More specifically - what does he do to get the guests that he's had?
I'm not buying explanations like (1) people just like him, and (2) having been at MIT helps with connections - he's had way too many people at the top of various fields, and way too many billionaires and CEOs to be explained by either of these statements. You could argue that at some point you have a positive feedback loop where the calibre of past guests makes new guests more willing to be on the podcast, but I don't think this it either since he's had many high profile guests from the start.
He was on Joe Rogan's podcast way back when, talking about AI and the other things Rogan finds generally interesting. If you'll note the history of Rogan's rise in podcasting popularity, it is that he has on people he likes and finds interesting and they just shoot the breeze for three hours. So of course they talked about AI, his experience with communism, etc. Once you're on Rogan's show you've basically cemented your own following.
Yep, that's where the popularity comes from. The entire Joe Rogan/BJJ/UFC movement/lifestyle and the for-male type of content like with Jordan Peterson has really got a huge following among men at least. I haven't listened to Lex, but I do partake in the rest.
It’s kind of funny. Joe Rogan’s show launched a number of careers. Almost like the release of a new iPhone created a lot of ecosystem products.
Lex somehow made it onto the show with what was the Artificial Intelligence podcast back in the day where he was talking to professors at MIT among others. After going on JRE he was able to land higher profile guests, and from there things just snowball.
He seems like a nice guy. I’ve been more picky about podcasts I listen to on road trips or walks and I really like the guests he brings on, though I don’t think he is a world-class interviewer or anything. That’s ok with me. Not everyone/everything has to be the best ever to be enjoyed.
If Lex was reading this I’d offer some advice that, as he puts it, comes from a place of love. Monitor using the same strategies for your guests. “Can you steelman that” “just to play devil’s advocate” etc. and instead perhaps put forth the actual arguments and don’t be intimidated by your guests and their expertise. That’s one of the things that makes Rogan a great interviewer if you ask me.
Also I really, really wish a popular podcast personality like Lex, Joe, Tim Ferris, etc. would interview Chuck Marohn from Strong Towns. If you are reading this I promise that will be one of your best interviews ever, and it’ll do a lot of good raising awareness for a gigantic (perhaps the largest) problem we have in America.
I'm with you here. He genuinely seems like a nice guy. There's never a "gotcha" moment. He acts like he's interested in the topic and person above all else. I'm okay with the rambling tangents and never closing the loop on certain topics because in the end he gives the interviewee as much room as they need/want to finish that out themselves. Many do (the more articulate ones do) but some don't.
That's probably at least somewhat accurate. It's probably also the case that even if you or your podcast aren't exceptionally well known, you'd probably be surprised how open people are to giving an interview if you just ask them. For a lot of "Internet famous" people, a lot of their job is being a public face.
That said, I agree with you generally. I found a lot of the interviews sort of rambly and, while I can perhaps be persuaded that an hour isn't too long for an interview/discussion with someone interesting, anything longer is definitely too much. There's a reason why most professionally produced podcasts don't go longer than about an hour and are typically broken into segments--yes, that's partly about advertising these days but it's also the general format even absent advertising.
Hard disagree about the hour length. Sometimes the interviews drag on with nothing to show for, but other times I don’t want the interview to end. I think the unique success of his (and Rogan’s) podcast shows that there is an audience for this format.
Yeah I get that, but I usually listen to his podcast when I'm working in the garage or something, so I don't mind periods of less-than-interesting conversation. Though at the end of the day, there are enough gems in his conversations that keep me listening.
A lot of that format is because _this is the way we've always done it_. Some of it is (as you say later in the thread chain) hit or miss, but to me there's enough gold in it to justify. It really depends on your required level of entertainment.
Being on Rogan probably helped him get more viewers but I don't think it has the same kind of effect on potential guests who are considering whether to come on Lex's podcast.
I'd bet it's a combination of these things. I know a few people with moderately successful podcasts, and the core thing is this: getting prominent people on your podcast is easier than most people on the outside expect, and harder than most people seeking guests expect.
