Edit to add: His recent episode with Jack Barsky (former KGB spy) was exceptional and worth a listen if 5hrs is too long of a test case
I tried multiple times to give a fair shake, but Lex seems to never to any research on the guest, almost never has anything interesting to go back and forth on with guests, and seems mostly there to have a wall for guests to talk to, but somehow is less interesting than the wall.
There is no exchange of ideas, its just the guest being able to say whatever they want without any pushback.
I have no idea why interesting guests get called onto this show, other than just having a place to talk to a lot of listeners
That's how you get guests.
I tried with so many of his guests, the lineup is amazing! But every time I end up dropping early on the conversation. Surprisingly, I find him even worse than Joe Rogan as a host (surprising because Joe doesn't have a technical background, whereas Lex does). Joe at least is an apparently neutral host with some charisma and guests get to portray their ideas clearly. Lex somehow sucks all the fun out of the conversation.
Contrast with, for example, Tyler Cowen which also hosts a wide range of interesting guests, and still is able to pose interesting questions and guide the conversations in way that are insightful for the listener.
https://marginalrevolution.com/ https://tylercowensethnicdiningguide.com/
He really needs to get a producer to provide him with constant feedback and to guide him in general; every great interviewer/newsperson had an even better producer behind them.
Rogan may be a shitty person but he is a phenomenal interviewer. He manages to connect with the people that he is interviewing on a personal level in a way that makes them open up like they have known him as a childhood friend.
He's the new Larry King.
This "uniquely individual, but authentic and consistent persona" factor is a great trend for public persons. The reason why it works is because even if you don't agree with or like the host, say Lex or Joe, they are authentic and consistent enough that you can 'subtract' the difference between your average opinion and theirs from a conversation with a guest and still get back a reasonable read on the guest from your perspective.
It's like they're a human guage block, constantly measuring their guests with their own personality and reporting the relative measure. Then you slap your Rogan-to-infogulch guage block on top and now it's like you're measuring their guests yourself by proxy. (I'm tired but this seems like a reasonable analogy.)
On the other hand someone like Tyler Cowen doesn't ask for clarification unless he legitimately doesn't know what some is talking about. Some guests even said "maybe I should explain that", to which Cowen replies, "this conversation is for us, don't worry about the audience", and that leads to a much better natural and interesting conversation. If the listener doesn't understand anything they can always pause and look up what they don't understand
- it probably is something people are wondering
- it's a good moment to talk about layers and where coinbase fits in the ecosystem
the answer for the curious: none of them. Coinbase is just a wallet using the layer 1 of most cryptocurrencies, and can also use apps and wallets from other layers (I'm not sure it does support any other layers at the moment though). A layer 2 can be seen like another cryptocurrency built on top of a cryptocurrency (layer 1), and a layer 3 is the same built on top of a layer 2, and so on.
Joe pokes the bear with his genuine (yet curious) ignorance, and listens to some very smart people with a child like wonder as they respond.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__CvmS6uw7E
More and more since joining Spotify.
I don't think he's necessarily doing a great job with this approach, but I'm guessing that there's some attempt of method behind it, rather than him being negligently oblivious to the subject at hand.
edit: grammar
In my experience, (Elon interview) they are _both_ misspeaking. Just one (Elon) more so than the other (Lex).
Of course, you wouldn't know this as an outsider to that field, necessarily - and it does have the effect of making both parties seem smarter than they actually are.
On the one hand, I appreciate his breadth (but not depth, next point) of knowledge, his charisma, his pace, and his energy, all very admirable traits and qualities. I always listen to his podcasts.
On the other hand, there are many things that bother me about him. What I write may appear overly critical, but he is a public figure and it goes with the territory. Nobody criticizes me -- I am a nobody.
Some, perhaps more than a few, of his questions -- "I ask the questions I want to ask and not the questions you want to ask" -- more than curve balls seem like balls thrown off the field: "Try to hit this one!" To the point that his guests are puzzled, but they do not want to look ignorant or poor guests and do not react.
