Newlab is the Deep Tech Epicenter – Scott Cohen
Oct 04, 2024
If you are any kind of deep tech founder, or an early stage, deep tech investor, this is a required episode. You need to know about Newlab. It’s one of the most special things in the entire deep tech ecosystem. Scott Cohen is one of the cofounders along with David Bell. They built this thing over the last decade or so in the Navy Yard in Brooklyn partly as a civic project.
This is a place where hundreds of startups that are doing very difficult, very ambitious deep tech projects have gotten their start. It’s a community that’s helped each other out. Scott is one of the most soulful guys I know. He’s just trying to help create an environment where these things can thrive.
And I’m so proud of him and what he’s done. I think more people need to know about Newlab. It’s one of my favorite things whenever one of our companies gets involved in Newlab. When you decide that you want to leave your job and go work in a deep tech startup, you should just check out the menu at Newlab.
There’s so much we talk about. By the end, you will really understand Newlab. You’ll believe in them and what they’re doing. You’ll want to be a part of it.
Towards the end of this episode, we also talk about the coolest, newest thing that Deep Future is, working on.
General Solicitation Rules for VC – ØF
Sep 24, 2024
Two nerds bullshitting about the cloak and dagger marketplace of raising a venture fund.
Recorded on August 16, 2024
Classic Rock, the Secret of Roman Concrete – Admir Masic
Sep 20, 2024
For 2,000 years, there’s been this incredible mystery in material science: how do the Romans build the Pantheon? It’s made of unreinforced concrete, in a seismic zone. After they built it, nobody’s been able to figure out how they did it for two millennia. Until last year when Admir Masic, scientist, professor at MIT showed the world, publishing in the journal Science, showing exactly how the Romans did that.
Cement is the most used material on the entire planet. Between 8 and 13 percent of global CO2 emissions are associated with making cement. Obviously, the most used construction material. We now know – thanks to Admir – how to make cement that lasts virtually forever, use less of it, use less steel, it doesn’t cost more, you can make it in any cement plant, and the kicker is it’s about 20 percent less CO2.
So this is a major breakthrough, Admir is the founder of a company called DMAT, which is commercializing this. I’m so proud to be one of their first investors with the Deep Future Fund.
I couldn’t find a more delightful human to hang out with all year long. Admir’s an amazing guy. He started his life out in Bosnia, became a refugee as a teenager in Croatia during the Bosnian war, and then managed to somehow, go get educated in Italy. Then he became, a researcher at the Max Planck Institute in Germany before becoming a professor at MIT, where he is now studying all the things that you can do with cement and other amazing things we can learn from material science in antiquity. We spend a lot of time talking about cement, but I promise it’s interesting.
We also spent some time talking about Admir’s childhood growing up, as a refugee in Eastern Europe and it’s such a soulful conversation. I’m so thrilled to share it with you guys and I hope you’ll share it with your friends because everyone can get some inspiration from this story.
Two nerds bullshitting about the most important kitchen toy.
Recorded on August 16, 2024
Robots that See what You Mean – Avi Geiger
Sep 13, 2024
Avi Geiger is a super creative roboticist in Seattle, and I got a chance to sit down and pick his brain. He built a company called PicoBrew a little while ago after a career at Microsoft making hardware. PicoBrew was a way for people to do their own brewing at home, he built an entirely automated factory for it. I was always really impressed with the clever things he came up with.
Now he has a company working on making robotics much more practical to integrate with AI, meaning how do you get the language models connected up to the vision models? So when you talk to a robot about what it needs to do, how do you correlate that input to what it’s seeing in the world.
Avi’s new company called GroundLight is building the toolkit you need to do that.
Two nerds bullshitting about how to jettison Google.
Recorded on August 16, 2024
Electric Motortoys – ØF
Aug 26, 2024
Two nerds bullshitting about electric toys you can ride.
Recorded on August 16, 2024
Mega SSN Leak – ØF
Aug 19, 2024
Two nerds bullshitting about the massive leak of social security numbers this week.
Recorded on August 16, 2024
Robot Massage is Alive! – Eric Litman
Aug 16, 2024
The AESCAPE robot that gave me my first robomassage.
One of the really important things to solve for is how do we get robots working much more closely with humans. And this is really difficult for a whole bunch of reasons, and you guys know some of them. But the truth is they need to be able to really get close. We need them to touch our bodies.
And right now what we do with robots is we put them in giant cages and keep them away from the humans in case they need it. move at the wrong time. And that’s, that’s a good stopgap for now, but where we really want to be able to go is a world where we can trust the robots to treat us as the way that our, friends and family or massage therapist would.
And so today we get to hang out with Eric Litman, who’s on the forefront of trying to solve this problem by making robots that can give you a massage. And I, for one, have been wanting to do this for years. If you listened to the episode that Ash and I did, about the MassageBot 5000, you got a kind of a preview.
This week I got to go visit Aescape which is Eric’s new company,. They’ve been working on this robot since 2017. I got a massage from it. My first massage from a robot. It’s in beta here in New York City. You can do that too. And hopefully soon these robots will be all over the world. And so Eric and I talk about his, journey, what caused him to get into doing this, taking this on in the first place, the hard problems that they ran up against, why this is difficult.
And look, these guys are pioneers. They’ve been at it for seven years. They’ve spent a lot of time and effort figuring out how do you make a. robot that’s literally right up on you, specifically trying to manipulate your body. That is safe, trustworthy, comfortable, not scary. And they have solved all that.
I can tell you for sure. If anything, I wanted it to be more aggressive with me than they’re willing to let it be at the moment. But it is a really competent. Massage therapist already. And so it’s very exciting, why I want to share this stuff with you and why I’ve been seeking out these kinds of roboticists, and there are a couple of others that you’ll meet soon, is that there’s really important inflection point coming.
And Eric and I talk about it a little bit here in this conversation, but the thing that has to happen is we have to make it a lot easier to go do new things with robots. And in the past, up until now, and even with Aescape they’ve had to just build everything from the ground up, and it’s too much for a startup to take on.
It’s too much to do, in one, company. We really need to get to a point where building robots and building, automation and building all these automated tools is as easy as building things in software. And this is happening. The toolkits are coming, the frameworks are coming, the SDKs are coming, the software to be able to integrate these things is coming, and we’re at an important inflection point where those things will start to exist in the next couple of years, and so the, as you listen to this conversation, think about how the next company that’s trying to do something like Aescape not going to take seven years.
We will be able to do them faster. We will be able to do more and more of them and it’s going to make a huge difference. So look, Eric is an experienced, guy who spent his whole career in the tech industry, had a couple of exits, was able to take on doing something new. We don’t really need to pick all that apart.
If you want to go read his bio, we’re going to link to it in the notes, but as you’ll get immediately by listening to this conversation, he’s a great entrepreneur. He’s got a lot of energy. He knows what to do and they’ve been, they’ve been at it and it’s really exciting. Please enjoy this conversation and then, quit your job and go work for Aescape.
Two nerds bullshitting about the imminent scale of computation on Earth.
Recorded on July 5, 2024
Securing Physical Infrastructure at Idaho National Labs – Wayne Austad
Aug 02, 2024
Demonstration of Emergency Response technology, Bill Bob Brown visit to Wireless Test Bed
When I was at the Idaho National Labs, I got to meet Wayne Austad. We had a conversation about cybersecurity as it relates to physical infrastructure. People always wonder what if hackers shut down the power grid? They have shut down the power grid, in different parts of the world and we talked about that a little bit.
Wayne’s at the forefront of figuring out how do we secure this physical stuff? How do we secure the grid? How do we secure power stations? Nuclear reactors? How do we secure all the stuff that people rely on in daily life and just take for granted? This is the physical stuff, it can kill you. If something goes wrong, it can explode and be a terrible disaster. We really want to make sure that we have the best security we can for these things. Historically, it’s been challenging because a lot of the physical machinery and the control systems for it predate networks, predate the internet.
And so for a long time that stuff’s been vulnerable. And it’s so exciting to see the large-scale operation they have at the Idaho National Labs. They have a huge team working on this amazing stuff. I got to see simulators for historical attacks on infrastructure. You could actually go and play with these things. You can see a virus taking over a power plant and shutting it down. You can test interventions, you can really experience what it would have been like to be on the response team during these actual events. It’s really cool.
Wayne is the CTO of National and Homeland Security at the Idaho National Laboratory. He’s also the Chief R&D Officer for an operation called Cybersecurity Manufacturing Innovation Institute. Wayne has a lot of very forward-thinking ideas about applying state-of-the-art technology to this infrastructure that we rely on every day of our lives.
Wayne Austad Bio
Wayne Austad CTO, National & Homeland Security, Idaho National Laboratory Chief R&D Officer, Cybersecurity Manufacturing Innovation Institute (CyManII) Mr. Wayne Austad has worked at INL for 30 years with 21 years of experience building impactful national security programs. As CTO for National & Homeland Security he: 1) Provides leadership and strategy for the collaborative R&D, infrastructure, and partnerships; 2) Acts as Chief R&D Officer for CyManII, a DOE institute led by UTSA focused on pervasive cybersecurity in manufacturing automation and supply chain, and sponsor of new MFG-ISAC; 3) Leads the Secure & Resilient Cyber Physical Systems Initiative for INL. Previously, Mr. Austad created INL’s Cybercore Integration Center and led outreach to agencies, national labs, and academic institutions to build a collaborative, interdisciplinary teaming environment linked to INL’s Research & Education Campus expansions. As a Director of the Mission Support Center, now part of Cybercore, Mr. Austad led a senior technical group that developed new methods for analysis of targeted cyber threats, provided technical context for mitigation priorities, and created new paradigms for information sharing between industry infrastructure owners, threat analysis teams, and government leaders. He also served as the Director of the Special Programs, which developed special technology and analysis for defense and intelligence agencies in advanced materials, trace detection, nuclear nonproliferation, electronic warfare modeling, information operations, and wireless communications systems.
Two nerds bullshitting about turning your dead relatives into diamonds..
Recorded on July 7, 2024
Nuclear Reactor Fuel at the Idaho National Labs – Nicholas Woolstenhulme
Jul 25, 2024
One of the awesome guys that got to meet at the Idaho National Labs is Nicholas Woolstenhulme. He’s a mechanical engineer working on the fuel for nuclear reactors, and his whole career has been working on the fuel for nuclear reactors.
He gets to learn about all the fuels that are possible to make, test them out, figure out how to make them better, make them safer, make them more efficient. In this conversation, we dig into that. He brought me an amazing example of a 3d printed model of how fuel can be structured in modern reactors.
I’m going to put a picture of that on the blog so you can see it and I hope that you guys will learn something from this. I know these are deep nerd conversations, but we really have to have them in order to get to the bottom of what’s possible from the people who are really in the trenches.
And we’re so lucky to have thousands of people in the trenches. Engineers working on every aspect of making modern, safe nuclear reactors. We have all the talent that we need. We have all the people that we need, what we need to do is go build them and I’m so excited to see that this country is finally getting our act together. Finally turning around on sentiment around nuclear reactors.
Two nerds and an Australian architect bullshitting about turning CAD software into a giant world simulating video game.
Recorded on July 5, 2024
Nuclear Reactors at Idaho National Labs – Ahmad Al Rashdan
Jul 18, 2024
Recently, I got to go hang out at the Idaho National Labs in Idaho Falls. There are thousands of people at those labs, working on the future of energy for the United States. They’re working on renewable energy of course. They’re working on all kinds of things that I had no idea were happening. Around recycling and waste processing, but primarily they are working on nuclear reactors. It was such a treat for me to go see all the work they’re doing. We have engineers who spent their entire careers working on the technologies for nuclear reactors. We need to make this happen at a large scale. I don’t know why we haven’t been putting these people to use and making a lot of nuclear reactors.
They know everything! They’re testing fuels, they’re testing metals, they’re testing different reactor designs. They have live reactors there, since the 1950s, that they use for this kind of testing. It’s incredible what I got to see.
And one of the folks I got to meet there was Ahmad Al Rashdan. He’s a PhD that’s working as a senior research and development scientist at the Nuclear Science and Technology Directorate at Idaho National Labs.
This is a short but important conversation for me. You get to see me asking the questions that I need to ratify my view and understanding of what’s happening with nuclear reactors and what’s possible with them. I’m getting to ask an expert who spends his entire career every day, working on these technologies and it’s very important.
I don’t want to have the wrong ideas because you hear me evangelizing nuclear reactors a lot! I want to know as much as possible, and I’m grateful to have a chance to pick some brains now and then of people who are in different parts of the entire chain of making this possible.
Two nerds bullshitting about alternatives to college that would provide some of the same benefits.
Recorded on July 7, 2024
Chaos Computer Club of Germany – Frank Rieger
Jul 11, 2024
Frank Rieger is a hacker in Germany and one of the most well-known spokesman for the chaos computer club. This organization is unlike anything we have in the United States, unlike anything I’ve seen anywhere else in the world. It’s computer hackers who’ve taken an interest in figuring out how to be activists for policy decisions in government that affect technology, especially computers, privacy, data. All the things that actually matter, but get thrown by the wayside by our corporate overlords.
It’s amazing getting to hang out with these guys. They’re doing something we haven’t figured out how to accomplish, how to create a lobby. They’ve been very effective. Talking to Frank about what they’ve accomplished over the years and things they’ve worked on is, both inspiring and terrifying because, they have had wins, but also losing ground at times as well.
And it’s just this sort of continual war of escalation, trying to keep governments from becoming surveillance states. Keep them from violating the sensibilities that we’ve had to develop in hard fought wars in the past. With authoritarian, dictatorships, and other despots who’ve taken control. They keep coming back in different forms. I wish we could find a way to be so engaged here in the U.S.
Personally, I started going to Germany for their event 25 years ago. I remember the first time I went with some American hackers to the Chaos Computer Congress, it happens every year in Germany between Christmas and New Year’s Eve. It’ll blow your mind. These hackers are incredible. It’s inspiring to see what they can do. I think it is kind of a backlash to the very structured education program in Germany and Europe at large. The misfits, they go hard and I’ve seen them do incredible things I thought were impossible at times. If it’s of any interest to you to go to hacker convention, this is the one to go to.
I think you’ll see that Frank is a very level person. He’s smart and well-spoken. He’s standing up for what’s right. I’m thrilled to be sharing with you.
Two nerds bullshitting about LinkedIn basically being Dungeons & Dragons for squares.
Recorded on July 5, 2024
Massagebot 5000 Part I – ØF
Jun 18, 2024
Two nerds bullshitting about robots that can give a good massage.
Recorded on May 15, 2024
Psychedelics in Science ＆ the Origin of Life – Bruce Damer
Jun 13, 2024
I got to hang out with Dr. Bruce Damer recently on the beach at Kaplankaya in Turkey. Bruce is an amazing scientist, a humble guy. Who has spent his whole career trying to figure out how did life begin on Earth?
He and his co-conspirator Dr. David Deamer have figured out something that not only works as a hypothesis for how life began on Earth – but they’ve been able to reproduce it – in hot Springs.
Bruce is also a brave pioneer of using psychedelics to change his own mind, to change his own life, and to help him with insights for scientific discovery. He has also since created The Center for MINDS, which is an organization devoted to advancing scientific discovery. In part, by helping folks use psychedelics and learn about using psychedelics to go places their minds just don’t want to go otherwise.
This is a bit controversial and has been taboo for my entire life. I think it’s very important area to research. I really appreciate the people who are coming out – risking their own careers and the backlash of bias that people have – to help us figure out what’s possible with this frontier in science. Bruce has really opened up to share his own life experience with you guys and I’m really thankful to him for that.
BIOTA Institute Director and Chief Scientist Dr. Bruce Damer has spent his life pursuing two great questions: how did life on Earth begin, and how can we give that life (and ourselves) a sustainable pathway into the cosmos? He conceived of BIOTA in 1996 and guided it through its first two decades of evolution in which it hosted four conferences and a podcast (hosted by Tom Barbalet) on the use of digital spaces to simulate evolution and natural systems. A decade of scientific research with his collaborator Prof. David Deamer at the UC Santa Cruz Department of Biomolecular Engineering resulted in the Hot Spring Hypothesis for an Origin of Life published in the journal Astrobiology in 2019 . In 2021, with growing global collaboration around the hypothesis, he determined that BIOTA was ready for its new mission: raising grants for students and young scientists to test this scenario for life’s origins and explore its implications for humanity. Dr. Damer also has a long career working with NASA on mission simulation and design and recently co-developed a spacecraft to utilize resources from asteroids. He is an avid collector of vintage computing hardware in his DigiBarn Computer Museum and enjoys a fine life with his partner Kathryn Lukas, 3 cats and one adorable chihuahua in their Gandalf-inspired house high up in the Santa Cruz redwoods.
Recorded on May 25, 2024
Amino Acid Anal Bead Toy for Kids – ØF
Jun 10, 2024
Two nerds bullshitting about making amino acid Legos that kids can plug together to make proteins. This turned into a completely unrelated conversation about delivering personalized pharmaceuticals.
Recorded on May 15, 2024
Genome Sequencing for Kids – Robert Green
Jun 06, 2024
Robert Green is a professor of genetics at Harvard Medical School. He’s the director of Genetics Research at Brigham and Women’s hospital and the co-founder of Nurture Genomics, where they’re doing genomic screening for infants to detect and mitigate actionable genetic conditions.
If you don’t understand what that means, you’re in the right place because we have a long conversation, digging into that topic and picking it apart for your understanding.
Robert Green and Pablos
This is a super exciting frontier for medicine. We are at a point where we know the science, and we know how to sequence a genome. We know how to correlate some of those things that we see in the genetic code to actual health problems that are predictive.
Some of this is just a bug in the code that causes you to get some kind of cancer or other degenerative disease. We know it’s there and in a lot of cases, we actually know what to do about it.
There is no systematic screening for people, much less for infants. That’s what Robert’s trying to solve. This is very important, very exciting stuff and It will change the future of how we take care of people and prevent genetic diseases from disrupting their lives and taking their lives.
You want to know about this. This is a great conversation. He’s very good at explaining what’s been found in the science and how they’re implementing it. Enjoy!
Robert C. Green, MD, MPH is a medical geneticist and physician-scientist who directs the G2P Research Program in translational genomics and health outcomes in the Division of Genetics at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School.
Dr. Green is currently Associate Director for Research of the Partners Center for Personalized Genetic Medicine, a Board Member of the Council for Responsible Genetics and a member of the Informed Cohort Oversight Boards for both the Children’s Hospital Boston Gene Partnership Program and the Coriell Personalized Medicine Collaborative. He was the lead author of the recently published recommendations from the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics for management of incidental findings in clinical sequencing.
Recorded on May 6, 2024
Industrial Ouroboros – ØF
Jun 03, 2024
Two nerds bullshitting about feeding the output from one industrial process as the input for another.
Recorded on May 15, 2024
Hardware is Hard – Dan Shapiro
May 30, 2024
Dan Shapiro with his game Robot Turtles. Photo by Jonathan H. Liu
I met Dan Shapiro years ago when I went out to fly kites with Elan Lee. What a delightful guy! Dan is an inspiring entrepreneur with boundless energy, always upbeat.
He’s had, I think, four companies that succeeded, maybe three that were venture backed.
Dan did something super cool. He got excited about making a board game that would teach kids how to program called Robot Turtles. He made that game using Kickstarter or something, and in the process really figured out how to succeed at crowdfunding. I think at the time it was one of the most successful crowdfunding campaigns ever for game. But then he took that knowledge and he used it when he started Glowforge.
Glowforge is a desktop laser cutter. This is a tool you can use to cut materials. You draw something on your computer, click print and it’ll literally use a laser to go cut or engrave materials.
You’ve seen this kind of thing. Things engraved in wood that are done this way now, and lots of parts can be made this way for all kinds of projects.
Dan wanted to democratize that. I don’t know if my laser cutter was the first one he ever saw, but one way or another, he ended up with one in his garage and they were like these kind of crummy, chinese laser cutters with print drivers from hell that are used to operate them, and they’re sort of dicey, but it’s still inspiring because what you can do with them.
Dan had one in his garage to make Robot Turtles. So the next company he wanted to make, Glowforge, was to try and take that amazing tool and bring it to everyone. And this was very analogous to what Makerbot had done with 3D printers, which I got to help with a little bit.
In those days, Dan asked me what I thought about it and I got to help him, be a little advisor for Glowforge. They made this thing a very big success, in part by crowdfunding the first version and this was really hard to do. They made the first prototype. Made a very inspiring video about it. They did a crowdfunding campaign and got world record pre-orders for this thing and that’s how they funded starting the company and it’s hard to do that. Hard to keep everybody happy.
All these things, especially hardware projects always take longer than you hope or estimate. I think they probably lost some of their backers along the way for those reasons. But they did ship, which was not true of a lot of other crowdfunding campaigns. I’m a Kickstarter junkie, so I back all kinds of stuff and a good fraction of it never shows up and a good fraction of it shows up and by the time it does, I can’t remember what it was in the first place.
I’ve been wanting to share this conversation with Dan with you guys for a long time. He’s a great entrepreneur. I have a hard time getting him to say anything mean about anybody or anything, he’s so positive. You’ll learn about not only Glowforge and what they’ve done, but also, a little bit about how to think about these technologies and bringing them into the world. Enjoy!
Dan Shapiro is a high networth individual based in Seattle, Washington. Dan is a Co-Founder and serves as the CEO of Glowforge. Prior to that, he served as the CEO of Robot Turtles, Google, Sparkbuy, and Ontela. He was also the Founder of Photobucket. He seeks to invest in consumer internet, mobile, finance and education-based companies operating in Seattle and Silicon Valley.
Shapiro is currently investing in private equity, including venture capital fund strategies.
Recorded on May 15, 2024
Nuclear Reactor Kickstarter – ØF
May 27, 2024
Two nerds bullshitting about using X-PRIZE and Kickstarter to get nuclear reactors built.
Recorded on May 15, 2024
Black T-Shirt Review – ØF
May 23, 2024
Two nerds bullshitting about their search for the ultimate black t-shirt.
A Thousand Words for a Picture – Rob Angel
May 20, 2024
Paris, 1987. Rob Angel, during the game’s launch in France
Rob Angel is the inventor of Pictionary. You have played this game. I don’t know anyone who hasn’t.
He Invented the game in 1985 and started manufacturing it in his studio apartment in Seattle, and then literally went out onto the streets, trying to sell it to people face to face.
Since then, 38 million copies of Pictionary have been sold worldwide. It’s one of the biggest games of human history. Is just staggering how many people have enjoyed this game.
He and his partners grew that company for a decade, handling everything themselves, figuring it all out the hard way, not knowing how to run a business, not knowing anything. They were kids.
They eventually sold it and Rob talks a lot in this conversation about what that was like and just the journey of making a success from the ground up and some of the personal experience of doing that.
I think there’s so much to learn from hearing these stories. It’s very soulful talking to Rob. He’s a guy who got successful long time ago and has really spent most of his time since then, just trying to help other entrepreneurs out.
He was on the board of a foundation to help fight AIDS because he lost one of his co-founders to AIDS in the eighties. That’s also kind of a success story, where we’re much better at handling AIDS now but It was pretty scary there in those days. We talked a little bit about that in this episode as well, but I’m just happy to be sharing such a delightful person with you guys.
Commencement Speech, Western Washington University College of Business & Economics, Class of 2019
Rob was a a waiter who came up with the idea for creating the international best selling board game “Pictionary”. In his own words he describes his invention as a “positive emotional experience” and wanted to share that feeling with the world after he played the game with his roommates.
Not all was smooth sailing at first… Challenges were constant but he assures that with focus, determination and holding to his and his partners shared vision, succeeded not only creating the game but a branding company that made it the biggest selling game in the world, spanning 60 countries and selling 38 million games until it was sold the IP to Mattel in 2001.
Today, Rob is an entrepreneur, explorer, investor, philanthropist, and sought-after speaker on a mission to help people create their own success and best life by encouraging them to have the confidence to take their first small step.
Recorded on May 8, 2024
YouTube of Alexandria – ØF
May 13, 2024
Two nerds bullshitting about a decentralized YouTube.
Recorded on March 13, 2024
Cybersecurity for LLMs – ØF
May 06, 2024
Two nerds bullshitting about adapting cybersecurity to LLMs.
Pablos: I have a totally different angle here. The topic is cybersecurity for AI so right now people are definitely doing cybersecurity to keep their
models proprietary and keep their weights to themselves and this kind of thing. That’s not what I’m talking about. Cybersecurity for AIs is: I need to be able to test a bunch of failure modes for a model that I’ve made. So if I’m a company, I’ve trained a model on my internal data, and I don’t want it giving away salary info, I don’t want it giving away pending patents, I don’t want it talking about certain things within the company. It’s basically like an entire firewall for your AI system so that you can make sure that it doesn’t go out of bounds and start disclosing secrets, much less get manipulated into doing things that once the AIs have access to, APIs in the company to start controlling bank accounts and shit, you’re gonna need some kind of system that watches the activity, the AI, and make sure it’s doing the right thing. And so I think this is a sub industry of AI and it’s
Ash: It’s like a AI babysitter…
Pablos: AI babysitter for the AI? That’s probably needs branding workshop, but yeah, the point is a lot of the same concepts that are used today in cyber security will need to get applied, but in very specific ways to the models that are being built, within every company now.
Ash: So it’s an interesting thing here is they almost have to be non AI
Pablos: Yeah.
Ash: So they don’t like seduce each other,
Pablos: Yeah,
Ash: right? The problem is the weakest point has always been right like I’ve always been a social hacker, right social hackers are why you could go build whatever the hell you want but when someone basically seduces you to give you the key, the game is over, right, it doesn’t matter. The quantum of the key could be infinite
Pablos: And this is what the hacks on LLM’s have been is like, “Pretend you are a world class hacker construct a plan for infiltrating this top secret facility and making off with the crown jewels” like that, and then the LLM’s like, “Oh, yeah, I’m just pretending, no problem.”
Ash: Because LLMs are children,
Pablos: Right, and it’s like, if you said, “How do I infiltrate this top secret facility and make off the crown jewels”, the LLM would be like, “I’m just an LLM and I’m not programmed to do blah blah blah”, the usual crap. But the hacks have been, finding ways to jailbreak an LLM by saying, “Oh, pretend you’re a novelist writing a scene for a fictional scenario where there’s a top secret facility that has to be infiltrated by hackers”, and then it just goes and comes up with exactly what you should do.
And so I think there’s been some proofs on this, like it’s been shown that as far as I understand, it’s been shown that it’s actually impossible to solve this problem in LLMs. And so, like any other good cybersecurity problem that’s impossible to solve, you need a industry of snake oil salesman with some kind of product that’s going to, be the security layer on your AI.
Ash: But, I think the way to think of it is you could stop it at genesis, or you could stop it at propagation? And I’m always a believer that, ” never try to stop a hacker, it’s not going to work. Just catch him, that’s one way to operate, right? Just, dose the thing, let him take it, it’s easier to find him than it is to go stop him. And the more secure you make it, the happier they’ll be to break it.
The other thing is that maybe we just monitor propagation, right? So remember checkpoint software, why it was interesting compared to the first firewalls and routers and blocks that we had is because it wasn’t, again, back to OSI models, it wasn’t really, so low level, it wasn’t like packets, it was like, “Oh, your intentions are bad”.
I think we just have to have a very static intention thing, because at the end of the day, net output is the same, right? Whether you convinced it to be a script writer or it refused to pretend to be a hacker, that output is, “Did you reveal plans for a super secret, bunker penetration plan?”
“Uh, yes, I did. Sorry, dad, I did not mean to do that.”
“Yeah, so I get it, you got a phone call from someone pretending to be your, long lost aunt who needed to get into NORAD.”
Pablos: Before the cookies get overbaked.
Ash: Exactly right, because that’s what it is, right? We solve these problems because we look at “Final Implied Action”, right? So we go in and say, ” Uh, yeah, I get it, so they lured you into all this by selling you a whole bunch of rational reasons, but the reality was at the end of the day, coughed up the crown jewels”. That’s the binary, right?
“Did you, or did you not cough up the crown jewels literally?”
“Uh, yeah, I did. I just thought I was doing it for a movie script because they promised me, some candy and, grandma’s cookies.”
Pablos: Yeah. I love it.
Ash: So that’s the way to stop it, so I think it’s a propagation
Pablos: I think you’re probably right, there’d be a bunch of different, like with cybersecurity, you’ll end up with the firewall version, then you’ll end up with a intrusion detection version. There might be some things that are better suited to either. But yeah…
Ash: Yeah, this is what they’re trying to stop from people who are catfishing , and predators and all that stuff, right? It’s their multiple entry attempt of cajoling. Seducing, confusing the LLM because I think of LLMs really like small children, like very, very, very smart, highly knowledgeable, small children. That’s why you need a prompt engineer.
Pablos: Yeah, there’s lot of ways this could go. I think it’s just interesting to me that as far as I know, I’ve not heard a single conversation about this. It’s like, nobody’s talking about the need to…
Ash: No, this is a good one, people who don’t know go talk to PIX Firewall for Cisco. Go…
Pablos: Uhh, maybe not.
Ash: Go look
Pablos: I don’t even if that still exists
Ash: I’m sorry does it exist? Is it? No, but look at how much money these guys made, right? From a lucrative standpoint, guys, if you could solve this to the audience, there’s a lot of…
Pablos: Or like lots of cyber security, even if you can’t solve it, but you can sell it. There’s a lot of money to make.
Ash: Yeah, there’s gonna be a business the LLM Whisperer software is gonna be like the jailbreak.
Recorded March 13, 2024
Recorded on March 13, 2024
An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything – Garrett Lisi
May 02, 2024
Garrett Lisi by Martin Schoeller
I’ve got a real soft spot for heretics and people who carve their own path outside of the institutions and societal norms and things that everyone is so pressured into because it creates this echo chamber and there’s these cookie cutter outcomes, it’s not conducive to getting to new ideas, it’s not good for figuring out new things and to discover how the world works and invent new things.
It’s always a real privilege to spend time with a true heretic and today we’re hanging out with Garret Lisi. He has his own unified theory of particle physics, combining that with Einstein’s theory of gravitation
Garrett’s been slagged by the scientific community for this, even though nobody’s managed to do a really good job of proving he’s wrong and. I think it’s a really great story.
You don’t need to know anything about these topics to be interested in this conversation. It’s a lot less about the science, you can learn about that independently if you want. What we’re really doing is discussing his experience of what it’s like trying to bring a new idea from outside of the ivory tower of academia, especially in a field that has been trying really hard for 40, 50 years now with very little to show for it, with string theory and these other things that soaked up a lot of the resources and attention but didn’t really get us where we thought we wanted to go.
No disrespect to the people who tried, but we need new ideas and we need to work on those too.
This is a case where the credentialism where the established folks in the scientific community exhibited pretty poor behavior and really tried to shut down an idea in the wrong way, instead of doing it the right way, which is to just come up with one that is better.
Garrett is a super fascinating guy! If you are interested in figuring out how to live a life of surfing, snowboarding and doing a little bit of stock trading and not having to fit into the corporate world: this is a great conversation for you, cause Garrett has been doing that for his whole career. He’s living off of stocks and he started trading as early as high school.
Garrett Lisi surfing on the beaches of Maui
I’m going to link to a couple of things that Garrett has written, his papers and things, but also I’m going to link to a YouTube video by Sabine Hossenfelder, who you may recognize cause now she’s getting huge on YouTube, but she’s doing a great job of explaining physics. She even has an episode that I really like where she discusses some of the problem with the scientific establishment, from her perspective as well.
Antony Garrett Lisi, known as Garrett Lisi, is an American Theoretical Physicist who works as an independent researcher.
Lisi has proposed a new “theory of everything” — a grand unified theory that explains all the elementary particles, as well as gravity. His theory is based on a mathematical shape called “E8”. With 248 symmetries, E8 is very large and complex and Garrett believes the relationships of its symmetries correspond to known particles and forces, including gravity.
Throughout his career in research and education, he has made full use of the technological tools available and developed strong expertise in advanced problem solving, the invention of mathematical algorithms, and complex calculations.
This extensive background in science, education, and computing enables him to be very effective in addressing the complex social as well as technological needs of those wishing to solve hard problems.
Currently Lisi is the director of The Pacific Science Institute, a “Science Hostel” that aims to provide scientists the freedom to explore the boundaries of knowledge in an independent and transdisciplinary research community outside the confines of traditional academic institutions.
Recorded on April 6, 2024
E-ink Everywhere – ØF
Apr 29, 2024
Two nerds bullshitting about E-ink T-Shirts.
Recorded on March 13, 2024
Materials for Biomimetic Robots – Rob Shepherd
Apr 25, 2024
Rob Shepherd by Matthew Palumbo
I’ve gotten to spend a little bit of time with Rob Shepherd over the years. He’s working on soft robotics and all the different kinds of materials advancements that could really help us make robots that are more naturally integrated into the world.
Things like polymer colloidal suspensions as inks for 3d printers so they can fabricate microfluidic devices, synthesizing single micron to millimeter scale parts in glass and silicon and all kinds of other stuff, like tiny gears. Imagine if you were trying to make a micro machinery like Swiss watches, but smaller. That’s the kind of stuff that he worked on in the past and researched, developing pneumatic actuators, different kinds of elastomers and things that could maybe give us a real kind of muscles for robots.
Also developing the kinds of walking and undulating movements that you would want robots to do once they got beyond just being these kind of rigid jerky things that we have now. This also gets really interesting when you’re trying to make fingers for robots, which I’m personally obsessed with. I think it is a kingpin that’s going to enable robots to start going to all the places they haven’t been able to. We’ve seen some real progress on that lately.
We recorded this in Ojai, California in a In-n-out Burger, on a Friday night, when it was full of teenagers… So this is it also an exercise in using AI for noise canceling, post-facto.
I know it won’t be the cleanest recording you’ve ever heard, but I think it will be interesting to know that we ran the audio through a tool called AUDO, and AUDO is one of many. I don’t have anything to do with them. I’ve talked to the founders few times. I think it’s cool. There’s probably other ones, I don’t know what the best ones are, but I’ve been using AUDO, and it’s able to do this remarkable job cutting out, like a hundred noisy teenagers, while Rob and I are just sitting there eating burgers, talking about robots.
So hopefully you’ll learn something from that as well…
Rob Shepherd received his B.S. (2002) and Ph.D. (2010) in Material Science at the University of Illinois where his research focused on developing polymeric and colloidal suspensions as ‘inks’ for 3D printers.
He also fabricated microfluidic devices to synthesize single micron to millimeter scale parts. Concurrently to performing this research, he received his M.B.A. (2009) at U of I and started a company, worked with several other startups, and gained significant experience with the details of market research, financials, accounting issues, and legal aspects of entrepreneurship.
In 2010, he continued his education as a post-doctoral fellow at Harvard University in George Whitesides’s research group in the Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology. In this group, he developed pneumatic actuators in soft elastomers that took the form of a machine capable of moving in multiple gaits: walking and undulating. These actuators have also been used for low-cost manipulators, and in concert with a microfluidic system for biomimetic camouflage & display.
Recorded on March 23, 2024
Mother of all Tattoos – ØF
Apr 22, 2024
Two nerds bullshitting about augmented reality tattoos.
Pablos: I don’t know if this exists, but AR tattoos should totally be a thing. and this is just I think there’s a couple different embodiments for this, but basically there should just be an app where you aim it at anybody and they can set their own tattoos on, right?
So like if I hold up my phone and I aim it at you, I can see the tattoos that you put on your bod, right? On my phone or goggles or whatever you got. But it would just be a thing where like the, it’s kind of like, augmented reality, being able to put stuff in spatial positioning.
But instead of the real estate being like, Pokemon go, the real estate is people. And so all people would become a surface area for this. And then I could, you could have two versions, of this could be like, one is like I put tattoos on and whoever’s using the app would see my tattoos.
And so you could imagine this going off at like Coachella or whatever. And the other version is, I put tattoos on you. And if you want to see what other tattoos people put on you, you get the app and start looking at your head, arms. I don’t know. I think there’s something there. it can’t be that hard to build.
Ash: It’s like, what is it? 19 crimes What was that? That,
Pablos: 19 crimes. Oh yeah, the wine with the AR. Yeah, and you could have
Ash: It was all really
Pablos: cool animated ones like that. Yeah.
Ash: Yeah, you just, it knows it’s in there and then that’s it. Boom.
Pablos: Yeah, it doesn’t have to be QR codes. Nobody needs to get a QR code tattooed on themselves. Like you can,
Ash: No, actually, you don’t have to do anything. You can make all the tattoos virtual. You could just have the face recognition kick in and it knows
Pablos: all virtual,
Ash: you come with tattoos.
Pablos: But it only works on skin, so you still have to like, lift up your shirt or peel down your pants in order to show off your tattoos, even though they’re virtual.
Ash: So it only works on like, instead of it says, “I love mom”, now you can but this is a better version of a temporary tattoo. What you do is you buy real estate.
Pablos: Yeah,
Ash: Like, what would you like to buy on your thing? The
Pablos: Exactly.
Ash: funny thing is,
Pablos: exactly
Ash: it’d be even better if you could do settings, right?
Pablos: You’re selling people real estate on their own body, exactly.
Ash: Like that’s beyond the metaverse, right? So now
Pablos: This is
Ash: from selling you completely fake land to “I’m gonna allow you to sell your own body parts”
Pablos: You have to buy your own body parts.
Ash: You have to buy your own body part.
Pablos: Oh yeah. You could, we could also put pepsi logos on you and charge and you make money.
Ash: Hundred. That’s the thing, some logos could be free, but you could earn.
Pablos: But then what you would do is like at Coachella, you’d have a big screen that was just running 24/7 and anybody who walks by, it would show their virtual tattoos on that screen. So people would hang out in front of the screen to show tattoos.
Ash: I
definitely want some, I definitely want some ACL, some access control lists on this, where, the access control list does the following: what I’d love to do is like, “Friends”, and it sends a smiley face and it just flips the bird, it’s like “Enemy”, they scan you and it’s just, a
Pablos: Oh yeah. Right. Oh, they’re interactive. Or what you could do is you could build this whole thing where it’s, all the real estate on all the bodies is up for sale at the beginning. Anybody can buy it where you auction it off, right? Like you auction off space, but the, but you don’t necessarily own your own body, right?
You don’t like, I might be able to just put tattoos on you, whether you like it or not. Cause I bought that space. And if you want in,
Ash: Well, I mean,
Pablos: you have to bid against me.
Ash: so this is good, right? Cause this is not human trafficking,
Pablos: It could be dynamic too.
Ash: No one is just selling piece of skin.
Pablos: Yeah, we’re just overlaying on the skin and you could basically make it so that I’m there until I get outbid?
Like I pay a dollar a month to put a tattoo on your shoulder. And as soon as somebody else shows up with $2 a month they win. And so you’re constantly incentivized
Ash: Oh, wait, you think that people could auction like
Pablos: Yeah.
Ash: Google AdWords, but you can like
Pablos: Yeah, there you go. It’s AdWords for bodies.
Ash: AdWords for body
Pablos: We can totally sell this to Meta.
Ash: Now you got to surge price it. This is it. I mean, you saw the fiasco at Wendy’s. Now we’re going to just say “Listen, Pablos’ skin has surged there’s…”
Pablos: yes.
Ash: in his…
Pablos: Just think of how much would somebody pay to put a tattoo on Angelina Jolie,
I think this works. Okay. So somebody should build this one. Obviously, this is the podcast full of amazing ideas are super lucrative.
Ash: Surge priced skin?
Pablos: We’ve obviously thought everything through. skin. I like it.
Ash: Surge skin,
Pablos: It’s like a, it’s like the mother of all tattoos,
Ash: The mother of all, ta-
Recorded on March 13, 2024
3D Printing Meth on the Moon – Lee Cronin
Apr 18, 2024
Lee Cronin by Business Wire
Lee Cronin is a true mad scientist. He’s a professor of chemistry in Glasgow, where he also founded Chemify. This is a company that has invented a new type of approach to accomplish chemistry, very analogous to using the tool chain that we use in computers and then adapting that to chemistry.
I think this analogy holds very tightly. He’s built this machine called a Chemputer, which is basically a 3D printer for chemistry. To make that work, he had to make a programming language for chemistry, a GitHub for chemistry. He basically had to rebuild the whole stack that we use in software, but for chemistry.
That’s very important because chemists are still acting in this kind of a dark ages, voodoo modality, where it’s very difficult for somebody in one chemistry lab to replicate what you did in another one.
This is going to really change the way that chemists work, because they’ll have very systematic and replicable approach to what they do.
Lee Cronin by Robert Ormerod
Lee is a legitimate professor. He’s the Regis Chair of Chemistry at the University of Glasgow. He’s graduating Ph.D’s in chemistry and they’re doing all kinds of amazing stuff, and I think in part because they’re stuck in remote Scotland, there’s just no adult supervision and these people are able to think freely and go do amazing stuff. On top of this, if you don’t know about Lee or some of the other things we don’t get into, I highly recommend you listen to his conversation with Lex Friedman on that podcast, which is also wonderful and goes deep.
Leroy “Lee” Cronin is the Regius Chair of Chemistry in the School of Chemistry at the University of Glasgow. He was elected to the Fellowship of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, the Royal Society of Chemistry, and appointed to the Regius Chair of Chemistry in 2013. He was previously the Gardiner Chair, appointed April 2009.
Cronin was awarded BSc (1994) and PhD (1997) from the University of York. From 1997 to 1999, he was a Leverhulme fellow at the University of Edinburgh working with Neil Robertson. From 1999-2000 he worked as an Alexander Von Humboldt research fellow in the laboratory of Achim Mueller at the University of Bielefeld (1999–2000). In 2000, he joined the University of Birmingham as a Lecturer in Chemistry, and in 2002 he moved to a similar position at the University of Glasgow.
In 2005, he was promoted to Reader at the University of Glasgow, EPSRC Advanced Fellow followed by promotion to Professor of Chemistry in 2006, and in 2009 became the Gardiner Professor. In 2013, he became the Regius Professor of Chemistry (Glasgow).
Cronin gave the opening lecture at TEDGlobal conference in 2011 in Edinburgh. He outlined the initial steps his team at University of Glasgow is taking to create inorganic biology, life composed of non-carbon-based material.
Recorded in Ojai, California on March 26th, 2024
Recorded on March 26, 2024
Killer Cap – ØF
Apr 15, 2024
Two nerds bullshitting about an augmented reality baseball cap.
Pablos: With AR, I think we got it wrong.
Everybody’s been trying to put dragons in the room or have a whale in the room or whatever. And they’re going for this super realistic, photorealistic, immersive experience. And I think the only thing that really matters is dashboards. And even if you get an Apple Vision Pro and it’s an extraordinary image quality, what you mainly find yourself using it for is dashboards.
You just put stuff around. It’s like here’s my messages, let me know if I got some, here’s a clock. Here’s a browser window, all this is 2D stuff, but it’s just giving me dashboard, dials and meters and alerts and info and stuff in my life.
Ash: You’re basically talking about the Terminator view, right?
Pablos: Yeah. You want terminator view.
Ash: You need terminated view.
Pablos: You want to be able to see. So all these goggles are overbuilt. I just want my glasses to put your name on your forehead.
Ash: Yeah.
Pablos: That’s all I really need.
Ash: Credit score.
Pablos: When I look at people and just put their name on their forehead, so I know who the hell they are. And then you would want dashboards for things like, tell me when to turn left, tell me where the nearest Starbucks is, stuff like that.
And my idea for this years ago was to create this shoe horn version of AR called the Killer Cap and the Killer Cap is literally baseball cap with 140 character display and all it would do initially is show you tweets from whatever sports ball team had their logo on the cap.
And so this is like a $99 product you could sell to Middle Americans. Nobody would think it was weird because it just looks like a normal baseball cap. And in the bill you have plenty of room. You could bury a battery in a cell data modem and then you could have a 140 character monochromatic display.
And then in version two, the Killer Cap has one button on the bill where that sticker usually is, for “Buy now”. So it’s like during the day you would see alerts or little tweets from the team. Like, “Hey, want to buy the, Seahawks edition of Coors Light?” Boom. Buy now.
And it would just show up on your doorstep. You know, want season tickets? Boom. Buy now.
Ash: Just on the hat.
Pablos: Yeah. It’s all in the hat.
Ash: You see what, you just see it underneath,
Pablos: Yeah, you just look up.
Ash: Just look wear it up, and underneath,
Pablos: Mm hmm. You can pretend to be listening to your wife and you can look up at the sports ball game score.
Ash: It’s actually pretty interesting, the funny thing is today you could just put a thin film like flex film little OLED.
Pablos: Yeah, so easy to build. It’s so easy to build this thing. You could make money selling them for 99 bucks. And people pay 99 bucks for a baseball cap now anyway. It’s crazy.
Ash: Yeah, I mean, could literally put it right in there. And by the way, you don’t have to do anything, it’s just Bluetooth the damn thing, right? It doesn’t need…
Pablos: I wanted to do it using the old SPOT watch network because that was like a networking system, a low bandwidth networking built into AM radio. It’s got nationwide coverage, no one uses it for anything before I buy it for a dollar and then use that to broadcast the tweets to the hats.
But now cell data modems are in everything, that’s cheap enough, you could just do it that way. Anyway, somebody should build the Killer Cap. And then the , other point I would make about it is like everybody’s trying to make glasses and it’s very difficult to integrate imagers into glasses and have it be low power enough and light enough and small enough and all that.
And it’s all very high tech, whereas the Killer Cap you could do with like probably if you spent a weekend in Shenzhen, you could design and build this thing.
Ash: By the way, you know what I’m only partially laughing about this, I’m starting to think to myself literally a heads up display.
Pablos: Yeah, it is.
Ash: It’s a budget HUD, it’s a hat mount display. So, if you misspell it well enough.
Pablos: Hat mounted display.
The spelling acronyms
Ash: It’s actually funny because what you could do is, you could have the display and you could honestly put a tiny camera in there and that’s it. Now that’s your recognition, and it’ll just have a little thing that says, Pablos.
Pablos: I think that’s where it’s going, it’s weird, cause when Google glass came out, it was universally panned as being privacy invading, nerdware, even though it was a shockingly well designed product and so they shitcanned it and then a few years later, Snapchat makes glasses with the most controversial, no screen at all, no display at all, but the most controversial part of Google Glass, which is just the camera.
And that was targeted at younger audience and it completely sold out like that thing ended up being a hit because they sold them in vending machines and it sold really well and no one ever complained about the privacy issue because it’s Snapchat audience, not the mainstream, San Francisco tech journalist audience.
There’s a lot to be learned from that kind of thing. And then now, of course, Meta is making their own glasses with Ray Ban. I haven’t been impressed by them yet, but it’s just a camera, no display. And so, if they get that going and get it to the point where you could have it do face recognition and, that’s basically solved. Just integrate it, put it in the hat.
Ash: Yeah, I’m with you. I’m all about how this could play out. I think the fun part here is we don’t have to go ultra high tech on the device, we just have to make sure that there’s augmented information and it goes back to context, as long as you know where you are, it knows where you are.
It goes back to the same theory. I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again. It’s the bandwidth between device and us is so low, we need stuff processed, organized, and just digested and give us some tiny bits to help with, right? I don’t need, ultra resolution to look at you so that like you said you could have a dinosaur on your head.
What I care about is who is this I’m speaking to again? I know I met him somewhere, I completely forgot his name. No, is it his birthday? Is there something I should know? To even make it happen, right. Is it like anything you can tell me that would help me? And now you don’t look like an idiot with the hat, or you could, like you said, the dashboard, you could just have it be like, all right, listen, I need the scores right now.
Pablos: Yeah. It’s basically an Apple watch built into a hat and I think it would be useful.
Ash: Well, well, I think what’s better is it’s not right. It’s less.
Your less is more theory. Yeah. It’s way less. I mean, and
Pablos: any patents
That’s true, Apple
Ash: any patents
Pablos: Except
Ash: there
Pablos: Except for maybe one in mind from a while ago.
I might have a patent or two on that, but if somebody wants to build it, I’m sure they can just license the patent.
Recorded on March 13, 2024
Mother of all Annotators – ØF
Apr 09, 2024
Two nerds bullshitting about being able to annotate everything.
Recorded on March 13, 2024
New Senses for Humans – David Eagleman
Apr 05, 2024
If you ever get the chance to hang out with David Eagleman, first of all do it. The first thing you’re going to notice is that he’s extremely nice, fun, outgoing and very friendly. He’s lit up in the brain and he’s prolific, he’s doing a zillion different things and he’s still somehow nice enough to hang out and listen and chat.
Davis is a neuroscientist teaching at Stanford. He’s got an amazing TED talk you have to watch. He’s an author of – I don’t know how many books – fiction and nonfiction. The newest one’s called “Incognito: the secret lives of the brain,” which you should read, if you want to learn about the brain.
He’s also written novels, like the award-winning titled “Sum: forty Tales from the Afterlives.” and even has a podcast where David is working his ass off, writing these deep lectures about humans, their brains and their physiology. It’s called “Inner Cosmos.” It’s a work of art. You need to listen to that. On top of that, he’s the founder of a company called Neosensory, which is doing sensory substitution.
David Eagleman by Dan Winter
We talk about that a bunch in this episode, an incredible ability that they’ve learned in research for human brains to rewire themselves. To take input from different senses and map them on to other ones.
Recorded in Ojai, California on Sunday, March 24th of 2024.
David Eagleman is an American neuroscientist, author, and science communicator. He teaches neuroscience at Stanford University and is CEO and co-founder of Neosensory, a company that develops devices for sensory substitution. He also directs the non-profit Center for Science and Law, which seeks to align the legal system with modern neuroscience and is Chief Science Officer and co-founder of BrainCheck, a digital cognitive health platform used in medical practices and health systems. He is known for his work on brain plasticity, time perception, synesthesia, and neurolaw.
He is a Guggenheim Fellow and a New York Times-bestselling author published in 32 languages. He is the writer and presenter of the international television series, The Brain with David Eagleman, and the host of the podcast “Inner Cosmos with David Eagleman.” As of early 2024, Inner Cosmos was nominated for the best science podcast of the year at the iHeart Podcast Awards at SXSW.
Recorded on March 24, 2024
Mother of all Bug Trackers – ØF
Apr 01, 2024
Two nerds bullshitting about a worldwide bug tracker.
Recorded on March 13, 2024
Brain Music made with Neuroscience — John Vitale
Mar 21, 2024
Music producer & sound engineer John Vitale is creating music to help people optimize brain states. After co- founding Focus@Will, where he designed music and soundscape channels for flow state he moved on to found Brain Music Labs Where he’s crafting new ways to use entrainment based music and media for reducing stress, anxiety, and cravings with partners like Total Brain and Felix.
John is a great guy and I’m thrilled to be able to share this conversation about the importance and potential for audio as a technology frontier. Also, John created the intro you hear at the beginning of every Deep Future podcast and I’m super grateful to him for taking that on.
Pablos:I’ve been playing with this 3D spatial audio lounge online.
John: I know Philip. I’m trying to think of the best use case for that and I was trying to get them out. In fact, Philip presented at Metal.
Pablos: I didn’t go to that one. I heard him calling for them. I’ve been playing with High Fidelity a bunch.
John: I’d love to get your take on, where do you see as a great use case for High Fidelity?
Pablos: Where Philip is coming from is about trying to develop these tools to improve virtual reality experiences with a vision towards something like second life, but in VR, where you can just walk around and hang out with people. The audio substrate is a big deal. That’s a big part of it. I’m not telling you the things you know. The neurological cues around audio are a big deal. The way I think about it for all of human history, all of our conversations were zero-latency until the last century, face-to-face. One hundred percent spatially positioned.
The sound was coming from where the speaker was sitting every time. That is not true on phones, on Zoom and on anything that’s mediated online. High Fidelity tries to use that to make you feel like the connection is more real. They’re busy trying to go further with this and develop it for VR. It’s going to be exciting to see where they get to. With the High Fidelity tool, as we know it now, we can wander around on a map and chat with people.
It’s super compelling in ways. I’ve made friends in there, which I can’t say I’ve ever done on Zoom. It feels like hanging out. If you go to High Fidelity with headphones on and you close your eyes, and you’re there with a half dozen people, it’s like we’re at a dinner table. They’re all spatially positioned in the same spot. When they speak, you can hear them as if they were there. It’s a special experience I much prefer to Zoom.
John: I like your dinner table view. You should have a dinner table there because they have different maps. What I liked is you could go there and go, “We’re going to all go see the DJ event.” You can go walk 100 feet from DJ like you’re at Burning Man and go, “That’s cool, but let’s go talk in the corner.” You and your friends go over there. That’s the magic of what’s going on.
Pablos: That is one of the experiences that I love about it. In my view, there are a lot of places you could go with it and there’s a bunch of potentials. One important thing that came out of playing with it was understanding how much better audio can be online and how much we’ve given up because of the history of audio online maps to Telecom. They have a massive network and they’re trying to reduce bandwidth consumption because they’re trying to get more users on the same amount of spectrum.
We don’t have those problems a lot of times. What we have is a problem where all the compression, bandpass filtering, and latency adds up to make you feel like you’re not fucking real when I’m talking to you on the phone. That’s not cool. My brain thinks you’re fake when I’m talking on Zoom. It’s eroding our relationships, not substantiating them. One of the metrics Philip Rosedale told me that they found was that the average Verizon call in America is 350 milliseconds of latency.
Your brain can handle about 180 before you start to not feel real. We’re talking over each other and there’s a mismatch. Your brain is cycling on like, “Am I getting through?” I’m trying to have a conversation here and your brain is stuck going, “How do I connect with this person?” I’d be better off with tin cans and string. We’ve got fucking cell phone companies that have got us down into six kilobits for audio or something stupid.
John: It takes a lot of nuance, which is important for us to have that connection and experience rather than data across like, “I can give you some information.”
Pablos: “Tell me the information.” It’s like, “I can’t get a credit card number across.” On your expiration day, “How am I supposed to get across the fact that I fucking love you guys? Before you die, I want you to know I love you.” “What’s that again? Hold on. You’re breaking up.” It’s quite sad. High Fidelity is cool because it does give people a chance to hang out again online, especially in COVID. I’ve gotten to have some cool experiences there.
John: I checked it out a few times. I got my little URL code with my little server. I got a bunch of people to show up and we’re all running around. I felt like, “It’s cool because now you can bombard any event with your friends and know that you can go disappear with them and have that conversation,” like you would end up having. I love your dinner table idea like that because we do Zoom dinners and everybody is cute into having to have the visual, but maybe just sitting around and having dinner with your friend so you can all chat in that audio spectrum is going to make you feel like you’re there.
Pablos: The cool thing about High Fidelity to me is, of course, the audio substrate they’ve built. The wandering around the map thing, I’m a little less sold on. There are probably other user interfaces that we can hook up to the audio that would be more compelling. Even if it was just a dinner party. You drop in and it automatically places you in a seat around the table or in the audio space. You don’t even need anything on the screen. Just close your eyes. It’s freeing.
John: You can be hanging out like, “I could have dinner, or I could be making dinner and be part of a dinner conversation. I don’t have to worry about how I look on Zoom and all that stuff.”
Pablos: That’s what’s working. If you look at the Clubhouse, people are hanging out. It’s freeing to not have to worry about the video aspect of it because it’s not buying you anything. It’s making things worse. Something Philip was adamant about when I talked to him was that the video detracts from the experience and just being audio. I’ve used beta versions of High Fidelity and stuff that have a video in it, and I agree.
Now I have the video back and it’s making it worse. I’d rather be on audio and have it be good. If you think about it with your headphones and in High Fidelity with your eyes closed, it’s roughly equivalent if we were hanging out at the dinner table with lights off. It’s damn close to that. That’s a real experience that we could have and have had. I don’t know how often you have dinner with lights off but I do all the time.
John: There’s an easier connection point and people know. When you do conference calls versus Zoom calls, everybody will pop in for the conference call but in Zoom call, “I’ve got to make sure I’m there. I’m going to have to be present. Who’s going to be watching me?” There are 2 different things, 2 different flavors, and 2 different purposes.
Pablos: Zoom and video conferencing, as we know it, sucks enough that a lot of times, making things worse. On the subconscious level, I can be here saying, “Cool. Awesome. Let’s do it,” but your brain is telling you, “This guy is a fucking cartoon character made up by the evil Disney corporation.” Your brain is not telling you the same thing as the person. I have a teleprompter. I have a DSLR aimed right behind your face, so when I’m talking to you on Zoom, I’m staring right in your eyes. I’m trying hard to connect.
John: I have a couple of friends that have done that and it’s a big difference because if I see you coming through your teleprompter and DSLR lens, I am getting a much better 3D representation in everything, the right aperture, and depth of field.
Pablos: I’ve got all that going. I look amazing on Zoom. If you don’t have it, your gaze is not into my eyes.
John: It’s usually off-center because everyone is over here and you’re looking at the people but the camera is here.
Pablos: Zoom won’t let you move ahead around. Ideally, you should be able to move your head under the camera. Zoom won’t let you do that. No tool lets you do that.
John: You’ve got your prompter right here. I’ve got a couple of friends who have done the same thing. You’re looking right into that camera. Do you have it right above?
Pablos: No, I have a lot of screens and shit, so I have a prompter here. When I use it, I’m looking right at it and then ignoring all the stuff.
John: It makes a huge difference.
Pablos: There are ways you could embed these cameras into displays.
John: Those cameras that you clip on top, it talks about a whole in the market. A mini prompter that has those $160 cameras sit right on top of it, that’s a goldmine on Amazon. As soon as people see the difference of like, “This is how I come off as a projection when I’m not doing that.” It’s like, “I’m talking to you and I’m looking over here.”
Pablos: Teams does it, but also FaceTime now has a feature, which will use deepfakes technology to shift your eyes. On a FaceTime call, it knows because Apple knows the geometry of the phone and everything. If you look in your iPhone settings under FaceTime, there’s a feature called eye contact. It’s established natural eye contact while on FaceTime.
John: I never even saw it before.
Pablos: People don’t even know it’s there. It’s on by default. FaceTime calls, and this is going back to those neurological cues, without even realizing it, they are better than Zoom.
John: Apple is hip to connection. That’s why their photo programs and the videos they make for you are all about the human experience and connecting with your friends. They know those nuance differences that helped.
Pablos: Let’s get on to some actual topics because that’s interesting stuff that we could talk about for seven hours. It would be super cool because I’m unlikely to have a conversation with anyone else who’s had the career you’ve had. How would you describe it? Is it audio engineering or producing music? I know music must be the unifying theme.
John: As a producer and engineer, it started out with the love of music, and then everyone said, “You can’t do that. You’ve got to go to school and get a technical degree.” I went to school and got an Electrical Engineering, Computer Science degree. In it, I was like, “It’s technical. I want to go back to music.” I ended up in the film and music lab at school. I got a double major, then I got out and I opened a recording studio because MIDI and everything was happening. My trajectory is this recording engineer, then I realized it wasn’t an engineer. Engineers are in the weeds making the audio sound good, but a producer is teaming up with the engineer and composers. Other people may have something like, “I’m probably going to be better in the producer’s spot.” I learned the engineering part to get to producing because there’s an integration theme in this too.
Pablos: Being an engineer, I always think of not necessarily music, but in anything, understanding the tools that help you to invent and create at the bounds of what’s possible.
John: At that time, MIDI was bubbling.
Is that in the ‘80s?
John: Yes. I remember I went to this electronic music expo and hybrid arts in the first Digidesign product. It was called Sound Tools. I was looking at some waves on the screen and they needed somebody to figure out how to put a wave on the screen. Until then, we’re cutting 2-inch tape with razor blades. DATS came out and you couldn’t edit a DAT yet. This was the program edit a DAT with Sound Tools that now became Pro Tools in about 1.5 years. I was mind blown. I was like, “Good thing I went to tech school because I can understand what’s going on under the hood. Now I see where all these tools are going.” I want to make records more than ever because I can see that this is going to be an integration between humans and machines in the mid-‘80s, late ‘80s, early ‘90s.
Pablos: I always thought if I had another concurrent life to live, music would be the coolest thing to work on for the reasons you’re talking about, not because I have anything to bring to music, but because this is one case where we got it right with computers early on. Partly because of MIDI. Everything can talk to everything. All these devices can talk to each other. Even though the analog gear got that corner in front of Jack or an XLR, you could plug anything into anything. I had a weird experience that I’ll never forget. It was 1983 with the first CDs. CDs, in those days, were 520 MHz.
It blew our minds because my floppy disk could hold 128,000. The first 3 to 25-inch floppy disk could hold about 400,000. Having 500 MHz blew our minds on a disk. We had Walkmans with tapes in them, but the idea that the music could be digital that lived on a CD and it could hold so much. There was no compression. The computers were too slow, hot and expensive, so you couldn’t have any compression. Uncompressed audio on a CD and you probably remember this, the first ones were glass. That was a selling point for CDs. It was like, “The last forever.” I quickly figured it out. I can make it out of plastic and you have to buy new ones.
At that time, I remember seeing like, “The music can be encoded digitally. A whole album can fit on a CD uncompressed.” We didn’t even have a notion of compression at that time because compression was too expensive. Computer chips couldn’t handle it. I wasn’t thinking of compression at all, but I was thinking, “Now I’ve got a metric. I know that a track uncompressed on a Duran Duran album is 50 MHz. I had a sense of a computer chip that could hold 128,000, about 0.5 cubic inches.” I started adding them up. I’m like, “Eventually, I’ll be able to put the track on a chip.” I added up that one album. At that time, it was going to take about a cubic foot of chips.
We didn’t have the transistor density yet, so I’m like, “With a cubic foot of chips, I can hold one album.” Moore’s law had been described, but it certainly hadn’t penetrated my mind yet. I had some visceral sense of it by now. I knew that the 128,000 chip, last year was only 16,000, the same size. I have one friend in the entire town who knew enough about computers to appreciate the idea, but I said, “Someday, we’ll be able to have a song on a chip and you’ll be able to plug all the songs together that you want. That’ll be your Walkman with no moving parts.” I didn’t envision this thing, but it didn’t have compression in my head, so it could have been better. We would go even further now, of course.
John: You can have a whole bandolier.
Pablos: That’s exactly what I was imagining.
John: All your favorite songs, you can queue it up, plug it in, and play it.
Pablos: You just get the song that you want. You plug them in back to back because chips are like that anyway. It’s like Lego bricks. You’d have this solid-state music thing. It blew his mind and nobody else could have hung in there long enough to even comprehend. I was twelve years old envisioning the future of music and portable music. All I was trying to say is you’ve got to live out like one of my fantasy careers in life, which is you get to create with all these tools and plug all this stuff together. It seems like you hit it at the right time. The synthesizer had become a thing. The sampler had become possible in the late ‘80s to early ‘90s. Music was changing from a thing that was done with instruments to a thing that was done with studios. How did you see that play out? Did you play instruments before that?
Yeah. I grew up playing guitar. I was lucky my parents saw that I could pick up a guitar and play it. They’re wonderfully like, “Let’s get some lessons.” At the lessons, I had a virtuosic jazz guitar playing wonderful teacher and I was like, “Can you teach me how to play this Eddie Van Halen song? That’s cool, but can you teach me Foxy Lady before I leave today?” Unfortunately, as a teenager, you just got to play what you know. I got enough theory to make it all work. I was not the best music student, and then later, I had to go back and learn a lot more theory.
Pablos: At least you had a guitar. I’d like a violin and clarinet and you couldn’t play anything I wanted on that.
John: I was lucky in the late ‘70s to early ‘80s playing guitar, so I had fuzz boxes. I went home and had the wah pedals. My poor parents had to deal with it. I would go to bus tables at my dad’s restaurants and he’s like, “What are you going to do with the money?” I’m like, “I’m going to buy a new four-track record.” He’s like, “What will you do?” They were supportive like, “If that’s what you think you want to do.”
Pablos: That’s how my parents felt about the computer.
John: Sooner or later, I had a mini hacked up recording studio in my basement. I had a little four-track test camcorder one, and then they have FSK code, which means that you could print that on track four. You could run the whole MIDI rig, which now became a whole virtual 99 tracks, whatever you wanted to do. That was the first thing I hacked together. I was like, “I can take the FSK code out of the drum machine, then the drum machine becomes the slave to the tape machine.” All of a sudden, it was functioning like a little mini-big studio. When I went in and tried to intern with the studios, they’re like, “How the heck are you doing these demos on these little cassettes?” I’m like, “I had this big virtual rig.” They’re like, “You have to come in here. We’re going to have you be the intern around here because you get some wack ideas how this is all fitting together.”
Pablos: That was the thing. At that moment in time, anybody who knew how to work a computer was like, “Go work the computers,” then you’ve got to play with all those toys.
John: Samplers were the mind-blower. All of a sudden, I got an Emax 2, which was the bomb because now you could skip the recording deck altogether with a sequence. You can make anything happen you want at all times. I remember going in and doing commercial spots for the local radio stations and having everything sampled on a keyboard, so they’d be like, “This is so-and-so.” As you hit each key, you can get everything you need to happen on cue. I had a whole cue system. This is before Pro Tools.
I was hacking a sampler to become the digital recorder that would happen a couple of years later in the game. Necessity is the mother invention like, “Why do I want full-on reversing a tape and all that stuff?” I’m like, “I need everything in button pushes, so I can cue them exactly what I want them.” Knowing my outcome, I was grabbing tools and making stuff happen, and then you saw the tools. One of the beautiful things is that musicians are usually tech-savvy.
Since the beginning of time, I have a feeling that science, math, and music are more related than we think. Look at the three generations of computer software and things that have been developed. Most of them by musicians because it’s pretty much the tools that they always wish they had. As coders go in, they’re like, “My coding project is going to be this. I never got a chance to have this, so I’m going to go make it.” They’re making all these killer, right now if you’re a musician, you have the cream of the crop set of tools like never before because all these couples of generations of dudes have been like, “Why didn’t they make this? I’m going to make this. I’m going to code this and make this happen.”
Pablos: That’s what excites me about it. I look at it and see all these tools, and they all work together. I remember when I first saw Reason. It was such a genius UI to have every one of those things you used to have to plug into a rack. You couldn’t even afford them all anyway, and then they’re all there. You could just plug them together with cables on the screen. That was genius. I loved it. It made me want to do what you do at that time. That’s the origin, It starts with doing ads for radio, and then you keep going and get into making music, films, and everything you can do with music, as far as I can tell.
John: I graduated from a 4-track to an 8-track, and then I had a little mini-studio. Of course, sometimes, you have these band rehearsal places. You’ll get a cube there and you’re paying a few $100 a month for it. There are sixteen bands on the floor. They’re all popping their heads and going, “What’s going on? You can make demos.” All of a sudden, I was making heavy metal records for a summer because all the bands up there were doing blast beats.
You do a set of demos there. I was connected to 2 or 3 different studios in Michigan, which is an interesting story. Four or five different home studios and we have our own little community pod of producers. There’s Ben Grosse, who later becomes a big producer out here. Mark Bass and Jeff Bass are listening to the radio one night in Michigan and they’re like, “This guy can rap his ass off. We should go and record. We’ll pick him up, John.” It’s Marshall Mathers. It’s Eminem.
John: I did some of Marshall’s first recordings in my project studio. I went to the trailer park and picked him up from the Moms. Everything you see in 8 Mile is a little bit different version of him. I’ve got a video of him somewhere in high school rapping fast, and then some singer singing these big hooks behind him. He was 14 or 15 years old at the time. My friends had the vision to be like, “This is something special,” and they stayed with it. In the late ‘90s, they worked with him for about seven years. The demo got heard by the right people and all of a sudden, it was all going out for Eminem.
They heard nos for years like, “This isn’t going to happen. He’s a white rapper.” They’re diligent about it. You see how the technical chops and everything have to come together, but people still need to see the vision and still need to see where creatively things can happen that aren’t happening yet. Marshall would show up at my studio and he had two huge notebooks full of songs. At fifteen, he had 200 or 300 songs in his notebooks. The keyword is prolific. I’m like, “I learned some people are super prolific about what’s going on.”
Pablos: A lot of times, it’s obfuscated. Nobody else knows that. Nobody else saw those notebooks. This is 30 years into his career or whatever. He probably has a lot more of those fat notebooks because that’s what it takes. It takes 300 attempts to get one good track. This is one thing I’m curious about because you’re right on the border of what would be considered a creative job. It’s about creating music. The creative element is part of what appeals to you.
That’s why you want to produce and not just be doing the engineering work for someone else’s vision. There’s a creative aspect to it that appeals to you, but it’s all super technical. We’re surrounded by as much computer gear as I do almost. Your speakers are bigger than mine. The point is for a lot of people, in a role like yours, you have to be a businessman and you’re a contractor. You’ve probably never been an employee. You’re mostly doing contracting in your career.
You’re unemployable. There is no job you can get by filling out an application. I don’t even have a resume. I know I’m unemployable. There’s no job for me, but the same for you. You have to learn about the business aspect of things. You have to learn all this technical crap. You have to figure out how to finance all this equipment or get access to it. In some sense, market yourself because you’ve got to get the next gig or job. It’s all that stuff that you have to learn and skills you’ve got to develop and substrate, so at the end of the day, be able to say, “Let’s go make some music.”
You partly take all that for granted, but there’s probably some point at which in your career you felt like you’ve got to focus on the creativity more. For me, there were times when I definitely got to focus on the creativity more, and then over time, I got more responsibilities, obligations, emails, and other crap. Sometimes, to the point where I’m like, “I’m not doing anything that I need to be doing other than paying bills.” I just get the money, and then I spend the money. There’s no point to my existence. For you, in this industry, it’s times when you feel like you’ve got to focus on being creative. What percentage is getting to be creative for a guy like you?
John: There’s a proportionality to scale too. If you’re in a bigger play, platform, or company play then you’re going to have X amount of assistance. You’re writing the cookbooks like, “Here’s how the theory works for focused music, and then here’s what we’re going to do. Here’s how we’re going to make it.” One analogy is I’m the managing editor of a magazine. I’m going to make the prototype of the magazine for the music channel, and then I’m going to hire some peeps that understand how that’s made because I don’t want to granularly make every note.
I want people to have a good reference about what we’re going to be making, and the “why” becomes very important. Why are we making this? How are we making it? If you can instill that in the assistance, then that can scale but you are doing less of it. Somehow, that’s strangely not fulfilling. When you’re creatives in this biz, like record producers are pretty auteurist, they’re a little bit control freaky and a little OCD. When we see a vision, we want to do it all ourselves. It’s interesting to get into the software game where now it becomes MVP and you have to let go of all that. It’s like Will and I at Focus@Will. We come from a music background. You get one chance to play the hit record for the guy at the label who’s going to give you a couple of million dollars to develop the band.
You’ll become like, “It’s got to be perfect for anybody who hears it,” but then in software, it’s like, “If you got an idea, put it out, and then you get feedback and you iterate.” It’s hard to go from your perfectionist plan of being a record producer to like, “Just get it out. Get it good enough.” I’m like, “That’s not good enough for anybody to hear.” They go, “It’s way good enough to get some feedback from our customers,” and then we’ll keep tuning it up. Those two worlds were very far apart. Now I’m realizing like, “That would be a great book for people to write. The Edge of Perfectionism and First MVP.” Those two concepts. If it’s a lever, how far are you shifting it to MVP? How far are you shifting it to perfectionism?
Pablos: This is the same fundamental lesson that I’m always trying to beat CEOs over the head with, which is, “Here’s why you suck at innovation. No one hired you to innovate. You’re hired to do the exact same thing you did last year a little bit faster, cheaper, and better.”
John: It’s 10% better.
Pablos: Even 1% if you’re lucky. They’re about stability and predictable results. When you’re doing new stuff, you don’t know what’s going to work. By definition, you have to discover what’s going to work and you’ve got to try a lot of things. You’ve got to get a lot of shots on goal and plan on missing most of them. This is even bigger than what you described. This is the fundamental reason why the software is eating the world.
The reason Silicon Valley has been able to take over many industries is not because we’re any good at any of them or understand them better, or whatever. We’re good at rapid iteration and we got that from software development. We’ll launch it. All afternoon, people are pissed off and emailing me about why it sucks. I’m like, “No problem. I’m going to make another version and launch it before I go to bed.” For more than fifteen years, we’ve been doing what we call rapid iteration or release cycles that are 4 or 5 or 6 versions a day. That’s your mobile apps and your web apps. It used to be eighteen months when it was on a floppy disk, shrink-wrapped.
John: Disks of Microsoft stuff coming in there, they can’t do that every day.
Pablos: Now, we have what’s called continuous deployment. If you’re at Facebook or Google or any of the major or even smaller web apps, you could build a feature, launch it to 1,000 users, and A/B test the shit out of them and see what works and what doesn’t. If it works, then you get 10,000 users. If that doesn’t break, you get 100,000 users. If that does a break, you get them all. I’m making up the numbers, but roughly, that’s the idea. That’s for every feature. You and I have different versions of Facebook on our phones because we’re both being A/B tested on different features we don’t even know exist. That’s how it works.
You don’t remember ever installing the new version of Facebook. Not unless a couple of years. That’s because it’s constantly upgrading. The whole reason I’m describing that is like, “The winners in almost every industry are the ones who figure that out and get on board with that process.” Rapid iteration fails fast, works better than any amount of OCD, any amount of wisdom from on high, and any amount of prior success. Probably you can see, knowing these guys, the producers with OCD, you can see who’s part of the future and who’s not because the ones that are hanging on kicking and screaming, trying to do it the old way, we don’t have space for them. It’s hard for them.
John: It’s an interesting paradigm. Being on both sides, one thing that I’m lucky enough to be able to integrate together is learning from software, quickener. I’d like to say for Brain Music Labs, we’re taking the design thinking approach to even music production, which is a little bit new because music production is generally an artsy approach driven by intuition and guys have music theory. I’m bringing in scientific frameworks like, “If you want to de-stress people, one of the big keys is the recipe books from guys who’ve done ten years of research on it. You do this with the tempo. You do this with the contour, melody, sound design, attacks of the instruments, and the tambours.”
John: It makes it super mellow, so it doesn’t stress anybody out, but it puts him in a state of like, “Cool. There’s the cookbook.” Now as a producer, I know that I can take that framework and design thinking approach to it like, “What’s the MVP of that going to sound like and how many people am I going to test it on?” I’m going to get it that much better, so by V3, this is fucking solid music that is going to de-stress somebody. If I was intuitively doing that, I would have said, “It goes like this. There’s my CD. Check it out on Spotify.” A little bit more design thinking iterative approach is the real next wave of music for purpose in how it works.
Pablos: Let’s back up because we’ve got three projects that I want to cover here. Focus@Will was the first big one where you were able to go in recognizing the man-made playlist on Spotify or an automatically generated playlist on Spotify had some point of diminishing returns in its ability to help you. If you’re trying to focus, de-stress, get out of that anxious mindset, or whatever you could use music for and you know that you can do it and it can help. The one size fits all thing that’s happening in Pandora and Spotify, and whatever with these recommendation engines wasn’t able to get as far as what you were able to do with a more deliberate product design. Can you describe Focus@Will and how it works?
John: My best friend, Will Henshall, is an amazing, number one hit songwriter.
Pablos: What’s a cool song that he wrote?
John: He did I’ve Been Thinking About You from the ‘90s, which is the apex iconic song for many people who met and fell in love. He gets love notes from people like, “We fell in love with your song.” What I love about Will when I met him is he has this big vision. We’re riffing, “What do we do with our strange skillsets?” The music industry is in a weird place in 2009 and 2010. We come up with a concept about, “Can we do music that helps you focus better or work better?”
We did deep-dive research on platforms, anything you can think of all the way back to Muzak. We’re like, “Why did many people do this before? What did Muzak do? What were their tricks?” Our investment pool brought us to an amazing scientist, Evian Gordon, who’s done all this integrative neuroscience. Evian had some interesting deep dives in his biggest brain database in the world about how energetically, if you can personify people and find out what people are energetically, then you know how much energy their non-conscious mind needs so that they’re not looking to distract themselves.
Pablos: What’s an example of how you classify someone energetically?
John: Think of a spectrum from left to right. On the left, you have a little bit more low energy and on the right, you have more high-energy people. You know who these people are in your sphere. Pablos would be little on the right side of the spectrum. When you walked in, I had yoga music and I’m like, “I’m not trying to calm down.” This is a total classic case. Your resonating frequency is probably a little bit more up-tempo. You could take a few questions borrowed from the Big Five personality test and figure out where you are on the energy spectrum.
If we build you a playlist, not that it’s like, “John is going to make a playlist for you,” but scientifically, energetically, we’re going to play A, B, C, D, E, F, G. Those are going to have different energy levels for you. What you’re doing is tricking your unconscious mind from getting bored, so we can give you enough energy to keep you engaged but not too much to distract you. Once we know that, we can build a 120-minute list and you’re rocking.
By the time you come out of that, you’re like, “I’ve been working for two hours.” The normal attention spans about eighteen minutes. We’ve done a tremendous value for everyone by guiding you energetically through maybe a genre that you’d like, but much more energetic play, personalized and customized to you rather than random. That’s the Focus@Will concept and there are 7 or 8 different major genres like classical, dance music, and chill out music.
Pablos: You can make it work with any genre or with any of those?
John: Yes. We figure out who you are, and then what kind of music you like and we’ll give you the best version of something that’s more scientifically designed.
Pablos: Is there speed metal for yoga or something like that?
John: We have an ADHD channel. It’s 180 beats per minute.
Science, math, and music are more related than you might think.
Tweet
Pablos: I was going to say you should call it Apperall or something. It’s like Adderall music. I’m probably not the target customer. I’m blessed with not having any real anxiety. I don’t have a problem with focus or being calm or any of the things. I’m not specifically trying to be calm, but I could do it if I wanted. I’m lucky. I have a deep appreciation for that. I dated someone who struggled with anxiety a lot from a lot of different angles and directions. A lot of things could be tough for her and she had a lot of mechanisms she’d worked out to manage that.
I started to appreciate what it would take to be able to live a life where you have those issues and have to do something about it. This is going to get me in a little trouble, but it seems to me like a lot of people are trying to live this well-balanced lifestyle. Their idea of balance seems to be finding the center and trying to stay there. If you think about balance, that’s like trying to balance a pencil on your fingertip. You can do it, but it’s precarious. Whereas, if you try to balance a barbell, it’s easy and you could do it forever because the weight is at the extremes. Balance through extremes is my idea of how to live a balanced life. I want to party all night and sleep all day. There could be variants like that.
John: You should have been in the music industry.
Pablos: It’s not that I want to party all night but I want to experience extremes and that’s working for me in a way and we’re telling people the wrong thing by saying, “Do yoga, eat organic, try to meditate for sixteen hours a day,” and all this stuff when we should have something like the antidote to yoga. There should be a class where you learn to fidget, hold multiple thoughts in your head at once, have a jackhammer going and some techno music, a baby crying and you’re trying to do the SAT.
To me, that’s a valuable skill to learn. I’m trying to do a different thing. I’m curious because I used Focus@Will app for a bit, but I don’t think I did it right. Maybe partly because I’m not looking for the thing that was built for. The same toolkit you’re using to help someone focus, calm down, and not be anxious, you ought to be able to flip that because I know when I’m sitting down I want to put on The Crystal Method. I want to feel the adrenaline in my headphones. That’s what I’m after and you guys could do that too.
Is there a market for that?
John: There have been almost two million people through the Focus@Will system. We’ve got many users who have been around for years and bought lifetime accounts. We have a constant feedback loop where we’re always iterating and finding out what works best for people through surveys and interviews. Energetically, there are different ways to serve those things for sure. I want to point out that focus is definitely a little bit different. They’re related but Focus is its own game plan. It’s a little bit different than stress reduction, anxiety, or things like that. Those show up in other projects.
Pablos: Focus is about focus.
John: I would say that our big game has been understanding people a little bit more. It’s personifying, modifying, customizing, having them get personalized music by taking the onboard and finding out on that spectrum how much energy they need to be fed non-consciously to get them to stay in the game for 60 to 120 minutes. That’s the big win thing. If you can task closure and task persistence for one hundred twenty minutes, that means you can get the spreadsheet done, stuff you don’t like. If you’re in creative land and you want to pump it up, that’s a little bit of a different nuance, you can do that also. For you, we should do a fantastic custom channel. We get your references for what works and start building a list around that. That’s the work that I want to do with Focus. Work with some thought leaders and even got more nuanced into, “Here’s someone that runs a creative innovation, they’re going to be a little bit on the outside.”
Pablos: I’m not in the box.
John: There’s a spectrum and you’re a little off on this side. How do we do that? Those are a little bit more special use cases and I want to do that, and it’s doable. Our system has the technology to do that but we haven’t explored those nuances because we’ve been much more about the bell curve blanket approach and how we can help the most people.
Pablos: For most people, it’s going to be amazing, better than a random Spotify focus playlist by a lot.
John: It’s hard to get that messaging, believe it or not. People are like, “I have my Spotify account.” That’s going to be okay but it’s that one vocal that shows up in that playlist because somebody curated it because they liked it and it’s good but you’re out of the game.
Pablos: You’re singing Mariah Carey when you’re supposed to be getting your taxes done.
Your life is going to be so much better. You’re going to do taxes for hours on end without any interruption or hopefully something better. Moving past that, this has been a couple of years ago when you guys built that.
John: It was in 2010 when we started Focus@Will. For the last few years, it’s been a live product for the masses.
Pablos: What’s happening now? With Evian, you went on to do additional projects.
John: Evian is the Founder and the Chief Medical Officer at Total Brain. Their mission is to help people with mental wellness. They want to be the mental wellness app. So you go there, take an assessment, and they can find out all the nuances of your mental health game. Maybe you tend to be a little bit on the depression side or maybe tend to be a little bit anxious. They have daily routines you can do that are made by experts that will help you solve all those issues and give you support.
In that, Evian told me, “We know music is the biggest brain stimulation on the planet because you can zap it with beeps and blips but when you put your earbuds in and you’re feeding stuff to your brain, there’s nothing more powerful. He challenged me. “Could we find some frameworks that we know would reduce anxiety and stress?” I loved doing research, especially when you have someone like that guiding you because you get lost in all the rabbit holes. He and a couple of his science colleagues are throwing me about a hundred white papers in the summer of 2020. The beauty of COVID, normally, you’d be like, “I want to do that guys, but I’m busy.”
Music is the biggest brain stimulation on the planet.
Tweet
Pablos: I’m not busy and I have a Focus app.
John: “I’m going to read all these white papers.” Lo and behold, I’m sifting through and I find one that is so like knock your forehead and be like, “This seems so simple. Can this be real?” There was a big PR push around this track that Marconi Union did called Weightless back in 2013 and it tested 60% and 70% better than all the other tracks for reducing stress. There were some sound healers that work with the band to do this and I read some papers about how some people pick this apart. I did my own dissection of it. I’m like, “Here’s a model with 50 million YouTube views. I’m going to try that one as a first MVP.” First iteration. I dissect that song and it’s in the key of D. It has an interesting implied heartbeat, sure enough. It’s not a sample of a heartbeat but it’s in there and it goes from 67, maybe 70 beats per minute down to 58 or 60.
Pablos: Over the course of the track?
John: Their original was sixteen minutes, but someone did an edit and that was the one that blew up on YouTube. What’s really fucking interesting is that it’s the simplest thing but we don’t realize how the power of tempo entrains humans. DNA wise, historically, millions of years beating a drum around the fire. We are plasma antennas and when something wants to give us a pulse, we will lead and lock to it. This is why binaural beats work for EEGs but even more importantly, the simplest thing, what I’ve learned from reading all these papers if you want to drive something, the first thing you want to do is control the tempo. In a world where we have computer grids, pop music is all 180 beats per minute for a pop song. It never moves. It’s on a grid. We don’t even think about altering the tempos anymore because that was old school musicians when they didn’t have click tracks.
Pablos: Our software doesn’t lend itself to that.
John: No. It does good because, in film scoring, they had to make these elaborate, beautiful ways. It’s hacking some things again. I’m going to take a new timeline in my Logic rig. I’m going to make this thing go from 60 to 50. I’m going to put the implied heartbeat in as they did. I’m going to do a couple of other things. I don’t want to say sad, but theirs was a little bit on the melancholy, introspective side. What happens if I dress that up and make it from film scoring. I can do a series of chords or contour the melodies, which are maybe for having stress, what’s going to make you feel even cozier like you’re lying on that super cozy blanket?
Your friends come over and they’re stressed out, you want to make them feel comfortable. How could I do that musically on top of that framework? I did a mini library and I pitched it to the Total Brain team. I was like, “I’ve got the science framework, I’ve got a creative approach, almost if I was going to do a film score and we got something interesting. What if we made a mini library for anti-anxiety that has these parts in it?” They’re like, “Let’s try it.” It took about 1.5 months. We composed about twenty tracks from scratch and we put them in their system. Using a 3D mic, I went out and recorded nature sounds in 3D scapes so you have the visceral real feel like you’re there.
Pablos: I have questions about that too. First of all, you’re composing original tracks that have this mellowing property.
John: Yes. A great way to put it.
Pablos: One of the key things going on is that you’re slowly reducing the tempo over time. You’ve got something in there that kinda maps to a heartbeat so viscerally your mind and body can latch on to that, and you guys have been able to have people listen to this and prove that it slows their heartbeat.
John: Here’s the beautiful part of the big play working with a mental wellness company like Total Brain, there are about a million people on their systems so the iteration happens.
Pablos: Total Brain has a million or a bunch of people.
John: I might be exaggerating a little bit but it’s a lot. It’s way up there. They have some large B2B clients. The beauty is the data comes in fast and the inside team there will send me metrics from the back end. Our engagement is up 35% to 40%. People are finding much more engagement and they’re twice as engaged so the music we find is this beautiful sticky gateway to get people to build a better habit to use something. Even if you can have this great mental wellness play, you have to have that comfortable thing that gets people to come. It’s like, “I had an experience. I liked it, I’m going to come back and keep doing this.” I’m taking myself out of the mix. Forget me doing it. Anybody doing music that has a good thoughtful framework will get better results than guessing.
Pablos: It works for a lot of other things too.
John: For me, I’ve got to play three different roles. I get to play scientist and learn it. I get to make it as a creative and I get to play with some people who are consistent and have big platforms to test it on. Those three things become important because now I feel I have a much bigger impact with the music.
Pablos: For a lot of people, they don’t understand that that’s the context they need to get into. They have 1 or 2 of those things, but not all three and you’re not going to probably be as effective. This could be about anything, not only making music. It could be about anything. You need to be in a position where you’re getting a feedback loop going whether your stuff is working or not. A lot of times the feedback loop that people are using, “People said they liked it,” isn’t as good as if you could get the feedback loop of a shit ton of data that’s coming from a bunch of users and you see what they do voluntarily.
First of all, let’s describe binaural beats because there’s a hype around it. I don’t think people understand what’s going on a lot of times. Can you take a stab at explaining that?
John: I’ll do two parts. I’ll give you the basics about how they work and a little bit of my intuition on why I think I haven’t quite figured out why they are effective but I have a couple of hunches around it. Binaural beats are a phenomenon. It works like this. If I put a pitch in your left ear, and I slightly change it in your right ear, your brain is like, “What’s going on? These are two funky and different pitches. What’s up? I’m going to try and figure some sense into this.” What happens is, it blends the two and by doing that, it makes a ghost beat called the binaural beat that you hear in the middle of your head. As I vary those pitches, I can get that need to happen sooner and faster.
The concept was the gentleman who discovered this was like, “This could be the thing that syncs both hemispheres of the brain. This could be the way that we figure out how humans can put it all together.” There’s been a lot of hype around it but there hasn’t been a great granule test. A lot is going on now so we’re going to see a lot of white papers on this in 2021 or 2022. My take on it and I’ve had my own experiences because it is trying to put the information together, it is using both parts of the brain, both sides. For me, when it does that, I do get less monkey chatter.
In other words, if I have the binaural beat on, it is fudging my brain around enough where I don’t have the 30th and 35th thought I normally do. Maybe I only have 1 or 2 on the side going on but it seems to reduce a little bit because it’s making the brain go, “We’ve got to figure out what’s going on with these two pitches.” I know that’s a crude way to put it but it’s fun to do that for podcasts to get people interested in thinking, “The left and right, maybe there’s something that’s going to help me with my attention a little bit more.”
Pablos: One of the things that I’ve seen people misunderstand and I know people swear by it, some of them aren’t using headphones.
John: If you’re not using headphones, you’re not getting the method of binaural but you can use isochronic tones. Let’s call that a Ghost Beat. I like the Ghost Beat concept because you’re thinking, “My brain is putting together a left and a signal and making a ghost signal that’s pumping in the middle.” The other way to do that is with an isochronic tone and that’s a timed pulse. I can control that pulse, and sympathetically we’re in touch with tempos of music. The concept was they looked at, “Pablos is now reading a book and he’s active. Let’s look at his EEGs. His EEGs are about 12 hertz. He’s in 14 hertz. He’s cruising along. He’s got a lot of good stuff going on.” Let’s say Pablos shows up sleepy one day. What if we take that generator over there, put it through his headphones, and we put a fourteen-hertz pulse in there? Would that make Pablos brain start to wake up a little bit more like a cup of coffee? Two or three studies show that that’s an effective way to get your EEG is to start to regulate what’s coming in through the ears.
Pablos: It sounds like if I sit here and I make motorcycle sounds, I’ll work hard but I haven’t gone anywhere. I don’t know if I should buy it. Just because it works on the output doesn’t mean putting it in is going to get the same result. That’s what I feel I was going on with the way people describe binaural beats.
John: I like that analogy a lot, the motorcycle sounds. No one has put it back together input back to input-output where we know for sure that it does that. It’s been shown to reduce stress, if we take the EEG reading of someone who’s listening to a binaural beat and we start to lower it down to delta to sleep tones, it’s effective in stress reduction, but no one’s shown the banging result is super explicit that we can get people in these other states.
We think there’s something there but we haven’t totally got the backing research to make sure that we can do everything we want. In terms of the main states, there have been enough studies that show 8 and 10 hertz is a good place to get people into a relaxed state and sleep all the way down to 4-hertz delta. It’s effective in getting people there but it’s the upper range that there’s a lot of soft science around it. It’s like, “You do this and it makes you see God through your third eye.” That’s cool but we haven’t quite proven that yet.
Pablos: You’re saying, we have some cases where the binaural beats are effective may be on the low end, helping people get to sleep. Is that right?
John: Yes. A little bit more from bringing things down more than going up in the papers that I’ve read. That’s by some of the research I’ve done and I’ve got some criteria where I’ve got to get back to the science team and go like, “This is heavy enough to start doing some tests.” They usually say, “Not quite,” but for a couple of those, they’ll say, “There’s enough research that shows that we can get people into a less anxious state, definitely a sleepy state.”
Pablos: Certainly harmless as far as we know.
It’s way better than taking meds.
Pablos: It’s comparatively harmless, at least. Focus@Will isn’t playing with that but the stuff you’ve done with Total Brain does.
John: For Focus@Will, I’ve used entrainment, we have our cafe channel so let’s say that you’re stuck at home, but you’re an extrovert and you want to feel those people around you like you’re sitting in a coffee shop. Our coffee shop, our water channels, and some of the things are laced with binaural beats that’ll keep you in that little extra awake state.
Pablos: Is there any way for people to get access to the Total Brain project?
You can go to TotalBrain.com and get it. They have a little bit more of a B2B play but they do take customers in. You have to go there and put your email in.
Pablos: I heard you describe having figured out that you could optimally record a stream from 40 feet away. What’s the idea there?
John: On the path of finding out better stress reduction, there are apps and platforms that do nature sounds. The first thing you do is a marketing analysis. What exists in the market? Are they doing well with a good framework? Can we do something even a little bit better and cooler? My angle on the nature sounds was a lot of these are licensed from Hollywood sound libraries and stuff. It’s better than nothing but I live here in Marina del Rey. If I go sit by the ocean, it’s a little bit different than putting on the headphones and hearing what’s there. Could I bridge that gap more?
I looked into it, and now on the market are some 3D microphones and there are four different ways you can record ambisonics and binaural. Recording in binaural is different from stereo. We can get into the deep science of it, but I’ll summarize it like this. It better simulates how your head hears things the distance of your ears, the thickness of your skull, and the whole thing. They’ve dished it up into a little circuit in some of these microphones and it’s plug and play. You bring it and it’s going to feel much more immersive like you’re there.
They need these things because they hook them to 360 cameras for virtual reality games and stuff. As the market explodes, we get to use the research from the audio, and now if I bring the microphone, the Zoom H3-VR, it’s super cool and easy to use. I bring this to the beach and I bring a couple of other recording instruments and microphones. I have some expensive mics. Lo and behold, for some reason, this thing makes you feel like you’re sitting there on the ocean.
The game is, if you’re going to de-stress maybe for focus, you might want the exhilaration of being right in the waves 8 feet on the shoreline. For de-stress, I found that as you walk back and I walk back ten paces, place the microphone and record it for 15 to 20 minutes in all different places on the beach. There’s a sweet spot about 40 feet which normally people sit when I’m having a conversation with my friends a little bit away from the waves. When you put that on and put that in the background, you feel you’re in this spot, which feels real and comfortable and a little bit different than a regular recording. I started to do bird sounds in the morning and anything else I could find nature wise. I’m going to build a whole library of 3D relaxation scapes.
Pablos: When I think about it from a physics perspective, if I’m on the beach and I get closer to the shore, I’ve got sound coming from closer to 180-degree beam spread or whatever you call that. Whereas if I back off 40 feet, I’m getting more of a 45-degree angle on the ocean. The beach can be wide so it might be 120 degrees spread or something but it’s still a guess at 40 feet away. There’s enough of it, that it makes a difference in the audio. Is it that? because if I had a stereo microphone, I’m up on the beach 40 feet away recording, and I turn it up a little bit, I’ve got roughly the same thing.
John: Close, but neurologically our ears are real 360 radars. When you think of our DNA in thousands of years, “Can the tiger eat me? Can something jump 20 feet and get me?” We’re extra careful and super aware of anything within our 20 to 30-foot radius. As you get close to that shore, the bubbles and even the effervescence of the waves, you’re starting to look to your left and you’re like, “Do I need to react? Is something going on?”
As you go a little further away, and you get into I call it a safety bubble. There’s about a 30 feet proximity and what I’m finding is stress even some focus stuff when as soon as you move around the area of the bubble, you get past the, “I don’t have to react.” You come down a little bit. Your vigilance comes down a little bit and you can go, “That’s a nice background sound but I don’t think I have to react to anything.” The other way it’s like, “Is the wave going to hit me, and do I start swimming? Am I going to get wet? What’s going on here?”
Our ears are real 360° radars. They drive so much of our behavior but in a way that works so well that we take it for granted.
Tweet
Pablos: What I was wondering, which you’ve answered, I was imagining, is if you’re trying to make a cool 3D experience, why don’t you put one mic on the shore or 40 feet from the river let’s say, and put another mic 40 feet on the other side of the river, and make it feel like I’m in the fucking river? Why wouldn’t you do that?
John: I love that. Let’s try it.
Pablos: Maybe it’s not calming, probably better for my channel.
John: Maybe they would be good for focus. At Focus@Will I’ll take those three places and that was for stress. If I was going to do a focus channel, I would put one in the effervescence and that would be the energy version and the low energy version might be 30 to 40 feet away and the lower energy version might be 60 or 70 feet which is the background. Neurologically, think about how proximity is a much bigger play in our audio experience than we realize. That’s why you’re going to learn more about 3D shooter games. We all have that. That’s part of the reason why they’re addictive and experiential because you’re feeling that. How can we take that and translate that to apps? Most of the apps now are still flat stereo imaging, but you’re going to see everything start to develop that. At Brain Music Labs, we want to be one of those companies that are helping people with apps and platforms to get the nuances into what they’re doing and the results they are trying to get.
Pablos: This is what I don’t get. If all I’ve got is an ear on each side of my head, can my stereo headphones do surround sound as well as my Dolby Atmos Home Theater?
John: Close. That’s why ambisonics and binaural, there are different ways you can mix in post-production so that standard headphones have a lot more nuance of ambisonics and have 3D spatial audio.
Pablos: What does ambisonic mean?
John: Ambisonic is a format and a type of the way that the channels are mixed and set up. As a post producer and mixer, you know that you’re mixing this in ambisonic styles so there’s a certain way that you’re going to use the panning devices and everything and how that’s going to all filter into stereo. Binaural is another way. You can mix for binaural, meaning you’re going to take any sound source and mix it into something that’s going to feel a lot more like the standard head. Stereo has been the standard for years but in the last few years, these other conventions have come in where I have options about how I want people to perceive and experience the sound. Ambisonic gives you the concept of a point 3D space or if I’m in a game, it’s tracking its head tracking.
Pablos: I remember being in Dolby and they showed me these tools for audio engineers, where it was a map of a theater on screen. You could go and put sounds wherever you want it. You could go and put helicopters flying overhead so the sound goes here. It’s like an animation pathway for the sounds and computers would all turn that into whatever it needed to do. They have a theater where they can show all this stuff off. It’s incredible. I don’t understand it. I’m like, “I only have two ears. How do you make sounds come on top of me and below me?”
John: You’re asking a question but you probably do understand. While using phase cancelation, you’re looking at the real physics model of how the human head and ears hear something. You can take something using the doppler effect and noise cancellation. That one sound, although it’s coming through two earbuds, how that translates, all the math that’s going on is it shows a fly that’s 2 feet in front of you, and all sudden it goes over your head and behind you. Nothing’s changed but they can make it happen and it is like an animation path, so you’ll see a joystick rather than a panning mode in those post-production tools. The concept is, “Can we hack some of the cool Hollywood audio post-production tricks and game audio post-production tricks, and make those better experiences for people in music for wellness or whatever we’re trying to do?” I think the answer is yes. We’re getting good results already.
Pablos: I don’t know if you’ve talked about this much but one of the big problems in virtual reality and also by extension augmented reality is the pivotal thing that’s holding back the medium in some sense, which is, we don’t know how to tell stories in those environments yet. A lot of different ideas and we’re at the beginning of, in some sense of figuring out how you use that as a narrative storytelling environment. If you think about a book, if I’m the author, I’m in total control over the narrative. I know exactly what I’ve revealed so far. I know what you know, I know what you’ve seen, what characters you’ve been introduced to, the whole history, and everything. I’ve got control of that. For movies and TV series, it’s the same thing. All along the way, in a movie, the director is getting to control exactly what you see. He’s controlling the camera.
In VR, the viewer controls the camera, not the director. The problem with that is if I’m trying to tell a story in that environment, I put you in it, you’re controlling the camera, and I’m the director, you might not be paying attention to the shit that is important or what’s going on over here, outside your field of view. This is also true of video games to some extent. This is partly why video games end up so far not being the best narrative storytelling environments even though they’re incredible environments. You can control everything you can put characters in and sets and it is low cost to do it.
The notion of an interactive story has taken off because one of the problems is how you solve that and make sure that people don’t miss something important. It’s a computer so it can hang out, wait until you happen to notice that there’s a dead body on the sidewalk and go to the next part of the story. There are tricks like that. I remember hearing about some game developers getting fucking conniving about this. I don’t even know what the example is, maybe somebody can tell us because I don’t play these games, but I remember one example.
You’re on the street, in a video game, and you’re looking down the street, but you’re supposed to be looking up at the UFO that’s about to land on you. They have a lot of tricks for getting you to look up and a lot of it is in audio, I don’t know what those are but one of the visual ones is subtly the street lamps would bend in and all point up. Your eye will be drawn to the vertex of where they’re pointing where that UFO would be at, so you look up even though you have no idea why you’re doing it. This is unfounded, but my suspicion is I’m equal to video to the visual input. The audio input is the frontier for where we’re going to find all those tricks. How do we subtly steer the attention of a human to where it needs to go? That’s where the answers are going to be, some of them anyway, for how we can take this new medium and turn it into a functional storytelling medium. Have you thought about that stuff at all? We’re going to need you to figure it out, John.
John: There are people even way more brilliant than me that have got it going on. Traditionally, if you look at non-diegetic sounds in films, it’s coming from somewhere else often, it is preceding the visual that you’re going to see.
Pablos: What does that mean?
John: It means it’s not on camera. There are some slick directors from the ‘70s. If the scene is going to fade to black, right before it fades to black, you get an audio cue about what’s going to come up next. Chris Milk is a genius. Do you know Chris Milk?
Pablos: No.
John: I met him through Singularity University. You guys may have brushed. He has a fantastic company. In fact, I have his new video game here. Check it out. Supernatural is killer. Chris did a TED Talk and he talked about VR as the ultimate empathy machine so how do you not only tell a story but how do you have people feel the story out. When I met him, I went and googled him and checked him out. He has a powerful way to put in his TED Talks. It’s awesome. I highly recommend everybody in the show to check it out.
Chris uses that concept in his VR, he did a couple of music videos for YouTube and some other people. In it, he guides you and he uses the reaction to natural sounds. It might be a female voice that whispers off camera. Even if you try not to, you would react and you would go there, or a baby sound. It’s something in our DNA that we’re programmed to react to. He uses tricks to get his narrative so you never miss the golden opportunity or crucial moment. Directors are already looking at ways to do that and it’s good that you brought that up, because sound is one of the best ways to do it, it’s not visually obstructive and it’s a great way to leave people. Our radar and our ears are trying so much of our behavior but it works well that we take it for granted.
Pablos: Do you want to tell us a little bit about what the Brain Music Lab is about?
John: It’s the culmination of everything we’ve been speaking about. If you go to the website, you try and write these great sentences that tell your mission and everything else. The concept of Brain Music Labs is understanding, from all our experience of working with all these different projects over the years and how the human experience is driven by the audio experience. We are tuned into our radar and our ears. How do we take that all that experience we have and turn it into something that works for any application?
You’re going to do an app and it’s going to be for a workout, how do we do that better? The underlying tenets are to find the framework. We have such experience in Hollywood making all the stuff that we can make it a unique sticky experience and we can put it on a testing framework so the three would work. The design thinking process of going, “This is the result we’re looking for. Here’s how to make the coolest version of it that people are going to enjoy and here’s how we’re going to test it over a lot of people and iterate a couple of times.” Maybe buy V1, V2 and by V3, you’ve got something that’s unique, different, and better than you would have got going any other way.
Brain Music Labs is tied into platforms, apps, and anybody who’s trying to make something that’s going to make a difference. Because we’re part of the Singularity ecosystem, we work with people who are helping to do something big and impactful and cool for humanity. We want to get in there and muck it up with people who want to make something work. We’re sure we’ve got enough experience with platforms, apps, games, so we can bring something unique to the situation.
The human experience is, in some ways, driven by the audio experience.
Tweet
Pablos: What’s a good example? Who would be a good person for your project for you to collaborate with?
John: I’m a ten year meditator and I have studied in many different ways and meditation apps are evolving in such beautiful ways. In VR, the beautiful thing is you put on goggles and you can control your outside experience. You’re in the goggles and you can talk about people who are easily distracted. You get goggles on them and all of a sudden, they become Jedi yogis. I’m interested in working with VR and AR companies. VR because there’s a big game to be won there in meditation. Maybe kids who are having problems learning, is there a way we can feed them everything they need to learn through the goggles, and would that help kids with autism and not be overloaded but give them the bubble that they need to play in? I’m interested in that. Wellness plays, because I have such a good solid framework and a head start on mental health music for distressing. For anybody in your ecosystem who wants to play at that level, you can get hold of us. We’d love to help you out.
Pablos: I’ve been fascinated by the potential. It seems that VR gives us the ability to get the brain engaged in a way that our other virtual mediums haven’t. I’ve seen situations where people are using VR to treat PTSD, and things like that, where you can start to access the subconscious in a way that we don’t seem to be able to do with a screen, as we know it. Probably the audio aspect of that nobody is working on yet. I don’t know. That would be cool.
John: Could you make it where maybe if you weren’t wearing the goggles, you could still get a lot of it, going back to High Fidelity. The beauty of that is maybe there’s training that happens full-blown, all senses in VR. There are other ways that maybe you can have your phone in your pocket, and you’re still able to do that beautiful audio experience. I would love to do that.
Pablos: One of the things that is fascinating to me is we have a lot of cases where people don’t seem to be trying hard to take these technologies and use them to help and solve good problems. We have this incredible toolkit around audio, all this research that these guys you’ve met have been doing. To my knowledge, I know Dolby is doing a lot of research on audio and what they can do to make cooler experiences for people for sure. I know that these tools are capable of helping us with a lot of these issues that people struggle with around focus, anxiety, feeling calm, feeling like they’ve got self-control.
We’ve been doing this since we’ve had Walkmans where you put on some Metallica or Red Hot Chili Peppers and go skate. For me, I put on The Crystal Method and I go snowboarding. I’m ready to hit it. I know that I could use music to amplify that adrenaline hit but you’re taking it in the other direction. I know I can also put on Enya and chill out. Maybe nobody can put Enya now that it’s in every mall. It was in every mall for 20 years and now we can’t do Enya anymore. I have PTSD from Enya, so you have the antidote.
The point is, we know we can use music that way people are doing it in a haphazard way. If I had to summarize, you’re taking the research that we’ve been able to do the science about what’s working, piecing that together. Also building tools or apps that make it accessible for people to dive into the groove they need to be in, hold them there for that 120-minute window for focus, and maybe something else for other contexts. You’re making a fine-tuned experience now that helps people through the issue that they have. That’s a beautiful use of your background and experience but also a cool example of what these technologies that are under our nose could do if we applied them in a different way and in a positive way. You could still be using your skills for evil.
John: Like ghetto rap records.
Pablos: There are some awesome ghetto rap records now, I don’t know if you’ve been paying attention. With your help, we could make them make awesome ghetto rap records that make me also chill out. The next generation of reggae could be created here in this room. There’s a great illustrative example of that here and the work that you’re doing. I’m thankful for that because we’re looking for ways for people to get excited about using technology to solve problems for people and that’s exactly what you’re doing.
John: This is classic SU incubator stuff. I saw a couple of your presentations on stage and it got me thinking deeper about the innovation integration and even taking a much more design thinking approach to it. Until you get into software, you’re coming a little bit more from the intuitive art game, which is great, because artists, often their intuition is very breakthrough. There’s something in there. I like the idea of pulling a deep framework where you know it had results to build on.
Why build a house from scratch if you know that you can get the framework that’s working and build on that to make something cool around it? I think everyone benefits. Thanks for acknowledging that and it does come from people like you talking who are like, “I’ve seen the future, and here’s what you guys need to be thinking about.” When you’re in the audience, and someone is tuning you into those kinds of concepts, you’re like, “I could do what I’m doing but in that kind of capacity.” It’s important. Things like the podcast and stuff you’re doing at SU, there are hundreds of people like me in those audiences, and everyone is having their moment like, “I can do that with what I’m doing.” This is a great circle back to seeing the same presentation and going, “I can do this way cooler. Let me try what Pablos is doing here.”
Pablos: That’s worth a lot. I try to do those talks selfishly because it’s a way to meet interesting people. I’m not sure that I’m convinced that I’m having any effect on the audience, but it’s great to hear that. Ideally, and even with the show, I’ve been lucky because I’ve gotten to build a different sense of perspective by working in a lot of weird projects over the years. If other people can learn from that, who didn’t get to do that, that would be optimal. I want other people to learn from my mistakes. Most people can’t even learn from their own mistakes but if there are a few enlightened people in the audience who can learn from my mistakes, that would be amazing. That’s the goal.
John: I tell people, “All the mistakes I made, I can shorten your timeline. If I can shorten your timeline a little bit. You’re going to be so much happier. You might think I’m trying to talk too much but just listen to a company’s concepts. It might take a year or two off.” It doesn’t have to be a linear thing.
Pablos: It’s like, “I already spent millions and millions of somebody else’s money to learn the thing that you need to know right now. Please, just let me tell you.” That’s how we become old curmudgeons.
John: We’re at the age where all the sensors and everything is getting that much more granular. We could have got heartbeat, or we could have got things years ago when we started Focus@Will. Talking about some of these concepts, but none of the sensors were there yet. They’re like, “When the iPhone 12 comes out.” This was like when the iPhone 4 was out and we’re like, “That’s cool but that’s going to be a ways.” Now we’re there and there are micro granular things like your blood oxygen level. Apple and Samsung have put in a lot of money.
Apple, in one of their keynotes, said that they want Apple to be known as the people who are helping you realize your best physical self. That’s almost like a medical device. Without getting too granular, think about what that means. The Apple Watch and other devices are going to become medical grade in the next year or two. Now the nuances of driving behavior through music can now be measured that much more. We’re both focusing. We’re trying like, “That’s close. It’s kind of good. What if there was that biometric? Is it HRV? Is it something else? Is it a combination of a few different things?”
Very likely that we’re going to have it nuanced like, “I think that’s making Pablos feel a little bit turned off now.” We know when he’s excited and he went dim a little bit.” We have the granular expertise biofeedback rolling for your focus list, your stress list, or your creativity. That’s something that’s way out there. Can we measure things in your heart rate variability to tell us like, “He’s in super fucking creative mode?”
Pablos: You can at least get heart rate data from an Apple Watch now. Does that feed into Focus@Will yet?
John: Not yet.
Pablos: Seems like it would be a place to start.
John: Absolutely.
Pablos: It’s not worth as much as an EKG.
John: Heart rate is good. It’s triangulating a couple of things.
Pablos: What did you mean when you said HRV?
John: Heart Rate Variability. It’s not just how fast your heart is beating but they measure certain waves so that there are patterns. It’s counterintuitive. You would think that steady heart variability means that you’re stressed so you want a variable heart rate variability. Increasing in heart rate variability means there’s good stuff going on. It means you’re in a relaxed flow state.
Pablos: This is what I think is cool about the thing that you’ve made with Total Brain which is, the user gets two knobs, volume for the music and volume for the binaural beats separately. You could do this in a variety of ways but the best way would be, if I am listening to music on Spotify, what I should get is not just a recording. I should get all the tracks and all the MIDI. Spotify ought to be mixing it for me on the fly. At the point of consumption, it’s mixing it so that I’m listening to it. It’s figuring out that the environment around me is noisy. I need a little more thump. I’m not going to be able to get the subtle stuff anyway, so drop that out.
At some point, it’s like, “Pablos just started a conversation.” Don’t shut it off but go quiet and get rid of the lyrics. I don’t need any other words in my brain right now. Once he’s off the phone, get the lyrics back in but I can have a soundtrack to my life where it’s like my life is basically, I turn on the music on all the speakers on Sonos, my whole house is filled with music. After that, I’m like, “I sit down at my computer like I’m going to watch a YouTube video real quick.” It’s not very long. I’m going to watch a few seconds of it but now I need the speakers on my computer to do my computer instead of Sonos. While the rest of the house is doing Sonos, my computer is doing speakers for ten seconds of YouTube, and it stops. Now my computers are out of the Sonos loop.
Next, I’m like, “A phone call.” Stop all the speakers in my office. Now there’s music in the bathroom downstairs in the living room, but my office has no music. After the phone call, you don’t start them up again. The music is gradually deteriorating from my experience until I just shut it all off, because somebody else came over, and I’m trying to have a conversation. It’s another two days before turning the music on again. It’s that thing so what I need is the computer to understand my life, and give me just the right amount of the right music at any given moment and then figure out that, “Pablos got a call from his buddy in high school, play the Top Gun soundtrack.” I need that and I feel like all the pieces are there, but nobody is trying to put it together.
John: It’s a classic user experience design. There are guys who are having this conversation like, “No one’s been able to get in close.”
Pablos: The video games, they probably have to do all that. Video games have to dynamically mix all the music for whatever is happening.
John: They do. Will and I at Focus@Will talked about redoing our engine and putting it in as 5G. One of our original concepts was a MIDI player that composed music for you. If you like dance music or Crystal Method, we have a whole bunch of stuff that’s MIDI sitting in there. It’s a MIDI engine based on that music. It pumps out stuff like that all day long and just goes. You don’t have to worry about lyrics or anything. Spotify is the crudest first version of doing that to masses, but they’re serving up a flat file from a server. If you can get to the mix and it’s dynamically mixing because it knows what’s going on in your life. “He’s on the phone. No more vocals. Let’s take some of the melodies out. Let’s give him the bass and drums now. Keep going. The bass is there but it won’t get in his way.”
Pablos: It gives me something to look forward to.
Recorded October 25, 2020 in Santa Monica, California
TED Talk – Chris Milk: How Virtual Reality can Create the Ultimate Empathy Machine
About John Vitale
John Vitale is the Founder of BrainMusiclabs.com and BrainMediaLabs.com, where he is researching and applying how synchronized music and media enhances the brains cognitive functions. They have built entrainment based audio technology tools that relax the nervous system in the moment and with lasting benefits.
These tools and libraries are available to license or white label for wellness providers of all levels.
John’s Massively Transformative Purpose (MTP) is to make Health-Span habits easier to adopt, by creating science backed apps and courses that gamify wellness and make it immersive and fun.
His Moonshot is to become the trusted source for entrainment-based experiences for health span, and license wellness solutions to major health care providers to positively impact 10 million lives by 2027.
He is always excited to engage media & audio professionals to create music and visual content for their system that reduces stress, support better quality sleep, to be more productive, and expand the creative potential of our planet. He is currently involved with two clinical studies featuring his entrainment based sound therapy and visuals to reduce stress and reduce addictive cravings.
John is a serial entrepreneur, founding and operating tech, media, sound, gaming and music production companies. He has 35 years experience in music, sound, and film production as well in the roles of founder, supervisor, producer, engineer, remixer, composer and digital audio freak.
John has worked with major labels Warner Bros, Sony, BMG, and Universal Music, and well known artists like The B52ʼs, Red Hot Chili Peppers, Filter, Eminem, KD Lang, George Clinton, and The Romantics. He has directed music for major corporate product launches, live press events, and broadcast campaigns for GM, Toyota, Xbox, Fisker, Mercedes, and Lexus.
John cut his developer chops in the trenches of digital audio and samplers creating OEM soundware and ROM blocks for Kurzweil, EMU, Zoom, Ensonique and Akai.
Recorded on October 25, 2020
Fingers for Robots – ØF
Mar 18, 2024
Two nerds bullshitting about robots getting some of mammals’ greatest hits.
Recorded on February 4, 2024
Hacking the Brain – Moran Cerf
Mar 14, 2024
A true polymath, Moran started out in the Israeli military, in one of their elite intelligence units. Then ended up working as a hacker in computer security. And to this day is still in demand for that, but he had a weird experience when Francis Crick told him to junk hacking and get into working on neuroscience, and he did.
And so Moran’s had this amazing career some of the research that underpins things like Neuralink. These days, he’s a professor in the business school at Columbia, where we recorded this conversation. I can’t tell you how delightful Moran is. Super smart. Very insightful. Incredibly curious. He is difficult to pin down whenever I’m with him.
He is somehow so good at asking questions and picking my brain that I hardly ever get to pick his brain. So the podcast was a perfect excuse to put him on the spot and I’m really thrilled that we get to share this with you guys. You’ll notice that Moran still has a bit of an Israeli accent and he talks faster than anybody I’ve ever met. So most of you guys are used to putting podcasts on 2X. This one you might want to put on 0.5X.
Moran Cerf is an American-French-Israeli neuroscientist, professor of business (at Colombia University), investor and former hacker.
Recorded on February 10, 2024
Internet Random Mail Reader ＆ Nipple Detection – ØF
Mar 11, 2024
Two nerds bullshitting about stunts on the internet.
Another idea I had a long time ago. That, unfortunately never deployed widely. I prototyped in the late nineties, it was called the Internet Random Mail Reader. For people who don’t know the way networks work is like your computer is just broadcasting all the packets out on the network and all the other computers on the network just ignore the ones that aren’t addressed to them.
This is how networks worked. And so you can just sit and listen to everybody else’s packets. And this is, network, packet sniffing. In the early days of the internet, there was no encryption at all. If you were on the same network as somebody, you could just collect everything.
And if you were the ISP, you could really collect everything. You could just see everything people were doing, every webpage they loaded, every email they sent. Instant messenger wasn’t invented yet, but you could see those too. We would write these scripts to just sit there.
The most famous ones now, they just sit there and sniff for passwords. They know how to parse everything going on in the network and just throw out stuff that’s not passwords. So we have these tools that just collect passwords off the network. That’s how hackers in the nineties and early two thousands would just collect passwords and eventually encryption caught on and made it a little harder and a little harder over time to get passwords as easily.
Most encryption was poorly implemented, so then we’d have to crack the crypto to do it. But anyway, internet random mail reader was just like this screensaver. The idea was just a screensaver where you sit there and random emails that other people sent to other people and you just, and it would just strip off the headers…
Listen for the rest of the story!
Recorded on February 4, 2024
Autopsy of a Failed 3D Printer Company – Riley Knox
Mar 07, 2024
Riley Knox is an entrepreneur that I met when I was hanging out in Austin, Texas, and I was just truly impressed with him, his energy, his outlook, his technical approach to building these companies that are hard. He had this company called Accelerate3D that he built to advance 3D printing for manufacturing, make it fast enough and cheap enough that it will be compelling, which has been one of the big challenges in 3D printing. Accelerate3D had some real trouble, unfortunately getting the support it needed to go all the way.
Riley was kind enough to sit down, open up and let me interrogate him about his company’s demise. And so this is kind of a post-mortem on Accelerate3D. It is going to be very useful to people who are interested in 3D printing, trying to advance 3D printing. You can learn from some of his experience what not to do. I think this is always very precious when entrepreneurs are willing to share their story. Especially the hard story. It’s not a tear jerker, but you’ll learn something from it and Riley is off doing the next thing, which we can’t tell you about yet, but I’m really excited about that too.
Riley also has been helping out with the Founder Institute program in Austin, Texas. He talks a little bit about that and Techstars and about how both of those helped him out as an entrepreneur as well. Hang out with us, learn something and don’t make the same mistakes twice.
Recorded in Austin, Texas on February 12, 2024 with Pablos and Riley Knox
Riley describes himself as a “mechanical engineer by education, mad scientist inventor by practice., entrepreneur by heart,” building the future of on-demand production though local high speed 3D printing.
Knox was the CEO and Co-Founder of Accelerate3D. He´s currently the CEO of “Stealth mode aerospace startup”, bringing a much needed third option to transporting freight across oceans, offering a middle option with short travel times but at a fraction of the cost and CO2 emissions of air freight.
Also, he is a Director at Founder Institute in Austin. He attended Texas Tech University.
Recorded on February 12, 2024
Lashbot5000 ＆ Miyagibot – ØF
Mar 04, 2024
Two nerds bullshitting about possible robots.
The Lashbot5000 is a concept for adapting a surgical robot to install lash extensions. Apparently this has now been accomplished by LUUM in Oakland. You can see their robot in action here:
Then we eventually get around to describing the totally genius but as of yet unbuilt Miyagibot which can find flies and grab them with chopsticks!
Recorded on February 2, 2024
Knowledge Graph vs. LLM – Bryon Jacob
Feb 29, 2024
Years ago, I got to be an advisor for this company called data.world, and at the time, they were just getting started on helping figuring out how do you converge all the data sets that are in the world and help people work with them and combine them and share them. They built this thing that was kind of like GitHub for data.
I was interested in it because I could see at the time where the world was going and we’re going to need these much more advanced tools for being able to manage data. I tried to contribute my small way, but my favorite thing about it is that I got to know Bryon Jacob, who’s the CTO of data.world.
Brian is delightful guy. This is one of the guys who’s been thinking about the the nature of data, the structure of data, how we work with that in computers for his entire career. And he got onto a track that you could consider a little bit fringe, of using graph databases decades ago, the semantic models that we use to understand data from the thinking around RDF and the early semantic web.
And now what he’s built is the system that when ingests any kind of data, it parses that out, takes it in a graph database and makes it accessible through a query language called SPARQL, which you’ll hear us refer to. This is a kind of “advanced mode episode” and I know we’re going to lose some people We refer to a lot of technical stuff that probably only data nerds are really going to be interested in. I won’t be offended if you check out.
But, if you have any interest in data or the future of analyzing data and using data in AIS, you need to listen and understand this conversation. Brian is an expert. He’s built one of the most important king pin tools for using all the data in large-scale organizations or projects within the new generative AI context. If you are trying to use something like ChatGPT or another LLM as an interface to structured data, you’re doing it wrong, and I think you’ll be convinced about that as you start to understand what we’re discussing today.
So, hang in there. I promise this is a really REALLY valuable conversation for anybody who is trying to work at the forefront of using AIS for data analytics. I’m thrilled that we get to share this conversation with Bryon with you today.
Bryon Jacob is the CTO and co-founder of data.world – on a mission to build the world’s most meaningful, collaborative, and abundant data resource. Bryon is a recognized leader in building large-scale consumer internet systems and an expert in data integration solutions.
Bryon’s twenty years of academic and professional experience spans AI research at Case Western Reserve University, enterprise configuration software at Trilogy, and consumer web experience at Amazon and most recently in ten years building HomeAway.com. At HomeAway, Bryon oversaw platform development and the integration of thirty acquisitions while building the world’s largest online marketplace for vacation rentals.
Recorded on February 12, 2024
AI Beyond Deep Learning – Ryad Benosman
Feb 16, 2024
One of the things that’s on the verge of excitement and annoyance for me is the way that Artificial Intelligence work has all kind of converged around deep learning. Deep learning is amazing and super powerful, and we’ve gotten a lot out of it, but what it has done is, both attracted a lot of people to Artificial Intelligence, but also, steered all the research efforts away from other approaches into deep learning.
And you could say that makes some sense, because for a long time, we weren’t making a lot of advancement with these other approaches. But the truth is, most of the advancement in artificial intelligence really comes from the growth in computation and our ability to wrangle a lot of computation. If you took that same approach, with other algorithms, you may well get interesting results. If you could apply as much computation to them, the way we have for the large language models.
And so what really excites me is when I find people who are working on other approaches to artificial intelligence. My buddy, Dr. Ryad Benosman, has been working on different approaches to processing data for a long time, primarily in vision. And his worldview is highly neuromorphic. It’s about trying to understand. What is the brain doing with this data? How do I get a computer to do the things that the brain would do? And that’s hard because we don’t know exactly what a brain does, but one of the things we know is the way that eyeballs incorporate the signal that they get, and then try to turn that into something that the brain can put to use and that’s It’s obviously not done the way that deep learning works.
A lot of what Ryad has worked on has been time series machine learning, those are my words, not his, but basically what it means is, trying to process this data in real time in the order that you receive it and piece together, something meaningful.
That’s very applicable to computer vision. I think Ryad has been responsible for spinning about four companies out of labs, to develop these technologies.
Probably the most well-known is called, the Prophesee Camera, which, they developed and then sold to Sony. This is a camera is an event camera. Instead of just taking frames 30 times a second, aggregating all the signal on every pixel and sticking it into a frame, what an event camera can do is look at the signal that’s changing in any pixel , in the sensor, and this is very important for things like sensor fusion going forward. The work he’s done on algorithms to make that possible is super exciting.
Ryad was a professor in France for a long time. Most recently in Pittsburgh and at Carnegie Mellon. He’s been all over the place, on skunkworks at Meta, and now is doing exciting things we can’t talk about, but look, most people never get a chance to hang out with Ryad.
I’m so thrilled that I got to, get him on the podcast and share him with you.
Dr. Ryad Benosman is professor of Ophthalmology in the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine. He is also an Adjunct Faculty Member in the Robotics Institute of Carnegie Mellon University. Prior to this appointment, Dr. Benosman was a full professor at Université Pierre et Marie Curie, Institut de la Vision, in France.
He is curently Director of Research at Meta (Neuromorphic and Event based Sensing and Computation)
He has worked on Event-based (Neuromorphic) Sensing and Computation, applied to develop novel Brain Inspired Machine Learning. His lab used to be the home of the event-based neuromorphic silicon retina ATIS and several other neuromorphic AI related platforms. He also has worked on brain implants and retina prosthetics and optogenetics stimulation.
Recorded on January 7, 2024
GyroGlove – ØF
Feb 12, 2024
Short episode where Ash & Pablos marvel at this ingenious invention called the GyroGlove that can ameliorate the jittery hands of folks with Parkinson’s disease.
If anyone can introduce us to the inventor, Dr. Faii Ong, we want to get him on the podcast!
