10 ms·

Thinking Fast and Slow, Deep Learning, and AI [video]

254 points by AlanTuring 7y ago

nwni 7y ago
What a coincidence, I am currently reading that book and just watched Fridman's latest video.
mochomocha 7y ago
The few times I've tried to read Kahneman's book I must admit that I stopped pretty early. I found his writing style too authoritative, without presenting much evidence for the theories he lays out.
- kjhughes 7y ago
  Well, afterall, he is an authority, and too much evidential detail likely would detract from his goal to help the general public improve the ability to identify and understand errors of judgement and choice, in others and eventually in ourselves, by providing a richer and more precise language to discuss them. You might prefer his scholarly writings over those intended for a general audience: https://scholar.princeton.edu/kahneman/publications-0 https://scholar.princeton.edu/kahneman/publications-0
- scottlocklin 7y ago
  And you're well served with this response, as the actual work he did is basically not reproducible. No matter how many best selling books made into movies; it's still bullshit. https://replicationindex.com/category/thinking-fast-and-slow/ https://replicationindex.com/category/thinking-fast-and-slow... https://slate.com/technology/2016/12/kahneman-and-tversky-researched-the-science-of-error-and-still-made-errors.html https://slate.com/technology/2016/12/kahneman-and-tversky-re... https://jasoncollins.blog/2016/06/29/re-reading-kahnemans-thinking-fast-and-slow/ https://jasoncollins.blog/2016/06/29/re-reading-kahnemans-th... I read it on advice of a good pal, and it sure seemed like bullshit to me.
  - Tomte 7y ago
    As far as I understand it, only a small part of his book is based on distrusted research (and was that even his work or did he just write it up? Cannot remember). Most of the book is still considered correct. Plus, he readily admitted to the faulty parts and made a very strong request to the affected research teams to clean up their act and pretty much re-do all experiments multiple times, by multiple labs, with external oversight.
    - Symmetry 7y ago
      The things Kahneman worked on himself all did pretty well out of the replication crisis as far as I can tell. The fact that his findings got so much pushback when introduced probably helped a lot with making them more rigorous. And Kahneman didn't dig in his heels when the crisis hit. But there is an awful lots of stuff that needs to be expunged from his book because it was based on what turned out to be bad science.
      - mistermann 7y ago
        > But there is an awful lots of stuff that needs to be expunged from his book because it was based on what turned out to be bad science. Can you give an example of this? I haven't seen anything he said in here that fundamentally needs to rest on a theory that could be the outcome of some study, but maybe I'm interpreting somehow differently.
        champagneben 7y ago
        I'm not sure if this is what you're looking for, but here: https://replicationindex.com/2017/02/02/reconstruction-of-a-train-wreck-how-priming-research-went-of-the-rails/ https://replicationindex.com/2017/02/02/reconstruction-of-a-...
  - virtuous_signal 7y ago
    Add to that list "grit" and "fixed vs. growth mindset" -- has any solid, interesting work in sociology or behavioral science been done recently?
- dsalzman 7y ago
  If you want an easier introduction I suggest Michael Lewis’s book the Undoing Project.
- passer_byer 7y ago
  I can see where you might feel this way. I recommend giving it another try and come at from two considerations. The first is observing their experimental designs. They are very clever and well described. The second is the extent to which these experiments have been replicated with consistent results using populations with a range of socioeconomic and cultural differences. Given the consistency of these experimental outcomes, may help to explain his authoritative tone. After all, he won a Nobel prize in economics which is completely outside his domain expertise. If that is not enough to entice you to give it another go, consider the book, The Undoing Project, by Michael Lewis. Lewis, in his highly researched and using detailed anecdotes describes how Kahnemans and Tversky collaboration initially began as a collaboration around understanding the decision making process in circumstances where there is a high degree of uncertainty and acquiring additional information is not feasible. The Khanamen/Tversky collaboration is described as a deep collaboration where neither man claims credit for their respective contributions. Only both minds together could have produced their research findings. Lewis also describes how many reviewers of his book, Moneyball, expressed the many parallels between Kahnemans/Tversky's research and themes covered in Moneyball. Lewis was not familiar with this research when he wrote Moneyball. It was not until others pointed out these parallels that Lewis decided he should engage with Kahneman to write The Undoing Project.
