推薦語(yǔ)：

分享我這周在彭博社的采訪：不同于美國(guó)“贏家通吃”的寡頭模式，中國(guó)企業(yè)正以開(kāi)源生態(tài)實(shí)現(xiàn)“換道超車”，有望在AI的黃金十年引領(lǐng)應(yīng)用層創(chuàng)新。

以下內(nèi)容轉(zhuǎn)載自：

近日，零一萬(wàn)物CEO李開(kāi)復(fù)博士接受彭博社專訪，系統(tǒng)性闡釋了他對(duì)中美大模型發(fā)展路徑差異、商業(yè)模式演進(jìn)及未來(lái)技術(shù)趨勢(shì)的深度觀察。

他深度剖析了中美兩國(guó)在技術(shù)路線上的根本分歧——以O(shè)penAI為代表的美國(guó)路徑，正以豪賭式投入押注通用人工智能（AGI）的終極勝利；而中國(guó)模型公司則憑借開(kāi)源模式走出了一條迥異的“協(xié)同進(jìn)化”之路：依托開(kāi)源生態(tài)、強(qiáng)調(diào)平臺(tái)共建與應(yīng)用創(chuàng)新，在理性投入中尋求可持續(xù)增長(zhǎng)。

零一萬(wàn)物CEO李開(kāi)復(fù)博士

在李開(kāi)復(fù)博士看來(lái)，美國(guó)模型公司所選擇的路徑本質(zhì)上是一種“贏家通吃”的雄心壯志：一家公司率先研發(fā)出通用人工智能（AGI），然后碾壓其他公司，贏家通吃，最終獨(dú)攬數(shù)萬(wàn)億美元的利潤(rùn)。

科技巨頭豪賭式的投入也使得“泡沫論”甚囂塵上，李開(kāi)復(fù)博士明確指出：當(dāng)前市場(chǎng)議論的所謂“泡沫”，并非否定AI技術(shù)本身的顛覆性潛力，而是部分公司估值的上漲階段性地超前于商業(yè)化兌現(xiàn)的節(jié)奏。

對(duì)比之下，中國(guó)企業(yè)則更愿意通過(guò)開(kāi)源生態(tài)，進(jìn)行某種程度上的“合作”，集力構(gòu)建起強(qiáng)大的平臺(tái)，使得每個(gè)人都能從平臺(tái)的知識(shí)共享中受益。同時(shí)，他也清晰描繪了大模型初創(chuàng)公司在全球AI競(jìng)賽中的獨(dú)特優(yōu)勢(shì)與可持續(xù)發(fā)展的路徑。

在李開(kāi)復(fù)博士看來(lái)，大模型初創(chuàng)企業(yè)更務(wù)實(shí)的生態(tài)卡位是，依托科技巨頭的開(kāi)源基座模型，聚焦應(yīng)用層，避免陷入資源劣勢(shì)。以零一萬(wàn)物為例，李開(kāi)復(fù)博士表示，零一萬(wàn)物選擇基于全球頂尖開(kāi)源模型進(jìn)行繼續(xù)訓(xùn)練、模型微調(diào)與工程化落地，既保障企業(yè)客戶的數(shù)據(jù)主權(quán)與私有化部署需求，也能夠大幅壓縮研發(fā)成本。

但從基座模型到企業(yè)場(chǎng)景，并非“開(kāi)箱即用”。具備復(fù)雜任務(wù)規(guī)劃與執(zhí)行能力的AI Agent已經(jīng)成為企業(yè)最直接地從AI技術(shù)上獲得增長(zhǎng)價(jià)值的方式。具備復(fù)雜任務(wù)規(guī)劃與執(zhí)行能力的AI Agent，正成為企業(yè)實(shí)現(xiàn)AI價(jià)值轉(zhuǎn)化、驅(qū)動(dòng)業(yè)務(wù)增長(zhǎng)的關(guān)鍵路徑。

零一萬(wàn)物萬(wàn)智企業(yè)大模型一站式平臺(tái)上已推出企業(yè)級(jí)Agent“超級(jí)員工”，并搭配有開(kāi)發(fā)工具與配置平臺(tái)，支持企業(yè)快速定制專屬智能體。目前，零一萬(wàn)物萬(wàn)智平臺(tái)已匯聚政務(wù)、金融、工業(yè)（電力和制造業(yè)）、辦公、銷售等5大行業(yè)的30類“超級(jí)員工”，企業(yè)可實(shí)現(xiàn)AI Agent能力的快速接入和快速應(yīng)用。

