The following is a conversation with Colin Angle. He's the CEO and co founder of iRobot, a robotics company that for 29 years has been creating robots that operate successfully in the real world. Not as a demo or on a scale of dozens, but on a scale of thousands and millions. As of this year, iRobot has sold more than 25 million robots to consumers, including the Roomba vacuum cleaning robot, the Bravo floor mopping robot, and soon the Terra lawn mowing robot. 29 million robots successfully operating autonomously in real people's homes, to me is an incredible accomplishment of science, engineering, logistics, and all kinds of general entrepreneurial innovation. Most robotics companies fail. iRobot has survived and succeeded for 29 years. I spent all day at iRobot, including a long tour and conversation with Colin about the history of iRobot, and then sat down for this podcast conversation that would have been much longer if I didn't spend all day learning about and playing with the various robots and the company's history. I'll release the video of the tour separately. Colin, iRobot, its founding team, its current team, and its mission has been and continues to be an inspiration to me and thousands of engineers who are working hard to create AI systems that help real people. This is the Artificial Intelligence Podcast. If you enjoy it, subscribe on YouTube, give it five stars on iTunes, support it on Patreon, or simply connect with me on Twitter at Lex Friedman, spelled F R I D M A N. And now, here's my conversation with Colin Angle. In his 1942 short story, Runaround, from his iRobot collection, Asimov proposed the three laws of robotics in order, don't harm humans, obey orders, protect yourself. So two questions. First, does the Roomba follow these three laws? And also, more seriously, what role do you hope to see robots take in modern society and in the future world? So the three laws are very thought provoking and require such a profound understanding of the world a robot lives in, the ramifications of its action and its own sense of self that it's not a relevant bar, at least it won't be a relevant bar for decades to come. And so if Roomba follows the three laws, and I believe it does, it is designed to help humans, not hurt them, it's designed to be inherently safe, and we designed it to last a long time. It's not through any AI or intent on the robot's part. It's because following the three laws is aligned with being a good robot product. So I guess it does, but not by explicit design. So then the bigger picture, what role do you hope to see robotics, robots take in what's currently mostly a world of humans? We need robots to help us continue to improve our standard of living. We need robots because the average age of humanity is increasing very quickly, and simply the number of people young enough and spry enough to care for the elder growing demographic is inadequate. And so what is the role of robots? Today, the role is to make our lives a little easier, a little cleaner, maybe a little healthier. But in time, robots are going to be the difference between real gut wrenching declines in our ability to live independently and maintain our standard of living, and a future that is the bright one where we have more control over our lives, can spend more of our time focused on activities we choose. And I'm so honored and excited to be playing a role in that journey. So you've given me a tour. It showed me some of the long histories, now 29 years that iRobot has been at it, creating some incredible robots. You showed me Pacbot. You showed me a bunch of other stuff that led up to Roomba, that led to Braava and Terra. So let's skip that incredible history in the interest of time, cause we already talked about it. I'll show this incredible footage. You mentioned elderly and robotics in society. I think the home is a fascinating place for robots to be. So where do you see robots in the home? Currently, I would say, once again, probably most homes in the world don't have a robot. So how do you see that changing? What do you think is the big initial value add that robots can do? So iRobot has sort of, over the years, narrowed in on the home, the consumer's home, as the place where we want to innovate and deliver tools that will help a home be a more automatically maintained place, a healthier place, a safer place, and perhaps even a more efficient place to be. And today, we vacuum, we mop, soon we'll be mowing your lawn. But where things are going is, when do we get to the point where the home, not just the robots that live in your home, but the home itself becomes part of a system that maintains itself and plays an active role in caring for and helping the people live in that home. And I see everything that we're doing as steps along the path toward that future. So what are the steps? So if we can summarize some of the history of Roomba, you've mentioned, and maybe you can elaborate on it, but you mentioned that the early days were really taking a robot from something that works either in the lab or something that works in the field that helps soldiers do the difficult work they do to actually be in the hands of consumers and tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of robots that don't break down over how much people love them over months of very extensive use. So that was the big first step. And then the second big step was the ability to sense the environment, to build a map, to localize, to be able to build a picture of the home that the human can then attach labels to in terms of giving some semantic knowledge to the robot about its environment. Okay, so that's like a huge, two big, huge steps. Maybe you can comment on them, but also what is the next step of making a robot part of the home? Sure, so the goal is to make a home that takes care of itself, takes care of the people in the home, and gives the user an experience of just living their life and the home is somehow doing the right thing, turning on and off lights when you leave, cleaning up the environment. And we went from robots that were great in the lab, but were both too expensive and not sufficiently capable to ever do an acceptable job of anything other than being a toy or a curio in your home to something that was both affordable and sufficiently effective to drive, be above threshold and drive purchase intent. Now we've disrupted the entire vacuuming industry. The number one selling vacuums, for example, in the US are Roombas, so not robot vacuums, but vacuums, and that's really crazy and weird. We need to pause that. I mean, that's incredible. That's incredible that a robot is the number one selling thing that does something. Yep. Something as essential as vacuuming. Yep. Congratulations. Thank you. It's still kind of fun to say, but just because this was a crazy idea that just started, you know, in a room here, we're like, do you think we can do this? So, hey, let's give it a try. But now the robots are starting to understand their environment. And if you think about the next step, there's two dimensions. I've been working so hard since the beginning of iRobot to make robots are autonomous, that, you know, they're smart enough and understand their task enough, they can just go do it without human involvement. Now what I'm really excited and working on is how do I make them less autonomous? Meaning that the robot is supposed to be your partner, not this automaton that just goes and does what a robot does. And so that if you tell it, hey, I just dropped some flour by the fridge in the kitchen, can you deal with it? Wouldn't it be awesome if the right thing just happened based on that utterance? And to some extent, that's less autonomous because it's actually listening to you, understanding the context and intent of the sentence, mapping it against its understanding of the home it lives in and knowing what to do. And so that's an area of research. It's an area where we're starting to roll out features. You can now tell your robot to clean up the kitchen and it knows what the kitchen is and can do that. And that's sort of 1.0 of where we're going. The other cool thing is that we're starting to know where stuff is. And why is that important? Well, robots are supposed to have arms, right? Data had an arm, Rosie had an arm, Robbie the robot had an arm. I mean, robots are, you know, they are physical things that move around in an environment and they're supposed to like do work. And if you think about it, if a robot doesn't know where anything is, why should it have an arm? But with this new dawn of home understanding that we're starting to go enjoy, I know where the kitchen is. I might in the future know where the refrigerator is. I might, if I had an arm, be able to find the handle, open it and even get myself a beer. Obviously, that's one of the true dreams of robotics is to have robots bringing us a beer while we watch television. But, you know, I think that that new category of tasks where physical manipulation, robot arms, is just a potpourri of new opportunity and excitement. And you see humans as a crucial part of that. So you kind of mentioned that. And I personally find that a really compelling idea. I think full autonomy can only take us so far, especially in the home. So you see humans as helping the robot understand or give deeper meaning to the spatial information. Right. It's a partnership. The robot is supposed to operate according to descriptors that you would use to describe your own home. The robot is supposed to, in lieu of better direction, kind of go about its routine, which ought to be basically right, and lead to a home maintained in a way that it's learned you like, but also be perpetually ready to take direction that would activate a different set of behaviors or actions to meet a current need to the extent it could actually perform that task. So I got to ask you, I think this is a fundamental and a fascinating question, because iRobot has been a successful company and a rare successful robotics company. So Anki, Jibo, Mayfield Robotics with their robot curry, SciFi Works, Rethink Robotics, these are robotics companies that were founded and run by brilliant people. But all, very unfortunately, at least for us roboticists, all went out of business recently. So why do you think they didn't last longer? Why do you think it is so hard to keep a robotics company alive? You know, I say this only partially in jest that back in the day before Roomba, you know, I was a high tech entrepreneur building robots. But it wasn't until I became a vacuum cleaner salesman that we had any success. So, I mean, the point is technology alone doesn't equal a successful business. We need to go and find the compelling need where the robot that we're creating can deliver clearly more value to the end user than it costs. And this is not a marginal thing where you're looking at the scale and you're like, yeah, it's close. Maybe we can hold our breath and make it work. It's clearly more value than the cost of the robot to bring, you know, in the store. And I think that the challenge has been finding those businesses where that's true in a sustainable fashion. You know, when you get into entertainment style things, you could be the cat's meow one year, but 85% of toys, regardless of their merit, fail to make it to their second season. It's just super hard to do so. And so that's just a tough business. And there has been a lot of experimentation around what is the right type of social companion, what is the right robot in the home that is doing something other than tasks people do every week that they'd rather not do. And I'm not sure we've got it all figured out right. And so that you get brilliant roboticists with super interesting