第 394 期·中文精讀

內裡·奧克斯曼:生物學、藝術與與自然協同的設計工程學

Neri Oxman: Biology, Art, and Science of Design & Engineering with Nature

設計師與科學家內裡·奧克斯曼談跨學科設計,如何借鑑生物學與自然結構進行藝術創作與材料工程。

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

2020 年,地球發生了一次安靜的翻轉。

以色列魏茨曼研究所的羅恩·米洛(Ron Milo)團隊算出一個數字:人類製造的所有東西,總質量第一次超過了地球上所有生物的總質量。塑膠、衣服、建築、城市、柏油、混凝土,全部加起來,超過了從藍鯨到細菌的一切生命體。

內裡·奧克斯曼(Neri Oxman)是在一次 Zoom 對話裡知道這件事的。

“人生裡有那麼幾個瞬間會逼你重新校準方向。和羅恩的那次對話就是其中之一。人造物質超過生物質這個失衡擺在眼前,你不得不問自己:接下來往哪兒走?”(內裡·奧克斯曼)

她當時是 MIT 媒體實驗室的教授,領導一個叫“中介物質”(Mediated Matter)的研究組。十幾年裡,這個組在計算設計、數字製造、材料科學和合成生物學的交叉地帶做出一批讓博物館和學術期刊同時側目的作品。她也是建築師、設計師、藝術家。MIT 給了她終身教職,然後她離開了,搬到紐約,創辦了一家以自己的姓氏命名的公司:Oxman。

公司提出的口號只有三個詞:Grow everything,生長一切。

如果大自然有一部 iPhone

奧克斯曼對“自然”有個相當硬核的定義:自然就是一切非人造物。鳥、石頭、真菌、大象、鯨,都在這個集合裡。

她認為這個集合裡有某種東西,比“智慧”更高一層。她管它叫智慧。人類智慧解決的是怎麼把事做成,自然的智慧解決的是怎麼在四十億年裡持續活下去,而且越活越多樣。技術的作用,是把這層智慧翻譯出來。

她給了組數字對照:從第一臺計算機到今天,人類算力漲了大約一萬億倍,頻寬漲了 2650 萬億倍,記憶體漲了 115 億億倍。

然後她問:如果大自然也能拿到這些頻寬呢?

“超過基因和進化的層面,如果存在一種方式讓自然接入位元的世界,自然會長成什麼樣?自然能不能替自己做決定,不再被人類引導、看管和濫用?”(內裡·奧克斯曼)

她把這項研究的方向稱作“大分子模型”(large molecule models)。大語言模型靠的是人類幾千年積累下來的文字語料。自然的語言寫在分子裡,人類幾乎還沒開始採集這份語料。Oxman 公司的一部分任務,就是把五個生物界裡流通的這套語言量化、解碼,找出其中的語法。

公司內部反覆討論一個問題:自然到底想要什麼?

目前得到的答案是:自然想要增加資訊,同時降低熵。它要更多可能性,也要更多秩序。兩個目標聽上去互相拉扯,自然在幾十億年裡一直同時在推。

用機器人帶一條蠶幹活

MIT 時期的研究組做過一系列被人稱作“生長出來的建築”的專案。材料各不相同,邏輯統一:給自然搭一個可計算的模板,讓生物在模板裡幹活,成品由生物和機器共同完成。

最出名的是絲亭(Silk Pavilion)。第二個版本有六米高,後來被紐約現代藝術博物館收藏。參與建造的“工人”是 17532 條蠶。

一枚蠶繭的絲拉直了大約一英里長。蠶蓋房子只用兩種物質:絲素做纖維,絲膠做黏合。有纖維有膠,這兩樣原料就夠它搭出一座能完成變態發育的建築。吐絲過程中,它會按位置調節絲線的軟硬,靠近外殼的部分更硬,靠裡的部分更軟,跟著功能需求走。

團隊最初想用六軸 KUKA 機械臂模仿這個過程。後來組裡一個叫 Marcus 的工程師發現了一件事:蠶吐繭時會找一個垂直的柱子當錨點。把蠶放在水平面上,只要平面距離不到 21 毫米,它就不吐立體繭,改吐一塊扁平的絲片。

策略因此變了。機器人先列印出框架,蠶在這套框架上吐絲。框架不同位置的溫度、光照由程式調節,蠶會往更熱或者更亮的方向聚攏,密度自然而然產生變化。

“最後的成品看起來像是被一個龐大的蠶群協作完成的建築。蠶之間沒有任何通訊機制,它們也從來不是群居物種。是技術讓這些生物短暫地跳進了另一個生態位。”(內裡·奧克斯曼)

這裡有個挺妙的對照。奧克斯曼把整個生物界擺在一個二維座標裡:橫軸是材料上的複雜程度,豎軸是通訊能力。白蟻的通訊頂尖,能蓋出相對體量超越人類摩天樓的結構,材料卻只有唾液、糞便和幾粒土。蠶的材料功夫一流,通訊能力是零。它們是四千年前被人類馴化出來的物種,蠶蛾已經不會飛,存在的唯一目的就是吐絲供人使用。

絲亭專案乾的活,是用計算和機器人把蠶往通訊那一軸推了一把。

訪談裡 Lex 問她:你怎麼預測模板裡會長出什麼?

“如果你能預測它,那它就不算湧現。”(內裡·奧克斯曼)

蜜蜂上了太空,回來了,還能生

蠶之後是蜜蜂。

團隊先在波士頓 Somerville 附近的一個合作社裡搭了一個“合成蜂房”(Synthetic Apiary)。馬薩諸塞州的蜜蜂冬天要冬眠,一個冬天過去通常損失八成以上。他們把空間裡的溫度、溼度、光照全部控制住,給蜜蜂造了一個永久的春天。結果蜜蜂不光活下來,還能正常繁殖。一個冬天結束,鄰居分到了大量蜂蜜,蜂群活著被放回了野外。

這引出一個建築學問題:如果這種空間在任何一個城市都能讓蜜蜂過冬,它能不能成為一種新的城市型別,一種人類與其它物種共生的建築?

之後是太空版本。藍色起源的新謝潑德號有一個載荷位,團隊拿下了。

1982 年 NASA 也送過蜜蜂上太空,回來之後蜂群不能繁殖,還有一部分死亡。奧克斯曼團隊造了一個小型生命維持系統,一座“蜂王和她隨從”的生物實驗室,塞進一個艙位裡。他們研究了蜂王用來指揮蜂群的那套資訊素(Nasonov pheromone),讓資訊素在密閉艙裡持續釋放。任務結束後,蜜蜂回到媒體實驗室的樓頂,活著,能繁殖,繼續造巢。

研究最後發表在《自然》子刊上。論文裡有個發現:團隊餵給蜜蜂金奈米顆粒和銀奈米顆粒,用來追蹤蠟的流向,結果證明了蜜蜂其實會回收蜂蠟。在此之前,養蜂業一直認為蜂蠟是一次性的,用完就廢。

“我一直跟團隊說,作品要能同時登上 MoMA 和《自然》或者《科學》的封面。藝術和科學在我們這兒不分家,是一回事。”(內裡·奧克斯曼)

用大腸桿菌列印一張死亡面具

另一個專案叫《晚禱》(Vespers),做的是死亡面具。

傳統死亡面具照著死者的臉翻模。奧克斯曼想做的面具不基於長相,基於這個人的遺產和生物學。一共 15 張,分成三組:過去的面具、現在的面具、未來的面具,各 5 張。過去那組帶著古典裝飾和天然礦物,現在那組用上了合成生物學。

製作方式是這樣:把化學訊號編進印表機的樹脂裡,列印出面具的三維結構。然後把能產色素的大腸桿菌塗在表面。樹脂裡的化學訊號與表面的菌群發生反應,按照印表機原生解析度,每體素 20 微米,精確生成圖案。

乍看之下每張面具都完美對稱。仔細看會發現處處有偏差,這些偏差是設計出來的。

“我們就是要讓你誤以為它們對稱。”(內裡·奧克斯曼)

第一階段的面具只做表面。第二階段的設計思路轉向體積:表面的顏色滲入內部,在材料裡開出空腔和通道,這些通道被設計成讓生命流經的路徑。產色素的活體被引導著,去重構原本死亡面具的圖案。生替代死,死又生出新的生。

這個專案催生了一類新材料。團隊裡一個叫 Rachael 的學生把它寫進了博士論文,名字叫“混合活體材料”(Hybrid Living Materials,HLMs)。邏輯是通用的:如果化學訊號能指揮產色素的細菌,同樣的方法能不能指揮抗生素?能不能指揮黑色素?

SF MoMA 屋頂上的 Aguahoja 展亭就是這條線延伸出來的作品,用的是蝦殼裡的殼聚糖、蘋果皮、木漿裡的纖維素。團隊算過一筆賬:整座展亭內嵌的能量大約是四萬卡路里。展亭旁邊立著三塊鍾,實時顯示溫度、溼度,連著氣象頻道,觀眾可以看到這座建築正在以多快的速度降解回土壤。

作品裡有個細節:團隊計算了為列印這座展亭所消耗的全部電力,也計算了原料的運輸路徑。蝦殼來自地球另一端的某個漁場,蘋果皮和木漿各有各的來路,整個能量賬本橫跨了一整顆星球。

“談一件產品,不要停在那個物體本身。你要一路追到它背後的整個系統。”(內裡·奧克斯曼)

有一種蠶,她拒絕改造

絲亭完成之後,日本一位研究轉基因蠶的教授發郵件給奧克斯曼,提議合作:把蜘蛛的基因匯入蠶,讓蠶吐出能在黑暗裡發光的絲。技術路徑清晰,做出來的裙子會很美。

她拒絕了。

理由她講得很清楚:跟一個生物合作的前提,是這件事對它至少和對我一樣好。絲這件事上,人類四千年來的做法是:蠶繭扔進開水,蛹被燙死,絲被抽出。印度和中國這些產絲區,一件襯衫背後大約要犧牲一千個蠶繭。這個物種在四千年前被人類設計成一個只會吐絲、不會飛的活體工具,這個設定本身就值得重新審視。

“我們不該走到那一步,為了服務人類而改造生命,拿這些了不起的物種去冒險。”(內裡·奧克斯曼)

大腸桿菌她態度不同。細菌在地球上存在了三十多億年,人類沒有它們根本不會出現。用細菌做生產平臺,在她看來不需要同樣的倫理顧慮。

這個區分她自己也知道屬於灰色地帶。她說得很坦白:有些人天生習慣待在灰色裡,有些人習慣非黑即白,兩種人都需要存在。她丈夫比爾·阿克曼就是後一種。

你割草

你割草的時候,草在喊

訪談裡有個轉折點。Lex 問了一個“很飛”的問題:人類能不能跟植物對話?

奧克斯曼的回答是:已經在對話了。

割草坪時聞到的那股青草味,學名叫綠葉揮發物(Green Leaf Volatiles,GLVs)。它不負責好聞,它負責報警。一片草被切斷時釋放這些分子,周圍的草接收到之後會啟動防禦機制。植物之間用分子交流,不用語言。

植物神經生物學如今已經是個正經學科。植物沒有神經系統,但有一套類似的東西,只不過它運作的時間尺度極慢,比人類慢上幾個數量級。團隊最近發現,一株玫瑰在白天和夜裡釋放的分子譜不一樣,有一套晝夜節律控制著它在什麼時刻、面對什麼壓力、釋放什麼分子。一片茉莉花田在凌晨四點的味道那麼好聞,是有原因的。

“等到我們能解析這些分子層面的對話,能解碼這些分子的時刻,我們才真正開始和植物交談。”(內裡·奧克斯曼)

直接應用是精準農業。今天所謂的精準農業,是無人機飛到玉米地上空拍照,看到哪片葉子黃了,這時候已經晚了。如果讀得懂植物釋放的分子訊號,就能在脅迫發生之前知道它在說什麼,提前預測作物的生理走向。這不只是為了作物自己活得好,也為了人類想從中獲取的糧食、藥物、風味分子。

她還提到一件事:植物的時間尺度,人類得學著尊重。在膠囊裡設計一座生物多樣性艙,要看出一株植物在特定環境下的表現,需要的是幾年,不是幾個月,更不是幾天。這份耐心跟設計的雄心放在一起,本身就是一種姿態。

一棵聖誕樹和一棵紅杉

訪談進行到一半,她把話題拉到了時間上。

“想想那些聖誕樹。一棵樹長好要很多年。我們用它一個晚上,一年裡最神聖的那個晚上,然後把它扔掉。”(內裡·奧克斯曼)

一棵紅杉要長幾百年甚至上千年,才能把那些纖維素通道一層一層堆到那種高度。自然造一件“產品”,花的是幾百年、上千年的時間。

人類造東西的時間尺度,和自然的時間尺度,完全對不上。

她說自己不怕開一家以千年為設計尺度的公司。這話聽上去像修辭,背後有個具體的產品方向:從二氧化碳開始,經過生物過程,做成一件可穿戴物,被使用,然後回到土裡,長出一棵能結果的橄欖樹。整條鏈路不進入垃圾處理系統,直接進入土壤和光合作用。

現在的可降解材料大多隻解決鏈條上的一環。用菌絲做皮革,或者用纖維素做面料,做到那一步就停了。接下來組裝成鞋,還是要用膠水,還是要加防水塗層,前面做的功夫全廢。她想解決的是整條鏈:從碳回收技術,到產品,到製造工藝,能不能只靠機器人和微生物完成,不再需要人工組裝?

這個願景要面對資本主義的執行方式。有句話她講得很直白:必須做出真實的產品,進入真實的世界,被人使用,同時在人類受益的同時讓自然受益。這件事在當下這套經濟系統裡非常難,她要接的就是這個挑戰。

缺陷是一種表面積

Lex 問她:美是什麼?

奧克斯曼的回答只有四個字:美是能動性。

她引了巴克敏斯特·富勒的一句話,大意是:我做設計的時候從不想著美,做完之後如果它不美,我就知道我做錯了。美是判斷一個創造是否成立的最終檢驗。它不帶裝飾性,它是內在正確的外在訊號。

話題接著轉到不完美。日本美學裡有個概念叫侘寂(wabi-sabi):沒有東西是永恆的,沒有東西是完成的,沒有東西是完美的。她完全同意。變化是唯一恆定的東西。完美意味著刻板,意味著走不動了。

然後她說了一段整場訪談裡最漂亮的話。

“你可以把缺陷想成一種被增加的表面積。物理上或者情感上都成立。因為表面積更大,你才能掛上砂漿,才能蓋起一座房子。”(內裡·奧克斯曼)

一塊有缺陷的磚,比一塊完美的磚能更好地被砌進牆裡。人也是一樣。脆弱性就是情感層面的表面積,它讓你可以被連線,被粘合,被放進一個比你自己更大的結構裡。人如果沒有脆弱性,人和人之間就無法彼此固定。沒有這種粘合,人類在過去幾十萬年裡建不起任何文明。

順著這個思路,她把愛也放進去了。她引了愛因斯坦寫給女兒的一封信。信裡愛因斯坦說自己後悔花在相對論上的時間太多,陪女兒的時間太少,然後告訴女兒,他認為愛是塑造宇宙的那股力量。它像引力一樣吸引,像光一樣連線,乘上光速,就能真正改變世界。

她說完這段,自己都笑了,說:你可以叫我浪漫主義者。

資料、知識、智慧,再往上是什麼

訪談後段轉向了人工智慧。這個問題她顯然想過很久。

她給了一個認知階梯:

資料,是收集資訊的能力。

知識,是把資訊拿來用的能力。

智慧,是解決問題、適應環境、跨域翻譯的能力。

智慧,是對世界產生洞見的能力。

靈性覺知,是把世界引入全新疆域的能力。

她說大語言模型做的事,是一種自遞迴的機器過濾,用語言生成語言,再生語言。她承認裡面有真正的湧現,也真有新穎性被造出來,不只是隨機鸚鵡的復讀。同時她也指出,這還停在智慧那一層。語言呈現出有意識的樣子,不代表那裡真有意識。

然後她給出一個判斷,我認為是整場訪談裡分量最重的一句。

“當這個 AGI 聽起來像我,說話像我,行為像我,感覺像我,呼吸像我,我女兒分辨不出那是不是我,那就是人類能動性的終點。而人類能動性的終點,對自然來說可能是能動性的起點。”(內裡·奧克斯曼)

她的意思是這樣:如果把人類的全部文明、全部意識彙總起來,交給自然,讓自然第一次接觸到它從未接入過的那個意識世界,會怎麼樣?

