即刻App年轻人的同好社区
下载
纳瓦尔2.19的播客，这一段关于intelligence的定义和意义的探讨，说得太好了，我觉得要看原文，我把原文分享过来：
What is the definition of intelligence? There’s the G factor, which predicts a lot of human outcomes, but the best evidence for the G factor is its predictive power. It’s that you measure this one thing and then you see people get much better life outcomes along the way in things that seem even somewhat unrelated to G.
So I would argue, and I think it’s one of my more popular tweets: the only true test of intelligence is if you get what you want out of life.
This triggers a lot of people because they go to school, they get their master’s degrees, they think they’re super smart. And then they don’t have great lives. They aren’t super happy, or they have relationship problems, or they don’t make the money that they want, or they become unhealthy and this sort of triggers them.
But that really is the purpose of intelligence: for you as a biological creature to get what you want out of life.
Whether it’s a good relationship or a mate, or money or success or wealth or health or whatever it is. So there are people who I think are quite intelligent because you can tell they have high-quality, functioning lives and minds and bodies, and they’ve just managed to navigate themselves into that situation.
It doesn’t matter what your starting point is, because the world is so large now, and you can navigate it in so many different ways that every little choice you make compounds and demonstrates your ability to understand how the world works until you finally get to the place that you want.
Now the interesting thing about this definition—that the only true test of intelligence is if you get what you want out of life—is that an AI fails it instantly, because an AI doesn’t want anything out of life.
The AI doesn’t even have a life—let alone that—but it doesn’t want anything. AI’s desires are programmed by the human controlling it.
But let’s give it that for a second. Let’s say the human wants something and programs the AI to go get it; then the AI is acting as a proxy for the human and the intelligence of the AI can be measured as: did it get that person that thing?
Most of the things that we want in life are adversarial or zero-sum games.
So, for example, if you want to seduce a girl or get a husband, you’re competing with all the other people who are out there seducing girls or trying to get husbands. So now you’re in a competitive situation. The AI has to outmaneuver the other people.
Or if you say, “Hey, AI, go trade on the stock market for me and make me a bunch of money.” That AI is trading against other humans and other trading bots. It’s an adversarial situation. It has to outmaneuver them.
Or if you say, “Hey, AI, make me famous. Write me incredible tweets. Write me great blog posts. Record me great podcasts in my own voice and make me famous,” now it’s competing against all the other AIs.
So in that sense, intelligence is measured in a battlefield—in an arena. It’s a relative construct. I think the AIs are actually going to fail mostly in those regards, or to the extent that they even succeed, because they’re freely available, they will get outcompeted away, and the alpha that will remain would be entirely human.
What is the definition of intelligence? There’s the G factor, which predicts a lot of human outcomes, but the best evidence for the G factor is its predictive power. It’s that you measure this one thing and then you see people get much better life outcomes along the way in things that seem even somewhat unrelated to G.
So I would argue, and I think it’s one of my more popular tweets: the only true test of intelligence is if you get what you want out of life.
This triggers a lot of people because they go to school, they get their master’s degrees, they think they’re super smart. And then they don’t have great lives. They aren’t super happy, or they have relationship problems, or they don’t make the money that they want, or they become unhealthy and this sort of triggers them.
But that really is the purpose of intelligence: for you as a biological creature to get what you want out of life.
Whether it’s a good relationship or a mate, or money or success or wealth or health or whatever it is. So there are people who I think are quite intelligent because you can tell they have high-quality, functioning lives and minds and bodies, and they’ve just managed to navigate themselves into that situation.
It doesn’t matter what your starting point is, because the world is so large now, and you can navigate it in so many different ways that every little choice you make compounds and demonstrates your ability to understand how the world works until you finally get to the place that you want.
Now the interesting thing about this definition—that the only true test of intelligence is if you get what you want out of life—is that an AI fails it instantly, because an AI doesn’t want anything out of life.
The AI doesn’t even have a life—let alone that—but it doesn’t want anything. AI’s desires are programmed by the human controlling it.
But let’s give it that for a second. Let’s say the human wants something and programs the AI to go get it; then the AI is acting as a proxy for the human and the intelligence of the AI can be measured as: did it get that person that thing?
Most of the things that we want in life are adversarial or zero-sum games.
So, for example, if you want to seduce a girl or get a husband, you’re competing with all the other people who are out there seducing girls or trying to get husbands. So now you’re in a competitive situation. The AI has to outmaneuver the other people.