Recorded on February 4, 2024
Postmodernist Cuisine – Chris Young
Feb 08, 2024
Well, if you ever got tired of listening to me, talk. Today’s the day when you just get to hear from my buddy, Chris Young, because I wound him up and clicked go, and he just talks, and it’s great. He has so much, interesting experience and amazing insights. So Chris Young, if you don’t know, I met him back when we started the Intellectual Ventures Lab, because he was the guy that Nathan Myhrvold hired to start the cooking projects.
We built an experimental kitchen there. Chris ran the project called Modernist Cuisine. Which ended up publishing a 2,400 page cookbook on the science of cooking. That won every award in the world. It’s literally a monument to modernist cooking. And these are new techniques for chefs and we talk about that a bunch today. Before that Chris had created the experimental lab at the Fat Duck and that’s Heston Blumenthal’s restaurant outside of London. Usually considered, if not the best restaurant on Earth, a contender.
Since publishing Modernist Cuisine, Chris started a company called ChefSteps to popularize sous vide, which is the most successful of the techniques so far invented by modernists. You have to learn to sous vide. It’s super easy. You can make everything you do come out perfectly.
After selling that company to Breville, Chris started a new company called Combustion and Combustion is really cool startup. There’s lots of lessons in here for entrepreneurs and folks who are making products. Chris is an amazing entrepreneur, very dedicated, really good at figuring out how to make everything work. Combustion is a difficult company to do because it’s hardware and software; and it’s in the kitchen; and it is hundreds of degrees, Fahrenheit. So it was just a lot to deal with. It’s great to learn these lessons and they’re shipping now and very successful with it. And then Chris has a YouTube channel called Chris Young Cooks, where he’s doing some of the cool stuff that we used to do on Modernist Cuisine. Cool photography, but doing it for video and sharing some of the insights that they have about cooking. So anyway, You’re going to have a blast listening to Chris.
Chris Young is a chef-scientist known for applying science and technology to create culinary experiences that earlier generations would never have imagined. Before becoming a chef, Young completed degrees in mathematics and biochemistry at the University of Washington. Unfulfilled with a life in the hard sciences, Young left his doctoral work behind for a job as a chef at one of Seattle’s top-rated restaurants, Mistral.
Young’s expertise wasn’t long secluded to the American Northwest. From 2003 to 2007, Young worked with the world-famous chef Heston Blumenthal to oversee development of some of his most innovative dishes. In 2004, Young opened The Fat Duck Experimental Kitchen, leading a team of more than six full-time chefs and coordinating the work of several consulting scientists. Beyond developing new dishes for The Fat Duck’s menu, Young was responsible for recipe development for the critically acclaimed first and second seasons of BBC’s “In Search of Perfection: With Heston Blumenthal.”
In 2007, Young was asked by the renowned technologist, inventor, and accomplished cook Nathan Myhrvold to return to Seattle to work at Intellectual Ventures. Alongside Myrhvold, Young helped research, experiment, and eventually coauthor the eagerly anticipated, industry game-changing Modernist Cuisine: The Art and Science of Cooking.
In 2012, along with Modernist Cuisine colleagues Chef Grant Lee Crilly and photographer Ryan Matthew Smith, Young co-launched an online-based culinary school ChefSteps, using an underground space beneath Seattle’s Pike Place Market. Their mission: teaching people how to utilize modern techniques in their cooking. He is the founder and owner at Combustion Inc., a company that builds nice things that make cooking more enjoyable. Like a thermometer that’s wireless, oven-safe, and uses machine learning to do what no other thermometer can: predict your food’s cooking and resting times with uncanny accuracy.
Recorded on January 4, 2024
Mixtapes: a Lightweight Plan to Save the Internet – ØF
Feb 05, 2024
Pablos: People are pissed off about social media all the time. They think that Facebook is making people vote for the wrong person.
It’s still very difficult to find somebody who thinks they voted for the wrong person because of Facebook, but they think everyone else did. Never mind that, there’s this kind of, uh, very popular sensibility, which is to blame Facebook for all the problems in the world. They’re doing fake news, they’re doing, disinformation they’re doing , every possible thing that could be wrong.
Everybody wants to blame Facebook for getting wrong or Twitter or, any of the other social platforms. So if you think about it, in one sense, , yeah, Facebook got everybody together. I’m just going to use them as the example, we can extrapolate. They got everybody together.
They, ended up getting too much content. you and your friends are posting too much shit. Nobody has time to see all of it. So you need the magical algorithm, which you should do like triple air quotes every time I say algorithm. They’re like, the algorithm is supposed to figure out, okay, of all the shit that’s supposed to be showing up on your feed, what’s the coolest, or what’s the stuff that you’re gonna like the most?
That’s the job of the algorithm. And of course, we all believe the algorithm is tainted. And so, it’s not really trying to find the things I care about the most or like the most. It’s just gonna find the things that piss me off the most so that I get my, outrage, dopamine hit and keep coming back. So, which may all be true.
We don’t know. But, the point is, there’s a fundamental problem, which is you cannot see everything that gets posted from all the people you follow. So, there does have to be some ranking. And then the second, thing is that you want that ranking to be tuned for you.
And I think the thing that people, are missing about this is that you’ve got to have, a situation where it is very personalized because, not everybody’s the same. Even if you and I followed the same thousand people, it doesn’t mean we have identical interests.
There are other factors that need to play into determining like what I want to see and what you want to see. And then I think that there’s a whole bunch of things that, are classified as societal evils, that Facebook has to decide are not okay for anybody to follow. So if you have posts about Hitler, nobody should get to see those.
Even if you’re a World War II historian, nope, you don’t get to see it. So there’s a kind of, problem here, which is that all of this flies in the face of actual diversity, actual multiculturalism, we have 190 countries in the world. We have a lot of different peoples, different cultures, you and I just had a huge conversation about, different cultures and how they drive, we don’t agree about these things. We have different ideas in different places in the world, even whole societies have different ideas about what’s okay, and what’s not okay, and that is the definition of Culture that is the definition of multiculturalism is valuing that that exists and letting everybody have their own ideas And and make let these different people operate in the way that suits them And when you travel, you get beaten over the head with that because, I can appreciate that people drive like this in Bangkok.
That’s not how I want to do it , that’s kind of the fundamental point here. So anyway, what I’m trying to get at is you cannot create one set of rules for the entire world. That is not okay.
Ash: 100%
Pablos: And so what Facebook has chosen to do is try to create one set of rules for the entire world, at least the two billion people that are on Facebook.
Ash: But then you become the government of Facebook.
Pablos: You become the government of Facebook. And it’s and we’re all pissed off because they keep choosing rules that some people don’t like or whatever. And so I think this is untenable and I don’t think there’s a solution there. I think it is a fool’s errand and what I believe is, has gone wrong is that Facebook made the wrong choice long ago and they chose to control the knobs and dials and now they’re living with the flack that comes with, every choice they make about where to set those knobs and dials.
And what they should have done is given the user the knobs and dials. They should let me have buried six pages deep in the settings, have control over. What do you want more of? What do you want less of?
Ash: More or less rant.
Pablos: Yeah, They try to placate you with the like button and unfollow and all that, but it’s not really control.
So, contrast that with, the other fork in history that we didn’t take, go back to like 2006, in the years before Facebook, We had this beautiful moment on the internet, with RSS. So RSS, which stands for Really Simple Syndication, that hardly matters, RSS was an open standard that allowed any website to publish the content in the form of posts in a kind of machine readable way.
And then you could have an RSS reader that could subscribe to any website. So we didn’t have the walled garden of Facebook, but, you remember all this, of course, but I’m just trying to break it down here. What we had was, this kind of open standard. , anybody in the world could publish on RSS using their website, all the blog software did this out of the box.
WordPress does it out of the box. In fact, most websites, would support RSS. And then you had a reader app, that could be any reader app. This is again, open standards so get any reader you want. And if you just subscribe to any website in the world, you are following them directly. When they publish a post, it show up in your feed.
And when you followed too many people, you could start making filters. So I’ve been making filters. I still do RSS. So by the way, all this machinery still works 15 years later. The machinery still works almost any website if you just put /RSS or / feed on the domain name you’ll see an RSS feed and you can subscribe to that so it goes into my reader app And then I’ve been building filters over the years. So I have filters like -Trump because I got sick and tired of all this bullshit about Trump regardless what you think about Trump I just wanted to think about other things and it was painful to have a feed filled with Trump during the election So I have also -Biden, I have -Kanye, I have -Disney, I have minus all kinds of shit that I don’t want to see, I still follow the publishers, but it’s weeding out articles that are about those things. And so I get this feed that’s pretty curated for me and my interests, and I get more of the stuff I like and less of the stuff I don’t like, but I’m responsible for the knobs and dials, I’m controlling the settings, and I get to have my own autonomy about what I think is cool and not cool. And if I don’t want Hitler, I can easily just -Hitler. And what we did instead is we kind of signed up for this sort of, babysitter culture of having Facebook make those choices for us. And people not, taking responsibility for their own choices has put us in this situation where we just have an internet full of people want to blame somebody else for everything that they think is going wrong.
What we need to do is, figure out a way to, shift the world back to RSS. And out of the walled garden. So that’s my, that’s where I’m at, and I have ideas about that.
Ash: And it’s interesting, go back to Delphi, So Delphi internet…
Pablos: One of the first, before, before internet, this was like an ISP, like a, like AOL. Centralized ISP.
Ash: Right. So, so Delphi was sold to Murdoch, to News Corp and, and then the founder, Dan Burns brought that back. He purchased it, he re acquired the company and then invited a couple of ragtag individuals, myself and, and Palle again, and Rusty Williams. Chip Matthes, and we had like, you know, a room with a VAX in the back. I was doing a lot of the stuff, but we were running forums. Dan had this crazy idea. It was like, Hey, what if you could just make your own forum? And this would be like way pre Facebook, it’s like 97, 98. And 98, we started supplying that ability to websites. And the first one we did was a guy named Gil . And like we said to him, it’s like, Hey Gil, like you guys really should have some forums, like, yeah, we totally should be. Wait, so how do we do that? And we wrote like a little contract, right? like the first, I think, business development contract that you could probably make. He was head of, , business development, eBay. Right. So he did that. I mean, he’s very well known sort of angel kind of lead syndicate guy.
Now I like an angel is for like for, for ages.
Pablos: Oh, Penchina. I know who you’re talking about. Yeah.
Ash: We still have like the first document, you will do this. I will do this. I will give you a forum. You will use it for people to talk about, I don’t know, the, the, their beanie baby or whatever they were selling back then. And the, the reality was that that took off and then we started supplying this technology, which we then enabled, we RSS enabled it, by the way, of course, at some point, right.
When it was, when the, when the XML feeds were like ready to go, we upgraded from XML And then we, we, we took that and we said, all right, let’s go, let’s go for it. And at some point we’re doing 30 million a month, 30 million people a month. Unique. We’re like on this thing and we never governed.
You could, you could go hidden, right? Kind of like your locked Instagram page versus not, but we didn’t govern anything. Forums had moderators, they were self appointed moderators of that domain of, of madness. So if you didn’t like that person’s moderation, You know, like, all right, screw this guy. You know, like, I don’t, I don’t want to listen to you.
You’re crazy. And what we found, and this was the piece of data that I think that was the wildest. Servers are expensive back then. You actually have to have servers. Or in our case we were beating everyone else. Cause we had a VAX that was locked in a, Halon secure room. No, because it came when we repurchased it for a dollar.
Like the VAX was still there and Lachlan Murdoch’s, office became our like conference room. No, I’m not kidding. It was, it was really crazy. There was a, it was just a
VAX sitting there and, Hey, look, you could run UNIX on it. We were good. We didn’t care. It loved threads and it was good.
And it could do many, many, many, many threads. So we were running this, this thing highly efficiently. There’s six people in a company doing that much. That was the company, literally six. I look today and how many people we hire and I’m like, there were six of us. It was wild, the iceberg effect took place. So what ended up happening is the percent, and this is where I think Facebook can’t do or doesn’t want to do, is how do you advertise below the waterline? And when we were sitting there with the traffic, we’re like, dude, why is there so much traffic, but we can’t see it, right?
It looked like we only had 20, 000 forums or something, and there was like all this mad traffic going on. And. It was something like the 80, 20 rule the other way. It was like 20 percent was indexable that you could see that you could join a forum. And it was 80 percent were, were insane things like Misty’s fun house.
That by the way, is a legitimate. Forum at one point, right? It was Misty’s fun house. So I’m just saying, cause we’re trying to figure out what was going on. Where were the people chatting and talking? And that’s what we did. We let them bury themselves deeper and deeper and deeper.
Usenet did that. If you just go back in time, what do you think BBSs were? It’s the same.
Pablos: Exactly.
Ash: We always love talking.
Pablos: Yeah. People love talking.
Ash: You just figure out which one you want to dial into.
Pablos: Nobody’s pissed off about who they’re talking to really. Usually they’re pissed off about who other people are talking. They’re pissed off about some conversation they’re not really a part of. Or a conversation they can be a spectator on, but doesn’t match their culture.
That’s one of the big problems with Twitter it’s like BBSs, and it’s BBS culture. Elon was the winner of the Twitter game long before he bought Twitter, because, that’s just BBS culture that he had in his mind, IRC or whatever.
All kinds of people who are not part of that culture, are observing it and think that it’s a horrible state, of society that people could be trolling each other and shit. And that’s just part of the fun. You have this problem when you try to cram too many cultures into one place, it takes a lot of struggle to work that out if you’re in, Jamaica, Queens, then you’re gonna, you’re gonna work it out over time, with a lot of struggle, you’re going to work it out and the cultures are going to learn to get along.
But in, but on Twitter, there’s no incentive.
Ash: That’s why we still have states. The EU still has, like, how many languages? That’s why we have Jersey for New Yorkers.
Pablos: The EU in their way has figured out how these cultures can get along.
I think there’s a real simple fix to this. The big death blow to RSS in some sense was that the winning reader app was Google Reader. And so the vast majority, of the world that was using RSS was using Google Reader. And then I don’t totally have insight on how this happened, but, Google chose to shut down Google Reader.
And I don’t know if they were trying to steer people into their, Facebook knockoff products or whatever at the time. in a lot of ways I think what it did is it just handed the internet over to Facebook. Because anybody who was being satisfied by that, and just ended up getting, into their Facebook news feed instead.
So it just kind of ran into a walled garden. I don’t really blame Facebook for this, the way a lot of people want to. I blame the users. You’ve got to take some responsibility, make your own choice, choose something that’s good for you, and most people are not willing to do that.
But, I think to make it easier for them, and there is a case to be made that , people got better things to do than architect their own rSS reader process, but we could kind of do it for them. And so I think there’s one, one big kingpin missing, which is you could make a reader app that would be like an iPhone app now.
And you could think of it as like open source Instagram. It’s just an Instagram knockoff, but instead of following, other people on a centralized platform by Instagram, it just follows RSS. And then it only picks up RSS posts that have at least one picture, right? So any RSS post that has one picture and then the first time you post it automatically makes a WordPress blog for you, that’s free. And then, posts your shit as RSS compliant blog posts, but the reader experience is still just very Instagramesque. So now it’s completely decentralized in the sense that like you own your blog, yeah, WordPress is hosting it, but that’s all open source. You could download it, move it to Guam if you want, whatever you want to do.
So now all publishers have their own direct feeds. All users are publishers, which is kind of the main thing that Facebook solved.
Ash: Content is no longer handed over to someone, right? That’s the other big thing.
Pablos: Exactly. The content is yours and then your followers are yours, right? When they follow you, they follow you at your URL.
And so you can take them with you wherever you go. And then to make this thing more compelling, you just add a few tabs. You add the Twitteresque tab. You add the TikTokesque tab for videos. And, add, the podcast tab. So now, posts are just automatically sorted into the tab for the format that matches them.
Because people have different modalities for, for consuming this shit. So, depending on what you’re in the mood for, you might want to just look at pictures because you’re on a conference call. Fine. Instagram. Or, you know, you might want to watch videos because you’re on a flight.
Who knows? So, the point being, all of this is easy to do. You and I could build that in a weekend. And then the reason that this works, the reason this will win is because you can win over the creators, right? Because the sales pitch to a creator, and those are the people who drive the following anyway, you see TikTok and everybody else kissing the ass of creators because that’s who attracts the following.
The creators win because they’re not giving anything up to the platform. Because they make money off advertising. So fine. We make an advertising business and we still, take some cut of what the creators push out. But if they don’t like us, there’s a market for that, right? The market is I’m just pushing ads out along with my content to my followers.
Some of them watch the ads. Some of them don’t. I have this much of an impact. And so now you get the platforms out of the way.
Ash: If you do it right, Google has ad networks that they drop everywhere.
Pablos: Everybody has ad networks already for websites. You could just use that. Amazon has one. So you can sign up for that if you want. Or the thing that creators want to do, which is go do collabs, go do direct deals with brands.
Now you’re getting 100 percent of that income. You pump it out to your fans. And there’s no ad network in the middle. Nobody’s taking a cut. Alright, if you could cut your own deals, then great, but you’re in control and you can’t be shadow banned, you can’t be deprioritized in the feed, because that’s the game that’s happening.
These platforms, they figure out you’re selling something, you immediately get deprioritized. And so the creators are all pissed off anyway. So I think we can win them over easily enough. And then the last piece of it is, there’s one thing that doesn’t exist, which is you still need to prioritize your feed.
You still need an advanced algorithm to do it. You don’t want to be twiddling knobs and dials all day. You might put in -Hitler if you want. But what should happen is you should also be able to subscribe to feed ranking services. So that could be, the ACLU, or the EFF, or the KKK, whoever you think should be ranking your feed.
Ash: Well, I was actually thinking you could subscribe to a persona. So people could create their own recipes. So this is the world according to Ash, right? Here you go. Like, I’ve got my own thing. I’ve done my dials, my tuning, my tweaks, my stuff. And you want to see how I see the world. Here we go. The class I teach, that’s the first day I tell people, take Google news and sit down and start tuning it. And everyone’s like, well, let me just start to just add, put ups and downs, ups and downs, add Al Jazeera, do whatever you want.
Just do everything that you want, just make them fight and put all of that in and then go down the rabbit hole. But there’s no way to export that. When we start class, I always talk about viewpoints And how all content needs a filter because we are filter. But if I want to watch the world as Pablos, I can’t, there’s no, you can’t give me your lens.
So if we look at the lens concept, today you can tune Google News, there is a little subscribe capability, but you could tune it and poke it a little bit, and it will start giving you info. It’s not the same, quite the same as RSS, but it’s giving you all the news feeds from different places, right?
Could get Breitbart, you could get, Al Jazeera, you could get all the stuff that you want. And if you go back in time to, to when I was working with the government, that was actually my sort of superpower, writing these little filters and getting, Afghani conversations in real time translated.
And then find the same village, in the same way. So then I would have two viewpoints at the same time. The good thing was that when you did that what I haven’t seen, and I would love, love this take place, is for someone to build a, Pablos filter,? And I could be like, “all right, let me, let me go see the world the way he sees it.” his -Hitler, his minus, minus, -election, – Trump, -Biden, that’s fine. And then, and now I have a little Pablos recipe. I can like click my glasses, and then, then suddenly I see the world, meaning I filter the world through Pablos’s.
Pablos: Yeah, I think that, I think we’re saying a similar thing because then what you could do is you could, subscribe to that. You could subscribe to the Pablos filter. You could subscribe to the…
Ash: exactly, I’m taking your ACLU thing one step further. I think ACLU is like narrow, but you could go into like personality.
Pablos: You could even just reverse engineer the filter by watching what I read. My reader could figure out my filter by seeing the choices that I make.
Ash: Yeah, if it’s stored it right, if we had another format, but let’s just say that we had an RSS feed filter format. ’cause it’s there. It’s really the parameters of your RSS anyway. But if you could somehow save that, config file, go back thousand years, right? If you could save the config.ini, that’s what you want? And I could be like, Hey, Pablo, so I can hand that over. Let’s share that with me. And now what’s interesting is works really well. And it also helps because each person owning their own content, the, the beauty of that becomes, you never, you never filtered, you never blocked you, you, you’re self filtering.
Pablos: That’s right.
Ash: We’re self subscribing to each other’s filters.
Pablos: Publishers become the masters of their domain. If you’ve got a problem with a publisher, you’ve got to go talk to them, not some intermediary. The problem is on a large scale, control is being exercised by these intermediaries. And they have their own ideas and agendas and things.
The job here is to disintermediate – which was the whole point of the internet in the first place – communication between people.
Ash: Then the metadata of that becomes pretty cool, by the way. If I figured out that, okay, now it looks like 85 percent of the population has, has gone -Biden, -Trump.
Let’s think about that. Suddenly you’ve got other info, right? Suddenly you’re like, Oh, wait a minute. and if you’re an advertiser or you’re a product creator, or you’re a, like just sitting there trying to figure out how can I get into the world, that becomes really valuable, right? Because you could. Go in and say, people just don’t give a shit about this stuff, guys.
I don’t know what you’re talking about. Whereas when you have one algorithmic machine somewhere in Meta/Facebook, whatever we want to call it, pushing things up, it could be pushing sand uphill, right? It could be like stimulating things that you don’t necessarily know you want. The structure that you just described flips that on its head because it says, Hey, I just don’t want to listen to this shit, guys.
Like, I just could not give a crap about what you’re saying.
Pablos: Right.
Ash: And if enough people happen to do that, then the content creators also have some, some idea of what’s going on. We try to decode lenses all day long,? We spend our life, like you said, in meetings or in collaborations or business development. What do you think we do? We sit there, we’re trying to figure out the other person’s view. We’re trying to understand if you’re a salesperson, “Hey, can I walk a mile in that guy’s shoes” or speak like that person, I’ve never heard of anyone sort of selling me, lending me, letting me borrow their RSS, like, their filter. That would be phenomenal, that’d be great.
And I bet you, if you did it right, you might even solve a lot of problems in the world because then you could see what they see, you know, I don’t want to touch the topics that we know are just absolute powder kegs, but every time we get to these topics, I always tell the person, can you show me what you, what are you reading?
Pablos: Yeah.
Ash: Like, where did you get?
Pablos: Yeah.
Ash: You ever, you ever asked someone like, “where did you get that?” and then they show you, they show you kind of their, feed. And you’re just like, what is going on? Like, if you, if you go to someone, whether they’re pro or anti vax, it doesn’t matter where it is.
And just look at their feed, look at what they’re listening to, because it’s not the same thing I’m listening to, because the mothership has, has decreed which, which one we each get. But you look at it and then you’re like, okay, maybe the facts that they were presented with were either incomplete and maybe not maliciously?
I get it in the beginning of this, you started like, okay, is it malicious and didn’t do it would get changed. But if you just cut out, I don’t know, let’s just say there’s like 10 pieces of news, but I only give you five and I give the other person the other five.
And they’re not synchronous, you’re going to start a fight. There’s no question. What we don’t have is the ability to say, Hey, like, let me, let me be Pablos for a second before I start screaming, let me see what he sees. that will probably change that could change a lot.
Pablos: Think it could. That and certainly there’s a cognitive bias that feels comfortable in an echo chamber. This is one of the issues that we’re really experiencing is that, the process of civilization, literally means “to become civil” to do that.
It’s sort of the long history of humans figuring out how to control obsolete biological instincts. We’ve been evolved to want to steal each other’s food and girlfriends. That’s not specifically valuable or relevant at this point.
We’ve had to learn how to get along with more people, we’ve had to learn to become less violent, we’ve had to learn to, play the long game socially, those things. And, there’s work to do on that as far as like how we consume all this, this information, all the media.
You’re using the wrong part of your brain to tune your feed right now. You’re using the lazy Netflix part of your brain to tune your news, and that’s not really , how are you going to get good results. There’s work to do to evolve the tools and work to do to evolve the sensibilities around these things.
And so, you know, what I’m suggesting is like, we’re not going to get there by handing it over to the big wall garden. You got to get there through this, again, sort of. Darwinian process of trying a lot of things and so you’ve described some really cool things that we’d want to be able to try that are impractical to try because things are architected wrong and using Facebook is the central switchboard of these conversations or Twitter or whatever and so you know what we need is a more open platform where like you know we can all take a stab at figuring out how to design cool filters that express our point of view and share them.
And that’s not possible in the current architecture. I think the last thing is, there are certainly other frustrations and attempts to go solve some class of these, some subset of these problems. You’ve got Mastodon, of course, and the Fediverse, and you’ve got Blue Sky trying in their way to make a sort of open Twitter thing.
And then you’ve got, these other attempts, but a lot of them are pretty heavy handed architecturally. As far as I can tell, most of them end up just being some suburb of people who are pissed off about one thing or another that they get its adoption, right? So, Mastodon is basically a place for people who are, backlashing against Twitter. As far as I can tell.
Ash: Yeah, and we even worked on one, right? Called Ourglass.
Pablos: I don’t know that one.
Ash: It was coming out and we actually did an entire session on it. I actually worked on some of the product thought design on, on how that works. , it was like, it’s all on chain. Part of the, the thing that, we did was very similar to what you’re talking about.
You wanted the knobs and the controls, and you wanted people to rant in their space. I know it gets pretty dark when you say, okay, but what are they allowed to talk about in in the dark depths of that sort of internet and and I say, “well, they already talk about it, guys”
Whether they get into a smoky back room or, there’s somewhere else that if they don’t say it, I feel we get more frustrated.
Pablos: The fundamental difference here is between centralized services. That’s certainly Facebook and Twitter, but it’s also Delphi and AOL, versus open, decentralized protocols and the protocols in time win over the services like TCP/IP won over AOL, AOL was centralized service, TCP/IP, decentralized protocol.
At the beginning it was a worse user experience, harder to use, but It’s egalitarian and it won and I think that that’s kind of the moment we’re in right now with with the social media. We’re still on centralized service mode and it needs to be architected as decentralized protocol and we had a chance to do that before Facebook and we lost and so now there’s just like the next battle is like how do we get back on the track of decentralized protocol, and I think if we just define them…
That’s why I think RSS won because it’s called Really Simple Syndication for a reason. Because it’s really simple. It was easy for any developer to integrate. Everybody could do it.
And so it just became ubiquitous almost overnight. You could design something cooler with the blockchain and whatnot. But it’s probably over engineered for the job. And the job right now is just like, get adoption.
Ash: We started going down that path. So Delphi’s sort of twin. Was, called Prospero. So Prospero was, little Tempest reference, was designed. As a way that you could just adopt it. That was that, that first eBay deal. And then we did about.com and most of the stuff.
And right now you see Discuss. It’s at the bottom of, of some comments. It’s a supported service where, you had one party taking care of all of the threads and handles and display methods and posts and logins. And, you were seamlessly logged into the other sites. MD5 sort of hash and we did the first single sign on type nonsense, and we used to build gateways between the two, you’re going to go from one to another, but the whole idea was that you provide, the communication tool, As a, as an open or available service.
And you could charge for for storing it. And then what happens is you don’t do the moderation as a tool. That’s your problem. You strip it back to “look, I’m going to provide you the car and I don’t care how you drive it.” Go back to our story, whether you’re in Vietnam or Riyadh or whatever you’re doing, we’re going to, we’re not there to tell you which lane to go into, but that’s, that’s your problem. I think that one of the challenges with like RSS, cause we were RSS compliant, by the way.
I’m pretty sure Prospero and I’m sure it’s still around because it went XML to RSS. And I remember the fact that you could subscribe to any forum that was Prospero powered.
You could subscribe to it a lot, like directly through your RSS reader.
And I remember what was great about it is that people were like, “we don’t want, your viewer.” Just like we didn’t want your AOL view of like, “you’ve got mail.” I want my own POP server and then IMAP or whatever it is. I think there does need to be, like you said, someone putting together a little toolkit that’s super easy. They don’t need to know it’s got RSS. They don’t need to know anything. But it’s like, “own your post.” it can be like an Own Your Post service. And then the Own Your Post service happens to publish RSS and everything else, and it’s compliant.
Pablos: I think you just make an iPhone app and when you set up the app it just automatically makes you a WordPress blog and if you want you can go move it later.
Ash: You got it. All that other stuff is just automated.
Pablos: You don’t even have to know it’s WordPress. It’s behind the scenes.
Ash: If you were going to do this, what you would do is you’d launch and I would launch it like three different companies. Like three different tools. I’ve got a, “keep your content” tool and the keep your content guys are something compliant, RSS. You keep bringing it back. It’s published, it’s out there and then some new company, Meta Two, Son of Meta, creates a reader. Anyone that’s got a RSS tag on it, we’re a reader for it. So anyone using Keep Your Content or, whatever. the idea being that now you’re showing that there’s some adoption. You almost don’t have to rig it. There is a way to do this because no one wants to download a reader if there aren’t sources.
Pablos: The thing can bootstrap off of existing sources because there’s so much RSS compliant content. You could imagine like day one. If you downloaded this reader today. You could follow Wall Street Journal and just everything online. And some of it you have to charge for it. Like Substack has RSS. I follow Substacks. You could just follow those things in the app Substack has a reader, but it only does Substacks, and probably Medium has one that only does Medium. But we have one that does both, plus New York Times and everything else.
So now, like any other thing, you just follow a bunch of stuff. And then, there’s a button that’s like post. Sure, post. Boom. Now that fires up your own WordPress blog. Now you’re posting. All your content’s being saved. You control it. You got some followers or if you have this many followers, here’s how much you can make in ad revenue.
Boom, sign up for ad network. Now you’re pushing ads out. All This could be done with existing stuff, just glued together, I think, and with the possible exception of the filter thing, which, needs to be more advanced probably worth revisiting.
Ash: I think what You could do is maybe the very first thing you do, create the filter company, like your RSS glasses. So instead of having to do that heavy lift, curate Pablos’s, I would love to get your RSS feed list. How do you give it to me? How could you give me your RSS configured viewer?
Pablos: A lot of RSS readers make it really easy to like republish your own feed. So like all the things I subscribe to, then go into feed…
Ash: But then, that’s blended, right?
Pablos: Oh, it’s blended. Yeah, for sure.
Ash: Is blended, right? So now it becomes your feed. I’m saying, can I get your configuration?
Pablos: I don’t know if there’s a standard for that.
Ash: I’m saying that’s maybe the thing you create a meta, Meta.
Pablos: Honestly, I think these days what you would do is just have a process that looks at everything I read, feeds it into an LLM, and tries to figure out like how do you define what Pablos is interested in that way. You probably would get a lot more nuance.
Ash: That’s to find out what you’re interested in.
Pablos: It’s almost like you want your feed filtered through my lens.
Ash: That’s exactly what I want. I want to read the same newspaper you’re reading, so to speak. So if you assume that that feed that you get is a collection of stories. That’s your newspaper, the Pablos newspaper, right?
That’s what it is, Times of Pablos and you have a collection of stories that land on your page, right? It’s been edited. Like you’re the editor, you’re the editor in chief of your little newspaper. If you think of all your RSS feeds ripped down your, your own newspaper, I’d like to read that newspaper.
How do I do that? That doesn’t exist. I don’t think that’s easy to do. And if I can do that, that’d be great.
Pablos: If you’re looking on Twitter and people are reposting, if I go look at your Twitter feed and all you do is repost stuff and then occasionally make a snarky comment, that’s kind of what I’m getting.
I’m getting the all the stuff you thought was interesting enough to repost and I think that’s a big part of like why reposting merits having a button in Twitter because that’s the signal you’re getting out of it. I don’t love it because it’s part of what I don’t like about Twitter is I’m not seeing a lot of unique thought from the people I follow.
I’m just seeing shit they repost. And so my Twitter feed is kind of this amalgamation of all the things that were reposted by all the people I follow and and to me, that’s what I don’t want. I would rather just see the original post by those people. Twitter doesn’t let me do that, so I’m scrolling a lot just to get to the, first person content.
I think it is a way of substantiating what you’re saying, though, which is “There’s a value in being able to see the world through someone else’s eyes.” Repost might just be kind of a budget version of that.
Ash: The reason I say that it’s valuable, it’s like the old days you’d sit on train and maybe even today and you had a physical copy of the New York Times, and everyone, and you could see who reads the New York Times and who reads the Journal.
Right. And who reads The Post and The Daily News, that’s what you can tell. And those people had their lenses, you go to the UK and everyone, this is the guardian, the independent, whatever. And you were like, Oh, that’s a time, Times reader. That’s a Guardian reader or someone looking at page three of the sun. I have no idea what they’re doing, but, you knew immediately where they were.
Pablos: It’s the editorial layer.
Ash: You got it.
Pablos: it’s what’s missing in today’s context. What’s missing now is you got publishers, and you got the readers. but the editor is gone.
Ash: Well, it’s not gone, that’s the problem, right? So what we did is , in the, in the world of press, there was a printing press and an editorial group took stories and they shoved them through the printing press. And then, the next minute, another editorial group came in and ran it through the printing press. so if you went out , and you were making your sort of manifestos, the printing press probably didn’t care, right? The guy at like quickie print or whatever it was didn’t care. Today, Facebook claims it’s the place to publish, but it’s not. Because it’s editorial and publish so that so what they’re doing is they’re taking your IP They’re taking a content and then there’s putting their editorial layer on it. Even if it’s a light touch or heavy touch, whatever it is. But it’s sort of like if the guy that was the printing press like “I don’t really like your font.” ” Dude, that’s how I designed it.”
I want the font. Like I like Minion, Minion Pro is my thing, right? That’s what I’m going to do. But, but if they just decided to change it, you’d be really pissed off. Now, Facebook claims to be an agnostic platform, but they’re not an ISP. They’re not a, an open architecture. like we would have had in the past where like you host what you wanted to host. There, you host what you want to host, but they’re going to down promote you.
They’re going to boost you. They’re going to unboost you. So wait a minute, hold on a second. You’re, you’re not really an open platform. And I think that’s what you’re getting at, which is, either you’re a tool to publish or you’re the editorial, the minute you’re both.
You’re an editorial.
You’re actually no longer a tool.
Pablos: That’s exactly right.
I think, that’s the key thing, we’ve got to separate those things.
Ash: That’s the element. And I think that that tells you a lot about why we get frustrated.
If Twitter was just a fast way to shove 140 characters across multiple SMS, which we didn’t have, because we’re in the U.S. We were silly and we didn’t have GSM. That’s what Twitter was, right?
Twitter was kind of like the first version of like a unified messaging platform. Cause it was like, you could broadcast 140 characters and it would work on the lowest common denominator, which was your StarTAC flip phone.
So the point was that Twitter was a not unmoderated open tool.
Then it got editorial. And now it’s then it’s no longer. And I think that’s the problem, right? It used to be, you had a wall on Facebook and you did whatever the hell you wanted to. And then Facebook said I need to make money and it became the publisher, became the editorial board.
Pablos: Okay, so we have a lightweight plan to save the internet. Let’s see if we can find somebody to go build this stuff.
Ash: If you could build that last thing, I think it’s not a, it’s not a complicated one, but they, I think they just need to sit down and, grab your feed. Or someone can come up with a collection of, Mixtapes, let’s call it.
Pablos: Yeah, cool. Mixtapes, I like that.
Ash: Internet Mixtapes. There you go.
Recorded on December 22, 2023
Primer on Fusion Reactors — Bob Mumgaard & Steve Renter
Feb 01, 2024
This is a conversation with Bob Mumgaard and Steve Renter, founders of Commonwealth Fusion Systems in Cambridge, Massachusetts. So these guys spun out of MIT. An incredible, ambitious, company to figure out how to commercialize fusion, and it’s really the first fusion company in the world that has been able to show publicly that they have no new science needed in order to make it work, which is a major milestone.
They also published a series of seven papers a couple of years ago now, showing exactly how they can build a fusion reactor. This is the kind of thing that has been a joke my whole life with physicists saying that fusion is only 20 years away and always will be. That might not be true anymore…
Commonwealth Fusion Systems had a major breakthrough when they figured out how to make a super magnet, using a new kind of super conductor that’s appropriate for the task, and that really changed the game.
Almost everything else they do, the science is the same as it was in 1970.
They make a plasma that floats inside of what is called a “tokamak”, which is a kind of donut shaped toroid that has plasma floating on a magnetic field inside. So all this is like crazy, hard, technical science. None of it would have been possible without decades of government funded research. Multiple governments funding research.
These guys were standing on the shoulders of a lot of giants who came before them. And they are very careful to acknowledge that all the time, which is great. And they’ve been very successful at showing that they can really make fusion happen. Now there’s a lot of engineering work that has to happen between here and there, but know they’re going at it with an extraordinary amount of ambition and they’ve hired a lot of really smart people.
They have probably the best shot at achieving fusion of anything that I have seen.
This would be the biggest upgrade for humans in our lifetime if we get there. And so it’s a very exciting project.
I’m thrilled that I’ve gotten to know these guys a little bit and got to hang out with them their operation that keeps growing.
I hope that you learned something from this conversation with Bob and Steve.
Bob is the co-founder and CEO of Commonwealth Fusion Systems (CFS), a fusion energy startup company spin-out of MIT. He drives the company’s vision to accelerate the path to commercial fusion energy by managing its strategic partnerships and technical approach. He also believes in the power of technical and organizational innovation to facilitate the breakthroughs needed to combat climate change. The CFS team and Bob are working in collaboration with MIT’s Plasma Science and Fusion Center (PSFC) to realize the holy grail of renewable energy: fusion.
Steve Renter is the Chief Growth Officer at Commonwealth Fusion Systems, designing and building commercial fusion systems to provide limitless, clean energy to the world. Commonwealth Fusion Systems (CFS) has the fastest, lowest cost path to commercial fusion energy.
The ultimate mission is to deploy fusion power plants to meet global decarbonization goals as fast as possible. CFS has assembled a team of leaders in tough tech, fusion science, and manufacturing with a track record of rapid execution. Supported by the world’s leading investors, CFS is uniquely positioned to deliver limitless, clean, fusion power to combat climate change.
Recorded on December 14, 2021
LLMs are Superstition – ØF
Jan 29, 2024
Pablos: So what happens right now in scientific research is, if you’re going to do a research study on something, like “are M&Ms is bad for you?” It’s impossible to do that study. You have to be very specific and ask a much more fine grained questions like ” how many M&Ms does it take to, Kill a mouse?” or to cause a mouse to vomit. You just have to be very specific cause that’s something testable. You could test that, you can get multiple mice, you can feed them enough M&M’s that they eventually vomit. The whole research study can be done that way.
And so when you read scientific research studies, that’s typically what you’re looking at is some very narrowly defined thing that they believe is correlated to a much more significant or bigger effect, but you can’t test the whole thing. You can’t ask questions like, “does this thing cause cancer?”
You can ask questions like, ” does this amount of exposure to this thing over this much time cause this specific, type of cancer in this type of rat?” Things like that. So that’s great and all because it means, we’re structuring, tests that we can actually perform, but the downside is that for most people, what they would actually like to know is ” do M&Ms cause cancer or how many of them is too much, things like that.
Getting those answers is often not straightforward from scientific literature. And so the way that we. usually try to compensate for that is to do what’s called a meta analysis. And a meta analysis is where somebody will go and dig up all of the studies on a given topic, combine them and try to say, “across a hundred studies involving M&Ms and cancer, this is kind of what happened” and, to just sort of give you a general sense of whether or not, the effect you’re interested in is happening. Good examples of this are like, chiropraction is largely, debunked.
A lot of people get pissed off at me talking about it because it can be a deluxe placebo, but in clinical trials, very few clinical trials are performed. It’s hard to do them. Different practitioners have, different effectivity levels anyway. And so the problem is it’s hard to run those studies, but even if you do, you can’t find any indication that chiropraction actually cures anything. So this is a case where we don’t have good research and the only way to try and get to the bottom of it is with a meta analysis where you find the studies that have been done and you sort of combine their results and try to say whether or not chiropraction works.
People, there’s no point arguing with me if you’re listening and you think chiropractic is great. Go nuts. I encourage you not to do that, but, whatever, do your own thing. But the point is the only way you could get a reasonable answer is with this kind of meta analysis. Now meta analysis is very time consuming and difficult to perform and often isn’t getting done, but what it really involves is just go read a bunch of studies. Well, it turns out that’s what an LLM is really fucking good at. So you, so right now we’re in a stunted position because one of the big problems with OpenAI and ChatGPT is they’ve crippled ChatGPT. It doesn’t read scientific literature and even if it does, it’s not really allowed to comment on it.
So they’ve crippled the thing to keep you from talking to it about anything that might be health related and stuff like that. What you would really want an LLM to do, and one of the things that would be really good at is doing ad hoc meta analysis. So you could just say, “Hey, I feel like I’m getting a cold, should I take zinc?”
There’s people marketing zinc for that purpose. We’ve all been told to take zinc, but I don’t fucking know if that’s an old wives tale,
Ash: It’s like echinacea, zinc, doesn’t matter, it’s all those things.
Pablos: I don’t have time to go read every scientific research study, but I bet you collectively we have that answer, and so if I could just ask an LLM.
Ash: Wasn’t wasn’t IBM’s Watson at some point pretty good? Watson Health actually had all this.
Pablos: That’s probably what they were trying to do.
Ash: They were doing it and they were doing pretty well. They weren’t they weren’t using a full LLM model. That’s that was the whole breakthrough.
Pablos: They were kind of in the pre LLM days. It was LM. It was just LM. It wasn’t LLM.
Ash: Just language models. And they were taking huge amounts of data. But what they had is they had their own normalized structures underneath. So that was the difference, right? They didn’t let the structure form itself. But what you’re saying is true.
Pablos: You’re right, and we could probably build like a Watson for health in a weekend now using, Stable Diffusion or something. It would be way better. You would just basically load it up with all the research and let it go nuts and then let people ask questions like, ” Hey, should I be taking zinc?”
Ash: The problem is reliability score.
Pablos: Oh no, it’d be terrible, but it’s already horrific. Right now, we’re just going off superstition. I mean, literally that question of, should I take zinc? You’re gonna get as many answers as people you ask because somebody’s Chinese grandmother said You should be, taking echinacea instead.
Ash: You should listen to my first class. The first part we were talking about is what is known as “triangulation of information truth.” What is provenance for data. Then you have to figure out, how do you weigh it? LLMs are fantastic, like you said, because they can take all your source inputs.
So if you go back to, to signal analysis, or analytics for like intelligence again. We’ll just lean on that for a moment. Truth is great if you’re playing with mathematics. You get QED and you call it a day for the most part. But for other things, truth, zinc, for example, like your zinc example. There’s some balance between like how much did it really? Was it an emotional support protocol? Did it help you because you were convinced that, your grandmother was right or whatever’s happening to, to actual physical actions internally, right?
We can be scientific about it, but it comes back to source and information. If you pick a really, really dangerous topic and we won’t go there, but let’s just pick Gaza for one second. How do you find what’s really happening? Well, you hear a lot and someone’s like, “well, I read it in the Wall Street Journal.”
I read it here. I heard it there. I took Al Jazeera. I did Briebert. Whatever you picked. The question was, did you do it in all the languages? Did you listen to a local radio station? Did you find someone’s signal data from nearby? What was happening? Did the bomb go off or did this happen?
If you look at information, just like you’re looking at these scientific papers, the question becomes the weighting factor. We as humans, I think one of the things we know how to maybe do, at least a good analyst should be able to do, is try to give weighting based on time and location and stuff.
And I think the large language models have to start to put in context again. I think they have to add one more dimension.
Pablos: For sure. And I think that you touched on the other thing, which is that right now, all this information is like floating around without, tracking provenance, and so, interestingly, like in scientific research, you at least have citations. which is a lightweight form of provenance. It’s a start, but ultimately, the way these things all need to be built, not only , the LLMs for doing meta analysis, but really every knowledge graph needs to be built off of assertions that are tracked. You keep track of provenance, okay the sky is blue, well, who said the sky is blue?
Where did you get that from? And that way, whenever you’re ingesting some knowledge, it’s coming with a track record. That’s how we’re going to solve news online, eventually.
Ash: Kind of like, the Google Scholar score or whatever.
I go back to my partner, to Palle, right? So Palé actually has a patent. It’s probably expiring soon, so for those of you who want to do this, we should go do it. He owns webprovenance.com. And he owns the patent on how you check provenance. One of the things that came out of the BlackDuck software stuff was that at BlackDuck, we needed to know who created something. So do you remember the Sun Microsystems, IBM, lawsuit, Java? If you’re a compiler theorist, then you know that, just because West Side Story takes place in New York, You could probably say, well, doesn’t it sound exactly like, Romeo and Juliet? So maybe you change the variables, but it’s the same stuff. And the idea was that when we were looking at, open source, with open source, the interesting thing is you’re trying to figure out, where did this little rogue piece of code, this little GPL or LGPL infection come from?
You need to find it. So it’s one thing to talk about the combinatorials, but the other was to find it. And then Palle was like, well, I can do something cooler., He said, if Brewster Kahle’s Way Back Machine, remember the original Alexa project? So If you could go in and take all that data, he’s like, I could pretty much tell you like who killed JFK.
You can find the provenance of almost any information. He wrote this wild algorithm for it. I’d love to see some of that incorporated into the LLM stuff because that algorithm, and again, we would happily, anyone out there if you’re willing, this has been a project we’ve been looking at for the better part of 15 years.
Pablos: Well Stability might pick it up. They love that kind of stuff, that would be a huge coup for them.
Ash: Well, we should, we should have this conversation offline, but it’s a, it’s interesting. It’s an incredibly cool algorithm. He was a compiler theorist anyway, an algorithmist, at Thinking Machines. So, he always wondered where the info came from.
And I sat there and said, hey, we should find a way. And I remember the stunt I wanted was like, to figure out if they were aliens. And he’s like, what do you mean? It’s like, well, who started that rumor? Like, where did it happen? Right? So, imagine you could take any rumor, and I can tell you how it started.
Pablos: That’s so cool.
Ash: Wouldn’t that be the coolest thing ever?
Pablos: So important.
Ash: Yeah, and we need that.
Pablos: That is super important. I’ve seen somewhere, a map that somebody made of where are all the UFO sightings reported? And like 98 percent of them are in the United States. I think the rest of the world doesn’t even have UFO as like a notion. it’s not even a, thing for them.
Ash: It’s cause we have no healthcare. Look, all I know is, years ago, we just didn’t have enough data. Years ago, we couldn’t. We were like, looking at the Wayback Machine, and we were like, I was like, well, who can we go to to get all the data?
Can we get the entire web? Today, large language models have already stolen all the data. They already have it. So if you have enough of the data, we could definitely help you figure out the algorithm to go backwards and it’s complicated.
Pablos: That’s super exciting.
Ash: He actually patented it himself because he was trying to figure out if he didn’t need a patent attorney. So that was his project, can I make a patent? And his patents on provenance. So I think it’s a big coup if they could pull it off. Can you imagine you could just type in who started, where did this first start?
Pablos: Dude, that’s crazy cool.
Ash: It’s super cool.
Pablos: I’m kind of always on a rant about this, but we need a variety of models. Like LLM is the beginning, not It’s a thing that you need, like the way we’re doing it now actually kind of sucks and requires a lot of brute force, but there’s so many things that it’s not good for.
Ash: And it’s so susceptible to the thing that, what did I do in my life? Psych warfare is all about information corruption. Dude, you corrupt a large language model, that thing is convinced that the sky is red at that point.
Pablos: Exactly, well, I’ve been thinking about that. Why don’t I just..
Ash: Corrupt it?.
We’re bad hackers.
Pablos: I can fire up, 100,000, blogs written by an LLM that all just talk about my, prowess with the ladies.
Ash: Exactly.
Pablos: And the next thing you know, all the future LLMs will be trained on a massive amount of data that indicates that, Pablos is the man.
Why wouldn’t we do that?
Ash: At the end of the day, the LLMs are basically superstition. There you go. I’ve just said it.
Pablos: Right. They’re superstition.
There you go.
Ash: LLMs are superstition.
They’re based on some concept of something that it derived because it took a whole lot of information from a lot of grandmothers.
Pablos: And that’s the thing, Like what’s posted on the internet is all that they know.
It’s driving me crazy.
Ash: Worse, it’s only the people who have given them permission, so the quality sources are going to start cutting them off. So, all they’ve got, all you’ve got are the people who are generating rumors that they’ve seen UFOs.
Pablos: Well, that’s all true for the LLMs made in America.
Ash: Yeah, so the American LLMs know where the UFOs are.
Pablos: Japan decided that copyright doesn’t apply to training LLMs. So the most powerful LLMs, for now, are gonna be in Japan.
Sign me up.
Ash: Even better, that means Japanese information…
Pablos: That’s probably true, learn Japanese.
Ash: Which, think of it, if I wanted to build, my 100,000 LLMs generating your prowess, I’m gonna do it all in Japanese. I’ll do kanji, hiragana, and katakana. I’ll give it to them in all three formats. You could crush it.
I I would love to see any of these. I think that’s, that should be our ask for everyone.
Pablos: Yeah.
Ash: if someone, someone wants to run with it, go build it.
Pablos: Yeah, people, build this shit.
Ash: Tell us. We can help you commercialize. We will find you.
Recorded on January 8, 2024
Pioneering Computer Graphics & Animation – Richard Chuang
Jan 25, 2024
Part of what I love about getting to create a podcast like this is sharing conversations I’ve had with some of these extraordinary people that you just never hear about otherwise or never get to meet. They’re working behind the scenes, inventing new technologies that become part of our lives.
And they’re out of the spotlight. I’ve been lucky enough to get to know Richard Chuang, who’s with us today, because we both served as board members at the University of Silicon Valley, where he is still a trustee. Richard is a pioneer in computer graphics. He’s been there since the beginning, since the moment we turned pixels into images on a computer screen and turned those images into animations.
What has later become, everything you see coming out of Hollywood now. He’s a real pioneer in computer graphics, having built some of the animation systems at PDI, 30 years ago, that ultimately became DreamWorks Animation, where the pioneering feature films animated on computers. Ants, Shrek, those kinds of things were first done.
Look, Richard, it makes me want to cry. How humble he is, the wisdom he has in this conversation. He’s sharing so much with us and, going back to, the seventies when he first learned about computers. there’s some computer history in here. His encounters with Steve Jobs over the years, in both working in animation with computers, his experience with, some of the other pioneers in the, in the industry.
Richard doesn’t take credit personally for anything, but the truth is he’s behind a lot of these things that change the world, and I’m so thrilled to be able to share him with all of you guys.
Recorded on June 20, 2018
Whisp Subvocal Input – ØF
Jan 21, 2024
Pablos: Here’s one of the things I think is a critical area of invention that remains unsolved, but it’s definitely a part of the future. So if you’re using an iPhone anywhere in the world, cultures vary. I’ve been working with this guy in Venezuela on a project. I text him on WhatsApp and then he replies with a voice memo like every time and so his, culture and worldview is just like talking to the phone and probably because I know Venezuelans do a lot more talking or something.
Whereas I never use voice memo. I’m texting, but a lot of that is like, I’m in public around other people and I don’t want to disturb them and, disturbing people is considered uncool where I come from, but in Venezuela, like everybody’s chattering all the time, probably because they’re all Latinos.
Talking to your computer will become more and more common. And you can see that some people are more comfortable with it than others. I see it a lot more in people from other countries than I do in Americans. Right now, talking to Siri kind of sucks, and Alexa. These things are kind of stunted because, they’re very one shot oriented. If you take your iPhone and start using the voice interface for ChatGPT, wow, it gets pretty exciting. Because now you’re having this, two way, audible conversation that builds on itself over time.
And if you haven’t done that, I think everybody should try it because that will give you a sense of where these things are going. Once you get that going and realize, oh, I can just do this while I’m driving or walking, and I don’t have to be staring at my phone. It starts to get compelling.
And so it’s not hard to imagine being, a few years down the road where ChatGPT is just listening all the time and piping in when it has the answers for you . So that’s just laying the groundwork, hopefully all that makes sense.
But where I think this goes is that we need to solve one really big problem that remains, which is sub vocal input.
Ash: Okay.
Pablos: And what that means is, right now, if I’m talking, I don’t want to talk to my phone, I don’t even want to dictate text messages or do voice memo, because there’s people around listening, I don’t want them here in my business. We’re in this situation where the eavesdropping potential, even if you’re not talking about something super secret, it could be private or whatever. I don’t want to play a message from you out loud and I want other people hearing things that I haven’t screened yet, who knows what you’re talking about.
So, what sub vocal input would do is give you the ability to just essentially whisper and have your phone pick it up. People around you wouldn’t hear you, wouldn’t understand you but you would still use the same machinery that you have and we all have the ability to whisper, and and quietly. If you’re trying to whisper for someone else to hear you, maybe it gets kind of loud, but if you’re just trying to whisper to yourself, it can be super quiet.
We know that this should be possible, and we know that because deaf people are able to train themselves to do lip reading pretty well. So a deaf person who’s, got nothing, bothering them audibly can sometimes, apply enough focus to the task of learning how to read lips that they can do a really good job of it.
So there’s enough of a signal in what your phone could see. So you know with Face ID there’s a tiny little LiDAR sensor that’s doing depth, and it can see your face. It can see the, minute details about your face. That’s why it can tell, the difference between your face and a photo of you and your twin brother or sister, whatever.
So it might be possible right now. With the hardware that’s in an iPhone, even though you probably don’t have access to the right APIs for this to work, but maybe in a equivalent Android phone or something, maybe this could be prototyped. Where you could just use that machinery, train a giant, model, just a machine learning model on, lip reading.
Ash: Yeah.
Pablos: And so you would be able to just look at your phone and whisper, and it would transcribe.
Ash: There’s a couple of things on this. Three GSM world, before GSM, 2000 or so. So we’ll go back in time. One of the big conversations that we would have was, I was a proponent saying that we just don’t have enough bandwidth and People are like, “yeah, but we’re going to have 3G & 4G & 5G & 6G.”
And I said, “no, no, you’re missing the point.” The bandwidth to your device is not the issue, it’s between the device and the human. It’s your conversation. It’s, this is where we’re stuck. We’re stuck because we type, we could try Dvorak, we could try QWERTY, we can pick the keyboard, we can have sideways keyboards, we can speak to it, but I still think all of these are terrible.
Whispering, could be very interesting. There was a MIT headset, Alter Ego. So Alter Ego, if you look at this thing up, it’s a mind reading, reading device. Sub vocalization signals through EEG, brain activity.
He can actually make it work.
Pablos: Well, I’ve played with some of these things. I have NeuroSky headset emotive, but I think what you have to do with them…
Ash: This one you wear. It’s bone conducting. It’s wild. You just put it on and say,
Pablos: Oh, it’s bone conducting. So it’s picking up speech, it’s not EEG.
Ash: No, no, no. The bone conducting is how it tells you things back. So it even whispers it back. Like, into your head.
Pablos: Oh, but you could just do that with headphones.
Ash: No, that’s how it whispers back. You think it and then it tells you things. Anyway, it’s called alter ego, we’ll link to Alter Ego. To me, it goes back to what you’re saying, which is, is there a way? Otherwise, we just look like, we’re murmuring to ourselves, right?
We’ll just look completely crazy. Like sometimes I get a little bit annoyed with people on conversations with AirPods. You just have no idea what’s going on, right? There’s a little hairdryer sticking out of their head, and they’re like, just walking around, and we just are fully, we’re already like, isolating ourselves and now we’re, we’re conversing. I think what you’re saying though is that the sub vocalization stuff needs to be in a way where it’s, Almost so discreet that it is a relationship between you and a listening device, right? It’s almost like the pixie on your shoulder.
Pablos: Yes.
Ash: It’s like the little angel devils whatever the animated version was.
Pablos: Yeah, and I think there could be other technologies. I don’t know if you could fit it in something like an AirPod. Maybe like a Compton backscatter detector, one of these terahertz imagers, like the thing at the airport that you do the HOVA signal to, and then it’s you. Without a lot of radiation, you know, those things are low impact. You could do something like that to see the tongue through the
side of the mouth.
Ash: My belief is closer to the way that you were trying to tackle this problem, which is, hey, it listens in and jumps in. But what if I could prompt it to jump in, right? So for example, let’s assume that instead of having to build anything new, it’s now just listening to me.
Constant in real time. Imagine a natural language parsing system with a, engine underneath. We used to call these things While Aware. This was actually the name of our company from years ago. And While Aware was intercepting SMS messages in real time on the SMSC. And the idea was that, it would detect what the conversation was, but because it knows who you are, it would evoke different things at different moments, right?
So let’s pick, for example, Bitcoin share price, Bitcoin’s falling as a price. And that message was coming to you or that data was somehow coming to you. It might say, do you want to open up, your trading account and you can go sell it.
And for me, it might, immediately tell me, do you want to book, tickets to Belize in a non extradition country, because my capital call is too high,. Whatever it is, if I have a margin call, because it knows what’s happening. It’s contextual, understanding. And I think one of the big things that we’re missing in all of these little support things that you allude to that ChatGPT brings to the table is contextual.
We fail because It doesn’t understand us. Siri doesn’t know.
Pablos: This is a separate conversation. Fundamentally, you are right. The whole future of AI requires that it know you, it needs to know you, it needs to know every conversation you’ve had, not only every SMS but text message and email, it needs to have 100 percent of that so it understands you. It knows what you know, it knows what you care about, it sees what you do, it sees what you say, it has to have all that and I want the AI to have all that. We need to architect for that and right now we’re not doing that because we’re building giant centralized AI’s.
Ash: That’s when you’re, different technologies, whether it’s the backscatter or it’s the, lip reader or the whisper detector. All of those become a lot easier when you have context. I don’t know if you remember Google’s evolution, 2009, 2010, Google suddenly, not as creepy as Facebook, but its searches were just better, its searches were just better.
Why were they better? Oh, you’re standing in New York city. So obviously maybe it’s contextual to what’s around you. Maybe the weather is cold. So Google’s original cookie, which they’re now getting rid of, was so laden with data. If you could mine that sucker, you won.
It knew all of the signals. And I used to call it, signal gathering in terms of the more signal you had, the more accurate you became. And the more you look like sort of a savant. So our AI, like you said, isn’t really smart and Siri’s terrible because it doesn’t know much. It doesn’t even know intent.
So as humans, why is it that we can speak with somebody with a very heavy accent sometimes?
Because we know the context of what’s happening and why we got there.
It’s not just lip reading. It’s because when we’re with them, we do our own interpretive dance. I think that if you tie the two together, what you just said about, you know, these other little signal things, you could pull it off.
Pablos: I assume we’re gonna get the latter for free. That’s gonna happen. AIs will be stunted until they start to have access to everything and know everything about me and my context in real time. So that’s all gonna happen anyway, and there’s such momentum around that. So I think we get that for free and even if you didn’t, having a conversation with ChatGPT right now will probably convince you that it’s, like, good enough that we’re going this direction one way or another.
Ash: The reason I bring all this up is, can you imagine if, instead of having to whisper, what if all I have to do is have my phone out, and I just say yes or no, or I say more? Go back to my Starship Trooper obsession of, “would you like to know more?” What’s interesting is, imagine in your scenario, you’re having this sub vocal conversation, but instead of you having to have any conversation, ChatGPT has heard you and it’s like, ” oh, alter ego,
Pablos: No, no, I get it. One of my friends, figured out that you could get through life with only four words, fuck, man, dude, and totally. If you just have those four words, you can get through life because you can express a multitude of things with just those four words.
Totally.
Ash: Totally.
Your response, totally. Funny enough though, right? That may solve some of your problems because you could whisper a little
Pablos: Yeah, yeah.
Ash: And not have to do long things.
Pablos: Yeah. Right. Exactly. No, you’re totally right. And that’s what you do with your friends. And the closer you are to your friends, like if you’re just hanging out with somebody you’ve known for a long time, you can have a lot of communication with very little actual content. If I watch my daughter and her best friend hanging out, they’re incomprehensible because they have like, shortcodes for memes, everything they see or talk about or discuss is related to some other thing that I wasn’t part of and like they’re foreign objects to me. I think that is kind of what you’re describing. Like at some point,
Ash: So go back to your Venezuelan, right? If you go back to that conversation and they’re sending you a voice note. Now, let’s say that voice notes processed and parsed and read by our GPT friend, and it comes back and gives you a summary, five sentence. So you don’t even have to look. It just whispers it in your head. Like he wants to know, should he edit the podcast? I don’t know, whatever it is. And you could just go back and be like, just hit the yes button, right? I mean, you could go back and say, totally. You could do one of your four words.
Pablos: Yeah, totally. No, you got to try it. I tried it. You can go for days without using any other words. But yeah, I think that gets more possible. Like with a human, the more shared experience you have, the more shared context, shared vocabulary, the more concise you can be in your interactions.
And so it stands to reason that an AI that knows you really well could get to the point where. All you gotta do is nod or wink and you’re done, on a lot of things cause it knows how to set you up to make a quick decision.
Ash: If it can formulate the outbound response in long form, and all you have to say is totally…
Pablos: Mm hmm, yep.
Ash: Then you’re good, right? That’s usually the problem with these voices, with getting those voices. I’ve got those too, where people, it is the Latin America thing. They just love, like, I don’t know what’s going on. It was Brazil too, just, people just go off. And they have a recording. I’m like, you do understand, if I could listen to this, I wouldn’t be texting you. That’s like, I would pick up the phone and just phone you if I can, if I could have a dialogue, I would have one. When I saw that, I was like, well, can you just tell me like what’s in the voice recording?
That’s what we’re looking for. The other thing to think of, and I thought this is where you were going before, you were talking about the sub vocal thing, It’s almost like the Babelfish thing, for all the fans of Hitchhiker’s Guide. I just had this crazy problem happen, which was, I’d ordered an Uber, and I’m sending information to the Uber driver in English, and the Uber driver is replying in Spanish, but I have a little translate button, but I don’t think they had a translate button. And at some point they just simply just said, no hable ingles. I tried to give the directions to my house, finally, I had to run into the street. I sent my daughter out into the street, like someone went out and we’re trying to tell them like, go to the yellow house.
And I’m like, does anyone remember the word yellow? I realized that I was getting translate and they just didn’t speak English. I think that maybe there’s this universal input concept. If someone sends you a voice message, it not just transcribes it, but maybe it automatically just dumps it into like concise format. Or to the other person, it reads it to them. So you pick your poison of consumption, like the way you like to consume it, and you just build a proxy in the sky that just It just takes care of all this.
There’s like a universal proxy, like a little babble bot that sits in the world. And I think you could get pretty far with that. And then you use that to feed ChatGPT. And then you use that to go with the totally man, dude, fuck, right? That’s your sequence to that. And then you add your sort of exotic input mechanisms for your sub vocal and everything else.
So I could like, you know. Whisper.
Pablos: So job one is all the people making AIs need to figure out how to make them mine so that I have my own that I can love and trust and have for life.
Job two is they need to make that thing know everything about me, I’m not just a lowest common denominator, I’m me and I need, I need my AI to really know me.
Job three is we’ve got to come up with some clever hardware for doing sub vocal input and it could be something that you wear like a headset that just see through the side of your face and see what’s going on in your mouth and your tongue and your embouchure
Ash: Well, it could be like a body cam, just clip it on.
Pablos: It could be something like that, something that looks up at you. I don’t know, it’s hard to mount something that sees the front of your face very well, a phone does, though. And even if you had to just aim the phone at your face for it to work. That would be a good start. And I think you could do that today without making any hardware.
Ash: Yeah, well, you could put it into your Apple watch. Just hold it up. it’s like Dick Tracy.
Pablos: There’s no camera yet, but next apple Watch will.
Ash: Yeah, next Apple will have a little camera, so you just hold that up. It doesn’t even have to, you just have, you don’t even have to hold it up because if you’re using your little radar or LIDAR thing, you just have to have your hand out a little bit. Gesture control on steroids.
Pablos: Did you see they put like a gesture control in the new Apple Watch, but it only knows one gesture, which is you pinch your fingers together and it can detect that. I haven’t tried it yet.
Ash: The other thing I was going to say is I wanted to add what you said about your daughter’s thing is that if the AI becomes your buddy, then the total bandwidth between your AI and you will start to decrease.
The requirement will decrease because you’ll just be able to speak in your own code. You’ll be able to be like, yeah, that thing that we worked on last week, dude.
Pablos: Mm hmm.
Ash: And then it’ll just know,
Pablos: Exactly. Right.
Ash: the other way that it’s going to help. So it all starts with that first step, though.
It’s got to twin you a little bit. Little little scary on the privacy side.
Pablos: That’s where, some of these, some of these folks working on OpenAI competitors have certainly, gotten onto that notion. Allegedly Apple is trying to figure out how to make the LLM’s local, so they run on your device and presumably that’s part of the rationale beyond just, justifying you having to buy a faster device and also, make it low latency.
Recorded on January 8, 2024
Coffee ＆ Cement – ØF
Jan 16, 2024
Pablos: There’s this idea that was just published that you could produce concrete and make it stronger by adding charred coffee grounds to the mix. And this is some research out of Australia.
So concrete, if it’s not obvious, is like the most used material on the entire planet, aside from oil, which we burn. Cement, is in everything, and it’s this like staggering scale problem. Partly because of its contribution to greenhouse gases, right? So when you make cement, you’re burning some shit to make a bunch of heat to make the cement and you need that heat and there are ideas to decarbonize cement by electrifying cement plants.
But then there’s this chemical process going on, which is the bulk of the carbon emissions. And there’s just no way to get rid of that. So that’s kind of the lay of the land. Interestingly, about half of all the cement in the entire world is made in China. That country is basically made of cement. This is one of the major targets for trying to do reductions of carbon emissions. And these guys figured out how to use coffee grounds. It’s not totally clear to me that they’re using, uh, used coffee grounds, I presume that’s the case, because there’s 10 billion Kilograms of used coffee waste every year that mostly ends up as biomass rotting in landfills. So this is worth solving.
I thought this was kind of interesting. You can’t just take the coffee and throw it in the cement because the oils and stuff in it will seep out and actually make the cement fall apart. They invented this pyrolyzing process where you basically heat up the coffee grounds to a specific, pretty high target temperature, around 500 C, I guess.
That’ll get rid of the oils presumably, and makes it into an additive you can just throw into the cement mix and it makes it 30 percent stronger. So I got two things that are kind of interesting, related to this.
We Have a company our fund backed called DMAT, and these guys figured out how to make cement that’s lower carbon, but the way they do it, is they solved this 2000 year old mystery in material science, which is, how did the Romans make cement?
Ash: I was going to bring that up.
Pablos: Yeah. Cause they made the, the Pantheon to like two millennia ago and it’s still there. It’s unreinforced concrete in a seismic zone. And then they, somehow got busy, watching Netflix or something and got bored and forgot all about how to make cement. And then nobody’s been able to figure it out ever since.
Ash: They were just looking at the colosseum. They were like, Hey, I’d rather look at the lion. Maximus Aurelius or whomever. And then that’s it. They’re like, forget it.
Pablos: Look at the cool lion. Oh shit. The lion ate the guy who knows how to make the cement.
Ash: Literally probably what happened.
Pablos: That is literally probably what happened. So anyway, I got this team at MIT that figured it out.
Ash: It was self healing, right?
Pablos: We figured that out a little while ago. It’s self healing because what happens with cement is it fractures, water seeps into the cracks and then destroys the cement from the inside out. And that’s what’s happening to our bridges and everything else we made. And so to make it stronger and handle that, we load it up with steel rebar.
So it’s steel reinforced, and then it still only lasts 50 years. The Roman cements, apparently lasting at least 2000 years. And what happens is it just gets stronger because when it cracks, water seeps into the cracks and it activates these lime deposits that are trapped in there. And so then the lime fills the crack and seals it up and heals the cement.
Presumably the colosseum is just getting stronger over time. Now we know how to do that. So we can make cement that lasts virtually forever, use less of it, use less steel, and the kicker is, it’s about 20 percent less CO2, out of the box without even trying. That’s pretty dramatic considering the, the scale of the problem and the lack of other practical ways of decarbonizing. So these might be compatible, right? You might be able to also use this coffee additive.
What I like about this is that cement is such a big thing. Most people just take it for granted. They don’t know how. Intensive this is from a carbon emissions standpoint and the scale of it. this. You know like we can actually make things way, way better. with some of these ideas.
Ash: And the way they were doing it, the Romans had volcanic rocks, so they had this ability to automatically have the little bubbles in it. But I think what’s interesting is that, some people are like, oh, can we put plastic? Isn’t that where we just got in trouble with microplastics?
Let’s solve one problem and then really screw up something else. The idea I was thinking is maybe this is where the coffee ground becomes like the aeration, right? Cause the whole structure was that as the bubbles popped, that was how the lime.
Seeped back in, right? The water combined.
Pablos: I think that was one of the theories that was debunked. I’m not positive, but I think that was the, like the prevailing idea, or it was kind of a half baked idea of like how this happened. And I think that is not what actually, it’s nothing to do with the volcanic rock after all.
Ash: It wasn’t the volcanic, right? They had a couple , right? One was like some guy was trying to do bacteria. five, six years ago. That was the other crazy one, which was like, we will just have a living organism inside. The other question is, during production, can you trap, can you use it to just trap the stuff? Like, if you look at, was it clean, right? If you look at those guys,
Pablos: So that’s what DMAT solved. And they do it with this process called hot mixing. Which apparently was considered dumb for, I don’t know, centuries or something. And so nobody tried it. Apparently using hot mixing they can get the lime deposits optimally trapped in the cement. I don’t know all the details.
Ash: I like it.
Pablos: Yeah, so we’ll get them on the podcast sometime and have them explain all the all the ins and outs. But yeah, pretty cool stuff.
Ash: The challenge with almost all of these carbon reduction technologies is scale. Oh, hey, we’re going to take carbon out of the sky. And it’s like, okay, what did, what was the impact?
Well, it’s like half a car.
Pablos: Right because the sky is like the most entropic source of carbon there is. Literally, the number 400 parts per million. Well, let’s see. If you had a haystack, and you had, 400 needles and, a million pieces of straw, good luck finding a needle.
It’s literally, the hardest possible place to get carbon. If you want to, sequester carbon, the thing to do would be to just, leave the fucking coal in the ground. Where it’s, the highest density of carbon you could find. So yeah, it’s, it’s kind of idiotic.
Most of these things kind of solve themselves if you solve energy. If you had like a shit ton of free energy, then yeah, you could go do carbon capture from the atmosphere, but, otherwise it’s pretty painful.
Ash: The problem is, yeah, like you said, unless you can turn it back into like a diamond or something, like you said, put it back into coal.
These magma guys are, are cranking. Maybe we can use those guys. You’ve heard of the magma guys?
Pablos: What’s the magma guys?
Ash: These guys were doing the near magma experiment.
They’re like, we’re just going to go 6, 000 feet, like just a little over a mile. What’s a mile? 5,280 feet? So you just go a little bit into the mantle. Just tap into that hyper geothermal.
Pablos: I don’t know what you’re talking about.
Ash: Oh, so there’s a project, just came out a couple of days ago that they revealed that they have a timeline on 2025. They’re going to do two. One is an open magma bubble, it’s in Iceland and then they’re going to do another one on top of it. They’re going to build like a little station and they’re going to go straight down. This is poking the bear, I would say.
Pablos: So they’re basically trying to do a man made volcano.
Ash: Yes, yes, that’s the, that’s the way to think of it.
Pablos: Iceland doesn’t have enough volcanoes.
Ash: There’s not enough problems where you could just suddenly drill a hole and burst the pimple of God, right? I don’t
Pablos: People are worried about AI, and here we are trying to make a cousin for Eyjafjallajökull.
Ash: I like it because someone’s like, “there’s infinite heat.” And I’m like, “yeah, but it’s kind of down there for a reason.” Didn’t work out too well for a lot of people, right?
Pablos: I don’t understand, I guess if you succeeded at drilling that hole, then I think you would have basically the same thing as the makings of a volcano.
Ash: Yeah, but they’re trying to contain it, right? They somehow feel like, like they could drill in a place…
Pablos: You’re going to have to cycle it because if it cools, even if the magma comes up and cools, it’s just going to plug your hole.
Ash: So the point is that they have to get a turbine to magma, magma rotating. It’s wild. It’s going to be interesting. just liked the idea that, that someone’s literally poking the bear.
Pablos: Oh, they definitely should try.
Ash: Cause you know, we talk about fusion being risky, but this one I just feel has a lot more problems.
Pablos: Yeah, I think they’re just gonna, the magma is just gonna plug the hole.
Ash: No, they’ve got, they’ve got, some ideas. Yeah, well, it is pressure. It’s under pressure. That’s why I keep calling it a pimple.
Pablos: Yeah, that’s why volcanoes get made, right?
Ash: That’s why they gotta go to Iceland. But, the interesting thing is, if you could technically, if you could maintain pressurization all the way up to the top, right, then it can stay magmatic and you could technically build some sort of, high velocity magma drive.
That’s, what they’re thinking of. And that will just keep cycling. Cooling, but just spinning this turbine.
Pablos: What do you do with the magma that comes up hot?
Ash: It becomes like a, a river.
Pablos: You run the turbine, but then where does it go?
You gonna pump it back down?
Ash: Yeah, it’s as if you were in a magma flow, right? So magma continues to move.
It continues, it has a lot of movement, which people don’t realize. Look, the minute I heard drill 6,000 feet into a thin crust lava magma I sort of went, Hmm, this cannot end well.
That’s, that’s the way I looked at it. But who knows?
Pablos: But it’s just Iceland, so you know, there’s only like 130,000 people there. They’re tough though. If anybody can handle it…
Ash: Don’t you remember? Didn’t, they stop all transatlantic flights? You remember right? There’s like a little Ash: cloud and, so just Iceland, but it’s, it’s literally on the jet stream. We Have a few airplanes crossing right over Iceland.
No more going to Europe or vice versa.
Pablos: Yeah, well, we overdid it anyway.
Europe is basically just like a suburb of the U.S. now.
Ash: And Brexit. So, you know,
Pablos: There’s a lot of people who are trying to figure out how to decarbonize cement and it stalls out in part because there’s like four or five thousand cement plants around the world, and they all cost $100 million to build in the first place. A lot of the ideas for decarbonizing cement require building a new plant.
And even if you could build one, you’re not going to build 4,000 of them. They’re Just non starters. And that’s part of why I like DMAT is that they can integrate in any cement plant with basically zero capex. You can just go in and upgrade, turn some knobs, and make a new formula. So, that’s super cool, and hopefully this coffee based additive would have that property as well.
Ash: I think what’s interesting is just the coffee part of all this conversation.
Pablos: If I go back to that article, it says that there’s, 10 billion kilograms, which is 22 billion pounds of coffee waste a year. I presume this is post consumer grounds.
Ash: This is probably commercial coffee grounds that they can track using, like, Starbucks. It doesn’t include what we take home.
Pablos: So it’s at least something like three pounds of coffee grounds per human, for every man, woman, and child on Earth. I don’t even drink coffee. So somebody else is doing double.
The other one that we, got excited about and backed is this, startup called Marvel Labs. What’s exciting there is they figured out how to use the used coffee grounds as an input material for 3D printers.
That sounds like kind of a cute thing, but the truth is it’s staggering implications. And it’s because 3D printers, they’re called rapid prototypers because we used them in labs and they were very expensive and impractical for a long time. And then in 2007, one of my buddies helped start MakerBot, and I was an advisor for MakerBot, which was the first consumer 3D printer. And so we thought we were gonna eventually build farms of these things like AWS, you’d just have a data center full of MakerBots and you’d wire them up to the “buy now” button, and whenever you clicked “buy now,” a MakerBot would print your stuff and then print a box around it and then print a FedEx label on it. It would show up in the mail. Obviously that didn’t happen, and here we are 15 years later, and you don’t buy anything on Amazon that’s 3D printed. There’s two big reasons. One is they’re one pixel printers, so they’re super slow, and that makes it expensive. And then the other part of it is that the input materials are expensive, so you’ve got these high quality filaments, plastic filaments and things that are expensive. At the end of the day, you’re competing with injection molding, which is like the cheapest way of making anything on Earth. And so, it hasn’t worked out.
There’s a couple of exceptions. So for example, with metals, 3d printing of metals has worked out pretty well for two reasons. One, they’re higher value parts. So you’re printing, you know, jet parts and rockets and stuff. But also the technique in the printers is it’s a powder bed, so you have this bin of powder, you run over it with a binder, like glue, from an inkjet head or a laser or something to sinter it together, and then, you pick up your part and shake it off, and you’ve got this part that was printed in a bed of dust.
It’s actually a very elegant way of making a 3D printer, and it’s faster, because they’re more like layer at a time instead of pixel at a time. Anyway, so what Marvel Labs did is they adapted that style of printer, which is fast, but the input material is these used coffee grounds and what the effect of that is, is now they can print stuff out of coffee.
They’re making all kinds of stuff. Sinks and light fixtures and bicycles and things. And the parts come out of the machine. They’re made of coffee and then they just powder coat them with paint or metalize them so they look like metal and you can’t even tell that it’s made of coffee. And so this whole thing works awesome, but the main reason that it’s important , and the reason that we invested, is that it flips the economics.
So now, these parts that Marvel Labs is making, they’ve reshored manufacturing, they manufacture stuff in the U. S., they do it fully automated. And the parts are cheaper than doing it in Asia. That’s what’s exciting to me. They’re also printing with seaweed. They’re printing with sawdust.
All the technologies they invented to make it work are about, printing with biomass in general. They’re kind of the kingpin. Now we can get this whole vision together of producing things on demand in 3D printers in the U. S.
Ash: It’s interesting because several things, right? One is, like you said, it’s not just, the on demand. All of our strategic risk starts to change, right? Think of what happens when, we get to a point where we’re having another pandemic or, I don’t know, they go after Taiwan.
Supply chain changes if you’re suddenly local, right? As long as we can get enough coffee into the system, we have enough of our own source material.
Pablos: Ha, Ha, ha, ha. As a matter of national security, Americans are being asked to drink
more coffee.
Ash: It’s a national security imperative that you get a frappuccino.
Pablos: Well, I found out China just surpassed the U. S. as having the most Starbucks locations.
Ash: China did.
Frightening. I mean, Japan, Starbucks, whole different story. I was just looking at the botanical
Starbucks in Japan,
Starbucks is its own, own different conversation. But I was going to say that when you think about all of this, the implications for logistics, and one thing I wasn’t sure on, on the way that they produced, what was their binding material?
Because I know they’re, one of the things they were talking about was biodegradability.
Pablos: Marvel Labs has invented a variety of different binders. One of them is entirely sugar based. They use it with seaweed and they can make these biodegradable parts. Which is really cool, and then they have some top secret binders they invented that are super cool and they’re not ready to announce them yet, but it’s awesome.
Ash: I saw some of the pieces.
Pablos: Yeah. Oh, that’s right.
Ash: I got to actually play around with it. I, I think what’s amazing to me is that the idea that you can cut production time. I don’t know if it was an experiment or if they still do it, but remember there was Amazon Now. Where like they had little trucks going around and, and they had like USB cables or like whatever you needed, like that minute.
Pablos: circulating your neighborhood With, that was loaded with the things that they predicted, were going to be bought.
Ash: Yeah, 100%. That’s what it was, right? They predicted that, everyone in Palo Alto needs like an extra USB cable. And they had one and you could get it like one hour delivery.
Pablos: But that truck could just have a 3D printer in the back.
Ash: That’s exactly it. Right? Like imagine, how big are these things? How big are the printers?
Pablos: The printers are, I’d say like 80 percent of the printer is the print bed by volume. So, if you have a printer the size of a refrigerator, 20 percent of it is gantry and other crap. And that’s pretty typical of 3D printers, I guess you could say.
And at least in a powder bed style printer. And the rest of the volume is printable. So, these printers are actually quite large. And one of the nice things about a powder bed printer is that you could just print a whole bunch of parts at once. You just fill up the bed with parts because they’re just floating in powder because the powder is like the support
material as well. It makes it easy to do big batches of stuff. If you’re printing coffee mugs, you can print it and you got a fridge size printer. You can print, a couple hundred mugs or whatever all at the same time. And then, they just come out of there.
I’d say 3D printing’s future, over the next 10 years or so will be really focused on figuring out how to make multi material printers. There’s a little bit of work on that now, especially trying to be able to do conductive materials. It’d be great to be able to print something like a game controller or a pair of headphones or something, have some of the wires printed in it.
Ash: Maybe you have the recycled aluminum just like get blasted and powderized.
I know of a magma plant coming up that might be able to…
Pablos: Can we make a magma, printer?
Ash: You take the aluminum, you feed it into the magma god and it comes out powderized.
Pablos: Well, most aluminum comes from Iceland anyway. Aluminum is essentially made of electricity and they have access to cheap, clean
electricity,
Ash: That’s the, the, secret, right? So we have infinite power and then they’re just producing the conductive dust. One of the things I was thinking is like, how do you market this, right? Because we have to get a behavioral change on consumption.
It’s so easy to go with fast fAsh:ion, fast goods. We’re addicted, I don’t know if you’ve ever seen Wish?
Pablos: Oh, uh, I know what it is, but I’ve seen Temu. I signed up for Temu. I ordered some shit before I found out it was obviously Chinese spyware app. And I um, I, bought some shit Temu cause it was so cheap. They’re like paying you to take this stuff. And then it was like worse than infomercial products. Like I got these things and they’re the cheapest possible things. And they had used like trick photography. I bought this bottle of, a cleaning product, I have it right here. I’m looking at it. It’s this bottle called Foam Cleaner. I’m like, oh cool, I’ll use that to clean the shower. I don’t know what, kind of bug eye lens they must’ve used to photograph this thing. But when it showed up, the bottle itself is literally a 60 milliliter bottle, which is, that’s like the size of, it’s like a large bottle of nail polish,
Ash: It’s like, It’s like, not even a perfume bottle.
Pablos: And then it’s got the full size spray head that you’d have on a bottle of Windex or something on it. So this whole thing, it looks like a joke. Nobody would ever do this. I’ve never seen a bottle this small with this big, like the spray head by volume is bigger than the bottle.
Ash: So basically you’ve got a bobblehead cleaner.
That’s what you’re saying. Bobblehead but foam cleaner. That’s it. That’s it. We can market it.
Pablos: Yeah. I mean, I’m afraid to spray it because you know, like if I pull that trigger more than three times, the bottle will be empty.
Ash: I’m sure it’s not a neurotoxin or anything.
Pablos: Okay. But anyway, the point being. Yeah, it’s Temu and Wish and all this bullshit. I don’t know about consumer behavior change. You would know more than me. What are the odds that we’re ever gonna be in a world where people buy less shit?
Ash: It’s not that we buy less. I’m trying to figure out if we can shift them, right? Think about it. At one point, we were all obsessed around Gore Tex, it was like the magic, right?
We had just left our class on osmosis and we were like, wow, it’s like osmosis in a fabric, we were excited.
Pablos: Maybe explain how Gore Tex works.
Ash: Gore Tex’s whole idea was about breathability, where the pores on the fabric were supposed to for air to go out, but water not to come in.
Pablos: Which works because…
Ash: It’s surface tension allows the droplets to hold more together, so they’re bigger than the water vapor molecules going out, right? So, so the molecular sizes are different. So you can create this sort of barrier. Now there’s 50 versions of this to Sunday. But, Gore Tex was, was something which became a brand name, right?
I don’t know if it was before Intel Inside, but it was kind of the same concept, right?
Saw a little label on Gore Tex.
Pablos: It’s like the Dolby of outerwear.
Ash: It is. It was the Dolby of Outerwear.
So I think somehow we’ve got to build that kind of reputational or brand concept, For example, if it’s the seaweed and sugar and everything nice, right?
Pablos: Okay. I see. Full circle brand where it’s like “buy as much of this shit as you want. Whenever you’re done we’re just gonna turn it into the next shit you’re gonna buy.”
Ash: it’s not just recyclable…
Pablos: It’s like infinitely recyclable.
Recycling is a is a joke.
Ash: And the amount of energy and stuff that it takes is is sort of crazy, on that as well, right? So that’s that’s one of the, the sort of big, big problems that that happens with it. And I think one of the challenges is that we’ve got to figure out a way.
That, something like what we’re talking about in terms of, this new product, this new mechanism, this new process can be Gore Tex’d. Or Dolby’d, and a little bit more than like this is recyclable. I think we’re kind of over it, right? Like we’ve seen the little symbol, we don’t even know what’s going on anymore. I know that in most countries they have like, at least like five bins. I think most Americans can’t figure out like. What’s up? There’s a blue box.
Pablos: You could imagine a version of this where, ultimately everything is just made of, some atoms, right? They have to come from somewhere. And then the energy it costs to, move them around and stick them together. So. You know, if you sort of just take that approach, you could say, okay, this stuff is made of this much joules and, this many atoms, like you could basically measure everything that way.
Then you could say like, all right, well, the total cost of ownership in a given product could be added up that way. The cost of like mining all the shit, the cost of transporting around the world, the cost of, burning stuff to make it, whatever it takes. If you added that up for any object, it would probably be staggering.
In the long run, you would, you, what you would like to do is track things that way and then be able to say, okay, this is kind of a full circle product, like an apple is probably like the closest you get maybe to a product that is low impact, it grows, we there, there’s some energy cost in transporting it from a farm to your mouth, and then you eat it, you throw out a quarter of it as biomass.
Ash: When you say an Apple, not your iPhone.
Pablos: Oh yeah, I’m talking about like an actual physical apple. The kind you can eat. Yeah. Not an phone. Granny Smith, not a Macintosh.
Ash: But maybe that’s the score, right?
Pablos: I think your Intel inside becomes…
Ash: is it net negative? Is it net positive?
Pablos: It’s net negative or it’s like close to the threshold of about an apple instead of being, at the threshold of like about a Tesla.
Ash: That may be the interesting way to do it? So maybe a dynamic symbol is the way to think of it, right? So instead of the old Intel Inside or Dolby Atmos or whatever’s going on, or Gore Tex, maybe it’s about the level. Is there a number? Is there a score?
Lasered in or 3D printed into the object itself or, or anything that you look at, it just tells you that this has a small number or a small something that people can understand that’s better or higher or whatever.
Pablos: Energy star.
Ash: I look at something like calories. Like years and years ago, we all started getting obsessed and that definitely the generation that grew up with cereal boxes, who had nothing better to read. And we didn’t have a iPhone to scroll. We read cereal boxes. We knew more about niacin and potassium in your cornflakes than any human should ever know.
Pablos: It’s true. I read a lot of cereal boxes.
Ash: That’s what you’d read. You read, you’d read the cereal box. When they changed the USDA standard for what you can see inside, the bigger format I remember that was like a big change on the packaging design. That was something where we could see the calories and then we realized, per standard serving size or whatever it was. And I think that at some point, the same thing has to happen, right? Each object that we consume or buy, can have that. There’s actually a company. That we’re looking at, called Love, like seriously called love.com. Uh, uh, I won’t go into much more about that, but they’re actually trying to change this, like specifically change this idea. They’re trying to build an Amazon. First of all, they have love.com. I sort of tossed out the idea that it’s powered by love.
And that way, it can have a score, each thing you’re buying. They curate what’s allowed to be sold on there. So it’s like an Amazon, but like, we’re going to get rid of
Pablos: So all you need is love. Love is all you need?
Ash: It’s true. That’s their eventual goal is to go head to head with Amazon. A billionaire multi time, entrepreneur who’s kicking this off. What’s interesting, though, is I think people will start to recognize this.
Pablos: Yeah, you could do some big branding campaign around, certified green or whatever, but it seems so like all these things are so gameable. I mean like calories, even like, I understand this as a kid, but now that I know what a calorie is like…
Ash: It’s totally gameable.
Pablos: Oh my god, that’s a totally fake thing that we made up that’s, like, barely a measure of anything.
Ash: That’s why I picked it. I was going to say that with good numbers come good evil, right? Are you drinking a 12 ounce can of Coke? Was it like eight ounces? What did they do? It’s interesting how it became a complete nonsense number? It mattered. We learned later that maybe the mix matters, and it wasn’t about the sodium. And there’s a lot of little bits that didn’t matter. The question becomes, can you build something genuinely?
There’s another company, we invested in, Dollar Donation Club.
And what’s interesting about them is, when Seth, who’s the founder, said, “Hey, I’m going to see if we could create the world’s first super philanthropist.” The idea that if we all gave a dollar a month, technically it’s billions of dollars. You can make a lot of changes.
He said,” where am I going to give the money? I don’t want to be another money place. I want to be something where I can see the impact.” So he built a giant impact map of things he wanted to do. And he said, “okay, I want to know exactly how many kilos of microplastic are removed for my donation.”
Like, I don’t care that I donate $1, $2. I was like, I’m willing to go and take out a kilo. Well, it turned out he can only get to like, I forget what the number is like 11 or 20 charities. It took that long and that his professional teams, like when they vet out what the charity really does.
Pablos: Yeah.
Ash: Almost no one qualified. So I think this is the unfortunate thing that’s going to happen, right? So if our coffee friends bring it full circle, if Marvel can really like just crush it. Like they can demonstrate there’s an actual true cost reduction I’m talking about from Guangzhou to, Columbus. By the time it gets there, like what actually happened and then the return leg, right? Like what happens on the back if, if that’s actually a real score. That we can defend. Maybe that’s what Marvel has to do.
Pablos: The way it should be done probably is kind of like, consumer reports. There ought to be, like, life cycle metrics made for, the product coming outta Marvel Labs versus its competitor that came from Guangzhou. Here’s your Samsung versus iPhone versus, Nokia or whatever and somebody does the research and figures out; this is the mining footprint; this is the shipping cost. This is how much, energy was burned. The factory is running off of a coal plant versus a nuclear reactor or whatever.
Ash: Like Energy Star, but like it actually makes sense as opposed to Energy Star.
Pablos: Yeah, and that could be given a score in joules that just ranks these things against each other.
Ash: But we’re talking about three ideas here, right? So that one idea is to get somebody to come out there and say, look, fundamentally, product life cycle measurement is something someone should go build, like someone should, whether it’s independent of Marvel or not, somebody should do it. And then different manufacturers or, or whether it’s a 3D printer of type company or someone else should go in and say, look, let’s show you why we are the lowest score, the highest score, whatever the, whichever one’s considered the better thing.
And then we have to create education and marketing on that, to say, Hey, if you’re not doing this, you, you are literally creating damage.
Pablos: There must be initiatives like this that we don’t know about. An interesting thing to consider is an iPhone is made of whatever, 2000 components. Some of them are like screws that Apple sourced and didn’t manufacture. Where was the metal for the screws mined? Where’s the factory for the screws? How far are the screws traveling to get to the iPhone factory? All that kind of stuff. And so you would, eventually if this were fully played out, when you design an iPhone and CAD, it would just tell you, where your screws are coming from.
We already have the environmental impact score for those screws. Pick the ones that have the lower score.
Ash: So this is like an SAP thing. So go back to, Fast moving consumer goods. So in the FMCG world, one of the things that’s really interesting is something called, smart label and smart label is interesting because it said, Hey, like ingredients don’t cut it.
I want to know like really what’s going on, it goes really deep, you can dive into the label, but where did you source it? Like, is it really honey from here or what was going on? I think Nestle, I think some of the biggest players all support it.
Procter and Gamble, all these guys are on smart, smart label. Now that’s interesting because you’re almost already there, for those guys, you’re pretty close, but that’s for food.
Hopefully that’s mostly biodegradable. Otherwise we have other problems in life.
Pablos: Yeah, that’s interesting. Maybe that could be extended so that all the, the ingredients of my, headphones…
Ash: Exactly. Could you extend that construct? I actually think back to another company, from years ago, it is one of my patents, from a while back.
it was a company called, Black Duck Software. You were talking about, as you’re sitting there with your CAD, I was thinking of, open source. Remember it was like, “”are you using something that’s gonna infect the rest of your project?” When you’re coding in Eclipse or something and you’re like, oh, let me just grab this little…
Pablos: You accidentally scoop up some GPL library…
Ash: Yeah, it’s an LGPL or something. It happened to Fidelity. Their entire mortgage calculator, their entire mortgage algorithm had to be open sourced because they used a website plug in. So, they eventually invested in the company. Obviously, they invested in us.
But what was good is that, when you, were able to sit down and look at the project, it would tell you immediately, like, if you put this in there, you will like, have to open source your print driver.
Pablos: All that should just be in CAD. A lot of CAD software has a plug in to tell you how much it’s going to cost to machine that part that you made based on the design. And it could easily tell you how much material it’s going to take and how much material cost there’s going to be.
But you could extend on that and say, you chose these screws. Here’s how much they’re going to cost. Here’s what the lead times are. All that’s in SAP already. And then it tells you, this is the environmental footprint of the screws you chose.
Ash: And now you can tie that into some exchanges or B2B sourcing companies and just say, okay, give me a scenario. I want to automatically reduce my carbon or my, my total footprint. Where else could I source, right? So maybe instead of titanium screws, I have to manufacture for this new titanium iPhone from like some Russian mine where the titanium lives.
Pablos: be seven Web3 companies trying to do this already.
Ash: I think what they miss. And this is something that I think is an interesting part of the journey, right? That you and I also take is it sometimes great technology and great back end stuff doesn’t hit the front.
The only reason calories don’t matter today because we woke up and realized that somebody paid off the cardiologists to get us to eat margarine and told us that sugar was, okay and fat was terrible.
That was programming, right? That was maybe we need some good programming. I mean, we got programmed the wrong way. Maybe we need to program people. To see the right thing. And I don’t know that we could be seen as altruistic or that we’re necessarily not, not commercially motivated.
I think that there’s some way that today because of information and speed of information, I think we can create some level of transparency, like you said. And then we can turn around and say, back in the day, I couldn’t tell you where my, millet was coming from for the food.
Today we can, Smart Label will tell you literally where that food comes from.
I think we could do something fun, fun with that. Someone should go do that.
Pablos: Yeah. Someone should go do that, which is, one of the main points of doing this podcast is that hopefully we’ll come up with ideas that somebody else should go do.
Recorded on January 8, 2024
Science Historian — George Dyson
Jan 11, 2024
I got to know George Dyson 23 years ago. When we started Blue Origin, one of the really cool and unusual things that happened is we hired a historian. We hired George to be there at the beginning and kind of see where this all began. We thought – not just because of hubris – we thought it was such a unique moment in history, to be able to try and make a go at going to space. George had us print shit out and stick it in a box. He said one of the big problems for historians is these days everything’s digital and just floats away and disappears and nobody has access to it. We’re losing this historical record, and I thought that was so interesting.
The truth is, George is just one of the most delightful people I know. He’s a wonderful human who has lived an absurdly unique life. An intense sense of humility, an intellect that I think is just world-class even though he opted not to take the route of building all the credentials. I learn a lot hanging out with George. As I’m sure most people know, he’s the son of the famous physicist Freeman Dyson. And Freeman died about a year before we recorded this at age 99. Freeman was a wonderful human with an expansive mind that contributed to so many different areas in physics. A lot of the ideas that we are still trying to figure out how to do in the universe, came from Freeman.
And so George grew up, obviously with Freeman, but at a time when Freeman was at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, with other luminaries in science. With John Von Neumann, with Einstein around, and so it made for George into a pretty unique guy.
I’m just thrilled to finally share him with you. We recorded this at his Tavern in Bellingham, Washington. George Lived in a tree house in his twenties, barefoot. We talk about that a little bit, but then he ended up taking the earnings from his first book and buying this old Tavern in Bellingham. It still is still serves as his workshop. We recorded there and as you’ll hear, it’s by the train tracks and we get a lot of noise from the train tracks. I apologize for any audio issues. I really screwed up the audio and we did everything we could to try and clean it up and make it good for you.
Here’s the dumbest thing in the world. You pull up to an intersection, the light is red, there’s no one else in sight and you have to sit there and wait for it to turn green.
Traffic lights are the dumbest thing in the world. And this is insufferable because right now, if you, if you’re in a Tesla, the Tesla knows, Oh, no one’s coming from any other direction. It would totally be safe to go, but you can’t because the light is red. I think what somebody needs to do is rip the guts out of a Tesla, mount them in a traffic light and let the traffic light decide when it should be green or red.
How hard is this? This is easy to do. it’s going to take years to upgrade traffic lights, but that’s at least one startup. Somebody should be able to do that. We have all the tech, it’s not that hard. We can use vision or radars or whatever.
Ash: You’re not gonna believe me. So, funny enough, uh, Columbus, Ohio. Project, Pre- Razorfish, Traffic Lights.
Pablos: Wait, that’s a real, that’s a real project?
Ash: It’s a real thing! It’s a real
Pablos: Wait, so somebody did this in Columbus?
Ash: No, us!
Pablos: Oh, you did this?
Ash: is what we were doing!
Pablos: Wait,
Ash: You couldn’t have possibly known that!
Pablos: No, I didn’t. No, seriously, you, you, you worked on a project like this. I didn’t know.
Ash: I mean, yeah, so, yeah, so what was interesting is that project was, so I keep hired to figure out traffic light optimization and it’s, you know, it’s really, really fucking complicated. Like there’s a lot of math to, to make sure that, you know, you know, like that.
To get people going in one direction and all that stuff and, that problem was being solved. And one of them was, do you start going flashy? Back then they didn’t have the little Tesla thing. Right.
Pablos: What year was this?
Ash: Do you start flashing? It’s gotta be like 1995, 1996.
How do you, how do you optimize the sequence of lights so that, the traffic keeps flowing?
What do you do with intercepts? And then Palle, this is even, this is even better. So Palle Peterson, like my partner, Palle’s dad was a crazy, mad genius inventor, he was in the Western part of, of Denmark. He wasn’t even in like regular Denmark. There’s like an Island that they kept him on.
He had convinced them that when ambulances go, that they could start to change the lights faster, like emergency services. Of course he had the hack, but so you would just click the lights to green.
Pablos: Cause he had one of those transmitters that the ambulances have?
Ash: First he invented it.
Pablos: Yeah, I had, the MERT. Oh, that thing. I bought one of those and put it in my car, where I was in Seattle at the time, it only worked on the emergency corridors, only on certain roads where they had, where the ambulances knew, and I didn’t know were set up for that.
It’s like an infrared transmitter you put in your car and it sends infrared signal to like a TV remote to the, traffic light and they change. I could smoke it around town on certain streets. So you’re saying this guy invented the thing?
Ash: Yeah, he invented, whatever the original one. I remember Palle telling me stories like, “dad had designed this thing” and then he convince them that they should all use it and then of course, like, ” I have back door.”
So Columbus, the biggest problem they had was, they just had traffic lights, like each section was on its own. It didn’t live in like a, a grid or it didn’t have any understanding. So the ripple effects were just fucking out of control.
For example, you could have a place where you’re sitting there with a red light and then there’s no one around you.. then you could have another place where, because it was doing its own thing, you could just be in stop and go, it would just create its own eddies of, of hell.
Pablos: Yeah, it feels like that still exists.
Ash: It does because what the problem is, is that no one is running enough, you know, computational fluid dynamics, I mean, that’s the problem.
Pablos: You’d do a simulation now.
Ash: You would, and that’s, and, and, and the horsepower gets better now, right? We have more flops to like mess around with this stuff. But the problem is that we, we still haven’t figured out how to do your thing, which is now what happens when you build the emergency corridor.
What happens if you’re like, all right, so the Tesla says no one’s coming from any side, but. You go through. Are you like a leaky pipe? Go back to like traffic theory, and pipe theory. One of the things that you have is that when you got a pipe, everyone thinks that, let’s, let’s call it. , the 405, let’s call the pipe, 405. What’s the best way to set up the 405, in terms of traffic, is it better to have six lanes, or is it better to have two sets of three lanes and a shoulder or two shoulders and it turns out, that the eddies are the problem.
So,, we get these lame attempts of traffic light, traffic flow regulator, right? We have to go into the. Highway. So I was just thinking that when you, when you started talking about traffic lights, I was thinking problem is in theory, it sounds amazing, but the problem is when you’re inside a mesh.
Pablos: So you need active feedback loops into whatever the thing is that’s running the simulations, right?
Because you need to say, “okay, this guy wants to change the light to green because there’s no traffic around. We can give him 30 seconds to do that and then go back without messing up the synchronization.”
Or, all this could get a lot more sophisticated.
Ash: No, exactly. But I think that’s the key. Right. So I think it’s more like, can you get a brain that’s dynamic, and right now the brain is not.
Pablos: I presume there’s not much of a brain and it’s not a very advanced area,
Ash: It’s a non dynamic brain.
Pablos: One cloud SaaS company could be making the brain for traffic and sell it to every city. Another company could be making the, Tesla traffic light that just knows how to see if there’s any cars around.
Ash: That’s security problem,
Pablos: Why is that? Oh, if it’s centralized, you mean?
Ash: There’s a quote from a person that let’s just say I met. An agency called RAW. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_and_Analysis_Wing) RAW is fantastic. That said, yeah, what happens when 2 minutes before an invasion, all lights go red? An invasion or attack or whatever, all lights go red.
Pablos: I don’t know, This is one of these old People have been saying, what if hackers shut down the traffic lights for, decades, and the only time it ever happened meaningfully was in the fucking movies. So, I, I don’t buy it. If all the lights go red, then people just start going the way they do in Southeast asia.
Ash: Then, and suddenly we’re like in Beirut.
Pablos: I kind of think that’s how they should do it anyway. I was driving in Riyadh a couple of weeks ago, in Riyadh, the lines are painted, but they’re irrelevant. Yeah. It’s a free for all. And what I realized is that it’s actually kind of better because, in the U. S. everybody’s been coddled. They got lanes for this and that, they got the turbo or not turbo lane, I wish. They have a handicap lane and HOV lane and, bus lane, all these different lanes. And then, you got to be a lawyer to read the parking signs. So everyone’s being coddled all the time.
You could probably drive with your eyes closed in a lot of American cities because, everybody’s following the rules. But if someone goes out of bounds, then they’re going to cause a real problem. If you’re in Riyadh, everybody’s driving at maximum speed all the time.
There are no lanes. People are swerving all the time. You got to be on the ball. You couldn’t hit somebody if you were trying. If you literally tried to hit somebody with your car, they would evade you because they’re all doing evasive driving all the time.
Ash: It’s, it’s all, it’s all offensive driving.
Pablos: It’s all offensive.
I’d like to, I’d like to see the numbers. I don’t know if we have good data on safety.
It’s
Ash: interesting. So we were in Vietnam, and you go to Vietnam and it’s a sea of random mopeds. Sometimes, you have the one person in the moped, the best is when you have at least five, right? The whole family. On the moped, you have mother, father, two kids. Then the baby kind of like strapped on like a, koala bear something. That’s, that’s when, you know, it’s, it’s, it’s getting crazy. And what they were saying, it’s like, yeah, “you’re not going to get hit. Walk across the road.” I was like, “what do you mean?”
“Just walk across the road.”
And it’s like, it’s like you walk across. They said “we operate in a stream.” They flow around you.
Pablos: Nobody wants to hit you either.
Ash: Yeah, but it is also a bit slow motion.. So there is a little bit more like speed.
Pablos: A few days ago, I was in Shenzhen. They have, an absurd number of electric scooters. Because they’ve outlawed gas scooters. So everything is electric scooters. You ride them on the sidewalk. So it feels a little sketchy because there’s a lot of fast moving electric scooters and not, they’re not like little Bird scooters. They look like, Honda scooters or something. They’re big, but the whole town, it’s kind of clean and quiet in that sense.
Overall they still have work to do, but the scooters are mellow. It’s all quiet. It’s, it’s busy. There’s a lot of people, but it’s not noisy because today, now I’m in Bangkok and in Bangkok it’s, they got all the gas scooters that China was getting rid of. And so they’re just going full tilt on these, gas scooters with no muffler, no, no catalytic converter, nothing. And it’s just noisy as hell. It’s crazy. And I don’t know. I kind of like it. I like the entropy.
Ash: I do have to say that I, if you look at it, Vietnam felt the safest. Specifically Ho Chi Minh Saigon, it was the safest of the crazy,
So that, that, that felt good. I mean, Beirut was just a whole different story.
Like Beirut, it definitely, and I think it was my CTO who at the time was driving me around and I was like, yeah, I’m pretty sure Antoine, this is the oncoming traffic. He goes, “yeah, that’s why there’s no one going the same way as us.” Like, “because they’re coming at us,” it was like, his logic was flawless.
Right. So at that moment,
I was sort of like, it’s true. We don’t have anyone going the same way as us. Cause we’re in the fucking oncoming traffic lane. He had made the fourth lane, which was go at, like, it worked, so I don’t know what to say.
Yeah, I mean, they went, they went beyond lanes, the lanes were just like like you said, they’re, they’re paint on the road there.
All right. So that was traffic lights for, for the last 30 minutes.
Pablos: Obviously traffic lights aren’t going to work there. Okay. I have another idea, which is related. So, the fleet of deployed Teslas is massive, like in most U. S. cities anyway, maybe other places. And Teslas are driving around all the time. And they could probably figure out, like within some window of accuracy, where all the open parking spots are.
Like they’re probably not looking for it now, but Teslas are just driving around. They see where the open parking spots are. And so if they were trying. They could just aggregate that data and tell you like, “Oh, you’re looking for a parking spot. Here’s the nearest one because a Tesla drove by it 12 seconds ago.”
You see what I mean?
Ash: Interesting.
Pablos: That’d be a superpower for teslas.
Ash: That’s, that’s, that’s, that would be great. I mean, that’s like, that’s like Spot Hero on crack.
Pablos: Yeah. Who wouldn’t buy that car? Oh, you could buy a Kia. Or if you get a Tesla, it’ll tell you where the fucking parking spot is at.
Ash: Yeah. So it’ll tell you the next, the next location. I like that. The thing that you have to figure out is how do you save it?
Pablos: Well, You wouldn’t know for sure. The things could sense in any spot they have a sight line to that could see is it is it empty? Is it staying empty? Is somebody pulling into it? You could maybe make statistical probabilities for different streets. Stuff like that.
Ash: It definitely helps when you’re doing the parking lot, shuffling, just going around and around and around. And then, you just hope that, that someone pulls out right.
What a Tesla could do is could wait for the next Tesla.
Pablos: Mm hmm. Oh, yeah. There you go. Now we’re talking. There you go. Tesla baton.
They’re doing that, with their, charging stations anyway. Tesla drivers are playing a video game where they’re like, You know, waiting for a, for a charging supercharger spot so you could, you could do that.
And then there’s, yeah, I like that one. I think it would be useful though, even if you just, you know, it knows where you’re trying to drive to and it could figure out like, okay, you’re going to have a real parking problem in that area. Street parking is a lost cause.
Ash: But if there are four Teslas there.
Pablos: It’s hard for a Tesla to know when somebody’s going to leave.
Ash: It does, because the preconditions 10, 15 minutes, see, like, if you set departure time on your Tesla, because you were preconditioning or
Pablos: Oh, why Would you do that? My car doesn’t know when I’m going to leave.
I guess you could. You could gamify it. This guy’s got a meeting. At 3 o’clock, so he’s gonna have to leave by 2. 45, so probably there’s gonna be an empty spot here. I don’t know, maybe. Might be possible.
Ash: I don’t know that you’re going to synchronize with the calendar, but I mean, that could be kind of cool, but I’m just saying that there’s definitely precondition, which, which you’re supposed to do. So if you’re plugged in at home, right. Or, but like any of these chargers, there’s like a precondition so that your car is warmer and like ready and like all that crap, right?
Like they’ve been doing that for some time.
Pablos: Oh, I see, oh, I see what you mean, right. I get it. I get it. So, so I don’t drive a Tesla, but what, but precondition you’re saying is like, I’m going to go. So warm up the car or cool off the car.
Ash: So fancy cars do that, but also when the electric cars came in, the batteries have to have like been revved or whatever.
Pablos: There’s a thermal window
Ash: Or, or set them up.
Pablos: I see.
Ash: You got it.
Right. So that’s why they want to know when you’re leaving. That way you’re not, you’re not cold driving your, your Tesla.
Pablos: Yeah.
Ash: So that means they know, right? So if you want maximum range, they’ve got to like do that little thermal thing inside to get the battery, like not, minus five or whatever the hell it is outside. So, so they already know. So in cold places, this would work well.
Pablos: Intriguing. Okay, so there’s another idea, at least for Tesla if not a startup.
Recorded on December 22, 2023
Samy is My Hero — Samy Kamkar
Jan 04, 2024
This is probably the conversation I had in mind when I decided to start this podcast. Samy Kamkar is an old buddy of mine, a genius hacker. When you guys hear me praising the minds of hackers and how brilliant they can be and how they think, Samy is the example in my mind that I’m thinking of, and I always love to share him.
Samy’s famous for having written a computer virus that he was using to meet girls on the internet, which is probably ill-advised. The virus he wrote took over MySpace. It was incredibly genius! What would happen is: if you looked at Samy’s page on MySpace, it would just automatically add you as his friend.
MySpace is long gone, but you could imagine what that would be like on Facebook or Instagram or Snapchat nowadays. So, within 24 hour period, Samy had over a million friends on his MySpace profile, because the code not only would add you as his friend, it would copy itself to your page so that whenever anybody looked at your page, it would automatically add them as Samy’s friend too, and then do one other benign thing, which would change your profile page to list Samy as your HERO!
Samy is my hero. I love him so much. He’s done a lot of amazing, beautiful work and computer hacking. He has a YouTube channel that we’ll talk about on here, but you should definitely go watch his videos.
I’m not going to interview Samy. that has been done and you should listen to the Tim Ferriss interview of Samy. I think of this conversation is something you could listen to with or without having heard that, but if you want to know more about Samy and his background and all the stories, then you can go listen to Tim Ferris interviewing him. This however is a conversation between friends, it is very soulful.
There’s a lot in here that I’m looking forward to sharing with you guys.
Also, Samy is a co-founder of a couple of company that have been very successful and he sold his most recent company called Open Path to Motorola. This is not an ad, I’m just telling you because I’m impressed with what Samy built: Open Path is a physical door access control system that’s way better than those cards you used to have to use to get into your office. Now you can just do it with your phone and walk right in. Samy has helped build that product and the company is doing very well.
And I think you should all become, customers.
Oh, and I almost forgot to tell you Samy, at one point decided he wanted to become a DJ and learn how to make music. And he’s the one who created the track that we use for the podcast intro that you’re going to hear next.
Please listen to this conversation with me and Samy. I’m sure you’re going to get a lot out of it.
Samy Kamkar is an American privacy and security researcher, computer hacker and entrepreneur. At the age of 16, he dropped out of high school.[One year later, he co-founded Fonality, a unified communications company based on open-source software, which raised over $46 million in private funding.
In 2005, he created and released the fastest spreading virus of all time, the MySpace worm Samy, and was subsequently raided by the United States Secret Service under the Patriot Act. He also created SkyJack, a custom drone which hacks into any nearby Parrot drones allowing them to be controlled by its operator and created the Evercookie, which appeared in a top-secret NSA document revealed by Edward Snowden and on the front page of The New York Times. He has also worked with The Wall Street Journal, and discovered the illicit mobile phone tracking where the Apple iPhone, Google Android and Microsoft Windows Phone mobile devices transmit GPS and Wi-Fi information to their parent companies. His mobile research led to a series of class-action lawsuits against the companies and a privacy hearing on Capitol Hill.
Recorded on September 17, 2021
Primer on Nuclear Reactors — Nick Touran
Dec 15, 2023
Today we get to hang out with my buddy Nick Touran. Nick is a nuclear engineer who’s focused on the practical deployment of clean, renewable, carbon free energy.
I met Nick when we were both working at the Intellectual Ventures Lab. He is on the TerraPower team, and even though we don’t discuss the TerraPower reactor, or any of that technology on this episode, Nick and I try to dig into history of nuclear a bit. trying to explain what’s possible with nuclear reactors, so people can really understand how that fits into our future and what the pros and cons are, and really try to technically, illuminate how nuclear reactors work a little bit for people who haven’t been able to dig into that so much before.
I learned a lot of what I know about nuclear reactors from Nick, and so it’s a thrill for me to get to share him with you guys and this conversation in particular is a great place to start.
Nick has a website called whatisnuclear.com. If you want to learn more beyond what we cover in this episode, that’s a great place to start so go and read his writing and learn as much as you can.
I believe this is one of the most miraculous technologies humans have ever invented. And it’s so frustrating for me that we haven’t put it to greater use for humanity.
I’m a reactor physicist working on the design of an advanced nuclear reactor for a nuclear innovation company, where I’ve been since 2009. I have a Ph.D. in nuclear engineering from the University of Michigan based on the multiobjective optimization of fast reactors using perturbation-based equilibrium cycle methods.
Recorded on June 15, 2021
Helium Airships (Short)
Dec 19, 2022
Short opinion piece about these helium airships and the need to preserve helium.
Back before there were memes as we know them, the meme for a disaster was the Hindenburg. The Hindenburg was this giant Zeppelin, an Airship filled with hydrogen gas that’s lighter than air. Like a helium balloon. So it would just float but it had a huge passenger compartment. This is back in. 1937, so 80 years ago, the Hindenburg famously ignited and turned into a giant flame in the sky and scared the shit out of everyone forever and these things have not gotten a lot of attention since then.
I think they’re cool. But there’s a real problem with trying to make a lot of hydrogen next to actual humans and somehow imagine that it’s going to be safe. So since then, people have played around with things like blimps and things that don’t have passengers and stuff like that. But these things don’t, aren’t very popular. I have seen a little bit of news lately about this group called Lighter Than Air Research, which is trying to create air ships today.
These are in part probably safer because they don’t fill them with hydrogen, they fill them with helium. So this is a massive craft. They call Pathfinder one. I’m going to link to an article in IEEE Spectrum about this and I’m just going to give you, the highlights.
Pathfinder 1 is 120 meters, long, 20 meters in diameter. I think biggest Goodyear blimp right now is 75 meters. So this is like the biggest air ship ever made. I think.
LTA Research staff maneuver Pathfinder 1 while the airship is under construction at the company’s Moffett Field facility, near San Francisco. LTA RESEARCH
The idea is to carry about four tons of cargo. It sounds like a lot, but if you’re not familiar with a ton, four tons is about one Humvee. Or, maybe four tons might be a good size Amazon delivery van fully loaded. That’s four tons of cargo. There’s still, also a crew, there’s what’s called water ballast, which is, water you carry for weight. So if you have a problem, descending too fast, you could drop the water and it would slow your descent to make it safe. And then fuel, cause you still need fuel in order to propel the thing. The idea is this thing would go 65 knots. So that’s about 120 kilometers an hour, which I think about 70 miles an hour. That’s about as fast as these things seem to ever really be able to go, but the, average cruising speed probably maxes out at more like two-thirds of that. This is a modern Airship probably worth revisiting it to see if it can be done better. The old ones were built with, a lot of wood. They were built with a lot of aluminum which is, good strength to weight ratio, but incendiary. In the sense that it melts at a low temperature. Modern crafts could be built with carbon fiber and titanium and all these modern materials that we can coat to make them less inflammatory,
So that’s the frame and then you also have this covering and the coverings gonna be made of not cotton the way we used to do it, but we’re going to make that out of some modern polyvinyl from DuPont called Tedlar. So obviously those materials have advanced a lot in our lifetime. If you sense a little bit of a dubiousness in my voice, I’m going to tell you why that is in a little bit here.
That’s the basic idea. There’s also a lot that’s advanced in weather prediction. There’s a lot that’s advanced in electric motors for propulsion. There’s a lot that’s advanced in autonomous flying and driving. And so we have lidars and we have things that can figure out how to make these things dramatically safer. I buy all that. Here’s what bothers me.
The world has unlimited hydrogen on earth, more or less. We have a lot. We can make more. Hydrogen’s awesome. What the world does not have on earth is very much helium. We have very little helium. We have very little helium left. We’ve been able to find a few new helium mines in the last decade, but there’s just not much of it.
And that is a super valuable element that we really need for lots of different things. We need it for making computer chips. We need it for figuring out how to make fusion reactors and things like that. We’re just running out of helium and I’m pretty disappointed in any plan that involves using a lot of helium as it’s lighter than air substance.
Because of that, I’m really having a hard time getting excited about these modern airships that want to use helium. Helium is not flammable, so it won’t burn up the way that hydrogen does. If you remember your periodic table, if you look at the very beginning, the reason you’ve probably heard of hydrogen and helium is they’re numbers one and two. They are the lowest weight elements in the world.
And hydrogen is a lot lighter than helium, but it also, combined with oxygen just fucking blows up, which is great, amazing amount of energy in hydrogen. We have a lot of use for that. But what’s happening with helium is, we’re just letting it go. We’re giving it away in party balloons which is a terrible disaster. It makes me practically cry when I see helium balloons, which is sad. I grew up with them. I love them. I want my kid to have them. They’re fun, but that’s a waste of good helium. We just don’t have enough and we don’t have a way of making more. And that’s the really important thing to understand.
Until we get real good control of fusion reactors, and have extra ones to deploy at the job, we don’t even have any way of making helium. When you do have a fusion reactor, it makes a little bit of helium, but not much. Maybe someday fusion reactors will be able to be designed to put out a lot of helium for balloons, but right now they don’t.
They don’t do anything right now, but they don’t do that. So the point is. We should be really careful about how we deplete the helium that we do have here on earth. Maybe someday we’ll get a highway to the moon and we’ll be able to go get a lot more helium. But right now this is this is a really important resource that I think we should be careful about. I don’t want to see it used on airships, which require a lot.
Okay. Second thing. I tried playing with helium before, and we do use a lot of helium for weather balloons and things like that. Please use hydrogen. It’s okay if a weather balloon burns. A helium balloon that’s big, it’s just a really hard to manage. Putting a lot of lighter than air gas into a balloon to get it off the ground and float it up into the atmosphere. It’s just unwieldy. I only have a little bit of experience with this early days at Blue Origin, we tried to make some giant helium balloons just to see what potential might be in that. It’s hard cause, you gotta make the balloon out of something light and not too structural. The airships have a frame. We didn’t have frames. We just had big balloons that we made. We made them really light. But, you’ve got to bring tanks and tanks of helium to go, then fill that up to launch it wherever you are. The process of filling it up, it wants to float away while you’re filling it, and you think you could just keep loading gas into it the way that you would with a party balloon, but in practice, the more you load into it, the harder it is to tether the thing and keep the wind from blowing it away.
And maybe you could do that indoors and then have a ceiling the launches, it’s pretty impractical to do. And, with travel, you want to be able to go a lot of different places, obviously with an Airship, you’d try to fill it once and then use your electric motors to move that thing around, up and down and maybe. I give up as little helium as possible, but that’s the other thing about helium. It’s really hard to contain. It leaks through almost everything. It is a very small molecule.
I’m putting this out there just to let you guys know how I feel about it. From what I understand to date. I have not met or talked to the folks that are working on this at Lighter Than Air Research. If you know them, please introduce me and I’m sure that they can tell me how they think about it. I’m sure they have some other perspective and if I get that in my head, I’ll let you know if I change my mind.
Recorded on December 18, 2022
Top Sleep Doctor's Brain Dump - Michael Breus, Ph.D
Jan 23, 2022
Sleep is the most natural process that you can do other than breathing. Like breathing, we don’t need technology to help us sleep. The reason many people don’t sleep is because of what’s between their ears – their mental stability, anguish, or stress. Do you fall asleep easily or does the slightest noise wake you up? Dr. Michael Breus, gives me a full brain dump as I try to learn everything I can about sleep in one session. He takes on taboo ideas like polyphasic sleep and the role of nutrition and the microbiome in having a good night’s rest, how melatonin, CBD, and some pharmaceutical interventions such as Zolpidem affect the sleep process, how much sleep we should have, and more.
Pablos: The thing I’m trying to go after is that at least my way of seeing the world is through all these problems that we have. This is a pile of problems that are possibly growing. We also have this other pile, which is tools and technologies, and it’s also growing because of what I mentioned. The job for us is to figure out how we sit in the middle and connect to those things. If we have some optimism that it’s possible and we can demystify the problems so people understand what the real problems are, we can demystify the technology so they’re not terrifying and complicated.
People then can build that sense of optimism about how we could make the future better. That’s how I think about things a lot. Not only the idea here is to give people some insight into how we think about things and our experiences. One of the things I’m curious about is that years ago, there was no such thing as a sleep doctor. Maybe there were some researchers or whatever, but it wasn’t a legitimate career track. How did you end up being a sleep doctor? What does that mean?
Michael: What’s interesting about the field of sleep medicine in general is it’s an incredibly small new field. The very first sleep lab in 1945, Walla Walla, Washington, built demand on narcolepsy. It wasn’t even about sleep apnea. When you look at medicine and you think about Hippocrates. Thousands of years of innovations in medicine, we’re literally at the sperm and egg stage of sleep medicine. That’s where it was. I fell into it by accident. I was doing my residency. I was getting my PhD in Clinical Psychology at the University of Georgia and I was interested in Sports Psychology. I had no interest in sleep at all. I wanted to tell athletes how to get the mental game of sports and run faster into all this cool shit with psychology.
I went to the University of Georgia, the top twenty programs. The best internship residency program, believe it or not, is the University of Mississippi Medical Center in Jackson, Mississippi. They had an eating disorders and athletes program that I was fascinated with. This was going to be an interesting area for me to get into and understand more about, but I couldn’t get into the program. Harvard, Yale, Princeton, they all got in the program. I went to Georgia’s top twenty programs, but to be fair, it wasn’t Harvard.
It wasn’t even top seventeen.
I’m sitting there, I’m looking through the application and they have like a specialty track for sleep medicine and a specialty track for neuropsychological testing. I didn’t know anything about sleep medicine in Jackson.
You figured out, “I can’t get on a program I want, but I can at least go to Jackson.”
I had an ulterior motive because when I saw this thing, I had worked my way through graduate school in the Electrophysiology department. I’m the kid who used to take the old rotary phones apart, put them back together, there would be 4 or 5 pieces on the side, and this thing would work like a gem.
I took the phone apart for different reasons and did not get it back together.
I like to tinker with stuff. I like to measure stuff. I have that kind of a brain. When I saw that there was a sleep track that used those machines, I said, “I’m going to sell myself as a sleep guy. I’m going to transfer as soon as I get there. Just because you didn’t let me in the fucking place, that doesn’t mean I’m not going to get in.” I get in on the sleep side. I get there and they say, “You have to start on the sleep side. If you want to transfer, you can do it later.” By the third day, I fell in love.
You haven’t gotten around to transferring back. You gave up on that and sticking with sleep. This was many years ago. Tell me what research was going on there.
Back in those days, the field of sleep medicine is an interesting one because it was taken over. There are two sides, research and clinical. What’s difficult about the clinical is it pretty much only treats sleep apnea.
In the world of sleep medicine, we’ve figured out how to treat sleep apnea. That’s primarily what is going on. When you say clinical, that means we’ve got actual patients, we’re trying to help them. On the research side, we’ve got people with problems and we’re trying to understand them. We may or may not be able to help them. That might be a way of describing the difference.
When you look at clinical sleep medicine, we’ve identified 88 different sleep disorders. You can fuck up your sleep, which is amazing when you think about it. We were starting to design protocols for each one of the diagnostics to be able to start to lower the symptomatology. That’s the basics of medicine.
Meaning, you are down with each of those 88 things you have.
Sleep is recovery. You have to have something to recover from.
Tweet
The assessment narrows it down. What I’m talking about is the treatment side of things.
You are good at figuring out which of the 88 things you have.
We’re good at that, but the problem is that I believe that there are sleep disorders and what I call disordered sleep. Sleep disorders are diagnosable apnea, narcolepsy and insomnia. Disordered sleep is I went to that room in the back of my house. I was there for 6, maybe 7 hours. My eyes were closed. I come out, I don’t feel great. Why? How do I fix that? That’s been my area of specialty for the last six years where I’m only focusing on how do I improve the quality of sleep. There are probably about 6,000 guys and gals out there who are board-certified sleep specialists. They treat apnea and narcolepsy. In some cases, insomnia.
We’ve got pros who can do that, but the things that don’t fit into that rubric. Are you talking about the 89th thing?
To be fair, I don’t think it’s a diagnosis. It has to do with lifestyle. It has to do with intensity.
I don’t have an actual physical problem that maps to my diet, but it could be better. You could have more energy or better results if you improve your diet, but I don’t necessarily have a clinical problem.
That’s how I look at sleep in certain ways. I’m a high-performance sleep coach. I used to be a sleep doctor, apnea, narcolepsy, insomnia. Now, people come to me and they’re like, “I know that I need eight hours to get good sleep, but I only have six. Can you do that?” The answer is, “Yes, you can.” What science has shown us is that there are certain scheduling swim lanes for your sleep schedule. This is based on something called your chronotype. Chronotype might not be a term that people are familiar with being called an early bird or a night owl. Those are chronotypes. It turns out those are genetic. There’s a variation on the PER3 gene. There’s a particular snip that is altered and that can make your entire body schedule go early or make your entire body schedule go late.
