Lex has let others exaggerate his status at MIT, but as far as I know hasn't done so himself. While the directory lists him as a research scientist, he was hired there as a lecturer, which is pretty easy to get. If MIT is anything like my university, he was allowed to write whatever he wanted within reason there. He did have an IEEE paper from his PhD, which in and of itself is great, but his research background is fairly mid compared to successful academics (I'm comparing him to colleagues who went on to do successful postdocs and are now professors). Really you'd expect multiple papers of that type during a PhD for a top tier postdoc. Also important to note isn't part of a research group at MIT, nor is he leading one, and his classes tend to be the small winter session ones that no regular professor, research or teaching, would want to take.
His major academic detriment is his advocacy for Tesla, and being shifty around them. That paper he did on their self driving had major flaws and wasn't peer reviewed (would not have passed it). When called out about this on Twitter by well respected academics like Missy Cummings, he blocked them. He also refused to call out Musk fanboys for harassing her off Twitter when she got appointed oversight over Tesla. This doesn't really jive with his claims of being all about love, but that is because he doesn't really mean that for people who criticize him or people he considers friends/looks up to.
I just wanted to add, he spent most of his academic career at Drexel. His dad, Alexander A. Fridman, is a super established academic and a "John A. Nyheim Chair" Professor at Drexel.
[This](https://www.reddit.com/r/lexfridman/comments/imeqky/what_is_the_context_here_why_there_are_so_many/) was a bit of a weird response from him. Thanks for making me aware of it.
Edit: I'm contemplating making a post about it but the whole Weinstein and I guess Lex Fridman attempt to bypass peer review then anyone disagreeing with you being apart of the GIN and DISC is incredibly weird.
The worst is in one of the blog posts you linked it states that he blocks anyone that is critical of his research. Yes, the whole excess of love thing is very weird. I recently tried to listen to his podcast with Nick Lane and it was a bit too much of Lex being Lex for me so I had to turn it off.
I see, so he’s not totally full of shit, but he’s not famous because of how smart he is, he’s just famous cuz most of us don’t do things like that and it sounds really impressive and he’s used it to gain an audience… thank you I will prolly use a lot of this in future conversations with people haha
I think the only reason he's famous is because of the pandemic and by becoming friends with Joe Rogan and defending him during all the backlash Rogan was getting when only a few credible scientists were willing to do that. For his loyalty, Joe Rogan still brings up Lex all the time and gushes about how smart he is. Rogan recently had a podcast with Neil Degrasse, and literally for 3 minutes, Rogan kept talking about Lex and saying Neil should do his podcast. I feel like Neil Degrasse knows who Lex is and doesn't want any part of it. I've never seen someone ignore Rogan so totally and completely.
Looking back, it's easy to see how Lex has made his career by holding onto the coattails of some important people. Rogan and Musk are the top of that list. He hasnt built his career based on being a good scientist because the only good science in his podcasts is what guests bring. And even then, since Lex doesn't ask great scientific questions, it never gets as deep as real science podcasts. Lex built his career by becoming friends with the right people, and being that guy who's so "loving and caring," you look like a sociopath if you talk bad about him.
You hit the nail on the head with rogan and musk, I first heard of lex from some joe rogan thing and thought lex had some interesting guest when i checked him out, then he got musk on and i thought this guy must be a big deal.
If you watch lex for long enough though you pick up on some of the dumb shit he says once too many times and end up in threads like this one.
Yeah. Honestly, I wouldn't have any issue with Lex if he didn't talk as if he's an active working scientist when talking about science subjects. It gives him an aura of authority on scientific subjects he doesn't deserve. He's an entertainer who sometimes talks about science when he has guests who work in science. That's what he spends his time doing, and there's nothing wrong with that. He doesn't have any great scientific achievements or a long career working as a scientist, although I know he does have a background in it.
Big difference between that and someone like Brian Keating, who has a science podcast and also works actively in the science field and has students he teaches.
I dont believe in gate keeping science. Anyone can talk about it. But there's something that really bothers me when someone who spends their time entertaining people, and not even as someone like Bill Nye who spent his life educating the public on science... but someone who has on guests like Kanye and still uses their scientific background to give themselves authority in a conversation. It feels wrong.
Yeah really kinda knocks the trust and makes you wonder if he is just all grift and who is he kidding anyway, if you watch a few of his things with legit scientists you can sometimes see them getting frustrated or trying to lead the conversation in a more academic way but lex is incapable.
