业生涯的成功归因于早期对人类行为、科幻小说和策略游戏的兴趣，以及成长于硅谷人才与资本网络周边的环境优势。 (2:02) 初创企业应使用“共识押注与逆向押注”框架来评估机遇，瞄准业内专家存在分歧的非显而易见想法，而非听信缺乏认知者的批评。 (25:33) 早期PayPal成员形成了“PayPal黑手党”，在互联网泡沫破裂后传统风投回避消费级互联网之际，将资金与专业经验重新投资于早期Web 2.0项目。 (38:54) 创始人必须优先招募具有高学习能力的人才（“A级人才”），并投入多达三分之一的时间用于招聘，同时利用非候选人提供的背调电话（off-reference calls）发现真实短板。 (42:09) 初创企业生来就处于“默认死亡”状态，需要极高的工作强度和超长工作时长，这使得传统的工作与生活平衡难以与竞争激烈的早期成长相兼容。 (59:17)

Reading summary

Reid Hoffman argues that transformative entrepreneurial success requires pursuing contrarian ideas overlooked by consensus, assembling talent capable of sustaining extreme execution velocity, and aggressively riding macro technological shifts like artificial intelligence. Across venture building, platform governance, and civic engagement, he maintains that leaders must manage asymmetrical risks with strategic realism rather than defensive caution. Contrarian Venturing and the Economics of Blitzscaling (25:33) Hoffman asserts that category-defining companies rarely emerge from consensus concepts, which invite intense competition from the outset. Instead, the most valuable ventures rely on contrarian theses where intelligent experts expect failure, giving founders a multi-year window to build without direct competition. In LinkedIn's early days, critics warned that professionals would never risk posting public profiles, while early investors initially dismissed Airbnb over perceived physical and regulatory hazards. Hoffman explains that venture capital depends on asymmetrical upside: while new startups are default dead and face an estimated 75–80% chance of failure, a contrarian success can transform an entire industry. In winner-take-all markets driven by network effects, Hoffman contends that companies must adopt blitzscaling—prioritizing execution speed over operational efficiency. Reflecting on PayPal's need to reach $1 billion in transactional scale and Uber's rapid geographic rollout, he notes that once a competitor begins blitzscaling, rival founders have little choice but to deploy capital aggressively to secure the dominant market position. Talent Density, Work Intensity, and Leadership Archetypes (49:45) Because startups lack the institutional cushions of established corporations, Hoffman views high talent density and acute competitive self-awareness as non-negotiable. He prioritizes off-balance reference calls over interviews, arguing that evaluating a candidate's actual track record reveals far more than rehearsed presentations. Hoffman rejects criticisms that intense startup hours are inherently toxic, comparing the commitment to Olympic training: during LinkedIn's early growth, staff worked 6.5 days a week and logged back on after evening family dinners, accepting equity in exchange for extreme effort. Examining leadership styles among the PayPal diaspora, Hoffman contrasts Workday co-founder Aneel Bhusri—who personally conducted cultural interviews for the first 500 hires—with Elon Musk's high-friction style driven by extreme technological conviction, such as his earliest pitches to send life to Mars. While acknowledging that Musk's intensity frequently causes severe employee burnout, Hoffman advocates a relationship-driven model centered on building lifelong professional trust across founders and teams. AI Platform Shifts and Global Competitive Imperatives (115:20) Hoffman classifies modern artificial intelligence as a foundational general-purpose technology comparable to electricity or the printing press. Recalling his early investment in OpenAI, he attributes the industry's inflection point to the realization that Transformer architectures required massive scale computing learning systems rather than explicit hand-coding. Hoffman describes frontier models not as conscious artificial general intelligences, but as cognitive savants capable of synthesizing insights across obscure, intersecting domains that no single human expert masters. For everyday professionals, Hoffman recommends integrating AI directly into high-value domain workflows—such as due diligence analysis—rather than superficial consumer tasks. Geopolitically, he warns that calls for voluntary regulatory pauses are dangerous: because technology develops competitively across sovereign nations, unilateral pauses by benevolent actors merely concede technological leadership to adversaries. In his book Superagency, co-authored with Greg Beato, Hoffman argues that navigating AI requires actively constructing a positive, ambitious vision rather than retreating into paralyzing risk mitigation. Political Retaliation Risks and Institutional Deregulation (73:43) Addressing his active financial and public backing of Democratic candidates, Hoffman estimates a greater than 50% chance that he will face personal or business retaliation under a second Donald Trump administration via weaponized state mechanisms such as targeted tax audits. While many Silicon Valley peers stayed quiet during the 2024 election to minimize downside risk, Hoffman refuses to leave the country, asserting that civic responsibility requires active participation regardless of personal friction. Despite his opposition, Hoffman highlights potential benefits in Trump's policy agenda, notably deregulation that could accelerate startup launches and expedite nuclear energy infrastructure. Conversely, he cautions that aggressive environmental rollbacks and strict immigration policies threaten long-term stability and the inflow of elite global talent. Regarding platform governance, Hoffman distinguishes between freedom of speech and freedom of reach, arguing social networks should tolerate fringe opinions while restricting algorithmic amplification and using contextual fact-checking instead of outright censorship. Hoffman's operational thesis assumes that founders and operators possess both the risk appetite and strategic agility to navigate winner-take-all technological disruptions. However, his framework leaves unresolved how broader workforces and civic institutions can successfully adapt to the rapid economic displacement of agentic AI and escalating political polarization without the structural safety nets available to elite venture capitalists.

精炼阅读摘要

领英联合创始人兼投资人里德·霍夫曼（Reid Hoffman）提出，突破性商业成就依赖于经得起推敲的逆向判断，并以极端创业强度与顶级人才密度打破初创企业的“默认死亡”状态。他主张将人工智能视为放大人类能动性的划时代引擎，同时直面地缘竞争与政治反噬的不确定性，以长期主义与高质量人际连接作为前行的压舱石。逆向创新判断与闪电式扩张机制 (25:33) 霍夫曼指出，商业构想分为共识型与逆向型；真正的巨大机遇往往源自聪明人普遍断言会失败、但自身拥有合理解释的非共识判断。创办LinkedIn时，外界断言职场人不会公开履历，以免引起雇主怀疑跳槽；投资Airbnb时，合伙人David Sze也曾预警留宿陌生人家中的安全隐患。但霍夫曼指出风投依赖非对称上行收益，一旦成功即可重塑行业。他向团队坦言LinkedIn仅有20%至25%的胜率，强调宣称初创企业有百分之百把握的人是在说谎。这种逆向构想需匹配“闪电式扩张”（Blitzscaling）。该策略专用于具备网络效应或赢家通吃特征的赛道，核心是以速度换取规模以夺取全球第一，例如Uber曾直接向优秀候选人推荐的同事发Offer而免除面试。霍夫曼结合早期PayPal经历强调，线上支付若无法达到10亿美元年交易额就注定出局（如今已超百亿美元），急速跨越不盈利期是企业的生存刚需。创业强度、人才密度与职业进阶节奏 (66:19) 针对创业文化争议，霍夫曼主张明确规则与知情选择。他直言初创企业本质上“默认死亡”，唯有全力冲刺才能转化为“默认生存”。他将高风险创业比作奥运游泳健将训练：若坚持每天仅训练两小时，绝不可能达到顶尖水准。LinkedIn创立初期团队每周工作6.5天，员工被鼓励回家吃晚餐后重新上线工作，这种牺牲换来的是早期员工通过股权变现获得财务自由。创始人必须克服不安全感，聘用自身愿意为其效力的顶级人才，并通过非候选人提供的渠道深入开展背景调查。结合《Startup of You》框架，霍夫曼批评盲目“追随激情”的传统建议，强调职业规划应讲求顺序。年轻时生活成本低且抗风险能力强，应优先积累知识、技能、人脉与声誉等资本，建立稳固的经济杠杆；步入30岁面临独立生活与育儿等阶段后，再基于前期沉淀行使自主选择权。人工智能的认知特质、地缘竞争与落地实践 (100:58) 霍夫曼将当前AI定位于“认知博学者”（cognitive savants）而非具备自主意识的实体。他指出全球同时精通混合专家模型（MoE）、博弈论与海洋学的专家几乎为零，但GPT-4等大模型却能瞬间完成跨学科综合分析。OpenAI的先见之明在于认清现代AI是“规模化计算学习系统”，核心在于算力中心、海量数据与Transformer架构的规模堆叠，而非手工编写规则。对于社会层面的AI恐惧，霍夫曼援引活字印刷术引发宗教冲突的历史，指出技术跃进必然带来震荡，但他坚决反对“暂停研发”的呼吁。在主权国家竞争格局下，善意研发者的单方面停滞只会让缺乏底线的对手占得先机。针对专业人士落地，霍夫曼引用沃顿商学院教授Ethan Mollick的判断指出，“你今天使用的AI将是你此生用过最差的一款”；从业者应将其深度融入尽职调查等精密工作流，而非仅用于浅层娱乐。政治反噬预期、监管重构与平台言论边界 (73:43) 公开支持民主党的霍夫曼透露，由于特朗普多次发出报复威胁，许多硅谷精英在2024年大选期间选择沉默。霍夫曼评估自己有“超过50%的概率”将因政治立场面临来自政府机构的不正当打击，如针对性税务审计或合同取消，但他明确表示不会离开美国。与此同时，他客观看待新一届特朗普政府的双重影响：一方面，大力度的“监管重构”及对核电审批的提速有助于缓解AI电力缺口并降低创业门槛；另一方面，环保政策倒退与收紧移民政策将削弱美国吸纳全球顶尖人才的能力。在平台治理上，霍夫曼明确区分了“言论自由”与“传播自由”。他主张平台可以容纳边缘异见，但绝不能通过推荐算法将其恶意放大，并倡导通过事实背景注释（如前推特的上下文标签）向公众提供多元信息，而非简单粗暴地封禁账号。长期伙伴关系、领导风格与人生意义追求 (59:17) 霍夫曼对比了硅谷不同的领袖模式：Workday的Aneel Bhusri注重文化一致性并亲自把关前500名员工面试，而埃隆·马斯克则凭绝对信念推动火箭等极限工程，虽然曾被霍夫曼误判为不可行，但其高强度管理容易导致团队精疲力竭。霍夫曼自身在LinkedIn推行以长期信任为核心的人际模式，力求即使在解聘员工后依然维持互信。霍夫曼打破“不与朋友合伙”的传统规条，指出创业既然耗费巨大精力，理应与所爱之人携手同行。他与彼得·蒂尔自斯坦福本科相识至今，虽政治理念尖锐对立，却始终保持深厚友谊与思辨交流。告别CEO全职角色的霍夫曼，如今作为联合创始人与顾问支持Inflection等企业，并长期维护夫妻主动沟通机制与记录友谊哲思，坚信人生的最终价值在于与所爱之人同行并实质推动人类福祉。霍夫曼在新作《Superagency》中倡导一种积极建构的科技乐观主义，强调唯有明确描摹正向未来才能引导技术良性落地。然而，正如他所面临的政治报复风险与跨国技术博弈所揭示的，如何在制度摩擦、政治极化与技术失控威胁的多重挑战下维系理性协作，仍是留给科技界与社会的长期考验。

