第 73 期·中文精讀

吳恩達:深度學習、教育與真實世界的 AI

Andrew Ng: Deep Learning, Education, and Real-World AI

AI 學者談深度學習的實踐方法、線上教育如何普及 AI 知識,以及技術落地中的現實挑戰。

官方音訊00:00 / --:--
中文精讀由 AI 基於原始訪談改寫,非官方翻譯,可能存在偏差或錯誤;表述以原音訊與官方文稿為準。說明

凌晨兩點,吳恩達一個人待在他的小錄音棚裡,調整羅技攝像頭的角度,挪一下 Wacom 手寫板的位置,確認領夾麥克風開著。錄到三點收工。

那時候 Coursera 的前身課程已經放出去了,十萬人線上等著看後面的內容,而影片其實還沒拍完。他白天見朋友吃晚飯,腦子裡會冒出一個選項:現在回家睡覺,還是去辦公室錄課?讓他拐進辦公室的,是那十萬張想象裡的臉。

這件事他後來在 Lex Fridman 的播客裡講了,語氣很平淡,像在說一件很久以前的家務活。正是這種平淡洩露了一件事:這個人做教育的驅動力,和絕大多數講課的人不在一個座標上。

他最初的職業理想,是消滅影印機旁邊那個崗位

吳恩達在香港和新加坡長大,五六歲開始寫程式碼,學的是 BASIC。方法是把書上的程式一行行敲進電腦,敲完就能玩一個極簡陋的射擊遊戲。他的第一反應與"我好厲害"無關,他想的是敲程式碼這件事能換來好玩的遊戲。

真正讓他把技術當成一輩子事情的那個瞬間,發生在高中。他在新加坡一家公司實習,每天大量影印、做行政雜事,整個實習的高光時刻是可以操作碎紙機。十幾歲的他在心裡想:這麼多影印,如果能寫個軟體讓機器自己幹,我是不是就可以去幹點別的了。

我後來很多工作都圍繞自動化這個主題。包括我今天理解機器學習的方式,我們擅長寫學習演算法,去自動化人能做的工作。(吳恩達)

這個動機非常樸素,也解釋了他後來一系列看似跳躍的選擇。在斯坦福教書時,他每年給四百名學生講同一門機器學習課,每年改進同樣的影片,在同一個教室講同樣的笑話。到第三年他受不了了,把課程錄下來,這樣他就有時間去和學生建立更深的關係。

錄課談不上慈善,它更像自動化思維的一次延伸。一門課一份勞動,覆蓋四百人。變成影片之後,一份勞動覆蓋一百萬人。

一百萬人在等的內容,其實還沒有拍

線上課程上線的時候,註冊人數很快突破十萬,錄影進度遠遠落後。團隊只能一邊上線一邊往後補錄。吳恩達說他給整個團隊定下的第一原則只有一句話:做對學習者最有利的事。

聽起來像貼在牆上的標語,但它真的擋掉了很多誘惑。老師錄課的時候,很容易想講講自己的研究,讓學生多引用幾篇論文。這條原則把這個念頭摁死了。他自己也承認,每次走進錄音棚想的問題只有一個:這句話怎麼設計,才能把概念講得最清楚。

同樣的原則也讓他們敢刪掉一些"看起來很棒"的功能。他曾經做過一個多人同時登入的產品:兩個人可以同時看著螢幕上的同一段影片,各自輸入賬號密碼,系統知道你們是一組,給你倆都記學習進度。他覺得這簡直是天才設計,電腦終於能知道你倆在一起學習。

他們把這個功能推給了舊金山一所學校,二十幾個使用者。結果是零人使用。

原來線上學習的人就是想自己一個人看影片,能暫停、能回退、能按自己的速度播放,而不是組隊。(吳恩達)

這個失敗後來被反覆引用,價值在於它揭示的成本結構:一個紙面上完美、實現上也不難、但違背真實使用習慣的功能,做出來的淨效果等於零。你的工程能力沒有浪費在難的事情上,反而浪費在正確的事情上。

他為什麼相信程式設計會變成識字率

採訪裡吳恩達丟擲了一個類比,值得單獨拿出來看。歷史上只有一小部分人類識字,也很容易論證"沒必要人人會讀寫",你找幾個人讀給你聽不就行了,寫暢銷書的那幾個作者寫就行了。真正發生的事是,當識字率普及之後,人與人之間的溝通頻寬被整體拉高了。你可以為一個人寫作,比如發一封郵件。

在他看來,今天的程式設計還處在只有少數人識字的階段。會寫程式碼的人,主要在服務一個規模遠遠大於他們的受眾。如果大部分人都能用某種方式寫點程式,人和計算機之間的溝通也會被整體拉高。

他甚至舉了一個特別具體的例子:街邊小店老闆這周搞促銷,想改一下店裡的電視展示,現在他做不到,將來他應該能做到。

順著這個邏輯,他說了一個更有意思的判斷。過去普通職業的人學程式設計缺少一個硬理由,因為寫軟體和他的日常沒關係。資料科學和機器學習的出現改變了這一點。日常工作裡有具體資料分析需求的人,數量可能比有具體軟體開發需求的人還多。

一個小店的銷售資料、客戶資料,如果老闆自己能分析,價值立刻就出來了。一個招聘專員、一個會計、一個在工廠車間裡的人,只要能掌握一點資料分析能力,當天就能改進工作。所以他認為,不少非技術職業的人,資料科學比軟體工程更適合作為第一段入門路。

為什麼他站在臺上還是拿白板筆

Lex 問了一個很輕但很有意思的問題:全世界都在用 PPT,你為什麼還用白板和馬克筆。

答案分兩層。從技術上說,講數學的時候,白板允許你把一個公式一點一點搭起來,邊講邊寫,理解度更高。缺點也明顯,寫字慢,寫長句子會要命。

第二層是缺點反轉成的優點。正因為慢,它強迫你把所有東西壓縮到最基礎的那幾條。白板的低頻寬,本身就是一種極簡主義的篩選機制。

一場好演講靠的是把幾個簡單的想法講得足夠清楚,內容多反而是負擔。(吳恩達)

這一點很難做到。資訊密度高是本能,做減法需要判斷力。

這裡有一種做事態度的呼應。他在編輯課程影片時經常對團隊說,每一句話都要為自己的生命而戰,如果這一分鐘不能帶來更好的學習體驗,就刪掉它。考慮到這些影片會被幾百萬人看到,一分鐘的改進會被放大成幾十萬分鐘的收益。

那個飛直升機的學生,和一年沒有結果的定位難題

Pieter Abbeel 是吳恩達的第一個博士生,後來成了世界上最重要的機器人和強化學習研究者之一。吳恩達提起他時的態度是明確的感激:自己長期的職業成就,建立在早期一些工作的基礎上,而 Abbeel 在這些工作裡至關重要。

很多人看過斯坦福那臺倒飛直升機的影片。它出現在 2008 年前後,是強化學習極少數真正跑在物理世界裡的應用之一,演示效果驚人。吳恩達想說的是絕大多數人沒看到的部分。

最難的環節落在定位上,和強化學習演算法關係不大。直升機要倒飛,你怎麼知道自己在哪?

一開始用 GPS。問題來了:飛機倒過來的時候,GPS 天線朝下,看不到衛星。他們試過裝兩個 GPS,一個朝上一個朝下,翻轉時切換。不行,因為快速翻轉時朝下的那個來不及同步。

Morgan Quigley 又去搞了一套非常複雜的專用硬體,想用特殊配置來解讀 GPS 訊號。整整搞了一年,沒成。

我記得 Peter 和我坐在辦公室裡,看著最新一輪失敗的記錄,兩個人只能說,見鬼,現在怎麼辦。(吳恩達)

最後的方案來自 Adam Coates 的關鍵貢獻:把攝像頭放在地面上,用地面視角來解算直升機的位置。定位問題交給外部系統之後,團隊才終於能專心做強化學習和控制,讓飛機真的飛起來。

這段故事的價值和勵志無關。它說明了一個工程上的常識:當你卡住很久的時候,真正卡住你的往往是你以為在研究之外的那個環節。如果定位不解決,再好的強化學習演算法也沒有施展空間。一年時間砸在 GPS 硬體上,換來的教訓是"這條路走不通",而這個教訓本身也是必要成本。

Lex 追問:那時候強化學習的理論論文很多,實際應用極少,是什麼驅動你去啃這種又髒又難的活。

吳恩達的回答透出一種很清晰的自我認知。他講了一個故事:很多年前他和一位數學教授聊天,問對方為什麼做現在做的事。那位教授眼裡有光,說自己是在為宇宙發現真理和美。

我覺得他做的事很了不起,我也非常尊重這樣的人。但我自己更有動力的時候,是能看見一條線,把我和團隊做的工作連到"它真的幫到了人"。(吳恩達)

他說世界需要各種型別的人,自己只是其中一種。這句話背後的取捨是真的:他願意為了物理世界裡一個能跑起來的系統,去付出一年的失敗。

餐巾紙上的那場推演,和一條畫到右上角的曲線

Google Brain 之前的那段歷史,吳恩達把它分成"我們搞錯的"和"我們搞對的"。

搞錯的是無監督學習的重要性。2005 年前後,NIPS 會議結束後,他和 Geoff Hinton 在會場外的餐廳吃飯,Hinton 拿起一張餐巾紙開始畫論證。

論證大致是這樣:人腦有大約 10 的 14 次方個突觸連線。人的壽命是 10 的 9 次方秒量級。如果每個突觸權重只是一個位元的引數,那麼你這輩子需要學習的資訊量是 10 的 14 次方位。除以 10 的 9 次方秒,你每秒要學 10 的 5 次方位。而吳恩達當時有個一歲的女兒。

我自認是個很有愛的父親,但我是不可能每秒給她 25 個標籤的。(吳恩達)

因此絕大部分知識只能來自沒有標籤的海量資料,監督學習撐不起這個資訊量。這個論證在當年極有說服力,一大批人押注無監督學習,包括 Google Brain 早期的大量投入。

搞對的是規模。Adam Coates 在斯坦福做了一組實驗,畫出一張圖,橫軸是模型和資料的規模,縱軸是效能。曲線一直往右上角走,規模越大,效果越好。吳恩達說,就是這一張圖給了他信心,讓他和 Sebastian Thrun 一起向 Google 提案,後來成了 Google Brain。

當時這個想法是有爭議的。一些資深的朋友專程來勸他:這不像新架構,你就這麼一路把規模堆上去,這是很糟糕的職業選擇。

如果你想做出突破,有時你必須有信念,在它變得流行之前就去做。(吳恩達)

規模這條曲線,今天還準嗎

Lex 把這場老爭論接到了今天。現在有一派人說,模型和資料已經夠大了,重心應該轉向提升學習效率、設計更好的學習機制。

吳恩達的回答是"兩者都重要",然後加了一個關鍵限定詞:取決於問題。

有些資料集上,我們已經接近貝葉斯誤差,或者已經超過人類水平,那裡存在理論天花板,堆資料不會有用。但還有大量問題,離人類水平很遠,也離可達的最低誤差很遠。在這些地方,更大的資料加現有的神經網路,不需要新架構,就足以繼續往前走。

他也點了一個常被忽略的事實。GPT-2 和 BERT 這類突破裡,規模是故事的一大部分,但人們很少談資料的來源和質量。那些訓練資料本身就帶某種弱監督,是從網際網路上精心篩選和利用的,這部分工程貢獻在論文裡往往一行帶過。

一百個缺陷樣本里,有十個標錯了

這可能是整場對話裡最接地氣的一段。吳恩達說,我們今天的工具鏈裡,程式碼版本控制這類東西已經成熟,資料管理卻極其不成熟。他回憶起早年用郵件互傳 C++ 檔案的年代,那時候還沒什麼版本控制。

然後他講了製造業客戶的真實情況。

做視覺檢測時,他們把塑膠件拿給一個檢查員看。檢查員很有主見:"這明顯是缺陷,絕對不能放行。"同一個零件拿給另一個檢查員,對方也一樣篤定:"這是很小的瑕疵,不用管。"更麻煩的是,同一個零件早上給同一個人看,他說沒問題,下午再給他看,他同樣自信地說這明顯是缺陷。

如果一個人隔幾個小時都不能和自己保持一致,那這個樣本應該怎麼標?(吳恩達)

網際網路大公司的處理方式是取平均,十億使用者產生的資料,噪聲會被稀釋。製造業沒有這個條件。你可能總共只有一百個缺陷樣本,其中十個標錯了,誤差就是 10%。

這類問題的解法不在演算法裡,在流程裡:誰來標、多個標註者怎麼仲裁、一個人前後不一致怎麼處理、需要投入多少人力去清洗。這些工作在學術論文裡幾乎看不到。

他也把這個道理用在了教學上。在斯坦福,他越來越鼓勵學生自己做期末專案,自己去找問題、自己去弄資料,而不是下載別人整理好的乾淨資料集。後者容易出結果,前者難得多,但你會在過程中撞上真實世界的全部麻煩。

