87 min 2026-05
Why cultivating agency matters more than cultivating skills in the AI era | Max Schoening (Notion)
概要
Notion产品负责人Max Schoening谈AI时代Agency比技能更重要、Malleable Software愿景、伟大产品的Tiny Core法则、以及模型智能达到够用后速度比更聪明更有价值
核心洞察
- 「模型极大主义」是 OpenAI 核心产品哲学:不为当前模型局限搭建过多脚手架,因为两个月后新模型会碾压现有限制——开发者应在能力边缘持续构建
- 写 Evals 正在成为产品经理的核心技能:模型在不同任务上的正确率从 60% 到 99.5% 不等,产品形态完全取决于你对这个数字的精确度量
- 未来每个产品团队都需要"准研究员":Fine-tuning + 模型集成(ensemble)是 OpenAI 内部标准做法,用 20 个不同模型调用解决 10 个问题
- Chat 作为 AI 界面被低估了:它是唯一能承载人类语言全部复杂性的无限制通信媒介,和 LLM 能力天然匹配
- OpenAI 400M WAU 仅约 30-40 名客服:大量流程自动化,用 fine-tuned 模型做分级应答,人类只处理模型没有信心的工单
ImageGen 内部爆火是产品信号:如果社交产品内部不疯传,要质疑方向
- ImageGen 上线前内部画廊让全公司自发玩了数月,持续 buzz 不断——与 Instagram Stories 内部测试时的体验一致
- Ghibli 风格走红并非官方 seed,而是模型极强的指令跟随能力 + 用户自发发现
- 模型实际能力远超风格化:可输入两张图片(客厅 + 物品照),要求模型「把这个放那边、那个放右边」,模型能理解复杂空间指令
每两个月计算机能做到前所未有之事——OpenAI 与传统公司的根本区别
- Twitter/Instagram/Planet 时代:底层技术(数据库等)一年进步 5%,产品经理思考的是用户问题
- OpenAI 时代:每两个月出现全新能力,需要彻底重新思考产品方向——这是根本性差异
- GPT-3 如果今天回看会觉得「垃圾」,但两年前让人惊叹——适应速度极快,如同坐 Waymo 10 分钟后开始无聊刷邮件
- 「你今天用的 AI 模型是你余生中最差的 AI 模型」——将此内化后,一切计划都不同
Evals 是产品开发的必修课:模型 60% 准确率与 99.5% 是完全不同的产品
- Eval 本质是「给模型出的考试」,衡量模型在特定任务上的能力水平
- Deep Research 产品开发过程中,同步设计 evals + 产品形态 + fine-tuning,形成飞轮:eval 上升 → 确认产品可行
- 模型智能是多维的:competitive coding ≠ front-end coding ≠ COBOL 转 Python——不能用单一 eval 衡量
- AI 产品的能力上限受制于 evals 质量:如果不知道怎么衡量,就不知道模型在哪里好、哪里差
Fine-tuning 使用率之低令人惊讶——但这是确定性的未来
- OpenAI 内部标准做法:10 个问题用 20 个模型调用解决,包括不同大小模型(延迟/成本权衡)、专用 fine-tuned 模型、定制 prompt
- 400M+ WAU 客服场景:大部分用自动化模型应答,模型无信心时推给人类,人类的回答反过来成为 fine-tuning 数据
- 客服团队仅 30-40 人,远小于同体量任何公司——自动化率极高
- Kevin 的类比:公司就是一个 model ensemble——每个人在大学和职业中被 fine-tuned 为不同技能,组合在一起产出远超个体
- 对行业的建议:别用通用模型扔宽泛问题,要拆解为具体子任务,每个用专用模型解决,再集成
OpenAI 不会吃掉所有市场——3M 开发者战略与垂直机会
- Ev Williams 在 Twitter 时的名言:「无论公司多大,墙外的聪明人永远多于墙内」
- OpenAI 明确不想变成超大公司:大量行业/垂直场景需要公司特有数据和领域知识,这些不在训练集中
- 3M+ 开发者使用 API,OpenAI 乐于做基础设施而非亲自做每个应用
- 关键洞察:「大部分世界的数据、知识、流程不是公开的——在公司或政府的围墙之后」
迭代部署哲学:不等完美,在公众面前共同进化
- 核心原则:与其在内部憋到完美,不如早发布、快迭代,与社会共同学习模型能力边界
- 不设 launch gate 卡发布:不会因为等 Kevin 或 Sam review 而 block 发布
- 命名混乱(o3 mini high 等)被承认「atrocious」,但证明「不重要」——ChatGPT 照样是增长最快的产品
- 季度 roadmap 的 Eisenhower 原则:「Plans are useless, planning is helpful」——写了也知道三个月后会扔掉一半
模型极大主义:不为今天的限制建脚手架,信任下一代模型
- 定义:模型会犯错,但不花大量时间给非关键错误搭 scaffolding——两个月后新模型会解决
- 对开发者的建议:如果你的产品刚好卡在模型能力边缘——继续做,你方向对了;再等两个月模型就跟上了
- StackBlitz(Bolt)案例:7 年 behind-the-scenes 开发一直失败,Claude Sonnet 3.5 发布后一切突然 work——验证了模型极大主义
- Kevin 坦承 Anthropic 的 coding model 很强:「kudos to Anthropic,we think we can do the same」——也许播客发布时会有更多进展
Reasoning 模型的 UX 设计:像人一样思考等待体验
- 25 秒等待的困境:太长不能让用户干等,太短不值得切换到其他事——怎么设计?
- 答案来自人类类比:人被问难题不会沉默 20 秒,会说「好问题,让我想想」然后给小更新
- 首版只给子标题,DeepSeek 给全部思维链——OpenAI 选择中间路线:1-2 句总结,兼顾信息量和体验
- Deep Research 的 25 分钟等待反而不难:用户自然会去做别的事再回来
Chat 是被低估的终极 AI 界面
- Kevin 的非共识观点:「大多数人认为 chat 会被更好的界面取代,我认为 chat 就是最好的界面」
- 原因:Chat 是人类最低限制的通信方式——任何更结构化的界面都限制了表达范围
- 过去 chat 不 work 是因为没有模型能理解语言复杂性——LLM 是第一次让 chat 变得有意义
- 不是「只有 chat」:高频、规范化场景可以用更受限的专用界面——但 chat 应作为所有场景的兜底
Vibe Coding:OpenAI CPO 都应该带头做原型
- Kevin 自我批评:如果五年前的自己穿越到今天的工作日,仍然能认出来——说明 AI 融入度不够
- 应该做的:用 30 分钟 vibe code 出 demo 取代 Figma 稿展示概念
- OpenAI CPO Julia(HR 负责人)用 Windsurf 自己 vibe coded 一个内部工具——「如果她能做到,我们没有借口」
- Vibe coding 定义(Andrej Karpathy 造词):让模型持续写代码,tap-tap-tap 接受建议,报错就贴 error 让模型修——不追求生产级但极快出概念
产品团队结构:PM-light + 高 Agency 工程师 + 研究员嵌入
- OpenAI 仅约 25 名 PM——刻意保持少量,「太多 PM 导致满世界 deck 和 idea 而非执行」
- 理想状态:每个 PM 负责「略多」工程师 → 无暇微管理 → 工程师被迫有主人翁意识
- 研究与产品的融合:不能只做「自己模型的 API 消费者」,最好的产品是 Eng + PM + Design + Research 一起做
- PM 招人标准:高 Agency、适应模糊性、通过影响力领导(非汇报关系)、高 EQ(与研究团队建立 rapport)
- PM 最重要的事:在没人做决策时确保决策被做出——类比 CEO 的角色
AI 时代的教育与技能:教孩子好奇心和独立思考
- Kevin 三个孩子(10 岁 + 8 岁双胞胎)完全 AI native:自动驾驶和 ChatGPT 对话对他们是常态
- 不确定 coding 未来是否仍重要,但确定好奇心、独立性、自信、学会思考在任何未来配置下都重要
- 个性化 AI 辅导是「AI 能做的最重要的事之一」:所有研究显示一对一辅导带来数个标准差的学习提升
- 现状令人惊讶:ChatGPT 免费、模型够好、Android 遍布全球——为什么还没有 20 亿儿童在用的 AI 辅导产品?
Libra(Facebook 加密货币):职业生涯最大遗憾
- 问题:跨境汇款手续费高达 20%、耗时数天——WhatsApp 30 亿用户为何不能像发短信一样免费即时转账?
- 失败原因:同时推太多新东西(新区块链 + 一篮子货币 + WhatsApp/Messenger 整合),且赶上 Facebook 声誉最低点
- Kevin 的反思:应该一步步引入变化,而非一次性颠覆
- 技术遗产:开源代码被 Aptos 和 Mistin 继承并运作良好
- 现在的想法:当前政府对 crypto 友好、Meta 声誉恢复——「Maybe they should go build it now」
模型能力以 10x/年加速——远超摩尔定律
- GPT-3.5 到 GPT-4o mini:API 成本下降 100 倍,智能大幅提升——两年内两个数量级
- O 系列 reasoning 模型每 3-4 个月出新版,每版能力阶梯式提升
- 四重趋势同时发生:更聪明、更快、更便宜、更安全(hallucination 每代下降)
- 摩尔定律是 18 个月翻倍;AI 是每年 10 倍——指数陡峭得多
- 对未来的判断:几年后回看今天就像今天回看 GPT-3——无法想象
闪电问答:持续好的工作 > 银弹
- 推荐书:《Co-Intelligence》(Ethan Mollick)、《The Accidental Superpower》(Peter Zeihan)、《Cable Cowboy》(John Malone 传记)
- 人生哲学(Zuckerberg 语):「Sometimes it's not any one thing, it's just good work consistently over a long period of time」
- Prompting 建议:提供 few-shot examples(穷人版 fine-tuning);角色设定(「You are the world's greatest marketer」)
- Kevin 的长期目标:消灭 prompt engineering 的必要性——如果 AI 要真正普及,用户不该需要学这个
- 最爱产品:Windsurf(vibe coding)和 Waymo(每次都坐)
中文翻译 English Original
**Lenny:** 以前人们很容易说,我永远做不了这件事,因为——某个技能缺陷。而现在我们意识到,即使技能唾手可得,真正重要的是能动性(agency)。我不认为能动性在世界上是均匀分布的。
**Lenny:** Before it was very easy to always say, well, I will never be able to do this because insert skill issue. We're realizing that even if you have the skills at your fingertips, the thing that matters is agency. I don't think agency is very evenly distributed in the world.
**Max:** 你有没有什么建议给想要培养这种特质的人?
**Max:** Do you have a piece of advice for someone that wants to develop this within themselves?
**Lenny:** 我也会对自己说这句话。你能不能像开赃车一样驾驭 Notion?有一天你醒来,发现这个世界是由并不比你聪明的人创造的。这真的会唤醒你——你完全可以改变事物。
**Lenny:** I tell this to myself. Could you drive notion like it's stolen? One day you wake up and you realize the world is made up by people no smarter than you. It just really awakens you to the idea that you can just change things.
**Lenny:** 如果你想想几年前的工作,变化最大的是什么?
**Lenny:** If you think about your job a couple years ago, what's most changed?
**Max:** 每个项目的前 10% 现在是免费的。构建一个创业项目的第一个版本几乎不费什么力气。
**Max:** The first 10% of every project are now free. It takes almost no effort to now build the first version of a startup.
**Lenny:** 品味(taste)这个词现在被频繁提起。
**Lenny:** Taste comes up a lot now.
**Max:** 品味实际上意味着你能在脑子里运行一个虚拟机(virtual machine),给定一个想法,你能预测某个目标群体是否会喜欢它。你只需要不断重复练习。这几乎就像训练一个模型。
**Max:** Taste actually means you're able to run a virtual machine in your head where given an idea, you can predict for a certain inroup whether they're going to like it or not. You just have to do reps. It's almost like training a model.
**Lenny:** 你认为构建一款成功产品最重要的是什么?
**Lenny:** What do you think matters to building a successful product?
**Max:** 所有伟大的产品都有一个极小的超能力核心(tiny core)。一个小到极致却异常出色的核心。最大的陷阱之一就是陷入"只要再加一个功能,产品就终于好了"的循环。这永远行不通。
**Max:** All the great products have something tiny that is a superpower. one tiny core that is so exceptionally good. One of the biggest pitfalls is if you get into the loop of if I just add one more thing to the product, it will be finally great. That never works.
**Lenny:** 来聊聊你对全民基本收入(UBI)的辛辣观点。
**Lenny:** Give this hot take on universal basic income.
**Max:** 我们已经有全民基本收入了。它叫做知识工作。
**Max:** We already have universal basic income. It's called knowledge work. Today my guest is Max Shying. Max is a hard person to describe. He was a product manager at Google. He ran the design team at Heroku. He was a design leader and an engineer at GitHub under Natt Freriedman. He's also a two-time founder and is now head of product at Notion. He is one of the most successful AI forward product leaders out there and as you'll soon see, one of the deepest thinkers on how AI impacts how we build and how we use software.
**Lenny:** 今天的嘉宾是 Max Schoening。Max 是一个很难用一句话描述的人。他曾是 Google 的产品经理,在 Heroku 领导设计团队,是 Nat Friedman 麾下 GitHub 的设计领导和工程师。他还是两次创业者,现在是 Notion 的产品负责人(Head of Product)。他是最成功的 AI 先锋产品领导者之一,正如你即将看到的,他对 AI 如何影响我们构建和使用软件有着最深刻的思考。在我们开始之前,别忘了去 lennisproass.com 看看,那里有一系列专属于 Lenny's Newsletter 订阅者的超值优惠。接下来,有请 Max Schoening。Max,欢迎来到播客。
**Lenny:** Before we get into it, don't forget to check out lennisproass.com for an insane set of deals available exclusively to Lenny's newsletter subscribers. With that, I bring you Max Shing. Max, welcome to the podcast.
**Max:** 感谢邀请。
**Max:** Thank you for having me.
**Lenny:** 我太兴奋能请你来了。我一想到你上这个播客,就会想到一句话——来自《圣经》。我来意译一下:"我生来就是为了这样的时刻。"我觉得现在到处都在说角色融合,设计师变成 PM,工程师,所有人都差不多了,维恩图在塌缩。而你很早就是这样的人了。甚至很难描述你是什么、你做过什么。你什么都做过。所以我觉得你对未来走向有非常独特的洞察。我想先问一个宽泛的问题。随着 AI 变得更强大,我们把它更多地融入工作流,你看到产品团队和产品构建正在往哪个方向走?我问你这个是因为我从很多 Notion 的人那里听说,是你推动设计师写代码、PM 写代码。你不只是活在未来,你是在推动整个团队和公司活在未来。回到这个问题——你看到了什么趋势?未来几个月、几年人们会意识到什么?你已经看到了什么?
**Lenny:** I am so excited to have you here. I feel like there's this quote I think about when I think about you uh and you being on this podcast. It comes from the Bible. And just paraphrasing, the quote is, "I was made for such a time as this." I feel like there's this all this talk about roles merging, designers becoming PMs, engineers, everyone's the same. The ven diagrams collapsing. You've been that for a long time. It's like hard to even describe what you are and what you've done. You've done all the things. So, I feel like you have such a unique insight into where things are heading. I want to start with just kind of this broad question. What have you seen about where things are going for product teams, for product building, as AI becomes more powerful, as we integrate it more into our workflows? And I ask you this because I've heard from so many people at Notion that you are the reason that designers are shipping code, PMs are shipping code. You're not just living in the future, you're like pushing the whole team and company to live in the future. And so, so coming back to the question just like what are you seeing about where things are going? What will change? What will people realize in the next few months, years that you're already seeing?
**Max:** 首先,你说《圣经》里的一句话时,我很好奇你接下来要说什么。
**Max:** Well, first of all, when you said a quote from the Bible, I was I was very curious where this was going to
**Lenny:** 这是我第一次在播客上引用《圣经》。
**Lenny:** It's the first time I've coded the Bible on this podcast. I think I wouldn't take credit for the designers at notion and PMs at notion now code. I think that would have probably happened anyways.
**Max:** 我觉得设计师和 PM 现在写代码这件事,我不该揽功。这可能本来就会发生。但我可以告诉你它的起源故事。当我加入 Notion 时,我们在构建很多聊天界面,我们在 Figma 里设计这些聊天界面。有一个 Brett Victor 的精彩演讲叫"Stop Drawing Dead Fish"(别再画死鱼了),核心意思就是——聊天的静态图就是那条死鱼。你必须在一定程度上去感受 AI。所以我和两位设计师一起,搭建了一个你能想到的最简陋的 playground——一个小型代码库,对 LLM 非常友好,使用了 LLM 擅长的工具。然后我们把所有聊天界面的原型工作都迁移到了那里。
**Max:** But I can tell you the origin story of it which is when I joined notion we were building a lot of chat interfaces and we were designing the chat interfaces in Figma and my there's this great talk by Brett Victor uh stop drawing dead fish which essentially is I I mean the the static image of a chat is basically the dead fish here. uh you have to feel the the AI to some degree.
**Lenny:** 帮我理解一下这个 playground 概念——本质上就是让人们在一个独立的小区域里用 AI 工具工作,而不是直接面对整个 Notion 代码库,这样上手就容易多了,可以轻松尝试。
**Lenny:** And so, uh, two designers, myself, just put together the worst possible playground you could think of of a small codebase that is very LLM friendly, used the tools that LLMs are very good at using. And then we moved all of our prototyping for the specifically the chat interfaces to that. And just to understand this playground concept, uh, essentially this is an idea of people work within this separate kind of area with AI tools versus like their whole notion code base making it really easy to get started and try stuff.
**Max:** 对。那是第一个版本。它和当时的模型能力是匹配的。Notion 的主代码库不总是对 agent 最友好的——经过十年的迭代和模式积累嘛。所以我们优化的方向是:怎么让这件事最不吓人、最容易一次搞定——人们只需要克服对终端的恐惧,然后就变成了聊天。我们在那个 playground 里重新搭建了一堆模式和 UI。好消息是,这只是让人们上了跑步机。随着模型能力变强,现在那些设计师和 PM 也在往生产代码库贡献了——程度当然小一些,但你能看到趋势方向。随着模型能力提升,能完成的工作量显然会指数级增长。
---
**[广告:Work OS]**
这期节目由我们本季的冠名赞助商 Work OS 呈现。OpenAI、Anthropic、Cursor、Vercel、Replit、Sierra、Clay 以及数百家其他获胜公司有什么共同点?它们都由 Work OS 驱动。如果你在为企业构建产品,你一定感受过集成单点登录(SSO)、SCIM、RBAC、审计日志等大公司要求的功能时的痛苦。Work OS 把这些阻碍交易的功能变成了即插即用的 API,提供一个专为 B2B SaaS 打造的现代开发者平台。我投资的每一个开始向上走市场的初创公司,最终都会和 Work OS 合作。因为他们是最好的。无论你是种子轮初创公司想拿下第一个企业客户,还是独角兽在全球扩张,Work OS 都是最快的企业就绪路径,帮你打通增长。它本质上就是企业级功能的 Stripe。访问 workos.com 开始使用,或者直接去他们的 Slack 频道,那里有真正的工程师等着回答你的问题。Work OS 让你用令人愉悦的 API、全面的文档和流畅的开发者体验更快地构建。去 workos.com 让你的应用今天就企业就绪。
---
---
**[广告:Work OS]**
这期节目由我们本季的冠名赞助商 Work OS 呈现。OpenAI、Anthropic、Cursor、Vercel、Replit、Sierra、Clay 以及数百家其他获胜公司有什么共同点?它们都由 Work OS 驱动。如果你在为企业构建产品,你一定感受过集成单点登录(SSO)、SCIM、RBAC、审计日志等大公司要求的功能时的痛苦。Work OS 把这些阻碍交易的功能变成了即插即用的 API,提供一个专为 B2B SaaS 打造的现代开发者平台。我投资的每一个开始向上走市场的初创公司,最终都会和 Work OS 合作。因为他们是最好的。无论你是种子轮初创公司想拿下第一个企业客户,还是独角兽在全球扩张,Work OS 都是最快的企业就绪路径,帮你打通增长。它本质上就是企业级功能的 Stripe。访问 workos.com 开始使用,或者直接去他们的 Slack 频道,那里有真正的工程师等着回答你的问题。Work OS 让你用令人愉悦的 API、全面的文档和流畅的开发者体验更快地构建。去 workos.com 让你的应用今天就企业就绪。
---
**Max:** Yes. And that was the first version. It sort of aligned with model capabilities at the time. We don't always use maybe at notion sort of the the main codebase is not always the most agent uh friendly because uh iterations and a decade of of of patterns. And so we optimized for okay how can we make this the least scary and most oneshotable so that people would just have to overcome this sort of oh I the fear of the terminal but then it just becomes chatting and uh we recreated a bunch of the patterns and UIs that exist in that playground now the good news is that's just to get people on the treadmill because as model capabilities get better now we have the same designers npms also just contributing to the production codebase to a lesser degree of course, but like you can see where the trend is headed as model capabilities get better. The the the amount of work that you can do is uh obviously going to increase exponentially. This episode is brought to you by our season's presenting sponsor work OS. What do OpenAI, Anthropic, Cursor, Versell, Replet, Sierra, Clay, and hundreds of other winning companies all have in common? They are all powered by work OS. If you're building a product for the enterprise, you've felt the pain of integrating single signon, skim, arback, audit logs, and other features required by large companies. Work OS turns those deal blockers into drop-in APIs with a modern developer platform built specifically for B2B SAS. Literally, every startup that I'm an investor in that starts to expand upmarket ends up working with work OS. And that's because they are the best. Whether you are a seedstage startup trying to land your first enterprise customer or a unicorn expanding globally, work OS is the fastest path to becoming enterprise ready and unblocking growth. It's essentially Stripe for enterprise features. Visit workos.com to get started or just hit up their Slack where they have actual engineers waiting to answer your questions. Workos allows you to build faster with delightful APIs, comprehensive docs, and a smooth developer experience. go to works.com to make your app enterprise ready today. Maybe give us a sense of where things are today like how much are designers shipping stuff PMs and then just what do you see about where things might be heading seeing all this actually happening in at a company like notion? I I feel so uncomfortable predicting the future in terms of where things are heading because well predicting exponentials is really hard. But I'll take the stab at it is very very useful for designers to move from manipulating Figma documents into code. That has always been useful. I've always been camp designers should code. uh at a in a previous life I I led design and product at GitHub and GitHub designers before LLMs contributed to to GitHub I think in the top contributors to to GitHub itself like 10% were designers right now processes are sort of breaking uh one is we have designers who now mostly code and prototype in in code and then they are asked by other teams uh in marketing and so on to reverse engineer that in Figma because they use that to create assets for videos and so on and so obviously that is kind of silly right that seems like busy work on the pushing to production I think it's a spectrum obviously small changes styling tweaks and so on it's a given that you can just do that now I do have a general sort of maybe issue with vibe coding uh in the sense of I I don't feel like the quality of software has increased all that much in the last 12 months I think the maybe the amount of software has, but it's very very hard to find software that is is reliable. And so the way we see it is it's not so much about pushing to production and having designers deploy. It's about them thinking and designing in the medium that will actually end up being the real thing once engineering takes it over.
