No. 44·中文精读

14 个人起家,5 亿人每周在用:奥特曼把 OpenAI 的底牌讲透了

LIVE: Sam Altman of OpenAI on Building the ‘Core AI Subscription’ for Your Life

在红杉 AI Ascent 2025 现场,Sam Altman 回顾 OpenAI 从 14 人研究实验室到主导 AI 平台的演变,并设想 ChatGPT 成为记住个人全部上下文、跨服务工作的核心订阅。

节目音频00:00 / 32:27
中文精读由 AI 基于原始访谈改写,非官方翻译,可能存在偏差或错误;表述以原节目为准。

2016 年,英伟达创始人黄仁勋亲手把全球第一台 DGX-1 送进 OpenAI 的办公室。那台机器七十磅上下,一个人还搬得动。当时全公司 14 个人,围着白板讨论该干什么,连像样的计划都没有,先定了几个练手项目:让 AI 打电子游戏,训练一只机械手。

九年之后,ChatGPT 每周活跃用户超过 5 亿,公司刚官宣 400 亿美元融资,估值约 3000 亿美元。2025 年 5 月,奥特曼第三次来到红杉的 AI Ascent 大会,一开口就说:这里是我们最早的办公室,回来感觉真好。他还感慨,现在的机柜依旧巨大,可那台老机器如今看着小得惊人。

这场对谈由红杉合伙人帕特·格雷迪和阿尔弗雷德·林主持,台下坐满创业者。奥特曼讲了 ChatGPT 怎么被撞出来,OpenAI 要拿哪块地盘,还给出一张 2025 到 2027 的时间表。干货很多,按主题拆开看。

GPT-3 的 API 上线时,世界没在乎

回到 2016 年。奥特曼的原话是,那时的 OpenAI 是一家有强烈信念和方向的研究实验室,但没有行动计划。LLM 这个概念当时还很遥远,团队先做项目验证自己:打电子游戏、开机械手。后来有人对无监督学习和语言模型来了兴致,一路做到 GPT-1、GPT-2。

Alfred 林打趣问,现在还在打电子游戏吗?奥特曼答:那个我们已经很擅长了。

GPT-2 开放过模型权重,外界没什么反应。到 GPT-3,团队觉得手里有点东西了,麻烦也来了:想不出它能干什么,继续放大还需要天量资金。奥特曼说,他们正进入十亿美元级模型的时代,这种事没法当成纯科学实验来做,除非你是粒子加速器。

于是有了 API。很多人以为 ChatGPT 是 OpenAI 第一个消费级产品,奥特曼当场纠正:第一个产品是 API,第一个消费级产品是 DALL-E,ChatGPT 排在后面。做 API 的逻辑来自他当 YC 总裁时的观察:做 API 的公司,上行空间通常能打开;把东西做得更易用,通常有巨大收益。自己想不出该做什么产品,那就写好软件把模型跑稳,让别人去找应用。说白了,API 就是给发电机装插座,电是现成的,能不能用看接口。

2020 年 6 月,GPT-3 进了 API。

「世界没在乎,但硅谷在乎了。」

奥特曼回忆,当时几乎没有来自主流世界的关注,一些创业者却激动地说这就是 AGI。真正靠 GPT-3 API 做成生意的,他记得只有几家文案代写公司,那是 GPT-3 唯一越过经济门槛的用途。

但有个细节埋下了 ChatGPT 的种子:大家在 Playground 里就是爱跟它聊天。模型当时根本不会聊天,RLHF(基于人类反馈的强化学习)还没做,体验很差,人们照样聊得停不下来。奥特曼说,这是 API 产品唯一跑出来的杀手级用法,直接催生了后来的 ChatGPT。

到 GPT-3.5,能做成生意的品类从 1 个涨到 8 个左右,团队对「人就是想跟模型说话」的判断越来越强。2022 年 11 月 30 日,ChatGPT 上线,距公司成立六年。今天,每周有超过 5 亿人跟它说话。

公司变大的陷阱:人多了,事必须多更多

Alfred 林先夸了一句,过去半年 OpenAI 发版速度肉眼可见地变快。他问,怎么让一家大公司越跑越快?

