内容来源：https://www.wired.com/story/how-peter-thiels-private-dialog-club-secretly-ranks-its-members/

内容总结：

据《连线》杂志披露，由彼得·蒂尔联合创立的私人社交网络“Dialog”对活动参与者实行隐秘的评分制度。该组织根据财富与名望对成员进行A、B、C三等分级，利用算法追踪人际关系，决定谁该与谁见面、同席，以及谁不再适合留在这个圈子。

《连线》从匿名信源获取的内部资料显示，近200位计划参加今年夏季年度闭门会的知名人士个人信息被收录其中，包括家庭住址、私人电话、电子邮箱、出生日期、照片、紧急联系人，以及部分成员主动提供的食物过敏信息和政治倾向。这些数据与此前该组织网站上暴露的公开名单不同——后者包含了非成员的信息，如马里兰州州长韦斯·摩尔等曾受邀演讲的嘉宾。

Dialog成立于2006年，由彼得·蒂尔与数据经纪人奥伦·霍夫曼共同创立，是一个仅限受邀者参加的私密俱乐部。该组织自称拥有“超过1000名付费会员”，累计有2500余人参加过年度闭门会。会员可享受全球私密晚宴、会员专属旅行、礼宾服务及私密群聊等权益，而非会员的嘉宾也可受邀参加为期三至四天的年度聚会。今年8月，成员、演讲者和嘉宾将在爱尔兰都柏林郊外集会，讨论人工智能、地缘政治和现代战争等议题。

在《连线》调查的192份档案中，130人被标记为会员，其余为潜在邀请对象。所有人——无论会员还是潜在嘉宾——都被评为A、B、C三个等级。C级专为最知名、最具影响力者预留，仅七分之一的人获此评级；多数人（192人中的141人）被评B级；A级则主要分配给年长资深的会员，评分者认为其关注度较低。

演员乔什·布洛林虽从未参加过Dialog的活动，但凭借其饰演灭霸的知名度及3.4亿Instagram粉丝被列为VIP。经济学家泰勒·科恩最初被该组织AI工具拒绝评为C级，理由是“在其领域内广受认可”但未领导“家喻户晓的组织”。（工作人员后来推翻了AI的判断。）

约50份档案中的内部笔记揭示了评分标准：财富是最常见依据，一位投资者因其管理300亿美元资产被认可，另一位则因“管理资产规模小”被降级；知名度紧随其后。工作人员曾为某会员降低评级，“以免她与C级嘉宾同席”。算法反复衡量某人是否“被普通人广泛认知”，甚至将人与“财富500强企业或顶级名人”对标。

等级不仅用于决定与会者需缴纳的高达数万美元的费用，还涉及参会资格。B级会员约70%按全价付费，而VIP只有四分之一。有量子计算初创公司创始人因“追随者不多、增值不足”被建议剔除。女性约占评分者的三分之一，但仅占顶级评级的18%。

该组织还追踪受邀者的政治倾向。在今年8月活动的数据中，165人披露了政治立场：超半数为左翼，但右翼人士获得C级的概率是左翼的两倍多。内部系统还内置婚恋匹配功能，约10%的受访者选择加入单身配对池，算法会推荐匹配对象，并由工作人员人工调整。部分配对因“同在纽约、同属政府工作”而成行。数据库同时记录“禁止配对”组合，原因包括已婚、职业关联或未知矛盾，最大群体是成员与组织内部工作人员被禁止匹配。

Dialog在向会员提供的文件中宣称：“我们没有意识形态议程，我们是非党派、非政治性的。我们只是相信，当把开放心态、顶尖领域、多元背景和视角的人聚集在一起，他们能学到新东西。”