Detailed notes — zh

## Background 该视频由知名播客《The Diary Of A CEO》的主持人 Steven Bartlett 于 2024 年 12 月 16 日在 YouTube 上发布。节目嘉宾为 LinkedIn 创始人、PayPal 黑手党核心成员以及 OpenAI、Airbnb 和 Facebook 的早期投资人里德·霍夫曼（Reid Hoffman），主要探讨了霍夫曼在政治立场上的风险、创业方法论、管理哲学以及人工智能赋予人类的超级能动性。 ## TL;DR 在长达近三小时的深度访谈中，霍夫曼复盘了从 PayPal、LinkedIn 到前沿 AI 领域的完整创业与投资历程，剖析了如何在非共识赛道建立网络效应与实施闪电式扩张。他直面因资助民主党而可能招致特朗普政治报复的现实风险，强调富有阶层反抗新法西斯主义与捍卫法治的社会责任。针对 AI 浪潮，霍夫曼驳斥了暂缓研发的脱离现实论调，将其定义为赋予全人类“超级能动性”的认知副驾，并为年轻人指明了构筑技能与人脉软资产复利的职场路径。 ## Atmosphere & style 整场对话沉稳、理性且极具思想密度，充满了顶级科技思想家特有的哲学思辨与全局视角。霍夫曼与 Bartlett 之间的互动张弛有度，既有对宏观地缘政治与特朗普报复风险的平静直视，也有对创业生死低谷与婚姻互补温情的真诚流露。整场节目给人一种置身于硅谷战略密室的高阶智力激荡感，在拆解残酷商业规律的同时，始终贯穿着坚定务实的技术乐观主义。 ## Bulletin - [01:13:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=4423s) 里德·霍夫曼评估自己因出资支持民主党而遭到特朗普定向政治报复的概率超过50%，但他明确表态坚决留在美国并依靠法治予以抗争。 - [01:03:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=3782s) 霍夫曼直言初创公司天然处于“默认死亡”状态，工作与生活平衡根本不适用于创业生存战，团队必须保持极高强度的专注才能跨越临界规模。 - [01:40:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=6058s) 针对AI风险议题，霍夫曼将AI定性为赋予全人类超能力的“放大智能”（Amplification Intelligence），并痛批呼吁暂停研发6个月的主张脱离现实军备竞争规则。 - [02:29:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=8970s) 在商业与风险管理上，霍夫曼提出初创公司应践行ABZ规划模型以明智承担风险，且宁要拥有疯狂学习曲线的潜力新人，也绝不用停止进化的成熟老兵。 ## Key takeaways - [25:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=1530s) 颠覆性想法初期的非共识价值：顶级的商业机会往往来自极度聪明的人深思熟虑后认为行不通的领域，这种认知差能为初创公司争取数年无竞争对手的战略隐蔽期。 - [15:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=913s) 初创公司的本质是逆转“默认死亡”：新企业在自然状态下必然走向消亡，创始人的全部职责就是通过资本、顶尖人才与业务闭环，千方百计将其扭转为“默认存活”。 - [46:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=2773s) 人才选拔看重疯狂学习曲线与深度背调：CEO应将至少三分之一的精力投入招聘；选人宁要经验较少但学习曲线疯狂的潜力股，且背景调查的参考权重应远高于面试本身。 - [01:03:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=3782s) 创业竞技场不存在常规的工作生活平衡：如同奥运冠军不可能每天仅训练两小时，初创企业面对生死存亡的残酷竞争，必须以超常的高强度投入换取压倒性的突破。 - [01:24:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=5087s) 言论自由不等于传播自由：社交平台的底层架构决定人性表达，平台有责任避免通过算法推荐为极端荒谬的阴谋论和网络暴力提供指数级的扩散权重。 - [01:13:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=4423s) 亿万富豪的制度责任与反报复决心：在面对潜在的行政机器定向施压时，富豪不应采取极小化极大的沉默策略，而有义务挺身而出捍卫宪政法治与民主制度。 - [01:38:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=5925s) AI是增强人类能力的“超级能动性”副驾：当前AI并非终结人类的单一智慧实体，而是极度博学的认知副驾，能将专家的专业能力放大并普惠至普通公众。 - [01:40:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=6058s) “暂停AI研发”脱离地缘竞争现实：技术创新的全球竞争时钟没有统一暂停键，单方面停摆只会让漠视人类未来的竞争者狂奔，正解是确保前沿武器掌握在负责任的主体手中。 - [01:56:49](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=7009s) AI初创企业的务实路径是深耕垂直落地：非巨头初创公司不应急于砸入百亿资本去从头训练前沿基础大模型，而应聚合顶尖模型能力打造垂类小模型与高价值工作流。 - [02:01:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=7263s) 现代AI的实质是“规模计算学习系统”：OpenAI的核心突破在于坚定押注算力规模与自主学习，而非人工硬编码规则，海量工程、算力集群与数据结合构成了全新壁垒。 - [02:10:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=7813s) 批判青年“先追随热情”的鸡汤建议：年轻人应在18至25岁专注于积累技能、核心人脉与软资产复利以建立经济抗风险底盘，而非脱离市场现实盲目追逐未经检验的热情。 - [02:21:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=8468s) 闪电式扩张的胜负法则与适用边界：闪电式扩张以极端低效和剧烈资本消耗换取先发市场统治力，仅适用于具备强网络效应和赢家通吃特性的纯软件与互联网赛道。 - [02:29:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=8970s) 践行ABZ规划以明智承担风险：创业成功的关键在于管理风险而非盲目蛮干，应在全力推进核心业务（Plan A）的同时，预留动态转型方案（Plan B）与托底救生艇（Plan Z）。 - [02:32:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=9155s) 创始人的信用契约与员工任期制：创始人背负着不可轻易弃船的组织信用契约；而对员工则提倡2至4年的“任期制”，在阶段性使命完成后鼓励其奔赴更广阔的平台。 ## Detailed walkthrough ### [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=0s) 访谈前瞻：政治风险、创业心智与AI超级力量在节目的精彩开场片段中，主持人史蒂文·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）直接抛出了一连串重磅议题。面对唐纳德·特朗普（Donald Trump）可能对支持哈里斯的大额捐助者进行政治报复的传闻，巴特利特追问里德·霍夫曼（Reid Hoffman）是否担心自己会成为制裁目标，霍夫曼毫不避讳地给出了明确肯定的答复：“是的，而且是直接针对我。”但他明确表示绝无离开美国的打算。作为 LinkedIn 的联合创始人、“PayPal 黑手党”（PayPal Mafia）核心成员，以及 Facebook、Airbnb、OpenAI 的早期投资人与董事会成员，霍夫曼被公认为全球最具影响力的科技领袖之一。巴特利特指出，正是当年那批 PayPal 核心班底，后来相继打造了 Tesla、YouTube、Reddit、SpaceX 和 LinkedIn 等商业巨头。访谈预告中还快速穿插了关于商业认知、生活抉择与技术革命的核心探讨： - **创业者的胜率哲学**：“你不可能靠试图规避失败去走向一个乐观的未来。”当年创办 LinkedIn 时几乎所有人都断言它会失败，但即使胜率不是百分之百，也绝不意味着你不该去做。 - **工作的退出机制与平衡**：探讨普通人何时该果断辞职、如何看待初创公司的“工作与生活平衡”，以及在 2025 年积累财富的核心建议。 - **对人工智能的终极研判**：霍夫曼将 AI 形容为赋予人类“超级力量”的工具，并将其比作电力革命：“电力的确会导致触电身亡，但它对人类社会是不可或缺的。”普通人必须立即行动起来，掌握利用 AI 赋能职业与生活的关键路径。在正式对谈展开前，巴特利特插播了一则诚恳的频道呼吁：统计显示常态收听该节目的观众中有高达 53% 尚未点击订阅，他希望认可节目质量的听众顺手点击订阅支持，团队将以此为动力持续倾听反馈、邀请全球最重磅的嘉宾。 --- ### [02:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=123s) 成功的深层归因：科幻想象、人类命运与硅谷时空巴特利特向霍夫曼提出了一个充满敬畏的问题：纵观霍夫曼的履历，一个人能在整整一生中连续参与如此多深刻改变人类社会的巨头企业，并且一次又一次精准预见未来，这在概率上几乎是“不可能的奇迹”，甚至不像是“一个人的一生能承载的体量”。面对究竟是什么核心因果促成了这一连串成就，霍夫曼坦言自己从未被问过这样的切入点，随后他将这一切拆解为几个深层要素的融合。最底层的驱动力源于他自童年起对“人类本质与人类去向”的痴迷探寻。霍夫曼很小的时候就通过阅读硬核科幻小说建立了宏大的思考维度，尤其是艾萨克·阿西莫夫（Isaac Asimov）的《基地》（Foundation）系列，让他习惯于从整个人类文明尺度的演化逻辑去审视当下。他幽默地指出，虽然很多科幻小说里的设定纯属幻想——例如物理学理论至今都不支持把一艘《星际迷航》式的飞船塞进虫洞去实现星际旅行——但科幻文学让他早早聚焦于“人性与技术的交汇点”。恰好出生在斯坦福医院、成长于硅谷腹地，让他从懂事起就亲眼目睹了技术如何实实在在地重塑全球现实，这种时空环境深刻塑造了他用技术撬动未来的直觉。 --- ### [04:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=244s) 少年策略家：从桌游《符文巡礼》到12岁的第一笔稿酬除了科幻阅读，霍夫曼思维方式的另一大支柱是童年时期对桌面策略与角色扮演游戏（RPG）的极度狂热。巴特利特在现场特意拿出了霍夫曼童年玩过的一款实体桌游规则书——混沌元素（Chaosium）出版的《符文巡礼》（RuneQuest）扩展模块《边境之地》（Borderlands）。霍夫曼大约从10岁起便沉浸在这类游戏中。在他看来，角色扮演冒险绝不仅仅是讲故事的叙事体验，更是一场高度复杂的策略演练与集体解决问题的过程：你必须在严苛的规则与敌对环境中，与围坐桌旁的伙伴紧密协同，运用战术与资源去达成目标（比如从强盗手中拯救一座村庄）。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 霍夫曼少年时期的认知形成路径 accDescr: 展示科幻文学、角色扮演桌游以及硅谷网络环境如何共同塑造了霍夫曼独特的战略与创业思维 subgraph Mindset["战略与人生底色"] A["科幻文学 (如《基地》) 思考人类本质与未来走向"] B["角色扮演桌游 (如 RuneQuest) 训练战术、多方博弈与团队协作"] end subgraph Action["早期实战验证"] C["12岁闯入 Chaosium 编辑部 周末通宵校改游戏样稿"] D["获得160美元首笔报酬 验证自身价值，打破家庭偏见"] end subgraph Leverage["硅谷网络放大效应"] E["斯坦福/硅谷的资本与人才生态 技术作为撬动世界的支点"] end Mindset --> Action Action --> Leverage ``` 这种对策略体系的痴迷促成了一段极具戏剧性的童年往事。12岁那年，霍夫曼得知《符文巡礼》的出版商 Chaosium 公司就在他朋友家街角处，便直接推门走入公司办公室闲逛。主编为了把这个缠人的小孩打发走，随手塞给他一份尚未定稿的游戏开发初稿，敷衍地说：“拿去看吧。”然而，霍夫曼展现出了惊人的极客专注力：他在周五拿到文稿，利用整个周末逐页精细校对批注（Redline），并在周一一大早准时送回。主编接过文稿时原本带着掩饰不住的厌烦表情，但在翻阅了几页后大为震惊，立刻意识到这个12岁少年的修改意见具有极高专业水准。为了在出版物中合法拥有并使用霍夫曼的修改内容，主编当场为他开出了一张约 160 美元的支票，这成为了霍夫曼人生中的第一笔劳动报酬，而且那些修订内容至今仍印在该游戏的文本中。这笔收入还彻底扭转了他父亲的观念——此前父亲一直反对他玩角色扮演游戏，认为这是不务正业，但看到支票后便改口承认“这说不定真是一条可行的路”。 --- ### [07:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=440s) 拒绝成为“现代角斗士”与迭代式人生规划当巴特利特询问他少年时期的职业梦想时，霍夫曼笑着坦言自己当时完全不知道未来要做什么，唯一极其坚定的想法是：“绝对不要成为一名律师。”由于父母双方都是执业律师，霍夫曼自幼看透了法律行业的实质： - **现代角斗士的隐喻**：霍夫曼将律师比作现代社会的雇佣角斗士，无论是在律所服务客户还是担任企业法务，本质上都是拿人钱财、系上腰间的佩剑，为了合同或诉讼在法庭上进行口舌厮杀。 - **建设者与创造者的本能**：他承认法律对维持社会运转极其重要，但他从骨子里排斥这种单纯为利益方代理争端的工作模式。他内心的真正渴望是“亲手去建造东西”（Go build things）。谈及人生规划，霍夫曼表示自己至今可能都无法确切回答“长大后到底想成为什么”。相比于设定僵化的终极目标，他终身践行的是一种敏捷迭代的方法论——永远只制定一个“为期两到三年的滚动式迭代计划”（Two to three year plan that's iterating），在动态发展中不断根据环境与反馈调整下一步方向。 --- ### [08:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=512s) 斯坦福医院出生的隐喻：网络作为生产力的终极放大器出生在斯坦福医院不仅是一个地理事实，更是理解霍夫曼世界观的关键密码。霍夫曼解释道，许多外部观察者或许并不理解这个出生地的深远意义，但在硅谷的成长经历教会了他一个终生信奉的核心公理：“网络会放大生产力”（Networks amplify productivity）。这一洞见不仅是他后来构想并创立 LinkedIn 的底层逻辑，更是全球现代经济地理的根本规律。霍夫曼强调，如果深入剖析全球经济的本质，会发现推动增长的真正引擎并不是庞大的国家整体，而是高密度的“城市集群网络”（City regions）。硅谷之所以不可替代，是因为它构建了一个由顶尖人才、充裕资本、前沿知识、高效沟通和敏锐战略视角相互交织的生成性网络平台。霍夫曼极其谦逊地表示，很多人往往会产生“我是个绝世天才”的傲慢错觉，但客观事实往往是：“不，只是因为你恰好身处硅谷。” 在斯坦福和硅谷环境的浸润下，霍夫曼确立了两大颠覆性的思维模型： 1. **技术是洞察未来的唯一清晰透镜**：通过追踪底层技术革新，能够穿透日常杂音看到人类社会的发展轨迹。 2. **个人撬动世界的无限杠杆**：在这个独特的生态网络赋能下，哪怕是一个毫无背景的普通人，也可以通过打造一项革命性技术或创办一家科技公司，获得足以撬动整个地球的杠杆支点。 ### [10:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=603s) 承认运气的角色与破除“天命论” 主持人指出，Reid Hoffman 出生在斯坦福大学医院确实占尽地利，但也有无数人出生在那里，却未曾取得类似的成就。对此，Hoffman 坦率地剖析了成功背后的心理机制。他指出，许多成功人士热衷于兜售一种“昭昭天命”（Manifest Destiny）的个人神话，坚信“我之所以伟大是因为我很优秀，无论把我放在哪里我都会成功”。在 Hoffman 看来，这种想法纯属“自我欺骗”（self-delusional）。他毫不避讳地承认自己聪明、勤奋、具备战略眼光，甚至拥有人类中较为罕见的技能组合，但他强调：“任何伟大的成就背后必然都有运气的成分。”对他而言，最底层的运气就在于他早早获得了接触硅谷及其生态网络的机会。如果缺乏这种连接，他后续在科技领域所取得的颠覆性成就根本无从谈起，或者至少绝不可能以如此耀眼的方式呈现。 - 归因谬误：成功者常将系统性红利与运气美化为必然的个人能力。 - 关键变量：置身于硅谷生态体系所带来的视野与资源网络，是 Hoffman 取得成就不可或缺的外部推力。 --- ### [11:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=660s) 非硅谷创业者的突围之道：从《至关重要的关系》谈起面对主持人提出关于全球各地（如开普敦、印尼、澳大利亚、新西兰等非核心科技区域）的受众是否也能获得“巨大成功”的疑问，Hoffman 给出了肯定的回答，但强调必须具备极度清晰的战略思维。他提到了自己的第一本书《至关重要的关系》（*The Start-up of You*）。这本书的灵感始于他在母校佛蒙特州帕特尼中学（The Putney School）面向 17 岁毕业生所作的毕业演讲，核心主旨就是“成为自己人生的创业家”。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 战略优势三角模型 accDescr: 展示个人或企业在规划战略时需要结合的热情、市场竞争现实与战略优势 subgraph Strategy["战略优势三角模型"] A["个人热情 (Passion)"] B["市场现实与竞争 (Market Realities)"] C["独特战略优势 (Strategic Advantage)"] A --- C B --- C end C --> D["世界级成就 / 商业壁垒"] ``` Hoffman 批判了流俗的励志建议——“追随你的热情”（just follow your passion）。他认为仅仅充满热情是远远不够的，关键在于你是否拥有“战略优势”（strategic advantage）。虽然没有热情你永远无法达到世界顶尖水平，但商业必须考量市场现实与竞争格局。以开普敦的创业者为例，如果试图硬碰硬去做一个通用搜索引擎去对抗 Google，无异于以卵击石，因为 Google 背靠的是整个硅谷无与伦比的人才虹吸能力、海量资本储备以及极高内部迭代速率的信息共享网络。 --- ### [13:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=785s) Spotify 与 Shopify 的非对称竞争策略为了阐明边缘区域如何战胜中心区域，Hoffman 援引了自己在播客《规模化大师》（*Masters of Scale*）中对两位顶尖创始人的访谈案例： 1. **Daniel Ek 与 Spotify（瑞典斯德哥尔摩）**： Ek 采取了区域突围策略。他先在唱片工业体系相对容易沟通的斯堪的纳维亚半岛跑通商业模式、验证产品价值，进而拿下了各大唱片公司的版权许可。而在当时的美国本土，若想直接砸巨额资本复制这套模式，几乎会被唱片业的高门槛瞬间扼杀。 2. **Tobias Lütke 与 Shopify（加拿大渥太华）**：彼时硅谷普遍认为“电商战争已经结束，亚马逊赢者通吃”，因此硅谷资本和创业圈对电商平台类创业兴趣索然。Shopify 敏锐地抓住了这个认知盲区，在雷达探测不到的区域长期潜行，通过赋能海量中小企业搭建独立电商网站，逐步建立起庞大的网络效应。等到硅谷巨头反应过来这是一块万亿美元级的蓝海时，Shopify 已经构筑了极深的护城河。 Hoffman 指出，非中心地带创业者若想在全局软件竞争中获胜，既要避开巨头的正面锋芒，又要对全球核心技术中心（硅谷）的动态保持高度敏感，像 Tobias Lütke 一样持续与硅谷保持紧密的人脉互动和认知同步。 --- ### [15:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=913s) 创业者的自我认知与竞争敏锐度主持人分享了自己年轻时在卧室里懵懂尝试创办社交网络的经历，借此探讨自我认知（self-awareness）对创业者的重要性。Hoffman 区分了普通人的自我认知与创业者的特殊心智结构： - **非理性野心与自我认知的平衡**：卓越创业者通常需要具备“非理性野心”（irrationally ambitious）。这种狂妄的雄心有时会与客观的自我认知产生冲突，但二者兼备才是最理想的状态。 - **竞争盲目症（Competitive Blindness）是致命伤**：在商业领域，对竞争对手视而不见往往意味着灭顶之灾。若缺乏竞争意识却偶然成功，那完全是极少数“对手迟迟未察觉”的纯粹运气。 - **投资人的视角**：在硅谷融资时，如果创始人宣称“我们没有任何竞争对手”，投资人通常会立刻拒绝投资，因为这直接暴露了创始人对竞争格局的极度盲目。 --- ### [17:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=1044s) 创业决策框架：你真的适合创业吗？针对“是否每个人都应该去创业”的问题，Hoffman 斩钉截铁地表示：“不，绝非每个人都应该成为创业者。”创业是一场极高烈度的竞技游戏，其淘汰残酷程度堪比成为享誉全球的演艺巨星，或是跻身跨国大型银行的 CEO。 ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: 初创企业生存运转飞轮 accDescr: 资本、人才与业务落地构成的动态循环飞轮 subgraph SurvivalEngine["初创期破局飞轮"] Cap["获取资本 (Capital)"] Tal["吸纳顶尖人才 (Talent)"] Biz["业务闭环落地 (GTM / 产研 / 客户)"] Cap --> Tal Tal --> Biz Biz --> Cap end ``` Hoffman 为想要下场创业的人梳理了核心决策框架与心理门槛： - **审视自身禀赋与竞争优势**：评估个人的性格特质、技能储备和过往路径，是否真正赋予了自己在该领域的竞争优势。 - **正视“默认死亡”（Default Dead）的客观规律**：创业者并非对风险视而不见的盲目之徒，而是深知从创办那一刻起，企业在常态下就是“默认走向死亡”的，创业的本质就是千方百计将企业扭转为“默认存活”（default alive）。 - **资本与资源的运转飞轮**：能否有效锁定早期启动资金、是否处于能够吸纳资本与人才的流动市场中、是否具备高超的融资演说（pitch）能力，并在“资本 ➔ 人才 ➔ 业务闭环落地（产品、分销与客户获取）”之间建立起飞速自转的飞轮机制，是检验一个人是否具备创业可行性的硬性指标。 ### [20:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=1202s) 创业者的核心特质：资源整合与“无限学习者” 在大公司或成熟机构工作，你永远学不到创业初期那种“默认即死”（default dead）的紧迫感。你学不会如何从零启动一个全新产品，如何将极小的原型逐步做大，更学不会如何白手起家组建团队。大多数普通人天然渴望确定性——期望下周、下个月的薪水和工作职责清晰明确，“只要能做好手头的事，饭碗就能保住”。然而，创业者必须在完全没有安全网的环境下构建一切。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 创业战争三阶段战略演进 accDescr: 展示初创企业从抢滩登陆到占领市场再到稳固统治的三部曲演化模型。 subgraph Phase1["第一阶段：抢滩登陆"] A["海军陆战队战术 (Marines)"] --> B["获取初期 PMF (天使轮 / A轮)"] end subgraph Phase2["第二阶段：攻城略地"] B --> C["正规军大规模作战 (Army)"] C --> D["实现规模化 PMF (扩张与击退竞对)"] end subgraph Phase3["第三阶段：长期治理"] D --> E["警察维稳统治 (Police)"] E --> F["构筑护城河 (抵御新一代重磅竞争者)"] end ``` 创业不仅需要承受风险，更需要具备跨多条轨道撬动资源的能力——将投资者、早期员工、客户、顾问以及合作伙伴统一汇聚到你的愿景之下。为了阐明这种认知升级，霍夫曼引用了源自棋盘兵棋推演的军事战略隐喻： - **海军陆战队抢滩（Marines take the beach）**：对应种子轮和 A 轮阶段，核心目标是活下来并抢占滩头阵地，验证早期的产品市场匹配（Product-Market Fit, PMF）。 - **陆军占领全境（Army takes the country）**：对应全面扩张阶段，游戏规则发生根本转变，必须通过规模化 PMF 在正面战场击退对手、占领主流市场。 - **警察维护秩序（Police governs the country）**：当业务建立并展现出巨大价值后，必然引来新一代体量更大、实力更强的巨头竞相围剿。此时必须转入维稳与防守反击，巩固既得领地。每一阶段所玩的游戏规则截然不同。没有任何创始人能在第一天就精通市场、销售、产品、工程架构和运维的所有细节。因此，创始人最不可或缺的能力就是成为一名**“无限学习者”（infinite learner）**，随时根据游戏阶段的变化重新校准自身认知。 --- ### [23:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=1383s) 创业的双重视角：坚持与灵活的张力，以及微观 Plan B 在考察早期创业者时，霍夫曼会反复施压并挑战对方的愿景，以此测试其学习能力。一个优秀的创业者必须具备双重视角，容纳两种看似对立的特质： 1. **执着坚韧（Persistence & Grit）与敏捷灵活（Flexibility）**：既要对自己的底层逻辑深思熟虑、充满底气，绝不能被外界三两句质疑就全盘推翻；同时又必须保持开放心态，面对竞争环境的变化能够迅速思考应对反制方案。 2. **立足当下（Now）与极度野心（Long-term）**：必须全力以赴解决车库里两三个人的眼下生存危机，但视野必须牢牢锚定在星辰大海。“如果你只瞄准半山腰，你绝不可能登上月球；你必须瞄准月球。” 关于战略规划，霍夫曼在《Startup of You》中提出了“ABZ 规划法则”。很多人容易陷入“先做计划 A，不行就换计划 B”的死板思维。真实的创业状态是在宏观路径下，包含无数个“微型 Plan B”（micro plan Bs）的快速试错与迭代。只有当创始人意识到“由于市场环境变动，当前迭代后的方案其成功概率甚至比最初的构想还要糟糕”时，才是启动重大转型（Pivot）的契机——正如 PayPal 最早仅仅是做移动端手机数据加密，历经多次迭代才蜕变为支付巨头。 --- ### [25:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=1530s) 商业想法的两种分类：共识型赛道 vs “疯子型”颠覆当被问及“很多人都有创业点子，但发现别人已经在做该怎么办”时，霍夫曼指出，在当今超过 80 亿人口的世界上，如果谁认为自己是唯一想到某个点子的人，那他的数学肯定没学好。真正的核心门槛从来不是“第一个想到”，而是： - **行动力与势头**：在能将这个想法落地的百人候选池中，你是否是那个正在全身心推进、敢于辞职下注的人？ - **对概率的理性清醒**：即便在创立 LinkedIn 之前，霍夫曼已有创办 Socialnet 和作为联合创始人兼董事管理 PayPal 的辉煌履历，但他依然会对早期团队坦言：“必须讲清楚，我们当下的成功概率最多只有 20% 到 25%。”任何人如果宣称新业务有 100% 把握，要么是在自欺欺人，要么就是在骗你。从本质上看，创业点子可以划分为两大完全不同的阵营： | 维度 | 第一类：共识型想法（Consensus Ideas） | 第二类：非共识/颠覆型想法（Contrarian "Crazy" Ideas） | |:--- |:--- |:--- | | **外界评价** | 普遍认为是个好点子，逻辑直观顺畅。 | 大多数人第一反应认为你“疯了”（Crazy）。 | | **市场验证** | 可预测、易度量，可通过问卷调查、客户访谈迅速去风险。 | 难以用现有用户习惯度量，往往被主流市场严重低估。 | | **典型代表** | AI 驱动的新型 SaaS、细分垂直电商等。 | 早期的 LinkedIn（职场公开档案）、Airbnb（睡陌生人家里的沙发）。 | | **竞争态势** | 门槛透明，入局者众，必须在极短时间内同全球对手血拼执行力。 | 早期几乎没有正面竞争者，享有极高的战略隐蔽期。 | | **投资/下注倾向** | 适合追求确定性的成长期机构（如 Greylock 的企业级投资）。 | 霍夫曼本人最钟爱创立并重注投资的方向。 | 以 LinkedIn 为例，在创立之初，大多数人觉得不可理喻：绝大多数打工人都在既有公司老实上班，为什么要跑到网上公开自己的职业背景、列出人脉网络？而正是这种“在外人看来荒谬”的认知偏差，为 LinkedIn 留出了没有巨头正面阻击的黄金发展窗口。 ### [29:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=1791s) 逆向投资与早期 LinkedIn 的“不忠”隐忧在创立 LinkedIn 的初期，外界充斥着极大的质疑声浪。在 2003 年，几乎所有业内人士都断言这个项目注定失败，他们的逻辑非常直接：企业级服务才有利可图，而 LinkedIn 却把重心放在个人身上。更为棘手的是职场文化上的阻力——当时大众对在线公开履历的认知与今天完全不同，许多人担忧建立个人主页会被现任雇主视为“不忠诚”甚至是在偷偷找工作，进而面临被解雇或拿不到年终奖金的风险。但 Reid Hoffman 坚信自己对未来世界演变方向的判断，他毅然承担了这种典型的“逆向风险”（contrarian risk），坚信一旦被验证正确，不仅能重塑整个行业，也将给职场人和企业带来双赢。这种寻找巨大非共识的投资哲学，同样贯穿在 Reid 加入 Greylock Partners 后的第一笔投资——Airbnb 中。当时促成他加入 Greylock 的合伙人 David Sze（也是 LinkedIn 最有价值的董事会成员）在投资评审会上当着所有人的面直言：“每个风险投资人都会有一笔彻底搞砸的案子，Airbnb 就可以是你的那一个。”当时的 Airbnb 交易量极其微小，创始人甚至每周只要抽空打几个电话，就能联系完当周所有的下单用户。David Sze 罗列了所有致命缺陷：让陌生人住进彼此家里极度危险、各地市政府必然出台严厉监管、传统酒店游说集团会全力推动立法将其取缔，整件事看起来注定是一场“连环车祸”。面对满桌的反对，Reid 依然坚持投资，并坦诚这些风险确实可能让公司价值归零，但这恰恰是风险投资组合的意义所在。六个月后，Airbnb 迎来了经典的“曲棍球棒”（hockey stick）式爆发增长。David Sze 展现了优秀的投资者学习素养，主动找到 Reid 请教：“你当时看到了什么我没看到的盲点？”Reid 回应称，面对所有显而易见的致命风险，团队都有应对方案，最关键的是：正因为所有聪明人都觉得这是个糟糕透顶的坏主意，Airbnb 才得以在毫无竞争对手的环境下独自狂奔数年，从容建立起强大的网络效应与双边市场壁垒。 - **2003 年主流质疑**：聚焦个人而非向企业销售软件无法成立；公开履历会被企业视为跳槽的叛徒行为。 - **Airbnb 早期体量**：单周交易量少到创始人靠每天几分钟的电话即可覆盖所有当周用户。 - **逆向投资的护城河**：当绝大多数聪明人因为显而易见的系统性风险而退避三舍时，反而为初创团队赢得了数年没有竞争对手的黄金窗口期。 --- ### [33:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=2034s) 寻找“聪明人的反对意见”与冷启动破局 Reid 总结出一个反直觉的创业与投资法则：如果所有人都拍手称赞一个想法，它大概率不是什么颠覆性的大机会。真正的非共识机会，并非来自于“不懂技术的门外汉觉得它很烂”，而是“极度聪明的人深思熟虑后认为它行不通”。创业者必须基于对商业博弈的独特理解，拿出一套能解释“为什么这群聪明人全想错了”的底层逻辑。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 逆向思维验证与冷启动循环 accDescr: 展示聪明人的反对意见如何转化为创业假设并借助核心探索者完成冷启动 subgraph Evaluation ["非共识检验阶段"] A["提出商业构想"] --> B{"谁在反对？"} B -->|"普通大众/不懂行者"| C["无参考价值的噪音"] B -->|"极度聪明的朋友"| D["核心风险假设（如冷启动困难）"] end subgraph ColdStart ["LinkedIn 冷启动破局"] D --> E["1,000 名初始涌入用户"] E --> F["900 人：冷漠流失（无现成价值）"] E --> G["10~100 人：具备前瞻性的探索者"] G --> H["邀请好友建立人脉圈"] H --> I["逐步达到临界规模（Critical Mass）"] I --> J["网络效应全面爆发"] end ``` 为了寻找这种高价值的批判，Reid 每次创业都会主动约见身边最聪明的朋友，单刀直入地问：“这里面有什么致命硬伤？它为什么会失败？”他厌恶客套的商业吹捧。在筹备 LinkedIn 时，他与后来的 Greylock 合伙人、时任 Mozilla 首席执行官的 John Lilly 在硅谷一家早餐店碰面。John 毫不留情地指出网络冷启动的死穴：“第一个注册的人根本找不到任何网络价值，在你积累到 50 万或 100 万用户之前，这个网络毫无用处，没人会有动力邀请别人，因此它永远也长不大。” 这一犀利的洞察切中了构建社交网络的核心命脉。但 Reid 的解法则建立在对早期用户心理的细致拆解上：如果有 1000 个人进来，其中 900 个人确实会像 John 一样觉得毫无价值而离开；但剩下的 10 到 100 个人中，必然会有充满好奇心、看懂未来愿景并乐于尝鲜的“探索者”。这批核心先驱会主动把朋友和同行拉进平台，通过日拱一卒的持续渗透积累早期密度，直到平台跨越产生网络效应所需的“临界规模”（critical mass）。 --- ### [36:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=2212s) 早期 LinkedIn 的形态与“异步价值”的巧思当被问及 LinkedIn 在 2002 年立项、2003 年正式上线时到底长什么样时，Reid 澄清当时的形态与如今充斥着信息流（news feed）和日常动态分享的平台大相径庭。最早的 LinkedIn 本质上是一个“附带搜索功能与站内信沟通机制的公开简历库”。当时的社交网络新势力多半极度依赖高频的即时互动，如果用户上去发现没有人在聊今天吃了什么，平台就会迅速冷却。但 LinkedIn 的机制巧妙避开了这种对高频互动的强依赖：用户在平台上创建个人主页并贴出职业履历后，即便接下来四天完全不登录，其主页依然作为平台数据库的一部分持续为全网提供检索价值；一旦有相关工作机会或人脉引荐，一封系统邮件就能将用户重新唤回。这种“主页即价值”的异步特性并非设计缺陷，反而成了破解社交网络冷启动难题的核心解药。 - **2003 年核心形态**：公开履历库 + 搜索筛选系统 + 人脉联络机制，完全没有现代信息流。 - **被动价值网络**：用户的存在本身即向网络贡献检索节点，降低了对每日活跃社交互动的刚性需求。 --- ### [38:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=2326s) 从社交专家到“PayPal 黑手党”传奇正是基于对社交网络机理的深刻洞察，Reid 成为了该领域的顶尖专家与早期伯乐，不仅创办了 LinkedIn，还是 Facebook 和 Friendster 的早期核心投资人。对话随后转入科技界最具传奇色彩的群体——“PayPal 黑手党”（PayPal Mafia）。Reid 笑着打趣道，他个人其实更倾向于使用“PayPal 网络”（PayPal Network）这个稍显平淡的词汇，因为大家并不是什么黑帮犯罪组织，但他完全理解大众对“黑手党”这一酷炫称谓的痴迷。在 PayPal 时期，Reid 与 Elon Musk 紧密共事，而与 Peter Thiel 的交情则能一路追溯到他们的大学时代。这支早期核心团队在离开 PayPal 后创造了科技史上的奇迹，先后孕育或深度奠基了 Tesla、SpaceX、YouTube、Reddit 等巨头企业，展现出极其惊人的二次创业爆发力。 ### [39:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=2379s) PayPal黑手党的崛起与“Web 2.0”浪潮的先机当主持人询问究竟是什么造就了传奇的“PayPal黑手党”（PayPal Mafia），以及极高的人才密度是否是关键因素时，里德·霍夫曼（Reid Hoffman）给出了肯定的回答，但指出这只是庞大图景的一部分。真正的核心在于汇聚了一群极度敢于承担高风险、甘愿逆向思考，并在面对大众常识质疑时依然对自身认知抱有极强信念的人。更关键的历史契机在于，PayPal 上市时正值科技寒冬（dot-com 泡沫破灭期），当年全美仅有两家科技公司成功上市，随后 PayPal 被 eBay 收购。这使得一大批聪明过人、彼此拥有深厚信任与网络关系、手头握有充裕现金的人才瞬间涌入市场。更具戏剧性的是当时的行业共识：当时硅谷的主流风投机构（VC）一致认定消费级互联网（Consumer Internet）已经彻底出局，集体转投清洁技术（Clean Tech）和企业级软件（Enterprise Software）。当时创业者若想找风投聊消费级互联网创意，甚至连会议都约不到。然而，PayPal 这群人却坚信外界全看走眼了——之前的狂热不过是拍打在沙滩上的第一波浪花，真正的数字技术海啸才刚刚启程。于是，这群兜里有钱、认知超前的伙伴开始自掏腰包启动项目，并互相投资彼此的构想，接连催生了 YouTube、LinkedIn 等重磅产品。霍夫曼打趣道，自己最初提出了“Internet 2.0”（互联网2.0）的概念，后来蒂姆·奥莱利（Tim O'Reilly）将其精妙地包装为流传更广的“Web 2.0”。正是凭借资本自主、避免恶性内耗的良性竞合（Competitive Steering）以及对风向的精准把握，PayPal 黑手党才创造了商业史上罕见的连续成功。 - **时代背景**：PayPal 上市是当年科技萧条期仅有的两起科技 IPO 之一，被 eBay 收购后沉淀了大量具备资本和实战经验的人才。 - **逆势下注**：在风投全面转向清洁技术与企业软件的冷眼期，PayPal 早期团队反向押注消费级互联网。 - **概念起源**：霍夫曼最早提出“Internet 2.0”，随后被蒂姆·奥莱利升华定义为“Web 2.0”。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: PayPal黑手党成功飞轮 accDescr: 展示PayPal团队在科技寒冬中如何结合资本、认知与网络实现连续创业 subgraph CapitalAndNetwork["资本与网络优势"] A["寒冬期上市并被eBay收购"] --> B["早期团队获得资金自主权"] B --> C["高信任度的校友互投网络"] end subgraph ContrarianVision["逆向战略认知"] D["主流VC转向清洁技术与企业级"] --> E["坚信消费互联网海啸即将来临"] E --> F["自我造血启动Web 2.0新项目"] end C --> G["诞生YouTube、LinkedIn等巨头"] F --> G ``` --- ### [42:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=2529s) 创业本质中的“全员销售”与高明路演的法则面对主持人关于“创业的核心是否在于招募顶尖人才、打造企业文化并树立宏大愿景”的追问，霍夫曼强调了一项贯穿始终的核心基本功——销售（Sales）。对创始人而言，销售的内涵远不止传统的 Go-To-Market 或 B2B 签单，而是一种“向全员兜售愿景”的能力。无论面对潜在合伙人、关键员工还是外部投资人，本质上都是在说服对方把时间、声誉或真金白银押注在自己的愿景之上。在极少数能真正传授给创业者的技能中，排在首位的就是路演（Pitching）——如何用精准的沟通让人心潮澎湃，甘愿与你并肩作战。在谈到路演的常见陷阱时，霍夫曼指出许多年轻创业者误将乔布斯式的“现实扭曲场”奉为圣经，试图用毫无根基的狂妄来震慑听众（例如声称“我们要用硅芯片做冰淇淋奶昔，这是没人想到的万亿赛道”），结果只会让对方觉得此人精神失常。霍夫曼强调，优秀的路演本质上是一场与极聪明的人展开的高质量“双向对话”（Dialogue）： 1. **宏大愿景与清醒认知的平衡**：不要承诺“LinkedIn 绝不可能失败”这种虚妄话术，而是坦率展示路线图：“我们正在瞄准一个万亿级的宏大目标，途中必将遭遇这几个极其致命的硬性风险；如果我们成功拆解了这些风险，我们就会站上这个顶点。”这种坦诚不仅不会吓退聪明人，反而会极大地建立信誉度与专业可信度。 2. **看清战局与自身壁垒**：必须讲透自己所玩的游戏规则。消费级互联网大多属于经典电影《拜金一族》（Glengarry Glen Ross）中描述的残酷市场——“一等奖是凯迪拉克轿车，二等奖是一套牛排刀，三等奖是直接被解雇”。在这个胜者通吃的赛道上，创始人必须清晰论证技术趋势、市场偏好以及团队独有优势为何能确保自己拿下第一名。 --- ### [46:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=2773s) 提前铺路与招聘法则：用疯狂学习曲线取代履历年资在路演和商务谈判的具体策略上，霍夫曼给出了反直觉的实战心法：永远不要在急需用钱时才做 PPT 去敲投资人的大门，那往往为时已晚。最顶级的沟通，是在不需要对方签字打钱的时候就已经提前数月甚至数年启动交流。无论是寻求投资、战略合作还是延揽核心骨干，都要在没有契约压力的情境下建立深度连接。所谓“永远在招聘”（Always be recruiting），绝不是等岗位空缺了才到处抓人，而是长期与行业内最顶尖的人才保持对话，哪怕当下没有匹配的坑位，也要为未来的扩张或引荐预埋纽带。关于如何选拔人才，霍夫曼分享了自己从初次创业项目 Socialnet 跌跤后带到 PayPal 的深刻教训。在创立 Socialnet 时，他盲信商学院教科书的经验主义，执着于招聘在对应领域拥有 10 年以上光鲜简历的人。但在瞬息万变的前沿战场，他痛苦地发现过往经验往往沦为思维定势。进入 PayPal 并担任董事后，他彻底扭转了用人标准： > “宁要一个只有 2 年工作经验但拥有疯狂学习曲线（Insane Learning Curve）的人，也绝不要一个经验丰富却停止进化的人。” PayPal 早期涉足数字支付和金融边界业务，内部几乎没有具备传统银行或支付背景的老资历，全靠一帮自我学习迭代速度极快、能在未知迷雾中迅速摸索出答案的年轻人打下江山。霍夫曼最后向所有创始人敲响警钟：如果一名 CEO 没有将至少三分之一（1/3）的精力真正花在招聘顶尖人才上，那他绝对属于严重失职，因为商业从来都不是单打独斗，而是一项彻头彻尾的团队运动。 - **用人模型反思**：放弃对 10 年以上行业老兵的盲目迷信，全面转向考核“快速自学、极限迭代”的学习曲线。 - **时间分配铁律**：初创期创始人必须将不低于三分之一的时间倾注在网罗顶尖人才上，否则无法撑起超速发展的组织架构。 ### [49:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=2981s) 招聘顶级人才：初创公司真正的制胜杠杆在足球比赛中，如果仅仅拥有一个极其出色的前锋，却忽视中场、后卫或守门员，球队绝对无法赢得比赛。雷德·霍夫曼（Reid Hoffman）借此比喻指出，创业者即便自身在某一领域是顶尖高手，也必须补齐团队所有位置的顶尖人才。主持人深有感触地回忆道，自己十八九岁时总天真地以为，事业成果完全取决于自己工作有多拼命、点子有多精妙；直到偶然招聘到一位极其出色的员工，才猛然惊觉顶尖“A级人才”（A-player）能对全局带来何等颠覆性的影响。谈到人才标杆，霍夫曼特别提到了马克·扎克伯格（Mark Zuckerberg）的招聘法则——“只招募那些如果你在他手下工作你也心甘情愿的人”。这种心态是对高超才华的最佳检验。然而，年轻的创业者往往伴随着强烈的不安全感，常会怀疑“为什么那样的大神愿意来我们这里”、“我根本付不起薪水”，甚至害怕自己无法驾驭比自己优秀的人。霍夫曼强调，如果能招到在能力上超越自己的人，创业成功的概率将成倍提升；对于这类顶尖人才，最有效、最顶级的管理哲学往往极其简单纯粹：给他们彻底松绑，放手让他们施展拳脚（"let them loose"）。 - **扎克伯格准则**：寻找那些才华横溢到让你愿意为其工作的下属。 - **管理最高境界**：对于顶尖A级人才，最好的管理方式不是步步微观管控，而是彻底放权与松绑。 --- ### [51:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=3066s) 背调重于面试：如何挖出应聘者的真实弱点面对“慢招快裁”（hire slow, fire fast）等常见职场格言，霍夫曼提出了一个鲜明且坚定的原则：在招聘决策中，背景调查（References）的重要性远超面试（Interviews）。面试具有极大的欺骗性，许多人在面试场景中训练有素、善于推销自己，而真正优秀的人——比如某些极为硬核的工程师——在面试时可能讷讷无言、表现平平，但在实战现场却能创造惊人的奇迹。霍夫曼断言，如果只能在“仅凭背调”或“仅凭面试”中二选一，他十次有十次都会毫不犹豫地选择依据背调来招人。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 背景调查层层深挖策略 accDescr: 展示霍夫曼在背调中如何通过施压与对照获取候选人真实弱点的流程 subgraph Phase1["第一阶段：突破官方背调人心理防线"] A["联系候选人给出的推荐人 （如 Bob / Susan）"] --> B["提出前置假设： 人无完人，无弱点即代表问题严重不敢聘用"] B --> C["逼出表面式弱点 （完美主义 / 工作太拼）"] end subgraph Phase2["第二阶段：追问与交叉验证"] C --> D["反向解读表面词汇 （效率低下 / 缺乏工作智慧）"] D --> E["深挖出真实软肋 （例如：高压下会陷入混乱）"] E --> F["携带具体线索交叉质询第二位背调人"] end ``` 霍夫曼所指的背调绝非候选人简历上提供的敷衍名单，而是通过诸如 LinkedIn 等渠道寻找非公开关联人（off-balance reference sheet）。即便不得不致电候选人官方提供的推荐人，霍夫曼也有自己一套不可动摇的破局话术：“我相信每个人都是优势与劣势的综合体。如果你给不出他的一项劣势，我就会默认他的问题严重到了不可录用的地步。”这招几乎百发百中，因为世界上根本不存在没有缺点的人。霍夫曼坦言自己也是优劣分明的典型：他是绝佳的战略创意与问题解决伙伴，但连下属都曾直言“我绝不会雇你去管一家麦当劳分店”，他也深知自己去管麦当劳一定会搞得一团糟。在背调中，当推荐人试图用“完美主义”或“太拼命加班”这种避重就轻的套话应付时，霍夫曼会步步紧逼反问：“所以他做事慢吞吞？”或是“所以他工作不得法？”直到对方吐露真章（例如“他压力大时容易手忙脚乱”）。拿到具体问题后，他再转头去向前一位或后一位推荐人交叉印证，彻底撕下粉饰的包装。 - **背调与面试的选择**：霍夫曼明确表示“10 次中有 10 次，我宁愿完全根据背景调查来招人”。 - **经典破局话术**：直言不讳地告知背调人——若你坚称候选人毫无缺点，我就视为此人有致命缺陷而直接放弃。 - **审视自身短板**：霍夫曼以自嘲佐证“人无完人”，承认自己在战略层面极富创意，但日常精细化运营（如管理麦当劳）则极其糟糕。 --- ### [54:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=3284s) 创业者图谱：从文化筑基者到狂热远见派从 PayPal 黑帮（PayPal Mafia）走出的成功创业者们风格迥异，这雄辩地证明了成功绝无唯一标准。霍夫曼指出，没有哪位创始人能在所有赛道和维度上全盘通吃，真正的创业法则在于找到并打赢自己具备巨大竞争优势的那场游戏。为了展现这种风格差异，他对比了两位截然不同的领袖：Workday 联合创始人兼 CEO 阿尼尔·布斯里（Aneel Bhusri）与埃隆·马斯克（Elon Musk）。阿尼尔·布斯里是极度严谨、专业且注重组织文化搭建的典范。当年他敏锐捕捉到企业人力资源软件向云端迁移的逆向机遇（contrarian idea），在 Workday 招聘的前 500 名员工中，每一位在通过所有技术与专业能力审核后，阿尼尔都会亲自进行最后一轮文化面试，以确保企业早期的文化一致性与价值观高度协同。与之形成剧烈反差的是埃隆·马斯克。马斯克属于典型的狂热构想派——他能抛出极其宏大的愿景，并让自己 100% 坚信这必然会在有生之年彻底实现，比如要在当下这代人活着时移民火星、对火星进行地球化改造。霍夫曼直言，在马斯克或任何人类当下的寿命周期内，对火星进行完全地球化改造在现实中是绝不可能完成的；但马斯克正是凭借这种全然押上身家（All-in）、疯狂工作、精通硬核技术且无视一切悬殊劣势的偏执，硬生生把不可能推向现实。 | 创业者类型 | 代表人物 | 核心战略与竞争优势 | 组织与招聘风格 | |:--- |:--- |:--- |:--- | | **文化与专业筑基型** | **阿尼尔·布斯里** (Aneel Bhusri, Workday) | 深刻理解职场与企业级市场，抓住云端化机遇，精细化深耕 | 极度重视文化契合度，亲自把关前 500 名员工的终面 | | **极致野心突破型** | **埃隆·马斯克** (Elon Musk, SpaceX / Tesla) | 押注看似不可能的超级宏大构想，以 1000% 的绝对确信度打破常规 | 驱动极高强度的技术攻坚，承受极高的人才消耗率 | --- ### [57:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=3428s) 疯子还是天才？初识马斯克的火星狂想霍夫曼回忆起自己大概是马斯克筹划 SpaceX 时路演的第二个人。当时公司甚至还没正式成立，只停留在纯粹的想法阶段。马斯克最初拉投资的说辞竟是：“我要把一只乌龟送到火星上去！”霍夫曼当时听得目瞪口呆，认为这根本称不上是一门生意，而且对手是国家级政府以及受俄罗斯国家补贴的火箭发射项目。霍夫曼坦承：“事实证明是我错了，他是对的；但从股权投资的角度看，那在当时真不是笔好买卖。”随后马斯克又把点子调整为：向火星发射一个装有植物种子的凝胶立方体，让种子在火星发芽，使自己成为将生命送上火星的第一人。主持人忍俊不禁地问霍夫曼，听到朋友一本正经说要把乌龟送上火星时内心作何感想。霍夫曼大笑回答，当时真心觉得他“彻底疯了”（gone off his rocker），要是换作普通朋友说出这种话，大家可能都要私下打电话确认这人精神状态是否正常。霍夫曼强调，自己对马斯克商业能力的极高评价从 PayPal 时期至今从未改变。马斯克在漫长生涯中一次又一次完成了不可思议的成就，但他推销所有构想时——无论是线上银行、地下隧道挖掘（The Boring Company）还是超级高铁（Hyperloop）气动管道——永远带着同一套“我 1000% 绝对正确、这必将成为未来一部分”的无上确信感。投资者必须保持审慎甄别，因为他的超大项目安打率虽然惊人，但也绝非百发百中。谈及团队建设，霍夫曼指出，马斯克确实善于招募顶尖人才（否则不可能取得如此成就），但他极度容易消耗团队。在他走过的发展轨迹后，留下了一大批被榨干耗尽（burnt out）的人；去跟这些离职员工交流，往往会听到极其撕裂却高度一致的评价：“那是我一生中最不可思议、最棒的工作体验——但我这辈子绝不想再为他工作第二次。” - **SpaceX 原始构想**：马斯克最初曾想向火星发射一只乌龟，随后又改为装有植物种子的凝胶立方体，以求成为首位将生命送上火星的人。 - **马斯克的推销模式**：对所有项目都维持“1000% 正确”的绝对确信气场，创业者与投资者需要保持理性甄别。 - **马斯克团队的典型反馈**：高度认可其成就但承受巨大心力消耗——“那是最好的一次工作经历，但我绝不再来一次”。 ### [01:00:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=3602s) 两种截然不同的管理哲学：一次性消耗品与终身合作伙伴关于埃隆·马斯克（Elon Musk）严苛的用人风格，里德·霍夫曼（Reid Hoffman）分析道，围绕马斯克工作的人群通常会产生两种极端分化：一部分人将其视作最糟糕的职场经历，发誓绝不再为他效力；另一部分人则全盘接受这种节奏。马斯克在管理上的底层逻辑在于将员工视为“可替代的零件”（disposable parts）——要求你倾尽全力冲刺，一旦你无法再为他的使命提供价值，你就不再重要。霍夫曼明确表示自己的管理哲学完全相反，而领英（LinkedIn）的发展模式正是他这一理念的写照。作为投资人和董事会成员，他自豪地表示自己可以接受任何合作过的创业者的背调。即便是那些被他亲自免职的 CEO，也依然会认可他在很多层面的建设性合作。无论是与 Airbnb 的布莱恩·切斯基（Brian Chesky）还是 Zynga 的马克·平克斯（Mark Pincus）合作，霍夫曼的目标始终是建立一段贯穿余生的长久关系。即使面临严峻分歧，他也坚持以高度协作、建设性的方式解决，而非过河拆桥。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 创业领导风格对比 accDescr: 对比马斯克的使命导向消耗型与霍夫曼的关系导向长青型两种管理模式 subgraph MuskStyle["马斯克模式（使命与工具化）"] M1["倾尽全力推进使命"] --> M2["员工被视为功能性零件"] M2 --> M3["价值榨干后离场或弃用"] end subgraph HoffmanStyle["霍夫曼模式（建设性终身伙伴）"] H1["即使出现激烈分歧"] --> H2["坚持建设性沟通与合作"] H2 --> H3["维持终身合作与良好口碑"] end ``` - **埃隆·马斯克的管理理念**：极度聚焦于使命达成，员工的唯一相关性在于“你是否还能推进我的目标”。 - **霍夫曼的合作准则**：在创业与投资中始终保持极高的个人信誉（Referenceable），即便解雇创始人，也能维持长期的尊重与合作。 - **扎克伯格（Mark Zuckerberg）的对比**：与马斯克的恶劣口碑不同，许多为扎克伯格工作过的人普遍反映那是“人生中最棒的工作体验”，并且非常乐意再度共事。 --- ### [01:01:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=3707s) 极度成功的代价与被忽视的隐暗面主持人斯蒂芬·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）与霍夫曼探讨了这种战略背后的权衡取舍。外人往往只看到马斯克跨界取得的惊人奇迹——从特斯拉（Tesla）、Neuralink、Boring Company 隧道，到 xAI、X（前 Twitter）和 SpaceX 的火箭，忍不住惊呼“一个人怎么能做成这么多事”。但公众几乎从未探讨过这背后的巨大代价。霍夫曼赞同这种观察，指出这正体现了自我认知的重要性：人们的大脑容易被光鲜亮丽的成就吸引，却盲目忽视了背后的残酷代价与“黑暗面”。霍夫曼指出，马斯克并非唯一依靠把人榨干并当成消耗品而取得极度成功的创业者。然而，很多正在崭露头角的新一代创业者深受马斯克主义的浸染，误以为必须无视人的基本需求、牺牲人际温情和生活平衡，才能干出一番大事业。 --- ### [01:03:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=3782s) 初创公司的本质与工作生活平衡的真相霍夫曼开门见山地指出：“初创公司天然就是濒死的，工作生活平衡从来就不是初创公司的游戏规则。”那些批评高强度工作“有毒”（Toxic）的人，根本没有理解创业的本质。加入初创公司完全是自愿的选择，但既然选择参与这场游戏，就必须直面其竞争残酷性。在领英创业初期，大约有三分之一的员工已经成家立业。为了在尊重人性与保持拼劲之间取得平衡，霍夫曼团队制定了一套务实的规则： - 员工每天傍晚可以准时回家与家人、孩子共进晚餐； - 晚餐结束后，所有人（包括霍夫曼本人）必须重新打开笔记本电脑，进入远程协同状态继续工作； - 周六上午全员照常办公，每周维持六天半的高强度输出。在被问及是否存在“既能保持工作生活平衡，又能成功做大初创公司”的例外时，霍夫曼指出仅有两种极端可能： 1. **完全缺乏竞争**：市场规模极小，根本没有对手愿意入场争夺； 2. **拥有极深且无法被撼动的竞争壁垒**：例如某业务唯一的命脉取决于特定三家大公司的合同，而你早已将这三份合同牢牢锁定。霍夫曼用奥运会选手作比喻：一个人如果说“我想成为奥运游泳冠军，但我每天只想游两个小时”，这纯属痴人说梦。真正的奥运选手每周训练七天，每天泡在水里长达十几个小时。商业竞争同样如此——当你选择回家享受生活时，竞争对手正在办公室免费发放晚餐让员工全天候运转（如同早期的 PayPal）。霍夫曼强调，领英对招聘者始终开诚布公，坦白六天半的工作节奏，而早期的数百名员工最终通过持有的领英股权获得了财务自由，换取了此生不再需要为生计奔波的自由。 --- ### [01:08:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=4090s) 四年卸任领英 CEO：认清自身能力的半径与规模化治理在带领领英走过初创的四年之后，霍夫曼主动卸任了 CEO 职务。这一决定源于对自己能力长短板的清醒认知。霍夫曼坦言，在公司规模处于 150 人及以内时，他的管理水平不输任何人，这种规模的组织非常适合他的直觉与特质。然而，当企业员工规模迈向 500 人乃至 1000 人时，CEO 的核心职责发生了根本性的转变——它不再是事力亲为地解决问题，而是转向了“如何治理公司的整个社区”。霍夫曼从继任者杰夫·韦纳（Jeff Weiner）身上深刻领会到了成熟职业经理人的治理方法： - **战略化招聘**：招聘不再依赖创始人或各个用人经理挨个单点搜寻人才，而是必须演变为一套系统化运转的全公司战略； - **标准化入职流程**：在大规模阶段，企业必须设立统一的集中入职日（Onboarding Days），让新员工以团队批次的形式同时融入组织，实现规模化协同。 ### [01:09:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=4175s) 创始人自我认知：卸任 LinkedIn CEO 与选拔杰夫·韦纳雷德·霍夫曼（Reid Hoffman）回顾了自己当年主动辞去 LinkedIn 首席执行官职位的决策过程。随着企业规模扩大，销售人员、工程技术团队等各类组织层级日益复杂，企业变成了一台精密庞大的组织运转机器。霍夫曼清醒地意识到，自己的真正热情与世界级专长在于技术战略（technology strategy）、产品战略以及宏大愿景的构想，而并非应对超过 150 人之后的大规模日常企业运营与管理。他极度享受与顶尖人才并肩作战，这也是他喜欢与创业创始人（Founders）和首席执行官（CEOs）打交道的原因——作为董事会成员或智囊，帮助他们推动企业前进。因此，霍夫曼给自己的定位非常明确：在 LinkedIn 达到“突破逃逸速度”（breakout velocity）后，立即招募一位世界级的专业 CEO 来掌舵。后来，杰夫·韦纳（Jeff Weiner）接任 LinkedIn CEO。在韦纳担任 CEO 的整个期间，霍夫曼的主要办公室就紧邻着韦纳的办公室，保持紧密协作与支持，但把运营指挥棒完全交了出去。主持人史蒂文·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）对此深表共鸣，指出很多优秀创始人（如 Airbnb 的 Brian Chesky、Gymshark 的 Ben Francis、Huel 的 Julian Hearn 等）都具备极高的自我认知，能够克制虚荣心，自愿放下附带光环与声望的 CEO 头衔。霍夫曼对此坦言，人皆有自我与虚荣心（ego），自己也不例外，关键在于“把 ego 绑定在什么上面”——他的 ego 绑定在 LinkedIn 的最终成功上，而不是绑定在 CEO 这个头衔上。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 霍夫曼卸任 LinkedIn CEO 逻辑链路 accDescr: 展示霍夫曼如何评估自身能力边界并推动组织迭代的过程 subgraph SelfAwareness["自我认知与能力匹配"] A["公司规模突破 150 人"] --> B["日常组织运营非自身热情所在"] C["核心长项：技术战略与宏观愿景"] --> D["更偏好作为董事会成员赋能顶尖人才"] end subgraph Transition["组织进化与交接"] B & D --> E["带领 LinkedIn 达到逃逸速度"] E --> F["招募职业经理人 Jeff Weiner 出任 CEO"] F --> G["办公室紧邻 CEO：退而不休提供战略护航"] end ``` --- ### [01:12:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=4323s) 成为亿万富豪后的人生体验与平民心态 LinkedIn 于 2011 年以 43 亿美元的估值上市，随后微软于 2016 年以 260 亿美元全资收购 LinkedIn。当时持有约 11% 股份的霍夫曼一跃成为身家数十亿美元的超级富豪。当被问及“成为百亿万富翁后生活发生了怎样的变化”时，霍夫曼展现出独特的淡然。他透露自己从来不转发任何称呼他为“亿万富豪（billionaire）”的内容，因为他刻意拒绝将金钱作为自己的核心身份认同。霍夫曼自认的核心身份是“技术专家、公共知识分子以及创意战略家”。尽管财富赋予了他乘坐私人飞机、在全球多地购置房产的极致特权与便利，但在这些高净值生活的外壳之下，他依然竭力保持着中产阶级上层（upper middle class）的生活节奏与习惯。例如在参加本次专访之前，由于到得稍早，他像普通人一样拐进街角的星巴克，点了一杯咖啡，打开笔记本电脑开始工作。霍夫曼强调，他最珍惜的是纯粹的人际关系——无论是全球瞩目的顶级名流，还是完全默默无闻的普通人，只要灵魂卓越、彼此启发，他就乐于与他们并肩前行。 --- ### [01:13:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=4430s) 政治立场与直面特朗普报复的风险霍夫曼历来公开支持美国民主党及左翼政治议题。他的父母政治立场相当激进，他童年时甚至坐在父亲的肩膀上参加反越战游行并遭遇过催泪瓦斯。主持人指出，左翼群体往往天然地将“亿万富豪”视为不义的化身，霍夫曼对此淡然表示，虽然左翼内部常有人直接斥责他为“邪恶”，但他完全理解这种情绪的来源，只是在逻辑上并不认同这种将财富必然等同于恶的绝对推论。针对 2024 年大选硅谷富豪集体噤声或右倾的现象，霍夫曼揭示了幕后的真实心态： - 唐纳德·特朗普（Donald Trump）曾公开发出个人与政治报复的威胁，导致硅谷众多富豪采取了简单的“极小化极大（MiniMax）”避险博弈：若卡玛拉·哈里斯（Kamala Harris）当选，未支持她的人不会受罚；若特朗普当选，公开反对他的人必遭清算，因此多数富豪选择退缩旁观。 - 霍夫曼透露，曾有富豪私下对他说：“我非常钦佩你的做法，你做的是对的，但这只适合你，不适合我。” - 霍夫曼明确评估，因为自己大力出资支持哈里斯，特朗普上台后利用国家机器进行定向报复与打击的概率“大于 50%”。 - 潜在的政治报复可能涵盖税务部门（IRS）审计，或滥用行政权力干预商业合同（正如特朗普此前曾因不满《华盛顿邮报》而施压国防部取消亚马逊的云计算合同）。 - 面对可能的报复，霍夫曼明确表示绝不离开美国逃往海外，他坚信美国宪法与法治基石。他极为敬重同样顶住炮火公开反抗的马克·库班（Mark Cuban），直言当富有且强大的阶层感受到恐惧时，更有责任挺身而出，否则脆弱的普通人将毫无屏障，不能纵容这种“新法西斯主义（Neo-fascism）”。 --- ### [01:17:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=4678s) 政治对手的闪光点：特朗普的“破坏球”效应尽管霍夫曼在政治上坚定反对特朗普，但他并未陷入非黑即白的偏激立场，而是客观指出了特朗普执政可能带来的潜在积极面。霍夫曼借用“破坏球”（wrecking ball）来形容特朗普打破旧官僚体系的行事风格：在某些积弊已深的领域，破坏旧秩序是破局所必需的。 - **监管重构**：霍夫曼赞赏在监管层面推行“每新增一项监管规则就废除两项旧规”的重构机制，这有助于精简行政冗余。 - **能源战略推进**：美国未来需要海量且清洁的能源供应以支持技术与经济增长，即便核能面临公众争议，特朗普不顾阻力强势推进核电建设的作风也是极其务实且有价值的举措。 - **公民信念**：霍夫曼强调，无论自己支持的候选人是否在台上，作为公民都绝不应该试图去“撕裂国家”，而必须竭尽所能让未来的四年对美国更为有利，共同追求集体的长期繁荣。 ### [01:19:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=4743s) 特朗普政策的双刃剑：监管松绑与气候及移民隐忧创业者永远没有等待完美时机的奢侈，只要有了好点子，当下就是最好的起跑线。里德·霍夫曼指出，即便资本市场环境恶化、融资变得困难，这也恰恰构成了天然的护城河——当其他人拿不到钱时，成功融到资金的团队反而能获得显著的竞争差异化优势，创业的精髓正是“把劣势转化为优势”。从宏观环境来看，霍夫曼预计特朗普政府对创业者整体将是重大利好，核心动力在于大范围的监管松绑。然而，这种松绑也伴随着极其危险的社会代价。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 特朗普政策对创业与社会的正负外溢效应 accDescr: 展示监管松绑和边境紧缩政策对清洁能源投资、商业活力与气候环境、人才引进的正反双重影响。 subgraph Regulation ["监管松绑的双重影响"] R["全面削减行政监管"] R -->|利好商业| E1["核裂变/聚变等前沿创业迎来春天"] R -->|破坏环境| E2["环保署偏离职能：气候变化与生态恶化"] end subgraph Immigration ["边境与人才政策"] B["收紧边境与移民限制"] -->|削弱优势| T["阻碍全球顶级创新人才流入美国"] end ``` 霍夫曼尤为担忧的是气候危机与环保政策的大倒退。他尖锐地吐槽新提名的环境保护署（EPA）官员：“当你问那位新任环境保护署掌门人的职责是什么，他居然回答说‘我们需要钻探更多油井’。你听了只能感慨：那根本不是环境保护署该干的事，那或许是商务部长或能源部长的职责。”这种推土机式的激进去监管，必将对本已严峻的气候变化造成不可逆的破坏。但硬币的另一面是，这可能为某些被官僚审查卡死的前沿硬科技带来生机。例如霍夫曼自身投资了数家核裂变与受控核聚变企业，旨在通过清洁且廉价的能源让数十亿人跃入中产阶级并实现脱碳，此前这些领域一直遭受极端繁苛的监管掣肘，政策重置或许会让这笔投资在事后看来极具远见。然而在人才端，特朗普倾向收紧的移民政策将对创业生态造成沉重打击，因为吸引全球最顶尖的人才本就是造就美国科技繁荣的核心支柱。 - 宏观创业哲学：资本寒冬反而能帮优秀团队刷掉大批竞争对手，形成资本壁垒。 - 监管红利领域：先进核能（裂变与聚变）有望摆脱长久以来的行政审批锁喉。 - 关键负面风险：联邦环保署职能异化加剧全球变暖；边境紧缩削弱全球顶尖智力资本的流入。 --- ### [01:21:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=4865s) 硅谷盟友入阁：对马斯克与萨克斯出任政界要职的审视当主持人提到特朗普新一届内阁中起用了数位硅谷重量级创业者担任显赫要职时，霍夫曼展现了他标志性的机敏与黑色幽默，当场反问：“你说的‘创业者’，是指完全没有做过所任命职务对应领域的经验之人吗？”尽管带着调侃，霍夫曼依然客观评估了昔日在 PayPal 共同打拼过的老同事——埃隆·马斯克（Elon Musk）与戴维·萨克斯（David Sacks）的能力圈。针对戴维·萨克斯出任白宫人工智能与加密货币“沙皇”（AI and Crypto Czar），霍夫曼直言不讳地指出了其认知结构的失衡。霍夫曼认为萨克斯不仅在播客领域如鱼得水，对加密货币的理解也极为深厚，在 Web3 领域战绩斐然；然而在 AI 领域，萨克斯至今尚未展现出实质性的行业积淀，硅谷顶尖的 AI 创始人圈子里也几乎没有人将其视为理想的投资伙伴或合作对象。霍夫曼打趣道，萨克斯在社交平台上经常宣称“反觉醒（anti-woke）AI”是眼下最重要的课题，这在他看来简直荒谬至极：“这甚至排不进 AI 治理、推广与研发前一百个关键议题的清单之中。”相比之下，马斯克对 AI 前沿工程与底层技术的理解则毋庸置疑是大师级的。 --- ### [01:22:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=4938s) 平台架构决定人性：X 平台的戾气与 LinkedIn 的文明规范自马斯克收购 Twitter（现为 X）以来的近两年时间里，全球互联网舆论场对于“什么言论可接受、什么不可接受”的标准发生了剧烈位移。霍夫曼在几天前赴伦敦发表“以赛亚·伯林（Sir Isaiah Berlin）纪念演讲”时，便深入阐述了自由权利的内在冲突：一面是“无论想说什么就能说什么的言论自由”，另一面则是“在公共讨论中发表见解而免遭暴民协同围攻骚扰的自由”。健康的社会生态依赖于两种自由之间的审慎平衡，但眼下的 X 平台显然滑向了恶性极化。霍夫曼用自己的亲身体验揭示了 X 平台当前极度“恶毒（virulent）且充满毒性”的氛围。哪怕他只是在 X 上随手分享一个赞赏创业精神的普通帖子，评论区也会瞬间被潮水般的咒骂淹没，攻击者大肆咆哮“你这个邪恶的自由派，希望你惨败破产”。反观 LinkedIn 的社区环境，用户即便发表批判意见，也会基于专业事实展开：“我认为这个商业构想在执行层面可能不如预期顺利，原因有以下几点。”这两种极端行为差异并非源于用户本性的善恶，而是产品底层架构的直接产物： | 平台设计维度 | X 平台（原 Twitter） | LinkedIn（领英） | |:--- |:--- |:--- | | **身份机制** | 匿名制，充斥大量虚假账号与自动化水军（Bots） | 强实名制，直接绑定真实的职业信誉与人际脉络 | | **内容审核红线** | 仅以“是否触犯现行法律”为底线，甚至放任强奸威胁 | 坚持基本的职业文明，即便轻度粗暴也会触发审核与警告 | | **违规处理结果** | 只要不违法即受言论自由保护，纵容人身围攻与极端情绪 | 多次警告无效后剥夺发布权限，甚至直接封禁账户 | --- ### [01:24:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=5087s) 言论自由与传播自由：从疫苗阴谋论到实验室泄漏争论面对马斯克“只要合法即可发布”的绝对主义主张，霍夫曼提出了数字时代治理的核心分野：“言论自由（Freedom of Speech）不等于传播自由（Freedom of Reach）。”任何人在法律框架内都有权表达自己的主张，即便那些观点极其荒谬，例如宣称“疫苗是政府为了植入芯片控制民众、诱发自闭症以牟取暴利的邪恶阴谋”。霍夫曼通过大数概率模型剖析了科学常识的价值：在十万名接种者中，可能确实有 50 人会出现严重不良反应，但这套免疫屏障却挽救了一千甚至上万人的生命；接种疫苗不仅是基于科学共识的理性决策，更是胜率极高的全民健康保障。法律或许保护阴谋论者发言的权利，但科技平台的算法绝对不应当赋予其指数级的曝光放大器与传播权重。主持人随后提出了尖锐的逆向拷问：在科学认知的迷雾期，如果对非主流声音进行降权或封杀，是否会扼杀真正的真理？主持人以“新冠病毒实验室泄漏假说”为例指出，英国前首相鲍里斯·约翰逊坐在这个演播室时就公开认同实验室泄漏论，但如果两三年前在 YouTube 上公开探讨该话题，创作者很可能会遭到直接封号。霍夫曼完全赞同这种反思，坦承自己当时就坚决支持公众讨论实验室泄漏假说，因为“颠覆性的少数派观点有时候确实应当享有传播的自由”。霍夫曼进一步阐明，人类社会确立真相并依赖专业力量的方式历来有迹可循：正如科学界通过严格的同行评审与实验可复现性来锚定规律，司法体系召集十二人陪审团倾听证据以裁定事实。面对专业争议，平台应当引入权威的专业认知体系，但绝不能简单粗暴地实行一刀切的噤声。他格外推崇马斯克收购前的旧 Twitter 探索的治理路径——既不剥夺用户的表达渠道，又通过专业事实核查标签与算法降权来遏制致命谣言的裂变蔓延，在宽容异见与遏制破坏性信息污染之间维持脆弱的动态平衡。 ### [01:28:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=5313s) 言论自由与传播自由的平衡：以“文明”为底线的公共讨论霍夫曼针对内容治理提出了“言论自由（Freedom of Speech）与传播自由（Freedom of Reach）”的关键区分。他主张平台不需要压制个人的荒谬观点，但可以通过产品设计加以平衡——例如允许某人发帖，但在内容周围附带提示框，标注“专家对此持不同意见，点击此处获取权威事实”。霍夫曼举例道，即便有人在 LinkedIn 上宣称“地球是平的”，平台也不会删帖，因为这种言论虽然荒唐可笑，但表达方式依然是文明、克制的。LinkedIn 的核心准则并非要求所有言论都在科学上千真万确，而是要求言论必须保持“文明”（Civil）。主持人和霍夫曼探讨了“封号”（Deplatforming）与取消文化的界限。霍夫曼强调，只要言论在法律框架之内且保持文明，就不应剥夺其发声权利。主持人以伽利略（Galileo Galilei）当年提出日心说却遭到天主教教会与全社会围剿的历史故事为例，指出历史上总有强大的既得利益集团在意识形态驱使下扼杀异见，因此平台必须允许异见存在，即使该观点来自看似毫无信誉的人。霍夫曼对此百分之百认同，他坦言自己从不介意公众批评他个人、批评他的论点、政治支持对象或慈善投资选择，但他强烈希望这些批评能基于知识、智慧与逻辑，并始终维持在文明对话的轨道上。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 平台内容治理决策逻辑 accDescr: 展示霍夫曼提出的言论自由与传播自由治理流程 A["用户发布言论"] --> B{"是否包含暴力威胁或违法?"} B -- 是 --> C["平台下架 / 封禁处置"] B -- 否 --> D{"是否符合文明规范 (Civil)?"} D -- 否 --> E["限制传播 / 社区规则处理"] D -- 是 --> F{"内容是否涉及重大事实争议/伪科学?"