Palantir Technologies Inc (PLTR) 2023 Q1 法說會逐字稿

Good afternoon. I'm Ana Saro from Palantir's finance team, and I'd like to welcome you to our first quarter 2023 earnings call.

下午好。我是 Palantir 財務團隊的 Ana Saro，歡迎您參加我們 2023 年第一季度的收益電話會議。

We'll be discussing the results announced in our press release issued after the market close and posted on our Investor Relations website. During the call, we will make statements regarding our business that may be considered forward-looking within applicable securities laws, including statements regarding our second quarter and fiscal 2023 results, management's expectations for our future financial and operational performance and other statements regarding our plans, prospects and expectations.

我們將討論在收市後發布並發佈在我們的投資者關係網站上的新聞稿中宣布的結果。在電話會議期間，我們將就適用證券法中可能被視為前瞻性的業務發表聲明，包括關於我們第二季度和 2023 財年業績的聲明、管理層對我們未來財務和運營業績的預期以及關於我們計劃的其他聲明，前景和期望。

These statements are not promises or guarantees and are subject to risks and uncertainties, which could cause them to differ materially from actual results. Information concerning those risks is available in our earnings press release distributed after the market closed today and in our SEC filings. We undertake no obligation to update forward-looking statements, except as required by law.

這些陳述不是承諾或保證，存在風險和不確定性，可能導致它們與實際結果存在重大差異。有關這些風險的信息可在我們今天收市後發布的收益新聞稿和我們向美國證券交易委員會提交的文件中找到。除非法律要求，否則我們不承擔更新前瞻性陳述的義務。

Further, during the course of today's call, we will refer to certain adjusted financial measures. These non-GAAP financial measures should be considered in addition to, not as a substitute for or in isolation from, GAAP measures. Additional information about these non-GAAP measures, including reconciliation of non-GAAP to comparable GAAP measures, is included in our press release and investor presentation provided today.

此外，在今天的電話會議中，我們將參考某些調整後的財務措施。這些非 GAAP 財務措施應作為 GAAP 措施的補充，而不是替代或孤立於 GAAP 措施。有關這些非 GAAP 措施的更多信息，包括非 GAAP 與可比 GAAP 措施的調節，包含在我們今天提供的新聞稿和投資者介紹中。

Our press release, investor presentation and SEC filings are available on our Investor Relations website at investors.palantir.com. Over the course of the call, we will refer to various growth rates when discussing our business. These rates reflect year-over-year comparisons, unless otherwise stated.

我們的新聞稿、投資者介紹和 SEC 備案文件可在我們的投資者關係網站 investors.palantir.com 上獲取。在通話過程中，我們在討論業務時會提到各種增長率。除非另有說明，否則這些比率反映的是同比比較。

Joining me on today's call are Alex Karp, Chief Executive Officer; Shyam Sankar, Chief Technology Officer; Dave Glazer, Chief Financial Officer; and Ryan Taylor, Chief Revenue Officer and Chief Legal Officer.

與我一起參加今天電話會議的還有首席執行官 Alex Karp； Shyam Sankar，首席技術官；戴夫格雷澤，首席財務官；首席營收官兼首席法務官 Ryan Taylor。

I'll now turn it over to Alex for opening remarks.

我現在將它交給 Alex 做開場白。

On any normal earnings call, where we have just been profitable and where we're going to be profitable for the next couple of quarters, which opens up the possibility to be on the S&P, where the U.S. market grew by 28% and where we made $187 million in free cash flow, that would be the thing that was the most exciting. But in fact, what's most exciting about Palantir is we have our ability to launch products that are literally the only products on the market and that will, in fact, change your life and will determine who succeeds and who fails across enterprise, both government and commercial.

在任何正常的財報電話會議上，我們剛剛盈利，我們將在接下來的幾個季度盈利，這開啟了標普指數的可能性，美國市場增長了 28%，我們在那裡創造了 1.87 億美元的自由現金流，這將是最令人興奮的事情。但事實上，Palantir 最令人興奮的是，我們有能力推出市場上唯一的產品，這些產品實際上將改變您的生活，並將決定政府和企業中誰成功誰失敗。商業的。

The large language model revolution is one that will raise ships and sink ships. Of course, the profitability is important. Of course, the fact that we make free cash flow is important, but it's not nearly as exciting as our ability to invest our resources and our founder-led energy in using our things we have built to supply enterprises with, and otherwise not available, and in crazy high-demand product.

大型語言模型革命是一場揚帆沉船的革命。當然，盈利能力很重要。當然，我們創造自由現金流這一事實很重要，但遠不如我們投入資源的能力和創始人領導的精力使用我們為企業提供的東西而令人興奮，否則就無法獲得，以及瘋狂的高需求產品。

This is just one of the most exciting times to be at Palantir because you have the resources of a large profitable enterprise company. So there is an issue with nonprofitable tech if you're powering the most important enterprises in the world. They want to know, can you provide the resources, the product we need tomorrow purely on a financial basis?

這只是 Palantir 最激動人心的時刻之一，因為您擁有大型盈利企業的資源。因此，如果您為世界上最重要的企業提供動力，那麼非營利性技術就會出現問題。他們想知道，您能否僅在財務基礎上提供我們明天需要的資源和產品？

But more importantly, to us and to them long term is, can you help us disrupt our adversaries? Can you just help us disrupt our competitors? And for me, personally, can you have a product that will help the West win, especially our government, but also our commercial clients, so that we, in fact, are stronger than our adversaries?

但更重要的是，從長遠來看，對我們和他們來說，你能幫助我們瓦解對手嗎？你能幫我們擾亂我們的競爭對手嗎？就我個人而言，您能否擁有一款能夠幫助西方贏得勝利的產品，尤其是我們的政府，還有我們的商業客戶，以便我們實際上比我們的對手更強大？

And in the last 20 years, there's never been a development like this. You have a technology that will allow you to outproduce, change the margin of your company, understand your business, react on the battlefield quicker, predict things on the battlefield in a way, collapse your enterprise so that the top and the bottom actually work together, preempt attacks, create a software that is so obviously dominant that adversaries quiver and scurry away instead of attacking us or our allies.

在過去的 20 年裡，從未有過這樣的發展。你擁有一項技術，可以讓你超越生產，改變你公司的利潤率，了解你的業務，更快地在戰場上做出反應，以某種方式預測戰場上的事情，讓你的企業崩潰，讓高層和底層真正協同工作，先發製人的攻擊，創建一個明顯占主導地位的軟件，以至於對手顫抖並匆匆離開而不是攻擊我們或我們的盟友。

And there's 1 company in the world that is positioned. The issue of how do you have security, a data model or knowledge and wisdom that's proprietary, interact with an external large language model or with generative AI is not new to Palantir, and that's why we're able to launch our platform AIP so quickly, the demand for of which is nothing I've ever seen in 20 years of being involved in Palantir.

世界上有 1 家公司被定位。您如何擁有安全性、數據模型或專有知識和智慧、與外部大型語言模型或生成 AI 交互的問題對 Palantir 來說並不陌生，這就是我們能夠如此迅速地推出我們的平台 AIP 的原因，這是我參與 Palantir 20 年來從未見過的需求。

And the reason the demand is high is people suspect that this will -- if you wield these technologies correctly, safely and securely, meaning extract the value in the context of your own enterprise, whether that's sensitive or nonsensitive or regulated or moderately regulated, you have a weapon that will allow you to win, that will scare your competitors and your adversaries. And we are in a unique position to supply that platform. And we have the resources, both because of our profitability, our $2.9 billion in the bank, our lack of debt and, quite frankly, our entrepreneurial founder-led spirit at this company.

需求高的原因是人們懷疑這會——如果你正確、安全和可靠地使用這些技術，意味著在你自己的企業環境中提取價值，無論是敏感的還是非敏感的，受監管的還是適度監管的，你擁有可以讓您獲勝的武器，可以嚇到您的競爭對手和對手。我們處於提供該平台的獨特位置。我們擁有資源，這既是因為我們的盈利能力，我們在銀行的 29 億美元，我們沒有債務，而且坦率地說，我們在這家公司的企業家精神。

Welcome to our earnings day. Thank you.

歡迎來到我們的收益日。謝謝。

As Alex highlighted, our company once again achieved GAAP profitability last quarter, including GAAP operating income for the first time. This marks another milestone in our company's sustained growth, ensuring that we will continue delivering results and impact for our partners for years to come while also investing deeply in the transformational AI opportunities before us. We have been taking steps across the company in recent months to refocus our efforts and optimize on the parts of our business that will drive even further growth alongside sustained profitability.

正如 Alex 強調的那樣，我們公司上個季度再次實現了 GAAP 盈利，包括首次實現 GAAP 營業收入。這標誌著我們公司持續增長的又一個里程碑，確保我們將在未來幾年繼續為我們的合作夥伴帶來成果和影響，同時深入投資於擺在我們面前的變革性 AI 機會。近幾個月來，我們一直在全公司範圍內採取措施，重新調整我們的工作重點並優化我們業務的各個部分，這些部分將推動進一步的增長以及持續的盈利能力。

In Q1 2023, we generated $525 million in revenue. Due to the seasonality of our business, Q1 tends to be our slowest quarter. But despite that headwind and the difficult macroeconomic environment that the technology industry continues to face, our commercial business generated $236 million of revenue last quarter and achieved $176 million in TCV, a 70% year-over-year TCV increase. These strong results were driven primarily by the reacceleration of our U.S. commercial business, which surpassed the $100 million revenue threshold for the first time with 26% year-over-year growth.

2023 年第一季度，我們創造了 5.25 億美元的收入。由於我們業務的季節性，第一季度往往是我們最慢的季度。但是，儘管技術行業繼續面臨逆風和困難的宏觀經濟環境，但我們的商業業務上個季度產生了 2.36 億美元的收入，並實現了 1.76 億美元的 TCV，同比增長 70%。這些強勁的業績主要是由我們美國商業業務的重新加速推動的，該業務以 26% 的同比增長首次超過 1 億美元的收入門檻。

We continue to see robust pilot starts and promising conversions, and we're also beginning to see the realization of our expansion strategy, meaning we're beginning to see meaningful growth and upsell opportunities with our newer customer base. Some notable examples include the expansion of our work with Hertz, who is using Foundry to more efficiently manage and operate its fleet of nearly 500,000 vehicles; and Jacobs Engineering, who is doubling down on our partnership to reduce costs and improve performance across plants.

我們繼續看到強勁的試點啟動和有希望的轉換，我們也開始看到我們的擴張戰略的實現，這意味著我們開始看到有意義的增長和新客戶群的追加銷售機會。一些著名的例子包括擴大我們與赫茲的合作，赫茲正在使用 Foundry 更有效地管理和運營其近 500,000 輛汽車的車隊； Jacobs Engineering 正在加倍努力加強我們的合作夥伴關係，以降低成本並提高整個工廠的績效。

We also signed significant expansion agreements with the largest health system in the country for continued acceleration of our hospital operations efforts and with one of the world's largest paper and packaging companies. Our U.S. commercial customer base, which stood at 155 at the end of Q1 2023, a sevenfold increase in customer count over just 2 years, presents an immense opportunity for continued expansion.

我們還與該國最大的衛生系統以及世界上最大的紙張和包裝公司之一簽署了重要的擴展協議，以繼續加速我們的醫院運營工作。我們的美國商業客戶群在 2023 年第一季度末達到 155 個，客戶數量在短短 2 年內增長了七倍，這為持續擴張提供了巨大的機會。

While aspects of our international commercial business have been challenging in today's climate, we continue to focus on delivering transformational results to long-term customers. For example, BP, our customer of over a decade, recently shared that Foundry helped them reduce production costs by approximately 60%, from $14 a barrel to less than $6 a barrel.

雖然我們的國際商業業務的各個方面在當今的氣候下一直充滿挑戰，但我們繼續專注於為長期客戶提供轉型成果。例如，我們十多年的客戶 BP 最近分享說，Foundry 幫助他們將生產成本降低了大約 60%，從每桶 14 美元降至不到 6 美元。

We're also investing for growth in targeted industries and geographies, such as Korea, where I recently met with customers and saw our momentum there firsthand. This includes several strong pilot starts and the expansion of our work with Korea shipbuilding and offshore engineering focused on using Foundry to enhance safety and operational efficiency.

我們還投資於目標行業和地區的增長，例如韓國，我最近在那裡會見了客戶並親眼目睹了我們在那裡的發展勢頭。這包括幾個強有力的試點啟動以及我們與韓國造船和海洋工程的合作擴展，重點是使用 Foundry 來提高安全性和運營效率。

Our government business generated $289 million in revenue, driven in large part by our U.S. government business, which grew 22% year-over-year. With strong conviction in our work on the ground and the critical missions we're delivering against, we continue to focus on building our U.S. government business for the long term while acknowledging timing uncertainty in the short term. We're investing in delivering digital deterrence and AI-driven efforts around the world from the Middle Eastern Pacific and European theaters.

我們的政府業務產生了 2.89 億美元的收入，這在很大程度上是由我們的美國政府業務推動的，該業務同比增長 22%。憑藉對我們在當地的工作和我們正在執行的關鍵任務的堅定信念，我們繼續專注於長期建設我們的美國政府業務，同時承認短期內的時間不確定性。我們正在投資從中東太平洋和歐洲戰區在全球範圍內提供數字威懾和人工智能驅動的努力。

And with pressing global events, we continue to lean into our support for the U.S. and its allies across Eastern Europe. More broadly, as we look at opportunities across our company, we are strongly investing in AI efforts, with a focus on delivering the foundational systems and software architecture that will enable enterprises to leverage the power of the latest large language models and other machine learning technologies.

隨著緊迫的全球事件，我們繼續傾向於支持美國及其在東歐的盟友。更廣泛地說，當我們在整個公司尋找機會時，我們正在大力投資人工智能，重點是提供基礎系統和軟件架構，使企業能夠利用最新的大型語言模型和其他機器學習技術的力量.

We're already seeing unprecedented demand for AIP, and we are reorganizing our efforts aggressively to capitalize on the interest. We anticipate that these technologies will be transformational, both for ourselves and for our customers, and we are positioned to meet the moment.

我們已經看到對 AIP 前所未有的需求，我們正在積極重組我們的努力以利用這種興趣。我們預計這些技術將對我們自己和我們的客戶產生變革性影響，我們已準備好迎接這一時刻。

I'll now turn it over to Shyam.

