Daniel Kahneman: Thinking Fast and Slow, Deep Learning, and AI | Lex Fridman Podcast #65

1. 0:00 – 2:36

   Introduction

   1. DKDaniel Kahneman0:00

      The following is a conversation with Daniel Kahneman, winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics for his integration of economic science with the psychology of human behavior, judgment, and decision-making. He's the author of the popular book, Thinking, Fast and Slow, that summarizes in an accessible way his research of several decades, often in collaboration with Amos Tversky......

2. 2:36 – 8:19

   Lessons about human behavior from WWII

   1. DKDaniel Kahneman6:03

      and what, what people can do.

   2. LFLex Fridman6:06

      So, the effect of the in group and the out group?

   3. DKDaniel Kahneman6:09

      You know, the- it's clear that those were people, you know, you could- you could shoot them. You could- you know, they were not human. They were not- there was no empathy or very, very little empathy left. So occasionally, you know, they might have been- and, and very quickly, by the way, uh, the empathy disappeared if there was initially. And the fact that everybody around you was doing it, that, that completely- the group doing it and everybody shooting Jews, I think that, that, uh, makes it permissible. Now, how much, you know, whether it would- it could happen, uh, in every culture or whether the Germans were just particularly efficient and, and disciplined so they could get away with it.

   4. LFLex Fridman7:06

      Mm-hmm.

   5. DKDaniel Kahneman7:08

      That's-

   6. LFLex Fridman7:08

      It's a question.

   7. DKDaniel Kahneman7:09

      It's an interesting question.

   8. LFLex Fridman7:10

      Are these artifacts of history or is it human nature?

   9. DKDaniel Kahneman7:14

      I think that's really human nature. You know, you put some people in a position of power relative to other people and, and then they become less human. They- they become different.

   10. LFLex Fridman7:28

       But in general, in war, outside of concentration camps in World War II, it seems that war brings out darker sides of human nature, but also the beautiful things about human nature.

   11. DKDaniel Kahneman7:41

       Well, you know, I mean, what it- what it brings out is the, the loyalty among soldiers. I mean, it brings out the bonding. Male bonding, I think, is a very real thing that- and that happens. And so- and, and there is a certain thrill to friendship and there is certainly a certain thrill to friendship under risk-

   12. LFLex Fridman8:04

       Yeah.

   13. DKDaniel Kahneman8:04

       ... and to shared risk. And so people have very profound emotions up to the point where it gets so traumatic that, uh, that little is left, but-

   14. LFLex Fridman8:18

       So,

3. 8:19 – 15:17

   System 1 and system 2: thinking fast and slow

   1. LFLex Fridman8:20

      let's talk about psychology a little bit. Uh, in your book, Thinking, Fast and Slow, you describe two modes of thought system. One, the fast, instinctive and emotional one, and system two, the slower, deliberate, logical one. At the risk of asking Darwin to discuss (laughs) , uh, theory of evolution, uh, can you describe distinguishing characteristics for people who have not read your book of the two systems?

   2. DKDaniel Kahneman8:49

      Well, I mean, the word system is a bit misleading, but it's- at the same time it's misleading, it's also very useful.

   3. LFLex Fridman8:58

      Yes.

   4. DKDaniel Kahneman8:58

      But what I call system one, it's easier to think of it as, as a family of activities. And primarily the way I describe it is there are different ways for ideas to come to mind, and some ideas come to mind automatically. And the example- a standard example is two plus two, and then something happens to you. And, and in other cases you've got to do something, you've got to work in order to produce the idea. And my example, I always give the same pair of numbers as 27 times 14, I think.

   5. LFLex Fridman9:36

      You have to d- perform some algorithm in your head, some steps.

   6. DKDaniel Kahneman9:39

      Yes, and, and it takes time.

   7. LFLex Fridman9:41

      Yeah.

   8. DKDaniel Kahneman9:42

      It's a very different. Nothing comes to mind except something comes to mind which is the algorithm, I mean, that you've got to perform, and then it's work-

   9. LFLex Fridman9:53

      Right.

   10. DKDaniel Kahneman9:53

       ... and it engages short-term memory and it engages executive function and it makes you incapable of doing other things at the same time. So, uh, the- the main characteristic of system two that there is mental effort involved and there's a limited capacity for mental effort, whereas system one is effortless essentially. That's the major distinction.

   11. LFLex Fridman10:16

       So, you talk about their- you know, it's really convenient to talk about two systems, but you also mentioned just now and in general that there's no distinct two systems in the brain from a neurobiological, even from psychology perspective. But why does it seem to, uh ... from the experiments you've conducted, there does seem to be kind of emergent two modes of thinking. So, at some point these kinds of systems came into a brain architecture, maybe mammals share it, but- or, or do you not think of it at all in those terms that it's all a mush and these two things just emerge?

   12. DKDaniel Kahneman11:02

       I mean, you know, evolutionary theorizing about this is cheap and-

   13. LFLex Fridman11:07

       Yeah. Fair enough.

   14. DKDaniel Kahneman11:07

       ... and easy. So it's- the way I think about it is that it's very clear that animals, uh, have, have a perceptual system and that includes an ability to understand the world-

   15. LFLex Fridman11:22

       Mm-hmm.

   16. DKDaniel Kahneman11:23

       ... at least to the extent that they can predict. They can't explain anything, but they can anticipate what's going to happen and that's a key form of understanding the world. And my crude idea is that we- what I call system two-

   17. LFLex Fridman11:40

       Mm-hmm.

   18. DKDaniel Kahneman11:40

       ... uh, well, system two grew out of this and, you know, there is language and there is the capacity of manipulating ideas and the capacity of imagining futures and of imagining counterfactuals thing that haven't happened and, and to do conditional thinking. And there are really a lot of abilities that without language-... and without the, the very large brain that we have compared to others, it would be impossible. Uh, now, system one is more like what the animals have, but system one, uh, also can talk. I mean-

   19. LFLex Fridman12:21

       Right.

   20. DKDaniel Kahneman12:21

       ... it has language, it understands language. Indeed, it speaks for us. I mean-

   21. LFLex Fridman12:25

       Yeah.