robots that ultimately don't quite have that magical user experience and thus that value benefit equation remains ambiguous. So you as somebody who dreams of robots changing the world, what's your estimate? How big is the space of applications that fit the criteria that you just described where you can really demonstrate an obvious significant value over the alternative non robotic solution? Well, I think that we're just about none of the way to achieving the potential of robotics at home. But we have to do it in a really eyes wide open, honest fashion. And so another way to put that is the potential is infinite because we did take a few steps, but you're saying those steps are just very initial steps. So the Roomba is a hugely successful product, but you're saying that's just the very, very beginning. That's just the very, very beginning. It's the foot in the door. And I think I was lucky that in the early days of robotics, people would ask me, when are you going to clean my floor? It was something that I grew up saying, I got all these really good ideas, but everyone seems to want their floor clean. And so maybe we should do that. Yeah, your good ideas. Earn the right to do the next thing after that. So the good ideas have to match with the desire of the people and then the actual cost has to like the business, the financial aspect has to all match together. Yeah, during our partnership back a number of years ago with Johnson Wax, they would explain to me that they would go into homes and just watch how people lived and try to figure out what were they doing that they really didn't really like to do, but they had to do it frequently enough that it was top of mind and understood as a burden. Hey, let's make a product or come up with a solution to make that pain point less challenging. And sometimes we do certain burdens so often as a society that we actually don't even realize, like it's actually hard to see that that burden is something that could be removed. So it does require just going into the home and staring at, wait, how do I actually live life? What are the pain points? Yeah, and getting those insights is a lot harder than it would seem it should be in retrospect. So how hard on that point? I mean, one of the big challenges of robotics is driving the cost down to something that consumers, people would afford. So people would be less likely to buy a Roomba if it cost $500,000, which is probably sort of what a Roomba would cost several decades ago. So how do you drive, which I mentioned is very difficult, how do you drive the cost of a Roomba or a robot down such that people would want to buy it? When I started building robots, the cost of the robot had a lot to do with the amount of time it took to build it. And so that we build our robots out of aluminum, I would go spend my time in the machine shop on the milling machine, cutting out the parts and so forth. And then when we got into the toy industry, I realized that if we were building at scale, I could determine the cost of the Roomba instead of adding up all the hours to mill out the parts, but by weighing it. And that's liberating. You can say, wow, the world has just changed as I think about construction in a different way. The 3D CAD tools that are available to us today, the operating at scale where I can do tooling and injection mold, an arbitrarily complicated part, and the cost is going to be basically the weight of the plastic in that part, is incredibly exciting and liberating and opens up all sorts of opportunities. And for the sensing part of it, where we are today is instead of trying to build skin, which is really hard. For a long time, I spent creating strategies and ideas around how could we duplicate the skin on the human body because it's such an amazing sensor. Instead of going down that path, why don't we focus on vision? And how many of the problems that face a robot trying to do real work could be solved with a cheap camera and a big ass computer? Moore's law continues to work. The cell phone industry, the mobile industry is giving us better and better tools that can run on these embedded computers. And I think we passed an important moment maybe two years ago where you could put machine vision capable processors on robots at consumer price points. And I was waiting for it to happen. We avoided putting lasers on our robots to do navigation and instead spent years researching how to do vision based navigation because you could just see where these technology trends were going. And between injection molded plastic and a camera with a computer capable of running machine learning and visual object recognition, I could build an incredibly affordable, incredibly capable robot. And that's going to be the future. So on that point with a small tangent, but I think an important one, another industry in which I would say the only other industry in which there is automation actually touching people's lives today is autonomous vehicles. What the vision you just described of using computer vision and using cheap camera sensors, there's a debate on that of LIDAR versus computer vision. And the Elon Musk famously said that LIDAR is a crutch that really in the long term, camera only is the right solution, which echoes some of the ideas you're expressing. Of course, the domain in terms of its safety criticality is different. But what do you think about that approach in the autonomous vehicle space? And in general, do you see a connection between the incredible real world challenges you have to solve in the home with Roomba? And I saw a demonstration of some of them, corner cases literally, and autonomous vehicles. So there's absolutely a tremendous overlap between both the problems a robot vacuum and an autonomous vehicle are trying to solve and the tools and the types of sensors that are being applied in the pursuit of the solutions. In my world, my environment is actually much harder than the environment an automobile travels. We don't have roads. We have t shirts. We have steps. We have a near infinite number of patterns and colors and surface textures on the floor. Especially from a visual perspective. So the way the world looks is an infinitely variable. On the other hand, safety is way easier on the inside. My robots, they're not very heavy. They're not very fast. If they bump into your foot, you think it's funny. And autonomous vehicles kind of have the inverse problem. And so that for me saying vision is the future, I can say that without reservation. For autonomous vehicles, I think I believe what Elon's saying about the future is ultimately going to be vision. Maybe if we put a cheap lighter on there as a backup sensor, it might not be the worst idea in the world. So the stakes are much higher. The stakes are much higher. You have to be much more careful thinking through how far away that future is. Right. But I think that the primary environmental understanding sensor is going to be a visual system. Visual system. So on that point, well, let me ask, do you hope there's an iRobot robot in every home in the world one day? I expect there to be at least one iRobot robot in every home. We've sold 25 million robots. So we're in about 10% of US homes, which is a great start. But I think that when we think about the numbers of things that robots can do, today I can vacuum your floor, mop your floor, cut your lawn, or soon we'll be able to cut your lawn. But there are more things that we could do in the home. And I hope that we continue using the techniques I described around exploiting computer vision and low cost manufacturing that we'll be able to create these solutions at affordable price points. So let me ask on that point of a robot in every home, that's my dream as well. I'd love to see that. I think the possibilities there are indeed infinite positive possibilities. But in our current culture, no thanks to science fiction and so on, there's a serious kind of hesitation, anxiety, concern about robots, and also a concern about privacy. And it's a fascinating question to me why that concern is amongst a certain group of people is as intense as it is. So you have to think about it because it's a serious concern. But I wonder how you address it best. So from a perspective of vision sensors, so robots that move about the home and sense the world, how do you alleviate people's privacy concerns? How do you make sure that they can trust iRobot and the robots that they share their home with? I think that's a great question. And we've really leaned way forward on this because given our vision as to the role the company intends to play in the home, really for us, make or break is can our approach be trusted to protecting the data and the privacy of the people who have our robots? And so we've gone out publicly with a privacy manifesto stating we'll never sell your data. We've adopted GDPR not just where GDPR is required, but globally. We have ensured that images don't leave the robot. So processing data from the visual sensors happens locally on the robot. And only semantic knowledge of the home with the consumer's consent is sent up. We show you what we know and are trying to go use data as an enabler for the performance of the robots with the informed consent and understanding of the people who own those robots. We take it very seriously. And ultimately, we think that by showing a customer that if you let us build a semantic map of your home and know where the rooms are, well, then you can say clean the kitchen. If you don't want the robot to do that, don't make the map. It'll do its best job cleaning your home. But it won't be able to do that. And if you ever want us to forget that we know that it's your kitchen, you can have confidence that we will do that for you. So we're trying to go and be a data 2.0 perspective company where we treat the data that the robots have of the consumer's home as if it were the consumer's data and that they have rights to it. So we think by being the good guys on this front, we can build the trust and thus be entrusted to enable robots to do more things that are thoughtful. You think people's worries will diminish over time? As a society, broadly speaking, do you think you can win over trust not just for the company, but just the comfort that people have with AI in their home enriching their lives in some way? I think we're in an interesting place today where it's less about winning them over and more about finding a way to talk about privacy in a way that more people can understand. I would tell you that today, when there's a privacy breach, people get very upset and then go to the store and buy the cheapest thing, paying no attention to whether or not the products that they're buying honor privacy standards or not. In fact, if I put on the package of my Roomba, the privacy commitments that we have, I would sell less than I would if I did nothing at all. And that needs to change. So it's not a question about earning trust. I think that's necessary but not sufficient. We need to figure out how to have a comfortable set of what is the grade A meat standard applied to privacy that customers can trust and understand and then use in their buying decisions. That will reward companies for good behavior and that will ultimately be how this moves forward. And maybe be part of the conversation between regular people about what it means, what privacy means. If you have some standards, you can say, you can start talking about who's following them, who does not have more. Because most people are actually quite clueless about all aspects of artificial intelligence, the data collection, and so on. It would be nice to change that for people to understand the good that AI can do. And it's not some system that's trying to