Or if you say, “Hey, AI, go trade on the stock market for me and make me a bunch of money.” That AI is trading against other humans and other trading bots. It’s an adversarial situation. It has to outmaneuver them.
Or if you say, “Hey, AI, make me famous. Write me incredible tweets. Write me great blog posts. Record me great podcasts in my own voice and make me famous,” now it’s competing against all the other AIs.
So in that sense, intelligence is measured in a battlefield—in an arena. It’s a relative construct. I think the AIs are actually going to fail mostly in those regards, or to the extent that they even succeed, because they’re freely available, they will get outcompeted away, and the alpha that will remain would be entirely human.
3 01
其实艺术史上的各种“主义”，本质上都是新一代人对旧审美的反叛。
比如我们今天日常生活中习惯的现代主义极简风审美，其实就是工业革命后对19世纪那些过度装饰风格的反叛。以前贵族们觉得越复杂越高级，一个花纹可能就得磨半年，但工厂生产效率极大提升之后，手工业炫技的稀缺感就没了。于是强调功能、逻辑和效率的工业美学就成了主流，一直影响到今天。
我觉得ai已经在重塑今天的审美了，但目前还只停留在工具层面。我想只有更多严肃创作者真正介入，开始系统性地实验和反思时，属于这个时代的新审美主义才会真的出现吧。
比如我们今天日常生活中习惯的现代主义极简风审美，其实就是工业革命后对19世纪那些过度装饰风格的反叛。以前贵族们觉得越复杂越高级，一个花纹可能就得磨半年，但工厂生产效率极大提升之后，手工业炫技的稀缺感就没了。于是强调功能、逻辑和效率的工业美学就成了主流，一直影响到今天。
我觉得ai已经在重塑今天的审美了，但目前还只停留在工具层面。我想只有更多严肃创作者真正介入，开始系统性地实验和反思时，属于这个时代的新审美主义才会真的出现吧。
allenwang: 在车上问四岁的孩子，这张广告图里的动物有没有问题？她说，没有。 也许 AIGC 的审美，真的会慢慢成为下一代 AI Native 的世界。这究竟是进化，还是某种退化？会不会有一天，我们不再谈“工匠精神”，也不再谈所谓的审美与品味，我是真的母鸡了🫠
2 01
我最关注🦞openclaw + google deepthink
我觉得🦞openclaw + google deepthink很适合Al + 3D打印线下教学场景，尤其是帮家长看孩子以及缓解家长tech fomo情绪的小孩教育。
前者解决了manus等agent不能连接电脑外接设备（也就是3D打印机）的问题，又极大降低软件操作门槛至通讯软件如飞书，后者则补齐了参数化建模能力。
工程上肯定有很多问题要解决，比如自动生成
gcode取消切片软件环节的实际效果（如支撑方案）是否ok，比如调用ai生成3d模型厂商api获得的3d模型文件与参数化模型之间的布尔运算实现（尤其是模型尺寸以及模型间相对位置的精确性）是否顺利。但理论上路通了。
这是在blender mcp让我兴奋又失望后，我觉得2026年最值得关注的一条路。
启发颇多，虽然我们PrintVerse不做小孩教育，但这条思路实在让人手痒肯定要自己先玩起来，也期待行业实践遍地开花💐💐💐
我觉得🦞openclaw + google deepthink很适合Al + 3D打印线下教学场景，尤其是帮家长看孩子以及缓解家长tech fomo情绪的小孩教育。
前者解决了manus等agent不能连接电脑外接设备（也就是3D打印机）的问题，又极大降低软件操作门槛至通讯软件如飞书，后者则补齐了参数化建模能力。
工程上肯定有很多问题要解决，比如自动生成
gcode取消切片软件环节的实际效果（如支撑方案）是否ok，比如调用ai生成3d模型厂商api获得的3d模型文件与参数化模型之间的布尔运算实现（尤其是模型尺寸以及模型间相对位置的精确性）是否顺利。但理论上路通了。