  - snarf21 7y ago
    I agree completely. If you take everything in the book as 100% gospel, it will let you down. However, there are lots of perspective changing things to learn. I particularly learned a lot about anchoring and reacting vs thinking.
  - champagneben 7y ago
    Given that this is what he had to say on priming, the authoritative tone starts sounding a little less authoritative: "When I describe priming studies to audiences, the reaction is often disbelief . . . The idea you should focus on, however, is that disbelief is not an option. The results are not made up, nor are they statistical flukes. You have no choice but to accept that the major conclusions of these studies are true." https://replicationindex.com/2017/02/02/reconstruction-of-a-train-wreck-how-priming-research-went-of-the-rails/ https://replicationindex.com/2017/02/02/reconstruction-of-a-...
- nestorherre 7y ago
  I had to put it down at around 30% but not for your same reason, but because I just found it badly redacted (boring for me to keep going). However, I believe that the info is quite compelling and useful, but might need another style.
jmmcd 7y ago
Fridman's podcast has to be among the highest concentrations of high-calibre guests ever assembled in this area. Week after week it's another huge name.
- AlanTuring 7y ago
  Lex here. Thank you. I realize I sometimes miss opportunities for depth or insight with these brilliant folks, but I work hard to improve. The comments on this post, positive and critical, help. So again, thank you.
  - roguesherlock 7y ago
    Thank you for what you do man! btw I'm curious, how do you convince (if at all) to come to your podcast to have a chat? And what's the process like from guest selection to actually recording the podcast to finally releasing it? Thanks once again!
psv1 7y ago
The quality of the guests is amazing but the host is extremely off-putting and difficult to listen to.
- rkapsoro 7y ago
  Those are very strong words. Why?
  - psv1 7y ago
    The deadpan delivery and lack of personality, the arrogant attitude, the poor quality of the questions that he asks, the fact that he reads questions from a sheet in front of him instead of listening to his guests and having a real conversation with them, the way in which he comes across as disingenuous in most interactions... I could go on (and I know that a lot of this is subjective).
    - AlanTuring 7y ago
      Lex here. I hear you. I'm working hard to improve. The parts about arrogance and disingenuousness I hope are not true, but I appreciate comments like this because they help me reflect on it, and see that there might be truth to it. Your words hurt but in the end are a gift, so thank you. I'll do my best to improve.
      - minimaxir 7y ago
        You should probably add that you're Lex in your HN profile.
        AlanTuring 7y ago
        I just did. I'm more of a lurker on HN, but might as well be open. I get criticism sometimes, but I it's probably good to just take it, accept it, and grow from it.
      - hans1729 7y ago
satvikpendem 7y ago
I am not sure if this is covered in the podcast, but from the title, I wonder if in deep neural net research there are papers and implementations of a system 1 and 2 like model. One part of the neural net could be system 1 for fast decision making, and other could be system 2, with more deliberate analysis. They could communicate over some shared medium.
- p13rr0m 7y ago
  I believe the paper SlowFast Networks for Video Recognition goes somewhat in that direction. The architecture is split into a fast pathway, to capture motion information, and a slow pathway that captures spatial semantics. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1812.03982.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/1812.03982.pdf
- K0SM0S 7y ago