steal all the most sensitive data. Do you think, do you dream of a Roomba with human level intelligence one day? So you've mentioned a very successful localization and mapping of the environment, being able to do some basic communication to say, go clean the kitchen. Do you see in your maybe more bored moments, once you get the beer, to sit back with that beer and have a chat on a Friday night with a Roomba about how your day went? So to your latter question, absolutely. To your former question as to whether a Roomba can have human level intelligence, not in my lifetime. You can have you. I think you can have a great conversation, a meaningful conversation with a Roomba without it having anything that resembles human level intelligence. And I think that as long as you realize that conversation is not about the robot and making the robot feel good. That conversation is about you learning interesting things that make you feel like the conversation that you had with the robot is a pretty awesome way of learning something. And it could be about what kind of day your pet had. It could be about how can I make my home more energy efficient. It could be about if I'm thinking about climbing Mount Everest, what should I know? And that's a very doable thing. But if I think that that conversation I'm going to have with the robot is I'm going to be rewarded by making the robot happy, well, I could just put a button on the robot that you could push and the robot would smile. And that sort of thing. So I think you need to think about the question in the right way. And robots can be awesomely effective at helping people feel less isolated, learn more about the home that they live in, and fill some of those lonely gaps that we wish we were engaged learning cool stuff about our world. Last question. If you could hang out for a day with a robot from science fiction, movies, books, and safely pick its brain for that day, who would you pick? Data. Data. From Star Trek. I think that A, data is really smart. Data has been through a lot trying to go and save the galaxy. And I'm really interested actually in emotion and robotics. And I think you'd have a lot to say about that. Because I believe actually that emotion plays an incredibly useful role in doing reasonable things in situations where we have imperfect understanding of what's going on. In social situations when there's imperfect information. In social situations, also in competitive or dangerous situations that we have emotion for a reason. And so that ultimately, my theory is that as robots get smarter and smarter, they're actually going to get more emotional. Because you can't actually survive on pure logic. Because only a very tiny fraction of the situations we find ourselves in can be resolved reasonably with logic. And so I think Data would have a lot to say about that. And so I could find out whether he agrees. If you could ask Data one question, you would get a deep, honest answer to what would you ask. What's Captain Picard really like? OK, I think that's the perfect way to end it. Colin, thank you so much for talking today. I really appreciate it. My pleasure.

Colin Angle: iRobot CEO | Lex Fridman Podcast #39


The following is a conversation with Regina Barzilay. She's a professor at MIT and a world class researcher in natural language processing and applications of deep learning to chemistry and oncology or the use of deep learning for early diagnosis, prevention and treatment of cancer. She has also been recognized for teaching of several successful AI related courses at MIT, including the popular Introduction to Machine Learning course. This is the Artificial Intelligence podcast. If you enjoy it, subscribe on YouTube, give it five stars on iTunes, support it on Patreon or simply connect with me on Twitter at Lex Friedman spelled F R I D M A N. And now here's my conversation with Regina Barzilay. In an interview you've mentioned that if there's one course you would take, it would be a literature course with a friend of yours that a friend of yours teaches. Just out of curiosity, because I couldn't find anything on it, are there books or ideas that had profound impact on your life journey, books and ideas perhaps outside of computer science and the technical fields? I think because I'm spending a lot of my time at MIT and previously in other institutions where I was a student, I have limited ability to interact with people. So a lot of what I know about the world actually comes from books. And there were quite a number of books that had profound impact on me and how I view the world. Let me just give you one example of such a book. I've maybe a year ago read a book called The Emperor of All Melodies. It's a book about, it's kind of a history of science book on how the treatments and drugs for cancer were developed. And that book, despite the fact that I am in the business of science, really opened my eyes on how imprecise and imperfect the discovery process is and how imperfect our current solutions and what makes science succeed and be implemented. And sometimes it's actually not the strengths of the idea, but devotion of the person who wants to see it implemented. So this is one of the books that, you know, at least for the last year, quite changed the way I'm thinking about scientific process just from the historical perspective and what do I need to do to make my ideas really implemented. Let me give you an example of a book which is not kind of, which is a fiction book. It's a book called Americana. And this is a book about a young female student who comes from Africa to study in the United States. And it describes her past, you know, within her studies and her life transformation that, you know, in a new country and kind of adaptation to a new culture. And when I read this book, I saw myself in many different points of it, but it also kind of gave me the lens on different events. And some of it that I never actually paid attention. One of the funny stories in this book is how she arrives to her new college and she starts speaking in English and she had this beautiful British accent because that's how she was educated in her country. This is not my case. And then she notices that the person who talks to her, you know, talks to her in a very funny way, in a very slow way. And she's thinking that this woman is disabled and she's also trying to kind of to accommodate her. And then after a while, when she finishes her discussion with this officer from her college, she sees how she interacts with the other students, with American students. And she discovers that actually she talked to her this way because she saw that she doesn't understand English. And I thought, wow, this is a funny experience. And literally within few weeks, I went to LA to a conference and I asked somebody in the airport, you know, how to find like a cab or something. And then I noticed that this person is talking in a very strange way. And my first thought was that this person have some, you know, pronunciation issues or something. And I'm trying to talk very slowly to him and I was with another professor, Ernst Frankel. And he's like laughing because it's funny that I don't get that the guy is talking in this way because he thinks that I cannot speak. So it was really kind of mirroring experience. And it led me think a lot about my own experiences moving, you know, from different countries. So I think that books play a big role in my understanding of the world. On the science question, you mentioned that it made you discover that personalities of human beings are more important than perhaps ideas. Is that what I heard? It's not necessarily that they are more important than ideas, but I think that ideas on their own are not sufficient. And many times, at least at the local horizon, it's the personalities and their devotion to their ideas is really that locally changes the landscape. Now, if you're looking at AI, like let's say 30 years ago, you know, dark ages of AI or whatever, what is symbolic times, you can use any word. You know, there were some people, now we're looking at a lot of that work and we're kind of thinking this was not really maybe a relevant work, but you can see that some people managed to take it and to make it so shiny and dominate the academic world and make it to be the standard. If you look at the area of natural language processing, it is well known fact that the reason that statistics in NLP took such a long time to become mainstream because there were quite a number of personalities which didn't believe in this idea and didn't stop research progress in this area. So I do not think that, you know, kind of asymptotically maybe personalities matters, but I think locally it does make quite a bit of impact and it's generally, you know, speeds up the rate of adoption of the new ideas. Yeah, and the other interesting question is in the early days of particular discipline, I think you mentioned in that book is ultimately a book of cancer. It's called The Emperor of All Melodies. Yeah, and those melodies included the trying to, the medicine, was it centered around? So it was actually centered on, you know, how people thought of curing cancer. Like for me, it was really a discovery how people, what was the science of chemistry behind drug development that it actually grew up out of dying, like coloring industry that people who developed chemistry in 19th century in Germany and Britain to do, you know, the really new dyes. They looked at the molecules and identified that they do certain things to cells. And from there, the process started. And, you know, like historically saying, yeah, this is fascinating that they managed to make the connection and look under the microscope and do all this discovery. But as you continue reading about it and you read about how chemotherapy drugs which were developed in Boston, and some of them were developed. And Farber, Dr. Farber from Dana Farber, you know, how the experiments were done that, you know, there was some miscalculation, let's put it this way. And they tried it on the patients and they just, and those were children with leukemia and they died. And then they tried another modification. You look at the process, how imperfect is this process? And, you know, like, if we're again looking back like 60 years ago, 70 years ago, you can kind of understand it. But some of the stories in this book which were really shocking to me were really happening, you know, maybe decades ago. And we still don't have a vehicle to do it much more fast and effective and, you know, scientific the way I'm thinking computer science scientific. So from the perspective of computer science, you've gotten a chance to work the application to cancer and to medicine in general. From a perspective of an engineer and a computer scientist, how far along are we from understanding the human body, biology of being able to manipulate it in a way we can cure some of the maladies, some of the diseases? So this is very interesting question. And if you're thinking as a computer scientist about this problem, I think one of the reasons that we succeeded in the areas we as a computer scientist succeeded is because we don't have, we are not trying to understand in some ways. Like if you're thinking about like eCommerce, Amazon, Amazon doesn't really understand you. And that's why it recommends you certain books or certain products, correct? And, you know, traditionally when people were thinking about marketing, you know, they divided the population to different kind of subgroups, identify the features of this subgroup and come up with a strategy which is specific to that subgroup. If you're looking about recommendation system, they're not claiming that they're understanding