   22. DKDaniel Kahneman12:26

       ... you know, I'm not choosing every word, uh, as a deliberate process. The words... I have some idea and then the words come out, and that's automatic and effortless.

   23. LFLex Fridman12:37

       And, uh, many of the experiments you've done is to show that, listen, system one exists and it does speak for us, and we should be careful about its... the voice it provides, because it, uh-

   24. DKDaniel Kahneman12:48

       Well, I mean, you know, we have to trust it, um, because it's... the speed at which it acts. Uh, system two-

   25. LFLex Fridman12:58

       It's useful.

   26. DKDaniel Kahneman12:58

       ... if we, if we're dependent on system two for survival, we wouldn't survive very long, because it's very slow.

   27. LFLex Fridman13:05

       Yeah, crossing the street, in New York.

   28. DKDaniel Kahneman13:06

       Crossing the street. I mean, many things depend on their being automatic.

   29. LFLex Fridman13:10

       Yeah.

   30. DKDaniel Kahneman13:11

       One very important aspect of system one, uh, that it's not instinctive. You used the word instinctive. It contains skills that clearly have been learned. So that skilled behavior like driving a car or, or speaking in fact, uh, skilled behavior has to be learned. And so it doesn't... you know, you don't come equipped with, with driving. You have to learn how to drive, and, and you have to go through a period where driving is not automatic before it becomes automatic. So...
4. 15:17 – 30:01

   Deep learning

   1. LFLex Fridman15:17

      way. So, so we're now talking about humans, but if you think about building artificial intelligence systems, robots, do you think all the features and bugs that you have highlighted in human beings are useful for constructing AI systems? So both systems are useful for perhaps-

   2. DKDaniel Kahneman15:37

      Well-

   3. LFLex Fridman15:37

      ... instilling in robots?

   4. DKDaniel Kahneman15:39

      What is happening these days is that actually what is happening in deep learning is, is more like a system one product than like a system two product.

   5. LFLex Fridman15:53

      Mm-hmm.

   6. DKDaniel Kahneman15:53

      I mean, deep learning matches patterns and anticipate what's going to happen, so it's highly predictive. Uh, what-

   7. LFLex Fridman16:02

      That's right.

   8. DKDaniel Kahneman16:03

      ... what d- deep learning doesn't have, and, you know, many people think that this is a critical... it, it doesn't have the ability to reason, so it, it does... uh, there is no system two there. But I think very importantly, it doesn't have any causality or any way to represent meaning and to represent real interactions. So, uh, until that is solved, uh, the... you know, what can be accomplished is marvelous and very exciting but limited.

   9. LFLex Fridman16:35

      That's actually really nice to think of, uh, current advances in machine learning as essentially system one advances. So how far can we get with just system one?

   10. DKDaniel Kahneman16:46

       Well, um-

   11. LFLex Fridman16:46

       If we think of deep learning and artificial intelligence (laughs) systems as system one.

   12. DKDaniel Kahneman16:48

       I mean, you know, it's very clear that DeepMind has already gone way, way beyond what people thought was possible. I think, I think the thing that has impressed me most about the developments in AI, is the speed. It's that things, at least in the context of deep learning, and maybe this is about to slow down, but things moved a lot faster than anticipated. The transition from solving, solving chess to solving Go, uh, was... I mean, that's bewildering how quickly it went. The move from AlphaGo to AlphaZero is sort of bewildering, the speed at which they accomplished that. Now, clearly, uh, they are... there re- so there are many problem that you can solve that way, but there are some problems for which you need something else. <|agent|><|en|> Well, reasoning and also... you know, the... uh, one of the real mysteries, uh, a psychologist Gar- Gary Marcus, who is also a critic of AI, um... I mean, he... what he points out, and I think he has a point, is that, uh, humans learn quickly.... uh, children don't need a million examples, they need two or three examples. So, clearly there is a fundamental difference. And what enables, uh, what enables a machine to, to learn quickly, what you have to build into the machine, because it's clear that you have to build some expectations or something in the machine to make it ready to learn quickly, uh, that's, that at the moment seems to be unsolved. I'm pretty sure that DeepMind is working on it but, um-

   13. LFLex Fridman18:44

       Yeah, they're-

   14. DKDaniel Kahneman18:45

       ... if they have solved it, I, I haven't heard yet.

   15. LFLex Fridman18:48

       They're trying to actually, them and OpenAI are trying to, to start to get to use neural networks to reason. So assemble knowledge-

   16. DKDaniel Kahneman18:58

       Yeah.

   17. LFLex Fridman18:58

       ... uh, of course causality is, temporal causality is out of reach to most everybody. You, you mentioned wha- the benefits of system one is essentially that it's fast, it allows us to function in the world.

   18. DKDaniel Kahneman19:11

       Fast and skilled, yeah.

   19. LFLex Fridman19:13

       It's skill.

   20. DKDaniel Kahneman19:13

       And it has a model of the world. You know, in a sense, I mean there was the earlier phase of, of, uh, AI, uh, attempted to model reasoning, and they were moderately successful, but you know, reasoning by itself doesn't get you m- much. Uh, deep learning has been much more successful in terms of, you know, what they can do. But now, it's an interesting question, whether it's approaching its limits. What do you think?

   21. LFLex Fridman19:45

       I think absolutely. So I, I just talked to Yann LeCun, he mentioned, you know... (laughs)

   22. DKDaniel Kahneman19:50

       I know him.

   23. LFLex Fridman19:51

       So he thinks that, uh, the limits, we're not going to hit the limits with neural networks, that ultimately this kind of system one pattern matching will start to, start to look like system two, with, without significant transformation of the architecture. So I'm more with the, with the majority of the people who think that yes, neural networks will hit a limit in their capability.

   24. DKDaniel Kahneman20:17

       Well he, on the one hand I have heard him tell Demis Hassabis essentially that, you know, what they have accomplished is not a big deal, that they have-

   25. LFLex Fridman20:26

       Mm-hmm.

   26. DKDaniel Kahneman20:26

       ... just touched, that basically, you know, they can't do unsupervised learning-

   27. LFLex Fridman20:32

       Yeah.