我現在將其交給 Shyam。

Thanks, Ryan. This past February, overlapping with our last earnings call, I had the opportunity to visit Ukraine and witness the incredible speed with which the Ukrainian forces were able to employ AI on the battlefield. It was clear that the future has already arrived, and that future requires us broadly to rewrite road maps. It changes everything to some degree and some things completely. We all can either choose to join the disruptors driving this change or we can be disruptive.

謝謝，瑞安。今年 2 月，與我們上次的財報電話會議重疊，我有機會訪問了烏克蘭，見證了烏克蘭軍隊在戰場上使用人工智能的驚人速度。很明顯，未來已經到來，未來需要我們廣泛地重寫路線圖。它在某種程度上改變了一切，甚至徹底改變了某些事情。我們都可以選擇加入推動這一變革的破壞者，或者我們可以成為破壞者。

From diffusion to large language models, the accelerating pace of AI development is awe-inspiring and exhilarating. But there are many challenges customers will encounter as they attempt to leverage this technology operationally at any scale, from managing the mismatch between the ever-growing big data scale of the enterprise and the bottlenecks and choke points of smaller context windows of LLMs, to product design challenges of constructively embedding these models and workflows and safety and trust challenges in governing the AI in an operational and decision-making context.

從擴散到大型語言模型，人工智能發展的加速步伐令人驚嘆和振奮。但是，客戶在嘗試以任何規模在操作上利用該技術時會遇到許多挑戰，從管理企業不斷增長的大數據規模與 LLM 的較小上下文窗口的瓶頸和瓶頸之間的不匹配，到產品建設性地嵌入這些模型和工作流的設計挑戰，以及在運營和決策環境中管理人工智能的安全和信任挑戰。

We are well ahead of the curve because we've built the frameworks, the infrastructure and the software needed. We have already had to solve so many of the hard problems, including the development of deep expertise with the necessary intermediary scale data challenges required to effectively span the gap from big data to small LLM context windows. And there will be many surprises and who ultimately comes up as the winners and losers of all of this disruption.

我們遙遙領先，因為我們已經構建了所需的框架、基礎設施和軟件。我們已經不得不解決如此多的難題，包括發展深厚的專業知識，以及有效跨越從大數據到小型 LLM 上下文窗口所需的必要的中間規模數據挑戰。將會有許多驚喜，最終誰會成為所有這些顛覆的贏家和輸家。

The AI models themselves within months have gone from cutting edge to quickly being commoditized. Developing GPT-2 and GPT-3 class models at this point, table stakes. Anyone can build them in a few days with a few hundred dollars. As the memo purportedly leaked from Google titled, "We Have No Moat, And Neither Does OpenAI" makes clear. Things that big tech companies have considered major open areas of development have actually been solved by a handful of people in the open source community.

AI 模型本身在幾個月內就從前沿發展到迅速商品化。在這一點上開發 GPT-2 和 GPT-3 類模型，表賭注。任何人都可以在幾天內用幾百美元建造它們。正如據稱從谷歌洩露的標題為“我們沒有護城河，OpenAI 也沒有”的備忘錄所表明的那樣。大型科技公司認為主要開放開發領域的事情實際上已經被開源社區中的少數人解決了。

While some of the proprietary models hold a slight quality edge, the lead is vanishing quickly. The speed of iteration on these models, biasing to a goldilocks size of power iteration pace ratio, will dominate. We believe larger, enduring value is more likely to emerge from the application and workflow layer by the players who know how to navigate the challenges of data scale mismatch that LLMs present, and we are uniquely positioned to continue to be a leader here.

雖然一些專有型號在質量上略有優勢，但領先優勢正在迅速消失。這些模型的迭代速度，偏向於功率迭代步速比的適度大小，將占主導地位。我們相信，知道如何應對 LLM 所呈現的數據規模不匹配挑戰的參與者更有可能從應用程序和工作流層中產生更大、持久的價值，而我們具有獨特的優勢，可以繼續成為這方面的領導者。

And because that future is already here, we must act with speed and conviction. Customers must completely rethink what they are building and how they build it. We are moving fast to ensure existing customers can quickly deploy AIP beside Gotham and Foundry to transform their operations with intelligent, contextual decision-making and sophisticated automation and coordination from the battlefield to the boardroom.

因為未來已經來臨，我們必須迅速而堅定地採取行動。客戶必須徹底重新考慮他們正在構建什麼以及如何構建它。我們正在快速行動，以確保現有客戶能夠在 Gotham 和 Foundry 旁邊快速部署 AIP，以通過智能、情境決策和復雜的自動化以及從戰場到會議室的協調來轉變他們的運營。

AIP enables customers to operate not only Foundry and Gotham, but also their businesses from a greater strategic vantage point. We provide powerful interfaces to rapidly integrate your data, build your ontology, forge AI-driven applications and workflows and build agents to orchestrate and automate enterprise actions, all in an environment with guardrails, safe handoff functions and military-grade security. AIP not only knows how to speak to you, but more importantly, it knows how to speak to GAIA, MetaConstellation, every Foundry service, your ontology and your enterprise.

AIP 使客戶不僅可以運營 Foundry 和 Gotham，還可以從更大的戰略優勢運營他們的業務。我們提供強大的接口來快速集成您的數據，構建您的本體，打造人工智能驅動的應用程序和工作流，並構建代理來協調和自動化企業行動，所有這些都在一個具有護欄、安全切換功能和軍事級安全性的環境中進行。 AIP 不僅知道如何與您對話，更重要的是，它知道如何與 GAIA、MetaConstellation、每個 Foundry 服務、您的本體和您的企業對話。

At a major insurance company, we deployed a prerelease version of AIP and, in a few days, built a collaborative AI agent to automate claims processing. The Chief Data Officer told us that AIP was years ahead of anything they had seen. The pace of innovation around AI and LLMs presents a unique opportunity for leveraging our Apollo and FedStart infrastructure. There is tremendous demand for these models in FedRAMP, IL5 and IL6. Via our FedStart offering, we can bring these start-ups to U.S. government markets in weeks.

在一家大型保險公司，我們部署了 AIP 的預發布版本，並在幾天內構建了一個協作 AI 代理來自動處理索賠。首席數據官告訴我們，AIP 比他們看到的任何東西都領先多年。圍繞 AI 和 LLM 的創新步伐為利用我們的 Apollo 和 FedStart 基礎設施提供了獨特的機會。 FedRAMP、IL5 和 IL6 中對這些模型有巨大的需求。通過我們的 FedStart 產品，我們可以在幾週內將這些初創企業帶到美國政府市場。

In Q1, we also closed our first $1 million deal for Apollo with a major tech company. Our Foundry Ontology SDK has met the market to a great reception. These SDKs make it easy for customers to build new enterprise applications and integrate ontology into their existing ones. We plan to support AIP directly from these SDKs, extending the AI application forged deep into your enterprise ecosystem.

在第一季度，我們還與一家大型科技公司完成了第一筆價值 100 萬美元的 Apollo 交易。我們的 Foundry Ontology SDK 在市場上廣受好評。這些 SDK 使客戶可以輕鬆構建新的企業應用程序並將本體集成到他們現有的應用程序中。我們計劃直接從這些 SDK 支持 AIP，將打造的 AI 應用程序擴展到您的企業生態系統中。

The Gotham ecosystem continues to expand with enhanced capabilities across the AI-enabled kill chain. Our most recent developments include substantial new capabilities called Maverick and fires in the broader air battle management process. This capability enables efficient translation of approved targets to weapon systems.

Gotham 生態系統繼續擴展，增強了跨 AI 殺傷鏈的能力。我們最近的發展包括在更廣泛的空戰管理過程中稱為 Maverick 和火力的大量新功能。這種能力可以將批准的目標有效地轉換為武器系統。

On a final note, we will be sharing our insights on the latest cutting-edge AI, who will be the victors and the vanquished and, of course, showing the latest across AIP and Foundry as well as hearing from our customers on how our products are powering their transformations at our June 1 customer event in Palo Alto.

最後一點，我們將分享我們對最新尖端 AI 的見解，誰將成為勝利者和失敗者，當然，還會展示 AIP 和 Foundry 的最新進展，並聽取客戶對我們產品的看法6 月 1 日在帕洛阿爾托舉行的客戶活動中為他們的轉型提供動力。

With that, I'll turn it over to Dave.

有了這個，我會把它交給戴夫。

Thanks, Shyam. The first quarter of 2023 was a record-setting quarter for us. We achieved our second consecutive quarter of GAAP profitability and also achieved GAAP operating income for the first time. This accomplishment was the result of a strong top line growth, driven by the reacceleration of our U.S. commercial business, coupled with continued disciplined spend management.

謝謝，夏姆。 2023 年第一季度對我們來說是創紀錄的季度。我們連續第二個季度實現了 GAAP 盈利，並且首次實現了 GAAP 營業收入。這一成就是強勁的收入增長的結果，這得益於我們美國商業業務的重新加速，以及持續嚴格的支出管理。

These achievements demonstrate our commitment to driving profitable growth, and we continue to expect 2023 to be our first full year of GAAP profitability. On the back of these exceptional results and this trajectory, we now expect to be GAAP profitable in each quarter this year.

這些成就表明我們致力於推動盈利增長，我們繼續預計 2023 年將是我們實現 GAAP 盈利的第一個全年。在這些出色的結果和這一軌蹟的支持下，我們現在預計今年每個季度都將實現 GAAP 盈利。

Turning to our global top line results. We generated $525 million in revenue in the first quarter of 2023, up 18% year-over-year, $20 million ahead of the midpoint of our prior guidance. Our U.S. business generated $337 million in total revenue in the first quarter, up 23% year-over-year and 12% sequentially, demonstrating our continued momentum in the U.S.

轉向我們的全球收入結果。我們在 2023 年第一季度創造了 5.25 億美元的收入，同比增長 18%，比我們先前指引的中點高出 2000 萬美元。我們美國業務第一季度的總收入為 3.37 億美元，同比增長 23%，環比增長 12%，表明我們在美國的持續發展勢頭。

Revenue from our largest customers continues to expand. First quarter trailing 12-month revenue per customer from our top 20 customers increased 14% year-over-year to $51 million per customer. New customer acquisition also remained strong as we saw customer count grow 41% year-over-year and 7% sequentially.

來自我們最大客戶的收入繼續擴大。第一季度過去 12 個月，來自我們前 20 大客戶的每位客戶收入同比增長 14% 至每位客戶 5100 萬美元。新客戶獲取也保持強勁，因為我們看到客戶數量同比增長 41%，環比增長 7%。

Now moving to our commercial segment. In the first quarter of 2023, commercial revenue grew 15% year-over-year and 10% sequentially to $236 million. Our first quarter U.S. commercial revenue grew 26% year-over-year and 39% sequentially to $107 million. Excluding revenue from strategic commercial contracts, U.S. commercial revenue grew 46% year-over-year and 24% sequentially.

現在轉到我們的商業部門。 2023 年第一季度，商業收入同比增長 15%，環比增長 10%，達到 2.36 億美元。我們第一季度的美國商業收入同比增長 26%，環比增長 39%，達到 1.07 億美元。不包括來自戰略商業合同的收入，美國商業收入同比增長 46%，環比增長 24%。

In addition to the strength of our U.S. commercial revenue growth, our U.S. commercial customer count grew 50% year-over-year and 8% sequentially, marking the ninth consecutive quarter of sequential growth. Commercial revenue from our strategic commercial contracts surpassed first quarter expectations at $33 million due to the unanticipated acceleration of revenue from certain of these contracts.

除了美國商業收入增長強勁外，我們的美國商業客戶數量同比增長 50%，環比增長 8%，這是連續第九個季度實現環比增長。我們的戰略商業合同的商業收入超過了第一季度的預期，達到 3300 萬美元，這是由於其中某些合同的收入意外加速增長。

We expect second quarter revenue from these customers to be between $17 million and $19 million and to drop off significantly in the third and fourth quarter. Our expectations of full year revenue from these customers remains unchanged at approximately 3% of total full year revenue.

我們預計來自這些客戶的第二季度收入將在 1700 萬美元至 1900 萬美元之間，並在第三和第四季度大幅下降。我們對來自這些客戶的全年收入的預期保持不變，約為全年總收入的 3%。

In the first quarter, our international commercial business grew 8% year-over-year and declined 7% sequentially. The results were impacted in part due to a tough comparison to the prior quarter as a result of the timing of revenue recognition on certain contracts in the fourth quarter and the seasonal headwinds we often see in the first quarter with some of our largest international enterprise customers.

第一季度，我們的國際商務業務同比增長 8%，環比下降 7%。由於第四季度某些合同的收入確認時間以及我們在第一季度經常看到的一些最大的國際企業客戶的季節性逆風，導致與上一季度的艱難比較導致結果受到影響.

Turning to our government segment. First quarter government revenue grew 20% year-over-year and declined 1% sequentially to $289 million. First quarter U.S. government revenue grew 22% year-over-year and 2% sequentially to $230 million. While we have a strong pipeline of opportunities in our U.S. government business, we acknowledge that there are uncertainties associated with the timing of these contract expansions and renewals. Nonetheless, we remain confident in the growth of our U.S. government business.

轉向我們的政府部門。第一季度政府收入同比增長 20%，環比下降 1% 至 2.89 億美元。第一季度美國政府收入同比增長 22%，環比增長 2%，達到 2.3 億美元。雖然我們在美國政府業務中擁有大量機會，但我們承認這些合同擴展和續籤的時間存在不確定性。儘管如此，我們仍然對美國政府業務的增長充滿信心。

First quarter international government revenue grew 11% year-over-year and declined 13% sequentially to $59 million. The sequential decline was driven by nonrecurring revenue catch-up that we saw in the fourth quarter as well as some challenges with the timing of contract awards in the first quarter.

第一季度國際政府收入同比增長 11%，環比下降 13% 至 5900 萬美元。連續下降的原因是我們在第四季度看到的非經常性收入追趕以及第一季度合同授予時間的一些挑戰。

Turning to bookings. TCV booked in the first quarter was $397 million, up 60% year-over-year. U.S. commercial TCV grew 170% year-over-year to $124 million, again demonstrating the strength of our U.S. commercial business. We ended the first quarter with $3.4 billion in total remaining deal value and $936 million in remaining performance obligations.

轉向預訂。第一季度預訂的 TCV 為 3.97 億美元，同比增長 60%。美國商業 TCV 同比增長 170% 至 1.24 億美元，再次證明了我們美國商業業務的實力。第一季度結束時，我們的剩餘交易總價值為 34 億美元，剩餘履約義務為 9.36 億美元。

As a reminder, RPO is primarily comprised of our commercial business as it does not take into account contracts with the initial term of less than 12 months and contractual obligations that fall beyond termination for convenience clauses, both of which are common in most of our government business. Both remaining deal value and remaining performance obligations have continued to face headwinds from the macroeconomic impact on customers from the strategic investment program. As a result, the total remaining deal value and the total value of our commercial contracts from our strategic investment program decreased by $102 million since last quarter as we continue to review and assess the financial condition of these businesses.