中文翻译：

《连线》杂志获悉，彼得·蒂尔联合创办的私人网络"对话"（Dialog）会对其活动参与者进行隐秘分级，根据财富和名气进行排名，追踪人际关系，并利用算法帮助决定谁该见面、谁该同席、谁不再属于这个圈子。
这些记录是《连线》从匿名信源获得的内部数据资料的一部分，包含了近200位计划参加该团体今年夏季年度静修会的知名人士的个人信息。数据包括家庭住址、私人电话号码和电子邮箱、出生日期、照片、紧急联系人，以及部分成员自愿提供的食物过敏信息和政治倾向。
这些记录与该组织网站上暴露的"对话"关联人员名单不同——那份较松散的名单自本周早些时候起已在网上流传，似乎包含非成员，例如马里兰州州长韦斯·摩尔（曾担任活动演讲者），以及其他多年前曾进入"对话"圈子的外部嘉宾。
"对话"由蒂尔和数据经纪人奥伦·霍夫曼于2006年创立，是一个私人俱乐部，只邀请政治家、企业家、创业者、军人、高管、学者和记者参加不对外公开的静修会。据一位前参与者分享的"对话"文件称，该组织"拥有超过1000名付费会员"，已有2500多人参加过其年度静修会。
这份将"对话"描述为"仅限受邀者参与的社群"的文件区分了两种产品：会员资格和静修会。前者允许会员（该团体称其为"对话者"）参加"在全球会员家中和私人空间举办的私人晚宴"，以及"会员主导的全球徒步旅行"、礼宾服务、私人群聊等。静修会则召集200人以上的团体（不一定是会员）进行三到四天的会议。例如，今年八月，会员、演讲者和嘉宾计划在爱尔兰都柏林郊外聚会，举行为期两天的讨论，议题涵盖人工智能、地缘政治和现代战争——从北约的未来、战场技术到伊朗战争——由现任和前任议员、外交官及国家安全官员主持。
（披露：《连线》前主编尼克·汤普森——现任《大西洋月刊》首席执行官——同时出现在公开名单和未公开的记录中。他拒绝透露自己是否是"对话"会员。）
"对话"在人们加入之前就会对其进行分级。在《连线》审查的192份档案中，130份标记为会员，其余则是潜在受邀者，档案上带有"首次对话者"或"热门"等标记。每个人——无论是会员还是潜在受邀者——都会被评分为A、B或C三个等级。"C"级似乎专门留给最著名、最有影响力的人；只有七分之一的人获得此评级。大多数人（192人中的141人）获得"B"级。最后一档"A"级主要分配给年长、资深的会员，评级者认为他们知名度较低。
演员乔什·布洛林——据记录显示，他从未参加过"对话"静修会——被归类为VIP，主要基于其名气："他在《复仇者联盟》系列中饰演灭霸，并参演《复仇者联盟4：终局之战》等票房超过27.9亿美元的大片，这提升了他的知名度，"一份记录写道，工作人员还引用了他超过340万的Instagram粉丝数。
相比之下，经济学家泰勒·考恩最初被拒绝给予VIP级别的"C"评级，因为该团体的AI工具形容他"在其领域内广为人知"，但并非"一个对普通人来说家喻户晓的组织的领导者"。（"对话"工作人员后来推翻了AI工具的判断，该工具用于为该团体名单上至少26人整理档案。）
布洛林未回应《连线》的置评请求。他的一位代表告诉《好莱坞报道》，他"想知道自己他妈的卷入了什么事"。考恩未回应置评请求。