   28. DKDaniel Kahneman20:32

       ... in a, in an effective way. And, but you're telling me that he thinks that the current, within the current architecture, you can do causality and reasoning?

   29. LFLex Fridman20:42

       So he's very much a pragmatist in a sense that's saying that we're very far away, that there's still-

   30. DKDaniel Kahneman20:48

       Yeah.
5. 30:01 – 35:59

   How hard is autonomous driving?

   1. LFLex Fridman30:01

      is it seems that almost every robot-human collaboration system is a lot harder than people realize. So, do you think it's possible for robots and humans to collaborate successfully?Uh, we, we talked a little bit about semi-autonomous vehicles, like in the Tesla, autopilot, but just in tasks in general... i- if you think, we talked about current neural networks being kind of system one. Do you think, uh, those same systems can borrow humans for system two type tasks and collaborate successfully?

   2. DKDaniel Kahneman30:41

      Well, I think that in any system where humans and, and the machine interact, uh, the human will be superfluous within a fairly short time. Uh, that is if, if the machine is advanced enough so that it can really help the human, then it may not need the human for a long time. Now, it would be very interesting if, if there are problems that for some reason the machine doesn't, cannot solve, but that people could solve, then you would have to build into the machine an ability to recognize that it is in that kind of problematic situation-

   3. LFLex Fridman31:21

      Mm.

   4. DKDaniel Kahneman31:22

      ... and, and to call the human. That, that cannot be easy without understanding. That is, it's, it must be very difficult to, to program a recognition that you are in a problematic situation without understanding the problem, but...

   5. LFLex Fridman31:41

      That's very true. In order to understand the full scope of situations that are problematic, you almost need to be smart enough-

   6. DKDaniel Kahneman31:50

      To solve it.

   7. LFLex Fridman31:51

      ... to solve all those problems.

   8. DKDaniel Kahneman31:53

      Yeah. It's not clear to me how much the machine will need the human. I think the example of chess is very instructive. I mean, there was a time at which Kasparov was saying that human-machine combinations will beat everybody. Uh, even Stockfish doesn't need people.

   9. LFLex Fridman32:12

      Yeah.

   10. DKDaniel Kahneman32:12

       And AlphaZero certainly doesn't need people.

   11. LFLex Fridman32:16

       The question is, just like you said, how many problems are like chess and how many problems are the ones where are not like chess, where-

   12. DKDaniel Kahneman32:24

       Let me-

   13. LFLex Fridman32:24

       ... well, every problem probably in the end is like chess. The question is, how long is that transition period?

   14. DKDaniel Kahneman32:30

       I mean, you know, that's, that's a question I would ask you in terms of... I mean, autonomous vehicle, just driving, is probably a lot more complicated than Go to solve the-

   15. LFLex Fridman32:41

       Yes.

   16. DKDaniel Kahneman32:42

       ... to solve the problem.

   17. LFLex Fridman32:42

       And, and that's surprising to people.

   18. DKDaniel Kahneman32:43

       Because it's open. No. I mean, I, you know, it wouldn't, that's not surprising to me because the, because the, there is a hierarchical aspect to this, which is recognizing a situation, and then within the situation, bringing, bringing up the relevant knowledge.

   19. LFLex Fridman33:03

       Right.

   20. DKDaniel Kahneman33:04

       And, uh, and for that hierarchical type of system to work, uh, you need a more complicated system than we currently have.

   21. LFLex Fridman33:16

       A lot of people think because as human beings, this is probably the, the cognitive biases, they think of driving as pretty simple because they think of their own experience. This is actually a, a b- big problem for AI researchers or people thinking about AI because they evaluate how hard a particular problem is based on very limited knowledge-

   22. DKDaniel Kahneman33:41

       Yeah.

   23. LFLex Fridman33:42

       ... ba- basically on how hard it is for them to do the task.

   24. DKDaniel Kahneman33:45

       Yeah.

   25. LFLex Fridman33:46

       And then they take for granted... I me- maybe you can speak to that because most people tell me driving is trivial, and-

   26. DKDaniel Kahneman33:54

       Well-

   27. LFLex Fridman33:54

       ... and humans, in fact, are terrible at driving is what people tell me. And I see humans, and humans are actually incredible at driving, and driving is really terribly difficult.

   28. DKDaniel Kahneman34:04

       Yeah.

   29. LFLex Fridman34:04

       Uh, so do you... (laughs) is that just another element of the effects that you've described in your work on the psychology side?

   30. DKDaniel Kahneman34:15

       Well...
6. 35:59 – 40:08

   Explainability in AI and humans

   1. DKDaniel Kahneman35:59

   2. LFLex Fridman35:59

      How do you think, from the perspective of AI researcher, do we deal with the intuitions of the public? So in trying to think, I mean, arguably, the combination of, uh, hype, investment, and the public intuition is what led to the AI winters. I'm sure that same could be applied to tech or...... that the intuition of the public leads to media hype, leads to companies investing in the tech, and then the tech doesn't make the companies money, and then there's a crash. Is there a way to educate people sort of to fight the, let's call it System 1 thinking?

   3. DKDaniel Kahneman36:44

      In general, no. I mean-

   4. LFLex Fridman36:46

      (laughs)

   5. DKDaniel Kahneman36:47

      ... I, I, I think that's the simple answer. Uh, and it's going to take a long time before the understanding of, uh, what those systems can do becomes, you know, part... becomes public knowledge. Uh, and, and then... and the expectations, you know, there are several aspects that are going to be very compl- uh, that, uh, uh, the... (pause of three seconds) The fact that you have a device that cannot explain itself is a major, major difficulty, and, uh, and we're already seeing that. I mean, this is, this is really something that is happening. So it's happening in the judicial system. So you have, uh, you have systems that are clearly better at predicting parole violations than-

   6. LFLex Fridman37:45

      Right.

   7. DKDaniel Kahneman37:45

      ... uh, than judges, but, uh, but they can't explain their reasoning. And so, uh, people don't want to trust them.