萬(wàn)智企業(yè)大模型一站式平臺(tái)：b.01.ai

李開(kāi)復(fù)博士表示，AI Agent以大語(yǔ)言模型為“大腦”，搭配記憶能力與任務(wù)執(zhí)行能力，將帶來(lái)“基于結(jié)果”的商業(yè)模式再造，成為推動(dòng)企業(yè)智能化變革的核心力量。AI Agent的重要性不僅在于提升效率，更在于重構(gòu)組織形態(tài)乃至社會(huì)協(xié)作方式。未來(lái)的企業(yè)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)力，或?qū)⒉辉偃Q于人力規(guī)模，而在于其構(gòu)建、調(diào)度與進(jìn)化AI Agent網(wǎng)絡(luò)的能力。

以下為對(duì)話全文：

大模型領(lǐng)域存在“泡沫”？

開(kāi)源改變競(jìng)爭(zhēng)形態(tài)

彭博社：

過(guò)去三年間，您如何看待中國(guó)人工智能與美國(guó)人工智能的整體發(fā)展演進(jìn)？中國(guó)在人工智能領(lǐng)域具備哪些優(yōu)勢(shì)，又面臨哪些挑戰(zhàn)？

李開(kāi)復(fù)：首先，我對(duì)“美國(guó)AI領(lǐng)域存在嚴(yán)重泡沫”這一觀點(diǎn)持不同看法。以O(shè)penAI為例：其年收入約120億美元，年投入高達(dá)400億美元——表面看，財(cái)務(wù)損益表極不合理；但關(guān)鍵的一點(diǎn)在于，這400億美元中絕大部分屬于戰(zhàn)略性前置投入，用來(lái)支撐未來(lái)的收入增長(zhǎng)預(yù)期。如果你相信未來(lái)三年OpenAI的營(yíng)收能實(shí)現(xiàn)兩三倍甚至五倍的增長(zhǎng)，目前OpenAI的超高估值是否合理還沒(méi)法拍板定論，但這估值泡沫下肯定有某些實(shí)質(zhì)性的價(jià)值存在。

當(dāng)前市場(chǎng)議論的所謂“泡沫”，實(shí)際上并不是否定AI未來(lái)的增長(zhǎng)潛力，而是估值已經(jīng)階段性地超出了業(yè)績(jī)兌現(xiàn)的節(jié)奏。換句話來(lái)說(shuō)，我并不是說(shuō)當(dāng)前估值是完全合理的，但必須承認(rèn)：OpenAI的內(nèi)在價(jià)值是不容忽視的。

再來(lái)看中國(guó)人工智能領(lǐng)域，和美國(guó)人工智能發(fā)展至今的本質(zhì)區(qū)別在于閉源還是開(kāi)源。美國(guó)模型所選擇的路徑本質(zhì)上是一種“贏家通吃”的雄心壯志：一家公司率先研發(fā)出通用人工智能（AGI），然后碾壓其他公司，贏家通吃，最終獨(dú)攬數(shù)萬(wàn)億美元的利潤(rùn)。以O(shè)penAI、Anthropic、谷歌等為代表的頭部企業(yè)，都汲汲營(yíng)營(yíng)大手筆下注。這種邏輯很像一位年輕的天才篤信自己終將獲得諾貝爾獎(jiǎng)，孤注一擲地全力往前沖。

相較之下，中國(guó)更傾向于“協(xié)同進(jìn)化”：大家攜手合作，共享成果。所有人在競(jìng)爭(zhēng)中開(kāi)放共享，A借鑒B的思路，B學(xué)習(xí)C的長(zhǎng)處。這更像一群聰明而非“天才型”的學(xué)生組成了專題學(xué)習(xí)小組。