**Lenny:** 跟我们说说目前的情况——设计师在做多少、PM 在做多少,然后你觉得像 Notion 这样的公司接下来会往哪走?
**Lenny:** There's all this talk about designers should be shipping code, PM should be shipping code. And then there's the flip side of because engineers can move so fast.
**Max:** 预测未来让我非常不舒服,因为预测指数增长真的很难。但我试着说一下。对设计师来说,从操纵 Figma 文档转向代码是非常非常有用的。这一直都有用。我一直属于"设计师应该写代码"这一派。在前一份工作中我在 GitHub 领导设计和产品,GitHub 的设计师在 LLM 出现之前就给 GitHub 本身贡献代码了——在 GitHub 自身的贡献者排名中,前 10% 是设计师。
现在流程有些在崩裂。一个情况是:我们有些设计师现在主要用代码做原型,然后其他团队——比如市场营销——让他们把这些东西反向还原到 Figma,因为他们需要用来制作视频素材等等。这显然有点荒谬,像是无用功。
关于推到生产环境,我觉得这是一个光谱。小改动、样式调整之类的,现在你就是能直接做了。但我对 vibe coding 确实有点顾虑——我觉得过去 12 个月软件质量并没有提升多少。可能软件的数量增加了,但很难找到真正可靠的软件。所以我们的看法是:重点不在于让设计师推代码到生产环境并部署,而是让他们在最终会成为实际产品的那个媒介中思考和设计——等工程师接手的时候,那才是真正的东西。
现在流程有些在崩裂。一个情况是:我们有些设计师现在主要用代码做原型,然后其他团队——比如市场营销——让他们把这些东西反向还原到 Figma,因为他们需要用来制作视频素材等等。这显然有点荒谬,像是无用功。
关于推到生产环境,我觉得这是一个光谱。小改动、样式调整之类的,现在你就是能直接做了。但我对 vibe coding 确实有点顾虑——我觉得过去 12 个月软件质量并没有提升多少。可能软件的数量增加了,但很难找到真正可靠的软件。所以我们的看法是:重点不在于让设计师推代码到生产环境并部署,而是让他们在最终会成为实际产品的那个媒介中思考和设计——等工程师接手的时候,那才是真正的东西。
**Max:** There's so much more happening. Things are moving all the time, designers and PMs are squeezed more and more because it's hard to stay on top of all these things that are constantly shipping. And so maybe it doesn't actually make sense for designers and PMs to be spending time coding and instead their time is better spent making sure things are moving in a direction that makes sense for the business. It's cohesive. What's your thoughts on just that balance? I actually don't care at all whether designers write code that lands in production. The reason I like thinking in code is because it forces you to consider the medium. If then all of that gets thrown out, great. So, for example, I think the two extremes would be if a PM or a designer knows how to tweak with pick your favorite, they're all the same, codeex, cloud code, whatever. If they know how to tweak small details of the UI, but they don't understand how an agent loop works, I would much rather take the designer or PM that deeply has an affinity for understanding how agent loops work and can design those than someone who can sort of write traditional software uh and and tweak styles.
**Lenny:** 关于设计师和 PM 应该写代码,还有另一面——因为工程师可以动得这么快了,发生的事情比以前多得多,设计师和 PM 被挤压了,很难跟上不断在发布的东西。所以也许设计师和 PM 花时间写代码并不合理,他们的时间更应该花在确保事情朝着对业务有意义的方向发展、保持一致性上。你怎么看这个平衡?
**Lenny:** And that's really hard because I think the only way that you can actually get to understanding agent loops is if you build them in the material that they're made of, which is currently code, and increasingly so if you look at all the coding harnesses, basically the operating systems of the '90s, right?
**Max:** 我其实完全不在乎设计师写的代码是否进入生产环境。我喜欢用代码思考的原因是它迫使你考虑媒介本身。如果最后所有代码都被扔掉了,很好。举个例子,两个极端是:如果一个 PM 或设计师知道怎么用——随便哪个工具都一样——Codex、Claude Code 之类的来微调 UI 的小细节,但他们不理解 agent loop(代理循环)是怎么工作的——我宁愿要一个对理解 agent loop 有深度亲和力、能设计 agent loop 的设计师或 PM,也不要一个只会写传统软件、调调样式的人。这真的很难,因为我觉得真正理解 agent loop 的唯一方式就是用它们所由构成的材料——也就是目前的代码——来构建它们。如果你看看所有的编程工具框架(coding harnesses),它们基本就是 90 年代的操作系统。所以我在乎人们写代码,不是因为推到生产环境的实用价值,而是因为它迫使你真正去审视你正在设计的材料。
**Max:** Um, and so I think that's why I care that people code, not because of the utility of shipping to production, but because it forces you to really interrogate the material that you're designing with. So, it's more the prototyping use cases than we're just going to be shipping more features because because we can. It tends to be that once you awaken someone to a new material that at some point they also blur the lines and then write production code. But I think it's really important not to forget that the reason why is to to become a master of the material, not a sort of cog in the delivery mechanism for the idea.
**Lenny:** 所以更多是原型用途,而不是"我们要多发功能因为我们能"。
**Lenny:** That is really interesting. What do you find is key to people being successful in this new world?
**Max:** 趋势是,一旦你唤醒某人对一种新材料的认知,到某个时候他们也会模糊界限,开始写生产代码。但我觉得非常重要的是不要忘记:原因是为了成为材料的大师,而不是变成创意交付机制中的一个齿轮。
**Max:** Like, you know, there's a lot of designers, a lot of PMs at Notion.
**Lenny:** 这非常有趣。在这个新世界里,你觉得成功的关键是什么?Notion 有很多设计师和 PM,你觉得是什么在区分那些正在蓬勃发展、未来会表现出色的人和可能落后的人?
**Lenny:** What do you find is separating the ones that are thriving and will do well in this coming future versus ones that may fall behind?
**Max:** 我怀疑这其实一直都是这样的,只是我们过去把它归类为"创始人型 vs 非创始人型"、"你会不会去创业"——就是能动性(agency)。以前很容易说"我永远做不了这个,因为某个技能缺陷"。而现在我们意识到,即使你技能唾手可得——因为一个接近 AGI 的模型帮你了——真正重要的还是能动性。我不认为能动性在世界上是均匀分布的。那些拥有真正能动性、理解周围世界是可塑的人,会做得很好。而那些固守"告诉我 PM 到底是什么、设计师到底是什么、工程师的工作范围到底是什么"的人,会困难得多。所以,培养能动性——这就是关键。
**Max:** I suspect that this is also something that has always been the case and we would just categorize this as founder versus not and do you start a startup versus not, which is agency.
**Lenny:** 有没有在 Notion 的好例子?某个人发挥能动性,做了什么、发布了什么、改变了什么运作方式?让我们能直观感受到"哦,我明白你在说什么了"。
**Lenny:** I think before it was very easy to always say well I will never be able to do this because insert skill issue and I think we're realizing that even if you have the skills at your fingertips because now I don't know an AGI adjacent model helps you uh the thing that matters is agency and I don't think agency is very evenly distributed in the world and uh I think people who have true agency and they understand that the world around them is malleable will do great and the folks who stick to what tell me really what does it mean to be a PM what does it mean to be a designer and like what's my job as an engineer I think that will be much harder and yeah cultivate agency I think that's the that's the thing is there an example of someone using agency some a good example at notion of someone just leaning into that and doing and maybe shipping something changing the way something was happening at notion just to give us a like, oh wow, I see what you're talking about.
**Max:** Ninos——这让我很惊讶——尤其是设计团队,相比我工作过的其他地方,能动性水平远超平均。
**Max:** Ninos are, this was surprising to me, especially on the design team, way above average agency compared to other places that that I've worked at.
**Lenny:** 顺便说一下,Ninos 就是 Notion 员工。
**Lenny:** And Ninos, by the way, are notion employees.
**Max:** 对,抱歉。我会举一个例子——Brian Leven,你应该找时间请他上播客。
**Max:** Yes. Sorry. Once you're boil I would say one example would be someone like Brian Leven, who you should probably have on the podcast at some point.
**Lenny:** 他上过我们的姊妹播客 How I AI。我们会放链接。
**Lenny:** He was on uh our sister podcast, How I AI. We'll link to that episode.
**Max:** 啊,那就好了。你应该把这集缩短然后让他上。我这样描述吧——我也对自己这么说——你能不能像开赃车一样驾驭 Notion?就是说,我们不是创始人,加入时产品已经有了疯狂的产品市场契合度(product-market fit),但你仍然可以用一种让自己感到有能动性的方式为公司做贡献——而不是"你的角色是什么"。Brian 显然已经模糊了工程和设计的界限,但他可能还是我们的头号招聘员——就是"组织需要这个,我要出去找人聊聊、招到那个人"。我觉得这就展示了——它超越了日常工作,证明了"我就是要带来改变,不管用什么方式"。
**Max:** Ah, there we go. Yeah, you should cut this one short and have him on. Um, I think the way I would describe it is, and I I I tell this to myself as well, which is like, okay, do you drive notion like it's stolen, which is, you know, we're not the founders where, you know, coming in after there was already insane product market fit, but you can still contribute to the company in a way that you feel agency and you're not sort of just like it's what's your role. And so Brian obviously already blurs engineering and design, but he also is probably our number one recruiter uh in terms of hey, this is what the org needs. I'm going to go out and talk to people and find someone. And I think that is a thing that sort of just demonstrates it's it's out of the day-to-day and it demonstrates that, you know, I want to just affect change. I don't care how it happens, right?
**Max:** Eric Lou 是另一个。他从写大量策略文档开始,有一次问我:"如果你以后创业,你会雇我吗?"我说:"前 10 个人里不会,我不需要产品经理。"他说:"好,那我要努力提升技能,让你会在前 5 个人里雇我。"于是他先花更多时间在 Figma 上——不再写长长的 PRD——然后变成了"我为什么还要做 Figma 的事?我就不能直接建原型、给你看我的想法、在那个媒介里做思考吗?"这些就是高能动性的信号——"我要改变这个角色,让它变成我认为它应该是的样子。"
**Max:** Um Eric Lou is another one. the fact that he went from sort of writing a lot of strategy docs to he asked me at some point he's like hey look at some point in the future if you started a startup would you hire me and I said well not in the first 10 I don't need a product manager he's like oh okay I'm going to work on the skills so that you would hire me in the first five and that led to first spending more time in Figma instead of you know writing long PRDs and now it's just why do I have to do the Figma thing can can't I just build the prototype and at least show you what I think and do the thinking in there right So that those are just sort of signs of high agency of I'm going to change the role to to to how I think it should be.
**Lenny:** 你之前提到一个我很喜欢的想法——重新思考工程师这个角色是什么、应该是什么——如果我们没有这个既定的模因的话。我好奇的是,当这些角色开始融合,我们会失去什么。我们曾经有清晰的工程师、产品经理、设计师。当人们开始——就像你说的可塑软件、甚至是可塑角色——我们会失去一些东西,比如清晰的职业路径、设计一致性之类的。
**Lenny:** Something you mentioned earlier which I love this idea of just rethinking what is what is this role of engineer and what might it what should it be if if we didn't have this kind of meme already for it. I wonder what we lose as these roles start to merge. We used to have this clear engineer, product manager, designer. And as people start to, you know, as you talk about malleable software, we'll come back to this, but like malleable roles almost, there's something we lose like clear career paths and design consistency, things like that. I think if we're not careful, we will lose specialists. And so the way I would describe this is I sometimes like to think about software in terms of physical metaphors, right? And physical metaphors somehow make it so much clearer what a prototype is versus what an engineered thing is. And if you and I were to build a hardware startup, well, we would make the first enclosures and prototypes with 3D printing. And you would see all the layer lines. It would be very very obvious to you that this is not a thing that you should just give to to to people to pay for. And then there's a long windy road all the way to the end where at some point if you're very lucky you get to manufacture that product for I don't know 100 million people. And so then the engineering is actually the how do I optimize the factory so that we have enough yield and so that we have enough precision. And that to me I think is very absent right now from most of the discourse in software which is it's all about how many tokens can we spend and how many features can we ship.
**Max:** 我觉得如果不小心的话,我们会失去专家。我有时喜欢用物理世界的隐喻来思考软件——物理隐喻让原型和工程产品之间的区别变得清晰得多。如果你我要做一个硬件创业,我们会用 3D 打印做最初的外壳和原型。你能看到所有的打印层纹。非常明显这不是一个能让人掏钱买的东西。然后有一条漫长的路,如果你非常幸运,最终你要为一亿人制造那个产品。那时候的工程是"如何优化工厂使良品率和精度足够高"。我觉得当前软件行业的讨论中非常缺少这个——大家都在说"我们能花多少 token、能发多少功能"。我就问:工程在哪里?工程是你确保这东西能为一亿人、十亿人稳定运行。
在设计方面,是的,现在任何人都能很快从货架上拿一个设计系统(design system)、构建一个非常可用的用户界面、触及真正重要的核心。但愉悦感和工艺在哪里?所以我觉得我们必须确保在角色融合的过程中,不要失去边缘地带的专家。这是一件如果失去了会令人惋惜的事。
在设计方面,是的,现在任何人都能很快从货架上拿一个设计系统(design system)、构建一个非常可用的用户界面、触及真正重要的核心。但愉悦感和工艺在哪里?所以我觉得我们必须确保在角色融合的过程中,不要失去边缘地带的专家。这是一件如果失去了会令人惋惜的事。
**Max:** I'm like okay but where's the engineering part and the engineering part is the you make sure that this thing works for 100 million people for a billion people and on the design side I think there is the yes anyone can now very quickly take a design system off the shelf build a very usable user interface get to the core of what's really important but where is the delight in craft and so I think we have to make sure that we in this sort of merging of roles don't lose the specialists on the on the edges and Yeah, I I would say that's something we could it would potentially be be be sad if we lost it.
**Lenny:** 我想回到能动性这个话题,因为我觉得人们在这个播客上频繁听到这个词。对想要在自己身上培养这种品质的人,或者只是想了解"我有能动性吗?我不确定"——我猜听众里每个人都会说"是的,我超有能动性,我是个超级 agent,我会做需要做的事"——你有什么建议?
**Lenny:** I want to come back to this agency piece because I feel like people hear this word a lot on this podcast. Yes, agency. For someone that wants to build this within themselves or even just understand, do I have agency? I don't know. I think I do. I imagine everyone listening is like, yes, I am huge. I have huge agency. I'm such an agent. I can do I I'll do what needs to be done. Do you have a piece of advice for someone that wants to develop this within themselves?
**Max:** 我进入软件行业部分原因就是我最在乎的那句 Steve Jobs 的话。有一天你醒来,发现这个世界是由并不比你聪明的人创造的。世上要么有人自己领悟到这一点,要么生命早期有一位出色的老师鼓励了这一点。我找到的最大共性就是"制造"。我觉得如果你动手做东西、修修补补,你就踏上了这条跑步机——你创造,然后你会想"哦,原来学着做那把椅子没那么难",或者"让我微调一下",或者——你知道吗,一顿家常饭其实也是一种动手的形式。我觉得你在生活中越能做到这些——制造东西是天生的人类特质——工具制造、创造艺术等等。所以就去做吧。
我觉得很多人听到"能动性"时,把自己想象成在一个大机器里,然后想着"好,我要绕过我那糟糕的老板或经理来得到 XYZ"。不是的,先从制造东西开始。通常当你更擅长制造东西时,人们开始关注你,而这真的会唤醒你——你完全可以改变事物。
我觉得很多人听到"能动性"时,把自己想象成在一个大机器里,然后想着"好,我要绕过我那糟糕的老板或经理来得到 XYZ"。不是的,先从制造东西开始。通常当你更擅长制造东西时,人们开始关注你,而这真的会唤醒你——你完全可以改变事物。
**Max:** Partially the reason why I'm in software is the thing that I care most about is the Steve Jobs quote. One day you wake up and you realize the world is made up by people no smarter than you. And there are basically people who realize this by themselves or they have an amazing teacher early on in their life that encourages this. And the the biggest throughine I've found is making. I think if you tinker and if you make things, then you are now on this treadmill of just um creating and then you're like, "Oh, it's actually not that hard to learn how to make that chair in my office or let me tweak it a little bit or maybe I don't know. It's like a home-cooked meal is a form of tinkering, ironically, right?" Uh and I think the more you can do that in life, I think actually sort of making things is the innately human like sort of tool making, creating art and so on. So just do that versus I think when a lot of people hear agency, they think of themselves as they're in this big machine and they're like, "Oh, okay. I'm going to circumvent my terrible boss or manager or whatever so that I get X, Y, and Z." It's like, no, no, just start by making things. And usually when you get better at making things, at some point people pay attention and it just really awakens you to the idea that you can just change things. I love this.
**Lenny:** 我很喜欢这个。Twitter 上有个梗——"你就是可以做事"(you could just do things)。我喜欢你这个版本——"你就是可以改变事物"。这也是一个很好的过渡——你一直是可塑软件(malleable software)的倡导者。你之前提到过。它感觉像是之前不太可能实现的东西,而现在是"好的,我能确切看到你在说什么了"。你在 AI 革命之前就在推动这个。跟我们聊聊这个理念——可塑软件,为什么你觉得它如此重要,人们应该怎么思考它。
**Lenny:** Uh there's this meme on Twitter, you could just do things. Uh like there's all I I love this version of it. You could just change things. Um which is a is a good segue to something you've been a big I don't know advocate of and uh proponent of this idea of malleable software. Something you mentioned earlier. It feels like something that wasn't actually possible and now is like, okay, I could see exactly what you're talking about now. Like you've been on on this from before the AI revolution. Talk about just this idea. Malleable software, why you think it's so important, what you think people need to be thinking about here.