三塊拼圖:教人、幫企業、造公司

吳恩達當時同時在做三件事。

DeepLearning.AI 負責教育,讓人進入這個領域並做得更好。Landing AI 幫傳統企業把 AI 真正做進業務裡。AI Fund 是一個創業工作室,自己搭團隊、自己配創始人,從零開始把公司造出來。拿錢去投別人的專案屬於另一種生意,這裡不做。

關於教育這一塊,他講了深度學習專項課程的設計。官方時長十六週,但可以自己掌握節奏,有人一個月就學完了。先修要求低得有點出人意料:需要基礎程式設計能力(作業用 Python),數學只需要高中數學水平,會矩陣乘法就夠。他刻意讓課程不依賴微積分,會微積分當然更好,直覺會更強。

課程內容從最基礎的單元開始,一個 logistic 單元怎麼堆成多層網路,不同的啟用函式,怎麼訓練。他特別自豪的是課裡教了大量實踐性的 know-how:過擬合了怎麼辦,什麼情況下值得去收集更多資料,什麼情況下完全沒必要。

到今天還有一些工程師,會花六個月去收集更多資料,因為他覺得資料總是有價值的。其實他本來可以早點做幾個測試,發現對這個具體問題,多收資料根本解決不了問題。(吳恩達)

這六個月本該用來改架構、換思路。

除錯機器學習程式,和除錯普通程式完全是兩回事

吳恩達打了個他很喜歡的比方。學程式設計要學語法,但更重要的能力是把這些程式碼行組織成連貫的東西:什麼該封裝成函式,什麼不該,怎麼設計抽象。這些框架性的判斷比語法更能決定一個程式設計師的效率。

他回憶在卡內基梅隆讀本科時,有朋友除錯 C++ 程式碼的方式是一行一行刪,直到語法錯誤消失。這種行為在普通程式設計裡很笨,但如果換成機器學習,情況就變了。你沒法用二分查詢,沒法打斷點單步跟蹤。你面對的問題是"它為什麼還不 work",以及"我能不能預期它最終會 work"。

能回答這類問題的人,和回答不了的人,做同一件事的速度差距是十倍甚至一百倍。這個差距和數學水平關係不大,取決於一套系統性的思考框架:現在該改架構,還是該加資料,還是該加正則化,還是該換最佳化演算法,還是該換資料型別。

他把深度學習的難點也歸到類似的結構上。數學之所以難,很難指出具體難在哪一位,是加法、進位還是乘法?難在很多概念是疊起來的,你漏掉一個,後面所有依賴它的東西你都接不住。所以專項課程的設計思路是儘量把每個概念拆到能被理解的最小單元,讓你爬到高階內容時,腳下的臺階是實的。

強化學習最能點燃人,但它不是今天最能幹活的東西

Lex 問了一個教學上的觀察:很多人對深度學習的"啊哈時刻",是被強化學習點燃的。一個網路什麼都不知道,從零開始探索世界,然後學會東西,這個畫面極具感染力。

吳恩達同意,而且說自己也在用。他在斯坦福的課裡還教強化學習,那是他深愛的領域。但緊接著他講了一個很坦誠的取捨:如果要教學生今天最有用的技術,他會壓縮強化學習佔用的課時。

因為它對今天的實際產出貢獻有限。

他描述了一個場景:一群資深機器學習研究者坐在一起,有人問,誰能舉出第一個真正部署在生產環境裡的強化學習應用?在場的人湊不出幾個好例子。除了打遊戲和少數幾個場景,真實跑起來的案例非常少。

如果你考慮它在我們做的所有事情裡佔多大比重,至少到今天,除了玩遊戲之外,能說得出口的例子並不多。(吳恩達)

這裡有一個教學上的張力:最能激發熱情的工具,未必是最該花時間掌握的工具。他給出的解法是把強化學習當成講清楚"神經網路能從零學起"這個道理的載體,但主課時的重心仍然放在監督學習的基礎和真實資料集上。

他還補了一層更普適的提醒。就算在深度學習內部,也不該只有深度學習。他自己團隊解決製造業問題時,會坐下來看 PCA 的殘差,會用到機率圖模型。這些方法在產業裡的實際影響巨大,學術圈的討論熱度卻低得多。

有些日子我們用神經網路,有些日子我們用 PCA。工具是一個組合,這話說出來不夠性感。(吳恩達)

如果所有人都只學一樣東西,那是件悲哀的事。多樣性才能讓你為手上的問題找到對的工具。

把圖片轉 90 度,然後讓網路猜你轉了多少

談到深度學習裡最美妙的想法,吳恩達沒有選規模,選了無監督學習,具體說是自監督學習這一支。

他舉了個例子。從網際網路上抓一大堆沒有標籤的圖片,把每張圖隨機旋轉 0 度、90 度、180 度或 270 度,然後訓練一個監督網路去預測它被轉了多少度。旋轉是你自己做的,標籤免費,可以無限生成。用造出來的標籤訓練網路,再把學到的表徵遷移到別的任務上,效果出奇地好。

同樣的思路有很多變體。Jigsaw 是把圖片切成九宮格打亂,讓網路預測原始排列,九張牌的全排列有三十六萬多種。word2vec 是給一句話挖掉一個詞,讓網路預測缺失的詞。OpenAI、Facebook、Google Brain、DeepMind 都在這個方向上做工作。

吳恩達對這個方向的判斷相當剋制。他認為自監督只是一塊拼圖,而且這塊拼圖正在開始產生實際效果,可能在計算機視覺和影片領域先跑出來。他提到自己十年前就興奮過的稀疏編碼、獨立成分分析,都屬於同一個思想譜系,只是後來被監督學習的效果吸引走了注意力。

如果我的工作只是做學術研究,有無限預算,不用考慮短期影響,只看長期,我會把所有時間都花在無監督學習上。(吳恩達)

刷牙不需要做決定,學習也不該需要

Lex 問了一個具體到日常的問題:如果給學習深度學習的人排一個每日計劃,你會怎麼建議。

吳恩達的答案是習慣和規律性,而且他用了一個很生活化的機制來解釋為什麼習慣有效。

他團隊每週三發《The Batch》newsletter,讀者知道週三有這回事,就會在週三花點時間看看本週的進展。他自己則固定每個週六和週日拿出一段時間讀書或學習。

我不會在週六早上醒來的第一件事是決定"我今天想不想讀書"。這就是我要做的事,沒有那個決策環節。(吳恩達)

他用刷牙打比方。刷牙兩分鐘本身挺煩的,但因為它是習慣,不佔認知負荷。如果每天早上都要決定刷不刷,那才是真的累。他甚至每天吃一樣的東西,理由也是少做一個決定。

Lex 補充了自己彈吉他的經驗:每天五分鐘,少得可笑,但堅持一兩年之後,你在某些地方的水平會好到不像話。

吳恩達把這個邏輯推到了讀論文上。讀論文的力量不在讀一篇,在於每週讀幾篇、讀一年。一年下來一百篇,你確實會懂很多。反過來,靠幾次通宵衝刺,你最多能撐幾次,撐不出複利。

手寫筆記為什麼比打字記住得多

他還講了一個自己一直在用的學習技巧:手寫筆記。

他最近在 Coursera 上修了一門臨床試驗的課,方法是拿出 Moleskine 小本子,坐在桌前,邊聽邊記。

背後的機制他解釋得很清楚。手寫慢,這是缺點,也是關鍵。因為你寫不了那麼快,所以你沒法逐字記錄,必須把聽到的內容壓縮成更少的詞。這個壓縮過程強迫你對含義做更深一層的加工,而深度加工帶來的是長期記憶。打字快,人就會傾向於逐字轉錄,看起來記全了,留存反而更差。

打字總比什麼都不做強,上課完全不記筆記當然最差。但手寫和打字的對比裡,手寫通常記得更牢。(吳恩達)

這個道理和他對白板的偏愛出自同一處:頻寬限制不總是敵人,它經常是幫你做減法的朋友。

職業生涯裡,公司門口的 Logo 是最不重要的一件事

關於要不要讀博、去大廠還是去創業,吳恩達給的框架是"多條路都行"。

如果被前五十的專案錄取,那是很好的經歷。如果在頂級團隊拿到一份工作,那也是很好的經歷。但假如目標是成為頂級大學的教授,博士學位就是必須的。假如目標是創業做技術,直接去做公司也是好選擇。

真正有價值的是他後面這段。他說,影響你體驗的因素,公司選哪家、學界還是業界,權重其實不高。權重最高的是你每天互動的那十個人、那三十個人是誰。

我們都是有社會性的動物,會越來越像身邊的人。如果你和很棒的人一起工作,你會學得更快。(吳恩達)

所以他給求職者的建議非常具體:拿到 offer 之後,問清楚你的經理是誰、同事是誰、你每天要和誰說話。如果一家公司拒絕告訴你,說"我們有輪崗制度,進來再定",這是個令人擔憂的回答。因為他可能被塞進一個做著不 exciting 的工作的團隊,而每天走進哪棟大樓,一點都不重要。

他也承認這是個很難的搜尋問題,和找對的朋友、找結婚物件是同一種難。但正因為難,才更該在關鍵節點上多問幾句。

順帶一提,他在斯坦福的 CS230 課上專門做過一期一小時長的職業建議講座,包括求職過程中的具體方法,影片是公開的。

創業工作室在賭什麼:把"從零到一"拆成可複製的流程

AI Fund 做的是 startup studio,創業工作室,從零開始造公司:有時帶著已有的想法去找創始人,有時和創始人一起把想法做出來。

這個模式要回答的核心問題是:能不能把建立公司這件事流程化,提高成功率。

吳恩達舉了幾個他們反覆打磨的環節。要打多少個客戶電話才算完成客戶驗證?技術能不能做出來?後面這條尤其麻煩,因為他們做的很多業務需要一到兩年前的機器學習演算法。一個演算法在論文裡 work,和它在生產環境裡 work,中間隔著巨大的鴻溝,而這條鴻溝在學術文獻裡幾乎沒被描述過。還有領域知識:教育、醫療、製造,每個行業的門道都要現學。

更根本的價值在於對抗孤獨。創業對絕大多數人而言是一件極其孤獨的事。什麼時候該做 B2B 銷售、除了買廣告還有什麼更便宜的營銷方式、招第一個工程 VP 的篩選標準是什麼,這些決策單拎出來都能改變公司的命運。有一個生態系統在旁邊,至少在關鍵節點上有人能一起過一遍。

他也講了他們拒絕掉的東西。曾經有一個想法,商業模型沒問題,收入預測也沒問題,如果做成,結果是讓很多人看更多某一類窄眾影片。他看了之後說,我不想做這個。

不管是建公司、做企業裡的專案,還是做個人專案,每個人都該想清楚自己想在世界上留下什麼樣的不同。(吳恩達)

工廠裡的 AI

Lex 問,一家公司要邁出第一步,從人眼檢查變成攝像頭加演算法,早期那段路通常怎麼走。

吳恩達說第一個動作永遠是做小。他見過的失敗案例裡,起步太大導致的,比起步太小導致的多得多。

他講了一個具體場景。工廠車間裡的光照條件會變,燈開了、燈關了,模型的表現就跟著變。還有一次,一家工廠著火燒掉了一部分,重建之後,原來訓練集裡的環境全變了。他自己補充了一個更好笑的例子:工廠外面有棵樹擋住了窗戶,後來樹被砍了,窗戶的光照進來,模型就懵了。

這類問題在學術資料集里根本不會出現。你在一個乾淨的測試集上跑出很高的準確率,部署到車間,環境一變,效能就掉下去。訓練分佈和測試分佈出現顯著差異時該怎麼處理,整個領域都還很不擅長。學術界有域適應、遷移學習這些方向,但離"能用"還有距離。

他還提醒了一個容易被忽略的比例問題。在一個完整的軟體系統裡,機器學習模型的程式碼行數可能只佔 5%,甚至更少。剩下 95% 是軟體工程:怎麼讓它穩定、怎麼讓它可維護、怎麼和現有系統對接。這部分工作不性感,但它是從 notebook 走到產線的必經之路。

我聽過太多次完全一樣的對話。搞機器學習的人說,我的演算法在測試集上表現很好。業務方說,謝謝你,但你的模型很爛,它不 work。(吳恩達)

然後雙方就卡住了。一邊說我在測試集上很好,一邊說生產上不行,誰也說服不了誰,因為兩個人說的根本不是同一件事。

自動化一個崗位,可能要重新設計十個崗位

吳恩達把機器學習稱作"打了激素的自動化"。這個說法背後有一層常被低估的連帶效應。

工廠裡有很多道工序,視覺檢測只是其中一道。假設你把這一道自動化了,模型判斷這個零件是缺陷品,然後呢?接下來該由誰做什麼?送去返修,還是報廢,還是讓人再複核一遍?

