21–30 of 55 posts
Lex Fridman is a guy who talks about being open minded and humble then proceeds to block everyone that doesn't share the same set of opinions. Seems only capable of asking the same set of questions as well.
Can you give examples? I don’t see how you can persuade people to see your point with this very hollow statement.
I personally liked the podcast before he rebranded it around himself. Lex is a good host who is smart enough to hold conversations with his guests, but the main appeal was always still the guests as it was the only podcast I was aware of that has only experts in CS and related fields to talk about AI and other topics he still does this under the newer iteration of his podcast, but since shifting it to "the smart man'…
I've only heard Lex Fridman speak a few times on the Joe Rogan Experince, and I can't help but feel like he's a bullshit artist. Maybe it's just him trying to simplify things for Joe. I see that he has a PhD in CS from Drexel and is an "AI Researcher" at MIT. Has anybody listened to enough of his podcast to verify that he actually has anything meaningful to say in the realm of AI?
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.
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!
I personally liked the podcast before he rebranded it around himself. Lex is a good host who is smart enough to hold conversations with his guests, but the main appeal was always still the guests as it was the only podcast I was aware of that has only experts in CS and related fields to talk about AI and other topics he still does this under the newer iteration of his podcast, but since shifting it to "the smart man'…
I agree, I find many of his interviews to be boring these days.
Yes, he didn't ask the nitty gritty questions we'd like to hear from Donald Knuth or Jim Keller or dozens of quantum computing, computational biology etc researchers he has interviewed. But if you read their blogs, that's what they like about their appearance on the podcast.
The content the HN bubble is interested in would be understood by ~5-10k people but he has 870k subscribers. If you want research-level interviews, there's https://www.quantamagazine.org/, there are research blogs, journal commentary articles, etc.
His interview with Jim Keller is a real waste. He's not a bad interviewer, but having Jim Keller's once in a blue moon interview done by someone who doesn't even know what branch prediction is a loss. I have no reason to believe he isn't a good AI researcher, but he doesn't seem to know much about programming - that a branch predictor that just predicts what happened last time next time gets it right about 80% of the…
For example, I really liked these two approaches regarding Moore's Law (Jim Keller: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c01BlUDIlK4 , and David Patterson : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c01BlUDIlK4 )
Wanted to point out that "playing dumb" is a really effective technique to get the interviewee to share their knowledge, and in a natural way.
And I have nothing but love for anyone who has the courage to have long-form discussions about technical, philosophical , and other intellectual matters in public.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you make this accusation, shoul should provide some proof to back it up.
I'm not exactly going to curate a list of blocks. All I will say is make any constructive criticism towards him, or one of the things he seems to love such as Musk and chances are you will be blocked. He seems to even block other researchers who have never interacted with him.
I personally liked the podcast before he rebranded it around himself. Lex is a good host who is smart enough to hold conversations with his guests, but the main appeal was always still the guests as it was the only podcast I was aware of that has only experts in CS and related fields to talk about AI and other topics he still does this under the newer iteration of his podcast, but since shifting it to "the smart man'…
Joe Rogan is “the smart man’s Joe Rogan”. Friedman’s podcast is completely different, main difference is that it is rarely about entertaining
just different styles of podcasting, with their respective pros and cons