4 ms·

I don't know Lex Fridman, but with all respect, I don't like him as an interviewer at all. He has zero interviewing experience, IMHO. It looks so amateur. Regar

I don't know Lex Fridman, but with all respect, I don't like him as an interviewer at all. He has zero interviewing experience, IMHO. It looks so amateur. Regardless, kudos to him for bringing in so many amazing people. His playlist is sick!

jeffshek 7y ago
You need to watch three of them. He has a style and once it “clicks”, it’s rather interesting. I had a similar impression months ago, and after listening to a few - I was so happy I gave it a fair chance.
drclau 7y ago
Hmm, I find your observation interesting, but I don’t really understand it. Can you explain or give examples of why you think he is not experienced? I always thought of his podcast as conversations, not interviews. Maybe that’s why it always worked fine for me.
K0SM0S 7y ago
I think your post is valuable opinion and feeding discussion so have an upvote to balance the downvoters. (why did they..? oh well :shrug:) I actually disagree with you on interview style, I like his (it grows on you, or so I found); his playlist is indeed sick. And it keeps getting better, I suspect he'll eventually get 80% of the who's-who in AI or around it. Probably the most promising high-level podcast about it. Other podcasts are more in the weeds, actual work on ML/DL etc, production cases and frameworks (see The Changelog's master feed for instance, "Practical AI" with actual SWE's). Lex's is interesting insofar as he's an AI researcher at MIT, the highest technical acumen you can reach in the field, so you can trust him to orient/frame the conversation (actually, learn from his follow-up questions and remarks). And it's sometimes funny (when you have some background too) to see/hear his responses to non-technical interviewees. He's a great mind (and has a great heart), no question about it; thus whatever quirks you may find diverging from classic interview style are worth ignoring. Focus on the meat, when it gets good, it gets really good.
- andreygrehov 7y ago
  Thank you. I posted a comment this morning and had a chance to look through Fridman's YouTube channel before replying to other commenters. I didn't know that these interviews are podcast-first, which is probably why the interviewer is so laid back and slow talking, as pointed out by @unoti. I looked up Fridman's lectures, they are indeed a little bit more energetic, but he is generally a calm individual, so in combination with slow talking and monotone voice that he intentionally uses in podcasts, it makes his questions quite boring to listen, which is what was immediately reflected in my original comment. > thus whatever quirks you may find diverging from classic interview style are worth ignoring. Focus on the meat, when it gets good, it gets really good. Lex Fridman is smart. No doubt. If one listens carefully, he indeed asks good questions, which is something I originally missed. He interviews great people and the meat is obviously there. But I still strongly believe that there is a huge room for improvement for Lex as an interviewer and content creator. Has he interviewed unknown people, nobody would listen to him, IMHO.
  - K0SM0S 7y ago
    Ah, I see. I think, in all fairness to him, you express a desire for some 'journalistic' or 'interviewer' skills. I totally understand that, the greats in those fields are awesome. However I think it's a tall order to ask people in general to excel in two entirely distinct domains, especially at such a 'young' age (MIT must've taken most of his time so far). So with domain-driven people who dabble in media, we get their strong vertical at the cost of more mediocre delivery — but to me that remains sweeter than a "professional" journalist who speaks second-hand about everything, at least for most technical or complex topics. He's got time to get a lot better at interviewing, podcasting, if that's the goal. Eventually, he can be both a great AI researcher and a great podcaster. Meanwhile, I'll take it regardless because that's the best we've got now. > Has he interviewed unknown people, nobody would listen to him, IMHO. If the topic were totally irrelevant, maybe; but I have a fondness for scientists trying to speak to everyone, e.g. on YouTube / podcast / whatever, so I would still listen probably. Like that guy, Robert Miles from Cambridge who speaks of AI safety[1] — delivery wasn't great in the beginning, but damn were the topics incredible food for thought. [1]: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCLB7AzTwc6VFZrBsO2ucBMg https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCLB7AzTwc6VFZrBsO2ucBMg
trts 7y ago
interestingly, I found this podcast about 6 months ago and it has quickly become one of my three must-listen channels. He has some amazing guests and conversations and I find his questions thoughtful and wide-ranging, leading to some really interesting perspectives outside of the expected domain of the guest. For this episode I finally looked up the YouTube feed and thought, "that's not at all how I pictured him! he's wearing a suit and tie?". I wonder how much the visual medium changes the impression for a first-time listener (not that either format put me off personally).
psv1 7y ago
I agree, he's really difficult to listen to. It's surprising how someone with communication skills as bad as his managed to get quite a few great guests.
GeoffKnauth 7y ago
I had the opposite reaction. I thought Fridman was a very good interviewer. I've talked with Donald Knuth a half dozen times over the last thirty years. I really enjoyed this interview. Knuth seemed relaxed and to be having a good time thinking about the questions and answering them. If Knuth is happy, I'm happy.
unoti 7y ago
Lex has a distinctive style of interviewing. He's intentionally laid back and talks slowly, and gives his guests lots of room to be the star. But he's actually a dynamic and interesting speaker and quite knowledgeable; you can tell by watching some of his lectures (he's an MIT professor). He dumbs down his questions to give opportunity to his guests to explain their topics in their own way and to appeal to a broader audience. But having said all that, one youtube commenter said of Lex's interview with Elon Musk that it was "two robots conversing without human supervision," which Lex brought up in a later interview with Elon and thought was pretty funny.
- andreyk 7y ago
  Just a correction, he is not a professor - he is a research scientists who sometimes puts together and lectures in short classes (MIT has this weird 1 month quarter thing that has a bunch of optional classes). Or so it was when I last checked.
  - ghaff 7y ago
    Pretty much. IAP (Independent Activities Period). He's doing a Deep Learning series this month.
eric234223 7y ago
What do you dislike about his interview ? He asks good questions and listens. What more do you expect ?
coldtea 7y ago
>I don't know Lex Fridman, but with all respect, I don't like him as an interviewer at all. He has zero interviewing experience, IMHO. It looks so amateur. Actually, this looks like 100% old-style quality interview. People are not used to this style today, but it was the quintessential style before the 90s or so, and it's much deeper than the kind of shallow interviewing we see today from "pros" (including TV hacks like Charlie Rose).
- mrmuagi 7y ago
  Charlie Rose always seemed to be trying to play some sort of mind game to goad information out of his guests. I went down a rabbit hole of watching old historical interviews and discovered interviews were very tame. Like, Dick Cavett's famous interview with Marlon Brando - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uU-4wmwc2Rw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uU-4wmwc2Rw where the host was friendly and letting the guest speak above all else. Anything resembling this level of genuine conversation is a nice treat.