自動化一道工序,往往需要重新設計它周圍的很多道工序。原來檢查員看完之後直接進入下一環,現在中間多了一個演算法輸出,整個流程要重新編排。

這裡還有組織和人的問題。演算法上線之後,原來做檢查的那些人的工作變了,你得花時間去解釋、去培訓、去處理牴觸。這些事不在任何一篇論文裡,但它們決定專案能不能真正跑起來。

他還點出一個更隱蔽的差異。在百度帶語音團隊的時候,如果語音識別系統掛了,會發生什麼?會響警報,然後像他這樣的負責人可以指著二十個工程師說,你們去把它修好。工廠裡不會有二十個機器學習工程師待命。系統掛了,你指望車間裡的人現場 debug 嗎?

所以維護、審計、故障響應,這些大廠視為基礎設施的東西,在傳統行業裡全都要重新設計。他說這個領域連術語都還沒統一,因為大家都在邊做邊發明。

第一個內部客戶是語音團隊,不是廣告團隊

關於大公司怎麼把 AI 裝進去,他給的方法論只有一句話:從小處開始。

Google Brain 成立的時候爭議很大。很多人的判斷是,深度學習之前被研究過,沒 work,你為什麼還要做。在這種氛圍下,吳恩達找的第一個內部客戶是 Google 的語音團隊。那不是一個最賺錢的專案,比不上網頁搜尋和廣告,但它是一個可以被驗證的場景。團隊幫語音團隊做出了更準的識別系統。

第二個客戶是 Google 地圖。他們用計算機視覺從街景圖片裡識別門牌號,讓地圖上的房屋定位更準。這直接提升了資料質量。

這兩個成功之後,他才去找廣告團隊做那場最嚴肅的對話。

早期的這些小專案,一方面幫團隊贏得了信任,另一方面也幫團隊真正學會了這些技術能做什麼。(吳恩達)

他甚至記得第一批 GPU 伺服器的樣子:一臺塞在某個同事工位底下的伺服器。就是這臺機器教會了他們一個重要問題:多個使用者怎麼共享一組 GPU。這在當時完全不是顯然的答案。這些從髒活裡長出來的經驗,後來支撐了更大規模的部署。

他把這套方法寫成了公開的《AI Transformation Playbook》,也在 Coursera 上講過企業轉型的長期路徑。核心還是那句:第一步永遠是做小,做出一個能證明價值的案例,讓漣漪自己擴散出去。

13 萬億美元,大部分落在軟體業之外

吳恩達把 AI 定義為通用技術,會改造每一個行業。目前已經被改造得比較徹底的是軟體和網際網路。頭部幾家大公司之外的軟體公司,機器學習能力基本都有了,或者正在補齊。

但把視線移出軟體業,製造業、農業、醫療、物流、交通,機會多到幾乎沒人做。

他引用麥肯錫的估算:AI 可能帶來 13 萬億美元的全球經濟增長。作為參照,美國 GDP 是 19 萬億美元。也有機構估算 16 萬億。具體數字是哪個不重要,重要的是結構:這裡面很大一部分影響會落在軟體業之外。

這也解釋了他為什麼把大量精力放在 Landing AI。製造業的視覺檢測是一個典型例子:今天還有大量工人站在產線旁邊,用肉眼檢查手機零件上有沒有劃痕、凹痕、瑕疵。換成攝像頭拍照、深度學習判斷,良率、質量、吞吐可以同時提升。

而他反覆強調的一點是,這些場景裡的實際麻煩,和你在論文裡讀到的完全不是一回事。資料量小,環境一直在變,魯棒性要求高。能站在這個位置上工作,意味著你在一堆人還沒意識到問題存在的時候,就已經在處理它了。

人類級別的智慧,他願意賭,但不敢估時間

訪談的後半段,Lex 把話題拉到了更遠的地方。他說,你做的大部分工作是應用型的 AI,目標是把某個具體流程自動化。但 AI 還有另一條脈絡,從圖靈開始,做的是人類級別甚至超人類的智慧。你自己有沒有這樣的夢想?

吳恩達的回答很乾脆:他希望人類能造出 AGI。至於是一百年、五百年還是五千年,他說自己估不出來。

關於存在性風險,他給了一個很有意思的回應。他說自己確實擔心人類的長期命運,也會想這些問題。然後他講了一件舊事:有一次演講,他說自己擔心火星上的人口過剩。後來有人剪了個影片,質問他說,Andrew,你怎麼能這麼冷血,火星上那麼多孩子在死去。他在播客裡對著未來的觀眾道了個歉,說自己當然在乎那些孩子,只是今天不知道該怎麼有效地為這件事工作。

我確實擔心這些問題,只是要等到某一天它才變得可以行動。今天我還不知道能做什麼。(吳恩達)

這個態度看起來像迴避,背後其實是一套很清晰的工作哲學:把注意力放在今天能被推動的地方。他並不否認遠期風險的存在,只是認為在還沒有可行手段的時候,把大量精力投進去,產出的主要是討論,進展很少。

接著他把話說得更直接了一些。他認為圍繞 AI 對齊、回形針問題的那些討論,很大程度上分散了對當下更難的問題的注意力。

他舉了自動駕駛的例子。很多人以為自動駕駛最大的倫理難題是電車難題,要在撞誰之間做選擇。他說,你自己開車的時候,一輩子遇到過幾次這種道德困境?自動駕駛汽車碰到這個問題的頻率,大概和你開車時差不多。真正的難題是:前面路上橫著一輛白色大卡車,正確做法是剎車,而系統沒剎住,撞了上去。把這個解決掉,比討論極端倫理場景有價值得多。

他列了自己真正擔心的問題。

偏見是其中之一。他也擔心財富不平等。網際網路有一個天然的效應,是加速權力的集中,因為資料可以被集中,算力可以被集中。這個行業有強烈的贏者通吃特徵。他拿 Uber 和 Lyft 對計程車行業的衝擊舉例,說這種模式正在一個接一個地複製到其他行業。

結果是巨大的財富被創造出來,但怎麼保證它被公平地分享?被替代的崗位怎麼辦?教育是解決方案的一部分,但可能還不夠,我們需要比教育更多的東西。

他還提到 AI 被用於各種不正當目的的可能性。

我擔心有些團隊,也許是無意地,在遙遠的未來問題上製造大量噪音,反而忽略了那些實質上更難的問題。(吳恩達)

他甚至還原了一個場景:監管者找上門說,你的產品正在搞砸一些事情,請修一下,而修這些事情會影響收入。這時候跟監管者聊"我們承諾不會透過這個介面毀滅人類",顯然輕鬆得多。可真正難的,是那些具體、無聊、影響巨大的問題。

那些被白板筆擋住的,和那些被攝像頭拍到的

回頭看這場對話,會發現吳恩達的所有選擇都指向同一個方向:把抽象的智慧,落到一個能被驗證的具體場景裡。

直升機飛不起來,關鍵障礙落在定位上。解法不在演算法裡,在地上放幾個攝像頭。工廠的模型不準,原因也簡單:外面的樹被砍了、燈被關了、一個零件被兩個人標成了兩個答案。深度學習的課能不能教會人,取決於有沒有把梯度下降這種基礎講到不需要微積分也能懂。

連他判斷一個人的職業選擇,用的都是同一個標準。名氣無用,學界和業界之分也無用,真正要緊的是你每天一起吃飯、一起開會、一起扯皮的那十個人是誰。

Lex 最後問了兩個問題:有沒有遺憾,有沒有特別驕傲或幸福的時刻。

關於遺憾,他說自己犯過太多錯,幾乎每次搞明白一件事,都會想,為什麼五年前、十年前沒想到。有時候讀到一本書,會想如果十年前讀到,人生會完全不同。有一次他去查,發現那本書在當年根本還沒寫出來。

我們總在發現那些事後看起來特別顯然的東西,但發現它需要的時間,永遠比我期望的長。(吳恩達)

關於幸福,他給了兩個答案。第一個是他的女兒 Nelva,他說永遠覺得陪她的時間不夠。第二個是幫別人。

我覺得生命的意義是幫別人實現他們的夢想,同時讓整個人類變得更有能力,推動世界往前走。我最幸福的時刻,是別人給了我一點好運氣,讓我能在他們通往夢想的路上幫上一點忙。(吳恩達)

這句話從一個凌晨兩點還在錄音棚裡反覆重錄同一段講解的人嘴裡說出來,不太像客套。

他在節目最後留給聽眾的那句是這樣的:問問你自己,如果你手上正在做的事,成功到超乎你最瘋狂的想象,你是否顯著地幫助了其他人?如果不是,那就繼續找別的事做。否則你沒有活出自己的全部潛力。