somebody, they're just managing to, from the patterns of your behavior to recommend you a product. Now, if you look at the traditional biology, and obviously I wouldn't say that I at any way, you know, educated in this field, but you know what I see, there's really a lot of emphasis on mechanistic understanding. And it was very surprising to me coming from computer science, how much emphasis is on this understanding. And given the complexity of the system, maybe the deterministic full understanding of this process is, you know, beyond our capacity. And the same ways in computer science when we're doing recognition, when you do recommendation and many other areas, it's just probabilistic matching process. And in some way, maybe in certain cases, we shouldn't even attempt to understand or we can attempt to understand, but in parallel, we can actually do this kind of matchings that would help us to find key role to do early diagnostics and so on. And I know that in these communities, it's really important to understand, but I'm sometimes wondering, you know, what exactly does it mean to understand here? Well, there's stuff that works and, but that can be, like you said, separate from this deep human desire to uncover the mysteries of the universe, of science, of the way the body works, the way the mind works. It's the dream of symbolic AI, of being able to reduce human knowledge into logic and be able to play with that logic in a way that's very explainable and understandable for us humans. I mean, that's a beautiful dream. So I understand it, but it seems that what seems to work today and we'll talk about it more is as much as possible, reduce stuff into data, reduce whatever problem you're interested in to data and try to apply statistical methods, apply machine learning to that. On a personal note, you were diagnosed with breast cancer in 2014. What did facing your mortality make you think about? How did it change you? You know, this is a great question and I think that I was interviewed many times and nobody actually asked me this question. I think I was 43 at a time. And the first time I realized in my life that I may die and I never thought about it before. And there was a long time since you're diagnosed until you actually know what you have and how severe is your disease. For me, it was like maybe two and a half months. And I didn't know where I am during this time because I was getting different tests and one would say it's bad and I would say, no, it is not. So until I knew where I am, I really was thinking about all these different possible outcomes. Were you imagining the worst or were you trying to be optimistic or? It would be really, I don't remember what was my thinking. It was really a mixture with many components at the time speaking in our terms. And one thing that I remember, and every test comes and then you're saying, oh, it could be this or it may not be this. And you're hopeful and then you're desperate. So it's like, there is a whole slew of emotions that goes through you. But what I remember is that when I came back to MIT, I was kind of going the whole time through the treatment to MIT, but my brain was not really there. But when I came back, really finished my treatment and I was here teaching and everything, I look back at what my group was doing, what other groups was doing. And I saw these trivialities. It's like people are building their careers on improving some parts around two or 3% or whatever. I was, it's like, seriously, I did a work on how to decipher ugaritic, like a language that nobody speak and whatever, like what is significance? When all of a sudden, I walked out of MIT, which is when people really do care what happened to your ICLR paper, what is your next publication to ACL, to the world where people, you see a lot of suffering that I'm kind of totally shielded on it on daily basis. And it's like the first time I've seen like real life and real suffering. And I was thinking, why are we trying to improve the parser or deal with trivialities when we have capacity to really make a change? And it was really challenging to me because on one hand, I have my graduate students really want to do their papers and their work, and they want to continue to do what they were doing, which was great. And then it was me who really kind of reevaluated what is the importance. And also at that point, because I had to take some break, I look back into like my years in science and I was thinking, like 10 years ago, this was the biggest thing, I don't know, topic models. We have like millions of papers on topic models and variation of topics models. Now it's totally like irrelevant. And you start looking at this, what do you perceive as important at different point of time and how it fades over time. And since we have a limited time, all of us have limited time on us, it's really important to prioritize things that really matter to you, maybe matter to you at that particular point. But it's important to take some time and understand what matters to you, which may not necessarily be the same as what matters to the rest of your scientific community and pursue that vision. So that moment, did it make you cognizant? You mentioned suffering of just the general amount of suffering in the world. Is that what you're referring to? So as opposed to topic models and specific detailed problems in NLP, did you start to think about other people who have been diagnosed with cancer? Is that the way you started to see the world perhaps? Oh, absolutely. And it actually creates, because like, for instance, there is parts of the treatment where you need to go to the hospital every day and you see the community of people that you see and many of them are much worse than I was at a time. And you all of a sudden see it all. And people who are happier someday just because they feel better. And for people who are in our normal realm, you take it totally for granted that you feel well, that if you decide to go running, you can go running and you're pretty much free to do whatever you want with your body. Like I saw like a community, my community became those people. And I remember one of my friends, Dina Katabi, took me to Prudential to buy me a gift for my birthday. And it was like the first time in months that I went to kind of to see other people. And I was like, wow, first of all, these people, they are happy and they're laughing and they're very different from these other my people. And second of thing, I think it's totally crazy. They're like laughing and wasting their money on some stupid gifts. And they may die. They already may have cancer and they don't understand it. So you can really see how the mind changes that you can see that, before that you can ask, didn't you know that you're gonna die? Of course I knew, but it was a kind of a theoretical notion. It wasn't something which was concrete. And at that point, when you really see it and see how little means sometimes the system has to have them, you really feel that we need to take a lot of our brilliance that we have here at MIT and translate it into something useful. Yeah, and you still couldn't have a lot of definitions, but of course, alleviating, suffering, alleviating, trying to cure cancer is a beautiful mission. So I of course know theoretically the notion of cancer, but just reading more and more about it's 1.7 million new cancer cases in the United States every year, 600,000 cancer related deaths every year. So this has a huge impact, United States globally. When broadly, before we talk about how machine learning, how MIT can help, when do you think we as a civilization will cure cancer? How hard of a problem is it from everything you've learned from it recently? I cannot really assess it. What I do believe will happen with the advancement in machine learning is that a lot of types of cancer we will be able to predict way early and more effectively utilize existing treatments. I think, I hope at least that with all the advancements in AI and drug discovery, we would be able to much faster find relevant molecules. What I'm not sure about is how long it will take the medical establishment and regulatory bodies to kind of catch up and to implement it. And I think this is a very big piece of puzzle that is currently not addressed. That's the really interesting question. So first a small detail that I think the answer is yes, but is cancer one of the diseases that when detected earlier that's a significantly improves the outcomes? So like, cause we will talk about there's the cure and then there is detection. And I think where machine learning can really help is earlier detection. So does detection help? Detection is crucial. For instance, the vast majority of pancreatic cancer patients are detected at the stage that they are incurable. That's why they have such a terrible survival rate. It's like just few percent over five years. It's pretty much today the sentence. But if you can discover this disease early, there are mechanisms to treat it. And in fact, I know a number of people who were diagnosed and saved just because they had food poisoning. They had terrible food poisoning. They went to ER, they got scan. There were early signs on the scan and that would save their lives. But this wasn't really an accidental case. So as we become better, we would be able to help to many more people that are likely to develop diseases. And I just want to say that as I got more into this field, I realized that cancer is of course terrible disease, but there are really the whole slew of terrible diseases out there like neurodegenerative diseases and others. So we, of course, a lot of us are fixated on cancer because it's so prevalent in our society. And you see these people where there are a lot of patients with neurodegenerative diseases and the kind of aging diseases that we still don't have a good solution for. And I felt as a computer scientist, we kind of decided that it's other people's job to treat these diseases because it's like traditionally people in biology or in chemistry or MDs are the ones who are thinking about it. And after kind of start paying attention, I think that it's really a wrong assumption and we all need to join the battle. So how it seems like in cancer specifically that there's a lot of ways that machine learning can help. So what's the role of machine learning in the diagnosis of cancer? So for many cancers today, we really don't know what is your likelihood to get cancer. And for the vast majority of patients, especially on the younger patients, it really comes as a surprise. Like for instance, for breast cancer, 80% of the patients are first in their families, it's like me. And I never saw that I had any increased risk because nobody had it in my family. And for some reason in my head, it was kind of inherited disease. But even if I would pay attention, the very simplistic statistical models that are currently used in clinical practice, they really don't give you an answer, so you don't know. And the same true for pancreatic cancer, the same true for non smoking lung cancer and many others. So what machine learning can do here is utilize all this data to tell us early who is likely to be susceptible and using all the information that is already there, be it imaging, be it your other tests, and eventually liquid biopsies and others, where the signal itself is not sufficiently strong for human eye to do good discrimination because the signal may be weak, but by combining many sources, machine which is trained on large volumes of data can really detect it early. And that's what we've seen with breast cancer and people are reporting it in other diseases as well. That really boils down to data, right? And in the different