  I got your answer! He indeed explicitely says in the interview that deep learning is really system 1 only. That was surprising but makes total sense — it's an unconscious, automatic, fast, effort-free response, which is exactly what system 1 is. Note that both system 1 and 2 are trainable and able to perform complex tasks (he takes the example of a chess player for whom only strong moves come to mind, which is system 1 playing chess in that case; and system 2 is more of a "validation" for system 1's output in such a case). He doesn't go into it but I think you could make the reverse argument, that system 2 is "checked" by system 1, when we "feel" that something, even though "correct", is just "not right" for instance. That kind of judgement over a thought or idea is nearly instant, it's very system-1 like, and keeps popping up in our thinking as we "judge" said thoughts and do some triage as we go along. As for AI and system 2, the problem is that system 2 is conscious, deliberate, and aware of causality and meaning — and the last two are really hard problems for now. He mentions earlier ML models pre-DL (when they tried to do it the hard, symbolic way iirc?), and indeed the question of whether current architecture can or cannot generalize up to system 2 is opened. Yann Lecun apparently thinks it can (just that we don't know if it's right around the corner or very, very far away), Lex (and most AI experts I heard) think not, that there's a fundamentally 'other' kind of architecture(s) required.
  - 7y ago
piker 7y ago
Listen to a few of Lex's podcasts (his own and his appearance on Joe Rogan) before you dismiss his interviewing style and/or tone. You may very well learn to appreciate it and his breadth of technical knowledge as much as the quality of his guests, which probably the highest of any technical podcast so far.
- AlanTuring 7y ago
  Lex here. Thank you for this. Words of criticism can hurt pretty bad these days, so this kind of support really helps. Thank you.
  - sgentle 7y ago
    If it helps, remember that paradoxically the better you're doing the blunter the criticism will be. If this were some fledgling little podcast run by a nobody, it would feel cruel to criticise too harshly. But this is the freakin' Lex Fridman AI podcast, the untouchable juggernaut at the top of its game. What could I say that could possibly hurt something (and someone) so successful? Of course, I'm sure you don't feel untouchable, but maybe there is a certain cold comfort in knowing that inconsiderate criticism is a hallmark of becoming an institution. Keep up the good work, man.
grej 7y ago
I'll echo the comments here and just say thank you Lex for your calm, incisive, and enlightening interview style. In an era where the quality of journalism and media has moved from objective analysis toward editorialized hysteria on all topics, the approach you take is especially refreshing.
- AlanTuring 7y ago
  Thank you. Truly. I hope to live up to this.
thibran 7y ago
For me the podcast is one of the few things that I really like. The philosophical discussions allow to get a glimpse of the mind of the interviewed person. Sometimes I'm quite shocked that some people seem so superficial - from a philosophical point of view - even when they belong to the best in their field.
- AlanTuring 7y ago
  Thank you for the kind words. I think it's important to think both about the mathematical/technical foundations of an idea and its place in the big picture of human civilization.
jlisam13 7y ago
Thank you Lex! After taking classes in college, I sort of drifted away from the world of AI. Thank god I stumbled upon your videos. You re-sparkled my curiosity in AI with your podcasts. Your questions are so insightful and the guests that you bring in are amazing.
willberman 7y ago
Because it looks like Lex is reading comments here, I would suggest that an adequate compromise for going into more technical detail on podcasts might be to link to external resources and cover them in a more high level on the actual podcast itself. It’s my general belief (admittedly experience based) that rigor is best developed in isolation; however, the podcast format is great for developing a high level intuition. Keep up the good work lex. The quantity of content you put out at the level of quality you do is very impressive.
yumario 7y ago
Thank you Lex. I think your podcast are the most interesting in the internet. But... Readings books is awesome because you are getting the condensed knowledge that someone have spend maybe decades of their lives to compile. When I listen to a podcast the same applies to a lesser extend. The problem is Lex does not ask interesting questions. He dwells into philosophical and common questions i.e "What is the meaning of life", "is math invented or discovered". This questions are interesting but are not in the guest field of expertise which in turn causes them to give a generic response. This devalues the quality of the podcast.
- jonpon 7y ago
  While I definitely understand where you are coming from, I think Lex's style can grow on you. My advice would be to ask shorter questions, sometimes Lex you try to explain what you mean. I would just drop the question and let the other person start talking instead of you trying to fill the silence. Also I do really enjoy the questions about meaning of life (maybe more discussions on free will would be great too). In any case, hats off to you Lex for interviewing some of the most interesting people in the field (and those who are not exactly in the field too). Also I love how you show up with a suit.