奥特曼给了一个很具体的诊断:很多公司犯的错,是变大之后做的事情没有变多。人变多了,产品还是那么多,公司这锅糖浆就开始凝固。

他的解法:让每个人都忙起来,团队要小,做的事要远多于人头数。否则就是每个会挤 40 个人,为一小块产品地盘吵半天。他引用一句老生意经,好的高管一定是忙的高管,闲人扎堆只会空转。

在他看来,研究者、工程师、产品人几乎贡献了公司全部价值,要让这些人忙且高产出。OpenAI 的做法是让相对少的人扛巨大的责任,而让这件事成立的前提,是事情必须足够多。

他们也确实不得不多做。奥特曼说,现在的机会是去做一个真正重要的互联网平台:做每个人跨服务、跨人生场景的个性化 AI,主品类加长尾品类,要建的东西太多了。

摊牌:核心 AI 订阅归 OpenAI,其他留给你们

台下有创业者直接问:我们怎么避开你的碾压?奥特曼的回应等于把牌摊在桌上:OpenAI 要做每个人的核心 AI 订阅,就是这期节目标题里那句 core AI subscription for your life。

具体分三层:最底下是越来越聪明的模型;中间是几个关键入口,包括未来的设备和类似操作系统的东西;最上面才是 ChatGPT 里的体验。至于真正的平台化,API 和 SDK 该长什么样,他说还没想清楚,可能会试错几次,但一定会做出来,希望它能在世界上催生难以置信的财富创造。

Alfred 林替听众总结:别去做核心 AI 订阅,其他都能干。奥特曼补了一句:你要是能做出比我们更好的核心 AI 订阅,请便,那很棒。

融资的事,Alfred 林提到传闻里的 400 亿美元,奥特曼回应已经官宣。至于野心,他的回答出人意料地朴素:做出好模型,发好产品,除此之外没有总体规划。他们引以为傲的一点,是随世界调整战术的敏捷。

「我听过不少人讲他们的宏大战略,从终点倒推回来,先统治世界,再往前推每一步该干什么。我从没见过这些人真正大规模成功过。」

他信奉往前走,走一步看一步,手头的事先做好。确定要做的只有几件:建海量的 AI 基础设施,把 AI 工厂的产能铺起来;持续把模型变聪明;做好顶层的消费级产品。明年要发什么产品,现在可能都还没想。他说,自己从未对研究路线图这么乐观过。Alfred 林追问路线图上到底有什么,他答:更聪明的模型。全场笑。

有听众问 API 十年后还在不在。奥特曼说,他希望一切最终合并成一件事:用 OpenAI 账号登录其他服务,其他服务通过 SDK 接管 ChatGPT 的界面。你的个性化 AI 认识你、存着你的信息、知道你愿意分享什么,你该能在所有地方调用它。现在的 API 离这个愿景还很远,但能走到。

再往远看,他期待一个 HTTP 级别的新协议:服务联邦化,拆成更小的组件,Agent 之间互相暴露和调用工具,认证、支付、数据传输内建在所有人都信任的那一层。用他的话说,这东西正从雾里走出来,具体长什么样还不确定,大概要迭代几次。

代际断层:大学生把它当操作系统,35 岁的人拿它当谷歌

台下问大公司转型 AI 原生到底错在哪。奥特曼说,每次重大技术革命都这样,没什么新鲜的:人和组织都会死死卡在自己的旧习惯里。他举了个例子,技术每季度变一次,你的信息安全委员会一年才开一次会,决定允许哪些应用、数据能不能进系统,看着都疼。

他的预测:大公司还会再挣扎两年,假装这一切不会重塑所有东西,然后突然投降,最后一刻慌乱补课,但已经晚了。创业公司会直接从他们身上碾过去。

这种断层在个人身上更明显,公司只是同一个症状。他给现场的人出了个题:找一个普通 20 岁的年轻人,看对方怎么用 ChatGPT,再找一个普通 35 岁的人,差距大得难以置信。他拿智能手机类比,当年每个孩子上手就会,长辈花三年才学会基本操作。

年轻人的用法已经系统化了:复杂的配置,接一堆文件,常用提示词背在脑子里或存在备忘录里随时粘贴。更关键的是,他们做人生决定之前会先问 ChatGPT,模型里有他们生活里每个人的完整上下文。奥特曼说,记忆功能是个真正的转折点。

「粗暴地概括一下:年纪大的人把 ChatGPT 当谷歌替代品,二三十岁的人拿它当人生顾问,大学生把它当操作系统。」

那 OpenAI 内部呢?Alfred 林问公司多少代码是 AI 写的,奥特曼说不知道具体数字,按代码行数衡量是件蠢事,微软那个 20% 到 30% 的说法他也觉得没意义。他给了一个更狠的表述:AI 在写有分量的代码,写的是真正要紧的那些部分。

编程是中枢,语音催生新品类,理想态是一万亿 token 上下文

有人问编程在 OpenAI 的版图里算不算一个垂直应用。奥特曼说,编程比垂直应用核心得多。现在你问 ChatGPT 一个问题,得到一段文字或一张图;未来你该得到一整个程序,每次回答都配上定制渲染的代码。写代码是模型撬动现实的方式,调 API、让事情在世界上真实发生。ChatGPT 应该极其擅长写代码。从助手到 Agent 再到应用,他说这个过程会感觉是连续的。

语音被排在极高优先级。奥特曼承认,OpenAI 还没做出足够好的语音产品,就像当年文字模型也磨了很久。现有语音模式最有趣的发现,是它在触屏之外叠加了一条并行通道,你可以一边说话一边点手机。语音加图形界面的组合还没破解,但一旦语音做到真人级,会催生一整类全新设备。