從 Eliezer Yudkowsky 那種悲觀的視角看,短命的人類會變成一棵長壽的、有知覺的、會流淚的垂柳。從樂觀的視角看,那是一種不同的存在形態:人類創造、消耗、加工的一切,全部由六種元素組成,沒有 118 種,全是生物的那些東西,加上一定數量的位元、基因、原子,還加上很多貝多芬。

她還提到一個反向的思路:如果把時間尺度徹底翻轉呢?問一個類似 ChatGPT 的問題,但允許它花一萬年才給出答案。那種世界會是什麼樣?

什麼是生命

Lex 問了一個非常大的問題:什麼是生命?

她沒有直接給定義。她講了一段古生物史。

四億四千萬年前,第一批植物出現在陸地上。那時候還沒有種子,只有孢子。這些孢子附著在岩石上,把岩石裡的磷大量衝進海洋,比沒有它們的時候多出六十倍。磷讓海洋富營養化,氧被抽乾,海水變得極冷、缺氧,然後植物界整體死亡。

這場滅絕留下了孢子化石,也是這場滅絕,反過來改變了地球的土壤結構,為後來那些有維管系統、會開花、會結種子的新植物準備好了養分。地球史上五次大滅絕,第一次的死亡養出了當時的“新世界”。第六次正在進行中,人類站在風暴眼裡。

“死亡是生命的一部分。放到幾億年的尺度上看,生命這件事會呈現出完全不同的光。那時粒子變成了波,人類不再孤單,我們站在這裡,正因為有那些植物。”(內裡·奧克斯曼)

所以什麼是生命?她的答案是:取決於你看它的時間尺度。從一棵紅杉看,生命也許是十代人。從一株細菌看,生命也許是一毫秒。從一個 AGI 看,生命也許是整個人類文明。這個問題真正在問的,是提問者是誰,站在哪個時間刻度上。

愛是宇宙最強的第二導數

訪談裡她說過一句話,我反覆回味。

“我愛我女兒的程度,超過了進化所需。”(內裡·奧克斯曼)

她把“超過進化所需”當成了一個門檻。進化給的愛是有配額的,夠你撫養後代就行。人身上多出來的那一部分,最珍貴。她說她對伴侶也是這樣。

她還講了一個“第二導數”的偏好:她對事物的表層不太感興趣,總想往下追一層、兩層、三層。這套方法用在設計上,也用在生活上。她提到一個朋友給“命運”下的定義:

“命運是你是誰與你想成為誰之間的比值。”(內裡·奧克斯曼)

這個比值越小,說明你越接近你想成為的人。這個比喻裡藏著一個可操作的活法:如果現在的距離很大,說明你的行動還不夠。

每十年重啟一次,每口氣重啟一次

奧克斯曼說自己每十年會重啟一次。Lex 提醒她,這話是上一個版本的她說的。她笑了,說:對啊,那是上一個我說的。

她的人生裡有過一次很具體的重啟。在希伯來大學讀醫學院時,她祖母去世,她就在那個節點離開了醫學院,去學建築。成為醫生的那個夢想,就那麼放下了。

還有一次是 MIT。她說在 MIT,人們指著她說,這個設計師不拿引用指數當學術貨幣。拿終身教職需要看引用指數,她不看。她看展覽、看論文、看專利、看作品被慶祝的方式。她不認為這兩條路有高下之分。

後來她離開 MIT 去創業。她說自己也有那樣的早上:醒過來第一件事是問自己,我到底在幹什麼。她的處理方式是這樣的:

“我擁抱這些早晨,我在裡面找感恩,然後對自己說:謝天謝地,我居然有資格這樣焦慮。”(內裡·奧克斯曼)

她的團隊裡,人來自完全不同的背景。一個數學天才兼電腦科學家,一個機械工程師出身的合成生物學家,還準備招一個微生物學家和一個化學家,加上建築師、設計師、機器人專家。她描述的招聘標準不看簡歷,看“眼睛裡有沒有光”,要又飢又蠢(hungry and foolish,喬布斯那句話),要有行業經驗,知道“真實世界”是什麼樣,同時還要有一種不被現實壓壞的理想主義。

“他們是沉迷現實的夢想家,不是沉迷夢想的現實主義者。後者太多了。”(內裡·奧克斯曼)

她招聘時會問童年記憶,問音樂,問人際連線。她說從一個人怎麼講他自己的過去,能看出不少關於他未來的東西。

祖母的花園,音樂,和《教父》

訪談裡有一段關於她祖母,非常動人。

祖母家有一個花園。奧克斯曼小時候放學,祖母會給她一條毯子,說:作業在這兒做,朋友在這兒見。她印象裡那個花園非常大,裡面有棗樹,有橄欖樹,有蘑菇,有毯子,有她需要的一切。她不需要別的。

後來她回到那個地方,那塊地正在蓋一棟高樓。她看到那個花園其實非常小。

“那裡就是我的伊甸園,我的整個童年發生在那兒。”(內裡·奧克斯曼)

她把三份影響分得很清:父親教了她所有她“知道”的東西,母親教了她所有她“感受”到的東西,祖母教了她所有她“洞察”到的東西。

音樂這件事她也有很具體的偏好。她一直想不通:為什麼造型藝術,建築、雕塑、繪畫,極少能讓人哭,音樂卻能瞬間讓人哭,瞬間把人連線起來?她覺得音樂是波的語言,粒子的語言做不到這件事。它站在創造金字塔的頂端。

她愛倫納德·伯恩斯坦,什麼都聽,從排練錄音到講座錄影。她愛貝多芬。她說貝多芬這類人一直在背景裡“低語”,屬於那種古老的聲音。她喜歡一個人待著,讓不同的事同時發生:一邊聽伯恩斯坦,一邊讀《自然》論文,一邊翻《戰爭與和平》。把那些永恆的問題,和當下最新的技術擺在一起看。

電影她提了兩部。《教父》和《2001 太空漫遊》。

《教父》的理由是:科波拉用最簡單的手勢講忠誠、講人性、講義大利移民帶來的價值觀,片場像個義大利節慶,任何事都可能在任何一個瞬間發生。她跟科波拉合作過他的新片《大都會》(Megalopolis)。

《2001 太空漫遊》她專門講最後一個場景。她說那個場景是一種矛盾的化身:人類開端還是人類終結?是星球,是星孩,還是未來的星孩?那裡有死亡嗎?有轉世嗎?每看一遍她都有不同的讀法。她說如果讓她往下一艘旅行者號上放東西,除了那張金唱片,她會加上這兩部電影。

寫給還在找路的年輕人

Lex 最後請她給年輕人一些建議。她給了三個區分,每一個都非常具體。

職業和召喚。職業是被安排給你的東西,召喚是從內部推動你的東西。她說自己從來沒把工作當成職業,從來沒這麼想過。工作、生活、愛、渴望、存在、為人母,在她那兒全攪在一起,分不開。

受教育和學習。受教育是外部給你的,從上往下施加。學習從內部長出來。

快樂和喜悅。她說自己很多次處在悲傷之中,同時又是喜悅的。這兩者不是一回事。一個屬於外部評價體系定義的成功路徑,一個屬於內部價值驅動的活法。

關於成長,她講得最實在:

“成長是痛苦的,句號。任何形式的成長都不輕鬆。出生本身就艱難。真的,非常重要的一件事,是把自己放在不舒服的處境裡。”(內裡·奧克斯曼)

她說自己喜歡待在一個房間裡,房間裡每個人都比自己聰明,最好高出一個數量級。她說這話不是謙虛,她團隊裡每個人都是這樣。她還提到父親當年在廚房裡跟她說的一句話:你該走了,孩子,你在這裡能長的都長完了。那時候她在以色列唸書,原本打算去倫敦的建築聯盟學院讀文憑。

她講了自己從《遮蔽的天空》(The Sheltering Sky)裡讀到的一個細節。書裡問:你這輩子見過多少次滿月,而且真的停下來,認真看過它?答案是大概二十次。她說自己會花時間跟一輪滿月待在一起,會注意到節氣的變化,會花時間體會那些簡單的東西。這是她理解的“有意義的人生”具體長什麼樣。她說這是家裡教給她的,父母、祖母,一點一點磨出來的。

這段訪談裡她反覆用到的動作是:停下來,注意到,感恩。這三個動作聽起來很軟,但放到她那種節奏的工作和生活裡,其實是把抽象的東西落回具體的動作:看月亮、聞草的味道、在廚房裡聽父親說一句話。她的宏大敘事底下墊著的,全是這種小到幾乎不值得記錄的時刻。

能動性與湧現,被寫成了一行公式

訪談裡有一段討論被 Lex 打斷了兩次,值得單獨拎出來。

奧克斯曼說,她一直想給“讓自然獲得能動性”這件事找一個嚴格的定義。團隊裡一個叫 Christopher 的人給了她一個數學表述:

一個智慧體,如果它所有可能狀態的熵很高,而在給定某個動作之後單一狀態的熵很低,那它就是有能動性的。

翻譯成日常語言:一開始擺在面前的選擇要多到眼花繚亂,一旦做出選擇,結果要足夠確定。可能性的空間要寬,執行之後的落點要準。寬和窄同時成立,這個智慧體才真正掌握了自己的走向。

她把這個公式套到人身上。一個人手裡有無數條路可以走,當他做出選擇,這條路能帶他到達某個確定的地方,這個人就握住了自己的方向。套到一條蠶身上,套到一個蜂群身上,套到一片森林身上,同樣的結構都成立。

然後是湧現。Lex 追問這兩者的差別。

“有能動性的力帶著方向。湧現是多方向的。能動性可以催生湧現,但能動性可以沒有湧現。”(內裡·奧克斯曼)

她把設計史分成兩段。工業革命之後的兩百年,設計的核心是對形態、行為、功能的極端控制,這是從流水線上繼承來的本能。自然的做法不一樣:多樣性並不需要獎勵函式,翅膀長出來了,鱗片長出來了,沒有一個評分標準說哪個更好,它們就那麼發生了,累積出海量的可能性。

“設計的未來在軟控制。在於有能力設計出一套高度受控的系統,而這套系統本身允許失控發生。”(內裡·奧克斯曼)

這句有點繞,它是她整個方法論的樞紐。模板是硬的,模板裡發生什麼是軟的。機器人把溫溼度光照編排到毫秒級精確,蠶在框架裡想去哪兒去哪兒。控制之所以存在,恰恰是為了讓控制可以被交出去。

一瓶會跟玫瑰說話的香水

她講到公司第一款面向消費者的產品,是一種功能化香氛(functionalized fragrance)。

先說她反對什麼。現在市面上打著“生物基”“生物合成”旗號的香氛,很多時候是這麼生產的:為了做出 5 毫升玫瑰香精,要處理掉一萬株玫瑰。一萬株玫瑰要佔土地、要灌溉、要管理,還要產生大量廢料。她認為這筆賬根本算不過來,整個行業把它包裝成“可持續”來賣。

她想做的是另一種東西。香水裡那套分子不只讓人聞起來好,它還要能跟另一個生命體建立通訊。

“有沒有一種可能,你和我下樓走進你的花園,用一款香水,它和樓下的玫瑰園發生了互動。”(內裡·奧克斯曼)

Lex 順口說了一句“騙玫瑰園以為現在是凌晨四點”。她立刻糾正了這個動詞。

“不要用‘騙’。我喜歡的是給自然提供一種選擇。”(內裡·奧克斯曼)

這個糾正不來自修辭潔癖。給一個選項,和強制一個結果,是兩套完全不同的倫理。前者承認對方有拒絕的權利,後者只把對方當執行器。她反覆強調的那套數學,落到實際產品上,就是這一個動詞的差別。

Lex 接著把話題推向更浪漫的方向:玫瑰會不會做夢?假設植物有知覺,那麼玫瑰想要什麼?需要什麼?它夢什麼?

奧克斯曼沒有迴避這個問題,也沒有把它當成玩笑。

“我相信是有的。如果我不這麼相信,天啊,這個世界就太不好住了。我們都想要愛。”(內裡·奧克斯曼)

生態,裝在一個盒子裡

她提到公司新實驗室裡正在建的一批裝置:生物膠囊(capsules)。

每顆膠囊是一個微型生長艙。上層是環境模板的程式設計介面:光照、溼度、溫度可以精確到任意組合。下層是基因層面的調控:底層的基因編輯和環境干預可以在同一顆膠囊裡同時進行。氧氣、氮氣、二氧化碳、營養液全部按需投放。

他們給這套東西起了個名字:生態在盒子裡。

2019 年他們開始設計,訪談進行時還在施工。她說當初決定要做環境膠囊的時候,外面的人覺得他們瘋了:你到底在建什麼?

答案是:不知道。但知道此前從來沒有這樣一個空間,可以在那種粒度上控制生物體。

軟體行業這些年產品迭代那麼快,一部分原因是基礎設施便宜,試錯成本低。硬體和生物領域的產品迭代慢,因為每次實驗都要動用物理世界。這批膠囊的野心,是把生物實驗的試錯成本降下來。

具體能用來做什麼?她舉了幾個例子。

一顆膠囊里長透明木材,為建築用途。另一顆長鞋。再一顆做高通量定向進化(directed evolution),用細菌生產生物材料、可穿戴物、治療藥物。還有一顆專門跑那套“大分子模型”,具體技術他們準備在次年二月公開。

最妙的一個設想是:能不能用這些膠囊還原過去的味道?比如 1981 年 12 月 31 日凌晨五點,俄亥俄州,那個時候的西紅柿是什麼味道?把當年的溫度、溼度、光照還原出來,配上一組基因調控,也許能把那個風味找回來。反過來也可以往未來走:兩百年後的食物是什麼口感、什麼質地、什麼滋味?

