The MIT directory lists him as a "Research Scientist"[0] and he has solid set of papers he's published on self-driving cars and AI[1]. This is completely consistent with the way he describes himself: "I'm an AI researcher working on autonomous vehicles, human-robot interaction, and machine learning at MIT and beyond"
[0] https://www.mit.edu/directory/?id=lexfridman&d=mit.edu [1] https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=wZH_N7cAAAAJ&hl=en...
His MIT class was of the type that is more like an ungraded bookclub than a normal MIT course.
What he did with the Tesla safety paper was far more ingratiating and conniving though.
If you're going to drive-by crap on someone, at least recommend podcasters that you do like assuming there are any, especially those that might appeal to Lex's audience.
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email [email protected] and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
> You sound triggered.
> You know what else has had undeniable success? Cigarettes and Facebook. Terrible argument.
Just a note, I think you've violated the guidelines in a multitude of ways here. Since you're new, definitely have a read: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
He doesn't get in the way, and that's more than can be said about a lot of people vying for attention these days.
I don't think he got famous through Elon Musk, but maybe through Joe Rogan to some degree (he already had hundreds of thousands of views before his first episode with Elon Musk.)
How exactly is he a grifter? Sure he runs ads, like almost any podcast, but I don't think he's trying to sell anything or so.
His interviewing style is peculiar, but that's a matter of opinion, and you're free to not watch his show. He undeniably has a lot of very interesting guests on, and that's probably the main reason why people watch his show.
So what are you even saying?
You don't have to listen to podcasts you don't like.
MIT Researchers Invent ________, where the blank is billed as a self-aware machine, when in reality it's Eliza re-implemented in PHP.
In fact, if MIT students reinvented the wheel, the MIT press office would bill it as "MIT Researchers invent matter transporter".
It's understandable, reputation is valuable, both for organizations and for the individual.
So, I can't blame Lex and I can't blame MIT, but I can say that I absolutely notice it.
There are smarter people there, less loquacious, but more powerful. Then again, MIT also has evil people in power, like previous MIT Chancellor Eric Grimson, who killed Aaron Schwartz and betrayed the principles of the institution by secretly passing information on to the secret service. Grimson was still able to hold on to a title of Chancellor that pays him more than 400K USD per year!!! INSANE!
You are talking about Stephen Wolfram and his pothole self promoting things. Wolfram is also a very dangerous individual. he is feeding off ignorance, and corrupting young minds.
They call it a "a brain-to-brain interface", doesn't that imply one brain is wired directly to another electrically?
It opens with "The ability to send thoughts directly to another person’s brain is the stuff of science fiction. At least, it used to be." ... again, via a computer monitor.
https://www.technologyreview.com/2018/09/29/139965/the-first...
I remember when they billed kids fucking around with shape memory alloy as something really grandiose, I'll see if I can find that and come back and edit this post to include it if I do.
> They call it a "a brain-to-brain interface", doesn't that imply one brain is wired directly to another electrically?
The actual paper summary is better:
> Two of the three subjects are "Senders" whose brain signals are decoded using real-time EEG data analysis to extract decisions about whether to rotate a block in a Tetris-like game before it is dropped to fill a line. The Senders' decisions are transmitted via the Internet to the brain of a third subject, the "Receiver," who cannot see the game screen. The decisions are delivered to the Receiver's brain via magnetic stimulation of the occipital cortex.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1809.08632
I don't think "a brain-to-brain interface" implies wiring the brains together at all. To me it means transmitting information that bypasses the traditional human communication channels - and this certainly does because it's read via the EEGs and then sent to the reciever via magnetic stimulation.
There is no information sent between people via the screen. The senders see the full game, and send their decision via magnetic stimulation to the receiver.
The "flashing lights" are ONLY seen by the senders, and used to stimulate the senders brains to send signals that can be read by the EEG. From the paper:
Senders focused their attention on a “Yes” LED light flashing at 17 Hz placed on the left side of their computer screen; to convey a "Do Not Rotate" decision, they focused on the “No” LED light flashing at 15 Hz placed on the right side. These LEDs are depicted as circles attached to the screens in Figure 1. The cursor position provided real-time visual feedback to the Senders. The direction of movement of the cursor was determined by comparing the EEG power at 17 Hz versus 15 Hz, with a higher power at 17 Hz over that at 15 Hz moving the cursor towards the left side near the “Yes” LED, and vice-versa for the "No" LED
The decisions of the two Senders were sent to the Receiver’s computer through a TCP/IP network and were further translated into two pulses of transcranial magentic stimulation (TMS) delivered sequentially to the occipital cortex of the Receiver. Each TMS pulse lasted 1 ms. An eight-second delay was enforced between the two pulses to remain within the strictest safety guidelines of TMS stimulation29. The intensity of the stimulation was set above or below the threshold at which the Receiver could perceive a flash of light known as a phosphene: a “Yes” response was translated to an intensity above the threshold, and “No” was translated to an intensity below the threshold. During each round of trials, the Receiver always received the decision from one Sender first, then the other. The screen the Receiver saw also had visual prompts to remind them whose decision the current TMS stimulation was conveying. Receivers made their decision based on whether a phosphene was perceived and conveyed their decision (rotate or do not rotate) to the game using the same SSVEP-based procedure used by both Senders. After the game state was updated, the trial moved into the second round and the above process was repeated.
So there was no physical light flash for the receiver - their brain was just stimulated so they would perceive one.
"MIT Engineers develop magnetic soft-continuum thread-like robot with lubricating hydrogel skin"
or in no-BS language: "Some college guys move coated wire with magnets"
I mean yes. Sort of like saying a covid vaccine is "some people mixing chemicals in test tubes".
The researchers also tested the thread in a life-size silicone replica of the brain’s major blood vessels, including clots and aneurysms, modeled after the CT scans of an actual patient’s brain.
So no, not a brain. Silicone tubes. On a table somewhere.
They're happy to talk it up like its an actual in-vitro human brain though.
The point remains.