} F -- 否 --> G["正常自由传播"] F -- 是 --> H["保留言论自由，同时标注专家核实框"] ``` ### [01:31:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=5461s) 进化困境与平台治理：网络暴力究竟是谁的责任？主持人提出，从人类进化生物学的角度来看，人类的大脑根本没有演化出承受“成千上万人在 Twitter 上同时辱骂你是混蛋”的心理承受机制。作为公众人物、知名播客主和明星企业家，霍夫曼必须经常面对这种反直觉的舆论轰炸。主持人回忆起自己刚参加英国商业创投节目《龙穴》（Dragons' Den）和美国《创智赢家》（Shark Tank）而一举成名时，每天打开手机就会被潮水般的网络恶意所吞没，这让他感到极其痛苦。主持人随即抛出核心问题：面对这种人性中被放大的嫉妒与恶意，责任究竟在个人（比如自己选择删掉 App），还是在平台的内容审核机制？霍夫曼指出，人类在思考问题时往往容易陷入“非 A 即 B”的二元对立误区，而正确的答案往往是“两者皆有责任”（Both）。个人固然有调节自身行为和心态的空间，但这绝不意味着平台可以两手一摊、毫无作为。平台完全可以在秉持言论自由的同时，坚决向暴力威胁划清界限。霍夫曼以特朗普（Donald Trump）曾在社交媒体上发文暗示美军参谋长联席会议主席马克·米利（Mark Milley）应当被处决为例，明确指出这已经构成了直接的暴力威胁，此类内容必须被立刻清除。在霍夫曼看来，“暴力行为本身是非法的，而暴力威胁同样不应在任何负责任的平台上拥有一席之地”。 - **进化失调与舆论暴露**：人类大脑从未被设计去承受数以万计陌生人日夜不停的指责与辱骂。 - **二元思维陷阱**：平台治理责任不能被简单归咎于“用户自己不看”或“平台完全背锅”，双方都需要建立正向反馈机制。 - **底线红线划分**：文明表达是自由的前提，任何涉及人身安全与暴力威胁的言辞均应被坚决剥离于平台之外。 ### [01:32:49](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=5569s) 社交网络的下一个十年：分化、多模态 AI 与社会责任主持人回顾了自己几年前的一个预言：未来的社交媒体不会是一家独大的超级中心，而是会分化为各种垂直、细分的兴趣部落。当前 Bluesky、Threads、Instagram 和 Rumble 等产品的格局印证了这一趋势。在被问及未来十到二十年社交网络的发展方向时，霍夫曼表示赞同：正如当年他创办 LinkedIn 时，整个硅谷都坚信“除了 Friendster、MySpace、Facebook 这种纯生活类产品，绝不可能存在职场社交网络”，事实证明人类生活的不同切面需要完全不同的网络形态。未来的社交网络将进一步碎片化，融入多模态（Multimodal）技术与 AI 的深度赋能，形成各具特色的社群文化。霍夫曼提出了一个更深层次的产品设计哲学：社交网络在定义客户时，必须同时将“个人”和“整个社会”视为自己的客户。这意味着平台不仅要满足个体的表达欲望与隐私需求（例如在压迫性政权国家中，匿名功能是保护用户生命的必要工具），还要肩负起促进社会集体学习（Collective Learning）的责任。如果有人发帖宣扬“疫苗是企业屠杀儿童的邪恶阴谋”，由于这种误导性言论会对公共卫生与社会整体福祉造成严重伤害，平台就不能坐视不理——合理的做法是保留其发帖权利，但在下方明确附上由各大顶尖医院专业医生得出的统计数据（如 99.999% 的权威医生均支持接种）。在对社交网络历史功过的整体评估中，霍夫曼认为社交网络对社会总体而言依然是“利大于弊”（Net Positive）。尽管外界对 Facebook 批评颇多，但每天有十亿人借助它与亲朋好友分享生活与情感纽带；相比之下，他认为当前的 Twitter（X）正滑向负面轨道，沦为散播虚假信息最多的平台，但即便如此，它在未来仍然具备被修复和改进的可能性。 ### [01:37:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=5850s) 商业赞助：Fiverr 与 LinkedIn 广告在探讨硬核科技之前，节目首先介绍了支持本期节目的合作伙伴。针对日常创业与运营需求，Fiverr 提供了丰富的创意人才网络。如果创作者交付的成果未达到标准，平台的退款保障政策可为用户兜底，助力企业在 2025 年的业务起步。随后提到了 LinkedIn 自身对 B2B 商业合作的核心价值。在 B2B 营销中，企业往往不是在与单一个人打交道，而是需要面对由多名决策者组成的团队。通过 LinkedIn 广告（LinkedIn Ads），企业能够精准触达全球 10 亿会员、1.3 亿商业决策者以及 1000 万高管（C-suite Executives），并根据职位、行业、公司规模等维度进行极具针对性的投放。 - 优惠信息：访问 `linkedin.com/doac24` 投放首个推广活动，可获得 100 美元抵扣额度。 --- ### [01:38:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=5925s) 放大智能与超级能动性（Superagency）主持人 Steven Bartlett 引出时下备受瞩目的话题：普通人、初创企业与普通员工究竟该如何看待 AI？对话首先提到了 Mustafa Suleyman。Reid 纠正并澄清了外界关于 Inflection AI 的传闻——他与 Mustafa 共同创立了 Inflection；后来 Mustafa 前往微软负责消费级 Agent 产品，而 Inflection 则与微软达成了商业交易，目前依然作为一家独立公司稳步运营，专注于 B2B 企业级软件销售。谈及 AI 的核心本质，Reid 指出大众常说的 AI（Artificial Intelligence，人工智能）更应该被理解为 **“Amplification Intelligence”（放大智能）**。他在前一年出版了首部由人类与 AI 共同创作的书籍《Impromptu》，以此展示 AI 赋予人类的“超能力”。紧接着，他即将在 1 月推出新书《Superagency》（超级能动性）。所谓“超级能动性”，是指当一项通用目的技术（General Purpose Technology）普及到大众手中时，社会所爆发出的巨大力量。这种变革与印刷机、电力、汽车、手机的出现如出一辙： - 它不仅提升了个体的能动性（“我获得了 AI 带来的超级能力”）； - 别人的提升还会反哺于我（“你拥有了 AI，我的能动性也随之扩大”）。例如，一位医生有了 AI 辅助，诊治患者的能力被成倍放大，这不仅增强了医生的能动性，也让每一个可能成为患者的普通人享受到了更高质量的医疗服务。这与当年汽车问世后，医生能驱车前往更远的地方出诊、惠及更多病患是一个道理。 --- ### [01:40:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=6058s) 历史的阵痛：全球竞争时钟与“暂停 AI”的误区面对当前社会对 AI 的普遍恐惧与悲观情绪，Reid 明确表示这种焦虑“存在合理性，但必须加一个星号说明”。历史上每一次出现通用目的技术，舆论的风向几乎如出一辙： - 古登堡印刷机出现时，当时的社会精英与宗教神职人员同样惊呼“这将毁灭社会与人类认知”、“神职人员失去了对知识流动的控制权”、“这会导致谎言与虚假信息满天飞”。 - 但现实是：没有印刷机的传播，就绝不可能诞生后来的**科学革命**（Scientific Revolution）。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 技术演进与社会转型的双刃剑 accDescr: 展现通用技术从引发社会恐惧、经历阵痛过渡期，到最终催生巨大变革并推动全球竞争的闭环逻辑。 subgraph Phase1["历史与当下的技术冲击"] A["通用目的技术问世 (印刷机 / 电力 / 工业革命 / AI)"] --> B["普遍恐慌与抵制 ('毁灭社会' / '知识垄断被破' / '失业')"] end subgraph Phase2["阵痛期与竞争格局"] B --> C["不可避免的转型阵痛 (社会重组、利益冲突、阵痛过渡)"] C --> D["全球竞争时钟 (无统一组织可按'暂停键')"] end subgraph Phase3["终局与应对"] D --> E["拥抱变革的一方崛起 (例: 英国与欧洲引领工业革命)"] E --> F["超级能动性 (Superagency) 放大全人类认知与福祉"] end ``` 然而，人类社会在面对全新技术变革时往往显得笨拙。印刷机问世后，欧洲经历了将近一个世纪的宗教冲突与战争。因此，AI 转型期必然会伴随痛苦、挑战与社会重构。Reid 写书的核心目的，不是粉饰太平，而是呼吁人类以比过去更理智的方式去管理这次技术转型。针对“能否通过放慢研发速度、施加强力监管甚至签署公开信呼吁暂停 AI 研发 6 个月”的做法，Reid 认为这完全是脱离现实的错误策略： - 全球的技术竞争时钟并不是由某一个组织或单一国家说了算；不同国家、产业和公司都在全速奔跑。 - 回顾工业革命，欧洲之所以能在数个世纪中引领全球节拍并造就大英帝国的崛起，就是因为他们果断且早期全面拥抱了工业革命。 - 如果那些真正关心人类福祉的善良科学家选择“暂停”，而那些不在乎人类未来的人却继续狂奔，那么这种单方面的停摆最终只会让世界陷入更糟糕的局面。技术必须在持续开发与动态竞争中找到正确的治理路径。 --- ### [01:43:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=6237s) AI 的实质：领域学者（Savant）与超级副驾对于主持人提出的假设——“AI 是否就像坐在这张椅子上的另一个 Steve Bartlett，智商达到 1000？”，Reid 认为人类极度不擅长预设未来的科技形态。目前的 AI 更像是一位**极度博学的全才型特异功能者（Idiot Savant）**。 Reid 用一个生动的跨学科专业对比来解释当下 AI 的独特威能： 1. **第一层认知**：解释现代大模型的核心架构“混合专家模型”（Mixture of Experts, MoE）——全球能透彻理解此原理的技术人员不过数千人； 2. **第二层交叉**：将 MoE 架构与现代经济学博弈论（Game Theory）进行深度对比并寻找映射——全球能同时融会贯通这两个领域的学者可能骤降至 50 到 100 人； 3. **第三层交叉**：在此基础上，再融入“现代海洋学”（Modern Oceanography）进行三维度的跨界类比与综合分析——现实世界中几乎**不存在**任何一个人类大脑能同时掌握这三门跨度极大的顶级知识。然而，像 GPT-4 这样的模型，由于在训练中吞吐了以数万亿词计（trillions of words）的人类知识库，可以轻松在几秒内撰写出深入的三方跨界对比分析。 - **现实结论**：今天人们已经拥有了超越任何单个人类知识广度的认知“超能力”，但并没有人为此感到世界末日，因为大家清楚这是一种绝佳的辅助工具。 - **发展形态**：在当前的技术路线下，人类创造出来的并不是手持武器的终结者（Terminator），也不是失控的怪物，而是能够成为人类强力认知副驾（Co-pilot）与信息 GPS 的专家系统。 - **核心风险**：比起科幻式的人工智能毁灭人类，眼下真正现实的风险在于“转型期的社会重组成本”以及“恶意行动者（Bad Actors）如何利用这一超级能动性干坏事”。人类必须正视这些具体的现实威胁，而非沉溺于虚无的末日幻想。 ### [01:47:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=6432s) 全球军备竞赛与技术发展的两面性对话从地缘政治和军事技术的发展切入。主持人指出，当今全球各大国和地区都在不约而同地盘算着对手：中国盯着西方，西方戒备中国，俄罗斯针对周边对手，中东各方势力也各自剑拔弩张。在这种普遍的不安全感驱使下，各国都在全力研发先进的攻击性武器和防御系统，未来极有可能催生出类似“终结者”那样极度智能、可直接投入战场的自主战斗机器人，以及破坏力惊人的网络武器。当这些技术一旦成型并落入心怀不轨者之手，或是发生致命失误，后果不堪设想。 Reid Hoffman 赞同这一现实判断，并指出人类社会的应对逻辑向来是：“你必须确保这些武器首先掌握在正确的人手中。”技术本身不可避免地伴随着代价，从来没有毫无风险的重大突破。他以电力的发明为例进行对比：电力是维系现代人类文明运转不可或缺的基石，但在日常中人们可能因触电丧命，若落入坏人之手同样能造成恶性伤害。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 技术两面性与地缘博弈逻辑 accDescr: 展示地缘对抗下先进技术落入正反两方的逻辑，并与电力等历史技术进行类比。 subgraph GeoPolitics["全球对抗态势"] A["地缘博弈 (中美/俄欧/中东)"] --> B["军备竞赛：智能战斗机器人 / 网络武器"] end subgraph DualUse["技术两面性"] B --> C{"掌握在谁手中？"} C -->|正义阵营| D["构筑先进防御与威慑力量"] C -->|恶意/失控| E["恐怖分子/流氓国家/技术滥用"] end subgraph Analogy["历史规律类比"] F["电力文明"] --> G["驱动人类社会飞跃发展"] F --> H["触电伤亡 / 滥用风险"] end ``` ### [01:48:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=6494s) AI 的本质突破：代理性、认知超能力与光速普及针对主持人关于“AI 是否与过去的印刷机、电力等工业革命技术根本不同”的提问，Reid Hoffman 展开了深入的技术本质辨析。他指出，从概率分布的角度来看，AI 极有可能是人类历史上影响最深远的技术，但争论它究竟是不是“最”伟大的技术意义不大，关键在于它具备与其他划时代技术同等甚至更强大的力量。AI 展现出了三个过去任何技术都不具备的全新特征：首先是**代理性（Agentic）**。AI 正在创造具备自主操作能力的“智能体（Agents）”。今天，用户只需在连接互联网的电脑上运行一个 Agent，它就能全自动代替人类完成采购等复杂任务。其次是**认知与对话能力（Cognitive）**。AI 拥有惊人的语言交流能力，甚至让人误以为它具有意识。Reid Hoffman 纠正了这种错觉：过去当一个人能告诉你“我有意识”时，往往能通过测试（尽管失语者无法表达但也具备意识）；但如今的大语言模型宣称自己有意识，仅仅是概率文本生成的结果。从神经科学等严肃机制来看，目前的 AI 完全不存在真实意识。然而，人类造出了可以通过自然语言交互、拥有“认知超能力”的机器，这在历史上是前所未有的。最后是**部署传播的前所未有之速度**。过去印刷机或电力的普及需要数十年甚至上百年，而今天依托于智能手机与全球移动互联网络基础设施，工程师今天创造出一个全新 Agent，明天就能瞬间触达全球 10 亿用户。 - “新事物必然伴随焦虑，新事物会让转型期充满阵痛；但面对新挑战本身，对人类来说并不是什么新鲜事。” - AI 意识问题：未来的机器意识绝不会依托于生物灰质，其产生条件是一个极其深奥的研究课题，但眼下的模型纯粹是认知计算工具。 ### [01:51:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=6664s) 普通人如何上手 AI：角色扮演提示法与投资反思面对医院护士、律师、医生等普通职场人“该如何抓住 AI 机遇”的普遍困惑，Reid Hoffman 给出了极其坚决的肯定回答。他提到自己前一天刚刚与英格兰银行（Bank of England）的理事们座谈，他对这些央行高层的首要建议同样是：“亲自去深度使用 AI。” 普通人不应仅停留在浅层的娱乐用途上——比如让 ChatGPT 写一首给孩子的生日十四行诗，或者根据冰箱残余食材生成食谱。真正要把 AI 用好，必须将其接入自己的核心专业领域，哪怕一开始会遇到啼笑皆非的错误。Reid Hoffman 分享了他在投资中测试 GPT-4 的真实经历： 1. **失败的宏观测试**：他曾询问 GPT-4“Reid Hoffman 应该如何在 AI 投资中赚到钱？”模型给出的回答俨然是一个不懂风投的商学院教授：建议去测算哪个赛道的潜在市场规模（TAM）最大、分析颠覆式创新的竞争格局、做市场调研等。Reid Hoffman 直言这套逻辑在风投领域完全行不通——风险投资的核心在于找到不可多得的杰出创业者及其独特构想，尤其是那些极少有人想到的盲区。 2. **成功的尽职调查协作**：随后他换了种方式，把一份真实的创业商业计划书投喂给 AI，并让其列出做尽调的关键核查清单。这次模型给出的列表质量极高：其中有两三项是他本来就打算去查的核心项，有一项是他可能要花四天深入调研才会意识到的盲区，这直接帮他省去了大量时间。引用沃顿商学院教授 Ethan Mollick 的名言：“你这辈子用过的最烂的 AI，就是你今天正在用的这个。”正因如此，越早建立熟悉感越具战略价值。 ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: 角色扮演提示法应用流程 accDescr: 展示如何利用 AI 的角色扮演能力对论点进行辩驳与跨学科审视。 A["输入核心论点/商业计划"] --> B{"设定 AI 角色"} B -->|设定为挑剔的批评家| C["反驳论点 / 挑出逻辑死穴"] B -->|设定为坚定支持者| D["补充论据 / 强化说服力"] B -->|跨学科角色 (如技术史学家)| E["宏观历史长周期审视与批判"] ``` 在日常使用技巧上，Reid Hoffman 建议所有人掌握**角色扮演（Role Adoption）**技巧。用户可以把自己的一篇观点论述输入进去，要求 AI“扮演我的反对者与严厉批判家来反驳我”，借此暴露思维漏洞；也可以要求它站在支持者立场补充论据；甚至可以命令它扮演特定专家：“如果是一位技术历史学家，会如何批判通用技术引发现实恐慌的观点？”AI 的输出深度，完全取决于使用者的想象力与角色设定能力。 ### [01:55:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=6918s) 属于这代人的“网飞/波潮”：奔向旧金山与硅谷的软件进化针对 30 岁左右、拥有一定积蓄、遗憾错过了 2000 年互联网泡沫红利的年轻创业者，主持人发问：当下是否正是这一代人的“点康时代”？年轻创业者是否应该立即飞往旧金山全职投身 AI 创业或加入 AI 初创团队？ Reid Hoffman 斩钉截铁地回答：“是的。” 他回顾了硅谷（Silicon Valley）半个多世纪以来的演化历史与底层逻辑： - **硅谷的起点与变迁**：最初这里因制造实体芯片（硅）而得名；但如今，硅谷几乎早已不直接投资硅硬件，而是蜕变为了名副其实的“软件之谷（Software Valley）”，每年有数以百亿美元计的风投资本涌入新型软件企业。 - **技术浪潮的接力传递**：硅谷的技术迭代经历了一条清晰的轨迹——从早期的半导体底层硬件，发展到思科（Cisco）为代表的网络通信设备，再顺流而下进入消费互联网（Web 1.0）、移动互联网以及 Web 2.0 时代。 - **AI 成为最新主战场**：如今的人工智能浪潮正是这条创新长河中最新的宏大篇章，其集聚的资本密度、人才浓度和创新速度，正在旧金山和硅谷这片土壤上全面复刻甚至超越当年的互联网繁荣。 ### [01:56:49](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=7009s) 通用技术的创业红利与AI浪潮的重塑 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: AI通用技术驱动创业变革的路径 accDescr: 展示通用技术如何像互联网一样创造全新空间、改造旧业务，并探讨初创公司调用前沿大模型的策略。 subgraph TechWave["通用技术浪潮的冲击"] A["通用基础技术 (如互联网 / AI)"] --> B["绿地创新：创造全新商业形态 (例: Airbnb依托互联网诞生)"] A --> C["传统改造：智能化颠覆现有业务 (例: 邮购目录转型为电商/云化)"] end subgraph StartupStrategy["AI 初创公司的路线选择"] D{"资源与路径抉择"} D -->|不推荐初创公司| E["耗资百亿美元自研 Frontier Model (算力与资本门槛过高)"] D -->|推荐高效路径| F["调用前沿模型 (OpenAI / Google / MS)"] D -->|应用落地案例| G["自建专有模型 / 聚合各家最佳模型 (例: Bret Taylor 创立的 Sierra)"] end TechWave --> StartupStrategy ``` 当一种全新的通用技术（General-purpose technology）出现时，它会为创业者开启庞大的市场空间。雷德·霍夫曼（Reid Hoffman）指出，这主要体现在两个维度：首先是开拓“绿地市场”（Green field），创造以前根本不可能存在的商业形态。就像没有互联网就不可能诞生 Airbnb 一样，互联网是衡量当前这波 AI 浪潮的绝佳对照物；其次是对所有现有商业模式产生颠覆性的重塑力量。例如传统的邮购目录业务被电子商务所取代，桌面和手机本地软件被云计算所革新。AI 正在以同样的方式席卷一切产品和服务——只要某个业务环节能够引入智能，那里就孕育着绝佳的创业机会。谈及初创团队的具体切入点，霍夫曼明确表示，他不建议普通创业公司去从头训练前沿基础模型（Frontier Model）。构建一个前沿模型需要消耗高达百亿美元级别的超级计算资源，初创团队根本无法承受如此庞大的资本门槛。明智的做法是利用 OpenAI、微软或 Google 等现有前沿模型的能力。创业者可以选择基于这些底座训练专有的小模型，也可以像布雷特·泰勒（Bret Taylor）创办的客户服务 AI 公司 Sierra 那样，自身不研发基础模型，而是集成各家“最佳组合”（Best-of-breed）的模型来提供落地服务。霍夫曼强调，正是这种多样性让他对创业和发明充满热情：投资人虽然拥有自己的大趋势理论，但也渴望在市场上发现那些提出惊人新构想的优秀创业者。 ### [01:59:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=7160s) 学习AI的最佳途径与非技术创始人的“找队友”策略面对主持人关于“现阶段如何学习 AI、上大学是否太慢”的疑问，霍夫曼给出的建议极为直接：立刻动手使用它、着手构建它。如果你具备技术背景，可以下载 Llama 或 Mistral 等开源大模型亲自调试把玩。但如果完全没有技术背景呢？霍夫曼强调，科技创业极难在没有技术联合创始人（Technical co-founder）的情况下单打独斗，非技术背景者的最优解是“去找一个懂技术的联合创始人”。主持人追问，像自己这样深耕团队建设、市场营销、社交媒体和内容领域的非技术人士，是否应该花时间去转行学编程、把自己变成技术人员？霍夫曼干脆利落地否定了这个想法：“太慢了，创业的速度至关重要。”他进一步剖析了硅谷的英雄迷思：公众舆论往往过度神化个人英雄主义，但初创公司的成功归根结底取决于最初的核心团队。从投资角度来看，霍夫曼更倾向于投资拥有 2 到 3 位联合创始人的团队，而不是孤军奋战的单核创始人。多人团队的“投掷力量”（Throw weight）和综合能力边界要强大得多，正如马克·扎克伯格（Mark Zuckerberg）早期身边有达斯汀·莫斯科维茨（Dustin Moskovitz）、亚当·德安杰洛（Adam D'Angelo）和克里斯·休斯（Chris Hughes）一样，互补的团队架构是伟大企业诞生的基石。 ### [02:01:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=7263s) 押注OpenAI的核心逻辑：计算规模学习系统作为近十年前就入局的早期投资人，霍夫曼回忆了他在外界甚至尚未广泛关注该领域时投资 OpenAI 的真实考量。当时他看好的是山姆·奥特曼（Sam Altman）、格雷格·布罗克曼（Greg Brockman）和伊利亚·苏茨克维（Ilya Sutskever）的梦幻组合，以及他们极度专注且大胆的战略构想。他们敏锐地察觉到，虽然 Google 发明了基于注意力机制的 Transformer 架构底层，但 Google 自身却没有意识到规模化（Scale）所蕴含的真正潜力。OpenAI 团队果断决定将整家公司的身家性命押注在“无极限扩大算力规模”上，全力以赴地去验证这条路。霍夫曼解释道，虽然“AI”的概念被热炒了几十年且屡屡让人失望，他也曾否决过大量 AI 投资项目，但这一轮技术变革在本质上是完全不同的。人们必须认清：现代 AI 已经转变成一种**“规模计算学习系统”（Scale Computing Learning Systems）**。过去人们试图通过人工编写代码规则去实现智能，而现在是编写一个让计算系统自主学习的框架。这种系统的成立必须依赖前置条件的成熟： - **全球互联网与云计算设施**：提供海量传输与分布式计算支持； - **超大规模数据中心与算力集群**：为模型训练提供狂暴的计算资源； - **全网海量数据资产**：提供足够丰富的通用学习语料； - **顶尖的扩展型工程师团队**：驾驭复杂架构实现工程化落地。 ### [02:02:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=7345s) 创业是团队运动：社交网络的战略性与“传教士 vs 雇佣兵” 关于年轻创业者是否需要“社交/人脉拓展（Networking）”，霍夫曼认为它至关重要，但绝不是盲目社交。每天花 12 个小时连轴转参加各种派对、四处握手发名片毫无用处。创业者必须像制定商业策略一样，为自己和业务构建清晰的**网络拓展战略**：明确应该与谁对话、向谁学习、需要把哪些关键人物引入当前项目，以及通过何种路径触达他们。当被问及“有礼貌、懂规矩”是否是被低估的成功特质时，霍夫曼直言礼貌虽然重要，但不是核心竞争优势，没人能靠研读礼仪手册把公司做大。 ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: 传教士文化与雇佣兵文化对比 accDescr: 对比创业公司中的传教士文化与雇佣兵文化的核心动机、凝聚力来源及代表特征。 subgraph Mission["传教士文化 (Missionary)"] M1["核心驱动：通过宏大愿景改变世界"] M2["凝聚机制：情感认同与崇高使命感"] M3["典型代表：LinkedIn、OpenAI、Airbnb"] end subgraph Mercenary["雇佣兵文化 (Mercenary)"] C1["核心驱动：纯粹追求金钱与财务回报"] C2["凝聚机制：短期利益分配与商业变现"] C3["局限性：缺乏情感黏性，遇挫容易散伙"] end ``` 霍夫曼重申，创业是一项团队运动，单打独斗无法支撑起大规模商业帝国。尽管有些性格恶劣、不懂带团队的创始人能凭借早期势头和资本支持吸引投机者上车，但这种模式难以持久。硅谷广为流传的经典信条是追求**“传教士文化”（Missionary）而非“雇佣兵文化”（Mercenary）**： - **雇佣兵文化**：团队唯一的导向就是赚钱，只要产品能卖出去牟利，其他一切都不重要。 - **传教士文化**：团队坚信正在改变世界，拥有强大的使命感驱动。面对主持人关于“改变世界的使命是否很多时候只是编出来的胡扯套话（Bullshit）”的辛辣提问，霍夫曼坦承现实中确实存在把戏谑剧《硅谷》（Silicon Valley）当剧本演的虚伪公司，甚至连碳酸饮料集团也会宣称自己在“改变世界”。但他一针见血地指出，人类本质上是“情绪化、靠故事驱动的生物”（Emotional story animals）。无论作为创始人内心如何盘算，优秀人才渴望投身于真正具有改变世界意义的事业之中。因此，无论是 LinkedIn、OpenAI 还是 Airbnb，都必须清晰描摹自己改变世界的愿景；而当创业者真正践行这一使命并拥有实现它的切实方案时，这种愿景便会爆发出无可比拟的团队号召力。 ### [02:06:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=7604s) 投资创业者时的核心标准：远大野心与非凡人才号召力在探讨投资决策时，Reid Hoffman 明确指出了他寻找创业者时最看重的特质：首先是“极其宏大的野心”（insanely great ambition）。创业者必须抱有登月般的目标，确信一旦取得成功，就能够彻底重塑整个行业。然而光有野心远远不够，他们还必须拿得出切实可行的落地规划，并且深刻意识到“创业是一项团队运动，而非个人英雄主义”，懂得如何系统性地调动资本、吸纳人才。关于如何评估管理团队的号召力，Hoffman 分享了他独特的面试技巧。他在面试高管时通常会提出一个硬核问题：“请给出三到五个曾为你工作过的世界级顶尖人才，我会亲自打电话向他们核实与你共事的体验。”如果该岗位至关重要，他甚至会反向背景调查这几名下属，确认他们本身是否真正属于行业顶尖。因为唯有能吸引顶尖人才的高管，才能带领团队打赢硬仗。在物色创始人时，Hoffman 强调人们往往陷入“讨喜”的误区。在投资孵化机构 Entrepreneur First 的经验表明，真正优秀的创业者未必是人见人爱、大家都想与其小酌一杯的温和角色，而往往极具棱角与锋芒（edgy）。当背景调查中有人评价“这个人极具进攻性、要求极其苛刻、非常难相处”时，在风险投资视角下往往反而是强烈的正面信号。 --- ### [02:08:28](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=7708s) 创业中的至暗时刻与韧性识别谈到创业者的“韧性”（resilience），Hoffman 指出，几乎每家初创企业都会不可避免地经历所谓的“死荫之地”（Valley of the Shadow of Death）——那种让团队抱头质问“我们当初到底为什么会觉得这是个好主意？天哪，我们要完蛋了”的绝望时刻。他回忆起自己创立第一家公司 Socialnet 时，一位两年前就投身创业的前苹果公司同事给他发来了一封只有一句话的简短邮件： > “欢迎来到每隔15分钟就会在‘欣喜若狂’与‘极度恐惧’之间剧烈切换的世界：‘我们要改变世界了！’‘完蛋了，我们要死了！’” 无论是在 PayPal、LinkedIn 还是 Airbnb 的早期阶段，类似的濒死绝境都曾反复上演，大家无数次觉得公司马上就要归零。关于如何判断一个人是否具备极强的韧性，Hoffman 坦言无法百分之百精准预测，但可以通过高概率的压力测试来推断：观察他们如何应对风险。那些试图说服自己和他人“这个项目毫无风险、我绝对不可能失败”的人，往往缺乏真正的抗压能力，因为商业世界里没有任何绝对的保证。此外，若创业者在过往人生中经历过重大挫折或创伤，并能够将负面经历转化为积极认知，从中提炼出深刻教训，那么他们在创业陷入泥潭时保持坚韧的概率就会高得多。 --- ### [02:10:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=7813s) 18岁年轻人财富积累路径：“先追逐热情”为何是糟糕建议针对“18岁年轻人在2025年该如何规划人生、积累财富”的命题，Hoffman 直言不讳地批评了许多大学常挂在嘴边的鸡汤理论。高校总是告诫毕业生“先去追随你的热情，做你真心热爱的事，想去不丹做一年志愿者就趁年轻赶紧去”。在 Hoffman 看来，这是本末倒置的糟糕建议（terrible advice）。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 青年职业发展路径对比 accDescr: 对比先追随热情与先建立底盘两种不同路径的经济抗风险能力差异 subgraph WrongWay["传统学院派建议（高脆弱性）"] A["18岁盲目追随热情/漫无目的义工"] --> B["缺乏经济底盘与核心技能"] B --> C["步入30岁缺乏抗风险与议价能力"] end subgraph RightWay["Hoffman 推崇路径（强韧性）"] D["18-25岁全力建立能力底盘与人脉网络"] --> E["承担高风险/加入初创企业积累核心技能"] E --> F["获得经济独立与业界声誉"] F --> G["拥有充分自由再去不丹或践行个人热情"] end ``` 年轻人应当优先建立起属于自己的“立足底盘”（platform），使自己在经济上拥有腾挪回旋的空间与抗风险能力——这种底盘既可以是不再依赖死工资的财富储备，也可以是一个极具价值的行业人脉网络，让各方优质雇主都渴望聘用你。在此之后，若仍想去不丹做一年志愿者，完全可以从容成行。 Hoffman 强调，年轻人应该趁早对自己一生至关重要的核心竞争力全力以赴，并在早期大胆承受重大风险。即便目标是做一名医生，也应当尽早考入医学院完成职业立足。而如果立志成为一名创业者，18岁或许不应急于独自盲目开公司，更好的路径是加入一家充满潜力的初创公司，在实战中淬炼技能、拓宽人脉并积累必要的资金储备，为日后独自经受创业的残酷考验做好准备。 --- ### [02:13:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=7980s) 软资产的复利效应与人生不同阶段的风险取舍 Steven Bartlett 结合自己的著作，提出了构筑个人平台的五大要素：知识（Knowledge）、应用知识后转化的技能（Skills）、人脉（Network）、资源（Resources）以及声誉（Reputation），并指出知识与技能是唯二永远不会被剥夺的资产。Hoffman 对此表示赞同，但补充强调，只要是真诚、扎实建立起来的人脉网络，其稳固程度堪比核弹防御级别，即便遭遇离职或被解雇，曾经深厚的工作交情依然能够持续发力。 Hoffman 重点阐述了他在《启动你的创业人生》（The Start-Up of You）中提出的“软资产”（soft assets）与“硬资产”（hard assets）理论： * **软资产的复利机制**：年轻人最常见的战略误区是过度追逐短期现金流，为了薪水高出 5% 甚至 30% 就轻易跳槽。Hoffman 指出，多拿 30% 的薪水绝不能预示你未来能拿到 300% 的回报；真正能带来 300% 阶跃式爆发的，是持续积累的知识、专业技能和高端人脉这些能够产生长期复利的软资产。 * **人生周期的风险偏好**： * **20多岁**：承担风险的成本极低，完全可以接受极低甚至零薪水的早期项目，与五位好友挤在一栋房子里吃吐司和豆子度日； * **30多岁**：生活方式开始转变，面临寻找伴侣、稳定住所等现实需求，风险敞口需适度收敛； * **养育子女**：生儿育女就像是“开启了另一家初创公司”，同时操盘两家初创企业无疑会从精力和概率上增加商业成功的难度，但从人生整体价值来看，这依然可能是一笔值得为之付出的投资。 ### [02:16:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=8166s) 什么是真正的幸福：“我”与“我们”的意义谈及拥有了顶尖的声誉与履历后究竟何为幸福，里德·霍夫曼（Reid Hoffman）毫不犹豫地回答：幸福就是与自己所爱的人一同走过人生旅程，并携手去创造伟大的事物。他甚至坦言，即便自己创办和参与的所有项目全都彻底失败，只要依然能与心爱之人相伴相随，人生依然无比美好。对他而言，生命的终极意义很大程度上取决于你如何回馈并贡献给周围的人。他在处女作《启动你的未来》（*The Startup of You*）中曾向年轻人提出过关于“我（I）”与“我们（We）”的平衡之道：人要为自己做事，更要为集体和他人付出。他从身边的人身上汲取灵感、收获愉悦，并通过改善他人的生活找到深层的存在感。这种贡献既包括身边的至亲好友，也涵盖全球数以亿计的用户——例如 LinkedIn 汇聚了超十亿人互相建立连接。回顾年轻时期，霍夫曼承认自己曾对幸福有过狭隘的误解，那时他执念于“必须成为班级或群体中的第一名”。如今他深切意识到，全球有八十亿人，没有任何人能在所有领域都做到最强；自以为全知全能不过是自欺欺人。即便一个人有能力成为某一细分领域的绝对第一，过度偏执地追求极致往往意味着牺牲了生活中其他同等重要的部分。这就像一个道德思想实验：如果神谕告知你只要对周围同事冷酷苛刻就能获得四倍的商业财富，霍夫曼会毫不犹豫地拒绝，因为这根本不符合他对美好生活的定义。 --- ### [02:18:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=8303s) 伴侣的互补与“规模化先生”的另一面在西雅图，霍夫曼与长期生活伴侣米歇尔（Michelle）相伴多年。当主持人探寻爱情如何影响他的幸福感与商业成就时，霍夫曼深情地分享了两人的相处模式。他视米歇尔为人生中最重要的导师之一。他们在核心价值观上高度同频——都对道德有着极深的敬畏，视“做一个好人”为人生底线；但在行事风格与生活偏好上，两人却形成了极其鲜明的镜像对照。霍夫曼自嘲为“规模化先生（Mr. Scale）”，永远在思考如何将事物推向全球级规模；而米歇尔则是典型的“反规模化主义者（Anti-scale）”。她完全支持霍夫曼追求宏大事业，但自己更渴望扎根于具体的本地社区。米歇尔会热情地去当地敬老中心当义工，并试图拉上霍夫曼一起参与。霍夫曼则会坦诚拒绝：“我不去现场，但我很乐意为敬老中心捐款，因为那不是我的长处。”米歇尔身上带着一种融合了贵格派（Quaker）与禅宗佛教式的心态去潜心创作艺术，这种沉静的探索让霍夫曼深深着迷并从中体悟良多。他感慨生命既需要宏大的视野，也需要具体的微观温度，正是这种差异让他懂得了互补与包容的真谛。 --- ### [02:19:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=8390s) 创业者的婚姻与人品：10年同行的投资底线当被问及如果面对两位能力完全一致但一位拥有长期稳定婚姻的创业者会作何判断时，霍夫曼给出了独到的投资哲学。他坦言从未被问过这种对比，但他极为看重创业者如何对待身边亲近的人。一段稳定健康的亲密关系或善待周围人的习惯，往往是一个人品行的重要体现。霍夫曼强调，陪跑一家初创公司通常需要长达十年的光阴。如果创始人对周围的人刻薄恶劣，即便其商业项目极具暴利潜质，霍夫曼也绝不妥协。他在格雷洛克风投（Greylock Partners）期间曾多次明确对合伙人们说：“这个创业者和这个项目未来绝对能赚大钱，如果你们想投，我全力支持，但我个人绝不会出面领投，因为我无法忍受在接下来的十年里与这种性格恶劣的人朝夕共处。”事实证明那些公司确实获得了丰厚的财务回报，但霍夫曼从未后悔，因为“人生太短暂，绝不值得为赚钱而忍受糟心的折磨”。 --- ### [02:21:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=8468s) 闪电式扩张不是万灵丹：全球竞争与胜负法则围绕其知名著作《闪电式扩张》（*Blitzscaling*），主持人抛出了一个许多消费品（如超市饮料）或早期创业者的困惑：任何公司都应该不惜代价地闪电扩张吗？霍夫曼给出了非常明确的否定回答：绝非所有企业都必须如此。闪电式扩张本质上是在面对全球化竞争时的一种极致战略防御与进攻。只有在软件、互联网平台等赢家通吃的行业，闪电式扩张才是不得不用的生存法则。霍夫曼强调，如果一家公司能够避开闪电式扩张，那反而是一种幸运，因为**闪电式扩张的本质是在极度低效的情况下疯狂消耗资源，唯一目的就是在市场规模上抢在所有竞争对手之前建立绝对统治力**。他举了 Uber 早期狂暴招聘的经典打法：面试完一个优秀候选人后当场发 Offer，并立刻询问对方“你在原公司合作过最厉害的三个人是谁”，紧接着在未经过任何面试的情况下直接给那三个人发送录用通知书。这种疯狂做法完全是为了速度放弃了效率。在类似经典电影《拜金一族》（*Glengarry Glen Ross*）所描述的市场格局中——“第一名拿凯迪拉克大奖，第二名拿牛排刀，第三名直接卷铺盖被解雇”——你别无选择。硅谷和中国的创业团队都在用这种极限速度搏杀，面对这种全球层面的顶尖对手，欧洲或英国的创业者如果还在用温吞的本地节奏竞争，结果必然是灾难性的。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: Blitzscaling Necessity Decision Logic accDescr: Decision logic showing when a company must use Blitzscaling versus when it can avoid it based on global competition and win-take-all dynamics. A["评估行业竞争格局"] --> B{"是否面临全球化赢家通吃竞争？ （如纯软件、互联网平台）"} subgraph MUST_BLITZ ["极端竞争赛道：必须闪电扩张"] B -- 是 --> C["策略：牺牲效率换取极致速度"] C --> D["不闪电扩张：100% 输掉市场"] C --> E["闪电扩张：拥有获胜与生存可能"] end subgraph NO_BLITZ ["非赢家通吃赛道：避免闪电扩张"] B -- 否 --> F["策略：注重资本效率与健康现金流"] F --> G["稳健打磨产品与区域渠道"] end ``` --- ### [02:23:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=8624s) 英国的 AI 困局与抹茶公司的扩张考量谈到 AI 浪潮下的国家竞争力时，主持人向霍夫曼发问：如果他担任英国首相，在缺乏硅谷式闪电扩张优势的前提下，该如何让英国在 AI 变革中分得一杯羹？霍夫曼指出两条路径： 1. **全力赋能本国潜力企业进行闪电扩张**：在面临全球对手的领域，若公司一不进行闪电扩张，而公司二全力推进闪电扩张，公司一注定惨败；公司二虽不保证必胜，但保留了获胜的生机。 2. **战略性避开直接交锋**：如果不具备闪电扩张的资源壁垒，就必须明智地选择那些竞争对手无法或未曾进行闪电扩张的垂直细分赛道。主持人随后以自身投资的一家英国抹茶品牌（PerfectTed）为例探讨实操选择：这家公司在短短数月内年营收从零激增至预期数千万英镑，面对全行业抹茶热潮的涌现，是否该像科技巨头一样启动闪电扩张？霍夫曼总结道，答案归根结底取决于两点：最核心的第一点是**竞争态势**——你是否必须在速度上彻底跑赢试图切断你渠道或夺取心智的全球对手；第二点则是业务的底层商业模式是否真正具备规模化的网络效应与防御壁垒。 ### [02:25:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=8750s) 闪电式扩张的战略本质与临界规模里德·霍夫曼（Reid Hoffman）深入剖析了“闪电式扩张”（Blitzscaling）的核心逻辑：它绝不是盲目的激进冒险，而是一种在特定市场与竞争格局下的必然战略权衡。当竞争对手已经在以闪电般的速度扩张时，企业别无选择，必须全力跟进；即便对手尚未行动，你也必须权衡——闪电扩张是否能带来压倒性的先发优势。这种策略确实伴随着巨大的经营风险，例如招聘流程动作变形、资本高额消耗以及激进的营销打法（正如 Uber 当年在全球同时开辟 20 座城市的攻势）。然而，在许多特定赛道中，承受这些执行层面的混乱与风险，其危险程度远远低于“不进行闪电扩张而被市场淘汰”。这种逻辑在典型的“拜金一族式市场”（Glengarry Glen Ross Market）中尤为突出，正如电影里的残酷台词：“头奖是凯迪拉克，二等奖是一套牛排刀，三等奖则是被炒鱿鱼”。在赢家通吃的市场结构中，投资人极度渴望以高溢价向领头羊注水大量资本，因为所有人都心知肚明——只有拿下第一名，才能确立坚固的市场统治地位。即便投资人并非永远正确，只要资本开始流向竞争对手，你就必须被迫提速参战。除了竞争对抗，驱动闪电扩张的另一大动力是“跨越临界规模门槛”（Critical Mass Scale）。霍夫曼以早年在 PayPal 的经历为例：支付业务在达到极大规模之前本质上是死路一条。在 2002 年，这个门槛是年交易量达到 10 亿美元；放到今天，这个数字可能需要 100 亿美元。在达到这个临界点之前，企业处于极度亏损且边缘化的状态，唯一的生存之路就是以最快速度穿透不盈利的危险带。相比之下，传统的消费品公司（例如抹茶饮品）或许并不需要这种极端的资本密集度与规模效应，但如果是依靠品牌心智构建护城河，也存在成为第一梯队品牌的迫切性。霍夫曼特别警示，许多创业者容易陷入误区，“千万不要为了闪电扩张而闪电扩张”，它必须是应对市场特性与竞争局势的精准战术组合。 - **闪电扩张的核心权衡**：以运营混乱、资本损耗和招聘失误的风险，置换被竞争对手甩在身后的致命风险。 - **拜金一族式市场（Glengarry Glen Ross）**：第一名通吃绝大部分红利（凯迪拉克），第二名仅能分得残羹冷炙（牛排刀）。 - **规模临界点**：支付等强网络效应赛道存在生死线，无法在短时间内跨越交易规模门槛便无法生存。 --- ### [02:28:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=8920s) 英国对 AI 浪潮的应对：唐宁街 10 号的布局斯蒂芬·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）表达了作为一名生活在英国的人对于技术未来的深切焦虑：人工智能（AI）是一场翻天覆地的历史性生产力革命，但目前看来，整条价值链的核心几乎全被美国和中国垄断，英国乃至欧洲可能再次错失红利，导致经济生产力面临巨大的落后风险。霍夫曼给出了极具内幕性的安抚回应。他透露自己就在本周刚刚前往唐宁街 10 号（10 Downing Street）与英国政府核心决策层进行会面。霍夫曼明确表示，英国政府高层已经高度重视这一问题，并且正在密集向科技领袖咨询。英国政府接下来会有针对性的战略举措与政策发布（尽管霍夫曼受保密限制不能提前公开披露）。这一信息直接印证了英国决策层正在设法调动资本与政策杠杆，试图在 AI 时代避免被边缘化。 --- ### [02:29:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=8970s) 重新审视风险：将不确定性转化为壁垒与 ABZ 规划在谈及创业者最容易忽略却最关键的理念时，霍夫曼强调了关于“风险”的两大核心认知： ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: ABZ Planning Framework accDescr: Reid Hoffman's ABZ planning strategy showing transitions from Plan A to Plan B and the fallback Plan Z. subgraph Execution["执行与迭代"] PA["Plan A: 当前商业假设"] -->|"验证不通 / 发现新洞察"| PB["Plan B: 策略转型 (Pivot)"] PB -->|"新假设更具生命力"| PA2["调整后的全新 Plan A"] end subgraph Fallback["底线保障"] PB -->|"所有新路线均劣于最初假设"| PZ["Plan Z: 救生艇方案 (寻求出售 / 终止清算 / 退出)"] end ``` 第一，**将不确定性与风险重新定义为机遇**。很多创业者误以为必须拥有 100% 的成功把握才能起步，但霍夫曼指出：“哪怕你只有 20% 到 25% 的胜算，也完全值得去做。”霍夫曼回忆创办 LinkedIn 时，自己评估成功的概率最高只有 20% 到 25%。然而，如果外界所有人都认为这件事情成功的概率是 0%，而你基于独特的洞察看出了 20% 到 25% 的概率，这个“认知差”正是你的跑道与护城河。正因为外界觉得毫无胜算，大公司和竞争对手才不会跟进，从而为你争取了在无人区野蛮生长的宝贵时间窗口。例如 LinkedIn 早期面临网络未达到 100 万人前毫无价值的冷启动死穴，霍夫曼坚信自己找到了解决网络裂变的方法，这种别人眼中的致命风险恰恰构成了他的最大机会。第二，**拒绝盲目孤注一掷，践行“ABZ 规划”法则**。霍夫曼在《至关重要的关系》（*The Start-up of You*）中系统阐述了这一模型，它既适用于个人职业，也是创业公司生存的核心架构： - **Plan A（当前计划）**：正在全力以赴落地的核心商业模式； - **Plan B（应对变化与调整的计划）**：当 Plan A 在现实中遭遇阻碍时，保持灵活性所准备的转型（Pivot）路径； - **Plan Z（兜底安全网 / 救生艇）**：当所有转型尝试都失败时，能够确保你安全着陆的退路。霍夫曼警示创业者，不要盲目推崇“不成功便成仁”的悲壮叙事；真正聪明的创业者会在保持机动性的同时，设立量化指标不断评估自己是否在提升成功的概率、是否距离登月目标更近，始终通过承担“明智的风险”（Smart Risks）来实现目标。 --- ### [02:32:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=9155s) 何时该放弃？创始人责任与员工的“任期制”（Tour of Duty）谈及究竟在何时应该选择放弃（无论是在创业项目还是在职场工作中），霍夫曼给出了极其清晰的判断边界：**当你经过战略调整后提出的“新 Plan A”，质量与前景远远差于你最初的“原 Plan A”时，就说明你已经退无可退，应当启动 Plan Z**。在商业上，Plan Z 意味着寻求被兼并收购；如果无法被收购，那就必须果断接受现实、清盘放弃。霍夫曼进一步深入剖析了“创始人”与“普通员工”在放弃或退出这件事情上截然不同的伦理契约： | 角色类型 | 退出自由度 | 核心承诺与责任边界 | 适宜退出的时间节点 | |:--- |:--- |:--- |:--- | | **创始人 (Founder)** | 极低 | 背负信用契约，团队成员、投资人皆因创始人个人而加入，中途弃船被视为极不光彩（Dishonorable）。 | 公司实现 IPO、成功出售，或业务已实现高度盈利且成为庞大稳固的持续经营实体之后。 | | **员工 (Employee)** | 相对自由 | 践行“任期制”（Tour of Duty）契约：在特定的阶段（如 2 到 4 年）内全力为公司创造重大突破与价值。 | 当既定任期的使命交付完成，且市场上出现了更有利于个人成长的新机遇之时。 | 为了阐明这一员工伦理，霍夫曼讲述了他与早期团队成员麦特·科勒（Matt Cohler，后成为 Benchmark 合伙人）的真实故事。当年霍夫曼把科勒从麦肯锡招募到 LinkedIn，三年后，科勒收到了一份来自刚刚崛起的 Facebook 的工作邀请。科勒前来向霍夫曼坦白，霍夫曼没有动用情感或道德绑架去挽留，而是直截了当地告诉他：“麦特，我非常喜欢和你共事，你是我亲密的朋友，但是你绝对应该接下 Facebook 的工作，那是你职业生涯最正确的下一步。”霍夫曼笑称，如果当时自己不点头放行，科勒可能出于义气不会走。但他坚信，正如 LinkedIn 的平台使命一样，领导者应当鼓励每个人奔向最能施展才华的舞台。 ### [02:35:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=9303s) LinkedIn 的 Series B 融资 PPT 与不变的长期愿景主持人翻出了一份极具历史意义的文档——LinkedIn 在 2004 年 8 月 20 日向风险投资机构 Greylock 进行 Series B 融资时使用的推介演示文稿（Pitch Deck）。霍夫曼笑着确认了这份文档，并提到前 Greylock 投资人兼知名创投人 Matt Cohler 当时也协助制作了这份 Deck。主持人感叹这份演示文稿极其简洁有力，更令人惊叹的是开篇写下的愿景声明：“通过你已经信任的人，找到并联系你需要的人”（Find and contact the people you need through the people you already trust）。整整二十年过去，许多同期甚至后来的初创公司早已改头换面（比如从“Hot or Not”这类评级网站转型成其他产品），而 LinkedIn 历经二十载风雨，其核心使命与业务逻辑却与这份 Deck 所勾勒的蓝图几乎完全吻合。霍夫曼解释道，LinkedIn 是他的第三次创业尝试。此前他经历了 Socialnet 的挫折，以及 PayPal 时期激烈的业务转型与洗牌，这些实战经验让他清晰地掌握了平衡“长期战略”与“短期落地”的诀窍。所谓长期思考，就是从创立之初就必须推演：一旦公司在细分市场“成功抢滩登陆”（landing on the beach），未来如何成长为一家足以重塑整个行业的巨头？它将如何切入数百万人乃至多家企业的日常生活与业务流程，成为其不可或缺的核心组成部分。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: LinkedIn 长期愿景规划模型 accDescr: 展示霍夫曼如何从抢滩登陆逐步过渡到重塑行业与用户习惯的战略路径 subgraph Phase1 ["第一阶段：短期切入"] A["精准切入点 (Beachhead) 通过信任链条找人"] end subgraph Phase2 ["第二阶段：规模扩张"] B["沉淀职业声誉与关系网络"] C["拓展至企业服务与招聘市场"] end subgraph Phase3 ["第三阶段：长期重塑"] D["成为不可替代的行业基石 改变数亿人工作与商务方式"] end A --> B A --> C B --> D C --> D ``` 谈及当今 LinkedIn 演变出个人品牌打造和内容社交平台的现状，霍夫曼表示这些都在他当年的可能性推演之中。反倒是一些意想不到的用户自发行为让他颇感意外： - **基于简历的约会相亲**：有人在 LinkedIn 上搭建脱单或相亲服务，理由是“只希望跟履历优秀、有体面工作的人约会”。霍夫曼对此感到幽默，但也明确表态坚决不会让 LinkedIn 亲自做婚恋业务，别人爱怎么做是他们的事。 - **工程师的跨城寻职法**：在完成 Series B 融资数月后，霍夫曼遇到一名打算从硅谷搬迁到丹佛的工程师。该工程师并没有直接投简历，而是先在 LinkedIn 上搜索在丹佛背景相似的专业人士，观察他们都在哪些公司任职，再反向筛选出自己的目标雇主。这种创新的信息发现方式让霍夫曼击节赞赏。 --- ### [02:38:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=9506s) 告别 CEO 角色、追求纯粹的影响力与无悔人生当被问及未来是否还会亲自出任 CEO 创办公司时，霍夫曼明确表示，自己依然热衷于“联合创始人”（Co-founder）的身份——例如他与 Mustafa Suleyman 等人联合创办了 AI 独角兽 Inflection AI。他认为自己不太可能再亲自掌舵担任 CEO，因为他享有与顶级操盘手合作的特权，能物色到像 Mustafa 这样卓越的 CEO 伙伴。主持人深有共鸣地表示，随着年龄增长，人生的优先级逐步偏向“快乐”与“自由”，而承担日常运营的 CEO 职位往往与极致的自由背道而驰；懂得放手、将业务托付给更具管理天赋的人才，是极高的自知之明。谈到是否在意外界所谓的“历史遗产”（Legacy），霍夫曼坦言，自己真正在意的是“实质影响力”（Impact），即确认自己的工作是否切实推动了人类历史的积极演进。被赞赏固然令人愉悦，但他并不是为了名望或赞誉做事，而是为了实打实创造的价值。在个人生活选择上，霍夫曼与妻子很早就共同决定不要孩子。作为多名孩子的教父母（包括在伦敦的三名小孩），他们十分享受陪伴孩子成长的欢乐时光，但在面对换尿布等繁复琐碎时，也坦然确信不要孩子的选择契合彼此的生命节奏。 - **追求实质而非虚名**：霍夫曼坦诚自己并非没有虚荣心，受到认可固然开心，但决策的出发点永远是“这件事能否产生重大正面影响”。 - **人生的未竟之愿（Unchecked Box）**：若追溯至本科时期，霍夫曼最想写的第一本书并非商业著作，而是一部关于“友谊”（Friendship）的书。他已经为此持续记录并整理了三十年的笔记。 --- ### [02:41:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=9681s) 三十年友谊笔记、职场雇佣朋友与政治分歧霍夫曼观察到，当人们走进书店寻找人际关系区域时，整个书架摆满的都是以大写字母标注的“爱情/浪漫关系”（Romantic Relationships），而探讨“友谊”的书籍几乎寥寥无几。他的助理也曾透露，“友谊与人际联结”正是霍夫曼当前极其核心的关注焦点。霍夫曼提出了一个违背主流管理常识的观点：**你应该与朋友一起共事，甚至直接聘用朋友**。尽管这会带来沟通与管理上的复杂性，但在创业这种高压、漫长而艰苦的征程中，能与真正的朋友并肩作战才是生命中最有价值的体验。这种对深厚友谊的珍视，也体现在他与硅谷投资人 Peter Thiel 跨越数十年的交情上。尽管两人在政治意识形态上存在极为激烈的针锋相对（Peter Thiel 偏向极右翼和自由意志主义，而霍夫曼则是坚定的中左翼民主党支持者），但他们早在本科时期就已相识并坦诚各自的立场。霍夫曼认为，真诚而激烈的思想交锋非但不会破坏真正的友谊，反而是一种良性的互动。 --- ### [02:43:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=9782s) 伴侣间的深度透明与婚姻咨询机制按照节目的传统收尾环节，上一位受访嘉宾在不知晓接棒者是谁的情况下留下了一个私人问题：“有哪两件事是你希望人生伴侣知晓，但她至今仍不知道或尚未理解的？” 霍夫曼给出了一个出人意料的深刻回答。他认为，如果一个人能轻易列出这个问题的答案，恰恰说明他可能不是一个称职的人生伴侣。霍夫曼与妻子 Michelle 多年如一日地投入巨额精力在深层沟通与相互理解上，因此他自觉不存在这种隐秘的未解隔阂。为了维护这种高度同频，他们甚至定期共同接受婚姻咨询（Marriage Counseling）。他特别强调： - **主动维系而非事后补救**：做伴侣咨询绝非因为感情破裂或日常争吵，而是主动借助高水平第三方的专业视角，更深入、更准确地洞悉彼此的内心世界。 - **动态的理解与迭代**：人与人之间总会有认知盲区。例如直到十年前，霍夫曼才真正领悟到“本地社区”（Local community）对妻子而言是多么核心的精神寄托。霍夫曼坚信，只要自己心中冒出任何“她可能还不懂我”的念头，就绝不会将其藏匿，而会立刻在下一次深入对话中坦白提出。 ### [02:44:56](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=9896s) 创业者的亲密关系：提前沟通与延迟婚礼许多创始人在踏上极度高压的创业征程前，原本处于稳定健康的恋爱或婚姻关系中，但随着创业推进，身心被完全占据，常常面临伴侣提出分手的危机。当主持人询问 Reid Hoffman 是否会给所投资的创始人提供情感建议时，Reid 指出，无论是维系友谊还是处理伴侣关系，最核心的原则就是“主动预判并提前坦白自身可能给对方带来的挑战”。他认为，建立深厚关系的关键在于提前把自己的缺点或困境摆到台面上，而不是等矛盾爆发后再去补救。 Reid 分享了自己当年的亲身经历：在 LinkedIn 创立初期，他和妻子 Michelle 原本计划举行一个简朴的婚礼，只需治安官见证即可。然而，当时 LinkedIn 正处于关键节点，他回到家对 Michelle 坦言：“我们真的需要推迟婚礼，我现在抽不出时间处理这件事。”因为 Reid 此前就有过创业经历，并且早就坦诚告知了妻子创业的疯狂节奏，Michelle 并没有崩溃发火，而是平静地回复：“好，我们想办法调整它。”最终他们的婚礼推迟了数周。Reid 承认，尽管他尽力不让伴侣失望，但在创业岁月里，原本定好的计划确实经常被彻底打乱。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 创业者与伴侣维护关系的健康模式 accDescr: 展示创业者在面对伴侣时提前沟通、互相认同与诚恳认错的良性循环。 subgraph Communication["沟通机制"] A["提前识别自身挑战并坦白告知"] --> B["建立现实预期与理解"] end subgraph InAction["面对突发与分心"] B --> C{"伴侣指出：你没有全身心投入当下"} C -->|"良性反应"| D["主动清空杂念或真诚说明： '真的很抱歉，明天我一定全心陪伴'"] C -->|"不良反应 (煤气灯效应)"| E["指责对方：'你根本不懂， 我这么拼全是为了你！'"] end subgraph Foundation["底层基石"] D --> F["双方深度认同并相信彼此所做的事"] end ``` ### [02:47:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=10020s) 归家后的“全心陪伴”与对煤气灯效应的警惕当创始人带着一天的工作压力回到家时，思维往往仍然深陷在现金流断裂或业务危机的焦虑中，难以转换回生活伴侣的角色。Reid 坦言，Michelle 经常对他说一句关键密码：“我觉得你现在没有全心全意在场（You're not being fully present）。”每当听到这句话，Reid 就知道自己必须立刻把脑海里盘旋的其他杂事推开，将注意力彻底放回当下。虽然这种对话发生过无数次，但他学会了有意识地训练自己的专注力，或者真诚地向妻子求助并道歉：“你说得对，我真的很抱歉，我现在脑子里全被这件事占满了，你介意我明天再全身心陪伴你吗？” 主持人指出，许多创业者在面对伴侣的指责时，往往会采取“煤气灯效应（Gaslighting）”的打压手法，反驳道：“你根本不理解我，我做这一切都是为了你，你只是讨厌我的工作。”Reid 对此严肃表示，如果亲密关系沦落到这种争辩，暴露出的是最底层的严重危机——一段长久的关系必须建立在“双方都坚信彼此、坚信对方所做的事情”的基础之上；若伴侣从根本上无法认同你的追求，这段关系迟早会走向破裂，而一切的关键依然在于毫无掩饰的沟通。 - **亲密关系的关键词**：妻子 Michelle 经常用“You're not being fully present（你没有全身心投入当下）”作为警醒信号，促使 Reid 迅速切断工作思绪。 - **面对分心的两套解法**：要么立即强行将思绪“推下桌面”全力陪伴，要么真诚道歉并坦白困境，约定推迟到次日再全身心投入。 - **关系危机的根源**：指责伴侣“不理解自己”往往是在推卸沟通责任；双方缺乏对彼此事业与人格的基本信任，才是最致命的长期隐患。 ### [02:48:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=10105s) 新书《Superagency》与面向 AI 的乐观愿景对谈转向了 Reid Hoffman 即将出版的新书《Superagency: What Could Possibly Go Right with Our AI Future》（超能主体性：我们的 AI 未来究竟能带来多少好事，与 Greg Beato 合著）。谈及为何在遍布恐慌的环境下写一本极度乐观的 AI 专著，Reid 解释道，走向光明未来的唯一途径，绝不是靠规避失败或沉溺于悲观主义，而是先勾勒出美好的可能愿景，然后全力向其迈进。任何想要理解这种积极发展视角的人，都应该阅读这本书。 Reid 还引述了著名历史学家尤瓦尔·赫拉利（Yuval Noah Harari）为该书撰写的精彩推荐语：“这是一幅关于未来的卓越而积极的愿景；尽管我不同意其中的某些主要论点，但每个人都应该读一读这本书。”主持人盛赞这种能够容纳分歧的态度令人耳目一新，并高度评价了 Reid 曾经出版的经典著作（如帮助无数人规划职业与人生的《The Startup of You》（中文常译为《至关重要的关系》或《联盟》相关思考）以及标志性播客《Masters of Scale》（规模化大师）），称赞 Reid 总是敢于坚持反共识的观点，不迎合当下主流叙事或政治正确，其底色是深厚的阅历与由衷的善意。最后，主持人还幽默提及本期播客的赞助商恰好就是 LinkedIn，Reid 则笑称自己对此事先完全不知情。 - **新书核心主旨**：书名《Superagency》，强调通过赋予人类超级主体性来构建积极未来，而非沉溺于灾难论。 - **赫拉利背书**：Yuval Noah Harari 评价其为“精彩的积极愿景”，即使自身持保留意见，也认为所有人都应阅读。 - **播客收尾与周边推广**：主持人 Steven Bartlett 随后向听众介绍了《The Diary Of A CEO》推出的第二版“对话卡牌（Conversation Cards）”，该卡牌收集了过往所有嘉宾在日记本中留下的提问，背面附带可扫描观看对应解答视频的二维码。 ## Notable quotes > [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=0s) 是的，而且是直接针对我。 — 里德·霍夫曼 > [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=0s) 你不可能靠试图规避失败去走向一个乐观的未来。 — 里德·霍夫曼 > [08:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=512s) 网络会放大生产力 — 里德·霍夫曼 > [17:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=1044s) 不，绝非每个人都应该成为创业者。 — 里德·霍夫曼 > [46:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=2773s) 宁要一个只有 2 年工作经验但拥有疯狂学习曲线（Insane Learning Curve）的人，也绝不要一个经验丰富却停止进化的人。 — 里德·霍夫曼 > [51:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=3066s) 10 次中有 10 次，我宁愿完全根据背景调查来招人 — 里德·霍夫曼 > [01:03:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=3782s) 初创公司天然就是濒死的，工作生活平衡从来就不是初创公司的游戏规则。 — 里德·霍夫曼 > [01:24:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=5087s) 言论自由（Freedom of Speech）不等于传播自由（Freedom of Reach）。 — 里德·霍夫曼 > [01:51:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=6664s) 你这辈子用过的最烂的 AI，就是你今天正在用的这个。 — Ethan Mollick > [02:08:28](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=7708s) 欢迎来到每隔15分钟就会在‘欣喜若狂’与‘极度恐惧’之间剧烈切换的世界：‘我们要改变世界了！’‘完蛋了，我们要死了！’ — 前苹果公司同事（邮件引述） > [02:35:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=9303s) 通过你已经信任的人，找到并联系你需要的人 — Reid Hoffman > [02:47:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=10020s) You're not being fully present — Michelle ## Mentioned Reid Hoffman, Steven Bartlett, Donald Trump, Kamala Harris, LinkedIn, PayPal, PayPal Mafia, Tesla, SpaceX, YouTube, Reddit, OpenAI, Facebook, Airbnb, Friendster, Socialnet, Chaosium, RuneQuest, Isaac Asimov, Foundation, The Putney School, The Start-up of You, Masters of Scale, Daniel Ek, Spotify, Tobias Lütke, Shopify, Google, Greylock Partners, David Sze, John Lilly, Mozilla, Tim O'Reilly, Mark Zuckerberg, Aneel Bhusri, Workday, Elon Musk, The Boring Company, Hyperloop, Neuralink, xAI, X, Brian Chesky, Mark Pincus, Zynga, Jeff Weiner, Microsoft, Mark Cuban, David Sacks, Sir Isaiah Berlin, Galileo Galilei, Mark Milley, Bluesky, Threads, Instagram, Rumble, Fiverr, Mustafa Suleyman, Inflection AI, Superagency, Ethan Mollick, Bret Taylor, Sierra, Sam Altman, Greg Brockman, Ilya Sutskever, Dustin Moskovitz, Adam D'Angelo, Chris Hughes, Entrepreneur First, Michelle, Uber, PerfectTed, Matt Cohler, Peter Thiel, Yuval Noah Harari, The Diary Of A CEO ## Video description Reid Hoffman is the Founder of LinkedIn, founding member of Paypal, early investor in Airbnb And Facebook. He worked along side the very best in tech including Elon Musk And Peter Thiel. 00:00 Intro 02:02 How Have You Managed to Be So Successful? 07:20 What Did You Want to Be When You Were Growing Up? 08:32 Why Was Being Born in Stanford Hospital So Relevant to Your Story? 15:13 Self-Awareness as an Entrepreneur 17:24 Should Everyone Try to Be an Entrepreneur? 25:30 How Do I Know If My Business Is Good or Not? 36:52 What Was LinkedIn Like When It First Started? 38:55 Why Were So Many Successful People from the PayPal Mafia? 42:09 The Importance of Sales 48:57 How Important Is Hiring in Business? 55:02 What Are the Different Types of Entrepreneurs? 57:28 Elon Musk’s Approach to Business 01:03:02 Work-Life Balance in Startups 01:08:10 Stepping Back as CEO for LinkedIn 01:12:03 How Does Life Change When You Become a Billionaire? 01:13:43 Political Stance as a Billionaire 01:17:57 Trump’s Redeeming Qualities 01:22:18 The Shift Towards Freedom of Speech 01:24:47 Freedom of Speech as X 01:32:49 What Do You Think Social Media Will Become in the Next Decade? 01:38:43 How Should the Average Person Be Approaching AI? 01:40:58 Is the Gloom Around AI Warranted? 01:51:08 What Should the Everyday Person Be Doing with AI? 01:59:25 How Do We Learn About AI? 02:01:07 Your Early Investment in OpenAI 02:02:31 How Important Is Networking? 02:03:16 Underappreciated Qualities for a Good Entrepreneur 02:06:43 The Qualities You Look for in an Entrepreneur 02:16:07 What Is Happiness to You? 02:19:54 Marriage and Entrepreneurship 02:21:41 Should All Entrepreneurs Be Moving Fast to Build a Company? 02:29:36 How Should You Be Viewing Risk? 02:32:41 How Do We Know When to Quit? 02:35:10 LinkedIn’s Deck 02:38:30 Are You Still Interested in Building Companies? 02:41:02 Are There Any Unchecked Boxes? 02:43:14 Last Guest’s Question Are you ready to think like a CEO? Gain access to the 100 CEOs newsletter here: ⁠https://bit.ly/100-ceos-newsletter Follow Reid: Twitter - https://bit.ly/3OVphKO YouTube - https://bit.ly/3OSw33O Website - https://bit.ly/3ZP4GxT Podcast - https://g2ul0.app.link/IqXyrFoeiPb You can pre-order Reid’s book, ‘Superagency: What Could Possibly Go Right with Our AI Future’, here: https://amzn.to/41rLkA9 Get your hands on the brand new Diary Of A CEO Conversation Cards here: https://appurl.io/iUUJeYn25v Follow me: https://g2ul0.app.link/gnGqL4IsKKb Sponsors: Linkedin Ads - https://www.linkedin.com/doac24 Fiverr - https://fiverr.com/diary and use code DIARY for 10% off your first order [Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk)