提醒一下，RPO 主要由我們的商業業務組成，因為它不考慮初始期限少於 12 個月的合同和超出便利條款終止的合同義務，這兩種情況在我們大多數政府中都很常見商業。由於戰略投資計劃對客戶的宏觀經濟影響，剩餘交易價值和剩餘履約義務繼續面臨不利因素。因此，由於我們繼續審查和評估這些業務的財務狀況，自上一季度以來，我們戰略投資計劃的剩餘交易總價值和商業合同總價值減少了 1.02 億美元。

Turning to margin and expense. Adjusted gross margin, which excludes stock-based compensation expense, was 81% for the quarter. First quarter adjusted income from operations, which excludes stock-based compensation expense, was $125 million, representing an adjusted operating margin of 24%, 600 basis points ahead of our prior guidance and marking the third consecutive quarter of expanding adjusted operating margins. These results demonstrate our ability to drive strong revenue growth while managing costs effectively, with first quarter adjusted expense up only 1% sequentially to $400 million.

轉向保證金和費用。本季度調整後的毛利率（不包括基於股票的補償費用）為 81%。第一季度調整後的運營收入（不包括基於股票的補償費用）為 1.25 億美元，調整後的營業利潤率為 24%，比我們之前的指引高出 600 個基點，標誌著調整後的營業利潤率連續第三個季度擴大。這些結果表明我們有能力在有效管理成本的同時推動強勁的收入增長，第一季度調整後的費用僅環比增長 1% 至 4 億美元。

We continue to manage expense growth by optimizing operations and G&A, capturing cloud efficiencies and focusing our headcount investments in key strategic areas. We remain committed to sustained GAAP profitability while, at the same time, increasing investment in both the U.S. to capture the momentum we are seeing and in the development of advanced software capabilities, particularly our AI-driven offerings.

我們繼續通過優化運營和 G&A、提高雲效率以及將我們的員工投資集中在關鍵戰略領域來管理費用增長。我們仍然致力於實現持續的 GAAP 盈利能力，同時增加在美國的投資，以抓住我們所看到的勢頭，並開發先進的軟件功能，尤其是我們的 AI 驅動產品。

We believe that artificial intelligence, including large language models, will prove transformational for our business and for enterprises in the government and commercial context. To that end, we are rebalancing our efforts and investments to capitalize on these developments.

我們相信，包括大型語言模型在內的人工智能將為我們的業務以及政府和商業環境中的企業帶來變革。為此，我們正在重新平衡我們的努力和投資，以利用這些發展。

In the first quarter, we generated income from operations of $4 million, our first-ever quarter of GAAP operating income. This reflects our laser focus on profitable growth and continued management of our stock-based compensation. While we expect to see stock-based compensation expense trend up through the remainder of the year, we remain focused on GAAP net income and operating profitability.

第一季度，我們產生了 400 萬美元的運營收入，這是我們有史以來第一季度的 GAAP 運營收入。這反映了我們高度關注盈利增長和持續管理我們的股票薪酬。雖然我們預計在今年剩餘時間裡，基於股票的薪酬費用將呈上升趨勢，但我們仍將重點放在 GAAP 淨收入和營業利潤率上。

Turning to net income. First quarter GAAP net income was $17 million, our second consecutive quarter of GAAP profitability. This was the result of our strong GAAP operating income as well as interest income from our balance sheet and the narrowing of losses from investments. First quarter adjusted earnings per share was $0.05, and GAAP earnings per share was $0.01, our second consecutive quarter of positive GAAP EPS.

轉向淨收入。第一季度 GAAP 淨收入為 1700 萬美元，這是我們連續第二個季度實現 GAAP 盈利。這是我們強勁的 GAAP 營業收入以及資產負債表中的利息收入以及投資虧損收窄的結果。第一季度調整後每股收益為 0.05 美元，GAAP 每股收益為 0.01 美元，這是我們連續第二個季度實現 GAAP 每股收益正值。

We are extremely proud that we were able to continue to deliver GAAP profitability on a consistent basis. Additionally, our combined revenue growth and adjusted operating margin was 42% in the first quarter. We will continue to strive to achieve the Rule of 40 throughout 2023 and beyond.

我們非常自豪能夠繼續在一致的基礎上實現 GAAP 盈利能力。此外，第一季度我們的合併收入增長和調整後的營業利潤率為 42%。我們將在 2023 年及以後繼續努力實現 40 條規則。

Turning to our strong cash flow in the first quarter. We generated $189 million and $187 million in adjusted free cash flow and cash from operations, respectively, each representing a margin of 36%. We ended the quarter with $2.9 billion in cash, cash equivalents and short-term U.S. treasury bills. We retain access to additional liquidity of up to $950 million through our $500 million revolving credit facility and $450 million delayed-draw term loan facility, both of which remain entirely undrawn.

轉向我們第一季度強勁的現金流。我們分別產生了 1.89 億美元和 1.87 億美元的調整後自由現金流和運營現金，各自的利潤率為 36%。本季度末，我們持有 29 億美元現金、現金等價物和短期美國國庫券。我們通過 5 億美元的循環信貸額度和 4.5 億美元的延遲提取定期貸款額度保留了高達 9.5 億美元的額外流動性，這兩項貸款均未完全提取。

Now turning to our outlook. For Q2 2023, we expect revenue of between $528 million and $532 million, adjusted income from operations of between $118 million and $122 million and GAAP net income. For full year 2023, we are raising our revenue guidance to between $2.185 billion and $2.235 billion. We are raising our adjusted income from operations guidance to between $506 million and $556 million, and we now expect GAAP net income in each quarter of this year.

現在轉向我們的前景。對於 2023 年第二季度，我們預計收入在 5.28 億美元至 5.32 億美元之間，調整後的運營收入在 1.18 億美元至 1.22 億美元之間，以及 GAAP 淨收入。對於 2023 年全年，我們將收入指引提高到 21.85 億美元至 22.35 億美元之間。我們將調整後的運營指導收入提高到 5.06 億美元至 5.56 億美元之間，我們現在預計今年每個季度的 GAAP 淨收入。

With that, I'll turn it over to Ana to start the Q&A.

有了這個，我會把它交給安娜開始問答。

Thanks, Dave. We'll begin with a few questions from our shareholders before we open up the call. We received a lot of questions on AI and AIP. Alex, would you like to share some thoughts?

謝謝，戴夫。在開始電話會議之前，我們將從股東提出的幾個問題開始。我們收到了很多關於 AI 和 AIP 的問題。亞歷克斯，你想分享一些想法嗎？

Well, thank you for being here. I've been at the Palantir building since the beginning for 20 years. We -- our first product was PG, which changed the course of history, especially in Europe, by preventing terror attacks in a constitutional order. And that product basically is the only product for what -- for that use case in the world.

好吧，謝謝你在這兒。從一開始我就在 Palantir 大樓工作了 20 年。我們——我們的第一個產品是 PG，它通過在憲法秩序中防止恐怖襲擊改變了歷史進程，尤其是在歐洲。該產品基本上是世界上該用例的唯一產品。

And then we built a number of other products, products on the battlefield for special operators, Foundry, which needs no introduction. And in the process of building these products, we were always thinking about human mind, human-computer symbiotic relationships, and then later, algorithmatic relationships to data, especially what's called generative AI.

然後我們還打造了一些其他的產品，戰場上的產品，專門為特戰人員打造的，Foundry，這個就不用介紹了。在構建這些產品的過程中，我們一直在思考人類思維、人機共生關係，然後是算法與數據的關係，尤其是所謂的生成式人工智能。

And so we had built these precursor technologies over the -- since inception and also biases. So how would you interact with an algorithm where you expose only the part of the enterprise that you want to expose, need to expose? How do you do a handoff when you're doing -- deciding to make a lethal decision? Who makes the lethal decision? What data sources are used? How do you map the knowledge and wisdom of your enterprise onto the external database?

因此，我們已經建立了這些先驅技術 - 自成立以來也存在偏見。那麼，您將如何與僅公開您想要公開、需要公開的企業部分的算法進行交互？當你在做一個致命的決定時，你如何進行交接？誰做出了致命的決定？使用了哪些數據源？您如何將企業的知識和智慧映射到外部數據庫？

And then with the rise of large language models, how do you impose that on the large language model? How do you take what's useful from AI, whether -- especially in a large language model context, without hallucinating your way into a disaster? How do you expose sensitive parts of your enterprise that need to be exposed while protecting parts of your enterprise that should never be exposed, not just in the classified environment, but if you're working in a hospital context, not exposing health care, personal health care data to a broader LLM run by a third party?

然後隨著大型語言模型的興起，你如何將其強加到大型語言模型上？你如何從 AI 中獲取有用的東西，尤其是在大型語言模型環境中，而不是幻覺自己陷入災難？您如何暴露企業中需要暴露的敏感部分，同時保護企業中永遠不應暴露的部分，不僅是在機密環境中，而且如果您在醫院環境中工作，而不是暴露醫療保健、個人醫療保健數據到由第三方運行的更廣泛的 LLM？

How do you do this in a context where some people are technical and nontechnical? How do you expand our offering -- and this is one of the big advantages of the current revolution to people who have very technical needs, but don't know how to wield them.

在某些人是技術人員和非技術人員的情況下，您如何做到這一點？你如何擴展我們的產品——對於那些有非常技術需求但不知道如何運用它們的人來說，這是當前革命的一大優勢。

And in general, our business has been a business driven by moral imperatives. One of my -- I don't want to make this overly philosophical, although, in some ways, I prefer it. But when you look at the history of Silicon Valley over the last 20 years, there's, in a weird way, a tacit alliance between the way in which our maybe adversaries think of the world and the way in which many people in Silicon Valley have thought about it. Essentially, we will use data to serve our interest, not inherently the interest of the people, meaning, in our context, should be monetized.

總的來說，我們的業務一直是受道德要求驅動的業務。我的其中之一——我不想讓它過於哲學化，儘管在某些方面我更喜歡它。但是當你回顧矽谷過去 20 年的歷史時，你會發現，在我們可能是對手看待世界的方式與許多矽谷人的思考方式之間，以一種奇怪的方式默契地結合在一起關於它。從本質上講，我們將使用數據來服務於我們的利益，而不是本質上為人們的利益服務，這意味著在我們的背景下，數據應該被貨幣化。

And we have always believed in the moral imperative where the human and our governments would define the context in which data and algorithmatic and now large language models implicitly would be controlled. And so that looks like a weird philosophical bias.

我們一直相信道德責任，即人類和我們的政府將定義數據和算法模型以及現在的大型語言模型將被隱式控制的環境。所以這看起來像是一種奇怪的哲學偏見。

But in fact, that philosophical bias allowed us to develop branching, allowed us to develop ways of doing handoff technologies, that allowed us to think broadly about what it means to be in lethal situations and behave ethically. It now positioned us to be able to launch ways in which to deal with large language models that are -- is a once-in-a-generational opportunity with technologies that are otherwise not available by other people.

但事實上，這種哲學偏見使我們能夠發展分支，使我們能夠開發出切換技術的方法，使我們能夠廣泛地思考處於致命情況和道德行為的意義。它現在使我們能夠啟動處理大型語言模型的方法，這是一個千載難逢的機會，而技術是其他人無法獲得的。

Also, even our bias of understanding, as Shyam was saying in his introduction, that it is the person that wields the technology that makes it valuable, that makes it moral, not the technology itself. And these biases have just put us very, very far ahead of the market. And especially, we're seeing this reception to this in the United States, which makes me obviously particularly happy.

此外，即使是我們的理解偏見，正如 Shyam 在他的介紹中所說的那樣，是使用技術的人使其有價值，使其具有道德性，而不是技術本身。這些偏見讓我們遠遠領先於市場。特別是，我們在美國看到了這種反響，這顯然讓我特別高興。

And so we're going to be very involved in rolling this out in a kind of pretty disciplined way. We see this unprecedented once-in-a-generation opportunity. We have odd resources in terms of IP, software platforms that are uniquely suited for this. We have an ability to run hard, both because we are entrepreneurial.

因此，我們將以一種非常有紀律的方式積極參與推廣。我們看到了這個前所未有的千載難逢的機會。我們在 IP 和軟件平台方面擁有奇特的資源，非常適合這一點。我們有努力奔跑的能力，既因為我們有創業精神。

Many people in the space, in fact, don't really build products, they buy products. It's just too late to buy a product to catch up with what has to be done now and where the winners will really accelerate. So we're -- we feel like we're in a -- obviously, our profitability is really important to us, particularly because as we begin to empower more and more of the most important institutions in the world, it basically takes off the table the legitimate question, well, if your technology is so powerful, why can't you make any money?

實際上，該領域的許多人並不是真正在構建產品，而是在購買產品。購買產品以趕上現在必須完成的工作以及獲勝者將真正加速的地方已經太晚了。所以我們 - 我們感覺我們處於 - 顯然，我們的盈利能力對我們來說非常重要，特別是因為當我們開始賦予世界上越來越多最重要的機構權力時，它基本上取消了提出合理的問題，好吧，如果你的技術如此強大，你為什麼不能賺錢？

So I believe, it's a unique time for us, a unique place for us, and we're very, very busily at work.

所以我相信，這對我們來說是一個獨特的時間，一個獨特的地方，我們的工作非常非常忙碌。

Thanks, Alex. We also received a few questions on GAAP profitability. Nishal and Rick asked, do you still expect to be GAAP profitable this year?

謝謝，亞歷克斯。我們還收到了一些關於 GAAP 盈利能力的問題。 Nishal 和 Rick 問道，您是否仍期望今年實現 GAAP 盈利？

Nishal, Rick, thanks for the question. In short, absolutely, we do. And really, on the strength of Q1, we now know -- we expect to be profitable in each quarter of this year, not just for the full year, which is obviously a big milestone for us.

尼沙爾、瑞克，謝謝你提出這個問題。簡而言之，我們絕對這樣做。事實上，憑藉第一季度的實力，我們現在知道——我們預計今年每個季度都將盈利，而不僅僅是全年，這對我們來說顯然是一個重要的里程碑。

And to recap Q1, it was our second consecutive quarter of GAAP profitability. We did $17 million of net income. It's our first-ever GAAP operating income profitable quarter. We did $4 million of operating income. It's our strongest cash flow quarter ever, $189 million of free cash flow. And we did this all with the U.S. commercial business growing 39% sequentially.