传感器数据也有人问。奥特曼说,大家已经在这么干了,把温度等物理世界的数据塞进 o3 的 API 调用,部分场景效果很好,最新模型处理这类输入比以前强很多,之后会做得更内建。

谈到模型继续变聪明的配方,他给出三样:算法、数据、算力。杠杆最高的还是大的算法突破,剩下的 10 倍级、100 倍级突破不多了,但哪怕还有一两个,也是大事。

怎么管研究团队,他的答案很反主流:需要自上而下协调的项目确实要有个人当四分卫,但大多数人自上而下管得太多了。OpenAI 创立时专门研究过历史上运转良好的实验室长什么样,能给他们提建议的人几乎都已经去世了。他们把那些原则厚脸皮地抄过来用,结果好得惊人。他说,很多人跑来问经验,听完说很好,然后回去按自己的想法干,然后就没干成。

学术界的需求也有人问。奥特曼说,OpenAI 有学术合作项目,但大多数学者要的其实很简单:拿到模型,或者拿到基座模型。九成的力气花在把通用模型整体变好上,定制合作只是零头。

定制化这个问题,他给了一个理想态:一个很小的推理模型,配一万亿 token 的上下文,把你的一生装进去。模型永不重训,权重永不定制,但你这辈子每段对话、每本书、每封邮件、看过的每个东西都在里面,外部数据源全部接上,人生持续追加进上下文,公司数据同理。今天做不到,其他一切方案都是对这个理想的妥协。

时间表与残局:2027 年机器人上场,第 60 天才是真考验

未来 12 个月价值从哪来?奥特曼给了三层:更多的基础设施,更聪明的模型,以及把这些东西接进社会的脚手架。展开到年份:

  • 2025 年,Agent 开始真正干活,编程会是主导品类,另有几个品类跟上。
  • 2026 年,AI 开始发现新东西,可能做出一些重大的科学发现,或强力辅助人类做发现。
  • 2027 年,这一切从智力世界进入物理世界,机器人从新奇玩意变成正经的经济价值创造者。

他补了一句,2027 那条是张口就来的猜测。背后的信念倒是很坚定:人类走出地球、铺开定居之后,可持续的经济增长大部分来自更好的科学知识,以及把它实现到世界里。

被问到 GPT-5 会不会比在场所有人都聪明,他没正面接,只说了一句:如果你觉得自己比 o3 聪明得多,那可能还有点路要走,o3 已经相当聪明了。

最后是给创始人的建议。奥特曼说,挑战会越来越大、赌注越来越高,但情绪消耗会越来越轻,抗压能力是练出来的,每扛过一次就强一分。危机爆发的那个时刻反而好熬,肾上腺素管够,支持的人会围过来,哪怕公司钱烧光倒闭了,也会有人拉你一把。真正难的是事后,第 60 天,肾上腺素退了,人群散了,你一个人收拾残局、重建公司。他提醒,大家都在讨论怎么熬过危机当天,几乎没人讲怎么处理危机之后,而这恰恰是可以刻意练习的部分。

对了,他当时还在陪产假里,特意跑来站台。Alfred 林最后替全场谢了他这一趟。

整场听下来,有几件事明天就能用:

  • 个人用户:学大学生的用法。打开 ChatGPT 的记忆功能,把高频提示词存成模板,接上常用文件和上下文,把它从搜索替代品升级成带完整记忆的助手。做重要决定前,先让它把利弊和盲区过一遍。
  • 创业者:正面战场让给 OpenAI,模型、入口设备、订阅它都要做。应用层、垂直行业、Agent 工具链仍是空地。API 和 SDK 的形态还会变,架构别绑死在现有接口上。
  • 公司管理者:对照两个周期,技术变化按季度走,你的审批流程按年走,这个差距就是创业公司碾过来的路。再数一数人头和项目数的比例,人多了事没多,糖浆就要凝固了。
  • 正在扛事的创始人:危机当天靠肾上腺素就能过,提前写好第 60 天的复原清单,团队、现金流、对外叙事,一样一样来。
文稿来源:sequoiacap.com;机器转写可能有识别错误,人名与数字请以音频为准。
id="podcast-transcript" data-framer-component-type="RichTextContainer" style="transform:none">Pat Grady: Our next guest needs no introduction, so I’m not gonna bother introducing him—Sam Altman. I will just say Sam is now three for three in joining us to share his thoughts at the three AI Ascents that we’ve had, which we really appreciate. So I just want to say thank you for being here. Sam Altman: This was our first office. [applause] Pat Grady: That’s right. Oh, that’s right. Say that again. Sam Altman: Yeah, this was—this was our first office. So it’s nice to be back. Alfred Lin: Let’s go back to the first office here. You started in 2016? Sam Altman: Yeah. Alfred Lin: 2016. We just had Jensen here, who said that he delivered the first DGX-1 system over here. Sam Altman: He did, yeah. It’s amazing how small that thing looks now. Alfred Lin: Oh, versus what? Sam Altman: Well, the current boxes are still huge, but yeah, it was a fun throwback. Alfred Lin: How heavy was it? Sam Altman: That was still when you could kind of like lift one yourself. [laughs] Alfred Lin: You said it was about 70 pounds. Sam Altman: I mean, it was heavy, but you could carry it. Alfred Lin: So did you imagine that you’d be here today in 2016? Sam Altman: No. It was like we were sitting over there, and there were 14 of us or something. Alfred Lin: And you were hacking on this new system? How OpenAI got to ChatGPTSam Altman: I mean, even that was like a—we were sitting around looking at whiteboards, trying to talk about what we should do. This was a—it’s almost impossible to sort of overstate how much we were like a research lab with a very strong belief and direction and conviction, but no real kind of like action plan. I mean, not only was, like, the idea of a company or a product sort of unimaginable, the specific—like, LLMs as an idea were still very far off. We’re trying to play video games. Alfred Lin: Trying to play video games. Are you still trying to play video games? Sam Altman: No, we’re pretty good at that. Alfred Lin: All right. So it took you another six years for the first consumer product to come out, which is ChatGPT. Along the way, how did you sort of think about milestones to get something to that level? Sam Altman: It’s like an accident of history. The first consumer product was not ChatGPT. Alfred Lin: That’s right. Sam Altman: It was Dall-E. The first product was the API. So we had built—you know, we kind of went through a few different things. We were—a few directions that we really wanted to bet on. Eventually, as I mentioned, we said, “Well, we gotta build a system to see if it’s working, and we’re not just writing research papers. So we’re gonna see if we can, you know, play a video game. Well, we’re gonna see if we can do a robot hand. We’re gonna see if we can do a few other things.” And at some point in there, one person, and then eventually a team, got excited about trying to do unsupervised learning and to build language models. And that led to GPT1, and then GPT2. And by the time of GPT3, we both thought we had something that was kind of cool, but we couldn’t figure out what to do with it. And also we realized we needed a lot more money to keep scaling. You know, we had done GPT3, we wanted to go to GPT4. We were heading into the world of billion-dollar models. It’s, like, hard to do those as a pure science experiment, unless you’re like a particle accelerator or something. Even then it’s hard. So we started thinking, okay, we both need to figure out how this can become a business that can sustain the investment that it requires. And also we have a sense that this is heading towards something actually useful. And we had put GPT2 out as model weights, and not that much had happened. One of the things that I had just observed about companies’ products in general is if you do an API, it usually works somehow on the upside. This is, like, true across many, many YC companies. And also that if you make something much easier to use, there’s usually a huge benefit to that. So we’re like, well, it’s kind of hard to run these models that are getting big. We’ll go write some software, do a really good job of running them, and also we’ll then, rather than build a product because we couldn’t figure out what to build, we will hope that somebody else finds something to build. And so I forget exactly when, but maybe it was like June of 2020, we put out GPT3 in the API. And the world didn’t care, but sort of Silicon Valley did. They’re like, “Oh, this is kind of cool. This is pointing at something.” And there was this weird thing where, like, we got almost no attention from most of the world. And some startup founders were like, “Oh, this is really cool.” Or some of them are like, “This is AGI.” The only people that built real businesses with the GPT3 API that I can remember were these company—a few companies that did, like, copywriting as a service. That was kind of the only thing GPT3 was over the economic threshold on. But one thing we did notice, which eventually led to ChatGPT, is even though people couldn’t build a lot of great businesses with the GPT3 API, people love to talk to it in the Playground. And it was terrible at chat. We had not, at that point, figured out how to do RLHF to make it easy to chat with. But people loved to do it anyway. And in some sense, that was the kind of only killer use, other than copywriting, of the API product that led us to eventually build ChatGPT. By the time ChatGPT 3.5 came out, there were maybe, like, eight categories instead of one category where you could build a business with the API. But our conviction that people just want to talk to the model had gotten really strong. So we had done Dall-E, and Dall-E was doing okay. But we knew we kind of wanted to build—especially along with the fine tuning we were able to do, we knew we wanted to build this model, this product that let you talk to the model. Alfred Lin: And