彭博社：

開(kāi)源是否是導(dǎo)致許多中國(guó)人工智能創(chuàng)業(yè)公司無(wú)法盈利的原因？

李開(kāi)復(fù)：當(dāng)前中美業(yè)界對(duì)人工智能有一項(xiàng)高度共識(shí)：人工智能將帶來(lái)人類歷史上最具顛覆性的技術(shù)革命。所以人們也愿意相信人工智能的商業(yè)化進(jìn)程終將到來(lái)。只是節(jié)奏有先后，美國(guó)率先啟動(dòng) AI巨大的商業(yè)化機(jī)會(huì)，中國(guó)將緊隨其后。因此，中國(guó)企業(yè)愿意投入通過(guò)開(kāi)源生態(tài)，進(jìn)行某種程度上的“合作”，集力構(gòu)建一個(gè)強(qiáng)大的平臺(tái)，那么每個(gè)人都能夠從平臺(tái)的知識(shí)共享中受益�；蛘撸绻渲杏幸患夜久摲f而出，那么它就有機(jī)會(huì)成為下一個(gè)偉大的公司。所以，人們樂(lè)觀地相信人工智能正在改變世界。在當(dāng)前的AI模型競(jìng)爭(zhēng)范式中，閉源模型的信念是，一家公司最終會(huì)碾壓其他所有公司。而開(kāi)源模式則像是，“先把路修起來(lái)，再看誰(shuí)跑得最快。”

彭博社：

開(kāi)源模式是否在某種程度上改變了企業(yè)的競(jìng)爭(zhēng)形態(tài)？——就像在課堂上，學(xué)生不需要從頭解題，而是參考最優(yōu)解法，在此基礎(chǔ)上進(jìn)一步優(yōu)化與拓展。

李開(kāi)復(fù)：這恰恰是我所在的零一萬(wàn)物的商業(yè)模式。我們已全面轉(zhuǎn)向“基于開(kāi)源做創(chuàng)新”：誰(shuí)的模型最優(yōu)，我們就用誰(shuí)的；無(wú)論是深度求索（DeepSeek）還是通義千問(wèn)（Qwen），我們一視同仁、完全中立。某種程度上，我們的處境與英偉達(dá)（NVIDIA）很相似。當(dāng)然，英偉達(dá)的處境要好得多，但核心邏輯一致：我們不押注任何一家勝出，只關(guān)注開(kāi)源生態(tài)能否持續(xù)向前推進(jìn)。

這種模式的優(yōu)勢(shì)顯而易見(jiàn)：開(kāi)源模型近乎零成本，我們?cè)诖嘶A(chǔ)上進(jìn)行應(yīng)用開(kāi)發(fā)的成本會(huì)低很多。另外，我們可以自由地獲取、改造這些開(kāi)源模型。對(duì)企業(yè)用戶而言，價(jià)值更為直接：他們可以將模型私有化部署，全程本地化部署運(yùn)行；如果存在不適合上傳云端的保密數(shù)據(jù)，企業(yè)也可以遵從自定義的規(guī)范，把模型自主權(quán)掌握在手中。

相較于美國(guó)“贏家通吃”

更看好中國(guó)協(xié)同創(chuàng)新

彭博社：

但創(chuàng)新終究需要有人買(mǎi)單——那么，誰(shuí)來(lái)承擔(dān)？不妨以O(shè)penAI為例，資本開(kāi)支就高達(dá)萬(wàn)億元量級(jí)，各方仍期待OpenAI能夠探索出如何解決這么高的成本負(fù)擔(dān)。長(zhǎng)期來(lái)看，OpenAI需要解決如何收回前期巨額投入的難題。在中國(guó)的情況完全不同。由于模型是開(kāi)源的，無(wú)需付費(fèi)，那么技術(shù)創(chuàng)新要如何募集資金？又該如何向投資者證明他們的投資會(huì)有合理的回報(bào)？

李開(kāi)復(fù)：實(shí)際上，我更看好中國(guó)模式。雖然阿里巴巴、字節(jié)跳動(dòng)、百度等企業(yè)投入巨大，但它們?cè)敢獬掷m(xù)注資，因?yàn)锳I對(duì)其核心業(yè)務(wù)具有戰(zhàn)略意義，無(wú)論是電商、搜索還是社交方面。

這些企業(yè)的管理者都是聰明的商人，懂得平衡之道。目前它們的投入規(guī)模與OpenAI相比只是九牛一毛。OpenAI的燒錢(qián)策略是一場(chǎng)高風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的豪賭，賭的是贏家通吃的野心。而中國(guó)巨頭們則采取更審慎的投入策略：它們會(huì)通盤(pán)考量整體財(cái)務(wù)狀況，確保交出穩(wěn)健的業(yè)績(jī)報(bào)表。我們目前還沒(méi)有見(jiàn)到這些企業(yè)報(bào)告出現(xiàn)巨額虧損。