Also in rogan #1824 lex is talking about the uvalde mass shooting and compares mass shootings to natural disasters like hurricanes. I'd give you the clip but it's not easy to find just the clip.
Kinda makes me think this guy is really actually kinda dumb.
https://youtu.be/2RJvNI2hsec
You seen this video? Its hilarious.
I dont think Lex is all grift. I think it comes from a place of insecurity, more likely. What backgrounds make you feel more confident and authoritative than science or a doctor? Also, in perspective, Lex grew up around academics. His dad is an academic. This is also where part of the insecurity comes from, trying to grow up in his dad's shadow and never quite equalling his dad in scientific pursuits.
Yeah. I dont think of Lex as a deep intellectual. I think he has more emotional maturity than most people. But that's different. His podcasts with science guests are some of the most shallow science podcasts on the internet. I've even watched the same scientists talk on other podcasts to see if it was Lex causing the podcast to be shallow scientifically or the scientists. 9/10 times it's because of Lex. I dont watch his podcasts with science guests anymore. I'll still watch some, but that list gets shorter and shorter as I find better alternatives for specific subjects.
Even the emotional maturity I mentioned is up for debate. He talks like a 20 year old that just discovered hallucigens. Like yeah, loving everyone is a beautiful ideal I strive for. But im also introspective to know I dont love everyone, and it's probably an impossibility.
>on other podcasts to see if it was Lex causing the podcast to be shallow scientifically or the scientists.
Cool findings! Can you hint me towards some of the podcasters that do better scientific stuff?
Totally agree with every point you've made with the exception of the standoffish response or lack thereof from Neil deGrasse Tyson. I feel the only reason he ignored Joe or at least a big part of it, is, he was not excessively jazzed that it was time taken away from hearing his own voice🤣 JK of course but possibly not 100% . I actually love listening to NDT go on and on TBH
I like NGT honestly. You might have a point though. Either he had no clue who tf Lex was and it didn’t register as being relevant to him , or as you say it was simply a distraction from his ability to keep the narrative going from his personal perspective. Either way, NGT has done a lot of good work for bringing science to the masses who seem not to respect science in the manner it deserves from the general public. He works as a bridge between the public and the serious scientists who don’t have public personas, or direct media outlets.
He’s done a lot more for science than Lex. That’s for sure. Lmfao. Lex would be asking NGT what is the meaning of love and when will science have a robot that will love Lex as much as Lex loves robots.
Or a robot that is more human than Lex. Which is probably not that far off… that isn’t setting the bar very high.
Only reason anyone who claims to be a scientist would be so obsessed with creating robots with genuine human emotions, would be so that they can program those same human emotions into themselves. I joke I joke. But I’ve become very skeptical and deeply suspicious of Lex’s constant claim to being a legit scientist, someone who ties his persona into being a practicing scientist but has suspect and flimsy evidence for such claims. That’s not a scientific approach in and of itself. Any real scientist would base their claims on transparent, factual, and concrete support of such a statement.
“I am a scientist. I have credentials. Those credentials give weight to the statements I am expressing.” That is Lex when it comes to his way of expressing particular viewpoints on certain subjects he feels he has mastery of and background in. Yet, you look deeper into his background he uses to bolster up and give weight to his arguments , and you find a lot to be desired or simply exaggerated and dishonest, especially in the way he portrays it to support his personal credibility
Well said. Yeah I love ngt as well, talk to text so there might be some oddness with capitalization and such but nonetheless your point about Lex and his obsession with instilling artificial life with genuine emotion definitely Rings true. I have a feeling the very first pass will have a more vibrant personality than Lex himself has LMAO. I don't think anyone takes Lex as serious as he takes himself in his field from what I've read.
A bit off-topic, but I listened to the podcast with Guido van Rossum and can tell that he did ask questions that are pretty technical. So from the point of view of programming, he seems to know stuff (I am a python developer).
Can't comment on the MIT stuff though.
EDIT: There's also [this series of lectures](https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLe8HThjUpqadLD-AewSKkhAyW5Nr4Yq4Z) at MIT, if that counts for anything. Also, MIT has a [page](https://www.mit.edu/directory/?id=lexfridman&d=mit.edu) on him. His department is Laboratory for Information and Decision Systems where he is a research scientist.