Prominent people generally like getting their ideas out there, and having a 30-120 minute conversation is a relatively scalable way to do that. Sure, they get asked by a lot of people, but that's where the other points come in.
Let's take prominent guest X. They might get 100 podcast interview requests a month. They might do 1-2 podcast appearances per month (average, most guests cluster their appearances for PR purposes). From the very start, Lex, through his MIT stature, first and second second-degree connections, etc. would very likely be in the top 2% of the 100 people asking; most people asking are some combination of no audience, not targeted in their ask, abrasive, etc. If you're in the top 2% of 100 requests, and they fulfill 2 requests per month - you're looking pretty good. Throw in an element of "luck" in the first few guests if you'd like.
That's just getting started. Once the flywheel starts, it's easy.
Also, targeting prominent people no one has heard of is a good strategy, everyone knows elon musk, jeff bezos etc... but what about that prominent AI researcher that no one has heard of? I'm sure they aren't getting too many interview requests, so its a great way to get those kinds of peoples ideas heard and you get the have a prominent guest even if the guest isn't well known in mainstream culture.
I mean i think he used his MIT connections sure but Lex strikes me as the kind of guy that isn't afraid to email some high profile guy asking what he wants, and his personality is so "positive vibes", "earth, humanity, learning", that guests aren't scared off that they are going to be put under the gun.
Maybe he pays? I don't know how standard it is to pay for guest appearances in Youtube podcasts, but maybe he pays well to get people through the door.
It's unlikely. How much do you think Elon Musk, Jack Dorsey, Mark Zuckerberg, Ray Dalio or Eric Schmidt would charge? I don't think Lex would be able to afford it.
There is no alternative with anywhere close to the caliber of guests he gets.
Plus, like Trump is a poor person's ideal of a rich and successful person, Lex is a young impressionable person's idea of a smart person, this makes him relatable to his main audience.
Plus, Rogan moving full episodes to Spotify made the YT algorithm fill the vacuum with the next closest thing.
Perhaps, for famous people, it checks the box of "being accessible to the people" but also doesn't risk being asked controversial/hard hitting questions.
His older interviews were good. He often had a firm grasp of the subject and was genuinely curious. It also helps that they're long form.
I really liked his conversations with George Hotz, founder of an aftermarket lane assist product [0]. I would say that was peak Fridman. It was a great conversation covering many topics like UFOs, physics, cryptocurrency and programming.
In his recent interviews he seems in over his head. He can't articulate an appropriate response and often falls back to asking people "can you steelman criticisms about your product or what you're doing". His conversations with the Pfizer CEO and Mark Zuckerberg are prime examples of this. It doesn't lead to very constructive conversation.
> I've been curious about this too, because he seems like a wet blanket of an interviewer to me.
I've tried listening to him so many times because of intersting guests. But his style is so boring and weird. I find it hard to focus more than 1/2 hr.
I like his style exactly because of that, he doesn't try to be entertaining for no reason. If I want entertainment I don't listen to a 3-hour conversation about AI.
It depends on the interview but most of his discussions are genuinely unique. Who else is doing relatively in-depth, multi-hour conversations with people at the top of their fields? Rogan is the only one that comes to mind, but he doesn’t have the depth of knowledge that Lex has.
Sometimes Lex infuriates me, but again, there is nobody else doing what he does and in general, he does a good job of asking interesting questions even when it’s far outside of his area of expertise.
There's something to be said for being specialized. Multi-hour discussions aren't my thing but, as you say, some number of people apparently really like a longer lightly-produced format so it's got a decent niche.
Podcasts are definitely in the car things for me. If I'm doing something at home, I find them distracting and don't have any real interest in background talking. If I want some sound, I'll put on music.
I can't say that I particularly like him, so I guess I listen to him because there are no better alternatives I am aware of. If there are any that are better, I'd be happy to hear about them.
With that said, I almost can't understand the question. Basically it's a podcast that invites a lot of experts (some of them famous, some not so much) and has long discussions on "smart" topics. Lex is smart enough to at least seem to understand most of it, so the discussions are not as shallow as you might see them in other places.
I don't really like anything about him, but the things I don't like at least seem genuine.