  - AlanTuring 7y ago
    Lex here. The amount of positive and thoughtful comments here is humbling. From the bottom of my heart, thank you. Here are things I didn't realize is the role of the interviewer (my role) but I now know they are: 1. Push towards depth, because not all people go there naturally themselves. 2. Ask for clarifications if I don't understand something. This can make me sound stupid, but it's a worthy sacrifice. I will always sacrifice ego for the chance to understand something basic or hopefully fundamental. In fact, I play dumb sometimes just to force explanation of basics on which the technically deep ideas are built. 3. Disagree respectfully (at times playing devil's advocate) to give a chance to the interviewee to argue their point. 4. Speak whatever question or point I have clearly, concisely, quickly, and then shut up and listen. My role is to give the other person a break and to throw up ideas that spark their passion. I really struggle with this (especially the concise, clear part). Thank you again for the kind words. I'll keep improving!
laughingman2 7y ago
Lex, you're doing an amazing job. The level of commitment and hard work you put in to make this podcast is incredible. On the technical depth side criticism you're getting, I would say the one with Ian Goodfellow had optimal balance. And don't take destructive criticism about bad attitude or tone etc by some commentors . For someone introverted it's already draining to put yourself in front of a camera ...
- AlanTuring 7y ago
  Thank you sincerely for the kind words and for understanding the toughness of getting in front of the camera as an introvert. The criticism on top of that is TOUGH to take, but in moderation it helps long-term. With this HN thread, I told myself I'll meditate on critical advice, consider action items to take in order to improve, and then move forward letting the more personal destructive (as you say) criticism fade from memory. That last part is easier said than done, but that's life.
MattRix 7y ago
Just wanted to say thanks for doing the podcast! It has become my favourite podcast to listen to (and I listen to a lot of them!). The style of it is relaxing and yet mentally stimulating at the same time. I enjoy all the philosophical questions as well!
- AlanTuring 7y ago
  Thank you! To me, asking philosophical questions of world-class mathematicians, physicists, computer scientists, engineers is eye-opening and inspiring. It's taking a break at looking up at the stars. I love the messy details of engineering, but every once in a while it feels great to pause, and reflect on the big picture of our incredible, unlikely existence here on Earth. As Oscar Wilde said: "We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars." I love the gutter and I love the stars!
teslaberry 7y ago
lex. quit academia for now. you can always go back later. carpe diem. you have a huge opportunity now and of you dont go full time youll never really know if you could have 'made it' as a AAA interviewer of household international fame. give yoirself a time limit. you can always go back to academia.its time ypu accept youve hit an inflection point and now is the time you decide if you will take the risk of pursuing geometric growth. zeev
alexanderthe- 7y ago
Lex’s podcast is my new favorite. I’m not a Computer Scientist, so I thoroughly enjoy hearing him ask Philosophical questions to these great minds and having them answer with the humble nature of mere mortals... which of course, they are. Keep up the good work Lex, I first heard you on Rogan’s podcast, you are bringing something really unique to the world and I am sure we will all be better for it.
lyxsus 7y ago
Can't get enough of Lex interviews, absolutely brilliant!
goldemerald 7y ago
Great podcast Lex! I am intrigued about the discussion on explainable AI. How do you feel about the quality of the current XAI research? What do you think are the most important directions for that field? And what do you see it looking like in 3-5 years?
thegabriele 7y ago
Lex, amazing work with your podcast. If someone is willing to dig deeeper into technical stuffs of any of your guests, internet is full of resources but there's no way to find the personal insights one could get from the podcast. I do really hope to see Robert Sapolsky and Douglas Hofstadter sooner or later.
1_over_n 7y ago
I speculatively emailed Kahneman once about a blog i was working on. He emailed me back. Cool guy.