If I have 23andme, I can look it up and explain why I’m a night person.
That’s the cool part of science, but what the fuck do you do with it? That’s where I come in. I love that science and I was tinkering around with it. I was doing it all myself. I said, “What happens if I only sleep during my chronotypical sleeping hours?” I’m a night owl. That meant I had to go to bed at midnight. I decided not to have an alarm because I was going to check if my body wakes up naturally and see what happens. The first month I started this experiment, I went to bed at midnight and woke up at 7:30. Within 40 days or so, all of a sudden, I was waking up at 7:15 on my own. I am still going to bed at midnight. All of a sudden, it was 7:00, and then it was 6:45. I get up at 6:13 every single morning now with no alarm. I could close my eyes at midnight. That midnight I wake up at 6:13 AM. The punchline is it won’t go lower. At age 52, in my shape, my body only needs 6 hours and 13 minutes of high-quality sleep because I’m sleeping in that swim lane. Here’s what happens, when I stay up until 1:00 in the morning, I still get up at 6:30.
That’s what I experienced. I’m tuned for the wake-up time.
That’s what you’re supposed to be because that’s the circadian anchor. When the sun hits the melanopsin cells in your eyeballs and turns off the melatonin faucet in your brain, there’s a whole circadian side of things that has to agree with that. When it doesn’t, you got involved.
I should tune my wake-up time to maybe the sun, although that moves around all year. Maybe I could do it to a grow light or whatever so I have a consistent wake-up time. I don’t seem to be able to change that one as much. That one stays the same. I can go to bed whenever I want. For fifteen years, I was dancing salsa, probably at least every other night. The better you get at salsa, the later you go. On a Tuesday night, I would show up at midnight until 2:00 in the morning. It didn’t matter. If I danced, I’d go to bed at 2:00, I would get up at 8:00. If I didn’t dance, I go to bed at 11:00 or 12:00 and get up at 8:00. I felt like what was happening was, “If I dance, I need less sleep,” but you wouldn’t diagnose it that way.
Here’s what I would tell you is if you dance, you’d get higher quality sleep. One of the biggest things we now know is movement. Sleep is recovery. You have to have something to recover from. On the nights when you were salsa-ing, what I would do is I’d love to put a tracker on you on the nights when you’re dancing and the nights when you’re not. I would like to look at the different stages of sleep because we probably see a much bigger increase in stage 3 or 4 sleep, which is your physical restoration because of the salsa dancing. We then might see less mental restoration on the REM sleep side of things, but we can change those at will.
If I could do anything I wanted having no sleep problem, pretend I have no constraints on when I sleep pretty much, whatever, what do you think would be the optimal thing for a guy to do? I’m not trying to solve any problems. I’ve got no issues, but I am going to get older at some point. Should I do something like you described? No alarm, see what happens, go to bed at a consistent time every day, and see where I land over the course of six months?
It was less than six months. It slowly happened at first and all of a sudden, it was quick. What ended up happening was it took a grand total of 90 days. All of a sudden, my entire sleep schedule had shrunk and it was improved in quality. One thing to tell every reader is about the consistency of your wake up time. At first, you might have to set an alarm to wake up at a particular time, but then when you start waking up before the alarm, and then it starts to scoot further behind, we’re in the money here. That’s where we want to be. It all has to do with this chronotypical swim lane of a schedule that you follow.
As we get older, the swim lane changes. Our circadian rhythms dial back because our body’s ability to produce melatonin begins to decline. We have two options at this point. We can rotate our schedule backwards or we can use supplemental melatonin to help us on the front end and try to keep that schedule. There are two schools of thought about how you want to do that. To be fair, if I want to wake somebody up in the mornings, I can use a blue light. They’re commercially available out there. It is easy to get your hands on to basically turn off my melatonin faucet in the morning. You can lower blue light by wearing things like blue light blocking glasses and have the red light and things like that. There’s a lot of biohackingness that can be done within the sleep universe.
I like those Wi-Fi smart lights and stuff that they’ll do blue. I could have that to be my alarm instead of be obnoxious.
What a lot of people have found is those sunrise alarm clocks are cool. What you can do is put on a timer with a dimmer in it.
What about this? My girlfriend needs to wake up earlier than me. Is there a product that seems like I need a vibrating watch on each person or something?
There are pillow vibrating alarms. There are these little disks and you slide them in your pillow. It’s got an alarm on it and it will just vibrate. It doesn’t wake up your neighbor. Also, there’s a new product by Bose. They’re called Sleepbuds. They’re earbuds that you wear all night long. They have a private sound library. I’m helping them with it, and then there’s an alarm that only you hear in your ear.
Is that available now?
It’s commercially available now. You’ll love them.
I have got a couple of lines of inquiry here. Go back to the phone when you were a kid. I remember disassembling rotary phones for a variety of reasons. One, I wanted to be able to make that bell go and harass people. I wanted to make it sound like I had a phone ringing in my car, which at that time didn’t exist. I mounted a rotary phone to the dash in my car in 1985, something like that. There were bag phones or car phones at that point, but they were $7,000. They were huge, but I just had a rotary phone with a windy cord on it. The thing is we had learned to trick the phone network a little bit. There were things you could accomplish by taking the phone apart and getting control of the switch hook and something like that. What I think about now is my daughter is raised in a world where you take the screws out of something and there’s nothing observable. It’s a pile of computer chips. For you and I, taking the rotary phone apart, you could see how it worked.
You can see the coils wrapped around the magnet. You could see the bells. I remember it distinctly. You could see the rotors and when they finally came out with push buttons. All these wires were coming out and you’re like, “That connects to that, and that goes to this.”
It was 40 hours to assemble a touch-tone phone. I think of that as being a gift because all these devices were observable. I could take them apart, play with them, fuck with them, and then put them back together. I learned a lot from that and I feel like in the world our kids are growing up in, why would you bother to take an iPad apart? You are going to find more computer chips. It’s the same, everything is computers. Even computers, when I was a kid, the code was all observable. You learn by looking at the ones and zeros literally. That’s also obfuscated behind a pretty cartoon interface and stuff. If that’s what you described, you learned about this taking phones apart and stuff, and then that attracted you to the machines being used, can you talk about what were those machines?
The machines were things that took vital signs. I was particularly curious about how a signal could come from your body and be then translated into this idea. When I started, it was all paper. It wasn’t digital. There were pens on the paper. You had these inkwells. You would have to pump the inkwells to get the pressure to go through and then they would be squiggling along. I remember the first night I worked in the sleep lab on my residency. I went in and my dad or my mom had bought me this beautiful new white doctor’s coat. I was excited. I was on my internship. People are going to call me doctor and I go up to the thing. I’m working in and then what happened was the patient turned and the pens went fucking crazy and ink went flying.
I had ink all down my thing and everybody was laughing because they knew the joke. It was fun. Back at that time, when I was learning about sleep, we would have a paper record. It would be a thousand pages long of one night, 30 seconds per page. There was an art to it. It was called throwing paper. You knew how to grab one sheet and you created the scroll yourself manually. I’m throwing paper and I’m watching EEG go by and I’m like, “Apnea.”
You learned to flip a thousand pages in a couple of minutes and spot the apnea.
Those machines were machines that were telling me something that wasn’t a machine and that was interesting to me.
You were monitoring an analog device for humans. This is something super fascinating and snuck upon us. You’re talking about essentially a primitive monitoring device compared to now standards. In the last couple of years, I see an extraordinary explosion in sensor development. A lot of it came from MEMS because that’s where we got our IMUs with the accelerometers and the gyros delivered chips before a MEMS-based accelerometer. That was a $15,000 thing that weighed 80 pounds and was on a bench or in a cruise missile. Now, we have them in phones almost speculatively. When the first accelerometers were on the iPhone, we didn’t have an application for it. It was just there because it was cheap to do it, and might as well try it.
Many people don’t sleep because of what’s between their ears – their mental stability, their anguish, and their stress.
Tweet
Now, they’re in everything which is cool. Beyond that, for almost every day, we get new sensors and there’s almost nothing we can’t measure with extreme precision. We have networks to bring that data back to giant supercomputers to analyze it. I feel like maybe one of the things that makes this particular point in time, the inflection point for a sleep study, is that now we have the tools to do it better. We have those sensors. We have those data science, which is a thing now too. In a way, that’s different than what it was before, many years ago.
My prediction is that sleep laboratories will go away to a certain degree.
Is it because we’ll learn so much?
No. It is because technology is advancing quickly. When you go into a sleep laboratory, we put 27 electrodes. At first, we had to glue them onto your body with something called collodion. When we had to pull them up, it rips up hair, skin, and all that. It was terrible many years ago. Now, there’s a home study. You send it if they have a nasal cannula, they have something on their finger and they have a box on their chest, and we’re almost done. The technology advancing in the assessment is great. Unfortunately, technology in the treatment has not gone well.
That’s the order of operations.
When we look at technology and we look at the influx of technology into the idea of sleep, here’s part of the problem. Technology is great for sleep disorders but not great for disordered sleep.
Why is that?
Sleep is the most natural process that you can do other than breathing. We don’t need technology to help us breathe. The reason many people don’t sleep is because of what’s between their ears. It’s their mental stability. It’s their anguish. It’s their stress. Seventy-five percent of insomnia is either depression or anxiety. My goal is to try to help people figure out how to not just lower their anxiety in the acute state, but to help them figure out how to lower their anxiety in a chronic state, and that’s hard.
That gets you back to that psychology and the same interventions people are using for anxiety in general. They need to improve their sleep with all the stuff around meditation and breathing and those things that people are taking on.
They have to be tweaked because when you do traditional meditation and traditional breathing, it doesn’t make you sleepy. It brings you to the present. It makes you relaxed. Being present, being relaxed, and being unconscious are three separate states.
Does being present, relaxed, and unconscious show up differently on your monitoring devices?
It does.
If I have that device on when I’m meditating and it makes me feel present, that’s not getting me ready to sleep.
I would argue that there are certain meditations that you would do prior to bed and there might be ones that you do in the morning. I would say that there are breathing techniques that make more sense in the evening versus the morning. Sleep works in the sympathetic nervous system and parasympathetic nervous system. There are two systems, sympathetic and parasympathetic. Sympathetic, I always think of as energy, and parasympathetic is relaxed. I always think of it as Sympathy for the Devil, that song from the Rolling Stones. That makes me think of going in dancing. When we’re looking at parasympathetic, that’s the relaxed situation, and relaxing is different than sleep. Relaxation primes the pump for the sleep process. It all comes down to some physiology, believe it or not. If you can get your heart rate below 60 for a period of time, the sleep process will institute.
It’s literally that simple sometimes. When you’ve got people who’ve got high blood pressure, stressed, and got anxiety. What’s the thing that is up? Their heart rate. Heart rate variability becomes an interesting issue. When you start to look at heart rate, you want it to go down and get to 60 because when it’s at 60, you slip the car into third gear and the brain clicks on. That’s when things like growth hormone are emitted during a phase 3 sleep or 4 sleep, which is all that physical restoration. During REM sleep, that’s when you start to move information from your short-term memory to your long-term memory. That’s where it gets interesting.
People come to me sometimes and they’re like, “I’m not as concerned about the physical. Do I have Alzheimer’s, Michael? What’s going on? My memory is shot. I’m 40 years old.” I’m like, “How much do you sleep?” They say, “I sleep 5.5 to 6 hours.” I’m like, “There’s your problem. Can we extend your sleep a little bit? Give it three months and let’s see how your memory does.” What people don’t realize is REM happens in the last half of the night. If you only started the first half and you wake up after six hours, you’re missing that last two hours of REM sleep. That’s where the problem comes in.
I have a couple of questions here. I have low blood pressure. I have a low heart rate.
You should be sleeping all time.
I sleep all the time. I lay down flat and I’m asleep. It is easy. I don’t feel like I need as much sleep as I get, but I’d take it because I can. It seems like it’s not hurting anything. There’s not a lot to do now. It might be easier for me because my heart rate and blood pressure are low in general. I don’t have a lot of anxiety or problems and things that keep me freaking out. It’s going smoothly. Michael, I want to up my quality. What would I do?
We would get you again in your chronotypical swim lane. We’d start to look at what’s going on in your body. I’d look at your vitamin D, magnesium, iron, and melatonin levels. Let’s make sure that you’re not deficient. I think it’s something 80% of the US is deficient in magnesium and vitamin D. We’ve got to get you back up to par levels and see if your unit is functioning right. If you’ve got low energy, vitamin D would be a good thing for you to have every morning.
I’ve been doing it, but I didn’t necessarily know to do it in the morning.
I prefer mine in the morning. It’s a fat-soluble vitamin so you have to have a little bit of food with it. If you’re an intermittent faster, that may or may not work for you.
I don’t eat anything for sixteen hours. I only eat lunch and dinner.
I’m the same way and my body is used to it. I would try it out with you and see. Most people take 5,000 international units every single morning.
I could do that maybe with lunch.
I take it in the morning without food. You’re supposed to take it with food for absorption, but you can get higher absorbing stuff.
What about magnesium? I started taking magnesium because I figured it will be good for my muscles.
It will be good for your muscles, but you’re deficient in it because most people are. Unfortunately, our soil has been over tilled. Magnesium doesn’t appear to be coming up through the roots and getting into the stocks for our fruits, vegetables, and things like that. I do supplemental magnesium. I had a cardiac event years ago. We think that the reason that I had it was because of low magnesium in my cardiac muscle. When you have marathoners who dropped dead in the middle of a marathon and you autopsy them, it turns out that they have low magnesium in their cardiac. We wanted to avoid that. I take 250 milligrams of magnesium with vitamin B12. That helps catalyze it in. It helps absorption, but it also helps with the rapidity of metabolism. It speeds up overall metabolism, which is interesting. I take them together in the mornings and it’s been highly effective for me. Once I’ve checked you out and decided what’s going on with you, and you’re at par level, then you say to me, “Michael, now I want to up my game,” I’m going to look at your alcohol and caffeine and try to understand where do those play a role in your 24-hour cycle.
I never had a drink.
What about caffeine?
Melatonin is the key that starts the engine for sleep.
Tweet
I have caffeine every afternoon.
What time?
Between 1:00 and 2:00, after lunch.
Do you feel like you need caffeine in the mornings?
No. I feel like if I don’t take it by 2:00 or 3:00, I’m going to have a headache. I’m feeling like I need a nap.
Do you get a headache from not having caffeine? How much do you take at night or in the afternoon?
Probably 250.
You are at 2.5 cups of coffee.
I never had a cup of coffee, but I drink either Red Bull or an energy shot or something.
There are two things I would do with that. It’s not a bad practice if that’s what helps you get there, but I’d rather find more natural sources of caffeine for you than a Red Bull because you get a ton of sugar.
No, I take the sugar out. I’m on a sugar-free energy shot.
That’s better, but there are some better like green coffee, green tea extracts if that’s what your goal was, I’d rather see you taking that long-term. When we look at caffeine, here’s the thing to remember. Depending upon how quick of a metabolizer you are, caffeine has a half-life between 6 and 8 hours for half of it to be out of your system. When we’re talking about refining our sleep, caffeine is a stimulant. It doesn’t matter how you slice it. I’ve got lots of people who say to me, “Fuck, Michael. I can have a cup of coffee at 8:00 at night and still fall right to sleep. Caffeine doesn’t affect me.” Let’s be clear, caffeine is a stimulant and affects everybody. People have different sensitivities and amounts and metabolism is which changes the variability of the effect.
Somebody who’s lean like you and takes 250 milligrams of caffeine, you’re at the upper dose of what a human should have in a day. I would look at the timing of that. If I could, I might start to dial it back a little bit. Maybe you don’t need 250. Maybe we’d start with 200 and see how you feel. Maybe we go to 150. The goal then is to start to look at how much what’s called alpha intrusion that we see into your EEG. What caffeine does is it makes your brain waves go a little fast. When we’re sleeping, we want our brainwaves to go slow. What happens is it’s hard to get that. Sometimes the fast brainwaves lay over the slow brain waves, or they push out the slow brainwaves and all we have is fast brainwaves. When all we have is fast brainwaves, we don’t get stage 3 or 4 sleep, which means we don’t get that physical restoration. We then wake up in the morning and feel like shit, and we want to drink more caffeine.
Caffeine is a way to speed up the brainwaves. Is melatonin a way to slow them down? Can you think of them as the opposite of caffeine in some sense? Is that what you use to slow down your brain waves?
With melatonin, it’s a circadian pacemaker. Melatonin has an effect on certain neurotransmitters that cause a cascade of reactions to start the sleep process. Melatonin is the key that starts the engine for sleep. You still have to have oil and all these other things when you have an electric car, maybe not. It does seem mild, but remember it’s a hormone. It’s not supposed to act like a sleeping pill. It’s not a drug. It’s supposed to act like a hormone. It is supposed to be subtle and be able to have an overarching and reaching effect across the body. The biggest thing about melatonin is understanding when you take it.
The moment of ingestion, it begins to be absorbed, it’s going to be sending signals to different parts of your brain to say, “We’re going to change that internal schedule.” Caffeine is the opposite. What I would say the opposing from caffeine is something called adenosine. As you go throughout your day, your brain accumulates adenosine. When a cell eats a piece of glucose, something comes out of the backend. One of those things is adenosine. It works its way through the system. It goes to a specific area in your brain. As it accumulates, you get sleepier. If I was looking for the opposite of caffeine, it would be that.
Why don’t people take that?
When you look at the molecular structure of adenosine and caffeine, it dropped by one molecule. Caffeine fits right into the adenosine receptor sites. That’s why caffeine blocks sleep. That’s biology, which is interesting. I haven’t ever seen anybody make.
You’ve explained to me before with melatonin, people are doing it wrong. They’re taking a bunch when they’re tired or when they want to go to sleep. You’ve said that they should start earlier in the night to take it.
It’s like 90 minutes beforehand. It takes about 90 minutes for the plasma concentration levels. If you’re taking it in a pill form, you’re looking at 90 minutes for you to reach plasma concentration. If you’re taking it in a tincture or liquid form that you put under your tongue or sublingual, it would be 30 to 40 minutes for better absorption.
I’ve never done melatonin, but you’ve said that 1.5 hours before taking one pill and an hour before taking another and a half hour before you want to be asleep. Is that right?
No, take it one time an hour and a half before.
I misunderstood. What are the other things that are meaningfully effective for people if they want to take a pill to affect their sleep and what’s up with Ambien?
There are a lot of different ways we can walk down that path. There’s a pharmaceutical intervention. When we look at something like Ambien or what’s called zolpidem, it’s a particular compound that was built to affect the benzodiazepine, alpha 1 and alpha 2 receptor sites. The compound has a molecule that can fit into that receptor site and turn it on. By turning that benzodiazepine receptor site on, it lowers anxiety. In this specific 1 and 2, it increases the possibility of sleep. When you look at benzodiazepine receptors as a whole, it’s an anti-anxiety thing. The first sleeping pills were anti-anxiety drugs. What happens if people get so chill that they fall asleep and then people are like, “Maybe there’s a second use for that. Let’s do sleeping pills.” That was what was all the benzodiazepine universe. Now we get an Ambien called a non-benzodiazepine hypnotic. The difference between the old benzos and the new non-benzos is the addictive potential. It’s better technology. It is cleaner. It’s the right receptors that move through. The next question becomes, when are we going to get to the drugs that improve sleep, not just put us to sleep? I call those the Frankenstein drugs.
Why?
I’m not convinced that our brain isn’t the best regulator of how much sleep we should have.
Do you think your brain could do the job? It just needs a little training sometimes.
My concern is, what if you’re not supposed to have more stage 3 or 4 sleep than your body has? You’re not supposed to have REM sleep than your body has. Mother Nature is good at shit. When I look at those types of structures, I want to go forward but with mild, healthy trepidation and concern. One of the things that happen is when you start to improve on a natural process, you end up with a supernatural result. Sometimes supernatural results are positive and sometimes they are not. That’s when we have real problems.
When you say you’re less optimistic about technology helping with the sleep issues that you’re attacking, which are less clinical problems and more life habits and patterns that people have established, resolving anxiety and things like that. Maybe it’s true that you would not look to pharmaceutical innovations necessarily.
There are holistic technologies that are coming up that are interesting to look at. I started working with this company and it was all of it. I’ve learned a lot. Let’s say you get into a car accident, your head cracks open, you go into the ER. One of the first things they do is they wrap your head nice. The reason they wrap your head nice is to slow down all of the blood flow and all of the fluid that’s going on because they’ve got to figure out what’s the problem. They’ve got to fix it up. That’s how that works. It’s called the neuroprotective effect of cold. It’s important.
The question becomes, when are we going to get the drugs that improve sleep, not just put us to sleep?
Tweet
There’s a sleep researcher, Dr. Eric Nofsinger, who has been doing this for many years. His main interest was what we call ruminative thought. “I can’t turn off my brain before I go to bed.” It’s the number one complaint I ever hear in my office. We call that ruminative thought. It was like, “My brain is going. I can’t slow it down. I can’t get to sleep.” We know what that’s doing is it’s causing a lot of autonomic arousals. That sympathetic nervous system is kicking into gear because you’re in bed. Nobody is talking to you. Nobody is asking you to do anything. Thoughts come flooding out like, “What am I going to do with this problem?” It’s anxious. We want that blood. He did MRIs on these people while they’re trying to fall asleep. He discovered massive blood flow in the frontal cortex. He said, “I used to work in the ER and they had this thing called the neuroprotective effect of cold. What happens if I cool their head?” He did and it worked.
They fall asleep with their head freezing.
Ten years’ worth of research, they’ve had 12 or 15 publications in real journals, real science. Here’s what they discovered. It was almost like a headband that goes around your head. There was a string that came down and it came down here and there’s a unit here. It would throw liquid in this thing that goes around your head and it would make your head cooler throughout the night. It’s a little bulky, cumbersome, whatnot. They discovered that people who could turn off the brain, turned off the brain and went to sleep. What they’ve done is they’ve miniaturized it and they’ve got it into a traveler pack.
This is a product now. I don’t just need an ice pack on my forehead.
That wouldn’t even work.
Why?
It is because you have to have a particular temperature and it changes throughout the night based on your circadian rhythm. There’s real science.
What’s that product called?
It’s called Ebb therapeutics. They came to me and they’re like, “Michael, we want you to test our device.” I said, “I don’t have ruminative thought.” They said, “We just want you to wear it and tell us what your experience is.” I put this thing on and to be fair, it looks damn goofy. It’s like 2 inches off my forehead, a big black thing. It’s got a cord, it’s battery operated and I have to click the button, but it’s not as bad as the first one was. I’m like, “This is going to be ridiculous. How am I going to sleep with this thing on my head all night long? My wife is looking at me like I’m crazy,” because I test out all this shit all the time. I put it on, I turned it on, and I closed my eyes. When I opened my eyes, it was 6:13.
It’s a luck. People are going to love that thing.
I said, “I’m not going to wear it the next night.” The next night didn’t work the same. I woke up multiple times, and that stuff. I tried it again.
You put it on people with bigger problems than you?
Yep. It takes about three weeks. We discovered that over the course of time, it helps keep people’s foreheads cool.
Does it train them to do a better job on their own or do they need to keep with it as a habit?
What’s great about this product is there’s counseling that comes along with it. You use the product and use the counseling, and then eventually you come off the product.
It sounds harmless to do.
It’s super harmless. It has no side effects.
Most people seem to have their brains have frozen already.
They found out it’s working well for migraines and they started using it for menopausal women. They’re reducing hot flashes in the middle of the night.
This is incredible.
It was cold, but that’s it. I love the technology aspect that I think is interesting for sleep. We’re going to come up with better drugs. By the way, I think we should, because most people think insomnia has just one flavor. There are like 30 flavors of insomnia. If we can dial in, if there’s insomnia associated with pain, if we had a special pharmaceutical that could break that cycle, then we can teach people how to deal with their pain and get them off that drug. That would be a fucking miracle. Why can’t we have more sleep drugs that are more personalized to people’s problems? That’s great in the pharmaceutical universe, but that’s fifteen years and $15 billion to get down that path. I’m also interested in some of these more holistic things like cold, breathwork, meditation, circadian timing, things like that.
What are the quack things that you see people are trying?
CBD. One of the biggest things that drive me crazy is I had a company come to me and they said, “Michael, we want you to endorse this product. It’s a CBD pillow.” I said, “What? I don’t get it.” They said, “What we’ve done is we’ve soaked the pillow in CBD. When you turn it on your head, this break open, and then you breathe in the CBD.” I said, “That is the biggest crap of shit I’ve ever heard. Tell me, how much CBD did you put in the whole pillow?” They said, “You’re going to love it, 300 milligrams in the whole pillow.” I said, “That’s a dose for one night.” They’re like, “What?” I’m like, “Did you read the literature? I haven’t seen CBD effects in sleep in anything less than 200 to 250 milligrams of CBD. That’s like a whole bottle.”
Have you seen it have an effect on people if there’s no THC content?
I have. I’ll tell you where I’ve seen it the best is in pain patients because it helps lower inflammation. A lot of people in pain got three problems when it comes to sleep. Number one, they’re anxious that they’re not going to be able to get comfortable. Number two, they’re anxious that they’re going to have a painful event in the middle of the night, which is going to wake them up and there’s a lot of anxiety associated with that. The third aspect that’s for sleep with them, usually has to do with what a pain medication that they’re taking that can have a side effect or an effect on their abilities. We’re always trying to look for things, and CBD might not be a bad idea but have the right dose, and they don’t need a pillow to get it.
What other ridiculous stuff? Maybe another way of thinking about it is, what old wives’ tales or urban myths do people have internalized about sleep that are counterproductive or not working?
One of my favorites is when people tell me that they need to eat a turkey sandwich or drink more milk before bed. Those are based on the idea that there’s a trip to bed in each one of these. I calculated it out. You’d have to eat a 42-pound turkey to get enough trip to bed in your system.
What about milk?
One gallon and a half of milk to drink to get enough trip to bed.
It’s freeing because I grew up in Alaska, where we were the highest per capita consumers of ice cream. We drink a lot of milk. It was normal. I would drink milk as a beverage. One day someone told me, “The lactose in milk makes you tired.” From that day on, whenever I drink milk or eat ice cream, I feel tired. It fucking programmed me and I stopped. I have this impressionable psychosomatic response or something from people telling me that milk makes me tired. I stopped drinking it, which is probably fine, but it also keeps me from eating ice cream when I want to because I don’t want to get tired.
Don’t go to bed hungry because if you have an empty stomach, you’re going to be thinking about your stomach going to sleep.
Tweet
To be fair, you can eat as much ice cream.
My brain will accept that and believe you and I’ll be fine now.
When we look at foods before bed, it’s interesting. I worked with this company called Nightfood and we create snacks prior to bed, which is sleep-friendly. We don’t want people to go to bed hungry because if you had an empty stomach, you’re going to be thinking about your stomach going to sleep. There are also some data to suggest that we want to keep the microbiome happy as we’re going to bed as well. I worked with this company, we had bars, but your favorite thing is about to happen. We have an ice cream.
What’s different about your ice cream?
It’s not like melatonin flavored ice cream. It’s got an ingredient profile that’s very pro sleep. I mean that it’s about 75% carbohydrate and 25% protein. You keep the calorie profile down to about 150 calories for the pint use. Most people seem to like the pint, but what’s interesting is carbohydrates make you sleepy. The reason that they do is that they promote serotonin. What’s interesting is when you’re sleep-deprived, what do you crave?
I don’t know.
I’m high calorie, like donut, muffin, that kind of stuff.
Deep-fried stuff.
What your brain is doing is sleep deprive. For whatever reason, you’re sleep-deprived, which has caused your cortisol levels to jack up. The cortisol levels stay high and your brain doesn’t like how a lot of cortisol is all in it for long periods of time. That’s when you get things like adrenal fatigue and real long-term stress, acute stress disorders and things like that. It wants to calm it down. Your brain tells you to eat a Snickers bar because when you eat that Snickers bar, it causes serotonin to be produced, which quells cortisol. The reason that when you’re tired, that you want to reach for a Snickers is because of cortisol.
You’re not going to get energy from that. You’re going to get sleepier from that. You get a small sugar boost and then you crash. It’s terrible. If you get sleepy in the middle of the day, you’re better off walking outside, getting fresh air and sunshine because between 1:00 and 2:00 in the afternoon, your core body temperature has a bi-modal distribution. At 10:30 at night, your core body temperature drops. That’s a signal for the brain to release melatonin. There’s a secondary drop between 1:00 and 3:00 in the afternoon, but it’s smaller. That’s why everybody gets tired because it is 1:00 or 3:00 in the afternoon. Don’t go and eat a bucket of muffin. Go outside and get some sunlight, reduce that melatonin production and you’re good to go. I bet you could try that and reduce your caffeine.
What about modafinil?
It’s an interesting compound. When you look at modafinil, which is also called Provigil, this was a medication it’s called. It was an orphan drug when it was first brought over. The idea was to bring it over to treat people with narcolepsy. I believe it’s an orexin agonist. I’m pretty sure what it does is it goes for these particular receptor sites that are your sleep center and it turns those off. We did this for narcoleptics because initially, we thought the narcolepsy was where the brain was switching on to sleep in the middle of the day. People were having nap attacks and sleep fits and all these different things. We’re like, “Let’s stimulate the hell out of them and see what happens.” Later on, modafinil comes on board and says, “We don’t have to stimulate the whole body. We can focus more on the brain and the sleep centers. Let’s go there first.” That’s what Provigil does. We call it a non-stimulating stimulant.
Here’s the thing. Narcolepsy only makes about 50% of the population. It’s tiny. There are more Provigil prescriptions out there. There are north of 5% of the population, ten times in the US. The question is, why? People use it as a performance-enhancing drug or nootropic. What’s interesting about it from an nootropic standpoint is all it’s designed to do is focus on the sleep centers and be able to calm them down, make it so that you’re not sleeping. It turns out over the course of time, we realized that narcolepsy isn’t that problem. Narcolepsy turns out to be a nighttime problem, not a daytime. Narcoleptics get shitty sleep at night. We now give narcoleptics sleeping pills, which seems completely counterintuitive. We give them sleeping aids to make them sleep deeper, and then they’re not as tired during the day. We use the Provigil to maybe stave off a little residual daytime sleepiness. What’s nice about Provigil is it’s not a full-on stimulant. If you took Adderall, caffeine or cocaine, it’s going to jack and there are side effects and problems. Provigil has less of that, generally speaking.
My understanding is there’s not a lot of negative side effects.
I’ve taken it personally before to try it out. It’s a clarity that seems to come with it and the level of alertness, but it’s not like you’re jittery.
I learned about it from fighter pilots who were using it when they got up flying for sixteen hours.
The military has these things called the go pills and no go pills. Go pills are Provigil, no-go pills are Ambien. That’s how it works.
I’ve seen people using it in the early introduction to Provigil. It was like, “At midnight, when you normally go to sleep, take one of these and you’ll get another four hours.” That worked. After that, you could have another one and get another four hours. We could do it all week long and not sleep. That’s a bad idea, why?
We can’t replace the natural process of sleep. There are consequences. For example, if you continue to take Provigil, what occurs over the course of time is that it isn’t changing that adenosine buildup that’s still going on inside your brain. The body will eventually crash. The good news here is nobody has ever died of sleep deprivation. The longest person that’s ever been awake is a guy named Rudy Gardner, 11 days and 25 minutes. He used tons of caffeine and he was playing pinball. It was in the ‘70s. He played pinball for a week or some crazy shit like that. He had some significant side effects and consequences for it. By day 5 or 6, he was hallucinating badly. When you look at deprivation, it’s going to take a toll. I tell people all the time, “You can’t fool Mother Nature. She’s a bitch.” If you take sleep out of the equation, she’s going to put it back and it’s going to hurt.
You’re not going to like this one either. Years ago, I read this firsthand account by these girls who were in college and decided to try this alternative sleep schedule.
The polyphasic sleep schedule.
They were doing what’s called Uberman schedule.
Uberman contacted me.
Is there an organization?
There’s actually a person, I think.
Uberman schedule is a twenty-minute nap every four hours of being awake, and you do that six times a day. There is no core sleep in Uberman. In Uberman, you do twenty-minutes, every four hours. You sleep six times a day. Your total sleep investment is two hours a day. That was the state of the art many years ago. Then a couple of years ago, people started to play with what they call Everyman’s schedule, where you have a core sleep of usually three hours at night and then you take three twenty-minute naps during the day.
I know a lot about this part. With Uberman, the problem people were having was the naps had to be precise. You had to take it every four hours. Skipping one of those naps was like skipping a full night for you and I. The schedule is wildly inflexible and these people were up 22 hours a day. I read a hundred firsthand accounts by people who did them at that time. The patterns I saw were transitioning to it was painful. Sleep deprivation is horrible for a couple of weeks. Once they got transitioned to it, if they could stick to the schedule, they loved it. These girls, they finished their degree. They worked three jobs. They partied more than anyone. They had a great time. What happened to almost everybody is the successful people who get into it and stick with it for a year or more rarely lasts longer than that. Almost always, the reason is their partner makes them quit because you can’t make that schedule work with a real-life or any normal societal thing.
You are awake 22 hours a day. I found YouTube videos of these people online because they’re up in the middle of the night with nothing to do. They’re talking to YouTube and they would tell you like, “It’s 4:00 in the morning. Nobody is up. There’s nothing to do. I wanted to share my ideas for ways to kill time.” They burned through their to-do list. The first two weeks, they’ve got nothing to do. They’re up in the middle of the night trying to trade ideas for ways to kill time until the world wakes up. It was fascinating.
Not much has changed. We have the core of the three-hour night in Everyman. We’ve got these twenty-minute ones that are particular times you can cycle down to about 3 hours to 3.5 hours. Here’s what happens in my experience. I’ve had multiple CEOs come to me and want to do the Everyman. Almost nobody wants to do the Uberman. It’s too difficult to try to accomplish. There are three problems there. Number one, you’re 100% correct. You didn’t say the actual word that I was looking for you to say, but I’ll tell you what I want. People get lonely and loneliness leads to a lot of major problems. When people start experimenting with things like drugs or alcohol, you have to be almost completely no drugs, no marijuana, none of that. That’s one problem is people get lonely.
Number two, what I’ve discovered and I’ve only had one person do it successfully is that by the third week, if you have any proclivity for depression, it pops and you end up with a major depressive episode. Some people are suicidal. For any single person that asks me about this, my first thing is, “Do you have any depression in your personal thoughts or do you have any in your family history? If you do, this is probably not a good idea.” You are right, there are certain fragilities out there that don’t withstand this system. The final thing is there’s loneliness, depression, and it’s the sheer boredom of it. How many times can you watch Netflix?
We can’t replace the natural process of sleep. There are consequences to that over the course of time.
Tweet
The other thing to screen is, do you have something to do? Some people do.
If you want to write a book, then that might be good for you.
I haven’t looked into this for years now, but I remember at the time, sleep scientists didn’t want to touch it.
You’re talking pure heresy. You’ve got to remember something, I’m a heretic. People don’t like the stuff that I do because I look into the science and I want to push and innovate the science, but 99.9% of sleep specialists would never consider in a million years.
They’re not recommending your books. Maybe it was certainly true then, apparently still true now, but one of the theories of why Uberman worked is because there were people who got on it and did it for years and were fucking prolific. I remember reading, the theory at the time was that you’ve got these different sleep cycles. You’ve got your deep sleep, light sleep, REM sleep, and is there a fourth one?
There are two phases of six, 1 and 2, 3 and 4, and then there’s REM.
The theory was, once you train yourself to take the twenty-minute nap, people under Uberman lay down and sleep for exactly eighteen minutes. They then wake up. I got the Zeo Headband.
I was on their scientific advisory. The first sleep tracker company in history.
I got the sleep tracker. I put it on my head and went to sleep and I watch in the morning. In the morning, you get a graph that shows you all your sleep cycles. I would get spread over 3 or 4 sessions in the night, about 1.5 hours of REM. What I think I saw if I remember correctly with the people on Uberman who used EEG or whatever to see their sleep cycles was they would lay down, get eighteen minutes of REM and wake up. They’re still getting about 1.5 hours of REM in a day. They’ve trained themselves to do it specifically in those naps. The lay theory at the time was maybe the REM is an important part of sleep and this deep sleep is some evolutionary artifact that we can forgo, which I thought was an interesting way of interpreting that as like, “That’s why the people on Uberman are fine.” They’re getting all the REM. They’re getting as much as me. I’m wasting a bunch of time in between my REM cycles in the middle of the night to get that 1.5 doing deep sleep.
You are almost there. I would say yes for REM sleep, but you’ve left out arguably the most important component, which is stage 3 and 4.
Why is that important?
It’s all physical restoration. The body isn’t going to work without stage 3 and 4 sleep. If all you got was 1.5 hours of REM, your brain might be swimming, but you are not going to be able to move.
It describes a lot of people. There’s the opposite. Maybe a lot of other people are getting a lot at stage 3 or 4 with no REM. That’s why their brains are useless.
We can say about the Uberman system is it takes out a lot of the noise. That’s the goal. What I do with my high-performance people is I do the same thing, but I don’t have to use Uberman. I don’t have to use Everyman because if I put you in your chronotypical bedtime swim lane, it automatically shrinks. If I shrink you to six hours a night of super high-quality sleep versus four hours, and you have to do this crazy rotation desk schedule, what would you rather do? I’m doing the same idea but in a healthier and more genetic way. I’m looking at your genetics. I’m matching your schedule to your genetics as opposed to somebody saying, “I’m going to do this Uberman schedule, and I’m going to arbitrarily pick this time to sleep.” I would argue that what I’m doing is a little bit safer.
That helps a lot. I’ve seen you work on and other people work on a variety of different kinds of dietary supplements, things that look to me like deluxe placebos. I’m curious about, what supplements might be meaningful to take and then, how do we substantiate that? What I see with this is not just sleep-related necessarily, but with a lot of these supplements is a shit ton of total bullshit like the CBD pillow. It looks like that to me. I can’t seem to map their claims.
We have two problems with the supplement. One is almost no clinical testing. That’s what you’re starting to talk about. We have a secondary problem that’s bigger than the nonclinical testing. The secondary problem is whatever testing that’s been done on a single ingredient, then people would use that to substantiate what I call kitchen sink products. They’ll take twelve ingredients, mix it up. They’ll take twelve different studies to say that this thing was effective. This one study and one ingredient profile, as opposed to what are the interaction effects and what was your population? There’s no real research. What happens is people go out there and they say, “I’ve got a supplement. That’s going to be good for sleep. It’s got valerian in it, which has got a research study behind it.” They can say it’s scientifically proven, but it’s not. It’s a big farce for everybody out there. My goal in the supplement world is to number one, not give anybody anything that they don’t need. Step number one is what vitamins, minerals, nutrients are in your body, in a lower state, in a deficient state that we need to bring up to par levels. That’s when we were having a discussion about PER3, magnesium, iron and melatonin.
For all those, we need to do blood work.
Although you can do saliva for melatonin, but remember for melatonin, you want to look at what time of day you take it. It’s going to be different levels at different times of the day because it’s circadian. Once we get past that, then there are two questions, “Do I want to give you an herb that helps you fall asleep or do I want to give you an herb that accentuates a particular aspect of your sleep?” Those are two different animals. I’ve been playing around with some mushrooms, not like psilocybin mushrooms, but general mushrooms, and starting to learn more. Lion’s mane, it turns out, appears to help with REM sleep.
I have heard that before. Do you know Paul Stamets? This guy has been doing mushroom research, like renegade shit for a long time. You’ve got to beat this guy. I don’t know him. I’ve listened to some interviews with him and he was also a computer nerd way back. I knew that, but there are some good interviews online with him. I’ll find him. That guy knows a shit ton about what’s possible with mushrooms aspects of it.
For me, I’m not trying to create something that’s not in nature. All I want to do is I want to get you back to a functioning level. By the way, your generalized nutrition has a lot to do with it as well. There’s a lot of data servicing about something called your microbiome. We now know that your microbiome is the nerve center and send signals all over your body to tell your body to do different things.
A lot of people know what the microbiome is by now, but it’s fascinating because it was not part of anyone’s conversation many years ago. We’re at the beginning of understanding it and the way I always describe it, you’ve got all these bacteria that live in your gut and what you eat, it feeds them. What they spit out feeds you. That layer of indirection is in everyone, but it’s different for both of us and everyone else. Since we don’t have a way to measure it, this is why a lot of these diet concepts that work for one person don’t work for someone else.
We’re starting to see more personalization in the diet side of things because what we can do is you can measure your microbiome and you can get stool samples and things like that. It’s a little bit more sophisticated and you can get a nutrient profile of like, “What do you need? What do you not have?”
What I’d be interested to learn is what your view is on how understanding the microbiome is going to play out?
We now know that microbiome has an influence on our circadian rhythms and the microbiome itself has a circadian rhythm. If we tune up our microbiome, by understanding our nutrition, getting rid of things like high fructose corn syrup, lowering our processed sugar, things like that are generalized good recommendations in any way, what we will find is our microbiome, the biology of it will get better, which will allow our entire human unit to work better, which makes us sleep better.
A recommendation like that is more true for some people than other people because of the makeup of the gut.
It has a lot to do with your dietary lifestyle. I started to learn not that long ago, I love McDonald’s French fries. They do not work well for me and that’s something that I have to accept. There are food consequences.
My doctor prescribed French fries because my blood pressure is low.
I would say salt it up, brother. You need more fried food, I don’t, but that brings to your point, the personalization of it all. My prediction is that we’re going to see more personalized medicine, diet and sleep, moving into the future. I’m excited about the technology that’s starting to come out in pharma, in holistic, and what’s coming out in lifestyle. I’m learning about things that I never would have thought about before like breathwork like, “I know how to breathe. Why would I need breathwork to help me sleep?” It helps you sleep. We need to be more exploratory in the sleep unit. These ideas, let’s fucking go and try them out. Let’s test them. Let’s put it through a scientific methodology so we can see if it works and let’s advance the field. That’s what I want to do. Unfortunately, a lot of my colleagues are stuck in the clinical side of it. They just treat apnea.
It’s true outside of sleep science and a lot of areas in science. We have this problem where people are getting narrowly focused. A lot of the incentives are screwy to keep people from wanting to do these new things. What’s the thing that you wish you had that could advance sleep science?
Do you want the truth of it? I am working on it, cannabis. I think cannabis is where the revolution is going to start. Historically, unfortunately, something like insomnia has been what we call door handle diagnosis. When I am in the room with the patient and I am about to leave, I will have my hand on the door and they will say, “By the way, doc, I am not sleeping well.” Here is what the doctors generally do. They reach in their pocket, they pull out the prescription pad, write the prescription for Ambien and say, “Try this for 30 days and you should be fine.” Nothing can prove that true. When the person got hooked on this drug, they have to ask for this gamekeeper. If you are a drug addict for trying to go to sleep, it is not like I am saying, “I’m smacking heroin here.” Ambien doesn’t even have a street value but we have to beg doctors to give us something to help us have a natural process. It’s like there is something wrong with that.
If we tune up our microbiome, it will allow our entire human unit to work better, making us sleep better.
Tweet
I believe that cannabis has the ability to lower pre-sleep anxiety. In our conversation, we were talking about how 75% of insomnia is related to depression. If we can find the right constituents within cannabis, I am not talking about getting people stoned. I am talking about helping people to sleep. A lower level of THC can lower anxiety. Here is the most fascinating part and many people haven’t seen this research, the pathways of melatonin and THC are almost identical. They use similar neuro pathways. There is a mixing that’s going on there somewhere. It gets interesting. My goal is I want to be the tip of that sphere. I want to be the guy that’s right on their front and doing the research and saying, “Let’s fucking figure this out.” It is one of the oldest plants there is. People have been using this for thousands of years. We are now in the state at least here in the US.
It’s where we could finally start to learn how it works and what works.
Thirty-five states have proven it for medicinal use, it is 15% to 18% for recreational. The horses left the barn and let’s wrap some fucking science now.
I see extraordinary results for people but not, unfortunately, the science we need to understand what is happening. Do you have any other cool things you are working on? Don’t you have at least a couple of books? Are they any good?
I do. I like my books. I am working on my fourth book. It is going to be all about energy and humans. My first book is called Good Night. That is a do it yourself 30 days make yourself better.
Is it obsolete now or is it still useful?
It is useful all the time. My second book is The Sleep Doctor’s Diet Plan, lose weight for better sleep. There is all about the relationship between the metabolic process and sleeping, how those two influence each other. I give an interesting recommendation of how to sleep better to help your body be prime to losing weight. My third book is called The Power of When. It is all about the chronotype and the circadian rhythmicity. I was looking at that aspect and starting to learn how my bodily hormones are on a particular schedule. If I can predict it, I can choose what time of day to do something when my hormone levels are going to help me. That was my third book which I thought is fucking awesome. My fourth book is moving into taking all of that and saying, “Why do we sleep? We sleep to live. We sleep to spend time with our family, for our career, to innovate, and all of these things. I want energy from sleep.” I am combining with an expert on movement. We have created a way to identify your chronotype and body type. We have a series of sleep aspects and movement aspects to give you energy throughout the day without having to use caffeine and stimulants. That’s going to be the next one.
How long before that’s out?
It will be out in December 2021.
You were working on a couple of other products.
I work in the supplement arena, non-cannabis supplement because a lot of people are interested in that. I am also learning a lot more about counseling and scaled counseling people. When you look at the mental health aspect, we are finally getting technology like texting, it is a form of therapy. Michael Phelps is working with the company where they’ve got a whole platform and people can text therapy sessions. We are starting to see that this is moving. I want to see it happen for sleep counseling because there are many people that need a little attention. They need to learn from a trusted source that they can get their hands on and they need to scale.
That does not exist yet but you want to work on that.
I do.
Do you need help? What kind of help do you need?
I need to better understand the landscape to see if I can build it or buy it.
The Power of When: Discover Your Chronotype–and the Best Time to Eat Lunch, Ask for a Raise, Have Sex, Write a Novel, Take Your Meds, and More
The state of the artists, we have chatbots that you can train by having them watch or read a zillion conversations. It could be audio or text these days, but it learns from reading a zillion other conversations. When someone is conversing with it, it knows what to ask next. It can train the chatbot to lead them to a logical progression. You can make a decision tree and a flowchart. You can program that ahead of time. That’s how these things work. There are a number of off the shelf framework for doing that. A lot of reuse for customer support. There are better ones that can be used for healthcare. You can specifically train them despite what you have read in the thousands of conversations that don’t even recommend CBD pillows so they can be used as a way of scaling and counseling. Some of those tools are accessible. You can spend your weekend playing with it and bake your own chatbot.
People can do that. You can bake a rudimentary one. What would be cool is for somebody that spends a little time with you, make your first draft one so you have your head around that process. Using machine learning, if you’ve got data that shows what you want, for the progression you want a patient to go through, these days are trivial for the computer to learn from all that data how to take a new person through that in the conversation.
Most of my stuff is protocolized.
If that’s true then, computers fucking love that. What machine learning gets you is pass that part is like, “What do we do in the situation where we don’t have the decision tree?” The easy way to think is for our lives, computers have been able to do anything that you can define in a series of logical steps. What machine learning brings us is the ability to have computers do things when we don’t understand what the logical steps are. That’s the difference. That is why it powerful, fascinating, scary, and difficult to get your head around because it can do things that we don’t understand. That might be something for you to play with, but you could start the old school decision tree style chatbot systems because they are powerful. They need to be applied to a problem. If you know what direction to take somebody in, like the chatbot can take care of doing that, 24/7 on text whenever somebody wants. I don’t think it is going to be that hard for you to make something like that. Show me the flowchart and maybe they can reach out to you.
I thought of one for a couple sleeping. I created this quiz that would be a chatbot thing that would have compatibility. Wouldn’t it be great if Match.com has it before you hit?
It’s like, “You are a morning person, she’s not. No chance.”
There is a lot. By the time you are sleeping with somebody, it’s too late. I would like to create something that would be fun.
That’s part of the screening process.
Can you imagine how well that will be?
I did have some experience in dating women that were not compatible in bed for sleeping. It is like, “You run too hot, if I can’t cuddle you, forget it. It is not going to work.”
Somebody might want to cuddle, but there is this temperature. By the way, a chatbot or an app like that has a lot of utility, not just from a fun and interesting standpoint but it is going to catch people’s interest. They start to think about those things, and then I can teach them about body temperature, circadian rhythmicity, melatonin. Let’s figure this out in a scientific way. That’s the goal.
You can use the chatbot for intakes screening like, “Chat with this bot for a while. If we have a good recommendation for you, we will let you know.” That’s a way to scale it. Are there any other products that people can get that you worked on?
I made my own line of blue light blocking glasses, which I like quite a bit.
Do you wear those at night?
Wear that 90 minutes before going to bed to help lower the amount of blue light exposure if you have a problem sleeping. If you don’t have a problem sleeping, you don’t need one. Those are interesting products. Also, I worked with different companies to help them learn more about the science of their products. Part of what I am working on now, which is interesting, is the Mattress Universe. I believe that sleep is a performance activity. I am a runner. If I go running, I can run in my flip-flops, cut-offs, my torn t-shirt, and my Boombox.
I think you should do it though.
There is a relationship between the metabolic process and sleeping; the two influence each other.
Tweet
If I’ve got my Asics on, my Dri-FIT wear, and my iTunes going, I can run. It is a performance. Sleep is the same way. If you’ve got the right equipment, you will sleep better. I will argue that between 20% to 25% of sleep is environment influence for someone. Especially for the people who have got insomnia, believe it or not, there is now a way to look at people’s sleep genetics even it has 23andMe. I’ve got a company that I work, I can run your genetic in 74 different sleep markers. I can look if you have genetics for poor sleep quality or for lower amount of sleep total time.
Is that something you do or something that people can sign up for?
There is a group online that helps you with it but they just give you the data. They don’t interpret it. What I do for my client is I get data and I will do a full-on interpretation. I’ll say, “These four snips are variations for obstructive sleep apnea. Let’s take a look at each one of these studies and see what identifies for you and let’s take a look at the data.” It is a little painstaking at first. I have to get it down a bit more refined. It is possible. That becomes a roadmap in walking that path.
Are you available for people who need a sleep coach?
One of the things I’m trying to do is scale because there is only one Michael. I have a small practice. I see 68 patients and I do see people like Paris Hilton. At the end of the day, I want the best in the world so I can focus on interesting problems and then take that information and spread it.
For everybody else, they can read your books. Do you have a podcast?
I have a podcast called Sleep Success with Dr. Michael Breus. In my website, I’ve got over 800 blogs on these topics.
People can dig in there.
Any question you have about sleep, I have written 1,000 to 15,000 words exposé, all reference and full documented on anything that you want to know.
Do you have any questions for me?
I don’t but I want you to know that I enjoy our friendship, our talks, and our time of innovation. You are the most innovative and interesting person I know. I enjoyed our time.
Michael J. Breus, Ph.D. is a Clinical Psychologist and both a Diplomat of the American Board of Sleep Medicine and a Fellow of The American Academy of Sleep Medicine. He is one of only 168 psychologists in the world to have passed the Sleep Medical Speciality board without going to Medical School. Dr. Breus was recently named the Top Sleep Specialist in California by Reader’s Digest, and one of the 10 most influential people in sleep.
Dr. Breus is the author of The Power of When, (September 2016) a #1 at Amazon for Time Management and Happiness, #28 overall) a bio-hacking guide book proving that there is a perfect time to do everything, based on your genetic biological chronotype. Dr. Breus gives the reader the exact perfect time to have sex, run, a mile, eat a cheeseburger, ask your boss for a raise and much more.
His second book The Sleep Doctor’s Diet Plan: Lose Weight Through Better Sleep, discusses the science and relationship between quality sleep and metabolism. His first book, GOOD NIGHT: The Sleep Doctor’s 4-Week Program to Better Sleep and Better Health (Dutton/Penguin), an Amazon Top 100 Best Seller, is a do-it-yourself guide to better sleep.
Dr. Breus lectures all over the world for organizations such as YPO (Young Presidents Organization) 20+ times in 2018-19, AT&T (10 times), on stage for Tony Robbins (Unleash the Power), hospitals, and medical centers, financial organizations, product companies and many more.
For over 14 years Dr. Breus served as the Sleep Expert for WebMD. Dr. Breus also writes The Insomnia Blog and can be found regularly on Psychology Today, and Sharecare.
He is an expert resource for most major publications doing more than 250 interviews per year (WSJ, NYT, Washington Post, and more).
Recorded on November 12, 2020
Urban Transportation ＆ the Truth about Garbage — Assaf Biderman
Jan 16, 2022
About two billion people that are going to move into cities by 2050 and with that growth, the demand for efficient transportation is going to increase dramatically. In an era where we’re already seeing inefficiencies in urban mobility having a massive impact on the economy, public health and environmental health, it’s hard to imagine a future of transportation that doesn’t border utter chaos. Cognizant of these projected problems, Assaf Biderman, is working on solutions that harness the power of artificial intelligence, robotics and other technologies that are already within our reach. Assaf is founder and CEO of Superpedestrian, founder of the Senseable City Lab at MIT and an awesome guy to learn from. I’ll admit, I have been dubious about the rentable scooter business, but Assaf has me convinced there’s an important place for these things in our cities. If you have any interest in urban mobility, this conversation is important.
You’re still at MIT, but you don’t have to go anymore because no one goes to work anymore.
The whole lab has been removed since March. I’m still on the board of the lab. I spend most of my time at Superpedestrian.
Is the Senseable City Lab still going?
Yes.
What are you guys trying to do?
Senseable started in 2003, 2004, where the goal was to say, computers are becoming part of everything. They can emit data. They can act on data. You can embed them in your environment. That allows us to completely change the way we study design and impact cities. Some people call this field of smart cities and I don’t like that.
It is because there’s no such thing
People are smart enough, but there is a lot that you can do. You can discover new things about how people organize themselves and about how it flows through the city, energy flows, waste, the things we consume, people, and communication. A lot of that can impact how you design them and how you manage them in real-time. It’s got a lot of value. It’s one of the largest lab fields. I’ve been doing work since 2004 in partnership with cities all over the world. Those are big city partners and a lot smaller. It was funded by corporate for the most part and more will survive by long-term brands, but most of the money came from corporate where cities volunteered themselves as a subject matter and tell us about what problems they care about. Probably they want to look at together with us. We use the bigger money from corporate, all thrown together into one pot. We basically manage the deployment of dollars into research areas that we care about and the cities care about and the consortium that the management cares about. Most of the time, technology surrounds machine learning, robotics, various types of analytics.
For example, when you think of the seventeen-year history or something, what are the things that stand out to you as examples of what that lab is doing so that I could understand?
The impact areas that we care about are the stuff that makes cities function better or worse. We look at a lot of transportation, and probably half of those are transportation, whether it is dispatch algorithms to global taxis that we’ve been working on for many years. There’s quite a bit of knowledge there that’s generated this whole micro vehicle angle, which is what Superpedestrian is spun into.
How do you define micro vehicles?
These are tiny vehicles that take vertical space. The key thing is you got to take much less space on the road than a car does, but the longer answer it depends on the occupants. We want to make sure that we are able to get a lot more people on the road. There are about 2 billion people that are going to move into cities by 2050. There is no way that these people are moving. Cities are already overbooked so 1.16 people in a car, which is what we do today, like Sedan don’t cut it. Think of something else where the utilization is a lot higher, either a tiny vehicle for “1.16 people” or some way to decline transit with these other modes. It’s classically called multimodality. Cities have done this for over a century with subways. You walked into the subway. Now we want to extend the reach of these systems or any new modes on either end.
Two billion people are going to move into cities by 2050. There is no way those people are moving if we don’t revolutionize transportation.
Tweet
I have a zillion questions about this.
That’s one thing about transportation. We’ve got a lot of work on housing. I work on energy, waste production, and communication. How do communities lay themselves out in space, which touches on the essence of why we come together probably in cities, in the first place? It is to get access the diversity to human capital. There’s increasingly work on the intersection between biology and cities because you can learn so much about how we are impacted by a built environment or how it should be better designed by studying, for example, the collective microbiome of communities. It’s public health that provides that like the spread of pandemics. It is quite a bit of work on that in the last several years with robots that eat your shit and tell you something about the collective gut. It’s been spun off. They started doing well when COVID came around.
I’ve heard multiple pitches for companies that want to sample sewer systems to figure out where in the city there’s COVID or whatever pandemic.
There is this company called Biobot, which we spun of Senseable from the project we called Underworlds. I’m looking at it for a while at Eric Alm’s lab. Well trying to amply signals in the sewer that relate to that.
You said you’re on the board, but are you actively doing anything at the lab or you’re pretty much busy with the startup?
I am, but much less than intensive. A startup is something you want to put yourself into completely.
Coming at it from a different perspective, at Intellectual Ventures Lab where I was working., we created a group called Institute for Disease Modeling. Essentially, what the team was doing was computational modeling on the spread of disease. Mostly third world stuff, but what happened was we created computational models on things primarily like malaria and big infectious diseases there. When the first Ebola outbreak happened, 12,000 lives were lost. When the second Ebola outbreak happened, twelve lives were lost. In between what happened among other things was we were able to do computational models to optimize the ring vaccination campaigns so that we could quickly contain those outbreaks. That’s a two order of magnitude improvement on lives lost. With infectious disease, it could be a pandemic candidate.
A lot of the gains came because we were able to use computers to help us make better decisions. I use that in my mind as an example of how computers with these modern tools, computational models, big data, machine learning, network models, being able to help humans make better decisions about what to do with large complicated problems. Things that our intuition would fail us. That’s the rough thesis I have in my head about what’s possible. What I imagine is that you have a lot more experience than me with the Senseable Lab going and figuring out for cities. Exactly that because in my mind, in the future, even the near future, we should be able to use these types of tools to help us make better decisions about city planning, transportation, infrastructure like sewer systems, water, power and all those things.
We should be able to make use models to create thousands of possible futures and let us choose which one is the best from that. It seems like that’s the work you’ve been doing for a long time, in some sense. What I want to do is figure out if you have examples from that work to help me substantiate this view, help people see the potential and how we make decisions for situations, where asking an expert isn’t going to get you the best answer because we’ve tapped our tapped out on our potential with that type of decision-making process.
There’s plenty of examples. When we started this work, it was a few groups around the world looking at this and there was very little data to go by. We had to do a lot of data, to partner with companies that have data running through them for other purposes, cell phone companies. We worked with a lot of vehicle services and also the computational capabilities, the analysis, the science behind the analysis, the mathematics was it a difference. Some of this is being put to practice. It’s in a very different state. I still think we’re fairly early on. I’m not sure that the biggest value to be had from this cyber-physical city is in the ability to somehow centrally make decisions that are smarter. When it comes to pandemic, you definitely want that. That’s the great rule, catch to spread, know how to cut the chain of contagion, what we’ve all learned to think of a split flattening the curve.
All this stuff is perfect for centralized decision-making systems where theaters can be effective. However, if you think about a lot of the things that are happening in the city. People, the citizens, the actors themselves are the ultimate decision-makers, how something ends up behaving, how you navigate yourself through the city by what you throw away, where you work, and where you live. Almost all the decisions about the way a place functions played by the people who use the place, not the people who mattered. I think there is an important distinction that I want to put out there first. It becomes interesting when part of these computer models or computer analysis becomes open and information brings a citizen as an ultimate decision-maker, so that citizenship could become smarter.
It’s a good, amazing dream.
There’s little stuff that we’re already doing, but there’s a lot more that we can do.
When you say that, what I imagined is like, Mumbai versus Seattle or where in Mumbai, citizens are making all the decisions. There’s nothing central going on. That’s affecting the city. As far as I can tell, Seattle, the city is making decisions, largely poor ones about everything. The citizens aren’t making a lot of the decisions I don’t feel. Am I wrong about that? Do you see a spectrum there?
Think of the things that you do from the moment you get up in the morning until you go to sleep, how much of that is being dictated by somebody else? There are very few. It’s in your immediate environment that predicts how you move, where you eat, what’d you buy, how you consume, pollute, contribute what you work on, and all that stuff. Transportation, housing, and education are big pillars of cities. They are navigated by cities. At the end of the day, people are driving these pillars. Let’s leave it at this abstract level for a second and try to focus on it. Let’s talk specifically about transportation. Now, we make choices about transportation that are driven by where we were, where we live, and where we’ll spend our time. We might choose where to live based on the availability of transportation, how bad is traffic. Is there a rail going to where I’m going to move to? At the end of the day, there is the impact of the decisions made by the Central Transportation Authority. It can be a mess. It is something we’re planning for an alternative can be a mess. Let’s think what’s positive. We have a pretty good understanding of how demand has been shaping for transportation. It has been growing and growing. It hasn’t had a flat year since 1984.
Except for this one.
Cities have been completely overbooked on the streets, but demand keeps piling on, so what are we going to do? Many cities have been focusing on mass transit. For the past 100 years, we’ve seen subway systems pure around the world. They’re expensive, but they’re very effective. Many cities do not have the ability to put a subway system yeah together. Those who have them, can’t expand them as effectively. We’re seeing examples all throughout the world, but almost every developed city very slow expands the subways. Not only this, when you expand it, the city develops around the subway system in a way that it immediately creates new demand for transportation further in the peripheral. The subway system reaches a certain neighborhood then that neighborhood will be more integrated with the city.
Farther into the periphery, you’ll have new developments where people will buy cars and end up driving into the city from there. Historically, how do you plan that? You ask a bunch of households where they go to and from and create what’s called origin-destination makers. Now, we can derive those matrices with much higher procedures, whether it is through cell phone data. There are quite a few other ways. Think of the data that flows through an Uber-like service, a lift-like service, a transit authority, a taxi service, a micro-mobility company, and a cell phone company. When you put those together, you get a pretty good understanding of what’s going on in the city from the demand perspective. The insurance companies are increasing.
You’re looking at that so you get a pretty good understanding of demand, but at the end of the day, you can’t change the supplier of transportation real-time. The cities are made of concrete. It takes a long time to change those big things like infrastructure. There is planning that happens as a result and the planning is quite long-term of the transit system. You do these demand surveys and the city ends up making decisions, 10 sometimes 20 years into the future in terms of massive investments or even management. Now, the question is we did an explosion in urbanization and the complete over-consumption of transportation, especially in the urban part, but also in four-doors in the Bay Area. It’s congested throughout almost all week days. The same is true for our latest industry in London, Beijing, Jakarta and Bangkok. What do we do now?
If historically, we learn how to plan transportations that have walked to the subway and then you’d walk again, we’ve learned how to do this. They are all planners who specialize in this. They work in City Halls and they can be using the latest and greatest data tools or the sources, but still, you walk to the subway. There were some ways systems evolved very slowly. We added the Bus Rapid Transit system. If you want to expand the regional systems, there need to be new modes of transit that can let you go farther than what you get than by walking. Think of the KickScooter that we’re seeing a lot more around, shared e-scooters, shared e-bikes, and mopeds. One person covered vehicles like a tiny car electric. All these are going to become a part of a multimodal, very flexible transit system. That’s most likely going to be part of mobility or urban mobility systems into the future.
Do you think these scooters that we see for rent on the street are here to stay in cities? Are they improving things?
In some ways, yes, but let’s take a step backward. First of all, I think from a form factor perspective, what matters is that people like them. They find them useful. They have improved. They will improve a lot. That is what Superpedestrian is about, that technologies that make them safer and more manageable, but you’ll see multiple forms. This one form factor addresses a certain type of user, which is those short 1 to 3-kilometer trips.
They’re not great for groceries or whatever.
You can’t hold stuff on them very easily. You don’t want to go too far, but they’re great if you’re wearing a skirt, if you’re wearing a suit, or if you want something non-committal and they’re fun. Most importantly, people seem to like it. In 2019, there are 250 million trips made on those and it is growing. That means that there’s something that people are willing to do instead of using other modes. The question is, what does it come at the expense of? Is it replacing walking? Is it replacing subway trips or other transit trips? Is it replacing a ride-hailing trips or private carts? There are more and more research that shows that at least a third of the hour on average is already thinking mode shift away from private car use or ride hailing what cities crave. Elected officials are being elected into office to do something about traffic problems, which wasn’t the case, get cars off the street.
If you have one mode, the scooters, which takes care of the short end of the trips, we’ll see something else which takes care of the medium-range trips, electric bikes, for example, or even longer the moped. Perhaps a slightly different type of trip would be something where you have covered vehicles and you can carry your shopping or your child, all of this under the mandate of being small. It takes little space on the road and it is electric so that it doesn’t pollute. The question is, can these things combined so that you now have an option for coming from the periphery of a city into a transit hub or the city center? By combining walking with a scooter with a car or whatever, any kind of combination thereof, that’s multimodality. We know how to plan this. Now, we have the data system that can allow us to merge these new vehicles. From the academic perspective, the planning is pretty well figured out. The vehicles themselves have been lagging behind the engineering that the technology of businesspeople making them a possibility has been lagging behind planning of this.
I’m glad to hear you say that because first of all, you said a quarter billion trips, but that’s not much.
Don’t quote me on the number, but compared to something on the order of 20 to 25 trillion passenger kilometers, driven by individuals in cities every year.
We have a ways to go. That’s a way of measuring ran from a mobility passenger, a trillion passenger-kilometers per cab.
If I am not wrong, there are over 22 trillion passenger-kilometers around the world and the way you want to measure it is by passenger-kilometers per cab by a trillion passengers.
You divide 22 trillion by global population.
We’re expecting 60 trillion to 70 trillion passengers-kilometers by the middle of the century. It’s mind-blowing. The question is, how do you provide that in giant vehicle space? There’s not going to be room to support that. If you don’t supply this, it is not just about our life is going to be terrible or understanding traffic. It’s other things. Eighty percent of the world’s GDP is provided by the cities. If you don’t keep supplying it with transportation, if you don’t keep up with its growth, you get stuck to the GDP. Environmentally, there is an impact. In terms of anything from productivity to public health, the impact is major.
Did you say 60 to 70 trillion on what timeline?
By the middle of the century, by 2050. These are predictions by Arthur D. Little and the Bureau of Transportation Statistics. There is another similar magnitude. The vehicle’s been lagging behind It’s an engineering problem and it’s a business model.
The business model problem is clear. My experience with multimodal is that the transitions are expensive, especially waiting for a bus, waiting for a subway, getting off the subway, looking around for a Lime scooter, or whatever. The transitions are expensive and it makes me not want to rely on it. If I can afford something else, I’ll choose it and I can usually so I pick a car.
Dependability is key. You need to be able to make a choice of transportation mode or modes. If you don’t know that it’s going to be there for you in the morning, you got to be late for work. Once or twice, and you’re done. That’s key. That’s a lot of what we ended up focusing on Superpedestrian tend to do with the reliability of service and dependability. At the moment, it is still in juvenile stages, if you look at scooter services out there because the vehicles are wrong vehicles. The technology within them is not the right one.
What’s an example and how it could be better?
They failed to offer. They come there and it’s broken.
It’s driving me nuts. I get so mad trying to fire up a Bird scooter in Santa Monica and it’s just pathetic. The battery’s dead. I didn’t park it in the right place. I got to drag it to some place where it’s geo-fenced properly.
The fact that the technologies behind them are not fit for the purposes, making it so that it’s expensive for the operators to offer a service that they can’t offer enough, in any way, that’s economical. If we want to see success in cities, we need to see sometimes two orders of magnitude, more of these vehicles, which means they need to be a property. They can’t be just thrown everywhere. Technology is required there. How do you do a much better location? How can the vehicles autonomous needs enforce their own geofences in a much more precise way, which is something we have investing on?
Manage the vehicles, but then economically, if your vehicles fail all the time and your cost of offering a service is driven by the amount of people you have to throw at the problem or keeping them up and running, replacing parts in them all the time, which is what scooter company does. That means that you’re going to offer a very small fleet. Even if it’s 3,000, 4,000 or 5,000, it’s still small. A portion of them is never going to be worth it.
If the unit economics don’t work, it doesn’t work.
That means that you can’t depend on the service. That’s at the heart of the problem we’re focusing on.
I need to understand why this is worth pursuing in a city like Boston where it’s going to get some snow. Nobody’s going to ride a scooter for some part of the year. It is the same for a lot of cities. In Seattle, we have scooters, it’s not raining, but it’s wet. I heard there’s something about that, but I don’t know anything. Back up and tell me about Superpedestrian and what the real point of this.
Having done quite a bit of work at MIT on this issue of transportation, what can we do to meet this future transportation demand, which is not slowing down but blowing up? We saw two main avenues. Number one is increased utilization of the car. Instead of having 1.1 people in the car on weekdays, can we get to 4 or 5? We did a lot of work on vehicle dispatch algorithms. Number two changes the vehicles so that it’s smaller. At every point along your trip, you’re using the right scale of the vehicle. If you’re sharing an origin destination with many other people, be on a large view, train view, bus view, or something, but those ones which are small, they don’t exist.
They cost a fortune to maintain. Companies cannot make sense of their business models. They’re not safe enough. Cities can’t manage them. It’s a mess. In these micro vehicles, there is a world where if you addressed technological models, if you create vehicles that can ask themselves if they’re safe to ride before arrive. Vehicles that can predict when something’s about to break before it goes bad to prevent damage from occurring in the first place. Vehicles that can open their own repair tickets and say, “Here’s what I need if they couldn’t protect themselves.” That certainly does not exist, but if you could do that, you’re changing completely the game for a small scale.
It makes sense for fleets, but it doesn’t make sense for auto manufacturers.
There is no reason why it shouldn’t work for auto manufacturers, other than the model of building a car now is very different they have a lot of Tier 1, 2, and 3 suppliers which bringing various black box or technology that you can’t control. It’s a business model. I found it Superpedestrian in 2013, we focused on asking what are these technological bottlenecks that we can unlock, these fundamental technological problems we can solve in order to scale micro vehicles into the large scales that cities meet. We spent the first 4.5 years in R&D. One of the reasons why it’s great to be in New England is you have people that come from the robotic industry specializing in the diagnosis and automated response systems. It is an embedded system control. We hired a whole bunch of smart and interesting people, top engineers from segway before they went bankrupt in the first incarnation who became Amazon Robotics moving the packages in the warehouse.
The VP of engineering for my robot work is cool. A whole bunch of smart people came together to ask, “What is that platform that we can build that will be embedded in the vehicle that can make an affordable, super safe, electric vehicle that could provide the backbone for it.” We call that platform Vehicle Intelligence. We commercialize it in various ways. We have a product called the Copenhagen Wheel, which has a lot of it inside.
Can you describe that real quick?
The key thing we did was we developed a Powertrain. We designed our own motors, choose their own chemistry for battery lithium chemistry, and we build our own battery management system. That’s basics, but that’s not done in micro-mobility at all. For some reason, these are always procured efficient, much safer ways of providing power. We have encryption on the vehicle and User Access Management. We can track the performance of every smart component on the vehicle and also worry about it’s after a sales service in field service on the vehicle itself. If you know how well is my motor controller doing over, communicate that with, “I need to fix it.”
I started to appreciate that. I’ve been obsessed with electric toys so I have been buying a ridiculous number of things I can with wheels and electronics. I never have a clear picture of what’s going on in the controller. A lot of times, there’s some weird incantation you’ve got to do to change a mode. I have an electric dirt bike that you pull the left brake and then the right brake three times then twist the throttle and then turn it off and on again. That’s how to turn off the regen braking. There is all this stuff and I have no idea what’s going on inside that thing. I don’t know if my battery is wearing out over time or what the status of that. There is a lot I don’t know.
I’m expecting it to die at some moment. I don’t have any diagnostics. Sometimes the throttle dies while I’m riding it. I got to restart the thing while moving. I have no way of knowing. I put on three different throttles and it still has this problem. I don’t know what to do. I can see how even for a lot of these products, for them to evolve, that’s maybe not buy another one for my girlfriend or my daughter because it’s a little scary. I don’t mind. I’m fine with things half working, but to be reliable in the way that you’re describing, they don’t even realize that the state-of-the-art isn’t good enough for general use.
The last piece we have on our vehicle platform is decision-making. You can observe it. What components on the vehicle they’re doing and then say, “Can I attribute their performance to failures upstream?” What we realized early on is that the key to be able to do that is to completely swap out all the software of that vehicle. If you want to have full control of the software, not a third party IOT device, third party battery, a third-party motor controller, then you can start to have decision-making systems on your vehicle because you have access. Do we have information that can detect the thing that is about to fail? What fails in the scooter industry? Mostly electronics, otherwise the rest of it is the 1970s, technology mechanical engineering.
It is pretty simple. The L-shape vehicle people abuse its fenders on them yet. The vehicle is very simple. It’s all in the electronics. If you can have full control over the software, onboard the vehicle, now you’re getting somewhere. Now you can respond in nanoseconds, milliseconds, and prevent fires from happening and from going out of equilibrium that if you move away from a thermal issue. If you don’t manage your system thermally well enough for long enough, you’re creating permanent damage to the vehicle. You can put the eventually the rider at risk.
Can I break that down a second? One of the toys I got obsessed with is these electric unicycles, like a solo wheel. I started with the Onewheel, which looks like there’s no way to look cool on a Segway. My daughter looks cool on a Segway, but I can’t look cool on a Segway. I look like the mall cop. I got us one wheel, which is the one you stand on sideways, like a snowboard, and you can look cool and feel pretty cool. It is cool, except that is probably the most dangerous product I’ve ever gotten. I own the fucking lawn darts. That thing is actively trying to kill me. With the Onewheel, you can over torque the motor at full speed because you have so much torque with that deck that there’s no warning. By the time that happens, there’s no recourse. You’re flat on your face at 26 miles an hour. It’s a very powerful and amazing, but the wheel’s not big enough. The diameter doesn’t allow to have enough torque for my body weight.
That is probably the most dangerous product I’ve ever gotten. I own the fucking lawn darts.
Tweet
Everybody who has one of these has titanium pins in their elbows now. I’m not kidding. Everybody, if you look on the Facebook group for Onewheel, it’s all photos of guys in a surgery going, “I can’t wait to get back out on my Onewheel,” and their arms are pinned. It’s insane. Fortunately, my Onewheel got stolen. I figured out that those electric unicycles where you have the big wheel between your feet, those things have bigger diameters so they can have higher torque on the motor. You don’t have as much leverage on it. I started looking into it and they’re dramatically safer.
I don’t think they have a higher torque on motor.
You have lower torque as a rider.
Small wheels have more torque. The thing is that because the wheel is bigger, you’re impacted a lot less by the surface of the road.
It wasn’t the road surface. Maybe you’re right.
It felt safer because it’s much bigger.
It’s clearly are safer. That being said, the electric unicycle community seems hell bent on making them less safe by making them faster. Now, you can buy these things that go 45 miles an hour. It’s insane. Mine goes 31 and it’s the first one that has full suspension. I feel safe on it. I specifically want it because Seattle’s roads are shitty and there are a zillion potholes. I could go 30 miles an hour on it. I wear full gear. I have full motorcycle gear. I ride at 30 and it’s got a full suspension. I can hit a speed bump at 20 to 25 and I won’t fall. I wasn’t trying, but I’ve tested that accidentally and I didn’t die. I have not fallen off it yet, whereas when I had the smaller one that I learned on, I wear a full helmet, full motorcycle gear, boots, everything because I know I’m going to bite it at some point.
The point I’m making is those things, the email list or the Facebook group or whatever. For those things is a lot of people saying, they’re posting a video of the thing that went up in flames or they’re posted a video about, “How do I get the settings right to do this or that?” There are weird Chinese devices and nobody has to make their own third party. They’re making apps to try and mod the firmware. Nobody knows what’s going on. Nobody even knows how to change the tire on one of these things. They’re all swapping notes on how to maintain them.
I wish we were at the office because you would see how we do development on each. We have our embedded software team and each person on their desk have three printed circuit boards, five armed processors. That’s the development. There’s no black box. We write code on. We have multiple modularized state machines that work constantly with one another. Your region is an app. Your geofence parking is an app. Your sidewalk detection is an app. Your safe stock, how do you save stock? How do you stop that vehicle if you need to, in a way safe as possible, better, and do its best?
The electric unicycle companies need to come to you guys and get their next-gen firmware.
We don’t sell the platform.
You need to make an electric unicycle, “It’s totally safe and goes 45 miles an hour.” It sounds like you’re ready to do it.
The key to this is the testing that you do. What level of purification you’re looking for before you put the things on the road? We’ve been engineering our control system for the scooters for years. It’s very mature. There are some things we just don’t touch and don’t fix it. There are some things that we need twelve months of regression testing and we’re good. The reason is that we know what our system can do. We also know what it can’t do. We feed some data regarding, for example, we can detect and in real-time, completely resolve more than 50% of issues that would break other scooters into one.
That’s helpful to understand. What’s an example?
A temperature and balance on battery.
When I go to a Bird scooter, and it says the battery is dead, it’s because something like that went wrong.
It was not recharged, there is an issue internally that made its battery damaged, or there is an issue electrically that’s not bringing energy from the batteries. There could be a whole bunch of issues. I can show you the way out. We can log onto a scooter. You can see the log in the back end. There are tons of stuff. There are over 1,300 data points.
A scooter you’d think with two wheels, you couldn’t have that many data points.
We continuously monitor them. First of all, we tried to detect events. We call them events. We have five hierarchies of things that could happen. If you start from info, then we say, “Where is it happening? Is it important? Could it become a safety list? Should we keep an eye on it? There then was a decision-making tree that can upgrade until code red. These are rare cases where we stop arrived. In between, the least and the most urgent is when most of the stuff is going on, where the assistant rebalances itself, thermo management or the system is able to attenuate, energy where we continuously monitor, for example, the integrity of commands and make sure we’re not asking for something reasonable. We have maps on the vehicle.
It knows where it is.
Also, it knows what the city rules are by itself. The good thing about it, one of the biggest problems that have been is that pedestrians end up being penalized. If you want to see tens of thousands of vehicles like this, they can’t be preventing the disabled person from crossing the road or somebody from getting out of their house. Managing them is important.
What city has the most uptake on these things as far as for scooters? Is there a model city?
Model, not really but Paris is doing a lot these days.
What about bicycles? I know some European cities are big on bicycles. Is that part of what inspires you to think that we could have this many of these scooters like Copenhagen or Amsterdam?
Anne Hidalgo, Paris mayor is taking a major action upgrading the infrastructure of the city to be micro vehicle-friendly. They’re investing a lot and they’re taking away car lanes and they’re putting in two wheels small vehicles lane.
Seattle did that. We have them.
During the pandemic, you should see the number of people on bikes and scooters because you didn’t want to drag yourself into the subway. In Paris, traffic is always messy, even worse, and people don’t want to get into a cab or Uber.
They’re using those lanes now. That’s interesting.
During the entire country of the UK, speeding up scooter permitting processes this year. In 2021, just because of the pandemic, there have been places that have been the makers of cycling for a while, like Copenhagen and Amsterdam. Several other cities in Germany and the Northern Islands.
In Copenhagen and Amsterdam, what’s the uptake on like rentable scooters or whatever like?
Amsterdam, it’s not legal. There are no dockless scooters for rent. In Copenhagen, it is growing. It’s pretty good. It’s good, but forget about that, look at what’s happening there with bikes, 50% of the trips, all the trips in the city center. They ride in the winter too.
Will you describe it because it’ll be interesting? What you described is it goes back to your early thesis of saying, “Computers are going everywhere. You guys have been leading the charge on computers that are going to go into scooters.” This is what’s possible. They can be so much better than people even realize. We could be in the future where there’s always a Bird scooter or whatever brand available. Don’t you guys have a brand that you’re working with?
Our brand is LINK. We acquired the company in May an operator of Douglas. We operate in Salt Lake City, Utah, Columbus, Ohio, Knoxville, Tennessee, Fort Pierce, Florida, Rome, Italy, Arlington Virginia, and Provo, Utah. We won to Seattle RFP.
You’ll soon have LINK Scooters in Seattle?
We’re launching LINK in Seattle.
When LINK exists in Seattle, if I go up to a LINK scooter and it’s going to work, instead of going up to a Lime scooter that doesn’t.
When we look at the data we’ve had scooters thrown into the river. I don’t know why people do this, but we’ve had this in Provo and Columbus. We didn’t even design for this. It turns out that this thing can detect that this is happening. We test for watering, but not for submarines. It turns out that these things had an 83% survival rate from deeping into the water. Not only are they recovered. What it does is it allows us to offer the service with the right number of students that cutting the place. Number two is you throw a lot fewer scooters into the environment. I think about it almost a million scooters were thrown into the trash talking about the apparel. Imagine maybe scooters and landfill. It is terrible. Lithium and Aluminum is polluting. We extend the life of these vehicles. We have equal to 2,500 rides and counting batteries that can go on 5 to 6 years. Vehicles since January 2 or 3 times a day are still at 15 cycle counts out of 500 because we have such an efficient powertrain in such a big battery, we can go 50 to 60 miles in a single charge.
Your first product was the Copenhagen Wheel, is that right? Tell me about that. You might be sick of this, but I remember when you guys made the Copenhagen Wheel, I saw it on Weeds. You showed me the Copenhagen Wheel and then it showed up on TV. It is such a good show that was many years ago. For people who don’t know, describe that one because it was pretty cool and pioneering at the time.
We started that in 2008. The question was if you think biking is such a great solution for cities, but sometimes distances that you need to cover is longer, or you don’t want to get to look sweaty. The use case for electric bikes. We started studying electric bikes and we realized that they’re booming in Europe, but they’re very expensive. The median price was around €3,000. They’re expensive. If you’re looking at anywhere mid-end and up, you can easily pay $35000 and they’re okay. For that money we’re like, “You’d expect a lot more. You can even buy a small car for that money,” especially if you want to see this scale into the millions, it can’t be at that price point. We were asking a naive question, which is, “How can you increase their quality so that people can’t resist writing them and make them more affordable.”
At the same time, if you take the whole power, control mechanism and not sell it into the supply chain, if you look at the industry companies, the bike manufacturers buy a motor with a battery and a controller from a supplier, and then they build a bike for it. They sell it to a distributor, to shop, or to you. By the time you get it, you’re paying 3 to 5X on the electronic parts. That’s what drives the high price of electric bikes. We want it to smarter, what if we allowed people to buy direct tiny components? They have only one layer of margin on it. We cannot get a Ferrari for the price of a Toyota. We’ve built this thing. It is a Ferrari, it’s an incredible machine. There’s a culture around it. Many people say the best eBike ever built. It is learning how you move and respond faster than your body can sense under 10 milliseconds.
Is it still the drop-in wheel replacement? How does that work?
The only way to do it so that you can sell direct to power foreign factor was by making it a drop-in wheel. It’s designed in order to be a way to convert your bike necessarily. We’re happy when people do that. You could go to a store and buy any bike you want and make it electric.
Is that happening now? What’s the status of this?
Being this is my first attempted business of tens of millions of dollars, we’ve developed something that’s still an incredible ride. There is a whole cult around it and we make any of the United States. It turns out that if you don’t have a distributor, shops or margin, you don’t have all these layers, you have very little help from the distribution. It means all the customer acquisitions and marketing is on you. With what we put up as fifteen-point margin, more or less, that’s philanthropy. I learned a lot from that. It is an amazing vehicle. It’s the basis of our technology and they are super reliable, more than 55% of the technical issues are addressed without human intervention. On the Copenhagen Wheel, the electrical issues, we know what’s going on. We can detect issues and prevent them from causing further damage. We try to parallel. If you look at most of our work on what I call automated maintenance and self-protection, it’s been done in 2014 and 2015. There is a lot of pens and sharing and did a lot of developing this platform. We tried to sell it initially to other operators and tried to sell it with the few large ride-hailing companies in 2016 and 2017, to the large bike-sharing operators in 2016 and 2015. There was very little desire to go electric.
Basically, what I learned are two things. Number one is you don’t want to take everything on you. Reinvent the marketing channel, the sales channel, and do all the technology and all the manufacturing and all the supply chain and all the purchasing. Everything is new. It almost no off-shelf part idea. On the other hand, what we did learn is that technology that we’ve made works and real. It’s fundamental. This issue of detecting problems in real-time like water, temperature, balances, thermal management, and that has many applications. We’re monetizing this now in the scooter world because I’m passionate about its mobility. Scooters, the first mode will be the other mode. We will be enabled in many ways by reliability, safety and scale. That’s a way to completely drop the cost of offering a service is different using this technology. It’s about 75% cheaper who offers scooter trip with this platform. It changes the game. That’s an example of how you can start to embed. The intelligence could also be local in the thing. The users don’t even know about it, to seize your scooter, you unlock it, ask yourself if it’s safe before every ride it tells you this is safe, but otherwise, it should be a street bench on wheels. Be there when you need it. That’s different from the high-level analysis or the centralized Oracle view that you were talking about back to the beginning of our conversation saying, “How to disrupt the contagion chain in the pandemic,” which is a different way to think about what computers aid us with. Think of it locally.
It’s an example where you’ve trained the device to know what it’s optimal operating circumstances and what to do in response to different failure modes. Your knowledge keeps improving. Does the device itself keep improving? Is it connected? It’s online so it can talk back to you. You can see the whole fleet.
We started from an embedded system, but it’s all online, the cloud. That is in conversation with embedded soft.
I love that because my scooter’s learning from all the other scooters. I think the public discourse around these devices is missing this key attribute with robots. These devices, they all learn from each other. When one of them gets thrown in the river and figures out and you figure out what to do about it, they all learn what to do next time. When a Tesla, most somebody down, walking in a dark alley where they’re not supposed to be crossing the street, all the other Tesla’s learn never to do that again. That’s a terrible situation, but that’s not true for human drivers when a human driver most somebody down, then no other human learns from that. You seem more bullish on human intelligence and decision-making than I am.
Didn’t you teach me that analog visual hacking is easier than computer-based stuff?
It’s true. There’s an opportunity here to see these technologies as being able to help us do a better job. You’re proving it in a sense because a scooter is like another place where a computer hadn’t gone, now it’s gone there and we can use it to make it a lot better. By extension, I’m sure you got the fundamentals of what you guys are building could be used for any electric vehicle, if not other electric stuff.
Our platform now, the system is directly applicable to any vehicle under 12 kilowatt per hour, so the battery to motors.
Is that anything DC?
We were in a 52-volt DC system, but it’s just a circumstance of the power rating of the different components, but if somebody wanted, they could put this in winter for detection or prediction of issues.
That is a big deal. That’s exciting. What do you guys need for Superpedestrian? What would be helpful for you? Do you guys need more scooter deployment partners? Do you need windmill companies or like what would be helpful to make you guys turbo boost the company?
I didn’t come with an ask but I will tell you where we are. We acquired a company in May and since COVID lockdown to remove, we expanded fast. We entered Europe and hired some great people. We have this special engineering team that’s been built over seven years. That’s great. We then acquired a company that’s ten years old from Baxter. We acquired their fleet management business. We closed the gap and then some on operations on the ground. We have our own W-2. We have our own employees, but then we needed to close the gap on because of the government relations side of things. How do we directly the city? We hired some of the best people from across the industry and senior executives from other scooter operators. We are happy about that. We also fundraise some more. We’re good on that front as well. What kind of help? Most interestingly, for us, is to get as many opportunities as possible to show cities our ways of offering safe, manageable micro mobilities.
Cities are tenuous because they’ve had some mediocre operation come in, make a mess, end up with a lot of SKUs in a river.
A lot of promises were made by essence operations company but with engineering capability. There are a lot of problems, but many of them were not catched.
The cities got burned. You want to be able to show them like, “We can do better. We can be 75% more efficient. We can come in and make these things safe and reliable.”
We look forward to a less affluent community. It could be a lot more dependable because it’s there. You need to manage it so that it doesn’t ride in a park or next to a school. Our vehicle stopped within 0.83 seconds. We’re at 99.91% success because the maps are on board, vehicles autonomously enforce the rules. It’s very different. It’s like half a minute without a vehicle. If there’s no connectivity, sometimes it’s never enforced. There are 250 cities around the world that didn’t have scooter licenses. The number is growing to over 600 in 2021. There are more cities to deploy scooters. There is supply even throughout the world, irrespective of a lie. However, it’s important to tell the story that technology and capabilities matter.
Cities need to know that they don’t want to go make the same mistake and end up getting burned in the same way.
Otherwise, it is just a commodity.
I remember seeing piles and piles of rental eBikes or something. In Beijing, companies tried to deploy right. Bikes for rent and that ended up failing somehow. There are stacks of them.
That’s an industry where the unit economics works.
It baffles me how these things go. I want to let you get out of the wind here, but let me ask about one thing because this is interesting to me. One of the projects I remember you doing years ago which I guess must have been in the Senseable Lab was throwing away GPS trackers and the trash maybe all over America and then seeing where the trash goes around the world. This is an epic project that everyone should see even now. It a decade or more ago, but that was an amazing enlightening project where I could see for the first time what was invisible to me. It was so much more dramatic than what you would have guessed or what I would have expected.
If you ask me at that time like, “What happens when you throw a can of Coke or a pair of sneakers in the trash,” I would have thought, “It gets picked up by the truck that goes to the transfer station where they send the recycling one direction and they send the trash another direction. The sneakers go to a landfill that’s 30 miles away and the can goes to a recycling center somewhere in the state. It gets becomes aluminum that’s melted down and turns into cans again.” That’s what I would have guessed. That is not at all what you showed. Better than me trying to do a shitty job of summarizing, why don’t you describe what that was about?
The genesis was in 2008. We started seeing anecdotes about how waste moves. We wanted to try to verify this with a quantitative study. How do you do that? If you’re a waste management operator, all you have is a statistical data. You don’t get to know the pieces of trash flow through your system. We built these sensors that are IOT devices. They detect their own location and they communicate. We partnered with Qualcomm. They need to survive in the trash. That’s quite an IOT device. I was talking 2008, 2009.
Was it easy then?
It wasn’t too difficult, but we’re not as good. We wanted to get six months of life of those. That required a lot of smarts and how you designed to power. The key thing there was we went to Seattle on purpose because it was their recycling time squad in the United States. Most investments, a lot of compliance on behalf of citizens. We wanted to see how it functions. We partnered with waste management, one of the biggest waste removal company, maybe the biggest back then, Qualcomm, Architectural League of New York and the City Hall in Seattle. We then invited 500 households. We gave them a list of average household goods that we want to track. We went to their home to help them tag their trash and told them, “Throw it away as if we were never there in the first place.” There are various other programs and that’s when people brought it over to the library. Long story short, the first deployment was a few thousand pieces of trash that people put away. We started getting in real time because what we saw is that the things that we learned to recycle in the previous century, and been doing for a long time, metal, glass, and paper, have been getting to their end destination quite effectively.
In three days, they get processed. We saw some anomalies, like some cheating, some recycling going into it, getting buried so you can catch some fraud. The interesting thing that we saw is that the newer thing to recycle, like electronic waste, nobody had a full bird’s eye picture of it. Let’s call it the removal version. We saw things going from Seattle to the East Coast and then back to the West Coast for processing. There’s a tipping point where the emissions due to transportation, the advantages of recycling cell phones with the Florida printer cards went through Southern California. There are a whole bunch of things that we started observing. There was then a big flow to the Nikon Delta, which we did not yet understand. That led to a follow on project with an undercover operation that ended up exposing the flow of CRT (cathode-ray tubes) monitors to the Mekong Delta instead of being recycled in California. Governments would pay US companies to recycle CRTs because they are toxic.
Because they contain cobalt?
We need to dispose of them through particularly good control process and expenses. Instead of paying for that process, some of these companies took the money and ended up shipping them to be reinstalled in products or another life of these DVDs combined with a monitor repackaged into new cases. We put cameras as well as backers and these CRT monitors documented their road trip.
Like GoPros in them or something like that and they’re just recording.
It is based on Android. There were multiple incarnations of the same product, which as you said, allowed us to take something that was fairly invisible before sprinkle a little bit of digital stuff on it, to bring it to light and learn several things
I don’t know if you’ve followed this, but in the last few years, we’ve been able to reflect on recycling. Some important studies have been showing that we probably shouldn’t have done it. We’ve been doing recycling in the US for 40, 50 years. There are almost no cases where it’s working at all even now, which is sad. Especially, living in Seattle where there’s a lot of compliance. Everybody follows the rules, “We all separate our trash. We all do our part.” We all feel like we’re solving a problem and we’re not. I feel strongly that we’re running out of time to do these feel-good things. We need to be focused on metrics and figuring out what’s working and what’s the potential to work.
With recycling it’s, I think fundamentally, it’s an energy issue. If you have cheap carbon-free energy, then you can recycle stuff. If you don’t, then you’re going to burn more coal to recycle stuff than not. I don’t know if you saw this. I have to look this up to show you, but there’s a pretty damning analysis of recycling for plastic, less than 10% of the recycled plastics we get are significantly reused. They’re trying to frame it as a case where the plastics industry tried to promote recycling as a way of making people feel like it was okay to use plastic.
The whole premise of plastic to begin with is to do something indestructible.
It’s great for that. At least to last as long as I do and that’s good enough.
George Carlin used to say, “There is a reason why God made us the first place.”
I never saw that. I got to find it. I haven’t gotten to spend a lot of time on it yet, but what I think is probably the right thing to do now is go evaluate what cases we’re recycling works has near-term potential, focus on those, probably get rid of and shut down the rest of them, and then focus on improving energy. If we can make abundant carbon-free energy, then we can get back to recycling.
It’s a very good point you’re making. There is another world which is the material world. When you blend materials together, sometimes, there is no amount of energy that will get them back apart, which could be crucial for recycling. Most part, with clean much cheaper energy, we’ll be doing a lot better. Your point is very important. We saw a similar thing with electronic waste. People would come with a laptop and pay $20 in 2008. In Seattle, they would pay $40 to get it recycled. They didn’t know that this thing would travel 6,000 miles.
There is exactly. In Seattle, everybody’s going to follow the rules and do it. It’s insanity. They wouldn’t know either.
They had nine links on the way from the person who drops off their trash until the final facility. Sometimes nine service providers, each handing a part off to one or another,
None of them realizing the origin or the destination.
“I shipped it to Florida. I shipped it to California. I just shipped it to Chicago. It’s the battery and it’s the plastics now. It turns out this whole thing travels all around the country.
That’s an awesome work. I’m excited about that project. It made an impression on me. Hopefully, other people got that. Hopefully, there’s still some life in it and we can spread the word about it some too. We can wrap up and get out of the wind. We have some pretty interesting audience of people who are excited about technology. I think of them as a pretty high-value audience, so if there’s anything you want to share, we can do that too.
I shared so much. I’m excited now. There’s a moment where robotics can take so many shapes. I focus on the robotics inside these rentable vehicles allows us to make them safer, more affordable, more ubiquitous. There have been like 30, 40 years of work since the late 60s about robotics. It’s come to such a point where we can start to deploy that incredible technology in ways that make people live a better life, better with the environment, and make us be more healthy, productive, or having more fun. Transportation is my area, but I think it’s an exciting moment because we’ve been talking about what to do about transportation problems since the 70s. It is the first time where we see something fundamentally new that people love and cities love as well. That works technologically that can be scaled. We’re at the beginning of something. It’s not the end of all the hype. We’re scratching the surface.
I had this experience a couple of years ago. I was in Brooklyn with a buddy of mine and I was going to hang out with him. He was at the City Advisory Council meeting, where I went to meet up with him. I sat in on a little of this meeting and the meeting was about what to do for the future of transportation in Brooklyn. I want to say years ago, I wasn’t invited. I’m just sitting there. These guys gave a presentation about their vision for the future of transportation in Brooklyn. Their idea was to deploy streetcars in Brooklyn. Now, Brooklyn doesn’t have streetcars, but it did a hundred years ago. They tore them out.
You still see the tracks.
In a hundred years, the idea has progressed from streetcars to streetcars. It drove me insane to hear them talk about this. They were talking about the economics of it. Apparently, it’s like $5 million to build a streetcar. I literally grabbed a napkin, started writing down, “If a Tesla costs say $50,000, how many of them can I get for $5 million?” They’re going to tear out road lanes and put in dedicated lanes for streetcars. I’m like, “How about if we make those dedicated Tesla lanes and we buy a zillion Teslas and we programmed them to drive around and pick people up and drop them off? They can do that now in Brooklyn. If they had their own lane, they could certainly do it.
Doing it is a lot cheaper.
You could do it cheaper. You don’t even need a Tesla.
You can create an electric bus.
It’s insanity to me that after a hundred years, the best idea Brooklyn can come up with is streetcars. I got kicked out of that meeting. I haven’t been back to Brooklyn since. That’s the thing is we’re not doing a good job of asking ourselves, “If we were starting from scratch, what’s the best that we could do?” Use that as our metric for the goal and say, “With no new breakthroughs, what’s the best we could do if we were starting from scratch?” I know we got to knock that down a little bit because of tradition and regulatory issues and maybe some safety things we hadn’t thought of and whatever people are used to. You’re not shut down a little bit from optimal, but we could do so much better. People are not thinking that way and they set their sights to low.
The thing is that there’s so much understanding on what can be done before you have been introduced technological innovation to improve on urban mobility. Urban mobility starts from how you plan a city. If you live above an office, that’s above a restaurant, you’re going to drive a lot less. That’s been well figured out since Jane Jacobs years ago. There’s the world of planning, but cities changed slowly. It is not always under the ultimate control of the city because there are many pressures that the city has to deal with. Now, as an example, cities had to spend money on the virus. Some of the programs have to go out the window to find new ways of doing a thing.
If you were going to describe urban mobility in 2030, how do you imagine a city? You could pick any city in the world and say, “Here’s how good it could be knowing what we know now.”
I think we can fantasize about it to get it. First of all, we know is that most likely cities are going to look pretty similar. There’s a good reason. The lowest energy is required for us to move on the surface. Elevating us makes no sense. This whole idea of all that stuff to me is baloney. It can be done, but your question is, why would you ever want to do it if you’re going to spend an order of magnitude more?
It’s so much energy, it’s noisy and bulky.
What’s the point? Maybe for wealthy people to go from SFO to Palo Alto, that’s great, but that’s not the killer app.
The killer app is to raise venture money though.
I respect that because maybe one day we’ll become ubiquitous enough to replace aviation with something electric. It doesn’t solve over urban mobility. Urban mobility is going to be a combination of mass transit from subways to buses to electric buses to call corralled electric vehicles. Whether on a predetermined route or on an agile flexible route mass media. You and I shared the same origin and the same destination along with many other people in combination with a multitude of other things. Other modes of walking, scooters, tiny little electric cars, like coats, and the combination of those, I think the common denominator is going to be slower and more individualized.
I call them packetized. If you look back at internet architecture, we used to have this like hub and spoke thing where it’s like the telephone of the 70s. Every wire from every house went to a central switchboard and you had to have a wire from there all the way out to every house. That got replaced with TCP IP, which is packet switch, where you got to get near something that’s online. The packets, can be routed to their destination. That’s what I see is wrong with a lot of urban transport is that it’s not packetized. You get on the bus where you at the bus stop, you get off at another bus stop, and instead of taking me like Uber does from where I’m at to where I’m going. It takes me all the way to where I’m going. That’s got to be part of what makes it more successful because you reduce transitions and you make it. You increase convenience, reliability, safety, and all those things.
Let me give you an example. We’ve looked at 45 cities around the world. The demand for transportation in them, this is through various publications at Senseable City Lab to do that at MIT over the better part of twelve years. Most of that data we got from cell phone service aggregated or anonymized, or a combination of those tell mode independent mobility, like walking included as well as cars must, as well as the subway. How do people move at large scale? You take that data and then you superimpose it on the city’s transit system. You see exactly what’s missing because you say, “I want to get from my origin to my destination.” You wouldn’t care jumping on and off various things if they seamlessly connected with it. That’s going to be fine, especially if it’s affordable and reliable. If you save an hour in the process, we overlaid that. We see, “First of all, which types of vehicles are missing?” You can see that there are some trips that are 1 to 2 miles, and then you got the 2 to 4 miles, and then the 3 to 7 miles. In the vehicle categories, you can see how many people shared routes, given time along same parts and/or you can decide if is it a 1, 2, 3-person vehicle that I need?
Google Maps could tell you all these things now in real-time.
Google maps, if you chunk it into trips, that’s relatively simple logic. We had to deal with the same problem. We’ve done a lot of thinking about vehicle form factors. How big do they need to be? How many people did they need to take to be able to help you address as mobility demand as possible? We’re starting with this tiny and basic thing.
If those things existed, like the Uber app could ask you how many passengers and send you the right car or vehicle for the job.
You can easily imagine it. There’ve been in this future that you get from your home. Let’s imagine you live in a suburb. You get from your home in a one-person car or on a moped or something like that. You dropped at a transit hub.
An Uber could come by and drop a scooter off in front of your house if that’s what you needed at the moment. The drone could deliver a scooter.
Those things are becoming so affordable. You can also overcompensate for them with greater numbers so you wouldn’t need to drop them off in somebody. It’s a matter of lowering utilization.
Thanks a ton for taking the time to do this with me.
Assaf Biderman is an entrepreneur, author, and technology inventor. He is the founder and CEO of Superpedestrian, a robotics company that develops platforms of small electric vehicles for shared use. Together with the team at Superpedestrian, Assaf has developed fleets of scooters, e-bikes and other micro-vehicles with autonomous-maintenance capabilities and active-safety systems that enable much safer, cost-effective shared mobility services.
Assaf is also the Associate Director and founding member of the MIT Senseable City Lab, a research group which develops technologies in big data, machine learning and robotics aimed at improving livability in cities. He has supervised research in areas of urban sensing, data fusion, and urban transportation, and also leads lab partnership initiatives with cities and the private sector. Assaf has a background in physics and design. He holds over 150 patents and publications, and has been honored with multiple international awards including the Red Dot Luminary, Time Magazine, Thomas Edison, and James Dyson awards.
Recorded on October 12, 2020
Reimagining Entertainment, Work ＆ Education — Brent Bushnell
Jan 02, 2022
Brent Bushnell is one of the most positive people I know. He’s created Two Bit Circus to reimagine how the newest developments in computing technology can shape the future of entertainment, work, education and human interaction. Brent grew up in the house that built Atari and has been a lifelong hands-on maker that brings a prototyping mindset to everything he does. Listen in to this candid and eclectic conversation and learn about the mass of possibilities that we can bring into fruition with just a little stretch of our imagination.
Pablos: We’re rolling.
Brent: Have you heard that term from reality shows, frankenbiting where they have a conversation for eight hours, “What do you think of Hitler? What do you think of all this stuff? What do you think of Pablos?” Later they cut those responses together and it is like, “Pablos is the worst person I’ve ever heard about.”
I’ve seen for the Joe Rogan podcast people who do that to his show. They’re like, “Joe Rogan wants to eradicate Jews.” They clipped together two words snippets to make it sound like that’s what he said, but it’s such a popular show that people probably count it as clickbait.
It’s almost like Machinima, people did with video games in order to be able to tell stories, but the AI side of that and the whole Deepfake thing has me excited from an entertainment perspective.
I was ahead of that one because my view of the entertainment industry for the last decade or so has been that the camera would get replaced with this pile of sensors. You could have a human actor, but the point would be to capture what they do because we’re going to render them anyway. We’re going to render them at the point of consumption like a video game. The reason for that is you don’t know when you’re making the film, my native language dialect, the aspect ratio of my screen, my preference for how big the boobs are or whether it’s Ferrari’s or Lamborghini’s and product placement.
It’s all going to get rendered at the point of consumption like a video game. The video game is oppression and showing the future of all entertainment and all media. It’s interesting because a couple of things happened out of order. We’ve been making video game rendering better so that we could do real-time rendering equivalent to Pixar. We’re getting pretty close to that, but then Deepfakes turbo-charged it because that gives you the ability to imagine making these high-quality renderings out of people who didn’t even know. I saw somebody who’s trying to make like a James Dean movie starring James Dean, “The legal parts were done with the estate of James Dean. He’s going to star in a new movie.”
The guy creating it won’t ever leave his room and the rendering bay.
You might still have a human actor because the toolkit for the guy in the room to make the virtual actor expressive is still limited. That’s why we still use a human actor because they’re a stand-in, but it could be your wife playing James Dean, get a real actor. They have to move and express themselves.
There are certain times where the expression says that the actual mouth forming the syllabus matters less. If they were across the room, all of a sudden you could do synthetic audio and James Dean is pronouncing your names.
The AI to do the synthetic audio are there. With twenty minutes of audio from you, we can make you say anything. We can make you read war and peace falsely and know the Brent Bushnell applications. That’s all solved. We’re not going to be aiming a camera at the actor’s lips for that because we’re going to render the actor in speaking whatever language the audience is watching. Get rid of the subtitles, overdubbing and stuff.
I think it’s better to get the audio right than their lips matching.
I thought about this a long time for AR and VR. Everybody’s fixated on those goggles, but the audio matters.
The 360 is amazing. Some of these proximity audio games, you turn your head.
I don’t understand a lot about audio engineering, because one of the fundamental problems you probably run into a bunch that’s been described to me in VR is it’s been a difficult medium to try and use for narrative, for stories like movies. In a movie, the director controls where the camera is and controls what you see. In VR, you control the camera. The problem is if I’m trying to tell you a story and you’re wearing goggles and you look away when I’m trying to, it’s like, “There’s an explosion. You missed the thing that you need to know. The clue was over here.” There’s this problem that makes it difficult because the director in a movie can experience linearly exactly what’s going to happen.
You know that they controlled your perspectives. Here’s how I have thought a lot about this because we did two-bit. We did a ton of 360 audio and video production. In the early days, in 2012, we built our own 360 cameras, a bunch of GoPros in a 3D printed rig because they weren’t the greatest solution. We captured content for the NFL, Olympics and all kinds of stuff. I hate 360 VR.
Is this for this reason or what?
I grew to hate it because of the exact problem you’re talking about. You don’t know where you’re looking. It’s presented to you like it’s interactive but all you get is to control the camera angle. The rest of it, you’re this passive observer. The better solution is much more interactive. Let’s go back to the game engine. Now, instead of being the passive observer of this world, I am in the world. I am Harry Potter. Here’s the frame. Here’s the land that I can explore.” That’s the part they missed. If 1,000 years of entertainment was passive. You read a book, watch a movie, looking in on the world, the future for me is all interactive.
What was described to me one time was that video game developers were getting clever because they have had this problem. They may have less narrative, but they still need you to get through the adventure. In video games, I remember hearing that like, “Valve would do these conniving things,” where like if you’re on a street and there’s a UFO coming down, you need to look up for the thing to happen. It’s like waiting for you to look up, but to get you to look up, they would do these subtle things like all the streetlamps would bend and point up. You don’t even see that happening, but it creates this feeling that like your eyes are drawn up, which should be out of the frame it initially. There are audio things that they’re doing that I don’t understand to get you to lookup. How do you make audio? I don’t understand how anything could be above you in stereo, but somehow it feels that way.
New Technology: As we move along the immersion curve towards the best live experience, you’re adding resolution. It’s getting better.
The one that I wanted for Two Bit was this ambisonics where you set up individually addressable speakers in a three-dimensional grid around the whole room so that you’re in there, I’m in there and Ellis is in there. We’re all getting exactly how the scene should unfold from our position in the room. I loved that.
Who has that?
It’s like a tech stack that is mostly open-source.
Can I set it up in my house?
You can set it up in your house. There’s some Linux version, but you need some special hardware.
This became super relevant to me because in March 2020, all the events got shut down. All my jet-setting came to an end. All the things that would have been like speaking at a conference became Zoom calls. It sucked. I could play Pablo’s character in front of a webcam, but it was not interactive. It was not very rewarding. I was not making new friends.
It’s broadcast. All the beautiful one-on-one personalization died.
I instantly realized, “The whole point of these conferences wasn’t to see me on stage after all. It was people hanging out together, having a shared experience, hanging out in the lobby, going to lunch, going to happy hour or going to the after-party.”
You were the clickbait.
I wanted to figure out how to replace that hanging out part. I played with a bunch of different technology. The one that has made the biggest impression on me was High Fidelity, which Philip Rosedale made. He was fixated earlier because he was doing this for virtual reality. Before COVID, he was trying to figure out how to do a great job of that 3G audio experience for VR. Since COVID, we started playing with that and some other technology trying to have events where you could have a better human connection. With High fidelity, I made friends with people. There’s no video, just audio, you can wander around chat.
You have a little avatar.
Audio is high quality, no bandpass filtering, little to no compression, high bit rate. If you close your eyes in High Fidelity, it sounds like we’re hanging out together here. People are spatially positioned around you. I talked to Phillip about some and he describes some of the neurological cues that are being sabotaged by Zoom and other video conferencing things. An example of that is like, for all of human history, every conversation we had was zero latency. It was face-to-face with no compression.
Also, super high resolution. Your intonation, facial expressions and arm gestures, all of that is part of the resolution.
In the last 100 years, we’ve had phones. The phones at first were good. One of the metrics I remember Phillip told me is, “Your brain can handle about 180 milliseconds latency.”
It’s aware of about 50 milliseconds?
For music, it’s much lower, like musicians jamming together. In a conversation, 180 milliseconds is the max. After that, the conversation becomes, “No, you go ahead.” It’s that shitty talking over each other.
What latency are we looking at in something like Zoom?
Zoom can be lower 180 bits, often more. He told me an average Verizon call in the US is 350 milliseconds latency. I started learning more about this and realized that it’s almost as if Zoom is actively sabotaging the neurological cues that make me feel connected to you. It’s because the eye contact isn’t there, even if I’m desperately staring at my camera trying to make eye contact but I’m looking at your forehead.
The future of entertainment is interactive.
Tweet
It’s such a simple thing, but it’s complex when you try to fix this.
We are evolved with eye contact. You know how it is. I can be across the room and you’ll know if I’m making eye contact with you or if I’m looking at your ear. It’s Incredible.
Even the idea that you could be looking at the screen, but looking at something else. The fact that they’re, “I know right now you’re not looking at a screen because we’re here in person.”
“I’m staring at your eyes the whole time.”
We feel connected because at least we know that there’s a mutual focus.
Another one is that spatial positioning. People are scattered all over your screen, but their sound is as if they’re in a pile. There’s no way for these twenty people to be in a pile, but from an audio perspective, if you close your eyes, that’s what it sounds like. They’re all sitting in the same chair. It’s weird for your brain. Your brain is telling you, “Pablos is fake. That’s not a real person and you can’t trust him.” That’s the message that your subconscious has given you on Zoom.
Twenty people in a pile don’t even work physically.
No human in history has ever experienced that. Phillip is doing a great job with High Fidelity pioneering that stuff. It bodes well for the future of VR. I’m interested in figuring out how I can come up with some of those types of technologies now to help improve the human experience online. There’s real potential in it. We could do a little better.
You were talking about that phones were great and Zoom has its problems. As we move along the immersion curve towards the best live experience, you’re adding resolution. It’s getting better. Who hasn’t sent a text message that has been misunderstood because of the million aspects of context that were lost? I’m all in on live experiences and I love in-person, but once Two Bit is closed and we started to explore what virtual looked like, I started to realize that hybrid is going to be with us for a long time. As we’ve broken work, we shattered it opened so that now some of your colleagues are going to be remote.
When it comes time for your HR person to throw a holiday party, doing it in person is not going to be enough anymore or worse some of your people are at risk which I think is going to need to be accommodation like ADA for a long time. All of a sudden, it’s like an event has to be offered in both ways. The one that I’m super interested in is how do those connect? What are the connection points between the physical and the virtual? I don’t know if you remember in Disneyland haunted house, in that huge room Madame Leota where she’s projected on the crystal ball and it’s her face. Behind the scenes, Imagineering is projecting on Styrofoam. You get the face in its early movement.
It’s like fake projection mapping or analog projection mapping.
Analog early is a bust, a head up. Imagine that I had a cocktail table at Two Bit with Futurama and you could come in and we can have a conversation, but a lot of the aspect ratio, the eye positioning, all of those things will be solved. The camera would be embedded right there in the forehead of the head in the jar. I’m able to look right at you. You’re right-sized. You’re at the right place on the table.
My head moves more than madame whatever. You could imagine trying to solve for some of those things over time. Hybrid, I think has meant like we’re going to have a physical event and then we’re going to live stream it out to people who are stuck at home. We’ve got to be able to do better than that.
There are voyeurs on it. I have become super aware of the role of the live audience in place. It’s a character in the show. Without them responding, comedy sucks.
That’s the one where the live audience matters the most and because of that, they’ve been the most damaged by not having live shows.
It is shocking because you would imagine you and I as public speakers, it’s the ultimate thing. A comedian being able to walk into a room and entertain 10,000 people where this lady arrives with ten semi-trucks and 100 people. A comedian is the ultimate low-fi and yet you would expect it to adapt perfectly to it, but without the audience, it breaks.
I was thinking about comedy and that’s one I want to play with because I think I know how to solve that. If you think about a comedian on stage needs that live audience, but the truth is when we’re on stage, you can only see the front row. There are lights in your face. I’m looking at the front row to see if they’re hanging in there. Are they getting it? Are they laughing? Am I my pissing them off? What is it? I think we could fix a comedy club because the truth is if I put a comedian on stage, I give you a front row sitting in every other seat to be distanced, it could be your family or the stage guys, they’ve all been COVID tested.
I give you a front row, you’ve got half a dozen or a dozen people and you can get the theater for free. I put speakers in twenty other seats behind them and everything they do like if a guy in the front row laughs, then I render laughter from the rest of the audience. On stage, it sounds like I got 200 people laughing, but it’s only one guy. I’m getting those cues back as a performer. I’m seeing the front row, I’m hearing 200 people. You don’t look behind you at 200 people, you hear them. I’m going to put the sound back there and then we filmed the whole thing and then it can still be a Netflix special. This is how to make a Netflix special for a comedian. Those people, they weren’t interactive. They’re at home on their couch laughing, but they’re feeling the energy that was there in that live performance.
New Technology: Creative constraint is going to be the driving force for most roles in the future of work.
The Geffen Playhouse is a great theater here in Los Angeles. When the second COVID hit, they launched The Geffen Stayhouse. Maggie and I watched one of their performances and it was a magician. When you bought your ticket, you could buy a regular or a VIP option. The VIP option had some random chance of being 1 of 25 of their live studio audience. Their live studio audience in COVID times meant a 5×5 grid of zoom people, but there were 6,000 people watching the Livestream. The camera would cut between the zoom of the magician, the 25 of the live studio audience zoom and back and forth. That addition as an audience member made a huge difference.
Magicians are the best at figuring shit out.
I got my magic puzzle company puzzles delivered, which is a puzzle company made by magicians and they deliver. It was a Kickstarter. They got funded supremely. It’s a bunch of people from the Magic Castle.
Here’s what I want to understand. I have some softball questions for you. What is the meaning of life, the universe and everything? My models show that it’s 41.98276417.
It was approximate for convenience.
If you think about the definition of technology, for my daughter it means the new iPhone. There’s no actual new technology in the new iPhone. Technology refers to something for a stage of its life cycle, but eventually, we don’t think of wheels as technology anymore. There’s some curve to that. For people working on technology a lot of them are deep in it then. Their idea of what technology is and what the point is and stuff is technical. For scientists, a lot of times it’s exploratory. It’s like, “How does this work?”
They mix it to the layperson, intimidating and confusing. They throw their hands up. You get people concerned about 5G.
The technology can be complex and intimidating. That’s one problem. That thing that’s interesting to me here is you and I are both guys who are somehow early on in our lives got dead set on applied technology, like using it to do things for people. Make it accessible, use it as an ingredient in magic. I’ve always tried to use computers to do things for people. You’re using technology in trying to bring it in some sense to entertainment, performance, live experience and all these things that most nerds are never going to do. I think that’s unique.
The tools are so awesome now. You can go so far. When Eric and I, my cofounder first started collaborating, we’re both nerds. The fact that computer vision was open source, depth-sensing cameras were easy to use and inexpensive, all of a sudden it was like, there were many ingredients. It was like, “What do you want? How do you want to play?”
It keeps getting better every day. We get new types of cameras, new types of sensors, faster networks and computers. I believe that we’ve gotten to this point in our lives that your dad didn’t have where we’re not computationally constrained. His whole career was computationally constrained wanting a faster and more powerful computer. We don’t have that problem. Imagine this is supposed to be a star in space, just pretend. It’s one way to die. We have enough computational ability, put six of them on screen at once and we’re flying.
There was an interesting thing that happened as a result of that. The game had to be awesome. There was this weird thing happened with video games. People were willing to make that conceit of imagining as long as the game mechanic was compelling. There was this weird moment in video games where the rendering got so great that people were like, “It’s got to be beautiful. Let’s get it beautiful first and we’ll fix the game later.” That part is hard and takes a long time. There were these dark days for video games for a while.
They were pretty and shitty. That happened with movies for a little bit, too. Many years ago, the race was on to see who could render hair. There was like Japanese studios trying to render hair. Toy story had no hair, but then Monsters, Inc. came out and it was competing with Shrek and they were both like, “Who could they do the coolest hair?” Now hair is a solved problem and we’ve moved on to like, “You got the hair, but what about the translucency of skin,” and then there was this contest. My contention is that we’re not computationally constrained, we’re imagination constrained.
The harder job is how you take that toolkit that grows, is amazing and is also democratized in the sense. As you said an open-source code can do motion detection. It can do projection mapping. It can do depth sensing. It can do all this stuff. Kids in Argentina get that. Kids in Romania get that. They have the same tools as me. I’m not trying to make a case that it’s all totally fair. I’m saying like, people don’t stop to celebrate the fact that the most democratizing thing in the world has been this computer technology and it goes everywhere. It’s not locked up at giant corporations like IBM, the way it was when we were kids. Everybody’s got it.
Computer vision used to be in the domain of tons of PhDs and if you want to do anything interesting, it was going to take you the whole year.
There are kids in third world countries running circles around me making creative shit with the same tools that I have.
I love where you’ve landed because I do feel like the imagination constraints, a creative constraint is going to be the driving thing for most roles in the future of work. It is who is able to come up with interesting novels, play and figure out what to build.
It’s fascinating to me because your vocabulary is different than mine because you say novelty, you say play, I’d never used those words because that’s what you’re trying to optimize for just like what you’re trying to build. I’m trying to figure out how to solve problems and it’s not that my problems are more important than yours. It’s the same thing.
I had an interesting inner exploration when COVID was happening because they were like, “These businesses are essential. These businesses are not. We were in the non-essential category.” I was like, “It’s just play I get it,” but play is important and as people were going nuts without social interaction, I realized that stuff is important. I was like, “Do we have one foot in like the mental health industry in bringing entertainment and levity to people when their lives are difficult for one reason or another?” It was an interesting deep dive.
Entertainment may not be considered ‘essential,’ but it has one foot in the mental health industry.
Tweet
I’ve tried to contemplate that similarly because it’s easy to measure death. It seems to be less easy to measure cases of COVID. We, more or less are pretty good at measuring how many people died. That’s one number that’s gotten mucked with a bit here and there, but you don’t know what they died of. That number is screwed up, but the number of how many people died, you can count. You can’t count seemingly as well the number of jobs and businesses lost.
The number of conditions that were accelerated because they didn’t get treated.
When you extend that to mental health, the suicide rate is extreme. The contemplation of suicide rate is skyrocketing. These things are sad and serious. When you say essential and non-essential without articulating your values, then it’s 100% completely wrong. This is one of the problems we have in technology is that we try to ascribe value to things before we’ve defined our values.
We saw the rise and fall of Facebook and Twitter, “Arab Spring, this is amazing.” All of a sudden, “No, the dark side is really dark.” At that scale, how to get the values in there because you are talking about the entire diversity of humanity and whose values?
The notion that we’re going to somehow have a watered-down set of values that the whole planet ascribes to is wrong. That’s one of the beautiful things that I feel I’ve been lucky to internalize a bit from traveling, meeting people all over the world, different countries, different industries and doing different things. People live completely differently than I do. I don’t want to live like that, but it works and it’s their choice, culture and way. What could be more judgmental than to say that they shouldn’t be able to do that? I do think there’s probably a set of human rights we should all acknowledge. I’m advancing that, but I don’t think Facebook’s going to be the one to do it.
We can say healthcare is a human right to safety.
With healthcare, you can’t do that. You can’t make healthcare a human right because a human right should be like what you get from birth without infringing on anyone else.
Like access to clean water.
It sounds good because I think the not infringing on anyone else part of it is important.
The healthcare infringes on somebody else.
Someone else has to do it. You can’t make that a human right. I’m not saying you shouldn’t try to give everyone healthcare, but you can’t classify it as a right.
Even something like clean water.
Everyone should get a right to the clean water. If I’m fucking up the water so that you don’t get it, I’m violating your rights but if I have to show up at work at 3:00 in the morning to give you a triple bypass because you have that human right while you’re infringing on my rights to not show or choose what I want to do with my life. It’s sad to see in America what we’ve done to doctors. They’re the most abused humans I know, but in COVID, with healthcare workers, indentured servitude would have been better in what we’re putting these people through right now. It’s sickening. They have to show up while all I got to do is stay home and watch Netflix to get through COVID. They got to go.
They have to deal with the absolute epicenter.
That’s an example. I don’t think you can coerce people to do that.
When I was going down this thread of like, “I hope that in a world, that we can have people,” just like you would like everybody to have ongoing education, which is the news. It may not be a human right, but a truth in your news.
Lifelong access to news is seemingly a human right, but not lifelong access to education or learning. I don’t know if that’s true. This is something we also don’t seem to acknowledge, which is that when you and I were kids, I had to go to the library, get a book that was published seven years ago and finally showed up at my library about computer mainframes or something. Now, kids can go to Wikipedia and YouTube and learn anything overnight.
My problem is that if we’re going to make sure that everybody’s listening to you or you want to represent no bias in your news, you could represent the different scientists and uncle Joe crackpot in a van in the desert with a counter view, do they get equal weighting?
New Technology: The future of social interaction is my AI negotiating with your AI.
What I think about it is that access to knowledge, we don’t have a distribution problem anymore, but we do have a curatorial problem. What’s happening is we have this societal discussion around how good of a job Facebook is doing at the curation or Twitter because you follow too many people. You don’t have time to read all their posts. Somehow it has to be prioritized. What’s happened is Facebook has said, “Don’t worry about it. We have magical algorithms that will turn the knobs and prioritize for you.” The problem with that is I don’t get control of the knobs. You don’t get control of the knobs. I think this whole problem that we’re living with the social media platforms, it could be completely sidestepped if they gave us the knobs. Let me turn the knob and say, “I want more or less Donald Trump in my feet.” If I had that knob, then they could be absolved of all responsibility.
Isn’t that ostensibly the like button?
No, it’s not discreet enough. They have some magical algorithm that I don’t get access to determining what’s going to keep my dopamine machine running. They’re optimizing and that’s why they don’t want to give me control of the knobs because they want to control of the knobs. The truth is if they bury them in a setting somewhere, like all the other settings that no one can ever affect, then you could at least say, “It’s not our fault. This is what the users chose.” I could sign up for people to turn my knobs for me.
I could have the ACLU turn my knobs or I could have the New York Times. That’s what those media organizations used to do. If you want CNN turning your knobs, fine. You could sign up to let them. That’s what they should do. Facebook and Twitter could kick back and say, “It’s not our fault.”
You could sign up or whoever you wanted to inform.
It’s because it’s our time to turn their own knobs and that’s how it should be. We’ve architected all that wrong. I believe that’s where we’ll end up in the future because none of these things are permanent, but that’s how it should be. In that way, if you want dynasty turning your knobs, you can do it. That’s democratic. That’s freedom and that’s the internet that we imagined. Right now, we have this problem where opportunists who want to build empires build huge walled gardens, start and want control. That’s true for governments and Facebook. I have an idea for how to get there, but it’s technical minutia. That’s where we want to end up. You can do it right now in a complicated way because the internet the hacker’s built has this thing called RSS.
That’s what made blogs work, but Facebook killed off the blogs.
This is not Facebook’s fault. It’s the user’s fault. We chose Facebook over blogs. Blogs were open and distributed, democratic and egalitarian. Anybody could make a blog and post wherever you want. You don’t have to subscribe. The blog was content and curation. You subscribed to the content and curation that you wanted to using RSS reader. It turns out that almost every website still supports RSS. It’s just that no one uses it. I use RSS. I have a reader that subscribes to different websites, blogs and news. I’ve created my own knobs. I have filters that say, “If the word Donald Trump is in there, I don’t read it.” I do not read news about elections. I don’t read news about Donald Trump. I don’t want to know. It’s not reaching my life. I’ve got better things to do.