it launched in 2022. Sam Altman: Yes. Alfred Lin: Yeah, that’s six years from when the first … Sam Altman: November 30, 2022. Yeah. Alfred Lin: So there’s a lot of work leading up to that. And 2022, it launched. Today, it has over 500 million people who talk to it on a weekly basis. Sam Altman: Yeah Alfred Lin: [laughs] All right. All right. So by the way, get ready for some audience questions, because that was Sam’s request. You’ve been here for every single one of the Ascents, as Pat mentioned, and there’s been some—lots of ups and downs, but seems like the last six months it’s just been shipping, shipping, shipping. Shipped a lot of stuff. And it’s amazing to see the product velocity, the shipping velocity continue to increase. So this is like multi, sort of, part question. How have you gotten a large company to, like, increase product velocity over time? Sam Altman: I think a mistake that a lot of companies make is they get big and they don’t do more things. So they just, like, get bigger because you’re supposed to get bigger, and they still ship the same amount of product. And that’s when, like, the molasses really takes hold. Like, I am a big believer that you want everyone to be busy. You want teams to be small, you want to do a lot of things relative to the number of people you have. Otherwise, you just have, like, 40 people in every meeting and huge fights over who gets what tiny part of the product. There was this old observation of business that a good executive is a busy executive because you don’t want people, like, muddling around. But I think it’s like a good—you know, at our company and many other companies, like, researchers, engineers, product people, they drive almost all the value. And you want those people to be busy and high impact. So if you’re going to grow, you better do a lot more things, otherwise you kind of just have a lot of people sitting in a room fighting or meeting or talking about whatever. So we try to have, you know, relatively small numbers of people with huge amounts of responsibility. And the way to make that work is to do a lot of things. And also, like, we have to do a lot of things. I think we really do now have an opportunity to go build one of these important internet platforms. But to do that, like, if we really are going to be people’s personalized AI that they use across many different services and over their life and across all of these different kind of main categories and all the smaller ones that we need to figure out how to enable, then that’s just a lot of stuff to go build. Building the core AI subscriptionAlfred Lin: Anything you’re particularly proud of that you’ve launched in the last six months? Sam Altman: I mean, the models are so good now. Like, they still have areas to get better, of course, and we’re working on that fast. But, like, I think at this point, ChatGPT is a very good product because the model is very good. I mean, there’s other stuff that matters, too, but I’m amazed that one model can do so many things so well. Alfred Lin: You’re building small models and large models. You’re doing a lot of things, as you said. So how does this audience stay out of your way and not be roadkill? [laughter] Sam Altman: I mean, like, I think the way to model us is we want to build—we want to be people’s, like, core AI subscription and way to use that thing. Some of that will be like what you do inside of ChatGPT. We’ll have a couple of other kind of like really key parts of that subscription, but mostly we will hopefully build this smarter and smarter model. We’ll have these surfaces, like future devices, future things that are sort of similar to operating systems, whatever. And then we have not yet figured out exactly, I think, what the sort of API or SDK or whatever you want to call it is to really be our platform. But we will. It may take us a few tries, but we will. And I hope that that enables, like, just an unbelievable amount of wealth creation in the world, and other people to build onto that. But yeah, we’re going to go for, like, the core AI subscription and the model, and then the kind of core surfaces, and there will be a ton of other stuff to build. Alfred Lin: So don’t be the core AI subscription. But you can do everything else. Sam Altman: We’re gonna try. I mean, if you can make a better core AI subscription offering than us, go ahead. That’d be great. Okay. Alfred Lin: It’s rumored that you’re raising $40 billion or something like that at $340 billion valuation. It’s rumors. I don’t know if this … Sam Altman: I think we announced that we’re raise … Alfred Lin: Okay. Well, I just want to make sure that you announced it. What’s your scale of ambition from there, from here? Sam Altman: We’re going to try to make great models and ship good products, and there’s no master plan beyond that. Like, we’re gonna—I think, like … Alfred Lin: Sure. [laughter] Sam Altman: No, I mean, I see plenty of OpenAI people in the audience. They can vouch for this. Like, we don’t—we don’t sit there and have—like, I am a big believer that you can kind of, like, do the things in front of you, but if you try to work backwards from, like, kind of we have this crazy complex thing, that doesn’t usually work as well. We know that we need tons of AI infrastructure. Like, we know we need to go build out massive amounts of, like, AI factory volume. We know that we need to keep making models better. We know that we need to, like, build a great top of the stack, like, kind of consumer product and all the pieces that go into that. But we pride ourselves on being, like, nimble and adjusting tactics as the world adjusts. And so the products, you know, the products that we’re going to build next year, we’re probably not even thinking about right now. And we believe we can build a set of products that people really, really love, and we have, like, unwavering confidence in that, and we believe we can build great models. I’ve actually never felt more optimistic about our research roadmap than I do right now. Alfred Lin: What’s on the research roadmap? Sam Altman: Really smart models. [laughter] Sam Altman: But in terms of the steps in front of us, we kind of take those one or two at a time. Alfred Lin: So you believe in working forwards, not necessarily working backwards. Sam Altman: I have