254 points by AlanTuring 7y ago

nwni 7y ago

What a coincidence, I am currently reading that book and just watched Fridman's latest video.

The few times I've tried to read Kahneman's book I must admit that I stopped pretty early. I found his writing style too authoritative, without presenting much evidence for the theories he lays out.

kjhughes 7y ago
Well, afterall, he is an authority, and too much evidential detail likely would detract from his goal to help the general public improve the ability to identify and understand errors of judgement and choice, in others and eventually in ourselves, by providing a richer and more precise language to discuss them. You might prefer his scholarly writings over those intended for a general audience: https://scholar.princeton.edu/kahneman/publications-0 https://scholar.princeton.edu/kahneman/publications-0
scottlocklin 7y ago
And you're well served with this response, as the actual work he did is basically not reproducible. No matter how many best selling books made into movies; it's still bullshit. https://replicationindex.com/category/thinking-fast-and-slow/ https://replicationindex.com/category/thinking-fast-and-slow... https://slate.com/technology/2016/12/kahneman-and-tversky-researched-the-science-of-error-and-still-made-errors.html https://slate.com/technology/2016/12/kahneman-and-tversky-re... https://jasoncollins.blog/2016/06/29/re-reading-kahnemans-thinking-fast-and-slow/ https://jasoncollins.blog/2016/06/29/re-reading-kahnemans-th... I read it on advice of a good pal, and it sure seemed like bullshit to me.
- Tomte 7y ago
  As far as I understand it, only a small part of his book is based on distrusted research (and was that even his work or did he just write it up? Cannot remember). Most of the book is still considered correct. Plus, he readily admitted to the faulty parts and made a very strong request to the affected research teams to clean up their act and pretty much re-do all experiments multiple times, by multiple labs, with external oversight.
  - Symmetry 7y ago
    The things Kahneman worked on himself all did pretty well out of the replication crisis as far as I can tell. The fact that his findings got so much pushback when introduced probably helped a lot with making them more rigorous. And Kahneman didn't dig in his heels when the crisis hit. But there is an awful lots of stuff that needs to be expunged from his book because it was based on what turned out to be bad science.
    - mistermann 7y ago
      > But there is an awful lots of stuff that needs to be expunged from his book because it was based on what turned out to be bad science. Can you give an example of this? I haven't seen anything he said in here that fundamentally needs to rest on a theory that could be the outcome of some study, but maybe I'm interpreting somehow differently.
      - champagneben 7y ago
        I'm not sure if this is what you're looking for, but here: https://replicationindex.com/2017/02/02/reconstruction-of-a-train-wreck-how-priming-research-went-of-the-rails/ https://replicationindex.com/2017/02/02/reconstruction-of-a-...
- virtuous_signal 7y ago
  Add to that list "grit" and "fixed vs. growth mindset" -- has any solid, interesting work in sociology or behavioral science been done recently?
dsalzman 7y ago
If you want an easier introduction I suggest Michael Lewis’s book the Undoing Project.
passer_byer 7y ago
I can see where you might feel this way. I recommend giving it another try and come at from two considerations. The first is observing their experimental designs. They are very clever and well described. The second is the extent to which these experiments have been replicated with consistent results using populations with a range of socioeconomic and cultural differences. Given the consistency of these experimental outcomes, may help to explain his authoritative tone. After all, he won a Nobel prize in economics which is completely outside his domain expertise. If that is not enough to entice you to give it another go, consider the book, The Undoing Project, by Michael Lewis. Lewis, in his highly researched and using detailed anecdotes describes how Kahnemans and Tversky collaboration initially began as a collaboration around understanding the decision making process in circumstances where there is a high degree of uncertainty and acquiring additional information is not feasible. The Khanamen/Tversky collaboration is described as a deep collaboration where neither man claims credit for their respective contributions. Only both minds together could have produced their research findings. Lewis also describes how many reviewers of his book, Moneyball, expressed the many parallels between Kahnemans/Tversky's research and themes covered in Moneyball. Lewis was not familiar with this research when he wrote Moneyball. It was not until others pointed out these parallels that Lewis decided he should engage with Kahneman to write The Undoing Project.
- snarf21 7y ago
  I agree completely. If you take everything in the book as 100% gospel, it will let you down. However, there are lots of perspective changing things to learn. I particularly learned a lot about anchoring and reacting vs thinking.
- champagneben 7y ago
  Given that this is what he had to say on priming, the authoritative tone starts sounding a little less authoritative: "When I describe priming studies to audiences, the reaction is often disbelief . . . The idea you should focus on, however, is that disbelief is not an option. The results are not made up, nor are they statistical flukes. You have no choice but to accept that the major conclusions of these studies are true." https://replicationindex.com/2017/02/02/reconstruction-of-a-train-wreck-how-priming-research-went-of-the-rails/ https://replicationindex.com/2017/02/02/reconstruction-of-a-...
nestorherre 7y ago
I had to put it down at around 30% but not for your same reason, but because I just found it badly redacted (boring for me to keep going). However, I believe that the info is quite compelling and useful, but might need another style.

