At Sequoia, we see that speed is the best predictor of start-up success. Most companies are focused on AI as a productivity enhancer. Few are focused on the potential of AI to change how we work together. Block is showing what it looks like to fundamentally rethink organization design, ultimately harnessing AI to increase speed as a compounding competitive advantage.在红杉资本，我们发现速度是创业成功的最佳预测指标。大多数公司将人工智能视为提高生产力的工具。很少有公司关注人工智能改变我们协作方式的潜力。Block 正在展示从根本上重新思考组织设计会是什么样子，最终利用人工智能提高速度，将其作为一种复合竞争优势。
Two thousand years before the first corporate org chart, the Roman Army solved a problem that every large organization still faces: how do you coordinate thousands of people across vast distances with limited communication?在第一张公司组织结构图出现的两千年前，罗马军队就解决了一个至今每个大型组织仍面临的问题：如何在通讯有限的情况下，协调分布在广袤地域的数千人？
Their answer was a nested hierarchy with a consistent span of control at every level. The smallest unit was the contubernium, eight soldiers who shared a tent, equipment, and a mule, led by a decanus. Ten contubernia formed a century of eighty men under a centurion. Six centuries made a cohort. Ten cohorts made a legion of roughly 5,000. At each layer, a named commander held defined authority, aggregated information from below, and relayed decisions from above. The structure (8 → 80 → 480 → 5,000) was an information routing protocol built around a simple human limitation: a leader can effectively manage somewhere between three and eight people. The Romans discovered this through centuries of warfare. Even today, the US Army’s hierarchical chain follows a similar pattern. We now call it “span of control,” and it remains the governing constraint of every large organization on earth.他们的答案是一种嵌套式层级结构，各级都有一致的控制范围。最小的单位是帐篷小队，由八名士兵组成，共用一顶帐篷、装备和一头骡子，由一名什长率领。十个帐篷小队组成一个八十人的百人队，由一名百夫长指挥。六个百人队构成一个大队。十个大队组成一个约 5000 人的军团。在每一层级，有指定的指挥官拥有明确的权力，汇总来自下级的信息，并传达上级的决策。这种结构（8→80→480→5000）是一种围绕人类一个简单局限构建的信息传递协议：一位领导者能够有效管理的人数在三到八人之间。罗马人历经数百年战争发现了这一点。即便在今天，美国陆军的层级链也遵循类似模式。我们现在称之为“控制范围”，它依然是地球上每个大型组织的管理性限制因素。
The next big change came from Prussia. After Napoleon’s army destroyed the Prussian forces at the Battle of Jena in 1806, a group of reformers led by Scharnhorst and Gneisenau rebuilt the military around an uncomfortable truth: you cannot depend on individual genius at the top. You need a system. They created the General Staff, a dedicated class of trained officers whose job was not to fight but to plan operations, process information, and coordinate across units. Scharnhorst intended these staff officers to “support incompetent Generals, providing the talents that might otherwise be wanting among leaders and commanders.” This was middle management before the term existed. Professionals whose purpose was to route information, pre-compute decisions, and maintain alignment across a complex organization. The military also formalized the distinction between “line” and “staff” functions. Line advances the core mission. Staff provides specialized support. Every corporation still uses this vocabulary today.下一个重大变革来自普鲁士。1806 年，拿破仑的军队在耶拿战役中击溃普鲁士军队后，一群以沙恩霍斯特和格奈森瑙为首的改革者围绕一个令人不安的事实重建了军队：你不能依赖高层的个人天赋。你需要一个体系。他们创建了总参谋部，这是一个由训练有素的军官组成的专门阶层，其职责不是作战，而是制定作战计划、处理信息以及在各部队之间进行协调。沙恩霍斯特希望这些参谋军官“辅佐无能的将军，提供那些领导层和指挥官可能欠缺的才能”。这就是“中层管理”这个词出现之前的中层管理。这些专业人员的职责是传递信息、预先计算决策，并在一个复杂组织中保持协调一致。军队还正式区分了“一线”和“参谋”职能。一线推进核心任务。参谋提供专业支持。如今，每家公司仍在使用这些术语。