還有一層更遠的想象。讓幾株植物在膠囊裡互相“交流”,給它們裝一套遊戲引擎和獎勵機制,讓目標函式等於固碳量。誰固碳效率高,誰留下;誰效率低,被淘汰。跑上足夠多輪,就能得到一組最優的固碳植物組合。然後把這套生態放回野外,看它在真實環境裡會怎麼表現。

“我們在做的事,是給植物加上它們本來沒有的那個維度。就像 Neuralink 給大腦加上頻寬,我們想給自然加上頻寬。”(內裡·奧克斯曼)

她提到一項讓她印象深刻的實驗:把小鼠神經元的活體細胞接在電極上,讓它玩乒乓球遊戲(Pong)。在培養皿裡,這些細胞表現出了類似於感知和意識的雛形。生物學家邁克爾·萊文(Michael Levin)把這類東西叫“溫柔的材質”,指的是擁有能動性的物質。

這件事對她的意義在:它驗證了“模板之後”的那一步是可能的。你搭模板,一直搭到不再需要模板為止,因為系統長出了自己的規則。

“我們不希望 AGI 身上發生的事,我們希望在合成生物學身上發生。軟體和語言領域裡我們警惕的那個東西,在生物基材料領域,正是我們想要的。”(內裡·奧克斯曼)

每個專案必須同時新在四個地方

訪談開頭 Lex 就丟擲了那句在節目裡被反覆引用的話,來自奧克斯曼本人:

“每開一個新專案,它必須同時具備多個維度的複雜性。它在合成生物學上必須是新的,在材料科學上必須是新的,在機器人上必須是新的,在計算設計上必須是新的。這四樣全湊齊了,你必然會做出點新東西。”(內裡·奧克斯曼)

這是她的立項標準,也是她招人的標準。缺一個就不做。

她講了玻璃那個專案。玻璃是建築裡最經典的材料之一,但他們做出了一個新的玻璃列印工藝,第一次把液態玻璃的流體力學講清楚了,那套數學和物理此前沒人做過。技術本身揭示了關於世界的新知識,這在她看來才算數。

她選作品的判斷標準也基於此:既能進 MoMA,又能上《自然》封面。兩個目標同時達成,它們是同一件事的兩個側面。

至於怎麼找到這些人,她的回答帶著一點不肯收斂的神秘感:

“我先把這件事在心裡 manifest,然後他們就會出現。”(內裡·奧克斯曼)

接著她補了一個更可操作的說法:要往深處看,一層一層往下看。當你看得足夠深、足夠專業,並且願意去看學科與學科之間的那道裂縫、那些缺陷,你能在那裡找到真正的鑽石原石。她那些招聘啟事,本質上都是投進海里的漂流瓶,等著對的人撿到。

她提了一個朋友的觀察,那位朋友是一所知名建築學院的院長。那位院長說,今天的建築師不想當建築師了,明星建築師不再是榜樣。建築師想透過“不建”來實現建造。這讓她想起六十年代,想起嬉皮士運動。她認為今天做這行的人身上得有一點嬉皮士,樣樣都通,同時又扎得足夠深。要謙虛。

他者的白色,和黑色素的顏色

她提到 Mandela Pavilion 那個專案,做這個專案的時候,團隊在讀《白鯨》。

麥爾維爾寫那頭白鯨,寫白色作為一種“他者”。白色在這裡失去了一切顏色屬性,變成了最讓人不安的那種存在。順著這條線,團隊去研究了黑色素。黑色素是從《晚禱》的死亡面具裡提取出的產物,也是人類皮膚顏色的根源。一個關於“他者”的文學命題,最後落在了分子層面和一個建築裝置上。

這就是她說的“把永恆的問題和時下的技術擺在一起”。

《戰爭與和平》在她那兒不只是讀物。她曾在推特上引用托爾斯泰:

“我所知道的一切,都是因為愛而知道的。”(內裡·奧克斯曼引托爾斯泰)

Lex 拿這句話做整期播客的收尾。它也確實是這場對話的一條暗線。技術、材料、機器人、合成生物學,這些是她做的事;做這些事的理由,她說得很清楚,是愛。

一個人能給出的最好的禮物,是注意到你

訪談最後有個段落,跟設計、跟生物、跟 AGI 都沒關係。

Lex 說,謝謝你注意到我,謝謝你聽我說話。他說從今天的交流裡,也從過去的交流裡,他能感覺到她把他當一個具體的人來關心,而非一個採訪者。他說謝謝你這樣做,謝謝你共情,謝謝你注意到我存在。

奧克斯曼的回答是:我也是,我完全一樣的感受。

然後 Lex 又提起他投了簡歷沒收到回覆這件事。她說:你被錄用了。

整場對話裡,奧克斯曼講了 17532 條蠶,講了上過太空的蜜蜂,講了用大腸桿菌列印的死亡面具,講了一棵紅杉用一千年長成的那些纖維素通道,講了 AGI 接管世界之後自然可能第一次獲得意識。收尾的這個瞬間,落在一個更小的地方:一個重要的人,花時間,認真地看見了另一個人。

這和她在訪談中段講祖母的花園是同一件事。那條毯子、那棵棗樹、那朵雲。她說那個花園什麼都長出來了,因為它被人認真地看著。

她給年輕人的答案其實也就是這一句:

“感恩、臨在、欣賞,是人生裡最重要的三件事。”(內裡·奧克斯曼)

剩下的都是這一句話的技術實現。

如果你也想試試這條路

奧克斯曼的做法裡有幾條普通人今天就能用的:

  • 審視手上的專案,問一句:它有沒有在至少兩個學科上是真正新的?只有一個的話,那大概只是應用,夠不上創造。
  • 從“取代自然”換到“給自然提供一個選項”。做產品時問:這東西對參與其中的生物(包括人)有沒有實際益處?沒有的話,別把“可持續”當賣點。
  • 把時間尺度拉長再收窄。先問這件事放在一百年裡成不成立,再問這個月能做什麼。順序反了就會陷在短週期裡。
  • 主動把自己放進不舒服的房間。找一個身邊每個人都比你強一個數量級的場合,定期去待一會兒。成長不舒適這件事沒有例外。
  • 區分職業和召喚。如果需要外部催促才做,那多半是職業。能做幾十年的,通常從裡面長出來。
  • 每週留出一段沒有輸出的時間,看月亮、聽一支曲子、讀十頁不為了工作的書。洞見在間隙裡發生,不在日程表裡。
  • 開始記“分子賬本”:一件東西從哪來,經過什麼,最後去哪。不必算到小數點,只要知道它橫跨了多遠。這一條能改變你對幾乎所有消費品的判斷。
  • 對身邊重要的人做一件小事:注意到他們,說出來。這件事的成本接近於零,效用超過大多數你能給的東西。
  • 把“我到底在幹什麼”的那些早晨留下來。別急著消滅它,它是你還活著的證據。
文稿來自 Lex Fridman 官網公開發布的官方 Transcript(含說話人與時間戳)。
Neri Oxman (00:00:00): Whenever we start a new project, it has to have these ingredients of simultaneous complexity. It has to be novel in terms of the synthetic biology, material science, robotics, engineering, all of these elements that are discipline based or rooted must be novel. If you can combine novelty in synthetic biology with a novelty in robotics, with a novelty in material science, with a novelty in computational design, you are bound to create something novel. Lex Fridman (00:00:30): The following is a conversation with Neri Oxman, an engineer, scientist, designer, architect, artist, and one of the kindest, most thoughtful and brilliant human beings I’ve ever gotten to know. For a long time, she led the mediated matter group at MIT that did research and built incredible stuff at the intersection of computational design, digital fabrication, material science, and synthetic biology, doing so at all scales from the microscale to the building scale. Now she’s continuing this work at a very new company for now called Oxman, looking to revolutionize how humans design and build products working with nature, not against it. Lex Fridman (00:01:13): On a personal note, let me say that Neri has for a long time been a friend and someone who in my darker moments, has always been there with a note of kindness and support. I am forever grateful to her. She’s a brilliant and a beautiful human being. Oh, and she also brought me a present, War and Peace by Tolstoy and Meditations by Marcus Aurelius. It doesn’t get better than that. This is the Lex Friedman podcast to support it. Please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, dear friends, here’s Neri Oxman. Let’s start with the universe. Do you ever think of the universe as a kind of machine that designs beautiful things at multiple scales? Neri Oxman (00:01:56): I do. And I think of nature in that way in general. In the context of design, specifically, I think of nature as everything that isn’t anthropomass, everything that is not produced by humankind, the birds and the rocks and everything in between, fungi, elephants, whales. Lex Fridman (00:02:19): Do you think there’s an intricate ways in which there’s a connection between humans and nature? Neri Oxman (00:02:24): Yes, and we’re looking for it. I think that let’s say from the beginning of mankind going back 200,000 years, the products that we have designed have separated us from nature. And it’s ironic that the things that we designed and produced as humankind, those are exactly the things that separated us. Before that we were totally and completely connected, and I want to return to that world. Lex Fridman (00:02:54): But bring the tools of engineering and computation to it. Neri Oxman (00:02:57): Yes. Yes. I absolutely believe that there is so much to nature that we still have not leveraged, and we still have not understood and we still haven’t. And so much of our work is designed, but a lot of it is science is unveiling and finding new truths about the natural world that we were not aware before. Everybody talks about intelligence these days, but I like to think that nature has kind of wisdom that exists beyond intelligence or above intelligence, and it’s that wisdom that we’re trying to tap into through technology. If you think about humans versus nature, at least in the realm, at least in the context of definition of nature, is everything, but anthropomass. Neri Oxman (00:03:49): And I’m using Ron Milo, who is an incredible professor from the Weizmann Institute who came up with this definition of Anthropo mass in 2020 when he identified that 2020 was the crossover year when anthropomass exceeded biomass on the planet. So all of the design goods that we have created and brought into the world now outweigh all of the biomass, including of course, all plastics and wearables, building cities, but also asphalt and concrete, all outweigh the scale of the biomass. And actually that was a moment. You know how in life there are moments that be a handful of moments that get you to course correct. And it was a Zoom conversation with Ron, and that was a moment for me when I realized that that imbalance, now we’ve superseded the biomass on the planet, here do we go from here? Neri Oxman (00:04:50): And you’ve heard the expression more phones than bones and the anthropomass and the anthropocene and the technosphere sort of outweighing the biosphere. But now we are really trying to look at is there a way in which all things technosphere are designed as if they’re part of the biosphere? Meaning if you could today grow instead of build everything and anything, if you could grow an iPhone, if you could grow a car, what would that world look like? Where the touring test for, I call this material ecology approach, but this notion that everything material, everything that you design in the physical universe can be read and written to as or thought of or perceived of as nature grown. Neri Oxman (00:05:46): That’s sort of the touring test for the company or at least that’s how I started. I thought, well grow everything. That’s sort of the slogan. Let’s grow everything. And if we grow everything, is there a world in which driving a car is better for nature than a world in which there are no cars? Is it possible that a world in which you build buildings in cities, that those buildings in cities actually augment and heal nature as opposed to their absence? Is there a world in which we now go back to that kind of synergy between nature and humans where you cannot separate between grown and made? And it doesn’t even matter. Lex Fridman (00:06:36): Is there a good term for the intersection between biomass and anthropomass, things that are grown? Neri Oxman (00:06:36): Yeah. So in 2005 I called this material ecology. I thought, what if all things materials would be considered part of the ecology and would have a positive impact on the ecology where we work together to help each other? All things nature, all things human. And again, you can say that that wisdom in nature exists in fungi. Many mushroom lovers always contest my thesis here saying, “Well, we have the mushroom network and we have the mother trees and they’re all connected, and why don’t we just simply hack into mushrooms?” Well, first of all, yes, they’re connected, but that network stops when there is a physical gap. That network does not necessarily enable the whales in the Dominican to connect with an olive tree in Israel to connect with a weeping willow in Montana. Neri Oxman (00:07:28): And that’s sort of a world that I’m dreaming about. What does it mean for nature to have access to the cloud? The kind of bandwidth that we’re talking about, sort of think Neuralink for nature. Since the first computer, and you know this by heart probably better than I do, but we’re both MIT lifers. We today have computational power that is one trillion times the power that we had in those times. We have 26.5 trillion times the bandwidth and 11.5 quintillion times the memory, which is incredible. So humankind since the first computer has approached and accessed such incredible bandwidth, and we’re asking, what if nature had that bandwidth? So beyond genes and evolution, if there was a way to augment nature and allow it access to the world of bits, what does nature look like now? And can nature make decisions for herself as opposed to being guided and guarded and abused by humankind? Lex Fridman (00:08:45): So nature has this inherent wisdom that you spoke to, but you’re also referring to augmenting that inherent wisdom with something like a large language model. Neri Oxman (00:08:56): Exactly. Lex Fridman (00:08:56): So compress human knowledge, but also maintain whatever is that intricate wisdom that allows plants, bacteria, fungi to grow incredible things at arbitrary scales, adapting to whatever environment and just surviving and thriving no matter where, no matter how. Neri Oxman (00:09:14): Exactly. So I think of it as large molecule models and those large molecule models, of course, large language models are based on Google and search engines and so on and so forth. And we don’t have this data currently. And the part of our mission is to do just that, trying to quantify and understand the language that exists across all kingdoms of life, across all five kingdoms of life. And if we can understand that language, is there a way for us to first make sense of it, find logic in it, and then generate certain computational tools that empower nature to build better crops, to increase the level of biodiversity? In the company we’re constantly asking, what does nature want? What does nature want from a compute view? Lex Fridman (00:10:11): If it knew it, what could aid it in whatever the heck it’s wanting to do. Neri Oxman (00:10:16): So we keep coming back to this answer of nature wants to increase information, but decrease entropy. So find order, but constantly increase the information scale. And this is true for what our work also tries to do because we’re constantly trying to fight against the dimensional mismatch between things made and things grown. And as designers, we are educated to think in X, Y, and Z and that’s pretty much where architectural education ends and biological education begins. Neri Oxman (00:10:51): So in reducing that dimensional mismatch, we’re missing out on opportunities to create things made as if grown. But in the natural environment, we’re asking, can we provide nature with these extra dimensions? And again, I’m not sure what nature wants, but I’m curious as to what happens when you provide these tools to the natural environments. Obviously with responsibility, obviously with control, obviously with ethics and moral code, but is there a world in which nature can help fix itself using those tools? Lex Fridman (00:11:26): And by the way, we’re talking about a company called Oxman. Neri Oxman (00:11:30): Yeah. Just a few words about the team. Lex Fridman (00:11:33): Yeah. What kind of humans work at a place like this? They’re trying to figure out what nature wants. Neri Oxman (00:11:37): I think they’re first like you, they’re humanists first. They come from different disciplines and different disciplinary backgrounds. And just as an example, we have a brilliant designer who is just a mathematical genius and a computer scientist and a mechanical engineer who is trained as a synthetic biologist. And now we’re hiring a microbiologist and a chemist, architects of course, and designers, roboticist. So really it’s arc, two of each. Lex Fridman (00:12:13): And always dancing between this line of the artificial, the synthetic, and the real, what’s the term for it? And the natural Neri Oxman (00:12:21): Yeah, the built and the grown nature and culture, technology and biology, but we’re constantly seeking to ask how can we build, design and deploy products in three scales? The molecular scale, which I briefly hinted to. And there in the molecular scale we’re really looking to understand whether there’s a universal language to nature and what that language is. And then build a tool that I think and dream of it is the iPhone for nature. If nature had an iPhone, what would that iPhone look like? Lex Fridman (00:12:59): Does that mean creating an interface between nature and the computational tools we have? Neri Oxman (00:13:07): Exactly. It goes back to that 11.5 quintillion times the bandwidth that humans have now arrived at, and giving that to nature and seeing what happens there can animals actually use this interface to know that they need to run away from fire? Can plants use this interface to increase the rate of photosynthesis in the presence of a smoke cloud? Can they do this quote-unqoute “automatically” without a kind of a top-down brute force policy-based method that’s authored and deployed by humans? And so this work really relates to that interface with the natural world. And then there’s a second area in the company which focuses on growing products. And here we’re focusing on a single product that starts from CO2. It becomes a product. It’s consumed, it’s used, it’s worn by a human, and then it goes back to the soil and it grows an edible fruit plant. Lex Fridman (00:14:13): So we’re talking about from CO2 to fruit. Neri Oxman (00:14:13): Yeah. It starts from CO2 and it ends with something that you can literally eat. So the world’s first entirely biodegradable, biocompatible, bio renewable product. Lex Fridman (00:14:24): That’s grown. Neri Oxman (00:14:25): Yes, either using plant matter or using bacteria, but we are really looking at carbon recycling technologies that start with methane or wastewater and end with this wonderful reincarnation of a thing that doesn’t need to end up in a composting site, but can just be thrown into the ground and grow olive and find peace. And there’s a lot of textile based work out there that is focused on one single element in this long chain like, oh, let’s create leather out of mycelium, or let’s create textile out of cellulose, but then it stops there and you get to assembling the shoe or the wearable and you need a little bit of glue, and you need a little bit of this material and a little bit of that material to make it water resistant and then it’s over. Neri Oxman (00:15:16): That’s one thing that we’re trying to solve for is how to create a product that is materially, computationally, robotically, novel, and goes through all of these phases from the creation, from this carbon recycling technology to the product, to literally, how do you think about reinventing an industry that is focused on assembly and putting things together and using humans to do that? Can that happen just using robots and microbes? And that’s it. Lex Fridman (00:15:48): And doing it end to end. I would love to see what this factory looks like. Neri Oxman (00:15:54): And the factory is great too. I’m very, very excited. In October we’ll share first renditions of some of this work and in February we’ll invite you to the lab. Lex Fridman (00:16:05): I’m there. I’ve already applied. I haven’t heard back. I don’t understand. Okay. Just before we get to number three, it’d be amazing to just talk about what it takes with robotic arms or in general, the whole process of how to build a life form stuff you’ve done in the past, maybe stuff you’re doing now, how to use bacteria, this kind of synthetic biology, how to grow stuff by leveraging bacteria? Is there examples from the past and explain? Neri Oxman (00:16:31): Yes. And just take a step back over the 10 years, the mediated matter group, which was my group at MIT, has sort of dedicated itself to bio-based design would be a suitcase word, but thinking about that synergy between nature and culture, biology and technology. And we attempted to build a suite of embodiments, let’s say that they ended up in amazing museums and amazing shows, and we wrote patents and papers on them, but they were still N of ones. Again, the challenge, as you say, was to grow them, and we classified them into fibers, cellular solids, biopolymers, pigments. Neri Oxman (00:17:13): And in each of the examples, although the material was different, sometimes we used fibers, sometimes we used silk with silkworms and honey with bees and or comb as the structural material, with vespers we used synthetically engineered bacteria to produce pigments, although the materials were different and the hero organisms were different, the philosophy was always the same. The approach was really an approach of computational templating. That templating allowed us to create templates for the natural environment where nature and technology could duet, could dance together to create these products. Neri Oxman (00:17:48): So just a few examples with silk pavilion, we’ve had a couple of pavilions made of silk, and the second one, which was the bigger one, which ended up at the Museum of Modern Art with my friend, an incredible mentor, Paul Antonelli, that pavilion was six meter tall and it was produced by silkworms. And there we had different types of templates. There were physical templates that were basically just these water soluble meshes upon which the silkworms were spinning and then there were environmental templates, which was a robot basically applying variation of environmental conditions such as heat and light to guide the movement of the silkworm. Lex Fridman (00:18:29): You’re saying so many amazing things, and I’m trying not to interrupt you, but one of the things you’ve learned by observing, by doing science on these is that the environment defines the shape that they create or contributes or intricately plays with the shape they create. And that’s one of the ways you can get to guide their work is by defining that environment. By the way, you said hero organism, which is an epic term. That means whatever is the biological living system that’s doing the creation. Neri Oxman (00:19:01): And that’s what’s happening in pharma and biomaterials and by the way, precision ag and new food design technologies as people are betting on a hero organism, is sort of how I think of it. And the hero organism is sometimes it’s the palm oil or it’s the mycelium. There’s a lot of mushrooms around for good and bad, and it’s cellulose or it’s fake bananas or the workhorse E. Coli. But these hero organisms are being betted on as the… What’s the one answer that solves everything hitchhiker’s guide? Lex Fridman (00:19:38): 42. Neri Oxman (00:19:40): 42. Lex Fridman (00:19:42): Yeah. These are sort of the 42s of the enchanted new universe. And back at MIT, we said, instead of betting on all of these organisms, let’s approach them as almost movement in a symphony and let’s kind of lean into what we can learn from each of these organisms in the context of building a project in an architectural scale. And those usually were pavilions. Lex Fridman (00:20:05): And then the computational templating is the way you guide the work of this. How many did you say? 17,000? Neri Oxman (00:20:15): 17,532. So each of these silkworms threads are about one mile in distance, and they’re beautiful. And just thinking about the amount of material, it’s a bit like thinking about the length of capillary vessels that grow in your belly when you’re pregnant to feed that incredible new life form. Just nature is amazing. But back to the silkworms, I think I had three months to build this incredible pavilion, but we couldn’t figure out how. We were thinking of emulating the process of how a silkworm goes about building its incredible architecture. This cocoon over the period of 24 to 72 hours, and it builds a cocoon basically to protect itself. Neri Oxman (00:21:03): It’s a beautiful form of architecture, and it uses pretty much just two materials, two chemical compounds ceresin and fibrin. The ceresin is sort of the glue of the cocoon, the fibrin is the fiber based material of the cocoon and through fibers and glue. And that’s true for so many systems in nature, lots of fiber and glue. And that architecture allows them to metamorphosize. And in the process they vary the properties of that silk thread, so it’s stiffer or softer depending on where it is in the section of the cocoon. And so we were trying to emulate this robotically with a 3D printer that was six axis KUKA arm one of these baby KUKAs. Neri Oxman (00:21:46): And we’re trying to emulate that process computationally and build something very large when one of my students now, a brilliant industrial engineer, roboticist on my team, Marcus said, “Well, we were just playing with those silkworms and enjoying their presence when we realized that if they’re placed on a desk or a horizontal surface, they will go about creating their cocoon only the cocoon would be flat because they’re constantly looking for a vertical post in order to use that post as an anchor to spin the cocoon. But in the absence of that post on surfaces that are less than 21 millimeters and flat they will spin flat patches and we said, “Aha, let’s work with them to produce this dome as a set of flat patches.” Neri Oxman (00:22:42): And a silkworm mind you is quite an egocentric creature. And actually the furthest you go, you move forward in evolution by natural selection, the more egoism you find in creatures. So when you think about termites, their material sophistication is actually very primitive, but they have incredible ability to communicate and connect with each other. So if you think about entire all of nature, let’s say all of living systems as a matrix that runs across two axes one is material sophistication, which is terribly relevant for designers, and the other is communication. The termites ace on communication, but their material sophistication is crap. Neri Oxman (00:23:31): It’s just saliva and feces and some soil particles that are built to create these incredible termite mounds, the scale that when compared to human skyscrapers transcend all of buildable scales, at least in terms of what we have today in architectural practice just relative to the size of the termite. But when you look at the silkworm, the silkworm has zero connection and communication across silkworms. They were not designed to connect and communicate with each other. They’re sort of a human design species because the domesticated silk moth creates the cocoon. Neri Oxman (00:24:08): We then produce the silk of it and then it dies. So it has dysfunctional wings, it cannot fly. And that’s another problem that the sericulture industry has is, why did we in the first place, author this organism 4,000 years ago that is unable to fly and is just there to basically live to serve a human need, which is textiles? And so here we were fascinated by the computational kind of biology dimension of silkworms, but along the way… By the way, this is great. I never get to tell the full story. So great. Lex Fridman (00:24:47): I’ve enjoyed this so much. Neri Oxman (00:24:51): People say, “Oh, speak in [inaudible 00:24:54] paragraphs. They’re way too long.” And this is wonderful. This is like heaven. Lex Fridman (00:24:58): [inaudible 00:24:58] paragraphs. You’re dropping so many good lines. I love it for that. Neri Oxman (00:25:02): But really those silkworms, yes, they’re not designed to be like humans. They’re not designed to connect, communicate, and build things that are bigger than themselves through connection and communication. Lex Fridman (00:25:17): So what happens when you add 17,000 of them communicating effectively? Neri