jmmcd 7y ago

Fridman's podcast has to be among the highest concentrations of high-calibre guests ever assembled in this area. Week after week it's another huge name.

AlanTuring 7y ago
Lex here. Thank you. I realize I sometimes miss opportunities for depth or insight with these brilliant folks, but I work hard to improve. The comments on this post, positive and critical, help. So again, thank you.
- roguesherlock 7y ago
  Thank you for what you do man! btw I'm curious, how do you convince (if at all) to come to your podcast to have a chat? And what's the process like from guest selection to actually recording the podcast to finally releasing it? Thanks once again!

psv1 7y ago

The quality of the guests is amazing but the host is extremely off-putting and difficult to listen to.

rkapsoro 7y ago
Those are very strong words. Why?
- psv1 7y ago
  The deadpan delivery and lack of personality, the arrogant attitude, the poor quality of the questions that he asks, the fact that he reads questions from a sheet in front of him instead of listening to his guests and having a real conversation with them, the way in which he comes across as disingenuous in most interactions... I could go on (and I know that a lot of this is subjective).
  - AlanTuring 7y ago
    Lex here. I hear you. I'm working hard to improve. The parts about arrogance and disingenuousness I hope are not true, but I appreciate comments like this because they help me reflect on it, and see that there might be truth to it. Your words hurt but in the end are a gift, so thank you. I'll do my best to improve.
    - minimaxir 7y ago
      You should probably add that you're Lex in your HN profile.
      - AlanTuring 7y ago
        I just did. I'm more of a lurker on HN, but might as well be open. I get criticism sometimes, but I it's probably good to just take it, accept it, and grow from it.
    - hans1729 7y ago

satvikpendem 7y ago

I am not sure if this is covered in the podcast, but from the title, I wonder if in deep neural net research there are papers and implementations of a system 1 and 2 like model. One part of the neural net could be system 1 for fast decision making, and other could be system 2, with more deliberate analysis. They could communicate over some shared medium.