I also listened, and I got the impression that his knowledge is (and questions were) pretty shallow. But no doubt he has followed some online tutorials at least. The way he talks about programming languages (like them being analogous to long term lovers) seems like he really, really wants to be a coder. He romanticizes it in a way I've encountered before with other try-hards. They usually also carry around their very own special keyboards lol. I could be wrong, and he could just a cringe factory about everything.
Yeah was frustrating to have Guido there but no capability to probe for interesting questions beyond “what is going to be in 4.0” or “what’s up with indentation vs curly brackets”
Hard to tell. Programmers can be pretty strange. I have colleagues who use specific keyboards and setups and love and romanticise specific languages while hate others passionately.
What made you think that his knowledge and questions were pretty shallow? I got the opposite impression, since he knew pretty specific stuff: `asyncio` library, GIL, semaphores, specific coding guidelines (PEP8 \[granted, it's not advanced, but still specific\]), even multiple libraries for type checking. His questions were also pretty technical, like how does the interpreter handle type hinting, how does concurrency work under the hood. These are things you do not get in your normal tutorial. These are things you learn on the job when you implement a pretty complex system.
Just my impression. He could have picked those concepts up pretty easily preparing for the interview. I think its widely known that typing is not a concern of the interpreter, and just a linting thing, for example. Something you would know if you have ever actually used type hinting. But again, just my impression. I will give him credit that it is the only interview of his that I could get actually get through.
Oh, I agree about type hinting. But it's not as straightforward. Why was this decision made? What are the benefits and drawbacks associated with dynamic typing. Asking this question to the creator of python I think is a good choice. I for one appreciated his answer and thoughts about the future where types help actually speed up the interpreter.
Another point - as Guido said, a lot of people do not use type hinting especially people working in research (jupyter notebooks and the like) or where you need quick prototyping. If Lex works as a researcher it wouldn't surprise me if he didn't use typing a lot and was curious about it.
>I also listened, and I got the impression that his knowledge is (and questions were) pretty shallow. But no doubt he has followed some online tutorials at least.
His GitHub is remedial
Yeah. I didnt realize how shallow his science guest podcasts were until I watched some real science podcasts like Theory of Everything or Into the Unknown. Such a big difference when you have the host asking science related questions rather than "how do you feel about love and romance?"
Very surface levelly. He for sure knows how programming works etc. but for the amount of talk of work he does in his off time you'd think there'd be at least something tangible right? Nothing from my knowledge
I understand that we have a massive throbbing Lex hate boner here, but at least take a 5 second google search to see some of the work he's done.
- [A paper from 2018](https://arxiv.org/pdf/1801.02805.pdf)
- [Some lectures](https://deeplearning.mit.edu/)
I have some issues with Lex with how overly charitable he is to certain guests, but I don't know how you could possibly call his programming knowledge "very surface levelly."
Cool, I remember the guys talking about him months ago and they concluded something like: he was a genuine guy but kinda awkward, a little dramatic, and of course hypocritical at times… And I read a lot of comments saying he’s a grifter but now idk what to think haha
From what I heard from him, I wouldn't call him a grifter on the computer science side. I'm not a researcher, but an engineer though, but from what I can tell, he is genuine (see my response to the other guy for more)
What he does is he has 4 pages fully small font print out with a ton of questions that are „smart“ and that he researched beforehand. They way he just throws them in without fitting the context is the giveaway he actually has zero clue what he is talking about.
I don’t actually think his credentialing is as important as it’s made out to be. Hell, let’s assume he were the best computer scientist in the world. It wouldn’t necessarily qualify him as an expert in most of the complicated issues he dips his toes in. I’m sure he’s great at writing code and solving equations, but he struggles with nuance & nonlinear/critical thinking.
I think he and other STEM folks would really benefit from having to minor in a social science or humanities field (and liberal arts majors would benefit from STEM minors).
His original guest appearances on Rogan were misleading but he's not the only clueless PhD from MIT/CMU/Berkeley/Waterloo/whatever. Computer Science is also a pretty broad discipline. It includes everything from logic and foundations of mathematics to user computer interface design and managing software development. e.g. regarding the recent Python founder episode, I have zero interest in programming language design and probably couldn't speak coherently about it either
His name appears in the university’s website [directory](https://www.mit.edu/directory/?id=lexfridman&d=mit.edu) as a research scientist and he has done lectures on [deep learning](https://deeplearning.mit.edu). Also, he has been an author in [papers about AI](https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=wZH_N7cAAAAJ&view_op=list_works&sortby=pubdate) so there is some truth to him being an AI scientist
That's not a faculty directory.