Oxman (00:25:17): That’s a really great question. What happens is that at some point, the templating strategies, and as you said correctly, there were geometrical, templating, material templating, environmental templating, chemical templating if you’re using pheromones to guide the movement of bees in the absence of a queen where you have a robotic queen. Lex Fridman (00:25:38): Robotic queen. Neri Oxman (00:25:39): But whenever you have these templating strategies, you have sort of control over nature, but the question is there a world in which we can move from templating, from providing these computational material and immaterial physical and molecular platforms that guide nature, almost guiding a product almost like a gardener to a problem or an opportunity of emergence where that biological organism assumes agency by virtue of accessing the robotic code and saying, now I own the code. I get to do what I want with this code. Let me show you what this pavilion may look like or this product may look like? Neri Oxman (00:26:18): And I think one of the exciting moments for us is when we realized that these robotic platforms that were designed initially as templates actually inspired, if I may, a kind of a collaboration and cooperation between silkworms that are not a swarm based organism. They’re not like the bees and the termites. They don’t work together and they don’t have social orders amongst them, the queen and the drones, et cetera. They’re all the same in a way. And here, what was so exciting for us is that these computational and fabrication technologies enable the silkworm to sort of hop from the branch in ecology of worms to the branch in ecology of maybe human-like intelligence where they could connect and communicate by virtue of feeling or rubbing against each other in an area that was hotter or colder. Neri Oxman (00:27:19): And so the product that we got at the end, the variation of density of fiber and the distribution of the fiber and the transparency, the product at the end seems like it was produced by a swarm silk community, but of course it wasn’t. It’s a bunch of biological agents working together to assemble this thing. That’s really, really fascinating to us. How can technology augment or enable a swarm like behavior and creatures that have not been designed to work as swarms? Lex Fridman (00:27:53): So how do you construct a computational template from which a certain kind of thing emerges? How can you predict what emerges, I suppose? Neri Oxman (00:28:05): So if you can predict it doesn’t count as emergence, actually. Lex Fridman (00:28:12): That’s a deeply poetic line. Neri Oxman (00:28:13): We can talk about it. It’s a bit exaggerated, doesn’t count. Speaking of emergence, an empowerment, because we’re constantly moving between those as if they’re equals on the team and one of them, Christopher shared with me a mathematically equation for what does it mean to empower nature and what does empowerment in nature look like? And that relates to emergence. And we can go back to emergence in a few moments, but I want to say it so that I know that I’ve learned it and if I’ve learned it I can use it later. Lex Fridman (00:28:54): And maybe you’ll figure something out as you say it also. Neri Oxman (00:28:57): Of course, Christopher is the master here, but really we were thinking again, what does nature want? Nature wants to increase the information dimension and reduce entropy. What do we want? We kind of want the same thing. We want more, but we want order. And this goes back to your conversation with Joscha about stochastic versus deterministic languages or processes. His definition or the definition he found was that an agent is empowered if the entropy of the distribution of all of its states it’s high while the entropy of the distribution of a single state given a choice, given an action is low. Meaning it’s that kind of duality between opportunity like starting like this and going like this, opening and closing. And this really, I think is analogous to human empowerment, given infinite wide array of choices. What is the choice that you make to enable, to empower, to provide you with the agency that you need? Lex Fridman (00:30:19): And how much does that making that choice actually control the trajectory of the system? That’s really nice. So this applies to all the kinds of systems you’re talking about. Neri Oxman (00:30:28): And the cool thing is it can apply to a human on an individual basis or a silkworm or a bee or a microbe that has agency or by virtue of a template, but it also applies to a community of organisms like the bees. And so we’ve done a lot of work sort of moving from, you’ve asked how to grow things. So we’ve grown things using co fabrication where we’re digitally fabricating with other organisms that live across the various kingdoms of life and those were silkworms and bees. And with bees, which we’ve sent to outer space and returned healthily and they were reproductive. Lex Fridman (00:31:15): Okay, you’re going to have to tell that story. You’re going to have to talk about the robotic queen and the pheromones. Come on. Neri Oxman (00:31:20): So we built what we called a synthetic apiary and the synthetic apiary was designed as an environment that was a perpetual spring environment for the bees of Massachusetts. They go on hibernation, of course, during the winter season, and then we lose 80% of them or more during that period. We’re thinking, okay, what if we created this environment where before you template, before you can design with, you have to design for? You have to create this space of mutualism space of sort of shared connection between you and the organism. And with bees it started as the synthetic apiary. And we have proven that curated environment where we designed the space with high levels of control of temperature, humidity, and light and we’ve proven that they were reproductive and alive. And we realized, wow, this environment that we created can help augment bees in the winter season in any city around the world where bees survive and thrive in the summer and spring seasons. And could this be a kind of new urban typology, an architectural typology of symbiosis, of mutualism between organisms and humans? Neri Oxman (00:32:37): By the way, the synthetic API was in a co-op nearby Somerville. We had robots. Our team schlepped there every day with our tools and machines and we made it happen. And the neighbors were very happy, and they got to get a ton of honey at the end of the winter. And those bees, of course, were released into the wild at the end of the winter alive and kicking. So then in order to actually experiment with the robotic queen and idea or concept, we had to prove obviously that we can create this space for bees. And then after that, we had this amazing opportunity to send the bees to space on Blue Shepherd Mission that is part of Blue Origin, and we of course said, “Yes, we’ll take a slot.” Neri Oxman (00:33:24): We said, “Okay, can we outdo NASA?” So NASA in 1982 had an experiment where they sent bees to outer space. The bees returned, they were not reproductive and some of them died. And we thought, “Well, is there a way in which we can create a life support system, almost like a small mini biolab of a queen and her retinue that would be sent in this Blue Origin New Shepherd mission in this one cell?” And so if the synthetic apiary was an architectural project, in this case, this second synthetic apiary was a product. It was so from an architectural controlled environment to a product scale controlled environment. Neri Oxman (00:34:08): And this biolab, this life support system for bees, was designed to provide the bees with all the conditions that they needed. And we looked at that time at the Nasonov pheromone that the queen uses to guide the other bees, and we looked at pheromones that are associated with a bee, and thinking of those pheromones being released inside the capsule that goes to outer space. They returned back to the media lab roof and those bees were alive and kicking and reproductive, and they continued to create comb. It ended with a beautiful nature paper that the team and I published together. We gave them gold nanoparticles and silver nanoparticles because we were interested if bees recycle wax, it was known forever that- Neri Oxman (00:35:03): Bees recycle wax. It was known forever that bees do not recycle the wax. And by feeding them these gold nanoparticles, we were able to prove that the bees actually do recycle the wax. The reason I’m bringing this forward is because we don’t view ourselves as designers of consumable products and architectural environments only, but we love that moment where these technologies… And by the way, every one of these projects that we created involve the creation of a new technology, whether it be a glass printer or the spinning robot or the life support system for the bee colony. They all involved a technology that was associated with the project, and I never, ever, ever want to let that part go because I love technology so much. Neri Oxman (00:35:54): But also another element of this is that always, these projects, if they’re great, they reveal new knowledge about, or new science about the topic that you’re investigating, be it silkworms or bees or glass. That’s why I say, I always tell my team it should be at MoMA and the cover of Nature or Science at the same time. We don’t separate between the art and the science, it’s one of the same. Lex Fridman (00:36:21): So as you’re creating the art, you’re going to learn something about these organisms or something about these materials. Is there something that stands out to you about these hero organisms like bees, silkworms? You mentioned E. coli has its pros and cons, this bacteria. What have you learned, small or big, that’s interesting about these organisms? Neri Oxman (00:36:41): Yeah, that’s a beautiful question. What have I learned? I’ve learned that… We also worked with shrimp shells with a glow. How we built this tower on the roof of SF MoMa, which by a couple of months ago until it was on the roof, we’ve shown this structure completely biodegrade into the… Well, not completely, but almost completely biodegrade to the soil. And this notion that a product or an organism or part of that organism can reincarnate is very, very moving thought to me, because I want to believe that I believe in reincarnation. Lex Fridman (00:37:24): I want to believe that I believe. I want to believe. Neri Oxman (00:37:25): Yeah, that’s my relationship with God. I like to believe in believing. Most great things in life are second derivatives of things, but that’s part of another conversation. Lex Fridman (00:37:38): I feel like that’s a quote that’s going to take weeks to really internalize. Neri Oxman (00:37:43): That notion of, I want you to want, or I need you to need. There’s always something, a deeper truth behind what is on the surface. So I like to go to the second and tertiary derivative of things and discover new truths about them through that. But what have I learned about organisms- Lex Fridman (00:38:05): And why don’t you like E. coli? Neri Oxman (00:38:07): I like E. coli, and a lot of the work that we’ve done was not possible without our working on E. coli or other workhorse organisms, like cyanobacteria. Lex Fridman (00:38:19): How are bacteria used? Neri Oxman (00:38:20): Death masks. The death masks. Lex Fridman (00:38:24): So what are death masks? Neri Oxman (00:38:24): We did this project called Vespers, and those were basically death masks. That was set as a process for designing a living product. What happens? I remember looking at Beethoven’s death mask and Agamemnon’s death mask and just studying how they were created. And really they were geometrically attuned to the face of the dead, and what we wanted to do is create a death mask that was not based on the shape of the wearer, but rather was based on their legacy and their biology. And maybe we could harness a few stem cells there for future generations or contain the last breath. Lazarus, which preceded Vespers, was a project where we designed a mask to contain a single breath, the last breath of the wearer. And again, if I had access to these technologies today, I would totally reincorporate my grandmother’s last breath in a product. So it was like an air memento. Neri Oxman (00:39:31): So with Vespers, we actually used E. coli to create pigmented masks, masks whose pigments would be recreated at the surface of the mask. And I’m skipping over a lot of content, but basically there were 15 masks and they were created as three sets, the masks of the past, the masks of the present, and the masks of the future. They were five, five, and five, and the masks of the past were based on ornaments and they were embedded with natural minerals like gold. Yes, yes, yes, exactly- Lex Fridman (00:40:12): And we’re looking at pictures of these and they’re gorgeous. Neri Oxman (00:40:16): Yes, yes. Lex Fridman (00:40:16): Extremely delicate and interesting fractal patterns that are symmetrical. Neri Oxman (00:40:24): They look symmetrical, but they’re not. We intended for you to be tricked and think that they’re all symmetrical, but- Lex Fridman (00:40:32): There’s imperfections. Neri Oxman (00:40:33): There are imperfections by design. All of these forms and shapes and distribution of matter that you’re looking at was entirely designed using a computational program. None of it is manual. But long story short, the first collection is about the surface of the mask. And the second collection, which you’re looking at, is about the volume of the mask and what happens to the mask when all the colors from the surface, yes, enter the volume of the mask inside, create pockets and channels to guide life through them. They were incorporated with pigment-producing living organisms, and then those organisms were templated to recreate the patterns of the original death masks. And so life recycles and re-begins, and so on and so forth. The past meets the future, the future meets the past. From the surface to the volume, from death to life, to death to life, to death to life. And that again, is a recurring theme in the projects that we take on. Neri Oxman (00:41:39): But from a technological perspective, what was interesting is that we embedded chemical signals in the jet, in the printer, and those chemical signals basically interacted with the pigment-producing bacteria, in this case E. coli, that were introduced on the surface of the mask. And those interactions between the chemical signals inside the resins and the bacteria at the surface of the mask, at the resolution that is native to the printer, in this case, 20 microns per voxel, allowed us to compute the exact patterns that we wanted to achieve. And we thought, “Well, if we can do this with pigments, can we do this with antibiotics? If we can do this with antibiotics, could we do it with melanin? And what are the implications?” Again, this is a platform technology. Now that we have it, what are the actual real-world implications and potential applications for this technology? Neri Oxman (00:42:41): We started a new area, one of my students, Rachael, her PhD thesis was titled after this new class of materials that we created through this project, Vespers, Hybrid Living Materials, HLMs. And these hybrid living materials really paved the way towards a whole other set of products that we’ve designed, like the work that we did with melanin for the Mandela pavilion that we presented at SF MoMa. Where again, we’re using the same principles of templating, in this case not silkworms and not bees, but we’re templating bacteria at a much, much, much more finer resolution. And now instead of templating using a robot, we’re templating using a printer. Neri Oxman (00:43:32): But compute is very, very much part of it. And what’s nice about bacteria, of course, is that from an ethical perspective I think there’s a range. So at the end of the silk pavilion, I got an email from professor in Japan who has been working on transgenic silk and said, “Well, if you did amazing silk pavilion, why don’t we create glow in the light silk dresses?” And in order to create this glow in the light silk, we need to apply jeans that are taken from a spider to a silkworm. And this is what is known as a transgenic operation. And we said no. And that was for us a clear decision that, no, we will work with these organisms as long as we know that what we are doing with them is not only better for humans, but it’s also better for them. Neri Oxman (00:44:31): And again, just to remind you, I forget the exact number, but it’s around 1,000 cocoons per a single shirt that are exterminated in India and China, in those sericulture industries that are being abused. Now, yes, this organism was designed to serve the human species and maybe it’s time to retire that conception of organisms that are designed for a human-centric world or human-centric set of applications. I don’t feel the same way about E. coli, not that I’m organism agnostic, but still I believe there’s so much for us to do on this planet with bacteria. Lex Fridman (00:45:26): And so in general, your design principle is to grow cool stuff as a byproduct of the organism flourishing. So not using the organism- Neri Oxman (00:45:36): Yes. The win-win, the synergy. Lex Fridman (00:45:37): Win-win. Neri Oxman (00:45:38): A whole that’s bigger than the sum of its parts. Lex Fridman (00:45:40): It’s interesting. It just feels like a gray area, where genetic modification of an organism, it just feels like… I don’t know. If you genetically modified me to make me glow in the light, I kind of like it. Neri Oxman (00:45:59): I think you have enough of an aura. Lex Fridman (00:46:00): All right, thank you. I was just fishing for compliments. Thank you. I appreciate the- Neri Oxman (00:46:06): But you’re absolutely right. And by the way, the gray area is where some of us like to live and like to thrive, and that’s okay. And thank goodness that there’s so many of us that like the black and white and that thrive in the black and white. My husband is a good example for that. Lex Fridman (00:46:21): Well, but just to clarify, in this case you are also trying to thrive in the black and white in that you’re saying the silkworm is a beautiful, wonderful creature. Let us not modify it. Is that the idea? Or is it okay to modify a little bit as long as we can see that it benefits the organism as well as the final creation? Neri Oxman (00:46:42): With silkworms, absolutely let’s not modify it genetically. Let’s not modify it genetically. And then some. Because why did we get there to begin with 4,000 years ago in the Silk Road? And we should never get to a point where we evolve life for the service of mankind at the risk of these wonderful creatures across the across the kingdom of life. I don’t think about the same kind of ethical range when I think about bacteria. Lex Fridman (00:47:15): Nevertheless, bacteria are pretty wonderful organisms. Neri Oxman (00:47:18): I’m moving to my second cup here. Lex Fridman (00:47:21): Take two, because things are getting serious now. Neri Oxman (00:47:23): Bacteria are. Yeah, for sure. Lex Fridman (00:47:25): Let’s give bacteria all the love they deserve. We wouldn’t be here without them. They were here for, I don’t know what it is, like a billion years before anything else showed up. Neri Oxman (00:47:32): But in a way, if you think about it, they create the matter that we consume and then reincarnate, or dissolved into the soil and then creates a tree, and then that tree creates more bacteria. And then that bacteria could… Again, again. That’s why I like to think about not recycling, but reincarnating, because that assumes, imparting upon nature that dimension of agency and maybe awareness. But yeah, lots of really interesting work happening with bacteria. Directed evolution is one of them. We’re looking at directed evolution. So high-throughput directed evolution of bacteria for the production of products. And again, those products can be a shoe, wearables, biomaterials, therapeutics. Lex Fridman (00:48:26): And doing that direction computationally? Neri Oxman (00:48:27): Totally computationally, obviously in the lab with the hero organism, the hero bacteria. And what’s happening today, in equal microbial synthetic biology, synthetic biology that lends itself to ecology. And again, all of these fields are coming together. It’s such a wonderful time to be a designer. I can’t think of a better time to be a designer in this world. But with high-throughput directed evolution… And I should say that the physical space in our new lab will have these capsules which we have designed. They are designed like growth chambers or grow rooms, and in those grow rooms we can basically program top-down environmental templating, top-down environmental control of lights, humidity, light, et cetera. Sorry, light, humidity and temperature while doing bottom-up genetic regulation. So it is a wet lab, but in that wet lab you could do at the same time, genetic modulation, regulation and environmental templating. Neri Oxman (00:49:39): And then, again, the idea is that in one of those capsules maybe we grow transparent wood, and in another capsule, transparent wood for architectural application. Another capsule, we grow a shoe, and in another capsule we look at that large language model that we talked about. And there was a particular technology associated with that, which we’re hoping to reveal to the world in February. And in each of those capsules is basically a high-throughput computational environment, like a breadboard, think of a physical breadboard environment that has access to oxygen and nitrogen and CO2 and nutritional dispensing, and these little capsules could be stressed. They’re sort of ecology in a box, and they could be stressed to produce the food of the future or the products of the future or the construction materials of the future. Food is a very interesting one, obviously because of food insecurity and the issues that we have around both in terms of food insecurity, but also in terms of the future of food and what will remain after we can’t eat plants and animals anymore, and all we can eat is these false bananas and insects as our protein source. Neri Oxman (00:50:56): So there we’re thinking, can we design these capsules to stress an environment and see how that environment behaves? Think about a biodiversity chamber, kind of a time capsule that is designed as a biodiversity chamber where you can program the exact temperature, humidity, and light combination to emulate the environment from the past. So Ohio, 1981, December 31st at 5:00 AM in the morning, what did tomatoes taste like? To all the way in the future, 200 years ago, these are the environmental inputs, these are some genetic regulations that I’m testing and what might the food of the future or the products of the future or the construction materials of