heard some people talk about these brilliant strategies of how this is where they’re going to go and they’re going to work backwards. And this is take over the world. And this is the thing before that, and this is that, and this is that, and this is that, and this is that, and here’s where we are today. I have never seen those people, like, really massively succeed. Alfred Lin: Got it. Who has a question? There’s a mic coming your way being thrown. The generational divide in AIAudience Member: What do you think the larger companies are getting wrong about transforming their organizations to be more AI native in terms of both using the tooling as well as producing products? Smaller companies are clearly just beating the crap out of larger ones when it comes to innovation here. Sam Altman: I think this basically happens every major tech revolution. There’s nothing, to me, surprising about it. The thing that they’re getting wrong is the same thing they always get wrong, which is like people get incredibly stuck in their ways, organizations get incredibly stuck in their ways. If things are changing a lot every quarter or two, and you have, like, an information security council that meets once a year to decide what applications are going to allow and what it means to, like, put data into a system, like, it’s so painful to watch what happens here. But, like, you know, this is creative destruction. This is why startups win. This is like how the industry moves forward. I’d say, I feel, like, disappointed but not surprised at the rate that big companies are willing to do this. My kind of prediction would be that there’s another, like, couple of years of fighting, pretending like this isn’t going to reshape everything, and then there’s like a capitulation and a last-minute scramble and it’s sort of too late. And in general, startups just sort of like blow past people doing it the old way. I mean, this happens to people, too. Like watching, like, a, you know, someone who started—maybe you, like, talk to an average 20 year old and watch how they use ChatGPT, and then you go talk to, like, an average 35 year old on how they use it or some other service. And, like, the difference is unbelievable. It reminds me of, like, you know, when the smartphone came out and, like, every kid was able to use it super well. And older people just, like, took, like, three years to figure out how to do basic stuff. And then, of course, people integrate. But the sort of like generational divide on AI tools right now is crazy. And I think companies are just another symptom of that. Alfred Lin: Anybody else have a question? Audience Member: Just to follow up on that. What are the cool use cases that you’re seeing young people using with ChatGPT that might surprise us? **Sam Altman:**They really do use it like an operating system. They have complex ways to set it up, to connect it to a bunch of files, and they have fairly complex prompts memorized in their head or in something where they paste in and out. And I mean, that stuff, I think, is all cool and impressive. And there’s this other thing where, like, they don’t really make life decisions without asking, like, ChatGPT what they should do. And it has, like, the full context on every person in their life and what they’ve talked about. And, you know, like, the memory thing has been a real change there. But yeah, I think gross oversimplification but, like, older people use ChatGPT as a Google replacement. Maybe people in their 20s and 30s use it as like a life advisor something. And then, like, people in college use it as an operating system. Alfred Lin: How do you use it inside of OpenAI? Sam Altman: I mean, it writes a lot of our code. Alfred Lin: How much? Sam Altman: I don’t know the number. And also when people say the number, I think is always this very dumb thing because like you can write … Alfred Lin: Someone said Microsoft code is 20, 30 percent. Sam Altman: Measuring by lines of code is just such an insane way to, like, I don’t know. Maybe the thing I could say is it’s writing meaningful code. Like, it’s writing—I don’t know how much, but it’s writing the parts that actually matter. Alfred Lin: That’s interesting. Next question. Audience Member: Hey Sam. Alfred Lin: Is the mic going around? Will the OpenAI API be around in 10 years?Audience Member: Okay. Hey Sam. I thought it was interesting that the answer to Alfred’s question about where you guys want to go is focused mostly around consumer and being the core subscription, and also most of your revenue comes from consumer subscriptions. Why keep the API in 10 years? Sam Altman: I really hope that all of this merges into one thing. Like, you should be able to sign in with OpenAI to other services. Other services should have an incredible SDK to take over the ChatGPT UI at some point. But to the degree that you are going to have a personalized AI that knows you, that has your information, that knows what you want to share later, and has all this context on you, you’ll want to be able to use that in a lot of places. Now I agree that the current version of the API is very far off that vision, but I think we can get there. Audience Member: Yeah. Maybe I have a follow up question to that one. You kind of took mine. But a lot of us who are building application layer companies, we want to, like, use those building blocks, those different API components—maybe the Deep Research API, which is not a release thing, but could be—and build stuff with them. Is that going to be a priority, like, enabling that platform for us? How should we think about that? Sam Altman: Yeah. I think, I hope something in between those that there is sort of like a new protocol on the level of HTTP for the future of the internet, where things get federated and broken down into much smaller components, and agents are, like, constantly exposing and using different tools and authentication, payment, data transfer. It’s all built in at this level that everybody trusts; everything can talk to everything. And I don’t quite think we know what that looks like, but it’s coming out of the fog, and as we get a better sense for that—again, it’ll probably take us, like, a few iterations toward that to get there, but that’s kind of where I would like to see things go. Audience Member: Hey