jeffshek 7y ago

You need to watch three of them. He has a style and once it “clicks”, it’s rather interesting. I had a similar impression months ago, and after listening to a few - I was so happy I gave it a fair chance.

drclau 7y ago

Hmm, I find your observation interesting, but I don’t really understand it. Can you explain or give examples of why you think he is not experienced? I always thought of his podcast as conversations, not interviews. Maybe that’s why it always worked fine for me.

K0SM0S 7y ago

I think your post is valuable opinion and feeding discussion so have an upvote to balance the downvoters. (why did they..? oh well :shrug:) I actually disagree with you on interview style, I like his (it grows on you, or so I found); his playlist is indeed sick. And it keeps getting better, I suspect he'll eventually get 80% of the who's-who in AI or around it. Probably the most promising high-level podcast about it. Other podcasts are more in the weeds, actual work on ML/DL etc, production cases and frameworks (see The Changelog's master feed for instance, "Practical AI" with actual SWE's). Lex's is interesting insofar as he's an AI researcher at MIT, the highest technical acumen you can reach in the field, so you can trust him to orient/frame the conversation (actually, learn from his follow-up questions and remarks). And it's sometimes funny (when you have some background too) to see/hear his responses to non-technical interviewees. He's a great mind (and has a great heart), no question about it; thus whatever quirks you may find diverging from classic interview style are worth ignoring. Focus on the meat, when it gets good, it gets really good.