the future feel like, taste like, behave like, et cetera. And so these capsules are designed as part of a lab. That’s why it’s been taking us such a long time to get to this point, because we started designing them in 2019, and they’re currently, literally as I speak to you, under construction. Lex Fridman (00:52:02): How well is it understood how to do this dance of controlling these different variables in order for various kinds of growth to happen? Neri Oxman (00:52:10): It’s not. It’s never been done before and these capsules have never been designed before. So when we first decided these are going to be environmental capsules, people thought we were crazy. “What are you building? What are you making?” So the answer is that we don’t know. But we know that there has never been a space like this where you have basically a wet lab and a grow room at that resolution, at that granularity of control over organisms. There is a reason why there is this incredible evolution of products in the software space. The hardware space, that’s a more limiting space because of the physical infrastructure that we have to test and experiment with things. So we really wanted to push on creating a wet lab that is novel in every possible way. What could you create in it? You could create the future. You could create an environment of plants talking to each other with a robotic referee. And you could set an objective function. Neri Oxman (00:53:20): And let’s say for the transaction-driven individuals in the world, let’s say their objective function is carbon sequestration. And all of those plants are implemented with a gaming engine and they have these reward system and they’re constantly needing to optimize the way in which they carbon sequest. We weed out the bad guys, we leave the good guys, and we end up with this ideal ecology of carbon sequestering heroes that connect and communicate with each other. And once we have that model, this biodiversity chamber, we send it out into the field and we see what happens in nature. And that’s sort of what I’m talking about, augmenting plants with that extra dimension of bandwidth that they do not have. Just last week I came across a paper that discusses the in vivo neurons that are augmented with a pong game. And in a dish they basically present sentience and the beginning of awareness. Neri Oxman (00:54:37): Which is wonderful that you could actually take these neurons from a mouse brain, and you have the electrical circuits and the physiological circuits that enable these cells to connect and communicate, and together arrive at swarm situation that allows them to act as a system that is not only perceived to be sentient, but is actually sentient. Michael Levine calls this gentle material, material that has agency. This is of interest to us because, again, this is emergence post-templating. You template until you don’t need to template anymore because the system has its own rules. What we don’t want to happen with AGI, we want to happen with synthetic biology. What we don’t want to happen online and software with language, we want for it to happen with bio-based materials. Because that will get us closer to growing things as opposed to assembly and mechanically putting them together with toxic materials and compounds. Lex Fridman (00:55:43): If I can ask a pothead question for a second, you mentioned just like the silkworms, the individualist silkworms got to actually learn how to collaborate or actually to collaborate in a swarm like way. You’re talking about getting plants to communicate in some interesting way based on an objective function. Is it possible to have some kind of interface between another kind of organisms, humans, and nature? So like a human to have a conversation with a plant? Neri Oxman (00:56:14): There already is. You know that when we cut freshly cut grass, I love the smell, but actually it’s a smell of distress that the leaves of grass are communicating to each other. The grass, when it’s cut emits green leaf volatiles, GLVs. And those GLVs are basically one leaf of grass communicating to another leaf of grass, “Be careful. Mind you, you’re about to be cut.” These incredible life forms are communicating using a different language than ours. We use language models, they use molecular models. At the moment where we can parse, we can decode these molecular moments is when we can start having a conversation with plants. Neri Oxman (00:56:57): Now, of course there is a lot of work around plant neurobiology. It’s a real thing. Plants do not have a nervous system, but they have something akin to a nervous system. It has kind of a ecological intelligence that is focused on a particular timescale, and the timescale is very, very slow, slow, slow, slow timescale. So it is when we can melt these timescales and connect with these plants in terms of the content of the language, in this case molecules, the duration of the language, and we can start having a conversation, if not simply to understand what is happening in the plant kingdom. Neri Oxman (00:57:38): Precision agriculture, I promise to you, will look very, very different. Because right now we are using drones to take photos of crops, of corn, that look bad. And when we take that photo, it’s already too late. But if we understand these molecular footprints and things that they are trying to say, distress that they are trying to communicate, then we could of course predict the physiological, biological behavior of these crops, both for their own self perpetuation, but also for the foods and the pharma and the type of molecules that we’re seeking to grow for the benefit of humanity. And so these languages that we are attempting now to quantify and qualify, will really help us not only better nature and help nature in its striving to surviving, but also help us design better wines and better foods and better medicine and better products, again, across all scales, across all application domains. Lex Fridman (00:58:41): Is there intricacies to understanding the timescales, like you mentioned, at which these communications, these languages operate? Is there something different between the way humans communicate and the way plants communicate in terms of time? Neri Oxman (00:58:56): Remember when we started the conversation talking about definitions in the context of design and then in the context of being? That question requires, I think a kind of a shift, a humility. That requires a humility towards nature, understanding that it operates on different scales. We recently discovered that the molecular footprint of a rose, or of a plant in general during nighttime, is different than its molecular footprint during daytime. So these are circadian rhythms that are associated with what kind of molecules these plants emit given stresses, and given there’s a reason why a jasmine field smells so, so delicious and 4:00 AM in the morning. There’s peace and rest amongst the plants. And you have to tune into that time dimension of the plant kingdom, and that of course requires all this humility, where in a single capsule, to design a biodiversity chamber, it will take years, not months, and definitely not days to see these products. Neri Oxman (01:00:13): And also, that humility in design comes from simply looking at how we are today as a civilization, how we use and abuse nature. Just think of all these Christmas trees. These Christmas trees, they take years to grow. We use them for one night, the holiest night of the year, and then we let them go. And think about in nature to design a “product,” an organism spends energy and time and thoughtfulness and many, many, many years, and I’m thinking about the redwoods, to grow these channels, these cellulose layers and channels and reach these incredible heights. Takes sometimes hundreds of years, sometimes thousands of years. Am I afraid of building a company that designs products in the scale of thousands of years? No, I’m not. Neri Oxman (01:01:08): And the way of being in the physical world today is really not in tune with the time dimension of the natural world at all, and that needs to change. And that’s obviously very, very hard to do in a community of human beings that is, at least in the Western world, that is based on capitalism. And so here, the wonderful challenge that we have ahead of us is, how do we impart upon the capitalist movement? We know that we need to produce now products that will enter the real world and be shared and used by others, and still benefit the natural world while benefiting humans? And that’s a wonderful challenge to have. Lex Fridman (01:01:55): So, integrate technology with nature, and that’s a really difficult problem. I see parallels here with another company of Neuralink, which is basically like, I think you mentioned, Neuralink for nature. That there are short-term products you can come up with, but it’s ultimately a long-term challenge of how do you integrate the machine with this creation of nature, this intricate, complex creation of nature, which is the human brain. And then you’re speaking more generally, nature. Neri Oxman (01:02:29): You know how every company has an image? Like this one single image that embodies the spirit of the company? And I think for Neuralink it was, to me, that chimpanzee playing a video game. It was just unbelievable. But with plants, there potentially is a set of molecules that impacts or inspires, I like that word, the plant to behave or act in a certain way, and allows still the plan the possibility of deciding where it or she or he wants to go. Which is why our first product for this molecular space is going to be a functionalized fragrance. So here we’re thinking about the future of fragrances and the future of fragrances and flavors. Neri Oxman (01:03:23): These products in the industry as we know it today, are designed totally for a human-centric use and enjoyment and indulgence and luxury. They’re used on the body for the sake of, I don’t know, attraction and feeling good and smelling good. And we were asking ourselves, is there a world in which a fragrance can be not a functional fragrance? Because you could claim that all fragrances are functional. But is there a world in which the fragrance becomes functionalized, is, again, imparted upon or given agency to connect with another organism? Is there a world in which you and I can go down to your garden and use a perfume that will interact with the rose garden downstairs? I’ve just been enamored with the statements that are being made in the media around, “Oh, this is completely biologically-derived fragrance and it’s bio-based.” Neri Oxman (01:04:28): But when you look into the fragrance and you understand that in order to get to this bio-derived fragrance, you blew through 10,000 bushes of rose to create 5 mL of a rose fragrance. And all these 10,000 bushes of rose, they take space, they take water management, and so much waste. Is this really what we want the future of our agriculture and molecular goods to look like? And so when we did the Aguahoja pavilion on the roof of SF MoMa, we calculated that for that pavilion we had 40,000 calories embedded into this pavilion that was made of shrimp shells and chitosan and apple skins and cellulose from tree pulp. And we calculated that overall the structure had 40,000 calories. Interesting way to think about a structure, from the point of view of calories. But as you left the gallery, you saw these three clocks that were so beautifully designed by Felix on our team, and these clocks measured temperature and humidity, and we connected them to a weather channel so that we could directly look at how the pavilion was biodegrading in real-time. Neri Oxman (01:05:40): And in our calculations, I say this long-winded description of the pavilion to say that in the calculation, we incorporated how much electricity we used for our computers, for the 3D printers that printed the pavilion. And these were called energy calculations, energy end materials. And when you think about a product and you think about a shoe or a chair or a perfume or a building, you don’t stop at the object. You want to go all the way to the system. Again, instead of designing objects or singular embodiments of the will of the designer, you’re really tapping into an entire system that is interconnected. Neri Oxman (01:06:26): And if you look at the energy budget that characterize the project Aguahoja, it traverses the entire planet. Some of these shrimp shells were brought from places in the world we haven’t thought of, in terms of the apples and the shrimp shells and the tree pulp. And so going back to fragrances, it’s really, really important to understand the product in the context of the ecological system from which it’s sourced, and how it’s designed. And that is the kind of thinking that is not only desired, but is required if we are to achieve synergy between humanity and nature. Lex Fridman (01:07:06): And it’s interesting, because the system-level thinking is almost always going to take you to the entire earth, to considering the entire earth ecosystem. Neri Oxman (01:07:13): Which is why it’s important to have a left brain and a right brain competing for attention. And intimacy [inaudible 01:07:19]. Yes. Lex Fridman (01:07:19): Yeah. You mentioned a fragrance that sends out a message to the environment, essentially. Neri Oxman (01:07:27): A message in a bottle. Yeah. Lex Fridman (01:07:29): A message in a bottle. So you can go to a rose garden and trick the rose garden to think it’s 4:00 AM, essentially? Neri Oxman (01:07:36): You could if you wanted to, but maybe that is- Lex Fridman (01:07:38): Not trick. Trick is such a bad word. Neri Oxman (01:07:40): Right. Right. Lex Fridman (01:07:41): Inspire. Neri Oxman (01:07:43): Inspire I like. I like the idea of providing nature with a choice, which is why I love that elegant mathematical equation of empowerment and agency. Lex Fridman (01:07:53): Empower the rose garden to create a romantic moment for the wearer of the fragrance. Neri Oxman (01:08:00): But now again you’re, again, all of this to go back to that human-centric notion of romance. But maybe there’s another way to do romance that we haven’t yet explored. And maybe there’s a way to tap into what happens to the rose when it’s dreaming. Assuming that plants are sentient and assuming that we can tap into that sentient, what can we discover about what does the rose want? What does it actually want and what does it need? And what are the rose’s dreams? Lex Fridman (01:08:41): But do you think there’s some correlation in terms of romance, in terms of the word you sometimes use, magic? Is there some similarities in what humans want and what roses want and what nature wants? Neri Oxman (01:08:53): I think so. I think there is. And if I did not think so, oh my goodness, this would not be a nice world to live in. I think we all want love. I recently read this beautiful letter that was written by Einstein to his daughter. Einstein asked his daughter to wait 20 years until she reveals these letters, and so she did. It’s just one of the most beautiful letters I’ve ever read from a father to his daughter. And the letter overall is imbued with a sense of remorse or maybe even feelings of sadness. And there is some kind of melancholy note in the letter where Einstein regrets not having spent enough time with his daughter, having focused on the theory of general relativity and changing the world. And then he goes on to talk about this beautiful and elegant equation of E=MC^2. And he tells his daughter that he believes that love is actually the force that shapes the universe because it is like- Neri Oxman (01:10:03): Is actually the force that shapes the universe because it is like gravity, right? It attracts people. It is like light. It brings people together and connects between people, and it’s all empowering. And so if you multiply it by the speed of light, you could really change the world for the better. And call me a romanticist. I know you are too, which is why I so love being here. I believe in this. I totally and utterly believe in… Lex Fridman (01:10:34): In love. By the way, let me just excerpt from Einstein’s letter. “There’s an extremely powerful force that so far science has not found a formal explanation to. It’s a force that includes and governs all others and is even behind any phenomena operating in the universe and has not yet been identified by us. This universal force is love.” He also, the last paragraph in the letter, as you’ve mentioned, ” I deeply regret not having been able to express what is in my heart, which has quietly beaten for you all my life. Maybe it’s too late to apologize, but as time is relative,” that jokes to Einstein, “I need to tell you that I love you and thanks to you I have reached the ultimate answer. Your father, Albert Einstein.” By that regret, I deeply regret not having been able to express what is in my heart. Maybe that’s a universal regret, filling your days with busyness and silly pursuits and not sitting down and expressing that. Neri Oxman (01:11:43): But it is everything. It is everything. It is why I love that expression, and I forget who said this, but I love my daughter more than evolution required, and I feel the same way towards my other half. And I feel that when you find that connection, everything and anything is possible and it’s a very, very, very magical moment. So I believe in love and I believe in the one. Lex Fridman (01:12:27): It might be the same thing, it might be a different thing, but let me ask you a ridiculously big philosophical question about beauty. Dostoevsky said Beauty will save the world in The Idiot, one of my favorite books of his. What is beauty to you? You’ve created through this intersection of engineering and nature, you have created some incredibly beautiful things. What do you think is beauty? Neri Oxman (01:12:55): That’s a beautiful question. Lex Fridman (01:12:57): Maybe it is connected to the love question. Neri Oxman (01:12:59): It is connected to the love question. Of course, everything is connected to the love question. To me, beauty is agency. To me, something that has agency, it is beautiful. There is this special quote from Buckminster Fuller, which I cannot remember word for word but I remember the concept, which goes something like this. When I work on a problem, I never think about beauty. But when I’m done solving the problem and I look at what I’ve created and it’s not beautiful, I know that I was wrong. Lex Fridman (01:13:37): Okay, yeah. Neri Oxman (01:13:38): It’s kind of an agency that speaks to the “objective function” of the creation, right? Whether for Bucky it’s useless or useful. Lex Fridman (01:13:49): So this idea of empowerment that you talked about, it’s fundamentally connected to it. Neri Oxman (01:13:52): Comes back to that, yeah. Lex Fridman (01:13:54): What’s the difference that you hinted at between empowerment and emergence? Is emergence completely lacks control and empowerment is more controlled? There’s an agent making decisions? Is there an interesting distinction there? Neri Oxman (01:14:16): Yes. I think empowerment is a force with direction. It has directionality to it. Emergence is, I believe, multi-directional. Again, that depends on the application. Emergence is perhaps in terms of a material definition, is a tropic spirit. When empowerment, the end is a tropic counterpart, I think they overlap because I think that empowerment is a way of inspiring emergence. I think emergence does not happen without empowerment, but empowerment can happen without emergence. Lex Fridman (01:15:05): Do you think of emergence as the loss of control? When you’re thinking about these capsules and then the things they create, is emergence of things not a desirable conclusion? Neri Oxman (01:15:19): I love that question because to some of us, the loss of control is control. In design, we’re used to extreme levels of control over form and the shape of a thing and how it behaves and how it functions. And that’s something we’ve inherited from the industrial revolution. But with nature, there is this diversity that happens without necessarily having a reward function, right? This is good or bad. Things just happen and some of them happen to have wings and some of them happen to have scales, and you end up with this incredible potential for diversity. So I think the future of design is in that soft control, is in the ability to design highly controlled systems that enable the loss of control. Neri Oxman (01:16:14): And creativity is very much part of this because creativity is all about letting go and beginning again and beginning again and beginning again. And when you cannot let go, you cannot be creative and you can’t find novelty. But I think that letting go is a moment that enables empowerment, agency, creativity, emergence, and they’re all connected. They sort of associate themselves with definition of destiny or the inevitable. A good friend of mine shared with me elegant definition of fate, which is the ratio of who you are and who you want to be. Lex Fridman (01:17:01): Ratio of who you are, who want to be. Neri Oxman (01:17:04): Exactly. And that sort of ends up defining you and those tools, I think when you let go, you sort of find, you give peace to your will, to a sense of will. And so I think that’s very, very important in design, but also in life. Lex Fridman (01:17:23): She said this fate is the ratio of… Neri Oxman (01:17:25): Who you are and who you want to be. Lex Fridman (01:17:27): Who you want to be. Do you think there’s something to this whole manifestation thing like focusing on a vision of what you want the world to become and in that focusing you manifest it? Like Paula Coelho said in the Alchemist, “when you want something, all the universe conspires in helping you to achieve it.” Is there something to that? Neri Oxman (01:17:48): I think so, yes. And I always think of what I do as the culmination of energy, information, and matter and how to direct energy, information, and matter in the design of a thing or in the design of a life. I think living is very much a process of channeling these energies to where they need to go. I think that the manifestation or part of that manifestation is the pointing to the moon in order to get to the moon. And that’s why manifestation is also directional. It has that vector quality to it that I think of agency as. Lex Fridman (01:18:31): Have you in your own life. Has there been things you’ve done where you kind of direct that energy information and matter in a way that opens up? Neri Oxman (01:18:41): New possibilities? Lex Fridman (01:18:42): Yeah. I mean, you’ve also said somewhere, I’m probably misquoting, that many things, you, Neri, are many things and you become new things every 10 years or so. Neri Oxman (01:18:56): Oh, I did say that somewhere, that every decade you’ve sort of switched. Lex Fridman (01:19:00): That was a previous Neri that said that. Neri Oxman (01:19:03): Yeah, I