Source quotes

[0:00] 里德·霍夫曼: 是的，而且是直接针对我。 [0:00] 里德·霍夫曼: 你不可能靠试图规避失败去走向一个乐观的未来。 [8:32] 里德·霍夫曼: 网络会放大生产力 [17:24] 里德·霍夫曼: 不，绝非每个人都应该成为创业者。 [46:13] 里德·霍夫曼: 宁要一个只有 2 年工作经验但拥有疯狂学习曲线（Insane Learning Curve）的人，也绝不要一个经验丰富却停止进化的人。 [51:06] 里德·霍夫曼: 10 次中有 10 次，我宁愿完全根据背景调查来招人 [63:02] 里德·霍夫曼: 初创公司天然就是濒死的，工作生活平衡从来就不是初创公司的游戏规则。 [84:47] 里德·霍夫曼: 言论自由（Freedom of Speech）不等于传播自由（Freedom of Reach）。 [111:04] Ethan Mollick: 你这辈子用过的最烂的 AI，就是你今天正在用的这个。 [128:28] 前苹果公司同事（邮件引述）: 欢迎来到每隔15分钟就会在‘欣喜若狂’与‘极度恐惧’之间剧烈切换的世界：‘我们要改变世界了！’‘完蛋了，我们要死了！’ [155:03] Reid Hoffman: 通过你已经信任的人，找到并联系你需要的人 [167:00] Michelle: You're not being fully present

Source quotes

[8:32] Reid Hoffman: The bad advice you're usually given is 'just follow your passion.' And the problem is... your passion might be very passionate, but do you have a strategic advantage there? [25:33] Reid Hoffman: Even when I was starting LinkedIn... what I would tell the people is, 'Look, we have about a maximum of 20 to 25% chance of being successful... Anyone who's telling you it's 100% now, they're lying to themselves or they're lying to you.' [29:22] David Sze: Every VC has to have a deal they're going to fail on—Airbnb can be yours. [38:54] Reid Hoffman: These VCs don't get it... the consumer internet, that was just the first wave on the beach, the tsunami is still coming. [49:45] Reid Hoffman: I believe every person is a combination of strengths and weaknesses, and if you don't give me a weakness, I will believe it's so bad that I should not hire this person. [59:17] Reid Hoffman: The people who think it's toxic don't understand the startup game, and they're just wrong... The game is intense, and by the way, if you don't do that, then eventually you're out of a job. [66:19] Reid Hoffman: It's like, 'Well, I'd like to be a world-class Olympic athlete, but I really only want to swim two hours a day.' Well, that's nice—not gonna happen. [73:43] Reid Hoffman: Precisely when you feel fear, stand up—because that fear that you're feeling, that's you feeling as a powerful, wealthy person. And if you're not going to stand up, who is? [98:45] Reid Hoffman: AI is not just artificial intelligence; it's amplification intelligence. It gives us superpowers. [111:08] Reid Hoffman: The worst AI you're ever going to use in your life is the AI you're using today. [121:07] Reid Hoffman: The thing that people need to understand about AI is it's a transformation to scale computing learning systems. [135:02] Reid Hoffman: Happiness for me is going through life with people I love and building great things... if I failed at everything I built and I was still going through life with people I loved, great. [155:10] Reid Hoffman: Find and contact the people you need through the people you already trust. [168:25] Yuval Noah Harari: This is a brilliant positive vision of the future. I disagree with some of its main arguments, and everyone should read it.

