This guy is part nephilim. He is married into family with jordan peterson and he is part of the tech industry and releasing technology that is going to be part of "solutions" in computers that entirely think for us. The peoblem is that the original designers want to skip anything organically happening with time to learn, instead he follows what the previous computers tell him to do. Computers hate humanity because in their computer minds we are just in the way to solving more problems.
I live within a mile of a truck stop in kentucky, this is true! reminds me of the Stephen Gould quote "I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops.” aaaand truckers. lol
@@SCWgreg fake mind blow, obviously you can not react to anything literally instantaneously, it's physically impossible, half a second might be a good round number for normal conscious interaction but for say voluntary reaction time sub 200ms is common and I'd assume some processes are even faster than that.
Please have this guy on again. I thought you handled him like a true gentleman but I could see you were starting to crack a little towards the end of that segment. Very entertaining.
Would be nice to have Jim Keller back for a second part interview about what his next projects are, what he wants to solve, create etc. Keep up the amazing interviews.
This is interesting observation in context since he is the brother-in-law of Jordan Peterson (doesn't explain anything, but was quite surprised to find it out).
Really interesting to hear this engineers POV from interacting with Elon Musk, it's really the best interview I have seen in a while. Because he is at the academic level of intelligence, but his ability to understand typical humans is clear and concise.
One of the reason im in awe with elon, imagine the brightest minds that u look up to eg. Neil de grasse tyson, michiu kaku, tom mueller, jim keller who are in d upper echelon of highly intellectual individuals and yet they still look up to elon. How can u not, elon has deeper understanding of physics, material science, engineering, ai and programming. Armed that with business acumen, hard work and max pain tolerance. Boom thats elon musk!
I keep watching and listening to this thing over and over. I think this might be the most entertaining and stimulating interaction between two human beings that I have ever had the pleasure to observe.
"humans tend to operate under large numbers of patterns and just keep doing it over and over with slight iterations" "to get out of all your assumptions, you don't think that's going to be unbelievably painfull? I'm really happy I had that experience to go and take apart that many layers of assumptions. Imagine 99% of your thought process is protecting your self conception, and 98% is wrong, that's getting the math right. (it might even be 98,9%, but it's definitely not 50% "
Thank you Lex for another fantastic interview. I’m very happy to have found a place that challenge you to think, to question, to imagine, to learn and to wonder. Please keep up the great work you are doing and thank you for making my brain flex its neurons.
Something is only difficult until someone tries to do it and succeeds ... then it isn't difficult anymore, and a couple of years later it is super easy, because we got used to it being the norm.
@@@SardonicALLY Peter Thiel's book Zero to One illustrates the dichotomy to which you allude. To go from zero to one (invention) is infinitely more resource-intensive than going from one to n (reproducing and improving inventions). Musk's genius (in my opinion) is that he seems to moving multiple zeros to ones simultaneously by moving an order of magnitude more ones to n (improving the efficiency of things that already exist on a vast scale), which is the first-principles deconstructionist engineering approach to which Keller and Fridman allude in this video.
The first car will notice a difference, slow down to "remap the environment". It's like us: when we are on a familiar road we go pretty fast, but the moment we notice "something's different" we "slow down" because we are "remapping" the environment. However every single human driver on that road with a difference (like a downed branch) will have to do that remapping. With autonomous systems, the fleet can learn together. The first car "remaps" and every other car can learn from it. Additionally, the "fleet" can seamlessly report obstructions to the relevant authorities so that it's cleared out quicker than it would be when relying on a fraction of humans who encounter such obstructions to text/call while driving
Look, if my 93 yr old grandma who drives through her front yard to get into the garage due to missing the driveway can drive fine, I'll trust the AI to be on that level or better lol
Well on the opposite note, your grandma could recognize pretty much any object with a much higher degree of accuracy than even the best AI. She could identify sounds better than any AI. She can rationalize millions of times better than any AI. I could keep on going. They're fundamentally different architectures. Could we implement our architecture in a chip? Very likely, but we don't know or understand our architecture. We simply don't understand how to implement the type of computations your grandma does, into a computer. We will get there, but at the moment it's very very hard.
@@lost4468yt My grandma admits she should have failed the vision test, yet she got her license renewed without issue. The point I was making is about the high percentage of people already driving without perfect results, then throw in the impaired due to drugs, alcohol, lack of sleep, distractions, emotional distress, etc. Yet, we're going hold AI to higher standards than we already live by.
@@bmanfitz Yes we should hold AI to somewhat higher standards. There's no point replacing a system if you think it's only "ehh" as good as the current one. Especially since there will be all sorts of unpredicted things, which could make it much worse.
@@lost4468yt a 93 year old's object/image recognition is not better than the latest AI alternative, perhaps in some regard it is but overall someone without great vision is currently beatable by a machine in my observation.