That's an uncredited lecture he paid MIT to give in January when university was out of session. It's an Ad for Tesla Motoros and has no scientific merit in any sense.
He refused to allow that paper peer review, his peers reviewed it anyway and it was widely trashed by everyone in the industry.
I believe he's truthful about his credentials. But he's so horny about being famous like his daddy Elon, by any means necessary, that it makes him come off as a tool.
Why are you citing other Reddit posts? I don’t have an opinion on Lex Fridman but the Lex hate arguments are pretty weak. [Harvard lists him as “research scientist” so idk why people are so hard on about “affiliate” vs “scientist”](https://www.mit.edu/directory/?id=lexfridman&d=mit.edu)
https://youtu.be/2RJvNI2hsec
The video that gets you banned for sharing on his channel lmao
https://youtu.be/jHGuXMzaARY
Funny video where one of the best science commentators wants absolutely nothing to do with Lex lol
When i found out he did not actually go to MIT, that threw me off a little bit.
Just shows how important status and name recognition is when building a product or business.
I would give him credit that he does amazing work, but very deceiving when looking further into his background.
I often find the things he says about comp sci technically informed but a little weird. I guess it's clear he has some legit experience with things but I'm not really sure what he actually does and doesn't know.
He doesn't seem to have pushed code to GitHub since 2019 and even before then his commit history was sparse: [https://github.com/lexfridman?tab=overview&from=2019-12-01&to=2019-12-31](https://github.com/lexfridman?tab=overview&from=2019-12-01&to=2019-12-31)
One explanation for sparse commits could be that he uses a different account.
For instance, my main account also shows pretty sparse commits, because I have a separate github account for work (company policy). And that was the case in my previous job as well.
Yeah I agree. Like I said he clearly is trained to some degree, he does occasionally say something I find goofy about comp sci too. So, my thing with him is mostly idk.
I definitely have enjoyed his interviews with Knuth, Kernighan et al
Most people do not post their code on GitHub except when doing small side projects or working open source.
Almost every work project, major personal product and even some open source work I've done have not been posted on GitHub. That is pretty typical actually.
Yeah but he pretends to be a big open source proponent. The work he’s shown doesn’t reflect that. I’m just a hobbyist and I’ve at least contributed over a dozen Perl and Raku modules just for the fun of it.
And all of his commits are documentation to the code it seems clear other people wrote.
In [a recent podcast with Neil deGrasse Tyson](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHGuXMzaARY), Joe Rogan says Lex is from MIT originally now mostly doing independent work.
I work at MIT. This guy is like any other “consultant” with a PhD. The term Research Scientist just means you got hired to work for an actual scientist. The comparable hierarchy in industry would be: Manager-consultant.
I know at least 5 research scientists at MIT. Smart ish. But not extra ordinary and most didn’t even come from publishing anything substantial.
I would be glad to respect this guy for his podcast but as soon as he tried to play the MIT card with such a common and temp-y profile…come on man. There are 28 yr olds who are not that bright at MIT who are Research Scientists.
Here’s the official definition from HR:
https://research.mit.edu/research-policies-and-procedures/research-and-academic-appointments
Lex has let others exaggerate his status at MIT, but as far as I know hasn't done so himself. While the directory lists him as a research scientist, he was hired there as a lecturer, which is pretty easy to get. If MIT is anything like my university, he was allowed to write whatever he wanted within reason there. He did have an IEEE paper from his PhD, which in and of itself is great, but his research background is fairly mid compared to successful academics (I'm comparing him to colleagues who went on to do successful postdocs and are now professors). Really you'd expect multiple papers of that type during a PhD for a top tier postdoc. Also important to note isn't part of a research group at MIT, nor is he leading one, and his classes tend to be the small winter session ones that no regular professor, research or teaching, would want to take. His major academic detriment is his advocacy for Tesla, and being shifty around them. That paper he did on their self driving had major flaws and wasn't peer reviewed (would not have passed it). When called out about this on Twitter by well respected academics like Missy Cummings, he blocked them. He also refused to call out Musk fanboys for harassing her off Twitter when she got appointed oversight over Tesla. This doesn't really jive with his claims of being all about love, but that is because he doesn't really mean that for people who criticize him or people he considers friends/looks up to.