Military hierarchy entered the business world through the American railroads in the 1840s and 1850s. The U.S. Army lent West Point-trained engineers to private railroad companies, and these officers brought military organizational thinking with them. Staff and line hierarchies, divisional structure, bureaucratic systems of reporting and control: all of it was developed in the military before the railroads adopted it. In the mid-1850s, Daniel McCallum of the New York and Erie Railroad created the world’s first organizational chart to manage a system stretching over 500 miles with thousands of workers. The informal management styles that worked for smaller railroads were failing. Train collisions were killing people. McCallum’s chart formalized the same hierarchical logic the Romans had used: layers of authority, defined reporting lines, structured information flow. It became the blueprint for the modern corporation.19 世纪 40 年代和 50 年代，军事层级制度通过美国铁路进入商业世界。美国陆军向私人铁路公司借调了西点军校培养的工程师，这些军官带来了军事组织思维。参谋和直线层级、部门结构、官僚式的报告和控制系统：所有这些都是在铁路采用之前在军队中发展起来的。19 世纪 50 年代中期，纽约和伊利铁路公司的丹尼尔·麦卡勒姆创建了世界上第一张组织结构图，以管理一个长达 500 多英里、有数千名工人的系统。适用于小型铁路公司的非正式管理方式正在失效。火车相撞事故导致人员死亡。麦卡勒姆的组织结构图将罗马人使用的层级逻辑正式化：权力层级、明确的报告线路、结构化的信息流。它成为了现代公司的蓝图。
Frederick Taylor (1856-1915), often called the “Father of Scientific Management,” optimized what happened within that hierarchy. Taylor broke work into specialized tasks, assigned them to trained experts, and managed through measurement rather than intuition. This produced the functional pyramid organization - a structure optimized for efficiency within the information routing system that the military had pioneered and the railroads had commercialized.弗雷德里克·泰勒（1856 - 1915），常被称为“科学管理之父”，他优化了等级制度中的工作流程。泰勒将工作分解为专门的任务，分配给训练有素的专家，并通过测量而非直觉进行管理。这就产生了职能金字塔组织——一种在军事开创、铁路商业化的信息传递系统内，为提高效率而优化的结构。
The first real stress test of functional hierarchy came during World War II. The Manhattan Project required physicists, chemists, engineers, metallurgists, and military officers to work across disciplinary boundaries toward a single objective under extreme secrecy and time pressure. Robert Oppenheimer organized Los Alamos into functional divisions but insisted on open collaboration across them, resisting the military’s instinct to compartmentalize. When the implosion problem became critical in 1944, he reorganized the lab around it, creating cross-functional teams unlike anything in corporate America at the time. It worked, but it was a wartime exception led by a singular figure. The question the postwar business world faced was whether that kind of cross-functional coordination could be made routine.功能层级的首次真正压力测试出现在第二次世界大战期间。曼哈顿计划要求物理学家、化学家、工程师、冶金学家和军官在极端保密和时间压力下跨学科界限朝着单一目标努力。罗伯特·奥本海默将洛斯阿拉莫斯组织成功能部门，但坚持各部门之间进行开放协作，抵制军方进行部门划分的本能做法。1944 年内爆问题变得至关重要时，他围绕该问题重组了实验室，创建了当时美国企业界前所未有的跨职能团队。这一做法奏效了，但这是由一个非凡人物引领的战时特例。战后商业世界面临的问题是，那种跨职能协调能否成为常态。
With the growth and globalization of companies after World War II, the scale limitations of functional design became acute. In 1959, McKinsey’s Gilbert Clee and Alfred di Scipio published “Creating a World Enterprise” in the Harvard Business Review, providing an intellectual framework for a matrix organization that combined functional specialties with divisional units. Under the leadership of Marvin Bower, McKinsey helped companies like Shell and GE implement these principles, balancing central standards with local agility. This became the “professional” or “modern” corporation that propelled the postwar global economy.二战后，随着公司的发展和全球化，职能设计的规模局限性变得日益突出。1959 年，麦肯锡的吉尔伯特·克利（Gilbert Clee）和阿尔弗雷德·迪·西皮奥（Alfred di Scipio）在《哈佛商业评论》上发表了《创建全球企业》，为将职能专长与部门单位相结合的矩阵组织提供了一个知识框架。在马文·鲍尔（Marvin Bower）的领导下，麦肯锡帮助壳牌和通用电气等公司实施这些原则，平衡中央标准与地方灵活性。这就形成了推动战后全球经济发展的“专业”或“现代”公司。