**Max:** 可塑软件的理念是:软件更多地服务于使用者的利益,而非制造它的公司的利益。大概可以这么框定。具体来说,我不想使用那种纯粹由 Cupertino 的象牙塔设计出来的软件——我说这话还是作为一个超级 Apple 粉丝。想象一下,如果你生活的环境不允许你重新布置客厅,厨房必须按别人决定的方式摆放——我们不会接受的,对吧?但在软件世界里基本就是这样。我们有这个 app 的世界,每一层都粘在一起——用户界面、数据所有权等等。就是手机上那个小方块,你一旦想"这个 app 真好,但我只想改一点点行为"——通常做不到。
另一面是你可以跑自己的 Linux 发行版走那条路。但你会发现"好的,我喜欢可塑性,但我还有别的事要做,我不总是想从头开始、搞清楚为什么触控板不工作"。所以对我来说归根结底是:你对自己的计算生活有没有所有权?我觉得我们越来越没有了。
你提到这个大概是因为你之前可能没太想过可塑软件,但现在你在为播客录制、节目准备等自己制作工具。人们正在觉醒——"哦,我可以制作工具"——这就是一种可塑软件。但它必须建立在一个鼓励这样做的平台或操作系统之上,否则我们就只是每个人各自有自己的小工具。我喜欢和人协作、喜欢共用工具。Ink & Switch 的人显然走在前沿——我现在每天都和 Geoffrey Litt 一起工作,花大量时间思考怎么让软件更可塑,让我们对它更有掌控感,同时不倒退到没有实时协作和安全方面的年代。
另一面是你可以跑自己的 Linux 发行版走那条路。但你会发现"好的,我喜欢可塑性,但我还有别的事要做,我不总是想从头开始、搞清楚为什么触控板不工作"。所以对我来说归根结底是:你对自己的计算生活有没有所有权?我觉得我们越来越没有了。
你提到这个大概是因为你之前可能没太想过可塑软件,但现在你在为播客录制、节目准备等自己制作工具。人们正在觉醒——"哦,我可以制作工具"——这就是一种可塑软件。但它必须建立在一个鼓励这样做的平台或操作系统之上,否则我们就只是每个人各自有自己的小工具。我喜欢和人协作、喜欢共用工具。Ink & Switch 的人显然走在前沿——我现在每天都和 Geoffrey Litt 一起工作,花大量时间思考怎么让软件更可塑,让我们对它更有掌控感,同时不倒退到没有实时协作和安全方面的年代。
**Max:** Malleable software is the idea that software works closer to the interest of the people that use it than the interest of the corporation that makes it. Maybe that's how I'd frame it. And in particular, like I don't want to use software that is specifically just designed by the ivory tower in Certino. And I say this as a huge Apple fanboy, but imagine you lived in an environment where you do not get to rearrange your living room and the kitchen has to be exactly set up the way that someone else decided. We would not take that, right? But that is kind of the world that we have in software right now where we have this world of apps and apps are like this very every layer is glued together of like the user interface, the data ownership and so on. It's like this little square on your phone and the moment you're like okay this is a really great app but I just want to change a little bit that is usually not possible right the behavior. uh you have the flip side which is you could run your own Linux distribution and go that way and I think then what happens is you realize oh okay I like the malleability but I also have other things to do and I don't always want to start from scratch and and figure out why the the trackpad doesn't work and so to me it just comes back down to do you have ownership over your computing life and I think increasingly we don't now you brought this up presumably because I think you may have sort of not thought about malleable software too much before I but now you're like making your own tools maybe for podcast recording for prepping for shows or or I don't know whatever um there's a myriad examples and people are awakening to this idea of like oh I can just make tools and that is a form of malleable software but it has to be built on top of a platform or an operating system that encourages this because otherwise we're just doing individual like everybody has their own individual little tool and um I don't know I I like working with people and I like communal tools and I don't know this is a thing that the folks at Incan Switch are are obviously as sort of at the forefront I get to work with Jeffrey Lit every single day now that uh spend a lot of time thinking about how would we make software more malleable so that we feel more ownership over it without going back a long time and not having real-time collaboration and sort of the security aspects and so on. I really love and I just want to make sure we highlight this idea you're sharing.
**Lenny:** 我真的很喜欢这个,我想确保我们突出你分享的这个观点。这也是我从 Airbnb 的 Brian Chesky 那里学到的——你可以改变事物,你周围的东西就是其他人做的,那些人不一定比你聪明。这是一种非常赋能的想法——事情可以改变。不一定永远是这样。人类做了这个东西,人类做了这部手机,你可以——别人会——想出更好的方法。
我想到的是你固定在 Twitter 首页的那个视频——我想是 Dieter Rams 对吧?他走来走去,批评所有这些设计师的椅子。说说那个视频想表达什么、为什么你把它固定在首页。
我想到的是你固定在 Twitter 首页的那个视频——我想是 Dieter Rams 对吧?他走来走去,批评所有这些设计师的椅子。说说那个视频想表达什么、为什么你把它固定在首页。
**Lenny:** It's something that I learned also from Brian Chesky at Airbnb. This idea that just you can change things that the things around you are just made by other people that may not actually be smarter than you. And it's just this really empowering thing to always think about that things can change. This isn't the way things have to be forever. people humans made this thing like humans made this uh this phone and and you could and there there are better approaches that other humans that you can that you can come up with other people will come up with. What I think about as I think about this is there's a video that you uh pinned to your Twitter profile that will link to which I think is DA Roms. Is that who that who the person is? Okay. So, he's walking around. He's just criticizing all these designed chairs. uh talk about what that video is trying to why why you pin that to your your profile.
**Max:** 有很多原因。一个是——也许我和这位成就卓越的人唯一的共同点是我们都是德国人。所以我有时开玩笑说,我也渴望能不满地用拐杖指着东西说"这不够好。这不够好。"原因是如果你说德语,这是我见过的最好笑的片段之一——我每次看都笑死。我其实很好奇你觉得它和可塑软件有什么联系,因为我用这个视频作为参考的主要原因是:我非常坚定地认为设计应该首先有用,然后才美丽。那里面很多东西主要是你放在博物馆展览的,如果你试着坐上去会想"这什么鬼?"
**Max:** Uh there's many reasons. One is um I think maybe the only thing that I have in common with this very accomplished person is that we're both German. And so sometimes I joke that I also aspire to disapprovingly just point at things with my walking stick and say, "This isn't good enough. This isn't good enough." Um, the reason why is because I think if you speak German, this is one of the funniest uh clips that I've ever I just die laughing every single time. I'm actually curious how you think about how it ties to malleable software because the main reason why I use that as a clip of reference is I'm very much in the camp of design should be first useful and then beautiful. And I think a lot of the pieces there are predominantly things that you put in a museum for display and if you try to sit on them you'd be like what is this nonsense?
**Lenny:** 我的感受是——你看到 Frank Gehry 等等所有这些著名设计师的作品放在博物馆里,大多数人会说"哇这太不可思议太美了"。你看到某个有地位和声望的人,就假设这是伟大的。我喜欢他打破了那层面纱——"不,这太蠢了。这是什么?这堆柜子绑在一起算什么?毫无道理。"
**Lenny:** What I felt there is just like you see all like you would think it was Frank Giri and like all these famous designers pieces put up in a museum and I think to mo to most people be like wow this is so incredible and beautiful. Like you see somebody that has a status and a reputation and you assume this is great. And I love that he breaks that veil of like no this is so stupid. What is this? What is this bunch of cabinets tied together? Doesn't make any sense.
**Max:** 对,他对那个柜子说了大意是"既不整洁也不够混乱"。我理解这个联系了。《永恒的建造之道》(The Timeless Way of Building)和 Stewart Brand 的"建筑如何学习"(How Buildings Learn)的理念也是——最适合你的家很可能不是建筑师造的。它是那种经过长时间适应你生活方式的东西,随时间学习——而不是一次定型。这当然是一种非常昂贵的可塑性——如果你要拆墙什么的。但我觉得 Dieter Rams 指出的核心点是:它应该是有用的东西。而弄清楚一样东西怎么有用的好方法就是你能改变它、微调它。
**Max:** Yeah, he said that's for that cabinet. I think he says something like it is neither orderly nor properly chaotic. Um I understand the connection. Now the timeless way of building and Stuart Bran's uh sort of how buildings learn I think idea is also that it's very likely that the best homes for you are not actually built by an architect. They are the thing that over a long time adapt to exactly how you would love to lead your life and they learn over time versus you know immediately. And so then that is obviously a very costly version of malleability right if you have to rip out a wall or whatever. But um I I think the main thing that deer Rams points out there is it should be a thing that's useful. And a good way to figure out how something is useful is if you can change it and tweak it. Makes sense.
**Lenny:** 都连起来了。
**Max:** 都连起来了。
**Max:** 都连起来了。
**Lenny:** It all connects. It all connects.
**Lenny:** 我明白了。
**Max:** 好了。我不会放链接。那个视频真的很好笑。我真希望我能听懂德语。
**Lenny:** 我想回到可塑软件这个话题,从 SaaS 和 SaaS 末日论的角度。到处都在说我们不再需要 SaaS 工具了,我们会自己造所有工具。不需要 Salesforce 了。我能想象有人说"我们不需要 Notion,我要自己造一个 Notion"。你有辛辣观点。说说你觉得会发生什么。
**Max:** 好了。我不会放链接。那个视频真的很好笑。我真希望我能听懂德语。
**Lenny:** 我想回到可塑软件这个话题,从 SaaS 和 SaaS 末日论的角度。到处都在说我们不再需要 SaaS 工具了,我们会自己造所有工具。不需要 Salesforce 了。我能想象有人说"我们不需要 Notion,我要自己造一个 Notion"。你有辛辣观点。说说你觉得会发生什么。
**Lenny:** I get it now.
**Max:** 如果你想想 SaaS——问题是一旦你有了一个缩写(acronym),它就意味着很多很具体的东西。如果你问"2010 年代我们造的这种 SaaS 是否还像 2010 年代那样有意义"——如果说"不,什么都不会变,一切照旧"那就太蠢了。因为我觉得可以说 2010 年代很多 SaaS 本质上是围绕电子表格或更通用工具的一个非常花哨的表单。它做的事就是引导人们朝正确方向填写那个表单——也就是说它比电子表格更不可塑。那就是它的价值。
"即服务"(as-a-service)这个部分才是真正重要的——我不认为大多数人真的想维护整套软件栈。所以每当我看到有人——我自己也是——说"哦我周末重建了这个软件",我试过周末为自己重建 Notion——只是为了推一推让人沮丧的边界。但我不认为人们想要那样。大多数时候——人们也不想去打猎,他们只想去 Costco 买泡沫盒包装的牛排,假装那不是一只动物。
我觉得软件也是这样——Brett Taylor 也这么说——软件就像花园,你需要照料它。你在"即服务"中支付的就是维护费用,以及一群专家对一个问题的深入思考。所以我不认为这会消失。
我可能会说工具会变得更通用。我显然有偏见——我在 Notion 工作,我喜欢 Notion,我觉得 Notion 相当可塑。但还不够。我觉得它应该更可塑。我们内部开玩笑说——记者 Joanna Stern 最近发了一条推,大意是"多亏了 Notion AI,我终于理解 Notion 了"。我不知道这说明了 Notion 什么。但对我来说这是个很好的例子——Notion 不是传统意义上的 SaaS。它有点难上手,但因为 AI,现在人们有了一个导师,能搭建更多东西。
所以我猜测软件会更多地回到 90 年代通用工具的方向——文字处理器、电子表格、FileMaker Pro——但它们仍然会是"即服务"的。然后你仍然会有围绕安全等方面的专业工具——那些为真正解决用户问题而多走一步的人。所以我觉得 SaaS 末日论在很大程度上被夸大了。与此同时,事情会保持不变吗?当然不会。为什么会呢?
"即服务"(as-a-service)这个部分才是真正重要的——我不认为大多数人真的想维护整套软件栈。所以每当我看到有人——我自己也是——说"哦我周末重建了这个软件",我试过周末为自己重建 Notion——只是为了推一推让人沮丧的边界。但我不认为人们想要那样。大多数时候——人们也不想去打猎,他们只想去 Costco 买泡沫盒包装的牛排,假装那不是一只动物。
我觉得软件也是这样——Brett Taylor 也这么说——软件就像花园,你需要照料它。你在"即服务"中支付的就是维护费用,以及一群专家对一个问题的深入思考。所以我不认为这会消失。
我可能会说工具会变得更通用。我显然有偏见——我在 Notion 工作,我喜欢 Notion,我觉得 Notion 相当可塑。但还不够。我觉得它应该更可塑。我们内部开玩笑说——记者 Joanna Stern 最近发了一条推,大意是"多亏了 Notion AI,我终于理解 Notion 了"。我不知道这说明了 Notion 什么。但对我来说这是个很好的例子——Notion 不是传统意义上的 SaaS。它有点难上手,但因为 AI,现在人们有了一个导师,能搭建更多东西。
所以我猜测软件会更多地回到 90 年代通用工具的方向——文字处理器、电子表格、FileMaker Pro——但它们仍然会是"即服务"的。然后你仍然会有围绕安全等方面的专业工具——那些为真正解决用户问题而多走一步的人。所以我觉得 SaaS 末日论在很大程度上被夸大了。与此同时,事情会保持不变吗?当然不会。为什么会呢?
**Max:** There we go. I won't link to it. It's really funny to watch. I wish I wish I understood the German. I want to come back to this idea of uh malleable software from a perspective of SAS and the SAS apocalypse. There's all this talk about we will not need SAS tools any longer. We will build all our own tools. We don't need Salesforce. You know, I imagine some people are like, we don't need notion. I'm going to build my own notion. You have a hot take there. Talk about what you think is going to happen. If you just think about what SAS, the problem is the moment you have an an acronym, it it means a lot of very specific things. And if you're going to say, hey, is this type of SAS that we've built in the 2010s just as relevant as it was in the 2010s? The answer would be it would be silly to say, no, nothing's going to change. It'll be the same because I think you can sort of say a lot of SAS in the 2010s was a very very fancy form around a spreadsheet or something more generic. And the thing it did is it just guided people in the right direction to fill out that form as in it is less malleable than a spreadsheet. And that sort of is the value. The as a service part is I think the thing that actually matters which is I don't think most people actually want to maintain the full stack of software. And so whenever I see someone and I am I am someone here uh say oh I just rebuilt this piece of software. I've tried rebuilding notion in a weekend for myself uh just to you know push at the edges of frustration uh frustrating things. I don't think people want that. I think for the most part it's nice if you can just People don't want to go hunting either. They just want to go to Costco and have the the the the steak in in a styrofoam packaging and pretend that the that it wasn't uh hunting or or you know an animal in the first place. I think with software it's like it's a it's like a um Brett Taylor says this too. Software is like a garden. you need to tend to it and the the the thing you pay for in the as a service is the maintenance and a bunch of specialists thinking really hard about a problem and so I don't think that's going away. What I would probably say is that tools will become more general. I mean I'm obviously biased. I work at Notion. I'd like notion and I consider notion to be fairly malleable. Not enough. I'm I think it should become more malleable. We we internally joked Joanna Stern um a journalist recently tweeted something along the lines of oh thanks to notionai I finally understand and use notion. I don't know what that says about notion. And to me this is a great example of notion wasn't SAS in the traditional way. It's kind of hard to get started but because of AI now people can sort of they have a a tutor essentially and can build more things. And so my I suspect that software will go more back into the '9s of general tools, word processor, spreadsheet, FileMaker Pro, uh that kind of thing, but those will still be as a service. And then you'll still have specialized tools around security and and so on of just people who go the extra mile to really solve a user problem. So I think to some degree the SAS apocalypse is greatly exaggerated. At the same time, are things going to stay the same? Of course not. Like why would they?
**Lenny:** 我完全同意。人们只想着"我会创造出很酷的东西",但没想到——正如你描述的——"我要永远维护这个东西,我要不断添加功能、接受反馈。"最好笑的例子之一——我刚请了 Claude Code 的产品负责人 Cat Wu 上播客,她说 Slack 基本上就是 Anthropic 的操作系统。一切都通过 Slack 运行。你想想所有公司里最有可能说"我们不要这个、我们自己造"的,但不,他们疯狂地在用 Slack。我觉得这就是一个例子——没人想重建 Slack 这样的工具。Workday 我觉得是另一个例子。
**Lenny:** I completely agree. I think people think about just the okay I'll create something that's pretty cool and close and then they don't think about exactly as described like I have to maintain this thing forever and I have to keep adding features taking people's feedback. One of the funniest things that I see again and again uh uh I just had the head of product for cloud code on the podcast Catwoo and she talks about how Slack is basically the OS for anthropic. Everything runs through Slack and you think of all companies that would just like we don't we'll just build our own what are we doing with Slack? like no they're just they're they're using Slack like crazy and I think that's just one example of like nobody wants to rebuild a tool like Slack and Workday I think is another example. I I don't know I think it's maybe even more unique in the US but one of the uh great things about the US is actually specialization. It's that I get to spend dollars on something like notion because it's not that expensive compared to me building it and then uh why would I waste my time? I I want to do other things with my life, right? So I don't know that's not going to go away.
**Max:** 我觉得这在美国可能更独特——美国的一个伟大之处其实是专业分工。就是我能花钱买 Notion 这样的东西,因为相比我自己造它来说不算贵——我为什么要浪费时间?我想用我的时间做别的事。所以这不会消失。
**Lenny:** 对。Anthropic 的时间花在造 AGI 上比花在造更好的 Slack 上更值得。
**Max:** 我也喜欢 Slack 这个例子,因为——有一张图展示了 Slack 交付一条通知需要什么样的决策流程图。这是你只有拥有真实用户、真实规模和数十年"是的,我们理解客户"的积累后才能达到的。
**Lenny:** 对。Anthropic 的时间花在造 AGI 上比花在造更好的 Slack 上更值得。
**Max:** 我也喜欢 Slack 这个例子,因为——有一张图展示了 Slack 交付一条通知需要什么样的决策流程图。这是你只有拥有真实用户、真实规模和数十年"是的,我们理解客户"的积累后才能达到的。
**Max:** Yeah.
**Lenny:** 我想回到产品构建如何在变化的话题。我知道你做过很多不同的工作,但你的工作——比如几年前——变化最大的是什么?什么是你不再做的,或者现在做得更多的?
**Max:** 我觉得每个项目的前 10% 现在是免费的。这是我的描述方式。所以对于大多数事情来说,比如写 PRD——已经没有意义了。你可以直接做那个粗糙的版本——"这是我认为我们应该造的东西的演示"。所以前 10%——
**Max:** 我觉得每个项目的前 10% 现在是免费的。这是我的描述方式。所以对于大多数事情来说,比如写 PRD——已经没有意义了。你可以直接做那个粗糙的版本——"这是我认为我们应该造的东西的演示"。所以前 10%——
**Lenny:** Uh I agree like people anthropic there their time is better spent building AGI than trying to build better Slack.
**Lenny:** 太有意思了——这是一种非常有趣的框定方式。就是说思考阶段你可以走得更远、更快。
**Lenny:** I also love the Slack example because uh I mean this is a there's this graphic of what it takes to deliver a notification in Slack the sort of decision flowchart. And that is just something that you only get to when you have real users, real scale and decades of just yep we understand the customer. I want to come back to how product building is changing and how it's different. I know you've done a lot of different jobs but like your job I don't know a couple years ago. What's most changed like what part is most not something you don't do anymore or you do a lot more of now with AI emerging as a big part of your process? I think the first 10% of every project are now free. That's how I would describe it. So there is no point for most things to for example write a I don't know I the thing is has changed. I've never really been great at this. Uh but like there's no point in writing a PRD if you can just do the janky version and and sort of you know do the uh here's the demo of like what I think we should build. So the first 10% that's so interesting just that that's such an interesting way to frame it idea there's just like the thinking through of it you can go a lot further really quickly. Uh yes and in if you look at uh a lot of the the it takes almost no effort to now build sort of the first version of a startup right or like the first Z version 0.8 and then I think the last or or maybe maybe even if you're generous and say the first 90% are now done the last 10% are still actually 90%. That's always the hardest. So I think uh it's cheaper to just explore a lot of paths. You can now afford to say I'm going to send off 10 agents to explore 10 different things and then see if I was right.
**Max:** 对。如果你看看——现在几乎不费什么力气就能构建一个创业公司的第一个版本,或者说 0.8 版本。如果你大方点说前 90% 现在都搞定了——最后的 10% 仍然是真正的 90%。那永远是最难的。所以我觉得探索更多路径的成本变低了。你现在可以说"我派 10 个 agent 去探索 10 个不同方向,然后看看我对不对"。我们在 GitHub 做产品评审时经常说"demos not memos"(演示而非备忘录),然后我们会说"给我一个东西来反应"——就是说如果你要写 PR,不如写用户会读到的变更日志或博客文章。现在给人们"一个东西来反应"容易多了——"这是产品的这个版本",然后"如果我们换种方式呢?好的,这是那个版本。"我觉得这太棒了,它把迭代(iteration)嵌入到了产品流程中更早的阶段。瀑布式(waterfall)开发——何苦呢?
**Max:** We used to say this at at GitHub in in our product reviews a lot which is demos not memos and then we would say give me something to react to which is okay if you're going to write a PR just write the change log or the blog post that a user would have would read.