   8. LFLex Fridman37:56

      We, uh, seem to, in System 1 even, use cues to make judgments about our environment. So this explainability point, do you think humans can explain stuff-

   9. DKDaniel Kahneman38:10

      No. But-

   10. LFLex Fridman38:11

       ... themselves?

   11. DKDaniel Kahneman38:12

       ... uh, I mean, there is a very interesting, uh, aspect of that. Humans think they can explain themselves.

   12. LFLex Fridman38:21

       Right.

   13. DKDaniel Kahneman38:22

       So when you say something, and I ask you, "Why do you believe that?" then reasons will occur to you, and you will... but actually, my own belief is that in most cases, the reasons have very little to do with why you believe what you believe. So that the reasons are a story that, that comes to your mind when you need to explain yourself. But, um, but, but people traffic in those explanations. I mean, the human interaction depends on those shared fictions and, and the stories that people tell themselves.

   14. LFLex Fridman38:58

       You just made me actually realize, and we'll talk about stories in a second, uh, that, not to be cynical about it, but perhaps there's a whole movement of people trying to do explainable AI. And really, we don't necessarily need to explain, AI doesn't need to explain itself. It just needs to tell a convincing story.

   15. DKDaniel Kahneman39:21

       Yeah.

   16. LFLex Fridman39:22

       (laughs)

   17. DKDaniel Kahneman39:22

       Absolutely.

   18. LFLex Fridman39:23

       It doesn't neces- the story doesn't necessarily need to, uh, reflect the truth as... it might... it just needs to be convincing. There's something to that.

   19. DKDaniel Kahneman39:32

       Uh, it can... you can say exactly the same thing in a way that's... sounds cynical or doesn't sound cynical.

   20. LFLex Fridman39:38

       Right. Sure.

   21. DKDaniel Kahneman39:38

       I mean, so... but, but the objective-

   22. LFLex Fridman39:42

       Brilliant.

   23. DKDaniel Kahneman39:42

       ... of having an explanation is, is to tell a story that will be acceptable to people. And, uh, and, and for it to be acceptable and to be robustly acceptable, it has to have some element (laughs) of truth. But, but the objective is for people to accept it.

   24. LFLex Fridman40:05

       That's quite brilliant, actually. Uh, but so on the,

7. 40:08 – 51:58

   Experiencing self and the remembering self

   1. LFLex Fridman40:08

      uh, on the stories that we tell, sorry to ask me the... ask you the question that most people know the answer to. But, uh, you talk about two selves in terms of how life is lived, the experienced self and the remembering self. Can you describe the distinction between the two?

   2. DKDaniel Kahneman40:26

      Well, sure. I mean, the... there is an aspect of, uh, of life that occasionally... you know, most of the time, we just live, and we have experiences, and they're better, and they are worse, and it goes on over time. And mostly, we forget everything that happens, or we forget most of what happens. Then occasionally, you... when something ends or at different points, uh, you evaluate the past, and you form a memory, and the memory is schematic. It's not that you can roll a film of an interaction. You construct, in effect, the elements of a story about an, about an episode. So there is the experience, and there is the story that is created about the experience, and that's what I call the remembering. So I, uh, I had the image of two selves. So there is a self that lives, and there is a self that evaluates life. Now, the paradox and the deep paradox in that is that, um, we have one system or one self that does the living, but the other system, uh, the remembering self, is all we get to keep. And basically, decision-making and, and everything that we do is governed by our memories, not by what actually happened. It's, it's governed by, by the story that we told ourselves or by the story that we're keeping. So that's, that's the distinction.

   3. LFLex Fridman42:04

      I mean, there's a lot of brilliant ideas about the pursuit of happiness that come out of that. Wh- what are the properties of happiness which emerge from, uh-

   4. DKDaniel Kahneman42:12

      Well, I mean, the-

   5. LFLex Fridman42:13

      ... the remembering self?

   6. DKDaniel Kahneman42:14

      There are, there are properties of how we construct stories that are really important. So, uh, that I studied a few. But, but...... a couple are really very striking, and one is that in stories, time doesn't matter.

   7. LFLex Fridman42:33

      Hmm.

   8. DKDaniel Kahneman42:33

      There's a sequence of events or they'll highlight or not, the, and- and how long it took, you know, they lived happily ever after, or, and three years later, something, it... Time really doesn't matter, and in stories, events matter, but time doesn't. That- that leads to a very interesting set of problems, because time is all we got to live. I mean, you know, time is the currency of life, uh, and yet time is not represented basically in evaluative memories. So that- that creates a lot of, uh, paradoxes that I've thought about.

   9. LFLex Fridman43:18

      Yeah, they are fascinating. But if you were to give, uh, advice on how one lives a happy life-

   10. DKDaniel Kahneman43:28

       Well-

   11. LFLex Fridman43:28

       ... based on such properties, what- what's the optimal...

   12. DKDaniel Kahneman43:32

       Well, you know, I gave up... I abandoned happiness research because I couldn't solve that problem.

   13. LFLex Fridman43:38

       Yeah.

   14. DKDaniel Kahneman43:38

       I couldn't, I couldn't see, uh, and in the first place, it's very clear that if you do talk in terms of those two selves, then that what makes the remembering self happy and what makes the experiencing self happy are different things. And I- I asked the question, uh, of suppose you're planning a vacation and you're just told that at the end of the vacation you'll get an amnesic drug so you remember nothing, and they'll also destroy all your photos so there'll be nothing. Would you still go to the same vacation? And- and it's... It turns out we go to vacations in large part to construct memories, not to have experiences, but to construct memories, and it turns out that the vacation that you would want for yourself if you knew what you would not remember is probably not the same vacation that you will want for yourself if you will remember. So, uh, I have no solution to these problems. But clearly, those are big issues-

   15. LFLex Fridman44:47

       And you've talked about actually-

   16. DKDaniel Kahneman44:48

       ... difficult issues.

   17. LFLex Fridman44:49

       You've talked about sort of how many minutes or hours you spend about the vacation, it's an interesting way to think about it, because that's how you really experience the vacation outside the being in it. But there's also a modern... I don't know if you think about this or interact with it, there's a modern way to, uh, magnify the remembering self, which is by posting on Instagram, on Twitter, on social networks. A lot of people live life for the picture that you take, that you post somewhere. And now thousands of people share it and potentially- potentially millions, and then you can relive it even much more than just those minutes. Do you think about that-

   18. DKDaniel Kahneman45:32

       I-

   19. LFLex Fridman45:32

       ... magnification much?