kinds of sources of data. And you mentioned regulatory challenges. So what are the challenges in gathering large data sets in this space? Again, another great question. So it took me after I decided that I want to work on it two years to get access to data. Any data, like any significant data set? Any significant amount, like right now in this country, there is no publicly available data set of modern mammograms that you can just go on your computer, sign a document and get it. It just doesn't exist. I mean, obviously every hospital has its own collection of mammograms. There are data that came out of clinical trials. What we're talking about here is a computer scientist who just wants to run his or her model and see how it works. This data, like ImageNet, doesn't exist. And there is a set which is called like Florida data set which is a film mammogram from 90s which is totally not representative of the current developments. Whatever you're learning on them doesn't scale up. This is the only resource that is available. And today there are many agencies that govern access to data. Like the hospital holds your data and the hospital decides whether they would give it to the researcher to work with this data or not. Individual hospital? Yeah. I mean, the hospital may, you know, assuming that you're doing research collaboration, you can submit, you know, there is a proper approval process guided by RB and if you go through all the processes, you can eventually get access to the data. But if you yourself know our OEI community, there are not that many people who actually ever got access to data because it's very challenging process. And sorry, just in a quick comment, MGH or any kind of hospital, are they scanning the data? Are they digitally storing it? Oh, it is already digitally stored. You don't need to do any extra processing steps. It's already there in the right format is that right now there are a lot of issues that govern access to the data because the hospital is legally responsible for the data. And, you know, they have a lot to lose if they give the data to the wrong person, but they may not have a lot to gain if they give it as a hospital, as a legal entity has given it to you. And the way, you know, what I would imagine happening in the future is the same thing that happens when you're getting your driving license, you can decide whether you want to donate your organs. You can imagine that whenever a person goes to the hospital, they, it should be easy for them to donate their data for research and it can be different kind of, do they only give you a test results or only mammogram or only imaging data or the whole medical record? Because at the end, we all will benefit from all this insights. And it's not like you say, I want to keep my data private, but I would really love to get it from other people because other people are thinking the same way. So if there is a mechanism to do this donation and the patient has an ability to say how they want to use their data for research, it would be really a game changer. People, when they think about this problem, there's a, it depends on the population, depends on the demographics, but there's some privacy concerns generally, not just medical data, just any kind of data. It's what you said, my data, it should belong kind of to me. I'm worried how it's going to be misused. How do we alleviate those concerns? Because that seems like a problem that needs to be, that problem of trust, of transparency needs to be solved before we build large data sets that help detect cancer, help save those very people in the future. So I think there are two things that could be done. There is a technical solutions and there are societal solutions. So on the technical end, we today have ability to improve disambiguation. Like, for instance, for imaging, it's, you know, for imaging, you can do it pretty well. What's disambiguation? And disambiguation, sorry, disambiguation, removing the identification, removing the names of the people. There are other data, like if it is a raw tax, you cannot really achieve 99.9%, but there are all these techniques that actually some of them are developed at MIT, how you can do learning on the encoded data where you locally encode the image, you train a network which only works on the encoded images and then you send the outcome back to the hospital and you can open it up. So those are the technical solutions. There are a lot of people who are working in this space where the learning happens in the encoded form. We are still early, but this is an interesting research area where I think we'll make more progress. There is a lot of work in natural language processing community how to do the identification better. But even today, there are already a lot of data which can be deidentified perfectly, like your test data, for instance, correct, where you can just, you know the name of the patient, you just want to extract the part with the numbers. The big problem here is again, hospitals don't see much incentive to give this data away on one hand and then there is general concern. Now, when I'm talking about societal benefits and about the education, the public needs to understand that I think that there are situation and I still remember myself when I really needed an answer, I had to make a choice. There was no information to make a choice, you're just guessing. And at that moment you feel that your life is at the stake, but you just don't have information to make the choice. And many times when I give talks, I get emails from women who say, you know, I'm in this situation, can you please run statistic and see what are the outcomes? We get almost every week a mammogram that comes by mail to my office at MIT, I'm serious. That people ask to run because they need to make life changing decisions. And of course, I'm not planning to open a clinic here, but we do run and give them the results for their doctors. But the point that I'm trying to make, that we all at some point or our loved ones will be in the situation where you need information to make the best choice. And if this information is not available, you would feel vulnerable and unprotected. And then the question is, you know, what do I care more? Because at the end, everything is a trade off, correct? Yeah, exactly. Just out of curiosity, it seems like one possible solution, I'd like to see what you think of it, based on what you just said, based on wanting to know answers for when you're yourself in that situation. Is it possible for patients to own their data as opposed to hospitals owning their data? Of course, theoretically, I guess patients own their data, but can you walk out there with a USB stick containing everything or upload it to the cloud? Where a company, you know, I remember Microsoft had a service, like I try, I was really excited about and Google Health was there. I tried to give, I was excited about it. Basically companies helping you upload your data to the cloud so that you can move from hospital to hospital from doctor to doctor. Do you see a promise of that kind of possibility? I absolutely think this is, you know, the right way to exchange the data. I don't know now who's the biggest player in this field, but I can clearly see that even for totally selfish health reasons, when you are going to a new facility and many of us are sent to some specialized treatment, they don't easily have access to your data. And today, you know, we might want to send this mammogram, need to go to the hospital, find some small office which gives them the CD and they ship as a CD. So you can imagine we're looking at kind of decades old mechanism of data exchange. So I definitely think this is an area where hopefully all the right regulatory and technical forces will align and we will see it actually implemented. It's sad because unfortunately, and I need to research why that happened, but I'm pretty sure Google Health and Microsoft Health Vault or whatever it's called both closed down, which means that there was either regulatory pressure or there's not a business case or there's challenges from hospitals, which is very disappointing. So when you say you don't know what the biggest players are, the two biggest that I was aware of closed their doors. So I'm hoping, I'd love to see why and I'd love to see who else can come up. It seems like one of those Elon Musk style problems that are obvious needs to be solved and somebody needs to step up and actually do this large scale data collection. So I know there is an initiative in Massachusetts, I think, which you led by the governor to try to create this kind of health exchange system where at least to help people who kind of when you show up in emergency room and there is no information about what are your allergies and other things. So I don't know how far it will go. But another thing that you said and I find it very interesting is actually who are the successful players in this space and the whole implementation, how does it go? To me, it is from the anthropological perspective, it's more fascinating that AI that today goes in healthcare, we've seen so many attempts and so very little successes. And it's interesting to understand that I've by no means have knowledge to assess it, why we are in the position where we are. Yeah, it's interesting because data is really fuel for a lot of successful applications. And when that data acquires regulatory approval, like the FDA or any kind of approval, it seems that the computer scientists are not quite there yet in being able to play the regulatory game, understanding the fundamentals of it. I think that in many cases when even people do have data, we still don't know what exactly do you need to demonstrate to change the standard of care. Like let me give you an example related to my breast cancer research. So in traditional breast cancer risk assessment, there is something called density, which determines the likelihood of a woman to get cancer. And this pretty much says, how much white do you see on the mammogram? The whiter it is, the more likely the tissue is dense. And the idea behind density, it's not a bad idea. In 1967, a radiologist called Wolf decided to look back at women who were diagnosed and see what is special in their images. Can we look back and say that they're likely to develop? So he come up with some patterns. And it was the best that his human eye can identify. Then it was kind of formalized and coded into four categories. And that's what we are using today. And today this density assessment is actually a federal law from 2019, approved by President Trump and for the previous FDA commissioner, where women are supposed to be advised by their providers if they have high density, putting them into higher risk category. And in some states, you can actually get supplementary screening paid by your insurance because you're in this category. Now you can say, how much science do we have behind it? Whatever, biological science or epidemiological evidence. So it turns out that between 40 and 50% of women have dense breasts. So about 40% of patients are coming out of their screening and somebody tells them, you are in high risk. Now, what exactly does it mean if you as half of the population in high risk? It's from saying, maybe I'm not, or what do I really need to do with it? Because the system doesn't provide me a lot of the solutions because there are so many people like me, we cannot really provide very expensive solutions for them. And the reason this whole density became this big deal, it's actually advocated by the patients who felt very unprotected because many women went and did the mammograms which were normal. And then it turns out that they already had cancer, quite developed