p13rr0m 7y ago
I believe the paper SlowFast Networks for Video Recognition goes somewhat in that direction. The architecture is split into a fast pathway, to capture motion information, and a slow pathway that captures spatial semantics. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1812.03982.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/1812.03982.pdf
K0SM0S 7y ago
I got your answer! He indeed explicitely says in the interview that deep learning is really system 1 only. That was surprising but makes total sense — it's an unconscious, automatic, fast, effort-free response, which is exactly what system 1 is. Note that both system 1 and 2 are trainable and able to perform complex tasks (he takes the example of a chess player for whom only strong moves come to mind, which is system 1 playing chess in that case; and system 2 is more of a "validation" for system 1's output in such a case). He doesn't go into it but I think you could make the reverse argument, that system 2 is "checked" by system 1, when we "feel" that something, even though "correct", is just "not right" for instance. That kind of judgement over a thought or idea is nearly instant, it's very system-1 like, and keeps popping up in our thinking as we "judge" said thoughts and do some triage as we go along. As for AI and system 2, the problem is that system 2 is conscious, deliberate, and aware of causality and meaning — and the last two are really hard problems for now. He mentions earlier ML models pre-DL (when they tried to do it the hard, symbolic way iirc?), and indeed the question of whether current architecture can or cannot generalize up to system 2 is opened. Yann Lecun apparently thinks it can (just that we don't know if it's right around the corner or very, very far away), Lex (and most AI experts I heard) think not, that there's a fundamentally 'other' kind of architecture(s) required.
- 7y ago

piker 7y ago

Listen to a few of Lex's podcasts (his own and his appearance on Joe Rogan) before you dismiss his interviewing style and/or tone. You may very well learn to appreciate it and his breadth of technical knowledge as much as the quality of his guests, which probably the highest of any technical podcast so far.

AlanTuring 7y ago
Lex here. Thank you for this. Words of criticism can hurt pretty bad these days, so this kind of support really helps. Thank you.
- sgentle 7y ago
  If it helps, remember that paradoxically the better you're doing the blunter the criticism will be. If this were some fledgling little podcast run by a nobody, it would feel cruel to criticise too harshly. But this is the freakin' Lex Fridman AI podcast, the untouchable juggernaut at the top of its game. What could I say that could possibly hurt something (and someone) so successful? Of course, I'm sure you don't feel untouchable, but maybe there is a certain cold comfort in knowing that inconsiderate criticism is a hallmark of becoming an institution. Keep up the good work, man.

grej 7y ago

I'll echo the comments here and just say thank you Lex for your calm, incisive, and enlightening interview style. In an era where the quality of journalism and media has moved from objective analysis toward editorialized hysteria on all topics, the approach you take is especially refreshing.

AlanTuring 7y ago
Thank you. Truly. I hope to live up to this.

thibran 7y ago

For me the podcast is one of the few things that I really like. The philosophical discussions allow to get a glimpse of the mind of the interviewed person. Sometimes I'm quite shocked that some people seem so superficial - from a philosophical point of view - even when they belong to the best in their field.

AlanTuring 7y ago
Thank you for the kind words. I think it's important to think both about the mathematical/technical foundations of an idea and its place in the big picture of human civilization.

jlisam13 7y ago

Thank you Lex! After taking classes in college, I sort of drifted away from the world of AI. Thank god I stumbled upon your videos. You re-sparkled my curiosity in AI with your podcasts. Your questions are so insightful and the guests that you bring in are amazing.

willberman 7y ago

Because it looks like Lex is reading comments here, I would suggest that an adequate compromise for going into more technical detail on podcasts might be to link to external resources and cover them in a more high level on the actual podcast itself. It’s my general belief (admittedly experience based) that rigor is best developed in isolation; however, the podcast format is great for developing a high level intuition. Keep up the good work lex. The quantity of content you put out at the level of quality you do is very impressive.

yumario 7y ago

Thank you Lex. I think your podcast are the most interesting in the internet. But... Readings books is awesome because you are getting the condensed knowledge that someone have spend maybe decades of their lives to compile. When I listen to a podcast the same applies to a lesser extend. The problem is Lex does not ask interesting questions. He dwells into philosophical and common questions i.e "What is the meaning of life", "is math invented or discovered". This questions are interesting but are not in the guest field of expertise which in turn causes them to give a generic response. This devalues the quality of the podcast.