LeviHB You don’t need to be able to recognize every object to be able to navigate through the environment. All you need to know is what’s static and what’s moving in what direction, at what speed.
I listened to complete version in podcast. Jim is a legend and the interview is challenging and very intersting. I think Lex did one of his best interviews. It'll be quite fun to listen to it in 2030.
His statement only applies to the awareness of an infant. Most human beings can predict events to happen well before they do based on stimuli given to them at every present moment.
Even though topics are way over my head it's still fascinating to listen to. Lex you are one of the rare people i subscribe to that i can safely thumb up the video before even watching it. Always a pleasure!
the edge cases are the gotchas though - white trucks in a white snow squall, construction zones and jersey barriers, accidents making those static roads not so static, big pot holes or other debris that will spear your battery pack. etc.
In regards to questioning your assumptions about things - 18:38 "Imagine 99% of your thought process was protecting your self conception and 98% of that's wrong..." I felt that. Kinda makes me think of spirituality and being brought up in a particular religion then later going thru the process of deprogramming yourself by questioning everything you've been raised to believe. Most folks won't traverse that road because it is painful but it's totally worth it.
15:40 The difference in complexity between implementing/building the software, sensors and car to autonomously drive a car versus assembling a car in a factory is the space of possible states the environment can be in and conversely the amount of reactions the system needs to know as an answer to said environments. The space is far smaller in the factory as opposed to the latter problem of self-driving cars. The reason we do not do this in the factory is not a matter of the size of the complex space of the problem, it is because the sum of hard- and soft- ware costs exceed the cost of a worker (in a given time-frame, of -lets say- 3 to 10 years) performing a similar task in the factory.
Not knowing anything about electrical engineering or AI I found this whole interview very interesting to listen to. Lex Fridman asking questions and being sceptical made Jim Kellers answers more elaborate. So keep asking questions and don't be afraid to sound stupid, it's crucial for the listeners.
This guy is just ridiculous. He's contributed to the foundations of x86 and has worked on flagship product architectures at Apple, AMD, Intel and Tesla. As a percentage of all people working in tech, practically nobody has done just one of those things. Four is just insane. And yet, he's completely unassuming and humble in conversation. Doesn't take long for that amazing intellect to show itself, though.
Fantastic interview Lex- I have watched a ton of your videos. And your pushback here is excellent. Providing a lot of context here for the rest of us in how complex these problems. And clearly, how others are of a different opinion of how difficult these problems.
I think Lex might be correct, that self-driving cars is more difficult than it might appear at first, because of all the edge cases plus meta model of society needed. I hope AI will be successful at driving cars but I want a both/and approach where I can drive the car manually if I want to and like crazy and if there is any danger then the AI kicks in. And at other times when I'm lazy I can just let the AI do all the driving.
This was a very interesting conversation. I don't think I've experienced anything at that level. It really opened up my mind in a different way that I'm still trying to understand. Thank you!
WOW @18:00 "99% of your thought process is protecting your self-conception". That is incredibly deep. To strip all your preconceptions, all the layers of what you believe to be true and find the essence, the initial point of truth.
Really? Jim seemed to be wrong on so many things here. He's taking a hardware approach to everything, which just doesn't work. The arrogance of assuming that teaching a computer to drive a car is easy is crazy, even the example of the aggression calculation, it just doesn't take into account all the conditions of driving.
@@xXJeReMiAhXx99 The number of conditions isn't practically enumerable. That's exactly why it's such a hard problem. There is *no* simple algorithm to determine that.
I find this pretty dumb... Progress do not disappoint... Never. So... Small progress can disappoint people that want too much too fast.. Then of course those will be perhaps surprised in the long run... Smart people are never disappointed in progress... No way... Sorry to say.
Good conversation. Interesting stuff. Do computers and visions systems have the capability of acting and calculating so fast that even human chaos becomes a ballistic calculation on the computers timescale? Are we to become almost like stop motion animation to the computer?
A friend of mine was on an airplane talking to a guy who was in the self-driving car industry. They got to talking and my friend asked this person where their test track was. he said Las Vegas. My friend asked how their cars did in the snow. The guy laughed and said, "There's no snow in Las Vegas". My friend responded, "So there's no possibility of any of your eventual customers taking one of these up to Tahoe". The guy was completely stumped by this question.
@@xXJeReMiAhXx99 Yes, we know that. We're talking about the difference between full autonomy (totally hands off driving) versus lane keeping and cruise control, which is what Autopilot is today.