Over time, other frameworks emerged to address the complexity, rigidity, and bureaucracy of matrix structures. The McKinsey 7-S framework, developed in the late 1970s by Tom Peters and Robert Waterman, distinguished the “hard Ss” (Strategy, Structure, Systems) from the “soft Ss” (Shared Values, Skills, Staff, Style). The core idea was that structural elements alone were insufficient. Organizational effectiveness required alignment across cultural traits and the human factors that determine whether a strategy actually succeeds.随着时间的推移，其他框架应运而生，以应对矩阵结构的复杂性、僵化性和官僚作风。20 世纪 70 年代末由汤姆·彼得斯（Tom Peters）和罗伯特·沃特曼（Robert Waterman）开发的麦肯锡 7S 框架，将“硬 S”（战略、结构、系统）与 “软 S”（共同价值观、技能、人员、风格）区分开来。其核心观点是，仅靠结构要素是不够的。组织的有效性需要在文化特征和决定战略能否真正成功的人为因素之间保持一致。
In more recent decades, technology companies have experimented aggressively with organization structure. Spotify popularized cross-functional squads with short sprint cycles. Zappos attempted Holacracy, eliminating management titles entirely. Valve operated with a flat structure and no formal hierarchy. Each of these experiments revealed something about the limitations of traditional hierarchy, but none solved the underlying problem. Spotify moved back toward conventional management as it scaled. Zappos saw significant attrition. Valve’s model proved difficult to scale beyond a few hundred people. As organizations grow into the thousands, they revert to hierarchical coordination because no alternative information routing mechanism has been powerful enough to replace it.在最近几十年里，科技公司大力尝试了不同的组织结构。Spotify 推广了具有短冲刺周期的跨职能团队。Zappos 尝试了合弄制，完全取消了管理头衔。Valve 采用扁平结构且没有正式的层级制度。这些尝试都揭示了传统层级制度的一些局限性，但没有一个解决了根本问题。Spotify 在扩张过程中又回归到传统管理模式。Zappos 出现了大量人员流失。Valve 的模式在规模超过几百人后就很难再扩大。随着组织发展到数千人，它们又回到层级协调模式，因为没有其他信息传递机制强大到足以取代它。
The constraint is the same one the Romans faced and the Marine Corps rediscovered in World War II: narrowing span of control means adding layers of command, but more layers mean slower information flow. Two thousand years of organizational innovation has been an attempt to work around this tradeoff without breaking it.这种限制与罗马人面临的情况相同，也是美国海军陆战队在二战中重新发现的：控制范围变窄意味着增加指挥层级，但层级增多又意味着信息流变慢。两千年来的组织创新一直试图在不打破这种权衡的情况下找到解决办法。
So what’s different now?那么现在有什么不同呢？
At Block, we’re questioning the underlying assumption: that organizations have to be hierarchically organized with humans as the coordination mechanism. Instead, we intend to replace what the hierarchy does. Most companies using AI today are giving everyone a copilot, which makes the existing structure work slightly better without changing it. We’re after something different: a company built as an intelligence (or mini-AGI).在 Block，我们正在质疑一个潜在的假设：即组织必须以层级方式构建，并将人类作为协调机制。相反，我们打算取代层级结构的作用。如今，大多数使用人工智能的公司都给每个人配备了一个智能助手，这使得现有结构在不变的情况下能稍微更好地运转。我们追求的是不同的东西：一家构建为智能体（或小型通用人工智能）的公司。
We are not the first to try to move beyond traditional hierarchy. Haier’s rendanheyi model, platform organizations, “data-driven” management: these are real attempts at the same problem. What they lacked was a technology capable of actually performing the coordination functions that hierarchy exists to provide. AI is that technology. For the first time, a system can maintain a continuously updated model of an entire business and use it to coordinate work in ways that previously required humans relaying information through layers of management.我们并非首个试图超越传统层级制度的人。海尔的人单合一模式、平台型组织、“数据驱动”管理：这些都是针对同一问题的切实尝试。它们所缺少的是一种能够实际履行层级制度旨在提供的协调功能的技术。人工智能就是这种技术。有史以来第一次，一个系统能够维护一个不断更新的完整业务模型，并以此来协调工作，而这些工作以前需要人们通过多层管理来传递信息。
For this to work, a company needs two things: a kind of “world model” of its own operations, and a customer signal rich enough to make that model useful.要实现这一点，公司需要两件事：一个关于自身运营的“世界模型”，以及一个足够丰富的客户信号，以使该模型发挥作用。