He greatly overestimates his knowledge of science, technology, art, cooking and everything else excluding, maybe, economics. Let's take languages. He says he learned to speak Spanish, then I hear him speak a few words of Spanish, and what I get is that he knows a few Spanish words and phrases, which in my opinion is not the same as speaking the language. I throw together a few ingredients, but I am not a chef.
When he talks with pace, conviction, determination and apparent curiosity -- I say apparent because I have never heard him change his outlook on anything, whatever he proposes is doable and there must be some low IQ person in charge or some sort of rent-seeking behavior to make it not happen -- about what I know (biology, AI, my country, women's rights), he is far from having a solid grasp of the subject, despite his conviction, tone and determination. But no one objects because he interviews and is not interviewed -- sometimes he is, next point -- and his guests usually shy away from replying to questions and opinions, informed or uninformed, about classical music, paintings, Chinese cuisine and obscure African poets.
He maintains his intellectual position at the top of the mountain through fog, smoke and utter confusion, which is admirable for the audacity, but also rather unsettling. When interviewed, he has a ready answer for any question, which for some may demonstrate his knowledge, wit and intelligence, to others, like me, he seems to be pulling answers out of his backpack.
He takes positions that he does not follow and marries himself to "causes" because they suit him. For example, he often speaks out against alcohol and legitimately so, but my impression is that it is convenient for him because he does not like to drink: would he follow his own recommendations if he liked alcohol instead?
In an interview about his latest book (which, like others he has written, are rather forgettable, a pot-pourri of whatever crosses his mind on the subject), he said that "on average" exercise is a net benefit to longevity and mental capacity. But he doesn't seem to exercise, and he doesn't talk about exercise or moderation at the dinner table because, as far as I can tell, he doesn't like to exercise and likes to eat plenty. But it is clear that a glass of wine a day is not a "bad thing" (some say it has positive effects on longevity) and that being 50 pounds overweight (all fine, it is his choice and my point is not about his lifestyle choices) puts one at risk for diabetes, poor quality of life, and early death. However, thanks to his assertive way of speaking and presenting his ideas, and his position among the "intellectual class" no one ever objects or asks though questions.
There is a lesson there.
A lot of people underestimate how much effort it takes to keep a relatively smooth flowing conversation for a matter of hours. Ultimately if the words are flowing the host is doing a good job.
In many cases for some of the more controversial guests Lex adds some disclaimers at the beginning, but it's not the host's job to argue every single statement.
Him almost never doing research is objectively false though. He often reads books/articles/tweets written by the guests and asks about them for example.
If that doesn't float your boat you can watch Carmack interviews by other people.
I get the sense he's constantly trying to prove how smart he is, and at least to me - it backfires badly. Hard to describe, but I guess it comes across mostly as shallow bullshit and it's tedious to listen to him despite his great guests.
I've listened to hundreds of hours, and I just don't get this at all. I don't think he has a selfish motive for the "interruptions". I think he's just saying what's on his mind, in a somewhat vulnerable way.
Reminded me of Jordan Peterson getting shut down by Richard Dawkins once he started going down yet another Deepak Chopra-style mystification rabbit hole.
All for very different reasons.
I stopped binging, with great sadness, when it looked like Lex was going the down the intellectual dork web path (Malice, Rogan, Weinstein, Harris, Haidt, Ferguson). Hopefully that was just a phase.
I appreciate that he lets guests speak without any need to conform to a narrative. I can make my own opinion. I don't need the host doing it for me.
I truly don't know where you get the impression that there is no exchange of ideas. I've experienced him going very deep on many, many different topics.
I like Lex, but this is way overstating his pushback. He's mentioned himself how Rogan tells him he needs to push his guests more. He just prefers not to, because of an idea of love of the person...
I also think he can push back more, but on the whole he has interesting people and it's kinda nice to see him ask some basic open ended questions and see how different guests react to it.
I think your perceptions of Lex will mislead you to assume he's asking out of personal ignorance instead of asking simple questions he already knows the answer to for the sake of the audience.