   20. DKDaniel Kahneman45:34

       You know, I'm too old for social networks. I, you know, I- I've never seen Instagram, so-

   21. LFLex Fridman45:41

       (laughs)

   22. DKDaniel Kahneman45:42

       ... I cannot really speak intelligently about those things. I'm just too old.

   23. LFLex Fridman45:46

       But it's interesting to watch the exact effects you described?

   24. DKDaniel Kahneman45:49

       I- I think it will make a very big difference. I mean, and it will make... It will also make a difference, and that I don't know, whether, uh... It's clear that in some ways the devices that serve us, uh, supplant function. So you don't have to remember phone numbers, you don't have... You really don't have to know facts. I mean, the number of conversations I'm involved with where somebody says, "Well, let's look it up."

   25. LFLex Fridman46:21

       Yeah.

   26. DKDaniel Kahneman46:21

       Uh, so it's- it's a... In a way, it's made conversations... Well, it's- it means that it's much less important to know things. You know, it used to be very important to know things. This is changing. So the requirements of that- that we have for ourselves and for other people are changing because of all those supports and because... And I have no idea what Instagram does-

   27. LFLex Fridman46:53

       (laughs)

   28. DKDaniel Kahneman46:53

       ... but it's, uh-

   29. LFLex Fridman46:55

       Well, I'll tell you-

   30. DKDaniel Kahneman46:55

       ... I wish I knew.
8. 51:58 – 54:46

   Man's Search for Meaning by Viktor Frankl

   1. LFLex Fridman51:58

   2. DKDaniel Kahneman51:58

      Yeah.

   3. LFLex Fridman51:59

      Uh, though Viktor Frankl, in his book, Man's Search for Meaning, I'm not sure if you've read, but describes his experience at the consecration-... uh, concentration camps during World War II as a way to describe that finding, identifying a purpose in life, a positive purpose in life, can save one from suffering. First of all, do you connect with the philosophy that he describes there, and...?

   4. DKDaniel Kahneman52:28

      Not really. I mean, the... So, I can, I can really see that somebody who has that feeling of purpose and meaning and so on, that that could sustain you. Uh, I, in general, don't have that feeling. And I'm pretty sure that if I were in a concentration camp, I'd, I'd give up and die, you know? So, he talks... He is, he is a survivor-

   5. LFLex Fridman52:56

      Yeah.

   6. DKDaniel Kahneman52:56

      ... and, you know, he survived with that. And I'm, and I'm not sure how essential to survival this sense-

   7. LFLex Fridman53:04

      Purpose is, yeah.

   8. DKDaniel Kahneman53:06

      ... is. But I do know, when I think about myself, that I would have given up at, "Oh, yeah, this isn't going anywhere." Uh, and there is, there is a sort of character that, that, that manages to survive in conditions like that. And then, because they survive, they tell stories, and it sounds as if they survived because of what they were doing. We have no idea. They survived because of the kind of people that they are, and they're the kind of people who survives and will tell themselves stories of a particular kind. So, I'm not, uh... I-

   9. LFLex Fridman53:41

      So, d- you don't think seeking purpose is a significant driver in our behavior?

   10. DKDaniel Kahneman53:46

       Oh, I mean, it's, it's a very interesting question. Because when you ask people whether it's very important to have meaning in their life, they say, "Oh, yes, that's the most important thing." But when you ask people, "What kind of a day did you have?" and, and, you know, "What were the experiences that you remember?" you don't get much meaning. You get social experiences. Then, uh... And, and some people say that, for example, in, in, in child... you know, in taking care of children, the fact that they are your children and you're taking care of them, uh, makes a very big difference. I think that's entirely true, uh, but it's more because...... of a story that we're telling ourselves, which is a very different story when we're taking care of our children or when we're taking care of other things.

   11. LFLex Fridman54:44

       Jumping around a little bit,

9. 54:46 – 57:57

   How much of human behavior can we study in the lab?

   1. LFLex Fridman54:46

      in doing a lot of experiments, let me ask a question: Most of the work I do, for example, is in- in the w- in the real world, but m- most of the clean, good science that you can do is in the lab, so that distinction... D- do you think we can understand the fundamentals of human behavior through controlled experiments in the lab? If we talk about pupil diameter, for example, it's much easier to do when you can control lighting conditions, right?

   2. DKDaniel Kahneman55:19

      Yeah, of course.

   3. LFLex Fridman55:20

      Uh, so when we look at driving, lighting variation destroys-

   4. DKDaniel Kahneman55:26

      Yeah. I- yeah.

   5. LFLex Fridman55:27

      ... almost completely your ability to use pupil diameter. But in the lab, for, uh, as I mentioned, semi-autonomous or autonomous vehicles and driving simulators, we can't- we don't capture true, honest, uh, human behavior in that particular domain. So, in your... What's your intuition? How much of human behavior can we study in this controlled environment of the lab?

   6. DKDaniel Kahneman55:53

      A lot, but you'd have to verify it, you know, that you're- your conclusions are- are basically limited to the situation, to the experimental situation. Then you have to jump the- the big inductive leap to the real world, uh, so... And- and that's the flare, that's where the difference, I think, between the good psychologists and others that are mediocre is in the sense that- that your experiment captures something that's important-

   7. LFLex Fridman56:28

      Right.

   8. DKDaniel Kahneman56:28

      ... and something that's real. And others are just running experiments.

   9. LFLex Fridman56:33

      So, what is that? Like, the birth of an idea to its development in your mind, to something that leads to an experiment. Is that similar to maybe, like, what Einstein or a good physicist do as your intuition?

   10. DKDaniel Kahneman56:46

       Yeah.

   11. LFLex Fridman56:46

       You basically use your intuition to build up...

   12. DKDaniel Kahneman56:49

       Yeah, but I mean, you know, it's- it's very skilled intuition.

