If Lex Fridman has a PhD in CS from MIT, MIT must be a joke | Hacker News Reader

If Lex Fridman has a PhD in CS from MIT, MIT must be a joke

10 pointsx005424 comments

I just listened to several CS heavy interviews with Lex and several guests. Knowing nothing about the host I would have assumed that he has no higher education at all, let alone a Ph.D. in CS from MIT. Am I wrong?

As far as I am concerned he lucked out because someone got him into MIT and he lucked out the second time because he got on the Joe Rogan podcast. The rest is history. But I was just amazed how dumb the man sounds on his own podcast and the quality of guests he gets.

I'll be honest, I am probably jealous, but damn, I almost think like his podcast has negative value. Every time his guests speaks I get smarter, every time he speaks I just get angry that someone this dumb got this lucky.

Edit: Typo + It turns out that Lex actually has a PhD from Drexel University, not MIT, as pointed out by slater.

View on HN

"hire" education, ey? /scnr

edit: also, according to Wikipedia, he does not hold a PhD in CS from MIT.

"Fridman was born in Moscow, and after moving to the United States he studied at Drexel University, where he received a B.S. (Bachelor of Science), M.S. (Master of Science), and a Ph.D. (Doctor of Philosophy)."

shrug

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex_Fridman#Early_life_and_edu...

So, how does he claim to lecture at the MIT on Deep Learning? Does MIT just let anyone lecture about ML?

MIT 6.S094: Introduction to Deep Learning and Self-Driving Cars (Fridman) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1L0TKZQcUtA&t=39s

Is his lecture any good in your opinion? I scrubbed through several and all I got is him gushing vaguely about some actual ML researchers and stumbling over his own technical slides. What am I missing that this is somehow good enough for MIT?

He worked at MIT as a researcher.

Thanks for pointing out. I was told by people that he has a PhD from MIT. I should have checked for my self.

The older I am, the more I am convinced academic achievement has little to zero correlation with wisdom. He may be good with the former and knowledgable in certain domain. But lacking on the latter.

This is increasingly obvious in the modern world. Specialist taking over, generalist are devalued. Or may be generalist isn't a correct term, but some type of polymath.

As far as I can tell, the complaint is that you don’t like the questions he asks.

Do you have an example of one of his dumb questions or statements?

No, the complain is that he basically doesn't understand what his guests are telling him so rather than asking a followup question or transition smoothly he just jumps around from question to question. Just listen for your self, it's obvious.

I don’t think it’s obvious. An alternative explanation is that he does understand and doesn’t feel the need to ask a follow up because he think the next question is more valuable to ask. My sense of him is that he is deliberately trying not to do a linear technical interview and is trying to get people out of the standard pattern so you get a feel for their humanity as well as their technical mastery.

It would be easy to know what you are complaining about if you just provided an example. An episode number and time index would do.

The Jim Keller interview is a wonderful example, listen to the first one. I don't want to re-listen to pull out specific time codes. The first time I listened I was actually interested, I wasn't listening with intent to create time coded indictment of Lex. If you are regular listener and you like his show, I doubt you would ever agree with my take even if I offered you all the proof in the world, because ultimately it's subjective. I say he remains silent and switches topics because he is dumb, but clever enough to be a good bullshit artist. You want to give them the benefit of the doubt.

> I doubt you would ever agree with my take even if I offered you all the proof in the world

You’ll never know if you don’t try.

> I say he remains silent and switches topics because he is dumb

Earlier you said this was obvious. Now it seems like you have no confidence that anyone but you can even tell.

I will listen to some of the Jim Keller episode, but even some clue of where you got the impression from would help.

Edit: I’m 30 minutes in. It’s a great podcast. Nothing obvious about what Lex is doing to make it worse.

This is far from the best example, but here is one:

https://youtu.be/1CSeY10zbqo

That's just what I had a moment to find right now and it was well labeled and I remembered that moment. As for your other comments, my only possible response would be insulting, and I have no desire to insult you.

Yes - that piece came earlier in the episode than 30 mins, so I had already heard it. What is it that you think Fridman doesn’t understand?

Also - at 44:50, they have a brief argument about what constitutes ‘search’ in a multidimensional space, and Jim ends up conceding to Lex.

zepto,

Thank you for highlighting that point in the interview. That's another excellent example of Lex being incompetent in the very Science he proclaims to have a PhD in. If you don't know that, you basically just proved why I chose not to get into this argument with you. And Jim didn't concede, he moved on from a really stupid conversation topic onto something else.

> If you don't know that, you basically just proved why I chose not to get into this argument with you

You keep saying things like this, but frankly in so doing you make yourself appear yourself to be intellectually dishonest.

You have been unable to explain or substantiate any of your complaints throughout this conversation, hiding behind the idea that anyone who doesn’t agree with you is too ignorant to be worth explaining it to, which is clearly an evasion.

There is no rational explanation for why you don’t produce an explanation other than that you don’t actually have one.

The simplest explanation is that your hypothesis that you are jealous of Lex is correct, and there is no substance to any of your criticisms, because if there were you’d have presented some.

In case you hadn’t seen it, your posting has been flagged.

So you stated something that wasn't true (Jim conceding), I pointed out that that wasn't the case, and then you flagged my post. So intellectually honest! A true gentlemen!

In any case, let's argue in good faith about this one specific moment you pointed out. The question in hand is if Gradient Descent in ML should be considered a "Search" problem. Lex argues that it is a "Search" problem and Jim is arguing that "Search" has a specific meaning in CS, and ML Training is NOT that.

Jim's understanding of the word "Search" matches my own. Search is a process of looking for a particular data or __specific__ outcome. What happens in ML during training could be described as optimization, filtering, and, obviously, training, but in no way does it fit the definition of "search".

For reference, my definition of "Search" corresponds to the formal definition described hear: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_problem, Lex's does NOT, and this is what Jim was pointing out. He eventually gave up when he figured out that Lex was using a colloquial definition of search, not the technical CS definition of the same word, and "conceded" by saying "sure, if that's what you mean by search" or something to that effect.

I would appreciate if you wouldn't flag this comment, but rather engaged with it, like an adult. Thank you.

I tried listening after hearing some hype and got instantly turned off by the vocal fry; when I got over that, I realised the questions weren't up much either.

Jared Kushner has a Bachelor's from Harvard, therefore Harvard must be a joke.

Just because Jared Kushner is related to Trump, and Trump is a dumb ass, it doesn't necessarily make Jared dumb. That said, many people graduate from Harvard who shouldn't have due to family connections and money. So.... yeah, in some ways Harvard is kind of a joke. It's only hard to get in, not hard to graduate from.

Oh I actually wasn't really trying to make a reference to Trump though it's somewhat unavoidable. Kushner was actually known for being a terrible legacy admission before Trump even announced his candidacy, and Kushner's stent as Chief Innovation Officer/Chief Nepotism Advisor to the Whitehouse sure didn't make him look much smarter.

Also I meant to add that I agree with you regarding getting in vs graduating. That was my take away from the recent scandals. If anyone can get in via bribing their way onto a racquetball team or whatever and then graduate, it can't be that hard.

Also from watching some of their courses, they do have world class teachers and I assume TA to student ratios that are enviable so I'm sure there is a quality education there too.

Harvard has a high percentage of legacies. Kushner is one peg lower: a donor brat. For an undergrad program that is a bit sketch.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com