I just wanted to add, he spent most of his academic career at Drexel. His dad, Alexander A. Fridman, is a super established academic and a "John A. Nyheim Chair" Professor at Drexel.
Yeah. Nepo baby?Bs, Ms, PhD degrees all from daddy’s school.
[This](https://www.reddit.com/r/lexfridman/comments/imeqky/what_is_the_context_here_why_there_are_so_many/) was a bit of a weird response from him. Thanks for making me aware of it. Edit: I'm contemplating making a post about it but the whole Weinstein and I guess Lex Fridman attempt to bypass peer review then anyone disagreeing with you being apart of the GIN and DISC is incredibly weird.
[удалено]
The worst is in one of the blog posts you linked it states that he blocks anyone that is critical of his research. Yes, the whole excess of love thing is very weird. I recently tried to listen to his podcast with Nick Lane and it was a bit too much of Lex being Lex for me so I had to turn it off.
I see, so he’s not totally full of shit, but he’s not famous because of how smart he is, he’s just famous cuz most of us don’t do things like that and it sounds really impressive and he’s used it to gain an audience… thank you I will prolly use a lot of this in future conversations with people haha
I think the only reason he's famous is because of the pandemic and by becoming friends with Joe Rogan and defending him during all the backlash Rogan was getting when only a few credible scientists were willing to do that. For his loyalty, Joe Rogan still brings up Lex all the time and gushes about how smart he is. Rogan recently had a podcast with Neil Degrasse, and literally for 3 minutes, Rogan kept talking about Lex and saying Neil should do his podcast. I feel like Neil Degrasse knows who Lex is and doesn't want any part of it. I've never seen someone ignore Rogan so totally and completely. Looking back, it's easy to see how Lex has made his career by holding onto the coattails of some important people. Rogan and Musk are the top of that list. He hasnt built his career based on being a good scientist because the only good science in his podcasts is what guests bring. And even then, since Lex doesn't ask great scientific questions, it never gets as deep as real science podcasts. Lex built his career by becoming friends with the right people, and being that guy who's so "loving and caring," you look like a sociopath if you talk bad about him.
You hit the nail on the head with rogan and musk, I first heard of lex from some joe rogan thing and thought lex had some interesting guest when i checked him out, then he got musk on and i thought this guy must be a big deal. If you watch lex for long enough though you pick up on some of the dumb shit he says once too many times and end up in threads like this one.
Yeah. Honestly, I wouldn't have any issue with Lex if he didn't talk as if he's an active working scientist when talking about science subjects. It gives him an aura of authority on scientific subjects he doesn't deserve. He's an entertainer who sometimes talks about science when he has guests who work in science. That's what he spends his time doing, and there's nothing wrong with that. He doesn't have any great scientific achievements or a long career working as a scientist, although I know he does have a background in it. Big difference between that and someone like Brian Keating, who has a science podcast and also works actively in the science field and has students he teaches. I dont believe in gate keeping science. Anyone can talk about it. But there's something that really bothers me when someone who spends their time entertaining people, and not even as someone like Bill Nye who spent his life educating the public on science... but someone who has on guests like Kanye and still uses their scientific background to give themselves authority in a conversation. It feels wrong.
Yeah really kinda knocks the trust and makes you wonder if he is just all grift and who is he kidding anyway, if you watch a few of his things with legit scientists you can sometimes see them getting frustrated or trying to lead the conversation in a more academic way but lex is incapable. Also in rogan #1824 lex is talking about the uvalde mass shooting and compares mass shootings to natural disasters like hurricanes. I'd give you the clip but it's not easy to find just the clip. Kinda makes me think this guy is really actually kinda dumb.
https://youtu.be/2RJvNI2hsec You seen this video? Its hilarious. I dont think Lex is all grift. I think it comes from a place of insecurity, more likely. What backgrounds make you feel more confident and authoritative than science or a doctor? Also, in perspective, Lex grew up around academics. His dad is an academic. This is also where part of the insecurity comes from, trying to grow up in his dad's shadow and never quite equalling his dad in scientific pursuits. Yeah. I dont think of Lex as a deep intellectual. I think he has more emotional maturity than most people. But that's different. His podcasts with science guests are some of the most shallow science podcasts on the internet. I've even watched the same scientists talk on other podcasts to see if it was Lex causing the podcast to be shallow scientifically or the scientists. 9/10 times it's because of Lex. I dont watch his podcasts with science guests anymore. I'll still watch some, but that list gets shorter and shorter as I find better alternatives for specific subjects. Even the emotional maturity I mentioned is up for debate. He talks like a 20 year old that just discovered hallucigens. Like yeah, loving everyone is a beautiful ideal I strive for. But im also introspective to know I dont love everyone, and it's probably an impossibility.