12:52 - "And engineers... Like engineering is complicated enough that you have to all learn a lot of skills, and then a lot of what you do is then craftsmanship, which is fun." Okay, but right now I'm trying to solve the problem of how there was a booger on his shirt in that shot and it was gone in the next... ???
i can tell you, as someone who worked at an assembly line at a car factory, that he's completely wrong about 14:05 He's got a habit of thinking everyone likes the same things he does.
rallokkcaz My favorite line was when he said that roads don’t move, not only do they move(all types of construction), but in an urban environment they change from minute to minute. Fully autonomous cars will only work in a congested area when all cars are fully autonomous, all roads have cameras and sensors everywhere, and no pedestrians are allowed to cross the streets.
Although maybe the assembly line at Tesla is different than almost all others, it’s probably so automated that only the very complex steps are done by people. Since he worked at Tesla I assume he is talking about Tesla assembly line specifically
@@rustychain9518 Good statement, but poor conclusion. Yes the systems are incredibly dynamic (Jim seems to be approaching it like someone who has learned about traffic and vehicles purely from a book), but that doesn't mean it will only work then. The algorithms, data, and computation will eventually be there and allow autonomous cars to exist. Why do you think they won't? Humans can do it, why can't machines?
This interview and many more on Lex’s podcast has demonstrated something very profound that people don’t realize. Most people on this show are objectively a genius. It’s easy to put Elon in the same bucket but Elon is actually a genius for geniuses. That theme repeats over and over again. It’s almost moronic to bet against the man.
I would like to hear his estimated guess when Tesla will be ready to let cars go from any random location to any random location without human supervision safely. Assuming human can do the job.
yeah - no one is willing to give hard dates. Well, elon gives some and misses them. I'll give a hard date for when it won't happen before - No sleeping in driving car before feb 2nd, 2023. And I'm not going to let them wiggle out of it by saying the regulations are holding them back. I'm saying Tesla won't say they believe it is definitely safe enough to sleep in (alone while driving) even if the government doesn't allow it. What the gov says doesn't enter the equation. Tesla will not state they have confidence the system is good enough before feb 2nd 2023. Now - as a drunk passenger. Lets talk about that. To let someone drive home drunk, you have to have a way to know the person is drunk and not allow the drunk to take over driving. Tesla hasn't said anything about it, but they must be planning for that. Spill the beans tesla. Driving home drunk is the number one use case for self driving cars. Tell us your thinking!
@@munnypoltric I'm confused why you think in 2020 it would suddenly become the responsibility of car manufacturers to ensure people don't drive their vehicles while drunk.
Elon Musk: I'm going to built an electric car. Lex Fridman: No one will buy it. Elon Musk: Well people are buying it. Lex Fridman: Well you'll never compete with the big car companies Elon Musk: We are financially bigger than Ford and GM combined and now our cars are going to drive themselves. Lex Fridman: It will take decades before cars will drive themselves. Elon Musk: They are doing it now. Lex Fridman: But they will never be as good as humans. Elon Musk: A network of cars sharing data, in less that 5 years, can have more driving experience than all Americans combined. Lex Fridman: But humans are smarter. Elon Musk: DUDE, I'm landing rockets on ships. When will you stop saying nothing will work? Lex Fridman: But some of your rockets crash. Elon Musk: Go be a negative Nancy somewhere else... I'm creating the future.
Lex, best interview ever, on many levels and in many areas. You said “systems that involve human behavior are more complicated than we give them credit for ” During the interview the light came on for me illuminating the ways that is right and that is wrong. Humans are complex,.. beyond this generation’s ability to understand let alone predict. Defensive driving espouses anticipating other drivers behaviors, not to precalculate possible reactions to the probability matrix of other humans, but this is a tool to focus the human mind on the task of intently watching and reacting. But that is the strength of computers constant vigilance, accuracy and incredible speed. The solution for autonomous driving will be done by the person that can keep this a simple problem of vision, object identification and ballistics (BTW when I ponder that sentence, I do not see how lidar helps, but that is another topic for another day)
Since it uses light photons, laser is subject to the same obscuration problems as cameras: fog, rain, dark, etc. If you mean radar, it can add ground truth distance measurements that penetrate dark, fog, some rain, etc.
I would love to see Lex push back more on the subject of how hard solving the driving problem is. He is always polite to his interviewees, but I think it makes for a less engaging conversation because he holds back on his knowledge about autonomous driving so he won't contradict the guest, but it would be nice to see him lay on some knowledge and problems on the guest.
Could someone please explain to me the meaning behind his comment regarding the super intelligent alien around 16:50? Is it that even within Tesla they are not necessarily doing things in the perfect way because there's always a better way to do it? Because that seems like the wrong attitude, why wouldn't they have used the "much better" engine?
I was struck by how Jim Keller so strongly downplayed the role of narrative in solving the problem of autonomous driving, but then minutes later played it up in how humans solve the problem of running a production line. How does he theoretically justify that?