   13. LFLex Fridman56:53

       Right. Absolutely, absolutely.

   14. DKDaniel Kahneman56:53

       I mean, I- I just had that experience actually. I had an idea that, uh, turned out to be a very good idea, uh, a couple of days ago. And- and you- and you have a sense of that building up, so I'm working with a collaborator.

   15. LFLex Fridman57:08

       Mm-hmm.

   16. DKDaniel Kahneman57:08

       And he- he essentially was saying, you know, "What- what are you doing? You know, what's- what's going on?" And I was- I really... I- I couldn't exactly explain it, but I knew this is going somewhere. But, you know, I've been around that game for a very long time, and so I can... You- you develop that anticipation that, yes, this- this is worth following up with.

   17. LFLex Fridman57:31

       This is something- there's something here.

   18. DKDaniel Kahneman57:32

       And that's- that's part of the skill.

   19. LFLex Fridman57:34

       Is that something you can reduce to words in describing a process in- in the form of advice to others?

   20. DKDaniel Kahneman57:42

       No. No.

   21. LFLex Fridman57:44

       Follow your heart, essentially? (laughs)

   22. DKDaniel Kahneman57:46

       I mean, you know, it's- it's like trying to explain what it's like to drive. It's not-

   23. LFLex Fridman57:51

       Yeah.

   24. DKDaniel Kahneman57:51

       You've got to break it apart, and it's not, uh...

   25. LFLex Fridman57:54

       And then you lose the essence of it.

   26. DKDaniel Kahneman57:55

       And then you lose the experience, though.

10. 57:57 – 1:01:09

    Collaboration

    1. DKDaniel Kahneman57:58

    2. LFLex Fridman57:58

       You mention collaboration. You've written about your collaboration with Amos Tversky, that... This is you writing, "The 12 or 13 years in which most of our work was joint were years of interpersonal and intellectual bliss. Everything was interesting, almost everything was funny, and there was a current joy of seeing an idea take shape. So many times in those years, we shared the magical experience of one of us saying something which the other one would understand more deeply than the speaker had done. Contrary to the old laws of information theory, it was common for us to find that more information was received than had been sent. I have almost never had the experience with anyone else. If you have not had it, you don't know how marvelous collaboration can be." So, let me ask a per- perhaps a silly question. Uh, how does one find and create such a collaboration? That may be asking, like, how does one find love, but-

    3. DKDaniel Kahneman59:01

       You have... Yeah.

    4. LFLex Fridman59:01

       (laughs)

    5. DKDaniel Kahneman59:01

       You have to be- you have to be lucky, um, and- and I think you have to have the character for that, because I've had many collaborations. I mean, none were as exciting as with Amos B., but I've had, and I'm having, just very... So, it's a skill. I think I'm good at it. Uh, not everybody's good at it. And then it's the luck of finding people who are also good at it.

    6. LFLex Fridman59:32

       Is there advice in the form- for- for a young scientist who also seeks to violate this law of information theory?

    7. DKDaniel Kahneman59:48

       I really think it's so much luck is involved, and, you know, in- in those really serious collaborations, at least in my experience, are a very personal experience. And- and I have to like the person I'm working with. Otherwise, you know, I mean, there is that kind of a collaboration which is like, uh, an exchange, a commercial exchange of, uh, "I'm giving this, you give me that," but the- the real ones are interpersonal, they're between people who like each other, and- and who like making each other think, and who like the way that the other person responds to your thoughts. Uh, you have to be lucky.

    8. LFLex Fridman1:00:36

       Yeah, and I mean... But I already noticed the pa- even just me showing up here-... you've, uh, you've quickly started to digging in a particular problem I'm working on, and already new information started to emerge. If y- is that a process y- y- just a process of curiosity-

    9. DKDaniel Kahneman1:00:53

       Yeah.

    10. LFLex Fridman1:00:53

        ... of talking to people about problems and seeing?

    11. DKDaniel Kahneman1:00:56

        I'm curious about anything to do with AI and robotics and s- you know, and, uh, so, and I knew you were dealing with that, so I was curious.

    12. LFLex Fridman1:01:05

        Just follow your curiosity?

    13. DKDaniel Kahneman1:01:06

        Yeah.

    14. LFLex Fridman1:01:07

        Jumping around on, on the psychology

11. 1:01:09 – 1:09:28

    Replication crisis in psychology

    1. LFLex Fridman1:01:09

       front, the, uh, dramatic-sounding terminology of replication crisis, but really just the, at times, th- this effect that at times studies do not, are not fully generalizable. They don't-

    2. DKDaniel Kahneman1:01:29

       You're being polite. Uh, it's worse than that, but... (laughs)

    3. LFLex Fridman1:01:33

       Is it?

    4. DKDaniel Kahneman1:01:33

       Yeah.

    5. LFLex Fridman1:01:33

       So I'm actually not fully familiar-

    6. DKDaniel Kahneman1:01:36

       Well, I mean-

    7. LFLex Fridman1:01:36

       ... to the degree how bad it is, right? So, what do you think is the source? Where do you think?

    8. DKDaniel Kahneman1:01:41

       I think I know what's going on, actually. I mean, I have a theory about what's going on. And what's going on is that there is, first of all, a very important distinction between two types of experiments. And one type is within-subject, so it's the same person-

    9. LFLex Fridman1:02:02

       Right.

    10. DKDaniel Kahneman1:02:02

        ... as two experimental conditions. And the other type is between-subjects, where some people are this condition, other people are that condition. They're different worlds. And between-subject experiments are much harder to predict and much harder to anticipate. And the reason, uh, and they're also more expensive because you need more people, and it's, it's just... So between-subject experiments is where the problem is.

    11. LFLex Fridman1:02:35

        Okay.

    12. DKDaniel Kahneman1:02:35

        Uh, it's not so much in within-subject experiments. It's really between. And there is a very good reason why the intuitions of researchers about between-subject experiments are wrong, and that's because when you are a researcher, you are in a within-subject situation. That is, you are imagining the two conditions, and you see the causality, and you feel it.

    13. LFLex Fridman1:03:03

        Mm-hmm.