**Lenny:** 你觉得下一个飞跃或转变是什么?你看到什么新事物正在出现、将改变我们的运作方式?
**Lenny:** Now it's much easier to give people something to react to as in yeah here's the version of the product and it's like okay what if we did it this other way oh yeah here's that version and so I think that is just amazing it it sort of builds in iter iteration uh into the product much earlier right like waterfall is sort of why why bother what do you think is the next kind of leap or shift in how we build what do you what are you seeing is like okay this is now the new thing that's emerging that is going to change how we operate
**Max:** 我对此非常纠结。一方面,我确实相信"永远不要赌反纯文本"——一个著名的论坛帖子。纯文本、markdown——这种东西如此持久。代码如此持久。用代码表达想法可能是一件很好的事。但同时我又想——我们真的就要一直这样来回聊天吗?
比如 Figma 的未来就是一个很有趣的例子。一方面我确实看到 Notion 一些设计师减少了 Figma 的使用,另一方面有人说"不,这些 AI 工具太好了"。我很难预测直接操作(direct manipulation)是否会消失——因为是 agent 在做直接操作。
另一件我好奇的事是自动化(automation)vs 增强(augmentation)这个分叉。如果我看那些真正快的模型——比如 Spark,还有 Anthropic 那个变体——
比如 Figma 的未来就是一个很有趣的例子。一方面我确实看到 Notion 一些设计师减少了 Figma 的使用,另一方面有人说"不,这些 AI 工具太好了"。我很难预测直接操作(direct manipulation)是否会消失——因为是 agent 在做直接操作。
另一件我好奇的事是自动化(automation)vs 增强(augmentation)这个分叉。如果我看那些真正快的模型——比如 Spark,还有 Anthropic 那个变体——
**Max:** I'm very conflicted on this because On one hand, I do want to like I believe the never bet against plain text. So, a famous forum post at some point. Plain text markdown. Like it's just such a durable thing. Code is such a durable thing. I think that expressing your thoughts in code is probably a a really good thing. We can talk about why. Uh but at the same time, I'm like, are we really going to just be chatting back and forth? And so what is the future of Figma for example is like a really interesting example to me because uh on one hand I do see like sort of a drop in usage of of Figma in some designers at notion and then others are like nope these AI tools are wonderful. I it's very hard for me to predict of like is direct manipulation going away because the agent is doing the direct manipulation. Um the other thing that I'm curious about is there is this automation versus augmentation fork. If I look at the really really fast models like spark and I forget what the anthropic variant is where
**Lenny:** Haiku?
**Lenny:** haiku
**Max:** 不,你还是能得到一个聪明的。是 Opus 但是快速版——
**Max:** uh no sorry it's it's you still get a smart one.
**Lenny:** 哦对。
**Lenny:** It's opus but like opus fast or something just yeah like
**Max:** 你很快就能花掉一天 3000 美元。但推理速度(inference speed)真的会改变事情。如果推理很慢,你就是排队一堆任务,然后在大楼里溜达想别的事,回来再审查。但如果推理几乎是即时的——你还会这样做吗?这种多任务的狂乱状态真的是给我们心流(flow state)的东西吗?不是。但如果推理变成即时的——我们会回到直接操作吗?你会即时地塑造代码这块黏土吗?我不知道。我觉得取决于模型能力——是否存在智能饱和点。
我喜欢的类比是 Retina 显示屏——当我已经看不到像素了,就看不到了。我不需要你把像素做得更小。对于很多认知任务不也一样吗?到了某个智能水平,我不需要更聪明了,我要的是不同的模态(modality)和更快。所以我不知道——这些是让我兴奋的方向。
我喜欢的类比是 Retina 显示屏——当我已经看不到像素了,就看不到了。我不需要你把像素做得更小。对于很多认知任务不也一样吗?到了某个智能水平,我不需要更聪明了,我要的是不同的模态(modality)和更快。所以我不知道——这些是让我兴奋的方向。
**Max:** you very quickly run up a bill of like $3,000 a day. Uh but um the speed of inference really changes things. If the inference is slow, then you're queuing up a bunch of jobs and then you're walking around the building thinking about other things and then come back and review versus if it's nearly instant. Are you still going to do this? Is this sort of multitasking the frenetic kind of thing that we currently have going on actually the thing that is sort of you know gives us flow state? Well, no. But if the inference becomes instant, do we get back to direct manipulation? Right? Do you do you instantly sort of like mold the clay that is the code? Right? Um I I I don't know. I think it depends on model capabilities, which is do people is there a saturation on intelligence or not? Uh the analogy I like to give is a retina display, which is after I can't see the pixels, I can't see the pixels. I don't need you to make them smaller. Is it not the same for a lot of cognitive tasks which is at some sort of level of intelligence I don't need more and I instead I want a different modality and faster. So I don't know those things I'm excited about. Interesting. So that last point you're making is it's like smarter models will not significantly impact how teams operate because they've gotten so good and it's other blockers now like like UX essentially.
**Lenny:** 有意思。所以你最后那个观点是——更聪明的模型不会显著改变团队的运作方式,因为它们已经够好了,现在是其他瓶颈——比如用户体验。
**Lenny:** Yeah. I think in general I'm actually very curious.
**Max:** 对。我觉得总体上我很好奇。实验室(labs)似乎运营时假设人们永远想要最聪明的模型——前沿模型(frontier model)。我觉得对某些领域这可能是对的——比如做癌症研究、花几百万美元在某件事上。但我们经营公司也不是这样——不是所有事都用博士。所以我觉得对很多知识工作任务来说,某个时候我们会达到"够用"(good enough)。一旦达到够用,你就可以优化其他东西——本地运行、更便宜、更快。我不知道为什么绝对智能这件事对我没什么吸引力。我觉得社会的瓶颈基本不在于智能。Tyler Cowen 也说了类似的话。所以我对"外骨骼"(exoskeleton)更感兴趣——而不是"数据中心某处有一个盒子里的上帝、我们都在那搓手等着"。
**Max:** uh the labs sort of operate I feel like they operate uh under the assumption that people will always want the smartest model like you want the frontier model and I think for certain domains that is probably true I think if we're going to do cancer research and so on and if we're going to spend millions of dollars on something that's likely true but that's not how we run companies either right like we don't have a PhD for everything and so I I I think for a lot of knowledge work tasks probably sometime we'll get to good And once you get to good enough, then you can optimize other things like they run locally, they're cheaper, they're faster. And I don't know why the absolute intelligence thing doesn't interest me very much. I I think society is largely not capped by intelligence. Uh I think Tyler Cowan says something similar. I don't want to put words in his mouth. Um, and so I'm much more interested in the exoskeleton versus the I have a god in a box in some data center center somewhere and we're all sort of, you know, twiddling our thumbs.
**Lenny:** 嗯。我有很多相关问题。太有意思了。你提到过某位 1PM 是最高的 token 消费者——这是全 Notion 范围内的?
**Lenny:** Mhm. I have I have a bunch of questions along these lines. So interesting. You talked about how this 1pm is the highest token spender. This is across all of Notion.
**Max:** 呃,我假设这可能不包括我们的自动安全漏洞扫描和 bug 分类——那些是自动任务。
**Max:** Uh, I would assume this may not include our automatic security uh, vulnerability scanning and like bug triaging is like when
**Lenny:** 对。人工启动的任务。你们对 token 花费的政策是什么?是想花多少花多少、有上限、还是跟踪?
**Lenny:** Yeah. human kicks off and jobs. Yeah. Yeah.
**Max:** 鉴于我都不知道政策是什么——我觉得是无限的。你可以想象某个时候会有上限,但现在我觉得这是错误的优化方向。新东西出现时,值得让人们去探索。我确实怀疑 6 到 12 个月后,很多公司会开始真正追问投资回报率(ROI),那会是一场让很多人不舒服的对话。
**Max:** What's your policy on token spent? Is it spend as much you want here's a limit everyone? Do you keep track of
**Lenny:** 具体花费数字是多少——比如 Eric 或整体?
**Lenny:** given that I don't know what the policy is? I think it is unlimited. Uh I mean you can imagine at some point there would be but uh right now I think it's just the wrong thing to optimize for. It's like when something new comes along it's worth letting people explore. I do suspect in six to 12 months from now a lot of companies are going to actually start asking questions around RARI and I think that will be an uncomfortable conversation for for a lot of folks
**Max:** 我不是问这个的合适人选。
**Max:** in terms of span what are like the numbers for say Eric or broadly in terms
**Lenny:** 好吧,就是很多。
**Lenny:** I am the wrong person to ask
**Max:** 是的。我假设跟 OpenAI 和 Anthropic 的人比起来就不算什么了——毕竟他们工作性质不同。但对个人来说确实在——我都不想说具体数字——肯定是几千美元,也许是几万美元,不确定,取决于情况。
**Max:** okay it's just a lot
**Lenny:** 我觉得就凭你们在这之上搭建了一个产品,就意味着——我们别担心这个了,看看能做什么,然后 6 个月后像你说的再看是否 ROI 正向。
**Lenny:** that is just the I don't I would assume they pale in comparison to the folks at open eye and anthropic just by the nature of the work they do and so on but It is definitely for an individual in the you know I don't even want to put numbers in but like thousands for sure but like maybe tens of thousands I don't know depends yeah
**Max:** 对,我现在有这个不去在乎的奢侈。
**Max:** I think just the fact that you're has had a product or not on top of that means that it's just let's not worry about this let's just see what we can do and then we'll we'll you know in six months as you said we'll figure out if this is ROI positive.
**Lenny:** 是的,我相信有人在看着。不会失控的。
**Lenny:** Yes that I have the luxury to right now not care.
**Max:** 对。我觉得有一个大里程碑是——token 花费什么时候超过某人的工资。人们现在越来越多地讨论这个——应该比工资高还是低?怎么联系?
**Max:** Yeah I'm sure you know someone's looking at it. It's not going to be out of control. Correct. I think there's like this big, I don't know, milestone of when does token spend exceed someone's salary. That's something people talk about now more and more just like should that be higher than your salary, should that be lower? How does that all connect? Yeah, I think there's a real danger in sort of making the token spend the the metric to like boast about, which is the same as when people boast about how many lines of code they've written in a day.
**Max:** 我觉得有一个真正的风险是把 token 花费变成炫耀的指标——这和炫耀一天写了多少行代码是一样的。
**Max:** Yeah. And I'm like, I why do you have so many lines of code? Uh you have I don't know the largest software projects in the world have uh not that many millions of lines of code. Like why are we why are we bragging about that? I I don't actually care about how many tokens someone spends. Um
**Lenny:** 对。
**Lenny:** yeah,
**Max:** 我就想——你为什么有这么多行代码?世界上最大的软件项目也没有那么多百万行代码。我们为什么在吹嘘这个?我其实不在乎谁花了多少 token。
**Lenny:** 不是一个有用的指标。
**Max:** 对。
**Lenny:** 不是一个有用的指标。
**Max:** 对。
**Max:** it's not a metric that's useful.
**Lenny:** 说得太好了。我知道 Meta 最近因为这个被批评了——他们试着创建排行榜看谁做得最多。
**Lenny:** Yeah, such a good point. I know Meta got got some flack for this recently where they're trying to create a leaderboard who's doing the most.
**Max:** 公平地说,我理解为什么公司这么做——让人们识别出自己工作的外循环(outer loop)然后让 agent 来做,需要大量推动工作。让人们走出习惯的工作方式,需要的 prodding 比你想象的多得多。如果你在像 Meta 那样面对数万人的规模下——我有一定同情心——好吧,搞个排行榜鼓励大家做就是了。他们在学习过程中会找到好的、有用的用途。
**Max:** To be fair, I do understand why companies do that which is I am surprised by how much work it takes to get people to identify the outer loop of their work and enlist an agent and build sort of the I don't know the the term right now is like factory, right? Like the software factory for the work that they do. Uh it is surprising to me how much proddding you need to do to get people out of their the way they're used to working. And so if you're dealing with tens of thousands of people at the scale of meta, I have some sympathy for okay, a good way to do this is just start a leaderboard and encourage people to do it. They will find good things and useful things to do with that as they as they learn, right? So it's a Yeah,
**Lenny:** 说得太对了。你必须过度倾斜才能改变人们的默认轻松行为——"我就按老样子写 PRD、按老样子开会。"这很有道理。在 Notion 内部,什么真的有效地让人们显著改变了工作方式?
**Lenny:** it's such a good point. like you have to over overindex to change people's default easy behavior. I'm just going to do things. I'm just gonna write these PRDs the way I've always done it. I'm gonna run the meetings the same the same way I've done it. I think that makes a lot of sense. What have you seen actually work within notion to get people to significantly change the way they work? Depends on the role. So roles that are perhaps further away from engineering actually you don't have to convince them all that much because they're like whoa I have superpowers now. look at this amazing thing I've just built because the the capability gap of what they were able to do before versus after is so huge that it it's intoxicating. And then you have to actually almost do the opposite which is like yes but do you understand why we can't merge this PR? I think on the engineering side something that uh Simon last talks about a lot is sort of any manual intervention in code is kind of bad.
**Max:** 取决于角色。离工程比较远的角色,你其实不太需要说服他们——因为他们会觉得"哇,我现在有超能力了!看我做了这个超棒的东西!"能力差距太大了——之前能做的 vs 之后能做的——太令人沉醉了。然后你反而要做相反的事——"是的,但你明白为什么我们不能合并这个 PR 吗?"
在工程侧,Simon Last 经常说的是:代码中任何人工干预本质上都是坏的。你可能在可验证性循环(verifiability loop)中做错了什么。这当然不包括代码审查——我仍然非常坚持你应该花更多精力审查代码。但至少在编写侧,每次有人工干预,都应该感觉有点像一个 bug。我觉得这是一个很好的试金石——你的"agent 化"程度如何。
在工程侧,Simon Last 经常说的是:代码中任何人工干预本质上都是坏的。你可能在可验证性循环(verifiability loop)中做错了什么。这当然不包括代码审查——我仍然非常坚持你应该花更多精力审查代码。但至少在编写侧,每次有人工干预,都应该感觉有点像一个 bug。我觉得这是一个很好的试金石——你的"agent 化"程度如何。
**Max:** you probably did something wrong in the verifiability loop and in sort of the software factory. Uh this excludes obviously reviewing code, right? Like I am still very much in camp. You should probably review more code than put more effort into reviewing code than you do. Um but at least on the writing side, every time there is an intervention, a human intervention, it should feel a little bit like a bug. I think that's a good litmus test for uh how I don't know agentfilled you are. I want to come back to the tools that you use.
**Lenny:** 我想回到你使用的工具。你提到 Figma 在设计组内有点下降趋势——这很有意思。有什么在上升吗?在你团队的工具栈中还有什么在下降?
**Lenny:** You mentioned um Figma is kind of trending down within the design org, which is really interesting. Is there anything that's trending up? Anything else that's trending down in terms of tools in the tool stack of your team? So, I'm actually not positive that Figma is trending down. I think it's more that there is a there's two camps. Uh I could totally believe the Jevans paradox, which is Figma is actually going up and then of course vibe coding is going up. like I don't want to create in general I really really dislike the the rivalry discourse that exists in in Silicon Valley which is for anthropic to win OpenAI needs to lose and vice versa and like that kind of thing. So I I I don't want to um perpetuate that with sort of the Figma versus versus coding. I think uh the terminal is actually surprising which is it's initially kind of scary for people and you could do so much but now PMs are slowly the once they're in cloud code or codeex everything is fine right and I generally encourage them to not use the guies I I I I encourage them to use the the the twe because I just know that over time they're going to be curious and like pull at other threads and one day they wake up and they're like oh I understand more of the substrate of what how how computers work.
**Max:** 实际上我不确定 Figma 是在下降。更准确地说是有两个阵营。我完全能信杰文斯悖论(Jevons paradox)——也许 Figma 实际上在上升,同时 vibe coding 也在上升。我不想在总体上——我真的非常不喜欢硅谷存在的那种对抗性话语,就是"Anthropic 要赢 OpenAI 就必须输"之类的。所以我不想在 Figma vs 写代码之间制造对立。
我觉得终端(terminal)其实是令人惊讶的。一开始对人们有点吓人,你能做很多事。但现在 PM 们一旦进入 Claude Code 或 Codex,一切都很好了。我通常鼓励他们不用 GUI,用终端界面——因为我知道随着时间推移他们会好奇、会去拉其他线索,有一天他们醒来发现"哦,我对计算机底层工作原理理解更多了"。
我觉得终端(terminal)其实是令人惊讶的。一开始对人们有点吓人,你能做很多事。但现在 PM 们一旦进入 Claude Code 或 Codex,一切都很好了。我通常鼓励他们不用 GUI,用终端界面——因为我知道随着时间推移他们会好奇、会去拉其他线索,有一天他们醒来发现"哦,我对计算机底层工作原理理解更多了"。
**Max:** That is so interesting. So the designers are using the terminal.
**Lenny:** 太有趣了。所以设计师在用终端。
**Lenny:** Yes. Yeah. And then um I I don't know conductor is another one. They they're basically just mostly using developer tools. It's not that different from what uh developers use.
**Max:** 对。然后还有 Conductor 之类的——他们基本上就是在用开发者工具。和开发者用的没什么两样。
---
**[广告:Vanta]**
我非常高兴向你介绍本季的支持赞助商 Vanta。Vanta 帮助超过 15,000 家公司——包括 Cursor、Ramp、Duolingo、Snowflake 和 Atlassian——获得并证明客户的信任。团队正以前所未有的速度构建和发布产品——多亏了 AI。但结果是,引入你产品和业务的风险也比以往任何时候都高。我交谈过的每一位安全负责人都感受到了保护组织、业务和客户数据的日益加重的压力。因为事情变化太快,他们不断在被动应对、猜测优先级、将就过时的解决方案。
Vanta 通过超过 35 个安全和隐私框架自动化合规和风险管理——包括 SOC 2、ISO 27001 和 HIPAA。这帮助公司快速达到合规并持续保持合规。信任有能力成就或摧毁你的业务。更多信息请访问 vanta.com/lenny。作为本播客的听众,你可以获得 Vanta 1000 美元的优惠。就是 vanta.com/lenny。
---
---
**[广告:Vanta]**
我非常高兴向你介绍本季的支持赞助商 Vanta。Vanta 帮助超过 15,000 家公司——包括 Cursor、Ramp、Duolingo、Snowflake 和 Atlassian——获得并证明客户的信任。团队正以前所未有的速度构建和发布产品——多亏了 AI。但结果是,引入你产品和业务的风险也比以往任何时候都高。我交谈过的每一位安全负责人都感受到了保护组织、业务和客户数据的日益加重的压力。因为事情变化太快,他们不断在被动应对、猜测优先级、将就过时的解决方案。
Vanta 通过超过 35 个安全和隐私框架自动化合规和风险管理——包括 SOC 2、ISO 27001 和 HIPAA。这帮助公司快速达到合规并持续保持合规。信任有能力成就或摧毁你的业务。更多信息请访问 vanta.com/lenny。作为本播客的听众,你可以获得 Vanta 1000 美元的优惠。就是 vanta.com/lenny。
---
**Max:** I am so excited to tell you about this season's supporting sponsor, Vanta. Vanta helps over 15,000 companies like Cursor, Ramp, Dualingo, Snowflake, and Atlassian earn and prove trust with their customers. Teams are building and shipping products faster than ever. thanks to AI. But as a result, the amount of risk being introduced into your product and your business is higher than it's ever been. Every security leader that I talk to is feeling the increasing weight of protecting their organization, their business, and not to mention their customer data. Because things are moving so fast, they are constantly reacting, having to guess at priorities, and having to make do with outdated solutions. Vanta automates compliance and risk management with over 35 security and privacy frameworks including SOCK 2, ISO 27,0001 and HIPPA. This helps companies get compliant fast and stay compliant more than ever before. Trust has the power to make or break your business. Learn more at vanta.com/lenny. And as a listener of this podcast, you get $1,000 off Vanta. That's vanta.com/lenny. AI has completely transformed the work of a software engineer. Like two years ago versus today, it's completely different. Like almost all your code is now AI. It and we've been talking about like when will 50% of engineers in the world be writing 100% AI code? It's probably like in a year, which is insane how much that job has changed. Which role do you think AI transforms next? Is it marketing? Is it growth? Is it sales? Is it design? Do you have a sense of like where things are starting to really change other than engineering?
**Lenny:** AI 已经彻底改变了软件工程师的工作。两年前和今天完全不同。几乎你所有的代码现在都是 AI 写的。我们一直在讨论什么时候世界上 50% 的工程师会写 100% AI 代码——可能一年内——这太疯狂了,那份工作变化有多大。你觉得 AI 接下来会改变哪个角色?是市场营销?是增长?是销售?是设计?你有没有感觉到除了工程之外,哪里开始真正发生变化了?