Block is remote-first. Everything we do creates artifacts. Decisions, discussions, code, designs, plans, problems, and progress all exist as recorded actions. It’s the raw material for a company world model. In a traditional company, a manager’s job is to know what’s happening across their team and relay that context up and down the chain. In a remote-first company where work is already machine-readable, AI can build and maintain that picture continuously. What’s being built, what’s blocked, where resources are allocated, what’s working and what isn’t. That’s the information the hierarchy used to carry. The company world model carries it instead.Block 是远程优先的。我们所做的一切都会产生工件。决策、讨论、代码、设计、计划、问题和进展都作为记录的行动而存在。这是公司世界模型的原材料。在传统公司中，经理的工作是了解其团队中正在发生的事情，并在整个链条中上下传递这些背景信息。在一个工作已经可以被机器读取的远程优先公司中，人工智能可以持续构建和维护这样的图景。正在构建的是什么、什么被阻碍了、资源分配在哪里、什么有效以及什么无效。这就是层级结构过去所承载的信息。现在由公司世界模型来承载这些信息。
But the capability of the system is only as good as the quality of the customer signal feeding it. And money is the most honest signal in the world.但系统的能力只取决于输入它的客户信号的质量。而金钱是世界上最诚实的信号。
People lie on surveys. They ignore ads. They abandon carts. But when they spend, save, send, borrow, or repay, that’s the truth. Every transaction is a fact about someone’s life. Block sees both sides of millions of these transactions every day, the buyer through Cash App and the seller through Square, plus the operational data from running the merchant’s business. That gives the customer world model something rare: a per-customer, per-merchant understanding of financial reality built from honest signal that compounds. The richer the signal, the better the model. The better the model, the more transactions. The more transactions, the richer the signal.人们在调查中会说谎。他们会忽略广告。他们会放弃购物车。但当他们消费、储蓄、发送、借贷或还款时，那才是真实情况。每一笔交易都是关于某人生活的一个事实。Block 每天都能看到数百万笔这类交易的双方情况，通过 Cash App 看到买家，通过 Square 看到卖家，再加上经营商家业务的运营数据。这为客户世界模型提供了一些罕见的东西：基于不断累积的真实信号，对每个客户、每个商家的金融现实情况的了解。信号越丰富，模型就越好。模型越好，交易就越多。交易越多，信号就越丰富。
Together, the company world model and the customer world model form the foundation for a different kind of company. Instead of product teams building predetermined roadmaps, you build four things.公司世界模型和客户世界模型共同构成了一种不同类型公司的基础。不再是产品团队制定预先确定的路线图，而是要构建四样东西。
First, capabilities. The atomic financial primitives: payments, lending, card issuance, banking, buy-now-pay-later, payroll, and so on. These are not products. They are building blocks that are hard to acquire and maintain (some have network effects and regulatory permission). They have no UIs of their own. They have reliability, compliance, and performance targets.首先是能力。原子金融原语：支付、借贷、发卡、银行服务、先买后付、薪资发放等等。这些并非产品。它们是难以获取和维护的构建模块（有些具有网络效应和监管许可）。它们没有自己的用户界面。它们有可靠性、合规性和性能目标。
Second, a world model. This has two sides. The company world model is how the company understands itself and its own operations, performance, and priorities, replacing the information that used to flow through layers of management. The customer world model is the per-customer, per-merchant, per-market representation built from proprietary transaction data. It starts with raw transaction data today and evolves toward full causal and predictive models over time.其次，是世界模型。它有两个方面。公司世界模型是指公司如何理解自身及其运营、绩效和优先事项，取代了过去在各管理层级间流动的信息。客户世界模型是基于专有交易数据构建的针对每个客户、每个商家、每个市场的呈现。它如今从原始交易数据起步，随着时间推移朝着完整的因果和预测模型发展。