His style turned me off in the beginning, but now it’s just kinda become his shtick.
My girlfriend makes fun of him cause she thinks he sounds like a robot trying to understand the human experience. He asks a lot of cheesy questions about love and our purpose in life. But in all honesty, it’s refreshing to see an interviewer ask the CEO of Pfizer what the meaning of life is.
> His style turned me off in the beginning, but now it’s just kinda become his shtick.
I started listening last year and I too was initially put off by his "broadcast" (sorry, ex-radio bod here) style, but I've come to appreciate it because there's no shouting and getting all excitable.
I believe that should have been phrased very differently, my mistake.
What I meant is that I can easily imagine a better interviewer. He is a bit dull and uses the word "love" too much for my taste, but that's about it, to be honest. Compared to many other podcasters/minor celebrities, this is really nothing serious, just personal preference. I believe he is a genuinely nice person who wants everyone to be happy to a fault.
Have you tried the Mindscape podcast with Sean Caroll? He has some really great episodes mixed with some less good ones. Definitely more of a science focus as opposed to technology, but there's a broad mix.
My strategy is to skim the descriptions and try the ones that sound interesting. I probably finish about 60% of the episodes I start.
My random two cents:
- He was smart and exploited a resource: at first, it was MIT profs, etc., whom he would talk to. This happens to be an institution full of interesting people; he interviewed them, let them speak, and built an audience
- Once he had an audience, he was able to connect to others beyond MIT. Which then grew the audience further.
- And so on.
I sometimes get annoyed when he doesn't push back on things but I suspect the problem every podcaster has is this: if you push too hard, some people won't go on your show.
Overall, I think he does a pretty good job, and if you have long commutes or other long periods of time where you can listen to something, you could definitely do worse.
I find his smart but not stuck up approach very enjoyable. He is clearly intelligent but you also get glimpses of "fun Lex" in between his slow, thoughtful questions and thoughts. He elicits responses from guests by being quiet and contemplative. It keeps the exchange focused and calm.
Edit: Not answer but another question :)
He is going to host John Carmack any time now. Is there a place where he polls questions to ask guests? I hope he asks him how he got started with AI
It seems like he just has friends in high places. He was also on Joe Rogan’s podcast (several times I believe) which is basically a free ticket to then start your own successful podcast. I find Lex to be very boring, but more importantly extremely surface level and pop sci-y. His content is often cringe inducing to the point that I can’t continue listening.
Going on Rogan is clearly a big opportunity, but to reduce his YouTube/podcast success to simply going on Rogan and having "friends in high places" is nonsense. There are _plenty_ of people that Rogan has had on his show multiple times who have not been able to turn that into long-term success. If the content you put out doesn't stand on its own, no amount of going on Rogan is going to fix that. Go look at Lex's YouTube videos — you don't get a committed listener base and at least hundreds of thousands of views on every video again and again just because you've been on Rogan.
> His content is often cringe inducing to the point that I can’t continue listening.
I think you kind of revealed your hand here and made it clear why you (dishonestly IMO) tried to minimize Lex's accomplishments.
But that's how you be an internet celebrity these days. I see it all the time all over social media, I see fellow zoomers my age making generic dance video content, but then they get affiliated with a famous group, and now they gained 500k followers in less than a year making the same content.
Lex is very social media savvy, and he leveraged his network to build his own. When he was beginning (2018), he was on every joe rogan post in social media, he would crack jokes or post some relevant trivia and get upvoted to the top, most of the time at instagram. He further built his network and circulated his name further by injecting himself into conversations with JRE guests in social media. Usually after every JRE episode, Joe would make a few social media posts about it, and on one of these posts, Lex would tag the guest under the comments and ask them questions, with each twitter thread becoming popular on its own as the guest answers back. I'm not sure now, but back then it was innovative. He did all those and more til 2019, I'm not sure since then as I stopped using social media around mid-2019.
I'm not trying to minimize his accomplishments, lex produces good content, but plenty of other people produce good content as well but were never given the spotlight they need to blow up
I’m not sure about the broader success of the show or how he books guests, but if the question is what makes his show work, I have a few opinions as a listener.