回顧第一季度，這是我們連續第二個季度實現 GAAP 盈利。我們的淨收入為 1700 萬美元。這是我們有史以來第一個 GAAP 營業收入盈利季度。我們實現了 400 萬美元的營業收入。這是我們有史以來最強的現金流季度，1.89 億美元的自由現金流。我們做到了這一切，美國商業業務環比增長 39%。

And so profitability, it will remain core to our growth, and that's as we mobilize our business and our resources around the AI opportunities that are in front of us.

因此，盈利能力仍將是我們增長的核心，這就是我們圍繞擺在我們面前的 AI 機會調動我們的業務和資源。

Thanks, Dave. We received questions about expanding our customer base and the growth and momentum of our commercial business. Ryan, do you want to share some thoughts on the commercial business for 2023?

謝謝，戴夫。我們收到了有關擴大客戶群以及我們商業業務的增長和勢頭的問題。 Ryan，你想分享一些關於 2023 年商業業務的想法嗎？

Yes, absolutely. So in our results, you see the reacceleration of our U.S. commercial business, 26% year-over-year growth, U.S. commercial, as Dave said, 39% sequential. Our customer count, which is now at 155 customers in our U.S. commercial business, grew 50% year-over-year, and the TCV closed in Q1 grew 170% year-over-year. That's on the back of pilot conversions, new pilots starting and expansions at customers, as I highlighted earlier, such as Hertz, Jacobs Engineering, the largest health system in the country and one of the largest paper and packaging companies in the world, among other examples.

是的，一點沒錯。因此，在我們的結果中，你會看到我們美國商業業務的重新加速，同比增長 26%，美國商業，正如戴夫所說，連續增長 39%。我們在美國商業業務中的客戶數量目前為 155 家，同比增長 50%，第一季度關閉的 TCV 同比增長 170%。正如我之前強調的那樣，這是在飛行員轉換、新飛行員開始和客戶擴展的支持下，例如赫茲、Jacobs Engineering、該國最大的衛生系統和世界上最大的造紙和包裝公司之一等例子。

We expect that momentum to carry forward. And as the U.S. commercial continues to become a larger and larger part of our overall business, that will obviously have larger and larger impacts on our overall results and momentum as well. On top of that, we've highlighted AI presented an opportunity that is creating unprecedented demand for us. We can deliver against it in ways that no one else can. And we're running at that full speed, and we expect that momentum to continue in 2023 and beyond.

我們希望這種勢頭能夠繼續下去。隨著美國商業廣告繼續成為我們整體業務中越來越大的一部分，這顯然也會對我們的整體業績和勢頭產生越來越大的影響。最重要的是，我們強調人工智能提供了一個機會，它正在為我們創造前所未有的需求。我們可以以其他人無法做到的方式來對抗它。我們正在全速前進，我們預計這種勢頭將在 2023 年及以後繼續。

Thanks, Ryan. Our next question is from Michael, who asks, with potential S&P 500 inclusion, how does that correlate with the company's prospects on profitability moving forward?

謝謝，瑞安。我們的下一個問題來自邁克爾，他問，隨著潛在的標準普爾 500 指數納入，這與公司未來的盈利前景有何關聯？

I'm sure there's a prepared answer here. But I believe -- I know that we are outsiders, and this outsider status is one of the main reasons we built all these products because we never, ever thought anyone would buy our products, except that they were disruptive and unique. And that's -- in many -- if you look at the products we built, but also in somehow our uncanny preparedness for this moment, it's because we approach this as we have to succeed under adverse conditions.

我確定這裡有一個準備好的答案。但我相信——我知道我們是局外人，這種局外人身份是我們製造所有這些產品的主要原因之一，因為我們從來沒有想過任何人會購買我們的產品，除非它們具有顛覆性和獨特性。那就是——在很多方面——如果你看看我們製造的產品，但也以某種方式我們為這一刻做出了不可思議的準備，這是因為我們必須在不利條件下取得成功才能做到這一點。

And my interest in profitability is for obvious reasons, but it's also, I think, we'll just be in a much stronger position as we -- it becomes clear that we qualify for participation in S&P. And a lot of people look at us afresh, anew and will begin to look closer at our strengths. But I think this is -- the outsider strategy is, we are going to be profitable. We're going to -- within the context of being profitable, we are going to take all resources and disrupt, especially in the USA, and we are going to use the profitability to scale our business and to scale the attractiveness of our business to new investors.

我對盈利能力的興趣是出於顯而易見的原因，但我認為，隨著我們——很明顯我們有資格參與標準普爾，我們將處於更有利的地位。許多人以全新的眼光看待我們，並將開始更仔細地審視我們的優勢。但我認為這是——局外人的策略是，我們將獲利。我們將——在盈利的背景下，我們將利用所有資源並進行顛覆，尤其是在美國，我們將利用盈利能力來擴大我們的業務，並擴大我們業務的吸引力，以新投資者。

Thanks, Alex. Our next question is from Brent with Jefferies. (Operator Instructions)

謝謝，亞歷克斯。我們的下一個問題來自布倫特和傑富瑞。 （操作員說明）

There were a lot of questions about in the quarter. The backlog growth significantly decelerated, yet the comments about the overall business reaccelerating, you guys were clear about. And so there were questions around were there any onetime milestone [GV], rev rec or SPAC contribution in the quarter that may have explained this? And can you just comment about the backlog growth versus the comments you said about reacceleration because they don't really match up when we look at the numbers?

本季度有很多問題。積壓增長顯著放緩，但關於整體業務重新加速的評論，你們很清楚。因此，有人質疑本季度是否有任何一次性里程碑 [GV]、rev rec 或 SPAC 貢獻可以解釋這一點？您能否評論積壓增長與您所說的關於重新加速的評論，因為當我們查看數字時它們並不真正匹配？

Yes. So happy to take that. And I think just to start off, when you're looking at reacceleration, I'd point to the U.S. commercial business is really driving our business forward and sort of where our focus is, and it did reaccelerate significantly in Q1, right? It was 26% year-over-year growth, 39% sequential.

是的。很高興接受那個。而且我認為只是開始，當你看到重新加速時，我會指出美國商業業務確實在推動我們的業務向前發展以及我們關注的重點，並且它在第一季度確實重新加速了，對吧？同比增長 26%，環比增長 39%。

If you want to exclude SPAC revenue, it grew over 45% and grew 24% sequentially. So like it's exceptional reacceleration. And then if you want to look at bookings, you can look at U.S. TCV, up 170% -- excuse me, U.S. commercial TCV is up 170% year-over-year. So like all the measures are there.

如果你想排除 SPAC 收入，它增長了 45% 以上，環比增長了 24%。所以就像它的特殊再加速。然後，如果你想查看預訂，你可以查看美國 TCV，增長 170%——對不起，美國商業 TCV 同比增長 170%。所以就像所有的措施一樣。

I think -- look, I didn't really give you a somewhat orthogonal answer your question. We have a tale of 2 cities here. We have America, which is growing around 28%. It is now 64% of our business. Four years ago, it was 37% of our business. We are absolutely disrupting in the US of A. International is growing around 10%, and that is becoming obviously a smaller part of our business.

我認為 - 看，我並沒有真正給你一個有點正交的答案你的問題。我們這裡有兩個城市的故事。我們有美國，它的增長率約為 28%。它現在占我們業務的 64%。四年前，它占我們業務的 37%。我們在美國絕對是顛覆性的。國際業務增長了 10% 左右，而這顯然正在成為我們業務的一小部分。

And so what you -- what I tend to see when I look at the numbers is, yes, if we believe the U.S. is -- we see the U.S. is growing, we see the -- that U.S. is really accelerating, although reaccelerating is the wrong word because, in fact, U.S. commercial has been accelerating and accelerating, and it's just become a much bigger part of our business.

所以你 - 當我看這些數字時我傾向於看到的是，是的，如果我們相信美國 - 我們看到美國正在增長，我們看到 - 美國確實在加速，儘管正在重新加速這個詞是錯誤的，因為事實上，美國商業一直在加速發展，它已經成為我們業務中更大的一部分。

And last, not least, what's not in the numbers is, I spend a lot of my time on the road. I'm talking to the U.S. customers. I'm talking, and they're not -- the quality of the questions has shifted from why would we need this to how would I use it? And that's just purely on the Foundry front. And then the inbound on anything related to AI, both from existing customers -- by the way, on that score, we sit on the world's most important private sensitive networks, both in commercial and government. Every single one of those clients needs an AI strategy, and we have unique technology and software for that.

最後，同樣重要的是，數字中沒有的是，我花了很多時間在路上。我正在和美國客戶交談。我在說，而他們不是——問題的質量已經從我們為什麼需要它轉變為我將如何使用它？這純粹是在 Foundry 方面。然後是來自現有客戶的任何與 AI 相關的入站——順便說一句，在這一點上，我們坐在世界上最重要的商業和政府私人敏感網絡上。這些客戶中的每一個都需要一個人工智能戰略，而我們擁有獨特的技術和軟件。

So -- but I think, if you wanted to look at the positive or negative of our business, like, yes, sure. We -- I do not expect international to grow much more than it's growing now. I do expect the U.S. to continue to grow, and we're very optimistic about what will happen there.

所以 - 但我認為，如果你想看看我們業務的積極或消極，就像，是的，當然。我們 - 我不希望國際增長比現在增長更多。我確實希望美國繼續增長，我們對那裡會發生什麼感到非常樂觀。

Thanks, Alex. Our next question is from Mariana with Bank of America. (Operator Instructions) Mariana, can you hear us?

謝謝，亞歷克斯。我們的下一個問題來自美國銀行的 Mariana。 （操作員說明）瑪麗安娜，你能聽到我們的聲音嗎？

Hello?

你好？

Can You hear me?

你能聽到我嗎？

Yes.

是的。

Perfect. I am [powerless] with technology, still. There, I am muted. Okay. My question is about the...

完美的。我仍然[無能為力]技術。在那裡，我被靜音了。好的。我的問題是關於...

We can't hear you.

我們聽不到你的聲音。

Sorry, Mariana, you're cutting out.

抱歉，Mariana，你打斷了。

I'm so sorry.

我很抱歉。

No problem. We can just move on. Our next question is from Keith with Morgan Stanley. (Operator Instructions)

沒問題。我們可以繼續前進。我們的下一個問題來自基思和摩根士丹利。 （操作員說明）

Can you guys hear me?

你們能聽到我說話嗎？

Yes.

是的。

Excellent. So we talked a lot about accelerating U.S. commercial business, reorienting the company to a certain extent for this commercial opportunity with the AI platform. Two questions. One, can you talk to us a little bit about changes that you're looking to make in the go-to-market for this AI platform? Any sense you could give us in terms of how you're looking to price the platform? What's sort of like the initial conversations been like? And what do you think the pricing modality is going to be like around that AI platform?

出色的。所以我們談了很多關於加速美國商業業務，在一定程度上重新定位公司，以利用人工智能平台的這個商業機會。兩個問題。第一，你能和我們談談你希望在這個人工智能平台的上市過程中做出的改變嗎？關於您希望如何為平台定價，您可以給我們任何感覺嗎？最初的對話是什麼樣的？您認為圍繞該 AI 平台的定價方式會是什麼樣的？

And then the last question on GAAP profitability. This quarter, you did have a pull-forward of revenues that kind of helped the commercial business, helped the overall profitability. In some sense, you got to make that up a little bit in Q2 and Q3. Are there any tactical things that you're doing or cost reduction initiatives that you're putting in place to ensure that GAAP profitability to offset that pull forward, that upfront revenue recognition we saw in Q1?

然後是關於 GAAP 盈利能力的最後一個問題。本季度，你確實有收入的增長，這在某種程度上幫助了商業業務，幫助了整體盈利能力。從某種意義上說，你必須在第二季度和第三季度稍微彌補一下。您是否正在採取任何戰術性措施或正在實施的成本削減計劃，以確保 GAAP 盈利能力能夠抵消我們在第一季度看到的前期收入確認？

I'll take the AI thing, and Shyam, maybe, you want to add something and then you can talk about all of our various strategies to be more and more efficient. No, our basic -- it's counterintuitive, but we're going to -- within the context of remaining profitable, our strategy on AI is to just to take the whole market. We have no pricing strategy. We're going to create a lot of value. We're going to get hundreds of customers, and we will price it as we go.

我會談 AI 的事情，Shyam，也許，你想添加一些東西，然後你可以談談我們所有的各種策略，以提高效率。不，我們的基本——這是違反直覺的，但我們打算——在保持盈利的背景下，我們的 AI 戰略是佔領整個市場。我們沒有定價策略。我們將創造很多價值。我們將獲得數百個客戶，我們將在進行時對其定價。

One of the things we've seen over and over again is when you're ahead of the market, you need to take territory. We want to take territory for 2 reasons. One, we believe we have the only product currently on the market that can solve some of these intricate technical needs.

我們一遍又一遍地看到的一件事是，當您領先於市場時，您需要佔領領土。我們想佔領領土有兩個原因。第一，我們相信我們擁有目前市場上唯一可以解決其中一些複雜技術需求的產品。

Two, we've spent years building certain things like how do you manage knowledge systems across algorithms, across security interest. We know how hard just to build this. We believe that people will take years for people to build these things. And three, because as we take territory, we educate the market. And the market, quite frankly, many analysts believe this stuff is really easy. You educate the market and to see how hard it is, and in doing that, you then have pricing parity because they will try other things that, for technical reasons, are likely to fail.

第二，我們花了數年時間構建某些東西，比如你如何管理跨算法、跨安全利益的知識系統。我們知道建立這個有多難。我們相信人們將花費數年時間來構建這些東西。第三，因為當我們佔領領土時，我們就教育了市場。而市場，坦率地說，許多分析師認為這東西真的很容易。你對市場進行教育，看看它有多難，在這樣做的過程中，你就有了價格平價，因為他們會嘗試其他的東西，但由於技術原因，這些東西可能會失敗。

So our -- especially in the U.S., we have some non-U.S. customers. There are some exceptions to this. We can't do this for free for governments for legal reasons and because we have so many already AI-driven clients. But in the U.S. commercial context, our strategy is going to be to take territory, educate the market and make it very difficult for other people entering the market because they'll have to compete with a product that we've already been working on for de facto years with solving technical issues that the market doesn't yet realize exist. Then I'll leave...