因此，對(duì)財(cái)務(wù)投資者而言，中國(guó)模式顯然風(fēng)險(xiǎn)是更可控的。美國(guó)市場(chǎng)追捧贏家通吃法則，投資者必須押注個(gè)別贏家，這意味著要么賺得盆滿缽滿，要么輸?shù)靡粩⊥康亍?/p>

彭博社：

您如何看待中國(guó)AI領(lǐng)域的發(fā)展格局？資金雄厚的阿里、字節(jié)等科技巨頭中，誰(shuí)有足夠的財(cái)力繼續(xù)進(jìn)行這場(chǎng)人工智能競(jìng)賽？它們與MiniMax、月之暗面（Moonshot）等新興大模型初創(chuàng)公司相比，競(jìng)爭(zhēng)優(yōu)勢(shì)究竟如何？

李開(kāi)復(fù)：我欣賞那些選擇參與模型競(jìng)爭(zhēng)的初創(chuàng)企業(yè)的勇氣。我認(rèn)為對(duì)初創(chuàng)企業(yè)來(lái)說(shuō)更務(wù)實(shí)的選擇是，依托科技巨頭的基座模型，專注于開(kāi)發(fā)應(yīng)用，面向企業(yè)端或是面向消費(fèi)者端都會(huì)有機(jī)會(huì)。畢竟現(xiàn)階段，中國(guó)初創(chuàng)企業(yè)很難像OpenAI那樣募集巨額資金，甚至連其十分之一的規(guī)模都難以企及。在資金受限的情況下，企業(yè)發(fā)展必然面臨挑戰(zhàn)。雖然中國(guó)初創(chuàng)企業(yè)和科技巨頭都擁有優(yōu)秀人才，但兩者之間存在著資金投入的差距、人才規(guī)模與密度的差距，初創(chuàng)企業(yè)若想自主攻堅(jiān)基礎(chǔ)模型，將會(huì)面臨一場(chǎng)艱辛的征程。

彭博社：

DeepSeek的崛起，我們或許可以總結(jié)為“兩個(gè)關(guān)鍵時(shí)刻”，今年1月它真正進(jìn)入了全球視野，而實(shí)際上早在去年此時(shí)，業(yè)界就已開(kāi)始討論DeepSeek。作為業(yè)內(nèi)深度參與者，大家現(xiàn)在更關(guān)心的是：下一個(gè)突破點(diǎn)將會(huì)是什么？當(dāng)前正在孕育哪些重要?jiǎng)?chuàng)新？面對(duì)即將到來(lái)的2026年，我們應(yīng)該做好哪些準(zhǔn)備？

李開(kāi)復(fù)：我認(rèn)為在基礎(chǔ)大模型領(lǐng)域，美國(guó)確實(shí)處于領(lǐng)先地位。但中國(guó)正在迅速借鑒美國(guó)的先進(jìn)成果，同時(shí)融入自身優(yōu)勢(shì)，目前差距大約保持在三到六個(gè)月。這個(gè)判斷我堅(jiān)持了一年半，至今依然成立。

在我看來(lái)，中國(guó)要孕育出真正重塑全球技術(shù)范式的重大突破，仍需時(shí)間積累。目前更可能誕生的是讓人眼睛一亮的創(chuàng)新消費(fèi)級(jí)應(yīng)用，最具潛力的當(dāng)屬硬件領(lǐng)域：比如一家名為Plaud的企業(yè)，其開(kāi)發(fā)的AI裝置能持續(xù)感知，自動(dòng)生成會(huì)議紀(jì)要、規(guī)劃待辦事項(xiàng)并發(fā)送個(gè)性化提醒。這僅僅是個(gè)開(kāi)始，在中國(guó)智造的基礎(chǔ)上，這類智能硬件的性價(jià)比優(yōu)勢(shì)顯著，迭代速度更快，產(chǎn)品形態(tài)也日益精巧。

正如我們之前討論過(guò)的，中國(guó)風(fēng)投對(duì)大語(yǔ)言模型投資確實(shí)持審慎態(tài)度，但正全力押注硬件方向，包括我所創(chuàng)立的創(chuàng)新工場(chǎng)也在積極布局。當(dāng)人們談?wù)撚布䲡r(shí)，往往首先想到機(jī)器人，特別是人形機(jī)器人，但這些領(lǐng)域目前存在估值過(guò)高的問(wèn)題。相比之下，投資輕巧的智能硬件顯然更為明智。