  • 把學習變成不需要決策的固定動作。選一個不會被打斷的時段,比如每週日上午,固定下來。關鍵在時長之外的機制:不給自己"今天要不要學"這個選項。每天五分鐘,一年後會有你想象不到的積累。
  • 入門深度學習別死磕數學。會矩陣乘法、會一點 Python 就能開始,深度學習專項課程刻意不要求微積分。真正拉開人與人差距的,是判斷"現在該加資料還是該改架構"的能力,這個能力只能從小專案裡長出來。
  • 挑專案時優先選自己找資料的那種。下載乾淨資料集能讓你快速出結果,代價是你會錯過真實世界的全部麻煩:標註衝突、環境漂移、樣本只有一百個。這些麻煩才是工業界真正付錢買的能力。
  • 筆記用手寫。寫不快是優點,它逼你把聽到的內容壓縮成自己的話,壓縮過程本身產生長期記憶。打字容易變成逐字轉錄,看起來記全了,留存更差。同理,講東西時能用白板就別用滿屏的 PPT。
  • 選工作時先問人,再問公司。拿到 offer 後明確問:我的經理是誰,同事是誰,每天和誰協作。如果對方說"輪崗,進來再定",把這當成一個負面訊號。公司門口的 logo 對你的成長影響很小,身邊那十個人的影響很大。
  • 在公司裡推 AI,第一個專案一定要小。找一個人家真正疼、又能驗證的具體場景,做成一個案例,讓結果自己去說服下一個團隊。起步太大是失敗的主要原因,起步太小從來不是。
  • 評估一項新技術的落地價值,別隻按熱度判斷。問一句:除了打遊戲和演示,你見過幾個真正跑在生產裡的例子?如果當場湊不出三個,那它對今天的你可能還不是最該投入時間的方向。
  • 把注意力放在今天能推動的問題上。在還沒有可行手段的時候,投入產出比最高的往往是很近的事:訓練資料裡的標註衝突、部署環境的穩定性、被自動化影響的那批人接下來做什麼。遠期的宏大風險可以記著,但別讓它擠掉眼前的活。
文稿由本站用語音識別模型(基於官方釋出音訊)機器轉寫,可能有識別錯誤,人名與數字請以音訊為準。
[00:00:00] The following is a conversation with Andrew NG, one of the most impactful educators, researchers, innovators and leaders in artificial intelligence and technology space in general. He co-founded Coursera and Google Brain, launched Deep Learning A.I. Lending, A.I. and the A.I. Fund, and was the chief scientist of Baidu. As a Stanford professor and with Coursera and Deep Learning AI, he has helped educate and inspire millions of students, including me. This is the artificial intelligence podcast. Enjoy it, subscribe on YouTube. [00:00:38] Good five stars, an Apple podcast, supporter and patron are simply connected me on Twitter. Àlex Friedman spelled F.R. Idi Man as usual. I'll do one or two minutes of ads now and never any ads in the middle that can break the flow of the conversation. I hope that works for you and doesn't hurt the listening experience. This show is presented by Kashyap, the number one finance app in the App Store. When you get it, you Scolex podcast cash app lets you send money to friends, buy bitcoin and invest in the stock market with as little as one dollar. [00:01:13] Brokerage services are provided by cash up and vesting a subsidiary of Square, a member SIPC since cash allows you to buy Bitcoin. Let me mention that cryptocurrency in the context of the history of money is fascinating. I recommend Ascent of Money as a great book on this history. Debits and credits and ledgers started over 30000 thousand years ago. The US dollar has created over two hundred years ago and Bitcoin, the first decentralized cryptocurrency released just over 10 years ago. [00:01:48] So given that history, cryptocurrency still very much in its early days of development, but is still aiming to and just might redefine the nature of money. So again, if you get cash out from the App Store or Google Play and use the Lux podcast, you'll get ten dollars in cash. I will also donate ten dollars, the first one of my favorite organizations that is helping to advance robotics and stem education for young people around the world. And now here's my conversation with Andrew NG. [00:02:40] The courses you taught are machine learning at Stanford and later on Coursera, the co-founded have educated and inspired millions of people. So let me ask you what people are ideas inspire you to get into computer science and machine learning? When you were young, when did you first fall in love with the field is another way to put it. [00:03:01] Growing up in Hong Kong and Singapore, I started learning to code when I was five or six years old. At that time, I was learning the basic programming language and I would take these books and they'll tell you type this program into your computer type that programs or computer. And as a result of all that typing, I would get to play these very simple shoot them up games that that, you know, I had implemented on my on my computer. [00:03:27] So I thought it's fascinating as a young kid that I could write this code that was really just copying it from a book into my computer to play these cool video games. Another moment for me was when I was a teenager and my father, because the doctor was reading about expert systems and about neural networks. So he got me some of these books and I thought was really cool. The computer that started to exhibit intelligence then I remember doing an internship was in high school. [00:04:00] This is in Singapore where I remember doing a lot of photocopying and office assistants. And the highlight of my job was when I got to use the shredder. So the teenager me remember thinking, boy, this is a lot of photocopying. If only you could write software for the robot. Something to automate this, maybe I could do something else. So I think a lot of my work since then has centered on the theme of automation. Even the way I think about machine learning today, we're very good at writing learning algorithms that can automate things that people can do or even launching the first open line courses that later that Coursera. [00:04:37] I was trying to automate what could be automatable in how I was teaching on campus process of education, try to automate parts of that to make it more sort of to have more impact from a single teacher. A single educator. [00:04:52] Yeah, I felt your teacher, Stanford teaching machine learning to about 400 tons a year at the time. And I found myself forming the exact same video every year, telling the same jokes in the same room. And I thought, why am I doing this? Why would just take last year's video and then I can spend my time building a deeper relationship with students. So that process of thinking through how to do that, that led to the first first that we launched. [00:05:19] And then you have more time to write new jokes. Are there favorite memories from your early days at Stanford teaching thousands of people in person and then millions of people online, you know, teaching online? [00:05:34] What not many people know was that a lot of those videos were shot between the hours of 10 p.m. and three a.m.. [00:05:44] Yeah, a lot of times watching the first movie last night with our in-house, of course, by 100000 people signed up. We just started to write the code and we had not yet actually filmed the video. So we had a lot of pressure. A hundred thousand people waiting for us to produce the content. So many Fris surveys, I would go out, have dinner, my friends, and then I would think, OK, do you want to go home now or do you want to go to the office to film videos? [00:06:12] And the thought of, you know, the hundred thousand people potentially learn machine learning? Fortunately, that made me think, OK, I might go to my office, go to my tiny little recording studio, I would adjust my webcam, adjust my, you know, Wacom tablet, made sure my lapel mike was on. And then there was start recording often until 2:00 a.m. or 3:00 a.m. I think I'm fortunate it doesn't doesn't show that it was recorded that late at night, but it was really inspiring the thought that we could create content to help so many people learn about machine learning. [00:06:45] How did that feel? The fact that you're probably somewhat along, maybe a couple of friends recording with a Logitech webcam and kind of going home alone at 1:00 or 2:00 a.m. at night and knowing that that's going to reach sort of thousands of people, eventually millions of people. It was that feeling like I mean, is there a feeling of just satisfaction of pushing through? [00:07:11] I think it's humbling. And I wasn't thinking about whether I was viewing. I think one thing we have to say right from the early days was I told my whole team back then that the number one priority is to do what's best for leeriness, do what's best for students. [00:07:26] And so when I went to the recording studio, the only thing on my mind was what can I say? How can I design my size, whether it's a draw, right. To make this concept as clear as possible for learners. I think your. [00:07:39] Sometimes instructors, it's tempting to say, hey, let's talk about my work, maybe if I teach you about my research, some will cite my papers a couple more times. And I think one thing is we can't right like the first few months later. But I think Sarah was put in a place that bedrock principle of let's just do what's best for learners and forget about everything else. And I think that that is a guiding principle turned out to be really important to the to the rise of the movement. [00:08:04] And the kind of learner you imagined in your mind is as as broad as possible, as global as possible. [00:08:11] So really try to reach as many people interested in machine learning and AI as possible. [00:08:17] I really want to help anyone that has an interest in machine learning to break into the field. And and I think sometimes people ask me, hey, why are you spending so much time explaining gradient descent? And my answer was, if I look at what I think the learning needs and would benefit from, I felt that having that a good understanding of the foundations coming back to the basics would put them in a better stead to then build on the long term career. [00:08:44] So try to consistently make decision on that principle. [00:08:48] So one of the things he actually revealed to the narrow aid community at the time and to the world is that the amount of people who are actually interested now is much larger than we imagined by you teaching the class and how popular it became. [00:09:04] It showed that, wow, this isn't just a small community of sort of people who go to new groups and and it's much bigger. It's developers. It's people from all over the world. I mean, I'm Russian. So is everybody in Russia is really this is a huge number of programmers who are interested in machine learning, India, China, South America, everywhere, that there's just millions of people who are interested in machine learning. So how big do you get a sense that this the number of people that are interested from your perspective? [00:09:37] I think the number's grown over time. I think one of those things that maybe it feels like it came out of nowhere, a person inside insider building, it took years. It's not those overnight successes that took years to get there. My first foray into this type of education was when reforming my Stanford class and sticking the videos on YouTube and then some of the things we had uploaded, the halls and so on. But, you know, basically the one hour, 15 minute video that we put on YouTube and then we had four or five other versions of websites that had built, most of which you would never have heard of because they were small audiences. [00:10:13] But that allowed me to innovate, allow my team and me to innovate, to learn what the ideas that work and what doesn't. Oh, for example, one of the features I was really excited about and really proud of was build this website where multiple people could be logged into the website at the same time. So today, if you go to the website, you know, if you are logged in and then I want to log in, you need to log out is the same browser, the same computer. [00:10:36] But I thought, well, what if two people say you and me were watching a video together in front of a computer, what a website could have. You type your name and password might have in your password. And now the computer knows both of us are watching together and it gives both of us credit for anything we do as a group. Influencers feature rolled it out in a in a school in San Francisco. We had about twenty something users. Was the teacher there at Sacred Heart Cathedral. [00:11:02] Perhaps it was great. And guess what? Zero people use this feature. It turns out people studying online, they want to watch the videos by themselves so you can play back, pause at your own speed rather than in groups. So that was one example of a timely lesson learned are the many that allowed us to hone in to the set of features. And it sounds like a brilliant feature. So I guess the lesson to take from that is if there's something that looks amazing on paper and then nobody uses it doesn't actually have the impact that you think it might have. [00:11:35] So, yeah, I saw that you really went through a lot of different features and a lot of ideas had to arrive at the Coursera final kind of powerful thing that showed the world that Mook's can educate millions. [00:11:49] And I think the whole machine learning movement as well, I think it didn't come out of nowhere. Instead, what happened was as more people learn about machine learning, they will tell their friends and their friends will see how applicable to their work and and in the community keep on growing. And I think we're still growing. You know, I don't know in the future what percentage of our developers will be developers. I could easily see it being north of 50 percent. [00:12:16] Right. Because so many developers broadly construed not just people doing the particular any modeling, but the people by the infrastructure, the pipelines, all the software surrounding the core machine learning model maybe is even bigger. [00:12:32] I feel like today almost every software engineer has some understanding of the cloud, not all. [00:12:40] Microcontroller developer does need to do, but I feel like the vast majority of software engineers today are sort of having appreciates the cloud. I think in the future, maybe we're approaching nearly 100 percent of all developers being, you know, in some way and API developer or at least having an appreciation of machine learning. [00:12:59] And my hope is that that there's this kind of effect that there's people who are not really interested in being a programmer or being into software engineering, like biologists, chemists and physicists, even mechanical engineers, all these disciplines that are now more and more sitting on large datasets. And here they didn't think they're interested in programming until they have this data set and they realize there's this set of machine learning tools that allow you to use the data. So they actually become they learn to program and they become new programmers. [00:13:30] So like the not just because you've mentioned a larger percentage of developers become machine learning people. The it seems like more and more the the kinds of people who are becoming developers is also growing significantly. [00:13:44] Yeah, yeah. I think I think once upon a time only a small part of humanity was literate. You could read and write and and maybe you thought maybe not everyone needs to learn to read and write. You just go listen to it a few months read to you and maybe that was enough. Or maybe just need a few handful of authors to write the bestsellers and then no one else needs to write. But what we found was that by giving as many people, you know, in some countries almost everyone basic literacy, it dramatically enhanced human to human communications. [00:14:16] And we can now write for an audience of one, such as if I sent you an email, you sent me an email. [00:14:22] I think in computing we're still in that phase where so few people know how to code that the coders mostly have to kofa relatively large audiences. [00:14:31] But if everyone well, most people became developers at some level, similar to how most people in developed economies are somewhat literate. I would love to see the owners of our mom and pop store. People have very little of the code to customize the TV display for their special this week and I think enhance human to computer communications, which is becoming more and more important today as well. [00:14:56] So you think you think it's possible that machine learning becomes kind of similar to literacy? Where where? Yeah, like you said, the owners of a mom and pop shop is basically everybody in all walks of life would have some degree of programming capability. [00:15:12] I can see society getting there. Does one of the interesting thing, you know, if I go talk to mom and pop store that has a lot of people in their daily professions, I previously didn't have a good story for why they should learn to code, give them some reasons. But what I found with the rise of machine learning and data science is that I think the number of people with a concrete use for data science in their daily lives and their jobs may be even larger than the number of people who have country used for software engineering. [00:15:42] For example, if you actually if you run a small mom and pop store, I think if you can analyze the data about your sales, your customers, I think there's actually a real value there, maybe even more than traditional software engineering. So I find it for a lot of my friends in various professions, be it recruiters or accountants or, you know, people that work in the factories, which I deal with more and more these days. I few if they were data scientist at some level, they could immediately use that in their work. [00:16:11] So I think that data science of machine learning maybe an even easier entry into the developing world. A lot of people then the software engineering, that's interesting and I agree with that. [00:16:22] But it's a beautifully put. We live in a world where most courses and talks have slides, PowerPoint, you know, and yet you famously often still use a marker and a whiteboard. The simplicity of that is compelling and for me, it least fun to watch. Thank you. So let me ask, why do you like using a marker and whiteboard, even the biggest of stages? [00:16:46] I think it depends on the concepts you can explain for mathematical concepts. It's nice to build out the equation one piece of the time and the whiteboard marker or the pen install. This is a very easy way to build up the equation. A bit of a complex concept, one piece at a time, why you're talking about it. And sometimes that enhances understandability. The downside of writing is that it's slow. And so if you want a long sentence, it's very hard to write that. [00:17:14] So I think there are pros and cons and sometimes I use slides and sometimes I use a whiteboard or a stylist. The slowness of a whiteboard is