    14. DKDaniel Kahneman1:03:03

        And, but in the between-subjects condition, they don't... They, uh, they see, they live in one condition, and the other one is just nowhere. So, our intuitions are very weak about between-subject experiments. And that, I think, is something that people haven't realized. And, and in addition, because of that, we have no idea about the power of, uh, manipulations, of experimental manipulations, because the same manipulation is much more powerful when, when you are in the two conditions-

    15. LFLex Fridman1:03:43

        Mm-hmm.

    16. DKDaniel Kahneman1:03:44

        ... than when you live in only one condition. And so, the experimenters have very poor intuitions about between-subject experiments. And, and there is something else, which is very important, I think, uh, which is that almost all psychological hypotheses are true. That is, in the sense that, you know, directionally, if you have a hypothesis that A really causes B, that, that it's not true that A causes the opposite of B. Maybe A just has very little effect. But hypotheses are true-

    17. LFLex Fridman1:04:23

        Yeah.

    18. DKDaniel Kahneman1:04:23

        ... mostly, except, mostly, they're very weak. They're much weaker than you think when you are having images of... So, uh, the reason I'm excited about that is that I recently heard about, uh, some, uh, some friends of mine, uh, who, uh, they e- essentially funded 53 studies of behavioral change-

    19. LFLex Fridman1:04:51

        Yep.

    20. DKDaniel Kahneman1:04:52

        ... by 20 different teams of people with a very precise objective of changing the number of time that people go to the gym, but-

    21. LFLex Fridman1:05:01

        Mm-hmm.

    22. DKDaniel Kahneman1:05:01

        ... you know, so... And, and the success rate was zero.

    23. LFLex Fridman1:05:10

        They're not successful?

    24. DKDaniel Kahneman1:05:10

        Not one of the 53 studies worked.

    25. LFLex Fridman1:05:13

        (laughs)

    26. DKDaniel Kahneman1:05:13

        Now, what's interesting about that is those are the best people in the field, and they have no idea what's going on. So they are not calibrated. They think that it's going to be powerful because they can imagine it, but actually it's just weak because the-

    27. LFLex Fridman1:05:30

        It's weak.

    28. DKDaniel Kahneman1:05:30

        ... you are focusing on, on your manipulation, and it feels powerful to you.

    29. LFLex Fridman1:05:36

        Mm-hmm.

    30. DKDaniel Kahneman1:05:37

        There's a thing that I've written about that's called the focusing illusion.
12. 1:09:28 – 1:13:01

    Disagreements and controversies in psychology

    1. LFLex Fridman1:09:28

       What are the major disagreements in theories and effects that you've observed throughout your career-

    2. DKDaniel Kahneman1:09:36

       (laughs)

    3. LFLex Fridman1:09:36

       ... that still stand today?

    4. DKDaniel Kahneman1:09:38

       Well, I mean, I-

    5. LFLex Fridman1:09:38

       You've worked on several fields (laughs) .

    6. DKDaniel Kahneman1:09:40

       Yeah. I- I-

    7. LFLex Fridman1:09:41

       But what still is out there as- as- as major disagreement-

    8. DKDaniel Kahneman1:09:44

       And then-

    9. LFLex Fridman1:09:45

       ... that pops into your mind?

    10. DKDaniel Kahneman1:09:46

        ... and... I've had one extreme experience of c- you know, controversy with somebody who really doesn't like the work that Amis Tversky and I did, and- and he's been after us for 30 years or more. At least 30 years.

    11. LFLex Fridman1:10:02

        Do you want to talk about it?

    12. DKDaniel Kahneman1:10:04

        Well, I mean, his name is Gert Gigerenzer. He's a well-known German psychologist, and that's the one controversy I have which I... it's been unpleasant, and- and no, I don't particularly want to talk about it.

    13. LFLex Fridman1:10:20

        (laughs) But is there... is there open questions even in your own mind? Every once in a while, you know, uh, we talked about semi-autonomous vehicles. In my own mind, I see what the data says, but I also am constantly torn. Do you have things where you- your studies have found something, but you're also intellectually torn about what it means, and there's maybe-

    14. DKDaniel Kahneman1:10:43

        Well-

    15. LFLex Fridman1:10:43

        ... there've been maybe disagreements with how you... within your own mind (laughs) about particular things.

    16. DKDaniel Kahneman1:10:47

        I mean, it's... you know, one of the things that are interesting is how difficult it is for people to change their mind. Essentially, uh, you know, once they're committed, people just don't change their mind about anything that matters, and that is surprisingly, but it's true about scientists. So the controversy that I described, uh, you know, that's been going on like 30 years, and it's never going to be resolved, uh, and you build a system, and you live within that system, and other- other systems of ideas look foreign to you, and- n- um, and there is very little contact and very little mutual influence. That happens a fair amount.

    17. LFLex Fridman1:11:33

        Do you have a hopeful advice or message on that? Uh, we... uh, thinking about science, thinking about politics, thinking about things that have impact on this world, how can we change our mind?

    18. DKDaniel Kahneman1:11:49

        I think that... I mean, on things that matter, you know, which are political or reli- political or religious, and people just don't- don't change their mind, and by and large, and there's very little that you can do about it. Uh, the... what does happen is that if leaders change their mind, so for example, the public- the American public doesn't really believe in climate change, doesn't take it very seriously, but if some religious leaders decided this is a major threat to humanity, that would have a big effect, so that we- we have the opinions that we have not because we know why we have them but because we trust some people and we don't trust other people, and, uh... so it's much less about-... evidence than it is about stories.

    19. LFLex Fridman1:12:49

        So, uh, th- the way, one way to change your mind isn't at the individual level, is that the leaders-

    20. DKDaniel Kahneman1:12:55

        It's at the collective level.

    21. LFLex Fridman1:12:55

        ... in the communities you look up with, the stories change, and therefore your mind-

    22. DKDaniel Kahneman1:12:59

        Yeah.

    23. LFLex Fridman1:12:59

        ... changes with them.

13. 1:13:01 – 1:16:17

    Test for AGI

    1. LFLex Fridman1:13:01

       So, there's a guy named Alan Turing, came up with the Turing test.

