Find an episode on a topic you’re a subject matter expert in - you’ll quickly realize how overconfident and misinformed he is more generally.
Moreso I’m referring to the LessWrong/Reddit/HN/Twitter internet-lore format which he borrows from and leans into. Many of his questions are deep on the surface but ultimately more about sensationalism (even if that means a bad faith read of the problem).
Also, at times I suspect interviewees pre-negotiate certain things for him to see in a positive manner. Like in this last episode, thanking Sam for open sourcing GPT eval - ignoring that GPT-4’s basic architecture description wasn’t even released; a big “fuck you” to researchers hoping to do any sort of replication or peer review.
Isn't the whole point of an interview to let the interviewee get their point across and clear up any misinformation?