所以我們 - 特別是在美國，我們有一些非美國客戶。這有一些例外。出於法律原因，我們不能免費為政府做這件事，因為我們有很多已經由 AI 驅動的客戶。但在美國商業環境中，我們的戰略是佔領領土、教育市場並讓其他人很難進入市場，因為他們將不得不與我們已經在努力開發的產品競爭事實上，多年來解決市場尚未意識到存在的技術問題。那我就走了……

Yes, I was just going to say, from a product perspective with AIP, we're just razor focused on creating value as quickly as possible. I think it's not actually clear from the outside how far ahead we are. If you think about the intermediary scale data challenges that you face and getting value out of LLMs, and they're extremely small contact windows, like how are you going to bridge the gap between big data in smaller context windows? You need an ontology. And all of these -- like how did we build an insurance GPT agent in 2 days? Because we stood on the shoulders of 2 years of a very robust ontology that enabled us to unlock huge value.

是的，我只是想說，從 AIP 的產品角度來看，我們只是專注於盡快創造價值。我認為外界並不清楚我們領先了多遠。如果你考慮你面臨的中等規模數據挑戰和從 LLM 中獲取價值，它們是非常小的接觸窗口，比如你將如何在較小的上下文窗口中彌合大數據之間的差距？你需要一個本體論。所有這些——比如我們如何在 2 天內構建保險 GPT 代理？因為我們站在 2 年的非常強大的本體的肩膀上，使我們能夠釋放巨大的價值。

Maybe you should [explain] what an ontology is because for most people -- yes.

也許你應該[解釋]本體論是什麼，因為對於大多數人來說——是的。

Yes. I could take the rest of the call with that. But I simply...

是的。我可以接聽剩下的電話。但我只是...

You'd love that. It's more interesting than that, but -- yes.

你會喜歡的。它比那更有趣，但是 - 是的。

You have the semantic representation of the business. Sometimes people call it digital twin. I hate that because it cheapens it in how it's been diluted. But like what is the business? How do we think about it? How does the data map to the operations that happen? And then you have the kinetic layer of like, well, how do we make decisions? How do I adjudicate a claim? What does that mean? How does it flow through the system?

您擁有業務的語義表示。有時人們稱之為數字雙胞胎。我討厭那樣，因為它會降低它的稀釋方式。但是，業務是什麼？我們如何看待它？數據如何映射到發生的操作？然後你有動力層，好吧，我們如何做出決定？我如何裁定索賠？這意味著什麼？它如何在系統中流動？

These are prerequisites. You can think about that second piece, the kinetics is the tools you give the LLMs to actually drive and automate your business processes. And you think about the former part of like how do I actually reason about what's going on and I need that, it's almost like a form of compression to get everything into that small context window, right? Like that's a physical limitation of the LLMs. So I think the amount of ground we can take means that the only reasonable strategy is to focus on...

這些是先決條件。您可以考慮第二部分，動力學是您為 LLM 提供的工具，用於實際驅動和自動化您的業務流程。你想想前一部分，比如我如何真正推理正在發生的事情，我需要它，它幾乎就像一種壓縮形式，可以將所有內容都放入那個小的上下文窗口中，對吧？就像這是 LLM 的物理限制。所以我認為我們可以採取的地面數量意味著唯一合理的策略是專注於......

And implicit in what Shyam is saying is, without essentially other people called a knowledge gap, in fact, de facto, you could view it as like a dynamic semantic layer where the assumptions of your world are built in it and can map across your -- you will just not be able to use this technology. Now that's something we know. No one else knows. No one believes it, but they're about to find out.

隱含在 Shyam 所說的是，基本上沒有其他人稱之為知識差距，事實上，事實上，您可以將其視為一個動態語義層，其中構建了您的世界的假設，並且可以映射到您的 - - 你將無法使用這項技術。現在這是我們知道的事情。沒有人知道。沒有人相信，但他們即將發現。

And so we don't have to have this debate with people. We're just going to show clients, "Hey, this will work, you will get value. We've done this before. It's also crazy hard to build this." So if you know how to do it, you have a 3-year build.

所以我們不必與人們進行這場辯論。我們只是要向客戶展示，“嘿，這行得通，你會得到價值。我們以前做過這個。構建這個也非常困難。”所以如果你知道如何去做，你就有了 3 年的構建。

And we didn't even talk about the guardrails, the military-grade security, the safe handoff functions that are extent, right? Like we can go running at this so hard.

我們甚至沒有談論護欄、軍用級安全、安全切換功能，對吧？就像我們可以如此努力地奔跑一樣。

And again, in a highly regulated environment, whether people listening dislike it or not, America is a highly regular environment. You will not be able to use this technology without what Shyam is calling guardrails. What he really means is with a branching technology where [ackles] can be applied to the internal systems in a way that you can still get the work -- be able to do the work because you have a semantic layer.

再說一遍，在一個高度規範的環境中，不管人們是否喜歡聽，美國都是一個高度規範的環境。如果沒有 Shyam 所謂的護欄，您將無法使用這項技術。他真正的意思是使用分支技術，其中 [ackles] 可以以您仍然可以完成工作的方式應用於內部系統——能夠完成工作，因為您有一個語義層。

And that's all gobbledygook to people, except for it will not be gobbledygook to everybody who wants to use this technology in a productive way. And we just -- we spent 20 years building these things, and we're going to litigate that on the front and figure out how we get paid later.

這對人們來說都是官話，除了它不會對每個想以富有成效的方式使用這項技術的人來說都是官話。我們只是 - 我們花了 20 年的時間來構建這些東西，我們將在前面提起訴訟，然後弄清楚我們如何獲得報酬。

And on a GAAP profitability, we're going to get there with the U.S. business. And when you look to U.S. commercial, that will help push us there. And then when you look at sort of what we've been doing on the cost side, G&A efficiency, the cloud costs we keep talking about because it really, really is making a difference in our business. And then we're going to be prudent with our headcount in certain places. And in other places, we're going to really...

根據 GAAP 盈利能力，我們將與美國業務一起實現這一目標。當您關注美國商業廣告時，這將有助於將我們推向那裡。然後當你看看我們在成本方面一直在做的事情時，G&A 效率，我們一直在談論的云成本，因為它真的、真的對我們的業務產生了影響。然後我們將在某些地方謹慎對待我們的員工人數。在其他地方，我們真的要...

I mean, there's an obvious thing. We're growing, we believe, and the numbers show we're disrupting in the U.S. We're going to invest heavily. In places we're growing 10%, we're going to reduce costs. There's no mystery here.

我的意思是，有一件很明顯的事情。我們相信，我們正在成長，而且數據顯示我們正在顛覆美國。我們將大量投資。在我們增長 10% 的地方，我們將降低成本。這裡沒有什麼神秘之處。

Thanks, Alex. As always, we have a lot of individual investors on the line. Is there anything you'd like to say before we end the call?

謝謝，亞歷克斯。與往常一樣，我們有很多個人投資者在線。在我們結束通話之前，你有什麼想說的嗎？

You're my favorite investors, I say it every call. A lot of the decisions we make are made because we are in full alignment with you. There's a tendency among elites to overlook your knowledge. My experience is the people that pay attention to the product, the power of the products used and are more accurate in the strengths and weaknesses of PGE, Foundry, semantic layer and now AI, are very often people investing their own money.

你是我最喜歡的投資者，我每次打電話都這麼說。我們做出的許多決定都是因為我們與您完全一致。精英們傾向於忽視你的知識。我的經驗是，那些關注產品、所用產品的力量並且更準確地了解 PGE、Foundry、語義層和現在 AI 的優缺點的人，往往是投資自己的錢的人。

And now as we become profitable in the next 2 quarters, I expect that we will become part of the S&P, and we'll have many more institutional investors. But I will not stop valuing you, and I appreciate your support.

現在，隨著我們在接下來的兩個季度實現盈利，我預計我們將成為標準普爾的一部分，並且我們將擁有更多的機構投資者。但我不會停止重視您，感謝您的支持。

Thanks. That concludes the Q&A for today's call.

謝謝。今天電話會議的問答到此結束。

I'm John Thornhill from the Financial Times, and I'm delighted, first, to be at this conference, and second, to be interviewing Dr. Alex Karp, their Founder -- Co-Founder and Chief Executive of Palantir Technologies.

我是來自金融時報的 John Thornhill，我很高興，首先，能夠參加這次會議，其次，能夠採訪他們的創始人 - Palantir Technologies 的聯合創始人兼首席執行官 Alex Karp 博士。

Now Alex, I think it's fair to say, is a somewhat unusual chief executive of a very unusual company. There are not many chief executives I can think of who have a philosophy PhD and who trained under Jurgen Habermas and who have gone on to run a software company that was launched to apply data and AI to help track down terrorists after 9/11.

現在，我認為可以公平地說，亞歷克斯是一家非常不尋常的公司的一位有點不尋常的首席執行官。我能想到的首席執行官中沒有多少人擁有哲學博士學位，接受過於爾根·哈貝馬斯 (Jurgen Habermas) 的培訓，並在 9/11 之後繼續經營一家應用數據和人工智能幫助追踪恐怖分子的軟件公司。

One of his friends was quoted in the FT as saying that Alex is allergic to simplicity. And you're also quoted in that piece as saying, "The country that wins the AI battles of the future will set the international order." So you're in the right place today to discuss all this.

英國《金融時報》援引他的一位朋友的話說，亞歷克斯對簡單性過敏。在那篇文章中還引用了您的話說，“贏得未來 AI 戰爭的國家將建立國際秩序。”所以你今天來對了地方來討論這一切。

I wondered if we could start by you telling us what role AI is playing in the war in Ukraine? And to the extent you can, what role is Palantir playing?

我想知道我們是否可以從您告訴我們人工智能在烏克蘭戰爭中扮演什麼角色開始？在您可以的範圍內，Palantir 扮演什麼角色？

Well, first of all, very happy to be here. Thank you for that kind introduction, forwarded to my relatives who will be happy to know I'm so accomplished. That quote, just as a reference, I think, was from 3 years ago, something like that. And when we -- when I was saying this, when we got involved in what's now called AI in parts of the DoD unnamed parts, because Silicon Valley's view of technology was please send it to the adversaries and send the carcinogens to America and the allies. I mean, if you're getting really rich, why should everyone have a good life, too?

嗯，首先，很高興來到這裡。感謝您的親切介紹，轉發給我的親戚，他們會很高興知道我如此有成就。那句話，只是作為參考，我認為是 3 年前的事，大概是這樣的。當我們——當我這麼說的時候，當我們在國防部未命名的部分參與現在所謂的人工智能時，因為矽谷對技術的看法是請把它送給對手，把致癌物送給美國和盟友.我的意思是，如果你真的變得富有，為什麼每個人都應該過上好日子呢？

And we took a different path, which was -- and so when they abandoned the U.S. government's efforts to build AI in the war context, we had a lot of trepidation about getting involved because this was like 5, 6 years ago, and AI, as it was until a couple of years ago, was really a bumper sticker for fraudsters, half fraudsters and people selling snake oil. And when you're in software, you have to be very, very careful to not be proximate to that because it all looks like a PowerPoint.

我們走了一條不同的道路，那是——所以當他們放棄了美國政府在戰爭背景下構建人工智能的努力時，我們對參與其中感到非常恐懼，因為這就像 5、6 年前，人工智能，就像幾年前一樣，它實際上是騙子、半騙子和賣蛇油的人的保險槓貼紙。當你使用軟件時，你必須非常非常小心，不要接近它，因為它看起來就像一個 PowerPoint。

I could hand out unnamed companies where I know the software doesn't exist, and they would have a PowerPoint largely copied. They would figure out what we're doing and print it up to look better. The people pitching it to you will look nicer or better in the American context, they have whiter teeth. In this context, they have a better swim style or something that's very appealing.

我可以分發我知道該軟件不存在的未命名公司，他們會復制大部分的 PowerPoint。他們會弄清楚我們在做什麼並將其打印出來以使其看起來更好。在美國背景下，向您推銷它的人會看起來更好或更好，他們的牙齒更白。在這種情況下，他們有更好的游泳風格或非常吸引人的東西。

And so we got involved in the -- what digitalization of warfare a number of years ago. At the same time, we were already still maintaining products that we have built largely for the West, but particularly useful in Europe, because you have an environment where data protection and anti-terror work has to go hand in hand. And that gave us an architecture for understanding how an enterprise would work with segmented data.

因此，我們參與了——多年前的戰爭數字化。與此同時，我們已經在維護我們主要為西方開發的產品，但在歐洲特別有用，因為你有一個數據保護和反恐工作必須齊頭並進的環境。這為我們提供了一個架構來理解企業如何處理分段數據。

So you just have a huge -- they typically -- everyone -- now everyone is excited about AI because it's, a, not a joke, it's clearly transformative, and you're seeing the results of OpenAI in the consumer Internet context. I would maintain that the history of technology from -- certainly, in the last 100 years, is things coming from the military going to consumer. And that's also what I think primarily actually has happened in AI. We're, and again, we're not -- our role in Ukraine has been widely discussed. I won't say that much about it.

所以你有一個巨大的——他們通常——每個人——現在每個人都對人工智能感到興奮，因為它，一個，不是開玩笑，它顯然是變革性的，你在消費者互聯網環境中看到了 OpenAI 的結果。我會堅持認為，技術的歷史——當然，在過去的 100 年裡，是從軍隊走向消費者的東西。這也是我認為主要實際發生在 AI 中的事情。我們是，又一次，我們不是——我們在烏克蘭的作用已被廣泛討論。我不會說那麼多。

But as a matter of theory, the old way of targeting where you don't use -- where algorithms aren't used is clearly a failure. And if you go into battle with old school technology, even if you're spending $65 billion a year and you're highly accomplished war fighters like Russia, and you have an adversary that you know how to install and implement digitalized targeting in AI, you obviously are at a massive disadvantage, but which the world heard, and that's why there's a lot of interest in AI.

但從理論上講，以不使用的地方為目標的舊方法——不使用算法的地方顯然是失敗的。如果你使用老派技術進行戰鬥，即使你每年花費 650 億美元並且你是像俄羅斯這樣成就卓著的戰士，而且你有一個你知道如何在人工智能中安裝和實施數字化目標的對手，你顯然處於巨大的劣勢，但全世界都聽到了，這就是為什麼人們對人工智能很感興趣。

But what's very interesting is the way we discuss AI and public networks, consumer Internet doesn't actually translate to private networks. So if you're doing digitalization or AI on health care records or in the context of war, you have issues of -- well, the work-finding context you have, well, who makes the decision under what condition? Who takes responsibility? Who does the after action report? If the AI makes a decision, who's responsible for that?