cancer. So they didn't have a way to know who is really at risk and what is the likelihood that when the doctor tells you, you're okay, you are not okay. So at the time, and it was 15 years ago, this maybe was the best piece of science that we had. And it took quite 15, 16 years to make it federal law. But now this is a standard. Now with a deep learning model, we can so much more accurately predict who is gonna develop breast cancer just because you're trained on a logical thing. And instead of describing how much white and what kind of white machine can systematically identify the patterns, which was the original idea behind the thought of the cardiologist, machines can do it much more systematically and predict the risk when you're training the machine to look at the image and to say the risk in one to five years. Now you can ask me how long it will take to substitute this density, which is broadly used across the country and really is not helping to bring this new models. And I would say it's not a matter of the algorithm. Algorithms use already orders of magnitude better than what is currently in practice. I think it's really the question, who do you need to convince? How many hospitals do you need to run the experiment? What, you know, all this mechanism of adoption and how do you explain to patients and to women across the country that this is really a better measure? And again, I don't think it's an AI question. We can work more and make the algorithm even better, but I don't think that this is the current, you know, the barrier, the barrier is really this other piece that for some reason is not really explored. It's like anthropological piece. And coming back to your question about books, there is a book that I'm reading. It's called American Sickness by Elizabeth Rosenthal. And I got this book from my clinical collaborator, Dr. Connie Lehman. And I said, I know everything that I need to know about American health system, but you know, every page doesn't fail to surprise me. And I think there is a lot of interesting and really deep lessons for people like us from computer science who are coming into this field to really understand how complex is the system of incentives in the system to understand how you really need to play to drive adoption. You just said it's complex, but if we're trying to simplify it, who do you think most likely would be successful if we push on this group of people? Is it the doctors? Is it the hospitals? Is it the governments or policymakers? Is it the individual patients, consumers? Who needs to be inspired to most likely lead to adoption? Or is there no simple answer? There's no simple answer, but I think there is a lot of good people in medical system who do want to make a change. And I think a lot of power will come from us as consumers because we all are consumers or future consumers of healthcare services. And I think we can do so much more in explaining the potential and not in the hype terms and not saying that we now killed all Alzheimer and I'm really sick of reading this kind of articles which make these claims, but really to show with some examples what this implementation does and how it changes the care. Because I can't imagine, it doesn't matter what kind of politician it is, we all are susceptible to these diseases. There is no one who is free. And eventually, we all are humans and we're looking for a way to alleviate the suffering. And this is one possible way where we currently are under utilizing, which I think can help. So it sounds like the biggest problems are outside of AI in terms of the biggest impact at this point. But are there any open problems in the application of ML to oncology in general? So improving the detection or any other creative methods, whether it's on the detection segmentations or the vision perception side or some other clever of inference? Yeah, what in general in your view are the open problems in this space? Yeah, I just want to mention that beside detection, not the area where I am kind of quite active and I think it's really an increasingly important area in healthcare is drug design. Absolutely. Because it's fine if you detect something early, but you still need to get drugs and new drugs for these conditions. And today, all of the drug design, ML is non existent there. We don't have any drug that was developed by the ML model or even not developed, but at least even knew that ML model plays some significant role. I think this area with all the new ability to generate molecules with desired properties to do in silica screening is really a big open area. To be totally honest with you, when we are doing diagnostics and imaging, primarily taking the ideas that were developed for other areas and you applying them with some adaptation, the area of drug design is really technically interesting and exciting area. You need to work a lot with graphs and capture various 3D properties. There are lots and lots of opportunities to be technically creative. And I think there are a lot of open questions in this area. We're already getting a lot of successes even with kind of the first generation of these models, but there is much more new creative things that you can do. And what's very nice to see is that actually the more powerful, the more interesting models actually do do better. So there is a place to innovate in machine learning in this area. And some of these techniques are really unique to, let's say, to graph generation and other things. So... What, just to interrupt really quick, I'm sorry, graph generation or graphs, drug discovery in general, how do you discover a drug? Is this chemistry? Is this trying to predict different chemical reactions? Or is it some kind of... What do graphs even represent in this space? Oh, sorry, sorry. And what's a drug? Okay, so let's say you're thinking there are many different types of drugs, but let's say you're gonna talk about small molecules because I think today the majority of drugs are small molecules. So small molecule is a graph. The molecule is just where the node in the graph is an atom and then you have the bonds. So it's really a graph representation. If you look at it in 2D, correct, you can do it 3D, but let's say, let's keep it simple and stick in 2D. So pretty much my understanding today, how it is done at scale in the companies, without machine learning, you have high throughput screening. So you know that you are interested to get certain biological activity of the compound. So you scan a lot of compounds, like maybe hundreds of thousands, some really big number of compounds. You identify some compounds which have the right activity and then at this point, the chemists come and they're trying to now to optimize this original heat to different properties that you want it to be maybe soluble, you want it to decrease toxicity, you want it to decrease the side effects. Are those, sorry again to interrupt, can that be done in simulation or just by looking at the molecules or do you need to actually run reactions in real labs with lab coats and stuff? So when you do high throughput screening, you really do screening. It's in the lab. It's really the lab screening. You screen the molecules, correct? I don't know what screening is. The screening is just check them for certain property. Like in the physical space, in the physical world, like actually there's a machine probably that's actually running the reaction. Actually running the reactions, yeah. So there is a process where you can run and that's why it's called high throughput that it become cheaper and faster to do it on very big number of molecules. You run the screening, you identify potential good starts and then when the chemists come in who have done it many times and then they can try to look at it and say, how can you change the molecule to get the desired profile in terms of all other properties? So maybe how do I make it more bioactive and so on? And there the creativity of the chemists really is the one that determines the success of this design because again, they have a lot of domain knowledge of what works, how do you decrease the CCD and so on and that's what they do. So all the drugs that are currently in the FDA approved drugs or even drugs that are in clinical trials, they are designed using these domain experts which goes through this combinatorial space of molecules or graphs or whatever and find the right one or adjust it to be the right ones. It sounds like the breast density heuristic from 67 to the same echoes. It's not necessarily that. It's really driven by deep understanding. It's not like they just observe it. I mean, they do deeply understand chemistry and they do understand how different groups and how does it changes the properties. So there is a lot of science that gets into it and a lot of kind of simulation, how do you want it to behave? It's very, very complex. So they're quite effective at this design, obviously. Now effective, yeah, we have drugs. Like depending on how do you measure effective, if you measure it in terms of cost, it's prohibitive. If you measure it in terms of times, we have lots of diseases for which we don't have any drugs and we don't even know how to approach and don't need to mention few drugs or neurodegenerative disease drugs that fail. So there are lots of trials that fail in later stages, which is really catastrophic from the financial perspective. So is it the effective, the most effective mechanism? Absolutely no, but this is the only one that currently works. And I was closely interacting with people in pharmaceutical industry. I was really fascinated on how sharp and what a deep understanding of the domain do they have. It's not observation driven. There is really a lot of science behind what they do. But if you ask me, can machine learning change it, I firmly believe yes, because even the most experienced chemists cannot hold in their memory and understanding everything that you can learn from millions of molecules and reactions. And the space of graphs is a totally new space. I mean, it's a really interesting space for machine learning to explore, graph generation. Yeah, so there are a lot of things that you can do here. So we do a lot of work. So the first tool that we started with was the tool that can predict properties of the molecules. So you can just give the molecule and the property. It can be by activity property, or it can be some other property. And you train the molecules and you can now take a new molecule and predict this property. Now, when people started working in this area, it is something very simple. They do kind of existing fingerprints, which is kind of handcrafted features of the molecule. When you break the graph to substructures and then you run it in a feed forward neural network. And what was interesting to see that clearly, this was not the most effective way to proceed. And you need to have much more complex models that can induce a representation, which can translate this graph into the embeddings and do these predictions. So this is one direction. Then another direction, which is kind of related is not only to stop by looking at the embedding itself, but actually modify it to produce better molecules. So you can think about it as machine translation that you can start with a molecule and then there is an improved version of molecule. And you can again, with encoder translate it into the hidden space and then learn how to modify it to improve the in some ways version of the molecules. So that's, it's kind of really exciting. We already have seen that the property prediction works pretty well. And now we are generating molecules and there is actually labs which are manufacturing this molecule. So we'll see where it will get