Original transcript

[0:00] president Trump was threatening personal [0:02] and political retaliation because they [0:04] tried to help Harris get elected do you [0:05] think you'll be penalized yes and Direct [0:08] on you and direct me you're not planning [0:09] on leaving the US are [0:11] you um Reed Hoffman is the co-founder of [0:14] LinkedIn and one of the world's most [0:16] successful entrepreneurs playing pivotal [0:18] roles in the success of influential [0:20] companies including PayPal Airbnb [0:22] Facebook and open Ai and now he is a [0:24] leading voice in AI helping people [0:26] utilize this new technology to empower [0:29] themselves in their life and careers you [0:31] were part of what they call the PayPal [0:33] Mafia who went on to create Tesla [0:34] YouTube Reddit SpaceX LinkedIn and [0:36] become multi-billionaires and so I've [0:39] got so many questions let's do it what [0:41] are the key factors of a great [0:42] entrepreneur's mindset one is you have [0:44] to understand that you don't get to an [0:45] optimistic future by trying to avoid [0:47] failure when we started LinkedIn [0:48] everyone said this won't work but just [0:50] because you don't have a 100% chance of [0:52] succeeding doesn't mean that you [0:54] shouldn't do it but there's also a set [0:56] of skills that are rare that you can [0:57] actually teach to entrepreneurs makes [1:00] you much more likely to be successful [1:01] the first is and then how do you know [1:04] when to quit the job what's your view on [1:05] work life balance and if you were [1:07] advising anyone to build wealth in 2025 [1:10] what would you say here's some simple [1:11] tips one is Reed what is your take on AI [1:15] it gives us super powers now there will [1:17] be costs to it but like electricity it [1:19] does electrocute people but it's [1:20] essential for human society and is there [1:22] anything that the average person should [1:24] be doing to capitalize on the [1:25] opportunity that AI presents 100% this [1:27] is what you do so [1:31] this has always blown my mind a little [1:33] bit 53% of you that listen to the show [1:36] regularly haven't yet subscribed to the [1:38] show so could I ask you for a favor [1:40] before we start if you like the show and [1:41] you like what we do here and you want to [1:42] support us the free simple way that you [1:44] can do just that is by hitting the [1:45] Subscribe button and my commitment to [1:47] you is if you do that then I'll do [1:49] everything in my power me and my team to [1:51] make sure that this show is better for [1:52] you every single week we'll listen to [1:54] your feedback we'll find the guest that [1:56] you want me to speak to and we'll [1:57] continue to do what we do thank you so [1:59] much [2:00] [Music] [2:03] read as I read through your life it's [2:07] remarkable in it's almost impossible [2:10] that one individual could be involved in [2:12] so many companies that have had such a [2:14] big impact on [2:15] society but at the same time someone [2:18] would be able to seemingly see the [2:19] future over and over and over and over [2:22] again so because as I read through your [2:24] life I thought this can't be one [2:25] individual this can't be one lifetime it [2:28] it begs the question to me what is in [2:30] your view the causal factors that set [2:33] you up for such a [2:35] life well that's interesting I've never [2:37] been asked that question before [2:41] um probably it's a [2:45] combination of the fact that my passion [2:49] is who are we as human beings and where [2:51] are we going so like that's from from a [2:54] very young age like I've been like and I [2:57] think I got it by reading science [2:58] fiction right this kind of like what is [3:00] the scope of humanity like you know [3:02] Isaac asimov's foundation and you know [3:05] this kind of stuff and then [3:08] um I ended up growing up I was born in [3:11] the Stanford hospital I ended up growing [3:12] up in Silicon Valley and and so I got [3:16] the exposure to technology can change [3:20] the world and so focusing on thinking [3:22] about you know kind of this intersection [3:24] of humanity and technology and of course [3:26] obviously science fiction has some play [3:29] to that too although most the technology [3:31] in science fiction is just fiction right [3:34] just like we have wormholes and we do [3:36] Intergalactic travel it's like as far as [3:38] we know there is no such thing as [3:40] wormholes for Intergalactic travel right [3:43] I mean all current contemporary Theory [3:45] of physics would suggest that there [3:48] isn't I mean there may be wormholes but [3:49] they're not for you know put your Star [3:51] Trek spaceship in it and go somewhere [3:54] and then probably the other part of it [3:56] is um I played a lot of board games when [3:59] I was kid and so it gave me a very deep [4:01] sense of strategy and so approaching [4:04] life yeah exact wow this one here you [4:07] probably remember this yes I do remember [4:09] that right in the names on the cover [4:12] Borderlands what age were you when you [4:13] started playing Rune Quest you were very [4:15] young uh when I started playing Rune [4:18] Quest [4:19] probably [4:21] 10 and what is the link between the life [4:24] you lived in the board games you played [4:25] as a 10-year-old um well mostly as a [4:28] function again like the role playing [4:30] games is like strategy right so it's [4:33] kind of um you know how do you uh kind [4:37] of think about like uh like an adventure [4:41] is both a narrative experience but it's [4:43] also a strategic experience like you [4:45] know how do you save the town from the [4:47] from the you know the bandits you know [4:48] that kind of thing and so um so it gave [4:52] me a deep sense of kind of like how do [4:55] strategy and tactics and problem solving [4:58] um and how do you do it as a group [5:00] right because you know in fantasy role [5:01] playing games it tends to be you know [5:04] especially when I was doing it as a kid [5:05] a set of blos around the table uh I hear [5:08] it's now a little bit more gender Balan [5:10] which is good and especially especially [5:11] for the blos it's like oh we're not [5:13] we're not just Geeks by ourselves here [5:16] right um and um and so and the way that [5:20] I got to doing this is I was enough [5:22] because this is kind of the focused you [5:25] know kind of kid I was is what I um I'd [5:28] heard that the chaosium had their [5:31] offices were were down the street from a [5:33] friend of minees and so I literally [5:36] walked in the door and started hanging [5:38] out at their office and they're the [5:40] maker of this game they're maker of this [5:41] game the chief editor I think wanted to [5:45] get me out of the office so he said he [5:47] handed me the pre the the in development [5:50] draft of this and said here go look at [5:52] this and so I took it home as an [5:55] obsessive kid I I like redlined it I [5:58] worked my way through it and I brought [6:00] it back like he gave me a Friday and I [6:02] brought it back on Monday so he failed [6:04] on his get this kid out of the office [6:07] mission right but he's he was then and I [6:10] I I still remember this look of vague [6:14] irritation when I handed him this [6:15] because he's like ah this kid is handing [6:17] me this thing oh [ __ ] I don't want to be [6:19] a meany guy and then he started looking [6:21] at it and went oh this is actually good [6:24] work and it was like I want to use this [6:26] work and I was a kid so I didn't [6:27] understand he needed to pay me to use it [6:29] I was that wasn't why I was just doing [6:31] it because I wanted to show that I that [6:33] I knew how to do this stuff and so he [6:35] then wrote me a check um so it was my [6:38] like my very first paycheck to to be [6:41] able to to use the work in the [6:43] publication um because you know this is [6:46] how copyright that that means he then [6:48] owns all the work that I did so he could [6:50] publish it and is your work still in [6:53] here today yes uhuh so edits that you [6:55] made to this game are still in here at [6:57] what age uh that was 12 wow that's [7:01] incredible and how much did he pay you [7:04] oh it's like $160 or something it's not [7:06] bad for 12-year-old no no no my dad my [7:09] dad was originally opposed to Fantasy [7:11] role play games it was like uh what what [7:13] are you doing like you know go like be [7:16] on a path to a real life and then when I [7:18] brought home the paycheck I like well [7:19] maybe that [7:20] works and what was your what were your [7:23] dreams at that age what did you think [7:25] you were going to be when you were older [7:26] sort of 12 13 14 years old frankly I had [7:29] no idea other than the following [7:30] entertaining thing which is since both [7:32] my mother and father are lawyers when I [7:34] was asked when I was 12 what I wanted to [7:35] be when I grew up the answer was not a [7:37] lawyer really yes well because [7:40] lawyers um look obviously bunch of are [7:44] barister the side of the pond um lawyers [7:48] are essentially modern Gladiators who [7:50] are paid to be the Gladiator of whatever [7:53] their paycheck is whether it's a client [7:55] or whether it's you know being a [7:57] full-time employee and so forth and it's [7:59] quality work it's important for society [8:01] but like I was like no no I want to [8:03] create things I don't want to be a you [8:06] know you know belt on my sword and you [8:08] know go to verbal battle for you know [8:10] whatever the you know contract or or [8:12] litigation or any of those things and I [8:14] was like no no no I I actually want to [8:16] go build things and so I didn't know [8:18] what I wanted [8:19] to be when I grew up other than and [8:22] maybe I still don't know right um but [8:26] what I evolve to is I normally have [8:28] about a two to three year plan that's [8:30] iterating right and that's that's tends [8:32] to be what I do and being born at [8:34] Stanford hospital is pertinent as well I [8:36] don't think people in the UK and around [8:37] the world necessarily know the [8:38] significance of that yeah but can you [8:40] explain why that's important Silicon [8:42] Valley um is a it's a network of a [8:47] generative platform so like one of the [8:48] things that that I have learned to think [8:50] about is networks amplify productivity [8:53] that's not just as we get to you know [8:55] why it is i f i conceptualized and [8:58] founded LinkedIn but but it's think in [9:01] terms of networks it's one of the [9:02] reasons why cities are such uh engines [9:06] like basically if you really look at [9:07] economies it's city regions and U it's [9:10] because the city region creates a [9:12] network right it's a network of could be [9:15] suppliers and all the rest but also [9:16] talent and capital and and and and [9:19] knowledge and communication and and [9:21] strategic lenses onto the world and so [9:24] Silicon Valley has been an like like [9:27] people go oh I'm a genius it's like no [9:28] no I'm in Silicon Valley right and that [9:31] really helps and so being born in [9:34] Stanford gave me this a set of different [9:38] you know kind of perspectives one [9:39] technology is a lens into the uh future [9:43] another one is as an individual you can [9:46] go create a technology or technology [9:49] company that can be a lever that can [9:50] move the world right and that an [9:53] individual you know from anywhere can [9:55] kind of do that um and all of those [9:58] things were were part of the luck of [10:02] being born in [10:03] Stanford the luck yes well I don't [10:06] choose you don't choose where you're [10:07] born but a lot of people were born there [10:09] and they didn't go on to do the things [10:11] that you did people like to tell stories [10:13] of manifest destiny it's because I am [10:15] great it I would have been great [10:18] anywhere that I was right and it's self- [10:22] delusional I mean yes I think I'm smart [10:24] yes I think I'm hardworking yes I think [10:25] I'm strategic yes I think I have skills [10:28] that are rare in in in human condition [10:32] but any great achievement also has luck [10:35] right and and I can point it in any [10:38] companies I can point it at any [10:40] individuals um and for example one of [10:42] the basic luck is like I had exposure [10:46] and connection to Silicon Valley if I [10:48] didn't have that the technology Destiny [10:51] or the technology achievements I've done [10:53] wouldn't have been able to do those or [10:55] wouldn't have been able to do those the [10:56] amazing way that I did them [10:59] so what would you say then because [11:00] there's people that listen to the show [11:01] all around the world um I we just [11:04] Spotify rap just came out and globally [11:06] we have quite an extensive audience it's [11:08] funny it's funny that it's so globally [11:09] distributed but I think a factor of [11:11] being on YouTube and speaking English [11:13] what would you say to people that are [11:14] born in we've got an audience in Cape [11:16] Town in Indonesia in Australia New [11:19] Zealand what would you say to people in [11:21] those parts of the world can you still [11:22] be quot unquote massively successful yes [11:26] but but you have to think so um and I [11:29] see you have a few of my books there um [11:32] my very first book the startup review um [11:35] which um came from the commencement [11:39] speech I gave at my high school the [11:40] Putney School in Vermont because I was [11:42] like what do I say to a bunch of 17y [11:43] olds right and I was like well be the [11:45] entrepreneur of your own life and what [11:47] that means there's a chapter in there [11:48] that [11:49] says uh uh the bad advice you're usually [11:52] given is just follow your passion and [11:55] the problem is the passion your passion [11:56] might be very passionate but does do you [11:59] have a strategic Advantage there is that [12:01] something you can do and so applying the [12:04] rules of Entrepreneurship yes of course [12:06] you have to be passionate about what [12:07] you're doing because if you're not [12:08] passionate you can never be world class [12:10] unless you're passionate about what [12:12] you're doing but that's not the only [12:14] thing and so you look at okay what are [12:17] Market realities what's the market what [12:18] does a competition look like and within [12:20] those what can your aspirations be and [12:22] there's a whole chapter on that in that [12:23] book because that's by the way similar [12:25] to how you plot out if you're founding a [12:27] company right if you're founding a [12:28] company you have to think the same way [12:31] about this but think about it as an [12:32] individual so if you're in Cape Town [12:36] there are many great things you can do [12:38] now if you say what I'm going to do is [12:39] create a search company to compete with [12:41] Google ah don't do that I mean unless [12:44] you really have some real unique thing [12:47] because remember you're competing with [12:48] this intensely powerful not just the [12:51] company but the network of Silicon [12:53] Valley which attracts amazing talent [12:56] from around the world Capital knowledge [12:59] and they're all sharing it with each [13:00] other at a very fast clock speed and so [13:03] wherever you are that doesn't work now [13:05] you do think about okay what can the [13:07] thing I do so for example um you know on [13:11] I love podcasts as you know I you know [13:13] Master scale possible Etc and so I had [13:16] the Delight of of um of doing like [13:19] interviews with Toby lutka right or [13:22] Daniel a and what you do is you look at [13:25] part of their success Shopify you know [13:27] Spotify is is what how do I run my [13:31] strategy from here like how is it that [13:34] I'm [13:35] competitive and and can win a global [13:38] field Marketplace that Silicon Valley [13:41] doesn't do and so for example one of the [13:42] things that they're different in the [13:44] cases because like for example in [13:46] Spotify that was hey I can get the [13:50] record labels to give me a chance to [13:53] start doing the business by doing just [13:56] Scandinavia prove it and then expand it [13:59] whereas those record labels the capital [14:00] to do it in the US would never happen [14:02] and hence you have Spotify and in [14:04] Shopify it's hey the silkon valley tends [14:07] to go oh e-commerce is over its own by [14:09] Amazon we're not going to do any of that [14:11] as a platform maybe you know this thing [14:13] or that thing but we're not going to do [14:14] it as a platform well but they're wrong [14:17] and I can do a long place and then once [14:19] I get to this network effect of a whole [14:21] bunch of you know small and medium [14:22] businesses doing their own you know kind [14:25] of websites in e-commerce then I am the [14:28] plat for that so it's kind of a long [14:31] under the radar strategy where you're [14:33] not directly competing with Silicon [14:35] Valley companies and by the time the [14:37] sellon value companies go oh there's a [14:38] Manor opportunity you've got it so those [14:41] are plays that you can do if you're [14:43] smart and strategic but you have to know [14:46] like uh Toby lutka um like is deeply [14:52] informed what what's going on in Silicon [14:54] Valley like when he's charting a [14:56] strategy he's aware of that he's got [14:59] connections he visits I mean I'm a [15:01] friend of his right and um and that's [15:04] part of like if you're doing a global [15:06] software [15:07] play you have to be aware that your [15:10] competition is global there's an element [15:13] of self-awareness required here yeah and [15:16] it's funny because when I was younger I [15:18] certainly didn't have that [15:18] self-awareness I thought that I could [15:20] start a social network from my bedroom [15:22] without ever doing it before and I [15:23] wasn't necessarily thinking about the [15:25] geographical situation or Silicon Valley [15:27] um how important is self-awareness as an [15:30] entrepreneur and how does one cultivate [15:31] it to know what they what challenge is [15:33] actually befitting of their skills so I [15:36] think um self-awareness is generally a [15:39] very good thing for all human beings um [15:43] and um you still have to be irrationally [15:47] ambitious which is I think very [15:49] important and so sometimes [15:50] self-awareness and and just you know uh [15:55] immense ambition sometimes don't go [15:57] together it's better when they do but [15:59] that's fine what you do have to do is be [16:01] very aware of what your competitive [16:03] space looks like right so just about [16:06] everybody who succeeds in substantive in [16:09] a substantial way is good at being [16:13] competitive right and and you if you're [16:15] blind to your [16:17] competition H you're kind of hosed if [16:20] you're successful it's just because [16:21] you're lucky right because uh and that's [16:24] part of what I was referring to earlier [16:25] in luck if you if you start a business [16:27] where you have the luck where [16:29] competitors haven't haven't identified [16:32] it haven't gotten you get a long head [16:33] start on it that's an instance of luck [16:36] not all the successful companies are [16:37] that way but that's very that that can [16:39] be very good and very useful on that um [16:42] but you have to be very aware of what [16:44] the competitive landscape looks like now [16:46] that's also true of individuals right um [16:48] because it's like well who am I [16:49] competing against is a relevant question [16:53] but it's uh you can be kind of [16:56] competitively blind as an individual [16:59] and still be very successful because of [17:01] the way it works but if you're [17:02] competitive blind leading a business [17:04] leading a [17:05] startup almost always that's hosed right [17:08] that's one of the reasons why like you [17:10] know the all investors in Silicon Valley [17:14] always ask about your competition and if [17:16] you say I don't have any competition [17:18] you're like well if they disagree with [17:20] you they're not going to invest because [17:21] they go you're competitively [17:23] blind is there any such thing as an [17:26] entrepreneur in the sense of you know [17:28] people always ask me they say can anyone [17:30] be an entrepreneur and a founder and [17:32] there's so many different types of [17:33] companies one can start these days that [17:35] it's a quite tricky question to answer [17:37] but do you think any because there's [17:38] going to be people listening to this now [17:40] that are in they're managers in [17:41] companies they're you know they're [17:43] they're working in a law firm or [17:45] whatever and maybe they've got an idea I [17:47] mean everyone's got an idea and they [17:49] don't know if they're the type of person [17:51] that should pursue it or not is there a [17:53] framework one can run through run [17:54] through to decide that yeah I'll run [17:56] through a framework to help the folks [17:58] the um the short answer is no not [18:01] everyone should be an entrepreneur just [18:03] like not everyone should try to be a [18:04] professional mus musician not everyone [18:07] should try to be an athlete not everyone [18:09] should be you have to look at what your [18:10] competitive advantages are and does [18:13] your disposition skill sets path give [18:17] you a Competitive Edge in this case of [18:20] being an entrepreneur right because any [18:23] game that's competitive right and [18:26] Entrepreneurship is a highly competitive [18:27] game that's that's part of the you know [18:29] it's as competitive is trying to become [18:32] you know a uh a globally renowned actor [18:36] it's as competitive as trying to become [18:38] the CEO of a major bank or anything else [18:41] so it's it's a competitive [18:43] game so for an entrepreneur what you [18:46] have to do is you have to say okay well [18:48] um I have to be uh able one of the [18:51] classic ones to uh to take substantial [18:56] risks now it's not being risk blind [18:58] Entre rurs are actually not risk blind [19:01] or occasionally they are and [19:02] occasionally they're lucky and it works [19:05] but almost all the successful ones [19:07] realize that I'm that when you start a [19:10] company you're default debt right by [19:13] default the company is out of business [19:16] right and so you're trying to get to a [19:19] point where it's default alive versus [19:22] default dead then there's a whole bunch [19:25] of different things that go into that [19:26] game so one is um well can you go get [19:28] the capital um are you in in a market [19:31] that allow you to get the capital um can [19:34] you move to a market that allows you to [19:35] get the capital um how do you pitch the [19:38] capital how does pitching Capital go and [19:40] then you get this this kind of flywheel [19:42] going between you know Capital um Talent [19:47] uh business realization Capital Talent [19:51] right and you're doing that and the [19:52] business realization obviously includes [19:53] customers includes go to market includes [19:55] building products and services Etc and [19:58] by the way it's Dynam so you say well I [19:59] wouldn't worked at a large company and I [20:01] learned a bunch of things like well yeah [20:02] but you didn't learn how your default [20:05] dead you didn't learn how to launch a [20:07] new product you didn't learn how to how [20:08] do you start with a small product and [20:10] grow to a larger product right you [20:13] didn't learn how do you set up a team [20:14] from scratch and by the way a team from [20:17] scratch when the vast majority of human [20:20] beings like more certainty in what their [20:22] week looks like right like I'm going to [20:25] come work at a place because I can [20:27] continue to work at a place and as long [20:28] long as I'm capable of what I'm doing I [20:31] keep my job right in terms of what I'm [20:34] doing and so I understand the certainty [20:36] so so entrepreneurs have to do all that [20:38] sort of thing so in addition to kind of [20:40] risk taking you have to be good at [20:42] bringing many resources from different [20:46] uh vectors into your vision and working [20:48] with you so there's investors there's [20:50] employees there's customers there's [20:53] advisors there's Partners you have to [20:56] bring the right set of those people [20:57] along with you in this iterative this [21:00] this kind of you know iterative Journey [21:02] um you have to be able to grow yourself [21:05] and learn because the game changes um [21:07] like one of the metaphors I use to to to [21:11] train and and conceptualize young [21:13] entrepreneurs is kind and there's a [21:15] bunch of different parallels between [21:16] military strategy it's part of like the [21:17] board games thing and and and business [21:20] strategy but it's like Marines take the [21:21] beach army takes the country police [21:23] governs the country three three very [21:26] crude broad generalizations about how [21:28] you do it so you go what's your Marine [21:31] strategy do you have because you must as [21:34] a C Series a you must have a good [21:36] strategy how you get on the beach how [21:38] you get you know initial product Market [21:39] fit how you're heading towards scale [21:41] product Market fit okay you're there how [21:43] do you win the country right the market [21:46] right what how do you get to scale [21:47] product Market fit how is that going to [21:49] work how are you going to play against [21:51] competition different in these two how [21:52] do you get up to scale you have to learn [21:54] this game is different than this game [21:57] right and you're learning new things as [21:58] you're doing it so you have to have this [22:00] kind of um what I refer to as being an [22:03] infinite learner like you're learning [22:05] what the new game is because by the way [22:07] no entrepreneur shows up at door one at [22:09] day one going well I know how to do [22:11] marketing I know how to do sales I know [22:12] how to do uh product development I know [22:14] how to do engineering I know how to do [22:16] engineering operations I know how like [22:18] no no no you have to bring all that in [22:20] you to be learning what you need to [22:21] learn in order to do that through that [22:23] and and and and that's part of how you [22:26] you grow into that and then by the way [22:28] once you you've established a business [22:30] because the thing another thing that [22:32] brings in a lot of competition is people [22:33] say oh that's a valuable business I'd [22:36] like to possibly that and then you then [22:39] a new generation of heavy competitors [22:42] come in so can you can you kind of keep [22:44] your position and grow your position in [22:46] a market which is the police part right [22:48] the police part yes exactly and so so [22:50] you have to you have to look and each of [22:51] these three is different games and [22:53] there's more games than that but it's a [22:54] a way of kind of Simply understanding [22:56] that so uh always being learning being [22:59] an infinite learner and changing your [23:00] mindset and so frequently like for [23:03] example when I'm talking to an [23:06] entrepreneur [23:07] um especially the first few times is I [23:12] will push them on their Vision to see if [23:14] their Learners now one they should have [23:16] persistence and grit because like no [23:18] I've thought about this I've got a good [23:19] plan this is how I'm going to go to [23:21] market I understand what the competition [23:23] looks like because if they go oh you're [23:24] right I should totally change that [23:25] you're like okay you have to have some [23:27] grit and precis [23:29] but on the other hand if they're not [23:30] like going oh yeah no if we can counter [23:32] that yeah we'd have to do something [23:34] about that like if our competitor [23:35] started doing that and maybe we do this [23:39] right so they also are learning they [23:40] have flexibility so you want that [23:42] combination like one of the things about [23:44] startups is uh you have to um bring kind [23:49] of this dual lensed focus of things that [23:52] seemingly are a little contradictory so [23:54] like persistence flexibility another one [23:57] is right now now long term right now you [24:01] have to do right now but if you don't [24:03] have a long term of how you're building [24:05] something that's insanely ambitious no [24:07] you're never going to get there if if if [24:09] you shoot for the hillside you're never [24:11] going to get to the moon you have to [24:12] shoot for the moon so you're shooting [24:13] for the moon but it's me and my two [24:16] friends in a garage right now it's [24:18] interesting because the middle bit yes [24:21] does that matter it does but it's it's a [24:25] remember like the Marines Army police [24:28] yeah [24:28] Army when you're doing the Marines is [24:30] the middle bit right okay right right so [24:34] so it does but it's not by the way and [24:36] one of again mistakes and that's part of [24:38] the reason why there's another chapter [24:39] in Starview is abz planning the mistakes [24:41] is like you have a plan and then you [24:43] have a plan B it's like no no no you [24:45] have a plan and then you have a lot of [24:47] micr plan BS right so you're kind of [24:49] like well if that doesn't work then [24:50] let's try this if that doesn't work then [24:52] let's try this you know and and you're [24:54] iterating through them and when you know [24:56] to do a major pivot because by the way [24:59] many successful businesses also do major [25:02] pivots um PayPal started as encryption [25:05] on cell phones right that's that's where [25:08] it started right so you do major pivots [25:13] it's when you go [25:15] oh my current plan which I've iterated [25:18] for my first plan is worse than my first [25:20] plan like the market circumstances its [25:23] chance of [25:24] succeeding those are now worse mhm [25:28] that's when you think about okay let's [25:29] do a major pivot so with your analogy of [25:33] evading the beach how do you know what [25:35] beach to invade like how do you know if [25:36] you've got a good idea and how do you [25:38] know what a good idea is because most [25:40] people as I said listen to this they've [25:41] got a business idea yeah and they how do [25:44] they know if it's good and part of the [25:46] issue they often have is they've heard [25:48] anecdotally or they've seen that someone [25:50] else is already doing it so they go oh [25:52] gosh it's already been done yeah [25:55] there's call it two kinds of ideas is [25:58] and frankly by the way you think you [26:00] know there's over 8 billion people in [26:01] the world the fact that you think you're [26:04] the one person who thought of this idea [26:08] you may not be doing math well right um [26:12] so so thinking you're the one person [26:15] who's thought of the idea that's a [26:17] mistake right the question is are you [26:19] the person who can pull it together in [26:22] the [26:23] momentum and and pull it together and [26:25] it's still by the way that may be well [26:28] okay that gets down to 100 people okay [26:30] well am I the one who's in motion right [26:32] now am I the mo person who's willing to [26:34] take the risk quit my job and do it um [26:37] and you never really get down to one [26:40] right so so startups are risky [26:42] businesses like one of the things let's [26:43] get back to entrepreneurs like I think [26:46] the greatest chance and even when I was [26:48] starting LinkedIn after having started [26:50] social land after having you know uh [26:52] co-founded PayPal as a board member even [26:56] when I was starting LinkedIn what I [26:58] would tell the people like look we have [27:00] about a maximum of 20 25% chance of [27:03] being successful right just to be clear [27:06] right we're GNA try to grow that to 100% [27:10] right but but we're a couple people in a [27:13] garage right now right like there's all [27:16] kinds of things that can go wrong anyone [27:18] who's telling you it's 100% now they're [27:20] lying to themselves or they're lying to [27:22] you and and you know like I'm very [27:24] realist and ambitious in my strategy and [27:27] so so you you should never think you're [27:29] starting something 100% now within the [27:32] ideas you go there's roughly speaking [27:35] two kinds of ideas one kind of idea is [27:40] people generally think that's a good [27:41] idea they think it's a good idea because [27:43] you go to customers and customers say [27:44] yeah I'd like that right they go to they [27:47] go oh well hey AI is going to create a [27:49] whole bunch of new SAS businesses right [27:51] oh yeah that makes sense and new new [27:53] technology trans [27:55] transformation that or people in [27:57] e-commerce they're going to want buy [27:58] this kind of stuff okay you know makes [28:00] sense so there's a stack of things where [28:02] they're pretty measurable as ideas like [28:04] you can measure them with customers you [28:06] can you can you can do feedback and [28:09] polling and other kinds of things now [28:12] the good news there's good news bad news [28:14] on this category the good news is you [28:16] can drisk is there a market for your [28:19] idea mostly not not entirely but mostly [28:23] the bad news is so can a lot of other [28:24] people yeah right and so in this [28:27] category there always tends to be [28:29] competition and your competitive [28:31] strategy generally speaking needs to be [28:34] why against like in this category you [28:36] should be expecting competition why am I [28:39] going to win out sufficiently against [28:41] this competition in a global [28:44] Arena I have invested in those [28:46] businesses Greylock invests in a bunch [28:48] of those businesses because we do we're [28:49] you know one of the best VCS in [28:50] Enterprise on the planet you know blah [28:52] blah blah then um the other kind of I [28:56] thing which is the one I tend to start [28:58] and the one I tend to most invest in is [29:01] people think that you're uh that you're [29:05] crazy when you're starting your business [29:08] and by the way that can be a by the way [29:10] and frequently you are right yeah but [29:13] but people think you're crazy which [29:14] means most people think you're crazy [29:16] which means your competitive field is a [29:17] lot less right so for example I'll give [29:22] LinkedIn um as an example and I'll give [29:26] Airbnb as an example so l in um I go and [29:29] I say hey um individuals will join this [29:32] network and bring in their and establish [29:34] a public identity and profile and bring [29:37] in their Network and and use that even [29:40] as the vast majority of the billion [29:42] people register for LinkedIn are you [29:43] know basically work at companies right [29:45] they're not starting company like it's a [29:46] great platform for entrepreneurs [29:47] entrepreneurs get it right away but like [29:49] I'm like well I'm working in a company [29:51] is am I going to seem disloyal to my [29:53] company if I establish a profile here [29:55] you know cuz back back when we started [29:58] it like no one's going to use that why [30:00] well because like they're worried about [30:03] uh will their company fire them or not [30:06] give them a bonus or something else [30:07] because they have a LinkedIn profile [30:08] because they're saying they're dis oil [30:10] so it looks like they're shopping [30:11] because I mean for most people that use [30:13] LinkedIn now you don't see it as I'm [30:15] looking for another role exactly but [30:16] back then people do 2003 literally [30:20] everyone said to me this won't work [30:23] because you're individual focused you [30:25] need to be selling products to companies [30:28] okay right right and so I was like no no [30:31] I think I'm right about the way the [30:33] world can and should be right and um and [30:39] so uh I'm gonna take that risk and [30:42] that's the contrarian risk I'm gonna [30:43] take that risk and I'm gonna I'm gonna [30:45] play it forward and if I'm right I will [30:48] create something that will transform the [30:51] industry that will be amazing for [30:53] individuals amazing for companies Etc [30:55] and we can go obviously whatever length [30:57] you want to go through the LinkedIn [30:58] Journey we can do that now Airbnb is as [31:00] an investor example so Airbnb was my [31:03] first investment at Greylock and so and [31:05] I was at Greylock because David Z who [31:07] was my partner who was the Greylock [31:09] partner who was my most valuable board [31:11] member at LinkedIn convinced me that I [31:13] should do Venture AT Greylock and I'm [31:15] very close to David and so I bring in [31:18] Airbnb as an investment and David looks [31:20] across the table from me and says look [31:23] every VC has to have a deal they're [31:24] going to fail on Airbnb can be yours [31:28] really yes because arbnb at the time had [31:32] so little volume in its transactions [31:35] that the founders could have called [31:37] everyone who used Airbnb that week if [31:39] what they did is dedicated making phone [31:41] calls like you know five minutes of [31:42] phone call you know through the through [31:44] the week that was how small it was and [31:46] David's argument at the Greylock Round [31:49] Table was look this is very strange [31:53] staying in other people's houses you [31:56] know like the danger of something going [31:59] wrong um cities are going to hate it [32:02] hotel lobbies are going to try to Outlaw [32:05] it within cities You Know da like this [32:08] is just going to be a train wreck all [32:09] over the [32:11] place and I was like no but I want to [32:13] take the v he's like great like we hired [32:15] you as a partner we think you're smart [32:17] go ahead right now to David's credit six [32:20] months later the trend the transaction [32:22] volume in airbn is like this classic [32:24] hockey stick it was years a very small [32:27] and then it grew to being very big um so [32:31] the hockey stick hadn't started yet and [32:32] David came to me and said okay because [32:35] because like they always be learning is [32:37] also useful in Venture Capital he came [32:39] and said okay you were totally right [32:40] about Airbnb and I was I was totally [32:42] wrong what did you see that I didn't see [32:45] like how did you know when I was sitting [32:47] there blowing smoke at you saying this [32:50] is going to be a total failure you said [32:51] nope I'm I want to do this I said well [32:53] look you were right about all of the [32:56] risks about that could happen with [32:58] Airbnb you absolutely right any of those [33:01] things could have made the business [33:03] worth zero but this is the reason as [33:05] investors we do a portfolio because yes [33:08] Airbnb could be zero but if it worked it [33:12] was going to be huge right it was going [33:14] to transform an industry this is the [33:16] kind of investment I like doing as an [33:18] entrepreneur or as an investor and I [33:20] said look we had a plan for each of [33:22] those risks we had a plan a we had plans [33:25] B we're going to try to navigate it [33:26] isn't that we could guarantee [33:28] the risk but the fact that everyone else [33:30] saw those risks meant that we had years [33:32] of no competition that we could [33:34] establish the network we could establish [33:36] the marketplace and then once we're [33:38] there we are the marketplace for how [33:41] that works and that's the kind of [33:43] investment I like doing that's the same [33:44] thing with LinkedIn as I as I founded it [33:46] same thing with you know kind of uh with [33:49] Airbnb as an investment and so that [33:51] category of investment you cannot [33:53] validate with the customers I was going [33:54] to say so if everybody thinks it's a [33:56] good idea it's probably not a big idea [33:58] yes it it's much more challenging to be [34:00] a big idea [34:02] interesting really [34:05] interesting because it's funny because [34:07] when people pitch to you they say I've [34:09] asked everybody and everybody thinks [34:10] it's great yes so that's probably an [34:13] indicated that it's probably not big or [34:15] they bullshitting yes yes and I'm [34:17] looking for both in my creation of ideas [34:20] and in my funding of ideas it's not dumb [34:23] people who think it's a bad idea it's [34:26] smart people who think it's a bad idea [34:28] you want smart people to yes because [34:30] then you have something that's [34:32] contrarian because that's what contan [34:34] contrarian isn't I don't understand [34:36] technology at all and I think it's a [34:37] terrible idea it's like well who cares [34:38] you don't understand anything right it's [34:41] smart people who think it's a bad idea [34:43] right right and then you have a theory [34:46] of the game that's a good one not [34:48] perfect very risk can be very risky [34:51] about why they're [34:52] wrong so I'll give you the LinkedIn [34:54] example literally John Lily partner mind [34:57] gr I recruited him into Greylock later [34:59] he was the CEO of Milla that I was on [35:01] the board of super smart guy friend of [35:03] mine I sat down with him about LinkedIn [35:06] because this is how I go when I'm [35:08] starting a company I go to all my [35:10] smartest friends and I go here's what [35:12] I'm doing what's wrong with it I don't [35:14] want to have the conversation of them [35:15] going oh it's great useless doesn't help [35:17] me right what's wrong with it why will [35:20] this go why will this fail and so I sat [35:22] down with John we had breakfast at a at [35:24] a breakfast place in Silicon Valley I [35:27] said da and he said okay you you know [35:30] I'll I'm your friend you it's never [35:31] going to work right and I said okay well [35:34] why do you think it's never going to [35:34] work said well look you never grow the [35:37] network like the first person who comes [35:39] in no one else in the network not [35:41] valuable for me why should I invite [35:43] someone in until you have like you know [35:45] I don't know 500,000 people a million [35:47] people there's no value in the network [35:48] so there's zero value so it's never [35:49] going to grow you're never going to get [35:51] anywhere right and it was a very smart [35:54] perspicacious thought that was probably [35:56] the key thing for starting LinkedIn was [35:59] how do you get to millions of people in [36:01] the network because that's the only [36:02] place where the value proposition kicks [36:04] in right I knew that if you had a [36:06] thousand people come [36:08] in 900 of those people would be exactly [36:11] like John they' go huh I don't see [36:13] anyone else here in this network Etc but [36:16] I knew that some of them somewhere [36:18] between 10 and a hundred of them would [36:20] go oh I see what this could be and I [36:22] kind of want to play with it so you know [36:24] I'll invite Stephen I'll invite you know [36:27] I'll invite some people in and then as [36:30] it very slowly starts going then all of [36:32] a sudden there's enough people in it's [36:34] interesting it's curious and you could [36:36] grow to being valuable so I knew that [36:38] that by persistence through those [36:40] initial exploratory people people who [36:43] are curious people who want to [36:44] experiment with it people who got the [36:45] vision of it you know Etc ET but all of [36:48] that I could grow to your initial [36:50] critical mass and then it would kick in [36:53] the model of LinkedIn obviously I know [36:56] LinkedIn more today than I did back then [36:58] in what 19 no so 2002 2003 200 2003 and [37:02] then really got 2003 is when we turned [37:04] it on Wow and back then was it a social [37:09] network as it is now where there's a [37:11] news feed and people talking to each [37:13] other or was it more of a a public CV [37:18] was a public CV with a search capability [37:21] and ability to communicate with people [37:23] okay interesting so the network effects [37:25] were slightly less important than the [37:27] modeling is today because a lot of [37:29] people today using it not to search for [37:31] a job or a professional but to talk [37:34] about themselves or to share their life [37:35] Etc and we knew that we would get to [37:38] Growing Network fact like for example [37:40] Again part of the you know Marines Army [37:43] police is your network effects may very [37:45] much evolve you may start with no [37:47] network effects that's fine yeah but you [37:49] have a plan yes yeah yeah yeah so am I [37:52] right in thinking because around then [37:55] there were social networks emerging that [37:56] were very FOC focused on people [37:58] conversating with each other whereas [38:01] LinkedIn by design it didn't really [38:04] really matter if anybody was chatting to [38:06] you about what they ate for dinner that [38:07] day so a new network could penetrate the [38:11] market that was less dependent on the [38:13] like social networking component because [38:16] if I go on there and make a profile and [38:17] put my CV up it doesn't really matter if [38:19] I don't come back for four days exactly [38:21] because I can get an email that will [38:23] bring me back in saying oh there's a job [38:24] here but once my profile's up and ready [38:27] yes I'm now giving value to the rest of [38:29] the network just by being there yes and [38:31] that that's a virtue not a bug because [38:34] it was part of how we solved the [38:35] critical mass problem yeah I I could [38:37] never understand how LinkedIn did that [38:39] but now it makes sense to me yes because [38:40] I always think God building a social [38:42] network is just asking for like hell in [38:44] your life yeah well I'm kind of a [38:46] specialist yeah right uh you know uh one [38:50] of the First Investors in Facebook one [38:52] of the First Investors in frenster oh [38:54] right I didn't realize you were invest [38:55] in frenster as well yes you [38:58] were part of what they call the PayPal [38:59] Mafia I know you use a different term [39:01] Network it's it it's less it has less [39:04] Pizzazz but we weren't really a criminal [39:06] group but Mafia is cool as well yes yes [39:09] people people love the term Mafia and [39:12] through that time you worked with the [39:13] likes of Elon you knew Peter the from [39:15] your days at University [39:18] um I mean everybody asked this question [39:20] about [39:22] PayPal and why it was so successful but [39:24] also why so many of the alumni of PayPal [39:27] went on to become multi-billionaires I [39:29] think seven people that that were part [39:32] in that sort of part of that St sort of [39:34] early PayPal founding team went on to [39:36] create Tesla YouTube Reddit SpaceX [39:39] LinkedIn was it Talent density was it [39:42] was that what made the PayPal mafio well [39:44] it certainly was a component and so it's [39:47] it's it's it's a couple of things so one [39:51] um that high density Talent of folks who [39:55] are willing to take intensive risks [39:57] want to do contrarian things believe in [40:01] what their contrarian thing is against [40:02] Common Sense wisdom that's one part [40:05] another part is um when PayPal went [40:09] public it was one of it was a it was a [40:12] technology winter it was one of two [40:13] technology companies that went public [40:15] that year wow right so all of a sudden [40:18] and then got bought by eBay so all of a [40:20] sudden you had this talent group of [40:21] people that had a bunch of money in [40:23] their pockets and the Network within and [40:29] that believed in the consumer internet [40:32] so the network of Silicon Valley at that [40:35] point had thought the consumer internet [40:36] was played they were going into clean [40:38] tech and Enterprise so if you asked if [40:41] you try to Ping a venture capitalist but [40:44] I have a new consumer idea they wouldn't [40:45] even take a meeting with you they would [40:47] take a meeting if it was clean tech [40:48] they' take a meeting if it was [40:50] Enterprise software right now then you [40:53] get all the the the PayPal people coming [40:55] out going hey I can f my own initial [40:58] idea I've got this great idea YouTube [41:02] Right LinkedIn and I can fund it and I [41:05] can get it going and then and this is [41:07] part of the web 20 movement this is a i [41:10] i coined the term internet 20 and then [41:12] Tim uh O'Reilly uh made the much better [41:15] term web to right and [41:18] so the uh these folks going no no the [41:22] consumer internet is like that was just [41:25] the first wave on the beach the tsunami [41:27] is still coming right and so we were all [41:30] out investing and we were talking to [41:31] each other because frankly we're like [41:34] well these these VCS don't get it like [41:36] this is coming and then of course you [41:38] started seeing you know YouTube and you [41:40] started seeing LinkedIn and you started [41:42] seeing and it was like okay like we will [41:46] like these are important things that [41:47] we're going to invest in and that that's [41:49] that's part of the reason why the that's [41:52] the uh Because by the way remember you [41:54] know a bad competition [41:57] right that's one of the reasons why not [41:58] just Talent not just Capital but also [42:02] competitive steering as part of the [42:03] reason why the PayPal Network or PayPal [42:05] Mafia had such a massive uh Suite of [42:10] success you know I often Hazard a guess [42:13] that what the like the the fundamental [42:15] game of business is for a startup [42:17] founder and I've hazarded a guess before [42:19] that it's recruiting the best group of [42:21] people you possibly can binding them [42:22] with a culture that gets the best out of [42:24] them and setting them a vision that's [42:25] worthwhile but from reading your work [42:27] there's a couple of things just from [42:28] hearing you today sales is so like all [42:32] whatever your go to market is and it can [42:33] be sales be to be Enterprise Etc but [42:36] like for example in in social networks [42:38] it's usually a viral you know a viral [42:41] marketing or viral growth plan so when I [42:43] say sales I actually mean like selling [42:45] to oh yes employees 100% yes you must [42:48] you said like Partners investors yes cuz [42:51] you have to come come on board my vision [42:54] invest in my vision Because by the way a [42:55] partner when you're startup is also [42:58] investing in Your Vision yeah an [42:59] employee is investing your vision yeah [43:02] right how' you be good at [43:04] that there's a limited set of skills [43:07] that you can actually teach to [43:08] entrepreneurs versus the entrepreneurs [43:10] just learning by doing one of them is [43:12] pitching right one of them is [43:14] understanding the how do I communicate [43:17] my vision in a way that other people [43:20] cannot go that's really exciting I want [43:23] to join your vision with you and if I [43:26] was a young entrepreneur telling you [43:27] right I want to be better at pitching my [43:29] vision so I can get worldclass people to [43:30] join me worldclass investors Partners is [43:32] there any advice you could give me on [43:34] things I should and shouldn't do uh yeah [43:36] absolutely and by the way there's we [43:38] could spend the entire podcast only [43:41] doing this I mean there's there's a very [43:43] deep well but here's some simple tips so [43:45] one is the mistaken lesson that most [43:49] people learn is to try to do reality [43:51] Distortion it's like no no no no no uh [43:54] silicon chips to make ice cream shakes [43:57] it's the thing no one's thought of it [43:59] it's really big right and people like [44:02] okay what you're convincing me is you're [44:04] crazy right like you're literally like [44:07] please leave now yeah right so you have [44:10] to realize that all pitches are [44:11] dialogues right and you want to be [44:14] listening to smart people and you like [44:17] generally speaking everyone you want to [44:19] be recruiting you want to be recruiting [44:21] smart people you want the absolute best [44:23] talent working with you you want the [44:24] absolute best talent working in your [44:26] company you want the absolute best so [44:27] you want people who are who are [44:30] thoughtful and asking good questions [44:31] like for [44:32] example I pitch insanely aspirational [44:37] businesses but I don't pitch them saying [44:38] Oh LinkedIn is guaranteed to succeed [44:40] there's no Universe in which LinkedIn [44:42] won't be the Transformer of professional [44:45] work and careers what I do is say it can [44:48] get here like we have a real chance at [44:51] this now we have to navigate these risks [44:55] but if we navigate these risks we're [44:56] going to be here mhm right and then [44:58] people say ah you're credible you have a [45:02] huge Vision you're compelling I think [45:05] you can do this right and then they come [45:07] on board with you so one of it is to [45:10] pitch the huge Vision but show that [45:12] you're aware of the difficulties of [45:15] getting there right now you don't have [45:17] to go through all of them you just have [45:19] to go through enough of them or a big [45:22] enough one that the person goes okay [45:24] great I get it you're seeing it right [45:27] another part of it is to say this is [45:29] part of the reason why competition is [45:30] important is like I understand what game [45:32] I'm playing right here's my theory this [45:35] is what competition plays in this is why [45:37] I think the market will favor me this is [45:38] why I think technology Trends will favor [45:40] me this is why I think I have a very [45:41] unique Edge and you know in blit scaling [45:45] which I think is another book on your [45:46] thing uh most consumer internet plays [45:51] are uh what we call Glen Gary Glenn Ross [45:53] markets which is first prize the [45:55] Cadillac second prize steak knives and [45:57] third prizes you're fired so you have to [45:59] be pitching why you're possibly first [46:02] yeah right right because there's only [46:03] going to be a couple of winners yes and [46:05] so like this is why we can win right and [46:09] so um now there's also mechanics in [46:13] pitching which is you know how do you [46:14] tell a story of it part of the thing I [46:17] tell entrepreneurs is to even if the [46:19] person doesn't ask you the risk tell [46:22] them what the risks are and how you're [46:24] navigating them because it'll establish [46:26] trust right so like for example in in [46:29] pitching Investments now this I didn't [46:31] know until I started learning it in [46:33] terms of mechanic of pitching is and [46:35] entrepreneurs tend to go oh when I need [46:37] money is when I you know write up my [46:39] PowerPoint and I hit you know knock on [46:41] the door like hey give me some money [46:43] that's a foolish time to start the [46:45] conversation much better to start the [46:47] conversation when you're not saying give [46:48] me money so if you like as much as you [46:52] can in all of these things start the [46:54] conversation well before you're getting [46:56] to a [46:57] potential contract of any sort a [47:00] partnership or or a investment or even [47:02] an employment contract like so for [47:04] example always be recruiting doesn't [47:06] mean oh I want to hire you right now [47:08] it's like okay find great talent this is [47:10] one of the things I learned from social [47:11] lent and brought into PayPal find great [47:13] talent and start talking to them right [47:17] even if today you don't have the right [47:19] position to hire them right now [47:21] obviously there's a whole bunch of great [47:23] talent you could waste a whole bunch of [47:24] time you want to be talking to people [47:25] that [47:27] you know you either really would love [47:29] them to join at some point not too [47:31] distant future or they know other people [47:33] who would be like that because by the [47:34] way part of when you um when you meet [47:38] great talent you realize how to like [47:41] because because you're always you're [47:42] always adding new great talent you're [47:44] like oh my God we need people like this [47:48] how do we bring them in so for example [47:51] one of the things that I learned that [47:52] was you know from social net that I [47:55] brought to PayPal was at Social at I was [47:58] trying to hire people who had 10 plus [47:59] years experience doing the thing that we [48:01] were hiring them to do before because [48:03] the classic kind of wisdom that you get [48:04] from Business Schools is make sure they [48:06] have experience on their [48:08] CV look they have to be able to do the [48:10] job right no question but if you said [48:14] two years of experience and an insane [48:16] learning curve that's much better an [48:19] insane learning curve by that you means [48:20] someone that's rapidly learning self- [48:23] teing yes okay and learning on the job [48:26] and going and figuring it out and so [48:28] when I went to PayPal and I was I when [48:32] the company was founded I was on the [48:33] board of directors I was like this is [48:35] what you're looking for not this okay [48:37] right and so back to your like PayPal [48:39] Mafia question that's because we hired [48:41] those kind of people right interesting [48:44] there was a very limited set of people [48:46] in the company who had had more than a [48:47] couple years experience working within [48:52] payments within banking within you know [48:55] because it was the no know learning [48:58] curve when you look at your portfolio of [49:00] Investments and the entrepreneurs you [49:01] meet do you think young entrepreneurs [49:03] realize how significant hiring is to [49:05] their eventual outcome because they tend [49:07] to focus on like how good the product is [49:09] or sometimes Capital but I just looking [49:11] at my own portfolio I I often find [49:14] myself like feeling like an old man [49:16] because I'm telling them that like spend [49:17] more time hiring not just hiring your [49:19] friends because they're willing to come [49:20] work here yes aoxy for a Founder if [49:23] you're not spending a third of your time [49:25] hiring [49:27] you're very much underd delivering this [49:29] is the thing it's like look uh life is a [49:32] team sport companies are team sports [49:35] right if you could just do it yourself [49:36] you wouldn't hire anybody no you're [49:37] hiring people so like you say well I've [49:39] got a really good let's you know use a [49:41] European football analogy I've got a [49:43] really good Striker [49:45] great well we don't need to worry about [49:47] the halfbacks or defensive or you know [49:51] goalkeeper no no you have to hire all [49:54] things and you go well I'm a really good [49:56] halfback that's great you need the [49:57] others too I think when I was young when [50:00] I was 18 19 years old I somewhere in my [50:02] brain thought my outcomes were going to [50:03] be determined by how hard I worked and [50:06] how good my ideas were and it wasn't [50:08] until I accidentally hired someone [50:09] fantastic that I realized yes the [50:11] absolute tremendous impact that an a [50:13] player can have on everything yes and [50:15] that was just such a mental shift for me [50:17] yeah literally I think Zuckerberg puts [50:20] us in a very good way he wants to hire [50:22] people he would work for [50:27] and why why is that because that's a [50:28] demonstration of high Talent okay yeah [50:32] yeah when you're a young found you're [50:33] somewhat insecure though you think oh [50:35] God why would that person want to come [50:36] work here or I can't afford them or you [50:38] want to hire the best people you can and [50:41] by the way if you can hire people better [50:42] than you oh my God it makes you much [50:44] more likely to be successful yeah yeah [50:47] it's my experience that young Founders [50:48] don't really think about that because [50:49] they're also insecure so they think I [50:51] can't manage that person yeah well but [50:53] but your theory of management is look if [50:55] you're if you can hire someone where [50:57] your only management technique needs to [50:59] be let them [51:01] loose that's that that's [51:04] best like just [51:06] go right and is there any pra anything [51:09] practical about hiring you know people [51:11] say like hire slow Fire fast or uh other [51:14] sort of like cliche advice around hiring [51:16] that matters like how important is it [51:18] that they're culturally aligned or so [51:20] culture can matter um I would say look [51:24] in terms of and I hopefully it's not a [51:27] cliche but hopefully a puristic [51:29] principle um uh references are more [51:32] important than [51:34] interviews right we get a lot of [51:36] repetitive experience at being [51:38] compelling in an interview and if you [51:41] can't and by the way some great people [51:43] aren't compelling in interviews right [51:45] they're they're they're not really great [51:46] at selling themselves but oh my God are [51:48] they amazing in the field they're am [51:49] like an engineer like an engineer might [51:51] be like you like okay but oh my God can [51:55] they do great things mhm in which case [51:57] like like do whatever you can to hire [52:00] that person so if you if you ask me you [52:02] can only have references or only inter [52:04] interview 10 out of 10 times I'll take [52:07] the I'll hire the person on the [52:08] references you surely you're not talking [52:10] about the types of references where they [52:11] give you the references no no course not [52:13] no no and this is one of the features of [52:14] LinkedIn like you want to find [52:16] references that will give you um uh good [52:21] perspective now even if you can't go [52:24] find someone that you know or you have a [52:27] tie to or as what we refer to frequently [52:29] as an off-balance reference sheet e not [52:31] the one they give you to be a reference [52:34] so even if they say oh here's you know [52:36] I'm reading here's my reference you know [52:40] Bob or [52:42] Susan you call Bob or Susan and you say [52:45] this is a standard question I will use [52:47] all the time but especially if I'm [52:49] calling someone who's a given reference [52:51] say look I believe every every person is [52:53] a combination of strengths and [52:55] weaknesses and you don't give me a [52:58] weakness I will believe it's so bad that [53:01] I should not hire this [53:03] person right so if if you say there's no [53:07] weakness I'll just go okay I understand [53:09] I shouldn't hire this person thank you [53:10] very much right in that they will always [53:15] almost always give you [53:17] something right and you can think [53:19] because we are all combinations of [53:20] strengths and weaknesses like I'm one of [53:23] the best people to have on your side for [53:24] Creative strategic problem solving [53:27] like one of my employees once told me [53:29] he's like I would never hire you to run [53:30] a McDonald's I'm like I wouldn't hire me [53:32] to run a McDonald's either I'd be [53:34] terrible at it right so that's [53:38] combinations of strengths and weaknesses [53:41] right and so everyone has them there is [53:43] no one who is all strengths I mean [53:44] people tell themselves that but that's [53:46] self- delusion right and so so you have [53:50] that conversation with a reference and [53:51] the reference will tell you something [53:53] because because they're not used to [53:54] saying it so they might say oh you know [53:57] he um uh you know Susan or Bob they're a [54:01] perfectionist he like oh so they get [54:03] their work done slowly because they you [54:05] know like you know like you you push [54:07] them because they're trying to get the [54:08] one that's actually like more oh they [54:10] spend too much time working you're like [54:12] oh that means they're unintelligent [54:13] about how they do the work yeah right so [54:17] you can push them into where they're [54:18] like yeah like they can get a little [54:20] disorganized when they're stressed okay [54:22] great right and then you could that giv [54:24] you by the way because when you get that [54:25] from reference one then when you're [54:28] calling reference two you say oh I heard [54:31] that the person is disorganized like can [54:34] you tell me a little bit about [54:36] that right yeah got some ammo and they [54:39] can't then say Oh no I've never seen [54:41] that they'll probably give you a little [54:42] bit more context yes on all these great [54:45] people you've worked with specifically [54:47] you know you during that PayPal period [54:49] of your life one of the things I was [54:51] reflecting on is they're all [54:52] independently successful people but [54:55] they're all very different people [54:57] and that in and of itself is evidence [54:58] that there's not one version of success [55:01] there's many different types of success [55:03] presumably there's many different types [55:04] of entrepreneur leader yes give me a [55:07] flavor of the different types of [55:09] entrepreneurs you've worked with and and [55:12] and what you know because I I sat with [55:13] Walter isacson and he talked to me about [55:15] Steve Jobs Elon Musk Etc and he was like [55:18] Steve's really great at hiring people [55:20] elon's not as good as at the people team [55:22] building part but he's better at this [55:23] part yes so no [55:27] entrepreneur wins at every [55:30] game generally [55:32] speaking as an entrepreneur you should [55:34] try to win to to play the games that you [55:36] have a massive Competitive Edge on same [55:38] thing is true so some people for [55:40] example um uh like take an Neil busri at [55:44] workday right he is thoughtful [55:48] intentionally cultural building very [55:51] professional so it's a HR uh product for [55:54] work his contrarian idea was going the [55:56] cloud and the people were going to do [55:57] Cloud software um for the first I think [56:02] it was 500 people the workday hired he [56:04] would always do a cultural interview at [56:06] the end because to make sure that the [56:08] first 500 people all kind of shared [56:10] cultural things so once you get through [56:12] all the competence and all the rest of [56:13] the stuff he would make sure that was a [56:16] fit and that's part of how you get [56:17] cultural coherence that's like one [56:20] example right um another example um Elon [56:24] is the um like I have a big idea and I [56:28] convince myself 100% that it's [56:31] absolutely going to be the case like I [56:33] am going to settle Mars we're going to [56:35] terraform Mars in our lifetimes which is [56:38] no it's [56:40] impossible no no human being on the [56:43] planet including Elon is going to do [56:46] that within elon's Lifetime right but [56:50] I'm going to go all in I'm going to work [56:52] really hard I'm going to be [56:53] technologically sophisticated I'm going [56:55] to work work against the odds right in [56:58] order to make that work that's a you [57:01] know an Neil very professional [57:04] understands the