但非常有趣的是我們討論人工智能和公共網絡的方式，消費者互聯網實際上並沒有轉化為私有網絡。因此，如果你在醫療記錄或戰爭背景下進行數字化或人工智能，你會遇到問題——好吧，你所擁有的工作尋找背景，好吧，誰在什麼條件下做出決定？誰來承擔責任？事後報告給誰？如果人工智能做出決定，誰負責？

If before war, you have the ethics of war, who starts the war, under what conditions? During the war, what targets you're taking out? What kind of targets can be taking out. What is -- every country has an idea of safe harbor, i.e., targets you can't take out, targets and need special authorization, targets that need different kinds of action, action reports. You have different kinds of segmentation inside data sources.

如果在戰爭之前，你有戰爭的倫理，誰在什麼條件下發動戰爭？在戰爭期間，你要消滅什麼目標？可以取出什麼樣的目標。什麼是——每個國家都有一個安全港的概念，即你不能拿走的目標，需要特別授權的目標，需要不同類型行動的目標，行動報告。您在數據源內部有不同類型的細分。

So without going to any details in the Ukraine or other countries, you have very different data sources. They're structured in a different way. You have security issues. If you're working at war as you -- as everyone in this room would know, you can't supply all your data sources, i.e., your asset sources, your human [insignia] to everyone on the war field, even by proxy through an algorithm because that can be deciphered.

因此，無需了解烏克蘭或其他國家/地區的任何細節，您就有非常不同的數據源。它們以不同的方式構建。你有安全問題。如果你像你一樣在戰爭中工作——正如這個房間裡的每個人都知道的那樣，你不能向戰場上的每個人提供你所有的數據源，即你的資產來源、你的人類[徽章]，即使是通過代理通過算法，因為它可以被破譯。

So how do you run algorithms and run targeting packages, whether these things are paramount so the adversary doesn't immediately know what you're doing, how you're doing it and can replicate it? And then in the civilian context, this is a heavily regulated environment, for example, in Europe. You can't just run interjurisdictional AI on data sets in health care, legal, pharmaceuticals, in any of the interjurisdictional AIs, for lots of good reasons, would not be allowed legally or, in my view, ethically.

那麼你如何運行算法和運行目標包，這些事情是否是最重要的，所以對手不會立即知道你在做什麼，你是如何做的並且可以復制它？然後在民用環境中，這是一個受到嚴格監管的環境，例如在歐洲。你不能只在醫療保健、法律、製藥的數據集上運行跨轄區人工智能，在任何跨轄區人工智能中，出於很多充分的理由，這在法律上是不允許的，或者在我看來，在道德上是不允許的。

So how do you make the AI or digitalization work in that context? That's something we've spent the last 5 years building. And what's super interesting now is it was a joke. And when I was giving you this quote, I largely just got ridiculed by my academic friends.

那麼你如何讓人工智能或數字化在這種情況下發揮作用呢？這是我們過去 5 年一直在打造的東西。現在超級有趣的是這是一個笑話。當我給你這句話時，我基本上只是被我的學術朋友們嘲笑了。

But like I don't think -- I think it's pretty obvious to people in this room, not as obvious maybe to people outside this room, but the ability to dominate the battlefield on our ethical terms, meaning where we can control who does what and under what circumstances, will define who writes the law and how it's interpreted. Now this maybe is less controversial in Europe.

但是我不認為——我認為這對這個房間裡的人來說是很明顯的，對這個房間外的人來說可能不是那麼明顯，但是在我們的道德術語下主宰戰場的能力，這意味著我們可以控制誰做什麼在什麼情況下，將定義誰來製定法律以及如何解釋法律。現在這在歐洲可能不那麼有爭議了。

It is particularly controversial, I think, in academic circles with -- in which I lingered. But I view it as a venality [in effect]. And certainly, the fact that AI is not an incrementally better technology like maybe mortars and tanks, where 1 country has a slight advantage, it is completely algorithmatic and nonlinear. And so yes, that's a lot -- but...

我認為，在學術界，它特別有爭議——我一直在其中徘徊。但我認為這是一種賄賂[實際上]。當然，人工智能並不是一種漸進式更好的技術，就像迫擊砲和坦克那樣，一個國家略有優勢，它完全是算法和非線性的。所以是的，這很多——但是……

All right. So just to drill down in that, if I am with my journalistic supervisors, we'll summarize that as saying what you're saying is that when we talk about wars, we talk about kind of mortars and tanks, but in fact, it's data processing is now the new superpower that is enabling the Ukrainians to more than match the Russians.

好的。因此，如果我和我的新聞主管一起深入研究，我們將總結為你所說的是當我們談論戰爭時，我們談論的是迫擊砲和坦克，但事實上，它是數據處理現在是新的超級大國，使烏克蘭人比俄羅斯人更勝一籌。

Well, yes, you -- it used to be that something like an analytic package plus -- but yes. But -- and what I'm saying on top of it is that the differential lift by advanced augmented or digitalized or AI is so great that powers that know how to implement this, build upon it can defeat powers that have been spending $65 billion a year over decades.

好吧，是的，你——它曾經是一個類似分析包的東西——但是是的。但是——我最重要的是要說的是，先進的增強或數字化或人工智能帶來的差異化提升是如此之大，以至於知道如何實施這一點的力量，在它的基礎上建立可以擊敗每年花費 650 億美元的力量幾十年來的一年。

A more recent quote of yours, "The power of advanced algorithms is now so great that it equates to having tactical nuclear weapons against an adversary with only conventional weapons." Now is that really true, what you're from Professor Lawrence Freeman this morning in that, when the war started, everyone thought that the Russian cyber offensive would overwhelm the Ukrainians, take out all of their civilian infrastructure. That has largely failed. What they're doing is this very kinetic attack on the Ukrainians.

你最近引用的一句話是，“先進算法的力量現在如此強大，以至於它等同於擁有戰術核武器來對抗只有常規武器的對手。”這真的是真的嗎，你今天早上從勞倫斯·弗里曼教授那裡聽到的是，當戰爭開始時，每個人都認為俄羅斯的網絡攻勢會壓倒烏克蘭人，摧毀他們所有的民用基礎設施。這在很大程度上失敗了。他們正在做的是對烏克蘭人的這種非常猛烈的攻擊。

Look, there's so much about this war that can't be discussed in public. I don't think that's exactly how this went down. But people in the room will know more than that -- about that than I. And so I don't think that is actually a fair assessment. I -- and were that true, then I would -- then you're assuming that the capacity -- first of all, there's offensive cyber and there's offensive targeting. I'm in the offensive targeting.

看，這場戰爭有太多不能公開討論的內容。我不認為事情就是這樣發生的。但在場的人會比我知道的更多。所以我認為這實際上不是一個公平的評估。我 - 如果那是真的，那麼我會 - 然後你假設能力 - 首先，有進攻性網絡和進攻性目標。我在進攻目標中。

What we build, MetaConstellation, is in the offensive targeting business. It's a different business. But I would -- so what I think is we are at the very, very, very early days of AI. But in the last 6 months, we went from a world where AI was -- and digitalized targeting and, in general, like ability to take out targets, you could call it a digitalized kill chain, whatever you want to call it. It was a either something for a highly erudite ethics discussion, which I find fascinating, or something that someone was pitching you to buy where the results were going to be a steak dinner.

我們構建的 MetaConstellation 是在進攻性目標定位業務中。這是一個不同的業務。但我會——所以我認為我們正處於人工智能非常、非常、非常早期的階段。但在過去的 6 個月裡，我們離開了一個人工智能和數字化目標定位的世界，總的來說，就像消滅目標的能力一樣，你可以稱它為數字化殺傷鏈，隨便你怎麼稱呼它。這要么是一個非常博學的道德討論的東西，我覺得這很有趣，要么是有人推銷你購買的東西，結果將是一頓牛排晚餐。

And this has now shifted to your ability to identify the right technology and implement it will determine what happens on the battlefield. And I don't think there's any dispute about that. In fact, one of the major things we need to do in the West is realize this lesson is completely understood by China and Russia. And we still spend a very small amount of our budgets on this kind of technology.

現在這已經轉移到你識別正確技術並實施它的能力，這將決定戰場上會發生什麼。我認為這沒有任何爭議。事實上，我們西方需要做的一件大事就是意識到中國和俄羅斯完全理解這個教訓。我們仍然在這種技術上花費了很少的預算。

So if you -- obviously very in favor of the general budget staying, even growing inflation, growing more by inflation. But if you look at budgets in the West, what are we spending that's differentiated from our adversaries? In business, you have a venality, where you try to invest where people don't compete well against you. What we do very well in the West is figure out distributed systems that are powered by software that will allow you to fight.

因此，如果你 - 顯然非常贊成保留一般預算，甚至增加通貨膨脹，通過通貨膨脹實現更多增長。但是如果你看看西方的預算，我們在哪些方面有別於我們的對手？在商業中，你有一種唯利是圖的傾向，你試圖在人們無法很好地與你競爭的地方進行投資。我們在西方做得很好的是找出由允許您戰鬥的軟件提供支持的分佈式系統。

And this is a very specialized way of building things. This is why our software companies have done very well, quite frankly, most of them from the West Coast of the U.S. But this is why readiness that works this way. But what we need to learn is wait a minute, what are we focused on? Who is making the decisions about acquiring advanced AI digitalization and what part of the budget goes? Have they ever implemented something that works?

這是一種非常專業的構建方式。這就是為什麼我們的軟件公司做得很好，坦率地說，它們中的大多數來自美國西海岸。但這就是為什麼準備工作如此有效的原因。但是我們需要學習的是等一下，我們關注的是什麼？誰在決定獲取先進的 AI 數字化以及預算的哪一部分？他們有沒有實施過有效的東西？

By the way, very basic things. You're going to get bombarded by various software products. Has the software ever been used in the battlefield, should be the first question. Software is not a theoretical thing. I spent the first part of my life as an academic. There are a lot of theoretically relevant questions.

順便說一下，非常基本的東西。您將受到各種軟件產品的轟炸。該軟件是否曾在戰場上使用過，應該是第一個問題。軟件不是理論上的東西。我的前半生是作為一名學者度過的。有很多理論上相關的問題。

The first question in the software context is Hugh used it, how they've used it, what are the results? You can't -- these things take 5, 6 years to build if you're very good at it, and you need access to the battlefield. Like you can't build these things in the lab.

軟件方面的第一個問題是 Hugh 使用它，他們如何使用它，結果如何？你不能——如果你非常擅長，這些東西需要 5、6 年才能建成，而且你需要進入戰場。就像你不能在實驗室裡建造這些東西一樣。

So one of the advantages, quite frankly, we've had is we've been on the battlefield. Why have we had that advantage? It's one of these bug feature things because everyone in the Silicon Valley was bereft of common sense. They are busy exporting things to adversaries and corroding our system with carcinogens in the context of the consumer Internet, so we got access to the battlefield.

因此，坦率地說，我們擁有的優勢之一就是我們一直在戰場上。為什麼我們有這樣的優勢？這是這些錯誤特徵之一，因為矽谷的每個人都缺乏常識。他們忙於向對手出口東西，並在消費互聯網的背景下用致癌物質腐蝕我們的系統，所以我們進入了戰場。

So how -- for the people in the room who are actually trying to buy this software, how do they know what software works given it's all shrouded in secrecy and no one will really know?

那麼，對於在場的那些真正想購買該軟件的人來說，他們如何知道什麼軟件可以工作，因為它都處於保密狀態，沒有人會真正知道？

Oh, anybody in this room, I presume, who's buying software can get on the phone and talk to the people who are using the software. That's not their problem. The problem is what happens after you find out when it works? Is there -- is anyone at the top who's making these decisions, talking to the people who are proxy on the battlefield?

哦，我想這個房間裡任何購買軟件的人都可以打電話與使用該軟件的人交談。那不是他們的問題。問題是當你發現它何時起作用後會發生什麼？有沒有人在做出這些決定，與戰場上的代理人交談？

Is anyone -- what portion of your budget goes to it? Probably 99% of your budget is going to very valuable things and not this kind of thing. So you need to have a wider swath -- by the way, you also need a wider swath because you're going to do new things that aren't going to work.

有沒有人——你預算的哪一部分用於此？可能 99% 的預算都用於非常有價值的事情，而不是這種事情。所以你需要有更廣泛的範圍——順便說一句，你也需要更廣泛的範圍，因為你將要做一些行不通的新事情。

Okay. This theme of this conference is responsible AI, so I'd like to get on to kind of ethics and values, which you have mentioned. I mean, I guess, to massively oversimplify in America, particularly after 9/11, there was a theory that the ends justified the means, that the national security...

好的。這次會議的主題是負責任的人工智能，所以我想談談你提到的道德和價值觀。我的意思是，我想，在美國過度簡化，特別是在 9/11 之後，有一種理論認為目的不擇手段，國家安全......

Not our theory.

不是我們的理論。

I know, we'll come to that. In Europe, I think there's clearly an argument that individual rights, in some respects, more important than national security. So which is the bigger problem, Big Terra or [big brother]? Can you reconcile these two?

我知道，我們會談到這一點。在歐洲，我認為顯然有人認為個人權利在某些方面比國家安全更重要。那麼哪個問題更大，Big Terra 還是 [big brother]？你能調和這兩者嗎？

It's always interesting to tell people the things that they don't believe, probably justify we will never believe but are true. A lot of the reason why my company succeeded was, in the beginning, post 9/11, everyone was like, "Oh, Bill, find terrorists. We don't care how." Most of our investors are like, "Find terrorists. We don't care how."

告訴人們他們不相信的事情總是很有趣，可能證明我們永遠不會相信但卻是真實的。我的公司成功的很多原因是，一開始，在 9/11 之後，每個人都說，“哦，比爾，找到恐怖分子。我們不在乎如何。”我們的大多數投資者都喜歡，“找到恐怖分子。我們不在乎如何。”

And one of -- you make lots of mistakes when you do things, and I may have made a lot of mistakes. One of the best decisions I ever made was reflecting upon Hagel. We can have a dialectic. We're going to find terrorists and protect data protection. And why is that important?

其中之一——你在做事時會犯很多錯誤，我可能也犯了很多錯誤。我做過的最好的決定之一就是反思黑格爾。我們可以有一個辯證法。我們要找到恐怖分子並保護數據保護。為什麼這很重要？

And by the way, we haven't even bothered selling our product to Europe, which is -- you may not know it, but almost every European country, in some form or another, uses our CT product, counterterrorist product. And why do they use it? Because if you just find the terrorists and you abandon civil liberties, you lose half the society.