Sam, back here. My name is Roy. I’m curious. The AI would obviously do better with more input data. Is there any thought to feeding sensor data? And what type of sensor data, whether it’s temperature, you know, things in the physical world that you could feed in that it could better understand reality? Sam Altman: People do that a lot. People put that into—people have whatever—they build things where they just put sensor data into an o3 API call or whatever. And for some use cases it does work super well. I’d say the latest models seem to do a good job with this, and they used to not, so we’ll probably bake it in more explicitly at some point, but there’s already a lot happening there. Voice in ChatGPTAudience Member: Hi Sam, I was really excited to play with the voice model in the playground. And so I have two questions. The first is: How important is voice to OpenAI in terms of stack ranking for infrastructure? And can you share a little bit about how you think it’ll show up in the product, in ChatGPT, the core thing? Sam Altman: I think voice is extremely important. Honestly, we have not made a good enough voice product yet. That’s fine. Like, it took us a while to make a good enough text model, too. We will crack that code eventually, and when we do, I think a lot of people are going to want to use voice interaction a lot more. When we first launched our current voice mode, the thing that was most interesting to me was it was a new stream on top of the touch interface. You could talk and be clicking around on your phone at the same time. And I continue to think there is something amazing to do about, like, voice plus GUI interaction that we have not cracked. But before that, we’ll just make voice really great. And when we do, I think there’s a whole—not only is it cool with existing devices, but I sort of think voice will enable a totally new class of devices if you can make it feel like truly human-level voice. How central is coding?Audience Member: Similar question about coding. I’m curious, is coding just another vertical application, or is it more central to the future of OpenAI? Sam Altman: That one’s more central to the future of OpenAI. Coding, I think, will be how these models kind of—right now, if you ask ChatGPT a response, you get text back, maybe you get an image. You would like to get a whole program back. You would like, you know, custom-rendered code for every response—or at least I would. You would like the ability for these models to go make things happen in the world. And writing code, I think, will be very central to how you, like, actuate the world and call a bunch of APIs or whatever. So I would say coding will be more in a central category. We’ll obviously expose it through our API and our platform as well, but ChatGPT should be excellent at writing code. Alfred Lin: So we’re gonna move from the world of assistance to agents to basically applications all the way through? Sam Altman: I think it’ll feel like very continuous, but yes. Audience Member: So you have conviction in the roadmap about smarter models. Awesome. I have this mental model. There’s some ingredients, like more data, bigger data centers, a transformer as architecture, test time compute. What’s like an underrated ingredient, or something that’s going to be part of that mix that maybe isn’t in the mental model of most of us? Sam Altman: I mean, that’s kind of the—each of those things are really hard. And, you know, obviously, like, the highest leveraged thing is still big algorithmic breakthroughs. And I think there still probably are some 10Xs or 100Xs left. Not very many, but even one or two is a big deal. But yeah, it’s kind of like algorithms, data, compute, those are sort of the big ingredients. How to run a great research labAudience Member: Hi. So my question is, you run one of the best ML teams in the world. How do you balance between letting smart people like Isa chase Deep Research or something else that seems exciting, versus going top down and being like, “We’re going to build this, we’re going to make it happen. We don’t know if it’ll work.” Sam Altman: There are some projects that require so much coordination that there has to be a little bit of, like, top down quarterbacking. But I think most people try to do way too much of that. I mean, this is like—there’s probably other ways to run good AI research or good research labs in general, but when we started OpenAI, we spent a lot of time trying to understand what a well-run research lab looks like. And you had to go really far back in the past. In fact, almost everyone that could help advise us on this was dead. It had been a long time since there had been good research labs. And people ask us a lot, like, why does OpenAI repeatedly innovate, and why do the other AI labs, like, sort of copy? Or why do Biolab X not do good work and Biolab Y does do good work or whatever. And we sort of keep saying, “Here’s the principles we’ve observed. Here’s how we learned them, here’s what we looked at in the past.” And then everybody says, “Great, but I’m gonna go do the other thing.” That’s fine, you came to us for advice, you do what you want. But I find it remarkable how much these few principles that we’ve tried to run our research lab on—which we did not invent, we shamelessly copied from other good research labs in history—have worked for us. And then people who have had some smart reason about why they were going to do something else that didn’t work. Audience Member: So it seems to me that these large models, one of the really fascinating things as a lover of knowledge about them, is that they potentially embody and allow us to answer these amazing longstanding questions in the humanities about cyclical changes and artistic interesting things, or even like to what extent systematic prejudice and other sorts of things are really happening in society, and can we sort of detect these very subtle things which we could never really do more than hypothesize before. And I’m wondering whether OpenAI has a thought about, or even a roadmap for working with academic researchers, say, to help unlock some of these new things we could learn for the first time in the humanities and in the social sciences? Sam Altman: We do, yeah. I mean, it’s amazing to see what people are doing there. We do