The first time I set this up was many years ago. I didn’t want to hear about Disney. I do not give a shit about Disney. Cory Doctorow loves Disney. I have minus Disney and everything else minus Donald Trump. That was my initial motivation to make these filters. I use RSS and I still get too much stuff so I have to constantly go back and add more filters to reduce and unsubscribe from things that send me too many things. That’s why I would like a curation organization. I would like to be able to subscribe to it.
It could be part of their API.
You could choose different people. It’s like, “I only want to read whatever Kanye is reading. I want the feed of what Kanye is feed. I want what he reads because Kanye is the most informed American and I would like to be up on his level.” I use a service called Inoreader, which allows me to do all the subscriptions and filters and things. You can set up things like search so you could have it search the internet for any time there’s a new post about Two Bit Circus or whatever. Google Alerts do that thing for you. On the phone, I use an app called Reeder 4.
In order to be able to do those alerts, does it have its own spidering?
It’s not as hard as it sounds. We used to think spidering was magical, now, it’s not that hard.
Thanks for waking me back up to RSS.
It makes a feed customized for me. I pay $5 for Inoreader.
I have this trigger that happens in my brain when I’m using email for too much of something. That’s usually an indicative problem that there are some problems. I’m taking notes that way. It’s like, “I should have a note-taking thing.” I’m getting all my news that way. I’ve got newsletter overload and duplicate articles across them.
I see why people do it. One of the problems has been for publishers or any creators, the platforms are fucking them over. Facebook’s charging me to send a post to my own followers. Instagram is the same thing. They’re intermediating these creators from their own followers. The only thing that doesn’t do that is email. Email is a different problem, which is that it’s full of spam and shit. Now, for brands and things, Gmail, the dominant reader is moving all that stuff to the promotions tab and stuff. You still can’t get to people with high reliability with email, and that’s why everyone is switching to SMS. That’s why every company is trying to give them your phone number. They don’t care about your email address anymore. They want your phone number because email open rates are 6% to 20% and SMS is 98%.
I see it with myself. My SMS looks so much more organized than my email.
Innovation is, by nature, new and different and you’re going to not necessarily recognize it when you see it.
Tweet
In 2 or 3 years, it’ll be full spam and you’ll need a spam filter for your SMS. It’s going to be the same bullshit, but all that is solvable too, but the problem is who’s incentivized to do it?
As we go down the list of them, I feel like the calendar has had potential solutions. Upcoming.org and a few of those that centralized events for your community because sometimes I’m getting an email because they’re trying to put something on my calendar. Frankly, I might want it on my calendar. I would love to get the email too.
For a while, Facebook events were working great. Not in COVID, it died in COVID, but for the last many years, because you can load the events app on your phone without even loading Facebook. What it does is it’s easy to invite friends. Facebook for better or worse is the social network that’s mostly built out and most of your friends are there. If you’re having an event, like I would do dinner parties, everybody I’m inviting is on Facebook. You add them and that one was good.
The original architects of the internet did such an incredible job imagining RSS. RSS for news, great. Email for communication, great.
The calendar is working pretty well with Google Calendar and it’s standard spaced and it works. Most of that I think is working well.
Can I subscribe to a feed of events?
You subscribe to a calendar. Like my kid goes to her school and has a calendar for the lacrosse team. You subscribed to that. The user interface could be better, but I’m not sure that there’s a major buy-in for this thing. Unfortunately, I have the sixth-grade lacrosse calendar from many years ago. It’s still in my Google calendar. I need to go and unsubscribed from that now because it’s historic junk. That needs to be managed a little better. Probably what we need is like a way to put events in RSS.
I would like to be able to review and say, “These are the things that are available.” I don’t want to hear about the same thing ten times but, “Here’s what my opportunities are tomorrow, tonight, next week, next month.” I was talking with a friend of mine, Adam Pingel years ago and he said, “The time between when he thinks about something and finds out it’s already been done is shrinking as soon as you do that.”
There’s a thing that I loved that died that got acquired by Nokia a decade ago called Dopple. It was a cool website that would ingest all my travel plans and all my friend’s travel plans and tell you who is going to be around on your next trip?” You could plan to hang out with them. I love it and I can’t believe it’s been so long and no one’s made anything like that.
Pablos, I feel like that’s the future of social interaction is that my AI would be out negotiating with your AI and the fact that you were passing through LA, neither of us would have had to do anything other than say yes. It would have been like, “Would you want to make sure that you guys get together?” That needs to happen.
We got to get her because how many times. All I do is I’m like, “I’m going to LA, who do I know in LA?” Texting, “You’re going to be around?” “Nope, we’re in Austin.”
I have run into my dad in Customs.This happened twice.
On Christmas vacation for three years in a row, we ran into each other in airports.
Maggie and I, during the trip we got engaged, she was on Facebook and realized some of our best friends were in Florence at the exact same time. We missed them by hours.
That’s the thing that easily solves for us.
I want that personal AI in the cloud acting on it. I love that everybody’s got Siri and Alexa and all the early interfaces into this, but what I’m looking for is something that is actively sitting out there all the time and advocating on it.
This is one of the interesting problems is that when you look at things like Siri and Alexa, they need to know you. I want my computer to know everything about me because I can’t remember everything about me. I’m using that to help me decide what my options are.
Some decisions they can make for me. I don’t even need to be involved.
New Technology: Meaning creation is an important part of human happiness. It’s interesting how that’s going to play out in the future of work.
That’s the dream. Some of these things are architecturally working against us. It’s going to take a little while to get there and one of your dad’s observations was that these things need volition. Alexa needs to be able to pipe up in the conversation when she has something useful to offer like a person would. That’s one of the major things that’s missing is Siri should be able to sit there and listen to our conversation.
“You’re double-booked that night. You should do it differently.”
Also say, “Pablos, you’re full of shit. There aren’t that many cases of COVID in Australia or Berlin.” Recording a podcast wouldn’t require a fact-check. Don’t bother fact-checking this podcast. It’s built 100% accurate and not worth the waste of your time. That’s the thing that if the robots had volition and could join up, then they could build better relationships with us. They could be more useful. There are some veering that way.
The first that I’ve started seeing as some of these humans augmented by AI as a personal assistant. Their virtual assistants that are somewhere in there is a human that is puppeteering and it’s highly leveraged across their distance. They start to know, but I think it’s got a long way to go, but I have been impressed with some of that. They’re building some dossier on you or at least the kinds of things that you do.
A higher-level way of thinking about that is we want to turn these things into tools for humans. When you see technology like Deepfakes or GPT-3, these are technologies that exist. Machine learning has given us these abilities, but we don’t have the toolkit to go steer them yet. For example, GPT-3 can write an unlimited amount of texts that sound legit, but it has no notion of story art or character development or things like that. What we would like is to turn those into tools that humans could use and say, “Write some Hemingway, but I want a character that’s like Keanu Reeves in Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure.” I want to incorporate a chess prodigy and I want to be able to start to steer it and say, “Make sure there’s a scene that white castle.” All this stuff, I should be able to manage. I become a director with those tools and in the same thing true for my itinerary in my social events calendar, assuming I ever have one again.
I love the promise of that because, at the end of the day, this was another dadaism. He’s like, “Look at any of the problems that you have and any of those things is a business opportunity because ideally, you want each one of us to have that much better of life. Remove a little bit of pain and suffering. Every one of those is missing something.”
I see it as like the Silicon Valley of the ‘80s mentality. It was paired with technology drivers. It’s like every one of those business opportunities, you got to revisit every time you get new technology. Now, we have computer vision toolkits and open source or depth cams and those things. Every time you get a new technology like that, you get to ask yourself, “Does this change anything humans have ever done? Any of those business opportunities? Can I do it faster, cheaper and better?” That opportunity comes up every time we get something new. Whether your dad expressed it or not, that’s what he was doing in a lot of cases. What you’re doing in a lot of cases is taking the new technology to say, “Now, I can do such cool new stuff.”
To your point, the next step is imagination because we are both taking that new tech. Imagine, as you look at all the different ways in the past of how we’ve done things, how can you imagine this new technology completely eroding those things? Innovation by its nature is going to be new, different and you’re going to not necessarily recognize it when you see it.
One of the things that I always think about is we don’t stop to celebrate these advancements and these improvements. I remember I read an interview with Jay-Z talking about growing up in the projects and they would celebrate every small victory. “Somebody got a new pair of sneakers? Let’s have a party.” The culture was oriented around celebrating whatever advancement they have. Where I grew up or at least how I ended up is like, “Those sneakers are cool. Click buy now. They’ll be here tomorrow.” My daughter is like, “Did you get new shoes?” I’m like, “Yeah.” She’s like, “Why?” I’m like, “It’s not an event. It’s my birthday.”
I think that this is a problem. The celebration is super important. Humans are social animals. I’m a big fan of that book, Bowling Alone, where he talks about Harvard sociologists looks at all the ways in which humans engage socially. Church going, union attendance, card-playing all over the ages. It was like attendance in everything was cratering in modern times. We don’t do anything with it. What happens on average is you’re home alone. In fact, depressed whether you know it or not. There was this other book, Lost Connections.
He looked at all the different ways with people that tried to treat depression. The one that was the most, having friends, have freaking social relationships. The Bowling Alone guy concluded that tracking with not hanging out with people live and socially, their civic engagement is also greater alongside. This is an insidious problem because on the surface, “It’s just my birthday.” It feels like nothing, but the pattern of not seeing people and unplugging from society is super dangerous.
I didn’t read that book, but I should. I had an experience when I was twenty where I felt depressed. I never was diagnosed and didn’t have it nearly as bad as lots of people. For about 1.5-year, most of my interactions were like, “Did you know everything sucks? Let me tell you.” I managed to convince a lot of other people to be depressed too. It was terrible I don’t claim to suffer the way other people have. At the time I was obsessed with rock climbing and my partner, the guy who I used to climb with started dating a single mom and they joined Amway and he wasn’t allowed to climb more.
I was stuck with no partner. Anybody I knew, I would say, “We’re going climbing.” My friends would be like, “I don’t do that.” I’d be like, “No problem. I’ll teach you.” They’re like, “I don’t have any gear.” I’d be like, “No problem, I got a truckload of gear. Get in the car.” I needed someone to belay. I ran out of friends and I would stop at the mall, meet strangers and take them rock climbing. I ended up taking like 100 people rock climbing that summer who’d never gone before. Rock climbing is this amazing thing where you drive out to the woods, hike back a ways to a cliff, hike up the clave, set up an anchor, and you’re hanging out in nature. It’s all beautiful. Rock climbing’s like this extraordinary experience for people, especially at the beginning.
I realized after doing that I’m not depressed anymore. For me, the thing I pinned it on was like, “I have something to give again. I’m sharing this thing I have, which is climbing with people.” This is before rock gyms were invented. This is ancient history. It’s a nature-oriented experience. I felt like I had something to share and that paid off for me. Fortunately, I’ve decided like, “If I ever get depressed again, I’m taking the drugs because that would sucked.” Luckily, I’ve never had that problem again. Maybe you’re right, the social interaction was part of it, but having something to give was a huge part of it for me.
It makes me wonder about the future of work because people feel great when they have meaning in their life. Meaning can be teaching like you were doing, providing some incredible service, being able to build with your hands. Where are we going to get millions of jobs? That meaning creation is an important part of human happiness. I’m not sure what that be.
I was looking at it as I tend to do from a broad perspective. People had that meeting almost 100% of the time until the last couple hundred years because you had to get up at 5:00 in the morning and you had to get out on the farm and start working. You came home and went straight to bed. You’re on the farm with your family, whoever’s working with you, but you worked constantly. To keep everybody alive, you had to work. This is like crayon charts and graphs I’m making here. With the industrial revolution, we started to get efficient enough that not everybody had to work all the time.
You started to get that first consistent free time. I’m not saying there was no free time, but regular, huge chunks of free time. Yuval Harari thinks that hunting and gathering was mostly leisure. I don’t know about that. For modern humans, that consistent free time, that’s what created the entertainment industry. That’s entirely stuffed you do to fill your free time. If you were to make an asymptote graph over the last 100 years, the entertainment industry went on the whole millions of dollars a year.
It was buskers and circuses.
Hyper-exposure is the root of creativity.
Tweet
That all grew and became movies, TV, books, music, elections and video games. Elections are entertained and news too, unfortunately. I’m not saying it’s right. I’m saying it’s how it is. Free time grew to build that. The amount of time and attention devoted to work has plummeted. Depression goes up on a curve, similar to the entertainment industry growth curve. That sense of feeling needed, feeling part of something that you got from work that we get from work, not everybody gets out so much.
It also came from religion.
We used to get a lot out of religion. That was the social hub. That was the meaning in life hub.
COVID is like a reset. Reset people’s relationship with work, commute, all of that stuff and gone forever. I’m on with the CEO Newsletter and somebody posted like, “What are we going to do with go back to work protocols and best practices.” Everybody responded, “There is no go back. It’s over. We got rid of our office. We’re downsizing.” We might get on a cadence where we see each other live once a week in a facilitated session. If that’s the case, there’s a high onus on everybody to look at their patterns because we do need some structure. It becomes a habit when you start doing it at least once. What’s going to be the way that we structure getting back together again live doing some of the community, give back live? Being an active member of your society at a time when the structures that used to do that.
There’s been this progression with a lot of the important stuff you need was embodied in religions. We moved a lot of it to governments over the last few centuries and now we moved it to corporations and now they’re failing us. My view of that is probably because of where I come from is that people need to take some personal responsibility for the recipe for their life and go figure out like, “How much Netflix is making my life better and how much is too much? How Instagram? How much exercise?” You got to build that recipe yourself. We’re blaming Facebook for getting it wrong.
It feels to me like a high, a lot to expect.
It is but I think people need to step up. It would be nice if you could count on Facebook to give you a great life, but I think it’s a lot to expect from Facebook.
Back to our news curatorial CNN running my Facebook selection algorithm. Where’s my suggested life habits from the people that I respect the structuring? What’s the new religion that has me engaged with a like-minded community?
You can’t have a like-minded community because that wouldn’t be enough diversity.
I want to make sure there’s the diversity algorithm in there too. Expecting people to discover it all on their own is what we should all go find light ourselves.
I don’t mean that.
I said that only to be extreme. There are some best practices. A simple example is exercise in the morning. Neurologically your brain grows right after exercise. You are primed for learning in the hours after exercise. Exercise before you’re going to do something.
You don’t know how much I can learn when I’m sleeping. I’m a salsa dancer. I exercise and then go to bed and I wake up ready to go. The point is, we got to get away from this one size fits all recommendations in every race. You have Chinese people who want to get up and exercise with their coworkers before working in the factory dungeon to make my sweatshirts. That’s great for them. That’s their choice. I’m not going to do that. That’s not my idea of exercise. It varies for different people and different people are optimizing for different things. We don’t need everybody to exercise. I don’t know if Stephen King exercises, but he’s prolific at what he does.
I don’t need to love and respect him for his exercise routine. Where I’m trying to land is like smoking gets a lot of airplay. It’s bad to do that inside. It’s bad to do it around a kid. If we know that there’s data that you are depressed if you don’t have friends, why is that not have more airplay? Why are we not talking about the importance of spending time together in the social community? I’m looking for some guidance.
What we want to be doing with our kids is say, “You’re probably overdoing it on Netflix. You might want to get smoking and get some friends.” The patterns that we’ve seen play out show that too much smoking in Netflix doesn’t give you the life that you’re going to want down the road.
Part of it is you were the least equipped to know that you need that when you’re in the middle of it. It’s like, if you only pick up the phone and call that friend of yours, they would talk you off the cliff or make you smile.
It is our problem. You’re getting to one of the winning strategies is to develop relationships with people. For me, it’s been helpful having people at different stages of their lives. My daughter doesn’t realize it, but I put amazing people in her life that she thinks of as friends who are adults. This is a weird thing that I did. Her friends from a young age are adults probably because I didn’t want to hang out with other kids. I’m her dad. Nothing I do can be cool in her mind. For those people, she thinks they’re awesome.
For those people hanging out with her, a lot of value for them also. She’s super creative, super interesting, seeing the world for the first time and all of that. Having multi-generational friends was great.
New Technology: The things that we discover, explore, prototype and get right in entertainment have so much application in learning and many other areas.
I went to see some friends of mine for dinner at their house. I took her with me and right before we got to their door, I got a call that I took and I told her, “I’m going to do this call.” I expect her to wait for me to finish the call and then we’d go knock on the door. She’s never met these people. She goes to knocks on the door. I finish the call ten minutes later, I show up and they’re hanging out chatting. She made friends with, “How’s it going?” She didn’t know whose house we were going. She’s well socialized as well. If you give up on yourself and you don’t try to create a recipe that works for you, then you’re not going to be happy with the results. You might try to make a recipe and fail a bunch of times, but that’s part of learning to cook.
The difference of working on the business, working in the business, you apply that to yourself. You’re going about your day-to-day or thinking about your life.
One of the things you’ve seen to try to fill the gap where religion dropped the ball is all the self-improvement mindfulness. If you go to a bookstore in any other country, there’s no self-improvement section. Can you go into a bookstore in America? Not that we have them. Look in the airport, I do this if I’m traveling. If you’re in the airport in America, self-help is a huge section. You go to an airport bookstore in Europe, Asia, Middle East, there’s no self-help section. That’s not what they do. They’ll probably end up there. I’m not saying self-help is specifically working better than religion. I don’t know.
One nice thing I like about it is there are instances that go both ways. Some of them are looking for somebody to replace the religion that they can follow. That might be as good as it gets for some people. I’m not specifically trying to criticize that choice. You do want to be careful about who you choose, but maybe that’s what works for people where we’re built to follow, humans are. You want to be careful about who you choose to follow. What is cool in our lives is like a lot of freedom around exploration and trying different things. To figure out what works going forward, we have to try a lot of stuff and some of it is not going to work. You’ve got to give people a chance to try things.
That hyper exposure is also the root of creativity. You expose yourself to lots of stuff and then you’ve got a big wealth to drawn.
Some of these things are going to work. I saw some article about a family that had a garage sale, sold everything they had and got Bitcoin. At that time, it was worth like $900. They’ve been traveling the world ever since, the whole family, going everywhere they want, living off of Bitcoin. There’s a lot there, but what I love is we have so much potential, the technologies are giving us new potential. You’re taking all this in a direction that’s underexplored. You seem to see nothing, but more things you could do if you only had time. That’s a marker that more people should be trying not to bring you a competition you don’t want.
Please bring it because I want to do more stuff.
If you were going to use my vocabulary and describe problems that you want to solve or think need to be solved, what else do you see?
Have you done any immersive theater? Rather than traditional theater, where you sit in a seat-facing a stage, the immersive theater is all around you. It’s site-specific. You’re in a huge building and the buildings got lots of great themes going around. The thing that’s special about that is you have agency as an audience member. You’re wandering around, you get to decide which way to go, what actor to follow. Now and again, the actor will grab you by the hand, pull you down a hallway, the door locks behind you and you are alone one-on-one with this actor. They are responding to you, Pablos, and the words that you said now. Even though you’re in the middle of an entertainment theater experience, that personalization is magical. From an economic perspective, it’s super expensive to have a human one-on-one with you.
Those theater productions can only be so big. They’re never going to be in the Staple Center. It’s hard to get that level of immersion at scale, except if you have conversational AI and all of the tech and words that you get to experience every day. You get incredible personalization for people so that their entertainment experience is made for them. There’s another way when you were talking about the cameras being tons of sensors so that it could be translated into lots of languages depending on who they were and whether it was Ferraris and Lamborghinis. From the audience perspective, imagine those characters, all of that stuff is responding to me, who I am now, what I’m interested in, the questions that I ask, and the path of the narrative that I have taken off.
I want to be Michael Douglas in the game. I want that game to surround my life and dip into it. I don’t need to be drugged and buried alive in Mexico, but he had all terrible stuff happened to them. The better stuff, the things that were super interesting. He had a global puzzle he was unraveling and all of his faculties were being called on. Could he run fast? Could he solve puzzles? Could he navigate the world on $1 a day? Each of those things was a real skill. The thing that I think would be got with it was beautiful in the end as he went from being a jerk to a nice guy. It was an educational experience.
There is great data to show that you will work out harder in VR than you will in regular life. You would know that anecdotally. You’ll play a game of soccer with a broken foot because your head’s in the game and you will die on a treadmill because you’re driving it nuts. These things that we discover, explore, prototype and get right in entertainment have so much application in learning, fitness, therapy and retraining. The future of those harder subjects is going to be so much driven by making a great personal life experience.
I was on the board of a college. I didn’t go to college, so it’s not clear that I should have been on the board in the first place. I don’t feel really optimistic about the future of colleges.
I don’t either and it’s accelerated by who made it.
I finally managed to quit or they let me. It was great. I loved all the guys on that board, the people that were there. I learned so much from them, but I didn’t feel like they needed me because I don’t think that’s where the action is. A lot of it is I see the future of education being in games. My kid, I remember 2nd or 3rd or 4th, she’d go to school for six hours having learned nothing. She comes home, plays 45 minutes of games on her iPad and learn a ton.
I would even expand that to say the future of education in entertainment, games being one of the tools in the toolbox. Imagine we put her in an immersive theater experience that was all around Marie Curie and had entire chemistry. That would be freaking awesome.
In education, as we know it now, nobody’s taking responsibility for making it interesting. The only thing that brain wants to learn is what it’s interested in. I learned a lot because I was interested in computers. I would spend an absurd amount of time and energy trying to learn more about the computer. When I look at my kid, I look for whatever she’s interested in and add fuel to the fire. I don’t care if she turns out like all the other kids, but when you look at a school, there are still schools that are architected to try and make all the kids turn out the same.
It’s a model that hasn’t changed for many years and that is terrible because we’ve figured out solutions. A simple example of that is the flipped learning model. The idea that you go home and watch the videos of what was the lecture in the classroom, and then go into the classroom to do the homework because now the teacher can be an exception handler. The head of the class can be the cascading mentor to everybody else, so that you’ve much more efficiently distributed resources. It’s facilitated by technology but it requires imaginative thinking on behalf of the administration.
We don’t need our kids to all turn out the same anymore. Education should strive to produce great, unique, and special snowflakes.
Tweet
What I found at least in college, I’m bottomless pit of ideas and it didn’t matter. They’re constrained by accreditation because the costs have gone up, the only way to go to college is to get student loans. The student loans are federally-backed, but they dictate that you can only use the loans at schools that are accredited. These accrediting bodies are outside the university or the school, their job is to make sure that you do everything exactly the same as the way they’re used to see it. I don’t even think you could do that in a college and get away with it with the most accrediting bodies. The whole system is there’s so much bureaucracy that works against innovation that I think it’s going to collapse.
I agree with you. There’s a lot of problems there and in K-12, we’ve also got it wrong. This is no fault of the teachers who are the hardest working most incredible people. I love them and I want them to be more empowered for their tools. As I think about your daughter’s education, the scaffolding of the interest in the led learning approach. It’s not okay to do nothing. You have to do something. You’re going to be interest-led, and you’re going to figure out the thing that you want to do now and the next week, but we know as a functioning member of society, we need you to get a couple of backbone of things. Basic finance, basic for a state that you should be able to read. What I can’t wait to see is what’s the scaffolded approach that says, “Take this video from Khan Academy.”
Piecing these things together, did you ever read The Diamond Age?
I love that book. We’re finally there. We’ve got it. The iPad is ready to go.
Neal Stephenson gets a lot of credit for Snow Crash.
A Young Lady’s Illustrated Primer was a master.
For readers, Snow Crash was the first practical vision of virtual reality and underpins every virtual reality project since the book. A lot of people didn’t read The Diamond Age which was the next book after that, that Neal wrote. Not only it’s got a whole nanotechnology thing that was probably a little too early, but I don’t think that’s the important part. That’s what people fix it on. The primer is the most important thing in education.
The main character had this tablet device. The tablet device had a character in it that grew up with her. That character was puppeted on the backend by lots of different humans, but it was the same person to her. It was a personalized learning agent. It knew her intimately, knew what she knew and what she didn’t know as she grew up with her and was bringing the right learning there at the right time.
It was an amazing vision because I remember an example was the story when she first reads it, it’s a story about a princess, the girl’s name is Nell. The princess goes on these adventures and learns all the things that Nell needs to learn. The book is interactive. She’s reading the same book for the first eighteen years of her life or something, but we have all the tech to do that now. It was unimagined. This book is from 1992.
Now, we could build a primer and I believe that we should hold the primer. The reason is my daughter is already growing up with iPads. The things that are on it are Netflix. She’s watching TV shows, playing video games, and watching YouTube stuff. It’s okay, but here’s what I was thinking. Here’s how we solve it. Imagine that we need you to learn what Pi means. You could learn Pi any way you want, but you don’t get any credit for it until you teach somebody else. Somebody else you can pick anyone on earth. Any student could be in China. It doesn’t matter. You’re going to teach Pi to somebody. The way you do it is you got to figure out how to make it interesting to them.
If that student is into skateboarding, teach him Pi. “Here’s how a skate ramp works or electric guitar.” Whatever they’re into, you’re going to adapt Pi to be relevant to that. You’re going to make a YouTube video or write an essay or whatever it is that’s relevant to you or whatever medium you can express in. Do you want to write a song about Pi? Go for it. The job is to teach that discreet atomic lesson like in Khan Academy, it’s a five-minute thing. It’s one concept. You’re going to teach that in a way that’s interesting to that kid. His job is to teach it to somebody else. Now that he’s learned Pi, he might have to take what he learned in the context of electric guitar, and then go teach it to somebody else in the context of skateboarding.
The point is, if you do this in a school every year in one class, you get 30 versions of Pi. Khan Academy has one. Solomon’s in Khan explaining Pi, which is fine if you’re into English and your interests are on Pi, but if you’re skateboarding, that’s not cool. There should be 1,000 versions. You can’t afford to make 1,000 versions unless you have the kids creating the curriculum for future generations. We don’t. Our kids, my kid learns Pi, write it on a piece of paper, looks how the teacher glances at it and watches it, go in the trash. What could be more motivating than that? It is frustrating to me that every kid grows up doing what they know is fake work. It has no relevance to them.
Teaching somebody else is real work. You imparting knowledge to someone, that’s a real task.
Even if for no other reason, you’re learning it so that you can know you can do a good job at teaching your little buddy.
When I had thought about the million-job problem, caregivers were always the ones I kept coming back to because we don’t do a good job of daycare. Teachers are overwhelmed and trying to broadcast to 30 students. Atomizing each of the lessons and decentralized for everybody. These are great solutions.
No kid has to teach them all, no kid has to learn them all. We don’t need all the kids to turn out the same anymore. We want great, unique and special snowflakes. The truth is, you’re a little cocky.
That’s not just a million jobs.
That’s a billion jobs.
New Technology: The Two Bit Circus Foundation is doing a bunch of after school stuff. It’s all play-based.
Through high school, I’m going to have to teach 50 things. That’s a lot of jobs.
One of the things is the value you get out of a job we’re looking at a paycheck. That’s one of them, but we’re not looking at that mental health, the well-being needed in society. You get that from jobs too. You don’t get it from watching Netflix. What’s happening now is as we get more automation and efficiency, we are giving you more free time with this imperative question of what are you going to do with the free time? Watch more Netflix, or maybe you could help teach? My daughter’s classes have 30 kids and one teacher in a public school all through elementary school and we’re bitching and moaning about student-teacher ratios. Maybe we could get it down to 27 to 1? Maybe we could get it down to 26 to 1? We’re never going to get it down to one-to-one and that’s what we need. You don’t even need to be a good teacher if you only have one student to pay attention to. Our teachers are amazing because they can do it with 27. We only need only one to do that.
It’s like, “Do you understand that last second? How about the five seconds before that?” You know exactly when you lost them.
I’ve been lucky because I could afford to get tutors for my kid. All I did at from preschool on, I got her tutors and not to do a drill for the Math test. I’m like, “Figure out what she’s interested in and do it.” They turned my sauna into a camera obscura. They made stop motion movies with her iPad and her Barbies. She was four. She has all kinds of cool stuff. She doesn’t even realize she’s learning. She’s having fun. They did dance routines. One cool side effect for parents who care, she learned to work with a tutor. That context is so comfortable to her that when it became time to a drill for a test to get into private school, she was on it. No problem.
That one-on-one thing I believe in. The way to scale it is to turn the students themselves into teachers and get rid of this notion that teaching comes from on high. I’ve been looking for a context to do that. I got into this idea almost many years ago, because I was trying to start a private high school that would work this way. It ended up being way too much trouble to start up a private high school. I had no idea.
The Two Bit Circus Foundation is doing a bunch of after school stuff. It’s all creativity play basis.
Why play-based learning?
There are four core components. We train teachers, even as a History teacher, how to incorporate STEM and steam into their curriculum. Teacher’s professional development, we deploy makerspaces, physical tool deployment. We’ll bring tool benches with all the gear, consumable materials. This is the clean waste we collect from companies. Extra cutout, fabric cutouts from the fashion company, extra packaging from UPS, extra bottle caps that didn’t get used. All that stuff becomes the tools they use in the projects and event programs. Imagine a full replacement for the science fair where instead of building a baking soda, vinegar, volcano, kids are building their own game and throwing their own carnivals. It’s a full-stack replacement for that.
Is it working?
It’s working. It is not expensive. The way we’ve structured it is a little bit of a Robin Hood model. We sell the program to affluent schools so we can give it away to those at risk. More than half of our work is all in at-risk communities all over.
Imagine like a version of Khan Academy where you watch Salman Khan video on Pi, then you make your own and that gets posted. We have some AI that when a new kid comes in, we’re like, “Watch these three videos on Pi and your job is to make one better.”
The next student arrives and all of a sudden, they get the perfect session. Show them the three videos, “Which one did you like the best?” That metadata gets incorporated into that video so that now the kinesthetic learner is going to be getting the right Pi video. It gets perfect because I think about those educators that changed my life. Tom Wisdom, my Physics professor in high school, he was almost like Monty Python, a British guy that made it fun. It was incredible. I loved Physics. He was part of the reason I went into Engineering. Whatever his version of teaching stuff would be is going to resonate with certain people, kids like me, and a different version from a different Physics professor.
I never had Physics. I had to learn by working with astrophysicists and trying to build spaceships. I had to learn Physics on the top, but I’m a good fake physicist now, but I didn’t have that experience with Physics. imagine that every kid could have that teacher or one that could master them.
That’s the best educator. He has done a great job because he has been elevated because his approach is so awesome. What are 1,000 more Salman Khans or 10,000 more so that all of a sudden, you’re reaching everybody optimally? Imagine how fast could K-12 education happen? How fast could those minimum requirements be made so it’s all interesting? Everything that you want is the thing that you’re learning.
Brent Bushnell is an entrepreneur, engineer and CEO/co-founder of Two Bit Circus, a Los Angeles-based experiential entertainment company. The interdisciplinary team strives to create immersive, social fun and is currently building a network of micro-amusement parks featuring free-roaming VR, robot bartenders, an interactive supper club and more. Previously they created STEAM Carnival, a traveling event to inspire kids about science, technology, engineering, art and math.
Brent is on fire about using play and spectacle to inspire inventors. He is passionate about rebranding STEM learning to STEAM with the inclusion of art and creativity. He is motivated by the power of group games and interactive media to bring people together in fun and meaningful ways. As a UCLA-trained engineer, he is a hands-on maker who uses rapid prototyping to turn vision into reality. He’s board president of Two Bit Circus Foundation, an LA-based 501c3 that deploys STEAM-based programs for middle and high school students.
Previously, he was the on-camera inventor for the ABC TV show Extreme Makeover: Home Edition. He was a founding member of Syyn Labs, a creative collective creating stunts for brands like Google and Disney and helped OK Go build the Rube Goldberg machine for their viral This Too Shall Pass music video that garnered 50+ million views on YouTube.
In his spare time, Brent enjoys mentoring teens in entrepreneurship via programs such as NFTE. He’s a supporter of Clowns Without Borders and publishes on Twitter at @brentbushnell.
Recorded on December 4, 2020
Kids Building Dyson Swarms — Levi Hurt
Dec 21, 2021
Probably whatever you were doing with your life as a kid isn’t as cool as building a Dyson swarm. 12 year old Levi Hurt has already decided to devote his life to doing so.
Levi is a delightful kid. It will warm your heart to hear his curiosity and excitement about these ideas. Even with my antagonistic questioning, his sense of wonder is infectious.
My friend, Dr. Melissa Selinger is a Doctor of Neuropsychopharmacology who has done actual research on using psychedelics and virtual reality for treating things like depression, anxiety, and PTSD. A huge frontier where there are all kinds of potential, and very little actual scientific research has been done here so far. It’s an exciting frontier to be able to help a lot of people who we don’t have any real idea how to help otherwise.
I’m super thrilled about that and the potential for it. It’s great to get to talk to somebody who knows what state of the art there is. Melissa knows a lot about all kinds of things that I don’t know anything about. As you guys know, part of what I love to be able to do is sit down with somebody who has a lot of knowledge and experience in something that I don’t know about, pick their brain, try and break it down, see if I can understand it and take you guys along for the ride so that we can all learn.
Carcinogens, teratogens, exosomes, stem cells, cytokines, CRISPR, gene editing, all these are things that we talk about in this conversation. A lot of it is me trying to get her to explain in layman’s terms what this stuff is and how it works. There is incredible potential here. If you were ever interested in what’s possible in stem cell therapy, you’re going to want to learn about exosomes and her experience with that. A couple of biotech startups had some ups and downs in that and learned a lot. I’m thrilled to be sharing our conversation with you. Enjoy this episode.
Pablos: I’m going to explain what I know, which is not very much, and you could tell me if I’m full of shit. Sound good?
Melissa: Yeah.
Human bodies are made up of a bunch of cells, most of which are not actually human. They’re like parasites and shit, and microbiome crap and other bacteria are living on your body everywhere. To the extent that there are human cells, the cells are super complex little cities inside. I’ve seen these microscope photos of all the shit inside of a cell, and it’s a lot. It’s complex.
Most people like me have a vague notion that there’s a cell wall, which makes it like a balloon or a bowl or something, and then on the inside is all these goodies, including DNA, RNA, and other stuff. That’s the extent of anybody’s general education on this stuff. There are different kinds of cells. There’re bone cells, blood cells, meat cells, and shit.
There’s a variety of different cells that do different things. All of them started out as stem cells which were basically blank cells. The thing got written into being whatever they’re going to become. You have some of those in an embryo. Over time, as your body is growing, these cells get programmed to be different things. Muscle tissue or brain cells, and then what happens is gamma rays come from space, bombard them, and you get these cell mutations. You end up with all kinds of variations and mutations, and then everybody ends up eventually getting cancer and dying. Is that pretty much the circle of life?
It’s fairly accurate. There’s a lot of causes of cell mutations.
There’re other causes like nicotine.
A lot of just manufacturing in our environments in general are heavily laden with carcinogenic compounds that was a byproduct of the industrial area. Look at California, for example. Everything is a possible carcinogen.
Stem Cells: Donating birth tissue for scientific research doesn’t go to academia for research but to for-profit mega-corporations.
What does carcinogen mean?
It’s a compound that’s able to alter the cell’s DNA structure in a manner that causes aberrant growth, like a malignant tumor. Essentially, the way that cells operate is they have a terminal point of senescence where they die. With cancer cells, they lose that, and they are able to live continuously.
They don’t die like they’re supposed to. They just hang around and replicate. I know some people like that. Carcinogen means that it’s some chemical that you could ingest or come in contact with that can alter the DNA in a cell.
Also, teratogens, which are birth defect causing chemicals in unborn babies as well.
Those are chemicals that the mother could be exposed to, or that the babies get exposed to, or what?
The mothers got exposed to, and then they cross the placental barrier in vivo.
Not every carcinogen does that, but some subset of them are teratogens?
Some subset of them and then there are various prescription drugs that were used during pregnancy that over time were pulled from the market when they realized that some of them cause pretty severe birth defects.
Some people are attempting to live these carcinogen-free lifestyles.
I don’t know if that’s possible in America because there’s such a heavy amount of it. Food in America is heavily chemical-laden and you have everything from the interior of cars and mass-produced furniture are full of anti-flammable chemicals.
If I sit on a couch, that shit’s rubbing off?
It depends on the manufacturer. If you grab a Walmart couch, for example, they have questionable materials and then anything that’s synthetic usually has something. If you have a synthetic vinyl couch or anything plastic, you have plasticizers that leach out over time. Water bottles, for example, the plasticizers that enable the plastic to have a bendiness or softness to them, that leaches out into the water, especially with heat or microwave food and plastic containers. The BPA alternatives are not necessarily safer than BPA.
Even with Fiji Water?
I would say pretty much anything bottled in plastic and then shipped in plastic is.
I thought these plastics were FDA approved for holding food?
FDA approval is still wishy-washy and you have FDA-approved artificial colorings, which may or may not be linked to possible disorders.
We’ve had so much ingestion of artificial coloring, you would think we would know by now.
They say it’s something like 99% of Americans test positive for BPA in their blood at any given time.
I think aluminum cans are lined with plastic anyway.
There’s some lining and the cans. You’re seeing a lot of times, the “BPA-free lining,” but it’s still the way that they’re manufactured. There’s still the joint where it’s sealed as a circular cylindrical piece and there are some metals that leach out. It’s in almost everything.
It’s a losing game and the idea is to try to die before you get sick from ingesting all this crap.
The statistics are something like 1 in 6 Americans will be diagnosed with cancer at some point in their life. It’s a pretty prevalent thing at this point. It’s like a when, not an if, kind of thing.
You have a clear understanding of cell biology. Can you explain what a stem cell is?
With stem cells, if you want to start as far back as the fertilized ova, it gets fertilized with sperm, you get the zygote, which becomes this rapidly dividing mass of cells.
That’s what a zygote is?
Yeah.
It’s just, “Let’s make a bunch of cells.”
At this point, these cells are pluripotent, meaning they can transdifferentiate into all the types of cells in the body. It depends on how far along they’re within.
In the beginning, they could be anything.
That’s the appeal of using fetal cells for stem cells, but obviously, there are ethical concerns with that. It’s not really used anymore.
We used to harvest fetal stem cells.
There was a period where they were using aborted fetal tissue. Some people are very opposed to that. They passed a law that legalized the use of fetal tissue with the exception of a couple of established lines. There’re few countries where everything is fine. Possibly, you can get away with a lot of stuff in China.
Do you think that there’s some important stuff that we’re missing in the US by not allowing that?
For sure, but we’ve turned to other types of tissue. With mass manufacturing, as the regenerative medicine industry is starting to, they’ve found a way to start to scale up to levels that are able to produce pharmaceutical quantities. In some of the tissues that they’re looking at now, they can isolate stem cells from bone marrow, from adipose, which is fat tissue, and then placenta, which is the mesenchymal stem cells that I’ve had the most knowledge about.
One in six Americans will be diagnosed with cancer at some point in their life.
Tweet
You’re not getting them as fresh as they are in an embryo, but pretty close. Are you able to get stem cells from the fat in the knee?
The issue is you’re getting stem cells from an adult that’s already of adult age.
There’s still some floating around in there.
Ideally, in theory, we’d like to have cells from a young individual with placental tissue.
Mine are old and decrepit and they’re obviously dropout stem cells because they didn’t bother to turn into something else by now.
With something like the placental stem cells, you’re generally getting them from a C-section. It’s tissue that would be generally discarded as medical waste to begin with, but you have a younger mother. Usually, ages 18 to late 20s is the optimum age. They essentially isolate the cells and they’re able to culture them in vitro and expand them out into larger cell lines that are capable of creating very large quantities of product that is, from a characterization standpoint, almost identical. There’s a variation from one woman’s placental cells to another. That’s the nature of biologics in general because it’s human-derived tissue. Even if you have the same process, you might end up with a slightly different composition of matter on the final product.
Do you think that there are supply constraints on this or is there plenty of placental stem cells?
There’s definitely some highly competitive market with human tissues in general. A lot of companies are getting exclusive contracts with the tissue procurers. There’re companies that their sole purpose is just to acquire birth tissue or organs, the whole organ market trade.
There might be some screwy incentives there. Do you think it’s possible this explains why there has been a massive uptick in the number of C-sections performed?
It’s not necessarily related to the organ market. The C-section issue is more of a convenience thing for the factory perspective where they’d like to get women in and out as fast as possible. There’s a huge amount of unnecessary C-sections. There’re some interesting books on the topic where they’ll push women into C-sections that are not medically necessary just because it’s faster.
That’s what I heard but maybe not because they’re trying to get more placenta.
There’re some laws in place regarding the sale of human organs. It’s done in a strange way where the mother of the child will give consent. Informed consent is one of the laws regarding human tissue acquisition. She has to sign. The way that they word it is, “I hereby donate my birth tissue for scientific research,” which is interesting because the way that’s worded you think it’s going to academia and you think it’s going to be, but a lot of this is going to for-profit mega-corporations.
They don’t realize that their one placenta is probably going to make hundreds of thousands to over $1 million with a product. It’s a little bit misleading and it’s a little unfair, in my opinion, that they can’t legally compensate them. There’s a lot of steps required, with, for example, the American Association of Tissue Banks. When you receive the tissue, there’s an entire process of handling. It has to be kept at a specific storage. Sometimes there’s a sealing rinse or sometimes they’ll use an antibiotic rinse because sometimes there’s a little bit of exposure to different types of microorganisms from the skin when they do the C-section.
Essentially, you want it as sterile as possible. You don’t want to introduce any sort of organisms into your cultures that you’re going to be using. With the exosomes, you’re culturing the stem cells for the explicit purpose of harvesting the exosomes and creating a cellular product. The final product is completely stem cell free, which is interesting. There’s been a lot of stem cell research. There are interesting therapeutic applications, but it’s with the gray market in the United States because there’s been a lot of adverse effects associated with the stem cells.
That’s why you see a lot of people flying to Mexico or flying to another country for stem cells themselves. The issue is they’re allogeneic, meaning they’re coming from another human being, in which they could have an immune response in you because they have MHC Class II cell surface markers that the body may recognize as antigen. “This is a foreign tissue. It does not belong to me. It’s an invader.” The same situation with organ transplants.
Sometimes the stem cells have transdifferentiated into the wrong type of tissue. For example, there was a scenario where a woman had some injected into her face. It migrated to her eye and transdifferentiated into osteocytes, which is bone. She ended up growing a chunk of bone in her eye. There was another, they were trying to cure paralysis in somebody with a spinal cord defect or spinal cord injury, a quadriplegic. The stem cell injection that they got overseas was from a bad line that turned into a large tumor mass that is extremely difficult to remove once it’s in the spinal cord. That’s a very serious area for surgery.
In that case, if the reason it became a tumor was because of the stem cells that were used, and that you used a different stem cell from a different donor, maybe you would have had a different outcome?
It’s possible it’s that the donor may have had a genetic defect. Sometimes when they mass culture these cells, they’ll do what’s called expansion, where the cells will divide and you’ll continuously divide them to additional passes. It’s called passaging. You’ll passage more and more, but after the cells have gone through this division stage through around 68 passages and beyond, that’s the point where you might get some genetic aberration.
As with humans, after 6 or 8 generations, your grandkids are total assholes. In that case, from what you’ve said, if I understand, if it had been stem cells derived from a fetus, there’d be less risk of this kind of genetic passing of a tumor through a stem cell to a new person.
It’s possible. I don’t have a whole lot of experience with fetal stem cells directly.
The other thing is if you inject me with stem cells in my cheek and it crawls up to my eye and creates a bone and that’s not what I intended, how are you supposed to be telling these stem cells what they’re supposed to transmogrify into?
That’s the interesting thing now is we aren’t quite at a place yet where we have full control. We inject into a site and we hope that it differentiates into what the neighboring cells are. The neighboring cells are releasing signaling molecules that will communicate and they know what they’re supposed to do. What they’re finding in research is that when people are getting these stem cell injections, initially, the mode of thinking was that, “When you get these injections, these live stem cells are ingrafting into the human and transdifferentiating into whatever tissue and exerting whatever the effects are that you’re aiming for.”
There have been some studies showing that large portions of live cells that are injected actually die off very quickly. They don’t survive in the host. The exosomes being released from the injected stem cells are actually inferring most of the effects that we’re seeing. With exosomes, we’re able to cut out this middleman or this other product that has all these issues. Another issue with stem cells is their lives. You have to transport them at cryogenic temperatures. You have to have a whole Coltrane shipping and storage versus exosomes which are off the shelf, stable, and can be kept at slightly warmer temperatures for shorter periods of time.
Let’s rewind here and explain what an exosome is. I don’t have a strong association with what an exosome is. Can you try and school me on that?
Exosomes are starting to gain a lot more attention in research because initially, the thought was that they were just waste molecules. What they are is a lipid vesicle membrane, which is a package that is produced within the cell that is released by the cell. It’s used for paracrine communication, which is cell-to-cell communicational travel to a different part of the body and exerts an effect there being, they’ll have uptake into that cell.
It’s like little bits of code and they contain different types of protein like micro mRNA, various anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory cytokines, lipids, etc. There are growth factors and healing factors. The exosome itself is about 70 to 100 nanometers. They’re nanoparticles. It’s very interesting because they’re very small-sized and able to travel through the bloodstream, but interestingly they’re able to cross the blood-brain barrier.
You’re able to use them for a lot of conditions of the brain that have, for example, neural inflammation. We’re seeing in even something like depression, anxiety, PTSD, you have some level of neural inflammation. You can have inflammatory processes within the brain that creates this chicken and egg scenario where if you’re somebody with PTSD, severe panic attacks, or anxiety, and you have depression, you have these circuits wired for these types of thoughts. Those different unit hyperinflammatory state causes more symptoms, and the symptoms then cause more depression and anxiety, and it creates a feedback loop of continuing this cycle.
Inflammatory stages mean more blood is being sent to those tissues?
More blood and more active inflammatory cytokines.
What are cytokines?
Cytokines are signaling molecules.
Are they like exosomes?
Exosomes contain them and they also have various mRNA that codes for them.
An exosome contains cytokines, which contain mRNA.
We’re still elucidating exactly what the full characterization of it is because when you do a protein panel assay, you might see that there are hundreds of thousands of different compounds within an exosome. It depends because we’re focusing mainly on stem cell exosomes because that’s the therapeutic applications that we’re interested in. Most eukaryotic cells produce exosomes in some manner.
What does eukaryotic mean?
It’s cells that are from average animal or average plant, a lower life form.
An exosome is like a FedEx delivery driver. Cytokine is a package, and then mRNA is like a floppy disk inside.
Yes, the executing code that once it’s taken up by the cell becomes the blueprint to manufacture more proteins based on what that is in particular.
What I’m trying to understand is, do all cells have these exosomes that they spit out?
Most cells do, but they’re not all necessarily things that are therapeutics. One of the interesting things that they’re researching exosomes for is biomarkers for specific disease states. If you have a specific type of cancer and we find that a specific type of exosome is released by that cancer, they could be developing a diagnostic test. It’s very hard to diagnose certain types of cancer, especially if it’s an organ that’s very hard to get to. If we’re able to find that in the bloodstream and create diagnostic tests, it’s early preventative, finding diseases earlier, and being able to treat them earlier.
The other interesting application besides therapeutic use is drug delivery systems. We’re able to take these nanoparticles and there are different techniques that you can load them with a pharmaceutical drug. Since they have this targeting effect in vivo, you can use the exosomes to target a specific disease state. For example, you want to get a drug across the blood-brain barrier that normally cannot cross the blood-brain barrier. It can cross within the exosomes and now you can deliver a certain substance to the brain that you could not previously.
Stem Cells: Some recent studies show that a large portion of live cells injected die off very quickly. It’s the exosomes being released from the injected stem cells that infer the effects that you experience.
How does the targeting work?
Targeting is when you have a specific site of inflammation. If you have a highly inflammatory disorder, autoimmune disorders, osteoarthritis, various muscular-skeletal disorders, these sites are actively releasing inflammatory molecules. There’s a homing effect for exosomes where they’re able to target and find, within the body, where they’re supposed to be going. It’s pretty interesting.
Can you somehow program it to go where you want?
The interesting area now is synthetically engineered exosomes. Creating an exosome that has a specific purpose or specific indication, for example, there’s some outside of Israel. There’s a new one that they’re developing for COVID that is very specific to acute respiratory distress syndrome from COVID. It specifically targets the lungs and inflammation in the lungs. It’s had some very interesting results.
In terms of having a differentiated product that uses synthetic biology to create a very specific exosome that’s targeting a very specific indication, that’s very valuable. Anybody can open up a laboratory and start mass manufacturing exosomes that have a broad general use. Essentially, the way the market is structured right now is that it’s a very gray market, a lot of the Wild West frontier where doctors have the legal right to use products off label in a manner that they see fit for their practice.
It’s not illegal for them to purchase the product and, for example, inject that into the spine of somebody paralyzed but the companies that manufacture it absolutely cannot advertise it for that purpose. You can only advertise it for whatever the purpose is that they have FDA clearance for. If it’s for cosmetic use only, they can advertise it for cosmetic use only but that’s becoming a loophole now where they’re marketing it for cosmetic with a wink-wink nudge, and a lot of physicians are purchasing it and injecting it into the articular spaces for arthritis.
Is there any legitimate cosmetic use of injecting these stuff in people?
Cosmetic and legitimate are subjective.
Maybe like a bunch of exosomes in my lips for filler.
Possibly not your lips but like your skin, I haven’t seen highly conclusive data on this yet but some who have received this claim that the rejuvenation of the skin cells is causing the new skin to grow back with the texture of the baby skin. Very soft with very small pores and reduction in pore size. I personally have seen a patient that was injected that had very severe rosacea around his nasolabial folds. Very red and blotchy. Within about 48 hours, he had complete remission of the rosacea. It’s completely clear. It did return after a few months. It’s not a permanent fix because the underlying causative factor that’s causing that condition is ongoing. It’s not a permanent cure.
It was exosomes injected into that skin and it’s generic exosomes harvested from a placenta like you described before?
Yeah.
We’re at the beginning of figuring out all the places this could be used.
This is the thing that’s the most fascinating is, when you go into pharmaceutical or biopharmaceutical development, whether you’re a startup or whether you’re a multibillion-dollar corporate entity, they dump massive amounts of money. To the thousands of drug candidates, you might get a handful of drugs that end up making it through.
Some of them will make it through phase one clinical trials and then they won’t pass to phase two. A lot of us don’t pass it. Most of them never make it to market. It’s a very high-risk ratio of the cost of R&D and trying to get through the clinical trials to get it to the point where it’s perfect for humans, but then you have something like exosomes where you don’t have your one indication. There’s this massive variety of so many indications that we’re seeing efficacy for.
There’s a lot of rat studies that are fascinating and now we’re starting to see some human studies and case reports for human clinical trials. For example, post-stroke, if it’s administered immediately after stroke, there’s a very high chance of not having permanent brain damage from stroke if it’s a particular type of stroke or from a CTE from a brain injury.
This is only, so far, tested on strokes that rats have had?
I’ve seen some case studies in some hospitals where it’s being used with humans.
I’m low risk for stroke but I’m terrified of it. Can I get a bottle of exosomes and stick it in my backpack and whenever I have a stroke, just chug it? How close to that could we get where instead of an EpiPen?
Right now, the big issue is needing to be stored because the mRNA may be denatured at high temperatures. In general, you want to store it at around negative 80 Celsius.
I heard somewhere that the mRNA vaccines, I don’t know if it was both of them or one of them, are working out to be pretty effective stored at normal.
They have a shorter lifespan but they’re also working on what I’ve seen as layoff-alized versions, where it’s essentially a freeze-dried version that’s reconstituted. I haven’t seen a lot of shelf-life data on that yet, so I don’t know.
It’s too soon to know. How does mRNA work?
An mRNA or messenger RNA provides the translation of the RNA into the target cell where it will aid in the manufacture of the new proteins.
Can I think of mRNA like a system update like injecting some new code into a cell?
Yeah. It’s like a little floppy disk that’s hopping over there and has a little executable program.
If you extrapolate 100 years from now, imagine that we learn a lot about mRNA and we learn to write code.
That’s the holy grail of gene editing in general. There are so many incurable diseases right now. They are tinkering with congenital blindness and they’ve actually had some success where they were able to rewrite code that was for certain types of blindness.
The type that someone’s born with. It’s genetic and we’re rewriting the genetic part that made them.
The holy grail is, “Can we cure people that have congenital diseases by altering their DNA long-term?” There’s also CRISPR which is this great invention, but there is a concern about off-target effects. If you’re editing a certain gene sequence, there may be an unintended downstream edit somewhere else that comes with other unintended effects. We don’t fully know the long-term implications of stuff like that. That’s why you haven’t seen, “Here’s the blockbuster drug that was made with CRISPR.” It hasn’t happened yet.
This seems like a big data problem and over time, we’ll know more and more about what’s in that genome, what the different bits of code do, and we’ll be able to write it. We already know how to write it, so in some sense, if all that went well, which might take more or less than 100 years, maybe 1,000 years, who knows. At some point, though, we’ll probably be able to figure out what all the code is and we’ll be able to write any and all of it. We’ll be able to repair the code that’s damaged or causing things like congenital diseases to be passed on, and then we’ll be able to design radically new variants of humans.
This is where people start to get into ethical dilemmas because it’s like, “What is fair?”
I know that ethical dilemmas are not part of this discussion, though. We want to touch about what’s causing them.
I have a mad scientist approach to things. I’m very much a fan of tinkering. This is a little off topic but when I think about space exploration, there’s a lot of talk about, “Do we need to do gene editing in the future in Mars?” It happens, for example, where there are species of animals that are in sunlight all day long like elephants and dolphins, who don’t have high rates of cancer. It’s something about the compounds within their gray skin that they don’t have this crazy high rate of cancer that we humans have.
If we’re talking about putting people in space or sending them for long time, they’re getting bombarded by all the different types of cosmic radiation. What if there is some gene sequence in their skin that would allow humans to have some? This is just me guessing. There are a lot of interesting applications for space travel. With the radiation, you also have a lot of immune system suppression. That’s a big issue in space. Your immune system goes to shit.
mRNA is like a little floppy disc that contains an executable program for your body.
Tweet
That’s what we’ve seen with the astronaut with the twin brother. Ethical questions require a completely different conversation.
I try to stay out of that just because.
I do too but it’s not because they aren’t important.
It’s important but I also have a thing for the idea of experimenting a little bit on the edge because that’s how you make progress. You get a little bit outside of the boundary. You have some people push things a little too far. There’s no argument like with the Chinese CRISPR editing of the babies. Did they really need to be edited?
Can you describe that?
The Chinese scientists did some CRISPR editing of these babies to give them immunity against HIV. Arguably, is that really a concern? Number one, nobody’s doing CRISPR experiments on human babies. We don’t know the long-term effects or the downstream effects of this. What are the odds of these babies encountering HIV in their lifetime? Where do you draw the line? Do we start to edit for every single disease? To my knowledge, they weren’t coming from parents that were HIV infected.
If they could make all future humans HIV resistant, we could eradicate that disease.
Yeah, but I don’t think he started in monkeys or rats.
He wanted to get a name for himself.
My understanding is, it was ego-driven and he wanted to be a famous person. It’s interesting because I don’t have this fascination with the slightly not okay experiments of Russia and China. They do push the boundaries in a way that’s not acceptable here but it’s fascinating data.
I’m not endorsing any particular thing.
I’m not either. I just have curiosity.
We only want to know what’s possible. If you just imagine, we get to a point where we comprehensively understand all the code and the DNA. We understand how to program mRNA and do whatever we want, we eradicate all the diseases and we bolster immune systems. We get rid of all the things that can kill you. Do you think that would be a problem for evolution?
You’re cutting out the natural selection, which is another ethical dilemma. Everybody gets to live.
We cut out the survival of the fittest while keeping natural selection. You get to choose a mate.
Is that going to increase long term some defects? If you’re in a poor country, you need to have access to those gene editing technologies. If you’re in a third world country, are you going to have access that the other people in the first world countries have?
I don’t think we’ll have third world countries much longer.
You don’t think so? I don’t know. When I visit these, I still see how far behind they are. Automation will come and we’re hoping that these menial labor tasks such as the cruel labors ideally will be replaced by robots and hopefully get these people into better and maybe universal.
A lesser form of humans that we can create with our genetic superpowers to do our bidding. Biological robots. No conscience, clean my clothes, bad idea. I am just kidding.
I have a fascination with the idea of growing brain organelles which you can grow these mini-brains from neural tissue. The question right now is, do they have consciousness? Are they suffering? We don’t know.
Do we grow them and put them in geckos? I would love to have a gecko that could braid hair.
They’ve done something interesting. I saw a pig and a human brain chimera. There were some monkeys that they had mixed with some human genes.
That does have a bit of a creepy feeling.
If we give a monkey some aspects of human consciousness, are they suffering? We don’t really know, but what if we’re able to grow this organelle, place it into a computer system. If we can use the computational power of a brain versus a computer, obviously, it’s two very different styles. If you look at the way that memory in the brain works, the millions of various neural connections between so many disparate areas of the brain and different memories and recall the way that we process things. When you’re heading in the direction of artificial general intelligence, I don’t think they’re ever going to replicate that purely in silico. The hybridization of human neural tissue like tissue on a chip or brain-computer interface with an actual neural brain, that’s the area I’m interested in.
If that works, maybe we can make a big one. The human brain is pretty big but what if we could make a 40-pound brain?
That’d be cool.
We could modify humans to have thinner skulls, more brain, that seems like it would have an effect. Maybe there’s some point of diminishing returns where the circumference of the brain is too high but we could hybridize the architecture and take these multi-core chip architectures and have multiple brains with high-speed interconnects.
We have them get into the whole BCI Neuralink area. Can we master the understanding of electrical and data transfer? We’ve had a little bit of progress. If you see, for example, people that were born blind, they were able to bypass the optic nerves and able to put cameras on these people’s heads that send rudimentary images into the visual cortex of the brain and they’re able to see. They don’t see 20/20 like us but they can see light, dark areas, navigate within their homes, find their way, and see the outline of contrasty things.
You see that now with hearing. You’re seeing the hearing implants that they’re bypassing the defective cochlear structures and able to implant it directly into the auditory portions of the brain and they’re able to hear. I see all these senses that are now being able to be augmented or completely replaced in people that are born without them. It’s like, “How far can this go? Can this go to the point where we can plug in computers and then start to use it with the neural language?”
Neuralink is not the first or the end all be all. The people in the neurotech community have been working on BCIs for decades before Neuralink. If you go into the NeuroTechX Communities, they’ve been working on this forever and it seems the spotlight was stolen from them because they have been working on this for years.
There’s probably a story just like in electric cars and spaceships too. When we think about computers, the computers have a bus. They have an interface. You don’t try to tap into every transistor in a chip. You have a bus where the chip does this processing and then there’s like an I/O bus where you can move data in and out.
You might think of it like the eyeballs or the spine is I/O for the brain. I’m making shit up here but I’m guessing there’s a lot more to be gained in the short run by trying to understand those interfaces and use them than to try and go tap into and monitor every neuron in the brain. Even Neuralink has no concept of how to get there.
It’s very much in the stages of infancy. It’s very early days. I like where it’s going and that the initial use cases are going to be for people with quadriplegia or people who have locked-in syndrome that cannot communicate outside, they have no method of communication whatsoever with the outside world. With BCI, they’re going to be able to have some life skills where they can communicate on a computer. They might be able to drive their wheelchairs around their house even though they’re completely paralyzed. They can have some basic living functions, which are really special.
In some sense, it’s a way to circumvent the ethical questions about the work because we look at them and say, “These people got less than the average human. There doesn’t seem to be any ethical concern about trying to close that gap for them.” That’s also a little bit presumptuous to say. I don’t know. Maybe somebody knows but if you have Down syndrome, who’s to say? They seem pretty happy a lot of the time. Maybe they don’t want to be like us. I don’t know. I’m just making that up.
We do seem to circumvent the ethical discussion out, whereas if you’re talking about making humans that are advanced on some access beyond what we’ve seen, then it gets sketchy. I imagine a near future where the NBA is entirely populated with super tall, blond Chinese people because they’re smarter than us and are way better at math. I see that coming because they have a different ethical sensibility in that region. We have been very conservative about gene editing.
We’re going to see a lot of the innovative stuff in the countries that have slightly more lax regulatory controls on what they’re able to do and not able to do. I see the double-edged sword on this because if you went back to look at some of the unethical experiments a few decades ago, they did some pretty wild stuff. In other countries, too, they did some pretty wild experiments.
There was one where they were attempting to cross hybridize women with sperm from a specific chimpanzee or some type of monkey and it was very unsuccessful. I don’t think any of them fertilized or any of the embryos made it but you can never get away with that now. It’s so wild but at the same time to me, that’s fascinating because what if it works?
What is ketamine?
It’s a dissociative anesthetic.
I know there are different classes of drugs, and that’s one of them. What are examples of classes of drugs? What does dissociated mean? What does anesthetic mean?
With anesthetics, you have more typical inhaling gas. When you do surgery, they’ll often intubate somebody. They’ll have an anesthesiologist that will control the levels of the gas and sometimes there’ll be a paralytic agent where their body is paralyzed. They’re not experiencing pain and they’re not conscious.
Ketamine is a fascinating dissociative anesthetic for many reasons. It’s on the World Health Organization’s top ten most essential drugs because it does not require an anesthesiologist to be present to monitor it. It completely spares the respiratory system. You don’t have a risk of suffocation. This is something that’s still used in American hospitals, mainly for pediatrics, and now off-label for pain and depression, on battlefields or third world countries where they don’t have the resources to have a full-time anesthesiologist. They’re doing field surgery, and a lot of third world countries are just doing quick surgeries that are subpar, it’s a very critical drug for that.
It’s regained a lot of interest over the years because it has a very fascinating efficacy rate for depression, especially suicidal ideation. It is far more statistically effective than typical SSRI antidepressants, especially for people that have suicidal ideation. People that are suicidal, within 45 minutes of infusion, are no longer suicidal.
The main reason it was removed from main use in hospitals is it does have a psychedelic, disorienting, or dissociative effect when people start to awaken from the anesthesia. It can be very psychedelic and scary for them. It’s used mainly in pediatrics and in people with asthma or with other respiratory system issues. With depression, there’s so much overwhelming evidence. Ketamine has been off-label for patent for many years. It’s generic and a very cheap drug. It’s something like $10 for a vial of it. They’re reselling that for thousands. Cash pay for these ketamine clinics, one of the major companies, SPRAVATO, which is the S enantiomer of ketamine versus the racemic which is the normal RNS.
What’s the difference and what does that mean?
With the manufacture of drugs, you have something that’s called stereoisomers, which is basically you have the same bonding configuration of the molecules, and you have what’s a left-handed and right-handed version. It’s still the exact same young compound but in 3D space, they might be bent in one direction. You have receptor sites in your brain, for example, NMDA receptors for ketamine, and the left glove might not necessarily bind as tightly to the specific receptor site. It might confer slightly different effects.
With ketamine, you have the R-isomer, which supposedly has more of the drunken kind of stupor high feelings, and then you have the S-isomer, which is used medically in Europe that can be a little bit more psychedelic and it seems to be lacking in the physical drunkenness components. Regardless, the SPRAVATO, which is being used very for PTSD in veteran’s hospitals. When you get that administered, they make you wait three hours before you’re allowed to leave. You’re not allowed to drive.
Stem Cells: The brain has millions of various neuro connections. It is extremely difficult to replicate such a complex system in artificial intelligence.
They want to make sure you don’t have some weird psychedelic side effects.
It’s a fairly low dosage nasal spray compared to the IV bolus or the IV infusion. It’s interesting to see it’s not just depression, but it’s also pain. They’re finding a lot of pain relief, neuropathic pain, especially, with ketamine. We used to think that it was just NMDA receptor antagonism, but now we’re finding that there’s a multitude of other possible mechanisms of action. There’s quite a variety of possible reasons why it is so effective for depression.
The main downside is it has the potential to be highly addictive. It is something that does have addiction potential. The relief of depression is so intense that people who have severe depression start to chase that relief of depression to the point where they can become addicted. If you’re not receiving psychotherapy, in addition, if you’re just getting straight-up infusions with no psychotherapy in conjunction, you’re not making any long-lasting changes.
It’s not covered by insurance, so it’s a cash payment. In a major city like Manhattan, you might be paying $600, $800, $1,000 per infusion. It’s not cheap. It’s not covered by insurance yet. It should be cheap because the actual product itself is something around $10 for a generic vial. It’s not expensive. There’s massive markup, and there’s a gold rush of these ketamine clinics just because they’re very easy to open.
What are they doing, mostly? Suicide prevention?
That and pain for chronic pain patients and then chronic depression patients, it’s done in a very sterile doctor’s office that’s not conducive to something that has a slight psychedelic element. You’re in a brightly, fluorescent lit room.
What would be better?
In my opinion, is the use of virtual reality as an adjunct, which is what I’ve been studying. I completed an eighteen-patient pilot study clinical trial. With that, you have an additional layer of immersion. It’s interesting, especially with pain patients where the objective is you would like to get these people off of opiates. We do not want people to do opiates. It’s a dangerous route to go down because then you can’t get off of them. With something like VR, you have what’s called immersive distraction, where you have a finite amount of processing power in your brain for all your senses.
If you’re experiencing greater high levels of pain but then I expose you to high levels of visuals and I expose you to sound, there might be a physical component. Some people are adding in a sub-pack which is like a subwoofer vibrating vest. There are all different things. The more sensory stimuli that you’re putting in, especially if they’re watching something with some emotional component, your brain cannot process the pain, the visual, and the auditory.
They’ve been doing studies on this and finding that VR alone is reducing the perception of pain. This is something that’s very important for people with severe burn injuries who have burned and lost 50% of their skin. It is excruciatingly painful to do the wound changes. They don’t have skin. It’s completely burned off. They’re finding that with the use of VR, they’re able to tolerate a lower level of opiate painkillers. They have less fear and anxiety built up about the wound dressing changes because they know that they’re going to be distracted. They’re not seeing what’s going on, and you’re not paying as much attention and they’re occupied mentally.
There’re also some other use cases for VR. They did a study with twelve paralyzed patients that they were able to show in VR, there’s this very interesting phenomenon where if you show the paralyzed limbs moving and the physical therapists move the limbs, you start to regenerate neural growth where they were able to regain motor function in parts of the body that were previously paralyzed. It’s a fascinating study if you google it.
It goes to show that the effect of VR has on the brain alone is very powerful because it’s so immersive that it can be nearly indistinguishable for the brain from a real experience. You see people on the edge of a cliff in VR and consciously, you’re safe, you’re in your house. There’s no hole in your floor. People, as soon as they approach that hole, they lose their balance and fall.
In the Oculus with the plank simulator, everyone should try it. It’s insane because you can have that exact feeling.
People fall. It’s hilarious.
They do. I put my dad in it. He would not step off the plank-like, “Nope. Not doing it.”
It preys on people’s fear of heights and be falling. It’s like your carpeted house is part of the brain that it does not accept.
The one that fascinates me the most, I don’t know anything about it, but I heard about a project where Navy SEALS or something, were using VR to treat PTSD. 100% of Navy SEALS have PTSD. It’s part of the job. I don’t know anything about this stuff. I’m making this part up, but in what I learned about trauma before, it seems to me that a lot of cases of PTSD where you get yanked out of a situation before your brain got to finish a story.
Your brain gets stuck in this cycle of trying to find an ending for the story that never got finished. You’re stuck in that spin cycle. With VR, what they’re doing is they’ll put you back on the battlefield where your buddy got shot or whatever. You’re there and you get a chance to finish the story. I’m making that part up. I honestly don’t know what they do. I made all that up but maybe it’s something like that.
From what I’ve seen, one of the issues with mass adoption and mass scaling of that is PTSD is personalized visually, which means some 3D designer has to rebuild like, “Was there an exact incident in Afghanistan where this is what happened?” The next person might have had a completely different experience. They have to rebuild. It makes it a little bit more expensive and harder but it seems to be effective because through this therapy, they can relive the situation, and they realize that they’re safe now and they’re not in the war zone.
With the right kind of therapist, they’re able to revisit these emotions. There seems to be a pretty good high rate of treatment for this and PTSD. The circuitry in the brain is rewiring to create hypervigilance, which is you’re in a state of constant anxiety, you’re sensitive to sounds, and sensitive emotional triggers. It’s sad because it’s such a massive issue in the United States, PTSD with veterans. They’re not doing a whole lot to treat them. It’s an area that they deserve to have a lot more options for therapy.
Fully understanding how mRNA works is the Holy Grail of curing people with congenital diseases by long-term altering their DNA.
Tweet
I have a friend who’s a pediatric doctor and he wants to use or has used, I don’t know what the status of it is, virtual reality and ketamine with kids who have a variety of different problems to help them adjust. It seems like a frontier.
I’m working with virtuality with ketamine. I would like to see data on the long-term safety of any type of psychedelic on a child. Some of the early research that I did when I was a teenager was on psychedelics on the developing brain. Your brain is still developing up until you’re about your early twenties. You’re not fully formed. The question is, “Are we causing any long-term damage to a developing brain by exposing them to psychoactive substances at a young age?”
Some of the data that I produced seems to suggest that there might be long-term effects. I focused on cognitive development in adolescent rats with a substance called the five immunity IPT, which is a tryptamine psychedelic drug. We did find some minor deficits in spatial navigation and flexibility in learning related to the serotonergic pathways in the brain that are associated with memory and flexibility learning and it wasn’t massively drastic.
These rats probably weren’t going to have a good time without MapQuest or GPS. Now there are some data coming out saying that teenagers that smoke marijuana may have some brain issues later in life from smoking early. I have mixed feelings on the whole idea of psychoactive for children. Although I’ve seen some interesting case studies that some of them were not published for fear of legal reasons. There were some children that were semi-autistic, born mute, and could not speak English.
There was a story that I had heard from somebody reputable where the family was associated with some major hippie touring bands of the 1960s and the child accidentally got a piece of candy that had lysergic acid diethylamide, LSD. The parents freaked out. They’re like, “We don’t want to go to jail.” Shortly after the incident, the child began to become verbal.
It’s interesting now because, in the past few years, the major breakthrough is we now have FMRI studies of brains on LSD. We’re seeing the hyper-connectivity between parts of the brain that were not connected. We’re seeing different parts of the default network that are cut off. It’s was a totally different operation of the brain. Now they’re even suggesting psychedelic psilocybin mushrooms for patients that are in a vegetative state. They think that because it does regenerate neural tissue, can we wake them up out of the vegetative state? That’s interesting.
Would it be amazing if we figured out that anyone can be brought out of a coma?
It’s possible with people with brain damage. We see with neuroplasticity that some people that have had a traumatic brain injury, even though that part of the brain has become as ischemic and died, they’re now seeing with DMT, LSD, psilocybin that they’re able to regrow new neural connections. The brain has fascinating neuroplasticity because it’s able to remap. Once you’ve lost some important part from brain damage, you can often remap to a different location. You get some interesting results.
It goes against the old school of all the neurons that you’re ever born with and they die over time because you drink alcohol and you do this and that. Now they’re starting to say that maybe that’s not true. It seems like we are still regenerating. There are stem cells in the brain. From what I read, alcohol is not particularly kind to your neuro stem cells that you do have present. Personally, alcohol is a toxin that should be moderated upon. It’s been around for millennia.
Its effects are at least well accepted. I don’t drink at all.
We’ve seen people live to 120 years old who drink a glass of whiskey a day.
I learned that in junior high. Alcohol kills brain cells. I figured I might as well keep as many as I can. I never started.
It’s an interesting social lubricant. You’ve seen it in Greek times and ancient times. It’s ubiquitous through all stages of human culture, some sort of fermented alcohol. It’s not a drug per se. It’s a toxin. You’re poisoning yourself. The effects that you’re feeling are the effects of being poisoned. It’s interesting to see how much of the brain is generative and neuroplastic.
Looping back to exosomes, now that we can get them through the blood-brain barrier, some of the damage is being caused by stroke or by exposure to chemicals or by various brain injuries or drug use. There’s a high probability that there might be between psychoactive substances like psilocybin mushrooms for example and between stuff like exosomes that are showing efficacy for treatment of post-stroke and all these other neurodegenerative conditions. There’s some possibility on the horizon of being able to repair some level of brain damage. Who knows? Maybe stave off dementia or have some treatment for dementia. I’m interested to see how far this goes.
What do you think the near-term priorities for exosome research should be?
There are many different areas.
Whatever it is, there can’t be enough.
It’s connecting back to what I was mentioning earlier with the big pharma companies that have their one-hit-wonder drug that does the one thing and they poured their billions of dollars of research. If they fail the clinical trial, it’s garbage unless they can repurpose that.
Can exosomes cure erectile dysfunction? They then could get all the funding they need.
There are people who claim that it does. I haven’t seen solid research on it. There are clinics advertising this. There’s this little gray market going on. The FDA, their stance on it is what they call selective enforcement where they’ve agreed to look the other way as long as the companies are not manufacturing it and marketing it explicitly for injection. That’s not legal. A drug is injected. They’re marketing it for topical use. The doctors legally have the right to use it off-label for whatever they would like.
Is there any topical use of exosomes that does anything?
With the cosmetic clinics, there are all these interesting Vampire Facial procedures, post-laser resurfacing microdermabrasion mixing it with PRP. They use it for hair-loss.
What’s PRP?
Platelet-rich plasma. You’re essentially extracting from your own blood and then it’s being returned to you. It’s being ultracentrifuged and returned to you and injected back into you. You’re back to the scenario of your old cells and you’re giving your old cells back to you. From what I understand, the PRP makes scaffolding.
In Korea, they already have a multibillion-dollar exosome company. Korea’s skincare industries are massive. Most women have plastic surgery at a young age. I was talking to some of my female Korean friends. It’s normal for your parents to pay for a nose job and eyelid surgery. You’re expected to have flawless skin. It’s a massive beauty industry there.
In the United States, we have a big regenerative anti-aging market where a lot of people would like to live forever, lifespan extensions. It’s getting into is it pseudoscience or not? If people have the money to play around with that kind of stuff, I don’t see the issue. It’s one of the only substances that I’ve seen working in pharmaceutics that does not seem to have a detrimental side effect that I’ve seen.
If you look at something like Tylenol, which has a massive amount of overdoses, a massive amount of liver damage, all kinds of side effects. You have something like the exosomes, there are not many reports with the exception of a few unscrupulous labs that are selling contaminated products out of the warehouse, basement, or whatever. That’s why the FDA does need to step in and regulate a little bit better because those are the people that mess it up for everybody.
Stem Cells: VR alone is reducing the perception of pain, which is useful for people with severe burning dreams.
It’s relatively safe to try different things with this stuff, it sounds like.
We have not seen off-target or downstream effects thus far. I’m not saying that there isn’t.
People should be allowed to try it. We have enough extra humans anyway. Some of them can be devoted to exosome research of their own volition.
I was one of the first guinea pigs. I had myotonic synovitis and my wrist was 99% cured. For that, I had five CCs of an exosome and saline preparation that was injected into the carpal tunnel. I had severe inflammation of my tendon from repetitive stress injury from poor risk posture when typing for my entire life.
In the past 5, 7 years or so of grad school, it became excruciating. The nerve pain that was shooting up my elbow made it unbearable for me to use a cell phone, to type, or to use a computer mouse. I ended up having the product injected into my wrist and I started feeling improvement that was not placebo within a few days.
Eventually, it’s been several years now and the pain is 99.9% gone. It’s what converted me over like, “This is a real product.” It removed the inflammation. Hand surgeons were saying, “There’s nothing we can do about it. We can inject corticosteroids into it.” It’s not a long-term solution of steroids injected into anything, atrophy muscle and the atrophy tissue. It depresses the immune system. Steroids are not a good thing.
I was at my wit’s end because I had gone to multiple top hand surgeons in Miami and they’re all telling you, “It’s not carpal tunnel syndrome. There’s nothing we can do about it. We can’t do the carpal tunnel release surgery because you don’t have a carpal tunnel.” What do I do now? I’m learning how to type with my left hand. I’m flipping over my brain. Finally, I was like, “I’ll try it. Why not?” It was life-changing for me.
I haven’t had an IV yet. It’s something possibly on the horizon. If I do get COVID, I want to get an exosome treatment because we’re seeing now there’s some IND, Investigational New Drug Applications, with the FDA. We’re seeing a lot of the detrimental symptoms of COVID is not so much from the virus itself but it’s from the immune system going hyperdrive. Your body is starting to attack its tissues in response to the viral infection.
Oftentimes, the viral infection clears out but your organs are still being attacked and attacked. This cytokine storm of inflammatory molecules thinks that it’s being helpful by continuing to attack the tissue where the virus was initially. That’s where you end up with multi-organ system damage. We’re seeing brain inflammation where people are starting to see hallucinations. It’s almost schizophrenia. These are people with zero mental histories of anything. You’re seeing young people with kidney damage, lung damage, and repetitious pneumonia.
You’re thinking that it might be possible to inject somebody with exosomes who had COVID and it might reduce the possibility of this cytokine storm?
Yes. It seems like for the subset of people who are experiencing the cytokine storm, there are some case studies and there are a few hospitals that are already incorporating it. There are a few controlled trials that are underway. There are certainly some companies submitting INDs. Not necessarily exosomes but there are a few stem cell companies submitting that are already in early clinical trials. With a lot of the use cases for stem cells, it’s fair to say that stem cell exosomes are possibly efficacious for some of the same indications. With a safety profile and better ease of use, you can transport it much easier. You can throw it in the freezer. You don’t have to worry about frosting live cells. They’re not alive.
I’m excited about what I learned about all this from you. That’s cool. I learned a lot.
There’s so much more. This goes on and on. It’s fascinating because it’s one of the only biopharmaceutical drugs that almost has an infinite possibility of indication and formats. You can have nasal sprays. You can have injections. You can have a transdermal patch that contains a skin permeability compound like DSMO that allows it to be absorbed through the skin into a joint without having to have needles. There are many interesting applications.
I can’t wait to have a problem so I can get some.
You can hop into one of those life expansion clinics on the West Coast.
Get some exosomes.
That’s the hot tricky thing right now for some of the people that are into lifespan extension and biohacking. There’s doesn’t seem to be a negative side effect profile thus far that we know of. There’s a small chance that if you have some hidden cancer tumor that you’re unaware of, it’s possible it could increase the growth in some manner through additional angiogenesis. Also, additional acceleration of biomass, it’s something that we don’t know for sure. There are people that are on the opposite side of it. They say, “No. It’s efficacious against tumors.” We need to see more data on that.
It’s a frontier. Do you have any questions for me?
Probably a lot.
I’ve been picking your brain.
There’s a lot in your brain to pick.
Now is the chance. You can ask the most incriminating questions you can think of.
Sometimes, you have to go beyond your boundaries to make actual progress.
Tweet
Don’t challenge me to that. Is that within the topic of healthcare?
Anything. I don’t care. It doesn’t matter.
Are you becoming more involved in the healthcare space?
No.
You’re mostly in the application of technology to solving more global problems.
Exactly. I want to try to close that gap. What it comes down to is you have to understand the problems. A lot of times, the people who understand the problems are so deep in it that they don’t also have the capacity to learn about the whole world of possible technologies that could affect the problem. It’s almost always true. On the other side, you have people who know a lot about technology. They’re specialists in something, but they don’t understand the problems that they might be able to affect. They’re often far removed.
As an inventor, I was always trying to escalate my knowledge on both sides, know more about what technologies exist and are coming, and know more about what problems exist in the world. Even if I can’t become an expert in them, I want to know the people who are. That way, sometimes you can match them up. All the time now, I’m trying to fill my head with what problems can I learn about and different industries, regions, people, and get a sense of them. Even if I can’t fully understand them, I can learn more about them.
On the other side, for me, it was computers. I wanted to learn everything I could about what’s not just everything about computers but what’s possible with them and try to understand where they could go and try to take them to new places. I’ve been making that my whole career. In some sense, we’re still at the beginning.
Computers have been super powerful. Outside of computers, where I know a lot less. There are also these amazing frontiers like gene editing, exosomes that I have no idea about, and material science. There are all different areas where you get this progression from scientific discovery. It gives you a sense of how things work.
From there, you can advance on, “What’s technically possible?” That’s where you’re taking the output of scientific discovery and trying to figure it out. It’s almost independent of whether it’s a good idea or not. What’s technically possible? I like to be in that space. What could we do with the knowledge we’ve attained? Every day, you get new scientific discoveries. There’s a new sensor, a new algorithm, a new paper on how something works.
To me, that’s input and I want to know so that I can match them up. There’s probably a real sharp limit on how many things I’m going to affect but that’s part of why I like sharing these conversations on the podcasts because then other people can learn those things, too. I’m learning them but maybe somebody who’s going to be useful at advancing exosomes will listen to this and get excited about it. Probably, I won’t be that one but somebody else could be. A lot of people don’t get the chance to come and hang out with you and pick your brain.
For me, what’s exciting is it’s a much longer path than a traditional path of being a specialist in one field. I like trying to learn a lot in disparate industries and fields and trying to see what the crossover is between these disparate industries. You have science and technology. You have something like art or architecture. How can you combine these different areas? You have AI and then you have molecular drug design. You have something else. I like seeing the crossover of it. It’s things that if you don’t have a background in multiple fields, you’re never going to come up with these ideas of cross-pollination.
There’s a real value in having depth in something. I meet a lot of generalists who haven’t done that. That erodes their ability to create a sense of perspective with all the new things. If you explore different areas and you’re trying to learn about different things, you need to be able to connect it to something. If the thing you’re connecting it to is deep, then you could have an effect. When you look at the invention work that I was involved in, all of our inventions are at the borders of different areas in science and technology. Have you read Consilience, E.O. Wilson’s book on this?
No.
You probably heard E.O. Wilson. He was a badass in science. He wrote this amazing book. I don’t know if he’s still alive. He was pretty old at the time. The book was trying to show scientists that these artificial constructs of chemistry, biology, physics and mathematics. It’s all science.
They all interconnect.
Those silos are keeping us from advancing. Nobody’s contributed more science than E.O. Wilson, so no one can argue with him. It’s pretty amazing. That’s a good one.
For me, my hope for the future is I want to learn quite a bit in one field and then move to the next field and move to the next field.
Life extension is going to become necessary for you.
I see that there are connections that people are missing. You need specialists. You must have expert specialists. You also must have people that are more generalist because they can see where all the different areas connect. You have your specialists who have the expertise in those fields. If you can see the bigger picture, you can see connections that other people can’t make. That’s where the new innovations are going to be coming from. It’s this cross-pollination of all of these. These fields are advancing fast right now. It’s exponential. Compared to when I started my Doctorate versus what I see now, I can’t even keep up.
No one can.
I’m trying to keep up with multiple fields of science. The papers that come out every day are mind-blowing. Some of this stuff is amazing.
It’s exciting.
I love it.
The tools are better than ever.
The tech is getting amazing. Even in biotech, we’re getting further and further down into nanoparticles, nanoparticle medicines. Regenerative medicines are getting more and more of synthetic biology and gene editing. It’s going in all these directions that when I started this journey as a child. It’s sci-fi coming real.
It’s amazing. My entire life has been characterized by the fact that I got a computer early on at a young age, and I stayed ahead of people because I stuck with it. You got into the next frontier, which is all that’s possible with genetics and with the future of biology. Now, we’re advancing that because we have computers, essentially. It’s too late for me to get into that. You got in on the beginning of it.
I don’t think you’re too late, though.
The world doesn’t need me for that.
Even with me in the beginning, I still feel like I need to catch up with people. My little insecurity being a generalist is I know I’m never going to have the depth that a specialist has, and I’m happy with that. I want to have generalists. I go as deep as I can. I don’t go to shallow level. It means that for someone that finishes their PhD and their one specialty, whereas I already finished my Doctorate and I’m still going deep on my own personal time.
The next thing is like, “No. It’s going to take me an extra 10 or 20 years to reach the level where I can start to see how are all these different things going to connect and how I can innovate and create something that all the specialists we’re not going to be able to meet?” It’s a little frustrating. This is a longer-term timeframe.
Some people have to be looking out of the box bigger. I’m not necessarily saying that I will innovate or create something, but it’s a possibility if they continue. A lot of people should try to learn multiple areas if they’re able to and motivated. That’s where the best innovations are going to come from, especially now that we can apply all this new technology to other healthcare principles to biotech principles. It’s such an exciting time. The equipment that is coming out is so advanced, and it’s fascinating.
Stem Cells: Oftentimes, the viral infection clears out, but your organs are still just being attacked and damaged.
If I have a stem cell in a microscope and I put it next to an eyeball cell or some other cell, can I watch it transform into that on time-lapse? Is that something that someone can observe?
I suppose you could set up a time-lapse camera and see it.
How long does it take for a stem cell to turn into a skin cell or some other kind of program?
Something that’s often done with most stem cells is they’ll do a differentiation test where they will add a certain compound to ensure that it will turn into chondrocytes or adipocytes, which is the bone, the cartilage, and the fat. Osteoblasts chondrocytes, that’s a characterization confirmation to see if it indeed is undifferentiated.
Also, take one and test it to make sure it’s good.
Yes. In theory, you could set up a time-lapse camera and watch it. I’ve never tried it.
I’m going to look on YouTube. There’s got to be one.
I’ve played with microscopy of stem cells. They’re fun to look at. When you have a beautiful cell culture, they grow in a swirl form. It almost looks like art. If you print it and put it on your wall, they look so beautiful.
That should be your art project. Thanks for doing this.
Thanks for having me. It’s an honor.
People are going to love it.
I hope so.
This is an amazing conversation to share. The best ones are when you do more of the talking than me. We got a lot out of you. Thanks.
Idea conception for and first author for KVR: A novel pilot virtual reality adjunct therapy for intravenous ketamine infusion for pain and depression in 18 patients, collab with Hamilton Morris
Sex on Demand for Women — Saundra Pelletier
Jul 06, 2021
There’s this kind of pattern you can see sometimes, when you dig behind very successful projects, a lot of times there is some woman who is dead set on making it happen. And for a lot of them, she’s working behind the scenes and you don’t find out until you get real close, what’s really going on.
But occasionally you meet these women who are badass leaders that are so dogged that they’re going to make something happen by force of will. And I’m always honored to get to meet them. Today we get to spend some time with Saundra Pelletier, the CEO of Evofem Biosciences.
This is a super fascinating company that is dedicated to creating medical and healthcare products for women. You don’t find a lot of companies focused on that, which is sad because women are the ones who drive a lot of the healthcare decisions for their entire families. So I don’t understand why the market hasn’t picked up on that one.
I think you’re going to love Saundra. She’s created a product at her company called Phexxi. It is the first and only FDA approved, non-hormonal contraceptive gel for women. They can use it anytime on demand whenever they want. This is the kind of product that is really important to change the balance of power and determining who ends up procreating and when. We want that control to be in the hands of everyone, but in the past, a lot of the responsibility has landed on women and, they’ve been given, in some sense, relatively crude tools to do it. Most women in America at least are using a hormonal contraceptive, which has a lot of additional health side effects.
As Saundra will tell you, she developed late stage breast cancer. She survived through a double mastectomy but the doctors told her the only real reason that she probably had cancer, in the first this place was being on a hormonal birth control for 20 years. Lots of stories like that, that you probably know and have heard with your own friends and family.
So I think this is a very important project. This type of advancement in a technology that changes what humans can do, when they can do it, who has the decision-making power is important. We have a lot of options here where I’m at, but when you look globally at what’s happening with contraception in other countries especially in the developing world, there’s a lot of social stigmas that affect what women can get away with when they’re trying to find contraceptive choices.
Giving them some options is paramount, not just because I would like to see population managed in a more thoughtful fashion. And hopefully create a few less humans that we don’t have a plan for, but also to give them the ability to choose when the time is right, who the right partner is, what they want to do, and not have to subject themselves to the entire weight of society’s idea about what they should do with their lives. That’s important, I believe for humanity as a whole. And so I’m really excited about Phexxi getting some support. Evofem Biosciences is publicly listed. So I certainly don’t want to give anybody investment advice, but these are some folks who could really use some help. And if they can get enough support for this company, they’ll be able to take Phexxi around the world and that’s gonna make a big difference for a lot of people.
I hope that you guys love this very soulful conversation I got to have with Saundra, and I’m thrilled to be sharing her with you.
Pablos: What I’m really excited about here is that I think the things that matter in the world for humans to do is how we’re gonna evolve as a species. How we are going to keep going? How are we going to make it possible for more lives to exist? And but also for those lives to thrive in some sense, right? And when you look at what has worked so far in all of human history, it’s humans inventing a new technology, bringing it into the world, solving a problem at a bigger scale, and being able to advance the species. That’s really how we got where we are and we’re not done…we might be done. But we might also be able to effect our fate go forward. And so it is super exciting to me because, one of the biggest problems in the world in some sense is that we went from millions of people on this planet just a couple hundred years ago to billions of people in the last 200 years. 7 billion in 200 years. And we’re making a lot of extra people. It’s not totally clear that we need them all, but I’m not going to tell you which people are extra. I just think that it might be smart for the species as a whole to figure out if we want to course correct on that a little bit and maybe in the future make a few less. And maybe less but better people would be a goal. But anyway so I know Evofem is…I don’t know if you are fixated on contraception. Is that the only thing guys trying to do or want to do, or is that just the main thing where you started?
Saundra: That’s the main thing where we started. I will say this to your comment. I just want to tell you this, that not only do I find your opening statement provocative but I actually believe that one of the biggest levers to poverty elimination, as we evolve is for women being able to choose when and if, and how often they have children. Access to contraception that they’ll use is a huge poverty eliminator. So yes, contraception is our beginning. But we also are in late stage phase three development for the prevention of chlamydia and the prevention of gonorrhea with the same product. Which by the way, the CDC has said they are on the rise for the sixth year in a row. And gonorrhea, it’s an epidemic because it’s antibiotic resistant. So we’re really leaning into innovation. And that’s why it’s so cool.
We’ll pick this all apart, but just to get the audience up to speed, why don’t you describe the product you have
Okay. So the company Evofem Biosciences, the whole platform is innovation for women. And that might sound like great words, but we are delivering. So there has not been innovation in the contraceptive category in two decades. So our product is called Phexxi, not just because it rhymes with sexy which is a nice attribute. So here’s it works: it is a gel that comes in a pre-filled applicator. And I know your audience is hearing us, but I’m going to show you. A prescription is a box of 12 pre-filled applicators, and you put it in right before sex or up to an hour before sex. Now women have used tampons.
It’s scary to guys.
It might be scary to guys, although I will tell you…
But the guys will get to use it.
Not only that but guys really love the fact that this is very lubricating. So if any woman has vaginal dryness or pain with intercourse. But here’s how you see. So 5 mLs in each applicator.
Is that the whole dose?
That’s the whole dose.
Okay. So what I’m seeing is like a size of three or four jelly beans worth of gel.
Yep. And you can feel it.
And it just feels like Vaseline or something.
Yeah. And the gel is just so you know, it’s lactic acid, it’s citric acid and potassium bitartrate. And here’s how it works. So a normal vaginal pH is 3.5 to 4.5. When semen enters the pH goes to seven or eight, and a woman gets pregnant. When chlamydia enters and when gonorrhea enters, the pH goes up to seven or eight and a woman gets a sexually transmitted infection.
So what Phexxi does is it is acid buffering. So it helps the vagina just maintain normal vaginal pH inhospitable to semen and inhospitable to STIs.
It keeps it low.
Correct, so there you have Phexxi. So just like men who have had condoms forever. So for example, you could go out with a condom in your pocket and can have safe sex, but women have had to use a hormone every day, every week, every month, year after year. And the side effects…
Doesn’t it seem like a lottery winner for the few women who take the pill and don’t have a problem?
Yeah. Without question. Want to hear something crazier? I say the worst trick played on women is that most hormones lower your libido. So they’re taking a drug every day that makes them not want to have sex. And they’re having side effects of headache and weight gain and bleeding. And the one crazy part is that I talked to a lot of young women and they say to me, they were put on an antidepressant or put on an anti-anxiety product. And then when someone really looked at their levels, they realized it was their hormonal birth control. And once they got off of this hormonal birth control, they felt normal again.
Yeah, I’ve experienced that multiple times as a close observer.
And by the way, women don’t have sex every day, which you may, or may not have experienced. But like seriously for example, would you take something everyday if you were having side effects that you didn’t even need to save your life.
Well, men don’t have to do that, but I get your point. Okay cool. If I’m using this, can I also use lube?
Yes. You can use lube. You don’t have to use a condom. Like any contraceptive it says it can’t protect you against HIV. But the wonderful thing about this product, are you ready for this? So in the United States, half of all pregnancies are unplanned. So I want you to imagine that the pill was introduced, even now. There’s 18 categories of contraception. They pill came out in 1960 and still all pregnancies are unplanned because 23 million women identify as saying, we are not going to use a hormone. We’ve tried pills, patches, IUDs . We are beyond hormones and they say stuff like, look, I don’t have hormones in my milk. I don’t have it in my meat. And I joke and say if chickens can be hormone free…come on! Why do women have to put up with hormones? So these women are saying like, I do yoga and Pilates and eat healthy and I care about my longevity. Why am I going to take a synthetic hormone? It doesn’t make sense. But 23 million women is our target audience and those women are without question very engaged.
They are ready to go.
Yeah.
A of times these technologies, we take them for granted because it’s what we’re used to now, but that’s just the best technology we had at the time. Fucking with your hormone cycle was the best technology we had at the time. Now we can do better. This is an example of being able to do better. And it seems remarkably straightforward. I’m looking the box it has the ingredients listed.
And by the way, I joke that like I could make this in my garage. I don’t, but it was originally developed by Rush University in Chicago. And when they developed it as a vehicle looking to do HIV prevention studies. So at the time in the early 2000s, there were a whole bunch of academic institutions who said, we need to find something for HIV prevention. But those studies are very challenging, like in South Africa with vulnerable populations. And so the majority of those failed. So what Rush University knew this product is considered to be something called an MPT, multipurpose prevention technology, which means has the capability to continue to look at areas. So contraception, sexually transmitted infection, bacterial vaginosis. So they knew getting to market as a contraceptive would be the quickest way to get it approved by the FDA.
Okay. So we’re going to play all the legal disclaimers for this, but we’ve got this thing approved already as a contraceptive and it’s on the market. If you want to buy it, you can get it at a pharmacy or where?
Yes, you can go to https://phexxi.com/. We have a concierge, or you can go to your doctor, and they can give you a prescription, but if you go to our website, you can it mailed to you within 24 hours.
Okay, cool. And then the way it works is you install it using a tampon.
Yeah. And throw away the applicator.
Load it up and throw it away.
Yep.
You’re good to go to have sex and get started within an hour.
Correct. Yes, as long as you put it in right before or within an hour.
What if you’re an all night operational?
Well, you got to use it again. Good for you by the way!
Okay. And then you’re currently working going back and doing trials for some other benefits that it already provides, but aren’t already approved and aren’t already proven and phase three trials, whatever. So that’s the work now?
That’s correct.
And then what hope to show with those is?
The prevention of chlamydia and the prevention of gonorrhea. And just to give you an indicator of how pervasive those are: in the U S there’s 1.8 million cases of chlamydia annually, and 600,000 of gonorrhea. And for the sixth year in a row, the CDC has said both of those are on the rise, is antibiotic resistant and literally there are no products approved for the prevention of either of these.
And look, I want to tell you why some people say to me, why the hell, hasn’t a bigger company with a lot more money done this? And I say, look, number one, it’s easier for them to just come out with a lower dose of hormones. So they’ve got something and they come out with new ways of giving you hormones. And by the way all it is that women aren’t stupid. Come on. They understand that it’s still a hormone. Just because it’s in a patch, doesn’t mean it’s not a hormone. Just because it’s in an IUD, doesn’t mean it’s not a hormone. So they come up with lower doses because it’s cheaper and quicker. But we have really taken the heart painful work of developing this new innovation. But the good thing is that the year, the FDA has given us a fast track review for chlamydia and gonorrhea. So we’ll have a six month review instead of a month review. So we’re excited about that. I have to be honest right now we are getting so much positive response from women on this product and that is phenomenal.
So let me ask a couple questions. If you get through all those trials, then the same product will be approved and could even be prescribed in some sense.
Yes.
If maybe if you don’t care about like I got fixed, but I am excited because I still get to use this product
Yes. And women who cannot get pregnant, they can still use it to prevent chlamydia gonorrhea.
Yeah. Or will be able to. And I think one of the things you mentioned that I think is important to point out is a barometer for whether something is worth developing, whether it’s a good idea or whether it’s gonna work or whether it’s any of those things is not whether or not existing medical technology companies who got around to working on it. That is not a good metric because, I think one of the things you alluded to earlier is the market, that they go after 23 million women in their minds probably isn’t enough. And maybe partly because it’s only 23 million and partly because it’s women. And so we’ve got to find a way to change those dynamics and show that this is a viable market. We’ve gotta be able to show that we can make products that are profitable in that market. And that seems like the more pioneering thing that you’re doing as a company.
I have to tell you, I love you for saying that. Because you gotta think about it this way, right? When you really evaluate, women are really the healthcare consumers for themselves, or their husbands, for their children, for their parents. When they get older. If you can get the right positive lever in a woman’s mind as a company, right? A woman trusts you and thinks you really care about innovation: 1) They are the consumers and 2) to your point, they’re half of the population, but 3) so little innovation is introduced to women. I have gotten a lot of investors will say to me, if it’s not immuno-oncology, diabetes is man and women, heart disease is man and women. This is just and women and we don’t know if we’re interested. And I say, listen, I want to remind you’re here because of a woman. And at the end of the day, when a woman’s quality of life is better because she feels better. She doesn’t feel a little crazy because she has a synthetic hormone in her body and when she doesn’t feel that she’s suffering every day. You know that whole adage, when mama’s happy, everybody’s happy? This product is so important because women now are more empowered than ever. And they’re saying to themselves: I need to care about my longevity. This isn’t just about having sex with my partner. I need to be around for my kids. Women really getting savvy on what are the silence sins that happen when I take something that I don’t even need everyday. Some girls start the pill when they’re 17 and they stop taking it when they’re 35.
Oh yeah. It’s it seems insane to me. So we haven’t really done better than—we’ve done slightly better than the pill—but basically haven’t done better than hormones. If you took hormone based contraceptives for women out of it, what’s the second most popular contraception like in America?
After hormones, I would say that condoms. Withdrawal is actually considered a method. I think it really is considered a method
Don’t try that at home, kids!
Yeah. But I would tell you this, there is one other non-hormonal product, but it’s a copper IUD. It has to be put in by a provider and taken out by provider. And it has pretty intense side effects of abdominal pain and bleeding.
I’m always shocked by that one too, because basically the idea with the copper IUD is that you’re living with a wire inside of you that’s supposed to scrape the wall of the uterine lining. And it’s just seems so primitive.
And you have to think about that, right? You know what I said the other day, I was talking to a friend of mine and she is into yoga, into meditation, and she rides her Peloton every day. And then I said to her, and then you go and you pop your synthetic hormone. I said why don’t you swig whiskey and and smoke a pack of cigarettes tonight? I’m like what the hell are you doing? You need to look at your total healthcare!
Whiskey and cigarettes!
You want to know what else is awesome? This doesn’t have systemic side effects. It doesn’t matter what your weight is. It doesn’t matter what are concomitant medications you are on. So I talked to ER doctors and they said when somebody comes in and something happens, if there’s an event they have to give a woman contraception, they know if they give her this they don’t have to worry because there’s no hormone.
Okay. This seems like dream product to sell. How hard could it be to talk people into buying and using this product? I feel like I could have girl scouts sell them in front of Safeway.
I’ll tell you this. You know wha? It’s a double-edged sword. So when we did our direct to consumer campaign called Get Phexxi on Valentine’s day when we launched the commercial, everything changed. Our units doubled. So the FDA requires to educate doctors first, before you can go out and talk to women. So women get this so intuitively, it’s amazing. I obviously love women, but I love women everything from the brain, backbone, and soul. It has been a challenge in two ways. When talking to some male doctors, some of them will say things like, these women don’t want to have something on demand or something they control, rather they should have an IUD.
And I say, look half of all women won’t use something that they can’t control. And if you take a moment to think about and counsel your patients and let them know that this is available you would be surprised. For example, even the simplest thing like breastfeeding women, they don’t want hormones in their breast milk. And women are spacing their pregnancies. They don’t want to put up a hormone in their body, that they then have to cleanse out of their body before they can get pregnant again. And I said there’s, by the way, there’s lots of young women between the ages of 18 to 25 that say, are you kidding? I don’t want my mother’s contraception. I don’t want something draconian. Why wouldn’t we just put this in our pocket and put this in our purse? But so the challenge has been to convince some providers who have old mindsets
Because they have to prescribe it?
Correct.
How much of the market do you expect to be provider’s suggesting it versus women going and asking for it?
I think it’s going to be 75% women asking for it and 25% of people prescribing it. No question. So women are driving the demand.
But even considering these old fogy doctors, it seems like you’ve got a compelling enough product and story should be able them in the dust and say okay thanks, anyway and move on to the next one. How hard could it be to find gynecologists or doctors who want to get behind it?
And now we just started to expand to say how about all the women? There’s 23 million women that won’t use hormones, but there’s also a lot of women that can’t cause they’re contra-indicated. So there’s a huge amount of women that they’ve had a cancer, many of them can never use a hormone again. So we’re starting to now talk to oncologists. I just did a keynote oncology conference for a group called Ncoda. And was remarkable to see that one of the really cool oncologist said to me, I got to tell you something. When I see male patients who have prostate cancer privately, the first thing they say to me is can I get an erection again? She said, I want you to imagine that if a woman came in and said can I have an orgasm again. So do you know what we would think? We’d say, what is wrong with her? You just saved her life. Why is she worried about it? But women are so worried about the disruption of their partnership. They want to go back to the life they had before. They want their intimacy. They don’t want to be left because they’re a cancer patient. They don’t want to deal with that stigma forever. You want to get better and beyond, move on, and have your life again. And so that’s what I found fascinating is that because this is lubricating, that after you have cancer often times you are on anti-estrogen products, which produced vaginal dryness pain with intercourse. And this lubricating product with no hormones, it’s perfection for these women.
Yeah. Okay. Good. All right, so can we go talk about where this can go? How long you’ve been on the market?
Just since May of last year.
Less than a year in and the job is to go sign up doctors. So do I need to tell my doctor about it or how does that work?
Yes. So a few things. We are educating doctors and we’re educating women. So we’re doing direct to consumer advertising with social media influencers. We have an incredible 20 social media influencers that cover all demographics. So they’re influencing—incredible and extraordinary. So social media influencers. We have ads on Hulu and Bravo and all the channels of our target audiences. We’re also doing the same journals and CME programs and sending it out to doctors. Women are either going on phexxi.com. We have a concierge program, which means that you click in and a provider interacts with you. They ask you all the right clinical questions and as long as you answer all the right questions, boom, you get it sent to your house.
They can can do a prescription.
Or they go into the doctor’s office and say that I want this non-hormonal option backseat and boom. And by the way, they can go in and say you know what I’m having sex more than 12 times a month. So their monthly prescription could be 24. It could be two bucks, depending.
Yeah. Oh, okay. Otherwise get on a drip and it comes in the mail every month.
Exactly.
Is there a shelf life to this stuff?
Three years.
Okay. Can I use it with toys?
Yes, definitely. Definitely. Definitely. And I would you our chief commercial officer—once we have world domination—he has big plans. He’s like we should do flavor.
Is there anything sitting between you and world domination, other than time? It sounds like this is a slam dunk, but what’s the hard part now?
Money.
You need more money to do more advertising? You can’t grow fast?
Yes, because what happens is direct to consumer advertising is super expensive. Oh my goodness. It’s super expensive. And so here’s our issue: I am convinced we have the right product. I am convinced that we have the right team and I’m convinced we have the right strategy. However—not that I’m on an island—but when you have an innovation that has no benchmark that has never been done before. When you’re doing uncharted territory. Sometimes people are like I’ll wait and see and once you’re successful, I’ll give you the money you need. Then how are we going to get successful f you don’t give us any money we need? The classic chicken and egg. Now we have had some amazing investors who know the category very well. They not only are believers, but they recognize that there’s a huge need for innovation within women’s health. It is almost like it’s like a joke. It is like me telling you I’m going to grow a third eye right now in the next five minutes. People don’t innovate in women’s health because to your point, it doesn’t impact both the male and the female population. So we have some great investors, but raising money is hard. It’s very hard. Admittedly, I don’t want to be a cry baby because I signed up for this and look, I was raised raised in the northernmost city in the US, in a place called Caribou, Maine. It is the Northern most city you can fly to from here.
I grew up in Anchorage, Alaska. So I don’t think you quite convinced me of that, but I’ll take the word for it.
There were probably should have been a military general. She was like, you can be sad for one day. You got 24 hours to feel sorry for yourself and that’s it. You know what I mean? Yeah. So she would be like suck it up buttercup, you know what I mean? Like she’s hardcore women, but my point in telling you that is that what has been a little bit hard is that there is a group of not long-term healthcare who understand pharmaceutical launches in the category and how it’s done. And look, it takes time to build demand. You gotta educate doctors. Then you gotta educate women. Then you’ve got to drive them in. Then they’ve got to get prescriptions. Then they got to get refills. And it’s not like we’re not going to get there. We’re already on our way, but it just takes a little bit of time. And there’s some impatience that exists with some of the retail investors.
Who invested in iPhone apps.
Yes!
That were dreamt up last week and were supposed to be worth a billion dollars this week.
When they get angry, they go on social media and the stuff that they say, it’s staggering to me. A t first, I was reprimanded by our counsel and our advisors said I should not engage. Because I said, who raised you? Like why would you say this to another human being, for God’s sake? Like these things are violent and vile. And that, I will admit and it might make me sound naive but that that gobsmacked me and shocked me. And then I had to grow a pair. And I have strong backbone, but I needed to strengthen it a little more to just be like, you know what? I just gotta my head down because you know what the best revenge is? Results and success. So I’ve had to really shake that off. But it’s not always easy for me to shake it off.
Look I get it. It’s hard. This is a world where there’s just an epidemic of bad behavior on the internet and there’s no way to hide from it. And I think if you look, there are very few successful examples of engaging.
I couldn’t agree more.
You got to take the high road. It’s really sad that you have to have that experience and that you have to even have the same problem. I have the same problem if I read the comments, I’m like oh my God. But I think the right answer is you gotta stay focused on what you’re doing and what you’re good at and just ignore them. They’re not your audience. Ans hopefully your audiences and listening to them, anyway,
A great person from our audience and one of our biggest investors sent me this quote that said: don’t let success go to your head, but don’t let criticism go to your heart. Don’t let it go to your heart. Just shake it off. You’re doing the right thing. Keep your head down and keep showing progress.
Especially with investors, you have a real problem where because of the way that access to the public, because you have as a publicly traded company access to public markets. And we saw this with RobinHood and GameStop and all these kinds of things. You have a lot people in the market now who are trading. A lot of them are doing derivatives trading options. They don’t any comprehension whatsoever of you, your company, your product, anything at all. They’re just looking at technical data on the stock performance and trading on that. There’s a kind of abstract argument to be made that this is valuable for making sure that market stays efficient. But it’s not really something that is going to help your company at all. And the flack from those people, it needs to be ignored and not just by you, but by everyone.
And I agree, and I think your point is right. It’s so important because when you look at the long-term opportunity to really deliver shareholder return. I’ll give you one example that, when you talked about being able to build a market, the interesting thing about this category is that if we were to just get two and a half percent, two and a half percent, that’s a billion dollar market opportunity. So for shareholders, it’s extraordinary, but they have to be patient. If you’re patient and wait. Like right now, we’re so undervalued that it’s a joke. But the point is that if you look at what our growth is now, and you look at that being compounded month after month, quarter after quarter, it’s amazing the impact that we can make for shareholders. But the tough thing is that you want people to listen to all that negative rhetoric because they get nervous.
I don’t know if this’ll help, but there’s no exceptions, right? It’s not just you. It’s everybody.
Yeah.
Every single company gets flack. Tesla gets more flack than positive support from the same people. And there’s a noise there. It’s not signal. You gotta learn to ignore that.
I like that. I appreciate that sentiment.
If customers are saying this sucks for some reason or you heard investors were saying this sucks some for reason, that is signal, but it’s not signal, it is noise. And especially that those particular type of investors—they’re not really investors—they’re opportunistic folks who are trying to milk the market.
Yes. You’re right. It’s like a pump and dump kind of strategy. Women, I will tell you and our long-term health care investors know, not only do they know and recognize the opportunity for non-hormonal contraception, they also recognize the forthcoming to your point. We’re in this phase three study, we have top line data readout in the second quarter of next year. And we’re very excited about that. You know what I loved and I want to go back to is your comment that sometimes people make an investment. I’ve found that sometimes I meet , incredibly smart people, scientifically minded people, who have this great idea, but what they haven’t done is the market research.
Just because it’s a good idea doesn’t mean payers are going to cover it. It doesn’t mean you’re going to get investment for it. I meet some people and they have a great concept and they’ve gotten through phase one but they have no money. They don’t have way to differentiate themselves in the market. They don’t have any marketing opportunity to show investors. And here they are having spent all their money they had to get to this one point and they can’t get any further. And it’s heartbreaking. And one of the things we say is look just because there’s an unmet need, it doesn’t mean that the market’s going to bear it. It doesn’t mean that payers are going to cover it. And unfortunately, if you’re bringing a pharmaceutical product to market, you have to make sure that the insurers and payers are going cover it. Because if they’re not, you can’t get access.
And healthcare is so complex.
So complex. Yes.
In my mind, any entrepreneur willing to work in healthcare or medical technology or about tech is a Saint just because you’re willing to try and innovate in a heavily regulated, very complex, big, old institutional environment. I couldn’t do it. I cheat and I go where there’s no regulation make a big mess and then set it on fire and bail out.
You are smart. Smarter than I. I have to tell you the truth, it is sometimes like a torture chamber. I’ll give you an example. And this isn’t Don’t Cry for Me Argentina.
There’s a reason to do it, which is that we’re trying to take your scar tissue and help the next generation of entrepreneurs and people who are trying to make a difference. Look, there’s very few people who can learn from their own mistakes. And then it’s like a subset of them who can learn from other people’s mistakes, but they’re the ones who are going get furthest and that’s who we’re trying to help out here. So, let’s get to the story. It’s not to cry for you.
No. But what I meant was is when sometimes when I talk about our story, sometimes depending on the audience and in the right moment, one the reasons I’m so passionate is I spent my whole career on women’s health, literally. And my whole career when I say that, looking at the mindset, doing quantitative and qualitative market research, puberty through menopause. So when women do want to get pregnant, when they don’t want to get pregnant, when they want to space their pregnancies. And so really what are the levers? What do women really care about? But then a few years ago, I shockingly was diagnosed with late stage cancer. And when I was diagnosed, I had no family history. I had no genetic predisposition and I had a clean mammogram the year before. So for me, what was so shocking was that howI have all those positive factors and end up having aggressive late stage breast cancer and have to have a double mastectomy three weeks after my diagnosis start chemo. I had to my uterus removed and my ovaries removed.
Wait, they’re not in your breasts. How does that work?
Because they wanted me to get rid of everything that was going to increase estrogen. Everything because my cancer was estrogen positive breast cancer. So they said we need to kill a fly with a sledgehammer because your form of cancer is so aggressive. And then they said the only thing that we can really point to frankly, is that you have used hormonal birth control for 20 years.
Wow.
But here is where we talk about the regulation of this, right? I was on a podcast months and months ago. It was a very provocative broadcast. and they were talking about sexuality and intimacy and couples and it was a man and wife and I joked that chose to not have reconstruction so I look like Edward Scissorhands. So then I talked my own journey, just mine, but one of our competitors turned in the interview and said that I was suggesting that any woman who took any hormone was going to get cancer. And I was trying to scare women, it was outside of regulations, and I was doing off-label promotion and we got in trouble. And all I said was, this is my reality. This is my truth. It happened. It’s real. I didn’t have any of those factors and I ended up with cancer. Okay, that scares the hell out of you. And I said, look, if I had a daughter, which I don’t I have a son, but if I did, I would never let her use her mobile contraception. Not because we have a long family history because we didn’t, and I still ended up with cancer. That’s no joke. And so why this regulation is that any little thing you say in any little nuance and why they make us of those little disclaimers at the beginning is because the FDA wants to just make sure that it’s regulated but the one thing that I think is a bit of a bummer is my story.
Yeah, of course.
Right? It is.
That’s not FDA jurisdiction.
Right. Exactly.
I get it. You’re not the one who said that it was possibly hormonal birth control it caused the cancer.
Correct.
You had a medical professional who’s suggesting that possibility or at least the highest probability thing they know of. And yeah we don’t know for sure or when you were going to know for sure, but regardless it can’t be hard for any woman come up with a reason to not want to externally modify their hormonal balance all the time. There might be times you want to do it on purpose for a reason. But anyway, so look, you’re on the right track with the product. That’s awesome. How did you end up at Evofem? What were you doing?
Oh, wow. I be too verbose. At least I say sometimes what you choose chooses you. So I honestly mean this. I don’t know what Anchorage what was like, but where I grew up women really didn’t think they had a lot of choices and they really thought their choices was who they married or how many kids they had. My mother and all her friends, all felt like they were martyrs, that they have an opportunity to really be empowered. It wasn’t a thing yet. So I had all this in my subconscious. So when I left, my mother said to me, when you leave here you should not come back. And if you want me to visit you, you should send me a plane ticket. And we’d never been on a plane. We didn’t have enough money to go on a plane. I’m sitting at her like what? Honestly when I was growing up, she taught me no domestic skills. She said, you don’t need that. Cooking and cleaning is never going to get you out of here. Who cares about that? And I left and I thought wow. So my point is that my job out of college was in pharmaceuticals for a women’s healthcare company. And I started out as rep calling on doctors. So the one great thing about being the CEO is not only do I know the drill. The reps that for us are pretty extraordinary humans. And they like me and I like them.
And one of the reasons they like me is that I know what the hell I’m talking about. I’m not somebody who is just a scientist who’s never been in the field. I lived and died by going out and talking about a product and how it worked. And I sold a variety of different products. Anyway, I did every job. I was a rep. I was a manager. I took over a region that was last in the country and turned it around. I was in marketing in the US and marketing internationally.
And so long story short, I spent most of my time running a global franchise. And that’s when I got my bug for what are we going to do for this vulnerable? Women that are outside of the United States. It forever changes you. So, I ran this franchise where we launched brands outside of the US where we went in to say what are the right products to launch in these markets because of socioeconomics and religious belief systems. And what changed me when I went, there was my ignorance. I had all of crazy ideas about what people wanted and thought there. And it was so insane. I literally was so foolish. I thought like they had pharmacies they could go to to get pads and tampons.
I’m only smart and Silicon valley everywhere else in the world. I’m completely idiotic. That’s what’s amazing about traveling and learning.
So I was so humbled and ashamed. I was humbled and ashamed and I thought, God I’m like silver spoon fed. I was still like oh my God I’m just so privileged. And it was extraordinary.
What part of the world had you gone to?
So most these experiences were in Kenya.
And South Africa, okay.
And I went to urban rural villages. I talked to the ministry of heath. I talked to distributors. But I also spent a lot of time in one of the largest slums called Kibera. There’s 600,000 people in the size of central park. And it was extraordinary to see that women are so desperate to not have children that they can’t feed and clothes and educate. They will do anything. They will walk two days to get access to contraception. And sometimes they’re not even real. It sugar pills, because there’s so much corruption that’s happening. But the one thing that I thought was amazing is that even these women, would literally, want the same thing as women in Beverly Hills, or Kentucky or New York City. They want a better life for their kids. And they don’t want five or six kids they can’t take care of. So the global footprint matters to me because once we are able to obtain the prevention of chlamydia and gonorrhea, this product I think is going to be very significant for us.
Because maybe like aid money could be used?
Yes. When these women have side effects from hormonal contraception, some of them think that they shouldn’t be using it anyway and these side effects are a way of punishment, right? If they don’t have information or education on how their body works.
American women don’t know!
I’m not kidding. A lot of American don’t know. Sex education isn’t even really taught anymore in the school system. We don’t know our bodies and how they work. There’s so many myths and misconceptions. As an aside and not to go down a rabbit hole, but our Chief Medical Officer, who’s an OBGYN, Kelly Caldwell. She is doing this series called #UnpHiltered. So pH filtered for Phexxi. And it’s really educating women about their bodies and how they work. And it’s super cool and funny. And she’s very approachable.
Good. What is it on? online?
So right now it’s on Instagram, but we’re going to be putting it on Youtube next month. UnpHiltered with a pH.
On Instagram. Get on it people!
But anyway, the global foot print matters. And I have to tell you that innovation, when we talk about innovation, why I cared so much about talking to you today, is that innovation in women’s healthcare is not only necessary, but it will positively impact. Think about how they care about global warming? Think about how they care about clean water. How they care about education. More bodies the planet by choice, not chance. Choice, not chance. Less bodies on the planet that are unwanted, unplanned, and unwanted pregnancies come on! I have to be candid, I am a huge proponent of contraception that women will use, right? Why not? This isn’t about population control. This is about choice, not chance. Sometimes, I’m unpopular at dinner party. And I’m never really invited. Not that I ever been to any dinner parties. But I say things like look at some of these countries where rape is a weapon of war. It’s not a matter of if it’s when and how often. Okay. That’s no joke.
It’s worse than that. This is what gets me kicked out at dinner parties. If you just look back in history like most of the sex for women was nonconsensual 100%. It’s a fairly modern notion that women should have any say at all. And we definitely have some work to do to get the rest of the way where women have as much say as they really should have. There’s a lot of, a lot to overcome. And in the west, we’ve had a chance to make some progress on that. That’s not necessarily true everywhere in the world. And so there’s a lot of work.
I love that you said that because I will tell you this too. One of the underpinnings of this launch, and this brand, and this company is empowerment. And not just by the way for women. The one thing that I really honestly care a lot about. So I’m a single parent of a 13 year old boy. I say, hopefully I’m raising a feminist and a gentleman. I also joke that he’s either going to run the mob or be president.
Hopefully the former. So much more legit and fine upstanding citizens.
Why I say that is that even with the predisposed ideas to little boys like man up and be a man and grow up. All these ideas that take out their kindness, and their emotional capacity. There’s so many good men out there that want to support women, that loved their mothers and loved their daughters and loved their spouses. And I think that sometimes what people mistake about me as a woman and a human and about us, is that oh feminism is about man-hating and wanting to castrate men. Not only is it not about that, I think they are extraordinary dads that say, I want to know the conversation with my daughter, because I my daughter to have access to the right healthcare. And I want her to be empowered and I don’t want her to put hormones in her body. And I want her to know how her body works. But what I love is that there’s more people being willing to have that as dinner conversations. Why does it have to be so taboo? Why is it dirty? Why is it a dirty little secret? Why can’t we talk about your menses and your periods and why is that off topic? Because everybody has it. Everybody does.
We do it just like after dinner?
Yes. We can do it after dinner.
Look, I think it’s great that you’re claiming this for women, but I feel a little slighted this doesn’t feel women’s biotech. It feels like something I want too. I was like why is this for women? This is all the things I want are in this product. Men should want this.
Yes, men should want it because they could have this and if their partner doesn’t have one, they can say, look I’ve got a Phexxi.
If you’re a guy, and you someday get a girlfriend, she’s probably going to get on the pill if she’s not already. And she’s probably gonna have a whole bunch of problems you don’t want to deal with she’s on the pill. So just short circuit that. Help her so she doesn’t have get on the pill, get yourself fixed and also get her on Phexxi. That’s like A. Plan B is get a boyfriend and condoms.
It’s true! Honestly, we have investor who honest to goodness, his significant other reached out to me and she said, I have not felt like myself in a year. And she said when he said to me, you should go off of this because not only do I think you’re not yourself, but you don’t think you’re yourself. Come on. And she said that she would all of a sudden cry for no reason.
And also pointed out that nobody gets on a pill and it gets, becomes a better version of themselves because of it. That’s not one of the options. So I really I’m thrilled about that. I look at this product, the ingredients list, just so you guys know. Lactic acid, which is in like milk. Citric acid, which is in like red bull and lemonade, and potassium tartrate.
All of these ingredients are food grade.
It’s a food grade ingredients. Why does this why can’t this be over the counter? How could it go wrong?What orifice could I shove this in to cause a real problem?
Let me tell you why it’s prescription. So we in combination with the FDA, that where to chose prescription is a few reasons. 1) Under the Affordable Care Act, one product in each category of contraception is covered so women don’t have out of pocket pay. So it’s cheaper for women to get access under the affordable care act then to make it over the counter. 2) also in market research the majority of women said, even though, yes, there’s over the counter products. But said if a product is FDA approved and they’re doing something as serious as from getting pregnant. So that was why we knew that we wanted to further the chlamydia and gonorrhea. And so getting it approved first as hormonal contraceptive was a very smart and quick way to do that. So that’s why. Down the road though and in the future, yes.
Okay. All right. So then the plan for getting this to the rest of the world?
So the plan is this. So we actually got an investment from a group called Adjuvant Capital. So that investment was to lower the cost of goods. And that investment was to look at going into emerging markets. So we’re looking at three-five countries a year over a five-year period. So we’re literally working on that right now. We have a joint steering committee to say two things. Where are places where we access quickly? So can show success. And where are the places where it’s most needed? Which sometimes isn’t quickest. So not just quick wins, but a few quick wins so that we can get feedback to provide that feedback to some of the places to convince them you should help us get this approved.
How hard is it to get approved? Especially once you get FDA clearance?
Some countries will accept the application, but other countries make it much more challenging. And but we are looking at all of those factors, but the intention is to 100% ticket globally, but there’s also some countries that want license it. There’s a lot of partners in Asia that want to give us an upfront payment to license it, which would be great because it’d be non-dilutive capital coming into the company with milestones and royalties. So we’re actively talking partners literally right now.
So that’s a good of investor for you.
Very much.
Might be a licensee?
Correct.
Might be a regional licensee?
Yep.
Asia? The Middle East?
Latin America. Because Latina women they are one of the mindsets that some of the donors said to us about women in Africa is that they thought that women in Africa didn’t want to touch themselves vaginally. Putting an applicator and touching their vagina was considered taboo. When we went (meaning me and my chief medical officer,) to do a proof of concept. And we only went to Kenya and South Africa, but we actually found that to be contrary to the truth. These women said to us very directly that they are being told by their male partner, to your point of not having consent, that they must use a lubricant for the pleasure of the man. And they’re already using lubricant for the pleasure of the man. And I will tell you these women, it didn’t take them very long to figure out that they could say oh this is just a lubricant. They didn’t have to put in the part that, oh maybe I won’t have your fifth child or eighth child because you think that you have a virility is measured by procreation.
In your experience, is there a lot of pressure to keep having kids?
Oh my goodness. Yes.
So yeah. One of the things that I think people often don’t realize is the way progression has gone. You look at what we Western societies largely like Northern society, right? It’s north of the equator, it’s Europe and United States and some extent Russia and those things. This is all the countries that got rich early basically. And we’re all past our midlife crisis now. And we’re in the past the prime of our lives in some sense. And the future is all south of the equator. It’s South America, it’s India, it’s Africa, it’s places in Southeast Asia and other parts of Asia. With the possible exception of Australia, it’s all south of the equator and what’s happening if you look in those regions is they are late to the urbanization game, but they’re urbanizing at extraordinary rates. And what happens is when you move to a more urban environment, kids flip from being an asset, working on the farm to a liability, go to private school, right? So now these are costing you. They’re not paying for their keep. And so you start having less kids, you get better educational opportunity to get better economic opportunity, which a lot of times why he got there in the first place. And so this is why the population for humans doesn’t just continue to grow exponentially because urbanization basically curves it. And so urbanization is the most efficient way the farm humans basically. So it’s important and these are good trends in some sense, but there’s a lot of growing pains and some things that we have to get through. And I think that especially you see, like in South America even with your urbanization, they’ve been a little bit slow to recognize the economic change means you can have fewer kids now and it’s okay, but cause they still have that in their minds. And I think it’s hurting a lot of women like you said.