順便說一句，我們甚至沒有費心向歐洲銷售我們的產品，這是——你可能不知道，但幾乎每個歐洲國家都以某種形式使用我們的 CT 產品，反恐產品。他們為什麼使用它？因為如果你只是找到恐怖分子而放棄公民自由，你就會失去一半的社會。

In my view, correctly, do you want everyone knowing what you do in your personal life? I don't. And I think it's our God-given right to have parts of our personal lives that are protected. You can't -- but if you don't find the terrorists, and this is where I disagree with a lot of my academic friends, you're going to have [goose] stepping in the streets.

在我看來，正確的是，你想讓每個人都知道你在個人生活中做了什麼嗎？我不。我認為讓我們個人生活的一部分受到保護是上帝賦予我們的權利。你不能——但如果你找不到恐怖分子，這就是我與很多學術界朋友不同意的地方，你就會[鵝]走上街頭。

And I got yelled at all over the world for saying, our product, Palantir, has played an enormous role in Europe in stopping the far right. Not -- there's always conspiracy theories, not because we're in any way involved in targeting far right. But because if you protect data and stop terrorism, you get mainstream parties. If you don't protect the terrorism, you get far right people. If you own -- so you have to do both.

我因為說我們的產品 Palantir 在歐洲阻止極右翼方面發揮了巨大作用而受到全世界的指責。不是——總是有陰謀論，不是因為我們以任何方式參與了針對極右翼的活動。但是因為如果你保護數據並阻止恐怖主義，你就會得到主流政黨。如果你不保護恐怖主義，你就會得到極右翼的人。如果你擁有——那麼你必須兩者兼顧。

Now getting to the ethics -- and what we found, by the way, is in doing both, you end up with something better because, in fact, you only need access to the data that you have access to, and you can do an incredible amount on that data. Now you get to the AI context, where it is a winner-take-all thing. And you have, again, the debate. Well, we should just throw out our ethics. Of course, our adversaries have, by Western standards, they do have ethics. They just have ethics that are very different than ours.

現在談到道德問題——順便說一句，我們發現，在同時做這兩件事時，你最終會得到更好的結果，因為事實上，你只需要訪問你有權訪問的數據，並且你可以做一個該數據的數量令人難以置信。現在你進入了 AI 環境，這是贏家通吃的局面。你再次進行了辯論。好吧，我們應該拋棄我們的道德規範。當然，按照西方標準，我們的對手確實有道德。他們只是擁有與我們截然不同的道德規範。

And those ethics do not include segmenting data so that you can see how the decision-making was done, doing before and after action reports so you can decide what can be targeted, what -- deciding what drives the -- what areas AI can be involved in and what areas they can't be.

這些倫理不包括分割數據，這樣你就可以看到決策是如何完成的，做行動前後的報告，這樣你就可以決定什麼可以成為目標，什麼 - 決定什麼驅動 - 人工智能可以在哪些領域他們不能參與哪些領域。

And I would tell you the same thing, that sounds academic but has made my company very successful. When you actually reach for the higher standard, you end up with a much more powerful system, and you bring everybody in the society with you. Whereas if you just say we're going to throw out ethics, first of all, even if you wanted to, that is not implementable in any country in this room. It's not implementable, by the way, in America. It's like there's a slight myth that, in America, it's like, we're cowboys. We were like, yes, we just -- and it is true, we're more ready for action than, say, some other countries.

我會告訴你同樣的事情，這聽起來很學術，但卻讓我的公司非常成功。當你真正達到更高的標準時，你最終會得到一個更強大的系統，你會把社會上的每個人都帶到你身邊。如果你只是說我們要拋棄道德規範，首先，即使你願意，這在這個房間裡的任何國家都無法實施。順便說一句，它在美國是不可實施的。好像有一個小小的神話，在美國，我們是牛仔。我們就像，是的，我們只是 - 確實，我們比其他一些國家更願意採取行動。

But you do have very strong codes of ethics about what you're allowed to do, what can be targeted, what are the option. What happens if something went wrong? Who's responsible? In every Western society, you have a chain of authority that goes from civilian to military. There has to be an ability to map that chain on to digitized targeting. So it takes...

但是你確實有非常嚴格的道德準則，關於你被允許做什麼，可以針對什麼，有什麼選擇。如果出現問題會怎樣？誰負責？在每個西方社會中，你都有一條從文職到軍方的權力鏈。必須能夠將該鏈映射到數字化目標。所以需要...

How do you do that?

你是怎樣做的？

You need -- and this is where you need an architecture, it takes 5, 6 years to behold, which allows you to segment the data and allows you to expose parts. First of all, AI doesn't work in private networks as well as it does in consumer for very simple technical reasons. You need to have a certain kind of tagging algorithm on the data.

你需要——這就是你需要架構的地方，需要 5、6 年才能看到，它允許你分割數據並允許你公開部分。首先，由於非常簡單的技術原因，AI 在專用網絡中的工作不如在消費者中工作。您需要對數據使用某種標記算法。

So when you're doing that tagging algorithm, you can also create an architecture, impose an architecture that can't be changed by the user on what kinds of data sets they can have. And those data sets can be made transparent as inputs into the algorithm. And you need to have that as a separate product that works with the algorithm. And every Western society is going to have to do it.

因此，當您執行該標記算法時，您還可以創建一個架構，將用戶無法更改的架構強加給他們可以擁有的數據集類型。這些數據集可以作為算法的輸入變得透明。而且您需要將其作為與算法一起使用的單獨產品。每個西方社會都將不得不這樣做。

And by the way, so that's the politically kind of progressive version. Let me give you the right wing, battlefield position, I don't care about this. The reason you care about this, if you don't care about civil liberties is because that's the only way to know that you are controlling your human and [synced-in] data, and it's not being exported to adversaries in your own organization.

順便說一句，這是政治上的進步版本。讓我給你右翼，戰場位置，我不關心這個。如果你不關心公民自由，那麼你關心這個的原因是因為這是知道你正在控制你的人類和 [同步輸入] 數據的唯一方法，並且它不會被輸出給你自己組織中的對手。

So if you want to say, as purely a matter of theory, your intel services want to do a special operation with your special services, you want to make sure that every bit of that data is tagged and the algorithms that are feeding into it are not exposed. You will need the same architecture that civil libertarians want, exactly the same.

所以如果你想說，純粹從理論上講，你的情報服務想要對你的特殊服務進行特殊操作，你要確保數據的每一位都被標記，並且輸入它的算法是沒有暴露。您將需要公民自由主義者想要的相同架構，完全相同。

And one of the most interesting things about running this business for 20 years is civil libertarians don't understand that they want the same architecture that spies and special operators want for a very different reason. They want to come home alive. That's how you come home alive.

經營這項業務 20 年最有趣的事情之一是，公民自由主義者不明白他們想要的架構與間諜和特殊操作員出於完全不同的原因而想要的架構相同。他們想活著回家。這就是你活著回家的方式。

Okay. I want to open it up to the audience very soon. I have 1 final question that I want to put in before that, which is the role of private corporations in this debate. A lot of the discussion today has been the fact that we're now, in effect, outsourcing a lot of critical national security decisions to private companies, whether it's kind of StarLink in Ukraine, whether it's the Palantir Technologies in Ukraine and elsewhere, whether it's Microsoft and what they were doing to protect Ukraine against cyber attacks and so on. So how can we ensure that private corporations are acting in the public good and what governance mechanisms are there in this area?

好的。我想盡快向觀眾開放。我想在此之前提出最後一個問題，即私營公司在這場辯論中的作用。今天的很多討論都是這樣一個事實，即我們現在實際上是將許多關鍵的國家安全決策外包給私營公司，無論是烏克蘭的 StarLink，還是烏克蘭和其他地方的 Palantir Technologies，還是是微軟以及他們為保護烏克蘭免受網絡攻擊等所做的工作。那麼，我們如何確保私營企業的行為符合公共利益，這方面有哪些治理機制？

Well, there is a strong consensus among people in government that government should decide and we should provide infrastructure. There's just a question of, does the company actually believe that or not? So obviously, almost no company in Silicon Valley actually believes that. That's why there's all these lawsuits between the European Union and Silicon Valley. And -- but we very much deeply believe that Western institutions to decide and we should implement.

好吧，政府人員之間有一個強烈的共識，即政府應該做出決定，我們應該提供基礎設施。只是一個問題，公司真的相信還是不相信？很明顯，矽谷幾乎沒有公司真正相信這一點。這就是為什麼歐盟和矽谷之間存在所有這些訴訟的原因。並且 - 但我們非常深信西方機構可以決定並且我們應該執行。

So the implementation infrastructure comes down to who controls what happens here. I believe that should be 100% the democratic-elected officials and the representatives in the military and other organizations. That is a controversial view in Silicon Valley. It is -- and that has to be verified. Does the company believe that or not? I 100% believe in our products are built to make sure that you -- the mandate of power is controlled by democratic, legitimately democratically elected officials and the representatives in military and intel.

因此，實施基礎設施歸結為誰控制這裡發生的事情。我認為應該是 100% 民選官員以及軍隊和其他組織中的代表。這在矽谷是一個有爭議的觀點。它是——而且必須得到驗證。公司信不信？我 100% 相信我們的產品旨在確保您——權力的授權由民主、合法民主選舉產生的官員以及軍方和情報部門的代表控制。

There is another more difficult question, which is, should we build the software ourselves? I would just say, of course, there are lots of things you should build. And what you see in Ukraine are lots and lots of technical people building on products, including ours, and that's something that I also support. The idea you're going to build the whole infrastructure yourself that I think is unlikely because the cultures that build these products are where cultures of mad men and women and others. And managing that crazy group of people, it's going to be very, very hard in a government context.

還有一個更難的問題，就是我們要不要自己做軟件？我只想說，當然，您應該構建很多東西。你在烏克蘭看到的是很多技術人員在構建產品，包括我們的產品，這也是我支持的。你要自己建造整個基礎設施的想法我認為是不可能的，因為建造這些產品的文化是瘋狂的男人和女人和其他人的文化。管理那群瘋狂的人，在政府背景下將非常非常困難。

But there are also big divisions within those companies themselves, aren't there? I mean, Google famously did not participate in Project Maven because its employees were against. Palantir, yourself, I mean, your co-founder, Peter Thiel, is a big fan of Donald Trump when he was President. You yourself...

但這些公司內部也存在很大的分歧，不是嗎？我的意思是，眾所周知，谷歌沒有參與 Project Maven，因為它的員工反對。 Palantir，你自己，我的意思是，你的聯合創始人彼得泰爾在唐納德特朗普擔任總統時是他的忠實粉絲。你自己...

Yes, and I called him an a** in public, my God, yes.

是的，我在公共場合稱他為**，我的上帝，是的。

I think you said I respect nothing about the dude.

我想你說過我不尊重這個傢伙。

Yes. Then I was vulgar, but yes.

是的。然後我很粗俗，但是是的。

But -- so how -- you talked about companies as though they are a single entity, but in fact, they...

但是——那麼如何——你談到公司時就好像它們是一個單一的實體，但實際上，它們……

But you're doing something which is very fair. You're imposing your -- our political beliefs on the decision-making, and that is a case. But at Palantir, we have a line. And we tell everybody, if you do not feel comfortable supporting the legitimate efforts of America and its allies in the context of work, don't join Palantir.

但你正在做一些非常公平的事情。你把你的——我們的政治信仰強加給決策，這就是一個例子。但在 Palantir，我們有一條線。我們告訴大家，如果您不願意在工作中支持美國及其盟友的合法努力，請不要加入 Palantir。

And so that, by the way, we are discussing recruiting. There are a lot of people who don't want to join Palantir because of that. I respect them. But then this is the wrong company for you. And we have -- we also won't work -- we've never worked in China. We've never sent our products to Russia. There are people who are like, "Are you working, sending your products to Russia?" No.

順便說一句，我們正在討論招聘問題。因此，有很多人不想加入 Palantir。我尊重他們。但這對你來說是錯誤的公司。我們有——我們也不會工作——我們從未在中國工作過。我們從未將我們的產品發送到俄羅斯。有些人會說，“你在工作，把你的產品送到俄羅斯嗎？”不。

Well -- so it's just a different beast. And we do have huge political divisions around other issues inside Palantir. We are a free discourse kind of place. Lots of people -- most people at Palantir disagree with me on most issues. But -- and that's completely fine. You just -- but if you want to be a Palantir, you -- and you should know.

嗯 - 所以它只是一個不同的野獸。我們在 Palantir 內部圍繞其他問題確實存在巨大的政治分歧。我們是一個自由討論的地方。很多人——Palantir 的大多數人在大多數問題上都不同意我的看法。但是——這完全沒問題。你只是 - 但如果你想成為 Palantir，你 - 你應該知道。

By the way, you don't have to work on the military or defense. Our U.S. commercial is the fastest-growing part of Palantir. It's growing like a weed or an oak. However -- but it's -- but you can -- but you can't then come and say, "I didn't know." And I do this, by the way, for example, a German speaker, I tell -- yes, I respect the post-war German passivism, and then I've told this to right-wing people. We had people joining Palantir like, "I just want to kill terrorists." Well, go somewhere else.

順便說一句，您不必從事軍事或國防工作。我們的美國商業廣告是 Palantir 增長最快的部分。它像野草或橡樹一樣生長。然而——但是它是——但你可以——但你不能然後說，“我不知道。”我這樣做，順便說一下，我告訴一個說德語的人——是的，我尊重戰後德國的被動主義，然後我把這個告訴了右翼人士。我們有人加入 Palantir，就像“我只想殺死恐怖分子”。好吧，去別的地方吧。

It's like -- that's not -- I really do believe in this dialectic and the people we recruit and retain internalize that so that you are both protecting data and finding terrorists. But if you're not okay with either as a matter of ideology, you just have the wrong company, and there are lots of other companies.

就像——那不是——我真的相信這種辯證法，我們招募和留住的人將這一點內化，這樣你既可以保護數據，也可以找到恐怖分子。但如果你在意識形態上對任何一個都不滿意，那你就選錯了公司，還有很多其他公司。

You're talking about the software. Is it desirable or even possible to regulate lethal autonomous weapon systems?

你說的是軟件。監管致命的自主武器系統是否可取甚至可能？

These things should be regulated. And you have 2 parts, the regulation and the enforcement of the regulation. Both are going to be tough, and that's why there's got to be an immediate and concerted effort to look at how that works, and that should be very much part of the funding.