also upside because it forces you to reduce everything to the basics. So some of some of your talks involve the whiteboard. I mean, it's there's really no you go very slowly and you really focus on the most simple principles. And it's a beautiful. That enforces a kind of a minimalism of ideas that I think is surprising, at least for me, is is great for education, like a great talk, I think is not one that has a lot of content. [00:17:54] A great task is one that just clearly says a few simple ideas. And I think you see the whiteboard somehow reinforces that. Peter Abele, who is now one of the top roboticists and reinforcement learning experts of the world, was your first student. [00:18:11] So I bring him up just because I kind of imagined this is this was must have been an interesting time in your life. Do you have any favorite memories of working with Peter to your first student in those uncertain times, especially before deep learning? Really, really sort of blew up and your favorite memories from those times? Yeah, I was really fortunate to have Peter upon my first student, and I think even my long term professional success builds on early foundations or early work that that that Peter was so critical to. [00:18:47] So it was really grateful to him for working with me. [00:18:51] You know what not a lot of people know is just how hard research was and still is. Um, Peter's thesis was using reinforcement, learning to fly helicopters. And so, you know, even today, the website Hellie that Stanford, either Stanford I used to go up and watch videos of us using reinforcement, learning to make a helicopter fly upside down. Values is so cool. [00:19:17] It's one of the most incredible robotics videos ever. [00:19:19] So pleased to watch it. Oh, yeah, inspiring. That's from like two thousand eight or seven or six like that or something like that. Yeah. So it was over 10 years old. That was really inspiring to a lot of people. What not many people see is how hard it was. So Peter and Adam Kohl's and Morgan Quigley and I were working on various versions of the helicopter and a lot of things did not work, for example. Turns out one of the hardest times we had was when the helicopters flying around upside down doing stunts. [00:19:50] How do you figure out the position? How do you localize a helicopter? So we want to try all sorts of things. Having one GPS unit doesn't work because you're flying upside down the GPS unit facing down so you can't see the satellite. So we tried we we experimented trying to have two GPS units, one facing up, one facing down. So if you flip over, that didn't work because the downward facing one couldn't synchronize. If you're flipping quickly, Morgan quickly was exploring this crazy, complicated configuration of specialized hardware to interpret GPS signals. [00:20:22] Look at it, which is completely insane. Spent about a year working on that. Didn't work. So remember Peter, great guy, him and me, you know, sitting down in my office looking at sort of the latest things we had tried that didn't work and saying, you know, darn it, what now? [00:20:40] Because because we tried so many things in it and it just didn't work. In the end, what we did in Adam Coatsworth was crucial to this was put cameras on the ground and use cameras on the ground to localize the helicopter and that software localization problem so that we could then focus on the reinforcement, learning and interest and also learning techniques to didn't actually meet a helicopter fly. [00:21:04] Um, and, you know, I'm reminded when I was doing this work at Stanford around that time, there was a lot of reinforcement learning, theoretical papers, but not a lot of practical applications. So the autonomous helicopter were flying helicopters. Was this one of the few practical applications of reinforcement learning at the time which which caused it to become pretty well known? I feel like we might have almost come full circle with the data, so much about so much hype, so much excitement about reinforcement learning for the game. [00:21:36] We're hunting for more applications of all of these great ideas that he's come up with. [00:21:42] What was the drive sort of in the face of the fact that most people doing theoretical work, what motivate you in the uncertainty and the challenges to get the helicopter to do the applied work, to get the actual system to work? Yeah, in the face of fear, uncertainty is sort of the setbacks that you mentioned for localization. I think stuff that works I in the physical world. So like it's back to the shredder and, you know, I like theory, but when I work on the theory myself and its personal taste, I'm not seeing anyone else to do what I do when I work on theory. [00:22:19] I probably enjoy it more if I feel that my the work I do will influence people, have positive impact or help someone. [00:22:29] I remember when many years ago I was speaking with a mathematics professor and it kind of just said, hey, why do you do what you do? And then. He said, you know, he had stars in his eyes when he answered and this mathematician not from Stanford University. He said, I do what I do because it helps me to discover truth and beauty in the universe. He has thousands, he said, and that's great. [00:22:58] I don't want to do that. I think it's great that someone does that fully support the people that do a lot of respect for you that but I am more motivated when I can see a line to how the work that my team and I are doing helps people. [00:23:14] The world needs all sorts of people. I'm just one type. I don't think everyone should do things the same way as I do. But I when I delve into either theory or practice, if I press the have conviction, you know that here's a part of help people. I find that more satisfying to have that conviction that that's your path. Yeah. You were a proponent of deep learning before I gained widespread acceptance. What did you see in this field that gave you confidence? [00:23:43] What was your thinking process like in that first decade of the I don't know what that's called to thousands the odds? [00:23:51] Yeah, I can tell you the thing we got wrong with the thing we got right. The thing we really got wrong was the importance of the erm the importance of unsupervised learning. So early days of Google brain, we put a lot of effort into unsupervised learning rather than supervised learning. And there was this argument, I think it was around 2005 after NeuroPace at that time, Nipsy, but now NeuroPace had ended and Jeff and I were sitting in the cafeteria outside the conference. [00:24:20] We had lunch with us chatting and Geoff pulled up the snack and he started sketching this argument on a on a napkin. It was very compelling of repeated human brain has about 100 trillion. So there's 10 to the 14 synaptic connections. You will live for about ten to nine seconds. That's 30 years. You actually live for two to two by 10 today, maybe three by ten, ten, nine seconds. So just let's say ten tonight. So if each synaptic connection, each weight in your brains, your network has just a one bit parameter, that's 10 to the 14 bits you need to learn in up to ten to nine seconds of your life. [00:24:59] So by the simple argument, which a lot of problems is very simplified, that's 10 to the five bits per second you need to learn in your life. And I have a one year old daughter. I am not pointing out twenty five per second of labels to her. [00:25:16] So and I think I'm a very loving parent, but I'm just not going to do so from this, you know, very crude, definitely problematic argument. There's just no way that most of what we know is through supervised learning, the way she gets so many bits of information from satellite images, audio, just experiences in the world. And so that arguments and there are a lot of no forces argument is going to really convince me that this lot about unsupervised learning. [00:25:46] So that was the part that we actually maybe maybe got wrong. I still think unsupervised learning is really important. But we both the early days, you know, 10, 15 years ago, a lot of us thought that was the path forward. [00:25:58] Oh, so you're saying that that that perhaps was the wrong intuition for the time. For the time that that was the part we got from the pie we got right was the importance of scale. So Adam Cote's another wonderful person, fortunate to have worked with him. He was in my group at Stanford at the time. And Adam had run these experiments at Stanford showing that the people we train a learning algorithm to better US performance. And it was based on that. [00:26:27] There was a graph that Adam generated, you know, where the X-axis Y-axis lights going up into the rights of the thing. The better performance accuracy is a vertical axis. So it's really based on that chart that Adam generated, that he gave me the conviction that you could scale these models way bigger than what we could on the few CPU's, which is we had the Stanford that we could get even better results. And it was really based on that one figure that Adam generated that gave me the conviction to go with Sebastian Thrun to pitch, you know, starting starting a project at Google, which became the Google brain branch brain. [00:27:01] You can find Google brain. And there the intuition was scale will bring performance for the system. So we should chase larger and larger scale. And I think people don't don't realize how how groundbreaking of it is. Simple, but a groundbreaking idea that bigger data sets will result in better performance. It was controversial. It was controversial at the time. Some of my well-meaning friends, you'll senior people on the machine are angry. I won't name, but people thought people, some of whom, you know, my well-meaning friends came and were trying to give me friendly visit. [00:27:37] Hey, Andrew, why are you doing this is crazy. It's in the new architecture. Look at these architectures of building. You just go off a scale like this is a bad career move. So so my well-meaning friends, you know, we're trying to some of them were trying to talk me out of it. They find out if you want to make a breakthrough, you sometimes have to have conviction and do something before as popular. Since that lets you have a bigger impact, let me ask you this then, a small tangent on that topic. [00:28:03] I find myself arguing with people saying that greater scale, especially in the context of active learning, so very carefully selecting the data set, but growing the scale of the data set is going to lead to even further breakthroughs in deep learning. And there's currently push back at that idea that larger datasets are no longer that. So you want to increase the efficiency of learning. You want to make better learning mechanisms. And I personally believe that bigger datasets will still with the same learning methods we have now, will result in better performance. [00:28:39] What's your intuition at this time? And those and the dual side is do we need to come up with better architectures for learning or can we just get bigger, better data sets that will improve performance? [00:28:55] I think both are important and there's also problem dependent. So for a few data sets, we may be approaching your base error rate or approaching or surpass the human level performance. And then there is that theoretical ceiling that we will never surpass or be there. But then I think there are plenty of problems where where we're still quite far from either human level performance or from base error rate. And bigger datasets with neural networks without further African innovation will be sufficient to take us further. [00:29:27] But on the flip side, if we look at the recent breakthroughs using, you know, transforming networks or language models, it was a combination of novel architecture. But also scale has a lot to do with look at what happened with GP2 and birds. I think scale was a large part of the story. Yeah, that's that's not often talked about is the scale of the data that it was trained on and the quality of the data set, because there's some sort of threaded threads that had there were uprated highly. [00:29:57] So there's already some weak supervision and a very large data set that people don't often talk about. Right. I find it today we have maturing processes to managing encode things like version control. It takes a long time to evolve the good processes. I remember I remember when my friends and I were emailing each other C++ files and email and then we had was that CBSA version get maybe something else in the future? We're very immature in terms of tools of managing data and think of how clean data, how the soft and very messy data problems. [00:30:32] I think there's a lot of innovation there to be. Has, though. [00:30:36] I love the idea that you were versioning through email. [00:30:39] I'll give you one example. [00:30:41] When we work with manufacturing companies is not at all uncommon for there to be multiple labels that disagree with each other. Right. [00:30:53] And so we were doing the work in visual inspection. We will, you know, take their plastic parts and show to one inspector and the inspector, sometimes very opinionated. They'll go, clearly, that's a defect. The Strache unacceptable to reject this part, take the same parts of different inspecteur, different Veria phonetic. Clearly the smallest find don't throw the way you're going to make Castillos. And then sometimes you take the same plastic part shirt to the same inspector in the afternoon, I suppose in the morning. [00:31:22] And very often they go in the morning. The secretary is OK and the afternoon equally confident. Clearly this is a defect. And so what is the item supposed to do if, if, if sometimes even one person doesn't agree with himself or herself in the span of a day? So I think these are the types of very practical, very messy data problems that that that that my teams wrestle with. In the case of large consumer Internet companies, we have a billion users. [00:31:51] You have a lot of data. You don't worry about it. Just take the average. It kind of works. But in a case of other industry settings, we don't have big data if just a small data, very small datasets, maybe around one hundred defective parts or a hundred examples of a defect. If you have only 100 hundred examples, this little labeling errors you if ten of your labels are wrong, that actually is 10 percent of it is that has a big impact. [00:32:16] So how do you clean this up? What are you supposed to do? This is an example of the of the types of things that my team does, Alanya example are wrestling with to deal with small data, which comes up all the time once the outside consumer Internet. [00:32:29] Yeah, that's fascinating. So then you invest more effort and time and thinking about the actual labeling process. What are the labels? What are the how are disagreements resolved and all those kinds of like pragmatic, real world problems? That's a fascinating space. Yeah, I find it actually when I'm teaching at Stanford, I increasingly encourage students at Stanford to try to find their own project for the end of term project rather than just downloading someone else's. Data set is actually much harder if you're going to find your own problem, if you own data, rather than go to one of the several good websites, very good websites with clean scoped data sets that you could just work on. [00:33:12] You're now running three efforts that I fund, lending AI and deep learning that I, as you've said that I find, is involved in creating new companies from scratch. Learning is involved in helping already established companies do AI and deep learning is for education of everyone else or of individuals interested of getting into the field and excelling in it. So let's perhaps talk about each of these areas first. Deep learning that I how the basic question, how does a person interested in deep learning get started in the field? [00:33:49] Do you find AI is working to create courses to help people break into A.I.? [00:33:54] So my machine learning course that I taught through Stanford is one of the most popular courses on Coursera to this day is probably one of the courses sort of if I ask somebody, how did you get into machine learning or how did you fall in love with machine learning or get you interested? It always goes back to engineering at some point. So even for the amount of people you influence is ridiculous. [00:34:20] So for that, I'm sure I speak for a lot of people say big. Thank you. [00:34:24] No. Yeah, thank you. You know, I was once once reading a news article, I think it was Tech Review. And I'm going to mess up the statistic that I remember reading article that said something like one third of all programmers are self-taught. I may have the number one server, almost two thirds, but I read the article. I thought, this doesn't make sense. Everyone is self-taught. So because you teach yourself, I don't teach people, I just know it's well put. [00:34:51] So yeah. [00:34:52] So how does one get started in deep learning and where does deep learning that I fit into that. [00:34:58] So do you play specialization offered by different ages. I think it was corsairs top specialization. It might still be so. It's a very popular way for people to take that specialization, to learn about everything from neural networks to how to tune in your network, to what is a confidant, to whether they are in an or a sequence model or what is an attention model. And so that is specialization steps everyone through those algorithms. So you deeply understand it and can implement it and use it for whatever from the very beginning. [00:35:33] So what would you say are the prerequisites for somebody to take the deep learning specialization in terms of maybe math or programming background? [00:35:43] Yeah, I need to understand basic programming