**Lenny:** Okay, this is maybe a hot take and I actually don't have enough um I I it's very likely that the labs are like haha look at this guy. Um my take it's very clear at least empirically that models are getting better at coding at some exponential rate right and I don't think that's changing now. I'm not that impressed with the progress in the any other domain. it tends to be like I don't think they've gotten significantly better at writing.
**Max:** 好的,这可能是个辛辣观点,我没有足够的证据——很可能实验室的人会笑着说"看看这家伙"。我的看法是:非常明确的是,至少从经验上看,模型在编码方面以某种指数速率在变好——我不觉得这会改变。但我对其他任何领域的进步都没那么印象深刻。写作方面我觉得没有显著变好——我仍然非常讨厌读 AI 生成的垃圾文字(AI slop)。
但关键是——软件正在吞噬世界(software is eating the world)嘛。如果创建软件、把业务实践编码化的成本趋近于零——我就是指那种老式的 Software 1.0 代码——那我们就会有更多软件。所以我觉得在那种情况下,更多的是软件工程会渗透到所有其他领域——而不一定是说某种——我不知道——我们 HR 的同事正在自动化很多东西,因为他们现在不需要去麻烦工程团队写那些代码了。
如果你看模型公司说"哦,我们在这个非编码领域取得了巨大进步"——我就想说"你只是把编码原则应用到了这个领域,这很好,但本质上还是编码在变强。"所以我觉得"软件正在吞噬世界"会加速。
但关键是——软件正在吞噬世界(software is eating the world)嘛。如果创建软件、把业务实践编码化的成本趋近于零——我就是指那种老式的 Software 1.0 代码——那我们就会有更多软件。所以我觉得在那种情况下,更多的是软件工程会渗透到所有其他领域——而不一定是说某种——我不知道——我们 HR 的同事正在自动化很多东西,因为他们现在不需要去麻烦工程团队写那些代码了。
如果你看模型公司说"哦,我们在这个非编码领域取得了巨大进步"——我就想说"你只是把编码原则应用到了这个领域,这很好,但本质上还是编码在变强。"所以我觉得"软件正在吞噬世界"会加速。
**Max:** I still very much hate reading uh sort of AI slop writing but the thing is software we we uh Andre right like software is eating the world well if the cost of software and creating software and encoding business practices in code and like I just literally mean the old like software 1.0 no kind of code then if that cost is very much going to zero we will just have a lot more of it and so I think then in that case it's more that software engineering will go into all the other domains not necessarily that there is sort of some sort of yeah like um I don't know our folks in HR are automating a lot of things because now they don't have to bug an engineering team to write that code uh and so I think that's how it's it's going and like if you look at when the model companies say, "Oh, we've made great progress in this other non-coding domain." I was like, "You just applied coding principles to this domain, which is wonderful, but that's what it's getting better at, right?" And so I think um I I just think software is eating the world is going to accelerate. That is a really interesting take. So it's basically software just the acceleration of software eating the world uh versus it's like it's going to now do a different kind of job.
**Lenny:** 这是一个非常有趣的观点。所以基本上就是"软件吞噬世界"的加速——而不是说 AI 要去做一种完全不同的工作。这让我想到——Claude Code 的产品负责人也说了同样的事——各种 agent 的获胜方式都会是编码 agent,自己构建需要的东西——而不是有固定的几种能力。Open class 就是一个好例子——它就是"我要给自己造一个技能,现在我知道怎么做这件事了"。
**Lenny:** This makes me think about the um had a product for codec said the same thing that every agent there's all these different kinds of agents and his take is every agent that will win is going to be a coding agent that builds the thing it needs versus like it's come it has like certain number of capabilities.
**Max:** 对,所有 agent 也是——如果你看所有的框架(harnesses),无论是开源的还是模型公司的、包括我们的——都像编码 agent。
**Max:** Open class is such a good example.
**Lenny:** 我想回到 ROI 那个话题。这很有意思——就像你说的"花花花,看看会怎样,学习、加速"。你说大概 6 个月后很多公司会开始真正看成本。你预测会发生什么?
**Lenny:** It's just like I will build a skill for myself and now I know how to do this thing.
**Max:** 我可能在这上面花了太多时间,因为我对事情的走向字面上零影响。但你可以想象一个世界——实验室和开源权重模型之间的差距扩大了。那是一个我非常不喜欢的世界——因为我讨厌权力集中。在那个世界里,实验室基本上决定世界长什么样。
我觉得如果差距没有扩大,你就会看到扩散——人们会非常自在地运行自己的模型、对自己的模型做 RLHF。你在 Cursor 看到了这一点,在 Intercom 看到了这一点,Notion 也在涉足。现在只是涉足,但显然某个时候我们可能会更认真地对待它。然后你就有了——它可能不是前沿的,但对很多任务来说够用了。在那种情况下就是一个 ROI 计算——把这个任务发给一个更小的、运行更便宜的模型、去掉实验室利润率是否更划算。
我觉得这可能会发生,但只有在差距没有快速拉大的情况下。另一个有趣的点是:现在我们其实处于最幸运的时间线之一——至少在美国有三个有能力的实验室在较劲,谁知道也许加上 Meta 就是四个,也许某个时候能有六个。我很希望有十几个前沿模型在美国——而不是总是依赖世界其他地方。但这已经相当好了。如果竞争停了我会有点担心。
如果没有停,我觉得会像云战争(cloud wars)一样——某个时候层会商品化。企业不会想锁定在一个供应商上。我以前在 Heroku 工作过——Kubernetes 比 Heroku 成功得多,尽管从用户体验角度我觉得它差得多。差异在于 Heroku 说"我们要替代你的运维团队",而 Kubernetes 说"我们要让你的运维团队变成超级英雄——而且我们不会把你锁定在一朵云上,你可以选择"。企业显然想要选择权。所以真的很难预测——取决于模型进步的不对称性。
我觉得如果差距没有扩大,你就会看到扩散——人们会非常自在地运行自己的模型、对自己的模型做 RLHF。你在 Cursor 看到了这一点,在 Intercom 看到了这一点,Notion 也在涉足。现在只是涉足,但显然某个时候我们可能会更认真地对待它。然后你就有了——它可能不是前沿的,但对很多任务来说够用了。在那种情况下就是一个 ROI 计算——把这个任务发给一个更小的、运行更便宜的模型、去掉实验室利润率是否更划算。
我觉得这可能会发生,但只有在差距没有快速拉大的情况下。另一个有趣的点是:现在我们其实处于最幸运的时间线之一——至少在美国有三个有能力的实验室在较劲,谁知道也许加上 Meta 就是四个,也许某个时候能有六个。我很希望有十几个前沿模型在美国——而不是总是依赖世界其他地方。但这已经相当好了。如果竞争停了我会有点担心。
如果没有停,我觉得会像云战争(cloud wars)一样——某个时候层会商品化。企业不会想锁定在一个供应商上。我以前在 Heroku 工作过——Kubernetes 比 Heroku 成功得多,尽管从用户体验角度我觉得它差得多。差异在于 Heroku 说"我们要替代你的运维团队",而 Kubernetes 说"我们要让你的运维团队变成超级英雄——而且我们不会把你锁定在一朵云上,你可以选择"。企业显然想要选择权。所以真的很难预测——取决于模型进步的不对称性。
**Max:** Yes, all agents are also like if you look at all the harnesses whether it's the open source ones or the ones from the model companies uh ours as well uh they all resemble a coding agent. I'm going to come back to the ROI piece. I think this is really interesting as you said there's just like okay we're going to spend spend spend just see what happens learn accelerate lean into all this stuff you're uh saying that in maybe 6 months something like that you think a lot of companies are going to start really looking at the cost here what do you I know you said you don't like to predict things but what do you predict is going to start happening I probably spend too much time than I should because I have literally zero impact on any of this as sort of how it plays out but you can imagine a world where the labs the delta between the labs and open weight models and so on uh widens. That is a world that I very much don't like because I I hate centralization of power. Um but in that world uh I think the labs just kind of get to decide uh what the world looks like. I think if that gap doesn't widen then you will just see a diffusion and people will get very comfortable running their own models rlinging their own models right like you see this with cursor you see this with intercom notion is uh dabbling in it as well he's dabbling right now but uh obviously at some point we might become more serious about it and then you have like it's not going it may not be the frontier but for a lot of tasks it'll be good enough and so I think in that case that is just an ROI calculation that is the is it cheaper for me to send this task to a smaller model that is cheaper to run where I remove the lab sort of profit margin kind of thing. I think that may happen but it only happens if there isn't a fast sort of like you know oh yeah the gap is now so big. The other one is that's interesting is right now I think we're actually in a one of the luckiest possible timelines which is we have at least in the US three competent labs that are all sort of duking it out at the and like who knows maybe meta now. So four maybe we can make it six at some point. I think like I would love a world where we have like a dozen sort of frontier models in the US versus having to always rely on on on um uh other places in the world to do this. Uh but like that's sort of pretty good. If that choose stopped I would be somewhat worried. Um uh and then it's hard to predict right like what would happen. Uh but if that doesn't then I think it's going to look similar to the cloud wars which is some point layers commoditize. Businesses are not going to want to lock in into one single provider. uh I don't know in a past life I worked at Heroku and like Kubernetes was much more successful than than Heroku even though I think from a user experience perspective it was much worse but the delta was Heroku was saying hey we're going to uh uh replace your ops team and Kubernetes was we're going to make your ops team superheroes and also we're not going to lock you into a cloud you can choose and obviously that's what businesses want right like businesses want uh choice and so I don't know it it's really hard to predict because It depends. So, it's so as asymmetric in terms of model progress.
**Lenny:** 说到"赢的产品往往是让你觉得自己是超级英雄的"——我总会想到 Kathy Sierra。你记得那个概念吗?
**Max:** 嗯,有点印象。
**Max:** 嗯,有点印象。
**Lenny:** When you say the products that win often are the ones that make you feel like superheroes, I always think about Kathy Sierra.
**Lenny:** 这是很古老的东西了——暴露年龄了。她的核心理念——对我影响很深,也影响了很多人对产品的思考——就是:不要谈论你的产品多么了不起,而是"我们会让你变成超级英雄"。就像马里奥拿到那朵小花获得超能力——而不是"看看我们多么不可思议的产品"。我觉得编码公司在转型时也学到了这一点——为什么自动代码审查工具效果不太好?我觉得这有个微妙之处:你公开(在团队内)推送你的代码,然后一个东西吐槽你的代码、告诉你你是多么糟糕的开发者。但 Claude Code 和 Codex 做的是——你在写代码,然后你发布的是"你 + Claude"的作品,你获得了"多么好的开发者"的荣誉感。所以超级英雄这个东西确实是真的。
**Lenny:** 说到超级英雄——我本来没打算聊这个,但最近听到很多人说他们多么喜欢你们的 agent——Notion AI agent。就是不断有人提起"哇这真的很有用"。我很想听听你觉得它为什么这么成功。我知道你们发布前酝酿了很久。你觉得什么让它如此有用和成功?
**Lenny:** 说到超级英雄——我本来没打算聊这个,但最近听到很多人说他们多么喜欢你们的 agent——Notion AI agent。就是不断有人提起"哇这真的很有用"。我很想听听你觉得它为什么这么成功。我知道你们发布前酝酿了很久。你觉得什么让它如此有用和成功?
**Lenny:** Do you remember that at all as the thing?
**Max:** 我希望它更好。我自己是最苛刻的批评者。我大部分时间在想它哪里不够好,而不是它多好。但我同意——我其实对它有多好感到惊讶,这话听起来很奇怪。
Notion 一直相当走在 AI 前沿。第一个 Notion 助手实际上在 ChatGPT 之前就推出了。Ivan 和 Simon 都有那种直觉——"这要改变很多东西"——所以这是一个巨大的原因。但现在每家公司都想成为 AI 原生(AI native)——不管那意味着什么——有点像"云原生"——我总觉得如果你必须说出来,你真的是吗?但我对 Notion 这件事发生得如此之快感到惊讶——我几乎不揽功。
我觉得它好的原因是:agent 需要上下文才能运作。Agent 不喜欢"我要通过这个窄口去访问那个数据仓库"。我觉得人们第一次明显感受到了为什么"连接工作空间"(connected workspace)真正有价值——因为你可以让 agent 在里面自由漫游。这也触及可塑软件——我更把 Notion 看作一个操作系统,在那种情况下它和编码 agent 在 Unix 中的环境比人们直觉上想到的更像。
这些都有贡献。然后有时候就是——我们够傻,敢去尝试难的事。比如我们的企业搜索,我们做了很多自动权限处理等别人没做的事。你得在乎。
Notion 一直相当走在 AI 前沿。第一个 Notion 助手实际上在 ChatGPT 之前就推出了。Ivan 和 Simon 都有那种直觉——"这要改变很多东西"——所以这是一个巨大的原因。但现在每家公司都想成为 AI 原生(AI native)——不管那意味着什么——有点像"云原生"——我总觉得如果你必须说出来,你真的是吗?但我对 Notion 这件事发生得如此之快感到惊讶——我几乎不揽功。
我觉得它好的原因是:agent 需要上下文才能运作。Agent 不喜欢"我要通过这个窄口去访问那个数据仓库"。我觉得人们第一次明显感受到了为什么"连接工作空间"(connected workspace)真正有价值——因为你可以让 agent 在里面自由漫游。这也触及可塑软件——我更把 Notion 看作一个操作系统,在那种情况下它和编码 agent 在 Unix 中的环境比人们直觉上想到的更像。
这些都有贡献。然后有时候就是——我们够傻,敢去尝试难的事。比如我们的企业搜索,我们做了很多自动权限处理等别人没做的事。你得在乎。
**Max:** Uh, it rings a bell. Okay. This just like it's like from from the olden days at this point. Shows how old I am. She was just something that really stuck with me and I think it's informed a lot of how people think about product at least in the past is just her whole pitch was uh instead of making talking about your product and how amazing it is, it's about we will make you a superhero. Like it's like Mario getting the little flower and having superpowers now versus look at our incredible product. Uh I think it's actually a thing that uh the coding companies had to learn when they tried to move to like why do code review tools automatic code review tools not work that well? I think this is actually a subtle thing which is you push your code publicly to or publicly within your organization or your team and then a thing roasts your code and tells you how terrible of a developer you are versus if you think about what claude code and codeex does is you're coding and then you publish the work of you plus Claude and you get bragging rights of how good of a developer you are, right? And so I think the superhero stuff is is definitely true. Speaking of superhero, I wasn't planning to talk about this, but I've been hearing a lot about how much people love your agent, the notion AI agent that you all released. Just like it's just coming up a lot of just like, wow, this is actually really useful with like a lot of different people. It'd be interesting to hear what you think made it so successful. I know it was like a long time before you guys launched it. Just like what do you think is helping it be this useful and successful as a product out in the world? I would like it to be even better. So, I I'm like my own worst critic, I guess. Uh I've spent most of my day thinking about where it falls short, not how great it is. But I agree with you that um I'm actually surprised at how this sounds so weird. I'm surprised how good it is, if that makes sense. Um Notion has always been fairly at the forefront of AI. Like I think the first notion assistant was actually launched before Chat GPT. And so it's not that like I think both Ivan and uh Simon had the intuition of hey this is going to change a lot of things and so that's a huge sort of reason why but there every company wants to become AI native now whatever that means I it's kind of like cloud native I'm like if you have to say it then are you really do you have a chance but uh I'm surprised how fast that happened for notion and I I'll take almost no credit in this um I think what's good about it is agents need context to operate agents don't really like walls of like oh I I have to go through this narrow orifice to talk to this other data repository and um I think for the first time it is kind of obvious to people why a connected workspace is actually valuable because it's great I can have agents roam around and do that and it touches on malleable software I think I think of notion as an operating system more so and then in that case it resembles the environment that coding agents are in with Unix much more than one might maybe intuitively think. So I think those all contribute and then sometimes it's just we're just dumb enough to try hard things. Uh and so I think our enterprise search is sort of like this this thing where we do a lot of automatic permission handling and so on that others don't. Uh I don't know it's it's you have to care. I'm going to come back to my quote from the Bible. I feel like that actually is an answer to this question that it was made for such a time as this. the fact that notion basically has all the things about everything in your company is the perfect source of context for using AI and helping you work. So, it's just like just being around long enough for Wow. Okay, this is exactly what we've been meant to be.
**Lenny:** 我要回到《圣经》的那句话了。我觉得那其实就是这个问题的答案——"它生来就是为了这样的时刻"。Notion 基本上拥有你公司里所有事情的所有信息——这是使用 AI 和帮助你工作的完美上下文来源。就是——存在够久了之后——"哇,这正是我们一直注定要成为的。"
**Max:** 干得好。干得好。和可塑软件一样——我很高兴人们现在觉醒了,但它已经存在很久了。只是一直稍微太难、稍微太"我为什么要做这个"。所以——我要用你《圣经》的这句话了。谢谢。
**Max:** 干得好。干得好。和可塑软件一样——我很高兴人们现在觉醒了,但它已经存在很久了。只是一直稍微太难、稍微太"我为什么要做这个"。所以——我要用你《圣经》的这句话了。谢谢。
**Lenny:** It's nice job. Nice job.
**Lenny:** 拿去用。原句更短——"for such a time as this"——解释就是:你注定要做这件事。这集《圣经》含量很高。天啊。
回到你们团队的运作方式——我觉得很多人现在在想这个。到处都在说生产力、节奏、把东西推出去——Anthropic 基本上每天都在发布大产品。你的工作就是做产品、帮人们持续地、经常地发布好东西。什么做法让你们能更快地发布、你们自豪的、有效的东西?
回到你们团队的运作方式——我觉得很多人现在在想这个。到处都在说生产力、节奏、把东西推出去——Anthropic 基本上每天都在发布大产品。你的工作就是做产品、帮人们持续地、经常地发布好东西。什么做法让你们能更快地发布、你们自豪的、有效的东西?
**Lenny:** It's the same as uh malleable software, right? Like I I love that people are waking up to malleable software now, but it's been around for a long time.
**Max:** 我觉得这个答案非常公司特定——内部文化。我的职业生涯中有两次这种情况。一次是加入 GitHub——疯狂的产品市场契合度,但恰好我加入时有点身份认同危机——"我们下一幕是什么?我们该做什么?"——很多关于发什么的争论,因为如果第一幕太精彩了,这就很难跟。我觉得 Notion 也在同一个桶里。所以很多时候就是提醒人们——"嘿,你就做就行了,不用那么宝贝。"
我觉得有一种"宝贝化"(preciousness)会随时间发展——"哦,我们要做什么?用户会不满的。"但用户因为我们不创新而不满的程度,远大于因为我们不小心搞坏了一个东西。这当然是个平衡。但我觉得关键就是提醒人们:做出第一幕的同一群人,极大概率也能做出第二幕——但你得试。"射门次数"(shots on goal)是我们内部常说的——好,你怎么增加射门次数?如果我们回到现在做实验更容易了这一点——你就是在增加射门次数。
所以我觉得这很有效。只是一个接一个地发功能并不——我们最近 6 个月确实有点上了节奏,但功能数量和代码行数、token 消耗一样是个愚蠢的指标。我宁愿有更少但真正好的功能——组合逻辑让你能做一切。
所以我仍然在挣扎的一件事是软件质量。我也会说实验室不能免于此。我爱他们的工具,很棒,我活在 CLI 里——但每两周一个回归(regression),一个三周前修好的东西又坏了,TUI 渲染帧率都不合理。我觉得质量是缺失的——那种 Apple 式的一体成型铝制工程。我希望作为行业我们能回到那种水平。
我觉得有一种"宝贝化"(preciousness)会随时间发展——"哦,我们要做什么?用户会不满的。"但用户因为我们不创新而不满的程度,远大于因为我们不小心搞坏了一个东西。这当然是个平衡。但我觉得关键就是提醒人们:做出第一幕的同一群人,极大概率也能做出第二幕——但你得试。"射门次数"(shots on goal)是我们内部常说的——好,你怎么增加射门次数?如果我们回到现在做实验更容易了这一点——你就是在增加射门次数。
所以我觉得这很有效。只是一个接一个地发功能并不——我们最近 6 个月确实有点上了节奏,但功能数量和代码行数、token 消耗一样是个愚蠢的指标。我宁愿有更少但真正好的功能——组合逻辑让你能做一切。
所以我仍然在挣扎的一件事是软件质量。我也会说实验室不能免于此。我爱他们的工具,很棒,我活在 CLI 里——但每两周一个回归(regression),一个三周前修好的东西又坏了,TUI 渲染帧率都不合理。我觉得质量是缺失的——那种 Apple 式的一体成型铝制工程。我希望作为行业我们能回到那种水平。
**Max:** It was just always slightly too hard and slightly too like why would I do this? And so I think yeah I like I'm going to use this quote from the Bible.
