Why do you put it in quotes? He did AI research and published papers at MIT, also he taught a (or more) Deep Learning course at MIT with lots of participants, the lecture recordings are available on YouTube. I think it's quite clear he knows his stuff and isn't a bullshit artist at all.

He is well prepared for the interviews, he listens intently and asks important and curious questions to high profile researchers. The discussion is often at a level (of technicality) that I haven't seen anywhere else for a very very long time. In the age of oversimplified soundbites and 3-5 minute interviews for the lowest common denominator average lay audience on mainstream TV, Lex brings a breath of fresh air and proves that long and difficult interviews that dig deep can also have their place.

Look through his archives and pick a guest you are interested in. If you are interested in AI discussions, I'm pretty sure you'll find tons of interesting people on that list.

I've only listened to a dozen or so episodes, mostly non-AI related, but I can't really get a grasp on wether Friedman remembers any undergraduate level CS (or more advanced software engineering for that matter).

Maybe it's just a schtick to make it more approachable for "non-HN" listeners, but in the episode with Jim Keller it almost became painful. After all Friedman has a PhD in Computer Science, I would have expected more knowledge in some areas.

This also resonates with me. He sometimes doesn't know the things which should be known even to a CS undergrad!!

He knows too much about the topic to be bullshitting. Also, he does not pretend to have better answers than anyone else.

But IMHO Lex tries too hard getting deep/philosophical answers from his guests. And some guests clearly are not into “can we ever understand the brain and what would that even mean?”-type discussions.

If you want to see a real AI bullshit artist in action, look up recent appearances of Ben Goertzel.

The bigger problem with the podcast isn't his credentials or AI knowledge, it's how dry his delivery and presence are and how he basically reads off a prepared list of questions instead of having a conversation with his guests. And also the insistance to ask questions about life being a simulation and the meaning of life. He is a really poor interviewer but he has had a great selection of guests on the podcast.

Yet - somehow - he keeps growing?

You make really harsh and bitter remarks, like, "clearly he sucks at what he does, and he is cringe to ask silly questions about life and simulations... he is just lucky about his guests!!"

Like selecting, inviting and convince guests isn't part of the whole thing? Do you think these guests go out there expose themselves without having any idea of who he is, who his audience his, and the work he does?

How do you make such assessment and don't realize that maybe, just maybe, you're not his audience or that you don't understand what he is doing or his appeal, accept that and move on? He clearly works really hard to prepare these 1+ hour long interviews - this is not easy, at all!

The ridiculous thing is that when I clicked this comment section, I was expecting to see such caustic comments because there's a lot of passionate people here about CS, AI, and many other sciences... that's one of the reasons I come to HN, even though I don't have a PhD.

But damn, give the man some credit! You must understand that his inadequacies, his awkward pauses or his behavior when he makes the - indeed cringe - romanticized questions, it's part of the appeal of the whole thing? You don't get such bare boned interviewers these days, he his what he is - a MIT guy interviewing and giving visibility to bright minds that, at least myself, would have never heard of!

Is he the best interviewer? Hell no! His he improving? Yeah, bit by bit, and he has a long way to go. Some guests roll their eyes about some question? Yes, but some also don't, and that's the fun part! His he and his guests entertaining? Hell yes!

I've listened to one or two and would say he's a very good interviewer who is always well prepared. The ones I've listened to were about the philosophy of AI and related issues. For me personally, his podcasts are too long, I lack the time, but I was positively impressed.

So, no, not a bullshit artist at all in my opinion.

It's not about what he says, it's about what the guests say. He asks good questions.