As a result, you happened to pick a bad example as Lex already knew what the German Stasi was before that interview because he discussed it over a year ago with Michael Malice back in December 2020 (deep link to "Stasi" conversation): https://youtu.be/uykM3NhJbso?t=56m39s
Lex does not tire out listeners with constant disclaimers in every interview by saying, "I already know about <X> but for the sake of my audience, what does <X> mean?"
Thankfully, he just shortens all that to : "What does <X> mean?"
... but then that makes him look unprepared. But if he puts in that disclaimer every time, we'd complain he tries too hard to let us know he's smart about the topic. Either way, it seems you can't please everybody.
what's self driving, you mean like, self-driving cars? driving yourself to greater heights or achievement?
The worst offender was probably Oliver Stone. That episode became a straight up megaphone for propaganda.
However ... I do like that guests have a lot of time to get deep into ideas.
It's maybe mean to say, but I just don't think he's that smart and unfortunately it shows. It also doesn't help that he doesn't seem to be aware of it.
He does get great guests though.
It’s why someone may go on tv for a few minute spot, it’s good for getting your message out to a large audience despite the interviewer being in the way of that.
In 20 years, with luck, he will look back on himself today and just sigh.
He simply does not follow what the majority of his guests are saying sometimes to the point of argument. Maybe "strong disagreement" is a better phrase. He will not understand what a guest says, then challenge it as if he did. It's infuriating to listen to.
I mostly avoid his podcast now, because of it. I may listen to this one because John always says a lot of things that are interesting to me. Unless it's VR. Then, I don't give a hoot.
Would you have preferred someone like Charlie Rose, constantly interrupting the guests. A 2 way dialogue might be more normal, but you lose a lot of signal. These aren't confrontational interviews, but more of an educational one hosted by a non-expert.
If people prefer a discussion of 2 experts, this is clearly not it.
This is precisely why I listen to his podcast. I am not interested in Lex's ideas (beyond maybe AI), I am interested in the guest's idea. The back-to-back Oliver Stone and Stephen Kotkin episodes where really interesting to that effect. Here are two people with diametrically opposite points of views on Russia and Ukraine, and both had ample time to explain their positions in depth, without a host trying to trick or confront them. Let the listener make up his own mind.
And when I'm not interested in a guest (Joe Rogan recently), I just skip that episode.
There are many small things that irritate me when listening to his podcast, but his ability to let his guest speak in depth about his ideas trumps them all.
Could he push a little bit more? Yes he could but probably potential guests would start to refuse his invitation.
I see Lex podcast almost as a terapist. People go there, talk their mind, they are not pressed or judged.
I saw John Carmack and 5 hours and just thought: "Wow, those two must have really hit it off somewhere". Listening to his questions was a struggle. I wish I could have only listened to Johns answers.
Agreed. Three hundred episodes later, and he still hasn't learned how to interview people in a way that doesn't make the show a slog.
The fact is Lex isn't an expert in 99% of the subjects his guests are coming from. And neither are we. But, the format is a great public lecture with a soft conversation in between. And it should be increasing the general knowledge of the public who are watching. And that's one of his goals. And why the podcast is popular with many not from technical backgrounds.
I feel like every technical person will surely agree that the average intelligence of most of the public is going downhill, at the same time as the complexity of science & technology increase. This kind of general intelligence podcast can only be a good thing.
where else would questions like: how did commander keen come to be? would emerge?
I agree that there are obvious opportunities for following a more in-depth rabbit to hop into...
And, there are times, when there is _such_ the obvious question/followup/conclusion that is clear, and it gets missed.
At the same time, He does a good job keeping people talking. This Carmack one so far is really good.
I highly recommend this particular episode:
--- Ariel Ekblaw is the director of the MIT Space Exploration Initiative. --- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KW8Vjs84Fxg
Ariel's ability to clearly express and convey such an amazing vision for space colonization... Talking about how to make self assembling space station modules.