did say sometime ago that you have to sort of reboot every 10 years to keep creative and keep inventive and keep fresh. Lex Fridman (01:19:12): Is there are things you’ve done in your life where just doors opened? Neri Oxman (01:19:20): I think everything, everything, everything good I’ve found in my life has been found in that way of letting go and suspending my sense of disbelief. And often you will find me say to the team, suspend your disbelief. I don’t care that this is impossible. Let’s assume it is. Where does it take us? And that suspension of disbelief is absolutely part and parcel of the creative act. I did so when I was in medical school, I was in Hadassah and in the Hebrew University, and I remember I left medical school for architecture the day my grandmother passed away. And that was a moment of relief and that was a door that was closing that opened other opportunities. But that of course required letting go of the great vision of becoming a doctor and letting go of the dream of being surrounded by wonderful patients and the science of medicine and the research associated with that science. And letting go of that dream to accomplish another. Neri Oxman (01:20:43): And it has happened throughout my life in different ways. MIT was another experience like that where people pointed at me as the designer for whom the academic currency is not necessarily the citation index. And of course in order to get tenure at MIT, you have to look at the citation index. But for me it was not that. It was manifesting our work in shows and writing papers and writing patents and creating a celebration around the work. And I never saw a distinction between those ways of being. I also think that another kind of way of being or a modality of being that I found helpful is Viktor Frankl wrote this incredible book, Men’s Search for Meaning after the Holocaust. And he writes, different people pursue life for different reasons. According to Freud, the goal of life is to find pleasure and according to Adlers, to find power. Neri Oxman (01:21:54): And for Viktor Frankl, it was about finding meaning. And when you let go of the titles and the disciplines and the boundaries and the expectations and the perception, you are elevated to this really special, yes, spiritual, but definitely very, very creative plane where you can sort of start anew, look at the world through the lens of a bacterium or a robot, or look at ecology through the lens of chemistry and look at chemistry through the lens of robotics and look at robotics through the lens of microbial ecologies and so on and so forth. And I feel that kind of rebooting not every 10 years, but every minute, every breath, is very, very important for a creative life and for just maintaining this fresh mind to reboot, reboot, to begin again with every breath, begin again. And that can be confusing some. For my team members, I like to change my mind. It’s who I am, it’s how I think, it’s how I operate. Neri Oxman (01:23:11): And they’ll come and we found another technique or another technology that’s interesting and we thought that we were working on this functionalized fragrance, but now there’s another opportunity and let’s go there. And to me, I would much rather live life, like if I had to pick sort of my favorite Broadway show to enter and live through, it would be Into The Woods. It’s not a specific fairytale. It’s not the Sleeping Beauty or Little Red Riding Hood or Rapunzel, it’s all of them. It’s sort of moving into the forest and seeing this wonder and getting close and learning about that and then moving to another wonder. And life is really about tying all of these little fairytales together in work and also in life. Lex Fridman (01:24:06): Unafraid to leap into the unknown? Neri Oxman (01:24:07): Unafraid to leap into the unknown. Lex Fridman (01:24:08): Speaking of MIT, you got a tenure at MIT and then you leaped to New York and started a new company that with a vision that doesn’t span a couple of years, but centuries. Neri Oxman (01:24:21): I did. It was my destiny to start a company. And do I have mornings when I wake up and I ask myself what the hell am I doing? Yes, I have those mornings. Lex Fridman (01:24:32): What do you do with those mornings, by the way? Neri Oxman (01:24:33): I embrace them and I find gratitude and I say to myself, thank goodness. I am so lucky to have the ability to be frustrated in this way. So I really, really embrace these frustrations and I take them, I wrap them in a bubble and I look at it on the outside of my aware mind and I laugh at them, I smile at them. Lex Fridman (01:25:11): If I could return actually to the question of beauty for a second, I forgot to ask you something. You mentioned imperfection in the death masks. What role does imperfection play in our conception of beauty? What role does imperfection play in nature? There’s this Japanese aesthetics concept of wabi-sabi, which basically embraces imperfection. Nothing lasts, nothing is finished, and nothing is perfect. What do you think of that? Neri Oxman (01:25:45): I totally agree that change is the only permanence. That imperfection is there if only to signal that we are part of a bigger thing than ourselves, that we are on a journey, that things are in movement. And if they were perfect, of course, when things are perfect, it is just so boring. We end up with stereotypes. And as humans, but I think just in general as living beings, we’re here to find meaning and that meaning cannot be found without struggle and without seeking to, not to perfect, but to build towards something better. When I was a child, my mother who I love so much, always explained to me how important it is to fall and to fail and to fight and to argue, and that there is a way, that there’s a culture to failing and to imperfection. So I think it is necessary for something beautiful to be imperfect and it is a sign of nature because nothing in nature is perfect. Lex Fridman (01:27:09): What about human relations? You mentioned finding love. Are the flaws in humans, imperfection in humans, a component of love? What role do you think the flaws play? Neri Oxman (01:27:23): That’s a really profound question. I think the flaws are there to present a vulnerability, and those flaws are a sign of those vulnerabilities. And I think love is very, very gentle, right? Love with Bill, we often talk about between the two of us, about what drives all human behavior. And for him it’s incentive, as you might expect, and he will repeat this sentence to me, oh, incentive drives all human behavior. But I would say to me it’s love, very much so. And I think flaws are part of that because flaws are a sign of that vulnerability, whether physical, whether emotional vulnerability, and these vulnerabilities, they either tear us apart or they bring us together. Neri Oxman (01:28:36): The vulnerability is what is the glue. I think that the vulnerability enables connection. The connection is the glue, and that connection enables accessing a higher ground as a community as opposed to as an individual. So if there is a society of the mind, or if there are higher levels of awareness that can be accessed in community as opposed to again, going to the silkworm, as opposed to on the individual level, I think that those occur through the flaws and the vulnerabilities. And without them we cannot find connection, community. And without community, we can’t build what we have built as a civilization for the past hundreds of thousands of years. So I think not only are they beautiful, but they have a functional role in building civilizations. Lex Fridman (01:29:32): Yeah, there’s a sense in which love requires vulnerability and maybe love is the leap into that vulnerability. Neri Oxman (01:29:40): And I think yes, I think a flaw, think about it physically, I’m thinking about a brick that’s flawed, but in a way I think of a flaw as an increased surface area. Lex Fridman (01:30:02): That’s a good line. That’s a good line. Neri Oxman (01:30:03): A surface area that physically or emotionally, right, it sort of introduces this whole new dimension to a human or a brick. And because you have more surface area, you can use mortar and build a home. And yeah, I think of it as accessing this additional dimension of surface area that could be used for good or bad to connect, to communicate, to collaborate. It makes me think of that quote from this incredible movie I’ve watched years ago, Particle Fever, I think it was called, documentary about the large hadron collider, an incredible film, where they talk about the things that are least important for our survival are the things that make us human. Like the pure romantic act or the notion of, and Viktor Frankl talks about that too. Neri Oxman (01:31:01): He talks about feeling the sun on his arms as he is working the soil in two degrees Fahrenheit without clothes. And the officer berates him and says, what have you done? Have you been a businessman before you came here to the camp? And he says, I was a doctor. And he said, you must’ve made a lot of money as a doctor. And he said, all my work I’ve done for free, I’ve been helping the poor. But he keeps his humility and he keeps his modesty and he keeps his preservation of the spirit. And he says the things that actually make him able to, or made him able to outlive the terrible experience in the Holocaust was really cherishing this moment when the sun hits his skin or when he can eat a grain of rice, a single grain of rice. So I think cherishing is a very important part of living a meaningful life, being able to cherish those simple things Lex Fridman (01:32:30): To notice them and to- Neri Oxman (01:32:32): To notice them, to pay attention to them in the moment, and I do this now more than ever. Lex Fridman (01:32:42): Bakowski has this poem called Nirvana where it tells a story of a young man on a bus going through North Carolina or something like this, and they stop off in a cafe and there’s a waitress and he talks about that he notices the magic, something indescribable, he just notices the magic of it. And he gets back on the bus with the rest of the passengers. And none of them seem to have noticed the magic. And I think if you just allow yourself to pause, just to feel whatever that is, maybe ultimately it’s a kind of gratitude for, I don’t know what it is. I’m sure it’s just chemicals in the brain, but it is just so incredible to be alive and noticing that and appreciating that and being one in that with others. Neri Oxman (01:33:38): Yes. Yes. And that goes back to the fireplace, right to the first technology. What was the first technology? It was fire, first technology to have built community. And it emerged out of a vulnerability of wanting to stay away from the cold and be warm together. And of course, that fire is associated with not only with comfort and the ability to form bio relevant nutrients in our food and provide heat and comfort, but also spirits and a kind of way to enter a spiritual moment, to enter a moment that can only be experienced in a community as a form of a meditative moment. There is a lot to be said about light. Light is, I think, an important part of these moments of, I think it’s a real thing. I really truly believe that we’re born with an aura surface area that is measurable. I think we’re born into the world with an aura. And how do we channel that really ends up sort of defining the light in our lives. Lex Fridman (01:35:24): Do you think we’re all lonely? Do you think there’s loneliness in us humans? Neri Oxman (01:35:26): Oh yes, yes. Loneliness is part, yes. I think we all have that loneliness, whether we’re willing to access that loneliness and look at it in the eye or completely, completely avoid it or deny it. Lex Fridman (01:35:44): It feels like it’s some kind of foundation for longing and longing leads to this combination of vulnerability and connection with others. Neri Oxman (01:35:55): Yes. Lex Fridman (01:35:56): It feels like that’s a really important part of being human as being lonely. Neri Oxman (01:35:59): Very. We are born into this world alone. Again, being alone and being lonely are two different things and you can be together, but be lonely and you can be alone but not be lonely at all. We often joke, Bill and I, that he cannot be lonely. He cannot deal with being by himself. He always needs people around him. And I strive, long, must have creative solitude, must find pockets of solitude and loneliness in order to find creativity and reconnect with myself. So loneliness is a recipe for community in my opinion. And I think those things compliment each other. And they’re synergetic, absolutely. The yin and yang of togetherness. And they allow you, I think, to reset and to tune in to that ratio we talked about of who you are and who you want to be. Lex Fridman (01:37:07): If you go to this place of creative solitude, what’s your creative process? Is there something you’ve noticed about what you do that leads to good work? Neri Oxman (01:37:18): I love to be able not only to lose focus, but kind of to focus on the peripheral view and to allow different things to occur at once. So I will often, in my loneliness journeys, I will often listen to Leonard Bernstein. Anything I can find online by Lenny Bernstein, it’s reading a nature paper, it’s War and Peace. It’s really revisiting all the texts that are so timeless for me with opportunities that are very, very timely. And I think for me, the creative process is really about bringing timeless problems or concepts together with timely technologies to observe them. I remember when we did the Mandela Pavilion, we read Moby Dick, the whiteness of the whale, the albino, the different the other, and that got us to work on melanin and melanine also is sort of an output from the death mass. So it’s lots of things happening at the same time and really allowing them to come together to form this view about the world through the lens of a spirit being or a living being or a material. And then focus on the world through the lens of that material. Neri Oxman (01:38:41): The glasswork was another project like that where we were fascinated by glass because obviously it’s superb material for architecture, but we created this new glass printing technology for the first time that was shedding light on the biomechanics of fluid glass, the math and the physics of which was never done before, which was so exciting to us, but revealing new knowledge about the world through technology. That’s one theme. The reincarnation between things, material and immaterial. That’s another theme. Lenny Bernstein, War and Peace, Tolstoy. Lex Fridman (01:39:18): You’ve tweeted a Tolstoy quote from War and Peace, as of course you would. Everything I know, I know because of love. Neri Oxman (01:39:27): Yeah, I love this quote. Lex Fridman (01:39:28): So you use these kind of inspirations to focus you and then find the actual idea in the periphery. Neri Oxman (01:39:39): Yes. And then connect them with whatever it is that we’re working on, whether it’s high throughput, directed evolution of bacteria, whether it’s recreating that Garden of Eden in the capsule and what it looks like, the food of the future. It is a little bit like directing a film. Creating a new project is a bit like creating a film. And you have these heroes, you have these characters and you put them together and there is a narrative and there’s a story. Whenever we start a new project, it has to have these ingredients of simultaneous complexity. It has to be novel in terms of the synthetic biology, material science, robotics, engineering, all of these elements that are discipline based or rooted must be novel. Neri Oxman (01:40:31): If you can combine novelty in synthetic biology with a novelty in robotics, with a novelty in material science, with a novelty in computational design, you are bound to create something novel, period. And that’s how I run the company and that’s how I pick the people. And so that’s another very, very important ingredient of the cutting edge across multiple disciplines that come together. And then in the background, in the periphery, there is all these messages, the whispers of the ancient oldies, right? The Beethoven’s and the Picassos. Lex Fridman (01:41:05): So Beethoven’s always whispering to you. Neri Oxman (01:41:07): Yeah. How could one not include Beethoven in the whispers? Lex Fridman (01:41:11): I’m going to ask you about Beethoven and the Evgeny Kissin you’ve mentioned because I’ve played piano my whole life. I obviously know a lot of Beethoven and it’s one of the private things for me, I suppose, because don’t think I’ve ever publicly played piano.- Neri Oxman (01:41:25): By the way. Me too. Lex Fridman (01:41:25): I mean at night- Neri Oxman (01:41:30): I play in private only. Lex Fridman (01:41:32): People sometimes even with guitar, people ask me, can you play something? And it just feels like certain things are Neri Oxman (01:41:38): Are meant to be done- Lex Fridman (01:41:39): Privately. Yeah, it’s weird. I mean it’s a difficult, and some of the times I have performed publicly, it is an ultimate leap in vulnerability. It’s very, very, very difficult for me. And I’m sure, I know it’s not for a lot of people, but it is for me. Anyway, we’ll return to that. But since you’ve mentioned combination of novelty across multiple disciplines and that’s what you seek when you build teams or pick people you work with, I just wanted to linger on this idea of what kind of humans are you looking for in this endeavor that you’re taking on, this fascinating thing that you’ve been talking about. One of the things somewhere else, a previous version, version 5.7 of Neri said somewhere that there’s four fields that are combined to create this intersection of biology and engineering work, and it’s computational design, additive manufacturing, material engineering, synthetic biology. I’m sure there’s others, but how do you find these humans? Machine learnings in the mix. Neri Oxman (01:42:45): I manifest and they come, there are a few approaches to- Lex Fridman (01:42:50): Manifest. Neri Oxman (01:42:53): They show up. Lex Fridman (01:42:55): Okay. Neri Oxman (01:42:55): Send your message upon the water. I mean those job descriptions that you saw, the first ones I wrote by myself, and you find interesting people and brilliant people when you look, we talked about second derivative. When you look under and under and under. And if you look deep enough and specialized enough and if you allow yourself to look at the cracks, at the flaws, at the cracks between disciplines and between skills, you find really, really interesting diamonds in the rough. And so I like for those job descriptions to be those messages in a bottle that bring those really interesting people our way. I mean, they have to have humility. They have to have a shine in their eye. They have to be hungry and foolish, as Steve Jobs so famously said. Neri Oxman (01:43:49): A friend of mine who’s a dean of well-known architectural school said today, architects don’t want to be architects. Architects don’t look up to the starchitects as role models. Starchitects are no longer role models. Architects want to build by virtue of not building. Architects want, she said, we’re back in the sixties when we think about architecture back in the hippie movement, I think that in a way they have to be somewhat of a hippie, somewhat of a kind of jack of all trades, master of all. Lex Fridman (01:44:26): And yet with humility. Neri Oxman (01:44:27): And yet with humility. Now that is hard to find and that is why when I start an interview, I talk about childhood memories and I asked about music and I ask about connection. And through these interviews you can learn a lot about a person’s future by spending time hearing them talk about their past. Lex Fridman (01:44:52): Do you find that educational, like PhDs versus, what’s the life trajectory? Yours is an interesting life trajectory too. What’s the life trajectory that leads to the… Lex Fridman (01:45:03): What’s the life trajectory that leads to the kind of person that would work with you? Neri Oxman (01:45:07): It’s people who have ideally had industry experience and know what it’s like to be in the quote unquote real world. They’re dreamers that are addicted to reality as opposed to realists that are addicted to dreams, meaning they have that innocence in them, they have the hunger, they have the idealism without being entitled and with understanding the systems that govern our world and understanding how to utilize these systems as Trojan horses to bring those values into the world. There are individuals who feel comfortable in this friction between highly wondrous and dreamy and incredible fantasy renditions of what the world could be and extremely brilliant skills in terms of their disciplinary background. PhD with industrial experience in a certain field or a double major in two fields that make no sense whatsoever in their combination. Lex Fridman (01:46:17): I love it. Yeah. Neri Oxman (01:46:17): Are things that really, really attract me. Lex Fridman (01:46:19): Especially the span, the technology biology gap. Neri Oxman (01:46:24): Yes. Technology, biology, nature, culture. I mean, the secret to one thing is through the lens of another. And I always believe in that kind of translational design ability to be able to see something through the lens of another and always allows you to think again, begin again, reestablish, redefine, suspend your disbelief, revisit. And when you revisit enough times like a hundred times or 200 times and you revisit the same question through the lens of any possible discipline and any possible scenario, eventually you get to the truth. Lex Fridman (01:46:59): I have to ask you, because you work at the interplay of the machine and the natural world, is there a good definition for you of what is life? What is a living organism? Neri Oxman (01:47:15): I think 440 million years ago, there were all these plants, the cyanobacteria I believe actually. That was the first extinction. There were five extinctions. We are apparently the sixth. We are in the eye of the storm. We are in the sixth extinction. We are going to be extinct as we speak. I mean, death is upon us whether we want to admit it or not. Neri Oxman (01:47:42): And actually they found in Argentina and in various places around the world, they found these spores of the first plants that existed on the planet. And they emerged out of these … Cyanobacteria were the first of course, and then they found these spore based plants. And because they didn’t have seeds there were only spores. The spores became sort of the fossils by which we’ve come to known of their existence. And because of these spores, we know that this first extinction existed. Neri Oxman (01:48:18): But this extinction is actually what enabled plants to resurrect. The death of these first plants, because they clinked to the rocks and they generated a ton