First and foremost, he’s a good interviewer. He knows enough about the topics being discussed to ask good questions but also has enough discipline to give his guests time to work through a question and makes it about them.
Second, and this is related to #1, his guests clearly respect him/his audience enough to give reasonably in-depth answers. I mostly listen to the interviews with the deeply technical folks, and I’m impressed by their willingness to offer long technical explanations. I don’t understand it all, but I appreciate it and haven’t found another show that offers quite the same thing.
Finally, he does long episodes. This gives everything room to breathe. For me at least, my favorite interview podcasts are the ones where guests are hanging around for awhile. It gives interviewer and guest time to get acquainted and also let’s them cover a lot of ground. When I am deciding whether to listen to a Marc Maron episode, for instance, I’m definitely wary of anyone that goes to close to 60 minutes because it feels more likely it was just another interview for that person.
What alternatives do people see to this podcast? I don't listen to it, so I don't know. Maybe I just haven't heard so much interesting stuff in that particular industry.
One the most consistently good podcasts - or many podcasts actually - are those from the freakonomics "network", maybe especially People I (Mostly) Admire - for example interviewing Steven Pinker, Nathan Myhrvold, Susan Wojcicki, Daniel Kahneman etc etc
IMO Lex’s podcast is successful because his only agenda is to explore the conversations with his guests. Lex knows how to dig deeper into a conversation and bring more substance out. Some of these interviews last five hours and they’re interesting the entire time. That takes a lot of concentration & skill to keep a conversation moving for such a period of time.
I don’t always agree with the viewpoints of the guests, but I do believe we hear more from the guests as theirselves, and they seem to provide less corporate speak than the typical interviews.
It’s become one of my favorite podcasts because there aren’t “sides” in the conversation. You might get a few perspectives but the main objective is to actually learn the guests perspective which is harder to find from interviews. I would assume guests would enjoy a interview format where they get to talk about their self and their activities for as long as they want with someone intelligent.
> Lex knows how to dig deeper into a conversation and bring more substance out.
I've seen the opposite - he seems to care a lot more about saying his own things instead of listening to the guests, and a lot of the time he just follows his list of questions instead of talking to them.
Lex has like 3 or 4 canned questions he asks his guests and reiterates the things he learned in his own words. This is on a show run by a single person driven by authentic curiosity for an average of 2.5 hours/episode like 3 times a week.
There is a lot of negative opinion expressed in the other answers, so thank you for actually answering the question. Lex does a great job and probing the interviewee on their perspective. He is constantly readjusting his perspective to ask questions as a student of his guest to give them an opportunity to express their views as comprehensively as possible. If there is inconsistency in the argument, it is made apparent to the listener/watcher based on the questions Lex asks. If, as a listener, someone is able to discern an inconsistency, that is usually because of the questions Lex asked.
My defense of Lex is incidental of trying to achieve my primary goal of highlighting how juvenile the negative comments are.
This isn't the first time this question has been asked, and it seems like the question was asked earnestly. However, it's clear there is a lot of jealousy at the root of the negative opinions. I'm guessing this is because Lex has access to so many interesting people for such long periods of time. People responding that he's a wet blanket or that they don't like him aren't even trying to answer the question. What kind of format are they expecting to hear when interviewing academics? Jimmy Fallon meets Bill O'Reilly interviewing a Democrat?
Ask HN: "Why is Lady Gaga successful?"
Average response here: "Ugh, I can't stand her."
> What kind of format are they expecting to hear when interviewing academics? Jimmy Fallon meets Bill O'Reilly interviewing a Democrat?
This question suggests that you no longer have the intellectual curiosity to imagine an alternative to incredibly dull, surface-level questions even on subjects the interviewer claims to know about, except for... incredibly dull, surface-level questions.
The thing that completely invalidates what you’re saying here is that very little of the actual talking is done by Lex. I’m not an unqualified fan but he does at least create the space for knowledgeable guests to talk at length about their subjects - or put another way he generally gets out of the way.