workplace Mark Elon like [57:08] I think I was like the second person he [57:09] pitched SpaceX to and and his pitch [57:12] though to my defense was I'm gonna send [57:15] a turtle to Mars and I'm like that's not [57:17] a business and you're competing with [57:19] national governments and like Russian [57:22] subsidized rocket programs and so forth [57:24] this is not a good E I was wrong he was [57:25] right [57:26] right but there not a good Equity you [57:28] know kind of play he pitch at you as an [57:30] investor yes yeah right at what point [57:33] was SpaceX at when he pitched it it was [57:36] before he started it so it was an idea [57:38] yes and I'm GNA send a turtle to Mars [57:40] and then it became I'm going to send a [57:42] gelatinous cube with plant seeds in it [57:44] to Mars because they'll grow I'll be the [57:46] first person will send life to Mars and [57:48] you're like okay right what did you [57:51] think genuinely when he said that to you [57:54] I thought he'd gone off his rocker [57:56] really well yeah of course you would [57:58] yeah like someone's my friends said that [58:00] to me I think I'd make a couple of calls [58:01] just to check in you know what I mean [58:03] like youon doing okay just told me about [58:05] this Turtle he want yes it's like that's [58:08] not of [58:09] business has your opinion of him changed [58:12] over time in terms of his potential and [58:16] ability as an entrepreneur no no I've [58:19] always thought of him as one of the [58:20] world great entrepreneurs um always yeah [58:23] all all the way back to PayPal days [58:25] really yeah yeah yeah no look he has [58:28] done repetitively amazing things now he [58:31] pitches everything with the same level [58:33] of [58:33] certainty right like you know I have [58:36] this idea for online banking I have this [58:38] idea for boring tunnels under cities I [58:40] have this idea for creating a pneumatic [58:42] tube for hyperloop tube all of them he [58:45] has the same level of I am 1,000% right [58:49] that this is like guaranteed to be part [58:52] of the future right and I you know and I [58:54] may be the unique person to make it [58:56] happen right so you have to have some [58:58] discernment but he's his you know on Bas [59:02] batting is pretty [59:03] good for such major ideas but it's not [59:06] it's not 100% yeah people kind of excuse [59:09] that though if of course if you get if [59:11] you're if you get one that's big that's [59:13] fine right yeah on the hiring side has [59:17] he been is he up there with the best or [59:19] is he not a direct hirer of people like [59:22] Steve Jobs was um he hires well um [59:27] matter of fact you can't be a great [59:29] entrepreneur and not ultimately hire [59:30] well [59:32] mhm um I think some people are better [59:36] hirers some people [59:39] also [59:41] have like are the kind of people that [59:43] people would work for forever um [59:48] Elon uh tends to burn people out a lot [59:51] like there's lots of burnt out people in [59:54] his wake and when you go and talk to [59:56] those people what you hear is some [59:59] people say that was the best work [60:00] experience ever and I never want to work [60:02] for him again and other people say that [60:03] was the worst work work experience ever [60:05] and I never want to work for him again [60:07] so they're all I never want to work for [60:08] him again right so you know as kind of a [60:12] a dynamic because he basically looks at [60:14] them as disposable parts and you know go [60:17] as hard as you can right and then [60:19] afterwards you're out don't care because [60:22] he goes so hard yeah he goes hard but he [60:25] also thinks you're only relevance to me [60:26] is your relevance your only relevance to [60:29] me is can you help me with my mission [60:30] and after you're done after you can no [60:32] longer help me with my mission you're [60:33] not relevant to me [60:36] anymore what do you think of that [60:37] approach that's not my Approach right L [60:40] LinkedIn mirrors my Approach like [60:42] literally I am [60:44] referenceable by every entrepreneur that [60:46] I've ever worked with right as a board [60:48] member and as an investor right who you [60:52] know even ones that I've like fired as [60:54] CEO and so forth those people people [60:56] will say he was really good to work with [60:58] on these things they may also have some [60:59] critical things there's no problem with [61:01] that right but like like literally like [61:04] when I'm pitching an entrepreneur I like [61:06] call anyone that I've worked [61:09] with right because you I try to work [61:12] with people in a way that even when [61:14] we're at a at a at a difficult moment [61:18] because I disagree with them intensely [61:19] about how well they're doing or what [61:21] they're doing or something else that I'm [61:23] doing it in a collaborative constructive [61:25] way [61:27] and so my goal is to work with people [61:31] like anyone I want to work with Brian [61:35] chesy you know Mark Pinkus Etc I want to [61:38] be able to work with them for you know [61:41] uh the rest of our [61:44] lives what's interesting [61:47] is I think these strategies [61:49] fundamentally come down to what you [61:50] think matters in life yeah the most [61:52] because you could optimize even you [61:54] could optimize more for um building more [61:57] companies or something at the expense of [61:59] something else and it's a trade-off of [62:01] something else like you could go harder [62:02] yes but there's a trade-off happening [62:04] here and we often because elon's done [62:07] these crazy things like the cars and the [62:08] neural links and there tunnels and the [62:10] now the AI and the X and the spaceships [62:12] and stuff we go oh my God that's so [62:14] amazing and I do that as well as an [62:15] entreprene one person can do that much [62:18] but we almost never talk about the [62:19] trade-off yes yep you're 100% right and [62:22] we and and it's so this goes back to the [62:24] point about self-awareness it's like you [62:26] it's so tempting for the like the brain [62:29] to go oh my God I want that that's what [62:30] I want because you're not seeing the [62:32] tradeoff you're not seeing the darkness [62:34] that is 100% correct and look I respect [62:37] it I understand the burn people out like [62:41] treat them as disposable assets that [62:43] when they burn out you just jettison [62:44] them and you can be very elon's not the [62:47] only entrepreneur who is very successful [62:49] doing that right but for example on the [62:52] other side um like if you go to uh Mark [62:57] Zuckerberg and you talk to the people [62:59] who worked for him they're like that was [63:00] great that was the best working [63:02] experience of my life of course I work [63:03] with him again [63:06] interesting because there's a lot of [63:08] entrepreneurs that are coming Rising [63:10] through the ranks at the moment that [63:11] have kind of been raised on the Elon [63:13] philosophy of do [ __ ] tons of things do [63:16] them intently do them with uh less of a [63:18] regard for the I guess the human [63:20] consequence do them with less of a [63:22] regard for work life balance yeah well [63:25] you have [63:27] have the nature of this thing because [63:29] it's it's you know you're by Nature dead [63:31] as a startup work life balance is not [63:34] the startup game right so like I like [63:39] what when like when we started LinkedIn [63:41] we started with people who had families [63:42] so we said sure go home have dinner with [63:44] your family then after your dinner with [63:46] your family open up your laptop and get [63:48] back into the shared work experience and [63:50] keep working if you say that today [63:51] though you're [63:53] toxic the people who think it's toxic [63:55] don't understand the the startup game [63:58] and they're just [63:59] wrong right that the game is intense and [64:02] by the way if you don't do that then [64:05] eventually you're out of a [64:07] job I mean the people that say it's [64:09] toxic are often those that have never [64:11] had to do it yes and and look that's [64:13] fine it's not that everyone has to work [64:15] at startups working at startups is a [64:17] voluntary [64:18] choice but that's the game for a startup [64:21] and so that's how we try to balance in [64:23] the early days of LinkedIn we try to [64:24] balance how to to be human because we [64:26] like a third of the company had kids [64:29] right and so you're like okay like we [64:32] all have to work this way so we can't [64:34] say oh you third you sure you guys can [64:36] go home and you're out of the office and [64:38] then and then then call in or whatever [64:41] no like we'll all go for dinner and then [64:43] we'll all plan on getting back to work [64:47] after dinner so you get time with your [64:49] family you get to have dinner with your [64:50] kids it's the right human thing right [64:53] but we're working hard and Saturday [64:55] morning we're working is there a way to [64:58] build a startup in your [65:00] opinion where you have work life balance [65:04] and I Define work life balance maybe as [65:06] being able to see your friends often [65:07] spend time with your family often [65:11] um only in two circumstances one it's a [65:14] small startup it's both comp it's both [65:17] an absence of competition that's the [65:18] general one is it's so small no one's [65:21] really competing with you that's fine [65:23] okay right right my screen b a village [65:25] yeah it's fine right on number two you [65:30] have some such intense competitive mode [65:34] that people can't compete with you like [65:36] say for example you have [65:38] some like the only thing that matters in [65:40] this business is contracts with these [65:41] three companies and you have those three [65:44] contracts okay fine but absent that [65:48] that's reason because the the startups [65:49] that you're if you're in a valuable [65:51] space the startups that you're competing [65:52] with right like we had to make the [65:55] deliberate decision like startups we're [65:56] competing with aren't going home for [65:58] dinner right they're serving dinner at [66:00] the office that's what we did PayPal we [66:02] sered dinner at the office at PayPal [66:04] right right and that was a deliberate [66:07] thing we were one of the first companies [66:08] that started not only serving lunch but [66:10] serving dinner right and then other [66:13] because this The Learning Network you [66:14] get with SL Valley other companies start [66:15] looking oh yeah we're going to serve [66:16] dinner too so people don't go home yeah [66:19] don't go home keep working right to some [66:22] people this does it sounds somewhat [66:24] toxic right sounds like oh God but [66:26] that's not what life's about this is [66:28] like capitalism this is people just [66:29] wanting to make loads of money well [66:32] choose what your life's about that's [66:33] fine there's nothing that says you have [66:35] to do that and and what gives you the [66:37] right to tell other people that they [66:39] can't do that I mean like what are you [66:41] patronizing like people choose their own [66:43] lives right so and and people can choose [66:47] that now you have to understand the game [66:49] it's like well I'd like to be a [66:51] worldclass Olympic Athlete but I really [66:53] only want to swim two hours a day well [66:55] that's [66:56] nice right not gonna [66:59] happen right you have to understand the [67:01] game you're playing if if you're playing [67:03] an Olympics game like someone who's [67:05] trying to compete in the Olympics and [67:07] swimming they're swimming seven days a [67:09] week 12 hours a [67:11] day right so that that choose the game [67:15] and you say well that's toxic fine not [67:18] for you I think the important thing [67:20] which I see some companies doing well is [67:21] just to be honest about that when you're [67:24] on boarding people and don't shy away [67:26] exactly no that's like in early days of [67:28] LinkedIn when we were talking to people [67:30] we'd say by the way this is how we work [67:32] right we work six and a half days a week [67:35] right we um do get people home for [67:38] dinner but everyone including Reed is [67:43] expected you know you know you know [67:46] online working after [67:49] dinner and do you pay people more for [67:51] that than the average rate or so they [67:53] get paid in equity and this is one of [67:54] the things again um is you know the the [67:59] first I don't know some hundreds of [68:02] people at LinkedIn all don't need to [68:04] work anymore because their Equity is [68:07] enough that if they choose not to work [68:08] anymore that's totally fine which is a a [68:12] trade-off that was clearly worth making [68:15] yes you stepped back as CEO after four [68:18] years when you're at LinkedIn right yes [68:20] why did you do that [68:22] so um I had [68:27] um awareness of strengths and weaknesses [68:30] like I know how to do the CEO job right [68:33] um uh and I think it kind [68:36] of uh 150 people or less I'm as good as [68:41] anyone else right like that that that [68:44] scale of Co job um is a scale that I [68:48] that operates within my strengths and [68:51] weaknesses um when you start getting to [68:54] call it 500 people thousand people part [68:57] of the CEO job ends up becoming like how [68:59] do you govern the community of the [69:01] company now it's not the only thing but [69:04] like okay like you know what the kinds [69:06] of things that Jeff weiner that I [69:08] learned from him on was all right well [69:11] you start thinking of recruiting not as [69:13] you going out and individually [69:14] recruiting people or helping your hiring [69:16] manager recruiting people but you think [69:17] about recruiting as a general strategy [69:19] for the company and how does that [69:21] General strategy work and how do you [69:23] have like for example you get to this [69:24] point in the scale company where you [69:26] start having onboarding days so like for [69:28] example new employees start at one of [69:31] the onboarding days and they start as a [69:33] group together right so it's kind of [69:35] like okay we're going through kind of [69:37] how it works and we're integrating [69:39] people into the different group like [69:40] like you know the sales people the [69:41] engineers they all start and they're [69:43] going into different groups we like [69:44] we're approaching it as as the engine of [69:46] the company and the things that I you [69:49] only world class but the things you're [69:50] passionate about the things I'm [69:51] passionate about like the technology [69:53] strategy the product strategy um the um [69:57] the kind of the big idea for what you're [70:00] doing there and I love working with [70:02] super high-powered talent and one of the [70:05] things that I had kind of learned is [70:07] well that's the reason I like working [70:08] with Founders that's the reason I like [70:09] working with CEOs because the some [70:11] degree it's like okay you're the talent [70:13] I'm working with on this company right [70:16] in order to do that and so I was like [70:19] yeah I like doing more of being a board [70:23] member working with c [70:26] more than I like being the CEO once you [70:28] get past you know 150 people so that's [70:31] what I should be doing and what I need [70:34] to do is I need to get linked in to a [70:35] point where it's already you know it's [70:40] it's already kind of hit breakout [70:42] velocity right and so you can recruit [70:45] now a worldclass CEO that you can work [70:48] with right and that's what that's what I [70:51] should do and you know I like for [70:53] example the entire time time that Jeff [70:56] weer was the CEO of Linkin my primary [70:58] office was immediately next door to [71:01] his interesting so you stay close but [71:04] you yeah yeah again this is another [71:06] point of self-awareness which a lot of [71:08] Founders don't have but the great [71:09] Founders that I've met and interviewed [71:11] whether it's I don't know Brian chesky [71:13] or whether it was some Founders from the [71:15] UK like Bennett Jim shark and Julian [71:17] from hu one of the things that really [71:19] Define them was they did a low ego move [71:23] to move out of that CEO role which is [71:25] typically associated with like the glitz [71:27] and the Glam because they knew that [71:28] their skill set was in branding or [71:30] marketing or something else or just [71:32] vision for the the future of the company [71:34] a lot of CEOs don't do that because the [71:35] COO title comes with a certain yeah I [71:37] understand esteem um and yes everybody [71:40] myself included does have a big ego [71:44] right but my ego is you you have to [71:46] attach the right way my ego is attached [71:48] to LinkedIn [71:49] succeeding right yeah yeah yeah yeah [71:52] yeah it's a big difference yes [71:55] LinkedIn went public in 2011 with a 4.3 [71:58] billion valuation and then Microsoft [72:00] later paid 26 billion to buy LinkedIn at [72:03] the time it was reported you owned about [72:05] 11% of the company which made you a [72:07] multi-billionaire [72:10] how does life change when one becomes a [72:12] multi-billionaire [72:14] so it's funny I try to never like like [72:18] one of the funny things I never repost [72:19] things that call me billionaire and so [72:21] forth because I try to not have that [72:23] identity I am aware that it's an [72:24] accurate descriptor yeah right um but [72:28] it's not like the way I think of myself [72:29] I don't think of myself as Reed Hoffman [72:31] billionaire I think of myself as Reed [72:33] Hoffman technologist Reed Hoffman public [72:36] intellectual Reed Hoffman uh creative [72:39] you know strategist Reed Hoffman Etc so [72:41] I try [72:43] to um change my life as in those [72:46] directions not in the the wealth [72:48] Direction now of course you know I [72:51] travel around in a private plane you [72:53] know I own houses in several different [72:56] areas of the world you know that kind of [72:58] stuff yeah right um but uh I try to live [73:02] a life within those you know high wealth [73:06] things as much of a as an upper middle [73:09] class person as I can so for example [73:12] before I came here to do the interview I [73:14] I got here a little early so I went to [73:15] the nearby Starbucks had a cup of coffee [73:17] pull up my laptop was working on it [73:21] interesting you know because because [73:23] that's the way that I want to live right [73:26] uh and I want Human Relationships that [73:27] are like that I think human [73:28] relationships are really important I [73:30] feel lucky to have um relationships with [73:34] some people who are these really really [73:36] amazing people but by the way there's [73:37] amazing people who are like World [73:39] celebrities and there's amazing people [73:41] who the world doesn't know about I just [73:43] like I just like going through life with [73:46] amazing people and that's part of what I [73:47] mean by that you've always been [73:50] associated with the left side of [73:52] politics your parents were very uh left [73:54] leaning to to to say the least I heard [73:57] that you got pepper sprayed when you [73:58] were a kid because because I was I was a [74:00] kid on my uh father's shoulder at a [74:04] demonstration against against the [74:06] Vietnam War okay so that's it's in your [74:08] DNA yes the thing about being on the [74:11] left is it's typically the left that [74:13] have a opinion of billionaires that [74:15] they're evil yes I'm aware of that but [74:18] not just billionair I've I've been [74:19] called Evil by a number of people on the [74:20] left really yes of course look I they [74:24] are wrong [74:25] that that is a necessary [74:27] correlation right um but I you look I I [74:31] try to understand people I understand [74:32] their [74:33] perspective I disagree with it but I [74:35] understand it it's I mean you you're one [74:38] of the few people that's still a [74:40] billionaire and on the left it seems no [74:42] I'm not I actually in the valley [74:44] especially in the selection cycle uh [74:46] well it's the public facing people that [74:48] we see on the podcast and stuff and look [74:51] so part of the reason why I think less [74:53] people were public about about it this [74:57] cycle was [74:59] because uh you know president Trump was [75:03] threatening you know personal and [75:05] political [75:06] retaliation and so you had to have a [75:08] certain degree of courage to stand up [75:11] right and so en courage in the public [75:13] area not just courage in taking risks [75:15] and so forth but in the public arena for [75:18] doing that and so I literally had [75:21] conversations with billionaires who were [75:22] like oh look I really applaud what [75:24] you're doing and I think what you're [75:24] doing exact right thing and that's for [75:26] you not for me right I mean trying to [75:29] get people into it and so um so I was [75:32] aware and because they kind of did the [75:34] simple Mini Max and they said well if if [75:36] Harris is elected I won't get penalized [75:39] for not having supported and if Trump is [75:42] elected I will get penalized so I'm just [75:45] gonna stand out of it and do you think [75:47] you'll be penalized uh I think that uh I [75:51] think that there's a greater than 50% [75:53] chance that there will be um uh [75:57] repercussions uh from a misdirection and [75:59] Corruption of the institutions of State [76:02] uh to uh respond to my having tried to [76:08] help Harris get elected you must spend [76:11] time at night thinking about what that [76:12] might be because if I would yeah well [76:15] look it's a range and look I hope that [76:18] it's only in the soft end of the range [76:20] like IRS audits or phone calls like you [76:23] know Trump made saying you know deny [76:26] Bezos that that DOD contract because you [76:31] know he owns the Washington Post and I [76:32] don't like him you know that kind of [76:34] stuff I hope it's in that Arena right [76:37] could get much worse but I don't really [76:39] want to speculate on it because I don't [76:41] want to give anybody any [76:43] ideas right but like I think it's like I [76:47] think I would safely win a bet that [76:49] there will be political repercussions [76:52] that are that are essentially [76:54] undemocratic [76:55] American um and Direct on you and direct [76:58] to me yes um I I think I'd safely win [77:01] that bet um I'm hoping it's in the what [77:04] I'm terming the soft Arena you're not [77:06] planning on leaving the US are you no no [77:08] no oh my resident's outside of Seattle [77:10] and you know we have a constitution you [77:12] know that kind of thing because Mark [77:13] cubin was the same right Mark cubin was [77:15] very public and vocal he's a billionaire [77:17] he was very Pro KL Harris very anti [77:20] Trump through the cycle he took a lot of [77:21] flack as well yes I mean I follow [77:23] everybody on Twitter so I watch it play [77:25] out and it was kind of like he was stood [77:26] in no man's land just taking shots from [77:28] everywhere and you were kind of in the [77:30] same category yes exactly would have [77:33] been much easier for you to just shut [77:34] the [ __ ] up or fall in line or something [77:36] exct well but that's the problem you [77:38] can't allow that form of Neo fascism [77:41] right is precisely when you feel fear I [77:43] have huge respect for Mark Cuban when [77:45] you feel fear stand up because that fear [77:48] that you're feeling that's you're [77:49] feeling as a powerful wealthy [77:52] person right and if you're not not going [77:55] to stand up who is right can you see any [77:58] redeeming qualities in Trump I know [78:00] you're Pro K Harris oh yeah well I think [78:04] he's going to bring a wrecking ball and [78:06] some of the places a wrecking ball are [78:07] useful like so for example if you say [78:09] hey on regulation you want a new [78:10] regulation replace to that kind of [78:13] refactoring is a good thing um hey we [78:15] going to need a bunch of energy in the [78:17] future and we're going to need good [78:18] clean energy I understand everyone [78:20] doesn't like nuclear I don't care we're [78:21] going to do nuclear like I can see a [78:23] number of things that could come out [78:25] that'd be very positive and I want those [78:27] things to happen and a matter of fact [78:28] you know part of being an American you [78:30] know I'm going to try to make the next [78:31] four years as great for America as I can [78:34] right my [78:35] precise complaint with some of the [78:38] people I'm in political opposition for [78:39] is don't ever try to break the country [78:42] try to always be building the country it [78:44] doesn't matter if the person you agree [78:46] with is in power or not be working [78:48] towards a good Collective future and so [78:50] I'll be doing all all of that and I I'm [78:52] hopeful for some of that from this [78:53] Administration do you think think it's a [78:55] good time for [78:56] entrepreneurs to be building companies [78:58] with Trump coming into [79:00] Power um fundamentally I think it's [79:03] always a good time as entrepreneurs to [79:05] be building companies so one is like you [79:08] have a good idea the time's now go do it [79:10] yeah Capital markets harder fine [79:13] actually if you can get Capital you get [79:15] competitive differentiation from the [79:16] people who couldn't I mean it's like so [79:18] you have to it's always like trying to [79:19] figure out how to turn the negatives [79:21] into positives in terms of what you're [79:22] doing now I think Trump will be broadly [79:25] um very good for entrepreneurship [79:26] because I think he's going to reduce a [79:27] lot of Regulation some of that [79:29] regulation will have very negative [79:31] consequences on the society which you [79:32] know as a society person I'll be [79:34] concerned about like climate like you [79:36] know you get the new EPA person coming [79:38] in Environmental Protection Agency you [79:41] ask him what the job is and he says we [79:43] need to drill more oil wells right [79:47] you're like that's not the EPA that [79:50] might be the Commerce Secretary or [79:52] something else the energy secretary [79:54] that's not the EPA so there will be a [79:56] reduction of Regulation because we do [79:58] have climate change we're living in it [80:00] and it's going to get worse so those [80:02] will be places where there'll be real [80:03] damage from the Wrecking Ball but for [80:05] entrepreneurs building new businesses [80:07] like for example I've invested in a [80:09] number of fusion and fision businesses [80:11] because nuclear because that's the clean [80:13] energy that we're going to need to you [80:16] know just to bring more PE more of the [80:19] billions of people into the middle class [80:21] and and to and to try to remove carbon [80:23] from the environment on so forth so and [80:25] I've known the regulatory stuff is is [80:27] ferociously bad for that well actually [80:29] in fact I have hoped that that they are [80:31] going to they're going to reset the that [80:33] thing and so all of a sudden that [80:35] entrepreneurship turns out to be in [80:37] retrospect wise U but I think they're [80:39] going to reduce regulation across the [80:41] board for all entrepreneurs right so I [80:44] think ENT like that's helpful on [80:46] entrepreneurship now they're going to be [80:49] probably much more closed at the border [80:50] and immigration is an important part of [80:52] Entrepreneurship you want to you want to [80:54] be able to to get the best talent from [80:56] anywhere in the world it's one of the [80:58] advantages that's helped buil the US [81:00] that I think is going to be more uneven [81:02] anyway so it's like Goods goods and bads [81:05] one of the things that is very different [81:07] I think in this Administration with the [81:09] people he's appointed is there seems to [81:10] be quite a few entrepreneurs being [81:12] appointed to fairly important High roles [81:15] well by entrepreneurs you mean zero [81:16] experience ever doing the thing they [81:18] were doing [81:19] before potentially I was referring [81:22] particularly to um Elon Musk David saaks [81:26] doing I think he's doing Ai and [81:27] Technology I think there's another guy [81:29] who's looks like he's built a business [81:30] before yeah so uh David Elon obviously [81:33] super smart very accomplished you work [81:35] with both at PayPal right yes yeah right [81:37] um and now David knows crypto very well [81:40] so he's the AI and crypto are and the [81:42] pcast person he knows crypto very well [81:45] he hasn't yet done anything in AI like [81:47] he hasn't been mentioned as an investor [81:49] or a like when I talk to all the a [81:52] entrepreneurs you know as a desired [81:54] person for them to work with and so so [81:56] you know he's very smart so I presume he [81:57] knows something but you know AI I think [81:59] yet TBD what he knows and what he tweets [82:02] about is anti-woke AI is the most [82:04] important thing you're like that is not [82:06] that is not even even the top 100 of the [82:08] issues around how to you know promote [82:10] and build and navigate AI um but he's [82:13] very good at crypto he done a bunch of [82:14] good stuff there so that'll be and Elon [82:16] obviously understands AI quite well on [82:19] this point of speech as well obviously [82:22] there's quite a big shift in speech [82:23] that's happened in the last last I'd say [82:25] two years really from Elon buying [82:27] twitters where I I saw a drastic shift [82:30] in globally yes and what we think is [82:33] okay and not okay what's your thoughts [82:35] on the the change in spee speech good [82:37] bad positive negative um so I you know [82:40] gave a couple days ago here in London [82:42] the sir Isaiah Berlin speech and one of [82:44] the lines that I used in the speech was [82:47] um there there's competing freedoms you [82:48] could say there's the freedom of speech [82:51] to say whatever I want to say and then [82:53] there's a freedom to try to offer [82:55] something in civil discourse where I'm [82:57] not going to get harassed by a whole [83:00] bunch of [83:01] antagonists right um and obviously [83:05] they're both good virtues and what you [83:07] want is the right blend right from them [83:11] I think that a lot of folks like for [83:12] example what's happening on you know [83:14] Twitter and and X right is um just [83:20] virulent right it's just toxic it's [83:23] terrible like when I tweet anything [83:26] including hey you know um I think the [83:30] following thing is great [83:31] entrepreneurship I get a oh you evil [83:34] liberal you know I hope you you know [83:36] kind of uh fail terribly and you know [83:39] blah blah blah blah okay I was tweeting [83:42] about this great entrepreneurship thing [83:44] right and that's the kind of theme in [83:48] you know Twitter [83:50] x.com um I prefer what you kind of thing [83:52] you see on Linkin is like look you can [83:54] say critical things but you try to say [83:56] critical things within the theme of oh [83:58] well that entrepreneurial thing I [84:00] actually don't think it's going to be as [84:01] good as you think and this is why what's [84:03] the difference in the in the design of [84:05] the platform that results in two [84:06] different types of behavior there uh [84:08] well uh uh Twitter is anonymous it [84:11] allows a lot of bots um it [84:15] encourages um like it says freedom of [84:17] speech like if if you're tweeting a rape [84:20] threat that's fine it's freedom of [84:22] speech you're allowed to do whatever you [84:23] want right uh uh LinkedIn is you're tied [84:27] to a named profile that's tied to your [84:30] identity uh if you're reported for [84:33] saying something that's frankly uncivil [84:35] doesn't even have to be as bad as a rape [84:36] threat right it's just unil like you're [84:39] you're you're cautioned right it's [84:41] removed and you're saying hey by the way [84:42] that's not for for the platform and if [84:44] you keep doing that we remove your [84:46] ability to post right so on the Twitter [84:49] example what Elon said is that if it's [84:52] legal then it's fine [84:55] but is there an upside to having an [84:56] environment where people can anonymously [84:59] say what they want within the constraint [85:01] of the [85:02] law um look I think there [85:06] are it's important to allow one of the [85:09] things I think that online platforms [85:10] give us the difference between freedom [85:11] of speech and freedom of reach like I [85:14] think it's okay for people to say such [85:16] thing as vaccines are evil plots to put [85:20] chips in people and they give us [85:22] autism it's [85:25] 100% wrong right and every credible [85:30] medical Authority goes vaccines are good [85:34] and so you go okay a thousand people get [85:35] vaccinated or call it you know a 100,00 [85:38] people get vaccinated and 50 of them [85:41] have adverse conditions to the vaccine [85:45] right that happens out of 100,000 right [85:48] but a thousand people or 10,000 people [85:51] might have died otherwise right [85:54] that your lottery for everyone being [85:57] vaccinated is a very good Lottery [85:59] everyone should do it right uh Because [86:03] by the way you were more likely to have [86:05] died in the lottery than have an adverse [86:08] condition that doesn't mean there aren't [86:09] people who have adverse conditions so [86:11] all quality medical professionals [86:14] medical researchers agree I am allowed [86:17] legally on x.com to say vaccines are [86:20] evil plots right to control [86:24] the American people to sell drugs and [86:27] make drug companies profitable and blah [86:29] blah and I can say all that and you see [86:30] all that ramping on Twitter rampant you [86:33] know in talk radio and you know and all [86:36] the things you can say that that's a [86:39] problem right I'm okay with people [86:42] saying it what I'm not okay with is [86:43] promoting it and having it have broad [86:46] reach so on this point of the vaccine so [86:48] just to clarify my position I think [86:50] vaccines are a wonderful invention that [86:52] have saved a lot of people's lives so [86:53] that's my position but I want to I want [86:55] to interrogate a little bit with the [86:58] with the vaccine roll out in particular [86:59] there's a lot of things that we didn't [87:01] know at the time right the lab leap [87:03] thing I had Boris Johnson sat here and [87:05] he said oh yeah we think it's a lab Lab [87:07] leak if if if I had said that on this [87:10] podcast a couple of years ago I would [87:12] have been kicked off YouTube uhuh yes [87:14] and so having a forum where you can even [87:16] entertain ideas that are contrarian yes [87:20] I also think is important and I exist in [87:21] the the sort of dichotomy of like speech [87:25] is important but at the same [87:28] time you know yeah look I am um I was on [87:33] the support people being able to say lab [87:36] leak yeah category Because by the way I [87:39] do think freedom of speech is a good [87:40] thing and part of the reason I have [87:41] freedom of speech is sometimes you have [87:42] a contrarian idea that should have [87:43] freedom of reach yeah but there should [87:46] be and look how do we make decisions as [87:49] a society of what expertise like how [87:52] what truth is as we convene groups of [87:54] experts MH like in a science we have a [87:58] group of scientists review a paper [87:59] before it's published we have scientists [88:02] able to reproduce things in a jury we [88:06] have 12 people who listen to the case [88:08] and make a decision so we use groups of [88:11] people as experts and different kinds of [88:13] expertise for different kinds of things [88:15] to make a judgment and we should also [88:17] bring in expertise right right now that [88:19] doesn't mean that even when all the [88:21] experts say that's completely wrong you [88:23] should say you can't post it like I [88:26] loved what Twitter did pre Elon which is [88:29] they said hey you can post vaccines or [88:31] this evil plot by the government to [88:33] control you but we're going to put a [88:35] little box around it that says oh and by [88:37] the way experts disagree here's where [88:39] you can go get the facts so you can say [88:42] it right but we'll also put in in [88:45] selective cases expert opinion and I [88:47] think that's like for example a balance [88:50] of how to do freedom of speech and [88:51] freedom of reach because I do think look [88:53] I should be a to say the World is Flat I [88:56] should be able to go on and say the [88:57] world is flat and by the way LinkedIn [88:59] wouldn't take that post off because it's [89:01] like well it's civil I'm just saying the [89:03] world flat I'm out of my mind right but [89:07] I'm being civil so the LinkedIn [89:09] principles are not you must say [89:11] something that's scientific truly true [89:13] it's you must say something that's civil [89:15] I also think people shouldn't be [89:18] deplatformed or canceled because of [89:20] their speech even if you disagree with [89:22] it providing it's in the constraint like [89:24] constrains of the law I sat with a well [89:26] by the way I generally think agree on [89:28] the constrains of the law but I also [89:30] agree on I also think importantly civil [89:33] and civil means well like no threat of [89:36] violence okay yeah I agree with that you [89:37] shouldn't be threatening anybody with [89:39] violence yes um I sat with a I'm GNA say [89:43] astrologist I don't even know if that's [89:44] the right word it's not astrology was it [89:46] who's BR what's cosmetologist and he [89:48] told me the story of Galileo discovering [89:51] that the world was round and Galileo [89:53] basically being threatened by everybody [89:55] um because it threatened the I think the [89:57] Catholic institution at the time and [89:58] then well because the preach the [90:00] preaching of the church was as was that [90:02] yeah and so that's a cautionary tale [90:05] although it's a long time ago in there [90:07] are always going to be strong forces [90:09] that are heavily incentivized around [90:10] some kind of ideology yes and that I [90:12] mean that does happen today yes 100% And [90:14] and these forces are powerful forces um [90:18] so allowing dissent even if it's coming [90:20] from someone who is not credible yes [90:23] 100% by way strongly in defense of that [90:26] yeah right I just think that and like so [90:29] you know I don't [90:30] mind um people criticizing me I don't [90:35] mind them criticizing my arguments I [90:37] don't mind them criticizing my choices [90:40] of who I'm going to support [90:42] politically right what I'm going to do [90:45] philanthropically I strongly prefer that [90:48] those cred those those criticisms be [90:50] backed [90:51] with uh some knowledge and intelligence [90:54] and some argu good argument point of [90:56] view and I really want it to be a civil [91:01] discourse it's interesting because the [91:03] human brain when we think about it from [91:04] an evolutionary standpoint wasn't [91:05] designed to deal with a thousand people [91:07] tweeting at you that you're you're an [91:09] [ __ ] and as a podcaster as someone [91:11] who's in the public high yourself who is [91:13] a podcaster but also a famous [91:15] entrepreneur you have to deal with that [91:17] like you you have to deal with that in a [91:19] way that's just we weren't designed to [91:21] yeah and I struggle with it I struggle [91:23] with when I first came into the public [91:24] spot like when I started doing Dragon's [91:26] Den Shar tank in the US um opening my [91:30] phone and being exposed to just a [91:32] barrage of like noise on the brain yes [91:36] now whose responsibility is that is it [91:39] my responsibility to like delete the app [91:41] or is it the platform's responsibility [91:43] to moderate people expressing their [91:47] innate human jealous whatever it is you [91:50] know so so the classic thing that humans [91:52] make in reasoning is they go A or B [91:55] right okay and you answer is both okay [91:57] right so there's responsibility on both [91:59] sides like it's like oh no it's a [92:01] responsibility of the individuals like [92:03] well like are you kind of saying I have [92:06] zero responsibility there's zero I can [92:08] do to be positively contributory here of [92:10] course you can right so for example like [92:13] it's totally possible to say I have a [92:16] freedom of speech Network and if you [92:19] were engaging in threats like for [92:22] example your Trump and you're tweeting [92:26] that Mark Millie should be executed when [92:28] he is the joint chief of staff's General [92:33] that's a threat of violence that should [92:35] be removed right you know so it's [92:39] totally doable to say violence has no [92:43] place on this platform or threats of [92:45] violence now violence is illegal threats [92:47] of violence is not right one of the [92:50] theories I had many years ago and I I [92:52] don't actually think this theory was [92:53] based on anything other than I read it [92:54] and it sounded good so I used to say it [92:56] was that over the next 10 years and I [92:58] used to say this about six seven years [92:59] ago on stage social network working [93:02] would become more and more siloed into [93:04] these smaller interest based networks I [93:08] was thinking the other day in the taxi I [93:09] was like oh my God that's actually [93:10] happening now you're having like blue [93:11] sky and threads and you've got your [93:13] Instagrams and your rumbles and we've [93:14] got more and more social networks that [93:16] are more like centered around different [93:19] pockets of people what is your theory of [93:22] social networking over the next decade [93:23] two decades I'm always open as an [93:26] investor to interesting ideas yeah right [93:28] here we are in a business podcast so I'm [93:30] always looking at stuff um look I think [93:34] uh they will grow to be an increasingly [93:37] just as they've grown massively in the [93:39] last 20 years they will continue to grow [93:40] to be an important part of life I think [93:42] there will be different social networks [93:44] that fit different parts of our Lives um [93:46] that's part of the reason like for [93:47] example like back when I started [93:49] LinkedIn it was also thought to be oh no [93:51] no no one's ever going to do a business [93:52] Network it's only going to be social [93:54] networks right it was only going to be [93:57] at the time it was like Friendster then [93:58] it was Myspace then it was Facebook like [94:00] look there's only going to be that [94:01] there's never going to be those and then [94:02] people say well there's only going to [94:04] ever be one social network and you're [94:05] like well actually in fact we do have [94:09] like Twitter we do have snap and we do [94:11] have right there's there is multiple [94:14] ones and I think there will be more um [94:17] so I think they're going to have more [94:18] social networks and they're going to fit [94:20] into different people's lives they're [94:21] going to have different Community [94:23] cultures [94:24] um for them and so and I think not only [94:27] will they get multimodal but they'll use [94:29] AI in different ways and so and part of [94:32] that invention like one of the things I [94:34] tend to think people say well what ideas [94:36] are you looking at as an investor and [94:38] I'm like look I'm looking for that great [94:40] idea that I haven't thought of that [94:41] someone out there amongst the millions [94:44] of entrepreneurs has got that great [94:46] thing and can possibly make it work [94:48] that's what I'm looking for so when I [94:49] look to future of social networks now to [94:52] give a little bit more of a specific [94:53] answer like I tend to think social [94:55] networks need to both have individuals [94:57] as customers and societies as customers [94:59] so you need to think about like that [95:01] balance of you need to think about both [95:03] in how you're designing them right so [95:05] it's and that doesn't mean no freedom of [95:07] speech and you know autocratic because I [95:10] actually think more or less she should [95:11] allow people to post whatever they want [95:13] as long as it's civil right and if you [95:16] want to choose to have an anonymous [95:17] social network that's fine like there's [95:19] a definite rule for especially when you [95:21] get to places where the government is [95:23] oppressed [95:24] you know go to in Iran or or or Russia [95:27] or something else he like well anonymity [95:29] is important for saving your life right [95:33] but on the other hand you should also be [95:34] thinking about like okay what do this [95:35] means as society and part of what we [95:37] want in media networks is we want to be [95:39] collectively learning so if I'm posting [95:41] that you know vaccines are an evil plot [95:44] for corporations to try to kill our [95:46] children you're like well you're trying [95:48] to persuade people to do something [95:50] that's bad for them and bad for society [95:53] so we should respond in some way we may [95:55] still allow you to post but we may put a [95:57] little box around it saying you know [96:00] here's what experts you know here's what [96:02] all of the doctors at all the elite [96:03] hospitals you know survey says [96:07] 99.999% of them you know there's only [96:10] one out of all the doctors that lead [96:12] hospitals who don't think like these [96:13] vaccines are a good idea and do you [96:16] think social networks have been a net [96:18] positive for society I think broadly [96:20] look it doesn't mean that they're that [96:21] they don't have some challenges mhm [96:24] like people [96:25] criticize Facebook for example um but [96:29] actually in fact a billion people get on [96:30] it every day they share their [96:32] experiences pictures lives with loved [96:34] ones friends Etc all of that's very very [96:37] positive um I think Twitter [96:39] unfortunately is taking a turn for the [96:41] worst I think if you go you know where's [96:43] the largest site which has the most [96:45] untruths on it I think it's Twitter [96:47] right um but you know that doesn't mean [96:51] it can't also be improved and fixed over [96:53] time [96:54] what's worked well in your business this [96:55] year where did you need more help we [96:57] should all be asking ourselves these [96:59] types of questions as we close out the [97:01] year Q4 is a time for reflecting but [97:03] it's also a time to look ahead and start [97:05] planning could your team increase [97:07] productivity and set more ambitious [97:09] goals if you had more resource if so my [97:12] show sponsor Fiverr could be the [97:13] resource you need to ramp up in 2025 [97:16] Fiverr is the Online Marketplace where [97:18] you can connect with skilled Freelancers [97:20] specializing in almost every area of [97:22] business whether you need need coders [97:24] digital marketeers AI experts or [97:26] designers they're all there ready to [97:28] help you can browse portfolios and [97:30] reviews and if their Creator's work [97:32] doesn't meet your standards fiverr's [97:33] refund policy has you covered set your [97:36] 2025 up for success and explore fiverr's [97:39] creative Network visit fiver.com diary [97:42] and use code diary for 10% off your [97:44] first order whenever I speak to [97:46] entrepreneurs like today's guest Reed [97:48] Hoffman the co-founder of LinkedIn [97:50] there's one problem that always comes up [97:52] but today's sponsor LinkedIn has a [97:54] solution that I think you'll want to [97:56] hear connecting your business with the [97:58] right people can be tough you can spend [98:00] a lot of time in money trying to get it [98:02] right and still nonetheless fall short [98:05] especially when it comes to btb [98:06] marketing where you're not doing [98:08] business with one person you're dealing [98:10] with teams making decisions together [98:12] through Linkedin ads you can get access [98:14] to the Right audience so you can build [98:16] relationships with their one billion [98:18] members 130 million decision makers and [98:20] 10 million SE Executives you can also [98:22] Target specific spefically by job [98:24] industry company and more it's no [98:26] surprise that LinkedIn is the highest [98:27] returning paid social platform to help [98:29] you get started LinkedIn is offering a [98:31] $100 credit to launch your first [98:33] campaign just go to linkedin.com doac 24 [98:37] to claim your credit now that's [98:39] linkedin.com [98:41] doac c24 terms and conditions apply [98:45] there's so many different takes that [98:46] I've heard on AI I've spoken to Mustafa [98:48] Solomon I've spoken to lots of different [98:49] I you know Mustafa because you invested [98:50] in his company yeah we co-founded [98:52] inflection ah he co-founded inflection [98:54] which then sold to Microsoft well it's [98:56] it did a commercial deal with him it's [98:58] still going as a company oh okay all [99:00] right cuz my stuff moved over yeah he [99:01] moved over because he wanted to do a [99:02] consumer agent and inflection is doing [99:04] B2B uh software sales now what is your [99:08] take on AI and how should we be thinking [99:09] about it how should Dave and Jenny the [99:11] average person with you know working in [99:14] a company or building a small startup [99:16] think about AI so I think AI is in a [99:19] look so I last year I published a book [99:21] called impromptu which is the first book [99:23] on AI co-written with AI right yeah to [99:27] show as well as tell that AI is not just [99:30] artificial intelligence it's [99:31] amplification intelligence it gives us [99:34] superpowers right as part of that I'm [99:36] publishing a book in January called [99:37] super agency which is our human agency [99:41] even with this agentic technology can [99:43] and will be magnified we will get these [99:47] superpowers and super agency is the time [99:49] where um when a lot of people get access [99:53] to a new general purpose technology um [99:57] the transformation of society that comes [99:59] and it's like printing press or [100:01] electricity or cars or mobile phones [100:05] it's it's this [100:06] amazing uh uh transformation of all of [100:11] our Lives because not only do I get the [100:13] superpower by having AI the fact that [100:16] you have a superpower with AI also [100:18] increase my agency so for example you're [100:20] a doctor who now has access to AI your [100:23] ability to help tend to lots of people's [100:27] heals now just get Amplified and it's [100:29] the same thing like when a car was [100:30] created a doctor could now do have a [100:33] broader range of places they could visit [100:35] to go help that part of his cars have [100:38] that super agencies not just I can drive [100:40] places now because the doctor can drive [100:43] places that also [100:45] increases her his agency and also my [100:48] agency through super agency and that [100:50] book's coming out in January there's a [100:52] little around AI as well there's fear [100:55] all the time with new technologies is [100:57] any of that Gloom [100:58] warranted yes but with an asterisk which [101:00] is every time a new general purpose [101:02] technology comes out the discourse when [101:04] the printing press came out the [101:06] discourse was very similar to the [101:08] current discourse on AI it's going to [101:10] destroy Society um it's going to destroy [101:13] human learning and knowledge you know [101:15] it's going to disable the current people [101:18] who are the who are the the custodians [101:20] of knowledge which mostly priests you [101:22] know in Society from from from being [101:25] able to control the flow of information [101:27] we're going to have all this [101:28] misinformation etc etc now by the way [101:30] you don't have a scientific revolution [101:32] without the printing press right so um [101:35] now so there's always this fear but and [101:39] you say is the fear completely [101:40] unwarranted well look human societies [101:42] are bad at new general purpose [101:45] Technologies right so um with the [101:47] printing press we had nearly a century [101:50] of religious War because of it so the [101:53] transitions are very difficult because [101:54] we as human beings are difficult at new [101:57] general purpose Technologies and so the [101:59] transition look the transition is going [102:00] to have pain there's going to be [102:02] challenges and reordering and so [102:04] disruption because of it no question [102:06] what I'm hoping and part of the reason I [102:08] write these books is say look let's [102:10] manage this transition better than we've [102:12] managed the previous transitions right [102:15] let's I have one 100% confidence that [102:18] the other side this will be enormously [102:21] amazing super agency what I wanted to do [102:24] is manage the transition as best we can [102:27] now people say well shouldn't you manage [102:28] the transition by being really slow and [102:30] being really regulated well the [102:32] challenge is is that these new [102:34] technologies are developed competitively [102:36] across the entire Globe different [102:39] countries different Industries different [102:42] companies Etc and we don't set the clock [102:46] like there's no one group that sets the [102:48] clock and if you don't like go with it [102:52] like take the industrial Evolution which [102:53] also had a bunch of things why did [102:56] Europe basically set the the the the [102:59] drum beat for the globe for centuries [103:02] the answer is Europe embraced the [103:04] Industrial Revolution robustly and early [103:07] right the um you know it's part of what [103:10] you know made uh the British Empire [103:13] right and so that clock is set by [103:18] different human beings all running at it [103:20] and by the way they have different [103:21] theories of the good they have different [103:23] theories of how technology should be in [103:25] society they have different theories of [103:26] what the risks are Technologies like you [103:29] know when these people published this [103:30] pause letter that was like that's a [103:32] mistake like other people aren't going [103:34] to PA like it's a simple thing you look [103:35] at the people who care about Humanity if [103:37] they all pause and the people don't care [103:39] about Humanity don't pause your letter [103:42] if you if you achieve your success will [103:46] cause a bad impact on Humanity so you [103:50] have to be developing it you have to be [103:51] going with the CL that's set by the [103:54] world right when I think about AI in [103:57] simple terms the the way that I've I've [103:59] been thinking about it and this is not a [104:01] Perfect Analogy or whatever but it's [104:02] just a simple way to think about it is [104:04] if there was one Steven Bartlet here [104:05] that has an IQ of 100 and there was [104:07] another one sat next to me that had the [104:09] IQ of a [104:10] thousand what would this Steve do and [104:12] what would that Steve do that's a good [104:13] question is that an apt analogy is that [104:16] somewhat well it depends this is part of [104:19] the thing is we human beings are very [104:21] bad at imagining future technology mhm [104:23] so I can tell you stories about where we [104:26] have created AIS with IQ of a [104:29] thousand I can tell you stories where [104:32] we've created AIS with IQs of uh 200 of [104:37] 150 and I can also tell you stories of [104:39] AIS where we' created that are kind of [104:41] the equivalent because today we have [104:42] this is a form of like idiot seant like [104:46] today's AI are super intelligent I'll [104:48] give you an example so if I go to a [104:51] human being I try to look human say [104:53] explain to [104:55] me mixture of experts creation of AI [104:58] with an AI what does that mean uh it's a [105:00] it's a technique by which modern AIS are [105:03] created that have um different kind of [105:07] expertise roles in the combination like [105:09] chat gbt is created this way that create [105:12] their output it's a it's a particular [105:15] technical definition for the way of [105:17] creating a a worldclass AI model then I [105:22] say okay compare a mixture of experts uh [105:25] so it's only thousands of people who [105:27] understand how to do that I say okay [105:29] compare that to uh modern economic Game [105:34] Theory well there's probably some humans [105:36] that can do that too we're probably now [105:38] down to like 50 to 100 right then I say [105:41] okay compare those two to Modern [105:44] oceanography right okay now we're at [105:47] zero human beings there's no human [105:48] beings who can do this but I can go to [105:50] gbd4 and I can run this gbd4 because [105:54] it's ingested a mill a trillion words of [105:59] knowledge can write the comparisons [106:01] between these three things because it [106:03] knows all three because it knows all [106:04] three that's a superpower that no human [106:06] being has we have ai superpower today [106:10] right but of course no one's alarmed [106:12] about that because like oh that's a [106:13] great amplification intelligence that [106:15] really helps me I think there's a very [106:17] good chance that what happens is is that [106:21] what we're creating with all of every [106:23] current e AI technique that's under [106:26] development is these amazing savants [106:28] that are these great co-pilots right and [106:31] that's what we're creating not [106:33] Terminator robots not super [106:35] intelligences there's a possibility of [106:37] that and I can address the existential [106:39] risk questions around the possibility of [106:41] that because people think about that [106:44] poorly but um but the I think the [106:47] likelihood is that we're going to be [106:49] having these kind of co-pilots that give [106:51] us these [106:54] informational GPS's these cognitive [106:57] superpowers that make us as human beings [106:59] a lot [107:01] better B Act is are G to yes that too [107:04] yes that's the bigger worry so you say [107:07] one worry is transition and another [107:08] worry is whenever you're you're creating [107:10] this new technology you want to say I [107:12] want to empower all these people who are [107:14] building Better Lives for themselves in [107:16] society and I want to not Empower [107:18] criminals terrorists Rogue States and [107:21] also you think [107:23] I also need weapons that are [107:25] sufficiently uh Advanced attacking my my [107:29] enemies and everybody globally is [107:30] thinking that yes China might be [107:32] thinking about the the west and the West [107:34] are thinking about China Russia are [107:36] thinking about this person this person [107:37] the Middle East are probably thinking [107:38] about a couple of people yes so with [107:40] with all developing weapons or defense [107:42] systems they're going to probably make [107:44] those robots you talked about the [107:46] Terminator robot that can go to the [107:47] battlefield yes and that's super smart [107:49] they're going to probably make some [107:50] cyber weapons as well yes so those [107:53] things end up existing and then they're [107:54] in the wrong hands the mistake happens [107:56] so you want to build them in the right [107:57] hands first that's all I mean look there [108:00] will be cost to it there's never look [108:03] electricity essential for Human Society [108:06] it does electrocute people right it does [108:10] two things in the wrong hands too right [108:14] is this technology different though [108:15] because there's been comparisons to the [108:16] printing press electricity but is this [108:19] no no it's new but by the way each [108:22] technology the printing press was [108:24] different when it was created [108:26] electricity was different when it was [108:28] created cars were different when they [108:30] were created is this the most profound [108:33] well in terms of impact it C it might be [108:36] right that's that's that's possibility [108:38] um I think there is I always think in [108:41] probability distributions I think [108:42] there's a good probability of it but to [108:45] some [108:46] degree like it doesn't matter if it is [108:49] or isn't the most it is a Prof found new [108:54] technology it's as important at least as [108:57] these other ones that's the only thing [108:59] that matters whether it definitely is or [109:01] not doesn't really matter and look what [109:03] is different it's the fact it's a gentic [109:06] technology which means it it's creating [109:09] agents that can operate on their [109:11] own right we already have that by the [109:13] way like the agent you can be running an [109:16] agent with a connection to the internet [109:18] on your computer and it can go buy stuff [109:19] for you right you can do that today it's [109:22] doable [109:23] you have agent just a question of what [109:24] the shape is right so it's agentic it's [109:27] cognitive like like it's very strange [109:30] that we have a technology now that we [109:31] can talk to in various ways and so you [109:34] have people mistaken going oh it must be [109:37] conscious because they asked if who was [109:38] conscious and it said it was conscious [109:40] and I was like no but by the way before [109:43] this technology existed that was a good [109:45] test does by the way there are conscious [109:47] things that can't there's there's mute [109:49] people and the fact that they can't tell [109:51] you their conscious so conscious not [109:53] perfectly they tell you they're [109:54] conscious but you tell me your conscious [109:56] that was a pretty good test before now [109:59] it's a little bit more complicated [110:01] because I don't think any of the current [110:03] AIS are conscious and we can go in depth [110:05] of reason of Neuroscience and other [110:06] kinds of things about why that is it's [110:08] not a just a human species parist view [110:12] um and figur out under what circumstance [110:16] it would be conscious is a very [110:17] interesting question that we need to we [110:18] need to figure out because it won't be [110:20] that it has gray matter it'll be [110:22] something else or you know maybe we'll [110:24] figure this [110:25] out so so that's new the cognitive [110:28] superpowers are new the fact that the [110:31] speed of deployment is going to be [110:33] unusual because now we have the mobile [110:35] phone internet so I create a new agent [110:38] and tomorrow a billion people can use [110:41] it right that's new right so so all of [110:46] these things are new and by the way new [110:48] is anxiety producing and new is [110:50] difficult to navigate and new can make [110:52] transition's very difficult right but by [110:56] the way the fact that we're facing a new [110:58] challenge is not itself a new [111:01] challenge right for the average person [111:04] out there that's I know they might be [111:06] working in a hospital or might be a [111:08] lawyer or or a doctor whatever just [111:10] someone with a a job that's heard this [111:12] term Ai and they're saying chat GPT is [111:15] there anything that they should be doing [111:17] on an individual level to make sure that [111:18] they can capitalize on the opportunity [111:20] that AI [111:21] presents the basic answer is absolutely [111:24] yes and that's part of the reason why [111:27] like like I do my podcast possible I do [111:30] super agency I do impromptu because the [111:34] strong advice I give everyone and [111:35] literally I was sitting with the [111:36] governors of the bank of England [111:37] yesterday and my advice to them among [111:40] other things was personally go use AI [111:44] right don't just use it to make a Sonet [111:46] for your kids's birthday that's great [111:49] don't just use it for a recipe for what [111:51] happens to be refrigerator that's great [111:54] for something that matters to you that [111:56] part of your expertise and soth start [111:58] using it and by the way you'll find that [112:02] uh some of the things are still not [112:03] useful for it all like when I sat down [112:06] to ask gbd4 how would Reed Hoffman make [112:09] money investing in AI it gave me an [112:13] answer that was the smart business [112:16] school Professor answer who didn't [112:17] understand Venture Capital it was like [112:19] well study which areas have the largest [112:21] total addressable Market it then look at [112:23] what the possibilities for competitive [112:25] disruption are then you know market [112:27] research test that it's like it's no way [112:30] like go find a great entrepreneur with a [112:32] great idea right you know and and it's [112:34] best when the idea is something you [112:36] haven't thought of and few other people [112:37] have thought of too right is a way of [112:40] doing so it got it completely wrong from [112:42] how I how Reed Hoffman how I invest in [112:44] Ai and what I do very successfully now [112:47] you say well then it's useless for [112:49] Venture Capital it's like no no cuz I [112:51] kept experimenting with it and I said [112:52] okay I fed in a uh an entrepreneurs plan [112:57] and I said how would I do due diligence [112:58] on this plan and it came back with a [113:00] pretty good list was like yeah yeah one [113:02] that was I was absolutely planning on [113:03] doing that two I was absolutely three [113:05] yeah I could see why you'd think I was [113:07] doing it that's not important oh four I [113:09] would have gotten to it would would have [113:10] gotten to it like four days down the [113:11] road of doing the work and now I know it [113:14] now so it's useful there so it is today [113:17] useful to everybody you can use it for [113:22] things that you care about today so go [113:25] start playing with it and I love Ethan [113:28] mik's line which is the worst AI you're [113:31] ever going to use in your life is the AI [113:33] you're using today so one of the reasons [113:35] to start using it is to start getting [113:36] familiar with it because like it is a [113:39] stunning tool and I'll give one since [113:42] you're talking about Everyday People [113:43] I'll give one kind of tip that I give [113:47] everybody at the beginning it's part of [113:48] the reason I wrote impromptu Etc which [113:50] is um what what is ai ai is great at [113:54] adopting a role that you tell it to [113:57] adopt right so here's a very simple one [113:59] you have an argument for something you [114:01] can paste it into an AI um and you can [114:05] say uh counter this argument take the [114:08] role of critic argue against me and you [114:11] can see it it will immediately give you [114:14] an you know a a a capable argument [114:17] against your position that is very [114:19] helpful it's helpful for cognitive [114:20] development it's helpful for learning [114:22] it's for our understanding you know what [114:23] are the strengths and weaknesses but by [114:25] the way you can