of phosphorus that went into the ocean by clinging to the rocks 60 times more phosphorus than without them. And then all this phosphorus basically choked the oceans and made them super cold and without oxygen, anoxic. And then we lost the plant kingdom, and then because of the death of these first plants, they actually enriched the soil and created nutrients for these new plants to come to the planet. And those planets had more sophisticated vein systems and they were moving beyond spores to seeded plants, et cetera, and flowering plants. And so in a way, one mass extinction or the division period led to life as we know it. And where would we be without plants in a way? Neri Oxman (01:49:31): I think that death is very much part of life and through that definition, that kind of planetary wide definition in the context of hundreds of millions of years, life gains a completely new light. And that’s when the particles become a wave, where humans, we are not alone and we are here because of those plants. I think death is very much part of life. In the context of the redwood tree, perhaps life is defined as 10 generations. And through the lens of a bacteria, perhaps life is defined as a millisecond. And perhaps through the lens of an AGI, life is defined as all of human civilization. And so I think it really is a question of this timescale again, the timescale and the organism, the life form that’s asking the question through which we can answer, what is life? Lex Fridman (01:50:36): What do you think about this? If we think of ourselves in the eye of the storm of another extinction, the natural question to ask here is you have all of nature and then you have this new human creation that is currently being termed artificial intelligence. How does your work play with the possibility of a future super intelligent ecosystem, an AGI that either joins or supersedes humans? Neri Oxman (01:51:13): I’m glad you asked this question. Lex Fridman (01:51:15): And are you hopeful or terrified? Neri Oxman (01:51:17): Both. I’m hopeful and terrified. I did watch your interview with Eliezer Yudkowsky and I loved it Lex Fridman (01:51:25): Because you were scared or because you were excited or because there was a [inaudible 01:51:29]? Neri Oxman (01:51:28): First of all, I was both. Totally scared, shamed, excited, and totally also inspired because he’s just such an incredible thinker. And I can agree or disagree with what he says, but I just found his way of thinking about AGI and the perils of humanity as a result. Lex Fridman (01:51:53): There’s an inevitability to what he’s saying. His advice to young people is that prepare for a short life. He thinks it’s very almost simple. It’s almost common sense that AGI would get rid of humans, that he can’t imagine a trajectory eventually that leads to a place that doesn’t have AGI kill all humans. There’s just too many trajectories where a super intelligent systems gets rid of humans and in the near term. And so that clarity of thinking is very sobering. To me, maybe it is to you as well, it’s super inspiring because I think he’s wrong, but it’s like you almost want to prove him wrong. It’s like, “No, we humans are a clever bunch. We’re going to find a way.” Neri Oxman (01:52:48): It is a bit like jumping into super cold water. It’s sort of a kind of fist in your face. It wakes you up. And I like these moments so much, and he was able to bring that moment to life, even though I think a mother can never think that way ever. And it’s a little bit like that notion of I love her more than evolution requires. Neri Oxman (01:53:14): On your question about AGI and nature, look, I think we’ve been through a lot in terms of to get here, we sort of moved from data, the ability to collect information to knowledge, the ability to use this information for utility, from knowledge to intelligence. And what is intelligence? It’s the ability to problem solve and adapt and translate. That’s sort of from data to information to knowledge. I think the next frontier is wisdom. And what is wisdom? Wisdom is the ability to have or find insight about the world and from wisdom to spiritual awareness, which sort of transcends wisdom and is able to chart the world into new territory. Neri Oxman (01:53:58): But I think what is interesting about AGI is that it is sort of almost like a self recursive thing, because it’s like a washing machine of a third derivative Wikipedia. It uses kind of language to create language, to create language, to create language. Lex Fridman (01:54:15): It feels like novelty is being constantly created. It doesn’t feel like it’s regurgitating. Neri Oxman (01:54:20): And that’s so fascinating because these are not the stochastic parrots. This is sort of a new form of emergence perhaps of novelty as you say, that exists by virtue of using old things to create new things. Neri Oxman (01:54:38): But it’s not as if the AGI has self-awareness. Maybe. Maybe it has, but as far as I can tell, it’s not as if AGI has approached consciousness or sentience just yet. It’s probably getting there. But the language appears to present itself as if there is sentience there, but it doesn’t. But I think that’s the problem at the point where this AGI sounds like me and speaks like me and behaves like me and feels like me and breathes like me and my daughter knows the AGI to be me as sort of the end of everything is the end of human agency. Neri Oxman (01:55:23): But what is the end of human agency to humans I think is the beginning of agency to nature. Because if you take all of this agency, if you take all of these language models that can summarize all of human civilization and consciousness and then upload that to nature and have nature now deal with that world of consciousness that it never had access to. Neri Oxman (01:55:49): Maybe through Eliezer’s lens, the sort of short-lived human becomes sort of a very long-lived humanlike, sentient, weeping willow. Maybe that’s the end in the beginning. And maybe on the more optimistic side for us humans, it’s a different form of existence where everything we create and everything we consume and everything we process is all made out of six elements and that’s it. And there’s only those six elements and not 118 elements. And it’s all the stuff of biology plus some fair amount of bits, genes, and atoms. A lot of Beethoven. Lex Fridman (01:56:44): A lot of Beethoven. I think the idea of connecting AGI to nature through your work is really fascinating. Sort of unlocking this incredible machinery of intelligence that is AGI and connecting it to the incredible machinery of wisdom that is nature has evolved through billions of years of pretty crazy intense evolution. Neri Oxman (01:57:15): Exactly. Again, I’m going back to directed evolution. Unlike this sort of high throughput brute force approach, if there is a way to utilize this synergy for diversity and diversification, what happens if you ask a ChatGPT question, but it takes 10,000 years to answer that question? What does that look like when you completely switch the timescale and you can afford the time to answer the question? And again, I don’t know, but that world to me is possibly amazing. Lex Fridman (01:58:10): Because when we start to think about timescales like this, just looking at earth, all the possible trajectories it might take of this living organism that is earth, do you think there’s others like it? Do you think there’s other planets with life forms on them that are just doing their thing in this kind of way? Neri Oxman (01:58:26): Planets. Lex Fridman (01:58:27): Because in what you’re doing, you’re directly playing with what’s possible with life, lifelike things. That kind of maps the question of, well, what kind of other things are possible elsewhere? Do you think there’s other worlds full of life, full of alien life out there? Neri Oxman (01:58:50): I’ve studied the calculations that point towards the verdict that the possibility of life in and around us is very, very low. We are a chosen planet in a way. There’s water and there’s love. What else do you need? And that sort of very peculiar juxtaposition of conditions, the oxygen, the water, the carbon again, is in a way a miracle given the massive extinctions that we’ve been through as life forms. Neri Oxman (01:59:33): And that said, I cannot believe that there is no other life form. I want to believe more than I know that yes, that there are life forms in the white fountain that is the black hole, that there are these life forms that are light years away from us, that are forming other forms of life forces. Lex Fridman (02:00:05): I’m much more worried about probably the thing that you’re working on, which is that there’s all kinds of life around us that we’re not communicating with. Neri Oxman (02:00:17): Yes. Lex Fridman (02:00:18): That there’s aliens in a sense all around us that we’re not seeing, that we’re not talking to, that we’re not communicating. Because that to me just seems the more likely situation. Neri Oxman (02:00:30): That they’re here. Lex Fridman (02:00:31): That they’re here, they’re all around us in different forms, that there’s a thing that connects all of us, all of living beings across the universe, and we’re just beginning to understand any of it. And I feel like that’s the important problem is I feel like you can get there with the tools of science today by just studying life on earth. Unlock some really fundamental things that maybe you can start to answer questions about what is consciousness? Maybe this thing that we’ve been saying about love, but honestly, in a serious way. And then you’ll start to understand that there is alien life all out there, and it’s much more complicated and interesting than we kind of realize as opposed to looking to exactly human-like things. It’s the variety of life that’s possible is just almost endless. Neri Oxman (02:01:28): I totally agree with you. I think again, define alien, right? Lex Fridman (02:01:36): Yeah. Define intelligence, define life. Neri Oxman (02:01:39): Right. And Marvin Minsky used to say, “Intelligence is a suitcase word.” It’s a word so big. It’s a word like sustainability, and it’s a word like rock and roll. And suitcase words are always very, very dangerous. Lex Fridman (02:01:55): Speaking of rock and roll, you’ve mentioned music and you mentioned Beethoven a bunch of times. You’ve also tweeted about you getting Kiss in performance and so on. What can you say about the role of music in your life? Neri Oxman (02:02:09): I love music. I always wondered why is it that plastic arts, meaning architecture and sculpture and painting, can’t get us to cry and music gets us to cry so quickly and connect so quickly? And no wonder that plants also respond to music, but that is at the top of the creative pyramid in my opinion. Lex Fridman (02:02:33): It’s a weird mystery that we’re so connected to music. Well, by the way, to push back, a good bridge will make me cry. Neri Oxman (02:02:41): It’s true. And I will say when I visited the Segreta Familia, I had that kind of spiritual reverence towards that spatial experience and being in that space and feeling the intention and the space and appreciating every little gesture. It’s true. It is the universal language. It’s the language of waves. It’s the language of the waves, not the language of the particles. It is the universal language, I believe, and that is definitely one of my loves. Lex Fridman (02:03:16): And you said that if you weren’t doing what you were doing now, perhaps you would be a film director. I have to ask, what do you think is the best film of all time? Maybe top three? Neri Oxman (02:03:30): Maybe The Godfather. Lex Fridman (02:03:33): Godfather, okay. Neri Oxman (02:03:34): The Godfather is definitely up there. Francis Coppola is one of my heroes. Lex Fridman (02:03:39): Have you met him? Neri Oxman (02:03:40): I have met him, yes. Yes, yes. We were very lucky to work with him on his new film, Megalopolis, which is coming out I hope in 2024. And think about the cities of the future in the context of new materials and the unity between nature and culture. Godfather is definitely up there. Neri Oxman (02:04:02): 2001 is up there. I would watch that film again and again and again. It’s incredible. The last scene in Odyssey 2001, just watch the last scene of 2001, then listen to Yudkowsky, and then go to the garden. And that’s pretty much the end in the beginning. Neri Oxman (02:04:27): But that scene, that last scene from 2001 is everything. It says so much with so little and it’s sort of the embodiment I believe, of ambivalence. And there’s opportunity to believe in the beginning of humankind, the end of humankind, the planet, child star or star child of the future. Was there a death? Was there an reincarnation? That final scene to me is something that I go back to and study, and every time there is a different reading of that scene that inspires me. That scene, and then the first scene in The Godfather, still one of the best scenes of all times, sort of a portrait of America, the ideals and values that are brought from Italy. Lex Fridman (02:05:23): A family of loyalty. Neri Oxman (02:05:25): Yes. Lex Fridman (02:05:26): Of values of how different values are constructed. Neri Oxman (02:05:29): Yes. Loyalty and the human spirit and how Coppola celebrates the human spirit through the most simple gestures in language and acting. And I think in Kubrick you see this highly curated and controlled and manicured vision of creating a film. And with Francis, it’s like an Italian feast. It’s like anything can happen at any moment in time. And just being on the set with him is an experience I’ll take with me to my grave. It’s very, very, very special. Lex Fridman (02:06:12): And you said music is also part of that, of creating a feeling in the movies? Neri Oxman (02:06:13): Yeah, actually The Godfather, that tune- Lex Fridman (02:06:21): That makes me emotional every time on some weird level. Neri Oxman (02:06:25): Yeah. It’s one of these tunes I’m sure that if you play it to a Jasmine, you’ll get the best scent of all times. But I think with that particular tune, I learned staccato as something very, very happy and joyous. And then made into this stretched in time and became kind of the refrain of nostalgia and melancholy and loyalty and all of these values that ride on top of this one single tune. Lex Fridman (02:07:05): And you can play it in all kinds of different ways. I’ve played it on guitar and all kinds of different ways. And I think in Godfather III, the son plays it on guitar to the father. I think this happens in movies, but sometimes a melody, and it has a simple melody, you can just like- Neri Oxman (02:07:22): And the Straus melody in 2001. And when you juxtapose this melodies with this scene, you get this, again, hole that’s bigger than some of its parts where you get this moment, I think. These are the moments I would send with the next Voyager to outer space. The Godfather in 2001 would definitely beyond that golden record. Lex Fridman (02:07:54): You are an incredibly successful scientist, engineer, architect, artist, designer. You’ve mentored a lot of successful people. Can you give advice to young people listening to this of how to have a successful career and how to have a successful life? Neri Oxman (02:08:14): Look, I think there’s this beautiful line in Sheltering Sky. How many times have you seen a full moon in your life and actually took the time to ingest and explore and reflect upon the full moon? Probably 20, I believe he says. Neri Oxman (02:08:35): I spend time with a full moon. I take my time with a full moon and I pay attention to a full moon. And I think paying attention to the seasons and taking time to appreciate the little things, the simple things is what makes a meaningful life. I was very lucky to have grown up in a home that taught me this way of being. My parents, my grandmother, who played a very important role in my growing up. And that ability to pay attention and to be present is so, so, so, so … I could not emphasize it enough, is so crucial. Lex Fridman (02:09:39): And be grateful. Neri Oxman (02:09:40): And be grateful. I think gratitude and presence, appreciation are really the most important things in life. Lex Fridman (02:09:53): If you could take a short tangent about your grandmother who’s played a big role in your life, what do you remember? What lessons have you learned from her? Neri Oxman (02:10:05): She had this blanket that she would give me every time I came back from school and say, “Do your homework here and meet with your friends here.” And it was always in her garden. And her garden in my mind was ginormous. But when last I went there and saw the site, which has now become the site for another tall building, it was a tiny, tiny little garden that to me, seemed so large when I was growing up because it had everything. It had fig trees, it had olive trees, it had mushrooms, it had the blanket. I would do my homework there. It was everything. And I needed nothing else. And that was my Garden of Eden. That was my childhood being. Neri Oxman (02:10:53): And we would lie on the blanket and look at the clouds and reflect upon the shapes of the clouds and study the shapes of the plants, and there was a lot of wonder in that childhood with her. And she taught me the importance of wonder in an eternal childhood and living adulthood as a child. And so I am very, very grateful for that. I think it is the sense of wonder, the speaking up was always something that she adhered to, to speak up your truth, to be straightforward, to be positive. Neri Oxman (02:11:42): These are things that I also got from my mom. And from my mom, the sense of humor. She had the best sense of humor that I could think of and was just a joy to be around. And my father taught me everything. My father taught me everything I know. My mom taught me everything I feel. Lex Fridman (02:12:02): That’s a good way to put it. Neri Oxman (02:12:02): My grandma taught me everything I insight. Lex Fridman (02:12:08): Well, I see the sense of wonder that just carries through everything you do. So I think you make your grandmother proud. Lex Fridman (02:12:17): Well, what about advice for how to have a career? You’ve had a very interesting career and a successful career, but not an easy one. You took a few leaps. Neri Oxman (02:12:29): I did take a few leaps and they were uncomfortable. And I’ll never forget, I think we were listening to a Rolling Stone song in the kitchen, and my dad was actually born in Boston. He’s American. He said, “I started to have sort of these second thoughts about continuing my education in Israel, and I was on my way to London to the Architectural Association to do my diploma studies there.” And he looked at me and he said, “Get out of here kiddo. You got to get out of here. You’ve outgrown where you’re at. You need to move forward.” Neri Oxman (02:13:16): Another thing he had taught me, the feeling of discomfort. As you say, the feeling of loneliness and discomfort is imperative to growth. Growth is painful. Period. Any form of growth is difficult and painful. Birth is difficult and painful, and it is really, really important to place yourself in situations of discomfort. I like to be in a room where everyone in the room is more intelligent than me. I like to be in that kind of state where the people that I surround myself with are orders of magnitude more intelligent than I am. And I can say that that is true of all of my team members, and that’s the intellectual discomfort that I feed off of. The same is true for physical exertion. You got to put yourself in these uncomfortable situations in order to grow, in order to find comfort. Neri Oxman (02:14:19): And then on the other hand is love, is finding love and finding this other human that compliments you and that makes you a better version of the one you are and even of the one you want to be. But with gratitude and attention and love, you can go so, so far. Neri Oxman (02:14:51): To the younger generation, I don’t speak of a career. I never thought of my work as my career, ever. And there was this constant entanglement between life and work and love and longing and being and mothering. It’s all the same. And I appreciate that to some people that doesn’t work in their arrangement of will versus comfort versus the reality. But for me, it has always worked. I think to the younger generation, I say, don’t think of your career. A career is something that is imposed upon you. Think of your calling. That’s something that’s innately and directionally moves you, and it’s something that transcends a career. Neri Oxman (02:15:47): Similarly, you can think about the difference between learning versus being educated. Being educated is something that’s given to you that’s external, that’s being imposed, that’s top down imposed, whereas learning is something that comes from within. It’s also the difference between joy and happiness. Many times I’m sad and I’m still joyous. And it’s very, very important to understand the difference between these externally perceived success paths and internally driven value-based ways of being in the world. Neri Oxman (02:16:22): And together, when we combine the broken puzzle, let’s say, of substance and vulnerability, we get this bigger gestalt, this wondrous world of a future that is peaceful, that is wholesome, and that proposes or advocates for that kind of synergy that we’ve been talking about throughout. But it’s all fun. Lex Fridman (02:17:01): Well, thank you for this incredible conversation. Thank you for all the work you’re doing. Neri Oxman (02:17:05): Thank you. Lex Fridman (02:17:06): And I just have to say that thank you for noticing me and listening to me. You’re somebody from just today and from our exchanges before this, there’s a sense where you care about me as a human being, which I could tell you care about other humans. Thank you for doing that. Thank you for having empathy and just really listening and noticing me that I exist. Thank you for that. I’ve been a huge fan of your work, been a huge fan of who you are as a human being. It’s just an honor that you would sit with me. Thank you. Neri Oxman (02:17:40): Thank you so much, Lex. I feel the same way. I’ll just say the same. Lex Fridman (02:17:46): And I look forward to hearing the response to my job application that I’ve submitted. Neri Oxman (02:17:50): Oh, you’re accepted. Lex Fridman (02:17:51): Oh, damn. All right, excellent. Neri Oxman (02:17:53): We all speak of you all the time. Lex Fridman (02:17:55): Thank you so much. Neri Oxman (02:17:55): Thank you, Lex. Lex Fridman (02:17:56): Thank you, Neri. Thank you. Lex Fridman (02:17:58): Thanks for listening to this conversation with Neri Oxman. To support this podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now let me leave you with some words from Leo Tolstoy, “Everything I know, I know because of love.” Thank you for listening. I hope to see you next time.

本集資源與出處