這些事情應該受到監管。你有 2 個部分，法規和法規的執行。兩者都會很艱難，這就是為什麼必須立即齊心協力研究其運作方式的原因，這應該是資金的很大一部分。

Like one of the things that worked very, very well in Europe, we always have to sign these contracts, we can't talk up in Europe about who uses our product, which is slightly annoying because we're constantly getting yelled at by people who are protected in our products. But one of the things I really respect about European countries is you had to show that the product could protect data before you could get paid.

就像在歐洲非常非常有效的事情之一，我們總是必須簽署這些合同，我們不能在歐洲談論誰使用我們的產品，這有點煩人，因為我們經常被人們大吼大叫誰在我們的產品中受到保護。但我真正尊重歐洲國家的一件事是，你必須證明該產品可以保護數據，然後你才能得到報酬。

And this exactly is what should happen in autonomous, semi-autonomous governance targeting perspective. You should have to show the product to work in these counterterrorism context. Show your product in the counterterrorism product -- context in Europe. You have to show the product works.

而這正是自治、半自治治理目標視角下應該發生的事情。你應該展示產品在這些反恐背景下的工作。在反恐產品中展示您的產品——歐洲背景。你必須展示產品作品。

And what does it mean that it works? That you can actually find sophisticated actors that are hidden while protecting data. Otherwise, you cannot get the contract. It's not a PowerPoint, you have to show it working. We had one unnamed country where we powered internal, external employees in Europe. And by the time the tender was done, no one else competed because they didn't want to show the product working. But this is exactly what has to happen in this context.

它有效是什麼意思？您實際上可以找到在保護數據的同時隱藏的複雜參與者。否則，您無法獲得合同。它不是 PowerPoint，您必須展示它的工作原理。我們有一個未命名的國家/地區，在那裡我們為歐洲的內部和外部員工提供支持。到招標完成時，沒有其他人參與競爭，因為他們不想展示產品的有效性。但這正是在這種情況下必鬚髮生的事情。

Okay. Questions? Please, can you keep your questions pithy and don't read out your own doctoral thesis. Who has a question?

好的。問題？拜託，你能不能把你的問題簡明扼要，不要讀出你自己的博士論文。誰有問題？

We have a bearded guy here at the front.

我們前面有一個留鬍子的人。

My name is (inaudible) from the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs. How do you see the AI competition between the U.S. and China play out in the next 5 years?

我是荷蘭外交部的（聽不清）。您如何看待未來 5 年中美之間的人工智能競爭？

There's different parts of the AI competition. People usually focus on AI in general terms and are putting 2 categories together, internal and external defense. I don't think we are going to win, nor do I want to win on internal surveillance. China owns that. And I really hope we don't try to do anything similar to that.

人工智能競賽有不同的部分。人們通常會籠統地關注人工智能，並將兩個類別放在一起，即內部防禦和外部防禦。我不認為我們會贏，我也不想在內部監視上獲勝。中國擁有它。我真的希望我們不要嘗試做類似的事情。

You have actually -- the closest thing you have to that is your device. We don't need more of that. We don't need to put that in the government monopoly of power. And so I assume that none of us want to go down that path, and I'm certainly not involved. I think that's the wrong path. Then you have targeting and other areas that involve finding targets, all the things we've just discussed, I think it's proven that we have an advantage.

你實際上 - 你擁有的最接近的東西就是你的設備。我們不需要更多。我們不需要把它放在政府的權力壟斷中。所以我假設我們都不想走那條路，我當然不會參與其中。我認為那是錯誤的道路。然後你有目標和其他涉及尋找目標的領域，我們剛剛討論的所有事情，我認為這證明我們有優勢。

But then our central disadvantage is what are we going to do with our advantage? Because right now, everyone knows we have an advantage. And we are just still operating in a world where most of our efforts are focused on hardware. I'm not against hardware development, and we should have more hardware development and some very large portion of budgets should go to hardware.

但是我們的主要劣勢是我們將如何利用我們的優勢呢？因為現在，每個人都知道我們有優勢。我們仍然在一個我們大部分努力都集中在硬件上的世界中運作。我不反對硬件開發，我們應該有更多的硬件開發，而且很大一部分預算應該用於硬件。

But -- what needs to happen in the West now is focus, like why aren't 10% of budgets on the things we're actually better on that are winning on the battlefield? That is -- we are so far away from that. I would say at maximally 1%, I would be more realistic. If you said software products that are useful in the battlefield, useful as defined by our adversary, not by a PowerPoint written by a consulting company, but what does China and Russia -- what makes them -- what gives them trepidation? It's like 1% of global defense budgets in the West or less.

但是——西方現在需要關注的是，為什麼不將 10% 的預算花在我們實際上做得更好的事情上，這些事情正在戰場上取勝？那就是——我們離那個還很遠。我會說最多 1%，我會更現實。如果你說在戰場上有用的軟件產品，按照我們的對手的定義有用，而不是由諮詢公司編寫的 PowerPoint 定義的，那麼中國和俄羅斯是什麼——是什麼造就了他們——是什麼讓他們感到恐懼？這相當於西方全球國防預算的 1% 或更少。

And if you defined it as something they're afraid of and has been used, actually used, not your cousin's, nephew's, local product that -- it's under 1/10 of 1%. That has to change yesterday. And then people like in this room have to stay involved. We have a lot of customers and very different kinds of industries.

如果你將它定義為他們害怕並且已經使用過，實際使用過的東西，而不是你堂兄、侄子的本地產品——它低於 1% 的 1/10。這在昨天必須改變。然後像在這個房間裡的人必須繼續參與。我們有很多客戶和非常不同的行業。

Leaders have to sit on this. This is not the thing you can afford to outsource to the deputy you don't really like, which is like one of the reasons we do so well in tech in America in the West Coast is we make tech a business problem. Too many institutions make it the problem of the unlikable person I'm not going to talk to. If that's going to be your approach to this, your country is going to have a huge problem.

領導者必須坐視這一點。這不是你可以負擔得起的外包給你不喜歡的代理人的事情，這就像我們在美國西海岸的技術領域做得很好的原因之一是我們讓技術成為一個商業問題。太多的機構使它成為我不想與之交談的不討人喜歡的人的問題。如果這將是你的方法，你的國家將有一個巨大的問題。

Learn -- it's like -- that's not what the Ukrainians do. It's like this has to be a central and personal focus of the most senior people, all the way down to the bottom, backed by some -- it doesn't have to be a huge part of your budget, but it can't be 1%. It's got to be like 5%, 6% because there's got to be some room for failure. And it's like if it's 1/10 of 1%, you can only actually -- it's not going to work. And there has to be some ruthlessness.

學習——就像——這不是烏克蘭人所做的。這就像這必須成為最高層人員的中心和個人關注點，一直到底部，並得到一些人的支持——它不一定是你預算的很大一部分，但它不能1%。它必須是 5%、6%，因為必須有一些失敗的空間。這就像如果它是 1% 的 1/10，你實際上只能——它不會起作用。而且必須有一些無情。

Look, I'm very pro sovereignty. Our product is built to support your sovereignty, that's why we have deployments all over Europe. People are waiting on top and the bottom -- below our product. I believe sovereignty is a crucial issue for every country in this room, especially the large countries in Europe, and I support that.

看，我非常支持主權。我們的產品旨在支持您的主權，這就是我們在整個歐洲進行部署的原因。人們在頂部和底部等待——在我們的產品下面。我認為主權對於在座的每個國家來說都是至關重要的問題，尤其是歐洲大國，我支持這一點。

But like there also has to be a realistic assessment of what can I get now and what can I get tomorrow. And by the way, companies like mine are very happy to teach you how to build this stuff, but you've got to actually buy stuff that's off the shelf as well that exists now.

但也必須對我現在能得到什麼以及明天能得到什麼進行現實的評估。順便說一句，像我這樣的公司很樂意教你如何構建這些東西，但你必須實際購買現成的東西以及現在存在的東西。

Right. I can't see any other questions. So actually, there's 1 right here in the front.

正確的。我看不到任何其他問題。所以實際上，前面有 1 個。

My name is [Hans Kors]. I have a question on the sovereignty part where you talked about and about this technology. It looks that this technology, the company who is in front and has the real experience has a major advantage for everybody who has to -- wants to follow. And in Europe, we talk about strategic sovereignty, and we see that all the technology of this kind is coming from America. What should we do?

我的名字是 [Hans Kors]。我有一個關於你談到和關於這項技術的主權部分的問題。看起來這項技術，走在前面並擁有真實經驗的公司對每個想要跟隨的人都有很大的優勢。在歐洲，我們談論戰略主權，我們看到所有此類技術都來自美國。我們應該做什麼？

This is a very important and good question. First of all, it gets serious. Up until now, the efforts in Europe have been like -- obviously, now I mentioned names, but I met someone I very, very much respect from one of the largest company -- countries years ago, and he was like, "Okay. Yes, it comes from America. Most of us have deep roots in Europe. Have you ever talked to any of the people there?"

這是一個非常重要且很好的問題。首先，它變得很嚴重。到目前為止，在歐洲所做的努力就像——很明顯，現在我提到了名字，但我在幾年前遇到了一個我非常非常尊重的人，來自最大的公司之一——國家，他說，“好吧。是的，它來自美國。我們大多數人在歐洲都有很深的根基。你有沒有和那裡的任何人交談過？”

Why is it so hard to come here and work? Why is it that like discourse here between people who are -- like I'm pretty Europe affiliate. I left most of my life, adult life in Europe. I wrote my PhD in German. I'm very pro-friendship in my own way. I'll leave it at that.

為什麼來這里工作這麼難？為什麼這就像人們之間的對話一樣——就像我是漂亮的歐洲會員一樣。我離開了我生命中的大部分時間，在歐洲度過了成年生活。我用德語寫了我的博士學位。我以自己的方式非常支持友誼。我會留在那裡。

It's like in America, if I want a meeting with somebody, they, by and large, want to meet -- I mean, I'm not saying everybody, and I'm offensive to some people, but like -- it's like pushing a closed door here. And like also, if you want people, entrepreneurs to come here, there has to be a special program.

就像在美國，如果我想和某人會面，他們基本上都想見——我的意思是，我不是說每個人，我對某些人來說是冒犯的，但就像——這就像推動這裡一扇緊閉的門。而且，如果你想讓人們、企業家來到這裡，就必須有一個特殊的項目。

In Singapore, I can get off a plane, and I have permanent residency. You got to have something like that in Europe. Like there has to be a serious effort to partner with people, like my company and others, where we have a cultural affiliation, where we believe in the European values, but we have different skills with local things. And we have, on our -- for our part, have to build platforms that you can build on top of, be willing to show people how to do it.

在新加坡，我可以下飛機，而且我有永久居留權。你必須在歐洲擁有類似的東西。就像必須認真努力與人合作，比如我的公司和其他人，我們有文化聯繫，我們相信歐洲價值觀，但我們在當地事物方面有不同的技能。就我們而言，我們必須構建可以在其上構建的平台，並願意向人們展示如何去做。

And like this is much more like a learned art. And like that learned art exists in mostly on the West Coast. And by the way, it's not all of America, it's like certain parts, but there's like a performative seriousness. Now I realize it's hard in Europe because one of the things I admire about Europe is that it's radically egalitarian.

這樣更像是一門博學的藝術。就像那種博學的藝術主要存在於西海岸。順便說一句，這不是整個美國，就像某些部分一樣，但有一種表演的嚴肅性。現在我意識到在歐洲很難，因為我欽佩歐洲的一件事是它非常平等。

Tech is not radically egalitarian. That's just a fact. And that's a very hard thing for Europe to digest. I like that about Europe. I view myself as a classic European progressive, meaning, I still get to say what I think. I still have a personal life, and I want poor people to have health care and teeth. Probably would be -- so that like makes me like far left in America, and I think probably right wing in Holland.

技術並不是完全平等的。那隻是一個事實。這對歐洲來說是一件很難消化的事情。我喜歡歐洲。我認為自己是典型的歐洲進步主義者，也就是說，我仍然可以說出我的想法。我還有個人生活，我希望窮人有醫療保健和牙齒。可能會——所以這讓我喜歡美國的極左翼，我想可能是荷蘭的右翼。

But it's very hard culturally because this is not an egalitarian practice. But if you want your industries to be able to compete effectively for tomorrow and provide all the egalitarian benefits that I think most people in Europe cherish and that have been a light to the world. You got to get serious about this. And serious means like what is it, who does this, who can we learn from? How can we -- who's in our local culture, very good at this?

但這在文化上非常困難，因為這不是一種平等主義的做法。但是，如果你希望你的行業能夠為明天有效競爭，並提供我認為大多數歐洲人所珍視的所有平等利益，這對世界來說是一盞明燈。你必須認真對待這件事。嚴肅意味著它是什麼，這是誰做的，我們可以向誰學習？我們怎麼能——在我們當地的文化中，誰非常擅長這個？

I think France has done some really significant efforts on this. You see efforts that are successful in Sweden. There are little offshoots. But it's -- you often have the impression when you talk to political leaders here. Yes, but I could never say that -- I could never do that in public because it would look unfair.

我認為法國在這方面做了一些非常重要的努力。你會看到在瑞典取得成功的努力。有小分支。但它是——當你在這裡與政治領導人交談時，你經常會有這樣的印象。是的，但我永遠不能那樣說——我永遠不能在公共場合那樣做，因為這看起來不公平。

Tech is unfair. But if you want a fair society, you're going to need some modicum of a better software culture, and Europe is so far behind. And like everyone knows us in private, but we have to somehow do better in public because like the whole European experiment, which is economic progressivism, is crucial. And something, by the way, that I very much personally support, but it will be completely called into question if everyone with a high-value revenue is sitting in America.

技術是不公平的。但如果你想要一個公平的社會，你將需要一些更好的軟件文化，而歐洲遠遠落後。就像每個人私下都認識我們一樣，但我們必須以某種方式在公共場合做得更好，因為就像整個歐洲實驗一樣，經濟進步主義是至關重要的。順便說一句，我個人非常支持，但如果每個擁有高價值收入的人都坐在美國，這將完全受到質疑。

And it's not good, by the way, for our Western alliance. Like having an alliance where America is providing all the high-value revenue, and Europe is providing the dollars, that's not an alliance that's going to be as strong as what I think we will need to do well against our adversaries.

順便說一句，這對我們的西方聯盟不利。就像建立一個美國提供所有高價值收入而歐洲提供美元的聯盟一樣，這種聯盟不會像我認為我們需要做的那樣強大來對抗我們的對手。

Get serious, Europe. I think we have to finish it there. But thank you very much, Dr. Karp, for a great talk.

嚴肅點，歐洲。我認為我們必須在那裡完成它。但非常感謝卡普博士的精彩演講。

Thank you.

謝謝。