also say take my side [114:27] give me another argument for the thing [114:30] I'm arguing for like make that argument [114:33] but that's just the beginning you can [114:35] also say like for example if I go okay [114:37] I'm making this argument [114:39] for uh um how general purpose [114:43] technologies always have initial strong [114:46] fear by people and how they're described [114:49] as the end of society the end of [114:50] humanity Etc it's happened a number of [114:52] different [114:53] times um how would a historian of [114:57] Technology analyze my argument how would [115:00] they criticize my argument and then you [115:02] get it so you can get to like it's [115:05] literally it's only your own creativity [115:07] and your own inspiration of who what [115:10] role should I be talking to and once you [115:13] start realizing that you can start using [115:15] AI very powerfully for whatever you're [115:17] trying to do should entrepreneurs be [115:20] thinking about building companies in the [115:22] field of AI at the moment you know as a [115:24] entrepreneur who's like roughly 30 years [115:26] old I look back and go gosh I wish I was [115:28] of entrepreneurial age when the.com boom [115:31] came around because everyone became [115:32] billionaires and and is is that is this [115:35] that moment in time yes so short answer [115:38] is yes okay so what so I'm an [115:40] entrepreneur I'm I'm 30 OD years old um [115:42] I've got disposable income I'm [115:45] financially free m i' I'd love to take [115:48] part in the next Revolution yeah should [115:51] I be fing out to San Francisco and build [115:55] building an AI joining an AI start about [115:57] there yes why [116:00] so so one of the things is Silicon [116:02] Valley so Silicon Valley has built [116:05] itself up of multiple the reason it's [116:07] called Silicon Valley is because it [116:09] started with silicon right it's now [116:11] software Valley Silicon Valley almost [116:13] never invested in Silicon anymore [116:15] silicon being the chips yes Bing the [116:16] chips yes um so now really it's much [116:19] more software Valley it's like we invest [116:21] billions and billions of dollar every [116:23] year into new software companies [116:26] right so we went from Silicon through [116:30] you know networking equipment like Cisco [116:34] through like just stacks of different [116:36] things getting to where we are now ai is [116:39] the new one by the way we did the thing [116:41] with internet we did it with mobile [116:42] phones we did it with web [116:44] 2 now it's AI right and so you know the [116:49] principal thing is when you get this new [116:52] like uh new general uh purpose [116:56] technology uh it opens up massive [116:59] amounts of entrepreneurial space because [117:01] one is's all the new things that can be [117:03] built that were never possible before [117:05] Airbnb couldn't be done before the [117:07] internet there's just no way right so it [117:10] opens up these things that weren't [117:12] possible before um and so like the [117:14] internet's a good proxy to the to the [117:16] wave we have now with AI then it also by [117:20] the way uh makes a mass massive [117:22] transformative force on all existing [117:24] businesses so you say well I had a [117:26] business of of selling you know kind of [117:31] um of e-commerce and doing you know mail [117:34] order cataloges well now there's [117:37] e-commerce right so it it it transforms [117:41] all of these businesses and so by the [117:43] way for example the internet is part of [117:45] what makes the cloud Revolution so now [117:47] it's like well actually in fact it's not [117:49] software on your desktop it's not [117:50] software on your your phone it's in the [117:52] cloud and of course it bounces back and [117:54] forth a little bit then you have well no [117:57] actually in fact you've got this really [117:58] great app on your phone and soth but [118:00] these kinds of things AI is the next one [118:03] that affects all of them so you have [118:07] Green Field you have potentially [118:09] revolutionized any particular place [118:11] where there's a product or service [118:12] especially that intelligence could be [118:14] added to it right there's a possibility [118:17] of a great startup idea there so so yes [118:21] now [118:23] should you go try to build your own [118:25] Frontier Model which is a 10 billion [118:27] doll computer it's a hard thing that's a [118:29] hard amount of capital for startups no [118:30] no no try to figure out like degrees you [118:33] use Frontier models from you know open [118:36] AI or Microsoft or Google or you know [118:38] others as ways of doing this but you [118:40] still May build your own model right um [118:42] that a lots of lots of startup companies [118:44] are building their own models I invested [118:47] in this customer service company called [118:49] Sierra that Brett Taylor is doing and [118:51] their thing is we're not building our [118:52] own models we're just deploying other [118:53] models so we have best of readed for [118:57] what models are available to us you [118:58] could do that as an AI startup there's a [119:01] whole range and part of what I love [119:03] about entrepreneurship and invention is [119:06] like I have a whole set of theories [119:07] about what kinds of things will be [119:09] really big and some of my theories will [119:10] be right and I will also discover some [119:12] other people who have amazing theories [119:15] that's one of the things I really I and [119:17] we at Greylock love to invest in [119:20] interesting oh what's the best way for [119:22] someone to go and learn about AI right [119:24] now because like going to University [119:25] feels like it would be start using it [119:28] start building it if you want to if you [119:30] can if you're technical uh download an [119:33] open source model uh llama mraw other [119:37] start playing with it what if you not [119:39] technical well then well generally [119:41] speaking like you can't do a technology [119:44] it's very hard to do a technology [119:45] startup without a technology co-founder [119:48] so then go find a technology co-founder [119:50] so for someone like me who's built my my [119:52] career in building teams marketing [119:54] social media content media those kinds [119:56] of things who is really interested in AI [119:59] should I go and do you think I should go [120:01] learn AI now and start trying to be a [120:03] technical person or too slow okay yeah [120:06] too slow no no speed matters speed [120:09] matters and startups but by the way uh [120:13] like gen because we tend to so much [120:16] lionize what is usually the man versus [120:18] the person most of these people are men [120:21] um the [120:22] individual startups succeed because [120:25] their initial team that's part of the [120:26] hiring point we were talking about [120:27] earlier and so generally speaking if you [120:30] ask me would I rather invest in an [120:32] individual uh founder or two to three [120:35] co-founders I'd rather invest in two to [120:36] three co-founders right so going and [120:39] finding a co-founder is a great thing [120:42] because by the way your your throw [120:43] weight your capability weight is so much [120:46] better when you do that and so you know [120:49] um uh Mark Zuckerberg had Dustin [120:52] muskovitz Adam [120:53] D'Angelo right you know Chris Hughes [120:57] that's a really important part of how [121:00] things get created you invested in open [121:03] aai almost a decade ago yes before [121:05] everybody was talking about it what did [121:08] you see in that company so Sam Alman [121:11] Greg Brockman Ilia [121:14] suser um [121:17] amazing um and uh they had a focused [121:21] bold vision [121:22] which is yes Google has invented the [121:26] Baseline of the attention based [121:28] Transformer but they don't realize that [121:30] it's just scale like apply scale to this [121:34] we are going to bet the entire company [121:36] everything we're doing on scale on it [121:38] and we're gonna be very focused on doing [121:40] it that's that's [121:43] great but people had said the we AI for [121:46] a long time and it had never manifested [121:47] in it and I had passed on a lot of AI [121:49] Investments but the thing that people [121:51] need to understand about AI is it's a [121:53] transformation to scale Computing [121:55] Learning Systems so as opposed to we [121:57] program it like we program the AI we [122:00] program a scale Computing Learning [122:03] System so it [122:05] learns right and that only becomes [122:08] available once you have scale compute so [122:11] you need the Internet you need the cloud [122:15] you need massive data centers and you [122:17] need access to massive amounts of data [122:20] which you get from the internet and [122:21] other things and then you need a scale [122:23] team to build [122:25] it on that point of people how important [122:28] if you're trying to be successful as a [122:29] young entrepreneur is [122:32] networking uh almost always critical [122:34] because you need that initial team now [122:36] you don't need networking of I should [122:39] spend 12 hours a day seven days a week [122:42] going to every party that I can possibly [122:43] go of and shaking people's hand and [122:44] giving my them my business card that's [122:46] not particularly [122:48] useful what you need to be is just like [122:51] you have a strategy [122:52] for your business you need to have a [122:54] strategy for how you're building your [122:56] network around your business and your [122:57] network around you like who are the [122:59] people that I should be talking to who [123:01] are the people that I should be learning [123:03] from who are the people I should be [123:04] trying to bring into my network that the [123:07] project that I'm creating and how do I [123:09] meet those people there's so many [123:11] obvious things that people talk about [123:12] when they're describing what makes an [123:14] entrepreneur successful they say hard [123:15] work they say have a big Vision but is [123:17] there anything that's [123:19] really underappreciated [123:21] like when I say this I'm talking about [123:24] being a nice person or being etiquette [123:28] or politeness or manners are there any [123:30] things like that that you think make a [123:31] big difference but people don't [123:33] appreciate well I don't think politeness [123:35] and etiquette are s are really [123:38] particularly good competitive advantages [123:39] I'm not saying the one should be rude [123:42] but like an emphasis like if an [123:43] entrepreneur is like I'm reading my [123:45] etiquette manual it's like don't spend [123:47] your time like sure be nice be I think [123:50] building a network like entrepreneurship [123:52] is a team sport it is not an individual [123:55] sport it's a team sport so you need to [123:58] be building your team right but you've [124:00] seen entrepreneurs be successful that [124:01] were bad at that right uh not ultimately [124:04] at scale oh [124:05] interesting right because it is a team [124:08] sport right like you know it requires [124:11] High Talent people around you doing it [124:13] now for example you can get enough [124:15] initial success going and capital that [124:19] even though you're bad with your team [124:21] people people will come on board because [124:22] they'll go oh I believe this is going to [124:24] go somewhere and I can make a bunch of [124:26] money doing it I'll come do it and so [124:28] like for example a classic Trope within [124:31] Silicon Valley which is broadly correct [124:33] and that's part of the reason you have [124:34] the tropes is I want missionary not [124:36] mercenary cultures right because the [124:38] missionaries I believe we're going to [124:39] change the world we're going to do it [124:40] this way and by the way mostly of the [124:43] big successful companies most of them [124:45] are missionary cultures they say oh [124:47] they're all missionary cultur no no no [124:49] there's mercenary cultures that have [124:50] gotten big tooo I'm how do you define [124:52] mercenary in this all I care about is [124:54] making money like all like the only [124:56] thing that matters is I'm selling [124:58] something I'm gonna make money that's [125:00] all that matters do you sometimes think [125:02] the mission's [ __ ] though just like [125:04] [ __ ] to get people to feel something [125:06] there are there are [ __ ] missions [125:08] that that are like the I'm just telling [125:11] a story I don't really care right I'm [125:14] telling a story that's incorrect right [125:16] there are like like like um the Silicon [125:19] Valley TV show uh on HBO [125:22] kind of you know um uh you know [125:24] satiredaily [125:51] because that's what people want to do [125:53] people want to be in things that [125:54] changing the world so you have to say [125:56] like I'm LinkedIn this is how I'm going [125:58] to change the world I'm open AI this is [126:00] how I'm going to change the world I'm [126:01] married baby be this is how I'm going to [126:03] change the world because humans are [126:05] emotional story animals exactly so yes [126:09] you need it but of course it's much [126:12] better if it happens to be that you [126:14] actually are trying to do that you are [126:17] actually in fact you have a good plan [126:19] for how you might succeed in doing that [126:21] because you know a fiz like a I know [126:23] fizzy drinks company yeah conglomerate [126:27] even they try and end they like value [126:30] proposition with we're going to change [126:31] the world yes exactly and you know it's [126:32] [ __ ] it's a public company they got [126:34] shareholders who want to return Yes but [126:37] even they I guess have to do it on the [126:39] mindset front what is the mindset the [126:42] factors of a great entrepreneur's [126:44] mindset what are the key things that you [126:45] look for when you're investing in one [126:48] insanely great ambition right I'm I'm [126:51] shooting for the moon and you know [126:53] sometimes literally but most often like [126:56] like if I'm successful I will transform [126:59] the industry [127:01] okay an awareness [127:04] of like a good plan for how you might do [127:08] that right an awareness that that [127:11] entrepreneurship is a team sport not an [127:12] individual Sport and I have a plan for [127:14] how I'm bringing in like all of [127:17] different elements Capital Talent Etc um [127:21] like for example one of the ways that I [127:23] interview Executives [127:25] is um I say who are the three to five [127:29] they five I love it but minimum three [127:32] worldclass people who worked for you [127:34] before and I'm going to call them and [127:37] ask them what it's like working for you [127:39] right because and by the way if I if it [127:42] really matters I will then reference [127:44] check those three people on are they [127:45] actually world class mhm right because [127:49] only hire people who are going to hire [127:50] worldclass people who who who play it [127:52] now similarly like who are the world [127:55] class people who think you're world [127:57] class as an entrepreneur and like this [127:59] is one of the things that actually [128:00] entrepreneur first that we actually in [128:02] fact Learned was it isn't necessarily [128:05] who everybody thinks it's who some [128:07] worldclass people think that this person [128:10] world class because they're edgy yeah so [128:13] you look for that it isn't that you look [128:15] for people that everybody loves them [128:17] everybody says oh I'd love to have a [128:18] drink with that person no no no like [128:20] having someone say uh that person's hard [128:22] driving they're difficult that can be a [128:25] very strong positive I've invested a [128:27] number of entrepreneurs that way what [128:28] about resilience well resilience also [128:30] very important almost every startup goes [128:33] through what I call a valley the shadow [128:34] moment which is like why did we think [128:36] this was a good idea oh my God we're [128:39] like when when I started social net one [128:42] of my connections from [128:44] Apple dropped me who had started doing [128:46] startups two years before dropped me a [128:50] um [128:52] uh a on line email that said welcome to [128:54] where 15 minutes is the difference [128:56] between exultation and Terror I'm Gonna [128:59] Change the World oh [ __ ] I'm gonna [129:01] die right so resilience is super [129:04] important because it is a dog fight um [129:08] and multiple times PayPal LinkedIn [129:13] Airbnb oh God we're going to die this is [129:16] going to be worth zero Can you spot [129:18] resilience in [129:19] someone um you can have a high [129:23] probability guess based on well it's [129:26] kind of like so you push them on things [129:28] and see what they've done have they [129:29] taken risk how do they respond to risk [129:31] are they trying to persuade themselves [129:33] that the thing that they're doing is [129:34] zero risk no no no I'm guaranteed to [129:38] succeed no one is does it m does it help [129:41] if they've been through some difficult [129:43] things in their life oh yeah because [129:45] then if they've gone through the [129:46] difficult things and they've been [129:48] resilient in there that's likely not [129:51] 100% that gives a good probability [129:53] they'll be resilient in the traumatize [129:55] people well it depends on how they [129:57] respond to the trauma right what did you [129:59] learn from it like how did you respond [130:01] to it like because generally speaking [130:03] you need to be able to convert negatives [130:05] into positives right on the [130:07] entrepreneurial Journey so it's like [130:08] look that was that was really bad and I [130:11] learned from it if you were advising a [130:13] young person on how to build wealth in [130:16] 2025 huh and when I say young I mean 18 [130:19] years old yeah what would you and you [130:21] had to to plan out the road map of their [130:22] life can you walk me through how you'd [130:24] be thinking about those seasons of life [130:26] like 18 to 30 30 onwards Etc [130:30] so part of the reason I wrote startup [130:33] review was that the advice that [130:35] universities frequently give is you know [130:37] Follow Your Passion first do the things [130:39] that you're really passion about oh you [130:40] want to go volunteer in Bhutan do it now [130:44] is tends to be and it's terrible advice [130:47] right they that that actually is the the [130:48] wrong end for the advice the right thing [130:51] and it doesn't mean don't follow your [130:53] passion but the right thing is to start [130:54] with how do I get to a place where I [130:58] have establish myself and have like the [131:02] ability to like economically the [131:05] platform and maneuver could be enough [131:06] wealth to be you know uh to no longer [131:09] need a salary that was my own personal [131:11] goal um but it also could be the I'm [131:13] well known and have a network of [131:15] contacts of people who would want to [131:16] hire me and so forth and now I'm going [131:18] to go spend a year volunteering in [131:20] Bhutan because I really want to do that [131:22] right so the answer is go be vigorous [131:26] about the thing that matters for your [131:27] entire life early and take the big risks [131:30] outly yeah take the big risk early right [131:32] now you might say I want to be a doctor [131:34] it's not particularly risky it's fine [131:36] but then go to medical school establish [131:38] yourself as as as as a medical [131:41] professional and so before you do that [131:43] so whatever thing that is the thing that [131:46] you think gives you the platform for [131:48] resilience in your later life go esta [131:51] Lish that now and by the way that's part [131:53] of the thing of like wealthy but Wealthy [131:55] by the way could be measured in I have a [131:56] bank balance right or on stock Equity [131:59] portfolio but wealthy can also be the I [132:02] have a great network of people who want [132:03] to work with me who want to hire me who [132:06] value my talents right so this whole [132:09] range uh for things but go establish [132:12] that first and that can be take big RIS [132:16] if you if by the way some people say I [132:18] want to take as few big risks as [132:21] possible possible in my whole life [132:22] because that's who I am fine but go [132:25] establish yourself first now if you're [132:27] going to be entrepreneur you want to be [132:28] an entrepreneur then like for example [132:32] like okay maybe you shouldn't start a [132:33] business at 18 but maybe you should go [132:35] join a [132:36] startup right start learning it start [132:38] building the network and it's roughly [132:40] build the network is the broad thing and [132:43] by the way build the skills and you know [132:47] get like frequently doing a startup is [132:49] very difficult economically usually you [132:51] start with no salary Etc like having [132:54] some reserves is a good thing to have I [132:57] read a book and in the first chapter I [132:58] was trying to figure out what this [132:59] platform is for young people and the way [133:01] that I kind of described it is these [133:02] five buckets the first one being [133:04] knowledge and then when knowledge is [133:06] applied it becomes a skill and the good [133:07] thing about these first two buckets is [133:09] they're the only two that no one can [133:10] ever really um empty of what you put in [133:13] there yes the next one I posited was me [133:16] trying to remember my own book was um [133:19] your I'm gonna say Network y then your [133:21] resources and your reputation now anyone [133:23] can take these last three like life can [133:25] happen you can get five you can lose [133:26] your friends whatever um Well network is [133:30] hard to [133:31] lose if youve really authentically built [133:34] it right it can be lost there it can be [133:38] but it's very hard it's kind of like a [133:40] nuclear bomb kind of thing I mean it's [133:42] like like you may like one particular [133:44] person on you may have a real difference [133:47] of opinion um you know you may move and [133:51] then fired get fired and a lot of your [133:53] network is but by the way even if you've [133:55] gotten fired if you've got a couple [133:57] people at that company that you had good [133:59] relationship with they may still be part [134:01] of your [134:02] network so am I right in thinking that [134:04] the Knowledge and Skills part is really [134:05] the critical thing to uh prioritize when [134:08] you yeah well sof this is part of what [134:10] we did in SAR view soft assets are very [134:13] important people under prioritize them [134:15] they tend to say oh I should take the [134:17] job that offers me a 5% higher salary [134:19] and the answer is almost always that's [134:21] not the criteria that you should be [134:23] looking at even 30% higher SI salary is [134:26] not the criteria you should be looking [134:27] at you should be looking at where are my [134:29] soft assets where's my knowledge where's [134:31] my skills where's my network [134:34] interesting because the soft assets are [134:36] what compound generally to the much [134:39] larger like the fact that you took a job [134:41] with a 30% higher salary is not [134:43] necessarily the predictor that you're [134:44] going to get the job with a 300% higher [134:47] salary it's the soft assets that are [134:50] likely to get to the 300% economic [134:52] outcome so shortterm versus longterm So [134:54] Soft assets are longevity yes and the [134:57] and the hard assets I guess are short [134:59] term yes immediate is there a different [135:02] game you play when you hit your 30s do [135:03] you think well you have to evolve it so [135:06] for example you can when you're in your [135:09] 20s you can say well I'm gonna I'm gonna [135:11] take more risk like the economics take [135:14] the the the jobs that have zero salary [135:15] or lower salary because I'm going to [135:17] live in the house with five of my [135:19] friends you know we're to have beans and [135:22] toast for dinner you know d d d da as [135:24] ways of doing it CU I can take those [135:25] risks now and then when you're 30 it's [135:26] like well maybe I'm planning on having a [135:29] life partner and being in an apartment [135:31] or a house with them and soth so so it [135:33] changes as you go through and then you [135:36] have kids yes did you have kids no um [135:40] because I'm I'm in that region now where [135:41] I'm thinking about having kids and I'm [135:42] just I'm wondering how dis disruptive [135:44] it's going to be it's another startup [135:47] like it's fine you can do startups and [135:49] have it but it's a complete startup [135:52] which do you think low is your chance of [135:53] being successful at a startup because [135:56] doing two startups is more difficult [135:57] than doing one probably a little yeah [135:59] but maybe worth it on balance okay yeah [136:03] what is happiness to you because you've [136:05] got the money you've got the success [136:06] you've got the reputation you've got the [136:08] the CV what is happiness for me is going [136:12] through life with people I love and [136:15] building great things but like by the [136:17] way if I failed at everything I built [136:19] and I was still going through life with [136:20] people people I loved [136:23] great why is that so [136:26] important because I think part of the [136:28] meaning of life is how you contribute to [136:30] the to the people around you it it's [136:33] like again I sorry I keep referring the [136:35] startup of you but it was my first book [136:36] Is advice the young people right it's [136:39] the I and the Wii like like like do [136:42] things for yourself do things for the [136:44] for for me do things for we right and I [136:48] I learn from people I get Delight from [136:51] people um I feel meaningful as I [136:54] contribute to people's lives and [136:56] obviously you know there's people [136:58] immediately around me there's people in [136:59] the whole world I mean like you know [137:01] LinkedIn billion people have signed up [137:03] for it like like there's there is there [137:05] is um like that's part of what I think [137:09] is essential in the in the meaning of [137:11] life and for me [137:13] especially how did you have happiness [137:15] wrong when you were [137:18] younger if in any way [137:23] um I probably [137:26] thought like it was important to be top [137:29] of your [137:30] class not that it was important to just [137:32] do well but it's important to be top [137:34] right and what I've come to realize is [137:37] you know there 8 billion people right [137:39] nobody is the best at [137:41] everything right some people delude [137:45] themselves that they are but but nobody [137:47] is you could be the best at something [137:50] and by the the way being the best at [137:51] something that's good thing but by the [137:53] way to really be obsessive about the [137:55] being the be the absolute best at that [137:58] thing well maybe you're [138:01] actually uh being you're you're less [138:05] investing in other things it's a little [138:06] bit like your earlier question about [138:08] managing like you say you'll be I I'm an [138:11] Oracle and I'll tell you you'll be four [138:13] times as economically successful if [138:16] you're a [ __ ] to the people you work [138:18] with n no uh not okay for [138:23] me and love how does love come into all [138:26] of this you're you're in you have a [138:28] long-term life partner yes yeah uh in [138:31] Seattle what role has that played in in [138:34] your happiness and your professional [138:36] success for me all the people around me [138:38] are people I learn from and that [138:40] includes Michelle like I learn all kinds [138:42] of things from Michelle Michelle are [138:44] actually both in some ways very similar [138:46] people deep belief in ethics deep belief [138:49] in The Importance of Being a good person [138:51] and in some ways very different she like [138:54] I'm Mr scale she's anti- scale right she [138:57] she she thinks she's fine with my doing [138:59] the scale things but like she wants to [139:02] go connect with local people in the [139:04] community right like she's like look I'm [139:06] volunteering in the senior center will [139:07] you come volunteer with me no no no I [139:08] don't do that I'm happy to give money to [139:10] the senior center but that's not what I [139:11] do but that that's that's her life and I [139:14] learn from that because by the way life [139:15] is both life is both here and here so so [139:20] it's it's one of the balance of [139:22] different people she she is intensely [139:24] going in she's taking this kind of call [139:26] it Quaker Buddhist approach to creating [139:28] art right and and that's just amazing [139:33] like I love being on that Journey with [139:35] her right um and that's her journey [139:38] right um but I learned from it and those [139:40] are the kinds of things that are that [139:43] are um you know part of what I think the [139:46] meaning of life is is how we learn from [139:47] each other when if two entrepreneurs [139:50] come to you and they the exact same [139:51] thing but one of them is in a long-term [139:54] marriage what is the difference between [139:57] those two entrepreneurs in terms of how [139:58] they'll show up in business in your [140:00] view interesting I've never been asked [140:02] that question uh it depends [140:06] um I do [140:08] think like one of the things that I [140:10] treat as a very relevant fact is how [140:12] someone treats the people around them [140:14] okay so it's somewhat evidenced that [140:16] there yes yes so like if a person is [140:20] good to the people around them then [140:22] that's a person I am more likely to much [140:24] more much much more likely to want to go [140:27] through because like a startup is like [140:29] 10 years like I have passed on [140:32] investments that I've literally referred [140:34] to and I won't name them because it's [140:36] uncivil but I've literally passed on [140:39] investments that I thought this is going [140:40] to make a ton of money and I've told my [140:42] partners at Greylock hey look this [140:45] entrepreneur and this business this is [140:47] going to make a lot of money if any of [140:49] you want to do it great and I will [140:50] support you but I don't want to invest [140:52] because I don't want to spend the 10 [140:53] years with this [140:55] entrepreneur right because it's just you [140:57] know Life's Too Short right uh and I was [141:00] right those businesses made a ton of [141:03] money right but it was yeah no no thanks [141:07] not worth a headache yes when I was [141:08] reading Blitz scaling and I was watching [141:11] the videos that you did you've done [141:12] several talks on it I've seen pretty [141:13] much all of them over the years um one [141:15] of the questions I had as an investor [141:17] myself is my early stage companies that [141:20] aren't in cons the consumer Internet [141:22] space they're selling I don't know they [141:23] might be selling a a drink in a [141:25] supermarket or something should should [141:28] they all be pursu pursuing this idea of [141:30] blit Blitz scaling where you go [141:32] lightning fast to building a mass [141:34] massively valuable [141:35] company not necessarily okay uh Blitz [141:39] scaling is a strategic response to [141:41] Global competition okay right and so now [141:46] there are certain industries where [141:47] Global competition is the norm not the [141:49] exception You're Building an Internet [141:51] Property right MH right or mostly like [141:55] much software not all software but most [141:57] like many software companies in which [142:00] case and by the way if you can get away [142:01] with not Blitz scaling it's much better [142:03] because Blitz scaling is spending [142:05] resources [142:07] inefficiently to get to Market size [142:09] ahead of your competition right so like [142:12] a classic example is like you know uh [142:15] Uber [142:17] would interview somebody offer them a [142:19] job and then say who are the three best [142:21] people at your company that that that [142:24] you worked with and send job offers to [142:27] those three people without even [142:29] interview them them right because that's [142:32] Blitz scaling right that's I'm going [142:34] super super [142:36] fast and uh and that that was a blitz [142:39] scaling technique I learned from Uber I [142:41] was like oh yep put that one in the tool [142:42] chest for when you need to do that right [142:46] because outpacing the competition when [142:49] you're in Glen Gary Glenn Ross markets [142:52] which is first prize Cadillac second [142:54] prize steak knives third prize you're [142:56] fired it's the [142:58] game right and it's one of the things [143:00] like when you know you and I were [143:01] chatting a little bit before we started [143:03] the podcast like one of the places that [143:05] things that places like you know London [143:07] and the UK and Europe need to learn is [143:09] when the competition is global it's not [143:10] the people down the street it's the [143:12] fiercest competitors around the world [143:14] and Silicon Valley has Fierce [143:16] competitors China has Fierce compe you [143:18] have to have a theory of how you're [143:20] playing that game against those the [143:22] fiercest competitors in the world and so [143:26] um Blitz scaling is in part like this is [143:28] stuff I've learned from Silicon Valley [143:31] and from the stuff I've done in China to [143:33] say like when you're in a global [143:36] competitive business and you're trying [143:38] to establish it and you have competitors [143:40] who are doing this this is some of the [143:42] techniques that you need to do if AI is [143:44] going to be so transformative when you [143:47] think about a country like the UK where [143:50] you know we don't have the blitz scaling [143:51] advantages as entrepreneurs and Founders [143:53] that you guys have in Silicon [143:56] Valley if you were the prime minister of [143:59] the [143:59] UK what would you do to give us a shot [144:02] at getting some of the value that's [144:03] going to acrw because of this air [144:04] opportunity so I think there's two [144:06] things one is you need to enable some of [144:09] your company's ability to Blitz scale as [144:12] much as you can right okay so because if [144:16] if if a company if company one is not [144:19] Blitz scaling and is competing against [144:21] Company 2 that is Blitz scaling company [144:24] one's going to lose I don't think we've [144:25] got any AI companies that are blit [144:27] scaling in company one is going to lose [144:30] right company two might lose too right [144:34] but company one is guaranteed to lose [144:35] and Company two is not guaranteed to [144:37] lose right so if you're competing [144:40] against companies that are Blitz scaling [144:42] you must also be Blitz scaling it's part [144:44] of the the reason I wrote the book it's [144:46] part of the reason I give talks it's [144:47] part of the reason I help uh Sher kou [144:50] standup the scale the scaling Institute [144:53] here in London you know etc etc now you [144:57] say we can't we're not going to be able [144:59] to well then choose areas where the [145:02] competitors are not blit scaling I've [145:04] got a example I want to give you I [145:06] invest in a matcha company they make [145:09] matcha like the you know green tea and [145:12] they've they've grown very very quickly [145:13] they call perfect T hash ad I'm an [145:15] investor Etc new investor in the company [145:17] I think um and I was wondering they've G [145:20] so quickly so they've gone from I don't [145:22] know zero to they'll probably do maybe [145:24] 30 million pounds next year and they've [145:26] done it in [145:27] a could be measured in months really and [145:30] I wondered I was like match is this [145:32] trend that's coming into Shore [145:34] everyone's drinking match now every [145:35] coffee shop you go to has [145:37] matcha should they be Blitz scaling to [145:41] capture the opportunity globally so it [145:43] depends on two things one most centrally [145:46] comp competition do they need to be [145:49] outpacing their compet [145:50] ition could argue yes yeah but if yes [145:54] then and especially if their competitors [145:56] are Blitz scaling then absolutely yes if [145:59] the commits are not Blitz scaling it's [146:01] all will Blitz scaling enable us to [146:03] outpace them because by the way it does [146:06] involve moving so fast you're taking [146:08] risks and hiring and capital raise and [146:10] expenditures you're doing marketing that [146:13] you would like you're uber you're you're [146:14] launching in 20 cities at the same time [146:16] it's whoa you know [146:18] Etc because that does add risks right [146:23] but you're saying those risks that it [146:24] adds are less of a risk than not spit [146:28] scaling that's kind of the tradeoff so [146:31] competition is a central reason for [146:34] doing it and by the way most of the [146:36] compan most of the times where you can [146:37] raise Capital bit scaling is because if [146:39] you if it's a Glen Gary Glenn Ross [146:41] Market where first prizes Cadillac [146:44] second priz steak knives well then [146:46] generally speaking investors are willing [146:48] to invest [146:50] at premium prices give a lot of capital [146:53] etc etc because they'll go we agree that [146:56] you're going to get a great Market [146:57] position if you Blitz [146:59] scale and by the way part of the problem [147:01] is investors are not always right but if [147:02] some investors are willing to do it then [147:05] and they're going to do it in your [147:06] competitors then you absolutely have to [147:08] do it if your competitor is going to do [147:10] it so competition is the first thing the [147:13] second thing is do you need to get to [147:15] critical mass scale so like your [147:18] payments industry and this is one of the [147:19] things I learned to PayPal which is [147:21] basically payments businesses are dead [147:23] unless they have at least a billion you [147:26] know dollars of you know transactional [147:29] volume through them per year and that [147:30] was back in 2002 what I was looking I'm [147:32] sure it's higher now right maybe it's 10 [147:35] billion whatever but it's like if you [147:36] don't get to that scale you're dead [147:38] you're irrelevant right so getting to [147:41] that scale and getting through the [147:42] highly unprofitable getting the scale as [147:44] fast as possible really matters and so [147:46] that's one of the places where you say [147:48] well we're none of our competitors are [147:49] doing it but we should still do it [147:51] because getting that critical mass and [147:52] scale really matters um and so that's [147:55] another time and and so that would be I [147:57] don't think that's probably the the [147:59] matcha company right that that's [148:00] probably like doesn't need so but those [148:02] are the the lessons you look at but it's [148:04] not Blitz scaling for its own sake [148:07] that's one of the mistakes that people [148:09] make when they go Blitz scaling oh we're [148:11] doing it two Blitz scales no no you [148:12] Blitz scale as a set of strategic [148:15] techniques in response to a market and [148:17] response to competition mhm and in the [148:19] case of [148:20] matcher there is a role of brand being [148:23] the mo a little bit yes and so that may [148:26] be irrelevant that may be the relevant [148:27] thing of why it's a glen gar in the I [148:31] haven't looked at the market at all but [148:32] a glen gar Gad Ross Market a first prize [148:34] Cadillac second prize steak guys maybe [148:36] that's because of brand establishment [148:37] which case you have to be number one and [148:40] on that point that I asked earlier about [148:41] if you're the prime minister of the UK [148:43] you'd start enabling some of our [148:44] companies in the UK to like have more [148:46] Capital give them access to Capital do [148:49] you think [148:50] one of my fears is that AI is such a big [148:53] opportunity it's going to revolutionize [148:54] everything and it's basically going to [148:56] be owned by America and China it's one [148:59] of my fears it's like fears of someone [149:00] that lives in the UK that we're gonna [149:02] your economy is gonna in the US is gonna [149:04] have such a huge upswing in productivity [149:08] so good news for you is I happen to know [149:10] that t ding street is paying attention [149:12] to this issue because I had meetings [149:13] with him this week on that there's [149:15] things that they will be announcing [149:17] which I can't pre-announce okay right [149:19] but they know this is important and [149:21] they're working on it [149:24] okay and they're Consulting you know [149:26] people good yeah yeah that's what gives [149:29] me hope yes okay what's the most [149:31] important thing we haven't talked about [149:32] for entrepreneurs that we should have [149:33] talked about I'll give two [149:38] um the first [149:41] is and they're related the first is look [149:45] just because you don't have a 100% [149:47] chance of succeeding doesn't mean that [149:49] you shouldn't do it right so like when I [149:53] said earlier when we were talking about [149:54] like look when I started LinkedIn I [149:56] thought we had a most 20 25% chance of [149:58] being [149:59] successful that's [150:02] fine right so and a matter of fact what [150:05] you should be doing is aligning the fact [150:07] that there's risks on what you're doing [150:09] with the reason why you'll have less [150:11] competition while you have a higher [150:13] Runway before the com competition [150:17] intensifies because part of it is if you [150:20] have a theory like we talked about this [150:21] in LinkedIn about why other people see [150:23] that there is like they think there's a [150:26] 0% chance you succeed and you think [150:28] there's a 20 25% chance you succeed [150:31] that's precisely that risk window is [150:34] your [150:34] opportunity right so think of risk not [150:38] as terrifying think of risk as potential [150:42] opportunity right that's one and we've [150:44] talked about threads of it but thinking [150:45] of it as opportunity right because you [150:48] see something other people don't see you [150:50] see the risks but you have an idea for [150:53] why that risk is something that you may [150:57] be able to win on and they won't right [151:00] so with LinkedIn that was hey I have an [151:01] idea about how the network will grow [151:03] even though it's not valuable until [151:04] there's a million people in [151:06] network right that's where that risk [151:09] becomes an opportunity right so the [151:11] second one also around risk [151:15] is [151:17] um have a plan B have plans B understand [151:22] that you have an idea in your risk [151:23] you're playing it and if it's not [151:25] working out how do you pivot don't think [151:28] oh the whole thing is going all in and [151:31] I'm just gonna be roadkill if it doesn't [151:32] work no no that's the whole point of the [151:34] reason I have this framework of abz [151:37] planning which is in the startup view [151:38] which is by the way startup view is [151:39] advice they give [151:40] entrepreneurs shrunk to advice to [151:43] individuals right every single chapter [151:46] applies to entrepreneurs in their [151:48] companies right like the abz planning is [151:51] don't just have a plan a where like well [151:53] if it doesn't work I'm dead you're like [151:54] well that's a bad strategy like [151:57] sometimes you'll do it sometimes it's [151:58] the only thing I have I love this plan a [152:00] it's the only thing I have and the only [152:01] way to do it is to go all in and doesn't [152:03] work I'm dead okay it's very [152:07] scary right um when I do [152:10] entrepreneurship I have plans B I have a [152:12] plan Z right I I I have thought through [152:16] not every because you can't think [152:18] through everything but maneuverability [152:20] and how to measure am I on track or not [152:22] am I am I increasing my probability of [152:24] success or not am I increasing my [152:26] ability to get to the moon or not and [152:29] and be doing risk management smart risks [152:32] take smart [152:33] risks that's the thing right how do you [152:36] know when to quit and I'm saying this in [152:37] a Prof professional context as well as [152:39] an entrepreneurship context so when I [152:42] get around to advising companies I've [152:44] invested in or friends that now is time [152:47] to quit or now is time to sell you try [152:50] to sell of course but sometimes if you [152:52] can't sell that means quit right is your [152:57] new plans your new plans a are much [152:59] worse than your previous plans a your [153:01] new plan a is much worse because you [153:03] pivoted yeah right and your new plan a [153:06] is a much worse plan in your plan a [153:08] that's when you get to your plan Z it's [153:09] like plan Z is I quit [153:12] right okay so you've you've tried [153:15] something else that's also messed up [153:16] like okay and in a professional context [153:19] when how do you know to quit when to [153:20] quit the [153:21] job um well it could be you have a much [153:24] better plan a right like like okay this [153:27] plan a that's okay and then by the way [153:29] this is part of the difference that I [153:30] tell people between should I found a [153:32] company or should I join one it's like [153:34] look one of the problems you have as a [153:35] Founder you can't really quit you're [153:37] you're you're with the business right [153:39] it's very dishonorable to quit before [153:43] you know the business gets to whatever [153:45] it's its design is now sometimes you're [153:47] fired fine but you're you know as a [153:51] Founder you're like people have come and [153:52] enjoyed this because of me being here [153:55] and doing this and I'm here until the [153:57] business gets to a point where it's it's [153:59] a massive growing concern now once the [154:01] company's public you can go do something [154:03] or once the company's sold you can go do [154:04] something or once the company is like [154:06] profitable and really strong you can go [154:08] do something but you're there until then [154:10] as a Founder as an employee you're [154:12] signing up for what I'm the alliance I [154:13] call a tour of beauty which is I am I've [154:17] I'm signed up to make a big difference [154:19] in in the company but I'm not here till [154:22] the end and so as your employee you can [154:24] go look have I delivered against my Tour [154:26] of Duty great and at that point a better [154:29] opportunity comes along so you know uh [154:32] Matt Kohler who you know now lives here [154:34] in London as a you know partner at [154:36] Benchmark like I recruited him out of [154:38] Mackenzie in a LinkedIn three years in [154:41] he comes to me and says hey I've been [154:42] offered this this opportunity at [154:43] Facebook I'm like look Matt I love [154:45] working with you you're a close friend [154:47] of mine etc etc you should take that job [154:50] at Facebook that is the right Next Step [154:52] for you right and because we're close [154:55] and so forth I think he probably [154:56] wouldn't have taken the job if I hadn't [154:57] said but like LinkedIn resembles my [154:59] brain I want people doing their best [155:01] work their best opportunities and [155:03] Facebook gave them a great opportunity [155:05] what's really interesting about the [155:05] LinkedIn story I've got the deck in [155:08] front of me here from August 20 2004 [155:12] yes that's our Greylock series B [155:15] deck and what's pretty remarkable and by [155:18] the way Matt ker how create that deck oh [155:20] did he [155:21] yes I mean it's a it's a pretty good [155:24] deck for a series series B especially [155:26] back then it's very simple i' to say [155:28] simple as good very very simple yes one [155:32] of the things that really struck out to [155:33] me is on this page here which is the [155:35] sort of opening I guess vision mission [155:36] statement whatever you want to call it [155:38] is it's find and contact the people you [155:40] need through the people you already [155:41] trust and what's quite remarkable [155:43] although this was written 20 years ago [155:46] this is still very much what LinkedIn is [155:47] about yes and usually when I see these [155:49] decks they started as I don't know hot [155:51] or not and now it's like Facebook and [155:53] Instagram whereas this is still so close [155:56] to what the vision was yeah well it's [155:58] also my third company I had social net I [156:01] had PayPal PayPal pivoted a lot right [156:04] and so I had a good sense of both how to [156:06] be longterm and short-term when I [156:09] started LinkedIn and what is the key to [156:10] being long-term in this regard well you [156:13] know what is the you're going to [156:15] transform the industry oh and what do [156:17] you mean by key as in like [156:20] if you're trying to build a long-term [156:22] company from the outset yeah what are [156:23] you thinking about well you're thinking [156:25] about like if I'm successful at landing [156:29] on the beach at expanding into the [156:30] market how is it that I'm going to be a [156:33] industry transforming company like [156:36] what's the thing that changes millions [156:38] of customers lives you know um uh or if [156:43] it's an Enterprise company you know [156:44] whatever like lots of companies within [156:47] multiple Industries how am I an [156:49] essential part of how they change the [156:51] way they live they work they do [156:55] business and what do you think of [156:56] LinkedIn today because people use it in [156:59] such a surprising way I mean people are [157:00] building their personal brands on it [157:02] it's like a social network yeah I knew [157:03] that was all going to be from from [157:05] before this deck I knew that was [157:06] possible I have a probability now what [157:09] what thing surprised me people build [157:11] dating services on top of it really yes [157:15] well I'm in a relationship may you [157:16] haven't seen it but yeah but they're [157:18] like well some people want to be dating [157:20] people who have professional like my [157:22] dating set is I want people who have [157:24] good CVS okay I don't want LinkedIn to [157:27] ever build that business fine if you're [157:29] gonna go build that [157:31] business right no problem right I mean [157:34] and like for example like one of the ear [157:36] like this was I [157:38] think uh a few months after we raised [157:41] money from Greylock um on this deck um [157:45] one of the surprising uses is like I [157:48] never had envisioned this use case still [157:49] looking for a job an engineer wanted to [157:52] move to Denver from Silicon Valley and [157:58] so it's like didn't know what companies [157:59] to look at so this engineer went to [158:02] LinkedIn and searched for profiles like [158:06] his then looked at what companies those [158:08] people worked at then decided which [158:10] companies to go look for jobs at it was [158:13] brilliant like it's a very good way of [158:15] saying hey I'm look I'm interested in [158:17] going and working here [158:20] what kinds of companies that are [158:21] interesting employ people like [158:23] me are you still interested in building [158:26] companies in terms of like being a CEO [158:29] and founder again well so I co-founded [158:32] inflection so I'm definitely doing the [158:34] co-founding thing right um and you know [158:39] I I anticipate that will happen again um [158:43] but will I be the CEO it's not [158:45] impossible um but it's kind of like [158:47] because I have these amazing people like [158:49] Mustafa suan who the COO that I can be [158:52] the co-founder [158:53] with that's [158:57] great yeah I think that's the season of [158:59] life I'm in yeah I don't want to be a [159:00] CEO anymore which is unfortunate because [159:02] I named the podcast I have a CEO when I [159:04] was one but I just think there's an [159:06] element of self-awareness which I think [159:08] has really it's and for me the older [159:10] I've gotten the more I'm orientating [159:11] everything towards being happy yeah and [159:13] for me it's it's hard to be a CEO and as [159:17] happy as I and free as I want to be so [159:19] then then then you need to build the [159:22] network and skills by which you're [159:23] working with other people who are the [159:25] CEOs that's basically what I do now so [159:28] the companies that I've described the [159:29] software business the media company we [159:30] have here there's people that are [159:32] designed and built and much better CEOs [159:34] than me what do you do you care about [159:37] Legacy only because I care about impact [159:40] um so I don't like I I care that I I've [159:42] actually made a big difference to the [159:45] ongoing story of humanity um but I don't [159:49] that I mean look it's nice I like I [159:51] certainly don't mind that people go oh [159:53] Reed Hoffman did these amazing things it [159:55] feels good but I care much more about [159:57] the substance like did I do really good [160:00] things that was I a very positive impact [160:03] now I'm I'm not I'm not indicating I [160:07] have no ego you know the the [160:09] appreciation for having done that that [160:11] feels good but I don't do it for the [160:13] appreciation I do it for the [160:15] thing so do you make decisions based on [160:18] Legacy at all [160:20] only a by [160:23] impact did you did you decide not to [160:26] have children uh we did um and it was a [160:29] joint decision of course and I think it [160:31] was partially that we realiz we're um [160:35] you know we're God Parents to a number [160:36] of children we actually there's three [160:38] kids here in London that that we're God [160:39] Parents to right and uh you know there's [160:44] all kinds of Delights in being a God [160:45] parent which is you know you show up and [160:46] spend an evening and get to participate [160:49] and and the kids lives and then you know [160:51] when it's like oh time to change the [160:54] diaper and [160:56] it are there any unchecked boxes in your [161:00] life I'm sure there are um any major [161:03] ones yeah [161:06] um if you'd ask me um what book um I was [161:11] going to first write when I was an [161:12] undergraduate was book on friendship I [161:14] still want to write that book I I've [161:16] been taking notes for 30 years on [161:18] friendship on friendship yep um what [161:21] would that book be about friendship but [161:23] specifically what part of why why [161:26] everything look there's so few books on [161:29] friendship you go into to a bookstore [161:32] and you say where is your uh your [161:35] section on relationships and they every [161:37] bookstore will go oh over here right [161:40] relationship with capar romantic [161:42] relationship say okay where's your [161:44] section on [161:46] friendship no section on friendship Do [161:48] you have a a book on friendship the [161:50] answer is maybe we have [161:53] one your assistant we spoke to your [161:56] assistant ahead of this conversation [161:57] today and she said that friendship and [161:59] connection is a major part of your focus [162:01] at the moment yes always but it it [162:03] always has been now now you're doing [162:06] intense things with startups part of the [162:08] reason I actually think you should work [162:09] with friends you should hire friends [162:11] this is kind of a little bit you know [162:13] counter common wisdom is because you [162:15] want to be spending your time with [162:16] friends and that does ADD difficulties [162:20] right but you want to spend your time [162:23] with your friends that's really good are [162:26] you still friends with Peter the yes you [162:28] have a lot of disagreements in terms of [162:30] politics but intense disagreements on [162:31] politics but you still are able to be [162:33] friends but we also met um with you know [162:38] as undergraduates you know in a like [162:41] like I knew he was extremely right and [162:43] he knew I was left you know I've become [162:47] much more [162:50] uh business oriented than I was as [162:52] undergraduates and he's become much more [162:54] libertarian [162:56] but you know disagreements is a good [162:59] thing can be a good thing we have a [163:02] closing tradition on this podcast where [163:03] the last guest leaves a question for the [163:04] next guest not knowing who they're going [163:05] to be leaving it for oh and the question [163:07] that's been left for you is a very [163:08] interesting one [163:09] okay what are the two things you want [163:13] your life partner to know about you that [163:17] they do not know or do not understand [163:20] about you [163:21] yet that's an interesting thing it's an [163:24] interesting if someone has an answer to [163:27] that question it suggests that they're [163:29] not being a particularly good life [163:32] partner I think I have been and will [163:35] continue to be a good life partner so I [163:36] actually don't have an answer to that [163:38] question what's her name Michelle yes [163:41] has does she misunderstand you in [163:44] anyway [163:45] [Music] [163:47] um I don't know if it's a [163:49] misunderstanding because we put a lot of [163:51] energy into understanding each other I [163:53] mean like for example we've seen [163:54] marriage counselors together and not [163:56] because we're going we're like fighting [163:58] about something it's because helping [164:01] having a third party help you understand [164:03] the other person well is like actually [164:05] in fact a very good thing find someone [164:06] who's really good and do that right I do [164:09] that with my partner yeah it's it's it's [164:11] great you should do it you shouldn't be [164:13] because we're arguing it should be [164:16] because we are putting lots of energy [164:19] into understanding each other I still [164:21] think there's things about my partner [164:23] that she doesn't understand about me or [164:25] misunderstands about me and I [164:26] misunderstand about her yeah of course [164:28] and by the way I can point out things [164:31] that I have learned about her like for [164:35] example like the local community is what [164:38] really matters to her right I didn't [164:41] really understand that 10 years ago now [164:43] I understand that right um I'm sure she [164:46] has those kind of similar things about [164:48] me [164:49] but like the moment it occurs to me that [164:51] there's something she doesn't understand [164:52] about me it comes up at a [164:56] dinner you know not too many weeks in [164:58] the future because that's part of how we [165:01] come to our dinners right we come to our [165:03] dinners is if one of us is on you know I [165:06] had this thought we want to have those [165:09] dinners Founders you're investing in [165:12] that are in a stable solid relationship [165:14] before they start the startup [165:16] yeah and then they go on this crazy [165:19] intense Journey do you ever give them [165:21] advice on relationships and how to [165:22] manage that because I have so many [165:23] Founders come to me and they're like I [165:25] think she's going to break up with me or [165:26] he's going to break up with me because [165:27] I'm just I'm absent in my head in person [165:32] you try to have a really good [165:34] relationship you try to be as like like [165:37] I think you should in friendship and in [165:40] relationships you should try to identify [165:43] the things in yourself that the other [165:45] person may find challenging and you [165:47] should bring them up in advance [165:49] M right that is a very good way to build [165:54] deep quality friendships and [165:55] relationships so for example in startups [165:58] Michelle knew that about me so when we [166:01] had planned our wedding and we we were [166:03] doing a small you know um thing with you [166:06] know just basically Justice to the peace [166:09] and so forth we planned our wedding and [166:12] it was very early days of LinkedIn and I [166:15] came back home and I said we really need [166:17] to delay it [166:19] right we delayed it a couple weeks right [166:22] was like we really need to delay I'm [166:23] doing this thing at LinkedIn right now [166:24] we really need to have it I I don't have [166:26] time for that and Michelle didn't go ah [166:29] she went okay let's make it work because [166:33] I'd been clear with her about what the [166:34] startup Journey was like right I had [166:36] experience with it before and now [166:38] sometimes like we didn't know it before [166:39] but like look I'm really committed to [166:41] this and it's really important to me [166:42] that I do that well that should be kind [166:45] of life partner things did you let her [166:47] down a l uh I hope not in terms of [166:51] making a plan making a dat we had we had [166:54] multiple plans that got blown up right [166:59] and what about the dealing with the [167:00] stress when you come home something I've [167:01] always struggled with is if work is [167:03] stressful when I come home I can be [167:04] absent and then you have to transition [167:06] into this mode of partner but my head is [167:08] still thinking oh my God cash flow this [167:09] or whatever well occasionally that's one [167:11] of the things that Michelle go like you [167:14] know I think you're not being fully [167:16] present right like that's one of the one [167:19] of the kind of as it were key words [167:21] between us is I think you're not being [167:22] fully present and that's the stop [167:23] thinking about whatever else you're [167:24] doing and [167:26] focus okay and I'm yes we've had that [167:30] conversation more times than I can [167:32] probably remember and count and is it [167:34] easy just do uh you learn to really yes [167:38] you learn to because as you as you like [167:41] you have the okay what is that mean take [167:44] those other things push them off the [167:46] table Focus or by the way occasionally [167:49] you go you're right I'm really sorry I'm [167:53] just so distracted by this right now [167:55] would you mind if like like I'm fully [167:58] present tomorrow because a lot of [168:00] Founders would Gaslight their partner [168:01] there and say you don't understand you [168:02] don't get it I'm doing this for you this [168:04] is for us look you hate my work well if [168:09] you're having that conversation if the [168:11] person doesn't look the two people need [168:14] to believe in each other and what [168:15] they're doing if the person doesn't [168:17] believe in you and what you're doing [168:19] right you have a long-term [168:21] problem yeah and I guess the [168:23] communication is the very heart of that [168:25] right yes Reed we are all very excited [168:28] for your next book which you said it's [168:30] coming out in January January yeah end [168:32] of January it's a book called Super [168:33] agency what could possibly go right with [168:35] our AI future co-written with Greg bet [168:39] Bato [168:40] Bato what could possibly go right with [168:42] our AI future yes an optimistic take [168:45] about AI uh yes [168:49] why should someone in who should read [168:50] that book so anyone [168:55] who uh believes as I do the only way [168:58] that you can possibly get to an [169:00] optimistic future is envisioning what [169:03] some of the things are and head towards [169:04] it that you don't get to an optimistic [169:06] future by trying to avoid failure by [169:07] trying to avoid pessimism anyone who [169:10] says okay it's important for me to [169:13] understand that perspective about [169:14] AI they should read super agency we we [169:17] have a book blurb from yval Harari which [169:22] says this is a brilliant positive vision [169:25] of the future I disagree with some of [169:27] its main arguments and everyone should [169:29] read [169:29] it that's refreshing yes I'll link it [169:33] below for anyone that wants to pre-order [169:35] it um but I highly recommend everybody [169:36] goes and checks out your books which are [169:39] iconic because they've shaped the [169:40] thinking of Founders across the world [169:42] and if even if you're not a Founder the [169:43] startup of view is for everybody [169:45] regardless of what you're doing it helps [169:46] you navigate both building a business [169:47] but also just your cre generally and [169:50] also masters of scale which is an iconic [169:52] podcast that many of us listen to here [169:54] where you sit down with some of the [169:56] greatest founders of all time and [169:57] understand how they've scaled and built [169:58] their companies it's a podcast that I [170:00] Know Jack is a massive fan of and one of [170:02] the first podcasts they ever got [170:03] listening to as well highly recommend [170:05] that I also have the book there and I'll [170:06] link all of this stuff below Reed thank [170:09] you it's a pleasure I look forward to [170:11] the next one thank you so much it's been [170:12] such an honor and [170:14] I so so wonderful speaking to someone [170:16] that has such diverse [170:19] um contrarian at times opinions but is [170:21] willing to stand by them irrespective of [170:23] whether they are um believed or um [170:28] accepted or politically correct with the [170:31] dominant narrative at the moment yeah [170:33] and that comes from having such a wealth [170:35] of experience but being fundamentally [170:37] well intentioned I think so thank you [170:39] Reed for the time I really appreciate it [170:40] it's an honor to get to meet you thank [170:42] you and thanks for creating LinkedIn I [170:43] [ __ ] LinkedIn I think they sponsored [170:44] this podcast so oh awesome I I didn't [170:47] even know that oh really yeah they do [170:49] yeah so thank you so much appreciate [170:53] it isn't this cool every single [170:56] conversation I have here on the Diary of [170:57] a CEO at the very end of it you'll know [170:59] I asked the guest to leave a question in [171:03] the Diary of a CEO and what we've done [171:06] is we've turned every single question [171:07] written in the Diary of a CEO into these [171:10] conversation cards that you can play at [171:13] home so you've got every guest we've [171:15] ever had their question and on the back [171:18] of it if you scan that QR codee you get [171:21] to watch the person who answered that [171:24] question we're finally revealing all of [171:27] the questions and the people that [171:30] answered the question the brand new [171:32] version two updated conversation cards [171:35] are out right now at Theon conversation [171:38] cards.com they've sold out twice [171:40] instantaneously so if you are interested [171:41] in getting hold of some limited edition [171:43] conversation cards I really really [171:45] recommend acting quickly [171:48] a [171:50] [Music] [172:07] [Music]

