3 ms·

The bigger problem with the podcast isn't his credentials or AI knowledge, it's how dry his delivery and presence are and how he basically reads off a prepared

The bigger problem with the podcast isn't his credentials or AI knowledge, it's how dry his delivery and presence are and how he basically reads off a prepared list of questions instead of having a conversation with his guests. And also the insistance to ask questions about life being a simulation and the meaning of life. He is a really poor interviewer but he has had a great selection of guests on the podcast.

libertine 6y ago
Yet - somehow - he keeps growing? You make really harsh and bitter remarks, like, "clearly he sucks at what he does, and he is cringe to ask silly questions about life and simulations... he is just lucky about his guests!!" Like selecting, inviting and convince guests isn't part of the whole thing? Do you think these guests go out there expose themselves without having any idea of who he is, who his audience his, and the work he does? How do you make such assessment and don't realize that maybe, just maybe, you're not his audience or that you don't understand what he is doing or his appeal, accept that and move on? He clearly works really hard to prepare these 1+ hour long interviews - this is not easy, at all! The ridiculous thing is that when I clicked this comment section, I was expecting to see such caustic comments because there's a lot of passionate people here about CS, AI, and many other sciences... that's one of the reasons I come to HN, even though I don't have a PhD. But damn, give the man some credit! You must understand that his inadequacies, his awkward pauses or his behavior when he makes the - indeed cringe - romanticized questions, it's part of the appeal of the whole thing? You don't get such bare boned interviewers these days, he his what he is - a MIT guy interviewing and giving visibility to bright minds that, at least myself, would have never heard of! Is he the best interviewer? Hell no! His he improving? Yeah, bit by bit, and he has a long way to go. Some guests roll their eyes about some question? Yes, but some also don't, and that's the fun part! His he and his guests entertaining? Hell yes!

libertine 6y ago

Yet - somehow - he keeps growing? You make really harsh and bitter remarks, like, "clearly he sucks at what he does, and he is cringe to ask silly questions about life and simulations... he is just lucky about his guests!!" Like selecting, inviting and convince guests isn't part of the whole thing? Do you think these guests go out there expose themselves without having any idea of who he is, who his audience his, and the work he does? How do you make such assessment and don't realize that maybe, just maybe, you're not his audience or that you don't understand what he is doing or his appeal, accept that and move on? He clearly works really hard to prepare these 1+ hour long interviews - this is not easy, at all! The ridiculous thing is that when I clicked this comment section, I was expecting to see such caustic comments because there's a lot of passionate people here about CS, AI, and many other sciences... that's one of the reasons I come to HN, even though I don't have a PhD. But damn, give the man some credit! You must understand that his inadequacies, his awkward pauses or his behavior when he makes the - indeed cringe - romanticized questions, it's part of the appeal of the whole thing? You don't get such bare boned interviewers these days, he his what he is - a MIT guy interviewing and giving visibility to bright minds that, at least myself, would have never heard of! Is he the best interviewer? Hell no! His he improving? Yeah, bit by bit, and he has a long way to go. Some guests roll their eyes about some question? Yes, but some also don't, and that's the fun part! His he and his guests entertaining? Hell yes!