泄密的工作人员笔记附在约50份档案上，进一步揭示了该团体的评分和评级衡量标准。财富是数据中最常见的理由之一：一位投资者因其管理的300亿美元资产而受到肯定，而另一位则被用两个词的评价降级："管理资产规模小"。名气紧随其后。在一份记录中，一名工作人员给某位成员评级，目的是"避免她与C级成员坐在一起"，这表明他们希望防止这位成员与VIP参会者同席。
"对话"的算法始终关注"普通人"是否会认出某人。它反复权衡人们是否"广为人知"或足够"著名"，在少数情况下，还会以"《财富》世界500强公司或顶级名人"为标准来衡量他们。例如，曼哈顿研究所所长雷汉·萨拉姆获得"B"级，因为"曼哈顿研究所可能不像一些大型组织那样被普通人广泛认可"。萨拉姆未回应置评请求。
"对话"工作人员在每次静修会后都会重新审视和修改评级——记录中称这一内部流程为"静修后代码审查"。
除了字母评级外，大多数人还拥有一个独立的"增值"评分，范围为1到4分，由数名工作人员评分取平均值。会员可能被取消活动邀请，理由包括"增值太低""文化契合度差"或"评级下降太多"。还有一个独立的"主持级别"追踪谁最受信任来主持讨论、运营"对话"研讨会或举办"肥皂箱"环节。
评级部分用于决定参会者参加"对话"活动的费用，费用可能高达数万美元。低评级参会者约70%的情况下被定为全价档，而VIP中这一比例约为四分之一。工作人员手动定价，其中一人对提高一位畅销书作家的费用犹豫不决，"仅仅因为她男友有钱"。一位量子计算初创公司的创始人在一次聚会后被标记为淘汰："没有显著粉丝群。增值不足以保留。"
记录还定义了团体本身的构成。女性约占被评级者的三分之一，但仅占最高评级的18%。
泄密内容显示，"对话"还会追踪受邀者明显的政治倾向。成员被鼓励披露自己的倾向，但工作人员会进行独立的内部评估，而两者并不总是一致。11名成员尽管未披露任何信息，仍被贴上标签；另有15人的自我描述被覆盖。全球最大环保组织之一的负责人自称左倾；"对话"工作人员却将其归为右派。
在八月活动的数据中，165人披露了自己的政治立场：超过一半认同左派。即便如此，右派人士获得"C"级的可能性是左派的两倍多。
泄密内容还指向一个内置的匹配系统，为会员提供社交和约会配对。（约10%的受访者选择了加入单身池。）超过四分之三的人已经有了算法推荐的匹配列表，工作人员似乎会手动优化。一份记录将两名会员配对，因为"你们都在纽约并从事政府工作"。每次介绍都附有照片和简短的履历展示给对方。
"对话"还维护着一个永远不应配对的人员名单。数据库出于各种原因标记"禁止配对"组合。有些是配偶，有些已是职业伙伴。一位前大使被标记为不得与其家族组织负责人配对。其他组合没有理由：一位著名科技创始人仅与一位作者被简单标记为互不配对。不过，最大的一组是禁止与"对话"自身工作人员和组织者配对的成员。
"我们没有意识形态议程，"一位前参与者与《连线》分享的文件中写道。"'对话'无党派、非政治。我们希望所有参与者能更深入地理解真相——但我们不预设真相是什么。我们仅仅相信，当我们将各领域顶尖、思想开放、背景与观点多元的人聚集在一起时，他们将学到新东西。"