**Lenny:** 你做了什么来改进?有代码质量,也有实际软件质量。如果你在"射门",就总有"等它变得很棒"的平衡。你给团队的沟通是什么——我们怎么找到那个平衡?
**Lenny:** Thank you.
**Max:** 这让人很沮丧,但——我不能给你看因为我在用笔记本——我们有一个贴纸叫 "Obviously Good"(明显好的),意思是只做明显好的东西。起源是——"好,等等,那是什么意思?"我说"你看到就知道了。我不觉得有人在看到第一代 iPhone 时会争辩说它不是'明显好的'。我不觉得有人在 ChatGPT 刚出来时会争辩它不是'明显好的'。"所以那就是标准——只做明显好的东西。
我觉得很多公司犯的错误是——"好,我们要躲在洞里直到它明显好了。"我的核心价值观之一是"增量正确性"(incremental correctness)——迭代,变得非常非常擅长迭代。所以大概是两者的结合:增加射门次数。比如一个好例子——我们的客户一直吐槽我们在 Notion 里有六个自动化原语(包括 agent 在内)。我说"对,我们让一堆不同的想法生长了,看看它们怎么工作"——但然后你必须做那个困难的工作:把它整合回那个想法的赤裸的机器核心(naked robotic core)。这很难,因为你得接受下一个发布可能稍微延迟。
我不知道。我觉得 Notion 在这方面还有工作要做——行业整体也是。有人开玩笑说"为什么 Claude 桌面应用有三个 tab——co-work 和不知道第一个 chat 什么的"——为什么我们有六个自动化原语?因为需要有人坐下来整合它们,弄清楚什么是真正的核心简单事物——应该比其他进化分支活得更久的那个。
我觉得很多公司犯的错误是——"好,我们要躲在洞里直到它明显好了。"我的核心价值观之一是"增量正确性"(incremental correctness)——迭代,变得非常非常擅长迭代。所以大概是两者的结合:增加射门次数。比如一个好例子——我们的客户一直吐槽我们在 Notion 里有六个自动化原语(包括 agent 在内)。我说"对,我们让一堆不同的想法生长了,看看它们怎么工作"——但然后你必须做那个困难的工作:把它整合回那个想法的赤裸的机器核心(naked robotic core)。这很难,因为你得接受下一个发布可能稍微延迟。
我不知道。我觉得 Notion 在这方面还有工作要做——行业整体也是。有人开玩笑说"为什么 Claude 桌面应用有三个 tab——co-work 和不知道第一个 chat 什么的"——为什么我们有六个自动化原语?因为需要有人坐下来整合它们,弄清楚什么是真正的核心简单事物——应该比其他进化分支活得更久的那个。
**Max:** There it is. It's like shorter. The original quote is for such a time as this and interpretation is this. You're like destined to do this thing. This is very Bible heavy episode. Oh man. Um going back to the way your team operates because I think this is something that a lot of people are thinking about right now. There's all this talk of productivity pace getting things out like Anthropics launching a a massive product every day. Basically, your job is at a product, help people ship consistently, regularly, often, ship great stuff. What has worked in allowing you guys to ship more quickly if you are and and stuff that you're proud of, stuff that works? I think this answer is so specific to companies like internal culture where if you I've I've been at this in this situation sort of twice in my career. one is uh when I joined GitHub which is obviously I think I don't know insane product market fit uh it just so happened that at the time that I had joined there was a little bit of a I don't know identity crisis or like oh what's our next act what do we do and like lots of debates about what to ship because it's such a tough act to follow if your first act was just incredible right and I don't know I would put notion in the same bucket and so a lot in this case it's just like reminding people that hey you can just do stuff we don't have to be that precious. I think there's this preciousness that develops over time. It's like, oh, what do we do? And our users are going to be upset. Well, our users are going to be upset if we don't innovate more so than if we accidentally break a thing. So, it's obviously a balance. Um, but I think just reminding people that the same group of people that was able to do the first act is very likely going to be able to do the second one, but you have to try. Shots on goal is a thing that we say internally a lot, which is like great, how do you increase shots on goal? which of course if if we go back to it's easier to experiment now you're increasing the shots of goal on goal right um so I think that has worked really well just shipping feature after feature doesn't I we have been a little bit on a roll in terms of shipping new functionality maybe in the last like I don't know 6 months or so but at the end of the day feature count is the same silly metric as lines of code or tokens consumed or whatever um I would rather have fewer features that are really really good and where the combinatorics let you do everything. And so I think something that I'm still very much uh struggling with is software quality. And I will also say I don't think the labs are exempt from this. Uh like I I love their tools. It's great. like I love I live in the CLI but a regression like every two weeks of like a thing that was fixed like three weeks before and they still can't render a TUI at I don't know a frame rate that's ex reasonable and so I think yeah quality is a thing that's missing like this Appleesque machined unibody aluminum kind of engineering I I I would like us to to figure out how to get back to that as an industry. Is there something you've done to help improve that? So, there's code quality and then there's actual software quality. If you're shipping, you know, shots on goal, there's always this balance of, okay, but wait for it to be awesome. I know this is just like very hard question to answer, but just how do you what's your kind of communication to the team of here's how we're going to here's where we're going to find that balance? And this is a very frustrating thing for people, but uh I actually I can't show you because I'm using my laptop, but we have a obviously good stickers, which is let's just only make obviously good stuff. the origin, which is like, okay, wait, what does that mean? And I'm like, ah, you know it when you see it. Like, I don't think anyone argued when they saw the first iPhone that it's obviously good. I don't think anyone argued that when Chat GPT first came out that it's obviously good. And so, I think that's the bar, like just make obviously good stuff. I think the mistake that maybe a lot of companies then make is great, we're going to be in this cave in isolation until we have it sort of be obviously good. Um, one of my core values is incremental correctness, which is sort of, uh, iterate, get really, really good at iterating. And so, uh, I don't know, it's probably a union of, okay, increase shots on goal. Like, here's a great example. We get roasted from our customers all the time, which I love about we have like six automation primitives inside of notion, right? Like if you include all the agents and so on. I'm like, yep, we let like a bunch of sort of different ideas sort of grow. we look at how they work, but then you do have to do the hard work at consolidating it back into like the the naked robotic core of that idea and that's hard, right? Because you have to sort of be okay with perhaps then shipping the next thing slightly delayed as you reconcile. Um I don't know. I think we have work to do there like at notion but um at an as an industry too like somebody was joking like why does claude the desktop app have three tabs of co-work and I don't know what the first chat or whatever um why do we have six automation primitives well because someone has to sit down and reconcile them and like figure out what's actually the core simple thing that should outlive the other uh sort of evolutionary branches uh of that same idea. this idea of knowing when things are obviously good. There's a element of having taste and there's this word taste that comes up a lot now and this is like what we will need more and more because AI is building the thing now our job is taste is this great is this good I feel like you're someone that has really great taste a question people always ask how do I build taste do I have taste do you have any advice for someone that's like I want to develop my taste I first I don't know if I have great taste like I I I look at others and I look at how they exercise taste and I think that The common thing I think is iterations with feedback. So it takes a really long time to build up taste in a specific domain. Then you maybe often can extrapolate into other domains with that taste. But if I had to describe what taste actually means, it's you're able to run, this is such a nerdy way of describing it. You're able to run a virtual machine in your head where given an idea, you can predict for a certain inroup whether they're going to like it or not. Right? Um the extremes are is if you are the only person on the planet that thinks something is good, is it good? No. But maybe you also don't need to build a product for 8 billion people. I've never built consumer software. I I would probably be terrible at it. But you decide what your in-group is and then how good do you get at emulating uh how they will react to it. And to do that you just have to do reps. It's almost like training a model which is also why I'm not super you know the whole um the one thing that we have left is is taste. I'm not so sure. Like I if you think about the loop it's input idea. How do people react? That seems very uh back propagation. I don't know like it seems very much how we train models too.
**Lenny:** 这个关于"知道什么东西是明显好的"的概念。有一个品味的元素——"品味"(taste)这个词现在频繁出现。就是说"AI 在造东西了,我们的工作就是品味——这个好吗?这个棒吗?"我觉得你是品味很好的人。人们总问:我怎么培养品味?我有品味吗?你有什么建议给想发展自己品味的人?
**Max:** 首先我不确定我品味是否很好——我看看别人怎么运用品味。我觉得共同点是:反复迭代+反馈。在一个特定领域培养品味需要很长时间。然后你也许经常能把那种品味外推到其他领域。但如果我要描述品味到底意味着什么——这是一种很 nerd 的描述方式——你能在脑子里运行一个虚拟机,给定一个想法,你能预测某个目标群体(in-group)是否会喜欢它。
极端情况是:如果地球上只有你一个人觉得某个东西好,那它好吗?不。但也许你也不需要为 80 亿人做产品。我从没做过消费者软件——我可能做得很差。但你决定你的目标群体是谁,然后看你能多好地模拟他们会如何反应。要做到这一点你只需要不断重复(reps)。几乎就像训练模型一样——这也是为什么我对"我们剩下的唯一东西就是品味"这个说法不太确定。如果你想想那个循环——输入想法→人们怎么反应——这看起来很像反向传播(back propagation)。感觉很像我们训练模型的方式。
**Lenny:** 我很喜欢——基本就是你通过做这件事、获得反馈、迭代来培养品味。
**Max:** 看看日本——日本工匠对吧?他们就是一直在——我不知道——涂那个碗涂了多久。就是需要时间。所以我觉得越多地做重复练习、提高重复的频率——这就是我要说的。
**Lenny:** 太有趣了。这正是 agent 学习和发展的方式——模型学习的方式——做这件事,看看好不好、对不对,不对,好,学。所以就是做事、学习、获得反馈。没有速通(speedrun)的办法。这就是为什么品味最好的人往往已经做了很久。
**Max:** 首先我不确定我品味是否很好——我看看别人怎么运用品味。我觉得共同点是:反复迭代+反馈。在一个特定领域培养品味需要很长时间。然后你也许经常能把那种品味外推到其他领域。但如果我要描述品味到底意味着什么——这是一种很 nerd 的描述方式——你能在脑子里运行一个虚拟机,给定一个想法,你能预测某个目标群体(in-group)是否会喜欢它。
极端情况是:如果地球上只有你一个人觉得某个东西好,那它好吗?不。但也许你也不需要为 80 亿人做产品。我从没做过消费者软件——我可能做得很差。但你决定你的目标群体是谁,然后看你能多好地模拟他们会如何反应。要做到这一点你只需要不断重复(reps)。几乎就像训练模型一样——这也是为什么我对"我们剩下的唯一东西就是品味"这个说法不太确定。如果你想想那个循环——输入想法→人们怎么反应——这看起来很像反向传播(back propagation)。感觉很像我们训练模型的方式。
**Lenny:** 我很喜欢——基本就是你通过做这件事、获得反馈、迭代来培养品味。
**Max:** 看看日本——日本工匠对吧?他们就是一直在——我不知道——涂那个碗涂了多久。就是需要时间。所以我觉得越多地做重复练习、提高重复的频率——这就是我要说的。
**Lenny:** 太有趣了。这正是 agent 学习和发展的方式——模型学习的方式——做这件事,看看好不好、对不对,不对,好,学。所以就是做事、学习、获得反馈。没有速通(speedrun)的办法。这就是为什么品味最好的人往往已经做了很久。
**Lenny:** So I what I love that it's basically you built taste by just doing the thing getting feedback iterating.
**Max:** 我会说一件我注意到的事——特别是对设计师来说——在软件设计中品味最好的设计师,是那些既有自己全权负责端到端的副项目(side projects),又总在折腾新应用的人。他们就是那种烦人的同事——"嘿,我们试试这个工具怎么样?"我就想"真的吗?你这是第 49 次推荐新工具了。我们真的需要吗?"
接触别人的想法。我觉得这也很重要——让自己被有品味的东西包围,这样你会觉得自己做的东西还不够好。我们在 Notion 做的一件事是——所有会议室都以著名物品命名——第一台打字机、Macintosh、Porsche 911 等等。所以不可避免的,当我坐在某个会议室里、注意到这个房间时——我做的东西都比不上这些——我得做得更好。
接触别人的想法。我觉得这也很重要——让自己被有品味的东西包围,这样你会觉得自己做的东西还不够好。我们在 Notion 做的一件事是——所有会议室都以著名物品命名——第一台打字机、Macintosh、Porsche 911 等等。所以不可避免的,当我坐在某个会议室里、注意到这个房间时——我做的东西都比不上这些——我得做得更好。
**Max:** Look at Japan like Japanese crafts people right they've just been I don't know painting the bowl for however long uh and it just takes a while and so I think the more reps they the increase the frequency of reps that's that's what I would say. It's so funny. That's exactly how um you know agents learn and and develop how how as you said a models learn just like doing the thing seeing was this good was this correct no okay learn. So it's just yeah it's just doing the thing learning getting feedback and there's no way to uh speedrun this. This is why often people with the best taste have been doing this for a long time. The one thing I will say that I've noticed is specifically for designers, the designers that I think have at least in software design high taste are the ones that both have side projects that they build where they're responsible of the full thing in end and they're also always tinkering with some new app. Like they're the annoying person that is like, "Hey, what if we tried this in our team?" I'm like, "Really? This is the 49th time that you suggested a new tool. Do we really need this?" It's exposure to other people's ideas. I I think that is the u it's also really important to surround yourself with tasteful things so that you feel like the thing you're making is lacking, right? Like one of the things we do at Notion is uh all of our conference rooms are named after uh famous objects like the first typewriter, the Macintosh, a Porsche 911 and so on. And so inevitably when I'm sitting in one of the rooms and I pay attention to the room like nothing I'm doing amounts to this like uh I got to do better. You've built so many successful great loved products. What do you think matters in the end to building a successful product? If you had to just kind of boil it down.
**Lenny:** 你构建了这么多成功的、备受喜爱的产品。你觉得最终构建一款成功产品最重要的是什么?如果你必须提炼一下的话。
**Lenny:** Yes. Here's the one trick that I'll sell a course next week.
**Max:** 好的。这是那个诀窍——我下周开课卖。
**Max:** Um please I'll sign First of all, I think I would actually say that I have contributed to some really great products, not built them. Because I think uh I did not I think I did not used to believe this early on in my career, but like the longer I'm in this, the more I care about what's the team that's building the thing. I used to think that was such like a I don't know, not important thing. Uh and now I'm like, it's the only thing. Um, I don't think that there is a through line out of the things that I've contributed to where I can pinpoint it. Um, I think that you can't say that the best design always wins. I think there's many products where just design doesn't matter and like I think then as a designer you can have this identity crisis of like why am I doing this? I think you can't even say that the way it's built always like the best engineering always wins. Uh I think one of the biggest pitfalls is if you get into the loop of if I just add one more thing to the product it'll be finally great. Like if I really look at the the truly great products they all have one tiny core that is so exceptionally good. And uh that is both a combination of you stumbled upon it by luck uh and then the market agreed but I think it's the what's the tiny core? I don't know multi-touch on the phone. uh GitHub is probably the poll request, right? Like this idea that anyone can suggest something to you and and sort of you see it. Um I do think that at notion it's the blocks and like the slash commands like uh Figma. It's sort of the seamless blend between uh uh real-time collaboration and and and and not like all the great products have something tiny that is a superpower. Like that's sort of like uh uh versus oh yeah if we have this suite of things and like we add one more thing it'll finally be useful that never works
**Lenny:** 请吧,我报名。
**Lenny:** and for GitHub interesting it was the PR um other examples of that at other places you worked because this is really interesting just like what's the tiny core that makes everything else work? Um at Heroku for sure I think it was the the git push Heroku master of like uh at the time it was really hard to deploy apps right like this is like nobody it's sad because people don't remember Heroku they but like I have to explain it as it's the versel it's the first versel
**Max:** 首先,我要说的是——我"贡献"了一些很好的产品,而不是"构建"了它们。因为我以前职业生涯早期不信这个,但做得越久我越在乎的是——构建这个东西的团队是什么样的。我以前觉得这不重要。现在我觉得这是唯一重要的事。
我不觉得从我贡献过的产品中能找到一条主线让我定位到某个单一答案。你不能说最好的设计总能赢——很多产品设计根本不重要。然后作为设计师你会有身份认同危机——"我在干什么?"你也不能说最好的工程总能赢。
我觉得最大的陷阱之一是陷入"只要再加一个功能产品就终于好了"的循环。如果我真的看那些真正伟大的产品——它们都有一个极小的核心(tiny core),异常出色。这既是你靠运气撞上的,市场也认同了。但关键是——那个 tiny core 是什么?比如手机上的多点触控(multi-touch)。GitHub 大概是 Pull Request——这个任何人都能向你提建议、你能看到的概念。Notion 我觉得是 blocks 和斜杠命令(slash commands)。Figma 是实时协作和——所有伟大的产品都有一个极小的超能力。而不是"如果我们有这一堆东西再加一个就终于有用了"——那永远行不通。
我不觉得从我贡献过的产品中能找到一条主线让我定位到某个单一答案。你不能说最好的设计总能赢——很多产品设计根本不重要。然后作为设计师你会有身份认同危机——"我在干什么?"你也不能说最好的工程总能赢。
我觉得最大的陷阱之一是陷入"只要再加一个功能产品就终于好了"的循环。如果我真的看那些真正伟大的产品——它们都有一个极小的核心(tiny core),异常出色。这既是你靠运气撞上的,市场也认同了。但关键是——那个 tiny core 是什么?比如手机上的多点触控(multi-touch)。GitHub 大概是 Pull Request——这个任何人都能向你提建议、你能看到的概念。Notion 我觉得是 blocks 和斜杠命令(slash commands)。Figma 是实时协作和——所有伟大的产品都有一个极小的超能力。而不是"如果我们有这一堆东西再加一个就终于有用了"——那永远行不通。
**Max:** did it get bought by Salesforce who
**Lenny:** GitHub 有趣的是 PR。其他你工作过的地方还有这样的例子吗?就是什么是那个让一切运转的 tiny core?
**Lenny:** yes yeah
**Max:** Heroku 绝对是 `git push heroku master`。当时部署应用真的很难——没人记得 Heroku 了,我得解释成"它是第一个 Vercel"。
**Max:** okay
**Lenny:** 它被 Salesforce 收购了对吧?
**Lenny:** um yeah get push master was just like this very simple oneliner that went from the thing on my computer now I have a URL and that's so intoxicating that everything else sort of flows from there.
**Max:** 对。`git push heroku master` 就是这个非常简单的一行命令——从我电脑上的东西到"现在我有一个 URL 了"——这太令人沉醉了,其他一切都从那里流淌出来。
Dropbox 是一个很好的例子。我觉得 Dropbox 是一个非常有趣的研究案例——那个小菜单栏图标在同步方面太好了,你甚至可以用它作为"我有没有网"的指示器——因为它比你的 Mac 本身更擅长判断你有没有网络连接。它就是那个工作。别碍事,让我所有文件永远在那里就行了。然后他们多年试图扩大功能面,我一直想"不不不不,缩回去。我只要你做这一件事。"所以 tiny core 就是造就伟大产品的东西。
Dropbox 是一个很好的例子。我觉得 Dropbox 是一个非常有趣的研究案例——那个小菜单栏图标在同步方面太好了,你甚至可以用它作为"我有没有网"的指示器——因为它比你的 Mac 本身更擅长判断你有没有网络连接。它就是那个工作。别碍事,让我所有文件永远在那里就行了。然后他们多年试图扩大功能面,我一直想"不不不不,缩回去。我只要你做这一件事。"所以 tiny core 就是造就伟大产品的东西。
**Max:** Uh, Dropbox is a great one, right? Like I think Dropbox is like such an interesting study where it was the little menu bar icon that was so good at syncing that you could even use it as a symbol for do I have internet or not because it was better at figuring out whether you had an internet connection than your Mac itself. And it was it just that's the job. Get out of the way and just all my files are always there. And then for years they tried to increase the surface area and I kept thinking no no no no push it back. I don't want more like this is the only job I want from you. Right. And so I think the tiny core like is is is the thing that makes great products.
**Lenny:** Snapchat 显然也是——消失的照片概念太有趣了。我听说你也说过不是第一个做没那么重要。
**Lenny:** And Snapchat obviously just like the disappearing photo concept is so interesting. I hear I heard you've also talk about just like being first doesn't matter that much either.