I listen to a lot of his interviews, actually. A lot more of the talking is done by him than you're implying, and the questions he asks occasionally derail really interesting tangents a guest is on in favor of really dull, extremely generic questions you could get from anywhere. The Lenat interview, for example, was full of him doing it.
We’ll have to disagree then. Not sure why you’re listening to so many of his interviews if you find the questions extremely dull and generic. Insomnia?
The questions are dull and generic, but the people come onto the show with an agenda. I like hearing about what they're wanting to talk about, between instances of boring questions.
I agree he interrupts his guests, and he admits as much on almost every podcast. I also agree that sometimes it detracts from the conversation and it is a net negative, but you must also recognize the times that his interruption fills in gaps, as well.
Honestly? If a podcast sells itself as being an "AI" podcast, and the creator doesn't expect the audience to know what a computer is, I really do think that it is unimportant.
I think he pivoted from AI-specific content long ago. He may have started in that niche, but he’s expanded to include such a broad range of guests.
That said, this is a valid criticism, although a gross exaggeration of what the reality is. Sticking with the computer example, he digs in deeper on abstractions most people have zero knowledge about (RISC vs CISC, levels of caching in RAM, etc). He also talks about different kinds of computation.
You’re right to want him to do better, but I don’t think he will ever cater to you again. Even when he has people you might find interesting on his show (Jim Keller, Joscha Bach), he will still stick to a level that makes these geniuses works more accessible to the public. Broadening the appeal of complex topics isn’t a waste, although it may be for you. I ask that you reconsider your position and say that the show just isn’t for you and hope that you recognize the value he provides in introducing others to these fields. This is the pinnacle of podcasts, IMO
I’m curious, what shows do you like to listen to? I’d like to hear some examples of shows where there is a high expectation of the listener and people are discussing things so far over my head that it forces me to learn more.
I suspect there's a lot more preparaton behind the scenes to make it interesting and engaging. The guests are obvously highly intelligent, but they also are there to make a point. Not just a casual conversation. My only criticism is that they tend to go on too long. Who has the time to listen to a 2-3 hour podcast?
> Who has the time to listen to a 2-3 hour podcast?
You don't need to listen to them all at once. I'll usually listen over a couple of days. And I'm glad someone like Fridman doesn't feel bound to constrain the length of his podcasts to suite TikTok like attention spans.
I think he is generally open to different ideas and plays the devil's advocate even when he agrees to have meaningful conversation.
The podcast is also pleasantly unexciting (personal taste) and informative. He goes to the deep questions that interest him from a technical level as well as personal (what is the meaning of life etc.).
He does BJJ and has comedian friends, so he went on the Joe Rogan Podcast and established a fanbase. In podcasting, the discovery system is quite low signal to noise; because there are so many podcasts and the content itself is hard to inspect (episodes are multiple hours long and it's expensive to do transcription over the millions of episodes posted every day). So because podcast organization is hard, the strongest signal for those looking for a new podcast is popularity. Joe Rogan has the most popular podcast in the world, so he has the capability of spawning popularity boosts to other podcasts. If that podcast is somewhat competent, then that popularity can be captured for the long term, which is what Lex did.
Also, Lex's podcast has great academic and computer science guests that you don't usually get to have long-form conversations with. It's a high quality podcast with great production value for such a small operation.
A lot like Joe Rogan, he doesn't pretend to know more than he does. That can be very refreshing, and makes guests feel comfortable and empowered. His podcast's success comes from the letters MIT on his resume and the high profiles of the guests he's had on.
Personally, i like his dry style. I only watch the episodes with guests i am interested in. So far i found the conversations very interesting. Also he makes it easy to skip the ads at the beginning of the podcast which is nice.
I like that he frequently talks about love and its importance for humans. He is also helpful by often asking successful people for early career advice. His passion for AI is often at the forefront.
He could be a bit more critical in his interviews but then again that might get him fewer famous guests.
I prefer he not be more critical - especially if I dislike his guest - and he has spoken to this. Being more critical leads instantly to those who like to pick tribes framing it as attacking etc. He says he aims for understanding and letting his interviewees present their opinions/views/stories.