當(dāng)這波人工智能顛覆邁進(jìn)下一個(gè)階段，我們會(huì)發(fā)現(xiàn)手機(jī)不再是AI的最佳載體。無(wú)論是智能眼鏡、手表、手環(huán)、微型項(xiàng)鏈乃至近乎隱形的微小設(shè)備，都可能成為新終端。因?yàn)锳I的首要特性是持續(xù)在線、隨時(shí)感知、實(shí)時(shí)思考，它將成為你的智能外接硬盤(pán)，完整記錄所見(jiàn)所為。當(dāng)然，您可能接著會(huì)提到隱私議題，那得單獨(dú)探討了。

彭博社：

這有點(diǎn)“細(xì)思極恐”啊。

李開(kāi)復(fù)：也許我的設(shè)備已經(jīng)在聽(tīng)你的每句話了。（笑）

彭博社：

我的天哈哈哈哈。

彭博社：

最近AI智能體確實(shí)成了熱議焦點(diǎn)。您能否詳細(xì)談?wù)勥@股熱潮背后的原因？據(jù)您判斷，這類技術(shù)距離真正成為主流還需要多久，特別是針對(duì)企業(yè)應(yīng)用？

李開(kāi)復(fù)：智能體其實(shí)已經(jīng)真實(shí)存在，只是尚未普及。它的底層依托于大語(yǔ)言模型，大語(yǔ)言模型就像是“大腦”，并且甚至可能是多個(gè)各司其職的專用模型協(xié)同工作。但智能體最核心的是兩大支撐要素：首先是記憶能力。它能記住你的職業(yè)背景、行為軌跡、企業(yè)信息和規(guī)章制度，這使得它能針對(duì)行業(yè)特性提供服務(wù)，而不是像通用聊天機(jī)器人那樣泛泛而談。但更關(guān)鍵的是任務(wù)執(zhí)行能力，它不再僅僅為你生成旅行計(jì)劃，而是直接完成機(jī)票酒店的預(yù)訂執(zhí)行；不再停留于戰(zhàn)略建議層面，而是直接落地實(shí)施；它不僅僅是提供廣告策略建議，AI就能直接完成廣告投放的工作流。

本文摘編翻譯自彭博社

Bloomberg China Show：

Q:

In the last three years though, how have you looked at this whole evolution of China AI versus the US? And what are the advantages and challenges for China AI?

A:So firstly, I disagree on the prospects of the U.S. AI because you look at OpenAI, it's making 12 billion, spending 40 billion. Looks like a bad balance sheet, but most of that 40 billion is spent for future revenues. And if you believe there are 2 x, 3 x, 5 x growth for the next three years, it's going to justify that valuation at some point. The bubble is merely that it's gotten ahead of itself, not the likelihood of growth in the future. Not saying it's worth its price. But there's absolute substance is under the foam.

Now back to the China AI, the fundamental difference is actually closed source versus open source. Yes, the US model is necessarily propelled by this ambition and dream of one company reaching AGI first and squashing everyone. Winner take all, worth trillions of dollars. That's what OpenAI, Anthropic, Google and others are betting on. And it's like a genius kid who thinks he or she will win the Nobel Prize. The China approach is -- hey, let's all work together and share. We compete, but let's open source our models. So A learns from B, B learns from C. It's more like a study group of smart kids, maybe not geniuses.

Q:

Is the open source a reason why a lot of these Chinese AI startups can not monetize?

A:Well, I think there's a common belief in US and China that AI is the most important technological revolution ever. There is a belief that this monetization will happen. It's happening first in the US, and it will happen later in China. So there is a bet that if all of China kind of pseudo collaborates through open source, then builds a great platform, then everyone can benefit because the knowledge of the platform. Or if one company comes out ahead, there's a chance to leap ahead and be the next great company as well. So there's tremendous optimism that AI is changing the world. With these models, the closed-source approach is a belief that one company will squash everyone else. And the open source is like, 'Hey, let’s share for now, and we’ll see what happens.'

Q:

Has the open source model in some ways discouraged competition? Because I simply have to look across the classroom and see who has the best answer and simply build on that classmate.

A:Well, that is the business of my company 01.AI. We've pivoted ourselves to build on open source. Whoever has the best model, we will use it. If it's DeepSeek or Qwen, we are agnostic. So we're in a position not so dissimilar from Nvidia. Obviously, Nvidia is much better, but they don't care who wins. We don't care either. We only care that open source moves forward. And it's benefits are that open source is free. It's much much lower cost when it's basically free and we can build on it. We take it, we do whatever we want. And also enterprises, they can take the model in-house, run everything in-house. If they have secret data they don't want to send it to the cloud, well, they don't have to.