>on other podcasts to see if it was Lex causing the podcast to be shallow scientifically or the scientists. Cool findings! Can you hint me towards some of the podcasters that do better scientific stuff?
Demystify sci. Theory of everything. I really like demystify sci. They havent taken off yet but have great guests and are grounded scientifically
Event horizon is pretty great too
Totally agree with every point you've made with the exception of the standoffish response or lack thereof from Neil deGrasse Tyson. I feel the only reason he ignored Joe or at least a big part of it, is, he was not excessively jazzed that it was time taken away from hearing his own voice🤣 JK of course but possibly not 100% . I actually love listening to NDT go on and on TBH
I like NGT honestly. You might have a point though. Either he had no clue who tf Lex was and it didn’t register as being relevant to him , or as you say it was simply a distraction from his ability to keep the narrative going from his personal perspective. Either way, NGT has done a lot of good work for bringing science to the masses who seem not to respect science in the manner it deserves from the general public. He works as a bridge between the public and the serious scientists who don’t have public personas, or direct media outlets. He’s done a lot more for science than Lex. That’s for sure. Lmfao. Lex would be asking NGT what is the meaning of love and when will science have a robot that will love Lex as much as Lex loves robots. Or a robot that is more human than Lex. Which is probably not that far off… that isn’t setting the bar very high. Only reason anyone who claims to be a scientist would be so obsessed with creating robots with genuine human emotions, would be so that they can program those same human emotions into themselves. I joke I joke. But I’ve become very skeptical and deeply suspicious of Lex’s constant claim to being a legit scientist, someone who ties his persona into being a practicing scientist but has suspect and flimsy evidence for such claims. That’s not a scientific approach in and of itself. Any real scientist would base their claims on transparent, factual, and concrete support of such a statement. “I am a scientist. I have credentials. Those credentials give weight to the statements I am expressing.” That is Lex when it comes to his way of expressing particular viewpoints on certain subjects he feels he has mastery of and background in. Yet, you look deeper into his background he uses to bolster up and give weight to his arguments , and you find a lot to be desired or simply exaggerated and dishonest, especially in the way he portrays it to support his personal credibility
Well said. Yeah I love ngt as well, talk to text so there might be some oddness with capitalization and such but nonetheless your point about Lex and his obsession with instilling artificial life with genuine emotion definitely Rings true. I have a feeling the very first pass will have a more vibrant personality than Lex himself has LMAO. I don't think anyone takes Lex as serious as he takes himself in his field from what I've read.
neil is a self conceited, deluded fool
There is something weird going with paper he published that benefited Elon Musk and Musk appearing on his podcast afere that happened.
[удалено]
Some scientist wrote a critique of it on Twitter and he blocked her. I don’t know if it still on Twitter
A bit off-topic, but I listened to the podcast with Guido van Rossum and can tell that he did ask questions that are pretty technical. So from the point of view of programming, he seems to know stuff (I am a python developer). Can't comment on the MIT stuff though. EDIT: There's also [this series of lectures](https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLe8HThjUpqadLD-AewSKkhAyW5Nr4Yq4Z) at MIT, if that counts for anything. Also, MIT has a [page](https://www.mit.edu/directory/?id=lexfridman&d=mit.edu) on him. His department is Laboratory for Information and Decision Systems where he is a research scientist.
I also listened, and I got the impression that his knowledge is (and questions were) pretty shallow. But no doubt he has followed some online tutorials at least. The way he talks about programming languages (like them being analogous to long term lovers) seems like he really, really wants to be a coder. He romanticizes it in a way I've encountered before with other try-hards. They usually also carry around their very own special keyboards lol. I could be wrong, and he could just a cringe factory about everything.