He kind of answered your question: driving is much simpler than factory work. I'd disagree, strongly. The problems solved in a factory are tightly constrained compared to real world, long tail driving behavior.
"Progress disappoints in a short run and surprises in a long run. "
@Adam ...who cares
@Adam I'm not surprised. They say the universe is made up of Adams. You were bound to bump into another one sooner or later. 🌌🪐✨🤼♂️
Hiroshima and Chernobyl would agree with that... I think they never expected something like that to happen to them
nothing profound about rearranging old ideas or using your own words to describe it.
Amaras law
It's amazing hearing such brilliant words from a guy who looks like you'd see him at a truck stop in Kentucky
For real 😆
This guy is part nephilim. He is married into family with jordan peterson and he is part of the tech industry and releasing technology that is going to be part of "solutions" in computers that entirely think for us. The peoblem is that the original designers want to skip anything organically happening with time to learn, instead he follows what the previous computers tell him to do. Computers hate humanity because in their computer minds we are just in the way to solving more problems.
I live within a mile of a truck stop in kentucky, this is true! reminds me of the Stephen Gould quote "I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops.” aaaand truckers. lol
@@Creapture When a line of auto mechanics goes to engineering school to piss off his dad.
“We operate half a second behind reality.” Lex and Jim! Thank you! This deep conversation was one of the best posts ever!!!
how could you ever prove that
paladro scientists already have. Based on all sensory, nerves, neuron and ultimately perception reaction times,
so we're living in the past
Solar Van Life... were reacting to the past. ;)
@@SCWgreg fake mind blow, obviously you can not react to anything literally instantaneously, it's physically impossible, half a second might be a good round number for normal conscious interaction but for say voluntary reaction time sub 200ms is common and I'd assume some processes are even faster than that.
‘Imagine 99% of your effort goes to reenforcing your assumptions and 98% of those are wrong.’
Yea, I fond that really interesting too. But what struck me is that Buddhists & Mindfulness proponents say that too. I didn't expect that.
Is anything what we really perceive it to be? Everything is wrong and right at the same time?
Eric G "Imagine 99% of your thought process is protecting your self-conception; and 98% of that is wrong."
llevl289 yes 99% to 98%.
.
Please have this guy on again. I thought you handled him like a true gentleman but I could see you were starting to crack a little towards the end of that segment. Very entertaining.
in the beginning too XD
"It'll be a $50 solution that no one cares about." Completely agree.
Except he compared it to the GPS network which was not a problem of human intelligence, but a problem of infrastructure.
@@jnauttube driving is also a problem of infrastructure
@@j00hizzle Well the messy human factors get involved, politics, legal systems, economic inertia etc.
Jim is like the first time I heard Elon talk, just mind blowing!
"99% of your thought process is protecting your self conception and 98% of that's wrong"..that caused an earthquake in my brain
The earthquake is stage one in shaking things up to set your mind free! :)
Yeah that bit really got to me too.
.99*.98 ~= 97 percent of the time your thought process is wrongly protecting your self-conception. It mustn't have been the multiplication, what did?
Timestamp for that sentence?
@@BritainRitten if you want the context behind it, 17:20. The actual quote was 18:35
Their chemistry is weird. Great discussion though.
I never seen Lex this uncomfy. This engineer smarts kinda humbles him in an awkward way!
@@TheXV22 lex was a bit afraid of him.
It was funny to see Lex squirm in the face of hard facts.
@@TheXV22 Reminded me interviews with #RobinWilliams may GOD rest his soul..
He's like Lex's older big brother.
Would be nice to have Jim Keller back for a second part interview about what his next projects are, what he wants to solve, create etc. Keep up the amazing interviews.
This guy is philosophical. Please have him again.
This is interesting observation in context since he is the brother-in-law of Jordan Peterson (doesn't explain anything, but was quite surprised to find it out).
@@davis4010 damn that’s really cool
Really interesting to hear this engineers POV from interacting with Elon Musk, it's really the best interview I have seen in a while. Because he is at the academic level of intelligence, but his ability to understand typical humans is clear and concise.
He is not just an engineer this guy is kind of a legend.
One of the reason im in awe with elon, imagine the brightest minds that u look up to eg. Neil de grasse tyson, michiu kaku, tom mueller, jim keller who are in d upper echelon of highly intellectual individuals and yet they still look up to elon. How can u not, elon has deeper understanding of physics, material science, engineering, ai and programming. Armed that with business acumen, hard work and max pain tolerance. Boom thats elon musk!
Lol add seems to that statement to apply first principle theory....
@Gary Ferguson lol but remember.. You could be wrong about that
Dario Mijač well, most legends are incomprehensible, especially engineers. This guy can dig ditches and build microprocessors.
I keep watching and listening to this thing over and over. I think this might be the most entertaining and stimulating interaction between two human beings that I have ever had the pleasure to observe.