Q:

But someone needs to pay for the innovation though. Who? I'll just take the OpenAI example, but you know, there's a complete difference in the Chinese context. Well, you have capex of 1 trillion and people are trying to figure out how are they gonna pay for that. And then people, to your point, longer term, will then have to worry about how they're gonna pay for that. In China's case, when you don't have to pay for it, where it's open source. How is the innovation getting funded? And how do you justify to those asset allocators that they will get a return for their investment?

A:Well, I actually like the Chinese model better. While the likes of Alibaba, ByteDance, Baidu they're paying a lot of money, they're willing to subsidize because it's fundamental to their core business, whether it's e-commerce or search or a social.

And I think they're smart business people. They'll do the balancing. They'll start spending a tiny fraction of the OpenAI spending. Now, the OpenAI's spending is a big bet with big return. It's betting that it will win. Whereas I think Alibaba, Baidu, Tencent, ByteDance, if they're spending more prudently, which they are, they will be able to look at the whole balance sheet and deliver a reasonable result. We don't see any of these people reporting huge losses.

So I think the Chinese model is more prudent for a financial investor. The US is a winner take all, so you pick your winner. If you win, you win big. If you lose, you lose big.

Q:

How do you see it though play out in China? Whether you have the big AI giants like Alibaba, ByteDance, who have the deep pockets to continue on with this sort of AI war in China? How do they stack up against some of these startups like MiniMax or Moonshot?

A:Well, I admire the courage of the smaller companies who choose to compete. I feel that it's more prudent for a smaller company to build either applications or either enterprise or consumer and betting on the fundamental foundation models of the big companies. Because I don't think it's very likely that any startup can raise money the way OpenAI does or even one tenth of OpenAI. And with that, with less money, it is going to be difficult. The talents are obviously very good in the Chinese startups as well as the large companies. But the lack of spending and the lack of huge number of talent and talent density make it an uphill struggle for the startups that try to do that.

Q:

The DeepSeek moment, well, let's call it two moments, right? Because the January moment this year was where it became public to the world. Although it was this time last year where people had started to already talk about DeepSeek, and I want, people are now looking for what's the next one you're connected to and where connected into the industry. What innovations are taking place right now? What should we be prepared for going into next year?

A:Well, I think in terms of the fundamental foundation models, the US is head. But China is very rapidly figuring out the great things US is doing, plus a few of its own good things to basically trail by three to six months. I've been saying this for a year and a half, and it still remains the case.

So I don't think there's gonna be a huge break-out change the world technology in China. That's not likely. What is more likely is that there may be great consumer apps. And what's even much much more likely is Chinese hardware. There's a company called Plaud. It is basically an ambient AI that listens all the time and gives you summaries of all the meetings, tells you what to do, and gives you reminders. And that's just the beginning. That is so much cheaper to build in China, and it's iterated much faster and it's getting smaller.

And I think the Chinese VCs are hesitant to invest in large language models for the reasons we discussed. But they are going all out, including my own Sinovation Ventures, are betting on hardware. When people talk hardware, people think always embodied robotics and humanoid robots. But those are also a bit overpriced. It's much more prudent to invest in small devices.

Because when AI revolution moves forward at the next step, we will see that the best place, the best device on which to use AI is not the phone. Whether it is a glasses or watch or wristband or a little necklace or almost invisible, are all possible. Because AI first means it's always on, always listening, always thinking and it's your external hard drive that’s smart and remembers everything you see and did. I know you're gonna talk about privacy, I know, but that's a separate discussion.

Q:

It gets a bit creepy.

A:I might be listening to you now.

Q:

My goodness, hahaha.

Q:

There's a lot of talks about AI agents. Can you tell us more what's all the buzz around it and how long before it becomes pretty mainstream, when it comes to enterprises?

A:It's real already, but it's not yet mainstream. An agent is built on the larger language model. The large language model is the brain. And there may be multiple large language models, each doing special things. But the two most important things wrap around it. One is memory. It knows who you are, what you did, who's your company, what your policies are. So it's relevant to what you do as opposed to a general chatbot. But the other even bigger thing is that it executes tasks. So instead of giving you a travel itinerary, it gets the travel booked, your airline, your hotel, instead of suggesting what's the strategy, it starts executing. Your ads are placed as opposed to suggesting what ads you might do.