这是在blender mcp让我兴奋又失望后，我觉得2026年最值得关注的一条路。
启发颇多，虽然我们PrintVerse不做小孩教育，但这条思路实在让人手痒肯定要自己先玩起来，也期待行业实践遍地开花💐💐💐
12 31
分享最近gemini给我推荐的4本书，都读进去了，都有收获，我简短写一下推荐理由：
1. The power of ritual：宗教的现代存在形式，宗教视角看社群运营，ritual仪式感的三要素，如何从四方面照顾自己的spiritual needs
2. The paradox of choice：maximizer vs satisfier, good enough策略
3. Subscribed：subscription economy这一术语的发明者讲subscription，从行业案例讲到财务模型
4. Swipe to unlock：3位young professionals写给非技术背景的科技行业从业者的读物，从大量商业案例出发理解技术是如何运作的，解析技术背后的商业策略
1. The power of ritual：宗教的现代存在形式，宗教视角看社群运营，ritual仪式感的三要素，如何从四方面照顾自己的spiritual needs
2. The paradox of choice：maximizer vs satisfier, good enough策略
3. Subscribed：subscription economy这一术语的发明者讲subscription，从行业案例讲到财务模型
4. Swipe to unlock：3位young professionals写给非技术背景的科技行业从业者的读物，从大量商业案例出发理解技术是如何运作的，解析技术背后的商业策略
9 21
回顾PrintVerse的2025年，写给自己的记录：
不知不觉，做PrintVerse已经9个月了。回看这一年，我和老杨@熊猫ai甘蔗 从年初并行探索不同的AI应用方向，逐步聚焦到AI+3D打印这条路上，并在早期尝试中拿到了一些明确、可复盘的数据验证。节奏不算快，但每一步都更扎实、方向也更清晰。
从3月开始，我们很快完成了需求层面的验证，也真正进入了产品、工程和交付的现实世界。3月为了参加小红书独立开发大赛，我们赶工一周紧急上线了PrintVerse第一版，同时也从深圳搬家到杭州。4月在良渚demoday第一次分享PrintVerse，收获了第一位付费用户，也第一次在社媒上看到用户自发宣传的内容。5月完成了第一笔企业定制订单。6月受邀到浙大讲座，第一次在上百人同时注册的场景里，完成了系统扩容和稳定性验证。
下一阶段，PrintVerse迎来了第一次明显的增长加速。7月老杨推掉全部顾问工作，全职投入研发。8月第一次跑通从热点营销到转化的路径，做出了第一条零投放的10w+内容，工程侧也第一次完整接住流量的爆发式增长，用户数随后突破 1w。
在增长之后，我们选择继续探索边界，而不是急于定型。9月我受邀第一次做了90分钟的直播授课，10月第一次推出PrintVerse自研的3D打印产品，11月第一次开启与外部品牌的联名合作，12月第一次把3D资产上架到电商平台，开始尝试更完整、也更符合我们自身节奏的业务链路。
这一年里有不少尝试，也走过不少弯路，但方向越来越清楚。
2026，我们还有很多想做的事情，也会继续稳扎稳打地前行。
不知不觉，做PrintVerse已经9个月了。回看这一年，我和老杨@熊猫ai甘蔗 从年初并行探索不同的AI应用方向，逐步聚焦到AI+3D打印这条路上，并在早期尝试中拿到了一些明确、可复盘的数据验证。节奏不算快，但每一步都更扎实、方向也更清晰。
从3月开始，我们很快完成了需求层面的验证，也真正进入了产品、工程和交付的现实世界。3月为了参加小红书独立开发大赛，我们赶工一周紧急上线了PrintVerse第一版，同时也从深圳搬家到杭州。4月在良渚demoday第一次分享PrintVerse，收获了第一位付费用户，也第一次在社媒上看到用户自发宣传的内容。5月完成了第一笔企业定制订单。6月受邀到浙大讲座，第一次在上百人同时注册的场景里，完成了系统扩容和稳定性验证。
下一阶段，PrintVerse迎来了第一次明显的增长加速。7月老杨推掉全部顾问工作，全职投入研发。8月第一次跑通从热点营销到转化的路径，做出了第一条零投放的10w+内容，工程侧也第一次完整接住流量的爆发式增长，用户数随后突破 1w。
在增长之后，我们选择继续探索边界，而不是急于定型。9月我受邀第一次做了90分钟的直播授课，10月第一次推出PrintVerse自研的3D打印产品，11月第一次开启与外部品牌的联名合作，12月第一次把3D资产上架到电商平台，开始尝试更完整、也更符合我们自身节奏的业务链路。
这一年里有不少尝试，也走过不少弯路，但方向越来越清楚。
2026，我们还有很多想做的事情，也会继续稳扎稳打地前行。
24 75