    2. DKDaniel Kahneman1:13:05

       Yeah.

    3. LFLex Fridman1:13:07

       Uh, what, what do you think is a good test of intelligence? Perhaps we're drifting in a topic that we're, um, maybe philosophizing about, but what do you think is a good test for intelligence for an artificial intelligence system?

    4. DKDaniel Kahneman1:13:23

       Well, the standard definition of, you know, of artificial general intelligence is that it can do anything that people can do, and it can do them better.

    5. LFLex Fridman1:13:35

       Yes.

    6. DKDaniel Kahneman1:13:35

       And what, what we are seeing is that in many domains, you have domain-specific, uh, um, you know, devices or programs or software, and they beat people easily in specified way. What we are very far from is, uh, the general ability, uh, general purpose intelligence. So, we, w- in, in machine learning, people are approaching something more general. I mean, for AlphaZero was, was much more general than, than AlphaGo, and, but it's still extraordinarily narrow and specific in what it can do.

    7. LFLex Fridman1:14:22

       So, a test-

    8. DKDaniel Kahneman1:14:22

       So, we're quite far from, from something that can, in every domain, think like a human, except better.

    9. LFLex Fridman1:14:30

       What aspects... So, the, the Turing test has been criticized, this natural language conversation-

    10. DKDaniel Kahneman1:14:36

        Yeah.

    11. LFLex Fridman1:14:36

        ... that it's too simplistic. Uh, it's, it's easy to, quote-unquote, "pass" under, under constraints specified. Uh, what aspect of conversation would impress you if you heard it? Is it humor? Is it... uh, (laughs) wha- what, what would impress the heck outta you if, uh, if you saw it in conversation?

    12. DKDaniel Kahneman1:14:55

        Yeah. I mean, certainly wit would-

    13. LFLex Fridman1:14:57

        Wit.

    14. DKDaniel Kahneman1:14:57

        ... yeah, wit would be impressive. Uh, um, and, and humor would be more impressive than just factual conversation, which I think is, is easy. And allusions would be interesting, and metaphors would be interesting, I mean, but new metaphors, not practiced metaphors. So, there is a lot that's, you know, would be sort of impressive if... and that, uh, it's completely natural in conversation, but that you really wouldn't expect.

    15. LFLex Fridman1:15:34

        Does the possibility of creating an, a human-level intelligence or superhuman-level intelligence system excite you? Scare you?

    16. DKDaniel Kahneman1:15:44

        Well, I mean, you know, I'm, uh-

    17. LFLex Fridman1:15:44

        How does it make you feel?

    18. DKDaniel Kahneman1:15:45

        I find the whole thing fascinating, absolutely fascinating.

    19. LFLex Fridman1:15:51

        So, exciting?

    20. DKDaniel Kahneman1:15:52

        I think, and exciting. It's also terrifying, you know? But, uh, but I'm not going to be around to see it. And, uh, so I'm curious about what is happening now, but I also know that, that predictions about it are silly.

    21. LFLex Fridman1:16:11

        (laughs)

    22. DKDaniel Kahneman1:16:11

        Uh, we really have no idea what it will look like 30 years from now. No idea.

14. 1:16:17 – 1:18:35

    Meaning of life

    1. DKDaniel Kahneman1:16:17

    2. LFLex Fridman1:16:18

       Speaking of silly, bordering on the profound, let me ask the question of, in your view, what is the meaning of it all?

    3. DKDaniel Kahneman1:16:27

       (laughs)

    4. LFLex Fridman1:16:28

       The meaning of life?

    5. DKDaniel Kahneman1:16:30

       Uh-

    6. LFLex Fridman1:16:30

       These, uh, descendant of great apes that we are, why... what drives us as a civilization, as a human being, as a force behind everything that you've observed and studied? Is there any answer, or is it all-

    7. DKDaniel Kahneman1:16:46

       Uh-

    8. LFLex Fridman1:16:46

       ... just a beautiful mess?

    9. DKDaniel Kahneman1:16:49

       There is no answer that, that I can understand. Uh, and I'm not, and I'm not actively looking for one, um, bec-

    10. LFLex Fridman1:17:00

        Do you think an answer exists?

    11. DKDaniel Kahneman1:17:02

        No. There is no answer that we can understand. I'm not qualified to speak about what we cannot understand.

    12. LFLex Fridman1:17:09

        (laughs)

    13. DKDaniel Kahneman1:17:09

        But there is, I know, that we cannot understand reality, you know? And, I mean, there are a lot of thing that we can do. I mean, you know, m- m- gravity waves. I mean, that's, that's a big moment for humanity. And-

    14. LFLex Fridman1:17:25

        Yeah.

    15. DKDaniel Kahneman1:17:25

        ... when you imagine that ape, you know, being able to, to go back to The Big Bang.

    16. LFLex Fridman1:17:30

        (laughs)

    17. DKDaniel Kahneman1:17:31

        That's, that... But, but-

    18. LFLex Fridman1:17:34

        But the why-

    19. DKDaniel Kahneman1:17:35

        Yeah, the why.

    20. LFLex Fridman1:17:36

        ... is bigger than us.

    21. DKDaniel Kahneman1:17:37

        (laughs) The why is hopeless, really.

    22. LFLex Fridman1:17:40

        Danny, thank you so much. It was an honor. Thank you for speaking today.

    23. DKDaniel Kahneman1:17:43

        (laughs) Thank you.

    24. LFLex Fridman1:17:45

        Thanks for listening to this conversation, and thank you to our presenting sponsor, Cash App. Download it, use code: LEXPODCAST. You'll get $10, and $10 will go to FIRST, a STEM education nonprofit that inspires hundreds of thousands of young minds to become future leaders and innovators. If you enjoyed this podcast, subscribe on YouTube, give it five stars on Apple Podcasts, follow on Spotify, support it on Patreon, or simply connect with me on Twitter. And now, let me leave you with some words of wisdom from Daniel Kahneman. "Intelligence is not only the ability to reason, it is also the ability to find relevant material in memory and to deploy attention when needed." Thank you for listening, and hope to see you next time.

Episode duration: 1:18:40