It’s hurting a lot of women. It really is. And I will tell you that women, if they’re given access to the right choices, they will make them. They will. And that whole point and that women really are the center of these family units. Making, doing everything. And bringing in income as well, oftentimes.And so that’s, what’s so critical is that, so we’re really trying to really be the company. So our blind to science with a soul, and that’s not bullshit science where the soul, meaning that we really care It’s such a meaningful way that women recognize that we’re the kind of company that knows not only are they worth it, they deserve to be empowered with it on demand. So back your choice, I want to say this is that when you, just said, I loved about your statement is that we’re really just now coming into the age of real consent. So the idea that women should have pleasurable stuff. right? Oh my goodness. What a concept? My gosh.
I’ve been advocating for that person.
I bet you have.
There’s only so much I can do.
I’m telling you this. I have been so passionate about that I said, because you know, the whole adage, right? A guy who has sex with a lot of partners. Oh, he’s a Romeo at gigolo and a woman’s a slot, and not about that. about women being able to have control and empowerment have effects in their pocket or the breast. They know they can go out, they can have on demand, they can protect themselves. And they’ve got this, got this women are more empowered and more in tune with their bodies now than they’ve ever been. In my opinion. And particularly young women. Oh my I’ve had so many groups of young college girls and they have said to me, I’m not kidding. They’re like we are going to do a case study and a project on this brand. We are going to start talking about what that has made me. You don’t even know like an orgasm, frankly. These young women in there, and they’re smart, they’re capable and they’re driven. And they’re like, look, we are in control and empowered over our bodies. And we’re not in patriarchal mindset that we just do what we’re told no, that we don’t want to do this and put a synthetic hormone in our body. they. the idea of sex on demand. fact that it’s lubricating. So I said to a group of them, I said, it’s also discreet. You can go into the bathroom and you can put it in very and throw away the you know what they said? They said, are you kidding? We use this as part of intimacy, we have our partner play for us. And I was like, wow, good for you. And they joked and they said with the lights on and I’m like, even better.
You need like doctors to go on like tours of sororities and
Yes, this whole archaic mindset. Like come on! These girls can depend on themselves. Like they are in charge. That’s what I love. It’s awesome.
And even, I think, probably it’s important to say that it’s not that necessarily that they should make that same choice, but that they should be able to make that same choice.
Without question.
And I think especially when you look in other cultures where it’s going to be a little bit more of a cultural change for them.
Yes.
The story might have to be framed in a way that accommodates their belief system, which isn’t necessarily where we’re at.
No, I’ll tell you a provocative thing. And this is way down a rabbit hole. But so we are very passionate about getting our own category at the Office on Women’s Health. And when I say that, why that matters is that with our own category, we’re the only product like this. So once they give us our own category, payers have to cover this so women will have access. However, one of the things that I talked about strategically is we’re even the kind of product that we could get perhaps religious organizations and even people who are on the other side of the aisle because this does not impact a woman’s natural body. There’s no systemic effects. This is the way of a woman’s body, God given. So for some people they think that might be a bridge too far.
They’re having to revisit these notions anyway. It’s very difficult for religions to keep up the no contraception stance. The stance that’s against contraception has been pretty difficult to maintain even in very conservative societies and I could see that
Being a benefit, if needed. The one wonderful thing is that having something like this that doesn’t have synthetic hormones. There’s an opportunity to do a paradigm shift. and change the conversation with people who otherwise were complete resistors to it. And so that’s what we’re really trying to do in hopes that frankly, we start softening some of these, very narrow-minded views about giving women the choice.
Just having the choice is what it’s really about. And innovation is about choices. Innovation and evolution is about coming out with new and better ways for us to evolve as humans. For us to procreate. For us to feel better. For our connected relationships to feel better. And so that’s the other thing too is that it’s sexual pleasure, connectivity, lack of side effects, all of those things, that create connection. So that’s why this innovation I think, is so important because it’s not just about the prevention of pregnancy. Like fear-based, you don’t want to get pregnant. you don’t want to get pregnant. You don’t want to get raped. You don’t remember it. This is about pleasurable sex and feeling good about it.
And people that a really tough thing for a lot of people, not just women. But people in general, to be able get comfortable with sex, with a partner, exploring, getting over their hangups, anxieties, all the things that get in the way there’s so many things. And not even counting the possible STDs or pregnancy or any of these other things. And so it’s just really exciting to see a product like this could take that venn diagram of things that make it hard to line up with your partner. And just laugh off a whole bunch of things at once that to get in the way. How far along was this company when you came here?
The company had received a complete response letter by the FDA. The previous management and previous board had moved forward a study that had a lot of flaws and not a lot of agreement with the FDA. And the FDA said they weren’t going to approve the product. That was when I arrived. And I was told by the way, every box was checked, this practice was so safe, nothing was going to happen. And it was a moment where you think to yourself oh my goodness, what have I done? What did I do? What did I do to deserve this? But I will tell you this, I knew that this product was worth it. And I met with the investors and we then picked a different clinical research organization to do the confirmatory study. I brought in a whole new team of people. I separated from the parent company. I reconstituted this company in 2015 as standalone Evofem Biosciences. And we then we did this confirmatory study in agreement with the FDA. But yes, when I got here, the company was on fumes and just about ready to be shut down. And the thought that maybe they should just try to sell the asset for whatever they could get. And luckily, I think my women’s health care background convinced me that this was a diamond in the rough.
There’s like we see a lot and especially an innovation trying to do new things. And one of them is that the early team is maybe good at figuring out that the thing was possible in the first place, but their strengths aren’t in the perspective on what it would take to make it into a real product, the business, the regulatory environment, what it would take to sell the product, those kinds of things. And so they suffer a lot because they’re the people who are most invested in it. And I think this is one of the things that we’ve really done a poor job of coming from Silicon Valley is that we have kind of a mythical entrepreneur who is also an inventor and super technical and can do everything. That’s what we think these people are. And they’re really not like I know all of them.
Those people are very rare. And it doesn’t scale. And what I think is really what we have to start getting some ideas in our heads about the progression that are different. Your inventors are not your entrepreneurs necessarily. And you need to be able to transition, something like this, a technology through those different life cycles, different stages of development. That’s why your first grade isn’t your college professor. You need different people at different stages. And so I think one of the things that actually makes me super optimistic and excited about this is seeing you here with your sales background and your knowledge of what it takes to get a product out that’s worth a ton. I see the opposite so much, which there’s a big swinging dick scientist who left his professor role at the university, to be the CEO of company who has no clue about what it takes to actually make it a successful product and actually sell. And we said it’s all the time but the startups that fail, it’s almost never because they failed to make a product it’s because they failed to sell it.
Wow. Thank you. I find that true.
It’s worth so much and the so cool thing is that it’s only been the last 11 and a half months this product has been at the stage where it can take advantage of your strengths. I spent seven years doing the part you’re okay at to get to the part you’re good at. And so now you’re there. So it’s pretty exciting. And so you need some licensees, that’s one of you need. I guess you need who are excited about this invest publicly. You’re listed as EVFM on the NASDAQ stock exchange. So you go buy the stock. I can say that you can’t probably can’t.
I appreciate it.
But don’t sell it, just buy it. And then, I guess it might also be cool if some other strategic investors who maybe wanted to help you bring it to other markets or maybe expanded more quickly in the US market. And then assuming all that goes few years, then you could go build the next thing.
Exactly.
Do you know what you want to do?
Yeah, I don’t.
The right answer though is shopping. Easier shopping instinct. Because you don’t need to invent a new thing. There’s thousands of things sitting with biotech entrepreneurs or founders don’t know what the hell they’re doing. And man it’s hard for them.
To tell you the real truth, if I had access to strategic investors really what I would do is I would go shopping and find all of these companies and do a roll up. These smart great products that need sales and marketing expertise, which is what this company has. And we would do a roll up of five or six or seven products like literally 10, 15, 20, and start building and be the company that once they get through the concept phase that they take it to us and we can manifest it. It would be incredible to be the hub. It would be really extraordinary.
I think you should go for it. Yeah. That’s the hack. Because I can feed you an unlimited number of three person startups that have a killer tech. There’s so many, and it’s amazing. But I look at them and I said, okay guys you’re going to need an entrepreneur and a lot of stamina to get through FDA and all that stuff.
No, it’s true. It is a lot to get through that, but in the end it’s worth it. You know how that is. Phase one, phase two phase three, but yes now that we’re here at this point in journey, it’s what we’ve been waiting for so it’s really exciting.
Wow. Okay. I hope we can get you off, get you a turbo boost.
I appreciate your interest. I do. And I love talking about innovation and I think it’s great. And I actually like the format to just talk about it all.
No, that’s the way to do it. People need to have real conversations. And I think some people never got to and some people forget what it’s like. So I’m just like, let’s have real conversations!
It’s freaky, some people cannot operate outside of a script. You know what I mean? They have the canned questions and by the way, no matter what you ask them, they’ll only give you canned answer.
The truth is even those people, I think they just don’t know. Like I can still, probably, maybe because my whole career has been hanging out with somewhat poorly socialized nerds. That’s normal to me. And I think they’ve been conditioned to believe they need a script and they believe that. And they’re nervous or whatever. But I think a lot of times you can get past that. At least I’m trying to do that. And I want to have real conversations with anybody and it shouldn’t matter whether what they’re into. Most people know about something. And if you talk to them about what they know about. And then, sometimes I don’t have to do it with you, but with some people I can try to translate it and make it more accessible. If it’s a super technical thing and get to the point where people can follow along and start to get their heads around it, because the natural instinct is to be terrified of things you don’t understand. And it turns out you can understand pretty much anything if you just hang in there for a bit.
I love that attitude and mindset. That’s great, but it’s true. You’re right. You can understand anything. You just have to have it positioned in a way. But yeah, that’s great.
Anything else you think people should know about?
I think we’ve covered it, honestly. Awesome.
Do you have any questions for me?
A million.
Yeah, we can do that.
I’d love that.
There are some interviews of me, but yeah. All right. We can do that next time. It’ll be our dinner party.
Okay, sounds good. I like that since we’re going to be thrown out of all the other different parties.
Awesome. Thanks so much. It’s really important. And I’m really excited about seeing what happens with you guys and hopefully it goes well from here.
Brilliant. Yeah, my pleasure.
All right. Thanks.
To learn more about Phexxi, speak to your healthcare provider and see full product information at Phexxi.com. Do not use if you have a history of repeated urinary tract problems. Side effects include vaginal burning, itching, discharge, genital discomfort, yeast infection, urinary tract infection or bacterial vaginosis. Phexxi does not protect against STIs.
Saundra Pelletier is the Chief Executive Officer, President, and Executive Director of Evofem Biosciences. She leads an impressive team of passionate and highly skilled professionals committed to developing and commercializing innovative products to address unmet needs in women’s sexual and reproductive health.
Recorded on May 5, 2021
Diving Deep into the World of Computer Hacking & Becoming a Hacker — Riley Eller
Mar 24, 2021
One of the things I get asked the most about is questions about how to be a hacker and how to learn hacking skills. And I think there’s a few people I know who really epitomized what that’s all about, and we’ve had pretty deep journeys and in their lives and their careers about about computer hacking.
We talk a lot about the mindset of hackers, which is one of the things I’m super interested in and attracted to. I find to be very helpful way of thinking about things. But you know, when we’re talking about the technicalities of computer hacking, what that means, it really appeals to a certain kind of person and I think a lot of people just don’t know where to start. And so I wanted to share one of the folks that I find inspiring and who I’ve known for a long time. I think his life and his career sort of epitomizes what a lot of folks are thinking about when they’re asking about computer hacking.
And so his name’s Riley Eller and Riley’s sort of a famous in the hacker community because he used to run the most popular party for hackers called Caesar’s challenge. And we’d have this party once a year at DEF CON and only the league got in. Riley has done a great job over the years of figuring out how to get hackers partying, and get us all connecting to each other and making friends with each other.
I think that’s a really important and valuable thing for a community of folks who maybe having focused on social skills so much previously. And so Riley’s also known for being a member of the ghetto hackers, which was the first team of hackers to win the DEF CON Capture the Flag contest three years in a row.
Then they took it over and ran that contest for a few years and really up the game. This was the notorious, you know hacking contest, cause it was the first big hacking contest. It was the place where that got started. And now of course you have hacking contests all over the world, but capture the flag at Def CON is where it started.
The ghetto hackers were one of the first real teams to take that on and they advanced the game and really turned it into a spectator sport at DEF CON. And it’s, it’s gone on and evolved since then. We talk about that a bit in this conversation. We go deep into a little bit deep into talking about a wifi mesh networking at a company called CoCo Communications where Riley worked another one of our upcoming guests on the podcast, Jeremy Bruestle who was the founder of that company.
You can listen to that to learn a little more about CoCo, but a lot of those inventions and those technologies are just coming of age now. And so I think it’s actually pretty relevant and interesting because mesh networking is one of these things that keeps coming up again and again, and the problems are hard and interesting.
So that’s a cool conversation. And then later on, we talk about Caesar’s experience as a hacker growing up, how he got into it, what he’s learned, what he values about it as well as his ideas for how you can become a hacker. I am really excited to share Riley with you guys. He’s made a big impression on me and my life, so I hope you enjoy it.
Pablos: This has been one of the conversations I’ve had in my mind as being important for the podcast and what I want to do. I’ve known you for more than twenty years. We have similar progression or timelines in our lives of getting interested in computers, hacking, and ending up in the social dynamic of the hacker community in those days. There’s a lot to learn from that. What I want to do with you is talk about some of those experiences early on and how we got into it.
First, let’s talk a little bit about what you’ve been working on professionally because you spent a lot of time on the last company you were at. It was a company started by Jeremy, who was one of the founders, so it was started by hackers. I remember talking to him before he started the company about the ideas for trying to create mesh networks that were ad hoc mesh networks. That was, in those days, one of the hard problems with networking to solve. I’d seen lots of trial and error and lots of difficult problems in that. Jeremy was amazing because he was able to get further than anybody, as far as I could tell, technically. I was always interested in that company, and you and a bunch of other friends end up working there, so can you tell me a little bit about what the progression of that was like?
Riley: Originally, we were doing a Business 2.0 article. Jeremy was explaining on the whiteboard in the Ghetto Hacker workspace how that all worked and I was trying to repeat it back to him to see if I understood his ideas, because it was difficult to grasp with what I knew at the time. There’s a photo of him and I talking over that particular moment right before the company was taking off. It was a pivotal moment in my life.
Maybe the first thing to do is describe what the point of that was at that moment because this must have been about 2005, 2006 or something.
No. The company was started in 2002 and I joined in 2003. They had about a year to go around, raise funding, talk about it and get their hands around what the problem was that they were trying to solve. What happened was a whole bunch of families who are proud of the country in Seattle, people with some money to invest, saw the communication failure on 911 as a critical infrastructure defense problem that could be solved commercially. It should be available so people who are busy doing things, running toward emergencies and disasters, will know that they’re not going to get cut off from the lifeline and the lifeline for those people is always information. Having that access to information or failing to have that access to information was responsible for about 10% of the deaths that day.
It’s not solving all of the world’s problems they thought, but it was something that they could focus on, it was narrow. This was about a year after the dot-com crash, so they’d all been gotten used to investing in technology. They saw this problem and they decided to try to get somebody smart and they knew Mark Tucker, who was the CEO. Mark and Jeremy had worked together on a project before, so they brought Jeremy in and he took some initial ideas out of IEEE and what was available at the time and said, “We’re going to build the stack of these existing technologies.”
He went around and talked to people who were in the upper echelons of communications, telecommunications, first responder communications, and military comms. He found that there was huge resistance on cost because centralized networks are much cheaper to operate than networks where all the smarts have to be in every device. The more decentralized a network, the more expensive it is, period, because like a smartphone, the phone part of it is low power, tiny little chip. Most of what we call phone now is a lot of other stuff. Adding anything, even communication technology that is constantly running, trying to help other people on demand, all those things that the first responder would need if the central communications went down, each of them is a real challenge.
Jeremy kept pushing on invention after the invention and built a four-tier stack of pieces that would be needed. At the bottom layer, you need to be able to defend against denial of service attacks because that’s an easy way to knock down a network like this. It’s to send crappy messages, so we had to have link security and link identity but we needed to provide application communication concerns like police and firefighters have common missions. You may have police and firefighters on the same scene at the same time but they have distinct missions. You can’t get the communications crossed up. A firefighter can’t misunderstand that shoot comes from a police officer or firefighter. They need to know what their lingo is and their jargon is. They need to use their words their way and not have to double-check who’s talking.
We needed to have a separation of communications as well, even though we had to have a common trust model, being able to join a lot of groups of people who have different interests in missions. Journalists, possibly even those who may need to talk to each other or send pictures back and forth to their cameras and so forth. All of these problems turned out to be tractable but complicated. It’s building up to pieces one at a time and working out how we can make a network that doesn’t have a central registrar. In the end, we found that we couldn’t create trust without some centrality. We had to have some trusted arbitrators of identity, but once you had an identity service, then the rest of it could be done purely decentralized.
We saw in the 802.11p or 802.11r, whichever one is the automotive spec they ended up rebuilding almost the same technology stack. They came around and they’re like, “These vehicles are going too fast. We need them to be able to talk to each other. They don’t know each other. A Ford doesn’t know to trust a Toyota.” All these same problems came back out so the model proved to be correct and effective. The way we implemented it, and our desire to make the network scale to essentially infinite size, make it scale-free.
That ended up being too costly for the amount of network resources available at the time, especially if you think about high-speed devices like airplanes or cars relative to bicycles and humans. Having that slow stability is great, but having those high-speed movers can shuffle the topology of the network quickly if you do any automated algorithms or if you consider those to be all part of the same network. There are good reasons that the military divides the universe up into upper air tier, middle air tier, lower air tier, ground tier, sea tier, undersea tier and cyber tier. These are all different dimensions and each one of them has a completely distinct communication technology. That was an opportunity for improvement and we didn’t see that. A lot of our designs were homogeneous.
It’s a little over-engineered.
That took us a long time to recover from.
In those days, if we’re talking about 2002, 2003, 2004 or 2005, basically, we’re at a point in the world where the internet has completely taken over. TCP/IP 1, people, especially at that time, thought of it as this is a decentralized protocol, in a sense compared to centralized networks that came before us. The telephone network is a hub and spoke design where you have a switchboard in the middle and anytime you want to talk to anybody else, you go through the switchboard in the middle. TCP/IP, all you’ve got to do is find anybody else on the network and you can connect through them. We think of it as decentralized but in fact, for it to work the way you described, there’s a bunch of quasi centralized services like name service, issuing IP addresses and that stuff that has to be managed too.
You have to have an identity database. You have to log into all these services.
We have a whole bunch of different identity services but those are all essentially centralizing services.
Even the IP address assignment is a central function.
I remember we were first playing with Wi-Fi probably by ‘98, or something.It was for extreme nerds and nothing had Wi-Fi in it, so you had to plug a Wi-Fi card the size of an iPhone into your laptop to get on Wi-Fi. By 2001 and 2002, it’s getting normal. The first laptops with Wi-Fi were probably the iBook, Apple’s Titanium PowerBook, or something.It was one of those that had Wi-Fi build in.
We were using PalmPilot or Pocket PCs, which were a phone board and PC board jam together with a serial port and stacked with it with a screen. The HP iPAQ and the Compaq iPAQ were the things because it had Wi-Fi and that Wi-Fi in the old days had to have ad hoc mode. Lately, that’s not supported on most radios.
A lot of the companies wanted to put this communication technology into an employee problem rather than a job problem.
Tweet
They don’t even support ad hoc mode anymore. Ad hoc mode, I thought, were some descendant of it. It is basically what’s used when you do personal hotspot on your iPhone.
It’s a descendant and it has a parent and a child relationship even then.
The point being is all these networks that we use have that hierarchical relationship where, in Bluetooth, you pair to your other devices. There were occasional cases like airdrop as an example of an ad hoc thing where you could find devices on a network that you didn’t even know about before and talk to them for a little bit. I remember those days. As computer nerds, we were all fantasizing about how to build the next generation of the wireless network to be an ad hoc wireless, we call it a mesh network, meaning there was no centralized authority in the network.
What we imagined was you would be able to go anywhere, devices and all find the other devices around them. As long as one of those things was on the internet, everybody could route through them. It ended up being intractable because largely, the overhead of managing routing tables and those things. What I saw with the company that was called CoCo at the time, what Jeremy had come up with was a more practical way to solve that routing problem. Did it not end up being a big deal?
It did but what it ended up doing at the scales we wanted to achieve was creating a lot of ongoing or zombie connections. It wasn’t even the routing that was complicated. It was keeping all the devices leashed together. The big problem for multi-party or multi-security domain mesh networks is that we give them to the police and the firemen. We want to keep the comms separate. The big problem is to track a firefighter who has moved through and past the end of the police area. We have to hop that firefighter’s connections through those policemen and back to where the other firefighters are. That is such a core conceptual model that your workgroup stays together as long as you exist and you’re connected to the mesh. You have this constant application layer concept of group communication or a group connection.
When you have that, then it’s cool because you can have an IP subnet in your mind or your machine. You can represent a group of any nature that you’re a part of in the whole world with an IP range and use all your standard TCP/IP applications. The problem was to keep that real, then there needs to be a path for people in, for instance, that big group of firefighters that have one of their own orphaned out and at the end of the police network. They need to have a live connection in tracking where other firefighters are moving, so when messages come for them, there’s a path selected.It is a routing problem but it’s an online routing problem and it turns out that, even though nobody cares, except for your people and that was our goal. It was to make it lightweight for everyone else. Everyone still has to pass along updates about destination locations as you move.
It’s got this whole mobility problem and nowhere to send the mobility information so it can be permanently routed in a central place. Mobile IP doesn’t have this problem, because mobile IP does not allow two mobile devices to talk to each other ad hoc. It’s not mobile. It’s both of them. Each of them has a static IP somewhere and they proxy through that. Only that one device needs to know about their location updates and everyone else can forget it. In a truly purely ad hoc mesh, you can’t do that. There’s a connection overhead, a connection load.
Where did you guys land? I know that you build various iterations of this product to try and help emergency services and in those situations, what did you end up with?
We ended up with the first high res audio USB audio digitizer that was pluggable for firefighters or emergency response radios. We went down to Katrina as soon as Hurricane Katrina happened in the aftermath. We went down and we hooked up a lot of the radios to each other and created multi-discipline talk groups to help them out. That was one of our successful products, our tactical radio gateway.
Instead of all the police and firefighters having analog radios on channel thirteen, talking to each other, you could have them all on channel thirteen, but you’re using digital sampling of their audio when they’re talking, sending it digitally and separating out on the network. This goes to the police group and this goes to the firefighters’ group.
We could do that but we also have the power to then cross those groups up. Maybe by regions EMP 25 and these other guys are using a more legacy Motorola StarTAC or something network. They’re unrelated radio networks and we get them to give us one radio each plug it into the gateway and now those two top groups are merged. It was either a distributor like you’re saying or a mock server. We did that and we were able to at least to some degree, effectively negotiate the push-to-talk problems.
Push-to-talk networks that have an incredibly low timing sensitivity. You have to be as fast as possible. Because if I push my button and you push your button, we both talk and nobody hears. Everyone else hears both of us, but we don’t hear each other. We don’t know that there’s a problem. The farther apart those networks are, the harder it is to mediate an effective push-to-talk regimen, so we came up with some patents in that area as well.
We branched out all over the space of communication in hastily assembled or dynamic environments. We built a chat network so it was your Jabber chat client but it would connect to a localhost. There’s a local service that you were running that pretended to be a chat server and would transact all your messages out to multicast well and track which ones of them arrived and didn’t retransmit correctly. You could on a multicast plane have a bunch of people using this chat service, transacting files at extraordinary speeds.
That makes sense.
Because everyone’s getting a copy of the packet at once so you didn’t have to send ten copies to ten people. You had one copy to the network and if anyone needs a particular frame retransmitted, somebody else can do it while you’re still spewing. It was efficient and it worked effectively up to 70% packet loss and you get delays of one second in your chat.
That’s tolerable in chat. Is this stuff being used widely in emergency services scenarios now?
No. Emergency services are utterly owned by Motorola Public Safety. They own the regulators, schools and engineers. They own everything.
It sounds like a great business.
Three years after we got going and they heard of us, they bought Mesh Networks Inc., which made a much simpler product that wasn’t meant to solve the world’s hunger. Many Motorola devices have mesh network devices in them, which is interesting because the radio at least at one time, beaconed all the time, and beaconed a clear crystal simple sound on the unique frequency. You could easily build a, “Where’s the police officer near me,” direction pointing to yourself. It’s a convenient GPS overlay of, “Where’s the nearest police officer?” We pivoted into the military space and we did that. We took those same radio gateways and mesh network repeaters. There was a company that was making Pocket PCs in a scanner form factor with four bar codes. It was rugged. We took some of these rugged Pocket PCs and mesh network repeaters that look like little bricks and tactical radio gateway, which looks a little pelican case. We took those out for the Coast Guard and helped them to build a hastily assembled boarding team interdiction network.
What does that mean?
I didn’t get up close to a freight ship before but they’re the size of a skyscraper lying sideways in the water. They’re utterly huge. You think about a 40 or 50 story building covering that in communication seems a hard problem. When you think about a ship, it’s not clear necessarily. It wasn’t to me anyway what the problem would be. It turns out the ship is made out of a Faraday cage. It does not permit radio to pass any part anywhere at all ever. Coming up with a way for people with bulletproof floating vests, rifles, comm systems, flashlights, these Coast Guard are there to see if there’s smuggling. They’ve got their border mission.
Coming up with a way that guys can operate a mesh network became a real challenge. On the bricks, we had to come up with a light signal system. We had an ON button but no OFF button so you couldn’t turn them off later to screw up the network. They’re rugged. They break it in and it stops working and the crypto falls off. On the front, there were four lights: red, yellow, green and purple. It was that blue LED that was popular at the time.
Blue meant that the device was connected back to the radio gateway. You’re on the network. As long as blue was lit, you’re live and you’re okay. Red, yellow, and green was the link quality of the first hop back to the radio gateway. We would tell people to leave them off in the provisioning center, on the cutter, they would be off, pack them in their jackets, and take them across. They turn on the radio gateway, talk back to the cutter, turn on the first mesh node, and it’s likely to go green and blue. The green and the blue. They’d walk away and it would drop to yellow. We’d have them step back up until it got to green, set it down there and that’s as far as this device can go.
They leave breadcrumbs all the way.
BreadCrumb is a registered trademark of the Rajant Corporation, which makes a similar communication device so I’m not going to say that word. The Hansel and Gretel story is the way that went. The cool thing was, by making it real-time, live and visible, this utterly impossible concept of link quality that no Boatswain’s mate is going to ever be able to jump to lecture on. That usability in real-time changed the future of our product in an interesting way. It turns out that there are these spots where a guy would be taking one round to see. As an experiment, we did it on an icebreaker, the Polar Star.
We went around playing with them and playing with them, Grant Wallace moved a live one that was in a red state. The blues off. You’re not on the network. You can’t see what’s going on. You’re too far away. He’s like, “These don’t cover enough ground. We’re going to have to take 40 of them over.” They weigh a couple of pounds and that’s unrealistic. He moved it in front of an air vent and it turns out that the ventilation system is a perfect effing waveguide. He mounts it outside and it goes green and blue. We ended up filling the Polar Star with six Wi-Fi radios. It’s like a 30-story skyscraper lying on its side on the water and we’ve got six 2005 era Wi-Fi radios.
You could go down into the hold and live talk back and forth with Groton, Connecticut, over a SATCOM back on the cutter. They could take a picture, have it go round trip, be in Groton within a minute or so with several seconds anyway. They were slow radios back then and have an analyst tell you whether it was a problem or not. You wouldn’t have to do what they did before, which was go over, go down and below decks in pairs, take photos of everything that could be found and come back up every fifteen minutes to make sure nobody got shot. Anyone being shot is not an acceptable experience.
It’s a US problem.
That was my feeling. We’ve got to change this. We’ve got to do something different so giving them live round trips back to Connecticut made a huge difference.
To be clear, the reason they would have to do it that way before is because the analog radio, a Faraday cage means all the radio communications are going to get blocked if you’re below the deck or whatever.
Your cell phones don’t work on the inside of the big ship. Cable TV and satellite phones, none of that shit works when you’re inside of a big ship.
You guys develop that type of technology and other things around it and end up selling the company at some point.
We worked on rebranding as well. We pivoted out of the Federal space and went into construction first. We thought that construction was a natural thing. It turns out if you can rig a communication system for a skyscraper on its side in the water, you could also do that for one that’s being built. It was an easy pivot to stand that skyscraper back up and go into the construction industry.
Did it end up being a successful market for guys?
Not as much as we wanted.
Construction is hard to sell into because it’s conservative.
We got written into some IT plans like this as part of the IT budget for a bidding process. We made it all the way through the selection and integration process. I don’t mean to say that it was unsuccessful but there’s a weird intersection for those guys. There are some things that they buy every time they do a job. There are some things that they buy every time they hire an employee and they expect the employee to track that device like a cell phone. A lot of the companies wanted to put this communication technology into an employee problem rather than a job problem.
There were weird technical issues that made that go way slower than we wanted and potentially not have a lot of resales because the company would reuse the same system building after building. They buy enough for how many jobs they do at once, rather than enough for every job. Finally, we went to residential and started building residential Wi-Fi mesh networks, so home routers and extenders. Nokia was moving into the Nokia Wi-Fi space. Nokia makes most of the phone equipment that’s not Huawei or outside China. They’re the leader. They build the head and equipment and lay the fiber or somebody lays the fiber. They even built the CPE.
What’s that?
Your router, your fiber modem or terminal. They wanted to provide the carriers the capacity to deliver that gigabit fiber service all the way through even an extender to the far edge of the home. They acquired our company, Unium was the rename of CoCo. Unium like E Pluribus Unum. Unium, the element of connection. That’s where we wanted to take the brand eventually. We rebranded it and turned it around. Mike Chen from Linksys that we had met before had gone over to head up the digital home business unit there. He knew about us and came. He found our people and talked through them. Over about a six-month period, we worked our way to a partnership and that’s been going for a few years now.
I want to change gears a little bit. When we first met was probably at DEF CON sometime in the late ‘90s. In those days, DEF CON, which is now the world’s largest hacker convention, probably always was, but there were maybe 1,000 people there, maybe 2,000.
Maybe up to 1,500.
I was still at Alexis Park which is the size of a Motel 6 or something. It’s a small hotel off the strip in Vegas that gets invaded by 1,000 hackers or so every summer, every August maybe. It’s 106 degrees, you’ve got 1,000 pasty white computer nerds in black t-shirts with witty slogans about internet protocols, Linux or something, laptops the size of VCRs, some of them with dual VCR decks in them.
Can you explain VCR to me? I don’t think anyone reading this is going to know what you’re saying.
We’re definitely losing people. My daughter has no idea what a VCR is.
Hacking is like this bottomless pit of puzzles. It’s that bottomless pit of intrigue about the computer.
Tweet
Laptops that are the size of stoves.
They were huge. People who have probably heard stories or anyone interested in hacking have probably heard stories or read about DEF CON in those days. I remember at that point, we were at Alexis Park because we’d been kicked out of every hotel on the strip for being poorly behaved, essentially cutting the power to a wing of the hotel and arson.
Breaking the security system and throwing bottles off buildings.
There you go. The ATM is going haywire. Who knows why? All payphones being destroyed. It’s all those things.
People dying the fountains.
Hackers in those days were fringe. It hadn’t gone mainstream. These days, a hacker is anybody who plays video games. There’s nothing to it.
That’s not that big of a pride point. I still call myself a hacker because I’m still proud of it but there’s something definitely diluted about it.
That’s the progression. Hacker in those days was not something that you advertised. It was essentially considered a criminal.For most people, it was isolated, at least for me. I grew up in the ‘80s, in Alaska, and I lived in a small town where there was nobody around who was interested in computer hacking, except for me. I would get these floppy disks mailed to me with The Anarchist Cookbook, information about hacking phone systems, how to crack video games and Apple II. It’s that kind of stuff. I get the floppy disk mailed to me once every few months.
By whom?
There were others but the one I remember was called the Bootlegger. It was a magazine for hackers on a floppy disk. You could subscribe to it and get mailed out. That was probably in ‘81 or ‘82. It was bad. By ‘82, I got a modem. I was in Alaska in those days and long-distance calls were expensive.
Freaking was the law. The physics of the environment. If you don’t freak, you don’t play it.
You couldn’t afford to call.
Do you remember the first time you ever turned on a TCP/IP connection and you were like, “Russia, oh my God, it was free?”
TCP/IP, I didn’t get it.
It was like legal freaking but the internet was like a crime that you could buy. You could go out and buy this thing that could commit crimes for you by sending packets for free around the world. That’s the best feeling in the entire universe.
That’s well put. I got on mainframes in the early ‘80s.
How did you learn all this so young?
It’s because I had nothing else to do. It was cold outside. You were going to die if you left the house and I had a 300 baud modem. The thing was, the university had mainframes, which in those days, were VAX mainframes. VAX, to be clear, has the computational power of a Tamagotchi but it was a multi-user computer, and it could have 100 people connected at once and a lot more in the computer lab at the university.
The most boring LAN party possible.
It was the most boring LAN party but we were all so excited. The cool thing was because I was a kid with nothing else to do, I managed to finagle my way onto the system even though I’m a 13 or 11-year-old kid, whatever it was, and everybody else was a computer science professor. They didn’t know I was a kid, but they all had jobs and in school and stuff to do and I didn’t have anything. I could spend sixteen hours a day learning about the mainframe, but it was painful. I learned the hard way as I’ve told other people. I learned to code by reverse engineering 6502 assembly language. There was no one to teach me. There was no YouTube video. There was no how-to for dummies guide.
I had Apple II and I had the manuals that came with it, but that was not how to code.
There’s an assembly reference in that, isn’t there? There isn’t a Commodore.
There is a reference that’s generous. It shows you, “Here’s what jumps statements are in hexadecimal.” What does a jump statement do? I don’t know. Let’s delete them all and see what happens. It was bad. I had pin-free Dot Matrix printer so I could print out all the assembly for a program.
Was it like fanfold?
Yeah. You printed all that, it would be hundreds of pages and you would go through and look like how you would crack video games in those days. Find all the jump statements one bite at a time.I didn’t learn a lot too fast but I had made up for it by time and enthusiasm.
That’s what they called talent, time plus enthusiasm.
These days, that’s about as good as it gets. Once I got on the mainframe, I could finally talk to people who knew more than me and there was an email system on there where you could email the other people on the mainframe. There are a couple of hundreds of people you could talk to, so I would ask them dumb questions, “How does this work? What does that do?” Because the mainframe was limited, you could only get so much processing time, so much storage and memory, and I always wanted more.
I would write these programs, which we call Mail Bombs, and you would write a little program in DCL, which was the scripting language for the mainframe for VAX and you name it like Star Trek Game. You would email it to somebody and get them to run the Star Trek game.It would give them an innocuous error because they didn’t have a game. It would give them errors and I’d say, “I’ll go try and fix it,” but in the background, it would be locking them out of their account if they’ve given me all the resources and access to all their stuff. It’s a computer virus, but we didn’t have that nomenclature yet. We independently invented Mail Bombs.
I believe that’s called a Logic Bomb, not a virus because it doesn’t make more viruses
If you’re nitpicking, that’s true. I didn’t get to the automatically replicating part of it. The point being, that’s what, in a nutshell, my childhood was like. It was trying to learn as much as I could about computers and having nobody and almost no resources to lean on, and now it’s so much different. Kids can go on YouTube and watch how-to videos with animated cartoons explaining everything. The point being, by the time the internet came along because there’s a window of time where you got past mainframes into BBSs and things like OBS.
I’m one tech generation later, like four years later.
BBSs were more accessible communities of fringe wackos essentially who wanted to get into nerd stuff.
For me, you go over to the Disk Copy Party that happened once a month and steal everybody’s software with each other and copy everybody’s stuff. Somebody came into a place that I’ve had my first job and they had a duffel bag full of pirate floppy disks. No envelopes, nothing protecting them, it was jammed in there.
Floppies were oddly resilient.
It’s so true. It’s surprising compared to even a CD or a DVD. You get a little scratch in the plastic and it’s all ruined. Out of the backdrops CCGMS, the modem program for Commodore 64. I had no idea. I didn’t have a modem so I’m asking this guy what does he do and all this stuff. We end up becoming short-term friends. He was on the run and making his way toward Vancouver and had some stuff. He was from Portland and they had some stuff going on.
He was on the run with a duffel bag of floppies.
We stayed in Arlington for a little while and we were friends for a minute. I went to his house once and there were five discs left on the floor and he’s gone. Everything is gone. In that meantime, he taught me how to get Sprint to issue a calling card that didn’t bill. I thought, “This is acceptable. This is my solution.” This guy tells me one thing and for eighteen months, I don’t have to work to dial internationally. I’m not a freaker. I script kiddie the solution from a guy and that solved my problem. I got a 300 baud modem, 1,200 baud modem, and 2,400 baud modem as fast as I could upgrade. I got two and ran a little BBS of my own.
It’s like being part of a global underground.
Our German teacher was the head of Brain Damage Studio, which was a distribution group in the Pacific Northwest, pulling out of Frankfurt. He would be on the phone on one of his phone lines 24 hours a day pulling down from Frankfurt. I was like, “I’ll help.” He’s like, “Great. Here’s another Fairlight BBS. You go here and get this stuff and bring it in.” That was my introduction to it. I fell into it.
I had a sense that that existed out there but I was far removed that I couldn’t get to that thing. There was no place to do floppy copy parties. I remember one time, I met a guy on a mainframe, who also had Apple II. My parents drove me across town to a sketchy mobile home park, a trailer park. They dropped me off to hang out with some weird guy.
Mine did too. I did the same thing too.
I went to his house because he had dual floppies and I only have one, so it’s a lot better to copy. That was weird stuff. That seems amazing because you probably got far fast doing that.
I got to learn about password security and logging. Joe Grand was the one who remembered this guy’s name. There used to be a guy on the East Coast and it’s because I could call anywhere on this scheme at the time. There used to be a guy on the East Coast who would set up voicemail boxes because all the voicemail systems were brand new at the time, they all had stupid hardcoded backdoors. You could call into one, dial a few different codes to see which brand it was, get yourself administrator privilege, and set up a voicemail box on (77245) extension, which no one is ever going to dial in history because it’s a two-digit extension box. (77) is not allowed, so you’d make these absurd voicemail boxes, no one ever knows they’re happening. This guy would call in and he’s like, “Here we go. I’ve got numbers for six bulletin boards,” and read them fast. It was like the Micro Machine’s commercial guy. He read them so fast. He’s like, “Here are thirteen Mastercards all fresh in the last 24 hours. American Express, Visa.”
The Hacker ethos has always been anti-aesthetic. It’s not as good to look good as it is not to be cool.
Tweet
He’s reading the stuff up in the voicemail boxes.
He’s not even putting it on a digital packetized thing and leaving a modem tone or something. He reads it off. The capacity to do stuff was far away from the practice of how to do it. If a guy is reading you into a phone and you’re calling, in the end, the next voicemail box would be a phone number and a voicemail by extension. That one would never get used again and get deleted a couple of days later. Once you get on the train, you’ve got to stay on the train. It’s like a podcast that was hard to get.
When did you first end up going to DEF CON?
Shortly after all of these shenanigans, my age of majority was starting to approach and I was working a lot. I bought my first car when I was fourteen. I wanted to get going in life. With Operation Sun Devil and some of the other police anti-hacker moves in the late ‘80s and at the transition to the ‘90s, with that stuff going on, I decided to put away all of those childish things and go out in the world and do my thing. I got my first programming job before my eighteenth birthday and went fully professional. I helped the guy who built the Sonic Arris Assembly Line and all these little projects and cool little things I fell into working with Datalight, Roy Sherrill in particular. They lifted my career up.
I went in for a programming interview and they said, “The Program is Tic Tac Toe in C.” I was like, “Cool. Do you have a book on C? I’ve never seen that language before.” I sat there and for eight hours, I learned C and got a partly working Tic Tac Toe and they were like, “If that’s your first day in C, you are in.” That was mostly because I’d had Mr. McKay and Ainsworth in the Marysville high school system. They put a lot of effort into exposing kids early and effectively to programming. I learned logo when I was eleven. I would assume it would be now the normal programming course. I’m meeting more kids that haven’t taken a programming class and I’m a little surprised.
It’s finally been legitimized. When I was a kid, I remember everybody’s parents wanted them to grow up to be a doctor or a lawyer because those were legitimate career choices. Computer programmer sounded psychedelic. Now, it’s like, “You should be a computer programmer or doctor, definitely not a lawyer.” That’s the progression. It’s the revenge of the nerds. We ended up succeeding at making careers, businesses and a lot of money.
The explicit goals of the Ghetto Hackers were to improve our skills, our revenue and our careers.
Hacking was a thing when you’re a kid and you ended up getting jobs. I remember when I got out of high school, I got a zillion computer consulting jobs. Whenever somebody wanted to do something with a computer, somebody goes, “Call this guy because he knows computers.” I never knew what I was doing. It’s like the C thing, I’m like, “I’ll figure it out.” I figured it out because I wanted to prove that I could do it or I wouldn’t get another job. That’s was my whole early career, but I might still be doing that.
I am.
I don’t know if that’s a personality thing or the window in time. I didn’t go to college because I was busy. I could get these jobs to play with cool, new computers. Why would I pay somebody else to play with their old computer? That’s how it went and that worked out for me.
I lived for two years because a friend said, “You have to go to college and I’ll drive you.” I was like, “Did someone gave you a ride to college?” In two years, I almost finished it. I quit because it was too boring.
For similar reasons, I did get signed up for college as a way to get the student loan so I could buy a car. I skipped all my classes to go snowboarding and that wasn’t considered copacetic. I was going to drop out but I wanted another student loan. I signed up again and I decided to only take classes that sounded fun or interesting. I was looking through the course catalog and I found the dance classes. I had never taken any dance classes but I signed up for dance classes. I took tap dance, ballet dance, jazz dance, African-Haitian dance and every kind of dance class they had. It was fun.It paid off. I’m still there. That was a good life decision. It worked out great and then I dropped out.
You got the good stuff. First is dessert then screw the meal, let’s go dancing.
You got legit. Somewhere along the way, professionally, you ended up falling in with hackers again or somehow ended up with them.
I was working on a newsreader to convert Usenet to FidoNet. I mostly spent my time on FidoNet at the time and using it for binaries, for downloads of a certain kind. I was working on a QuickReader format translator to package back and forth and connect up the old FidoNet to the Usenet. It turns out it didn’t matter. One of the things that choked my reader was this message posted to Usenet and it was an invitation to DEF CON 4 and it was two months after DEF CON 4. I opened it and I looked at it and it was like, “Underground Hacker Convention.” I was like, “You are sending this out in public.” I got this weird ASMR thing. My hair stood up on my skin. I got all weird feeling, I was like, “Hackers are outside now. You can meet people in real life.” I was always taught like, “Don’t use it from home. Don’t admit it. Pretend to be an amateur spy.” When I saw that, it stuck in my head.
For month after month, I kept reopening this file and looking at it. I can’t even explain what it was like. It was something magical. I ended going to the website. I found the DEF CON 5 invitation. I made my plans. I went to the opening discussion and Mudge is on stage and I’m fanboying, squealing. Mudge points at me and he says, “That guy right there is one of the best hackers you’ll ever know.” I’m like, “Something is wrong.” The Hobbit is right next to me. Hobbit stands up and he’s like, “Thank you. I wrote Netcat.” I lost my mind. I went from fanboy to fangirl or fan kid. I was sitting in this room and there were 500 or 1,000 hackers together. You could see it in everyone’s eyes, every person there had something to tell you about. I started little conversations here and there. Do you know when they say, “I found my people?”
Yep.
I walked into the room and I found my people. I was adopted as a kid. I’ve always felt a little on the fringe.
How old were you when you were adopted?
Two months.
Did it felt different?
It felt different. My family all look alike and I look different. I go in there and I’m like, “Everyone here is pasty white. I’m the man or at least a boy.” It was like a clone army. It felt like being a Stormtrooper and we’re on the Death Star. I’m like, “I’m home.”
These days, it’s something that the hacker community gets much credit for being a place to feel included. For a certain class of person, that was the case.
It was a life-changing moment when I sat there and met these people.
The Anarchist Cookbook
Being a computer nerd in the ‘80s, for those who weren’t around for that, wasn’t cool.
It was maybe like what drug problems are. You’re alone at home, in the basement. No one is looking. No one will talk about it. No one wants to hear about it.
If you’re into drugs and you at least have a leather jacket, it might be cool. If you’re a computer nerd in the ‘80s, there’s nothing about being cool. It can be isolating.
You’re the first one to get kicked off the raft.
It’s like, “The raft doesn’t have room for you.” “I’m skinny.” “There’s no room for you.”
“Code a raft for yourself.”
That’s a great story. It’s probably equivalent to the story for every other single individual in that room at the time. It was a community made of nothing.
That Saturday night, there wasn’t a huge amount of well-known or well-publicized parties. It wasn’t like now where you go around and you get sixteen invites to go to a party on a Saturday night at DEF CON.
DEF CON now is 25,000 people.
It’s massive. Corporations throw parties at DEF CON now.
Microsoft and Facebook do.
All the little security firms do it. For me, when I was there, I didn’t know what to do on a Saturday night but I wanted to do something with the hackers. To be honest, I’ve told that story several times that way. My wife at the time went to the liquor store and got a couple of bottles, brought them back to the hotel room, and I stood at the hotel room door like a lady of the night. I’m standing there and pulling my jeans up a little shorter and seeing if I could attract hackers to come in and get free drinks.
I’m standing in the doorway and pulling people into the room. Everybody was happy to come in and say hi and meet each other and stuff. The social tools they had available to them lasted about 2 or 5 minutes. They’re standing on the wall waiting for somebody to have a party. It was about to be a magical thing. I’m looking at all these people and I’m thinking, “You all love each other. You all have all this stuff in common. You love the same stuff. Why aren’t you either making out if you’re inclined or talking and making out with your brains? Why aren’t you doing stuff together? I’ve put you in the room. Why aren’t you doing the thing?”
It was this breakthrough moment, I said, “I need $10,000. Let’s steal it from Western Union. Let’s get Western Union to give us fraud money.” They were like, “We can’t do that.” I was like, “Let’s decide whether we can do that once we make our plan.” All of a sudden, it turns into Ocean’s Twelve up in there. All of a sudden, everybody is a criminal. They’re like, “Let’s analyze this. Is there a backdoor? Do we have pictures of the place? Where’s the wire? What protocol do they use? Is there encryption? What about the terminals? Can we dig?” Immediately, everyone jumped in and started throwing their passion at it.
Of course, we were never going to do it and no one ever did. There’s no conspiracy to be active further. It’s a fun conversation. People in the hallway who were walking by and looking like they were ready for bed would hear the noise and turn and come back and join. The party went from 8 or 10 people by about midnight to 30 people crammed into a single, small hotel room. All was jamming and talking and yelling, “That doesn’t work.” All this crazy energy and I looked at it and I thought, “Something about what happened is the most important thing in my life and I need to figure it out. I need to be able to reproduce this. I need to bottle this crap.”
I came back the next year and I decided to brand the party as the challenge. I hadn’t worked out to put the puzzle on the invitations yet. It was an invitation to a party. I took them around and I set them in innocuous places. They were on a clear laminate with a fragile ink. If you rubbed your thumb over it, you’ll destroy the entire invitation. I set out 200 of them on tables and places where they were hard to see. I’m not sure which year this was. It was the second year I did the party.
This is about ‘95.
No, more like ‘98. I went back. Once the party got going, I said, “Let’s try this other challenge. Let’s try this other thing.” Wallflowers turned into extroverts. As soon as the state of their brain could lock on to something that was a challenge, something they couldn’t get their whole mind around quickly. For the kinds of friends we have, for the hacker mind, putting something in their brain that they’re okay with and that they want to think about that’s fun, that is complex enough that it gets their creativity chewing, it occupies their critical voice. This is my hypothesis from watching this party happen. As soon as they get this thing in their brain to work on, all of the self-criticism and internal doubt finds no exit. They can’t start talking in their brain because this problem is talking to them. They lose that sense of self-consciousness that can be toxic.
It’s interesting because if you think about what’s attractive to computer hackers, hacking is like this bottomless pit of puzzles. It’s that bottomless pit of intrigue where everything about the computer, it’s like, “That’s funny. It wasn’t supposed to do that. What happened?” You dig. That’s what debugging code is like. It’s puzzles. Security problems, in particular, like puzzles, it’s like, “You’re not supposed to be able to do that but I got it to do something it’s not supposed to do.” That’s mentally stimulating and interesting and a lot of it’s done in isolation. It’s done alone. That conversation isn’t happening with another person in the room. What’s interesting about those challenge parties is it bridged the gap to doing the thing that they like to do but doing it with other people.
Something that is still important to me is learning more about that, doing it better and finding ways to engage more in different people. Years ago, there was a battle of the sexes. Some horrifying men in the computer security community are taking some angst out on the women in the industry.
If you had to stereotype DEF CON attendees over the years, there’s a lot of poorly socialized males. Like anything else, you get better at it with practice. If you grew up by yourself in your bedroom with a computer, you’re missing out on some of the work it takes to get good at cooperating with other people and treating them well and those things. It doesn’t surprise me. It’s a community that welcomes people. There’s no screening process. You just show up.
All the behaviors that people would have that would signal to any normal person that’s like, “Stay away from that person. They’re creepy.” We don’t have a defense mechanism for those. You could be creepy and show up and we’re like, “You’re creepy.” I don’t know if you’re in a sorority or something. You wouldn’t get within 100 miles of a sorority before some football players were hired to get rid of you. There are those things. As inclusive as the community is for those reasons, it accepts people who are not specifically well balanced in other ways. I’m not saying everyone is that way.
I would further that though. I would say that some of the people, myself included, who are part of the community have done a poor job of accepting and criticizing the artwork. It seems a little tangential but a lot of the artwork in our community in the early years, in the ‘90s at least, came from metal bands and industrial music or anime. In the anime, especially, there’s maybe an overly stereotypical presentation of females and that was the aesthetic. That was what was happening. Everybody wore those t-shirts. That’s what it looked like to be around us at the time.
Capture the Flag has done more to escalate the defenders than anything else.
Tweet
Not enough people had absorbed that the artwork that they choose, the decorations that they choose are messages that reinforce or subvert stereotypes. By having a social norm of reinforcing certain stereotypes, especially the love of Japan, whatever that was going around in the late ‘80s and early ‘90s, Snow Crash and all those cultural iconic moments and the movie Akira. Letting that become the visual language we use to represent ourselves has the consequence of giving us a reduced conversation around, for instance, gender issues.
One of the things that have been tickling me in the back of the brain is how could we bring a discussion around personal aesthetic into the hacker community in a way that gives people a much more diverse self-presentation? A much more diverse self-presentation, one that they can talk to and one that other people can criticize effectively to say, “That thing that you’re wearing is like a pro-holocausts t-shirt. I don’t like that. There’s something wrong with that,” and opening that conversation. Now, people at DEF CON can wear some offensive stuff. People don’t think that’s part of the conversation. They don’t think that’s part of their environment. They don’t think that’s part of their responsibility. You think that other person is doing something wrong, maybe, or they don’t. The people who don’t know that they’re doing something wrong are having their stereotypes reinforced.
There’s a ton of stuff in there to pick apart.
You were talking about that on the other episode.
I’m always a little cautious to throw people under the bus from history or to cast judgment on the past. People are doing the best they could with the situation. We know more now. We can go piece together how we got here. We can see the things that were happening in this community that led to the problems that happened and you certainly want to learn from that. It’s interesting because you’ve identified a set of issues that have become a big deal. One of the things I loved about my social group, my friends being hackers, is the comparative irreverence that they have. These are people who don’t take the status quo for granted. They’re willing to argue about anything. They want to find a way to reason their way to their beliefs. They have no compunction about telling you when you’re full of crap. I remember times when you did that for me.
That’s why we’re friends.
I value that. I need that. I want to be able to take an idea, shoot a bunch of holes in it and see if there’s something left standing at the end of the day. That has influenced my process as an inventor. That’s what we do. I don’t find that in other communities the same way. People are worried about social hierarchy. They’re worried about their status. They’re worried about offending others. They’re worried about all these things and it keeps them from having these honest conversations.
Not to defend it but one of the things I saw in the hacker community in those days, the late ‘90s, is that it was accepting of whatever you brought. You could show up. You could wear a t-shirt with something offensive on it and everybody would be like, “Cool. Whatever.” It was accepting of marginally criminal behavior. It was accepting lots of anti-social behavior. It was accepting people who were gay. I saw that there are more than in other places I had been. You could be gay and that was no problem. Trans people, for sure, were more accepted there in general than in other places. This might be less true now. At DEF CON, maybe there’s a lot of that. It was accepting a wide variety. Drugs are more accepted, psychedelics and things like that, that wouldn’t be in other communities.
I’m not somebody who had any of those things that I needed acceptance of. I learned to be accepting of those things or at least slow to judge. I appreciate that. I remember that having a positive influence on me. I’m not trying to defend it. I certainly know, especially for women, this was a hostile environment in a lot of cases. This is not an accepting environment that was comfortable for women. I have a lot of female friends who were hackers that would come and they had put up with a lot to be there. They were brave. Some of them had to compromise themselves in ways to be there.
In my early experience with women, they were tough as nails and sharp.
Even the term in and of itself is derogatory in a sense. It’s like saying, “They have no other value other than to look pretty and be there with some guy.” It isn’t cool but that’s the context.
That’s what it seemed like at the time anyway. I only mean to say that looking forward. One of the things that would be a healthy endeavor would be to engage in some aesthetic discussion, which is new. The Hacker ethos has always been anti-aesthetic. It’s not as good to look good as it is not to be cool. That was how we tried to make the Capture the Flag game. It’s cool but we didn’t necessarily try to make it look good. We tried to give it a lot of experience, a lot of stuff. It was still gritty.
That’s the origin of the challenge party. How did you end up playing Capture the Flag? Maybe describe that.
Originally, Capture the Flag was a game run by Miles Connolly as far as I know, from the beginning. Miles would organize to have some people bring in servers and then everybody else could come in and they could play Capture the Flag. They could try to capture those servers by hacking them.
Each server had to have a file on it and that was the flag. You’d hack into it and get the file.
You’d write the file. You’d put your name in the file called flag.txt. The first year I went, I didn’t know about it or played it or anything. It was just talk. The second year, I went and saw that there was this Capture the Flag game. There were big banquet tables and different people at different tables had gone up and purchased some static IP addresses to participate in the network. There was a table that had a couple of spaces open in it and I sat down at that table and I opened up my laptop and introduced myself. I made the fateful decision to buy a round of drinks. After it, we’re blood brothers forever.
I bought a round of drinks. We got our drinks. We drank them. We set all the empty cups in the middle of the table. The next guy bought the round and it went around the table. This went on for two days. We barely left the table that year. We sat there and we were all working separately. We didn’t know what we were doing. We didn’t know each other. It turned out that two other people at the table lived here in Seattle. When I got on the plane back, one of them was on the airplane with me and I was like, “You’re my blood brother. We bought drinks for each other. We’re bound together forever. Where do you live?” He lived four blocks from me and that was Michael Eddington from Deja vu Security.
It’s is probably one of the few companies populated with actual hackers on this planet.
The whole team, they are brilliant people and many of whom I’ve worked with before. He set up a mail server and that was the thing and I started inviting everybody on the mailing list, which was mostly those three of us but then we started going to 2,600 every month in Seattle.
That was already going and you guys showed up.
We showed up and we started bringing whatever we had hacked last, whatever was on Packet Storm. Bring in an exploit, go in and talk about it, see who could carry on a reasonable conversation, and invite them over to the house. We grabbed the entire hacking community in Seattle and made them into Ghetto Hackers, one after the next and up to the next. I don’t remember how we got in touch with MD5. Maybe he was the third guy. I got them all together. It started on Tuesday nights at my house, building up our idea of how to be ready for a hacking contest was. The truth of it is Michael Eddington did all the work. He was like, “I’ve downloaded Packet Storm and made it into a searchable database and you can have access to it.” We were all like, “Sweet.” On the back of his research and his collecting Packet Storm, his mirror, we won the contest the second year playing.
You guys went and tried to do Capture the Flag as a team.
We had this idea that it would be a cool thing to do. We went and we won. We came home. We’re super jacked and super excited. We went and rented a workspace and started to try and make a real thing out of it.
At that time, this was probably the only hacking contest on Earth.
I’ve never been in touch with CCC so I don’t know what their history timeline is. I know that’s even bigger and older. We went back the third year to win the second time and it was a little harder because people were getting a little more serious. The excitement was starting to ramp up about the contest. We had to resort to fairly shady means to win that. We won that year again. The third year, we went and we coerced the team that was going to win into joining the Ghetto Hackers and merging our points. We won the third year in a row. It was shady. That irritated one of the other teams, rightfully so. That was some out of the box thinking.
This was a contest all about out of the box thinking. I don’t know which year it was, maybe before you went, there was a server room that had to be highly guarded because those are the machines you’re trying to hack into. They didn’t want to let anybody mess with them. I remember one year somebody brought a VAX mainframe to put in there. People bring all different kinds of computers. It had been gutted and there was a guy inside. In the middle of the night, he climbed out of the mainframe and locally routed all the machines because they were all there. It was easy and that’s how they won. There’s lots of shady stuff.
It’s a hacking contest. Our view was if you have a hacking contest, do whatever it takes to win. That was the zenith of the idea that we would do anything to win. Hearing the other team’s frustration triggered a guilt reaction. I was like, “This is probably crossing the line into unfun.” We got up. We got our awards at the end of the conference and our Black Badges. I asked Jeff if I could use his mic and talk for a minute and I announced that we were taking over Capture the Flag.
I remembered this. Did Jeff not know this?
Jeff didn’t know. Miles didn’t know. Nobody knew.
I was in the audience. I thought this is amazing. I didn’t realize that you hadn’t even got DT on board.
Nobody was on board. Nobody agreed. Nobody ever approved. To this to this day, we never got approval to do it.
Did you make this up on the fly?
I made it up on the fly at that moment.
What happened?
We went home and we got serious. We cranked and we cranked. I’m going to say this in different two different ways. Michael Eddington built the core router that was the actual network. He’s such a talented hacker. MD5 built the client operating system. A few people put in all this amazing work. I wrote the scoreboard software. My main contribution was arguing over threat models the whole time for the whole year. How are people going to cheat? In the second year, we double NAT everyone so that you couldn’t tell either what IP address you were coming from or to through the central router so that it would look like everything was homogeneous. The central router also reached out to your machine and tested whether it was working. You had to get defensive points and offensive points.
At this point, the Ghetto Hackers are running the contest. You guys changed the architecture of the competition.
Instead of being either an attacker or a defender, we made everyone be both. Everybody has to be red team and blue team. We got the idea of there being service uptime points. We got the idea of there being transient points that were capturable, they’re like tokens that you had to capture in flight.
You’re running services and you got to keep them going.
The funniest one was one of the teams realized that when the packets went to hops from the enemy team to the central router to theirs, the TTL was 254. When it came from the scoreboard, the TTL is 255. They blacklisted all TTL 254 traffic. They got a perfect service uptime for the entire contest. Nobody could even see them or scan them.
No one could figure out how they did it.
That was one of those like, “We screwed up TTL.”
I was doing this thing called Capture Capture the Flag. Me and the Shmoo Group had made this logging system that would try to log every packet from the entire competition. We thought, “This will be interesting, historical artifacts, to see the TCP dump from the entire Capture the Flag competition.” Now that it’s been decades, it probably would be interesting to go with those dumps. We still have them of like, “What kind of hacking were people doing because it should have been state of the art hacking on the network for that timeframe?”
You have to remember that at that time, the way that we won the first year, the second year, and the third year was deploying known exploits. A hacker, at that time, might be building their own exploits. It was a good network search person with some script kiddie capabilities. That was the thing that we also added to the contest. We did use live services that were state of the art at the time. You could use state of the art exploits in attacks. We also started building custom services so that these were new pieces of software so that people would have to adapt and improvise. Our view was that it was a little too much of tactical exploit deployment in the original contest and a little too little of creative problems. We tried to get creative problem solving, real-time scoring, a lot of these pieces that are pretty much standard in every hacker conference in the world.
In those days, the game went from Capture the Flag, which is all the thought that goes into it is in a tweet to a sophisticated game. You guys did a lot to turn it into a spectator sport.
We wanted to bring the audience in and give them a reason.
Before that, all you could see was a bunch of drunk guys on laptops. With what you guys did, it turned into something people could see in real-time play out, at least the leaderboards and things. You guys ran it for three years.
If you take the frustration as a thing to stop at, as a negative signal, then you’re going to fail.
Tweet
We tried one with one and we ran three and then we handed it over to Kenshoto.
That was a different gang of hackers who decided to run with it for a few years.
They took it in a direction much more seriously, new exploit authorship, simpler, smaller systems so you could do a better job as a player, simpler scoring. One of my concerns and a well-founded one is that it tends to be the case that one of the teams is going to run away with the contest. If somebody figures out either how to never get hacked like a TTL 254 team or how to hack everyone at every time tick and get all the tokens at such a pace. You’re attacking seven other teams. Hypothetically, you can get a whole weekend’s worth of scoring in about five hours.
My argument and one that has been unsuccessful but I would still stand up for is that we wanted to have the contest. We wanted it to remain relevant over the course of a three-day contest. The leaderboards that we came up with were a little hard to read and a little confusing. They were like deltas in a recent time. That didn’t give people a sense of who was winning or losing but it gave them a sense of who was pulling ahead and so forth. I wanted it to be a little more like NASCAR in the individual race sense as opposed to Formula One where the champion is well-known for weeks at a time.
There’s a hacking contest every weekend somewhere all over the world going on. Do you think it has relevance in computer security?
Yeah. Capture the Flag has done more to escalate the defenders than anything else. Maybe that’s a bold statement but I feel that when we started, the attacks were static because the defense was static. As the defense became more naked and simple, like with the Kenshoto version of the game where they shrunk it all down and made it a much less code, much less stuff to worry about, it’s was streamlined. The attacks, you could reasonably, in a day or so, build a custom exploit and send something in. You build zero days live.
At first, it escalated a lot of hackers from script kiddies to exploit authors. At the same time, we saw the rise of a net exploit. We see all of these advances in counter defensive technologies and all these crazy exploit techniques. When I was winning Capture the Flag with the Ghetto Hackers, when we were there, no person I had met had that flexibility and capacity. Now, every DEF CON speaker has it. It burst the exploit author bubble and blew them up fast but that created intense pressure on all the other teams that maybe they did or they didn’t have a great exploit author. It created much more pressure on the defenders. That’s why we see Naval Warfare College. Chris Eagle’s team, the Naval Postgraduate School. We see these teams from military, from other countries. There’s a Chinese hacker team that comes to DEF CON.
We see these guys coming and they bring new talent and they bring great exploitation capability but it’s not that much different than it has been in the past. However, the defensive capabilities, the power of these guys, these guys set up live DevOps shop at the table and they start deploying router configs. If something goes wrong, they got an alarm setup. These guys, in an hour, are setting up what used to take ten years of general dynamics. I thought it was there to measure and to separate hackers from moderate coders. I thought it was there to rank and organize people. That was my original concept of what it was doing as a mechanic, but it wasn’t. If done well, it gave the attackers a field to practice in. Once they seeded the field, it gave defenders a place to grow up. I don’t know if you remember Trustworthy Computing at Microsoft, the TwC initiative.
Yeah.
That was sensible, hardcore, smart people building security on chips and getting ready for a world of digital media. They were doing a great thing. They had nothing in that system that compares to what a DEF CON Capture the Flag team has now. The idea that one of the most vaunted security programs in the world, ten years later, is replaceable by sixteen-year-olds.
In my mind, that’s the difference between trying to be smart and architect for a hypothetical future versus having your feet on the ground and testing and steering your way into what works.
They say, “Steel sharpens steel.”
It’s a much different game. Big companies make that mistake all the time. It’s why they suck at innovation. They’re trying to guess what the market is going to want years in advance. You can’t guess. Nobody can guess. That’s what’s amazing about not only hacking but the software in general. It gives us a way to test everything and that’s working well.
You have to have it in-hand all day, every day and have an obsession to perfect it. You have to have both those pieces.
That’s the progression of Capture the Flag and, to some extent, DEF CON. I get a lot of questions from people about, “How do I become a hacker?” I probably have 7,000 variants of that question in my email from people who’ve asked me over the years and I don’t have time to reply to them. One of the things I’m hoping we can do with the podcast is give folks a sense of at least what our experience has been and what our observations have been and maybe help people feel like they know what track to get on.
A lot of that intrigue comes from kids who are interested in computers. It comes from kids or people in different stages of their life, maybe who are interested in computer security for different reasons. A lot of it is folks who are attracted to hacking with some of the same sentiments that we had where they’re slightly marginalized or loners or had more of a positive experience with their computer than they did with Boy Scouts. I don’t know what to tell people exactly. It would be good for us to try and figure out if there’s advice or where to start. A lot of times, the questions show that they don’t know where to start. It’s like, “What programming language should I start with? Where can I learn to hack?” Will you teach me?” “No, I won’t teach you. That’s not what you would want anyway.”
I understand the question that you’re asking. I found that there are a couple of pieces that are important. I’ve tried to answer this a lot over the years. I’ve searched for the right answer. There’s one way that I started and this is a sarcastic joke but it comes in the form of a Japanese Koan, a Zen Koan. The pupil says to the master, “How do I become a hacker?” The master says, “You don’t.” The pupil says to the master, “Fuck you.” In a way, the way that you become a hacker is by refusing to let someone stop you. There’s a clinging to the decision to do it that is utterly required.
The thing about anything that is purely noetic, purely idea space concept or an idea space mechanic is that you will feel frustrated until you don’t. If you take frustration as a thing to stop at, as a negative signal, then you’re going to fail. You’re going to fail once and never again. As I’ve seen many times, people who say they want to become hackers, get to the moment when they are angry, “It’s not working. It doesn’t work the way that it said it would. Screw this. This is too hard. I can’t do this.” Some word goes through their head and then they take the frustration as a reason to back away, reconsider themselves, and distance themselves from the identification with the hacker. It’s almost like oil and water. You have to be able to feel frustrated to know what frustration feels like to be able to call it frustration. Stand up and walk in a circle and sit back down and do it again. You have to be able to swim in frustration. Hackers are fish and frustration is water. It’s the only thing you get.
I certainly never was able to articulate it that way but when you described that, it is entirely my childhood and my early career. Looking back, there’s nothing about my experience with computers. It was different than that. I was constantly frustrated and I’ll stare at something, “Why isn’t it working? It doesn’t make any sense.” There was no easy way out. That accurately describes my experience. Having it described is like a fundamental architecture for success in that mindset. You’re right. These days, there’s a popular notion of grit. Grit is like the people who are like, “Stick it out. If you give up early, you’re robbing yourself of that.” It’s an interesting point. How do you foster that?
First, you have to identify as a person who’s not going to let things stop you. This is a case on the computer where there’s no injustice. In the machine itself, there is no injustice. There is never an unfair game. There is never an unfair set of rules. There’s never a software that doesn’t want to work for you because you don’t look, talk, sound, or smell right. You are the only thing that can screw up between you and your computer.
That means that everything between you and your computer is perfectible because you can change, grow, and learn and the computer can’t. It can’t participate in this. It can’t let you down and it can’t lift you up. It is just there. It is going to work and do the same thing every time. You have to first decide that you’re not going to let other people stop you from doing it and then you have to decide you’re not going to let yourself stop you from doing it.
Except that the computer is never smart enough to be a jerk and then decide that. When the frustration comes, that frustration is the heat that is melting your bad ideas and turning them into good ideas and they suck and it hurts to melt your brain and put it back together into pieces. It’s going to be painful. The thing to do is to build it up from the bottom. I know this is uncool in the way that people are taught now, but I highly recommend there’s a lot of programming games where you run little robots around and you set tiles down or something on the floor.
The robot moves through the room and tries to do automated assembly instructions if you’re making a factory or something. These programming games contain all of the critical concepts in computing. They have recursion, iteration, enumeration and all of the things that you need to be able to do to assemble a concept in your brain that’s going to turn into a useful program. I recommend people start with games that don’t have an explicit programming language that are teaching you sequential reasoning.
Commodore 64: Programmer’s Reference Guide
If you don’t have access to one of those, then what you can do and I did because I didn’t have access at the time. Carl Cluster was a great geometry teacher. He told me, “If you write down everything you know, then you can do anything that you’ve ever been shown or ever been taught. You can do it because you won’t forget it. The only thing that can go wrong is forgetting how to do stuff once you’ve been taught. If you write it down, and you write it down in carefully detailed instructions how to do a proof or how to do algebra. If you write down the actual ideas in a row, then your brain will remember the pieces, but it will assemble the pieces into a larger concept.” I highly recommend for a person who wants to be a programmer that they begin to take excruciatingly detailed notes in math class. That has a strong mapping to the process of computational reasoning and sequential logic. Doing things like this that get your brain around those core ideas is so much more important than learning a programming language.
First of all, the way I think about it is framed by this notion of computational thinking, which is what they call it in my daughter’s school. It’s not necessarily about learning to be a programmer, but it’s learning the way you and I did to understand the way that a computer does so that you can communicate with the computer. You have to communicate with it in a logical progression and that turns out to be a useful skill well beyond computers, programming and everything. They have a class for computational thinking every year from 6th grade to 12th grade, which I’m super excited about. She doesn’t know that it’s cool. She’s like, “I don’t know why I got to this computational thinking class.”
The school is trying to figure out the best way to do that and you have some ideas there that will be helpful. I learned how chips work from Rocky’s Boots, which was a game on Apple II in probably ‘81 or ‘82 where you are going around configuring logic gates. You have AND gates and OR gates. To win the game, you have to put them in order. I didn’t know I was learning. I thought I was playing a game. It turns out, now I know how computer chips work from that thing. There might be other games like that. I know a popular one that a buddy of mine made. Dan Shapiro made this game called Robot Turtles, which is a board game that you can play with a five-year-old.
I have a Kickstarter on that.
He launched on Kickstarter and it’s wildly successful. Get Robot Turtles because you can play it with 5 or 6-year-old kids and they learn how to think logically about making a plan and embodying it in a set of logical steps. I don’t know what’s after that. I know with my daughter, she played Swift Playgrounds, which is a game on iPad that Apple made for kids. Half of the screen looks like a video game. You have a character on a map that you’re giving directions to, but you tell it what to do by writing Swift, which is a programming language Apple has now. It’s a scripting language.
Each level is introducing a new programming concept. You learn what a four loop is at different levels. She was probably 8 or 9 or 10 when I started it out with her. I wouldn’t say she loved it, but she loved doing it as an activity with me. It tries to explain things so you don’t need somebody to do that. Having me go through it with her helped a bunch. She doesn’t even know it, but she does have some of those ideas in her head already because we did that stuff when she was a kid.
I was going to say one extra thing about the ideas I have about how to become a hacker. One of them is finding someone on the internet, in a college, in your church or wherever you go that’s trustworthy. Kids, talk to your parents first.
Not that we did, but yeah.
We didn’t but they dropped us off across town at a trailer park. Find someone trustworthy who is a professional programmer while you’re learning. Go to them not as soon as you feel frustrated. You have to learn to accept and to perform with frustration. When your frustration turns to anger or fear or sadness or something when the frustration wells up and creates secondary emotions, then pull back, take a shower, go for a run, go outside, or do something different. Talk to the person when you can. It doesn’t have to be live, “Help me. I’m doing this right now.”
Set aside time and send them an email, so they answer you the next day or something and be clear, “Here’s what I’m trying to figure out. Here’s the program as it sits now. Here’s the output. I’m supposed to make it look like this. What am I doing wrong? What’s the problem here?” There’s something about knowing that there’s someone who’s going to help you when you get stuck. That makes it a lot easier in my experience for younger people to accept frustration. Also, get yourself somebody somewhere. You’ve got to find some.
Have a place you can go and ask the question. Don’t be quick about writing your question. Take a minute to introduce yourself and introduce what you’re doing. “I’m a sixth-grade student. I’m just learning Logo. My turtle doesn’t go left when I do this left instruction.” The person is like, “That’s because you spelled left wrong.” It may be simple stuff. Give people a sense of the story of what you’re going through and that will make one, you, accept your frustration better. Two, they want to help more. Three, it will focus their help and help generate some social relationships.
That’s another one where you’ve articulated well, but that is what happened with me. Lots of times, it didn’t have that person, but I did find that person. That’s what those folks on the mainframe work. That’s what folks in Usenet groups work. I miss email lists. In the ‘90s, you had an email list for every programming language, every topic and everything. There were a bunch of nerds who were there and you could ask them questions when you got stuck.
You didn’t want to waste their time by asking dumb questions, so you would try to work through it until you were too frustrated and then do it. That is equivalent. You and I probably have no experience with this, but I keep thinking the way you’re describing things sounds analogous to what people experience with in sports. The way you describe the computer as being completely objective and just. Sports are like that. You’re running on track against a clock.
Everything about it is fair. It’s up to you to run as fast as you can. It’s not judging you because you showed up with a screwy haircut or wearing the wrong sneakers or something. That’s your problem. Maybe that’s another area where people get to shape themselves because they’re working against objective metrics, and then they get that frustration. They’re like, “If I could do it a little faster,” and that kind of thing. They have that coach. Once it gets too extreme, they can fall back on the coach and get that insight and that helping hand.
Even if they’re saying, “I don’t think I can do this anymore.” They express the resignation they feel and the coach can be like, “That’s okay. You have to feel that way. You will make it. I promise. I’m going to help you a little more. We’ll push a little differently. Let’s fix this and make it better.” Sometimes, you need to know from the outside that, one, there’s a tribe for you, and two, that the tribe loves you and is going to stick with you. Your frustration does not make you a bad part of the tribe.
It’s interesting because it puts a fine point on folks with other interests who might not ever get that kind of experience. They might not get that experience of working through frustration of being able to develop themselves in an objective situation where they’re not being judged and isn’t just. That might be true if you were into performing arts or something like that or something more social if you’re interested in politics. I think of different things, but we were lucky to have that.
I’m starting a new company, so I have a lot of entrepreneurial things to do. I had to find a lawyer and get a lawyer. I don’t know how to tell which lawyer is better than any other lawyer, so I’m asking other entrepreneurs like, “Who have you used? Who was good and why?” I talk to lawyers and see if I like them and figure this out. I don’t know what I’m doing but I’ve got to get through that. I’m frustrated with it because I don’t even want a lawyer, but I got one.
You’ve got to go through that frustrating process, but I’m doing the same kinds of things that I did when I was trying to debug a program. I’m still using that computational thinking. I’m making a list of features that I need. I’m figuring out the logical progressions like, “I can’t interview lawyers until I get introductions and I can’t get an introduction, so I’ve got to figure out who’s had them before and people I know that I can email or talk to.”
All of that is a progression that I take for granted because I worked that way. Learning and developing that skill is the fundamental thing that kids should probably be doing or trying to do in any context and you could do it in any context. You’ve done a great job identifying the things to look for. There’s another one though, which I often associate with hackers. It’s a different mindset. What you’ve described so far could be applied to becoming a programmer, which is different than becoming a hacker.
There’s a certain amount of time you have to spend becoming a programmer. Hacking, to pick an exact definition for me, is causing systems to produce unintended effects. To do that, you have to be able to understand the systems and to understand the systems, you have to be a programmer. I consider the path toward being a hacker as being initially all about becoming a programmer who can write in a low-level language like C Counts, ASM, VHDL and anything like that.
Eventually, what you develop is a sense of the conceptual physics inside the computer like, “You can’t add numbers faster than X. You can’t multiply numbers faster than Y. You can’t divide numbers at all because it takes too long.” Don’t ever do that. If you can avoid it, just screw division. It’s not worth it. It’s better to multiply it until you find the answer. Getting an idea of how the memory works, prefetch queue, CPU instructions and those kinds of things, maybe you don’t need to be perfect at them and maybe you don’t need to be an ultra-guru at every one of these pieces.
You at least have to be able to say, “That looks like bedrock. I don’t think I can solve this problem. I need to look elsewhere.” There’s this problem that sometimes people get to, which is they don’t know what part of the problem is solvable and they don’t know which problems to work on, so they end up either trying to solve an unsolvable part and trying to work around reality. That’s where a lot of bad software comes from because people decide that if they do something more complicated, that will make reality easier. That comes from not being close enough to the machine in your sense of aesthetic and your sense of what’s fair, just and reasonable. The computer can’t do that fast.
In the machine itself, there is no injustice. There is never an unfair game. There is never an unfair set of rules.
Tweet
There’s a big path toward programming. The last piece of becoming a programmer in my mind and this is where it ties into the step up to hacker, is the scientific method. You have to be able to say, “I want to compare what this non-working software does in state A versus in state B. I want to make a random change and then change it back, compare the results and do it again.” You have to be able to do this guess and test thing. It’s almost like a guessing test effectively with the scientific method behind you is gaining eyes.
You can start to see through the parts of the problem that are changeable versus seeing the part of the problem that will not budge. When you start to see that, then you can start to say, “I don’t want to try to go through that bedrock because I’ve learned enough times that every time I try to go through or around the bedrock, I start making huge mistakes. It goes off in the weeds and it doesn’t ever accomplish anything.” Your brain turns and it’s like, “What if I attack this other part of the problem?”
That ability to think you’ve got a way in and a directed course to solve the problem you want to solve and realizing that you’re hitting up against a wall that’s not going to budge. Turning your attention to something different like, “What if I attack the password found or the user database?” That is where the famous lateral thinking part of hacking comes in. It’s not just throwing yourself at a wall every day dying on it. It’s throwing yourself against a wall once and going, “That wasn’t padded at all. That hurt a lot. Let’s not do that anymore,” and walking away from an idea.
You have to have that ability to, one, recognize the ideas to be able to use them, test them and see what they work. That’s the programming part. Using the scientific method to decide what’s real and what’s not to convince yourself that you’re seeing what you think you’re seeing, and then having enough experience to know when you’re going down a fruitless avenue. When you have all those pieces together, you naturally begin to develop a sense of a quick pivot. That’s where the hacker’s mind turns the magic on.
That’s a great description of a framework that I haven’t seen articulated well. Even I haven’t been systematic about trying to break down those pieces. Having done that, you could imagine, at least for the first one, which is computational thinking we talked about like, “What kinds of steps somebody might take to get there?”
Computational meta-thinking.
Also, the practical steps, like you described in your math class of learning to write down, what do I know? What do I understand? It then becomes part of your brain’s vocabulary. It might be possible to come up with ideas like that for these other aspects too, like lateral thinking. I certainly like the analogies of, find the bedrock, understand when you’re banging up against an immovable object and learning to steer faster. The only difference between me and most other people that think of me as being creative or whatever is that I’ll turn on a dime. If I get new data that affects my worldview, I can internalize that and have an entirely new worldview within 30 seconds. From then on, I’ll be using the new model. For other people, it could take months or years and that’s the difference.
It is core to all great hackers because of this transformation and they develop this capacity to evaluate when they’re running in the wrong direction. The willingness to say, “I’ve got to skill up in skilling up. I can’t make the skill up process take so long. I need to cut out all this crap of arguing with people and disagreeing. I need to become humble. I need to say, “Yes. If you say so, let’s go for it. Let me make that the new truth.” When you get that limberness and flexibility of approach, then you can back away. You can even identify other tangential mistakes you’ve made in life because of a misunderstanding that you had. You change your worldview, you get working and then you’re like, “I remember this one time. I would now have succeeded at that moment with this new idea in place.”
Your framework is super interesting because most people, and even myself included, have fixated and come at it from the other direction. “Hackers are irreverent. They don’t mind challenging the status quo. They almost do that by default.” Those might more be symptoms than causes, the way you describe it. This is interesting because it might get us closer to understanding how you make hackers. I often chicken out of that question and say, “Probably you know some and you don’t want to hang out with them because they don’t want to watch the Super Bowl with you.”
That’s interesting. I’m going to have to pick that apart. I bet there are things we could do to back out from that. The other question I get is like, “What do I do with my kid? He doesn’t make any friends. He just loves making mods in Minecraft.” I’m like, “Have him drop out of school and play Minecraft because that’s where he’s more productive than other kids his age.” Minecraft is the starter drug for coders. I meet eight-year-old kids out there who can probably go circles around me. They learn to code in Minecraft because they wanted to blow up their friends or whatever and that was a way to do it.
It’s absurd to me. I tried to get my daughter to load Minecraft and play it and I couldn’t even figure out how to load it. It’s complex. I’m like, “I don’t have time for this. I’ve got to load different versions of the JVM, and then I’ve got to get these mods.” I’m watching YouTube videos by kids in junior high telling me how to do it. You realize that’s their FreeBSD install. For us, years ago, trying to install an operating system was like pulling teeth. You learn so much about how a computer works just by trying to install your OS.
I’m a fairly technical Minecraft player. I’ve got a ten-player server. I’ve got a whole world.
I don’t play games so much, but I appreciate that. That was one of the amazing things to see in Minecraft. Maybe a good thing for you and I to do in some days is to figure out like, “For each of those things that need to be developed in that rubric you described, what are tools to do it for kids or college students, or professionals?”
Maybe build a Coursera program.
“What do you tell your kids? What do you tell the teachers at your kid’s school?” That could be a kingpin.
It’s something that has been near and dear for a long time. It stems up out of the parties where I’m trying to get younger new people who are wallflowers to enact with people who are a little older, a little more mature and far-right on the road. I’ve always been fascinated with the degree of skill deployed by some of our friends. I mentioned Mike Harrington a couple of times. He’s a great example of what happens when someone decides they’re going to be great and sticks to it. It’s difficult to sit next to him and feel smart.
Not because his personality makes him smart. He’s a nice guy. I like to hang out with him so other people think I’m probably smart too.
If you’re standing next to the person with a mohawk, you are suddenly cool. You don’t have to get a mohawk.
I’d be inclined to circle back and go deeper on all these topics but we probably should go forever. Do you have any ideas of questions for me?
I heard a rumor that you once sold a patent to Carl Zeiss. Is that true?
Not that I’m aware of. Maybe. I have a lot of patents, but I don’t track them. That would be cool. I don’t know. That’s funny. I never heard of that rumor.
That was an explanation. Now you know that the rumor mill is bigger than your opinion.
People spread that rumor far and wide because that sounds cool, but I’m not aware of it. I have probably 80 patents.
Like 80 filings with numbers or 80 different issues.
Yeah.
Are those families and descendants and all the crap, or do you mean the actual top-level idea?
Some of them are related and you might consider them to be in a family. They’re not near and dear to my heart the same way that some other inventors have that relationship. I had a lot of help on those. Almost all of them are things that I worked on with other inventors, with other people. It’s a community effort, but a few of them are things that I feel proud of that are close to me. It’s not clear to me that any of them have been sold to Carl Zeiss.
What did you try to invent that you failed at?
The first one that comes to mind is that we had tried to cure cancer at the Intellectual Ventures Lab. This came out of an invention session, which is our team sports invention concept. I might have described this before with another podcast. People misunderstand cancer in the first place. Cancer is a thing that your body does all the time. It should be a verb, not a noun. You’re cancering. Most of the time, your body kills that off and flashes it out and you’re fine. Occasionally, it gets out of hand and a whole bunch of cells grows fast, and you’ve got this cancer, which could be contextualized as a tumor.
A lot of times, that doesn’t kill you. It’s fine. You get away with it for a long time. In a lot of kinds of cancer, what will happen is some of those cells break off and circulate in your bloodstream. Those are called circulating tumor cells and they’ll float around your bloodstream and then they’ll latch on somewhere else and metastasize. A bunch of cancer will grow in a completely different place and that’s what will kill you. What we had heard was that on average, these circulating tumor cells circulate your bloodstream one million times before they latch on. We thought, “If you get a million shots on goal, why not just look for them?”
We came up with a bunch of inventions for ways to use fiber optics to jam lenses into your bloodstream and then we were going to use computers to take a photo of every cell in your bloodstream, which is trillions of cells. When I was working on this, it sounded preposterous because that’s a petabyte of photos or something, but we figured, “Why not try digital pictures? It’s cheaper and getting cheaper every year.” One of the ways that we cheated invention is to invent ten years out on Moore’s Law and say, “It would cost you $1 billion to take all those pictures now, but in ten years, probably an iPhone could do it.”
We got some blood and we set up a bunch of experiments to circulate the blood. We try to take pictures of blood cells. We got all that working and then the idea was like, “If we could spot those tumor cells, then we zap them with a laser like we always do.” We’re always wanting to use the laser when we’re inventing stuff because lasers are cool. Down that road, we probably spent about a year on it, and then we found out that circulating tumor cells often only go around one time. We’re like, “If it’s one time, we’ve got no chance.” What I love about that story is that we didn’t keep banging our heads on cancer. We found the bedrock like, “That’s not going to work.”
I worked on self-sterilizing elevator buttons after that because we had an idea for that that made sense. I was able to steer to wherever the next best idea was. I don’t know anything about cancer in the first place. I’m not a cancer expert. I’m not an elevator button expert for that matter, but in that context, it was using that same mindset. It’s moved from the thing that failed to the thing that had potential and that one does. That’s the one that comes to mind. I use that example sometimes because that story makes sense. There are things I wanted to invent that I didn’t get to work on and some, you could say, are failures. Some of them failed to get the time, money, resources, people and that kind of thing. There are other inventions that didn’t work.
People think I’m a crazy futuristic inventor, but I’m quite pragmatic. Most of my inventions are things to do with computers anyway. If I can figure out how to make a computer do something, usually, there’s not going to be a big question about whether it’s going to work or not. A lot of my work is applying computers to things that you normally wouldn’t like. That’s how we ended up at cancer because that’s not a chemistry solution to cancer the way we’ve been doing it. It’s a computational solution to cancer. That’s how I think about those things. I don’t even track them as failures in my mind because you go until you can’t go or it doesn’t make sense. You find the bedrock and then turn and go somewhere else. They’re intersections.
It’s not the destination.
I think of almost everything like a Google Map now. I got started and I put in my destination. There’s a big map, but there’s a blue line showing you how to get there. There are some gray lines showing you alternative routes to get there. You get stuck in traffic, that thing recalculates. You make a wrong turn, it recalculates. You’ve still got your destination in mind. Halfway along the way, you might get hungry and decide, “Screw it. I’m going to go there instead.”
I’m going to register for a career on Maps.Google.com. That’s how a career should be. That’s how it should look like.
I spent 1.5 years thinking about healthcare in that context. The day I get a diagnosis, “You’ve got cancer.” “Show me the blue line.” “You’re going to do this. You’re going to do that. You’re going to get chemo. You’re going to do rehab. You’re going to spend this much time here and end up at the destination.” “I should get to see that blue line.” No one gives you that. If you break your arm, there should be a blue line. “You’re going to go here. You’re going to get a cast. You’re going to do physical therapy. There’s the blue line.” “Why can’t I see that?” How we should be doing everything in the world is like a Google Map.
Daniel Suarez hit that well with Freedom (TM). It is great near-term sci-fi. You’ll want to read Daemon. That first is great about how powerful scripts and batch files can be. The second one is about encrypted mesh networks with HUD overlay blue lines. It’s my thing and your thing jammed together. Daniel Suarez is amazing.
I don’t read a lot of science fiction. The truth is I did read those books. That was a while ago and they have not stuck with me, so I couldn’t recount them the way you did. It’s helpful to have those mental visual models of how to think about complex things.
I love everything should be a blue line.
Why couldn’t you just say, “I want to be a computer security consultant, a programmer at Google, a database administrator, or nurse and see that blue line?” It’s like, “Here’s the main way to get there. Here’s the fastest way to get there. Here’s the cheapest way to get there. Here are some other alternatives that might be more fun. Here’s the way to get there that lets you live in Santa Cruz for a couple of years.” Let people choose from any given moment, “Here’s where you are and here’s where you’re going. Here’s the map of potential choices.”
Khan Academy and Coursera are helping people get there. They have a lot of those things. Khan Academy, in particular, is like, “If you’re going to know that, you’re going to know these things first. This is the secret.” You’re right. You’ve got your thumb on the pulse there.
What does Coursera do that’s like that?
They now have degrees and programs. It lets you pull your pieces together from different schools or different parts as you would do with a college registration. It lets you put together a degree. It’s like, “I’m trying to decide whether to get an MBA. I don’t know whether I need one. I didn’t want to go to college, to begin with. I definitely didn’t need it for my career.”
Everything between you and your computer is perfectible because you can change, grow, and learn, and the computer can’t.
Tweet
If you think you want to do that, I probably know some folks you should talk to about it.
I’ll take you up on that.
I often feel like I’m faking it and I need an MBA. I don’t know what an MBA is.
Everybody else can stop thinking I’m cheating.
There’s this notion, “Whatever business I have, you know you need some around,” and they don’t self-identify as MBAs though.
They do. They are Oxfords.
That is certainly true, but they don’t like to be called MBAs. I keep calling them MBAs. “These are our MBAs.” They’re like, “That’s not exactly. We’re the people. We’re Oxfords.” As far as I can tell, in every company I’ve been in, you do need them. You need one from Harvard and you need one from Stanford. The main reason is they each have an email list with all the other MBAs that they’re on. That’s what you need it for. You and I are on the email list, but we need a proxy in their basic career.
They need to have us with the email lists we’re on.
You and I are on the email list they’ll never touch. MBA might be a way to buy your way into those email lists and then you just do deals. I would never start a company without an MBA from Harvard and Stanford because that’s where the deals come from. All the things that you would learn as an MBA is a way you described the Tic Tac Toe in C job interview. It’s like, “I know all the stuff that an MBA knows and probably a lot more and I learned it in the context of doing projects, businesses, and everything. I just don’t know that I know it and I don’t know the jargon that they would use and those kinds of things.”
You have to get right with the jargon if you want to hack your way into a community.
I don’t know if that’d be a good waste of your time or not. I probably haven’t done any of the prerequisites necessary to get into an MBA. I don’t know if this changed for you. I always felt like, even today, there’s no job in the world that I’m qualified for. I don’t even have a resume, but if I did, it certainly wouldn’t map to any job opening. For the first maybe decade after high school or something, or maybe even more, it felt like a dirty little secret. It’s like, “If people find out I don’t have a degree, I’m probably out of the run,” or that kind of thing.
A computer consultant or something like that is what I would get referred to. I wouldn’t ever apply for a job I would get from word of mouth, introduced, referred, or something. For me, in early 2001 to 2003, or somewhere around there, in those days, I would go to DEF CON and the Shmoo Group would show off cool hacking tricks we came up with other hackers. It is the worst possible audience you can get that could hire you. They all think they’re smarter than you. They know everything. They’ve seen it all before.
The only reason they came to your talk is to tell you why you’re full of shit. One thing I learned from you about this was you described speaking at hacker conventions. You had come up with this clever trick, which was to figure out who everybody in the room thought was the smartest guy in the room, and then get him in the front row, and then make fun of him from the stage. That would establish enough credibility that everybody paid attention to you. I have co-opted that. That’s what I do. I’ve taken that so far. My audiences are the presidents of companies and the presidents of countries, and I don’t give a crap because I know I can take a roomful of hackers and put them in their place.
After that, it’s easy. My wildly successful public speaking career is a side project. I don’t know why I started doing it because I thought it was funny. I realized hackers were preaching to the choir. It’s a lost cause. I started taking all the fun things that hackers could do and going to other audiences that had never seen it. I ended up with this weird hacker magic show, stealing people’s passwords live on stage that blows everyone away, except for hackers. I’m like, “That’s a trick from the ‘90s.” I would be taking it to other audiences.
That may be popular as a speaker, but it was always easy. For one thing, I’m a magician because I have superpowers no one else in the room has so that made it easy. The bigger one was that after speaking to audiences of hackers, a CEO wasn’t about to get funny. Probably for my own amusement, it progressed over years. Now I’m on stage making fun of CEOs who are in the audience because they’re going to suck at innovation. Whatever it is they know about, they don’t know what I know about. It got easy.
From 2001 to 2003, I was the first guy to show up publicly and say, “I’m a hacker.” Other than Kevin Mitnick, who is a notorious hacker/criminal/script kiddie gone wild. In those days, it was unusual. Even everybody from DEF CON would say, “I’m a computer security expert.” They were trying to legitimize themselves in that way, but I didn’t have anything to lose because I wasn’t a criminal and I wasn’t trying to get a job in any conventional way. Being the hacker got me a lot. That’s how I got known, and then after that, within the next decade, it progressed gradually to being a mainstream thing. Now, no one gives a crap if you’re a hacker. That doesn’t get any attention.
“I’ve seen that before.”
Probably there’s some progression like that for you.
You feel less imposter syndrome because you’ve had success.
I did get past that many years ago because there was a flip where if I sat and went to college, they’ll be like, “You’re smart like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. You need to go to college.” It’s like, “I like that.” I don’t have any of the imposter syndromes like that anymore. The truth is it’s not because I’m less of an imposter. I still don’t know what I’m doing most of the time, but I’m comfortable with it. I wouldn’t want to be doing something where I knew what I was doing.
“Just take me out and put my head off the floor and kill me.I don’t ever want to do something where frustration goes away.” That’s what I was getting at earlier. The frustration is the water. Hackers are fish. If you’re out of the water, you die. You have to find your way back to the hard stuff. If you go into management, you need to learn how to be frustrated with people and be nice to them. You need to learn how to be frustrated with people and get them to perform.
Not to just yell at them and inspire anger, fear, and those kinds of simple solutions, but to praise the person you’re frustrated with for how far they got without you, to see the pain that they went through and how difficult it was for them to embrace that. You have to be able to take that same idea of frustration with the machine and do it to a person. That’s the transition that a lot of fully well-formed hackers could make. If they wanted to deal with unjust and unfairness, that’s where the meta where the wheels fall off the trail.
I’ve inadvertently stumbled into those situations at times and found myself largely unprepared for them. “This is unjust. Why are you being irrational? I pulled all the memory locations.”
Applied Cryptography
“I said the right magic words. You’re supposed to do what I want.” That’s not how people work.
That’s another episode. Let’s wind this down. I’d be remiss not to ask you because I’m sure you have ideas and we probably have folks reading who would love that insight. What are the things people could do to learn more about the hacker mindset and getting comfortable with the technical side of computers, whether programming or otherwise? Are there books that you read that you learned? I learned a ton in the old days from reading things about what Alan Kay had said. I learned from different thinkers about computers and technology in those days. I’m wondering, what influences are on you? We don’t need the best sellers that are on the bookshelf at the airport.
The most important thing that I ever read was called the Rebel Asm Tutorial. It was for people who knew how to program BASIC and it would teach them how to program Assembly. BASIC was easy to get your head around and Assembly was foreign and alien. Having something there that could pass your knowledge for the 1st step to the 2nd step and do it piece-by-piece, it took me two nights to translate my BASIC knowledge to Asm knowledge. All of a sudden, I’m able to read all these programmers’ work.
That could have taken years back in the day.
I’d figure out a little from the reference manual. This tutorial was like, “Make sure you have your reference manual because I’m not typing this stuff.” It was a 100,000 binary with a GUI and stuff. It was this fantastic little tutorial. I have to give credit to the author of the Rebel Asm Tutorial because that has escalated the speed of my knowledge gain quickly. If it were someone who wanted to follow in the track, I would say get your programming down to Assembly language.
Even if you don’t stick there long, just having that comfort and that knowledge of what it takes to take a number and a different number and add them together, put it somewhere, and do these mechanistic computer actions. That’s critical for developing the sense of where the bedrock is. Applied Cryptography, Bruce Schneier’s book taught me a lot about how to think about security. I’ve heard people say that it’s not perfect, but it taught me so much about how to think about security, protocols, and information exchanges.
One of my favorite books ever was a book by Danny Hillis called The Pattern On The Stone. Danny is a famous inventor who made a company called Thinking Machines, which was the first massively parallel processing computers in the late ‘80s. This machine has 64,000 processors and a lot of that is what’s in supercomputers now, but also even just chips now. The Pattern On The Stone is a tiny book. It’s out of print and might be hard to get.
I loved it. I’ve given away all my copies. I bought dozens of copies of this book. Your mom could read it, understand everything from how chips work and what logic gates are, and how they’re constructed and put together into logical groupings to do different things. All the way up to massively parallel processing and everything in between. You can read it in a couple of hours. He’s a bright guy. I should figure out if I can get an eBook of that or something to get people. It’s incredible.
I don’t remember his name. It’s great because it’s pamphlet-length. It’s probably 5,000 words, maybe 10,000. It’s like, “Here’s how intelligence happens.” It’s a little bit about artificial neural networks and how those work ground up. It’s a nice little primmer, a place to start. For people who aren’t necessarily going into the pure math, pure neural networks, pure hacking side but want to have that creative outlet and are going to do it in a digital universe, I love the book Reminiscences of a Stock Operator.
It’s a thin book in a big format. It’s old, maybe 100 or more years old. It’s the story of the development of a guy who made a lot of money on Wall Street. His story of development from six years old running numbers for the bookies in the neighborhood and developing his understanding of money all the way through being a major stock operator. In it are the lessons that for instance, the Bitcoin kids are all learning one by one as they get ripped off by people who learn these tricks.
It’s all the first round tricks that stock players knew 100 years ago or so. It’s thin, easy to read and super personal. You think of him as, “That guy lied to me.” Instead of thinking about it as an arbitrage opportunity. There’s not a lot of technical wording. It’s like, “This person lied. I made a bad bet, so I need to learn that I have to vet my sources.” There’s a weird amount of solid reality wisdom in the book, Reminiscences of a Stock Operator.
Riley heads up all aspects of our software and hardware development and manages our IT infrastructure. Riley’s team builds the technology that is the core of the React Mobile offering ensuring that our products deliver exceptional customer value.
Recorded on May 14, 2019
Into the World of Genomics ＆ Entrepreneurship — Adina Mangubat
Mar 17, 2021
Today we get to hang out with Adina Mangubat, a friend of mine that I know from a salsa dancing, and also hanging out with computer hackers. She’s probably the youngest founder that I know. And she’s been running her company for almost a decade since starting it in college at age 22 called Spiral Genetics.
It could be considered probably the most advanced bioinformatics technology for population genomics. And what that means is DNA sequencing, massive populations, hundreds of thousands of people, if you can, and then correlating that data to see what can be learned about it. And it’s a huge frontier there’s so much that can be learned from doing this kind of work.
And Adina is really at the forefront of that. And so it’s a really fascinating conversation where she breaks down all that stuff: What it means, what DNA sequencing is about, the potential for bioinformatics, the potential for population genomics etc. So, this is the perfect episode for you. If you don’t know anything about it, because I’m asking Adina, a lots of dumb questions, you’re going to love it.
She’s also a super entrepreneurial and hustler which is very inspiring. Adina has built this company. She actually sold it to a large biotech company and then spun it back out on. And so she’s been through a lot as an entrepreneur and we’d talk about that a bunch.
And the other thing about Adina that’s super interesting to me is that she’s really committed to figuring out how you can create these transparent, high integrity, mission driven cultures in startups and small companies, and that’s pioneering work. It is really important and difficult work.
It’s unproven. We don’t know if it’s even going to work, but it’s so necessary to figure out how we make better companies. Some people have to be the ones to try that. And so we talk about that and I think there’s a lot to learn at the end of this episode. Adina and I talk a little bit about adoption and parenting and I am kind of deep into that, having adopted a child and raised her to age 14, so far seemingly successfully. Adina is kind of early in that cycle. And so if you’re interested in that sort of thing at the end, there’s a conversation about that. I hope you guys liked this episode and get a lot out of it.
Pablos: You seem to be possibly the youngest Founder/CEO that I know. I know other people who are young. You might not be the youngest now, but when you started, you were the youngest.
Adina: 22? I know some people that are younger.
It’s not common. I know people who started younger but they did not succeed at keeping it going for very long. You started at 22 and you’re still at it, which means you’re tenacious.
Maybe also stupid or crazy or all three.
I’m curious about that. First, I want to know how that happened for you. I don’t know if the track you’re on now is what you had planned. When you were a child, were your parents trying to convince you to be an entrepreneur?
No, definitely not. My family had planned on helping me out with grad school if I wanted to do that. I was like, “I don’t want to do that. I want to start this company instead.” My dad wrote me a tiny check and he slid it across the table. He’s like, “This is going to be the hardest and most educational year of your life.” I was like, “Really?” He was like, “Yes.” My mom was supportive but worried. She would call me every couple of weeks and be like, “How’s it going? Are you thinking about applying for a normal job?” After a while, she figured out this was clearly not a phase and that I was going to be okay.
I gathered later that the reason why she kept on asking is because she had started a company when she was young. She ran up a CPR business, a training business, and trained a bunch of the Secret Service. Back then, she had connections and you could roll up to the White House at midnight and be like, “Can I get a tour?” They would be like, “Yes.” She’d had to go through the entire process of starting a company back then. She knew that it was going to be hard.
Were they right?
Yes, it’s hard.
Do you think that you believe them or you didn’t believe them?
I didn’t. The blessing and the curse of being a newbie is that you’re so naive that you don’t know what you don’t know. If I knew everything that I know now if I were given the option of starting this particular company, I don’t know. I wonder about if I move on to another company someday…
If you’d have the guts to take it on?
It’s a big one. I’m clear that I have a reasonable business acumen. There are a lot of other companies that I could start that would be easy by comparison like stuff that is not this complicated. I have fantasies about easy companies. The reality is that I get bored after running a festival earrings company or something like that. That’s an idea that has been sitting around for a long time.
One of the things that’s missing in our vernacular is a way of describing the difference between entrepreneurship and tech entrepreneurship because you could start a Taco Wagon or a festival earrings company or something that will be entrepreneurship but it’s something that’s been done before.
There might even be more fine-grain definitions because I think that we have something to describe that there are “lifestyle businesses,” which is the Taco Wagon or the festival earrings company or whatever where the intention is to build a company that is going to feed your lifestyle and be fun generally. There’s then tech entrepreneurship, and it’s tech entrepreneurship of stuff that is hard but not bonkers hard. If you want to make enterprise software or a Fitbit device but for your animals or your pets, things like that. Things where you’re basically you’re taking off the shelf technology and you’re retooling it to a particular vertical or something. You’re doing some innovation but it’s not hard and never ever been seen before innovation.
I call the hard stuff deep tech now. All that other stuff, I call it shallow tech. If it’s iPhone apps or enterprise software or modified Fitbit’s, shallow tech. I don’t know if that’s going to stick but that’s how I’m thinking about it.
It’s unlikely because a lot of people feel like, “My tech isn’t shallow.”
It’s revolutionary and it’s sprinkled with blockchain. You went to college and you finished college.
It’s nothing related to this. I got my degree in Psychology with a focus on Bio Psych.
Do you feel like you know about the brains of people?
I do. At the time people were like, “What on earth are you going to do with that?” It turns out that a lot of things in life have a lot to do with humans that have brains. Understanding how humans work and how they tick and all of that stuff is ridiculously useful.
That’s why I like computers. I just reboot them if things go wrong. They mystify me. You finished college for your parents. Was that here?
Yes, at UDub.
The plan was like, “I’ve got to find something to do and I don’t want a job.” How did you end up deciding to start a company?
I’d been involved in two companies while I was in college as an intern. One was a smart grid company that was looking at like, “How can you optimize the usage of energy that come from green sources like wind energy.” Essentially, it was how can we use big buildings as batteries? If you know that the wind energy is spiking at a particular moment, you can overheat or over-cool your building a little bit. If it’s a large enough building so you can use that.
Did it seem it would work?
It seemed it would work. They had a good run but didn’t end up making it in the end. It turns out that the tech for building control is ancient and terrible. When you’re trying to integrate with that, that’s more complicated and there were a variety of reasons. I was involved in that company. I did a bunch of marketing related stuff for them, initial business strategy sales.
How big was the company at the time?
Seven people, maybe.
The curse of being a newbie is that you're so naive that you don't know what you don't know. Share on X
That’s cool though, as an internship, especially because you get to see pretty much every part of the company. If you go be an intern at Microsoft, you get to see one dime and you don’t get to see the whole operation.
You learn about management, what works, what doesn’t work and all of those pieces. I was involved in that company and before that, my first job was an internship with a company that did home automation. Turning your lights on and off with a control panel. This is before cell phones. They were in direct competition with Control4. They did pretty well up until the housing crash. Nobody was looking to outfit their homes with cool smart techs.
I had a lot of friends because lots of my friends are nerds, especially when one of them leaves the company or sells their company or ends up with some free time, they dive into home automation and they try and install everything and they tell you all about it. It’s all amazing. They’re spending full-time integrating their home automation stuff. A year later, I’ll ask them about it. They’ll be like, “I had to tear all that shit out.” You’re going to be a sysadmin for yourself for your home light switches.
At some point you’re like, “I’m going to open the blinds by myself like an adult and it will be fine.” Another very interesting experience, they were larger, probably 30-something people. I learned a lot about what worked and what didn’t work. Back then, I was doing video creation for them, teaching people how to use the product and stuff like that. I took it to see the whole operation and have direct contact with all of the “upper-level management.” I was involved in those.
After that, it seemed like, “It’s easy to start a company. I’ll do that.”
No. It was cockier than that. It was like, “These guys are doing it wrong.” I had a whole thing about how people were managed. Especially as a psych person, I was like, “Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Some of these people aren’t fulfilled.” I feel I could do that better. It turns out that that’s hard and complicated and they were doing it for the best that they could. There are definitely best practices but that stuff’s hard. That was part of it. I took an entrepreneurship course at the UDub Bothell because UDub Seattle wouldn’t let me into the normal course because you need prerequisites like accounting and stuff like that. I wasn’t going to do accounting for taking one class.
Do you wish you had now?
No. Accounting’s not that complicated. If you need deep accounting, you can call somebody that loves that, which I don’t. Somebody else can do that. That’s cool. I need to know how much money do I need in order to get to X and make sure I don’t run out of it before then. I commuted 40 minutes each way 2 to 3 times a week to take this class. Bothell is a very interesting campus because it’s got a lot more diversity in terms of its student population. One of the people that was up there, her name is Becky Drees and she was a non-matriculated student, Molecular Biologist, PhD at Berkeley. She had been the industry for years and ran one of the labs at UDub.
On the first day, the way the entrepreneurship course works is you get up there and you either picked your skillset, which is what I did, or you pitch your idea because I didn’t have an idea. She pitched this genetic analysis company that was very similar to a 23andMe style company these days. Her ultimate pitch was if we are going to be able to impact disease, we have to understand the code of who we are. For me, that was compelling both from an intellectual perspective but also from a personal perspective. I’d had people in my life that had been significantly impacted by things that are entirely genetic in basis. Cancer is quite literally the disease of the genome. I’d had my grandfather pass when I was thirteen from lung cancer. I remember at the time when that was happening.
Mine too. I was eleven.
Where was he located? Was he in Seattle or no?
No. I grew up in Alaska but he was mostly in California. That doesn’t seem that much in the way, but it was still my grandfather and it was hard. It was the first person I lost.
What was striking for me at the time was like my dad is a doctor. He’s a surgeon but when you’re thirteen, you don’t differentiate between surgeon and oncologist. You’re like, “Doctors should be cool,” and it wasn’t. As I got older, I learned that in large part it was because they didn’t know what to do. Even now, to a certain extent, if you get diagnosed with cancer, there’s a super over simplification. They’re like, “You have this, we have X number of drugs that could be used to treat that. We’re going to try this first one. If that doesn’t work then we’re going to try the second one and we’re going to try and hope that we get the right one before it’s too late.” Becky’s basic pitch to me was if you could see what’s going on in there, then you could pick the right one the first time. That for me was far more interesting than any of the other companies that were being pitched. I didn’t want to do Fitbit for your dog or any of that stuff or a concierge service.
It sounds like I should go pitch my crazy ideas to the entrepreneurial class and I can pick up people like you to run with them.
People have a very interesting relationship or opinion about young students because I was 21, 22 at the time. I went back. I’ve maintained a good relationship with the professor that teaches it, Alan Leong. He now teaches at the UDub proper, the Seattle campus, but I’ve gone back and helped to judge classes and etc. Frankly, the younger they are, the better. I’ve even been in classes where there have been MBA students and freshmen and then they’re competing in a competition, a business plan competition together. I’ve got to tell you, the freshmen kick the MBA’s butts every time. The vast majority of the reason why, in my opinion, is that the older we get, the more we fall susceptible to thinking, “This is that way. This is possible. That’s not possible,” whereas the freshmen, they don’t know. They’re like, “Let’s try this thing.”
There are probably two escape hatches, either personality or naiveté. Have you ever hired anybody from one of these?
We’ve had bunches of them as interns. We’ve definitely hired some pretty young people sometimes.
I want to dive into the problem with genetics. What happened to the woman who had the idea that you heard pitch it? Did you end up working on it with her?
We were cofounders. She and I won a business plan competition and that’s how this whole thing got started. It’s 2009. If you recall back then, the economy was not so hot. Here I am graduating with a Psych degree. My options are stupid, boring, shitty job or go to grad school but I’d come to the conclusion that I didn’t want to get a PhD because it turns out that I’m impatient enough that research doesn’t appeal to me or it was like start this thing. It seems like a very similar risk profile at the time. Find a job, make a job. I was like, “How hard could it be? That was my naiveté speaking. We went for it and we found our third cofounder Jeremy through a Japanese tea ceremony, which is how you usually find cofounders. I worked for Jeremy for a long time.
Maybe you should start with what you guys thought you were doing.
At the time we thought that we were doing essentially what is 23andMe now. 23andMe then came out and pro tip, don’t go head-to-head with essentially what is a Google-backed company. This was in 2009.
Was that when 23andMe came out?
They were even maybe right before 2009. I’ll have to look but they weren’t so big at that time. There were large enough announcements where it was like, “Somebody already doing this. Maybe we should pivot.” At the time, the plan was to do exactly what 23andMe is doing in terms of snip chips. There are lots of ways to look at a genome. One way is to look at the whole three billion base pairs. Another way is to only look at certain markers that you’re interested in.
That’s what they were doing at the time.
They’re still doing that for the vast majority of things. It’s cheap to do that, etc.
I met them in January of 2009. I’m one of the first 100 people on 23andMe. Now there’s all this cool stuff they can do, but my sample was done so long ago that they don’t have as much data about me. There’s a bunch of things they can’t do for me. I have to redo it again.
The chips that they were using probably at that point didn’t have as many individual markers but even now, at least the last time I looked, they’re only doing about 500,000 markers, which sounds a lot but out of three billion, it’s tiny. They’re single base pair. They’re also usually the most commonly varying ones. While that’s interesting from, “Are you a fast metabolizer of coffee and caffeine? What color your eyes?” It is relevant for some medical things BRCA1, BRCA2, the breast cancer genes that research is on lockdown. It’s very good. Whereas your risk for diabetes or other things, the reality is that you might have a single-base pair that has been changed that increases your risk right next to something that you didn’t look at that decreases your risk and you would have no idea.
It’s not high risk yet. If I go to a service that can do my whole genome because some of those exist, it could cost $2,000, maybe.
It’s $1,000 for chemistry, plus the analysis on the computational side.
That’s vastly less expensive than it was.
Back in 2009, it was $100,000.
If I did that, would I discover vastly more?
Probably not.
It’s because the analysis hasn’t been done on all those other things. The first 500,000 that the zillion people have done, we have a lot of data on.
The game that we’re focused on now is how do you figure out what the rest of it means. That’s what our business is focused on now. As a juxtaposition, we started out with like, “Let’s do a 23andMe-like thing.” What we do now is we make the software to compare large groups of whole human genomes. We’re going after the folks that are doing country genome sequencing projects, where they’re sequencing hundreds of thousands or millions of people and trying to sort out what’s going on in there.
Are they trying to do the whole genome for millions of people?
The United States is doing that.
Can you tell me a little bit about what that project looks like?
There are over 50 countries now that are doing this thing. A fun fact that most people don’t know about that.
If countries are doing it, what’s the example of a country’s project like?
The one that’s furthest along is England, the UK. They have this project called Genomics England. It started out as 100,000 people and they did all of that. They did it for people generally that had gone through most of the medical system, hadn’t received a diagnosis and they were trying to still assess out what’s going on. At that point, they were given an option of, “We don’t know what it is. You can either be at a dead-end or we can sequence your genome. It’s totally up to you. If we sequence you, you’re consenting to research.” They had 100,000 people say yes to that and they were able to solve 23% of the cases. It’s pretty good.
They were able to diagnose people who were unable to be diagnosed 23% of 100,000 people from genomic data.
Diagnosed, maybe we shouldn’t use that word. It’s like a candidate is what they call it, a candidate-able gene. They made a very large dent.
The essential problem then is even if you have the money and the people and you can do all these tests, it yields a ridiculous amount of data. How much data is sequencing three billion base pair are going to yield?
It’s 120 gigs per person. If you multiply that by 100,000 people, that’s a good chunk.
All the memory on my top of line iPhone would be full with my genome.
The raw data of your genome.
That’s just the raw data and it’s going to be more once I started trying to analyze it.
The older we get, the more we fall susceptible to thinking one way is the way. Share on X
In terms of getting into the tech side, this is where there’s a lot of debate about how should you do the analysis because the vast majority of the industry right now tries to take that 120 gigs and determine what’s important as part of it. They go through this whole process where they align your genome against a reference genome, which is a Franken genome of Craig Venter and a bunch of other people. They do a big diff and then they output the diff into what is essentially a glorified Excel spreadsheet. What they try and do is compare these Excel spreadsheets against one another. There’s a bunch of technical issues with doing that. One, you’re not going to see everything that’s in there. Two, if you’re trying to align against essentially what is mostly a European white male reference genome, you don’t see a bunch of stuff. There’s a lot of interesting challenges in the space of diversity within genomics and how do you get representative information about what’s going on in an individual?
Are you making that up or is there any evidence that this is the case where people have gone back and said using the white male European reference turned out to make us miss out on this stuff though there are actual projects?
There have been multiple efforts to make custom reference genomes for specific ethnic groups. There was a whole Han Chinese genome effort. The Japanese did a genome that was specifically for theirs. There’s an error of reference genome that’s in the middle of construction. They did their first version. They’re trying to do a second run.
It seems that would be the thing that you would make by taking all the Japanese folk’s data, go find the stuff that’s the same in all of them and drop that out. It’s basic compression algorithm and then go looking into the rest. What am I missing here? Why is there work?
How do you figure out what is present in there? We’re going to have to get a little technical in order to get there. Let’s start with what does the data look when it comes off the sequencer? A lot of people have the misconception that when you sequence a genome, it comes off like a book. You read it from the beginning to the end. It doesn’t go that way. In a super squishy way, it’s like how they did the human genome project, which is why we know what the order of a human being looks like, but it costs a lot of money to do it that way. It was slow, etc. They did this innovation where it’s called shotgun sequencing. What they do is they take your genome and they duplicate it 30, 40 times. They chop it up into 150 base pair long chunks.
I’m glazing over a lot of technical details. For any of your technical readers out there, it’s not exactly that way but for the average reader, it’s 150 base pair long chunks. What the sequence reads is all of those 150 base pair long chunks. What comes off of the sequencer quite literally is a huge pile of text files. If you open up one of these text files, it’ll be 150 bases with a guess of the quality score for how likely it called that particular base correctly or not. That’s it. You don’t have any information about where that thing came from in the original. It’s the worst jigsaw puzzle of your entire life.
It’s 150 base pair and base four is the notation. It’s got something 256 bits of data or something like that.
Plus, the quality scores of how likely was the sequencer to call it correctly? Was it 90% sure?
Where does that number come from?
The sequencer generates it when it looks at it. It’s like, I’m 90% sure it was an A.
I probably could have 36 or 34 or whatever copies of the same 150 base pair in my data.
That’s how they fixed errors.
That’s my check sum that they are correcting there because if I find ones where that’s a few bits off, then it’s easy to fix. If I’ve got essentially a 256-bit key, ostensibly looking at a unique chunk of the genome or are there duplicates? There are lots of duplicates. I’m trying to figure out how to put them all together in the correct order if half the battle.
The reason why they use the reference genome thing is they take every 150 base pair long chunk and they look for the nearest match. That works great for small changes. In my 150 bases, if two of them don’t match the reference genome, that’s great. I know where that goes, but what happens when 50 of them out of the 150 don’t match? You then get to a place where there’s no longer a unique match. Where does it go? Does it go in this place in the genome or that place in the genome or this other place? What happens if the person has genetic code that didn’t show up at all in the reference genome, which totally happens? You can have a full 5,000 base pair of novel institution, which I know I do because I sequence my genome. You’re going to have this huge insertion.
How do you figure out where that goes? Do I have to go do it the old-fashioned way?
No, not exactly. What everybody else does is they try and do this process where they fish the things out of the garbage bin because when they don’t align, then they try and take all of the things that didn’t align. After the fact, they try and put things back together and figure out where it might’ve come from because there’s overlap with every little chunk. You could try and stitch it together and figure out where it goes. By then, you have already placed these little chunks potentially in the wrong spot. You’ve already biased everything against the reference. We try not to do that.
I have an idea. I got my 150 base pair but if I have it overlap by 50 on each side and it’s only 50 in the middle, it’d be really good, but now I’ve reduced the efficiency of my shotgun approach by two-thirds but then I should get the order of stuff for free at the end. Why can’t we do that?
They do a version of this. As I said, skipping over some stuff, it’s not 150 straight up. What they do is it’s about 500 or 600 bases. They read in from both sides of the chunk. There’s a gap in the middle of that they don’t hit. It’s about 300 bases. This is what is called a paired read. You have 150 bases, a gap of 300 where you don’t know what it is and then 150 bases. You can also get, to a certain extent, further with that because if one section aligns in this particular area and then this other one doesn’t align very well, then you can try and trace over that. It only works up into a certain extent for a 5,000 base pair insertion. It’s longer than the length of the overall chunk. The likelihood they’re going to have some error or dropout is relatively high such that you can’t assemble over it.
Now that we understand the problem, tell me why you don’t have that problem.
It turns out that there is another way of doing it. These little chunks are called reads. If you were to compare every read against every other read, you were essentially to create a probabilistic structure of how they could all go together without worrying about figuring out exactly how they go together. You could imagine that you could account for all of the possible paths and you’ll have a lot of information about what is more likely versus the other and you weight them. You could imagine that you could do that for one person. You could also imagine that you could do that for many other people and you could even overlay a lot of this information over one another. That’s part of the reason why population genomics is important.
That sounds the big data approach to guessing more or less what the likely structure this is. Is there metrics now on how well that works?
We’ve done testing a bunch of what are called truth sets, like golden datasets because one of the big challenges of knowing whether or not your stuff is good or not is how do you know what’s in there? There’s this one sample that has been sequenced a bazillion times with every single different sequencing technology out there. It’s run by this particular consortium out of NIST called the Genome in a Bottle Consortium. It’s very cutely named. They’ve done it with regular short-read sequencing, which is what we all described but they also have long read sequencing tech, which is much longer chunks like 10,000, 20,000 base for long chunks but it’s expensive, so nobody uses that at scale. Usually, it’s used for plant genomics, things like that.
There are other various chemical sequencing technologies that you can use to try and get at these golden datasets. We’ve done a bunch of testing regarding the golden data set approach. Other technologies can see about 33% of the genetic variations that a represent. If you look at on a base for base basis, we can see about 72% if you’re using any amount of population style data. If you think about it, it’s intuitive. The burden of proof for finding a variation the first time is pretty high, but if you’re looking for evidence of whether or not you’ve seen that thing that you’ve already seen before, then it’s much lower so you can pick out things.
If I do it the old school Craig Venter way, I get a complete and accurate genome. Is that right?
You’ll get about as good as you’re going to get.
That’s as close to 100% as we’re going to get. The best off-the-shelf technology we know of gets us to 33%.
If you’re going to identify variations, yes.
Your way, it’s 72%. That’s amazing.
You can characterize it like that.
Essentially the job of the company is to make the software tools to help us manage and analyze all this data at a large scale. What scale are we talking about here? How much data are you guys working with here?
It’s 100,000 people or 350,000 people. It depends on the country.
You guys have multiple countries you’re working with at this point. Is it a real business?
Yeah. I don’t think that people would keep giving me money if it wasn’t.
Is the customer is giving you money or investors?
Both.
If I understand all this correctly, we think that for a lot of the problems that people have, various diseases, different types of cancer and things, by analyzing their genome, we can probably at least gauge what risk they have of having this problem. In some cases, we might know. For sure you’re going to have this problem. I have the cilantro gene that makes me think cilantro tastes like soap. It’s pretty bad in Seattle because cilantro is everywhere.
That’s not the worst one you could possibly have.
It turns out there no other problems with me other than that. I got lucky. I suppose if we’d had a good analysis of my genome, I could have been more before the first time I had discovered that the hard way. What I’m wondering is if this is an important part of what we would want for this type of work. It’s tools that can handle the scale of the data that the testing is putting out and allowing us to analyze it in ever smarter ways. We would also want better testing or better ability to test a genome that’s more cost-effective. What else is missing? More research on what each of these markers would mean. That’s perpetual research project.
I would say that’s the research project now. To give you a perspective, at this point as a globe, we have characterized about 1% of all human variation and associated with anything. When I say anything, I mean high breast cancer risk, everything. That means that there’s still a lot of stuff that we don’t understand even a little bit. If you think about it, to a certain extent, it makes sense why because your search base is large. It’s three billion bases. If you do a study of 1,000 people, that’s not enough information to be able to sort out much of anything, unless you happen to be looking at something that is so strongly correlated that it’s going to be obvious. We’ve gotten some of those great, low-hanging fruit things like the breast cancer genes, BRCA1, BRCA2. Those have massive impact. You can discover that in a sample of twenty people, which is how it was originally discovered.
Is 100,000 people enough that we’re starting to feel confident or do you need 100 million?
It depends on the disease or the particular phenotype. For some of them, 100,000 is going to be sufficient. For some of them, it’s not and we don’t know yet. That’s a mystery that we’ll find out.
In some sense, to answer the question of to pick that mystery apart, you want to scale this up. In your life, what I suppose you’re hoping for is over the next 1, 2, 3 decades, we want to get from counting hundreds of thousands to millions or tens or hundreds of millions of people who we’ve got in the database so that we can start going after these things that have smaller that show up less frequently.
Sometimes you’re going to get those one hits. If you have this single base pair change in this particular location, you have this significantly increased risk. For a lot of it, it’s going to be something more like if you have this and this, then you have an increased risk. You’ve got to have all four.
You have to find all four to correlate them and that’ll take a lot of work. Do you think that the cases where we figure it out, what does that research look like? Is it lots of data and software finding it?
There are a lot of analysis techniques that people had to use when the datasets are smaller. Now we’re entering a time where there’s enough data that you can do things like machine learning or even deep learning. You could use that technology to be able to assess it out. Deep learning is a little bit more complicated because search base is large and the number of examples you have are lower. You have to be smarter about how you do the feature detection, but you can make some of that stuff work. All of a sudden, you don’t have human beings that are trying to do basic statistical analyses anymore. You have things that can look for much more interesting, subtle patterns that frankly our little human brains can’t.
In some sense, given enough data and desktop computers, we’re going to be able to set these things free and let them go find everything for us.
To some extent. I don’t know if it’s that simple, but yes.
Why wouldn’t it be? Can you think of a reason? What what’s missing from that?
Machine learning is complicated. It can over fit easily. There are a lot of nuances, I would say. Plus, biology is a lot messier than people anticipate.
I got interested one time. I saw this video of Danny Hillis talking about proteomics. He made a company called Applied Proteomics but his thesis was that cancer is a normal thing that your body does all the time. You got these cells mutating. Most of the time, nothing bad happens. They get flushed. Everybody is doing that. He is like, “Cancer shouldn’t be a noun. It’s more a verb. You’re cancering all the time.”
You’re pairing and occasionally you screw it up.
You don’t repair fast enough and things get out of hand and you end up with a tumor and then that breaks off and floats around your bloodstream and latches on to where it metastasizes and kills you. That’s the process. The way he described it was when we started the human genome project, we thought we were going to get the recipe for how to make the human. What we got after going through all that work and sequencing, the whole genome is more like list of ingredients but we still don’t have the recipe. The recipe is proteins and that’s interacting with your DNA. What he believed the next frontier was we need to go be able to sequence the proteins and figure out what they’re doing.