since there are probing exercises in Python and the math pre-record is quite basic. So know calculus is needed. If you know calculus is great, you get better intuitions but deliberately tried to teach that specialization without requiring calculus. So I think a high school math would be sufficient if you know how to multiply two matrices. I think I think that that does that test grades. So there are basically algebra great pieces when the algebra even very, very basically the algebra and some programming. [00:36:17] I think that people have done the machine or any course or find it if the specialization a bit easier. But it is also possible to jump into the specialization directly. But it would be a little bit harder since we tend to go over faster concepts like how this gradient descent work and what is the objective function which discover more mostly in the machine learning course. [00:36:37] Could you briefly mentioned some of the key concepts in deep learning that students should learn that you envision them learning in the first few months, in the first year or so? [00:36:46] So if you take the deep learning specialization, you learn the foundations of what is in your network. How do you build up a neural network from a single logistic unit, a stack of layers to different activation functions? You learn how to train the neural networks. One thing I'm very proud of in that as we go through a lot of practical know how how to actually make these things work so well, the difference is different optimization algorithms. So what do you do with the overfit? [00:37:14] So how do you tell the algorithms overfitting? When do you collect more data? When you do not bother to collect more data? I find that even today, unfortunately, there are, you know, engineers that will spend six months trying to pursue a particular direction, such as collect more data because we hope more data is valuable. But sometimes you could run some tests and could have figured out six months earlier that for this problem, collecting more data isn't going to cut it. [00:37:41] So just don't spend six months collecting more data, spend your time modifying the architecture or trying something else. So go through all the practical know how. So that when when when when someone when you take the device specialization, you have those skills to be very efficient in how you. These networks to dive right in, to play with the network, to train it, to do the inference on a particular data set to build the intuition about it without without building it up too big to where you spend, like you said, six months learning, building up your big project without building an intuition of a small, small aspect of the data that could already tell you everything you need to know about that did. [00:38:23] Yes, and also the systematic framework of thinking for how to go about building practical machine learning. Maybe to make an analogy, when we learn to code, we have to learn the syntax of some foreign language, maybe a python or C++ or octave or whatever. [00:38:38] But equally important, maybe even more important part of coding is to understand how to string together these lines of code into coherent things. So, you know, when should you put something in the function column? Why should you not? How do you think about abstraction? So those frameworks are what makes the program more efficient, even more than understanding the syntax. I remember when I was an undergrad at Carnegie Mellon, one of my friends would debug their code by first trying to compile it, and then it was C++ code and then every line to the syntax error. [00:39:10] They want to get rid of syntax errors as quickly as possible. So how do you do that? Well, they were every single line of code with a syntax error. So really efficient. Figueiro syntax errors were hardly spoken. So I think so we learn how to debug and I think of machine learning. The way you debug machine learning program is very different, the way you do binary search or whatever. Use a debugger. I traced you the code in the traditional software engineering, so as an evolving discipline. [00:39:36] But I find that the people they're really good at debulking machine learning algorithms are easily 10x, maybe 100 acts faster at getting something to work. [00:39:45] So and the basic process of debugging is so. So the the bug in this case, why isn't this thing learning, learning, improving, sort of going into the questions of Overfitting and all those kinds of things? That's that's the logical space that the debugging is happening in with neural networks. [00:40:03] Yeah, the often the question is why doesn't it work yet or can I expect it eventually work? And what are the things I could try? Change the architecture of more data, more regularisation, different optimization algorithm, you know, different types of data. So to answer those questions systematically so that you don't heading down there, so you don't spend six months heading down the blind alley before someone comes and says, why should you spend six months doing this work concepts and deep learning. [00:40:31] Do you think students struggle the most with or sort of this is the biggest challenge for them was to get over that hill. It's it hooks them and it inspires them and they really get it similar to learning mathematics. [00:40:47] I think one of the challenges of deep learning is that are a lot of concepts that build on top of each other. If you ask me what's hard about mathematics, I have a hard time pinpointing. One thing is in addition, subtraction. Is it Carrie, is it multiplication of all this is lost stuff? I think one of the challenges of learning math and of learning certain technical fields is that a lot of concepts and you miss the concept, then you're kind of missing the prerequisite for something that comes later. [00:41:15] So in the deep learning specialisation, try to break down the concepts to maximize the odds of, you know, each component being understandable. So when you move on to the more advanced thing we learn, you have confidence. Hopefully you have enough intuitions from the earlier sections to then understand why we structure confidence and a certain sort of way and then eventually why we built, you know, our own hands on our or attention more in a certain way building on top of the earlier concepts. [00:41:45] I'm curious, you do a lot of teaching as well. Do you have a do you have a favorite? This is the hard concept moment in your teaching. [00:41:56] Well, I don't think anyone's ever turned the interview on me. I think I think that's a really good question. Yeah, it's it's really hard to capture the moment when they struggle. I think you put a really eloquently I do think there's moments that are like, aha. Moments that really inspire people. I think for some reason, reinforcement learning, especially deep reinforcement learning, is a really great way to really inspire people and get what the use of neural networks can do, even though that never really are just a part of the jibaro framework. [00:42:35] But it's a really nice way to to paint the entirety of the picture of a neural network being able to learn from scratch, knowing nothing and explore the world and pick up lessons. [00:42:46] I find that a lot of the AHA moments happen when you use DeParle to teach people about neural networks, which is counterintuitive. I find like a lot of the inspired sort of fire and people's passion, people's eyes, it comes from the real world. Do you find reinforcement learning to be a useful part of the teaching process or not? I still teach reinforcement learning and one of my Stanford classes and my PTSD as well on the field. I find it if I'm trying to teach students the most useful techniques for them to use today, I end up shrinking the amount of time I talk about reinforcement learning. [00:43:26] It's not what's working today. Now, I won't change it so fast. Maybe it'll be totally different in a couple of years, but I think we need a couple more things for reinforcement learning to get there to actually get there. Yeah, one of my teams is looking to reinforce the learning for some robotic controlled tasks. So I see the applications. But if you look at it as a percentage of all of the impact of, you know, the types of things we do, at least today outside of, you know, playing video games in a few other games, the scope that Newroz a bunch of us were standing around saying, hey, what's your first example of an actual deploy reinforcement learning application? [00:44:02] And, you know, among senior Mashinini researchers? Right. And again, there are some emerging ones, but there are there are not that many great examples. [00:44:12] Well, I think you're absolutely right. The sad thing is there hasn't been a big application, impactful, real world application, reinforcement learning. I think its biggest impact to me has been in the toy domain, in the game domain, in the small example. That's what I mean for educational purposes seems to be a fun thing to explore. And that works with. [00:44:34] But I think from your perspective, I think that might be the best perspective is if you're trying to educate with a simple example in order to illustrate how this can actually be grown to scale and have a real world impact, then perhaps focusing on the fundamentals of supervised learning in the context of, you know, a simple dataset, even like an data set is the right way, is the right path to take just the amount of financing people have of the reinforcement. [00:45:05] Learning has been great, but not in the applied impact on the real world setting. [00:45:10] So it's it's a tradeoff how much impact you want to have versus how much fun you want to have. Yeah, that's really cool. And I feel like, you know, the world actually needs also even within machine learning, if you like, deep learning is so exciting, but it shouldn't just use deep learning. I find it might use a portfolio of tools and maybe that's not the exciting thing to say. But some days we use the Internet, some days we use your T.S.A.. [00:45:37] I should are sitting down with my team looking at PC residuals, trying to figure out what's going on with PC applied to manufacturing problem. And sometimes we use a properly graphical model, something to use and all this trough with some of the things that has tremendous industry impact. But the amount of chatter about knowledge in academia has really thin compared to the actual raw impact. So so I think we faster than it should be in that portfolio. And this is about balancing how much we teach all of these things and what the world should have. [00:46:04] Diverse skills would be sad if, you know, everyone just learned one narrow thing. Yeah. The diversity will help you discover the right tool for the job. What is the most beautiful, surprising or inspiring idea in deep learning to you? Something that captivated your imagination? Is it the scale that could be the performance achieved scale or is there other ideas? [00:46:29] I think that if my only job was being an academic researcher have an unlimited budget and you didn't have to worry about short term impact and only focus on long term impact, I spent all my time doing research on unsupervised learning. I still think unsupervised learning is a beautiful idea. At both this past year and I came out, I was attending workshops or listening to various talks about. Self supervised learning, which is one vertical segment, maybe a sort of unsupervised learning that I'm excited about, maybe just to summarize the idea, I guess you know the idea of describing me now, please. [00:47:06] So here's an example. Self-service learning. Let's say we grab a lot of unlabeled images off the Internet. So with infinite amount of this type of data, I want to take each image and rotate it by a random multiple of 90 degrees. And then I'm going to train a supervised neural network to predict what was the original orientation. So it has to be rotated 90 degrees, 27 degrees or zero degrees. So you can generate an infinite amount of label data because you rotated the image. [00:47:36] So, you know, what's the structure of label. And so various researchers have found that by taking unlabeled data and making up label data sets and training a large neural network on these tasks, you can then take the hit in their representation and transfer it to a different task very powerfully on learning where the beddings, where we take a sentence to either work, predict the missing work, which is how we learn. One of the ways we were then beddings is another example. [00:48:05] And I think there's now this portfolio of techniques for generating these made up tasks. Another one called Jigsaw would be if you take an image, cuts it up into a three by three grit. So like a nine zero three puzzle piece, jump up to nine pieces and have a neuron. That's where I predict which of the nine factorial, possible permutations. It came from so many groups, including you Open the Eye. A PDP has been doing some work on this to Facebook, Google brain. [00:48:36] I think the My Aravinda all has great work on the S.P.C.A. So many teams are doing exciting work and I think this is a way to generate infinitely voltmeter. And I find this very exciting piece of the long term. [00:48:52] You think that's going to unlock a lot of power in machine learning systems? Is this kind of unsupervised learning? [00:48:59] I don't think there's the whole enchilada. I think it's just a piece of it. And I think this one piece on self supervised learning is starting to get traction. We're very close to it being useful. Well, within that is really, really useful. I think we're getting closer and closer to just having a significant real world impact, maybe in complete division and video. But I think this concept and I think there'll be other concepts around it, you know, other unsupervised learning things that I worked on, they've been excited about. [00:49:29] I was really excited about space coding. And I see a still feature analysis. I think all of these are ideas that various of us were working on about a decade ago before we all got distracted by how well supervised learning was doing work. [00:49:43] Yeah, that's a good return. We return to the fundamentals of representation, learning that that really started this movement of deep learning. [00:49:51] I think there's a lot more work that one could explore around the stream of ideas and other ideas to come with better algorithms. [00:49:57] So if we could return to maybe talk quickly about the specifics of deep learning that I had, the deep learning specialization, perhaps, how long does it take to complete the course, would you say? [00:50:10] The official length of the device specialization is, I think, 16 weeks, so about four months, but it's go at your own pace. So if you subscribe to the different specialization, there are people that finish that in less than a month by working more intensive study more intensively. So it really depends on on the individual what created the specialization. We wanted to make it very accessible and very affordable. And with, you know, Kazarian education mission, the one thing that's really important to me is that if there's someone for whom paying anything is a is a financial hardship, then just apply for financial aid and get it for free. [00:50:51] If you were to recommend a daily schedule for people in learning, whether it's through the deep learning that as specialization or just learning in the world of deep learning, what would you recommend how they go about day to day sort of specific advice about learning about their journey in the world of deep learning, machine learning? [00:51:12] I think I'm getting the habit of learning is key and that means regularity. So, for example, we send out our weekly newsletter, The Batch, every Wednesday so people know it's coming Wednesday. You can spend a little bit of time on Wednesday catching up on the latest news through the batch on the on on Wednesday. And for myself, I've picked up a habit of spending some time every Saturday and every Sunday reading or studying. And so I don't wake up on Saturday and have to make a decision. [00:51:45] Do I feel like reading or studying today or not? It's just it's just what I do. And the fact as a habit makes it easier. So I think if someone can get in that habit. It's like, you know, just like we brush our teeth every morning. I don't think about it if I thought about this a little bit annoying to spend two minutes doing that. But it's a habit that it takes no cognitive load but a so much harder we have to make a decision every morning. [00:52:10] So and actually that's the reason why we're the same thing every day as well. It's just one less decision. I just get out there where I'm sure. So I think if you get that habit, that consistency of studying, then that she feels easier. [00:52:23] So, yeah, it's kind of amazing in my own life. Like, I play guitar every day for the Air Force myself to at least for five minutes play guitar. It's it's a ridiculously short period of time. But because I've gotten into that habit, it's incredible what you can accomplish in a period of a year or two years. You can become, you know, exceptionally good at certain aspects of a thing by just doing it every day for a very short period of time. [00:52:49] It's kind of a miracle that that's how it works. It adds up over time. Yeah. And I think this is often not about the bursts of sustained effort and all nighters, because you can only do that a limited number of times is the sustained effort over a long time. I think you're reading through research papers is a nice thing to do. But the power's not reading to research papers, is reading through research papers a week for a year, then you've read 100 papers and you actually learn a lot. [00:53:17] We read a bunch of papers, so