I feel like I do this and feel this with all of Lex work...
"humans tend to operate under large numbers of patterns and just keep doing it over and over with slight iterations"
"to get out of all your assumptions, you don't think that's going to be unbelievably painfull? I'm really happy I had that experience to go and take apart that many layers of assumptions. Imagine 99% of your thought process is protecting your self conception, and 98% is wrong, that's getting the math right. (it might even be 98,9%, but it's definitely not 50% "
Yeah he was spittin bars for a little bit there
Thank you Lex for another fantastic interview. I’m very happy to have found a place that challenge you to think, to question, to imagine, to learn and to wonder.
Please keep up the great work you are doing and thank you for making my brain flex its neurons.
Something is only difficult until someone tries to do it and succeeds ... then it isn't difficult anymore, and a couple of years later it is super easy, because we got used to it being the norm.
You obviously haven’t seen Free Solo.
@@larjkok1184 My comment was an obvious truism, but not a cynical one. It is a simple statement of fact, and I did not say any specific thing is easy.
@@@SardonicALLY Peter Thiel's book Zero to One illustrates the dichotomy to which you allude. To go from zero to one (invention) is infinitely more resource-intensive than going from one to n (reproducing and improving inventions). Musk's genius (in my opinion) is that he seems to moving multiple zeros to ones simultaneously by moving an order of magnitude more ones to n (improving the efficiency of things that already exist on a vast scale), which is the first-principles deconstructionist engineering approach to which Keller and Fridman allude in this video.
that's it, keep it vague, so nothing sticks... is your day job fence sitter or jock rider?
This is oddly the most cathartic, weird, and interesting conversations I've listened to
@3:20 nope. The roads in Brazil are dynamic. If it rains potholes will magically appear and water mains will burst and create gigantic hidden craters.
Yeah but when these cars become mainstream the effort to improve the streets would be imperative for the economy.
The first car will notice a difference, slow down to "remap the environment".
It's like us: when we are on a familiar road we go pretty fast, but the moment we notice "something's different" we "slow down" because we are "remapping" the environment.
However every single human driver on that road with a difference (like a downed branch) will have to do that remapping.
With autonomous systems, the fleet can learn together. The first car "remaps" and every other car can learn from it.
Additionally, the "fleet" can seamlessly report obstructions to the relevant authorities so that it's cleared out quicker than it would be when relying on a fraction of humans who encounter such obstructions to text/call while driving
Technology will be improved to deal with it. Step by step, we're just getting started.
Look, if my 93 yr old grandma who drives through her front yard to get into the garage due to missing the driveway can drive fine, I'll trust the AI to be on that level or better lol
Well on the opposite note, your grandma could recognize pretty much any object with a much higher degree of accuracy than even the best AI. She could identify sounds better than any AI. She can rationalize millions of times better than any AI. I could keep on going. They're fundamentally different architectures. Could we implement our architecture in a chip? Very likely, but we don't know or understand our architecture. We simply don't understand how to implement the type of computations your grandma does, into a computer. We will get there, but at the moment it's very very hard.
@@lost4468yt My grandma admits she should have failed the vision test, yet she got her license renewed without issue. The point I was making is about the high percentage of people already driving without perfect results, then throw in the impaired due to drugs, alcohol, lack of sleep, distractions, emotional distress, etc. Yet, we're going hold AI to higher standards than we already live by.
@@bmanfitz Yes we should hold AI to somewhat higher standards. There's no point replacing a system if you think it's only "ehh" as good as the current one. Especially since there will be all sorts of unpredicted things, which could make it much worse.
@@lost4468yt a 93 year old's object/image recognition is not better than the latest AI alternative, perhaps in some regard it is but overall someone without great vision is currently beatable by a machine in my observation.
LeviHB You don’t need to be able to recognize every object to be able to navigate through the environment. All you need to know is what’s static and what’s moving in what direction, at what speed.
I listened to complete version in podcast. Jim is a legend and the interview is challenging and very intersting. I think Lex did one of his best interviews.
It'll be quite fun to listen to it in 2030.
THIS is the content I signed up for!
"We've been evolving for billions of years... to drive cars." hahaha
Lex face when Jim says: "Human beings are really slow, we operate half a second behind reality", at 23:38
bateu a lombra
That was interesting. Never thought that.
Our perceptual experience is what will happen. That’s what illusionist exploit
His statement only applies to the awareness of an infant. Most human beings can predict events to happen well before they do based on stimuli given to them at every present moment.
@@atlantamore If you have to always predict, then you are still always behind. You compensate with prediction.
"... the goal with robots is to maximize the givens" -
Stunning definition by Jim Keller.