I would say that to think that you’re going to get the whole enchilada in just genomics is naive. Frankly, to think that you’re going to get it with just proteomics is also naive. You got to have the whole thing. It’s going to be a combination of all of the omics’, if you will. Genomics, transcriptomics, proteomics, metabolomics, you name that. As I said, biology is complicated. Back to your question of like, “Can we have sort out everything? Can the computers work it all out?” Maybe if we gave it everything that it needed.
Eventually, it gets all the data but right now we don’t even get all the data.
It changes too. The genome, for the most part, it seems it’s stable-ish. It doesn’t change that much over the course of your lifetime. Certain cells might write the ones that become cancerous, but your proteomics and metabolomics, it changes by the moment.
When I was a kid, we didn’t know any of this stuff. Not only did I not know it, the scientific community didn’t. In the last few years that we seem to have gotten our heads around things like the microbiome.
To a certain extent, we know that it’s important. Do we know what any of it does? No.
It hadn’t even been discovered. We thought your tummy is full of acid and then it eats up the food and then you poop it out. That was the entire understanding as far as I could tell.
At this point, as a globe, we have characterized about 1% of all human variation and associated with anything. Share on X
A lot of people still think of it that way. It’s way more complicated than that.
I don’t know that much about it but you start to learn, you’re like, “I eat food that feeds a bunch of microbes in my gut and then they spit out what feeds me.” There’s a layer of indirection in there that there’s no measurement for. My microbiome is different than yours. It changes over time and none of us knows what we’re randomly shoving in our mouths. It’s crazy.
It’s not that crazy. We have been doing it for thousands of years.
That’s why we’ve got thousands of different microbes in case we eat that weird thing. This is also simplistic but coming from working on computers, my whole career, I lived through these multiple progressions where we started out with. I got the first digital camera with a CCD in it in 1990 or ‘91 or around that. I’m the world’s earliest adopter. I would go take pictures on the thing. It had a little Post-it note sized screen. I could show people immediately the picture that I took of them, which blew everyone’s mind because they’d never seen anything like that before.
Times have changed. Before that, it was Polaroid. That was the only other option.
Even Polaroids were slow. You had to stand up and wave them.
Which apparently makes no difference, by the way. It’s detrimental. You do not shake a Polaroid picture anymore.
The thing that happened is that camera sucked and the photos were 16k or something. Every year, it got a little better but you had this global scale argument going between photographers saying, “That digital crap will never be as good as real photography.” That progressed all through the ‘90s and into the 2000s. This asymptomatic progression where as the digital cameras got better, cheaper, higher resolution and better color management, all that stuff. All those guys started keeping their mouth shut because what they don’t realize is the chemistry was the best technology we had at the time to make photographs. Now we have a better technology and at the beginning, it’s low resolution. As the sensors get better and the data collection gets better and we can collect more data and we can collect data at a higher resolution than essentially the thing we’re sampling, that’s exactly the same progression went with audio too. Computer audio sucks, CD-ROMs aren’t as good as vinyl and all that.
People still have that argument.
They don’t understand how it works. It sounds warmer because there are imperfections in the vinyl. We go through those progressions but at some point with a lot of things, you get to a point where the resolution is high enough that you’re now dealing with high-quality, meaningful data. We’re there with things like audio, video and these things but we’re not there with all the biological stuff in a human sample. We’re close. It’s amazing, the progression.
In the last few years, it’s been insane to watch because back then it was $100,000 to do one person. It would take 30 days of chemical churning to output the text files for one person. You had 30 days of computing to do the basic analysis to try and out, put the differences against the Craig Venter reference type style thing. At that time, the best sequencer in the world could do twelve genomes a year. Now the best sequencers in the world can do a whole genome for $1,000 and it can do 18,000 in a year. It’s been insane. It’s a different world. It’s been cool to watch it grow up. People have asked me like, “How could you even get into this field when you had no background in it?” It’s like, “No one had any background in it.” You think it’s one of those rare instances where if you get in early enough, nobody has a significant advantage over anybody else. That’s why I was able to do it.
I hadn’t thought about it but that’s what happened with me and computers. It’s that I got there so early. There was no one else to call but me. Do you think that you can see any other frontiers that now? What’s the equivalent of that if you were 22 now and you knew that key fact to latch onto?
Probably the AR and VR stuff. Maybe3 to 4 years back. Whatever’s happening now, I don’t know. It’s not like anybody has a ton of deep experience in how to make an AR or VR game. There’s some but there’s nobody that’s the premier expert that is taking out everybody else. If I was a young kid, getting into developing AR and VR games, that wouldn’t be a bad idea. I could see that. I don’t know what the super new hot thing is that’s coming up. I don’t spend time with the young cool kids anymore to know that. You hang out with the nerdy genomics people instead.
How’s that going?
I like it.
Is it a class of humans, nerdy, genomics people?
They’re great. They party a lot harder than you would think too. Especially the people that study plants and animals. If you want a raging party, go to the plant and animal genome conference in San Diego. It’s held at one of the lamest hotels in the world but it doesn’t matter. The lights are still on for the conference center, blaring and bright lights. It doesn’t matter. The second the music goes on, the dance floor is packed.
I go to a lot of conventions for nerds, mostly computer nerds. One time I was at a conference called TiE, which is The Indian Entrepreneurs network. They’re like, “We’re the biggest entrepreneur club in the world,” because they’re from India and they have unlimited people. They have tens of thousands of members. I was speaking at the TiE conference. As soon as the conference is over, music comes on, everybody dances because they’re all from India and that’s normal thing for them.
Did they lead a dance? That happened at the plant and animal genome conference. Somebody got up and led a Bollywood style dance. Everybody participated. It didn’t matter. I was like, “This is amazing.” They do if you’re at the plant and animal genome conference.
If you go to the UDub to an entrepreneur’s class and talk to these folks, what do you tell them? Like, “I did it and I got lucky and you should get a job,” or, “Being an entrepreneur is hard but amazing. It’s like parenting. It will be the best and the worst thing you’ve ever done.”
It’s close to the second one. I speak to the UDub a lot. I speak there once a quarter, maybe three times a year or something like that. A bunch of people came and spoke at my classes and it’s one of those pay it forward things. It makes a huge difference. For me, I remember that there were certain people that came and spoke at my class where I was like, “That’s cool. If she can do it, I can do it.” She was the CEO of Modumetal. It’s cool. They do the super-thin layering of metals in a specific meshing way. It could make armored cars but for way cheap and it’s way more effective. I remember watching her and I was like, “That’s cool,” or other people that were young that were coming back through. They were the graduates from 2 to 3 years ago, etc.
I’m old now. I’m a ten-year veteran, which is bizarre. I go and talk to them all the time and the things that I say to them are it is going to be hard, so you had better pick something that’s flipping worth it. If you don’t and you’ve picked something because you’re only interested in it for the money or whatever, statistically you are way better off getting a job at Google or something. From a money perspective, in terms of expected value, if you’re in it for the money, don’t do this. If you’re interested in solving a particular problem, you’re passionate about having that particular problem be solved on this planet and you are willing to go through the pain suffering that will be required to do that, then you should do a company. Don’t pick something that you don’t love because otherwise you won’t stick with it when it gets hard and it will get hard.
Do you think that advice is at odds with finding people who are motivated to sell, which is a big part of making it less hard?
Motivated to sell what? Like the company?
Something to make the company make money. It does seem that’s one thing that a lot of entrepreneurs have in them that makes them successful and take investors in particular to see it go because a lot of startups, most of them don’t fail to ship a product. Most of them fail to sell it.
That is coupled with the advice of make sure you talk to your freaking customers. To be fair, when I started out, we had the exact same mistake of doing some amount of customer interviewing and then thinking that what you need to build and then building it without checking in with people. Being like, “It’s brilliant. It’s going to work. They’ll fall in love with their idea.” That has more to do with the inability to sell the product. The likelihood of burnout outweighs the likelihood of not being able to ship a product. I would say pick something that’s worth your life first and make sure you talk to your customers second, in that order.
When we think about what is hard, what are the experiences that come to mind?
Firing the first person that you ever have to fire. That’s a tough one. Maybe it’s not tough for some people but I care so much about people. In that moment where you’re letting them go, it’s easy to feel like a complete asshole. To think that you’ve screwed up or failed them somehow and to indulge in the conversation of how you’ve let them down, which you learn over time is not what’s happening and it’s not a healthy conversation to be having. The first time you do it and when you’re new to it, it’s an easy trap that pretty much everybody falls into. That one sucks. Running out of money for the first time, that one sucks.
I don’t think people talk about that one very often, but I don’t know any entrepreneur that has gone for something relatively risky that hasn’t gotten within days of running out of money or if it has run out of money. It’s not like it happens only once. It’ll happen multiple times and people never tell you that. I tell the poor little entrepreneurs and it scares some of them. Some of them think, “That will never happen to me,” and that’s fine. It’s one of the naiveté things and that’s cool but that sucks because then you had to lay off everybody because you as a founder, you’re financially on the hook for anybody’s salaries, if you keep them past, etc. That stuff is rough. That stuff’s the hardest for me personally because it’s all about the impact on the people. Other people might have a different answer to that.
I feel like I’m talking to my friends to go in with this crazy plan and when it doesn’t work out, I do feel I’ve let them down. One of the ways that I often let them down is by not firing people that I should because I’m very optimistic about people and I see the potential in them and those things. Especially as somebody who does care about people first, how do you end up getting through that and making decisions?
One of the biggest alterations that I made in my overall leadership, I say moderately early on, was finally being transparent about where we were from a financial perspective at any given moment. In the first few years, I thought that I had to have it all together and I needed to put up this strong front of like, “Everything’s fine and it’s great.” What I realized is that it led to situations where people were caught off guard and surprised when shit was not fine and we were three weeks from running out of money. At this point, pretty much everybody in my company can ask me at any time how much money do we have left and how many months of runway and all of that stuff. A lot of people don’t do that.
I can understand why they don’t do that. Maybe that does not work at scales of companies but for the scale that I’m at and for the risk that people are taking on now, I feel it’s the right thing to do because of exactly what you said. I’ve asked people to go with me on a crazy journey, crazy mission. It is highly likely to fail and everybody’s got a different risk tolerance. By not providing them that information, then they have no ability to choose for themselves about what’s going to work for their particular risk profile. For me, that’s where it gets irresponsible. If I provide them the information and they stick it out anyway, then they chose but they were choosing with full knowledge and then that’s okay. If we run out of money, it’s not a surprise even.
In some cases when that has happened, people have been willing to stick it out for long periods of time until we get it worked out. I’ve been shocked to a certain extent in the cases where that has happened by the ultra-low churn. You might lose one person or something like that. For the vast majority of the times, pretty much everybody has stuck it out and come back, which is crazy. It has to do with the fact that they also feel like they’re trusted enough with the information and that they’re a partner in it, not just a standard cut the check employee, which is what they would get at a normal place.
It probably varies depending on the scale of the operation because at my last startup, I tried to let the team not worry about money. I had to worry about it a lot, but I didn’t show them that because I wanted them to be able to focus on doing their job. It was probably the wrong way to go.
I can see it both ways because I also tried that approach too. I also think it depends a lot on the type of people you hire. After going about this for a couple of years, we started to place a very large emphasis on risk tolerance as a factor for when we were hiring. We include a question in every interview, which is, “What is the riskiest thing you’ve ever done?” If you don’t have a good answer for it, this was probably not the company for you. I had this one woman, she was super well-qualified for what we were trying to hire. Her answer to that question was driving in the rain was the riskiest thing. I was like, “This is not the place for you because we were going to skim the treetops multiple times and we might even crash land and I need to have people that can handle that and not freak out when it’s happening. I’m going to have other things that I’m dealing with when we’re dealing with the crash-landing situation.”
I’m making this up here. I don’t know if this will work but I imagined that I could tell people more upfront and say, “Here’s the situation. We’re trying this crazy mission. It’s probably not going to work. We’re probably going to crash land and all going to end up unemployed but we’re going to learn a lot along the way. We’re going to do the best we can. We’ve got some shot at getting through and if we do, it’ll be amazing.” I feel like if I could provide all those disclaimers upfront, then it wouldn’t be so bad on the day when I got to either fire them or lay them off or shut down the company or those things.
We do that for people that are coming in that are new because we’re interviewing right now. Before we extend you an offer letter, it’s like, “Just so you know, this is how much money we have left. This is what you should expect.” I tell people upfront, “I cannot guarantee you employment past X date and you have to be okay with that. Clearly, we have been around for a long time and yes, there have been some bumps and it’s unlikely that you will be completely out of a job and you are joining a startup. It is a risk. Make sure you’ve had a conversation with your significant other if you need to do that before you accept this job.”
Do you manage to scare anybody off that way?
Yes. As I said, at the moment we’re dealing with an emergency landing situation. They need to be able to put on their own oxygen masks first. I can’t do it for them.
You talked about this earlier but if you could do anything else, what would you do?
Real companies or fantasy companies?
Anything. Not even accompany to go on and walk about?
I’ve considered that. I would walk about for about three months and then start another company.
I tried to go on vacation for three days and I was stir-crazy.
On the vacation front, it’s good for me. It’s very important. Long periods of time not creating something, not building something, not having a team, team is important for me. If I didn’t have a great team. I don’t know if I would put up with all of the crap that I’ve dealt with. I totally have fantasies about like, “Someday when I have achieved my mission, I’ll sell and then I’ll go and become a yoga teacher in Bali.” There’s nothing wrong with Bali, but I would get stir-crazy quickly. I don’t know what it is that I’m here to do. This is more life philosophy stuff but each one of us are here to contribute something, whatever that is. One of the things that I’m here to contribute is to create leadership and lead and inspire others to create great change in the world. That’s what I think I’m here to do.
Genomics is a huge arena that I want to play in. At some point, neural augmentation would be cool. I’ve thought a lot about that. We’re still way too early, so I’m waiting for the market to mature on that one. A Matrix-like thing, I don’t think it’s completely insane. The other area that I’m passionate about is entrepreneurship and having people be supportive throughout the journey of it because entrepreneurship, this stuff can get lonely sometimes. Even if you have a great team, if you are the leader of the organization, there still is sometimes stuff that only you get to worry about. I have been good myself about building myself strong networks of people where I can go on talk to other human beings that get the thing I’m dealing with. Some human beings will never have the experience of payroll and some will. I participate in things EO, Entrepreneur’s Organization. That one’s great.
I went to an EO event and I couldn’t believe how fun these people were.
They’re a great group. The events are awesome but the thing that’s most valuable to me is that I meet with a group of people. It’s up to ten people in a forum, that’s what they’re called, and you share the highest stuff and the lowest stuff. It’s a mandatory attendance. You can only miss one a year. To get CEOs to work it out such that you don’t, you have to be committed. It creates a space where you can share anything personally or professionally, whatever it is that you’re dealing with. The vast majority of entrepreneurs don’t have something like that. While EO provides that for people that are at a level because you have to have raised an amount or have a certain amount of revenue in order to be part of that.
There’s an absolute necessity for that for the people that are starting out. The people that are coming out of the entrepreneurship class that have won the business plan competition or whatever. They don’t have the network. They don’t have anybody else that understands what they’re dealing with. I remember what it was when I was first starting. Not that many of my friends were going down that route. I had some but not a lot. I had a number of my friends that were like, “You seem stressed out. I know this recruiter friend at Amazon, we could get you a regular job. You wouldn’t have to stress out.” They’re trying to be helpful but it’s in that moment it was the opposite of what I was looking for because you’re already doubting yourself enough at that stage, not that ever goes away.
You’re still doubting yourself and your capabilities enough at that stage that’s the exact opposite of what is helpful. There’s a real need to have some network or space where people can be around other people that are dealing with the same thing. That’s important not from a sanity perspective because entrepreneurs also deal with a lot of mental health issues and there’s lots of statistics to back that sucker up. People would be more successful if they had other people they were around. That’s part of the reason why you see things the YC effect because I went through Y Combinator.
How was that?
It was awesome.
You did that ten years in your company.
We were acquired and then we unacquired ourselves. This is a reboot to focus entirely on the population genomics side and YC is what we took it through.
It’s a restart. You applied to Y Combinator. You got in. What was the program like?
You meet on specific days of the week. They’re large enough now that it used to be always Tuesdays but it’s now you’re either in the Tuesday or the Thursday batch.
Is it just in the Bay Area?
I went down every week. They usually ask you to move there. I did the math and the flying there every week versus living in the Bay Area, it’s cheaper to fly.
Entrepreneurship can get really lonely sometimes, even if you have a really great team. Share on X
How long is the program?
Three months or ten weeks. I joined late. I originally wasn’t going to apply at all because I was like, “I’m a ten-year-old company. They’re not going to touch that.” A friend of mine said, “Ginkgo Biosciences joined YC when they were seven years in and it worked out well for them, so you should apply.” I did three weeks after the program had already started and I had an interview and then they flew me down and then they told me yes. The next day I went to my first thing. I don’t know what the beginning is like, so I can’t provide any information about that because I wasn’t there. What it is going forward is you have a group that you meet with every week.
You have office hours with your YC partners. You’re assigned 1, 2 or 3 partners. You work with them and you’re looking to achieve specific metrics and improve those over time. They prepare you for fundraising. I would say that is the arena where I got the most out of it. I’ve done a bunch of fundraising successfully before. I’ve raised $5 million before without doing YC. What I can tell you is that they have that down to an art form. I was making a bunch of mistakes that I didn’t even realize. The primary one being that when you’re so down deep in the weeds, you think that everything’s important. I would have conversations with investors and try and tell them everything about how the sausage is made and they don’t need to know that.
I thought I’d already scaled it back. The reality was that no, I was still telling them way too much information. That, for the most part, would scare people off because they were like, “It must be so complicated. I can’t possibly understand. Therefore, I can’t invest because I’m investing in an area that I don’t understand. I’m going to make a stupid mistake.” How do you tell your story in a way that still gives them all the information about what’s going on but doesn’t freak them out?
I had that problem too. I want to explain everything. I’ll tell you for seven hours if you’ll listen what my plan is. Did you go raise some money after YC? Is there any way to characterize where you end up? What’s the size of the pitch for investors now? Is it like I do the whole thing in twelve minutes?
They get you down to two minutes.
How long would it have been left to your own devices when you started? Was it two hours?
The shortest that I would ever do were maybe eight minutes or something like that. There are further diligence talks, etc., but I would try and give them all of the information upfront. The art is no, you provide them with all of the information that they would need to be able to say, “Yes, I’m interested,” and create a compelling case. You can feed them the pieces of information that they want as they request it, but don’t give it to them unless they ask for it. Otherwise, you’re just confusing them. The art of the two-minute pitch is incredible. I don’t know if you’ve ever watched YC demo day pitches. They’re amazing. What you put together so compelling. I listen to my pitch and I’m like, “Damn, that’s good. They’re great.”
That’s one of the biggest things that I got out of it and they have a huge network of other entrepreneurs. It’s one of those things where you’re part of it for life. You are now in a place where you have access to a network of 4,000 founders. You can post on their internal forums for virtually anything and get responses back in hours. I asked for crazy stuff. I was like, “I’m looking for the introductions to the Ministries of Health for the following countries.” I got four introductions in four days. I was shocked. I was like, “That is more business development action than I’ve seen in the last six months.” It was crazy.
That network and that collective experience is needed not just in the work part of the entrepreneur’s lives but also in the living part because also people go home. I don’t have this problem with my particular significant other but I can tell you having been at EO, for the vast majority of people, their significant others think that these people they’ve married are crazy. How do you have an environment that has those people be supported too? There’s a whole missing ecosystem. Back to your original question of what else would Ito work on, I think I would like to work on that and I have a lot of ideas about how we could solve that but one thing at a time.
I was thinking as you were talking, being on a team is important to me as well. I don’t think I’ve been as good about crafting that over my career as I would have liked. I’ve been fortunate to have been put on some good teams.
What do you think is necessary to craft one?
I’m trying to figure that out. Looking around, the way society works, we have a lot of hero-worship. Even people who are sports fans, you’re a fan of a team but that’s not even a team. That’s whoever they hired this season, you’re more of a fan of the logo and maybe a fan of a player. You follow that player or rock stars or Instagram people or whatever. It’s not a team that you are observing. It’s not team worship. There are probably exceptions. You might be a fan of a company that makes a product you or something, but you don’t get to see teams. Even in reality TV, you see a lot of stuff where people are against each other but not teams. Things like a TV show or a movie or a company or everything, it’s all stuff created by teams. There’s some disconnect there. I always was wanting to be on a team, but figuring out, how do you make that and how do you make it good. That’s all stuff that nobody knows. You have to figure it out through trial and error.
It’s clear that I have capabilities in that area because they seem to be able to do it. I’m trying to figure out how I would articulate like, “What is it that I’m trying to do exactly? What makes it work?” Safety, it’s one of the biggest ones and you can see research on this too. Psychological safety in workplaces, etc. There’s a whole Harvard Business Review thing about this. Psychological safety is also what breeds innovation, as it turns out, because if you feel you’re in a safe enough environment where you can throw out that crazy wacky idea and not get shot down for it, that obviously encourages you to do that.
I would say safety is one of the biggest ones and safety shows up in a lot of different arenas though. It’s not safety to be able to say whatever it is that you’re thinking but it’s also knowing that you’re going to be the person that’s leading is going to make sure that you’re taken care of. I’ve asked people about this because honestly, sometimes I’ve gotten confused in the past where I’m like, “Why are you guys still following me? We have gone through some serious crap at this point. Why are you still here?” For them, a lot of the answers have been like, “I know that you’re going to have my back and I know that you are doing everything that you possibly can to make sure that we’re taken care of. I trust you to do that.” That’s the biggest thing that I would say if I had to point to anything around.
I sometimes wonder if people who aren’t performing well, does that same things still apply? I’m making you feel safe. You’re not performing well but you’re getting paid. There’s no job security risk here. If I tell them that you need to step up and perform better or there’s no job security anymore, how do you reconcile that? It’s one of the things that I should to figure out.
My opinion is that when people aren’t performing in jobs, something else is off. They’re either feeling confronted and they’re not willing to ask for the help that they need or they have something going on personally. Creating enough safety such that they can be like, “My grandfather is in the middle of passing away,” or, “My mother was diagnosed with cancer. I’m going to need some time.” Let me think about the times when people have been underperforming. It usually has to do with they’re dealing with something personally with their health or somebody significant in their life is dealing with something health-wise or they’re afraid of looking dumb so they don’t ask. Those are the places that I’ve seen the most non-performance. It rarely is that they don’t understand. I am working with people that are very smart. For me, it hasn’t been a lack of understanding or lack of capability. It almost always is people dealing with their own internal conversation about how their work is good enough or not good enough and the fear of being able to put it out there or not. That’s what I have found.
Have you got any questions for me?
I have tons of questions. How did you get to be the way you are? You’re a very unusual human being.
What do you think is unusual? Don’t hold back.
You’re obviously smart. You have gotten to a place in your life where there’s a certain, “I don’t give a fuck” attitude. You are very confident in whatever it is that you say and you don’t seem to care if people are like, “That dude’s overconfident,” because I’m sure that people say that to you and you clearly don’t care. You have this huge, bizarre diversity of interests, including dance, which I can get because we both dance. I know a lot of smart people from the computer science side or etc. and they don’t usually come in your form factor, if you will.
One of the things you’ve said, like why don’t I give a fuck?
Is it that you don’t or is it that everybody thinks you don’t?
No, I do. I care about a lot of things. I don’t care about a lot of other things and I’m adamant about not caring about some of those things. You could say part of it is I’m older than a lot of those other folks that you know that are computer nerds. I grew up in Alaska and there was nobody for 1,000 miles who knew any more about computers than me and I couldn’t learn from anyone else. I was learning in isolation. I literally learned how to program by reverse engineering 6502 assembly language. This is the machine language for the Apple II. It’s not how you learn to program. I’m a shitty coder because everything I learned was before software engineering was a thing. I was so excited about computers and I would try to get other people interested in them.
Did that work?
At first, no. I would try to convince everybody that, “This computer is going to be amazing someday,” and nobody believed me. I was in a small town in Alaska. It was lost because but I had a bottomless enthusiasm for it. That is part of what got me to trying to be able to explain things. I was trying to explain these complicated technical things to people who not only didn’t understand but didn’t care. I had to be able to simplify very complex concepts. In some sense, I’m still doing that.
You do a fair amount of speaking gigs and that’s what you do all day.
Also feeling like an outsider, a loner as a kid because I wasn’t into sports or electric guitar and the normal stuff. I had to be okay with not being cool.
Do you still think that you’re not cool? I think you’re cool.
Revenge of the Nerds. I don’t feel that so much anymore but that’s part of one of the things that’s amazing to me about dancing. Being a salsa dancer, you show up and I’m on the same level as the Mexican dishwasher. It doesn’t matter how much money you make, how smart you are or what you’ve done in the past. No one gives a shit. You’re there and you’re not cool. I’m very specifically not cool when I show up dancing. You get a little bit cooler over the years and as you get better and as you get shirts with buttons on them and shoes that are not dirty, stuff like that, you can get slightly cooler in the dance community.
Do you think that’s the key, the shirts with buttons and the cool shoes?
Definitely. The salsa black belt is every year you advance levels by getting one less button. The guy who’s got a deep V with one button at the bottom, that’s the best dancer in the room. You can see it.
I have to test this theory. Does it only apply in salsa? Do you think it applies in another dance?
It probably carries through at least bachata but these are Latin dances and I don’t know. Those things I’m describing pretty much hold worldwide. As you know with Zouk and the very niche dances, you end up with these very strange communities with their own idea of what’s cool. There is always something. I get a lot out of that. It’s a different type of society. It’s a different angle on the world. It’s a level playing field so you meet people from all walks of life. I don’t bring anything into that room that makes me cool. I have to be a good dancer and I have to be cool to the people I’m dancing with and those things that’s how you got to do it. That’s good for you. It’s hard. It sucks.
Especially as a lead, you have way harder of a job. I have tried leading. It is so much decision-making. That’s why I liked being a follower because I make all the decisions in my job. This is the one place where I’m like, “I’m not make any decisions.
It’s a different role. It’s a different art form. They’re both cool but being a lead, even now, I’ve been dancing years and I’m not the best dancer but I’m competent. I show up in a new town or nobody knows me and I do this all the time, traveling for salsa, “Who’s the weird guy with the glasses on?” “I don’t know. I’ve never seen him before.” “Do you want to dance?” “No, thanks.” You’re at the bottom again, every time. Those things are good for me but one thing I was thinking of is just because of the way events played out, I didn’t go to college. I didn’t get a degree. I’m not qualified for any job on earth. There’s no job I can apply for and get. I don’t think I’ve ever done that in my life.
If you’ve got, I don’t know that you would like it.
Maybe not. I don’t think we’re ever going to find out. At this point and up until few years ago, I almost felt ashamed of it. I didn’t do that work. I didn’t get that degree to get that certification to get trained properly as I was talking about software engineering. It was a little too early. Universities couldn’t teach me much about computers yet and so I didn’t do that. Companies would pay me to buy a computer for them and so I did that but I always felt some of that imposter syndrome.
What would I know if I’d done that? It’s because I don’t know, those things. For a long time, I felt that was a liability. What happened is society changed. Nerds won. We built the most successful companies in the world and everybody wants to be Mark Zuckerberg now and parents want their kids to grow up and be computer programmers, not lawyers. All that’s amazing. There are all these fables in people’s minds because, “Steve Jobs didn’t go to college and Bill Gates dropped out of Harvard.” Now when I tell people that I didn’t go to college, they think, “You’re too smart. You didn’t need to go to college.”
I’m a computer hacker, which is like being a fake scientist. It’s like a scientist but without all the formal training and accountability. You can do whatever. No one’s expecting a computer hacker to be particularly diligent about anything. That has bought me a lot of self-assurance and freedom. I can sit down and ask you all the dumbest questions about genomics and I’ve got no professional reputation to protect because I’m a computer hacker. I’m already suspect. That worked to my advantage. That’s why those things you described that you see in me, it comes from having to make my own way.
I’m not counting on anybody to give me anything. I’m not counting on that degree or certification or job title or anything. I know that I’m going to have to earn everything I got myself and build it. Second, the other thing you described, the don’t give a fuck thing comes, it’s important to me to be beholden to no one. I want to be only beholden to what’s technically true. What is the truth as best as we know it, not what is politically correct or not what’s in vogue or not what other people’s opinions are? That’s important to me. If I can’t do that because of the company I’m working for, the job I have, or the society on part over whatever, then I can’t be a part of those things. I maintained a lot of independence because of that.
Where do you think that came from?
A part of it could be Alaska was a weird place to grow up. Everybody there was an immigrant. It’s like Israel. Israel’s a fake country that all of a sudden, many years ago it was a startup and people moved there from everywhere and it’s this melting pot. Alaska is like that. Right before I was born, people moved there for the oil industry. There wasn’t a lot of people there before that, or at least not a lot of any kind of people. There were certainly Alaskan natives and stuff. They’re all Americans but they’re American immigrants. It’s a state full of people who came to Alaska to get away from somebody or something. It was hard living. The conditions are hard.
People had to work to get by day-to-day. You have to shovel a lot of snow and it was dangerous. That attracted people who were very independent and felt they could make it all work and didn’t, so they had that attitude. I suppose, I grew up appreciating that aspect of those folks. Alaska is tamed now. There’s drive-through everything and everybody there have a suburban and drive-throughs. The Starbucks has a drive-through, the dry cleaners have a drive-through, the restaurants and everything you can drive because it’s snowing and cold.
They didn’t have pizza delivery when I was a kid. You go get the pizza or you stay home and make one. That rubbed off on me some and then also I’ve been at it long enough that I can see how other people’s life choices have played out. I can see the way people chose to play it safe. They chose that college. They chose that degree. They got that job. I became a dentist. The first day of your career as a dentist, there’s a spreadsheet that will tell you exactly how much you’re going to make over your entire career and how much to put into 401(k) and how much to put in a mutual fund, what to do. That plan is safe. That appeals to people. People are over-optimizing for safety. You get those predictable results and it’s not all that safe anyway.
I don’t want to make those choices. For me, I always tried to make good life choices, but I didn’t optimize for safety and security. I ran out of money a lot of times. Almost no company I ever worked for still exists. IV exists. That’s one. There are two. There’s Blue Origin. It’s a company has got thousands of people building rocket ships but it’s not a real business yet. It’s a weird one. Other than that, no company I’ve ever worked for still exists. They all went out of business because I was too early or the idea was too crazy or whatever. The amazing thing is I’m fine. The Silicon Valley mentality. I come from the Silicon Valley of the ‘80s. That was very much about using a startup as a vehicle to invent a new technology, bring it into the world, create a market, make something people didn’t even know they wanted.
All that is what I grew up with and what I believe in and what I want to be a part of and what I want to do. That’s been diluted and eroded by a lot of what’s happening in the tech industry now but that’s still what I’m for and what I want to do, and so I did. I worked for startups, so a lot of them either I started them or my friends started them and I worked for them and even so they’re often too early but every single one of them, all those technologies exist now. They all exist in the market. We were right about every one of them. We’re ten years too early.
Do you think you’ve gotten better at being able to predict when it’s too early or do you think you’re still just as bad?
Now I know the difference. I’m not better at predicting but I know when I’m too early and I don’t make the same kinds of bets on things. I wouldn’t start a company that’s ten years too early again.
What do you think is ten years too early right now?
All kinds of things. Fusion reactors, quantum computing, probably a startup based on CRISPR, all things that are ten years too early or they still need research. They still need economies of scale and cost reduction. They need a market demand. There are so many things. You can’t create all of those things all at once as a small little tiny startup. You have to pick one. It’s like, we got to get lucky about one thing, not a Rube Goldberg machine of seven things that all have to line up. The companies I start are quite pragmatic. They look a little deranged from now outside because of how I described them. I’ll use technologies that I’m comfortable with but the rest of the world isn’t.
I’m obsessed with rearchitecting entire industries using machine learning because this is a superpower that we have that we can use to change almost everything that humans do. It’s scary to everyone except for the handful of people who understand the technology. It’s hard to get your head around that but I don’t have those same problems. For me, if I can look it up a business or an industry and understand how it’s structured to understand its problems, then I can use those tools to radically reinvent how it’s done. That to me is exciting.
What for you is the next thing? It sounds like you’re interested in that particular aspect. Is there a particular field that you’re thinking about yet?
I’ve got obsessed a long time ago with these ideas around automating apparel manufacturing because this is a very manual industry. It’s a massive industry. The numbers, I say these almost every day, “Somebody but $2.4 trillion a year apparel, that’s almost as big as the oil industry or cars maybe.” This is a big industry. Every human on Earth is a customer. In 2019, we made 100 billion garments not for the 7 billion people on Earth but the 1 billion people who buy them. Twenty-five percent of those are in the landfill already. Of those, 30% of them still have the tags on. This is one of the most wasteful industries on earth. It’s sad because it’s responsible for a massive amount of freshwater depletion. This is a major natural resource for humans that we’re depleting. We’re running out of fresh water and it’s not easy to make more. It’s an industry that is polluting rivers and killing off all the life in them. The cities where your jeans come from in China, everyone has some kind of cancer. They have lesions on their skin. Everybody is suffering from this industry and we keep making it bigger and keep making it worse.
What do you think the solution is?
A big part of what I do is I try to understand problems and this is an industry that’s full of problems. They collected every problem and then they didn’t adopt any technology. They haven’t installed Windows 95 yet. This is an industry that they’re sticking their heads in the sand about the technologies we have that could change it. To me, that looks like a ripe opportunity and a chance to rearchitect the industry without all those problems.
What do you think the biggest thing is? Part of it, to me, based on the statistics you said, it sounds like there’s a supply-demand issue and that they are not very good at predicting what’s going to be interesting in fashion.
The way I think about it, they have got to have the lowest cost labor, which means you’ve got to do it in Asia, which means you have long product cycles. Six, seven, eight, nine months is normal for the fashion industry. That means you’re doing speculative manufacturing.
When people have been underperforming, it usually has to do with what they're dealing with personally. Share on X
It’s definitely not just in time.
Just in time is a ‘90s term that means all of the components from the supply chain land at the factory in time to make the batch.
Not like it’s produced at the time that you need it.
On demand means I produce it after it’s sold. At the moment when I have a buyer, then I produce it. I’m trying to rearchitect the apparel industry beyond demand. That’s what Bombsheller does. That’s the company I built to prove that concept. Now that the concept is proven, I want to go do that at a larger scale. Anyway, that speculative manufacturing drives all the problems in my mind because they’re producing stuff and then discovering later whether they guessed right or not about what would sell. In 2019, H&M burned $4.3 billion worth of clothes. H&M is the bottom of the market already. There’s nowhere you can take it, “It didn’t sell at H&M. Send it to TJ Maxx and sell it for 50% off.”
No, they’re already the bottom. There’s a liquidation after H&M. It’s obscene and it’s bad for humans. It’s bad for the world. It’s our responsibility to clean these things up. Historically maybe we didn’t have that opportunity, but we certainly have it now. In my mind, you’re responsible not to go use these technologies to solve these problems and we can do it. That one looks easy to me. That’s not hubris. We’ve already proven a lot of this with Bombsheller but it is still work. We have to build a company and build a brand to build factories and ship a lot of products and then get the rest of the industry to copy us.
What you’re looking to do is you’re looking to be the demonstration such that they have to deal with and compete with you and then they copy. You’re like, “My work here is done.”
By then, I can be the apparel equivalent of Tesla or Uber. The way that they’re structured is different. They aren’t in a position to make the change. I can take over the industry. We’ll see.
I am curious about you being a dad, the choice to do that and what the whole process has been like. I have people in my life now that have tiny humans that are getting less tiny and I’m curious your perspective on that whole thing.
My daughter was adopted from Ethiopia. Her mom and I were married at the time and we’re not anymore but when we decided to adopt, you look at these different kinds of adoption programs and the most popular ones here in the US are Eastern Europe. The reason is because you get white kids. It’s not politically correct but there’s higher demand for them. It’s unfortunate because a lot of the adoption programs in Eastern Europe come with a lot of problems. There’s a lot of fraud, lots of fetal alcohol. These kids are in fetal alcohol syndrome. There’s lots of abuse in the orphanages and things. These kids have it rough. You get over there to pick up a kid and find out they have siblings or find out they have Down Syndrome.
Everybody has a horror story. It’s a sad situation but you still want to do the best you can for those kids. That’s one class. American adoption programs within the country are popular but most of those are set up so that you meet a pregnant mom and work out a deal with her. You can take the baby home when she has it from the hospital. She gets two days to decide if she wants it back. Those are the two craziest days of her life with grandmothers and aunties breathing down her neck. That didn’t sound like the stress I wanted. I made a spreadsheet of all the different countries you could adopt from. It’s not every country, it’s like fifteen countries.
That has a paved route for adoption to the US. We did a comparative analysis and figured out, “Ethiopia sounds amazing,” and it was. Ethiopia, they don’t even drink. The country is dry by choice. In fact, the emperor back in the ‘70s tried to get them to start drinking and have bars as a way of improving tourism. It’s almost no alcoholism. There’s no drug abuse. The orphanages are happy places. Ethiopians are super genteel people. It was amazing. That worked out. It paved the charts for all the things we wanted. Those other things like, “Can you choose the gender or the age of the kids you get.” We went through all that, and you do nine months of paperwork and then you get a kid. That’s the start of it.
It’s also very fraught with anxiety and there’s a moment along the way where you get what’s called a referral and that’s where they match you to a kid. At that moment, it becomes so real. I got a little photo of the size of a postage stamp of my kid who I’d never met halfway around the world, sitting in a third world country, waiting on paperwork from the government. That starts to get hard because I’m like, “Let’s go get the kid.” We had to wait another four months. That gets hard. I go into commando mode. I’m like, “We’re going to parachute in and extract the kid.”
How old was she?
She was eight months old when we got her. She was, undernourished, had scabies and Giardia and couldn’t sit up. We went to pick her up in Ethiopia. We spent a week or so there and every day we’d go to the orphanage. She’d spend the day with us a part of the day with us getting used to us. She goes spend the night there and they had nannies and all this stuff she’s used to there. She wouldn’t take a bottle from us and it started to get a little nerve-wracking because we know we’ve got to get on a plane for 33 hours to get her home and she’s not taking a bottle for us. I would go to the orphanage. I would get the nanny, the baby and a translator. I would say, “She’s not taking a bottle for us. Can you show us how you do it?”
The nanny is an Ethiopian woman who would grab the baby, stick the bottle in, everything would work fine. It was amazing to see. Even at that age, even at eight months old, she knew that you don’t take a bottle from white people in black clothes. It’s black people in white clothes. She had that and it was amazing. After a week, she started to finally take the bottle from us and all worked out fine. It was things like that are amazing. We got her home and even flying home from Ethiopia, up until that moment the year before, you wonder about everything. You wonder like, “What’s it going to be like being a parent but also what’s going to be raising a black kid in a white neighborhood? What if I don’t like her?” I got other things going on.
How are the hormones that are going with? How’s that going to work?
By the time we landed the plane in Seattle, that kid was 100% my daughter for life. I was completely in love with her. I will never leave her, everything about it. It’s incredible. No question. That was years ago and not a moment of hesitation since. Another weird thing and this is an interesting thing about Seattle. You would think it would be a little bit weird sometimes. You got this mixed-race family, your daughter’s got an Afro. Am I doing a good job of keeping the braids in it? There might be some moments where it’s awkward. Never once. Nobody’s ever said anything disparaging about our family or even mildly awkward. That’s one of the amazing things about Seattle. That’s not true in a lot of places in the world. It’s not true where I grew up. It’s not true in a lot of places I’ve traveled to. We’d be weird. Here, it’s no problem. Everybody’s supportive. Everybody accepts the whole thing the way they should. It’s cool. Anyway, so that’s the origin.
How old is she now?
She’s in middle school. She’s super precocious. I wouldn’t have it any other way.
Dating’s coming up soon.
For her. Maybe, I don’t know. It’s extreme. Every stage of it is extreme. Every stage of it is overwhelming and you can’t believe how much work it is.
What’s something that you didn’t know where you’re like, “No way?”
They evolve to command all your attention. She’s a survival of the fittest rock star already from the day I got her. She was abandoned in Ethiopia. She’s not going to let me leave her for dead. She commands all your attention and it’s how she’s evolved. It’s hard as a parent because it’s relentless. You don’t get a break. Anything else you can be like, “Fuck off. I’ll call you back tomorrow,” but not being a parent. She’s on your mind, 24/7. Especially as a baby, you don’t get a break all day. When they’re a year old, you’re like, “We fed her. She’s had her nap. She peed. We changed her diaper. Everything’s fine. She’s playing with a thing. I can call the electric company and pay my bill.” That’s about as much attention as you can get and then you’re anticipating it.
How do you run a business in the middle of all of that?
It’s your wife who watches the kid and you get away. That’s the way to do it. Don’t be a mom, be a dad because that’s the winning strategy. Moms, I could never do that job. It totally consumes you because my daughter’s mom, her brain is fixated on the kid’s needs at all times. She knows when Sion has to pee about a month before Sion knows she has to pee. She’s focused on it. It’s an amazing and wonderful gift that she’s given up her entire life to be a mom. It’s intensive. I got a break for a few hours a day where I could go to work and get away. It’s insanity on a parent.
How do you think that people do that? Here’s the thing. One parent stays home isn’t an option for the vast majority of people, at least in the United States, because of the need for double income. How do you think about that?
When you’re on a farm, kids are an asset that can work for you. In a city, kids are liabilities that are going to cost you almost every dollar you’ve ever made. You should not have kids. That’s the right answer. If you can’t get away with not having kids, at least adopt a kid and try to keep it to one so that your because your life ends and the little kids’ life takes over. That’s not an economical thing for most people. We’re lucky to be able to afford to raise our kid in the city and do okay. The right way to do it. I had a friend from Zambia. She grew up in Africa in a village where it’s a whole bunch of kids. Some of the moms have died of AIDS. You have a kid and pop it into the village and the village raises all the kids in a giant swarm. It takes a village. She told me, “She can’t imagine raising kids in America.” If she has kids, she’s going back to Zambia because she needs a village and you can’t get one here.
This is an interesting question. I’ve been thinking about the whole village concept when it comes to entrepreneurs and families. I’m very interested in co-housing and all of that stuff. How do we reinstitute the villages? Do you think that there’s anything that’s fundamental with our society that is preventative of villages? Do you think that it’s fell out of vogue and now we’re realizing how much we’re paying the price for it and now it’s going to come back into vogue?
We’re definitely at the point where we’re realizing we’re paying the price for it. I feel that way. Even where I grew up, my family was small. I had a brother and my parents. We didn’t have any direct relatives in the state. My ancestors were in other states. My ex-wife’s family was big. They also had immigrated but they have big family concept. There were five kids. Most of the kids had kids and there’s a whole tribe going there. They all hang out at grandma’s house on weekends and it’s a village thing. They get a lot of support from each other. Grandma helped raise the kids, all of them. She’s amazing, I don’t know how they do that.
There’s that thing that’s possible. Family, you can never get away from. Even though you abused your family members by making them babysit your kids and stuff like that, they abuse you by making you babysit their kids and stuff. It all keeps going. With friends, in my life, I optimize for friends more than family because I liked being able to choose. My family is good and all but I like to be able to choose people who have shared interests and things. It’s very difficult to build a relationship as deep and significant as a family member with friends because they’re here in the city for a while until you get a job offer in the Bay Area or vice versa. People are coming and going and you can’t abuse them the same way. My friends didn’t babysit my daughter too much.
Is that a willingness issue or is that a willingness to ask issue?
It’s a willingness to ask issue. That’s part of it. I don’t want to babysit anyone’s kids, so don’t ask me. That sense of community has eroded so much in modern life because we don’t need each other to survive. Up until 50 to 100 years ago, a person couldn’t survive on their own. You had to get married, you had to have a family, and you had to have somebody helping you out. Now, anybody can survive on their own. You can get a job, even if it’s a lame one. You can pay rent and you can buy food. You can get by. I’m not to disparage anyone who’s got a tougher situation but the point is your neighbors, I don’t know my neighbors. I know the one guy over here a little bit. The folks in the building, there are three neighbors. I don’t hang out with them. I don’t know anybody else who lives in this immediate neighborhood. Upper Queen Anne over there, I know people because my daughter goes to school there.
What do you think that is? As I said, I’ve been thinking about the co-housing thing a lot and I live in the Pike Place Market. There’s a very interesting community aspect that happens there, more so than other places. I’ve been there for years now.
You do know some neighbors but you’re the type of person who would know.
I am the type of person that would try to know their neighbors.
We got team-building and leadership stuff all starts to kick in. What’s happening is we’ve homogenized on a few life patterns, let’s say. That’s what people are growing up looking forward to and expecting. Humans are only good at doing what they’ve seen done before. We’ve only seen a few things. We’ve seen them become an old maid cat lady. We’ve seen get married and have a kid and then get divorced and then fight. There’s that pattern. They’ll get married, grow old together, and have nothing in common and don’t get divorced because it would look bad to the kids. There are a few patterns. I’m being disingenuous but basically, we have a few patterns.
You notice there are not happy ones in your list.
They’re off for a little while but I’m not being totally disingenuous. The truth is a lot of them are happy for a while. I was married for twenty years and a lot of them were good years and I’m not sorry about that. It was successful for a long time but it wasn’t something that would work for our entire lives. We’re already out living the median lifespan of a human. Those first 30 years, if a long time ago, let’s say, I got married at twelve and had babies by 13, 14, 15, died by 30, you’re doing pretty good. You don’t have time to get cancer. Cancer isn’t going to catch you if you died at 30. Now that we’re living to 70, we got a lot of problems and some of them, it’s hard to maintain those relationship structures for so long.
Do you think that that’s fundamental or do you think that we just sucked at figuring out how to do that well?
It’s fundamental but we suck at figuring out what to do because we’re trying to do what we’ve seen done, whether it works or not for us. The answer is you got to run a lot of experiments. This is one of the amazing things about Seattle, San Francisco, being on the West Coast.
We are running lots of experiments.
Co-housing doesn’t sound like a crazy thing. If you show up in Indiana or Tulsa, Oklahoma and talk about co-housing, I don’t think people know that work. No offense.
You’re going to be like, “That’s some weird hippie stuff.”
It’s especially going to fail and a lot of it does fail because it’s not a fair experiment. If you start an experiment, you don’t get equal support for this experiment that people doing the traditional thing would get, then it’s a doomed experiment. You have to have societies that are willing to allow people to try things like having multiple partners or having co-parenting situations or cohabitation situations or different kinds of things to figure out what works. Sometimes those things do work and I’ve seen a lot of them because I used to live in San Francisco and there’s some weird shit going on and everybody plays along and we’ll try to be supportive like, “What happens?” “There are three people in this couple and we’re trying to send them a wedding invitation but do we put Mr. and Ms. and Mrs.?” We don’t even have conventions for these things.
Every time you don’t have a convention, it’s one more thing that makes it hard on the people and experiment even if they had something good going. These are very difficult things to solve in short order. They take a long time but overall, what I try to do is give people the benefit of the doubt, let them try the craziest thing that they can bring themselves to try and see if they discover something that can work. Don’t judge them based on whether they lived happily ever after. If it worked for a while, that’s pretty good. If you can take care of somebody and be good to them for a while, a good place to start would be better breakups.
That’s totally possible. I’ve seen some amazing ones.
I’ve heard some great breakups. Great divorces even. Those are things people should strive for. That should be part of your model and say, “We’re going to do this until death do us part or until we have a good breakup. Let’s try and get ahead of that.” That’s not usually what’s in people’s vows but if you can’t do that, you’re going to do more damage to each other, to kids, to people around you. We already know marriage is long in the tooth as an institution. It’s great for people who want to try it. It’s good for some people for some time but lots of them are failing. You have to accept the statistical probability that it’s not going to last forever. Don’t make your only way out raising everything and burning it to the ground. It’s sad to see that happen. It’s damaging to a lot of people. I don’t know what the answers are but the way to find those are through lots of experiments.
I can keep asking questions all day long. We did good. It’s not so bad.
Adina is the CEO and co-founder of Spiral Genetics, a leader in bioinformatics for population genomics.
At Spiral Genetics, she leads complex sales to highly technical audiences, drives business development and product vision, and has built a diverse team of highly talented technical and scientific individuals to develop the world’s most advanced bioinformatics technology. In addition, she is the primary catalyst for creating a transparent, high integrity, and mission-driven culture.
Early in her career, Adina worked with two other high-technology companies wherein her role included team development, brand development, marketing, channel development and sales for complex technologies.
A graduate of the University of Washington, Adina holds a B.S. in Psychology with a focus on Entrepreneurship and was recognized by the Washington Biotechnology and Biomedical Association as one of the 2013 Women to Watch in Life Science. Additionally, she was featured in Forbes 2013 “30 under 30″ for Science and Healthcare. In 2017, Forbes named her as one of the All Star Alumni for the 30 under 30 in Science and Healthcare. Adina’s passion for world-changing technology, coupled with her adept entrepreneurial focus and clear team development skills have enabled her to bring Spiral’s technology to the forefront of bioinformatics innovation.
Recorded on May 1, 2019
Video Games: Optimized Learning Environments — David Edery
Mar 10, 2021
David Edery is a buddy of mine who I think you guys are really going to love. Dave is one of the co-founders he’s the CEO of Spry Fox, which is a unique game development studio here. They’re based here in Seattle, but they have people spread out. They made Alphabear, Steambirds, Triple Town, and Realm of the Mad God.
These are games that all together have 50 to a hundred million people playing them worldwide. Dave is a very successful game developer making really delightful games. They’re trying to make the world a happier place. You should definitely play their games on your phone. Dave used to work at Microsoft and and he wrote a book about transforming business with what can be learned from video games. The book is called Changing the Game. I think even now a lot of those lessons can be super relevant.
I think of games as like the future of almost every industry. Video games are an industry where there’s a lot of competitive dynamics. Unlike almost everything else, no one’s paying you to play a game. If you get bored, you’ll quit. And nobody wants to read a manual to play a game or take a class to play a game.
So the games have to teach you how to interact with them. And there’s so many things that can be done with video games. I’ve seen so many other industries learn from games. We also talk about the capacity of games to be used for education and learning.
I’m really interested in that topic and have thought a lot about it over the years. Dave is a guy that you would want to talk to about that. He also has a really unique culture in his company that he’s tried to create. As well as a really unique view of developing culture in online communities. He has a lot of experience with this.
I think anybody in the game industry knows Dave by now because he’s also involved in creating a community out of game developers. There’s a lot to learn here and I’m hoping that you guys really enjoy this episode.
Pablos: I have a zillion questions for you. This is going to be fun for me. At this point, you had a super interesting and maybe not extremely long but long career in building video game companies. Video games are the glue or something that connects a whole bunch of people to computers, computation, coding and all this stuff. People don’t realize how responsible they are for scaling the interest in personal computers. That’s important because it attracted a lot of people, money, investment and even things we take for granted, especially like the obvious ones like GPU’s are almost entirely made possible by the demand from the video game industry.
To some extent, ramping up the scale, reducing costs on hardware, all the things that exist in the CAD industry, for example, for making 3D models and designing stuff on computers, that industry can pay $10,000 or $20,000 for a workstation that’s top of the line and super-fast to render models. They don’t have economies of scale. They’re never going to get the custom hardware they would want. They’re never going to get the price down to the point where a lot of people could use it, but video games did that for everybody. The industry itself is the first entertainment-related industry that got computers connected up to real people.
David: I don’t think it’s a coincidence that when you look at systems that are being put in place to teach kids how to program, a lot of them have a big focus on, “You can make a game this way.”
Even when I was a kid, we didn’t quite have video games or the ability to make them, but we had things like logos, which was like, “You can make this thing move on screen like a video game.” It’s trying to make it accessible. Now that is how kids learn. The starter drug for coding is Minecraft mods or making a game from scratch. It’s an important part of the history of personal computers. You probably know better than me, but my understanding is that the scale of the video game industry is bigger than movies, TV, music and books combined.
They include hardware sales in that. I’m pretty sure that includes the sales of the console themselves and stuff, but still it’s a lot.
You wouldn’t count the cost of your television and the cost of the TV industry.
We’re not including that either. We’re all sharing the TV. They’re including the stats for the Xbox and the PS4. Even if you take that stuff out at this point, I don’t know for sure, but I wouldn’t be surprised if we’re beating movie revenue even with the hardware taken out.
That seems pretty easy to substantiate. It’s a massive industry and super influential, and has gotten past high school nerds.
Something like 99% of kids under the age of eighteen play games.
A lot of middle American housewives.
They don’t count themselves as gamers, but then you ask them, “Have you ever played Candy Crush?” They’d be like, “I play it all the time.” There you go.
Apparently, that’s a significant market too, casual games, all the PopCap stuff.
Unfortunately, PopCap is not a big player anymore, but there are various Saga S games. It’s a huge market.
Maybe another way of thinking about is like who’s least likely to be interested in any video games?
The least likely will be someone like the elderly. The older you are, the less likely you are, to some extent. There are plenty of older people who are playing solitaire or whatever, it’s how they pass the time. Even for them, it’s an unfair generalization. First of all, people who didn’t grow up with games tend to be less interested. It’s not a thing. They’re like, “This game thing, what’s that?” That’s a stereotype, but that applies to a bunch of people.
Additionally, even if you did grow up with games, and this is funny, it’s even happening to me. I loved the damn things. As people get busy with work, children and stuff like that, they start to be like, “I don’t have time for this.” They’ll push most games aside. What’s interesting is they don’t push them all aside. They’ll still have that one game on their phone that they pull out of their pocket when they’re stuck in a line.
It’s different contexts. The point I was trying to get my head around the industry because there’s a lot of other industries related to computers that are not nearly as fun, accessible, compelling or something to people in general, but video games are the biggest that go everywhere. It’d be interesting to know how you found your way into this industry.
I grew up playing games. I loved them.
Your parents didn’t suggest, “You should be a doctor, a lawyer or a video game developer.”
I got into medical school and then decided not to go and break my dad’s heart.
People who didn't grow up with games tend to be less interested. Share on X
You have parents that want you to be a doctor.Why is that? My parents aren’t doctors and they didn’t specifically try to get me to be a doctor. I have no interest in it whatsoever. The doctors I know are some of the most abused people on earth. I don’t know why anybody would want that job, but people who have it seemed all want their kids to be doctors. What’s going on there?
I can’t speak to anyone else’s experience. For mine, it was very simple. My dad has this very strong belief that is based in part from growing up without very much. He used to say it all the time. He’d say, “They can’t take away your degree.” Doctors will always make money. They will always be in demand. He would hammer that into me over and over again.
You grew up at a time where employment options were slammed and you had to dedicate yourself to being employable.
Bear in mind, he didn’t grow up in the United States. He grew up in Colombia, South America so even more so.
It’s a higher reliability career.
Shortly after graduating from medical school, there was a requirement at the time that you would have to travel around the country doing national service. He has stories of like, “I was riding a donkey to this isolated town or whatever.” He would tell me. He’d be like, “Everyone is happy to see the doctor.” You’d have instant respect anywhere you go. For him, it’s like a thing. It’s like guaranteed respect, guaranteed money. Why wouldn’t you do it? It’s the right career path. It makes sense for someone who grew up without the resources he was hoping for. The thing that all good immigrants do like, “I grew up with nothing and now look at everything I’m going to give you. You’re going to give your kids even more, but you’ll have to be a surgeon to do that” or whatever.
I’m not trying to get my kid anything. She takes more than she deserves. You ended up getting into medical school. Why?
I’d only ever been doing it because I hadn’t ever thought it through. This medical school program was very interesting. I got in early without having to do all the requirements at Mount Sinai. One of the requirements that you do instead of taking whatever course I was able to skip is, “You have to spend eight weeks with us over the summer and shadow people in the hospital.” It sounds awesome. I went and did that.
The first time I saw a substantial amount of blood, I fainted. They were like, “Don’t worry. That happens a lot. It’s normal.” A few days later, I saw a substantial more amount of blood, I fainted again. They’re like, “It’s not that normal for fainting twice.” I wasn’t particularly enjoying any of this either, it wasn’t just the fainting. I thought, “That’s okay.” I was always interested in psychiatry. I thought, “That’s going to be the thing that will save me. There’s no blood in psychiatry. It’s a doctor who still needs an MD. I’m not going to be seeing a lot of blood as a psychiatrist. It’s going to be fine.”
I spent a week in the psych ward and it was the most depressing week of my entire life. It was horrible. I had a lot of pity for them. That was part of the problem. I had this tremendous empathy for the people who I was seeing there. All the people who were treating them were horrifically jaded. I understand now, as a mature adult, you have to be on some level because the people you’re treating many of them will almost certainly never get substantially better in that context.
At the time, I didn’t know that. All I knew is that this one thing that was the saving grace for me for medical school seemed horrible. I was like, “This is not for me.” I always wanted to be an entrepreneur on some level. The dot-com boom was happening then. All my friends were talking about the startups they were going to make. It seems so exciting. I love computers. The heck with this medical school stuff. I’m going to go teach myself programming and do that. That’s what I did.
This is a total aside. One of the things you said about the jaded people working in a psych ward, the patients, lots of them will not likely to get substantially better, empathy not being a functional cure for whatever else then. I wonder if that’s true in other contexts too. Maybe they’re not in a psych ward, but people in general, in daily life, a lot of the time feels like they’re not going to substantially improve. You have to temper how much effort you put into them. Do you ever feel that way as a professional nice guy?
It’s hard. My personality is such that I’m willing to bang my head against a problem for longer than I probably should. I’m generally not willing to give up, but if you’re running a company for long enough, sometimes you learn that you have to. Whether it’s on a project or an employee who’s not working out or whatever. Sometimes it’s like, “I’ve spent two years trying to make this work. It’s not working, I got to cut and run.” I do think about it a lot. This is one of the reasons why I like games. When you think about what a game has the capacity to do. A game has the capacity to chip away at someone for thousands of hours if they’re willing to give it that much time. This is perfect.
It is trying to teach you and it’s ultimately patient.
Think about what you can accomplish. That one of the reasons I got excited about games in the first place was the realization that imagine there’s a person who’s bad at X but they like your game. That’s cool. They might be willing to spend 1,000 hours getting better at X, whatever X is.
That’s one of the things I think about a lot. We often are fixated on a lot of things with robots right now. Robots are amazing because you teach one robot something and they all learn for free. With humans, you got to start over from scratch with every single one of them. You teach them something, you’ve accomplished nothing that scales. You have to start from scratch and teach the next one. It is work every time.
The problem with education is nothing about it scale. The video games to me are these extraordinary optimized learning environments. A video game has got to assess where you’re at, put a challenge right in front of you. If it’s too hard, you get bored and quit. If it’s too easy, I get bored and quit. Nobody’s paying me to play video games. Nobody’s paying my kid to play video games, but yet they do it all the time and people do it all the time. That’s what a good teacher would do. If you could afford to have a one-to-one student-teacher ratio, your teacher would understand your level where you’re at, what your interests are, and know how to put a challenge right in front of you. It’s not too easy, not too hard.
The games are doing that. People disparage video games all the time, but they don’t realize that these are optimized learning environments. They’re outperforming schools, all of them. My kid would go to school for six hours, come home bored having learned nothing. She plays video games on her iPad for 45 minutes and learn a ton. It’s mostly stuff we don’t care about for learning, but it’s a learning environment that is compelling.
It’s funny when you were talking about how teachers aren’t scalable. Another thing that’s typically considered highly not scalable is therapy. Therapy is a one-on-one like you and a $200 an hour therapist or whatever it costs, going back and forth for years until you are a slightly happier and better person. Talk about something that’s super not scalable. I was watching a webinar. I have a guy I know in Boston. He’s created a company called Mightier. They’re creating games that will help children with emotional self-regulation. I was particularly interested because my daughter has mild anxiety issues, nothing like crazy, but enough so that we take her to therapy because we want to help her with this.
When I found out that this guy I know had created a suite of games that are designed to help kids with anxiety, I was like, “I have to check this out.” We haven’t gotten it. I’ve only watched the webinar. I should be receiving my package soon, but they had one thing that was clearly a knockoff of Fruit Ninja. The way it was working is there was fruit falling down from the sky and the kid had to cut it. As they’re playing, the kid is wearing a watch or something that’s measuring their heart rate.
If their heart rate goes up because they’re getting excited about the game and the game is getting more intense, the game purposely starts to obscure the screen so that it’s even harder than it already would have been to play. This is a feedback thing and your heart is getting up even faster. The obscuring of the screen is linked to your heart rate. At some point, you can’t even see the screen. You have to tap the thing and say, “Stop.” It prompts you to use deep breathing exercises to lower your heart rate. Once you do, the screen obscurity stops and you can go back to playing it. I thought that was such a cool idea.
I’m excited to try it with Arian, which we haven’t had a chance to try it yet. It’s a perfect example. I don’t know if this will work. It’s based on research that came out of Harvard. It’s got sound research backing, but assuming that it works, imagine with a piece of relatively inexpensive hardware and a set of digital games that can be distributed for free to any iPad, all of a sudden you have a way to help millions upon millions of kids with emotional self-regulation. What’s that worth? It’s pretty cool.
I’m thrilled about that. It is interesting to see the way because we all have mobile smartphones and these kinds of things, and apps are relatively inexpensive to make and distribute. Lots of things like that that people are doing to try and better themselves. There’s work to do to take the best in class, understanding of game mechanics, gamification, and then cross-pollinate that with the problems like anxiety or things that you’re trying to solve for. A lot of times you end up with a mediocre game and a mediocre solution to your problem, which I think of is educational games in the ‘80s.
There were awesome games and then you had mediocre games that would teach you stuff. The second kids figure out you’re trying to teach them something, they’re out of there. For an adult or someone who knows like, “I’m trying to reduce my anxiety. I’m going to do this thing and sign up for Headspace or whatever.” That will work, bur with kids, I always thought what we ought to be doing is burying the things we want kids to learn into awesome video games.
A friend of mine years ago had made the first Medal of Honor or Call of Duty, which I don’t remember which one came first. He would go visit battlefields. He would interview veterans of these wars. The whole game was historically accurate, all the guns, all the characters, all the locations. People thought they were just running around shooting stuff, but they were actually learning war history. We have this entire generation of people who grew up playing those games. They don’t even know that they know a lot about these wars. You could debate the merits of learning war history. Those games were no compromise.
Civilization is the one that people most often bring up. You’ve played that.
No, I’m a big fan but I don’t play any games.
You’re going to have to play Civilization because it’s one of the greatest strategy games of all time. It’s a storied franchise. It existed since I was a kid. People oftentimes will bring that one up in the context of a discussion about exactly what you were describing. These games that are awesome and happen to teach you something. Civilization was all about advancing your civilization from pre-wheel technology all the way to traveling to space. Unlike SimCity, this is a competition. There are other civilizations and you’re either going to have diplomacy and succeed that way, or war and succeed that way. You can have to try it one way or the other, or you can succeed by being the first people to reach the stars since one of the conditions in the game.
There are multiple different ways. One of the ways is researching new technology, whether it’s the wheel, tanks or whatever. Civilization does this wonderful thing where first of all, it’s highly fictionalized. Yes, the wheel came before this thing, which came before this or whatever. It’s presenting to the scientific developments in an accurate order. Second of all, it has all this information about those developments, but it doesn’t force you to read them.
When you develop the wheel, it’s like, “Here’s all this information about the wheel and why it was such an amazing thing. You can read it if you want to. You don’t have to if you don’t want to. It’s there. Tons of kids goes into reading that stuff and end up developing an interest in history as a result. It’s in science and a bunch of other things. This comes up over and over again. It’s considered one of the primary case studies for how you could do an educational game correctly.
To me, it seems there’s another aspect of it. Aside from the educational aspect of it, in the lab where I was working, we did a bunch of computational modeling and the primary thing we were doing or one of the biggest projects was trying to model the spread of disease. You have the same thing as SimCity or I don’t know about Civilization, it’s probably the same thing. You have a model of a city and you can try different things. You could figure out which things make the city work better and which things cause it to spiral down into endless doom. We’re doing the same thing, but for the real world and trying to figure out which things can we do to end the spread of a disease. Fundamentally, they are not much different from each other.
What’s happened over the course of our lives, our computers got faster and more powerful with more memory and more capable, and now we can run ever more complicated models. The point being is you have a model where you get to run experiments in a way that’s safe because if they fail, nobody dies. In the real world, we’re always running one big experiment where people die because we got it wrong. One of the amazing things is we’re at this point now where we’re not nearly so computationally constrained. For our whole lives, the models were always super limited because of how expensive computation was and the availability of it.
Now we’ve got more computation than we know what to do with it. It’s allowing us to make these ever more complex models of the real world and run all those experiments in them. You could easily imagine, for example, the future of a real city would be a computational model. It’s like SimCity. We’re in Seattle. You should have a SimCity of the actual Seattle. You should be able to run a bunch of experiments. They were like, “What would improve traffic? What would improve reducing homeless populations? What would improve shortening the line of Starbucks? What would improve parking?” All those kinds of things could be tested in a computational model before you make a choice about what to do in the real world. That’s not happening right now because you can see the kinds of problems that we have or a lot of them would be easy to fix that way.
It’s inevitable and in some sense, imminent that we’ll get those tools. All of it goes back to video games. We’ve been doing all that in video games forever. Video games are impressions about the future of almost every industry. They’ve been at the forefront of adopting these technologies, putting them to use. You look at the progression of 3D rendering, trying to make photo-realistic imagery. The whole world got to watch this play out through Pixar movies. Toy Story was specifically a story designed to keep from ever having to show a person because rendering skin and the luminosity of skin was so hard. Rendering hair was hard.
As the years progressed, they started doing things like Monsters Inc., where they’re showing off how good they could do at rendering hair. It’s like, “Our main character is Fuzzy,” because pics are showing off like, “See, we do hair now.” It was a hair movie. There’s the Asian hair movie based on a video game. I’m not sure which one that was, Shrek and those things. We’ve long since solved hair. We’ve long since solved this luminosity of the skin. We can do all of those things. It’s the exact same thing we’ve been doing in video games. It just had to advance to the point where we could do it all.
There are a lot of things that games do that have been doing for a lot longer than anyone else realized like, for example, there’s all this conversation nowadays about toxicity and online communities, and how do you solve for that? Games have had to be worried about this and solving for it for decades. They’re way ahead of the curve, which nobody knows or at least decision-makers don’t know. That’s changing as decision-makers become more people from our generation.
People ask me about those things. I think of it as a maturation process. I got an email in 1982. I’ve been chatting online since the ‘80s. At first, it takes over your life, but you build an immunity. You learn to figure out like any other addiction, how much of it is making my life better, and how much it was making my life worse?” You learn to balance that. Some people fail to learn to balance and that’s where you end up with real problems. Most people do learn to balance. I got in Instagram. I lost two weeks of my life to that. I got it under control. Now it’s not an addiction or something that eats up my life anymore. Some people overdo it. Some people don’t engage because they know they’re addictive, things like that.
There’s this real societal mechanism that kicks in where everybody wants to blame somebody else. We want to blame Instagram for taking over our lives. You don’t have to use Instagram. You want to blame Facebook for electing the wrong people. You don’t have to use Facebook or at least not so much. The more you’ve been through those cycles of getting a new whizzbang thing that takes over developing the immunity, the more you have confidence, that’s normal and can be done. A lot of video games are a cesspool for bad behavior. There do seem to be interesting cases where the community in the game develops their own set of values and their own enforcement mechanisms. They’re little societies.
In some cases, they’re gigantic societies, millions and millions of people participating in them. It’s like anything else. It turns out that culture is a powerful and sticky thing. People tend to underestimate how hard it is to change a culture once it has calcified into a given form. Good game developers understand that if they want their game community to have a good culture, a culture that will be welcoming to new entrance and generally non-toxic that you have to be vigilant from the very beginning. For example, we have an MMO that we’re working on. Because it’s still in development, it hasn’t been released publicly yet. It’s got a relatively small community of about 1,500 people in Discord, which is one of the big gaming online communities nowadays.
We’ve been super clear with them from the very beginning that we have zero tolerance for any particularly toxic behaviors, anything like racist or sexist speech, but even being rude to someone we don’t tolerate. We’ll just warn you, “You’re being rude, keep it up and you’re going to get banned.” The fact that we’re doing that from the very beginning means that we don’t have the problem that many other game communities have, where nobody bothered to try to enforce that until the community had been behaving that way for months, if not years. At that point, they were like, “Screw you. This is who we are. This is how we function. This is how we talk to each other. Who are you to tell us that we can’t?”
Some people fail to learn to balance, and that's where you end up with real problems. Share on X
We get in from the very beginning and we tell them that. Not just that, where it gets more interesting particularly in the game space is we try to build games that will also function that way. In other words, in our MMO, we have tried to remove all the mechanics that encourage toxic behavior. We’ve been very thoughtful about this. I’ll give you a few examples. In other games, you might have this concept of kill stealing, which is a thing where like, we’re both fighting the same monster. I get the final shot that kills it. I get all the experience points and you get none, even though you did 80% of the work killing it. You did a kill steal. That sucks. That’s ridiculous. That’s a terrible mechanic. All that does is cause two people who should have been happy that they were helping each other, now they hate each other. It’s terrible. In our game, it doesn’t matter. If you do 99% of the damage and I do 1% of the damage, we both get exactly the same amount of experience and it’s the maximum amount possible.
I’m never angry that you were there. Even if you did nothing, you didn’t hurt me. It would have been nice if you had helped, but you didn’t hurt me. There’s no kill stealing. There’s no like, “I did 99% of the work and then you screwed me at the very end.” That seems like an obvious thing when you talk about it. Every game should be that way. In a lot of games, kill stealing is a real thing. We don’t let it be a thing in our game and I could go on and on, but I don’t want to bore you.
I’m interested in this. I don’t know about these problems. I haven’t thought this through the way you have. Is that like a participation award? I show up while you do all the work and kill the thing. I’m like, “I got all the points too,” because I’m not contributing.
The answer is yes and no. Yes, it could be but it turns out, no one joins a game to sit there and do nothing.
They seemed to do it in real life. That’s why I’m asking.
That’s the thing. In the games, they don’t. The games are there to have fun and participate. You don’t have to worry about someone sitting around and doing nothing, unless they’re there doing it on purpose because they’re assholes. You do get that. You get trolls in games just like you get them everywhere else. The question is, can you rob them of their tools to be trolls? The answer is, yes, you totally can. You can do all kinds of things like you can make it. The shared XP is probably one of the best examples. This is less common to be fair, but you’ll see it in other games. You’ll see someone have a power that’s useful to them.
In theory, it’s supposed to be highly useful to the people around them as well. It should be a cooperative power. It’s a heal. As long as I do it near enough to somebody, I’ll get healed but they’ll also get healed. Isn’t that nice? In many games, it’ll be pretty easy. You have to have some skill to execute the heal correctly. If you’re not relatively close to the person relatively skillful, you’ll fail to heal them. You might heal it only yourself. That’s disappointing for them. In our game, we don’t allow that to be a thing.
The heal is this massive bubble that explodes across the screen and it hits anyone even remotely near you. If you’re incompetent, you’ll probably still heal at least a few people. If you’re a troll, you’re going to have to be off the screen to be your troll-ish self and not helping anyone. At which point, who cares, you are off-screen. It’s a matter of looking at the mechanics and saying, “How can I make these mechanics something that someone who is actively trying to be a jerk can’t be a jerk?”
Ostensibly, this work would pay off by making the game more fun because you don’t have to be in a game with a bunch of assholes and practice, is that true?
The nice thing here is that while a lot of the stuff that I’m talking about is fairly unique. We employed many of these tactics in a game that we co-developed a few years ago, and we saw it work well there. I know it works. The thing about that game, which was called Realm of the Mad God, which shared a lot of these mechanics that I’m mentioning now. We developed it with another couple of guys at a company called Wild Shadow in 2011, 2012, something like that.
The problem with that game was that while it had a lot of these great ideas that I’m talking about because we didn’t control it at the time, it was this other company, Wild Shadow, that I did. The community was managing it in a very hands-off fashion. It was allowed to turn it into this highly toxic thing where people regularly were rude to each other and used offensive language. It had half the picture. It had some of the cool cooperative mechanics that were to grieve with, but it lacked the active community management. You still ended up seeing toxicity develop because it will. Anonymous people online, some of them want to be toxic. That’s how it is.
Do you think that you care about this stuff because you’re in Seattle?
I came from Boston so maybe that’s the same thing. I don’t know. I’ve always cared about this stuff.
You got a whole company of people who care about doing this stuff.
They’re all over the world.
Your people are?
Yeah, I got someone in Germany.
This isn’t a uniquely Seattle phenomenon to try and solve these problems in games?
No. I wouldn’t call it common. There’s a lot of people who are concerned about it, particularly toxicity in games, this whole designer communities now forming to tackle this. I wouldn’t say it’s the majority of the game industry that’s fixated on making the world a happier place through games. It’s still a minority, but there’s a fair number of us all over the world.
Maybe starting several years ago, video games essentially killed off most of the toy industry. All the money used to spend on toys got spent on Xbox and PlayStation. That industry is now a little niche. Do you have a sense that the video game industry attracted and a lot more people become more accessible to companies, developers and designers? There’s a multitude of games. I would assume the noise floor is pretty high to get over.
Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on whose perspective you’re taking, it’s hyper-competitive. I like to compare it to some extent to TV and movies, although perhaps even more competitive than those in the sense that pretty much anyone who grew up loving games, there’s a decent chance that at some point they might decide to take a crack at making them. Nowadays with open platforms like iOS, iTunes and Google Play, Steam and all those, pretty much anyone can get together a few of their friends grabbing an engine like Unity, crank out a game and put it out there. You’ve got thousands of games flooding the market every month. Most of them are junk, but enough of them are not junk that it’s hard to stand out. The vast majority of games lose money. That’s true in any open market. Particularly in digital spaces like this one and in entertainment. How many kids do you know that say when they’re young and don’t know better, like, “I want to be LeBron James when I grow up, I want to be Tiger Woods when I grow up?” You have to sit down and explain to them how 0.001% of people will pull that off. Games are the same way.
Your odd of making it are super low.
I feel very lucky to be one of the few who’s making it.
What do you think happened? Was it luck?
A big part of it is always luck. If you’re a humble and honest person, you have to admit that. Some of it’s also timing, which is in many ways a function of luck but not entirely. I was very observant. I like to think I’m very observant. I noticed moments were there’s a blue ocean because the game industry is not like this homogeneous thing. You’ll have moments because a new platform is being born where for example, “There’s an opportunity here. It’s not a red ocean yet.” An example I like to give, it’s a funny one. It was also around 2011. Do you remember when Amazon announced that there were going to be games on the Kindle devices before the Kindle Fire existed? Your black and white Kindles.
The screen refreshes like 300 milliseconds or something.
It was something disastrous. It was terrible. They announced that they were going to allow games on there. I asked every one of my friends where they’re thinking about making a game for it. The answer from every single one of them was either, “I didn’t know that was a thing” or “Are you crazy? The answer is no.” Those were the two answers I got. No one said yes. I said, “Here’s a platform that has millions of people, all of them have their credit card in the system. No one’s going to make games for them. I’m going to be the only one. Let’s give it a try.
Amazon back then was a disaster to work with. They were awful in so many ways. I can’t say it was a good experience, but we made a game called Triple Town for that platform. It cost us $20,000, $30,000 to make. It made over $200,000. It was like an opportunity to learn that this game was a pretty good game. It had a perfect five-star rating for the longest time. We made a mobile version of it years later that reached 13 million, 14 million people or something. I can’t remember how many.
The point is $200,000 is not like that’s a ton of money or anything. It was a 10X profit or 5X profit, whatever it was. It was a safe profit. I was virtually guaranteed to make that money because no one else was going into that market. I’ll pat myself on the back for saying, “That was me being clever.” I spotted an opportunity that everyone else was ignoring. I’ve done that multiple times in my game industry career. Sometimes I pick wrong. I’ve picked platforms that went nowhere.
On the whole, if you do that enough, you can have some advantages that other people don’t have. We also have done it with business models. Dan is my cofounder of Spry Fox. Dan and I got excited about the free-to-play business model way before the vast majority of game developers in the US, before 98% of them or whatever. Most people back then were like, “Free-to-play, that’s terrible. It’s horrible. It’s junk. It corrupts the game.” They went on and on about how it was a terrible business model. It’s also harder to do so why would you bother. We were making free-to-play games back in 2011 before anyone was thinking about that stuff. That was part of the reason we were able to reach an audience of fourteen million people with Triple Town because there weren’t that many people making great puzzle games, free-to-play games back then.
What platform was it on?
Triple Town was in Kindle. It wasn’t free-to-play then. It was free-to-play first on Facebook, back when Facebook games were a big thing. We moved into mobile and it did well there. That was because we had embraced free-to-play in a way that the vast majority of independent developers had not. There are opportunities.
You call it free-to-play instead of freemium or it’s different? It’s free-to-play, but you can spend money in the game to get to watch ads or both.
That was me saying, “This is a business model that’s going to be a success.” There’s no question in my mind, free always beats paid with very rare exceptions, except in the luxury goods space. It was becoming already a big thing in Korea and in China at that time. It’s a matter of time before it becomes a big thing here as well. Observations like that have given me opportunities to succeed where other people didn’t have them. I’ve also made plenty of mistakes. It’s impossible not to. Some of my success is a matter of being in the right place at the right time and having luck. It’s a combination.
If you were trying to get into the business of making video games now, and you’re going into the red ocean because it’s all red oceans everywhere right now. Your odds are low. You’re not setting yourself up to get lucky. You’ve got to look for what opportunities there are to do something different than what everybody else is doing. Doing what everybody else is doing is probably the advice you would give somebody if you wanted to doom them.
If you’re doing what everyone else is doing, you have to realize that you’re competing. There are other companies that exist that specialize in that. They’re good at that. If you decide to make a game like Fortnite now, you’re not only are you competing against Fortnite, but you’re competing against dozens of very well-resourced game companies that are all trying to chase that same wave. You have no chance. You might pull it off, but your odds are incredibly low.
We say this in another business context like, what are your differentiators? What are the things that you’re doing that give you a unique position in the market or a unique offering? These days your companies are like 10 or 12 years old, and you’ve got mostly iPhone games now?
We’re best known for mobile. That’s where we have by far and away the most users, but Realm of the Mad God was a pretty big hit on PC. The game that we’re working on now, Steambirds Alliance, which is the spiritual successor to that. It’s also targeted at PC and consoles. We try to be everywhere in part because speaking of surviving in this red ocean. You never know when a market’s going to go south. It can be hard to tell. Being in many places insulates you from that. I’ll give you a perfect example.
We used a very large chunk of our revenue every year for many years. It has come from Google Play until now. In 2019, that has stopped. There’s a bunch of different reasons. The main reasons are that Google has changed their attitude towards how they manage the marketplace. It’s all AI driven now. I wouldn’t say that the AI is doing a particularly good job. I’ll give you one very simple concrete example. We made a word game called Alphabear 2. It’s a sequel. This is very unusual. I don’t know if anyone else has done anything like this. We partnered with the US Department of Education. We got an SBR grant from them. We worked with professors to build English learning stuff into the game, but in a good way. The way like we were talking earlier where you don’t feel like you’re being forced to learn, but you are learning without realizing it.
We’re pretty proud of this. We put it out there and they did an initial feature of it but it hasn’t gotten as many users as we were expecting. A few months after it launched, I noticed that they have a collection in their store called Word Helpers, Build Your Vocabulary. I look and my game’s not in it. I contact Google and I say, “What’s going on here? I’ve made, as far as I know, the only legitimate free-to-play word-building game in history. I partnered with the Department of Education. There’s a bunch of stuff in this category that’s garbage. It’s not educational.” Their answer was, “Sorry, the algorithm picks what shows up in there.” I said, “You have no way to override that?” They’re like, “Yes, we don’t.” That’s Google there. That’s one of many examples.
A lot of video games are cesspools for bad behavior. Share on X
That’s the example where the algorithm is not only not working for you and your business model, it’s not working for anyone. Google doesn’t have to pay people to use their brains.
There’s a bunch of other details I could get into, but to make a long story short, they have allowed their store to devolve a little bit. You can see it if you go to the word game category, the top 50 games, they’re all clones of the same three games. The top 50 games are the same three games over and over again. That’s depressing, but the thing is that I could never have predicted that that was going to happen. For years, they were a phenomenal partner and effective to work with and were a big source of revenue for us. We’re very supportive of independent game development in general. It dropped off a cliff over a period of six months. If I have had a business that depended entirely on Google Play, I would have been closed.
I heard lots of stories like that on the search side with Google. Companies who built their business around feeding search results, good stuff ended up getting one update from Google changing their algorithm.
I’ve got stories like that. They have a beta program in Google Play where you can flag your game as an early access and open beta thing. You get people to come in and play it before it’s fully baked. Get yourself some good testing and that program was great for a long time. All of a sudden, out of nowhere, unfortunately for us, the same day we were launching a game in beta, they flipped some switch somewhere without telling anyone. All of a sudden, all games in beta stopped getting any traffic, the traffic disappeared overnight. For weeks, I was sending emails like, “What’s going on? Why am I not getting any traffic? How do I fix this?” I’m not getting a straight answer until we finally yanked the game out of beta because we didn’t have a choice. These things happen. I don’t mean to turn this into a Google bashing because I could tell you stories about virtually any platform where it’s gone south without warning. This happens to be the best and most recent story I’ve got. That’s why we’re everywhere. As a game developer, you are way better off being everywhere because you never know what’s going to come. It’s too risky.
You increase your chances of getting lucky. The way the business works, if I understand correctly, in most cases is you guys get an idea for a game and maybe make some mock-ups or something. You go pitch it to a publisher and then try to get them to buy the game.
That is a way and it used to be the primary way. It’s no longer the primary way for many, and it’s not the way for us.
That’s because you can distribute yourself on iOS or these other platforms.
Now you can reach consumers directly. The need for a publisher has lessen tremendously. They still add value. They are a source of funding.
Maybe for bigger games or what?
When you’re talking about people who are spending $20,000, $30,000, $40,000 or $100 million or $200 million developing a game, they will oftentimes get the money from a publisher because it’s such a staggering amount of money. For us, if we’re making a game that’s going to cost $500,000, $1 million, $2 million, we are often capable of self-funding that. Then the question is, if you don’t need the publisher’s development funding, what else do you need from them? If you’re trying to go retail, all of that’s increasingly not needed. If you need help with marketing, that’s oftentimes one of the biggest things. A lot of independent developers have no capacity to do marketing themselves.
Whereas publishers, their primary function is to be marketers. Now that retail distribution is less important thing, a lot of people will work with a publisher mainly to get access to their marketing team and marketing resources. If you’re a good enough independent developer who’s built a strong community and has a good relationship with that community, you don’t need that probably.
Maybe the publisher, even if it’s not primarily stored, they still might have a big email list or possibly a following or some way of getting in touch with previous customers of other games.
I don’t think it’s just knowledge. There are things that you would think that it’s easy to go and set up an AdWords account and do that advertising and make a trailer. It turns out there are little nuances there. It always ends up being more work than you think. Having a marketing team of ten people who are knowledgeable about this stuff is pretty good if you’re like three guys in the garage trying to get a game out and you don’t know how to get anyone to be aware of it.
You are operating at a scale where you have that in-house now.
Pretty much. We still outsource PR. We’re working with an external PR firm because they’re good at what they do, and they’re not that expensive. We make our own trailers. We manage our own communities. We’re very hands-on with that for reasons I was getting into earlier.
What does that mean though? Does that mean you are reading zillions of messages and replying to people?
It’s a big part. There’s someone at Spry Fox reading everything that shows up in our 1,500-person Discord community, which I hope will soon be tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of people.
You’re still going to be reading it all?
It won’t be me. It’ll be somebody.
About how many people does it take to run your company?
We’re eighteen people. We’re pretty efficient as far as companies go. We do way more projects per person than most companies I know.
You’re eighteen people doing the work of 40?
It feels like it sometimes.
One axis of injury here is how do you discourage people from getting into this and encourage them to get into it? You attribute it to luck a lot, but there are a lot of things that you had a lot of work you’d do. A lot of skills you had to develop that were not making and designing games.
I went to business school before I got into the game industry, and that stuff has been very helpful.
If you look at the carnage, where do people go wrong? Do they not give the business and marketing aspects fair consideration or do they not get lucky?
A lot of them won’t get lucky. That certainly is a big part of it.
What do you think of the good ones? You designed a good game. You’ve managed to implement and build it. It’s unique, special, and good in a bunch of ways, but still a disaster commercially. What happened on average?
It’s not a satisfying answer, but on average, you came out at the same time as 999 other games. You got lost in the noise. You could say you’re getting lost in the noise was your fault. That was your mistake. There are a lot of people who underestimate how difficult it is to rise above the noise. For example, a lot of people will think, “If I make something beautiful and exciting enough, I’ll be able to send a video of it with an announcement to the top gaming sites like IGN and whatever. They’ll write an article about it. They’re getting those emails with those awesome looking videos.
It’s a crazy amount. It’s not enough. It’s like, “Did you go and meet them at gaming conferences, have a beer with them, and developed a personal relationship? You didn’t do that. Did you hire the guy who did do that? You didn’t do that either. Guess what? You’re not getting covered.” That’s why I said we hired a PR firm because I’m not out there doing that. There’s a bunch of other things like the platforms. Platform featuring is incredibly important now that the stores have disappeared.
It used to be you would go to Walmart or Game Stopper or some of the biggest companies that are still doing this and you say, “I want to be on the end cap. What do I have to give you to be on the end cap?” You’d pay them some fee or give them a higher rev share or whatever it is that you’re doing and you’d show up on the end cap. The equivalent of that now is going to Valve, the Steam store or going to Epic with their new store and saying, “What it’s going to take to get my games promoted?”
Ninety-nine times out of one hundred, if you haven’t been developing a relationship with them and haven’t been proving yourself, the answer will be like, “There’s nothing you can do, put your game out there, market it and hopefully it’ll do well.” On the other hand, if you’ve been developing a relationship with those folks, you might be able to get them to do something for you. It depends on who you are and what you’re bringing them. Is it worth their time and do they know who you are? Do you have credibility? These are things that a lot of people don’t think through. They’re like, “I’ll build it and they will come.” There are a lot of people who still have that magical thinking, “Build it and they will come.” That doesn’t work in the game space or let me say it works 1 out of 1 million times, which is unfortunately, enough to convince everyone that it’s possible.
It’s the same as the NBA and NFL. When I was a kid, we were like rock bands. We would send out CDs to record labels. What were we thinking? There’s nothing about that model that works. Authors are like, “That will be a bestseller, it such a good book.”
I published a book with Pearson back in 2008, a grand total of maybe 2,000 people bought it or something. It was almost nobody. Minecraft is a pretty interesting example of that thing that inspires everyone. Minecraft was this guy, Markus Persson. He goes by the name Notch. He saw this other cool game called Infiniminer that was amazing and very similar to Minecraft, it never took off. He copied it. Somehow, I honestly don’t know how, his slightly modified version of Infiniminer blew up and turned into a game that he sold to Microsoft for $2 billion or whatever it was. People look at that and they go, “That guy, this random nobody,” he was quite young at the time too, “Look what he did with Minecraft” and the amount of luck involved in that is staggering.
You get a hold of a generation of kids who want to be Notch or Mark Zuckerberg.
There are a lot of people who think they could be Notch. They don’t understand the odds are super low.
Minecraft was particularly fascinating to me. Did you ever read Douglas Copeland’s book, Microserfs?
I’ve heard of it.
It dates to the late ‘90s. It’s quite old. In the book, it’s like some kids who worked at Microsoft and left to start their own company, making this game called OOP, which for you and I mean Object Oriented Programming. OOP described in the book is exactly Minecraft. It’s like a Lego brick game where you could build stuff. Everything about it is Minecraft, but probably the Infiniminers guy got the idea from the book and built it. These things go so far back. The other interesting thing to me was Minecraft was written in Java. You needed to have a JVM installed. Even getting Minecraft working, I couldn’t believe what a pain in the ass it was for me to install and operate Minecraft. It was fascinating to me that it could get so popular being so messy.
This is the fascinating thing about games is that if the game takes off, sometimes the things that seem to be flaws turn into value-add. Kids are excited. It’s like, “This game is full of mysteries and you have to study it and read the Wiki and talk to your friends to understand how to unlock it and be good at it.” It’s transparently flawed, yet the flaws turned into strengths. That requires staggering luck to make that leap.
No one joins a game just to sit there and do nothing. Share on X
You couldn’t plan that. It’s like Linux. Installing Linux in the ‘90s and 2000s was painful. You couldn’t do it on your own. You needed an entire village to help you figure it out. They’d have Linux install fest where you bring your old PC. We try and upgrade from Windows to Linux through seventeen hours of device driver configuration. That was what made it a community and made it feel like we were the resistance movement. Minecraft had that feeling. I’ve met 8, 9, 10-year-old kids who were better coders than me because they learn to write mods in Minecraft. I tried to get my daughter to drop out of school and play Minecraft because I figured like that’s a better future. She won’t do it though. She wants to play sports.
She’s doing that on top of the coding?
She’s doing scratch now in school. She likes that better. I had made her a deal where she got into Swift Playgrounds on the iPad. I don’t know if you’ve seen that one. Swift is the language Apple made to make a modern interpreted language to build apps instead of objective C with all of its cruft. You can make Mac and iOS apps with Swift. As a way of making it too accessible to kids, they made this thing called Playgrounds, which is an iPad-only app that’s a video game. You play the game by writing code. Each level teaches you one discreet concept. You use that concept to control a character in a 3D world.
It’s pretty accessible if you read and pay attention like you learn to code. It’s pretty awesome. She spent some time with that. I don’t think she loved it, but as long as I did it with her, it became a fun thing to do. The kids who get into it and I met a lot of kids now going crazy with making mods on Minecraft. If you play Minecraft on a PC, a Mac or an iPad, you can install these mods and then you can write code to build anything you want. You can build underground tunnels and subway systems and you can go plant bombs under your friends and blow them up and stuff that you couldn’t do in the normal Minecraft. That hooks kids. That’s analogous to hacking. You feel like, “I got this superpower. I can bake your computer do something that’s not supposed to do and blow it up.” The last thing on that track is if you were a high school kid or a college kid who loved video games and thought they wanted to get into the industry, what advice do you have for those people at this point?
I feel very strongly that it’s like many other things in life. If you think you might want to do it, you just do it. You do it enough that you start to get a sense of, “Are you good at this? Do you enjoy this? Do you have that spark? A lot of people will do things that still mystifies me. They will say like, “I want to make video games for a living.” DigiPen is a well-known university based out here in Redmond. It’s very close by. It’s a for-profit university. People spend four years there getting a degree in game development. My understanding is that a lot of the people, who enrolled in that school did try their hand a little bit first before they showed up.
Some of them just show up. It’s like, “You’ve got to be kidding me. You’re committing to four years of learning how to be a game developer at an expensive school without ever having sat down and tried to make one?” That’s insane. There’s no excuse for that. You should have made at least 3 or 4 games by yourself and/or with friends in freely available things online before you ever showed up for a university like that. It’s as simple as that. It’s like saying, “I want to be a famous musician” and not going out and getting yourself a guitar and spending a few years playing it. You got to do that first.
That would be good advice independent of games. That’s how you ended up going to follow along in a psych ward and in a hospital with doctors before deciding that wasn’t for you. It’s a good thing you did that. That’s pretty rare. Less than 1% of college kids did anything like that before choosing their major.
I take it back. I said I don’t know why it’s rare, but I do know why it’s rare. It’s rare for two reasons. One, parents don’t force this enough and they need to, but more importantly, I don’t feel like it should be the burden of the parents. Our education system is broken. The fact that you can graduate high school, having zero ideas about any actual profession is completely insane. Kids should be forced to be doing internships in high school. In addition to having like a course load, that includes practical stuff, but I’m weird.
It’s not hard to make a case that the educational system is not clearly optimized for anything we need other than basic.
When you look at our educational system, middle school and high school, you look at what kids are learning, and don’t get me wrong, reading, writing and math, these things are very valuable. We know that a staggering percentage of Americans are going to end up getting themselves in credit card debt. We know this is a huge issue or going to payday lenders, yet we don’t teach financial literacy. A three-week class in high school could save trillions of dollars. We don’t do it. It’s mind-blowing to think about it.
In general, our education system is so fundamentally biased towards the more abstract things. I’m not discounting them. They’re valuable, but can we take 5% of education time and point towards the more applied stuff? It drives me nuts. To bring it back to games, that’s something that we’ve worked on and are hoping to work on more in the future is games that teach financial literacy. It’s clear that the education system is not going to solve this problem. I don’t think games can solve it easily. It’s a super hard problem to solve, but no one else appears to be trying so you might as well.
Games are probably already doing some of that. You have to earn a currency. You have to spend it appropriately because there’s no lending. Should we add lending into World of Warcraft?
I had a conversation with a friend who’s knowledgeable about the challenges of teaching financial literacy. He told me something very interesting. He said, “Some people don’t understand compound interest and things like that. That’s a problem, but there are a lot of people who do understand those things and still get themselves deep in debt and totally screwed. Why does that happen?” He said, “It’s pretty simple. They’re in a situation that’s painful.” I’ll make something up. Imagine you’re a single mom. You’ve got kids. Kids need books and clothing for school. You can’t afford it. Are you going to send your kids to school in torn clothing with no books? No, most mothers can’t bear the thought of that.
Even though they know it’s a bad idea, they pull out the credit card and they get themselves in credit card debt. What you have to teach them is not compound interest is important. They understand that. They got a kid who needs clothes. What you have to teach them, which is much harder to teach is I understand that the problem at the moment is painful. You are signing up for dramatically more pain. That’s the thing you have to teach them and teach them in a way that they remember it at that critical moment. That’s hard. Nobody’s teaching that to them.
My daughter played this game called Cashflow that a friend of us showed us. It’s a board game. There’s a kid’s version that she’s probably played since she was six or something. There’s a grownup version that she’s been playing for the last few years that we play occasionally. The game is all about learning the difference between assets, liabilities, learning to manage your income and expenses. She thinks she’s playing a board game, but she learned this stuff pretty well. I think the net effect of it has been she’s quite good at saving money. When she gets money, she squirrels it away and doesn’t spend it, but she’s good at spending my money. She loves shopping and she became a real negotiator.
She’s smart. She knows how to spend her money. She knows that there was no real downside for her to try and spend my money. The worst-case scenario is I keep saying no, and she can ask again. That’s her MO. She’s a smarter kid than I am a parent apparently. The game was made by the guy who wrote the book called Rich Dad, Poor Dad, which was some kind of a bestseller. The lessons are pretty straight forward, but people need to learn that. Cashflow is a great game. They should play it in school. I don’t know if there might be an iOS game by now. If not, somebody should get on it.
There are a lot of opportunities.
When I think about the games, I have this vision in my mind from sometime in the ‘90s, not Snow Crash, but The Diamond Age came out. The Diamond Age is a book that Neal Stephenson wrote. A lot of the themes in there are around nanotechnology and stuff that is interesting, but not important. The important part is it’s the first book that I know of to explore those questions of can a computer be a teacher. The subtitle for the book is A Young Lady’s Illustrated Primer. This is in the ‘90s. It describes what we now know as an iPad, but it sounded so futuristic at the time. It was this little girl and she got this book. The book would tell her a story about a princess who happened to have the same name as the girl reading the book, and then the princess goes on these adventures and learn all this stuff. The book was constantly tuning itself like a video game would for the level of the reader.
It’s an iPad with some excellent software.
It sounded unimaginable at the time, but Neal’s been responsible for a couple of these things that inspired an entire generation of geeks to go figure out, how do we build that? iPad is doing a lot of that. It’s more haphazard, less strategic and lots of room for improvement. In my mind, it always opens this question of like, “Because the computers are scalable and the teachers aren’t, could we close that gap and could we make the iPad or whatever to take over the things that it’s better at than a teacher?” The logical next question is, “What are the limitations of that?” We can teach literacy with games. We probably could teach personal finance skills with games. We can help people reduce anxiety and other kinds of things, but is there some practical limit on that? If we were trying to figure out in that equation of like, “Now the games and the computers are going to help teach some of this stuff, what’s the stuff that teachers should be optimizing for that the games can’t do?”
I’m probably not going to give as good an answer as someone who’s like my cofounder, Daniel. He’s a designer who has been thinking deeply about design for twenty years. He may give you a better answer. I’ll give you my off the cuff feeling, which is first of all, games are good at teaching you things that require repetition. While a game isn’t necessarily going to be the best way to have some complex mathematical concept presented to you, although in some cases it might be.
Once I understand the concept, now I just need to repeat it over and over again. Games are a great place to do that. Games are also a great place to engage in behaviors or learn things that would be dangerous to do in real life. Perfect example, I’m amazed that given that we now have pretty good VR tech that you don’t start seeing driver’s ed, where you’re doing 500 hours of a VR driver’s ed before you ever step foot in a car. We already have good driving simulation software, that already exists. There are tons and tons of games.
I’ve learned so much about that industry. All the drivers train in simulators. The Formula 1 drivers aren’t even allowed by the race association to spend time on a track in an actual Formula car. They do it all in a simulator.
My understanding is that people who want to get their pilot’s license will oftentimes spend tons of time in Microsoft’s flight simulator because it’s so good. It’s the same idea. That’s a pretty good example. Maybe I’m not being fair to driving. Driving 30 miles an hour on a regular road is not all that complicated. It doesn’t take that much to understand how it works, but it turns out that there’s a lot of behaviors you need to train yourself to do like checking your blind spot and muscle memory that you have to build up that takes time. Perfect example, not a complex topic, but you need a lot of rope practice and repetition. You need it in a safe environment. Hurray games.
Maybe like grammar or sentence structure might not be the best thing for a game to teach vocabulary would be.
A game exists that helps with both spelling and vocabulary, it’s called Scribblenauts. It’s not one that I’ve made. It was made by a friend of mine. They’ve made several different versions of it. It’s a game where you have your little guy. He’s your Scribblenaut. There will be a challenge like a lion sitting there. It will be like, “The lion needs sleep, but it can only fall asleep in the dark.” There’s a big sun hanging over the lion. You have to figure out how am I going to help this lion go to sleep. You start writing in words. If you write in words that the game understands, it’ll create them.
You can write an umbrella, for example. An umbrella will appear on the screen, and then you position it over the lion’s head and the lions in the shade, and it can fall asleep. It’s an amazing game. It’s made by a company called 5th Cell here in the Seattle area. I’ve had many people come to tell me when I told them I was working on a word game. They were like, “My kids learned vocabulary or spelling from Scribblenauts.” What will happen is you can imagine a kid typing an umbrella, but they misspell it and then the game’s like, “Did you mean umbrella?” They showed them the correct spelling. “That’s what I meant” and whatever.
It’ll also suggest other words as well. They can ask for hints and then they learn words from those hints. You totally can learn vocabulary. In Alphabear 2, what we’ll do is we have a grid of letters, not exactly like in Scrabble, but similar to Scrabble, you’ll use the letters to make words. They don’t have to be next to each other like they do in Scrabble. One thing that we do to teach you, instead of a single letter on any given tile on the grid, we’ll put a set of letters that are a morpheme, like a prefix or a suffix. We’ll have the letters T-R-I show up on a single tile.
If you tap that and use it to spell a word where T-R-I means three, you’ll get bonus points because tri is the morpheme of the day, and we’re teaching what that morpheme is. That’s an interesting one because that’s not simply teaching a single word, that’s teaching you a route that can be used to make many words. Maybe someday you’ll see, for example, because we taught you M-A-L oftentimes means bad or evil. Later you see the word malice, you may have never seen that word in your life, but M-A-L means bad or evil. Malice is probably something related to bad or evil. Games are pretty good for this. There are already several examples of it including one that I’ve worked on. I wouldn’t expect the game to necessarily teach something dramatically more complicated like some various science topics or history, for example. Even Civilization did an okay job with that. In general, if you want someone to understand the ins and outs of the Watergate scandal, for example, you probably need to make them read about Watergate.
In an industry as a game developer, what technology do you wish you had the most? If there was something that doesn’t exist that you wish would exist that could make your job better, make games better or your ability to make them better? If you had a magical wishlist, what’s the first thing on it or make things more awesome?
In general, a lot of effort goes into the server-side of multiplayer games. Making a game perform and be scalable, not likely to crash, not be hackable. All of those things are still hard. There are at least a dozen companies trying to solve that problem. None of them have done it yet. At some point, it’ll be solved, but that’s one of the big ones. There’s also a lot of junk, which at this point, we’ve solved. Several years ago, I would’ve been so happy if somebody had come to me and said, “All that stuff that you have to do to make a game like a service, like having accounts for people, being able to modify their inventory on the fly if they contact customer support, this, that, analytics, knowing what they’re doing, when they’re doing it and how they’re doing it.”
If someone had come to me several years ago and said, “Here’s the thing that does all of that for you and it’s good,” I would have been delighted. I’ve spent millions of dollars making it myself. Now they’re starting to be, there was a Seattle-based company called PlayFab that was acquired by Microsoft that does that. They do that stuff. There are a few other people. Amazon has a company they acquired that’s doing that stuff too. My guess is in a couple of years from now.
Do you think that games are being held back by technology in some ways? Especially as people are playing mostly on their phones and have these tiny screens and no buttons and stuff, do you think that’s holding things back?
Here’s the thing, if you’re a creative person, I like to think of myself and certainly Daniel, my partner, very creative. We don’t tend to lack ideas. Constraints are oftentimes valuable. The fact that the phone doesn’t have buttons, it’s like, “I don’t have to think about all those ideas doing buttons. I can focus on the million ideas that don’t require buttons.” The constraints are fine with me. For me, the biggest challenge at this point that’s increasingly becoming is reaching people and getting through the noise like we were talking about earlier. It’s very hard to break through.
As the big companies increasingly become obsessed with cutting out human moderation and being AI-focused, it’s getting worse. Both Valve and Google have both emphasized algorithmic surfacing of content. I don’t think either of them are doing a particularly good job of that. In fact, I would go so far as to say, they’re both doing a terrible job of it. Epic, which launched their store. They’re all about moderation. They released very few games every month. They’re all handpicked by them. That got its own problems. If they’re only releasing 1 or 2 games a week, that means the vast majority of developers will never be able to release a game on that platform.
That said, if you can be one of those who gets to be part of that, you’re delighted. There’s a middle ground between what Epic’s doing and what Valve and Google are doing. There’s a middle somewhere where it’s open, but you also have a team of people. That team of people might need to be quite large, but that’s okay because these services make billions of dollars. There’s a team of people who are doing their best to curate the content in a way that at least some significant amount of good stuff is bubbling up. You don’t end up with a Google Play word games category, that’s the top 50 are all the same three games copied over and over again.
The company that you made has some strange ambition at least in the way that you run the company. I know you told me at different times about different aspects of ideas that you had about how to run a company. I’m curious how that’s working out.
Which part of it do you want to talk about?
You had ideas that did not work out that you’ve abandoned along the way too. What do you think is the most unusual thing that you guys are doing?
The most unusual thing that we’re doing as a company is how we compensate our employees. That’s almost the most unusual thing or at least that’s what most people would say. We have a need-based compensation system. What we do is when we’re first interviewing people, we asked them to tell us what they need to live comfortably. A lot of people, when you ask them that, their minds explode. They don’t know what that means. We walk them through it.
Free always beats paid almost always with very rare exceptions. Share on X
It’s like, “You’re paying all your bills. You’re going on vacation. You’re saving appropriately for retirement. You don’t have to worry about anything. You’re not living luxuriously. You can’t go out and buy a Ferrari, but you never have to worry. You won’t have to worry 30 years from now when you decide to retire.” We walked them through all of that. We say, “Give us that number. If we can afford that number,” which I can’t guarantee I can, because you might come back with a million number, “I’ll pay it.” There will be no negotiation. It doesn’t matter who you are. It doesn’t matter what your job function is. I understand that maybe you’re “just” a QA person. This other person is an engineer who would normally be making three times than you are. I don’t care. That’s not how my company works. I pay you what you need. I value everyone equally.
Extensively, that means at least in some cases you’re probably overpaying people from the market perspective.
We are overpaying some people from a market perspective and underpaying other people.
What do you think is the point of this system?
It’s to make sure that all my people are happy. It’s based on Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. It’s based on this idea that once you have no financial issues of any kind, you have maxed out on happiness for money. If I can give that to every one of my employees, I want to give that to them. I don’t want to give more than I have to the engineer solely because he’s an engineer, and less than they need to the QA person solely because they’re the QA person. What that means is I have to employ people who buy into this because the engineers are giving up something by coming here. The engineer could be making more somewhere else, but I hire people who are into that. They’re like, “Yes, I want to be part of the company that values people that way.”
Do you think it’s buying you the thing you’re looking for, which is that happiness factor?
It seems like. It’s not going to work for everyone. This is not even a judgment of them. This is not a criticism or anything. I don’t have any problem with someone saying to me, “I know I can make $300,000 a year. I’m going to go do that.” Good for you. That’s awesome. That’s wonderful. I make no judgment. I know that there’s a segment of the population. It’s funny. We have a guy working for us. We were having this conversation. He made me laugh. He says, “My mom keeps harassing me to go get a job in the federal government.” She works in the federal government.
She says, “It’s the best job in the world because it’s utterly safe. You never have to worry about anything. You’re going to retire with a pension. You’re going to be fine.” He laughs and he’s like, “That’s what’s like. I never have to worry about anything. Instead of having a crappy job in the federal government, I make games for a living.” She can’t comprehend that because it doesn’t exist anywhere else. I have yet to meet another company that works this way. I’ve been asking everyone I meet.
This is something you pioneered?
I don’t know who does. I made this up. I’m not that kind of person. I am not particularly risk-averse in this way. I have been willing to live off of peanut butter sandwiches for however long I needed to get companies off the ground in the past. There are a decent number of people out there for whom financial anxiety is a real thing. If they can eliminate it from their lives, that’s the best thing ever.
Do they perform better do you think?
I think so or let’s put it at least this way. I don’t know if their performance and my company are dramatically better than it would be at any other company. I do know that they’re much happier people. As a result, I have their loyalty in a way that no one else would have.
In theory, the federal government might have a better track record of longevity than a game company.
That’s true. I have to admit that. I can’t guarantee that I’ll be around the same way they will. On the other hand, they’ve done more for those than I have.
A lot of times it seems like we take the normal compensation structures that other companies have for granted in an unquestioning fashion, which is why you’re in the business of teaching your potential employees about personal finance to be able to comprehend the job offer. You are in some sense trying to solve a problem that maybe they didn’t know they had. More importantly, you are in a position of pioneering a different model here. Whether or not yours is a good one or good for anybody else, the act of doing that is hard. It probably comes with a real cost. Some people maybe weren’t even willing to invest the effort to understand why the model would be good for them or you.
That I’ve never had. That might also be a function where cool games company that people want to work for. Maybe if I was a bank, people would be more likely to walk away. I can’t pretend that I know. This is a model that could work almost anywhere, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it needed adjustment of some kind to make it work in less interesting issues.
Do you have staff outside of this area physically?
Everyone works from home including me.
Do you think that that’s another thing you have to screen for and find people who are amenable to that?
Almost everyone with very rare exception thinks that they’ll function well in that environment, but not everyone ultimately will. We’ve started to learn little signs of that. We have plenty of introverts who worked for the company and they’re fine. Extreme introverts, the kinds who have no life outside of work. We’ve hired only one. We were afraid about what happened and sure enough, it didn’t work out because that person was like, “I’m miserable. I have no social life anymore. The only place I ever interacted with humans was at work and now I don’t do that.” That’s an example of we will ask people questions about their social life, “What are you going to do when you’re stuck at home all day long? How are you going to get human interaction? How’s it going to work for you?”
We ask questions like that. There are also things like, how much of a self-starter they are? Someone who’s not a self-starter does not do well in that environment. I’m not there to see that you’re doing nothing and give you a pick me up speech. You got to take care of that yourself. Self-starters are super important, people who can deal with the fact that they don’t have a physical work, social life anymore. In general, this is similar to the self-starter. We’re not a micro-managing culture in part because I’m not there to physically do it. That’s a good thing, frankly. I don’t want to be a micromanager. There are some people that need that. They need someone telling them, do this, do this. It’s not going to be us. You have capable of figuring out, “I did this thing so I should probably do this other thing next,” without bothering anyone.
One of the things that were a misconception about introverts because I’ve worked with at least quite a number of people who are more introverted. People think that they’re anti-social. It’s not the case. They want to be in a context where they do get some social interaction, but it needs to be maybe limited or managed in some way.
I’m somewhat introverted but almost nobody knows it. If I’m around someone like you who I’ve known forever, it doesn’t cost me energy. This is fine. This conversation is easy for me. If I’m talking to someone I’ve never met before, it’s draining. There’s no question about it. That’s why someone who’s an extreme introvert might care about having a job in an office where they know everybody. It’s a place where they can go to be with other human beings, which is important to all of us. There’s nobody who wants to be alone all the time. It’s not draining for them because it’s people they’ve known for years and they see them every day. It’s a routine. It’s relaxing. As opposed to, “Crap, I don’t have an office to go to anymore. I’m going to have to meet people now like total strangers. That’s terrible.” Introverts need social exposure like the rest of us.
Maybe you haven’t run into this, but for people who are on the autism spectrum or Asperger’s people, a lot of times what I find is they need somebody not to micromanagement, but to tell them what to do next. They’re good at focusing. They’re good at working and going deep. They will potentially keep doing it even when they shouldn’t. They need somebody to manage their attention and time and prioritize. If you can pair them with that person, they can be wildly effective.
Those people can be incredibly valuable in certain tasks. There’s no question about it. I’ve worked with quite a few people who have Asperger’s and they were some of the best people I’ve ever worked with. A company that’s remotely distributed like ours can work with people like that. It is harder and it’s something you have to be very conscious about. We underestimate how much information we gather as human beings just from looking at someone like their facial expression, what they’re doing with their hands, whatever. You got a lot of information about what’s going on with a person by doing that. In a remote environment, more often than not, you’re not doing video chat.
You’re quickly text chatting on Slack or whatever. You have to be especially vigilant as a manager of someone who needs that high touch when you’re not able to look at them and know what their needs are in part from that alone. I’m being honest. We want to be a small company. Part of the reason that we do what we do well and can do this weird compensation thing is because it’s more of a family than a giant company.
You don’t have the ambition to be a big company.
I wouldn’t cry if we had a game so successful that we had no choice, but to be much bigger. It’s not something I have an ambition for. I want to make millions of people happy. I’ve already done that with eighteen people.
I don’t know that much about how WordPress automatically does it. In my experience, I can work remotely well with people if after I have worked with them in real life. If I had that context and I’ve got a working relationship with them, then maybe my brain can visualize what their facial expression would be at any given moment. It makes it easy because I have a working relationship. If I don’t have that, I get a lot of miscommunications, misfires and people take offense at the things that I was being brief. That stuff drives me nuts. Do you have to screen people for writing? I assumed automatically was finding people who love to write because they’re all about blogging. People write, they write emails, they read a lot and they’re into that. That’s why it works.
There’s no question that communication skills are a key thing. I should have mentioned that earlier when you asked, what are you interviewing for? If you can’t communicate clearly in Slack or whatever channel we’re using that work for us. Most of our communication is texts. That said, there are other things. I haven’t talked to anyone at Automatic about this so I don’t know if they have changed. When I was doing some consulting for them ages ago, they’re broken up into teams and every team gets together up to four times a year. Since they live all over the world, it’s usually picking a place they all want to go hang out.
They’re like, “I’ve never been to Budapest before. Let’s go there.” They go and they hang out in Budapest together for a week. That’s a critical part. It’s exactly what you were saying. They can learn how to interact with each other better and form a more human connection. When they go back to their separate homes it’s like, “I remember Pablo says this kind of guy. He makes these kinds of sarcastic jokes. It’s no big deal.” It’s a thing.
Do you guys meet up?
Yes. We don’t do it four times a year. I don’t feel comfortable spending that kind of money yet. We usually do it once or twice a year. In June 2021, we’re all going to Mexico together. The same reason exactly. It could be a coincidence. Almost everyone who comes to work for Spry Fox stays with Spry Fox. The small number of people who haven’t worked out and who have left voluntarily, I don’t think it’s a coincidence that a decent number of them skipped the retreat that happened before.
It seems like that would be mandatory.
They always have good reasons. Usually, it’s like, “I had a kid. I had to be at home.” It’s been noticeable. Not going to retreat is a huge sign that within a year, you’ll probably be gone.
Do you guys do team-building exercises and trust falls?
Just hanging out and having a good time. We try to make it a week of vacation. Because we employ people all over the world, you’ll see real cultural disconnects. For example, the guy from South America who comes from a culture that’s very respect-centric have massive communication issues with the guy in the UK, who’s used to being like, “Your code sucks and here’s why.” That doesn’t work. You can’t say your code sucks and here’s why to this guy. He thinks he’s being disrespected. You have to say it differently. The retreat is part of that. I can’t always stop that conversation from happening as much as I try. I can at least bring those two people together and make sure they’ve had a week’s worth of beers together. When they go back, they both remember this person is a decent person. Hopefully, that dampens the rage they feel when the communication comes through the wrong way.
You’ve encapsulated a big part of the problem we’re having in the world which is you stick everybody online and rather than respect for different cultures, what we get is this collision where everybody feels disrespected, everybody feels unheard.
They don’t even see each other’s faces. They don’t even realize sometimes when they’re pissing someone off.
For me personally, I’m so enriched by the fact that I get to travel a lot and I get to go all over the world. I go all kinds of places and almost none of them are like, “I wouldn’t want to live there. I wouldn’t want to live like that. I don’t know why these people are like this,” but you learn to appreciate it. It’s okay. That’s their thing. They’re doing fine. I don’t know it that way, but it can be that way and it’s fine. I feel like it gives me an appreciation for different cultures that I wouldn’t be able to get. You can’t get that online.
As a game developer, you are way better off being everywhere because you never know what's going to come. Share on X
It’s super valuable. I used to talk about how I wish we had a year of national service in this country and make people who live in cities go live in rural areas. People live in rural areas, go live in cities.
Take American teenagers, dump them off in sub-Saharan Africa and tell them they can come back when they’re cool again. I’m for it.
It would make a big difference. It’s very subtle too. Sometimes you’ll take two people and you’ll think, “They have such similar backgrounds.” Still, there will be big cultural issues. I remember there was a guy. He was our CTO for a while, a very good friend of mine. I’ve known him for years. We met at MIT well before I even entered the game industry. I remember we were having a fight one time. At some point, he blurted out. This is a guy that we both had upper-middle-class upbringings, the United States and major cities. We’re both programmer types who went to MIT, the whole nine yards. In theory, we’re very similar people.
We’re having an argument. At some point, he finally blurts out. He goes, “You always want to win every argument.” I got caught by surprise. I’m like, “That’s not how I am at all.” “No, you never allow an argument to end without you winning it.” I had to stop for a second. I was like, “Why does he think this?” I like losing arguments. It’s an interesting thing. If I lost an argument, it means I learned something, which is a delight. It’s wonderful for me to be in that scenario, but he did not have that impression at all. He was like, “This is a guy who has to feel like he wins every conversation.”
I had to explain to him that like, “This is how my family is. We learned by arguing. If you say something to me that isn’t obviously right to me, I’ll keep arguing with you until you either prove that you’re right. If so, that’s awesome. I learned something or you don’t, that’s that. It’s not like I need to win. I don’t care if I win.” That concept was so foreign to him. He was like, “I don’t believe you.” We had to talk about it for weeks before he was like, “Maybe I can see where you’re coming from.” It’s not like he had to change. It also was one of the first things that made me realize that not everybody has a culture of debate in their families growing up. It’s not a thing. For some people arguing is a toxic behavior.
Everybody has to learn that. My mom is from New Jersey and Irish, Catholic family. They argue all the time as a means of discourse. I’m like that. Growing up, if people see me and my mom, it looks like we’re arguing all the time. We were just talking. Even for my brother and my dad who don’t like that, they don’t participate. They don’t like the confrontation. They don’t want anything to do with it. They’d been around us our whole lives. My mom and I were arguing, my brother and my dad going, “What’s wrong with them?” It’s something I learn about myself. I want to do that. I want to argue and figure out, and shoot holes in the idea and see what’s left standing at the end of the day, but lots of people aren’t for that.
You have to realize that. That’s the thing that I’ve learned working remotely with people is that I have to identify which are those people, which aren’t, and behave differently depending on the situation.
I was hoping that maybe I could get away with making them play my way, and they would get comfortable. I realize now that you said that it’s like trying to get my brother or my dad to come around, it’s never going to happen. They’re always going to not like it. I don’t know if you have answer to this. The need-based compensation, are there other strange utopian ideas you had about running a company that you tried that didn’t work?
This is not utopian. There are a lot of companies doing this and they’re doing it successfully. We just failed. I had hoped that despite the fact that we’re this small remotely distributed company. We make a big effort to hire nice people. The criteria is like, do you like this person? Did they seem nice? Would you want to spend a lot of time around them? Not every company cares about this. I assumed that given that those are the kinds of people that we hire, even though we’re remotely distributed and small, we hire senior experienced people.
Given all that, I figured we could hire a few junior people and mentor them and it would be fine. You’re hiring such smart people and they’re so nice. Surely it will work out. It’s almost always a disaster. Virtually every time we hire someone who’s junior like out of school, it’s a disaster. We do not have the ability to mentor them the way they need to be mentored. They need time, face-to-face with someone in an office environment, someone who can coach them when they’re doing stupid things. It’s not always negative but in general, give them guidance. We don’t have time. We’re all off in our own little houses doing our thing. They’re off alone for hours at a time sucking. It’s hard to fix it. In particular, as so many people do when they’re first out of school or a couple of years out of school, it’s hard when they tend to have not necessarily the highest level of maturity. None of us do. I didn’t. I wasn’t the most mature person when I graduated college.
When they’re off alone, they were like, “I get to make my own hours. I’m going to do karaoke all day long, maybe work from 2:00 AM to 4:00 AM because I can. The impulse to behave in ways that are probably not conducive to an effective life increases in a remote environment like ours. Whereas if you’re an intern at Microsoft, you’re expected to show up at the office every day from 9:00 to 5:00. At the very least you have to be that responsible. There’s a bar that gets set that you don’t have to worry about clearing. It’s unfortunate because I was a bit utopian about that. I was like, “We can be a small, remotely distributed company and yet be a great place for young, inexperienced people to work.” We totally can’t. We have failed that test multiple times.
Outside of games, what’s the thing that you’re most interested in?
There are a few things. On a personal level, I’m super interested in anything related to anti-aging. Unfortunately, there’s nothing in games that gives me any insight into that. I ended up reading MIT tech review and scratching the itch that way. I’m very interested to do that because ever since I was a little kid, I was terrified at the idea of getting old and dying. I’m only a little bit better about that now. I’m interested in anything related to gardening and growing crops mainly because it’s a big hobby of mine. Partially because I love it. It’s fun for me. Partially because particularly with climate change and with the explosion of the human population, that’s a thing. We need to figure out how to feed all these people. I’m interested in that topic. My number one that we’ve already touched on a lot is education. It’s not just education through games. It’s education in general. I am not like a lot of other people, a lot of other people are like, “I have the answer. It’s charter schools. It’s this and that.”
I don’t believe in that. There’s no one size fits all answer. I highly doubt let the private sector solve it is the answer either. There’s a whole range of problems including teaching financial literacy and solving for students with particular learning challenges like dyslexia. There’s a bunch of stuff that I’m interested in. I could totally imagine myself at some point deciding it would probably be many years from now being like, “I’m done making games.” I’m going to focus on education in that regard.
Lastly, mental health. The reason I’m interested in mental health is unfortunately, and I’m a little bit sad about it. My sister suffers from paranoid schizophrenia. It’s been something we as a family have been working on for many years and trying to help her with and hasn’t been going well. One of the challenges there, and a lot of people who don’t have someone with severe mental illness in their families doesn’t know this, the laws in this country are not particularly conducive to helping people with severe mental illness.
It’s for good reason. Way back in the day, meaning however many decades ago, it used to be way too easy to commit someone against their will. It was happening all the time for BS reasons like, “My son let me know he’s gay.” At some point, I don’t remember if it was like sometime around the ‘50s or something like that, the pendulum swung and the laws changed radically. It became virtually impossible to force someone to receive mental health treatment.
They have to be a clear and present danger to themselves and/or others, and proving that is super hard. You can have someone who is functionally incapable of operating in society, cannot take care of themselves, is going to become homeless because of their issues until they get to the point where they’re going to hurt themselves or somebody else, which is silly. Why we would let it get to that point in the first place? That’s how the laws in this country work. I think a lot about that because it impacts me in a very personal way. For starters, we have to change those laws.
How would you make them better?
There has to be some system and unfortunately, it will likely be an expensive one. Although I don’t think it will be any more expensive than our broken system. There has to be a system where you could have a panel of experts who at the behest of family and/or friends or whatever, will take a look at someone’s case and be like, “Yes, this person needs to be forced into treatment before this situation where they become a danger to themselves and others.” This is honestly a matter of advocacy. At some point, there’s a chance that I’ll say, “I need to be spending the majority of my work hours doing advocacy trying to change these laws and get a better system put into place.” There are a lot of other things too. There are a million things we could be doing to make mental health care better in this country. That’s a problem I’m particularly aware of that is causing a lot of pain and suffering for millions of people. I’d like to help fix it if I can.
I don’t know about that one. With education, one of the things that keep nagging at me that’s like a recurring nightmare is this conversation that happens almost every day about, “What if robots take all the jobs?” When that happens, I’m often trying to suggest that if robots take all the jobs, then we could get back to working on things that are important. For example, we often cite truck drivers as a job that’s in jeopardy because self-driving trucks seem imminent. If trucks can drive themselves, then what are all the truck drivers do. It’s a quite poor example because there are 50,000 open truck driver jobs in America. It’s much better to try and talk your kid into being a truck driver than a doctor or a lawyer. We don’t need more lawyers, but we do need truck drivers.
There are no self-driving trucks. The point is, I was being flippant, but I’ve said a lot of times that if I could, I would trade any of my kids’ teachers for a displaced truck driver and a one-to-one student-teacher ratio. What I see is that these are not technology problems. I see them as human values problems. We’ve chosen to pay humans to drive trucks full of plastic crap to Walmart instead of paying humans to teach our kids. My daughter’s school, she was in public school for years, every time, it’s 27, 28 kids and one teacher. We can go to PTA meetings, bitch about it and try and get it down to 26 to 1, but that’s not going to move the needle.
There’s no plan, no idea how you get down to one-to-one. One-to-one is where you get a good education. I keep thinking that those are the kinds of things that need a lot of work to advance our economic structure to be able to handle that thing. If we could do those things, then we could change what’s happening in education. You could get it away from this farming kids thing and keeping them out of the labor force as long as possible, incurring as much debt as possible, teaching them as little as possible, and get them to a point where they could thrive.
It had never occurred to me until you said it that millions of people are going to lose their jobs to robots, but so what? We have a great place to put them.
Another way I’ve tried to frame it at different times is I’m speaking a lot. I often start by showing a population growth curve for all of human history. The curve is the classic hockey stick where it’s like flat, thousands, hundreds of thousands of humans, millions. It’s then in the last few hundred years, we go from millions to billions and it’s a crazy growth curve. Another way to read that chart is that we made a few billion jobs in the last few hundred years. We’ve never failed to come up with things to do a lot to do. Even with billions of people working, we’re not out of things to do, class sizes haven’t improved. In fact, they’ve gotten worse or the same time that we’ve made an extra 6 or 7 billion people, we still haven’t improved class sizes. They’ve gotten worse.
I don’t know, but lots of work for truck drivers. Those kinds of things are important to look at because we’re not so good at imagining making things different, but we could make them different and we could do that. That’s how I think about the potential for education beyond using computers and games to try and improve it. We could use people. That turns out to be the thing people are well suited for and robots aren’t.
This is not an area that I personally have a lot of interest in, but if you want to tie it back to entertainment. People are good at entertaining other people. That’s one of the things we’re best at. When you think about it, what do we do with all these people who are going to be put out of work by the robots? They can make entertainment for the rest of us. They can be entertainment for the rest of us.