andreygrehov 7y ago
Thank you. I posted a comment this morning and had a chance to look through Fridman's YouTube channel before replying to other commenters. I didn't know that these interviews are podcast-first, which is probably why the interviewer is so laid back and slow talking, as pointed out by @unoti. I looked up Fridman's lectures, they are indeed a little bit more energetic, but he is generally a calm individual, so in combination with slow talking and monotone voice that he intentionally uses in podcasts, it makes his questions quite boring to listen, which is what was immediately reflected in my original comment. > thus whatever quirks you may find diverging from classic interview style are worth ignoring. Focus on the meat, when it gets good, it gets really good. Lex Fridman is smart. No doubt. If one listens carefully, he indeed asks good questions, which is something I originally missed. He interviews great people and the meat is obviously there. But I still strongly believe that there is a huge room for improvement for Lex as an interviewer and content creator. Has he interviewed unknown people, nobody would listen to him, IMHO.
- K0SM0S 7y ago
  Ah, I see. I think, in all fairness to him, you express a desire for some 'journalistic' or 'interviewer' skills. I totally understand that, the greats in those fields are awesome. However I think it's a tall order to ask people in general to excel in two entirely distinct domains, especially at such a 'young' age (MIT must've taken most of his time so far). So with domain-driven people who dabble in media, we get their strong vertical at the cost of more mediocre delivery — but to me that remains sweeter than a "professional" journalist who speaks second-hand about everything, at least for most technical or complex topics. He's got time to get a lot better at interviewing, podcasting, if that's the goal. Eventually, he can be both a great AI researcher and a great podcaster. Meanwhile, I'll take it regardless because that's the best we've got now. > Has he interviewed unknown people, nobody would listen to him, IMHO. If the topic were totally irrelevant, maybe; but I have a fondness for scientists trying to speak to everyone, e.g. on YouTube / podcast / whatever, so I would still listen probably. Like that guy, Robert Miles from Cambridge who speaks of AI safety[1] — delivery wasn't great in the beginning, but damn were the topics incredible food for thought. [1]: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCLB7AzTwc6VFZrBsO2ucBMg https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCLB7AzTwc6VFZrBsO2ucBMg

trts 7y ago

interestingly, I found this podcast about 6 months ago and it has quickly become one of my three must-listen channels. He has some amazing guests and conversations and I find his questions thoughtful and wide-ranging, leading to some really interesting perspectives outside of the expected domain of the guest. For this episode I finally looked up the YouTube feed and thought, "that's not at all how I pictured him! he's wearing a suit and tie?". I wonder how much the visual medium changes the impression for a first-time listener (not that either format put me off personally).

psv1 7y ago

I agree, he's really difficult to listen to. It's surprising how someone with communication skills as bad as his managed to get quite a few great guests.

GeoffKnauth 7y ago

I had the opposite reaction. I thought Fridman was a very good interviewer. I've talked with Donald Knuth a half dozen times over the last thirty years. I really enjoyed this interview. Knuth seemed relaxed and to be having a good time thinking about the questions and answering them. If Knuth is happy, I'm happy.

unoti 7y ago

Lex has a distinctive style of interviewing. He's intentionally laid back and talks slowly, and gives his guests lots of room to be the star. But he's actually a dynamic and interesting speaker and quite knowledgeable; you can tell by watching some of his lectures (he's an MIT professor). He dumbs down his questions to give opportunity to his guests to explain their topics in their own way and to appeal to a broader audience. But having said all that, one youtube commenter said of Lex's interview with Elon Musk that it was "two robots conversing without human supervision," which Lex brought up in a later interview with Elon and thought was pretty funny.

andreyk 7y ago
Just a correction, he is not a professor - he is a research scientists who sometimes puts together and lectures in short classes (MIT has this weird 1 month quarter thing that has a bunch of optional classes). Or so it was when I last checked.
- ghaff 7y ago
  Pretty much. IAP (Independent Activities Period). He's doing a Deep Learning series this month.

eric234223 7y ago

What do you dislike about his interview ? He asks good questions and listens. What more do you expect ?

coldtea 7y ago

>I don't know Lex Fridman, but with all respect, I don't like him as an interviewer at all. He has zero interviewing experience, IMHO. It looks so amateur. Actually, this looks like 100% old-style quality interview. People are not used to this style today, but it was the quintessential style before the 90s or so, and it's much deeper than the kind of shallow interviewing we see today from "pros" (including TV hacks like Charlie Rose).

mrmuagi 7y ago
Charlie Rose always seemed to be trying to play some sort of mind game to goad information out of his guests. I went down a rabbit hole of watching old historical interviews and discovered interviews were very tame. Like, Dick Cavett's famous interview with Marlon Brando - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uU-4wmwc2Rw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uU-4wmwc2Rw where the host was friendly and letting the guest speak above all else. Anything resembling this level of genuine conversation is a nice treat.