regularity and making learning a habit. [00:53:23] Divx do you have general other study tips for particularly deep learning that people should in their process of learning? Is there some kind of recommendation that tips you have as they learn? [00:53:37] One thing I still do when I'm trying to study something really deeply is take handwritten notes. It varies. I know there are a lot of people that take the deep learning courses doing a commute's or something where it may be more awkward to take notes. So I know it may not work for everyone, but when I'm taking courses on Coursera and I still take some every now and then, the most recent I took was a was a course on clinical trials because I was interested about that. [00:54:03] I got out my little Moleskine notebook and I was sitting at my desk, was just taking down notes of what the instructor was saying and that we know that that act of taking notes, preferably handwritten notes, increases retention. [00:54:17] So as you're sort of watching the video, just kind of pausing maybe and then taking the basic insights down on paper. Yeah. So there have been a few studies. If you search online, you find some of these studies that are taking handwritten notes because handwriting is slower, as we've seen just now. It causes you to recode the knowledge in your own words more. And that process of recording promotes long term retention distance as opposed to typing, which is fine. [00:54:46] Okay, typing is better than nothing and taking a class and not nearly as they're not getting any kind of law. But comparing handwritten notes and typing, you can usually type faster for all the people that you can hand radios. And so when people type, they're more likely to transcribe verbatim what they heard and that reduces the amount of recording and that actually results in less long term retention. [00:55:09] I don't know what the psychological effect there is, but so true, there's something fundamentally different about writing and handwriting. I wonder what that is. I wonder if it is as simple as just the time it takes to write a slower. [00:55:21] Yeah, and because because you can't write as many words, you have to take what they said and summarize it into fewer words. And that summarization process requires deeper processing of the meaning, which then results in better retention. That's fascinating. And I spent I think because of course are spent so much time studying pedagogy that you have a passion that I really love, learning how to more efficiently help others learn. Um, yeah. One of the things I do often creating videos or when we write the batch is I try to think is one minute spent of us going to be a more efficient learning experience than one minute spent anywhere else. [00:56:01] And we reach out to, you know, make a time efficient for the learners because everyone's busy. [00:56:07] So when when we're editing them, I often tell my teams every work needs to fight for his life and he can deliver where this is the lead to not wait. Let's not waste than there in this time. [00:56:17] Oh, that's so it's so amazing that you think that way because there is millions of people that are impacted by your teaching. And of that, one minute spent has a ripple effect right through years of time, which is just fascinating. [00:56:28] You talk about how does one make a career out of an interest in deep learning, give advice for people. We just talked about that at the beginning, early steps. But if you want to make it an entire life's journey or at least a journey of a decade or two, how did it how do you do it? So most important thing is to get started. Right. And I think in the early part of a career coursework like the. Specialization is a very efficient way to master this material, so because, you know, instructors beyond me or someone else or, you know, Laurence Maroney, teachers, I tend to specialization and the other things we're working on spend effort to try to make it time efficient. [00:57:13] For you to learn new concepts of coursework is actually a very efficient way for people to learn concepts at the beginning parts of break into new field. In fact, one thing I see at Stanford, some of my Puti students, when they jump in the research right away and actually tend to say, look, in your first couple years of didn't spend time taking courses because it lays the foundation is fine. If you are less productive in your first couple of years, you'd be better off in the long term beyond a certain point. [00:57:42] This materials that doesn't exist in courses because it's too cutting edge the courses we created as a practical experience that were not yet that good as teaching in the course. I think after exhausting the efficient coursework, then most people need to go on to either ideally work on projects and then maybe also continue their learning by reading blog polls and research papers and things like that. Doing is really important. And again, I think it's important to start small and just do something. [00:58:15] Today you read about deep learning. If you say, oh, all these people doing such exciting things, whether I'm not putting on their own network, they change the world, then what's the point? Well, the point is sometimes building that tiny neural network, be it a mess or a greater fashion amnesty to whatever, doing your own fun hobby project, that's how you gain the skills to let you do bigger and bigger projects. I find this to be true at the individual level and also at the organizational level. [00:58:41] For a company to become part of the machine learning. Sometimes the right thing to do is not to tackle. The giant project is instead to do the small project that lets the organization learn and then build out from there. [00:58:52] But it's true for individuals and for and for companies to taking the first step and then taking small steps is the key. Should students pursue or do you think you can do so much? That's one of the fascinating things in the machine learning. You can have so much impact without ever getting a Ph.D.. So what are your thoughts? Should people go to grad school? [00:59:15] Should people get a priority? I think that there are multiple good options of doing this. Could be one of them. I think that if someone's admitted to a top 50 program, you know, that might Stanford top schools, I think that's a very good experience. Or if someone gets a job at a top organization at the top of the team, I think that's also a very good experience. There are some things you still need to do. If someone's aspiration is to be a professor at the top academic university, you just need to do that. [00:59:48] But if your goal is to start a company, you build a company to create technical work, I think is a good experience. But I would look at the different options available to someone near where the places where you can get a job, where the pieces together run around and kind of weigh the pros and cons of those. [01:00:04] So just to linger on that for a little bit longer. What final dreams and goals do you think people should have? So, um, what options should they express? You can work in industry. So for a large company like Google, Facebook, Bida, all these large sort of companies already have huge teams of machine learning engineers. You can also do with an industry, sort of more research groups that kind of like Google Research, Google Brain. Then you can also do, like we said, a professor is in academia. [01:00:37] And what else? Oh, you can sort of build your own company. You can do a startup. Is there anything that stands out between those options or are they all beautiful, different journeys that people should consider? [01:00:50] I think the thing that affects your experience more is less. Are you in this company versus that company or academia versus industry? I think the thing that affects your Moses, who are the people you're interacting with, you know, on a daily basis. So even if you look at some of the large companies, the experience of individuals and different teams is very different. And what matters most is not the logo above the door. When you walk into the giant building every day, what matters most is who are the ten people? [01:01:17] Who are the 30 people you interact with every day? So I tend to advise people if you get a job from out from a company, ask, who is your manager? Who are your peers? Who are you going to talk to? We're all social creatures. We tend to, you know, become more like the people around us. And if you're working with great people, you will learn faster. Or if you get admitted, if you get a job at a great company or a great university, maybe the logo you walk and you know, it's great, but you're actually stuck in some team doing really work that doesn't excite you. [01:01:48] And that's actually a really bad experience. So this is true of universities and for. Companies for small companies, you can kind of figure out who you'd be working quite quickly, and I tend to advise people if a company refuses to tell you who you work with, someone say, oh, join us. The rotation system will figure it out. [01:02:06] I think that that's a worrying answer because it because it means you may not get sent, you may not actually get to to team with great peers and great people that work with. It's actually a really profound advice that we kind of sometimes sweep. We don't consider too rigorously or carefully. The people around you are really often, especially when you accomplish great things. [01:02:30] It seems that great things are accomplished because of the people around you. [01:02:34] So that's a it's not about the way whether you learn this thing or that thing or, like you said, the logo that hangs up top. It's the people that's fascinating. And it's such a hard search process of finding just like finding the right friends and somebody to get married with and that kind of thing. [01:02:54] It's a very hard search process that people search problem. [01:02:58] Yeah, but I think when someone interviews, you know, at the university or the research lab or the large corporation, it's good to insists on just asking who are the people, who is my manager? And if you refuse to tell me, I'm going to think, well, maybe that's because you don't have a good answer. I may not be someone I like. And if you don't particularly connect something feels off with the people, then don't stick to it. [01:03:23] You know, that's a really important signal to consider. Yeah, yeah. [01:03:26] And I see in my Stanford course. Yes. 230, I suppose in 89, I think I gave like an hour long talk on career advice, including on the job search process and to yourself so that you can find those videos on the Internet providers appoint people to them. Beautiful. So the A.I. Fund helps startups get off the ground. Or perhaps you can elaborate on all the fun things that's involved with. What's your advice and how does one build a successful startup? [01:03:59] You know, conversely, a lot of startup failures come from building products that no one wanted. So when you know, cool technology, but who's going to use it? So I think I tend to be very outcome driven and been customer obsessed. [01:04:17] Ultimately, we don't get to vote if we succeed or fail is only the customer that they are the only one that gets us thumbs up or thumbs down votes in the long term. In the short term, you know, there are various people who get various votes, but in the long term, that's what really matters. [01:04:33] So as you do Disturbia to constantly ask the question, well, the customer gives a give a thumbs up on this. I think so. I think startups that are very customer focused customer says deeply understand the customer and are oriented to serve the customer are more likely to succeed with a proposal, although I think all of us should only do things that we think create social good in the world forward. So I personally don't want to build addictive digital products. Just so I'm as you know, there are things that that could be lucrative. [01:05:06] They won't do. But if we can find ways to serve people in meaningful ways, I think those can be those can be great things to do, either in the academic setting or in a corporate setting or startup setting. [01:05:20] So can you give me the idea of why you started the A.I. Fund? [01:05:25] I remember when I was leading the AI Group at Baidu, I had two jobs to pass. [01:05:32] A major one was to build an engine to support existing businesses. And that was running just just performed by of the second part of my job at the time, which is to try to systematically initiate new lines of businesses using the company's A.I. capabilities. So, you know, the self-driving car team came out of my group, the Smart Speaker team, similar to what is Amazon echo Alexa in the U.S., but we announced it before Amazon did. So I do wasn't following I wasn't following Amazon that that came out of my group. [01:06:06] And I found that to be actually the most fun part of my job. So what I want to do was to build the fund as a startup studio to systematically create new startups from scratch with all the things we can now do. If I think the ability to build new teams to go after this rich space of opportunities is a very important way to very important mechanism to get these projects done that I think will move the world forward. So I've been fortunate to build a few teams that had a meaningful, positive impact and I felt that we might do this in a more systematic, repeatable way. [01:06:45] So a startup studio is a relatively new concept. There are maybe dozens of startup studios right now, but. [01:06:54] If you like all of us, many teams are still trying to figure out how do you systematically build companies with a high success rate? So I think even though my venture capital friends are seen to be more and more building companies rather than invest in companies, I find the fascinating thing to do to figure out the mechanisms by which we could systematically build successful teams, successful businesses in areas that we find meaningful. [01:07:20] So Startup Studio is something is a place and a mechanism for startups to go from zero to success to try to develop a blueprint is actually a place for us to build startups from scratch. So we often bring in founders and work with them or maybe even have existing ideas that we match founders with. And then this launches, you know, hopefully into successful companies. [01:07:48] So how close are you to figuring out a way to automate the process of starting from scratch and building successful startups? [01:07:57] Yeah, I think we've we've been constantly improving and iterating on our processes for how we do that. [01:08:05] So things like, you know, honey, customer calls we need to make in order to get customer validation. How do you make sure that the technology can be built? [01:08:12] Quite a lot of our businesses need cutting edge machine learning algorithm. So kind of our rules are developed in the last one or two years. And even if it works in a research paper, it turns out the production is really high. There are a lot of issues for making these things work in the real life that are not widely actress in academia. So how do we validate that this is actually doable? How did the team get the specialized domain knowledge being an education or health care or whatever that you are focusing on? [01:08:40] So I think we're actually getting we've been getting much better at giving the entrepreneurs a high success rate. But I think we're still I think the whole world is still in the early phases picking this up. [01:08:52] Where do you think there is some aspects of that process that are transferable from one startup to another to another to another? Yeah, very much so. You know, starting a company to most entrepreneurs is a is a really lonely thing. And I've seen so many entrepreneurs not know how to make certain decisions, like when do you need to. How do you do B2B sales if you don't know that this is really hard or how do you market this efficiently other than your buying ads, which is really expensive? [01:09:25] Are there more efficient tactics of that or are for a machine learning project? You know, basic decisions can change the course of weather machine learning, product works or not. And so there are so many hundreds of decisions that entrepreneurs need to make and making a mistake and a couple of key decisions can have a huge impact on the fate of the company. So I think it's another studio provides a support structure that makes starting a company much less of a lonely experience. [01:09:53] And also, when facing with these key decisions, like trying to hire your first VP of engineering, what's the selection criteria? How do you sort of I heard this person or not by helping, but by having an ecosystem around the entrepreneurs, the founders to help. [01:10:12] I think we helped them at the key moments and hopefully cyclically make them more enjoyable and then higher success rate for somebody to brainstorm with in these very difficult decision points and also to help them recognize what they may not even realize is a key decision points. That's the first and probably the most important part. [01:10:34] Yeah, I say one other thing I think of building companies is one thing, but I feel like it's really important that we build companies that move the world forward. For example, within their fan team, that was once an idea for a new company that if it had succeeded, would have resulted in people watching a lot more videos. In a certain narrow vertical type of video I looked at, the business case was fine, the revenue case was fine. [01:11:04] But I looked I just said, I don't want to do this. You know, I don't actually just want to have a lot more people watch. This type of video was an education that was educational. And so and so I got the idea on the basis