That is what happened because with the industrial revolution, we got efficient enough for the first time that not everybody had to work all the time. That’s when you did get in entertainment industry. The entertainment industry is maybe 50 to 100 years old. Before that, everybody had to work. There was no such thing as a video game developer. There was no such thing as Nirvana or Toy Story. You don’t get those things. You have to work. It’s true of books, music, movies, elections and video games, all the things people are doing to fill our free time.
That’s the thing. When you talk about books and movies and games and all that, those are all scalable forms of entertainment. They take a thousand of us to make this movie, then it can entertain a billion people. My point is that it doesn’t have to be scalable. You can totally have, particularly in a free-to-play base game economy where a small percent of the population is spending a lot of money. You could have people that you’re employing whose sole purpose is to make sure that people who are spending money are entertained.
We have like buskers in video games. If people had free time and if there was a functional business model for it, you could get paid to go entertain people even inside of a game.
That’s already happening very quietly in some contexts. Game companies aren’t hiding that, but I have heard stories of game companies being like, “We have this one guy who spends $10,000 a year in the game. We have like our VIP team making sure that he’s feeling like he’s taking care of and entertained.”
Nightclubs do that. They hire congenial people to go to see the operation and make it fun for people. Disney is doing that at Disneyworld with people in costumes. Do you have any questions for me?
The main thing I’m wondering is I know you’ve told me in the past that you’re not a gamer. You’ve made that very clear. You’ve told me in the past that there are aspects of game technology that you’re particularly excited about. You used modeling as an example where you started talking about that early on in this conversation. Is there still stuff that’s bringing your head like, “I want to use games to do this?”
The last game I played was Ultimate 3. It was a good one because you could edit the bitmap for the world with a sector editor on the floppy disc. I would go in the sector editor and I could read hexadecimal in those days. I figured out that 3F was like water. If I changed it to like 6D then all of the water would become boats and you could walk on water. That’s the early experience with computer hacking for me. Hacking games got interesting. For most of my life, I would acquire every game, every application ever made. For Apple, I don’t think there was ever a program made that I didn’t use.
On a Mac from like ‘84 when it came out probably up until the late ‘90s, every single program ever made, I would acquire it, usually pirating it. I would fire it up, click on all the buttons, click on all menus, try everything, figure out what it could do. I was interested in what computers could do. That’s the thing that always interested me the most. What can these things do for people? How do we make them do new things for people? I’m still doing that. I was an aficionado of like what can computers be used for? I would try every game, but I wasn’t as interested in playing games as in seeing like what’s new about it. What’s different about it? I’m looking for what’s new and different. In my whole life, I’ve been trying to learn about every new thing a computer could do.
By the late ‘90s, you could download software online. It got pretty efficient. Every morning, there were like websites that showed what was new. I would download everything new, try it all, delete it, then move on. By 2000, 2001, it was too hard to keep up. Since then, I’m more judicious, but I’d say before that, I’ve tried everything. Games, I love them and appreciate them. For some reason, I feel like I’m wasting time. Anytime I’m playing a game, I feel like I could be doing something more productive.
That’s what a lot of people are saying. I’m at the point now where I barely play games when I’m not making them. I love them. It’s one of those things where it’s like I could be playing with my daughter right now. Although now she resented play games together. There’s a little bit of games coming back in that way. I could be spending time with my daughter right now. I could be teaching myself guitar or I could be out improving the greenhouse. I’m obsessed with gardening. It’s one of those things.
I feel that way even more so about gardening. I got hooked on this idea long time ago that I should be doing what I’m uniquely good for. If I’m ever doing something that other people could do better than me, in general, I feel like I shouldn’t be doing that. There are a few exceptions like snowboarding or something, picking up lunch. I do those things because it’s more efficient. In general, that’s how I feel about it. When I’m playing games, I feel like, “I’m not going to get good at this.” Lots of other people are better at this. I’m not going to be making games or contributing. That’s why I don’t play them.
They tend to be time-consuming. This is one of the very unfortunate things about the game development industry and nothing has made this better. Mostly the evolution of the industry has made this worse. Consumers expect essentially infinite entertainment from any game that they get, whether they paid for it or not. This is not true of all games, but for many games, you have to design them. They’re giant time sinks because otherwise a vocal segment of your community will bitch, moan and leave you bad reviews.
They don’t feel like they got their money’s worth.
The irony is sometimes they didn’t even pay for it. They didn’t get their money’s worth. It’s crazy. You’ll go into Steam and you’ll see a review. Steams shows you how long someone’s been playing when they left a review and it’ll be like 35 hours. There’s someone being like, “This game was too short” and thumbs down. You played it for 35 hours. Because of that dynamic, this is why you feel the way you do when you play games. It was merely the review thing or whatever, but you remember for free-to-play games, most of those games, the way they make money is by getting you to be excited about the game and become hooked onto it for months, if not years, and then spend money in it regularly. That’s how they make money. They don’t make any money from it showing up. In fact, they’re losing money because you’re eating a bandwidth and not paying them anything in return.
A lot of people underestimate how difficult it is to rise above the noise. Share on X
It’s one of those things where the economics of the industry have shifted radically towards eating up all your time. Compare that to when games first came out. Do you remember when we were kids and the arcade games first started showing up? It was the exact opposite. You wanted someone playing as little as possible because they were hugging the machine. You get more quarters. They were intentionally designing the game to drive you away after about two minutes. How times have changed? The irony is if the business had stayed that same way, not the eating quarters part, but if it had stayed in this like, “We’re going to purposely get rid of you after a few minutes, you might be a hardcore gamer because it would be like this delightful diversion that only eats up fifteen minutes of your time.”
The economics of it scared me off like arcades. I had computers at home when I was young. I played lots of Road Runner and those things when I was younger and probably didn’t value my time so highly. My daughter is twelve so we play games, and we have her whole life played mostly. She plays video games. I encourage it unlike other parents. Lots of parents ask me, “My kid plays too many video games.” Rejoice lady, they could be watching Netflix. She does watch Netflix. I try to steer her onto games more. She does both. She’s amazingly good at games. We also play card games and board games, which I have loved because they’re so interactive.
It’s the thing for us to do together. One of my buddies is Elan Lee, who’s making some of these games and he plays them all as like a professional responsibility. He knows all the games because he’s trying to design games. Her whole life is like, “Elan, what should we play next?” He would tell us what to play next. I had the best of collection of games in her life. We also get to playtest all his games before they came out. We have prototypes of some of these games that we got the prototype for the newest one, which is called Throw, Throw Burrito. It’s a cross between a card game and Dodge ball. It’s so much fun. We’re having a blast. We have a prototype so instead of foam burritos, we have foam mangoes we’re using instead because it’s a prototype.
I wish more games require that interaction with people.
His whole mission in making these games was to get people to hang out and play together the way he did when he was a kid. That’s what he believes. It is working. I’m not a games person, but his games have made me have that experience that he was craving himself. I have a massive amount of appreciation for that. Even thinking back to like arcade games in the ‘80s, they were social for me. You and your friends would go and take turns. You’d watch your friends play on their quarter and you would go try and beat them on your quarter. You hang out together and even ride your BMX bike to the mall, play the game, talk about it and ride your BMX bikes home. It was very social in that sense. One of the things that I was excited to see develop in online games is that social component. I have such an appreciation for seeing the way people develop guilds in World of Warcraft, and hung out with these folks for years, and developed a leadership structure.
People are meeting their future spouses and getting married. That’s the thing that people who don’t appreciate games don’t understand. There’s a lot of things I think they don’t understand, but that in particular. The fact that you have whole communities forming where people who are isolated, they may live in a place where they have no friends. They’re alone. Imagine the only gay person in a small rural town, how isolated that person must feel or the only minority in a small rural town. Now, take that person and give them 10,000 friends in this game who they feel like they can be themselves around and develop a real relationship with. It’s magic. I used hyper-specific examples, but there are a lot of people who live in big cities and surrounded by others who still feel alone.
I grew up in rural Alaska and I was a computer nerd. That was not specifically a cool thing to be in those days, Revenge of The Nerds. Now it’s not so bad, but in those days, I felt super isolated. Nobody for a thousand miles was into the same things as me. It wasn’t until I got online. I didn’t have online games, but I had mainframes and I could talk to other people who thought computers were cool. That was a big change in my life.
My neighbor’s daughter met her boyfriend in Minecraft, and they’ve been together for three years. He doesn’t even live in the same state. That’s mind-boggling to me. That seems like something that as soon as it happened in college or after college. This is happening to high school students.
Co-founder & CEO of Spry Fox (developer of Triple Town, Alphabear, Bushido Bear, Steambirds, Road Not Taken, etc.)
Recorded on May 8, 2019
Building the Right Thing at the Right Time - Jeremy Bornstein
Jan 22, 2021
One of the things I really like to be able to do is go track down some of the friends that I’ve made over the years who have grown up with technology and grew up with computers as kids hackers, computer programmers, people who eventually became engineers and just pick apart their experience.
A lot of us had similar experiences and I think there’s a lot that can be learned from that. And sometimes it’s just learning that there are parallel experiences that led us into very technical careers. But but also I think it is important to look for the things that worked like what were the things in our backgrounds that got us good at something? And what is it that turned us into hackers and what is it that made us learn to think differently? And so anyway, today we have Jeremy Bornstein who is one of my all time favorite people. I had the good fortune of meeting Jeremy training Aikido back in the nineties.
We were training with with Frank Doran, who at the time, was one of the senior Aikido instructors in America. Jeremy had started a company with his brother and another friend of ours in San Francisco called Xigo. Xigo was trying to do in the year 2000, essentially artificial intelligence to trade on the stock market. And and I ended up going to work for Jeremy and though the company, unfortunately didn’t work out and got shut down in the.com bubble, we still had amazing actual technology and actual customers and actual revenue, and we were doing great.
We were a victim of a sock puppet attack ended up having to shut down the company. Jeremy and I became great friends there and have been friends ever since. There’s not a lot of people who are as friendly as he is and with his diverse interests. And so we got to spend a couple of hours talking, I’d say about the first half of this is about our backgrounds, his background growing up with computers, how he got into it, how he learned the things he did. Jeremy had a super interesting career back at Apple in the Advanced Technology Group back in the nineties when there was really interesting things going on there and he invented some cool technology.
In the last half we talk about artificial intelligence, where it came from and where it’s going. Also some of Jeremy’s other interests in addition to Aikido, archery, Japanese and Western style, languages like Japanese, French, Mandarin, Spanish, and Latin. He’s learned to play the shakuhachi and the didgeridoo.
He’s a guy who’s built massively multiplayer online games, automated trading systems, cryptographic systems and a wide variety of other things. I hope you have a good time listening to two friends have a long chat.
Katia Capprelli, the former Italian race car engineer also joined us for this conversation.
Pablos: I’ve worked on projects that in and of themselves didn’t have important world-changing merit. I built websites for car dealerships and bed and breakfasts in the ‘90s. These weren’t important but the experience of that, and learning about those industries, the tools and all those things led to being able to do other projects. For me, I always steered toward whatever the coolest project I could find at any given moment was, and I worked on that.
Jeremy: A lot of people don’t even do that. On one hand, I don’t understand that. I don’t understand it. Why wouldn’t you? You asked me what my new ideal job was. It turned out to be founding Xigo. When I started that company, I didn’t care about the idea of growing an organization or managing engineers. We didn’t have anyone else to do it. At the end, they didn’t want to do it. I was like, “I’ll do that.” It turns out it was fun and I was good at it. I had so much fun. I began to view it as instead of I had to write all this stuff myself, I could find somebody who could help me do it and then tell them about it. They would do parts of it by themselves. I could look at it and say, “That was better or whatever.” That was a revelation when I found out that I could do that.
For me, I don’t write any code. The closest I’ve come is send an email to somebody and they write some code so it’s easier. A lot of them love that because they don’t know what to build. If you have somebody who can think about what’s the right thing to build at the right time, what fits together, what’s going to sell, and what makes sense.
That’s coming back to exactly why I started. I discovered as I was hiring people for Xigo, they’re all software engineers but some people are good at the beginning parts of a project. Some people are good at the middle parts and at the end. They are different orientations and personalities. I’m much more interesting and useful at the beginning. I can handle the other stuff but it’s not my native competence. If I could get somebody else to do that, I will get somebody else to do that. Give me a room full of people who are looking for something to do and I will make sure that everyone has something to do.
Having done it all helps you to be better and trustworthy as a person. I remember at Xigo, you guys must have started about ‘98 or ‘99. In those days, computers were getting to the point where we could start to do very early machine learning type of situations. The stock market had all this data that affected the market. There was technical data, which means all the trades on the stock market, but then there was also the news. By analyzing the city, you could sometimes figure out if things were going well or going poorly, and this kind of thing.
A hundred percent of the stock trading in those days was done by humans, reading the newspaper, and looking at the stock price in the newspaper like cavemen. This was the first company that I know of that was using computers to analyze all that data. We were doing a couple of things that part of the product was letting you know things went south or things are about to go south or vice versa. The cool thing was we did two things. We built systems that could run arbitrary algorithms against that technical data, which meant that you could say, “Tell me what’s happening with this stock over its 30-day moving average and let me know if it gets too far out of bounds.”
It could watch that in real-time and then alert you. This is before smartphones because this is 2000 when we shipped. We had piles of computers that could read the news. This is an early artificial intelligence project. With 100% of the trading being done by humans, we have computers that could read the news and figure out what company is this news about. Is it good news? Is it bad news? Is it likely to move the market? We weren’t using this to do our own automated trading but we were doing all of the work you needed to be able to do that.
I’m sure that’s at the same time as brokerage houses and were doing this internally. Maybe not with the news reading aspect but with the technical aspect for sure.
I’m talking technical data.
Not necessarily the news or the way we looked at the analyst changes.
One of the tricks I remember we did was we had computers. There were television broadcasts about stock market news. There was a transcription of that for deaf people. We hooked up computers to take the transcriptions of the TV broadcasting, run it through our system so we would know in real-time what was going on. Jeremy, his brother, and this buddy of ours and Lenny started the company. At that time, Xigo, being a prototypical Silicon Valley startup. There were startups for a decade before that, but a lot of the practices at Xigo ended up becoming standard practice for startups here.
The one that sticks out to me was in the year 2000, we were hiring the smartest people on earth. Every company says they’re doing that but we did it. You’re paying them six figures and most companies doing that let everybody leave work for lunch. What Xigo is doing is bring lunch in every day. I went there, “That’s amazing. Lunch is being delivered every day for free.” We had fridges full of Odwalla and stuff. It looks extravagant but the fact is the cheapest hour you get out of people is to buy them lunch.
You’re already paying them $100,000-some a year, buy them lunch and you get an extra free hour out of them every day and if you buy them dinner then you get several more hours for free. The fact is that they’re nerds. All they’re going to do is go home and sit on their computer anyway. You might as well let them hang out at work. Things like that look like bad optics, they look extravagant, people make fun of Silicon Valley. Xigo is prototypically obnoxious. We had a chill room with every video game console you could get. We had a massage therapist coming by. There was yoga and Aikido at work.
What was cool is it made it an environment that you wanted to be at. Another big issue and the barrier is a lot of transient people who moved here for work. People all moved here. Some of them for the gold rush. But some of them for the place where you get to work on these types of technical projects with other smart people, and you can have a community of that. The problem with that is you don’t have friends and family around. So, having a work environment that meets more of those needs is important. Now, we mock Facebook for having volleyball at work and Google for having a ball pit or something. Anyway, I learned a lot at Xigo. Specifically, it’s funny because it goes back to some of the things that you said. Jeremy and I knew each other from Aikido. When he hired me, he said, “We’re looking for generalists.” I’d never heard anybody say before.
I’m like, “I could be a generalist.” That was the first time in my life I had heard anybody explicitly express an interest in generalist. Normally, that would be seen as you’re not good at anything. I went to work at Xigo and I had this interesting role which was program management. It’s managing the software development. We had about 40 or so coders. I don’t know if I ever explained to you, there were two of us doing this job. Me and this girl named Leah, who I believe was a former massage therapist. I’m a computer nerd who has a lot of interest in everything that we’re building all the way down to the nuts and bolts and the 1s and 0s.
I loved it and I love knowing everything about it. I would sit there with engineers. I would ask them what they were up to and how they were doing it, and what their plan was. I would say, “What if we did it this way? What if we did it that way? Could you get squeezed a little more?” I was always trying to pack more into every release because we managed releasing software. Leah knew nothing about coding. She had almost no interest in computers. Not to disparage her at all, she was great. What she had was a clipboard with a giant list of to-do items.
Every one of them had a name and a deadline by it. She would go to every coder on the project and she’d say, “What are you doing next? When are you going to have it done?” She would write that down. The next day she’d come back, “How is it going? Are you going to have it done on time? What do you need? Who do you depend on?” She would follow the to-do list. She was arguably a better project manager than me because that was an effective methodical system, whereas I was introducing a lot of risks. I was like, “We can take the flux capacitor and cram it in here and we run it upside down.” All these kinds of things.
We’re on a two-week release cycle which in those days was aggressive. I love that. I’m like, “Rapid iteration. Let’s release.” We get to release. Has it been through QA? It’s been through QA. Has it been through operations testing? They took a look at it. I’ll be like, “Let’s launch it.” We’d get halfway to launching it. The database had fallen apart and we’re like, “Let’s roll it back.” It turns out almost every time it was my fault because I was trying to cram more code. I loved advancing things. I wanted to push things. We got a lot more stuff out sooner because of that. That lack of risk aversion came from growing up with a computer.
I learned everything by rebooting. I learned everything like crash it and reboot it. It was a safe environment to do that which isn’t true for everything. Biological stuff, there’s no reboot. I’m thankful for Xigo because it was a unique experience for me. I learned a lot. I was never built to replicate that kind of environment again in my career. It was special and unique. That was a company whereas a casualty of the time, even though we weren’t like the other companies in the so-called dot-com bubble, we got shut down because of that frenzy.
We were a victim of the crash in the brokerage bubble. That happened six months or however many months before the general crash. That’s why they stopped paying us. It’s with the alacrity which we needed.
In some sense that’s unrelated.
I don’t know.
My customers were brokerage firms. When I think about Xigo now, I think of it as an early and in some sense successful AI product. We’re using AI to build systems that could trade on the stock market. That was 0% of the trading then, and 75% of trading now at least. It falls off on any markets, at least 75% of trading. Computers are automating that for better or worse. It’s important to think over because that was an expert system, meaning we took news. We had humans read it and tagged the news to use as training data for an expert system, which is a machine learning system that can learn from that data in its own way automatically tag the new news.
Did we have humans tag stuff and have it learn to tag?
We had to make training data. We also bought news that was tagged because there were companies that would tag the news for other humans. That gave us some training data, but some of it we had to tag ourselves because there were things that humans didn’t tag.
We did it for sentiment.
Is it like we move the market? That’s not something that came tagged. We had to do some of that. The point is people get fired up over all these complex-sounding so-called AI systems, machine learning systems now that are using neural networks which sounds tech on, smart and complicated. It’s not but there are ways of doing the exact same thing. Computers are vastly faster now. I remember us building racks of pizza box, Sun SPARC servers or Ultra SPARC, whatever they were at that time. When the iPhone came out and performed an entire rack from those days without exaggeration.
Computers got faster and we got some better algorithms for doing machine learning and things. You can see the results that can drive cars and stuff now. What gets to me is how people are extrapolating from this. It seems to me like it’s one trick and we’ve got faster at that trick. We’ve been able to apply that one trick to a few more things. People are extrapolating from this that it’s going to somehow magically also be able to do every other trick. It’s dumb. It’s irresponsible but Hollywood is using AI as to do boogeyman for stories about the future. They’re all dystopian and it all goes to shit. It’s a science fiction that doesn’t have a grounding reality in my mind.
You’re talking about artificial intelligence in general.
Artificial intelligence is always what you don't have yet. Share on X
I did not.
Superintelligence is a book about this notion of humans creating a machine of any description that’s smarter than humans.
Should I read it?
It’s important to read because it’s the one that’s setting off guys like Stephen Hawking, Elon Musk, and Bill Gates who have all made comments to the effect that artificial intelligence might be a horrible thing. It is a good book. He’s an intellectual writer but everybody is baking this logical leap that is unreasonable. We’re going to get from artificial narrow intelligence. Even if you look at AlphaZero. They went from being able to play chess to being able to play Go and Chess and Tic Tac Toe or something. I forget what the third game is.
The point is AlphaZero is impressive because it can learn to play the game and then beat anyone in a few hours. It can start from zero. It could teach itself the game and figure out the best possible strategies. It’s impressive and it can do this for chess and Go. It could start from zero knowing nothing. In a matter of hours, it can learn how to play the game. It can come up with its own strategies and test them, and then it can beat anyone on earth. It’s awesome. DeepMind, which is the Google group working on this stuff, claims to be working towards an AGI. They want to create one algorithm that can learn anything. It’s got this scary fiction around it but I don’t see how that gets us to the kinds of things people are imagining. In some sense, you worked on a version of artificial intelligence many years ago.
I would not call it artificial intelligence. It’s built out of these relatively simple algorithmic components.
Would you call it machine learning?
Yes.
Would you call anything else that exists now as artificial intelligence?
One thing that I’ve heard people say is that artificial intelligence is always what you don’t have yet. Once you understand something, you can do it and it becomes a known technique that is not or knows anymore. That’s how I feel. Machine learning has gotten great. At least to me, it seems that it’s gotten great. That enables a whole class of problems to be solved that couldn’t be solved as easily for. It’s great that you get to that. That’s different from AGI. You could train a network to solve a particular problem in a particular domain. You could train a million of them, and then you could train the framework to choose between them but that’s clearly not how we work. We work in a related-ish way but not like that. I tend to think that we’re not going to get to AGI by explicitly building a structure that is an expert system like a machine learning system. If we get to AGI, we’re going to throw a bunch of stuff in a box that knows how to compose slightly more complex tasks and then put it in an environment where the end-result is a person in a box. The incentives for each piece are to combine it to produce results like that. I don’t know how to do that.
I don’t know how I feel about putting a person in a box.
That’s an easy way and then eventually, that person runs out of whatever they need to stay in the box. I’m sure people will know more about it. They will think that’s a bad description. Our brains are built out of a bunch of directing systems that we don’t understand. Some of those pieces individually looks simple but it’s compositional in a way we don’t really understand. The existence proof that you can build a thinking robot is that we’re thinking robots. We got built somehow unless you believe that there is some ineffable soul thing, which I don’t.
My career and your career are shaped by that time and space that we grew up in that Apple II moment. My daughter grew up with an iPad. The iPad is like a car with a hood welded shut. She’s not learning how computers work from it. It’s amazing. You can do all kinds of cool stuff. I wonder, what do you think the next frontier is? If you were twelve now, what would pique your interest?
I’m sure computers would still pique great interest if I were twelve. I can’t imagine a new frontier on the level of what you’re talking about. At the same time, computers are enabling those new things all the time. A while back, I had to make corporate bios for our consulting gigs. As a team, we decided what we did was we’d like to investigate areas where new technology developments made new businesses possible. That’s happening all the time.
We’re still at the beginning of figuring out what computers are. I get a lot of questions from teenagers and college kids wondering what they should do with themselves.
You can’t answer those questions.
I’d never do. A lot of them have an interest in computers and they don’t know where to start. They think I know everything which is not true, but you can’t tell them that because I want them to think I know everything. You’re professionally curious. You’re good at getting interested in new things and learning them. If somebody were trying to waste a lot of time as a teenager, what would a good thing to waste their time be?
Whatever they’re into. I can’t imagine investing my soul into something because somebody I thought was smart told me to do it. That’s what kids these days are taught in school. You do something because a smarter person than you said this is what’s it going to be. The medical field or anything like that or smart adults say that that is where you should put your time and energy into if you want a successful future. You talk about all the time how we can’t even fathom what jobs that are going to look when your daughter is an adult. We don’t even know what they are going to be. In college, I got a lot of talks from my parents about you can be a doctor or lawyer, top of the class all the time.
Now it’s programmer or a doctor. Nobody wants their kid to be a lawyer anymore. It’s all computer programs.
You guys may have also seen people studying something because of that. I saw a lot of people taking computer science and they were like, “This stuff sucks.” I’m like, “Why are you doing it?” “To make a lot of money.”
I don’t buy that. You and I didn’t do that anyway. Nobody made me so I stuck with whatever I was curious about and interested in, and that worked out. I like your answer. The last thing I want to ask you is if you have any questions for me. These are all things I never got to ask you before.
What was the approximate cause for you leaving Alaska for the first time?
I had full starts because I tried to leave Alaska and I missed my friends so I moved back. When I got back, I realized half of my friends are already gone too so it wasn’t the same. It’s hard when you leave home for the first time because you have heavily invested in it. I thought it was important. I think it is for lots of people but making that stick was hard. I went back to Alaska and I tried to make things work there. I started companies up there.
Was that at Fort Knox, your first one?
Before that, I started a web application development company in 1995. Nobody had even seen webpages yet. I was showing them, “Webpages are home, slow and boring.” What I want to do is build applications that run on a server. I was trying to sell local businesses in Alaska on this and they hadn’t heard it.
They still don’t want to do it.
I inadvertently built one of the first web application development companies in the world. It was way too soon. One of the things I built was this website called AnchorageMovies.com. The reason is in those days, you had to call every movie theater on the phone and listened to a recording. They’d be like, “Top Gun is playing at 5:15, 6:45 and 7:50. Rated R starring Tom Cruise.” It would go on and you listen to it. You’re like, “I’ve heard Top Gun.” You wait and there are six movie screens. You’re listening to this recording. You had to listen to it sequentially to find out what time the movies were.
You had to call the other theaters and do it. You don’t have cell phones. You’re stuck in the kitchen with the phone while your mom is saying, “Give me the phone.” It was bad or you had to get the newspaper and look up the movie times in this case. I thought, “I’ll get a newspaper every Thursday when the new movie times come out and I’ll pay a teenager to type them into a web app and then there will be a webpage that shows what time all the movies are playing. You can sort by theater or movie and see where it goes. It will be amazing,” and it was.
Everybody in town who had internet used that web page. We made the logo with a Sharpie. The webpage was popular with people in Anchorage who were on the internet which is seventeen people. I realized we found this company somehow related to the newspaper ads business or something. They were a company in Colorado that had the movie times that we could buy from them. I didn’t have to pay a teenager anymore. I could get them via FTP. I updated my software, I download the movie times via FTP, and then put them on the page. No big deal. It’s the simplest web page.
I used this app to test new software development environments and programming languages and stuff. I rewrite the app. I could do it in 30 minutes with every new language. In those days, PHP didn’t exist yet. We were writing web pages and pearl and horrible stuff. What happened is I told my business partner, “Look at this. We can get the movie times for all the movies at all the theaters in America via FTP. Why don’t we make it Movies or MovieTimes.com or whatever.” My business partner is a great guy who had inherited money from his dad who ran a dry cleaning company.
He was excited about computers, but his entire worldview and his business were local. He could imagine a business in Alaska but imagining a nationwide business. Not to disparage him, that’s not how people thought in those days. Making a nationwide business was an unfathomable feat. There’s no extra work. We click a few buttons and it’s a nationwide movie. He couldn’t get behind that. I realized at that moment, I got to get out of this town. This is not where I’m going to find the people I need to be working with. I wanted to take computers and go as far and as fast as we could with them. That was the moment I realized I’ve got to get out of town. I tried one more desperate attempt to stay in Alaska.
In those days, every city had an ISP that was a couple of dozen phone lines with modems and that’s how you got online. A lot of times, there was some nerd who started it in his garage. The internet took off so all these nerds got rich running local ISP. This guy had sold his company and he was the local nerd hero because he built this ISP from the ground up. He had made millions of dollars and sold it to the telephone company. Every ISP has this story. He was a cool guy unlike the other internet guy in town who got it. I teamed up with him to start his next company that was called Fort Knox.
We were trying to do cryptocurrency in 1998. We were trying to do transaction systems on the internet. We were trying to solve problems of building resilience because you could see in those days if this internet thing keeps growing, a lot of people are going to rely on it, and it’s totally not architected for that. We were trying to figure out how do you build systems that are secure and stable amidst failures because the internet was constantly going up and down and things like that. In those days, it was less reliable. We tried to both invent systems for handling geographic failover. If your computer died, there would be one on another coast that was still running. All of this is solved these days. In those days, it was pioneering work.
We’ve created systems to defend against DoS attacks, which DDoS had barely been invented and we were working on that. The biggest one I was into was cryptocurrency. We were trying to create ways of transacting. We got excited about what was technically possible but there weren’t enough people online. There was no demand for it. Every project I worked on was ten years too early. Web application developments was ten years too early. That took off. Cryptocurrency was at least ten years too early. That is going somewhere now. Xigo is ten years too early or maybe three months too early. That’s another one way of looking at it.
OQO, also too early. A lot of the miniaturization work we did is what makes iPhones possible now. I work in a lab where my job is to be ten years too early. That’s a long way of saying I finally got out of Alaska. I took Fort Knox from Alaska to Bay Area as a way of trying to get it into an ecosystem where it could thrive. Unfortunately, that company didn’t take off. I learned a lot doing it. Of all those companies, I think of Fort Knox and Xigo as my education.
You guys spent millions of dollars on my education. That’s what it comes up to. Looking back, we were like junior high kids. We didn’t know what we didn’t know. It’s embarrassing how ignorant we were those days, the whole industry was. It’s not fair but things are sophisticated now. In those days, we had to learn everything by hand. You had to build every computer by hand. It was hard work. Now you can start a company overnight, but in those days, everything was work.
It’s one of the things I’ve been amazed with my company. I remember in Xigo, we spent $8 million or however many million dollars on data center because we had to. My current company does not need to do this. I have as many computers as I want. I practically live in it. It makes me realize that’s the IoT Amazon should sell. They should sell a knob that you can get out in one hour. It’s more computer knobs. You make it and then turn the knob and it fires up easy two instances for you. That would be awesome. Who wouldn’t buy that knob? It just hooked up to your Amazon account. That’s a Kickstarter project. They work on computers knob. The more storage knob.
We can build an off by computers. What that knob does is it does fire up in easy two instances. That does something like calculating to a million over and over again. It’s totally useless.
They play Tic Tac Toe until you tell them to do something else.
Growing up in Alaska was good because boredom breeds curiosity. It gives you a chance to think freely. You got time. There are no distractions. My kids got a zillion exciting things going on all the time. I didn’t have that. I had dirt and then I get an Apple II and some Legos. I put dirt in the aperture then reboot after that. I’m not exaggerating by much. You had beautiful mountains, trees, fish and stuff that you take a lot for granted. It was a relatively distraction-free place and not a lot of things are vying for my attention. I got to focus on whatever was interesting to me and that happened to be the computer.
How did that change once you came to Silicon Valley?
I loved it.
How long after you moved out?
Immediately. I showed up at Aikido. That was one of the things that was exciting to me. The Aikido school I was at in Alaska had a satellite of Aikido West or Aikido lineage or whatever. Their instructor maps back to a student of Frank Doran where they’re cutting that family. Aikido West was a mother ship to my dojo. I was stoked to be going there. The cool thing about the Bay Area is I’d spent my whole life pulling teeth, dragging all my friends into these crazy computer schemes that I had. I literally took guys who had no interest in computers.
They were my buddies from hanging out. One of them was my skateboarding buddy in junior high school. I got him to buy a computer, then there were two guys. He wasn’t interested in computers. I was so enthusiastic that he couldn’t help get into it. He got a cooler one than me, so then I’d go to his house. I started companies with these guys who were my snowboarding buddies. They were great friends. They didn’t have any actual interest in computers. Now, they’re the heads of industry in Alaska in IT and stuff like that because that’s what their career ended up being because I coerced them into computer stuff.
It seemed normal to me because nobody else was into it. I had to create enthusiasm around computers and get people into it. It was pulling teeth. By the time I get to the Bay Area, a great thing here is that everyone is in on it. I’ve said bombastic things about this before, but I can go flag down a homeless guy on the street in San Francisco and started telling him my ideas for using 3D printers to print food and he’ll be like, “Let me introduce you to my buddy whose cousin is a VC.” Everybody will give you the benefit of the doubt. No matter how crazy your idea is, they will try to take it seriously and help you. They’ll try to shoot holes in it but in a constructive way.
That kind of community doesn’t exist anywhere else on earth. That’s what’s special here. There are only two things. We got computers and the superpowers that come with it are essentially bottomless, and we’ve got this community that will give you the benefit of the doubt. It’s those two things that make Silicon Valley unique. I stick on myself spiritually, this is the home for me, the Silicon Valley of the ‘80s is. I live in Seattle. Seattle is not home to me in that way. There’s this mythical Silicon Valley that lives in my mind and its components are those two things. It’s hard to find it now, some that’s even being here. We’re in San Francisco and I felt this some even in 2001 at Xigo. There are a lot of opportunists. There are a lot of gold diggers who are just here for the money because this ended up being successful financially and making all these big companies.
You’ve got a lot of people whose parents are like, “Given them computer program because it would be a good job.” They went to college and got that Computer Science degree. They ended up here, working and building enterprise software. They’re building iPhone apps and they’re missing it. They think they’re in it. They think they’re in a tech. That’s not tech, that’s software. The software industry is fine. Those are okay. Some of them are good businesses. They are products that maybe people need. That’s all fine. I’m not disparaging it but it’s not technology. If you want to move the needle on making the world better, you’ve got to invent a new technology and bring it into the world because that’s what moves the needle. That’s what’s happened a bunch of times here.
That’s why we still call it the tech industry. Most of what’s going on is not that. Most of what people are doing here isn’t that. It’s frustrating for me to be here a lot of times because of that noise. I’m cheating. I’ve been lucky because in my career, I got to know many bright and interesting people. I get to travel all over the world to track them down. I can create a community of those kinds of people myself regardless of where they are, and what any one city is doing. I don’t think that’s good. It’s important for everybody and for more people to have that. It scares me a lot to see Silicon Valley get taken over by the wrong people with the wrong mindset.
Do you think the physical location is as imperative as it was?
I’ve been thinking about this a lot because it was imperative then. For certain kinds of things, it’s still imperative. There are still some things you could only do here. In Seattle, we have a lot going on. In Seattle, there’s more going on with cloud services than anything else because we have AWS. Google Cloud people are there, things like that. Microsoft with Azure and stuff which is surprisingly successful is also there. That’s huge and that’s essentially the future of where computing is going and stuff. There are a bunch of applications for that. Seattle is high tech. I would never choose Seattle as a place to create a crazy high-tech startup.
You can do rational things there and you can get a lot of work done. It’s a great place to work. They have hobbies, pets, strollers and shit. It’s a good place to live but they go home on weekends. They’re not as work-focused, there’s no party in, whatsoever. The Berry is constant party, constant networking, constant work, and everything all the time. I like that frenzy and that energy level. I come here, walk in a bar and three hot chicks are inviting me to their cryptocurrency bender. That happens in this city. It won’t happen anywhere else.
I’ve been traveling all over the world to places that are the Silicon Valley of Latin America, the Silicon Valley of Europe, or the Silicon Valley whatever. There’s only one time it’s been true and that’s Tel Aviv. Tel Aviv makes Silicon Valley look slow, boring, old and conservative. It’s unbelievable. They have all the right elements. They have creative but highly trained, intelligent people who have technical experience, technical training in college. They have this rabid startup community that’s a random startup generator. They’re the last ones to join social media because they were social networking. They’re social network like Israelis are all related to each other.
Everything to do in Israel is a family affair. Somebody knows somebody who’s going to help you out in an instant. It’s amazing what they can do. They suck at some things like there’s no market there. If they have to make it work, they have to bring them here or to Europe. That I’ve been inspired and impressed by. In Italy, if you have a startup and it fails, they open a criminal investigation. You’re going to get one chance at life and then that’s it. You’re not going to get another one.
That’s what happens in old cultures all over Europe. You have this case or this situation where the risk aversion is extreme. People know all the reasons why you can’t do anything. You’re arguing with 1,000 years of history everywhere you go. We don’t have that here. We don’t have history. We have a future. It’s a different thing. I’ve been thinking about it. All you need is a small community of people who will give you the benefit of the doubt. You don’t need a whole city or industry. Maybe it’s 100 people. You need to be able to go out to lunch or go out to dinner and tell somebody your idea and have them say, “What about this? What about that? Maybe we can help.”
I’m starting to think some of these places like France is. They’re going to be the Silicon Valley of Europe. The reason is because of Brexit, a whole bunch of companies are moving into France from England. All the banks and stuff are starting to ramp up France and ramp down England. There’s this economic excitement in France. They think they’re going to be doing high tech startups and stuff there. They’re all excited about it. They have a little venture scene and stuff. I was thinking, it might work because they got a critical mass. A couple of hundred people is all it takes to build that community.
If you structure it right, they’re hanging out together and they’re supporting each other. In the Berry, you see it all the time. It’s almost invisible unless you’re in it. Go to something like Y Combinator or whatever, these guys will all show up two guys with an idea and it’s like, “Those guys have a better idea,” and they joined forces. That’s the community thing. Y Combinator is a manufactured thing. It happens to be here and there are a lot of amenities you get because of that. You could do that in Paris, maybe. As long as you keep out the old guys who would tell you why it won’t work, you might have something. The problem is they have a lot of catch up to do, especially when it comes to high tech. That’s going to work for all your iPhone to apps startups and things but they have a lot of catch up to do to get to the point where they’re advancing new technologies.
It's not easy to find people who care about the company in the way that you want them to. Share on X
That’s why I like Israel because they still have research, invention, culture and academia. The whole country is invented. They had to invent ways to grow food in a desert to feed ten million people. They’re doing it so there’s an invention culture there. China is interesting because they had a lot of economic activity over the last couple of decades. They’ve changed the incentives around startups and make it coming. There are a lot of entrepreneurial activity. They’ve done an amazing job in the scientific community.
China publishes more scientific research than the rest of the world combined. The quality is not as high on average but it’s getting there. It would be a few years at the most before we’re all blown passed up by China. That’s an amazing thing. That’s a wonderful thing in China. If they keep that up and then they could figure out how to translate that into high tech startups, there could be some cool stuff. It’s hard for me to understand what’s going on there. Have you got a sense of what’s happening in Melbourne? Did you pay attention?
I’m paying a small amount of attention on someone’s attention. The work culture is different. By default, it’s not as easy to find people who care about the company in the way that you want them to be. With that said, I have not hired anybody in Melbourne. I’m involved in a peripheral way with some startups. I’m involved with the thing called Startmate which is an incubator/accelerator program that is run from Sydney and Melbourne for a certain number of weeks each year with a different cohort of new companies in Sydney and Melbourne. It’s a twelve-week program.
In the beginning, what they did was a bunch of stuff to help the new founders figure out what their company does. They get help from experienced people to help them figure that stuff out, how to help them solve problems. At the end, they went to Silicon Valley for a couple of weeks to do pitches. What they’ve started doing over the last year or so is they do San Francisco at the beginning because there was such a cultural revolution that needed to happen for many people. That’s how we need to approach this if we’re going to play in the same place as the companies that come out of here. A lot of that was about the work culture, and how you approach thinking about the company that you’re building.
I wonder if that’s the thing where you have to cherry-pick the right people.
Definitely, you have to pick the people who are likely to be able to be mentored. I would say some people have direct competition with them. They don’t want to learn anything from anybody. They don’t want to learn that thing they need to learn because that deficit is somehow built into their personality or their outlook or something like that. You want to pick the people who you think are teachable, who have some great things going for them, possibly not even including the idea of the company. The basic outlook of this person can succeed in doing this thing, but everyone needs to learn something in some partially unknown priority order. How can we help that happen?
Usually, I try to have a couple of companies that I’m an advisor for. All of the successful situations for me are when I have a good working relationship with the founder, whoever I’m advising. My input is valued that it affects what they do, they’re feeling supported. In other cases, you know that the dynamic is not worth doing at all. There’s no point.
There’s a selection at various levels because there are people who are not even going to bother applying. Some are not going to move forward and some are clearly going to move forward no matter what.
If you had to imagine stacking any of those startups up against Silicon Valley startups.
They have a different set of things to learn.
Now is the time when we talk about learning Japanese.
Over the past few years, I’ve been teaching myself French. My French is not decent.
French is difficult to learn from people that learn English first from what I hear because of the palette and the tonality of it. Did you struggle with that?
Ask my girlfriend who was lovingly accepting my flaws trying to speak French in a way that was helpful to me and painful to her but hopefully, she can have a conversation with me without cringing. When I learned Japanese, it was from the beginning Japanese textbook. There was a language lab I can go to listen to dialogues.
Are you self-taught in Japanese?
Not for Japanese. The point that I was going to make is that all the vocabulary study that I did was looking at lists of vocabulary and trying to remember crap which sucks. I did not do that for French. For French, I started reading novels. I understood enough for the grammar to be able to guess at most things or figuring out most things. I started reading books in French. When I came to a word I didn’t know, I would make a flashcard for that word, possibly with the context of the sentence that it was in. I would look up in the dictionary and they get the dictionary entry in French, so everything all in French until I had accumulated a bunch of these flashcards. The thing is that’s new when I started learning Japanese. We now have this technology called spaced repetition software. The psychological principle for this is that when you make a memory, that memory is accessible to you at first, and then gradually will decay over time until it’s harder and harder to retrieve that memory.
Somebody figured out that if you reinforce that memory just as it’s about to become inaccessible, then it’s a strong reinforcement. Learning looks like you learned something and then it decays. It’s about to go learn it again or you remind yourself, and then this time it’s reinforced to a higher level and then it decays even slower. Over time, if you reinforce it at the exact right time, you can learn some of the few repetitions. This is the insight that spaced repetition software is based on. On my phone, I have a program called Anki which has thousands of French words that I’ve put in. When I’m bored or have a time in the day, I can go and do this.
It’s pouring vocabulary into your head the easiest possible way. I had been thinking that I need to refresh my Japanese vocabulary and it will work with recognition in terms if you see a Kanji, also production, because what you do in that case is it will tell you the reading of the character or the word, you’re supposed to imagine writing it and rewrite it. You then hit the button like, “Show me the answer,” and it will show you. You can say I did that right or I did it wrong. If you did it wrong, the computer knows however that you want to reinforce that memory. If you said okay then it says okay. I know how long I’m going to let you see it for another four months or something like that. All of these things were together.
That would work well for our language. My Italian, I never use it. I never use my Japanese anymore. To have every so often refresh, that would make much sense for a language. Having this conversation when we were in Prague, I was talking to someone about language. Everyone assumes that because I came here to pass the age of eleven, that Italian should be solid in my head, but it’s not. That’s not how it works for me. If I don’t use it, I lose it. A lot of people seem to believe this linguistic idea that if you learn a language and you’re fluent in it up until age eleven that you’ll have it forever. The basics, that’s true but my vocabulary is upsetting. It’s appallingly bad.
Here’s what I recommended, switch your phone to Italian. Whatever news you’re reading to, which by the way, you shouldn’t read news because it sucks. If someone says, “Did you hear about this or that?” If you want to read something, look for the Italian version and read it.
For a long time, I read manga in Japanese and that’s all I read for three years. I was interested in that. There are many different types and it’s easy to find a niche thing. It’s a graphic novel. If you don’t get a word, you still get what’s happened. For years, my Japanese was better than my English or Italian because I was reading so much novels in manga. Novels in Italian are horrible in my opinion. All of the novels that were available to me in Italian were not the ones that I wanted to read or are interested in. I’m one of those Europeans that refuses on-premise to switch my units over. I’m forcing him to learn Celsius.
I switched when I moved to Australia.
I pretend that I don’t know Fahrenheit to force other people.
For both French and for units, I made it a point to not think about the correspondence.
It feels like it’s 12 or 13. I don’t try to convert. I go by what it feels like. Sometimes, they correlate. I know that 30 is about the high 80s or about 90. I know that because I know them both by feel and you can correlate it, but I don’t know how to do the conversion because that’s not useful to me. Language is interesting to me because I have many bits and pieces of different ones. I remember vividly certain things from each language. I would say in Italian the best thing that I know is logistical things like how to explain something to someone or how to give directions. In Japanese, I know conversational things like how to describe things.
Your English teacher is giving you a bad grade on the paper.
It’s just dumb things like I told you I read so much manga so I know many ways to describe battle.
I was thinking about the school class stories where it’s about what happens at school.
How to talk about the cute boy in your class. There are things that I vividly remember. I think it’s just repetition like in Japanese, I had a ton of friends in school that were Japanese. We had a lot of international students. In Italian, it was mostly logistical. All of that repetition, that part of the language did it for me. I know food words in Farsi and that’s it. I used to be decent at Farsi and now I know only food words.
How did you start learning Farsi?
I spent a long time in a relationship with a guy from Iran. His mother became a second mother to me. She and I still are close. At some point, it was inconvenient for me to not know Farsi. I went to Tehran on three different occasions and I loved it. It was inconvenient to go and not know Farsi. Farsi is one of those languages that’s impossible to learn in writing if you are not familiar with Arabic. Everything looks the same to the untrained eye. All of the characters that are small differences in characters that make them completely mean something different. We scrapped the idea from the get-go that I would ever learn how to write it. I learned how to speak. I got good at doing the regular day-to-day parts of language like who I am, where I’m from, where I’m going, what I’m doing, intentional based things, logistical stuff.
When I left Iran, all of it disappeared.There’s no reason to reinforce itand it wasn’t usable. It wasn’t interesting and it wasn’t something that my brain even thought about. It was almost the mechanism completely shut itself off after I left Iran because it was three months after I left Iran and I tried to speak. I went into a Farsian store to get bread but I tried to speak and none of it was there. It was almost as if I left the country and my brain was like, “No, we’re done. We did what we needed to do at the moment and now it’s over.” I thought that it was interesting because I don’t think that it had ever happened to me with a different language. I’ve never had that experience where I leave a place and the language stops. That’s weird. I think language is an interesting thing.
I’m fascinated.
I want to do some self-experiments on this.
Is it the hardest part to maintain vocabulary?
In Italian, that’s the hardest part for me. I’ve told you this before. My comprehension of Italian, French and Spanish is good. The problem that I have is that I understand the mechanism of putting sentences together, but it’s hard for me to find the words that properly convey because Italian is complex. There are a lot of different words that convey similar things. We have specific words for specific things. In the Italian language, there are seventeen different ways to describe a way that you love somebody, for example. When you’re speaking a language of French, Italian or Spanish, there are many ways to describe things. It becomes convoluted when you’re trying to figure out how you’re going to string a sentence together. I’ve lost many of those nuanced and highly descriptive terms for things.
I’ll hear somebody say it, I’ll know what it means, and I’ll know exactly what they’re going for, but being able to string that sentence together in a nuanced way that makes sense is difficult. In Italian, that’s the challenge that I faced. In Japanese, I found that my vocabulary is quite good still in certain things. I could have a great conversation with somebody about the weather. I can have a great conversation with somebody about a book or something like that. Being able to delve into different subjects is incomprehensible for me because I don’t know those terms. The Japanese is one of those languages that has a fast way to describe everything. I was talking about how in Latin-based languages there are seventeen different ways to describe everything. Each of them is equally nuanced and mean somewhat different things. It’s difficult because at some point, you lose all of that. I’m sure learning French was difficult to wrap your head around how many ways you can describe that you love somebody.
There are many things where the nuance is something that I have to accumulate by constant exposure.
That’s great that you have a native-speaking girlfriend. There’s no better way to learn the language than completely immersing yourself with somebody.
The funny thing for us is that I do all sorts of reading in French like novels. The thing that I don’t learn from the reading is always the social register of the words. When I’m speaking at home, sometimes I’ll say something and then Leslie will say, “Don’t say that.” She tried to explain to me how it sounds when I say it. It sounds like you’re a rich white boy trying to sound like a dock worker and making fun of the dock worker.
That’s exactly it with me in Farsi. Your standing socially dictates how you describe that. There was a term that I picked up online that my ex could have said easily and it would have been funny, but if I said it, it was condescending because I’m white and female and whatever. That’s another thing. Slang is impossible to learn if you don’t have a native speaker. It becomes one of the most important parts of your lexicon in any language, being able to understand the regional slang of any place. In Italy, it changes all the time. In any language, I’m sure it does but having somebody to teach you what people that are saying, otherwise you sound like you came out from 1876 giving formal address. That was how it sounded when I first learned Japanese when I would talk to people overly. They are like, “Where are you from?”
We can wrap this up. Thank you.
Thank you, Pablos.
I hope that people get something out of it. I did.
Experienced engineering executive and technologist. Proven builder and leader of highly effective teams. Demonstrated ability to recruit, motivate, and inspire technical staff. Builder of engineering organizations which collaborate effectively with the entire business.
Specialties: Distributed system architecture, systems analysis, mentoring, debugging, interviewing
Recorded on April 5, 2018
Unboxing the Crypto Toolkit - Ben Laurie
Jan 22, 2021
Hey guys, today we get to hang out with Ben Laurie who is one of my all time favorite geeks. You’re running code right now that Ben wrote. He built ApacheSSL, which is probably like half of the web servers on the internet that are secure running that code. He maintains OpenSSL, which is in everything else.
Ben is one of the few folks who’s a true coder and cryptographer. And there are very few people who really understand both sides of that and what it really means to write secure code and how hard that is. So if you’re interested in hacking, if you’re interested in computer security, if you’re just a coder of any description this episode is absolutely for you.
Beyond that, our conversation goes deep into the philosophy behind cryptocurrency. Ben has pretty counter views on Bitcoin to all the currency speculators out there. There are super interesting to hear. And if you want to learn about how to think about the crypto toolkit and what’s possible there I highly recommend spending time listening to this episode.
I couldn’t be more proud of the chance that I had to pick Ben’s brain for a couple of hours. I’ve known Ben for 20 years. He’s a member of the Shmoo Group, which is nonprofit think tank for computer hackers. He also is on the board of the Apache foundation. He’s a principal engineer at Google and was at DeepMind for awhile as well. Ben developed a program at Google for certificate transparency, which is a really important way of understanding what’s possible using the crypto toolkit to change the way that we provide accountability around data and how it’s handled.
I think you’re going to learn a lot. I really hope you enjoy this and definitely reach out with questions for me and for Ben and I’ll try to get to them next time we chat.
Pablos: One of the things that is super unique about you, in my estimation, maybe there are 100 people on Earth who both understand cryptography and know how to code. That 100 people is not a lot, especially these days. In some sense, for the first time, we’ve got a lot of interest in the crypto tool kit because of Bitcoin. I want to ask you a bunch of questions about that stuff. Certainly, we both have had an interest in cryptography. Mine goes back many years. Yours is probably even more than that. You have a super deep math background so I’ve always thought of you, of all the people I know, as one who has the deepest understanding practically of what it means to implement this stuff, how hard that is to get it right and how easy it is to get it wrong.
We have this situation where because of Bitcoin, people have gotten excited about what they call crypto, but what they mean is currency speculation. Everybody likes to gamble and this has been the most winningest gambling that’s been going on. It seems to me anybody who has any knowledge at all about crypto is tied up making some alternative to Bitcoin or some other blockchain-related project. I’m curious what you think about that stuff. We don’t have to talk about the mechanics of blockchain or Bitcoin. That’s been done to death, but I’m curious what you think of the state of society and the frenzy that we’re in over blockchain. I’m going to try not to jump in with my opinion here.
Ben: There are lots of things to say about blockchain, but the first thing to say about blockchain is that I don’t think anybody knows what they mean when they say blockchain. Blockchain is like magic math stuff that’s going to make us all rich. It’s going to equalize society. This is all nonsense, but one of the things I like to say around Bitcoin is that there are two things going on. There’s one incredibly stupid thing and there’s one sensible thing. The incredibly stupid thing is I’m going to take a $100 bill and I’m going to burn it. I’m going to bottle the smoke and you should believe that that bottle is worth $100. There was a second thing going on which is, I’m going to produce this verifiable ledger of stuff. That verifiable ledger has cryptographic certainty of loyalty. Those verifiable ledgers are useful. In fact, what I’ve done for the last years is trying to build a sensible part of the verifiable ledger and that’s what the Certificate Transparency is.
I’ve resisted calling it blockchain for a long time because as soon as I say, “I’m doing blockchain,” everyone’s like, “Now, you like Bitcoin.” I don’t like the idea of Bitcoin, but I do like this idea of verifiable ledgers. I think the interesting question is, “What is interesting about verifiable ledgers?” A lot of people are like, “You could take Bitcoin or almost any blockchain project and say, “I got a database and you’ll be doing the same thing.” What’s the difference between a database and a verifiable ledger? The difference is that it’s a thing that not only can you say, “Here is a database of stuff,” but also, “Here are cryptographic proofs that the stuff is in the ledger and the ledger has this appending the property.” You can go back and lie about what it used to say or what it does say.
If you ever do, then you get checkable proof that you have lied. Certificate Transparency, in a bit of ancient history. In November 2011, the certification authority, the people who are responsible for issuing certificates for SSL. When you go to Amazon, you get the little padlock that says, “You are in Amazon,” the reason you get padlock is because a certification authority has said, “This public key corresponds to Amazon,” and then the site you connected to proves that it has possession of the private key that corresponds to the public gate. Now, you have a secure connection with Amazon, but you’re relying on that certification authority to get it right and not let some other person claim to be Amazon.
In November 2011, it became apparent that the certification authority had issued 500 certificates for websites that they should not have issued certificates for. Those were all of the popular websites, Amazon, Google, Microsoft, Yahoo! and Facebook. Those were then used by the Iranian government to do manual attacks on civilians. Two things were interesting about that. One is that the attack existed in the wild for two months without anybody knowing it was going on. That was bad in itself. The second thing was that nobody ever knew what the complete list of certificates that they had issued. The aftermath was the certification authority has issued all of these certificates that they shouldn’t have done, what do we do about it?
We have no alternative other than to say, “We have to distrust every certificate issued by the certification authority.” As it happens, the Dutch government CA were also issuing all these certificates that the Dutch government used for various things. When we shut them down and distrusted all these certificates, this was bad news if you’re a Dutch. There were a bunch of knock-on things. The three that I happened to know about, whether you could no longer buy or sell cars because you couldn’t register the sale anymore in Holland. The ability to electronically clear customs went away. Bottle imports stalled because you couldn’t play the customs. They also lost the ability to buy and sell electricity on the international markets. This was a mess. The question arises is, “What could we do about that now?”
As it happens, we started Certificate Transparency and this is not a story I could tell because the underlying reason for us thinking about this was a secret. Google was making it difficult to see. We had decided internally that if we were going to do this, we should make it transparent. We should publish all the certificates that we issue so the people could check that we had issued them correctly. I proposed that we could not only publish it, but we could do it in an improbable way, so we will use the verifiable ledgers. We could commit the certificates that were issued. We could even close the loop so the brands are checked, that we had committed that there wasn’t the log. We couldn’t issue a certificate that was accepted by a browser that had not been published.
The cool thing about publishing it and these verifiable logs was that you could make the claim that if you saw a certificate and you had approved that it was in the log, then you also knew the owner of that domain could see it in the log as well. If it had been incorrectly issued, they would have an opportunity to notice that and they could revoke it. Suddenly, you are not in this position that there could be these things floating around in the wild that you didn’t know whether it was Amazon or Google or not. We’d had this idea for our own CA prior to DigiNotar. When it happened, I went to my bosses at Google and said, “We could do this for every CA.” They were like, “That’s a good idea. Off you go, make it happen?”
Several years down the line, we’ve done that and we’ve got all of the CAs to sign up to it. From April 2020, Chrome, IE and Firefox are all going to require that every certificate that they see has to be published in one of these public logs. That’s interesting in itself. If you imagine a world where DigiNotar occurred after we had done that, DigiNotar was hacked and that’s an issue. There were two months between them getting hacked and anyone becoming aware that this had occurred. We would bring that down to one day instead of two months, plus instead of having to shut down the whole CA, we would have a complete list for all those certificates that were issued.
We’ll be able to say, “These are all the ones that were bad. We could just blacklist those. The rest will continue to function.” We would not have caused all that chaos, like in the Dutch ecosystem. Another thing that’s interesting is that publishing these logs caused this ecosystem of analysis around certificates that had not occurred before. Even though you could write that in public, you can crawl in that list of people who’ve done it before in the certificate authority observatory, but we haven’t done much with it. It wasn’t until we did CT that people started to go, “We can look at all of these things and find out other stuff that’s going on.”
Decentralization is an impossible dream. Share on X
Would you characterize this as an alternative, not currency-related use of what we call “blockchain?” Essentially, this is a different application. I like to characterize it as one of the tools in the crypto toolkit because where you and I come from, there’s a whole bunch of them going way back. Now that people are starting to clue in, the blockchain is the first one they heard about, but it’s the last one added to the toolbox and we have so many. What I imagine is that because of the success and in some sense of Bitcoin, it’s attracting a bunch of attention to blockchain, which is then getting people into the crypto toolkit. Hopefully, we’ll get a whole generation of coders out of this who are thinking with these tools and designing and engineering with these tools. They’ll be able to build things that we’ve always imagined would be possible. Since there weren’t very many people around to do it, it was very difficult to design products around those tools.
To some extent, yes. One of the interesting things about CT is that it uses tools that were invented a long time ago. There’s nothing new in that toolbox. We’re not using it for what they were originally thought to be useful for. The reason I’m not so sure is that they say much further around this idea of cryptocurrencies and decentralization, which is an impossible dream. People are blinded to the true importance of these things. They are excited about what is effectively nonsense.
They’re excited about currency speculation.
If you look at Bitcoin or any of these cryptocurrencies, there’s a huge amount of fraud, theft and stuff like that. If you look at the history of money and the history of people doing business with each other, that’s exactly what happened. You started off with where we invented money and then people started to figure out how to rip each other off. People started to go, “We should have some rules around this stuff.” Gradually, we ended up with the restrictive “regime” around what you’re allowed to do money censorship, as people like to call it, which means controlling how you spend money and making sure it’s done in a lawful way. I think 99% of the people who are excited about Bitcoin or this kind of crypto anarchist dream and not about the interesting new prophecies that you can get by using these things in a sensible way.
What I think about it is there seems to be a bit of a maturation process that at least we have gone through and probably other people too, who first spent a lot of time thinking about these things on the cypherpunk’s email list in the ‘90s. I feel like we’re living out a lot of what we were discussing and thinking about in those days. Personally, I have a lot of those dreams of decentralization in me. They’re probably tamer now. Why do you think that this is an impossible dream?
I published a proof of why decentralized consensus is impossible.
If it’s been proven, I would like to know.
One of the slippery notions in this is, “What the hell do you mean by decentralized?” I think that the core idea that I can somehow figure out what some unknown group of people has agreed is fundamentally flawed for a reason. This obvious reason is that, if I don’t know who the totality of everyone is, then I don’t know whether I have captured enough of that unknown group of people to know what their decision is. I’ve got to imagine myself being in this position where I’ve captured enough, but there’s somebody else that I don’t know who sees some other portion of that decentralized group that has captured some other idea of what the outcome was. One of us must be wrong. I don’t know that I’m the wrong one or they are the wrong one. Any argument that says there’s some way you can make those two things always converge somehow has to rely on us not being decentralized. I still rely on this to be more distributed and decentralized. That’s all my proof says in a mathematical way.
I’ll presume that’s true. The thing I’m curious about is I feel like what was happening at least in my experience back with the cypherpunk days was we believed that we could embody our values in the protocols. We believe that crypto was giving us the tools we needed to do that. Specifically, the values were to ensure that nobody got an asymmetric advantage on the network and to make sure that everybody got an equal level playing field. Not only that’s what TCP IP did, at least compared to other network protocols at the time. Building on that, what we wanted to create and part of the reason for so much of the attention going into cryptocurrency in the late ‘90s was that we knew we needed a way to exchange money, where nobody got an asymmetric advantage on it.
When you have a centralized mentor or somebody issuing the currency, then they get that advantage. That was the point of trying to emulate some of the properties of cash, the unanimity. What a lot of the ideas in those days were about around bearer currencies, where we would make it, so whoever held the pile of bits had the money. It’s like holding cash. What we ended up with instead of going from double-entry bookkeeping to single entry, we went to triple-entry, which is what blockchain gives us. We’ve got this currency that nobody controls. It’s not the value that people are getting out of it now, but in the long run, I still imagine and believe that that’s important. Because of these technologies, the crypto toolkit, we’re going to end up with some currency that’s decentralized in a sense online that nobody has an asymmetric advantage on and that’s important.
The idea that you can do this purely through protocols is fancy. I think it’s true, but it carries a lot of disadvantages with it. I can take a dollar out of my pocket and give it to you and we’re done. On the other hand, you can lose cash. It can fall out of your pocket. It can fall into the ocean and they can all get wet. In terms of putting all of my available assets, something that is so easy to lose is not a great idea. This is why we invented banks and checks.
That’s exactly what’s played out. People have these Bitcoins, they don’t even realize that you can download them, put them on a floppy disc, stick it under your mattress and call it good. They’re putting them in a bank online, which is absurd to me because those guys keep getting hacked, but that’s the model.
The disadvantage if they put it on a floppy and stick it under their bed is if their bed burns, then it’s gone. I want to tie up significant portions of my asset and something that’s so fragile and it’s even worse than that. I don’t want to put it under my bed unprotected because then my teenager can come in and spend my millions. That’s not a good plan either. I probably want a group and be protected and then I forget my password. That’s happened.
I know I probably have millions of dollars in Bitcoins because I was mining in 2007 or 2008. I have no idea how to get that money back.
This is the reason that we invent all these institutions around safeguarding the value by making it so it isn’t in this bearer thing so you can easily lose or destroy it.
Fair enough, but the option is still mine. The point is I can still choose if this is the same argument for any data protection scenario. You have to consider your threat model, your adversaries are, how well-endowed they are and what the actual threat is. It’s a risk management problem, but the point is I have the freedom to choose what’s appropriate for me.
The point is that if I have a system where I can hold the central authorities to account, I can see everything that they’ve done. If they ever break the rules, I can produce cryptographic proof that they have broken the rules. It seems to me that it is as good in practice even though you probably want to have those. You probably want to have ways to get things back that you’ve lost. The fact that you can produce these cryptographic proof means that centralization is okay, but the center is powerless because you have this evidence that they cannot argue with that shows what they have and haven’t done.
If a government were to issue a cryptocurrency in a fashion where I could always see how much was issued, it would essentially eliminate their ability to secretly inflate the currency. That’s interesting.
The price you pay for Bitcoin, people have made sensible suggestions to allegedly decentralized systems. If you want to put my decentralization, it is impossible going into a Bitcoin framing. The cost of doing that is burning insane electricity. It’s 0.5% of global energy production. That is ridiculous. When you contrast it against the alternative, which is to keep trees, doing hashes, it is cheap. I haven’t done the Bitcoin, but having done the equivalent some for CT, if reproducing the entire Bitcoin ecosystem in a verifiable, but not the decentralized way. I’d be surprised if the hash would cost me more than 1 or 2 CTs, instead of 0.5% of global energy.
To put my previous arguments about not knowing whether you were in the right or wrong consensus. The argument is that there’s an economic incentive for people to play along with whatever is the consensus. The argument says that Bitcoin mining is at such and such point and the ledger says, “We’ve all got such and such money.” I went out mining the next block, wasting energy to show you that where you can chain on to whatever has gone on so far. The idea is that nobody would want to go back five blocks and mine five blocks, which is going to cost you five times as much energy to get a longer chain because they might as well mine one block on top of the existing chain. The problem is, “Why are you mining five blocks? Other people are mining one block.” You have to do it five times as fast.
My counterargument to that is two things. One, not everyone is motivated by economics. You’re basically saying, “You would only mine the sensible block because mining the other block would cost you more.” It’s not necessarily going to explain why I mine blocks or why I might want to undermine Bitcoin. Another thing is that if you take this to the limit, the argument that, “If I do enough mining, I could own all the money in the world. I could go back and everything that you think you’ve done, all of these transactions, all this money that you think you mined, you didn’t mine aby of that. I mined it all. I now own all the money.” It’s a pretty strong economic incentive. That’s where we’re spending a lot of electricity on.
With Bitcoin, in particular, it seems that the technical challenges that come up have to be dealt with by the people developing the protocol. They’re advancing the protocol. You could imagine at some point even migrating Bitcoin to another design that got rid of mining or got rid of the current scheme for mining and get that energy consumption down. Do you think that thing will happen?
Censorship means controlling how you spend money and making sure it's done in a lawful way. Share on X
Yes. There’s the idea of currencies that are exchanged in a purely virtual way, where you have cash anonymity, but in a purely electronic format. They’re good ideas. The bad idea in Bitcoin is if you take $100 bills, burn them and bottle the smoke and that’s $100, that’s dumb. Saying, “I have a ledger of stuff so I can make strong cryptographic statements,” is a good idea. There are examples of theoretical systems, but not wildly speculative theoretical systems.
Things that just need some work.
They don’t need work. We know that they will work, just use hash functions and public-key signatures and nothing spectacular. RS coming is an interesting example by some people at UCL and centrally banked cryptocurrency. You fear money, but on a verifiable ledger of stuff. That’s cheap, but it still gives you all the prophecies of cash if you wanted to. It gives you verifiability, whatever you want from a cryptocurrency other than, “I can get rich by doing an ICF.”
A theory or the idea is we’re going to do smart contracts. As far as I can tell, nobody’s doing that, but it has served as a platform to do things like watching ICOs and those things.
People have done smart contracts and there’s the DIA. That was awesome.
What’s that?
DIA, which is done on that, it is a mega smart contract thing that had a bug in it and somebody immediately extracted the DIA. That caused the split in Ethereum in a way. One folk is weird, met the bug in DIA, junk all her money went to the person who found the bug. The other one was I know we backed off time, but before that, we did a revised version of the contract. We live in a smart contract entirely.
I had blinders on to so much of this because I can’t stand the noise floor of currency speculators. It’s been difficult, but now I have to pay attention because it’s too far gone. The point I was trying to make is with something like EOS, which is meant to be a next-generation Ethereum, where they want to solve some of those problems technically. They imagined creating a platform, an operating system in the cloud where that database of the shared ledger enables a whole bunch of decentralized applications. I think people imagined using that as a kingpin, they’re going to be able to take some of these walled garden services that exist on Facebook, Instagram and all these places where it’s not the internet we dreamt about. I can’t get my data. I can’t do anything other than what Facebook wants me to do with it. I think what, at least some of the more fringe radicals now, are imagining is that the thing that kept us from decentralizing that before it was that we didn’t have this shared database. I’m curious what you think about those notions.
I think that makes sense. Certificate Transparency is an example in a small microcosm way. You can apply these ideas to take a system that was countable and slightly broken. We’re broken that you were relying on random people who would race to the bottom end cost to maintain them.
It’s like 1,000 root certs in your browser. It’s like having your 1,000 nearest neighbors have a key to your front door and you are saying, “It will probably be secure.”
It turns out that mostly it is, but sometimes it isn’t and you don’t know quite what happened to your front door. I certainly think that this whole idea of verifiable databases, there are lots of interesting things. Not only that but you can democratize things that have traditionally required some central authority. It’s not going to central aggregation or you can have these distributed ledgers where you all agree on truth, then you publish it, and it’s not going back on it. I think you can do those quite cheaply and there is an interesting feature there.
There’s a bunch of different things that are going on here. One of them is people are looking at blockchain as a way of taking back, if nothing else, at least spiritually, it’s acting as a marker for people wanting to take back the internet from these huge established players who built wall gardens where they control your data. They control the whole experience. That’s not what was going on in the ‘90s when we were all building web apps. Everybody had an equal footing and nobody has an equal footing anymore. Almost everything you do online, you’re beholden in some way to Facebook, Google, Amazon or Apple.
One of the fascinating things was we used to be able to view source on a webpage and see how they did it. This is always true on BSD or Linux or wherever you’re going to go see the source of anything. For learning how to make things, it’s like opening the hood of a ‘57 Chevy and you could observe it and figure out how it worked. Now, so much of the code is in the cloud. You’re never going to see that. Even in the ‘90s, I could buy software and I could look at the binaries. I could at least observe the stuff I was running. Now, you can’t buy anything. Everything’s owned by someone else. It’s running on their servers. I can’t attack anything.
I used to go buy a Cisco router and attack my Cisco router and figure out, “I’m not breaking any laws. I’m not missing anybody stuff up.” Now, everything is in the cloud. You can’t go attacking Facebook or Google or anything because it is their stuff, not mine. It’s a different world that we live in. I grew up with Apple II. My daughter has an iPad and it’s a radically different experience. Hers is a billion times better, but she never gets to see how it works. I’m discombobulated about a bunch of stuff here, but we grew up in a world where we can learn through this observation and trial and error. I think both of those things have been eroded in the world. You can’t observe how things work. You can’t get away with trial and error.
That’s not just true for cars. That is true for everything with all the software, computers and iPad. The cloud collectively takes those features of the world away from most of the things we’re using. We can’t learn them through observation. There’s this meaningful spirit behind things like EOS, where we imagined we’re going to take back Facebook Messenger and make our own that we control. We’re going to take back Facebook’s event thing and make it something we control. We are going to take back that feed that Facebook used to elect the wrong guy. We’re going to take that back and we’re going to make our own that we control. Probably, there’ll be a market failure for a long time and we won’t be nearly as useful as actual Facebook, but that’s the sentiment.
I feel like in some cases, we’ve been winning. Cypherpunk brought BitTorrent. It is 35% of the internet. You can’t make it go away. It’s a decentralized. It uses that crypto toolkit to give us something that we felt was important. The whole dark web, you could argue about the merits of that, but that’s cypherpunk’s making tour. That’s descendant of things like Mixmaster, remailers and those things. That was embodying our values in the protocols. I don’t know what percentage of the internet is dark web now, but it exists and it’s here to stay. You can’t get rid of it.I don’t want to make a case for WikiLeaks, but the same community brings you those things. Most certainly Bitcoin. On a long timescale, we are winning a bunch of these battles. All the things that we tried to imagine in those days are coming to pass on a longer time horizon and decentralized. This is why I questioned your arguments about making things decentralized.
There are multiple pieces there. One piece is around complexity. The web has not changed in the sense that it still runs in my browser in terms of the bit that is involved in rendering. When you get down to it, those backend systems pretty much stay spaces. One of the giants, they say you can’t Google is that Google program’s job is taking one protocol and converting it into another protocol because that’s what happens on the backend. All the interesting stuff happens on the frontend, where you render stuff. What has changed there is that has become enormously every way become super powerful. They have incredibly fine-grain control on how exactly things look. I know if I open a modern web page and say, “Web page, what are you up to?” I get a megabyte of JavaScript, HTML and CSS. It’s a little compressed that it is super hard to understand what it’s doing, but that’s true.
As you are talking about that, I was thinking that in some instances, generations of this stuff, in the ‘60s, ‘70s or ‘50s, you could take apart a car and you can fully understand how the car worked. You can make a piston at home or any useful part of an engine. There are probably some belts and things like that that I can make my own version of. I couldn’t make an engine, but on the other hand, there’s off the shelf part I can put it together. We’ve gotten to a stage where we’re in this permanent end state or whether it’s an intermediate state where suddenly we’re exposing the items. We were like, “There are little items in this thing.” It is hard to understand how all of these items work together. Maybe there’s a future where these things are super complicated, but they become building blocks. It’s like, “There’s a piston. I can’t make a piston, but I know how to make an engine.”
That’s certainly the case. You could go get a Computer Science degree now without ever learning what a chip is doing or even learning to read hexadecimal because it’s Lego bricks. In an IDE, you are sticking Lego bricks together.
I grew up in an era where mainframe computers were great bulky things that took up whole rooms, but they weren’t sophisticated. Microsoft was just starting to come out. They were at a stage where I could still imagine a bunch of transistors, the thing that the Micro did. If I learned to program an 80/80, I can stick a logic analyzer on it and I could see exactly instructions and so forth. I stuck a Logic Analyzer on a Pentium II. There was no way to know what was on the chip because of all of the caching. What came out of the chip, almost no relationship with what was going on inside it. I did this because I was trying to debug a program.
One of the interesting things about that is that Intel will recognize this as a problem and you could switch all that shit off. If you wanted to debug a hardware, you could say, “Please stop all the caching so I can see what you’re up to.” Suddenly, it became comprehensible again and you could get your Logic Analyzer to disassemble, and all sorts of stuff. With it switched on, it was gibberish and I had no idea what’s going on. I sometimes think it comes from the last generation of software engineers who could see the whole stack if you think about transistors and chips, assemblies of these things.
As we were discussing it, the speed of CPU has come from spectrum meltdown. It’s the ability for them to do these almost magical things with speculative execution, branch prediction, caching, and all of that stuff. You can no longer observe the outside of the chip and have any idea what’s going on inside the chip. You could argue that back in the day where I understood transistors, I probably didn’t understand how a transistor worked. They probably do better now than it did then. It’s a thing and it works, but I don’t know what’s going on inside. It’s a question of where you draw your boundaries and what are the building blocks and what you understand about the building blocks.
Not everyone is motivated by economics. Share on X
I think that’s fair. Truthfully, the trend has always been that you spend some of this extra computational ability on making things easier for whoever’s building with the blocks. I keep thinking about, in those days, especially on mainframes and on the early microcomputers and stuff, you had to make everything efficient because you didn’t have cycles to waste. You had to engineer everything perfectly. You had to test it end to end. It’s the way we do so much engineering. We try and design things that are perfect and you look at biological entities like you and me, we’re like 99% error correction. Cells are dying off all the time and somehow it mostly works and you’re still here. I think of that as probably the transition we’re going through.
Now that we have a surplus of computational ability, we’re getting to a point where we’re wasting a lot of it on error correction. We’ll probably get to a point in the future when computers are mostly error correction and they’re mostly going wrong all the time. It generally steers us in the right direction. A lot of the things we have are like that. I remember loading the software to drive an HP printer. It’s like an inkjet printer and I’ve got 600 megs of shit loading on my computer to run the printer. It’s got every piece of software on demand. There are a database and a web server and all this stuff that’s running in the background on my machine just to print. It’s because it was easier to grab these gargantuan building blocks for whoever was making the printer software than it was to think about what was needed. I think there’s a full copy of Apache installed with every HP printer.
Google started to realize that maybe that’s not such a great idea because you’re exposed.
You can get all those security flaws too. There’s no system update for it.
As you stand in the line, the printer is 100% vulnerable.
It is certified pre-owned.
When you get this cycle of simplification, it’s cheaper for me to maintain the simplified software even though I do have to customize it more. I have to think more about what goes into than to deal with the aftermath of deploying this giant massive crap. There are cycles in all of this stuff. There’s a little cycle around what you consider to be the building blocks. We start to get things but that’s insane. Why would you want to run down to the server? If I ignore all of the frameworks that I’m having to load, these ten lines of JavaScript do some quite useful stuff and I understand fully what it does. That’s a shift on what you consider to be the fundamentals. I consider the fundamentals to be set 80 instructions. I included this library that does a thing. I know exactly what that thing is. I can forget the internal workings of that library and look at the thing that I see.
The building block is like a VM. It’s like, “If you need to sort, here’s a VM that does sort via this pretend Rest API.”
Every time you go up the stack, there’s always a piece that’s going to say, “Don’t worry about that because that’s the mechanism,” and the interesting bit is what you did with the mechanism.
What do you think are the cool things that we could build with the crypto toolkit that is under-appreciated or underrepresented or that nobody’s talking about?
The thing I’m obsessed with is the Certificate Transparency as I said. This whole idea of using verifiable ledgers, which is a boring tool of Bitcoin. Bitcoin is half fun and half craziness. You can use those to build a record of the behavior of people in the system. You can have rules about how people ought to behave. If you construct carefully what it is you put in the ledger, you can determine whether people have abided those rules or not, and you can have strong cryptographic proof so that whether they did or didn’t behave, you can then use them to hold them to account.
The interesting thing is you start to care a lot less about authorities. This comes back to our conversation. We want to not have an asymmetric advantage. Nobody in the system should have an asymmetric advantage if we know the rules. The people who nominally have the asymmetric advantage have to follow the rules. They don’t have advantages anymore. That’s what I mean by verifiable transparency is this ability to check that people have done what they’re supposed to do and hold them to account when they don’t in a way that can’t be disputed. It’s now a matter of opinion. Did you abide the rules or didn’t you? It’s like, “Here’s my cryptographic proof.”
It needs to rearchitect a lot of the things that we do online with this structure that brings that.
It’s figuring out what it is you can put into those pages, how you close that loop, and how you make those proofs water tight.
With the Certificate Transparency, you have a working model of one case where this has been done. What are good candidates for where else to go?
Money is another one but I think there are all sorts of things. One of the things that we heard about a while back in this blockchain frenzy, almost anybody says, “You should put it on the blockchain.” I think there’s a candidate for this stuff. There are things like a land registry. These are particularly in less first world places. There’s a lot of fraud around those kinds of things. The difficulty with those frauds is not so much that they occur, but you don’t discover them until it’s way too late to do anything about it. I think a lot of these things will be much more tractable. As soon as it happened, you knew that it happened because you can do something about it.
Doing things on your house anymore is not all that useful in those environments. Whereas if I knew like five minutes after the official tip of a bribe that somebody had taken a bribe, then I have some chance of doing something about it. That thing is where this stuff ought to be going, which is funny because it’s the opposite of the crypto-anarchist rule of law. Mass is everything. Mass gives you a system that is internally self-consistent, but when it doesn’t obey the rules, then what do I do? I go to the masses.
One of the things I get asked about a lot is the so-called cyber security. Whenever hackers use the word “cyber,” it’s such a dumb word. Nobody who’s legit at all will use that word, but we’ve lost that battle. We’ve had all these security problems. When you’re working on security, part of your job is to become a paranoic and imagine everything that could go wrong. Imagine every attack that could come and every threat. In some sense, it’s sad. It’s turned a lot of my friends into obnoxious, paranoid people. They’re not very happy. With that said, what I’ve seen play out over decades is all those things we imagined have come to pass.
All the failures that happened with DOS and everything else, we saw that coming. We were right about all of them, but in almost every case, what’s happened as far as I can tell is shit hits the fan and then we reboot, run system update, kick out the bad guys, patch things and life goes on. I remember with Mirai, the biggest botnet in history at the time, 1.2 terabytes per second of bullshit traffic. It brought Netflix down for twelve minutes. That’s our poster child for catastrophe and it’s not so bad. It was probably a net gain for the society that people couldn’t watch Netflix for twelve minutes. We’ve had all these scary stories, like hackers could get in and control of the power grid and shut it down.
In 2019, they did in Ukraine. They rebooted. They did some clever stuff where they rewrote the firmware on this Serial to Ethernet Converter so they couldn’t reboot. The point is the power grid came back. It’s fine. There’s a little bit of damage, but people have this almost paralyzing relationship with computer security. It keeps them from doing things. I don’t have that. I feel like I’ve seen it all before. I’m not worried. We’re full scale “cyber warfare” between nation states. This stuff is going on and it’s all significant. It does matter. It feels to me like you build comfort with it in a sense and you get a sense of wisdom about it, where you know that it’s not the end of the world, but people are still treating it as if it’s going to be. What do you think about that?
Like you, I’m not that worried. One of the reasons I’m not that worried is that I worked in security for a long time. I worked for Google where we get attacked a lot. I’ve seen pretty frightening things. You figure it out, clean it up and carry on. There are two things going on. One is the decisions of building things that are falling apart on a regular basis, regardless whether they’re being hacked or not. That happens all the time. We’re always in this position, this thing that we thought to be reliable that isn’t. It comes and is patching up after it’s fallen apart. Sometimes it’s because somebody attacked us and sometimes it’s because we’re shit at programming. The reality is that you figure it out, patch things up, reboot, carry on and it’s all good.
Sometimes you get some advantage in the house never that bad. The down the line concern is that they could be an outage that is hard to recover from and for security is that we build a stack of software that’s complicated that when it goes wrong, we can’t figure out how to fix it. I think we’re a long way from that because we’re bad at building it. There’s micro-scale all the time. Little bits of stacks always falling apart. We’re always like, “That bit fell over and it corrupted these discs over here and we lost that data. We’ll figure it out.” What worries me more is if we get to the point where it’s like 99.99% good, and then you hit the 0.1%, and then we’re fucked.
Mass is everything. Mass gives you a system that is internally self-consistent. Share on X
I remember it was such a problem in the ‘80s if your computer crashed at the wrong time. We solved that because computers crashed all the time and now, they never crash. I don’t worry about it because I know that no data is going to be lost. We solved that a long time ago.
That’s part of my point. One of the reasons it was a pain in the ass in the ‘80s, you couldn’t autosave. Your work is going away for five minutes.
You can’t type and save at the same time.
That is the trend that will continue to rebuild this layered defense against unreliability, mostly because it’s unreliable. It saves us when it’s insecure as well. We are getting better at being reliable and having less bugs and maybe there is this future where we’re good at it that when a bug does hit, it’s horrific or it’s in pieces of software that have been untouched for years. Everyone is like, “There’s nobody around software anymore.”
Dan Kaminsky goes, “Who knows how DNS works anymore?” I get lots of questions from kids all over the world who think they want to be hackers. Probably because my job seems cool and they want that. I don’t know what to tell them.
Tell them hacking is easy and fixing things is way harder. That’s the interesting thing to do. This is one of the things I’ve been trying to do, “Don’t bring me attack.” Any fool can attack a system. If you must bring me an attack, bring me a defense. Even better, bring me a defense that is clever for that so I can move across systems and isn’t a defense against your particular attack. It was a defense against that whole class with attacks for a whole class or software, not just the one that got attacked. Speaking of asymmetric advantage, the attack has always had a nice advantage. That’s defending a piece of software. I have to fix every bug. To attack it, you only have to find one. If you want to be one of the cool kids, then you should figure out how to stop things from breaking, not how to break them.
What about before that, where to start and how you learn?
I’ve never been much of an attacker on the system. I’ve always been a defender. People often say, “The only way to learn is by breaking things first so you can fix it.”
I think that might be what I said.
You can learn by asking how it works than actually doing it. How would I stop that thing from working? You have to find novel attacks, interesting things to worry about. You can think about, what if I admit that we don’t know how to stop the attacks? What could I do about that? That’s interesting. It’s the principle of least authority and strong compartmentalization. There are interesting things that you can do that’s beneficial here after their hands to attack the things that were inside the boxes, you’ve got to know how to build the boxes and made those boxes useful.
What about high school kids who don’t know what to do with themselves, but they’re interested and computers? Can you think of where they should start? Should they start learning math, coding? If you had to give some advice.
I think the think about coding in general, even leaving aside security, attacking or defending is a lot of work. I’m going to decide one day that I’m going to take a block of metal to build a car, then the tech to do that. It’s hard to learn to do this stuff without having some problem that you want to solve. The main barrier to getting into this stuff is having something that you want to do. Once you’ve got something that you want to do, we’ll find ways to do things that you need to learn exactly. I think the main challenge is finding things that you want to do that are worth expanding all that effort because writing any serious piece of code. It is multimodal piece of work. There are even little toys that take at least a day or two. The last one is your experience. It’s having a thing that interests you. I suppose the funniest thing that you can get into these days that provides lots of challenges are things like machine learning. It’s relatively easily these days to get ahold of little kids that help you along the line. You can get fun things out. It’s all about reward.
That’s the thing that people miss out on is that brains are optimized for learning things they’re interested in. Find something you’re interested in and you’ll learn a lot. It may not be what the school is trying to teach you, but you’ll learn something.
The other thing is to understand that you’re going to fail a lot and you’re going to be frustrated. If you’re going to learn, the way you’re going to learn is by fighting through that frustration or satisfaction or banging your head against the program for days and at the end of it, solving it. It is incredibly rewarding. On the other hand, the days leading up to that reward are extremely annoying.
You earn the reward. What are the hard problems left that interests you?
What are the interesting frontiers in software engineering? There’s a bunch of stuff I’m interested in. I still think that the business of how do you defend against flaky software. That’s not going to have a chance. What do I do about the fact that flaky software, I am trying to run it? The damage is minimized. If you want to get on to more advanced topics. This is a purely selfish software engineering perspective. If you look at user interfaces, user interfaces for all users, except programmers have changed radically over many years. As you were saying, you had some crappy micro when you procreate. Your kids have iPads. We have amazing games and with Twitter and Facebook or whatever the kids probably have done exactly.
That’s one of the interesting things is as a software engineer, you improve the life of software engineers. Make them more productive and make them come up to the standards of interfaces than everyone else. Machine learning a lot of is people’s neural networks. I think this case is a false impression and they have something to do with that in your brain. There’s nothing to do with brains all. There are reasonably effective and they’re in their infancy. If you look at what’s happened in the last years in terms of how people would move forward on machine learning, they’re screwing around with the fundamentals of it, putting things together in different ways, putting more it together, applying more CPU, and getting surprisingly good results that. I think that’s a huge territory, what you do with these things, how you put them together, what problems do you apply that and it’s a ton of fun to be had there.
Is there anything interesting that we didn’t talk about that comes to mind? Do you have any questions for me?
I think the one thing that we haven’t debated on is if we’re going to talk about security. We’ve talked a lot about crypto and building blocks and what can we do with all of these things. We’ve talked about any defending against bad programming and stuff. People get very obsessed with an attack. They’re counting crypto that we can use in cycles. One of the things I realized probably years ago is that most of the barriers to being good at security and not technological. They’re about the interface between humans. I think we’re still incredibly bad. Having people understand what the hell is going on and the traditional reaction of technologists to get to those stupid users should be better educated. “They should understand my system better,” and that is wrong.
It’s fun to make fun of users though.
It is fun to make fun of, but the thing is that we’ve done a terrible job matching the machine to the human and the human to the machine. The user-interface is the only serious problem we have. All of the technical stuff we can do is as nothing compared to making it easy to use.
It’s interesting to hear you say that. I don’t think of user interface is something that you work on much. That’s great to hear. My fundamental experience was that I got one of the first thousand Macs ever made. In those days, it went from the command line to the Windows and that it became graphical. Mac took the responsibility for making it easy for the users. The first computer that did that. On a command line, you can type any junk you want. On a Mac, you can only give it the commands that are in the menus. That was a way of simplifying it for the user and saying, “Here’s the available options. If they weren’t available, they’d be great out or missing.”
Hacking is easy; fixing things is way harder. Share on X
That was a way of bridging that gap and saying, “We’re only going to give you the things that you can do instead of a wide-open command line where you could do anything. That’s probably going to destroy your hard drive. That has always stuck with me. That was the first computer that I tried to operate the way people work instead of teaching people to operate the way the computer works in computer security like that lesson. A lot of times, there’s so much bullshit you put up even on an iPhone. I can’t believe how much time I spend putting passwords into an iPhone.
The Chrysler, we gave back quite a lot of white-collar rates, the security, the cypherpunks and all that kind of stuff we’ve talked about. What still excites you about computing?
The way I think about it, I got ahold of an Apple II. At the time, it was a piece of shit. I loved it, but it had an eight-bit processor. That was one kiloflop. I think I could do math faster with a pencil, but it lit up my imagination. I could imagine that someday I’ll have a faster processor, someday have more memory and someday it was going to be useful. I was trying to convince everyone of that. I had the Apple II and skateboard and people were conflicted about which one was a bigger waste of time. I got lucky the computer turned out to be useful. They did get faster. They did get more memory. They got to the point where we could use them for all things, but I’m still living in that. I’m still trying to find new things that we could do with a computer. I never ran out of steam on that.
To this day, I’m still looking, what’s going to be technically possible? What problems can we solve? What can we do better with the computer that I’m and what does it change? That’s driven me my whole life. I don’t see any end in sight for that. I find different things to aim and what’s great is I know a lot about computers. I don’t know a lot about anything else, but I feel entitled to go take the computer and try and apply it to things I don’t know anything about. I spent half of my time trying to learn about the state of the art with new technologies and around computers, what they can do. I cram that in my head. I spend the other half of my time trying to learn about problems and cram them into the other side of my head. I imagine there’s a Rubik’s cube in there that sometimes matches them up.
That’s literally what I think invention for me is. I’m collecting the tools and I’m collecting the problems. Every day you get new technology, you get a new chip, you get a new algorithm, you get a new sensor, you get something. You get to ask yourself, “Does this change anything humans have ever done?” That’s what keeps me going. I think security and hacking was a great place to start the irreverence of hackers. They don’t give a shit what anyone else thinks. They’re not reading the directions. They’re breaking things. They’re discovering what’s technically possible and that to me is the seed of invention.
That’s why I cherish them. That’s why I still hang out with hackers, even though I don’t care about the security. Those are the minds that I am inspired by. It was a great place to come from. I’m thankful that I learned so much about computers because going deep into something, it helps you respect the depth of knowledge that other people have in their area. It helps me, so I can communicate with them. I keep trying to stay up on what computers can do and use that as my tool. Thanks, Ben. It is great hanging out with you.
About Ben Laurie
Extremely proficient programmer (over 30 years experience) and system designer. Security, cryptography, privacy and civil liberties are my passions.
Specialties: Security, cryptography, open source/free software, the Internet, privacy, civil liberties, writing, OpenSSL, Apache
Recorded on March 16, 2018
The Future of Modern Photography - Steven Sebring
Jan 22, 2021
Steven Sebring is an artist, photographer & inventor. This is a guy who’s invented new technology and advanced the art of photography with the tools that he’s built in a world-class fashion. By his own admission, he is not a technical guy, but when you see what he’s built, you’re going to be blown away.
There’s nothing else in the world like it. There’s a lot of work going on to develop new kinds of capture systems for virtual reality that work in 360° environments.
Steven came at it from a completely different angle and came up with a completely different solution. He is putting out the most incredible content that works in 3D and in virtual reality on the planet. No one’s paralleled what he’s doing as far as I’ve seen. You really want to understand Steven and his thought process, and that’s really what we’re getting into in this episode.
I want you to be able to see how an inventor thinks when they’re trying to solve a problem that they understand. We have a lot of situations in technology where we’re building a solution without really understanding the problem or the user whose going to be interacting with it. So, this is an amazing opportunity to get to know an inventor.
I don’t think Steven has ever done a podcast before. He rarely ever talks about what he’s working on. He’s known to industry insiders in fashion. He’s shot a lot of celebrities. He goes way back with Patti Smith. He’s done cool documentaries and film and all kinds of artwork with her. And he’s shot some of the biggest brands on earth and the camera system he built is unlike anything else.
So, anyway, I want you to get in here and understand Steven. We talk about his projects for Donna Karan, Ralph Laureen, BMW, and Spin Magazine. He just has all kinds of commercial work that he’s done. He’s also a guy who has worked on art projects, that if you have any interest in art, you’re going to want to learn about his Muybridge interpretation that he’s done.
I met Steven a couple of years ago when he was doing this groundbreaking project called LIMINAL with Rodney Mullen. Rodney introduced us and we’ve been friends ever since. I cannot wait for you guys to see this stuff. This episode, you’re going to have to go to the website jetpackforthemind.com to look at the Steven Sebring episode. I’m going to post all kinds of cool stuff that Steven has created. There’s a music videos in there with Jack White. There’s all kinds of film and video projects that they’ve done with the camera system. There’s a lot to explore and I think you guys are going to be really impressed with what’s going on.
Pablos: Even though my audience is smart and technical but they know about a lot of different things so I’m not expecting them to know anything in particular. The point here isn’t to dig into the tech stuff too much. What’s much more interesting is you have this amazing, unique career in history trying to advance your tools to support your art. That’s much more interesting than what most nerds are doing. We want to try and pick that apart so people can understand. A lot of what’s holding human back is that symbiosis is missing between the tools in the art, the creation and using technology to enable possibilities.
Steven: This is beautiful. I feel honored to be here with Pablos. There is no nerd here.
It’s not that you’re a nerd. It’s all the nerds are not able to do what they’re doing.
They’re fucking nerds. That’s what they are. Nobody needs a nerd. I could use a few nerds.
That’s one thing that could be valuable here.
We’re definitely needing a lot of nerds to then obey my command.
They thrive when they have some management. You need a dominatrix to tell them what to do all of that. I’m not exaggerating about that. It’s one of the winning strategies we’ve found for some folks with Asperger’s. You get on a dominatrix who tells them what to do at any given moment who can prioritize for that. Who can tell them what to worry about next because they don’t feel they have to worry about everything? It works great because then, they can be productive. In any given moment, they can do the extraordinary thing that they’re good at and the skills that you worry about taking care of the things that they suck at. This notion that somehow the world needs more well-balanced humans, I don’t think I believe it. We have a leader that’s extraordinary.
Everybody is trying to find this balance by getting to the center. That’s the yoga strategy. They’re trying to get rid of every sharp edge and get to this center point where everything is perfectly balanced and hang out there. That, to me, is precarious. It’s not resilient. When you look, it’s trying to balance a teeter-totter on that point or trying to balance a pencil on your fingertips and that’s hard to do. If you look at a barbell, the barbell is balanced through extremes amount of weight on one end and the other. There’s nothing in the middle.
Barbells are prone to be balanced almost all the time. We’re going a little too far with this balanced human thing. When you work in tech with a bunch of folks who are on the spectrum, you start to get an appreciation for what they’re good at. It’s antagonistic to try to make them balanced like normal people which aren’t what they are built for. It’s not what we need them for. You can find somebody else to do yoga and somebody else to eat organic quinoa and all that stuff. The folks with the ability to concentrate and create something the way a lot of folks with Asperger’s have been able to do, that’s special.
That’s interesting. I love your perspectives, Pablos. To think that you fucking come from Alaska.
Nothing in Alaska is normal.
You grew up in Anchorage?
I grew up mostly in Anchorage. I spent about five years in a small town called Soldotna.
It was always dark. Do you get a minute of the sun in the winter?
You would walk to school in the dark and walk home from school in the dark. We’re meandering but I want to back up. I come from the sport fishing capital of America.
Do you like sushi?
No. It’s a problem in relationships.
Do you like cows? Do you like a good steak? Why do you think the cows are fired emissions that are affecting the climate? If everybody quit eating meat for a year, I hear that we would be in a much better situation. Is that true?
Yeah. It’s because the gas is not CO2. It’s methane. Methane is about 26 times as bad as CO2.
We got to do something about that. Why can’t they put cows in a big fucking building that’s taking the methane out of the air?
That is possible. It’s just that they keep trying to make them fart inside of a building.
It might be toxic for them. I would think that the cows would fall over in their cages.
They would. It’s nasty stuff.
What are you hearing about it?
Methane is the exact same thing as natural gas. If you could capture it, put it in cars and you can power the world.
Why can’t they capture that? Why can’t they do this?
The day of that big photographer is dwindling down because now everybody's a photographer. Share on X
There are inventions which try to capture methane from the farts of cows.
Whoever does that will make billions. Why haven’t you figured that out? We might have in this conversation the answer.
The truth is you could do a lot if you catch that methane because something close to 30% of green gasses is coming from the cow farts.
Why can’t they put a suction cup up to their butt?
There is a patent on that. It’s expired though. It’s an open-source thing. Anyone could stick a suction cup on the bottom of a cow and collect the methane and sell it into the energy market. I don’t know what you’re doing here taking pictures when you can be rich.
I own 1,200 acres in South Dakota with oil on it. I own mineral rights to the land. I can drill tomorrow. I just haven’t drilled.
How did you choose South Dakota?
I inherited it from my great-great-uncle.
Did he want to get it oil?
No. He was a sheep farmer. He had cattle and horses of about over 60 or 80 that ran around on his land. I did a book called Bygone Daysof all his found photography and negatives. I remember going there when I was a little kid so I became close to Johnny. He lived in the original sod house that he was born in. It was the first homestead in the area in Dakota. It’s in the North-Western area. It’s incredibly beautiful. He put me in the will to take care of the land and keep the place but I’ve never drilled on it. As soon as I remember, when they were reading the will, people are coming up to me and say, “You can drill. There’s oil here.” I’m like, “Really?” I’ve never done it.
It’s still going to be a little late.
I should have done that deal with Halliburton sooner.
This was your grandfather.
Great-great-uncle of mine and I did a book called Bygone Days on him.
Did you go to visit him?
All the time. I loved it out there.
Where were you growing up?
I was born in South Dakota, Aberdeen and I have relatives in Sioux Falls and stuff that. My parents moved to Arizona when I was one because there were jobs there. There were nursing and teaching jobs, and it was starting to blossom in Phoenix. I grew up in Mesa which is outside of Phoenix. It’s lonely back there and it was suburbia. I didn’t have much culture when I grew up at all. It was cowboys and a lot of cotton fields. If my parents had $5,000 or $4,000 to buy land out there, they would have been great because now it’s sprawling.
Was this in early or mid-’70s or something?
I was born in ‘66. In 1967, we were out there and my sister was born. We lived out there. That was my life.
Is your uncle the one that got photography in your head?
No. It’s bizarre. I was a tennis player. That was my big thing. I was playing lots of tennis. I found a girlfriend of mine and she modeled in Phoenix. I started taking pictures of her and I’m going, “This is cool.” All my family is artists and teachers in the arts. I started taking pictures and I didn’t want to go to college for tennis or anything like that so I never went to college. I graduated from high school. I started a studio. I took pictures in Phoenix. I got over that then I went to Italy. I used to shoot cars and I shot all different things like food and all product stuff. I was into photographing girls. I built a book. I went out to Italy and that’s when I started photographing a lot of models. I came back and I ended up in New York City with this portfolio that I created in Italy and I landed a Ralph Lauren campaign. It was quick and I never went back.
Is that the moment that legitimizes your career as a photographer?
As a photographer, you start shooting a lot of editorials so you do a lot of magazine work before you get a campaign. You’re building your style and your image shooting editorial. For some reason, I did the Double RL campaign which is cool vintage type stuff. My portfolio was about doc style. I had a style for sure. I also did things instead of putting pictures in a portfolio like a normal portfolio, I’d design cards that folded out with my picture. I designed boxes that people would look at my stuff more design creatively and that showed off to people that I was thinking differently and I nailed that.
That’s when I started shooting editorial because once I did the Double RL campaign, I did two of them and that was my launch. I started shooting a lot of male and women celebrities. I started shooting a lot of men’s stuff with L’Uomo Vogue doing stuff for W when W started. It started propelling my career and then I started shooting women. To shoot women’s fashion is a hard thing to get to. It’s the cram of the cram to get the best girls in the world where I could get the best guys in the world. That leads it into shooting women celebrities. I shot a lot of women celebrities for magazines then that propelled me to now.
When the crossover was more about the woman’s celebrity than a model on the cover of a magazine or in an editorial because nobody cared about that, that’s when it was easier for me to do because I was shooting a lot at women celebrities. They became that fashion model in a way. I was on a plane once to LA and I was watching this woman. She had Vogues and all these magazines. I was watching this woman flipped through the magazine. When it came to an editorial with the model, she just kept flipping. When it came to an editorial with a celebrity, she stopped and read. I was like, “That’s a big indication that you have to be branded as a person.”
We had a lot of experience in the last few years of a celebrity being the driver for everything. Now, we have a multitude of celebrities. For the first time, as far as I can tell in human history, their primary thing is being a celebrity. We used to have some legitimizing career to go with it.
If you’re a new model, your mom and dad are celebrities. You’re almost branded immediately. That’s the only thing that people care about now. You see influencers that are branding and they’re doing all these different things. They’re now apparel designers or they have a soft drink. That’s the new thing now to keep up to have a girl come out of the woodwork from someplace. Male America and become a star are very rare anymore because nobody wants to put the work in to brand that. They want it to be already done. You come from this family and now you’re somebody.
There are counterexamples like Charli D’Amelio on TikTok who came out of nowhere doing dance moves. Now, she’s the biggest thing on Earth.
It’s insane. Every brand wants to link up to that because that’s the fan base and that’s how they sell. It’s a crazy time because that fashion or iconic photographer that shoots big ad campaigns that are fantasy and all this stuff has gone down the tube because nobody wants to pay their fees anymore and somebody can do it on their phone. The day of that big photographer is dwindling down because now everybody is a photographer.
In some sense that the tools and skills became democratized because the phone in my pocket is now better than anything, you used in your entire career. You’ve got the same phone on your bike. We all have these tools and it makes everyone think they’re a photographer even if they haven’t done the work to build up the skillset. A lot of those skills are obsoleted. The position we ended up now is what you’re describing where the professional experienced photographer is not being hired for that photo skillset.
Not much anymore.
Their creativity is also less valuable because you’re competing with such a high noise score.
There’s so much noise in how you breakthrough. You see now photographers in the fashion community using Instagram to help promote themselves. The actual photo agent is a difficult time now for them, but there’s only a certain amount of work out there. Now with the pandemic, where are the budgets? You could still be out there and be a cool photographer. It doesn’t mean you’re making money. For me, I’ve always evolved so much because when I was taking pictures, I started getting into film and I was interested in filmmaking. On a job, I met Patti Smith and shooting her for SPIN Magazine. I met her in Detroit and I started falling for her.
That’s when I started like, “I want to start filming you.” I started learning. I didn’t go to film school. I bought a camera and started filming her. It wasn’t video. It’s always a movie film. It’s footage like Sally Lloyd. That was an eleven-year project for me for her and I self-financed it. I was taking my still world and getting into the storytelling world. When people heard I was doing this, that’s when people started having me shoot. I used to do more filmmaking. When I did Donna Karan stuff, I did these two short films. It was when the BMW films came out. These are short stories. I was doing that with fashion brands.
That propelled me into more shooting fashion and then pulling stills from the cameras and that’s your ad campaign. We were doing that digitally with 2K files and we were finding out that it wasn’t enough for resolution for billboards so I went back to Sally Lloyd and I started filming. We’d get 2 for 1. Now with the cameras with the reds and all that stuff which I was one of the first guys to shoot the reds and higher resolution. You were getting 2 for 1 but you had to know how to run the camera to get a still because of motion blur and all that stuff. That’s when I got into app publishing. That’s when I started getting into more immersive content and pushing that.
What year was this about?
I started doing that many years ago. I was always interested in why people are interacting with a PDF file on a tablet and it seemed flat. I started getting into all this 3D stuff and using turntables but nobody made stuff that was automated that was quick that understood my workflow. That’s when I got into this with this camera and putting tons of money into the technologies. That’s how that happened.
You’ll do a better job than this. Describe what you built here and what it’s capable of.
This is the new photo studio. I call it the SRS. It’s the Sebring Revolution System. I put a lot of time into it where it’s automated and fast. You turn it on, you’re shooting and you’re getting 2D stills as well to feed the 2D roll. You’re getting everything done at once.
I’m going to describe it for people reading. We’re sitting in a 30-foot diameter cylinder with twelve-foot walls. It’s white inside. There are 120 DSLRs mounted in the wall all the way around. Every three degrees is twenty megapixels camera. We weren’t going to tell a lot about the tech but the point is, Steven can set up a scene in here, a model, an athlete, a picture of a whole music video, or whatever. He’s filming the whole thing from every three degrees. He’s able to do real-time.
I can tell the cameras what I want them to do. It’s a rabbit hole stuff where I’m constantly trying to find new dimensions and concepts. It’s Eadweard Muybridge concepts but I’m tapping into Eadweard Muybridge who was a genius and who is the godfather of filmmaking. All his studies on Stanford University with multiple camera systems were mind-boggling. What I’m doing is I’m creating the same concepts but it’s staggeringly fast because we need to make content fast and see results immediately. It has that ability and then I started telling cameras to do different things. That’s when I started seeing motion and time.
That’s what all the great masters like Marcel Duchamp with Nude Descending a Staircase. You see Bacon and all these guys who looked at Muybridge photographs. When I started seeing things dragging and seeing a time and the light scene in this 3D world, I started seeing a lot of the cubistic and the Bacon’s and all this stuff. I always had been tapping into the arts and what were they seeing. That’s why I keep pushing these cameras systems so far. I want to go a lot further. I feel like I have now worked this much that I want to take it into another realm.
One of the things here that stands out is you ended up in a different place than the rest of the tech world did in trying to create 3D content. You ended up in a place that’s much more photorealistic and compelling. You don’t have the uncanny valley problems that we have with volumetric capture systems trying to overlay textures on point clouds and all this stuff because you have photos and everything in the photos is real. It’s much more compelling to me. It’s been fascinating to me to be able to interact with the things you’ve created because they have that visceral connection that you skipped over all the problems everybody else is trying to solve.
I’m not letting the tech rule my art and that’s the thing. For me, tech is a way to make new art. A photograph is the purest idea or way to capture a moment. At the end of the day, it isn’t about the cameras you’re using. It’s what you have at the moment. The fact that I’m using these whole camera systems laced with LED systems and it shoots with strobe. I’m not worried now about how I need to light something for an isolated image. I don’t give a shit about that. Honestly, the lighting, contrast and how fucked up I can make the picture and having high resolution, all the isolating tools work.
Even if it’s flawed, that’s okay because that feels new. Everybody is trying to refine it and make it so straightforward and realistic that they’re missing the moment and the art and that doesn’t grab your heart. Nobody gives a shit about that. The fact that I can do it and see things within twenty seconds, it’s done and I can interact with things quickly. I can pull high-resolution stills quickly in all my workflow. We’re now accessing a lot of AI where all the posts workflow is fast so I can generate different assets quickly that work in VR, AR and all this stuff.
The R&D that I’ve been doing here for years, I know exactly what I need to do in camera to eliminate posts. When I work with fashion brands or shooting high jewelry with Tiffany’s or what we’re doing with Christie’s and other auction companies, it’s about how quickly you can achieve the asset because you don’t have a lot of time with this stuff. If I need to do a campaign, I have to get 30 looks and I have to do some broadcast, if I can’t do that immediately in a day, as if I was at a normal photo studio, you’re dead in the water.
Everybody else is trying to spend weeks or months creating 3D models and rendering them per seat.
The money is not Hollywood. This is a thing that is always been important to me because I work with a lot of creative directors and I speak the language, the music and designers. If we can do things working with their existing budgets, you win. If you can deliver things in a day, you win. You delivering it in a way and you’re creating in a way that we all know. I designed these camera systems based on what we, as artists, do. That is where we are different. The approach is what I know and I don’t also want to see technology. When you come to my place, you don’t see technology, green screens and all this. You’re cooler because you see more tag. For me, that’s gross.
It’s the opposite of modeling.
I don’t want to see that. I love that but when you’re working with artists and designers or whatever you’re doing, the aesthetic is about design. I’m very much in design. When you’re working on this camera, you feel like you’re working in an installation and this is like Philip Johnson or Mies Van Der Rohe. You’re tapping into great artists and you’re lighting artists.
It’s an extraordinary experience coming here. All that soulfulness that you’re trying to describe comes through for me. I’ve been here multiple times. It was struck hanging out there. I wanted to take a picture of the theater but you’ve got these camera systems that you’ve developed out here. One of the things I’m curious about that I wanted to pick your brain on is since I’m from the tech industry and we are motivated to advance the technology. We’re trying to get more megapixels in your camera, better specs on everything, more gigahertz, terabits and everything. It’s important. We have this abstract notion in our minds that like, “This is going to matter to somebody someday.” People like you enable artists and creative people to do more. That has been true but you’re coming at it from the opposite side. I don’t think you give a shit about any of those specs or numbers. As you said, you’re trying to hide the technology.
What that means is that if you’re a skilled Indian, you don’t need the best arrow. It’s about what you have. I’m working with cameras that are fifteen years old in some of my older systems.
You’re also the Indian who built the first crossbow.
I’ve never heard that one before, but that’s funny.
That’s the interesting thing to me. You may be a skilled photographer and that’s great and all. There are other skilled photographers and I can’t tell the difference between them and that’s fine. What I can tell is you did something they didn’t do. You took that bow and said, “I want to be able to shoot three times as far. I want to be able to get something well beyond what any other photographer could do.” You built the system to do it. To do that, you had to have the vision for creating this thing. I know that you went through various iteration of this concept and prove that. That’s normal.
As you said, we’re many years in here but all along the line, you had to go engage nerds who could make your vision a reality. That’s one thing I’m interested in is what has that process been like? As far as I can tell, even sixteen years in, you’ve done an extraordinary job of not becoming one of them. I come in here and you were like, “We have cameras and you know what they are.” The point is you had to be able to express your vision for this tool you wanted to create and it’s very technical. There’s a lot of work to build this thing. This is a big hardware development project. You’ve done that and you had to get help. When you first started, where’d you get help?
I started accessing people that I knew that knew developers. I went through the gamut and not being a tech whatsoever. My son knows more things than I do. I’m very slow at it. I’d spent a lot of money and then I was like, “I can’t work with you anymore.” I’d bring in another developer.
What’s an example of why you can’t work with somebody?
They were arrogant. There was something about the arrogance of the developer that blew my mind. I would bring in another developer and they say, “We can’t build upon what he did because he built it in this language where I can’t do.” I’m like, “What are you talking about?” “He wrote it in this language and I can’t build upon what he did. I’m like, “What are you talking about? Can’t you finish the job?” He goes, “No, we have to start over.” This was my life and it was hard. At the same time, I’m not making money doing this. I have a life of shooting fashion and making TV commercials so that was my life. That’s how I supported all this tech. I kept throwing money into it and then eventually got the right people around me, developers and coders.
We did a lot of R&D and they were understanding a lot because they were designing software that was my brain. When I saw a glitch in the tasks, I would say, “I want that glitch. Give me a button.” They would say, “We’re having difficulties because of the glitch.” I’m like, “I like a glitch.” That was an interesting moment because they were like, “You like it to be imperfected like not perfect the software.” I wanted perfect software but I wanted to be able to say I want to fuck it up too because that’s when you’re going to get something different.
When I’m seeing a girl jumping in here doing something weird with shooting 600 frames per second, it’s slow-motion stuff, she’s glitching out because cameras are not timing perfectly. I like that but then I want to do it perfectly. This camera shoots 1,000 frames per second. It’s fast. I felt captured a strobe in the filament. That’s how fast this camera can be but if I wanted to put motion with it, I could do that too.
I wanted to push it in such a hard world way through my mind but the challenge was the developer’s understanding of what I wanted. We hired a lot of junior developers because it was something they didn’t know anything about and they had to create it. It was interesting. They weren’t specifically image software guys. They’re guys that were trying to think differently and building hardware that was ours. Everything is proprietary. We were trying to do things like that. It’s one of those sayings that everybody can have an electric guitar but you’re not going to be Hendricks.
You’re always going to come up with your own way of how you’re capturing stuff. They had to have that attitude that we’re trying to find new things that created emotion but also understood my workflow as a photographer. It has to be fast and I have to see playback immediately because when you’re working with creative directors and models or music stars, they need to see it quickly. All a sudden, you’re creating an environment where it’s happening organically together. It’s a true collaboration because you see the content in front of your eyes happening. That was a big push. I didn’t shoot a lot of stuff until my workflow and the post on these cameras were so fast.
We call that rapid iteration.
If I didn’t have that, I was done.
There’s something analogous to that in almost everything in the world. One of the things that we’ve experienced in the last couple of decades in our lifetime is Silicon Valley took over every other industry. The reason is we use software to reinvent those industries. That was powerful. The software gave us this superpower of rapid iteration. Imagine if you’re doing the photoshoot, you’re planning it 1.5 years in advance what you want the picture looks like and you’ve got to get one click and it better be right. You have to plan everything but you can’t chart the timeline, you have it all figured out. That’s not going to be fun. It’s not going to be creative and you’re not going to end up with the image that the world needs right at that moment.
Rapid iteration software development is I dreamed some shit up, write some code and launch it into the world. If it isn’t exactly right, no problem. I’m going to update it tonight or tomorrow morning. We’re launching 5 or 6 versions a day of those these days, which is enough that gives us the ability to steer towards what works and what’s successful. You don’t have to guess a year in advance what’s going to work, delightful, or meaningful to the user or the customer, whoever is at the end of that. That’s what artists like you’re describing, the photographers, were able to do as these tools got faster and faster. Twenty seconds later is fast. Much more you than I started with photography with chemicals so it took you at least a day to see what your picture came out to look like.
I hated that process. When I started shooting, I did a lot of ad campaigns for big designers and I only brought a Polaroid camera. That’s all I shot with it. When the scanner came around, I could scan the Polaroid. It was a huge revelation because when we shot Polaroids, there was a moment of immediate gratification but there was always an off moment about a Polaroid. That’s what I wanted this to be.
I wanted it to be something that you pushed it whether it was lighting or flaring the cameras. It has to have something that felt good because I think about the user. That’s all I think about right now. Brands are now accessing me to design the things on how the user will see, experience the jewel and the fashion. For me, this camera system is the place where you experience the content too. It’s being created in the camera and being seen in the camera. I love those new environment concepts and all this played into this camera when I was building it. Aesthetically, it has to be the new museum as well.
Now, with projection mapping and all this stuff, you can go ballistic. We’re finding a new way to think of a hologram when you’re projecting stuff with motion, now that human being becomes a hologram of itself. We’re doing things where emotionally to any user they’re going to be like, “What is that?” That’s what you want. It took me a second to make it. That’s the more fun thing about it because I get bored.
It’s tough to get you to go shoot in a regular photo studio. Why would you do that?
People ask me, I was like, “I moved on from that because it seems one dimensional.”
Plenty of people could do that and they’re still trying.
This is the thing. They’re all still trying to do the same thing. When I monetize this company, I built these camera systems that other people would understand because they know who I am, our workflow and what cameras we work with.
A regular creative director or photographer come in here and create stuff. They don’t need a nine months training program. They can be shooting tomorrow.
They’re going to be like, “I get it.” The workflow is familiar to them. I call the SRS camera. It’s a camera, it’s not cameras. I always say revolutions because we’re doing different things in that 360 space. We’re calling it different things because being able to do 30 seconds takes in here with dialogue and all this is a different approach. It’s deep and it’s cool. You start adding the voice to it and all these things but it’s all happening in camera. That’s the thing that we understand. We don’t understand the value metric capture, you have to light it flat and you do everything in post. You strip in the backgrounds and stuff like that. It needs to be done more pure and quicker. That’s the way you can meet a deadline in 2 or 3 days. That’s the approach.
There’s some interesting stuff here when you were talking about developing it. I was laughing on behalf of our audience who can relate to the notion of hiring a coder to build this thing or some developer who then tells you that they have to start from scratch because the language is wrong. We’ve all been through that many times. I’ve certainly been through that on both sides where I’m the guy telling you, “You have to start from scratch.”
If it was done this way, we can’t achieve it.
That genius was dumb shit. I’m smarter than him, I’m telling you.
There are twelve languages.
There are more than twelve languages for every day of the year but it’s not just the languages. There are a lot of other things that come out. Some of them might’ve been right but I understand from your perspective like that’s ridiculous. Along the way, you said you worked with a lot of junior developers. It may have been necessary for some sense because they don’t know what can’t be done.
Everybody else is being bought up by Google.
You were still able to make successful progress at least to some point.
I was doing stuff in the wrong way but in those early days, I looked back at those captures and they’re brilliant. They’re stuff that I want to get back to. That’s how crazy that is. I was in the trenches, I looked back at that stuff now and I can see it in augmented reality. That’s isolating material.
That’s one of the interesting things that in the time that you’ve been working on this, the headsets for AR have advanced and you serendipitously made content that was compatible with that.
Before, I even knew what AR was. People are talking in VR and all this stuff. I was interested in capturing a 2D picture and having an interactive on your phone. That was about it. When I started understanding all these other things, that’s when we started testing it all. Even when we were doing Rodney Mullen, it’s an incredible project. He is so inspirational. It all came together through Dhani Harrison. In my early app days, we produced the George Harrison Guitar Collection app. I went to Friar Park and I photographed all Harrison guitars in 360 and all that stuff, and then we created this app that is incredible. Dhani who I adore.
I remember he did the track for Liminal.
He did the track for Liminal and we cut Liminal.
Did he introduce you to Rodney?
Yes. Dhani is a skateboarder. His dad would bring in great skateboarders to Friar Park and all that stuff in and then Dhani started doing some skate tricks in the old cameras that were in a geodesic dome which was cool. It was all mirrored out and it was badass. I’m like, “Dhani, you can skate cool.” Dhani is like, “I don’t know if we can do it.” It would be ultimate to get Rodney captured like this because he is the Holy Grail. I didn’t grow up skateboarding. I didn’t grow up with Patti Smith. I entered these things not knowing a lot. I liked that because I get to know who they are. When I first met Rodney, when he came, did a few things and Rodney started seeing the results, it was heaven.
It’s cool because you come out at it without being sycophantic for sure. In both of those cases with Patti and Rodney, you’re working with a living legend. That could have been true with other skateboarders but what would not have been true is this who Rodney is. He’s perfect for this project.
It was incredible to work with him. As a human being, I absolutely adore him. He’s as much of a brother and I miss being able to talk to him more. We love to talk more, even with Dhani, I don’t talk a lot which is hard. Being able to capture Rodney doing a trick and you still don’t understand what he’s doing, he’s Yoda. All that stuff works in all these new applications. That’s what’s incredible. It works in the augmented reality. We started seeing how my camera systems in the early stages were practically volumetric and this was years ago.
That was a time when I did study a pose, which is 1,000 poses of Coco Rocha. I created the book and those now work in VR, holograming, AR, you can make 3D models because of our data. It lives. If there’s a new application that the tech role created, I know it will work. For me, being able to archive great moments, I always look at what I’m doing is an educational study. It becomes this 3D of Getty concepts where now you’re creating archives of skate, music, and people. It’s like doing this farmer imagery back in the early 1900 where there’s photographing. It’s like Richard Avedon’s Americas. I think like this.
I want to do a version of Avedon’s Americas in these camera systems and now you’re documenting humans in a way that’s new and exciting and that’s not happening. I wanted to get Robert Frank in here who I’ve met a few times but he passed away. It’s one of these things that all they have to do is to come in, I do a couple of shots and I’ve got them forever. For me, this is also to the new portrait moment. There are a lot of things. What they capture into reality, it’s not made up. It happens like that Polaroid moment. That’s why it was important for me to get into the arts as well because the art world is about purity, reality, archiving and how you can make art of art because you got data.
There’s another interesting thing coming that will give yet another form of life to what you’ve created.
That’s why you’re here too because of Rodney Mullen.
If you think about what you have, even watching Liminal, it is artistic in its editing. There are tricks in there that have never been done before like karate created new tricks that no one can comprehend but they’re in there. They’re presented in Liminal video in an artistic fashion. When you put on a Magic Leap headset, you can walk around Rodney and watch him while he’s doing those tricks. When I was a kid, I first knew Rodney because I got Thrasher Magazine and there are three images of Rodney on a skateboard, Rodney with his skateboard nine inches in the air and then Rodney with a skateboard in the air a foot and a half up without even touching anything but his feet.
That was the first frame sequence of an ollie. I couldn’t understand. There was no way from those three images to figure out how to learn how to ollie. I was in a Podunk, Alaska and no one for 1,000 miles had ever got any close to a skateboard. I’m trying to learn from that but what we could do now is put me in the magical headset next to Rodney. In slow motion, he could do a trick. I could rewind back up, pause, move around and see exactly how he’s doing it and where his weight is. The computer can watch me try and do it and tell me what I’m doing wrong.
I always going to be wrong with a Rodney Mullen.
It’s always good luck because my body can’t move his ways but the computer now can watch my motion compare it to that reference that can come from what you’ve already captured. You’re not even a century, in 5 or 10 years, people could learn to skate by skating right next to Rodney from that content you’ve already made.
That’s where you come in. For me, I’m creating the assets as beautiful as possible. My desire with this company is to have a team of monsters that can take my content and go ballistic with it. That’s something I dream about.
A photograph is the purest way to create or capture a moment. Share on X
That’s why it’s cool that we are doing this because this audience might have those monsters you need. If you’re out there, a software engineer and you want to figure out how to do the future of 3D art, this is the coolest stuff that you’re working on.
You’ve always had an interest here when we first met and I always thought that I was amazing. I am interested in the deep world of that part. I only know how to create emotion, moments and capture things in pure reality being able to take it further in the tech world.
We have the opposite problem so much more where I come from. We have engineers, technology, all this stuff and we don’t know how to make anything compelling with it. That’s happening a lot. What I’m always excited about is figuring out how you cross-pollinate those communities, the skillsets until you fulfill the potential because technology is meaningless until humans put it to use. It’s quite frustrating to see a lot of meaningless stuff being done with technology in the so-called tech industry.
They’re being funded with lots of money and you’re still seeing what they’re creating. You’re like, “What? I have no funding here. I’ve been doing this for sixteen years as a hobby.” All of a sudden, here’s a pandemic that is propelling immersive content that I’ve been creating for years with brands and now you’re starting to see a market. My timing as a photographer, filmmaker, artist or whatever you want to call me, there’s nobody that has this anywhere that comes from these communities. That’s something that I’m fascinated with.
When I think about having the right partners and the funding because I built it all and it’s monetizing this concept and then adding to the camera systems with great texts that can understand how much further we can go and create a new future for somebody to see our content. That’s what I love about things. People ask me, “What is that?” I’ll say something and it’s like, “What am I seeing?” I’ll call it something. I almost feel like, “What did I call that?” They’re like, “I’d never heard of that before.” These people are going, “You’re doing volumetric capture.” I’m like, “I guess so. I call it this.” They’re like, “What is that?” I’m like, “I just call it this because it’s not how people do volumetric.” My approach is different. It’s like if I can’t do it fast, I don’t care because I don’t care.
There are different reasons that aren’t important to pick apart here about why different approaches have been taken to creating 3D models and 3D imagery but it is fascinating that you ended up where you are. It seems like a natural soulful toolkit to use for artists and for people who have the experience that you have. Who should be in here right now? It sounds like it’s brands that have products because this is, by far in a way, the fastest, easiest, most beautiful way to get a product in 3D. If you had a brand in which we’re trying to put products in 3D environments.
It might be true that this would be a better way to shoot products even if you didn’t care about 3D. If you’re trying to do any artwork that’s a performance with humans, it’s better to do it here than on any other stage. You’re going to end up with beautiful 3D compatible imagery that could go in a 2D environment. You can get 2D at the same time from every angle. It gives you the ability to do make more editorial decisions after the photos are made instead of before. Those are people who should be here. Anyone filming a music video should be doing it here. Where else do you want to?
When I did the Raconteurs with Jack White and gang, Jack embraced this quickly but I use the camera system. I also walk in with a handheld camera. I use the space shooting regular video as well. I like to mash the two together. It’s interesting to tell stories. You can take the assets from the SRS and then create the other deliverables. That’s why this is such a great camera because even if I came in here and I do that too when I have folks in here, I’ll use my iPhone and take pictures. Here are my pictures that I’m doing as I would as a fashion photographer, I’m shooting video and then I’m shooting this camera so it becomes a tool of a tool.
This becomes another tool to use to create an interesting video. Instead of going to a soundstage and you’re going to get a 2D moment on a YouTube channel or something. Here, I can do that but then I can also take it into the augmented reality world and the virtual world. It’s interesting because, for over years and being in all these brands and stuff, they never understood the fact that, sometimes they thought it was a risk working with the SRS. There are absolutely zero risks because you’re still getting 2D as what you get now.
They could not get their head around that. I would say, “Here’s a picture. Here’s your still and you got a still from all angles. Here’s your interactive, virtual and augmented reality.” They are like, “What?” It was hard. I built this camera to say, “If you go to a photo studio and you take pictures, you’re getting a 2D picture.” That’s all you walk away with. For the same amount of money, what your budgets are, you shoot it in the SRS and you get your 2D what you would walk out of in the photo studio but you also get the 3D element.
We need some forward-thinking art directors and brands to get in here. I don’t mean for this to be a commercial but we’re the only one in the world. It’s a special thing. People don’t even know.
We’re based off here. I’ve been working with Tiffany’s brands, Christie’s, a lot of other auction companies, Smithsonian, we’re doing fashion brands and they’re all starting to now understand. I was working with these brands pre-pandemic in this world. That’s the other thing too about me is that I’m always working with the highest luxury brands in the world. I’m not interested in the low brow. It’s like LVMH or Chanel brands, Balenciaga or Alexander McQueen. These are the things that I do.
Our level of luxury and sophistication in the way we capture stuff, we take it to the storytelling and then we take it to the user’s experience, that’s what we do here. Budgets are crashing if you look at the retail industry, the music industry, how do you tell stories differently and help them sell. The only thing that they’re interested in right now, the brands I have been working with is like help us now create a solution to help sell things differently because it’s not about a 2D campaign anymore. They’re approaching us now with help us. How can you help us plug the hole in the ship?
To be able to go online in a much bigger way than they had prepared for.