**Max:** 你得做对,不是做第一个。我觉得这被高估了。我最爱的例子——蓝牙耳机以前挺烂的,然后 AirPods 出来了——哦它们能连接了——它们不是第一个蓝牙耳机,不是第一个 MP3 播放器,不是第一个——你只要做对就行了。
我不觉得做第一个有多大用处。我觉得现在因为很难保持人们的注意力,我们总想"怎么病毒传播?怎么做 Claude 那种事?"我就想——耐久性才重要。你怎么像 IKEA 一样打造一个世代企业——一个不关心 Twitter 今天流行什么的企业。
模型方面一个好例子是 Anthropic——远远落后起步、在 OpenAI 之后开始、拿到更少的融资——现在正在碾压和主导。
我不觉得做第一个有多大用处。我觉得现在因为很难保持人们的注意力,我们总想"怎么病毒传播?怎么做 Claude 那种事?"我就想——耐久性才重要。你怎么像 IKEA 一样打造一个世代企业——一个不关心 Twitter 今天流行什么的企业。
模型方面一个好例子是 Anthropic——远远落后起步、在 OpenAI 之后开始、拿到更少的融资——现在正在碾压和主导。
**Max:** You have to be right. Not first. Uh I don't know. Like I think um uh I mean there are probably there are elements of like if you talk about network effects and like perhaps now with like training models it does make sense if you have sort of a a a head start but I think it's overrated. Um I don't know like my favorite example is like Bluetooth headphones were kind of crappy and then you have the AirPods and like oh they connect and so on and they weren't the first like I don't know they weren't the first MP3 player they weren't the f like you just got to do it right. Uh, I don't think being first is all that that useful. I think we're currently because it's so hard to keep people's attention. We try to like we're like, "Oh, how do I become how how do I go viral, right? How do I do the Clo thing?" And I'm like, "Yep, I don't durability matters, right?" Like, uh, think of how would you build IKEA like a generational company that is not concerning itself with whatever is trending on Twitter today. I think speaking of models, a good example is Anthropic, which was way behind, started after OpenAI, got less funding, and now is just killing it and dominating. And
**Lenny:** 我觉得关于 Anthropic 最令人印象深刻的是——我不知道该把功劳归给谁——但显然 CEO 要得到很多功劳——Dario 不是只在 OpenAI 运气好了一次。他做了同样的事两次,而且两次都成功了。这真的很酷。
我知道你也相信"待完成工作"(Jobs to Be Done)作为思考产品的方式——这在播客上一直是个有争议的话题,主要因为 Shriram 非常反对 Jobs to Be Done。你怎么框定这个框架?你怎么用它来思考产品?
我知道你也相信"待完成工作"(Jobs to Be Done)作为思考产品的方式——这在播客上一直是个有争议的话题,主要因为 Shriram 非常反对 Jobs to Be Done。你怎么框定这个框架?你怎么用它来思考产品?
**Lenny:** the thing that I find the most impressive about uh I don't know who to give credit, but like obviously you give the CEO a bunch of credit, but like Dario is that he wasn't Oh, he wasn't just lucky once at OpenAI. He did the same thing twice and it was successful twice. And like I think that's like that's actually really cool. I know you're also a believer in jobs to be done as a way of thinking about product which is kind of this it's been a long time controversial topic on this podcast mostly because of Shiram who's very anti- jobs to be done. Uh what's your kind of framing of how you find this framework useful in thinking about product?
**Max:** 我敢打赌如果我重读所有 Clayton Christensen 的东西,我可能也不会特别认同。我主要用它来问:你有没有全面地思考用户想雇你的产品来做什么?你对用户想要什么 vs 你想让用户想要什么诚实吗?
另一个我经常看到的事是:在大组织里人们在审视自己产品时关掉了"我是用户"的大脑——他们更像是"我是这个公司的员工,我做了这个东西"。所以我觉得 Jobs to Be Done 可能鼓励人们跳出来——不要迷失在"做东西"的酱汁里。这就是我喜欢这个框架的原因。它是一个好的提醒——不不不,用户为了一件事雇你。做那个用户一秒钟。你自己会买你刚做的东西吗?答案经常是"哦——我没想过这个。"
另一个我经常看到的事是:在大组织里人们在审视自己产品时关掉了"我是用户"的大脑——他们更像是"我是这个公司的员工,我做了这个东西"。所以我觉得 Jobs to Be Done 可能鼓励人们跳出来——不要迷失在"做东西"的酱汁里。这就是我喜欢这个框架的原因。它是一个好的提醒——不不不,用户为了一件事雇你。做那个用户一秒钟。你自己会买你刚做的东西吗?答案经常是"哦——我没想过这个。"
**Max:** I bet that if I read reread all of the Clayton Christensen stuff I would also not identify super strongly with it. I use it mostly as have you thought holistically about what the user wants to hire your product for and are you honest about what the user wants versus what you want the user to want. And then the other thing that I find happens very frequently in larger organizations is that people sort of turn off the brain when they're reviewing their own products uh from a I'm a user. Is this a good experience? And they're more like I'm a employee of this company and I made a thing. And so I think jobs to be done might encourage people to zoom out and sort of not get lost in the the sauce of like making the thing. That's why I like the framework. It's a good reminder of like no no no the user hires you for a thing. Be that user for a second. Would you even buy the thing that you just made? And the answer often is like oh uh I hadn't thought about that. Right? Like and so that's that's how I use Is there an example of this from some of the products you worked on just to make this real for people other than like milkshake example? Obviously,
**Lenny:** 你工作过的产品中有没有具体例子——让这变得具体?
**Lenny:** there's a very recent one which is more about communication. We're launching a new feature soon and we're working on this landing page to describe the feature.
**Max:** 有一个很近的——更多关于沟通。我们即将推出一个新功能,正在做登陆页面。我发现人们做登陆页面时——首先他们的写作能力立刻退化,因为他们想听起来聪明——营销腔就出来了。我就说"等等,你不会这样跟朋友解释吧。"然后如果你要向我沟通这个产品——假装你站在白板前。你在白板上狂热地画什么来传达这个概念?然后回头看看你刚设计的那个东西——你告诉我它们是同一回事?你告诉我你能看明白这个东西是干什么的?那个跳出来看的视角——所以我不知道。我不想拿具体的近期案例开刀。
**Max:** And I found that when people make landing pages, first of all, their writing skills just like deteriorate immediately because they want to sound clever and like marketing speak comes out of their mouth. And I'm like, wait, that's not how you would explain it to a friend. And then if I'm communicating this product to you, just pretend you're standing in front of a whiteboard. What's the manic thing that you're drawing on the whiteboard to to to to communicate this versus, okay, now go back to the thing you just designed, look at it. Are you telling me that those are the same thing? Are you telling me that you understand what this thing does and like that zoom out? So, I don't know. Um, yeah, I don't know. I don't want to pick on on individual uh recent things, though.
**Lenny:** 好。在我们结束对话之前——有个我想听听你辛辣观点的话题——全民基本收入(Universal Basic Income)。完全跑题,但我觉得值得一听。随着 AI 兴起,可能我们不需要工作了,大家拿 UBI 享受生活。你有个辛辣观点——也许我们已经有全民基本收入了。怎么回事?
**Lenny:** Okay. Uh, as we close out this conversation, there's something I want to get your you have this hot take on on universal basic income. This completely out of the blue, but I think it's interesting to hear. There's this idea that, you know, with AI emerging, we may not need to work. We'll all just get some UBI and enjoy our life. And you have this uh hot take that maybe we already have universal basic income. What's what's going on?
**Max:** 请对我宽容一点,因为我既当笑话说、又有点是认真的——取决于你从什么高度看人性。我的观点是:我们已经有全民基本收入了。它叫做知识工作。我不排除我自己的工作。如果你真的想想我们实际需要什么来生活和满足——要少得多。而我们建立了这个层级和所有这些"绝对必要"的工作。所以对我来说——对,我们已经有了。这就是 UBI。我们会想出其他方式——作为人类——因为我们是宇宙中最重要的物种——把自己插入到关于 agent 的对话中。会看起来一样吗?我不知道。但我们太有创造力了,我们会想出我们为什么绝对必须在那个循环里的新理由。
**Max:** Yeah. So please extend me some grace here because I both mean it as a joke and maybe somewhat real like just depends on which altitude of human nature you look at. Um my my take is that we already have universal basic income. It's called knowledge work. Uh and I don't exclude my job from it. But if you really look about at what do we actually need to live and like to be content, it is a lot less. and we've built this hierarchy and this sort of all these jobs and all these things that are absolutely necessary. Uh and so to to me it's like yeah, we already have it. It's UBI and we'll come up with other ways in which we as humans because we're the most important species in the universe insert ourselves into the conversation around agents. Um will it look the same? I don't know. But uh yeah, I don't know. We are so inventive and we come up with new reasons of why we absolutely must be in that loop. Um, and so I think that's my my my hot take.
**Lenny:** 人们一直开玩笑说——我们拿这么多钱就为了坐在电脑前把正确的字母和单词打进去。现在是"哦也许未来我不会拿这么多钱了因为 AI 要接管了"。所以你的观点就是——这份工作已经够甜了。享受这个 UBI 吧。
**Lenny:** People have always joked like we get paid so much just to sit in front of a computer and put the right sorts of words and letters into the into this thing and we get paid a lot of money to do it and now it's like oh maybe I won't be paid this much in the future because AI is going to be taken over and so your take there is just like this a pretty sweet gig we already got. Enjoy enjoy the CBI. Yes.
**Max:** 对。总的来说我们多幸运啊?我现在坐在有空调的房间里跟你聊天,过得很开心。不是每个人都有这个运气——但我发现讨论这个话题最多的,恰恰是那些处于幸运行列的人。
**Max:** I I think I think all things considered how lucky are we? Like I don't know. I'm sitting in an air conditioned room right now talking to you, having a good time. Uh I don't know like yeah I just to be clear not everybody has that luck but I think that's the folks that I find discussing this the most are the ones that are in the bucket of luck.
**Lenny:** 假设我们有了 AGI,你不用工作了,可以做任何事——你会花时间做什么?
**Lenny:** Say we have AGI you don't have to work you could just do anything. What would you be spending your time doing?
**Max:** 我几乎问每一个我们招的人这个问题。我会做完全一样的事。我可能会少花点时间开会和管理。我工作中令人遗憾的一件事是——我还没能把 80% 的工作用 agent 循环替代。我羡慕我们的工程师和设计师能做到这一点。所以希望某天我不需要这份工作了。
但对——我会做同样的事。我写代码不是因为实用性。我写代码因为它也是一种智力挑战。我把它当下棋或围棋。我很难过李世石(Lee Sedol)在输给 AlphaGo(或者是 AlphaZero)之后似乎放弃了围棋——我就想"谁在乎某个机器比你强?这是人的事——继续做就好了。"所以我会做同样的事。我会动手做东西。我会构建。我会试图让周围的世界更可塑。
今天早上我收到一封邮件——有人问我"你想了很多关于可塑软件的事,你想过机器人学(robotics)可能带来什么吗?"这让我脑洞大开——因为我从没想过,它离我的技能太远了。
但对——我会做同样的事。我写代码不是因为实用性。我写代码因为它也是一种智力挑战。我把它当下棋或围棋。我很难过李世石(Lee Sedol)在输给 AlphaGo(或者是 AlphaZero)之后似乎放弃了围棋——我就想"谁在乎某个机器比你强?这是人的事——继续做就好了。"所以我会做同样的事。我会动手做东西。我会构建。我会试图让周围的世界更可塑。
今天早上我收到一封邮件——有人问我"你想了很多关于可塑软件的事,你想过机器人学(robotics)可能带来什么吗?"这让我脑洞大开——因为我从没想过,它离我的技能太远了。
**Max:** I actually ask this to almost everybody that we hire. Um I would be doing the exact same thing. Uh I would uh probably spend less time um having meetings and managing. One of the sad things about my job is that uh I have yet to replace uh 80% of it with agentic loops. Um uh I I I envy our engineers and designers who get to to do this. So um hopefully at some point I won't like I won't have a job. Uh um but yeah, I would do the same thing. I think I am someone who I don't code because of a utility. I code because it's also an intellectual challenge. So I think of it as playing chess and go. Um I'm very sad that Lee Sodel uh after losing against I think I I don't know if it's alpha go or zero but one of the two sort of like it seems like he gave up on go and I'm like who cares if some machine is better at it like uh it's the human stuff like just you know keep going at it. And so I think I would do the same thing. I would tinker. I would build stuff. Uh I would try and make the world around me more malleable. I just got an email this morning from someone who asked me about, oh, you think a lot about malleable software. Have you ever thought about what robotics might do? And it just blew my mind because I had not because it's so far from the skills that I have.
**Lenny:** 好。我要带我们进入播客的两个常规环节了。第一个是"反共识角"(Contrarian Corner)。你有很多反共识观点了。还有什么其他的?你有什么你相信但大多数人不相信的观点?
**Lenny:** Uh, but yeah, I don't know, something like that. Just I would do the same thing.
**Max:** 现在越来越难有反共识观点了——因为算法就是以一种疯狂的力量从人们身上提取反共识观点。看时代不同——这可能不算反共识——但我觉得包容性(inclusivity)并不总是那么好。我非常相信小团体理论——我觉得世界是由八人或更少的群聊运行的。所以有时候排他性(exclusive)是好事。
我的意思是——我甚至从 Notion 的角度想这个。Notion 可以有雄心说"我们要让地球上 80 亿人都用 Notion"。但如果我们这么做,我们会非常让最初的 5 亿用户不满——因为顶尖用户想要的东西和"所有人"想要的不一样。每个人在某件事上都是顶尖的。所以有时候接受排他性是可以的。
我得加个但书——如果你是 McDonald's 而且在某个地方是唯一的雇主,有排他性的招聘实践——那不是我说的意思。但回到舒适的有空调的知识工作——为顶尖用户工作和服务,有时候就是赢的策略。为他们做一个真正好的产品——这意味着你定义上会排除其他人。
我的意思是——我甚至从 Notion 的角度想这个。Notion 可以有雄心说"我们要让地球上 80 亿人都用 Notion"。但如果我们这么做,我们会非常让最初的 5 亿用户不满——因为顶尖用户想要的东西和"所有人"想要的不一样。每个人在某件事上都是顶尖的。所以有时候接受排他性是可以的。
我得加个但书——如果你是 McDonald's 而且在某个地方是唯一的雇主,有排他性的招聘实践——那不是我说的意思。但回到舒适的有空调的知识工作——为顶尖用户工作和服务,有时候就是赢的策略。为他们做一个真正好的产品——这意味着你定义上会排除其他人。
**Max:** Amazing. Okay, I'm going to take us to two recurring corners of the podcast to see what we find there. Uh, the first corner is contrarian corner. Is there something that you have a you have a lot of these already. I'm curious if there's anything else. Is there something you have a contrarian opinion about? Something you believe that a lot of people don't? It's becoming so hard to have contrarian views because I think the algorithms just uh try and get contrarian views out of people sort of you know at like a insane uh with an insane force. um depending on the era uh like this may not be contrarian but I think that inclusivity isn't always all that great um um I think I I very much believe in small group theory like I think the world is run by group chats of eight people or fewer uh and so sometimes it's great to be exclusive and what I mean by that is I even think about this in terms of notion notion could have the ambition to say we are going to have 8 billion users so every single person on the planet use this notion. And I think if we did that, we would very much upset the first call it 500 million because uh the top of the class wants different things than everybody and everybody is in the top of the class at something. And so I think being okay with being exclusive sometimes is is okay. Um, I I will have to caveat this with if you are if you're McDonald's and you have exclusive hiring practices and it's the only job in a location, that is not what I'm talking about. But like going back to comfy air conditioned like job kind of thing. It's like great, just work with and for the top of the class is sometimes a winning winning thing and just build a really really good product for them which by definition means you're going to exclude others.
**Lenny:** TBPN 的人(指 The Business of Podcasting Network)有一个很好的描述方式——他们有大概 8000 听众,然后被以数亿美元收购了。他们的说法是"如果我们有几百万人听,那我们做错了什么。这是专门为科技界有影响力的人设计的——去影响他们、教他们正在发生什么。"而且很管用。这正是你描述的。
**Lenny:** The TBPN guys have a really good way of describing this exact concept which is you know they had like I don't know 8,000 listeners and like a conversation they got acquired for hundreds of millions of dollars just like what's going on there and the way they pitch it is you know like if we have if we have millions of people listening to this thing this we've done something wrong. This is specifically designed for like the people and power of tech to influence them to teach them what's going on. Um and it worked out it worked out great for them. So it's exactly what you're describing.
**Lenny:** 好,现在进入"失败角"(Fail Corner)。像你这样的人来播客——大家觉得"看,他做的每件事都太成功了,一切都在运转"。现实中我确定不是什么都管用的。给我们一个不成功的例子和你从中学到了什么。
**Lenny:** Okay, I'm going to take us now to fail corner. So you people like you come on this podcast, they're like, "Okay, look at all these wonderful things he's done. He's just killing it all the time. Everything's working." In reality, I'm sure not everything has worked in your the course of your career. What's one one example where things didn't work out and what did you learn from that experience?
**Max:** 天啊——这很奇怪——我不把事情分成"赢"和"失败"。我觉得每天都失败很多次。文化上让我烦恼的大失败?我觉得在管理团队时——曾经因为招能写代码的设计师很难(现在容易了但当时不),你放松了那个要求之后,我没预料到那会多快变成一个滑坡(slippery slope)。我宁愿有更少但更全才的设计师。这是组织层面的一个教训。
产品方面——天啊。GitHub Actions 和它们的——非常技术——我们也觉得不需要好的包管理。我觉得如果我们在那上面多想一想,世界会更好。
这可能是更大的——2014 年我创办了一个 Notion 的竞品。其实在当时它不算竞品——就在我们要从 True Ventures 拿到 term sheet 的那一周,Notion 从网站建设转型到了文档协作,所以 True Ventures 说"抱歉,有冲突了"。我们就说"好的,没事"。
我们花了大量时间打磨编辑体验。我们做了 markdown 折叠——你现在在 Obsidian 里看到的所有东西。我们 2014 年就做了。我们以为那是真正重要的事。然后 Notion 相比之下——第一版的 Notion 编辑器很糟糕。没法在两个 block 之间选中文本。但结果这不重要。所以我觉得这就是——在错误的事情上勤奋工作了太久。巨大的失败。
产品方面——天啊。GitHub Actions 和它们的——非常技术——我们也觉得不需要好的包管理。我觉得如果我们在那上面多想一想,世界会更好。
这可能是更大的——2014 年我创办了一个 Notion 的竞品。其实在当时它不算竞品——就在我们要从 True Ventures 拿到 term sheet 的那一周,Notion 从网站建设转型到了文档协作,所以 True Ventures 说"抱歉,有冲突了"。我们就说"好的,没事"。
我们花了大量时间打磨编辑体验。我们做了 markdown 折叠——你现在在 Obsidian 里看到的所有东西。我们 2014 年就做了。我们以为那是真正重要的事。然后 Notion 相比之下——第一版的 Notion 编辑器很糟糕。没法在两个 block 之间选中文本。但结果这不重要。所以我觉得这就是——在错误的事情上勤奋工作了太久。巨大的失败。
**Max:** Oh my god, like this is a it's such a weird I don't think about win versus fail. I kind of feel like every day I fail a lot. Uh what are big ones that annoy me culturally? I think like sort of in running teams I think a mistake that I made is at some point because hiring at this now it's easy but at the time hiring designers that can code was was quite challenging and so then if you loosen that requirement I did not sort of predict how quickly that becomes like a slippery slope and I would rather have had fewer designers that are more polymath. Um, so I think that's one on organizational side on product. Oh my god. I mean, GitHub actions and their uh the um uh I don't know like it's very technical, but the fact that we also thought we didn't need good package management for the actions like I I don't know. I think the world would be better off if we had thought about that slightly harder. This is maybe like I I I had a started a a competitor to notion in 2014 and uh I didn't think of it as in fact it wasn't a competitor of notion because the week that we were going to get a term sheet from True Ventures, Notion pivoted from website building to document collaboration and so True Ventures was like hey sorry we have a conflict and we're like yep no worries. Um, and we spent so much time polishing the editing experience. We did markdown folding, all the stuff that you now have in Obsidian. Like we sort of did that back in 2014. And we thought that's the thing that really matters. And then Notion by comparison, the first version of the Notion editor was terrible. Like there was like no, it was all blocks. You couldn't even select between two blocks. But it turns out it didn't matter. And so I think that is like just working diligently on the wrong thing for way too long. Huge fail.
**Lenny:** 太有意思了。回到你的洞察——产品成功时,就是有那个 tiny core 让它了不起、让人们不管其他多差都愿意回来。非常有趣的启示。
**Lenny:** That's so interesting. Just coming back to your insight of when a product works, there's just this tiny core thing that is the thing that makes it amazing and what people want to come back to no matter how bad everything else is. Uh I think that's a really interesting takeaway. We actually kept adding new feature. At some point you go down the death spiral. So we kept adding yet another feature of like okay is it good now? Is it good now? Uh, and it's just, you know, nope. The core wasn't good.