us. Okay, that's really exciting. There's a lot of promise. Speaking of machine translation and embeddings, I think you have done a lot of really great research in NLP, natural language processing. Can you tell me your journey through NLP? What ideas, problems, approaches were you working on? Were you fascinated with, did you explore before this magic of deep learning reemerged and after? So when I started my work in NLP, it was in 97. This was very interesting time. It was exactly the time that I came to ACL. And at the time I could barely understand English, but it was exactly like the transition point because half of the papers were really rule based approaches where people took more kind of heavy linguistic approaches for small domains and try to build up from there. And then there were the first generation of papers which were corpus based papers. And they were very simple in our terms when you collect some statistics and do prediction based on them. And I found it really fascinating that one community can think so very differently about the problem. And I remember my first paper that I wrote, it didn't have a single formula. It didn't have evaluation. It just had examples of outputs. And this was a standard of the field at the time. In some ways, I mean, people maybe just started emphasizing the empirical evaluation, but for many applications like summarization, you just show some examples of outputs. And then increasingly you can see that how the statistical approaches dominated the field and we've seen increased performance across many basic tasks. The sad part of the story maybe that if you look again through this journey, we see that the role of linguistics in some ways greatly diminishes. And I think that you really need to look through the whole proceeding to find one or two papers which make some interesting linguistic references. It's really big. Today, yeah. Today, today. This was definitely one of the. Things like syntactic trees, just even basically against our conversation about human understanding of language, which I guess what linguistics would be structured, hierarchical representing language in a way that's human explainable, understandable is missing today. I don't know if it is, what is explainable and understandable. In the end, we perform functions and it's okay to have machine which performs a function. Like when you're thinking about your calculator, correct? Your calculator can do calculation very different from you would do the calculation, but it's very effective in it. And this is fine if we can achieve certain tasks with high accuracy, doesn't necessarily mean that it has to understand it the same way as we understand. In some ways, it's even naive to request because you have so many other sources of information that are absent when you are training your system. So it's okay. Is it delivered? And I would tell you one application that is really fascinating. In 97, when it came to ACL, there were some papers on machine translation. They were like primitive. Like people were trying really, really simple. And the feeling, my feeling was that, you know, to make real machine translation system, it's like to fly at the moon and build a house there and the garden and live happily ever after. I mean, it's like impossible. I never could imagine that within, you know, 10 years, we would already see the system working. And now, you know, nobody is even surprised to utilize the system on daily basis. So this was like a huge, huge progress, saying that people for very long time tried to solve using other mechanisms. And they were unable to solve it. That's why coming back to your question about biology, that, you know, in linguistics, people try to go this way and try to write the syntactic trees and try to abstract it and to find the right representation. And, you know, they couldn't get very far with this understanding while these models using, you know, other sources actually capable to make a lot of progress. Now, I'm not naive to think that we are in this paradise space in NLP. And sure as you know, that when we slightly change the domain and when we decrease the amount of training, it can do like really bizarre and funny thing. But I think it's just a matter of improving generalization capacity, which is just a technical question. Wow, so that's the question. How much of language understanding can be solved with deep neural networks? In your intuition, I mean, it's unknown, I suppose. But as we start to creep towards romantic notions of the spirit of the Turing test and conversation and dialogue and something that maybe to me or to us, so the humans feels like it needs real understanding. How much can that be achieved with these neural networks or statistical methods? So I guess I am very much driven by the outcomes. Can we achieve the performance which would be satisfactory for us for different tasks? Now, if you again look at machine translation system, which are trained on large amounts of data, they really can do a remarkable job relatively to where they've been a few years ago. And if you project into the future, if it will be the same speed of improvement, you know, this is great. Now, does it bother me that it's not doing the same translation as we are doing? Now, if you go to cognitive science, we still don't really understand what we are doing. I mean, there are a lot of theories and there's obviously a lot of progress and studying, but our understanding what exactly goes on in our brains when we process language is still not crystal clear and precise that we can translate it into machines. What does bother me is that, you know, again, that machines can be extremely brittle when you go out of your comfort zone of when there is a distributional shift between training and testing. And it have been years and years, every year when I teach an LP class, now show them some examples of translation from some newspaper in Hebrew or whatever, it was perfect. And then I have a recipe that Tomi Yakel's system sent me a while ago and it was written in Finnish of Karelian pies. And it's just a terrible translation. You cannot understand anything what it does. It's not like some syntactic mistakes, it's just terrible. And year after year, I tried and will translate and year after year, it does this terrible work because I guess, you know, the recipes are not a big part of their training repertoire. So, but in terms of outcomes, that's a really clean, good way to look at it. I guess the question I was asking is, do you think, imagine a future, do you think the current approaches can pass the Turing test in the way, in the best possible formulation of the Turing test? Which is, would you wanna have a conversation with a neural network for an hour? Oh God, no, no, there are not that many people that I would want to talk for an hour, but. There are some people in this world, alive or not, that you would like to talk to for an hour. Could a neural network achieve that outcome? So I think it would be really hard to create a successful training set, which would enable it to have a conversation, a contextual conversation for an hour. Do you think it's a problem of data, perhaps? I think in some ways it's not a problem of data, it's a problem both of data and the problem of the way we're training our systems, their ability to truly, to generalize, to be very compositional. In some ways it's limited in the current capacity, at least we can translate well, we can find information well, we can extract information. So there are many capacities in which it's doing very well. And you can ask me, would you trust the machine to translate for you and use it as a source? I would say absolutely, especially if we're talking about newspaper data or other data which is in the realm of its own training set, I would say yes. But having conversations with the machine, it's not something that I would choose to do. But I would tell you something, talking about Turing tests and about all this kind of ELISA conversations, I remember visiting Tencent in China and they have this chat board and they claim there is really humongous amount of the local population which for hours talks to the chat board. To me it was, I cannot believe it, but apparently it's documented that there are some people who enjoy this conversation. And it brought to me another MIT story about ELISA and Weisenbaum. I don't know if you're familiar with the story. So Weisenbaum was a professor at MIT and when he developed this ELISA, which was just doing string matching, very trivial, like restating of what you said with very few rules, no syntax. Apparently there were secretaries at MIT that would sit for hours and converse with this trivial thing and at the time there was no beautiful interfaces so you actually need to go through the pain of communicating. And Weisenbaum himself was so horrified by this phenomenon that people can believe enough to the machine that you just need to give them the hint that machine understands you and you can complete the rest that he kind of stopped this research and went into kind of trying to understand what this artificial intelligence can do to our brains. So my point is, you know, how much, it's not how good is the technology, it's how ready we are to believe that it delivers the goods that we are trying to get. That's a really beautiful way to put it. I, by the way, I'm not horrified by that possibility, but inspired by it because, I mean, human connection, whether it's through language or through love, it seems like it's very amenable to machine learning and the rest is just challenges of psychology. Like you said, the secretaries who enjoy spending hours. I would say I would describe most of our lives as enjoying spending hours with those we love for very silly reasons. All we're doing is keyword matching as well. So I'm not sure how much intelligence we exhibit to each other with the people we love that we're close with. So it's a very interesting point of what it means to pass the Turing test with language. I think you're right. In terms of conversation, I think machine translation has very clear performance and improvement, right? What it means to have a fulfilling conversation is very person dependent and context dependent and so on. That's, yeah, it's very well put. But in your view, what's a benchmark in natural language, a test that's just out of reach right now, but we might be able to, that's exciting. Is it in perfecting machine translation or is there other, is it summarization? What's out there just out of reach? I think it goes across specific application. It's more about the ability to learn from few examples for real, what we call few short learning and all these cases because the way we publish these papers today, we say, if we have like naively, we get 55, but now we had a few example and we can move to 65. None of these methods actually are realistically doing anything useful. You cannot use them today. And the ability to be able to generalize and to move or to be autonomous in finding the data that you need to learn, to be able to perfect new tasks or new language, this is an area where I think we really need to move forward to and we are not yet there. Are you at all excited, curious by the possibility of creating human level intelligence? Is this, cause you've been very in your discussion. So if we look at oncology, you're trying to use machine learning to help the world in terms of alleviating suffering. If you look at natural language processing, you're focused on the outcomes of improving practical things like machine translation. But human level intelligence is a thing that our civilization has dreamed about creating, super human level intelligence. Do you think about this? Do you think