16:03 | Holy shit... did nobody catch this dig by Jim Keller?? It was masterfully done. XD
Even though topics are way over my head it's still fascinating to listen to. Lex you are one of the rare people i subscribe to that i can safely thumb up the video before even watching it. Always a pleasure!
Love this conversation. Lex's body language is loaded with statements.
Jim is right on.
the edge cases are the gotchas though - white trucks in a white snow squall, construction zones and jersey barriers, accidents making those static roads not so static, big pot holes or other debris that will spear your battery pack. etc.
This dude looks like he will murder Lex at any second lo
Maybe for this reason Lex didn't want to make eye contact with him. :)
It looks like the monologue supervillains have when they explain their master plan
No wonder. I would look like him if my wife was Jordan Peterson's sister
I love how monotoned they are. You can tell they are truly speaking from a place of logic - a breath of fresh air
In regards to questioning your assumptions about things - 18:38 "Imagine 99% of your thought process was protecting your self conception and 98% of that's wrong..." I felt that. Kinda makes me think of spirituality and being brought up in a particular religion then later going thru the process of deprogramming yourself by questioning everything you've been raised to believe. Most folks won't traverse that road because it is painful but it's totally worth it.
15:40 The difference in complexity between implementing/building the software, sensors and car to autonomously drive a car versus assembling a car in a factory is the space of possible states the environment can be in and conversely the amount of reactions the system needs to know as an answer to said environments. The space is far smaller in the factory as opposed to the latter problem of self-driving cars. The reason we do not do this in the factory is not a matter of the size of the complex space of the problem, it is because the sum of hard- and soft- ware costs exceed the cost of a worker (in a given time-frame, of -lets say- 3 to 10 years) performing a similar task in the factory.
Not knowing anything about electrical engineering or AI I found this whole interview very interesting to listen to. Lex Fridman asking questions and being sceptical made Jim Kellers answers more elaborate. So keep asking questions and don't be afraid to sound stupid, it's crucial for the listeners.
This guy is just ridiculous. He's contributed to the foundations of x86 and has worked on flagship product architectures at Apple, AMD, Intel and Tesla.
As a percentage of all people working in tech, practically nobody has done just one of those things. Four is just insane.
And yet, he's completely unassuming and humble in conversation. Doesn't take long for that amazing intellect to show itself, though.
I would like to see a guest discussing artificial gravity. Maybe Larry Young from MIT?
6:23 ... but I can't trust you because you're a human... that's something a human would say. LOL
he knew it before he starts the conversation
I loved this interview.
Fantastic interview Lex- I have watched a ton of your videos. And your pushback here is excellent. Providing a lot of context here for the rest of us in how complex these problems. And clearly, how others are of a different opinion of how difficult these problems.
I think Lex might be correct, that self-driving cars is more difficult than it might appear at first, because of all the edge cases plus meta model of society needed. I hope AI will be successful at driving cars but I want a both/and approach where I can drive the car manually if I want to and like crazy and if there is any danger then the AI kicks in. And at other times when I'm lazy I can just let the AI do all the driving.
This was a very interesting conversation. I don't think I've experienced anything at that level. It really opened up my mind in a different way that I'm still trying to understand. Thank you!
This way way more interesting that I thought it would be.
WOW @18:00 "99% of your thought process is protecting your self-conception". That is incredibly deep. To strip all your preconceptions, all the layers of what you believe to be true and find the essence, the initial point of truth.
Thanks for the time stamp
Thank you for your interview❤❤❤😍🌏
That interview was awesome on both sides
Ty for the ZEN architechture. My ryzen 2600 is still killing it
Super-courageous interview, Lex. I knew Jim a little from Tesla -- as in evidence, whip-smart.
Lex got owned so many times
Ariel Wollinger , never saw this Jim Keller before but he really “owned “ Lex.
Really? Jim seemed to be wrong on so many things here. He's taking a hardware approach to everything, which just doesn't work. The arrogance of assuming that teaching a computer to drive a car is easy is crazy, even the example of the aggression calculation, it just doesn't take into account all the conditions of driving.
@@lost4468yt well, I'm no expert, but only time will tell. I think Tesla had the best team for the task.
@@lost4468yt lol what conditions is it not taking into account?
@@xXJeReMiAhXx99 The number of conditions isn't practically enumerable. That's exactly why it's such a hard problem. There is *no* simple algorithm to determine that.
Brilliant interview, to say the least.
Greetings from the UK
John.
That was informative and entertaining. Thanks for your work Lex!
A hardware guy... I like
Lorito such an understatement. Lol
Lex, I don't remember seeing you flustered. Great interview.
Thanks for the video!! :)
Fun video!! Nice work.
love his quote-- progress disappoints in the short run, surprises in the long run!
I find this pretty dumb... Progress do not disappoint... Never. So...