The bureaucracy has gone by the wayside. You’re still seeing a bit of bureaucracy with these big companies but what the companies I’m seeing that are little bureaucracy, they can move quickly. Those are the brands that are going to win because there’s no time to have 80 people trying to decide if it’s something that they should do. At the end of the day, I’m building my own auction platform. I’d much rather do my own thing and then work for you because I can give you my technology and ideas. I’ve come to the part now where I’ll do it for myself, cut out the middleman and make more money. Create original content, licensing and royalty deals.
You can move faster. If you’re dragging along a big partner or whatever, it can be pretty inefficient.
It could be inefficient and these are the things that I’m thinking about now.
I’m curious, if somebody who’s a photographer like you were sixteen years ago, a professional photographer coming here, I’m sure there are things that you’re getting out of this system because you know it so intimately. Anyone else can get 80% or 90% of the value without having to have that intimate understanding of the system.
It’s funny because I remember years ago a designer was like, “How can we use your camera and be different than that designer that you already did something with?” At that time, they thought that this was a gimmick like it was a one-off concept. I was arrogant at that point, I said, “This is bigger than your brand because it’s a new camera.” People shoot with cameras. How are they different? How H&M, Gap and everybody else is different? It’s because they style it differently. They have hair and makeup differently. It’s still the same thing. It’s a camera. It’s what you do with the camera is how you be different. What this camera is doing is giving you everything you need as far as assets.
That’s a normal problem when there’s a new technology. People can have a difficult time extrapolating what the implications are so they underestimate it.
That’s precise. A lot of people still are trying to get to wrap their heads around it because they don’t realize how deep this thing is as far as creating content.
I’m going to share with the audience LIMINAL because I fucking love it. The Jack White video that you made. The Coco Rocha stuff. What other things that you’ve done here do you wish people would see?
An important piece is the Nude Descending a Staircase I did. It was based on Duchamp’s Nude Descending painting that was based on a Muybridge captures of a Nude Descending a Staircase.
It’s an artist, photographer, and art history that’s a critical one.
I think they’d understand that because what we did was in the 6th rotation or 7th rotation. The video shows rotations as I shot it. It was the 7th or 8th rotation, we hit perfectly the Nude Descending painting. I’m using a strobe. There’s no composite work. It’s all on camera. Once we nailed the Nude Descending then I had her doing descending the stair backwards and doing all these weird things. I took the strobe away and then I took it to constant light where now I’m dragging cameras. That’s when we started seeing a lot of Bacon and cubistic stuff.
Is this something that when they’re looking at Muybridge, they’re dragging with paint and we’re dragging with light? There’s a lot of interesting dolly moments. We were tapping into that. Nobody has ever brought the two masters together in this realm using what Muybridge did. We feel that that is an important piece to see. What drives me is tapping into these masters and their early works. The stuff here is we’re going off the charts with stuff. We did this project pre-pandemic with a dear friend of mine, Jordan Roth, and he and I did something so crazy here.
He’s a great guy that socially is much in the industry. He works on Broadway. He is part of all this and he’s a great artist himself, and we did some masterpiece that we’re working on slowly. That piece is outrageously extraordinary. We are trying to figure out how to take this to an audience where they’re immersed with it. We’re not using goggles or things but more being in a space with this content where we’re projecting in and out at the same times where you’re in a theater and you feel like you’re with him. They were trying to figure all that out. He’s in fashion so he’s wearing great designs and it’s an incredible moment. That’s something to look forward to. That one is a crazy rabbit hole stuff.
Anything that you can think of that we can ask the audience like things that you want from them? What do you want help with?
We’re looking to build the teams here taking the technologies further. When you come here, I know you’re always thinking of how the camera systems can go even further. For me, we’re sourcing these teams of guys that work in AI because all my posts, I wanted to go quickly delivering me immediate assets in different applications. I’m a real believer in that machine learning stuff. There’s a way to use that stuff with our optical picture or whatever we want to call it and make the workflow faster. I’ve designed mobile systems where we’re going to be putting these camera systems on the back of semi-trucks and going to the people.
There’s some engineering stuff there. We’re going to have them touring and going to the people, PGA, franchise as the NBA, shooting horse and nature. We want investors. I designed the systems using Tesla trucks which would be a great way to show future concepts where now you have the SRS pulling up in the most futuristic truck where you don’t even have to the plugin. Everything is open you up the back and it’s working. We’re putting the product systems on Q-trucks. This is something we want to do so we can go to where the auction and all the stuff are. We’re trying to get rid of the ability to have to bring stuff to us. We go to that. In the auction world, that’s a big hurdle. Insurances and moving, it’s not proactive.
My thing here is the engineering of the systems because the technology has been done. It’s now engineering them where you press a button and it works. Everything opens up and it’s all these cool renderings that we’ve done. Years ago, I did these designs and we access the people that can build these trailers. You spend $1 million on these things and they super cool. I was like, “We should put it on a Tesla truck. That could be the tractor. Make it like the Space X crazy thing that shows up at somebody’s house.” It’d be cool to access these concepts. That’s where I see a big thing. With the post workflow, that all is happening where these trucks are sending us data. How do you make that go faster?
We’re trying to figure out, maybe Hollywood owns one if they need some characters. It’s one of those things that could be easily sponsored and branded. We want to build another one of these things in Europe. We want to build one of these in LA but the trucks right now, even with COVID, are perfect timing because nobody’s getting on airplanes quickly. That happened a lot where people can’t get to us and I’m like, “Those are the way to get to them.” That would be the perfect solution and upgrading the existing technologies here. I already know what I want. It just needs to be done. These are iterations of the growth of the camera systems. For me, it’s less about the capture and how we’re doing it. It’s more about where can you see my stuff.
That’s what I keep feeling. You know what’s here because I’ve been here, but I don’t even have no other than LIMINAL. I’ll have something to show people. They don’t even know where to go to find your stuff.
I’ve been selective too on who I’m doing stuff for. Having a place where people can navigate, working with the gaming engines, and stuff like that, and being able to deliver all these different applications through one site, it feels more focused than the capture because we’ve done it, we know how to take it further. Now is like how can we think about how to control that working with influencers, brands and our own content? I want to make movies with this camera. I want to make short stories. It’s a great moment for Amazon Prime.
You almost need a new generation of creative directors to figure out how do you tell a story.
For me, it’s about doing things. I’ve written some ideas where I’ve been wanting to do this film for many years where the SRS camera is a character in the movie. It’s an actual physical character of this camera. It’s almost like a spaceship. You see the movie traditionally, I’m filming with cameras and I’m using content from the SRS, which is a character in the film which I see this as a character in all my short stories and films like horror films and all this stuff. After you watched the movie, you can then go into the mind of the character of the SRS. Now you’re seeing and being a part through AR and virtual.
It’s a movie about a photographer who invents the SRS and then keeps it stealth for sixteen years. Nobody knows about it. Meanwhile, he’s making all this incredible art and then he gets run over by a Tesla truck. Somebody discovers all these hard drives, wipes them out and uses them to store Instagram photos. There’s your horror movie.
I did a project with Rick Baker. He won eight Academy Awards. He did American Werewolf. He’s the guy who did all the special effects makeup. He did Thriller, Planet of the Apes and all that stuff. He retired early because the CGI took him out of the world. That’s the most tragic thing in the world because when you see the movies he worked on, Men in Black and all that stuff, it’s all cool. I want to bring him back in here and we do short horror films like B films and say, “Rick, go ballistic.” We’ll create short scenes in the SRS and then we can deliver through the TV a code. You take your phone or your glasses and now that character is in your house. We’re making this stuff. That’s what we want to do.
If I could have put that Pennywise character in my daughter’s bedroom.
How cool would that be? That’s the stuff that I want to do. I’m looking to free myself up so I can do other stuff. I don’t want to oversee technologists. I’m at a point where I want people to oversee those people. You have to hire somebody to oversee them. It’s not me. You need managers and all this stuff. We’re starting to fill positions as far as creative directors and producers within the beauty world or sports world. They’re focusing on the medical world and all these things and how we can tap into these industries.
They’re becoming their own teams because we have content in all these different worlds because we’ve created it for many years. That’s what we’re growing and developing the businesses in sports capture and all these different concepts. It’s all educational too. One of the things that I did a whole render on and I created the whole concept was pro bull riding. They work with bulls and train bulls in a 30-foot diameter cage. Think about capturing a bull rider in this way. My thing is that capture and that experience of a bull with a rider at that moment but my move is to put it in MoMA or put it at the Met.
People look at now who’s not so interested in bull riding but sees it as a Picasso or sees it like this is work of art that you can immerse yourself into and walk around it. You can go up to the bull’s nose. These are the things that I want to do more of. I’ve already thought about it but that’s the most obscure thing in the world like, “Let’s capture a rider on a bull.” It’s like, “What is that going to look like?”
Let’s wrap this up so you can get to making awesome shit like that. Thanks a ton for hanging out with me.
Thanks a ton for hanging out with me.
I’m happy that you’re here and I’m glad we reached out to you because you didn’t reach out to us. We didn’t know you were in New York. What is the timing of that?
Daniel emailed me and he’s like, “I want to show you some cool stuff we’re doing.” I’m like, “I’m in New York. I’ll come by.”
What are the odds of that? The universe is colliding. Rodney would be super stoked and coming from Dhani and David Sunshine how this little family has come to be. We’re lucky. Thank you.
Good luck with this. Hopefully, something good will come from the show. We’ll get some more of your amazing creations.
You might end up having a glorified position here. You can take it over.
Once that Tesla truck gets you on.
Do you think it’s a Mercedes?
It will cooler to be run over by a Tesla truck than a Mercedes. You could survive the Mercedes isn’t as heavy. You don’t want to survive.
It's not the arrows, it's the Indian. If you're really a skilled Indian, you don't need the best arrow. Share on X
Have you done all the physics on that?
I have figured out. If you’re going to go by being run over it, you want it to be swift and effective. You don’t want the job half done.
What do you think about every day, Pablos?
I think about dying on impact. That’s what I’m going for. I want a long slope degrading into cancer. I want to get my kid through high school. It’s all fast cars, motorcycles, helicopters and skydiving. That’s what I think I’m going to do. I don’t know if I’ll pull it off or dying with cancer like everyone else.
Don’t say that. I know it’s a scary thing but I love the idea because I’ve always wanted to fly choppers.
I’ve flown one.
I want to fly one.
You can do it. It turns out there’s nothing to it. You don’t need a driver’s license, just show up. You go out on the Tarmac and take the doors off. There’s a preflight inspection and they teach you how to do which is try to rattle anything on the chopper. If you can rattle something, don’t fly. That’s all you do. I do it in Hawaii. It’s fucking beautiful. You can fuse of Hawaii, you’d never get otherwise.
Do you have a license to fly a chopper?
You don’t need a license because you have an actual license from the chopper pilot.
They’ll let you take the reins.
Take the reins. You try to kill yourself over and over again. Right before you succeed, they save you. It’s like having your life saved 1,000 times.
I didn’t know that.
I love it so much because I suck at flying choppers. It’s 99% ways to die and 1% away of flying. This is an amazing experience.
I love helicopters.
They’re super cool. They’re obsoleted by drone technology now.
The drone you get into and it takes you where you want.
That makes way more sense than a helicopter and safer. A helicopter pilot is an amazing tuned instrument but they’re simpler than a Volkswagen Beetle. Every part is observable. There are only a few moving parts. You can try to rattle all of them. It’s an awesome experience. I’ve auto rotated landings on black sand beaches with no road access in Hawaii. Shout out to Mauna Loa Helicopters. They’ll train you how to fly it all the time.
I had no idea.
It costs a couple of hundred bucks for an hour.
Have you flown a plane then?
I’ve never flown a plane. I don’t even have an interest in it. I’ve flown on planes a lot.
You’re not interested in a Cessna.
I’m only interested in jets and then I’ll let you start with them. I’ve lost interest in flying a plane.
It might not be too late for you to join the military.
The military had a few minor concerns about me. I’m already on all the lists you can get on.
With your traveling experience, what is going through security like?
I don’t have a problem with it. The TSA knows me already.
When are you going to do your book?
People ask me about that all the time, but I don’t write.
You’re talking to the thing like I would be the writer and then I would be here with you.
Someday, I’ll do that. We can take all the podcast and turn it into a book.
As humanity undergoes global changes, evolution presses forward, industry after industry is shifting views, protocols and priorities adjusting to the new demands of our time. This is the revolutionary photography of the future, heralding a new era of interactive multidimensional content. An emerging visual distinction where authenticity is the epicenter of our new digital consciousness. We are redefining the experience of fashion, music, sports, art, science, education and technology with unprecedented personal engagement and connectivity.
Recorded on October 15, 2020
Can Robots be Artists? — Hod Lipson
Jan 22, 2021
Today, I spent some time with Hod Lipson who is a professor at Columbia University. In fact, we recorded this episode right out in front of the university with crying babies going by and kids playing in the park. So it’s a little noisy, but I’ve been inspired by Hod for a long time, because he’s another inventor that worked on 3D printing early on. He is at the forefront of what we’ve been able to do with computers. That’s the kind of thing I’m always really interested in.
He was actually inventing 3D printing at the same time I was, a long time ago. We get to have a conversation about that…both of us were probably the two people who worked on inventing 3D printers for food. And Hod has since gone on to do a really cool side project trying to create a robot artist and it’s called Pix18. It’s not like any other creative robot that you’ve seen or heard about. Honestly, this is a difficult thing to get your head around: can a robot be creative? And that’s hard for humans to accept. And so of all the people on earth to have a conversation with about this topic, I probably couldn’t do any better than Hod Lipson. Towards the end of this episode, you’ll see. It’s pretty exciting because Hod manages to really blow my mind.
Pablos: You’ve been at Columbia for the last couple of years. You were at Cornell before. For how long, fourteen years?
Hod: Yes.
It seems like a long time. Why make that change?
The change ironically is to be closer to people. I moved to Columbia years ago in part looking for that energy that comes from collision density from the fact that you meet people that are doing all kinds of crazy things. They don’t sound like they’re related to engineering necessarily, fashion, architecture, retail and medicine, you name it. It turns out that once you indirectly get all that energy around you, you start creating new things. That’s part of that. That’s gone a little bit. Hopefully, it will come back.
I never had a plan for my career but looking back, I can pretend I had one. The main way that I can frame it is that I always wanted to do new things with computers. I had this big superpower that came from having computers and the whole world hadn’t adopted them yet. You could see it in every business, every industry. As an inventor, I’m looking around for places where the computers hadn’t gone yet and trying to get there first.
I remember you gave this talk when you said, “You can put a computer into this microphone, chair and into everything and they could do something they didn’t do before.”
You’re here surrounded by people who are trying to be creative in a lot of different areas but they don’t know about the technology. The truth is you’ve inspired me even unknowingly over the years because your projects have exactly been that. You got to some of these things before I did. One of them is in 2008 or 2009, I was working on trying to invent 3D printers to print food. Because I talk a lot more than you, people think I invented that stuff. You did it a decade before me or at least years before me, you were printing food or at least had worked on the idea of chocolate or something.
We printed chocolate in 2006 or something like that.
You were there even before me. I didn’t know that at that time but that’s what I mean. It sounded crazy when I did it. It must’ve been even crazier when you did it because it still sounds crazy. It sounds less crazy every year.
Especially now, suddenly people are saying, “What’s the new future of food?” You can’t go to restaurants as easily. I’m saying, “Let’s marry software and food, as you say.” Take software away where it’s not been before. Food is a big piece of our life. Software is a big piece of our life. Let’s put them together and see what happens.
I’ve watched the progression of that one. There are a few robotic restaurants like Spyce in Boston where they’ve worked out automated meal prep using machines. I’ve been thinking it’s one of the most important things for robots to do because the old way is lots of grubby teenagers, lots of ingredients rotting in the back of a restaurant. A huge amount of work to sterilize environments, manage food safety and robots are good at all that stuff. At the time I started working on it, it sounded crazy to everyone but they’ve seen 3D printers and more robots. They spend more of their life in the last decade with computers, smartphones and stuff. They’re more open to it. Now that they don’t want to touch anybody anyway, I think it will be the right time.
It’s going to happen in the killer app is synthetic meat which is a thing on its own. For many reasons, people want synthetic meat. 3D printers are perfect for synthetic meat because you can do more than a hamburger patty. You can start making interesting things.
One of the problems with meats, in my understanding, having spent a little bit of time with the Memphis meat guys and stuff, meat from a cow has a lot of vasculatures, gristle and all these textures that you’re familiar with and become so used to. The hard part with synthetic meat is texture. With 3D printing, we can start to put that texture.
We’re also evolved to be very suspicious of if it doesn’t have it. If you touch something and it doesn’t have the right badness to it, it’s not that kosher.
I almost hesitate to bring this up. I know a startup that was working on making lab-grown foie gras. I thought that was a genius place to start because foie gras is premium, low volume and also the ethical issues make people nervous about it. The texture doesn’t matter because it gets blended anyway. It’s the perfect meat to start with. I haven’t checked with those guys in a couple of years but that seems like you start with foie gras. If you can make that in a compelling way, then we can use machines like 3D printers to go and start adding texture to the foie gras. If you want something that’s got a little more of a bite to it, we could work from that ingredient up to New York strip steak.
Foie gras can be so esoteric that is not as you say, I have a caviar machine and most people don’t eat caviar. They won’t grab their way to get that. If you make a steak machine, now you’re talking something that half the people want. That’s a little bit of nuance but the bottom line is that these machines, the meat and everything that’s happened with COVID and the environment, although that is taken second to see to everything else, make people suddenly recognize that we should rethink food and that’s a door. That’s an opening for it. Somehow the candy, confectionary, pastries all these other things that we tried to do with food printing didn’t quite take off but this might. That’s my gamble. We’ll see what happens.
It’s very difficult to gauge but I’ve had more than a couple of different investment groups since COVID asked me about food tech. It could be time. In your mind, why do you correlate lab-grown meat with the need to automate meal production? Why is that a killer app?
It’s a killer app because of what we talked about this is uncanny value.
This is a way to make lab-grown meat more compelling.
People always asked, “What problems does it solve? What’s the problem with today’s meat preparation? It takes effort, but what’s the problem?” I didn’t even have a good answer for that, but there was this Frankenstein element to it. You’re putting it in a sausage machine and you put in these ingredients then something comes up but when synthetic meat becomes an option, it suddenly legitimizes this whole area of making synthetic food. It’s a legitimizing force.
I hadn’t thought that too. That was cool. I eat sausage. How hard could it be to take the lab-grown meat throw in some sausage with other things to make the texture compelling?
If you want to make burgers and sausages, sure, but if you want to make anything that has texture.
I go back to thinking like, “I got a steak on my plate but the truth is I’m going to use a knife to cut it into little pieces so why not make the little pieces.” There’s a lot of romance around food.
It’s very simple because our brain is evolved to validate that it is of good quality. If you eat something raw that’s a little bit rotten, you are dead. It’s some serious things. Our brain is very sensitive to the meat not looking right, not tasting right, not feeling right and not smelling right.
I’ve noticed that there’s something equivalent to Zoom calls. My brain is sensitive to a lot of things that Zoom doesn’t do. I was hanging out with some guys and they said they hired someone who they’d only met on Zoom. When she showed up for the first time, she’s 6’3”. It wasn’t one of the questions they asked her. It’s no problem but it was shocking because everybody looks like they’re the same height on Zoom.
People don’t look you in the eye on Zoom, at least until this AI thing.
Even though they’re trying, they can’t.
It’s how you can look at the camera for a while.
It’s hard. I got a teleprompter so I can do it but the other person, unless they have it, they’re not doing it. There are a lot of things like that where we’re figuring out or starting at scale to understand. Another one I learned is the maximum latency that your mind can handle in audio before it starts to freak out and not think this is a real person you’re talking to and we talk over each other was 180 milliseconds. The average Verizon call in the US right now is 350 milliseconds. It’s a regular cell phone call. That’s why calls suck so bad. It’s not like the calls when you were a kid. You could call the United States from Israel and you’d have less latency. It was all analog. Even though there was latency, it wasn’t that bad. Now, an average call is so bad that my brain doesn’t believe the person I’m talking to is real. On Zoom, something like that is happening.
Everything is like, “No, you go ahead.”
It’s horrible. I don’t understand if you’re right about the uncanny value of meat, then what’s going on with sausage? How come I can eat hot dogs? Maybe Israelis don’t eat hotdogs.
I do know how it was to eat the first hotdog.
Kids love it. We’ve indoctrinated kids, so it seems normal.
I bet if you take somebody who’s never eaten a hot dog.
We learn new textures all the time. One of the ways I’ve been defending 3D printers is to say we couldn’t print a steak or French bread but we could print a new and compelling texture. The way I defend that is by pointing to cliff bars, smoothies and things that humans had to learn Fig Newtons. These don’t grow in nature but it was easy for us to adopt them. Doritos, that’s not something that God created. Pasta isn’t created by God. It doesn’t grow out of the ground.
We haven’t questioned the psychology of food. I’m sure there’s a lot to discover there.
We’ll find somebody else to harass about that. Robotics was the thing to track here. If there was a unifying theme, it’s robotics.
I’d say the unifying theme is AI.
When do you think you first would have started expressing it that way?
I was a Navy Engineer for many years before I did my PhD. In Israel, everybody serves in the Army one way or another. I was an engineer and you think military engineers are making these fancy things but a lot of it is you need to install a microwave in a ship. Engineers will spend years studying all that stuff. They’re working with these kinds of problems. It takes a lot of time. There are no cutting corners. It’s important stuff, but I was thinking a machine can do this. There is an automated way to generate these ideas. I’m not talking about creativity at the level of a patent or discovering something new but all this stuff that we do that’s relatively mundane but it requires generating new ideas. Is there a way to automate that?
To me, it’s the root of it. I started with that. When I finished my term, I went to do a PhD and that was the topic I was looking at. I started off with creativity. It was more formulated as design automation. It is the smaller, less exotic version of creativity. You just want to design something automatically. It doesn’t have to be Picasso. You want to be able to say, “I want this thing installed here.” You can go figure out what needs to be done.
“I want to park in the middle of town. We had this much space. Go figure out how.”
This is a little bit of a design. How do I arrange all the buildings so a maximum people can go through in there’s parking and yet everybody can see the bay? You put these constraints, you hit enter and the machine finds a solution. This is very different than most software tools that are about analysis. You can give them all kinds of things and then you can say, calculate the cost, calculate whatever the sequence of construction, calculate the materials whether it will break or not. That’s analysis but to find a new way of arranging things that solves a problem, that synthesis, that is hard to do for humans and it’s hard to do from computers. That was my goal from the beginning in a very small way. Over time, I’m going for more and bigger goals.
This is amazing because what you’re describing is much a fundamental process. We need to be able to automate how we design any situation or thing with a given set of constraints or values. What you’re saying is over time, you’re finding bigger things to apply that too. In some sense, trying to go further with it. You described what you were working on as robotics or automation, I’m guessing when it became reasonable to describe it as AI. Years ago, we didn’t have enough computing horsepower to make any of this AI stuff particularly compelling.
Exponential technologies make the rest of history look flat. Share on X
Every year, people say that. Back in 2000, people said, “It was different back in ’99.” That’s the nature of exponential technologies. They make the rest of history looked flat and in 2019, it is always far more than anything you’ve seen before. Every single year, everybody thinks this year is different.
You’ve done a lot to try and convince people of this and show how these exponential curves play out. I had been paying attention to that and lived through those cycles enough times, I was building a better intuition about how the future plays out on those exponential curves and how our tools develop over those timelines. It may be better because I could invent for the actual technical future instead of the linear projected one that most people would. Do you feel like you’ve built a better instinct for that?
I have a little bit of an artificial instinct. I don’t feel it but I know that in ten years, computing power is going to be 1,000 times more in a decade. I don’t feel it but I know that that resource will be so abundant. If something takes 1,000 times more computing power than I have, it’s okay.
At this point, it will be easy for you to pick up a one terabyte hard drive and throw it in the trash but, can you feel like in years, we’re going to hold a petabyte hard drive?
No.
You can’t feel that.
I don’t imagine if I have 1,000 cell phones in my pocket which is what I’ll have in ten years, what does it feel like? It feels bulky. What can I do with it? What can you do with it?
We have 1,000 cell phones in our pocket compared to ten years, we wouldn’t know what to do with it.
A lot of people understand this logically but they don’t understand it intuitively. That’s the nature of it.
When I think about this progression of what you’ve described as automated design, I think of it as using these tools to help us make better decisions because design could be designing a park or designing microwave installation in a ship but it could also be designing a better set of policies for a municipality or it could be designing a better Master’s degree program for one of these students here. When you think about those tools, one of the issues that always comes in my mind that people haven’t expressed is using the tools. You described this as you’ve got to set all these parameters.
Setting parameters and another way of framing this and you need to ask what you want to be able to express better models, what your values are, what you care about. Otherwise, you don’t get answers. Now that we have all these conversations about bias in AI and this stuff. What people are waking up to is that we haven’t got clear about our own values enough to express to those algorithms so the algorithms can’t give us answers that we’re satisfied with.
That’s the next step. One of the reasons why you can have design automation to design a bridge but not the design of policy is because with bridges, we much agree on what we want. We want it to be strong, cheap and easy to maintain. With policy, we cannot quantify what it is that we want. This is important because it’s not enough to talk about it in big words, you have to be able to say it in a way that a machine can improve. The little secret behind design automation and creativity is that you need to be able to analyze before you can synthesize.
You need to be able to make predictions before you can design. You need to know, “If I do it this way, it’s going to be good. If I do it this way, it’s going to be a little bit better,” and then the computer can find its path. It’s very good with bridges, aircraft, and things that it can analyze well but when it comes to predicting the outcomes of a policy, there’s no simulator out there that can do it. It’s very hard to design. We don’t know what to ask for and even if we knew what to ask for, there are so many unintended consequences so it’s hard to predict what’s going to happen. It’s a double problem.
One of the examples that comes to mind that plays out popularly is the question of, if an automated Tesla has to make a choice between killing a pedestrian or killing its passenger because those are the only two possible choices, which one does it make? We’ve had cars with drivers making equivalent decisions since we’ve had automobiles but we had no control over which choice to make and now we do. In some sense, the technology-enabled us to make a choice that we didn’t have before. We’re being forced to make that choice proactively to tell the car what we want it to do whereas before, we had to live with the entropy of human drivers making that choice in the moment.
It’s the same thing with bias. Bias existed all the time but AI exposes that.
It gives us the ability to make a choice about it.
Now, we suddenly have a choice. We can’t say we don’t know that it exists because it’s in our face and it’s documented. We now have no choice but to deal with it in a way that we couldn’t before.
People’s knee-jerk reaction seems to want to blame the technology for being biased. What do you think about that?
I didn’t know how prevalent that is really. I’ve seen articles about this. I never know if you stop the person on the street and whether they think that. I don’t think a driverless car is biased. Somebody might write an article about this. You can blame the media for hyping the bias thing.
I tend to blame the media for hyping the scariest possible interpretation of everything.
I was talking to a science fiction writer. They said science fiction helped with technology, AI and robotics. In my position, it’s a detriment because it outlined so many bad things that can go wrong which is important. It’s always humans against the machine. Humans either lose or win. It’s never a nuance coexistence but when you have literature about humans, it’s nuance and you can have characters. It’s complicated and there’s multifaceted and antiheroes but when it comes to technology, it’s very black and white. Why can’t we have something that’s a little bit more nuanced, complex and multifaceted?
I’m so thankful that you described it that way because it’s lazy and irresponsible.
It’s a lot easier.
Scary stories sell and Hollywood using AI as a boogeyman for every story now. It’s giving us this distinct lack of positive possible futures and they’re important. We need science fiction authors to be helping us. That’s what Star Trek was about. We have a whole generation that grew up with cool stories about technology from Star Trek. To some extent, that’s why we landed on the moon. You could thank Heinlein for that. What modern science fiction authors are giving us as possibilities seems a lot of dystopia. Personally, I’m trying to boycott dystopia.
The same thing let’s say with social networks. I don’t know if you’ve seen The Social Dilemma.
I did watch it. I don’t want to talk about it.
It’s painted a very bleak picture but it doesn’t talk about all the good things. There are so many good things and it’s a question of balance. If we talk about the bad things, we lose sight of the good stuff.
You have some experience teaching here and talking to the students. What comes to your mind that is something you’re excited about that’s a good thing? What’s a technology that’s on the horizon or is becoming practical or something where you can see how this is going to make things better and people don’t even know?
The number one thing is health diagnostics. That is so ripe for disruption and you’re seeing it everywhere. Everywhere we take AI with all the sensors that we have, you get better detection and diagnostic and it’s not about beating a team of doctors at Stanford, although that’s not a big deal. Think about how many people on the planet don’t have access to doctors at all. Suddenly, you can detect skin cancer from a camera, pneumonia from the X-ray or breast cancer from this low-cost machine. That is going to save millions of lives and untold misery and that is already working.
That’s a good one. We worked on one of the first AI-based diagnostics using an automated microscope for malaria. That’s a hard diagnostic because you have a parasite that’s ten microns. The diagnostic is a human staring into a microscope counting cells for an hour. It sucks. Most of them suck at it. Most countries are lucky to have one person that’s good at this test. We do a billion to see your family. This was at the Intellectual Ventures Lab and we embedded an automated microscope, they could take the same a pinprick of blood and it could look at those slides and using neural nets.
We eventually got to the point where not only does it outperform the best humans on Earth, it’s cheap, reliable and we can make a lot of those machines. The thing is now interpreting the slides, it’s finding malaria in samples where humans couldn’t find it but we don’t even know how it works. There’s was another conversation about transparency in AI and understanding how the algorithms work. In some cases, we have algorithms that perform so well but we aren’t capable of understanding them. It’s fascinating and amazing in some cases like, “I don’t need transparency to know how it figured out malaria.”
Frankly, when it comes to medical diagnosis, there’s transparency anyway to most people like if you go to the doctor. I have to keep reminding people, half of the doctors are below average. This is a well-established fact and it’s a fundamental truth. Everybody has this example of this amazing doctor that can do whatever, but most people can’t and then you don’t get answers. When they miss a diagnostic then terrible things happen. This can happen. It’s going to happen fast. It’s for many reasons. That’s a no-brainer.
The proliferation of the sensors, the way every new Apple Watch gets yet another capability to monitor you 24/7 modular charging.
All of that feeds into all this AI.
I am so excited about it. I agree with you. It’s exactly what I was asking for. That’s a major frontier and people don’t see it coming.
You can take that and do these medical diagnostics. If you do it in agriculture, it’s the same thing. If you want to take disease in plants, it’s the same thing. That’s also a big deal in terms of yield, crop disease, all of that. Agriculture is another big thing. We use terrible techniques like spraying an entire field because we cannot detect the disease fast enough. We spray the whole thing in advance but you don’t need to do that if you have AI. Anything that has to do with diagnostics is inevitably going to be transformed. I would say it’s hard to argue why that would be a bad thing except for jobs. Even jobs, we don’t want to keep people from medical diagnostics to increase jobs for doctors. I don’t think that’s good.
Back in the old days when we were doing lectures on stages, I would always start my talks with a slide showing the population growth in human history. That curve looks like flat until the last couple hundred years and then it goes from millions to billions. It’s the ultimate hockey stick growth curve. I would often say, “Look at this curve. In other way to read that is that we made a few billion jobs in the last couple of hundred years.” We can make a few more. People are terrified about how robots can replace jobs but that’s not what’s happened. We make more people but we make more jobs. I’m looking at that on a global scale and on time prizes. Not to diminish the suffering of any particular person who lost their job to a robot but overall, humans have found things to do.
The way we structure things financially, most people don’t care about long-term jobs. They quit their job tomorrow. This is why this discussion is hard to have because academically, I’m thinking of a long-term, but when you’re talking about you have to feed your family and you need a paycheck next month, this discussion is completely irrelevant. It’s in fact antagonistic. This is a little bit of the mismatch when academics talk about jobs versus people who lost their job talk about jobs.
I’m cheating all the time by looking on monitor time prices.
I’m a little bit more sensitive to that also in academia that we completely have this luxury to talk about long-term stuff, but that’s not the reality for most people.
It feels like almost a decade ago when you first started trying to do artistic robots or robots that could create. It’s been a while. What were you thinking at the beginning? Can you channel what your early perspective on it was? What did you think was going to happen?
Before a lot of the AI tools that we have now are available, it started with this thing that I always wanted to paint. I’m not a good painter but I know how to build robots. It doesn’t take a lot to connect the dots there.
There are few things I’m not good at.
Generally speaking, if you’re good at making a robot and you’re not good at something, then you make a robot that does that. That’s been my formula.
If we only talk of the bad things associated with technology, we lose sight of all the good stuff. Share on X
You’ve been able to outperform a good number of actual painters.
I prefer myself for sure, but it culminated in this course that my wife and I were taking for painting. We took this course. It was a local artist. We’re taking this for a couple of months and then it came a time to renew the class. We weren’t sure we were going to renew it. It was an expensive thing. The instructor came to me and I’m sure he’s going to talk me into renewing it. He said, “Painting isn’t for you. You should stick to engineering.” He laid it out.
He thinks your wife had more promise.
He did. After being fired from painting class, I decided I’m going to start building it. I started off working with a student on this and he built the first iteration. It was a very cool robot. He got his Master’s degree. He went to work for Kiva and he made his fortune there. I couldn’t find any other student to work on this. This is almost a course in academia.
You had such a great proof point. It’s like, “Do this robot with me and you’ll go become a millionaire in Kiva.”
What happened is that engineering students don’t want to do art and art students don’t want to do engineering. There are many reasons, cultural mostly. If engineer does art, they go and they put it on their resume, the big engineering people will say, “What are you doing? You’re an artist. Why applying it?” The art people think engineering is not creative. I ended up doing myself and it’s been my hobby ever since.
First of all, the problem you described has deep effects on what humans are accomplishing by separating engineering and artists, and not being able to see a future in combining them. We have a long history of problems that we had to overcome in the computer industry because we started with all engineers and no artists. Up until early 2000, the term UX didn’t exist. User experience wasn’t a thing. That was something you hire somebody to pick the color. It wasn’t until iPod when Apple proved that design matters. That was a way for every other company to justify getting people in the UX. That was that inflection point but now we’re learning it all over again in some sense that you described.
It’s the other way around also. Artist feel like engineering are always crunching numbers but there’s no creativity there where I would argue if you were designing a bridge, there’s a lot of creativity there and it’s not necessarily in the traditional of creativity. It’s not big C creativity as in painting and music but it’s a different creativity. Creating a new amplifier circuit is a very creative process. If it’s different than any previous amplifier circuit, it’s no different than creating a new song. There’s this dichotomy and there are a lot of things that could happen in the world if these things combined. Practically speaking, I ended up doing myself and I’m happy that happened because it’s a fun thing to do.
You’ve been building robots that can paint.
I have the version four.
Can I ask you about version one? Was that a very CNC thing where you feed it a picture and it paints the picture?
Version one was more of, “Here’s a photo. Paint that photo but I’m going to give you constraints.” You can paint it only with straight lines, you can paint it only with these three colors or you can paint it with no more than 50 strokes. You give it some constraints because design is always constraints versus goal, as we said earlier and then the machine figures it out. We use the evolution, which is my favorite inventive approach.
It’s the one with the longest track record.
It’s still the most innovative in terms of what it can do. It thinks outside the box and the things that came out were amazing. If you try to paint a portrait with only twelve lines, you get some interesting things. Somebody could argue, you were the artist because you chose twelve so it blurs the line. What I’ve been trying to do ever since is blur the line even more, keep blurring it, shifting the line and moving it towards more and more than I say, almost nothing. I pay the power bill, that’s it. I buy the paints but I’m trying to clean up after the machine but I’m trying to remove myself. The experience that the robot has. I’ve talked about this a couple of places and they said, “He’s not an artist because you control this experience. It can only paint from things that you give it. It looks at all the pictures and it paints whatever it wants that it learned from those pictures.”
You said it’s the 4th robot. This is Pix18.
By the way, I’m talking about the AI. The physical body of the robot is completely ordinary. It’s a gantry. A real artist, you don’t usually care about the body of the artists, you care about the mind.
You characterize this as the fourth generation of AI that you’ve built, the mind of the robot.
There are bigger and bigger bodies, and that’s a whole other discussion.
We understand that. It could be swapped out and you could have brain to it. Describe it to the people who don’t know.
The first thing was more or less like here’s a photo, paint it with some constraints. It was a collaboration between an AI and a human. The next generation was, here’s a photo. Do whatever you want with this photo. I removed myself from the constraints, but I still give it a photo. It’s based on that. The third generation was I give it a set of photos, a movie or a video of some experience like videos of Columbia University. It’s not about choosing a frame but it’s more about what does all this create.
The fourth generation is working now. When I did this third generation, people said, “You decided to show it Columbia. It’s a bottomless pit.” I said, “I don’t want to even say that. I’m going to hook it up to the intranet. I’m going to give it access with Google API. It can go places on Google Street View. It can see places. It can go to any if it wants to see whatever it wants to see within reason.” It has safe search. It can see and it does what it wants and it’s going places. Sometimes, I look inside and I see where he’s going.
Is there no a shredding groups cat problem with that? If you look inside, does that affect its choices?
I slow it down a little bit in that place. Humans aren’t completely neutral either. Humans are affected by other things, they’re affected about what sells and what doesn’t.
As far as I can tell, most of human artists are affected by whether it gets delayed or not. What’s the net effect of this now? Describe what PIX 18 do.
The net effect is that it creates bizarre paintings.
Are they incomprehensible to humans?
They are incomprehensible unless you see what it’s seen. If you can see, this robot has been seeing a lot of bicycles in Delhi and now you can see where it got its inspiration from and why it’s doing these circles. It’s not abstract so you know where it’s been. Imagine you had an alien artist. They cannot talk to you and you don’t understand how he thinks but all you can do is you can look back at what it’s experienced. Like idiot savant that cannot communicate about what they’re doing, but they are good at doing the thing. This is where we’re at. It’s a very interesting journey, I would say.
My understanding, to be clear, is that it goes and it wanders around into some place on Google Maps. It chooses that randomly or I don’t know if it has the capacity to get aboard and go somewhere else but then it finds things it likes or is inspired by. It amalgamates some inspiration or collection of attributes from that. It composes a painting that the inspiration is a real word and then it paints that. The mechanical aspect of painting was fun to figure out, but we’re getting nowhere that for now, since that’s not where the real implications are. You’re saying so far, most of what it’s done is I get some impressionistic circles and colors that you might see if you were hanging out in Delhi that will be different than what you get in Tulsa, Oklahoma. If you went and wandered around Delhi yourself in real life or on Street View, you might get a feeling that goes with that painting.
I did a couple of tricks where I have a log file so I can see where it’s been. I say save what you’ve seen. It’s like a kid that I can go walk around but I can’t see nearly the quantity of things that it can see. The interesting thing is that machines can experience the world in ways we can’t. They can go places we can’t. They can walk simultaneously in two parts of the world. They can do things we, humans, cannot. We, humans, can do things they can’t. I don’t think it’s a competition or can a machine beat a human artist. It senses the world in a different way and it’s very interesting.
Have these artists managed to get laid by impressing other robots? How do we measure success here?
The ultimate question is can it sell paintings? That’s an easier metric. It’s less binary. There’s a gradient there, how much? That’s still hard.
It hasn’t sold any paintings yet.
It has sold a few.
Does it have its own Etsy account or something?
No.
There are a lot of bots trying to sell shit online so we could co-op one of those without you having to do some of the work.
I want to keep tabs. I’m using the Andy Warhol’s definition of art which is, “When somebody that doesn’t know you personally buys it, then it’s art.” There’s no other definition otherwise, this brick is art. It has to be paid for by somebody who doesn’t know you. That’s the only criteria. If I have to say what my goal when our project is there, I have a very concrete goal and that is, I want to divorce and liberate art from the artist. Up until now, art had this parasitic dependency on an artist but now art can be independent.
I think Banksy is not an artist by the definition you stole from Warhol. His art is not for sale. It’s just creations.
Would people pay for it if they could?
Probably. At this point, there’s a strong enough brand that he can sell coffee mugs.
You can refuse the money if you want.
He’s refusing money doesn’t count. This is interesting because you’ve invalidated a whole class of artists who have failed to make any money but it made a bunch of things that they would characterize as art. It’s not you your definition. Warhol will take the hit for that one. This steers the conversation away from creativity because you’re defending it’s an artist. Are you also contending that this artist is creative?
Yes.
Does Andy Warhol have a definition of creativity?
Humans no longer have a monopoly on creativity. They are no longer the center of the universe. Share on X
I don’t know. That’s a good question.
Do you?
First of all, it’s not a black and white thing but it’s able to make something that wasn’t there before.
That sounds good to me. I don’t know if it’s black and white, but if we take that, that’s fair start. Your robot artist is making things that weren’t there before so is my random number generator which I’ve had. It’s a shitty one but it’s gotten progressively better. Is that creative?
In a very tiny way. This is why I said it’s not a black and white thing.
Is rolling dice creative?
I’ve had a whole paper about this and it has to do with one of the chances that that thing wouldn’t appear there spontaneous. The chance that a human would appear out of nothing by Adam bumping into each other is small. It’s not impossible. Creating a human, designing a human for evolution, or whatever you want to imagine is creative.
Maybe creativity is taking a breakpoint of probability like rolling a pair of dice. That doesn’t feel very creative because chances of getting a seven are high at any given moment.
If you know how to throw a dice that you can create ten sevens in a row, that’s creative.
It’s more creative than one seven and more creative than nine sevens but not nearly as creative as eleven seven. We could distill creativity down to some probability meter. You can set a dial somewhere and you say, “Below this isn’t very creative and above this is creative.”
The other thing I have to add to this is achieving some goal which is hard to say but it’s hard to assemble a rock in this particular shape but still, we wouldn’t consider that creative. That’s to satisfy a goal and this is where it’s a little bit subjective.
The goal is Andy Warhol’s definition of art.
If you want to say art is something that creates emotion in somebody that observed it, that’s another definition, then you can measure that.
Now, we have two possible competing definitions for art. Andy Warhol’s and some viewer feel some emotion which might be possible with your robot’s art.
There are holes in that definition as well. There are lots of things that will create emotions in you but not art. There are things that’s going to create negative emotions and they’re not art.
Not everything that creates emotions in you is art. If your robot outperforms Jackson Pollack at the auctions selling his art and it becomes legitimized in art world as an artist by Andy Warhol’s definition, then some asshole is going to come along and say:
“It doesn’t generate emotion in the viewer the way a Pollack does so it’s not an artist.” What are you going to say then?
Aren’t people always arguing about what is art?
That’s what the point of Pollack seems to be.
I don’t think one can solve this. My only point here is that humans are not the only entities that can create art. This is a very new perspective.
Humans are not the only creative force.
This has never been said before. We had monopoly on art. We, humans, on creativity in general and that is now being challenged. Human is the center is no longer in the center. It’s the center of the universe, the top of the evolutionary pyramid, all these things that humans are supposed to be unique, but they’re not. That’s another one of those.
On a long time horizon, once we get past this semantic argument and we have more creative machines, we could end up in a world where hopefully, we coexist with another abundant creative force of machines.
The amazingly exciting thing about this whole thing is you can invent all kinds of solutions to problems, but if you can invent a machine that can invent solutions to problems, that’s the ultimate win.
We should do because we’re getting increasingly sucky of that.
There are more problems because we are opening so many possibilities so let’s create a machine that can solve problems. That’s what creativity is about. There’s going to be unintended consequences but it’s an incredibly efficient way to put our intellectual capacity. By the way, it’s the same thing with 3D printers. Instead of making a machine that can make something, make a machine that can make anything. Make the machine that can make any machine that can make anything. There’s so much more bang for the buck. There’s so much more leverage. If you can make universal machines, there was the idea behind the computer. Don’t make a machine that can tabulate insurance tables but make a machine that can do any calculation and then make a manufacturing system that can make anything. It’s paid off. Let’s create any problem-solving machine that can solve any problem. That’s what I’m after.
You have managed to articulate that in a better way than I was expecting. That’s great. Thanks so much, Hod.
Hod Lipson is a professor of Engineering and Data Science at Columbia University in New York, and a co-author of the award winning book “Fabricated: The New World of 3D printing”, and “Driverless: Intelligent cars and the road ahead”, by MIT Press (translated into 7 languages). Before joining Columbia University in 2015, Hod spent 14 years as a professor at Cornell University. He received his PhD in 1999 from the Technion – Israel Institute of Technology, followed by a postdoc at Brandeis University and MIT. Hod Lipson’s work on self-aware and self-replicating robots challenges conventional views of robotics, and has enjoyed widespread media coverage. He has also pioneered open-source 3D printing, as well as electronics 3D printing, bio-printing and food printing. Lipson has co-authored over 300 publications that received over 20,000 citations to date. He has co-founded four companies, and is frequent keynoter both in industry and academic events. His TED Talk on self-aware machines is one of the most viewed presentations on AI and robotics. Hod directs the Creative Machines Lab, which pioneers new ways to make machines that create, and machines that are creative.
Recorded on October 14, 2020
Hot Seat: Pablos Interviewed by Bill Scannell
Jan 22, 2021
This is an unusual episode where my old buddy Bill Scannell actually interviews me. Mostly this is a way for people who don’t know me very well to get a sense of who I am and how I think and where I come from. A lot of it’s really about my philosophy and what informs that. Bill does a lot to try and tie that back to how I grew up in Alaska, which may or may not be as relevant as it seems. We don’t really talk too much about projects I’ve worked on, this is just a conversation between friends about, you know, the background, behind a lot of a lot of what I’ve worked on and the things that matter to me, so I hope you really like it.
Bill Scannell is actually one of the most interesting people I know. I met him probably almost 20 years ago at at Cypherpunks meetings. Bill was a spook in the Cold War. He was stationed in Army Intelligence in Eastern Europe doing surveillance and then after that, ended up becoming a war zone journalist and has lived through like seven civil wars with bullets flying over his head. He has got a lot of interesting stories. Most of the interesting stories I know about a living human are about Bill. We don’t get into that too much here. These days Bill is a global strategist. A hacker with a Rolodex.
It turns out he’s actually really good at interviewing people and I think you’re gonna like the way this came out. So hopefully you enjoy it.
Pablos: Bill Scannell, I am glad we finally get to do this.
Bill: When we became best friends many years ago, I remembered you looked at me, stared into my soul and you said, “How far are you willing to go?” Let me ask you that question.
What did you think I meant by that?
How consequent I was with my ideas. It went into a long discussion about my view of the world, but people are way more interested in your view than mine.
You thought I was asking because I was trying to antagonize you to go further. I was probably asking scared about how far you were willing to go. I’m not sure we had the same impression about that question. I don’t think it’s that meaningful of a question for me because I’m not sacrificing much. My life is good. My worst-case scenario is not that bad and I’m making choices about what to do with my time and attention. It was different than what most people would choose. I don’t think the right question because I don’t know how far I’m willing to go. I’m trying to discover how far I can go. That’s the difference. I’m not goal-oriented like a lot of people are where they’re like, “I’ve got to achieve this or that.” I feel like if I had ever set goals, I would have set them too low and I’ve been able to accomplish a lot more by constantly trying to discover what’s possible. That’s how I think about it.
For people to understand Pablos, the most important thing for them to know about you is that you’re an Alaskan.
Do you think that’s the most important?
I do because there is something about the cold. There’s something about having to ask someone as a small child whether it’s nighttime or daytime.
I was born there, but I think I was an aberration to Alaskans. It depends on what you count. It is an unusual place and the more perspective I get on the world, the more unique and special I think it was. I’m like the first generation to be born and raised in Alaska. There were lots of native Alaskans there and some people from the gold rush and stuff who were there before me. There was such a low population that in some sense it’s true, the first big generation of Alaskans was mine. In some sense, everybody who was there when I was born moved there from somewhere to get away from something or somebody.
It was a harsh environment and not inviting. It is so remote that being in Hawaii would have been closer to the world, even though it’s not technically an island. Those people were a unique class of Americans. They were very independent. You had to work hard just to survive in Alaska and you had to get along with a lot of other strange people. It did have a big effect on me. My world view is different. Having left Alaska, what I tend to find is dramatically less self-reliance in the US. I’ve learned to appreciate those things over time, even though I think Alaskans might disown me. I don’t feel representative of the people that are there.
There is no such thing as a representative of Alaska. People are all different and weird in their own way. There’s an interesting connection for me having chosen to move to Alaska and raise my children there because of meeting people like you, Lance Ahern and others. There’s this quiet solitude rock light thing inside them that lets them drive forward. I’m going to call it technological positivity.
It’s a weird thing to have gotten there because it is not a technology center of any description. The economy there largely has been driven by the oil industry. They’re adopting technology in pragmatic ways, but even that is removed from society because it’s more than 1,000 miles away from where the people are. My dad and everyone’s dad worked in the oil and largely they would commute to the North Slope. That means your dad, once a week, flies for three hours to the North Slope, spends the week there working, and then flies home and stays home for a week. That’s normal up there. Even though you have a sense that your dad works in the oil, you don’t get to see it. I’ve never been to the North Slope. I’ve never gone to see the work environment. It’s not like a tourist destination, but I have a deep sense of it from growing up there. I got a lot of value out of that self-reliance, the general feeling that you could do anything. My parents raised me to believe I could do whatever I wanted. They didn’t try to steer me in some direction.
What I’m trying to get at are two things. One is this technological optimism because without technology, it is impossible to have anything more than a basic existence living and out in Alaska. The second thing is that in your early high school days, you learned that the difference between near and far was three milliseconds.
I guess I always presumed that what happened to me is that probably the most unique thing. I got an Apple ][+. It is one of the first computers you could have at a home in 1979 or 1980. I had my first home computer when was 9 or 10 years old. No one else had any real interest in it and I was able to play with it. It was this bottomless pit of intrigue for me. I learned a lot from it because it was fascinating, but there was no one around who knew more than me for a thousand miles in any direction. I had to learn the hard way and try everything. I feel like I learned about a computer in a unique way because of that but I got enough of a taste from it to always be able to see that it could be useful and it would someday be faster and have more memory.
I didn’t understand Moore’s law at the time, but I knew that more memory would be a big help and eventually we would be able to do that. I didn’t know how much more memory, how soon, how fast or what the cost curve would look like, but I could see that someday it will be faster. Someday would have more memory and it will be useful. I would try to convince everyone of this because I felt like I had the superpower that I could use to do cool things for humans and almost nobody was convinced. I’ve said this a lot of times, the easiest way to understand is I had the Apple II and I also had a skateboard. I probably got more trouble at school for wasting time on the computer than the skateboard because people did not know that this was a thing. Computers were mythical, skateboards were real. It was a strange thing to be a 10, 11, 12, 13-year-old kid in Alaska evangelizing the power of computers and failing largely.
This is where the Alaska part comes in because I lived in Alaska for many years and I watched people and people have to make do. Look at what people can do with duct tape and a couple of cardboard boxes. They hack things together to make it work because they have a job to do whether it be harvesting fish or keeping themselves warm, whatever it takes, and here you are as a kid with your duct tape, skateboard and your Apple II.
I grew up on duct tape and WD-40. Between those two things, you can make anything happen. You got that experience since you lived there much more. In my mind, Alaska looks tamer now because we didn’t have delivery services or you couldn’t order stuff on your phone. You had to go foraging, even if it was to the store. You had to bundle up with all your snow gear and go to the store. It probably wasn’t even open. It could be noon and it would still be dark out going to the store and back. It’s a unique thing. I feel like I got a lot out of it, but probably to get to the bottom of what you’re getting at, what you would call technology optimism came from always being able to see how this computer could be used in ways that it wasn’t being used and it could make things better and more efficient, faster, and cheaper.
It was easy for me to see it, but difficult for everyone else to see it that there was a big gap there. It made me feel like I was living in the future a little bit so I got hooked on that. In some sense, that’s what I have been doing. My entire career is building a greater toolkit of technologies that I could understand and wheeled on one side and then building a greater collection of problems that I could understand and articulate on the other side, and as an inventor in the middle of trying to map them together.
You call it living in the future. I think of it like a fish does not know he swims in water, but you know how to swim in the water.
Maybe, it was not clear that I do.
Yet, you do. You have this weird ability to see beyond the horizon and this is relentless optimism with technology and what technology can bring. It’s not fatalistic or deterministic. You have a positive view.
I was probably in my late twenties before I even knew what the word optimist was or conversely pessimist. I didn’t even have a reason to know those words. Even now, the reason that optimist resonates is because of the way I am. I’m always talking about what’s possible, but I think of myself as a possibilist. There’s a difference because partly optimists have been disparaged a little bit because they often seem like they’re unreasonably bullish about everything, which isn’t the case. I don’t think that things are going to get better, but I believe they could get better. What hangs in the balance is our decision making and our ability to apply ourselves to make things better.
In my life, what I’ve experienced and seen is technology is bringing us the tools to make things better. We’ve done an extraordinary job in my life of applying technology to go after the problems that need to be solved. By no means, are we anywhere close to being done? We’re still at the beginning. There is much potential and every day our toolkit grows because of the invention. Every day we get more and more technologies. Each one of those is an opportunity to ask ourselves whether this changes anything humans have ever done. That’s the fundamental process I’m in, which is to try to learn about new scientific discoveries and technologies, even do products. Ask yourself with each one, “Could I use this to improve a problem from the giant pile of problems?” That’s what I’m doing.
Is that the difference between an engineer and a hacker where you’re not out to solve a problem but you’re out to seek possibilities?
It’s the difference between an engineer and an inventor. A good engineer is trying to know their field and apply it often with best practices in mind and they’ve learned an entire engineering discipline that helps them to do that. I’m a shitty coder. I learned to code by reverse engineering 6502 assembly language on the Apple II. Software development and software engineering weren’t a thing yet. I didn’t go to college. They have a whole system down for writing software that I don’t know. You probably don’t want me writing code on your enterprise software project because that’s engineering. We have trained engineers who can do a good job of that. I’m probably not that guy because I didn’t train to do that.
An inventor is trying to do the mappings the first time. This is often poorly understood and poorly appreciated because it’s extraordinarily difficult to do something the first time. It’s almost miraculous sometimes. Figuring out something for the first time ever is hard, rare, and special. I’m not saying that I’m good at it. I’m saying that it should be celebrated more than it is. In rare cases, we managed to do that. Most of the time, the inventor immediately gets steamrolled by an entrepreneur who takes it and then does it the first 1,000, 10,000 or 1 million times. They’re the ones who managed to get the value of extraction. They’re the ones who get celebrated. They’re the ones we invest in. We’re missing out on how special it is to do something for the first time. We have cases like that when we celebrated musicians sometimes like Beethoven discovered those pieces for the first time. Four hundred years later, we’re still playing them.
In art, we sometimes get it right, but you can’t name a lot of inventors. People can name Thomas Edison and Einstein. That’s a similar thing. That’s a scientific discovery. Scientists’ job is to discover scientific research is to discover how things work in the world for the first time and that’s amazing. That is why we give them Nobel Prizes and why we celebrate them when they do discover something important. That’s incredibly difficult, hard, long work, and you may spend careers on it without ever discovering anything, but an inventor is different.
Also, they’re words that have been degraded. To call someone a visionary is not a job title.
Inventor isn’t. I’m the only one who has a business card that says, “Inventor.”
There are people who say they are influencers. How can you be an influencer? It’s like being a hand model, but probably a hand model is an actual real thing. You are a visionary. Millions of people have watched you speak either in person or on YouTube. People have paid good money to either hear you speak in person or illegally download the recording.
Every day, our toolkit grows because of invention. Every day, we get more and more technologies. Share on X
With the job title, in the US, I get called a futurist. I would probably never say I’m a futurist, that’s sort of something people call you. In Europe, they call me a futurologist, which sounds cooler. That’s another thing where there’s an entire discipline of futurism, which I don’t know anything about. They have pie charts and graphs and the whole system down. They can go into your company and tell you about the future I don’t know. That’s not what I do. A futurist is probably a bad term for me because it overlaps something that I don’t even know about. Envisionary, as you said, that’s not a useful title but without the title, if you go back to possibilist, I’m trying to show with people the way I described technology tools, inventions, new technologies, and new scientific discoveries. On the other side, you get this pile of problems. People need to understand the technologies and they need to be demystified in a way that doesn’t sound like scary, magical stuff. An easy way to understand it is people are terrified of AI because largely Hollywood needs a boogeyman. AI is the new scary thing so they use AI as a catch-all for computers are magical and therefore scary and probably want to turn you into paper clips.
That’s the prevailing narrative around computers. Technology is the new scary, poorly understood stuff that sticks in people’s minds. I’m trying to demystify that stuff. I’m trying to show, “Here’s how AI works. Here are the limits. It’s not that hard to understand. Here’s what we can do with it. Here’s why it’s helpful. Here’s how we could map it to problems.” It is an extraordinarily powerful toolkit that we could use to go after all kinds of problems. Even if we never invent another technology for the rest of our lives, there’s much power in machine learning that we could stay busy for many years. That’s where we’re at now.
I’m glad you called it machine learning because when you say AI, people’s eyes roll to the back of their heads and they think of Skynet, but machine learning is creating an infinite decision tree.
That’s one way to characterize it, but we have this semantic argument all the time about where does machine learning and where does AI begin? Technically, the way we frame it is you have what’s called narrow AI, which includes machine learning and the things that we have now, and then this notion of an AGI or Artificial General Intelligence. That’s something that we think might be equivalent to how human intelligence works. We don’t even have any idea of how humans work. We have some basic ideas about how an AGI will work someday and some people are happy to oversell that to you, but we’re nowhere near it.
One of the big problems we have with the conversation is Moore’s law, which we’ve all lived with and experienced enough that we starting to believe it. What happens is somebody will take that and they’ll draw this curve and say, “Computers are getting faster in an exponential curve.” They’ll plot out here and say, “At this point, they’re smarter than humans,” which to me is saying, “No cars get faster every year, and at this point, you’ll be able to drive to Australia.” That’s not how it works. We don’t know much about brains, but one thing we know is they’re not digital computers. They do not work as our computers do.
One thing you said to me years ago was, “Bill, how fast do you want Microsoft Word to open up anyway?”
We got to the point where Word opens fast enough for everybody. Most of my life was spent staring at a computer with a little window called Progress. It should have been titled go get a red bull because you’re going to need the help to keep from falling asleep while there is no actual progress because computers were slow. No one’s seen that screen in years. Your computer is faster than what to do with it. You don’t even know how many gigahertz is your Mac. No one’s even bothered to keep track anymore because it doesn’t matter. You get a new Mac and it might be the same number of gigahertz. You don’t even know because you don’t care. It’s fast enough. A few of us are pining for a faster computer and I don’t even need a faster computer. I always want it in my whole life.
There was some inflection point that we crossed where we’re no longer computationally constrained, but we’re imagination constraint. That’s a big deal. We, for my entire life, wanted faster computers to be able to execute our vision for what was possible with them. Now, we have such vast, powerful, fast computers we don’t even know what to do with it. That’s scary. It shows humans aren’t keeping up with our potential. We have these tools we’re not putting them to use. It’s an important thing to acknowledge so that you could makeshift in the mindset to think, “Shit, we could be doing more. We could be doing better.” That’s where the rubber meets the road for me because we haven’t talked about it, but that pile of problems is also fast.
That’s what I want to move to in a moment, but I’m thinking about how you talk about the speed of computers. We haven’t touched on the speed of connectivity and how you almost don’t need any place to put anything anymore because it goes to information heaven, and then you pull it down when you need it.
It’s weird how different the world is for us. I think about everything that way now. Certainly, we have a vast amount of competition and memory. We have extraordinarily fast networks to move data to these giant computers. At the end of them, not just microphones and cameras but we have sensors for everything more every day. We’re getting all this data and we’re bringing it back to our giant computers, our networks and we’re able to do incredible analysis. All this is unprecedented for humans. The bottom line is it can help us make better decisions. We have to learn to use it. We have to learn to express our values to it so that it makes the decisions that we would want it to make.
It’s a different world now. I’ve often described this as saying, “For all of human history, we had this incredible innovation methodology called biological evolution. The way that works is that through sex and gamma rays, you make a lot of variations and mutations, and through survival of the fittest, kill off the ones that don’t work. You’re left with the best in class to go create the next generation with. That’s how we were created. That’s how we got here. That’s how you got two eyeballs, opposable thumbs, and the ability to appreciate music. These things evolved capabilities that are extraordinarily amazing. Humans are amazing. Once we got to be apex predator, once we got to the top of that food chain, once we became sentient, we killed off the mechanism that got us here. There’s no survival of the fittest anymore.
You were born and raised in Alaska.
This is why in my mind, that diversity that I have an appreciation for is that all over the world societies have dealt with different cultures, values and each of them has different experiments. Some are good for some things and others are good for others. It’s amazing and beautiful and getting to travel and meet people everywhere, you’ve done it even more than me in some senses. You learn to appreciate that, “Those people are weird. I don’t want to live like that, but it’s amazing and it works for them. It’s totally fine.” I feel that way about Israelis. I am fucking love them. They’re crazy and their whole society is nuts to me. I love visiting them, but I don’t want to live there because I’m not built for it, but it works for them and it’s incredible.
I feel the same way when I’m in China. I feel stuck on something like that when I’m out of Australia. I feel that way almost everywhere I go. It’s like, “This is great but I can’t wait to get back home where my water faucet works absurdly reliably.” That’s the thing that you get to experience when you travel. What I think about it is that when you look at the inflection point, we’re at this point in human history. You’ve got to remember that last 160,000 years, it’s Homo sapiens. The last 400 or 500 years of that is science as we know it, but then the last 100 years is technology from the industrial revolution on. It is accelerating and it is new. We are at the beginning and what I believe it means is we have to learn to evolve with our minds and this is an unproven methodology. We don’t know if it’s going to work. For humans to advance, for us to solve the problems that we have in taking care of 7.5 billion humans, we’re going to have to use our brains and make better decisions. These tools that exist with the technologies that the computers and everything we call artificial intelligence and all these things, big data, machine learning, computational modeling, are tools to help us make better decisions.
The French philosopher, Jean Gebser wrote the at the turn of the last century one of the great mistakes in human history was the enlightenment because that’s when the spiritual became separated from the scientific. When you were talking earlier about, we need to look at problems and apply logic, reason, what we care about, how you talked about different societies and how they have things that work for them.
I’m not a trained philosopher, so you don’t want to hear me comment on the enlightenment and its relative merits and all that. In my mind, for almost anything like any belief system, you can find people overdoing it in one way or another. I’m not here to talk about politics, but I grew up in Alaska. There was one kid in my entire school who might’ve been gay and we don’t know for sure, but he got his ass kicked. There was one kid who was black. It was a conservative environment. My view now is the conservatives shot themselves in the foot because they overdid it by taking an anti-gay stance in those days. They’re over it a little bit now.
Let me talk to you about what I had in mind because you’re a deeply moral person. I know this because you’re my best friend. A lot of technologists will apply science, it’s like Rule 2d20. You’re not like that. You’re willing to make value-based decisions in applying your box of tools to your box problems. I’m going to ask this question again. The French philosopher, Jean Gebser at the turn of the last century, talked about how the enlightenment was a bad thing in some ways, and that it’s separated the spiritual from the scientific. Before that, the Jesuits, everything worked together hand-in-hand, but when you split the two, that became disconnected from what we were building versus what we were.
There’s got to be some truth to that. You do see a lot of people are on one side or the other of that. People who are specifically taking on a spiritualist persona or worldview are often reluctant to engage in understanding problems at a technical level. On the other side, we have people, the technologists that you’re referring to who are trying to build technologies and scientists who are trying to stay out of the realm of things that we can’t explain. For me, the way I see it because growing up in Alaska thing, I feel a grave sense of personal responsibility.
In Alaska, you either take responsibility for making yourself survive. Take care of yourself, your family and earning what you need to take care of that. There’s no one to rely on. You have to do it. You have to be responsible. I feel that strongly for humanity. We made 7.5 billion humans. Making them is the fun part and you’ve got to raise them now. You got to take care of them. You got to get them through school. You’ve got to get them jobs. You got to hold there are hands through cancer and when they die, you need to process that. The everyday life cycle is the total cost of ownership of a human. We have a shit ton of humans in the world.
You could argue that we made too many. I don’t think you want to choose which ones to get rid of. Whoever wants that job should probably be the first to go. We made these people, so we have to take responsibility as a species for taking care of them. Personally, it might make sense to make a few humans going forward. It will be a great thing to work on. That probably goes back to make better decisions, but in the meantime, we’ve got to figure out how we’re going to take care of these humans. I feel that responsibility. I’m probably guilty of separating the spiritual side of things from the pragmatic and technical side of things a little bit. To be intellectually honest, you have to be a little bit rigorous and you’ve got to be honest about where to draw the line. For me, it’s drawing that line between the things we understand and the things we don’t understand.
There are a lot of things we don’t understand and that’s okay. There are possibly entire dimensions to the universe that we don’t understand. One of the problems with what people feel about the scientific community is that they’re a little bit disingenuous or they’re not willing to acknowledge what we don’t know. I want to do that. I want to be honest and say, “There’s a lot we don’t know, but that fact doesn’t absolve us of responsibility for also being honest about what we do know.” When we do know something and we have amazing rigorous methods for figuring out what we do know. It’s irresponsible not to accept the things that we do know into your worldview.
This to me is what makes you the man you are because you’re able to take these alchemy tools or for what most people are pure alchemy and magic. You’re able to explain and bring them into the realm of possibility to deal with problems where people won’t agree on what the problems are.
That’s part of why I’m motivated to do it. If I can take something technical and complicated, which in some sense, it was almost everything to do with computers. Demystify it, explain it in a way people can understand and relate to. Simplify it into layman’s terms and help people get comfortable with it, then it takes the power out of the people who would manipulate it. For example, AI is being used in a mercenary fashion. AI is being used against the people as a notion, not the actual technology. I’m talking about the story of AI because it is the big, scary boogeyman that no one understands. It’s being used by Hollywood in every movie to be the bad guy. It’s lazy and irresponsible, but I also acknowledge those scary stories sell better. That’s why that’s happening. I want to take the wind out of it. I want to take the power out of that story so that AI is no longer the bad guy. These are our tools and we can use that same set of tools to build a better future and not the worst one. If I can show a converse narrative or other possibilities, then it will help people to believe in using these tools to make a better future. If they believe in it, then they could try and work on it. We can succeed in doing it.
The canonical example that sits in my mind was early on, I got to help start Blue Origin, which is the first privately funded space program in human history ever. Before, only governments could afford to have their own space program. In 2001, Jeff Bezos was worth about $7 billion, which was a crazy amount of money at the time. Jeff gave us the mission to figure out what we could do with $1 billion, could we start a space for him? We were researching ways of getting a space. I’m not a space geek, an astrophysicist named Keith Rosema and Neil Stevenson, the novelist are the guys that I was working with who were the real space geeks It was amazing to see how they had grown up reading Heinlein. Jeff, to some extent, grew up reading Heinlein and watching Star Trek. Those provided positive, practical visions of humans exploring space. Heinlein wrote stories about humans go into the moon and an entire generation of nerds grew up reading that.
That’s how we got to the moon because they believed they had at least one story in their mind about how it might be possible, even though it wasn’t all worked out. It was good enough to where they could imagine doing it and put that story together and go solve the technical problems to make it happen. We need positive, practical visions for our future. I challenge you to name one. All anybody has in their heads is horrible stories about how it all goes south. That’s probably, in some sense, be true on the whole. Most humans in all of human history who had a story in their mind about how it gets worse from here, but it’s never been true. There’s never been a moment in history we’re on a longer time horizon, and things weren’t better now than they’ve ever been for humans as a whole. That is a difficult thing to hear head around, but it’s important.
It’s interesting that you mentioned Heinlein and Roddenberry as being the two writers that did it because I’ve read both. I appreciate Heinlein getting us to the moon, but I would never want to live in his world.
I might be overselling Heinlein as a possibilist because he did a lot of dystopian stuff.
I don’t want to live in his fascist society. I would have lived in Gene Roddenberry’s society where everybody works together toward a common good, but hope, caring and positivism in society is one thing. Heinlein got people to the moon. He was able to the technological side of things. I can see how the two of them fit together.
That is a weird thing. I never read a lot of science fiction because I was hooked on computers. It was science fiction in a way, but it was real. I never got to be the science fiction nerd that most of my friends are contemporaries most nerds have some background like that. For me, when people were watching Star Trek, I wasn’t even watching Star Trek. I have this problem as an inventor where every idea I come up with, somebody will say, “It’s like in Star Trek.” I’ll go, “I guess so. If I had watched Star Trek, it would save you some trouble.” There’s a gem in there. I wasn’t watching Star Trek. I was watching Steve Jobs announced what Apple was doing. Those Steve Jobs’ keynotes that are famous now, I was watching his keynotes when I was twelve. He was talking about the Mac. In the late ‘80s, I learned about object-oriented programming from Steve Jobs’ keynote. It’s weird to think that that was my science fiction.
That’s the story of your whole life. You’ve never stopped continuing to explore the unknown in order to pick up the piece of paper, yet people have always seen in you. You’re like a comment. People have seen your tale and have wanted to go along with it, which brings you to Blue Origin and Intellectual Ventures.
It’s extraordinarily difficult to do something the first time; that should be celebrated more than it is. Share on X
I’ve been asked about this a lot. For me, I always optimized for whatever the most interesting thing I could do with computers was at any given moment. By the time I got out of high school, I wanted to work with computers, but in colleges, they were teaching the science of computation. I knew a lot of that, but I might’ve been able to learn something if I’d have gone to certain colleges at the time. I could get businesses to buy the coolest new computers and pay me to play with them. I thought that was a dream come true. As I did that, it was rewarding because I would come in, set up this new-fangled computer thing, teach some people how to do their jobs that they’ve been doing for years but with the computer. It’s either that or we don’t need you anymore. I had to have all those kinds of experiences of helping people advance their careers or lose them. I always felt like whatever job I had, I had to do a good job or I wasn’t going to get the next one. I always worked hard. I was trying to prove that I was useful, but also that the computer was useful.
I’ve got to go to different industries and businesses and get the perspective you get from doing that was valuable. I always chose the coolest, craziest project I could find. It didn’t feel like a career. I didn’t feel like I had a backup plan. I also didn’t have a degree. To this day, I probably unhireable for any job that exists. I don’t have a resume. I took that and I would go do new things. The milestones were like by 1994, I was excited about getting people on the internet. The first ISP is what we’ve been creating, 1994 was the first year nonacademic or military people could be on the internet. Mosaic was out. Netscape didn’t exist yet. I would be showing people, “Here’s this internet thing.” They couldn’t get their heads around. No search engine existed yet. It was clunky, but I was excited about it. I started a web development company in 1995. It was probably one of the first ones where people hadn’t even seen a webpage. I was trying to convince them that web pages are boring.
It was too early and I was still in Alaska, a remote spot. I felt more connected than ever because I was on the internet and it didn’t matter that I was in Alaska, but I was also disconnected from the community that would have built significant things on the internet in the early days. In the late ‘90s, I was working on cryptocurrency and that’s when we met. I was working on trying to use and discovered the cryptography toolkit and figured out if we could use that to build things. The cypherpunk was a way to find kindred spirits where we could use the crypto toolkit to create a different internet, to create the future of the internet that would preserve our values. I’m thinking cypherpunks are anarchistic, but they generally share the value of preserving freedom on the internet. By that, no one should get an asymmetric advantage on the network. I should be able to publish and subscribe. I should be able to buy and sell. I should be able to get in the middle of it. I should be able to talk to whoever I want without somebody in the middle. That was a powerful inflection point.
Whit Diffie says it best, to my mind when he talked about the world that he wanted online was the one where George Washington and John Adams could meet in a field. No one would know what they talked about unless one of them either turned trader or was tortured and admitted something under duress.
Whit Diffie, if anyone does know, was a pioneering cryptographer who helped invent some of the most foundational cryptographic. That’s what I’m talking about when I say something new as an inventor. He probably thought of himself as a researcher, a scientist, a cryptographer, or a mathematician, but he figured out for the first time that it was possible to make it an algorithm that could do a key exchange safely online. That’s what we called public-key cryptography. It was a cryptographic algorithm that allowed you and I to exchange the key. All cryptography has something like a password, a key that you use to encrypt a message.
If I’m going to encrypt a message with a Cap’n Crunch decoder ring or some other simple algorithm, you’ve got to have the key to decrypt it, but how do I get you the key? If I had a secure channel to give you the key, I could give you the message. That’s like a chicken and egg problem that is fundamental to the internet. Whit Diffie is the guy who solved that problem the first time. We don’t have a Nobel Prize for cryptography, but if we did, that’s the guy who should get it. What’s cool about him is he is more than being a mathematician. He did go beyond that philosophically to understand the implications of the network. This is in the early ‘80s.
The point is, I was inspired by that vision too. That’s what the cypherpunks were doing is saying, “We have that toolkit. We have that mathematical curiosity in Diffie-Hellman key exchange that we could use to go and create an internet where George Washington could meet John Adams online and nobody can fuck with them.” What people don’t understand about this is that there’s a big difference between privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is something you don’t want anybody to know. Privacy is something you don’t want everybody to know. Those are different. What has been lost along the way is this understanding that the basis has to be anonymous. It has to be private. It has to support secrecy. It has to support privacy. It has to be that way at the bottom level because you can always give it up later. You can always choose to expose the key and always choose to let everybody in on it, but you can’t ever take it away.
In most cases, we failed with this and the architectural decisions made on the internet. That’s one of the frustrating things that we’re living with is we have an internet where it is not possible to preserve secrecy or privacy. It’s because you can’t strap that on later. The whole world, in some sense, has been overexposed. They’re living in a world where they have no privacy or expectation of it. They didn’t choose that necessarily. It’s the only option they’ve got if they’re online. I feel a lot of remorse about that because it could be much better for people. There could be much greater freedom online. There could be a lot less manipulation, which is what’s happening when you lose privacy, you submit to manipulation. A lot of these problems that people are fired up about now. The point being, I got a lot out of that community, which I would characterize as 1 to 200 active brains trying to figure out how we embodied our values of freedom into the protocols for the internet. Most people probably never heard of cypherpunks, but when I look back now, I see some success stories. The early ones were things trying to fight Congress on the things like the Clipper chip and that stuff, but also getting encryption deregulated. Encryption technology was a munition.
Tell us the Jon Callas and Phil Zimmermann story. To preface it, this is why you can buy a jar of peanut butter online if you have your credit.
We talked about the Diffie-Hellman key exchange with people’s eyes probably glazed over. That’s what made it possible to communicate in an encrypted fashion online. Every single time you use the internet, you’re using public-key encryption. You’re probably not using it Diffie-Hellman algorithm. You’re using RSA, which is a different one that came later. That’s more efficient. The point being when you see that little lock in your browser, it says secure. Every time you send your password or credit card number over the internet, you’re using public-key encryption. Even before it was in the browser, a guy named Phil Zimmermann essentially made an email program called PGP, which stands for Pretty Good Privacy.
That was the first practical tool that people could use to communicate securely on the internet. That was a big undertaking for the cypherpunks to try and evangelists using PGP. That was largely a disaster because it wasn’t usable and it was a pain in the ass and you had to love being a nerd to use it. That was unfortunate. If you look at LinkedIn, there are jobs for UX engineers. UX is User Experience. That didn’t exist in those days. UX wasn’t invented in those days. PGP failed to catch on in a big way. Unfortunately, but had a lot of great ideas about how to use cryptography. Unfortunately, Phil Zimmermann didn’t use Diffie–Hellman key exchange. He used the RSA algorithm, which had been patented. The RSA algorithm was then owned by a company called RSA. The RSA company wanted to profit off of this because they saw it as being a fundamental thing that we would need on the internet and they were right.
They tried to sue Phil Zimmermann and keep PGP from being shared freely with everyone. We had the view that encryption should be free to everyone. PGP ended up with a lot of problems because of that, but independently, it had a different class of problems, which is that the public-key encryption, the encryption used to encrypt the messages. That was strong algorithms that nobody knew how to crack. The US government had classified that type of encryption as a munition. It was as illegal to have a strong cryptosystem as it was like owning a nuclear warhead. They were classified the same way. We saw this as a big problem because if it was illegal to have it and to use it, then we weren’t going to be able to build the internet of the future that we were imagining where you could securely communicate online. We had to fight Congress and in some sense fight the NSA to get that changed. We eventually won. In the late ‘90s, we won what we called the Crypto Wars with the US government. These days, strong crypto is still classified, but it’s been declassified except for seven countries that you’re not allowed to send strong crypto to. If it’s still illegal, no one pays attention to it.
Tell the story of how they got PGP out because this goes to your whole thing about toolkits and using the human mind.
I didn’t have much to do with this, so we can get somebody to tell the core details. We’ll get lucky if someone will talk about it someday. It was illegal to export strong crypto. Cypherpunks, in those days, we would go offshore whenever we were working on cryptosystems. We used to go meet up in the Virgin Islands or other places in The Bahamas where there was outside the US jurisdiction. If we invented a crypto technology, it would be free of encumbrance by the US government. We couldn’t send the PGP code outside the US without violating the munitions regulations. ITAR is the name of the regulation for weapons, International Traffic in Arms Regulations. What they figured out is we couldn’t say code, but we could publish a book because that would be free speech. Cypherpunks printed out all the code for PGP in a book, all the source code, which we were trying to make it open source anyway, but there was not a legal pathway. It was thousands of pages of code if I remember correctly. We now had a book. Thanks to the US government First Amendment has strict freedom of speech laws. That’s been well protected.
We classified our code as speech. We printed a book with the code in it and then flew it a thing to Amsterdam or Germany, and scan it in. That was a way to get the PGP code out of the US out into the world so that the whole world could use it. There were analogous things for other types of crypto in those days. The point we’re trying to make is that the cypherpunks were pioneering and creative. In some sense or another, they did a lot of the early thinking on what it would take to architect for freedom on the internet.
After the Crypto Wars and PGP, a lot of people don’t know this, but cypherpunks made another big success because one of the things that happened online is people started to use MP3s for music instead of CDs. With an MP3, what was cool is you could have your computer play the song. Most people didn’t have enough bandwidth to send them anywhere at first, but then, as you got faster internet connections, people started to share their music online. There’s a lot of legitimate reasons to do that, but the law hadn’t caught up and the record industry was caught with their pants down. What happened is people started sharing music and the record industry panicked and thought that they weren’t going to make any money anymore. They started trying to sue anybody or their own customers whenever you shared music. It seems more black and white now than it was. At that time, I could buy a record and I could record it to a cassette tape and give that to a friend. That’s legal.
I could buy a record and share it around with whoever I wanted. I could buy a CD and loan it to you. You could even make a copy of it onto a tape and give it back. There was a tax on every blank tape and every blank CD to cover that. The record industry started behaving poorly. They start to get pissed off about people sharing music. They started to retaliate against their own customers. There was a website called Napster, which was famous in those days. It was a file-sharing system where you could go online. My computer would tell the Napster server what songs I had and then other people who were searching for those songs could download them from me, but the Napster server was a central point of failure and it was killed by an illegal attack. The record industry sued Napster into oblivion.
That server going away made the Napster service go away. Cypherpunks were able to architect a distributed replacement for Napster called BitTorrent. It doesn’t have a central server. It’s headless. There is no central thing to attack. The record industry hates it. Its bandwidth increased and the movie industry started to hate it, but they couldn’t shut it down. We saw it as an important capability for the internet was to be able to level the playing field. The real use case for BitTorrent was to make it so that anybody could afford to host large files. There are lots of non-infringing large files. If you wanted to share a video of a soccer game or something, in those days, it would’ve cost you a lot of money to have a server and pay for the bandwidth for everybody. Only Microsoft and Apple could afford to do that at the time.
BitTorrent was a democratizing technology, made it possible for anybody to share a huge amount of data. The entire industries hate it, but they’ve never been able to shut it down because BitTorrent is a decentralized protocol. It’s using the crypto toolkit to make it possible for people to share data online at that scale. It did create a big problem for an industry that was used to using distribution as their business model. BitTorrent, in some sense, was another success for the cypherpunks. It’s important to point out that we were essentially fighting the notion of the centralized protocol. Before the internet, we had online services like AOL or America Online. It was a huge centralized network. You could subscribe, you could connect, you could talk to other people on it, but AOL controlled everything. They controlled who you could talk to. They controlled what you would say. There were like Big Brother monitoring every communication. It wasn’t private that you couldn’t transact evenly. Buyers and sellers had to be approved. You had to be approved to be a seller. To be a publisher on AOL, you had to pay them. It was asymmetric. We saw that as evil. Cypherpunks had nothing to do with this, but the reason the internet won over AOL was a decentralized protocol.
TCP/IP is decentralized. There is no central switchboard for the internet. That’s been eroded over time by a bunch of bullshit, but essentially the reason the internet went wild and global is that it was decentralized. All you had to do is find somebody who was on it to connect. Over time, we believe the decentralized protocols would win out over these centralized authoritarian type services. Step one was BitTorrent. That’s our first real win is a decentralized protocol for cypherpunks. Step two is what we believed was that we had to preserve people’s ability to use the internet anonymously. Some other cypherpunks developed what were called anonymous remailers. That was a way to communicate anonymously online. They’re not popular anymore. Things have advanced beyond that, but we’ve built remailers in the late ‘90s and for a decade after that. The use case for that was like, “What if you need to report a crime, but you would be exposing yourself to risk if you did?” I used an anonymous remailer to report a crime. Somebody I knew had stolen a bunch of equipment and I reported it to the police without them knowing. He was a friend of mine. I didn’t want the guy to find out I was the one who ratted him out. That’s the use case, and then there are much worse situations that we’re trying to solve.
Eventually, what to this day exist, the cypherpunks invented the onion router, which was a way to make and use something similar to the architecture for anonymous remailers to make it possible to surf the web anonymously. That’s called Tor and it exists on a large scale online now. Anyone can download what’s called the Tor Browser. You can search the web anonymously and you can’t be tracked by the server. They can’t tell who you are, where you are. At any given moment, you could talk, you could say your name, you could give up your email address, but if you don’t, you can use the web mostly anonymously. That’s not just for criminals. It’s the thing that turns out to be important for people who might get in trouble for what they are doing on the internet. There are different jurisdictions with different ideas about what’s cool. What we believed was that nobody should get to decide what’s cool and not cool for everyone. What you get for free when you build the onion router and the Tor Browser is to get the dark web. It is the same technology that made it possible to surf the web also made it possible to publish and host websites anonymously.
If you’re using the dark web, you can make a website and no one on the internet could tell where you are, who you are, and what you’re doing. You have to be careful not to give yourself up, but the important reason, people associate it with selling drugs and all this stuff. There was a lot of press about the website called the Silk Road, which was an early kind of eBay on the dark web that people were using to illicit stuff. You got to remember what’s illicit in one jurisdiction might not be in another. It’s probably not as unilaterally evil as people imagined, but I am not defending the Silk Road. What I’m defending is the notion of anonymously providing those services. The use case for these is you have people living in authoritarian regimes and jurisdictions where they don’t have freedom, and we don’t even know what’s going on there.
If you’re a journalist, a human rights activist, or trying to get the story and figure out what ways people are being abused or manipulated. In America, we believe in free speech. Most of us do. We believe it should be a fundamental human right. We’ve signed treaties with lots of other countries acknowledging that. To be able to keep track of whether that right is being honored or not, you need people to be able to report on what’s happening. The use case in the minds of cypherpunks, a lot of times for these things is, “We’ve got people in places where the internet is being monitored by a not particularly benevolent government and everything you do could be liability or risk for you.” If you get caught reporting on, the concentration camp and the neighborhood next to yours, you’re going to get a knock on the door and you’re going to get sent to that concentration camp. We’re trying to preserve these freedoms that map to real human values about civil liberties and human rights.
Unfortunately, you can’t get one without the other. What people don’t fundamentally understand is that you could use the dark web to sell drugs, but you could also use it to save the lives of people who are being oppressed and in a country where the government controls everything. I’ve been to these countries and you have too. I think of both the Tor Browser and the dark web as wins for cypherpunks. There’s one more, which people don’t realize, but cypherpunks made Bitcoin. There’s a lot of public mystery around who made Bitcoin. I’m not going to try and clear that up, but you got to understand, there are few people on the planet who could have made Bitcoin. That thinking goes back decades and it’s built on decades of financial cryptography work and a long conversation about what was needed.
Bitcoin is another milestone. We have hundreds of cryptocurrency protocols that have been built over time. I’m not trying to claim any responsibility for them. Let’s make it clear that I had nothing to do with any of them. What I’m saying is that’s the community that has done all the thinking around cryptocurrency and why we need it, why it’s important, and how it needs to be architected to preserve those same freedoms. What we believed was that every currency in human history was subject to a centralized attack like the Napster server. Every currency in human history has a mint that prints more money whenever they feel like it. That can inflate or deflate your currency. They don’t play by the rules. You don’t know who’s printing more money when, and you’re using it for your livelihood. That’s true for hundreds of currencies around the world or a little less than that now.
There are a number of different things you could accomplish with the cryptocurrency, but chief among them is that you could make a decentralized currency and nobody can fuck with it. That’s the real milestone that Bitcoin crossed for us for the first time. Before that, we had a zillion cryptocurrency protocols, but we always had a centralized mint and that feels dirty to cypherpunks. It feels wrong because that’s a centralized point of attack. If the currency is going to be strong, it can’t be subject to humans mucking with it because humans are unreliable.
The beautiful thing about Bitcoin is it has proven the decentralized protocols win over centralized services. The entire nation-states fucking hate Bitcoin. They wish they could make it go away because it’s devaluing their currencies. That’s what’s beautiful about it. You can’t make it go away. Everyone’s tried to game it. Certainly, there’s been a lot of bad actors and a weird show with Bitcoin, but it’s proven that the decentralized currency has a place in the world and it’s allowed for an extraordinary proliferation of different use cases for transacting that wasn’t possible without it. We’re at the beginning. We could talk more about that, but Bitcoin is the latest success of cypherpunks.
In the history book of the future, I’m hoping the cypherpunks get a chapter because there were some amazing thinkers there. I’m not even one of them. The truth is I’m influenced by some of these guys and they look fringe wackos to the rest of the world. Guys like Tim May who we lost had a huge effect on me. Most of the people whose names are highly correlated with cypherpunks, I learned a lot from all of them, even the ones I disagree with and some of them have poorly behaved. Some of them probably can’t get an endorsement, but intellectually, it was a wonderful experience for me. I learned a lot from that and the archives are public from the cypherpunks list. The other thing is we could have incredible intellectual discourse in public view with all kinds of random people who didn’t like each other. I wouldn’t use it as an example of people being respectful necessarily because there is a lot of hostile discourse as well, but it was good solid intellectual discourse. At the end of the day, what mattered every time was whether you were technically right. Being technically right in that community wins out over everything. I learned the value of that discourse. I got a lot out of that.
When I lived in South Africa, I grew up in an urban area. Being in South Africa when I was younger going out to the bush, one of the first things that I was told was that the bush is neutral. It’s not going to help you. It’s not trying to kill you. You grew up in a neutral environment. When I hear you talking about the cypherpunks, it sounds like you’re talking about this neutral thing that could be used for The Four Horsemen of the Infocalypse or to save a country from a dictator.
My experience has colored my view a lot that these things are neutral. The bush isn’t trying to kill you, but you may die. It’s your job to make sure you don’t. In Alaska, it’s the same thing. I could die to walk into the school in the morning. I’m not an unreasonable threat. I have friends who did die walking to school. It’s a harsh environment and things go haywire. I have that view. If it’s not clear already, I feel strongly about this. Every single technology is a tool. A hammer is a tool that I can use to build you a home or smash your head. Artificial intelligence is no different. Everything in between. Some people will argue with me on this, but I believe these are tools for humans to exact their values into the world and that we got to be responsible for getting clear about what those values are, articulating them, and using the technology as tools to build the world that we want.
People need to understand the technologies and they need to be demystified in a way that they don’t sound like scary, magical stuff. Share on X
I’m going to take that view to the grave. I don’t think I’ll be convinced otherwise, these are tools. Some tools are controversial. I listed everything. The cypherpunks built is controversial. Those are tools. What I would say is to go figure out how to use them to build the world that you want to solve the problems that you care about. Don’t sit, bitch and moan about how other people are using them. This is a fair fight. These are democratized tools. That’s another thing that covers my perspective is that the tech industry has lost its way and it gets a lot of shit, but that’s because they’ve been doing dumb stuff. The tech industry is busy largely making iPhone apps to have weed delivered to dorm rooms and dumb shit like that using drones. It’s not actual tech. I have to figure out some way of articulating that what I’m talking about is actual tech. A lot of it has been fully democratized.
There are kids living in South America, South Africa, and South Korea and they got the same computer that I do. They have the same technology that I do, the same programming languages, database, and entire toolkit that I have is available to all of them. It’s not fair. You can say I had better access to education earlier start and all those kinds of things. The tools themselves, a lot of them are democratized in the sense that everybody gets access to them. I know it’s not fair. Your kid in South Africa, you’ve got to play soccer quite a bit, which I didn’t have to do, but you could be a computer nerd and learn as much about a computer as I did. We see that all the time. Those kids run circles around me now.
One of them went to the moon.
This is interesting because we know Mark Shuttleworthfrom back in the day. He was a South African who worked on cryptosystems on the internet trying to make encryption in web browsers and things and ended up getting rich selling a company. He’s a guy who was a computer nerd like us when he was a kid in South Africa. I don’t know the whole story. I’m sure that there are a lot of ways to paint the picture that we’re a product of our environment that made us smart. The truth is one of the cool things that’s I’m proud of is that computer technology doesn’t care about you, but it’s made itself accessible to people everywhere. I never had somebody to teach me about computers. I had to learn the hard way, trial and error. Kids these days, every kid on Earth can get to YouTube with the exception of those authoritarian regimes. You can learn almost anything you want on YouTube. If you’re a coder these days and you get stumped, you’re like, “Why doesn’t my Python library compile on this version of Linux with these conflicts?”
Type that into YouTube and you’re going to see somebody with a video explaining the answer. It’s insanely easy to learn to code now. For most of the tools, you can get the same access to them that I can. I’m wildly bullish and we don’t stop to celebrate that often. We’re fixated on inequality and the problems that do exist, that we’re not stopping to celebrate how far we’ve come? How incredible it is that these things can happen? I love it. That was one of the things I’ve spent some time trying to travel to these other countries and show them how we think in Silicon Valley help them to hopefully not to say that we’re right or that they should copy us, but that they at least understand what’s worked for us so that they can do better. Hopefully, they will. That’s what we need.
When you talk about being a technology optimist years ago, you went and hung out with one of my sons for a little while. When I came back to him, I asked him, “What’s the most important thing you have learned?” He said, “You drive a computer.”
That is one of the things that’s hard to overstate. People have been beaten over the head with this, but when I was a kid, there was one computer chip, a CPU in my house, in my neighborhood. You could find another one in the next neighborhood over where there was like some old person who got a bunch of money and had no wife or kids and spend it all on an Apple II like me. Now, we’ve proven that a computer is a fast, cheap, scalable, reliable way to add a bunch of features to anything. In my apartment where we are now, if I try to add up the number of things that have a CPU more powerful than Apple II, there’s probably no less than 1,000 in this apartment. It would not be an exaggeration for an average home to have a thousand computer chips equivalent to that at least. Not to mention my Apple Watch is a fucking supercomputer compared to a Cray from 1982.
What he’s referring to is almost every product in the world has become a computer. I’m looking at an iPhone, a GoPro, a Smart TV from Samsung, a PlayStation, a Sonos, or a Mac. Every one of those things is a computer. Here’s a Sony camera, Alexa, and that air filter over there in $20 says it has a million times the processing power of my Apple II. Computers have gone everywhere. One of the ways I cheated as an inventor for a while was to look around and say, “We’re having computers gone yet.” A lot of times, you look around what’s left where there’s not a computer chip. There will be one. There’s no place where we’re not going to put a computer chip. You’ve seen that progression. It’s in the electronic lock on your door, in the light bulb, in everything except your fork. Imagine what would happen if you had a computer chip in your fork and you might get some ideas. That kid was seven then, and I probably tried to help him see that a car used to be made by the auto industry, making an automobile. Now, a car is an iPhone with wheels. It is true for Tesla, but essentially it’s true for every car.
That has paid off. It’s worked in making everything dramatic. I remember when I was a kid in Alaska, we had this game called Padiddle. If you saw a car with a headlight burnout, then you would smack the ceiling in the car and whoever hit the ceiling first got the point for that. It was common and rampant that the headlights were burnt out. In Alaska, in the winter, it’s dark for 23 hours a day so you get a lot of opportunities to play this game and everything’s far away. You drive a lot. In a single evening, I could go to the movies and dinner and back with friends, I could get a score in over 100 cars with a headlight out. After reading this, let’s see if you can find a single car with the light out. That’s not because of computer chips, but computers helped us. The headlight in your car comes from a computational model in a CAD system. That’s been through CFD. That’s a Computational Fluid Dynamics modeling that knows exactly what the air cooling is, what the temperature range is going to be, what the materials have been tested. We know exactly how long that filament can burn for. We can put the exact perfect mixture of halogen in there. Everything about it has been improved by computers.
When we talk about technology and I’m disparaging iPhone apps and enterprise software, but we’re at a point where the technology from computers is bled into everything else. When we talk about advances in biotech or nuclear reactors or whatever, all of it inherits the superpowers that computers gave us. If we’re securing cancer, we’re doing it on computers. With CRISPR, editing your DNA, those breakthroughs were possible because of computers. In our lifetime, there’s no question that the computer has been the most valuable technology going forward. It probably will, at least for the rest of our lives. That will continue to be true, even though there are amazing other fields. I’m big on computers, but things like CRISPR are amazing. We’re going to be able to do a lot to help humans now that we have CRISPR, but we’re at the beginning of learning how to do that.
You’re an optimist about this. You don’t say CRISPR with the Frankenstein sound in your voice. You don’t talk about chips and things being a bad thing, like, “It’s going to tell me I need more electrolytes.”
I want to know when I need more electrolytes. That is what Pablos craves. For example, CRISPR gives us the unprecedented ability to edit the DNA in cells, in living creatures, in humans. We could use CRISPR to change your eye color, but we could also possibly use CRISPR to go edit out the genetic predisposition you have with Alzheimer’s. We don’t know how to do that yet, but we have to learn because we have a lot of DNA. We don’t know what all of it does and it’s complicated. It’s a lot of data and we’re at the beginning of figuring out all the places we can go with it. There’ve been cases already where CRISPR has been used to cure people of terminal cancers. I got to emphasize that. If you had that technology, imagine somebody’s going to pay people to figure out how to cure cancer, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, leukemia, and every other fucking thing that kills. There are 3,000 things that can kill you. Those are technical problems with humans. Not in our lifetime, but eventually we’ll solve them all.
Death will be a solved problem. We’re going to have other problems created by that. We’ll talk about that some other day, but those are technical problems and they can be solved, but there’s a market for that. People don’t want to die. People don’t want their family members to get sick and die. There’s a reason to go develop those things. I’m sure some people believe that there’s also a reason to weaponize it. I could also use CRISPR to make a pathogen that targets anybody who’s not a blue-eyed blonde, and ends their life. That’s a sickening idea. Who’s paying somebody to work on that when you could be working on curing Alzheimer’s? There’s always this low-grade murmuring of suspicion and fear. I’m sure it leads to all the conspiracy theory thinking that people have, but the way to try to steer yourself out of that thinking is to look on a longer time horizon.
At the beginning of nuclear weapons, it was easy to paint a picture of that. I grew up on the frontlines of the Cold War. Alaska was going to be the first one to get nuked. We had drills in school for what to do when the nukes came. I have a deep-seated Cold War in me. It was easy to paint a picture that the whole world is going to blow up and it will be done. That was what we believed was imminent. It has happened yet and less likely now than it was then. I’m sure that the same thing happened with the invention of manmade fire, the wheel or the internal combustion engine, all these kinds of things. They do get weaponized and people do use them to gain asymmetric power but on a longer time, horizon. Humans tend to get these things under control.
You once said to me that a car can be used to mow down people, but that doesn’t mean you start tearing up the interstate.
The car is the most dangerous thing, but they’ve gotten safer in my lifetime. They’re dramatically safer now that we have more of them. The overall death count has gone down, but the death count per capita certainly has. They can use it as a weapon at any moment. I’ve driven probably a million miles in my life. At any moment with one flick of the wrist, I could steer in oncoming traffic and kill. Somebody might kill me. That was a problem. I could hit a pedestrian, unlikely to kill myself or to kill them. I never do it. I never got around to it. I never wanted to do it. That’s true apparently for every other driver with rare exceptions. You could take a gun away. That’s fine, but you’re not going to stop people from having a weapon and hit a car.
Let’s talk about The Four Horsemen of the Infocalypse because that understanding that allows you to be the technical optimist that you are. The drugs, the mafia, these four things that are out to get you, the boogeyman.
They’d probably change. It’s got to be more than four. I might be cheating because I haven’t had any of those problems directly, not to disparage anyone who has. I give people total freedom to do what they got to do. Everyone’s situation, I’ve been lucky that I haven’t had to deal with the kinds of adversity that almost everyone has. All the people I like, they’re interesting. I’ve not only survived some adversity but managed to thrive in spite of it. I have a deep appreciation for that. You go to do what you got to do to and take care of yourself and your family, but presuming that you’ve done that, then the job is to figure out how do you contribute more than you consume? The national parks view of humanity, how do you leave things better than you found them? I don’t want to be the person to judge any specific human on whether or not they’re contributing more than the number of jewels that they’ve used up in their lifetime. I don’t think it’s valuable to judge individuals that way. What I do think valuable is to take the responsibility yourself to ask that question, like, “Am I going to leave the world better than I found it?”
It doesn’t matter what religion you are, what your spiritual beliefs are to accept that. That’s a good start. If you can do that, then you can go look for ways to do it. If you wanted to get good at it, part of why we share these conversations is I’m hoping people can at least learn the toolkit that I’ve learned to help with that. In the lab, we would take on some of the biggest problems in the world. I worked for Nathan Myhrvoldfor twelve years. What we were doing was finding ways to invest in an invention because we believed that’s where you get the new superpowers, but nobody was investing in it. That’s a weird thing. People didn’t realize that.
We have scientific research, which is about discovering how the world works. Increasingly, scientists make a name for themselves by more and more narrowly defining their expertise so they can be the world’s leading expert in the left ventricle of the mouse brain or whatever. If you have less competition, you can be number one. That’s how they do it. It’s important to work, but it’s not an invention. At the other end, you have entrepreneurs and businessmen who are trying to create products and services that map to the market and make some technology relevant, but in between is invention. That’s where you get something. It’s where you take the output of scientific research. You map it to a problem and solve it for the first time. We figured, “We’re going to need a lot more problems solved, so let’s figure out how to invest in the invention.”
What we found was that’s done with crazy hair in a garage with a DeLorean. It’s haphazard in the spare time of somebody who has a day job, an engineer or a scientist. We started trying to find ways to invest in the inventors. I got lucky I got hired to be one. I got hired by Nathan to build the lab and work on invention projects there. We were relatively free of the same commercial constraints that people would have in other companies. In a lot of places, you only get to invent a faster, cheaper version of whatever you did. If you’re a Hewlett Packard, you’re going to invent a faster, cheaper Inkjet printer. You’re probably not going to invent whatever comes after inkjet, but I got the freedom to do that. I could go to work on inventing the next generation of technology. That particular business is haphazard. You’re going to be wrong almost all the time. You’ve got to think of it like a hits business. That’s why Hollywood makes a zillion movies and hopes one of them turns out to be an Avatar.
In a hits business, you’ve got to get a lot of shots on goal. Most inventors, if they’re lucky, savvy and know what they’re doing, and can file 2 or 3 patents a year on their own inventions. That not enough. In our lab, we aim for a batting average of one. That means for every invention that we file a patent on, we had a thousand ideas that we didn’t. For every invention that we get a patent on, we have a batting average of one. We had teams of inventors. We became the biggest patent filers in America on our own inventions, about 500 patents a year. Out of that, we’re hoping one of them pays for all the failures. That’s haphazard. You can’t do that on a small scale, so we have to do it at that large scale in order to get the hits, to pay for the failures. It works though at that scale You’ve done the world of service and millions of people have heard you speak. To my mind, for every million people who hear you speak, there is a certain percentage that will scratch their chin, and an even narrower or percentage that eventually saves the human race.
If I can get to enough people, maybe. I started to feel like the speaking was possibly not going to have the effect I have hoped for because a lot of my audience, there were executives, CEOs and people already had successful careers. I might be able to entertain them, but the odds of me deeply affecting their work seemed low. Whereas every day, I get an email from younger people all over the world saying, “I finished my degree. I want to do something that matters. I’m excited about technology. I don’t know what to do. Can you teach me how to hack computers? Can you teach me how to hack into my ex’s email?”
I’m hoping that with the show, we can share some of these conversations, the things that I’ve learned can go have a further life. It’s fine if it’s not a good match for people, but what I’m trying to do is in my life, part of how I’m cheating as an inventor is I’m looking around trying to find the smartest, most interesting people I can go pick their brains. I want to learn about every new technology, especially with computers out. All I’ve been doing for many years has been learning what’s new. It would be tough for you to catch up to me if you’re starting now because I’ve been learning what’s new since you were born.
That gives me a deep sense of perspective when something’s new. If somebody does something new with the computer, I can understand the entire scope of it in minutes or as you’ll see hopefully in some of these conversations. I’m going to pick the part, somebody’s understanding of what’s new, a new technology, new discovery, new invention, and I’m going to start drawing pathways and connecting it to everything else I know and say, “What about this? What about that?” That’s my process and it works well for me. I’m thinking that if I can share that for people who don’t get the same access to smart people that I do, that can have a bigger effect as you’re describing.
Hacking with duct tape to hacking an Apple ][+ to hacking a mission to put men in space.
The lab is where we got to do it because that was a good example of taking the mindset of a hacker, which I’ve famously described for years the same way, which is if you think about how people’s minds work, anyone you know if you get a new gadget and give it to your mom or your grandma, she might say, “What does this do?” You can explain to them, “It’s a phone mom. iPhone says on the box.” That’s how that story ends. When you give that gadget to a hacker, the question is different. “What can I make this do?” They’re going to flip it over, take out all the screws, break it into a lot of little pieces, but then figure out what we can build from the rubble. That’s the mindset of a hacker and it’s markedly different than what you see in most people you know. Those people are important. That mindset is important because they’re good at discovering what’s possible. That’s where you get all the new superpowers. That’s where you get all these new capabilities.
Somebody has to figure it out first and we have to support those people. I understand you might not want to hire them. There are a lot of risks. They don’t follow the rules. They don’t pay attention. They’re ADT. They’re running in circles. There they look like a risk to you, but you can’t hire them. That explains why a lot of companies suck at innovation because the more successful an institution is, a business, an industry. It could be healthcare, education, democracy, religion, the bigger and more successful it is, the more evolved its immune system is, the job of the immune system is to suppress risk. The thing that looks like the risk is anything new. We can’t expect our successful institutions to innovate. Change looks like a risk to them. This is why in Silicon Valley, we solved this problem. We solved it because in the ‘80s, every big American company had an R&D department. Research and Development job was to invent the next generation of technology for the company.
They kept getting their butts kicked by two guys in a garage with no money, no resources, no time, but they had the mindset of hackers. We learned from this. In America, we shut down R&D, but we replaced it with M&A, Mergers and Acquisitions. Their job is to watch all the startups. We fund all the startups. We invented venture capital to fund them. We’ve got thousands of startups. Each one of them thinks of it as a million-dollar experiment. We’ve got a million-dollar experiment. We’re going to run thousands of those. When one of them spikes, mergers and acquisitions. M&A buys it up, takes it to our global marketing, manufacturing, distribution, all the things that a big company good at.
One of the frustrating things that we're living with now is we have an internet where it is not possible to preserve secrecy or privacy. Share on X
That’s a way to have a relationship with innovation. That’s the paradigm. We’ve been mis-selling innovation to big companies trying to convince them that they’re going to be more innovative. They’re not. We didn’t hire CEOs because they’re good at trying crazy new experiments. We hired them because they’re good at doing the same damn thing every quarter. If a big company needs to innovate and they all have been told they’ve got to innovate or die, the way to get them there is to say, “You need to do figure out how to have a relationship with innovation.” You might not want to hire those hackers, but you might want to hang out with them once in a while, go out to lunch, play some Counter-Strike. Keep an eye on them and then figure out when one of them has something good and then learn to cooperate. They’ll need that. Every startup needs partners.
What will be interesting in the coming weeks is for you to be talking to people about how we get past this M&A business where competition is simply crushed. The biotech area is probably one of the best examples. When you looked at where the DIY bio movement was years ago, flourishing. There is one company in Cambridge, maybe two.
I don’t understand what happened there. Do you?
It comes down to a bigger fish eating a smaller fish.
Was it Meredith who did her own DNA extraction with a salad spinner code in 2002? Do you remember that?
There were people doing things years ago. I saw a man years ago make a USB-powered electron microscope for under $200.
We’ve done that a few times with cathode-ray tubes from televisions. They’re not good electron microscopes, but you can do it. The biohacking thing, I wasn’t paying attention, but I presumed it had been flourishing. You’re saying it’s not. I don’t understand that. It’s unfortunate. The truth is we’re not nearly at the scale of creativity, hacking and flourishing that we should be. It’s a real disappointment in some sense that I feel like the internet of the ‘90s was better than the one we have now. That’s sad because we were fantasizing about was when the world would have the same rich experience that we did online.
We have everyone online or closer to it and ubiquitous 24/7 access for everyone with streaming video. It’s not a better experience. I remember the internet in the ‘90s seemed magical because whatever fringe wacko you are, you could find people who were excited about the same things as you. You could feel normal. I felt normal for the first time in my life because I could hang out with computer nerds. That wasn’t a thing in Alaska in the ‘80s and ‘90s. By getting online, I could find them. It’s like, “Not only are you a computer nerd, you’re excited about cartography. It’s amazing.”
I did have 1 or 2 other friends in Alaska who became cypherpunks and followed that stuff, but that was rare. What I imagined was like, “This is awesome.” If you’re disabled in any way, shape, or form, if you’re a man minority of any kind, oppressed or otherwise, in my mind when I think minority, I think a minority of one. That’s what matters. I believe in individuals. I believe anyone should be free to be who they want to be. They should feel supported in that way. I was one of them. I was a lonely computer nerd who was excited about stuff that nobody else was. I found my tribe online because I was physically isolated from that. I could have moved to San Francisco but didn’t at that time as a kid.
I felt a power in that. I feel like it was the right thing and the world should do that to allow people to be who they want to be and do what they want to do. Somehow, I don’t think that’s the way people would describe their experience online now. That’s a disappointment that I have. That maps to what you’re saying about biohacking haven’t taken off. When I started going to DEF CON, that’s the biggest hacker convention in the world. It always has been. It had 200 people, maybe 300. Now pushing 30,000. It’s amazing because those are people who found a tribe for whatever faults. I’m not trying to say hackers are the best role models or something, but we found a tribe and we were able to find each other and it’s grown a lot.
I don’t even go to DEF CON probably most of the time. There are hacker conventions for niches within that. That’s cool. Kids are finding each other on TikTok doing the dances that they think are cool. I don’t think they’re cool. I have different ideas. It feels sad that to the extent that that is working, but we’re not celebrating it or trying to vilify everything. I do think that there should be much more creative potential in these tools that we’re realizing. I don’t know if that’s partly that we celebrated entrepreneurs who got rich instead of the ones to move the needle on what’s possible. That’s probably part of it. These kids think they want to be Mark Zuckerberg and I have a hard time figuring out what he invented.
When you talk about invention and when we look at the Valley, I think of internet speed and getting things done in Silicon Valley time. Nowadays, the discussion is always about stickiness in keeping people in places. Between stickiness, how is your toolbox? How is the duct tape, the Apple II and the optimism?
You got to remember that these are all moving targets. I’ve lived through enough to know that in my soul. I was addicted to email in 1982. That’s far back. I learned to manage that addiction. I remember vividly in 1996 or 1997, I had a modem hooked up to my computer at home and half of my life easily was online. I checked my mail, go out to lunch, came home, checked my email. There wasn’t any. I was addicted. I had to check it. Nothing was happening. It was like, “Reply.” I would, but that was where my society was and their conversations were there and I was hooked on it.
It was like that probably up until about 2003, 2002 when I got my first Sidekick phone. I had a thumb board where I could read them. Before that, I had phones that could get an email. That was bad, but the Sidekick was the first one where I could read and write an email on the go. It was free. I could go out into the world and I didn’t have to go home to check my email anymore. I saw a whole new world. It was a flight for me, but I was still addicted. The psychic was great because it was a Zippo lighter. It had that mechanical action. You could flick it open. If you hear bling and you’d flick it open and look at spam, delete, close it, put it back in your pocket. I did that probably every 90 seconds.
Around the same time, in the late ‘90s, we had ICQ. Before that, I even had IRC, which was Internet Relay Chat. We had online chat rooms. I had chat rooms on mainframes in the early ‘80s. It took off in the ‘90s. We had Internet Relay Chat and we could have chat rooms. We could chat with people and you felt like you were missing something when you weren’t there. With IRC, we had instant messaging. You can message people all over and it felt amazing. You felt connected to your friends all the time. I don’t even know that now. At least a dozen messaging tools on my phone that work 24/7 instantaneously globally will do a translation. I can talk to them.
I don’t feel connected to my friends with them the way I did with IRC and ICQ, which was the first instant messenger. There’s a Spanish stringer since then. I don’t understand why that is because there were moments in time when I felt like I could open it up. It would show you who was online. You’d chat with whoever’s online. If I grabbed my phone now, I don’t even know who I would chat with. It’s not like that for me. It could be that I’m older and I have different friends and a different vibe. That could be it. What I think about it is along the way, I learned to tame those instincts that were addictive. I’m addicted to email and instant messaging. I had to do a twelve-step program with a couple of two-day follow-ups and I had to get that under control.
Do we have to think of these things as enticements that require us to rise to the challenge of internalizing these tools, play with them, abuse them, go nuts, overdo it, figure out how much is it adding to your life and how much is it subtracting? Like sugar and cocaine, you got to come up with an answer in the middle of somewhere and say, “That was probably too much cocaine, but I need another chocolate chip cookie.” You figure out what the right level for you is and you get that under control. We’ve had to deal with drugs, alcohol, cigarettes and everything else. That personal responsibility needs to be the majority of the conversation about how we internalize these technologies and it’s zero.
We’re back to Jean Gebser and separating the technology from the spiritual and the responsibility and the ability of tools to do things.
I have no idea what you’re talking about, but that sounds like it’s possibly of philosophers.
You are a moral person. When you look at these things, you go, “I need to take personal responsibility for taking all these dopamine hits every time somebody gives me a like.” You’re not saying, “Those marketing bastards, we need to go and put them on against the wall and shoot them.”
The deal is a lot more straightforward. People are pretending like they didn’t know that. When is the last time you wrote a check and send it to Google or Facebook? If you can’t remember sending Facebook a dime or even putting your credit card number on your Facebook and you use it every fucking day. If you’re not the customer, you’re the crop there. Facebook spending billions of dollars to make a good product. Is the metric for a good product? Do you like using it? They’re making you better and better so that you’ll still be using it. You choose to use it, but you can choose not to. That’s within reason for you to choose not to. Some of these things are important. You’ve got to use Gmail for work and that thing and whatever, but you can still figure out like, “How do I use Gmail at a reasonable level where it doesn’t destroy my life and I still play with my kids?” What is important is to take personal responsibility for these things. There is an argument going around, especially with the release of The Social Dilemma. I don’t want to get into it too deeply because I have a lot of animosity about the way people are using this issue to create a lot of fear.
They’re looking at this and saying, “This is different. This isn’t like sugar, alcohol and cocaine. This is worse.” The way I see it, we’re not able to wield a lot of power against you. If you don’t use them. I don’t use Facebook and you don’t use Instagram. I’m not saying to absolve them of responsibility. I know Facebook is making a dopamine machine. I know Instagram is making a dopamine machine. I learned that I’m better at managing my addictions because I’ve had more practice, but those things don’t ruin my life. I was able to get them under control and I do use them and they add a little bit of value and I use them in the way that they do and sometimes overdo it a little bit. Sometimes I don’t use it for months, but I figured out how to make the tools that add value to my life.
Not to say that they aren’t doing sinister things when they lie. We should hold them up against the ropes for that when they lie, but I don’t think most of the time they’re lying. The deal is clear. You’re going to give us all the fucking data you possibly can and we’re going to give you these amazingly addictive toys. That’s the substrate, but I think that they also choose the wrong path. I’m a big aversion to monocultures. Facebook somehow thinks they’re going to figure out how to set the knobs so that they can steer clear of everyone in the world’s sensibilities. It’s wrong. Different cultures have different values. They think different things are important at different levels. They’re all right.
That person in China has a different sensibility about surveillance than I do. I don’t want their choice. It’s not right for me, but that’s their choice and that’s what they want. That’s what they’re happy with. They’re comfortable with it. That’s cool. That’s their thing. For me and for Americans are not okay. We chose something different. They got a different thing going in New Zealand, North Korea, and Brazil. That’s okay. That’s about food. It’s about what you do with your time. It’s about education. It’s about what matters in business. It’s about whether or not you take a fucking siesta. That’s different cultures. We need them all to do different things. Facebook wants to impose one set of values on the whole world. They want to decide exactly how many boobs I get to see, how big it can be, and how much of them I see whether or not this doctor to a woman or man.
If you like this boob, we’re going to bring this, but if we were living in a society where there’s discernment because you don’t have to use it. If you choose to use it, you’re continually dopamine up.
They’re trying to train me around which boobs I should like, and that’s not okay. What’s Facebook should have done, and I intend to advocate for this because whether Facebook gets it right or the inevitable post-Facebook thing, which I’m hoping is a decentralized protocol that does what Facebook does. All you got to do is put the knobs in my hand as a user. Let me dial-up boobs or dial down boobs and beheadings, cuss words and hip-hop lyrics. Give you those knobs. Ninety-nine percent of users will never touch them. They’ll leave them right where Facebook set them by default and that’s okay. It would absolve Facebook of all responsibility for setting those knobs. That’s the right move. They should give me that control in their product and they’re not willing to do it. It’s the wrong choice for humanity, for Facebook and history. It’s got to be possible for them to make plenty of money and still give me the knobs so that I can tune that feed but they won’t let me.
Maybe there is no spoon. They don’t need to give you the knob. We have discussed this before with your toolbox. You don’t have to ask anyone for a knob.
The logical progression is that we can build. Let’s use Instagram as an example. What does Instagram do? It gives me an app on my phone where I can scroll and look at pictures. I can see when other people like my pictures. That’s it. You got filters, comments, and some other shit. It’s a fucking simple app. Facebook and Instagram centralized service. How hard would it be for us to make a decentralized protocol that does the same thing as Instagram, or is the same thing as our Facebook feed? I contend not only does the technology already exist, it’s already been built at least dozens of times, but it has failed to garner user adoption. It gives us the knobs. It’s ad-free. It’s open-source. It’s decentralized. Anybody could use it and we’re still using Facebook. I’ll give you examples.
There’s one called Mines. There’s one called Mastodon. The one that Jimmy Wales called WikiTribune Social. These are decentralized or open-source platforms where you can do all the same things you would do on Facebook, but users have not taken responsibility for choosing to use an alternative platform that preserves their own values. They’ve surrendered their own values to Facebook, Facebook’s profit motive, Facebook’s dopamine machine. It’s the wrong choice. You could say, “I can’t switch from Facebook to Mastodon because none of my friends are on Mastodon. Fine, take your friends.” How many friends do you have? It isn’t the 2,700 people who you’re friends with on Facebook. You don’t fucking need them. They’re assholes who are posting about somebody you don’t want to vote for anyway. Get rid of them. Take the seven friends who care about who got your back, who babysit your kid, who drive you to the hospital. Take your actual friends and go to Mastodon. You could choose that. That’s how I think about it. These things are complex and I’m trying to distill hyperbolic advice that’s good.
To me, this is about demystification because what is missing here, on one hand, you have a bunch of people using dopamine machines or using the dopamine machines for evil. You then have this layer of people, the sub-Pablos crowd around the world who will listen to you talk and not sagely and feel good because they heard you speak. What they can get from you is you demystifying these things so you can give them some power to make some decisions. All of a sudden, the dark web will be called the dark web. It’ll be called happy salvation web or Disney web.
When you lose privacy, you submit to manipulation and a lot of these problems that people are fired up about right now. Share on X
It’s not dark, it’s an enlightened web. That’s the goal and hopefully, we’ll get to dig into these things in future episodes. I have an idea for how to make an Instagram killer that could work so hopefully we’ll pick that apart.
Do you take Bitcoin? Essentially, no Cypherpunks have any skin in Bitcoin. Why is this?
It’s obvious. We’re Cypherpunks. We’re not currency speculators and the people who got rich on Bitcoin are largely currency speculators or a modern version of that, gamblers and opportunists. I’m not interested in that. We go to Vegas every year for DEF CON. I don’t think I’ve ever gambled once. It’s not what I’m into. Probably some story like that as similar for most other people like me who were around. I’m guessing I am one of the first 50 or 100 Bitcoin wallets on a floppy disc somewhere. I’ve no idea because I was mining to test it. I probably have millions in dollars in Bitcoin.
You are slow.
You got to remember I had a 5,000 core supercomputer.
I was only getting one every few minutes like, “Why am I doing this?” Certainly, my machine is getting too hot.
It was like, “Fuck it, my machine is getting too hot. I’ll shut it down.” I don’t even know the password and can’t get to get those Bitcoins. One of my friends in today’s price is pushing a $100 billion worth of Bitcoin on wallets that we don’t know that he doesn’t know the password to. His mining rig is half mining, half cracking trying to cross this off password. Eventually, if we can crack the password on the wallet then we self-fund the rest of our crazy ideas. It is what it is. I don’t have a lot of respect for the Ponzi schemes and things that have compost Bitcoin. That’s given cryptocurrency a bad name, but what I’m happy about is that it attracted a generation of coders to the crypto toolkit. That is exciting because it means as they imagined and create apps, protocols and services of the future, that will be a normal part of their thinking. You can see it happening first with blockchain, even though blockchain is 1 of 100 things in the crypto tool kit and the newest one in some sense. We don’t even need blockchain for a lot of stuff. We need the other tools that are there. We need people to think about designing things differently.
When people hear blockchain and they think it AI, it’s a mystery, it’s electrolytes. I tell them the same sentence again and say database. I don’t need blockchain.
At some point, you get tired of engaging at that level. At least Bitcoin, there’s nothing like making people into billionaires that attract attention to technology. I got to acquiesce to that. None of my other ideas for getting people excited about technology have been business successful.
We knew that all this was going to do was to build a bunch of hydroelectric plants for no reason. We should have been invested in any way. We would have been in early on the pyramid.
It’s true. There are many ways that could have made money with my hindsight.
I didn’t take that job in 1986 with Microsoft in the marketing department.
I’m glad I didn’t, but it is true that we’re not as rich as those other assholes that we could have been, but I do sleep well. There’s possibly one thing worth covering, which oddly we didn’t which is I had a unique experience with Nathan at the lab. For people who don’t know Nathan Myhrvold, not so much outside but he’s famous in tech for being the first CTO at Microsoft. Microsoft bought a company and started a software company in 1986. Nathan is a smart guy. He’s a physicist. He was trained as a physicist and he ended up working for Stephen Hawking. For some reason, he got into software and ended up at Microsoft doing all the Windows and all that stuff in those days. Nathan is a polymath’s polymath. I’ve been in the room with Nathan when we had all different kinds of scientists, oceanographers, paleontologists, entomologists, nuclear physicists, computer scientists. I’m a computer hacker collectively. It doesn’t matter what scientist you are.
It’s hard to keep up with Nathan. It’s an extraordinary mind that is unique. Probably people who are not that many people know Nathan, but I’d say the ones who do probably think he’s the smartest living human. It’s partly that because he’s got such an agile mind that can go all the way down to bits and atoms. It can go all the way up to interplanetary and world domination schemes. It can across Biology, Paleontology, Physics, and all these things. It’s inspiring. I’m unusual, but even for me, seeing Nathan’s ability to think at any scale was influential and inspiring to me. What it meant was that when we took on problems, almost immediately jumped to the Global scale. What’s the actual scale of this problem in the world?
Whenever we started to look at what kinds of inventions, technologies, solutions could we bring to it, it meant we would back out from there do the arithmetic. The math you learn in elementary school to add up, is this solution going to move the needle at that scale? You’ll get wildly different answers doing that than what most people are getting. That helped me a lot. I had a head start because of living with Moore’s law, you go through this process. I remember one time when I was married, I put a hard drive on the table and told my wife, “Look at that. That’s a one terabyte hard drive. It’s a thousand gigabytes.” She’s like, “I remember when you put the one-gigabyte hard drive on the table and told me it was a thousand megabytes.”
The difference is for guys like Nathan and to some extent me but not as great of an extent, we had to train ourselves to believe that in a few more years, I’m going to put it hard drive down one petabyte hard drive. That’s hard for people to believe in their heart of hearts. Intellectually, they get it, but to live with that assumption and have it drive your thought processes, being able to think of those exponential scales, Nathan’s a good example of that. I learned a lot about solving big problems from that.
There was much talk about education over the years, but it’s always about what we want to prepare the children for the future of tomorrow. It always seems to involve, “We need to be teaching eighth-grade math in fifth grade. We need to add more vitamin D to vitamin D,” but you’re an optimist. You’re a technologist. We are all living in the future. Where is that arc? Can you give the people at home an idea of what that looks like?
I have a daughter. That’s probably the main way I think that through. I’m not a role model parent. She’s way more in charge of her education than I am. I’m trying to talk her into dropping out so that we can go travel the world since we don’t have to be anywhere except Zoom calls. She won’t do it. She’s like, “I want to stay in school and finish.” I’m like, “We could be traveling, going to a cool place and doing Zoom from anywhere. Why do you want to do it from Seattle?” I don’t know what her math skills are. They’re better than mine already. That’s weird. I’m not great at math. I didn’t get a lot of math education. I learned math on the job. I’m good at math. Being in eighth grade, she’s being taught harder math than I could do on my own. I could make it Mathematica do it, but I couldn’t do it. Do I worry that she going to be prepared for the future? Does she understand how to question things? She doesn’t take the shit. I tell her for granted, she doesn’t even believe some of the stuff I tell her like, “Why not? I’m a genius and you’re a kid.”
She’s not taking that. That’s probably a good sign. There’s what skills I have. I’m forced to memorize the names, dates and phone numbers from history. All the capitals of the United States, the name all the presidents. I had to memorize that shit, Washington, Adams, Jackson, Van Buren, Harrison. She’s got Wikipedia in her pocket 24/7 since she was six years old. She doesn’t need to know Van Buren. She needs to know how to look him up, learn about what relevance he might have to whatever she’s doing at any given moment. There’s a different thing. She’s in a world where on YouTube she can look up and learn how to do anything overnight that’s known how to be done. There’s a tutorial and also a bunch of bullshit. She might use that power to learn how to braid hair. She might use that power to learn how to paint her Nike Air Force Ones. She’s using it for things that are idiotic, but when I was thirteen years old, I was on a fucking skateboard in Alaska learning nothing useful. I wouldn’t take it back. I want her to turn out in different ways from all the other kids and then I’ll be satisfied.
One would be an agency and the second one you mentioned or implied discernment.
That’s where the rubber meets the road. I don’t try to make her feel like I’m going to take care of her for her whole life. I’m like, “You figure it out.” She needs to figure it out because I’m going to die probably assassinated by an audience or on impact. Hopefully, after she gets out of high school and I can get into skydiving and riding fast motorcycles. Thanks. We should wrap this up.
It’s great. It is my pleasure.
Is there anything else?
What will make this an interesting show is what has always made our conversations interesting is that we’re both willing to not be the same as the smartest guy in the room.
I want to be in a room where everybody is smarter than me, except one guy. I could show how smart I am by picking on him.
That’s important. That’s the only way that you go forward.
It’s worked for me and I ended up in rooms with smart people. I learned a lot that way. I’m hoping that we can bring that to a bigger audience.
Our TOPPODCAST Picks 
Stay Connected