have academic research programs where we partner and do some custom work, but mostly people just say, like, “I want access to the model or maybe I want access to the base model.” And I think we’re really good at that. One of the kind of cool things about what we do is so much of our incentive structure is pushed towards making the models as smart and cheap and widely accessible as possible, that that serves academics and really the whole world very well. So, you know, we do some custom partnerships, but we often find that what researchers or users really want is just for us to make the general model better across the board. And so we try to focus kind of 90 percent of our thrust vector on that. Customization and the platonic ideal stateAudience Member: I’m curious how you’re thinking about customization. So you mentioned the federated sign in with OpenAI; bringing your memories, your context. I’m just curious if you think customization and these different post training on application specific things is a band aid, or is trying to make the core models better, and how you’re thinking about that. Sam Altman: I mean, in some sense, I think platonic ideal state is a very tiny reasoning model with a trillion tokens of context that you put your whole life into. The model never retrains, the weights never customize, but that thing can reason across your whole context and do it efficiently. And every conversation you’ve ever had in your life, every book you’ve ever read, every email you’ve ever read, everything you’ve ever looked at is in there, plus connected all your data from other sources. And, you know, your life just keeps appending to the context, and your company just does the same thing for all your company’s data. We can’t get there today, but I think of kind of like anything else as a compromise off that platonic ideal. And that is how I would eventually, I hope, we do customization. Alfred Lin: One last question in the back. Value creation in the coming yearsAudience Member: Hi Sam, thanks for your time. Where do you think most of the value creation will come from in the next 12 months? Would it be maybe advanced memory capabilities, or maybe security or protocols that allow agents to do more stuff and interact with the real world? Sam Altman: I mean, in some sense the value will continue to come from really three things, like building out more infrastructure, smarter models, and building the kind of scaffolding to integrate this stuff into society. And if you push on those, I think the rest will sort itself out. At a higher level of detail, I kind of think 2025 will be a year of sort of agents doing work, coding in particular, I would expect to be a dominant category. I think there’ll be a few others, too. Next year is a year where I would expect more like sort of AIs discovering new stuff, and maybe we have AIs make some very large scientific discoveries or assist humans in doing that. And I am kind of a believer that most of the sort of real sustainable economic growth in human history comes from once you’ve kind of spread out and colonized the Earth, most of it comes from just better scientific knowledge and then implementing that for the world. And then ‘27, I would guess, is the year where that all moves from the sort of intellectual realm to the physical world, and robots go from a curiosity to a serious economic creator of value. But that was like an off the top of my head kind of guess right now. Alfred Lin: Can I close with a few quick questions? Sam Altman: Great. Alfred Lin: One of which is GPT5. Is that going to be just all smarter than all of us here? Sam Altman: I mean, if you think you’re, like, way smarter than o3, then maybe you have a little bit of a ways to go, but o3 is already pretty smart. Leadership advice for foundersAlfred Lin: [laughs] Two personal questions. Last time you were here, you’d just come off a blip with OpenAI. Given some perspective now and distance, do you have any advice for founders here about resilience, endurance, strength? Sam Altman: It gets easier over time, I think. Like, you will face a lot of adversity in your journey as a founder, and the kind of challenges get harder and higher stakes, but the emotional toll gets easier as you kind of go through more bad things. So, you know, in some sense yeah, even though abstractly the challenges get bigger and harder, your ability to deal with them, the sort of resilience you build up gets easier, like, with each one you kind of go through. And then I think the hardest thing about the big challenges that come as a founder is not the moment when they happen. Like, a lot of things go wrong in the history of a company. In the acute thing, you can kind of like—you know, you get a lot of support, you can function off a lot of adrenaline. Like, even the really big stuff, like, your company runs out of money and fails, like, a lot of people will come and support you, and you kind of get through it and go on to the new thing. The thing that I think is harder to sort of manage your own psychology through is the sort of, like, fallout after. And I think if there’s—you know, people focus a lot about how to work in that one moment during the crisis, and the really valuable thing to learn is how you, like, pick up the pieces. There’s much less talk about that. I think there’s—I’ve never actually found something good to point founders to to go read about, you know, not how you deal with the real crisis on day zero or day one or day two, but on day 60 as you’re just trying to, like, rebuild after it. And that’s the area that I think you can practice and get better at. Alfred Lin: Thank you, Sam. You’re officially still on paternity leave, I know. So thank you for coming in and speaking with us. Appreciate it. Sam Altman: Thank you. [applause] <div class="framer-mcvrsd" id="

Recorded live at Sequoia’s AI Ascent 2025: Sam reflects on OpenAI’s evolution from a 14-person research lab to a dominant AI platform. He envisions transforming ChatGPT into a deeply personal AI service that remembers your entire life's context—from conversations to emails—while working seamlessly across all services. Sam describes the generation gap in how users engage with ChatGPT, and makes surprisingly specific predictions for the next 2-3 years of AI evolution.

本集资源与出处