it's at all within our reach? So as you said yourself, Elie, talking about how do you perceive our communications with each other, that we're matching keywords and certain behaviors and so on. So at the end, whenever one assesses, let's say relations with another person, you have separate kind of measurements and outcomes inside your head that determine what is the status of the relation. So one way, this is this classical level, what is the intelligence? Is it the fact that now we are gonna do the same way as human is doing, when we don't even understand what the human is doing? Or we now have an ability to deliver these outcomes, but not in one area, not in NLP, not just to translate or just to answer questions, but across many, many areas that we can achieve the functionalities that humans can achieve with their ability to learn and do other things. I think this is, and this we can actually measure how far we are. And that's what makes me excited that we, in my lifetime, at least so far what we've seen, it's like tremendous progress across these different functionalities. And I think it will be really exciting to see where we will be. And again, one way to think about it, there are machines which are improving their functionality. Another one is to think about us with our brains, which are imperfect, how they can be accelerated by this technology as it becomes stronger and stronger. Coming back to another book that I love, Flowers for Algernon. Have you read this book? Yes. So there is this point that the patient gets this miracle cure, which changes his brain. And all of a sudden they see life in a different way and can do certain things better, but certain things much worse. So you can imagine this kind of computer augmented cognition where it can bring you that now in the same way as the cars enable us to get to places where we've never been before, can we think differently? Can we think faster? And we already see a lot of it happening in how it impacts us, but I think we have a long way to go there. So that's sort of artificial intelligence and technology affecting our, augmenting our intelligence as humans. Yesterday, a company called Neuralink announced, they did this whole demonstration. I don't know if you saw it. It's, they demonstrated brain computer, brain machine interface, where there's like a sewing machine for the brain. Do you, you know, a lot of that is quite out there in terms of things that some people would say are impossible, but they're dreamers and want to engineer systems like that. Do you see, based on what you just said, a hope for that more direct interaction with the brain? I think there are different ways. One is a direct interaction with the brain. And again, there are lots of companies that work in this space and I think there will be a lot of developments. But I'm just thinking that many times we are not aware of our feelings, of motivation, what drives us. Like, let me give you a trivial example, our attention. There are a lot of studies that demonstrate that it takes a while to a person to understand that they are not attentive anymore. And we know that there are people who really have strong capacity to hold attention. There are other end of the spectrum people with ADD and other issues that they have problem to regulate their attention. Imagine to yourself that you have like a cognitive aid that just alerts you based on your gaze, that your attention is now not on what you are doing. And instead of writing a paper, you're now dreaming of what you're gonna do in the evening. So even this kind of simple measurement things, how they can change us. And I see it even in simple ways with myself. I have my zone app that I got in MIT gym. It kind of records, you know, how much did you run and you have some points and you can get some status, whatever. Like, I said, what is this ridiculous thing? Who would ever care about some status in some app? Guess what? So to maintain the status, you have to do set a number of points every month. And not only is that I do it every single month for the last 18 months, it went to the point that I was injured. And when I could run again, in two days, I did like some humongous amount of running just to complete the points. It was like really not safe. It was like, I'm not gonna lose my status because I want to get there. So you can already see that this direct measurement and the feedback is, you know, we're looking at video games and see why, you know, the addiction aspect of it, but you can imagine that the same idea can be expanded to many other areas of our life. When we really can get feedback and imagine in your case in relations, when we are doing keyword matching, imagine that the person who is generating the keywords, that person gets direct feedback before the whole thing explodes. Is it maybe at this happy point, we are going in the wrong direction. Maybe it will be really a behavior modifying moment. So yeah, it's a relationship management too. So yeah, that's a fascinating whole area of psychology actually as well, of seeing how our behavior has changed with basically all human relations now have other nonhuman entities helping us out. So you teach a large, a huge machine learning course here at MIT. I can ask you a million questions, but you've seen a lot of students. What ideas do students struggle with the most as they first enter this world of machine learning? Actually, this year was the first time I started teaching a small machine learning class. And it came as a result of what I saw in my big machine learning class that Tomi Yakel and I built maybe six years ago. What we've seen that as this area become more and more popular, more and more people at MIT want to take this class. And while we designed it for computer science majors, there were a lot of people who really are interested to learn it, but unfortunately, their background was not enabling them to do well in the class. And many of them associated machine learning with the word struggle and failure, primarily for non majors. And that's why we actually started a new class which we call machine learning from algorithms to modeling, which emphasizes more the modeling aspects of it and focuses on, it has majors and non majors. So we kind of try to extract the relevant parts and make it more accessible, because the fact that we're teaching 20 classifiers in standard machine learning class, it's really a big question to really need it. But it was interesting to see this from first generation of students, when they came back from their internships and from their jobs, what different and exciting things they can do. I would never think that you can even apply machine learning to, some of them are like matching, the relations and other things like variety. Everything is amenable as the machine learning. That actually brings up an interesting point of computer science in general. It almost seems, maybe I'm crazy, but it almost seems like everybody needs to learn how to program these days. If you're 20 years old, or if you're starting school, even if you're an English major, it seems like programming unlocks so much possibility in this world. So when you interacted with those non majors, is there skills that they were simply lacking at the time that you wish they had and that they learned in high school and so on? Like how should education change in this computerized world that we live in? I think because I knew that there is a Python component in the class, their Python skills were okay and the class isn't really heavy on programming. They primarily kind of add parts to the programs. I think it was more of the mathematical barriers and the class, again, with the design on the majors was using the notation, like big O for complexity and others, people who come from different backgrounds just don't have it in the lexical, so necessarily very challenging notion, but they were just not aware. So I think that kind of linear algebra and probability, the basics, the calculus, multivariate calculus, things that can help. What advice would you give to students interested in machine learning, interested, you've talked about detecting, curing cancer, drug design, if they want to get into that field, what should they do? Get into it and succeed as researchers and entrepreneurs. The first good piece of news is that right now there are lots of resources that are created at different levels and you can find online in your school classes which are more mathematical, more applied and so on. So you can find a kind of a preacher which preaches in your own language where you can enter the field and you can make many different types of contribution depending of what is your strengths. And the second point, I think it's really important to find some area which you really care about and it can motivate your learning and it can be for somebody curing cancer or doing self driving cars or whatever, but to find an area where there is data where you believe there are strong patterns and we should be doing it and we're still not doing it or you can do it better and just start there and see where it can bring you. So you've been very successful in many directions in life, but you also mentioned Flowers of Argonon. And I think I've read or listened to you mention somewhere that researchers often get lost in the details of their work. This is per our original discussion with cancer and so on and don't look at the bigger picture, bigger questions of meaning and so on. So let me ask you the impossible question of what's the meaning of this thing, of life, of your life, of research. Why do you think we descendant of great apes are here on this spinning ball? You know, I don't think that I have really a global answer. You know, maybe that's why I didn't go to humanities and I didn't take humanities classes in my undergrad. But the way I'm thinking about it, each one of us inside of them have their own set of, you know, things that we believe are important. And it just happens that we are busy with achieving various goals, busy listening to others and to kind of try to conform and to be part of the crowd, that we don't listen to that part. And, you know, we all should find some time to understand what is our own individual missions. And we may have very different missions and to make sure that while we are running 10,000 things, we are not, you know, missing out and we're putting all the resources to satisfy our own mission. And if I look over my time, when I was younger, most of these missions, you know, I was primarily driven by the external stimulus, you know, to achieve this or to be that. And now a lot of what I do is driven by really thinking what is important for me to achieve independently of the external recognition. And, you know, I don't mind to be viewed in certain ways. The most important thing for me is to be true to myself, to what I think is right. How long did it take? How hard was it to find the you that you have to be true to? So it takes time. And even now, sometimes, you know, the vanity and the triviality can take, you know. At MIT. Yeah, it can everywhere, you know, it's just the vanity at MIT is different, the vanity in different places, but we all have our piece of vanity. But I think actually for me, many times the place to get back to it is, you know, when I'm alone and also when I read. And I think by selecting the right books, you can get the right questions and learn from what you read. So, but again, it's not perfect. Like vanity sometimes dominates. Well, that's a beautiful way to end. Thank you so much for talking today. Thank you. That was fun. That was fun.

Regina Barzilay: Deep Learning for Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment | Lex Fridman Podcast #40