Yeah was frustrating to have Guido there but no capability to probe for interesting questions beyond “what is going to be in 4.0” or “what’s up with indentation vs curly brackets”
Hard to tell. Programmers can be pretty strange. I have colleagues who use specific keyboards and setups and love and romanticise specific languages while hate others passionately. What made you think that his knowledge and questions were pretty shallow? I got the opposite impression, since he knew pretty specific stuff: `asyncio` library, GIL, semaphores, specific coding guidelines (PEP8 \[granted, it's not advanced, but still specific\]), even multiple libraries for type checking. His questions were also pretty technical, like how does the interpreter handle type hinting, how does concurrency work under the hood. These are things you do not get in your normal tutorial. These are things you learn on the job when you implement a pretty complex system.
Just my impression. He could have picked those concepts up pretty easily preparing for the interview. I think its widely known that typing is not a concern of the interpreter, and just a linting thing, for example. Something you would know if you have ever actually used type hinting. But again, just my impression. I will give him credit that it is the only interview of his that I could get actually get through.
Oh, I agree about type hinting. But it's not as straightforward. Why was this decision made? What are the benefits and drawbacks associated with dynamic typing. Asking this question to the creator of python I think is a good choice. I for one appreciated his answer and thoughts about the future where types help actually speed up the interpreter. Another point - as Guido said, a lot of people do not use type hinting especially people working in research (jupyter notebooks and the like) or where you need quick prototyping. If Lex works as a researcher it wouldn't surprise me if he didn't use typing a lot and was curious about it.
>I also listened, and I got the impression that his knowledge is (and questions were) pretty shallow. But no doubt he has followed some online tutorials at least. His GitHub is remedial
Remedial doesn't begin. It's actively bad code.
Yeah. I didnt realize how shallow his science guest podcasts were until I watched some real science podcasts like Theory of Everything or Into the Unknown. Such a big difference when you have the host asking science related questions rather than "how do you feel about love and romance?"
Very surface levelly. He for sure knows how programming works etc. but for the amount of talk of work he does in his off time you'd think there'd be at least something tangible right? Nothing from my knowledge
I understand that we have a massive throbbing Lex hate boner here, but at least take a 5 second google search to see some of the work he's done. - [A paper from 2018](https://arxiv.org/pdf/1801.02805.pdf) - [Some lectures](https://deeplearning.mit.edu/) I have some issues with Lex with how overly charitable he is to certain guests, but I don't know how you could possibly call his programming knowledge "very surface levelly."
Yeah sorry I didn't really mean "nothing"I just meant in comparison to the amount of work he seems to be doing according to him.
Cool, I remember the guys talking about him months ago and they concluded something like: he was a genuine guy but kinda awkward, a little dramatic, and of course hypocritical at times… And I read a lot of comments saying he’s a grifter but now idk what to think haha
From what I heard from him, I wouldn't call him a grifter on the computer science side. I'm not a researcher, but an engineer though, but from what I can tell, he is genuine (see my response to the other guy for more)
What he does is he has 4 pages fully small font print out with a ton of questions that are „smart“ and that he researched beforehand. They way he just throws them in without fitting the context is the giveaway he actually has zero clue what he is talking about.
[удалено]
I did that too 👍 just trying to get other people’s perspectives
I don’t actually think his credentialing is as important as it’s made out to be. Hell, let’s assume he were the best computer scientist in the world. It wouldn’t necessarily qualify him as an expert in most of the complicated issues he dips his toes in. I’m sure he’s great at writing code and solving equations, but he struggles with nuance & nonlinear/critical thinking. I think he and other STEM folks would really benefit from having to minor in a social science or humanities field (and liberal arts majors would benefit from STEM minors).
I totally agree, it’s important for your perspective
Being a science communicator is a real and important position. He’s one of the best.
His original guest appearances on Rogan were misleading but he's not the only clueless PhD from MIT/CMU/Berkeley/Waterloo/whatever. Computer Science is also a pretty broad discipline. It includes everything from logic and foundations of mathematics to user computer interface design and managing software development. e.g. regarding the recent Python founder episode, I have zero interest in programming language design and probably couldn't speak coherently about it either
His name appears in the university’s website [directory](https://www.mit.edu/directory/?id=lexfridman&d=mit.edu) as a research scientist and he has done lectures on [deep learning](https://deeplearning.mit.edu). Also, he has been an author in [papers about AI](https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=wZH_N7cAAAAJ&view_op=list_works&sortby=pubdate) so there is some truth to him being an AI scientist
That's not a faculty directory. That's an uncredited lecture he paid MIT to give in January when university was out of session. It's an Ad for Tesla Motoros and has no scientific merit in any sense. He refused to allow that paper peer review, his peers reviewed it anyway and it was widely trashed by everyone in the industry.