A much better way imo to interview than 'going for the win' or drama. There's more than enough of that out there already.
I think his break came in when he interviewed Elon Musk. I believe years ago there was a shared AI related project between his team at MIT and Tesla. He would tweet about his work and Elon would reply often. This got him on the radar. His Twitter followers exploded. Once he interviewed Elon his YT channel exploded too and everyone else wanted to be interviewed by him.
I've wondered this as well - specifically regarding Fridman but also other people who have become popular through social media. (As to the latter, it never ceases to shock me how various YouTube channels can amass hundreds of thousands of subscribers.)
Anyway, as someone mentioned above, he was on Rogan's podcast and fits the Rogan mold of influencer: interested in AI and machine learning, politically neutral, trains in Brazilian jiu jitsu, etc. In fact, I'd describe his style as being a more intellectual Rogan, haha (which is not necessarily a compliment). His popularity has skyrocketed after being on Rogan. However, I'm not sure about his popularity prior to Rogan.
117 comments
[ 3.9 ms ] story [ 189 ms ] threadI'm not buying explanations like (1) people just like him, and (2) having been at MIT helps with connections - he's had way too many people at the top of various fields, and way too many billionaires and CEOs to be explained by either of these statements. You could argue that at some point you have a positive feedback loop where the calibre of past guests makes new guests more willing to be on the podcast, but I don't think this it either since he's had many high profile guests from the start.
Lex somehow made it onto the show with what was the Artificial Intelligence podcast back in the day where he was talking to professors at MIT among others. After going on JRE he was able to land higher profile guests, and from there things just snowball.
He seems like a nice guy. I’ve been more picky about podcasts I listen to on road trips or walks and I really like the guests he brings on, though I don’t think he is a world-class interviewer or anything. That’s ok with me. Not everyone/everything has to be the best ever to be enjoyed.
If Lex was reading this I’d offer some advice that, as he puts it, comes from a place of love. Monitor using the same strategies for your guests. “Can you steelman that” “just to play devil’s advocate” etc. and instead perhaps put forth the actual arguments and don’t be intimidated by your guests and their expertise. That’s one of the things that makes Rogan a great interviewer if you ask me.
Also I really, really wish a popular podcast personality like Lex, Joe, Tim Ferris, etc. would interview Chuck Marohn from Strong Towns. If you are reading this I promise that will be one of your best interviews ever, and it’ll do a lot of good raising awareness for a gigantic (perhaps the largest) problem we have in America.
That said, I agree with you generally. I found a lot of the interviews sort of rambly and, while I can perhaps be persuaded that an hour isn't too long for an interview/discussion with someone interesting, anything longer is definitely too much. There's a reason why most professionally produced podcasts don't go longer than about an hour and are typically broken into segments--yes, that's partly about advertising these days but it's also the general format even absent advertising.
Clearly there is. I just don't personally really have the patience for it--especially when it's hit or miss.
Prominent people generally like getting their ideas out there, and having a 30-120 minute conversation is a relatively scalable way to do that. Sure, they get asked by a lot of people, but that's where the other points come in.
Let's take prominent guest X. They might get 100 podcast interview requests a month. They might do 1-2 podcast appearances per month (average, most guests cluster their appearances for PR purposes). From the very start, Lex, through his MIT stature, first and second second-degree connections, etc. would very likely be in the top 2% of the 100 people asking; most people asking are some combination of no audience, not targeted in their ask, abrasive, etc. If you're in the top 2% of 100 requests, and they fulfill 2 requests per month - you're looking pretty good. Throw in an element of "luck" in the first few guests if you'd like.
That's just getting started. Once the flywheel starts, it's easy.
Maybe his neutral, staid approach is non-threatening to famous people?
Plus, like Trump is a poor person's ideal of a rich and successful person, Lex is a young impressionable person's idea of a smart person, this makes him relatable to his main audience.
Plus, Rogan moving full episodes to Spotify made the YT algorithm fill the vacuum with the next closest thing.