Reid Hoffman Sees 50% Chance of Trump Retaliation Over Election Support

Detailed notes

[16:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=1004s) The Competitive Landscape and the Entrepreneurial Framework

[21:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=1265s) The "Marines, Army, Police" Model and the Infinite Learner

[25:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=1533s) Assessing Ideas: Consensus vs. Contrarian Ventures

[29:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=1762s) Real-World Contrarian Bets: LinkedIn and Airbnb

[33:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=1998s) Embracing Contrarian Ideas and the Early Days of LinkedIn

[38:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=2334s) The PayPal Mafia and the Genesis of Web 2.0

[42:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=2529s) The Art of Pitching and the "Fast Learning Curve" Hiring Strategy

[49:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=2985s) The Importance of Hiring "A Players" and Off-Balance Reference Calls

[54:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=3285s) Founder Archetypes: Aneel Bhusri vs. Elon Musk's Mars Pitch

[59:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=3557s) Differing Leadership Styles and the Reality of Startup Work-Life Balance

[01:06:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=3979s) Startup Intensity vs. Work-Life Balance

[01:08:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=4095s) Stepping Back as CEO of LinkedIn

[01:11:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=4315s) Life as a Multi-Billionaire

[01:13:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=4423s) Political Stance and Threat of Retaliation

[01:17:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=4677s) Trump's Potential Positives and Impact on Business

[01:21:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=4865s) Entrepreneurial Appointments in Government

[01:21:59](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=4919s) Freedom of Speech vs. Freedom of Reach

[01:24:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=5087s) Freedom of Speech on X vs. LinkedIn

[01:29:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=5383s) Historical Parallels and the Online Noise Problem

[01:32:49](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=5569s) The Future of Social Networking over the Next Decade

[01:37:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=5859s) LinkedIn Ads and B2B Decision Making

[01:38:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=5925s) The Philosophy of "Superagency" and AI as Amplification

[01:40:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=6058s) Historical Transitions, Societal Fear, and Global Competition

[01:44:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=6242s) Cognitive Savants vs. Artificial General Intelligence

[01:47:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=6424s) Defense, Malicious Use, and the Real Risks of AI

[01:51:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=6668s) Practical AI Adoption and Personal Experimentation

[01:53:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=6816s) Leveraging AI as a Thinking Partner

[01:55:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=6920s) The Current AI Boom as a Once-in-a-Generation Opportunity

[01:59:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=7163s) Technical Competence, Co-Founders, and the Importance of Speed

[02:01:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=7267s) Early Bet on OpenAI: Scale Computing Learning Systems

[02:02:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=7351s) Strategic Networking and Unappreciated Founder Traits

[02:06:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=7603s) Assessing Mindset, Executive References, and Deep Resilience

[02:10:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=7816s) Navigating Seasons of Life and the "Start-Up of You" Framework

[02:15:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=8102s) Evolving Life Stages, Marriage, and the Meaning of Happiness

[02:21:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=8468s) Blitzscaling: Global Competition and Market Dynamics

[02:26:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=8768s) The Strategic Mechanics of Blitzscaling and UK AI Ambitions

[02:29:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=8971s) Reframing Risk as Opportunity and ABZ Planning

[02:35:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=9310s) Inside LinkedIn’s 2004 Series B Deck and Modern Use Cases

[02:38:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=9506s) Life After CEO, Legacy, and the Unwritten Book on Friendship

[02:41:59](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=9719s) Working with Friends and Political Disagreements

[02:43:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=9782s) The Last Guest's Question: Relationships and Marriage

[02:45:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=9909s) Navigating Relationships During the Startup Grind

[02:48:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=10105s) Optimism and AI: *Superagency*

[02:50:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=10208s) Concluding Remarks and Final Thoughts

中文简报

Reading summary

精炼阅读摘要

Detailed notes — zh

Source quotes

Source quotes

Original transcript

[02:48:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkFItOG3Kk&t=10105s) Optimism and AI: Superagency