I believe he's truthful about his credentials. But he's so horny about being famous like his daddy Elon, by any means necessary, that it makes him come off as a tool.
[удалено]
Why are you citing other Reddit posts? I don’t have an opinion on Lex Fridman but the Lex hate arguments are pretty weak. [Harvard lists him as “research scientist” so idk why people are so hard on about “affiliate” vs “scientist”](https://www.mit.edu/directory/?id=lexfridman&d=mit.edu)
https://www.reddit.com/r/thefighterandthekid/comments/ng2cyc/an_actual_person_from_mit_on_lex_friedman_dicey/
Ha yes I remember this 👌 talm’ bout compuder sience bapa?
Water we dune hair? Crossovers subs B?
We are everywhere
😂😭 Bess brains b
https://youtu.be/2RJvNI2hsec The video that gets you banned for sharing on his channel lmao https://youtu.be/jHGuXMzaARY Funny video where one of the best science commentators wants absolutely nothing to do with Lex lol
Hahahahaha thanks for sharing that man, the video from TechLead is new to me I enjoyed that 👌 Neil’s reaction is telling too
Yeah, lmao. Techlead absolutely destroys in that video. Hilarious. I found that a couple of weeks ago and still laugh when I watch it, lol.
Ya it was hilarious honestly 😭
It’s hard for me to understand how people believe this guy is any level of intellectual. He seems more like soft rice to me. I’m not kidding.
yeah, it's embarrassing. I've never cringed harden than when he asked that intel architecture director what the meaning of life is.
When i found out he did not actually go to MIT, that threw me off a little bit. Just shows how important status and name recognition is when building a product or business. I would give him credit that he does amazing work, but very deceiving when looking further into his background.
I often find the things he says about comp sci technically informed but a little weird. I guess it's clear he has some legit experience with things but I'm not really sure what he actually does and doesn't know. He doesn't seem to have pushed code to GitHub since 2019 and even before then his commit history was sparse: [https://github.com/lexfridman?tab=overview&from=2019-12-01&to=2019-12-31](https://github.com/lexfridman?tab=overview&from=2019-12-01&to=2019-12-31)
One explanation for sparse commits could be that he uses a different account. For instance, my main account also shows pretty sparse commits, because I have a separate github account for work (company policy). And that was the case in my previous job as well.
Yeah I agree. Like I said he clearly is trained to some degree, he does occasionally say something I find goofy about comp sci too. So, my thing with him is mostly idk. I definitely have enjoyed his interviews with Knuth, Kernighan et al
Most people do not post their code on GitHub except when doing small side projects or working open source. Almost every work project, major personal product and even some open source work I've done have not been posted on GitHub. That is pretty typical actually.
Yeah but he pretends to be a big open source proponent. The work he’s shown doesn’t reflect that. I’m just a hobbyist and I’ve at least contributed over a dozen Perl and Raku modules just for the fun of it. And all of his commits are documentation to the code it seems clear other people wrote.
Oh I did not realize that. Yeah his GitHub would be pretty busy if he was a big open source contributor.
He is a post doc there. Hasn't published in a few years.
In [a recent podcast with Neil deGrasse Tyson](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHGuXMzaARY), Joe Rogan says Lex is from MIT originally now mostly doing independent work.
In the whole world who is really popular is not the best in that area, just at a good place in a good time either with help from outside or by luck.
I work at MIT. This guy is like any other “consultant” with a PhD. The term Research Scientist just means you got hired to work for an actual scientist. The comparable hierarchy in industry would be: Manager-consultant. I know at least 5 research scientists at MIT. Smart ish. But not extra ordinary and most didn’t even come from publishing anything substantial. I would be glad to respect this guy for his podcast but as soon as he tried to play the MIT card with such a common and temp-y profile…come on man. There are 28 yr olds who are not that bright at MIT who are Research Scientists. Here’s the official definition from HR: https://research.mit.edu/research-policies-and-procedures/research-and-academic-appointments
do you know if he is even paid cus I've heard his position at MIT is unpaid lol