Trump was president of the USA, that's not exactly unsuccessful. But not oil dollars or Rothschilds rich I suppose.
They said Trump was their "ideal" of a rich and successful person.
Not that he wasn't rich or successful.
good insight. I def think this is a huge factor.
I really liked his conversations with George Hotz, founder of an aftermarket lane assist product [0]. I would say that was peak Fridman. It was a great conversation covering many topics like UFOs, physics, cryptocurrency and programming.
In his recent interviews he seems in over his head. He can't articulate an appropriate response and often falls back to asking people "can you steelman criticisms about your product or what you're doing". His conversations with the Pfizer CEO and Mark Zuckerberg are prime examples of this. It doesn't lead to very constructive conversation.
[0] https://lexfridman.com/george-hotz-2/
I've tried listening to him so many times because of intersting guests. But his style is so boring and weird. I find it hard to focus more than 1/2 hr.
Sometimes Lex infuriates me, but again, there is nobody else doing what he does and in general, he does a good job of asking interesting questions even when it’s far outside of his area of expertise.
Now that my office is just a 15 minute bike ride away, I don't bother listening to podcasts any more.
With that said, I almost can't understand the question. Basically it's a podcast that invites a lot of experts (some of them famous, some not so much) and has long discussions on "smart" topics. Lex is smart enough to at least seem to understand most of it, so the discussions are not as shallow as you might see them in other places.
I don't really like anything about him, but the things I don't like at least seem genuine.
I checked out his Wikipedia entry and I don't see anything obvious.
His style turned me off in the beginning, but now it’s just kinda become his shtick.
My girlfriend makes fun of him cause she thinks he sounds like a robot trying to understand the human experience. He asks a lot of cheesy questions about love and our purpose in life. But in all honesty, it’s refreshing to see an interviewer ask the CEO of Pfizer what the meaning of life is.
I started listening last year and I too was initially put off by his "broadcast" (sorry, ex-radio bod here) style, but I've come to appreciate it because there's no shouting and getting all excitable.
What I meant is that I can easily imagine a better interviewer. He is a bit dull and uses the word "love" too much for my taste, but that's about it, to be honest. Compared to many other podcasters/minor celebrities, this is really nothing serious, just personal preference. I believe he is a genuinely nice person who wants everyone to be happy to a fault.
My strategy is to skim the descriptions and try the ones that sound interesting. I probably finish about 60% of the episodes I start.
How he attracts those guests? He has a successful podcast with many listeners.
It’s a positive feedback loop.
I sometimes get annoyed when he doesn't push back on things but I suspect the problem every podcaster has is this: if you push too hard, some people won't go on your show.
Overall, I think he does a pretty good job, and if you have long commutes or other long periods of time where you can listen to something, you could definitely do worse.
You opened my eyes.
> His content is often cringe inducing to the point that I can’t continue listening.
I think you kind of revealed your hand here and made it clear why you (dishonestly IMO) tried to minimize Lex's accomplishments.
Lex is very social media savvy, and he leveraged his network to build his own. When he was beginning (2018), he was on every joe rogan post in social media, he would crack jokes or post some relevant trivia and get upvoted to the top, most of the time at instagram. He further built his network and circulated his name further by injecting himself into conversations with JRE guests in social media. Usually after every JRE episode, Joe would make a few social media posts about it, and on one of these posts, Lex would tag the guest under the comments and ask them questions, with each twitter thread becoming popular on its own as the guest answers back. I'm not sure now, but back then it was innovative. He did all those and more til 2019, I'm not sure since then as I stopped using social media around mid-2019.
I'm not trying to minimize his accomplishments, lex produces good content, but plenty of other people produce good content as well but were never given the spotlight they need to blow up
First and foremost, he’s a good interviewer. He knows enough about the topics being discussed to ask good questions but also has enough discipline to give his guests time to work through a question and makes it about them.
Second, and this is related to #1, his guests clearly respect him/his audience enough to give reasonably in-depth answers. I mostly listen to the interviews with the deeply technical folks, and I’m impressed by their willingness to offer long technical explanations. I don’t understand it all, but I appreciate it and haven’t found another show that offers quite the same thing.