This reminds me a bit of Joe Rogan who also ends up interviewing a lot of interesting people but doesn't seem to really care about where the conversation goes. Rogan talks much more though, and I think is more into discovering what kind of person he's talking to (sometimes using substances).
edit: in 15 minutes mark he disagreed with the host, the host claimed that russia is winning
I find Lex Fridman to be wooden, robotic, non-sequitur, not smooth or charismatic, and (I admit, shallowly) not a pleasing speaking voice to listen to, and not that articulate actually. The main reason he gets famous guests is that he has a reputation for getting famous guests. He's like a Kardashian.
I actively have to tune him out and suppress my wish that someone, anyone else were asking the questions.
But it is what it is. We don't have voting rights on who random walks their way to being famous in this world.
Do you have a favorite podcaster/interviewer?
The act of pushing back, retaliation, or suppressing information actually increases the desire for said info and notoriety/fanfare of many people and ideas. In the Oliver Stone interview, they do discuss the best way to interview someone is with a blank canvas, and that is honestly refreshing. Let viewers develop their own opinions. But, a little more pushback or rather counter-arguments might have been welcomed, but that might change the tone of the interview into a more adversarial one.
People need to get out of closed off echo chambers, be respectful of each other, and just agree to disagree, but still look at each other as a human being. The only way we progress through the 21st century.
He is very wooden, but I agree with the others, his questions are incredible and cut straight to the point. For example while others (Tim Ferriss) might have asked Zuckerberg “How do you deal with negative sentiment around you and your work?” Lex asked something like “Many people believe that your products are destroying democracy, that social networks polarize us into bubbles, and you are one of the most hated men in America. How do you contend with that?” Wow and ouch! Amazing conversations
He insisted multiple times that being "canceled by the woke mob" is something that the government does to you because they are afraid of losing power to common people on the internet. That's not just kind of wrong, or kind of skewed, that's a complete inversion of reality.
You could replace him with a markov chain trained in the right wing conspiracy media bubble and get basically the same quality questions.
Fridman really seemed to be going for applause lines from a very specific crowd, not anything particularly coherent. I think he's realized that his growth as a podcaster comes from the demographic that frequents hosts like Jordan Peterson, Joe Rogan, and Ben Shapiro, and the more he can get them engaged the higher his numbers will get. But the topics that demographic cares about aren't AI and ML.
Compare to his last few episodes: * Steve Keen: Marxism, Capitalism, and Economics * Richard Haier: IQ Tests, Human Intelligence, and Group Differences * Susan Cain: The Power of Introverts and Loneliness * Douglas Murray: Racism, Marxism, and the War on the West * Richard Wolff: Marxism and Communism
That's a pretty hard pivot in topics that he's covering. If discussion about whether BLM is Marxism intent on destroying the West isn't the content you're looking for, I don't think you're the audience he's targeting anymore.
Maybe I just saw the wrong interviews, but I got the exact opposite impression from those I've seen. He was literally reading off a script of questions and not following through on interesting things the interviewee says or asking them to develop ideas or explain themselves. Can you point to any particularly good episodes that I can use to give him another chance?
In short, he’s a “nerd’s nerd”.
It’s hard not to be enraptured by someone like that. It would be like listening to DaVinci discuss theoretical aerodynamics for three hours.
This one is likely to be a technical one and certainly something I am keen to listen.
That's not a ding against him, as he has very wide range of guests, so he lacks expertise to challenge them, but something to keep in mind.
One can possibly argue that information has always been manipulated and public discourse as well since the dawn of civilization. So, I find having an interviewer be open to multiple possibilities or interpretations is refreshing.
He's not completely neutral though, he has a slight liberal bias, and at the same time doesn't address criticism of said guest many times especially when they are a friend, like Joe Rogan, or Elon Musk. That being said, it is a scientifically progressive podcast that is very illuminating in many fields for non-experts, and the public. And I have learned a lot and enjoyed listening to it.
On the other hand, the freedom that guests have is worthwhile.