that I didn't think it would actually help people. [01:11:19] So whether building companies or work of enterprises or doing personal projects, I think it's up to each of us to figure out what's the difference, who want to make in the world with learning. [01:11:32] I you help already established companies grow their AI and machine learning efforts. How does a large company integrate machine learning into their efforts? [01:11:42] AI is a general purpose technology and I think it will transform every industry. Our community has already transformed to a large extent a software Internet sector, most software into companies. Outside the top five or six or three or four already have reasonable machine learning capabilities or getting there is the room for improvement. But when I look outside the software into that sector, everything from manufacturing, agriculture, health care, logistics, transportation, there's so many opportunities that very few people are working on. [01:12:15] So I think the next wave, I must also transform all of those other industries. There was a McKinsey study estimating 13 trillion dollars of global economic growth to U.S. GDP is 19 trillion dollars or 13 trillion is a big number or Pewaukee estimate 16 trillion dollars. So whatever numbers is large. But here's the thing to me was a lot of that impact would be outside the software into that sector. So we need more teams to work with these companies to help them adopt by. [01:12:47] And I think this is one of things they'll make, you know, help drive global economic growth and make humanity more powerful. [01:12:53] And like you said, the impact is there. So what are the best industries, the biggest industries where I can help perhaps outside the software tech sector? Frankly, I think as all of them are, some of the ones I'm spending a lot of time on are manufacturing, agriculture, looking to health care, for example, in manufacturing, we do a lot of work in visual inspection where today there are people standing around using the eye, human eye to check if you know this positive part of the smartphone or this thing has a strache or dance or something in it, we can use a camera to take a picture, use a Alver of deep learning and other things to check Chekov's effective or not, and thus help factories improve youth and improve quality and improve throughput. [01:13:40] It turns out the practical problems we run into are very different than the ones you read about in most research papers. The data says they're really small, so we face maldita problems in the factories, keep on changing the environment so it works well on your test set. But guess what? You know, the something changes in the factory. The lights go on or off. We see we there was a factory in which burnt through the factory and put on something. [01:14:06] And so that, you know, so that change stuff and so increasing our robustness to all the changes happen. The factory factory runs like practical problems that that are not as widely discussed in academia. And it's really fun kind of being on the cutting edge, solving these problems before, you know, maybe before many people are even aware that there is a problem there. [01:14:27] And that's such a fascinating space. You're absolutely right. But what is the first step that a company should take? It's just scary leap into this new world of going from the human eye, inspecting to digitizing that process, having a camera, having an algorithm. What's the first step like? What's the early journey that you recommend that you see these companies taking? [01:14:50] I publish a document called The Transformation Playbook that's online and talked briefly for everyone course on Coursera about the long term journey that companies should take. But the first step is actually to start small. I've seen a lot more companies fail by starting to bake than by starting to small to even Google your. Most people don't realize how hard it was and how controversial was in the early days. So when I started Google Brain, it was controversial. You know, people thought deep learning leeriness tried. [01:15:24] It didn't work. Why would you want to do deep learning? So my first internal accustoming within Google was the Google Speech team, which is not the most lucrative project can Google, but not the most important. It's not Web search or advertising, but by starting small, my team helped the speech team build a more accurate speech recognition system and discourse, their peers, other teams to start up my favorite deep learning. My second internal customer was the Google Maps team, where we use computer vision to host numbers from Bessie Street View images to more accurately locate houses within Google Maps. [01:16:01] So improve the quality of your data. And there's only after those two successes that I then start to the most serious conversation with a Google ads team. [01:16:10] And so there's a ripple effect that you showed that it works in these in these cases and then it just propagates through the entire company that this this thing has a lot of value in use for us. [01:16:20] I think the early, small scale projects, it helps the teams gain favor, but also helps the teams learn what these technologies do. I still remember when our first GPU server, it was a server under some guy's desk and you know, and then that taught us early important lessons about how do you have multiple users share a set of CPUs, which is really not obvious at the time. But those early lessons were important. We learn a lot from that first GPU server that later helped the teams think through how the scale with up to to much larger deployments. [01:16:54] Are there concrete challenges that companies face that the U.S. is important for them to solve? I think building and deploying machine learning systems is hard. There's a huge gulf between something that works and a dupatta notebook on your laptop versus something that runs the production deployment, setting in a factory or a cultural plant or whatever. So I see a lot of people, you know, just having to work on your laptop and say, wow, look what I've done. [01:17:19] And that's that's that's great. That's hot. That's a very important first step. But teams underestimate the rest of the steps needed. So, for example, I've heard this exact same conversation between a lot of machine only people and business people. The machine, their only person says, look, my algorithm does well on the test set. And the Clinton said, I did the peak and the machine and the business person says, thank you very much, but your room sucks. [01:17:45] It doesn't work. And the machine only person says, no, wait, I did well on the test set. And I think there is a gulf between what it takes to do well in the test set on your hard drive versus what it takes to work well in a deployment setting some some common problems, robustness and generalization, you know, deploy something, the factory, maybe they chop down a tree outside the factory so that tree no longer covers a window and the lighting is different. [01:18:13] So the tax changes and in machine learning and especially in academia, we don't know how to deal with test distributions are dramatically different than the training set distribution. This research, the stuff like domain annotation transfer, learning that the people working on it, but we're really not good at this. So how do you actually get this to work? Because you tested distribution. That's going to change. And I think also, if you look at the number of lines of code in the software system, the machine learning model is maybe five percent or even fewer relative to the entire software system you need to build. [01:18:52] So how do you get all that work done? They make it reliable and systematic. It's a good software. Engineering work is fundamental here to building a successful small machine learning system. [01:19:03] Yes, and the software system needs to interface with people's workloads. So machine learning is automation on steroids. If we take one tasks out of many tasks that the factory. So a factory does lots of things. One tasks visual inspection. If we automate that one task, it can be really valuable. But you may need to redesign a lot of other tasks around that one task. For example, say the machine learning algorithm says this is defective. What are you supposed to do with youth or other way to get a human to? [01:19:31] Do you want to rework it or fix it? So you need to redesign a lot of tasks around that thing. You've now automated. So planning for the change management and making sure that the software you write is consistent with the new workflow and you take the time to explain to people when this happens. I think what Lanny has become good at and I think we learn by making missteps and new painful experiences for mining, what would become good at is working with our partners to think through all the things beyond just the machine learning model that you put a notebook to build the entire system, manage the change process and figure out how to deploy this in a way that has an actual impact. [01:20:14] The processes that the large software tech companies use for deploying don't work for a lot of other scenarios. For example, when I was leading, you know, Losh speech teams, if the speech recognition system goes down, what happens, what alarms goes off, and then someone like me would say, hey, you, twenty engineers, please fix this. But if you have a system go down the factory, there are not twenty machine engineers sitting around. [01:20:39] You can pay your duty and have them fix it. So how do you deal with the maintenance or the audit off? So the M.O. office or the other aspects of this? So these are concepts that I think Lanny and a few other teams on the cutting edge are, but we don't even have systematic terminology yet to describe some of the stuff we do because I think we're inventing and on the fly. [01:21:02] So you mentioned some people are interested in discovering mathematical beauty and truth in the universe and you're interested in having a big positive impact in the world. So let me ask the two are not inconsistent. [01:21:14] No, they're all together. I'm only half joking because you're probably interested a little bit in both. But let me ask a romanticised question. So much of the work, your work and our discussion today has been an applied I maybe even called narrow AI, where the goal is to create systems that automate some specific process that adds a lot of value to the world. But there's another branch of AI, starting with Alan Turing, the kind of dreams of creating a human level or superhuman level intelligence. [01:21:45] Is there something you dream of as well? Do you think we human beings love or build a human level intelligence or superhuman level intelligence system? I would love to get the ajai, and I think humanity will, but whether it takes 100 years or 500 or 5000, I find hard to estimate. [01:22:05] Do you have some folks have worries about the different trajectories that path would take, even existential threats of an aging system? Do you have such concerns, whether in the short term or the long term? I do worry about the long term fate of humanity. I do wonder as well. I do worry about overpopulation on the planet Mars, just not today. I think there will be a day when maybe, maybe someday in the future massively polluted. There are these children dying. [01:22:39] And some of the back at this video said, Andrew, how is it so heartless? You think about all these children dying the planet Mars. And I apologize to the future viewer. I do care about the children, but I just don't know how to productively work on that today. [01:22:52] Your picture will be in the dictionary for the people who are ignorant about the overpopulation on Mars. Yes. So it's a long term problem. Is there something in the short term we should be thinking about in terms of aligning the values of our systems with the values of us humans, sort of something that still Russell and other folks are thinking about as this system develops more and more, we want to make sure that it represents the better angels of our nature, the the ethics, the values of our society. [01:23:26] You know, if you think self-driving car is the biggest problem with social cause, it's not that there's some trolley dilemma and you teach that. So you know how many times when you are driving your car that you face this moral dilemma? Why would I crash into. So I think it's often cars will run with that problem roughly as often as we do when we drive our cars. The biggest problem, Saajan cars is when there's a big white truck across the road. [01:23:53] And what you should do is break and not crash into it. And Sushant car fails and it crashes into it. So I think we need to solve that problem for us. [01:24:00] I think the problem was these discussions about A.I., you know, alignment's, the paperclip problem is that is a huge distraction from the much harder problems that we actually need to address today. Some problems in just they I think bias is a huge issue. I worry about wealth inequality. The Internet are causing an acceleration of concentration of power because we can now centralize data using how to process it. And so industry after industry with the fact every industry. So the Internet industry has a lot of winner take most of winner take all dynamics, both with, in fact, all these other industries. [01:24:41] So also giving these other industries, when they take most of them, to take all flavors to look at what Uber and Lyft did to the taxi industry. So we're doing this type of thing to Lourenço this. So we're creating tremendous wealth, but how do we make sure that the wealth is fairly shared? I think that. And then how do we help people whose jobs are displaced? You know, I think education is part of it. There may be even more that we need to do than education. [01:25:09] I think bias is a serious issue. There are various uses of I like effects being used for various nefarious purposes. [01:25:17] So I worry about some teams, maybe accidentally and I hope not deliberately making a lot of noise about things that problems in the distant future rather than focusing on substance and much harder problems. Yeah. Overshadow the problems that we have already today that are exceptionally challenging, like you said, and even the silly ones, but the ones that have a huge impact, which is the lighting variation outside of your factory window, that that ultimately is what makes the difference between, like you said, the Jupiter notebook and something that actually transforms an entire industry potentially. [01:25:54] Yeah, and I think and just the some companies, the regulator comes to you and says, look, your product is messing things up. Fixing it may have a revenue impact. Was much more fun to talk to them about how you promise not to wipe out humanity at this interface. They're actually really hard problems we face. [01:26:13] So your life has been a great journey from teaching to research to entrepreneurship to two questions. One, are there regrets moments that if you went back, you would do differently? And two, are there moments you're especially proud of, moments that made you truly happy? [01:26:30] You know, I've made so many mistakes. It feels like every time I discover something, I go, why didn't I think of this, you know, five years earlier or even ten years earlier? And us and then sometimes I read a book and I go, I wish I read this book. Ten years ago, my life would've been so different. Although that happened recently and then I was thinking, if only I read this book when we were starting there, I could have been so much better. [01:27:01] But I discovered the book had not yet been written or starting out, Sarah, so that maybe it'd be better. But I find it the process of discovery. We keep on finding out things that seem so obvious in hindsight, but always takes us so much longer than than I wish to figure it out. [01:27:20] So on the second question, are there moments in your life that if you look back that you're especially proud of or especially happy that filled you with happiness and fulfillment? [01:27:35] Well, two answers. One, that's my daughter Nelva. Yes, of course. She's lying there with how much time I spent for. I just can't spend enough time with her. Congratulations, by the way. Thank you. And then second is helping other people. I think to me, I think the meaning of life is helping others achieve whatever their dreams and then also to try to move the world forward by making humanity more powerful as a whole. [01:28:01] So the times that I felt most happy or most proud was when I felt someone else allowed me the good fortune of helping them a little bit on the path to their dreams. [01:28:14] I think there's no better way to end it than talking about happiness and the meaning of life. So it's a huge honor for me and millions of people. Thank you for all the work you've done. Thank you for talking to. [01:28:24] Thank you so much. Thanks. Thanks for listening to this conversation with Andrew NG and thank you to our presenting sponsored cash app Download. It is called Leks Podcast. You'll get ten dollars and ten dollars will go to First, an organization that inspires and educates young minds to become science and technology innovators of tomorrow. If you enjoy this podcast, subscribe on YouTube, give it five stars, an Apple podcast, support and Pichon or simply connect with me on Twitter at LAX Friedman. [01:28:54] And now let me leave you with some words of wisdom from Andrew NG. Ask yourself if you're working on succeeds beyond your wildest dreams, which you have significantly helped other people. If not, they keep searching for something else to work on, otherwise you're not living up to your full potential. Thank you for listening and hope to see you next time.

本集資源與出處