Finally, he does long episodes. This gives everything room to breathe. For me at least, my favorite interview podcasts are the ones where guests are hanging around for awhile. It gives interviewer and guest time to get acquainted and also let’s them cover a lot of ground. When I am deciding whether to listen to a Marc Maron episode, for instance, I’m definitely wary of anyone that goes to close to 60 minutes because it feels more likely it was just another interview for that person.
One the most consistently good podcasts - or many podcasts actually - are those from the freakonomics "network", maybe especially People I (Mostly) Admire - for example interviewing Steven Pinker, Nathan Myhrvold, Susan Wojcicki, Daniel Kahneman etc etc
https://freakonomics.com/series-full/people-i-mostly-admire/
I don’t always agree with the viewpoints of the guests, but I do believe we hear more from the guests as theirselves, and they seem to provide less corporate speak than the typical interviews.
It’s become one of my favorite podcasts because there aren’t “sides” in the conversation. You might get a few perspectives but the main objective is to actually learn the guests perspective which is harder to find from interviews. I would assume guests would enjoy a interview format where they get to talk about their self and their activities for as long as they want with someone intelligent.
I've seen the opposite - he seems to care a lot more about saying his own things instead of listening to the guests, and a lot of the time he just follows his list of questions instead of talking to them.
My defense of Lex is incidental of trying to achieve my primary goal of highlighting how juvenile the negative comments are.
This isn't the first time this question has been asked, and it seems like the question was asked earnestly. However, it's clear there is a lot of jealousy at the root of the negative opinions. I'm guessing this is because Lex has access to so many interesting people for such long periods of time. People responding that he's a wet blanket or that they don't like him aren't even trying to answer the question. What kind of format are they expecting to hear when interviewing academics? Jimmy Fallon meets Bill O'Reilly interviewing a Democrat?
Ask HN: "Why is Lady Gaga successful?" Average response here: "Ugh, I can't stand her."
This question suggests that you no longer have the intellectual curiosity to imagine an alternative to incredibly dull, surface-level questions even on subjects the interviewer claims to know about, except for... incredibly dull, surface-level questions.
And that's pretty depressing.
That said, this is a valid criticism, although a gross exaggeration of what the reality is. Sticking with the computer example, he digs in deeper on abstractions most people have zero knowledge about (RISC vs CISC, levels of caching in RAM, etc). He also talks about different kinds of computation.
You’re right to want him to do better, but I don’t think he will ever cater to you again. Even when he has people you might find interesting on his show (Jim Keller, Joscha Bach), he will still stick to a level that makes these geniuses works more accessible to the public. Broadening the appeal of complex topics isn’t a waste, although it may be for you. I ask that you reconsider your position and say that the show just isn’t for you and hope that you recognize the value he provides in introducing others to these fields. This is the pinnacle of podcasts, IMO
I’m curious, what shows do you like to listen to? I’d like to hear some examples of shows where there is a high expectation of the listener and people are discussing things so far over my head that it forces me to learn more.
You don't need to listen to them all at once. I'll usually listen over a couple of days. And I'm glad someone like Fridman doesn't feel bound to constrain the length of his podcasts to suite TikTok like attention spans.
Also, Lex's podcast has great academic and computer science guests that you don't usually get to have long-form conversations with. It's a high quality podcast with great production value for such a small operation.
I like that he frequently talks about love and its importance for humans. He is also helpful by often asking successful people for early career advice. His passion for AI is often at the forefront.
He could be a bit more critical in his interviews but then again that might get him fewer famous guests.
A much better way imo to interview than 'going for the win' or drama. There's more than enough of that out there already.
Anyway, as someone mentioned above, he was on Rogan's podcast and fits the Rogan mold of influencer: interested in AI and machine learning, politically neutral, trains in Brazilian jiu jitsu, etc. In fact, I'd describe his style as being a more intellectual Rogan, haha (which is not necessarily a compliment). His popularity has skyrocketed after being on Rogan. However, I'm not sure about his popularity prior to Rogan.