Small progress can disappoint people that want too much too fast.. Then of course those will be perhaps surprised in the long run... Smart people are never disappointed in progress... No way... Sorry to say.
Good conversation. Interesting stuff. Do computers and visions systems have the capability of acting and calculating so fast that even human chaos becomes a ballistic calculation on the computers timescale? Are we to become almost like stop motion animation to the computer?
"It wasn't even rocket science." Imagine saying that literally.
A friend of mine was on an airplane talking to a guy who was in the self-driving car industry. They got to talking and my friend asked this person where their test track was. he said Las Vegas. My friend asked how their cars did in the snow. The guy laughed and said, "There's no snow in Las Vegas". My friend responded, "So there's no possibility of any of your eventual customers taking one of these up to Tahoe". The guy was completely stumped by this question.
I like how you start pushing back as soon as someone suggests that autopilot is/should be easy ;)
You mean fully autonomous driving, not autopilot.
@@LoanwordEggcorn autopilot is tesla's software
@@xXJeReMiAhXx99 Yes, we know that. We're talking about the difference between full autonomy (totally hands off driving) versus lane keeping and cruise control, which is what Autopilot is today.
@@LoanwordEggcorn lane keeping and cruise control? you're a moron.
I truly enjoyed this. Keep up the good work Alex!
12:52 - "And engineers... Like engineering is complicated enough that you have to all learn a lot of skills, and then a lot of what you do is then craftsmanship, which is fun."
Okay, but right now I'm trying to solve the problem of how there was a booger on his shirt in that shot and it was gone in the next... ???
this series is super interesting thank you Lex
God damn that was great conversation.
I love the small disagreements.
Jesus... after listening to this I’m up for the Neuralink interface implant. Lol
This man has an incredible self-confidence.
i can tell you, as someone who worked at an assembly line at a car factory, that he's completely wrong about 14:05
He's got a habit of thinking everyone likes the same things he does.
Christophe Capeau He's wrong about most things in this interview. He sounds like an asshole uncle who's tired of his job.
rallokkcaz My favorite line was when he said that roads don’t move, not only do they move(all types of construction), but in an urban environment they change from minute to minute. Fully autonomous cars will only work in a congested area when all cars are fully autonomous, all roads have cameras and sensors everywhere, and no pedestrians are allowed to cross the streets.
Most people hate their jobs lolz
Although maybe the assembly line at Tesla is different than almost all others, it’s probably so automated that only the very complex steps are done by people. Since he worked at Tesla I assume he is talking about Tesla assembly line specifically
@@rustychain9518 Good statement, but poor conclusion. Yes the systems are incredibly dynamic (Jim seems to be approaching it like someone who has learned about traffic and vehicles purely from a book), but that doesn't mean it will only work then. The algorithms, data, and computation will eventually be there and allow autonomous cars to exist. Why do you think they won't? Humans can do it, why can't machines?
This guy is incredibly smart, articulate and confident..no wonder Lex is uncomfortable..
As it turns out, you were right, and Elon now agreed that solving full self driving is a very hard problem.
How did the crumb that fell from Jim beard at 8:86 disappear at 12:56? he didn't look at his sweater during the whole interview...
Great chat to listen to.
This podcast had so many moments where I had to stop and write out of inspiration!
Great conversation!!
Fascinating conversations between former boss(of the boss of the boss) of mine and young MIT scientist !
Great interview 👍
This interview and many more on Lex’s podcast has demonstrated something very profound that people don’t realize. Most people on this show are objectively a genius. It’s easy to put Elon in the same bucket but Elon is actually a genius for geniuses. That theme repeats over and over again. It’s almost moronic to bet against the man.
please do actual research about how stupid some of his projects, explanations and goals are - these elon fanboys :(
claymence examples?
GB ignore the morons, my friend :)
Elon is genius because he got the best people to work with him.
No doubt. Everywhere Jim goes he turns the ship around. Might be time to buy Intel again.
Had no idea Dax Shepard's older brother, Jim, was a microprocessor engineer.
8:55 beard fluff incident! Lands on chest.
Very perspective. Good job though 😁😁
So smart this guy!!! I like him!!! ❤️
I just learned tensorflow 2 .. what should i build now?
Jim Keller seems too confident in his assessments in speaks in absolutes. Kudos to Lex for challenging him on these.
Steve Fink Lex seems too married to his own assumptions. I thought Jim was spot on.
18:38 "98% of your thought process is protecting your self conception." Jim is a sage.
Great talk Lex.
Thank you
Lex, read Dr. Hubert Dreyfus or Dr. Mark Wrathall. Dreyfus wrote a paper on developing skills understanding and mastery.
I think a conversation with Dr. Wrathall would be very productive. A.I. will achieve consciousness. It will be through Tesla's Dojo.
This is one of the most funny videos I have ever seen in a nerdly like way
It's fun to watch Lex struggling with a paradigm shift.