Third, an intelligence layer. This is what composes capabilities into solutions for specific customers at specific moments and delivers them proactively. A restaurant’s cash flow is tightening ahead of a seasonal dip the model has seen before. The intelligence layer composes a short-term loan from the lending capability, adjusts the repayment schedule using the payments capability, and surfaces it to the merchant before they even think to look for financing. A Cash App user’s spending pattern shifts in a way the model associates with a move to a new city. The intelligence layer composes a new direct deposit setup, a Cash App Card with boosted categories for their new neighborhood, and a savings goal calibrated to their updated income. No product manager decided to build either solution. The capabilities existed. The intelligence layer recognized the moment and composed them.第三，智能层。这一层会在特定时刻将各种能力组合成针对特定客户的解决方案，并主动交付这些方案。一家餐厅在季节性低谷来临前现金流正在收紧，而该模型之前见过这种情况。智能层利用贷款能力组合出一笔短期贷款，使用支付能力调整还款计划，并在商家还没想到要寻求融资之前就将其呈现给商家。Cash App 用户的消费模式发生了变化，该模型将这种变化与搬到新城市联系起来。智能层组合出一个新的直接存款设置、一张针对其新社区的有增强分类功能的 Cash App 卡，以及一个根据其更新后的收入校准的储蓄目标。没有产品经理决定构建这两个解决方案中的任何一个。能力是存在的。智能层识别出时机并将它们组合起来。
Fourth, interfaces (hardware and software). Square, Cash App, Afterpay, TIDAL, bitkey, proto. These are delivery surfaces through which the intelligence layer delivers composed solutions. They are important, but they are not where the value is created. The value is in the model and the intelligence.第四，接口（硬件和软件）。Square、Cash App、Afterpay、TIDAL、bitkey、proto。这些是智能层交付组合解决方案的交付界面。它们很重要，但价值并非在这些界面上创造。价值在于模型和智能。
When the intelligence layer tries to compose a solution and can’t because the capability doesn’t exist, that failure signal is the future roadmap. The traditional roadmap, where product managers hypothesize about what to build next, is any company’s ultimate limiting factor. In this model, customer reality generates the backlog directly.当智能层试图构建一个解决方案却因能力不存在而无法做到时，这个失败信号就是未来的路线图。传统的路线图是产品经理对接下来要构建的内容进行假设，这是任何公司的最终限制因素。在这种模式下，客户的实际情况直接产生待办事项列表。
If this is what the company builds, then the question becomes: what do the people do?如果这就是公司所打造的，那么问题就变成了：人们要做什么？
The org structure follows from this, and it inverts the traditional picture. In a conventional company, the intelligence is spread throughout the people and the hierarchy routes it. In this model, the intelligence lives in the system. The people are on the edge. The edge is where the action is.组织结构由此而来，它颠覆了传统模式。在传统公司中，智慧分散在人员之中，层级体系引导着智慧的流动。在这种模式下，智慧存在于系统之中。人员处于边缘位置。而边缘正是行动发生的地方。
The edge is where the intelligence makes contact with reality. People reach into places the model can’t go yet. They sense things the model can’t perceive: intuition, opinionated direction, cultural context, trust dynamics, the feeling in a room. They make the calls the model shouldn’t make on its own, especially ethical decisions, novel situations, and high-stakes moments where the cost of being wrong is existential. A world model that can’t touch the world is just a database. But the edge doesn’t need layers of management to coordinate it. The world model gives every person at the edge the context they need to act without waiting for information to travel up and down a chain of command.边缘是智能与现实接触的地方。人们能够深入模型尚未触及的领域。他们能感知到模型无法察觉的事物：直觉、主观的方向、文化背景、信任动态以及房间里的氛围。他们做出模型不应独自做出的决策，尤其是道德决策、新出现的情况以及错误成本关乎生死存亡的高风险时刻。一个无法与现实接触的世界模型仅仅是一个数据库。但边缘并不需要层层管理来协调。世界模型为处于边缘的每个人提供他们行动所需的背景信息，而无需等待信息在指挥链中上下传递。
In practice, this means we normalize down to three roles.在实践中，这意味着我们将其规范为三个角色。
Individual contributors (ICs) who build and operate capabilities, the model, the intelligence layer, and the interfaces. They are deep specialists and experts in a specific layer of the system. The world model provides the context that a manager used to provide, so ICs can make decisions about their layer without waiting to be told what to do.构建和运营各种能力、模型、智能层及接口的个人贡献者（IC）。他们是系统特定层的深度专家。世界模型提供了以往由管理者提供的上下文信息，这样个人贡献者无需等待指示就能对自己负责的层做出决策。