jonpon 7y ago
While I definitely understand where you are coming from, I think Lex's style can grow on you. My advice would be to ask shorter questions, sometimes Lex you try to explain what you mean. I would just drop the question and let the other person start talking instead of you trying to fill the silence. Also I do really enjoy the questions about meaning of life (maybe more discussions on free will would be great too). In any case, hats off to you Lex for interviewing some of the most interesting people in the field (and those who are not exactly in the field too). Also I love how you show up with a suit.
- AlanTuring 7y ago
  Lex here. The amount of positive and thoughtful comments here is humbling. From the bottom of my heart, thank you. Here are things I didn't realize is the role of the interviewer (my role) but I now know they are: 1. Push towards depth, because not all people go there naturally themselves. 2. Ask for clarifications if I don't understand something. This can make me sound stupid, but it's a worthy sacrifice. I will always sacrifice ego for the chance to understand something basic or hopefully fundamental. In fact, I play dumb sometimes just to force explanation of basics on which the technically deep ideas are built. 3. Disagree respectfully (at times playing devil's advocate) to give a chance to the interviewee to argue their point. 4. Speak whatever question or point I have clearly, concisely, quickly, and then shut up and listen. My role is to give the other person a break and to throw up ideas that spark their passion. I really struggle with this (especially the concise, clear part). Thank you again for the kind words. I'll keep improving!

laughingman2 7y ago

Lex, you're doing an amazing job. The level of commitment and hard work you put in to make this podcast is incredible. On the technical depth side criticism you're getting, I would say the one with Ian Goodfellow had optimal balance. And don't take destructive criticism about bad attitude or tone etc by some commentors . For someone introverted it's already draining to put yourself in front of a camera ...

AlanTuring 7y ago
Thank you sincerely for the kind words and for understanding the toughness of getting in front of the camera as an introvert. The criticism on top of that is TOUGH to take, but in moderation it helps long-term. With this HN thread, I told myself I'll meditate on critical advice, consider action items to take in order to improve, and then move forward letting the more personal destructive (as you say) criticism fade from memory. That last part is easier said than done, but that's life.

MattRix 7y ago

Just wanted to say thanks for doing the podcast! It has become my favourite podcast to listen to (and I listen to a lot of them!). The style of it is relaxing and yet mentally stimulating at the same time. I enjoy all the philosophical questions as well!

AlanTuring 7y ago
Thank you! To me, asking philosophical questions of world-class mathematicians, physicists, computer scientists, engineers is eye-opening and inspiring. It's taking a break at looking up at the stars. I love the messy details of engineering, but every once in a while it feels great to pause, and reflect on the big picture of our incredible, unlikely existence here on Earth. As Oscar Wilde said: "We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars." I love the gutter and I love the stars!

teslaberry 7y ago

lex. quit academia for now. you can always go back later. carpe diem. you have a huge opportunity now and of you dont go full time youll never really know if you could have 'made it' as a AAA interviewer of household international fame. give yoirself a time limit. you can always go back to academia.its time ypu accept youve hit an inflection point and now is the time you decide if you will take the risk of pursuing geometric growth. zeev

alexanderthe- 7y ago

Lex’s podcast is my new favorite. I’m not a Computer Scientist, so I thoroughly enjoy hearing him ask Philosophical questions to these great minds and having them answer with the humble nature of mere mortals... which of course, they are. Keep up the good work Lex, I first heard you on Rogan’s podcast, you are bringing something really unique to the world and I am sure we will all be better for it.

lyxsus 7y ago

Can't get enough of Lex interviews, absolutely brilliant!

goldemerald 7y ago

Great podcast Lex! I am intrigued about the discussion on explainable AI. How do you feel about the quality of the current XAI research? What do you think are the most important directions for that field? And what do you see it looking like in 3-5 years?

thegabriele 7y ago

Lex, amazing work with your podcast. If someone is willing to dig deeeper into technical stuffs of any of your guests, internet is full of resources but there's no way to find the personal insights one could get from the podcast. I do really hope to see Robert Sapolsky and Douglas Hofstadter sooner or later.

1_over_n 7y ago

I speculatively emailed Kahneman once about a blog i was working on. He emailed me back. Cool guy.