英文来源：

Dialog, the private network cofounded by Peter Thiel, grades its event attendees on a hidden scale, ranking them by wealth and fame, tracking their relationships, and using algorithms to help decide who they should meet, who they should sit with, and who no longer belongs, WIRED has learned.
The records are part of a trove of internal data received by WIRED from a confidential source, containing the personal information of nearly 200 prominent people scheduled to attend the group's annual retreat this summer. The data includes home addresses, private phone numbers and email accounts, dates of birth, photos, and emergency contacts, as well as food allergies and the political leanings volunteered by some members.
The records are distinct from a list of people affiliated with Dialog that was left exposed on the organization’s website and has been circulating online since earlier this week—a looser directory that appears to include nonmembers, such as Maryland governor Wes Moore, a former event speaker, and other outside guests who passed through Dialog’s orbit, in some cases years ago.
Founded in 2006 by Thiel and data broker Auren Hoffman, Dialog is a private club that convenes politicians, investors, entrepreneurs, military leaders, executives, academics, and journalists for invitation-only, off-the-record retreats. According to a Dialog document shared by a past participant, it has “over 1,000 paying members,” and more than 2,500 people have attended its annual retreats.
The document, which describes Dialog as an “invite-only community,” distinguishes between two products: membership and retreats. The former allows members—the group calls them “dialogers”—to access private dinners “hosted in members’ homes and private spaces around the world,” as well as “member-led global treks,” concierge services, a private group chat, and more. Retreats convene groups of 200 or more people—who are not necessarily members—for three- to four-day meetings. This August, for example, members, speakers, and guests are scheduled to gather outside Dublin, Ireland, for two days of discussions on artificial intelligence, geopolitics, and modern warfare—from NATO’s future and battlefield tech to the war in Iran—led by current and former lawmakers, diplomats, and national security officials.
(Disclosure: A former editor in chief of WIRED, Nick Thompson—currently the CEO of The Atlantic—is among those in both the public list and unreleased records. He declined to say whether he is a Dialog member.)
Dialog assigns people grades before they join. Of the 192 dossiers examined by WIRED, 130 are tagged as members. The rest are prospects with files bearing markings like “First Time Dialoger” or “Warm.” Everyone—members and prospective invitees alike—is assigned a grade of A, B, or C. The “C” grade appears reserved for the most famous and influential; only one in seven received it. Most people—141 of 192—received a “B.” The final tier, “A,” appears primarily assigned to older, established members whom the graders consider less notable.
Actor Josh Brolin—who, according to the records, has never attended a Dialog retreat—is categorized as a VIP largely based on the strength of his fame: ”His portrayal of Thanos in the Avengers series and his involvement in high-grossing films like Avengers: Endgame, which grossed over $2.79 billion, contribute to his prominence,” reads one note, with staff further citing his Instagram following of over 3.4 million.
The economist Tyler Cowen, by contrast, was initially denied a VIP “C” rating after the group’s AI tool described him as “widely recognized within his field” but not a leader of “an organization that is a household name to the average person.” (Dialog staff overruled the AI tool, which was used to assemble dossiers on at least 26 people included on the group’s list.)
Brolin did not respond to WIRED’s request for comment. One of his representatives told The Hollywood Reporter that he wants “to know what the fuck he got himself into.” Cowen did not respond to a request for comment.
Leaked staff notes attached to around 50 dossiers provide additional insight into what the group’s scores and grades measure. Wealth is one of the most common justifications found in the data, with one investor summed up by the money he oversees—$30 billion in assets under management—while another is marked down with a two-word verdict: “Small AUM.” Fame is a close second. In one note, a staffer assigned a member a grade “so she doesn't get seated with grade Cs” indicating that they wanted to avoid this member sitting with VIP attendees.
Dialog’s algorithm consistently fixates on whether the “average person” would recognize someone. It repeatedly weighs whether people are “widely recognized” or sufficiently “prominent” and, in a handful of cases, measures them against “a Fortune 500 company or a top celebrity.” For example, Reihan Salam, the president of the Manhattan Institute, was given a “B” rating because, it said, “the Manhattan Institute may not be as widely recognized by the average person as some larger organizations.” Salam did not respond to a request for comment.
Dialog staff revisit and revise grades after every retreat—an internal process the records call a “post-retreat code review.”
Alongside a letter grade, most people also carry a separate "value-add" score of 1 to 4, averaged from ratings by several staff. Members can be disinvited from events with explanations ranging from "Value Add Too Low" to "Poor Culture Fit" to "Grade Fell Too Low." A separate "moderation tier" tracks who is most trusted to moderate discussions, run Dialog’s workshops, or hold “Soapbox” sessions.
The grades are used in part to determine what attendees are charged to attend Dialog events, which can extend into the tens of thousands of dollars. Bottom-grade attendees are placed on the full-price tier roughly 70 percent of the time, compared with about a quarter of those considered VIPs. Staff set prices by hand, one balking at raising a best-selling author’s fee “just because her boyfriend has $$.” A quantum-computing startup founder was flagged to be cut after one gathering: “Doesn't have significant following. [Value add] not high enough to keep.”
The records also define the makeup of the group itself. Women account for roughly a third of those graded, but hold only 18 percent of top marks.
The leak shows that Dialog also tracks invitees’ apparent political leanings. Members are urged to disclose their own, but staff make separate internal assessments, and the two do not always match. Eleven members were assigned labels despite disclosing nothing, and the self-descriptions of 15 others were overridden. The head of one of the world’s largest conservation groups described himself as left-leaning; Dialog’s staff placed him on the right.
In the data for August’s event, 165 people disclosed their politics: More than half identified with the left. Even so, those on the right were more than twice as likely to carry a “C.”
The leak also points to a built-in matchmaking system that pairs members for both networking and dating. (Roughly 10 percent of respondents opted into a singles pool.) More than three-quarters already have a list of algorithm-suggested matches, which staff appear to refine by hand. One note pairs two members because “you're both in New York and work in government.” Each introduction comes with a photo and a short bio shown to the other person.
Dialog also maintains a list of people who should never be paired. The database flags “do-not-pair” combinations for a variety of reasons. Some are spouses, others already professional associates. A former ambassador is flagged against being matched with the head of his family’s organization. Others carry no reason at all: A prominent tech founder and an author are simply flagged against each other. The largest group, though, is members barred from being matched with Dialog’s own staff and organizers.
“We have no ideological agenda,” reads the document shared with WIRED by a past participant. “Dialog is nonpartisan and nonpolitical. We want all participants to come away with a better understanding of the truth—but we don’t presume to know what the truth is. We simply believe that when we bring together open-minded people who are at the top of their fields, with diverse backgrounds and perspectives, they will learn new things.”