Directly Responsible Individuals (DRI) who own specific cross-cutting problems or opportunities and customer outcomes. A DRI might own the problem of merchant churn in a specific segment for 90 days, with full authority to pull resources from the world model team, the lending capability team, and the interface team as needed. DRIs may persist on certain problems or move elsewhere to solve new ones.直接负责人（DRI）负责特定的跨领域问题、机遇以及客户成果。一名直接负责人可能在 90 天内负责特定细分领域的商家流失问题，并有权根据需要从全球模型团队、贷款能力团队和接口团队调配资源。直接负责人可能会持续关注某些问题，也可能转去解决其他新问题。
Player-coaches who combine building with developing people. They replace the traditional manager whose primary job was information routing. A player-coach still writes code or builds models or designs interfaces. They also invest in the growth of the people around them. They don’t spend their days in status meetings, alignment sessions, and priority negotiations. The world model handles alignment. The DRI structure handles strategy and priority. The player-coach handles craft and people.身兼建设者与人员开发者双重角色的球员兼教练。他们取代了传统管理者，传统管理者的主要工作是信息传递。球员兼教练仍然编写代码、构建模型或设计界面。他们还致力于身边人员的成长。他们不会整天泡在状态会议、协调会议和优先级谈判中。世界模型负责协调。直接责任人（DRI）结构负责战略和优先级。球员兼教练负责技术和人员管理。
There is no need for a permanent middle management layer. Everything else the old hierarchy did, the system coordinates, and everyone is empowered, with a role that’s much closer to the work and the customer.不再需要常设的中层管理层。旧有的层级体系所做的其他一切工作，都由系统来协调，每个人都被赋予权力，其角色与工作和客户的距离更近得多。
Block is in the early stages of this transition. It will be a difficult one, and parts of it will likely break before they work. We’re writing about it now because we believe every company will eventually need to confront the same question we did: what does your company understand that is genuinely hard to understand, and is that understanding getting deeper every day?Block 正处于这一转型的早期阶段。这将是一个艰难的过程，其中一些部分在发挥作用之前可能会出现故障。我们现在之所以撰写此事，是因为我们相信每家公司最终都需要面对我们所面临的同样问题：你的公司理解哪些真正难以理解的事物，并且这种理解是否在日益加深？
If the answer is nothing, AI is just a cost optimization story. You cut headcount, improve margins for a few quarters, and eventually get absorbed by something smarter. If the answer is deep, AI doesn’t augment your company. It reveals what your company actually is.如果答案是毫无意义，那么人工智能就只是一个成本优化的故事。你削减员工数量，在几个季度内提高利润率，最终被更智能的东西所取代。如果答案深刻，人工智能不会增强你的公司。它揭示了你公司的真实面貌。
Block’s answer is the economic graph: millions of merchants and consumers, both sides of every transaction, financial behavior observed in real time. That understanding compounds every second the system operates. We believe the pattern behind this, a company organized as an intelligence rather than a hierarchy, is significant enough that it will reshape how companies of all kinds operate over the coming years. Block is far enough along to show the idea is more than theory (though, we welcome debate and feedback to pressure test and improve our ideas).布洛克的答案是经济图谱：数百万商家和消费者，每笔交易的双方，实时观察到的金融行为。系统运行的每一秒，这种理解都在不断加深。我们认为，背后的模式，即一家以智能而非层级结构组织起来的公司，意义重大，足以在未来几年重塑各类公司的运营方式。布洛克的进展足以表明这个想法不仅仅是理论（不过，我们欢迎辩论和反馈，以进行压力测试并改进我们的想法）。
Companies move fast or slow based on information flow. Hierarchy and middle management impede information flow. For two thousand years, from the Roman contubernium to today’s global enterprises, we have had no real alternative. Eight soldiers sharing a tent needed a decanus. Eighty men needed a centurion. Five thousand needed a legate. The question was never whether you needed layers. The question was whether humans were the only option for what those layers do. They aren’t anymore. Block is building what comes next.公司的行动速度取决于信息流的快慢。层级制度和中层管理会阻碍信息流。两千年来，从罗马的百人队到如今的全球企业，我们一直没有真正的替代方案。八个士兵共用一个帐篷需要一名什长。八十个人需要一名百夫长。五千人需要一名军团长。问题从来不是你是否需要层级。问题是，对于这些层级的职能，人类是否是唯一的选择。现在不是了。Block 正在构建接下来的事物。