**Max:** 我们还不断加新功能。到某个时候你就进入了死亡螺旋。我们不断加"好了现在好了吗?好了吗?"——但不。核心不好。
**Max:** That's interesting. And is in your experience, you can tell pretty quickly, okay, wow, this is really taking off. We we found something really powerful here.
**Lenny:** 有趣。从你的经验来看,你能很快判断"哇,这真的在起飞,我们找到了很强大的东西"?
**Lenny:** I think you can tell. I think you could. Yeah, I think it's the the obviously good thing. I think you're like, yep, I this is good. And then it may be good in a way that you give it to users and every single user study that you do or whatever like just it falls flat and they don't know how to use it. I think the important thing is actually to not give up on the core idea.
**Max:** 我觉得能判断。是的。就是那个"明显好的"感觉。你会知道——是的,这是好的。然后它可能"好"的方式是你给用户看,每次用户研究都扑街了——他们不知道怎么用。我觉得重要的是不要放弃核心想法。那是 80%。然后 20% 是无情地迭代直到它真正 click 了。
**Max:** And so it's that's 80% but then the 20% is like relentlessly iterate until it actually clicks with with the folks that you're the that you're working for.
**Lenny:** Max,还有什么想跟大家分享的吗?在我们进入精彩的闪电轮之前。
**Lenny:** Max, is there anything else that you wanted to share with folks? Anything else you want to leave listeners with before we get to our very exciting lightning round?
**Max:** 当我跟——说"年轻人"好搞笑——但当硅谷的年轻人跟我聊天时——我觉得硅谷现在异常地充满了不真正热爱计算机的人。我的意思是——就是那种"我要赚钱"——当然每个人都想赚钱。但有一种想法——"这是最后一班列车"或者"永久下层阶级"之类的——这对于思考你想怎么花你生命中的每一次心跳是极其有害的。所以我的建议是——不要让那种狂热或紧迫感分散你对真正在乎的、热情所在的事物的注意力。我觉得它会找到出路的。
这不是说你不该努力工作。我觉得你在 18 到 25 岁之间拼命工作其实是最好的——应该大量工作。然后之后可以少一点。但更多是关于那种狂热——太害怕如果不赢、如果没赶上最后一班车就完了。对我来说这不对。这似乎是一种非常空洞的人生方式。所以我鼓励人们跳出来,别那样想。读历史。读计算机科学史。
这不是说你不该努力工作。我觉得你在 18 到 25 岁之间拼命工作其实是最好的——应该大量工作。然后之后可以少一点。但更多是关于那种狂热——太害怕如果不赢、如果没赶上最后一班车就完了。对我来说这不对。这似乎是一种非常空洞的人生方式。所以我鼓励人们跳出来,别那样想。读历史。读计算机科学史。
**Max:** when I talk to like young I it's so funny to say that but like when younger people in in Silicon Valley um right now I think that Silicon Valley is uncharacteristically full of people who don't actually love computers. What I mean by that is like it's like sort of like oh I want to make money and of course everybody does I like making money too. I think there is this idea of this is the last train or like what do we call like the permanent underclass kind of stuff and it it is so detrimental to thinking about how you want to spend your heartbeats in life and so I don't know except like the advice I would give is like just don't let the rush or the f frenzy sort of distract you from the things that you actually care about and are passionate in life, I think it'll find a way. And that is not to mean that you shouldn't work hard. I think you're actually way better off if you work incredibly hard by until from like 18 to 25 or whatever. Like that's the way to go. Like you should work a lot, right? And then later you can work a little less. But um so it's more about the frenetic nature like you're so so worried that if you if you don't win, if you don't like take that last train out like you're going to be screwed. And I just it doesn't seem right to me. And I think it seems like a very hollow way of leading life. So I would encourage people to to zoom out and and not think about it that way. Read history. Read computer science history. Maybe it's easy to hear that and feel like, okay, I'll be all right.
**Lenny:** 也许很容易听到这个就觉得"好,我没事,我就做我兴奋的事"——但"我未来怎么有工作?"我喜欢这个情绪——别那么焦虑害怕错过。在不过度焦虑的同时,有什么是你觉得人们应该做的?
**Lenny:** I'm just going to work on things that I'm excited about and and then like, okay, but how will I actually have a job in the future? I love the sentiment like don't be so stressed about missing out on things and being in the permanent underclass. anything there that you think is important for people to do while not being overly stressed and worried about missing that train?
**Max:** 我觉得——我不确定是不是 Chris Rock——有个喜剧演员有个笑话——"追随你的热情太好了"——然后停顿——"如果它能付账单的话"。所以显然有那么一点道理。我不是说你完全不用担心。更多是把担忧的幅度调低——然后认识到历史的重复性远大于它完全是全新的。如果你把这和能动性联系起来——如果你不那么执着于"我需要确定世界会怎么展开"——你大概率会没事的。
另一个极端是——我经常遇到说"一切都会变"的人——好,那你要做的那个举动真的能保护你吗?你想生活在一个所有这些——那种思维方式太封闭了。
另一个极端是——我经常遇到说"一切都会变"的人——好,那你要做的那个举动真的能保护你吗?你想生活在一个所有这些——那种思维方式太封闭了。
**Max:** I think I don't think I don't I don't know if it's Chris Rock, but like there's a comedian that has this joke that is like it's great to follow your passion and then he has this pause and like if it pays u and so obviously there is a little bit to that. I'm not suggesting that um you don't worry about this uh at all. I think it's more that just tune down the amplitude of how much worry there is and then just sort of realizing that history repeats itself more so than it is completely novel and new. Uh and then of course yeah if you tie it to agency and if you're not so stuck in oh I need certainty of how the world is going to unfold you're probably going to be fine. And in the extreme this is the other side of things which is often if I then talk to people who are like yeah but you know everything's going to change like okay great. So, how is a move that you are going to make really going to shield you from it? And do you want to live in a society where all of this like I don't know like it just seems so insular that mindset. With that, we have reached our very exciting lightning round. I've got five questions for you. Are you ready?
**Lenny:** 好了,我们到了非常精彩的闪电轮。五个问题。准备好了吗?
**Max:** 好。
**Max:** 好。
**Lenny:** Uh, sure.
**Lenny:** 你最常推荐给别人的两三本书是什么?
**Lenny:** What are two or three books that you find yourself recommending most to other people?
**Max:** 取决于对象。我会说——《Code》,Charles Petzold 写的——讲的是硬件和软件的秘密语言。基本上就是:你知道计算机到底怎么工作吗?我其实对多少专业程序员不知道计算机怎么工作感到惊讶。有趣的是这本书到第 27 章才出现一行代码。非常优秀的书。
然后我有一本奇怪的——Ivan Illich 的《Tools of Conviviality》(共生工具)。讲的是技术史中的对比——让使用者发挥人类创造力和自主性的工具 vs 工业规模的、几乎破坏人类自主性的工具。
最后一本我主要推荐给高管——那些在创建大量系统的人——《Seeing Like a State》(像国家一样看)。有一个著名的 Stack Overflow 帖子推广了它。核心理念是:你是不是只是在设计一个系统让自己获得可读性(legibility),但你创造的那种可读性完全忽视了系统底层的现实?我把它想成——你是高管,你有这些状态报告,你以为你完全了解团队怎么运作。如果你真的和团队待在一起,你会发现那些都不是真的。高管喜欢为自己创造虚假的可读性——因为我们作为人类不喜欢噪音,想要信号——但那里面的信号往往比你以为的少得多。
然后我有一本奇怪的——Ivan Illich 的《Tools of Conviviality》(共生工具)。讲的是技术史中的对比——让使用者发挥人类创造力和自主性的工具 vs 工业规模的、几乎破坏人类自主性的工具。
最后一本我主要推荐给高管——那些在创建大量系统的人——《Seeing Like a State》(像国家一样看)。有一个著名的 Stack Overflow 帖子推广了它。核心理念是:你是不是只是在设计一个系统让自己获得可读性(legibility),但你创造的那种可读性完全忽视了系统底层的现实?我把它想成——你是高管,你有这些状态报告,你以为你完全了解团队怎么运作。如果你真的和团队待在一起,你会发现那些都不是真的。高管喜欢为自己创造虚假的可读性——因为我们作为人类不喜欢噪音,想要信号——但那里面的信号往往比你以为的少得多。
**Max:** It depends on the person. Uh I would say so code uh by uh Charles Pzled which is uh the secret language of hardware and software. It basically it's like do you know how computers actually work? Uh it is actually surprising to me how many professionally employed programmers don't know how computers work. Um that one the funny thing is it does not have a line of code in it until like chapter 27. Uh so exceptionally good book. Um I have a weird one uh which is tools of conviviiality by Ivan Illich. It's sort of the contrast between like you look at the history of technology and tools that let users exercise human ingenuity and autonomy versus tools that are more at industrial scale that almost um uh have become destructive to to human autonomy. Uh and then the last one that I give mostly to executives uh that I think are creating a lot of systems uh is uh seeing like a state uh which I think there is a famous stack overflow that sort of um popularized this but it's the idea of are you actually just designing a system so that you have legibility but the system the way that you've created that legibility completely neglects the reality of the system on the And so I think of it as great you you're the executive and you have these status reports and you think you know exactly how your teams work. If you actually spend time with the teams you would realize that none of that is actually true. And so I think for for like executives love creating fake legibility for themselves because we don't like noise as humans right we want the signal but there's often less signal in it than you than than one might think. So
**Lenny:** 最近喜欢的电影或电视剧?
**Lenny:** favorite recent movie or TV show that you have recently enjoyed? Uh, I have purposeful terrible taste in movies, which is I want to watch movies that I never think about again after watching them. Um, and I just want to be entertained and I mostly just want to see things that I couldn't remotely experience in in real life. So, you should not ask me for for movie recommendations. I did like uh uh Project Hail Mary uh a lot. I liked the book and I think the adaptation was was was really good. I think it also makes me super excited about any kind of future of humanity which is I sometimes joke to uh our teams internally which is like okay if we're really really good at some point in notion OS will be the thing that empowers like five to to to eight people like explore the galaxy somehow and everything will be organized for them in notion. I don't know like I like this idea of of sort of pushing into space.
**Max:** 我在电影方面故意品味很差——就是我想看完就再也不用想的电影。我只想被娱乐,看到现实生活中完全不可能经历的东西。所以你不该问我电影推荐。我确实喜欢《Project Hail Mary》(太空拯救计划)——很喜欢那本书,改编也很好。它让我对人类未来充满兴奋——我有时对内部团队开玩笑说"如果我们做得真的很好,某天 Notion OS 会赋能五到八个人去探索银河——一切都在 Notion 里为他们组织好了。"我喜欢这种推向太空的想法。
电视剧——我看晚了——《The Handmaid's Tale》(使女的故事)。如果你把那部剧里"上帝"的概念换成 AI——其实不用怎么使劲——然后你也不用怎么使劲就能把剧里的 ICE 和现在的 ICE 对应起来。它变成一部非常——我不知道——沉重的剧,但是好的那种。
电视剧——我看晚了——《The Handmaid's Tale》(使女的故事)。如果你把那部剧里"上帝"的概念换成 AI——其实不用怎么使劲——然后你也不用怎么使劲就能把剧里的 ICE 和现在的 ICE 对应起来。它变成一部非常——我不知道——沉重的剧,但是好的那种。
**Max:** Uh TV show I'm late to this the Handmaid's Tale. If you replace the concept of God with AI in that TV show and then you don't actually have to squint that far to replace ice with ice in that TV show right now. It becomes a very um uh I don't know a heavy show to watch in a good way.
**Lenny:** 哇。我没想过这个。"Under His Eye"(在他的注视下)——那是剧里的台词对吧?
**Lenny:** Wow. I had not thought about that. Uh under his eye. Was that one of the things? Yeah.
**Max:** Under His AI。
**Max:** Under his AI.
**Lenny:** 哇哦。不。好吧——我以前看的时候就怕。现在更怕了。好——最近发现的喜欢的产品?我知道你列过一个人们该买的好产品清单。有什么近期的?
**Lenny:** Whoa. Oh, no. Okay. I'm afraid I used to watch it. I'm more afraid to watch it now. Okay. Uh, favorite product you've recently discovered that you really love. I know you put together a list of beautiful products that that people buy. Uh, what's something recent? Well, that list that I put together was for products that I think people should buy, I think, or that I thought I actually did the taste emulation. I'm like, "Oh, I think a lot of people are going to find this useful." Uh I have weird ones now for you which is
**Max:** 那个清单是我觉得人们会发现有用的产品——我做了品味模拟——"哦我觉得很多人会觉得这个有用"。现在我有些奇怪的推荐——
**Lenny:** 好。
**Lenny:** 好。
**Max:** Yes.
**Max:** 首先——这不是免费的但它就是好产品——Ghostty 终端模拟器。大多数人用的终端太烂了。别那样对自己。用 Ghostty。非常喜欢 Mitchell 做的工作。
然后有一个手机上的新应用叫 Moshi(M-O-S-H-I)。不免费但看起来做得很好。我正在探索。我现在主要在手机上写代码——因为我没有真正的工作。
有一个开源键盘叫 Corne(C-O-R-N-E)——分体键盘。看起来很奇怪。我喜欢它的原因是我试图在计算生活中夺回尽可能多的 agency。这个非常开源——如果你真想的话,可以下载所有电路图、发去中国,拿回 PCB,然后从零开始组装。
最后一个有点傻——但我喜欢工具。物理工具。一把 Civivi 口袋刀——质量相当高,可能比大多数人愿意花在口袋刀上的贵,但我觉得一把好口袋刀是一个好工具。
然后有一个手机上的新应用叫 Moshi(M-O-S-H-I)。不免费但看起来做得很好。我正在探索。我现在主要在手机上写代码——因为我没有真正的工作。
有一个开源键盘叫 Corne(C-O-R-N-E)——分体键盘。看起来很奇怪。我喜欢它的原因是我试图在计算生活中夺回尽可能多的 agency。这个非常开源——如果你真想的话,可以下载所有电路图、发去中国,拿回 PCB,然后从零开始组装。
最后一个有点傻——但我喜欢工具。物理工具。一把 Civivi 口袋刀——质量相当高,可能比大多数人愿意花在口袋刀上的贵,但我觉得一把好口袋刀是一个好工具。
**Max:** Uh okay so this is not a you can just it's a product it's great. It's Ghosty terminal emulator. Like most people use terrible terminals. Don't do that to yourself. Just use Ghosty. Huge fan of the work that uh Mitchell is doing. Uh and then there is a new one for the phone called Moshi. M O S HI. That one's not free but it looks very well done. I'm like currently exploring it. I mostly code on the phone now um because I don't have a real job. Uh there is an open source keyboard called uh I don't even know how to say it. Corny. C O R N E which is a split keyboard. It looks very weird. The reason I like that one is I'm trying to claw back as much agency in my compute life as possible. This one is very open source. If you really wanted to, you could like download all the schematics, send them off to China, and you have the PCB back and like you can just build it from scratch. Um and then this one's silly, but uh I like tools. I like physical tools. A Cevivi pocket knife, uh, which is pretty high quality, maybe more expensive than what most people would spend on a pocket knife, but I think a good pocket knife is is is a good tool to have.
**Lenny:** 这些太棒了。非常靠谱的产品推荐。我们会全部放链接。还有两个问题。你有没有经常回味的人生格言?
**Lenny:** These are awesome. Very, very legit products. Okay, we'll link to them all. Uh, two more questions. You have favorite life motto that you find yourself coming back to in work or in life?
**Max:** 每天提醒自己这个很难。但我试着做。"The universe is change and life is what you make it."(宇宙即变化,人生是你创造的。)我觉得我们喜欢紧抓确定性。但没有确定性。我走出这个房间可能就是生命的终点——活在当下那种意思。"Life is what you make it"——我相信这是 Marcus Aurelius(马可·奥勒留)的名言。而且——你真的想知道结局吗?不要剧透——享受旅程就好。
**Max:** It is very hard to remind yourself of that day-to-day. Uh, but I try to. The universe is change and life is what you make it. Um, I think we love to cling to certainty. Uh, and there is no certainty, you know. Um, I could walk out of this room and could be the end of my life and like live in the moment kind of thing. Um, and life is what you make it sort of I think it's a Marcus Aurelius quote I believe. Uh, but
**Lenny:** 最后一个问题。你说德语。有没有一个最喜欢的德语词?
**Lenny:** um, yeah I I And then um, do you really want to know how it's going to end? Like no spoilers just like you know enjoy the ride. Final question. You speak German. Do you have a favorite German word?
**Max:** 有——Tüftler。就是"动手做的人"(tinkerer),但我觉得它比英文的 tinker 听起来少了一些贬义——德语版本没那么刺。
还有一个——Verbraucher。这是德语中"用户"(user)的词,但它更强调"用尽"(using up)的意思。就是如果你想想——英文的 user 是"你在使用它",但 Verbraucher 是"你在用尽它"——然后你就会更多地思考产品的无常性或者你构建的产品的浪费性——如果你用这个词来想的话。
还有一个——Verbraucher。这是德语中"用户"(user)的词,但它更强调"用尽"(using up)的意思。就是如果你想想——英文的 user 是"你在使用它",但 Verbraucher 是"你在用尽它"——然后你就会更多地思考产品的无常性或者你构建的产品的浪费性——如果你用这个词来想的话。
**Max:** Uh I do uh tuftla which is uh like tinker but it's to me it sounds like it has a less tinker can sometimes be a little bit derogatory and I think with the German equivalent it's just not uh that harsh and then the other one is uh faba which is the word for user but it puts so much more emphasize on using up a Like as in if you think about user is like you're using it but using it up like you've you've you and so then like you think a lot more about the um impermanence slash the wastefulness of products that you might build uh if you use that word.
**Lenny:** 我太喜欢了。我喜欢你对这个问题有现成答案。Max,太精彩了。非常感谢你参加。最后两个问题。人们在哪里可以找到你?如果听众想联系你的话?听众怎么对你有帮助?
**Lenny:** I love it. I love that you had quick answers to this question. Max, this was amazing. Thank you so much for doing this. Two final questions. Where can folks find you online if they want to ping you about anything? And how can listeners be useful to you?
**Max:** 我不幸地在 X(Twitter)上。我希望能少沉迷那个东西。max.dev——我都不确定上面有没有放 X 的链接,但我会为你的听众放上去的。
听众怎么对我有帮助?去你所在的城市或森林散个步——去哪都行。实际上——如果是人造环境更好。然后仔细看看你周围的一切是怎么被并不比你聪明的人造出来的。认识到大概在 6 到 9 个月内,对于你周围的大多数东西,你都能搞清楚怎么从零开始做出来。因此——你拥有的能动性比你以为的多得多。去锻炼它吧。
听众怎么对我有帮助?去你所在的城市或森林散个步——去哪都行。实际上——如果是人造环境更好。然后仔细看看你周围的一切是怎么被并不比你聪明的人造出来的。认识到大概在 6 到 9 个月内,对于你周围的大多数东西,你都能搞清楚怎么从零开始做出来。因此——你拥有的能动性比你以为的多得多。去锻炼它吧。
**Max:** I am unfortunately on X or Twitter. Um I I would like to be less addicted to that thing. Uh max.dev. Um is I don't even know if I linked to X, but I'll I'll put it on there for your listeners. How can listeners be helpful to me? Go for a walk in whatever city you're in or forest, wherever you want to go. Uh actually, no, it's it's better if it's man-made uh or humanmade. Um, and just carefully look at how everything around you is made up by people that are no smarter than you and realize that probably in the span of 6 to9 months, you can for most things around you figure out how to make it from scratch. And therefore, uh, you have much more agency than than you think. And so, just exercise that.
**Lenny:** 多美好的结尾方式。Max,非常感谢你来这里。
**Lenny:** What a beautiful way to end it. Max, thank you so much for being here.
**Max:** 感谢邀请。
**Max:** Thank you for having me.
**Lenny:** 大家好,非常感谢收听。如果你觉得有价值,可以在 Apple Podcasts、Spotify 或你喜欢的播客应用上订阅本节目。也请考虑给我们评分或留下评论——这真的帮助其他听众找到这个播客。你可以在 lennispodcast.com 找到所有过往节目或了解更多信息。我们下期见。
**Lenny:** Hi, everyone. Thank you so much for listening. If you found this valuable, you can subscribe to the show on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or your favorite podcast app. Also, please consider giving us a rating or leaving a review as that really helps other listeners find the podcast. You can find all past episodes or learn more about the show at lennispodcast.com. See you in the next episode.