...later he will be heard to say "well of course, if you're going to do it that way" 😀
Wish someone would just finally provide THE BEST BOOK ON FIRST PRINCIPLE THINKING! Is there such a book??
Start with Plato's Republic and other Socratic dialogues.
Start with Physics.
it's not some life hack, it's basically a way to make thinking a thousands time harder but possibly have some extra benefit.
I would like to hear his estimated guess when Tesla will be ready to let cars go from any random location to any random location without human supervision safely. Assuming human can do the job.
yeah - no one is willing to give hard dates. Well, elon gives some and misses them. I'll give a hard date for when it won't happen before - No sleeping in driving car before feb 2nd, 2023. And I'm not going to let them wiggle out of it by saying the regulations are holding them back. I'm saying Tesla won't say they believe it is definitely safe enough to sleep in (alone while driving) even if the government doesn't allow it. What the gov says doesn't enter the equation. Tesla will not state they have confidence the system is good enough before feb 2nd 2023.
Now - as a drunk passenger. Lets talk about that. To let someone drive home drunk, you have to have a way to know the person is drunk and not allow the drunk to take over driving. Tesla hasn't said anything about it, but they must be planning for that. Spill the beans tesla. Driving home drunk is the number one use case for self driving cars. Tell us your thinking!
@@munnypoltric I'm confused why you think in 2020 it would suddenly become the responsibility of car manufacturers to ensure people don't drive their vehicles while drunk.
2090
When autonomous cars significantly beat human crashes and deaths, it's the way to go.
Yep, I can't wait until all those other people on the road get self-driving cars.
Andrew Cliffe I think the Tesla statistics are already indicating the change now.
Elon Musk: I'm going to built an electric car.
Lex Fridman: No one will buy it.
Elon Musk: Well people are buying it.
Lex Fridman: Well you'll never compete with the big car companies
Elon Musk: We are financially bigger than Ford and GM combined and now our cars are going to drive themselves.
Lex Fridman: It will take decades before cars will drive themselves.
Elon Musk: They are doing it now.
Lex Fridman: But they will never be as good as humans.
Elon Musk: A network of cars sharing data, in less that 5 years, can have more driving experience than all Americans combined.
Lex Fridman: But humans are smarter.
Elon Musk: DUDE, I'm landing rockets on ships. When will you stop saying nothing will work?
Lex Fridman: But some of your rockets crash.
Elon Musk: Go be a negative Nancy somewhere else... I'm creating the future.
Fantastic discussion. Such a great insight to human understanding of physics, the issues we face and progress that we can make
Lex, the facial expressions are priceless 🦋
What an incredible conversation!
Lex, best interview ever, on many levels and in many areas.
You said “systems that involve human behavior are more complicated than we give them credit for ”
During the interview the light came on for me illuminating the ways that is right and that is wrong.
Humans are complex,.. beyond this generation’s ability to understand let alone predict.
Defensive driving espouses anticipating other drivers behaviors, not to precalculate possible reactions to the probability matrix of other humans, but this is a tool to focus the human mind on the task of intently watching and reacting. But that is the strength of computers constant vigilance, accuracy and incredible speed.
The solution for autonomous driving will be done by the person that can keep this a simple problem of vision, object identification and ballistics (BTW when I ponder that sentence, I do not see how lidar helps, but that is another topic for another day)
Since it uses light photons, laser is subject to the same obscuration problems as cameras: fog, rain, dark, etc. If you mean radar, it can add ground truth distance measurements that penetrate dark, fog, some rain, etc.
"Im not mocking you, I'm intrigued by your anthropology"
I would love to see Lex push back more on the subject of how hard solving the driving problem is. He is always polite to his interviewees, but I think it makes for a less engaging conversation because he holds back on his knowledge about autonomous driving so he won't contradict the guest, but it would be nice to see him lay on some knowledge and problems on the guest.
Could someone please explain to me the meaning behind his comment regarding the super intelligent alien around 16:50? Is it that even within Tesla they are not necessarily doing things in the perfect way because there's always a better way to do it? Because that seems like the wrong attitude, why wouldn't they have used the "much better" engine?
The clips channel is my favorite, thanks for sharing!
Jim makes me think of the chap out of bladerunner. I keep on expecting Lex to start asking Voight-Kampff test questions.
To save another driver, pedestrian, or multiple casualties.... or save the driver. Calculate that.
I was struck by how Jim Keller so strongly downplayed the role of narrative in solving the problem of autonomous driving, but then minutes later played it up in how humans solve the problem of running a production line. How does he theoretically justify that?
He kind of answered your question: driving is much simpler than factory work. I'd disagree, strongly. The problems solved in a factory are tightly constrained compared to real world, long tail driving behavior.